OF

For's Book of Martyrs,

CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL.

No. 34. Printed and Published by W. E. ANDREWS, 3, Chapter- Price 3d. house-court, St. Paul's Churchyard, London,

vious woman.- -The church was then secured in her faith by the promises of God, in her morality by the exemplary lives of her most eminent ministers, and the king, the nobles, the gentry, and people, all bowed submission to her decrees, as emanating from the Spirit of Truth, which was to be her guide, till the consummation of the world.-This is indeed " a free" church, because she was not controlled by the will of man, nor by any set of men, but by the omnipotent will of God, who is the author of Justice, Virtue and Freedom.-Now, however, a new church was to be formed, under the direction of one of the most consummate hypocrites, as we have shewn, and the most inexorable tyrant that ever wore a crown, as we shall have to shew; and the creed of this church was not to rest on the word of God, but on the enactments. of a lay parliament. So that as we shall see, by and by, the symbols of faith were as variable as the wind, and were changed as often as it suited the taste of the head of the church, and his wise counsellors.. Before, however, we enter on the bloody deeds of Henry, we will here give an outline of the doctrine of supremacy, for adhering to which,

bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas More, two of the most virtuous and learned men of the age, and many other characters of great eminence and learning, suffered martyrdom, and the Catholics of the present day are debarred from exercising those civil immunities granted to the people of this country by the constitution.

66

THE SUPREMACY.

ARGUMENTS FOR.

Burnet gives us in his Abridgment the following REJECTING THE POPE'S POWER," which the modern editors have extract-. ed into their edition of the Book of Martyrs. He says, "In England "the foundations on which the papal authority was built, had been ex"amined with extraordinary care of late years; and several books were "written on that subject. It was demonstrated that all the apostles were made equal in the powers that Christ gave them, and he often "condemned their contests about superiority, but never declared in St. "Peter's favour. St. Paul withstood him to his face, and reckoned "himself not inferior to him. If the dignity of a person left any authoIrity with the city in which he sat, then Antioch must carry it as well "as Rome; and Jerusalem, where Christ suffered, was to be preferred "to all the world, for it was truly the mother-church. The other privileges ascribed to St. Peter, were either only a precedence of order, or were occasioned by his fall, as that injunction. Feed my sheep, "it being a restoring him to the apostolical function. St. Peter had "also a limited province, the circumcision, as St. Paul had the uncircumcision, of far greater extent; which shewed that Peter was ǹot "considered as the universal pastor.

66

:

"Several sees, as Ravenna, Milan, and Aquileia, pretended exemption "from the papal authority. Many English bishops had asserted that the popes had no authority against the canons, and to that day no "canon the pope made was binding till it was received; which shewed "the pope's authority was not believed to be founded on a divine authority and the contests which the kings of England had had with "the popes concerning investitures, bishops doing homage, appeals to "Rome, and the authority of papal bulls and provisions, shewed that "the pope's power was believed to be subject to laws and custom, ́and' so not derived from Christ and St. Peter; and as laws had given them 66 some power, and princes had been forced in ignorant ages to submit "to their usurpations, so they might, as they saw cause, change those 'laws, and resume their rights.

"The next point inquired into was, the authority that kings had in "matters of religion and the church. In the New Testament, Christ "was himself subject to the civil powers, and charged his disciples not "to effect temporal dominion. They also wrote to the churches to be subject to the higher powers, and call them supreme, and charge every "soul to be subject to them: so in scripture the king is called head "and supreine, and every soul is said to be under him, which joined together makes up this conclusion, that he is the supreme head over "all persons. In the primitive church, the bishops only made rules or canons, but pretended to no compulsive authority, but what came "from the civil magistrate. Upon the whole matter, they concluded "that the pope had no power in England, and that the king had an en

"tire dominion over all his subjects, which extended even to the regulation of ecclesiastical matters.

"These questions being fully discussed in many disputes, and pub"lished in several books, all the bishops, abbots, and friars of England, "Fisher only excepted, were so far satisfied with them, that they re"solved to comply with the changes the king was resolved to make.'

