receive the primacy, but Peter." Augustine: "In Peter the primacy of the apostles is pre-eminent by so excellent a grace';" "St. Peter himself the first in order of the apostles "." Jerome speaks in the same manner". The council of Chalcedon terms Peter "the rock of the catholic church, and the foundation of the right faith."

I answer, that these passages merely assert the personal pre-eminence of St. Peter among the apostles, which we admit. In this sense he may be most justly called the first of the apostles; or in rhetorical language, their leader, head, summit, chief, or prince. Therefore these passages do not afford any objection to our principle and it has been already proved, that tradition, as well as scripture, establishes the equality and supremacy of all the apostles. Therefore all the above passages must be interpreted accordingly.

It is further objected, that St. Leo of Rome, says: "From the whole world, Peter alone is selected to be placed over the vocation of all nations, and over all the apostles and fathers of the church: that although there be many bishops in the people of God, yet Peter should with propriety govern all those who are supremely ruled by Christ also "." In reply to this, I allow that St. Leo and other Roman pontiffs were occasionally led to magnify the privileges of St. Peter, beyond the truth, by a desire to honour the founder of their particular church; but these amplifications can only be viewed as

the private opinions of those bishops, not as representing the sentiment of catholic tradition.

V. Since, therefore, it has been proved from scripture, that all the apostles were EQUAL and SUPREME; since this position is confirmed by catholic tradition ; since the interpretation of the texts alleged by Roman theologians to prove Peter's official primacy, are not certain or de fide, but are doubted even in their own communion; and since in fine the more probable interpretation of those texts, and the passages alleged by Romanists from the fathers, only establish the personal pre-eminence of St. Peter: we may conclude that the official primacy or supremacy of St. Peter cannot possibly be a matter of faith, and that it is altogether unfounded.

It is very true that Bellarmine says, that the denial of St. Peter's primacy, according to his view of it, is "a most pernicious heresy." It is also true that Bailly, Bouvier, Delahogue, affirm that St. Peter's primacy of jurisdiction over the other apostles is de fide: but I have elsewhere shown, that assertions of this kind are not sufficient to prove that there is either error or heresy in holding the contrary doctrine.

OBJECTIONS.

In reply to the passages from St. Cyprian, and other fathers, asserting the equality of the other apostles with Peter, it is said by Tournely, Bailly, Delahogue, &c. "that the other apostles were equal to St. Peter in the intrinsic and essential apostolical authority, as to the power of teaching every where, ministering the sacra

See Part IV. chap. vi.

ments, ordaining pastors, &c.: but that they were not equal in the extrinsic and accidental authority, and as to the mode of exercising that power."

Answer. I argue directly from this reply, that St. Peter had no official primacy or supremacy over the other apostles; for if he had been endued by Christ with an official superiority and jurisdiction over them, either separately or collectively; while they had no jurisdiction over him or over one another; there would have been an essential and intrinsic difference between his authority and theirs. But this is denied. Ergo, &c.

CHAPTER II.

ON THE DURATION OF ST. PETER'S PRE-EMINENCE.

IT is the next assertion of Roman theologians, that the pre-eminence of St. Peter among the apostles, was an ordinary office, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ in the church, and which was always to continue. But if the conclusions of the preceding chapter are admitted, it is clear that St. Peter's peculiar privileges could not pass to any successors. The church once founded by him could never be founded again. The keys with which he first unclosed the gates of the kingdom of heaven to Jews and Gentiles, could never be employed in the same manner by any one else. As to his personal pre-eminence founded on his love of Christ, and more zealous discharge of the apostolical office; this is not claimed by any one. We may therefore justly say with Tertullian: "Qualis es, evertens atque commutans

manifestam Domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem "?"

Let us consider the principal arguments adduced by Bellarmine, and the other Roman theologians, to prove the permanence of St. Peter's pre-eminence in the church.

I. The primacy of St. Peter was to be a permanent office in the church, because the reason for which it was instituted was to preserve unity; and this being a permanent object, the office which was instituted for it must have been so likewise.

Answer. No scriptural proof has ever been adduced in support of this theory of the reason of instituting St. Peter's pre-eminence. I repeat it, there is no evidence from scripture that the preservation of unity was the reason and this being the case, it follows from the principles of Veron, Bossuet, and the best Roman theologians, that this pretended "reason" cannot be a matter of faith, and cannot found an article of faith. I maintain that the reason of instituting St. Peter's preeminence has not been revealed: it can only be conjectured and though St. Jerome, and perhaps one or two others, support the view of the Romanists; this cannot make their opinion a matter of certainty.

II. A chief pontiff cannot be less necessary to the church now than at the beginning: there is even greater necessity, because christians are more numerous and less holy than at first. Therefore as St. Peter was chief pontiff then, he must have successors in all ages.

21.

a

Tertullian, de Pudicitia, c.

Hooke, Relig. Nat. et Rev. t. iii. p. 265.

See page 15-17, of this

b Bellarminus de Romano Pontifice, lib. ii. c. 12; Bailly, volume. De Ecclesia, t. ii. p. 174 ;

Answer. I have already shown that the apostles were equal and supreme; and that St. Peter's pre-eminence consisted in points which were either incapable of being transmitted to another, or which no one else claims.

III. The church is one body and must have a visible head; for the apostle, in speaking of the church, 1 Cor. xii. says, "The head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of you." The head here spoken of cannot be Christ, because he might say to all men that he had no need of them: it cannot be any one but Peter: nor should the church remain without a head after Peter's death.

Answer. The "head" in this place signifies that portion of the christian church which exceeds the rest either in power, authority, sanctity, wealth, or any other gift. The meaning is, that every christian, be his station what it may, is to esteem himself a member of one body; and to love, and sympathize with all its

members.

IV. The succession of high-priests in the Old Testament, is a type of what was to occur in the christian church.

Answer. The fathers teach that the high-priests were types of Jesus Christ, and after him of the bishops of the catholic church, who were all termed "Summi Sacerdotes."

V. The church is termed in scripture a sheepfold, a kingdom, a body. But a sheepfold infers a shepherd; a kingdom, a king; a body, a head; and admitting that Christ is the invisible pastor, king, and head of the church, still the visible church must have a visible head.

Answer. The church is not literally, but figuratively,