rcdiscussionpope

Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt (Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org

30-5-03 Well, as I mentioned earlier, I will start off with the topic of Peter and the office of the Pope. Many Protestants have criticized the Roman Catholic Church for supposedly putting an earthly figure as head of his Church instead of having Jesus as the head of the Church. Catholics, obviously disagree with this position, feeling that just like your local Pastor is the head of your local faith community, the Pope is the head of our faith community at large. Catholics draw a succession of Popes from Pope John Paul II all the way up to St. Peter himself. Peter is considered by Catholics as the first leader of the Church. Catholics draw from Matthew 16:18 as their main source. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. We believe that since he put Peter in charge of his church, we are not really putting God in the background but instead we are doing his will. I await your reply. Best regards. Ryan
30-5-03 Although it may be fair in considering Protestant Pastors to be the "face of the local congregation" yet in no way are they the head. They rule in the church along side and equal with the elders. Just like Peter… who was "also an elder" (1 Peter 5:1) Not only is the "jump" from the lesser to the greater wrong, but the launch pad itself is erroneous. Rome has produced several contradictory lists of Popes. All include the bizarre case of 1415 when three men all claimed to be Pope…including one Pope John XXIII Since there was a more recent Pope John XXIII we may refer to the earlier one as Pope John XXIII the First. Which is farcical. The Jews could (without any doubt) trace their roots back to Moses…yet Christ said: "For had ye believed Moses, ye also would have believed me: for he wrote of me." (John 5:46) Those who stand in true apostolic succession are those who believe the Apostle's doctrine. In some important points, this cannot be said of Rome. They forfeit their claim. You assume that Peter is the Rock referred to in Matthew 16:18. The rock is Peter's confession i.e. Christ Himself. Colin.

31-5-03 [You wrote] You assume that Peter is the Rock referred to in Matthew 16:18. The rock is Peter's confession i.e. Christ Himself.
I still don't see how it was Peter's confession. Jesus gave Simon a new title, Peter, which means rock. Basically Jesus is saying: You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church. That sums it up quite clearly, Jesus was talking about Peter. Since I want to stick to the subject of Peter and Matthew 16:18 right now, I am going to avoid commenting on the rest of your post. That being said, however, that is the topic I will focus on next. Ryan
31-5-03 The Greek construction differentiates in Matthew 16:18 between the name Peter (Petros) which is masculine and the word Rock (petra) which is feminine. In John 1:42 the name Peter is rendered as "stone" and that's just exactly what Peter was and actually called himself (along with the rest of the people of God) in 1 Peter 2:5 You are giving to Peter a name and a position which he never recognized himself, neither in the Book of Acts which records many of his statements in the early church (especially in two most significant chapters: Acts 2/10) nor in the two epistles which bears his name. No one else in the Bible ever accorded it to him either. On the other hand, the term "rock" is continually and consistently applied to Deity i.e. to Christ. If Peter is the rock upon which the church is built - then Paul erred in 1 Corinthians 3:11 when he wrote: For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. According to you, there is i.e. Peter. You have a stand alone interpretation of Matthew 16:18 - mine has the backing of the scripture as a whole. Colin.

1-6-03 [You wrote] The Greek construction differentiates in Matthew 16:18 between the name Peter (Petros) which is masculine and the word Rock (petra) which is neuter. In John 1:42 the name Peter is rendered as "stone"........
Wrong on both counts. Time to give you a little class on both Greek and Aramaic. First we will focus on the Greek, in particular, Petros and Petra. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).
Now on to the Aramaic, which I feel is more important. Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church." When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.
I know this was longer than the limit allowed, but I needed the space to prove to you that your knowledge of both Greek and Aramaic. Now, I challenge you to prove me wrong. If you think I am lying, I suggest you check the source I provided. If you can not, I ask for you to concede this point. I also more evidence to back up my claims that goes beyond Matthew 16:18. If you would like to hear it, I will continue. Ryan
1-6-03 Your attempt to play down the differences in the two Greek words (the language which the Holy Spirit used to convey Christ's words) is lost even on some of the Church Fathers, not least Augustine himself. Augustine builds an elaborate argument on the fact that there is a difference:
"Then said the Lord to Him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven." Then He added, "and I say unto thee." As if He had said, "Because thou hast said unto Me, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;’ I also say unto thee, ‘Thou art Peter.’ " For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. "Therefore," he saith, "Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock" which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;" that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, "will I build My Church." I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee. For men who wished to be built upon men, said "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas," who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, "But I am of Christ." And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter."(Sermons of the Gospels Sermon 26 on Matthew 14:25)
Not only does Augustine take the Protestant position, but says in effect that Christians are all "Peters" since Peter represents the Church. Christ here used a figure of speech called a paronomasia where there is a repetition of words which are similar in sound but not necessarily in meaning. "You are a little stone but upon this huge rock of your confession (i.e. upon myself) I will build my church." Bearing in mind the great doctrine you will doubtless seek to build upon this passage i.e. the Papacy, it has (ironically) a very poor foundation upon which to build.
I too have transgressed our 200 words rule (the quote itself is 325 words) but we really should seek to stick to it. Before you produce "more evidence" you really need to tackle the other points made i.e. Peter never identified himself as the rock upon which the church is built, nor did any of the Apostles, that such a claim has an effect upon 1 Corinthians 3:11 and gives to Peter what is essentially a title and prerogative of Deity. Colin.

