OCR Text |
Show Was Peter Ever in Rome? This is a startling quctiou for Catholics, It was never raised until Germany broke away from Rome. Then it became the fashion to' contest every claim set up by the Church. The Pope wns not lhe vicegerent of Christ, lie was uor the head -f the Church. lie was not the successor of St. Peter. Rome w,as never the see of Peter, I'cter was never in Borne. The primacy of the Pope being overthrown. over-thrown. Pome had no claim on the obedience of j Christendom and the Protestant insurrection was justed. .-'.., j The tradition that Peter was bishop of Pome, j and was martyred in that city, is accepted us true j by nearly all scholars, Protestant, and Calholic, j Those, who call it in question am few and of light weight. What is very strange about, the opponents of Peter's Roman episcopate is lhut.it has absolutely absolute-ly no basis to rest on. Because for over one hundred hun-dred years no known contemporary writer has recorded re-corded in so many words that Peter lived the last years of his life in Rome, thev have drawn the conclusion con-clusion that he was never thetv. It nniUers.not that a score of writers after tli3 first century have related the fact, and commented upon it in a way to show that, it was a fact known to all Romans;' the silence of the few contemporaries outweighed the testimony of the multitude ci, the folliiwin.'X age. The canon of criticism that writers living" and writing writ-ing on the spot and relating what occurred only a hundred years before, are, to H intents and purposes, pur-poses, contemporary historians has been ignored in the case of Peter's Roman episcopate. It is one hundred years since Louisiana was purchased; da we have to consult works vrritten in 1803 to ascertain ascer-tain the truth of the purchase ? We ara contemporaries contempo-raries of those who figured in the transaction. "A few weeks asro a bishop of the frotestant Episcopal church of Chicago delivered n lecture in that city which was published in the organ of the df nomination, the Northwestern, Christian Advocate, Advo-cate, in which he boldly asserted 'xhf.PetorAvfts never in Rome, and -that the elafrri -that," be died bishop of the Eternal City was a'panis-agment of . " " - . : ; later and less critical ages. We sent, the lecture to the theological class of the St. Louis university, with the request that "they would answer he bishop. They have prepared three papers, the first of which appears in this-issne. In these papers will bo found the last word, that has he en'writtejF kik this controversy. con-troversy. . We have taken pains to settle thi question, be- cause the primacy of the apostolic ce rests upon the historic fact of Pet re's occupancy of the see of Rome. If Peter did not die bishop of Rome, the Pope is not his successor. If the Ppe is net the successor of Peter, then the Church has no visible head. If the Church has no visible head, the principle prin-ciple of unity is destroyed and the Church becomes the '- vdow of a great myth. Peter's Roman episcopate episco-pate what is called a dogmatic fact. It is nor to b;- wondered ar that Anglicans would feel disposed dis-posed to dispute the primacy of the apostolic see and Peter's Roman episcopate, for it would simplify simpli-fy the argument of Canterbury against Rome. But Anglicans are almost unanimous in asserting that Peter died bishop of Rome. It is the Evangelical sects, who have no possible interest in the controversy contro-versy who are the loudest and most persisrent in their denial of Peter's Roman sojourn. This can be explained on two grounds. In the first place, the Evangelical bodies are not given to deep theological theo-logical and historical studies. They have no great-seats great-seats of learning, and no school of theology or ecclesiastical ec-clesiastical history. They are free lances in religious reli-gious controversy, and swear by the canons or no criticism. In the second place, the Evangelical .bodies are reckless, and don't, care if, in their strivings, striv-ings, they, pull down thopillars of tho temple of God. They would gladly see all idea of a Church banished by the minds of n.en. They suppressed the word when they began their propaganda, Using the word "meeting .house"' instead of , church. They wereforced to do this in England, where, the name of church was. by law. re.-trided to the edifice- of the establishment. Catholics got around the statute stat-ute by calling their houses of worship ' chapels' But when in this country, and no longer subject to the British law, they still cling '. their "meeting houses," and to this day. save iu the large cities, that designation is still maintained. Anything -that militates against the assumption that Christ founded a visible organization called a churcii is grist fo their mill. Besides these reasons there is still another that, makes them hostile to the contention con-tention of Peter's Roman episcopate, and that is their deeper hatred of everything Roman and Catholic Cath-olic There1 is no man so hard to convince as ho who knows not, why he holds out. Opposition to Catholicity is the sum total of the Evangelical's faith and morality. To listen to Rome is to parley with their enemy: fo accept any statement she makes is ignoble surrender. Still, it is our duty to repel assault, and if we owe it not to error, we owe it to the truth. . L |