We leave aside for the present the alleged silence of the New Testament. In the first place, it is not true that "the first tradition of Peter's having been at Rome does not appear for more than a century after his death." Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias, Dionysius of Corinth, belong to this period, and all unmistakably testify to Peter's having been at Rome. Irenaeus may be fairly counted also, as he was sent from Lyons to Rome in A.D. 177. Of these, Bishop Browne mentions only Papias and Irenaeus. He quotes Papias's opinion about the word Babylon in St. Peter's first Epistle, and tries to set it aside. But, whatever the exegetical value of the opinion, it is proof that Papias held it as an undoubted fact that St. Peter was at Rome; besides, he also states that Mark wrote his gospel at Rome, under the eye of Peter. Nor is it at all pertinent to say that Eusebius tells us that Papias was a narrow-minded man, and an enthusiast about the Apocalypse. Neither narrow-mindedness nor enthusiasm prevents men from being competent witnesses to simple facts, and the one about which we are now inquiring is a simple fact. The only question is—Could Papias have known for certain whether St. Peter was at Rome or not? He lived in the apostolic age, not half a century after the death of the apostle. This is a sufficient answer, and his views about either Babylon or the Apocalypse cannot impair its sufficiency. As to Irenaeus, our lord bishop quibbles in a way that is not handsome. He tries to break down his and other writers' testimony by alleging, first, that they disagree as to the first bishop of Rome after St. Peter; second, that they disagree about the time St. Peter came to Rome.
We are almost ashamed to have to answer such quibbling. Neither disagreement at all touches the substantial part of the narrative. Neither is as great as our expounder of the articles, in his despair, tries to make it. Neither could ever have been alleged in ordinary controversy. All authors, save Tertullian, mention Linus as first bishop of Rome after Peter. The African father in reality says only that Clement was ordained by Peter; the context, however, would suggest that he supposed he was the immediate successor of the apostle. The truth appears to be that Linus, Cletus, and Clement were consecrated bishops by one or the other of the apostles. This was commonly done in the first age; only one person in every city possessed episcopal jurisdiction, but more clergymen than one were frequently invested with the episcopal order. This was done in the Roman Church. St. Peter was its first bishop; after his death, Linus, Cletus, Clement governed it in succession, all three having been ordained by the apostles. There is nothing in this supposition at all at variance with what is known to have been the common practice of the first age, a practice which it is not ingenuous in the lord bishop of Ely to suppress. As to the discrepancy about the time of the apostle's coming to Rome, it is easily explained on the commonly received hypothesis that St. Peter twice visited Rome. Eusebius says that he went first under Claudius. He was obliged to leave Italy in consequence of that emperor's decree banishing thence the Jews. He returned thither, toward the end of his life, and there suffered martyrdom. But it is plain that such discrepancies cannot affect the substance, namely, that Peter was at Rome; indeed, they are intelligible only on the supposition that all the authors quoted held the main fact as certain. It is plain also that there is not the slightest foundation for the lord bishop's assertion that "at whatever time St. Peter came to Rome, there was some one else bishop of Rome then." The courage required for this assertion can be measured from another statement, just four lines above: "All (the early writers) agree in saying that the first bishop of the see was Linus." This is simply shameful. Put after "see" the words after Peter, and the quotation will be correct. But then what becomes of the bishop's argument? He says Linus was bishop of Rome when Peter went thither; and he also admits that "some (early writers) say that St. Paul, others that St. Peter and St. Paul, ordained him." These latter writers surely did not suppose that St. Peter ordained a man in Rome before he himself ever went to Rome. The bishop clearly does not stick at trifles. His chronology is also entirely at fault. He says that it "is three centuries (after St. Peter's death) before we find him spoken of as bishop of Rome." But St. Cyprian, whom even Bishop Hopkins admits spoke thus of the apostle, was put to death before the end of the second century from St. Peter's martyrdom. He sneers at the statement that St. Peter was five-and-twenty years bishop of Rome; yet he admits that it is based on the authority of that eminent and judicious critic, St. Jerome, who, from his high position under Pope Damasus, had abundant opportunity for an accurate examination of the then extant records. In reality, it is based on an earlier authority, the great historian Eusebius. It is plain that his polemic system is simply factious; he ignores some authorities, misconstrues others, miscalculates dates, and mistakes mere accessories for the principal fact; such a course is not only a crime against historical truth, it is also a blunder, for it can mislead only the unlearned or the unwary reader.