1-6-03 First, you completely avoided my factual evidence. In the Greek language, Petra and Petros were synonyms. This is irrefutable. Even Protestant scholastics have accepted this. In the Aramaic, the word Kepha was used, which literally means a large boulder. Secondly, for you Augustine quote, I couldn’t tell what was Augustine and what was commentary. So, let me share you two of my own Augustine quotes.
"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).
"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]). Ryan
1-6-03 How can it be said that I "completely avoided [your] factual evidence" re: the Greek when I bring in Augustine to support my view that there is a difference in the language used? He builds an elaborate argument on the fact that this difference (which you deny) exists. My point is, he supports me in my main contention. As for the actual quote, I would have thought that this was very obvious, seeing it was in red italics. I observe, however, that I did not use speech marks so I have since added these above to facilitate you. I will not comment on your quotations from Augustine at the moment as there is still some unfinished business left to be completed. This is now the third request for you to answer me on the issues mentioned above i.e. Peter never identified himself as the rock upon which the church is built, nor did any of the Apostles, that such a claim has an effect upon 1 Corinthians 3:11 and gives to Peter what is essentially a title and prerogative of Deity. When and if this is done, you might like (if you still think it relevant) to introduce Augustine again. Colin

[Note: We both had some business to attend to hence the break]

11-6-03 You said: Peter never identified himself as the rock upon which the church is built, nor did any of the Apostles, that such a claim has an effect upon 1 Corinthians 3:11 and gives to Peter what is essentially a title and prerogative of Deity.
So, does Peter have to call himself the Pope, in order to be the leader of the Church? Just because he doesn’t call himself that, doesn’t mean that is who he is. Countless times in the New Testament it was Peter who was the leader of the disciples. Peter isn't the only person who has been referred to as Rock. In Isaiah 51:1-2, Abraham is referred to as a rock. As for Matthew 16: 13-20, you still haven’t explained your misunderstanding of the Greek language. You have shown no proof at all. In 1st century Greek, Koine Greek, Petros and Petra were synonyms. If Jesus wanted to call Peter a small stone why wasn’t the word lithos used, which means a small stone in the Greek of that time? This is universally accepted as fact by all serious scholars. The fact that you cannot account for this, other then to say it is wrong, with out any serious scholarly work to backing shows to the holes in your position. The Church Fathers were universal in their opinion that St. Peter and his successors were the earthly head of Christ’s Church. Ryan.
11-6-03 It would be more natural (and scriptural) to interpret Peter's otherwise strange silence on the matter as an indication that he was not the head. Otherwise we could claim many a thing. Why not have Paul to be the leader since on countless (we both use hyperbole) occasions he likewise gives leadership? A spokesman is not necessarily the leader. If Peter was "over" Paul…then Paul (and the Holy Spirit who inspired him) twice erred when he claimed that he was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles (2 Corinthians 11:5/12:11 Isaiah 51 relates only to origin (Abraham is also called a hole) as opposed to that upon which a huge edifice is to be built and sustained. The word lithos actually is used of stones great and small - the rejected cornerstone was a lithos (Matthew 21:42) Cyprian recognised that the other Apostles were equal with Peter with like honour and power: "And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;" yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity."(Treatise on Unity/Church) This destroys any claim of universality on the issue. I exceed the limit again, but then my 105 words of a quote prove your last statement to be wrong while your 21 words hardly prove it to be right. Colin.

