Sources

FOOTNOTES:

[52:1] Jewish Encyc.; Sorley, Jewish Christians and Judaism, London, 1881; Bettany, History of Judaism and Christianity, London, 1892; A History of Jews in Rome, B.C. 160-A.D. 604, London, 1882; Toy, C. H., Judaism and Christianity, Boston, 1891.

[53:1] Moeller, i., 69.

[53:2] Moeller, i., 55, 66.

[53:3] Kurtz, Sec. 7, No. 4.

[53:4] See Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. Read Baur, i., 10-17, Kurtz, Sec. 7, No. 2; cf. Foucard, Les associations relig. chez les Grecs, Paris, 1873.

[53:5] Kurtz, Sec. 7, No. 5.

[53:6] Hatch, 26-39; Kurtz, Sec. 17, Nos. 2, 3; Moeller, i., 66.

[53:7] Tertullian, Apol., ch. 38, 39; cf. Mommsen, De collegiis et sodal. Rom., Kil., 1843.

[53:8] Xenophon, Memorabil., iii., 14; Athenæus, Deipnos, vii., 7, 68, p. 365a; Fouard, St. Peter, 363.

[54:1] 1 Cor. i., 2. Illustration of this variation is found in the fact that Calvinists and most Protestants believe the Church to be an invisible organisation, while Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and oriental Christians hold it to be visible.

[54:2] Euseb., bk. ii., ch. 3.

[54:3] Acts xvi., 5; cf. Acts ii., 47.

[54:4] Euseb., bk. ii., ch. 3; cf. Acts xi., 26.

[54:5] Gieseler, i., 72.

[54:6] Schaff, i., 196.

[54:7] Orr, Neglected Factors, 23-91. Schaff, 197, gives only 12,000,000.

[55:1] Orr, Neglected Factors, 95-163.

[55:2] See Gibbon's "famous infamous," ch. 15.

[55:3] Church, R. W., Civilisation before and after Christianity, N. Y., 1872.

[55:4] See the works of Troplong, Schmidt, Uhlhorn, Lecky, Brace, Milman, Pressensé, etc.

[56:1] 1 Cor. ix., 1, 5; xii., 28, 29; xv., 5, 7; Rom. xvi., 7.

[56:2] 1 Cor. xi., 23; xii., 3-8; 2 Cor. x., 8; xiii., 10; Gal. i., 8, 9, 12; Eph. iv., 11.

[56:3] Acts xiv., 23; Tit. i., 5.

[56:4] Acts ii., 42; iv., 35, 37; v., 2.

[56:5] Acts vi., 1-6.

[56:6] Phil. i., 1; 1 Tim. iii., 8; iv. 14.

[56:7] Rom. xvi., 1.

[56:8] Acts vi., 1-6; 1 Tim. iii., 8-13.

[57:1] Acts xv., 23; xvi., 4; xx., 17, 28; Phil. i., 1; 1 Tim. iii.; iv., 14; v., 17-19; Tit. i., 5-7; James v., 14; Clement, To Corinth, xlii., 44. Cf. Rev. iv., 4; v., 5, 6; vii., 11, 13.

[57:2] Phil. i., 1.

[57:3] 1 Tim. iii., 1-13; v., 17-19; Tit. i., 5-7; Heb. xi., 2.

[57:4] 1 Pet. v., 1-2.

[57:5] To Corinth, ch. xliii. The Didache and Shepherd of Hermas offer additional testimony on this point.

[59:1] See various dictionaries of the Bible.

[59:2] Ex. xxiv., 1; Num. xi., 16; Gen. l., 7-8; Lev. iv., 15; Deut. xxi., 19; 1 Sam. xvi., 4; Ezra v., 5; Psalm cvii., 32; Ezek. viii., 1; Acts iv., 8; Matt. xxi., 23; xxvii., 1; Luke xxii., 66.

[59:3] Hatch, 62-66.

[59:4] Hatch, 69-73; Acts xx., 28-31; 1 Pet. v., 1; 1 Tim. v., 17.

[59:5] Acts xvi., 4.

[59:6] Acts xx., 29-31, 35; Tertullian, Apol., 39.

