What do you think?
Rate this book
A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy. to Which Is Added a Discourse Concerning the Unity of the Church. Ed. by T.M'crie
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
482 pages, Hardcover
First published June 28, 2005
1 person is currently reading
3 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 24, 2017
This volume by Isaac Barrow is a virtual treasure trove of church history. Barrow’s knowledge of Patristic literature is unrivaled. I’ve read a lot of works by self-proclaimed experts in the field, and no one holds a candle to Barrow. And, yes, this is that Isaac Barrow: Sir Isaac Newton’s math teacher!
The work systematically demolishes every argument used throughout history for the supremacy of the Pope.
Barrow obliterates the claim of Rome that Peter was even a bishop at all, let alone the bishop of Rome. This alone undermines the Romish pretensions that the papacy is built upon the foundation of Peter as bishop. Barrow further supplied mountains of evidence from early church councils, letters of various important bishops, and patristic homilies that prove indubitably that no one in the first several centuries of the Church had the foggiest notion that the bishops were not all equals under Christ.
Barrow demonstrates conclusively how the very notion of a supremacy of any bishop is a virtual landmine. One cannot put that kind of power at the disposal of any human and not expect abuse and tyranny. Speaking of tyranny, Barrow also shows the earliest bishops of Rome refusing to meddle in politics, and being rebutted by the emperors when they attempted to. Leo asked for a council. Theodosius II called one in Ephesus. Leo asked that it be moved to Italy, Theodosius refused. Leo asked for another one – again in Italy. The emperor essentially told him not to push his luck. It was by imposture and deceit that Roman bishops attained any measure of “authority” over temporal powers.
Appealing to Cyprian (who carried on correspondence with three bishops of Rome) Barrow shows that the Ante-Nicene notion of churchly authority was that there was one universal episcopate: Christ’s. All pastors were equal in that they were merely stewards entrusted by Christ, and therefore accountable to Him.
Barrow shows how often popes were undecided on important theological issues, and neither they themselves, nor any other bishop expected the pope to rule authoritatively on the issue. Worse yet, there were times when there was a necessity for the Pope to give a definitive statement of truth, but we find the Popes dragging their feet for decades, even centuries, waiting to see how the theological battle would turn out before any statement was ever made. Often they made decisions (Such as Zosimus ruling that Pelagius was orthodox and that the African bishops need to get off his back). They replied that they were siding with Augustine and that he could pound sand. Suddenly, the pope “decrees” that he had been misunderstood and that they were all actually in agreement. Augustine was right and Pelagius was a pestilential heretic.
Among the (infallible) popes was Liberius, an Arian, who excommunicated Athanasius from the Church. Rome has the unmitigated gall to now call him St. Athanasius, totally sweeping under the rug the fact that her own Pope excommunicated a universally recognized champion of orthodoxy. Zosimus, claiming Apostolic authority, declared Pelagius and Coelestius to be absolutely orthodox in direct confrontation with Augustine, the greatest name in all of theological literature. Vigilius wavered between Eutychianism (monophysitism) and Nestorianism. When he finally made an official pronouncement, he defined Nestorianism as Biblical orthodoxy. He withdrew this statement when the Council of Constantinople in 553 condemned Nestorius as a heretic. Constantinople III declared Honorius to be a heretic in 680/1. Sixtus V gave his stamp of approval to an edition of the Vulgate, only to have it withdrawn immediately and revised for more than 3,000 crass errors that needed to be corrected. This was after officially declaring, “By the fullness of Apostolic power, we decree and declare this edition approved by the authority delivered us by the Lord, is to be received as true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned in all public and private discussion, reading, preaching and explanation.”
Rome’s use of Church history is often misleading, and her theory of tradition has in fact, never worked. This leads to a further observation, namely, that Rome’s Tradition is obvious imposture. The only way to validate or authenticate that the Apostles ever said or did something is by appealing to the Bible. When one analyzes Romish tradition it becomes obvious that the whole body of it serves the Pope, his pocket and his titanic ego. How are we to believe that the selling of Indulgences was conceived to help poor souls in Purgatory, when Rome made out on them like a bandit? Rome and her popes are always the beneficiaries of the “Sacred Tradition,” and the benefit is almost always monetary. Is this not cause for suspicion?
Part of the force of the book lies in the fact that it was written nearly 200 years before some of Rome’s greatest impostures: the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Papal infallibility.
It took the pope over 500 years to define the Immaculate Conception of Mary as a dogma that was necessary unto salvation. The debate began to rage in the 14th Century, but the Pope waited around until 1854. If the Pope was right, then Bernard, Bonaventura and Thomas Aquinas must all be in hell because they did not believe in this dogma which the Pope in 1854 claimed was an Apostolic Tradition necessary for salvation.
It took the Pope until 1870 to define his own infallibility. This dogma was not, as Romish apologist claim, something that the church had always believed and which was merely articulated at Vatican I. Prior to 1870, it was often asserted by Rome that the doctrine of papal infallibility was a Protestant invention and not a true Roman doctrine. The Apostles never defined as truth something that has been proven to be wrong, but the Pope has many times infallibly defined something to be true, only to find out later that he was wrong. In 1802, the infallible Pope canonized St. Filomena. Her bones were worshipped because she was declared to have been a martyr under Diocletian. Not long later, however, even the Pope had to admit that St. Filomena never even existed. For centuries, the infallible Popes used the Donation of Constantine and the Isodorian Decretals for his benefit, both of which have been discovered to be forgeries.
