Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

Memorials of the Early Martyrs.

59

Proculum," he quotes the following passage: "But I can show the trophies of the apostles. Whether you turn to the Vatican or to the Via Ostia, you meet with the trophies of those who are the founders of the Church." * Jerome who, as a matter of course, confirms this tradition, translates "trophies" (тà тρóπαια) by "sepultus," "sepulchre," and says, " Sepultus [Petri] Roma in Vaticano, juxta viam triumphalem," in which sense the above passage has generally been looked upon as one of the strongest proofs in favour of the assertion in question. But, in the first place, it has not been considered that the words of Gaius are only by Eusebius referred, and, evidently contrary to their sense, exclusively referred to St. Peter and St. Paul; and, in the second place, the supposition of public monuments having been erected to the apostles, in the second century, at Rome, and in the immediate vicinity of the Vatican, is so preposterous, that it is surprising how it could, at any time, have gained even momentary credence. Moreover, the Neronian persecution, at its first outbreak, was of a most overwhelming character, and the assumption of any Christian having been permitted to witness the sufferings of his fellow-believers, much less to pay the last honours to their earthly remains, without being made to share their fate, is wholly inadmissible. What became of the mutilated bodies and scattered ashes of the innocent victims to a national calamity, and a tyrant's recklessness, God only knows, and no Christian probably ever knew; and as the principal scene of their sufferings was the very locality named by Gaius, (Tacit. loc. cit.,) it appears to us scarcely to admit of a doubt, but that all the Roman presbyter meant to say, when he wrote the words quoted, and used the word "apostle" in its more extended sense, was, whether you turn to the Vatican or to the Via Ostia, the whole presents but one scene of suffering; every spot reminds you of a Christian dying for his faith; every stone is a trophy of the martyrdom of those who constituted the earliest Church.

Thus we find that even the testimony of Gaius in regard to the Roman tradition is, to say the least, of a very doubtful character. For our argument, however, this fact is so far of little moment, as the senior of Gaius, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, (218,) affirms the martyrdom of St. Peter at Rome in positive terms (adv. Hær. iii. 1); and henceforth it is as positively confirmed by Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, Eusebius, Jerome, and others, with more or less variation. In reference to the latter, we will only remark, that Tertullian (245) still

Ἐγὼ δὲ τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔχω δεῖξαι· ἐὰν γὰρ θελήσης ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τον Βατικανὸν ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν, Ωστίαν, εὑρήσεις τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ταύτην ἱδρυσαμένων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.”

has it, that St. Peter died the same death as our Saviour; whilst Origen (253) is the first to assert that, at his own request, he was crucified with his head downwards-in order, as Rufinus adds, that he might not seem to suffer the same death as Christ.* From the epistles of St. Peter, and the account of St. Luke, reaching to the precise time when the conflagration of Rome happened, and, perhaps, owing its somewhat abrupt conclusion to this very event, we have already shown, that St. Peter wrote not long afterwards his first epistle from Babylon, and his second one, in all probability, between the years 65 and 67, from the same capital. This was, supposing the foreboding of the apostle to have proved true, (2 Pet. i. 14, 15,) shortly before his death. It is possible, therefore, that he may have gone to Rome, éπì téλel, as Origen has it; but there is not the very remotest reason for such a supposition. The latter Father informs us, that it was generally contended, St. Peter had written his first epistle, not from Babylon in Persia, but from Rome in Italy, under the symbolical name of Babylon.† Here we have the key to the whole tradition of St. Peter's sojourn and death at Rome. It rests solely on that positive error.

We say the symbolical interpretation of the date of St. Peter's first epistle is a positive error. Yet, though an anomaly in itself, it has been defended, and defended by Protestant writers too. But there are two generally acknowledged facts, which baffle all the most subtle arguments, and will irresistibly bear us out in our assertion :-The symbolical allusion to Rome by the name of Babylon was not known before the Revelation was written. The first epistle of St. Peter was written before the Apocalypse. On the other hand, the symbolical allusion to Rome in the Revelation having become generally known, probably a long time before the presence of St. Peter at Rome is ever mentioned by the tradition, which we have seen was not the case till towards the third century; we have the strongest possible reason to conclude, that the tradition derived its origin from that allusion, and from it alone. Thus we can in the most satisfactory manner account for what is otherwise altogether unaccountable: the contradictory reports of the tradition in regard to the time of St. Peter's arrival at Rome, and to the simple fact of his death, at a period, moreover, at evi

* Tertull, de Præscript. Hæret. c. xxxvi.; Origen ap. Eusebius Hist. Eccl. iii. 1: Πέτρος . . . . . . ανεσκολοπίσθη κατὰ κεφαλῆς, οὕτως ἀξιώσας παθεῖν, which Rufinus translates: Crucifixus est deorsum capite demerso, quod ipse ita fieri deprecatus est, ne exaequari Domino videretur.

