Jew and to Gentile; true, the power to remit and to retain, promised to him, was, when actually given, given not to him alone, but to all in one body; true, that in the same way the power to teach and to govern was given to all; yet these, they would say, are only special instances. But here we have the grand all-inclusive commission and bestowal of power and authority; the words that tell us who is to take up the mission and fill the place which Christ held on earth, and to be His authoritative representative. And if He says to St. Peter, "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I thee," then not Romanist only, but Greek and Anglican and all Protestants, must submit and confess that Christ's own authority and mission were continued in St. Peter.

However we

But now reverse the argument. may interpret the special passages which seem to speak of St. Peter personally; however we may ask whether in committing to St. John the care of that Blessed Mother whom Romanists now worship as Queen and Mistress of the Church, and its Divine Protectress, and as between Christ and His Church, our Lord did not make St. John the Church's guardian and leader; all these questions are set aside when we find that the summing up and concentration of all His own authority is given, not to any one, but to the gathered body of Apostles in an absolute equality. And so leaving, for

the present at least, the closer study of special texts, we may safely say that not one of the four inspired Gospel writers had any thought that St. Peter had been placed in supreme authority; for if they knew it, and failed to declare it, they must have been false witnesses for the truth of God.

But there is one incident most fully recorded by St. John, whose importance, I think, has been overlooked. Immediately after the three-fold "Lovest thou me?" and the answers, came that most tender and touching prediction to St. Peter of the martyrdom in which he was to be crowned, ending with the familiar bidding, "Follow thou me." I am sure no one can read this whole story and imagine for a moment that St. Peter had then any idea that it gave him pre-eminence. It was but an infinitely tender probing of his conscience, with an humiliating memory of his great recent sin, followed by the comfort with which the Lord's love would bind up the broken heart. But though St. Peter was not conscious of any such thought of pride, the natural impetuousness which so often grew into officiousness, burst into expression. Turning to St. John he asks, "What shall this man do?" The English here weakens the force. The Greek has but three words, δυτός δε τί?” "And this man what?" If St. Peter could have been thinking of responsibility over others, what a rebuke there was in the an

swer! "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me." "You have no lordship over him, no responsibility for him. What the other Apostles do, or are to do, is none of your business. Be content with your own. If

I will that your apostleship be short and that of this my beloved one shall far outlast yours, what is that to thee?" Instead of he bestowal of Primacy, it is its absolute and clear denial.

In answer to all this, it might be said that there are three staple texts which Rome urges in proof of her claim. The full analysis of them would be a study by itself. Was St. Peter, in person and personal office, the Rock on which the Church was to be built? or was that Rock the great truth of Christ's divinity which St. Peter was inspired to assert in words? It is hard to resist the desire to go into the matter fully, to show the distinction of gender between the Tέrpos, the stone, and the TÉTрα, the solid bed-rock from which the st ne is hewn or loosened; and how when Rome appealed from Greek to Syriac to show that in the language which some think Christ used, the word Cepha is used in both places without change of form, it was shown also that in its second use the accompanying pronoun is distinctly feminine, and so emphasizes the difference they would gladly do away with. I would like to stop and study St. Luke's "Simon, Satan hath desired to have thee

and to sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren "; and to show how perfectly it is explained, not as the bestowal of a special office, but as in pity for the Apostle who in his weakness was to fall so soon into denial, and so, more than the others, needed special prayer for him; and to study also the threefold "Lovest thou me?" with the threefold "Thou knowest that I love thee"; and the threefold. renewal of apostolic commission which by threefold denial had been forfeited. But it will be enough to emphasize the absurdity of believing that upon the foundation of texts so indefinite in their bearing upon the point at issue, and so di versely understood and explained by the first Christian writers, there could be founded a claim so exacting and definite as that of a divinely given, supreme authority. I will not keep you to study the texts. Think how definitely, distinctly, openly, unmistakably, our Lord called and ordained the Twelve; and in that which Rome would make the inferior act, with what words and acts of clear precision He gave them their office, named it, declared and defined its powers, enforced its full authority and assured them of its divineThere was no ambiguity in that. And to pass to the highest priesthood of all, think how it is written "No man taketh this honor unto him

ness.

self, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." Think how this is applied even in our Lord's case, who would not glorify Himself to be made an High Priest, but waited for that audible voice, "This is my beloved Son." And then think of the arrogance of those who, claiming to be successors of St. Peter, do what St. Peter never did and never would have dared to do. They do glorify themselves to be High Priests with no other warrant save those three most indecisive texts, to which the overwhelming voice of the early Church tells us they have no right at all.

Granting then, as we freely do, that up to the time of our Lord's Ascension St. Peter was in some respects a leader among the Twelve, Holy Scripture gives no other suggestion of reason for it than the simple facts that he was first called to the office in order of time, and that by qualities of natural forwardness he had what his brethren practically conceded, the capacity for leadership. It was purely personal. It was in no way official. He was simply an accepted leader among his equals in office and power. Rome itself, by the Archbishop and the Pope's approval of his work, acknowledges that so long as our Lord was with them on earth, there was no other Primacy but this. And we search in vain, after that, for any such clear designation or bestowal of authority as was demanded in every other divine call.