Page images
PDF
EPUB

remains for them to give us some plain and evident proofs of it.

Upon the whole then, they have not the least proof from scripture for the supremacy of St Peter, but we have from thence the fullest confutation of it. It is of such consequence, that we ought to demand the clearest attestations for it; but all that can be found in scripture about it, is but one manifest contradiction of it. And here the very argument upon which the Pope's power is founded reverts most strongly against them. There was no such government of the church in the apostles' time, and therefore there is no such now; and the Bishop of Rome's pretending to this power, when he had no right to it, will be but another argument of his presumption and falsehood, by which he hath so wretchedly imposed upon a credulous and deluded world *.

* Loftus' Controversy between the Churches of Rome and England. Dub. 1770, p. 123.

CHAP. III.

THE SUPREMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME CONFUTED FROM THE PRIMITIVE FATHERS, WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRIMITIVE METHOD OF PRESERVING THE UNITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

I PROCEED next to present the reader with a brief account of the method, in which the Bishops immediately succeeding the apostles, preserved the unity of the church, not, as I shall shew, by ruling their respective churches in subjection to one visible head, but in maintaining a friendly correspondence and intercourse with each other.

However, I must beg the reader to observe, that (even granting the Bishop of Rome to be the successor of St Peter,) I have already proved that St Peter had no supremacy at all; and consequently, the pretended supremacy of the Bishop of Rome must of necessity fall to the ground. "The surest, if not the only method of our adversaries (as Dr Hawarden, a noted champion of the Church of Rome, maintains,) to cut off the Pope's supremacy, is by denying that of St Peter. For we cannot reasonably doubt, but our blessed Saviour instituted a form of government, which was always to remain in his church. To suppose he left it without any certain rule, or form of administration, would be a reflection on his wisdom, and to thwart his institution would be downright sacrilege. So that if St Peter's supremacy be overturned, this of his successors must necessarily fall,”

(True Church of Christ, II. p. 84.) The scriptures, therefore, in the opinion of this Romish divine, are perfectly sufficient to decide this controversy. This is true christian divinity. However, I have already engaged to prove, not only that the scriptures, but that the more ancient fathers, were decidedly of the opinion of the Reformed Episcopal Church. But even supposing that the contrary was maintained by the primitive writers, yet we are not bound to receive it as an article of the catholic faith, or is the belief of it to be owned as necessary to salvation, unless it appear to have been so taught by the apostles in the sacred writings, according to the golden article of our church. (Art. vi.)—To begin then at the First Age:

St IGNATIUS was Bishop of Antioch from A.D.67 to A. D. 107. In his writings it no where appears that the unity of the Catholic Church consisted in subjection or necessary unity to the Bishop of Rome, or that the catholicism of churches depended on their adherence to the particular Roman Church. On the contrary, it is most apparent that its unity depended on the friendly correspondence which the Catholic Bishops and their churches maintained with one another. This accounts for Ignatius's epistles to the churches of the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, ROMANS, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and to Polycarp Bishop of the Smyrneans. In these epistles, he extols the dignity of Bishops to the highest pitch, and speaks of them "as appointed unto the utmost bounds of the earth," but never once mentions the head of the Catholic Church. For the prevention of schisms he repeatedly exhorts them to adhere to their orthodox Bishops, but is otally silent with respect to the pretended centre of unity in the successor of St Peter.

N

"Wheresoever the Bishop shall appear, there let the people also be; as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." In his very epistle to the Romans, so far from yielding any deference to their Bishop, he does not even take notice of him. This epistle he in scribes "to the church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans," from whence this extraordinary inference has been drawn, "that therefore she is the head of all other churches." (De la Hogue Tract. de Ecclesiá, p. 342.) Antioch is declared, in an imperial edict, (Ap. Joh. Antiochenum, p. 278.) to have "presided in the East," but no man will thence infer, that she was the head of all cities in the world. If, indeed, Ignatius had asserted, that the Church of the Romans had presided over all the churches in the world, it might have served their purpose, but he' merely says, "which presided in the place of the country of the Romans." So Tertullian says, that "the chairs of the apostles are presided on in their places," i. e. have Bishops governing them.

CLEMENS Bishop of Rome (i. e. of the diocese of Rome, not of the whole Catholic Church,) wrote an epistle to the Church of Corinth then engaged in factions, in which the clergy were much affronted, wherein, like a good Bishop and christian brother, he earnestly persuades it by many inducements to peace, but no where speaks imperiously as the "true Vicar of Christ and head of the whole church." What a thundering bull (says Dr Barrow,) would a modern Pope have dispatched against outrageous contemners of the clergy? How often would he have spoken of the apostolic See and its authority? We should infallibly have heard him swagger in his usual style, "Whoever shall presume to oppose our will, let him

know, that he shall incur the indignation of Almighty God, and of his apostles Peter and Paul." And what an excellent opportunity had Clement of mentioning the prince of the apostles, where he speaks of the "mission of the apostles by Christ, their preaching through countries and cities, and appointing the first fruits of their conversion to be Bishops and ministers over such as should afterwards believe." But, with respect to such an officer in the church, he is totally silent.

The APOSTOLIC CANONS describe the state of the church in very ancient times, though they were not compiled in the time of the apostles. In these the ranks, duties, and privileges of all ecclesiastical persons are declared, yet they never give the least intimation of this "Superintendent of the whole church,” or his prerogatives, or the respect due to him; which is no less strange, than that there should be a body of laws, or description of the state of any kingdom, wherein nothing should be mentioned concerning the king or royal authority. They prescribe, "that the Priests and Deacons should do nothing without the consent of their Bishop, for with him the people of God are entrusted, and of him an account of their souls will be demanded." They prescribe that "the Bishops of each province should acknowledge him who is first among them (i. e. their Archbishop,) and esteem him as their head, and do nothing extraordinary without his consent; and that each should meddle only with those affairs that concerned his own diocese ; and also that the Archbishop should not do any thing without the consent of all, that so there may be unity." Now what place could be more opportune to mention the Pope's jurisdiction over the whole church ?-But

« PreviousContinue »