LETTER IV.

I.-PAUL AND PETER.

It has always appeared to me quite evident, that Paul was wholly unconscious, that his beloved brother Peter was invested with the primacy, or was infallible in matters of faith. In fact, if such had been the case, I do not see, how any room could have been left for controversy or vain jangling in the infant church, or why there should have been divisions among them," when they need only have gone to the fountainhead, or living oracle, and would have found in the chief pontiff a guide, who "cannot err in decisions concerning the faith, because he is assisted by the Holy Spirit." This is broadly stated in Bellarmine's Catechism-and is asserted of the Popeconsequently of every Pope-consequently of Gregory VII., Innocent III., Sixtus IV. and V., Julius II. and III., and all the wickedest and most worldly-minded priests, who have ever occupied that antichristian throne. If true of them, it must, of course, have been true of Peter. Since none, who refuse to kiss the toe or slipper of Pius IX., and to acknowledge his supremacy, can enter the kingdom of heaven, surely, if Paul presumed to question the primacy of Peter himself, I should be glad to know, where he is likely to be at the present moment? If Paul was aware of the authority, with which Peter was invested, why is he not so much as named in eleven of his epistles, in which are some things hard to be understood, but nothing, I think, so incredible, or so incomprehensible, as his omitting all reference to so essential an element in the government of the church, (especially in his long and elaborate epistle to the Romans

themselves,) as well as to every other Popish tenet, which the Protestant churches repudiate? He never, but in two instances, alludes to " Christ's infallible vicar”—and on one occasion for the purpose, not of bowing to his authority, but of withstanding him to the face, in terms more adapted to Luther than to Loyola. If our Lord's declaration (Matt. xvi. 18), “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," was equivalent to investing him with a supreme jurisdiction, and also his successors (although no allusion is made to them), why did the very apostles, who heard this announcement proceed from his mouth, come to Jesus a few days thereafter and ask, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" (Matt. xviii. 1); and why, a very short time before the Lord's crucifixion, did they still regard this point as undecided, so that (Luke xxii. 24) there was a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest? and why did our Lord, in his reply, make no mention of Peter's already decreed supremacy, or rebuke them as being either dull of hearing, or slow of heart to believe? I cannot also refrain from observing, in connection with this subject, that, if Peter was selected by our Lord to enjoy the honours of the primacy in preference to the other eleven apostles, I should have expected that he, and not John, would have been designated as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Men are always apt to bestow the largest share of distinction and of confidence upon the individual, for whom they feel the greatest amount of tenderness and esteem. The fortunate co-heir, to whom a dying man bequeathes a large landed estate, and half-a-million in long annuities, may surely be designated as "the legatee whom the testator loved," rather than eleven other much esteemed, but less favoured, friends, to each of whom he leaves only ten shares in the Caledonian Canal, and fifty pounds each to purchase a mourning ring. Jacob had twelve sons, just as Christ had twelve apostles. The sacred historian tells us, that he loved Joseph more than all his

children; and he does not follow up this statement by declaring, that he made a coat of many colours, and gave it to Naphtali. All Israel's children were, I doubt not, very dear to him, but he gave the special mark of his affection to the one whom he loved best. Our Lord loved all the apostles-his selecting them to hold that high office is a most irrefragable proof of the fact, but he loved John better than the rest; and Peter himself was well aware of this, for on a very solemn occasion (John xiii. 21), when our Lord was troubled in spirit, and testified and said, “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me,” John, and not Peter, was leaning on Jesus' bosom; and instead of asking him a question directly, which, had he been the chief of the college, it would have been his privilege to have done, Peter beckoned to John, that he should ask, who it should be of whom he spake. It seems, therefore, strange, that our Lord should have conferred the sacred

vicariate upon the one, whom he evidently loved less than the other, and left the latter in a subordinate station. When Israel's other children saw that their father loved Joseph more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him. The apostles, during our Lord's personal ministry, were by no means deficient in selfishness or ambition. Would they not have manifested some jealousy of Peter, if they had understood our Lord's declaration as conferring upon him supremacy over them all? I believe that, when Peter emitted the memorable confession (Matt. xvi. 16), as our Lord had addressed the question, not to Peter, but to them all, "Whom say ye that I am?" the other apostles regarded Peter only as their spokesman, or, as it were, the foreman returning the unanimous verdict of a jury composed of twelve honest men, and that our Lord's reply was as much addressed to each of them as to Peter, as they had all arrived at the same conclusion, although he only had expressed it in the name and on the behalf of all. Flesh and blood had not

revealed to them, any more than to Peter, the great truth as to which they were all agreed, and they no doubt took it for granted, that each of themselves, as well as Peter, was to be a rock, and a partaker of the same powers and promises, a view, in which they must have shortly afterwards felt still more confirmed, when our Lord declared, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. xviii. 19), which announcement he repeated afterwards (John xx. 23.) It is surely not so far fetched an inference to suppose, as I do, that Peter's "equals and fellows" were included in the original promise, as to contend, with the Papists, that it was addressed to himself alone, and involved, in behalf of himself and of his successors in all time coming, a grant of universal and unlimited dominion?

Reverting to the sentiments of Paul, I ask, Why does he not refer any of the questions or cases detailed in the fourteen last chapters of the Acts, to Peter, who, being infallible (which Paul was not), must have been just the man he wanted, admirably fitted for "showing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, forasmuch as light, and understanding, and excellent wisdom were found in him?" When, however, Paul arrived at Corinth, he tells us, that there were contentions among the believers-one said, "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ;" and it is worthy of remark, that no one is represented to have said, "I am of Mary." Perhaps, indeed, the infallible vicar, whose sole foundation of hope is vested in Mary's merits, may draw a favourable inference from this very silence, and assert, that, however divided the church may have been in other matters, they were unanimous in their belief, that Barpanther's granddaughter was the Queen of Heaven and the Mother of God, and that they therefore said nothing on the subject. How strange that, even at that early period, so soon after the supreme authority had been delegated by our Lord himself to Peter, there should have been various sects and shades of