Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

527

ON THE PAPAL SUPREMACY OF ROME.*

FROM POPERY DELINEATED," BY THE REV. THOMAS HARTWELL HORNE. "V.-To be a Catholic" [Papist] "it is necessary to be subject to the Bishop of Rome, who, in his quality of successor of St. Peter, is the head of the Catholic" [Romish] "Church, conformably to these divine words :

*Of the convenient mode of explaining away or evading what it is not very convenient to Papists to admit, and, if need be, of hoodwinking unwary Protestants, we have a specimen in the publication or placard, which we now reprint entire, and to the contents of which we invite the special consideration of our readers. "To the greater glory of Almighty God.

6

"May it please the kind and well-minded Protestant to read and consider. "I. The Catholic Church does retain the second commandnient as well as the nine others, as may be seen in the Catholic Bible, (Exod. xx. 3, 4, 5,) and in the Catholic Testament, (Matt. iv. 10,) also in the Catholic Catechism, or, Abstract of the Christian Doctrine,' (chap. iv.,) which all Catholic children are made to learn by heart. Moreover, the Catholic examines his conscience on this matter when preparing for confession, as is clear, from the Examination of Conscience on the Ten Commandments,' to be found in the Garden of the Soul,' a prayer-book which is in the hands of all Catholics."

"II. The Catholic Church deprives no person whatever of the benefit of the holy Scripture; but wishes all men to read it as the word of God. Catholic Bibles and Catholic Testaments may be had in all languages, from all booksellers, and in every country under the sun."

"III.-Catholics do not adore the blessed Virgin Mary, nor the angels, nor the saints, nor any being whatsoever, except God Almighty. All charges against the Catholic Church on that head are grounded on misconception of her doctrine. See the Catechism, chap. iv., as above."

"IV.-Question: What is the ninth Article of the Apostles' Creed ?—Answer: I believe in the holy Catholic Church."

"V. To be a Catholic, it is necessary to be subject to the Bishop of Rome, who, in his quality of successor of St. Peter, is the head of the Catholic Church, conformably to these divine words: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' (St. Matt. xvi. 18.) Wherefore do the Catholics of all countries rightly glory in their subjection to the Pope."

"VI.-The Bishop of Rome is called the Pope,' (which word signifies 'Father,') because he is the spiritual father of all the faithful, according to these words addressed by Jesus Christ to St. Peter: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep;' (John xxi. 15;) and again: 'I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' (Matt. xvi. 19.)"

"VII.-If the gates of hell are not to prevail against the church of Christ, (St. Matt. xvi. 18,) therefore the first Church, which is incontrovertibly the Catholic Church, could never fail, or become corrupted, and must for ever be the true one." "VIII. Some of the best books that can be on the Catholic side are:"1. Touchstone of the New Religion, Id.

"2. A sure Way to find out the True Religion, 2d.

"3. A Papist Misrepresented and Represented, 3d.

"4. Rule of Faith, by the Rev. S. Jones, 4d.

"5. The Poor Man's Catechism, 9d.

"To be had at and from all booksellers."

Our attention was attracted to the preceding insidious Popish placard, by reading a copy conspicuously displayed in a shop-window in a great thoroughfare, in a densely populous part of the metropolis, where it necessarily commanded great numbers of unsuspecting readers; and as we are among "the kind and well-minded Protestants" who are addressed, we have "considered" it; and, in the discharge of a sacred duty, we now proceed to expose its misrepresentations and insinuations. The publication in question has neither publisher's nor printer's name attached to it. (The omission of the printer's name is a deliberate violation of the Act of Parliament 39 George III., c. 79, sec. 27, which requires the name to be printed on papers printed on one side only, as well as on the first and last leaf of books.) We have been informed

Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' (St. Matt. xvi. 18.) Wherefore do the Catholics" [Papists] "of all countries rightly glory in their subjection to the Pope."

This assertion is in perfect unison with the so-called Creed of Pius IV., and with the declarations in the canon law of the Romish Church.

"I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Bishop, the successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ." * (Art. x. of the Creed of Pius IV.)

