Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

of Peter, he was suffered to fall into some great mistakes, in his personal private intercourse with the believers in Antioch. He was himself by this time instructed with regard to Christian liberty. He knew that there was no sin in eating, or holding familiar intercourse, with believing Gentiles, and he had freely maintained such intercourse, Gal. ii. 11-14; but when some Jews came from James, (I suppose from Jerusalem,) he was afraid that they would find fault with him for his condescension to the Gentile converts; and, instead of labouring to remove their Jewish prejudices, and not thinking how much the Gentiles would be afflicted by the circumstance, he withdrew, and separated himself from them, fearing them of the circumcision. Barnabas, and other believing Jews, were seduced by his example, and great mischief was likely to have followed, when Paul maintained the cause of truth, and righteousness, and Christian liberty, at the expense of what must have been painful to himself, withstanding Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed.

The Rhemish translators render the 11th verse,—“And when Cephas, was come to Antioch, I resisted him in face, because he was reprehensible." They have a long annotation upon the humility of Peter, in condescending to be reprehended by an inferior, such as Paul, as they say a good priest, or any virtuous person may even tell the pope his faults; and then, upon the word reprehensible they have the following: "The heretics hereof again infer, that Peter then did err in faith, and therefore the popes may fail therein also. To which we answer, that howsoever other popes may err in their private teachings or writings, whereof we have treated before in the annotation upon these words, that thy faith fail not, it is certain, that St. Peter did not here fail in faith, or err in doctrine or knowledge, for it was conversationis non predicationis vitium as Tertullian saith, de prescript. nu. 7. It was a default in conversation, life, or regiment, which may be committed by any man, be he never so holy, and not in doctrine. St. Augustine, and whosoever make most of it, think no otherwise of it. But St. Hierom, and many other holy fathers, deem it to have been no fault at all, nor any other thing than St. Paul himself did upon the like occasion: and that this whole combat was a set thing agreed upon between them. It is a school point much debated betwixt St. Hierom and St. Augustine, ch. 9, 11, 19, apud August."

So, it seems, according to these fathers, Peter and Paul, like two mountebanks, agreed upon a sham dispute or combat, to amuse the people of Antioch, or to pick their pockets! Very much, indeed, like the tricks of Romish priests, but most remote from the whole conduct and character of the apostles.

Many a plain text is strained and tortured to make it appear that Peter was appointed head of the college of apostles, and universal bishop. They make him out to have been bishop of Rome, without any authority from the New Testament whatever, except that he dates his first epistle from Babylon. "The church that is at Babylon saluteth you.' "The ancient fathers," say the Rhemists, "namely, St. Hierom, and many more, agree that Rome is meant here by the word Babylon, as also in chapters xvi. and xvii. of the Apocalypse." So, it seems, rather than lose the honour and advantage of Peter's having been at Rome, they are content to assume the name which certainly

was given to her by the Spirit of prophecy, as expressive of her unparalleled wickedness,-"Mystery, Babylon, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth." And what though Peter had visited Rome, and though he had written his first epistle there? It does not follow from this that he was bishop of Rome. But suppose for a moment that he was so; what then? Why, then, all the bishops of Rome, ever since, must have had the same authority and infallibility that Peter had; and as Peter was head over all the other apostles and of the whole church, so the bishop or pope of Rome is head of the church, and supreme over all her clergy!

The first thing to be established is, that our Lord appointed Peter to be head or prince of the apostles. This is proved by the Rhemists from John xvi. 17. "Feed my sheep." They give as many quotations from saints and fathers to prove Peter's supremacy from this passage, as would fill half my sheet. The substance of the ar

gument is in the words of the translators: "And that Christ maketh a difference betwixt Peter and the rest, and giveth him some greater pre-eminence and regimen than the rest, it is plain, by that he asked whether he loved our Lord more than the other apostles do: where, for equal charge, no difference of love had been required." Thus Peter is proved to be the prince of the apostles!

