LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. Chap..._.-.f Copyright No.. ___. Shelf.„Jxl5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. r^l^nfiW^,^ ><^-, I, ''^ZrPiAAj fVWj THE SUPREMACY OF PETER OR DID CHRIST ESTABLISH A PRIMACY IN THE CHURCH ? " But one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." — Jesus. " And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stoue." — Paul. " To whom coming [coming to Christ], as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious; ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual bouse, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." — Peter. ■^ / BV / MOSES EASTMAN KELLOGG REVIEW AND HERAI^D PUBI.ISHING COMPANY, Battle Creek, Michigan. UO \ -4 y^ \ \ \ ^6 ^Y' ■^ 4^ Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1897, BY MOSES E. KELLOGG, In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Also entered at Stationers' Hall, London, Eng. DEDICATION. To the common members of evangelical Christian churches everywhere, whose rights and privileges in the church and in religious matters are as often ignored by those who, like Diotrephes, love the pre-eminence, as the civil rights of people are endangered by those, who by birth or by election, occupy the places of authority, this book ^s dedicated by one who believes that the principle enunciated by Lincoln, that government should be **of the people, by the people, and for the people,^^ is a rule which applies as fully to the government of the church as it does to government in civil affairs. THE AUTHOR, PREFACE. THE object of this little treatise will be best gathered from a perusal of its pages. The whole scope of the book may be placed under five general heads : (i) No primacy was established by Christ or recognized in the apostolic writings ; (2) how a primacy grew up in the church ; (3) the power and position attained by that primacy in the temporal reign of the popes ; (4) the loss of the temporal power ; and (5) church government as revealed in the New Testament. The author believes that many people who would be glad to know, have not a clear understanding of the way the great authority of the bishop of Rome was developed ; and should they desire to know, they would be obliged to read a mass of material which would seriously tax their time and strength. He has felt that something should be prepared which would, in a brief, yet comprehen- sive manner, place this very important subject where it might be understood by the common people, who have neither the time nor the dispo- sition to study large volumes upon the subject. Since the matter is one which has long agitated Christendom even to the present time, the author [7] 8 PREFACE. may be accused of threshing old straw ; but he will at least claim that as the subject is still agitated, it cannot be out of date, and that as long as time and advancing light furnish new kernels of truth, he has the right to thresh them out. The subject, and especially the historical part, might have been greatly enlarged ; but the author feeling sure that the Scriptures really settle the question, decided, for the sake of brevity, to give only sufficient historical evidence to enable the reader at least to see a connected line of events and usurpations, by which the successors of the first simple bishops of the church in Rome were gradually elevated to the rank of a spiritual and almost world-wide monarchy. No feeling of hatred toward Catholics has prompted this work. The author has many per- sonal friends who are Catholics, and he has no hesitation in saying that that church has contained, and still contains, many devout Christians, whose rights of conscience he would not trench upon in the least. It is against the papacy as a system, that the author objects, because he fully believes it represents and embodies an unscriptural and dan- gerous abuse of power, — ^ dangerous to both civil and religious liberty. While the author has given especial' attention to the papacy as the first and greatest usurpation of power in the church, he would not thereby apologize for or sustain others who have even in a distant way copied Rome's PREFACE. 9 errors. Order and organization without extreme authority, and unity without compulsion, is the Scriptural ideal of the government of the church. Departure from these principles in either direction is dangerous. On one side is tyranny, on the other, confusion. God is not pleased with either. May He who is alone the head of the church, and who has said, ' ' Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world," add his blessing to this humble effort put forth for his honor and glory. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PAGE The Supremacy of Peter . . . • 17 CHAPTER II. Examination of Other Texts ... 28 CHAPTER III. Peter, the Rock . . . . . . 42 CHAPTER IV. Inferential Evidence for the Superiority of John and Paul ..... 55 CHAPTER V. Examination of Peter's Letters ... 61 CHAPTER VI. Peter's Part in the Council at Jerusalem 68 CHAPTER VII. Was Peter Ever at Rome? . . . .79 CHAPTER VIII. An Appeal to Tradition .... 98 12 CONTENTS. CHAPTER IX. Comparison of Expressions of Authority Used BY Peter and Paul . . . . . 122 CHAPTER X. How the Office of Bishop Became Higher THAN that of ElDER .... 133 CHAPTER XL Different Orders of Clergy Deyeloped Make A Single Head Necessary . . .145 CHAPTER XH. Great Events \vhich Opened the Way for THE Primacy . . . . . 151 CHAPTER XHL Development of the Primacy . . .154 CHAPTER XIV. The Division of the Church . . . 166 CHAPTER XV. Great Pretensions of the Papacy . . 177 CHAPTER XVI. The Temporal Power of the Pope . . 194 CHAPTER XVII. The French Revolution and Its Effect upon the Papacy ...... 209 CONTENTS. 13 CHAPTER XVIII. Napoleon and the Papacy . . . 217 CHAPTER XIX. The Italian Revolution .... 227 CHAPTER XX. United Italy ...... 235 CHAPTER XXI. Italy Gains Venetia ..... 244 CHAPTER XXII. End of the Temporal Power . . . 253 CHAPTER XXIII. The New Testament Church Government . 259 CHAPTER XXIV. The Relation of Christ, the Head of the Church, to the Members of His Body, and Their Relation to Each Other . 273 ILLUSTRATIONS. Portrait of Author . . . Frontispiece "Follow Me and I will Make You Fishers of Men." 26 Peter Paying Tribute .... 39 Christ on the Cross Committing His Mother TO John ....... 56 Antioch ....... 71 Paul in Prison ...... 87 Belisarius Entering the Citv of Rome . 157 A Russian Metropolitan Bishop . . 167 Patriarch of the Greek Church . 174 Henry IV, Emperor of Germany, Submitting TO Pope Gregory VHI . . . „ 184 Queen Elizabeth . . . . . 188 Charlemagne ...... 205 Charlemagne Heading a Convocation of His People . . . . . . . 208 Scene in the French Revolution . . 210 General Berthier ..... 215 Napoleon . . . . . . .221 Victor Emmanuel ..... 230 [14] ILLUSTRATIONS. 1 5 Louis Napoleon ...... 233 Count Cavour ...... 236 Louis Napoleon and Victor Emmanuel Enter- ing Milan after the Battle of Solferino 238 Meeting of Victor Emmanuel and Garibaldi 243 Garibaldi . . . . . . .246 Heathenism . . . . . . 267 A Missionary Station . . . . .270 A Type of -Christian Civilization . . 274 CHAPTER L THE SUPREMACY OF PETER, FOR centuries the priests of the Roman Cathohc Church have strenuously maintained and culti- vated the doctrine of the supremacy of the apostle Peter over the church w^hich was established by Jesus Christ. This claim of the supremacy of Peter also involves the further doctrine of a succession of persons holding the same position of authority which it is claimed was bestowed upon Peter, and reaches in an unbroken line from Peter to the present time. In Catholic history these persons are known as the bishops, or popes, of Rome ; and the claim is made that Peter was the first of these, and held a higher rank than any other apostle ; that he actually took the office of Christ on the earth, after Christ's ascension to heaven, and that each of Peter's successors, by virtue of that position and succession, has also been the vicegerent of Christ, — the especially and divinel}' authorized agent of Jesus Christ to stand at the head of his church and his work on the earth. Christians of other faiths than the Roman Catholic have just as strenuously denied and combated this doctrine. Of those who have denied and opposed [17] 1 8 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. the Roman doctrine above described, the Greek Church and the various bodies of Christians to whom the common name of "Protestants" has been given, are the most noteworthy. The author assumes at the outset, what he beheves is suscep- tible of proof, and what he feels confident will be proved in these pages, that this doctrine of Rome rests on no solid basis, and that those who oppose the doctrine of the supremacy of Peter and a suc- cession of primates following him, hold the truth in this matter. The proper understanding of this subject depends upon a correct answer to the following question : Did Jesus Christ establish a primacy among the apostles, placing Peter above the others, with pro- vision for a successor to the same office, who, like Peter, should exercise authority over the whole Church.'' — Roman Catholics claim that this was done ; Christians of other faiths deny it. If this was done, it would seem that it ought to have been plainly stated in the inspired writings of that period, not leaving such an important matter as the headship of the church to be learned by doubtful inferences and the dim light of tradition. As inferences at best carry with them only a ques- tionable authority, or even authenticity, no impor- tant doctrine of the church should be based on inference alone ; especially since fancy, joined to our predilections in favor of a particular doctrine, often clothes a mere inference with all the authority THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 1 9 of a plain statement of the Scriptures. An exami- nation of the real, Scriptural foundation for this Romish doctrine is therefore necessary in order that we may know whether the supremacy of Peter, and of the popes of Rome as his pretended succes- sors in office, has a real or only a fancied and arti- ficial basis. It may be thought by some that the discussion of this question at the present time is altogether unnecessary and unprofitable. We are inclined to think differently. The marvelous growth of the Roman Catholic Church in these United States and in other countries, surpassing that of any other time since the great Reformation ; the favor with which she is now regarded by very many professing Protestants ; her arrogant pretensions to be the "American Church;" and the crafty manner in which the deyotees of that church work them- selves into every position of honor which they can secure, is sufficient evidence that the only way to escape being captured in her toils is to know the Scriptures and the truth in this matter. We must know for ourselves ; not only in a general way, but we need to understand the details of the Romish position, and the scriptures used to sustain it ; and we should be able in a specific manner to point out the fallacious and groundless nature of these claims for the good of others who are not acquainted with the word of God, and who have not especially studied this subject. 20 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. What, then, are the Scriptural proofs that to Peter was granted a supremacy over the other apostles and over the church; that he knew that such supremacy was given to him ; that he exercised the same either before or after the daath of Christ; and that he or any one else undertook to transmit that authority to others who were successively to occupy the position of vicegerents of Christ on earth ? The Roman Catholic Church claims that it finds such proof in the Scriptures ; and a dis- tinguished writer in the Catholic Mirror, having taken up this question, claims to find what he calls ''twelve texts of sacred Scripture, everyone of which bears infallibly on its face the direct action of the Son of God establishing the supremacy of Peter." ^ These texts have been used by the Roman Catholic Church for hundreds of years as Biblical proof of the supremacy of Peter over the other apostles and over the church. Hence an examina- tion of these positions as given in the Mirror is not the examination of the opinion or ideas of one individual member of that church, but is really an investigation of what the Catholic Church regards as the Scriptural foundation of the doctrine of Peter's supremacy. Since these scriptures are cited as containing the proofs of this position, it is natural and proper that we should examine them to see if this evidence of the supremacy of Peter is really on the face of these texts or whether it is put there by a skilful misinterpretation of the same. ^Mirror of April 14, 1S94. THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 21 It is not expedient to quote these statements in the Miri'-07' word for word, as this would take too much space ; but we will give all the Scripture references, with a clear statement of the positions deduced from them. The following are the texts referred to by this wTiter to prove his first proposi- tion. In order to give the Catholic position a fair examination, the reader should carefully read the references given : John i : 39 ; Mark 1:14, 17 ; John I : 40, I : 37 ; and Mark i : 16, 17. From these scriptures it is claimed that since Andrew was Peter's elder brother, and had received Christ before Peter had believed on him, and had also been a disciple of John the Baptist, he should naturally have been mentioned yfr^-/ in the enumera- tion of the apostles ; but that, on the contrary, the evangelist Mark places Simon before Andrew, and that this signifies a precedence ; that Mark was inspired to name Peter first because of the posi- tion of eminence which Christ designed that Peter should occupy, passing over his elder brother, who had been a disciple of John and a believer in Jesus before Peter believed. While we care less for the premises upon which this conclusion is based than we do for the conclu- sion that is drawn from them, justice to the subject demands that the premises be carefully examined. Let us then examine the premises upon which this argument is founded. The statement that Andrew was older than Peter is nothing but a surmise ; it 22 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. has no Scriptural foundation. All the apostles had been followers of John the Baptist. Proof of this may be found in Acts 1:21. Here, in the choice of another apostle to fill the place of Judas, the only qualification mentioned as being requisite is that he should not only be a man who had been with them during the ministry of Jesus, but his ex- perience must moreover date from the baptism of John ; hence it is fair to conclude that no greater experience was required for the new apostle than the other apostles themselves possessed. This being the case, the argument drawn from the supposed fact that Peter was preferred before his elder brother, who had also been a disciple of John when Peter was not, has no foundation in fact. Nothing, then, is left as a basis for this deduction that Peter was supreme, as far as the scriptures thus already examined bear on the case, except the fact that when the apostles are named, the name of Peter stands at the head of the list. Coming, then, directly to the consideration of the texts quoted to prove the supremacy of Peter, it will first be noticed that nothing is said of Peter's supremacy in any of these texts. His supremacy, then, does not appear upon \.\\^ face of these texts ; for by the face of a text we understand is meant its obvious meaning without any labored construction or interpretation. The proof of Peter's supremacy, if proof there be, is in the strained and impossible interpretations and not in the texts themselves. THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 23 In reference to the deductions here claimed for Peter's supremacy, a few thoughts may be pre- sented : — The greatness of an apostle does not depend upon the time when he becomes a believer, or the order in which his name is mentioned. If it were so, there would be a regular gradation of rank from " first to last ; but in the lists of the names of the apostles the same order is not always maintained. In the book of Matthew, Thomas is named before Matthew, and in Mark, Matthew is named before Thomas. Again, Matthew and Luke place Andrew next after Peter, but Mark, and Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, places Andrew fourth in the list. (See Matt. lo : 2, Luke 6: 14, Mark 3 : 17, and Acts 1:13.) So we conclude that the relative position of an apostle cannot be known by the place his name occupies in the list, but it may rather be known by the work which he accom- plishes. Thus Paul by the Spirit testifies : ' ' For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." 2 Cor. 11:5. The reason for this just conclusion is fully given in this chapter, which con- tains a thrilling narrative of his labors. If he was not a whit less than the chiefest of the apostles, he was not less than Peter ; and indeed he was once obliged to take a decided stand against Peter him- self, and that at a time when the Roman Catholic Church would have us believe that Peter was the infallible head of the church. This is what the 24 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. record says : ** But when Peter was come to An- tioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Gal. 2:11. In the same chapter Paul says that the gospel which worked effectually through Peter to the Jews was mighty in him (Paul) toward the Gentiles, and he places James, Peter, and John on an equality as pillars in their support of the gospel. Verses 8, 9. It may be well to notice that in this mention of the names of three noted apostles (including Peter) James and not Peter is mentioned first ; and since Paul as well as the evangelists wrote by the inspira- tion of the Holy Ghost, if the mention of Peter before the other apostles by the evangelists indi- cated Peter's supremacy, the mention of James before Peter by the apostle Paul, and that as late as the year A. d. 58, when, according to Catholic doctrine, Peter was fully established in the primacy, would just as certainly prove the supremacy of James. There is one more point relating to the argument based upon the mention of the name of Peter at the head of the list by the evangelists, which will be noticed. In the Latin version of the New Testament, which is the one used by the Roman Catholic Church, where it reads, ' ' The First was Simon, who is called Peter," the word answering to our English words ** the first " is '' privuis ; " and from this an argument is sometimes made by Catho- lics that since Peter is here called primus, here is THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 2^ the evidence of the primacy. But we should re- member that the word ' ' primus " in the Latin has exactly the same meaning as the English words *'the first," no more, no less. Those who speak the English language, or any other language than the Latin, and who have only heard the word ^^prinms'' as associated with the supremacy of Peter or of some other prelate, easily come to attach a different meaning to the word from that which actually belongs to it. It is also true that the long-continued use* of a word in a certain sense changes its meaning from what it originally meant. Thus the use of the word ^' priimis'' as applied to Peter by Catholics has no doubt effected a change from its original meaning, giving it a kind of theo- logical sense. All we care about knowing is what was meant by the word '' priimts'' before this theological meaning was attached to it. Then it was simply "the first." Only in the record in Matthew is Peter called the first, though three evangelists place his name at the head of the list. Why did they do this } Peter was certainly one of the first three believers in Christ, who attained to the position of apostles. John i : 39-41. The fact related in these verses, that Andrew came to Simon and told him of Christ, does not, however, necessarily prove that Peter was not himself a be- liever at that time. He w^as thus one of the first three who believed of those who became apostles. He also became much more prominent in the work 26 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. than his brother Andrew of whom we know Kttle. James, Peter, and John were pillars (Gal. 2 : 9), and they were the principal men in the gospel work until Paul eclipsed them all. Catholics claim that Andrew was the elder brother, and that the passing over the name of Andrew and placing the name of Peter first was very significant on that account. But of this there is no proof ; and it may be that Peter was the elder brother, and took the precedence of Andrew on that account as well as because of his zeal. He was certainly old enough to have a wife when he was called to the apostleship, he being the only apostle of whose marriage we have positive Scriptural proof. (See Luke 4 : 38,) These reasons — his age, his early belief in Christ, and the prominent part he took in the work of the gospel-are sufficient reasons for his name being placed at the head of the list, and for his being called ' ' the first " by one of the evangelists ; but they are not sufficient reasons to warrant the belief that he was preferred above the other apostles, or that he was to be the head over the church and to have successors to that office. If a man was counting his sheep in Latin, and wished to name them and number them from first to last, or if he only wished to name them and to designate the first, he would be obliged to call the one first mentioned, the priviiLS, but this would hardly prove that there was a primacy in the flock, in the sense that the word is now applied to the head of the "Follow Me, and I Will Make You Fishers OF Men." Matt. 4 : ig. THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 2/ Catholic Church, or that this sheep was the head over all other sheep. These facts which we have adduced, show that there is nothing whatever in the claim that the mention of the name of Peter first in the list of the apostles in the gospels proves that he had any supremacy over the other apostles or over the church. The whole argument which is built on these texts for the supremacy of Peter, has no Scriptural foundation whatever. CHAPTER IL EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. HAVING, we believe, successfully established the position that the place which an apostle's name occupies in a Scriptural list of their names has no signification as to his superiority or inferiority ; and that even if such superiority can be established, another rule for determining it must be devised, we pass to the examination of other texts which are believed to sustain the idea of the supremacy of Peter over the apostles and over the church. It is claimed that Christ pronounced him (Peter) "alone blessed" (Matt. i6 : i6, 17); that Christ es- pecially prayed for him (Luke 22 : 31, 32) ; that after Christ's resurrection, he sent a special message to Peter (Mark 16:7); that Peter received a special commission to feed the flock of Christ (John 21 : 15-17); that Christ paid tribute for himself and Peter (Matt. 17 : 24-27) ; and that after the ascen- sion of Christ, Peter called for the election of another apostle to fill the place made vacant by the apostasy and death of Judas. Acts i : 15-26. These texts afford the premises for further deduc- tions to sustain the idea of Peter's supremacy. Let [28] EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 29 them be carefully scanned to ascertain whether the conclusions drawn from them are natural and easy or forced and illogical. Reverting to the scripture first quoted, — Matt. 16:16, 17, — we ask. Is it true, as held by the Catholic Church, and stated by the writer in the Mirror, that Jesus pronounced Peter ' ' alone blessed " } There is nothing of the kind in the texts. Because of Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Lord pronounced a blessing upon him ; but shall we conclude that the other apostles did not also receive a blessing when they made the same confession } All of them had to make a similar confession, or they could not retain their position as apostles. Indeed, the belief of this very statement made by Peter was the reason why they were chosen to be apostles. Peter was naturally very impulsive, and often put himself forward among the other apostles, who were con- tent to be more modest in their demeanor. This was the case when Peter declared that though all should forsake Christ, he would not. He even pro- tested "vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee." Then the record adds, " Like- wise also said they all." Mark 14:29-31. It is recorded that Christ blessed little children (Mark 10 : 16), but would it be a truthful statement to make, that Christ pronounced those ''alone blessed," because no others at that time were mentioned as being blessed } It would certainly 30 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER, be a conclusion not warranted by the facts in the case and the forms of sound logic. The same may be said of the conclusion that Peter was "alone blessed," because at that time he only was men- tioned. Christ's blessings were pronounced upon people whenever they were prepared to receive them ; and these blessings, while comforting to those to whom they were addressed, did not neces- sarily depreciate others who did net at that time receive a similar blessing. It is worthy of remark that while three of the evangelists record this con- versation between Christ and the apostles, and also Peter's confession of Christ, no one but Matthew mentions the blessing, and even Mark, who is thought to have been inspired to teach the su- premacy of Peter, does not mention the blessing that was pronounced upon him. A little later, as described in the same chapter (Matt. 1 6 : 22, 23), the same impulsive Peter took it upon himself to rebuke his Lord and Master. If it were on record that he rebuked the other apos- tles, it might be taken as an evidence of his su- premacy, but the most sanguine believer in that theory would not refer to this event in support of his doctrine. Christ was obliged to say, " Get thee behind me Satan: thou art an offense unto me." Now if at one time a blessing pronounced upon Peter because of his confession of Christ indicates that he was "alone blessed" and others were excluded from the same blessing, because it is not recorded EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 3 1 that these were blessed, then would not this later occurrence where Peter is severely reprimanded and declared to be an offense unto Christ, as surely prove that Peter nlone was reprimanded, and that he alone was an offense unto Christ ? a conclusion that would militate very much against any claim put forth for him that he was to be the head of the church. The fact is that all the apostles were in the school of Christ ; and they were comforted, chided, reprimanded, or blessed, as their conduct at various times demanded. That one or more of them were at one time blessed, or that they were at another time reproved and corrected, proves nothing one way or.the other as to their superiority or inferi- ority. We therefore fail to find in Matt. i6 : i6, 17 any evidence that Peter was "alone blessed," or that the blessing which he did receive gave him authority over the other apostles, or in any wav indicated that he ever would possess such au- thority, or that those who had made or would make the same confession would not receive a similar blessing. We will now consider Luke 22 : 31 to see if we can find any evidence of Peter's supremacy in the statement there made by Christ that he had prayed for Peter. Scanning the record from the 24th verse down to the verse where Christ assures Peter that he had prayed for him, we can learn some very interesting facts, w^hich are fully sufficient to 32 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. explain Christ's prayer for Peter, and leave no ne- cessity for inference that Christ prayed for him because he was to be the head of the church. First, we notice that there was strife among the apostles, the point of discussion being, ' ' which of them should be accounted the greatest." Christ reproves them for this conduct, and then address- ing Peter, he says, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat : but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not : and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Christ had most plainly cautioned his disciples against indulging in a desire to be chief. To the mother of James and John, who desired a promise of the exaltation of her children, and who came to him, evidently with their permission for that purpose, he administered a kind but firm rebuke. Matt. 20 : 20-28. At another time when speaking to the multitude and to his disciples, of the scribes and Pharisees, who loved the homage of man, he said : " But be not ye called Rabbi : for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." Matt. 23:8. Again, when at one time his disciples had been disputing as to which of them should be the great- est, he took a child and set him in the midst of them, and from this picture of innocence of worldly ambition, taught a most precious lesson of humility to his warring followers. Mark 9:35, 36. Noth- ing is clearer from his teachings than that there EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 33 was not to be anything ttke arbitrary ' ' lordship " or the exercise of ' ' authority " among his followers. Mark 10:42. To his disciples . who complained that a certain man was casting out devils in his name, but was not following them, the Lord said, " Forbid him not : for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me." Mark 9:39. It was to be Peter's duty to "strengthen" his brethren, not to rule them. Taking these facts and circumstances into con- sideration, is it reasonable to believe that Christ prayed for Peter, to indicate his supremacy either then or at any subsequent time ? Is it not more reasonable to conclude that Peter, following his inlpetuous nature, was foremost in the strife to be greatest ; that he was under the influence of Satan while so doing ; and that the Lord's prayer for him was that his sinful desire for supremacy might be eradicated from his heart } When this should be accomplished, — when he should be converted, and the selfishness and desire to be superior to his brethren should be gone, — then he could strengthen others. This is the manifest sense of the text. Christ prayed for Peter, not to show Peter's suprem- acy, or that he favored him more than he did the other apostles, but because, tempted by Satan and filled with selfish ambition, he needed his prayers. That prayer was answered, not by giving Peter his desire to be above his brethren, but by giving him. 3 34 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. repentance for his evil course, and making him a useful man in the preaching of the gospel and the establishment of the church in the earth. We are now prepared to consider Mark 16:7. This text describes a scene which took place im- mediately after the resurrection of Christ. To the women who came early to the sepulcher, the angel said, ' ' But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee : there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." From this passage it is claimed that since a special message is here sent to Peter, calling him by name, it is evidence of his superiority over the other apostles. This argument, of course, is entirely inferential ; there is no statement in the Scriptures that in so doing Christ showed any preference for Peter. We therefore raise the question, Would the fact that a special message was sent to a person be a certain evidence of the preferment of that person ? Or, changing the question a little, and applying it di- rectly to the principle involved in this controversy. Would the fact that Christ sent a special message to a person necessarily indicate that that person was preferred to be the head of the church ? Christ sent a special message to Herod (Luke 13 : 32) ; but no one would conclude that this was an expres- sion of preference for Herod. Simply sending a message to Peter, which was precisely like that which he sent to all the disciples collectively, would not necessarily indicate any superiority of EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 35 Peter or preference for him. If it could be proved that he was more highly honored than the other apostles, this might be taken as significant of the fact, if there were no other and better reason for this action. We must remember that this supremacy is the very thing that this text is quoted to prove, but it certainly does not prove it. We here recall to the mind of the reader that a claim was made for the supremacy of Peter, on the ground that in the list of names of the apostles he was mentioned^;'.?/; but here, in the text we are con- sidering, not only the apostles but all the disciples are collectively referred to before Peter is men- tioned. Surely if the design was to honor Peter, the message should have been reversed so that it would have been, ' ' Go tell Peter and my disciples. " It is easy to imagine that if this Scriptural order of the message had been reversed, if Peter had been mentioned first, it would have been considered another great argument for his supremacy. But in this message Peter is placed after all the dis- ciples ; and hence, if the rule laid down by the Catholic Church as applying to the enumeration of the apostles as given in Matthew lo, should be applied here, Peter would be the least of the disciples. There is another and more reasonable cause for this mention of Peter, which, although but an inference, is a much more natural and logical in- ference than that used to prove Peter's supremacy. 36 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. Peter had made great professions of loyalty to Christ. He had said, ' ' Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended." Matt. 26 : 33. More than this ; after being told by Christ that he would deny him, he had declared with great vehemence, " If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise." Mark 14:29-31. The other disciples said the same thing, though not with Peter's vehemence and assurance ; but when they were all brought to the actual test, no one made such a miserable failure as did Peter. Three times he denied his Lord ; the last time, with cursing and swearing. Reminded by the look which Jesus cast upon him, of the enormity of his offense, "he went out and wept bitterly." Matt. 26:75. It is more than probable that he despised himself and felt that he had no longer a right to claim to be a disciple of the Lord. Had he not three times denied him even with cursing ? Men with an impulsive nature, like Peter, are generally either in an exalted or depressed state of mind. How natural that he should be utterly disheartened and discouraged ! And even if he should hear that Jesus had risen from the dead, and that he had sent a message to his disciples to meet him in Galilee, how could he, after this shameful experience, call himself a dis- ciple of Christ ? By his own conduct he had put himself entirely out of the discipleship. The other disciples, not having sinned so grievously, might EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 3/ go, but how could he meet his Master, unless there were sent to him some special token that Jesus still cared for him ? Such were the thoughts that would naturally afflict the mind of Peter at that time. The pitying Saviour knowing it, added to the general message a special word to Peter. His name was called that he might know that his Master had not cast him off, notwithstanding Peter had denied him. Even after his great sin, he was still loved by the Lord, and called by name, that he might take heart, and by the mistakes of the past learn his own weak- ness and to rely more fully upon divine strength. This, we maintain, is a natural and logical infer- ence to draw from the record, and is much more in harmony with the facts in the case than that Christ sent a special message to Peter to show a prefer- ence for him, or to indicate his prospective su- premacy. This circumstance also explains why Christ ad- dressed Peter as recorded in John 21 : 15-17, which scripture is also taken to prove the supremacy of Peter. At Peter's suggestion, several of the apos- tles were about to resume their former occupation of fishing. They entered a boat and set forth, but success did not crown their efforts. Indeed, their experience was very similar to that which they had just previous to the time when Jesus first called them to preach the gospel. Luke 5 : i-i i. They were not heeding that divine call to "catch men," but were returning to fishing, and Peter was the 38 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. one who had proposed doing it. Jesus appeared to them upon the bank of the lake, questioned them, and was told that they had caught nothing. He then repeated the miracle which at the first encour- aged them to take up the gospel work, giving them another miraculous draught of fishes, and provided food for them, indicating by this that he could sup- ply their wants. Then addressing Peter in a way to remind him gently of his failings, he asked him repeatedly if he loved him, which could not but re- mind this disciple of his former protestations of love and subsequent denial of his Lord. He then re- called him to his duty, the work to which he had called him three and a half years before by the same lake, and perhaps in the same place, — to preach the gospel, to catch men, and to labor, not for natural food for himself, but to give spiritual food to the church. "Feed my sheep," "Feed my lambs," was the divine commission given to him. In all this there is a promise that Christ would supply his temporal wants, a gentle reproof for Peter's unbelief, and a confirmation of that pre- vious call to preach the gospel, of which he was apparently losing sight ; but there is nothing in all this transaction to indicate the supremacy of Peter. The argument for Peter's supremacy, based upon Christ's paying the tribute money for Peter (Matt. 17 : 24-27), will now be considered. It is held that this occurrence is proof that Christ manifested a PETER PAYING TRIBUTE. EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 39 '* marked preference" for Peter. Like all the other scriptures we have examined, which are offered to prove that Christ expressed a preference for Peter, the evidence presented is nothing but the weakest kind of an inference. Let us examine the circumstances carefully : An officious gatherer of tribute, evidently anxious to get all the money he could, asked Peter if his Master did not pay tribute. It is also very prob- able that he suggested that Peter also ought to pay. Peter reported the matter to his Master, who, after first proving that they were under no obligation to pa}^ the tribute, secured the money in a miraculous way to pay for himself and Peter, who was in trouble over the matter. There is no evi- dence that the other apostles were asked to pay the tribu>te, and there is nothing to show a preference for Peter in this transaction. If he had paid for Peter and had refused to pay for the other apostles, then it might appear that Peter was especially favored. To give a dollar to one who is needy, is no sign of preference for that person above those who are not needy, and who receive nothing. The real lesson here taught is that it is proper under certain circumstances to submit to exactions which are not legal and cannot be enforced, rather than to offend those whom we hope to benefit. There is not in this event a basis even for an infer- ence that any preference is expressed for Peter, 40 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. and nothing but an intense desire to find something for proof would ever lead any one to draw infer- ential evidence of Peter's supremacy from this text. The claim of supremacy for Peter resting upon the record of the part he took in the choice of a new apostle (Acts 2 : i 5-26), will now be consid- ered. Judas, the apostate, being dead, it was nec- essary that one of the disciples should be chosen to take his place. To do this, the question must be brought before the disciples. Peter was never known to be slow in speech, whether right or wrong. Acting with his usual forwardness, though now improved and corrected by the tests to which he had been subjected, and the reproofs he had re- ceived, he called for the election of another apostle to fill the place of Judas. It will be noticed that Peter did not arrogate or assume any authority in the matter. Addressing the disciples as " men and brethren," as though they were his equals in the work, he placed the matter before them and asked that a suitable person be selected and ordained to serve with them as a witness of Christ's resurrection. The record states that they appointed two. This would indicate that a discussion had taken place among the disciples as to the proper man for the place, and also that the selection of the new apostle was not left to Peter alone, but that it was the act of all the disciples. The part taken by Peter in the selection cannot by any means be taken to sustain the idea that he EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 4I was supreme. Indeed, it may be used to prove the contrary ; for if Peter was at that time the recog- nized head of the church, taking Christ's place as his vicegerent, with the example of Christ choos- ing his own apostles less than four years before, fresh in his mind, would he not have made the choice himself ? Instead of doing this, he left the selection to all the disciples, and to the Lord, who knew the hearts of men. There is nothing, then, in this transaction from beginning to end that can be made to favor in the least degree the idea of the supremacy of Peter over the other apostles. The texts we have examined and which are adduced to prove that doctrine, utterly fail to prove anything of the kind. All the evidence is inferential ; the inferences are not logically drawn, and in several instances, inferences decidedly against the idea of Peter's supremacy may be clearly drawn from the texts. CHAPTER IIL PETER, THE ROCK, TT7E now come to the statement made by Christ VV to Peter, found in Matt. i6 : 17-19. This text is the stronghold, of the Cathohc doctrine of the supremacy of Peter ; for while all the other scriptures quoted in support of the theory of Peter's supremacy depend entirely upon inferential evi- dence, in this text there is an apparent statement that Peter had a special power conferred upon him. We say apparent ; for while it may be proved that to Peter was here given a certain power, this power did not imply a supremacy over the other apostles ; for all the apostles had power equal to that which was given to Peter. No power can be greater than the power to forgive sins, which Jesus gave to all his apostles. ' ' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said unto them. 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, 23. In the exegesis of the Scriptures it is not wise to jump to a conclusion from the consideration of one text merely. Dangerous heresies are built up and propagated in this way. It is better to take a [42] PETER, THE ROCK. 43 general survey of all the scriptures bearing upon a certain point before coming to a conclusion re- garding it. Notice carefully this statement of Christ to Peter with the connecting circumstances. Christ asked this question : ' ' Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am .? " Not a more im- portant question than this can possibly be asked. The salvation, not only of Peter but also of every person in the world, depends upon the way he answers this question. "And Simon Peter an- swered and said, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah : 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 ke3^s of the kingdom of heaven : and whatso- ever thou shaft bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Upon this scripture it is held that the church of Christ is built on Peter alone, and that to him. was given the power of binding and loosing ; that he therefore was made head of the church, and that this power and head- ship of the church was to be transmitted to his successors as long as time shall last. Let us look at the several points here presented, which are claimed to be evidences of Peter's su~ 46 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. But it will be asked, Did not Christ say that he would build his church upon Peter, when he said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church " ? — No, indeed. Christ himself is the Rock upon which the church is based. In Deu- teronomy 32, Christ is several times called the Rock, thus : ' ' He is the Rock, his work is perfect : . . . a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he;" " lightly esteemed the Rock of his salva- tion;" "of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful; " "for their rock is not as our Rock." "Who is a Rock save our God .^ " Ps. 18:31. Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I. " Ps. 61:2. Other texts of this character might be quoted from the Old Testament. The New Testa- ment also declares that Christ is the Rock. Hear what Christ himself says: "Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock." Matt. 7 : 24. But he who builds upon Christ's words builds upon Christ himself. Paul bears testimony to the same truth when, speaking of God's people of former days, he says, "They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them : and that Rock was Christ." i Cor. 10 : 4. Again Paul speaks of the church as being ' ' built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." Eph. 2 : 20. Here all the apostles and the prophets arQ classed together as secondary foundation ma- PETER, THE ROCK. 47 terial, no special quality being given to Peter, but Jesus Christ is called the chief stone. And Peter himself, for whom the claim is made that he is the foundation of the church, gives that place to Christ in the following words : ' ' To whom coming [com- ing to Christ], as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood. . . . Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious : and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded." i Peter 2 : 4-6. Again the same Peter says of Christ : ' ' This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." Acts 4:11. Paul makes this very clear in i Cor. 1:12. The church in Corinth was divided and was break- ing up into factions. Thus we read : " Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul ; and I of Apollos ; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." Here some were saying that they were of Cephas, or Peter. Now if Peter was the head of the church at this time, which he certainly must have been if he ever was, those who were saying that they were of Peter were right, and it would be the manifest duty of Paul to tell them so. But Paul reproved them all, the followers of Peter as well as the fol- lowers of Apollos. He told them that in thus trying to look to some man as a head, they were 4 48 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. ''carnal," and that these men were but "minis- ters " by whom they had beheved. Finally, he made the following striking statement in regard to the foundation of the church : "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foun- dation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." i Cor. 3 : lo, ii. Paul had laid down the true foundation, Jesus Christ, but some were trying to take Peter for a foundation and build upon him, but they were rebuked by Paul, and Christ is set forth by him as the one and only true foundation. Jesus Christ is a solid foundation for the church, such as cannot be found in any man, no matter how highly endowed. He is the one who has said : "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth," and he invites all to come to him. " Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matt, ii : 28. He is the one Mediator, he is the One that God gave "to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." Eph. i : 22, 23. Peter never occupied that relation to the church ; the universal sense of the Scriptures forbids such a thing. The church of Jesus Christ dates from an earlier period than the days of the apostle Peter, or the PETER, THE ROCK. 49 time when God was manifested in the flesh in Jesus Christ. There was a "church in the wil- derness " (Acts 7 : 38), and Christ was the head of his church at that time, and directed it. i Cor. 10 : 1-9. That the church covers the ages may be seen from the fact that prophets as well as apostles form the secondary foundation material. Enoch, Moses, Samuel, and Elijah are in that foundation material as well as James, Peter, John, and Paul. To take the apostle Peter and make him the head of the church and the chief foundation, is as incon- gruous as it would be to take Moses and make him the only head and true foundation. Again, the church existed long ages before Peter was born. If a man was to be endowed as the head of the church and was to have earthly successors, he should have lived at the earliest period of history. An age-lasting church must needs have an age- lasting head. Such a head is Jesus Christ. The church had a head before Peter ; it has the same head now. Having settled this question according to facts which the Scriptures iinaninioiisly teach, it is easy to understand the words of Christ to Peter. Peter's name had been Simon ; and when Jesus Christ, the "chief corner-stone," called him that he might be brought into contact with him the "living Stone," he called him Cephas — "a stone." John i : 42. James and John were also given names significant of the important part they were to take in the so THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. preaching of the gospel. Mark 3:17. These three men, who had additional names given to them by Christ, are spoken of by Paul as " pillars." Gal. 2:9. In other scriptures all the apostles are called alike stones in that building of which Jesus Christ is the chief corner-stone. Eph. 2 : 20-22 ; I Peter 2:4, 5. Christ did not say, Thou art Peter, and upon thee I will build my church, but he said, ' ' Thou art Peter, and upon this 7'ock I will build my church." We must not make the same mistake that the jews made when Jesus said that he would "destroy t/u's temple, and in three days raise it up." John 2:19. Here Christ spoke of himself, but the Jews never understood it so, and charged him with aiming to destroy the Jewish temple ; and even when he hung upon the cross, they said, "Ah, thou that destroyest the temple." These Jews had as good a right to believe that Christ's words in the text just quoted referred to the Jewish temple as any one has to believe that his words, " Upon this rock I will build my church," referred to Peter or any one else besides himself. And as the evangelists explain the meaning of the temple (John 2:21), so in many places, as we have shown, Christ is called the foundation of the church, which fully explains the meaning of Matt. 16 : 18. The comments of Dr. Adam Clarke, the distin- guished Methodist commentator, upon this scripture are worthy of being noted here. Dr. Clarke says : ' ' Upon this very rock, . . . this true confession of PETER, THE ROCK. 5 I thine, — that I am the Messiah that am come to reveal and communicate the Hving God, that the dead, lost world may be saved, — upon this very rock, myself, thus confessed (alluding probably to Ps. ii8 : 22, the stone which the builders rejected is become the Head-stone of the corner : and to Isa. 28 : 16, tehold, I lay a Stone in Zion for a foundation), will I build my church, . . . my as- sembly, or congregation, i. e. , of persons who are made partakers of this precious faith. That Peter is not designed in our Lord's words must be evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice. Peter was only one of the builders in this sacred edifice (Eph. 2 : 20), who himself tells us (with the rest of the believers) was built on this living foundation stone (i Peter 2:4, 5) ; therefore Jesus Christ did not say. On thee, Pete?^, will I build my church, but changes immediately the expression, and says, Upo?t that very rock, ... to show that he neither ad- dressed Peter or any other of the apostles. So the supremacy of Peter and the infallibility of the Church of Rome must be sought in some other scripture, for they certainly are not to be found in this." In further support of this idea, we call atten- tion to the following fact : In the original, two different words are used in this passage for " Peter" and the ''rock. " The first is petros, which means " a stone, " involving the idea of a small and movable stone, and which alone is used for a personal proper 52 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. noun ; while the second is pctra, a noun in the femi- nine gender, which is the word used to designate a sohd, unmovable mass of rock, such as that to which Christ is compared by himself and other sacred writers, as we have already noticed. It is not a necessary inference that the power to bind and loose was signified by the gift of the keys. To prove this, it is sufficient to say that the power to bind and loose, or in other words, to forgive and condemn, was also bestowed upon all the apostles and upon the church. If it could thus be bestowed upon others than Peter, without any reference to the keys, why should any one conclude that the bestowal of the power upon Peter to bind and loose, was dependent upon the keys, or that it was repre- sented by the keys } Two statements were made to Peter. The first was, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and the second, " Whatsover thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." These are two co-ordinate statements. The second does not depend upon the first ; in other words, the meaning is not that he gave him the keys in order that he might bind and loose. The power to bind and loose, or to forgive sins, was bestowed upon all the apostles. The keys evidently suggest and prophesy some particular phase of Peter s work in the min- istry. What was that work } — Peter acted a very prominent part in the gospel ministry. On the day PETER, THE ROCK. 53 of Pentecost he was the chief speaker, and three thousand souls were converted at that time. When, under his preaching, thousands were pricked in the heart, and said, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall re- ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2 : 37, 38. In thus proclaiming the word of life, and inviting the people to Christ, telling them in an authorita- tive manner what the}^ must do to be saved, Peter actually opened the kingdom of heaven to men. The same thing was repeated a few days later, when five thousand were converted in one day. Acts 3 ; 4 : 4. Peter was also instrumental in first preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. Acts 10 ; 15:7. It was eminently fitting that to him who had made the bold declaration, "Thou art the Christ," should be promised the privilege of bring- ing many others to make the same confession. There is enough in these circumstances to fulfil all of Christ's words to Peter upon this occasion. This, we contend, is a much more reasonable con- clusion to arrive at than that Christ bestowed upon Peter the headship of the church, or that the church was to be established upon Peter. There is no evidence that whatever power or grace was represented by the keys was to be transmitted from Peter to any other person. The gift could only be exercised by Peter himself, and while he was on 54-' THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. the earth. *' Whatsoever thou shalt bind on cartJi shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on cartJi shall be loosed in heaven." No matter what that power or gift was, it surely ceased to be operative at the death of Peter. We have now examined all the texts that are used to teach the supremacy of Peter, and have found them utterly destitute of any proof for this theory. We have found that the church does not rest upon Peter, but that it rests upon the Rock Christ Jesus. This is in harmony with the Scrip- tures, and also with our innate common sense, which rebels at the thought of a church established upon a man. CHAPTER IV. INFERENTIAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SUPERIORITY OF JOHN AND PAUL. SINCE the whole theory of Peter's supremacy as far as the Scriptures are concerned, is built upon inferences, it may be proper to notice a few scrip- tures from which inferences of a similar character might be drawn, for at least two other apostles. Not that we hold that they zvcre supreme, but simply to show that it is easy to draw inferences. It will be remembered by the reader that the claim is made that Christ showed a "marked preference" for Peter, and that when he pronounced a blessing upon Peter, he was "alone blessed." With that position in mind, let us examine the following texts : "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." John 13:23. Can it be that this "loved" disciple is Peter, and that here is another evidence of Christ's preference for him } The following verse proves that it is not Peter. Further, turn to John 20 : 2: "Then she runneth and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved." No, Peter is not the beloved one. Peter is mentioned, but it is the "other" disciple whom Jesus loved. [551 56 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. By referring to John 2 i : 20-24 we learn that this disciple whom Jesus loved was John. So )ohn was the "beloved disciple." This is more than infer- ential as showing preference ; it is a plain state- ment of preference. It is argued because Christ said to Peter, "Blessed art thou, Simon," that he was "alone blessed." Now, by similar reasoning, we might conclude that when the evangelist speaks of John as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," he was "alone loved," which would certainly be a strong proof of Christ's preference for him ; for to say that one is loved is to express the strongest possible preference. Here is, therefore, far better ground upon which to base a claim that Christ ex- pressed a preference for John, than can be found to show that he ever expressed such a preference for Peter. Another evidence of Christ's preference for John may be found in John 19 : 25-27. Jesus was ex- piring upon the cross. Peter *had lied and appeared not upon the scene. A few women, including the mother of Jesus, and the "beloved disciple" stood near the cross. "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother. Woman, behold thy son ! Then saith he to the disciple. Behold thy mother ! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." Here is another strong evidence of Jesus' preference for John. In dying, he committed his mother to John's care. What greater proof Christ on the Cross, Committing His Mother TO John. John 19:25-27. INFERENTIAL EVIDENCE. 57 could he give of his preference for John and his faith in the perfection of his character ? If such evidence as is here presented in favor of Christ's preference for John, could be found for Peter, with what avidity would it be seized upon as evidence of Christ's preference for Peter, and a token of his supremacy ! The history of the apostle Paul may also be ex- amined upon this question. While he was not one of the original twelve apostles, if we may believe his testimony, he was, nevertheless, not a ' ' whit behind the very chief est of the apostles." 2 Cor. II : 15. That he was fully equal to Peter may be gathered from an encounter which he had with him at Antioch. '* But when Peter was come to Anti- och, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Gal. 2:11. It is claimed that at this very time Peter was the infallible head of the church; but here in a discussion involving the question whether men were to be justified by faith in Christ or by the works of the law, Paul withstood him to the face, and administered to him a sharp rebuke, and that "before them all." Verse 14. What ground is here, not only for an inference, but for an argu- ment for Paul's supremacy ! And how the claim for the supremacy of Peter fades away at this spec- tacle of the great apostle to the Gentiles reproving him and setting him right in regard to an important doctrine in the presence of many brethren! We make no claim for Paul's supremacy, but this 58 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. occurrence shows that Peter was neither infalhble nor supreme. It further emphasizes the fact that Christ is the head of the church, and that he only is supreme. Of this he himself testified, "One is your Master, even Christ ; and all ye are brethren." Matt. 23:8. Again, Paul, naming the officers that God has set in the church, does not say, "First a pope, or primate," but he says, "First apostles, secondarily prophets," etc. (i Cor. 12:28), which is conclusive proof that the office of a primate was unknown in the apostolic church. The opinion quite generally prevails that the contention between Paul and Peter at Antioch, to which Paul alludes in his letter to the Galatians, occurred subsequently to the council at Jerusalem, but we . shall take the position that it preceded the council and led to it. The only reason that can be found to support this theor}-, is that Paul alludes to this dispute with Peter after having spoken of the council. This is very weak proof. If it were the universal custom of the sacred writers to refer to past events in the regular order of their occurrence, this might be conclusive evidence ; but every one should know that such is not the case. To the author s mmd, Paul, in verse 1 1 of Gala- tians 2, abruptly goes back in the narrative to the contention which led to the council which he is describing. In Acts 1 5 is a statement that the "certain men" who came down from Judea to Antioch caused so much trouble that there was INFERENTIAL EVIDENCE. 59 **no small dissension and disputation." In Gala- tians 2 we learn that after "certain came from James" (which would be -from Judea, as James lived in Jerusalem), Peter and Paul had a sharp contention. This certainly looks like another state- ment of the same occurrence. The council was held . on account of the dissension recorded in Acts I 5 ; and if, as the writer holds, the account in Acts 1 5 by Luke, and the one in Galatians 2 by Paul, are different renderings of the same dispute, then this contention between Paul and Peter and some others was the cause of the first Christian council, and preceded it. The author cannot be- lieve that Peter, after taking a prominent part in, and consenting to, the decisions of the council at which the whole status of the Gentiles was squarely settled, would go down to Antioch, and so deny the principles established by the council, whose action he himself had sanctioned, as to call forth such a rebuke from the apostle Paul. This would place Peter in a worse light than we would wish to see him. Moreover, at this council it was decided that Peter, James, and John should labor for the "cir- cumcision," and Paul and Barnabas for the Gen- tiles. Gal. 2 : 9. This would absolutely prohibit Peter from going to Antioch, which was a dis- tinctively Gentile city, and at that time the center of the gospel work for the Gentiles. Peter had probably been in Corinth, a Qentile city, and 6o THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. trouble followed. i Cor. i : 2. He went to An- tioch, and a great contention arose there between him and Paul. The council, having settled the difficulties, thought it the part of wisdom to allow each laborer to have his own field, that further discussions of this nature might be avoided. These seem sufficient reasons for placing the contention between Peter and Paul previous to the council, and not after, as thought by some. CHAPTER V. EXAMINATION OF PETER^S LETTERS. IN examining the question of Peter's supremacy, there is another very important avenue of infor- mation open to us. The Scriptures contain two letters written by the apostle Peter. According to the general belief, these letters were written in the years A. D. 60 and 66 respectively. They were therefore written about thirty years after the as- cension of Christ, and at a time when Peter must have been well established in the primacy, as the vicegerent of Christ, if he ever held that position. It is probable that the first letter was written from Babylon (i Peter 5 : 13), as the subscription on the most ancient manuscripts have the words, * ' Writ- ten from Babylon," as seen in the common versions. Many Romanists, in their anxiety to prove that Peter was at Rome, contend that this "Babylon" means Rome ! There is no good reason for such a supposition. As there is nothing mystical or sym- bolical in Peter's letters, which are simply pastoral epistles like those of Paul, it may be asked, If he meant Rome, why did he not say Rome ? Cer- tainly the literal city of Rome was never called 5 ■ [6'] 62 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. Babylon. Therefore we must conclude that in the subscription which Peter appended to his letter, he gave the place of writing with all the literal- ness which would attach to any letter purporting to give the place of writing. Moreover Paul wrote sev- eral letters from Rome, and he did not call Rome Babylon, but Rome. And if Peter would call the city of Rome Babylon, why should not Paul do the same ? In harmony with the Catholic idea that the word "Babylon," as used in this letter, means Rome, some manuscripts have written on them, " Written from Rome," but no manuscripts written earlier than the thirteenth century have it this way. At that time it was desired to prove that Peter had been at Rome, and to prove this the word ' ' Baby- lon" was interpreted to mean Rome. There can be no reasonable doubt that by Babylon is meant Babylon in Assyria, which was the seat of the dispersed Jews. So it is evident that we must take the word " Babylon," as used in this letter, with no spiritual or mystical meaning, but as the real name of a city or country, which was well known at that time. This would also indicate with a considerable degree of accuracy the location of Peter's labors. As Peter had a family before Christ called him (Luke 4 : 38), he must have been well advanced in years at the date of these epistles. In the year A. D. 64, Paul, being probably about Peter's age, EXAMINATION OF PETER's LETTERS. 63 speaks of himself as " Paul the aged." Philemon 9. Hence, if Peter ever held the office of primate, the presumption would be that he held that office at the time these letters were written. We would therefore have good reason to expect that in one or both of these letters, which would be the first official utterances of the new primate, correspond- ing to the " encyclicals " of the popes, there would be such expressions as would justify the claim that he held the position of head of the church. Cer- tainly the first primate, in his first official utterance, should be explicit in defining his office and author- ity, in order that no question regarding the primacy should arise to make confusion and division in the church. With this presumable necessity in mind, let us examine the letters of Peter to see if we can find evidences of his primacy at the time of his writing. The opening w^ords of his first letter are not such as would impress the reader that Peter understood that he held any kind of primacy among the apostles. He begins his letter in a very simple and unostentatious manner quite similar to the way in which the apostle Paul commences his letters. " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ," are the simple and straightforward introductory words of his first letter. He does not begin by saying, "Peter, the primate," or anything of the kind. He is only one of the apostles, laboring conjointly with his brethren for the spread of the gospel of Christ. 64 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. The letter has a local application; it is addressed to the "strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. " Those to whom the letter was addressed were evidently suffering persecution (i Peter i : 6), which coming to Peter's knowledge, led him to write them a com- forting letter. No hint of his supremacy, or that the church was established upon him, is anywhere found in the letter ; but Christ is spoken of as the ' ' living stone " upon which the spiritual house of God is being built. i Peter 2 : 4-6. Again, in verse 25 of the same chapter, he refers to Christ as " the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls," a posi- tion which the popes now claim to hold, but which Peter evidently never claimed for himself. The last chapter of this letter contains some very remarkable statements, which are directly opposed to the idea of the supremacy of Peter. Thus, he says : * ' The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the suffer- ings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed : feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly ; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind : neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." I Peter 5 : 1-3. In these remarkable words, Peter not only places himself upon a level with the other apostles, but he calls himself an elder, or ' ' presbyter " (the EXAMINATION OF PETER'S LETTERS. 65 original word means a fellow elder), which shows that Peter did not regard himself as occupying any higher place than the other presbyters in the church. Notice, also, his directions in regard to authority. "Neither as being lords over God's heritage." How different in spirit this is from the doctrine of the absolute authority of the priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and pope of the Roman Catholic Church! Their authority is held to be supreme. Each inferior must receive without questioning what his superior shall dictate ; but Peter, who is reputed to have been the first pope, taught no such doctrine. On the contrary, he bears a decided testimony against there being any lordship in the church. Nothing, then, can be found in the first encyclical (.'') favoring the idea of Peter's supremacy, but much to controvert that doctrine. The second letter of Peter, supposed to be the second encyclical, in its opening sentence is quite similar to that of the first. He calls himself "a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ." It is dedicated "to them that have obtained like pre- cious faith." It is then directed to all true Chris- tians. In a letter addressed to all Christians in all ages, written by the man upon whom the church was established, and who was the head of the church at the time of the writing, there certainly should not be found wanting a statement of the au- thority and supremacy of the writer, for the bene- 66 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. fit of the universal church throughout the ages. Nothing of the kind, however, is here given ; and reading the letter with the greatest care, we are un- able to find a hint of anything looking toward the supremacy of Peter. But we are able to find, even in this letter, evidence of the co-ordinate power and authority of all the apostles. This appears in chapter 3. He tells them that he wishes to stir up their pure minds by way of remembrance, **that they may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandments of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour." Here Peter, like Paul (Eph. 2:20), places all the apostles, of whom he was one, on an absolute equality. He does not place himself above his fellows, but speaks of the command- ments, 7wt of himself, but '*of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour." Like Paul, he also refers to the prophets. In what more striking way could he show that he claimed no supremacy over the other apostles .'^ One more reference, and the discussion of these supposed encyclicals will be brought to a close. In chapter 3, verses 15, 16, Peter refers to *'our beloved brother Paul," and to the wisdom given to him, which was manifest in "all his epistles," and calls Paul's letters "scriptures," indicating the high estimation in which he held them. This is evi- dence that Peter felt no hardness against Paul because of the stern rebuke which the latter had EXAMINATION OF PETER's LETTERS. 6/ administered to him ; that he had received it as from a "beloved brother," and had profited by it. Nothing can be found in the Scriptures to indicate that Paul was ever reproved by Peter or v^as in- structed by him in any way. Indeed Paul testifies that at the time of the council at Jerusalem, "they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me." Gal. 2 : 6. Paul was very inde- pendent in his gospel work. Thus he said : ' ' But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. i : ii, 12. The Lord chose Paul and directly imparted to him the gospel by revelation. The wisdom of Paul's writings, which Peter commends, was from the Lord. Thus having carefully scanned both of the letters of the apostle Peter, we are unable to discover the least proof that he held any position above the other apostles ; but we find several strong evidences that Peter regarded himself as one of the apostles, with authority and supremacy only co-ordinate to that held by each of the others, including later apostles, such as Paul. CHAPTER VL PETER^S PART IN THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM. I^HE introduction of the gospel among the Gen- tiles and their reception of the same, led to a controversy in the church which resulted in the convention of the first Christian council at Jerusa- lem, in the year A. d. 51. Christ had endeavored to lead the minds of his disciples to the work that must be done for the Gentiles. He had plainly declared : "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold : them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10 : 16. To the unbelieving- people of Israel, he said, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Matt. 21 : 43. The disciples were slow to see that the Gentiles were to have a part in the blessings of the gospel ; and even after the resurrec- tion of Christ and the commission to "preach the gospel to every creature," some who were driven from Jerusalem by the "persecution that arose about Stephen," and scattered abroad, preached "to none but unto the Jews only." Acts 11 : 19. [ 68 ] PETER IN THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM. 69 So strong was the Jewish national prejudice against the Gentiles that the Lord in mercy to the Gen- tiles, and to hasten on the work of grace among them, gave a special revelation to teach his church the great truth enunciated by Paul, ' ' that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." Eph. 3 : 6. To make the truth of the sal- vation of the Gentiles known to the disciples, Cor- nelius, a Roman officer, a proselyte to the Jewish religion, and a devout man, was ordered by an angel to send for Peter, who was in a neighboring city : and at the same time, Peter upon the house- top saw a vision, the import of which was that he must not "call any man common or unclean." He was then directed to the house of Cornelius to teach him and his friends the gospel of Christ. The Holy Ghost accompanying the word, placed upon it the divine approbation ; and Peter, under the influence of the Spirit of God, commanded that these Gentile converts should be baptized. But the majority of the disciples were not at that time prepared for so radical a change. As soon, therefore, as Peter returned to Jerusalem, they charged him with visiting and eating with those who were uncircumcised. Peter explained the matter so that they were apparently satisfied, and they ' ' glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts II : 1 8. Their idea, however, at this time, 70 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. of the salvation of the Gentiles, was that they should not only believe on Jesus Christ, but in order to be saved, they must also observe the ceremonies of the Jewish law, including the rite of circumcision. The question appears to have slumbered until about twelve years later, when the conversion of large numbers of Gentiles under the labors of Paul and Barnabas brought the matter once more in a specific manner before the church. The direct cause of the rupture which led to a discussion and settlement of this question, was the act of certain Jewish brethren of Jerusalem, who while willing to concede that the gospel was for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews, as was evinced by Cornelius's experience and Peter's vision, thought it necessary that they should conform to the cere- monies of the Jewish law ; and as circumcision had been the rite by which a Jew was dedicated to God, it seemed to them that the Gentile converts to Christ should also submit to that ordinance. Consequently, when the church at Antioch became so numerous that it began to attract attention as the center of the work for the Gentiles, the breth- ren at Jerusalem were alarmed, * ' and certain men which came down from Judea, taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the man- ner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Acts 15:1. It appears that Peter was at Antioch when these brethren came, and that he joined with them in insisting that the Gentiles should be circumcised. PETER IN THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM. /I Paul would not listen for a moment to such a proposition. He opposed it with all his might. Thus Paul testifies : ' ' But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Gal. 2:11. We have before noticed this text, but we now propose to carry the question which led to this dispute, to its final settlement, with the purpose of dis- covering the bearing it has upon the question of Peter's supremacy. The charge which Paul makes against Peter, is that while Peter had accepted, and had even sanctioned the baptism of Gentile converts, and had eaten and drunk with them, yet when he saw that many of his Jewish brethren were grieved because of it, ' ' he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." Gal. 2:12. This event, which in itself is of great interest to every Christian, be- comes much more so when studied in connection with the topic we are considering. Here was the head (.'') of the church erring so grievously that Paul, a later apostle and not one of the original twelve, was obliged to rebuke him. That Peter deserved this rebuke is very evident from Paul's statement of the case. "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him [Peter] ; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." The word " dissemble" is thus defined by Web- ster : ' ' To conceal the real fact, motives, inten- 72 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. tion, or sentiments ; to act the hypocrite." This is what Peter did at the time he is claimed to have been the infaUible- head of the church! Paul re- buked this conduct in the following vigorous lan- guage : ' ' 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 [which he had done at the time of the conversion of Cornelius, when he ate and drank with them], why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law : for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justi- fied." Gal. 2 : 14-16. The fact that Peter was a dissembler, and was thus publicly rebuked by Paul, is very damaging both to the doctrine of the primacy of Peter and to the idea of his infallibility. It shows that the claim is nothing less than preposterous assumption. The question was now transferred from Antioch to Jerusalem. "When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them [Peter and those who came from Jerusalem], they [the church at Antioch] determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up PETER IN THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM. 73 to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." Acts 15:2. This appeal to the apostles and elders militates again very seriously against the idea of Peter's su- premac}^ Here was Peter, the primate of the church, if we may believe what is claimed for him, with all power and authority to settle disputes in regard to religion, as did Christ, whose vicegerent he had become , and yet his position was manifestly so contrary to the gospel revealed by Christ to Paul, that Paul rebuked Peter; but finding even then that the matter was not settled, it was referred to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. This clearly shows that the authority of the church was believed to repose in the conclave of apostles and elders rather than in Peter. It is urged against Luther by the Catholic Church (see ' ' Doctrinal Catechism," p. 20), that he appealed from a deci- sion of the pope to a general council. But Paul rebuked Peter, not recognizing him as any particu- lar authority, certainly not as the infallible head of the church, and then appealed to the council of the apostles and elders for a final settlement of the question. In harmony with the determination to refer this question to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas and some others went up from Antioch to that city. Now we come to a very im- portant point in the consideration of the supremacy. If Peter was the head of the church, would he not 74 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. preside at this, the first Christian council ? Not that the person presiding must necessarily hold greater authority than the others ; but if there zvas one of their number to whom all authority was given, even such as was possessed by Christ him- self, so that he was Christ's vicegerent in the church, then certainly he, and he only, should pre- side, and render the final decision of the council. Those who hold the idea of the supremacy of Peter, recognize this point, and hence they make a tre- mendous effort to make it appear, in the follow^- ing ingenious manner, that Peter presided at this council: "Question: Did Peter act as presiding teacher among the apostles.-^ Answer : Yes ; he decided, in the first Council at Jerusalem by the Apostles, that the Chiistians should not be sub- jected to the Jewish rite of circumcision ; St. Paul, though an Apostle, did not venture to decide upon it. 'Men brethren,' said Peter, 'you know that in former days God niade cJioice among lis, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel ; ' and when Peter had made an end of speaking, ' all t/ie multitude Jicld tJieir peace ;' and even James himself, who was bishop of Jerusa- lem, where the Apostles were assembled, rose only to repeat St. Peter's decision, and to acquiesce in it."^ Acts 15. The quotations of Scripture in this extract are from the Vulgate, the authorized Catholic Version, which does not differ materially from other translations. 1 " Doctrinal Catechism," pp. 158, 159. PETER IN THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM. 75 If the reader will compare this statement from the "Doctrinal Catechism" with the actual facts, as recorded in the Scriptures, either as given in the Vulgate, or in the King James Version, he cannot fail to see that this attempt to prove that Peter presided at the council is nothing but the baldest kind of assumption, without one particle of proof to sustain it. Peter was not the last speaker ; he was followed by Paul and Barnabas. Acts 15 : 12. It is not customary to decide a question until all sides are heard and the discussion is ended. The decision is always rendered last of all. Peter had evidently profited by the sharp rebuke which Paul had administered to him, and having recovered himself from the influence of those whom he had feared, was now arrayed upon the same side of the controversy as the apostle to the Gentiles. The Gentiles having first heard the gospel through him, it was very proper for Peter to make a statement of the matter and give his opinion relative to what should be done. But Peter no more decided the question than a lawyer who makes a plea before a judge, holding the same view of the case that the judge does, decides the suit. Here must be pointed out the evidence of great unfairness in Scripture exegesis on the part of the ' ' Doctrinal Catechism. " The Catechism represents that "all the multitude held their peace," follow- ing Peter's speech, as though his words settled the matter, but the quotation as given in the ' ' Poq- 6 'j6 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. trinal Catechism" leaves the sentence incomplete ; and the completion of the sentence from the Scrip- tures, if they had been correctly and fully quoted, would have completely disproved this proposition. I will also quote from the Vulgate, finishing the sentence left incomplete in the Catechism. "And all the multitude held their peace : and gave ear to Barnabas and Paul relating what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. " So Paul and Barnabas both spoke after Peter had finished, and their descriptions of what God had wrought through their ministry must have been a powerful argument affecting the decision of the case. Then comes the decision given by James. To say that Peter gave the decision, and that James simply acquiesced in it, is the veriest non- sense, when we consider the whole controversy, the description of the council, the time of speaking, and the words of James. James refers to Simon's speech, calling him by his original name, Peter ; quotes the prophets as authority for what he is about to say, and then declares: "Wherefore I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted." (Vulgate.) Notice the formality of this decision. James, the last speaker, refers to authorities, much as a judge appeals to the law, and then sa3^s, ' ' Wherefore I judge." In the English Version it reads, "My sentence is," etc. The Greek word here rendered in the Vulgate "judge " and in the English Versiorj PETER IN THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM. J J ** sentence," has the meaning of a decision of a king or emperor. The record of the council does not state whether there was any vote upon the question. Probably there was not ; but there was certainly unanimity at the least ; and the statement of the decision rendered went out under the au- thority of all the apostles and elders. The writing which was given to Barnabas and Paul to take back to the church at Antioch and the other Gen- tile churches under their charge, had this begin- ning : ' ' The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting." Acts 15 : 23. So the decision was the expression, not of one apostle merely, nor of all the apostles alone, but of all the apostles, elders, and brethren. The church was a pure republic in which the will of the whole body of believers con- stituted the highest authority. A few quotations from this letter will show this to be true : "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord," and, "for it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, " and, ' ' as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees [copies of the decision] for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem." Acts 15:25, 28; 16: 4. These references are suf- ficient evidence that the decision was sent out to the Gentile churches as the expression of the mind of all the apostles and elders, Peter, of course, acting with the rest, but with no more authority than any other apostle, 78 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. We have now traced the history of Peter from the time he is first introduced into the Scripture narrative until the last mention made of him in the sacred volume, giving especial attention to every text that is claimed to prove his supremacy, and we have been unable to find substantial proof that Peter held any such position, either before or subsequent to the resurrection of Christ. His own letters, written at a time when it is claimed that he was fully established in the primacy, afford no evidence that he was so honored, but they fur- nish much proof to the contrary. And having examined with care the first Christian council, where Peter makes his last appearance in the scripture narration, in the year A. d. 51, we find that James presided at that council, and that Peter occupied no higher place than any other apostle. CHAPTER VIL WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? BEFORE trying to ascertain where the idea of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, and con- sequently of Peter's supremacy as the first of this hne of bishops, first gained credence, we wish to examine the Scriptures further to see if we can find any evidence that Peter was ever the primate of Rome, or even that he was ever there. According to the doctrine of the Cathohc Church, Peter was not only in Rome, but he was also actually established there as the bishop of Rome and primate of the universal Church. The importance of this doctrine from the standpoint of the Catholic Church is well set forth by Professor Clement M. Butler, in a re- ply to an argument made by Cardinal Manning, in the following language : * ' To the Romanist it is essential that he should prove that St. Peter pre- sided over the Church of Rome. On that assumed fact is erected the most important doctrine — next to that of salvation by the death of Christ — ever proclaimed by man. If true, it is a truth on which the salvation of myriads rests. If false, it is a por- tentous falsehood, the evil results of which no [79] 8o THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. man can conceive. It rests' on the fact that St. Peter was in Rome. If he was not there, it falls to the ground a convicted and dead lie. Now it will be admitted that such a fact should have proof that is unimpeachable, abundant, and undoubted."^ The above statement by Professor Butler is w^ell made. A fact so important as this, if fact it be, should not be obliged to depend for proof on infer- ence, conjecture, and tradition. There should be a plain statement in support of it in some part of the Scriptures. Again : If Peter ever was in Rome, and there was no direct statement to this effect, then there would very likely be an allusion to it in some of Peter's or Paul's letters. This presump- tion is particularly plausible in regard to Paul's letters, many of which were written from Rome. What, then, are the Scriptural evidences that Peter was ever at Rome ? — There are none whatever. Peter was in Jerusalem three years after Paul's conversion. Gal. i : i8. After Herod's unsuccess- ful attempt to kill Peter (Acts 12), he does not reappear in the record until the council at Jerusa- lem, seven years later. At some time previous to A. D. 59, he had probably been at Corinth. i Cor. 1:12. He also was at Antioch, as we have seen, just before the council at Jerusalem. Peter's first letter indicates that his field of la- bor had been in Pontus, Cappadocia, Asja, and Bithynia. The same letter was evidently written 1 " St. Paul in Rome," p. 267. WAS PETER EVER AT ROME ? 8 1 from Babylon in Assyria. This is all the direct evi- dence there is of the location of Peter's labors. There is no proof in the Scriptures that he ever went to Rome. In the absence of direct proof, the infer- ential evidence that he went to' Rome should be very strong, or else, so far as the Scriptures are concerned, we should reject it as a tradition of doubtful origin. Rome was a pagan city, and the great center of the heathen world. The principal language spoken there was the Latin, which tongue it is very prob- able that Peter, unless under the especial inspira- tion of the Holy Spirit, as on the day of Pentecost, was unable to speak. The evidences are decidedly against his having been at Rome before the council at Jerusalem ; and at that council it was decided that the ministry of the gospel to the circumcision should be committed to Peter, James, and John, and that of the uncircumcision to Paul. Accord- ingly it was so arranged that James, Peter, and John were to labor especially for the Jews, and Paul and Barnabas were to go among the heathen. Gal. 2 : 9. Such being the case, it is to be pre- sumed that Peter would not go to Rome after the council. This idea is corroborated by the words of Paul to the Romans, written A. d. 6o, in which he says that he is ready to preach the gospel to those who are in Rome (Rom. i : 15) ; and again in the same letter he says, " Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, 82 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. lest I should build upon another man's foundation : but as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see : and they that have not heard shall understand. " Rom. 15:20, 21. This would be strange language to address to a church that had enjoyed the labors of the apostle Peter ; and it certainly cannot be reconciled with the idea that Peter was established there as the bishop of the church. That Peter had not been laboring at Rome at the time of the writing of this letter is further shown by the fact that the members of the church at Rome were largely composed of Gentiles, as will appear from reading Rom. 1:13 and 15 : 21. Further, how could Paul preach at Rome and not build on another man's foundation, if Peter had been there before him, had preached the gospel there, and was established as bishop of that city .'' There were " brethren " at Rome when Paul was taken there as a prisoner (Acts 28 : 15); and from the words of the Jews to Paul when he invited them into his lodgings (verses 17-22), it would appear that their ideas of Christianity were very vague, and obtained mostly from hearsay, which could not possibly have been the case if many of the Jews at Rome had embraced the gospel, or if Peter had preached there and was established there as bishop of Rome and primate of the church. In- deed, judging from Peter's well-known ability and impetuous nature, it is well nigh certain that if he WAS PETER EVER AT ROME ? 83 had been in Rome, the people of the city, and especially the Jews, would have known all about Jesus of Nazareth and the gospel before Paul went there. It would be very strange, indeed, if the preaching of Paul in his own hired house (verses 30, 31) should be mentioned, and the public labors of Peter, bishop of Rome and primate (?) of the church, should not even be alluded to. As a matter of fact, the whole letter of Paul to the Romans is based upon the assumption that the brethren in Rome were generally Gentile believers, and that they had not, at the time of this writing, heard the gospel proclaimed by an apostle of Christ. Again, at the close of the letter to the Romans, personal greetings are sent to twenty-four persons who are named, and to others who are mentioned as belonging to certain "households," but no greeting is sent to Peter. We must therefore regard the letter to the Romans, written by Paul in the year A. D. 60, as strong evidence that up to that time Peter had not been in Rome. Besides the letter to the Romans, which, as we have seen, throws much light upon the question of Peter's supremacy, the New Testament contains six letters written by the apostle Paul from Rome. These are the letters to the Galatians, Ephe- sians, Philippians, Colossians, the second letter to Timothy, and the letter to Philemon. These let- ters are generally believed to have been written between the years A. d. 58 and 65. But if Paul did 84 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. not go to Rome before a. d. 63, and there is good reason for believing this, then all these letters must have been written after that time. We present these letters as evidence that Peter was not bishop of Rome at the time they were written. Here are six letters written from Rome by the apostle Paul, all of which were written during the declining years of Peter and Paul. The subject matter of these letters is the gospel of Jesus Christ, its principles, establishment, and government, — indeed, so much of the gospel is revealed in these letters that it seems as though the story would be only half told without them. Yet though all these letters were written from Rome, in the very days when, as believed by the Catholic Church, Peter was bishop there, his name is mentioned only once, — in the letter to the Galatians, where Paul tells of Peter's duplicity, and how he was compelled, for the sake of truth and the maintenance of the gospel, to withstand him to the face. This silence can be accounted for in but one of two ways : either Peter was not in Rome, or Paul allowed the diffi- culties which they had had in the past, and to which he alludes in the Galatian letter, to prevent him from mentioning Peter's name in a favorable manner. This latter supposition cannot for a moment be entertained, and hence the former conclusion must be adopted. More than this : in every one of these letters there are places where it would seem to be imperative to mention Peter WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? 