tor of Christians, or the supreme judge of controversies among them; for then the most certain, compendious, and effectual way to confute error and regulate practice would be, to allege the authority of Peter. If now a question arises about any matter, the parties immediately have recourse to the pope; and his judgment, by the true sons of the Church of Rome, is decisive. If any is broached, the voice of the pope is heard throughout Christendom. If any schism springs up, Rome will immediately attempt to settle it. But no such regard was had to Peter himself. The apostles did not send heretics to him to be corrected of their errors, or schismatics to be censured for their divisions. They made use of the slow method of convincing them by Scripture and argument. If they did use authority, it was their own, which they challenge as given to them by Christ for edification.

11. Peter nowhere interposes as a judge of controversies, in the Roman Catholic sense. When he deals with heretics, he proceedeth not as a pope decreeing, but as an apostle, warning, arguing, and persuading them. See how Paul represents the several parties in the Christian church: "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, I am of Christ," 1 Cor. i, 12; iii, 21. If it were so, that Peter was sovereign of the apostles, is it not wonderful that any Christian should prefer any apostle to him? Would any bishop compete with the pope ? Here, too, was a fit occasion for Paul to say something in reference to Peter's supremacy, had he known of its existence.

12. The proceedings of the apostles, in converting people, founding churches, administering discipline, &c., are inconsistent with the supremacy, as they did not proceed on the principle that Peter was the source of jurisdiction. They did not act by his license, or order, but by the direction of the Holy Spirit. They were "sent forth by the Holy Ghost," or went by revelation, Acts xiii, 4, and xvi, 6, 9; Gal. ii, 2. By these aids they founded churches, or Christian societies, ordained pastors, exercising discipline, &c. This charge was exercised without dependance on Peter, as the apostles did not consult his pleasure, or render an account to him. They proceeded by virtue of their own commission, received immediately from Christ.

If it be said Paul went to Jerusalem to see Peter, I answer, he went to visit him, out of respect and love, or to confer with him for mutual edification and comfort, but not to receive his commands or authoritative instructions; for Paul disavowed any dependance on

any man.

13. The nature of the apostolic office, state of things, and the manner of Peter's life, are at variance with his supremacy. The nature of the apostolic ministry was such, that the apostles were not fixed to one place of residence, but travelled almost continually, visiting every place, as they were divinely directed, or had calls or opportunities, for the propagation of the gospel.

The state of things in the church was such as to preclude such a reference to Peter as the supremacy requires. The apostles were not only itinerant, but they were persecuted. Christians were scattered, too, at considerable distances, so that conveyances for instruction from Peter were difficult.

Look, too, at the manner of Peter's life, which was unsettled and moveable. How then could he receive and attend to the duties of su

premacy ? "Gold and silver he had none;" how then could he sustain nuncios, legates, secretaries, auditors, and many others?

14. Every apostle had an independent authority in managing the duties of his office. The direction of Him who had promised to be perpetually with them was sufficient for their guidance. Hence, as Paul says, ἱκανωσεν αυτούς, "God rendered them SUFFICIENT ministers of the New Testament," 2 Cor. iii, 5; Rom. xv, 15. Hence, in their instructions and practice, they acted independently of Peter and of each other. The apostles governed all; their authority was the sanction, and their decrees and writings were the laws of the church. They exercised a common jurisdiction, and exercised it according to the needs and emergencies of the church.

15. The behaviour of Paul toward Peter shows that he acknowledged no dependance on him, or no subjection to him.

(1.) Paul asserts to himself an independent power, subordinate to none other; insisting thereon for the defence of his doctrine and practice; alleging divers arguments to confirm it, from the character of his call, the character of his office, the discharge of it, his success, and the approbation of the other apostles. 2 Cor. xii, 11; Rom. xi, 13.

(2.) His call and commission to the apostleship show that he derived not his office immediately or mediately from man, or by the ministry of any man, but immediately from our Lord. For he was an apostle, not from men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father," Gal. i, 1. Our Lord said that he was a chosen vessel, whom he had sent to the Gentiles. Acts ix, 15, and xxii, 21. Hence he is careful to declare himself an apostle by the will of God. 1 Cor. i, 1; 2 Cor. i, 1; Eph. i, 1; Col. i, 1; 2 Tim. i, 1. He is denominated an apostle by the special grace of God. 1 Cor. xv, 10; Eph. iii, 7; 1 Tim. i, 12; 2 Tim. i, 12. And also by the command of God. 1 Tim. i, 1; Rom. i, 5. He particularly informs the Romans that "by Christ he had received grace and apostleship," Rom. i, 5.

