THE ROMAN CHURCH AND PETER'S PRIMACY
OUTLINE: I.--Planting of the church in Rome and its
organisation there. II.--The two opposing views of the Petrine
theory. III.--Proofs advanced for the Petrine theory.
IV.--Evidence given against the Petrine theory. V.--Historical
conclusions. VI.--Sources.
Reports concerning the teachings and labours of Jesus must have early
reached Rome.[71:1] A perpetual stream of strangers and provincials
flowed into Rome from every quarter of the Empire, hence every new
creed, theory, and organisation was soon known in the capital.[71:2]
Roman merchants, sailors, soldiers, or public officials, or the Jews, or
the Greeks, might have carried news of the new sect to the heart of
imperial power. Tertullian mentions the legend that Emperor Tiberius
sought to include Jesus among the Roman gods, but his plan was
frustrated by the Roman Senate.[71:3] Eusebius declared that this same
ruler, "being obviously pleased with the doctrine," threatened "death to
the accusers of the Christians."[71:4] It seems reasonable to conclude,
then, that Christianity, soon after its birth, was introduced into the
Eternal City.
It appears clear, too, that Christian converts were early won in Rome,
or else migrated thither from other parts of the Empire. It is not at
all improbable that many of these early Christians in the capital were
Jews.[72:1] Paul said that upon his arrival in Italy he "found brethren"
at Puteoli and that a week later Christians came out of the city of Rome
to greet him.[72:2] It is also quite probable that these various
Christian communities in Italy had already created loose local
organisations. Paul, during his prolonged stay in Rome, undoubtedly
converted many to the new faith and laboured to perfect their Church
organisation.[72:3] The magnificent work done by this Apostle in
promulgating the new faith throughout western Europe was sealed by a
martyr's death at Rome.[72:4]
It appears, also, that the Apostle Peter laboured at Rome, probably
after Paul, and completed the organisation of the Church. Tradition
likewise gives him a martyr's crown. The Roman Church, therefore,
founded by two Apostles and nourished by their heroic blood, was a
double apostolic seat. This unusual origin, coupled with the fact of
location in the heart of the world, together with a hundred other
causes, made the Roman Church very conspicuous from the first and
enabled it to become the determining factor in Western civilisation for
fifteen hundred years. Under these circumstances it was but natural that
the head of the Roman Church should come to have superior respect,
primacy in rank, and leadership in power, first in Italy, and then
throughout western Europe.
The mother Church in Rome was imbued with great missionary zeal, and
spread the new faith with extraordinary rapidity. In 64 A.D. the
Christians in Rome, according to the heathen historian Tacitus,
constituted a "huge multitude."[73:1] By 250 the Roman bishop ruled over
forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two
acolytes, and fifty readers, exorcists, and porters.[73:2] The
Christians in Rome, a city of possibly one million, numbered at least
fifty thousand as estimated by Gibbon[73:3] and possibly three times
that many as reckoned by later investigators.[73:4] Optatus, Bishop of
Mileve in Numidia, asserted that in 300 there were forty churches in the
Eternal City. While possibly a few churches may have been planted in
western Europe independently, just as in Rome, still, in general,
Christianity was disseminated throughout western Europe and the western
part of northern Africa through the apostolic organisation in the
capital city. Paul may have even made a visit to Spain.[73:5] Bede says
that King Lucius asked the Roman bishop in 156 to send missionaries to
Britain[73:6] and Tertullian confirmed the declaration.[73:7] In France
a church was planted at Lyons in 177 and another at Vienne.[73:8] In the
third century, asserts Gregory of Tours, seven Roman missionaries went
to Gaul and there became seven bishops with subordinate churches. The
famous St. Denis of Paris was one of these pioneers.[74:1] Christianity
was likewise early carried into Germany (cis-Rhenana)[74:2] and across
the Mediterranean to north-western Africa.[74:3] It is a matter of no
great surprise, therefore, to see the Roman Church revered as the great
mother Church of the West. Paul speaks of the faith of Rome as
"proclaimed throughout the whole world."[74:4]
The process of Church organisation at Rome was no doubt quite similar to
that described in the preceding chapter, with this difference, however,
that the episcopal system was either present from the time Peter and
Paul appointed a successor, or at least began very early. Through his
presbyters, or priests, the Bishop of Rome at first ruled over a number
of separate communities in the city. As the faithful spread the gospel
beyond the walls, churches were organised in the villages and
jurisdiction over them became vested in priests sent out by the bishops.
