But, you will ask, is it not impossible for the Church of Christ to err, when Jesus has declared "he will be always with it?" This leads us to the foundation of your system, and to inquire, in the first place, into the reasons for your belief, that the Roman Catholic Church, with the Bishop of Rome, or the Pope, at its head, is the Church of Christ; and, consequently, free from essential error. Your belief as Roman Catholics is, that our Lord committed his Church to the government of St. Peter, and as the Bishops of Rome claim to be the successors of St. Peter, that this charge continues to them; and thus the Church of Christ is identified by you with the Roman Catholic Church. That, as a consequence of that privilege, all those who separate from her, and do not submit to her authority, peril their eternal salvation.

66

Your Church claims power over all others, as being under the charge of the Pope, St. Peter's successor. Where in the Word of God, do you find that the Church was placed under the government of St. Peter? Let us lay bare the foundation of this claim, and refer to Milner's "End of Religious Controversy," where we shall find the arguments in support of it put forward in the strongest and most forcible manner of which they are capable. "The strongest proof," as the learned Doctor states, of St. Peter's dignity and jurisdiction consists in that explicit and energetical declaration of our Saviour to him, in the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi, upon his making that glorious confession of our Lord's divinity, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,'" Matt. xvi. 16. Now take up your Douay Testaments, and open them at that chapter, and judge yourselves, whether this "strongest proof" of Milner's is sufficient to bear up the vast superstructure erected upon it. You will find at the 13th v., how our Lord began to question his disciples: "Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am ?” After hearing the various opinions of the people, some of whom said he was John the Baptist, and some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets; Jesus said unto them, "But

whom say you that I am?" Peter answered, and said, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answering, said to him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, son of Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee, that thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven."

66

I will build my Church upon this rock," said the Saviour. Not surely upon St. Peter; whom our Lord, in a few verses after this, calls "Satan." Not surely upon St. Peter; who denied, with oaths and imprecations, that he had any knowledge of our Lord, and thus for a time was separated from his Master's cause, Mark xiv. 71. Not surely upon Peter; whom St. Paul withstood to the face, Gal. ii. 11, because he was to be blamed; and countenanced erroneous doctrines; but upon his confession, that Jesus was the Christ, the anointed, the Son of the living God. The privilege of binding and loosing was not confined exclusively to St. Peter; for we find our Lord extending it to all his disciples, only two chapters after, Matt. xviii. 13, and thus making them equal to Peter, who thus lost his superiority, even supposing he ever possessed it. But as a reward for his being the first to confess that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, the keys of the kingdom of heaven were committed, in one sense, to him; and he had the privilege conferred upon him of being the first to preach the Gospel to the Jews, which he did upon the day of Pentecost, Acts ii. ; and to the Gentiles, when Cornelius the Centurion was converted, Acts x. 24; and thus the Gospel, which signifies "the kingdom of heaven," was unlocked to both Jews and Gentiles by Peter.

Now, the very nature of this privilege shows it was not to descend upon those who claim to be his succes

sors-namely, the Bishops of Rome. The privilege was his being the first to preach or unlock the Gospel to both Jews and Gentiles, and, therefore, when that was accomplished it could not be repeated by a suc

cessor.

But, perhaps, you may inquire-Did not our Lord commit the lambs and sheep of his fold three several times to Peter, and did he not then, as mentioned by St. John xxi. 17, confer on him the supremacy over his entire Church, both clergy and laity, represented by the sheep and the lambs ? We say, open your Douay Testaments at the above-mentioned chapter, and let the text speak for itself. We must remind you that this conversation occurred after the resurrection of our blessed Lord. Upon a former occasion, as is recorded by St. Matthew xxvi. 33, Peter had declared, "Though all men should be scandalized in thee, I will never be scandalized"—that is, as explained by the note in the Douay Testament, "shall never be scandalized by his running from, and forsaking his Master," when he was apprehended by the chief priests and scribes; and we know in what a melancholy way Peter broke that promise and denied his Master. It was, therefore, considered necessary by our blessed Lord, to restore Peter again to his apostleship, from which he had apostatized; and, as Peter had denied our Lord three times, so, in this passage, he is three several times restored to his ministry.

