question settled beyond the possibility of successful controversy. But the reader certainly needs nothing more to satisfy him of the ground the writer occupies on this question. We will, therefore, waive any farther extracts relating to it.

1

It will not be expected that, in a brief review of so considerable a work, the main object of which is to expose its errors, and place its readers on their guard against incautiously imbibing them, we should enter the arena of controversy with the author, and answer his arguments in detail. This, from the very nature of the case, would require more scope than our plan will admit. Still there are a few things which claim a somewhat particular notice.

It is the author's evident aim to make his readers believe that the opposition of Protestants to his dogmatical assumptions respecting the primacy of St. Peter, is not the result of a sober conviction-that the evidence of the Scriptures is altogether against it— but "that papists support it;" and that it springs "from an ignorance of the true grounds of the great Protestant defense." There is, undoubtedly, more of vanity than ill will toward Protestants in all this, or it would be absolutely unpardonable in a writer professing himself to be a Protestant. Were he able to answer one of a thousand of the arguments advanced by those who have opposed this popish fable, (which he has so ardently espoused,) to prove it both unscriptural and absurd, there would be some show of decency in his ascribing their opposition to the single circumstance that papists support it. Intelligent Protestants never opposed this, nor any thing else, on that account merely. Papists support the doctrine of the trinity, and other important truths which are taught in the Scriptures, which Protestants never thought of denying on that account. Nor do they reject the supremacy of St. Peter, or any other dogma of Romanism, merely because the papists support it; but purely because the Scriptures do not. The great Protestant defense is the word of God. To this the advocates of the Reformation have appealed from the beginning. And it is a reflection upon both their intelligence and their sincerity to insinuate that they have abandoned or changed this ground of defense for any purpose whatever. Such a reflection comes with a bad grace from a Protestant writer; and it is the more pernicious, because it implies a concession which may be wielded to great advantage against the Protestant cause by its ever vigilant enemies.

The reader will perceive that our author builds his argument in favor of the "divinely appointed pre-eminence" of St. Peter upon the declaration of our Lord to him, "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock will I build my church," &c. He maintains that the plain common-sense interpretation is, that by the words, "this rock," Christ meant Peter,-the same as if he had said, "Thou art Peter; and upon thee, Peter, will I build my church," &c. Had he said so, the question would have been settled in a way to admit of no dispute. And had he so intended, we hesitate not to believe that he ought to have said so, and would have said so. But that he did not intend so to be understood, and that Peter himself did not so understand him, is rendered evident by every view of the subject which an impartial mind is capable of taking. On the text, "Thou art Peter," &c., we invite the attention of the reader to the thesis of the pious and learned Grenville Sharp, as contained in a tract, the substance of which Dr. Adam Clarke has inserted into his Commentary at the end of his notes on the 9th chapter of St. Luke's Gospel. It is a triumphant refutation of the assumptions of Romanism, for which our author manifests such a singular partiality.

6

"The principles of syntax," says the writer, "require that the words, this rock,' should refer to some substantive already expressed." This he seems to think conclusive in support of his position. Will he inform us to what substantive "already expressed" the words of our Lord referred, when he said to the Jews, "Destroy this temple, and after three days I will raise it up again?" The evangelist says, "He spake of the temple of his body." But where in the connection had this been already expressed? Nowhere; nor is there an intimation in the record which would lead to any other conclusion than that he meant the Jewish temple, in which he was at the time, and from which he had just driven those who sold oxen, &c. Mr. Wesley supposes that he pointed to his own body when he uttered the words "this temple ;" and that he did the same when he said, "On this rock will I build my church," &c. However this may be, it is certain that, in the first case, the disciples understood him to mean "the temple of his body; and equally as certain that, in the second, they understood him not to mean Peter, our author's syntactical difficulty notwithstanding. The fact is, what the author says the principles of syntax require,

they do not require, as every schoolboy knows. The matter referred to by the emphatical definitive is sometimes implied in the discourse, or indicated by the action or intonation of the speaker, so as to be perfectly understood by his hearers without being previously expressed at all. Such was the fact in the declaration of our Lord respecting the temple, above referred to. Similar cases might be multiplied without number.

See Mark ix, 7, "And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son; hear ye him." This is all the mysterious voice uttered; and it contains no substantive expressed either before or after the definitive. What is there, except the sense, gathered from the whole subject as stated by the evangelist, to assure us that Moses or Elias, (last named before the occurrence,) or even Peter himself, was not intended? See also Acts ii, 16, "But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel." What? The sense only can determine. From that we conclude that it was the subject of the wonderful manifestations then witnessed, which filled the minds of all present, and was, therefore, the matter of discussion. But by what antecedent noun was this expressed? Again, in the 27th verse of the same chapter it is said, "When they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts," &c. Heard what?-discourse, doctrine, truth, declaration? But there was no such abstract noun as discourse, doctrine, truth, or declaration, previously expressed in the sentence or its connection. The word this evidently refers here to the subject-matter of Peter's sermon, as it was distinctly impressed upon the minds of those who heard it. But why multiply examples which are to be met with in all parts of the Scriptures? This criticism of the author on the grammatical construction of the passage, though it may have settled the question in his own mind, will hardly convince others of the correctness of his thesis. It is puerile and absurd.

