« PreviousContinue »
a joint jurisdiction in appointing Linus Bishop of Rome. (trenæus, lib. 3. cap. 3. that inte. Testing chapter where St. John's treatment of Cerinthus is recorded). Now according to the Papists Linus succeeded St. Peter ; no such thing, Peter and Paul made him Bishop of Rome. Baronius says, Annal. ad An. 39) that Peter was Bishop at Antioch seven years ; that is, till the year 7!; but Baronius himself tells us, that Peter died A. D, 69, (Annal. ad Annum eundem), - consequently, he sat as Bishop two years after he was dead ! But, according to Onuphrius Panvinus, in his annotations on Platina, who wrote the Lives of the Roman Pontiffs ; Peter was Bishop of Rome no less tban six years after his decease!
Luke. But these lists do not seltle the precedency of the Apostles. St. Matthew places St. Thomas before himself; but St. Mark places him after St. Matthew;-St. Matthew names St. Andrew before St. James and St. John ; but St. Mark after them;-St. Paui,2. Gal. 9. puts St. James before St. Peter, and very properly, because he speaks of what was done at Jerusalem, where certainly St. James presided at the first Council. Hence it appears that the Ordo Nominum in Scripture proves nothing, unless (as Erasmus says after Jerome, on 10, Matthew 2.) it proves that they were all equal in the office of the Apostleship. St. Peter is named first, 7.patos; that is first in the list, not first in power ; not as Princeps Apostolo. rum ; nor yet primus respectu Vocationis, for Andrew was called before bim. They all enjoyed a complete inter-community of power. In the Roman Breviary itself, in the Hymn used on the Festival of St. Peter and St. Paul those Apostles are jointly hailed“ Ecclesiarum Principes.”.
The Church is built on Christ, " the elect and precious" foundation-stone, witnessed by Peter's Confession of Faith. The Wall of the spiritual Jerusalem " had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb." 21, Rev. 14.—The Church was not reared on St.
St. Paul was a partaker in the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and on a level with the other Apostles. He said " in nothing am I behind the very chiefest Apostles," II. Cor. 12, 11.
All the Apostles, and consequently Paul, participated in the power of the keys. To all of them Christ said, “ whatsoever ye shall bind," &c. 18. Matthew, 18. And, again, “ whose soever sins ye remit," &c. 20. Jolin, 23. Paul exercised this power in the case of Hymenæus and Alexander, 1. Tim. 1, 20; and see I. Cor. 5, 4, where he appears to authorize the Church at Corinth to act judicially. All the Apostles received a like commandment to make disciples, to baptize and to teach ; panteuraTE, CATTISGYTES, didapucyTeç. 28. Matthew, 19. When the reference was made from Antioch, on the question about Circumcision, it was not made to Peter, as a Supreme Judge of Controversies; but, generally, to the Apostles and Elders. Peter did not preside in that Council ; neither did he call it. He exercised no primacy in it; he was not even primus inter pares ; the Epistle or Rescript communicating the decree was not drawn up in Peter's name, but in the names of the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren.
St. Paul at Miletus orders the
Peter, exclusively ; but on the Prophets and Apostles, generally, The Apostles received divers gifts of the Holy Ghost, but they were given to Simon the · Cananite (Simon Znawtns) as well as to Simon l'eter.
Peter exercised neither primacy nor supremacy over the other Apostles, when Matthias was chosen by lot, with the prayers of the eleven. After “ Samaria re. ceived the word of God,” Peter was sent thither jointly with John, Here was no pre-eminence over the Apostolic College ; here Peter and John were sent on a joint mission, Acts 8, 14. To Peter, Christ said, “ I will give thee the keys,” (owow), Matthew 16, 19. This promise was fulfilled when Christ gave the powers mentioned in the opposite columa to all the A posiles.
Christ said to St. Peter “ feed
my shoep; "-iving him a triple charge, answerable, perhaps, to his triple denial of his master. Twice our Lord used the word Goσκε, and once ποιμαινε.
The latter word certainly means to tend, to rule, to govern ; but, as Beza observes, Christ does not give him the charge of all the sheep; he neither say's παντα τα αρνιά, παντα τα προβατα, 21. John, 15.
Elders, ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν, to tend over the Church; 20. Acts, 28;
and he himself exercised, that function of Church government, when he prescribed ordi
nances in all Churches, I. Cor. , 7, 17.
St. Paul not only called St. Peter's conduct in question, on the occasion mentioned in the opposite column ; but "o withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed.” 2. Gal. il.
