A May Carol.

"In consecrated earth,And on the holy hearth,The lares and lemures moan with midnight plaint."

The wailings of Jeremiah come to mind as we wander over the site of the city that was once full of people, but now sitteth solitary. "The city of thy sanctuary is become a desert, and the house of thy holiness and our glory, wherein thou wert praised, is laid desolate." Perhaps, after all, the melancholy was in my own heart; for the sky was clear, the earth smiling, and before us lay, glad and gleaming, the bright waters of the St. Mary's river,

"Like any fair lake that the breeze is upon,When it breaks into dimples and laughs in the sun."

There is this peculiarity about the river: its windings are so abrupt that from certain points there seems to be no outlet, and it has the appearance of a succession of lakelets; pellucid gems set at this autumn time in bosses enamelled with every shade of crimson and gold, which I loved to think a bright rosary strung by nature in honor of Our Lady.

Two or three miles from St. Mary's is Rose Croft, a charming old place at the very point between St. Inigoes Creek and St. Mary's River. In old colonial times it was the residence of the collector of the port of St. Mary's, and here lived the heroine of Kennedy'sRob of the Bowl. As I rode up to it, I half expected to see the fair Blanche peeping out of the window to see if the carriage did not contain the secretary.

The house is a low, broad one, with verandas and porches, and large, airy rooms, which look out upon a lovely water view. There is a good deal of wainscoting about it, and some carvings in the large parlor that witnessed the birthday festivities. The lady of the house told me that, in making some repairs, a few years ago, a ring and a pair of velvet slippers were found, perhaps once worn by Blanche. All around the yard grows spontaneously the passion flower, winding over every shrub and tree, and trailing along the ground. Everything was left very much to nature, and she had thrown over the grounds a certain sad grace of her own, which harmonized with the antiquity of the house, and the echo of past times that lingered in its rooms. A spruce garden and well-trimmed trees and shrubbery would have ill accorded with such a spot. And there was a certain melancholy in the large, sad eyes of the mistress of this charming place that spoke more of the past than of the present, as if she had imbibed something of its spirit.

On the point between the river and creek, opposite Rose Croft, is St. Inigoes manor-house, belonging to the Jesuit fathers. St. Inigo, or St. Ignatius, was considered, from the first, as one of the patrons of the colony. This house is built of brick brought from the old country, perhaps two hundred years ago or more. It has quite a foreign look, with its high pitched roof and dormer windows. I have seen similar houses in the valley of the Loire. At a distance it looks, as Kennedy says, like a chateau with its dependencies around it. There is a huge windmill at the very point, around which are washed up fine black sand and some spiral shells. On the gable of the southern porch of the mansion is the holy name of Jesus, in large black letters—the cognizance of the Jesuits. The yard is a garden of roses. They grow in bushes, cover the cottages, and climb the trees, blooming often as late as Christmas tide. And the whole place is like an aviary—a rendezvous of all the martins, wrens, whippoorwills, etc., of the country—the very place for poor Miss Flite, who would never have found names enough for them. There are martin-houses, dove-cotes, and trees full of the American mocking-birds. When the windows of the chapel are open in the morning, it is filled with their musical variations, and with the perfume of the roses and honeysuckles. That chapel always seemed to me a little corner of heaven itself, full of the divine presence of which one never wearies. I often betook myself to that sweet solitude. There were memories that haunted me, an image between me and God, which I sought there to consecrate to him. I loved to think the little lamp could be seen all night from the very Potomac and miles up the St. Mary's River; perhaps lighting up in some dark and sinful soul some sweet thought of him before whom it burned.

A religious air prevails at St. Inigoes. Everything is quiet and subdued, and favorable to meditation. The day commences with Mass in the chapel. The Angelus is rung three times a day, which every one kneels to say. Even Nimrod, the dog, howls while it is ringing, as if infected by devotion. And they told me his predecessor would pull at the bell till it sounded, if it was not rung at the moment. Such devotional dogs certainly deserve a place—if it is not profane to say so—among those fine little dogs whom Luther declared would be among our companions in heaven, whose every hair would be tipped with precious stones and whose collars be of diamonds.[Footnote 86]

[Footnote 86: See Audin'sLife of Luther.]

Everything about the house is extremely tidy and well preserved, the garden trim, the walks swept, the whole house a temple of purity and cleanliness. One could sit for ever in that southern porch reading and dreaming life away. Thought would flow on for ever with that current whose waters are as changeable in their aspect as our own varied moods. When so many live merely for the body, why should not some live for the imagination and fancy? This is the very place for Mr. Skimpole, who had no idea of time, no idea of money; who only wished to live, to have a little sun and air, and float about like a butterfly from flower to flower; who loved to see the sun shine, hear the wind blow, watch the changing lights and shadows, and hear the birds sing. He asked of society only to feed him, to give him a landscape, music, papers, mutton, coffee, and to leave him at peace from the sordid realities of the world.

