|
(The following long note is translated, with the author's permission,
from the Histoire de l’Eglise, Tome I L’Antiquite Chretienne (pp.
61-67) of Fr. A. M. Jacquin, O.P., Paris, Editions de la Revue des
Jeunes, 1928. To the learned author of this best of manuals I gladly
express my sincerest thanks.)
"The fact of St. Peter's martyrdom at Rome has been called in doubt,
through the prejudices of Protestants first of all and then of the
critics. In both cases the mistake has led to an appreciable gain in
historical knowledge and to that extent has been of real service. That
these doubts were mistaken is to-day unquestionable for all scholars
save those who turn from the light. The critical apparatus with which
Baur strove against the ancient tradition is to-day, and rightly,
regarded as negligible." (A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur, Chronologie, t. ii, i, p. 244.)
For all Harnack's judgment, there are not lacking Protestant and
rationalist historians who spend their energy defending these theses
which have long ceased to be tenable. Erbes, for example, and above
all, Ch. Guignebert (La primaute’ de Pierre et la venue de Pierre a
Rome, Paris, 1909). This last scholar's work earned him from the pen of
M. P. Monceaux a lesson in critical scholarship which hardly increased
his reputation as a scholar. (L’apostolat de Saint Pierre a Rome a
propos d’un livre recent in the Revue d’historie et de litterature
religieuses, New Series I (1910), pp. 216-40: cf. also A. Flamion,
Saint Pierre a Rome: Examen de la these et de la methode de M.
Guignebert in the Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique, XIV (1913), pp.
249-71, 473-88.) On the other hand a Protestant, H. Lietzmann, has just
published in defence of the tradition a work of the very highest
interest (Petrus und Paulus in Rom, 2 ed., Berlin, 1927). His choice
goes to the evidence from the Liturgy and from Archaeology, and he
reaches the conclusion that, towards the year 200, the conviction at
Rome was universal that the city possessed the tombs of SS. Peter and
Paul. Other proofs, drawn from the letters of Clement and Ignatius,
from the First Epistle of St. Peter, make it impossible for us to allow
the theory of a legend formed in the interval between the death of the
Apostles and the year 200 and this all the more since no other church,
whether in the East or in the West, has ever laid claim to the honour
of possessing these illustrious remains.
There would then be little occasion to re-open the discussion of a
question now so clearly decided, except for the fact's importance in
the history of the Primitive Church and for its apologetic value as an
argument for the privileges of the episcopal see of Rome. This double
importance is a good reason for presenting here the arguments on which
the traditional belief is based.
Moreover, the proof is by this time a commonplace, and among many
others Mgr. Duchesne (Les Origines chretiennes, 2 ed., pp. 82-117,
Paris, s.d.: Hist. Ancienne de l’Eglise, I, pp. 61-63, Paris, 1911) has
set it out with a scientific detachment which is beyond all criticism.
He makes a distinction between the principal fact, about which no one
can any longer have any serious doubt, and the accessory circumstances
about which we have not the same historical guarantee. "It is
possible," he says, "to prove that St. Peter came to Rome, and that he
suffered martyrdom there: we have no evidence sufficient to fix the
date of his coming nor the length of his stay." (Les Origines
chretiennes, p. 82.)
I. As to the first point, we can note, by the end of the second century
a tradition that is precise and universal: the majority of the churches
provide evidence, and that evidence is to the same effect.
1. Alexandria. Clement, writing about the Gospel of St. Mark, says
"Peter preached the word of God publicly at Rome, and under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit made the Gospel known. Those who
assisted at his sermons, and they were numerous, exhorted Mark, who for
a long time had been Peter's companion, and whose memory held many of
his sayings, to put these things in writing." (Eusebius, H.E., vi, 14)
Origen, in his commentary on Genesis (1 iii) speaks of the activity of
the Apostles. Of Peter he says "Peter appears to have preached in
Pontus, in Galatia, in Bithynia, in Cappadocia, and in Asia to the Jews
of the Diaspora. Finally he, too, came to Rome, and there he was
crucified, head downwards, having asked to suffer in this fashion."
