Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

a debate in the House of Lords, (reported in the Courier of March 20th last) declared," that he had often asked of that great man, whose friendship for him he wished to have recorded on his tomb, as his best encomium, whether he had any specific securities to bring forward, in case the Claims of the Romanists should be taken into the consideration of Parliament. Although he had pressed these inquiries over and over again, that great person had died without ever being able to tell him what his securities were."-Now the only apparent mode of proceeding left, is this, to prove that the papistical doctrine of supremacy stands on no valid foundation whatever; at least, that it is not supported, either by the warranty of Scripture, or the testi, mony of history. If this be done, although we can hardly hope generally to convince of error the members of a church, fortified against the reception of truth by a persuasion, that infallibility has guided it in all its decisions; yet we may reasonably expect that individuals may be reclaimed from the mental thraldom in which they are beld; and, at any rate, that the Protestant friends of Popery, may be induced to cease from their unprofitable labours, which, if successful, must expose our country to dreadful consequences.

The argument bottoms on the words of our LORD addressed to St. Peter, when he made his confession of faith, with that ardent promptitude which he manifested on several occasions :— "thou art CHRIST, the Son of the living GOD." On these words, misunderstood and misinterpreted, the Church of Rome set up a pre-eminence in the early ages of Christianity; afterward sublimated by Idebrand into that supremacy, which first instigated him to anathematize the emperor Henry IV., by whom his election to the popedom had been ratified; and afterwards occasioned such an immensity of mischief to all sovereign princes, and all free states.-How the Bishop of St. David's treats the first point which he undertakes to discuss, will appear from the following extract. (P. 1.)—

See "A Concise History of the Origin, Progress, and Effects of the Papal Supremacy," printed at Dublin, and sold by the publisher of the PROTESTANT Advocat&, This will be found a very useful tract. Every thing advanced in it, is supported by authorities referred to at the foot of the page.

The origin of the Christian church, and particularly of the church in Britain, are questions which deeply concern us as Christians and Protestants. The proof of either establishes our belief in Christianity, and annuls the supremacy of the church of Rome,

If the Pope has no pretension to that supremacy which the Papists ascribe to him, and which detaches the Papists of this Empire from the allegiance in ecclesiastical matters, which is due to their Sovereign and to the laws, it is greatly to be lamented, that so false a principle should be a cause of separation between two great portions of the Christian church, and should alienate one part of our fellow-subjects from the duty, which the rest pay to their King, and to the laws, of which he is the sworn guardian; and that on this false principle should be built the inflammatory complaints of their advocates in Parliament and out of it, as if the Papists were suffering in this country for conscience' sake, by being deprived of civil rights for want of that conformity, which their consciences condemn. Four-fifths of the subjects of these Kingdoms have, for some Centuries, renounced all foreign jurisdiction. One-fifth still adheres to it, in opposition to those constitutional principles, on which our Protestant government is founded, and which, for the security of the Protestant succession, placed the present Royal family on the Throne. Yet for the sake of this onefifth part of our fellow-subjects, it is contended, that those principles ought to be abandoned, to make way for an unconstitutional exemption founded on imaginary pretensions.

The supremacy of the Pope rests on a misinterpretation of Scripture. When our Saviour said to Simon, "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church," he did not mean to give to any particular Church, or to the Bishop of such Church, the right of supremacy over all other Churches. The words have no relation to such power or authority. In the passage which precedes these words, our Saviour says, "Whom 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 Barjona; for flesh and blood have not revealed it unto thee; but my Father, which is in Heaven :" to which He adds, " And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church."* This rock refers to it, the confession, which St. Peter had just made, that Jesus was the Messiah. This confession is the foundation of the Christian church. It was on this confession that the first converts were admitted into the church of Christ. St. Paul says to the church of Ephesus," Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets,

Matth. xyi. 18.

Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone." Their faith was built on the predictions of the Prophets, and testimony of the Apostles, the testimony and predictions of both uniting in Jesus Christ. The church was founded on the Prophets and Apostles, not on St. Peter or St. Paul in particular. St. Peter was a part of this foundation, but not a part on which the Church was solely or chiefly to depend. He was one of the stones of that edifice, of which Christ was the chief corner-stone. If the Church could be said to be founded on an individual Apostle, it was founded on St. James, who was the first Bishop of the first Christian Church. The Church of Christ was not founded on St. Peter individually, but on him, and the other Apostles; and not on them, properly speaking, but on their doctrine, the Messiaship of Jesus. Christ addressed bis question to all the Apostles: whom say YE that I am? St. Peter's answer was in the name of all. The commission of the Keys was addressed to St. Peter, not exclusively, but in common with the rest, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Christ bere only announces his intention of what he should do; and we may judge of what was intended by what was afterwards done. Christ says not I now give, but I will give. And that future commission was the final commission in his last conversation with them on earth. And what was that commission? To preach the Gospel, and to baptize all nations; to preach the doctrine of Christ, and to admit into the Church of Christ. By the kingdom of heaven, the keys of which were to be given to St. Peter, was meant the Gospel and the Church of Christ. In his final commission to the Apostles, Christ did not commit the charge of preaching and baptizing to any one Apostle above the rest, but to all. St. Peter had in this charge no pre-eminence or superior authority. He was not the foundation, on which the Church was to be built, but a part of it. He was not petra, but petrus.

