Upon This Rock (Modern Apologetics Library)

 CONTENTS 

Introduction: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome 

PART ONE: 

The Apostle Peter Biblical Study: Peter the Man, the Apostle, and the Rock 

Historical Study: Was Peter in Rome, Was He the First Bishop of Rome, and Was He Martyred in Rome? 

The Opposition 

PART TWO: 

The Primacy of Peter in the See of Rome Oldest Documents: Earliest Christian Documents Reveal the Primacy of Peter in the See of Rome 

The First Five Centuries:The Primacy of Rome in the Early Church 

PART THREE: Current Church Teaching

INTRODUCTION St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome

There is little in the history of the Church that has been more heatedly contested than the primacy of Peter and the See of Rome. History is replete with examples of authority spurned, and the history of the Church is no different. As we proceed with this overview of history, we will allow the Scriptures, the voice of the apostles, and the testimony of the early centuries of the Christian community to speak for themselves. In many quarters, over the last few centuries, the din of opposition and uninformed dissent has drowned out the voices of these ancient witnesses. Novel ideas, like a voracious flood, have tried to erode the foundations and the clear historical precedents provided by the Holy Spirit’s work in the primitive Church. History has a clear and distinct voice, but it does not force itself upon us uninvited. History is prudent and waits quietly to be discovered. Conversely, the ingenious inventions of recent theologians and innovators are loud and demanding, bursting upon our ears and minds, our lives and hearts, demanding our immediate attention and loyalties. The riches of history fall quietly aside as the prattling innovators blast their trumpets and loudly parade their followers through new streets, trampling the knowledge of the ages under their cumulative feet. Here we will allow the voices of the past to speak again—for themselves. And what the reader will find is that the utterances of the past still resound with one voice, with clarity and force. To study those who have gone before us, following in the footsteps of the Lord Jesus, his apostles, and our Fathers in the faith is to lose interest in much of the clamor of modern notions. We find these theological innovations and ecclesiastical groups poorly devised, if not disingenuous. This is what John Henry Newman, a Protestant clergyman at the time, found as he studied the primitive Church. He concluded: “To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant.” 1 As the Protestant churches continue to fragment and lose the fervor and orthodoxy of their past reform efforts, many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are looking to the past to hear what the early Fathers have to say today. They are beginning to listen to the unobtrusive voice of the early Church, and they are finding it is quite different from what they have been taught. Reading the writings of the early Church allows us to tap into the very heartbeat of the apostolic teaching and tradition of the primitive Church—the very Church bequeathed to us by the apostles. Sometimes silence is more eloquent than words. This is especially true in Church history. We hear so much about what the Fathers say and so little about what they do not say. This is revealing and should play a significant role in our research. William Webster has written a book that we will refer to several times in our study. Webster is an ex-Catholic who decided to abandon the Church and cast his lot with the Fundamentalist Protestants. His book is entitled Peter and the Rock and asserts that, as the blurb on the back of the book says, “The contemporary Roman Catholic interpretation [of Peter and the rock] had no place in the biblical understanding of the early church doctors.” To ascertain whether or not such an assertion is true is one of the main goals of this book. But along with what the Fathers say, we need to hear their silence as well. While reading Webster’s book, I noticed, along with his selective use of the Fathers in attempting to discredit the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Papacy, that there are no citations “revealed” in his book in which a Christian, especially a Church Father, explicitly denies the Petrine primacy or the Petrine succession. Webster collects a large number of passages that are supposed to prove that the Fathers oppose Catholic teaching, yet never is there a flat-out denial of the Petrine primacy or the primacy of Rome. This is a silence that speaks volumes! We may find differing interpretations of Peter’s primacy, which is what we should expect, according to John Henry Newman, yet we find no denial of that primacy. I wrote to William Webster and asked him if he knew of any Church Father who denied the primacy of Peter or of his successors. Mr. Webster’s response was very telling, and I wish he had been forthright about this matter in his book. His return E-mail stated, “No father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the fathers interpreted those concepts. They simply did not hold to the Roman Catholic view of later centuries that primacy and succession were ‘exclusively’ related to the bishops of Rome.” 2 What an extraordinary admission; what an extraordinary truth. Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary disagreement with Rome (for example, Cyprian and Irenaeus), yet they never denied Rome’s primacy. They may have debated what that primacy meant, or how it was to work out in the universal Church, but they never denied the primacy. The quickest way to achieve jurisdictional or doctrinal victory is to subvert or disarm the opponent. In this case it would have been as simple as proving from the Bible or from tradition that Peter, and subsequently his successors in Rome, had no primacy, no authority to rule in the Church. Yet, as even Webster freely admits, this refutation never occurred. Irenaeus may challenge the appropriateness of a decision made by Victor, but he never challenges Victor’s authority to make the binding decision. Cyprian may at times disagree with a decree of Stephen’s on baptism, but he never rejects the special place of the Roman See, which would have been the easiest means of winning the debate. The bishop of Rome was unique in assuming the authority and obligation to oversee the Churches. Clement and Ignatius make this clear from the first century and the beginning of the second. If the authority exercised had been illegitimate, or wrongly arrogated, it would have been an act of overzealousness at one end of the spectrum, of tyranny at the other. Yet no one ever stood up and said, “No, you have no authority. Who are you to order us, to teach us, to require obedience from us, to excommunicate us?” If the jurisdictional primacy of Rome had been a matter of self-aggrandizement, someone would have opposed it as they opposed other innovations and heresies in the Church. The silence is profound. As doctrines develop, as authority develops, as even a family or society develops, there is discussion relating to authority and its exercise. Amazingly enough, this is also true for the canon of the New Testament, which was not finally collected and codified for almost four hundred years after the death of Christ. Does the fact that there were various interpretations of what the New Testament was, or which books it contained—a discussion, by the way, that raised its head again in the teaching of Martin Luther—in any way prove that somehow the New Testament held by the Protestant is uncertain or in doubt because there were various applications or perceptions of that canon in the early years? The faithful Christian may have believed various things about the canon, but he never denied that the Scriptures held a special place. He may have clung to a different collection of books, yet he always understood that there were “apostolic” books. In the same way, early Fathers, especially Eastern Fathers, may have defined the primacy of Peter and the supremacy of his successors in nuanced ways, yet they never denied that the primacy or authority was attached to Peter and his See in Rome. Authority has always been an object of distrust and, very often, defiance. The nation of Israel refused to hear authority: they rejected the authority of the prophets 3 and rejected their Messiah sent by the Father. 4 The apostles themselves were abused and rejected. 5 Should it surprise us that many in our present day reject and demean the unifying authority God has ordained in his Church? In the primitive Church, as we learn from St. Irenaeus, the greatest theologian of the second century, many groups splintered off from the apostolic Church and “assembled in unauthorized meetings”. 6 Rejecting the Church and spurning her shepherd is nothing new to our day. Christians of many traditions are currently espousing recent Protestant traditions and modern schisms; yet they all claim the early Church as their own —asserting that they are the rightful heirs to the teachings of our Lord, the apostles, and the Fathers of the apostolic Church. Are they? Do they have a legitimate claim to the theology of the early Church? Was the early Church essentially “Protestant” in her theology and polity, or was she Catholic? Much of the distinctive character of the Church through the centuries has been based on the teaching concerning Peter and his place within the apostolic company and in the Church. Was he chosen for a special position? Did Jesus separate Peter out from the Twelve? Did Peter have authority over the body of Christ, the one sheepfold? Was the position of bishop carried on by his successors? How did the first generations of Christians relate to Peter? These are questions we will try to answer as we proceed with this study. Holy Scripture must be interpreted, since it is not laid out simply in the form of a Church manual or textbook. One principle of proper interpretation involves studying a topic or passage within its context, both the immediate context and the context of the whole Bible. If this is neglected or done poorly, a plethora of problems arises. Historical context must also be taken into account. In studying Peter and the subject of primacy, it is especially important to consider who or what makes up the foundation of the Church. The many facets of the Church are like the multiple surfaces of a diamond glistening in the sunlight. These facets are written about from different angles, and the metaphors used—foundations, builders, stones, and so on—are as varied as the gem’s surfaces. In grammar school we learn not to mix metaphors. Mixing metaphors makes clear communication difficult and can lead to misunderstandings. This confusion of context is especially pronounced in much of the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant understanding of the foundation of the Church. However, even George Salmon, no friend to Catholic teaching (in fact he has proven himself a hero to many opposed to the Catholic Church and wrote The Infallibility of the Church to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church), understood the need to understand properly the metaphors used in Scripture. I provide an extended quotation from Salmon’s book to lay the foundation (pun intended) for understanding the biblical and patristic references to Peter and the foundation of the Church. 

It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3: 11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.” And in like manner we read (Rev 21: 14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone. 7 

Our current study comprises four interrelated topics. The first two sections examine the life and ministry of the Apostle Peter from biblical and historical sources. The last two sections examine the continuing authority of Peter through the centuries, carried on through apostolic succession and the primacy of Rome. We divide the study in this way: 

1. The Life and Ministry of Peter 

A. Biblical study: Peter the man, the apostle, the rock: What is his place in the teachings of Jesus and in the New Testament? 

B. Historical study: Did Peter travel to Rome, oversee the Church as bishop, and die a martyr’s death in the city of Rome? 

2 . The Primacy of Peter in the Early Church 

A. Earliest document study: The primacy of Rome in the earliest noncanonical writings of the Church, authored by Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch. 

B. Early Church study: Peter and the primacy of Rome taught and practiced throughout the first five centuries. 

Certainly, it is not possible to compile every passage from the Fathers that pertains to the study of Peter and the primacy. This is true, first of all, because such passages are too abundant and, secondly, because many times the primacy is not demonstrated by written teachings per se, but by the actions of the Fathers in particular historical situations. Some Fathers write of the Petrine primacy and later change their stance as they move away from orthodoxy or from a literal understanding of Scripture or when they enter into a personal conflict with the bishop of Rome. Lately, several books have come out that are hostile to the Catholic Church’s teaching on papal primacy (we will discuss these books in the course of our study). A perusal of these books shows that their inability to deal fairly with the issue stems from their tendency to “proof-text”, by which they point out things that seem to support their contentions and ignore everything that does not. Another reason these opponents find it difficult to comprehend the Papacy is a perspective, inherited from the Protestant Reformation, that is essentially antisacramental, anti-mediational, and anti-incarnational. God’s economy, however, always involves mediation. The people of God, for example, stepped back and demanded that God not speak to them directly, for they were afraid and stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die” (Ex 20: 19). Take another example—Paul. God could very well have “saved” him directly, but instead the great Paul was sent to the lowly Ananias for baptism and instructions. Paul later went to Peter for approval and to make sure he “was not running in vain”, even though he had received revelations and had even been taken up to the “third heaven” (2 Cor 12:2). No Christian baptizes himself; this is done though the mediating agency of another person. Without an understanding of how God works through mediation, it is difficult to understand the fullness of the faith. 8 It would take volumes to deal thoroughly with every biblical passage, every Father’s writings, and every argument against the Papacy. However, we will provide ample material to establish the firm foundation of Catholic teaching and to refute the opposition. In the process we will attempt to be fair with the material, analyzing not only the Catholic position but the interpretation espoused by the opposition. Much can be said about each of these topics and detailed accounts can be read from other sources listed in the bibliography. In our journey through the Scriptures and the primitive Church, we will consult our first brethren in Christ. We will conclude by looking at the current teaching of the Catholic Church as well as the widespread opposition. Now let us journey back in time to the New Testament period and the generations that followed in the footsteps and the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

PART ONE THE APOSTLE PETER
BIBLICAL STUDY Peter the Man, the Apostle, and the Rock

Why should we consider someone so impulsive, outspoken, and unstable as Peter to be capable of leading the band of apostles in founding and governing the Church, the Household of God? Because he is respected and loved by Jesus, being the first among the closest associates of Jesus. Jesus often separated out Peter, James, and John for intimate times of prayer and special instruction. Jesus also specifically chose Peter to be the leader and spokesman for the apostles and the primitive Christian community. 

