work is perfect:

....

a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. xxxiii. 4.) So, David declares, "Jehovah is my Rock, and my Fortress, and my Deliverer." "Who is God save Jehovah? or who is a Rock save our God?" (Ps. xviii. 2, 31.) We read in Is. xxviii. 16, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste," or, "shall not be confounded." This passage we find Peter himself applying in his first Epistle to our Lord and Saviour. Peter would never have dared to describe himself as the rock, or the foundation, of the Church; but would have taught, like his brotherapostle Paul," other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

It was, then, the doctrine asserted by Peter, and not Peter himself, which constituted the foundation. This was held by the earliest and most approved Fathers of the Church. Thus, Justin Martyr* says, "Christ bestowed upon Simon the name of Peter, because, by the revelation of his heavenly Father, he confessed him to be the Son of God." Augustine says, "The Church

* Καὶ γὰρ υἱὸν Θεοῦ Χριστὸν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἀποκάλυψιν ἐπιγνόντα αὐτὸν ἕνα τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ Σίμωνα πρότερον KaλоúμEVOV Šπоvóμaσe Пéтрov.-Dialog. cum Tryphone, p. 255. edit. Commelini, 1593.

"Ecclesia, quæ in hoc sæculo diversis tentationibus, velut imbribus, fluminibus, tempestatibusque, quatitur, et non cadit, quoniam fundata est super petram, unde et Petrus nomen accepit. Non enim à Petro petra, sed Petrus à petrâ: sicut non Christus à Christiano, sed Christianus à Christo vocatur. Ideo quippe ait Dominus, Super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam :' quia

is founded upon the rock from which Peter derives his name for the rock is not named from Peter, but Peter from the rock; as Christ is not so called from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore truly the Lord said, Upon this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Upon this rock, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the rock was Christ, upon which foundation even Peter himself was built; since other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.””

Chrysostom gives this explanation of the passage.* Upon this rock, TÉTρ He said not, upon Peter, Πέτρῳ ; for not upon the man, but upon faith in himself would he build his Church. What, then, is the faith? Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.""

If, then, these ancient Fathers may be allowed to decide the question, it must be evident that no argument can be drawn from our Lord's declaration to St. Peter in favour of the Pope's supremacy. If that Apostle

dixerat Petrus, Tu es Christus, filius Dei vivi.' Super hanc ergo, inquit, petram quam confessus es, ædificabo Ecclesiam meam. Petra erat Christus, super quod fundamentum etiam ipse ædificatus est Petrus. 'Fundamentum quippe aliud nemo potest ponere, præter id quod positum est, quod est Christus Jesus.""—August. Expos. in Evang. Johannis, tract. cxxiv. de cap. xxi. vol. ix. p. 572. Basil. 1569.

* Ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ· οὐκ εἶπεν, Ἐπὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ. Οὔτε γὰρ ἐπὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπὶ τὴν πίστιν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ, ἐκκλησίαν ὠκοδό μησε. Τί δὲ ἦν ἡ πίστις; Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ (@VTOS.-Chrysost. Serm. de Pentecost., Opera, vol. vi. p. 233. Paris, 1624. Cited by Faber, Difficulties of Romanism.

could in any sense be called a foundation, so also must the other Apostles; for we are told of the wall of the new Jerusalem, that it "had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb," Rev. xxi. 14.

With respect to the keys of the kingdom of heaven being given to Peter, by which is understood the power of absolution and excommunication, that power was equally given to his brethren. Our Lord breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." Peter, indeed, was eminent amongst the Apostles; was made the instrument of converting vast multitudes on the day of Pentecost, and afterwards of admitting the first Gentile converts into the Church; but he did not, on this account, claim, nor was he allowed, pre-eminence. St. Paul asserted himself to be "in nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles," and was so far from allowing Peter's supremacy, that, upon one memorable occasion, he, in the presence of the Church, "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

But we may carry the argument still further, and assert that, even had Peter been chief amongst the Apostles, he could not transmit his primacy; and certainly that the bishop of Rome can lay no just claim to it. It is by no means an established fact, that Peter ever was at Rome, and certainly not that he was bishop there.* On the contrary, the writers of ecclesiastical

* See Barrow on the P. S. Supp. iii. p. 79. London, 1700.

history represent him to have been bishop of Antioch. The first bishop of Rome appears to have been Linus; the second Anacletus; the third Clemens.* The bishops were inferior to the Apostles; and as St. Peter died before several others (especially before St. John), the survivor must have been superior to any bishop, because the episcopal office was far inferior to the apostolic.

It is vain, therefore, for the Pope to derive his claim to the headship of the Church from St. Peter. He neither succeeded to his apostleship, to his faith, nor to his holiness. Alas! the history of the Church records but too few good bishops of Rome; whilst it relates the enormous vices, the cruelties, the heresies, and even the atheism of some amongst them.† It records also, that there were at one period two, and even three, Popes, each pretending to be the head of the Church, and each supported by zealous adherents. The Greek Church never acknowledged the authority of the Roman bishop; neither did the Syrian, nor the ancient British and Irish Churches. In truth, the pretence to supremacy, which was supported by real or forged edicts of Roman emperors, was at no period universally acknowledged; whilst many of the doctrines of the Romish Church were in all ages opposed by those Christians who adhered to the unsophisticated teaching of Christ and his Apostles.

When, therefore, after the revival of learning in Europe, the invention of printing, and the publication

Barrow ut sup. p. 86.

+ Mosheim's Eccles. Hist., Cent. xiv. c. ii. part ii. § 14, 15, 16, &c.

of the Scriptures in the language understood by the community in various countries, the mists of superstition and imposture, which had prevented men from discovering the truth, were rolled away, the foundation on which the chair of the Roman pontiff was established was found on examination to be defective; a faithful testimony was borne by Wickliffe, Huss, Luther, and others, against the doctrinal and practical errors, as well as the usurpations, of popery; and from these the reformers separated. But they did not separate themselves from the Church of Christ. They cleansed their respective portions of the sanctuary from the idols and abominations by which it had been defiled; but they did not pull down nor forsake the sanctuary. They held fast the apostolic faith, and in most cases the apostolic discipline; above all, they held fast by the Head, our Lord Jesus Christ; and readily sacrificed their lives in defence of the truth which he had delivered to them.

Let not Protestants, then, be accused of schismfor they have not been guilty of it. They have separated themselves, indeed, from the Pope, the pretended vicar of Christ, because they are convinced that he has no title to that office. They have separated themselves from the usurped dominion of the Church of Rome, because that dominion was tyrannical and unjust. But they have not separated themselves from the Church, which is the body of Christ, nor from the Lord Jesus, who is the true Head of the body, and who has evidently bestowed his grace upon them. The separation was, indeed, involuntary on their part, and compelled by their adversaries, who insisted on unlawful terms of