transferred to that tribe; so that the very possession, in fact, of the outward emblem, although unjustly possessed, was considered essential, as giving at the same time the authority it represented. Thus, therefore, our Saviour gives to Peter this very emblem, and all that authority over his kingdom which is or can be designated by receiving the keys of any material building or place. It follows, therefore, that the only interpretation that can be attached to this portion of the commission is, that a power and a jurisdiction was given to St. Peter over the whole of the church whose keys were delivered into his hands. The same must be said of the power of binding or of loosing. In whatever way we choose to interpret these words, whether as some have chosen in the sense of pardoning or of punishing, or in the sense of making laws more vigorous or abrogating them (for, in the language of the Jews, especially in the writings of the Rabbins, these expressions may be found in both of these senses), but whichever of them we adopt, it is manifest that the idea of power or jurisdiction is necessarily included in it.

The last commission given to St. Peter, is that of feeding the flock of Christ-a commission which certainly could have no signification but that of jurisdiction, and of supreme jurisdiction, because, to those who are educated, I am sure I need not state how universally the idea of a shepherd is connected in the language of olden times with that of being a ruler or a king. Even in the earliest profane writers, it occurs perpetually in this sense; and, in Scripture, we well know that to be a shepherd of God's people, is the same as to be a ruler thereof, and therefore St. Paul expressly tells the bishops of the church, those who are appointed over the flock of Christ, that they are appointed to rule over it.

But, to sum up the whole of this argument, if no jurisdiction, if no authority, if no power, but only an honorary pre-eminence, as some have said, was here given to St. Peter in these different commissions, I ask, upon what occasion was any jurisdiction ever given to any of the Apostles? If you will look through the whole of the New Testament, you will not find any expressions more strongly indicative of their having had any jurisdiction, than where they are called the foundation of the church; than where they are told to loosen and to bind, to forgive sins and to retain them. These are the passages upon which every church constitutes the basis, the authority it attributes to the Apostles, and through them to its rulers.

If in all these expressions, therefore, power and jurisdiction are given them, it follows that when the same expressions are applied to St. Peter, power and jurisdiction are necessarily given to him also. Thus far therefore, we have gained, that power and jurisdiction were given to St. Peter, and I would say, that that power was distinct from that given to the Apostles, from the manner in which it was given. It was given to him individually, because it was prefaced by a special change of his

name; it was given to him individually, because he was the one who gave the answer, which our Saviour said his Father in heaven had revealed to him. It was given to him in terms in which, as we shall see just now, it was never given to others, and it implies an universality of jurisdiction, inasmuch as the whole flock of Christ was committed to him. It implies an essential and necessary authority; inasmuch as it was made the very foundation on which the whole church was to rest. These qualifications, taken together, are assuredly sufficient to constitute the jurisdiction, and the supreme jurisdiction, of St. Peter.

There are two objections made to this reasoning of a very different character; the one is exceedingly weak, the other has some appearance of strength. The first denies at once the fact on which the reasoning is based; the other admits the fact, but denies the conclusions which are drawn from it. The first is one which has been proposed before, but which has been brought forward perhaps a little more speciously in modern times. It is said that, not St. Peter, but that our Saviour was the rock mentioned in the text. It must be observed that his opinion must be clearly distinguished from one occasionally mentioned in the ancient fathers; that is to say, that the confession of Peter was the rock on which the church was to be built. To prove how essential the doctrine, which Peter here explained, was to be considered, it was assumed, that when our Saviour said to him, "Thou art Peter, and upon this ock I will build my church;" he did not mean the person of Peter as eparated from the doctrine or confession, but that it was the religion the church was to be based upon-the dogma, by always so living, so acting in the person of Peter. It will be found that those fathers, especially St. Austin, who makes use of this in writing against those who deny the Saviour to be the Son of God, as often, more often, perhaps, than any others, is most explicit upon the authority and jurisdiction which it confers on St. Peter. Consequently, when these fathers are quoted for the authority that our Saviour was the rock and not St. Peter, there is a perfect misunderstanding both of their object, and of their reasoning. But without entering further into that point, which would lead us into an examination of the various passages in the ancient writers, let us take the question upon its own merits, and especially in dealing with persons who profess to follow only Scripture itself as a guide, and who, consequently, must interpret primarily by those evidences which can be drawn from itself.

Our Saviour says, "Thou art Peter;" that is to say, a rock: "Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build." If that sentence were to be addressed to any one here present, could he by possibility conjecture that the rock mentioned in the second portion of the sentence was not the same as that addressed in the first? Is it possible, according to all grammatical forms of language, to connect two members of a sentence

more closely, or to point out more clearly, that the same individual is alluded to in both members of the sentence. To explain this, therefore, it is supposed (and I am referring in this instance to a pamphlet written expressly on this subject, by the Bishop of Salisbury,) that our Saviour, when he had spoken the first part of his sentence, and said "Thou art Peter," that is a rock, then pointed to himself and said, "Upon this rock I will build my church." In the first place, perhaps many are not aware that that frightful system of biblical interpretation which has completely corrupted the scriptural scholars of Germany, is grounded precisely upon that system of interpretation which assumes that you are authorized to fill up in your mind chasms, as it were, in the narrative, and to suppose our Saviour's actions, looks, and attitudes; and by means of this rule, every miracle in the New Testament has been got rid of and pronounced to be no miracle whatsoever. If you were to read, for instance, the explanation given of the raising of Lazarus by some of these writers and learned men, you would find that the means which they take to attempt to disprove this miracle, is by supposing that there our Saviour looked this way, that in that case he pointed to such an object, and they supply a few words omitted in the text, and, consequently, having a right to supply in this manner, they can interpret scripture just as they please. What authority-if the Scripture is to be our guide— can there be for supposing that our Saviour addressed a part of the sentence to Peter, and in uttering the other part pointed to himself, and consequently meant himself? It is obvious, that if such a principle be allowed, that there is no text of Scripture safe from this method of interpretation. But the fact is, it is in itself essentially absurd; because, what can be the meaning of our Saviour changing Peter's name, to designate that He (Christ) was the rock-the foundation of the church. What connexion would there be between the question put to him, and this consequence for it? Would not Peter have a right to expect from the solemn preface that something was going to be given to him, and that he was to be rewarded for it? And what reward was it that he was to receive a name, which meant nothing whatsoever, and which could not even be given him for the purpose of showing what Christ was? And in the same manner you may say of all the other instances where names were changed. You may say that, when the first part of the sentence was addressed to Abraham, "Thou shalt no longer be called Abram, but Abraham; for I have made thee a father of many nations"that the angel then turned to some one else present, for instance, to his son Ishmael, and, addressing himself said, "I will increase thee exceedingly." It is evident, from the connexion which exists between the first and second portion of the sentence, that it is violating all propriety in language, even to propose such a supposition.