"The sovereign power has no rule over the priesthood, but is subject to it, and is bound to obey it." +

[ocr errors]

Moreover, we declare, define, and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary to salvation that every human creature be subject to the Pope of Rome." +

But what does the New Testament teach us is necessary to salvation? "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ," [and not in the Pope,]" and thou shalt be saved." (Acts xvi. 31.) "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth" (ó dè àñiorýoas) "shall be damned," or condemned. (Mark xvi. 16.) "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John iii. 16.) "Being made perfect, He” [Christ] "became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him," (Heb. v. 9,) and not the Pope.

In the quotation above given, reference is made to Matt. xvi. 18, in order to establish the supremacy of Peter as Bishop of Rome, and of the Pope as his successor. We will first examine the passage of the Gospel referred to, and then show that the Apostle Peter never was Bishop of Rome, that the Pope is not his successor, and that the pretended supremacy of the Pope is contradicted by the evidence of history.

1. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church." (Matt. xvi. 18.) From these words Papists infer that Jesus Christ formally constituted Peter chief over his brethren; made him the foundation-stone of the church; and conferred supremacy upon him. Now, it is very remarkable how many things can be mentioned which are utterly at variance with this supposition: for, whether we understand the word "rock" to mean the person of Christ, or Peter's confession of him, it is certain that, in strictness, the church can only be said to be founded on Christ, or on his

that it has been largely circulated in Lancashire and Warwickshire; and it is conjectured that it was originally issued from Manchester or Derby. From the adoption of the Jesuits' motto, (Ad majorem Dei gloriam,) "To the greater glory of God,' we should not be surprised to find that it issued from the pen of a Jesuit. But from whatever source it has proceeded, as it is calculated to mislead “ kind and wellminded Protestants," we request their candid perusal of the facts and observations which we have to offer; and we think we shall best subserve the cause of truth, by exhibiting the allegations and insinuations of this publication, paragraph by paragraph, in contrast with the authentic formularies of faith issued by the modern Church of Rome, falsely arrogating to herself the appellation of "Catholic," together with her public liturgies and other authorized books of devotion, and with her catechetical manuals, published under the highest ecclesiastical sanction.

*Romano Pontifici, beati Apostolorum principis successori, ac Jesu Christi Vicario, veram obedientiam spondeo et juro.

+ Imperium non præest sacerdotio, sed subest, et ei obedire tenetur. (Decret. Greg. IX., lib. i., tit. 33, cap. 6.)

Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanæ creaturæ declaramus, definimus, pronuntiamus, omnino esse de necessitate salutis. (Extravagant. Commun., lib. i., tit. 8, cap. 1, in fine.)

66

66

doctrine. But, granting that the "rock" means Peter personally, it conveyed to him no other authority than what was conferred upon all the Apostles in common. Peter alone is nowhere styled the foundation of the church. On the contrary, Jesus Christ is most explicitly termed, by Peter himself, the "chief corner-stone, elect, precious ;" (1 Peter ii. 6 ;) besides which St. Paul tells us that no man can lay any other foundation in the church of Christ. (1 Cor. iii. 11.) If Peter be at the foundation, it must be in a sense common to him with the other Apostles; for we read of the church being "built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone;" (Eph. ii. 20 ;) and on the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem are inscribed "the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb." (Rev. xxi. 14.) Of all the Apostles, Peter sinned the most flagrantly; and if he was afterwards honoured to be the first who opened the door of the Gospel both to the Jews and Gentiles, (Acts ii. and x.,) he is the only one of all the Apostles of whom it is afterwards recorded that he acted unworthily; the Apostle Paul (who was nothing behind the very chiefest of the Apostles," 2 Cor. xii. 11) withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal. ii. 11.) Moreover, the Apostles, who were at Jerusalem, appointed Peter to go to Samaria. (Acts viii. 14.) Now, Jesus Christ himself declared that "the servant is not above his lord, neither is he that is sent greater than him that sent him." (John xiii. 16.) Peter, therefore, who was sent by the Apostles, was not greater than the Apostles who sent him; and, on his return from Cæsarea, the church at Jerusalem called him to account for his conduct: (Acts xi. 2 :) which neither of them could have done, if he had been their superior. And Peter himself, in 1 Peter v. 1-3, explicitly disclaims being a lord over God's heritage, or the chief shepherd, but only a fellow-Presbyter with the Presbyters or Elders whom he there addressed, and whom he exhorted to "feed the flock of God." The flock, it will be observed, is called "the flock of God," not theirs. The shepherd is not to interfere with the flocks of others, but to take the oversight of that only which is committed to him; and this he is to do in all humility, and not as being a lord over God's heritage. Nothing, therefore, can be more complete than the opposition of the rest of Scripture to the interpretation which Romanists put upon Matt. xvi. 18, in behalf of Peter's supremacy, and the pretended supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, as his

successor.

