The papal supremacy and the provincial system ...

Preface

The peculiarity of this essay, in which it differs from most others on the same subject — all others so far as I know — is the fact that it treats the question of the Papal Supremacy purely as a matter of fact and of history. No comparison is made or attempted between the doctrines taught, and the rites and usages practiced under that system, and those which prevail elsewhere.

In any system of religion, church authority must be a most important element, aside from any question of Divine Authority and spiritual grace of which it may be the channel, since it must and will exercise a powerful influence upon the character and spiritual growth of its members, as we can see everywhere around us.

For this reason it has seemed to me desirable to have some short and handy treatise that discusses

4 PREFACE.

this question as a mere matter of historic facts, disentangled from, and unembarrassed by, association with questions of doctrine and of ritual, which are more or less distinct from it.

With this brief explanation of the purpose and character of this little work, I commit it to the careful consideration of the reader and to the blessing of Almighty God.

Syracuse, May, I889.

Chapter I. The Papal Supremacy And The Holy Scriptures

Every time we repeat the Apostles' creed, we say, " 1 believe in the Holy CATHOLIC Church." Whoever is duly baptized and received into any church, or branch of the Church of Christ, professes his belief in the teachings of our Lord and his Apostles, as contained and set forth in that creed. And even though, as in many cases it happens, the Apostles' creed is not used or obviously referred to in the administration of that Sacrament, yet all persons who profess to be Christians at all, or to have any belief in Christianity, believe in some sort of a Church as a part of the divine institutions that have been provided for the redemption and salvation of mankind.

No one can read the Bible without finding that our Lord said, " I will build my Church . . and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Nor can he fail to see that our Lord gave his Apostles ample authority, as well as the influence of the Holy Spirit, for their guidance in arranging the principles and details of its organization and the materials and modes of accomplishing its work.

The Apostles speak of the Church as His Body, (Col. i. 1 8 ; Eph. iv. 12), words which were doubtless designed to denote the closest and most intimate relation between it and Him. We read, (Acts ii. 47), that after the Ascension He "added to the Church" — by conversion and baptism — "daily such as should be saved," or, rather, such as were being saved.

And yet it is the very common impression, in the community where we live, that the Roman church is the Catholic church — "the Holy Catholic Church" — and that all others besides those who are in that communion are merely seceders from it.

Nor is this the worst of the case. Since 1870, at least, that Church has declared that the Bishop of Rome — the Pope — is in such a sense the Head of the Church as successor of St. Peter, that no one can be regarded as in the Church at all, or have any hope of salvation as a Christian, who does not ac^ knowledge that supremacy and receive as matter of faith all that the Pope may teach and command, whether as dogma or duty, as doctrine or discipline.

If this view is well-founded, there is no help for it.

AND THE HOL Y SCRIPTURES. j j

We must all of us, however much we may like or dislike the doctrines and practices of the Romish Church, accept the supremacy of the Pope and submit to all that he may choose to declare to be a part of the Faith, or necessary as a means of the salvation of our souls.

Doubtless faith is of more importance than knowledge. But no such contrast may be made between faith and obedience. We must both believe and obey, whatever and whoever the Lord has appointed, though our responsibility may be determined by the opportunities we may have to know the truth and do what he has commanded.

We remember that the poor, trembling girl who suffered for many years "and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse" by all that the Physicians could do for her, was healed by the mere touch of the hem of the Divine Saviour's garment. It is probable that she knew nothing, and had no means of knowing anything, more of Him than that He was the Lord and had power to heal.

We remember, too, that the thief on the cross recognized Him as the Saviour and in sincere and earnest repentance uttered the prayer, "Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom," and he was assured that he should be that day with his Lord in Paradise. No word was said about Baptism, or the Lord's Supper, for which he had no opportunity.

But assuredly we can draw no inference from these

I2 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY

cases in favor of those who have the opportunity to know and to do — to read the Holy Scriptures, join the Church, participate in its worship and to receive the Holy Sacraments which our Lord has instituted and commanded us to observe. The promise is to those that believe and are baptized, and the Apostles were to teach their converts to observe all things that He had commanded, everywhere, always even unto the end of the world.

Let us, then, turn to the Holy Scriptures and see what they teach on the subject.

