An important event in the history of the world took place in the year
61. Paul was led a prisoner to Rome in order to follow up the appeal
which he had made to the tribunal of the emperor. A sort of profound
instinct had always made Paul desire this journey. His arrival at Rome
was almost as marked an event in his life as his conversion. He believed
that he had attained the summit of his apostolic life; and doubtless he
recalled the dream in which, after one of his days of struggle, Christ
had appeared to him, and said, "Be of good cheer, Paul; for as thou hast
testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome."
You will not forget the wide divisions which separated the disciples
of Jesus during the first century from the foundation of
Christianity,--divisions so broad, that all the differences which to-day
separate the orthodox, the heretics, and the schismatics of the whole
world, are nothing beside the dissensions of Peter and Paul. The Church
of Jerusalem, obstinately attached to Judaism, refused all intercourse
with the uncircumcised, however pious they might be. Paul, on the
contrary, thought that to maintain the ancient law was an injury to
Jesus, since thus it might be supposed, that, outside the merits of
Jesus, such or such a work could serve for the justification of the
faithful. However strange it may appear, it is certain that the
Judæan-Christians of Jerusalem, with James at their head, organized some
active contra-missions in order to combat the effect of the missions of
Paul, and that the emissaries of these ardent conservatives followed in
some sort the lead of the apostle of the Gentiles. Peter belonged to the
party at Jerusalem, but showed in his conduct that sort of timid
moderation which seems to have been the foundation of his character. Did
Peter also come to Rome? Formerly, gentlemen, this question was one of
the most exciting which could be agitated. Formerly the history of
religion was written, not to recount it, but in order to prove it:
religious history was an annex of theology. During the grand revolt, so
full of courage and of ardent conviction, which, during the sixteenth
century, placed one-half of Europe in opposition to Rome, the negation
of the sojourn of Peter at Rome became a sort of dogma. The Bishop of
Rome is the successor of St. Peter, said the Catholics, and as such the
head of Christendom. How could that reasoning be more strongly refuted
than by maintaining that Peter never placed his foot in Rome?
As for us, we are permitted to regard this question with the most
perfect disinterestedness. We do not believe, in any sense, that Jesus
intended to give any head whatever to his church; and above all, it is
doubtful whether the idea of such a church as developed later had
existed in the mind of the founder of Christianity. The word _ecclesia_
occurs only in the Gospel of St. Matthew. The idea of the _episcopos_,
as it existed in the second century, had no place in the mind of Jesus.
He himself was the living _episcopos_ during his brief Galilean
appearance: from that time it is the Spirit who inspires each one until
he may return. In any case, if it had been possible that Jesus should
have had any idea whatever of the _ecclesia_ and _episcopos_, it is
absolutely beyond doubt, that Jesus never thought of giving the future
_episcopos_ of the city of Rome to be the head of his church,--that
impious city, the centre of all the impurities of the earth, of whose
existence he perhaps knew scarcely any thing, and of which he should
have entertained the gloomy opinions which all the Jews professed. If
there is any thing in the world which was not instituted by Jesus, it is
the Papacy, that is to say, the idea that the Church is a monarchy. We
are, then, perfectly at liberty to discuss the question of Peter's
coming to Rome. This question is absolutely without consequence for us;
and from our solution the only result will be to say whether Leo XIII.
is or is not the head of the Christian conscience. Whether Peter was or
was not in Rome, it has for us no political nor moral bearing. It is a
curious question of history: it is useless to pursue it further.
First, let us say, that the Catholics have laid themselves open to the
peremptory objections of their adversaries by their unfortunate
reckoning of the coming of Peter to Rome in the year 42,--a reckoning
borrowed from Eusebius and St. Jerome, which extends the duration of the
pontificate of Peter to twenty-three or twenty-four years. There is
nothing more inadmissible. In order to leave no doubt in regard to this,
it is sufficient to consider that the persecution of Peter at Jerusalem
by Herod Agrippa occurred in the year 44. It would be superfluous to
oppose longer a thesis which can have no one reasonable defence. It is
possible, in fact, to go much further, and to affirm that Peter had not
yet come to Rome when Paul was taken there, that is to say, in the year
61. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, written about the year 58, is a
very considerable argument here. One can scarcely imagine St. Paul
writing to the faithful, of whom St. Peter was the head, without making
the least mention of the latter. The last chapter of the Acts of the
Apostles is still more demonstrative. This chapter, especially from the
seventeenth to the twenty-ninth verse, cannot be explained, if Peter
was at Rome when Paul arrived there. Let us, then, consider it
absolutely certain that Peter did not come to Rome before Paul, that is
to say, before or about the year 61.
But did he not come there after Paul? This has never been positively
proved; this late journey of Peter's to Rome was not only probable, but
there are strong arguments in its favor. Besides the testimony of the
Fathers of the second and third centuries, there are three reasons which
do not appear to me unworthy:--
1st, It is indisputably certain that Peter suffered a martyr's death.
The testimony of the fourth evangelist, of Clement Romanus, of the
fragment which is called the "_Canon de Muratori_," of Denis of Corinth,
of Caius, of Tertullian, leave no doubt in this respect. Let the fourth
Gospel be apocryphal, allow that chapter xxi. has been added in later
times, it makes no difference. It is clear, that, in the verses in which
Jesus announces to Peter that he shall die by the same suffering as his
own, we have the expression of an opinion established in the Church
about 120 or 130, to which allusions are made as to a fact known to all.
Now, it is not possible to imagine that Peter died a martyr outside of
Rome. It was only at Rome, in fact, that the persecution of Nero was
violent. At Jerusalem, at Antioch, the martyrdom of Peter would have
been much less probable.
2d, The second reason is found in the Epistle attributed to St. Peter
(v. 13): "The church that is at Babylon ... saluteth you." Babylon, in
this passage, evidently indicates Rome. If the Epistle is authentic, the
passage is decisive: if it is apocryphal, the conclusion to be drawn
from the text is not weakened. The author, in short, whoever he may be,
wishes it to be regarded as the work of Peter. He was consequently
forced, in order to give an appearance of truth to his fraud, to arrange
the circumstances which he related, according to what he knew, or
believed was known in his time, of the life of Peter. If, in such a
spirit, he dated the letter at Rome, it shows, that, in his day, it was
the general opinion that Peter had resided at Rome. But, in any case,
the First Epistle of Peter is a very ancient work, and had very early a
high authority.
3d, The theory which is founded upon the Ebionite Acts of St. Peter is
also worthy of much consideration. This theory represents St. Peter as
following Simon the Magician everywhere (according to St. Paul), in
order to dispute his false doctrines. M. Lipsius has shown an admirable
critical sagacity in his analysis of this legend. He has shown that the
base of all the different versions of it which have come to us was
written about the year 130. It seems improbable that an Ebionite author
of such early date could have given so much importance to Peter's
journey to Rome, if this journey had not taken place in reality. The
theory of the Ebionite legend must contain some truth at the bottom, in
spite of the fables which are mingled with it. It is quite admissible
that St. Peter might have come to Rome, as he went to Antioch, following
St. Paul, and in part to neutralize his influence. The missions of St.
Paul, and the facility which the Jews had acquired in their voyages had
made long expeditions quite the custom. The apostle Philip is even
represented by an ancient and persistent tradition as having settled
himself in Hierapolis, in Asia Minor.
I regard, then, as probable, the tradition of the sojourn of Peter at
Rome; but I believe that this sojourn was short, and that Peter suffered
martyrdom soon after his arrival in the Eternal City.