The Village in the Mountains; Conversion of Peter Bayssière; and History of a Bible — John Shaqi
The Village in the Mountains; Conversion of Peter Bayssière; and History of a BibleWilder, Sampson Vryling Stoddard
Religion
The Village in the Mountains; Conversion of Peter Bayssière; and History of a Bible
Wilder, Sampson Vryling Stoddard
Bible -- Publication and distribution
[Footnote 6: The popes, his pretended successors, have not been so
obliging; they have been always solicitous to make their authority
felt.]
I needed no more evidence to be thoroughly convinced that all which is
taught by the Romish church of the supremacy of St. Peter, and of
the sovereignty of the popes, his pretended successors, was a fable
destitute of the slightest foundation; at all events, a doctrine no
more to be found in the Gospel than that of purgatory.
If I were surprised at this, I was no less so when I observed, that in
the whole New Testament there was not one word which gave reason to
imagine that St. Peter had ever preached, or had even ever been, at
Rome, where the Roman Catholics assert, and believe as an article of
faith, that he was the first pope. The Acts of the Apostles maintains
the most profound silence on this subject, and affords no ground
whatever for the supposition. All the Epistles leave it equally in
darkness. Those of St. Paul to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the
Philippians, to the Colossians, the second to Timothy, and the Epistle
to Philemon, all written from Rome at different periods, and that to
the Hebrews, written from Italy, make no mention of Peter's being
there. In the last four, the apostle speaks of his companions in
suffering, in labour, and in the work of the Lord, but says not a word
of Peter as being with him. Undoubtedly he would have mentioned him,
as he mentions Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Demas, Prudens,
Livius, Claudia, &c. had he been at Rome; but neither his name, nor
any allusion to his abode in the capital of the world, is to be
discovered in any part of St. Paul's Epistles. In my opinion, there is
no proof of his ever having been there, much less of his having held
the bishopric. Finally, his own two Epistles furnish no evidence for
such a supposition: the first, and in all probability, the second
also, is written from Babylon, 1 Peter, 5:13, and addressed, not to
the Romans, but "to the strangers (that is to say, the converted Jews)
scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,"
1 Peter, 1:1, countries where, it would appear, that he exercised
his ministry, after having for some years preached to the church at
Antioch.
Thus, my children, I discovered that these two primary doctrines of
the Romish church, viz. purgatory and the supremacy of St. Peter, had
not, at any rate, been inculcated by the writers of the Gospel. I
cannot tell you what interest I felt in the new ideas I had acquired.
The New Testament, which I was still far from regarding as a divine
revelation, appeared to me a collection of precious documents, in
whose authority I then began to feel some degree of confidence. Though
I found this study novel and difficult to a poor uneducated artisan
like myself, it was at the same time so attractive to me, that I was
induced to continue my researches.
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