In the dining-room is a large oval table of solid oak which once belonged to the house of the lord proprietary. It is not misplaced in this hospitable house. Daniel Webster, when at Piney Point, used to sail over to St. Inigoes and sit at Leonard Calvert's table. And he taught the cook how to make a genuine New England chowder.

There is, hung up in one of the rooms, a picture of the famous Prince Hohenlohe which interested me. I could not account for its being there till I learned that Father Carberry, a former incumbent, was a brother to Mrs. Mattingly, of Washington, who so many years ago was miraculously cured by the prayers of the holy prince—an occurrence that caused a great excitement at the time.

The parish church is about a half a mile from the manor-house. On Sundays and other festivals you can see boats full of people sailing up the creek. Others come flocking in on horseback or in carriages. A graveyard surrounds the church, which is so hid among the trees that it is not perceived till you are close upon it. The yard is filled before service with the country-people, who fasten their horses around the enclosure, and stand talking in groups, or go wandering around among the grassy mounds, reminding you of the English country church-yards. Our northern churches are almost so exclusively filled up with foreigners that it seemed strange to worship in a congregation almost wholly American. A gallery was appropriated to the colored people, and it was crowded. They seemed quite devout and kept up a great rattling with their large rosaries. I noticed that the father, in preaching, was careful to make them feel that his sermon was addressed as particularly to them as to the others. I was especially interested to see the number that came filing down the aisle to receive holy communion. Sunday after Sunday it was the same, and I was always affected to see these "images of God carved in ebony," as old Fuller calls them, at the holy table to receive Him who is no respecter of persons. In talking with the father about their devotional tendencies, he told me there was one saintly old negro who walked fifteen miles every Sunday to worship the Word made flesh. What an example to the cold and lukewarm in cities who daily pass our churches with scarcely a thought of the Presence within! This little church is a substantial one of brick, with arched windows, but no pretension as to architecture. When the services were over, the ladies all followed the priest into the sacristy to pay their respects to him, and there is a pleasant exchange of greetings which is pleasing and family-like. And many of the men, too, stroll around the building to the rear door to take part in it.

Wandering off into the churchyard, I came upon a large cross around which were clustered the graves of several priests. There is a large monument to the memory of Father Carberry, a genial old priest renowned throughout the country for his hospitality. Among those buried here is Mr. Daniel Barber, of New Hampshire, who became a convert to the Catholic Church, together with his son's whole family, at a time when converts were more rare than at the present time. The son, Rev. Virgil Barber, who was an Episcopal minister, with his wife and five children, embraced the religious life. One of the latter took the white veil at Mount Benedict, near Boston, and was remarkable for her beauty and accomplishments. She made her profession in Quebec, where she died young.I have heard a nun of that house tell, and with great feeling, of her descending every morning to the chapel before the rest of the community, even in the rigorous winter of that latitude, to make the Way of the Cross, that touching devotion to the suffering Saviour.

The grandfather, Mr. Daniel Barber, who was also a minister, only took deacons' orders in the church on account of his age. He loved to visit the old Catholic families of St. Mary's, but was ill pleased when he did not find the cross—the sign of our salvation—in the apartment. "Where's your sign?" he would abruptly ask. He rests in peace in this quiet country church-yard.

The father at St. Inigoes has to possess a variety of accomplishments not acquired in the theological seminary. Priest, farmer, horseman, and boatman must all be combined to form the fine specimen of muscular Christianity required in this extensive mission. The place is no sinecure.

Good Father Thomas, obliged to visit a sick person at the very head of St. Mary's River, invited me to accompany him, and I gladly did so. Two colored servants went to manage the sail, or to row if necessary. The boat was black as a gondola of Venice. Sailing over these waters, where passed the Dove and the Ark, reminded me of the Père Jean and the novice René on the St. Lawrence. The whole country was, as we set out, glorified by the setting sun. The long points of land around which the river wound were bathed on one side by a golden mist, and on the other in a faint lilac. Over the gorgeous woods hung a purple haze that faded every instant. The amber clouds grew crimson, and then faded away into grey. The father said his breviary, leaving me to my own reflections a part of the way. There was not a ripple on the broad sheet save the receding ones left by our boat. Now and then we would stop to drink in the beauty of the scene—the sky, the water which reflected it, the lights and shadows on the banks, the melancholy cry of the whippoorwill, and the gay sounds of the laborers just through with their day's work. As it grew darker, the deep coves were filled with mysterious shades; the ripples left behind seemed tipped with a phosphorescent light. We glided at last into a sheltered cove just as the moon came out, giving enchantment to the whole scene. In such bright waters bathed Diana when Actaeon beheld her and was punished for his presumption. One of us repeated the beautiful lines of Shelley:

"My soul is an enchanted boat,Which, like a sleeping swan, doth floatUpon the silver waves of thy sweet singing;And thine doth like an angel sitBeside the helm conducting it,Whilst all the winds with melody are ringing.It seems to float ever, for everUpon that many winding river,Between mountains, woods, abysses,A paradise of wildernesses!Till, like one in slumber bound,Borne to the ocean, I float down, around,Into a sea profound, of ever-spreading sound."