τη

+ His words are (Hist. Eccl. ii. 15): Τοῦ δὲ Μάρκον μνημονεύειν τὸν Πέτρον ἐν τῇ προτέρα ἐπιστολῇ, ἣν και συντάξαι φασὶν ἐπ' αὐτῆς Ῥωμης· σημαίνειν τε τοῦτ' αὐτὸν πολιν τροπικώτερον Βαβυλῶνα προσειπόντα διὰ τούτων· ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ, καὶ Μάρκος ὁ υἱός μου.

την

St. Peter's Roman Episcopacy a pure Fiction.

61

dent variance with his own epistles; the fabulous history of his combat with Simon the Magician, and other absurdities; and, above all, the absence of every authentic information as to his apostolic labours for a space of time of nearly twenty years, (for of the events in Persia, how little comes even now to our knowledge!) and the utter ignorance of the whole Christian Church, during at least the first one hundred years after St. Peter's death, as to his ever having set his foot in Rome. It appears to us, therefore, all but certain that St. Peter, as he chiefly, since the time of the Council of the Apostles, lived and taught, so―a martyr to his faith in Christ-he died at Babylon. Thus the result of our inquiry shows, that of all the assertions on which the Church of Rome rests her claims to universal authority, not one will bear the least scrutiny; and that they are without any real foundation whatever. As to the Roman Episcopacy of St. Peter, it is a tradition which, in its character of a pure fiction, is recognised by every enlightened member even of the very Church which still upholds it as a sacred truth.

It then only remains for us to trace the origin of that tradition. It is well known that, in the second century, Rome was the arena of all those sectarian disputes which divided the early Church. Both the Gnostics and the Montanists vied with each other to gain over to their own peculiar views so important a body of the Christian community. Then it was that a philosopher, a member of that community, conceived the idea of putting an end to so deplorable a state of schism and incertitude. Expecting to find the Christian doctrine preserved in its primitive purity among the earliest Jewish Churches, he probably sought them out in their retirement, and among the Elkrites met with a speculative, well-developed religious system, which he judged highly qualified at once to be opposed to Paganism, and to unite the various sects of the Christians by one common tie. On his return to Rome, he composed his work Tà XNμÉVтIA, which consisted of three prologues and twenty homilies, pretending to contain the long-hidden apostolical truths. With a view to meet any doubts of the authenticity of the work, which he considered likely its late appearance would raise in the minds of those for whom it was intended, he introduced it by a letter, purporting to have been written by St. Peter to St. James, and in which the latter is requested by the former to communicate his sermons exclusively to trustworthy brethren, and under the seal of secrecy upon oath.-(Hom. ii. 17.)

The historical apparatus of the work is otherwise simple. The author evidently mistaking Clement, third Bishop of Rome, whose memory was held in great esteem by the Roman community, for Flavius Clemens, a nephew of the Emperor Domitian,

describes him as a highly educated Roman of rank, who, in search after knowledge and truth, travels into the East, and there meets with St. Peter. But so far from representing the latter as the Prince of the Apostles, unto whom Christ himself had consigned the keys of Heaven, he altogether subordinates him to St. James, to whom St. Peter is accountable for every one of his actions; and it is St. James, who is both to him and to Clement the lord" and "the bishop of bishops." * For the rest, the author represents St. Peter, in opposition to St. Paul, (who, not being an immediate disciple of Christ, cannot, in his opinion, be a true apostle,) as the true apostle of the Gentiles, and the founder and first bishop of the Church of Rome: thus by a pure fiction, in itself altogether subversive of the subsequent pretensions of the Romish Church, laying the first foundation of those very pretensions. The work gained much credence at Rome, and towards the year 230, was shaped into the well known "Recognitiones Clementis," which we still possess in the Latin translation of Rufinus.

