The San Francisco call., 1896-01-11
FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH.
Rev. Charles ", Wendte of Oakland Writes on
the Subject.


the Subject.
The Rev. Charles W. Wendte, pastor of
the First Unitarian Church of Oakland,
writes to the Examiner on three points OF
the controversy. The following is a sum-
mary of his contentious:
First-The claim of the Roman Catholic Church
to have an exclusive and divine right through
Chrlsts institution and Peters selection and
primacy as the first Christian Bishop in Rome to
rule over the souls of men and assure their saliva
ton in this and all worlds
Second-Ihe doctrine of civil government held
by that church as contrasted with our American
and secular theory OF church and state.
Ihird-The comparative truth and excellence OF
religion and church government as shown prac-
ucalI! In the lives OF individuals, states, nations
and races OF men.
The first claim is based on q certain mysteri-
Gus passage in the New Tes lament, passage
which. by the way, is to be found in but one
OF tne four gospels it reads: Thou art Pc
ter {Petros), and on this rock (Petros) will
build my church"
But these words are capable of various inter-
pretatlons when considered in the light of
other passages. Elsewhere in the New Testa-
ment Christ is called "the only foundation
which can be laid" Corinthians l, ~ the
''headstone OF the corner" (by Peter himself in
Acts lv:2), as ii the apostolic writers were
quite unaware OF any such exclusive distlnc-
uon having been conferred on Peter. Accord
ing TO Mark Ql1:16) and Luke (yi:14) the be-
stcwal OF this name Peter upon Simon took
place ON earlier and different occasion.
Jesus no doubt depended greatly on Peter to
spread the gospel. But this does not imply
that Jesus depended wholly on Peter. He was
no rock in the eyes of the Master. He full
hlled in great degree however, the expecta-
ton and prophecy OF the Christ Largely
through his devotion and labor the mother
church at Jerusalem founded. But in the
later history OF the apostolic church his in
huence seems to have waned. In the Jewish
branch James occupied the foremost place and
in the Christian Paul was far more conspicu-
Gus.
In the Bible the word church is never used
TO signify hierarchy. There was no such life
long office Bishop in the early church The
church was congregation. The first church
officers mentioned in the New Testament-the
deacons (Acts vi;2-6)-were ordained by all the
Apostles in common, not by Peter alone. So,
again, when earnest teachers are needed in
Samarla (Acts vif:l4) the Apostles exercise
their collective authority and send Peter and
John thIther.
Sull more significant is the testimony al
forded by the council or synod OF Apostles
mentioned IL the fifteenth chapter of the Book
OF Acts. Peter does not preside over it, as he
would naturally have done if he had been
recognized as Primate. He defends his own
course like q private member OF the congrega-
ton, and James is the one who proposes the
compromise which is finally adopted by the
Apostles, elders and congregation, in settle
ment OF their differences.
The Catholic church has always claimed that
Peter, after stay of ten years as Bishop OF
Antioch, departed for Rome where, after reign
---o -A4NS ~ SpA'5 A4S SuliSACu Win Ihul
a martyrs death.
Ii Peter was in Rome he must have left
Jerusalem for Antioch immediately after
the cruciiXion of Christ, and remained
in Asia Minor for ten years. But this
IS an impossibility, for we learn from
the Books OF Acts and the Epistle TO
the Galatians that Peter was in Jerusalem for
many years after the crucifXion. Paul finds
him there Galatians i:1S) three years after
his conversion, and he tells us Galatians l.
~ that II was not until fourteen years after
this q plus Il equal lT) that Peter went to
Antioch, and then not as Bishop, but on a
missionary visit only.
Again, II Peter was for twenty-five wears
Bishop IN Rome and was put TO death there in
6S a. D.. he must have gone there as early as
tae year AZ OF our era. But turning 10 the
New Testament we find that Peter was in
prison at Jerusalem in the year 44. In the
year 90 Paul meets him in Jerusalem. In the
year oS Paul writes his great kpistle to the
Romans. Now, II IS strange that III all this
eplstle there should not be single allusion TO
Peter. The last chapter is made up principally
OF greetings to Pauls acquaintances in the
Eternal City. Some tWenty-Six different per-
sons are mentioned by name, but Peters
PauPs fellow apOs lie, is not once referred to-
Is not this lneXphcable and inConceivabe, if
Peter was really in Rome at the time and as
IS claimed, was founder and Bishop OF the
church there! Why, indeed, did Paul feel
called upon at all TO write his letter of counsel
and admOultion TO the Romans. if they already
had an apostolic and authoritative teacher ike
Peter abiding among them? This considera-
ton alone goes far TO settle the question
1 HO ttdIS utter Writing THIS eUlSJle Panl
comes himself 10 Rome go A. d. to stav we
know not how long. The Book of Acts closed
win feuts captivity there. But neither the
Book OF Acts nor Paul in the epistles no wrote
from Rome make any mention OF Peter, which
is lncoHceiyable ii he was abiding there at the
time and the acknowledged head OF the
church. In the first Epistle OF Peter. V. I3. we
ma a salulation from ''she (the church) that
is in Babylon" Roman Catholic theolOpiaDs
interpret Babylon in this message to be n CON
cealed reference TO Rome But this is merely
hot pol,- -rI,,,,
stlIl a considerable city in Peters day and that
the apostles activity was displayed in that
very region.
In conclusion the summing up may be as fol-
lows: flrst-St. Peter was never invested with
any extraordinary spiritual auth oTity over the
other apostles. Second-Even had he been
mus invested there is no reason for believing
that this supposed authority was to be trans
mltted 10 his successors, the notion of such
transmission being purely an assumption on
the part OF the Roman church. Tnird-St
Peter was never Bishop OF Rome Fourth-St,
teter never could have resided in Rome for
the length OF time claimed by the Roman
church. Fltth-He Wasj i'll all probability
never in The city OF Rome al any time
Iaklng the negative OF these conclusions we
ma the shaky foundation upon which the
towering superstructure OF the Papacy is built
The power OF the Popes is on the wane as NAV
be proved by glance at the forlorn condition
Oh the church In Catholic countries. Surely
this decaylng antique cannot be the church Of
prevail.
IN the Roman communion many fine exam
pies OF Christian character may be found: but
the whole history OF the Papacy shows how
dangerous is the policy which concentrates
absolute and irresponsible power In the hands
OF mere men. IL is the duty OF every Protestant
minister to expose the fallacy OF Roman hier-
arcmcal pretensions. Beyond all doubt.
Catholcism is losing ground IN this country
ana our free American institutions are prepar,
ing the way Tor its transformation or perhaps
its overthrow.
This review has not been undertaken for the
purpose OF glorifying the Protestant sects at
the expense OF the Catholic church, but for the
sake OF true Christianity, the welfare OF which
Will be brought about by the downfall of the
spiritual and temporal sovereignty OF Rome
In the gospel OF Matthew xviii :IS} we read
thdt Jesus committed the power TO bind and
loose, 10 retain and remit sin, not only TO
Peter, but TO all the disciples. eVerily, | say
unto you. whatsoever We bind on earth shall
be bound In heaven, and whatsoever We loose
on earth shall be loosed in heaven" What
ever weight OF authority we may attach to this
mysterious passage, one thing is assured, the
keys oil heaven are in the hands OF no one
privileged mediator between man and God
Every disciple is priest of the Most High:
every pure soul is Gods temple, every honest
thought, every virtupus action and holy
prayer brings US into immediate and intirnate
relations with cur Father in heaven, promotes
our present felicity and opens the kingdom of
heaven to all believers.
CHARLES w. WENDTE
N farI IL, Nf Ill