We transmitted the article to our friend B. C., with a request that he would favour us with a few letters on it as soon as convenient; and we are happy to lay his first upon the subject before our readers this day. The charge made against us is in the follow. ing words: (From the Philadelphia Christian Advocate.) FROM THE ARCHIVES DU CHRISTIANISME. ON THE RESIDENCE OF ST. PETER AT ROME. Written by the Rev. A. Blanc, one of the Pastors of Mens, Isere. I have access to a weekly paper published It is upon the testimony of Papias, Biin Charleston, called the United States Cath- shop of Hierapolis, that the Popish tradition olic Miscellany,' which affords melancholy proof of their (the Catholic Priests) industry, success, rests, respecting St. Peter's being at Rome, and deep delusion-as well as their hatred of his founding a church there, and for twenProtestant teachers, and of the unblushing false-ty-five years discharging in it the functions hoods they invent and propagate, to rivet the of a bishop. Papias was copied by Clefetters of their followers, and decoy the ignorant into their toils." When a man professing to be a teacher of truth comes forward publicly to make such a charge as the above, he owes it to himself to be fully prepared to support his allegations; and we trust the American public will not admit the assertion of this man without sufficient proof. He states that he has access to the Miscellany; if he had not, we would furnish him with any numbers that may be at our disposal, and which he might need to sustain his charge, or transmit to him the copy of any article he may please to designate and as we now deny the truth of his accusation, and appeal to the public, he must feel himself no longer at liberty to decline his prosecution. For the present, we conclude with the following document :"To Mr. A. Finley, northeast corner of Chesnut and Fourth Streets, Philadelphia. "Charleston, S. C., Nov. 5th, 1828. "Sir:-I beg leave to draw your attention to a paragraph published by you in the 67th No. of the Christian Advocate, for July, 1828, page 298, col. 2, regarding the United States Catholic Miscellany and the Catholic priests. I beg also to inform you that I am the publisher of the Miscellany, and have the honour of being a priest of the Catholic Church; and I call upon you, as you value your reputation as an honest man, for the authority upon which you published and circulated that paragraph, which I pronounce to be an unprovoked and wanton libel upon myself, my publication, and the religion and order to which I have the honour of belonging. Your obedient servant, "J. F. O'Neill." "Philadelphia, Nov. 14, 1828. "REV. J. F. O'NEILL: "Sir:-I have just received your communication of the 5th inst., relative to a paragraph in the Christian Advocate' of July last. Permit me to observe that I am only the publisher (and that but ostensibly) of that work, and have nothing whatever to do with, or any influence over, the matter which composes it. Your letter will be handed, without delay. to the ***********, the editor and proprietor, who will act in reference to it as he may think proper. ment of Alexandria; Clement was copied by by many authors, ancient and modern, who Eusebius and the latter has been copied have been, perhaps, too much interested to render credible a fact, which will always be of very little importance to those who build their faith, not on the person of St. Peter, but upon the corner stone, Jesus Christ. The account of Papias, which is based upon a hearsay only, about eighty years after the occurrence to which it refers, is still extant, and is full of fables and ridiculous tales,such as the contest which this Apostle sustained against Simon the sorcerer, his crucifixion with his head downwards-as if Nero had left to the Christians the care of settling the forms of their own punishment -and other similar things, which were reported originally only by this Papias himself. Eusebius, speaking of him, calls him a man of narrow genius, and too credulous." According to the testimony of the same Eusebius,† Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, an author of the second century, affirms also that St. Peter and St. Paul met at Corinth, and that they departed together for Rome, where they suffered martyrdom. But, besides that Dionysius himself complains that his letters had been falsified by heretics, a circumstance which considerably invalidates the authority of his writings, this testimony ought not to outweigh the truth of our Holy Scriptures, which, with the divine assistance, we shall bring forward below. Let us also make, in passing, the remark, that when the fathers are produced against us in order to support dogmas or facts, which our opponent feels himself interested in maintaining, we ought to be the more upon our guard, because the Council of Trent has decided that the books of the ancient fathers ought to be purged (expurgati); a circumstance that, consequently, should make us very circumspect in the admission of passages which they cite against us; while, on the other hand, *Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 