A few days after, I sailed over to the Pavilion to take a boat for Washington.

She hid her face from Joseph's blame,The Spirit's glory-shrouded bride.The Sword comes next; but first the Shame:Meekly she bore, and naught replied.For mutual sympathies we live:The outraged heart forgives, but dies:To her, that wound was sanative,For life to her was sacrifice.At us no random shaft is thrownWhen charged with crimes by us unwrought;For sins unchallenged, sins unknown,Too oft have stained us—act and thought.In past or present she could findNo sin to weep for; yet, no less,Deeplier that hour the sense was shrined,In her, of her own nothingness.That hour foundations deeper yetGod sank in her; that so more highHer greatness—spire and parapet—Might rise, and nearer to the sky:That, wholly overbuilt by grace,Nature might vanish, like some isleIn great towers lost—the buried baseOf some surpassing fortress pile.Aubrey De Vere.

The question of which we purpose to treat in this article is one of those that are sure to receive prominence whenever the claims of the Roman see are discussed with more than ordinary interest and warmth. Just now the "Anglo-Catholic" mind is exercised to find some way of establishing the existence of a one holy catholic and apostolic church, without admitting the supremacy of the bishop of Rome; besides, the approaching ecumenical council directs men's attention to the eternal city, and the high prerogatives of its pontiffs. Not unfrequently we meet with a broad denial that St. Peter ever was at Rome at all, or at least that he was ever bishop of Rome. This is not, indeed, the course pursued by the most learned or thoughtful amongst our opponents; they know history too well to stake their reputation for erudition or fairness on any such denial; but it is in favor with a lower or less instructed class of minds, and is adopted in text-books for theological seminaries, as well as in some popular works intended chiefly for the perusal of persons who, in all likelihood, may never have the opportunity, even should they have the inclination, of recurring to those more learned authorities by consulting whom the imposture would soon be detected. Thus it has come to pass that in popular works, lectures, magazine and newspaper articles, and the like, one frequently meets with the flippant assertion that it is very doubtful whether St. Peter ever was at Rome, that the place of his death is uncertain; all that we know for certain being that, shortly before his demise, he was in Babylon, whence he wrote his first letter. We shall endeavor to establish as a historical truth beyond all reasonable doubt, supported by evidence that must be admitted as sufficient by any unprejudiced critic, that St. Peter visited Rome, dwelt there, was first bishop of the Roman church, and there, together with St. Paul, laid down his life for his Master, in fulfilment of the latter's prophecy, "When thou wilt be old, thou wilt stretch forth thy hands, and another will gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not;" words which, as the inspired writer tells us, signified "by what death he should glorify God." [Footnote 87]

[Footnote 87: John xxi. 18.]

The question has been so fully discussed, that we may not hope to say anything that will be considered new; to the learned reader, indeed, we can but repeat a "thrice-told tale;" but, as the adversaries of the holy see do not disdain to furbish up the arms which have already been stricken from the hands of their predecessors, we shall be content to draw from the same arsenals whence our fathers drew the weapons that they knew how to wield so skilfully and successfully. All that we ask of the non-Catholic reader is, that he approach the question as a merely historical one, to be judged on the ordinary rules of historical evidence. All dogmatical preoccupations against the supremacy of the Roman pontiffs should be laid aside.This is demanded by fairness and a sincere love of truth; besides, although we acknowledge that to establish St. Peter's Roman bishopric is, if not an indispensable, at least a very important, preliminary to the successful assertion of the Roman primacy, yet the ablest amongst Protestant theologians have thought that, even admitting the historical fact, they could successfully refute the dogma. Our inquiry, then, shall be purely historical, to be decided on purely historical grounds. At the beginning of this century, no one having any pretensions to historical learning attempted to deny that St. Peter had really lived and died at Rome. Such high names in the Anglican Church as Cave, Pearson, and Dodwell had given their unbiassed and positive testimony to the truth. Whiston had said: "That St. Peter was at Rome is so clear in Christian antiquity, that it is a shame for a Protestant to confess that any Protestant ever denied it." But, about this period, the rage for the new system of biblical interpretation raised doubts about the accepted meaning of the wordBabylonin the thirteenth verse of the fifth chapter of the first epistle of St. Peter, and the question whether the apostle ever was at Rome again came up for discussion. Very little new has been said, so that little remains to be confuted. We repeat, we have merely to sum up what has been well and conclusively said before. We have before us a work entitledAn Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Historical and Doctrinal, by Edward Harold Browne, lord bishop of Ely, in which [Footnote 88] the author endeavors to confute "the position of the Roman Church, that St. Peter was bishop of Rome."

