the apostles, than any of the rival popes. How, then, could it have been possible, in the midst of all this confusion, to discern THE Apostolic Church by the mere fact of continued succession? Nothing can be clearer than the absurdity of such an attempt.

Thus, then, have we been forced to deny the claims of Rome, to be admitted to be "the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." To no one of these four characteristics can she establish any valid title. Yet there is such a church, though Rome be unable to substantiate her claim. There is such a church, but it is not local; nor governed by any human conclave; nor united by any visible or political system. It is "the church of the first-born, which are written in heaven;" it is the church that is "redeemed unto God, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." It is the church which Christ will, at the consummation of all things, present unto His Father, in the glory of his own righteousness, "not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." To this church it behooves every man to see that he belongs; but nothing can be more absurd or unreasonable, than to attempt to identify this chosen, redeemed, and sanctified community, with those disturbing, demoralizing and defiling conspiracies of priests and Jesuits, which at present carry on a remorseless warfare against the peace and happiness of mankind, under the banner of the Roman see.

135

VIII. THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE.

We are now to enter upon a question, upon which, as upon a hinge, the present controversy will be found greatly to turn. We have seen that up to this point the church of Rome has failed to make good its ground. Its Rule of Faith, "the Church," resolves itself either into a vague nonentity, entirely unavailable; or else is identical with the infallibility of every individual priest. Its claim to "Catholicity," or the possession of the whole or universal church, seems very much to resemble the assumption of the Chinese, that theirs is the "Celestial Empire;" the only proof of which is, that they choose to call it so. While, in arrogating to itself the qualities of Unity, Apostolicity, and Holiness, we discern nothing more than a great display of pride, self-conceit, and contempt of others; since, assuredly, other churches can exhibit greater harmony; a more implicit submission to the apostolic decisions; and fruits of holiness, quite as pure and as abundant, as are to be found in the church of Rome. But we are now to inquire what can be said in proof of the allegation, that Christ gave to Peter, and to all his successors in the see of Rome, a seat of authority, a delegation of power, for the regulation and government of the Christian church, in all succeeding ages. For it is sufficiently clear, that if this point can be satisfactorily made out, it will be difficult for any body of Christians throwing off this yoke, and refusing submission to the supremacy of Peter's successors, to clear itself from the guilt of schism. If the right of the bishop of Rome to a paramount authority over the whole body of Christians throughout the world can be established, then their state, who cast off a yoke imposed by

Christ himself, must assuredly be a doubtful, if not a perilous one. But if, on the other hand, no such power was delegated to Peter, still less to his successors, by the Redeemer himself,--then is the Papal authority, as now attempted to be exercised, a gross and unscriptural usurpation, and one marking him who assumes it, with a leading characteristic of Antichrist.

We shall probably gain the most satisfactory and complete view of the whole question, if we follow out the train of reasoning indicated in Dr. Wiseman's eighth lecture. It is not easy to find a more condensed or a more plausible statement, of the argument in favour of the Papal authority, than is furnished in that lecture. But it may tend to simplify the present discussion, if we take up the points in the following order: inquiring, 1. Was Peter elevated by his Lord to a supreme authority over his brethren the apostles, and by consequence, over the whole church? 2. Was there any intimation given that such supremacy was to be continued after his death, in any line of succession? and, 3. What are the claims of the bishops of Rome to be considered Peter's rightful successors?

We will commence, then, with the first point: Was Peter elevated by Christ to a supreme authority over his brethren and the church in general? Now the argument in the affirmative from Scripture is thus set forth by Dr. Wiseman:

"It is singular, that the moment Simon was introduced to our blessed Redeemer, he received a promise that a similar distinction of name should be given to him, 'Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas, thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.'

"It was on occasion of his confessing the divine mission of the Son of God, that the promise was fulfilled. At the commencement of our Saviour's reply, he still calls him by his former appellation. 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father, who is in heaven.' He then proceeds to the inauguration of his

new name. And I say to thee that thou art Peter.? According to the analogy of the instances above given, we must expect some allusion in the name, to the reward and distinction with which it was accompanied. And such is really the case. The name Peter signifies a rock; for in the language spoken upon this occasion by our Saviour, not the slightest difference exists, even at this day, between the name whereby this apostle, or any one bearing his name, is known, and the most ordinary word which indicates a rock or stone. Thus the phrase of our Redeemer would sound as follows, to the ears of his audience: And I say to thee that thou art a rock.' Now see how the remaining part of the sentence would run in connexion with the preamble: 'and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Such is the first prerogative bestowed upon Peter; he is declared to be the rock whereon the impregnable church is to be founded.

2. Our Saviour goes on to say, 'And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.' The second prerogative is the holding of the keys, and the power of making decrees, which shall be necessarily ratified in heaven.

"3. To the two ample powers given here, we must add a third distinguished commission, conferred upon him after the resurrection, when Jesus three times asked him for a pledge of a love superior to that of the other apostles, and three times gave him a charge to feed his entire flock,-his lambs and his sheep.

"On the strength of these passages, principally, the Catholic church has ever maintained, that Peter received a spiritual pre-eminence and supremacy. And, indeed, if in these various commissions a power and jurisdiction was given to Peter, which was proper to him alone, and superior to that conferred upon all the other apostles, it will be readily acknowledged,

that such supremacy as we believe was really bestowed upon him by God."*

Here, then, we have the last and most carefully revised view of the whole argument from Scripture in favour of the Papal supremacy. Now the first remark we shall make upon it, is, how impracticable and vain is that Romish standard of faith, called the Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth, to which every priest of the Romish church is sworn, but which no priest ever yet did, or ever will, faithfully believe and maintain.

Dr. Wiseman has adduced several passages of Scripture, and has affixed certain definite meanings to them, as the sense in which they are taken by the church of Rome. He admits, indeed, that some objectors and opponents have read these passages in a different way, but throughout his whole statement we are left to suppose that it is only the Protestants and the "opponents" that have thus perverted these passages, while to the Romish church they have ever conveyed the meaning he has himself ascribed to them. He tells us,

66

"I allude to the attempt made many years ago, and lately renewed, to prove that the rock upon which Christ promises that he will build the church, was not Peter, but Himself.", "This interpretation, you will perceive, my brethren, can boast more of its ingenuity than of its plausibility; it seems rather calculated to betray the shifts to which our opponents feel themselves obliged to resort," &c. &c.

Now Dr. Wiseman has promised, in the creed of Pius IV. "never to take and interpret Holy Scripture otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

Yet he here, in this insidious manner, and charging the interpretration he chooses to deny, wholly upon "the opponents," actually attacks the decision of a considerable proportion of the most eminent fathers: For instance,

* Wiseman, Lecture VIII. p. 265-267.