11-06-03 In regards to the Lithos/Petra/Petros debate, there are Greek Protestant scholars, that are a lot more knowledgeable about scripture then you or I, who disagree with your view. Again, I refer you towards D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books].
As for your Cyprian quote, well, your selectively quoting him might have worked if I wasn’t somewhat familiar with his works. Here is what else he had to say:
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]) Now what say you? Ryan.
11-06-03 There are several Church Fathers etc., who take the Protestant interpretation, making the Rock to be either Peter's Confession or Christ Himself (logically both the same thing since the Confession is true.) Your attempt to build a most momentous doctrine on a single verse is contrary to the "What saith the Scripture? and Again what saith the Scripture" principle of the Bible. You can't produce other Scripture to back up your momentous claim and have already conceded that Peter did not call himself the leader of the Church. How do you know your edition is the first edition? My edition of Cyprian (Ages Digital Library CD ROM) accuses your edition of having been doctored by a nameless monk who ignored the rejections of various interpolations by the erudite Baluzius and confessed to several alterations. You cannot have equal power with someone having the advantage of greater power. This rather obvious contradiction is removed when your interpolated parts are removed. Such equality among the Apostles is shown from Scripture by Paul twice claiming to be not a whit behind the chiefest Apostles as quoted above. How could this be if he were behind Peter? Colin.

[NOTE: 12-6-03. A reply from Ryan stretching to 829 words took up the issue of what was interpolated into the writings of Cyrian. I have not reproduced it here as it (i.e. the whole issue) is of little profit to any one. Ryan also sent on a more scriptural reply which will benefit us more to examine. It is my feeling that it would be better keeping to what the Bible states rather than getting bogged down in the writings, spurious or otherwise, of Church Fathers. Surely an issue so momentous as to whether the Apostle Peter was the earthly head of the church and if so, that the position was to be perpetuated can be established from the Bible? Colin]

12-6-03 Peter as the Pope: There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48). Peter is acting awfully a lot like a leader. I don’t see any of the other apostles doing these things. If they were equal, why didn’t they do the same? Ryan.
12-6-03 Here is the case (if we so desired) to make PAUL THE LEADER OF THE CHURCH: He was the one Apostle who met the Glorified Christ in conversion (1 Corinthians 15:8) the most humble (15:9) and the most active (15:10) The most prolific writer (13 epistles) who was received up into paradise to receive revelations and hear unmentionable things (2 Corinthians 12:1-7) He alone performed "special miracles" (Acts 19:11) and rebuked Peter for nearly wrecking the church (Galatians 2:11ff) He was not a whit behind the chiefest Apostles (2 Corinthians 11:5/12:11 (My third mention of this) It is his life which the Holy Spirit takes up in the latter part of the Acts, leaving Peter in the (relative) shade etc., WE COULD ALSO MAKE A CASE FOR JAMES OR JOHN ETC., but we move on. SOME OF PETER'S UNIQUENESS SHOWS JUST HOW WEAK A LEADER HE REALLY WOULD BE: He alone of the Apostles was rebuked in the strongest of terms in Matthew 16:23 Cp. Luke 4:8 It was Peter whose denial of Christ was the most public and hurtful (Mark 14:66-72) and it was this that necessitated Peter being specifically mentioned in 16:7 and the threefold examination in John 21:15-20 (followed by yet another rebuke: v20-22) It was Peter who nearly sold the pass (Galatians 2) perverting Barnabas also (v9) THE CASE FOR EQUALITY AMONG THE APOSTLES: There was room for argument among them as to who was the greatest (Luke 22:24) long after Matthew 16:16-18. All the Apostles received in John 20:20-23 what Peter received in Matthew 16:19 The authority of the council in Acts 15 was publicly announced as that of the apostles and elders with no distinct mention of Peter (Acts 15:23) There are other issues to take up e.g. Peter's position in Galatians 2:9 etc., but space prevails and I must forbear. Incidentally, it is one thing to be a leader in the church, another thing to be the rock on which it is supposedly built and against which all the powers of hell cannot prevail. Colin.

13-6-03 Peter alone was promised something very important besides being the rock upon which Christ would build his Church: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18). This traditionally was given to the Kings chief assistant, like a prime minister (I know this as I am a history major). Basically, Christ was making Peter his prime minister to his kingdom in heaven. Now I ask you, what is your personal interruption [interpretation?] of this, considering the background we already know behind this (i.e. The giving of the Keys of the kingdom was a symbol of the office of prime minister)? Ryan.
13-6-03 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. (Luke 11:52) By keeping people in ignorance of the true meaning of scripture, the lawyers fell under Christ's condemnation. Peter, on the other hand, was given (on behalf of the Apostles and ultimately every Christian) the key and this he exercised when he preached the gospel. He was most effective in this in Acts 2 (Jews) and also to the Gentiles (Acts 10) Every gospel preacher, in effect, has this key. A man ignorant of the gospel cannot go to Heaven (Romans 10:13-17) and it falls therefore to those who are the witnesses of Christ (Acts 1:18) to instruct him. Your own reference (Revelation 1:18) very clearly puts the right to admit or decline admission into the hands of Christ Himself. Your church keep trying to have Peter usurp the position of Christ. Something Peter would not have wanted. Colin.