I. It seems that on more than one occasion there arose a question, "a strife" among the Apostles as to who should be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matt, xviii., I, Mark ix., 33, Luke ix., 46). On these occasions our Lord gave no intimation of any superiority of one over another, except that superiority in spiritual excellence which always comes from genuine humility and excellence in the works of charity.

The second occasion, as related by St. Luke, is more significant (Luke, xxii., 24). It occurred at a much later period in His ministry. It seems to have been at the very time when He was approaching "the end" and after the time when our Lord made the declaration to St. Peter on which the Romanists lay so much stress— "Thou art the Rock." St. Luke says, "there was a strife among them which of them," — the twelve — "should be the greatest. And He said

AND THE IIOL Y SCRIPTURES.

unto them, the Kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so." Then, after a few words, He continues : "Ye are they who have continued with me in my temptations and I appoint unto you a kingdom as my Father hath appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Here is no allusion to, but rather, as it would seem, a pretty stringent exclusion of, any superiority of Peter over the rest, or any one of them over another, save and excepting always that superiority in personal holiness which God gives to those who the most earnestly strive for it. On any other consideration, as it would seem, it is not even His to give, (Matt, xx., 23.)

The passage quoted from St. Matthew with regard to St. Peter, (Matt., xvi. 16,) relates what occurred before both the event spoken of by St. Luke just cited and this other just now quoted from St. Matthew himself. It would seem that our Lord could not have used these words and made these declarations without some reservation in favor of St. Peter, if the Romanist view of the former passage be correct.

II. Let us now proceed to consider the text, (St. Matt., xvi. 18) : "And I say 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."

H

I do not propose to discuss this text at length and to show precisely what was the meaning intended to be conveyed in it or by it. I will make only a few remarks on it.

(i) In the first place, this confession of our Lord's true character and nature, as the Christ, the Son of God, was made by Peter at Caesarea Philippi, the greatest distance to which our Lord ever went from Jerusalem, and he was also the only one to deny Him when questioned about Him at Jerusalem. He was, indeed, the first and foremost to confess Him at this place, far remote as it was from all danger, and the only one that denied Him at the hour and place of greatest peril.

(2) In the next place, whatever the declaration may have meant, or have been intended to mean, this statement, though given, indeed, by St. Matthew, St. Mark, who wrote under St. Peter's special direction, says not a word about his being a rock, or the building of the Church on it, or him, as the case may be. All that he says is : "And Peter answereth and saith unto him, thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man" of him.

Now, is it Peter's modesty that guides the Evangelist in this omission ? If so, surely the Papists are quite unlike St. Peter in this respect. Or, was the omission because neither St. Peter nor St. Mark attached to the declaration the importance and mean-

AND THE HOL Y SCRIPTURES.

ing that the modern advocates of the Papal supremacy ascribe to it ?

In either case this omission by St. Mark, under these circumstances, seems to me to be fatal to the Romish view. If the passage, as recorded by St. Matthew had no such importance as the Romanists attach to it, we can well understand why, as a matter of mere modesty and personal feeling, St. Mark should omit it. But if it conveyed the authority for which the Romanists contend, modesty is no justification for its omission. It conveyed a prerogative which neither St. Peter nor St. Mark had any right to ignore or to omit.

St. Luke, also, refers to this interview, (ix., 18-23.) But he says nothing about "the Rock," nor yet about the building of the Church on it, or him, as the case may have been. He merely says: Peter answering said, "the Christ of God." And, as in St. Mark, "He straightly charged them to tell no man that thing."

St. Luke wrote under the direction of St. Paul. Are we to assume that either St. Paul or St. Luke knew nothing of a supremacy, thought by some to have been implied in the words which St. Matthew ascribes to our Lord ; or, on the other hand, that they knew of the words that were used, indeed, on that occasion, but did not consider them of sufficient importance to repeat them in giving an account of this confession? The confession is, indeed, in some sense, the rock and corner stone on which the Church is built. But, in any case, it seems unquestionable that neither St. Peter nor St. Paul, neither St. Mark nor St. Luke, supposed there was any such meaning in the words as our modern Romanists claim for them.

St. John, in his Gospel, which was written some thirty or more years after those of the other three Evangelists, Sts. Matthew, Mark and Luke, (about A. D. 53-63,) says nothing about this conversation between our Lord and St. Peter. And the time when he, St. John, wrote (A. D. 90) is important. By that time the supremacy of St. Peter, if he had any, must not only have become well known, but of the greatest practical importance to the Church.