In time, however, the churches in the chief centres of population
demanded bishops of their own; they were appointed, or elected, under
influence from Rome, and, consequently, acknowledged allegiance to the
Roman See. There is incontrovertible evidence that by the fourth century
every city in Italy had a bishop. The village bishops naturally looked
to the city bishops for assistance and advice. The city bishops
similarly depended upon the bishop in the capital of the province, and
the provincial bishop in like manner recognised the superiority of the
bishop in the capital of the Empire. Thus the power of the Roman bishop
was gradually extended first over Italy and then over western Europe.
The consciousness of a unity of belief, unity of interest, and unity of
purpose developed comparatively early among the churches. A name for
this unity is first found in Ignatius and was the Universal or Catholic
Church.[75:1] Before long the Bishop of Rome was to claim, by divine
appointment and arrangement, sovereign jurisdiction over the great
organisation.
The classes won to the new faith in the city of Rome through the zeal of
the Roman Christians included representatives from the slave to the
imperial family. The earliest converts may have been the Jews, who were
quite numerous in the Eternal City, and who best understood the
significance of Christianity. The hope and faith and love of the new
teaching appealed powerfully to the lowest social classes--the wretched
slave and the impoverished freedman.[75:2] The need and the truth of
this lofty, universal creed also won adherents from the great creative
middle class--including not only the educated but also the soldiers,
tradespeople, farmers, imperial officials, and skilled workmen. In fact
the marvellous vitality and the unparalleled growth of Christianity in
Rome can be explained satisfactorily only upon the supposition that the
representation of this class was very great.[75:3] From the nobility
converts were likewise secured and even in the Emperor's household
followers were found.[76:1] In short, the whole social and moral
structure of Rome was leavened by the new ideas.
Along with this unparalleled growth of the power of the Roman bishop was
created the Petrine theory destined to have a powerful effect on the
history of the Church. Since an inquiry into this theory has a peculiar
significance for the Roman Catholic, the Greek Catholic, and the
Protestant, it is necessary to consider the subject rather carefully
from the standpoint of both its advocates and opponents.
The Roman Catholic belief is that Jesus came to organise His Church on
earth; that He appointed Peter to be his successor and head of the
Church; that Peter went to Rome, established the Church there in the
great capital city, laboured as its head twenty-five years, and died
there as a martyr; that Peter transmitted his leadership and primacy to
the Bishop of Rome, whom he appointed as his successor, and who in turn
transferred it to succeeding popes; that the Roman Church, therefore, is
the only true Church, and that these contentions are conclusively proved
from the Bible, the Church Fathers, traditions, and monuments.[76:2]
The Greek Catholic view coincides with Rome in asserting the divine
origin of the Church. A certain honourable primacy is conceded to the
Apostle Peter; and to his successors at Rome, as patriarchs of the West,
is granted a kind of supreme leadership in the Church. But the
patriarchs of the East are put on an equality with the Pope of Rome, and
thus the extreme claims of the Petrine theory are denied.
Protestant opinion on the other hand takes two forms:
1. The pro-Petrine view, held chiefly by the Episcopalians, maintains
that Jesus turned His Church over to all His Apostles; that upon their
death they transmitted their leadership to succeeding bishops; that
Peter was in Rome and, with Paul, helped to organise the Church there,
and appointed a successor through whom apostolic power has been
transmitted to all bishops appointed by the Bishop of Rome, or by his
appointees, where it now resides; that bishops and their successors
appointed by Apostles other than Peter have just as much power as the
Bishop of Rome, because the fruits of Peter's work are merely the most
marked, but not necessarily the only divine or the most divine; that
adequate proofs of this position are found in history, the Church
Fathers, and the Scriptures.
2. The anti-Petrine view, taken by most Protestants, asserts that Jesus
left no Church organisation; that he did not appoint Peter as his
successor; that whatever leadership Peter had, came from his temperament
and natural ability; that there is no positive proof of Peter's being in
Rome, consequently he could not have founded the Church there and named
a successor; that therefore the Roman Catholic Church is not the only
true Church, and that abundant proof of this position can be supplied.