15-6-03 Thank you, as you have just proved my point. The keys are a symbol of teaching authority. Peter was made the chief teacher by Christ himself. He does not give the keys to anyone else. If he did, he would have said so. But no where in the Bible does he say he is giving the keys to anyone else. When putting things into perspective we know the following: in John 1:42 Jesus calls Peter, Cephas, which literally means a sizable rock. Considering that the Aramaic manuscripts of Matthew we have also render Matthew 16:18 as Cephas, means that Jesus was building his Church on the foundation of St. Peter. Considering what we know about the keys both as a teaching authority and as the symbol of a King's Prime Minister, along with the Church fathers being in unison in the belief that Peter was the head of his Church and his successors share in his authority; it becomes quite apparent that Jesus made Peter the leader of his visible church!! That is the key word here, visible! The Church is Christ, yes, but Peter is a symbol of Christ as the Church. Christ left Peter to lead his Church. Ryan
15-6-03 No one denies that Peter was a teacher or that he was even prominent among the Apostles (Prominence is not the same as preeminence) The duty of teaching is given to all the Apostles (and indeed all Christians) in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 You might believe the above things which you have stated, but this belief is not shared by those who build their faith on the Bible alone i.e. true Christians. Wherever you place Peter in your pecking order…remember that Paul twice claimed that he was a whit behind him or any of the others (2 Corinthians 11:5/12:11) - a momentous claim which you have studiously avoided answering! You are making a claim for Peter which neither he, John, James or Paul or any other of the New Testament epistle writers ever referred. We have already gone down the road of the Church Fathers but they tend to lead us nowhere as the above expedition shows. I think I will remain apart from your somewhat interesting though unscriptural position and stay rather on Biblical ground. Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way. (Psalm 119:128) Colin

[NOTE: Our friend was called away on some pressing duties which delayed him longer than he intended. Coupled with holidays on my part, there was a break of a few weeks. Ryan took up the issue again.]

16-8-03 Re: St. Paul’s comments. In both passages he is not talking about the twelve. If you read the whole thing you will realize he is referring to someone else. Again, you have taken a single passage and distorted it. Who is it that he is referring to? In 2 Corinthians, 11:5, St. Paul say the following: For I think that I am not in any way inferior to these "superapostles." Who are these "superapostles?" They’re the opponents whom mention in 2 Cor, 10 and 2 Cor 11:4. These apostles have a different approach then Paul and, in fact, consider themselves superior to him. Paul rejects their claims of being apostles and instead, judging them bluntly as "false apostles," ministers of Satan masquerading as followers of Christ (2 Cor 11:13-15). I would like to comment that you were unable to counter my comments regarding the translation of Matthew 16:18. Petros and Petra were synonyms of rock (again, see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]) . Now the best non-Catholic scholars around have conceded this point: that Christ was referring to Peter, why cannot you? Are you saying you know more then they? Ryan
17-8-03 If Paul merely claimed to be nothing behind the false apostles…what does that prove? But he goes one further and argues his equality with the true apostles. Sorry to introduce the Church Fathers again, but Chrysostom likewise takes this position (2 Corinthians: Homily 23) "No longer making comparison of himself with them, but with Peter and the rest…Therefore he also mentions them with encomiums, not speaking simply of "the Apostles," but "the very chiefest," meaning Peter and James and John." (Mentioned solely to show this is no novel interpretation) Before we get a counter quote from some other Church Father…it doesn't impact my position that they are divided among themselves as it does yours.
I think we have reached a stalemate on the Petros and Petra situation. The fact is that the scholars have long disagreed on the significance of the Greek words. Even if we were to concede the issue to you - and fall out with other great or greater scholars - yet it is no proof of the position of the present day Pope or the Papacy. It is not so much that I did not counter your comments…your problem is that I don't agree with them. Colin.

20-8-03 Well, after reading your last comments, I thinking it is coming increasingly clear that our Peter and the Papacy debate is getting played out. I think we both have said everything we can say to promote our side. Think it is time to go onto a new topic? I would hope you would as it is really been fun and educational debating these points with you. Since I choose the first topic of discussion I will let you choose the next topic we will discuss (unless you want me to choose again, which is fine). Anything you want to discuss about is fine with me. I must say I am very impressed with your skills and your knowledge of the Bible. But then again, you are a pastor. I hope to hear from you shortly. Ryan
21-8-03 I am quite happy to move on and to have you pick the next subject. I enjoyed the last discussion/debate. You start off and I'll open a new page on the site. Same conditions as before. I appreciate the point made in your private email of your scarcity of time and the fact that replies might not be as frequent as on this page. Colin.