85 as being in Rome, if he were there. Take the letter to the Galatians, for instance. In that letter Peter is referred to and placed in anything but an enviable light. This letter was written some years after these difficulties were satisfactorily adjusted. Now if Peter was, at the very time of the writing of this letter, the bishop of Rome and primate of the church, how could Paul thus mention these difficulties, unless he in the same letter should in some way indicate that he had no intention of dis- paraging Peter, the bishop of Rome and universal primate ? It is evident that Paul, with all his knowledge, knew nothing of the primacy, or else he never would have written as he did. The letter to the Ephesians is supposed to have been written about a. d. 64. In this letter Paul takes especial pains to say that the church is ** built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." Eph. 2 : 20. Peter is not even named, and no especial prominence as a foundation is given to him. In this same letter Paul refers to those on whom especial gifts of position and responsibility in the church had been bestowed. Beginning with ' * apos- tles," which term includes the original twelve and also the later apostles, such as Paul himself, he enumerates, in all, five orders (Eph. 4 : 11) of im- portance in the church ; but no pope or primate is mentioned, — a great omission, surely, if the very city from which Paul wrote was the place of resi- S6 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. dence of Peter the primate, a higher position than any of those named by Paul. Would a Catholic, writing from Rome at the present time, pretend to give the names of the positions of honor in the church from first to last, and not mention the pope ? Again, in the letter under consideration, Paul says that Christians by ' ' speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him [Christ not Peter] in all things, which is the head, even Christ." Verse 15. Finally, he asks the prayers of the Ephesian brethren that he may be able to declare the gospel in Rome, never referring to Peter as being there, and sends Tychicus to represent his condition, something which we should suppose would be the duty of the bishop of the church at Rome, considering the fact that Paul was a pris- oner. From these considerations we are confident that the letter to the Ephesians will ever stand as a proof that Peter was not in Rome at the time Paul wrote it, and moreover that he never was primate ; for no higher position than an apostle was recognized as existing in the church. The letter to the Philippians will next claim our attention. This letter was written about A. D. 64. It appears from a reading of the third chapter of that letter, that Paul, at some previous time, had sent Epaphroditus, his "companion in labor" (Phil. 2:25), to Philippi ; that Epaphroditus had been very ill, and that this illness was caused by a failure on the part of the church at Philippi to do c c/: pin WAS PETER EVER AT ROME ? 8/ t for him what they should have done. It is quite hkely that Epaphroditus overworked and became ill, and that this work was undertaken to supply Paul with the necessaries of life while in prison. That Paul's friends were allowed to wait on him is evident from 2 Tim. i : i6. At the time of writing this letter, he had received gifts, probably money, from the church at Philippi (Phil. 4 : 10-18), and felt comforted with the thought that his children in the gospel still had a tender care foi; him. We note these facts, because, unimportant as they seem to be in themselves, they have a distinct bearing upon the question as to whether Peter was the bishop of Rome at that time. Here is the great apostle to the Gentiles in prison, supported largely by the self-sacrificing labors of Epaphrodi- tus, or by the voluntary contributions of the breth- ren of the distant church at Philippi. Now, if Peter was the bishop of Rome, and primate of the church, it would seem that by his influence some- thing would have been done for Paul's comfort ; but there is no evidence that such was the fact. His love for Paul as a "beloved brother " would certainly have led to this ; but since we read of nothing of the kind, justice to Peter demands the conclusion that he was where Paul's sufferings were to him a thing unknown. Indeed, the medium of communication in that day, entirely by private messenger, was so expensive and difficult that it is very probable that Peter and Paul, years before 88 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. they died, knew very little of each other's move- ments or condition. We will now examine the letter to the Colos- sians, to see what bearing it may have upon the question of the primacy of Peter and his sup- posed position as bishop of Rome at that time. This letter is believed to have been written in a. d. 64, the same year as the letter to the Philippians. Passing over to the last chapter of the letter, Paul speaks of sending Tychicus that the brethren of Colosse might know his condition, and that by the same means he might know their welfare. Col. 4:7, 8. Everything in the letter indicates that Paul, although a prisoner, was the chief man among the brethren at Rome, and that his brethren were at his service, going or coming as his judg- ment should suggest or his needs require. Especial attention is now directed to verses 10 and II, in which we read these words: " x\ristar- chus my fellow prisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments : if he come unto you, receive him ;) and Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellow workers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a com- fort unto me." Here is a truly remarkable state- ment. Three men, who like Paul were Jews of the circumcision, are mentioned as having labored for Christ in Rome, and Paul declares that of the brethren of the circurncision these only were a WAS PETER EVER AT ROME ? 89 comfort to him. But what about Peter, the bishop of Rome and primate of the church ? He being certainly excluded, we are charitable enough to be- lieve that this was because he was not there at all. Epaphras, Luke, and Demas also send greetings to the church at Thessalonica, but there is no message from Peter. The letter of Paul to the church at Colosse may therefore be regarded as strong evidence that Peter was not at Rome when it was written. Shortly after Paul wrote the letter to the church at Colosse, Timothy seems to have taken his depar- ture to look after the churches. Paul still con- tinued a prisoner, and the second letter to Timothy was written in the year A. d. 66, about a year after the letter to the Colossians was written. Does this letter throw any light upon the subject we are con- sidering .? In verse 1 5 of chapter i , Paul, referring to those who had turned away from him adds, * ' The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiph- orus ; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain : but when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. " Verses 16, 17. Here another light is turned upon Paul's experience in Rome. It would appear that some of the brethren were ashamed of Paul the ''prisoner," and for fear of being known as his fellow Christian, they neglected to visit him. Onesiphorus was not that kind of Christian. He was not ashamed to associate with Paul the pris- 7 90 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. oner. It is probable, from the record, that he was not long in Rome ; but when he was in the city, he came often to the prison to see Paul, and to bring to him food and clothing and such other things as he needed ; and Paul, who seems to have had a keen sense and appreciation of personal benefits received, mentions it in a letter which the Holy Ghost designed should be read while the world stands. Now there are two things which cannot be be- lieved : first, that Peter was in Rome while Paul was a prisoner, and never came to see him, or sent him any comforting message, or ministered to his wants in any way ; and second, that if he had done so, Paul would not have told of it while mentioning in his letters the bright spots in his gloomy prison life. In the same letter he mentions Luke as being with him, and refers to several others who had gone to other places ; but Peter the primate (?) is not re- ferred to. He sends messages from the brethren in Rome to Timothy, naming four persons, evi- dently all Gentile Christians, and adds, ' ' and all the brethren," and again we are compelled to notice that there is no message from Peter, any more than if no such person existed. Thus closes this, supposed to be the last letter of Paul, and we must consider it another confirmatory proof that Peter was not at Rome when Paul wrote this letter, and had not been there during Paul's imprisonment. WAS PETER EVER AT ROME ? 9 1 The letter to Philemon will next be considered. This is a private letter in relation to a slave who had run away from Philemon, but who, since coming in contact with Paul, had been converted to Christ. This letter is supposed to have been written about the same time as the letter to the Colossians. The only point in it relating to the subject of this discussion is the final salutation. Five brethren, one of whom was a ' ' fellow pris- oner," and the others "fellow laborers," join in salutations to Philemon, but there is no salutation from Peter. The letter to Philemon is therefore submitted as evidence that Peter was not in Rome when Paul wrote it. It must be borne in mind that letter-writing was not so common then as now. All letters were sent by private carriers, and nothing that was of interest would be likely to be omitted. We have now carefully examined seven of the letters of Paul, which would be likely to have a bearing upon affairs in Rome : one written to the church in that city, and six written from Rome to various churches and individuals. From the letter to the brethren in Rome, taken in connection with the statement in the Acts of the Apostles and the letter to the Galatians, we have learned the fol- lowing facts : That the church in Rome was largely composed of Gentile believers (Rom. i : 13) ; that Christ had not been authoritatively preached at Rome when Paul wrote the letter (verse 15) ; that 92 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. by the mutual agreement and decision of the council at Jerusalem, to which consented James, Peter, and John, Peter was expressly excluded from making Rome or any other Gentile country his field of labor (Gal. 2:9); that Rome, being the chief city of the Gentile world, was especially Paul's field of labor, inasmuch as he was the apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; 22 : 21 ; 26 : 17, 18) ; and finally, the greetings sent to the members of the church at Rome, in which twenty- four persons are named, contain no mention of Peter, nor any allusion to him as having had any- thing whatever to do with establishing the gospel in that city or doing anything there in any way whatever. From the six letters written from Rome we have been able to learn that Paul was the recognized leader of the church while in that city ; that he was supported while there by the voluntary offer- ings of a distant church, or by the self-sacrificing efforts of his fellow laborers ; that the brethren of other churches knew of Paul's welfare only by means of special messengers sent by Paul himself ; that but few of his fellow workers of the circum- cision were a comfort to him ; that mention is made of the position and movements of various laborers in or near Rome (2 Tim. 4: 10-12 ; Titus 3:12, 13), but Peter is not referred to ; and lastly, that notwithstanding many residents of Rome are named, Peter's name is not once mentioned as WAS PETER EVER AT ROME ? 93 being in Rome, nor is anything said about his being head of the church, or having any care for, or interest in, Paul, or as being any comfort or aid to him in any way, or as taking any direction of the work there, or as sending any greetings either to the churches or to individuals to whom Paul wrote. How all these omissions in reference to Peter's residence in Rome or to his functions of office, can be explained, allowing the supposition that he lived there, is more than we can understand. But allowing that he was not there at the time any of these letters were written, that he was not bishop of Rome nor primate of the church, then these omissions to mention Peter are easily under- stood. He had never been there, and the Gentile converts knew very little about him. Thus these letters, which, if Peter were bishop of Rome, should abound in evidence of it, are perfectly barren of such evidence ; but they do yield an abundance of proof to the contrary. From all these accumulated evidences, the conclusion is in- evitable that up to the date of Paul's latest letter from Rome, Peter had never been there ; and that therefore, as far as the Scriptures are concerned, the doctrine of Peter's being established as bishop of Rome and primate of the church has no foundation whatever. In the discussion of the question whether Peter was ever at Rome or not, we have thus far pre- sented only Scriptural evidences. These are more 94 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. important than all else, and really settle the ques- tion. Those who may desire to know what the scholarship of the world believes upon the subject, may be assured that no one has anything better than the Scriptures upon which to build a theory or found a belief, and that they are as open to one as to another. What men of past ages have found in the Scriptures, we can find ; and it will be infinitely better for us to find the truth in this matter, as well as every other, in the Scriptures, for ourselves, than to try to find it in the opinions of even the best of men. This is why the author has tried to reason out of .the Scriptures in regard to this question. But as to scholarship, we will simply say that a great number of eminent scholars have maintained the position that Peter was never in Rome. We might refer to very many distinguished Protestant authors, whose names are household words, who have held this view, but we will only quote from a few noted Catholic writers, who have been com- pelled to admit the same. De Cormenin, a Roman Catholic historian, says : *' We are compelled to admit the force of reasoning of the Protestants, who steadily deny the existence of the journey of St. Peter to Rome. There is no proof that his blood was shed at Rome, despite the opinion of Baronius, Fleury, and others."^ Simon, in ** Mission and Martyrdom of Peter," makes the following statement : * ' Charles de Maulin, the 1" History of the Popes," pp. 17, 18. WAS PETER EVER AT ROME ? 95 great ecclesiastical lawyer (a. d. 1566), whom Father Calmet speaks of as a steadfast Roman Catholic, and than whom no writer ever enjoyed a higher reputation for learning and intelligence, has unequivocally stated it as his opinion, that there never was even a vague tradition among the an- cients about Peter's having left the East, and that one might very well be a Roman Catholic without thinking there was." He also makes the following statement : * ' Even when after the breaking up of the empire, the bishops of Rome began to extend their authority over other churches, they never alleged to put forward this story of Peter's being at Rome, and of his primacy devolving in succession upon them, which they would not have omitted to do if there had been any such thing to put forward ; a clear proof that there was not ; the story, I sup- pose, not having yet been invented." ^ Ellendorf, a distinguished Catholic historian and professor in Berlin, says : * ' We cannot find fault with a Protestant, when, relying on the proofs which the Holy Scriptures and the oldest Fathers, Clemens of Rome and Justin, present, he holds the abode of Peter at Rome, and all connected with it, for a tale drawn- from the Apocrypha. This much is certain, that no one of the arguments which can be opposed to him [the Protestant] has so much weight that he is morally bound to acknowledge the story as truth. Peter's abode at Rome can never be proved ; neither, therefore, can the pri- 1 "Mission and Martyrdom of Peter," Vol. iv, p. 460. 96 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. macy of the Romish Church, based on it, be so. " ^ Again, same writer: " In A. D. 45, Peter had not yet come to Antioch, to say nothing of his coming to Rom_e , he had not even crossed the boundaries of Palestine. The opinion, then, that Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius, A. D. 42, is proved to be wholly false. " Again : "We see what is the weight of these testimonies, — just nothing at all ; they are from the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries. Peter's bishopric at Antioch is shown to be, in all respects, a fable. Again : "We must have lost all common sense and regard for truth if we maintain, under these circumstances, that Peter and his disciples were with Paul at Rome in A. d. 61-63, when he wrote these epistles. While Paul developed such a widespread and deep, penetrating activity at Rome ; while he there con- centrated the action of almost the whole body of the important intellects of the church, or pointed out to them abroad, the circle of operations ; and while he formed, organized, founded, and governed the church at Rome, and from it, lending form and aid, he made his attacks on the East and West, nothing is perceived of Peter, not a word is breathed of his abode, or of his activity there." Lastly, he says : " Finally, we have proved from the above-mentioned authorities that not the slight- est share can be shown for Peter in the founding of the church at Rome, and much more, that this was exclusively owing to Paul and his disciples. The 1 Bibliotliica Sacra^ of July, 1858, and January, 1859. WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? 9/ mode and manner of conducting this proof has been twofold, positive and negative. In the former we proved that Peter was elsewhere at the time in which he is placed in Rome ; in the latter, that the silence of the authorities renders the residence of Peter at Rome wholly inadmissible." Many other Catholic authors have made similar admissions, among whom are Klee, Maier, Hug, Filmoser, and Stengel. These men were Catholics, and would gladly have believed all that their church claims, could they have done so without denying what their consciences and critical judgment held to be the truth. Such admissions are, therefore, very important. CHAPTER VIIL AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. IF there were in the Scriptures clear evidences that Peter was estabhshed as bishop of Rome, or even that he ever resided in that citv, there would be no necessity for those who desire to prove these things to make an appeal to any other writings or to tradition, to support their theories. Unhappily for those who hold that Peter was the bishop of Rome, a survey of the Scriptural field affords no certain evidence, but much which is against them ; and hence, as in other things, Rome attempts to prove her theories by tradition and the writings of other than the Biblical writers. In the discussion of this question it must be evident to every candid person that when we leave the solid, authentic record in the .Scriptures to listen to the voice of tradition, we have stepped from a firm foundation upon a very obscure and slippery path. This would be true even if the writings ascribed to post-Biblical writers were actually written by those by whom they purport to be written. Truth, however, com- pels the statement that little reliance can be placed upon the authenticity of many of these productions. [98] AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. 99 But even if we could know that the letters purport- ing to have been written by Christians in the sec- ond, third, and fourth centuries are authentic, they would contain no authority in matters of doctrine ; and since we do not know who were the real authors of many of these letters, the folly of build- ing upon or sustaining a doctrine by them, is very apparent. To try to establish a doctrine by such doubtful testimony, especially when it is actually contrary to what is revealed in the inspired Word, is little else than impious. Of the value of tradition, an able writer has well said: "To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat tradition as we do a notorious liar, to whom we give no credit unless what he says is confirmed to us by some person of undoubted veracity. . . . False and lying traditions are of an early date, and the greatest men have, out of a pious credulity, suf- fered themselves to be imposed upon by them."^ Tradition is simply stories, true or false, which have been transmitted from one generation to another. It is well known that a story or a state- ment which has passed through the minds and mouths of half a dozen persons, even when all are contemporaries, and when but a few days or hours are occupied in its transmission, is almost always greatly changed. What, then, can we say for the probability of the exact truthfulness of a story or iBowers's "History of the Popes," Vol. i, p. i, Philadelphia edition, 1847. lOO THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. statement which has come to us strained through many centuries, and which has been passed on by an ignorant and credulous people ? No depend- ence at all can be placed upon such evidence. It may have in it a modicum of truth, but the myth- ical has so predominated that it can be regarded only as an idle tale. There is much of this legen- dary lore which has sprung from the experiences and condition of the early church ; but it is of little practical utility, and of no use whatever in the establishment or maintenance of any Christian doctrine. It is now generally believed by Catholics that Peter was established as bishop of Rome ; and, of course, the tradition grows in strength the longer it is believed ; for a tradition, having nothing to support it, gains its seeming strength during the time that has elapsed since it started, because the older it grows, the more difficult it becomes to dis- cover its lack of foundation. Sometimes a moun- tain stream, carrying much water in its lower course, has no perceptible source, gradually drying up as we ascend, because it is largely made up of small streamlets from many lateral sources. So the tradition of Peter's residence and bishopric at Rome, grows fainter and fainter as we trace it back to discover its origin. Those who uphold the tradition of Peter's location at Rome, and his supremacy over the church, point to certain reputed writings of the so-called ' ' Fa- AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. lOI thers of the church." This term is appHed to dis- tinguished Christians of the first three centuries — the immediate successors of the apostles. These, it is claimed, furnish evidence of Peter's presence and establishment at Rome. Of the writings which are presented as proof of this theory, many were not given to the world until hundreds of years after their reputed authors were dead. A number of them having been carefully examined by succeeding generations, have been pronounced to be forgeries. This decision is not made by Protestants alone, but by learned Catholics as well. What is known as the Clementina,^ and the forged decretals of Isidore, referred to elsewhere in this book, are remarkable illustrations of priestly fraud and subsequent detec- tion and conviction. Passing by the statements claimed to be productions of Linus Anacletus which first came to light in the forged Clementina, and which so reputable an authority as Cardinal Bellar- mine acknowledges to be forgeries, we come to the statement of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, which is quite generally referred to by Catholic writers as proving that Peter was in Rome. It occurs in a letter of Ignatius to the church in Rome. Several renderings of the text are made, but the one by Archbishop Wake, giving both text 1 "Writings, partly orthodox, partly heretical, falsely ascribed to Clement, one of the apostolic Fathers, and bishop of Rome from A. D. 92 to 102, for the purpose of giving them greater weight and currency." — Mc Clintock and Strongs Vol. ii, p. ^82. 102 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. and context, seems to be the most fair. It reads thus: "I write unto the church, and signify to them all, that I am willing to die for God, unless you hinder me. ... I do not as Peter and Paul, command you ; for they were apostles, I a con- demned man. They were free, but I am even unto this day a servant." Of this statement of Ignatius, Pierson, a Catholic writer, says: ''What can be more manifest than this from these words of the apostle, that Ignatius must have had an idea that Peter proclaimed the gospel at Rome, was put to death there, as well as Paul." Another Catholic writer, Barbatier, exclaims, "Why does this writer mention Peter and Paul together in this way, if it were not that they were both at Rome .^ ... It is evident that Ignatius believed that Peter had been at Rome." Father Mc Corry also states, ''This proves that the Romans had been taught by St. Peter and St. Paul, and had received their com- mands, which, of course, shows that both apostles had been at Rome." Let us look carefully at this statement of Igna- tius to see if these deductions as to its meaning are necessary. Does he say that Peter had been in Rome.'' — He does not. He simply says that he, Ignatius, wrote unto the church ; but could not, like Peter and Paul, command them. This by no means proves that Peter had been in Rome. One of Peter's letters is directed "to them that have obtained like precious faith." Paul said of the AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. ' IO3 Roman Church that their ** faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. " Hence, this letter of Peter's directed to those of "like precious faith," was as certainly addressed to the brethren who composed the church in Rome, as to others. It should also be remarked that Ignatius is speaking in reference to ivritings to the church when he makes this statement. Surely nothing but a very weak cause would endeavor to sustain itself by such doubtful arguments. It is also evident that these words of Ignatius give no pre-eminence to Peter above Paul. Both were apostles ; and as apostles, they had an authority which Ignatius had not. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, about A. d. 170, is another one on whose testimony Peter's presence in Rome is thought to be proved. The works of this bishop, if he ever wrote anything, are lost ; and all we know about them, we learn from Eusebius, who claims to give some fragments, secured we know not how. The statement given by Eusebius pur- ports to be a portion of a letter written by Dionysius to Soter, bishop of Rome, and reads as follows : "So also now, you by this your admonition, have again blended into one that plantation of the Romans and Corinthians, which was first sown by Peter and Paul ; for both having planted us here in Corinth, taught us in like manner, and then in like manner and place having taught in Italy, they bore their testimony about the same time." I04 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. Remember that this bishop hved in the latter part of the second century, and that his writings are first quoted by Eusebius about the middle of the fourth century. Remember further, that at the best, only fragments of his writings are pre- served. Of his writings Eusebius himself testifies : ''Hence Dionysius, the bishop of Corinth, com- plained that in his own time, his epistles were so corrupted by additions and subtractions as that it seems he would have them no more esteemed as his."-^ Eusebius further claims to give the words of Dionysius in regard to the changes made in his writings, thus: "As the brethren desired me to write epistles, I wrote them, and these the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, exchaHging some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It is not, therefore, a matter of wonder if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same thing in other works that are not to be com- pared with them."^ A doubtful extract from the writings of one who in his life complained that his writings had been tampered with, brought out two hundred years later, cannot be regarded as satis- factory evidence. Testimony of such a character would not be admitted as evidence in any court of law. The words of Clement of Alexandria, reputed to have been bishop, or chief, of the presbyters at ^Eusebius's "Ecclesiastical History," Vol, iv, chap. 23. AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. IO5 Rome, and the one to whom Paul refers in Phil. 4 : 3, are quoted to prove that Peter lived and died at Rome. The writings of Clement appear to be well authenticated. In his first epistle to the Cor- inthians occur these words : — " Let us set before our eyes the excellent apos- tles : Peter, who through righteous zeal under- went not one or two, but many lab'ors, till at last, being martyred, he went to the place of glory that was due to him. Through zeal, Paul obtained the reward of patience. Seven times was he in bonds; he was whipped, he was stoned. He preached both in the East and in the West, and having taught the world righteousness, and coming to the borders of the West, and suffering mart3^rdom un- der the governors, so he departed out of the world, and went to the most holy place, being a most em- inent pattern of patience." (Lardner's translation.) Father Mc Corry, in his treatise, page 6j , gives a different rendering, thus : ''Let us always have before our eyes those good apostles : Peter, who endured so many labors, and who, dying a martyr, departed to glory ; and Paul, who obtained the reward by patience, and suffered martyrdom under the emperors. To those men who had led so angelic a life, a vast multitude of the elect were added, who, rivaling one another in suffering re- proaches and torments, have left behind them for our sake the most beautiful example. " He then adds : ** Now here is a declaration from a contem- 8 I06 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. porary writer bearing evidence to the fact that the Prince of apostles died a martyr at Rome." Bishop Kendrick, referring to this statement of Clement, says: "Clement . . . declares that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome before his eyes." ^ This statement of Kendrick shows how small a base may be m.ade to sustain a large monument. Allowing Mc Corry's translation to be correct, it does not prove that Peter perished at Rome. There is a vast difference between the exhortation of Clem- ent : ' ' Let us always have before our eyes those good apostles : Peter, who endured so many labors, and who, dying a martyr, departed to glory," and the deduction of Kendrick, that Clement says that "Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom before his eyes." We may say, "Let us always have before our eyes the sufferings of Christ ; " but this would not be understood that we saw Christ suffer, or that he died in our presence. Of the translation of Mc Corry, Simon (Richard) a thorough theolo- gian of profound learning, says: "The transla- tions of this writer are invaluable as showing to what lengths a few of the Roman clergy, now among us, go, and are obliged to go upon this subject and these passages."^ The same independent writer further says : ' ' The first question that suggests itself is. Why is Paul's journey into Europe and Paul's 1 " Primacy," p. 94, edition 1848. ^ " Mission and Martyrdom of Peter," p. 309, AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. 10/ martyrdom at Rome so pointedly stated in the very same paragraph, in which nothing more is said of Peter's travels or Peter's martyrdom than would manifestly presuppose the Scripture account of his going to the Jews, and the dispersion, as he was directed by his divine Master, and of his being put to death at Babylon, as his own epistle intimates ? How is it that Clement makes no allusion to his residence in Europe, or even of the martyrdom there of the apostle of the circumcision as well as of the apostle of the Gentiles ? Peter's martyrdom took place in Clement's lifetime ; how is it, then, that Clement never heard of anything connected with it at variance with the facts that are laid be- fore us in the Scriptures ? But we do not inquire for the evidence of Peter's having lived and died, as is indicated in the sacred text. Our inquiry is for the alleged evidence of his not having done so. Father Mc Corry supposes St. Clement to speak of the martyrs that had fallen in his own city ; whereas Clement speaks of those who had fallen within the memory of that present generation. ' Let us look at the illustrious examples of our own age,' says the bishop of Rome : ' let us take, for instance, the apostles.' " ^ Faussett, in his commentary on i Peter, speak- ing of the claim made that Peter was put to death at Rome, denies that Clement's words can be so construed. He says: *' Clement of Rome . . , 1 Ibid., p. 34. I08 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. often quoted for, is really against it. He mentions Paul and Peter together, but makes it a distinguish- ing circumstance of Paul, that he preached both in the East and the West, implying that Peter was never in the West. * I must shortly put off this my tabernacle' (2 Peter i : 14), implies that his martyrdom was near ; yet he makes no allusion to Rome, or to any intention of visiting it." Taking into consideration all the facts in the case, one must conclude that Clement's letter, for which so much is claimed, to prove Peter's martyr- dom at Rome, is entirely destitute of proof in that respect. Another writer, who is often quoted as offering evidence of Peter's presence in Rome, is Caius, a Roman priest at the time of Pope Zephyrinus, A. D. 202-218. His words are quoted by Father Mc Corry as follows : "I can point out to you the trophies of the apostles Peter and Paul. For whether you direct your footsteps to the Vatican, or to the Ostian Way, the trophies of those who founded the Roman Church present themselves to your view." To those unacquainted with the devious ways pursued by zealous devotees in attempting to prove their points, it may be thought remarkable when we say that according to the best scholars the names of neither Peter nor Paul appear in Caius's original words ! As given by Ellendorf, a Catholic of excellent reputation, both for learning and for AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. IO9 impartiality, they are translated thus: "I can show you the monuments (tropJicea) of the apos- tles ; for when you go to the Vatican, or to the road to Ostia, you will find the same monuments of those who founded this church." Upon this point Ellendorf further remarks : "If we suppose this to be authentic, it proves nothing at all. The monuments, " or trophies, may signify graves ; but who says that those monuments of the apostles were the graves of Peter and Paul } Those men are called apostles in the Holy Scriptures, and by the Fathers not only who were the apostles specially, but likewise their pupils and followers. Thus Luke (Acts 14:14) names Barnabas an apos- tle ; so Paul also calls Titus, Timothy, Silas, etc. , his fellow apostles ; so Clemens of Rome is called by Clement of Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Caius, an apostle. Among the apostles, also, to whose graves Caius points, we may properly under- stand those of Paul, and many of his companions who, with him, founded the church at Rome, and who died there with him, or after him, in the faith. The addition, that they were the graves of those who founded the church at Rome, necessarily points to the interpretation ; while it is a matter of fact, according to the Holy Scriptures, that the Church of Rome was founded by Paul and his dis- ciples, but in no wise by Peter and his follow^ers. " ^ Upon this point it may further be said that it was the custom to erect monuments in honor of 1 Bibliothica Sacra ^ Jan. i, 1859. no THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. the apostles and principal martyrs of the church, in all the cities of Christendom. This is also prac- tised at the present time. A monument of a so- called South American saint who lived several hundred years ago, has lately been erected in New York City, but this would hardly be proof that this saint lived and died in New York ; though should there be a future credulous and ignorant age, those who live in that age might be made to believe it. If the erection of a monument in a certain place proves that the person honored by it died there, then it may be proved that Lincoln died in Phila- delphia, and Washington in New York City. During the third century and onward, the struggle of the great metropolitan bishops for the headship of the church was in progress, and the adherents of each church desired to make it appear that their church was the greatest. Claims of superiority in origin were often put forth. That a church was founded by an apostle was considered to be a mark of the superiority of that church. Rome had the honor of being established by Paul ; but if the labors of one apostle in founding a church made that church great, the labors of two apostles would make the honor greater. It was for this reason that strong claims were made by the adherents of the bishop of Rome that Peter assisted in founding the church there. Indeed, so sharp was the contest for this honor, that later, John was added to Peter and Paul as one who had helped to establish the AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. I I I church in Rome ! In the struggle for supremacy, nothing was left out which it was thought would give Rome the advantage over Constantinople, Antioch, and the other chief cities of the Roman Empire. An unknown author, named Hippolytus, is also quoted to prove that Peter died in Rome. Who this Hippolytus was, or whether he is entitled to any credence or not, no one knows. He is said to have been a bishop, but there is no agreement of critics as to what place was the seat of his bishopric. Farrar, in his "Lives of the Fathers," has this to say of him: "Hippolytus occupied a position of extreme antagonism to two popes, whom he accused as fancying themselves bishops. One of these, Zephyrinus (a. d. 202-217), he describes as a weak and venal dunce ; and Calixtus (A. D. 217-222) he speaks of as a cheat and sacrilegious swindler, an infamous convict, an heresiarch. We remain igno- rant whether he was orthodox or heretical, a Catholic or schismatic, a priest or a bishop, a pope or an anti-pope, an excommunicated sectarian or a martyred saint. Dr. Lightfoot has suggested that Caius and Hippolytus were one and the same per- son, Caius Hippolytus." Strange as it may seem, this unknown man first gave to the world many of the doubtful traditions which have been devoutly believed through many ages. He first stated that Peter was crucified with his head downward, and many other equally 112 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER, fabulous stories. Here are his words : ' ' Peter preached the gospel in Pontus and Galatia and Cappadocia and Bithynia and Italy and Asia, and was afterward crucified by Nero in Rome, with his head downward."^ As a criticism of this statement, we can do no better than append the following from the pen of Rev. John Hall, D. D : — * * Not content with giving us the history of the apostles, we are favored by this marvelously in- formed writer with the fields of labor of all the seventy, whom he also enumerates. He includes among these all the names in PauPs epistles, with many others. " As a specimen of his remarkable knowledge, we give this statement : ' Mark the evangelist, bishop of Alexandria, and Luke the evangelist, belonged to the seventy disciples who were scattered by the offense of the word which Christ spake, ' ' Except a man eat my flesh and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me ! " Bat the one being induced to re- turn to the Lord by Peter's instrumentality, and the other by Paul's, they were honored to preach that gospel on account of which they also suffered martyrdom, the one being burned, and the other being crucified on an olive tree. ' * ' He also makes bishops of over fifty of the sev- enty, giving us their names, and also those of their respective churches. 1 " Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus," Vol. ii, pp. 130-134- AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. II 3 " Here is a man of whose residence we are igno- rant. In writings attributed to him, we have a great variety of statements for which there is no contemporaneous evidence, and which carry on their face, absurdity and impossibihty. It is mani- fest that he draws on his imagination for his facts. He adds nothing to our knowledge of Peter's his- tory. No one is, therefore, warranted in making an appeal to Hippolytus, in his investigations."^ Tertullian, who is one of the Fathers quoted to prove that Peter was at Rome, lived about the middle of the third century. He was a devoted adherent of the bishop of Rome, and anxious to enhance his glory and power. He is reported to have written thus : "If thou art near to Italy, thou hast Rome, where we also have an authority close at hand. What a happy church is that in which the apostles poured out their doctrines with their blood ; where Peter had a like passion with the Lord ; where Paul had for his crown the same death with John ; where the apostle John was plunged into boiling oil, and suffered nothing, and was afterward banished to an island. " The manifest intention of Tertullian in this writ- ing, to glorify Rome is so apparent, that the relia- bility of his statement is greatly impaired. The question of the respective authority of the bishops of the large cities of the Roman Empire was then a live question. Tertullian was an advocate of the 1 " Was Peter at Rome ? " p. 192. 114 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. authority of Rome. According to Tertullian there was " authority in Rome." Not satisfied with hav- ing two apostles there, he now brings in a third, John, to add dignity to the Roman Church ! In regard to the character of Tertulhan, a state- ment may be in place. He is thus described by Neander : ''His fiery and positive disposition, and his previous training as an advocate in rhet- oric, early impelled him, especially in controversy, to rhetorical exaggerations. When he defends a cause, of which truth he is convinced, we often see him the advocate, whose sole anxiety is to collect together all the arguments which can help his case, it matters not whether they are true arguments or only miserable sophisms." ^ Of Tertullian's tendency to believe idle and ex- travagant tales, the same writer further says : ' ' Tertullian, who had more familiar knowledge of Roman antiquities, might be expected, it is true, to know better ; but even he was too prejudiced in such cases, too ignorant of criticism, to institute any further examination with regard to the correct- ness of a statement which was in accordance with his taste, and which besides came to him on such respectable authority. The more critical Alexan- drians take no notice of the matter. " ^ Chambers, in his Encyclopedia, speaks of Tertul- lian as "a man of strong and violent passions, ^Neander's "History of the Christian Religion," Vol. i, p. 6S3. 2 Ibid.^ p. 454. AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. II5 who loved and hated with intensity. He was nar- row, bigoted, and uncharitable." Farrar says of him : ' ' He often seems to care more for the immediate victory than for the dis- covery of truth. He is often at variance with him- self, because he improvises his own convictions , and is more intent on prostrating his opponent than on examining the ground of the opinion. He often condescends to the grossest sophisms, the most irritating word-splitting, the most violent abuse. " Such was the character of Tertullian, often re- ferred to as the "fiery African," and after the unknown and unverified Caius, he is the main de- pendence for the story that Peter suffered in Rome. It is not necessary to take the space to examine further writings of this character. The story once started, Rome gained honor by it, and hence it was the desire of all the adherents of Rome to strengthen the idea in every way possible. As time progressed, it was more boldly asserted. In the Middle Ages these Fathers were exalted almost to the place of the apostles, and whatever they had said was regarded as authority. These exaggerated claims for Rome were dis- puted by the Eastern Church, and later, the intelli- gence of the West, reasserting itself, examined into the assertions of the Fathers, and proved their absurdity. As an illustration of the depths of folly to which people will go, we refer to Peter's chain, tomb, and Il6 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. chair in Rome, which are adduced as evidence that Peter was located there. These things may be ac- counted for in the same way that rehcs of earher saints are pointed out in Eastern lands. Thus the grave of Noah, near Baalbec, seventy feet long, is confidently pointed out to the traveler by the Arab, and he is astonished beyond measure should you deny that Noah was buried there, or that this grave is not a true indication of Noah's height ! The chair of St. Peter, suspended in St. Peter's at Rome, is appealed to^ as positive proof that Peter resided in Rome ! For ages the credulous people of Rome have regarded it with superstitious venera- tion. When Rome was taken possession of by the French army at the time of the French Revolu- tion, the chair was taken down and carefully ex- amined. Two savants, both Romanists, were appointed to examine it. One of them, Lanci, made the fol- lowing report : "I have examined the chair of St. Peter at Rome. It is not of the age of Augustus, but belongs to the fifth century of the Christian era ; its architecture was not yet discovered in the Augustan age. To my great astonishment I have found in this chair twelve little plates of ivory, on which were sculptured the twelve labors of Her- cules ; so that, in my opinion, it was a chair of one of the emperors, or of some consular man, in the decay of the Roman Empire." Thus an ancient, heathen, Roman chair, illustrating pagan fables, is AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. II / made to serve a similar purpose for Christianity in later ages ! The chain of St. Peter was said to have been brought from Jerusalem to Rome by Eudocia, wife of Theodosius the Younger. This chain, obtained no one knows how, was believed to be the chain worn by Peter when he was imprisoned by Herod. The Roman pontiff, not to be undone, produced another chain, which he asserted was worn by Peter in Rome. By a miracle the two chains be- came welded together, making one chain, and a church was subsequently erected in honor of the event. Should any one doubt the miracle, the church is pointed to as evidence of the fact ! The question as to whether Peter was ever in Rome was publicly discussed in that city in 1872. Three Catholic priests affirmed, and three Protes- tant clergymen denied. Among those who denied was Gavazzi, who had formerly been a priest and a chaplain in the army of Garibaldi. The following extract is presented from Gavazzi' s argument on that occasion : — "The silence of the Bible upon the coming of Peter to Rome is not by any means a negative proof, but a positive and most explicit one. Car- dinal Bellarmine says that silence is a positive proof. . . , Let us look at some parallel. Thiers, for instance, does not say a word in his ' History of the Consulate and Empire,* of Napoleon having gone to \yashington in America. This is, perhaps, Il8 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. proof that he went there ? — No, quite the contrary. By the same logic it might be said that Peter never went to Rome. *' The Acts of the Apostles, which say not a word of the coming of St. Peter to Rome, is the true, official, authentic history, giving a particular ac- count of the development, of the progress, of the persecutions, and of the triumphs of the church. Their aim is to show the labors of the apostles. These Acts are a legitimate, impartial account, because St. Luke was inspired. How could he be silent about St. Peter's going to Rome, when he speaks of his visits to so many other cities of minor importance ? ' ' He says he went to Lydda, to Joppa, to Sa- maria, to Caesarea, to Jerusalem ; why should he not also have said he went to Rome, if he really went there ? The Acts of the Apostles is, in short, for the apostles, what Thiers's account of the Consulate and Empire is for Napoleon. Would it have been possible for Thiers to be silent about Napoleon's going to Moscow.'