14, 15, et seq. + Ibid. lib. ii. 25. Ibid. lib. iv. 23. the passages of these fathers which we al- "Now, when the Apostles who were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter The tradition of this journey of St. Peter Peter was still under the authority of the and John." (Acts viii. 14.) At this epoch, to Rome rests, moreover, upon the supposi- apostolical college; it was only five or six tion that the Babylon from which he wrote hundred years afterwards that he seized upon his first epistle, was Rome. strengthens this conjecture, by saying that successors. After the conversion of St. Paul, Eusebius the sovereign power, in the person of his Peter ፡፡ figuratively called Rome Baby- we find St. Peter at Lydda, where he cured lon." But many learned men with reason Eneas (Acts ix. 32-34); at Joppa, where he maintain that the name, Babylon, ought to raised Dorcas from the dead (ix. 36-41); be taken in its proper signification, for Ba- at Cesarea, where he converted Cornelius, bylon of Chaldea, or that of Egypt, which (x.) Upon the report spreading that Peter is now Grand Cairo, where were many had eaten with the Gentiles, he returns to Jews, to whom Peter was specially sent, as Jerusalem, and vindicates himself before St. Paul teaches us, in the second chapter" them that were of the circumcision," (xi.) of his epistle to the Galatians. To all these pretensions, we can oppose, in the first place, the testimony of Clement, who is reckoned to have been the third or fourth Bishop of Rome. This pious and holy person, in his admirable epistle to the Corinthians, expresses himself thus, on the subject of St. Peter and St. Paul: "Through unjust envy, Peter did not endure one or two, but a very great number of trials; and at last, having suffered martyrdom, he went to his place in glory. Through the same envy, Paul received the reward of his patience, having been in prison or chains seven times, beaten twice, stoned once; and after he had been the herald of the Word of God in the East and in the West, he obtained by faith an illustrious victory. Having reached the extremity of the West, he suffered martyrdom under the emperors. Thus he departed from this world, and went to a holy place, leaving us a singular example of patience." What is the likelihood, that, in the parallel which Clement draws between these two Apostles, he should forget to say that, under the emperors, he suffered the pains of martyrdom? Would he have neglected a fact, in this manner, which would have given additional weight to his epistle, and done honour to his see? But let us come to the testimony of our Holy Scriptures. The best Catholic ecclesiastical writers put the martyrdom of St. Stephen in the seventh year after the death of Jesus Christ; in other words, A. D. 40. The conversion of St. Paul, at soonest, happened this year. Thus we see seven years already past. At this epoch, St. Peter was still at Jerusalem with the other apostles; and not until some time afterwards, he was sent with St. John to strengthen the Samaritans, who had been converted by the ministry of St. Philip. provinces of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, This journey of Peter, his preaching in the his abode at Joppa, and the other events which St. Luke relates, occupy a space of three years, (A. D. 43.) We learn that the Christians, dispersed on the occasion of the death of Stephen, had carried the good savour of the Gospel to Antioch. Thither Barnabas was immediately sent, who "seeing the grace of God, departed to Tarsus to seek Paul" (Acts xi. 25), and bring him to Antioch, where they remained "a whole year," (xi. 26-A. D. 44.) About this time the famine predicted by Agabus, should be placed, the martyrdom of St. James, the imprisonment of St. Peter, and his remarkable deliverance, (Acts xii.) Thus far St. Peter is constantly found in Judea, not mafesting upon any occasion the desire of going to Rome: and why should he have gone thither, since that city fell not within his charge? St. Paul says positively, "The gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles-James, Cephas, and John, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumciafter his conversion, going up to Jerusalem sion," (Gal. ii. 7-9.) St. Paul, three years to carry the alms of the Christians of Antioch and the circumjacent places, met Peter there, with whom he remained fifteen days, (Acts xi. 30; Gal. i. 18.) He went up thither a second time, fourteen years afterwards (Gal. ii. 1), and there he still met with Peter and his principal colleagues, (v. 9-A. D. 58.) Behold, then, Peter constantly at Jerusalem, seven years ten years-twenty-five years, after the death of Jesus Christ. If we read with a little attention the eleventh verse of this second chapter of the epistle to the Galatians, it | Paul came with Timothy into the Isle of appears that it was not till after this time Crete or Candia, where he preached the that St. Peter went to Antioch, where, it is Gospel. But not being able to remain there, pretended, this Apostle occupied the Epis- he left Titus with the necessary instructions