there was short, although he may have retained the special charge of it for seven years, as many aver: its administration, however, being confided to Evodius, who is the first on the list of its bishops after the apostle. Twenty-five years are generally assigned to the Roman episcopate of St. Peter, which period intervened between the second year of Claudius, who reigned fourteen years, and the close of the reign of Nero, which is also believed to have lasted fourteen years.* The apostle nevertheless was not stationary during that whole period, since he must have returned to Judea, where he was present in the Council of Jerusalem, held in the nineteenth year after the resurrection of our Lord, about the fifty-first of the common era. His return may have been spontaneous, or it may have been occasioned by the edict published in the ninth year of Claudius,† by which all Jews were commanded to quit the imperial city; since the natives of Judea, whether practising Jewish rites, or professing Christianity, were included under this general denomination. While Nero occupied the throne, Peter visited Rome, as Lactantius testifies ;§ which must be understood of a second visit, since the authority of Jerom, Eusebius, and Orosius is conclusive as to the visit under Claudius. St. Leo alludes to both, extolling the fortitude of the apostle, who dreaded neither the power of Claudius, nor the cruelty of Nero.|| The concurrence of both apostles in the foundation of the Church of Rome does not at all interfere with the special prerogative of Peter. Both apostles labored successfully in establishing it; both consecrated it by their martyrdom; both are even styled its bishops by Epiphanius; but, in the stricter sense, Peter was peculiarly its founder and its bishop. The Bishops of Rome are wont to unite the invocation of these glorious apostles, and to act as by their joint authority, because the apostolic power was possessed by each, and the pre-eminence of Peter was not affected by the joint labors and martyrdom of Paul: yet Peter was specially the Bishop of Rome. Cajus, already quoted, speaks of Victor, Bishop of Rome, as the thirteenth in succession from Peter and a contemporary writer says that Peter appointed Linus to succeed him in the chair of this great city, "in which he himself had sat." "The Church of Rome," he adds, "organized by Peter, flourished in piety."** Hyginus is mentioned as the ninth occupant of the chair of Peter. Eusebius terms Peter the first Pontiff of the Christians and speaks of Linus as "first Bishop of the Church of the Romans, after the leader Peter."§§ Optatus mentions the establish Acts xii. 17. Acts xviii. 2. Serm. i. in natali ap. Petri et Pauli. **Contra Marcion carm. inter opera Tertull. † Oros. Hist. 1. vii. c. vi. †† Palmer, quoting Chronicle, an. 44. Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. part vii. ch. 1, p. 463. 22 In Chronico: "Primus, post coryphæum Petrum, Romanorum ecclesiæ episcopus. ment of the episcopal chair at Rome by Peter, as an unquestionable fact; and states that Peter, the prince of the apostles, was the first to occupy it.* St. Chrysostom observes, that Linus was accounted the second Bishop of the Roman Church after Peter."† St. Jerom says: "Clement was fourth Bishop of Rome after Peter." Augustin begins the list from Peter, whom Linus succeeded, and continues it down to his own time.§ That Peter was strictly Bishop of Rome, is clearly established by these most ancient and respectable witnesses. That Paul was not united with him in the episcopal office, although he labored with him in his apostolic character, is plain from the marked distinction observed by all the ancients, who never give Paul alone the appellation of Roman Bishop, which they frequently give to Peter, and from the general and ancient tradition, that there cannot be two bishops of one Church; which was so strongly impressed on the minds of the Roman people, that when Constantius proposed that Liberius and Felix should jointly govern the Church, the faithful protested against the novelty, and cried out: ONE GOD, ONE CHRIST, ONE BISHOP. ST. LEO, addressing the Romans, on the anniversary of his own consecration, observes: "For the celebration of our solemnity, not only the apostolic, but likewise the episcopal dignity of the most blessed Peter concurs, who does not cease to preside over his own See, and obtains its unfailing union with the Eternal Priest. For that solidity, which he himself being made a rock, received from Christ, he transmitted to his heirs likewise." sense. The alleged incompatibility of the apostleship with the episcopal office arises from a confusion of terms. If Peter were said to be Bishop of Rome in such a way as to confine his authority and vigilance to this local church, it would interfere with his apostolic office and primacy, since he was charged with the care of all the churches, and could not divest himself of this general government: but no one considers him bishop in this He retained the special charge of the Church of Rome, which he founded, without foregoing his general solicitude for the universal Church; and while he cherished the favored flock with peculiar care, he watched incessantly over all the sheep of Christ, wherever they were found, and urged the local pastors to the fulfilment of their duties, as appears from his admirable epistle. Most writers have identified James, Bishop of Jerusalem, with the apostle of that name, which shows that they did not deem the episcopal charge incompatible with his apostolic character, although he would thereby appear exclusively devoted to a single flock; while the Roman bishopric of Peter does not imply any restriction of power or authority. Barrow virtually admits that James the apostle was L. ii. c. iii. Cat. Script. Eccl. de Clemente. † Hom. x. in ii. ad Titum. Ep. ad Generos. the same as the bishop, and offers reasons why it was proper to give to him this special jurisdiction over the faithful of Jerusalem; which, however, can have no weight, if the apostleship and episcopate cannot be united in the same person. The silence of St. Paul concerning St. Peter in his letter to the Romans is no argument against the episcopacy of Peter, much less against the fact of his having been at Rome. The letter was written most probably at a time when Peter was not in the city, to silence by his authority the disputants whom Paul labors to enlighten. Besides, a mere negative argument cannot be admitted against positive testimony of contemporary witnesses, sustained by public facts and general tradition.. Mr. Palmer says: "Hence we may see the reason for which