^ — No. Well, then, St. Peter's going to Rome would have been a thou- sand times m.ore important for the apostolate and the church, than Napoleon's going to Moscow for the empire. " Our adversaries say that perhaps the going of St. Peter to Rome is not mentioned for fear of compromising him. Fear .'^ — No, it was not the case ; because when the Acts of the Apostles was AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. II 9 written, the danger was past. I respect Peter too much to beHeve that he was afraid. Peter was not a coward to fear martyrdom. Nor did Paul reckon him as such. The silence of Paul, then, is a posi- tive proof that, during the time he was in Rome, St. Peter was not there." In dismissing this branch of the subject, a few general remarks upon the Fathers may not be out of place. One who has never read the " Fathers," knowing that they lived in the times immediately succeeding the apostles, and that they have been regarded with veneration for long ages, may have the impression that their writings must be very valuable, almost equal to those of the apostles themselves. Alas ! the illusion is quickly dispelled by reading them. Many of them are not worth translating. Portions of them are too indecent to be translated, and all of them abound in idle tales and fanciful vagaries. The editor of the National Baptist, in an issue of that paper, dated March i, 1878, in response to a query from one who wanted to know how "to argue without any arguments, " replied in the fol- lowing humorous vein : "I regard a judicious use of the ' Fathers ' as being, on the whole, the best reliance for any one who is in the situation of my querist. The advantages of the ' Fathers ' are two- fold : first, they carry a good deal of weight with the masses ; and second, you can find whatever you want in the * Fathers,' I don't believe that any I20 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. opinion could be advanced so foolish,. so manifestly absurd, but that you can find passages to sustain it on the pages of these venerable stagers. And to the common mind, one of these is just as good as another. . . . Yes, my brother, the * Fathers ' are your stronghold ; they are Heaven's best gift to the man who has a cause that can't be sustained in any other way." The above statement well illustrates the value of the testimony of the Fathers. Comparing them with the forefathers, or apostles, we find that though the distance in time between the wri- tings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, James, and Peter, and those of Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen, is not so great, the separation in quality of matter is immeasurable. Here truly "distance lends enchantment to the view." For real value, later writers have far excelled them. They contradict the Scriptures, each other, and themselves. Each had his own ideas to advance, his own purposes to serve. Many of them had been heathen philosophers, and endeavored to harmonize the teachings of Christ and his apos- tles with the wild vagaries of heathenism. By so doing they helped to form the bridge by which the church passed over from Christ, the apos- tles, and the Scriptures, to dogma, endless and useless ceremonies, and soul-darkening supersti- tions. Rome's appeal to tradition to supplement her lack of scripture to prove her dogmas in regard AN APPEAL TO TRADITION, 121 to Peter, is therefore a manifest failure. The very fact that such an appeal is made, is a self-con- fessed admission of weakness. With the Romanist the presence and bishopric of Peter in Rome is a fundamental portion of his creed. For one to deny it is to him a denial of salvation. Thus salvation is made dependent on something not taught in the Scriptures, and which, evidences drawn from the Scriptures are distinctly against. They are driven to tradition, which has been so manipulated as to sustain many things having no other support ; but even these traditions, closely examined, are proved to be, as in numerous other instances, but a mixture of pompous assumption, deceit, and blind credulity. CHAPTER IX. COMPARISON OF EXPRESSIONS OF AUTHORITY USED BY PETER AND PAUL. IN investigating the question whether Peter pos- sessed an authority not possessed by Paul and the other apostles, it may be well to examine the writings of these two eminent apostles, comparing them, to ascertain which one puts forth the stronger claim to exercise authority. If it shall be found that in expressions of authority, and even in claims of the same, Paul greatly exceeds Peter, it will be rational to presume at least that he possessed an authority fully equal to that which was given to Peter. It has already been shown that the letters of Peter are entirely devoid of all claims to any especial authority. Peter never compares himself with the other apostles as Paul does ; much less does he claim for himself any position higher than that of an apostle ; nor does he anywhere in his writings, refer to himself as having authority to command. But while this is true of Peter, the most casual reader of the letters of Paul cannot fail to notice the authoritative manner in which they are written ; [122] EXPRESSIONS OF AUTHORITY. 123 and when we read them with this idea in mind, we shall be astonished at the number and variety of the expressions of this character. It may be remarked first that Paul would never allow that he had received the gospel or the apostle- ship from any man. He received both from Christ himself, acting through no intermediary persons. The call which came to him as he was on the way to Damascus was as clear and distinct as the call to Peter, James, and John by the sea of Galilee ; hence he was the equal of any of the apostles. Notice the opening words of his letter to the Gala- tians : ''Paul, an apostle, (not of men neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)." Gal. i : i. Again: "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which w^as preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. . . . But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him aniong the heathen; immediately I conferred not with iiesh and blood : neither went I up to Jeru- salem to them which were apostles before me." Verses ii, 15-17. Again: "But of these [the other apostles, including Peter] who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me : God accepteth no man's person : ) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference 124 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. added nothing to me." Chapter 2 : 6. Notice that at this visit Paul saw Peter (Gal. i : 18), and yet he emphatically declares that he received nothing from any of them, and in concluding his statement, he relates that on one occasion he was obliged to withstand Peter to his face. Paul would not allow even that his knowledge of the Lord's supper was received from the other apostles. (See i Cor. 11 123.) Really, as far as Paul's knowledge of the gospel was concerned, he declared his entire independence of all the other apostles. Not that he would not advise with them and be advised by them ; but in the particular sphere to which God had called him, — the work for the Gentiles, — he followed the leadings of his own mind, guided by the Spirit of God. If Peter had been the head of the church, — had taken Christ's place as his vicegerent on earth, — could Paul have said such things ? Could he have as- serted his independence of the whole body of the apostles ? Could he have said, They ' ' added nothing to me " ? The only way this independence of Paul can be understood is to believe that he recognized Christ as the only head of the church ; and having received his call to preach the gospel directly from the Head of the church, he did not feel under any particular obligation to receive directions from man. The attention of the reader is now directed to some expressions used by the apostle Paul, illustra- EXPRESSIONS OF AUTHORITY. I25 tive of his claim to authority. In his letters, he speaks of the gospel as " my gospel." (See Rom. 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim. 2 : 8.) The general title of the gospel is, "The gospel of Jesus Christ," and that is, of course, its true title ; notwithstanding, Paul sometimes speaks of the gospel as ''my "gospel." No doubt the fact that a special dispen- sation of the gospel had been committed to him, is one reason for his use of this expression. Another reason is that he had so identified himself with the gospel that he felt that it was his. Be that as it may, there is no expression in Peter's letters claim- ing so much for himself. Had there been, and had Peter been the only apostle to make use of such an expression, even though he had used it but once, judging from the way which some sayings of Christ's are laid hold of by Catholics to prove Peter's superiority, such a saying would have been regarded as evidence that, since the departure of Christ to heaven, the gospel had passed into the hands of his successor, Peter. Unfortunately for those who cling to Peter's supremacy, this peculiar expression, which sounds like a proprietary claim to the gospel, was used by Paul, and no such ex- pression, nor anything equivalent to it, can be found in the writings of Peter. Again, there is nothing in the letter of Peter urging any one to follow him. He declares that " Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps" (i Peter 2 : 21) ; 126 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. and he describes the behevers as a wandering flock of sheep which has returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls, referring unmistakably to Christ. But he never speaks of himself as being leader, nor asks his converts to follow him. But it is a remarkable fact that Paul admonishes his converts to follow Jiim, — to be his followers. Thus he says : ' ' For though ye have ten thou- sand instructors in Christ, yet, have ye not many fathers : for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of mc.'' i Cor. 4 : 15, i6. What makes this passage of Scripture especially damaging to the pretension that Peter was the head of the church, is the fact that these words were written to the brethren in Corinth because of the spirit of division which existed among them. Some were claiming to be followers of Paul, others of Apollos, and others of Peter. Paul rebukes them, telling them that the apostles are nothing but men by whom they had believed, that Christ is the only foundation, and finally says to them in the text quoted, *' Be ye followers of me." Espe- cially should we keep the fact in mind that he urges them to be followers of himself, when at this very time many were inclined to follow Peter. This does not necessarily prove that Paul was setting himself above Peter or the other apostles. He himself had planted the gospel in Corinth, teaching the true principles of the gospel as they had been EXPRESSIONS OF AUTHORITY. 127 communicated to him by revelation. Hence he asked that they, as his spiritual children, should follow his teachings, not giving preference to any man in the church, but taking Christ as their only Leader. Thus he says (i Cor. ii : i), " Be ye fol- lowers of me, even as I also am of Christ." No doubt it was in this secondary sense that Paul asked the Corinthian brethren to follow him. But suppose that Peter, describing a contention among brethren who were in disagreement as to which apostle they should follow, had used such ex- pressions as Paul did, and then said, ' * Be ye fol- lowers of me, " would not those who hold the idea of Peter's supremacy over the other apostles and his primacy in the church, take it to be a clear case of an assumption of authority, and the posi- tion of leadership in the church ? — Evidently they would. They would say that as Christ had said, "Follow me," so Peter, his successor, said, "Fol- low me." Again, we must say that, unfortunately for those who believe in the supremacy of Peter, it was not Peter but Paul, who said to the brethren who were looking to Peter and Apollos as leaders, "Be ye followers of me." We will now consider Paul's words in i Cor. i6 : 22 : " If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema," that is, let him be accursed. The power to curse is certainly a great power. It was possessed by Christ, but he used it very rarely, declaring that he came not to condemn 128 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. the world, but that the world through him might be saved. Nowhere in the letters of Peter is there anything like a curse, which, considering the free use of curses by the popes of Rome, who claim to be his successors in office, is a little remarkable. But the letters of Paul were of so authoritative a character, and were couched in language so strong, that his enemies charged him with seeking to ter- rify the people by his letters. Thus he says : "For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed : that I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters. For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful ; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible." He then adds : ' ' Let such an one [who thought that Paul's authority was all in his letters] think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present." 2 Cor. io:8-ii. The authority manifested by Paul, even when he was absent, is shown in i Corinthians 5. There was a vile person in the church at Corinth. Writ- ing to that church, Paul makes this strong declara- tion : ' ' For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the EXPRESSIONS OF AUTHORITY. 1 29 power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. . . . Therefore put away from among your- selves that wicked person." Verses 3-5, 13. Thus Paul claimed authority to discern the wrong in a person separated from him by a long distance, and to exclude him from the church, which authority he actually exercised. There is nothing in either of the letters of Peter that indicates that he claimed or exercised such authority and power. (See also I Tim. I : 20, and Philemon 8.) Another expression of Paul's, found in i Cor. 14 : 37, is so suggestive of power and authority as to be worthy of note. *' If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the com- mandments of the Lord. " The claim that the commandments which he had been giving to the Corinthians in this letter were the commandments of the Lord, far exceeds any statement bordering on authority and power to be found in the writings of Peter. Indeed, if the authorship of these writings could be reversed, could Peter have written what Paul wrote, and Paul have been the author of Peter's letters, an argument for the primacy of Peter and his supremacy might have been built upon Peter's letters, while nothing of the kind can now be donCo Another argument for the supremacy of Paul might be built upon his words in 2 Cor. ii : 28. 130 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. In this chapter Paul contrasts his own labors with those of certain false apostles, in order to prove his own apostleship. He calls attention to his labors, stripes, imprisonments, shipwrecks, journeyings, and perils of various kinds, and then adds these very significant words : ' ' Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches." According to these words of Paul, upon whom rested the burden of not one church but of all the churches ? — Upon Paul himself. Undoubtedly these words are lim- ited in their application to those churches of the Gentiles which he had raised up himself, or which as the apostle to the Gentiles, he felt to be under his especial care. This would certainly include the church at Rome ; for Paul's letter to the church in Rome, which of itself is abundant evidence of Paul's care for the church in that city, was written the same year as the second letter to the Corinthians, wherein he claims to have the burden of all the churches upon him ; and we have before abun- dantly shown that Peter could not have been in Rome at the time the letter to the church at Rome was written. So taking Paul's statement in 2 Cor. 1 1 : 2 in connection with the fact that he wrote his letter to the brethren at Rome the same year, and applying the apostle's language only to the Gentile churches, the evidence is conclusive that Paul con- sidered the church at Rome under his especial care. Hence it could not have been under the care of Peter. EXPRESSIONS OF AUTHORITY. I3I Furthermore, it is pertinent to the question under discussion to ask, What would be the position of Cathohcs upon this text, had it been found in the writings of Peter instead of those of Paul ? Had Peter declared in a letter to the church at Cor- inth, almost simultaneously with one written to the church at Rome, that upon him rested the care of all the churches, would they not adduce it as satisfactory proof that Peter was the head and primate of the church ? — They certainly would. This text would be laid beside Matt. i6 : i8 as another proof of the primacy of Peter and his headship over all the churches. Other texts, which show Paul's claim to author- ity in contrast with the failure of Peter to make such a claim, might be presented, but these will suffice. The careful student of the Scriptures, having had his mind called in this direction, will be able to discover them himself. Finally, we may say that in Paul's letters there is an assumption of more authority in all matters pertaining to the church than can be found in those of Peter. Directions in regard to the most difficult and delicate questions, such as marriage and di- vorce, the training of children, and the conduct of servants, are given by Paul. The duties of deacons and bishops are discussed by him, and the qualifica- tions necessary to fill those positions are minutely described. i Timothy 3. The subject of raising means for the work of the gospel ministry, and 132 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. directions for the maintenance of widows and or- phans, are also treated by Paul. In short, so many things concerning such a variety of subjects con- nected with the organization and development of the church are presented by Paul, that without them we would not know what to do in very many things which are now clear to us. Had these very important directions, which naturally suggest the highest kind of authority, been given by Peter, a much stronger argument might be made for his su- premacy than can now be presented. Hence we conclude that a comparison of the writings of the two apostles in question, shows far greater assump- tions of power and authority on the part of Paul than are made by Peter, — a conclusion which is exceedingly damaging to the claim that Peter was the supreme head of the church. CHAPTER X. HOW THE OFFICE OF BISHOP BECAME HIGHER THAN THAT OF ELDER. IT has been shown from the Scriptures that a primacy was not established among the apostles ; that such a thing was entirely unknown in the primitive church ; that no one of the apostles was clothed with power above his fellows ; that one was head, even Christ, and that they were all brethren, occupying a common level. This being true, it therefore follows that there can be no such thing as a sitccessioit to the primacy ; for there can be no succession to that which never existed. In- deed, in all the New Testament there is no hint of a succession of this kind, and no regulation as to how a successor to the primacy was to be elected or appointed. Paul laid down explicit directions in regard to ordaining elders, or bishops, and deacons, and the duties which pertained to their re- spective offices, but he makes no mention of the way a primate was to be initiated into his office, or what his duties were ; and as we have seen, where the officers which God has placed in his church are called by name, no primate is mentioned. Eph. 4 : 10, 1 1 ; I Cor. 12 : 28. [133] 134 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. Between the ascension of Christ and the time of the writing of the last portion of the New Testa- ment, there was a period of about sixty years ; yet there is no mention in these latest writings of the apostles, of any primacy after Jesus Christ, the only true Head of the church, had gone to heaven. In the gospel by St. John and in the Revelation (both of which were written subsequent to the death of Peter and after the establishment of his successor in the primacy, supposing that there were a primacy), there is no mention of any change of this kind. In- deed there is evidence in the book of Revelation to show that Rome did not occupy a very im- portant position in the church at that time. It is generally believed that the remarkable visions called ' ' The Revelation " were shown to John about the year a. d. 96. What John received by this revelation was to be communicated to the whole church of Jesus Christ, which is represented in a vision under the figure of seven churches. That Christ is represented as walking in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, which are ex- plained to be synonymous with the seven churches, would indicate that something more than seven literal churches is meant, even the whole Christian Church, in which Christ walks, and which he directs. It is reasonable to conclude that the seven churches which would be selected to represent the whole church, would be churches of the first THE OFFICE OF BISHOP. 1 35 importance — churches in whose conditions there would be something very striking in character, and suggestive of the whole church. Now, if the church at Rome were the chief church, and the seat of the primate of the church for all time, it would seem that such conditions would make it one of the churches fit to represent the whole church ; for if Rome alone stands for the whole church, as Catho- lics claim, it surely w^ould present conditions suit- able so that it might be selected as one of the seven churches to represent either a part or the whole of the church universal. But seven churches are chosen by the Lord to represent the whole church, and Rome is not one of these selected churches. So the whole church can be fitly represented, and the church which claims to have the primacy be left out. It is also certain that there is no evidence to prove that any one place or city was to attain to a greater and more permanent importance to the cause of Christ than another, or that such a place or church should be the center of the work of the gospel, — certainly not that Rome should be thus honored. The church of Christ is not confined to one locality ; it is a world-wide church with a world-wide message. Why, then, should it be lo- calized even in name } The theory of a primacy, with a local and permanently established place for the exercise of that authority, is entirely contrary, not only to the Scriptures, but to the whole spirit and genius of Christianity as well. 136 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. It is argued that the city of Rome was the proper place for the head of the church, because the church was to be world-wide, and Rome was then the capital city of the world. But granting that Rome was such at the time of the organization of the church, that condition did not always remain. Then, as surely as the time should come when Rome would not sustain that relation to the world, the headship of the church would have to be trans- ferred to that city, which in the onward march of nations would take the place of Rome as the cen- ter of worldly power. As a matter of fact, the center of influence of Christianity has changed several times. Jerusalem was at first the center of the church's influence. The apostles were there, and the first Christian council was held there. Later, Antioch became an important center for the propagation of the gospel. No doubt, in course of time, Rome became the same. Other cities like Alexandria, and later still, Constantinople, shared with Rome the honor of being great centers of Christian influence ; but there is nothing in the Scriptures to prove or in reason to require that Rome or any other city should be- come the seat of supreme authority and influence in the Christian church. Why should the name of that heathen power which had always been an antagonist to Christianity be foisted upon the church of Christ.? The word *'Rome" has not now the signification which it once had. When THE OFFICE OF BISHOP. 13/ Rome ruled the world, the name "Roman Catho- lic " (universal) was not so strange nor out of place; but the Roman Empire has passed away, and to- day there are several empires greater than Rome was in her palmiest days. Since the name of Rome is now associated only with the thought of departed greatness, it is far from being an appro- priate name for the universal and progressive Chris- tian church. It is a local name applied to a universal church, which of itself is a misnomer, and a contradiction of terms. There is no clear history of Christianity during the first century after Christ. The first centuries even are involved in much obscurity. The his- torian who would chronicle only actual verities, can find little to record concerning the church in the first centuries succeeding the close of the wri- tings and labors of the apostles. We are obliged to look upon the church as upon a river, which from an open prospect sinks suddenly out of sight, to reappear again later on. A few glimpses of the church in the years following the close of the New Testament history, are all that we are able to gain ; and even this knowledge has come down to us strained through such a mass of myth and tra- dition that very little reliance can be put upon it. As the church emerges from the mists of those unknown times into the clearer light, where we can once more scan her features, we certainly have the right to compare her with the church revealed in 10 138 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. the New Testament. And if, as every one will concede, we have the right to compare the doc- trines of the church when she first emerges from her indistinct pathway, or at any subsequent time, with the doctrines of Christianity as revealed in the New Testament, then we have an equal right to compare her government with that which we find revealed in the same Word. And if we have a right to reject a doctrine because it is not in the Scrip- tures, and is contrary to them, we have also the right to notice in what particulars the government of the church, or what pretends to be such, is con- trary to that revealed in the New Testament and practised by the apostolic church, and to reject it. It will be admitted by every candid person that there is always danger that the doctrines of the church, which relate more particularly to the nature of Christ and the duties to be performed by his fol- lowers, will be distorted, and in many things will virtually be destroyed ; but many do not seem to realize that there is no feature of the church so susceptible of rapid change as her government. That this is true of civil government is too well known to be questioned. Many a civil govern- ment founded on principles of equity, has rapidly degenerated into a despotism, where one man, or an oligarchy, a few acting conjointly, seized the reins of power. Men appointed to be the servants of the people, have, by a skilful manipulation of affairs, become instead absolute rulers. Powers THE OFFICE OF BISHOP. 1 39 temporarily granted as a favor, are seized and re- tained as rights ; and a precedent once established often carries with it all the force of law. There is abundance of evidence to prove that the church has not been an exception to this general rule ; that she has felt the same influences that have affected civil governments, with very similar results ; that men who have spoken of liberty in her councils, have themselves been ty- rants ; that the lust for power has often led to the forgetting of the principles of equity and equality ; that powers have been first assumed and then held by force ; in short, that often those who should have been shepherds of the flock have grasped the scepter of rule instead of the rod of comfort and direction. This may be seen in all forms and phases of the church in her later history, and if she escaped this experience in the first centuries, it would be an exception to the general rule. As we study the New Testament, it becomes evident to us that neither Christ nor his apostles laid down any specific rules of church government ; but they taught principles, which, if they had been respected and carried out, would have preserved the church from falling into an imperial and cen- tralized form of government. In the apostolic church we find the terms " bishop " and "elder" used interchangeably, ap- plying to the same office. The word " bishop" had particular reference to the duties of inspection, I40 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. oversight, and guardianship. The word ' ' elder " related more to the age and dignity, and to the wisdom, which is supposed to accompany age. Peter was an apostle, but he calls himself an elder (i Peter 5:1); and the expression used implies equality — a fellow elder, one of the same kind. The position of a bishop, or elder, was given by the believers in any locality to those whom they believed to be worthy of that honor, under the advice and counsel of those by whom they had received the gospel. Thus Paul wrote to Titus : ' ' For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I have appointed thee : if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless," etc. Titus I ".5,6. Here the bishop and elder are classed together, the office being the same. It is also worthy of note that the apostolic bishops were married men. In Paul's letter to Timothy (i Tim. 3 : 1-8), where the duties of the various officers of the church are presented, he passes from bishop to deacon without mentioning the office of an elder — a substantial proof that the office of a bishop and that of an elder are identical. As those only could be ordained who had a good report and whom the congregation could recommend, it is apparent that the work of setting apart a man to the office of bishop, was the mutual work of the presbyters, or THE OFFICE OF BISHOP. I4I elders, and the members of the church. Clement, who was one of the early bishops, lays down the rule as having come from the apostles, that these offices ** should be filled according to the judgment of approved men, with the consent of the whole community." ^ This certainly was the plan adopted by the apostles, as the following incident of New Testament history amply proves. When it became necessary for the apostolic church to set apart cer- tain men to look after special interests of the church, and the fact became known to the apostles, the responsibility of their selection, appointment, and ordination was suggested in the following language of the apostles to the brethren : * ' Where- fore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wis- dom, whom we [apostles and the church] may appoint over this business." Acts 6:3. The brethren were to make the selection. Both the apostles and the brethren were to agree on their appointment, and then the apostles were to ordain them to the work by prayer and the laying on of hands. This mutual arrangement of responsibility prevented those in office from becoming a dominant class which should perpetuate itself without con- sulting with the body of the church. In harmony with this apostolic plan the church in any locality suggested and recommended those they thought worthy to hold such office, and the ^Neander's "History of the Christian Religion," Vol. i, p. 189. 142 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. apostles at the first, and later the bishops, or elders, of other churches, ordained them to the work for which they were chosen. So no man could be ordained unless recommended by the church where he belonged, and none but those who had been ordained had the right and power to ordain others. Thus the elders and the people to whom they min- istered, acted as a mutual check on each other, that neither might attain to the supremacy in the church. As long as this order was maintained, the elders, or bishops, could not become the masters of the church, by ordaining those who would serve their purposes, and thus become ' ' lords over God's heritage." In the apostolic age it was common to have sev- eral elders in each church. From Miletus Paul sent for the elders of the church at Ephesus to come to meet him ; and after giving them a most earnest exhortation, he prayed with them. Acts 20: 17, 1 8. A plurality of elders, or bishops, in each church, which certainly was the custom in the apostolic church, is not in harmony with the later practise of one bishop in each church, who alone is the repository of authority. The transition from the apostolic system of a body of elders in each church, all acting in concert, to that of the later system, when one man held all the power in the church, like many changes which have taken place in civil government, came about •by degrees. It seems to have been a common THE OFFICE OF BISHOP. I43 custom for the elders of a church to select one of their number who was noted for his learning and ability, to present the doctrines of Christ, and make him an especial overseer over a church or section of country, containing many churches. From this simple arrangement, in which there was nothing wrong in itself, only as it led to something worse, the superiority of the bishop over the other elders grew. Chosen by the elders of the church, and also by ■ all the members of the local church, to act as a presiding elder, or presbyter, it was an easy step to the position that the office of a bishop was a higher office than that of an ordinary elder. This path once entered upon, it became impossible to stop, until there were several gradations of rank in the clergy, each step making a central head apparently more indispensable, until from the simple and democratic form of church government taught by Christ and illustrated in the Acts of the Apostles * and in the letters of Paul and Peter, there was evolved an imperial form of church government. This was modeled much after the form of the civil government of Rome in that day of absolute rule, with an earthly head and several gradations of rank, all doing what Peter expressly disclaims doing — lording it over God's heritage (i Peter 5 : 3), and actually ruling the church after the manner of civil government in those despotic times. Thus the simple plan of equality and general coun- 144 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. sel, which prevailed in the days of the apostoHc church, gradually changed to a form of church gov- ernment entirely different in all its conditions and relations. The clergy were elevated above the com- mon members, and the church thereafter was com- posed of two distinct and separate classes, — the clergy and the laity. Here was a close reproduc- tion in the church, of the same conditions which were peculiar to the Roman commonwealth, — the two classes of the patricians and the plebians. The patrician class of clergy in the church was not, it is true, perpetuated by birth; but since the work of selection of candidates for the priestly office, and their preparation for their work was entirely in the hands of the clergy, they became, like the patri- cians, a class perpetuating itself. And as the pa- tricians held the plebians in civil bondage, so the new order of religious patricians held in bondage those who were under them. CHAPTER XL DIFFERENT ORDERS OF CLERGY DEVELOPED MAKE A SINGLE HEAD NECESSARY. WHEN the office of bishop became well estab- lished as a separate and higher office than that of presbyter, or elder, another easy and natural step was a similar classification among the bishops, making a division amon*g them, and the establish- ment of another and still higher order of clergy. The natural respect which younger bishops would have for those of more mature years, and their feelings of fealty toward those who had brought them into the gospel, taught them the truths of Christianity, and consecrated them to the work of the ministry, led the younger bishops to give to the elder the preference. This favor, no doubt, the elder bishops were not loath to receive, especially as they did not see to what it would eventually lead. It soon became customary to locate several new bishops around an elder bishop, that they might be advised by him. The larger towns and cities were the seats of these noted bishops, called by way of distinction, " Bishops of the First See." Afterward they became known as "Metropolitan Bishops," [H5] 146 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. and they exercised an authority in accordance with the size of their respective sees. This custom be- came so well established that when the Council of Nicea was held in A. d. 325, the superiority of the metropolitan bishops over other bishops was recog- nized as established by iisagc, and hence it was sanctioned by the church.^ When the most deplorable step in the history of Christianity was taken, and Christianity was made the state religion of the Roman Empire, in the days of Constantine, additional authority was given to a metropolitan bishop, and the district over which he presided was called his province, which generally had the same bounds as the ter- ritory ruled by the civil governor. This distinction between simple and metropolitan bishops having been secured, there was nothing in the way of the permanent establishment of a higher order of bish- ops, regularly appointed, with a district composed of several bishoprics. The office of archbishop was therefore established. Archbishops were dis- tinctively introduced in the fourth century. The express term "archbishop" was first applied by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, to his prede- cessor, Alexander. Gregory Nazianzen followed the precedent thus set, and subsequently applied the term to Athanasius himself. The first writer to mention archbishops as a separate and higher order of bishops, was Isidore, bishop of Seville, who was born about A. d. 570, 1 Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. iii, art. Bishop, p. 787. A SINGLE HEAD NECESSARY. 1 47 and died A. d. 630. The title had, however, been known since about the year 320, Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, having been called archbishop by a historian of that period. At the council of Car- thage (a. d. 397), this extra title was ordered to be laid aside, many evidently foreseeing what the end of such a course would be; and it was further decreed that the ancient title of " Metropolitan of the First See " be again resumed. But this partial return to first principles did not last long ; the tide was setting strongly toward higher ranks of clergy and permanent central authority, and at the, council of Ephesus (a. d. 431), the title of archbishop was given to the three great metropolitan -bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.^ Later these archbishops took the title of "patriarchs." After- ward the bishops of Constantinople and Jerusalem were granted the same title, each holding a similar authority. The title of patriarch is still found in the Catholic Church, but it now has only a nom- inal meaning. In the Eastern, or Greek Church, the title is still retained, and the Greek patriarch holds about the same position as the Catholic archbishop. The manner of the appointing of the bishops, also underwent a great change. At first they were selected by the people, the brethren of each local church, and could be deposed by them. The bish- ops soon resisted this apostolic arrangement as a restraint upon their rights, and gained their inde- ^ Mc Clintock and Strong's Encyclopedia, Vol. i, p. 368. 148 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. pendence from the people, together with an author- it}- to rule them. Thus the bishops and all the clergy gradually grew into a privileged class, hold- ing their offices for life, and amenable only to their superiors, — a new order of spiritual nobility, which perpetuated itself. When Constantine became em- peror of Rome and the patron of Christianity, he took the appointment of the bishops into his hands. The Christians, broken in spirit by past persecu- tions, and thankful for the security which he afforded them, were willing to allow him to do about as he pleased. Other kings followed his example, and appointed the bishops in their kingdoms. Thus the bishops, and the church which they represented, became adjuncts to the civil power, and in many respects the creatures of the state. When the bishop of Rome gained paramount authority in the Western Church, the appointment of the bishops became the cause of much controversy between the bishops of Rome and the kings of the different countries. Contentions of this kind even now frequently occur between the kings of Europe and the later suc- cessors of the early bishops of Rome. Thus from the primitive system, by which the elders were on a basis of absolute equality, being elected by the suffrages of all the Christian people in any locality, there had arisen by the middle of the fifth century, several successive ranks of clergy, dependent for their office upon kings or the supe- A SINGLE HEAD NECESSARY. 1 49 rior bishops. The highest order of this superior clergy was confined to five persons, — the bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Con- stantinople. The first step taken in a wrong direction led to another ; and in the creation of archbishops of the five great cities of Christendom at that time, only one more step was necessary to have one primate over all, — a visible and single head of the recog- nized church of Christ on earth, usurping the place of Christ, the true and invisible Head. At the present time and for some centuries in the past, the College of Cardinals has formed a body of ecclesiastics of a higher order than the archbishops ; but the order of cardinals did not arise in the same way that the other orders of superior clergy in the Latin Church arose. The order of cardinals, as personal attendants and ad- visers of the pope, was created by the primate after the primacy was established. Stephen IV (770) was the first pope who began to select priests in the city of Rome for special purposes, from which act the College of Cardinals grew. The Encyclo- pedia Britannica says that " the thing and the name were at no time appointed and created, but gj'ezv up by successive and mainly abusive en- croachments legitimatized by usance, and from time to time more formally by papal briefs and bulls." ^ At first there were seven. The number was enlarged at various subsequent times, until "it 1 Vol. V, p. 96. 150 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. was finally settled that there should be seventy. The composition of the College of Cardinals was not fully settled until it was so established by a bull of Sixtus V, issued Dec. 3, 1585.^ It is now the settled policy of the Roman Church that the candidate for the papal chair must be selected from the College of Cardinals, and only cardinals can vote for the election of a pope. As the cardinals are almost universally Italians, a pope of another nationality than Italian, is rarely elected. Hence the primate of what claims to be the universal church of Christ, is almost always an Italian, and elected by men of his own nationality. This practically amounts to an Italian primacy, and none but Italians may hope for the oiiice. ^ See Encyclopedia Britannica as quoted above, and Mc Clintock and Strong, Vol. ii, art. Cardinal, p. 119. CHAPTER XIL GREAT EVENTS WHICH OPENED THE WAY FOR THE PRIMACY. A SUPERIOR order of clergy, confined to the bishops of the principal cities of the Roman Empire, having become established, the greatest obstacle to an absolute primacy in the church was removed. It only remained to take one more step in the same direction, and settle upon which one of the "Metropolitans" this headship should be bestowed. During the time that these several independent primates were rising to power, important and mo- mentous events in Roman history occurred, which greatly helped to secure the first place for the bishop of Rome. One of these events was the removal of the seat of empire from Rome to Con- stantinople, the new city on the Bosporus, which was carried out by Constantine in the year A. d. 330. The seat of the civil power was by this act transferred from Rome to Constantinople. Left in the West, a metropolitan bishop, with the greatest spiritual powder of any one in that country ; located in the ancient capital of the [151] 152 THE SUrKKMACV OF PETER. Roman Empire, with nuiny things of a civil nature continually thrust upon him ten- his decision ; re- moved by a loui;- distance in tliose days of slow communication, from the civil power at Constanti- nople, and also from the bishops of the other metropolitan sees, which claimed an equality with him; with all the bishops oi the West looking to him for the decision of all important matters; and with the i">restii;e \\hich came (voiu his position as the bishop o{ tiie ancient cMpital. it is ncU very sur- prising that the bishop of Rchuc should begin to cherish schemes o{ ambition and absolute authority. The Roman emperor e\ idcntly thought that the East would constitute the strongest part of his Em- pire ; but the f;nis oi histor}' slunv that the East had had its da\ . and that the power which should gain the c\>ntrol oi the West would darect the future course oi the world. The rcnuwal oi the seat of empire from Konie to C\>nstantinoplc, by the Em- peror Constantinc. was therefore a \ery fa\-orable event to strengthen the bishop ol Rcmuc. and to place in his hands a great measure oi spiritual, and even oi temporal power. Another great event which tended toward a con- cent rat iiui of jnnvcr in the hands of the bishop of Rome, was the jHainanent di\ision of the Konum Empire into the luistern and Western divisions. This took place upon the death of Jovian, A. o. 364. His two sons, \'alentinian and \'alens. divided the empire between them. The empire of the East in- THE WAY OPENED FOR THE PRIMACY. 