WE deem it well, seeing that popery has held such a prominent place in our sketches of church history, and that it not only still exists in this country, but is greatly on the increase, to review, as briefly as possible, what its claims really are, and what those claims are based upon, that the Christian may not only refuse its pretensions, but be able to help any who may be deceived thereby.
We have already seen that it was in the Dark Ages the church of Rome attained its greatest power-it flourished in the darkness, and did all it could to hide the light of God's word, and refuse its circulation.
The popes not only claimed authority over all Christians in every part of the world, but they also maintained that all kings and emperors held their authority from them. We have seen how the popes treated Henry IV and Henry VI of Germany, and king John of England.
A step farther, the popes claimed to be owners of all newly-found lands. Alexander VI granted to the Portuguese a right to certain countries, and to the Spanish other places in the West Indies and the Azores.
Then the popes claimed authority over heaven and hell. By means of pardons, dispensations, and indulgences, they professed to open heaven to any; and by their anathemas they doomed people to the punishment of hell. These are pretensions merely, they had not really this power.
Happily a great number of Christians—simply with the Bible in their hands and its truths ingrafted within them—are able to show that if God's word is true, the doctrines and pretensions of Rome must be altogether wrong and false.
As is well known, Rome lays its claims upon the assumptions: 1, That the apostle Peter was once bishop of Rome; 2, That a certain supremacy was given to Peter over the other apostles; 3, That this supremacy was handed down to the bishops of Rome who succeeded Peter, and from them onward to the present day by what is known as apostolic succession. These three things combined are declared to prove the church of Rome to be the true church, and consequently all others to be false.
We turn to scripture to see what light we can gather on these points; and first as to Peter being the bishop of Rome. On the day of Pentecost (say A.D. 29), “strangers of Rome" are named as being present at Jerusalem; and, as many were converted on that occasion, it may be that when these "strangers" returned to Rome, an assembly there may possibly have been the result. In whatever way the work commenced there we know that, when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, he stated that their faith had been “spoken of throughout the whole world." This would be about A.D. 58.
Thus, during the intervening thirty years the faith had greatly spread in the city so as to have been thus widely known. Rome being the capital of the empire, people would be constantly going and coming, which would largely aid, no doubt, in spreading abroad the faith of the Roman Christians.
Now it seems quite clear that Peter was not at Rome when Paul wrote to the saints there, or he would surely have mentioned his name; neither is there any mention of Peter when Paul arrived at Rome as a prisoner (about A.D. 62); and indeed scripture is quite silent as to Peter ever having been at Rome.
In Acts 12 Peter is at Jerusalem (about A.D. 41); and again in Acts 15 he is also there (about A.D. 50). Then we read of him visiting Antioch (Gal. 2:1111But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Galatians 2:11)), perhaps soon after the council at Jerusalem. All this is entirely opposed to the idea of his having been the founder of the church at Rome, and having resided there as bishop.
Besides he was emphatically apostle to the circumcision, as Paul was apostle to the Gentiles, which would not at all accord with his being settled over any particular church, especially over a Gentile church.
If we turn to the early writers of the church, all is confusion. Some say that Peter was bishop of Antioch. Others, that he was apostle at Rome and was appointed the first bishop there. Some, that he, in conjunction with Paul, founded the church at Rome. There is, however, nothing in the least certain, and in later times it became easy to assert that Peter had been the first bishop of Rome, especially when it was sought to build an immense fabric upon that assumption.
In reference to the second question, as to whether Peter had any supremacy over the other apostles, the supposition is based upon the notable passage in Matt. 16:18, 19: "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 thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
From our point of view we need not have entered upon this second question, seeing that there is really nothing to link Peter with the church of Rome; and without this link the supremacy of Peter, if proved, would not give precedence to that church. Nevertheless, it may be well to endeavor to learn what the passage is intended to teach.
At the outset it may be admitted that Peter seems to have had a somewhat prominent place among the disciples, inasmuch as in the Gospels he is often mentioned first of the three, " Peter, James and John," though we cannot see that this gave him any supremacy over them.
In the above passage—as has often been pointed out—the words " this rock " may refer to Christ Himself, and not to Peter—indeed, this is the decided judgment of some who are able to refer to the original Greek. They say that it is proved that it does not refer to Peter by the word used for "rock," though this cannot be easily shewn to an English reader. It would be somewhat like this: " Thou art a stone: on this rock I will build my church."
If we turn to the fathers we find great difference of judgment as to the passage, and nothing that throws any light upon it.
One thing is clear, that the foundation of the church cannot be a mere man, as Peter was: “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:1111For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:11).) It is true that the saints are said to be built upon the foundation of the apostles and [New Testament] prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone. (Eph. 2:2020And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; (Ephesians 2:20).) But here, we see, there is no thought of the apostles being separated from the prophets, much less that any one of the apostles was appointed as the foundation.
Further, as to supremacy, we find that at Jerusalem, James—not Peter—had the chief place. At the council at Jerusalem, after Peter and others had spoken, James said, "My sentence is," &c., though they were able to say, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." (Acts 15:19, 2819Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (Acts 15:19)
28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28).)
Again, at Antioch we find that Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed; clearly proving that Peter then held no such place in the church as has been claimed for him by the church of Rome.
But it will be asked, What about the keys?
Were not the keys of the kingdom given to Peter? They were; but this can have nothing to do with the building. People do not build with keys. Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, and many were admitted thereby. He also was the means used to bring in Cornelius. He himself said at the council at Jerusalem: “God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe." (Acts 15:77And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. (Acts 15:7).) So that Peter was the instrument by which both Jews and Gentiles were first admitted into the kingdom.
