Page images
PDF
EPUB

walls were concentrated all the wealth, the learning, the ambition, the pleasures, and the interests of millions. It was at once the head and the heart of the most mighty empire on which the sun had ever shone, and the Church established there, must, for these reasons, have attracted the eyes of all Christendom. The faithful resorted to it from every quarter, as their duties, their curiosity or their connexions led them to visit the vast metropolis, and it must have been the richest, the greatest, and the most influential of all the Churches, through the political and earthly principality of its location.

Thus understood, the language of Irenæus is clear and consistent; but were we to adopt the hypothesis of Roman supremacy founded upon the episcopate and pre-eminent prerogatives of Peter, we should find it contradictory and unaccountable. For if this primitive witness believed as they imagine, why did he not say that Peter established himself as the first bishop of Rome, instead of saying that Peter and Paul founded that Church jointly, and delivered the episcopal government to Linus? And in the other part of the passage, why does he not say that the faithful from every quarter must necessarily resort to the Church of Rome, on account of its having been the diocese of Peter, instead of saying on account of its stronger principality? When fairly examined, therefore, brethren, we see distinctly that Irenæus does not only omit what the doctrine of the Church of Rome requires, but actually sets down what cannot be fairly reconciled with it.

We are happy in possessing another passage of the works of Irenæus, however, which places the subject in a still stronger light. There was a controversy in his time about the proper day for keeping the festival of our Lord's resurrection; the eastern Churches universally observing it on one day, and the western Churches on another. Victor, the bishop of Rome, being desirous to bring about a general consent upon the subject, found the eastern bishops unwilling to change their

M

rule, and thereupon undertook to pronounce against them a sentence of excommunication. The consequence was, that the other bishops of the west censured him severely, and amongst the rest, Irenæus, who was the bishop of Lyons, wrote him a letter of expostulation, of which the following is a part:

"These bishops," saith Irenæus, addressing himself to Victor, "who formerly governed the Church of Rome over which you now preside, neither observed the eastern custom about the feast of Easter themselves, nor allowed those who were with them to observe it. And yet they preserved peace

with those Churches in which it was observed. And when the blessed Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna) came to Rome in the time of Anicetus, (who was then the Roman bishop) there was a little controversy between them upon other matters as well as this, and yet they embraced each other with the kiss of peace, not being disposed to contend any further about the question. For Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to change his custom, because he had lived familiarly with the apostle John, the disciple of our Lord, and with the other apostles, and observed their rule continually. Nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to conform, because he said that he retained the custom of the elders who were before him. Under these circumstances, they communed together. And Anicetus, the Roman bishop, yielded to Polycarp, as a token of respect, the office of consecrating the Eucharist in the Church; after which they departed from each other in peace, each retaining, in mutual allowance, their former cus

[merged small][ocr errors]

Now here, brethren, we have, not a few words of uncertain and controverted meaning, but a plain historical fact, which clearly demonstrates the equal rights of the primitive bishops, and utterly destroys the foundation of Roman supremacy. Irenæus, the bishop of Lyons, rebukes Victor, the bishop of

Rome, for breaking the peace of the Church by excommunicating the eastern Churches. This shows us two points of great importance. First, it shows how early the notion of dominion over the other Churches began to be manifest in the bishops who occupied the great metropolis of the world. And secondly, it shows us, that at this time the other bishops had no idea of suffering such an assumption, but, on the contrary, highly disapproved the arrogance and pride of the Roman pontiff. We see, in the next place, that Irenæus relates to Victor the condition of the Churches in the generation which had just passed over them; when the very same controversy arose between the celebrated bishop of Smyrna, who had been the scholar of St. John, and Anicetus, the then Roman bishop. He states expressly that neither would yield to the other, because each considered himself justified by the custom of the apostles; and yet so far was the Roman bishop from pretending to any supremacy over the bishop of Smyrna, that he gave him the post of honour in his own Church, and parted from him in peace and charity. Where was then the doctrine of Peter being the prince of the apostles, the pope holding the place of Christ upon the earth, the Church of Rome being the mother and mistress of all the Churches, the bishop of Rome being the fountain of all authority and the centre of unity? Ah, brethren! these were the comparatively pure days of simplicity, and apostolic truth and order. All bishops were equal, all held a perfect parity of rights and privileges, as the apostles had done before them. In this interesting narrative, therefore, we have what may well be called an historical demonstration, that the vast prerogative of Roman supremacy had no real sanction in the will of Christ, nor in the doctrine of the apostles, nor in the practice of the primitive Church, but was the result of power and policy at a much later day.

Thus much may suffice for the testimony of Dr. Wise

man's oldest witness among the fathers. Let us pass on to the evidence of the next, Tertullian, who flourished within thirty or forty years after Irenæus. Our ingenious author quotes a sentence here, in which Tertullian, telling Christians to settle their controversies by applying to the nearest apostolic Church, saith, "If you are in Africa, Rome is not far, to which we can readily apply. Happy Church! to which the apostles gave their whole doctrine with their blood." Now you will perceive at once, brethren, that this, although it seems to flow well enough in the general channel of Dr. Wiseman's argument, in reality proves nothing to the purpose. Let me quote a little more from the same witness, and you will have a far more complete view of his testimony.

"Come then," saith Tertullian, "you who wish to exercise your curiosity to good advantage in the concerns of your salvation, go through the apostolic Churches, amongst which the very seats of the apostles continue in their places and their original epistles are recited, sounding forth the voice and representing the countenance of each one. Is Achaia near to you? You have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have Thessalonica. If you cannot go throughout Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are convenient to Italy, you have Rome, whence authority for us is nigh at hand. How happy is this Church to which the apostles gave their whole doctrine with their blood." Here, brethren, you have the introductory passage, together with the part on which our learned advocate relies; and you see how vain must be the attempt to draw from it any proof of supremacy or superior dominion for the Church or pope of Rome. For Tertullian refers the Christian to all the apostolical Churches, evidently placing them on an equality: He mentions first, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, which were of St. Paul's planting. Then he mentions Ephesus, which was of St. John's planting. He mentions Rome last, and says that her authority

is nigh at hand, because he lived at Carthage, which was not very distant from Rome. And when he calls her, Happy Church! instead of giving the reason which would suit Dr. Wiseman's hypothesis, namely, because Rome was the diocese of the apostle Peter, and on that account was appointed to be the mother and mistress of all the other Churches, and to have her bishop exalted to the seat of absolute supremacy as the vicegerent of Christ-instead of all this, our witness simply refers to the circumstance, that at Rome the apostles Peter and Paul had suffered martyrdom, and therefore had not only given to this Church their doctrine, but also their blood. That this was an interesting fact to the Church of Rome may be readily admitted, but it is obvious that it was one which had nothing whatever to do with the question of government

or supremacy.

There is another part of Tertullian's testimony, however, which is more express than this, showing the rise of the subsequent doctrine relative to priestly absolution, and arguing against it in terms which clearly prove that he was no advocate for the supremacy of Peter, and still less for the derivation of that supremacy to the bishops of Rome.

"From your own argument," saith he, "I would know from whence you derive this right (of absolution) which you claim for the Church. If from our Lord's saying to Peter; Upon this rock I will build my Church: To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, or, Whatsoever you shall bind or loose on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven; do you therefore presume that this power of binding and loosing descended to thee, that is, to the whole Church which is related to Peter? If so, you are overturning and changing the manifest intention of our Lord, who conferred this on Peter individually. Upon thee, he says, I will build my Church; and to thee I will give the keys, not to the Church; and whatsoever thou shalt loose or bind, not whatsoever they shall

« PreviousContinue »