1 53 eluded all the territory of the lower Danube. To the emperor of the West were given Italy, Illyricuni (a country east of Italy, adjoining the Adriatic Sea), and Gaul. The last-named countries composed the empire of the West under Valentinian. This emperor did not take Rome for his capital, but Milan, leaving the city of Rome to the bishop of Rome, as Constantine had done before. At this time, many of the bishops of the East, notably the metropolitan bishops of Constantinople and An- tioch, were followers of Arius, and hence were the determined opponents of the bishop of Rome. Limiting the empire of Rome to the ]Vcstcni Empire, the bishop of Rome had now become in reality the chief bishop of the empire. And since the Eastern Empire, which represented at its best, but an effete civilization, was soon to be exposed to the rising power of Mohammedanism, it is easy to see that the bishop who should stand at the head of the churches in the rising and progressive nations of the West, would by the very nature of his posi- tion establish himself with an authority greater than that of the bishops of the East, who had been wont to regard themselves as the equals of the bishops of Rome. Thus the way was fully opened for the further elevation of the bishop of Rome to be the head of the rising church of the West, and to wield an influence and authority commensurate with the increase of the Western nations and the development of their civilization, II CHAPTER XIIL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMACY, 1"^HE claim that the bishop of Rome was greater than other bishops because of the position of Rome as the metropohs, was put forth at times by ambitious prelates who held the bishopric of that city. This right was as often denied them by the bishops of the other great cities of the empire. At the Council of Nicea (a. d. 325), the expression, *' QiLod ccclesia Romana semper Jiabtiit priiiiatimi,'' was cunningly inserted by an adherent of Rome in the record of the council. At a later period, at the council of Chalcedon (a. d. 451), when the legate from the church at Rome read the canon in which this forged article had been inserted, the council protested against this usurpation of power by the Roman legate, and producing a true copy, declared the other to be a forgery. It must be borne in mind that at this time the question of the primacy of the bishop of Rome was but a question. Roman supremacy was then in a formative period. A council held at one place would favor the elevation of the bishop of Rome, and another council held in another place would [>54] DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMACY. 1$$' oppose it. The bishops of the West would gen- erally sustain the bishop of Rome, while the bishops of the Ea.st would not. The preponderance of bishops from the East or from the West in a coun- cil decided whether the council would favor the primacy of the bishop of Rome or not. The council of Sardica (a. d. 343) granted to the bishop of Rome superior jurisdiction over the bishops, in that it provided that in case a bishop who had been deposed should desire another trial, application therefor had to be made to the bishop of Rome. Even at this time the bishop of Rome had no more right to convoke a council than had any other bishop of the metropolitan sees. It was probably owing to the rivalry existing among these primates that the emperors convoked the councils, and sometimes, as in the case of the Council of Nicea, the emperor himself presided. The action of the council of Sardica above referred to, was accepted by only a portion of the bishops present ; the Eastern bishops protested, and leaving the council in a body, held their session in the neigh- boring city of Philippopolis. Innocent I, bishop of Rome from A. d. 402-417, endeavored to attach a stronger meaning to the decision of the council of Sardica than it would bear, by claiming a right of authority in all ques- tions pertaining to the church ; and at the council of Ephesus (a. d. 431) the legates which were sent to that council from Rome, boldly asserted that the 156 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. bishop of Rome was the head of all the churches, and that Peter in the person of the bishop of Rome could bind and loose ! The first bishop of Rome who gained anything of authority such as the later popes of Rome pos- sessed, was Leo I (a. d. 440-461). He put forth the most extravagant claims for his authority, and went to work in every way possible to make his claims good. Many bishops who had not before acknowledged the authority of the Roman See, sub- mitted to him. Among those who thus submitted were the bishops of Africa, Spain, and Illyria. Meeting much opposition from the bishop of Aries, he obtained a decree from Valentinian, emperor of the West, subjecting all the bishops of the Western Empire to his authority. Thus the civil head of Western Rome gave to the bishop of Rome what he had so long desired. For a hundred and fifty years after this signal victory for the bishops of Rome, the papal chair was occupied by men, who, while generally claim- ing all that Leo had claimed, had not his force of character. For this reason the pretensions of the bishops of Rome gained little during this period, the bishops of the East refusing to regard the bishop of Rome as having any more authority than they themselves possessed. In the course of time, however, the Roman pontiff gained the same help from the emperor of the East that had been ob- tained from the emperor of the West. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMACY. I 5/ Justinian, the Eastern emperor, was inclined to meddle very much in the affairs of the church. He wrote much on all kinds of religious subjects, and enforced his opinions by law. Whatever he did not believe, he held to be rank heresy. As might be expected, the bishops of the East, who did not endorse all of his views, were promptly de- posed from their sees. Among those thus deposed was Eutychius, the patriarch of Constantinople. The bishop of Rome, removed from Constantinople by so great a distance, was not so formidable a rival to Justinian as were the bishops of the East; hence it was probably a desire to humiliate the Eastern bishops which led Justinian to decree the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. This he did in the year 533. Not content with simply issuing this decree, he determined to show the bishop of Rome a more substantial favor. For some years Italy had been under the control of the Ostrogoths, a warlike tribe, who, although profess- ing the Christian faith, were believers in what was called by the bishop of Rome the " Arian heresy." Their presence in Italy, and especially in Rome, was a standing menace to the bishop of Rome, and the supremacy which at that time he was seeking. The invasion of Italy was therefore or- dered by Justinian, and his most famous general, Belisarius, took command of the army. The cam- paign was successful. The Ostrogoths were ex- pelled from Rome, and the bishop of that city 158 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. was left free, at least in the West, to enjoy that authority which he coveted. This occurred in 538. Nothing can be plainer than that if all the bish- ops were already acknowledging the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, there would have been no necessity for a decree from an emperor making him supreme. And after this decree was issued, the- bishops of the East, who had shown small respect for the emperor's opinions in their controversies with him, paid as little attention to this decree in favor of the bishop of Rome. At this very time the bishop of Rome and the patriarch of Con- stantinople did not communicate with each other, except by hurling at each other denunciations and excommunications.^ So the bishop of Rome, after this decree was made, could not exercise the power thus granted except over the bishops of the West, and this he had done before, except over the Arian bishops. Indeed the bishops and patriarchs of the East never have acknowledged the supremacy of the popes, and their antagonism finally led, in the elev- enth century, to the permanent division of the church. Hence three of the five patriarchs, — the bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople, — who once composed a kind of an oligarchy in the church, when this last step in the race toward a universal primacy had been taken, and the bishop of Rome made an effort to hold what Justinian had pretended to give, refused to yield, and to this day the church which they represented has refused to 1 See Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. xiii, p. 796. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMACY. I 59 acknowledge the authority of the popes of Rome, though often urged to do so. While the bishops of Rome generally were for- ward to claim full authority over all the churches, it is worthy of remark that some were too honest to do so. That one of the bishops of Rome took strong ground against the idea of a primate in the church is evident from the course pursued by Gregory I, commonly called Gregory the Great. This prelate was chosen bishop of Rome by the clergy and the people of Rome, and his election was confirmed by the Emperor Maurice, A. D. 590. Soon after his election, as was customary in those days, the new bishop drew up a confession of faith, which he sent to those who held positions in their respective sees similar to that which he held in Rome, all the difference between them being, that they were called patriarchs and he pope. It must be remembered, however, that at that time a pope was only pope over the See of Rome, the title having a local designation, and no reference to any other church. His declaration was addressed to the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jeru- salem. In this document, referring to the first four councils, he said : "Whoever presumes to loosen the persons whom the councils have bound, or to bind those whom the councils have loosed, de- stroys himself and not them." It would appear from this that Gregory regarded the power to bind l6o THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. and loose as existing in the whole body of the church as represented in the councils, and not in himself, or any other bishop. That he held this opinion is fully proved by his contention with John, patriarch of Constantinople. This prelate, who was the contemporary of Greg- ory, assumed, in the year 595 a. d. , the title of ecu- menical, or universal bishop. Since the authority of the bishops had been regulated by the size and importance of their respective sees, and since Con- stantinople was at this time the actual capital of the entire Roman Empire, — the empire of the West having fallen in 476, — it is not surprising that the primate of Constantinople, seeing the natural trend of the church toward the idea of a central head, and desirous to secure that place himself, should put forth the claim that he, as bishop of Constantinople, should be the head of the church. But John found a sturdy opponent to his claim in Gregory. It is a remarkable fact that Gregory, the bishop of Rome, in combating the claim of the universal primacy put forth by John, did not hold that he (Gregory) was the true pos- sessor of that title and authority; but he denied the right of John to that title on the broad ground that there was no primacy in the church. He styled this assumption of John as ' ' proud, heret- ical, blasphemous, antichristian, and diabolical." He thus addressed the bishop of Constantinople : "Whom do you imitate in assuming that arrogant DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMACY. l6l title ? whom but him who, swelled with pride, ex- alted himself above so many legions of angels, his equals, that he might be subject to none, and all might be subject to him?" It is clear from the above statement that Greg- ory recognized an equality in the church, or at least among the higher bishops, and that the eleva- tion of any of these above his fellows, he thought would be an act similar to that of Satan, who ex- alted himself above the angels of God. Thus we have the testimony of a bishop of Rome as late as the latter part of the sixth century, that there was in the church at that time a spirit of self-exalta- tion exactly like that which Paul had predicted, when he said that there would arise a blasphemous power, sitting in the temple of God, and usurping the place which only can be filled by the Deity. (See 2 Thess. 2 -.4.) In his contention with John, Gregory further said : "The apostle Peter was the first member of the universal church. As for Paul, Andrew, and John, they were only the heads of a particular congregation ; but all were members of the church under one head, and none would be called universal. If none of the apostles would be called universal, what will you answer on the last day to Christ the Head of the church universal ? you who, by arrogating that name (universal bishop), strive to subject all his members to your- self . But this is the time which Christ himself foretold ; the earth is* now laid waste and destroyed 1 62 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. with the plague and the sword ; all things that have been predicted have now been accomplished ; the king of pride, that is antichrist, is at hand ; and I dread to say an army of priests is ready to receive him ; for they who were chosen to point out to others the way of humility and meekness, are themselves now become the slaves of pride and ambition." ^ According to this statement of Gregory's, whoso- ever should assume the title of universal bishop, would be preparing the way for antichrist, — a pre- diction which, like that of the high priest of the Jews concerning Christ, came to pass, but not in the way which he anticipated. It may also be seen by this statement of Gregory's that the idea that Peter was greater than the other apostles had gained credence in the church, though Gregory did not seem to see in it a basis for Peter's supremacy or the supremacy of any one else. His statement that Paul was less than Peter, squarely contradicts the words of Paul himself. 2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11; Gal. 2:11. One of the means resorted to for the purpose of sustaining the Papal See, was the use of false docu- ments, which were represented as having been writ- ten by early bishops of the church at Rome. As these bishops had been in no way superior in authority to the bishops of some other cities, later Roman bishops who claimed superiority, were confronted with this fact whenever they put forth claims of ^ Mc Clintock and Strong, Vol. iii, art. Gregory. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMACY. 1 63 supremacy. It therefore appeared to some very zealous champions of the Roman pontificate, that this lack of early authority should be supplied, and that it was not yet too late to do it by documents for v/hich a great antiquity would be claimed. That this should be done, is not very remarkable, when we rem.ember that those ages were very prolific in false epistles, ascribed to Barnabas, Ignatius, Irenseus, and others. In harmony with this custom, one Autgar, archbishop of Mainz, interested himself to supply the deficiency of evi- dence that the early bishops of Rome claimed to exercise supremacy over the whole church. Autgar lived and officiated in his office a few years before Nicholas I was pope of Rome, and in some way these forged letters came into Nicholas's hands. Nicholas, who was one of the most aggressive, and at the same time most unscrupulous bishops of Rome who assisted in the formation of the papacy and its growth in power, was pope from 858- '^6'] . He asserted his authority with considerable success in the East, and in his efforts in the same direction in the West, he did not hesitate to use the means Autgar had provided, and which, in that credulous age, were very successful. Becoming involved in a dispute with Hincmar, the metropoli- tan of Rheims, who resisted his authority, Nicholas brought forth for the first time some dusty manu- scripts, of doubtful age and origin, which he claimed had been written by the popes of Rome of past 164 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. ages, and which filled an otherwise great gap in the papal claim for the supremacy of the See of Rome. These manuscripts are known in history as the " Isidorian Decretals," since they purported to be a collection made by Isidore, bishop of Seville, an ecclesiastic of the seventh century. " When some doubt was raised as to the genuineness of the col- lection, Nicholas did not scruple to assure Hincmar that the originals had been lying from time imme- morial in the Roman archives."^ Nicholas, having used these forged decretals successfully with Hinc- mar, they became a strong weapon with succeeding popes, who used them to cause all other bishops to submit to the Papal See. Of the absolutely spurious character of these decretals, the following testimony is to the point : — * ' Decretals, False, otherwise called the Pseudo- Isidorian Canons, — the name of one of the most remarkable literary forgeries of which we have any record. It designates a collection of papal letters, canons, etc. , partly genuine, but mostly spurious. The name of the author is unknown, but they are ascribed in the preface to one Isidorus Mercator (or, according to some MSS. , Peccator), and hence they were long believed to be the work of St. Isi- dore of Seville, who died April 4, 636. Between Clement (died 100 [i^] A. d.) and Siricius (384-398 A. D.), there are one hundred forged decretals, with some interspersed later. The forgery was perpe- trated by Autgar, archbishop of Mainz (826-847 1 Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. xix, art. Popedom, p. 496„ DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMACY. 1 65 A. D.). The cheat was demonstrated by the Mag- deburg centuriators (15 59-1 574 a. d.). Their spu- riousness was first established by German Prot- estant critics in the sixteenth century, and is now admitted by all Roman Catholic writers. It ap- pears to have been the object of the author of this great fraud, to assist in freeing the church from secular domination."^ These forged decretals, which supplied the miss- ing links of the papal theory of a continuous authority of the Roman bishops over the church during the second, third, and fourth centuries, served their purpose for many centuries before the imposture was discovered. Indeed, at that time there was little tendency in the West to dispute whatever extravagant pretensions the bishops of Rome might put forth. It is not positively known that any of the popes inspired this forgery, but it is certain that several of them took advantage of it further to augment their own powers, and that they were eminently successful in so doing. It is a remarkable fact, which may well startle a philoso- pher, that ideas once fastened upon an ignorant and credulous people, survive in their descendants after they have themselves fully repudiated the tricks by which the imposture was perpetrated upon their ancestors. Thus intelligent Catholics, who now acknowledge the decretals to have been a shrewd forgery, still cling to the very doctrine which that forgery was designed to promote ! ^Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia, Vol. ii, p. 404. CHAPTER XIV. THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH. THE division of the Roman Empire in the year 364, between Valentinian and his brother Va- lens, had, as we have seen, paved the way for the pretensions of the bishops of Rome, and also for the denial of the authority of the bishops of Rome by the Eastern bishops. When the empire was di- vided, three out of the five metropolitan bishoprics, — Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople, — were in the Eastern Empire. The fourth, Alexandria, was in Africa. The churches of Africa, which had submitted to Eeo, bishop of Rome, having em- braced the Arian faith, refused to acknowledge the authority of the bishop of Rome ; and so, to carry out the decree of Justinian issued in 533, Belisarius was sent into Africa in the year 534, and by the entire destruction of the Vandal kingdom, the churches of Africa, or what was left of them, bowed the neck to Rome. All this did not affect the bishops of the East. They would not accept the authority of the bishop of Rome. The differences between the Eastern and Western Churches involved the question of the supremacy of [166] Sup. of Peter. 12 A Russian Metropolitan Bishop. THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH. 1 6/ the bishop of Rome, as well as various theological differences. Granting that there were some differ- ences of doctrine, especially in regard to the use of images, if the Eastern bishops had regarded the pope of Rome as the head of the church and infal- lible, assuredly they would have accepted his au- thority, and there would have been no schism in the body, nor any division of the church at that time. They did not acknowledge this authority, and the patriarchs of the East always resisted the idea of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. Oc- casionally one bishop of the Eastern Church might be found who would favor the pope's pretensions, but the majority of them never did ; and the millions of the Russian Greek Christians are a living at- testation of the truth that the pope could make only a portion of the church believe that in him was vested a power that other bishops did not possess. The dispute in the church over the question of the supremacy, began with the first assumptions of the bishops of Rome to sole control, and the breach widened as these pretensions were more diligently pressed. There were many mutual excommunica- tions until, at last, in the year 1054, Leo IX, bishop of Rome, placed an excommunication upon the whole Eastern Church, which has never been re- moved ; but as far as can be seen, no particular harm has come to that church in consequence of it. The Eastern Church has always strenuously main- 1 68 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. tained the equality of the metropoHtan bishops, to which order the bishop of Rome had belonged. Later, in 1277, Paloeologus, emperor of the East, entered into a political union with the reigning pope, acknowledging his supremacy, that the pope might uphold him as the emperor ; but this ar- rangement, not being supported by the Eastern bishops, only lasted during the lifetime of that emperor. Really, neither this emperor, nor any other emperor, had any right to say who should be the head of the church, or who should hold any office therein. The question of the relation of the Church of Rome to the Greek, or Eastern Church, has re- ceived a fresh investiture of interest in our day from the late encyclical of the present pope, Leo XIII, to that church. Leo XIII, who intensely de- sires to reunite Christendom, has in his official capacity as the recognized head of the Roman Catholic Church, and in his assumed position as the spiritual father of all Christendom, issued encyc- licals directed both to the great body of Christians known as Protestants, whom he addresses as "separated brethren" instead of heretics as his predecessors have done, and to the Greek Church. These encyclicals plead for reunion, but only upon the ground that confession shall be made that the Roman Catholic is the true church, that it was and is a sin to depart from it, and that as the first and only basis for union, the authority of the pope of THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH. 1 69 Rome as the successor of St. Peter, and the head of the church, must be recognized. The letter of Leo XIII to the Greek Church was issued in Juty, 1894. As might be expected, it has drawn out a reply from the prelates of the Greek Church. This reply, which is signed by thirteen prelates, or " hierarchs, " is entitled, "A Patri- archal and Synodical Encyclical Letter to the most Sacred and God-Beloved Metropolitans and Bish- ops, and Brethren in Christ ; and to the sacred and reverend clergy under them ; and to the entire pious and orthodox community of the most Hol}^ Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Constanti- nople." It will be seen by this that, although this letter is a reply to the letter of the pope, it is not addressed to the pope, who is apparently ignored, but to the clergy and people of the Greek Church itself. The letter begins by a reference to the "arrogant pretentiousness" of the bishops of Rome, and of the endeavor of the present pope to achieve a union of Christendom " by a recognition of himself as chief pontiff and supreme spiritual and temporal ruler." The prelates express themselves as also desirous for reunion, but they lay down the following conditions as necessary steps toward such a union : — " For the realization of the pious desire of the reunion of the churches, it is necessary, first of all things, to define some common principle and basis. And such secure, common principle and basis can I/O THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. be none other than the teaching of the gospel and of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils. When, therefore, we refer to that teaching, which re- mained common to the church both of the East and the West up to the time of their separation, it is incumbent on us to inquire, with a sincere wish to comprehend the truth, what it was that the en- tire body of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ throughout East and West be- lieved at that time ; and to that belief, entire and unaltered, we must hold fast. And whatever else has been added or subtracted in later times, it is the sacred and indispensable duty of every one, if he sincerely seeks the glory of God rather than his own glory, to set it aright, in a spirit of piety ; remembering that, if he proudly persist in the per- version of truth, he incurs a heavy responsibility before the impartial judgment-seat of Christ." Following this, the letter refers to the ' ' danger- ous innovations " which the bishop of Rome and his followers had introduced, which were not known or recognized by the early church, and describes many of them. Of the question of the supremacy of Peter and of the bishops of Rome as his pretended successors, these modern repre- sentatives of the ancient bishoprics of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople, have this to say : — "Overlooking, however, these material and weighty differences in the belief of the two churches, — differences created, as we have seen, THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH. I7I in the West, — his [Pope Leo XIII] beatitude represents in his encychcal that the question of the supremacy of the Roman bishops is the decisive and only cause of discord, and refers us to original sources wherein to seek what it was that our fore- fathers thought thereof, and what was the tradi- tion of early Christianity. But when we do refer back to the fathers and to the ecumenical councils of the first nine centuries, we find that the bishop of Rome was never regarded as the supreme au- thority or as the infallible head of the church ; but that every bishop was the head and president of his own particular church, subject only to synodical decrees and to the decisions of the church at large, which alone is infallible. From this rule the bishop of Rome was in no wise exempted, as ec- clesiastical history shows, since the sole Eternal Chief and the Immortal Head of the church is our Lord Jesus Christ ; for ' he is the head of the body of the church ; ' he who has said to his divine disciples and apostles at the ascension into heaven, ' And, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. ' Peter, whom the papists, basing themselves on the apocryphal pseudo-Clem- entines of the second century, have purposely im- agined to have been the founder of the Roman Church and its first bishop, — Peter is seen in Scripture discussing as an equal with equals in the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem. On another oc- casion he is bitterly rebuked by Paul, as it is mani- 1/2 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. fest in the Epistle to the Galatians. The very gospel text to which the Roman pontiff refers, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,' was interpreted during the early ages of the church, both by the tradition and by all the divine and sacred fathers without exception, — as the papists themselves well know, — in an entirely different manner, and in an orthodox spirit ; the immovable fundamental rock on which the Lord built his church, and against which the gates of hell should not prevail, was understood metaphor- ically to signify the right confession which Peter had made concerning the Lord : ' Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this confession of faith rests firmly the saving message of gospel preached by all the apostles and their successors. Therefore, the heaven-soaring apostle Paul refers manifestly to this divine sentence when he declares by divine inspiration : ' According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master- builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.' In another sense, again, he designates all the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the spiritual advancement of the faithful in Christ ; namely, the members of the body of Christ, * which is the church ; ' saying to the Ephesians : ' Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH. 1/3 but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God ; and are built upon the founda- tion of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.' Such being the inspired teaching of the apostles touching the foundation and the head of the church of God, it is but natural that the divine fathers, who hold fast to the apostolic traditions, should neither entertain nor conceive any idea of an absolute supremacy, either in the apostle Peter or in the bishops of Rome ; nor could they attribute to the gpspel text in question an interpretation wholly foreign to the church, but only the true and orthodox one. They could not invent, arbitrarily and of their own will, the novel doctrine of an overbearing supremacy of the Roman bishop as a pretended successor to Peter ; and this, notwithstanding that the Church of Rome was founded properly not by Peter, of whose apostolic activity in Rome, history knows nothing, but through the disciples of the heaven- soaring apostle of the Gentiles, Paul, whose apos- tolic ministry in Rome is, besides, clear to all." Following this, the letter asserts that the early bishops of Rome were subject to the decisions of the councils ; and it further describes the way in which the authority of the bishop of Rome had been advanced, and the contentions which this advance had aroused in this vigorous language : — ' ' The early seeds of those absolutist pretensions of the papacy were sown in the pseudo-Clemen- 174 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. tines ; but they were matured exactly at this time of Nicholas [I], in the so-called Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, which are a mass of spurious and coun- terfeit royal ordinances and letters of ancient bish- ops of Rome, whereby, contrary to all historic truth and to the established government of the church, it was purposely put forth that primitive Christi- anity accorded to the bishops of Rome, unbounded authority over the church at large. " It is with sorrow of soul that we recount these facts. For though the papal church now admits the spurious and counterfeit nature of those decre- tals on which her arrogant pretensions are based, yet she refuses stubbornly to return to the canons and decrees of the ecumenical councils ; and on the approach of the end of this nineteenth century, she has even officially proclaimed the bishop of Rome to be infallible — to the amazement of the entire Christian world and to the widening of the ex- isting breach. The Orthodox Eastern and Catho- lic Church of Christ knows of no one infallible but the ineffably incarnated Son and Word of God. Then the Pope Liberius, in the fourth century, sub- scribed an Arian confession ; and likewise Zosimus, in the fifth century, approved of an heretical con- fession denying original sin ; Virgilius, in the sixth century, was condemned by the fifth council for misbelief ; and in the seventh century, Honorius, having fallen into the heresy of the Monothelites, was also condemned by the sixth ecumenical council PATRIARCH OF THE GREEK CHURCH. THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH. 1/5 as a heretic ; and the popes, his successors, acknowl- edged and admitted his condemnation." From these premises the Greek Church prelates conclude that the Church of Rome is '' the church of innovations, of the falsification of the writings of the Fathers, of the misinterpretation both of the Holy Scriptures and of the decrees of the holy councils." The letter closes in a very belligerent manner by the following quotation from Gregory Nazianzen : ' ' Praiseworthy war is far better than a peace that separates us from God. " Taking the whole question of the division of the church into consideration, it is safe to say that this division grew more out of the assumption of power of the Roman bishops than from any other cause, and the Greek, Armenian, and Nestorian churches have been for more than a thousand years a rebuke and a protest against the extravagant pretensions of the bishops of Rome. In the Greek Church, to this day, as in the early church, the independence of the bishops of each other, except as their actions may be brought before a general council, still pre- vails. They remain practically as they were when the bishops of Rome, led away by their wild and wicked schemes of ambition, determined to bring the whole church under one center of power. Leaving the East, though not abating any of her pretensions to rule the Eastern Church, Rome strengthened herself in the West, by gaining con- trol of the vigorous barbarian hordes which broke up 1/6 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. and seized the Western Empire of Rome. She also added many new dogmas to her creed, ending with the dogma of infalhbihty, in 1870. These the Eastern Church has not received, which, as the above statement of the prelates of the Greek Church shows, has constantly widened the breach between them. The Western bishops, who had been accustomed to look to Rome for everything, readily submitting to Rome, became her obedient servants ; and Rome from this time on grew by leaps and bounds, until all Europe was under her control, and all liberty of thought in spiritual mat- ters was crushed under her relentless heel. CHAPTER XV. GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. FROM the time when Rome became fully estab- lished in the West, her history is but a repeti- tion of usurpations claimed and gained until we reach the time of Innocent III, who became pope in 1 198. In all the countries of the West, the power of the popes could not be disputed. Inno- cent III, being one of the ablest and most pious popes (in the sense of a bigoted and morose ful- filment of what he believed to be his duty), was very energetic in carrying out his schemes for the promotion of the welfare of the church. He was not satisfied with simply ruling the chiwch, but he aimed to rule the zvorld as well. To do this, he systematically intrigued in all the political affairs of Europe, excommunicated and deposed those kings or princes who showed any disposition to rule their kingdoms independently of him, and raised others whom he could con- trol, to fill their places. Such was the power which he had over the people, that even the dead could not be buried in countries whose kings would not submit to his authority. He laid down the [177] 178 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. rule still held by all succeeding popes, that ' ' next to God he was to be honored by princes ; that their claim to rule was lost if they failed to serve him ; princes might have power on earth, but the priest had power in heaven ; the claim of princes to rule rested on human might, that of priests on divine ordinance. In short, all the prerogatives which had once attached to emperors were wrested from them, and transferred, with additions, to the popes, "^ It was this pope who ordered the crusades against the Albigenses, in which his bigoted and fanatical adherents sacked the city of Beziers, in France, and put thirty thousand people of every age, sex, and condition, to the sword. He also authorized two very important monastic orders, the Domini- cans and the Franciscans. The first-named order was to extirpate heretics ; the last-named, to teach the doctrines of the church. He made a fruitless effort to induce the patriarch of Constantinople to acknowledge his supremacy ; but the crusade which he ordered, temporarily destroyed the Greek, or Eastern Empire, which gave him the long-desired opportunity to appoint a bishop of that city. He also compelled the Hungarian bishops to yield allegiance to him. The restoration of the Greek Empire, shortly after this, and later, in the year 1453, the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, forever put an end to the power of the popes of Rome over the Christians of Constantinople and 1 Mc Clintock and Strong, Vol. iv, art. Richel, p. 591. GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 1 79 the East. Thus the Mohammedan Turk? acted as protectors of the Greek Church, weakening it, but at the same time preserving it from the rule of the papacy, until in the Russian Greek Church the religion of the Eastern churches which refused to accept the bishop of Rome as their superior and head, assumed a new phase and a more independ- ent and vigorous growth. One of the successors of Innocent III, Boniface VIII, became pope in 1294. Like his predecessor, he took strong ground in favor of the absolute authority of the popes over kings. In a dispute with Philip the Handsome (fili Carissivie) , king of France, this prelate, in his famous bull, Aiisciilta, used the following language, in which the great difference is betrayed between the popes of those ages and the apostle Peter, whose successors they claimed to be. '* Do not, my son, imagine that you are not subject to the hierarch of the church. Whosoever may say so is an infidel. The apostle said, ' Here are two swords ; ' and the Lord did not answer there are too many, but, 'It is enough.' He who denies that the civil sword is in the hand of Peter, disregards the word of the Lord, ' Put away thy sword.' Both swords are given to the church, the spiritual and the civil. One is drawn for the church, the other by the church. The one is in the hand of kings and warriors ; but the latter may use it only as the will of the priests may permit." 13 l80 . THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. In the light of such a statement, how can any one delude himself with the idea that the Catholic Church claims or is content with the spiritual power only ? It has aspired to rule in all things. In how many countries has the Catholic religion been enforced by law ! And who but the priests of Rome secured the adoption of these laws ? In modern times, many of these laws have been modified, but the relics of them still disgrace the jurisprudence of many countries. The efforts of the nations of Europe and of the people of Central and South America to eliminate from their laws the various statutes favoring the Catholic Church, which were fastened upon them in a dark and credulous age, are well known. In the previous quotation from Pope Boniface, everything — supreme lordship over the church and the state — is claimed for the pope of Rome. He rules in spiritual affairs, holding the sword in his own hand ; and he also rules in civil matters through kings and warriors who hold the temporal sword for him ; and they must use it as the pope directs for the extermination of heretics and the propagation of the faith. Thus we see how that, step by step, the popes of Rome augmented their powers, until they placed themselves above kings. It would be an easy task to furnish many illustra- tions of this usurpation of power which may be cited from history, but for the sake of brevity a, few must answer. GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. l8l Innocent III, having engaged in a dispute with John, king of England, in regard to who should be bishop of Norwich, pronounced the king deposed from his throne, and released his subjects from allegiance to him. As John did not immediately yield, the pope called for all Christian kings and barons to invade England, promising those who should engage in this crusade, the remission of their sins. The king of France prepared to carry out this desire of the pope ; and John seeing this, and not having the allegiance of even his own subjects, so much were they under the power of the pope, was compelled to yield, and take the oath of fealty to the Papal See. He also delivered to the papal envoy a charter acknowledging that he surrendered to the pope and to his successors in office, the king- dom of England and Ireland, and that he and his heirs held these kingdoms only as in fief for the papacy, and agreed to pay, as a sign of his submis- sion, an annual tribute to the occupant of the papal chair, a sum amounting to seven hundred marks of silver for England and three hundred for Ireland. This was a small sum, it is true, but it was an acknowledgment and an annual reminder to the king that he held his kingdcwn only by permission of the Papal See. The king of Sicily received his investiture of sovereignty from the pope, and the kings of Aragon and Bavaria also regarded themselves as vassals of the Holy See. The pontificate of Innocent III may 1 82 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. therefore be regarded as the time when all the claims of the papacy to authority and power, which at previous times could not be carried out. had reached a triumphant conclusion and manifest ac- ceptance by the sovereigns of Europe. In short, the pope had risen to a position among the kings similar to that of a king among his feudal barons. As the feudal barons held their estates from the king, on condition of service to him when he should demand it, so the kings of Europe held their king- doms on condition of their readiness to submit to the pope, and turn their arms against whomsoever he thought were dangerous to the interests of the church, whether they were the Saracens of Asia or the heretics of Europe. The crusades, ordered by Urban II, arc an illustration of the former, and the destruction of the Albigenses, by the orders of In- nocent III, of the latter. If a king would not yield to the pope, the pontiff would excite the other rival kings to war against him. Thus Pope Julius II formed a league with Ferdinand of Aragon, Louis XII, of France, and the emperor of Germany, against \^enice. After Venice had been humbled and the same pope be- came afraid of the rising power of France, a " Holy League " was formed, composed of the pope, Henry VIII of England, the king of Aragon, and the king of Venice, against France. This is precisely the same way that the kings used one feudal baron to humble and subdue another. GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 1 83 As an illustration of the power which the popes had over kings and people in those ages, we notice the following fact from German history, which is well known, since it gave Bismarck occasion for one of his famous sayings. We refer to the relations of Pope Gregory VIII with Henry IV, emperor of Germany. Gregory, who is justly celebrated as the greatest of all the popes, had determined to make hiniself the head of all earthly powers. He soon had an opportunity to test his strength with that of the German emperor. Some dignitaries of the church having been engaged in rebellion against the emperor, Henry appealed to the pope to degrade them from their office. This the pope refused to do, and further retorted by demanding of the king that he answer the charges which some of his subjects were making against him. Henry, not being aware to what plenitude of power the bishop of Rome had risen, called a council of German prelates at Worms, in the year 1076, and deposed the pope. The pope retaliated by excommunicating the emperor. Such effect had the pope's sentence on the emperor's subjects, that, in order to retain his position as emperor, he was obliged to submit to the pope. The experience through which he was compelled to pass to make his submission and receive the forgiveness of the pontiff, was of the most humiliating kind. Unlike the father in the parable of the prodigal son, the pope did not run to meet and forgive the humili- 1 84 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. ated king. Henry was obliged to cross the Alps in the midst of winter with no attendants but his wife and child, and a few trusted friends. He hastened to the castle of Canossa, where the pope was stay- ing ; but the haughty pontiff, not willing to admit him to the castle, forced the emperor of Germany to spend three days and nights in the courtyard of the castle, in the winter season, clad only in the coarse shirt of a penitent, before he would relax his attitude of an inexorable judge long enough even to admit the emperor into his presence. Prince Bismarck referred to this event in German history when, in speaking of the encroachments of the papacy and its determined interference in the affairs of Germany, he made the justly celebrated remark, '' Germany is not going to Canossa again." In later times the efforts of popes to humiliate and dethrone sovereigns because they would not hold their kingdoms simply as fiefs of the See of Rome, were not always so successful as were those of Gregory with Henry of Germany. A remarkable instance of this kind, which marks a period of the decline of the power of the popes, may be seen in the attempt of the papacy to control England in the days of Elizabeth. This queen was one of the daughters of Henry VHI. Certainly no one had so good a right to say who should be the ruler of England as the people of England, and in 1 544, by an act of Parliament, Elizabeth was made heir to the throne, conjointly with her brother Edward GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 1 85 and her sister Mary. This act was also in harmony with '(he wish of the king, expressed before his death. True, Edward VI, under the influence of Northumberland, had issued a royal decree pro- claiming Elizabeth illegitimate, but this could not annul the right of the people of England to choose their own sovereign. Edward died in 1553, and consequently upon the death of Mary in 1558, Elizabeth became the only lawful heir, and she accordingly took the throne. Agreeably to the cus- tom of those times, she at once ordered her am- bassador at Rome to inform the pope, Paul IV, of her accession to the throne. Since the pope feared that Elizabeth would not establish and maintain the Roman Catholic religion by law throughout her dominions, he informed the queen's ambassador that she being illegitimate, had no right to rule. It is well known, however, that the popes have never been so conscientious about the reign of those who were born in an illegitimate manner, when they knew that they would favor the pretensions of the See of Rome. The reign of Mary had not been objected to on that ground ; and as Henry VIII had most unjustly put to death Anne Boleyn, his wife, who was succeeded by Jane Seymour, the mother of Mary, Mary herself was just as illegitimate as Elizabeth. Indeed, Edward VI had declared against both Mary and Elizabeth on that ground ; but Mary being a Catholic, the pope did not object to her reign as he did to that l86 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. of Elizabeth. Still the illegitimacy of Elizabeth was the ostensible ground upon which the pope refused to acknowledge her right to the throne. He also demanded that she give up all claim to the throne of England and submit to his decision. Elizabeth refused to allow the pope to decide who should be the sovereign of England, and the English people have, to the present time, with great unanimity sustained her in that decision. Twelve years later, Pope Pius VI by a bull re- leased her subjects from allegiance to her ; but the thunder of the Vatican fell harmlessly upon the queen and upon the island empire, which ever since has stood in the van of the world's progress, and whose sway now extends around the world. The pope, who looked «upon England as a barbarous country which he could quickly bring to terms, cast about to form an alliance against her, as had often been done by the popes under similar circum- stances. He found Philip H of Spain, and the Duke of Parma ready to carry out this project. He therefore promised to give the kingdom of England to Philip, if he would conquer the country and hold it as a fief, or tributary country, to the popes of Rome. Philip immediately prepared to invade England. The pope gave the blessing of St. Peter (.