2. Second Address

THE PAPACY IN THE LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE

Second Address

I spoke to you recently on the claims of the Papacy in the light of Holy Scripture, quoting from a Roman Catholic author, to show that the Church of Rome professes to find its primary authority for the Papacy in the New Testament itself. That being so, since we recognize no authority in religion but the Word of God, it is sufficient for our purpose that we should inquire what light the Bible itself can throw upon this subject.

Estimating People And Institutions at Their Own Valuation In my last address I endeavored to show you that neither Peter, nor his fellow-apostles, in the early days of the church, put such construction upon Christ’s words to Peter (Matthew 16:18-19), as is placed upon them by the Roman Catholic Church. In dealing with a question of this sort, one’s mind cannot fail to recognize that we are combating the claims of an institution that is worldwide, and hoary with age. There are people who would be inclined to ask how it could he possible that so many should have been for so long, and to such an extent, deceived into accepting the extraordinary claims of Rome if her pretensions were without scriptural warrant?

Introductory to the subject in hand, it may be remarked that it seems to be a human habit to accept people and institutions very largely at their own valuation. There are certain people who earn for themselves great reputations by much personal advertising. I recall receiving a letter from my father when I was barely out of my teens, telling me that he had just listened to a sermon by an extraordinary evangelist. He said he had long assumed that in zeal for the Lord, in consecration to His service, in the abundance of his labors, and in his sufferings for Christ, the Apostle Paul bad set an example which had scarcely been equaled. But after listening to this gentleman, he said it would be quite easy to conclude that the Apostle Paul was a mere tyro, who had accomplished but little, and whose record of sacrifice was scarcely worth recording, The evangelist had so loudly and successfully blown his own trumpet, had so effectually advertised himself, that the majority of the people accepted him at his own estimate.

Doubtless that was good advertising. Good advertisers do not argue: they proclaim. If there were a man named Smith making a certain soap, and if he had money enough to tell people that Smith’s soap was the best in the world, and to tell them often enough, it would be unnecessary to explain or justify its alleged superiority, to outstrip his more modest competitors.

There are people and institutions which know how to "sell themselves", as the phrase goes. I knew a man who made it a rule to hear all the visiting preachers who came to town. They were advertised as a modern Elijah, a human dynamo, a cowboy from the wild west, or something of the sort. Invariably this brother would report what a wonderful man so-and-so was. When I inquired whether he had personal knowledge of the greatness of the man’s achievements, I invariably discovered that he knew nothing beyond what the much advertised preacher had said of himself. When ex-President Taft of the United States visited Toronto some years ago, he told a story about Mr. Theodore Roosevelt. He said Mr. Theodore always reminded him of a little girl of whom he had heard, who came home from school and told her mother that she was the cleverest girl in her class. "I am delighted to hear that", said her mother, "did your teacher say so?" "Oh no" "Did the other members of your class tell you that you were the cleverest girl among them?" "No." "Does your record show that you are the cleverest girl?" "No. " "Then how do you know" "I found it out myself" The Roman Catholic Church for centuries has proclaimed its superiority to all others. It has declared, not that it is one of many churches, but that it is the only church. All others are Impostors. All ministers are frauds. They so teach in their catechism. The one and only church on earth is the Holy Apostolic Church of Rome. Without apology they have declared that there is but one visible head to the church, the Pope; and that submission to the Roman Pontiff is absolutely Indispensable to salvation.

There is nothing neutral about the Roman Catholic Church—nor anything particularly modest. Boldly it proclaims that it is the one and only church. It is therefore not surprising that so large a part of the world should at last have come to believe it.

Moody used to say that a lie could travel around the world while truth was getting its boots on. If one is a big enough liar, and he has a loud enough voice, people will accept what he says without asking for proof. But when one proclaims the truth, almost invariably they will demand that it be proved!

I believe that in all human history there never was foisted upon the sons of men a more colossal fraud from the foundation to the top-stone, than the Roman Catholic Church. It is founded in a lie, it teaches and preaches lies, it is a fabrication of falsehood through and through; and where it touches the truth, it is only to pervert it, or prostitute it to its own purpose.

Let us now complete briefly an examination of the scriptural teaching respecting this matter. The author whom I quoted in my last address insists that there is scarcely any doctrine of the gospel that has such solid scriptural support as the doctrine of the Papacy. I have already shown you that Peter did not interpret what the Lord had said to him as intended to exalt him above his fellow-apostles, for, impulsive as he manifestly was, gifted with initiative as he undoubtedly was, there is nothing within the New Testament to indicate that Peter ever attempted to lord it over his brethren. The Apostle Paul, also, who said he was not a whit behind the chiefest of the apostles, failed to recognize the primacy of Peter.

