| Show berne bensz switzerland F feb peb ob 18 1872 Editor Deseret ei venino uerino news S dear sir I 1 have before me noo a french translation of a verbatim report of the discussion cassion which took place at rome kome on the oth and loth of the present month between Cat catholic hollo and protestant divines on the following question was tho the apostle peter pew r ever in rome As it is a novelty velty in the eternal city of the popes to see catholics consent to discuss 9 a point which is held heid as a dogma by their church I 1 thought a mention of the fact would be interesting together with a very brief analysis of the principal arguments made use of on either elther side on a platform plat piat form torm sat on the evening of the oth four presidents two catholics and two i protestants they were on the catholic side mr do de dominicis church attorney and the prince of campagnano and on the ope cosite one and philips both english A little below this presidency sat the six champions rhe rho catholics were represented by fabiani Fabia nl cipolla and guidi the protestant speakers being Selar belar eill elit and gavazzi all of them italian I 1 believe each speaker had one or two reporters sn an as to secure a falt fait faithful brul brai complete report which is to be published in all languages language at 7 mr D dominicis dominicia rose to state the object of the meeting and in a few words explained the nature and char the debate A few minutes were then allowed for silent prayer and the dis dla cu cassion 88 ion lon was opened by ur mr ill ili the first protestant speaker who read his speech mr first stated it is claimed by roman catholic theologians that st peter went to rome in the year 42 of the christian era was the second year of the reign of claudius the emperor Empero naud nand raud and that st peter was pope popo nearly 25 23 years and died in A D GO 66 under the reign of nero he then proceeded to show that peter in his him not go to rome in A D 42 gist st paul said mr nir was converted averted to christianity after the year 37 A D and in his epistle to the galatians written in A D 39 we find that peter was at jerusalem where st paul met him and lodged with him 15 days in A D 42 st peter late from cesarea was again in je e and could not at the same tim tims be in rome but asks the orator did peter po go to rome subsequently in A D 43 peter went to joppa and remained there several weeks after which he went to lydia and healed enos the paralytic he then returned to cesarea and baptized cornelius with whom he remained a certain time peter 1 next reappears in jerusalem and shortly after is made captive by herod agrippa successor of herod the great who died in A D 45 46 miraculously delivered the apostle peter t 0 r so st luke informs us in the ac t was sheltered alered by mary mother of john after which he departed and went into another place the roman catholic theologians claim that another place means rome home in that case why not name the great arty a after r naming joppa lydia cesarea etc at A A f any rate in A D 56 a council of apostles ri and elders is held at jerusalem at which peter is present and from which h he pro coeds to antioch anad IT ln AD 68 st paul writes to the rom bom maus mans maus it is not likely that he would have omitted to mention peters name if he had been in the great capital of the empire and then again had peter neter been pope would hotst not st paul have refrained from meddling with the religious affairs of rome romme f V st paul reached rome romme la in A D 61 and all ali the christians go to meet him yet peter is not among them and nobody speaks of him st paul rem ins two years in rome and writes four epistles never mentioning peters name while he speaks of his friends 2 of his neighbors and companions in captivity gela geia in A D 63 66 st SL paul writes to timothy that all have abandoned him except luke who is with him would not st paul havo have tila tiva namoa d iha tha first apostle if peter had been in rome rue rne conclusion the tho protestant orator draws from this series of circumstances is is that peter never was in a rome never in prison with paul mr Sc larell next rejects the opinion of catholics that since the letters written by peter bear the date of babylon that word babl baby ion can mean no other place than rome he says 66 the real babylon still existed in the fi first rat century F and was the central point of the jewish jewish dispersion with regard to which peter had received a special mission from jesus mr nir elli ended his bis speech by complaining fiance diance pla pia ning ining that too much importance and re ilance liance are placed in mere tradition as a historical proof I 1 in n his opinion tradition has no value whatever when it Is in opposition to the text orthe of the bible it appears this speech was listened to very attentively by both catholics and protes protest p tants lants and created a favorable impression on the lett iett of the assembly where sat the latter t i mr eab Fab fabiana Fabia lani iani nl the first catholic speaker next rose to refute the preceding arguments his remarks were improvised and reveal much talent and a profound study of the subject which he asserts ho he has been engaged in for upwards of 40 years seara but bilt it la is somewhat difficult