Supremacy claimed from divine right.

discipline of those ages appear to have been either introduced, or sedulously promoted, for the purpose of sordid fraud. To those purposes conspired the veneration for relics, the worship of images, the idolatry of saints and martyrs, the religious inviolability of sanctuaries, the consecration of cemeteries, but, above all, the doctrine of purgatory, and masses for the relief of the dead. A creed thus contrived, operating upon the minds of barbarians, lavish, though rapacious, and devout though dissolute, naturally caused a torrent of opulence to pour in upon the church."*

CHAPTER IV.

DIVINE RIGHT OF SUPREMACY CLAIMED AND DISPROVED.

§ 17. By general consent a kind of superiority of rank had long been conceded to the bishops of Rome, chiefly from the fact that that city was the first in rank and importance, and the ancient capital of the empire; and upon the same ground it was that the council of Chalcedon, already referred to, "proceeding on the principle that the importance of a bishop depended alone on the political consequence of the city in which he lived, decreed the same rights to the bishop of Constantinople in the Eastern church, which the bishop of Rome enjoyed in the Western."+ After the fall of the ancient capital, however, and its consequent diminution of political importance, as compared with the Eastern capital, the bishops of Rome found it necessary to assert with renewed earnestness, the pretensions which they had occasionally hinted at before, of their divine right of supremacy, in consequence of their claiming to be the successors of the apostle Peter, who, they now asserted, without a shadow of scriptural or historical proof, was the first bishop of Rome, and was constituted by Jesus Christ, supreme head of the church upon earth.

§ 18. As this is a fundamental point with the Romish church,‡

* Hallam's Middle Ages, chap. vii., pages 261, 262, American edition. + Gieseler, vol. i., page 269.

The views of Romanists on this point, so essential to their whole system, are explicitly set forth in the following translation from the Latin of an extract from the theology of Peter Dens, a standard work, prepared for the use of Romish seminaries and students of theology. Mechlin edition, 1838.

Concerning the Supreme Pontiff. (Nos. 90, 93, 94.)

"What is the Supreme Pontiff?

"He is Christ's Vicar upon earth, and the visible head of his church.

No proof that Peter was bishop of Rome.

it may be well, at this place, to make a short digression, for the purpose of examining the validity of this claim. In relation to the first supposition, that of Peter having been bishop of the church at Rome, there is no historical proof whatever. There is no mention in the New Testament that Peter ever was at Rome, and hence Scaliger, Salmasius, Spanheim, Adam Clarke, and many other learned writers, have denied that he ever visited that city. But supposing the Romanist tradition to be true, that he suffered death at Rome, in company with the apostle Paul, about A. D. 65, still, there is no proof whatever that he was bishop of Rome, or that he had any particular connection with the church or churches in that city, any more than Paul or any other of the apostles. Indeed, it would be much easier to prove that Paul was bishop of the church of Rome than that Peter was, for it is expressly mentioned in the New Testament, that Paul visited Rome, and that he remained there for "two whole years-preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts xxviii., 30, 31.) Now if Pope Peter was also at Rome, and more especially if he was there in the character of "supreme head of the church universal," is it not most astonishing that Paul should take not the slightest notice of him, and that neither the Sacred

"Christ instituted the church of the New Testament upon earth, not on the plan of an aristocratic or democratic government, but on the plan of a monarchical government, yet tempered by that which is best in an aristocracy, as was said No. 81. But when Christ was about to withdraw his visible presence by his ascension into heaven, he constituted his Vicar the visible head of the church, he himself remaining the supreme, essential and visible head.

“Who is called Supreme Pontiff, and wherefore?

"The Roman Pontiff, not only because he holds the highest honor and dignity in the church, but principally, because he has supreme and universal authority, power and jurisdiction over all bishops and the whole church.

"From whom does the Pope, legitimately elected, receive his power and jurisdiction?

"Ans. He receives it immediately from Christ as his Vicar, just as Peter received it. Nor is it any objection that the Pope is elected by cardinals; for their election is only an essential requisite, which being supplied, he receives power and jurisdiction immediately from Christ.

"From whom do the Bishops receive the power of jurisdiction?

"Ans. The French contend that they receive it immediately from Christ; but it seems that it ought rather to be said that they receive it immediately from the Roman Pontiff, because the government of the church is monarchical," &c., &c. "What power has the Roman Pontiff?

