into the whole world, to preach the Gospel to every creature. St. Paul, being called in an extraordinary manner to the apostleship, participated in the plenitude of the original commission, which is not at all inconsistent with the supervision, presidency, and chief government of the whole Church, with which Peter was invested. Although the language of Peter himself, addressing his colleagues in the sacred ministry, is objected as excluding all idea of superior control, it is, nevertheless, in perfect harmony with his high prerogatives: "The ancients, therefore, that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient and a witness of Christ."* The term πρεσβυτέρους, presbyters, here rendered ancients, was then applied to bishops, whom St. Peter addressed, declaring himself their fellow-bishop, ovunрeoßórepos. Perfect equality cannot be meant by this expression, since, as an apostle, he was certainly superior to a local bishop. The character of bishop is undoubtedly the same as that of an apostle; but the jurisdiction of an apostle, being universal, far exceeds that of him who is charged with a special flock. The very fact of the general address of Peter to the bishops, whom he exhorts, and entreats to perform their pastoral duties in an humble, exemplary and disinterested manner, affords no slight presumption of his general superintendence and control. His language is certainly such as the chief pastor might appropriately employ: "Feed the flock of God which is among you taking care not by constraint, but willingly according to God: neither for the sake of filthy lucre, but voluntarily: neither as domineering over the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart. And when the Prince of Pastors shall appear, you shall receive a neverfading crown of glory."+ Grotius has well remarked, that this epistle has an energy of language characteristic of the prince of the apostles. Paul instructed Timothy and Titus, his disciples, whom, with his own hands, he had consecrated bishops: at Miletus he addressed the bishops whom he had called from Ephesus, and who were in like manner his special disciples. Either apostle might direct his admonitions to any bishop: but it seems not without a special design of the Holy Ghost, to mark the universality of his official charge, that Peter, writing to the strangers-proselytes to Judaism first, and then to Christianity, dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia-gave solemn injunctions to all the bishops of those countries, on their sacred duties. The exercise of the most important functions of the primacy is, as we have seen, plainly proved from the sacred Scriptures. To provide pastors for the churches is the right and duty of the pastor of the whole flock, a right, however, which is to be exercised with a sacred regard for the interests of the universal Church. This was done by Peter, in supplying * 1 Pet. v. 1. † Ibidem, 2-4. Habet hæc epistola ro opodpov vehemens dicendi genus conveniens ingenio principis apostolorum. the place of Judas. To see that the pastors perform their duties to their respective flocks, appertains to the same office. To decide, or take a prominent part in deciding doctrinal controversies, is a duty of the chief pastor, which was manifestly performed by Peter, in the Council of Jerusalem. He truly exercised a primatial authority, which shows that the commission given to him imparted power to maintain unity and faith. It is not necessary to show that Peter actually exercised all and every one of the attributes of spiritual sovereignty, especially since we have no detailed history of the apostolic age; the Acts of the Apostles being confined to a few facts connected with the commencement of the Church, and an account of the conversion and chief labors of St. Paul. Since the promise of Christ, His charge to Peter at the last supper, and His commission after His resurrection, convey the idea of a viceroy, superintendent and pastor; and the prominent part taken by Peter corresponds with this idea we are warranted in believing him to have possessed and exercised a true supremacy. I am not now anxious to demonstrate what are his essential rights: I ask only that his primacy, which is so clearly established, be admitted. I produce his commission with the seal of the Great King, and demand that it be respected. CHAPTER VII. Peter, Bishop of Rome. HAVING proved from the sacred Scripture, on strict principles of exegesis, and according to the general interpretation of the fathers of the first five centuries, that Peter received from Christ an authoritative primacy, which must always continue in the Church, to be exercised by his successors, it becomes necessary to show who succeeds to his privileges. The task is an easy one, as the voice of all antiquity proclaims the Bishop of Rome to be the successor of Peter. Some bold men have, indeed, pushed skepticism so far as to deny that St. Peter ever was at Rome, as some unbelievers have questioned whether Jesus Christ ever existed; but even Calvin, with every disposition to deny the fact, blushed to oppose the testimony of all the ancients ;* while Cave strongly and fearlessly affirms it: "We intrepidly affirm with all antiquity, that Peter was at Rome, and for some time resided there." He adds: "All, both ancient and modern, will, I think, agree with me that Peter may be called Bishop of Rome, in a less strict sense,† inasmuch as he laid the foundations of this Church, and rendered it illustrious by his martyrdom." Professor Schaff avows, that "it is the unanimous testimony of tradition that Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero." Babylon, from which the first letter of St. Peter was written, is understood by learned interpreters generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, to mean Rome; the Christians being accustomed to designate it in this way, on account of its vices, which resembled the corruption of the ancient queen of the East. St. John portrayed the crimes and calamities of pagan Rome under the same name, in the mysterious descriptions of the Apocalypse. Those who assert that Peter visited Babylon on the Euphrates, which was then in ruins, are unsupported by history or tradition: and the critical reasons which they offer for interpreting the name literally, are far outweighed by the arguments in favor of its figurative acceptation. After a review of them, Professor Schaff says: "These difficulties constrain us to return to the earliest and, in ancient times, only prevalent interpretation of Babylon, by which it is taken to mean Rome."