But, after all, granting, for argument's sake, that St. Peter was both founder and Bishop of Rome, what then? How does the admission affect the question of the supremacy of the bishop of that Church? The term is no where even hinted at in the New Testament. From the time when Christ made choice of his apostles, to the day when he washed their feet, and blessed the bread and the cup, and distributed the Eucharistic elements without distinction among all his disciples—we can trace neither in act nor expression of the one only Supreme Spiritual Head, the slightest allusion to this assumed supremacy. On the contrary, our Saviour, in the most marked manner, (witness his answer to the mother of Zebedee's children,) reprobated such a notion of superiority. It is moreover distinctly stated in the New Testament History, that all the churches planted by the apostles were not only independent, but equal in rank and authority. Even Jerusalem, the mother of all Churches, with St. James, the first of all bishops, never assumed any jurisdiction over other Churches; which she might have done with some show of reason, considering not only her priority of foundation, but that to her arbitration and counsel the Churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, did once appeal, at the time they were so troubled by the Judaizing Christians.

But the Church of Jerusalem never set up any such pretension-nor was it for the space of 500* years, that any thing was heard of this arrogant claim to be the mother and mistress of all Churches, as now made an article of faith by the Romish Church. It is true, according to Tertullian, that the title of "Papa Benedictus" was in use in his time, and that some Bishop of Rome adopted the names of Pontifex Maximus, and Episcopus Episcoporum; yet it is well known to the readers of ecclesiastical history, that the former title was given to all bishops in general—and that even the ordinary bishops were called "Summi Pontifices," as has been abundantly proved by a very acute writer.t

In the two first centuries we can find no vestige of an universal bishop; Victor, it is true, towards the close of the second century, began to arrogate to himself, according to Eusebius, some superiority, but the Churches of Asia, Ephesus, and France, rebuked the Roman Pontiff, and dissented from him.

In the fifth century, when the pride and luxury of the Roman bishops had risen to an extraordinary height, Leo I. was the first to call the seat of St. Peter "universal." But notwithstanding the claim was put forth, it does not appear to have been admitted; for we find even

* Tempore Leo I.

+ Bingham's Antiq. lib. ii. c. 2.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in this century, when writing to Boniface, Bishop of Rome, using these remarkable words: “The pastoral care is common to all who hold the office of bishop, although you are placed on a higher pinnacle of the watch-tower."*

But the Romanists care little for the authority of ancient history when it happens to be against them and gladly take refuge in a solitary text of Scripture, from whence they direct the thunders of the Vatican. We will meet them on their own ground, and will try their pretension by the test of Scripture. It is well known that the text on which they build their claim of supremacy, is that expression of our Saviour in the Gospel of St. Matthew, xvi. 18: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." We Protestants gladly accept the divine declaration, but deny the Romish inference.

The Saviour had just asked all his disciples, "Whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” And then he adds as follows: "And I say also

*Aug. Cont. Epist. Pelag. Vide also a remarkable passage from one of Pope Gregory's Epistles, in the Appendix, No. VII.

unto thee, That thou art Peter (où eï Iérgos,) and upon this rock (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πῇτρα) I will build my church." Now to what does this rock refer? Not surely to Peter, but to “it”—that confession, which St. Peter had just made of the Saviour being the Christ, the Son of the living God.

On this very confession the Christian Church is built-on this confession the first converts were baptized on this confession the Church of Ephesus was founded. Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone."+

Thus it is most clear that the Church was founded on the prophets and apostles, not on St. Peter alone. St. Peter was a part of this foundation, but not the whole and sole foundation. Christ, it must be remarked, addressed this question to all the apostles: "Whom say ye that I am?" St. Peter, always the most forward of them, took upon himself to answer in the name of all. The commission of "the keys" was addressed to him, not exclusively, but conjointly with his fellow-apostles. "I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Christ does not say, "I now give thee,” but "I will give❞—and what his future inten

* By the XV. Resolution of the Council of Troselium, held A. D. 909, this interpretation of the passage is expressly given.Vid. Spanheim's Eccl. Annals, cent. x. c. 5.

+ Ephes. ii. 20.

tion was is explained by what he afterwards commissioned them to do-to preach the doctrine of Christ's Messiahship, (the very doctrine that Peter had confessed,) and on that doctrine to admit converts into the Church by Baptism. And when Christ gave this final commission, to whom did he give it? To St. Peter alone? No, to all—to all equally-without the slightest reference to pre-eminence in the order or degree of any one of them.

But in order to understand this remarkable passage, it must be carefully remarked, that in the terms of this address of our Saviour to Peter, He uses two words, which, in the Greek, are "Пrgos," and "Irga," Petrus, a stone, and Petra, a rock. "Thou art Petrus," (Peter, a Stone,)" and on this Petra," (a Rock,) "I will build my church."

"If Christ had meant," well remarks the Bishop of St. David's "that St. Peter should be the Rock on which he would build his Church, the same term might have been repeated: thou art Petrus, and on this Petrus I will build my Church; but the word is changed; our Saviour does not say, on this Petrus I will build my church, but on this Petra: and, therefore, we may conclude that the first term was not meant to convey the same meaning as the second. It has a relative meaning, no doubt."* And this distinction in