The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-12-18

peAred, 1t is the London edition, as the more
are cited, In vol. !, p. ai2, eommentiog upou
Matt, xvils, he says "Coneerning the sense
OF this and the next verse (which, indeed, con-
the Papists and the Protes'ants), various
have been the opinions promulgated and nerce
the disputes agitsted. They are dimcuit OF
verified BY the former, so have they been mis-
understood BY the latter. Most OF the |
ancient fathers, and some modern commenta.
tors OF credit las Beza, Erasmus, Glassius and |
Lishthouse) explained 1t Of the confession or |
profession OF faith here avowed by Peter.
3ss that .s;S
This opinion has, however, been ably |
rcfuted by others, and especially by whitby, |
K when ,sss the
zane S WORK, so%%easins on "a TSss:, ia and
sHsf' sss4s ssS Closely ~ ut. S
tins, every attentive reader Of history, ecclesi-
served BY Doddtidge, that IL this be not appii-
cable to that, II 10 dinieult to say who there
ever has been or eau be to whom It should be.
9od must, according to the most natura! la
terpetration Of the words, import his ruling
and presiding there, and srrogsting authority
In things spiritual as well as temporal. How
strikingiy this trait corresponds to the Ro-
msn Pontineate u 10 needless to remark" So
much for the tss.imoey Of p,: BLOOMFIELD:
Lord Bishop Of Petersboro'. An edition Of
his work, entitled "a comparative view OF
n: GhaIehe. % Englsnd and Rome" 40 was "a.
says; "Under these circumstances y seems
desperate undertaking to prove that our
Pss .o &Sa 70 sSs e .s%e
10 the sane work, page 3i6. "rhe epistle to
the Romans proves lncontestably that the
Church Of Rome WAS not fouoded BY st.
The next witness Is John Pearson, Bishop
OF Chester. Ip one OF his published works,
Church, ana that built upon Peter, accord.
Ing to our Saviour's promise" And yet he
says, page siI Of the same work: NOV, there
10 built, and that 10 Christ"
The next witness Is Thomas Fanshaw Mid.
dietop, arst English Bishop OF Calcutta. He
same opinion" That Is the Roman Catholic
Interpretation Of this passage. We MAY,
therefore, eHsnine these wnnesses mus
stroye ed BY a direction In his wifi, so that none
OF his works have appeared, but volume o.
N. snise Of .k se sppa
| to the criticism and illustration Of the New
Testament" published in lsos, 10 this work,
sS sSsss and On IKE Of
which they form = part, much has been writ
ten which I shall not attempt even to abridge.
log Eri fe Petra, preceding, the Protcstants
have betrayed unnecessary fears, and have
| referred Petra not to Peter, to whose name II
sion TIA. Jesus was the Christ. :.
Hut there Is no occasion to have recourse to
violence. The Christian Church, In matters
of doctrine, says Michsers rssss on the iesti'
The next witness Is George Tomline, Lord
bishop OF Lincoln. In the second volume. p.
the four Patrisrchates OF the Church existing
| about the close OF the fourth century, and OF
the precedence 81 that Of Rome over 1.-the the
probably on account OF the superior civil i'm
portance u the city and the extent Of the
jurisdiction Of the bishop, 10, no claim e re-
Peter was argued TIL a much later period.
And thus the Church continued to be
m ses over V the %hoIs BY
means Of civil power 10 direct opposition to
the words OF Scripture, "Ye shall not lord II
muster, which Is Christ, and all ye are bfeth-
Another witness is DR.. Gerard. probably
the Scotch DR.. Alexander Gerard, born in
| Aberdeenshite, lT2s, and theological professor
10 Kings College. He wrote work on The
Pastoral Care" which was published by OIL
| bert his son and successor, We do not hap
pen to have access to hts writings, but II this
be the man, It 10 not likely that the Roman
Catholic Church can derive very much coun-
deem Scotehman.
Another witness is DR.. Daniel whitby, to
whom Bloomfield SO confidently refers US
controversy with Papish writers, alleging
sinning, maintaining the charge Of idol.
posing the .b.urdiiy Of host:wOIshiP
ss iy au, sns o SSs'F the o.
eiesiastical and civil laws msde against
hersties by Popes, emperors, kings and pro.