^) to the expedition, and promised to give also a large sum of money. Spain furnished the ships and soldiers necessary for so great an un- dertaking. The object is stated by a contemporary GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 1 8/ historian as being "to serve God, and to return unto his church a great many contrite souls that are oppressed by the heretics, enemies of our holy Catholic faith, which have been subjects of their sects and unhappiness." ^ To carry out this pious purpose of the pope, a great fleet was built, numbering in all 130 ships, armed with 2431 cannon, with an immense amount of ammunition. These ships were manned by 8052 sailors, and they carried about 20,000 soldiers, be- sides many monks and priests. A department of the Holy Inquisition accompanied the expedition, so that nothing should be omitted for the conversion of England to the Catholic faith. Twelve of these ships bore the names of the twelve apostles. In short, it was a com.plete missionary expedition, after the manner of the papacy of those times. This formidable fleet and army left Lisbon May 29, 1558. Before this fleet and army, which has since been known in history as the "Invincible Armada," started for England, the then reigning pope, Sixtus VI, issued a bull of excommunication against Eliza- beth. The following extract from it will show the pretensions of the popes of that time : "We do, out of the fulness of our apostolic power, declare the aforesaid Elizabeth, being a heretic, and the favorer of heretics, and her adherents in the mat- ter aforesaid, to have incurred the sentence of anathema, and to be cut off from the unity of the ^Encyclopedia Britannica, art. Armada. 1 88 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. body of Christ. And, moreover, we do declare her to be deprived of her pretended title to the king- dom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity, and privilege whatsoever. . . . And we do command and interdict all and every, the noblemen, subjects, people, and others aforesaid, that they presume not to obey her monitions, mandates, and laws ; and those that shall do the contrary, we do strike with the like sentence of anathema."^ The end of this pope-blessed attempt to subju- gate England is well known. It afforded one of the most tragic events of history. No greater ex- pedition had at that time ever sailed, and none ever experienced a more disastrous failure. After some measure of ill fortune, by reason of storms, the Armada arrived in the English Channel. Eliza- beth and her people were aware of the issuing of the pope's bull and of the preparation and inten- tion of this hostile array, but both she and her subjects rose to the gravity of the occasion, by preparing to defend their rights against this semi- religious crusade. With a fleet much inferior in numbers, the English under Hawkins, Drake, Fro- bisher, Howard, and Byron attacked the Armada and completely defeated it. Fire ships were also used by the English with great success, and the Spanish fleet soon became entirely demoralized. Even the "twelve apostles" failed to make any impression upon the English ships. After being chased up and down the channel for a few days, 1" History of Protestantism," Vol. iii, chap. i6. ,1PPI#P'^»/ iiimr' ■'' WiimM///////m/////iiii,wimimiiiim 'llu/ d QUEEN ELIZABETH. GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 1 89 the Spaniards, captains, crews, soldiers, monks, and all became exceedingly anxious to return to Spain ; but fearing again to encounter the English fleet, which held the channel, it was resolved to return by going around Scotland. Terrible storms arising, the ships of the Armada were sunk or dashed against the rocks. The shores of Norway, Ireland, and Scotland were strewn with the wreckage of the Armada ; and many of the unfortunate sailors who escaped the perils of the sea and got to land, were either killed by the people, or were executed by the orders of the lord deputy of Ireland. Only a few vessels with their crews returned to Spain from this ill-starred expedition. Thus the plan to subjugate England to the papacy, was a most disastrous failure. To add to the mortification of Philip, the pope, disgusted at the failure of the expedition upon which he had wasted his pontifical blessing, refused to pay the sum of money which he had agreed to give, so the king of Spain was obliged to bear the whole expense of the expedition out of his own cof- fers. Since that time Spain has steadily declined in power. Of her once vast possessions in North and South America, she retains nothing. Porto Rico and Cuba, the "ever faithful isle," as it has been called, are all the lands that remain on this side of the Atlantic under the Spanish flag ; and the inhabitants of Cuba are at this time engaged in a rebellion and war against Spain for their independ- 190 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. ence, which has every appearance, sooner or later, of being successful. To-day Spain, once one of the greatest kingdoms of Europe, presents the sad- dest spectacle of national decadence in the world. She has had enlightened kings who have striven to improve her condition, but the influence of the Catholic Church, to which her people are thoroughly devoted, has stifled all progress. No nation can advance unless its people are free, — free in religion as well as in civil affairs. Bound by priestly chains and with a medieval union of the church and state, there is no freedom nor progress in Spain. Her people glory in their Catholicit}', or as the historian Buckley declared, ''They are proud of all that they ought to be ashamed of." Contrast the pres- ent condition of Spain with that of England. In the time of Elizabeth, when Philip of Spain and the pope made their fruitless attempt to seize the country in the interests of the papacy, England was regarded as a barbarous and weak power ; but since then England has risen to the front rank of nations. Her language, spoken by only about four million people in the time of Elizabeth, is now spoken by one hundred and fifteen million people ; she has become the great colonizer and civilizer of the world, and the empire of the sea has long been under her control. The efforts of some Catholic theologians to dis- tort the words of Christ found in Luke 22 : 38 to make them justify the use of the sword by the GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. I9I church, is deserving of notice. The whole circum- stance and all the words of Christ in reference to the matter furnish the strongest kind of proof that the church is not to use the sword at all for the propagation of the faith. There is not the least evidence that the two swords were symbols of spiritual and civil power. It is all a gratuitous assumption. The probability is that Christ's refer- ence to the sword as a means of preparation for the future work of his disciples was purely figura- tive. Now that he was about to be crucified, the burden of the work was to fall upon his disciples. A warfare was before them, and they must be ready to engage in it. It is not at all likely that he intended that his disciples, as they went out to preach of peace and love, should actually carry swords ; nor have we any reason to believe that they ever did so. They were to be sent out as lambs among wolves, not as wolves among lambs, or as wolves among other wolves. That the gospel should be enforced by the sword is contrary to the whole spirit of Christianity. That the disciples at that time understood him as meaning real swords is not strange ; for they were very liable to misapprehend the spiritual truths which he taught. One of them said, ' ' Behold, here are two swords." Said Jesus, *'It is enough." Now if it were right to enforce the gospel by the power of the sword, two swords would not be enough, for every believer would need a sword. 14 192 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. Peter, naturally a ver}^ bellicose man, had evidently carried a sword, as was customary in that day and country, perhaps as a means of defense against robbers, or to be used in setting up the kingdom, which he supposed that Christ was soon to estab- lish. There were but two swords in the hands of all the disciples ; only one of these was in the hands of Peter. So, if one sword represents the spiritual power and the other the civil, Peter could have only one of these powers given to him, and some one of the other disciples had the other ! Peter was the only one who ventured to use his weapon, and he was rebuked for using it. Evi- dently, some of the apostles were still depending upon carnal weapons ; and this experience was a necessary lesson for them and for future genera- tions. It looks as though Peter was permitted to carry a sword until this time, when the evil of depending upon a sword was declared to be wrong, in an unmistakable manner. Surely, if ever a Christian would be justified in drawing a sword, it was when Christ, the head of the church, was in danger of losing his life. But no sooner had the overzealous Peter used his sword than his divine Master showed the difference between Peter's idea of how the gospel work was to be carried on and his own, by healing the wound made by Peter's stroke. He then said to Peter, ' ' Put up again thy sword into his place : for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Matt. 26 : 52. GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 1 93 In view of this plain statement how can any one claim the right of the church to advance the gospel by the use of the sword, or that which the sword here stands for, — the civil power? The apostle Paul has left us something upon this point which is worthy of being inserted here : ' ' For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong- holds." 2 Cor. 10: 3, 4. Christ's statement that ' ' all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword," must apply universally. The papacy has used and justified the use of the sword for the ex- altation of itself. It has also, to some extent at least, experienced the curse of it. CHAPTER XVL THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. I^HE *' temporal power of the pope" is an ex- pression which has a variety of meanings. It may apply to the authority which he claims over the temporal affairs of kingdoms. In past ages this authority was acknowledged by many kings ; indeed it was customary, during the Middle Ages, for a king upon his accession to the throne to take an oath that he would protect and defend the Roman pontiff, which was a kind of an acknowledg- ment that he held his kingdom in a feudatory rela- tion to the Holy See. This temporal authority grew out of the spiritual authority which the pope claims over all Catholic kingdoms, whose monarchs were supposed to profess the Catholic religion. This temporal authority was of two kinds. ([) Spiritual censures, and (2) actual coercion by means of threats of excommunication and the pains of hell, the release of the subjects of a sov- ereign from their allegiance and obedience to him, and also by the armed force of the pope and of other kings, who by similar means could be incited to recognize and obey his mandates. All these means were used with great effect for hundreds of years. [194] THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 1 95 The temporal authority growing out of the spir- itual power of the pope, is the most dangerous form of the temporal power, and is well described in the following language by an English author : — ' ' Popery creates an impeinuni in iinperio, and herein is one great evil of it. It gives to a poten- tate out of the state, and uncontrolled by it, a power over the state and the subjects of it ; a power the stronger as it is riveted on its victims with all the sanction of a false religion. ** Much stress is sometimes laid upon the temporal power of the pope, — a power which he exercises in some of the Italian states, which he has as- sumed also over the territories of princes, which many Romish writers ascribe to him, and which has never been renounced by sufficient authority. " I confess, however, that I am not so anxious as to his direct temporal power as I am as to his spir- itual power exercised over temporal matters. If any foreign temporal prince should wage war with us, — should lay claim to the throne of these do- minions, or interfere with our domestic policy and arrangements, — we could, relying on the God of battles, bid him bold defiance. Our armies would again go forth victorious by land, and our fleets triumphant on the deep. "It is the spiritual tyrant whom most we dread; against those aggressions it is most difficult to guard. A tyrant whom no walls can keep out, — against whom no armaments can protect ; whose silent, 196 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. secret influence prostrates the will of its submissive victims before it ; sows division within the camp ; and gains victory almost before its approach is known. It eludes the grasp of power. Armies and navies in vain oppose it. It overleaps the lofti- est battlements ; it penetrates the most secret re- cesses ; it presents itself at the council table, and in the cabinets of princes. Attacking everything, yet itself eluding the grasp of all, it seems to resem- ble the lot of the wandering Arab, whose hand is against every man, and every man's hand against him. One armor there is which can withstand it : it is the helmet of salvation and the shield of faith. One weapon there is which alone can hew it down : it is the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." ^ The question of the rightfulness of the pope's temporal power has been often discussed by Catho- lic writers, and various opinions have been advanced by them. The opinion of the extreme Catholics, known as the " Ultramontanes," is that the "two swords," referred to in Luke 23 : 38, are indicative of the union in the church of the spiritual and the temporal power. The liberal Catholics disclaim this view, and in 1862 the Gallican bishops united in a strong declaration against it. As the argument upon the two swords has already been referred to in the previous chapter of this book, it will not be necessary to notice it again. Moreover, it is not ^ "The Vatican and St. James," by James Lord, pp. 28, 29. THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 1 9/ necessary to enter into a lengthy discussion in re- gard to the rightfulness of this kind of power ; for in its whole conception and scope it is opposed to the principles of the gospel taught by Jesus Christ. Christ's kingdom is not of this world. It is not advanced by worldly methods. Every system of pretended Christianity which depends to any extent upon the support of the civil power for its au- thority, support, or extension, manifests by its union with, and dependence upon, these things that it has departed from true Christian principles, and brands itself as an apostate church. This is true whether applied to a direct and acknowledged union of the church with the state for mutual dependence and support, or to the tacit acknowl- edgment by the church of the help of the state to enforce obedience to those things which are, or are supposed to be, of a peculiarly Christian origin. The founder of Christianity laid down no rules for the government of states. That question is not within the province of Christianity. Chris- tianity is a power which saves men from sin ; it relates to men in their individual relation to God. Christianity, salvation, is not offered to nations or states in the aggregate ; nor does Christianity seek to control the state through the church. A wrong conception of the relations which the church and the state sustain toward each other, led, in the fourth century, to a union of the church with the 198 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. state, which degraded the state and debauched the church. True Christianity appeals to no power but that of love, to move men to obey the gospel, and warns the impenitent sinner of no punishment inflicted in this world and in this life by the civil laws. Said Jesus, "And if any man hear my words, and be- lieve not, I judge him not : for I came not to judge [condemn] the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him : the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:47, 48- Condemnation for disobedience to Christ is not to be pronounced by men. The words which Christ spoke while here on earth, and which are recorded for the world, will do that on the last day. For men to attempt to forestall the judgments of God, and to inflict temporal punish- ments for sin, is to usurp the place of God. Very properly, then, the great apostasy in the church is foretold by Paul as usurping the place of God, sitting in his temple, and representing itself to be God. 2 Thess. 2:3,4. The deferring of the judgments of God for the punishment of sin until the last day, does not abate the right of the state to punish for acts of incivility; but a careful discrimination should be made be- tween those offenses which come within the cog- nizance of the state and those which do not. God does not need the state to champion his laws or to THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 1 99 enforce penalties against sin. To state the case with exactness, the state has no right to enforce duties which grow out of man's relation to God. By that act man's liberty to serve God or not to serve him, would be taken away. A service to God constrained by fear of civil punishment, cannot be pleasing to God or beneficial to man. Such restraint may make hypocrites ; it cannot make Christians. The Christian church, in the fourth century, and branches of it since, have thought otherwise. The result has been that states have undertaken to enforce the doctrines of the church by the infliction of civil penalties. This was the cause of the numerous persecutions which have dis- graced the history of so many nations. When the church and the state each confine themselves to their work given severally to them by God, — the one to the preaching of the gospel and the salva- tion of souls, the other to the maintenance of order and civility, — such an anomaly as a temporal power of the church over kings and states, or their union, will not be known. The power of the popes thus to override kings and states brands that church as an apostate church. Besides the temporal power of the popes, of the nature previously described, they also possessed another kind of temporal power. This was the actual possession of certain lands in Italy known as the " States of the Church." Generally speak- ing, when the temporal power of the popes is re- 200 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. ferred to, a kingly authority over this territory is meant, which caused the pope to be considered one of the sovereigns of Europe. The possession of lands by the papacy came through the recognition of its spiritual authority. The actual ownership by the bishops of Rome of large portions of land in and near Rome by gift from Constantine and from other persons devoted to the church, was the first step toward the tem- poral sovereignty of the popes. When the seat of empire was removed from Rome to Constan- tinople, in 330, the absence of the chief civil au- thority from Rome, greatly augmented the power of the bishop of that city, and the municipal affairs of the city of Rome and the surrounding country received a share of his attention. Upon the divi- sion of the empire, Milan became the capital of the Western Empire, and thus the civil authority of the bishop of Rome in the civil affairs of the ancient capital, was rather advanced than checked by the establishment of the Western Empire. The fall of the Western Empire, in 476, marked an important era in the growth of the temporal power of the papacy. From this time on until the papacy attained to full temporal power, the bishop of Rome was elected by the united votes of the clergy, the senate, and the people. His consecra- tion was, however, deferred until the election was sanctioned by the emperor of the East, whose sub- ject the pope was. THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 201 This state of mixed authority continued until 726, when Pope Gregory declared his independence of the Eastern Empire. The popes had now begun to form alliances with the sovereigns of Western Europe, who had seized that portion of the Roman Empire, and whose subjects had quite generally accepted the religion of the Catholic Church. The influence which the pope possessed over all the people of the various petty kingdoms of the West, was recognized by the kings of those countries ; so any king who could secure the favor of the Roman pontiff, by that means armed the very subjects of his rival king against their rightful sovereign. The popes soon learned the value of their services and exacted pay a,ccordingly. An instance of this kind was the cause of the possession by the papacy, of the provinces known as the States of the Church. In the year 726 Leo III became emperor of the East. This mon- arch had a great antipathy to the worship of images, which at that time had become nearl}' universal in the Catholic Church. After having for ten years stifled his natural indignation at such idolatry, he made an attempt to reform the church upon this point. A conclave of bishops and sena- tors, summoned by him, decreed that the images should be placed at such a height that the people could not see them. This action failing to prevent their worship, a second edict prohibited the use of images, and finally, by the emperor's orders, the 202 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. images were broken to pieces throughout the East- ern Empire. Six succeeding emperors imitated Leo's conduct in this respect. His son Constantine convened a council in the year 754, at which were gathered three hundred and thirt3^-eight bishops, who, after a continuous session of six months, de- clared by a unanimous vote that the worship of images was a corruption of Christianity. In this controversy the bishops of Rome were the champions of image-worship, and, of course, bitter feelings arose between the East and the West. At this time the emperor of the East held civil jurisdiction over Rome, so that the popes of Rome were as really the subjects of the emperor as were the people of Constantinople. This, however, did not prevent the popes from conceiving the project of throwing off all allegiance to the em- peror of the East, and joinmg the fortune of the papacy with the rising nations of the West. The heresy (?) of the Eastern emperors in their war against idolatry, furnished the pretext for independ- ence from the civil jurisdiction of the emperors of the East, consequently the kings of the West were soon induced by substantial favors to confirm and sustain this papal claim. Between the years 730 and 732, Italy was vexed by the inroads of the Lombards. They penetrated even to Rome ; but as they were nominally Catho- lics, out of respect for the pontiff the king of the Lombards did not take possession of the city. Be- THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 203 fore this, under cover of respect for the images, which were being attacked by the emperors of the East, they had entrenched themselves in the strong cit}/ of Ravenna. The papacy, which had recently declared itself free from the empire of the East, not being disposed to see another power take possession of Italy, made an appeal to Charles Martei, of France, mayor of the palace and commander of the French army, to dislodge the Lombards from Italy, Pope Stephen III went himself to France to solicit succor against the intruding Lombards, and returned in 754 with a French army. Three times were the Lombards defeated by the French, during a period of twenty years, and the papacy acknowledged with gratitude the assistance of Martei, his son Pepin, and grandson Charlemagne in the defense of Rome against these barbarians. At this time the throne of France was occupied by Childeric, a weak prince who, however, as the descendant of the great Clovis, was justly entitled to the respect and allegiance of his subjects. His fate, however, well illustrates how little the papacy respects constitutional rights when her own interests are involved. Pepin, the son of Charles Martei, had conceived the idea that the services of his father and himself to the state, and especially to the papacy, gave him a better right to the throne of France than that possessed by Childeric, and so he appealed to Pope Zacharias to bestow the crown upon him, and seat him upon the throne of 204 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. France. This the pope consented to do. The people of France were reheved from allegiance to their rightful sovereign, and Pepin took the throne of France by the authority of the pope of Rome. The following is a concise and accurate statement of how it was done. "In 722 Pepin the Short, mayor of the palace to Childeric III, confined the king in a monastery, and seated himself on the throne, by the aid of the pope. Pepin was a man of enormous energy, of great courage, and with a subtle understanding of time and circumstances. He felt that the dire emergencies of the country demanded a vigorous ruler, and he understood that in the eyes of the people the clergy could legitima- tize even a revolution. He consequently induced Pope Zacharias to become a member of the con- spiracy, and Boniface (a later pope) crowned and consecrated him."^ Thus did treason gain the favor of the papacy, and the Merovingian line of kings, which had ruled France for over a century, gave way to the Carlo- vingian line. For such an act there can be no justification. The selfish interests of the pope and the French conspirators were united to over- throw a monarchy, a striking illustration of the in- stability of kings when the desires of the papacy for their removal shall be supplemented with suffi- cient power to effect their overthrow. The help thus afforded by the papacy to Pepin, and doubtless more which was promised, demanded a suitable 1 Johnson's Encyclopedia, Vol. v, p. 364. CHARLEMAGNE. THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 205 return. He who had received a great kingdom through the influence of the papacy, could easily afford to bestow upon the popes the provinces in Italy wrested from the Lombards ; hence that por- tion of Italy which has so long been known as the States of the Church was bestowed by Charle- magne, the son of Pepin, upon the papacy. These provinces embraced an area of 15,289 square miles with a population at that time of 3, 124,668. These rich provinces thus taken possession of by the papacy, were really a portion of the territory of the empire of the East. The fact that the Lom- bards had held them two years did not give the Lombards a right to them, nor did the expulsion of the Lombards by the French give them the right to bestow those lands upon the papacy. Thus the foundation of the tempo.ral power of the papacy, in the most common meaning of that term, was gained by the union of the ecclesiastical power of the popes with the treason of a subject, uniting in an unexampled national fraud. A subject of a king is strengthened in treason and rebellion against his sovereign by the papacy, which receives in return for services rendered in this nefarious scheme, ter- ritory which never belonged to the one who pre- tended to give it ! Does the papacy now complain that her patrimony has been taken from her by the king of Italy, it may be sufficient to remark that what is won by fraud and duplicity is often lost by violence. Such was the origin of the temporal 15 206 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. authority of the papacy, which began in the year 753. Of this gift to the papacy, a well-known historian has said : ' ' The splendid donation was given in supreme and absolute dominion, and the world beheld for the first time a Christian bishop invested with the prerogatives of a temporal prince, — the choice of magistrates, the exercise of jus- tice, the imposition of taxes, and the wealth of the palace of Ravenna."^ Later, Charlemagne is said to have confirmed and enlarged the original grant of Pepin ; but strange as it may seem, no copy of any grant from either of these kings has ever been seen, though its existence has often been challenged, even by Cath- olics. Such an ancient document may repose in the Vatican ; but if so, it is likely to contain ex- pressions which the pope and Catholics would not enjoy seeing published in the newspapers in the latter part of the nineteenth century. How the papacy was able to gain the support of Charlemagne is told by Gibbon in the following interesting manner : — ** Fraud is the resource of weakness and cunning ; and the strong, though ignorant barbarian [Charle- magne] was often entangled in the net of sacerdotal policy. The Vatican and the Lateran [papal pal- aces] were an arsenal and manufacture, which, according to the occasion, have produced or con- cealed a various collection of false or genuine, ol 1" Decline aud Fall of the Roman Empire," Vol. v, p. 32, THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 20/ corrupt or suspicious acts, as they tended to pro- mote the interest of the Roman Church. Before the end of the eighth century, some apostohcal scribe, perhaps the notorious Isidore, composed the decretals and the donation of Constantine — the two magic pillars of the spiritual and temporal power of the popes. This memorable donation was introduced to the world by [pope] Adrian the First, who exhorts Charlemagne to imitate the liberality, and revive the memory of the great Con- stantine. According to the legend, the first of the Christian emperors [Constantine] was healed of the leprosy, and purified in the waters of baptism, by St. Silvester, the Roman bishop ; and never was physician more gloriously recompensed. His royal proselyte withdrew from the seat and patrimony of St. Peter, and declared his resolution of foundmg a new capital in the East ; and restored to the popes the free and perpetual sovereignty of the West. This fiction was productive of the most beneficial results [to the papacy]. The Greek princes were convicted of the guilt of usurpation, and the revolt of Gregory was the claim of his lawful inheritance. . . . The sovereign of Rome no longer depended on the choice of a fickle people ; and the successors of St. Peter and Constantine were invested with the purple and prerogatives of the Caesars. So deep was the ignorance and cre- dulity of the times, that the most absurd of fables was received with equal reverence, in Greece and 208 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. in France, and is still enrolled among the decrees of the canon law. The emperors and the Romans were incapable of discovering a forgery that sub- verted their rights and freedom."^ The possession of these rich provinces, which made the pope a temporal prince, added to the spiritual power wielded by him, and made him the arbiter of the nations of Europe. Ambassadors were now sent from Rome to the different nations, which also sent ambassadors to Rome. Thus the popes became kings in their own country, and at the same time exercised a spiritual authority over the subjects of all the Catholic countries, which could not but lead, as it often did, to conflicts of authority, dissensions, troubles, and wars. The wars between the* emperors and the popes are known in history as the wars of the Guelfs and the Ghibbellines, the former supporting the popes and the latter the emperors. These wars lasted from 1 167—1447, and seventy-eight battles were fought. Indeed, it has been said, "To give a full account of the party quarrels of Guelf and Ghib- bellin would be to write the history of medieval Italy. "^ The popes, however, held all that they had gained, and their temporal authority over the States of the Church continued with no serious interruption until the time of the French Revolution. ^ "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Vol. v, pp. 33-35. ^Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. xi, art. Guelfs and Ghibbellines, Charlemagne Heading a Convocation of His People. CHAPTER XVIL THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND ITS EFFECT UPON THE PAPACY. THE French revolution of 1 789-1 793, may be briefly described as being an effort of the French people to throw off the rule of king, nobles, and priests, and to establish a government of the people. The luxurious and useless lives of the ru- ling class, and the oppressive taxation which the common people were compelled to bear, alienated the latter from the government ; and the idleness, viciousness, and general profligacy of the priests, had the effect to make them contemptible in the eyes of those who had previously looked to them for spiritual direction. Such conditions were very favorable for the spread of skepticism in regard to the truthfulness of the Christian religion ; and as a result, in France, infidelity to a large degree under- mined faith in the Deity ; and to a greater measure, belief in the sacred character of a church which misrepresented the teachings of Christ. The suc- cessful American Revolution setting the example to France, the French Revolution followed, with such excesses of violence as the greater complaints of the [209] 2IO THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. people, the position of France in Europe, her great power and resources, and the mihtary spirit and in- flammatory nature of the French people, led them to commit. As the papacy labored to sustain the king of France and the nobles against the people, it is not strange that there should have arisen in France a strong feeling of resentment against it, which affected even many sincere Catholics. This led directly to one of the most remarkable episodes in the history of the papacy, and to events which for a time seemed to indicate that the whole fabric of error and superstition was about to fall. When the members of the royal family of France were destroyed or driven from the country, and the kings of Europe, who sought to replace the monarchy, had been defeated and forced to retire from the borders of France, the French began to extend their conquests into other countries. Italy seemed especially to invite their entrance. In no other country of Europe, aside from France, did the principles of liberty find a more ready re- ception. Perhaps this was owing to the peculiar position in which the people of Italy were placed. There was no general government ; but it was divided into many petty sovereignties, ruled by dukes, kings, and the pope. The laws were op- pressive, and the people were practically held in a state of slavery by being kept in profound igno- rance. Neither dukes, kings, nor the church cared SCENE TN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. 2 I I for the enlightenment of the people. While other countries were making great advances in knowledge, and education was becoming more generally dif- fused, the stupor of an intellectual death brooded over the land of the Caesars. A modern writer, describing the condition of Italy as it was at the time of the French Revolution, says : ' ' The whole country indeed was so degraded and debased, so sunk in ignorance and superstition, so weakened by artificial divisions, so distracted by local jealousies, that the sentiment of nationality could hardly be said to exist. "^ Among these petty sovereignties, and partaking of their general character, lay the territory known as the States of the Church, the condition of which was in no degree superior to that of the other portions of Italy. The close relation of Austria to Italy, and its ardent championship of the power of the pope, angered the people of France against that country. Austria had also endeavored to stifle the breath of liberty in France, and she therefore was particu- larly obnoxious to the French people. For these reasons it was determined by the latter country to punish her severely for the part she had taken. As several of the dukedoms of Italy were under the Austrian government, an army of French troops commanded by Napoleon Bonaparte, was sent into that country. A brief but skilful campaign entirely destroyed the Austrian power in Italy, and left 1 " Victor Emmanuel," by Edward Dicey, M, A., p. ii. 212 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. France the master of the destinies of Italy. The efforts of the papacy against the repubhc of France were not forgotten ; and the Directory, which was the supreme power in France at that time, deter- mined to punish it also for intermeddling with the affairs of France. After the defeat of the Austrian armies, the following demands were presented to Pope Pius VI, through Napoleon, by order of the Directory: A large contribution of money; the ports of Ancona and Cevita Vecchia to be ceded to France; the independence of some of the provinces, the cession of others to the Milanese, who favored the French cause; the establishment of a secular government for the people of Rome; and last, but not least, the demand was made that the pope should annul the decrees issued by himself against France since the beginning of the revolution, and that he should sanction the seizure by the French government, of the Catholic-Church lands in France. The pope, refusing these terms, prepared for war. He could not really have believed himself able to resist the victorious Army of Italy under its redoubtable general, but he evidently expected to gain the sympathy of Europe by resistance. Among the means used by the pope to arouse the enthusiasm of his people was a large number of pretended miracles. It was hoped by this means to excite the ignorant and superstitious people to resist the French invasion. One instance, recorded by a well-known historian, will show the nature THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. 213 of these pretended prodigies. ' ' A curious piece of priestcraft had been played off in this town [Ancona], to encourage the people to resistance. A miraculous image was seen to shed tears, and the French artists could not discover the mode in which the trick was managed until the image was brought to headquarters, when a glass shrine, by which the illusion was managed, was removed. The madonna was sent back to the church which owned her, but apparently had become reconciled to the foreign visitors, and dried her tears in con- sequence of her interview with Bonaparte. " ^ Not much real resistance was made to the prog- ress of the French troops, which were under the immediate command of Victor, though Napoleon himself directed the campaign. The pope in im- passioned language declared that a new Alaric was invading Rome, and in the names of St. Peter, St. Paul, and the Blessed Virgin called upon his sub- jects to defend him and the patrimony of St. Peter from the impious invader. It was all in vain, how- ever, and the campaign was soon ended by the utter defeat of the papal army, which showed little disposition to fight. At one time three thousand papal troops, occupying a strong position, sur- rendered without firing a shot. The treaty of Tolentino which followed (Feb. 19, 1797), gave to France nearly all she had claimed. Napoleon was too politic a leader to press the pope upon such 1 Scott's "Napoleon," Vol. i, p. 260. 214 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. things as would compromise his position as the rec- ognized head of the Roman CathoHc Church. A further humihation was destined to fall upon the papacy. Napoleon was recalled from Italy to take command of an army which the Directory at that time purposed to send to England, which was afterward sent to Egypt. In the following year, while Napoleon was in Egypt, there was a renewed spirit of republicanism in many of the cities of Italy, which extended to Rome. The principles of the revolution having taken root in that city of priests and monks, those who favored liberty and those who opposed it came frequently into collision. Many people declared that ' ' it was high time that the temporal rule of the Roman states should be transferred from the hands of the ignorant, incapa- ble monks, unacquainted with secular affairs, to those of real citizens, experienced in the business of life and possessing a knowledge of the world." ^ At length the revolution burst out in Rome, and on Dec. 28, 1797, there was a movement in that city in favor of a republic. Those who gathered together for this purpose were attacked and dis- persed by the papal troops. While the two factions were fighting in the city, Joseph Bonaparte, brother of Napoleon, and French ambassador to Rome, endeavored to separate the combatants ; but the papal soldiers, not regarding his high office and most exemplary character, fired upon him, killing 1 Thiers's "French Revolution," Vol. iv, p. 245. £,t\o//JA /. :^^;^ ^:p^^^^W^ GENERAL BERTHIER. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. 215 General Duphot by his side, and Joseph himself narrowly escaped death. He at once demanded his passports, and left for Tuscany. This event caused a tremendous sensation in France and also in the Army of Italy, which at this time was commanded by General Berthier. The Directory commanded Berthier to make an immediate march on Rome. The taking of Rome at that time is thus described by M. Thiers, the French historian. "Great was the joy of all the republicans and partisans of the new French philosophy. On the 22d of Pluviose (Feb. lo, 1798), Berthier came in sight of the ancient capital of the world, which the republican armies had not yet visited. Our soldiers paused for a moment to survey the old and mag- nificent city. The Spanish minister, d'Azara, the usual mediator of the Italian powers with France, hastened to the headquarters to negotiate a conven- tion. The Castle of St. Angelo was delivered up to the French on the natural condition between civilized nations, to respect religion, the public establish- ments, persons, and property. The pope was left in the Vatican, and Berthier, introduced at the Porta di Populo, was conducted to the Capitol, like the Roman generals of old in their triumphs. The democrats, at the summit of their wishes, assem- bled in the Campo Vaccino, in sight of the remains of the ancient Forum, and, surrounded by a sense- less rabble, ready to applaud all new events, pro- claimed the Roman republic. A notary drew up 16 2l6 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. an act by which the populace, calhng itself the Roman people, declared that it resumed its sover^ eignty and constituted itself a republic. The pope had been left alone in the Vatican. Messengers were sent to demand the abdication of his tem- poral sovereignty, for there was no intention of meddling with his spiritual authority. He replied with dignity that he could not divest himself of a property which was not his, but which had devolved on him from the apostles, and was only a deposit in his hands. This logic had little effect upon our republican generals. The pope, treated with the respect due his age, was removed in the night from the Vatican, and conveyed into Tuscany, where he received asylum in a convent. The Roman people seemed to feel little regret for this sovereign who had nevertheless reigned more than twenty years. "^ Later he was sent to Valence, France, where he died in exile. For two years there was no pope. That the pope should seriously claim that the tem- poral power was something that "had devolved upon him from the apostles," when they never had any temporal power to bestow, and when the tem- poral power of the papacy was not obtained before the middle of the eighth century, and then acquired in the manner described in a previous chapter, is a striking illustration of the fact that one may de- ceive himself into believing things which have not the slightest foundation in fact. iThiers's " French Revolution," Vol. iv, p. 246. CHAPTER XVIIL NAPOLEON AND THE PAPACY. WHILE Bonaparte was in Egypt, many reverses befell the French arms. Accounts of these disasters were communicated to him ; and dissat- isfied with the Egyptian campaign, and seeing a greater opportunity for his ambition in France, he returned to that country, where, by a skilful use of his friends, he abolished the Directory, and estab- lished the consular government, with himself as First Consul. Another campaign in Italy soon following, the decisive battle of Marengo placed that country again in the hands of France, or rather of Napoleon, who now represented that nation. Policy inclined Napoleon at this time to relieve the papacy from the humiliation suffered by the loss of the temporal power. The people of France were getting over their infidelity craze; and the pope being the recognized head of the Catholic Church, was regarded as of sufficient importance to be conciliated, especially if by so doing he might be able better to advance the interests of Bona- parte. Napoleon, when in Egypt, had professed a reverence for Mohammed, in order to conciliate thq [217] 2l8 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. Arabs; now he accomplished a similar purpose by assuming a reverence for the Holy See. Contrary to the expectations of many, he did not restore the Roman republic, which had been both set up and destroyed in his absence. On the contrary, he gave his sanction to the papal possession, and the papacy w-as restored to its position as a temporal power. By this restoration of the papacy, Napo- leon earned the gratitude of the reigning pope, and bound him, as it were, to his triumphant chariot wheels. A new concordat was soon negotiated with the pope by Joseph Bonaparte. By the terms of this concordat, ratified Sept. i8, 1801, the papacy gave up many things which it had for centuries in- sisted upon as being rights that could not be alien- ated. The bishops of the Catholic Church in France were to be appointed by the French govern- ment, and even the seizure of the lands of the Catholic Church in France by the Directory, was sanctioned, or at least admitted, by the pope. It is this concordat to which reference is made by a contemporary historian as ''the celebrated com- pact, by which Pius VII surrendered to a soldier whose name was, five or six years before, unheard of in Europe, those high claims to supremacy in spiritual affairs, which his predecessors had main- tained for so many ages against the potentates of Europe. A Puritan might have said of the power NAPOLEON AND THE PAPACY. 219 seated on the seven hills, Babylon is fallen, it is fallen, that great city. "^ One more feature of Napoleon's dealings with the papacy, deserves mention. Napoleon, First Consul, meditated a change in his title to that of Emperor Napoleon of France. A vote of the French Senate granted this desire, but he knew that the sanction of religion added to the voice of the people would give to his newly erected throne an additional strength and security. Since Napo- leon had no royal ancestors, and himself dated his patent of nobility from the battle of Monte Notte, his first victory; and as his ambition, suggested by the new term of emperor, aspired to an extension of his power beyond the borders of France, he an- nounced himself as the successor of Charlemagne; and since Charlemagne was crowned by a pope, so would he be. However, he did not, like Charle- magne, go to Rome. He never went to Rome either literally or figuratively. He was the master, not the servant, of the papacy. Hence Pius VH, who had been despoiled of so much by Napoleon, and had also received so much in the restoration of the temporal power and the States of the Church, received a request from Napoleon, couched in terms easily understood to be equivalent to a command, to come to Paris, to bless the ancient crown of the former kings of France, preparatory to its gracing the brow of a Corsican soldier of fortune. The 1 Scott's "Napoleon," Vol. i, p. 357. 