66

Such is the account which Burnet gives, and it was certainly his inferest, who held his prelacy by the king's, not by divine, authority, to make the people believe what he told them, and unfortunately for the cause of truth, they have too long given credit to his and such like assertions." The foundations on which the papal authority was built," we are told," had been examined with extraordinary care of late years; " and several books were written on that subject."-But we ask, by. whom? And what were the titles of these books? The foundation of the papal authority in England was never disputed till Henry had resolved on parting with his lawful wife Catharine, and the pope had determined not to consent to his iniquitous desires.-The supremacy of the bishop of Rome, was a doctrine received with the Christian faith in England, as it was in all other countries that embraced Christianity, and it is still held by every Catholic nation and people in the world. There might have been books written on the foundation of claims set up by some of the popes, regarding the temporalities of the church, but these claims on the one part, and objections to them on the other part, by no means affected the divine right of the pope to preside over and guide the church of God, as her visible head on earth. Burnet says, "it was "demonstrated that all the apostles were made equal in the powers that "Christ gave them, and he often condemned their contests about superiority, but never declared in St. Peter's favour." This prelate of the establishment did not want for brass, and it required some little share of this metal to make such an assertion as this. In their ministerial functions, the apostles certainly were made equal, and so are all Catholic bishops now in their respective diocesses, but Peter received. a charge from his Divine Master which no other apostle did, and consequently that was a declaration in his favour. The charge to feed Christ's lambs and sheep was given to Peter, and to Peter only, in the presence of the other apostles-but all of them were empowered to preach the word, to offer sacrifice, and to forgive sins. To Peter too and to Peter alone, were given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and the promise that the church should be built on him as upon a rock. (Matt. xvi. 17, 18, 19.) In the Protestant version of the bible, we find St. Matthew, in the 10th chapter and 2d verse of his gospel, expressly naming St. Peter as the FIRST apostle, and we also find in the scrip tures that Peter was the first to confess his faith in Christ (Matt. xvi. 16.); the first to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection (Luke, xxiv. 34.); the first to preach the faith of Christ to the people (Acts, ii. 14.); the First to convert the Jews (Ibid. 37); and the first to receive the Gentiles. (Ibid. x. 17.) With what face then could a bishop, whose church is said to be founded on scripture, make such an assertion that Christ never declared in favour of Peter. Can any circumstances be more clear and explicit than scripture on this question of pre-eminence in favour of St. Peter? As we before said, the Catholic bishops are equal

4

in power in their respective diocesses, but the successor of the first bishop of Rome (St. Peter) succeeded him in his superintendency or jurisdiction over the whole flock, for the purpose of preserving unity.

St. Paul, it is said, withstood him to his face, and reckoned himself not inferior to himself. St. Paul did not doubt St. Peter's right to the supremacy, though he might differ from him as to an opinion which Peter might have held. It is one thing to dissent from an opinion merely human, and another to reject a divine command. There is no law in the church to prevent an inferior from finding fault with a superior, provided it is done with due respect and deference, and this is one of the means by which the faith is preserved pure and entire, under the control of the Holy Spirit; for as all the clergy are human, and are therefore liable to fall individually; so, when a departure from truth, or an erroneous opinion is started, it becomes the duty of every man to detect the innovation, and caution the believers against it. It is also a proof that there is a pure system of liberty in the Catholic church, since the pope, though he is head of it, is obliged to govern according to the laws, and is not exempt from the censure of his brethren, any more than St. Peter was from the reproach of St. Paul. An instance of this occurred in the year 1331-2, when Pope John XXII. preached a doctrine from the pulpit in Avignon, then the residence of the popes, that was novel in the church. His doctrine was instantly and as openly denounced by an English Dominican, named Wales. The friar was imprisoned for his laudable courage and zeal, but a crowd of divines aided and supported him,' and he was released, while the pope explained and retracted what he had advanced. It is said the holy father was written to by the then king of France in this laconic stile." Retract, or I will have you burned.' St. Cyprian, St. Augustin, and St. Gregory did not consider the opposition of St. Paul, here alluded to, any prejudice to the authority of St. Peter, but, on the contrary, they gave entire submission to the see of Rome, as pre-eminent in dignity, and supreme over the whole flock.

