1. So far as the later fathers contradict those of the three
first centuries, they ought to be rejected; because, they could
not have so good means of information. Oral tradition must, in
three centuries, have become worthless, compared with what it
was in the second and third centuries;――and written testimony,
which could be relied on, they had none, except that of the
early fathers. Besides, we have seen how these later fathers
were led astray. They believed the fable of Simon Magus’s
legerdemain at Rome, and his deification there. They read the
Clementine fictions, and supposed them to be novels founded on
facts. In their eulogies of Peter, they were fond of relating
marvelous and affecting stories about him, and therefore too
readily admitted fabulous traditions. And lastly, the bishops
of Rome and their numerous adherents had a direct and an immense
interest depending on this traditional history;――for by it alone,
they made out their succession to the chair of Peter, and the
legitimacy of their ghostly power.
2. The later fathers invalidate their own testimony, by stating
what is incredible, and what neither they nor their modern
adherents can satisfactorily explain. They state that Linus
succeeded Peter, for about twelve years; then followed Cletus
or Anacletus, for about twelve years more; and then succeeded
Clement. And yet they tell us, all the three were ordained
by the hands of Peter. How could this be? Did Peter ordain
three successive bishops, after he was dead?――or did he resign
his office to these bishops, and retire to a private station,
more than twenty-five years before his crucifixion? No, says
Epiphanius, (Against Heresies, 27,) and after him most of the
modern papists; (Nat. Alex. H. E. saecul. I. Diss. XIII. Burius,
&c.) but Peter being often absent from Rome, and having a
vast weight of cares, had assistant bishops; and Linus and
Cletus were not the successors but the assistants of Peter. But
Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, and all the authorized catalogues
of popes, explicitly make Linus and Cletus to be successors to
Peter. Besides, why did Peter need an assistant any more than
the succeeding pontiffs? And what age since has ever witnessed
an assistant pope at Rome? A more plausible solution (but which
the papists cannot admit) is given by Rufinus. (Preface to
Clementine Recognitions) “As I understand it,” says he, “Linus
and Cletus were the bishops of Rome in Peter’s life-time; so
that they performed the episcopal functions, and he, those of an
apostle. And, in this way the whole may be true,” says Rufinus.
Granted, if this were the only objection; and if it could be
made out that Peter went to Rome full twenty-four years before
his martyrdom. But supposing it true, how can the successors
of Linus and Cletus, the bishops, be successors of Peter, the
apostle.
3. Peter removed his chair to Rome, (say the later fathers and
most of the Catholics,) in the second year of Claudius, that is,
A. D. 43; and he resided there twenty-four years, or till his
death. But we have the best proof,――that of holy writ,――that
Peter was resident at Jerusalem, as late as the year A. D. 44;
when king Agrippa seized him there, and imprisoned him, with
intent to kill him. (Acts xii. 3‒19.) And we have similar proof
that he was still there in the year 51; when he deliberated
and acted with the other apostles and brethren of Jerusalem, on
the question of obliging Gentiles to observe the law of Moses.
(Acts xv. 7, &c.; Galatians ii. 1‒9.) And, moreover, some time
after this, as Paul tells us, (Galatians ii. 11‒14,) he came to
Antioch, in Syria, and there dissembled about eating with the
Gentiles. The common reply of the Catholics is, that Peter often
made long journeys; and he might happen to be at Jerusalem, and
at Antioch, at these times. But this solution is rejected by
the more candid Romanists themselves, who agree with the early
fathers, asserting that Peter first went to Rome in the reign of
Nero. (See Pagi Critique of Baronius’s Annale, 43.)
4. Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans in the year 59, as is
supposed. And from this epistle it is almost certain, Peter was
not then at Rome; and highly probable he had never been there.
Throughout the epistle, Peter’s name is not even mentioned; nor
is that of Linus or Cletus, his supposed assistants, who always,
it is said, supplied his place when he was absent. Indeed,
so far as can be gathered from Paul’s epistle, the Romish
Christians appear not to have had, at that time nor previously,
any bishop or any ecclesiastical head. The epistle is addressed
“To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints.”
(Romans i. 7.) It exhorts them to obey magistrates;――but not to
reverence and obey their spiritual rulers. (Romans xiii. 1, &c.)