The second objection that is made has more speciousness about it,

and I am not surprised to have noticed that the greater part of modern Protestant commentators, and a great many writers on this subject in opposition to our doctrine base their interpretation of the passage almost exclusively upon the objection which I am going to state, and consider this as the essential reason why no jurisdiction, no authority, was given to St. Peter above the other Apostles. St. Peter, we say, received a variety of commissions; he was appointed the foundation of the church, to him was given the power to feed the flock, and to him was given the power of binding and of loosing. Now, every one of these commissions was given besides to all the twelve; consequently, whatever was given to Peter individually in the one case, was afterwards granted in the commission given, for instance, in the eighteenth chapter. In the general commission to the others, and after that, he was only upon a level with all the rest. St. Peter is called the foundation, and so we are told there are twelve foundations to the Holy Jerusalem, and upon them are written the names of the twelve Apostles. St. Paul tells us, we are founded upon the Apostles, and they are therefore the foundation equal to Peter. Power is given to them to feed the flock; they were the shepherds; they were appointed to rule the flock of Christ, and no one can doubt that consequently they are in the same condition as Peter, and Peter was consequently reduced to their level. The same must be said of the power of binding and of loosing, which was no less given to them two chapters later. Thus, even acknowledging that Peter received special authority and jurisdiction, he afterwards was put on a level with the rest, by the same privilege being communicated to them all." This, as I said before, is a specious argument, and I am anxious, not simply to answer it as an objection, but to draw from it the best, and I think the strongest, proof in my favour.

It is said, because the commission given individually to Peter was afterwards given to all, Peter therefore received no more than they did. Let us go to other cases in Holy Scripture, and see if we argue upon them in this manner. What will be the best criterion? The best rule to discover any fallacy in our reasoning upon one passage of Scripture is to examine others and see whether, on their contents, we find it practicable to reason in the same way. For instance, we find our Saviour repeatedly inculcated to all his hearers, to all the Jews, to all his disciples, the necessity of following him only. "He that followeth me, walketh not in darkness. All must take up their cross and follow me. The sheep must follow the shepherd, and hear his voice." When, therefore, you read of our Saviour addressing Peter, and the sons of Zebedee separately, saying to them, "Follow thou me;" did it ever occur to you to argue, that because precisely the same commission, precisely the same command had been given to all his hearers, that they therefore were not expected to follow him in a distinct and especial manner, and in a per

fectly different order from the others? When again you read in Scripture that the Saviour loved the Apostles, that he tells them he will no longer call them servants, because they are his friends; when he tells them that a man cannot show greater love to another than what he is going to show to them, that is, to lay down his life for them, and when, therefore, St. John tells you," This is the Disciple whom Jesus loved," or calls himself simply, "the Beloved Disciple," do you argue that as Christ loved all the rest, therefore, by this expression it could not be meant that any special love, any superior affection was shown to John, from what was exhibited and felt towards all the others? Once more, our Saviour gave a general commission to all his Apostles to go and preach the Gospel to every creature, to go unto all nations, teaching and baptizing them. When you find afterwards, therefore, the Holy Ghost saying, "Separate to me Paul and Barnabas to the ministration of the Gentiles;" or when St. Paul himself calls himself "the Apostle of the Gentiles," is nothing there especially said of Paul and Barnabas, is there no other mission, no other deputation but what is given to the others altogether? Do you conclude that nothing more was given to him, and that St. Paul only arrogantly usurped the title of Apostle of the Gentiles, and that these Apostles had no more sanction and authority to delegate them as especially sent to their conversion than the others? Is it not evident that in every one of these instances you do not allow the circumstance of precisely the same commission, or mission, or authority, or any thing else, being given to the many, as was afterwards given to the few, to argue that nothing distinctive was given to the latter. Apply therefore, the same reasoning, and you will find, in like manner, that it does not follow that because the same commission was given to the others that was given to Peter, he had it in no higher distinction and degree than them.

But I said that I should wish to draw a strong argument in our favour from this circumstance. It is this-it is evident from these examples I have given you, and from many others which it would be easy to collect—and they would not bear one exception—it is evident we have a rule or canon for the interpretation of such passages, viz. that whenever we find a commission given to a body of men, and repeated distinctly and separately to one, then we are to conclude that it was given to that one in a distinct manner, and in a higher degree than to the rest. If, therefore, the Apostles received for their commission, jurisdiction and authority to rule the church, Peter received distinct jurisdiction and authority of a superior order, of a more intense degree than was given to them, and, consequently, his authority was supreme.

Such, then, my brethren, are the scriptural grounds upon which we rest the superior authority or supremacy of St. Peter; and, in consequence, we find that he is always spoken of as the first of the Apostles,