Again, it will be urged that to Peter was given power to bind and loose, and whatsoever he bound or loosed on earth was bound or loosed in heaven. True; but the same power was also given to all the apostles; to them our Lord said, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John 20:22, 2322And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:22‑23).)
This surely refers to discipline, &c., and not to eternal forgiveness. They were not to take the place of God, who alone can forgive sins; but the apostles had power to bind sin upon an individual, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira.
And further, we learn from the Epistle to the Corinthians that the church has the power—and it is its duty—to put away a wicked person, thus binding sin upon the guilty one. And on his repentance, it has the power to "forgive " such a one (2 Cor. 2:7-107So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. 8Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him. 9For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. 10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (2 Corinthians 2:7‑10)) and restore to communion. And when this is rightly done, the saints being led therein by the Holy Spirit, it is recognized by God in heaven.
In reference to the third point, very few words will suffice. There is no such thought in scripture as a succession of authority. Paul had the authority to delegate Timothy and Titus to appoint elders in every city; but there is not one word about those elders having authority to appoint others.
The apostle Paul, when speaking of his departure, commended the saints to God and to the word of his grace (Acts 20:3232And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)), without the least hint that there should be any one in authority, to whom they were to bow.
And this was surely good. Apostasy came in very soon after, and evil doctrines were held by those who claimed such supposed authority, and it was well that Christians could cast themselves on God, refer to the written word, and refuse obedience.
The accounts of the pontiffs also show plainly that their boasted succession from the apostles is a complete fable. At times the chair was vacant for months or even years; at other times there were two or even three men attempting to reign at once—each one cursing the others, and declaring all their ordinations to be worthless and void. Even Roman Catholic historians are not able to say how the succession should be traced, and differ in their attempts to make out a list. For a time the popes were notoriously wicked men, raised to power through the influence of profligate women. Thus their own historian Baronius confesses that there was "nowhere any mention of clergy electing or afterwards consenting, all canons buried in silence, the decrees of pontiffs suffocated, ancient traditions and old customs in electing the sovereign pontiffs proscribed, and sacred rites and ancient customs utterly extinguished." He further says that the clergy chosen by these popes were such men as themselves. At Rheims, Count Hugo made his son of five years old archbishop, and took the revenues; then, when some got the upper hand, and consecrated another, there was a fight over it, and councils about it, and two archbishops at the same time.
The same historian says, " Not only was Christ asleep in the ship [alluding to the narrative in the gospels], but there were no disciples who should wake Him up: they were all snoring. What presbyters and cardinal deacons can we suppose should be chosen by these monsters, when nothing is so implanted in nature as that each should beget what is like himself? Who can doubt that they consented in all things to those by whom they were chosen."
Now remember that this is not a history by a Protestant writer, but by one of Rome's own accredited historians, who surely did not portray the facts darker than they really were. Where, then, in all this was there apostolic succession? In such a succession should we not expect to find at least a few of the true features of Christianity and godliness? whereas here there was not one.
Notice, too, that the historian says, like pope like presbyters, like deacons, &c., and there were no disciples to call upon Christ: all were snoring. Surely this is a vivid picture of the Dark Ages. Men have tried to deny the darkness of those ages because there were Bibles in existence here and there; but what effect could they have if locked up, the light being extinguished as far as these wicked men could do it? At a council held at Toulouse in 1229, the laity were forbidden to have the scriptures in the vulgar tongue, except a psalter, or the like; and it was also forbidden to translate the scriptures.
The doings of these popes were not enacted in some obscure corner of the earth, where there were few to see or to regard what was done. It was at Rome, the head and center of the catholic religion; and though the whole civilised world was looking on, still these things were done with the most audacious and unblushing effrontery.
This claim, then, of apostolic succession—like all other claims of the Roman catholic church— crumbles into atoms as soon as it is fairly examined.
But notwithstanding all this and much more failure in that church, they still declare that it is that church of which it is said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." But surely our Lord said this of the church He was going to build. We know from other parts of the word that what man builds may end in failure—be burned up like wood, hay, and stubble. (1 Cor. 3:11-1511For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:11‑15).) This is in contrast to what our Lord Himself builds, which will of course stand for ever, in spite of all Satan's endeavors to prevent it.
We will further briefly allude to the so-called proofs of the Roman Catholic church being the true church. They are mainly condensed into four, namely, Unity, Catholicity, Holiness, and Apostolicity.
As to unity of faith and practice, it is but a myth. These have been altered again and again to suit circumstances, popes condemning councils, and councils condemning popes; one pontiff again and again undoing what another had done.
As to Catholicity, by which is meant universality—this is also a mere fable. It is not and never was universal. There were always Christians who were separated from it, notably those forming the eastern church, as well as the Waldenses, the Syrian Christians at Malabar, British Christians, &c.
As to Holiness, it surely should be a mark of the true church, but one only blushes to think how barefaced must be the man who can put this forth as a proof that the church of Rome is that true church of God. One has only to read their own best historians (say upon the subject of the celibacy of the clergy) to see that it has been from time to time so scandalous in its unholiness, that many an emperor has had to point it out in unmeasured terms, and call for councils to put a stop to the wickedness.
Apostolicity we have already looked at in connection with their assumption of apostolic succession.
Thus the whole that Rome claims for itself vanishes into the merest pretension, when examined by scripture and credible history. It can only thrive by suppressing the word of God, and by lulling men's consciences by the cry of "The church, the church, believe the church, and that church will secure your salvation." To examine is not faith. You must take it as it is presented to you, though the name it adopts carries a lie on its face—the Roman Holy Catholic Church. As we have seen, it is not holy and it is not catholic. There are more professed Christians on the face of the earth who are not Roman catholics than those belonging to that church. Other parts of our history will also show that on some points it is fatally heretical.