for Plato that does not belong to Peter? As Plato was the prince of philosophers, so Peter was the prince of Apostles, upon whom the Church of the Lord was built as upon a solid rock." Elsewhere,[1] he represents St. Paul saying: "I am in nothing inferior to Peter; for we were ordained by the same God for the same ministry." Clearly, if inferior in nothing, (in nullo,) then equal in every thing.
The Romish theologians cannot deny that the Fathers have generally taught the equality of the Apostles among themselves; on this point, tradition is unanimous. No Father of the Church has taught any other doctrine. But these theologians affect to give no weight to so important a fact. They try to evade the overwhelming testimony of the Fathers by this distinction: the Apostles, they say, were equal in respect of the apostolate, but not in respect of the primacy.[2] But clearly, such a primacy, as it is understood at Rome, cannot coëxist with any equality whatsoever. The Fathers cannot teach the equality of the Apostles without denying the superiority of any one of them. They teach that equality absolutely. To resort, then, to a distinction that takes away this absolute character, is to falsify their testimony.
After all, has St. Jerome conceded to the see of Rome any exceptional prerogatives, as we might be led to think from his letters to Damasus and Eustochia? Let us see what he says in another letter:[3]
"We must not believe that the city of Rome is a different church from that of the whole world. Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, the East, India, all the barbarous nations,
- ↑ S. Hieron. Comment. in Epist. ad Galat.
- ↑ Lest we be accused of falsely attributing this distinction to the Romish party, let us here say that it may be found in the works of a theologian of great authority in that party, Father Perrone. Tract de Loc. Theol. part 1st, sect. 2d, chap 1. Difficult. respons. ad 6.
- ↑ S. Hieron. Epist. 146 ad Ev.