[Footnote 88: Art. xxxvii. sec. II.]

As this work is used as a text-book in the New York Protestant Episcopal Seminary, and may, therefore, be supposed to furnish ideas and facts on church questions to the average Episcopalian clerical mind, we shall follow the author in his argument, and show how a plain tale can put down all his ingenious explanations and evasions.

The plain statement is as follows: The earliest and most reliable documents of Christian antiquity, with a clearness and unanimity that leave no room for doubt or cavil, state that St. Peter was at Rome, took a special care of the Roman Church, and died there. The bishops of Rome are always represented as his successors, not merely in that inheritance which has come down to all bishops from the apostles, but as his successors in hisCathedra, or episcopal chair. Our witnesses are numerous; their knowledge and fidelity are unimpeachable; their statements cannot be evaded or explained away; and thus the Roman bishopric of St. Peter is as undoubted a fact of ecclesiastical history as any other in the earlier ages. We shall give the proofs one by one, confining ourselves to the first three centuries.

St. Clement, who was certainly bishop of Rome, and who, according to Tertullian was ordained by Peter, in his epistle to the Corinthians—admitted as genuine by the best authorities—referring to the late persecution of the Roman Church under Nero, mentions among other troubles the recent martyrdom of SS. Peter and Paul, alleging them as noble examples of patience under tribulation. We have here a witness on the spot, who had seen the apostles, and been a special disciple of St. Peter.

We have next another apostolic father, St. Ignatius of Antioch, who suffered martyrdom about A.D. 107, and in a letter to the Romans speaks of SS. Peter and Paul as their special preceptors and masters: "I do not command you as Peter and Paul; I am a condemned man."It is to be remarked that no one attempts to deny that St. Paul was at Rome, as one of his journeys thither is related in the last chapter of the Acts, and he speaks of himself as in that city; [Footnote 89] the union of St. Peter's name with his, as both commanding the Romans, shows that the former apostle had been with them in person as well as Paul.

[Footnote 89: 2 Tim. i. 17. This letter would seem to have been written not long before the apostle's death. See ch. iv. 6,7.]

Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, probably a disciple of St. John the Apostle, as quoted by Eusebius, says that St. Mark wrote his gospel from the preaching of St. Peter at Rome, [Footnote 90] and that the apostle wrote his first letter from the same place, calling it Babylon. [Footnote 91]

[Footnote 90:Eus. Hist. Eccl.lib. iii. c..39.][Footnote 91:Ibid. lib. iii. c. I.]

St. Dionysius of Corinth wrote a letter to the Roman Church under the pontificate of Soter, (A.D. 151-170,) which is also quoted by Eusebius, [Footnote 92] in which he says that SS. Peter and Paul, after planting the faith at Corinth, went into Italy, planted the faith amongst the Romans, and there sealed their testimony with their blood.

[Footnote 92:Ibid. lib. ii. c. 25.]

St. Irenaeus, (Bishop of Lyons A.D. 178,) a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a hearer of the Apostle John, speaks of the Roman Church as "the greatest and most ancient church, known to all, founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul. [Footnote 93]

[Footnote 93: Lib. iii.adv. Har.c. iii.]

He adds: "The blessed apostles having founded and arranged the church, delivered its bishopric and administration to Linus. To him succeeded Anacletus, after him Clement, to him Evaristus, and to Evaristus, Alexander. The sixth from the apostles was Sixtus, after him Telesphorus, next Hyginus; then Pius, after whom came Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now the bishopric is held by Eleutherius, the twelfth from the apostles." This is an authentic list of the bishops of Rome from the apostles to the writer's time, placing the date of his work between A.D. 170 and 185, the fifteen years of the pontificate of Eleutherius.

Cajus, a priest of Rome under Zephyrinus, who governed the church during the first seventeen years of the third century, says, in a work quoted by Eusebius, [Footnote 94] but now lost: "I can show you the trophies of the apostles; for whether we go to the Vatican or the Ostian way, we shall meet with the trophies of the founders of this church." This is remarkable testimony to the accuracy of the tradition that prevails to this day of the places where the apostles were buried—St. Peter at the Vatican, St. Paul in the Ostian way, which now are marked by "trophies," greater in splendor and magnificence, but raised by the same spirit of reverence and love as those which this Roman priest pointed out in the third century.

[Footnote 94:Ibid. lib. ii. c. 15.]

Tertullian flourished about the same period, for he died A.D. 216. Speaking in his great workOn Prescriptions[Footnote 95] of apostolic churches, he says: "If you are near Italy, you have Rome, whence we also [the African Church] derive our origin. How happy is this church on which the apostles poured forth their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter by his martyrdom is made like the Lord; where Paul is crowned with a wreath like that of John!" Again: "Let us see … what the Romans proclaim in our ears, they to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospel sealed with their blood." [Footnote 96]

[Footnote 95: C. 36.][Footnote 96: Lib. iv. adv.Marcion.]