Uhurch Of Rome, showing arst, what Protest.
ant subjects may expect to suffer under q
Popish prince, according to those laws; and
prI1cs can give them any just security that he
will not execute these laws upon them. II
seems singular thing that man who Ia
quoted as admitting the Papal doctrine In re-
gard to st. Peter should write such things
against the Church founded By st. Peter,
Moreover, In an edition o. Dr., WhatSy's Gem i,
commenting on the conclusion to be derived
from Matthew xvi, Is, he observes: II, then,
affair, be must not sit Al Rome lording It over
Gods heritage, but must In person go to the
unbelieying Jews and heather world as Peter
Turk, the Jew and the nddel, and when he hath
{ so done and settled Christian churches ther r.
among them, he may then have q better titlt
to be st. Peters successor than he now has.
, The next witness Is DR.. Henry Hammond
born at Chertsey, leos. An clifton OF hi
,hs r New S T e @s. paSiIshsa 10 Lon
don In 1853. His parsphra.e on this passage I,
as follows; "And seeing thou hast so freely
| u,
! thee. Thou art Peter, &c, that Is, the nam,
, by which thou art styled and known by me 4
! that which .ignines stone or rock, and suef
; shall thou be 10 the building Of the Church
= which accordingly shall be so built on thee
!. grave shall not get the victory over II. Tn,
= never be destroyed" So much Tor the para
!, phrase, and now follows the annexation, whici
4 continues thus: 80 that the application Q
i. this whole speech to st. Peters power dotl
r not Immediately impart or by necessary o
u probable consequence infer any ecumeniea
h pastoral power In him tmuch less in any othe
!. | person by choice of succession from him) owe
= The only remaining witness to whom vii
!. ia the Aforesaid discourse, is Albert Burnes,
. Philadeiphia-a man still living among US
!: and whose notes upon the Scriptures hav'
4 had so wide q circulation In our own ant
4 other countries. His language respecting
i this passage 10 as follows: "Another interpre
n tstion 10 that that the word rock refer. t.
Z OF the passage, and had il not been that ~
/ Church OF Rome ha. abused 1t and applied
y to what was never intendsd, no other wopi
n remark Mr.. Burnes must have forgotten tn
a Interpretation OF Augustine and the fathers o
. fore S the Romi.h Church ssssn the abuse 20 o
n which he speaks. We must, therefore, re
J. specifically dissent from his views of the mat
y further on, however, he attempts to guar
!, himself by laying "ohrist did not mean, =
T. the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Pc
q ter to supreme authority above all the othe
}, apostles, or to say that he was the only on
4 on whom he would rear his Church.
n More than all II 10 not said here or anywher
n else In tho Bible that Peter should have Ia
. fallible successors, who should be the vice
! serents OF Christ and the head OF the Church.
. But time would fail US to produce all tn
\ witnesses, even of our own day. Since tn
a Reformation we have the voice Of Scott
i. Clarke, Henry, Doddridge, Gil, Patrick, Poo
: Lowth, Burder, Harmer, Calmet and indee
!. OF ali who have been pro. eminent In the splice
= of biblical criticism, outside Of the Roma
!, Catholic communion. What, then. Is the cor
n olusion from all this evidenced What 10 tn
o decision OF the case upon the argument iroI
n traditiont
/. 1t is, first, that though some Of thes
a writers are OF opinion that the Petra refers
/. Peter by allusion to his name and character
u yet none OF them hold that lie had on thi
| account any Official rank or authority In tn
- | Church superior to the other apostles.
2. Again, acme Of these writer's, In view 9
u that spiritual kingdom, that Invisible Churc
!. which 10 set up In the hearts OF men, and Q
q which the visible Church Is the outward Q,
2 preston, appear to think that the Petra refer
!. to Peter for himself and as the representativ
a OF all believers, who are in just the sam
=, I sense the Petra on which the Church 10 bull
y The idea 10 that the grace OF God or Chris
hims 10 the hearts OF his people Ia the roc
a Of the spiritual edihce against which 18th