ST. PETER, BISHOP OF ROME

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXI, Issue 34, 20 August 1903, Page 2

ST. PETER, BISHOP OF ROME

REPLY TO BISHOP NEVILL VI. In our last issue we dropped some picrine shells into the following triplet of strange statements made by the Right Rev. Dr. Nevill, Anglican Bishop of Dunedin, ' by way ot funeral oration over the good old Pope whose life's .fitful fever is over: (.1) that 'it is indispensable as the basis of the whole Roman scheme ' that St Peter should have been Bishop of Rome for '34 ( or 35 years ', (2) that the Roman episcopate of St. Peter , is a ' figment ' ; and ,(3) that ' the first to mention i the alleged episcopate of St. Peter was St. Jerome, aWit; three and a half centuries later ' ! We showed that 1 Bishop Nevill had fallen into an amazing misstatement of the Catholic position ; that his admission of St. Peter's sojourn in Rome was (on Lipsius's principle) tantamount to an assertion of his Roman episcopate ; that, outside the Protestant denominations, belief in St. Peter's Roman episcopate has been (as eminent Reformed writers testify) the possession of all Christian antiquity, East and West ; that the line of argument used all along in support of it has been positive, uncontroversial, and based on history ; that its opponents' objections against it are purely negatnc and controversial ; that Bishop Nevill (as reported in the daily Press) withheld from his hearers all, or practically all, of the vasX mass of evidence which makes St. Peter's bishopric of Rome as well established as any other accepted fact of early Christian history ; and that his professing to decide the whole question oft-hand by an appeal to ' the fallacy of silence ' of the New Testament, was in the highest degree calculated to mislead his audience into the belief that no other evidence existed bearing upon the question. We published, in necessarily brief and condensed form, a catena of testimony showing the constant belief of the Church, both in East and West, in the Roman episcopate of St. Peter dunng the fouith and third centuries of the Christian cia We showed that this episcopate is asseited by eminent Protestant wnteis— ty Bramhall,Grotius,Leibnit/, Cave, Chamier, Pcaison, Baratier, Nevin, Hall, and others. The value of this body of Protestant testimony cannot be ovei-estimated We have aheady pointed out that the admission of the episcopate of St Peter is the next and natural step to the acknowledgment of the Primacy of the Roman See The question of St Peter's Roman episcopate is no moie still-born occurrence, devoid of results , it is a great, living, Mora] Fact that enters, and for ages has entered, into the order of theological truth, into the domain of practical conduct, religion, and politics It purports to ha\e its original source in divine Revelation— to be the utilisation of divine promises made by Christ to His Chuuh , to be the appointed mode by which that promise is carried into actual effect. And, as such, it has for ae;es held its place in the minds and hearts of untold millions of the faithhil from the dawn of the Chustian religion It is, then, a principle of life and action m the Church— it is a test by which, down the course of the ages, the one Church founded by Chiist upon the Rock should he discerned from all man-made counterfeits This principle cuts at the root of the Anglican system A defender of Anglicanism has, therefore, no option but to either contest or deny the fact that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, or to explain away or minimise its significance For this reason minor difficulties are enormously exaggerated, apparent discrepancies (many of them easily reconcilable) of authors ranging over four or five centuries are strung together as of equal authority, the utmost ingenuity is displayed in devising or imagining fresh difficulties, and e\ cry oflort is made to confuse t lie one point on which all the dhergent accounts are agreed— namely, that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome,

