Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

following reigns, to come to the traces of the rising Papacy. And so, in fact, we do. The prediction of St. Paul, (2 Thess. ii. 7, 8.) that when he who now letteth be taken out of the way, then shall that wicked one be revealed,' was exactly fulfilled. Constantine removed the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople, and though it was afterwards for a time restored, yet soon the imperial power, which had kept the episcopal in subjection, was finally taken from Rome, and the bishop became the first authority in that city. He that had let or hindered the rise of the Papal power, was now taken out of the way, and that power rapidly grew and increased to its present dimensions. But there is no difficulty in tracing its rise, or in understanding its origin.

The conclusion, then, of the whole matter, is this: There is a certain course of evidence and reasoning, by which churchmen are accustomed to establish the divine origin and authority of episcopacy. Now that line of argument which we ourselves use towards dissenters, we readily submit to have applied to our own view, in the case of the Papacy.

Our meaning is this: We look upon Episcopacy to be satisfactorily established, because we find it, 1. To have been instituted by the apostles themselves; which appears by the cases of Timothy and Titus, and by the instructions of St. John to the angels or bishops of the Asiatic churches: and,

2. To have been generally adopted by all the churches which have their origin in the apostolic days, as clearly appears by the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Eusebius, and others.

Now we desire that the same test should be applied to the pretensions of the see of Rome, and we are con

tent to abide by the result. Let the Romanist take the Acts of the Apostles, and all the epistles, and shew us, if he can, the least trace of any primacy conceded either by the apostles themselves, or by any of their immediate followers, to St. Peter. Then let us proceed onwards, and consult every fragment of church history that is extant, and we shall have to pass over several centuries before a shadow of Papal supremacy appears. On these grounds, then, we come to the conclusion, that no authority is to be found for this alleged supremacy, and that the whole assumption is like all the other pretensions of Popery ; the offspring of later and more corrupt ages. Our verdict, therefore, is, 1. That scripture shews no supremacy, or authority, conferred on Peter, more than on the other apostles: 2. That even if a doubt remained on this point, on that of a permanence of such authority, vested in some alleged successors of the apostle, it cannot be denied that scripture is wholly silent: 3. That the bishops of Rome have no more claim to be considered the successors of the apostle, than the bishops of Antioch or Alexandria: and, 4. That the voice of all antiquity witnesses, that the supremacy of the Romish see was wholly unknown for the first three or four centuries, and only sprang up on the decline of the imperial power.

IX.

THE RULE OF FAITH.

RECAPITULATION OF THE ARGUMENT.

It will be admitted to be evidently expedient, at this stage of our discussion, to pause for a short time, in order to review the course of reasoning through which we have passed, and to recapitulate the leading arguments bearing upon the grand question of the RULE of faith.

The Protestant rule has been often referred to, though briefly, as consisting of HOLY SCRIPTURE alone but our chief attention has been given to the consideration of that opposed to it by the adherents of Rome, which rule, if simply and honestly stated, is nothing else than THE CHURCH. We have been occupied in discussing the claims of the bishop and clergy of Rome, both to assume to themselves the title of The Catholic Church,' and, under that title, to claim the attribute of Infallibility. And we will now endeavour to review, in a very few words, the line of argument through which we have travelled in the preceding essays.

Our first glance at the subject brought before our view the two opposing principles as to the Rule of

[ocr errors]

Faith; when it appeared that the favourite position taken up by the Romish controversialists, was, that their church was The holy Catholic Church,' and therefore infallible; a position which we at once proceeded to controvert; and to show that the assumption of Catholicity on the part of the church of Rome, -the assertion that the whole church of Christ is comprehended within its communion,-is not only most arrogant and intolerable, but is also altogether at variance with historical facts. We observed, that on more than one occasion, the general or Catholic Church, consisting of all bodies of Christians adhering to the faith of scripture, had been split and divided by the misconduct of the see of Rome:That in A.D. 862, half the Christian world was forced to withdraw from all connexion with that see, by the novel and inadmissible assumption of absolute power, by its then bishop; and that seven centuries after, six or eight kingdoms were simultaneously roused, by the corruptions and exactions which Rome had introduced, to cast off at once all subjection to her. Now all these churches, whether eastern or western, consisted of baptized persons, ministered to by bishops, priests, and deacons, as regularly ordained as any that Rome could offer. Standing, therefore, exactly on a footing with the Italian church, in all respects, as these churches did, it was clearly a groundless and intolerable assumption on the part of the bishops of Rome, to assert that all Christian communities not submitting themselves to their authority, were thereby excluded from the pale of the Catholic or Universal Church.

The Romanist, then, being driven to his second line of defence, we had next to consider in what way

he asserted the title of his church to exalt herself to this position of supremacy, and to assume that all who were not of her communion were without the pale of the Christian church. This claim appeared to be rested upon two facts: 1. The character of the Romish church, as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; and, 2. The authority vested by Christ in St. Peter and his successors. We therefore proceeded, in the next place, to investigate these pretensions of the church of Rome. And we considered them in their natural order.

The Unity of the church of Rome we found to be a mere assumption; for, taking its popes, we found one pope perpetually controverting and excommunicating another; looking at its councils, we found no two of them in perfect agreement; and examining its theologians, we found as many varying sects and opinions, as are to be found in the freest forms of Protestantism itself.

[ocr errors]

Its Holiness was refuted by the least inquiry into the facts of that church's history. Its representatives and rulers, the popes, bearing, as they did, the title of 'Holiness,' were frequently, as their own historians have testified, monsters of wickedness.' Its periods of the most undisturbed tranquillity and unresisted rule, have been periods of the most awful iniquity that the annals of Christendom can exhibit. And, at the present day, the comparative morality of any people may usually be guaged by this rule ;-if Popery be predominant, there is assuredly great wickedness; but if Popery have but a slight hold upon the community, and Protestantism more generally prevails, then there is a proportionate degree of virtue, morals, and happiness among the people.

« ZurückWeiter »