*» o H* o Ph W EH en Ph Q I—! M OS Ph O K o •-3 O to PA W WEIGHED IN THE BALANCE FOUND WANTING. A PRESBYTER "The Elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder " — not a Pope. — St. Petee, the Apostle. €tnrinnatt: PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR. 1853. RECOMMENDATIONS Is the Pope supreme ? If any into whose hands this little volume may chance to fall, be troubled with such a notion, let them read the brief but pun- gent argument drawn, first, from the holy Scriptures, secondly, from the testimony of the Fathers, as here embodied, and they will probably be relieved in as short a time, and in as pleasant a manner, as can be obtained any where for the same amount of labor and money. T. A. Mobeis. Cincinnati, Nov. 26, 1852. I fully concur in the foregoing, as expressed by Bishop Morris. Chaeles Elliott, Editor Western Christian Advocate. I have looked over parts of the book against the Supremacy of the Pope, in manuscript, and have been favorably impressed with the fairness and truth of its arguments and statements. E. G. Robinson. Having read part of the work against the Suprem- acy of the Pope, in manuscript, I would recommend it as calculated to further the cause of truth. N. L. Rice. DEDICATION. This little book is most respectfully dedicated to the Rev. Bishop Morris, the Rev. H. P. Goodrich, the Rev. N. L. Rice, the Rev. W. L. Breckenridge, the Rev. C. B. Parsons, the Rev. Chas. Elliott, the Rev. J. F. Wright, and the Rev. E. G. Robinson, Doctors in Divin- ity, and able defenders of the reformed religion, by their obliged And most obedient servant, The Author. 5 PREFACE In sending this little book to the press, the author is not so vain as to suppose that it is free from errors; so far from this, he is sensible of its imperfections, particularly so far as the style and ar- rangement are concerned, which defects he hopes will be generously excused, on the score of the many embarrassments under which he labored while preparing it for publication. Still, he flatters himself that he has presented his readers with an amount of testimony, disproving the pretended supremacy of the Pope, not often adduced in support of any questionable topic in theology. The Church of Eome is ever ready tc call their fellow-believers in Christ, of the reformed religion, heretics and im- postors; let them look to it, that these epithets do not rather belong to them- 7 [ 8 3 selves for the deep injury which they have inflicted on the pure religion of Christ, by willfully corrupting and mis- translating the holy Scriptures, to sub- serve their ambitious designs, and to prop up the tottering throne of that greatest of impostors and usurpers, the Pope of Rome. Cincinnati* November 26, 1852. INTRODUCTION It is unnecessary to say to those ao quainted with the general doctrines of the Church of Rome, that Roman Catho- lics believe both in Scripture and oral tradition, as necessary to constitute a rule of faith, while Protestants found their religious belief on Scripture alone, as "able to make wise unto salvation," independent of the traditions received through uninspired men, many of them no better than fables, and all of them unsafe to be relied on by us of the pres- ent day. In controversy, it should seem that Protestants would enjoy a decided ad- vantage over Roman Catholics, on the ground of holy Scripture, which is be- lieved in common by both parties; but in order that Protestants may gain noth- ing by this, Romanists pronounce the written word, or Bible, to be "a dead 9 [10] letter" and incapable of being under- stood, unless as expounded by the au- thority of the Roman Catholic Church, with the Pope at its head, acting in his capacity of Yicar of Christ. Roman Catholics, however, generally admit that we are at liberty to receive holy Scripture as expounded by the holy Fathers ; a permission by which we intend to profit before we close our inquiries concerning the oificial character or rank of St. Peter, claimed by Romanists as their first Pope. But to return to the Popish subterfuge — for it deserves no milder name, being chosen from motives of self-interest, and to subserve their ambitious designs — that " Scripture is a dead letter" what can be more absurd, nay, what can be more blasphemous, than to suppose the great God of the universe unable, through the agency of inspired men, the chosen fol- lowers and companions of his Son, to make his will known to mankind, with- out the permission or assistance of the [ 11 ] uni?ispired men of the Roman Catholic Church, who have the impudence to dic- tate terms to the Almighty, in the man- ner of expounding his will to the world ? What ! a revelation of the will of God subject to the will of man for its elucida- tion! What should we think of an ab- sent friend, who should write us a letter, which required the explanation of a third party before it could be understood by us? If the principal, or head of the depart- ment, could not manage to make known to his subordinates, in business or in of- fice, the purport of his communication to them, written for this express purpose, what consummate folly to suppose that a third person, or party, could better under- stand the subject-matter of such epistle, and the mind of the writer, than the writer himself! What mere driveling would this be, utterly unworthy of the least attention ! But it is still more absurd that the Al- mighty should not be able to make known [12] his will to men, without