posed to the interpretations of Hilary, Chrysostom, Origen, Cyril, Ambrose, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome; and never tells us a word of their contrary opinion, but describes it as 'a device' and subterfuge of the opponents,' i.e. the Protestants! Now we would ask any reasonable man, is it not far better to maintain the right of reading the Bible for ourselves, with prayer to God for guidance, than to put ourselves, blindfold, in the hands of men who thus assume to declare to us 'the judgment of the church,' and who give us that judgment after such a fashion as this!

But to resume ;-We cannot now go through all the mass of papal authorities on this point, but the truth is, that there is no one topic on which the fathers, the councils, and even the popes themselves, are more divided than on the interpretation of this text. A very general view has been, that the rock on which Christ promised to build his church, was the faith or confession made by Peter. Launoy and Du Pin reckon forty-four fathers and popish authors who maintain this opinion, among whom are Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril, Gregory, Ambrose, and Hilary; and the same interpretation was decreed in the general councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Constance, and Basil. Another sense given to the words, is that which Dr. Wiseman describes as one of the 'shifts to which our opponents are obliged to resort.' How can Dr. Wiseman, without shame, use this language, knowing, as he does, that this very interpretation is defended by Cyprian, Jerome, Origen, Eusebius, Theodoret, Anselm, Theophylact, and many others; and that in divers general councils the same view was asserted without any disclamation ?

But enough of the Fathers. We shall not tax the

patience of our readers by going through the other points, or we might shew, in like manner, that the majority of the ancient fathers and commentators understand the donation of the keys to have been made to the college of apostles, and to the church in general, not to the individual Peter; and that the third passage, Feed my sheep, is also a general commission, and not any special authority given to one person. Let us, however, go to the record itself, and, leaving fathers and councils, look "to the word and to the testimony," for light on this, as on all other subjects.

Let us compare the language applied to Peter with that applied to the other apostles, and we shall thus be enabled to judge whether any thing like supremacy was conveyed or implied in the former class of passages. The two series may be thus arranged::

and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt. xvi. 19.

"He saith unto him,Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep."

be loosed in heaven." Matt. xviii. 18.

"Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Acts xx. 28.

Now here it is as evident as possible, that just the very same powers, privileges, and functions, which are ascribed to, or conferred on, Peter, in some passages, are equally applied to his brethren in others. The evidence, therefore, of any supremacy, or even of any primacy or superiority, utterly fails.

But we do not wish to overlook the reasoning of Dr. Wiseman on this part of the argument. He says,' From the instances I have given, it is evident I may draw this canon or rule of interpretation in scripture; that when a call, a prerogative, a commission, is bestowed upon one person singly, though the very same may have been bestowed upon others collectively, and himself together with them, he must thereby be supposed to have received a distinct and superior degree of it from the rest. Thus, therefore, it must be with Peter.' And he adduces two or three passages in support of this view.

He says, 'Our blessed Saviour constantly inculcated to all his disciples, and indeed to all his hearers, the necessity of following him. Only "he

who followeth, walketh not in darkness;" all must "take up their cross and follow him;" all his sheep must know his voice and follow the shepherd. When, therefore, he addressed individually to Peter and Andrew, to Matthew and the sons of Zebedee, the very same invitation, "Follow me," did it ever occur to you to reason, that, because the very same invitation was repeated, on other occasions, to all the Jews in common with themselves, therefore, they were not meant to follow Jesus in a distinct and more peculiar manner? Again, our blessed Redeemer is repeatedly said to have tenderly loved all his apostles; he called them not servants but friends-yea, no one could have greater love for another than he manifested to them by laying down his life for them. When, therefore, John is by himself simply called the beloved disciple, as all the other disciples are also said to have been beloved, did you ever think of arguing, that as no more is predicated of him singly in one instance than is of all the twelve in others, therefore, the love of Jesus for John, was nothing distinctive and pre-eminent? Once more. To all the apostles was given a commission to teach all nations, to preach the gospel to every creature, beginning with Jerusalem and Samaria, unto the uttermost bounds of the earth. When, therefore, the Spirit of God told them to separate Saul and Barnabas for the ministry of the Gentiles; or when Paul individually calls himself their apostle, did you ever think of concluding that, as this individual commission was included and comprehended in the general one given to all; therefore Paul was never invested with any personal mission, received no more here than the other apostles, and only groundlessly arro

gated to himself the apostleship of the Gentiles as his peculiar office? If in these instances you would not allow such conclusions, how can they be admitted in the case of Peter? Why are his special powers alone to be invalidated, by those which he received in common with the rest?'

These instances, however, do not suffice to establish the doctor's rule. In the first case, our Lord calls upon all his disciples, as a general rule, to follow his steps. He then, at a particular time, calls two or three individuals to follow him, as personal attendants and apostles. Here the different sense in which the words were used, is obvious. But when our Lord tells one of his disciples, on one occasion, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;" and then, on another occasion, repeats the same promise to the other disciples, the whole twelve being, it is admitted, at that time on an equal footing; it is by no means obvious that the words are used in a different sense in the first case, to what they were in the second. On the contrary, to take them in a higher sense, as applied to Peter, than when applied to the rest, is a mere assumption, resting upon nothing. 2. St. John is called THE beloved disciple. Here is a plain and unequivocal proof that in a particular personal affection, this apostle was very dear to our Lord, and the proof of it is seen in his dying bequest. Now if any such explicit avowal of supremacy, bestowed on Peter, can be adduced, we shall be silent at once. But no such has ever been shewn. 3. A general charge was given to all the apostles, to preach the gospel; but separate

1 Wiseman, Lect. viii. p. 276.