Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-09-03

their peace, and gave ear to Barnabas and
Paul relating what great signs and Won
ders God had wrought among the Gen
tiles by them.''
Here we have the primacy of Peter
manif st as monday. After much dlsput-
ing, Peter rises up, speaks with author
ity, decides the matter, all the multitude
held their peace, and the council &C
Quiesces in the decision without single
dissenting voice. James, who was bishop
of Jerusalem, rose merely to assent to and
sustain the decision of Peter.
| We have seen how gratuituOsly Lay
man asserts that James was president of
the council; we will now see what he has
to say of the promulgatlou of the decision
of the council, which lie tells us is worth
eur while to note critically, and on which
he laws palmary stress. After citing it in
full he subioins: at is proper to note
here that the Greek verb here rendered
lit seemed good, and lit pleased, is "do-
keo," which is often used, rs it obviously
| is above, to express the formal conclusion
arrived at by public bodies or officers
acting in dellberative and judicial or
executive capacity. The noun derived
from this verb is DOGMA and means
Decree"
Well, am glad can agree with Lay
man that that particular verb often has
that particular meaning, but I suppose
he will agree with me that very often it
means sit seems,'' sit appears" 81
think" There is no need of citing in
stances of this use of the word even in the
Acts Of the Apostles. And whilst | agree
that dogma is derived as stated above,
he will agree that doxa, ''opin-
ion," is derived from the same
verb But what argument can be built
on such a premise? None. From partlc-
ulars we can reach no conclusion. This
is Layman's argument: The word dogma
was used by the sacred penman in record
Ing the PRONUNCIATION of the decision of
the first council of Jerusalem; therefore,
Peter neither then nor at any other time
claimed or exercised supremacy in the
church.
But if the word is used by
authoritative bodies, as also by pres
idents, kings, emperors, ETC., as
Laymnn say it does, where he
speaks of the ''dogma' or decree of
Caesar, why could it not have been used
by that council over which Peter pre-
sided with supreme authority, just as
we'll as if he were not the divinely ap-
pointed head? Is not dogma the word
used now by Peters successor, the pope,
to express his final decision concerning
the truths of faith and morals, whether
by himself alone without assembling a
general council, as was the case in 1854.
when Plus TX. declared the dogma of the,
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin
mother of our Savior, or by assembling
the bishops of the Catholic world in a
Of ho oh
he did In the Vatican council! Does
Laymen object to us the use of "us' and
"we," as precludng the possibility of
Peters being the supreme head of the
apostolic body, the church? Do not all
great men, kings, emperors, and editors,
as we'll as popes and bishops, still use
the same official ''aoe'' and "us ?" Let
him tell us plainly what it is he does
object to-.
But am too quick. This the gentle
man does. SIT is clear he says, "that |
the power and authority to make such a
and to render such judg- |
ment in the church during the time OF |
the apostles were only exercised by and |
as belonging to the apostles |
and elders at Jerusalem" Even if this |
were true, which it is not, the argument |
from il would be tantamount to the follow |
ing: The sovereign of England pos |
sesses a certain royal prerogatlve. Queen |
Victoria has never exercised or enforced |
this prerogative; therefore, she has it |
not. Another: The president OF the |
United States possesses the |
right Of "veto" upon the decisions |
of congress; Garfield never exercised |
this right; therefore he never had it, |
Peter had the power to decide, and it |
was optional to him to decide IN one of |
two ways, either alone Or in company |
with his brother apostles. He chose the |
latter way on one occasion, the former |
on the other occasions, calling for the |
voice of authority. That is just what |
Peters successors, the Popes, have al |
ways been dong. | am about to show |
where Peter exercised and, consequently, |
claimed supreme authority, without con-
vOking general council. But even if it |
were nOt'exercised in the time Of the |
apostles, that would be no proof of its |
non eXlstences 1t is time enough to as |
sert right or enforce an authority when |
either is called in question, and we know |
that Peters f1ock-the early Christians
were not conspicuous for resistance to |
lawful authority. "They had but one
heart and one soul"
Layman says there is found in the New
Testament no trace of the exist |
ence of Peters supremacy Here |
are some striking proofs: In chap
ter l, verse Is of the Acts of the Apostles |
we read: Gin those days Peter rising up |
in the midst of the brethren, SAID NOW,
the number of persons together was
about 120), Men, brethren, the scripture
must be fulfilled which the Holy Ghost |
foretold by the mouth ofDavld concerning |
udaS, who was the leader of those who |
apprehended Jesus X X Wherefore, of |
these men who have been with us all the |
time that the Lord Jesus came in and |
went out among us, beginning from the |
baptism Of John until the day wherein |
he was taken up from us, one of these |
must be made a witness with us |
of his resurrection" Could our Lord |
himself have spoken with more author
ity than did his vicar, Peter, here in |
creating new apostle in the place of |
Judas? "Must be fulfilled" ''Must be |
made!" Is it not identical with what the |
pope does now when he appoints new
bishop Peter says it must be so, and it
is so; the pope says it must be so, and it |
is 80.
Peter stands forth head and shoulders
over his brethren IN every ministerial