(EUSEBIUS; H.E. iii, 1.)
2. Africa. Tertullian more than once asserts that St. Peter came to
Rome and there suffered martyrdom. Speaking of the church of that city
he says "O Happy Church ! The Apostles lavished upon it their teaching
and their blood. Peter there suffered a death like to that of the
Lord." (De Praescriptione, 36.) In the De Baptismo, 4, he recalls that
Peter "baptized in the Tiber" that is at Rome. In another place (Adv.
Marcion, iv, 5) it is to the authority of the Romans that he appeals
against Marcion since "to them Peter and Paul left the gospel,
confirmed by their blood." A little later still, Scorpiace 15, he
asserts that "Nero was the first to persecute the nascent faith at Rome
with punishments. Then it was," he adds, "that Peter was girt by
another, when he was fixed to the cross."
3. Gaul and Asia. St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, was of Smyrnian
origin, and acquainted therefore with the traditions of these two
countries, to say nothing of the tradition of Rome where he had lived
for some time. Now St. Irenaeus has no doubts whatever that St. Peter
came to Rome. According to him the Gospel of St. Matthew was written
"while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding
the church there." (Adv. Haereses, iii, 1.) And, a little later,
wishing to base his argument on the witness of the Churches, he
contents himself with giving the proof of the apostolic succession of
the Church of Rome "founded and organised by the two glorious apostles
Peter and Paul." (ibid. iii, 3.)
4. Greece. Eusebius (H.E., ii, 25) writes as follows "Denis Bishop of
the Corinthians, in a letter addressed to the Romans, thus fixes the
point that Peter and Paul both suffered martyrdom at the same time. You
have also, by such an admonishment, united Rome and Corinth the two
trees which we owe to Peter and to Paul. For just as both the one and
the other planted at Corinth and taught us, so after teaching together
in Italy, at the same time they suffered martyrdom."
5. Rome. Leaving aside the archaeological and liturgical evidence
regarding St. Peter's chair at Rome, his tomb and the place where he is
supposed to have lived in the empire's capital, [ ] and, too, the lists
of the bishops of the Roman Church, we can cite the testimony of the
Roman priest Caius, who wrote during the pontificate of Zephyrinus
(199-217). "In a treatise written against Proclus, the chief of the
Cataphrygians," says Eusebius (H.E., ii, 25) "and speaking of the
places where the sacred remains of the Apostles were laid he says, 'I
can show you the trophies of the Apostles. Go to the Vatican, or along
the Ostian Way, there you will find the trophies of the founders of
this church.’“ The meaning of the expression tropaia has been much
controverted, and it is suggested that it designates not the tombs of
the Apostles but simple commemorative monuments. Even so it remains
true that Rome, at the end of the second century, was still mindful of
the memory "of the founders of this church." But there is nothing to
disprove that the term in question means 'tomb’; we find it used with
this meaning, and Eusebius, who had before him the complete text of
Caius, so uses it. It is, in point of fact, the only possible meaning
in this context. Caius is answering the boast of Proclus that Asia
retains the bodies of the four prophetess-daughters of Philip and of
their father, too, and must in turn be claiming that Rome, more
gloriously still, possesses, not merely a memorial, but the very tombs
of the Apostles. [ ]
This examination shows then that the principal churches of the
Christian world between 170 and 210 were unanimous in affirming that
St. Peter went to Rome and there suffered martyrdom. Now an agreement
so unanimous, among witnesses whom we may believe to be independent of
one another, can only be explained by the objective reality of the fact
to which they testify. That agreement is all the more impressive from
the circumstance that it has not to meet any rival contrary tradition.