220 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. pope obeyed his new master with commendable promptness. The ceremony took place in the cathedral of Notre Dame, in Paris. Napoleon took the oath, as prompted to him by the pope, with his hand resting on the Scriptures, but he did not allow the pontiff to place the emblem of royalty on his head. Conscious of having gained the crown by his own efforts, and not by the help of the church, Napoleon took the crown from the altar and placed it upon his own head. All of his sub- sequent conduct toward the papacy was of the nature of a constant reminder that he was the mas- ter and the pope his servant, — very useful in his way, but still his servant. This may be seen in his treatment of Pius VII, after his own coronation as emperor of France. Although that pontiff had surrendered to Napoleon many things which were considered to be ancient rights, and had in an ad- dress to the College of Cardinals spoken of Napo- leon in the highest terms, Napoleon exacted still more of him. At that time the States of the Church was the only remaining portion of the Italian peninsula which had not become a part, either directly or in- directly, of the empire of France. Napoleon, dis- satisfied with this independence of the See of Rome, since it gave to England certain advantages of trade, now urged the pope to shut his ports to English commerce, and join him in a war against Austria. The pope consented to the first proposi- NAPOLEON. NAPOLEON AND THE PAPACY. 22 1 tion, but to the last he turned a deaf ear. There- upon Napoleon promptly threw a body of troops into the towns of Civita Vecchia and Ancona. The pope still refusing to yield, Feb. 2, 1809, General Miollis occupied the city of Rome. The papal army was disbanded, and the papal troops were told that they would be no longer under the command of a priest ! Then the pope was pressed from several sides to cede the States of the Church to France ; to join Napoleon against the other powers, etc. Finding the pope determined not to yield, on May 17, 1809, Napoleon issued a decree of which the following were the principal points: " (i) That his august predecessor (Charlemagne) had granted Rome and certain other territories in fief to the bishops of that city, but without parting with the sovereignty thereof ; (2) that the union of the re- ligious and civil authority had proved the source of constant discord, of which many of the pontiffs had availed themselves to extend their secular domin- ion, under pretext of maintaining their spiritual authority; (3) that the temporal pretensions of the pope were irreconcilable with the tranquillity and well being of the nations whom Napoleon governed ; and all proposals which he had made on the subject' had been rejected. Therefore it was declared by the decree that the estates of the church were re- united to the French Empire. A proclamation of the Consultinn issued on the lOth of June, in con- sequence of the imperial rescript, declared that the 2 22 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. temporal dominion of Rome had passed to Napo- leon, but she would still continue to be the resi- dence of the visible head of the Catholic Church."^ It would seem that any one who had read history must admit the truthfulness of Napoleon's state- ment concerning the evils resulting from the union of the religious and the civil power in the papacy; and also that the spiritual power was often extended far beyond its rightful limits and into the realm of civil affairs, though he may doubt the propriety of Napoleon's seizure of the States of the Church, which he had but a short time before restored to the papacy, and may question the pretext which led to the seizure. The pope refusing to comply with the terms of this decree, now had recourse to those spiritual weapons which are believed by his church to be reposed in him. He issued a decree declaring Napoleon and all those who favored him, excommu- nicated. This greatly incensed Napoleon; and on the night following July 6, the palace of the pope was entered by General Rodet, who demanded of the pontiff that he immediately renounce his tem- poral estates in favor of the French emperor. Still refusing, the pope was taken from his palace in the night, placed in a carriage, and surrounded by a guard of French soldiers, taken to Grenoble, and then to Savona. In June, 1812, he was taken to Fontainebleau, in France, where a new concordat 1 Scott's "Napoleon," Vol. ii, p. 64. NAPOLEON AND THE PAPACY. 22 3 was about to be signed by him, when the successes of the alhes in their war with Napoleon in Ger- many caused him to refuse to treat outside of Rome. Accordingly he was sent back to that city, arriving there May 24, 1 8 14. Such was Napoleon's conduct toward the papacy. Although at times, in petulant fits, he deprecated the concordat/ he always believed that it was a necessary measure for the security of his throne. At St. Helena he said: "I never regretted the concordat. I must have had either that or some- thing equivalent. Had the pope never before ex- isted, he should have been made for the occasion."^ No doubt Napoleon, at the height of his power, felt himself fully competent to make a pope, if it should be necessary for the promotion of his schemes of ambition. A few points canvassed in this chapter are worthy of further notice. The temporal power, which was bestowed upon the papacy by France through Pepin, in 753, was, in 1798, taken away by the same na- tion, under the Directory, and again by Napoleon. This seems to be a striking fulfilment of Rev. 13 : 10. '* He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity : he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword." The papacy had been invested with civil power, — the sword had been ^ Treaties between the papacy and civil powers were called " con- cordats." 2 Scott's " Napoleon " Vol. i, p. 358. 224 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. placed in its hand ; it had led kings into captivity, and by the sword that power was taken away, and the papacy itself was led captive. Again, the great exactions made upon the papacy by Napoleon at the treaty of Tolentino, and the subsequent de- struction of the civil power of the papacy, reaching down to the events of 1870, are a striking fulfil- ment of the prediction in Dan. 7:26: "But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end." Another important point is the remarkable fact that the length of time which the papacy covered, from the greatest official declaration of its authority by the Roman civil power to its temporary sus- pension, is in harmony with a Scriptural prediction. In several places in the prophecy of Daniel and in the Revelation, a period of time, referred to as **a time, times, and the dividing of time" (Dan. 7:25); "a time, and times, and half a time" (Rev. 12 : 14) ; and "forty and two months" (Rev. 13:5), has generally been considered by Protes- tants as referring to the time of the supremacy of the papacy. Special power was conveyed to the papacy by the decree of Justinian, emperor of the East, in 538, as previously referred to in this book. Of this decree Gavazzi said : " The celebrated let- ter of Justinian to the pope in the year 533 (which went into effect 538), not only recognized all pre- vious privileges, but enlarged them, and entitled NAPOLEON AND THE PAPACY. 22 5 the pope and his church to many immunities and rights, which afterward gave origin to the preten- sions displayed in the canon law. "^ Allowing each day to stand for one year, according to the rule laid down in Num. 14 : 34 and Eze. 4 : 6, — which rule has been demonstrated to be correct by the fulfilment of the prophecy of the first advent of Christ at the end of the sixty-nine weeks (Dan. 9:25), — and commencing this period of twelve hundred and sixty 3^ears in 538, it would expire in 1798, the very year in which Pope Pius VI was made a prisoner by the French under Berthier, and the temporal power of the papacy was for a time abolished. A fact so remarkable as the above, must be considered as something more than a curious coincidence. One remark further in regard to these extraordi- nary events may be permitted. When the papacy connived at the overthrow of Childeric, and the substitution of Pepin as king of France, with the papal sanction and blessing upon him and the new dynasty, there was placed by the pope a solemn interdict upon the people of France, should they ever venture to assert their right to choose for themselves another sovereign without the consent of the Papal See. A thousand years later, when the people of France deposed the reigning dynasty, and a soldier of fortune elevated himself to the position of emperor of France, with the consent of the French people, against the determined op- ^Gavazzi's Lectures, p. 66. 226 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. position of the papacy, that very papacy which had forbidden any other than the Carlovingian hne to rule France, under the fear of Napoleon, repre- senting the uprising people, gave its sanction and blessing to the new dynasty. It had exceeded the legitimate authority and power of the church in making kings, and had followed its own wishes in elevating a king who gave the papacy his support ; and now it was compelled to crown an emperor not of its choice, — an emperor who- robbed it of its greatest treasures and made it but a means for his own aggrandizement. CHAPTER XIX. THE ITALIAN REVOLUTION. AFTER the exile of Napoleon to Elba, there was a decided return in Europe to the conditions which prevailed before the revolution. The repub- lics established had so often abused their power that the very name was in disrepute. The ease with which a military despotism reared itself upon the ruins of the republic in France, discouraged real lovers of liberty, and made the adherents of the old regime of kings and priests more secure in their hope that everything would soon resume its former course. The sovereigns of Europe did not seem to realize that, unsubstantial as the revolu- tion had been, the condition of Europe and the relations between the kings and the people had been entirely changed by it, and that it would not be possible again for the people to be loyal to existing governments irrespective of the question whether they were deserving of respect or not. The return of Napoleon from Elba, and the tre- mendous energy displayed by him, were an evidence to Europe that the revolutionary principle was far from being extinct. This led, after the battle of Waterloo, to the most oppressive measures, on ac- [227 ] 228 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. count of which everything apparently drifted back into the old channels; the kings reigned by divine right, and not by the choice of the people, to whom they thought they owed no responsibility; the priests thundered their anathemas and threat- ened purgatory and hell, and the people submitted both body and soul to those who ruled them in civil and spiritual things. Austria, always a reactionary and despotic power, regained in Italy all that she had lost between the memorable years i 'j^j and 1 8 1 5 ; but her rule was so domineering and cruel that the people of the differ- ent states of Italy felt that the rule of France, com- pared with this autocratic rule, had been as a May breeze to a March storm. Of the time succeeding Waterloo, a historian says : "A few years of auto- cratic rule, under which church and state were administered by the same combination of political and ecclesiastical influences, sufficed to create in Italy a reaction of popular sentiment which was sure to make itself felt at the first opportunity."^ We have been particular to note this civil and spiritual tyranny in Italy, and the reaction from it, for two reasons : First, to connect the popular de- mand for liberty in 1848 in Italy with the French Revolution ; and, secondly, because the reaction from the overwrought and united kingly and eccle- siastical rule which succeeded that revolution, led directly to that series of revolutions by which Italy \ " Victor Emmanuel," by Edward Dicey, p. 29. THE ITALIAN REVOLUTION. 2 29 became a united nation, and the temporal power of the papacy was taken away. The causes which led to the loss of the papacy's temporal power were of a political rather than of a religious character, and this loss of power is but one event in the remarkable series of events by which Italian unity was accomplished. This unity could not be accomplished without the absorption of the States of the Church and the city of Rome ; and since Rome is the seat of that power which claims the headship of the church, the unification of Italy involved a religious question ; namely, the right of the papacy to the States of the Church, and the office of the pope as a temporal sovereign. A strong aversion to foreign rule was the first step toward Italian unity. As might be expected, this feeling grew in various directions, and led to divergent ideas and plans. Devout Catholics wished to see the pope the sole ruler of Italy; the petty sovereigns hoped to be freed from Austrian domina- tion, and desired an extension of their territory and power ; and the republicans desired to free the whole peninsula from kings and priests, and to erect a genuine republic. All these contending in- terests operated, sometimes independently of each other, and again together, for Italian unity ; and at times it seemed as though each was about to succeed. Those favoring Italian unity under the papacy, were represented by the Abbe Gioberti, author of a 17 230 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. book upon the primacy of the papacy, which about 1843 made a strong impression upon the Itahan people. Of the repubhcans the name of Mazzini stands at the head, and with him may be mentioned the great agitator and partisan leader. Garibaldi. Of the royal families who aspired to rule a united Italy, Charles Albert, king of Sardinia and duke of Savoy, and his son, Victor Emmanuel, under whose reign Italian unity was at last achieved, are worthy of especial mention. Last, but not least, of the names of those who assisted to make a great nation out of a number of disjointed and petty states, stands the name of the master-spirit. Count Cavour, premier of Sardinia and of Italy, chief adviser of Victor Emmanuel, and one of the greatest states- men Europe has ever produced. Under the crushing weight of civil maladminis- tration and ecclesiastical despotism, the people of Italy, stirred to action by the glowing eloquence of Mazzini and other lovers of liberty who were his coadjutors, were about to rise in a general insurrec- tion, when Pope Gregory XVI died and was suc- ceeded by Pius IX. The revolt against the papacy was instantly checked ; for the new pope proclaimed himself a liberal, and championed the rights of the people. This had the effect greatly to strengthen the popular cause, since many devout Catholics who were in doubt as to the principles of liberty, seeing the position taken by the pope, were led to accept th§s^ viwi^ Those who looked for the papacy tq VICTOR EMMANUEL. THE ITALIAN REVOLUTION. 23 I become the actual ruling power of Italy were now at the height of happiness ; they expected that their dreams of papal power and glory were soon to be realized. Several of the petty princes of Italy granted a constitution to their people, and even the pope did the same. The discontent throughout Europe, however, was so deep-seated and wide- spread that these concessions made to the people were but the signal for a declaration of the people's rights which affected nearly all Europe. Then came the revolution of 1848, which swept over Europe like a hurricane. France, renewing her profession of republican principles, shook off the rule of Louis Philippe, and established a govern- ment of the people. Revolution prevailed in many parts of Europe, on account of which, constitutional governments were granted to the people in many kingdoms. The Hungarians rose in rebellion against Austria ; Prussia and Bavaria were affected by the revolutionary spirit ; and for a time it looked as though all the kingdoms of Europe were crumbling to the dust. In Italy a general feeling of hostility was aroused against Austria, and with the promised support of the pope, Charles Albert, king of Sardinia, and duke of Savoy, declared war against her. At first he was successful, but he soon was defeated, and the city of Milan was taken by the Austrians. This victory of the Austrians had the very surpris- ing effect to change the pope from a liberal and 232 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. friend of the people, to the very opposite, and he now declared against the popular cause. Because of this there was great hostility in Rome against the pope ; and his life being in danger from his late loyal subjects, he fled from Rome in disguise to Gaeta, in Sicily. Here under the protection of King Ferdinand, whom he had shortly before de- rided, he placed himself entirely under the control of the autocratic and reactionary powers. His ac- ceptance of liberal principles had been the wonder of the world ; his sudden and total abjuration of these principles added to the wonder. Sardinia, deserted by the pope, and now de- feated, was obliged to conclude a treaty with Austria, on account of which, Charles Albert, heart-broken by his ill fortune, resigned his king- dom in favor of his son Victor Emmanuel. The son, receiving his new investiture of responsibility with a defeated army and crushed hopes, for he had entered the conflict with even greater zeal and hope than his father, did not despair of ultimate success ; and it became the one purpose of his life to secure for Italy, unity and independence. The Roman people, disgusted and angered at the conduct of the pope in leaving his self-chosen position of defender of the people to join the ranks of their oppressors, declared against him, and he was accordingly deposed from the temporal power by the very body to which a short time before he had committed the legislative branch of the gov- LOUIS NAPOLEON. THE ITALIAN REVOLUTION. 233 ernment. A republic was declared at Rome, and an appeal was made by the republicans to the peo- ple of Italy generally, to send delegates to Rome to unite Italy in one republic. This, however, was impossible. The revolu- tionary movement had spent its strength in Eu- rope. Austria, with the help of Russia, gained the ascendency over its malcontents ; the Hungarians were crushed with an iron hand, and Kossuth, the great liberator, was compelled to ta^e refuge in Turkey, never again to visit his native land. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte had become president of France, and was planning for the coup d' etat, and everything seemed to be drifting away from liberty toward despotism again. The pope gathered his retainers around him at Gaeta, and after threaten- ing his late subjects with excommunication, began to negotiate with Austria and France for his res- toration to Rome. Soon the Austrians threatened "Rome upon the north, the Neapolitans upon the west, and a French army under General Oudinot was despatched by sea against the city. The Ital- ian patriots, Garibaldi and Mazzini, after holding the French army at bay for three months, finally evacuated the city ; and the pope, head of the Catholic Church and claiming to be the vicegerent of Christ on earth, returned to Rome, and once more ruled an unwilling people, supported by the bayonets of a foreign army. This occupation of Rome by a French army occurred in April, 1850, 234 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. Meanwhile the young king of Sardinia, Victor Emmanuel, entered upon a regular system of re- form which caused the eyes of all the people of Italy to turn instinctively toward him as the hope of a united Italy. Gioberti, who had been the champion of the papacy, as the head of Italy, went over to the idea that all must rally around Victor Emmanuel. From that time the ultra republicans, like Garibaldi and Mazzini, kept the whole penin- sula aflame, while the young king and Count Cavour carefully reaped the results of their sowing. CHAPTER XX. UNITED ITALY, ONE of the first measures of reform introduced by the king of Sardinia was the restriction of reHgious corporations, and the taking possession of the church property by the government. This was a very necessary measure, since the amount of un- taxable church 'property, and the number of persons devoted to a monastic hfe exceeded all reasonable bounds. In the kingdom of Sardinia alone, there were eighteen thousand persons vowed to a mon- astic life. All these and thousands of other eccle- siastics, bishops, and priests, were not amenable to .the civil authority, no matter what crime they might commit. The Catholic Church also claimed the right to try, by ecclesiastical courts, persons accused of blasphemy, and whatever crime it con- strued to be against the church. It was therefore determined by the king and his ministers to remedy this glaring abuse of churchly authority. As the pope had consented to the jurisdiction of the civil laws and courts over ecclesiastics in Austria, Spain, Portugal, and France, it seemed reasonable to believe that he would willingly grant the same in Sardinia ; [235] 236 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. but when the proposed reforms were reported to Pius IX, he refused to consent to the measure. The plan was carried out nevertheless. The bill making ecclesiastics amenable to the civil courts, received the sanction of the king and became a law. The freedom of the press was decreed, and civil marriage was allowed. Many of these abuses of clerical authority which the king sought to rectify, had come down from the Dark Ages, when the Catholic Church was the literal master of kings and people ; but they were swept away like thistledown by the reviving breath of liberty. For these acts the pope excommunicated the king of Sardinia, and anathe- matized all Vv'ho aided him in his work. In 1852 Count Cavour, the master-spirit of that time, became premier of Sardinia. He entered fully into the hopes and plans of Victor Emmanuel for a united Italy. He saw that it would not be a difficult task to gain Naples, as the people of that country, oppressed by their king, Ferdinand II, were ripe for revolt ; but a free and united Italy could only be attained by defeating Austria, and that was a more serious matter, — so serious that Sardinia alone could not hope for success. The diplomacy of Cavour gained Sardinia an ally by which this result was achieved. Upon the breaking out of the Crimean war in 1852, the world learned with astonishment that Sardinia had joined England, France, and Turkey in the war against Russia. By this stroke of diplo- COUNT CAVOUR. UNITED ITALY. 237 macy, Cavour brought his country into prominence in Europe, and earned the gratitude of the alHed powers ; hence when the Council of Paris met, in 1856, to settle the terms of peace between Russia and the allied powers, Cavour was present as the representative of Sardinia, and laid the condition of Italy before the congress. By the distinction which the Sardinian troops gained in the war, and by his skill at the congress, he secured the moral support of England, and the promise of more tangible as- sistance from Louis Napoleon, emperor of France. By 1859 the arrangements between Napoleon and Cavour were completed, and a marriage between the daughter of Victor Emmanuel and Prince Jerome Bonaparte cemented the union between the two countries. Almost simultaneously Napoleon and Victor Emmanuel used expressions which could only be understood as a menace of war upon Aus- tria ; but as Austria had committed no new act of aggression against Sardinia that might be considered a sufficient pretext for war, there were no imme- diate hostilities, and the world was in doubt as to what the result would be. Victor Emmanuel, though desiring war for the great results to be ob- tained, did not wish to begin the war, as he desired the moral support of Europe and the world. On April 25, 1859, the Austrian government, believing that war was inevitable, took the initia- tive, by sending a demand from Vienna to Turin, that Victor Emmanuel should cease his menacing 238 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. attitude toward Austria, and disband the Italian volunteers that had flocked to his standard from all Italy. This gauge of battle was promptly taken up by the king of Sardinia, and April 27, war was de- clared against Austria. By the middle of the next month the French army was in Italy, and the bat- tles of Palestro, Montebello, Magenta, and Solfe- rino, all of which were won by the allies, reduced the Austrians to a condition where they were anxious for peace. Then one of the greatest infamies of the age was perpetrated. Louis Napoleon concluded a secret treaty of peace with the emperor, Francis Joseph, of Austria, by which Sardinia was cheated out of a great portion of that for which she had hoped so long, and which she had sought to obtain by the war. While the w^ar was in progress, several of the states of Italy, namely, Tuscany, Modena, and Parma, which had been dependent upon Austria, rose in rebellion and declared in favor of an an- nexation to Sardinia ; but by the treaty of Villa Franca, concluded, between Louis Napoleon and the emperor of Austria, Sardinia was prohibited from receiving these states, and even Venetia was to be retained by Austria. All that Sardinia gained by this war was Lombardy. Nice and Savoy were ceded to France for her support. The indignation of Cavour was great at this settlement, but there V^as no help for it at the time, Louis Napoleon and Victor Emmanuel Entering Milan After the Battle of Solferino. i8 UNITED ITALY. 239 To show how Httle Louis Napoleon and Francis Joseph apprehended the feehngs of the people, or how little they cared for them, and how slight was their knowledge of the inevitable trend of affairs in Italy, it is enough to say that they proposed a scheme for the further settlement of Italian affairs by which the pope was to be really the chief head of all Italy ! They planned a confederation of all the petty kingdoms and duchies of Italy, including Sardinia, with the pope as president of the whole ! Louis Napoleon, however, maintained a determina- tion that there should be no armed intervention in carrying out these plans for Italy, and his usual dilatory policy left the people to shape affairs to their own pleasure. The spirit and temper of the people, the skill of Cavour, and the defeat of both Austria and France by Prussia, a few years later, saved Italy from so disgraceful a settlement. The next great move for Italian unity was the overthrow of the Neapolitan government and the annexation of its territory to Sardinia. The active agent of this movement was Garibaldi. It was the policy of Cavour to take no active part in this revolution in Naples, but simply to watch it, and secure the fruits of Garibaldi's efforts. The latter, with his famous "Thousand of Marsala," marched through the country like a conqueror. The gov- ernment was well known to be in a shaky condi- tion, but it was weaker than the most sanguine revolutionist had dared to believe. The king of 240 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. Naples had not the courage to meet Garibaldi in battle. He fled to Gaeta, which a short time before had sheltered the pope, and strongly en- trenched, maintained for a short time a precarious existence. In an open carriage Garibaldi rode into the city of Naples, and was received with trans- ports of joy by the people. The magnetic influence of this great patriotic leader, and also the circumstances under which at this time he entered Naples, may be seen by the following description of his entry as told by an eye- witness, a correspondent of a London paper. * ' The king was still there ; the Neapolitan police were sullen and inactive ; what the action of the military would be was not known, and upon it depended the fortunes of the hour. The people turned out in a body to witness the arrival of Gari- baldi. Numbers of them climbed upon the engine and cars of the slowly approaching train which bore the general and his staff to the city. Entering a carriage with Cozenz, Garibaldi started, followed by three carriages containing his officers of staff. The fortress of St. Elmo bristled with guns and gunners, and thev were ordered to fire and clear the streets with grapeshot as soon as the Garibaldians were within range. On the carriage came slowly, amid a roar of 'Vivas.' As it approached the guns of Castello Nuovo, the artillerymen, with lighted matches in their hands, pointed the guns. At that moment the voice of Garibaldi rose above the UNITED ITALY. 24 1 uproar, commanding: 'Slower, slower.' This he reiterated until the frightened coachman instinc- tively obeyed the man whom no one disobeyed. Then, under the very mouth of the guns and before the gunners, who were already under orders to fire, Garibaldi rose to his feet in the carriage, with one hand on his breast, and looked fixedly at the artil- lerymen. A silence fell on the tumultuous crowd ; those who were present declared it was as if Gari- baldi magnetized them. Three times the order to fire was given, and with his own fate and Italy's in the balance, the general stood looking upon the men. At the third order the gunners flung away .their matches, threw their caps in the air, and shouted, 'Viva, Garibaldi.' The city was taken." Garibaldi had hoped for a republic ; but after enjoying two years dictatorship at Naples, he al- lowed the annexation of the kingdom of the two Sicilies to Sardinia, agreeable to the wish of the peo- ple of Naples and in harmony with a decree of the Sardinian council, and Victor Emmanuel took pos- session of Naples with the title of King of Italy. The pope, who had for some time been undecided as to what part he should take in these extraordi- nary events which were altering the whole map of Italy, now determined upon action. Apparently forgetting the words of Christ to Peter, whom he claimed to succeed, that all who take the sword shall perish with the sword, he now resolved that this extension of Sardinia had gone far enough, and 242 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. that he would resist it by force of arms. The papal army was placed under the command of General Lamorciere, a veteran of the French wars in Al- geria, and many recruits for the papal army were gathered at Rome from every Catholic country. As this preparation for war could only be aimed by the pope at Sardinia, and for the purpose of thwarting the will of the people of Naples, who desired to form a part of the new kingdom of Italy now aris- ing to view, Victor Emmanuel demanded of the pope to disband his army. Since by the principle laid down at the treaty of Villa Franca, no armed intervention was to be allowed, and since this mili- tary movement of the pope was a step in that direc- tion, the king of Italy was justified in his demand, and Louis Napoleon gave his consent that the king of Italy might "strike home and strike hard." No heed being given to the demand of the king, the Italian army, commanded by General Cialdini, ad- vanced into the States of the Church. With the exception of the French veterans, the papal army showed the same antipathy to lighting which had characterized the army of the pope at the time of the French Revolution. It was soon defeated, and General Lamorciere was placed on a vessel, and sent to France. The pope was still a temporal king, but as a warrior he was a marked failure. Surely the times had altered when neither by excommuni- cations, anathemas, nor bullets could the desires of the church be carried out. UNITED ITALY. 243 Immediately following the invasion of the papal states, the courts of all the great powers of Europe, except England, protested, and ceased diplomatic relations with the king of Italy ; but Victor Em- manuel was not frightened thereby, for he at once set out to take possession of his new dominions. He met Garibaldi at Capua, and afterward they rode through the streets of Naples together. Gari- baldi was not able to reconcile the radical repub- licans to the rule of the king, but believing that it was the best that could be done, he yielded his au- thority to the king, and retired to his home on the island of Caprera. Then followed the siege and surrender of Gaeta, and the king and queen of Naples were permitted to retire to Rome. Thus the whole kingdom of Naples passed into the hands of Victor Emmanuel. CHAPTER XXL ITALY GAINS VENETIA. JUST at this critical time in Italian history, Ca- vour died (June 6, 1861). Strange as it may seem, he had builded better than he knew, for his death solidified his work. It was seen by the world that he was a great statesman, and the powers of Europe which had protested against some of his last acts, and had assumed a threaten- ing attitude toward the king of Italy, relented at the death of his great minister. How he was re- garded in England may be inferred from the fol- lowing words spoken by Lord Palmerston in the British House of Commons, the day after Cavour's death : * ' The moral which is to be drawn from the life of Count Cavour is this, — that a man of transcendent talents, of indomitable energy, and inexhaustible patriotism, may, by the impulses which his own single mind may give to his coun- trymen, aiding a righteous cause, and seizing favorable opportunities notwithstanding difficulties that at first sight seem insurmountable, confer on his country the greatest and most inestimable benefits. " [244] ITALY GAINS VENETIA. 245 A general recognition of what the king of Italy had gained was now accorded by the powers of Europe. Louis Napoleon, who always favored Italian unity much more than did the people over whom he ruled, took the lead by a generous ac- knowledgment of Italian unity as far as it had been secured, and his action was soon followed by Prussia and Russia. Only two impediments now remained in the way of the unification of Italy, — Austria yet possessed Venetia, and the city of Rome was still occupied by a French army. While all lovers of Italian unity were agreed that the possession of the city of Rome was necessary, there was not a unanimity of thought as to the manner of its acquisition. Cavour had always held the opinion that Rome must be gained through diplomacy, but the radicals held that it might be taken at any time by force of arms. Garibaldi took the latter view. His suc- cess in Naples having made him certain that Rome might be taken in the same way, he resolved to make the trial. Accordingly, setting out from Caprera, with a small following, he invaded the papal states. Although the king of Italy was will- ing that Garibaldi should proceed, that he might ascertain the feelings of the people of Rome, and also see how Europe would regard a movement against Rome, he knew that it would not do to allow the papal states to be invaded by a handful of adventurers. He therefore interposed an army. 246 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. Garibaldi was defeated at Aspromonte by the troops of the king of Italy, severely wounded, and taken prisoner. So dear a place had the hero in the hearts of the Italian people, that the excite- ment and indignation aroused by these events com- pelled the Italian ministry to resign. Their feel- ings, and those of the civilized world, were well expressed by a poet of that period in the following exquisite lines : — "Never subdued 'til now, Wounded, perchance, to death; Did Italy strike the blow ? Say it under your breath. She struck him ! we strive in vain To cover the pain, the shame; She struck him who struck not again. But fell while shouting her name. *' Write the story in tears. And let the record be dim, Hide this year from the stainless years Which each had a wreath for him; And tell him, there as he lies, He is still our darling chief, And never a shame can touch his name, But only our love and grief. " Blame his folly, and then Blush while his deeds you tell. Guard his prison, Italian men To whom his name is a spell ; Breathe his sentence, thou land Of which he is still the pride, Sign it, O brother hand Who fought so long at his side. GARIBALDI. ITALY GAINS VENETIA. 24/ " Italy, valiant and free, Forget not the means in the end, And king, if this thy rebel be, Tell us who is thy friend ? Noble the part he played, Surely the hour will come For thanking his generous aid Along the steps to Rome."i Victor Emmanuel did not long retain his prison- ers, whom he had felt compelled to arrest ; he was soon released, and retired again to Caprera. In September, 1865, an agreement was entered into between France and Italy, in which it was stipulated that the French army should be with- drawn from Rome inside of two years, and that Italy should guarantee the independence of the papacy. At this time the city of Florence was chosen for the temporary seat of the Italian gov- ernment. While the acquisition of Rome was very desir- able. Providence had decreed that Venetia should first be acquired. To secure this important prov- ince, Austria must again be defeated ; for there was no likelihood that she would willingly yield to Italy any of her territory, particularly so important a province as Venetia, and the city of Venice at the head of the Adriatic Sea. In 1865, when neither Rome nor Venetia had been secured, the possession of these two desirable acquisitions ^We have been unable to learn the name of the author of the above poem, and we quote from memory. 248 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. looked to be very remote ; but by a train of re- markable events, scarcely paralleled in history, both were secured in five years. Divine Provi- dence surely overruled all this ; but Cavour, who before his death had taken the necessar}^ steps for the purpose, is the human agent to whom the credit for this phenomenal success is generally given. Cavour had observed the feeling of rivalry be- tween Austria and Prussia as each strove to stand at the head of the affairs of central Europe, and he was able to discern that Prussia was the coming power. At all events, Italy having everything to hope and nothing to fear from an alliance with Prussia, Cavour determined to use Prussia as he had used France for the accomplishment of his purpose. An alliance with Prussia was therefore formed. On June 18, 1866, the Austrian troops began the invasion of Prussia ; two days later, Italy declared war upon Austria. The fortune of war gave the victory to the allies. The king of Italy made no headway against the Austrians ; indeed, his army sustained a very severe defeat at Custozzi, but he kept a large Austrian army occupied while Von Moltke defeated the main army of Austria at Konig- gratz and Sadowa. Austria invited the mediation of the emperor Louis Napoleon, and it was arranged that Venetia should be ceded to France, and by France to Italy. In this way Venetia was added ITALY GAINS VENETIA. 249 to the Italian kingdom. A vote of the people of Venetia ratified this, or at least showed their satis- faction with their new position, and the king of Italy was hailed with joy by the people, and as- sured of their profound loyalty to the house of Savoy. The reader will now perceive how necessary was the possession of Rome to the integrity of the new kingdom of Italy. The people of Rome were anx- ious for union, and they were kept from an uprising only by the presence of a French army, backed by the whole power of France. Can a nation be said to be independent when its oldest and most honored city is held by a foreign power ? — It cannot ; and the inevitable trend of events made the evacuation of the city by the French, and its occupation by the king of Italy, a necessity that could not long be delayed. There was another reason worthy of mention why the new kingdom of Italy needed to possess Rome. The divided state of Italy for so many centuries had begotten a strong feeling of rivalry between the chief cities. Neither Turin, Florence, Milan, nor Naples would consent that the other should be the capital ; but all Italians of every province could unite on Rome, the ancient capital of Italy. This feeling which extended throughout Italy, was one of the determining causes which im- pelled the king of Italy to take Rome, the last step in his patriotic life-work. 19 250 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. Immediately after the war of 1 866, Louis Napo- leon, according to his agreement, withdrew his army from Rome, where it had been stationed nearly twenty years. For the first time in centuries there were no foreign soldiers in Italy, and it seemed to Italians that the hour of complete redemption for Italy was near. Garibaldi, who could not forget his cherished hope of the occupation of Rome in favor of the very king whose troops had defeated him and shot him down at the time of his previous effort to take the city, now took the field again against the papal states. It is generally believed that at this time there was a secret understanding between Garibaldi and Ratazzi, who at that time was premier of Italy. At all events the Italian government did not oppose Garibaldi as it had done before. As soon as it was seen that the Italian govern- ment would not prevent the advance of Garibaldi on Rome, by an armed force, a French army was hastily despatched from Toulon to prevent Gari- baldi from taking the city. There is no doubt that Louis Napoleon did this more to please the Catho- lics of France than for the purpose of frustrating the destiny of Italy. He had several times shown that his personal friendship was greater toward Italy than was that of the French people. Garibaldi was arrested by Italian officers in Tuscany, but he was not confined, and was permitted to return to his island home. The French army still remained ITALY GAINS VENETIA. 2$! to protect the pope. Again Garibaldi left Caprera and advanced upon Rome. At Mentana he was met by the French troops and suffered a crushing defeat. In this battle the Chassepot rifles were first used, and an expression of the French general De Failly, in his official despatch to his government, that this battle had demonstrated the value of this new weapon, led the Italian people to believe that it was largely a desire to test the Chassepot rifle that caused the French expedition. This so stirred both the king and the people of Italy that the friendly feeling hitherto entertained for France was gone, and another alliance between France and Italy was an impossibility. The final crisis was now approaching with great rapidity. Ever since the war of 1 866, it had been a foregone conclusion that a war between France and Prussia was inevitable. Several very trivial things are usually referred to as the cause of that war, but the real cause was the preponderance Prussia had gained in European affairs, which she was determined to hold, and which would never be secure until France was defeated. In view of the probability of a war between these two nations, negotiations had been entered upon for an alliance of France, Austria, and Italy ; but the battle of Mentana, where Italians were used as experimental targets for French rifles, caused Italy to retire from the proposed alliance, and took from France the only power to which she had any 252 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. reasonable right to look for support. Victor Em- manuel, indeed, professed a willingness to enter into another French alliance, but his ministers were opposed to it, and it was finally decided to remain neutral in the Franco-Prussian war. The result of that war is well known. The French, full of vain confidence because of their former victories, unprepared, outnumbered, and outgeneraled, suf- fered a succession of crushing defeats. France had no troops to spare for the protection of the pope ; she had not enough to defend her own bor- ders from invasion, and the French army at Rome — the very army which had so long blocked the way of the Italian occupation of that city — was hastily recalled for service in France. Louis Na- poleon surrendered at Sedan, and a republic was for the third time proclaimed at Paris. Thus the king of Italy, having earned the gratitude of Prus- sia by his refusal of aNFrench alliance, and seeing France now prostrate, found nothing in the way of an entrance to Rome, and the full realization of his hopes, — a united Italy with Rome for its capital. CHAPTER XXIL END OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. THE time had now arrived for the last act which would make the unification of Italy complete ; namely, the occupation of Rome by Victor Em- manuel, and the transfer of the capital from Flor- ence to that city. To this end he had looked forward ever since he took the throne and the cares of state from his discouraged and broken- hearted father. That the manifest destiny of Italy pointed to this as the final step, was apparent to the world. As this act did not contemplate any restriction of the spiritual power of the pope, or take from the papacy anything possessed by it before 753, an effort was made to gain the consent of the pope to the proposed measure; but Pius IX, with that stubbornness which was a marked characteristic of his character, especially when on the wrong side of any subject, refused all overtures. Sept. 6, 1870, the king publicly declared his intention to take possession of Rome. General Cadorna marched an army into the papal states, which arrived at Rome on the twentieth of that month. [253] 2 54 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. The surrender of the city was demanded of the papal garrison, and this being refused, the city was bombarded. No resistance worthy of mention was made, and but for the obstinacy of the pope in ordering battle, when there was not the least pros- pect of success, there would have been no blood shed. The Italian army, soon entering the city through a breach made in the walls, received an enthusiastic welcome from the people. The pope stubbornly refused to receive an envoy from the king, although Victor Emmanuel, being a devoted Catholic, and king of a nation of Catholics, gave promise of full protection to him in the administra- tion of the spiritual affairs of the Catholic Church. The pope was irreconcilable; he posed as a pris- oner in his palace, although he was as free to go and to come as the king himself ; and his suc- cessor, Leo XIII, has pursued the same policy. In June, 1871, Victor Emmanuel entered Rome and made it his capital, taking up his residence in the Quirinal palace. Thus the temporal power of the pope came to an end. Twenty-five years have now passed since the occurrence of the last of these remarkable events. The son of Victor Emmanuel reigns over all the territory left him by his father. Italy is a nation; if not one of the greatest, at least a nation of re- spectable strength and importance, and an ally of two of the most powerful nations of the world, Germany and Austria. If she has not made as END OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. 