The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-10
menced. give q compendium Of the proceed.

as I0ll0Ws:-
The Inference between the two parties consisted
In the difference OF proofs and their appreciation Of
the proofs Their adversaries accused tnem OF
only negative but the be G
point was most positive and explicit proof. THEIRS,
In us History OF the Consulsnlp and Umpire, makes
IN Amerlca-a proof that he never was there. Tne
Acts OF the Apostles the true authentic. official
and trlumphs OF The Church aud the labors OF the
Apostles. 81. Luke was inspired. He speaks OF
Jerusalem, and cities Of minor importance and why
did he not say he was at Rome alsof Their adver.
sarles suggest that the naming OF the iact might
when these Acts were written. LET Us not dis.
guise it, said the speaker; "Peter Is the principal
figure Of the Church; the voyage OF Paula second
AIRY figure In c0mpars0n-ls infinitely described;
why should the inspired writer be so partial as not
injustice against ST. Luke would be too grave for
Christians TO admit AS TO not compromising Peter,
snAs ne would BE- afraid Of maryrdom nor d Paul
entertain such an opinion OF him. IL Is therefore
positive proof Saat as Paul. Wnle pe ne WAS WAS
not there. They DEFY US 70 ind pro
gnecy sdng e the deaa q Peter sas W ere
Pharsees, "You VIII cruelty some OF my disciples"
These words were addressed to the jews not TO the
Peter were the only two VINO were cruciaeu all the
others were stoned or decapitated. The cruclaxlon
have oeen effected by the Jews. Now, the Jews IN
Rome mad no such power. In Babylon they were 10
u
ion, then, that prophecy might De accomplished, but
not In Rome. Again, the method OF cruclying
Peter with ne head n WAS "
DEATH therefore, Is proof tnat II did not take place
In Rome Another erroneous assertion Is that Peter
tons as BaDyl0n was not at that time subject to
Rome. This Is false Euseolus says that the reign
or the tyrant Nero commenced precisely with the
subjection Of the Babylonian provinces and
his persecution In those parts Is mat
wa Rume.-Paul ha Il
not wish to build on the foundation laid by another.
II the Churcn founded by Peter already existed in
Rome why dld ST. Paul go Lhere2 why should he
have gone to labor IN q Held already poughed by
another Apostle Will not deny That Peter had
great part In the foundation OF the Cnurcn; but 1t
was through his writings and the spreading OF the
doctrines BY MS disciples. In 81, when Paul wenu
who the CHRISTIANS WERE and called them sect.
But did all the other disciples visit RomeS 'N0,"
But PAU was sent Rome by God, IN order that ne
might there proclaim the Gospel Our aaversarles
say we cannot AK the date 81 pa1rs arrival Now,
OF the Governor Porous Festus, and o certain date
Is TO history what the lever was to Arcnimedes.
sand among 100000 Romans In the Baby
loulan provinces they amounted TO 1000, 0OO and
so or We're thus diSiGsd-jamees was sent sent
to Ephesus, Jonn TO- Jerusalem. Peter to
aud remained in the East, and now you would de-
stroy his fidelity by saving that ne used the word
'Ihe Church which is with me in Babylon saiues
your DO you suppose tnat Peter would insult
s IL his ey sr
"But why" say our opponents. 'did not Babylon
where Peter died. claim the . honor OF his martyr
wards that the pretensi0n arose OF Peter having !
died in Rome, and Babylon was then only diocese
only contemporary witness. docs not say Where
Peter sutfered-ne saws that ne died IN the presence
were sent bV Rome into tine provinces. y
Oypran and ireneus. they say, speak of the
Of q S sos d tine
glory OF the Romans; that Is not affected by the
coming Of st: Peter to Rome. they have St. Paul.
Church, the cnlef doctor OF the church. : -
in Ro%ef Has not christ promised i'1 to Oee be
always present with HIS Church IN spiritY
aSns s Bos 'as aye saus
Our opponents bring forward traditions ana q |
81 arse s like n to e
II, gentlemen, you have not the first century In
M asse oass @
like brilliant soap bubbles which cnds breath
speak True; but to be believed Sine must have relia
bic testimony. AS the Bible does not speak OF
Peters advent in Rome. we evausellcals conclude
that Peter was never here"
Father Gavazzps speech was remarkable for its
eloquent mode OF delivery and oratonca power
that after Father Gavazzl's speech his party had
nothing further TO add, convinced as they were
not be coniuted The President informed the Gath
Ollie priests OF this decision and 1t was agreed that
after the reply OF the priest signor Guidi the sub.
SlgnOr Guidl commenced Dy saying that he would
not attempt any sucn dramatic language as that
which he mad admired In Father Gavazz, but that
his would be without any ornament or art what
ever. The adverse party declared that their only
fount for dogmas, but as historical testimony we
admit also tradition and the authority OF the
Church. To return one step behind the Bible when
q
maintains that Peter renamed twenty 1--WE
among US has said that IL would be sufficient to
prove that Peter had been In Rome for only an
our part. We confne ourselves to prove the falsiy
OF the thesis AL moderate authors allow that
cal dictionary published last year states that Peter
was In Rome IN 42-the second year OF the reign OF
Claudius. Tne Bible speaks Of Augustus, but says
nothing OF his death at NOla, anu must we, there
fore, conclude tnat Augustus aid not die there ?
Chronologsts differ ABOUT ten years concerning the
that Paul came; ana SO 1t Is with Peter. fact does
not depend on It's chronology; nor would the admis-
sion that Peter wrote from Babylon destroy the fact
OF his having been in Rome. Peter had two mis-
sons; one special and one universal, resulting from
the words OF christ "pho9 art me rocx on which
served that SgnOr Guidi was not speaking to the
question, which Slgnor Guidi denied, saying he was
III Rome also.
Rev. Slgnor Ribetti remarked that Peters univer-
bul mlSslOu was TeCORuileu tisO ny bue cVbuxeuCab
Slgnor Guld1 contlnued:-Wnat would become Of
history If we were TO deny all That was not attested
by eye witnesses History was the result OF complex
facts OF testimony OF various criteriOns OF the ex
animation OF laws. &c. fact SO COLOSSAL gigantic,
extraordinary as that Of the advent OF Peter In
Rome had no need to Oe recorded. Gentlemen, the
great TACT OF the Church OF Rome ls founded solely
on Peters having been In Rome. Without such an
admission 1t would be an absurd an tnexplicaDe
follv The fact OF Peter having been In Rome Is as
certain as tine existence OF the Church is for our
adversaries TO prove that he never came Their only
argument Is the silence OF the Scriptures. and that
we consider only negative proof. The Bible was
written for special reasons. Who. IN this
nineteenth century. can tell why the fact was
not noted IN Scripture? The advent OF Peter
is attested BY clement bishop OF the Churcn;
BY tradition, by It's never having been denied even
by heretlcs, nor by any other ChurclR The very
existence OF the Roman Church Is proof stronger
than any testimony. and l therefore believe not
withstanding the arguments OF opponents, that
Catholics have good right to maintain their opin-
ION that st. Peter was In Rome
After asking the disputants II they had ANYTHING
to add the President declared the controversy
hausted The adverse parties shook hands and the