nection with the name of the Apostle Peter. The topic is so familiar to every ecclesiastical student that it is difficult to argue against it with more cogency than has been already employed. It seems, however, still possible to bring one or two points into yet stronger relief, even though, in doing so, it may be needful to reiterate some statements which have been already urged by others. The assumption of the universal supremacy, according to Barrow, rests upon "divers suppositions," some of which we append :

1. That St. Peter, by our Lord's appointment, had a primacy, implying a sovereignty of authority and jurisdiction over the Apostles.

2. That the rights and prerogatives of this sovereignty were not personal, but derivable, and transmitted to successors. 3. That St. Peter was Bishop of Rome.

4. That St. Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation, and was so at his decease.

5. That hence, of right, to the Bishops of Rome as St. Peter's successors, an universal jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ doth appertain.

We shall not, in this paper, renew a discussion on the last three of these points, as they have recently been so ably and conclusively dealt with in a very valuable book, "The Life and Writings of St. Peter," by the author of " Essays on the Church," which a few months ago we had occasion to notice with commendation. Such questions are exhausted there.

We would premise that, for the most part, error is the perversion of some truth, and that in the reaction from the error there is a liability to lose sight of the truth of which that error is the perversion. The assumption of the Papal supremacy is the perversion of the truth that there was a certain priority remarkable in St. Peter. To found the Papal system upon this priority is like the attempt to balance an inverted pyramid upon its point. It can only be made good by calling in the aid of sophistry and falsehood. But on the other hand, the cause of truth cannot be served by unduly denying or ignoring this priority. If, in our over-officious zeal, we shrink from following up the teaching of the Scriptures, we violate the essential principles of" searching" them. The cause of truth cannot be the sufferer from an honest inquiry.

A brief examination of the New Testament history will showI. That St. Peter had a priority amongst the Apostles, which was not merely nominal but real.

II. That this priority was personal, and not in any way official, and did not imply dominion or authority over the other Apostles.

III. That it was not of a nature to be transferable.

IV. That it was temporary and of very brief duration, not continuing during the whole of St. Peter's life.

I. That Peter had a real priority appears from seven grounds.

(1) In the order of names in the Gospel history Peter's stands the first. There is but one solitary instance in the four Gospels in which the name of Peter is placed after that of any other disciple, and the case is of such a character as to prove the discrimination used by the sacred writers in the placing of the names. It occurs in the narrative of Peter's first introduction to Jesus by his brother Andrew. Andrew was a disciple of John the Baptist, and on the testimony of John he brought his brother Simon to Jesus. Philip is mentioned in the narrative, and it is added, "Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter." Andrew is, at this stage of the history, the chief person of the two. He brings his brother Simon to Jesus, and accordingly his name appears first. But when Peter has taken his place as a disciple, his name invariably comes first in the Gospel history, whenever he is spoken of in connexion with the other disciples. We must also note the manner in which Andrew is introduced in the narrative. "One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother." There can be no reason for the addition of the phrase, "Simon Peter's brother," than that Simon Peter was far the more distinguished person of the two when the account was written.

Peter's name is not placed first because he was the first to become a disciple, for the above narrative proves that that was not the fact. Neither can it be shown that he was the eldest of the twelve. This opinion is supported by no evidence, and is a mere assumption from the fact of his prominency. Moreover, the names are not given in the order of seniority. The two youngest of the twelve, James and John, stand early on the lists. In St. Matthew and St. Luke the order is, Peter, Andrew, James, John, &c. (Matt. x. 2-4; Luke vi. 14-16.) In St. Mark's list Andrew appears separate from Peter, and the order is Peter, James, John, Andrew, the two brothers being separate in the list for the purpose of heading it with the names of the three most distinguished of the twelve. (Mark iii. 16-19.) This order appears also in Mark xii. 3, where the four are mentioned. In all the lists the ignoble name of Judas Iscariot is the last, clearly proving that the order of names is not accidental nor trifling, but discriminating and significant.

And Peter's name not only appears first on all the lists, but in the passage quoted at the head of this paper he is expressly said to be the first of the twelve. "The first, Simon, who is called Peter." (Matt. x. 2.)

(2) The significance of this priority of order in the enumera

tion of names is fully borne out by the facts of the Gospel narrative.

(a) On the first introduction of Simon to Jesus, He gave to him a surname : "Thou art Simon, the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas;" and the sacred writer adds, "which is by interpretation Пérpos." What is the reason for a surname, and that too at the very first interview? Is it merely because Simon was a common name among the Jews of that day? No; because there was a distinctive appellation already, Simon, son of Jona, or Simon Barjona. In like manner, the other Simons had a designation, as Simon the Canaanite, Simon the Niger, Simon the Leper. The surname, then, was meant to confer a mark of distinction. And what is the import of this name? Our English version renders it a stone." The word may apply either to a fixed stone, which we call a rock, or to a loose

But when, in reference to Simon's noble confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," Jesus addresses him, "I say unto Thee, Thou art Пérpos," He is surely not using a word to denote instability. The word Пérpa does, indeed, specify a rock more particularly, but it is a feminine word, and would therefore be unsuitable as a surname for a man. (See Bengel on Matt. xvi. 18.)