the aid of the self-constituted and pretended infallible Church of Kome ! This dogma caps the climax of folly and impiety, and is of itself sufficient to affix the unmistakable seal of Antichrist to the Church of Rome. While, as Protestants, we have Christ and his apostles, and the holy Scrip- tures on our side, we have little cause to be alarmed by the Pope, his cardinals, and oral tradition ; still, we are called to do every thing in our power to oppose the spread of error, and to lead men to the pure fountain of God's word, which is the only rule of faith to be relied on by man. Infallibility and oral tradition, monks and miracles, were current in the dark ages ; but, if the Protestant Churches will but do their duty, can not much longer pass for current coin. The Pope will be obliged erelong not only to quit claim to the kingdoms and empires of the world, but also to the [13] elusive government of the Church, that He, whose right it is, may reign supreme. Regardless, then, of the frowns or smiles of Rome, the curses of Lateran or Trent, we propose to imitate the Bereans, and " search the Scriptures," to see what office our Lord Jesus Christ conferred on Simon Peter ; we shall next examine the records of the holy Fathers, and see what these venerable men may have to say on the subject. In this inquiry, truth is the object which we most sincerely seek for ourselves and others, feeling conscious that this alone is worthy of our pursuit. AGAINST THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. PART I. It is a rule, universally admitted, we believe, among theologians, that no im- portant doctrine can be established on the authority of a single text, in opposi- tion to the main tenor of the holy Scrip- tures. Xow, if this rule is admitted to be a correct one, as we believe will be generally conceded, how much more forci- bly does it apply when such single or iso- lated text is obscure, or of doubtful im- port, or only seems to give the sense which the contending disputant wishes to estab- lish ! Such, we consider, is the position of the Church of Rome, in reference to the doctrine of the supremacy of the Pope, which is regarded by that Church 14 [ 15] as the foundation of their system, and the souuce of their authority. They wish, not on their own account, or for the satis- faction of the members of their own com- munion — for they can easily give them satisfaction, by telling them that the Church has so decreed — but they wish, for the sake of securing the favorable opinion of the "illogical Protestants," by which they are unhappily surrounded, to find some countenance, at least, from the New Testament, containing the life and doctrines of Christ and his apostles, for the support of so important an office as that of Pope or Sovereign Pontiff of the Christian Church. We propose, in the following treatise, to try the Papacy by the above rule, and show up their single text for all that it is worth. Roman Catholics lay claim to a su- premacy of the Pope, on the plea that Christ bestowed this distinction upon St. Peter, who, in consequence, became Prince of the apostles and Yicar of Jesus Christ. [ 16 ] The Scripture on which they attempt to found this claim, is that well-known, and, by Romanists, oft-recited text, re- corded by St. Matthew in the 16th chap- ter of the Gospel which bears his name : "I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter," etc. On these words, taken in connection with the succeeding context, Roman Catholics attempt to establish all the ex- travagant prerogatives which they claim for the Pope of Rome, as successor of Peter, Yicar of Christ, and Supreme Head of the Church. Is there the least mention made, in this memorable passage, of such extrava- gant pretensions % Did our divine Lord, on this or any other occasion, give Peter reason to believe that he was to be a prince or chief over his fellow-apostles? Is there the least reason to believe, from this, or any other passage in the New Testament, that Peter himself understood' it so, or entertained the remotest idea that his divine Master had made him a [17] lord over his brethren? Or, lastly, is there any reason to believe, on the au- thority of Scripture, that the other apos- tles acknowledged Peter as their prince and leader — the living, visible represent- ative of their Master upon earth % These inquiries must arise in the mind of every reflecting man, when he turns his attention to the Romish doctrine of the Pope's supremacy. Jesus Christ either conferred the su- premacy on Peter, including all those prerogatives claimed by the Pope, or he did not. If he did, then is the Pope what he claims to be, " Yicar of Christ," and "another God on earth;" but, on the other hand, if Christ never bestowed such supremacy on Peter, then do the claims set up by Romanists, in behalf of the Pope, fall to the ground ; for they stand or fall on the official character conferred hy the Savior on St. Peter. It will be the object, therefore, of this discourse, to examine the strength of these claims; and in attempting to do [ 18 ] this, we shall confine our investigations to the ISTew Testament, and hope that from this divine source we shall be able to show that Christ gave Peter no official authority over the other apostles; that Peter was wholly ignorant that he pos- sessed any such authority ; that the other apostles do no where in the Acts or Epis- tles, allude to the existence of such au- thority, or acknowledge St. Peter as the supreme Head of the Church — the cen- ter of unity, the judge of controversy, and guide to Christians in their search after truth, and that, consequently, the proud claims of the Roman Church are without foundation in Scripture — empty assump- tions, alike repugnant to Scrfpture and reason. In a pulpit oration on this subject, a Roman priest would not fail to hold up St. Peter as the Prince of apostles, and Yicar of Christ upon earth. He would tell his hearers much about his keys, and his power of binding and loosing, etc. "We shall, therefore, briefly notice [ 19 J this discourse of our Lord with St. Peter, already alluded to, as we find it given by St. Matthew: " When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am ? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist ; some, Elias ; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am ? And Simon Peter answered and said : Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church : and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever [20] thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shalt be loosed in heaven." A good reason may be assigned why Roman Catholics lay so much stress upon this language of Christ to Peter ; namely, because it is the only passage in the New Testament which can be pressed, by any construction whatever, to aid them in es- tablishing the supremacy of St. Peter, on which must stand or fall their claims for his pretended successors, the Popes of Rome. The word Petros, here given by oui Lord to Simon, the son of Jona, in the Greek language, signifies, as every one acquainted with that tongue well knows, a stone ; and had it been the intention of the Savior to have built his Church on the person of Peter, that is, Petros, he would doubtless have used the dative case of the noun Petros, instead of employing another word, as he has done. It would then have read epi to Petro — upon this Peter or stone, etc. — but the Savior used [21] another word, Petra, which always means a rock or foundation, and seems to have been selected here by our Lord to mark a distinction between Simon, whom he calls Petros, or a stone, probably on ac- count of the strength and boldness of his character; while, as if expressly to pre- vent the error into which Romanists have fallen, in unfolding the meaning of this text, he makes choice of the word Petra, to show that it was not upon Peter, but upon that great fundamental article of the Christian religion revealed by the al- mighty Father to Simon Peter, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. This great truth is the foundation of Christianity, around which all other truths cluster, and on which they all depend. In consequence of having received this divine revelation, Christ pronounces Peter blessed, or happy : u Blessed art thou, Si- mon Bar-jona : for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." [ 22 ] Simon, the son of Jona, is not at pres- ent the leading topic of this discourse between our Lord and his apostle, but the grand discovery of the character of Christ made by the Father to him. This truth, then, was evidently that which gave prom- inence to this apostle, and induced the Savior to give him the surname of Petros, or Peter, a stone, while he uses Petra, another word, to signify his divine Son- ship, the rock or foundation on which the Christian Church rests for support. It must appear evident to every one who reflects on this distinction of words, employed by our Lord, that he must have intended to express two distinct things, namely : First. The one great foundation of the Christian religion; and, Second. The personal distinction conferred upon St. Peter. If the words Petros and Petra were used convertibly in the New Testament, whenever St. Peter is mentioned, then should we not press this point, or further contend for the distinction of terms or [23 ] names observed by our Lord ; but since we find Petros constantly used, in other portions of the New Testament, whenever Simon Peter is referred to, and Petra, whenever the Savior is spoken of as the foundation of the Church, we most ra- tionally arrive at the conclusion that this observance of different names was em- ployed to prevent the possibility of falling into the error which Roman Catholics have adopted. If it should be urged that Simon Peter is sometimes called Cephas, or Kephas — a word borrowed from the Syriac lan- guage — in various parts of the New Test- ament, we are not aware that this remark would amount to an objection, or affect, in the slightest degree, our foregoing ar- gument; for, even admitting that Petros and Petra, in classic Greek, are some- times used reciprocally to denote either a rock or stone, yet since they are constantly used in a restricted sense in the New Test- ament, Petros referring constantly to Si- mon Peter, the apostle, and Petra, when [24] figuratively used, to Iris master, Jesus Christ, our point is made out. It is truly unfortunate for the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supremacy of Peter, that it is so little noticed, or rather so entirely omitted in all parts of the New Testament; and that they are driven by necessity to build so vast a superstruct- ure, on so slender a foundation as a single text can afford them, while a great number of passages from the same book go to show, in the most conclusive man- ner, that these claims, urged in behalf of Peter, are unfounded and utterly destitute of proof. To establish the Christian Church on St. Peter, would be to build it upon the merits of a man, and would subvert the great scheme of man's redemption, giving glory, not " to God in the highest," but to poor, frail humanity. Christ is every-where, in Scripture, spoken of as the foundation of the Chris- tian's hope; and the very word Petra, which we have noticed, is used with strict [25] application to him, and not to Peter or any one else. That Christ is frequently represented in the holy Scriptures as a rock, is be- yond dispute. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul uses the term rock in reference to Christ: "Moreover, breth- ren, I would not that ye should be igno- rant how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink : for they drank of that spiritual rock \_Pe- bra~\ that followed them; and that rock was Christ." Again : Christ is called the " chief corner-stone, elect precious;" and the apostle adds, " other foundation can no man lay" The substance of this passage seems to amount simply to this, and no more; namely, that as Peter was the first among the apostles, who acknowledged [26 ] the divine character and mission of his master, so Christ was pleased, also, to honor Peter, in consequence of this noble confession of the Christian faith, by mak- ing him the instrument in building np his infant Church in the world ; by being the first preacher of the Gospel, both to Jews and Gentiles, and by assuring him that against the Church which he should found the gates of hell should never prevail; that is, the malice of the devil, or the op- position which he might stir up, would never overthrow the Christian religion in the world. In accordance with this promise, Peter was the first to preach to the Jews, on the day of Pentecost, by which about three thousand souls were converted to the faith of Christ. The same honored apostle first opened the door of Gospel grace to the Gentiles, by preaching Christ to the family of Cornelius, the Centurion. Thus was the promise of Christ liter- ally fulfilled, and the Christian Church established by Peter, or on that faith [27] which he professed, of which God was the author. And to this transaction Pe- ter called the attention of the first general council, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. " And when there had been much dis- puting, [in this council,] Peter rose up, And said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice amongst us, that the Gentiles, by my mouth, should hear the word of the Gospel and believe." But having done so, does Peter pro- ceed to remind the council of the apos- tles, that he was appointed by their com- mon master supreme judge of all religious controversies in the Church? Nothing of the kind : he evidently pretends to no pre-eminence of rank over the other apos- tles and elders there present; he simply relates what had been the order of God's appointment, in making him an instru- ment in bringing the Gentiles within the pale of the Christian Church, but tells us nothing about his princely character [ 28 ] and infallibility, for which his pretended successors have since so strongly con- tended. As it was not our purpose, on this oc- casion, to go into an extended inquiry respecting the meaning of the word Church, and its distinctive marks and characteristics, on which so much has already been said, and frequently to so little purpose, we shall proceed to notice that the various passages bearing on the point under discussion, in the New Test- ament, clearly prove that those powers which Roman Catholics claim for the Pope were never conferred on St. Peter. In a short time after the transaction mentioned by St. Matthew, already so fully quoted and commented on, occurred, the same evangelist tells us that the mother of Zebedee's children came with her two sons to worship the Savior, and requested that they might sit, one on liis right hand, and the other on his left, in his kingdom. And when the ten heard it — Peter with the rest — "they were [ 29 ] moved with indignation against the two brethren. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you : but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." Had Peter understood our Lord at the time he gave him the name of Peter, or stone, to have given him a princely rank and supremacy over the other apostles, he, at least, could have had no cause for indignation against the two sons of Zebedee. From this single instance, therefore, it must be evident that, admitting our Lord to have consti- tuted St. Peter his Vicar, or deputy on earth, and prince or chief of the apostles, Peter himself remained ignorant of his high rank, and the prerogatives which re- sulted from it. Nay, more : from the [ 30 ] comment which our Lord made upon their jealousy or indignation against the two sons of Zebedee, it is evident that he never designed to confer any pre-emi- nence of order or rank upon Peter above the other apostles. On another occasion, he addressed this striking language to his apostles, in which it would seem that he anticipated the noise which would be made about this princely dignity and pre-eminence of Peter in after years. "0?ie is your master, even Christ, and ALL YE ARE BRETHREN," that is, equal / for the sons of one common father are of the same rank and dignity, and entitled to equal privileges. The very thing which Romanists so strenuously contend for, is that which Christ so severely condemns in