Every list of the twelve apostles in the New Testament has Peter prominently placed at the top of the list, and Judas is listed last. 1 Peter was the first of three special disciples whom Jesus included in his inner circle. 2 Peter is repeatedly mentioned by name when the others are referred to simply as “disciples” or “the eleven”. 3 He always stands out as the leader, the spokesman, and the chosen “first” among equals. The names Peter, Simon, or Cephas are used 191 times in the New Testament. Except for Christ himself, no other person receives nearly as much attention as Simon Peter does through biblical references. 4 Before Jesus called this fisherman and renamed him Peter, his name was Simon, son of Jonas. Jesus gave Simon a new, descriptive name, Peter, which means “rock” in Greek, and from that time forward he was known as Simon Peter. Jesus in Caesarea Philippi also called him Cephas (Aramaic for “rock”). 5 As we see from the naming of the twelve sons of Jacob, names were very significant in Jewish society. In the Torah and in Jewish tradition, a name change meant a change in status. Abraham, the father of the Jews who received the covenant sign of circumcision, had his name changed by God from Abram, meaning “father”, to Abraham, meaning the “father of nations” (Gen 17: 1-5). Now, at the inception of the new covenant, we see Simon’s name changed by Jesus from Simon to Kepha, Peter, signifying a new designation, a new commission, and a new status. 

Peter was the son of Jonas 6 and the brother of Andrew. 7 It appears from the Gospel record, and from Paul’s writings, that Peter was married and owned his own house just south of the synagogue in Capernaum, on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Peter may have lived with his mother-in-law and possibly his wife (Lk 4:38). The first-century stone pavement and the dark rocks of the original synagogue foundation, where Jesus taught “as one having authority” (Mk 1:21), can still be seen today. Archeologists have discovered that the site of Peter’s home was venerated as early as the first century, and several churches were later built over the site in honor of St. Peter. 8 We get bits of information from Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150-215) that provide possible enlightenment about Peter’s family. Clement writes, “They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, ‘Remember thou the Lord.’ Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them.” 9 Clement also mentions that the apostles Peter and Philip both had children. 10 The Apostle Paul informs us that Peter, along with the other married apostles, perhaps took his wife with him on his apostolic journeys (1 Cor 9:5). 

Peter and John were not highly educated; in fact, the rulers of the people and elders watched “Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men.” 11 Peter’s brother Andrew, who was a disciple of John the Baptist at the time, introduced Peter to Jesus. 12 Peter owned fishing boats and a family fishing business in partnership with James and John, the sons of Zebedee. 13 It was from Peter’s boat that Jesus chose to speak to the multitudes (Lk 5:3). Peter and his brother Andrew, along with James and John, left their everyday life and businesses to follow Jesus as his disciples. What happened to their boats and nets? What happened to their fishing business? We do not know. Maybe the business was carried on by family members, possibly by Zebedee and his hired servants (Mk 1:20). After the Resurrection, Peter and the other disciples were again fishing from a boat in the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:3), so it is probable that Peter still owned the fishing vessels. 

The New Testament is peppered with biographical details about the personality and life of Peter. For three years Peter and the disciples followed Jesus as he crisscrossed the rocky terrain of Israel. Peter walked on the water (Mt 14:28-31) and pulled a coin from a fish’s mouth to pay a tax for himself and Jesus (Mt 17:24-27). Peter was the one who received a revelation from God that enabled him to confess the true identity of Jesus (Mt 16: 16), and he saw Jesus transfigured, along with Moses and Elijah, on the mountain, which he mentions later in his second epistle. 14 Peter, along with John, was selected to prepare the Passover meal, which would be transformed into the Eucharist (Lk 22:8). Peter was bold and spoke his mind—sometimes too quickly, not thinking before he did so. He was rebuked by Jesus for his wrong-headed conclusions (Mt 16:23), though Jesus loved his devotion and courage. After pledging loyalty and even martyrdom for Jesus’ sake, Peter reneged and vehemently denied the Lord three times—and then (unlike Judas) repented and wept bitterly because of his betrayal. 15 Another time, he impulsively drew his sword and slashed off Malchus’ ear (Jn 18: 10). Even though he was brash and impulsive, however, he had a gentle heart and was extremely sensitive to his sin and shortcomings. 16 

There may be too much made of Peter’s impulsiveness. As a successful businessman with a prominent house in the community, Peter must also have had organizational and leadership abilities—to which the event of Pentecost added charisms of faith and leadership, grace building upon nature. He could not have succeeded in business if he had allowed impulse alone to rule him. But he may very well have overestimated his own abilities. He took it on himself to lead wherever he was, speaking often for the other disciples, and even once for Jesus. Peter was the first man to see Jesus after the Resurrection. 17 Peter was given the special commission to pray for his brethren and strengthen them and was appointed by Jesus to feed and tend his sheep. 18 After Pentecost, Peter took the leading role in the fledgling Church. 19 He preached the first gospel message (Acts 2: 14-40), and, with the assistance of the other apostles, he baptized over three thousand people that day. 

After exposing their deception, Peter condemned Ananias and Sapphira, who lied to the Holy Spirit and fell dead at the feet of Peter (Acts 5: 1-11). Peter changed the course of the young Church by baptizing Cornelius and his household, the first Gentiles to become Christians. Paul came to visit Cephas (Peter) and “remained with him fifteen days” (Gal 1: 18). Later, Paul again came to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to Peter and the leading apostles to make sure he was not running in vain (Gal 2:2). When confusion arose over how the law of circumcision applied to the Gentile converts, Peter made the authoritative doctrinal decision at the first Church council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), to which all those in attendance acquiesced. Peter traveled extensively, preaching the gospel and establishing churches all over the Roman Empire. 20 There are many more biographical passages focusing on Peter in the Scriptures, more than we can detail in this short introduction. 

How does Peter fit into the whole scheme of things? Did Jesus really treat Peter differently from the others? Did Jesus favor Peter or set him apart? What about the other disciples? Did they recognize Peter as first, in a place of preeminence? John was the disciple “Jesus loved”, the one who rested his head on Jesus’ breast while at the Passover dinner, 21 but it was Peter who was given a special place of leadership, the shepherd of the sheep and the one who “strengthens” his fellow apostles. 22 But the single event that most clearly shows Peter’s prominence in the New Testament is recorded in the Gospel of St. Matthew. Jesus commissions Peter, and his words have probably caused more spilled ink over the last five centuries than any other biblical passage. 23 

The Gospels, Acts, and the letter to the Galatians give us the most information about the ministry of Peter after the Resurrection. The Acts of the Apostles begins with Peter at the center of activity in Jerusalem; and then, after the Council of Jerusalem, Paul takes center stage in the drama. According to Michael Winter, 

After this decision [in Jerusalem regarding the Gentiles] has been reached, the book of the Acts leaves the Jerusalem community and relates in detail the mission to the gentiles. It is natural that attention should henceforth center on St. Paul, but the lesson of the first half of the book is not thereby invalidated. The picture of St. Peter is just the same as that of the gospels. Without any attempt to force the meaning of the text, he is seen in a position of particular authority, and although the precise amplitude of his powers cannot be decided without reference to the gospels he is rightly seen to be the director of the infant church. There is no suggestion here that St. Peter is about to be demoted, and although little more is said about him, no evidence can be found to show that it was the intention of Christ or the infant church that he should relinquish his position of authority. 24

 Quite the contrary. As we enter the fascinating period of the apostolic Church, we see that the place of Peter, and his martyrdom in Rome, had a universal acceptance among the writings and beliefs of the earliest Christians. Now we will plunge into the Scriptures to discover passages related to Peter and his primacy in the early Church, a primacy that was passed on in the Church through the office of the bishop of Rome.

 The Gospel of John —event c. A.D. 30 —written by St. John about A.D. 90-100 

“One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’ (which means Peter).” 25 

The Gospel of Matthew —event c. A.D. 30 —written in the last half of the first century 

“The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.” 26 

The Gospel of Luke —written in the last half of the first century 

“Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. . . . Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep.” 27 

An Angel —recorded in the Gospel of Mark —event about A.D. 30 —written in the last half of the first century 

“And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, ‘Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.’ ” 28 

The Gospel of Luke 

“And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, ‘The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!’ ” 29 

Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians —written about A.D. 57 

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time.” 30 

Jesus Christ in The Gospel of Matthew 31 

“Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, 32 he asked his disciples, ‘Who do men say that the Son of man is?’ And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ 33 And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! 34 For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 35 And I tell you, you are Peter, 36 and on this rock 37 I will build my church, 38 and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 39 and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ 40 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.” 41 

The Prophet Isaiah 42 

“Thus says the Lord God of hosts, ‘Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, 43 and say to him: What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock? . . . I will thrust you from your office, 44 and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, 45 and will commit your authority to his hand; 46 and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 47 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; 48 he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 49 And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.” 50 

The Prophet Isaiah 

“Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you that seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn, 51 and to the quarry from which you were digged. Look to Abraham your father, and to Sarah who bore you; for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him, and made him many.” 52 

Flavius Josephus 53 —c. A.D. 37—c. 100 

“And now the Pharisees joined themselves to her to assist her in the government. . . . But these Pharisees artfully insinuated themselves into her [Alexandra’s] favour by little and little, and became themselves the real administrators of the public affairs: they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and loosed [men] at their pleasure; and, to say all at once, they had the enjoyment of the royal authority.” 54

 Jesus Christ to His Twelve Apostles 

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, 55 let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 56 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” 57 

Jesus Christ as recorded in the Gospel of John 

“And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” 58 

“I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one [perfected in unity], so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.” 59 

Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Matthew —written in the latter half of the first century 

“These twelve Jesus sent out. . . . He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.” 60 

“Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 61 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.’ ” 62

Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Luke —written in the latter half of the first century 

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [plural], that he may sift you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed for you [singular] that your faith may not fail; and when you [singular] have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” 63 

Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John —speaking to Peter after the Resurrection 64 

“ ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’ A second time he said to him, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’ He said to him a third time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ And he said to him, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep.’ ” 65 

The Acts of the Apostles —written in the latter half of the first century —event c. A.D. 30 

“Then [the apostles] returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away; and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying. . . . All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, ‘Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’ 66 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.’ And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, ‘Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.’ And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.” 67 

The Acts of the Apostles 

“But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, ‘Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.’” 68 

St. Paul to the Galatians —written in the middle of the first century 

“I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.” 69 

Luke the Physician in the Acts of the Apostles —chronicling the Council of Jerusalem c. A.D. 49-50 

“But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ . . . The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.’ . . . 70 And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, ‘Brethren, listen to me. 71 Symeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree.’ . . . [Peter, the apostles, and the elders wrote to the Gentiles, saying], ‘For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.’” 72 

Paul to the Galatians —written in the middle of the first century 

“Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, 73 lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. . . . [A]nd when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, 74 who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; 75 that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.” 76 

Paul to the Galatians 

“But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, 77 because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’” 78 

First Epistle of Peter —written from Rome c. A.D. 65 

“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. 79 Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory. Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another.” 80 

St. Paul to Timothy —written c. A.D. 67 

“I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark [foundation] of the truth.” 81 

So we come to the conclusion of the first section of our study, searching the scriptural passages relating to Peter’s commission as steward and shepherd. We have looked at the biblical passages relating to Peter and the Church. We have briefly touched upon the biographical information contained in the New Testament and the passages that affirm Peter’s special standing, his primacy in the Church. Since the Protestant Reformation, many have ignored, even attacked the ancient teachings of the Church and have tried to empty the biblical passages of any hierarchical significance. 82 The winds of freedom and democracy that have swept Europe in the past few centuries have not failed to have an impact on biblical study and perceptions of Church government. Too often the Church is perceived as a democracy instead of as a kingdom. Jesus Christ reestablished the eternal throne of David and also reestablished the office of royal steward “over the house” when he chose Peter, investing him with the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Peter may have died, but his office continues, and his successors, as we shall discover shortly, continue to fill his office of royal steward and continue to preserve the sacred deposit of truth entrusted to the Church by the apostles. As we continue working from the base we have established here, we shall see how the earliest Christians, our first brothers and sisters in Christ, understood these biblical passages and the authority of the Church. We will now delve into the later life of Peter, after he escaped Herod’s persecution in Jerusalem, after “he departed, and went into another place” (Acts 12: 17). Get ready to step back into history, to become better acquainted with the great Prince of the Apostles, and to witness the rise of the persecuted Church of the first century

HISTORICAL STUDY Was Peter in Rome, Was He the First Bishop of Rome, and Was He Martyred in Rome?