and that the Popes are his successors in that See. And yet, all the time these same writers accept without question the Canon and inspiration of the New Testament, although the evidence for these, though on Catholic principles conclusive, is by no means so cogent as that which proves the episcopacy and primacy of St. leter and the apostolic succession from him in the See of Rome. VII. As regards early Christian testimony in support of fc>t. Peter's Roman episcopate, there is practically no dispute between us and Protestants so far as the fifth, fourth, and third centuries of our era are concerned. During that period, the evidence for both the episcopate and Primacy is overwhelming in its frequency, extent* and clearness. When we come to the second century (A.D. 101-200), the loss and destruction of documents render the testimony of that time for St. Peter's Roman episcopate more scanty but not less conclusive. The third and fourth centuries, however, furnish a gloss or explanation for whatever may be obscure in the second, in the same way that Newman makes the fifth century the comment on those that preceded it. 'It acts,' he wrote (' Discussions,' p. 236) «as a comment on the obscure text of the centuries before it, and brings out a meaning which, with the help of the comment, any candid person sees really to be theirs.' The assumption of Anglican controversialists of the class referred to above, is that the missing documents of the second century would, if recovered, tell a dinerent tale from those of subsequent centuries. The natural and reasonable presumption is to the contrary. It is strengthened by the fact that all the second century documents that have survived tell the same tale as those of the third, fourth, and fifth. And there is no record, and no pretence of a record, to the contrary. According to the learned Anglican historian, Bishop Lightfoot, the Christian literature of the second century must have been 'fairly abundant. But nearly all of it — and nearly all that was contemporary with the beginning of the CatacombsPerished in the Flames of the last great persecution of Diocletian, which opened its red course in the year 303. Bishop Lightfoot (in his ' Hist. Essays,' p. 3) deplores the loss 'of the vast volume of Christian literature, which, with a few meagre exceptions, has altogether perished.' And herein, says Archbishop Carr (' Primacy,' p. 135) ' lies the explanation of the loud talk we hear of " Rome's pretensions." Judging from the writings we have of that century, we may safely conclude that, if the rest had not perished, the second century literature would have supplied us with an irrefutable proof of the Primacy ' of the See of St. Peter. It was the martyr-age. The Church was in the Catacombs, and not living in normal conditions. Yet ' whatever doctrines are referred to in the writings of the Fathers of the second century are emphatically Roman, and whenever theie is mention of Home in connection with doctrine and discipline, there is a recognition of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome ' (Loc. cit). Dr. Salmon (Anglican), of Trinity College, Dublin, has aptly observed that during the second century the Church is Passing through a Tunnel, which is well lighted at one end by the Books of the New Testament, and at the other end by the writings of the Fathers from the close of the same century. In the space between, there are a few openings that admit a dim and interrupted light. 'If,' says he, 'in our study of this dimly lighted portion of history, we wish to distinguish what is certain from what is doubtful, we may expect to find the things certain in what can be seen from either of the two well-lighted ends. If the same thing is visible on looking from either end, we can have no doubt about its existence ' (' Expositor ' 3rd series, vol. 6, pp. 3-4, quoted in ' Primacy,' pp. 87-8). Now St. Peter's Primacy is clear from the end which is lighted by the books of the New Testament From its luminous pages we establish the Primacy of St. Peter and its perpetuity in the Church From the other end of the tunnel —that is, from the Fathers and other early Christian writers— we learn where this Primacy was set up and perpetuated. And so far as St. Peter's episcopate and Primacy are concerned, we have already seen, in our previous article, that they are admitted by foremost Protestant historians and divines to be irrefutably proven by the records of the fourth and third centuries. The dimly lighted tunnel of the second century has not left a scrap or hint of a record that tells a different tale. On the contrary, there is much in the writings that have come down from the wreck of that stormy period which bears abundant witness to the Roman episcopate of the Fisherman-Apostle. It is shown, for instance, in the lists or catalogues of the Bishops of Rome and in the existing works of the Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers of the time.