It may be well now to examine the proof offered in support of the
Petrine theory under the four following heads:
1. _Peter's primacy._ Jesus said to Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my Church; . . . And I will give unto thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven."[78:1] No such words were addressed to any other
Apostle, hence Peter is the foundation-stone of the Church. Just as God
changed Abram's name to Abraham, when he called him to be the father of
a mighty nation, so Jesus gave Peter a new name.[78:2] Peter was chosen
to be present with James and John on important occasions, like the
healing of the daughter of Jairus[78:3]; the glorification of
Jesus[78:4]; the struggle in Gethsemane[78:5]; and on all these
occasions Peter is named first in the record. He likewise was the first
to whom the risen Christ appeared.[78:6] Before His ascension Jesus gave
Peter charge over His whole fold--laity, priests, and bishops,--when He
commanded, "Feed my sheep," and twice repeated, "Feed my lambs."[78:7]
These facts are sufficient, it is believed, to warrant the belief that
Jesus appointed Peter to be the head of His Church.
2. _Peter's exercise of his primacy._ Next to Jesus, he stands head and
shoulders above all the other Apostles in his activity. The first twelve
chapters of Acts are devoted to him. His name always comes first in the
lists of Apostles, and Judas Iscariot's last.[79:1] He performed the
first recorded miracle,[79:2] and was the first to address the Jews in
Jerusalem, while the other Apostles stood around to see three thousand
converted.[79:3] He was first to win converts from both the Jews[79:4]
and from the Gentiles,--Cornelius and his friends.[79:5] He was the
first to inflict ecclesiastical punishment on offenders.[79:6] He fought
the first heretic in the Christian Church.[79:7] He made the earliest
apostolic visitation of the churches.[79:8] When a successor to Judas
was chosen, Peter alone spoke, and the other Apostles silently acted on
his advice.[79:9] In the council of Jerusalem Peter first spoke, when
the disputes ceased and "all the multitude kept silence"; even James
obeyed.[79:10] James was beheaded by Herod, but no tumult resulted.
Peter was imprisoned about the same time, and the whole Church was
aroused about it.[79:11] St. Paul himself plainly admitted Peter's
pre-eminence.[79:12] These deeds clearly indicate, it is contended, that
Peter consciously exercised the primacy bestowed upon him, and that his
fellow Apostles recognised it.
3. _Peter's visit to Rome, and martyrdom there._ Peter's First Epistle,
addressed from "Babylon," naturally interpreted, proves that he wrote
it in Rome.[80:1] Clement of Rome (96 A.D.) said, "Let us set before our
eyes the good Apostles,--Peter, who endured many labours, and having
borne his witness, went to the appointed place of glory," etc.[80:2]
Ignatius of Antioch (115), in a letter to the Romans, mentions Peter as
having exhorted them. Papias (130) interpreted 1 Peter v., 13 to mean
Rome.[80:3] Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (170), wrote Soter, Bishop of
Rome, about the common activity of Peter and Paul in Italy.[80:4]
Irenæus (190) wrote, "Matthew . . . published his Gospel while Peter and
Paul were preaching at Rome, and founding the Church there."[80:5]
Clement of Alexandria (200) said that Peter, "the elect, the chosen one,
the first of the disciples," preached at Rome.[80:6] Tertullian (200)
positively asserted Peter's presence in Rome, and is the first to
describe the manner of his death, in Nero's reign.[80:7] Origen (250)
declared that Peter was the great foundation of the Church, and that "at
last, having arrived in Rome, he was crucified, head downward, having
himself requested that he might so suffer."[80:8] Commodion (250) named
Peter and Paul as Neronian martyrs; and Caius, a Roman presbyter (250),
makes a like assertion.[80:9] Cyprian (d. 258) was the first to call
Rome the _locum Petri_, while Hippolytus recorded Peter's conflict with
Simon Magnus at Rome.[81:1] The Muratorian Canon referred to the
"passion of Peter" in close connection with Paul's journey to
Rome.[81:2] Peter of Alexandria (306) believed Peter was crucified
there, and Lactantius accepted it as undoubted.[81:3] "The Doctrine of
Addai" (fourth century) of the Syriac Church mentioned the "Epistles of
Paul which Simon Peter sent us from the City of Rome."[81:4] Eusebius,
using all previous testimony, made the most complete and convincing
statement, which caps the climax of the overwhelming proof.[81:5] The
"Deposito Martyrum" gave the report of the removal of the two Apostles'
bodies in 258 to the catacombs. Jerome (d. 420) added the information
that Peter laboured twenty-five years in Rome before his
martyrdom.[81:6]
4. _Peter as the first Pope in Rome._ With the establishment of Peter's
primacy and his presence in Rome, it is certainly warrantable to
conclude that he perfected the organisation of the Church there and
served as its head until his death, when he appointed a successor.