the Bishops of Rome were styled successors of ST. PETER by some of the fathers. They were bishops of the particular church which St. Peter had assisted in founding, and over which he had presided; and they were also, as bishops of the principal church, the most eminent among the successors of the apostles; even as St. Peter had possessed the pre-eminence among the apostles themselves." To express the whole truth unequivocally, he should have stated that, as bishops of that local church, and successors of St. Peter, their pre-eminence was one of jurisdiction and authority extending throughout the whole world. *Treatise on the Supremacy. Suppos. iv. n. 11, 2. A Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. part vii. ch. iii. § 1, p. 473. CHAPTER VIII. Roman Church. FROM the fact that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome at the time of his martyrdom, it follows that his successors in this See are heirs of his apostolic authority. The powers given to the apostles collectively are perpetual, but the bishops do not severally inherit their plenitude, since each receives charge of a special flock, as is intimated in the epistle of St. Peter,* with authority subordinate to that of the general ruler of the Church. Although all bishops are, in a qualified sense, successors of the apostles, no apostle but Peter has a successor in the strictest and fullest acceptation of the term, because he alone was invested with the office of supreme governor, which is essential to the order and existence of the Church in all ages. The primacy being of divine institution, as the words of our Lord plainly prove, it is by divine right vested in Peter, and in his successors: and the fact of his occupancy of the Roman See has determined the succession to the Bishop of Rome. Hence we find all the ancient writers speaking of the Roman Church as the Apostolic See, the head of all the churches. ST. IGNATIUS, who, in the year 68, succeeded Evodius in the See of Antioch, on his way to martyrdom in 107, addressed a letter to the CHURCH WHICH PRESIDES in the country of the Romans: "Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has obtained mercy through the magnificence of the most high Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son; the Church, beloved and enlightened through His will, who wills all things that are according to the charity of Jesus Christ our God; which PRESIDES in the place of the Roman region, being worthy of God, most comely, deservedly blessed, most celebrated, properly organized, most chaste, and PRESIDING in charity, having the law of Christ, bearing the name of the Father." This language clearly indicates the pre-eminence of the ROMAN CHURCH. ST. IRENEUS, who passed from the East to Gaul, about the middle of the second century, and became Bishop of Lyons in 177, refuting the Gnostics, who boasted of some secret tradition more perfect than the public teaching of the Church, appeals against it to the public tradition of all churches throughout the world, and offers the Roman Church as a compe * 1 Pet. v. 2, τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον. All," tent and authoritative witness of this general tradition. "who wish to see the truth, may see in the entire Church the tradition of the apostles, manifested throughout the whole world: and we can enumerate the bishops who have been ordained by the apostles, and their successors down to our time, who taught or knew no such doctrine as they madly dream of. But since it would be very tedious to enumerate in this work the succession of all the churches, by pointing to the tradition of the greatest and most ancient church, known to all, founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, and to her faith announced to men, which comes down to us by the succession of bishops, we confound all those who in any improper manner gather together,* either through self-complacency, or vain-glory, or through blindness, or perverse disposition. For with this church, on account of her more powerful principality, it is necessary that every church, that is, the faithful, who are on all sides,† should agree,‡ in which the apostolic tradition has been always preserved by those who are on all sides."§ A better or more powerful|| principality is ascribed to this church, since heavenly empire surpasses earthly dominion; and its influence in maintaining the integrity of Christian tradition, is shown by the necessity of harmony between all the local churches and this ruling church. The attempt to explain away this splendid testimony, by supposing the civil principality to be meant, is utterly futile: since this could be no reason why the churches and faithful should agree with the Roman Church. Hence it is pretended that agreement in doctrine is not meant, although it is manifest that the professed object of the writer is to prove the general tradition of the churches, of which he takes the tradition of the Roman Church as evidence, the succession of its bishops being well known, and its relations to the other churches implying the harmony of their faith. To suppose that *The Greek term ovλryover, "colligunt," is understood, of assembling. † Undique, as it were KUKλw navraɣn. The central character of Rome, and the convergency of the local churches, as rays to a centre, or focus, is beautifully insinuated. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam. The learned Calvinist, Saumaise, admits that this is the force of the phrase, which is Hellenistic. He remarks: Ad hanc convenire ecclesiam is a Græcism for cum hac convenire ecclesia. "Necesse esse dicit omnem ecclesiam convenire ad Romanam, id est, ut Græce loquutus fuerat Irenæus, ovpßaivεiv пpos τñv τŵv pwpaíŵv ikkλnoíav, quod significat convenire et concordare in rebus fidei et doctrinæ cum romana ecclesia." De primatu Papæ, c. v. Convenire as signifying motion, cannot be applied to a church. It could not be said even of the faithful, that it was necessary for them to go to Rome. Maximæ et antiquissimæ et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ ecclesiæ eam quam habet ab apostolis traditionem, et annuntiatam hominibus fidem per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes, confundimus omnes eos qui quoque modo, vel per sibi placentia, vel vanam gloriam, vel per cæcitatem et malam sententiam, præterquam oportet colligunt. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles: in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quæ est ab apostolis traditio. S. Iren. 1. iii. adv. hær. c. iii. The reading varies, probably because potiorem was put by contraction for potentiorem. |