Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1836-01-21

eternal. Ii Is admitted that the twelve
apostles held place in the gospel church
which no other persons ever held; but it
Ms denied that Peter held supremacy
over the other apostles, or over the church,
any more than the other apostles. Had
this been the case, it is reasonable to sup
pose that our Lord would have given him
an explicit commission, defining his pow
ers, and commanding others to be subject
to his authority, &c But we find no
such commission, but much to the contra
ry, Matt. xix: %, Jesus saith to the
twelve, when the son of man shall sit upon
the throne of his glory, We also shall sit
upon twelve thrones Judging the twelve
tribes of Israel. Here we see no distn
gushing authority or honor conferred
upon Peter, or any one ofthem, but all are
placed on level Foreseeing that such
lordly pretensions would be made, ifnot by
Peter, yet by his pretended successor. in
after times, to check the very first rising
Of an aspiring disposition among his fol-
lowers, Jesus called them unto him and
said, "ye know that the princess of the
gentiles exercise dominion over Them and
they that are great exercise authority up
on them; but it shall not be so among
you, Matt. Xxx: He forbids his disciples,
either to call others master, or be called
so themselves Surel this does not look
like crowning Peter with sovereign au-
thority over the church of God, or giving
him the primacy over his brethren in any
sense.
2. As Christ gave no such commits
sion to Peter, so neither the other apostles
acknowledge any such Paul says, 2 Cor.
xii. IA, In nothing am behind the very
ch;efest apostles, though | be nothing"
This was not paying very high compIi-
ment to Peter more than himself. In an
other instance he withstood Peter to the
face; for he said he was to be blamed
Gal ii. IL. If Peter had claimed the
same power and infalliblity as the Roman
Pontiff, it is doubtful whether Paul would
| not have had to do penance for this; but
we learn nothing but that Peter bore ii
very patiently And not only the apostle
Paul, but the apostles and brethren that
were of the circumcision, contended with
him, saying, Thou wentest in to men un.
t circumcised, and did eat with them,-Acts
D xi. This was far from an acknowledge
0 ment of Peters infallibility OF superiority
any way.
!. g. Neither does Peter claim any such
: superiority.
p In his two general Epistles he styles
| himself an apostle of Jesus Christ. This
elders which are among you" saith he
: 81 exhort, who also am an elder" he
$ claims no prominence over other elders
I while he exhorts them, among other i'm
{ portant matters, not to lord it over God:
!. heritage, but to be examples to the flock
D And though he was an eye witness ofth'
majesty OF Christ, he cites them to more
e sure word of prophecy, viz. the scri ptures
V How different this from the style anc
: character ola naughty wretch who bias
: phemously claims to be the successor 0
= St. Peter Christ's vicegerent and Go.
@ upon earth. Now, although those prot
I" estants with whom l differ do not rails
i. Peter 50 high above his BRETHREN as tn
Re Roman Pontiff yet it appears to me the,
e place him where he is neither placed b.
l. Christ, by the other apostles nor by him
l. self And notwithstanding there is no sens
= in the Pope's claim to be Peters successo
# in office, any more than the Bishop of Lon
J. don, yetby his construction ofthis passage
is the minds of many uninformed protestant
y have been entangIed. 1.-THE above shal
Is have the effect to establish any minds i
At the truth it amply compensates
IL A PROTESTANT
" REMARKS.
E. The remarks of "a Protestant" were prob
70 ably elected by an article which appeared i
20 No. ofthe present volume ofthe Telegraph
E. on expository preaching, which article cor
a; tanned brief extract of discourse upon til
- passage Of Scripture which heads the for,
We going. 1t will be recollected that Ii
ne views of the former exposition were endorse
~ by us, at the time of giving them publicit
n We had what we called our reasons for
es doing, and, to US, they appear valid yet
d notwithstanding our great personal rega
he for " A Protestant" and the perfect CONGO
lat dance of views existing between him al
ad ourselves, in most of the material points
,,v morals and religion.
;s That our brother Cor rather father in
nd raeD should feel unwilling to have a CO
"a struction put upon any passage of Scriptu
,rd that would favor Romanism, is no matter
wonder; for nothing can be more abhorre
ter to Protestant-nothing is in itself more
,o No diculous, absurd and impious, than the p1
the tensions of these wicked men to infallibili
iv- and divine SUPREMACY. But nothing is 10
~" os in discussion. by allowing fair and obvc
e," construction of language, according to