Clement (96) and Ignatius (115), Dionysius (170) and Irenæus (190),
Commodion (250) and Lactantius (d. 330), all in speaking of Peter and
Paul as founders of the Roman Church, always name Peter first. Ignatius
spoke of the "presidency" of the Roman Church under Peter, and
Tertullian (b. 160) asserted that Jesus gave the keys to Peter, the
"Bishop of Bishops" at Rome, and through him to the Church. Origen (d.
254) called Peter "the Prince of the Apostles" and "the great foundation
of the Church." All the earliest lists of Popes began with Peter and
indicate the transmission of his power.[82:1] Cyprian (d. 258) gave the
complete statement of the primacy of the Roman bishop and the unity of
the Church through Peter and Jesus.[82:2]
This sums up, essentially, all the proofs offered in support of the
Petrine theory, and constitutes, it must be confessed, a powerful and
consistent case.
It is necessary now, in the next place, to look at the evidence offered
in opposition to the Petrine theory. For the sake of clearness, this
evidence will be given under the four heads just employed:
1. _Peter's primacy._ The famous passage, "Thou art Peter," etc.,
correctly interpreted, does not warrant a belief in Peter's primacy.
"Peter" may mean "rock" ("cephas"), but it here refers to Christ, not
Peter, or to Peter's confession, just made,[82:3] or to Peter's faith,
or to Peter merely as a type of all the Apostles.[82:4] Furthermore the
commission to "bind" and to "loose" and the promise connected with it
were not intended exclusively for Peter but for all the Apostles[83:1];
Peter stood only for a type.[83:2] The change of Peter's name does not
carry with it any special significance. Peter himself never mentioned
his primacy in his speeches or writings,[83:3] and nowhere else in the
New Testament is it distinctly stated or recognised by others. Whatever
natural capacity for leadership Peter may have possessed, it cannot be
proved that he received an official primacy. Such a position would have
conflicted likewise with the supremacy of Jesus.
2. _Peter's exercise of his primacy._ The numerous instances where Peter
took the lead, or acted, or spoke first,[83:4] or where his name heads
lists of Apostles,[83:5] merely show that he was a man of impulsive,
aggressive character, who would and did naturally take the lead in
powers common to all the Apostles. At the council of Jerusalem Peter did
not preside, as he would have done if he was the recognised "Prince of
the Apostles," but only made the first speech.[83:6] Paul would not have
rebuked Peter to his face about some very important points had Peter
been the recognised head of the Church.[83:7] Peter was a coward,
braggart, and traitor, and was reproved again and again by Jesus
Himself,[83:8] who would not have chosen such a person to be the head of
the Church. There is not a single reference in the New Testament to
show that Peter ever attempted to exercise a primacy over his
companions. He called himself a fellow "elder."[84:1]
3. _Peter's presence in Rome._ There is not a syllable in the New
Testament to warrant the conclusion that Peter was in Rome. Inference
alone makes "Babylon"[84:2] the Eternal City. On the contrary, there are
implications in the Scriptures that he was not in Rome. Paul in his
Epistle to the Romans greeted all his friends, but said not a word about
Peter. This would clearly indicate that Peter had not been in Rome
before this Epistle was written, nor at the time it was written. Again
in letters written from Rome, Paul is strangely silent about Peter's
presence. The claim rests wholly upon tradition, therefore, and that is
far from conclusive. There is a significant silence from the time of 2
Peter until that of Clement (96). Clement, to be sure, mentions Peter's
martyrdom; but it is only by inference that the place is Rome. Not until
well on in the second century did the legend about Peter's connection
with Rome begin to circulate, and not until the third century did
Tertullian assert positively that Peter was martyred in Rome under Nero.
After that the assertion was generally accepted over the Church as a
truth.[84:3]
4. _Peter as the first Roman Pope._ This, of course, is precluded by the
want of adequate evidence of Peter's presence and labours in Rome.