I consider these "silences," therefore, as most emphatic and expressive utterances against any such claim as the Romanists put forth.

(3) Then, we find in the Gospel of St. John (xxi., 15-18,) a passage which is much quoted by the Romanists — rather for popular effect, I think, than because they attach any importance to it in an argumentative point of view.

The passage referred to is that in which our Lord asks Peter three times with regard, to his love for Him, and on Peter's answer in the affirmative He repeats three times, also, the charge : "Feed my lambs" — "feed my sheep." But we must remember that Peter had been in disgrace and apostacy from

AND THE HOL Y SCRIPTURES.

the time of his thrice-repeated denial on the evening of his Master's trial, when most of all, if, indeed, He can be said at all to have needed that His friends should stand by Him. These declarations of our Lord did, doubtless, restore him to the position he had lost, and to his share, whatever that may have been, in the pastoral office of an Apostle. But we must assuredly take these words with those other "three" in which Peter denied thrice that he knew our Lord.

Up to this time of restoration , Peter was no "saint" at all ; he was, rather, in disgrace. When he denied our Lord, he not only denied Him three times — this he did not only repeatedly, but with anger and great earnestness, or at least solemnity, for the Evangelist says he swore ("with an oath," are the words used). Hence it is that I say, that up to that time not only was Peter no saint, but he was actually in the disgrace of apostacy. He had denied his Lord and he had been restored to the divine favor. Judas had betrayed him. Peter denied Him and afterwards repented and after repeating his declaration of faith and love three times, with tears, he was restored. But Judas did not repent, was not restored, but committed suicide and "went to his own place."

In view of these facts the declaration, or charge, rather, though thrice repeated, must be considered, in the first place, as merely raising Peter to the place he had lost by his cowardice.

But did these words accomplish anything more jg the papal supremacy

than to make him an equal with the rest of the Eleven ? Most assuredly they do not necessarily in themselves imply anything more. And we shall see further on whether they were, intended for anything more.

III. I pass then to the next text. It occurs in immediate connection with the declaration I have been considering, (Matt, xvi., 19) : "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

These are, doubtless, words of the gravest import. And without going into detail and disputed points, I think we may say that they contain clearly two points.

(1) The use of "the keys" implies opening and shutting. And we find that on the day of Pentecost, immediately after the reception of the Holy Spirit for the work committed to them, St. Peter preached to the Jews, when about three thousand converts were made — were baptized and added to the number that were being saved and "continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine" — "receiving their instruction — "and fellowship, with the breaking of the bread and in the prayers." ■ So, again, we find St. Peter now foremost in preaching to the Gentiles — "(opening the kingdom of heaven with the keys to them ?)" in the case of

AND THE HOL Y SCRIPTURES.

the centurion and his friends. They were converted and baptized and thus admitted to the church (Acts,

Then, again, we find Peter the foremost in shutting the doors — in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, his wife. It was a severe case of discipline. But they had "lied to the Holy Ghost ;" that is, they had said, or professed, that which they knew to be false, and they had lied to the Apostles, all of them, not to Peter alone. But Peter alone was foremost in denouncing their fraud and delivering them over to the terrible penalty that followed.

(2) But to return to the other part of our text, which conveys a remarkable grant of power: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shalt be loosed in heaven."

Now, whatever these words may have meant, they are repeated word for word and in the same form to all the Twelve, Judas included, shortly after, (Matt., xviii. 18,) and in a much more emphatic manner, and with something of detail that is of interest. It is now, "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

In St. John's Gospel, (xx., 23,) there occur words which are usually considered as of the same import : "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."

This, in the lowest estimate that can be put upon it, as I think, means, that whomsoever they should admit into the Church by the confession of the true faith of Christ, the Son of God, and by Baptism, had their sins forgiven, and were put into a state of salvation — "added," in fact, as St. Luke says, "to those that were being saved." And conversely, whomsoever they should reject, either by refusing to them, on sufficient grounds, Holy Baptism, or by excommunication from the means of grace in the Church, and fellowship with its members, should be in the state of a heathen, or probably worse now— "a heathen and a publican."

But in both of these cases, (Matt., xviii. 18,. and John, xx. 23,) the authority is given to all the Apostles alike, and no more and nothing more to St. Peter than to the other eleven in the case of St. Matthew, and the other ten in the case-of St. John (Judas had fallen).