The details of Peter’s life, especially his later life, are sketchy, for no detailed record has been passed down through the centuries. 1 Luke, on the other hand, one of Paul’s traveling companions, wrote an account of Jesus’ life and also chronicled select portions of Paul’s ministry so that Theophilus “might know the exact truth about the things [he] had been taught” (Lk 1:4). Even with Paul’s life, there are long periods of activity about which we are told nothing. Take, for example, the fourteen-year period before his return to Jerusalem after his conversion (Gal 2: 1), or his two years of house arrest in Rome, or his trip to Spain, or his second journey to Rome, or, of course, his martyrdom. We have precious little information about the other apostles after the day of Pentecost. To illustrate the point further, what do we know with certainty from the Scriptures about the life and ministry of Thomas, who preached in India, Matthew, who traveled widely, or John, who cared for the Blessed Virgin Mary and oversaw the Churches of Asia? And what of Bartholomew, Philip, Andrew, Matthias, James the son of Alphaeus, Judas son of James, and the others? What happened to Lazarus, Jesus’ friend? Those who accept the doctrine of sola Scriptura and have the attitude that nothing can be known, and nothing matters, outside the text of the New Testament are deprived of much understanding and knowledge about the continuing work of the Holy Spirit among Christ’s flock. Later in this book, we will look at some of the views opposing the presence and bishopric of Peter in Rome. But first, we will look at all the evidence available, which will demonstrate without a doubt Peter’s residence and accomplishments in Rome. We cannot assume that the silence of the New Testament is an indication that the seldom-mentioned apostles ceased their apostolic ministries after the Ascension of Christ, or that they were not important in the first century and beyond. Quite the contrary. We know from history that they were bustling with missionary and ecclesiastical activity. The New Testament was never intended as a complete history of, or manual for, the primitive Church. The Church herself has kept the tradition of the apostles alive and intact, and she has pondered and celebrated it through the centuries.

Even though we have in the New Testament only fragmentary documentation of Peter’s travels and ministry, in this section of our study we will gather together what historical information is available on this subject. We will use New Testament sources as well as the historical documents, along with the tradition carefully preserved by the Church Fathers.

Peter opened the doors of the Church to the various ethnic groups. After Pentecost (c. A.D. 30), when Peter preached the gospel to the Jews, the Acts of the Apostles tells us that Peter stayed in Jerusalem for several years, traveling to Samaria to open the door of salvation to the Samaritans (Acts 8:4-25) and later to Joppa (Acts 9:32-43), where he stayed until called by God to visit Caesarea. There he admitted the first Gentile convert into the Church—Cornelius, the Roman centurion. This took place about ten years after the Resurrection of Christ. Peter then returned to Jerusalem to report that the Gentiles had accepted the gospel and received the Holy Spirit just as the Jews had ten years earlier on Pentecost (Acts 10:40; 11: 18). During this time, Peter led the Church in Jerusalem, where, at least in the early years, the early Christians worshiped in the Jewish temple, in Solomon’s porch (Acts 3: 11 ; 5: 12). 

Persecution arose in Jerusalem, and the Apostle James was beheaded in c. A.D. 42-44 by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). After the martyrdom of James, Peter was imprisoned by Herod and miraculously released through the intervention of an angel (Acts 12:7). Peter then fled Jerusalem, around A.D. 44; the Acts of the Apostles tells us that Peter “departed and went to another place” (Acts 12: 17). We know from references in Scripture and the writings of the primitive Church that Peter traveled extensively, preaching in the East, spending a good amount of time in Antioch (Gal 2: 11-21), perhaps using this city as a home base for apostolic journeys. During these years he traveled to Rome and established the Church there, as we shall clearly see. He also journeyed through the provinces of Asia Minor and later wrote to these Churches in the provinces of “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet 1: 1). 2 He also visited Corinth, where Dionysius says he “planted” along with Paul. That he traveled widely and spread the gospel is well attested in the writings of the early Christians. 3 

Early records mention Peter as the head of the Church in Antioch. 4 Luke informs us that Peter returned to Jerusalem for the first Church council in Jerusalem between A.D. 49 and 51. 5 The Council was held about eight years after Peter had fled Jerusalem, following the death of the Apostle James. The Council defined theological issues, promulgated disciplinary obligations, and removed certain ceremonial restrictions. These decrees were binding upon the visible, universal Church and were implemented in order to assist in the absorption of he new Gentile converts. After the Jerusalem Council, in which Peter, John, James the Righteous, Paul, and Barnabas, among others, all came together in Jerusalem, we have very little in Scripture to give us information about Peter, other than his first epistle, where he mentions that he is writing from Rome, under the pseudonym of Babylon. However, the early history recorded in the writings of the Fathers provides us adequate information on the apostolic ministry of Peter. This will be the main focus of this section of our study. A very workable time line for the life and ministry of Peter, from the death and Resurrection of Christ up to his own martyrdom, consistent with both scriptural and historical evidence, has been provided by Warren Carroll. The following table is based on his time line:

The Apostolic Ministry of St. Peter A.D. 30-67 c. 

30 The death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus; Pentecost 

30-37 Peter head of the Church in Jerusalem 

38-39 Peter’s missionary journeys in Samaria and on the coast of Palestine 

40-41 Peter in Antioch 

42 Imprisonment in Jerusalem, escape, and departure to “another place” 

42-49 First sojourn in Rome 

49 Expulsion from Rome by the edict of Claudius against its Jews 

49-50 In Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council 

50-54 In Antioch, Bithynia, Pontus, Asia, and Cappadocia (or some of them) 

54-57 Second sojourn in Rome; Gospel of Mark written under Peter’s direction 

57-62 In Bithynia, Pontus, and Cappadocia (or some of them); Mark in Alexandria, Egypt 

62-67 Third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome 

67 Martyrdom in Rome and burial near the Necropolis at the Vatican

We will now go back in time, beyond the clamor of the present age, to walk among the apostles and Church Fathers. We will allow their quiet voices from ancient times to be heard again with clarity. As we listen to their wisdom, preserved for almost two thousand years, we will humbly learn what our first Christian brethren believed and practiced, especially regarding Peter and the Church. We will learn from their written pages, which have been graciously preserved through the many intervening centuries. We will see the life of Peter emerge as he carries out the apostolic mandate given him by Jesus Christ. We will get glimpses of Peter, the Rock, as he exercises the authority of the keys and stands at the helm, maneuvering the ship toward the eternal shores. The Fathers will explain the “passing on of authority” as the apostles are succeeded by others in the office of bishop and in the office of Peter in the See of Rome

Jesus Christ to Peter as recorded by the Apostle John —written c. A.D. 90-100 7 “ 

‘Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.’ (This he said to show by what death [Peter] was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ ” 8 

Peter (martyred in Rome c. A.D. 67) in his First Epistle 

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. To the exiles of the Dispersion. . . . By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you. . . . She [the Church] who is at Babylon [Rome], who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.” 9 

Clement of Rome in his First Epistle to the Corinthians —written from Rome c. A.D. 96 —mentioned in Philippians 4:3 —contemporary of Peter and Paul 10

“But, to leave the examples of antiquity, let us come to the athletes who are closest to our own time. Consider the noble examples of our own generation. 11 Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of our Church in Rome] were persecuted, and they persevered even to death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles: Peter, who through unwarranted jealousy suffered not one or two but many toils, and having thus given testimony went to the place of glory that was his due. Through jealousy and strife Paul showed the way to the prize for endurance. . . . He passed from the world and was taken up to the holy place. . . . To these men who lived such holy lives there must be added a multitude of the elect, who suffered terrible indignities and tortures on account of jealousy, and who became shining examples in our midst.” 12 

The Testament of Hezekiah —written c. A.D. 75-100 13 

“And now, Hezekiah and Josab my son, these are the days of the consummation of the world; and after it is consummated, Beliar [the Antichrist], a great angel, the king of this world, will descend. He has ruled it since it began and he will descend from his firmament in the form of a man, a king without law, the murderer of his mother [Nero]. He himself, even this king, shall persecute the plant [Church] which the twelve apostles of the Beloved shall plant and one of the twelve shall be delivered into his hands.” 14 

Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 35—c. 107) 15 

“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty . . . which also presides in the chief place of the Roman territory. 16 . . . Not like Peter and Paul do I issue any order to you. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, I am until this moment a slave.” 17 

Phlegon, quoted by Origen 18 —during the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) 

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” 19 

Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis (c. A.D. 60-130) 20 —See quotation from Eusebius in n. 9, pp. 69-70. Dionysius (bishop of Corinth; fl. c. A.D. 166/174) —writing to Pope Soter in Rome 21 

“That both [Peter and Paul] suffered martyrdom at the same time is affirmed as follows, by Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, when writing to the Romans: ‘You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time.’” 22 

Gaius [or Caius], a Roman presbyter (fl. c. A.D. 198/217) 23 

“Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God’s chief enemies, he [Nero] was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. 24 It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the [Roman] Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome [A.D. 198-217]. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: ‘But I can show the trophies [tombs] 25 of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.’ ” 26 

Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130—c. 200) —disciple of Polycarp —bishop of Gaul —defender of the faith against the Gnostics 27 

“For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” 28 

“We do put to confusion all those who . . . assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul. . . . The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.” 29 

Tertullian (c. A.D. 160—c. 225) 30 

“And accordingly it makes no difference whether a man be washed in a sea or a pool, a stream or a fount, a lake or a trough; nor is there any distinction between those whom John baptized in the Jordan and those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber.” 31 

“For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter.” 32 

“[R]un through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones [ cathedrae, in Latin] of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read. . . . If you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives. How happy is that Church, on which Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord [crucifixion], and where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [beheading].” 33 

“And if a heretic wants a faith backed by public record, let the archives of the empire speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem. We read the lives of the Caesars. In Rome Nero was the first to stain with blood the rising faith. Peter was girded about by another (Jn 21: 18), when he was made fast to the cross. Paul obtained a birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in that city he was given rebirth by an ennobling martyrdom.” 34 “Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. We have also St. John’s foster churches.” 35 

Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150—c. 215) —text preserved by Eusebius 36 

“Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.” 37 

“’Marcus, my son, saluteth you’ [1 Pet 5: 13]. Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Caesar’s equites, and adduced many testimonies to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark.” 38 

“They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, ‘Remember thou the Lord.’ Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.” 39 

Origen of Alexandria (c. A.D. 185—c. 254) 40 

“Meanwhile the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the world. Parthia, according to tradition, was allotted to Thomas as his field of labor, Scythia to Andrew, and Asia to John, who, after he had lived some time there, died at Ephesus. Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way. What do we need to say concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero? These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis.” 41 

