tament which is even remotely favorable to that sovereign authority that the Romish theologians ascribe to St. Peter and to the bishops of Rome, whom they consider his successors.
It may be even said that Scripture formally contradicts this authority. We have already quoted some words of Christ sufficiently positive. The book of the Acts, and the Epistles contain facts demonstrating that St. Peter did not enjoy any superiority in the apostolic college. In fact, it is said in the Acts, (8:14,) "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." Peter was subordinate, not only to the apostolic college, of which he was a member, but to a lesser number of apostles in convention at Jerusalem; since he received from them a mission. In the same book, (11:2-3,) we read that the faithful of the circumcision reproached Peter for mingling with the uncircumcised, and Peter excused himself by relating that he had obeyed an express order of God. Is this the mode in which a chief is ordinarily treated, or that one supreme would act in relation to subordinates? At the council of Jerusalem, (Acts 15:7,) Peter was not presiding, it was James who gave sentence, (19th verse,) Peter spoke but in his turn as a simple member. Yet the presidency belonged to him by right, if he had been vested with authority and jurisdiction over the whole apostolic body. St. Paul (Epis. Galatians 2:7, etc.) refutes the primacy of Peter. He affirms that he is his equal, he relates having reprimanded Peter for "walking not according to the truth of the Gospel," (14th verse.) Again, he denies this (1 Corinth. 3:4, 5, 22) when he affirms that Peter is but a simple minister like himself, like Apollos, who must not attach the faithful to themselves, but only as ministers of Christ, their only Master. Finally, St. Peter himself denies the primacy with