VIII. There are various catalogues of the Popes. They are divided into two classes— the Oriental or .Greek, and the Occidental or Latin (Schafi, ' History of the Christian Church '— ' Ante-Nicene Christianity,' Div. I p 163, Edinburgh, 1884). To the oriental belong the lists of St. Hegesippus and St. Irenaeus, which date from the second century, and that of Eusebius and his successors. The occidental or Latin lists comprise the catalogues of Optatus and St. Augustine (African) ; the Liberian catalogue (Roman, down to Pope Liberius, A.D. 354), with several recensions ; the Felician catalogue (to A.D. -530) Conon's (to A D 440) ; the ' Liber Pontificalis,' martyrologies, calendars, and undated inscriptions in the Catacombs. In the work quoted from above (p. 166) Dr. Schaff, the noted American Protestant historian, admits that ' the list of Roman bishops has by far the pre-eminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople ; and this must carry great weight with those who ground their \iews chiefly on external testimonies, without being able to rise to the free Protestant conception of Christianity and its history of development on earth.' On the same and the next following page (pp. 166-167) Schaff, comparing the works of Eusebius, Jaffe, Potthast, Lipsius, and others, gives a ' list of the Roman Bishops,' or ' Popes,' to the days of Constantine, and the first name upon it is ' Petrus-Apostolus '— ' Peter the Apostle.' And now for a few summary remarks on the Catalogues of the Early Popes that were drawn up in the second century by St Hegesippus and St. Irenaeus. St. Hegesippus was a converted eastern Jew. He came from Syria to Rome in the middle of the second century (under Pope Anicetus, who reigned from about A.D. 154 to 166) for the purpose of inquiring particularly into the lists of, bishops in that city from the days of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, who were martyred there in A.D. 67. St. Hegeeippus found a catalogue going back to Apostolic days. Eusebius, ' the Father of Church History '—also an eastern (who lived about A.D. 264-349)— wrote with Hegesippus' list of Popes under his eye. Now, in his ' Ecclesiastical History,' (ni., 4) Eusebius says that Linus obtained the bishopric oi' the Church of the Romans ' first after Peter.' In another place he speaks of Clement as 'holding the third place of those who acted as bishops after both Paul and Peter.' It is generally agreed that the 1 Chronicle ' of Eusebius (which was written in Greek) contained the list of Popes which he copied into his ' History.' The ' Chronicle ' is not extant in the Greek. A few extracts from this are, however, preserved in the work of Syncellus, a ninth century Greek writer, and theie are translations of it in Latin (by St. Jerome), in Armenian, and in Synac. A passage from the i Greek records tnat St. Peter, • besides the Church in Antioch, also first presided over that in Rome until his death.' The same passage in the Armenian is translated as follows : ' The Apostle Peter, when he had first founded the Church of Antioch, sets out for the city of Rome, and there preaches the Gospel, and stays there as prelate of the Church for twenty years ' (ap. Rivington, p. 20). St Jerome's Latin translation of the 4 Chronicle ' confirms the fact of St. Peter's Roman episcopate. He says of St. Peter . ' He is sent to Rome, where, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years, he perseveres as bishop of the same city.' The Synac version (ap. Rivington, p. 21) quotes from the ' Chronicle ' thus : ' Peter, after he had established the Church at Antioch, Presided Over the Church at Rome for twenty years.' So far as the Roman episcopate of St. Peter is concerned, these versions of the ' Chronicle ' of Eusebius have a value independent of their chronology, the confusion in which is evidently the work of copyists. Chronology had not then been reduced to a science, and a thousand facts in sacred and profane history are accepted without hesitation although their dates may be uncertain or confused. The great historian and archaeologist, Cardinal Mai, published a list which was drawn up professedly ' from the labors of Eusebius,' and the catalogue opens with the statement that ' Peter first acted as bishop of Rome.' The great Anglican historian, Bishop Lightfoot, has proved that the catalogue of Roman Pontiffs given by St. Epiphanius in the fourth century is none other than the lost list which Hegesippus had drawn up in the middle of the second. And St. Euphanius' testimony, as given by this great Anglican prelate, runs as follows :' He (St. Epiphanius) then commences a list of the Roman episcopate, in which he places " first Peter and Paul, Apostles and bishops, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clemens, who was a contemporary of Peter and Paul " ' (' Clement of Rome,' vol. i , p, 329).

