« ПретходнаНастави »
CHURCH QUARTERLY REVIEW.
No XIII. OCTOBER 1878.
ART. I.-FURTHER EVIDENCE ON THE
PETRINE CLAIMS. 1. Petri Privilegium : Three Pastoral Letters to the Clergy
of the Diocese of Westminster. By HENRY EDWARD
MANNING, D.D. (London, 1871.) 2. The See of S. Peter. By T. W. ALLIES. (London, 1850.) 3. The Evidence for the Papacy, as derived from the Holy
Scriptures and from Primitive Antiquity. By the Hon.
COLIN LINDSAY. (London, 1870.) 4. The Privilege of Peter and the Claims of the Roman Church
confronted with the Scriptures, the Councils, and the Testimony of the Popes themselves. By ROBERT C. JENKINS,
M.A. (London, 1875.) IN a previous number of this Review we sifted the Scriptural evidence for the Privilege of Peter,' and compared it with the rules laid down by the Canon Law of the Roman Church for the attestation of all claims of this particular kind. The claim we then discussed was that raised on behalf of S. Peter, and of the Popes regarded as his successors; a claim altogether distinct from the question of any primacy inherent in the See and City of Rome, of which the ‘Popes' are Bishops. It is time now to enter on this next branch of the inquiry, and to ascertain whether Scripture yields any more satisfactory proof, on behalf of the See, as distinguished from the Pope, of Rome. This done, the Scriptural argument will be closed, and it will then remain to inquire finally whether the other evidence producible, apart from Scripture, is of such a kind as to create a reasonable presumption in favour
VOL. VII.— NO. XIII.
of the Divine, or at least Apostolical, character of Papal supremacy, analogous to that which exists for infant baptism, the tenet of Eucharistic sacrifice, or for Sunday observance.
We will therefore first discuss that part of the Papal claims (also adduced as resting on express Divine revelation) which alleges the indefeasible primacy of the city and see of Rome, asserted to be so indissolubly bound up with the Petrine privilege that even to suggest that the Chief Patriarch of the Christian Church might have his see transferred to some other city, say Jerusalem, in time to come, is to incur the Vatican anathemas. If this be so, we shall certainly find clear analogical preparation for it in the Old Testament, and evident development of the idea in the New
At first, then, there appears no centre of worship whatever. The altar depends for its locality on the casual halt of the nomad Patriarchs (Gen. xii. 7 ; xiii. 18; xxi. 33); and the earliest intimation of a more settled shrine is found in Jacob's vow at Bethel (Gen. xxviii. 16-22). During the Exodus the Tabernacle was the travelling 'field-chapel’ of the Israelite host (Numb. ii. 17; x. 17, 21). But in the book of Deuteronomy repeatedly occurs a declaration that a national centre of worship would be set up in Canaan, where only the rites of sacrifice could be lawfully and acceptably performed. One citation will suffice :
“But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when He giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause His Name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the Lord.'-Deut. xii. 1o, II.
For a considerable time, however, this central shrine was not absolutely fixed and permanent. Shiloh, its first seat (Josh. xviii. I), remained such from the time of Joshua till the Philistine capture of the Ark (1 Sam. iv. 4, 11), which was restored to Kirjath-Jearim (1 Sam. vii. 1, 2), whence, after a long interval, David translated it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. vi. 2, 12), its final seat. With the building of Solomon's temple begins the great series of Divine promises of permanence for this great national shrine, conditioned from the very first, however, with possibilities of forfeiture (1 Kings ix. 1-9). To this sacred place the strict theory of the Law, albeit necessarily relaxed by dispensations, enjoined every adult male of the Hebrew nation to make pilgrimages thrice every year :
“Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the Lord thy God in the place which He shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles : and they shall not appear before the Lord empty.'—Deut. xvi. 16.
And as a practical fact, even when the nation, in the postexilic period, had long ceased to be included within the borders of Palestine, one visit, at least, in a lifetime was as much the desire of every devout Jew as the pilgrimage to Mecca is of the fervent Moslem in our own day.
What is especially noticeable about the series of prophecies concerning Jerusalem, both before and after its overthrow by the Chaldeans, is that its restoration to more than its former glory is always foretold in explicit terms. And after deducting all the passages of this kind, which may fairly be explained in the literal sense by the rebuilding under Ezra and Nehemiah, or in the spiritual order by the manifestation of Christ at Jerusalem, and the origin of the Gospel thence as its local source, such as
"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths : for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”—Is. ii. 2, 3,
there remains a residuum not capable of being so treated, in which indefeasible supremacy appears to be promised. Here are a few examples :
* Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities : thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down; not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken.'—Is. xxxiii. 20.
"And the sons of strangers shall build thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in My wrath I smote thee, but in My favour have I had mercy on thee. Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of My sanctuary; and I will make the place of My feet glorious. The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the Lord, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel. Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations.'-Is. lx. 10–15.
“And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation : and the Lord shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever. And thou, O tower of the flock, the stronghold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.'—Micah iv. 7, 8. . .And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.'-Zech. xiv. 16, 17.
There are only four possible ways of explaining these · statements :-(a) They are not inspired prophecies at all, but the mere fervent wishes and guesses of Hebrew enthusiasts; (6) their fulfilment is yet future, and points to the restoration of Jerusalem as the central shrine of the world ; (c) they are conditional, albeit the condition is not verbally expressed, and their promises have been forfeited by Jewish unbelief ; (d) they are typical of another and holier Jerusalem. The Roman controversialist is estopped from accepting either (a) or (6). If he accept (c), he destroys the argument for the indefeasibility of the similar position claimed for Rome, and he is thus practically limited to (d), and is bound to show that Rome, by reasonable implication, if not by necessary consequence, fulfils the needful conditions as the antitype of this Old Testament type.
What evidence does the New Testament yield on this head?
a. There is absolutely but one passage in the Gospels which can be said to bear on the inquiry, since our Lord's mention of Jerusalem as “the city of the Great King' (S. Matt. v. 35) does not decide it. That passage is the speech of Christ to the Samaritan woman at the well of Sychar:
"The woman saith unto Him, Sir, I perceive that Thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain ; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the