There is no complete account of the organization of the Church anywhere given in the New Testament, so far as mere details are concerned. But in Heb., vi. 1-3 we have an enumeration of the first "principles," and the supremacy of St. Peter is not one of them. They are, as enumerated, Repentance, Faith, Baptism, Confirmation (or laying on of hands) Resurrection from the dead, and Eternal Judgment."

i

Of course, there could be no valid Baptism that did not bring one into the Church and add the recipient to "the number of those that should (or might) be saved ;" and no Confirmation that did not admit those that received it to full communion and fellowship. But nothing about any supremacy of St. Peter, or the submission to any Pope.

We have now two things before us : St. Peter was the first to confess our Lord in reference to his proper nature, and, alas ! the first, too, to deny all knowledge of Him. After his restoration to divine favor he was the first to "open the kingdom" — use the keys — to Jews, and, after that, by special guidance, to the Gentiles also. Then, he was the first to use the keys in shutting the kingdom, by way of discipline, in the case of Ananias and his wife Sapphira.

So, too, it was Peter who denounced Simon Magus : "But Peter said unto him, thy money perish with thee, because thou has thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." (Acts, viii. 26.) In these cases he had, and exercised, unquestionably, a primacy, or, rather, as I should say, a precedency over and before the other Apostles.

(3) Peter was also first and foremost as the spokesman of the Apostles, after their imprisonment (Acts, v. 17-29.) "Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said, we ought to obey God rather than men."

It was, however, James, the brother of John, and not Peter who was the first of the Apostles to be called to martyrdom, (Acts, xii. 3.) And although Herod saw fit to put James to death, thus giving the first and most glorious of all primacy or precedency, that of martyrdom to St. James, he seems to have been content in regard to Peter with merely putting "him in prison."

IV. This brings us down to about the time of the organization of the Church at Jerusalem. And we find that not Peter, but James, "the brother of our Lord," was placed over the Church as its first local Bishop. This was the first Church that was ever fully organized and St. James, and not Peter, was placed over it as its head under Christ.

And from this time, probably as early as A. D. 35 or '6, James, and not Peter, had the "primacy" — the only primacy and all the primacy in or over the Church that we know anything about. Up to this time the name of Peter always comes first in the order when two or more of the Apostles are mentioned byname, Peter, James, and John, in the order. But after this event the order is changed ; it is James and Peter, or Cephas and John, etc., (Gal., ii. 9.) Acts, xxi. 18, St. Luke says that Paul, in his visit to Jerusalem, "went in with us to James and all the brethren were present." There is no special mention of Peter as being of more importance than the others.

We find, also, several indications that St. Peter, although one of the Apostles, was in some sense subject to their direction. Thus, Acts, viii. 14, we read that when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they (the Apostles) sent unto them Peter and John, "to hold a confirmation there." James was at this time Bishop of Jerusalem and, as such, the Head and Primate of the Apostles. He, with others, sent Peter and John to Samaria. Just imagine the Bishops of some little towns about Rome, or "the College of the Cardinals," if you please, sending the Pope to Milan, or to Naples, to hold a confirmation, to administer the rite of "laying on of hands," to a class duly prepared for confirmation !

So, again, at the Council of Jerusalem in about A. D. 48 or 50, James presided (Acts, xv.) Peter, as one of the speakers, related how God had made choice of him that the Gentiles should by his mouth hear the word of the Gospel and believe. Then, Paul and Barnabas declared what miracles God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And then, after due discussion and deliberation, James, who seems to have presided in the Council, gave his opinion : "Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble not them which from the Gentiles have turned to God," etc. And the letter, as suggested by St. James, and in the very words which he uttered, was sent in the name of the Apostles and Elders and the whole Church." "It seemed good unto us . . to send chosen men unto you ;" and they add, "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them"— the Apostles, Elders, and the whole Church, to lay upon them no greater burden than these necessary things, pertaining to the Christian life, and omitting all the peculiarities of the law of Moses so far as mere ritual was concerned.

Now, manifestly here was no supremacy of St. Peter. No primacy — not even a precedence ; except, perhaps, the fact that he appears to have been the first to speak in the Council. But, assuredly, the man who presides in any Council in which he is present and of which he is a member, is, if anybody is so, the Primate.

