Daily Tombstone epitaph., 1886-04-30
ST. PETERS SUPREMACY.
The Rev. MT. Haskins' Reply to Father
 Dole's Letter.
TOMBSTONE, April 2S, 1886.

cisely. Ina, is the question at issue.
 is no, religious discussion. It is
 question of historical fact. The entire
 question Of the Roman hierarchy and DO
 litical domination is built upon the al
 legged supremacy oi S,. Peter and tho
 Roman See. lf the allegation fails, the
 failure carries with it all the conse
 quences built upon the assumption. IL
 is well that people understand this. If a
 man seeks to dsposess me of my prop.
 erty by presenting spurious title, the
 piety or the in,piety of either party does
 not affect the question of title. The ques-
 ton is: Is the title valid2 It is to be de-
 termined by records and evidence.
 shall hold your correspondent to this. He
 gratuitously assumed the validity and all
 it's consequences. l denied and ask for
 the proofs. It comes in assumptions
 again.
 I. First from Scripture. Driven from that he now falls back upon the single text: Thou art Peter, etc." It is indeed true that single text, with "Thus saith the Lord" is sufficient 10 establish any truth or fact, or commission. But whether our Lord meant Peter or not by the Rock" does not affect the question of the supremacy of St, Peter in the slightest degree. And for these reasons: He never assumed it. He never claimed il. He never occupied it. The Apostles and the Church never once alluded to it. On the contrary, after the Resurrection, before His departure, He did declare, where the supremacy re sided. He said: "All authority in heaven and in earth is given unto Me" Why did He not say "Peter," if He had given it to him? Or why did He not add, land have delegated it to Peter?" Or why did He not say: "To Me in heaven and to Peter on earth?" Why, but be. cause he had never given any such su. premacy of authority to St, Peter, and never intended to, to him or any other Apostle, or all the Apostles or the Church. By virtue of supremacy resid- ing in Himself, He delegated to all the Apostles and to their successors to the end of this age-not supremacy of au- thority, not a political hierarchy, but to preach the Gospel and ad- minister its ordinances to all believers. It is seventy years before the New Testa ment record closes and in all that record there is not sentence or word which has the remotest intima,ion that any su- premacy of authority was given or i'm piled to St. Peter or any other Apostle. At the end of that period the Lord, Him sell, gives revelation to St. John, the last survivor of the original twelve, in which he takes occasion to rebuke the churches for their errors. This revela. ton was not addressed to St. Peter, nor to his successor; St. Peters name is not No supremacy of St. Peter, or any other Apostle, or successor of the Apostles was held or thought of at that time. Is it conceivable, if our Lord had intended to del egate any such authority, and they had utterly failed to recognize it, that he could have passed it over unrebuked? The thing is absurd on the face of t Moreover, l may safely affirm. there will not be found in all Scripture any positive or command given and vio- lated, without also the record of Gods displeasure and punishment, or threat ened punishment. When to all this you add the fact that not one of the early Fathers interpreted the text in question as giving the supremacy to St. Peter, it IS simple infatuation to produce it as record of the fact, or evidence in favor of it, before sane men; and if not given to St. Peter, much less to the See of Rome, or any other See. Why Rome in prefer ence to Jerusalem or Antioch, or Smyr- na or any other Church? In spite of your correspondents assurance and fiippancy, it is yet an open question as to whether St. Peter was ever at Rome. But whether he was or not affects but slightly the claim of the supremacy. If he was not, it simply makes it the more absurd.
 ?. And next history. In respect to the Ecumenical Council, your correspon- dent, leaving the former assumption, re- treats to another tha, the Emperors con voked them on the authority of con- mission from the respective Bishops of Rome. That is equally false. The councils were summoned at the general desire of the entire Church to meet heresies. The decrees were written in Greek. The Latin Churches and Latin tongue had less to do with them than the
 Eastern or Greek. The Roman Bishops
 did not commission the Emperors to