Babylon, in language so plain that none can misunderstand it, and this again is admitted by the fathers, and by Cardinal Bellarmine and Dr. Delahogue.. But can it be imagined that if Peter were supreme, and his power were intended to go by succession, his successors would have been located in a city which was destined to be the sink of the abominations of the earth, and eventually to be visited with utter destruction? Seeing then that Scripture thus opposes itself to the pope's primacy, we concede a great deal, if we only affirm that it furnishes the Romanist with no plea whatever for papal supre macy. If we pass on to the evidence of antiquity, the first proof which is adduced in favour of the pope is a letter from Clemens to the church at Corinth; but if this proves the supremacy of Clemens Romanus, the letter of Ignatius to the church of Rome equally estab lishes his supremacy over the bishops of Rome. The next evidence produced is the council of Sinuessa, where the assembled fathers re fused to condemn Marcellinus because he was head of the church. But Dupin proves beyond a doubt that this council never had any existence. Again, Hosius is said to have officiated as the pope's legate, when he presided in the council of Nice, and some other coun⚫ cils; but this is contrary to the evidence of the most ancient historians, who give the names of the Romish legates, and make no mention of Hosius in that capacity; and if this were not so, a primacy of honour is not synonymous with a primacy of power. In the council of Sardica, Hosius's proposal, that to the pope, for the honour of the memory of St. Peter, with the leave of the council, be given the privilege of appeals, was assented to. But in the first place we learn from Dupin that this was a council composed only of a hundred of the western bishops, and that this proposal was made after the eastern bishops had left the council. And in the second place, Hosius's expression "with the leave of the council and in honour of Peter," is hos tile to the notion of a divine right. Some compliments, it is true, were paid to some of the popes in the later councils, and their opinion was consulted with deference, but there was nothing amounting to a recognition of the papal supremacy. On the other hand we find that in the second century when Pope Victor had a dispute with the eastern bishops respecting the proper time for keeping Easter, they all refused to abide by his decision; and when he proceeded to exe communicate them, Eusebius informs us that he was sharply rebuked for this by Irenæus and other western bishop. Hence all the east ern fathers of the second century and many of the western refused obedience to the bishop of Rome. In the third century Cyprian, than whom no one stood up more stoutly for the unity of the church, at the head of an African council of 87 bishops, the council of Carthage, boldly opposed the church of Rome and Pope Stephen, on the question of the rebaptizing of heretics, which he undoubtedly would not have done, if he had conceived that the church of Rome was the church of Christ, and that the bishop of Rome was the Especially in the council of Chalcedon. divinely-appointed head of the universal church. His language also is decidedly at variance with the papal pretensions. The first count cil of Nice gave the first place of honour to the bishops of Rome, but expressly decreed that appeals should be decided by the bishops of each province. The first council of Constantinople renewed this decree respecting appeals; and the council of Chall cedon in its 28th canon declares that the first place was given to the bishop of Rome, not because he was the successor of Peter, but "quia urbs illa imperaret," because that city was the seat of empire. Jerome in one of his treatises highly eulogizes the church of Rome, but he begins by saying, "Nullum primum sequens, nisi Christum "following none as first but Christ;" words which are generaky omitted by Romanists; and he elsewhere declares that all bishops are of equal merit, and that they ought to rule the church in common. Towards the commencement of the fifth century Pope Zosimus attempted to impose upon the African church by a forged copy of the decrees of the first council of Nice respecting appeals, Upon a reference to the copies of the eastern churches the forgery was detected, and the council of Milevi consisting of sixty bishops decreed that whosoever appealed beyond the seas should be excluded from the pale of the African church. Among the early signatures as given in Labbæus's and Manse's councils, we are gratified with discovering the name of Augustine, bishop of Hippo. Hence we have a host of the fathers of the second century, opposed to Pope Victor; in the matter of appeals, we have the decrees of the fathers of Nice and Constantinople; we have the evidence of the fathers of Chalcedon against the notion that even the primacy of honour was given to the bishop of Rome as of