And speaking in the bookOn Prescriptionsof the origin of apostolic churches, he calls on heretics to "unfold the series of their bishops, coming down from the beginning in succession, so that the first bishop was appointed and preceded by any one of the apostles, or apostolic men in communion with the apostles. [Footnote 97] For in this way the apostolic churches exhibit their origin; … as the Church of Rome relates that Clement was ordained by Peter." [Footnote 98] Clement of Alexandria (who died A.D. 222) states that St. Paul wrote his gospel at the request of the Romans, who wished to have a written record of what they had heard from St. Peter. [Footnote 99]

[Footnote 97: "Ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis habuerit auctorum et antecessorem." ][Footnote 98: Ch. 32.][Footnote 99: Eus.Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. c. 14. ]

Origen, (A.D. 185-255,) who visited Rome under the pontificate of Zephyrinus, says that St. Peter having preached to the Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, toward the end of his life [Footnote 100] came to Rome, and was crucified with his head downward. [Footnote 101]

[Footnote 100:[Greek text][Footnote 101: Quoted by Eusebius,Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. C. II.]

St. Cyprian, (Bishop of Carthage A.D. 248, put to death for the faith A.D. 258,) speaking of the irregular proceedings of some local schismatics who had appealed to Pope Cornelius, says: "They venture to set sail, and carry letters from schismatical and profane men to thechair of Peter, and to the principal church, whence sacerdotal unity has arisen." [Footnote 102] And in another letter he speaks of the election of Cornelius, "when the place of Fabian, that is, the place of Peter, and the rank of the priestly chair, was vacant." [Footnote 103] Even Bishop Hopkins, whom his friends cannot blame for too great facility in his concessions, admits that St. Cyprian acknowledged that St. Peter was bishop of Rome.

[Footnote 102:Epist. 59, adCornel.][Footnote 103:Epist. 52, ad Antonianum.]

We do not wish to go beyond the three hundred years immediately following the death of the apostle, and shall therefore omit here the clear and unmistakable statements of Optatus, Jerome, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others, closing with the account given by Eusebius of Caesarea, (bishop A.D. 315-340,) who is justly regarded as the father of ecclesiastical history, and of the greatest weight in historical matters. His accuracy and research are universally acknowledged, and his authority alone is generally regarded as conclusive. [Footnote 104] He says that Simon Magus went to Rome, and that "against this bane of mankind, the most merciful and kind Providence conducted to Rome Peter, the most courageous and the greatest among the apostles, who on account of his virtue was leader of all." [Footnote 105] He adds in his chronicle: "Having first founded the Church of Antioch, he goes to Rome, where, preaching the gospel, he continues twenty-five years bishop of the same city."

[Footnote 104: "In questions of critical investigation regarding the early church, no writer bears with him greater authority than that of the learned Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. Removed only by two hundred years from the apostolic times, and being attached to the imperial court, and having at his command all the literary treasures of the Caesarean library, he ever displays a profound knowledge of the earlier Christian writers, and at the same time a truly refined critical acumen in discriminating between their genuine productions and those falsely assigned to them." —Dublin Review, June,1858, art. vii.][Footnote 105:Hist. Eccl.lib. ii. c. xiv.]

We have here a continuous series of witnesses, from those who had seen and conversed with the Apostle St. Peter to the date of the first work on ecclesiastical history now extant, all of whom clearly testify to the fact that he visited Rome, took special charge of the Roman Church, and there died a martyr, as our Lord had foretold he would die. After the apostolic writers, who, from the proximity of the events to their own time, could not be mistaken, the most important witnesses are Irenaeus and Origen, Tertullian and Cyprian.The two former had visited Rome, and are competent witnesses of the tradition of the Roman Church, the most important of all in this matter; the two latter can testify to the same tradition, both because missionaries from Rome planted the faith in Africa, and because the constant intercourse, as well in ecclesiastical as in civil affairs, between the capital of the empire and Carthage, must necessarily have brought about a community of traditions between the two churches. The whole ancient church thus bears witness to what some Protestants now vainly affect to deny. Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Northern Africa, Gaul, Palestine, repeat what Clement, ordained by Peter, tells. The second century takes up the fact from those who had seen the apostles; the third learns it from the second, and the father of ecclesiastical history relates it as a matter beyond doubt, found by him in those ancient records, for the greater part since lost, the gist of which he has fortunately preserved to posterity. Scarcely any matter of fact—and this is amerematter of fact—connected with the early age of the church, leaving out those recorded in the sacred pages, is better attested.