Porphyry of Tyre (c. A.D. 230-300) 42 

“So one wonders why Jesus gave the keys of heaven to such a man as Peter and why in such a time of disorder and tumult, beset with such grave dangers, he said: ‘Feed my lambs’. . . . Furthermore, it is recorded that Peter fed the lambs for several months only before he was crucified, 43 although Jesus had said that the gates of hell should not prevail against him. . . . Now let us notice what he says about Paul. ‘Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, “Be not afraid but speak. . . . For I am with thee and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee.“ ‘ Notwithstanding, this fine fellow was overpowered at Rome and beheaded, he who had said that we should judge angels, even as Peter, who had received the right to feed the lambs, was fastened to the cross and crucified.” 44 

Eusebius (c. A.D. 260-340) 45 —bishop of Caesarea and father of Church history 

“Second year of the two hundred and fifth olympiad: the Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years. . . . Third year of the two hundred and fifth olympiad: the Evangelist Mark, interpreter of Peter, announces Christ in Egypt and Alexandria. . . . Fourth year of the two hundred and eleventh olympiad: Nero is the first, in addition to all his other crimes, to make a persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously at Rome.” 46 

“In the same reign of Claudius [emperor of Rome, A.D. 41-54], the all-gracious and kindly providence of the universe brought to Rome to deal with this terrible threat to the world, the strong and great apostle, chosen for his merits [virtue] to be spokesman for all the others, Peter himself. 47 

“It is also recorded that under Claudius [10 B.C.—A.D. 54], Philo [c. 20 B.C.—c. A.D. 50] came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there. This would not be improbable, as the short work to which I am referring, and which he produced at a considerably later date, clearly contains the rules of the Church still observed in our own day.” 48 

“So brightly shone the light of true religion on the minds of Peter’s hearers [in Rome] that, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine message, they resorted to appeals of every kind to induce Mark (whose Gospel we have), as he was a follower of Peter, to leave them in writing a summary of the instruction they had received by word of mouth, nor did they let him go till they had persuaded him, and thus became responsible for the writing of what is known as the Gospel according to Mark. It is said that, on learning by revelation of the spirit what had happened, the apostle was delighted at their enthusiasm and authorized the reading of the book in the churches. Clement quotes the story in Outlines Book VI, and his statement is confirmed by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who also points out that Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle, which he is said to have composed in Rome itself, as he himself indicates when he speaks of the city figuratively as Babylon.” 49 

“As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown.” 50 

Peter of Alexandria (d. c. A.D. 311) 51 

“Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, 52 at last was crucified in Rome. And the renowned Paul, oftentimes having been delivered up and put in peril of death, having endured many evils, and boasting of his numerous persecutions and afflictions, was even himself put to the sword and beheaded in the same city.” 53 

Lactantius of Africa (c. A.D. 240—c. 320) 54 

“When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew.” 55 

“But the disciples, being dispersed through the provinces, everywhere laid the foundations of the Church, themselves also in the name of their divine Master doing many and almost incredible miracles; for at His departure He had endowed them with power and strength, by which the system of their new announcement might be founded and confirmed. But He also opened to them all things which were about to happen, which Peter and Paul preached at Rome; and this preaching being written for the sake of remembrance.” 56 

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 315-386) 57 

“[Simon Magus] after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome. . . . And he so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius set up his statue, and wrote beneath it, in the language of the Romans, ‘Simoni Deo Sancto,’ which being interpreted signifies, ‘To Simon the Holy God’. As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right. . . . And marvellous though it was, yet no marvel. For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven.” 58 

Pope St. Damasus I (A.D. 304-384) 59 

“The most blessed Apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the City of Rome in the time of the Caesar Nero—not at a different time, as the heretics prattle, but at one and the same time and on one and the same day: and they equally consecrated the abovementioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.” 60 

“This place, you should know, was once the abode of saints; Their names, you may learn, were Peter and likewise Paul. The East sent hither these disciples, as gladly we confess. For Christ’s sake and the merit of his blood they followed him among the stars And sought the realms of heaven and the kingdoms of the righteous. Rome was deemed worthy to retain them as her citizens. May Damasus offer them these verses, new stars, in their praise!” 61 

Doctrine of Addai (Syriac document dated c. A.D. 400) 

“[Many years after his death, Aggai, who ordained holy priests for the country, was martyred as he taught in the church by a rebellious son of Abgar. His successor, Palut, was obliged to go to Antioch in order to get episcopal consecration, which he received from Serapion, Bishop of Antioch], who himself also received the hand from Zephyrinus, Bishop of the city of Rome, from the succession of the hand of the priesthood of Simon Cephas, 62 which he received from Our Lord, who was there Bishop of Rome twenty-five years, in the days of the Caesar [Nero], who reigned there thirteen years.” 63 

“But the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel, which ye read every day before the people, and the Epistles of Paul, which Simon Peter sent us from the city of Rome, and the Acts of the twelve Apostles, which John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from Ephesus, these books read ye in the Churches of Christ.” 64 

Liber Pontificalis —fourth-century sources 65 

“At the same time, Constantine Augustus built, by request of Silvester the bishop, the basilica of blessed Peter, the apostle, in the shrine of Apollo and laid there the coffin with the body of the holy Peter; the coffin itself he enclosed on all sides with bronze, which is unchangeable; at the head 5 feet, at the feet 5 feet, at the right side 5 feet, at the left side 5 feet, underneath 5 feet, and overhead 5 feet: thus he enclosed the body of blessed Peter, the apostle, and laid it away. And above he set porphyry columns for adornment and other spiral columns, which he brought from Greece. He made also a vaulted roof in the basilica, gleaming with polished gold, and over the body of the blessed Peter, above the bronze which enclosed it, he set a cross of purest gold, weighing 50 lbs. , in place of a measure.” 66 

Catalogus Liberianus —written c. A.D. 354 67 

“In the reign of Tiberius Caesar our Lord Jesus Christ suffered under the constellation of the Gemini, March 25, and after his ascension blessed Peter instituted the episcopate. From his time we name in due order of succession every one who has been bishop, how many years he was in office and under what emperor. Peter, 25 years, 1 month, 9 days, was bishop in the time of Tiberius Caesar and of Gaius and of Tiberius Claudius and of Nero, from the consulship of Minucius and Longinus (A.D. 30) to that of Nero and Verus (A.D. 55). He suffered together with Paul, June 29, under the aforesaid consuls in the reign of Nero.” 68 “December 25 Birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judaea. . . . January 20 Fabianus in the cemetery of Callistus and Sebastian . . . in the Catacombs. January 21 Agnes on the Nomentana. February 22 Anniversary of the chair of Peter. March 7 Perpetua and Felicitas . . . in Africa. . . . May 19 Parthenus and Calocerus . . . in the cemetery of Callistus, in the 9th consulship of Diocletian and the 8th of Maximian (304). . . . June 29 Peter in the Catacombs and Paul on the Ostian Way, in the consulship of Tuscus and Bassus (258).” 69 

Optatus of Milevis (c. A.D. 370) 70 

“We must note who first established a see and where. If you do not know, admit it. If you do know, feel your shame. I cannot charge you with ignorance, for you plainly know. It is a sin to err knowingly, although an ignorant person may be blind to error. But you cannot deny that you know that the episcopal seat was established first in the city of Rome by Peter and that in it sat Peter, the head of all the apostles, wherefore he is called Cephas.” 71 

Epiphanius of Salamis (c. A.D. 315-403) 72 

“At Rome the first Apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul; then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul, whom Paul remembers in his Epistle to the Romans. . . . The succession of the bishops in Rome is as follows: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, whom I have already mentioned above in my enumerating of the bishops.” 73 

Prudentius (A.D. 348—c. 410) 74 

“More than their wont men gather and rejoice. Say, friend, why? All over Rome they hasten and exult in triumph. To us is returned the day of the victorious feast of the apostles, marked with the blood of noble Peter and Paul. The same day, tho’ separated by the space of one full year, saw them both crowned with the lofty wreath of death. The marsh on the Tiber, laved by the bordering river, holds earth consecrated by two trophies and saw both the cross and the sword. . . . The sentence fell first to Peter, doomed by the laws of Nero to hang suspended from the tall beam.” 75 

Augustine of Hippo —written c. A.D. 400 76 

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus, Evaristus by Sixtus, Sixtus by Telesphorus, Telesphorus by Hyginus, Hyginus by Anicetus, Anicetus by Pius, Pius by Soter, Soter by Alexander, Alexander by Victor, Victor by Zephyrinus, Zephyrinus by Callistus, Callistus by Urban, Urban by Pontianus, Pontianus by Anterus, Anterus by Fabian, Fabian by Cornelius, Cornelius by Lucius, Lucius by Stephen, Stephen by Sixtus, Sixtus by Dionysius, Dionysius by Felix, Felix by Eutychian, Eutychian by Caius, Caius by Marcellus, Marcellus by Eusebius, Eusebius by Melchiades, Melchiades by Sylvester, Sylvester by Mark, Mark by Julius, Julius by Liberius, Liberius by Damasus, Damasus by Siricius, Siricius by Anastasius. In this order of succession not a Donatist bishop is to be found.” 77 

Jerome (c. A.D. 342-420) 78 

“Simon Peter, son of John, of the province of Galilee, of the village of Bethsaida, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after his bishopric at Antioch and his preaching to the dispersed of the circumcision who believed, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, in the second year of the emperor Claudius, went to Rome to expel Simon Magus and occupied there the sacerdotal seat for twenty-five years until the last year of Nero, that is, the fourteenth. By Nero he was fastened to a cross and crowned with martyrdom, his head downward toward the earth and his feet raised on high, for he maintained that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. . . . He was buried at Rome in the Vatican, near the Via Triumphalis, and is celebrated by the veneration of the whole world.” 79 

From this point on, as the history of the Church flows from century to century, there is still no question raised about the historical fact of Peter’s sojourn and bishopric in Rome. Not, that is, until the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Even though the apocryphal writings of the Gnostics and Ebionites made up hundreds of fables about St. Peter, even they never placed his martyrdom or episcopal see anywhere but in Rome. How could they have done so in the face of the overwhelming historical proofs in support of those facts? Why is it that some in the last few centuries would deny the historical evidence and claim instead that Peter had never been to Rome? The answer is simple and has to do with authority. 

The fact that Peter presided over the Church of Rome has been challenged only in modern times, and only because of the unfounded “doctrine” of sola Scriptura, instigated in an attempt to refute the primacy of Rome. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of late origin, dating only from the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, though the idea was beginning to develop somewhat earlier with John Wycliffe (c. 1329-1384) and Jan Hus (1373-1415). Sola Scriptura is the assertion that the Bible alone is the final and only infallible authority for faith and practice. It says that, if a doctrine cannot be proved explicitly by Scripture, it cannot be binding on all Christians. Some go even farther. Some who hold to sola Scriptura would have us believe that, since the New Testament does not specifically state that Peter was in Rome, 80 he must never have been there, or, at best, we cannot be certain. 81 They ignore all historical evidence outside the New Testament itself. But the Bible itself never claims to give a full accounting of all early Christian history. Those who espouse such a closedminded and unscholarly methodology are disingenuous. The Bible never tells us that Nero persecuted Christians in Rome either, yet no one would dismiss the historical data outside the confines of the New Testament and claim the horrendous persecution never happened. 

Very few documents survived the first few centuries of the Church. Paper and pens were not what they are today. We know that two of Paul’s epistles have not survived. 82 It is not surprising there is not more about the last days of Peter and Paul, not to mention the other apostles laboring in the Lord’s vineyard. But the documents that did survive through the centuries clearly attest to the historical reality of Peter’s long-standing and authoritative presence in the city of Rome. 

