Facts and Assertions: or a Brief and Plain Exhibition of the Incongruity of the Peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome: With Those Both of the Sacred Scriptures and of the Early Writers of the Christian Church Catholic — John Shaqi
Facts and Assertions: or a Brief and Plain Exhibition of the Incongruity of the Peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome: With Those Both of the Sacred Scriptures and of the Early Writers of the Christian Church CatholicFaber, George Stanley
Religion
Facts and Assertions: or a Brief and Plain Exhibition of the Incongruity of the Peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome: With Those Both of the Sacred Scriptures and of the Early Writers of the Christian Church Catholic
Faber, George Stanley
Catholic Church -- Controversial literature
Yet NOT A SINGLE SYLLABLE is said in Scripture, either prophetic or
declarative, respecting _the divine appointment_, and consequently _the
divine right_, of the Papal Supremacy.
We NO WHERE read in Holy Writ: either that _the Roman Church ought justly
to be obeyed_, _as the mother and mistress of all other Churches_; or
that _the Pope is_, _at once_, _the successor of the blessed Peter Prince
of the Apostles_, _and the Vicar of Jesus Christ_.
From whatever quarter the divines of Trent have made these discoveries:
it is quite clear, that the Bible throws no light upon the present
subject.
2. The Romish Clergy, however, assure us: that the primacy or monarchy
of the entire Catholic Church was, in the following express terms,
granted to St. Peter by Christ himself.
_Thou art Peter_: _and upon this rock I will build my Church_; _and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it_. _And I will give unto thee
the keys of the kingdom of heaven_: _and_, _whatsoever thou shalt bind on
earth shall be bound in heaven_; _and_, _whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth_, _shall be loosed in heaven_. {56}
Now, whether our Lord did or did not grant the monarchy of the Church to
Peter; respecting which monarchy, by the way, neither claim nor trace can
be found in any part of the New Testament: the _true_ question, I
apprehend, touches, not _Peter_, but _the Pope_. In other words, it
matters little to the point before us, whether _Peter_ was or was not
divinely appointed the monarch of the Church: unless it can _also_ be
proved, that _the Pope_ is the lawfully and divinely constituted
successor to all Peter’s alleged regalities.
Where, then, is the scriptural demonstration of the Pope’s hereditary
successorship to the asserted special privileges and authority of St.
Peter? In other words, where have we any proof from the Bible: that _The
Roman Pontiff_, as the oath in the Tridentine Profession of Faith
determines, _is_, _at once_, _the Successor of the blessed Peter Prince
of the Apostles_, _and the Vicar of Jesus Christ_?
Truly, the Bible, though we painfully search it through from beginning to
end, SAYS NOT ONE WORD about the matter.
III. But, where the Bible is so provokingly silent, peradventure the
earliest Fathers, in delivering their testimony, may be somewhat more
communicative.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account