"We reply with St. Thomas, &c.: THE POPE HAS PLENITUDE OF POWER IN THE CHURCH; so that his power extends to all who are in the church, and to all things which pertain to the government of the church.

"This is proved from what was said before: because the Roman Pontiff is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church, the pastor and teacher; therefore," &c. "Hence it follows, that all the faithful, even bishops and patriarchs, are obliged to obey the Roman Pontiff; also, that he must be obeyed in all things which concern the Christian religion, and therefore, in faith and customs, in rites, ecclesiastical discipline," &c. "Hence, the perverse device of the Quesnellites falls to the ground; namely, that the Pope is not to be obeyed, except in those things which he enjoins conformably to Sacred Scripture.”

No proof that Peter was constituted by Christ supreme head of the Church.

Scriptures nor any of the apostolic fathers should say one word in relation to his connection with the church in that city?

Look again, at the style in which Peter alludes to himself in his epistles; how different from that which has ever been adopted by his professed successors, the lordly Roman pontiffs, since the establishment of their supremacy! If Peter really was, as Romanists contend, the first POPE OF ROME, why do we not find him adopting a style something like the following: "We, Simon Peter, sovereign pontiff of Rome, apostolic vicar, and supreme head of the church?" &c., or something in the style of Pope Gregory's Encyclical Letter of 1832, viz.: "Encyclical Letter of our MOST HOLY FATHER, POPE PETER, by Divine Providence, the First of the name, addressed to all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops."* But instead of this, we read simply "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle to them that have obtained like precious faith." (2 Pet., i., 1.)

§ 19.-The second supposition, viz.: that Peter was constituted by Christ, supreme head of the Church, is professedly derived from the following conversation between Christ and Peter," When Jesus came into the coast of Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, who do men say that I, the Son of man, am? and they said, some say that thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, but who say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also 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." (Matt. xvi., 13, &c.) Now in reference to this passage, it is sufficient to remark that the rock 8τоα (petra), on which Christ promised to build his church, was not, as Romanists maintain, the fallible mortal Peter, Пɛτgos (Petros), who had made this confession, but the glorious and fundamental truth which this confession embodied, or the glorious and divine personage, who was the subject of it, "THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE Son of the LIVING GOD." The words in the Greek are “ Συ ει Πετρος, και επι ταυτη τη πέτρα,” “ Thou art Peter, and upon this pα rock," which thou hast confessed, &c. So also the Latin Vulgate has "Tu es Petrus (mas.), et super hanc petram (fem.), ædificabo ecclesiam meam." The interpretation which Roman Catholic writers put upon this expression, is comparatively modern in its origin, and directly opposed to the opinions of some whom they regard as the most enlightened among the ancient fathers. In their authorized creed, Romanists solemnly profess to receive no interpretations of Scripture, except " according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." (Nisi juxta unanimem consensum patrum. Creed of Pope Pius.) To prove that in their inter

66

*Title of Pope Gregory's Letter, "Encyclical Letter from our most Holy Father, Pope Gregory, the Sixteenth of the name, addressed to all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops."

Other apostles more worthy than Peter.

Augustine, Hilary, and Bede quoted. pretation of this passage, they violate their own rule, many citations from the fathers might be given. Let the following two suffice. The first is from Augustine, the celebrated bishop of Hippo (on Matt., 13. ser.) "De verbis Domini, tu es Petrus," &c. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock which thou hast confessed, upon this, which thou hast acknowledged, saying, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my church; that is, upon myself, the Son of the living God, I will build my church," &c.

The other is from Hilary, another of the most celebrated fathers. (Can. 16, de fundam. Eccles.) "Unum igitur hoc est immobile fundamentum," &c. "This one foundation is immovable, that is, that one blessed rock of faith, confessed by the mouth of Peter, Thou art the Son of the living God."-(De Trinit., l. 6.) “Super hanc confessionis petram ecclesiæ ædificatio est." "The building of the church is upon this rock of confession." And again, "hæc fides," &c. "This faith is the foundation of the church; this faith hath the keys of the kingdom of heaven: what this faith shall loose or bind is bound and loosed in heaven."

So also the venerable Bede, who, though not reckoned among the fathers, was a writer of great renown in the eighth century, remarks on this passage as follows. "It is said unto him by a metaphor, Upon this rock, i. e., the Saviour, whom thou hast confessed, the church is builded."