to sele select ct from bis his long and interesting speech the most salient and interesting points he first objects to the very tery foundation of all his arguments which rest upon the supposed correct chronology of the bible mr fallani asserts that the chronology of the bible is most uncertain and that the acts of the apostles for instance are arranged not la in chronological but in logical order this he attempts to demonstrate by numerous quotations he next takes up a particular ir view of the 0 question fuestion in debate it matters not baya bayr he o what year peter was in rome nor how long he remained tb there ere we wish our adversaries to prove that he never wan there and if I 1 can prove that peter was only one day one hour ilour in rome you have lost the question the fact of peters presence in rome Is complex first there is the historical fact and be quotes historians to establish it secondly I 1 there is the mysterious fact which can only bo be proved by the authority of the church itself which looks upon peter as its ita founder the scriptures or the bible as it is is not the only authority which catholic recognize in the matter of religion many things in the bible are only made clear by the liht light of ot history and many circumstances which are not mentioned in the acts of the apostles or which are not sufficiently clear ca can ean aln ain only be explained by contemporaneous historians when the bible is silent on a point one must examine facts W the ithe presence find and of peter in it rome romo omo ome were never disputed until recently the heretics themselves having res ros that tradition until these latter days he then examines the question of peters 1 death which he be says took place in rome A fact so notorious did not need a mention in the acts everybody knew know it and he again quotes early christians and other early historians who speak of peters stay and death in rome among them caplas Tre clement of alexandria origen arnole Theop hanes banes etc if holy scriptures said that peter died in such a place if there were a prophecy to sustain the ground taken by our adversaries we would consider ourselves beaten but the bible contains not aline allne a line contradicting the facts that we state that peter lived and died at rome romme he next proved that the historians quoted were worthy of all credence that caplas more especially never made an assertion that did not rest on the most able certainty As regards the objection made by the protestant champion to the tradition which considers the word Baby babylon lon ion in peters letters to mean rome he mr fabian considers the substitution of the word rome a very plausible one and with great sagacity he remarks that had peters letters really been written in babylon and not to in rome the mention of Pon tuss galatia cappadocia Cappad ocia ocla etc would have been in an inverse order whereas they are precisely mentioned in the order in which any one would place them who would be writing from rome As for peters special mission to the lambs of dispersion rome was as good a place as any even babylon to fulfill fulfil it successfully there bein being a great number of jews in rome nome some of whom had great influence as for instance Pop rop pese the mistress of f faro nero noro who was a jewess this speech had it Is said quite as much success as the first mr Bl betti bettl second protestant orator then improvised a very long speech from which I 1 select only the arguments that are not a repetition of what had already been said by mr he confesses he has not studied the question 40 years being much too young in his mind the tradition of peters sojourn at rome is the result of a more mere tion which spread and grew and finally had the semblance of truth then and then alone historians p picked it epand helped to sustain it by the sanction of their well reputed authority I 1 our adversaries wish us to prove that peter was not in rome why prove it any one would be considered a madman who would believe in the phoenix who rises out of his ashes so long as it was not proved to him that the phoenix ever existed 11 in the opinion of this speaker there is no need of proving the nonexistence non existence of a thing when there are no proofs it over ever existed you catholics say if peter had been only one day in rome everybody must submit to the authority of the papacy and recognize the dogma of the popes infallibility of the immaculate conception etc such a consequence is faise faire even if peter had been ea 5 years yeara in rome it would be no argument in favor of infallibility mr cipolla catholic priest rose next to reply and said sald to assert that peter never was in rome you must find a text in the bible to deny it categorically like the first catholic speaker speak Who uhe ho is of opinion that there was no reason why the bible bibie should mention Peter peters life ilfe and death in rome it was an acknowledged fact known to all the christians Christ iHns the discussion had now isted listed four hours and it was thought best to adjourn until the next evening at 7 in this second meeting father gavazzi continued the debate for the protestants and vastie saade the most eloquent speech on the protestant side among othor other things of great importance he said the difference of