[59:7] James v., 14.

[60:1] 1 Tim. i., 3.

[60:2] Tit. i., 5.

[61:1] Ep. 146, Ad Evangelum; cf. Ep. 82 and 84. Apost. Const., iii., c. 11.

[61:2] 1 Ep. to Timoth., c. 3.

[61:3] Hatch, 106-109.

[62:1] Neander, i., 192, 193.

[62:2] Hatch, 54.

[63:1] Euseb., vi., 43; Neander, i., § 2; Kurtz, i., § 34; Alzog, i., § 83; Moeller, i., 234.

[64:1] Acts ii., 44, 45.

[64:2] Acts ii., 42, 46.

[64:3] Mat. xviii., 15-18; Tit. iii., 10; 1 Cor. v., 5.

CHAPTER V
THE ROMAN CHURCH AND PETER'S PRIMACY

Outline: I.—Planting of the church in Rome and its organisation there. II.—The two opposing views of the Petrine theory. III.—Proofs advanced for the Petrine theory. IV.—Evidence given against the Petrine theory. V.—Historical conclusions. VI.—Sources.

Reports concerning the teachings and labours of Jesus must have early reached Rome.[71:1] A perpetual stream of strangers and provincials flowed into Rome from every quarter of the Empire, hence every new creed, theory, and organisation was soon known in the capital.[71:2] Roman merchants, sailors, soldiers, or public officials, or the Jews, or the Greeks, might have carried news of the new sect to the heart of imperial power. Tertullian mentions the legend that Emperor Tiberius sought to include Jesus among the Roman gods, but his plan was frustrated by the Roman Senate.[71:3] Eusebius declared that this same ruler, "being obviously pleased with the doctrine," threatened "death to the accusers of the Christians."[71:4] It seems reasonable to conclude, then, that Christianity, soon after its birth, was introduced into the Eternal City.

It appears clear, too, that Christian converts were early won in Rome, or else migrated thither from other parts of the Empire. It is not at all improbable that many of these early Christians in the capital were Jews.[72:1] Paul said that upon his arrival in Italy he "found brethren" at Puteoli and that a week later Christians came out of the city of Rome to greet him.[72:2] It is also quite probable that these various Christian communities in Italy had already created loose local organisations. Paul, during his prolonged stay in Rome, undoubtedly converted many to the new faith and laboured to perfect their Church organisation.[72:3] The magnificent work done by this Apostle in promulgating the new faith throughout western Europe was sealed by a martyr's death at Rome.[72:4]

It appears, also, that the Apostle Peter laboured at Rome, probably after Paul, and completed the organisation of the Church. Tradition likewise gives him a martyr's crown. The Roman Church, therefore, founded by two Apostles and nourished by their heroic blood, was a double apostolic seat. This unusual origin, coupled with the fact of location in the heart of the world, together with a hundred other causes, made the Roman Church very conspicuous from the first and enabled it to become the determining factor in Western civilisation for fifteen hundred years. Under these circumstances it was but natural that the head of the Roman Church should come to have superior respect,

primacy in rank, and leadership in power, first in Italy, and then throughout western Europe.

The mother Church in Rome was imbued with great missionary zeal, and spread the new faith with extraordinary rapidity. In 64 A.D. the Christians in Rome, according to the heathen historian Tacitus, constituted a "huge multitude."[73:1] By 250 the Roman bishop ruled over forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two acolytes, and fifty readers, exorcists, and porters.[73:2] The Christians in Rome, a city of possibly one million, numbered at least fifty thousand as estimated by Gibbon[73:3] and possibly three times that many as reckoned by later investigators.[73:4] Optatus, Bishop of Mileve in Numidia, asserted that in 300 there were forty churches in the Eternal City. While possibly a few churches may have been planted in western Europe independently, just as in Rome, still, in general, Christianity was disseminated throughout western Europe and the western part of northern Africa through the apostolic organisation in the capital city. Paul may have even made a visit to Spain.[73:5] Bede says that King Lucius asked the Roman bishop in 156 to send missionaries to Britain[73:6] and Tertullian confirmed the declaration.[73:7] In France a church was planted at Lyons in 177 and another at Vienne.[73:8] In the third century, asserts Gregory of Tours, seven Roman

missionaries went to Gaul and there became seven bishops with subordinate churches. The famous St. Denis of Paris was one of these pioneers.[74:1] Christianity was likewise early carried into Germany (cis-Rhenana)[74:2] and across the Mediterranean to north-western Africa.[74:3] It is a matter of no great surprise, therefore, to see the Roman Church revered as the great mother Church of the West. Paul speaks of the faith of Rome as "proclaimed throughout the whole world."[74:4]