The principal inconvenience of the "Recognitiones" is, their having created a plurality of first Roman bishops; St. Peter, St. Linus, and St. Clement, either of the two latter, as the case may be, preceded by Claudetus. The author of the "Recognitiones," in conferring the dignity of first bishop on St. Peter, is supported by Eusebius, (in Chron.), and Jerome, (De Vir. Illust. c. xv.); but the former Father (in Hist. Eccl. iii. 2, 4) confers it also on Linus. Herein he follows the testimony of Irenaeus (adv. Hær. iii. 3), who states, that Linus was ordained first bishop both by St. Peter and St. Paul; and by the "Constit. Apostol." vii. 46, (written towards the latter end of the third century,) which have it, that he was ordained by St. Paul alone. Tertullian, on the other hand, (De Script. Hær. c. xxxii.) gives his suffrage in favour of Clement, ordained, according to him, by St. Peter. Which of these contradictory traditions are we to believe? It would probably be as difficult a matter for the Church of Rome to return a consistent answer to this question, as it would be a thankless office for us, were we to allude to all the various and mostly absurd conjectures by which, from the earliest times of Popery, it has been attempted to reconcile, or rather to explain those contradictions. The most plausible, but to the episcopal dignity of St. Peter, most detrimental construction put upon them, is that of Rufinus.† But the import

* St. Peter writes to St. James as τῷ κυρίῳ, καὶ Ἐκισκόπῳ τῆς ἁγίας Εκκλησίας, and Clement, Ιακώβῳ, τῷ λυρίῳ, καὶ Ἐπισκόπων Επισκόπῳ, διέποντε δὲ τὴν Ιερουσαλὴμ ἁγίαν Εβραίων ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ τὰς πανταχῆ θεοῦ προνοίᾳ ιδρυθείσας καλῶς.

He says in his Preface to the "Recogn. Clementis": "Linus et Cletus fuerunt quidem ante Clementem episcopi in urbe Roma, sed superstite Petro, videlicet

Shameful Interpolation of the Works of Cyprian.

63

ant fact we learn from the above is, that up to the latter part of the third century of our era, the Roman episcopacy of St. Peter was exclusively asserted by the author of the acknowledged fiction of the "Recognitiones." It was not till the commencement of the fifth century his assertion gained general credence in the Latin Churches.

Cyprianus is the first Father who designates the Roman chair as "locum Petri," (Ep. 52,) and "Petri cathedram," (Ep. 55;) but, at the same time, he firmly maintains all bishops to be the successors of St. Peter, and probably agreed with Rufinus as to the nature of the authority said to be exercised by St. Peter during his pretended sojourn at Rome, the tradition of which had been gradually spreading since the latter end of the second century. Subsequently the works of Cyprian have been interpolated by the Romish Church in a shameful manner.* The first Pope who claimed the distinction of being the successor of St. Peter, was Stephen (253-256, Epist. Cypr. 75.) During the second century, there was a general tendency observable in the Christian Churches to assimilate their institutions as much as possible to the Mosaic law. One of the effects of that tendency was, that the expression of кλîρoι, (the flock of God,) by which St. Peter (1, v. 3,) designates the Christians generally, became soon the exclusive property of the clergy; and the

ut illi episcopatus curam gererent, ipse vero apostolatus impleret officium." Here we have full confirmation of the basis of our general argument, but without the slightest concession made to the pretensions of the Romish Church.

*In illustration of this, we will here quote the following passage from his work, De Unit. Eccl., placing the interpolated words and sentences between brackets. He writes thus: "Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum: Ego tibi dico." inquit," quia tu es Petrus," &c. (Matt. xvi. 18, 19.) [Et iterum eidem post resurrectionem suam dicit: "Pasce oves meas." (Joh. xxi. 15.) Super illum unum aedificat ecclesiam suam, et illi pascendas mandat oves suas.] et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat et dicat: "sicut misit me pater," &c. (Joh. xx. 21, 23) "tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, [unam Cathedram constituit et] unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc erant utique et cæteri apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio præditi et honoris et potestatis: sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, [et primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur. Et pastores sunt omnes et grex unus ostenditur, qui ab apostolis omnibus unanimi consensione pascatur] ut ecclesia Christi una monstretur. Hanc ecclesiæ unitatem qui non tenet, tenere se fidem credit? Qui ecclesiæ renititur et resistit, [qui cathedram Petri, super quem fundata est ecclesia, deserit] in ecclesia se esse confidit? (see Rigaltii Observ. ad Cypr. p. 162, seq.; Baluzzii, notæ, 11-15, ad Lib. de Unit Eccl., and Richerii Defensio Lib. de Eccl. et Polit. Potest. i. p. 115.) Dr. Scheler does not appear to have been aware that the words quoted by him, p. 138, "Primatus Petro datur," &c. are an interpolation. But supposing even they were not, yet from the mouth of Cyprian they would convey a meaning very different from what the interpolators intended, as is proved by his lxxi. Ep., in which he writes thus: "Nam nec Petrus, quem primum Dominis elegit, et super quem ædificavit ecclesiam suam, cum secum Paulus de circumcisione postmodum disceptaret, vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumsit, ut diceret. se primatum tenere, et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere."

« НазадПродовжити »