it is obvious, that if any thing of supremacy or power is to be gathered from names merely, their names were far more likely to bear that character than Peter's. To be a foundation stone in the spiritual building of the Church, was indeed honourable and important, but the thunders were the appropriate tokens of God's own presence on Mount Sinai, and were never appointed to wait upon any inferior being. Indeed their most common association in Scripture, is with the Word of God and the power of God. Thus, in the book of Job, (xxvi. 14) "Who shall be able to behold the thunder of his greatness?" Again, in the Psalms, (civ. 7) "At thy rebuke, (O Lord) they flee, at the voice of thy thunder they shall fear." Again, in the Apocalypse, St. John, beholding in vision the throne of God, (iv. 5) saith, that "from the throne proceeded lightnings and voices and thunderings." And again, (x. 3) the mighty Angel whose description is such as can only belong to Christ himself, (xi. 3) is said to "come down from heaven clothed with a cloud, and a rainbow upon his head; and his face was as the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire, and he had in his hand a little book open; and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot upon the land; and he cried out with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth, and when he had cried out, seven thunders uttered their voices." If, therefore, the circumstance of our Lord's giving names to his apostles, be indicative of privilege or favour, we see that he conferred a name on James and John as well as on Peter; and if power or authority is to be inferred from the signification of the names, it seems abundantly manifest that the supremacy would be, not on the side of him who was called a foundation stone, but rather on that of the sons of thunder.

Another class of passages is often adduced by the ingenious advocates of Roman supremacy, in which Peter appears thefirst to speak and to act, as if he were a kind of leader amongst the apostles. Now it is very true that he was the most for

ward, ardent, and hasty of the apostolic company, on many occasions. Some of these instances are to his praise, and some the contrary. As for example, that noted instance of his rashness, (Mat. xvi. 22, 23) where he undertook to rebuke his Lord, contradicting the express prediction of the Saviour by saying: "Lord, be it far from thee; this shall not be unto thee. But he, turning, said unto Peter: Go after me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me, because thou dost not relish the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.” In this text, truly, the Roman expositors of the Doway Bible admit that the language might be translated, "Begone from me," or as our version has it, “Get thee behind me," instead of "Go after me, Satan." I quote their own Scriptures, however, as I have promised, in order to do their argument all the justice in my power. But even when the passage is thus softened, it is abundantly plain that St. Peter acted with singular temerity, and received a proportionate rebuke. Nor was the besetting sin of the warm-hearted apostle cured, even by this sharp reproof. For again, in the night before the crucifixion, when our Lord kindly predicts Peter's approaching denial, he refuses to believe the warning, and proud in his own self-confidence, falls into the snare of the tempter, at the very time when he thought himself ready to go with his divine Master to prison and to death.

That St. Peter, therefore, should be a kind of leader amongst the rest, is nothing strange, when we behold these proofs of his ardent temper, and remember that he is also supposed to have been the oldest of the band, and perhaps the only one who was at that time married. But if this were all for which our Roman brethren contended, we should not think it worth while to dispute the matter. Any one that carefully reads the Gospels will see, indeed, that there was no regular leader, no appointed spokesman, and nothing like an order of rank or precedency established amongst the apostles, while their Lord

was with them. And yet, if it had been otherwise, what would it prove for Peter's supremacy? Absolutely nothing. He that occupies the first place amongst his equals, surely does not thereby assert that he has any authority over them. What dominion has the presiding judge of a court, or the foreman of a jury, or the chairman of a committee, or the fileleader of a band of soldiers, over those who act with them? Manifestly none whatever. Questions of authoritative rule and government are never placed on such a trifling ground as mere precedency, even in the offices of earth. How much less should we be willing to admit so weak an evidence of supremacy, amongst the apostolic ministry of the Gospel!

The next argument of Dr. Wiseman has more apparent force, namely, that our blessed Saviour promised to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that this promise imports dominion, and that it was given to him alone.

