merit of what the Church of Rome now is. It is a body profess- ing the same faith, united in the communion of the same sacra- ments, subject to pastors (i. e., bishops) assumed to be lawful, and to the Pope as the vicar of Christ. Now in this definition it is gratuitously assumed, —
1. Tliat the Church to which the promise of divine guidance is ^iven, is an external, visible organization ; and not the people of
Gocr^s'such'ih their personal and individual relation to Christ. In other words, it is assumed that the Church is a visible society, and not a collective term for the people of God ; as when it is said of Paul that he persecuted the Church ; and of Christ that He loved the Church and gave himself for it. Christ certainly did not die for any external, visible, organized Society.
2. The Romish theory assumes, not only that the Church is an external organization, but that it must be or^nized in one definite, presci'ibed fqrjQ,, But this assumption is not only unreasonable, it is unscriptural, because no one form is prescribed in Scripture as essential to the being of the Church ; and because it is contrary to the whole spirit and character of the gospel, that forms of govern- ment should be necessary to the spiritual life and salvation of men. Moreover, this assumption is inconsistent with historical facts. The Church in all its parts has never been organized according to one plan.
3. But conceding that the Church is an external society, and that it must be organized according to one plan, it is a gratuitous and untenable pi-esumption, that that plan must be the episcopal. It is a notorious Tacf that diocesan episcopacy did not exist during the apostolic age. It is equally notorious that that plan of govern- ment was gradually introduced. And it is no less notorious that a large part of the Church in which Christ dwells by his presence, and which He in every way acknowledges and honours, has no bishops until the present day. The government of the Church by bishops, Romanists admit is one of the institutions which rest not on Scripture, but on tradition for their authority.
4. But should everything else be conceded, the assumption thatsut^'ectipn toilML Pope, as the vicar of Christ, is necessary to the existence of the Church, is utterly unreasonable. This is the climax. There is not the slightest evidence in the New Testament or in tlie apostolic age, that Peter had any such primacy among the Apostles as Romanists claim. There is not only the absence of all evidence that he exercised any jurisdiction over them, but there is abundant evidence to the contrary. This is 2lear from
132 INTRODUCTION. [Ch. V. — R. C. R. of Faith.
Peter, James, and John, being mentioned together as those who appeared to be pillai-s (Gal. ii. 9), and this distinction was due not to office, but to character. It is moreover clear from the full equality in gifts and authority which Paul asserted for himself, and proved to the satisfaction of the whole Church that he possessed. It is clear from the subordinate position occupied by Peter in the Council of Jeinisalem (Acts xv.), and from the severe reproof he received from Paul at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11-21). It is a plain historical fact, that Paul and John were the master-spirits of the Apostolic Church. But admitting the primacy of Peter in the college of Apostles, there is no evidence that such primacy was in- tended to be perpetual. There is no command to elecLa^uccessor to him in that office ; no rules given as to the mode of such election, or the persons by whom the choice was to be made ; and no record of such election having actually been made. Everything is made out of the air. But admitting that Peter was constituted the head of the whole Church on earth, and that such headship was intended to be continued, what evidence is there that the Bishop of Rome was to all time entitled to that office ? It is very doubtful whether Peter ever was in Rome. TlVe sphere of his labors was in Palestine and the East. ]^t is certain he never was Bishop of the Church in that city. And even if he were, he was Primate, not as Bishop of Rome, but by appointment of Christ. According to the theory, he was Primate before he went to Rome, and not because he went there. The simple historical fact is, that as Rome was the seat of the Roman empire, the Bishop of Rome aspired to be the head of the Church, which claim after a long struggle came to be acknowl- edged, at least in the West.
It is on the four gratuitous and unreasonable assumptions above mentioned, namely, that the Church to which the promise of the Spirit was made is an external, visible organization ; that a partic- ular mode of organization is essential to its existence ; that that mode is the episcopal ; and that it must be papal, i. e., the whole episcopacy be subject to the Bishop of Rome ; — it is on these un- tenable assumptions that the whole stupendous system of Romanism rests. If any one of them fail, the whole falls to the ground. These assumptions are so entirely destitute of any adequate his- torical proof, that no reasonable man can accept them on tlieir own evidence. It is only those who have been taught or induced to believe the extant Church to be infallible, who can believe them. And they believe not because these points can be proved, but on the assertion of the Church. The Romish Church saya