The writers of the first age do not, it is true, assert in so many words that St. Peter was bishop of Rome. The reason is obvious. Treating of other matters, their allusions are merely incidental, such as we might expect immediately after the death of SS. Peter and Paul, and relating chiefly to the fact of the apostle's connection with the Roman Church, or his martyrdom there. For these facts they are unanswerable authority. These are a necessary preliminary to the assertion of St. Peter's Roman bishopric. This fact is broadly stated as soon as we meet with the polemical development of the doctrine of apostolic succession. Tertullian, in the text we have quoted from the book On Prescriptons, where he accurately defines in what this succession consists, namely, that the first bishop was appointed and preceded by an apostle or an apostolic man, (Apostolum … habuerit auctorem et antecessorem,) says that in the Roman Church Clement was ordained by Peter. Tracing thus the succession in Rome from Peter, not from Paul, whose death in the imperial city he mentions, he shows that he knew Peter was the bishop of the see. St. Cyprian uses unmistakable language on the same subject, and Eusebius asserts positively that St. Peter was bishop of Rome. We might quote other catalogues, but, though of great authority, they are of a more recent date. But we shall give two more authorities which can be connected with the period to which we have confined ourselves. St. Jerome [Footnote 112] positively states that St. Peter held the episcopal chair (cathedram sacerdotalem) of Rome for twenty-five years. His historical knowledge and critical acumen give to his words the authority of a statement based on the very best records of the early age. No one can deny that in the latter half of the fourth century there were such records at Rome. St. Optatus of Millevi, in Africa, (A.D. 370,) in a controversial work against the Donatists, speaks of St. Peter's Roman bishopric as a matter of notoriety, which no one would dare deny. "You ought to know," says he to the Donatist leader, Parmenian, "and you dare not deny, that Peter established at Rome an episcopal chair, which he was the first to occupy, in order that through (communion with) this one chair all might preserve unity." [Footnote 113]
[Footnote 112: In Catal.]
[Footnote 113: Contr. Parmenianum.]
A statement made so positively, so unhesitatingly, so boldly, must have been founded on the very best historical evidence. And the nineteenth century must accept the judgment of competent writers of the fourth on such a subject. Unless, then, we wish to deny all authority to authentic record of the early age of the church, we must conclude, with the good leave of the lord bishop of Ely, that there is excellent reason to believe that St. Peter was bishop of Rome. Nor is there any force in the bishop's remark that all the apostles had the world for their diocese, and were not confined to any particular city. We do not, of course mean to say that St. Peter confined his preaching to Rome. He was apostle as well as head of the church. As apostle, he preached chiefly to the Jews. As head of the church, he chose for his episcopal see the capital of the world, in order that there might be no doubts about the legitimate heir of his great dignity. For this reason we find him in Rome among the Gentiles, though St. Paul had a special mission to them. Dr. Browne says Peter was St. Paul's assistant at Rome; and this, in the face of the facts that every writer, from Clement down, puts him before the great vessel of election, and that St. Paul himself, as we shall see, speaks of his ministry to the Romans as one merely of mutual consolation, a tone he never adopted toward a church which he himself had founded. We have purposely left to the last the argument based on the alleged silence of the New Testament, because we wished to clear an historical question of all purely exegetical difficulties. We have established our thesis on indubitable evidence; we might rest here and simply say that, inasmuch as no one pretends that the New Testament contains the entire history of the apostles, its silence cannot affect the certainty of our proposition. This silence may puzzle the curious reader; it may be variously interpreted, according to the theological bent of the student; but it cannot disprove facts which are proved by historical authority. Bishop Browne feels the force of this, and does not insist much on the silence of the New Testament. He merely remarks that this silence is strange, if St. Peter's Roman bishopric be as important as Roman divines make it out to be. Strictly speaking, we might let this pass, as we are not now concerned in establishing the supremacy of the Roman pontiffs, but merely treating the historical question, Who was first bishop of Rome? We may observe, however, that no believer in the doctrine of apostolical succession can consistently urge this silence. How does Dr. Browne trace his succession in the office of bishop from the apostles? Is it from St. Peter? Then he has to meet the same objection about the silence of the New Testament on what, from his point of view, is a vital matter. Is it from St. Paul? But there is no scriptural evidence that St. Paul ever ordained a bishop in Rome, or anywhere in the west. Is it from any other apostle? The same remark holds good. No claim to apostolical succession can be established for any see in the western church unless on the evidence of tradition. This is virtually admitted by Dr. Browne himself.