+* ? , e Ji de ? ce of st - Hegesippus is corroborated by that of St. Irenaeus. The testimony of this renowned Father of the Church is of exceptional value. It is, in fact, by itself alone sufficient to peremptorily decide the fact in dispute. St. Irenaeus was by birth and education an Eastern. He was the disciple of and had enjoyed familiar intercourse with St. Polycarp, who had close re ations with St. John the Evangelist and others who had seen the Lord. St. John, who wrote his Gospel after St. Peter's martydom, was well acquainted with its circumstances (St. John, xxi., 18-19), which must also have been well known to St. Polycarp, and through him, to St. Irenaeus. St. Irenaeus knew all the Churches of Asia, and was bishop of one of the Gallic (French) Sees. He came to Rome later than St Hege.sippus, farther on towards the close of the second century, and, whilst there, obtained materials for drawing up a list of the bishops of that See. Dr. Doellinger has nowever, proved that St. Irenaeus made an independent catalogue, and that he did not see or draw upon that of St. Hegesippus. The Protestant writer Lipsius says (ap. Schanz, • Christian Apology,' iii., p. 477) : « The source from which he drew was the official Roman tradition, such as it had established itself at the time of Eleutherius (174-189). Above all, he Found a Catalogue of the Roman bishops reaching as far back as Linus, who had been instituted by Peter and Paul. This was probably the same list previously found by Hegesippus when he came to Rome, under Pope Anicetus (154-166 or 155-167), which he compJeted, down to Eleutherius, second successor of Aniqetus (Euseb. iv., 11-12). It may, therefore, be considered certain that as early as the year 160 the Roman Church traced her origin back to the two Apostles.' In other words, belief in the Roman episcopate of St. Peter and in the apostolic succession of the bishops of that See, was in full and admitted possession in Rome at a time when a great number of persons were living whose fathers could, in the full vigor of manhood, have seen SS. Peter and Paul and heard their preaching there. Singularly discreditable attempts have been made by controversialists such as Puller and Salmon to misrepresent the nature and purport of the evidence, contained in the lists of St. Hegesippus and St. Irenaeus. In this, as in other matters concerning the Papacy, Salmon is especially in his early and ill-tempered book, ' The Infallibility of the Church,' a singularly untrustworthy witness. The work referred to has a considerable vogue and is, we understand, used as a text-book or a book of reference in a Protestant Theological College in Dunedin. But it is marked throughout with shameful garbling, misquotation, and misrepresentation of points of Catholic doctrine. We make this statement with the lullest sense of our responsibility, and are prepared, should occasion require it, to sustain it by abundant proof. St. Irenaeus gives two enumerations of the Bishops of Rome. In one he enumerates all the Bishops (the Apostles included) who occupied the See of Rome till his time. In the other he gives those who succeeded to the Apostles there. St. Hegesippus and St. Irenaeus 1 are two independent and accordant witnesses. Bishop Lightfoot admits that ' all authorities ' are agreed as to the authenticity of St. lrenaeus's catalogue of the Bishops of Rome. And that catalogue Includes St. Peter. He, moreover, admits that there could be, no ' accidental tripping ' in this great saint's double list, because the enumeration which, in express terms, makes St. Peter Bishop of Rome, appears in the very next chapter to that in which St. Peter's episcopate is asserted by necessary implication, when he gives the list of the successors of the Apostles in the Eternal City. It is a point of great importance here that the testimony of St. Irenaeus and of St. Ilegisippus was polemical. Its immediate purpose was to refute heresy. The object of both was to prove the orthodoxy of local Churches by the standard of the faith of Rome. And in proof 'o! the genuineness of the faith in the Eternal City, they pointed defiantly to the unbroken succession of the Roman Pontißs from St. Peter, who was the rock-foun-dation of the Church of Christ. 'By this same order and this same successiort,' said St. Irenaeus (' Contra Haeresesr* ni., 3) ' both that tradution which is in the Church from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is the fullest proof that it is the one and the same life-g/lving faith which has been preserved in the Church and handed down in truth from the Apostles even till now.' This was the challenge they flung out ; this the test by which innovations in doctrine were to be tried. The challenge was never taken up. The episcopate of St. Peter was never denied. The succession of the Roman Bishops from him was never questioned. In this matter Tertullian is a witness of the first order of importance, for his testimony is from both inside and outside the Church. While