the Gos- pel; namely, pre-eminence among the apostles. But to return again to the first general council, mentioned in the 15th chapter of Acts, there is not one word, or so much [31 ] as a single hint, of Peter having presided on that occasion, but the strongest indi- cation that James presided in that assem- bly, although Peter was present. Peter merely called the attention of the apostles and elders, there present, to the fact that he was chosen by the order of divine Providence to make known the Gospel to the Gentiles; and notices the spiritual gifts of the Holy Ghost bestowed on them, which he regarded as a proof that God had put no difference between them and the Jews ; and that they, the Gentiles, were equally eligible to Gospel privileges with the Jews. low, mark what follows : Paul and Barnabas, missionaries to the Gentiles, next address the assembly, giving an account of the miracles which God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. At the close of these deliberations, St. James proceeds to sum up, and delivers his judgment, carrying upon the very face of it the strongest possible proof that 3 [ 32 ] lie was moderator, or president of the council. "Wherefore my sentence," or decision, "is, that we trouble not them, w T hich from among the Gentiles are turned unto God," etc. There is a slight verbal difference be- tween the term "my sentence," as ren- dered in our English Bibles, and the orig- inal Greek, which I beg leave to notice in this place, which stands, in the Greek, thus : "Dice Jcrino " — " Therefore I judge," or decide, with which the Latin version literally agrees : " Idio ego judico " — "Therefore I judge," or decide as a judge. What can be desired more clearly to establish the fact that James, and not Peter, presided in this assembly ? James hears, sums up and decides, or gives the final sentence, and this is forth- with adopted by the council as their act. How Eomanists can pretend that Peter presided in this council, is truly matter of astonishment. He never attempted to do so. He speaks as one who had a [ 33 ] place on the floor, and not as might have been expected from him who filled the chair. In the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, a circumstance occurs which incidentally proves that Peter possessed no authority or pre-eminence over the other apostles of Christ. At the fourteenth verse of this chapter we read as follows: "Now, when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." As the less is ever blessed by the greater, so, in like manner, is the less sent by the greater. Kings and presidents send their embassadors and ministers to foreign courts and states, and the Pope sends his legate, or representative. But who, I ask, ever heard of the embassador sending the king or president? This would be to invert the order of things. And yet it would be as reasonable as for the bishops or cardinals to send the Pope on an embassy or missionary tour. [34] And, truly, if the apostles had authority to send the Pope out as a missionary, so have the bishops at the present day ; and the sooner they proceed to do so, the more tender will they show themselves toward his present Holiness, who, though he does not possess talents to govern at home, might, like Peter, be sent on a tour of missionary labor to great advantage. The sending of Peter by the apostles at Jerusalem, here mentioned, is utterly at variance with his supremacy. The commander-in-chief of an army, or any senior officer, may command his jun- ior, and inferior in rank ; but it would be folly to talk of the inferior, or junior offi- cer, sending the superior upon any service whatever; the thing is utterly preposter- ous, and inadmissible in any view of the subject. The true situation of the apostles seems to have been that of the most perfect equality, a body of Christian pastors, all equally concerned in taking care of the infant Church of the Redeemer, over [ 35 ] which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers ; and to the furtherance of this object, all their exertions were directed. Being thus equal in rank and minis- terial authority, they united for the bene- fit of counsel, and were pleased to depute two of their number — Peter and John — to go to the Samaritans, to instruct them more fully in the great doctrines and du- ties of the Christian religion. And notwithstanding each of the apos- tles was infallible in his own person, yet this did not prevent them from assembling together, to consult respecting the best in- terests of the Church. Such was the first apostolic council of which we have been speaking. "Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole Church" etc. And their letter was written to the Church in Anti- och, in the name and behalf of "the apostles, and elders, and brethren." How widely does this apostolic prac- tice differ from that adopted in later times by the Church of Rome I [36] Roman Catholic bishops are now so modest that, individually, tliey utterly disclaim infallibility, although they claim it when met together in general council. That this was the primitive order of the Church of Christ, is manifest from the foregoing considerations; for had Peter been invested with this Popish su- premacy, which Roman Catholics claim for him, how is it to be accounted for, that he should have remained ignorant of this himself? Men are not wont to overlook their own dignity, or refuse to magnify their office, by not assuming the