Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

then to the account of Irenæus, the Bishops of Rome must be considered, as successors of Linus, not as successors of St. Peter 24.

And after all it would be difficult to comprehend, on what principle the primacy of the Popes could be established, even were it granted, that they were successors of St. Peter, and his successors in any sense of the word, which they might choose to adopt. If Bishops, who preside where a Church was founded by an Apostle, have on that account a title to precedence, the Bishops of Corinth, ThessaIonica, Ephesus, and of other Churches founded by St. Paul, had as good a right to precedence as the Bishop of Rome. Aye, but St. Paul they say, was not equal in rank to St. Peter, who was the prince of the Apostles (princeps Apostolorum). Now St. Paul himself has positively denied such precedence: he says (2 Cor. xi. 5.) that he "was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles." It is further argued, that St. Peter was the Rock, on which the Church was built. So indeed he was. He was the Rock, on which the Church of Jerusalem was built, the Church which was the mother of all Churches, and, which, if the arguments of the

24 Irenæus adds, that Linus was succeeded by Anacletus, and Anacletus by Clemens, who wrote, as he observes, an Epistle to the Corinthians. Now this Epistle is still extant, and if Clemens had considered himself as successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome, one might expect that some allusion would have been made to it. But I have lately read the whole of that Epistle; and not a syllable does he say of St. Peter having been Bishop of Rome. Yet he had a very good opportunity, as in Chap. v, he speaks of the martyrdom of St. Peter; though he speaks of it without saying where.

Romanists were valid, might claim to be mistress of all Churches. At this very day there is a Patriarch of Jerusalem, who, though he possesses no patrimony of St. Peter, has an infinitely stronger claim to the primacy among Christians, than the Pope of Rome. The Church of Jerusalem is unquestionably the mother Church, which the Church of Rome is not. The Church of Jerusalem was unquestionably founded by St. Peter, which the Church of Rome was not. In the Church of Jerusalem, and not in the Church of Rome, was fulfilled the prophecy of our Saviour, that the Church should be founded on St. Peter, as a Rock. It is through the Church of Jerusalem, which was the mother of all Churches, and not through the Church of Rome, that Christian Churches in general partake of the prophecy of our Saviour 25.

25 As the inference deduced by the Romish writers from our Saviour's prophecy, that St. Peter was the Rock, on which the Church should be built, admits of so obvious an answer, it is much to be lamented, that such unnecessary, and at the same time such unsuccessful, pains should have been taken, to shew that our Saviour, under the word Rock did not understand St, Peter, The distinctions, which have been made between Пérfos and Пérça in the Greek, or between Petrus and Petra in the Latin Vulgate, when the language of our Saviour was neither Greek nor Latin, are surely unworthy of a Critic. The language spoken by our Saviour with his Apostles was Syriac: and the identical words, which he used on the occasion in question must be sought therefore in the old Syriac version. Now for the Greek words où i Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταυτῇ τῇ Πέτρᾳ, which in fact are only a translation, we find in the old Syriac falɔ 1:0 Ulso lalɔ on Al, which literally translated is "Thou art Rock, and upon this Rock, &c." The same word falɔ (Cepha) is used in both places: the same word is both an appellative, and a pro

per

But if the Church of Rome is determined to maintain a title, to which it has no legal claim; if it is resolved to act, as the mother and mistress of all other Churches; if agreeably to these pretensions it claims a spiritual jurisdiction over the members of other Churches, whom it considers as deserters deserving of punishment, it is both our interest and our duty to resist demands which are equally dangerous to Church and State.

II.

If we further examine the principles of that Church on the subjects of infallibility and exclusive salvation, we shall find that hostility to all other Churches is the unavoidable result. If, while men believe, that they are right, they admit that they are possibly wrong, they are naturally disposed to bear with religious opinions, which differ from their own. But they who are persuaded, not only that they do not err, but even that they can not err in matters of faith, are disposed to consider it as a duty, to check the growth of all other opinions, which they must consider as dangerous heresy. Guided, as they suppose, by the Holy Spirit, and thus exempted from even the possibility of error, they will deem it impious to tolerate what the Spirit, as they imagine,

per name, as the word "Rock" is also in English. The effect therefore in Syriac was exactly the same, as if we said in English to a person, whose name was Rock, and who at the same time was likely to be the support of some great cause, "Thou art Rock in name, and shalt be Rock in deed, for on thee, &c." As our Saviour necessarily alluded to St. Peter, when he used la the first time, he could not possibly allude to any one else, when the very same word was immediately repeated *.

* See the Appendix, Note D.

has condemned 26. The belief, that there is no salvation except in the Church of Rome, must even from motives of humanity, and independently of all ambitious views for the extension of power and party, impel the members of that Church to bring over heretics and schismatics into the only communion, in which they can be saved. The bare act of separation from the Church of Rome, even if accompanied by no error in faith, is declared sufficient to exclude men from the hope of salvation 27. Now when such a tenet is inculcated in the regular education, which is received by the students at Maynooth, and this tenet is coupled with the tenet, likewise inculcated in the same College, that the Church of Rome retains its jurisdiction over all Schismatics *, the Church of England has sufficient reason to apprehend the consequences, if temporal power should ever be added to the spiritual will. And not the Church only, but the State; for the one is allied to the other. The King of Great Britain is to the Church of Rome no less an heretic and

26 If it be objected, that there are likewise Protestants, who fancy themselves under the immediate influence of the Holy Spirit, and consequently exempt from the danger of error, I answer that the Church of England, in its own official documents, lays no claim to infallibility, and therefore cannot be answerable for the fanaticism of those, who suppose themselves so gifted.

27 Certissima est doctrina, Patrum consensione, et Ecclesiæ praxi confirmata, Schismaticos, etiamsi in fide non errarent, solo sui Schismatis facto esse extra Ecclesiam, et viam salutis. De Ecclesiâ Christi, p. 25.

28 Ecclesia suam retinet jurisdictionem in omnes Apostatas, Hæreticos, et Schismaticos, quanquam ad illius corpus non jam pertineant. Ib. p. 394.

schismatic, than any of his subjects; and to tolerate an heritical King is to expose the true religion to imminent danger 29. Such are the consequences of that spiritual authority, which is claimed by the Church of Rome, and which is alike incompatible with the welfare of other Churches, and of other States. The pretence, that it only exercises spiritual power is futile in the extreme: for if the exercise of spiritual power produces civil mischief, we must argue from the consequence, and not from the cause. In fact, it is of no importance by what name an authority be called, if it leads to evils, which ought not to be borne.

Nor is it always possible to distinguish between the exercise of spiritual and the exercise of temporal power, especially when both temporal and spiritual power is vested, as at the Court of Rome, in the same person. But even were the Pope a mere spiritual Bishop, yet there are so many acts, which are of a mixed nature, that a Romanist in this country might easily consider as spiritual, what our Govern ment might justly consider as temporal. In this divided opinion it may be asked, who is to determine, and who is to be obeyed? A clear and distinct answer is given to this question by Bellarmine, who says, that when the jus divinum, and the jus humanum are at variance, the former must be observed in preference to the latter 3o.

30

"This inference naturally follows from the admitted premises. Of course the inference is not drawn in the treatise De Ecclesia Christi: but it is drawn by Bellarmine, who says, "To"lerare regem hæreticum, vel infidelem conantem pertrahere “homines ad suam sectam, est exponere religionem evidentis "simo periculo." De Romano Pontifice, lib. V. cup, 7,

30 Ib. ib.

« ZurückWeiter »