255 great progress as it was hoped that she would, the great ignorance of the people, received by inherit- ance from papal influence, and their slavish alle- giance to the dogmas of the Catholic Church, must be considered as being largely responsible. Nations grow slowly. Italy has made as much progress as might be expected under the circumstances. Gen- erally, the Catholics of Italy are glad that the tem- poral power of the popes has been taken away, and are full of loyalty to the king, in spite of the efforts of the papacy, which has spared no means that could be used to destroy the government. The recent celebrations of Italian unity on Sept. 20, 1895, were remarkable for the enthusiasm which was manifested all through Italy, and by Italians in every country. In Rome, a statue of Garibaldi was unveiled in the presence of fifty thousand people, near the place where the troops of the king of Italy forced their way into the city twenty-five years before. Many of Garibaldi's old companions in arms were present, and they re- ceived from King Humbert, the son and successor of Victor Emmanuel, distinguished marks of his consideration. Congregations of Protestants now worship freely in -Rome ; the inquisition is shown as a curiosity to travelers ; and on the very day of the celebration above referred to, a Protestant mis- sion was opened in the city. These celebrations of Italian unity were very of- fensive to some Catholics, and the following cable- 256 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. gram from Cardinal Tascherau, of Quebec, to the pope on that anniversary day expresses their feel- ings : — **0n this sad anniversary, which so cruelly re- opened all the wounds in your paternal heart, it is for me a duty of filial piety, most holy father, to express to you the pain which all Catholics of Can- ada feel. The pastors and all the faithful extend to heaven their suppliant prayers that your chains may be broken, and that the vicar of Christ, and the supreme chief of the church, the father of peo- ples, the friend and protector of the sciences, be given the liberty to which he is entitled." It is pertinent here to inquire, What is that liberty, the loss of which the pope and this Cana- dian cardinal and many American ecclesiastics so deplore ? He is as free to administer in spiritual affairs to the great Catholic Church, of which he is the acknowledged and revered head, as is any Catholic bishop in Italy or in America to do the same in his diocese. He is not a prisoner ; he is under no more restrictions than is Cardinal Gib- bons, of Baltimore, or Archbishop Ireland, of St. Paul. The refusal of the pope to leave the Vati- can is self-imprisonment ; it is like the action of a spoiled and pettish child, who, because he cannot have his own way, sits and sulks. The freedom which the pope desires is the free- dom to be an earthly monarch. He is not satis- fied with being the head of the Catholic Church, END OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. 2^7 but he wants to be a king, and equal with, and su- perior to, the kings of the world. He who claims to be the vicar of Christ, the especial representa- tive of Him who said, ' ' My kingdom is not of this world," wants an earthly kingdom. He wants to send representatives of his government and of his church as ambassadors to the governments of other nations, that he may influence these governments to make laws to promote the welfare of that church, and to punish those adjudged by that church to be heretics, as was done by his predeces- sors in the Dark Ages. He would enjoy the free- dom of influencing governments to declare the Catholic religion the religion of the state, that the government might build Catholic churches, support Catholic schools, pay Catholic priests, and prevent all other public worship, as was universally done by popes in past ages, and is now done in Spain and some of the South American countries. This is the freedom the pope desires ; this is the free- dom the loss of which he so greatly mourns ; this is the freedom which was taken away by the Italian Revolution, terminating with the taking of the city of Rome by Victor Emmanuel, in 1870. Will this freedom be restored ? The freedom to dominate, persecute, and take from the people natural and unalienable rights, is not the freedom which this age is inclined to favor. Hence the return of the papacy to power, if ever accom- plished, can only be done by deceiving the people 258 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. in regard to her true character, ambition, and aims. Into the discussion of the future history of the papacy, we do not purpose to enter. Such a ques- tion, important as it is, is not within the province of this book, which aims to record only what has been and what is. There are many students of proph- ecy who beheve that the temporal power of the popes will be regained, that the Catholic Church will also obtain an influence in the world similar to what she once possessed, and that she will use that power and influence to persecute and destroy those who will not accept her creed. If this shall be done, if the expectation and hope of the Catholic Church and the fears of many Protestants shall be realized, and another European revolution shall restore the Roman pontiffs to what they denominate freedom, then let all be warned that this freedom will mean the slavery of the world, — a turning back of the hands on the dial of human progress, the invasion of the liberty of every man under the influence of that church, and of the governments with which it becomes connected. May that God who has so graciously proclaimed liberty from papal darkness, to many captives, still be gracious to the world, and grant an increase, rather than a diminution, of religious freedom to mankind. CHAPTER XXIIL THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT, IT has been proved in the preceding chapters that the idea of a primacy is unknown in the Scrip- tures, and that the primacy which was estabhshed, was only accompHshed by unholy ambition and an unchristian seeking for spiritual supremacy, entirely foreign to the spirit and teachings of Christ and his apostles ; we have also seen that it was ac- complished after long centuries of plotting and scheming, and especially by the union of this then apostate church with the Roman state, and that it finally resulted in bringing the Roman state and many other states under the control of the church ; that a large part of the Christian church always protested against it ; and that the separation be- tween the churches of the East and the West in the eleventh century was to some extent over this ques- tion ; for the Eastern Church never accepted the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. Since that time numerous bodies of Christians have denied the doc- trine of the primacy. The great reformers of the sixteenth century made the denial of the primacy a cardinal feature of their work, and it is held by none [259] 26o THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. but by the Roman Catholic Church. This church firmly maintains this doctrine as a fundamental por- tion of its creed. Since it is clearly manifest that Romanism is a departure from the simplicity of the primitive church, not only in her doctrines but also in her system of church government, it will be proper to state here what we believe that primitive system to be, the Scriptural ideal, which existed for a time, but which the apostasy prevented from continued and permanent existence in the universal church. Such a statement is due to our readers, that the true and false systems may both clearly be seen. There is to be no primacy. The gospel is de- signed for all the world. Churches are to be raised everywhere, but there is no provision in the Chris- tian system whereby one man, or a conclave of men in continual session, is to take the charge of the work of the gospel in all the world. Such a task would be entirely beyond the capacity of man. The world is large ; and the idea that one man, or one body of men, could take into consideration the spiritual needs of all believers in Christ, or the spiritual needs of many thousands of believers in Christ, which are scattered throughout the world, is preposterous. The bishop of Rome, with his corps of assistants, finds it exceedingly difficult to oversee the affairs of the Catholic Church alone. This inability has often been confessed by sending especially appointed legates to distant countries to NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 26 1 listen for the pope and to act for him. In every CathoHc country there are difBcult questions which have waited for years for a decision, because the papal consistory has no time to consider their mat- ters. Such is the inevitable result of placing upon one body of men more work than they can properly perform. Agam : no one knows so well what to do in a country -as the people who live there, and have studied the situation. Now if, in addition to all the labors of the pope, which are claimed to be over- whelming, there should be added to his burden all, the affairs of the Greek Church and the whole of Protestantism, how could the Roman pontiff be able to endure the strain ? Moreover, Christianity is progressive, and so the burden would continually in- crease unto the end of time. Politically, the world is divided into many civil governments, and each civil head with many helpers finds enough to do to manage its own civil affairs ; but the pope thinks himself able to direct the ecclesiastical affairs of all the world ! No wonder that he claims to be infal- lible. To do the work which he holds has been given him to do, he should not only be infallible, but omnipotent as well. In short, he would need to possess all the attributes of the Deity, whose rightful place he has usurped. The thing nearest to universal authority and headship in the church is the action of a general council. The 15th chapter of the Acts of the 262 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. Apostles will ever stand as unmistakable evidence that the measure of authority, which primarily be- longs to the church as a whole, is, at special times, and for certain definite purposes, vested in a coun- cil ; that the council may be summoned whenever great questions arise which threaten division in the church, or at regular intervals if necessary, for the consideration of questions which affect the interests of the whole church ; and that the decisions of the councils so convened, are advisory rather than ac- tually obligatory on the church. Stated broadly, actual legislative power is not committed to the church. All actual legislation was done by Christ. For should we admit that everything which a council does is actually of force, where, then, among the early councils shall we draw the line, and say, Before this time the decisions oi the coun- cils were obligatory, and afterward they were not binding ? Can we fix the definite point where the church, by her backsliding, departed from God so that she lost the power to legislate ? or can we tell where, by what church, or at what time, that lost power, if lost it was, has been restored .'' No man can do it. This fact alone would substantiate the statement that the true function of a council is advisory and not legislative. A Christian council is a convention for a limited space of time. When it is in actual session, it is the repository of all the authority there is in the church, and therefore its decisions should not be NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 263 lightly regarded. But when a council is disbanded, the general and advisory power vested therein is for the time suspended until the next council ; and there is no provision in the Christian system of church government by which the authority of the general and universal council may be transferred to any one who shall represent the council between its sessions, and thus form a general and continuous head to the church on earth. This would be a usurpation of the place of Jesus Christ, the only true head of the church. Continuous and general authority over the whole church by men, involves a responsibility so great that God, in his infinite wisdom and mercy, thought it not best that it be committed to a man or men. Men have thought otherwise, not shrink- ing from taking a position which God has never authorized them to take, and the result is the pa- pacy and other systems partaking of its spirit and methods. The gospel rule that the church and the individual Christian have but one Master, and that he is in heaven, is of universal application ; but it may be truly said that it has been almost univer- sally broken. There have been men in many churches aside from Rome, who were practically masters — actual popes in their smaller spheres. What, then, is necessary to constitute an earthly head, a master of the church ? Not so much, per- haps, as many people imagine. Stated in a sim- ple manner, to possess an earthly head, a church 264 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. needs but to have one man, or one body of men, constantly taking the oversight of the work of the church in all parts of the world alike. This will generally necessitate a permanent and central place for frequent conference and consultation ; the communication to this body of the state of the different portions of the church in every part of the world where this church has any organization ; and the consideration of the same with directions and commands to the church everywhere. When a church has this, it has, as far as the headship is concerned, though it may be upon a smaller scale, a miniature of that first great headship located on the Tiber, — -it has that for which there is no war- rant in the Scriptures. The churches of Jesus Christ, in any and every country, must have organization, and men should be elected" by free vote of the members to take the oversight of the affairs of the church ; but these men would be heads only for a limited time over a small portion of the church. The men elected would be quite well known, probably personally known to all. They would not be removed from those who gave them their temporary authority by an exag- gerated height of excellence or knowledge, and hence any attempt by them to exert an unauthor- ized and arbitrary power would be quickly checked by the body of the church, which is the superior au- thority and final arbiter in all matters pertaining to itself. NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 265 The head over the whole church, whether com- posed of one man or of several men, can actually be known only to a comparatively small number of the church. This offers a good opportunity to those who hold this place of becoming the objects of superstitious reverence, and prepares the way for the continual increase of the power of the few, and the lessening of the influence of the body. We see this clearly manifested in the relations of the pope to the Catholic clergy and people, where each looks to his superior, until the highest power, the pope, is reached. The gospel plan is a better way than this ; it al- lows a greater degree of freedom and independence to the members of the church, and also provides for such concentration of effort as will carry the gospel to the world, and furnish pastoral care to the churches already established. This may be seen by referring to the Acts of the Apostles. As the apostles went forth proclaiming the gos- pel, churches were raised ; and after these had been sufficiently proved and elders had been ordained in every city (Titus i : 5), these churches took their places as independent parts of the church of Christ. Not that they were independent of the advisory power of the general council, if anything among them needed to be considered by that body upon its convention, but aside from that they were inde- pendent. These churches would naturally form into associations for mutual counsel and co-opera- 20 266 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. tion, but in them there existed no arbitrary au- thority more than exists in every separate church for the correction and disciphne of its members. Church history shows that this was the case before the apostasy had changed the simple order of the apostles and the primitive church. The boundaries of these associations would often be determined by natural barriers, such as mountains, rivers, and seas. As the gospel spread and went to many nations, the boundaries of civil governments would become the most natural boundaries of the divisions of the church. The fact that nearly all countries have a lan- guage of their owm, which is not understood by the people of other countries, would make this natural division almost imperative. The word divisions, as used above, is not here meant to teach that the church would be divided in spirit or in doctrine. Each country would have within its boundaries a portion of the one indivisible church. These divi- sions might be great or small, as circumstances and the changing affairs of the world should demand ; but every such body was independent, except in the matter of the general councils, as before declared. They could hold local and inferior councils for the consideration of their own peculiar fields, and the right to elect all their own of^cers inhered in every such fractional part of the church. Nor could any authority in the church, outside of themselves, in- trude into their councils to interfere in the manage- NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 26/ ment of local matters, without their consent. Their missionary enterprises, schools of learning, and all local affairs were under their own separate and complete control. Such an organization of the church left no place for a general earthly head. There was no disgraceful scheming to place in the highest position men who would favor the people of one nation more than another. There was no cause for heartburnings because one country was honored as the place of the head of the church, — the center of general authority, — or because the men of one nation- ality held all the high offices in the church. The churches within the bounds of any nation were national only in the sense that they were generally composed of the people of one nation. The churches in each state had no connection with the state as state churches. As citizens they were subject to the civil laws of the state; as Christians they obeyed the law of God. In case these laws conflicted, the Christian would say, ' ' We ought to obey God rather than men." It will be seen that if this ideal of primitive Christianity had been followed, many things which now exist would be unknown. State churches, with their attendant train of evils, would never have been heard of. It would not have been the Church of England, but the Church of Jesus Christ in England. The same principle would have been carried out wherever Christianity was established. 268 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. and every such division of the church would be in- dependent, managing its own affairs ; for if God is able to endow his servants in one country with suffi- cient wisdom rightly to conduct the affairs of the church, and to take the oversight of its members, he has the power, and will bestow the same en- dowments upon his servants in all other countries. But the church has always suffered from having in it men who have believed that unless they took charge of the work everywhere, it would not be done right. Spiritual pride has blinded the minds of hundreds, leading them to distrust the capacity and 'even the honesty of their brethren, and to think that without their own efforts the work of the Lord would be a failure. It was this spirit which led to the establishment of the papal supremacy, and it has often been repeated on a smaller scale in other churches. As the apostolic plan provided for the liberty and independence of the church in the various countries in which it had become established, to enlarge the borders of Zion, so provision also was made for the propagation of the faith in those countries where Christ was not yet named. There were various gifts placed in the church. i Cor. 12 : 28 ; Eph. 4 : 10, II. There were pastors to take the charge of congregations which were established, and there were apostles and evangelists, whose especial work was to extend the knowledge of Christ into the "regions beyond." Paul was an NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 269 apostle to the Gentiles. He did not feel himself called to do the work of a pastor, or even to bap- tize. Rom. I 5 : 20 ; i Cor. 1:17. He was a man especially endowed of the Lord as an evangelist, to raise up congregations of believers where ' ' Christ was not named." But after the churches thus raised by him were fully confirmed (Acts 1 5 : 36, 41 ; 18 : 23), and elders ordained in every city (Titus I : 5), they were as independent as the churches of Judea. These organizations had the right to send out laborers into new fields without consulting with any other and older organization. Paul and Barnabas were sent out into the great Gentile field by the church at Antioch. Acts 13 : I, 2. This action of the church at Antioch was entirely independent of the churches of Judea. God could direct as well at Antioch as at Jerusa- lem, and the Holy Ghost operated directly upon the brethren at Antioch to send out these men as ambassadors of Christ. There is no evidence that the elders at Jerusalem or the twelve apostles were consulted in the matter. The voice of God was heard in a branch of his church ; and under his direction, and that of the church at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas went on their heaven-sent mission. The church at Philippi at one time took upon itself the task of supporting the apostle Paul, sending to him by a special messenger money or other means when he was in distant lands. Phil. 4: 15. No doubt other churches did the same. These are 2/0 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. specimens of apostolic practise before the rigid rules of a hierarchy had crushed all the sponta- neous life and liberty out of the church. These are examples of apostolic practise ; and the nearer any church can come to the system which existed in the primitive church, in principle, if not in all the minutia, the more certain it will be that it is in harmony with the divine mind. We do not mean to claim that there was not a systematic and regular way of supporting the gos- pel ministry, but we simply maintain that there was also opportunity, when necessary, for separate and independent church and individual work of this character. If any organized body of Christians, comprising what they themselves believe to be the church, wish to act in harmony with apostolic practise, they should send out laborers into other countries where the gospel has not yet penetrated. The duty to do this is imperative as long as there is such a country on the earth. They may combine their efforts, and entrust certain men of ability and discretion among them to constitute a body which shall take charge of such work of evangelization, that it may be done in a uniform and economical manner. They may contribute to these men and to the work in which they are engaged ; but such a body of men could have no Scriptural authority to direct in the affairs of the churches which au- thorized them for this work of evangelization. NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 2/1 Furthermore, when the behevers in any mission- ary field have become sufficiently numerous and well instructed for organization after the manner of the organization by which the gospel was brought to them, and have been so indoctrinated in the truth that they have become a part of the body of Christ, then they should be organized, the proper officers be elected and ordained, and this new organization would become a part of the one and indivisible church, and enjoy the same inde- pendence possessed by the churches through whose instrumentality they received the gospel. In this way the independence of the various branches of the church, built up by their own pastors and teachers, would be maintained ; and at the same time aggressive and systematic work would be done for those who are in darkness, not to bring them into bondage, but to secure to them the sweet liberty in Christ, that fills the souls of those who have joined together to send to them a Heavenly Father's message of love. Finally, in closing this line of thought, it may be said that the subjection of one church to another in the supremacy of the Church of Rome, and the supremacy of one bishop over another in matters purely spiritual, paved the way for the subjection of the state to the church. In other words, if there had been no supremacy in the church, there would have been no supremacy of the church ; it could never have gained the control of the state. 2/2 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. The papacy is the result of an apostasy in the church, which became very nearly general. That apostasy began by the desire for supremacy among the bishops in the church, resulting in the perver- sion of the gospel rule and the establishment in the church of a government similar to the civil govern- ment of pagan Rome. Its final control of the Roman state was but the natural and logical se- quence which must follow such a church govern- ment for so great and universal a church. The whole history of the Roman Catholic Church evinces this fact. The subjection of the state to the church was simply a further carrying out and amplification of the spirit of supremacy engendered in the church, so that the spirit that would domi- nate in the church, subjecting the whole body to the will of a few, is the same spirit that would bring all civil authority, if possible, to the same abject condition. In this matter the principles of the gospel are well stated by Paul : ' ' For, breth- ren, ye have been called unto liberty ; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." Gal. 5:13. CHAPTER XXIV. THE RELATION OF CHRIST, THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, TO THE MEMBERS OF HIS BODY, AND THEIR RELATION TO EACH OTHER. SINCE no earthly head of the church was formed or authorized by Christ or his apostles, ^nd since the church which grew out of their labors received no divine authority to form such a head, it follows that the church, which has the right to elect all authorized officers, has no right to make such a head, — to empower a man, or several men, to take the continuous oversight of its work in all countries. Every attempt to do so is contrary to God's revealed will, and must result in damage to the cause of Christ. There was no such earthly head before the papacy was established. Infinite wisdom saw no necessity for such a head, because it would lead to the exaltation of those forming it, to their exceeding great hurt, elevating them to the place of God, and by so doing infringe upon the just rights of many. It has been held by some that uniformity in the church cannot be obtained without some central, [273] 274 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. continuous authority. This is a favorite argument of the CathoHc Church; but it cannot be expected that the church in all countries will be exactly uniform in all things. There is such a thing as uniformity in diversity. There should be perfect uniformity in righteousness, but national character- istics in many things may be allowed. Uniformity often means nothing but that some one makes un- necessary rules for others to follow. To expect that all the customs of Christians in vogue in one country shall be practised by Christians in all coun- tries is preposterous. It is a fact that many zeal- ousXhristians think their national peculiarities are an important part of the Christian religion. There is no actual uniformity among the members of one individual church ; hence to expect that the prac- tises of Christians in all parts of the world, aside from those things distinctly commanded in the Scriptures, will all be alike, is as ridiculous as to expect that they will all dress alike, or subsist on the same kind of food. No universal headship is therefore needed on the ground that it will pro- mote uniformity. Man's own weakness should suggest to him that he cannot be the head of the church. The head of the church needs every superior qualification, — perfect wisdom, omnipotence, omniscience, and infallibility. Man has none of these attributes, hence Jesus, in whom all fulness dwells, retains to himself the sole headship of his church. w ■ '? M^-L,m^ CHRIST'S RELATION TO THE CHURCH. 2/5 Christ is the head of the church as a whole, because he is the head of every member of his church. Real Christians are not only united to the church, but they are joined to Christ himself. They are not joined to Christ because they are united to the church, but they belong to the church by virtue of their union with Christ. The union with Christ is of the first importance ; it is the primary union resulting from their accepting him as their Saviour. The relation which Christ sustains to those who believe in him is set forth by Paul in several places. Thus, in his letter to the Ephesians, he says that Christ has been raised above all principality, and power, , and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come ; and that God hath put all things under his feet, and given him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.^ In this scripture, Christ in his relation to his church occupies a position similar to that which the head does to the different members of the hu- man body. Hence, any power — any man or men who take Christ's place — would separate Christ from those who compose that body, thus separating them from the life of Christ and his controlling influence, in reality taking the place of Christ. In harmony with this idea, Paul, writing prophetically of a power that was to arise, says of it that he * Chap, 1 : 21-23. 2/6 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. ''opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped ; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God [the place which be- longs to God alone], showing himself that he is God." 2 Thess. 2:3, 4. The unity of Christ with his church, and his per- sonal oversight over it, are well described by Paul in Eph. 4 : 13-16. Describing the gifts which are bestowed upon the church, he says that their object is to bring all to the " unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ : that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, . . . whereby they lie in wait to de- ceive ; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ : from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." This is a very important scripture upon the head- ship of Christ. The idea of a growth in spiritual things from childhood to manhood is. presented. To be a perfect man, and to attain to the fulness of Christ, is the hope and object of the Christian. This can be attained only by personal spiritual contact with the divine Head of the church. One cannot be perfect unless there be a connection Christ's relation to the church. 277 between him and the perfect God-man, Christ Jesus, the head of the church. None can receive the fulness of righteousness except he receive it directly from him in ' ' whom dwelleth all the ful- ness of the Godhead bodily." Receiving the truth from him, the believer "may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ." To him all the body — every Christian — is '' fitly joined, " and by this connection is furnished to the believer in Jesus that power and grace which supplies all he needs to live a godly life, so. that he grows up into Christ his head, becoming like him from whom his life is derived. In I Corinthians 12 Paul further illustrates this idea of the headship of the church by entering into quite a minute description of the relation of the head of a human being to its different members, and applying the figure to the relation of Christ to his body, the church. The object of this descrip- tion and comparison appears to be to show the equality of all the members, their dependence upon Christ, his headship over, and relation to, them all, and the mutual sympathy and forbearance that should exist between the individual Christians who compose the spiritual body of Christ. The foot, the hand, and other members of the body are taken to represent individual Christians. Christ is the head ; and as the various members of the human body are connected to the head, so those who be- lieve in Christ are connected with him. That is to 2/8 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. say, If a Christian be represented by a hand, he is not joined to the head by means of another Chris- tian, or Christians, represented by the arm. In the figure used, the intervening parts of the body be- tween the head and the hand are not taken into account. The hand, the foot, — every Christian, — is joined directly to the head. Unless this be so, there is no personal connection between Christ and the believer. The head can move one finger without affecting the arm, and so through all intervening objects Christ moves directly upon the hearts of his chil- dren. They are all joined to him ; they compose the " general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven." Church organiza- tions as they exist in the world, while serving a useful purpose as the visible representation of the body of Christ, are necessarily imperfect, since in the most carefully guarded church, deceivers and hypocrites will enter. The Christian worker, as he gathers together those who profess to believe the gospel, places in the spiritual house, as he sees it, material, which is fitly represented by "gold, silver, precious stories, " — persons who have really repented of their sins, and hence are of real moral worth and stability of character, whose Christianity is not a mere profession but a life. But since Christian ministers, and all who labor in the word and doctrine, are not infallible, they also gather for their spiritual building persons who are repre- Christ's relation to the church. 279 sented by "wood, hay, stubble." i Cor. 3 : 12. Such is the composition of the visible church of Christ. Many of the members of this body have no vital connection with Christ. They belong to the visible but not to the invisible church. By usurpation and perversion of the Scriptures, men may even become the head of the church in its earthly aspect ; but of the spiritual church, com- posed alone of true believers, whose names are written in heaven, none but Christ can be the head ; for he knows all who are joined to him, and he will be head to no others. In the great day of God the final decision will be made; the "gold, silver, precious stones " will be separated from the "wood, hay, stubble," "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." The popes of Rome, having assumed the head- ship of the church on earth, have claimed to be able to decide upon the characters of men here, cursing, and even taking the life of those whom they have pronounced heretics. This is the inevi- table result of having such a head. Those who compose such a headship, by their very position are led to cherish a disposition to censure, con- demn, and drive from the church, and the work of the church, if not from the world, those who do not accept the views of the head ; so that there never was and never can be any such thing as Christian liberty in a church upon which the incubus of an 28o THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. earthly head has been foisted. A study of the his- tory of the Roman Church will fully confirm the truthfulness of this latter statement. If the Christian church is to be perpetuated in the form in which it was given to men by its divine Author and his inspired apostles, the mass of the body of Christ — the common members of the church — will need to watch closely that their re- ligious rights and privileges are respected, that they are not relegated to the background as though of no account, while a few persons absolutely dic- tate to them in all things of a spiritual nature. They will need to see to it that the men whom they elect to positions of honor and responsibility, do not transcend the bounds of their legitimate functions, gaining little by little by means of en- croachments allowed, which soon become crystal- lized into established precedents, — an authority not warranted in the Scriptures, dangerous to the church, and subversive of the liberty of the gospel of Christ. It is not necessary that men, who gain an ex- cess of power in the church, and use that power when gained, in an unauthorized and arbitrary man- ner should be personally wicked or evil-disposed persons. They need only to be self-deceived — one of the fatalities which often befalls the best of men. The present pope of Rome is a very kindly disposed man. There is no question that he be- lieves, as fully and sincerely as the most devoted Christ's relation to the church. 281 priest or common Catholic, that he is all that his church believes him to be. The same may be truthfully said of many other popes. Personal character does therefore not enter into the discus- sion of this question. It is a question of principles rather than of the characters of men. Many state churches have contained men of great piety and devotion, and the men who have composed the head of the various state churches have often been men of the most exemplary char- acter ; but that has no bearing on the question. It is only by comparing the Roman Catholic sys- tem of church government and other systems of a similar nature, with the divine word of God, in which is revealed the true principles of church gov- ernment, that the unscriptural and false systems may be detected. The word of God will always stand in its beautiful symmetry of doctrine as a protest and a defense against all false systems whatsoever, teaching the pure principles of Christ in regard to everything that affects the church and the work which has been committed to it to save men. Happy will he be, who clings closely to it, no matter what the consequences may be ; yea, happy and prosperous will be that church, which, taking its doctrines entirely from the Scriptures, shall model its church government after the same infallible Pattern, jealously guarding its own heaven-born privileges and liberties ; and which shall not fail to frown down any and everything 282 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. which would change in the least degree the simple but effective church government which Infinite Wisdom devised for the needs of every people. All the Protestant churches descended either di- rectly from the Church of Rome, or indirectly from her through some other church. This coming out did not take place until Rome had made a wide de- parture from the practises of the apostolic church, and the scriptural plan of church government had long been trodden underfoot, to make way for an- other system, modeled more after the fashion of the government of the pagan Roman Empire than upon the democratic simplicity revealed in the Scriptures. How natural, and perhaps at the time almost unavoidable, that these dissenting churches should incorporate into their new organizations some portions of the Roman system, which had received the sanction of the church through ages. The only way to avoid this evil will be by a close study of the word of God, and a fixed determination to reject whatever does not receive the divine sanction. Many otherwise true reformers have given little attention to church government. Generally speak- ing, reformers> have given more thought to doctrines which relate more directly to faith and practise than to the matter of church organization ; and some churches whose doctrines are remarkable for their harmony with the Scriptures, have paid little attention to the question of church government, the Christ's relation to the church. 283 result being that the Scriptural plan for the gov- ernment of the church has never yet been fully reached by them. The primary object of this work is to show from the Scriptures that there was no primacy estab- lished by Christ ; that the primacy which was set up was evil and evil only. But there is another object to be gained. What good will a knowledge of the mistakes of past ages be to us, if we unwisely repeat and perpetuate those errors ? We should not only be able to see the papacy in the great height of power to which it attained, but understand also the steps by which that height was gained, and thus be prepared to avoid them, should we be able to discern tendencies of a similar character in the church of our choice. If this little book shall be a benefit to conscien- tious Christians by helping them to understand by what means a spirit of rivalry and a desire for su- premacy finally grew into a great and tyrannous primacy in the church, and shall also enable them to see and prevent similar evils in the church with which they are connected, no matter what church that may be, the hope of the author will be real- ized, and his work will not have been in vain. INDEX. PAGE Apostles in the school of Christ 31 Authority of the church continues 45 Authority in each local church 45 Apostolic custom of several elders in one church 142 Archbishop, when introduced 146, 147 Attitude of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople toward each other 158 Authority of bishop of Rome not acknowledged by Eastern bishops 158 Aim of' the papacy to rule the world 177, 178 Attempt of the papacy to conquer England 184-189 Authority of Jerusalem Council, on what based 77 An important prophecy fulfilled 223-225 A primacy beyond the power of man 260, 261 Attributes of Deity needed by head of the church , . .260, 274 Authority of a council 261-263 A primacy, how composed 263, 264 Apostolic examples of independence 269 Acknowledgments of eminent Catholics 94-96 Bold assertion of Romish emissaries 155, 156 Bishop of Constantinople claims the primacy 160 Bishop and elder the same 139 Council above Peter 74 Catholic theory of Peter as the rock 43 Church existed before the apostles 48, 49 Comment of Dr. Adam Clarke 50, 5 1 Contest between Peter and Paul at Antioch 58 Church government must be tested by the Scriptures 138 Change in appointment of bishops 147, 148 [285] 286 INDEX. College of Cardinals, its origin 149 Council of Sardica 155 Contention between John and Gregory 160-162 Catholic orders, their purpose , 178 Contention in the church in regard to worship of images. . .201, 202 Conspiracy to dethrone Childeric 203, 204 Contentions between kings and the papacy 210 Condition of Italy at time of French Revolution 210, 211 Causes of the Italian Revolution 227, 228 Count Cavour, his statesmanship 236, 237, 239, 244, 248 Cause of war between France and Prussia 251 Cardinal Tascherau, his protest 256 Celebration of Italian unity 255 Causes which led to the primacy 259 Christ's relation to each member of his body 275 Christ the head of every believer 275-277 Church government of Protestants, how received 282 Church officers, how they should be selected 140-142 Crimean War, what Italy gained by it 236, 237 Doctrine of succession should be stated 18, 19 Danger of false exegesis 50 Danger of depending on tradition 98 Decretals of Isidore, what are they ? loi Duties of primate not described 133 Defeat of the Ostrogoths 157 Division of the Roman Empire •. . 152, 1.53 Decrease in power of Spain 189, 190 Deposition of Childeric a crime 205 Defeat of Garibaldi by French troops 251 Danger of usurpation of authority 280 Early history of church following Scripture record not clear, 137, 138 Early claims of Rome to supremacy 154 Efforts of Leo XIII to unite Christendom 168 Eastern church protected by Mohammedanism 178, 179 Exile of Pope Pius VI 216 Evidences that Peter was not in Rome 9i~93 French Revolution, its causes 209 French campaign in Italy 211-213 INDEX. 287 Franco-Italian war upon Austria, its results to Italy 237, 238 French army withdrawn from Rome 252 Gavazzi's statement 11 7-1 19 Great danger of change in church government 138, 139 Gregory the Great 159 Great claims of the papacy 179, 180 Garibaldi's conquest of Naples 239-241 Garibaldi's attempts to take Rome 245, 246, 250, 251 Gibbon's description of papal intrigue 206-208 How heresies are propagated 42 How Paul was supported at Rome 87, 90 How Paul's disciples were to follow him 127 Hippolytus's fanciful stories. 111-113 Italy secures Venetia 247-249 Inferences for John's supremacy 55, 56 Independence of the various parts of the church 265-267 Jerusalem Council, why convened ? 68-70 Justinian's decree 157 Louis Napoleon's plan for Italy 239 Lordship in the church forbidden 33, 65 Lesson taught by paying unlawful tribute 39 Metropolitan bishops, their origin 145, 146 Many bishops submit to Rome 156 Measures of reform by Victor Emmanuel 234-236 Necessity of understanding Catholic position 19 No primate named among officers of the church 58, 85, 133 No officer in the church higher than an apostle 86 Napoleon's policy in regard to the papacy 217 Napoleon crowned by the pope 219, 220 Napoleon's demands upon the papacy 220 Napoleon takes the pope prisoner 222 No earthly head of the church before the papacy 273 National peculiarities not Christianity 274 No liberty in church with earthly h.ad 279, 280 No evidence that one place v>'as to be center of authority. . . 135, 136 288 INDEX. Opinion of the learned Simon io6, 107 Office of bishop, how gained 143 Organization necessary 264, 278 Object of this book 283 Position of apostle's name in list, no proof of superiority. . .23, 24 Pi'imus^ meaning of the word 25 Peter not alone blessed 29 Peter's natural forwardness 29, 40 Peter an offense unto Christ 30 Peter and the tribute money 38, 39 Power to forgive sins bestowed upon all the apostles 42, 44 Power to forgive sins not transferable 44 Peter, meaning of the word 51, 52 Peter's power died with him 53, 54 Paul's superiority might be inferred 57 Peter prohibited from the Gentile field 59, 60, 81, 92 Peter's letters, when written 61 Peter claimed no supremacy 63, 66 Paul independent of Peter 67, 123, 124 Peter's part in the council at Jerusalem 73-76 Paul's letters, when and where written 83 Paul's silence in reference to Peter, how accounted for. . ,84, 90, 93 Paul the chief man among the brethren at Rome 88, 92 Paul exhorts his disciples to follow him, how 126, 127 Paul's letters very authoritative 128, 129 Paul's and Peter's letters compared 131, 132 Primacy practically confined to Italians ; . . . . 150 Position of Eastern church in regard to union 169-176 Pope Gregory VIII and Henry IV of Germany 183, 184 Papacy turns to the Western powers 202 Papacy delivered from the Lombards 203 Pope Pius IX favors liberty 230 Pope Pius IX abjures the principles of liberty and is expelled from Rome 232 Pope Pius IX declares war on Victor Emmanuel 241, 242 Plans for Italian unity 229, 230 Roman Catholic not appropriate name for Christian church. . . . 137 Removal of seat of empire to Constantinople 151, 152 INDEX. 289 Rome becomes head of the Western church -. ... 153, 156, 176 Republic declared in Rome 214, 216 Retribution upon the papacy 225, 226 Revolution of 1848 231 Roman republic crushed by France 233 Rivalry between chief cities of Italy 249 Scriptures cited by Catholics in proof of Peter's supremacy, 21, 28 Supremacy of Peter based on inference only 22, 41 Striving for supremacy rebuked by Christ 32 Special message to Peter no proof of his supremacy 34, 35 Supremacy of Peter not taught by command to feed the flock 38 Scene of Peter's labors 60, 80, 81 Scriptures the best authority 93, 94 Scholarship, how arrayed on question of Peter's supremacy. ... 94 Statement of Ignatius 102 Statement of Kendrick 106 Struggle for the headship 1 10 Superstition about Peter's chains 116, 117 Specific rules for church government not given 141 Successive ranks of clergy 148, 149 Separation of Eastern and Western churches 167 Statement ofjames Lord in regard to temporal power 195, 196 States of the Church, what were they ? 199. 200, 205 Surrender of the papacy to Napoleon 218, 219 States of the Church annexed to French Empire 221, 222 Theory of a succession 17 Theory of succession denied 18 True foundation of the church '43 The "keys," their meaning 52, 53 The position taken by Peter at Antioch 71, 72 Tradition, what is it ? 99 Tradition, how it grows 100 Testimony of Clement 105 Testimony of Ellendorf 95-97? 109 Tertullian's statement _ 113 Tertulhan's character 114, 115 The " Fathers," who are they ? 100, 102 The " Rock," what is meant by it ? 46, 47 290 INDEX. The care of the churches upon Paul 130 The features of the whole church represented without Rome 134, 135 The papacy rules kings 181, 182 The two-sword theory, its claims . . 190-193 Temporal power of the popes, its meaning , 194 The nature of Christ's kingdom 197, 198 The gospel first preached at Rome in an authoritative manner by Paul 82, 83 The freedom desired by the papacy 257 Use of false documents loi, 162, 165, 206, 207 Unity attained by connection with Christ 276, 277 Victor Emmanuel occupies Rome 253, 254 War declared by king of Sardinia against Austria 231 Withdrawal of French troops from Rome 250 What a restoration of the papacy would mean 258 Word of God a safeguard 281 War between the pope and Victor Emmanuel 241, 243 ^1