copal chair for seven years; which would to regulate all things according to the Lord, be still so many to be deducted from his (Tit. i. 5.) He was at Colosse, where Phipretended residence at Rome. lemon lived (Phil. 22); at Ephesus, where he left Timothy (Tim. i. 3); and at Philippi, where he wrote the first Epistle to Timothy, about A. D. 64. Finally, after having passed through Nicopolis (Tit. iii. 12), and Troas (2 Tim. iv. 13), he returned to Corinth (2 Tim. iv. 20), and arrived, for the second time, at Rome, A. D. 65 or 66, and the 10th or 11th of the reign of Nero. He was then put in so close a prison that Onesiphorus could scarcely find him, (2 Tim. i. 17), and the persecution was so great, that he wrote to his dearly beloved pupil, Timothy, (2 Tim. iv. 16), that man stood with him, but all men forsook him." Would not this have been a fine eulogy on St. Peter, if he had been at Rome? Let us farther observe, that this Apostle, to whom was committed the circumcision, as we have remarked above, never wrote an epistle to the Romans; that he never speaks of them in the two letters, which we have from him; and that, in writing the second to the same churches to which he had written the first, (2 Pet. iii. 1) he speaks to them as aware that he would shortly quit this earthly tabernacle (2 Pet. i. 14). Let us finally remark, that St. Peter, although near his departure from this world, salutes the faithful only on the part of Marcus his son (1 Pet. v. 14), without speaking of St. Paul, whose companion But this is not all. St. Paul wrote to the Romans in the year 57 or 58, about 25 years after the death of Christ; at this very time, St. Peter ought to have been at Rome, or never. Meanwhile St. Paul glories in being especially their Apostle: "I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the Apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my office." If St. Peter had been settled and acknowledged as their proper apostle or bishop for several years past, would it not have been great arrogance in Paul to deprive him, after some sort, of his title and character? Above all, would it not have been great injustice to say, "From Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation.” (Rom. xv. 19, 20.) How then should he think of going to Rome, if St. Peter had already built there the first church of the world? Why, in the long detail of salutations, which fill almost the whole of the last chapter of this epistle, is there no mention made of the great head of the universal Church? In A. D. 60, when Paul arrived at Rome, he called together the principal Jews that were in the city, (Acts xxviii. 17,) without supposing himself to usurp the rights and the authority of the prince of the Apostles, without even think-in ing of St. Peter, who beyond controversy would have been of the greatest utility to him in his bonds. (A. D. 62.) St. Paul remained two whole years in Rome (Acts xxviii. 30); he wrote from thence divers letters to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and the Philippians; all these letters close with the salutations of the principal Christians of that famous city, and nowhere do we find a single word of St. Peter. How shall this silence be accounted for [consistently with Peter's supposed presence at Rome?] Truly, I should be curious to know. "Aristarchus," (it is said in the Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 10, 11,) "my fellow-prisoner-and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas and Jesus who is called Justus, who are of the circumcision: these only are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, who have been a comfort to me." Mark well the words "these ONLY." How injurious to St. Peter, if he had been at Rome! A. D. 63. Upon his return to Rome, St. no martyrdom some would have him to be. To conclude, whether St. Peter resided at Rome or not, is of no consequence to our faith: but it is wholly otherwise with them who have built so prodigious an edifice upon a foundation so uncertain. Let us say with this holy Apostle, to the only Saviour of souls, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life; and we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the son of the living God." (John vi. 68, 69.) And if, like him, we have denied this adorable Master, like him let us weep bitterly, and mercy shall be granted us. LETTER I. To the candid and unprejudiced American MY FRIENDS-I take the liberty of addressing to you, a few letters upon a subject which, to some of you, is interesting, but which others regard as of little or no moment. No person is forced to read what I write; and, therefore, no person can complain of my treating this matter, provided, in so doing, I shall not infringe upon the rights of others, or wantonly assail their feelings. There is a monthly Magazine, called "The Christian Advocate," published in Philadelphia, by A. Finley: in the 67th No. of which, for July 1828, is found the following preface to a dissertation. "We are indebted to a clerical brother, to whom we lent a few numbers of the Archives du Christianisme, for the following translation. It