The San Francisco call., 1896-01-12


tiles. 81 said to Peter before all, he writes to
i!i ine Galatlans, III thou who art Jew does I'VE
Gentiles to live like JeWs?"
This is practically an appeal to the supreme
authority OF the prince of the apostles against
d lactlon VINO were using him to justify their
errors ,Inat Paul could resist Peter on this
matter merely proves that Paups doctrine was
right. 1t brings shamefaced Peter before the
GaIatlans TO bear witness that this newfangled
apostle is correct in his teachings. Now If
Peters witness is not in some way authorita-
tive, why should Paul be so anxious to have
MIN on his side? docs not the fact look like
an acknowledgment on his part of the primacy
ana sovereign authority of Peter?"
ld) The glorifcation of John.
DT. Wendte tries to show that there was
gradual ooscuration of St. Peter as the church
proved Is to me mystery. All we know bout
Ihe apostolic church is TO be found in the New
@ testament, and surely DR.. Wendte does not
CONSIDER that bundle OF old letters is a very
good method for obtaining anything like the
proper perspective of history. What DR..
"ehate says about the Gospel OF st. John is,
lates how our Lord washed Peters feet first of
All. he tells Of himself. how, when he outran
feter 10 the tomb, he waited and would not
enter tlll Peter had preceded him. Above ell,
ne records the giving of that superhuman task,
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep" Certainly
TINS Goes not look as if Peter was deprecated
by the fourth GOSPEL
These, Mr. Editor. are all the objections
been able to gather from DR.. Wendte's letter.
Nlat lnelr value is your readers can now
1uuge. NO evidence has been brought forward
TO snow that Peter is not the only rock, or that
the change OF his name TO Rock does not iudi-
cate ms supreme power. The commission to
connrfn the brethren is q special commission,
not the result of mere natural char
acterlst1c. His legislative power he re-
celVes IN common with the body of which
ne f,, was member, but he also receives it
alone as personal and individual gift. His
prlmacy u Us In with the hierarchical constitu-
tloH OF the church as established by Christ
ana no word or act in all apostolical history
can De a!Ieged against that primacy. The very
te6ts ana arguments which are sent up TO con-
fute MIN range themselves upon his side.
NO. Dr Wendte's honest and impartial re-
view OF the Bible testimony proves nothing
against the prince OF the apostles. Clear and
definite texts stand forth in his favor.
What is brought to confute him? few
the Bibe-unwilling conscripts who escape
as soon as they get an opening Let
Dr. Wendte consider well the straits in which
ne puts himself by yielding TO preconceived
Ideas, Some OF the noblest passages in the
Scripture he is compelled TO dismiss with the
eplthet mysterious He loses the key which
unlocks not only the obscure chambers of
apostolic history but he loses the explanation
OF the long dealings of God with man.
II. THE PERMANENCY OF THE PRIMACY.
In my original letter I stated the Catholic
argument in the following words:
l. The society which Christ established TO
teach his doctrines must last forever He is
with II even TO the end of the world.
=. rms society rests upon the rock, and be-
cause 1t rests upon the rock it is victorious
over the gates OF hell; hence the rock must en-
dure as long as the church, for no building can
stand without foundation.
.. Peter, therefore, must ever remain in the
church as its perpetual defense, as its ruler, as
the shepherd of the lambs and sheep.
a. But Peter lived only Tor a few years.
Ihereiore, unless he has u successor the plans
OF Christ came to naught almost as soon as
they were put into operation. No one can
predicate this OF him who is Infinite wisdom
ana Infinite power.
To this DR.. Wendte replies: Even if he had
been so invested, there is nothing TO show
that this authority was or could be trans
tsrred TO succeeding generations of disciples"
AS ne gives no reason for his denial my posi-
tive statement stands, because have given my
reason for it.
III. ST. PETER AND ROME.
DR.. Wendte has summed up his conclusions
concerning the connection OF st. Peter with
Rome in three propositions
Peter was never Bishop in Rome.
Peter never abode in Rome for any such term
as Is claimed for him in the official declara-
tions OF the Roman Catholic Church.
Peter was, in all probability, never in Rome
at all.
Twill consider these propositions one by one.
/. PETER WAS BISHOP OF ROME.
The only reason given by DR.. Wendte for his
denial of Peters episcopate in Rome is that
"the unanimous tradition of the church faith
ers designates one Linus as the first Roman
Bishop" really do not see how he can make
such a wild statement. His own beloved Lip
sius now acknowledges that Hippolytus, in
that portion OF his chronicle from which
of the Popes was derived, counts Peter
as first Bishop OF Rome. My author
ity is G, F. B; Alnatt, "Was ST.. Peter
OF Christ BorTapby ns and tero
that that "Thes The blessed apostles having founded
and built up the Church of Rome, delivered
the episcopate to Linus" The difficulty
which is sometimes made that Linus is called
the first is easily met by the explanation that
the fathers count 'from the apostles" Just as
Alexandria after Mark. Indeed l am very
much afraid that Dr. Wendte Will find 1t hard
to prove that the fathers are unanimous, as he
asserts.
One statement of DR.. Wendte 1 notice with
great surprise. He says
at is not until 100 years after the reported
death of the Apostle Peter that we come upon
testimonies TO the general tradition existing
at Rome OF his sojOurn, primacy and death
there. Now 100 years is a long time. How
many legends and myths have arisen in
past hundred years and still persist? How
much more must this not have been the cese in
the ignorant, uncrltlcal, credulous and turbu-
lent age which witnessed the downfall OF the
Roman empire and the transformation of the
spiritual democracy OF Jesus and his disciples
1nto the monarchical constitution of the
ROmhu v especially WNeD ii was
manifeStly for the interests of the clergy to
spread the doctrine ofPeter's Roman primacy."
with reference 70 this, allow me to remark,
that the Christian literature OF the first century
is very scanty and not OF such nature as would
indicate anything whatsoever about matters of
history. We have, however, pretty clear and
convincing evidence from thirty-three years
after the death Of Peter, that the Roman See
exercised his primecy. Moreover, l beg en-
phatically to deny that this century was "igno-
rant, uncrlttcal, turbulent or credulous." 1t
was the century which saw Rome's greatest
glory, and as lar as learning or Skepticsm, or
peace goes, it could well compare with our
own. an afraid DR.. Wendte has been mixing
up his history as he has been mixing up his
scripture.
2. The OFFICIAL RECORDS.
DR.. Wendte goes into long arithmetical and
records wrong. at Is claimed" he says, ''in
the official declaration OF the Roman Catholic
church Qiber Pontifcalis, etc) that Peter re-
sided IN Rome twenty-five years and more, but
that he hGd previously served Tor ten years as
Bishop OF Antioch"
DR.. Wendte might have spared himself all
the trouble 1t Is nowhere claimed that st.
Peters residence at Rome or al Antioch was
continuous. he might as well try to prove
that Archbishop RiOrdan is not Arch bishop o
san francisco because he spent some time in
Europe.
3. Was St Peter in Rome?
DR.. Wendte produces long and learned
array OF names to show that he was
not can produce as long and as