To these written records we must add the expressive testimony of the catacombs. It is impossible to visit them without feeling that the Roman Christians looked on the apostles Peter and Paul as the founders of their local church. Eusebius was struck by the "monuments marked with the names of Peter and Paul," which he saw in the cemeteries at Rome, and these have been discovered, in modern times, by the indefatigable industry of Christian antiquarians; they are a living testimony to the fact that St. Peter, as well as St. Paul, labored in Rome. The illustrious Cardinal Borgia has traced the tradition in regard to the presence of St. Peter's body in the Vatican from the beginning of the third century, [Footnote 106] when, as we have seen, Cajus, a priest of Rome, in a work against heretics, [Footnote 107] spoke of the trophy of Peter in the Vatican, down to the days of Pope Urban VIII. And thus the most splendid monument Christianity has erected to the worship of the living God is also an authentic record of the fact that the chief of the apostles selected the city of Rome, in a special manner, as the scene of his labors, and there consummated his glorious career in the service of his Master. No wonder learned Protestants are ashamed to join with their more ignorant brethren. One learned German writer of this century says: "There is, perhaps, no event in ancient (church) history so clearly placed beyond doubt by the consenting testimony of ancient Christian writers as that of Peter having been at Rome." [Footnote 108] Another more forcibly, if possible, remarks: "Nothing but the polemics of faction have induced some Protestants, especially Spanheim, in imitation of some mediaeval opponents of the popes, to deny that Peter ever was at Rome." [Footnote 109]

[Footnote 106: In the workVaticana Confessio B. Petri.][Footnote 107:The Montanists.][Footnote 108: Berthold,Historisch-Krit. Inlet. in A. und N. T. apudPerrone.][Footnote 109: Gieseler,Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.Ibid.]

A caviller may, indeed, say that all these witnesses prove, at most, that Peter was at Rome, not that he was bishop of Rome. And this is the point made by Bishop Browne, in the work to which we have referred.

"It is not to be doubted," he says, "that a tradition did exist in early times that St. Peter was bishop of Rome. But if that tradition be submitted, like others of the same kind, to the test of historical investigation, it will be found to rest on a very slender foundation.In the first place, Scripture is silent about his having been at Rome—a remarkable silence, if his having been bishop there was a fact of such vital importance to the church as Roman divines have made it to be. Then, the first tradition of his having been at Rome at all does not appear for more than a century after his death. It is nearly two centuries after that event that we meet with anything like the opinion that the Roman bishops were his successors. It is three centuries before we find him spoken of as bishop of Rome. But when we reach three centuries and a half, we are told that he not only was bishop of Rome, but that he resided five and twenty years at Rome; a statement utterly irreconcilable with the history of the New Testament." [Footnote 110]

[Footnote 110: Loc. cit.]

There is, indeed, no good reason to doubt that St. Peter was at Rome; that he assisted St. Paul to order and establish the church there; that, in conjunction with Paul, he ordained one or more of its earliest bishops, and that there he suffered death for the sake of Christ. But there is no reason to believe that he was ever, in any proper or local sense, bishop of Rome." [Footnote 111]

[Footnote 111:Ibid.]

We leave aside for the present the alleged silence of the New Testament. In the first place, it is not true that "the first tradition of Peter's having been at Rome does not appear for more than a century after his death." Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias, Dionysius of Corinth, belong to this period, and all unmistakably testify to Peter's having been at Rome. Irenaeus may be fairly counted also, as he was sent from Lyons to Rome in A.D. 177. Of these, Bishop Browne mentions only Papias and Irenaeus. He quotes Papias's opinion about the wordBabylonin St. Peter's first Epistle, and tries to set it aside. But, whatever the exegetical value of the opinion, it is proof that Papias held it as an undoubted fact that St. Peter was at Rome; besides, he also states that Mark wrote his gospel at Rome, under the eye of Peter. Nor is it at all pertinent to say that Eusebius tells us that Papias was a narrow-minded man, and an enthusiast about the Apocalypse. Neither narrow-mindedness nor enthusiasm prevents men from being competent witnesses to simple facts, and the one about which we are now inquiring is a simple fact. The only question is—Could Papias have known for certain whether St. Peter was at Rome or not? He lived in the apostolic age, not half a century after the death of the apostle. This is a sufficient answer, and his views about either Babylon or the Apocalypse cannot impair its sufficiency. As to Irenaeus, our lord bishop quibbles in a way that is not handsome. He tries to break down his and other writers' testimony by alleging, first, that they disagree as to the first bishop of Rome after St. Peter; second, that they disagree about thetimeSt. Peter came to Rome.

