transaction. How are we to account for this? It was no new thing to say, that Christ is the foundation of the church, and that he would not confer that honour upon any man; but it would indeed be a new thing to state that Christ is not the foundation of his church, having conferred that high dignity upon another. But I will grant the advocates of infallibility all that they claim. We will suppose that the passage does refer to Peter's person, and confers infallibility upon him, and also that the Church of Rome is founded on his person. Still, I want to know, what do these concessions effect for the Church of Rome? For, before I can acknowledge the claim, I require that certain points shall be fully proved. Romanists must prove-1. That St. Peter had a line of direct successors to his peculiar power: 2. That he was an apostle superior to the other apostles; and, · 6. To sum up all on this point: the apostle might, with propriety, be styled, Petros, (Peter,) owing to his confession of that fundamental doctrine, The Messiahship of Jesus, on which Christ determined to build his church.' "Thou art Peter, and I have so called you, because on the doctrine, which you have now confessed, I will build my church, as on a rock.' The solidity of a rock is an emblem, not of St. Peter, for his firmness was shaken, and, for a time, overthrown; but of the eternal stability of the gospel and its covenant. The gospel is an 'everlasting gospel.' The covenant of grace is an everlasting covenant.' Heaven and earth shall pass away, but the words of Christ shall not pass away.' The words, then, Petros and Petra, have a relative meaning; and in that relation consists the propriety of the name given to St. Peter. But the two words, when used in the same sentence as here, are necessarily distinguished from each other, and therefore must have their appropriate meanings; so that Petros cannot here mean Petra. With this distinction in view, it should ever be remembered, that our Saviour neither says, Thou art Petra, and on this petra I will build my church; nor on this petros I will build my church. And the reason is obvious; for petros, as distinguished from petra, being incapable of any other meaning than a stone, the church could not be said to be built on petros, a single stone; but either on many petri, which compose the foundation; or, on the rock which sustains them."—Bp. St. David's Tracts, p. 14.—ED. 3. That his successors were superior to those of the other apostles. But we will suppose these points fully proved. There is yet a further difficulty: According to Romish tradition, Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he became Bishop of Rome. Then he must have had two lines of successors; one at Antioch, the other at Rome. I wish to know which of these inherited his infallibility. Am I to take the Antiochan or Roman line? It would be only justice to give the inheritance to his first successors, at Antioch. But we will suppose that St. Peter had successors at Rome who inherited his infallibility. There are yet other questions you must answer me, before I can acknowledge the claim you make. Is that succession unbroken? Have you had no schisms? Have you had no heresy? Have you had no profligacy? Have all your popes been men of God? My dear brethren of the Church of Rome, the safest course for you to pursue is, to apply yourselves to the prayerful study of the Bible, which you acknowledge to be the word of God. True, you may say, but there is another word of God. Be it so but if the written word of God prove a church to be false, tradition, or the unwritten word, cannot prove it true. Let us, then, be thankful that "we have the more firm prophetical word." Let us fly from all human authority, and "search the Scriptures;" for they will teach us all that is necessary for salvation; and may we all join from the heart in the confession of St. Peter: "Thou art Christ, the son of the living God." I had nearly omitted mentioning a circumstance respecting the confession of St. Peter. When we give an explanation of Matt. xvi. 18, Roman Catholics say: That is Protestant authority. Remember, they add, that we were in being for upwards of 1000 years before your forefathers protested against what you call the errors of Popery. They ask, What did the fathers think of that passage? We will go to the fathers. Now, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose, Hilary, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Augustine, St. Jerome, all agree with Protestants in explaining the passage as referring to the confession of Peter. I shall read you one or two extracts from St. Chrysostom, who flourished about a.d. 400, and from St. Augustine, who was Bishop of Hippo, in Africa, A.D. 410. St. Chrysostom writes: He did not say upon petros, for he did not found his church upon a man, but upon faith. What, therefore, means upon this petra? Upon the confession contained in his words And I say unto you, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; that is to say, upon the faith of the confession. Chrysostom knew Greek too well to refer taute te petra to su ei petros. St. Augustine writes: This rock means not Peter, but Peter's confession. The church was built, not on the man, but on his faith, that is the meaning of the word rock. God built not his church upon men; God has built you upon him, not himself upon you, &c. Who could the church be built on? Surely, not on men, but upon CHRIST." He 7, Gildas, surnamed Sapiens, or the Wise, and Badonicus, from the battle of Baden, or Bath, about the time of his birth, A.D. 520. He was a well educated man, a monk of Bangor, and is said to have visited and laboured some time in Ireland. spent some time in the northern parts of Britain, visited France and Italy, and returned and laboured as a faithful preacher.— Murdock and Soame's Mosheim.-He is the earliest British historfan on record, and lived and wrote before the mission into SERMON IV. 1 THESSALONIANS V. 21. "Prove all things: hold fast that which is good." WE proceed to consider the claim for infallibility in the second point of view, as a question of fact. If infallibility were conferred in the words: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," it is impossible that the primitive church should have been unacquainted with the fact. But the primitive church knew of no such grant; for if you examine the writings of the early fathers, you will find that they make no mention of the grant. Is it possible, that, if there were an infallible guide in the church, it should, for three or four centuries, never have referred to it. I think this is sufficient proof that there was no such thing as infallibility known in the primitive church. But I shall endeavour to shew this by the following facts: Gildas was a member 6 England of the Romish monk, Augustine. of the ancient national church of Britain. remarks on our Lord's words to Peter: Su art Peter," &c. It is said to the true priest, and upon this rock will I build my church.' unto every good priest: 'Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be likewise loosed in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be in like sort bound in heaven.'"—It is plain from these words, that the ancient national church of Britain neither held the infallibility of Peter's person, nor that infallibility in any form was conferred on the Church of Rome by Christ, when he addressed Peter, in Matt. xvi. 18, 19.-ED. moon. Polycarp been any We have Anicetus, a pious and excellent man, was Bishop of Rome, A.D. 157. An equally pious and excellent character, Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, came to Rome to visit Anicetus. Polycarp had conversed with apostolic men, and was peculiarly intimate with St. John, who had heard the words of Christ, which are claimed as the grant of infallibility conferred on St. Peter. having conversed with St. John, if there had mention of infallibility must have heard it. got the infallible head of the church in Anicetus, and in Polycarp we have got an apostolic man. They met together, and they differed in opinion: they differed also in practice; for it was the practice of the Eastern Churches to keep Easter on any day of the week it might happen to fall on. They used to keep it on the 14th day of the At this time they used to end their fasts; but the fasts of the primitive church were not like those which afterwards came into use. It was the custom of the earlier Christians to fast from the day on which Christ was crucified until the day on which he rose. Here, then, Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, and Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, differed; for it was the custom of the Eastern Churches to keep Easter, or to end their fasts on any of the week the Jewish Passover might fall on. In the Western Churches, in the Church of Rome, it was customary to celebrate it on Sunday. Any day to which the Jewish Passover might correspond was not celebrated until the Sunday after. Polycarp followed the custom of the Eastern Churches, and he said he followed the practice of the apostles, and particularly the practice of St. John, who observed it on any day of |