To this we answer, that the kingdom of heaven of which our Lord promised Peter the keys, signified the Church militant on earth, which is indeed the kingdom of heaven, because it consists of those who acknowledge the King of heaven for their Sovereign, whose Son is their Redeemer, whose Spirit is their Sanctifier, whose Word is their law, and whose promised glory is the recompense of their celestial reward. And thus we read of the application of the phrase continually. The kingdom of heaven is compared to ten virgins who took their lamps to meet the bridegroom, and five of them were wise, and five were foolish. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net cast into the sea, in which were bad fish as well as good. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a field, in which an enemy sowed tares among the wheat; in all which comparisons our Lord plainly points out the Church on earth, which contains the good and the evil, the true and the false; whereas the Church above, the new Jerusalem, will contain none but the holy and the pure. Again, the kingdom of heaven is

likened to a grain of mustard-seed, which, when it is sown, is the least of all seeds, but afterwards becometh a great tree, so that the fowls of the air can lodge among the branches: which points out the small beginning of the Church in the hands of the apostles, and its subsequent increase to its present magnitude. But neither the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the future world, nor yet the keys of the bottomless abyss, have ever been consigned to mortal hand. Hence, in our Lord's own description of the final day of account, it is not St. Peter but himself that occupies the throne of judgment; and the division of mankind into the two great ranks of the sheep and the goats, or the righteous and the wicked, is not made by the apostle, but by the angels of God. And in like manner we read in the Apocalypse, that St. John, in vision, beheld the Saviour, (1 ch. 17) and heard him saying, "Fear not, I am the First and the Last, and alive and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell." Again we read, (ch. iii. 7) "These things saith the Holy One and the True One, who hath the key of David: He that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth." Here then, we see, that the keys promised to Peter could only have been the keys of the Church below-the kingdom of heaven upon earth; since about sixty years after our Lord's resurrection, as all agree, the Saviour expressly declares to St. John, that the keys of death and hell, and the key of David, which is the key of heavenly glory, are in his own hands.

This being distinctly understood, we are prepared to interpret, without any danger of error, the precise character of the keys promised to Peter. For it is exactly tantamount to the apostolic power of establishing the Church, by preaching the faith, on which, as on a rock, the Church was founded; prescribing its laws, rules, forms, and discipline; opening the door of the Church in baptism, shutting it in excommunication, and

regulating it in every point of order which its prosperity required; for all of which, as has been already stated, the apostles had the special gifts of the Holy Ghost; and in all of which, although St. Peter and St. Paul undoubtedly held a certain pre-eminence, yet the power of the keys and the authority of the apostolate was one and the same.

The last allegation that requires notice, brethren, is the promise of our Lord, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, taken in connexion with the promise to build that Church on the rock-which rock our Roman Catholic advocate imagines to be the person of the apostle Peter, instead of the faith which he possessed. But it is perfectly obvious, that these words cannot afford any aid in settling the point in controversy. We all acknowledge that while the Church is built upon the rock, the gates or the powers of hell shall not prevail against it. The question whether the rock is Christ, or Peter, is the point at issue, and remains just as it was before.

I have now discussed the evidence of Scripture, on which Dr. Wiseman, in common with every Roman Catholic, rests the claim of St. Peter to be considered the prince, the pastor, and the ruler of the other apostles and of the whole Church of Christ. And the remainder of our lecture will be devoted to another class of passages, which to my mind, seem at war with their doctrine. I am, indeed, by no means free from fear, brethren, that so minute and prolonged an examination may weary you; but it should be remembered that the question is vital to the Church of Rome. In their esteem, this doctrine constitutes a point of faith, which cannot be rejected without peril of damnation. And therefore, in love to them, and in Christian affection for their spiritual welfare, as well as in justice to our blessed reformers, we ought to feel a lively interest in all that belongs to the discussion.

In the first place then, we remark, that if the Church of our Lord was really designed to be founded on the person of