The evidence adduced here ends with the sweeping denial of every claim
of the Petrine theory.
Having now stated the two sides of the question here still remains the
duty of making the historical summary from the sources available,
namely, both the canonical and apocryphal books of the New Testament,
and the traditional evidence in the Church Fathers. The New Testament,
as the most important source of information, reveals Peter's
birthplace,[85:1] occupation,[85:2] marriage,[85:3] call by Jesus,[85:4]
and elevation to apostleship.[85:5] It shows the conspicuous leadership
of Peter in the apostolic college--indeed, a primacy which Jesus Himself
recognised,--yet leaves the character of that primacy and the power to
transfer it to a successor open to question. The New Testament evidence
does not give any clue to Peter's movements after Paul's notice of him
in Galatians ii. except the reference in 1 Peter, which naturally, but
not literally, interpreted might indicate that he was in Rome (Babylon).
It likewise affords very scanty grounds, therefore, for believing that
Peter first established the Church in Rome, or that he was the first
Bishop of Rome, or that he conferred his power upon a successor.
Traditional evidence, on the contrary, is more favourable to Peter's
presence in Rome. No one can possibly doubt that the Petrine theory was
generally believed in western Christendom at least after the third
century. Prior to the third century, there are many streams of testimony
which converge in positive support of at least a portion of the Petrine
theory:
1. The official lists and records of the Roman Church, some of which
must rest upon earlier sources, accept the whole question as proved and
recognised generally.
2. The transference of Peter's remains to a new resting place in 258
shows that the tradition was definite and unquestioned early in the
third century.
3. The writings of Caius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian
indicate that the theory was accepted in Asia, Alexandria, Carthage, and
Rome at the same period.
4. A passage from Irenæus, who probably used the official documents in
Rome and who may have known St. John and his companions, carries the
legend back to the second century.
5. The testimony of Dionysius of Corinth (d. 165), Papias, and Ignatius
(d. 114) carries the belief back through the second to the first
century.
6. The clear testimony of Clement of Rome makes a connecting link at the
close of the first century.
Hence when the various pieces of evidence--the official sources, the
monumental testimony, and the writings of the early Fathers,--which are
independent and consistent, are combined they form a solid body of
proof, which is practically irresistible, that Peter was in Rome.
Likewise the absolute absence of any rival tradition from other cities
adds greatly to the probability.
Peter's presence and death in Rome may be admitted as an established
fact. If in Rome, whether one year or twenty-five years, Peter, with his
aggressive nature, with his marked ability for leadership, and with his
capacity for organisation, must have had a great deal to do with the
establishment of the Roman Church, either jointly with Paul, or
independently of him. Nor does it seem to be a misuse of the law of
historical probabilities to assert that Peter, either with Paul or
without him, appointed a bishop for the Church of Rome and transferred
to that bishop his apostolic authority. From these facts, based almost
entirely upon traditional evidence, coupled with the peculiar primacy
conceded to Peter in the New Testament by his fellow Apostles, gradually
developed the Petrine theory with all its sweeping claims.
The admission of the belief that the Petrine theory is founded on
certain established facts, and not merely on fancies and myths, does not
carry with it the recognition of all the assertions which form a part of
that theory. Peter's unique leadership in the apostolic college, his
activity in founding the Roman Church, and his naming of a successor,
who in time became the Pope, may all be granted without carrying with it
the necessity of accepting the assertion that Christ chose Peter to be
the head of a definite, divinely-planned Church and that Peter,
conscious of that great mission, went to the capital of the Roman
Empire, and there organised the only true Church on earth.
SOURCES
A.--PRIMARY:
I.--CHRISTIAN:
1.--=New Testament= (27 canonical books).
2.--=New Testament Apocrypha= (see Chap. III).
3.--=Church Fathers:=
1.--Clement of Rome. _Ante-Nic. Christ. Lib._, i., ch. 5;
iii., ch. 12 ff.; Am. ed., ix.
2.--Ignatius. _Ib._, i., 137 ff., 449 ff.
3.--Papias. _Ib._, i., 441 ff.
4.--Dionysius of Corinth (d. 178?). Euseb., ii., 25.
5.--Clement of Alexandria (d. 218?), _Miscellanies_.
