« PredošláPokračovať »
Il ne reste plus que la liturgie attribuée a Saint Jacques, que d'habiles gens se sont donnés la peine de defendre, mais inutilement; car quoiqu'elle soit plus ancienne, que celles que nous venons d'examiner, puis qu'elle est citée dans le concile tenu dans le palais de l'Empereur, après le cinquiéme concile general, on ne peut pas toutefois dire, que Saint Jacques, en soit auteur, ou qu'elle ait été composée de son temps. Car. I. La vierge est appellée dans cette Liturgie mére de Dieu ; le fils et le Saint Esprit y sont dits consubstantiels au Pére, termes qui n'etoient pas en usage du temps de St. Jacques. Mais quand on diroit qu'ils y etoient, est il croyable qu'on n'eut pas allegué cette autorité dans les conciles de Nicée, d'Ephése, et de Constantinople ? 2. On #. trouve le trisagion, et la doxologie, c'est a dire le sanctus et e gloria Patri, qui n'on été usités communement dans l'eglise qu'au cinquiéme siécle. Car quand on prouveroit, qu'on s'en est servi auparavant, il faut avouer, que ce n'etoit point l'usage commun de l'église. 3. On y prie pour ceux qui sont enfermés dans les monastéres ; qui peut dire qu'il y en eut du temps de Saint Jacques ? 4. Il y est fait mention des confesseurs, terme qui n'a été usité dans l'office divine, que longtemps après Saint Jacques, de l'aveu même de Bellarmin. 5. Cette liturgie parle des temples, des encensemens des autels ; croira-t-on que ces choses aient été en usage du temps de Saint Jacques ? 6. Toute cette liturgie est pleine de citations des lettres de Saint Paul, dont la plupart on été écrites apres la mort de Saint Jacques. Et qu'on ne nous dise point avec les Bona, et Bellarmin, que ces choses ont été ajoutées, parce'quil n'y a pas † qu'on y ait ajouté en tant d'endroits, et que d'ailleurs la suite, et les ceremonies de toute cette liturgie ne conviennent point du temps des apôtres. Je ne parle point de quelques autres liturgies citées par quelques auteurs, telles que sont celles des douze apôtres, dont Abraham Echellensis fait mention, et celle de † Barnabe, dont parle un certain Moine, parcequ'elles me sont inconnues ; ni celle qui est dans les constitutions de Saint Clement, non plus que celle qui est dans les livres attribués a Saint Dénis l'Aréopagite, parceque ces livres extant supposés, comme je montrerai en un autre endroit, il n'y a pas de doute, que les liturgies qu'ils contiennent sont aussi supposées.
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. This subject divides itself into two branches. First, we have to consider whether there are any scriptural grounds for the opinion that a supremacy over the whole Christian Church was given to St. Peter; and secondly, whether there is any ground for the spiritual supremacy which is claimed by the bishops of Rome.
In one passage of Scripture, Peter is called “the first,” (Matth. x. 2.) “The first Simon, who is called Peter.” In what sense was Peter said to be “the first." He was not the first to believe in Christ; for we find (John i. 40.) that Andrew believed before Peter, and that he brought Peter to
and the first confession of Jesus' divinity that we read of, was made by Nathanael. (John i. 49.) Peter was first nominated to be an apostle: and hence was first in point of time. The principal text to which Romanists refer, is (Matth. xvi. 18.) “ Thou art Peter,” &c. But as Peter only expressed the common creed, and was therefore the spokesman of the rest, there was nothing peculiar in his faith that he should be selected in consequence of it as the foundation of the Church. The Church was to be the Church of Christ, not the Church of Peter, and, therefore, must be founded on Christ, and therefore, on Peter's confession, and not on his person. That Peter's confession was the creed of the other Apostles is manifest, for at an earlier period we find (Matth. xiv. 33.) that when Christ came to them in the boat they adored him, saying: “Indeed thou art the Son of God.” As in their faith so in their privileges, there seems to have been an equality among the Apostles; for whilst Christ was the main foundation of his Church, in a secondary sense all the Apostles were said to be foundations. (Eph. ii. 20.) “Built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone;" and (Rev. xxi. 14.) “ The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” If Peter had been the foundation of the Church, this would not give any direct privilege to the Popes. What the Romanists apparently deduce from their interpretation is, that the Church was to be founded upon Peter, and that the Church of Rome was Peter's bishoprick, and the mother Church, and therefore that she is the Church which is founded upon the true Rock. But
this is untenable. For the Church of Jerusalem was fonnded before the Church of Rome, and Peter visited the Church of Antioch before he went to Rome: and whether Christ or Peter was the rock upon which the Church was to be built, every Church founded in every part of the world by the Apostles must have been founded upon the true rock, and therefore upon Peter, if he were the true rock, and hence the Church of Rome can rightfully deduce no exclusive privilege from this passage of the Scriptures. The promise of the keys implied, the promise of authority. Was this romise given exclusively to Peter, we hold that it was not, or (Matth. xviii. 