And

(b) "And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishers. And He saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. they straightway left their nets, and followed Him." (Matt. iv. 18-20.) We find, then, that having returned from Judæa, and come to their home in Galilee, they had resumed their occupation. There is a more full account of their call, with that of James and John, in Luke v. 1—11; but a close attention to the two narratives leads to the conclusion that they refer to two different occasions. 1. It is not said, either in Matt. iv. 20 or 22, that they forsook all, as it is in Luke v. 11. The disciples of Jesus, who were not of the number of the twelve, doubtless continued in the labours of their callings. is only said of the twelve, that they forsook all. Compare Matt. xvi. 27 with ver. 28. 2. The narrative in Luke v. seems to indicate acquaintance with Christ and discipleship. Jesus enters into one of the boats, which is Simon's, and teaches the people out of the boat. And at the word of Christ, Simon, contrary to the impressions which his experience as a fisherman would lead him to entertain, launches out and lets down his net. Bat our purpose in quoting this narrative is to show how decidedly Peter is the leading man. He and Andrew are associated in business, but the boat is Simon's, and it is to Simon particularly that Jesus addresses Himself.

It

(c) "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, He saw his

wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever," &c. (Matt. viii. 14, 15.) The same event is recorded in Mark i. 29-31, and there it is said, "They entered into the house of Simon and Andrew." We see, then, that in their residence, as well as their business, the two brothers are associated, and Peter is still the prominent man. Possibly he was the senior; certainly he was married: but it would appear, from the face of the narrative, that his distinction is rather to be attributed to that energy of character which, in any society, gains a foremost place, and which, when sanctified, makes the man a leader in the service of Christ.

These things took place in Capernaum, which, during our Blessed Lord's public ministry, was "His own city;" and it is thought by some writers that the phrase, "He entered into Simon's house," means that He went there to live. This is, of course, uncertain; but the conjecture is interesting, and, if substantiated, would fully account for the greater familiarity manifested by Peter towards Jesus as compared with the other disciples.

(d) But what is more to our purpose," Simon, who is also called Peter," was the "first" of the disciples in learning the lessons of Divine grace which the Great Master taught. At the miracle of the draught of fishes all were astonished,-Peter, Andrew, James, John, and the hired servants; but it was Peter alone who, overwhelmed with self-abasement at the sense of the presence of the Pure and Holy One, "fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." When several of the disciples, other than the twelve, left Jesus on account of some sayings which were too hard for them, and He said unto the twelve, "Will ye also go away?" it was Peter who replied, "Lord, to whom should we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life;" showing how truly (we will not say fully) he appreciated the heavenly and saving character of the teaching of Christ. How prompt he was in his reply tothe question, "Whom say ye that I am?" giving the answer to which we have already had occasion to refer, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And our Lord's rejoinder tells how that conviction had been wrought in Peter's mind. His ears had not merely heard this truth from the human lips of Christ; his eyes had not only seen the evidences of it in the works of Christ, but it had been revealed to his understanding from on high: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Nathanael said, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God," &c., when Jesus presented to his astonished mind the evidences of his superhuman knowledge. The twelve, when they saw Jesus walking on the sea, said, "Truly, thou art the Son of God;" but Peter expresses this truth, not on any extra

ordinary manifestation of knowledge or power, but as the permanent conviction of his divinely enlightened mind. In like manner, when Jesus asked him, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" his answer proves how perfect was Peter's conviction of the Divine omniscience of Jesus, "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee."

(e) Besides the distinction of the surname, there are several other marks of priority accorded to Peter by Christ Himself.

On the occasion of Peter's confession, "Thou art the Christ, &c.," Jesus proceeded to say, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shalt be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shalt be loosed in heaven." This latter part of the commission was repeated to the twelve: "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth," &c. (Matt. xviii. 18.) But we do not read that Jesus ever said to the twelve, "I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." The authority in the administration of the Church was to be shared by all the twelve Apostles; but the keys, denoting specifically opening and unlocking, were committed to Peter only. This was fulfilled when Peter opened the Gospel dispensation in its fulness; first to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, when he stood up before the multitude, and preached the Word in the power of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; and secondly, to the Gentiles, when he declared before Cornelius and his company the Word which God had sent, preaching peace by Jesus Christ. And here ended Peter's commission of the keys; for the door was opened to Jew and to Gentile once for all, and will remain open till time shall be no more.

There was no selection from the twelve to be with Jesus on any special occasion but Peter was in the selection. Peter, James, and John were the three disciples present with Him at the raising of the daughter of Jairus and the Transfiguration on the Mount, and were taken to watch with Him in the garden of Gethsemane. True, John, and not Peter, was especially "the disciple whom Jesus loved." But while John was the most beloved, we have many proofs that Peter was the most distinguished.

"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." (Luke xxii. 31, 32.) Jesus prayed especially for Peter: "I have prayed for thee." This, however, may have been with reference to his peculiar temptation and grievous fall. But He adds, "When thou art converted," or restored, "strengthen thy brethren;" thus recognising his priority, when by implication predicting his sin.