The process of Church organisation at Rome was no doubt quite similar to that described in the preceding chapter, with this difference, however, that the episcopal system was either present from the time Peter and Paul appointed a successor, or at least began very early. Through his presbyters, or priests, the Bishop of Rome at first ruled over a number of separate communities in the city. As the faithful spread the gospel beyond the walls, churches were organised in the villages and jurisdiction over them became vested in priests sent out by the bishops. In time, however, the churches in the chief centres of population demanded bishops of their own; they were appointed, or elected, under influence from Rome, and, consequently, acknowledged allegiance to the Roman See. There is incontrovertible evidence that by the fourth century every city in Italy had a bishop. The village bishops naturally looked to the city bishops for assistance and advice. The city bishops similarly depended upon the bishop in the capital of the province, and the provincial bishop in

like manner recognised the superiority of the bishop in the capital of the Empire. Thus the power of the Roman bishop was gradually extended first over Italy and then over western Europe. The consciousness of a unity of belief, unity of interest, and unity of purpose developed comparatively early among the churches. A name for this unity is first found in Ignatius and was the Universal or Catholic Church.[75:1] Before long the Bishop of Rome was to claim, by divine appointment and arrangement, sovereign jurisdiction over the great organisation.

The classes won to the new faith in the city of Rome through the zeal of the Roman Christians included representatives from the slave to the imperial family. The earliest converts may have been the Jews, who were quite numerous in the Eternal City, and who best understood the significance of Christianity. The hope and faith and love of the new teaching appealed powerfully to the lowest social classes—the wretched slave and the impoverished freedman.[75:2] The need and the truth of this lofty, universal creed also won adherents from the great creative middle class—including not only the educated but also the soldiers, tradespeople, farmers, imperial officials, and skilled workmen. In fact the marvellous vitality and the unparalleled growth of Christianity in Rome can be explained satisfactorily only upon the supposition that the representation of this class was very great.[75:3] From the nobility

converts were likewise secured and even in the Emperor's household followers were found.[76:1] In short, the whole social and moral structure of Rome was leavened by the new ideas.

Along with this unparalleled growth of the power of the Roman bishop was created the Petrine theory destined to have a powerful effect on the history of the Church. Since an inquiry into this theory has a peculiar significance for the Roman Catholic, the Greek Catholic, and the Protestant, it is necessary to consider the subject rather carefully from the standpoint of both its advocates and opponents.

The Roman Catholic belief is that Jesus came to organise His Church on earth; that He appointed Peter to be his successor and head of the Church; that Peter went to Rome, established the Church there in the great capital city, laboured as its head twenty-five years, and died there as a martyr; that Peter transmitted his leadership and primacy to the Bishop of Rome, whom he appointed as his successor, and who in turn transferred it to succeeding popes; that the Roman Church, therefore, is the only true Church, and that these contentions are conclusively proved from the Bible, the Church Fathers, traditions, and monuments.[76:2]

The Greek Catholic view coincides with Rome in asserting the divine origin of the Church. A

certain honourable primacy is conceded to the Apostle Peter; and to his successors at Rome, as patriarchs of the West, is granted a kind of supreme leadership in the Church. But the patriarchs of the East are put on an equality with the Pope of Rome, and thus the extreme claims of the Petrine theory are denied.

