By Rev. JAMES MACLEOD, Greenock.
THE vast majority of the people of this nation and other nations maintain that the unity of the Roman Catholic Church is so perfect that there is nothing to equal it in the whole world—churches, states, political, or ecclesiastical, that the unity and harmony of the See of Rome is an example for all to follow, admire, and emulate! That is the general opinion as expressed by learned statesmen, scholars, as well as the ordinary common people.
That is far from the true state of the Roman See. The unity and external harmony of Rome is entirely on the surface. It is not a reality. We know that the majority of people have neither the time, opportunity, and privilege to search into the past history nor present history of the Papacy. The ordinary Roman Catholic dare not do it; and the learned Papist is well advised to keep as far away from the past and present history of the See of Rome as possible. That is his or her wisdom especially if they earn their bread writing on such subjects as religion, history, Reformation, Luther, Knox, Queen Elizabeth, Free Masons, Jews, Communists, Protestants, etc. But there were learned and honest Roman Catholic historians in the past who did not hesitate to write about the Papacy, Popes, and Councils. The sequence will demonstrate that fact beyond doubt. We hope to write a series of articles to shew and prove from the past, as well as the present history of the Papacy that it is not a united body at all, but a schismatic conglomeration of sects, parties, cliques and divisions. The unity of Romanism is clearly stated in the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, v. 19: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings and such like;” that is the papacy in all ages, and in our age. It is in the above sense that they are united, as Satan and the fallen angels are united! There is no unity, love or mercy in the Papistical religion from the roots upwards. Indeed, in many respects, according to the Scriptures, “a mystery.” How this awful system is kept together, operates, designs, plans, and yet underneath there is no adhesion. On the outside it appears all unity, communion and life, and inside the body, awful hatred, malice, confusion, lies, deceit, murder, immorality, filth of all kinds!
The most of people are either indifferent whether popery, communism, or Deism will govern their lives. One must give credit to Mr. Churchill that he is a clever and an intelligent man. If not a learned man, that he is above many; and yet he would recklessly say, that in his opinion, “that the Vatican was the cradle of Christianity.”
If Mr. Churchill is so utterly ignorant of the history of the Church as all that; what must be the ignorance of the average man! No man that ever read the history of the Church from the early centuries of the Christian era could use such irresponsible language in a public audience without exposing himself to the utmost ridicule. Mr. Lloyd George made a similar reckless statement in 1913 in the House of Commons, discussing the Irish Home Rule, that the Protestants murdered forty thousand of the Roman
Catholics! Edward Carson corrected this deliberate falsehood the following afternoon—see Hansard. Lloyd George did it for a political purpose, and we believe Churchill did it for the same reason, but behold the end of Lloyd George! What will be the end of Churchill? Any person who will take the side of popery, let him be high or low, and continue and persist in supporting it shall come to grief. Popery is the greatest “mystery of iniquity” that ever disgraced the creation and the most offensive blasphemy that ever insulted the God of heaven! We will make constant use of the writings of that redoubtable historian, Rev. Samuel Edgar, D.D., and refer to the authorities he so frequently quotes, mostly Roman Catholic historians.
We shall begin with the Popes, and the great schisms of that “united church” of the Vatican! The English Church, as well as the Roman Catholic Church claim “Apostolic Succession.” Their claims are both without a shred of evidence. The English, in more recent times, admit that on historical grounds the myth of “Apostolic Succession,” cannot be supported on evidential facts. The Vatican adheres to the myth more than ever. Some Protestant, as well as Roman Catholic historians, speak about Popes of the second, third, and fourth centuries, which is not correct, and cannot be substantiated by evidence, that no Bishop of the Christian Church claimed to be the “Universal Bishop” before the year 606 of the Christian era. The Emperor Phocas, by assassination of the royal family, seizes the throne, and for political reasons, confers the dignity of “Universal Bishop” on the Bishop of Rome. Did Phocas revoke this political recognition of the Roman Bishop is a question historians are not agreed upon.