divine right; we have Cyprian and the fathers of Carthage flatly opposing Pope Stephen; we have Augustine and the fathers of Milevi opposing Zosimus and his successors; we have the declaration of Jerome that all bishops are of the same worth; and lasty, we have, towards the close of the sixth century, the dictum of Pope Gregory the great, that the prerogatives of Peter, instead of being vested in the bishops of Rome only, were continued by a threefold succession to the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome; in fine, we have an army of the fathers on our side; and if the Romanist can succeed in marshalling Optatus and an equal force against us, the conflict that will ensue will drive us back to the word of God, where, as we have already seen, Rome is so awfully menaced by Paul, where Peter and John characterise her as Babylon, and where there is, perchance, a prophetical description of the Roman bishops that will sound still more ominously in the ears of Catholics. Having thus examined the evidence of Scripture and of antiquity, let us canvass the merits of the plea of expediency. The advantages of a visible head upon the score of unity, are not unfrequently dwelt upon by Papal writers, nor are they silent upon the benefits which the papal government has conferred upon the church. Let us con> template for a moment the question in this point of view. If we are to believe Romanists, Peter and his successors were invested with the peculiar prerogative of feeding, ruling, and governing the church, and were designed to present us with a visible representation of the Lord of glory. Now without looking for an immaculate succession, we may reasonably expect, that if such was the divine purpose, it has not been defeated, and the least that we can look for is, more of unity and less of corruption in the bishops and in the church of Rome, than in any other bishop or bishoprick. But what is the fact as established by the evidence of Roman Catholic historians? Here give a sketch from part 1st, of Liberius and the Arian heresy, the contests at papal elections, the schism and corruptions in the days of Gregory 1st-Pope Formosus and Stephen-the popes and church of Rome in the tenth century-the Cerberus in the eleventh, and the church of Rome under Hildebrand, &c. The great western schism -Popes Sixtus 4th, Alexander 6th, Julius 2nd. Gregory 13th, &c. If it be demanded of us how the papal authority originated, we reply, that it originated in human regulations. The primacy of honour was conferred upon the bishops of the imperial city by the first council of Nice. When the church was placed under the government of patriarchs, the western patriarchate, which included Italy, France, and Spain, fell to the lot of the bishops of Rome. Britain does not appear to have been included in it, as we find subsequently the British bishops refusing to submit to Augustine, the pope's legate. The conversion of the Saxons established the supremacy of the pope in England: the conversion of the Francs increased his influence in France; and the troubles of Spain enabled him to augment his power in that country. Germany, Prussia, Denmark, and Sweden, were christianized by Romish emissaries, who made the supremacy of the pope an article of their creed. Availing themselves of the ignorance of the middle ages, the popes assumed a temporal, as well as a spiritual supremacy. Their power was constantly resisted in the East; it never was universal; it originated in human regulations; it was augmented by usurpation and deceit and tyranny; and was justly cast off at the Reformation as offensive to God, and detrimental to the welfare of the church of Christ. Having thus shown what the pope is not, it will in the second place be expedient to show what he is, in other words, to exhibit him as "the man of sin !" In entering upon this portion of the subject, it will not be politic to refer to equivocal signs of iniquity in the Roman bishops, which Romanists defend, such as the denial of the Scriptures to the laity, the mediatorship of the Virgin and saints, image worship, &c. The sin, which is here expressly referred to, viz. pride, is enumerated by the church of Rome among the seven deadly sins. It can easily be shown that the pride of the Roman bishops has exceeded all that is recorded of imperial or priestly pride in the annals of mankind. This feature of the man of sin is delineated in holy writ, where it is said, "he setteth himself up above all that is called God." Let us reflect, however, in what manner man can set himself up above God. Doubtless, not by scaling the heavens and dethroning Deity. He can only do so by assuming a power superior to the earthly powers that are ordained of God. It is said that the man of sin is to set himself up above all that is called God. Now in a secondary sense, earthly potentates are called gods. (Psalm lxxxi. v. 6, Douay version.) “I have said you are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most