We said above, that the apostles, that is, the eleven, did not understand our Lord as applying the words, "this rock," to Peter. That they did not so understand him is evident from the fact, that they never, by word or deed, acknowledged the supremacy with which, had they so understood Christ, they must have considered Peter invested. Their entire lives furnish the most indubitable evidence of continual hostility to this act of the Saviour, and an obstinate refusal on their part to submit to it, if they understood his

declaration to mean what is alleged by the advocates of supremacy, namely, "That St. Peter, by our Lord's appointment, had a primacy, implying a sovereignty and jurisdiction over the apostles."

Nothing is more evident from the Scriptures than that there was no office above that of an apostle, and that all the apostles considered themselves equal in authority and jurisdiction. "This," saith St. Chrysostom, "was the greatest authority, and the top of authorities. There was none before an apostle, none superior, none equal to him." Mr. Barrow has shown, by a vast number of references, that no particular administration was committed to Peter, nor any privilege conferred on him, which was not also granted to the other apostles. Of this any person must be satisfied who will take the trouble to examine these references. And there is no evidence that they ever surrendered any of their prerogatives to Peter, or considered him invested with any which they had not in common.

In the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, first and second verses, it is said, "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" Dr. Adam Clarke, in his note on this passage, says, "Could these disciples have viewed the kingdom of Christ in any other light than that of a temporal one? Hence they wished to know whom he would make his prime minister-whom his general—whom his chief chancellor— whom supreme judge, &c., &c. Is it he who first became thy disciple, or he who is thy nearest relative, or he who has most frequently entertained thee, or he who is the oldest, merely as to years? Could this inquiry have proceeded from any but the nine disciples, who had not witnessed our Lord's transfiguration? Peter, James, and John were surely more spiritual in their views! And yet how soon did even these forget that his kingdom was not of this world! See Mark x, 25, &c.; John xviii, 10, &c. The disciples having lately seen the keys delivered to Peter, and found that he, with James and John, had been privileged with being present at the transfiguration, it is no wonder if a measure of jealousy and suspicion began to work in their minds. From this inquiry we may also learn that the disciples had no notion of Peter's supremacy; nor did they understand, as the Roman Catholics will have it, that Christ had constituted him their head, either by the conversation men* See Barrow's Supremacy, &c., p. 51, † Ibid., p. 62.

tioned chap. xvi, 18, 19, or by the act mentioned in the conclusion of the preceding chapter. Had they thought that any such superiority had been designed, their present question must have been extremely impertinent. Let this be observed."

Neither did Peter understand our Lord as conferring on him the high prerogatives claimed for him by his pretended successors. This is evident from the consideration that he never presumed to exercise them. In the most weighty matters he only reasoned and counseled with his colleagues; never dictated to, or commanded them. Indeed, he was so far from directing them with respect to their labors and duties, that he, with John, cheerfully submitted to be sent by the other apostles to labor among the Samaritans. Acts viii, 14. And in the important council at Jerusalem, convoked to settle an interesting practical question respecting circumcision, which was greatly agitating the church, Peter was not even the first speaker, as there was much disputing before he rose; and when he took part, it was not the part of a judge or dictator, but of an humble reasoner, who brought his own experience and observation to bear with so much force upon the subject as to carry conviction to the minds of the rest; and James, acting as president of the council, after showing very clearly that Peter's reasoning accorded most perfectly with the words of inspiration, pronounced a decision in the case in these words, "Wherefore my sentence is," &c. Who can read this account, with others of a similar kind, and believe that Peter considered himself charged with supreme authority over the rest of the apostles; and that the whole church, or even the other apostles, so considered him? If he did, he was criminally guilty, not only in this instance, but throughout his whole life, of neglecting to discharge the functions of his high office; and if the rest did, they were equally guilty of a breach of the divinely instituted order and government of the church, in presuming to do without his authority and direction, and especially in his presence, what was by divine appointment committed to him exclusively.

That our Lord did not intend to be understood as conferring on Peter the authority and jurisdiction over the rest of the apostles which is contended for, is evident from the fact, that it would be in direct opposition to his own teachings on this subject. He took every occasion to impress upon the minds of the apostles, including Peter with the rest, that they were brethren, and had no individual