still a Catholic he (A.D. 200) styled Rome ' the happy Church into which the Apostles poured all their doctrine with their blood ' ; and he stated that St. Peter exercised there the episcopal function of ordaining St. Clement to that See (' De Praescriptione Haereticorum,' xxxii.). Alter he had fallen away from the Church, he bombarded Pope Zephynnus with pamphlets whose language was frequent and free. Yet he never recalled his previous statements. On the contrary, in the first chapter of his 'De Pudicitia ' he bears angry witness to the fact that Zephyriuus claimed a primacy of jurisdiction in the Church by virtue of our Lord's promise to St. Peter : 'On this rock I will build My Church' ; 'To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' etc. He admits that Zephyrinus claims to be ' the Sovereign Pontiff,' and ' the bishop of bishops,' and that, in the discharge of his office, he issued a ' peremptory edict ' to guard from heresy the flock committed to his care. IX. We may add some observations regarding the statement of St. lrenacus, that SS. Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome and gave over the episcopate to Linus. In the second volume of his ' First Age of the Church,' Dr. Doelhnger says:" 'This makes the regulation of the Roman Church and the appointment of Linus a common act of both Apostles, and since then the Roman bishops have been frequently regarded as successors of both. The Roman Church was viewed as inheriting alike 110 m S. Paul Ins prerogative of Apostle of ihe Gentiles, and from S. Peter his dignity as the foundation of the Church, and as possessing the power of the keys.' ' A See,' says Rivmgton (' Primitive Church,' p.p. 23-24), ' founded by two Apostles is not necessarily the See of both or either. The expression settles nothing. St. Gregory founded the See of London, but was not its bishop. If it seemed good to one Apostle to take the See of Rome under his special care and form it to a special relationship, there would be nothing in the fact of the foundation of the community having been due to co-operation to prevent his so doing. It cannot be said that St. James founded the See of Jerusalem, and yet he was its first bishop. And, conversely, although St. Paul, coming on the scene after St. Peter, assisted in the foundation of the organisation of the Christian community at Rome, it was not necessary that he should also be its bishop in the same sense as St. Peter.' ' Catholic theology,' says the same writer in the same work (p. 18), ' has always spoken of the See of Rome as, in some sense, the See of the Two Apostles, Peter and Paul We join these two Apostles together in all our thoughts concerning Rome, when we wish to be precise and explanatory. Rome has inherited from St. Paul the merits of his martyrdom, and a peculiar inheritance of watchful care, as her patron coniointly with St Peter Bui from St Peter she has inherited his character of foundation in a unique sense, as compared mi th the other Apostles (who are also foundations), and that possession of the keys which was bestowed on Peter This possession of the keys is something be} ond their mere use and exercise, such as the rest of the Apostles received tor the purpose of their temporal y mission, as foundeis of Churches throughout the world. Those who do not belong to us aie not gcneially aware that we ne\ei commemorate St. Peter in the Holy Mass, or the other sacicd offices of the Church, without immediately also commemorating St. Paul, nor St Paul without at once adding a memorial of St Peter. The feast of June 29 is not with us the feast of St Peter, as it is on the calendar of the English Church . it is the feast of St Peter and St. Paul. And every Pope sends forth his bulls in the name of the two Apostles As, then, a peison could not argue from the lattei fact, that the See of Rome is not held by us to be in a special sense the Sec of Peter, so neither could one argue, fioni a mentum m any early writer of the relationship of the See of Rome to the two Apostles, that such a writer did not also believe in a special relationship to the Apostle Peter on the part of the same See To prove ■ innlaiity of teaching between primitive and modern Rome, we should look for the use of both expressions. This is exactly what we do find in Teitulhan, who speaks of Rome as the See into which the Apostles Peter and Paul " poured all doctrine (totam doctrinarn)," and says at the same time that St. Clement was ordained to it by St Peter.' In the" same way St. Irenaeus taught lhat, while the Sec of Rome was founded by the two Apostles, St Peter and St. Paul, it was also in a special sense the See of St Peter. The same may be gleamed from the quoted atatement of Tertulhan, given above; and, so far as anything positive can be ascertained from Eiisebnis about the catalogue of Ilegesippus, ' it also,' says Rivmgtnn (p 2~i), 'included a special lelationship of' St. Pctci to that See ' X.