To prove his points, about 1/5 of what Barrow presents would have been perfectly sufficient. What we have here is overkill. He decimates the whole Romish appeal to antiquity, tradition, the Fathers, and councils. This is an astounding volume. Highly recommended.
The work systematically demolishes every argument used throughout history for the supremacy of the Pope.
Barrow obliterates the claim of Rome that Peter was even a bishop at all, let alone the bishop of Rome. This alone undermines the Romish pretensions that the papacy is built upon the foundation of Peter as bishop. Barrow further supplied mountains of evidence from early church councils, letters of various important bishops, and patristic homilies that prove indubitably that no one in the first several centuries of the Church had the foggiest notion that the bishops were not all equals under Christ.
Barrow demonstrates conclusively how the very notion of a supremacy of any bishop is a virtual landmine. One cannot put that kind of power at the disposal of any human and not expect abuse and tyranny. Speaking of tyranny, Barrow also shows the earliest bishops of Rome refusing to meddle in politics, and being rebutted by the emperors when they attempted to. Leo asked for a council. Theodosius II called one in Ephesus. Leo asked that it be moved to Italy, Theodosius refused. Leo asked for another one – again in Italy. The emperor essentially told him not to push his luck. It was by imposture and deceit that Roman bishops attained any measure of “authority” over temporal powers.
Appealing to Cyprian (who carried on correspondence with three bishops of Rome) Barrow shows that the Ante-Nicene notion of churchly authority was that there was one universal episcopate: Christ’s. All pastors were equal in that they were merely stewards entrusted by Christ, and therefore accountable to Him.
Barrow shows how often popes were undecided on important theological issues, and neither they themselves, nor any other bishop expected the pope to rule authoritatively on the issue. Worse yet, there were times when there was a necessity for the Pope to give a definitive statement of truth, but we find the Popes dragging their feet for decades, even centuries, waiting to see how the theological battle would turn out before any statement was ever made. Often they made decisions (Such as Zosimus ruling that Pelagius was orthodox and that the African bishops need to get off his back). They replied that they were siding with Augustine and that he could pound sand. Suddenly, the pope “decrees” that he had been misunderstood and that they were all actually in agreement. Augustine was right and Pelagius was a pestilential heretic.
Among the (infallible) popes was Liberius, an Arian, who excommunicated Athanasius from the Church. Rome has the unmitigated gall to now call him St. Athanasius, totally sweeping under the rug the fact that her own Pope excommunicated a universally recognized champion of orthodoxy. Zosimus, claiming Apostolic authority, declared Pelagius and Coelestius to be absolutely orthodox in direct confrontation with Augustine, the greatest name in all of theological literature. Vigilius wavered between Eutychianism (monophysitism) and Nestorianism. When he finally made an official pronouncement, he defined Nestorianism as Biblical orthodoxy. He withdrew this statement when the Council of Constantinople in 553 condemned Nestorius as a heretic. Constantinople III declared Honorius to be a heretic in 680/1. Sixtus V gave his stamp of approval to an edition of the Vulgate, only to have it withdrawn immediately and revised for more than 3,000 crass errors that needed to be corrected. This was after officially declaring, “By the fullness of Apostolic power, we decree and declare this edition approved by the authority delivered us by the Lord, is to be received as true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned in all public and private discussion, reading, preaching and explanation.”
Rome’s use of Church history is often misleading, and her theory of tradition has in fact, never worked. This leads to a further observation, namely, that Rome’s Tradition is obvious imposture. The only way to validate or authenticate that the Apostles ever said or did something is by appealing to the Bible. When one analyzes Romish tradition it becomes obvious that the whole body of it serves the Pope, his pocket and his titanic ego. How are we to believe that the selling of Indulgences was conceived to help poor souls in Purgatory, when Rome made out on them like a bandit? Rome and her popes are always the beneficiaries of the “Sacred Tradition,” and the benefit is almost always monetary. Is this not cause for suspicion?
Part of the force of the book lies in the fact that it was written nearly 200 years before some of Rome’s greatest impostures: the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Papal infallibility.
It took the pope over 500 years to define the Immaculate Conception of Mary as a dogma that was necessary unto salvation. The debate began to rage in the 14th Century, but the Pope waited around until 1854. If the Pope was right, then Bernard, Bonaventura and Thomas Aquinas must all be in hell because they did not believe in this dogma which the Pope in 1854 claimed was an Apostolic Tradition necessary for salvation.
It took the Pope until 1870 to define his own infallibility. This dogma was not, as Romish apologist claim, something that the church had always believed and which was merely articulated at Vatican I. Prior to 1870, it was often asserted by Rome that the doctrine of papal infallibility was a Protestant invention and not a true Roman doctrine. The Apostles never defined as truth something that has been proven to be wrong, but the Pope has many times infallibly defined something to be true, only to find out later that he was wrong. In 1802, the infallible Pope canonized St. Filomena. Her bones were worshipped because she was declared to have been a martyr under Diocletian. Not long later, however, even the Pope had to admit that St. Filomena never even existed. For centuries, the infallible Popes used the Donation of Constantine and the Isodorian Decretals for his benefit, both of which have been discovered to be forgeries.
To prove his points, about 1/5 of what Barrow presents would have been perfectly sufficient. What we have here is overkill. He decimates the whole Romish appeal to antiquity, tradition, the Fathers, and councils. This is an astounding volume. Highly recommended.
Displaying 1 of 1 review