It inculcates on them all, the duty of living in harmony,――of
being modest and humble,――of using their different gifts for
the common good; (Romans xii. 3, &c.;) but gives no intimation
that they were amenable to any ecclesiastical authorities. It
gives them rules for conducting their disciplinary acts, as a
popular body, (Romans xiv. 1, &c.,) but does not refer to any
regulations given them by St. Peter and his assistants. It
contains salutations to near thirty persons, male and female,
whom Paul knew personally, or by hearsay, (chapter xvi.) but
neither Peter, nor Linus, nor Cletus is of the number; nor is
any one spoken of as bishop, or elder, or pastor, or as clothed
with any ecclesiastical authority. Priscilla and Aquila, and
several others whom he had known in Greece or Asia, are named;
and seem to be the leading persons in the church. Indeed, it
would seem that no apostle had, as yet, ever been at Rome. Paul
says he had “had a great desire, for many years,” to visit them,
and he intended to do so as soon as possible. (Romans xv. 23.)
And he tells them why he longed to see them, that he might
impart to them “some spiritual gifts;”――that is, some of those
miraculous gifts, which none but apostles could confer. (Romans
i. 11.) I may add, that Paul gives them a whole system of
divinity in this epistle; and crowds more theology into it, than
into any other he ever wrote;――as if he considered this church
as needing fundamental instruction in the gospel, more than
any other. Now, how could all this be, if Peter had been there
fifteen years, with an assistant bishop to aid him; and had
completely organized, and regulated, and instructed this central
church of all Christendom? What Catholic bishop, at the present
day, would dare to address the church of Rome without once
naming his liege lord, the pope; and would give them a whole
system of theology, and numerous rules and regulations for their
private conduct and for their public discipline, without even
an intimation that they had any spiritual guides and rulers, to
whom they were accountable?
5. Three years after this epistle was written, (that is, A. D.
62,) Paul arrived at Rome, and was there detained a prisoner
for two years, or until A. D. 64. Now let us see if we can find
Peter there, at or during this period. When it was known at
Rome that Paul was approaching the city, the Christians there
went twenty miles to meet him, and escort him;――so eager were
they to see an apostle of Jesus Christ. Three days after his
arrival, “Paul called the chief of the Jews together,” to have
conversation with them. They had heard nothing against him, and
they were glad to see him,――for they wished to hear more about
the Christian sect; “for,” said they, “as concerning this sect,
we know that it is every where spoken against;” and “we desire
to hear of thee what thou thinkest.” (Acts xxviii. 22.) They
appointed him a day, when they all assembled for the purpose,
and he addressed them “from morning till evening.” Now could
Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, have been near twenty
years bishop of Rome, and so full of business as to employ an
assistant bishop, and yet the Jews there be so ignorant of
Christianity, and so glad to meet with one who could satisfy
their curiosity to learn something about it? Moreover, Paul
now continued to preach the gospel in “his own hired house,” at
Rome, for two years; (Acts xxviii. 30, 31;) and it would seem,
was very successful. During this time he wrote his epistles to
the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and perhaps,
that to the Hebrews. In these epistles he often speaks of his
success in making converts, and of the brethren who labored
with him;――but he does not once even name Peter, or Linus, or
Cletus,――or intimate, at all, that there was a cathedral church
at Rome, with an apostle or any bishop at its head. He sends
numerous salutations from individuals whom he names, and
from little companies of Christians in their houses,――but no
salutations from Peter, or from any bishop, or other officer
of the church there. The Catholics tell us, Peter might happen
to be absent during this period. What! absent two whole years!
and his assistant bishop also? Very negligent shepherds!
But where was the church all this time,――the enlightened
Christian community, and the elders and deacons, who governed
and instructed it, from Sabbath to Sabbath? Were all these, too,
gone a journey? No: it is manifest Paul was now the only regular
preacher of the gospel at Rome: and he was breaking up fallow
ground, that had never before been cultivated, and sown, and
made to bear fruit.
[This closes the learned argument on the testimonies of the
Fathers, extracted from Dr. Murdock’s manuscripts.]
Lardner also gives a sort of abstract of the passages in the
fathers, which refer to this subject, but not near so full,
nor so just to the original passages, as that of Dr. Murdock,
although he refers to a few authors not alluded to here, whose
testimony, however, amounts to little or nothing. Lardner’s
disposition to believe all these long-established Roman fables,
seems very great, and, on these points, his critical accuracy
appears to fail in maintaining its general character. However,
in the simple passage from Clemens Romanus, referred to above,
he is very full, not only translating the whole passage relating
to Peter and Paul, but entering into a very elaborate discussion
of the views taken of it; but after all he fails so utterly in
rearing an historical argument on this slender basis, that I
cannot feel called on to do anything more than barely refer the
critical reader to the passage in his life of Peter, (VII.)
Bower has given numerous quotations, too, from these sources,
but nothing not contained in the abstract above, of which a
great merit is, that it gives all the passages _in full_, in a
faithful and highly expressive translation. (See Bower’s Lives
of the Popes. “Peter.”)