gospel at Jerusalem, (Acts ii.) and to the Gentiles, in his conversion of the Roman centurion. (Acts x.) But, by our Saviour's delivering the keys to Peter, --that he did not mean to confer upon him any power exclusively, or to grant to him any superiority over the other apostles, cannot be more clearly demonstrated, than by his afterwards conferring the same power, and in the same words, on the other apostles collectively." (Matt. xviii. 18-John xx. 22.) This prerogative, or ministerial power, was, therefore, common to all the apostles; it invested Peter with no superiority over the rest of his brethren; the history of the Acts of the Apostles shows that they exercised this power together, and in an equal degree. It is sufficient here, in proof of this, to refer to the deliberations and decision of the first Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, of which we have an account. (Acts xv.) We thus see how the apostles exercised the prerogative of binding and loosing; but we search in vain for any thing indicating the superiority of St. Peter over the other apostles it was by the "sentence" of St. James, and not of St. Peter, that the matter then under consideration was decided.

The interesting passage recorded John xxi. 15— 17, is also insisted on by the writers of the church of Rome, as proving that Christ invested St. Peter with supreme pastoral authority over the universal church. Why, it is asked, did the Saviour, in so peculiar a manner, single out St. Peter on that

occasion from the rest of the apostles, and thrice charge him to feed his flock, unless he intended thereby to confer upon him an office superior to the rest of the apostles? "The consequence is," says a Popish writer," that since he gives Peter a superintendence over his whole flock, he confers upon him a jurisdiction distinct from that of the rest of the apostles-a jurisdiction more enlarged than theirs a jurisdiction reaching over the whole body of the church, over the taught and the teachers, over the governed and the governors.” It is evident, however, from the sacred narrative, that St. Peter did not so understand our Lord's meaning; on the contrary, we are expressly told "he was grieved," when Christ repeated the question, "Lovest thou me?" the third time. Had our Lord's design been the confirmation of St. Peter's supremacy, he would doubtless have known it, and would naturally have rejoiced in the repetition of a question which was to call forth an additional confirmation of the supremacy bestowed on him. The obvious meaning of this interesting passage need only be stated to show how utterly destitute of foundation is the notion which Romanists build on it. St. Peter, a short time before his Lord's passion, had professed love and fidelity to him above the rest of the apostles-" Though all men should deny thee, yet will not I!" In the hour of temptation, however, he three times denied his Lord, by denying that he was his disciple,

and the last time endeavoured to strengthen his negation by an oath! It is not affirming too much, to say that from that moment Peter fell from his apostleship, and that Peter, as a penitent, might indulge a fear that he had proved himself unfit to be further employed in the high and sacred office to which he had been called by Christ in common with the rest of the apostles. The design of our Lord, in the interesting conversation he held with Peter, on this occasion, was to assure him that he had not cast him off, and had not deposed him from his sacred office as an apostle. In the thrice repeated question, "Lovest thou me?” there is an indirect reference to his thrice repeated sin of denying his Lord. It afforded Peter the opportunity of avowing the sincerity of his love to Christ, for the satisfaction of his brethren. When, therefore, our Lord charges Peter to "feed his sheep," and to "feed his lambs," it was an assurance to Peter and the rest of the apostles, that he had restored him to that office from which he had fallen by his transgression: this, and not the alleged supremacy, was what our Lord granted to St. Peter. In the commission and promises which Christ subsequently gave to the apostles, (Mark xvi. 15; John xx. 21-23; Matt. xxviii. 20,) there is not a single hint which can be adduced in favour of the boasted supremacy of St. Peter.

It will tend to strengthen the conclusion, to which an examination of the principal passages of

Scripture, usually adduced in support of the Popish notion of the supremacy of Peter, has guided us, to notice other evidence to be found in the New Testament, which, directly, and by fair implication, contradicts the dogma in question. If, as stated by Romanists, our Lord, in the memorable words which he addressed to St. Peter, (Matt. xvi. 1319,) had invested him with supremacy over the rest of the apostles, the fact must have been known both to him and his brethren; how strange and inexplicable, then, the subsequent conduct of the apostles, in disputing among themselves, "which of them should be accounted the greatest." If our Lord had constituted St. Peter the head and prince of the apostles, there could have been no ground left for these struggles for the pre-eminence. This spirit in the apostles our Lord thus rebukes-" If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all." (Mark ix. 35.) "Be ye not called Rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren.” (Matt. xxiii. 8.) The occasions on which our Lord addressed these admonitions to his chosen apostles, would naturally have elicited from him an explicit declaration of Peter's supremacy, had such been the fact. The declarations of the Saviour just noticed, and the struggles of the apostles among themselves for the pre-eminence, forbid us to entertain the notion in question for a single moment. We search the New Testament in vain, for a single instance in which

In

Peter claimed, or in which the rest of the apostles conceded, the alleged supremacy to St. Peter. the first Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, though St. Peter delivered his opinion on the matter under deliberation, it was the "sentence" of St. James which decided the dispute. (Acts xv. 19.) This fact, if admitted as proof of the superiority of one apostle over others, would establish the supremacy, not of Peter, but of James. St. Paul asserts his own authority as equal to that of the apostles, when he says, "I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." (2 Cor. xii. 11.) It need hardly be remarked, that such a declaration is totally irreconcilable with the notion of Peter's supremacy. This is still more manifest, from the reasonings of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, in which he vindicates his apostolic authority against certain Judaizing teachers who called it in question. (Chap. i. and ii.) He shows that his apostolic commission was derived, not from men, but immediately from heaven; that he had entered on his commission without any conference with the apostles. So far from acknowledging the supremacy of Peter, St. Paul declares that three years had elapsed before he saw that apostle; when, at the expiration of that period, he visited the apostles at Jerusalem, they recognized his apostolical authority, not as derived from St. Peter, but immediately from Christ himself.

One instructive fact is recorded by St. Paul, in