Since, however, the silence of the New Testament is commonly urged as affording presumptive evidence that St. Peter never was at Rome, we shall examine all that Protestants have to say on the subject. The principal text—the only one having direct reference to the subject—is I Peter v. 13: "The church which is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Mark, my son." Nearly all ancient writers, commencing with Papias, say that this letter was written at Rome, which city St. Peter designates under the name of Babylon. Our Protestant opponents, of course, reject this interpretation. Now, we wish it to be understood that we do not allege this text to prove that St. Peter wrote from Rome. We admit that, taken in itself, apart from tradition, it is obscure, and can afford, at best, ground but for conjecture. But, having established beyond all doubt the fact that St. Peter was at Rome, we follow the interpretation of the respectable ancient writers whom we have quoted. When the letter was written, old Babylon of Assyria was in ruins, according to Strabo and Pliny; and the Jews, to whom St. Peter wrote, had been banished from Assyria, according to Josephus; and, though Seleucia was afterward called Babylon, it had not received the name at this early period. Some think that the Babylon referred to was in Egypt, the place now called Cairo. But it was then but a fort, or fortified village, (castellum,) and the Christian church of Egypt has always looked on Alexandria as its birthplace. St. Peter, moreover, warns the Christians of the approaching persecution, and exhorts them to be subject to the emperor and his subordinates. These allusions come very naturally from the pen of one writing at Rome, but are almost unintelligible if we suppose the writer in Babylon of Assyria, out of the Roman empire. The opinion that the letter was written at Rome, called Babylon by St. Peter for some reason which we can only conjecture, is based on excellent ancient authority, agrees with well-known facts of history, and with the internal evidence of the letter itself. Leaving aside its bearings on the main question we are discussing, it is by far the most probable view, and, in any other case, would be accepted without difficulty. [Footnote 114]
[Footnote 114: Occasionally the love of novelty induces some Catholic writer to differ from his brethren. This is the case with Hug, who holds that we cannot admit mystical names in the letters of the apostles, as there is no instance of their use, save in this disputed case. This is criticism based on internal evidence run mad. One would suppose that there was a perfect course of sacred epistolary literature in the New Testament, based on fixed rules, instead of a few detached letters, written by different authors at different times, without any communication or agreement with one another about literary style. There is nothing more fallacious than the interpretation of any of the letters of the apostles on mere internal evidence. Hug's remark at most shows that internal evidence does not afford any proof that St. Peter meant Rome, which no one will deny.]
Protestants, moreover, commonly allege the absence of any mention of St. Peter's voyage to Rome in the Acts of the Apostles, and the absence of any reference to him, either in St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans or in those he wrote from Rome. The silence of the Acts is easily explained. After the council of Jerusalem, the writer relates only the missionary labors of St. Paul, so that we could not expect any mention of St. Peter's voyages. Dr. Browne infers from Acts xxviii. 22, that "the Jews of Rome had had no communication with any chief teacher among the Christians." This inference is not borne out by the text, "We desire to hear from thee what thou thinkest; or as concerning this sect, we know that it is everywhere opposed." The obvious meaning is that the Jews of Rome knowing that Paul was a Pharisee learned in the law, wished to hear what he had to say in favor of the new religion. They must have looked on St. Peter as a Galilean fisherman, who had no right to attempt to expound the law and the prophets. It is puerile for Dr. Browne to allege that they should have heard him with respect because he was the apostle of the circumcision; for, of what importance could this title be in their eyes, if they did not believe in Him who sent the apostles?
If St. Peter went to Rome in the reign of Claudius, he certainly was afterward absent from the city, as we find him after this period at the council of Jerusalem. His absence from Rome accounts for the fact that St. Paul does not salute him in his Epistle to the Romans, a straw at which some Protestant writers clutch with great avidity. The great respect with which St. Paul speaks of the Roman Church, whose faith, he says, was spoken of in the whole world, agrees with the supposition that St. Peter had already preached there. On these words, [Footnote 115] "For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, that ye may be strengthened; that is, I may be comforted together with you, by that which is common to us both, your faith and mine." Theodoret remarks as follows: "Because the great Peter had first given them the doctrine of the gospel, he said merely,'that ye may be strengthened.' I do not wish, he says, to bring a new doctrine to you, but to confirm that which you have received, and to water the trees which have already been planted." [Footnote 116]