There are two things to which t now direct your attention. First, a further study of the question of Peter’s primacy; and, secondly, what the Scripture has to say in respect of the Romanist claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

I. In considering the question of Peter’s primacy, let me call certain matters to the minds of those of you who know, at least in outline, the books of the New Testament. In many places there would be found in a company like this not very many who could from memory scan the New Testament, but I am happy to believe that we have not a few here who can, perhaps not in detail, but in general, summon before their mind’s eye the contents of the various books of the New Testament. The Acts of The Apostles

We have in the Acts of the Apostles an inspired history of the Christian church of the apostolic era, when the foundations of the church were laid, and when the apostles in person exercised their ministry among the churches—and I feel sure you have only to reflect for a moment or two upon the Acts of the Apostles, and mentally scan the record, to reject utterly the postulate that the Papacy can be scripturally supported.

Consider the outstanding personalities whose work is recorded in the Acts, beginning with Peter and John, going on to the seven who were elected to serve tables, the most conspicuous among whom was the first Christian martyr, Stephen then recall the career of Saul of Tarsus who becomes Paul the apostle to the Gentiles; think also of Apollos, and Silas, and John Mark, Mark, and James, and the other apostles, not many of whom are mentioned after the first chapter of The Acts of the Apostles, and I am sure you will fail to recall a single incident in which the inspired record even suggests that Peter, beyond the exhibition of ordinary initiative, ever took precedence of his brethren.

Consider the two examples where Peter was called to account by his brethren. The first (Acts 11:1-18), was for having gone in to men uncircumcised, when his right to do so was challenged. The implication there is at least that there was no recognition of his superior authority. He was justified by the brethren only when he recounted his experience in Cæsarea, when the Spirit of God came on the occasion of his preaching to Cornelius and his household.

Later at the assembly of the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-31), over which James presided, Peter again related his experience, and Paul and Barnabas told of how God had set His seal to their testimony to the Gentiles. The council was very much like an ordinary Baptist Convention where the brethren convened to confer with each other, and discuss their work, and a resolution embodying their findings was read by President James—but there is nothing in the account of that proceeding comparable to the history of the ecclesiastical councils of the church since that day.

Next, glance at the Epistles of Paul, and you will fail to find, either explicitly or implicitly, any word which would indicate that there was anyone in the church who was recognized as its visible head. Indeed, wrapped up with the doctrine of the Papacy is the Roman Catholic conception of one vast church, highly organized, with a hierarchical form of government headed by the Pope—that conception of the church is alien to the New Testament. It cannot be found in the Acts, and certainly not in Paul’s Epistles. On the occasion of my last address a brother came to me at the close, with an open Bible, calling my attention to Paul’s statement of his burdens, to which the apostle added, "Besides those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches." Paul must have been interfering with somebody else’s office in taking upon his own shoulders the burden of the churches—taking it away from "papa" the Pope, the Holy Father. The Epistles of Paul

Call to mind Paul’s Epistles: Romans, First and Second to Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First and Second to Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Epistle to the Hebrews if indeed Paul was the human author of it. You will read them all in vain to discover anything to indicate that the Apostle Paul, who was caught up into paradise and given an abundance of revelations, and who was in labor more abundant than all of them, and who wrote the major part of the New Testament—you will search his writings in vain to find any suggestion that could by any reasonable process be construed as indicating that the Apostle Paul had ever heard of a Pope, or anybody like him. As to the Papal claim, one might have supposed that Peter, having, allegedly, received such commission, and having been established as Pope, in writing his Epistles—the second of which was written near the end of his life, for in it he says that the Lord had shown him that He must "shortly put off this tabernacle" if, I say, as our Roman Catholic friends allege, Peter had "reigned" as Pontiff for twenty-five years in Rome, he ought to have known something about it. And it is surely inconceivable that he would make no allusion to the important office he occupied, had he been Pope. But he simply called himself an "apostle of Jesus Christ". He exhorts the elders, and speaking of himself, says, "Who am also an elder." Nowhere does he claim that he had been appointed head of the church.

II.

Turn now for a moment to the second consideration, namely, the contention that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Understand, I am confining my examination this evening to the historical record of the Bible itself, because the Church of Rome claims that Peter had a Pontificate of about twenty-five years, beginning to reign in the year forty-one or forty-two, and continuing until his martyrdom, perhaps about sixty-seven. If that be so, one might expect some reference to it somewhere in the New Testament. I affirm—and then I shall endeavor to prove the statement that it is impossible from Scripture to prove that Peter ever visited Rome.