When the Bishops of Rome claim to be the successors of St. Peter, and
pride themselves on this distinction, no one throws doubt on their
claim. The Eastern churches themselves bear testimony in the same
sense. (cf. F. Martin, Saint Pierre, sa venue et son martyre a Rome, in
the Revue des questions historiques, t. xiii (1873), pp. 5-107.)
The end of the second century was too near in time to the events
themselves for any legend to have formed and to have spread itself so
widely. Besides, pushing the investigation back through the intervening
years we find hints that fit in with the data of the tradition as early
as the first century, as early as St. Peter himself.
If, for example, St. Justin and Hermas are silent about the coming of
St. Peter to Rome and his martyrdom there, and there was no reason why
they should speak of it, St. Ignatius of Antioch, on the other hand, in
his Letter to the Romans, written about 110, certainly alludes to it.
In touching language he beseeches those to whom he writes "to spare him
any untimely benevolence" that might rob him of martyrdom, and he adds
"I do not give you orders as Peter and Paul. They were Apostles and I
am but a prisoner condemned to death" (Rom. 4). Commenting on this
text, Mgr Duchesne (Les Origines chretiennes, p. 89) says very truly,
"These words are not the literal equivalent of the proposition 'St.
Peter came to Rome,' but, supposing that he did go there St. Ignatius
would not have spoken otherwise: supposing he did not go to Rome the
phrase lacks meaning."
The tradition then existed, even in Syria, from the time of Trajan. It
shows itself at Rome, in, the time of Domitian, in the letter of Pope
Clement. Speaking of the evil effects of jealousy he shows how it
caused the death of the apostles and of many other martyrs. "Cast your
eyes," he says, "upon the most worthy apostle -- Peter, who, victim of
unjust jealousy, underwent not one or two but a whole host of
sufferings, and who, having thus accomplished his martyrdom, departed
for the place of glory that is his due. It was through jealousy, too,
that Paul showed how [to win] the prize of patience. . . . After
teaching justice to the whole world, journeying to the very limits of
the West, he accomplished his martyrdom before those in authority, and
left this world, illustrious model of patience, to go to the holy
place. With these men of holy life were joined a great crowd of chosen
souls, who, the effect of jealousy, endured many outrages and tortures,
and who left among us a magnificent example. It was as the victims of
jealousy that these women, the Danaids and the Dirces, after suffering
terrible and monstrous outrage, reached the goal in this race of the
faith, and weak in body as they were, received their noble reward"
(Cor. 5-6). All these victims form with the Apostles, Peter and Paul,
one group. These women, came to join themselves (synethroisen) with the
Apostles, and it is at Rome (ev hemin) that all suffered and left a
magnificent example.
Finally St. Peter himself, in the letter he wrote to the churches of
Asia, seems certainly to suggest that he is living in Rome at the time
he is writing. To these Christians he sends the greetings of "the
Church of Babylon" (I Pet. v. 13) that is to say of Rome, according to
most exegetes. "Peter," says Renan (L'Antechrist, p. 122, Paris, 1893),
"to designate Rome chose the name of the capital of Asiatic wickedness,
a name whose symbolical meaning all would recognise."
Thanks to this continuity in the tradition, which goes back as far as
the fact itself, it is possible to demonstrate that St. Peter went to
Rome and there suffered martyrdom. "Every other hypothesis," says M.
Lietzmann, "heaps difficulty upon difficulty, and can produce in its
support not a single testimony from sources" (Petrus und Paulus in Rom,
p. 238).
II. If we desire to establish with precision the date at which St.
Peter came to Rome and the length of his stay we are not any longer in
a position to prove anything demonstratively. There are sources which
all of them speak of a period of twenty- five years in connection with
St. Peter's Roman apostolate, but they disagree as to the date when
this period begins and also as to the events with which it is
connected.
Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (ii, 14), makes St. Peter come
to Rome at the beginning of the reign of Claudius (41-54), and places
his death during the persecution of Nero. His presence in the imperial
city is alleged to have ruined the prestige of Simon Magus. In the
second edition of his Chronicle, of which St. Jerome's translation is
testimony (A. Schene, Die Weltchronik des Eusebius in ihrer Bearbeitung
durch Hieronymus, Berlin, 1900), he gives as the date of arrival the
second year of Claudius (42), and as the date of martyrdom the
fourteenth of Nero (67).