St. Peter gave an account of himself to the first Christians, when “they of the Circumcision contended with bim," 11. Acts, 2, 4; contrary to the Pope's 2s, sumed Prerogative, to judge all men, and not to be judged by any one" cunctos ipse judicaturus; a nemine est judicandus." . Peter, who was intimidated, “ dissembled, and walked not uprighily ac• cording to the truth of the Gospel,” 2. Gal. 12, 13, 14.-Infallible as the Popes may claim to be, Peter was neither perfect por infallible ; but had he been even impeccable and infallible, and had be been seated at Rome by Divine Authority, - there is not a word in Scripture about Peter's suc
lain, Mr. Editor,
October 14, 1912.
Remarks on an Imporidnt Passage (viz. Matt. xvi, 19.) which has
long been perverted by the Church of Rome, in Support of her vain and baneful Pretensions to a Superiority, or Supreme Dominion, over all other Episcopal Churches. By Granville Sharp. --J. White and Co. 1812.'
Happy are we to recognize Mr. Granville Sharp amongst those who expose the scriptural perversions, and resist the baneful pretensions, of the Romish Church. Protestant principles well become the grandson of Archbishop Sharp, who so eminently distinguished himself in the days of James II. by his learning, his firmness, and his eloquence. Mr. Sharp is an hereditary defender of the protestant faith. Nor has he signalized himself against the errors of Popery only, but against those which have been propagated by those self-willed men who derogate from the Deity of the Son of God. Setting aside all the arguments deducible from the general tenor of Scripture, his philological “Remarks on the Uses of the definitive Article in the Greek text of the New Testament,” have settled the question, and have rendered all the attempts of the Socinians to impose their audacious dogmata on the world, perfectly nugatory- In the tract now before us, he applies his intimate acquaintance with the original languages of the Old and New Testament, to shew the futility of the specious interpretations of the Romish Church, which founds its claim of Papal Supremacy on Matt. xvi. 18 ; " And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” The word Ilerga, translated a Rock, has not the same meaning with the word ITstges, Peter; although it bears such a relation to it as to justify the paronomasia, that turn of speech, which our Lord adopted when he uttered the words in question.-Our Saviour referred to the declaration of Peter " thou art Christ, the Son of the living God," -as the Rock on which he should build his Church. Iletgos signifies a stone, a little piece of a Rock-Ilerga, a Rock, means something of superior dignity and importance. The first word Tierpos being a masculine noun signifies merely a Stone ; but the second Ilerga, cannot mean any thing of less magnitude and importance than a Rock. We
VOL. I. [Prot. Adv. Dec. 1812.) S
shall here print the note which occurs p. 4, on this subject. “ IIstpos, 8, ò, lapis, saxum (a stone). See the Greek Lexicons of Scapula, Schrevelius, Dawson, Parkhurst, &c.; and the learned Dr. Adam Littleton has placed, in his Dictionary of Proper Names, as follows: · Petrus [letpos ato tus mergas, a petrá noinên accepit, i. e. CHRISTO, super quem fundata est ecclesia. Though this was an additional name, surname, or cognomen ; yet as it was given to Simon, the son of Jonas, by our Lord himself, it may surely be deemed his proper name, the characteristical meaning of which was declared on the first introduction of Peter (by his brother Andrew), into the presence of his Lord. The true meaning of the name was at first declared by our Lord to be Cephas, a stone; and a learned commentator, Edward Leigh, Esq. asserts, that netgos doth always signify a STONE, never a Rock. Critica Sacra, p. 325."-We shall not quote any more from so short, though so decisive, a work,-only 27 pages, small 8vo.—but we can with confidence refer our readers to it for such information as cannot but satisfy any mind open to conviction.We shall take an early opportunity of noticing Mr. Sharp's remarks on the Roman Catholic Catechism for Ireland; published 1810.-—-We mean likewise to reprint one or two short Papers from the Works of Archbishop Sharp.
An Appeal against the Roman Catholic Claims.-Slockdale, 1812.
This is a well-timed tract, by the Editor of Bishop Porteus's “ Reasons against emancipating the Roman Catholics,”—“ Dr. Robertson's Rise of the Reformation," &c." An Awful Warning, or the Massacre of St. Bartholomew,” noticed by Mr. Canning, &c. &c. It is dedicated, with great propriety to Lord Kenyon, who has so successfully distinguished himself by his Remarks on the Roman Catholic Question, (see Prot. Adv. p. 30) and it contains several very just observations. We thank the author for the handsome epithets which he bestows on our own work ; but we sincerely declare that although his Publisher is also our's, we know not his name.-We respect his zeal, and to show him how much we esteem his good sense, and estimate the quantum of information which he possesses, we shall avail ourselves of his