Protestant opinion on the other hand takes two forms:

1. The pro-Petrine view, held chiefly by the Episcopalians, maintains that Jesus turned His Church over to all His Apostles; that upon their death they transmitted their leadership to succeeding bishops; that Peter was in Rome and, with Paul, helped to organise the Church there, and appointed a successor through whom apostolic power has been transmitted to all bishops appointed by the Bishop of Rome, or by his appointees, where it now resides; that bishops and their successors appointed by Apostles other than Peter have just as much power as the Bishop of Rome, because the fruits of Peter's work are merely the most marked, but not necessarily the only divine or the most divine; that adequate proofs of this position are found in history, the Church Fathers, and the Scriptures.

2. The anti-Petrine view, taken by most Protestants, asserts that Jesus left no Church organisation; that he did not appoint Peter as his successor; that whatever leadership Peter had, came from his temperament and natural ability; that there is no positive proof of Peter's being in Rome, consequently he could not have founded the Church there and named a successor; that therefore the Roman Catholic Church is not the only true Church, and that abundant proof of this position can be supplied.

It may be well now to examine the proof offered in support of the Petrine theory under the four following heads:

1. Peter's primacy. Jesus said to Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; . . . And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."[78:1] No such words were addressed to any other Apostle, hence Peter is the foundation-stone of the Church. Just as God changed Abram's name to Abraham, when he called him to be the father of a mighty nation, so Jesus gave Peter a new name.[78:2] Peter was chosen to be present with James and John on important occasions, like the healing of the daughter of Jairus[78:3]; the glorification of Jesus[78:4]; the struggle in Gethsemane[78:5]; and on all these occasions Peter is named first in the record. He likewise was the first to whom the risen Christ appeared.[78:6] Before His ascension Jesus gave Peter charge over His whole fold—laity, priests, and bishops,—when He commanded, "Feed my sheep," and twice repeated, "Feed my lambs."[78:7] These facts are sufficient, it is believed, to warrant the belief that Jesus appointed Peter to be the head of His Church.

2. Peter's exercise of his primacy. Next to Jesus, he stands head and shoulders above all the other Apostles in his activity. The first twelve chapters of Acts are devoted to him. His name always comes first in the lists of Apostles, and Judas Iscariot's last.[79:1] He performed the first recorded miracle,[79:2] and was the first to address the Jews in Jerusalem, while the other Apostles stood around to see three thousand converted.[79:3] He was first to win converts from both the Jews[79:4] and from the Gentiles,—Cornelius and his friends.[79:5] He was the first to inflict ecclesiastical punishment on offenders.[79:6] He fought the first heretic in the Christian Church.[79:7] He made the earliest apostolic visitation of the churches.[79:8] When a successor to Judas was chosen, Peter alone spoke, and the other Apostles silently acted on his advice.[79:9] In the council of Jerusalem Peter first spoke, when the disputes ceased and "all the multitude kept silence"; even James obeyed.[79:10] James was beheaded by Herod, but no tumult resulted. Peter was imprisoned about the same time, and the whole Church was aroused about it.[79:11] St. Paul himself plainly admitted Peter's pre-eminence.[79:12] These deeds clearly indicate, it is contended, that Peter consciously exercised the primacy bestowed upon him, and that his fellow Apostles recognised it.

3. Peter's visit to Rome, and martyrdom there. Peter's First Epistle, addressed from "Babylon,"

naturally interpreted, proves that he wrote it in Rome.[80:1] Clement of Rome (96 A.D.) said, "Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles,—Peter, who endured many labours, and having borne his witness, went to the appointed place of glory," etc.[80:2] Ignatius of Antioch (115), in a letter to the Romans, mentions Peter as having exhorted them. Papias (130) interpreted 1 Peter v., 13 to mean Rome.[80:3] Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (170), wrote Soter, Bishop of Rome, about the common activity of Peter and Paul in Italy.[80:4] Irenæus (190) wrote, "Matthew . . . published his Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and founding the Church there."[80:5] Clement of Alexandria (200) said that Peter, "the elect, the chosen one, the first of the disciples," preached at Rome.[80:6] Tertullian (200) positively asserted Peter's presence in Rome, and is the first to describe the manner of his death, in Nero's reign.[80:7] Origen (250) declared that Peter was the great foundation of the Church, and that "at last, having arrived in Rome, he was crucified, head downward, having himself requested that he might so suffer."[80:8] Commodion (250) named Peter and Paul as Neronian martyrs; and Caius, a Roman presbyter (250), makes a like assertion.[80:9] Cyprian (d. 258) was the first to call Rome the locum Petri, while Hippolytus