Popery was a gradual growth from the middle of the first century to the middle of the fifth century. In the days of the Great Constantine, beginning about the early part of the fourth century, or about 315, when the Emperor cast off the yoke of paganism and made public profession of the Christian religion. It was after the declensions that followed that glorious period that Satan stirred up the corruptions of men to assume the place of gods, as there used to be in the pagan world before the advent of the Christian era. We shall deal meantime with the great schism.
The first question which confronts the Protestant is—Was Peter in Rome, and if so, at what date, and who says that he was, and what proof, what are the extant records of his visit, stay and position? The Papists maintain that Peter was Bishop of Rome, the first Bishop of that See. The Protestant is at once confronted with the question—Is a bishop, archbishop or cardinal an office above that of an apostle? If not, how could one of the apostles be bishop, and who would make a bishop of him? As one probes into the rumour that Peter was ever in Rome the deeper the mystery becomes, and the more impossible it is to conceive the silence of Paul and others of the visit and bishopric of Peter in the city of Rome! As Edgar says: “The pontifical succession is attended with more difficulty than the quadrature of the circle of the longitude at sea. . . . But the papal succession mocks investigation, eludes research, and bids proud defiance to all inquiry.” That is true about the papal system all through. Its history and movements are shrouded in darkness. The Jesuits of to-day work so secretly that even the reigning Pope may not know exactly where they are operating,
or what their plans and schemes are in U.S.A., Britain, France, or even Russia, as out and out communists. It is a mystery! The Holy Ghost calls it the “mystery of iniquity.” He may be a most humble Protestant pastor, very evangelical, kind, a good father, and gradually but persistently begin to attack the Bible, the facts of history, applaud the ancient customs of the Fathers, seek to change the worship, the pulpit to face the east, and introduce his Romish gesticulations bit by bit, and before he finishes his antics, a whole generation of men and women ruined for ever. He comes in as a lamb, goes out as a lion! That has happened in the Protestant Church soon after the dawn of the glorious Reformation. It is estimated that there are over five thousand Jesuits in Britain at the present time, and five scores of them would be dangerous to any nation let alone five thousand! The folk who feel secure and content have never followed up their history and may mock at those who realise their danger, but the Jesuit may be working on a scheme which will mean the death of thousands of their sons and daughters. That he was behind the bombing of London, etc., is as sure as the sun rose in the east from the creation of the world. But, to return to Peter, the first Roman “Pope,” Edgar says: “A single hint on this subject is not afforded by Peter himself, nor by his inspired companions, Luke, James, Jude, Paul and John. Peter, in his epistolary productions, mentions nothing of his Roman residency, episcopacy or supremacy. Paul wrote a letter to the Romans, and from the Roman city addressed the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy and Philemon. . . . No man, except Luke, stood with Paul at his first answer or at the near approach of dissolution.” In derision, Edgar says: “His apostolic holiness could not have been in his own diocese, and should have persecuted for non-residence. His infallibility, perhaps, like some of his successors, had made an excursion, for amusement, to Avignon. . . . The omission is continued by the Apostolic men, Clemens, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius and Polycarp. Not one of all these designs to mention a matter of such stupendous importance to Christendom.” The “myth” deepens as we proceed to examine the records, and the “mystery of iniquity” passes out of sight into the catacombs of Roman Catholic antiquity!