Next, his supremacy over the whole church is to be proved. This is done from Luke v. 2, 3, which in their translation is,-" And he saw two ships standing by the lake: and the fishers were gone down and washed their nets. And he, going up into one ship that was Simon's, desired him to bring it back a little from the land. And sitting, he taught the multitudes out of the ship." Annotation: “One ship, Simon's.] It is purposely expressed that there were two ships, and that one of them was Peter's, and that Christ went into that one, and sat down in it, and that sitting, he taught out of that ship, no doubt to signify the church resembled by Peter's ship, and that in it is the chair of Christ, and only true preaching." Thus the church of Rome is proved to be nothing less than the ship of Peter; and who can deny that he ought to be sole commander in his own ship? There remains to be proved that Peter was bishop of Rome. This is not so easily done from the New Testament. That Peter ever was in Rome, is by no means certain; though the people in that city, within these few years, affected to give ocular demonstration of the fact: A principal design of Peter's coming to Rome was to oppose Simon Magus, who, by his juggling tricks, had procured the favour of both the emperor and the people. At their first interview, the magician engaged to ascend into the air, in the presence of him and the whole city. With the help of the devil, he accordingly performed his promise; but Peter invoking the name of Jesus, the devil was so terrified, that he left Simon Magus to shift for himself; and the consequence was, that his body having a much greater predilection for the earth than heaven, made such haste downward as to break both his legs. Were any person to question the truth of this narration at Rome, the impression of the apostle's knees in the very stone upon which he kneeled on this occasion, would be shown him, and another stone still tinged with the blood of the magician." M'Culloch, p. 14. Allowing this to be sufficient proof of Peter's having been at Rome,

where is the proof of his having been bishop of that see? There is in fact not a shadow of evidence for any such thing in the whole New Testament. Peter was the apostle of the circumcision. He received a commission, like the other apostles, to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; but he laboured principally for the conversion of sinners of his own nation, while Paul laboured chiefly among the Gentiles. Paul certainly was at Rome; but it was not consistent with the commission which he, or any of the apostles, had received, that they should be permanently fixed as bishops over one church. They appointed bishops, or elders, to be ordained in every church; they took the oversight of these, because they were divinely inspired to set in order all things in the churches, and to prescribe the duty of the office bearers, as well as of the private members. The apostles were Christ's ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiary; and they were fully qualified for this office by the Holy Spirit, who was in them, not only as he is in all believers, for their instruction, sanctification, and comfort, but also by the extraordinary gift of inspiration.

Peter was not, and from the nature of his office as an apostle, could not be, bishop of Rome: yet the whole system of popery rests upon the assumption of this as a fact. The pope claims all his power and authority as the successor of Peter in the see of Rome. It would be easy to show that Peter had no successor at Rome, or any where else; for the gifts of inspiration were not meant to descend from father to son, or from one bishop to another. The office of apostleship terminated with the lives of the apostles; and none can lawfully pretend to be their successors, unless they can show themselves possessed of the same power of working miracles, and of the other extraordinary gifis of the Holy Ghost. But, independently of this, as Peter never was bishop of Rome, the pope's pretence of being his successor is a piece of gross imposition upon the credulity of his deluded adherents. His whole system rests upon a falsehood: and as is the foundation, so is the superstructure; it is lies and imposition throughout.

66

I should not be doing the church of Rome justice, if I were to overlook one principal argument which they derive from the New Testament, to wit, from Matt. xvi. 18, 19, which the Rhemists render nearly as in our own version. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in the heavens. And whatever thou shalt loose in earth, shalt be loosed also in the heavens." On this passage they have copious annotations, intended to prove that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built; they maintain, on the authority of St. Hierom, that this rock is not Peter's person only, but his successors and his chair. "I join myself," says he, "to the communion of Peter's chair, upon that rock I know the church was built. And that same apostolic chair, saith St. Augustine, that same is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome." On similar authority they find that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to Peter and his succes sors; that is," say they, "the authority or chair of doctrine, knowledge, judgment, and discretion, between true and false doctrine: the

[ocr errors]

heights of government, the power of making laws, of calling councils, of the principal voice in them, of confirming them, of making canons and wholesome decrees, of abrogating the contrary, of ordaining bishops and pastors, of deposing and suspending them; finally, the power to dispense the goods of the church both spiritual and temporal." In short, the power granted by the gift of the keys to the pope, as Peter's successor, is called, "in comparison of the power granted to other apostles, bishops, and pastors, plenitudo potestatis, fulness of power. Under the words binding and loosing, they seem to give to the pope and his pastors all possible power in earth and heaven, with regard to the temporal and eternal state of men.