_Ante-Nic. Christ. Lib._, iv., 355; xii., 326, 379, 451,
452; Am. ed., ii.
6.--Irenæus. _Ib._, i., 261; Am. ed., i.
7.--Tertullian. _Ib._, ii., 408; xv., 25; xviii., 118; Am.
ed., iii., iv.
8.--Origen. _Ib._, xxiii., 1-3; Am. ed., iv.
9.--Hippolytus. _Ib._, ix., 130.
10.--Peter of Alexandria (d. 311). _Ib._, xiv., 305, 318.
11.--Caius of Rome (210?). Euseb., ii., 25; iii., 28; v., 28;
vi., 20. _Ante-Nic. Fathers_, v.
II. NON-CHRISTIAN:
1.--Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._ Many eds.
2.--Socrates, _Eccl. Hist._ _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, ii.,
109.
3.--Theodoret, _Letters_. No. 86. _Ib._, iii., 282.
4.--Josephus and Philo. See Chap. IV.
5.--Heathen writers like Lucan, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius,
Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian. See Chaps. III. and IV.
B.--SECONDARY:
I.--SPECIAL:
1.--Allies, T. W., _St. Peter: His Name and His Office_.
Lond., 1895.
2.--Allmatt, C. F. B., _Cathedra Petri_. Lond., 1884. _Was St.
Peter Bishop of Rome?_ Lond., 1887.
3.--Barnes, A. S., _St. Peter in Rome and His Tomb in the
Vatican Hill_. Lond., 1900.
4.--Berington and Kirk, _Faith of the Catholics_. 3 vols. N.
Y., 1885.
5.--Birks, H. A., _Studies in the Life and Character of St.
Peter_. Lond., 1887.
6.--Bright, W., _The Roman See in the Early Church_. Lond.,
1896.
7.--Brown, J. H., _Peter the Apostle never in Rome_. Lond.,
1861.
8.--Bruce, A. B., _Training of the Twelve_. N. Y., 1871.
9.--Darby, W. A., _St. Peter at Rome_. Lond., 1872.
10.--Ellendorf, J., _St. Peter: Was He ever at Rome and a
Bishop of the Church of Rome?_ Lond., 1887.
11.--Fouard, C., _St. Peter and the First Years of
Christianity_. N. Y., 1892.
12.--Gallagher, M., _Was the Apostle Peter ever at Rome?_ N.
Y., 1894.
13.--Green, S. G., _The Apostle Peter: His Life and Letters_.
Lond., 1873.
14.--Hatch, E., "Peter," _Encyc. Brit._
15.--Hodder, E., _Simon Peter: His Life_. Lond., 1893.
16.--Kenrick, F. P., _The Primacy of the Apostolic See
Vindicated_. Phil., 1855.
17.--Lightfoot, J. B., _St. Peter in Rome_. _Clement_, ii.,
481. Lond., 1890.
18.--Littledale, R. F., _The Petrine Claims_. N. Y., 1889.
19.--Livius, T., _St. Peter, Bishop of Rome_. Lond., 1902.
20.--Murphy, J. N., _The Chair of St. Peter_. Lond., 1888.
21.--Puller, F. W., _The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome_.
Lond., 1900.
22.--Ramsay, W. M., _The Church in the Roman Empire_. Lond.,
1893.
23.--Rivington, L., _The Primitive Church and the See of St.
Peter_. N. Y., 1894.
24.--Robins, S., _Against the Claims of the Roman Church_.
Lond., 1853.
25.--Robinson, C. S., _Simon Peter: His Life and Times_. 2
vols. Lond., 1890-5.
26.--Ryberg, A. V., _Roman Legends about the Apostles Paul and
Peter_. Lond., 1898.
27.--Simon, T. C., _The Mission and Martyrdom of St Peter_.
Lond., 1852.
II.--GENERAL:
Alzog, i., 117-133. Backhouse, 76, 229. Bartlett, 297 ff., 364
ff. Blunt, i., 10, 24, 28, 43, 45. Bouzique, i., ch. 1. Brock,
ch. 2, 3. Cheetham, ch. 2, § 5; ch. 4, § 5. Cox, i., ch. 10,
11. Darras, i., ch. 1-3. Döllinger, _First Age_, i., 71-83;
ii., 115, 145; _Hist. of Ch._, i., ch. 3, § 4. Duff, ch. 7.
