The San Francisco call., 1896-01-11

looker-on. --eA' - -" = 7Ai' '-i"i 't'o
If Dr.. Wendte had to deaf with the men
nave oeen compelled to notice his plumage
might not now be so unruffled. If he had
peen met not with arguments but with forgery
win misrepresentation, with calumny, aye
ana even with obscene sneers and insinust tions
against everything and everybody he holds
near near anu dear, it is possible that he might
nave been able to maintain the calm and dig
hlned tone with which a professor pulpited on
an iceberg might address young ladies' semi
nary 1t is possible. If DR.. Wendte has the
temper OF an angel. I haven't.
however, this is neither here nor there.
ain ueallng now with DR.. Wendte, and all
have heard OF him leads me 10 the belief that
ne is poth scholar and gentleman. l hope
10 reply TO him as courteously and as calmly
as ne has criticized me. IT, i'll the course OF
these letters any expression should escape me
calculated 10 annoy or hurt him or any Prot
eStant l apologize for it beforehand. DR..
Wendte has judged me harshly in supposing
thaC L am anxious merely for partisan tri-
umph. assure him that however much ap-
pearances may have misrepresented my posi-
lioH hy so4e desire is not victory, but truth.
THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.
In my explanation of the teachings OF the
Catholic church concerning civil allegiance
made slight sketch of the argument which
leads from rom the idea of revelation to the dogma
sketch was not to elaborate the details, but to
define the links in the chain One of these
links was the statement of fact: "Our Lord
constituted st. Peter the ruler of his church /"
The next link was another statement OF fact.
THE Pope is the successor of ST. Peter" Dr.
Wencte tries TO break these two links and his
letter was written to prove
l. Peter was never invested by Jesus Christ
with any extraordinary authority or spiritual
supremacy over the other disciples.
T. Even II he had been so invested there is
nothing to show that this authority was or
cou!d be transferred TO succeeding generations
of disciples.
3. Peter was never Bishop in Rome.
/. Peter never abode in Rome for any such
term as is claimed for him in the official dec
larations OF the Roman Catholic church.
D. Peter was IN all probability never in Rome
at all.
intend in this letter TO examine the proofs
offered by Dr. Wendte to substantiate these con-
cIuslonsand see how lar they bear out his con-
structlons. Let me say, however, in the begin
ming that in this argument 1 use the Bible
merely as human composition. | leave out
the question OF its supernatural character and
consider ii simply q history, like Caesars
Commentaries or Xenophon's Anabasis. l
take for granted that it is substantially COZ
rect-as correct SIS any other authentic record
OF the past Ihe questions with which we nave
to deal are all questions of fact and to substan-
tate questions OF fact we only require credible
testimony.
1.-THE SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER.
In my summary OF Catholic teaching stated
that Christ constituted ST. Peter the ruler OF
his church. To substantiate this assertion l
alleged the following proofs:
% Christ built his church on Peter.
(2) Christ gave Peter the symbols of royal
authority in the church.
(3) Christ gave Peter the royal power of bind
Ing and loosing.
a. Christ gave Peter the Office of confirming
the brethren.
% Christ gave Peter the commission to feed
the lambs and sheep.
DR.. Wendte has not thought IL well to con-
slider the arguments (2) and t5). He diverts the
main force OF his reasoning against argument
No. Q). He deal with argument No. (3) in a
paragraph, and he dismiSses No. az in half
sentence To these he ADDS various considera-
uons which initiate not against the proof, but
against the fact itself. This is not the order
followed by Dr.. Wendte, but l think it is the
clearest way to put the matter, and to my
mind clearness is the first requisite in a con
troversy. Will therefore deal with the first
question OF fact in the following order:
a. Objections against the proofs alleged to
substeutiate the fact.
l. The argument from the Rock metaphor is
OF no value, because:
(d) Peter is not the only Rock
(6) HIS name Rock was given on different
occasion, and therefore has no special signif-
canoe.
(c) Peter, was the Rock simply because he
took leading part in spreading the church.
(d) Peter was not the Rock, because Christ
rebuked him and because he denied Christ.
.. The argument from the commission to
confirm the bre thren is OF no weight because
nothing was meant but st. Peters natural
feryor.
3. The argument from the power of binding
and loosing is OF no weight, because all the
disciples received the same power.
B. Objections against the fact itself.
~ Our Lord himself expressly provided
against primacy.
~ The ancient church was not organized on
a hieraehical basis, and therefore there was no
room Tor Pope.
C5) The whole history of the apostolic church
shows no trace OF the primacy OF Peter because
TAI The apostles exercised their authority in
common.
(b) Peter did not preside at the council OF
Jerusalem.
(c) Paul withstood him face to face
(d) The fourth gospel glorifies John, not
Peter.
1.-THE ROCK FOUNDATION.
Dr.. Wendte says concerning the argument
in favor OF st. Peters primacy deduced from
the famous text of st. Matthew:
This claim is usually based to begin with
on certain mysterious passage, which, by the
way. is to DC found in but one OF the four
gospels. 1t reads Thou art Peter iPetros),
ana upon this rock {Petra) VIII 1 build my
church. >
remarks. In the first place that the fact is
mentioned in only one of the four gospels is
utterly devoid OF significance. No scholar
now imagines that the four gospels were
written tor the purpose OF setting down all
that our Lord did OF said, and that we are to
Judge OF the Importance of the doctrine BY the
number OF times 1t is mentioned. Each OF the
gospels was written Tor certain set purpose
ana II Is instructive that it is in the gospel
which was composed to show to the Jews that
the prophecies mad been fulfilled, that the reign
OIL David was 10 be succeeded by the reign
OF the son OF David, that the earthly scepter OF
Judah was TO give way TO the spiritual king
uOh-lt IS significant that this gospel gives
US the organization OF the kingdom OF heaven
and the words of the Christ, which declare
how and on what 1t is founded. | do not sup
rose that Or. Wendte denies the authenticity
OF this incident, aud if it is authentic that is
all that Is necessary for the argument
In the second place the claim OF the Pope to
supremacy IS not usually based on this pas
sage. The other arguments which | gave are,
as lar rs my reading goes urged by the
Cathohcs Just as often as this one. TO my
nina the strongest argument which can be
set forth in Iayor of the papai supremacy is the
papal supremacy itself. The church to-day is
her own witness as she was when the apostles
set out for the first time from the upper
ehamo Der in Jerusalem. She is now as she was
then, the city seated on the mountain-top.
She is the standard lifted up to the nations
that all may know where is the appointed
rendezvous OF the king
In the third place, l cannot imagine why DR..
Wendte should cGll this mysterious passage.
know there is school of writers who aim to
explain away everything that tells against
them and get rid of an obnoxious text by
smotherlng It in smoke However, l do not
expect Dr. Wendte to resort to such tactics.
He stands tor IAN honest and impartial review
OF the Bible testimony" and an honest and
impartial review scouts snch ad jectiyes as
mysterious" Remember, we are dealing
now with the Bible, just as if it were the "His-
tory o. the Gaelic War" or, ''The Retreat of the
Ten Thousand" Profane scholars would lin
ger TO scorn the man who wonld attempt TO