Peter’s presence in Rome is also denied in order to support an uninformed attack on the teachings and authority of the Catholic Church. Denying Peter’s presence in Rome supposedly allows one to deny the Church’s teaching on the primacy of Peter in the See of Rome. In other words, a certain preconception forces many to deny historical evidence—good and sufficient evidence—in order to uphold novel traditions. But in the ancient Church even those in dissent never had the temerity to deny Peter’s sojourn in Rome. “We do not have even the slightest trace that points to any other place which could be considered as the scene of his death. . . . It is a further important point that in the second and third centuries, when certain churches were in rivalry with the one in Rome, it never occurred to a single one of them to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter.” 83 

We have presented evidence from antiquity to establish firmly Peter’s presence in Rome, his position as bishop, and his ultimate death by crucifixion at the hands of Nero. We will look at the implications of our findings for the Church as she spreads over the whole world in the first centuries, projecting herself on a steady course toward the twenty-first century. But first we will look briefly at a few who have ignored the historical evidence and have attempted to repudiate the clear and consistent historical records of Peter’s presence in Rome in order to promote their anti-Catholic agenda

THE OPPOSITION

 It is amazing the extent to which many will go to deny Peter’s presence and influence in Rome. Their staunch opposition to the Catholic Church prods them to conclusions that others, non-partisan in their assessment, would never dare hold. Protestant commentator Alan Stibbs, as quoted earlier, recognizes that only the immediate precursors of the Reformation and those who followed tried to “remove” Peter from Rome: “Only at and since the Reformation have some preferred to treat the word [Babylon in 1 Pet 5: 13] literally as a reference either to Babylon in Mesopotamia or to a military station called Babylon in Egypt.” 1 Oscar Cullmann notes that the Waldensians, a small sect that had its origins in Peter Valdes of Lyons (d. between 1205 and 1218), were the first to raise the question. He writes, “The question [of Peter’s stay in Rome] was first raised in the Middle Ages by Christians for whom the Bible was the only norm, the Waldensians. . . . For the Waldensians, the silence of the Bible was quite decisive. . . . For the next two hundred years we hear nothing of a real attack upon the tradition. Not until 1519-1520 does an anonymous author write an essay contending ‘that the apostle Peter was never in Rome’. For him, too, as for the Waldensians, the chief argument is the silence of the sacred Scripture.” 2 Now, beginning with the Reformation, we will take a quick look at a few of those opponents who denied that Peter ever resided in Rome. 

John Calvin (1509-1564) 3

In commenting on the passage in 1 Peter 5: 13 (“She who is at Babylon . . . sends you greetings”), John Calvin, the French reformer, says, “Many of the old commentators thought that Rome is here symbolically denoted. The Papists gladly lay hold on this comment, so that Peter seems to have been head of the Church of Rome. The infamy of the name does not deter them, provided they can pretend to the title, nor do they care greatly about Christ, provided Peter is left to them. Provided they can retain only the name of Peter’s chair, they will not refuse to locate Rome in the infernal regions. But this old comment has no color of truth, nor do I see why it was approved by Eusebius and others, except that they were already led astray by the error that Peter had been at Rome. Add the fact that they are inconsistent with themselves. . . . 4 Since Peter had Mark as his companion when he wrote this Epistle, it is very probable that he was at Babylon; and this was in accordance with his vocation, for we know that he was appointed an apostle especially to the Jews. 5 He therefore visited chiefly those parts of the world where there was the greatest number of that nation [Jews].” 6 There is a certain arrogance displayed here; for Calvin seems to be saying, “Everyone in the first fifteen centuries has been deceived, not one has understood, not even those who knew Peter and followed in his footsteps. I alone have known the truth about Peter.” This disdain for history and precedent is typical of many of the Reformers and their progeny. 7 We will look at only four representative examples, though others could be multiplied

Loraine Boettner 

Karl Keating, a prominent Catholic apologist, writes, “Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism might be called the ‘Bible’ of the anti-Catholic movement within fundamentalism. It is in this book that the anti-Catholic position is most extensively expressed. Roman Catholicism is worth examining, because what credibility the anti-Catholic movement has depends largely on the credibility of this one volume.” 8 

Taking Keating’s advice, we will see what Loraine Boettner has to say about Peter’s presence and martyrdom in Rome. “According to Roman Catholic tradition Peter was the first bishop of Rome, his pontificate lasted twenty-five years, from 42 to 67 A.D., and he was martyred in Rome in 67 A.D. The Douay and Confraternity versions say that he was in Rome before the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, and that he returned to Jerusalem for that council, after which he went to Antioch, and then returned to Rome. 9 . . . The remarkable thing, however, about Peter’s alleged bishopric in Rome, is that the New Testament has not one word to say about it. 10 The word Rome occurs only nine times in the Bible and never is Peter mentioned in connection with it. There is no allusion to Rome in either of his epistles. . . . There is in fact no New Testament evidence, nor any historical proof of any kind, that Peter was in Rome. All rests on legend. . . . But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome’.” 11 One must ask why Boettner ignores the overwhelming testimony of the early Christians. Does he consider all the written documents of the first centuries to be “legends”, even the documents that came out of the theological councils of the Church that defined the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and the deity of Christ and those in which the canon of the New Testament was determined? Does he also consider all the other matters of history and fact from the same decades and centuries to be legends, or only those things that conflict with his tradition? Does he have proof of Peter being elsewhere? Absolutely not. Can he quote other sources or traditions that would support an opposing view? No. He has simply turned a blind eye in his loyalty to novel Fundamentalist notions. 12

 Harry A. Ironside (d. 1951) —former Pastor of Moody Memorial Church in Chicago 

The well-known Fundamentalist writer and preacher Harry A. Ironside peppers his commentaries and books with “anti-Romist” rhetoric. It is obvious in places that his conclusions are drawn not from scholarship as much as from a deeply embedded anti-Catholic bias. A simple example is found in his commentary entitled James and Peter, where he states, “This Letter is written at Babylon, which Romanists claim was pagan Rome.” 13 Since the “Romanists” believe Rome is the See of Peter, the Fundamentalists must try to prove that Peter never traveled there, in an attempt to undermine the continuity of Catholic teaching, yet here again we see not a shred of evidence to substantiate their claim. Ironside makes the assertion based on his own authority. 

Jimmy Swaggart —author and television evangelist 

One of the main arguments used by Fundamentalists against the presence of Peter in Rome is based on silence. They observe that Paul, when he wrote his epistle to the Romans in about A.D. 58, does not mention Peter by name, which “proves” that Peter was never in Rome. Jimmy Swaggart, in his popular book Catholicism & Christianity, comes to this dogmatic conclusion: “Peter may have passed through or visited Rome at some time, but there is not a hint of scriptural evidence to confirm this. (Furthermore, outside of much-quoted, Catholic ‘traditions,’ neither is there any historical evidence of Peter’s presence in Rome.) . . . [Turning to Paul’s epistle to the Romans:] Since Peter was not mentioned here by Paul, it can be concluded with some certainty that he was not there at that time! This, of course, undermines the very foundation of the claimed apostolic succession of the Roman bishops. If Peter had been in Rome as bishop (as the Roman Catholic church claims), he would have been the first one to whom Paul would have referred! It is therefore a waste of time to consider such a groundless theory. To be frank, it is unlikely that Peter ever even saw the city of Rome in his lifetime!” 14 Based on silence alone, a silence that can be easily explained, Swaggart totally dismisses Peter’s presence in Rome as a “waste of time” and a “groundless theory”. Not once does he mention the overwhelming historical witness of the first centuries, nor does he mention the fact that Peter’s presence in Rome was considered a historical fact through all the early years of the Church. He offers not one piece of evidence to support his theory other than the silence in Romans. He dismisses two thousand years of Christian history without one shred of supporting evidence. 

Why Was Peter Not Mentioned in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans?

Arguments from silence alone, without substantive evidence, are very unconvincing and are usually the only supports available for unhistorical and untenable theories. The fact that Paul does not mention Peter in Romans does not prove that Peter had never been in Rome. 15 There are many plausible reasons why Paul does not mention Peter. First, there is the possibility that Peter was traveling extensively at the time, preaching the gospel in other provinces, using Rome as a home base; or he may have been assisting a Church in another locale. Since he had been commissioned the “apostle to the circumcised”, he would have felt obliged to travel the known world preaching to the Jews of the diaspora. Rome was probably his home base, at the center of the Empire and the center of the Church. We know, even from Paul’s epistles, that Peter traveled widely, accompanied by his wife (1 Cor 9:5). 

Second, it would be very probable, and certainly within the correct time frame (A.D. 49), that Peter had been expelled from Rome, along with all other Jews, by the decree of Emperor Claudius, possibly leaving behind only a small remnant of Gentile Christians. As already mentioned, we know that Claudius evicted all Jews from Rome because of disturbances caused by “Chrestus”, which probably refers to Christ, in which case Peter, the leader of the “Jewish Chrestus sect”, would have certainly been the first to be evicted. 16 Romans was written, according to most estimates, sometime in the mid-first century, which might easily have coincided with the period when the Jews were expelled. 

Third, persecutions were a horrible reality in the first century, and it was a certain death sentence to be appointed bishop of Rome. 17 No Christian would have voluntarily exposed Peter or other leaders to harm, making them vulnerable to Roman retribution. Thus, risk of exposure provides another plausible reason for the silence in Paul’s epistle. “The most ordinary prudence would make St. Paul avoid mentioning St. Peter as Bishop of Rome in written documents which might fall into the hands of the enemies of the Church. . . . Any hint that the head of the Church had taken up his abode in Rome, or was founding the See in the very heart of the Roman Empire would be disastrous if it came into the hands of the enemies of the Church. The Christians were most careful not to allow the movements and official acts of their Bishops to become known to the authorities of pagan society. St. Paul’s remark that he was not going to build on ‘another man’s foundation’ was sufficient reference for those to whom he was writing.” 18 

Fourth, Paul may not have mentioned Peter because he may have been writing to a specific group within the larger Christian community in Rome. He does not address the community with the word “church” as he does his other epistles but instead addresses “all in Rome” in a general sort of way, as one who is unfamiliar with the landscape of the community there. He closes the last chapter by acknowledging what appear to be Christians of his personal acquaintance. The Christian community in Rome was understandably large by A.D. 54, for we know the population of Rome itself at the time far exceeded one million people. 19 Paul may have been writing to a group of acquaintances to encourage them during persecution and to bolster them in the faith, expecting the epistles to be passed around to all the Christians in the vicinity. Also, F. F. Bruce shows that Romans has come down to us with a variety of endings, indicating the possibility that as the epistle arrived in Rome, or as it was passed around, various endings were attached or deleted depending upon the recipients. Bruce writes, “There are a number of indications in the textual history of Romans that it circulated not only in the form in which we know it but in one or even two shorter editions. These indications appear mainly towards the end of the Epistle, but there are two pieces of possibly significant evidence at the beginning.” 20 He goes on to show that several versions did not contain the phrase “in Rome” and that there is “evidence for two shorter editions of the Epistle—one ending at 15:33 and the other ending at 14:23.” 21 This could confirm the hypothesis that Paul was writing to several small or local groups. 