High." And (Rom. c. xiii. v. 1), " There is no power but from God, and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." And if this be the true meaning of the prediction, and it is evident that it is, seeing that in no other way can man set himself up above all that is called God, then, that in the persons of the popes, the man of sin has been most accurately set forth, cannot be denied. The bishops of Rome have affected a universal empire, above all earthly thrones; they have excommunicated and deposed kings, have given away kingdoms, and have pretended to exercise the power of God upon earth, not only without warranty but against the divine precepts. To take one example for many, call to mind England under an interdict, and John doing homage for it upon his knees. In the papal decretals we find it declared, that the papal power is as much superior to the imperial, as the sun is greater than the moon. In the book of Roman ceremonies, kings and emperors are enjoined to perform menial offices for the pope, to hold his stirrup or bridle when he gets upon his horse, to put the first dish upon his table, &c.; and strange to say, kings and emperors submitted to this servitude. On one occasion he even kicked off the crown of the king of Germany to admonish him that he could depose him if he were disobedient. Again, the man of sin is predicted as sitting in the temple of Ged, and consequently as being in the visible church, and as it should seem an apostate minister, showing himself as if he were God. (2 Thess. c. ii v. 4.) Now here also we must bear in mind that this is said of mau, and we must not consequently expect to hear of any one pretending to wield the thunderbolt, to call new worlds into existence, to infuse the breath of life into inanimate clay, or to array himself in the ineffable glories of the Godhead. We must only expect to see such an assumption of the divine prerogatives as is feasible to sinful man. The popes have exhibited themselves as God as far as it is in the power of man to do so. They have pretended to be the visible representatives of the Trinity. The sacred title of "Father of Fathers," which is synonimous with that of "the Everlasting Father," is among the titles of the "Bishop of Bishops :" all the titles of Christ are assumed by him, and many of the scriptural predictions of the Saviour have been applied to him by his flatterers in his presence and in council; and by. pretending to a personal infallibility, he has endeavoured to represent the third person in the blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost. Finally, on the day of election he is placed upon the great altar, where the host is ordinarily elevated, and worshipped by the cardinals. "He sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as God." Romanists sometimes denounce Mahomet and at other times Luther as the man of sin. But as neither of these pretended to miracles for themselves or their churches, the resemblance fails. The lying wonders of the papal church are too well known to need comment. This most comprehensive subject needs for its completion the setting forth of the true head of the church in a closing speech in his threefold character, as prophet, priest, and king. The above was the order pursued at the Liverpool discussion, in nine Protestant speeches, the report of which is unfortunately most defective. DOCUMENTS. Third Session of the Council of Decree respecting the Symbol of Wherefore the council has thought fit that the symbol of faith, which the holy Roman church uses, as that beginning in which all who profess the Christian faith necessarily meet, and as the firm and sole foundation, against which the gates of hell shall never prevail, shall be expressed in the same words in which it is read in all the churches, which are after this sort: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, &c.-(The Nicene Creed.)The Canons and Decrees of the most Holy and Ecumenical Council of Trent, held under Popes Paul 3rd, Julius 3rd, and Pius 4th. (Printed at Paris, 1823.) Concilii Tridentini, Sessio Tertia, celebrata die 4 mensis Februárii, an. Ch. 1546. Decretum de Symbolo Fidei. Quare symbolum fidei, quo sancta Romana ecclesia utitur, tanquam principium illud, in quo omnes, qui fidem Christi profitentur, necessario conveniunt, ac firmamentum firinum et unicum, contrà quod portæ inferni nunquam prævalebunt, totidem verbis, quibus in omnibus ecclesiis legitur, exprimendum esse censuit. Quod quidem ejusmodi est. Credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem, factorem cæli et terræ, visibilium omnium et invisibilium: et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia sæcula, &c.-Sucrosi, et Ecumenici Concilii Tridentini, Paulo 3, Julio 3, et Pio 4, Pontificibus Maximis, celebrati, canones et decreta. (A Paris, 1823.) For the interpretation by the fathers of the passage Matt, ch. xvi, "Thou art Peter," consult the Index of Part II. |