I allow that, in the words quoted from Matthew, ch. xvi, our Lord did confer singular honour upon Peter; but what is all this to the church of Rome, or to the pope? The church of Rome, in its best days, had no more connexion with Peter, than the church of Antioch,perhaps not so much. Suppose it were not the truth which Peter confessed, (thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,) but the person of Peter on which the church is built, (a very absurd supposition,) what is this to the pope of Rome? What though Christ did give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, and honour him to be the instrument of opening the door of the New Testament church, by being the first to preach the good news of the glory of Christ to both Jews and Gentiles? What, I say, is this to the pope? He has never proved his natural or ecclesiastical descent from Peter; it is impossible that he even can prove it; and all the elaborate arguments of saints and fathers, to prove the supremacy of the pope from this passage, go for nothing.

CHAPTER VIII.

IT CANNOT BE PROVED THAT PETER WAS EVER BISHOP OF ROME. SKETCH OF THE RISE AND PROCRESS OF PAPAL SUPREMACY. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE REV. ANDREW SCOTT.

SATURDAY, September 5th, 1818.

IN my last number, I said it was very uncertain whether the apostle Peter had ever been at Rome. I do not say it is certain he never was there; for I admit there is a very early tradition of his having been in that city. It is, however, merely tradition; and no man is under any obligation to believe it. If it had even the authority of authentic history, if it were a fact as well established as the murder of Julius Cesar by Brutus, which it is not,-it would still be a matter of mere history, and not the subject of faith, in a religious sense. I should believe it just as I believe the fact of Cesar's murder; but rest no religious principle or practice upon it.

The Bible is sufficient for every purpose of Christian faith and practice; and what I find not written in the sacred volume, however true it may be as a matter of history, or however plausible as a specu-, lative opinion, I hold it of no account whatever in determining any point in religion. The Rhemish translators are extremely angry with the Protestants for disbelieving Peter's having been at Rome, while I

66

suppose most of them neither believe nor disbelieve it. It is a matter that cannot be ascertained; and if it could, it would be of little consequence. I shall give the Rhemists' account of the matter, with this remark, that they are generally most positive when they have the slightest ground to go upon: Never sect-masters made more foul or hard shifts to prove or defend falsehood, than the Protestants: but on two points, about St. Peter specially, they pass even themselves in impudencie. The first is, that they hold he was not preferred before the other apostles, which is against all scripture most evidently. The second is, that he was never at Rome, which is against all the ecclesiastical histories, all the fathers, Greek and Latin, against the very sense and sight of the monuments of his seat, sepulchre, doctrine, life, and death, there. Greater evidence, certes, there is thereof, and more weighty testimony than of Romulus', Numas', Cesar's, or Cicero's being there: yet were he a very brutish man that would deny this to the discredit of so many writers and the whole world. Much more monstrous it is to hear any deny the other." They then give the opinions and assertions of many fathers on the subject, all of whom, however, derived their knowledge of the fact from a vague tradition; and they are by no means agreed about the time of his coming there, or how long he stayed, or when, and what death, he died. As for the proof of his being there, derived from his sepulchre, this is about as good as the story of his contest with Simon Magus, as related in my last number; for the half of his body is at St. Peter's, in Rome, the other half at St. Paul's; he has, besides, another head at St. John's, Lateran; his under jaw, with the beard upon it, is at Poictiers, in France; many of his bones are at Trieirs; and part of his brain at Geneva, or rather was so before the days of Calvin; for he, or some other heretic, found out that this was only a pumice stone. This precious relic is now at Rome, having been brought thither by order of the pope, after Geneva had, by her apostasy and heresy, become unworthy to retain it. It stands in the catalogue of relics thus :-" The brains of St. Peter, from Geneva.-Note. These are the individual brains which that arch heretic Calvin declared were a mere pumice stone, sinning against God, the holy apostle, and his own soul." Philos. Lib. for June, 1818.

The above may be considered supplementary to my last number, in which I had not room for it. It is my earnest desire to do my opponents no injustice, which they would accuse me of doing, if I were to omit their strongest arguments in support of the fact of Peter's having been at Rome. As for his being at any time bishop of Rome, that is what I most confidently deny, and I defy the whole church of Rome to prove it from any authentic history. Nay, I defy them to show who were the first, second, and third bishops of that see. Suppose it were admitted that Peter was the first, no one can tell who succeeded him. There is a blank in the pope's genealogy which all the world cannot fill up.

The following short sketch of the rise and progress of the papal supremacy may be interesting to the reader. It is taken from the Philosophical Library of June last:-" The apostles and bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome, for preaching Christ crucified, were so occupied for the space of the first three hundred

« ПредишнаНапред »