recorded Peter's conflict with Simon Magnus at Rome.[81:1] The Muratorian Canon referred to the "passion of Peter" in close connection with Paul's journey to Rome.[81:2] Peter of Alexandria (306) believed Peter was crucified there, and Lactantius accepted it as undoubted.[81:3] "The Doctrine of Addai" (fourth century) of the Syriac Church mentioned the "Epistles of Paul which Simon Peter sent us from the City of Rome."[81:4] Eusebius, using all previous testimony, made the most complete and convincing statement, which caps the climax of the overwhelming proof.[81:5] The "Deposito Martyrum" gave the report of the removal of the two Apostles' bodies in 258 to the catacombs. Jerome (d. 420) added the information that Peter laboured twenty-five years in Rome before his martyrdom.[81:6]

4. Peter as the first Pope in Rome. With the establishment of Peter's primacy and his presence in Rome, it is certainly warrantable to conclude that he perfected the organisation of the Church there and served as its head until his death, when he appointed a successor. Clement (96) and Ignatius (115), Dionysius (170) and Irenæus (190), Commodion (250) and Lactantius (d. 330), all in speaking of Peter and Paul as founders of the Roman Church, always name Peter first. Ignatius spoke of the "presidency" of the Roman Church under Peter, and Tertullian (b. 160) asserted that Jesus gave the keys to Peter, the "Bishop

of Bishops" at Rome, and through him to the Church. Origen (d. 254) called Peter "the Prince of the Apostles" and "the great foundation of the Church." All the earliest lists of Popes began with Peter and indicate the transmission of his power.[82:1] Cyprian (d. 258) gave the complete statement of the primacy of the Roman bishop and the unity of the Church through Peter and Jesus.[82:2]

This sums up, essentially, all the proofs offered in support of the Petrine theory, and constitutes, it must be confessed, a powerful and consistent case.

It is necessary now, in the next place, to look at the evidence offered in opposition to the Petrine theory. For the sake of clearness, this evidence will be given under the four heads just employed:

1. Peter's primacy. The famous passage, "Thou art Peter," etc., correctly interpreted, does not warrant a belief in Peter's primacy. "Peter" may mean "rock" ("cephas"), but it here refers to Christ, not Peter, or to Peter's confession, just made,[82:3] or to Peter's faith, or to Peter merely as a type of all the Apostles.[82:4] Furthermore the commission to "bind" and to "loose"

and the promise connected with it were not intended exclusively for Peter but for all the Apostles[83:1]; Peter stood only for a type.[83:2] The change of Peter's name does not carry with it any special significance. Peter himself never mentioned his primacy in his speeches or writings,[83:3] and nowhere else in the New Testament is it distinctly stated or recognised by others. Whatever natural capacity for leadership Peter may have possessed, it cannot be proved that he received an official primacy. Such a position would have conflicted likewise with the supremacy of Jesus.

2. Peter's exercise of his primacy. The numerous instances where Peter took the lead, or acted, or spoke first,[83:4] or where his name heads lists of Apostles,[83:5] merely show that he was a man of impulsive, aggressive character, who would and did naturally take the lead in powers common to all the Apostles. At the council of Jerusalem Peter did not preside, as he would have done if he was the recognised "Prince of the Apostles," but only made the first speech.[83:6] Paul would not have rebuked Peter to his face about some very important points had Peter been the recognised head of the Church.[83:7] Peter was a coward, braggart, and traitor, and was reproved again and again by Jesus Himself,[83:8] who would not have chosen such a person to be the head of the Church. There is not a single

reference in the New Testament to show that Peter ever attempted to exercise a primacy over his companions. He called himself a fellow "elder."[84:1]