That St. Peter was not the rock, on which Christ said he would build his Church, is, I think, evident from the change of terms in the words of our Saviour." Thou art Petrus (Peter), and on this petra (rock) İ will build my Church." If our Saviour had meant that St. Peter should be the rock on which he would build his church, the same term might have been repeated: "Thou art Petrus, and on this petrus I will build my

The different meanings of Caσined Twy ougavav are thus enumerated by Schleusner, Lex. Nov. Test. a. tempus adventus Christi in his terris; B. omnis salus et felicitas per Christum hominibus parta; y. futura Christianorum felicitas; religio Christiana; ε, cœtus, societas Christianorum in his terris; . imperium spirituale et invisibile, quo Christus coetum sectatorum suorum in his terris tuetur et auget, suamque doctrinam Indies magis magisque propagat; n. propagatio religionis Christianæ; 9. regnum Christ

terrenum.

VOL. I. [Prot. Adv. Nov. 1812.] K

Church." For petrus, like its corresponding Syriac term, sometimes signifies a rock as well as a stone. But the word is changed; and therefore we may conclude, that the second term was not meant to convey the same meaning as the first. It has a relative meaning, no doubt. Simon was with great propriety called Petrus for his confession of that doctrine, on which Christ was to build his Church. " Thou art Peter, and I have sa called you, because on the doctrine which you have now confessed, I will build my Church, as on a rock." The solidity of a Rock is an emblem of the eternal stability of the Gospel and its covenant. The Gospel is an "everlasting Gospel." The covenant of grace is an "everlasting covenant." Heaven and earth shall pass away, but "the words of Christ shalļ pot pass away."

The Church of Christ is one thing, the foundation of the Church, another; and the Rock, on which it is founded, another. The foundation of the Church is the testimony of the Prophets and Apostles; and Christ, the subject of this testimony, is the Rock on which it is founded. But the foundation and the Rock are convertible terms; and therefore Christ may be called the foundation; and the testimony of the Apostles, the Rock on which the Church is built. But, individually, Christ, and not St. Peter, is the Rock of the Christian Church.

This substratum the Right Rev. Author crowns with an argu→ ment, shewing that in the establishment of the Church of Rome, St. Paul had the priority; for although a considerable number of Christian converts were already at Rome, and were saluted by St. Paul in the 16th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, the infant Church in that city was organized by that Apostle, during his first visit to the then metropolis of the civilized world; but it must ever be remembered, that this took place long subsequent to the Establishment of the Christian Church at Jerusalem, where the first bishop was St. James, not St. Peter; and where not St. Peter but St. James presided at the first Council. (Acts, 15.)

In ascertaining ancient facts, of course, we must be much governed by dates; but then we must judiciously employ the means afforded us of eliciting truth. The period of St. Paul's journey to Rome and to Britain may certainly derive some degree of proof from the dates of his Epistles, particularly his Epistle to the Romans. Learned men, however, differ no less than seven years in the date of the Epistle to the Romans; but the Bishop of St. David's observes, that "the choice of a date for

[ocr errors]

the Epistle, must be governed by the journey [to Rome], and not the time of the journey by dates assigned to the Epistle.". With this clue in his hand, he conducts his Readers very ingeniously through all the authorities, beginning with Gildas, who says "that Christianity was introduced into Britain before the defeat of the British forces under Boadicea (A. D. 61), and between that event and some others not long preceding it." Eusebius and Jerome bear testimony that St. Paul was sent prisoner to Rome in the second year of Nero, (A.D. 56). The sole distress of the Chronologists is, to find time sufficient for St. Paul to visit Britain; but on a comparison between Gildas's testimony, and that of Eusebius and Jerome, a sufficient portion of time is obtained for his journey. The Bishop notices the different writers, seriatim; and finally concludes that he has shewn, "from good historical evidence of ancient authorities, supported by the concurrence of very judicious modern writers, Parker, Camden, Usher, Stillingfleet, Cave, Gibson, Nelson, and Collier, that St. Paul preached the Gospel in Britain:" and then he asks, very pertinently, (and an important corollary does the answer supply)" what results from this Establishment of the British Church by St. Paul? This very interesting consequence that THE CHURCH OF BRITAIN WAS FULLY ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE CHURCH OF ROME. For Linus, the first Bishop of Rome [as Irenæus informs us, lib. iii. cap. 3.], was appointed by the joint authority of St. Peter and St. Paul, in the year of their martyrdom, and therefore after St. Paul's return from Britain." The Bishop adds:

I have shewn too that the Church of Jerusalem was the mother church of Christendom, that St. James was the first Bishop of the first Christian Church, that St. Paul was the founder of the Church of Rome, and that the words of our Saviour, from which the Romanists derive their opinion of St. Peter's and the Pope's supremacy, do not mean, that He would found his Church on St. Peter; and that it was not so founded; but on the Messiaship of Jesus, the doctrine which St. Peter had confessed; and therefore that the Pope's supremacy has no countenance from Scripture or from history.

And yet is this imaginary supremacy of the Pope, the cause of a political anomaly, not suffered in any other government, but our own. The subjects of no Popish government acknowledge a foreign Protestant authority; it is

« ForrigeFortsæt »