grieved because Jesus said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?"-So far from conceiving from these words the idea of an appointment to superior authority, he felt them to be a solemn rebuke. The reiterated inquiry reminded him of the sad night in which he had thrice denied his Lord and Master. The manner in which the question was first put conveyed a humiliating allusion to the self confidence he had shown, when he boastingly said, in reply to the solemn affirmation, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night," "Though all men forsake thee yet will not I." As if intending to recall this fact to his memory, Jesus now said to him, "Simon son of Jonas lovest thou me more than these?" The threefold repetition of the question, corresponds with the three-fold denial. Had the Saviour designed to confer on Peter the authority claimed for him and his successors by the church of Rome, he would no doubt on this occasion have expressed his command in terms too explicit to allow of mistake or dispute. The recent failure on the part of the disciple, rendered this especially desirable; for how could he who had been so signally humbled in the presence of his brother apostles, and in a case in which he had seemed to challenge their respective merits, henceforth assume distinctive and supreme dominion over them, without indubitable proof of having received his appointment from their common Master. Peter well understood the

import of the solemn charge now addressed to him upon his restoration. At a subsequent period, in the discharge of the office assigned to him, we find him delivering a similar exhortation to the bishops of the several churches of the dispersion. The terms in which he describes himself and the persons he admonished, entirely exclude every thought of superiority. The elders who are

among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. 1 Pet. v.

1.

Having shown that the few passages of Scripture usually advanced in favour of the supremacy of Peter are not sufficient to sustain it, we shall now proceed to show,

1st, That the whole tenor of subsequent Scripture history is against such an hypothesis. The first fact peculiarly worthy of attention, is the result of the application made by the mother of James and John on behalf of her sons. This memorable event is minutely described by Matthew xx. 20-28, and Mark x. 35-45. The mother

* The Greek word Episcopos signifies an overseer, an inspector or superintendant-the word Presbyteros literally an elder. The apostle here evidently uses both terms as applying to one office, for he exhorts these presbyters or elders, saying, "Feed the flock of God taking the oversight." Episcopontes the episcopate, v. 2. From this it would appear that no kind of supremacy was either claimed or recognized by the apostles. The bishop of the New Testament was evidently no lordly prelate, but simply the humble pastor, or one of the pastors of a single church.

of Zebedee's children came to Jesus, evidently anticipating the early establishment of a temporal kingdom, and intreated that the highest stations of honour might be conferred upon her two sons. When the other disciples heard of it they were moved with indignation, not because they regarded it as an attempt to supplant Peter, but from the jealousy awakened by the strange proposal of any kind of supremacy. Upon this our Lord called the twelve to him; and far from telling them that either of them should enjoy any such distinction, he said, "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them: But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." v. 25-27. We can scarcely read this lesson, without feelings of astonishment, that systems so contrary alike to its letter and spirit should have developed themselves in connection with the Christian church.

2nd. The manner in which the affairs of the primitive church were transacted, is utterly inconsistent with the existence of such an authority. Immediately after the ascension of our Lord, it was considered desirable to supply the place of Judas; and on this occasion, Peter instead of making the appointment, as one possessing the power of a modern Pope would have done without even

consulting his brethren, proposed to the several members, they being in number about one hundred and twenty, the election to the office of one of their number; the church nominated two, and after prayer for direction one was ordained. When deacons were required to manage the temporal affairs of the community, Peter did not appoint them, but the twelve called the multitude of the disciples together, and said, "Brethren, look ye out from among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business." Acts i. 15-26; vi. 1-3.

3rd. No allusion is made to any such supremacy, when the sacred writers are enumerating the several offices instituted in the Christian church. The 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 12th chapter, contains a minute description of the church, under the metaphor of a human body and its various members. The church is called the body of Christ, not of Peter or the Pope, and its unity is placed in one Spirit, one Lord, one God, and not in one human vicarious head. All believers are numbered with the members. Apostles are called members in particular, they are even described as standing first. If then Peter was the universal head, it was not as an apostle, and if not, then in what sense, or under what name? In the Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 4, the same subject is largely discussed; Of the Lord Jesus Christ, as

the ascended head of the Church, it is said, "He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers. For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, &c. v. 11 and 12. No better opportunity could be expected, for a full description of the qualifications and powers of this universal vicarious superintendent-but we read only of Christ the Head-and apostles and others members.

4th. From the manner in which the apostle Paul addresses the Corinthians on the subject of their divisions, we may safely infer that no superior to whom an appeal could be made was recognized. Some said, "I am of Paul," others "I am of Apollos," and others "I am of Cephas," and another "I am of Christ." How easy would have been the solution of every difficulty, by referring the case to the Vicar of Christ upon earth: but the apostle instead of telling them they must all unite in acknowledging the supremacy of Peter, powerfully reminds them of the allegiance they owed to Christ, by asking, "Is Christ divided, was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul"? 1 Cor. i. 12, 13.

5th. A strong proof that no superiority was allowed to Peter by the other apostles, is afforded by the account the apostle Paul gives of his own conduct to him at Antioch. Writing to the Galations he says, "When Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face, because he was to be