We find this view of the subject fully borne out by the message given to the women, Mark xvi. 7, by the angel-"Go and tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee." Here Peter* is not

called a disciple-he is specially named after the disciples, as if to mark how he had forfeited all claim to that office, not merely by forsaking our Lord, for that they all did at first, and St. John is the only one who returned and remained with his Master to the last, but on account of his denial. Our Lord, therefore, in the

* The surname "Peter" is still given him, to prevent his utter despair of being forgiven.

exercise of his infinite mercy, sent specially for Peter to restore him to his office of feeding his flock, in common with the other apostles. "When they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter-Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these ?" John xxi. 15. In thus addressing him he wished to remind him of the vain presumptuous manner in which, in the above-mentioned instance, Matt. xxvi. 33, he had boasted of his own attachment and fidelity, at the expense of the other disciples. He does not now call him " Peter,” signifying the stone, of which title his unsteady conduct proved him to be utterly unworthy, but his own proper name, "Simon, son of John or Jonas." Peter, having been since taught a bitter lesson respecting the folly and sinfulness of self-confidence, answers with humility, no longer making comparisons between himself and the other disciples, "Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee." He saith to him, "Feed my lambs." He saith to him again, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me ?" Peter again replies, "Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee." He saith to him, "Feed my lambs." He saith to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?" Peter was grieved, because he said to him the third time, "lovest thou me;" and he said to him, “Lord, thou knowest all things-thou knowest that I love thee." He said to him, "Feed my sheep."

If any exclusive honor or privilege were conferred here upon Peter, must not Peter have been aware of it, as having heard the words of our Lord addressed to him personally? and, certainly, the other apostles had also, we may reasonably suppose, better opportunities of understanding our Lord's meaning than the comparatively modern aspirants to, and supporters of, the supremacy of the Roman Church. Why was he grieved when our Lord proposed the question to him the third time, instead of being elated with joy at this universal authority being conferred upon him? He was grieved for either one of two reasons, or, perhaps, he was influenced by both particularly by the latter: either he felt that our Lord doubted his sincerity, notwithstanding

his profession of love to him; or that, when the question was proposed to him the third time, he then, and not until then, understood that it had reference to his having denied our Lord three times; and, although he wept bitterly, as the Evangelist tells us, when "the Lord turned and looked upon him," still this was more a feeling of sorrow and regret at losing so kind a master, and of his ingratitude towards him. But Jesus now speaks to him in a different character. He has now risen from the dead, and Peter's feeling of humiliation and self-condemnation must have been, if possible, increased, when he knew the real character of that Jesus whom he had renounced by denial.

Why, if this be not the true sense of the passage, should Peter have been questioned three times, and the last time have felt grieved? But only three verses farther on we find a passage, which proves beyond the possibility of doubt, that Peter was to exercise no authority over the other Apostles. When Peter asked a question concerning St. John, the beloved Apostle, and said, "Lord, and what shall this man do?" Jesus saith to him, "If I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me:" thus openly rebuking him for presuming to interfere with John in the exercise of that commission which all the Apostles received only from the Saviour himself, and which they held, each independently of any other authority but that of their Divine Master. Matt. xxviii. 18-20.

In

I will now bring before you a few of those passages from the Holy Scriptures, which show clearly, how your Church is misleading you upon this matter. Matthew xviii. 1, and coming immediately after that conversation held with Peter in chap. xvi., we are told, "At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Who, thinkest thou, is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" Why did not the disciples, who were present at the former conversation with Peter, chap. xvi., understand it as giving the supremacy to Peter, and then there would be no necessity for proposing this question to our Lord; or, if they could possibly have been so