We are almost ashamed to have to answer such quibbling. Neither disagreement at all touches the substantial part of the narrative. Neither is as great as our expounder of the articles, in his despair, tries to make it. Neither could ever have been alleged in ordinary controversy. All authors, save Tertullian, mention Linus as first bishop of Rome after Peter. The African father in reality says only that Clement was ordained by Peter; the context, however, would suggest that he supposed he was the immediate successor of the apostle. The truth appears to be that Linus, Cletus, and Clement were consecrated bishops by one or the other of the apostles. This was commonly done in the first age; only one person in every city possessed episcopal jurisdiction, but more clergymen than one were frequently invested with the episcopal order. This was done in the Roman Church. St. Peter was its first bishop; after his death, Linus, Cletus, Clement governed it in succession, all three having been ordained by the apostles.There is nothing in this supposition at all at variance with what is known to have been the common practice of the first age, a practice which it is not ingenuous in the lord bishop of Ely to suppress. As to the discrepancy about the time of the apostle's coming to Rome, it is easily explained on the commonly received hypothesis that St. Peter twice visited Rome. Eusebius says that he went first under Claudius. He was obliged to leave Italy in consequence of that emperor's decree banishing thence the Jews. He returned thither, toward the end of his life, and there suffered martyrdom. But it is plain that such discrepancies cannot affect the substance, namely, that Peter was at Rome; indeed, they are intelligible only on the supposition that all the authors quoted held the main fact as certain. It is plain also that there is not the slightest foundation for the lord bishop's assertion that "at whatever time St. Peter came to Rome, there was some one else bishop of Rome then." The courage required for this assertion can be measured from another statement, just four lines above: "All (the early writers) agree in saying that the first bishop of the see was Linus." This is simply shameful. Put after "see" the wordsafter Peter, and the quotation will be correct. But then what becomes of the bishop's argument? He says Linus was bishop of Rome when Peter went thither; and he also admits that "some (early writers) say that St. Paul, others that St. Peter and St. Paul, ordained him." These latter writers surely did not suppose that St. Peter ordained a man in Rome before he himself ever went to Rome. The bishop clearly does not stick at trifles. His chronology is also entirely at fault. He says that it "is three centuries (after St. Peter's death) before we find him spoken of as bishop of Rome." But St. Cyprian, whom even Bishop Hopkins admits spoke thus of the apostle, was put to death before the end of the second century from St. Peter's martyrdom. He sneers at the statement that St. Peter was five-and-twenty years bishop of Rome; yet he admits that it is based on the authority of that eminent and judicious critic, St. Jerome, who, from his high position under Pope Damasus, had abundant opportunity for an accurate examination of the then extant records. In reality, it is based on an earlier authority, the great historian Eusebius. It is plain that his polemic system is simply factious; he ignores some authorities, misconstrues others, miscalculates dates, and mistakes mere accessories for the principal fact; such a course is not only a crime against historical truth, it is also a blunder, for it can mislead only the unlearned or the unwary reader.

The writers of the first age do not, it is true, assert in so many words that St. Peter was bishop of Rome. The reason is obvious. Treating of other matters, their allusions are merely incidental, such as we might expect immediately after the death of SS. Peter and Paul, and relating chiefly to the fact of the apostle's connection with the Roman Church, or his martyrdom there. For these facts they are unanswerable authority. These are a necessary preliminary to the assertion of St. Peter's Roman bishopric. This fact is broadly stated as soon as we meet with the polemical development of the doctrine of apostolic succession. Tertullian, in the text we have quoted from the bookOn Prescriptons, where he accurately defines in what this succession consists, namely, that the first bishop was appointed and preceded by an apostle or an apostolic man, (Apostolum … habuerit auctorem et antecessorem,) says that in the Roman Church Clement was ordained by Peter.Tracing thus the succession in Rome from Peter, not from Paul, whose death in the imperial city he mentions, he shows that he knew Peter was the bishop of the see. St. Cyprian uses unmistakable language on the same subject, and Eusebius asserts positively that St. Peter was bishop of Rome. We might quote other catalogues, but, though of great authority, they are of a more recent date. But we shall give two more authorities which can be connected with the period to which we have confined ourselves. St. Jerome [Footnote 112] positively states that St. Peter held the episcopal chair (cathedram sacerdotalem) of Rome for twenty-five years. His historical knowledge and critical acumen give to his words the authority of a statement based on the very best records of the early age. No one can deny that in the latter half of the fourth century there were such records at Rome. St. Optatus of Millevi, in Africa, (A.D. 370,) in a controversial work against the Donatists, speaks of St. Peter's Roman bishopric as a matter of notoriety, which no one would dare deny. "You ought to know," says he to the Donatist leader, Parmenian, "andyou dare not deny, that Peter established at Rome an episcopal chair, which he was the first to occupy, in order that through (communion with) this one chair all might preserve unity." [Footnote 113]

[Footnote 112: In Catal.][Footnote 113: Contr. Parmenianum.]

