HISTORY

ON THE RESIDENCE OF ST. PETER IN ROME. 1

By the Rev. A. Blanc, one of the Pastors of Mens, Isere

[The occasion which gave rise to the following series of letters concerning a point of historical controversy, now ceded by most intelligent Anti-Catholic writers, is fully explained in the brief correspondence which is prefixed, extracted from the United States Catholic Miscellany, for November 8, 1828. The Letters appeared in this and several subsequent numbers of the Miscellany, and were republished in a pamphlet form. The originals of passages quoted have not been given, as most of them are merely historical, and can scarcely admit of question.]

THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE.

There is a Magazine, bearing this title, published in Philadelphia, every month, and devoted to the cause of Presbyterianism. In the number for last July, an article appeared, which we were informed assailed us most heroically, and charged us with deceit and falsehood; we were somewhat anxious to see the production, and requested a friend to endeavour to procure a copy: he informed us that a gentleman who was a subscriber, and had the Advocate, declined lending it to us, upon the ground that it was better we should not see it, lest it should hurt our feelings. We thought the reason anything but reasonable, coming from the quarter whence it emanated. Our friend continued his efforts, and in another way was more successful. Nearly a month since, the Bishop sent to our office, accompanying the Christian Advocate for July, the following note, which he received together with it, stating that all he required was, through a motive of delicacy, the suppression of the names it contained; with which requisition we comply. The note will explain itself.

"To the Right Rev. Bishop England.

"WENTWORTH STREET, Oct. 5, 1828.

"Right Reverend and Dear Sir:-Some time since I promised our mutual friend to procure for him the Christian Spectator, it being a work, as we supposed, that contained a most foul calumny against yourself and the respectable body

Dr..

The purpose of Protestants in denying that St. Peter lived and died at Rome is to break up the line of Apostolic succession. If St. Peter did not die as Bishop of Rome, then it follows that the Pope, the present Bishop of Rome, is not the successor of St. Peter. In a lengthy treatise on this question, the learned Protestant Bishop Ellicott says: "Nothing but Protestant prejudices can stand against the historical evidence that St. Peter sojourned and died at Rome. Whatever theological consequences may follow from it, it is as certain that St. Peter was at Rome as that St. John was at Ephesus.'-ED.

2

From the United States Catholic Miscellany of Nov. 8, 1828.

of clergy over whom you preside. On continuing my exertions, I have ascertained that it is the Christian Advocate, not the other work mentioned. Being unacquainted with his place of residence, and considering that it was intended to meet your eye, I have taken the liberty of sending it to you for perusal. The highly offensive manner is contained in page 298, second column. A Protestant myself, and deeply attached to my religion, I cannot but greatly regret, and severely condemn, the use of such means. May the time soon arrive when bigotry shall be consigned to its native nothingness, and no other arms be used than those of attraction, mildness, and persuasive argument. In this prayer the liberal of both religions will most cordially unite. "Yours, very respectfully, .

We transmitted the article to our friend B. C., with a request that he would favour us with a few letters on it as soon as convenient; and we are happy to lay his first upon the subject before our readers this day.

The charge made against us is in the following words:

"I have access to a weekly paper published in Charleston, called the United States Catholic Miscellany, which affords melancholy proof of their (the Catholic Priests) industry, success, and deep delusion-as well as their hatred of Protestant teachers, and of the unblushing falsehoods they invent and propagate, to rivet the fetters of their followers, and decoy the ignorant into their toils.'

When a man professing to be a teacher of truth comes forward publicly to make such a charge as the above, he owes it to himself to be fully prepared to support his allegations; and we trust the American public will not admit the assertion of this man without sufficient proof. He states that he has access to the Miscellany; if he had not, we would furnish him with any numbers that may be at our disposal, and which he might need to sustain his charge, or transmit to him the copy of any article he may please to designate: and as we now deny the truth of his accusation, and appeal to the public, he must feel himself no longer at liberty to decline his prosecution. For the present, we conclude with the following document:

"To. Mr. A. Finley, PHILADELPHIA.

"CHARLESTON, S. C., Nov. 5th, 1828.

"Sir:-I beg leave to draw your attention to a paragraph published by you in the 67th No. of the Christian Advocate, for July, 1828, page 298, column 2, regarding the United States Catholic Miscellany and the Catholic priests. I beg also to inform you that I am the publisher of the Miscellany, and have the honour of being a priest of the Catholic Church; and I call upon you, as you value your reputation as an honest man, for the authority upon which you published and circulated that paragraph, which I pronounce to be an unprovoked and wanton libel upon myself, my publication, and the religion and order to which I have the honour of belonging. "Your obedient servant,

"J. F. O'NEILL."'

"Rev. J. F. O'Neill:

"PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 14, 1828.

"Sir:-I have just received your communication of the 5th inst., relative to a paragraph in the Christian Advocate of July last. Permit me to observe that I am only the publisher (and that but ostensibly) of that work, and have nothing whatever to do with, or any influence over, the matter which composes it.

"Your letter will be handed, without delay, to the . proprietor, who will act in reference to it as he may think proper.

the editor and

"I am respectfully,

"Your obedient servant,

"ANTHONY FINLEY."'

The Reverend Doctor, whose name was given, has not, as far as the publisher of these letters can learn, made any reparation.

