for thee, Peter, individually. Christ here prays for the one: for the others, on this occasion, He does not pray.
Does not this imply, asks the Ultramontane, the superiority of the individual thus selected and distinguished? Does not Christ here place the security of the many in the security of the one? If the leader and chief is protected, those who follow him and obey him will be secure. This exposition labours under the double defect of assuming a theory of Peter's supremacy and of ignoring the historical circumstances which prompted Christ's words. That the prayer was exclusive is true. But exclusive petition does not necessarily imply the greater superiority of the person prayed for; it may equally well imply his greater need. Remembering that Peter alone was on the verge of a triple denial, no wonder he became the object of an exclusive prayer. If his confident self-reliance, together with his impulsive temperament, laid him open to perils from which the Twelve were exempt, what else could his Master do than offer special intercession for him? To build a theory of permanent prerogative as universal teacher on the fact of Christ's exclusive petition is therefore to forget that the historic circumstances, which elicited our Lord's concern, suggest a totally different explanation.
2. Moreover, while we are reminded that Christ's prayer was exclusive, we should also be reminded that it was conditional.
It seems at first sight a natural outcome of Christian piety to assume that whatever Christ prayed for was certain to come to pass. Is it not written, "I know that thou hearest me always"? But the effectiveness of Christ's prayers must take into account our human independence. To say that the prayer of Christ must necessarily realise its design, is really to reduce mankind