authority which their commission confers upon them. Nay, more: in this instance it would doubtless have been a gross dereliction of duty in St. Peter, on the Roman view of the dogma of the supremacy, to have refused, or to have neglected to carry out. every thing appertaining to this suprem- acy, since, on the performance of these duties, the fulfillment of the Divine [37] promise of the Holy Ghost is suspended. But poor Peter was absolutely in the dark — in perfect ignorance on all these important points. !Not only did he know absolutely noth- ing of his proper titles, as " His Holi- ness," " The most holy Father," " The sa- cred Pontiff," " Our Lord God, the Pope," etc., but he was also ignorant of the Pa- pal duties and prerogatives. We have two epistles in the ISTew Test- ament written by St. Peter; but not a single word in either of them about his own dignity or office: insomuch, that it is extremely difficult to persuade one's self that he is reading an encyclical let- ter from the Pope — a thing of which no one can be ignorant, at the present time, when he sits down to the perusal of such an august document, whether dated at Naples or Rome. " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ," is the modest, unassuming style in which he commences his first general epistle. He exhorts all classes in society, and among [ 38 ] the rest the clergy, the elders, or presby- ters, which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder. How very different is this language of Peter from that of the Pope of Rome, who is in the habit of recurring occasion- ally, in his epistles, to the time when he was personally and actively employed in the " apostolic ministry/" The Pope, by being elevated to the chair of St. Pe- ter, regards himself as raised above the apostolio ministry. Peter, poor man, never thought of any such thing, but is himself "also an elder," or presbyter — simply a minister of Jesus Christ. Ver- ily, the times have greatly changed since Peter lived, and preached, and wrote epistles to the Churches. But go on, says our Eoman Catholic friend. Perhaps something more clearly descriptive of the office and powers of the Pope may be found in his second epistle. How does it begin? " Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ." Thus it begins; and [39 ] had we leisure to recite every succeeding word of the entire epistle, we should find as little to support the pretensions of the Papacy, as meets our eye in the first verse. It is certain that the New Testament is not the source whence to derive testimony for the support of the extravagant pow- ers which Romanists claim for St. Peter ; for, admitting him to have possessed the powers ascribed to him by the Roman Church, it is evident that neither in coun- cils, nor in his epistles, does he give us the least reason to believe that he was himself conscicnis of possessing such au- thority — certain it is, that he no where lays the slightest claim to it, nor do the apostles pay the least attention to the supremacy of Peter. The general epistle of St. James, and many of the epistles of St. Paul, discover much more of widely-extended episcopal authority. St. Paul lays down canons to be observed by bishops, presbyters, and deacons ; while St. Peter says almost [40] nothing on the subject: and in the first general council of the Church, held at Jerusalem, James and not Peter presided, as has already been shown; and when, the apostolic college assembled, to take into consideration the state of the new converts to Christianity in Samaria, " they sent Peter and John " on this important mission, thereby showing most conclu- sively, as already remarked, the authority they had over Peter ', as well as every other individual of their order — an authority which belonged to no one person, or indi- vidual, whether Peter, James, or John, but resided in the body or general assem- bly of the Church for the benefit of all its members. Widely different were the external cir- cumstances of St. Peter and his pretended successors in office. Peter, while with- out a house of his own, lodged with " one Simon, a tanner," while Pius IX, in his- exile, lodged with one tyrant, the King of Naples. The first lived in a hut by the seaside ; the other in royal palaces of [41 ] princes : but I am aware that we shall be told here, that things are greatly changed since the primitive age of the Christian Church. This I readily admit, but I fear they are very little improved. It may be still further contended, that St. Peter's early circumstances and posi- tion in life, would necessarily preclude the external appendages of rank and power, generally attendant upon exalted stations. Certain it is, the poor old fisherman cared little for the pomp and parade of life; he seems to have been as destitute of the disposition, as of the means of playing the prince or monarch — possibly he may have occasionally reflected on that expression of his divine Master, " My kingdom is not of this world ;" and that it is enough for the servant that he be as his master. Above all, he doubt- less bore in mind the sharp, but justly- merited rebuke, which he and his fellow- apostles received from their Master, on the subject of aspiring to pre-eminence [42] above one another. "All ye are breth- ren," were words which often sounded in his ears, and admonished him of his for- mer delinquency. But let us see in what light Paul re- garded Peter. In the first chapter of his epistle to