Evangelists, notwithstanding the change of the order of the others. Thus it is expressly said, Matt. x. 2., ‘The first Simon, who is called Peter.'

"The third, tribute is paid for Christ and Peter. Matt. xvii. 26.

"The fourth, Peter alone walks with Christ upon the water. Matt. xiv. 29.

"The fifth, Christ says specially to Peter. Luke ch. xxii. 32. I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.'

"The sixth, Peter, Acts i. 15, proposes and teaches that a new apostle must be chosen in the place of Judas; Acts ii. 14, after the Holy Spirit had been received, he first promulgates the gospel; Acts iii. 6, he does the first miracle in proof of the faith; Acts x. 28, he first begins to preach to the Gentiles; Acts xii. 5, for Peter prayer was made without intermission by the church; Acts xv. 7, he speaks first as though president of the council at Jerusalem, and all follow his opinion. These and other prerogatives, with the interpretations of the Holy Fathers, Bellarmine rightly deduces, Bk. I., concerning the Roman Pontiff.

66

6

Against these, the heretics again object, I. Paul saying, Gal. ii. 7: To me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision,' sig. nifies that he is the apostle of the Gentiles, as Peter of the Jews; therefore jurisdiction was divided between them.

"Ans. I deny the inference: for that was a division, not of jurisdiction, but of nations, in order to the work of preaching; viz., that as Peter had been principally destined for preaching to the Jews, so Paul had been specially destined by Christ for preaching to the Gentiles.

66

They object II. Paul in the same place, v. 11, resists Peter to his face, therefore he was not subject to him.

“Ans. I deny the inference: because Paul does not blame Peter by authority as a superior, an inferior, but by fraternal reproof, which is sometimes lawful for an inferior with respect to a superior. Some maintain that Cephas, concerning whom Paul there speaks, was not Peter, but another disciple. Kerk herdere may be consulted concerning the reproved Cephas.

66

They object III. If Peter was the head of the church,

the church must perish at the death of Peter; for the head dying, the body dies.

"Ans. I deny the inference: for that the body separated from the head must die, is true of that head from which the members derive sense and motion: but Peter was not thus the head of the church, but Christ: but it is not true concerning the head of which the loss is merely external according to external government; such was Peter, and such are his successors; for when the Pope dies, Christ the invisible head remains, from whom the church derives life and sense, and is prepared to receive another visible head."

If the doctrine of Peter's supremacy were taught in the word of God, it would still be incumbent upon Papists to show by incontestible evidence, that Peter was bishop of Rome, and that he had divine authority to invest all his successors in that See with pre-eminence over all their brethren. If the proof fails in any one of these three points, the rock upon which popery is built is broken, and the whole fabric falls into ruins. Against the foregoing arguments, we offer the following as our reasons for disbelieving the first proposition, viz., that Peter was invested with supremacy.

1. If such authority was really conferred upon Peter, the Evangelists who by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit recorded all things necessary for faith and salvation would have mentioned it in plain and unequivocal language. But do they ever say that one of the apostles was to have and to claim authority over all the rest? If so, when and where? Do they not on the contrary explicitly affirm that equal authority was given to all the apostles? John xx. 23. When the question who should be greatest was started among them, there is no mention made of any preference given by Christ to Peter; but the Saviour evidently condemns the lust of power, and says, "ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. BUT so SHALL IT NOT BE AMONG YOU; but whosoever will be great

among you shall be your minister, (or servant.) Mark x. 42, 43. On another occasion he said to his disciples, “Be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren.” (Matt. xxii. 8, 9.) Could there have been a plainer intimation of the equality of the apostles?

2. When the Apostle Paul enumerates the various orders in the churches, he says, “God hath set some in the church, first, APOSTLES; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. xii. 28.) Strange omission! Not one word of Christ's Vicar! FIRST apostles, not FIRST, Peter!

3. If Peter had really possessed the supremacy ascribed to him, how could Paul have said, (2 Cor. xi. 5.) “I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles?" What? Not a whit behind Peter?

