The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-10-08

unto thee, that thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my Church +,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.
These words Of our Lord, said Dr.
Mcleod, "have been the occasion of a
great deal Of controversy. As to their
true meaning, Christendom is about
equally divided. Oae great sect of
Christians claim that when our Lord
addressed Peter, He constituted him
the head Of His church. Another great
sect deny this claim altogether. Vol
umes have been written on both sides
of this controversy. One party would
have US believe that ST. Peter was the
first pope of Rome, and that the pres
ent pope is his linesl and legitimate
successor The other party would
have us believe that such doctrine Is a
pure assumption and that it is both un-
scriptural and unhistoric. The Rom an
Catholic church occupies the ons posi-
tion, the Protestant church occupies
the other.
Without attempting TO discuss the
question, it may not be amiss to refer
to one or two facts which are related
to it.
IF it be a fact, as alleged, that St.
Peter was the first pope of Rome, is it
not strange that the New Testament
is silent on this subject2 Not one Of
the apostles or evangelists refer to It,
II st. Peter ever was pope or Rome, he
was pope when st. Paul wrote his
famous epistle to the Romans; and he
must have been pope when st. Paul
lived in Rome; and he must have been
pope when st, Paul wrote so many
letters from Rome. but neither in his
letter to Rome. nor in his letters from
Rome, does ST. Paul refer to Peter as
pope. st. Paul sends his greetings to
many Christians in Rome. but he does
not even mention the name of Peter.
Indeed there is not word in the New
Testament that would lead US to sus-
pect that Peter even was in Rome,
much less that he was pope. Is not
this silence of Scripture significant
THE POSITION OF ST. PAUL.
'Still further, instead of st. Paul tell
ing US that st. Peter was pope, and
that he was the head of the caurch,
and instead Of paying to him that
homage which, IL pope, he deserved, he
took him severely to task and with
stood him to the face because he was tc
be blamed"-a fact which would 60 tC
prove that. at least on that OCCASION
ST. Paul was pope rather than ST.
Peter. The claim that ST. Peter be
came the pope of Rome about the year
40 A. D.. and that he occupied the
papal chair for twenty-five years. i:
made necessary in order to support the
theory of the chuich that makes tht
claim, 1t is q claim which has the
merit of boldness, and multitudes have
believed it In all sincerity. 1t is cap.
tivating illusion. Whatever merit il
may have. it is but truth to say that 1t
has not the merit of historic accuracy
1t ia quite certain that st. Peter. after
he was rebuked by st. Paul, never at
tempted to lord it over Gods heritage.
He never claimed any superiority over
his brother apostles.
Imagine, if you can, st, Peter play
ing the part of Adrian ~, or of a Hill
debrand, or Of Leo X The whole
world knows that st. Peter would have
suffered martyrdom rather than b d
party to such an unholy bargain n
was consummated between Adrian "
and Henry II of England. Imagine, il
you can. ST.. Peter hugging to hi'
bosom Duke Of Alva, or Philip II
or Charles TX! Imagine. if you can
st. Peter bestowing his apostolic benz
diction upon, and striking medal il
honor Of, the monsters of cruelty VIII,
planned and who executed the mas.
sacre Of the innocents aud the slaugh-
ter OF the Hugenotsl II am not Il
tell you at this time who the first pop,
of Rome was, may and will tell you
who he was not. He was not ST.
Peter.
IN ITS HISTORICAL LIGHT.
"Theso hints are thrown out for you
consideration. and others will b
thrown out from time to time (for this
course of sermons is to be, in part, nj
least, historicaD in the hope that soma
of us may be induced to study NOR
closely the life of st. Peter as we find /
in Scripture. and in the hope, also, tina
me may be induced to read with car
the history of the early years of christi
anity.
But If st. Peter was not the frs
pope he was, for time, the mos
prominent member OF the apostoli,
band.
I'VE know but little of his early life
He was fisherman and the son of 1
fisherman, and we may be sure that hi
hardy, rugged, fisherman's life servet
him good purpose during the stormy
years Of his apostlesbip
I'VE have been reminded that wbel
we first meet st. Peter in the histor,
we find him married man and livin
with his mother-in-law--a fact a
creditable to her as 1t is to him. Sh
was doubtless good mother-in-lay '
and we know that hewas good son.in
law. 1t is. perhaps, worthy of note
that IL st. Peter was the first Pope o
Rome, then, beyond all question, tn
first Pope OF Rome was married man
1.-THE character of st. Peter was b
no means supernatural or preternatu
raj. On the contrary he was an in
tensely hnman character He was
man OF like passions with ourselves
He had his little weaknesses and hi
glaring faults. He was thoughtless a
times and too ready to speak. Hi
temperament was mercurial. His i'm
petuous nature got him into seriou
trouble betimes. From one point O
view he was albundle of contradiction
He was consistently inconsistent. t.
Today he is. the bravest of the brave
tomorrow he is the veriest coward
This hour the Master recognizes hin
rs His great apostle; the next He say
to him: Get thee behind Me, Satan
thou art an offsnse unto Me- Toda
st. Peter is ready to die for his Lord
tomorrow he is quick to deny Him an
to forsake him.
HIS PECULIAR CHARACTER.
"Great, grand, strange contradictor
character. this of st. Peterl He ha
his faults. but he WAS sound Mt th