ON THE RESIDENCE OF ST. PETER AT ROME. 3

4

It is upon the testimony of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, that the Popish tradition rests, respecting St. Peter's being at Rome, his founding a church there, and for twenty-five years discharging in it the functions of a bishop. Papias was copied by Clement of Alexandria; Clement was copied by Eusebius, and the latter has been copied by many authors, ancient and modern, who have been, perhaps, too much interested to render credible a fact, which will always be of very little importance to those who build their faith, not on the person of St. Peter, but upon the corner stone, Jesus Christ. The account of Papias, which is based upon a hearsay only, about eighty years after the occurrence to which it refers, is still extant, and is full of fables and ridiculous tales,— such as the contest which this Apostle sustained against Simon the sorcerer, his crucifixion with his head downwards-as if Nero had left to the Christians the care of settling the forms of their own punishmentand other similar things, which were reported originally only by this Papias himself. Eusebius, speaking of him, calls him "a man of narrow genius, and too credulous."

According to the testimony of the same Eusebius, 5 Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, an author of the second century, affirms also that St. Peter and St. Paul met at Corinth, and that they departed together for Rome, where they suffered martyrdom. But, besides that Dionysius himself complains that his letters had been falsified by heretics, 6 a circumstance which considerably invalidates the authority of his writings, this testimony ought not to outweigh the truth of our Holy Scriptures, which, with the divine assistance, we shall bring forward below. Let us also make, in passing, the remark, that when the fathers are produced against us in order to support dogmas or facts, which our opponent feels

From the Philadelphia Christian Advocate translated from the Archives du Christianisme by the Rev. A. Blanc, one of the Pastors of Mens, Isere.

4 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib ii. c. 14, 15, et seq.

Ibid. lib. ii. 25.

Ibid. lib. iv. 23.

himself interested in maintaining, we ought to be the more upon our guard, because the Council of Trent has decided that the books of the ancient fathers ought to be purged (expurgati); a circumstance that, consequently, should make us very circumspect in the admission of passages which they cite against us; while, on the other hand, the passages of these fathers which we allege, remain in all their force, since we possess the books of the ancients only from the hands of our adversaries.

The tradition of this journey of St. Peter to Rome rests, moreover, upon the supposition that the Babylon from which he wrote his first epistle, was Rome. Eusebius strengthens this conjecture, by saying that Peter "figuratively called Rome Babylon." But many learned men with reason maintain that the name, Babylon, ought to be taken in its proper signification, for Babylon of Chaldea, or that of Egypt, which is now Grand Cairo, where were many Jews, to whom Peter was specially sent, as St. Paul teaches us, in the second chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians.

To all these pretensions, we can oppose, in the first place, the testimony of Clement, who is reckoned to have been the third or fourth Bishop of Rome. This pious and holy person, in his admirable epistle to the Corinthians, expresses himself thus, on the subject of St. Peter and St. Paul: "Through unjust envy, Peter did not endure one or two, but a very great number of trials; and at last, having suffered martyrdom, he went to his place in glory. Through the same envy, Paul received the reward of his patience, having been in prison or chains seven times, beaten twice, stoned once; and after he had been the herald of the Word of God in the East and in the West, he obtained by faith an illustrious victory. Having reached the extremity of the West, he suffered martyrdom under the emperors. Thus he departed from this world, and went to a holy place, leaving us a singular example of patience." What is the likelihood, that, in the parallel which Clement draws between these two Apostles, he should forget to say that, under the emperors, he suffered the pains of martyrdom? Would he have neglected a fact, in this manner, which would have given additional weight to his epistle, and done honour to his see? But let us come to the testimony of our Holy Scriptures.

The best Catholic ecclesiastical writers put the martyrdom of St. Stephen in the seventh year after the death of Jesus Christ; in other words, A. D. 40. The conversion of St. Paul, at soonest, happened this year. Thus we see seven years already past. At this epoch, St. Peter

'Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 15.

was still at Jerusalem with the other apostles; and not until some time afterwards, he was sent with St. John to strengthen the Samaritans, who had been converted by the ministry of St. Philip. "Now, when the Apostles who were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." (Acts viii. 14). At this epoch, Peter was still under the authority of the apostolical college; it was only five or six hundred years afterwards that he seized upon the sovereign power, in the person of his successors. After the conversion of St. Paul, we find St. Peter at Lydda, where he cured Eneas (Acts ix. 32-34); at Joppa, where he raised Dorcas from the dead (ix. 36-41); at Cesarea, where he converted Cornelius, (x). Upon the report spreading that Peter had eaten with the Gentiles, he returns to Jerusalem, and vindicates himself before "them that were of the circumcision," (xi). This journey of Peter, his preaching in the provinces of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, his abode at Joppa, and the other events which St. Luke relates, occupy a space of three years, (A. D. 43.) We learn that the Christians, dispersed on the occasion of the death of Stephen, had carried the good savour of the Gospel to Antioch. Thither Barnabas was immediately sent, who "seeing the grace of God, departed to Tarsus to seek Paul" (Acts xi. 25), and bring him to Antioch, where they remained "a whole year," (xi. 26-A. D. 44.) About this time the famine predicted by Agabus, should be placed, the martyrdom of St. James, the imprisonment of St. Peter, and his remarkable deliverance, (Acts xii.) Thus far St. Peter is constantly found in Judea, not manifesting upon any occasion the desire of going to Rome: and why should he have gone thither, since that city fell not within his charge? St. Paul says positively, "The gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles-James, Cephas, and John, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go into the heathen, and they unto the circumcision," (Gal. ii. 7-9). St. Paul, three years after his conversion, going up to Jerusalem to carry the alms of the Christians of Antioch and the circumjacent places, met Peter there, with whom he remained fifteen days, (Acts xi. 30; Gal. i. 18). He went up thither a second time, fourteen years afterwards (Gal. ii. 1), and there he still met with Peter and his principal colleagues, (v. 9.A D. 58). Behold, then, Peter constantly at Jerusalem, seven years— ten years-twenty-five years, after the death of Jesus Christ. If we read with a little attention the eleventh verse of this second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, it appears that it was not till after this time