Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-08-06

ity to make such determination and to
r&nder such a judgment in the church
during the time of the apostles were only
exercised by and understood as belonging
to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.
The absolute verify and binding effect
of the judgment pronounced by the first
council at Jerusalem On the question OF
the obligation of the Gentle Christians
to the law of Moses have believe, never
from that day to the present, been called
in question in the Christian church.
Respecting the proceedings and action
of this council and their bearing upon
the claim for Petrine supremacy, few
| observations may here be pertinently
made.
! First-Some ten or twelve years prior
to the meeting of this council st. Peter
had formed and. announced his opinion
| upon the question before it, and during
all that time his views upon the subject
must have been well known to the church.
Yet his well known opinion was not &C.
cepted as settling or in any wise deter
mining the question; nor is there the
| slightest evidence that Peter
expected or desired it to be so accepted.
Second-St. Peter for several wears
preceding the meeting of this council
must have been well aware of the dis
putes and discussions prevailing respect
ing this question, and yet there is no
where to be found the least intimation
that he ever attempted to quiet these dis
putes and disssensions and to determine
the question by his own power or auth
ority, or that he ever claimed to possess
the power or authority so to do
Third-When the disputations and dis
sensions over this question became fla
grant and an authoritative and final set
Element Of the matter was imperatively
required, it never occurred to the Chri s.
tians of that day TO refer the subject to
st. Peter tor final determination, but they
sent deputation up to Jerusalem to lay
the matter before the apostles and el-
ders.
Fourth-St Peter was an active mem
Der of this council and fully cognizant Of,
and a willing participant in all its pro-
ceedIngs, and gave his earnest and eff
cient advocacy and support in favor Of
the adoption of the decree passed by the
council.
He did not in any manner attempt to
dominate or control the body or to exer-
else any authority over it or its proceed
ings.
He did not even preside over it's DELHI
erations. He simply arose after there had
been much disputing, and addressed the
council, setting forth with his wonted
directness, clearness and force his own
views upon the question; as did also
Barnabas and Paul after him.
Now, evidently Peter was not the man
to have shrunk from determining. this
question for the whole church upon his
own responsibilities question upon
which he Rod lopor hold tho ,,oe4
OpiniOn-if he had understood or claimed
that he possessed the power and authority
so to determine it.
1t is very clear that at this time Peter
did not himself understand that he pos
sessed, nor was he understood by the 9TH
er apostles or disciples to possess the su-
preme power and authority of teaching
and ruling in the church.
Flfth-It is also noteworthy that the
mandate sent out to the Gentle discis
piles announcing the decree of this coun-
Gil on this question runs, not from Peter,
but from the "apostles and elders, and
brethren"
Now, everything that was done by this
council was done with tn e full knowl-
edge and acquiescence and even active
concurrence of Peter.
We have already called attention to
the significant fact briefly recorded in
the fourth verse of the sixteenth chapter
of the Acts: "And as they Paul and his
companions) went through the cities
they delivered them the DEGREES for
to keep that were ordained of the apostles
and elders which were at Jerusalem"
And in the 18th verse of tho sth chap
ter of the Acts we read "Now when
the apostles which were. at Jerusalem
heard that Samaria had received the
word of God they sent unto them Peter
and John.''
There is no where to be found in the
Acts of the Apostles particle of evidence
that st. Peter ever exercised, or claimed
the right to exercise, Orwas recognized
by his fellow apostles or by the brethren
generally Is possessing, the supreme
power and authority to teach and rule in
the church.
On the contrary, the Acts Of the
Apostles furnish us with ample evidence
of the exercise of this power and author
ity by the apostles and elders acting col
lectively and in council.
We find then in the books of the New
Testament no trace of the existence of
Petrine supremacy. But we do find there
unequivocal evidence of plenary grant
1TOIu OuT LOTU u Tic clGNcH dpOSLltS anu
their associates and successors forever Of
the supreme power and authority to
teach and rule in the church; and also
unequivocal evidence of the exercise of
this power and authority by these
grantees, that is by the apostles and elders
in council assembled which facts pre-
clude the claim that st. Peter, individ
ually, ever possessed or exercised any
such power or authority.
OF course, if the claim for Petrine su-
premacy fails, that for papal supremacy
goes with it.
l will here remark, however, that am
unable to find, in Bishop Ireland's lee
lures or elsewhere, any reason, authority
or basis whatever for the assumption that
the supremacy of St. Peter, even if
1t had existed, was transmitted
by inheritance to his successors on the
see of Rome, supposing him ever to have
occupied tlat see. The question of such
an inheritance, if there existed any evil
dence of st. Peters supremacy itself,