(3.) For the warrant or authority of his office, he does not allege the license of Peter, but the special gifts and graces which he possessed. “Truly,” saith he, "the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs and wonders, and mighty deeds." And, "I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God," 2 Cor. xii, 12; Rom. xv, 18, 19; 1 Cor. ii, 4.

(4.) To the same purpose he alleges his success in converting men to God. "Am I not an apostle? Are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord," 1 Cor. ix, 1, 2. "But by the grace of God I am what I am; and his grace, which was bestowed on me, was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me," 1 Cor. XV, 10.

(5.) In the discharge of his office, immediately after his call and charge from Christ, without consulting or taking license from any man, he applied himself to his work. "Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that before me were apostles,” Gal. i, 16, 17.

(6.) In correcting abuses, he acted by his own authority. "Therefore, being absent, I write these things, that being present I may not use severity, according to the authority which the Lord hath given me for edification, and not for destruction," 2 Cor. xii, 10, and x, 8. He did not receive any check from the other apostles; but the chief of them, "knowing the grace that was given him, gave unto him the right hand of fellowship," (Gal. ii, 9,) in token of their approval of his proceedings.

(7.) Paul informs us that "he was in nothing inferior to the chiefest apostles," 2 Cor. xi, 5, and xii, 11; not to Peter, James, or John, whom elsewhere he calls pillars. Gal. ii, 9. When he said he was behind none, he could not forget Peter: when he said, none of the chief, he could not but especially mean him. When he said, in nothing, he could not but mean the authority of his place; for he found it proper to magnify his office, to assert his apostleship as derived from Christ.

If things had been then, as they are now, taught by the Roman school, Paul would not thus compare himself to Peter, as he would manifest due regard for his ordinary pastor; for such words as these were easily interpreted to be derogatory to the character of Peter.

(8.) The other apostles conferred nothing on Paul at Jerusalem. Gal. ii, 2. This was hardly proper, if Peter was his sovereign; but he says it for the very purpose of excluding the doctrine of supremacy. For, says he, speaking of the other apostles, and Peter among them, "Whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me; God respecteth no man's person," (Gal. ii, 6,) which would not sound well of one who was his superior in office, to whom, as his judge and pastor, by God's appointment, he owed submission.

(9.) Paul withstood Peter and reproved him before all, because he was blameable. Gal. ii, 13, 14. This behaviour would be very unseemly on the supposition that Peter was his superior in office; and even more so, to reprove him openly, and transmit it in writing, as he does, to the Galatians. Paul was more bold with Peter than any man now could be with the pope.

(10.) Paul asserts to himself an independent authority over the Gentiles, co-ordinate with that which Peter exercised over the Jews. This he asserts strongly, which cannot be reconciled to the supremacy. Gal. i, 6, 7.

16. If Peter was sovereign of the church, it seems necessary he should outlive the other apostles. For then, either the church must want a head, or there would be an endless controversy about who he was. Peter died long before John. And they say Linus Cletus and Clemens succeeded Peter. Consequently John must be in subjection to these as popes. Thus the office of apostle would not be what Paul calls it, first apostles.

17. Other apostles might assume the supremacy on the same grounds on which it is claimed for Peter. But to suppose such a difference of power among the other apostles is absurd; and, therefore, the grounds on which Peter's supremacy is built are not solid.

James and John seem to possess a preference to other apostles. For them our Saviour manifested a special regard. After Peter and his brother, they were first called to the apostleship. They were called Boanerges, or sons of thunder, by way of eminence. They beheld the

transfiguration. One of them was the disciple whom Jesus loved, and who leaned on his bosom. The other was the first to witness our Lord's resurrection. They were both veр hav añoσтohol, the superlative apostles.

CHAPTER VI.

SUPREMACY CONTINUED.

1 HE PRIMACY OF PETER NOT TRANSMISSIBLE. 1. It was personal: 2. And grounded on personal qualities: 3. The apostolic office not successive. Reasons of this: 4. Absurdity of such transmission: 5. Objection answered: 6. All true. Pastors their successors: 7. Popes not their successors.

THE primacy of Peter, of whatever kind it was, could not be transmitted to others.