the Galatians, he refers to his own conversion to the Christian faith, and his subsequent course of conduct. He tells us that he " conferred not with flesh and blood," neither did he go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles be- fore him; but immediately addressed himself to the work of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, to whom he was specially sent by the great Head of the Church. He speaks of the Gospel of the circum- cision having been committed to Peter, even as the mission to the Gentiles had been given to him; but not a solitary remark escapes him on the subject of the supremacy of Peter. St. Paul mentions another circum- [43] stance, in connection with the history and career of Peter, which will further tend to show that Paul knew nothing about the supremacy of that apostle, but regarded him simply as a fellow-apostle of the same dignity with himself. " But when Peter was come to Anti- och," he tells the Galatians, "I with- stood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled like- wise with him ; insomuch that Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ?" [44] Here we find a mode of proceeding every way at variance with the Roman dogma concerning the infallibility of St. Peter ; for had Peter been really prince of the apostles, and supreme head of the Church, why should he stand in fear either of James or any other Jewish con- vert at Jerusalem? The commander-in- chief does not usually stand in fear of his subordinates in rank, nor do inferiors in despotic governments call superiors to account for their conduct; but St. Paul tells us that he withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed. Pe- ter, then, was not above blame, notwith- standing his pretended successors can not err. But the apostle St. Paul is too import- ant a witness for the Protestant cause, against the pretended claims of the Pa- pacy, to be dismissed after such an exam- ination ; for, although it has already been pretty full, and to our purpose, he can testify still more fully against the suprem- acy of Peter. [«] This illustrious apostle has written more than all the other epistolary writers of the New Testament, and being profoundly learned and equally inspired with his fel- low-apostles, must have had a perfect knowledge of the Christian Church, and its form of government and officers ; yet in none of his epistles does he allude to the supremacy of Peter. He no where acknowledges him as a superior; and yet it is this apostle who teaches us to render honor to whom honor is due : but his language is, " For I sup- pose I was not behind the very chief est apostles" And, again: as if the' mode of expressing his disapprobation of this arrogant assumption of the doctrine of the supremacy, which as a prophet he fore- saw would be put forth in after ages, had not been sufficiently clear, he adds, ^For in nothing am I hehind the very chief est apostles, though I be nothing." But had Peter really possessed the power and official authority claimed at the present time by the Pope of Rome, [46 ] by using such language, Paul must have been guilty of heresy and falsehood. Again, in his epistle to the Galatians : "When James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars" etc. Note here the language of the great apostle, in reference to James, Peter, and John; James is placed before Peter, who, with James and John, only appeared or seemed to be pillars. Where a modern Koman Catholic bishop sees a Pope, Paul only saw an apostle, who seemed to be a pillar, or prominent man in the Church, but who, after all, he regarded in no respect as superior to himself. St. Paul, in various parts of his epis- tles, condemns heresies and divisions in the Church : but strange to say, he never once refers the parties offending to the arbitration of Peter, as sitting, by Divine appointment, in that tribunal, expressly established for the final settlement of such matters. Strange, that while St. Paul so fre- [47] quently mentions heresies and divisions in the primitive Church, he should say nothing of the great center of imity, the chair of St. Peter, on which volumes have since been written. Most of all is it to be wondered at, that he should have said nothing of this chair and its occupant, the " blessed St. Peter," while writing to the Romans ; this omis- sion is truly astonishing, whether Peter was then at Rome or not, since in either case, according to the doctrines of Roman- ists, he was Yicar of Christ and sovereign Pontiff. There is more, far more, and stronger proof, in the New Testament, of the su- premacy of Paul than can be produced in support of such claim in behalf of Peter. There is no direct proof that Peter was ever at Rome, much less that he was bishop of that city; while there is the clearest proof that St. Paul actually re- sided at Rome, in his own hired house, and instructed all who came to him for 4 [48] the period of two years. It was not our object, in this little essay, to show how the bishops of Eome arrived at that dis- tinction which they have so long enjoyed, but merely to show, from an examination of Scriptural testimony, that, from what- ever source they have obtained it, they did not derive it from St. Peter. No truth, delivered in the New Testa- ment, can be more clearly established than that of the equal rank of the apos- tles of Christ. They all alike received the plenitude of apostolic authority, but no one of them was ever elevated