2. The next point to be considered is the alleged diocesan episcopate of Peter at Rome.

As Peter was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, by whom he was commissioned to preach the Gospel to the world, and to confirm it by miracles, he has, and can have, no successor; and therefore the Pope cannot be his successor. As Peter was diligent in preaching the Gospel with all fidelity and plainness, the Pope most assuredly is not his successor, because he does not preach the Gospel, or feed the flock of Christ; but he follows the examples of his predecessors, by prohibiting to them the holy Scriptures in their vernacular tongues.

That Peter was diocesan Bishop of Rome, is an assertion for which there is as little historical evidence as there is for the supremacy which Papists pretend to derive for him from Scripture. If the Apostle was Bishop of Rome twenty-five years after having previously been Bishop of Antioch for seven years, (as Romanists assert, on the authority of Eusebius's Chronicle,

VOL. IV.-FOURTH SERIES.

20

which, however, does not bear out their assertion,*) he must have taken possession of his see A.D. 41; since Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History,+ places his death at the same time with Paul in 66. But the Acts of the Apostles show most clearly and uninterruptedly, that Peter was either at Jerusalem, or at Cæsarea, or at Antioch, until A.D. 52. Consequently his pretended episcopate is reduced from twenty-five years to fourteen. But perhaps history is in unison with tradition for these fourteen years: let us see. In 58, Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, in which he sent salutations to twenty-seven persons by name, not to insist upon other collective salutations. But not one word of affectionate remembrance or salutation did he send to Bishop Peter. Now, is it credible that he should omit to mention Peter's name, if he were actually at Rome? It is clear, then, that Peter was not in possession of his see in 58. Eight years remain, to bring us to the year 66. But at the end of 63, or early in 64, Paul himself arrived at Rome, visited the Christian brethren there, and received visits from them yet he neither visited Peter, nor was he visited by the latter. Where, then, was Peter? At Rome? It is not possible. Further, in 62 or 63, Paul wrote his Epistles to Philemon, and to the Philippians, Ephesians, and Colossians; but not a single word did he write concerning Peter. We now come to the year 66, the year in which Paul suffered martyrdom. Writing to Timothy, his "own son in the faith," he says:-" At my first answer (or apology) no man stood with me; but all men forsook me,' (2 Tim. iv. 16,) except (as appears from a collation of 2 Tim. i. 16) Onesiphorus, who "often refreshed him, and was not ashamed" of Paul ; but when he was in Rome, he "sought" the Apostle "out very diligently, and found" him.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Thus, the evidence from Scripture most clearly proves that Peter was not diocesan Bishop of Rome, or indeed actually at Rome, earlier than the year 66, in which year both he and Paul suffered martyrdom, according to Eusebius. It is probable that the two Apostles met there just before that event; but it affords no evidence whatever for Peter's alleged episcopate at Rome. On the contrary, we have direct testimony against it. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, about A.D. 170, in treating of the apostolic descent of all the then existing branches of the Christian church, gives at length the descent of the church at Rome, by way of exemplification. He says that "the church at Rome was founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul,"...........which "blessed Apostles, founding and organizing that church, delivered to Linus the episcopate of administering the church."§

It is worthy of remark, that although Eusebius, in his Chronicle, (col. 537, A. Burdigale, 1604,) asserts that Peter founded the church at Antioch, and afterwards, by our Saviour's command, went to Rome; yet he is so far from asserting that Peter was seven years Bishop of Antioch, that he expressly declares that Euodias was first Bishop of the Christians in that city. (Ibid., col. 563, A.) "When Baronius cited the Chronicle of Eusebius to prove that Peter was twenty-five years Bishop of Rome, he was egregiously mistaken. (Baronii Annales Eccles., tom. i., ad an. 39, sec. ix., p. 262. Antwerpiæ, 1610.) The place to which he refers in that work says no such thing. (Chronicon, col. 157. B.) Baronius did not understand Greek; he followed the Latin translations, interpolated and corrupted by Roman device, and was consequently misled." (Elliott's Delineation of Romanism, pp. 634, 635. London, 1844.) + Eusebii Historia Ecclesiastica, lib. ii., cap. 25.