4. It is natural to suppose that if Peter had been the acknowledged chief of the apostles, he would have been called upon to decide controversies, but this was never the case. In the debate between Paul and Barnabas and others, about circumcision, they referred the point, not to Peter, but to the Church, and the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. The conclusion to which they arrived was recorded, not as the decree of Peter, (for he did not even preside,) but as that which "seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us," i. e. to the apostles, elders, and brethren, who met at Jerusalem on that occasion. (Acts xv. 2—29.)

5. Paul would not have had occasion to withstand Peter to his face, had his erring brother been infallible; and if he had possessed the supremacy ascribed to him by the Church of Rome, it would scarcely have been decorous in Paul to expose the failing of his superior. Neither can this be regarded as an ordinary fraternal reproof, (as Peter Dens intimates,) because that is to be administered privately, as a re

ference to Matt. xviii. will show. Nor will Kerkherdere, to whom we are referred, extricate Romanists from this difficulty, by suggesting that the "Cephas, concerning whom Paul there speaks, was not Peter, but another disciple." The connexion shows it could be no other than the infallible apostle himself. Besides, if it had been another disciple, it would have been an unpardonable omission in the sacred writer, had he neglected to state the fact in emphatic language. There were two of our Lord's twelve disciples, who were called Judas, but the evangelists are careful in distinguishing between them. Hence we read of "Judas Iscariot," and Judas ("not Iscariot,") and if anything disparaging was to be mentioned, which affected another disciple of the same name as Peter, and not the apostle himself, in common justice it would have been stated.

6. Again; we find the apostles sending Peter as their messenger, in company with John, (Acts viii. 14;) if he had been Pope among the apostles, he would have sent them. Would not his Holiness marvel greatly if his Bishops should send him on a missionary tour with one of their own number?

7. If Peter had possessed the supremacy ascribed to him, is it probable that he would have been accosted by his brethren as we read in Acts xi. 1-4? Would he have deferred to the judgment of private brethren so far as to vindicate himself before them? The brethren did not bow down reverently and kiss the apostle's sandal, and address him with the blasphemous title which Romish writers have conferred their Pontiff" Dominus Deus noster, Papa""Our Lord God, the Pope!"

upon

8. In short, if Peter had been appointed by Christ as his vicar upon earth; had he been clothed with supreme authority, he would certainly have been called upon to exercise it, and his decisions ex cathedra would as certainly have been recorded. But he never claimed this authority, either when

present with the churches or in his epistles; he claims no more than an equality with his brethren, the apostles, and pastors of the church; "The elders who are among you I exhort, whom am also an elder." The language of Paul is far more authoritative than that of Peter, 1 Cor. vii. 10; 1 Tim. v. 14. 21. Peter, at the close of his first epistle, (v. 1-3.) warns those in authority against being "lords over God's heritage," as though he had been divinely directed himself to confound the claims of Anti-Christ.

But there are a number of special prerogatives ascribed to Peter by the evangelists.

The first is the change of name, "Thou shalt be called Cephas;" John i. 42. We must admit this prerogative, and we do it cheerfully-but what then? Therefore Peter is Christ's Vicar upon earth!

The second is, "Peter is always named first, where the apostles are spoken of." He is not always named first, Gal. ii. 9, "When James, Cephas, and John, &c." Supposing he is generally named first, he was probably the oldest: what does this prove? Peter's supremacy!

The third is, "Tribute is paid for Christ and Peter." Admitted. Does that prove that Peter's successors are above all the kings of the earth, and should pay No tribute?

The fourth is, "Peter alone walks with Christ upon the water.' True-and "when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid, and, beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me." Therefore Peter was the first Pope!

The fifth is, Christ says specially to Peter, "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not," &c. But did not Christ pray thus specially for Peter because he knew that his disciple was about to deny him under aggravating cir cumstances? And if so, is not this a singular proof text of Peter's infallibility?

The sixth, "Peter proposes the election of an apostle in the place of the traitor Judas." He does. This establishes