Fifth, it is quite possible that Paul does mention Peter in an oblique manner both in his epistle and by revealing his travel plans. Paul explains that he has not come to Rome because another man had already laid the foundation in that city. He writes, “I have fully preached the gospel of Christ, thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation. . . . This is the reason why I have so often been hindered from coming to you. But now, since I no longer have any room for work in these regions, and since I have longed for many years to come to you, I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be sped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little” (Rom 15: 19-20, 22-24). This passage makes it clear that someone had already founded the Church in Rome prior to the time of Paul’s writing, some time near A.D. 54-58. 22 Paul had been hindered from coming to Rome because he was called to preach where the gospel had not yet been proclaimed. Paul says that someone, “another man”, presumably an apostle (Eph 2:20), had already laid the foundation of the Church in Rome. 23 Paul therefore had reason to believe that the Roman Church had already been well founded (Rom 15:20); and even when he did plan on visiting Rome, he only intended to “pass through” and go by “way of you to Spain” (Rom 15:24, 28). Had the Roman Church been founded simply by stragglers from Jerusalem and other regions, and the Christian community planted by non-apostolic travelers, Paul would have felt obliged to become the establishing apostle. Obviously that was not the case. 

John Calvin, as we have already seen, denies that Peter ever ventured to Rome, the “infernal regions”, and thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is “led astray”, even those of antiquity. Yet in his commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Calvin writes, “It is not to be regarded as a fault that a successor was appointed to fill the place of the apostle who established the Church [in Rome]. We may, therefore, regard the apostles as the founders of the Church, while the pastors who succeed them have the duty of protecting and also increasing the structure that they have erected. Paul refers to any foundation which has been laid by some other apostle as ‘another man’s foundation’.” 24 The question then arises, especially for Calvin: If the foundation had already been laid in Rome, and laying foundations is the particular work of apostles, then which apostle laid the foundation in Rome? Which apostle does the early Church claim founded the Church in Rome? The “mystery” was no mystery at all until anti-Catholic prejudices compelled their adherents to create mysteries where none existed. The first Christians, and subsequent heirs of the faith through the centuries, would simply have said, “There is no mystery; we know from the Scriptures and the Fathers that Peter laid the apostolic foundations in Rome!” 

Sixth, there is the distinct possibility that Paul and Peter were not the best of friends and that Paul would not go out of his way to see or write to Peter at this point in his ministry. Although this is a purely speculative explanation, there is evidence enough in Scripture that Paul had a strong and independent personality and had conflicts with more than one person. There is no reason to believe that these men, though great apostles and servants of God, did not have character flaws and interpersonal conflicts. 25 For one example, we can look at Acts 15:37- 40: “And Barnabas was desirous of taking John, called Mark, along with them also. But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus. But Paul chose Silas and departed.” Barnabas and Paul had been “set apart” by the Holy Spirit to work together (Acts 13:2) and now are separated by sharp contention. What God had joined together, acute disagreement now split apart. John Mark later became Peter’s “right hand” and interpreter in Rome and put Peter’s gospel in writing. Peter affectionately refers to him as “my son Mark” (1 Pet 5: 13). It is not inconceivable that Paul avoided Peter and Mark in Rome and for this reason failed to mention them in his epistle. 

The possible explanations for Paul’s silence concerning Peter in Rome abound. It must be remembered that the Scriptures are relatively silent on the later years of Peter’s and Paul’s lives, and it is here that the history and tradition of the early Church give us the information we need to fill in the gaps. This very tradition passed down though the writings of the Church was virtually unchallenged for sixteen centuries. Serious attempts to discredit the presence and primacy of Peter in the See of Rome only began through the impetus of the Protestant revolt.

 To conclude this section we will provide three last quotations. The first is from the Encyclopedia Britannica, commenting on recent excavations in Rome, which confirm the early Christians’ conviction that Peter was martyred and buried in Rome beneath the site of the basilica. 26 “In the early 4th century, the emperor Constantine (died A.D. 337) with considerable difficulty erected a basilica on the Vatican Hill. The difficulty of the task, combined with the comparative ease with which this great church might have been built on level ground only a slight distance to the south, may support the contention that the Emperor was convinced that the relics of Peter rested beneath the small Aedicula (shrine for a small statue) over which he had erected the basilica.” 27 We read further on the topic: “Most [scholars] would agree at the very least, however, that the excavations reveal that some Roman Christians of the early 3rd century believed that Peter’s grave was on that site. This adds further weight to the already weighty tradition of Peter’s presence at Rome—a tradition attested to by several important pieces of literary evidence from c. 96 onward, emanating from Africa and Asia Minor as well as from Rome itself, challenged by no rival tradition and contested by no contemporary witness.” 28 

Second, let’s examine a passage from Protestant Oscar Cullmann’s book Peter: “In the following period the denial of the Roman tradition about Peter was almost universally abandoned. A man like Ernest Renan assumed as a fact Peter’s stay in Rome, and in the year 1897 it was the Protestant theologian and historian A. Harnack who wrote the notable sentence that the denial of the Roman stay of Peter is ‘an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind.’ So one had the impression that the tradition was finally confirmed. Harnack was of the opinion that ‘the martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of tendentious Protestant prejudices, and then by reason of tendentious critical prejudices.’ “After listing primary critics since Harnack against Peter’s stay in Rome, Cullmann concludes that even among Protestants “the general tendency, even with regard to the literary witnesses, seems indeed to be moving in the direction of accepting the Roman stay of Peter.” 29 After surveying the whole of the debate through the centuries, Cullmann concludes his historical survey in this manner, “In summary of our entire historical section, to the end of which we now have come, we must say that during the life time of Peter he held a pre-eminent position among the disciples; that after Christ’s death he presided over the church at Jerusalem in the first years; that he then became the leader of the Jewish Christian mission; that, in this capacity, at a time which cannot be more closely determined but probably occurred at the end of his life, he came to Rome and there, after a very short work, died as a martyr under Nero.” 30 

And finally, Protestant scholar F. F. Bruce, in his conclusion that Peter had indeed been martyred in Rome, states, “This event [the death of Peter in Rome] may justly be called indubitable because, in Hans Lietzmann’s words: ‘All the early sources about the year 100 A.D. become clear and easily intelligible, and agree with their historical context and with each other, if we accept what they plainly suggest to us—namely, that Peter sojourned in Rome and died a martyr there. Any other hypothesis regarding Peter’s death piles difficulty upon difficulty and cannot be supported by a single document.’ ” 31

PART TWO THE PRIMACY OF PETER IN THE SEE OF ROME

OLDEST DOCUMENTS Earliest Christian Documents Reveal the Primacy of Peter in the See of Rome

As the saying goes, the closer one gets to the source of a spring, the clearer, purer, and cooler the water. In history as well, it is helpful to read original sources and discover how contemporaries understood the events and beliefs of the time. When we read the earliest documents of the Church, we find the primacy of Rome and papal supremacy to be deeply embedded and thoroughly understood in the life of the primitive Church. This understanding has been vociferously contested in some quarters, but we will allow the ancient Church to speak for herself. 

What do we mean by saying that the primacy of Rome was at the heart of the primitive Church? Protestants often chide that the Papacy of today little resembles the leadership of the first-century Church—and to a degree this is true. I remember watching television clips of the Pope riding through the throngs of his adoring fans, safely ensconced in his very expensive “Pope-mobile”, protecting him from the people. I used to watch with contempt, thinking, “Why are all those millions of ‘Catholic faithful’ so duped by all this ‘pomp and circumstance’? Can you imagine Peter or, worse yet, Jesus, riding in one of those protective vehicles?” 1 

So, I watched and chuckled until I did finally step out of my “cloistered” Evangelical tradition and began to read history, study the Fathers, search the Scriptures, and understand the implications of one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Was the Catholic Church of today to be identified, organically, with the Church of the first centuries? How would a small group of illegal sectarians gathering around an uneducated group of fishermen and tax collectors change or develop as it grew? How would that group—if it maintained its organic unity, its universal and structural cohesiveness—look in twenty years? In fifty years? When it became a legal entity? When it spread to other lands? When it grew to a billion strong? How would the demands of the Petrine office change? How would the leadership of this burgeoning household develop over time to handle the growth, the responsibilities, Judaism, Gnosticism, heresies, persecutions, the pressures of paganism, imperial Rome, schism, barbarism, Islam, the Enlightenment, the Reformation, Modernism, Communism, secular humanism, internal and external dissent? The office of Peter, the See of Rome, the Pope in all his glory—or as a bloodied martyr of the faith—has remained and flourished as the longest existing Western institution. It stands as the ideal contradiction: the weakest of men (Peter, for example) with no military might or soldiers in arms, yet outlasting the mightiest of kings and the strongest of empires. I rejoice that I stepped out of my comfort zone.

 No one professes to find in the primitive communities an exact duplicate of every practice or a “literal transcript of the present situation. What, then, do we ourselves mean when we say that the papal regime was in existence in the earliest beginnings of Christianity? The question really is as to whether the alleged counterpart in the early Church differs from its successor in the present, in substance, in principle, in essential features. Is the difference, for instance, between the papal regime of today and the position of the Papacy in the first four centuries of the Christian era more than between the oak and the acorn? 2 Does the difference between the two argue a dissimilarity of constituent elements, or is it merely the necessary difference between various stages of normal growth?” 3 Is the acorn of today not clearly represented by the oak of tomorrow? Do they appear exactly the same at first glance? No. Yet would any deny that what the oak is, in its substance and organic nature, the acorn is as well? The oak is in the acorn and is the result of organic and necessary development. 