A statement made so positively, so unhesitatingly, so boldly, must have been founded on the very best historical evidence. And the nineteenth century must accept the judgment of competent writers of the fourth on such a subject. Unless, then, we wish to deny all authority to authentic record of the early age of the church, we must conclude, with the good leave of the lord bishop of Ely, that there is excellent reason to believe that St. Peter was bishop of Rome. Nor is there any force in the bishop's remark that all the apostles had the world for their diocese, and were not confined to any particular city. We do not, of course mean to say that St. Peter confined his preaching to Rome. He was apostle as well as head of the church. As apostle, he preached chiefly to the Jews. As head of the church, he chose for his episcopal see the capital of the world, in order that there might be no doubts about the legitimate heir of his great dignity. For this reason we find him in Rome among the Gentiles, though St. Paul had a special mission to them. Dr. Browne says Peter was St. Paul'sassistantat Rome; and this, in the face of the facts that every writer, from Clement down, puts him before the great vessel of election, and that St. Paul himself, as we shall see, speaks of his ministry to the Romans as one merely of mutual consolation, a tone he never adopted toward a church which he himself had founded. We have purposely left to the last the argument based on the alleged silence of the New Testament, because we wished to clear an historical question of all purely exegetical difficulties. We have established our thesis on indubitable evidence; we might rest here and simply say that, inasmuch as no one pretends that the New Testament contains the entire history of the apostles, its silence cannot affect the certainty of our proposition. This silence may puzzle the curious reader; it may be variously interpreted, according to the theological bent of the student; but it cannot disprove facts which are proved by historical authority.Bishop Browne feels the force of this, and does not insist much on the silence of the New Testament. He merely remarks that this silence is strange, if St. Peter's Roman bishopric be as important as Roman divines make it out to be. Strictly speaking, we might let this pass, as we are not now concerned in establishing the supremacy of the Roman pontiffs, but merely treating the historical question, Who was first bishop of Rome? We may observe, however, that no believer in the doctrine of apostolical succession can consistently urge this silence. How does Dr. Browne tracehissuccession in the office of bishop from the apostles? Is it from St. Peter? Then he has to meet the same objection about the silence of the New Testament on what, from his point of view, is a vital matter. Is it from St. Paul? But there is no scriptural evidence that St. Paul ever ordained a bishop in Rome, or anywhere in the west. Is it from any other apostle? The same remark holds good. No claim to apostolical succession can be established for any see in the western church unless on the evidence of tradition. This is virtually admitted by Dr. Browne himself.

Since, however, the silence of the New Testament is commonly urged as affording presumptive evidence that St. Peter never was at Rome, we shall examine all that Protestants have to say on the subject. The principal text—the only one having direct reference to the subject—is I Peter v. 13: "The church which is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Mark, my son." Nearly all ancient writers, commencing with Papias, say that this letter was written at Rome, which city St. Peter designates under the name of Babylon. Our Protestant opponents, of course, reject this interpretation. Now, we wish it to be understood that we do not allege this text to prove that St. Peter wrote from Rome. We admit that, taken in itself, apart from tradition, it is obscure, and can afford, at best, ground but for conjecture. But, having established beyond all doubt the fact that St. Peter was at Rome, we follow the interpretation of the respectable ancient writers whom we have quoted. When the letter was written, old Babylon of Assyria was in ruins, according to Strabo and Pliny; and the Jews, to whom St. Peter wrote, had been banished from Assyria, according to Josephus; and, though Seleucia was afterward called Babylon, it had not received the name at this early period. Some think that the Babylon referred to was in Egypt, the place now called Cairo. But it was then but a fort, or fortified village, (castellum,) and the Christian church of Egypt has always looked on Alexandria as its birthplace. St. Peter, moreover, warns the Christians of the approaching persecution, and exhorts them to be subject to the emperor and his subordinates. These allusions come very naturally from the pen of one writing at Rome, but are almost unintelligible if we suppose the writer in Babylon of Assyria, out of the Roman empire. The opinion that the letter was written at Rome, called Babylon by St. Peter for some reason which we can only conjecture, is based on excellent ancient authority, agrees with well-known facts of history, and with the internal evidence of the letter itself. Leaving aside its bearings on the main question we are discussing, it is by far the most probable view, and, in any other case, would be accepted without difficulty. [Footnote 114]

[Footnote 114: Occasionally the love of novelty induces some Catholic writer to differ from his brethren. This is the case with Hug, who holds that we cannot admit mystical names in the letters of the apostles, as there is no instance of their use, save in this disputed case. This is criticism based on internal evidence run mad. One would suppose that there was a perfect course of sacred epistolary literature in the New Testament, based on fixed rules, instead of a few detached letters, written by different authors at different times, without any communication or agreement with one another about literary style. There is nothing more fallacious than the interpretation of any of the letters of the apostles on mere internal evidence. Hug's remark at most shows that internal evidence does not afford any proof that St. Peter meant Rome, which no one will deny.]

Back to Index Next