or to excuse themselves by a sufficient deputy. With such care is this vassalage enforced!

This being the true state of their doctrine concerning their Pope's supremacy, and that which I would call naked Popery, I am sure (to use the words of Dr Gee,) I have a commission from the Church of England (nay, from all Episcopal churches,) to declare that she cannot, without betraying the rights of all Bishops, and the interest of the Catholic Church, espouse the doctrine of the Bishop of Rome's supremacy, which we of her communion do believe is altogether without foundation, either in scripture or primitive antiquity. Gee's Vind. of Answer to Nubes Testium, 1688.

CHAP. II.

THE SUPREMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME CONFUTED FROM THE SCRIPTURES, WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE

APOSTOLIC METHOD OF PRESERVING THE UNITY OF

THE CHURCH..

THE Bishop of Rome claims a supremacy over the whole christian church, because it is pretended, that our Saviour made the apostle Peter the head and supreme governor of it. This we deny, having undoubted proofs, that all the apostles were placed by Christ in equal power and authority over his church*.

And here it must not be denied, that some of the apostles were superior to the rest, both in personal merit, and in order of place. Of these were "James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be pillars," (Gal.ii.9.) and were accounted "chief apostles," (2 Cor. xi. 5. xii. 11.) Farther, it is acknowledged by many of our divines, that Peter in general is preferred before the rest, and oftentimes acted as their foreman or prolocutor, at least for some time after Christ's ascension. This is attributed by some of the fathers to his being first called to be an apostle, or to his age; but it was most probably owing to his extraordinary forwardness and zeal. Whatever was the true

*Bishop Patrick's Examination of the Texts for the Supremacy; and his Sermon in Answer to Godden's Sermon on St Peter's Day, 1687. Bishop Stratford's Discourse, in answer to Clenche and Godden, 1688. Collins' Defence of Bishop Andrews' Tortura Torti, 1617.

reason, it is certain that nothing was founded on it but a mere priority of place, and that neither Peter nor any other apostle had any power or authority over the rest.

And here, in a matter of such infinite importance, and which they make the very "sum of christianity,” we might expect to meet, not only with the Bishop of Rome's name in scripture, but also the time and manner of his instalment, and the deed of conveyance to his successors, in the plainest and most significant terms. But they are not able to produce any such; the whole stress of the evidence is laid upon a few obscure and metaphorical passages.

The arguments, on which St Peter's pretended supremacy and authority over the other apostles is founded, are of two kinds: 1st, Such words of Christ as seem to imply or give this authority: 2d, Some great privileges granted.

I. Such words of Christ as seem to imply or give this power; and these are two texts, viz. Matt. xvi. 18.19.-John xxi. 15.-St Matthew relates, that upon St Peter's having confessed our Saviour to be the Son of God, Christ said to him, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, &c. and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven."Now, were we to consider this passage by itself, without adverting at all to what is its proper comment, the subsequent conduct of Peter and the other apostles, yet even then it would be difficult to contend, that our Lord's saying was to be applied exclusively to Peter. For the question which led to that, was put to all the apostles; and Peter when he answered must, according to fair construction, be con

sidered as answering in the name of all. There is nothing particular to Peter, but that he is addressed by name, and that to his name our Lord makes an 'immediate allusion.

As to what is meant by the word rock, which the Romanists interpret as making Peter the supreme governor of the church, it is plain that, 1st, there is no certainty Peter is meant by the rock, upon which Christ promised to build his church: Nor, 2d, if he were, that Christ intended, by calling him a rock, to invest him with supremacy over his church.

1. I say there is no evidence that Peter is here meant by the rock *. The whole text in dispute is thus exactly translated in the Latin Vulgate, according to the original Greek, Tu es Petrus, et super hanc Petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam. Now if Christ had said, Tu es Petrus, et super hunc Petrum ædificabo ecclesiam, it might have been of some service to support the supremacy of Peter; although even so, it would not have included his successors, who are here not so much as pointed at. But hanc Petram, being of

* Пεроs, Peter, does not mean a rock, as it has been incautiously translated, but a stone. Christ is the Rock (rpa,) Peter (Пerpos) is only a little piece of a rock, or a stone that has been dug out of the rock. Thus is the dignity of Christ preserved, and Peter properly kept at a due distance from him. The passage, therefore, truly means, Thou art Peter (or Cephas, both meaning a stone,) a fragment from that sacred rock (werpa, which thou hast confessed) on which I will build my Church.-This important remark I have extracted from the review (in the British Critic, 1812,) of a tract lately published on this very subject by Granville Sharp, Esq. entitled, Remarks on a passage (Matt. xvi. 18.) which has long been perverted by the Church of Rome, in support of her vain and baneful pretensions to a superiority or supreme dominion over all other Episcopal churches, 1812.

a different gender, most plainly shews that Petrus of Peter was not the Petra or rock, of which our Saviour speaks. The word Petra is never made use of to denote the apostle Peter. But, in its metaphorical signification, it is several times applied to Christ. And therefore, if, in the text now under consideration, it may fairly be so applied according to the connexion of the whole passage, it ought to be applied to Him rather than to Peter. Now, whenever St Peter is spoken of as a pillar or foundation of the church, it is never by himself, but always in conjunction with others, (Gal. ii. 9.-Eph. ii. 19. 20. 21.) but Jesus Christ is set forth unto us, as the single and sole foundation of his church, (1 Cor. iii. 2.-Eph. ii. 19. 20. 21.)— Let any man, therefore, read the whole context without prejudice, and compare it with other passages of scripture, particularly with those which I have now quoted, and it will plainly appear, that by hanc Petram, or this rock, our Saviour did not mean Peter himself, but only the Faith, of which he had just then made profession, which was, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is the fundamental principle of the christian church,-this is the sure foundation or rock upon which it is built: for "other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. iii. 11.)

This interpretation is countenanced by a large majority of the ancient fathers. Even they who apply these words to Peter, do not really differ from this exposition; for they had respect (in calling him the rock,) to his preaching the doctrine of Christ, and having the honour to be the first preacher of it to the Gentiles. And in this sense, even admitting Peter himself to be the rock on which the church was built,