it is strange that his special admirers, did not avail themselves of this honourable distinction; it is still more strange, when a certain schismatical faction in that church, attempted to invalidate St. Paul's apostolic authority, that he should assert his equality in point of authority and jurisdiction with the rest of the Apostles, and even with "the chiefest Apostles." "I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles:" (2 Cor. xi. 5.) and again in xii. chapter v. 11. in nothing am I behind the very chiefest Apostles."* By the chief Apostles, it is most probable St. Paul meant "James, Peter, and John;" though whatever superiority their talents or influence or station might give them in the Christian Church, it involved in it no superior jurisdiction and authority. In opposition to all ideas of exclusive prerogatives possessed by one or by all of the Jerusalem Apostles, St. Paul asserts his own authority and jurisdiction to be equal to theirs:

* Our translation of the former text "I suppose," is rather ambiguous, from the modern use of the term, and is not equivalent to the meaning of λoyisopar. It is the same word which occurs in Rom. viii. 18. and is rendered more accurately "I reckon." The Vulgate translation existimo (I think) agrees with this, and occurs in both places. This latter version does not however preserve the force of the original in the latter part of the text

nihil me minus fecisse a magnis apostolis." Novičoμal yap μηδεν υςερηκεναι των ὑπὲρ λιαν αποςόλων.) The rendering of Erasmus is preferable, "I was in nothing inferior to the eminent Apostles;" (eximiis apostolis) but "summis apostolis" or the * very chiefest,' according to our own translation, best expresses the force of VTE Xav, in which the notion of super-excellence is strongly conveyed. There can be no doubt that by the chief Apostles, St. Paul meant " Peter, James, and John," whom he represents in Gal. ii. 9. as "pillais." Equality of authority and order, by no means implies equality of talent and success. "As one star differeth from another star in glory," so might the Apostles, differ in attainments and in. influence; and corresponding diversity has existed in all ages, amongst those who in all other respects were equal.

he was in nothing behind them; therefore none of them possessed supremacy, but were truly "fellow-labourers together."

The notion of Peter's supremacy is still more clearly disproved, by a circumstance mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians. To render the argument derived from this passage more obvious and intelligible, it is requisite to advert to the state of the Galatic Churches, as far as it can be ascertained from the epistle addressed to them. It appears that a Judaizing faction were endeavouring to " pervert the gospel of Christ" in that district. They attempted in opposition to the apostolic decree, to blend the rites of the Mosaic economy with the Christian institution. They were particularly anxious to revive the obligation of circumcision. Aware of their special obnoxiousness to the Apostle Paul, it seems they endeavoured by various insinuations to invalidate his apostolic authority; and because he was not of the first twelve, and had not been one of those who associated, with the disciples, "from the beginning of the gospel," they represented his authority as inferior to that of the other Apostles. This is evident from the circumstantial details given in the first and second chapters of his epistle, by which he proves-that his authority was derived immediately from Christ himself that he entered on his apostolic office as soon as he was converted, without a personal conference with any of the Apostles-that three years elapsed before he saw the Apostle Peter that he had received a special commission to be the Apostle of the uncircumcision, or to preach to the Gentiles, from the same authority which ordained Peter to be the Apostle of the circumcision-and that the Apostles at Jerusalem when Paul visited the place, at a subsequent period, distinctly recognised his au

thority. (Ga. i. 11-23. ii. 1-9.) It appears that after Paul had been at Jerusalem, he met Peter at Antioch, when the circumstance before referred to, took place. I shall cite the passage: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, "I withstood him to the face, because he was to "be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the cir"cumcision. And the other Jews dissembled "likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas "also was carried away with their dissimulation. "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said "unto Peter before them all; if thou being a "Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and "not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the "Gentiles, to live as do the Jews?" (ii. 11-14.)

66

"It is evident from this passage that Paul, so far from acknowledging any supremacy in Peter, when he met with him in the same city, finding that he had been acting with dissimulation, publicly rebuked him. And Peter did not attempt to justify himself, although he might have found very plausible reasons for his conduct; he felt that it was condemned by the spirit of God, speaking in Paul, and he did not resist him. Now let any candid man say, which of these two acted as the superior. Peter follows a certain line of conduct towards the Gentiles; Paul comes, and without consulting Peter upon it, or appealing to the other Apostles, by the wisdom given him from above, judges it to be wrong, and by the authority committed to him, publicly withstands Peter, rebukes him, and then records the transaction in an epistle regarded even by the Church of Rome as written under the influence of

inspiration." If the circumstances of this case had been reversed, and Peter had reproved Paul, it would have been cited as a triumphant and an incontrovertible demonstration of Peter's supremacy. But as it now stands, it is impossible to reconcile the fact with that unsupported assumption.

It is recorded in the Acts, (viii. 14, 15.) that when the "Apostles in Jerusalem heard that "Samaria had received the word of God, they "sent unto them Peter and John--that they might "receive the Holy Ghost." If Peter possessed or exercised supreme jurisdiction over his brethren, is it probable that they would have sent him on this special commission? The circumstance, and the account of it, are on the principle of "pre-eminent dignity," alike inexplicable.

It is also inexplicable on this same principle, that Paul, when writing to the Church at Rome, should never advert to the exclusive privilege they possessed, in having for their bishop, the Head-Apostle, the Vicegerent of Christ, and in the communication of supreme ecclesiastical power to the future bishop of their Church in succession, and for ever! It is inexplicable, that Peter himself, when writing to the Churches two catholic or general epistles, should advance nothing that might lead them to acknowledge his investiture with this authority. In the latter of these epistles, he informs the Churches, that he

*The Rev. James Carlile's "Examination of the arguments for the pre-eminency of the Roman Catholic Episcopacy, adduced by the Rev. John Ryan," &c. p. 47.

+ It is particularly worthy of notice, that in the first Epistle of Peter, there is a distinct allusion to Christ alone, as the foundation of the Church. He is called—a living stone; and believers are represented as "built up, a spiritual house" on this sure foundation. (1 Pet. ii. 4-7.)

was "shortly to put off his tabernacle," and that he would "endeavour that after his decease, they might have these things in remembrance," and yet he makes no reference to his successor in ecclesiastical supremacy! He calls himself with great humility an "elder," and exhorts the elders of the Churches, to a diligent discharge of pastoral duties; but not the slightest allusion to his own pre-eminence, occurs in these apostolic charges,

iv. Granting, for the sake of argument, that St. Peter did possess a primacy or supremacy of power and authority over the other Apostles, there is no scriptural proof of its being any thing more than a personal supremacy, vested solely and exclusively in himself, and terminating at his death: and if it were still further granted, that the apostolic supremacy were designed to be continued in the Church, there is no rational or scriptural proof, why the bishops of Rome, rather than any other place where the Apostle Peter exercised his ministry, should possess this ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The strongest considerations have already been adduced to prove, that the Apostles had no successors in that office which was peculiarly their own. They possessed the exclusive power of conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost," or investing others with miraculous agency; and we meet with no reference whatever to the continuance of their office. It naturally included in it all inferior offices; and the Apostles could therefore act as pastors or bishops wherever they resided. But it does not appear that they ever remained for a long time in one place. Their office required frequent changes; they were employed in planting new churches, and visiting those they had already established. The Apostle Peter was for some time at Antioch; he was before that period, at