1. It was grounded on personal graces, gifts, and acts. In personal acts, such as his cheerful following of Christ, his confession of him, and his resolute adherence to him. In personal graces, such as his faith in Christ, his love to him, his zeal for him. In personal endowments, as his courage, activity, and ready gift of speech. Pre-eminence, built on these grounds, is not transmissible to others.

2. The primacy of Peter is grounded on words directed to his person, characterized by personal adjuncts, as name, parentage, which were accomplished in his personal actions; and, therefore, they cannot extend to others.

Our Lord promised to Simon, son of Jonas, to build his church on him, or rather, on Christ, whom he acknowledged: accordingly, in a peculiar manner, the church was founded by his ministry, or by his first preaching.

Our Lord promised to give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This power was first exercised by Peter, when he opened the door of faith to the Jews first, and to the Gentiles next; the other apostles also exercised the keys as well as Peter, though he used them first.

3. The apostolic office, properly so called, was personal and temporary, and therefore not successive.

The apostles may be considered in a two-fold point of view, viz.: either in their general character, as preachers of the gospel and administrators of the sacraments, or in their special character, as apostles of Jesus Christ. In the first view, they are the predecessors of all to the end of the world who shall preach the same gospel and administer the sacraments, by whatever name they may be called. That the apostles had successors, as preachers of the gospel, we allow. But we maintain that in their special character as apostles they had no successors. The following are the reasons:

(1.) It was necessary to constitute an apostle that he was one who had seen Christ after his resurrection, in order to be a witness of this great event, which is the foundation of the Christian faith. Acts i, 21, 22.

(2.) The apostles received their commission immediately from Christ. Gal. i, 1, 11, 12.

(3.) The apostles possessed the power of conferring miraculous gifts by the imposition of their hands. Matt. x, 1; 2 Cor. xii, 12.

(4.) They were divinely inspired. Acts xv, 28.

(5.) Their commission was universal, embracing all the world. Now, such an office, consisting of so many extraordinary privileges and miraculous powers, was not designed to continue by derivation. For it contained in it divers things which were not communicated, and which no man, without gross imposture and hypocrisy, could challenge to himself.

Nor did the apostles pretend to communicate the apostolate. They did appoint regular pastors in the churches. They associated with themselves fellow-labourers or assistants in preaching the gospel and governing the churches. But they did not constitute apostles equal to themselves in authority, privileges, or gifts. Augustine says, "Who is ignorant that the principate of the apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopacy?""* And even Bellarmine confesses "the bishops have no part of the true apostolic authority." This theory was adopted by Bellarmine, in order to trace all power up to the pope.

But the apostles themselves make the apostolate a distinct office from pastors and teachers, who are the standing officers in the church. 1 Cor. xii, 28; Eph. iv, 11.

Wherefore Peter, who had no other office mentioned in Scripture, or known to antiquity, besides that of an apostle, could not have properly any successor to his office: consequently it expired with his person, as did that of the other apostles. And whereas the other apostles, as such, had no successors, the apostolic office not being successive, the primacy of Peter, whatever it was, ceased with him: for when there were no apostles existing, there could be no head or prince of the apostles in any sense.

4. If some of the peculiar prerogatives and privileges of Peter descend to the popes, why not all? Why was not Pope Alexander VI. as holy as Peter? Why was not Pope Honorius as sound in doctrine as Peter? Why is not every pope inspired, and endowed with the power of working miracles? Why not every papal epistle canonical scripture? What ground is there to divide the privileges, so that the pope shall have some, but not others?

5. It is objected that "bishops were by the fathers called successors of the apostles." To this we reply: The apostolic office did contain, not only the special apostolic characters mentioned above, but also the functions of teaching and governing the church, as exercised in ordinary pastorship. These persons were endowed with these powers during the apostles' lives, deriving their powers through the apostles, but by no means succeeding them as apostles. The fathers call all bishops or pastors the successors of the apostles; not meaning that any one did succeed to the whole apostolic office, but that each received his powers, either from some apostle, or from some apostolic man. So Clemens Romanus says: "The apostles preaching in countries and cities constituted their first converts, having approved them by the Spirit, for bishops and deacons of those who should afterward believe." And again he says: "They constituted the aforesaid; (that is, bishops and deacons ;) they withal gave them farther charge, that if they should Quis nescit illum apostolatus principatum cuilibet episcopatui præferendum?-Aug. de Bapt. Contr. Don., ii, 1.

+ Episcopi nullam habent partem veræ apostolicæ auctoritatis.-Bell., iv, 25.