What about the outward appearance of the egg and sperm, the zygote, the fetus, the newborn, the infant, the toddler, the child, the pubescent, the adolescent, the adult, and finally the aged? Are they the same in identity and substance? When an elderly gentleman shows a friend his baby picture, does his friend scoff and say, “That couldn’t be you, there is no resemblance!” Is it hard to believe that both accurately portray the same person? Is the mature corporation, with thousands of employees, an intricate hierarchy, and multiple locations, essentially different in nature and identity from the fledgling company that got its start in the owner’s dining room? Are not the differences merely the necessary changes demanded by growth and development? The Church began with twelve inadequate men scattering in fear at the assassination of their rabbi (Mk 14:50), who regathered with 120 people, huddled, again in fear, in an upper room (Acts 1: 15). The Holy Spirit descended (Acts 2), and Peter spoke, explaining and defining God’s New Covenant and opening the door of the Church to the Jewish nation. For roughly the first decade, the Church was made up of exclusively Jewish converts (Acts 10:44- 48). As a result of Pentecost, there were three thousand Jewish converts added that day (Acts 2:5, 41). The Church already looked different from what she looked like only a few days earlier. Are we sure she was the same Church? Over the next weeks and months, “the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Act 2:47). All things were held in common; private property was sold and shared with those who were in need. The office of deacon was established (even invented, one could say), not based on any recorded decree or suggestion of Jesus, but out of the need for structure as the organism grew (Acts 6: 1-6; 1 Tim 3:8). Bishops are first mentioned as Church leaders in Philippians 1: 1 and Acts 20:28, a good thirty years after the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out. 4 Why did the early Church have to introduce bishops? When would this ecclesiastical development cease? About a decade after Pentecost, the face of the Church altered as she received the first Gentile converts, the household of Cornelius, the Roman centurion (Acts 10). Gentiles were received into the Church without the need of prior circumcision. Many of the Jewish believers were scandalized—the Church was not what she was, she had gone awry. Change upon change, development upon development, organic growth and adaptations were spreading in every direction. The “baby” Church grew larger, even spreading out of her geographical confines to cities in other countries, such as Antioch (Acts 11: 19-26). But the Church also grew from within, organically; and, before the end of the first century, the newborn developed into an infant and then into a toddler. No longer limited to the Jewish temple for worship, it now moved into private homes (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16: 19), taking on a distinctive liturgy separate from temple worship. Should a red flag have gone up when they moved out of Solomon’s portico in the temple? 5 In Paul’s earlier epistles, he was concerned with the salvation of the Gentiles through faith apart from circumcision and the law, but in his later epistles it is clear he is concerned about the hierarchical structure of the young Church. He, along with the other apostles, began to set up the second generation of leadership, to carry the tradition and sound teaching into the third generation (2 Tim 2:2; Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:5-9, and so on). Bishops (overseers) were appointed to stand in the place of the apostles (Titus 1:5). Who authorized this development away from the simple organization of the first years? Why do we hear so much now of bishops, deacons, and the like? And who gave the apostles and elders authority to dictate how the Gentiles were to act, live, and eat (Acts 15: 1-29)? It is one thing for the apostles to exercise spiritual and judicial authority over the believers, but where do we find Jesus authorizing “elders” (πρεσβύτεροι) to rule in the Church? Is this not a red flag warning believers of a shift away from the simplicity of the early days? Preaching marked the first days of the infant Church. In fact, there is no record of writing being stressed, either by Jesus or by his apostles. Preaching was the primary means of relaying the truth of God to the people of God (1 Th 2: 13). The word preached and the practices taught came to form a tradition that was binding upon the believers. This happened well before the “teaching” was put into any written format. Paul tells the believers to obey and to adhere to the tradition he left with them. 6 The writings of the apostles soon took on an authoritative cast and were equated with or supplemented the oral tradition. 7 And not until several centuries later were these apostolic writings collected and canonized, recognized as inspired and infallible texts, equal in authority to those of the Old Testament Scriptures. What a development, especially when there was no promise from Jesus or any other reason to believe that such a “book” would emerge! The Church spread throughout the Empire, and the word “Church” gained an adjective, catholic, 8 to describe her—a word that simply meant universal, for she embraced all peoples, in all lands, for all times. She was already the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”, as the Nicene Creed would declare two centuries later. The organic development has continued to blossom from within; and, like the small mustard seed, she has grown strong and stout, quite different in appearance, but now, like a mustard tree, able to accommodate all the birds of the air (Mt 13:31-32). And so the Church developed as she grew but did not change her organic nature or her Christ-established essence. The growth did not contradict what had gone before but rather complemented it in an essential unity with the Church’s past stages of development. Under the pressure of increasing size, theological deviations, and persecution in the first century, leadership solidified and became layered, as is essential for the growth of any organization. This process was first developed and set in motion during the life of the apostles. It was a process of maturation that was fundamental to the organism and vital to its growth. The result of that growth in our age is still known as the Catholic Church and is essentially the same as the acorn planted two thousand years ago. The body is now in adulthood and bears the same marks as it did in the first century: oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity—in short, the Catholic Church. The development of the Church and of doctrine and leadership is simply part of the expected growth of her organic structure. 9 In this section of our study on Peter and the See of Rome, we will look at two of the very first documents of the Christian era outside the New Testament documents. The “infant” Church seen in these early writings displays the essential characteristics of the later “adult” Church. According to the Fathers, both of the writers we will analyze were contemporaries of the apostles, and both of them were acquainted with them to varying degrees. Early tradition informs us that the Apostle Peter personally ordained these two men himself. 10 The two ancient documents we now approach, the first by Clement of Rome and the second by Ignatius of Antioch, both bishops in the Catholic Church, were written at the turn of the first century. At least one of the authors, though probably both, was martyred for his faith. Both men are highly esteemed by all Christian traditions, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike, for their orthodoxy and their passionate love of God and the Church. Clement of Rome (fl. A.D. 96), our first witness, was probably a Gentile and a Roman—the third bishop of Rome after Peter and an associate of the same. The Apostle Paul writes, “And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” 11 Clement was the bishop of Rome during the lifetime of the Apostle John 12 and wrote The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians in the name of the Roman Church in A.D. 96. With a little imagination you can envision Clement strolling down the crowded and dirty streets of ancient Rome with the large fisherman, robes flowing in the breeze as they minister to the poor, preach the gospel, visit the sick, and serve the Lord Jesus in his Church. You can almost see them celebrating the Eucharist together behind locked doors to avoid detection. You can imagine them along the banks of the Tiber, baptizing new converts, initiating them into the mysteries of the Christian faith—Peter training his acolyte to be a bishop someday, to lead the Church, and to suffer for the sake of Christ. Clement was an interpreter of the apostolic teaching and a “codifier” of the apostolic ordinances. Next, we will visit Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 35—c. 107), bishop of Antioch in Syria, second in line of succession in Antioch after Peter, 13 as he is dragged from city to city across the Roman Empire, chained to Roman guards on his way to meet the jaws of wild beasts. The ignominious bondage and public display, even the freedom to receive delegations from the various Churches, were no doubt calculated to defeat Bishop Ignatius, to terrify other Christians to the point of complete passivity, and to stifle any outbreaks of religious fanaticism among this new “sect”. Under these humiliating conditions, Ignatius wrote at least seven letters as he was transported in chains to Rome by Roman guards. In his letters he clearly reveals his great desire for martyrdom by the jaws of lions. 14 It is possible, considering what we know of his life, that the young Ignatius sat under the catechetical teaching of Peter in Antioch. Early tradition suggests he may have been the small child Jesus took upon his knee (Mt 18:2). Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, was also a fellow bishop with Ignatius—we have extant correspondence between them. With our mind’s eye we can see Ignatius, as he prays with furrowed brow for his brothers in Christ and writes to the churches along his route, imploring the saints to hold fast to their bishops and eschew divisions. Visiting the huge Coliseum in Rome causes our imagination to withdraw in horror and empathy at the hideous death he endured there. Yet it was this very martyrdom, this condemnation to an ignominious death, that brought Ignatius to Rome, willing as he was, though in chains, to seal his love for the Savior. The writings of both men clearly display a reverence for the Roman Church and recognition of her primacy in the Christian world. Clement, as the bishop of Rome, exercises the authority that accompanied the office; and Ignatius, writing to Rome, clearly defers to the Roman Church and honors her primacy. We will look at Clement first, since his epistle is earlier in origin (A.D. 96, probably about the same time John wrote his Gospel); and then we will study Ignatius, who wrote about ten years later, during the lifetime of Polycarp. For the purpose of our study we will concentrate on the passages that relate to Peter and the primacy of Rome. The Christians in Corinth were experiencing serious problems. Unity was being attacked by several who had arrogantly taken charge and opposed the ordained clergy, referred to in Clement’s epistle as “that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and selfconfident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.” 15 Clement wrote a lengthy letter castigating the offenders and exhorting the Church to unity. Irenaeus writes, “In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.” 16 Clement’s exhortation was well received. Corinth did not contest the epistle, nor did they challenge the tone of authority woven throughout. We know from later writers that it accomplished the intended goal and was read regularly in the Corinthian Church for centuries, and in many other churches as well. 17 At the time of Clement’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle John was presumably still living and presiding over the Asian Churches only 240 miles from Corinth. Why was John not consulted to correct the problem in Corinth? Why was the task assumed to be the responsibility of Rome, which was well over six hundred miles away? Here we find the occupant of the See of Rome in the first century speaking in the name of his Church and settling a disturbance in a region closer to a living apostle than to the Church of Rome. In some circles, until the third or fourth century, Clement’s epistle was considered an inspired writing, equal to Scripture. 18 One of the most important documents from the apostolic age, the letter is the earliest piece of Christian literature outside the New Testament for which the name, position, and date of the author are historically attested. The letter is a valuable source of information about the life, doctrine, and organization of the early Christian Church. We have already quoted St. Irenaeus on this subject (see page 70, footnote 10). Tertullian (c. A.D. 160—c. 225) informs us: “Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles.” 19 What we see here and will continue to see as we proceed is what the Catholic Church has always taught: that the basic structure and hierarchy of the Catholic Church were in existence from the infancy of the Church and that the Catholic Church has the claim to continuity with the apostles and the early Fathers. Is there just cause for claiming this organic and hierarchical identity with the Church of the apostles and the Fathers? “It seems established, therefore, that from primitive times, at all events by the second century, the whole Church recognized that Rome possessed a primacy relating simultaneously to doctrine and control. When in 1924 the German Protestant historian Harnack completed the great work he had begun at the end of the nineteenth century, he made the following assertion, which, coming from so great a scholar, has considerable weight: ‘Twenty-two years ago, in my capacity as a Protestant historian, I exposed the fact that Roman equals Catholic in my Manual of the History of Dogmas, albeit with certain reservations. But since then this thesis has been strengthened, and Protestant historians should no longer be shocked by this proposition: that the basic elements of Catholicism go back to the apostolic age. . . . Thus the link appears to be complete, and the concept which Catholics have of their history is triumphant.’ ” 20 With this introduction behind us, we will now delve into Clement’s letter, along with a few documents that demonstrate the significance and impact of his epistle in the first centuries. We will try to probe the minds of the first Christians, in order to learn more about life in the Church of that time and to understand their respect for Clement’s hierarchical authority and their intense desire to maintain visible unity. The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (c. A.D. 96) A. Clement Speaks for the Church of Rome, the See of Peter “The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.” 21 B. Clement Apologizes to the Corinthians “Owing to the suddenly bursting and rapidly succeeding calamities and untoward experiences that have befallen us, 22 we have been somewhat tardy, we think, in giving our attention to the subjects of dispute in your community, beloved.” 23 C. Clement Speaks of Apostolic Succession “The Apostles preached to us the Gospel received from Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was God’s Ambassador. Christ, in other words, comes with a message from God and the Apostles with a message from Christ. Both of these orderly arrangements, therefore, originate from the will of God. And so, after receiving their instructions and being fully assured through the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as confirmed in faith by the word of God, they went forth. . . . From land to land, accordingly, and from city to city they preached, and from their earliest converts appointed men whom they had tested by the Spirit to act as bishops and deacons for the future believers. 24 And this was no innovation, for, a long time before the Scripture had spoken about bishops and deacons; for somewhere it says: ‘I will establish their overseers in observance of the law and their ministers in fidelity.’ Our Apostles, too, were given to understand by our Lord Jesus Christ that the office of the bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason, equipped as they were with perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the men mentioned before, and afterwards laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry. Consequently, we deem it an injustice to eject from the sacred ministry the persons who were appointed either by them, or later, with the consent of the whole Church, by other men in high repute.” 25 D. Clement Speaks with Authority from God “Receive our counsel, and ye shall have no occasion of regret. For as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, . . . so surely shall he, who with lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness hath without regretfulness performed the ordinances and commands that are given by God [through us], be enrolled and have a name among the number of them that are saved through Jesus Christ. . . . But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him [Jesus Christ] through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger; but we shall be guiltless of this sin.” 26 E. Clement Requires Obedience to His Epistle “For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter.” 27 F. Clement and the Church of Rome Send Legates 28 to Corinth “Make haste and send our messengers, Claudius Ephebus, Valerius Vito, and Fortunatus 29 back to us in peace and joy; 30 so that news of the truce and the unity for which we are praying and longing may reach us the more speedily, and we may the sooner rejoice over your return to order. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with each and all everywhere whom God has called by Him; and through Him be glory and honour to God, with might, majesty, and everlasting dominion from all ages now and to eternity. Amen.” 31 G. Hermas Comments on Clement’s Duty 32 “Brethren, a revelation was made to me in my sleep by an exceedingly beautiful young man, who said ‘Who, do you think, is the elderly lady from whom you took the book?’ ‘The Sibyl,’ I said. ‘No,’ he said, ‘you are mistaken.’ ‘Who is she, then?’ I said. ‘The Church,’ he said. ‘Why is she elderly?’ I asked. ‘Because she was created before all things,’ he said. ‘For this reason she is elderly and for Her sake the world was erected.’ After this I had a vision in my house. The elderly lady came and asked me whether I had already given the book to the Presbyters. I said that I had not. ‘That is well,’ she said, ‘for I have remarks to add. So, when I shall complete all the words, with your help they will be made known to all the elect. Write, then, two small booklets, one for Clement and one for Grapte. Clement will then send it to the cities abroad since this is his duty, and Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you shall read it to this city together with the Presbyters, who are in charge of the church.” 33 H. Dionysius and the Continuing Importance of Clement’s Letter 34 “In the same letter he [Dionysius] refers to Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, proving that from the very first it had been customary to read it in church. He says: ‘Today being the Lord’s Day, we kept it as a holy day and read your epistle, which we shall read frequently for its valuable advice, like the earlier epistle which Clement wrote on your behalf.’ ” 35 I. Eusebius Relates the Importance and Weight of St. Clement’s Epistle “In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows: ‘With Clement and the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the book of life’ [Phil 4:3]. There is extant an epistle of this Clement which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit. He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church. We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own. And of the fact that a sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the time referred to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness.” 36 The importance of Clement in the understanding of early Christianity is inestimable. To summarize our discussion of Clement’s epistle, a passage from Protestant historian Philip Schaff seems appropriate. He writes, “The first example of the exercise of a sort of papal authority is found towards the close of the first century in the letter of the Roman bishop Clement. . . . It can hardly be denied that the document reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as it appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome.” 37 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans (c. A.D. 106) The letters of Ignatius are also invaluable for a glimpse of the first-century Christian community. Behind the veil of time, we can peer into the structure and practices of the apostolic Churches across Asia Minor and the East. Since the time of the Protestant Reformation, many have challenged the authenticity of these Ignatian documents. It was difficult to believe that the office of monarchical bishop was so uniformly established—unchallenged and taken for granted—in the Churches during the apostolic period. However, scholarship, most notably that of J. B. Lightfoot in his magisterial five-volume Apostolic Fathers, has established the genuineness of these letters beyond doubt. Those who dislike the hierarchical structure of the Church, therefore, are left to grapple with the historical reality as transmitted down through the ages by a disciple of the apostles. 38 Ignatius’ epistles illuminate the history of the primitive Christian communities like a blast of sunlight. In so doing, they stand as a solid witness to the hierarchical structure and visible unity of the Church—which Ignatius called the Catholic Church. Two passages from Eusebius give witness to Ignatius’ importance at the turn of the first century. First, we read, “And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many. Report says that he was sent from Syria to Rome, and became food for wild beasts on account of his testimony to Christ. And as he made the journey through Asia under the strictest military surveillance, he fortified the parishes in the various cities where he stopped by oral homilies and exhortations, and warned them above all to be especially on their guard against the heresies that were then beginning to prevail, and exhorted them to hold fast to the tradition of the apostles. . . . So much concerning Ignatius. But he was succeeded by Heros in the episcopate of the church of Antioch.” 39 Second, we read in Eusebius, “At this time Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. Symeon likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first. At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island.” 40 Church historian Warren Carroll tells us that Ignatius was “at least thirty years a bishop, probably trained by the Apostle John, and was apparently at this time the most venerated living member of the whole Church”. 41 To understand Ignatius a little better, to gain some insight into his personality, his deep spirituality, and his love for the Lord Jesus, it is appropriate to cite one last passage from his epistle to the Romans: “Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but [truly] will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. . . . I write to all the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God. . . . Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. . . . Let fire and the cross; let the crowds of wild beasts; let tearings, breakings, and dislocations of bones; let cutting off of members; let shatterings of the whole body; and let all the dreadful torments of the devil come upon me: only let me attain to Jesus Christ. . . . All the pleasures of the world, and all the kingdoms of this earth, shall profit me nothing. It is better for me to die in behalf of Jesus Christ, than to reign over all the ends of the earth. ‘For what shall a man be profited, if he gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?’ Him I seek, who died for us: Him I desire, who rose again for our sake.” 42 The marvelous letters of Ignatius are invaluable in helping us to understand the early Christian community. Patrick Hamell informs us, “The importance of the Letters is evident. The position of the bishop has already been noted. He is one and in supreme authority. He is first, the priests second, deacons third. The bishop has duties as well as rights. Rome’s privileges are stressed. Christ is the centre of all St. Ignatius’s teaching.” 43 Did Ignatius perceive Rome as holding a place of priority and superiority? Let us take a look at the clues he offers in his epistle to the Romans. A. The Preface 44 “Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ, His only Son; the church by the will of Him who willed all things that exist, beloved and illuminated through the faith and love of Jesus Christ our God; which also presides in the chief place of the Roman territory; 45 a church worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding in love, 46 maintaining the law of Christ, 47 and bearer of the Father’s name: her do I therefore salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. Heartiest good wishes for unimpaired joy in Jesus Christ our God, to those who are united in flesh and spirit by every commandment of His; who imperturbably enjoy the full measure of God’s grace and have every foreign stain filtered out of them.” 48 B. The Church of Rome Presides in Love over Antioch 49 “Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria which now has God for her Shepherd in my stead. Jesus Christ alone will be her Bishop, together with your love.” 50 C. Ignatius Dares Not Issue Orders to the Roman Church “Petition Christ in my behalf that through these instruments I may prove God’s sacrifice. Not like Peter and Paul do I issue any orders to you. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, I am until this moment a slave.” 51 D. The Church of Rome Is a Teacher of Others “You have never grudged any man. You have taught others. All I want is that the lessons you inculcate in initiating disciples remain in force [in my case].” 52 E. Eusebius Comments on the Importance of Ignatius Eusebius was writing very close to the time of the early Fathers and mentions Ignatius several times in his history of the Church. “At this time [from September 18, A.D. 96, to January 27, 98] Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first.” 53 He also emphasizes the respect afforded Ignatius by other godly men. “And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many. . . . Irenaeus also knew of [Ignatius’] martyrdom and mentions his epistles. . . . Polycarp also mentions these letters in the epistle to the Philippians which is ascribed to him. [Polycarp’s] words are as follows: ‘I exhort all of you, therefore, to be obedient and to practice all patience such as ye saw with your own eyes not only in the blessed Ignatius and Rufus and Zosimus, but also in others from among yourselves as well as in Paul himself and the rest of the apostles; being persuaded that all these ran not in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are gone to their rightful place beside the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not the present world, but him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us. . . . The epistles of Ignatius which were sent to us by him and the others which we had with us we sent to you as you gave charge. They are appended to this epistle, and from them you will be able to derive great advantage. For they comprise faith and patience, and every kind of edification that pertaineth to our Lord.’ So much concerning Ignatius. But he was succeeded by Heros in the episcopate of the church of Antioch.” 54 The Christians of the primitive Church had tremendous respect and honor for Ignatius, both for the holiness of his life as well as for his orthodox teaching and loyalty to Jesus Christ. F. St. Chrysostom Pays Tribute to Ignatius and His Apostolic Ordination “[Ignatius] presided over the Church among us nobly, and with such carefulness as Christ desires. . . . He held true converse with the apostles and drank of spiritual fountains. What kind of person then is it likely that he was who had been reared, and who had everywhere held converse with them, and had shared with them truths both lawful and unlawful to utter, and who seemed to them of so great a dignity? . . . For I do not wonder . . . that he [Ignatius] seemed to be worthy of so great an office, but that he obtained this office from those saints, and that the hands of the blessed apostles touched his sacred head. . . . But since I have mentioned Peter, this is that man [who] succeeded to the office after him [in Antioch]. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.” 55 “We may compare with the conclusions of the Catholic professor Perler the earlier pronouncement of the liberal Protestant Harnack: ‘Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman church. After making all allowances for exaggerations of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman church among its sister churches, and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches’ (Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed. , p. 486). It is interesting to observe that independent scholars like Harnack tend to agree with Catholic scholarship, in their estimate of the position of the Roman Church in the earliest centuries, against those Anglican scholars who naturally desire to find a historical basis for a ‘non-Roman Catholicism’ such as this early history does not record.” 56 There is no clear statement in either Clement or Ignatius, in the form of a dogmatic pronouncement of Rome’s primacy, but, as Winter says, “Nevertheless certain passages are intelligible only on the assumption that Ignatius was aware that Rome possessed some kind of superiority over the other churches.” 57 Within these two ancient documents written by Clement and Ignatius, we see something of a widely accepted primacy of Rome, both from within the Roman Church and from other Churches. Orthodox theologians recognize this primacy in the first centuries, though they may debate the actual form it took. In The Primacy of Peter, Nicholas Afanassieff writes, “He [Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the Church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the ‘first place.’ So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord. We are not told by Ignatius (or Clement, either) why the Church of Rome should preside, and not some other church. To Ignatius it must have seemed self-evident, and proofs a waste of time. In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome.” 58 He then goes on to limit carefully what this priority means; but the fact remains, there was a priority, or “church-in-priority”, as he frequently refers to it. Timothy Ware explains the Orthodox position: “Orthodox believe that among the five Patriarchs a special place belongs to the Pope. The Orthodox Church does not accept the doctrine of Papal authority set forth in the decrees of the Vatican Council of 1870, and taught today in the Roman Catholic Church; but at the same time Orthodoxy does not deny to the Holy and Apostolic See of Rome a primacy of honour, together with the right (under certain conditions) to hear appeals from all parts of Christendom. 59 Note that we have used the word ‘primacy’, not ‘supremacy’. Orthodox regard the Pope as the bishop ‘who presides in love’, to adapt a phrase of St Ignatius: Rome’s mistake—so Orthodox believe—has been to turn this primacy or ‘presidency of love’ into a supremacy of external power and jurisdiction.” 60 The Protestant, however, has to conclude that these texts from the first centuries show no primacy and that all churches were independent congregations or denominations. 61 The Catholic and the Orthodox hold much in common regarding the hierarchical nature of the Church and the authority of bishops within the Church, even the primacy of the Roman bishop in his relation to all of Christendom. We will study the differences between them as we look to the writings and actions of the Fathers through the first five centuries of the Church. G. The Importance of St. Ignatius for Understanding Apostolic Teaching “It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of the testimony which the Ignatian letters offer to the dogmatic character of Apostolic Christianity. The martyred Bishop of Antioch constitutes a most important link between the Apostles and the Fathers and the early Church. Receiving from the Apostles themselves, whose auditor he was, not only the substance of revelation, but also their own inspired interpretation of it; dwelling, as it were, at the very fountainhead of Gospel truth, his testimony must necessarily carry with it the greatest weight and demand the most serious consideration. Cardinal Newman did not exaggerate the matter when he said (‘The Theology of the Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius’, in Historical Sketches, I, London, 1890) that ‘the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of his seven epistles.’ ” 62 And finally, an observation regarding St. Ignatius and the Church of Rome at the end of the first century, by Protestant scholar J. N. D. Kelly: “Among the multiplicity of local bodies making up this community, he [Ignatius of Antioch] seems to suggest that the Roman church occupies a special position; he speaks of the church ‘which has the primacy (προκάθηται) in the place of the region of the Romans’. This may be merely an elaborate way of defining the area of the authority of the congregation addressed, but something more appears to be implied since he goes on to salute the Roman church as possessing ‘a primacy of love’ (προκαθημένη τἠς ἀγάπης)—an expression which some have translated, rather forcedly, ‘presiding over the love-community’ (i.e. , over the Church universal). What these early fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church.” 63 So we end this portion of the historical survey by finding that the very earliest authors, ordained by and fellow workers with the Apostles Peter and Paul, clearly portray in their epistles the special place that the Roman Church holds in the universal Church. Would not these two men, who lived and worked with the Lord’s apostles, know the mind of the apostles and the early community better than we who are twenty centuries removed? And when it comes down to whom we will believe, do we choose to believe those who still had the very words of the apostles ringing in their ears or those with innovative ideas battling to secure their turf in the theological and ecclesiological battlefield—two millennia later?