will convey useful information to many of our readers and we earnestly recommend to the serious consideration of all, the remarks of the translator at the close. While THE ROMANISTS are pursuing an organized system to diffuse their PERNICIOUS ERRORS in our country, it does seem to us that some systematic endeavours should be employed to counteract them." This dissertation and its appendages are published to the American people as a deliberate attack upon what the writer is pleased to call THE ROMANISTS, that is the Roman Catholics, to whose body I have the honour and happiness of belonging. I am not aware of any organized system amongst us, save that which is common to all our brethren of other denominations: the system of having our public churches and our regular ministry. If a line of distinction were to be drawn between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant churches of the United States, upon the point of "organized system," I am of opinion that, owing to circumstances which I am in charity bound to suppose beyond the control of those with whom the remedy lies, the former is manifestly the worst organized church in our states; and it is notoriously defective in the essential points of system, which are community of counsel, and unity of action. If irony and sarcasm were intended by the writer, I lament that he has had the cause afforded for his display: yet still he might have pitied our weakness, and if our failure was desirable, he might have continued satisfied that until we shall be able, not to mend our system but to supply its want, and to organize our provincial church, we must be exposed to mortification and disappointment. He should not then have made what does not exist, a pretext for his rude assault; and despicable as our weakness may be, it cannot be admitted to excuse his want of urbanity. [This was written A. D. 1829, since when the principal defects lamented by the writer have been supplied: this language therefore cannot correctly be applied to the Catholic Church of the U. S. as it now exists.] This writer complains of the attempt to diffuse OUR PERNICIOUS ERRORS. Can he be a Protestant who writes thus? The first principle of a Protestant is, that the Bible, as understood by those who earnestly seek after truth, will lead to the knowledge of God, and not to pernicious error: now we discover our doctrines in this sacred book as understood by us after earnest search: it is true our tenets do not agree with the opinions of the writer in the Advocate, but surely he claims no infallibility for himself nor for his church: how dares he, then, call those tenets drawn by us from the word of God, pernicious errors, when it is, according to his own principle, equally a chance that he is in error, and that we follow the truth? I cannot avoid here noticing another exhibition of his intention to undervalue us; but it is not peculiar to him, it is pretty general. Writing in his own name, or in that of the denomination to which he belongs, he calls America OUR COUNTRY. Really, my friends, I always looked upon America to be as much the country of old Charles Carroll of Carrollton as of any Presbyterian gentleman or of any clerical brother who writes for the Christian Advocate, although I have frequently known the vainglorious boasting of men, who in the same breath proclaimed our Union "a Protestant country," and bewailing that the people here sat in darkness and in the shadow of death, complained that they were Sabbath-breakers, even to the travelling in stages and steamboats, yea, so far as to permit smal! meats to be sold in open market, in southern cities, on the summer Sabbath morning!!! However, it seems that full scope was not afforded for the zeal of the writer in the wrestling with those abominations, but that he had a superabundance which could only be expended upon the Romanists; neither was he content that the venerable Bishop White and his brother Bowen, together with their two armies of zealous ladies, should have the exclusive honour of pelting Popish pastors with their paper pellets, for their enor mous errors, but that this chosen one should like another Saul lead his host to complete the victory by pursuing the Philistines, whom Jonathan and his armour-bearer had already routed. It cannot be unknown to you that "systematic endeavours" have been during a long period "employed to counteract the Romanists" in all parts of this Union, from the period when the ebullitions of zeal against Popery in New England and in Georgia rendered abortive the mission of Franklin, of Carroll, and of Chase into Canada, down to the present day; you that of our land, it is believed that the above brief exposure of the false foundation on which they France, it has been republished and circulated in build their Babel, may not be unprofitable. In the form of a tract; and it might be attended with benefit to souls, if several thousand copies of it were dispersed in those portions of our own country which are most exposed to the influence and the arts of men, who would have the whole world to wonder after, and worship "the beast." "The