opinion between our adversaries and ourselves is based upon the diversity of proof and appreciation catholics wish to gee see in the silence of the bible bibie a proof that peter came to rome home we see in that silence a proof absolutely contrary for a co comparison tit we will say in hi hla hig history of the consulate and empire mr nir thiers now president of the french republic does not n ot say a word about a journey made by na eoleon I 1 to the united states of amendol is i that a proof that napoleon the first was there no I 1 it is the same with peters pretended journey to rome in answer to the ahe first catholic speaker mr gavazzi said you ask for a prophecy alluding to peters death in any other place than rome kome you shall have it carist christ said to the pharisees Pharis eps ees you will crucify bome mome of mine so 80 that according to jeus jesus himself the jews were to crucify some soine ot of his but not the primaus Rl Ri mans maus the jews now ibe the only disciples crucified according to scripture were andrew and peter and others were stoned to death or be headed this prophecy prophet of jesus can therefore only refer to those two who were the same referred to by christ but tor for this prophecy to be acca accomplished pil shed peter bad to be cruci fled fied bythe by the jo jews s and not by the romaus romans Roni aus aua or br at any rate in a country where the jews enjoyed much power such was not the case in rome but it if we say that peter was crucified in babylon the prophecy is fulfilled for there the jews were ver very verv v powerful enough so to obtain permission of the kinf king to crucify peter AS for the manner of peters crucifixion with his head down downwards wards such a custom did not exist among the romans who crucified their victims with their head upward after which they broke their legs E even ven the mode ot of peters death is in the opinion of father gavazzi a proof that it never occurred in rome he next objects to the theory of mr fabiani who proclaims the incorrectness of the bible chronology he fabiani fabian asserts that some ot of the dats data at any rate are certain cartain as for example the date of pauls arrival in rome and he thus concludes his remarks all testimonies posterior to the first century are like a jog fog which is dispersed by the first rays of the rising sun genera lions have repeated the testimony of early historians as do the parrots or the sheep in dante those testimonies are but soap bubbles which shine brilliantly but which burst at the breath of a child tradition has no more authority than a liar who may sometimes and by chance speak the truth but who to be relied upon must be supported by other and more reliable testimony uv since the bible does not mention peters sojourn in rome we protestants conclude he be never was waa there mr guidi closed the debate with abolt short remarks repeating the arguments of his catholic colleague and ended with the affirmation that the presence of peter at rome is as certain as the very existence of t lie lle church of rome rame which was founded in rome by peter himself if the church exist to day it is tantamount to a positive proof that peter was at rome to astall establish ish lt it and thus thua ended that curious debato debate throughout which the best of feeling seemed to exist between the opposing elements composing the meeting the speeches were listened to very attentively by y the fortunate few who were present it is is certainly something unusual in rome to see protestant and catholic clergymen meeting peaceably in the tho very metropolis of infallibility to discuss without hatred and fear a question concerning the origin itself of the christian church and it must have appeared curious to see the adversaries ver sarles saries embrace one another at the end of the conflict as aa the reporter positively asserts they did yours respectfully 0 L bellerive trie trye ero eno bleff bluff to the editor of the nation sir sin while writing for another purpose let me express the nope llope that the nation among its other good works in calling attention to injustice and sham and cor eor corrip rup tion may have something more to say in reference to the state of things in utah on my way to this coast from the east just about the time the theu U S officials were inaugurating their present policy I 1 made a little visita vish among mong the mormons cormons at salt lake and like every other visitor not entirely blinded with prejudice could but have many of my previous notions reversed and my sympathies in no small degree stirred up it seemed to me then from what I 1 heard and saw an impression which has been deepened by all which has since occurred that tho the federal officers were animated by a bitter spirit of persecution against them combined perhaps with the vulgar desire of making a sensation utterly inconsistent with justice and the dignity of a great nation and that the course being taken was wholly unwarranted by anything in the existing state and tendency of mormon affairs utah within the past few years has been developing with wonderful rapidity in all the elements of a 8 fully tully civilized and enlightened community with the single exception of its system of polygamy the women are allowed as much freedom to go and come as they |