3. Peter's presence in Rome. There is not a syllable in the New Testament to warrant the conclusion that Peter was in Rome. Inference alone makes "Babylon"[84:2] the Eternal City. On the contrary, there are implications in the Scriptures that he was not in Rome. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans greeted all his friends, but said not a word about Peter. This would clearly indicate that Peter had not been in Rome before this Epistle was written, nor at the time it was written. Again in letters written from Rome, Paul is strangely silent about Peter's presence. The claim rests wholly upon tradition, therefore, and that is far from conclusive. There is a significant silence from the time of 2 Peter until that of Clement (96). Clement, to be sure, mentions Peter's martyrdom; but it is only by inference that the place is Rome. Not until well on in the second century did the legend about Peter's connection with Rome begin to circulate, and not until the third century did Tertullian assert positively that Peter was martyred in Rome under Nero. After that the assertion was generally accepted over the Church as a truth.[84:3]

4. Peter as the first Roman Pope. This, of course, is precluded by the want of adequate evidence of Peter's presence and labours in Rome.

The evidence adduced here ends with the sweeping denial of every claim of the Petrine theory.

Having now stated the two sides of the question here still remains the duty of making the historical summary from the sources available, namely, both the canonical and apocryphal books of the New Testament, and the traditional evidence in the Church Fathers. The New Testament, as the most important source of information, reveals Peter's birthplace,[85:1] occupation,[85:2] marriage,[85:3] call by Jesus,[85:4] and elevation to apostleship.[85:5] It shows the conspicuous leadership of Peter in the apostolic college—indeed, a primacy which Jesus Himself recognised,—yet leaves the character of that primacy and the power to transfer it to a successor open to question. The New Testament evidence does not give any clue to Peter's movements after Paul's notice of him in Galatians ii. except the reference in 1 Peter, which naturally, but not literally, interpreted might indicate that he was in Rome (Babylon). It likewise affords very scanty grounds, therefore, for believing that Peter first established the Church in Rome, or that he was the first Bishop of Rome, or that he conferred his power upon a successor.

Traditional evidence, on the contrary, is more favourable to Peter's presence in Rome. No one can possibly doubt that the Petrine theory was generally believed in western Christendom at least after the third century. Prior to the third century, there are many streams of testimony which converge in positive support of at least a portion of the Petrine theory:

1. The official lists and records of the Roman

Church, some of which must rest upon earlier sources, accept the whole question as proved and recognised generally.

2. The transference of Peter's remains to a new resting place in 258 shows that the tradition was definite and unquestioned early in the third century.

3. The writings of Caius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian indicate that the theory was accepted in Asia, Alexandria, Carthage, and Rome at the same period.

4. A passage from Irenæus, who probably used the official documents in Rome and who may have known St. John and his companions, carries the legend back to the second century.

5. The testimony of Dionysius of Corinth (d. 165), Papias, and Ignatius (d. 114) carries the belief back through the second to the first century.

6. The clear testimony of Clement of Rome makes a connecting link at the close of the first century.

Hence when the various pieces of evidence—the official sources, the monumental testimony, and the writings of the early Fathers,—which are independent and consistent, are combined they form a solid body of proof, which is practically irresistible, that Peter was in Rome. Likewise the absolute absence of any rival tradition from other cities adds greatly to the probability.

Peter's presence and death in Rome may be admitted as an established fact. If in Rome, whether one year or twenty-five years, Peter, with his aggressive nature, with his marked ability for leadership, and with his capacity for organisation, must have had a great deal to do with the establishment of the Roman Church, either jointly with Paul, or independently of him. Nor

does it seem to be a misuse of the law of historical probabilities to assert that Peter, either with Paul or without him, appointed a bishop for the Church of Rome and transferred to that bishop his apostolic authority. From these facts, based almost entirely upon traditional evidence, coupled with the peculiar primacy conceded to Peter in the New Testament by his fellow Apostles, gradually developed the Petrine theory with all its sweeping claims.

The admission of the belief that the Petrine theory is founded on certain established facts, and not merely on fancies and myths, does not carry with it the recognition of all the assertions which form a part of that theory. Peter's unique leadership in the apostolic college, his activity in founding the Roman Church, and his naming of a successor, who in time became the Pope, may all be granted without carrying with it the necessity of accepting the assertion that Christ chose Peter to be the head of a definite, divinely-planned Church and that Peter, conscious of that great mission, went to the capital of the Roman Empire, and there organised the only true Church on earth.