« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
is greater he that sends, or he that is sent?" The answer is an axiom. He that sends is greater than he that is sent.
There is another consideration which carries with it an overpowering weight of probability against Peter being the Pope of Rome. Peter is allowed on all hands to have suffered martyrdom during the persecution under Nero, A. D. 66. Romanists admit this. The apostle John lived about 40 years beyond this period, nàving, during his banishment to Patmos under Domitian, written his apocalypse. Now the question very naturally forces itself 'upon the mind, why did he not succeed Peter in the Popedom, instead of Linus, or Anacletus, or Clemens? (for the Romanists are not agreed as to who was his immediate successor) would not John have been the most suitable successor? Is it likely that an uninspired man would have been chosen the vicar of Christ in preference to an inspired man? in preference to his own beloved discipler and that an inspired apostle would thus become the suffragan of an uninspired bishop of Rome?! John in his writings makes no mention of popes--though, according to Romanists, there were popes during his life. Surely he would have noticed so remarkable an event as the death of the first Pope of Rome and the appointment of his successor. In these days such an event produces quite a commotion in the church. One would
suppose that John, who was an inspired man, would at least have been consulted as to the proper successor of Peter, and that he would have prescribed rules for the election and consecration of popes. But nothing of this kind appears in his writings. But how does it come that the successors of Pe. ter, who were uninspired men, re permitted to occupy the seat and exercise the functions of the See of Rome, while the inspired apostle John was not even pers
mitted to step his foot in that city? How does it come that Rome would tolerate a Christian Bishopric, while she would scarcely tolerate the existence of an obscure follower of Christ within her walls? If Peter was put to death for being a christian--would his successor be permitted to exercise the office of a pope in the christian church in the very midst of heathen? We call upon Romanists to clear up these difficulties.
But, admitting that Peter was Bishop of Rome and that he was superior in office to the other apostles, there is yet a difficulty. If it were a settled point in the church that the Bishop of Rome was superior to all other Bishops, how does it come that there was much bitter contention for supremacy between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople? how does it come that when the ambitious John, Bishop of Constantinople, laid claim to the title of Universal Bishop, (the title which the Pope now assumes) that Gregory the great, Bishop of Rome, in one of his Epistles, says, “It is a most melancholy thing to hear with any patience, that our brother and companion in the Episcopal office should look down with contempt on all others, and be called sole Bishop.” In another place, writing to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, he says, “None of my predecessors would ever use this profane word, for if one patriarch be called universal, the name of patriarch is taken away from all the rest. But far be it from any christian heart to wish to arrogate to himself, any thing that would in the least degree diminish the honor of his brethren; to consent to that execrable term is no other than to destroy the faith.” And again a little further on—"But I confidently assert that whosoever calls himself a Universal Bishop, or desires to be so called, in such aggrandizement is the precurser of antichrist because he proudly sets up him- , self above all others.99*
*See Greg. Magn. Epist, lib. vi. Ep. 30,
If it was
Would any man in his senses believe this to be the language of a Pope of Rome, such as now occupy the holy chair? does not Gregory explicitly declare that none of his predecessors were universal Bishops and does he not bitterly complain that any one should be aspiring to such high prerogative? and yet in the face of this, Romanists tell us that the Bishop of Rome has always been a universal and supreme Bishop. a settled point that the Bishop of Rome was the supreme Bishop, what meaning is there in the grant of that supremacy by the Emperor Phocas, to the Bishop of Rome? What adds great force to the testimony of Gregory on this point, is, that he was writing the truth contrary to his own feelings and desires, for he would have been glad enough to make it appear that the Bishop of Rome had always been a supreme Bishop, as we learn from the fact that he assumed it himself as soon as he had the chance; but not living to enjoy it, it descended to his successor, Boniface III, who was made Pope in 606, and in whom the supremacy of the Pope was established by Phocas. But Gregory does not hint at the supremacy of the Roman See; he does not complain that John of Constantinople was usurping rights and dignities which belonged to himself. But he speaks in strong and decided :erms against the claim to supremaacy by any Bishop. Now is it likely that this would have been the strain of Gregory's complaint, if he had been the supreme Bishop himself ? would he not, if he had his senses, have endeavored to establish and defend his exclusive claim to supremacy? But instead of this he disclaims it for himself and all his predecessors not excepting St. Peter himself.
But admitting Peter's supremacy and that he was Bishop of Rome, there is yet another thing to be shown, and that is, that the Pope of Rome is the successor to Peter. Let this be demonstrated, and moreover, before this can be done, the Pope of Rome must become just such a Bishop as Peter was, for the office is the same, and he must therefore put himself on a footing with Peter; do the work which Peter did, going about from · place to place, preaching Christ crucified, (for I doubt not such work is as much needed at Rome now as it was in the days of Peter) and let him not sit in a chair of splendour, ease and luxury, with a host of crouching minions to kiss his great toe, and pamper his fleshly lusts. Peter acted not so; neither had he any thing to do with civil affairs, such as armies, revenues, crowns and thrones.
EXCLUSIVE SALVATION. Charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,--seeketh not
Paul. What will Papists deny next? They deny that it is a principle of their Church to withhold the scriptures from the common people. In the next chapter we shall show that this is a principle of the Romish Church, at present we shall confine ourselves to the denial that exclusive salvation is a doctrine of that church. Papists would fain have us believe that they are very liberal and charitable in their sentiments towards Protestants, but it is all a sham. We should shudder at the idea that no Roman Catholics are saved, but in the language of another we must say that “they are saved not by the Romish religion, but in spite of it.” I indulge the hope, if ever I am permitted to enter Heaven, to meet there, clothed only in the righteousness of Christ, and justified by faith alone, the two late venerable Archbishops of Baltimore, in their rejoicing, ascribing their salvation only to the merits and intercession of Christ, the imagined intercessions of the Virgin Mary, and of the Saints, will be forgotten.
Exclusive Salvation, we are well aware, was not held by one of these Archbishops, (see Bishop Carroll's reply to Rev. Dr. Wharton, of N. J.) Whether or not this was held by the other, we are unable to say, but our present object is to notice a very confident assertion in a late number of the “United States Catholic Miscellany," that the church of Rome, does not hold and never did hold, neither can any Romish writer be found who has said, that salvation was impossible out of