Farrar, bk. ii., ch. 5-11. Fisher, 18, 20, 23, 26, 43, 57,
106. Gibbon, ch. 9, 10. Gieseler, i., § 27. Giles, ch. 16.
Gilmartin, i., ch. 2, pp. 28, 29. Greenwood, i., ch. 1-3.
Hase, 30. Hurst, i., 104-106, 325. Jackson, ch. 3, 11.
Jennings, i., ch. 1. Killen, § 1, ch. 10. Kurtz, i., 45.
Mahan, bk. i., ch. 8. Milman, i., ch. 1. Milner, i., cent. 1,
ch. 12. Moeller, i., 345. Neander, _Planting_, etc., i., bk.
iv., ch. 2; _Ch. Hist._, i., 84, 203, 211. Pressensé, _Early
Years of Christ._ 10 ff., 64, 176. Renan, _The Apostles_, ch.
6. Robertson, bk. i., ch. 8, p. 160. Schaff, _Apost. Age_, bk.
i., ch. 4; _Ch. Hist._, pd. i., ch. 4. Stanley, _Apost. Age_,
1-5, 56-114. Walpole, ch. 1-3.
FOOTNOTES:
[71:1] Moeller, i., 67, 75; _cf._ Acts xviii., 1-3.
[71:2] Gibbon, i., 579.
[71:3] _Apol._, 5; Suetonius, _Life of Claudius_, 25.
[71:4] Euseb., ii., c. 2.
[72:1] Shortly before the Christian era the Jews were so numerous that
8000 could sign a petition to the Emperor.--Josephus, _Antiq._, xvii.,
c. 11.
[72:2] Acts xxviii., 14-16; Ramsay, _St. Paul_, ch. 15.
[72:3] Acts xxviii., 24, 30, 31.
[72:4] Euseb., ii., c. 22.
[73:1] _Annals_, xv., 44.
[73:2] Euseb., vi., c. 43.
[73:3] Gibbon, i., ch. 15.
[73:4] Orr, _Neglected Factors_, 39.
[73:5] Rom. xv., 24; _Muratorian Fragment_; Clement of Rome, _To
Corinth_, c. 5; Alzog, i. 125; Kurtz, i., 44.
[73:6] _Eccl. Hist._, c. 4.
[73:7] _Against Jud._, c. 7.
[73:8] Euseb., v., c. 1.
[74:1] _Annales Francorum._
[74:2] Irenæus, _Against Her._, i., c. 10.
[74:3] Tertullian, _Apol._, c. 37; Cyprian, _Ep._, 71, 73; Augustine,
_On Bap._, ii., c. 13.
[74:4] Rom. i., 8.
[75:1] The pagan writer Celsus was familiar with this idea as early as
161 A.D.
[75:2] But nothing could be farther from the truth than Gibbon's
statement that the Christians were won "almost entirely" from the "dregs
of the populace." See Orr, _Neglected Factors_.
[75:3] Ramsay in his _Church in the Roman Empire_, 57, goes so far as to
say that the new faith "spread at first among the educated more rapidly
than among the uneducated." This statement, however, is probably an
exaggeration. See an excellent discussion in Orr, _Neglected Factors_,
95-163; Merivale, _The Romans under the Empire_, ch. 54.
[76:1] Phil. iv., 22; Lightfoot, _Philippians_, 171 ff.; Howson, _St.
Paul_, ch. 26; Weizäcker, _Apost. Age_, ii., 132; Harnack, _Princeton
Rev._, 1878, p. 257; Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, iii., c. 18.
[76:2] Alzog, i., §§ 48, 52, 53; Berington and Kirk, ii., 1-113;
Gibbons, _Faith of Our Fathers_; _Cath. Encyc._
[78:1] Matt. xvi., 18, 19. In Syro-Chaldaic, the tongue probably used by
Jesus, "Peter" means "rock" or "cephas." The only parallel in modern
languages is in French: "Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre," etc. _Cf._
John i., 42.
[78:2] John i., 42.
[78:3] Mark v., 37; Luke viii., 51.
[78:4] Matt. xvii., 1; Mark ix., 2; Luke ix., 28.
[78:5] Matt. xxvi., 37; Mark xiv., 33.