cr

+

Another objection started is, that "If the dignity of a person left any authority with the city in which he sat, then Antioch must carry "it as well as Rome; and Jerusalem, where Christ suffered, was to be "preferred to all the world, for it was truly the mother church." To this we answer, that wherever St. Peter went, he still preserved his supremacy. At Jerusalem he presided at the council held there, as related in the acts of the apostles, and pronounced the decision of the members, but he was not bishop of that city. St. James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. St. Peter established the see of Antioch, and appointed a successor, from whence he went to Rome, and there fixed the seat of supremacy, to which see it has been unalterably fixed to the present day. That this supremacy was to be centered in the Roman pontiff by divine power is clearly manifest, by the immutability of succession, which no other see, we believe, can boast. The sees established by all the other apostles, and even that of Antioch, have been dissevered in their succession; but Rome, the eternal city, notwithstanding the revolutions she has undergone in her temporal concerns and govern 'ments, has been the centre of unity of the church of Christ, and will so remain to the end of time; a glorious monument of the unerring word of God, who assured us that his church, founded on a Rock, should

withstand every assault of the world and the devil; and here we find, as we have before observed, the supremacy of the see of Rome preserved in an uninterrupted succession for more than eighteen hundred years; a signal proof that a power more than human supports her.

It is also contended that St. Peter had a limited province, "the cir"cumcision, as St. Paul had the uncircumcision, of a far greater extent; "which shewed that Peter was not considered as the universal pastor." In opposition to this statement, we shall produce a host of witnesses, who had better means of knowing whether St. Peter's mission was limited than Gilbert Burnet, the Protestant bishop of Sarum. It is really laughable to see the miserable shifts to which the impugners of the pope's supremacy are driven to prop up their cause; for, in one place, we see them contending that all the apostles were equal, though, as we have shewn from scripture, Christ gave more than one command and promise to Peter expressly; and, in another, we have his commission to preach limited, though in conferring this power Christ spoke to them all in general terms. Besides, St. Peter had his commission given to him long before St. Paul was called to the ministry, and received the Gentiles in the person of the Centurion before the latter began to preach.

We have given in the first volume of this work the sentiments of St. Cyprian (p. 90), St. Basil (p. 169), and St. Gregory Nazianzen (p. 170), on the supremacy of the pope; we will here add a few other testimonies from the first ages, to shew that on this doctrine, as well as on all others believed by the Catholic church, there was no variation. To begin then with St. Leo. He calls Rome the head of the Christian world, and adds, that that name is properly hers by reason of the chair of St. Peter, and that Rome extends its authority further by the sacred rights of religion, than by those of temporal government.-Serm. de Ratio. Apost. edit. Quenal. p. 164.

St. Optatus says, that the first mark of the true church, is to communicate with the chair of St. Peter.-Lib. 2. contra Parmen. edit. Dupin, p. 91.

St. Prosper says the same as St. Leo.-Lib. de Ingratis, ed. Fraisi. Novo, p. 119.

St. Chrysostom writes to pope Innocent the first, begging him to annul all that had been done against him in a synod, where Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, presided; and to demand justice against his false accusers.-Ep. 1, ad Inno. t. 2, con. Lab. 1300.

Now as to the four first councils, and first as to that of Nice, it is evident that Osius, bishop of Cordova, and Vitus and Vincentius, priests of the church of Rome, presided over it, in the place and by the appointment of Sylvester pope, as Gelasius, who lived more than twelve hundred years ago, has left written.-Synb. con. Uriæ. 1. 2, cap. 5.

Eusebius, 1. 7, c. 30, tells us that Paul of Samosata, having been condemned by the second council of Antioch, he would not resign the episcopal palace to him who was chosen in his place, but the emperor Aurelian, though a Pagan, adjusted it to him, to whom the pope gave his communion.

Socrates the historian writes, that the holy canons forbid any thing to be decided in the church, without the consent of the pope.-Lib. 2, c. 8, edit. Froben, p. 296.

4