18) the same authority was given to all the Apostles. Romanists affirm that the words evidently conveyed the promise of a primacy to Peter. If this be so, the Apostles must have thus understood Christ. But we find (Mark ix. 33,) that after this promise thus made to Peter, the Apostles disputed by the way which should be the greatest. If our blessed Saviour intended that Peter was to be head of his Church, and that he and his successors were to rule it unto the end of time, would he not forthwith have rebuked the rest of the Apostles, and in language, which neither they nor his Church could mistake, have declared that Peter and his successors were to govern the Universal Church. Instead of doing this, we are informed that he declared that, “If any man desire to be first, he shall be last of all, and the minister of all.” A second time (Mark x. 37) the spirit of ambition displayed itself among the Apostles, and (yer. 42) it met with a similar rebuke. And so far were the Apostles from adopting the Romish interpretation of Matth. xvi. 18, that they again disputed which should be the greatest just before i. crucifixion of Christ. (Luke xxii. 24.) (John xxi. 15.) Peter is twice enjoined by Jesus to feed his lambs, and once to feed his sheep. The Romanists say that when Jesus said, “Feed my sheep,” he meant feed my sheep of the Universal Church. They have no right to enlarge the injunction of Christ to such an extent. But if we admit all that they affirm of this passage, and that the lambs meant the laity, and the sheep the clergy; the commission given to the rest of the Apostles was just as comprehensive, for we find (Matth. xxviii. 19) that they were commissioned to “teach all nations.” It is also inconceivable that, if by the above-cited words, Christ had conferred upon Peter an universality of apostleship which was peculiar to himself, he would have been grieved, instead of expressing his gratitude for the honour conferred upon him. It is evident that Christ's threefold injunction to Peter to feed his lambs and sheep, referred to his threefold denial of his Lord and Master. If a primacy was conferred by Christ upon Peter, we ought to find some unequivocal proofs of his supremacy recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Apostolic Epistles. We look for them in vain. When the vacant apostleship was to be filled up, Peter opened the matter, but the decision, which is the mark of authority, was on the part of all (Acts i. 23), and the election was by lot. When the deacons were to be appointed, the decision was again common (Acts vi. 2), and the election was made by the saints. Upon the propriety of preaching to the Gentiles, they who were of the circumcision contended with Peter (Acts xi. 2), and it was not until he mentioned the vision made to him by God, that they acquiesced in the propriety of his conduct. At the Council . Jerusalem Peter, Paul, and Barnabas addressed the Council. But the only language which savoured of authority roceeded from the mouth of James, “For which cause I 3. The decision was made by the Apostles, ancients, and the whole Church (ver. 22). And the letter that was written, was penned in the name of all the Apostles. Peter never assumed, nor did the other Apostles give to him any of the titles which have been so arrogantly assumed by the bishops of Rome. Christ was set forth by him as the Prince of pastors and the Bishop of the souls of Christians. Peter modestly speaks of himself as an elder of the Church (1 Pet. v. 1). Paul says of himself, that he was not a whit behind the chiefest of the Apostles. And he has not only recorded, but openly justified, his overt opposition to Peter (Gal. ii. 11), which is irreconcileable with Peter's supremacy. We are told that Peter wrote a Catholic Epistle. But the same can be said of James, John, and Jude. By the rule of interpretation, to which they have bound themselves in their Creed, Romanists, whether priests or laymen, can ; no interpretation of the passage, “Upon this rock I will uild my Church,” since the Fathers are not unanimous in their interpretation of it. The Fathers, however, generally give a primacy of some sort to Peter; but they do not agree
in giving to him such a primacy as is assigned to him by the Church of Rome. Eusebius says, that Peter was the first for virtue or courage. Theodoret calls him the legs of the Church. Gregory, the Great says that he was the first member, and that all were members under one head. Cyprian says that Peter was first for the sake of unity, but that all the Apostles were equal in ponyer. But if Peter had been clearly and unequivocally appointed the head and the foundation of the Church, this would have availed the bishops of Rome nothing, unless they could shew, 1st, That these privileges were to go to Peter's successors; and, 2ndly, that his successors were to be the bishops of Rome. pon these subjects, at least, Scripture is entirely silent. The office of Moses did not go by succession; nor did the authority given to the prophet Jeremiah, to whom it was said, “I have set thee this day over the nations and over the kingdoms,” (i. 10), go by succession. How important was it that Christ's Church should be fully acquainted with the fact, if a supremacy over the Universal Church of Christ was to be vested till the end of time in the bishops of Rome. According to the Romish tradition, Peter preached first at Jerusalem and was afterwards bishop of Antioch, then he became the bishop of Rome, and after residing there for twentyfive years was martyred. This tradition seems to have been borrowed from Jerome. But to Jerome's tradition we can oppose the tradition of Lactantius, which accords with the apostolic writings, and which makes Peter come to Rome towards the close of his ministry. It is in the highest degree improbable that Peter resided twenty-five years at Rome. In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul, though he mentions so many Christians resident there, says nothing of Peter. In his Epistle to the Colossians, written from Rome, he says of Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus that is called Justus, who are of the circumcision, “These only are my helpers in the kingdom of God, who have been a comfort to me.” We learn from the Epistle to the Galatians, that after the expiration of between seventeen and eighteen years, Paul met Peter at Antioch : if then twenty-five years be added to these, Paul and Peter's crucifixion must have taken place in the time of Vespasian, who killed no Christians, and not in the time of Nero as is related in the Roman Breviary. We must not forget, too, that the Apostle Paul expressly forewarned the Church of Rome, that if she did not continue