Paul Says Nothing of Peter’s being in Rome

I anticipate the objection of some, saying that I know very well that there is a tradition that Peter was martyred in Rome, that he was crucified and that at his own request he was crucified head downward because he thought be was not worthy to he crucified in the same manner as his Lord. Even if that could be’ historically established, it would not prove that he was Bishop of Rome. But it is a tradition which may, or may not, have an element of truth in it. He may have been martyred in Rome, but the Scripture does not say so. But even if he were martyred in Rome, there is no scriptural evidence of his having been Bishop of Rome. In fact, I believe the general teaching of Scripture is to the contrary effect.

But, to our proof. The Epistle to the Romans was written by the Apostle Paul probably about fifty-eight. That date is generally accepted. If the allegation of our Romanist friends be true, that Peter became Bishop of Home in forty-one or forty-two, Peter had been "reigning" in Rome for some sixteen years when Paul wrote his Epistle. The Epistle To The Romans

Sketch the picture for yourself. Peter—we say nothing for the moment about his being the Pope—is the Bishop of Rome. Paul writes to the Romans, and tells them that he has long wanted to visit them, and that his reason for desiring to go to Rome, was that he might have some fruit among them also: "As much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also." You will recall that it was invariably the way of the Apostle Paul not to build upon another man’s foundation. According to the Romanist theory, there must have been a well-established church, with Peter at its head, for at least sixteen years at the time Paul addressed this Epistle to the Romans.

Read the Epistle carefully. It contains a number of salutations to people of whom Paul had heard, but he does not say anywhere, "‘Be sure to remember me to Bishop Peter." He does not send his greetings to the Bishop of Rome! Fm a man occupying such an influential position in the apostolic church as the Apostle Paul did, to write to Rome where Peter had already been "reigning" for sixteen years, and completely to ignore Peter’s position and presence would have been the essence of discourtesy. There are people who go all the way from this continent to Rome to visit the Pope. Certainly in the Epistle to the Humans. Paul is absolutely silent on the subject of Peter’s presence in Rome. I have a shrewd suspicion that the reason for it was that Peter was not there, and Paul knew that he was not there.

Paul’s Prison Epistles But again, several of Paul’s Epistles were written from Rome. Paul was a prisoner in Rome for some time. You remember how the Acts of the Apostles concludes? Paul was part of the time in prison, but the last two verses of the Acts of the Apostles tell us that "Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him."

It is worth remarking too that the writer of the Acts of the Apostles, recording Paul’s arrival at Rome, and his subsequent course there, fails to mention the presence of so important a person as Peter. The Epistle To The Ephesians But same of Paul’s Epistles were written from Rome. We speak of them as the prison Epistles. They are Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and 2 Timothy. Look at Ephesians a moment: "I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles" (Ephesians 3:1). In this Epistle Paul makes no mention whatever of Peter. He does refer to "Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord", who apparently carried the Epistle from Rome to Ephesus. Paul evidently designed to give the Ephesians news of his own personal affairs by word of mouth: "Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that ye alight know our affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts" (Ephesians 6:21-22). If, as the Church of Rome contends, Peter had been Bishop of Rome from about forty-one it must be recognized as a strange omission for Paul to neglect to make the slightest allusion to Peter, either as apostle or bishop. The Epistle to The Philippians In Philippians, also written from Rome, Paul says, "Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you. All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar’s household. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen" (Php 4:21-23). Can you conceive a man of Peter’s prominence being in Rome, and Paul’s making no mention of the fact in either of these Epistles? The Epistle to the Colossians

Colossians is another of the prison Epistles, and a number of names are mentioned therein. Again Paul sends Tychicus, and with him "Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother . . . Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him); and Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God which have been a comfort unto me." Where is Peter? He omits any reference to him as included among "these only" who were his "fellow-helpers unto the kingdom of God." "Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always laboring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. For I bear him record, that he bath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis. Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you. Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea" (Colossians 4:7-16). But never a word about Peter. The Second Epistle to Timothy The Second Epistle to Timothy is another of the prison Epistles, and Timothy was Paul’s own son in the faith, a fellow-preacher. Paul gives a brief account of certain people: "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me" Where was Peter? If he had left, why was he not mentioned with the others who had "departed?" But again: "Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick. Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren" (2 Timothy 4:10-11, 2 Timothy 4:20-21). Was Peter, whom Romanish allege to have been so conspicuous unnamed, and merely included perhaps, in "all the brethren?" Can you imagine that possible? An Especially Important Passage But there is another especially important passage in this epistle: "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me" (2 Timothy 1:16-17). How deeply the great apostle appreciated the affectionate ministry of this rather inconspicuous Onesiphorus! Can it be supposed that Peter, the Bishop of Rome, would have allowed his "beloved brother Paul" to languish in prison without visiting him? Or, if Peter were there, and did visit him, that he would have given such honorable mention to Onesiphorus, while failing to record a visit from Peter? To ask such questions is to answer them: Peter was not there.