We have so far exceeded the reasonable limits of our space that we can scarcely refer, evein in the most sum-

Mary way, to other testimony of the second century (A.D. 101-200) bearing directly or indirectly upon the Uoman episcopate of St. Peter— to St. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190), St. Dionysius of Corinth (A.D. 170), St. Ignatius, Martyr (A.D. 107), and others. For the same reason we do not refer at present to a few quibbles that are raised by some Anglican writers against the episcopate of St. Peter. If they are advanced we shall Seal adequately with them. And now for a brief glance at the first century. A few years from its close we meet that remarkable document,"the epistle written by Pope St. Clement, the third successor of St. Peter. It was written in AD. 95 or 96 to put an end to the violent dissensions that distracted the Church in Corinth (Greece). Outside the pages of the New Testament, it is The First Document belonging to Christian history. Yet, less than thirty years after the martyrdom of S.S. Peter and Paul, it phows the Church of Rome already in the full exercise of her primatial authority. Moreover, that authority was exercised over a distant Church close to that over which St. John, the Beloved Disciple, still ruled at Ephesus. In his epistle, Clement referred (p. 44) to the tradition which the Church of Rome had received as to the succession of Rulers in the Church ; he exhorted ; he threatened ; he laid claim to the submission and obedience of the troublesome Corinthians on the ground that his words were the words of God, dictated by the Holy Spirit. There was no protest. On the contrary, St. Irenaeus praised the letter. So did St. Ignatius. St. Clement's intervention was completely successful. And the Church in Corinth bound up his letter with the Sacred Scriptures and read it to the faithful on Sundays for many and many a year. Bishop Lightfoot characterises St. Clement's letter as ' urgent and almost imperious,' ' strenuous, even peremptory, in the authoritative tone it assumes ' (' Ignatius and Polycarp,' vol. i., p. 398), and he declares that it is undoubtedly ' the first step towards papal domination.' Dr. Salmon speaks of it as ' the easy and innocent beginning of the Papacy ' (' Introd. N. Test.,' p. 646). Schaff, the noted American Protestant historian, says that St. Clement, in his ' Epistle to the Corinthians,' ' speaks in a tone of authority to a sister Church of apostolic foundation, and Ihus reveals the easy and as yet innocent beginning of the papacy ' ('History of the Christian Church ' — ' Ante-Nicene Christianity,' Div. ii., p. 646, Ed. 1884. Compare also p. 639). A score of other leading Protestant writers might be quoted to the same effect. Even in the troubled days of persecution, and under the Apostohc eye, Pope St. Clement's ' strenuous,' ' peremptory,' authoritative ' epistle furnishes a luminous commentary on the divine promises to St. Peter. It is a Fact which has its sole explanation in the divine Word. And Protestant writers of such distinction as Grotius and Leibnitz, and, in our own day, Hall, Nevin, and many others, have been led by the Pelrine texts, by St. Cle'iicnt's epistle, and by the voice of Christian antiquity to attribute a Primacy to the See of Rome.