ther, that their teaching is even altogether opposed to that opinion, it will be admitted that it is only by a strange abuse of some of their words, taken alone and misconstrued, that the Romish theologians have sought to prop the papal authority upon their testimony.
St. Epiphanius taught the same doctrine as St. Hilary of Poitiers.[1] "Peter, prince of Apostles," he says, "has been for us as a solid stone, upon which the faith of the Lord rests as upon a foundation; upon which the Church has been in every way edified. It was chiefly because he confessed the Christ, Son of the living God, that it was said to him, 'Upon this rock of solid faith I will build my Church.'"
The Apostle Peter is not separated from the dogma he confessed; and it is this dogma itself which is the foundation of the Church.
We do not deny that St. Epiphanius called Peter prince of Apostles; but in what sense?
The Romans cite the following text in their favour:[2] "Andrew first met the Lord, because Peter was the younger. But subsequently when they had renounced every thing else, it was Peter who was first; he then takes precedence of his brother. Add to this that God knows the bent of all hearts, and knows who is worthy of the first place. It is for this reason that Peter was chosen to be prince of his disciples, "as is very clearly declared."
Did St, Epiphanius mean by this, that Peter was the foundation and chief of the Church, or that the Church was founded upon the objective faith of that Apostle — that is to say, the divinity of Christ, to which he had rendered homage? He answers for himself, as we have already seen.
"Upon Peter," he says, "the Church is built, because