Edgar says: “The fiction of Peters’ visit to the metropolis of the world began to obtain credit about the end of the second century. Irenaeus, trusting to the prattlement of Papias, or to common report, recorded the tradition, and was afterwards followed by others.” The historian, Eusebius, considered the tradition without evidence to support it. He introduces it as something reported, but not certain. . . . It was a mere hearsay. “Bede, the British analyst, is conjecturing from the writings of others, what was said without proof. Bede, v. 4.” The fact of the matter is that there is not a shred of authentic evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. Irenaeus is the first to mention it one hundred and fifty years after Peter was supposed to be “Bishop” of Rome. The Roman historians, Baronius, Binnius, and Labbe, and all that followed them, to this day are positively certain (without the least evidence) that Peter founded the Vatican in the city of Rome! The Apostles had no stated charges, like bishops or pastors, which indeed was a result of the apostolic mission, and then how could Peter differ from the other apostles that got the same kind of
commission as all the rest did from the Lord Himself? We see that even good men may be the mouth-piece of Satan sometimes in spreading false reports. Irenaeus was a good man, but so imperfect that he began to spread a false report that Peter was in Rome—just on hearsay report! What mischief a good man may be instrumental in doing; and the good old Bede followed the stories of the old monks, men as a rule that had very little respects to truth. On all the available evidence extant, the only conclusion one can come to is that Peter was never in Rome, as Paul, Luke, John, Clemens, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius and Polycrap are all silent on Peter’s visit to the city of Rome! But the clearest evidence will not silence a person who has become mentally delirious. He or she will continue to rave till death silences the muttering of the dying patient! That is the way with the Roman priests, popes and historians. Death alone will silence them from muttering their false stories about the Apostle Peter and his Roman See!
It is a dream, a myth and a Roman Catholic made-up invention which cannot be proved from history. The Apostles also founded and organised the churches in the various places and nations that they visited, settled pastors over the congregations that they founded and officers to carry on the functions required for the good government of the house of God. The Pope Peters, the holy fathers, archbishops, cardinals, bishops, archdeacons, etc., etc., came on the scene long after Paul, Peter, John, James, Timothy, Titus, Luke, Clemens and Polycrap had passed on to be for ever with the Lord. It was the gradual development of the “mystery of iniquity” which Paul and John warns the church against—it was to be after the manner Satan works, as he entered into the garden in the form of a serpent!
“Peter was surely an apostle, yes, who should dare deny it, but that he became after arriving in Rome a bishop, and Irenaeus heard it one hundred and fifty years after Peter passed into heaven to be with Christ for ever.” There is no record in the Scripture or in history that Peter ever saw Rome. We, therefore, conclude that it is utterly false to say that he was in Rome. Historians are not really agreed who was the first bishop in Rome. The Roman Catholic historians affirm that a man Linus was the first bishop. No real evidence for that either! “Peter and Paul,” says Irenaeus, “having founded the Roman Church, committed its episcopacy to Linus.” Irenaeus was quoting from hearsay reports. He had no records to prove his story! Let us hear Dr. Edgar on this question: “But the whole accounts of this event are as discordant as they are silly. The partisans of this opinion differ in the time of the Apostolic Pontiff’s arrival and stay in the Roman capital. Jerome, Eusebius, Binius, Orosius, Labbeus, Spondanus, Onuphrius, Nauclerus, Petavius, Bede, Bruys, Baronius, and Valesius send Peter to Rome in the reign of Claudius. These, however, disagree in the year; the second, third, fourth, thirteenth and fourteenth years of the Emperor’s reign being assigned by different authors for the era of this important event. Simon, says Jerome, having preached to the Jews of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, proceeded to Rome in the second year of Claudius and held the sacerdotal chair twenty-five years. Lactantius, Origen, Balusius and Pagius fix his arrival at the Roman metropolis to the reign of Nero. But these too differ as to the year. The length of Peter’s episcopacy is also disputed. Twenty-three,
twenty-five, twenty-seven and twenty-nine years have been reckoned by various chronologers for its duration. This discordance of opinion is the natural consequence of deficiency of evidence. Contemporary historians, indeed, say no more of the Apostle Peter’s journey to Rome than of Baron Munchausen’s excursion to the moon!” We agree with the learned Dr. Edgar. It is a part of the same “mystery of iniquity,” contradictory reports, confusion, groundless fables, and yet spreading like a disease which the skill of man could not stop.
(To be continued.)