Page images
PDF
EPUB

troubled for himself as though it had never been.

And here may well come in the strong words of St. Firmilian of Cæsarea, in his letter to St. Cyprian upon learning the fact of the excommunication of the latter by Stephen of Rome: "I am justly indignant at the open and manifest folly of Stephen; that he who boasts of the place of his bishopric, and contends that he holds the succession of Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should bring in many other rocks and erect new buildings of many Churches." And, seeming to address Stephen personally, he says, "But, indeed, thou art worse than all heretics. What a mass of sin hast thou heaped up for thyself when thou hast cut thyself off from so many flocks. For thou hast cut off thyself. Do not deceive thyself, for he is really a schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while thou thinkest that all can be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself from all."

I have wearied your patience too greatly already. I cannot stop to speak of the early Paschal controversies of Polycarp and Polycrates with the Bishops of Rome; nor to discuss the passage of uncertain meaning from Irenæus where he speaks of the "potiorem principalitatem," which I translate "the very strong leadership" of the Church of Rome; their strong witness against Roman

claim to Primacy and authority will be found admirably set forth by Puller in The Primitive Saints and the See of R me.

There remains, however, a point of very great importance: St. Peter's personal and official relations with Rome. That he was at Rome, im prisoned, put to death, buried there, we do not question. But to the question, "Was he Bishop of Rome?" we must give a different answer. There were myths in the early history of civil Rome. The stories of Romulus and Remus and. the she-wolf, and of the Sabines, and Curtius and the Horatii, stir us; but who now accepts them in all their details as actual realities? And even greater is the shadowy uncertainty that hangs over the question of Rome's early Bishops. The Church of Rome now claims that he was its Bishop for twenty-five years, from A.D. 42 to 67. But the New Testament tells us that he was in Jerusalem at St. Paul's visit, and at the Council, A.D. 52, and after that he is found at Antioch. Besides, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is most absolute proof that when he wrote it (about A.D. 57 or 58) St. Peter was not there and had not been there as Bishop, or as in any way in authority. Not considering now the tone of authority taken in the Epistle as a whole, the fifteenth chapter is decisive. St. Paul declares that he does not build upon another man's foundation, and

plainly claims to be himself Christ's Apostle for them as Gentiles. Read that chapter, and then imagine, if you can, one of the English Bishops so writing to the Church in the See of Canterbury; or to come to absolute equals, imagine the Bishop of New York so writing to the Church in Pennsylvania or the Bishop of Pennsylvania so writing to the Church in New York, and absolutely ignoring the authority of the Bishop resident and not even alluding to him. Clearly St. Peter was not Bishop of Rome when St. Paul wrote. Irenæus tells us he was not Bishop at all. He speaks of St. Peter and St. Paul as Apostles there, and as Apostles, by joint act, committing the episcopate to Linus. There are, down to A.D. 325, only thirteen passages from the Fathers which bear upon this point of St. Peter's presence at Rome, and of the thirteen not one speaks of him as Bishop. They tell of his preaching there, of his martyrdom and his burial there, of his founding the Church there in companionship with St. Paul, of his co-operation with St. Paul, while they were both Apostles, in committing the Bishopric to Linus; but not a word of his being Bishop of Rome himself and transmitting his office to his successor. True in later days, after the claim to Roman Primacy and authority had been made, those who urge that claim find frequent opportunity for bold assertion. But it is beyond question that down to the time

of the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, not one of the accepted Fathers or writers of the Church speaks of St. Peter as Bishop. Indeed, the contrary is expressly asserted. The Apostolical Constitution makes St. Peter himself say, "Of the Church of the Romans, Linus, son of Claudia, was the first Bishop ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus's death, ordained by me, Peter." Irenæus also names Linus as the first Bishop, and says he was ordained by St. Peter and St. Paul. But, plainly, if Linus was the first Bishop and Clemens the second, then St. Peter was never Bishop of Rome at all. Eusebius makes Linus first, Anacletus second and Clement third. Scarcely any two writers for several centuries agree as to the historic facts and order of succession. In one thing, however, down to 325, there is absolute agreement; St. Peter was for a time at Rome as an Apostle, and at the last in partnership with St. Paul, but he was not Bishop of Rome. It is only when we pass the limit fixed for me in this lecture, that any such claim appears; and I must leave the discussion of such statements to those who are to come after me.

And for the same reason I may be spared any discussion of the claim that St. Peter, by divine right, could and did transmit Primacy and authority to the Bishops of Rome as his successors in the bishopric. If, as we have shown, there is not

down to 325 any iota of evidence or even shadow of claim that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome; if, on the other hand, we find the post of first Bishop distinctly assigned to some one else; if we find the express assertion that not St. Peter, but St. Paul, ordained that first Bishop; if we find it said that the two Apostles acted, not as diocesan Bishops, but as Apostles; if we find not a word to show that St. Peter ever pretended to give to Linus, Clement, or any one else, a Primacy of authority over the whole Church, we may be very sure that no such Primacy was asserted or transmitted. And it would be idle to enter upon argument here upon the point whether St. Peter had the power to do what he clearly never did, nor pretended to do. The claim does appear afterwards, as coming from later Popes; but it is beyond the limits assigned to me.

I have taxed your patience, dear friends, very grievously. I see clearly that I have omitted altogether some points of importance, and passed very summarily over others; but, as I said at the beginning, the limits of a single lecture compel me. May I briefly sum up the argument.

First, the question at issue can best be stated in the clear words of the late Vatican Council: "If any one should say that Blessed Peter was not appointed of Christ the Lord, the Prince of all the Apostles, and the Visible Head of the

« PreviousContinue »