And it is to be noticed that in the Letter that was sent by the Council, St. Peter neither wrote it, nor was it written in terms which he dictated. Nor was it sent in his name, as being anything more than one among the rest, one among equals.

Now, this is not merely negative testimony, as it is sometimes called ; that is, the absence of any testimony to the primacy or supremacy of St. Peter, such as is claimed for the Pope, when we might have expected it. It is more. It is a statement of facts that are inconsistent with any such idea and thus precludes it from the possibility of being held as true by those who profess to regard the Holy Scriptures as of divine authority, or as giving a true— not to say complete— account of Christianity and the Christian Church. We not only have no proof that St. Peter was regarded as the prince of the Apostles, having precedence and dominion over them ; but we have facts and statements which, as we have seen, are totally inconsistent and irreconcilable with such a doctrine.

Precedency, or forwardness, in speaking and acting there may have been and, doubtless, there was ; but anything like a primacy, or supremacy, could hardly have been manifested until there had arisen some occasion for a combined action, as in a Council. And when this occurred, after the selection of Matthias, and after the organization of the Church, James, and not Peter, appears to have had the precedence or primacy.

V. The expression, "obedience to the Faith," occurs several times as descriptive of the result of the work of the Ministry, (Acts, vi. 7.) But there is never a word about any "obedience" to St. Peter or to the Bishop of Rome, (Rom., xvi. 26.) In Romans i., 5, St. Paul describes the result of his work as an Apostle, as that for which he was set apart to that work, as "to bring all nations" (the Gentiles ?) to obedience to the Faith ;" not merely to its knowledge or acceptance, but to obedience to its commands and the observance of its institutions, obedience to the Faith — not to Peter or to the Pope. (See also Rom., xvi. 26.)

(i) But we have some positive declarations on this subject. Thus, St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, (2 Cor., xi. 5,) says of himself: "I suppose that I was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles." He makes no exception, and states no limitation to the meaning of his words. Surely, if he had known any point or respect in which St. Peter had any primacy or supremacy — I do not say precedency in time — but any primacy or supremacy over him, or the rest of the Apostles, St. Paul would never have used these words.

(2) Then, again, in his Epistle to the Gallatians, St. Paul says (ii., 7-9) that when he went up to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles who were in the Ministry before him and had been appointed by our Lord in person during His earthly life, they "in conference added nothing to him, but, contrariwise, when they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter, and when James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the heathen and they to the circumcision."

Now, here are several things to be noted : (1) St. Paul had been preaching successfully before he had seen Peter, or knew anything of him except by name as one of the chief Apostles — "pillars" —

AND THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 2 y

preaching, I say, to such an extent that they "added nothing to him" (as we may understand) either in the knowledge of the truths of the Gospel, nor yet in authority to preach.

(3) In the third place, Peter concurred with James and John, (and James is named first in the order — James, Peter, and John,) in giving St. Paul jurisdiction over the Gentiles, as they themselves — they, not Peter — had over the Jews. There was no reservation for any "primacy," or "supremacy," of St. Peter. Nor is Peter mentioned as having any exclusive jurisdiction, primacy, or supremacy over the Jews and the converts that had been made, or might be made, from among the Jews. It was a joint affair between the three who seemed to be pillars, James, Peter, and John, with no hint of a superiority on the part of St. Peter.

(4) Then, again, in his Epistles to the Corinthians, (2 Cor., xi. 28,) St. Paul, in speaking of his labors and sufferings in the cause of Christ, says ; "Besides those things that are without that which cometh on me daily, the care of all the Churches" He makes no mention of St. Peter. He speaks of the care of all the Churches. We may well supply the limitation that would restrict its scope to the Churches which he himself had founded among the Gentiles. But, even so, there is no recognition of any subordination to St. Peter, or of St. Peter as having any care over them.

(5) We have one more very striking passage in St. Paul's Epistles (Gal., ii. 14.) Here St. Paul disapproved of the practice which was being pursued by St. Peter and severely reprimands him for it. He says, "to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for one hour." This was at Jerusalem, and while both St. James, the Bishop, and many of the other Apostles were there. But, most assuredly, St. Paul could have used no such language to St. Peter, or with regard to him, if it had been understood at that time that any primacy or supremacy over the whole Church, or over the other Apostles, such as Romanists now claim, had been given him.