translator, in a letter to the editor, which accompanied the above, very justly adds "It seems to me that Protestants should not be idle spectators of the exertions of the Catholic priests to waylay the unwary, and destroy the simple. I have access to a weekly paper published in Charleston, called the United States Catholic Miscellany,' which affords melancholy proof of their industry, success, and deep delusion as well as of their hatred of Protestant teachers, and of the unblushing falsehoods they invent and propagate to rivet the fetters of their followers, and decoy the ignorant into their toils." have ears to hear must frequently have found the religion of your Catholic progenitors "systematically" denounced in prayer, and in declamation from the desk, the pulpit, and the stump; in the tale of your horrified grandam and of your enthusiastic attendant in the nursery; in conning over the spelling and the reading book of your infancy, in the nasal eloquence of your pedantic pedagogue, in the learned lucubrations of your proud professor, as well as in the pretty lispings of your sweet Sunday school spinsters. Yea, this is but a faint outline of the "systematic endeavours," which are so powerfully aided by the upturned eye, the sigh of pity, the ejaculation of pious wonder, and the sanctimonious sneer. If missions hither and thither, if the donations and legacies of the wealthy, if the gathering of the mites of the poor, the calculation of the back stitches and the hemmings and fellings of Allow me, my friends, to address you the industrious, the prayers of those who freely. You who differ from me in reliare "powerful to wrestle with the Lord," gious sentiment are too frequently under the the publication of the conversions of blank impression that we are continually in the papists in blank places to the amount habit of using insulting and opprobrious of blank numbers, testified by blank language to you and of you, and that you witnesses to blank persons of and your ministers always speak of us in blank respectability: if the distribu- kind, mild, charitable, affectionate and contion of tracts filled with misrepresentations ciliating terms. I would take the liberty of of the Roman Catholic religion and prac- requesting you who agree in tenets with the tices, and a thousand other such modes of "Christian Advocate," to observe for a few "systematic endeavours," be not already in Sabbaths the mode in which Roman Caexistence, the people of America are indeed tholics are mentioned or alluded to, by deluded. What farther "systematic endeayour ministers in their prayers and preachvours should be employed to counteract the ings; and if you have ever heard a Roman Romanists," the holy editor saith not: and Catholic priest, ask your own conscience we cannot determine unless he would in- whether in his service you found him style duce all the states to imitate North Carolina you or your congregation BEASTS: whether and New Jersey in their degrading bigotry; you heard him using the phrases which are for you are of course aware, my friends, here used regarding our clergy; seeking that neither of those two sanctified states UNHALLOWED AND UNCHRISTIAN USURPATION, will admit a Papist to hold any civil office. EMISSARIES OF DELUSION, and our church a The editor then gives the translation of an BABEL!!! Do not then, I pray you, be over article from a French publication, Archives du hasty in condemning us of want of charity, Christianisme, "On the residence of St. Peter and boasting of your superior liberality. at Rome," which dissertation I intend to examine in these letters; and then subjoins: "Note by the Translator.—It will appear from M. BLANC's Scriptural statement of the question respecting Peter's residence at Rome, that it is very doubtful whether that Apostle ever saw Rome, and demonstrably evident, that he never was bishop of that city. This removes the very corner stone on which Roman Catholicism rests. For if Peter was not Bishop of Rome, the bishops or popes of Rome are not his successors; and even the most devoted Catholic must then see, that the assumed authority of the Pope is an unhallowed and unchristian usurpation, the traditions of the Romish Church a tissue of human inventions, and the infallibility of that church a dream. At a time when the emissaries of that delusion are compassing sea and land to gain proselytes, especially in the south and west I put it to you, my friends, whether a more insulting and ungenerous passage could be produced than that here used against the "Catholic priests," viz.: that they "WAYLAY THE UNWARY AND DESTROY THE SIMPLE!" It is not surpassed by the description which follows of the mode, AC HATRED OF PROTESTANT TEACHERS, DEEP DELUSION, UNBLUSHING FALSEHOODS invented by them, and propagated by them to rivet the FETTERS of their followers, and DECOY THE IGNORANT into their toils." And where is the proof of this terrible charge to be found?— Upon the pages of the United States Catholic Miscellany. You are in the habit of reading those pages, and I ask you whether they inculcate that hatred, whether they exhibit' |