John’s Epistle

John’s Epistles are supposed to have been written years after the termination of the ministry of Paul and Cephas. Perhaps nearly thirty years had elapsed between the writing of Paul’s second Epistle to Timothy and the writing of John’s first Epistle. John must have been an elderly man when he wrote. His second and third epistles were probably written some time after 95 AD. If there had been any head of the church, one might have supposed John would know something about it. But there is not the remotest allusion to that conception of things in either of John’s three Epistles. The Book of Revelation The Book of Revelation also was probably written after ninety-five A.D. Paul’s last Epistle was written perhaps a-bout sixty-six: and Revelation about thirty years afterwards. The latter book contains in its first chapter a representation of the church, and the Head of the church walking amid the seven golden candlesticks, and the seven golden candlesticks are the seven churches, and the stars In the right hand of Him Who trimmed the lamps are the angels of the seven churches. The book is "the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John" God sent a message to the seven churches—not to the church, not to a universal visible Church of which the Bishop of Rome was the visible head. Why was the Papacy, then more than half a century old, not mentioned? Because there was none.

It is quite obvious that John had never heard of such an office. That is enough. I affirm that it is utterly impossible to find a vestige of scriptural support for the doctrine of Peter’s primacy, anywhere at anytime; and equally impossible to find scriptural proof that Peter was Bishop of Rome; or that Peter ever was in Rome. The Papal Conception Alien to Christianity

Two simple observations, and I have finished. First, that the whole spirit of the Papacy is alien to New Testament teaching. Neither Paul nor Peter, nor any of the apostles. were "princes" of the church. There is not a word in the New Testament of any one of the apostles who accompanied with our Lord, presuming to "reign" over individual or church. On the contrary, they were forbidden to lord it over God’s heritage. The conception of a hierarchical government of a single church is pagan. It is not Christian. It is not in the New Testament. No Appointment of Peter’s Successor

If it be so that Peter was martyred somewhere about the seventh decade, the year sixty-seven or so, one might hare supposed that some provision would have been made for a successor. You are familiar with the New Testament. Let your mind run from Matthew to Revelation, and ask yourself whether there is the remotest suggestion anywhere of a gathering of the heads of the church to elect one of their number as Pope, a conclave of Cardinals to elect one of their number to be the vicar of Christ, God’s sole representative on earth, clothed with divine authority, submission to whom is to be made a term of salvation. Was anything more absurd ever offered for human acceptance than the pretentions of Rome? How amazing that so large a part of the world’s population should have accepted these claims as though they were scripturally authorized, and therefore valid! As you read your New Testament—and I hope you will read it often—never assume that you have become familiar with the Word of God. If you have already read it through a hundred times, I beg of you to begin again. You have not received one-thousandth part of the truth it contains for your edification and as you read it again, look for the Papacy in the New Testament. Talk about hunting for a needle in a haystack! That would be easy in comparison. Puzzle: find the Papacy. I can promise you that you will never earn a prize for so doing, for the simple and sufficient reason that it is not there.

What The New Testament Says of The Church As you study, ask yourself the question. What has the New Testament to say of the church and its officers? It abounds with teaching respecting the church, a body of regenerated people, of "believers" who have been "born again", who have redemption in Christ through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins; who have been called out from the world, separated from the world and worldliness, unto the gospel of Christ. You will find the record of companies of people who came together to pray, and worship, and observe the ordinances, and to approach God through the one and only Mediator, Jesus Christ our Lord, without the assistance of saints or angels—and certainly without the help of an earthly priest. The privilege of direct access to God at the mercy-seat, through the one and only High Priest, the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, is taught plainly in the Scripture.

Furthermore, you will find the alleged first Pope, Peter, telling those to whom he writes that they are all priests: "We are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood." We do not need a priest. We have one High Priest Who has entered into heaven itself with His own blood, "now to appear in the presence of God for us". The simplest and youngest child, who can but lisp the name of the sinner’s Saviour, may kneel before Him and find acceptance. The vilest sinner and the purest saint come on the same terms, and find acceptance at the same place: the mercy-seat, the throne of grace—and all through the precious blood of Christ. How beautifully simple It is!

I would have you see what a grotesque misrepresentation of God is involved in the assumption that the Lord Who made heaven and earth and filled them both with beauty, is responsible for the mummery of the Roman Catholic Church. May God save us from turning again to the beggarly elements of the world from which He, through the Spirit of grace, has for ever emancipated us! We are only the Father’s little children, but we have a great Intercessor. We can talk to Him, we can stammer out our poor prayers, we can worship Him here, we can worship Him anywhere.

"Where high the heavenly temple stands, The house of God not made with hands, A great High Priest our nature wears, The Patron of mankind appears.

"With boldness therefore at the throne, Let us make all our sorrows known; And ask the aid of heavenly power To help us in the evil hour."