§ * Inst. lib. iv. c. vi. 3 15. This qualification is wholly unnecessary. Sæc. Apostol. S. Petrus. See Extract from Schaff's Church History, in Mercersburg Review, July, 1851: also Perrone Tract. de locis Theol. p. 1. 2 ii. c. ii. n. 560. For a matter of fact human testimony is entirely sufficient, whenever it is clothed with those qualities which remove all just fear of deception. If it were otherwise, Christianity itself would vanish from our grasp; for its certain transmission to us implies a number of facts independent of any testimony of Scripture; and even the authenticity and integrity of the sacred books are dependent on human testimony, at least, for all who deny the authority of the Christian Church. CLEMENT, Bishop of Rome, a contemporary of the apostles, who is mentioned with honor by St. Paul, and who was ordained by Peter, according to the testimony of Tertullian, in a letter to the Corinthians, mentions Peter and Paul as having suffered martyrdom at Rome under his eyes.* IGNATIUS, Bishop of Antioch, when led to martyrdom, about the year 107, wrote to the Romans, begging of them to place no obstacle by their prayers to the fulfilment of his ardent desire to die for Christ: "I do not command you," he says, "as Peter and Paul: they were apostles: I am a condemned man.' ." This shows that the Romans had been instructed by both apostles, and received their commands. PAPIAS, Bishop of Hierapolis, a disciple of John the apostle, or of another John, a contemporary of the Apostle, states that Mark related in his Gospel what he heard from Peter at Rome, and that Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, calling it Babylon. IRENEUS declares that Peter and Paul preached the Gospel at Rome, and established the Church, which he calls. "greatest and most ancient, known to all, founded and established by the most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;" and adds the list of bishops from the apostles down to his own time.§ DIONYSIUS of Corinth states, that both apostles, Peter and Paul, instructed the Corinthians, and afterward having passed into Italy, planted the faith among the Romans, and consummated their course by martyrdom in their city.|| CAJUS, a Roman priest, who lived at the close of the second and beginning of the third century, says: "I can show you the trophies of the apostles; for whether we go to the Vatican, or to the Ostian way, we shall meet with the trophies of the founders of this Church." ORIGEN also testifies that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome.** ST. CYPRIAN says that Cornelius was chosen bishop "when the place of Fabian, that is, THE place of Peter, and the rank of the priestly chair was vacant."++ That Paul was not the original founder of the Church at Rome, is evident from his epistle to the Romans, in which he states his earnest desire to see them, which up to that time was out of his power, and praises their faith as celebrated throughout the whole world. We must, then, conclude that Peter had already preached the faith there, since all antiquity recog nises no other founders of the Roman Church but these two apostles: the conjecture of Dr. Jarvis, that proselytes who were at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, introduced and established the faith at Rome, being wholly unsupported. EUSEBIUS, who compiled his ecclesiastical history from the most authentic documents of the early ages, states that Simon Magus, after he had been publicly rebuked by Peter, went to Rome, and that to counteract his efforts, "the all-bountiful and kind Providence which watches over all things, conducted thither the most courageous and the greatest of the apostles, Peter, who, on account of his virtue, was leader of all." Theodoret, commenting on the passage of St. Paul, in which he expresses his desire to confirm the Romans in the faith, observes: "Because the great Peter was the first to instruct them in the evangelical doctrine, he necessarily said 'to confirm you;' for he says: I do not mean to propose to you a new doctrine, but to confirm that which has been already delivered, and to water the trees that have been planted." In a word: "The universal tradition of the Church," by the acknowledgment of Mr. Palmer, "ascribes the foundation or first government of the Roman Church to the apostles Peter and Paul, who were the greatest of the apostles." It is, nevertheless, no easy matter to fix with certainty the precise date of the visit of the apostle to the capital of the empire, since ancient writers assign different periods, some probably referring to his second visit, while others speak of the former. With the few lights afforded us by Scripture, in regard to his movements and actions, and with the scanty historical materials remaining, it would be unfair to require of us to adjust the chronological order of events, so as to exclude all question. Learned antiquarians have exercised their skill in arranging them, and we are at liberty to adopt the results of their inquiries, or to remain in suspense as to the particular order of the facts, provided we admit that which is established by most unquestionable evidence, that the apostle Peter preached the faith at Rome before St. Paul addressed his letter to the faithful of that city.§ The letter to the Romans is generally assigned to the year of our Lord 58, the fourth year of the reign of Nero. Orosius, a writer of the fifth century, states that St. Peter came to Rome in the commencement of the reign of Claudius, who was the predecessor of Nero; and St. Jerom, as well as Eusebius, ascribes his visit to the second year of that reign, about the fortyfourth year of our Lord, so that we may consider this fact as attested by three judicious writers, who relied, no doubt, on ancient historical documents. It probably occurred soon after the miraculous deliverance of the apostle from prison, when, rescued by the angel from the power of Herod, he went from Jerusalem "to another place." The See of Antioch had been previously founded by him, as the ancients assure us; but his stay L. ii. Hist. Eccl. c. xiv. † Com. in c. 1, ad Rom. Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. ch. vii. p. 472. |