to a princely dignity above his brethren : they were designed to act in harmony, and the revealed will of their divine Master was the great cen- tral bond of union, which bound them to each other. The New Testament was written for the express purpose of giving mankind an account of the life of Jesus Christ, and the history of the Church which he established in the world. [49] What more reasonable, therefore, than that we should go to this book for infor- mation respecting the doctrines and gov- ernment of the Church ? If a man should write a history of the United States, for the information of its citizens, and the instruction of other countries, we should regard it as a most extraordinary thing, if he said nothing of its chief magistrate, the President. This would be such an omission as no reader could help regarding as a most serious defect. The New Testament was written for the instruction of the whole world, and professes to teach all things necessary to salvation ; but if Jesus Christ had consti- tuted St. Peter the supreme Head of his Church, so important a doctrine would have been conveyed in the clearest lan- guage ; it would not have rested for sup- port on one or two texts of obscure or doubtful import, but would have been unfolded with the utmost clearness and perspicuity. [ 50 ] Had Peter really been supreme Head of the Church, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, it would have been as manifest to every individual in the primitive Church, as it is evident to the students in a college that the president of such institution is its head and their governor. But, as we have already shown, not only were the masses of believers igno- rant of the authority and dignity of St. Peter, but even the apostles were igno- rant of this fact, and, strangest of all, Peter knew no more about it than did those around him. And should we attempt to ascend the stream of time, aided by the best and most reliable guides which ecclesiastical history can supply, we should find, after having passed the middle ages, a fainter and still fainter response, in answer to our inquiries after the supremacy of the Pope, till we should reach the divine source, or fountain-head, when it would cease to vibrate on the ear, and be lost in that perfect equality [ 51 ] of rank which Christ conferred on his apostles. We have now briefly passed over the ground we proposed occupying at the opening of this discussion, and have proved, we hope, to the satisfaction of every unprejudiced reader, that Christ never conferred on Peter the supremacy or Papal dignity which the bishops of Rome have so long usurped. We have seen, from an examination of the passages bearing on this point, that Peter himself never laid claim to the Pa- pal offices and prerogatives ; and, in the last place, that the other apostles never acknowledged such a claim. "We did not notice the passages which Romish writers sometimes cite, in sup- port of the claims of the supremacy of St. Peter, such as Peter drawing the net to land full of great fishes, Christ teach- ing out of Peter's ship, etc., for the sim- ple reason that we did not think them worthy of the least notice, but perfectly irrelevant to the subject under debate. [52] We may consider the Scripture tes- timony already adduced against the Pope, conclusive, and sufficiently clear and direct to prove him to be, not the Yicar or deputy of Jesus Christ, but the impudent usurper of that dignity, which was never intended to be conferred on man or angel ; for Jesus is a name above every name in heaven or upon earth — a name, at the mention of which every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, to the glory of God. But let no apprehension be indulged, lest Peter should be robbed of any thing that belonged to him ; he enjoyed the ex- alted honor of preaching the Gospel, "with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven," to both Jews and Gentiles — to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, to the Gentiles in the family of Cornelius; by which he first employed the keys — after- ward given to the other apostles ■ — in opening the kingdom of heaven to both classes of mankind. We might have brought still more [ 53] proof from the New Testament ; but the limits which we have allotted to this small work would not permit us to do so. Still, we feel confident that enough has been said to show that, on the authority of the Scriptures, there is no foundation for the pretensions of the Pope of Kome to supremacy, or universal pastorship of the Christian Church, which is utterly destitute of countenance from Christ or his apostles, and is, therefore, a usurp- ation. TESTIMONY O F AUGUSTIN AND CHRYSOSTOM Fundata est Ecclesia super petram, unde Petrus nomen accepit. Non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra : sicut non Christus, a Christiano, sed Chris- tianas a Christo, vocatur. Ideo quippe ait Domi- nus ; Super hanc petram oedificabo Ecclesiam ?neam: quia dixerat Petrus : Tu es Christus Jilius Dei vivi. Super hanc ergo, inquit, petram, quara confessus es, aedificabo Ecclesiam meara. Petra enim erat Chris- tus, super quod fundamentum etiam ipse sedificatus est Petrus. Fundamentum, quippe, aliud nemo potest ponere, prater id quod positum est; quod est Christus Jesus. — August. Expos, in Evan. Johan. Tract, exxiv. Oper. vol. ix, p. 206. 'Efl-i Tatt/Tw th iriT^ci: ovk iivrtv, 'E^ri t^ IIsT-gai. 'Own yag hri Tu &vd-^7r v , Trio-It;; 10 u o Xpt