Hist. Eccl., lib. ii., c. 25.

§ A gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro et Paulo Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ ecclesiæ... Fundantes, igitur, et instruentes, beati Apostoli ecclesiam Lino episcopatum administrandæ ecclesiæ tradiderunt. (Irenæus, adv. Hæreses, lib. iii., c. 3.)

Eusebius also relates that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul.* It is clear, therefore, that there is no evidence whatever, from the earliest ecclesiastical writers, to prove that Peter was diocesan Bishop of Rome.

3. Since, then, Peter was not a diocesan Bishop of Rome, and expressly disclaimed any supremacy in his own genuine writings, he could have no successors in the episcopate or in the supremacy. We now add, thirdly, that the feigned supremacy of the Pope or Bishop of the Latin Church at Rome is contradicted by the evidence of history. Indeed, for the first six centuries the Bishops of Rome had no jurisdiction whatever beyond the limits of their own immediate diocess; as will be evident from the following brief statement of facts. From the consideration which the city of Rome early enjoyed as the metropolis of the whole empire, ambitious or weak Ecclesiastics, who had been raised to the episcopate, early assumed an authority to which the Bishops of other churches refused to submit. In the second century, Victor, Bishop of Rome, excommunicated the Asiatic Bishops because they would not celebrate Easter at the same time with himself: for which arrogant assumption the Asiatic churches, and those of Gaul, with Irenæus at their head, strenuously opposed him. At the beginning of the third century, Tertullian denounced the Bishop of Rome as an usurper; because he claimed a dominant supremacy in the church.‡ Somewhat later in the same century, a question arose between Stephen, Bishop of Rome, (who had excommunicated the Asiatics for presuming to differ in opinion from himself,) and Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, on the question of re-baptizing heretics. Unmoved by the arrogance of Stephen, Cyprian convened a Provincial Synod of eighty-seven African Bishops, who confirmed the doctrine advocated by the Asiatic Bishops, and in no measured terms reproved the arrogance of the Roman Bishop; making their appeal to the judgment of Jesus Christ, who alone had the power both to place them in the government of his church, and to judge of their actions.§ The proud pretensions of the same Stephen were also ridiculed by Firmilian of Cappadocia, who did not hesitate to call him a second Judas, and an arrogant and presumptuous idiot. In the fourth century, Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, refused to acknowledge the supremacy of the Roman Bishop :¶ and Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in Africa, in the same century, placed the churches at Rome, Carthage, and in other cities, all on the same footing of equality.** Towards the close of the sixth century, Pelagius II. and Gregory I., Bishops of Rome, energetically protested against that supremacy, which the Popes of Rome now arrogantly claim as having always been an appendage of the Bishop of Rome; to which supremacy John, Bishop of Constantinople, aspired, by assuming the title of "Universal Bishop." Pelagius denounced the name of universality as an unlawful usurpation and a

* Eccl. Hist., lib. iii., c. 2, and lib. v., c. 6.

+ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., lib. v., c. 24.

Tertullian, De Pudicitia. Op. pp. 767, 768.

S Concil. Carthag. Sententia Episcoporum lxxxvii., apud Cypriani Opera, tom. i., pp. 222, 230.

|| Firmiliani Epist. 75, apud Cypriani Opera, tom. ii., p. 218, 224, 225, 227,

228.

¶ Ambrose, Tractatus de Sacramentis, (if he were the author of that treatise,) lib. iii., c. 1.

** Augustini Enarrationes in Psalmos: in Psalm. xliv. apud Operum tom. viii.,

p. 149.

« AnteriorContinuar »