[78:6] Luke xxiv., 12, 34; _cf._ John xx., 2-10; Weizäcker, i., § 3.
[78:7] Luke xxii., 31-32; John xxi., 15-18.
[79:1] Matt. x., 2-4; Mark iii., 16-19; Luke vi., 14-16; Acts i., 13.
[79:2] Acts iii., 1-12.
[79:3] Acts ii., 14-41.
[79:4] Acts ii., 41.
[79:5] Acts x.
[79:6] Acts v., 1 ff.
[79:7] Acts viii., 21.
[79:8] Acts ix., 32.
[79:9] Acts i., 13-26.
[79:10] Acts xv., 6-12.
[79:11] Acts xii.
[79:12] Gal. i., 18; ii., 11.
[80:1] 1 Peter v., 13. St. John everywhere in his Apocalypse calls Rome
Babylon: xiv., 8; xvii., 18.
[80:2] _1 Ep. to Corinth_, Sec. 5.
[80:3] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, ii., c. 15; iii., c. 39.
[80:4] _Ib._, ii., c. 25.
[80:5] _Against Heresy_, iii., 3, No. 2.
[80:6] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, vi., c. 14.
[80:7] _De Præsc. Hæret._ c. 36.
[80:8] _Cf._ Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, iii., c. 1.
[80:9] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, ii., c. 25.
[81:1] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, ii., c. 13, 14.
[81:2] James, _Apocr. Anecdota_, ii., p. x.
[81:3] _Inst. Div._, iv., 21.
[81:4] Cureton, _Ancient Syriac Docs._, 33.
[81:5] _Eccl. Hist._, ii., c. 14, 15, 17, 25; iii., 21, 31; v., 6.
[81:6] For passages from later writers consult Lipsius, 236, Ramsay,
Harnack, Farrar, Lightfoot, McGiffert, Schaff, Renan, Neander, Lea,
Kurtz, Hase, Moeller, etc.
[82:1] Hegesippus made a list of bishops in Rome in the time of Anicetus
(155-168) but it is now lost (Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, iv., c. 22).
Eusebius used that list, and also gave two lists of his own in Greek
with Peter as the first (_Chronicon_, ii.; _Eccl. Hist._, v., c. 6). The
first Latin list is the _Catalogus Liberianus_ (352?), based upon
earlier lists. St. Augustine (_Ep._ 53) and Optatus (_Donatist Schism_,
ii., 3) both give Latin lists. These lists show how early the whole
Church recognised the importance of the succession of Roman bishops. The
list made out by Irenæus in the time of Bishop Eleutherus (174-189)
gives Peter and Paul as the joint founders of the Church.
[82:2] _Epistles_ 43, 5; 55; 59, 7 and 14; 71, 3; 73, 7; 75, 17;
_Ante-Nic. Fathers_, v., 263-596; Robinson, _Readings_, i., ch. 4.
[82:3] Matt. xvi., 16.
[82:4] Lightfoot, _Clement_, ii., 481-490; Hort, _Ecclesia_, 16.
[83:1] Matt. xviii., 18.
[83:2] John xxi., 15-18; Luke xxii., 31, 32.
[83:3] _Cf._ Acts; 1 Pet. 1-3; 2 Pet.
[83:4] Acts i., 13-26; ii., 14-41; iii., 1-12; x.; xv., 7-12, etc.
[83:5] Matt. x., 2; xvii., 1; xxvi., 37; Mark iii., 16; v., 37; ix., 2;
xiv., 33; Luke vi., 14; viii., 51; ix., 28; Acts i., 13.
[83:6] Acts xv., 1-11.
[83:7] Gal. ii., 11-14.
[83:8] Luke xxii., 31; John xiii., 36-38; Matt. xvi., 23, etc.
[84:1] 1 Pet. v., 1. See 2 John i., 1; 3 John i., 1.
[84:2] 1 Pet. v., 13.
[84:3] _Cf._ Lipsius for a full discussion of the so-called "Simonian
theory."
[85:1] John i., 44.
[85:2] Matt. iv., 18; Mark i., 16-20.
[85:3] Matt. viii., 14; Mark i., 29-31; Luke iv., 38.
[85:4] Matt. iv., 18; xix., 27; Mark i., 16; John i., 35, 40, 51; Luke
v.; xviii., 28.
[85:5] Mark iii., 13-19; Luke vi., 12-16.