Whatever may be the weight attached to the authority of these writers, it is evident that if the promise referred to Peter, it failed of accomplishment; for when Peter with oaths and curses denied his Lord, certainly the gates of hell did prevail against him, and if he, a fallible and peccable mortal, had been the foundation of the church; when that fell, the church, the superstructure must have fallen with it. The fact is, that CHRIST ALONE is the supreme head as well as the foundation of the church, and he gave no special precedence or dignity to one of the apostles which he gave not to another. He established no earthly supreme head of the church, and his apostles ever acted toward each other in the spirit of the declaration of their Lord, "ONE IS YOUR master, even CHRIST, AND ALL YE ARE BRETHREN."

§ 20.-If any one were worthy of the supremacy over the rest, and to be called "PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES," there are at least three of their number who would be more worthy of the honor than Peter, viz. either Paul, or James, or John. Paul was more worthy, for he publicly and deservedly rebuked Peter, and " withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Gal. ii., 11), and certainly Paul could not have been inferior to Peter, for Paul himself declares that IN NOTHING was he behind the very chiefest apostles." (2 Cor. xii., 11.) James was more worthy than Peter, for he appears to have been bishop or pastor of the first church ever established, viz. : that at Jerusalem, and presided and announced the final decision in the council held at Jerusalem, in relation to the alleged necessity of circumcision. (Acts, chap. xv.) John was certainly more

Peter's imaginary successors.

Various and conflicting lists of them

worthy of the supremacy than Peter, if any one were entitled to such a pre-eminence; for John never denied his Lord, but Peter did; John, "the beloved disciple," asked Jesus a question at the Supper, which Peter did not dare to ask. (John xiii., 23, 24.) John was standing near the cross, at the death of his Lord, and had the mother of Jesus confided to his care, while Peter was probably at a distance, weeping over his cowardly denial. (John xix., 25, &c.) John lived longer than Peter, was the last survivor of all the apostles, and penned more of the volume of Inspiration than either Peter, or any other of the twelve.

§ 21. But in relation to the other supposition; supposing that it could be proved, which we have shown it cannot, that Peter, during his life, was the supreme head of the church on earth, still it would be impossible to prove that this supremacy descended down from one generation to another, through the long line of popes, many of whom, as we shall show, in the progress of this work, were monsters of vice and impurity. There is no evidence that the apostles had the slightest expectation of any such regular line of descent. The New Testament does not say a single word about it, and even the Roman bishops themselves did not make the claim to have derived their power from Peter, till several centuries after the apostolic age.

Before leaving this subject, there is one absurdity which springs from this claim of the Romanists, that deserves to be mentioned. Most Roman Catholic authors reckon Linus the second bishop of Rome, or supreme head of the church;* pope Linus, according to

*We are not to suppose, however, that there is any uniformity among writers, or certainty as to the three or four supposed first successors of St. Peter. Says Mr. Walch, the author of a compendious but learned history of the Popes, originally published in German: "If we may judge of the church of Rome, by the constitution of other apostolic churches, she could have had no particular bishop, before the end of the first century. The ancient lists," he adds, "are so contradictory that it would be impossible exactly to determine, either the succession of the bishops, or their chronology. Some say that Clemens, of Rome, had been ordained by the apostle Peter, and was his immediate successor. Others place Linus and Cletus betwixt them. A third set name Linus, but instead of Cletus, name ANACLETUS, ANENCLETUS, DACLETIUS. Lastly a fourth party states the succession thus: Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anacletus.”—Walch's Lives of the Popes.

Among the early fathers, Tertullian, Rufinus, and Epiphanius, say Clement succeeded Peter. Jerome declares that 'MOST of the Latin authors supposed the order to be Clement the successor of Peter.' But Irenæus, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine, contradict the above authorities, and say Linus succeeded Peter; Chrysostom seems to go the same way. Bishop Pearson has proved that Linus died before Peter; and therefore, on the supposition that Peter was first bishop of Rome, Linus could not succeed him. Cabassute, the learned Popish historian of the councils, says, 'it is a VERY DOUBTFUL question concerning Linus, Cletus, and Clemens, as to which of them succeeded Peter.' Dr. Comber, a very learned divine of the church of England, says, 'upon the whole matter there is NO CERTAINTY Who was the bishop of Rome, next to the apostles, and therefore the ROMANISTS BUILD UPON AN ILL BOTTOM, when they lay so great weight on their

PERSONAL SUCCESSION.

"The LIKE BLUNDER," remarks the same learned Episcopalian, "there is about the next bishop of Rome. The fabulous Pontifical makes Cletus succeed Linus,