תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

Had this brother or sister church no children, that all the progeny should belong to Babylon? Whether or no, the lady Babylon could not very well have been the mother of the church, which was elected at the same time with her. How then can she be mother of all churches, we ask again? She claims to be the successor of St. Peter, which cannot be proved, for they themselves are not agreed as to who succeeded St. Peter, or as to him who followed his successor, bishops of Rome. But if it could be proved, it would make no more for her, than it did for Caiaphas the high priest being the successor of Moses. Did that make him an inspired prophet? But the reason they wish to establish this point is, to insist upon dominion, in right of the prince of the apostles. How they prove the royalty of St. Peter, we shall see just now.

as

In the mean time, we will take our own view of the claim.

Do we not read in the 15th chapter of Acts, that at the council of Jerusalem, St. James gave the decision, and in his words did the order go forth to all the churches. For upon which sentence being given, we are told, that it pleased the apostles and elders, with "the whole church," to send certain men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, Judas Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren.

St. Paul says of himself, 2 Cor. xii. 11, that he was "in nothing behind the very chiefest apostles." And in Gal. ii. 11. he "withstood St. Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed." The apostles who were at Jerusalem, appointed Peter to go to Samaria, which

they could not have done, had he been their superior, Acts viii. 14, and, at his return from Cæsarea, the apostles and brethren contended with him on occasion of the church being opened to the Gentiles. Surely, also, St. Peter would make no claim of precedence over the other apostles, when his own LORD, to show the insignificance of earthly greatness, said to the dis ciples, after he had reproved them for striving about pre-eminence, "Whether is greater he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth !”

How different is this from the arrogant bishop of Rome and his audacious priests! The meek and holy Jesus, the servant of His disciples-the impious bishop of Rome, the would-be lord of the universe! and then, not satisfied with the brave assumption alone, but actually traduces the noble Peter, by palming upon him the usurpations he has made. I have, I hope, made it evident, that the independent Peter has been foully traduced, in having this claim to superiority thrust upon him, as if he had himself made it, which they scruple not to affirm: had he ever done so, he would, de facto, have un-apostolized himself, therefore do we hold the assertion to be false and impious!

The first reason they give why St. Peter must have been "prince of the apostles" (which term involves supremacy,") is, because the LORD said unto him, Matt. xvi. 18. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church." What was the rock? This the confession which Peter had made in the 16th verse, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living GOD." This

is the rock upon which every man must build his church, his own private church-" and other foundation can no man lay than is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. iii. 11. Upon which foundation, then, think you, was the church to be built? Upon Peter or upon Christ? for there could not be two foundations. And, if there were (which is impossible), I should certainly prefer to build my edifice upon Christ, the rock of ages, which was from everlasting, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

They say, that, when the LORD invested Peter with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, He made him paramount; for the LORD told him, that "whatsoever he bound on earth should be bound in heaven, and whatsoever he loosed on earth should be loosed in heaven;" and that, as the Pope is his descendant, he (the Pope) has the same power. But the last chapter of St. Mark shows us that this power was also given to the other disciples, and not only to the disciples, but to all other inspired followers; because healing the sick was always supposed to follow a previous state of faith and grace. But this makes nothing for the Bishop of Rome, except another proof of his claim to be an antichrist, in the spurious attempt to lord it over God's heritage. Has he the power of healing the sick? When we see this-when we see him open the eyes of the blind, then, indeed, we may be brought to consider about the keys of heaven, and chains of hell, of which he holds so powerful a grasp.

"The vicar of Jesus Christ upon earth." This is the last of the blasphemous titles of this antichristian

monster; and I think we must, to do her every justice, declare she here has reached the climax of presumption. However impious the assumption of this title may sound in our heretical ears, the time was, that the sovereign pontiff was considered, in being content with this humble title, "the very mirror of modesty." Some having thought that, instead of the Pope being called the vicar of Jesus Christ, that the sentence should be transposed, and that the LORD should be termed the Vicar of the Pope! And there was more reason for this than many of my readers will at first view perceive, when they come to be informed that it was the style of the doctors and commentators of the Romish church continually to address him as "Our Lord God the Pope." (¡¡¡) From this, however, they rather descended, when they came to dispute in the schools, "Whether he did not participate both natures with Christ." And then, again, they rose him up by making it a question, "Whether he was not more merciful than Christ, inasmuch as he delivered souls from the pains of purgatory, whereas they did not read that this had been ever done by our Saviour!" (Southey's Book of the Church, vol. i. p. 320, which book is much recommended at this critical juncture.) The Romish writer Gilbert Genebrard, a Benedictine monk, speaking of the ninth and tenth centuries, says, "The Roman Popes were rather apostatical than apostolical.” Baronius also says, "Monsters were thrust into the papacy, and that at Rome; the most powerful and sordid prostitutes did rule, at whose will the sees were changed and bishops made."

Where were the vicars of Jesus Christ at this time?

XXIV. I do undoubtedly receive and profess all other things which have been declared, defined, and delivered by the sacred canons and acumenical (universal) councils, and especially by the holy synod of Trent and all things contrary thereunto, and all heresies, condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I do likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize.

This is a noble clause, and a very sweeping one withal, and most undoubtedly implies, a faith, beyond compare, unlimited. But it is doubted much, my Romish friends, whether this sort beareth affinity to "saving faith!" This faith of yours may certainly remove mountains, for in your amazing gullibility, you continually swallow them; but, after all, that will do you no good, for it is not by removing mountains, even in a laudable way, 1 Cor. xiii. 4, that we shall gain access to the kingdom of heaven; BUT by doing the perfect law of Christ, which, of course, implies, in the first place, unlimited faith in HIM, but not in the synod of Trent. The scope of this article will, I think, be fully given in the following anecdote, which is related of Cardinal Bellarmine. At the time he At the time he gave up the archbishopric of Capua, he went to manage the affairs of the Court of Rome, and resided there till his death. Walking in the streets, one day, with a foreign prelate, proud of the city and all things pertaining to his jurisdiction, the conversation turned on the theological knowledge of the lower classes. "Oh," said Bellarmine, "I'll give you an instance how well our citizens know their profession. Here, my man," he exclaimed,

« הקודםהמשך »