The Liberian Catalogue, so called because in its present form it dates
from the pontificate of Liberius (353-366), mentions St. Peter at the
head of the list of Bishops of Rome. "Peter, twenty-five years, one
month, eight days; during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Caius, Tiberius
Claudius, and Nero; from the consulate of Minucius (Vinicius) and
Longinus to that of Nerine (Nero) and Nero (Vetus)." St. Peter then is
said to have come to Rome during the reign of Tiberius, Vinicius and
Longinus being consuls (30): he is said to have lived there during the
reign of Caligula, Claudius and Nero until death came to him during the
consulate of Nero and Vetus (55).
Finally Lactantius (De Morte Persecutorum, 2) says of the Apostles,
"They spread themselves throughout the world to preach the gospel, and
for twenty-five years, to the end of the reign of Nero, were busied
about the foundation of the Church through all the provinces and
cities. Nero had already come into power when St. Peter came to Rome. .
. . Nero was the first to persecute the servants of God. Peter he
crucified and Paul he put to death."
These three texts agree in speaking of a period of 25 years. But while
Eusebius and the Liberian Catalogue speak of the period as the duration
of St. Peter's Roman episcopate, Lactantius' reference is to the
preaching of all the Apostles, during the time between the Ascension
and Nero's succession, and preceding St. Peter's coming to Rome. Again,
the first two sources differ in the dates from which they make the
period begin -- Eusebius places the period between 42-67, the Liberian
Catalogue between 30 and 55.
All the documents date from the fourth century but two of them,
Eusebius and the Catalogue, derive from earlier documents, lists of
bishops already existent in the third century and perhaps even in the
second. (cf. A. Flamion, Les anciennes listes episcopales des quatre
grands sieges, in Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique, i (1900), pp.
645-678; ii (1901), pp. 209-238.) It follows from this that it was
probably from this time that the idea of twenty-five years was linked
with St. Peter's Roman apostolate.
It is not, for all that, easy to understand the twenty-five years as a
period of uninterrupted residence at Rome. According to the Acts of the
Apostles St. Peter was at Jerusalem in 49 on the occasion of the
conference which dealt with the question of Gentile converts to the
faith. Shortly afterwards he was at Antioch where the incident related
by St. Paul occurred. St. Paul’s own silence in his Epistle to the
Romans, written in 58, that of the author of the Acts in his account of
St. Paul’s captivity (61-62), the silence of the Apostle of the
Gentiles in all the letters he wrote from Rome, seem to point to the
fact that in these years St. Peter was not living at Rome. "All this
is, no doubt, not absolutely irreconcilable with an effective residence
of twenty-five years that would have to allow for necessary absences.
But it is very extraordinary that these absences fall precisely at all
the times concerning which we have information about Roman
Christianity" (L. Duchesne, Les Origines chretiennes, p. 84, note).
According to Eusebius (H.E., ii, 14), St. Peter, who routed Simon Magus
for a first time in Palestine, met the imposter a second time at Rome
"at the beginning of the reign of Claudius." Simon's success which had
been such that he had come to be considered "as a god, honoured with a
statue," disappeared and was extinguished with himself. As early as the
third century the author of the Philosophoumena (xi, 20) had recalled
this fact without, however, making any mention of the statue. The value
of this testimony, and of other testimonies still more recent, is hard
to assess. Eusebius, for all that relates to Simon, bases his account
on St. Justin, citing his first Apology (26), where the magician is
spoken of as follows: "He was taken for a god; as a god he had his
statue; it is erected on an island in the Tiber, between the two
bridges, with his inscription in Latin: Simoni Deo Sancto." Now it is
very probable that Justin, whose historical accuracy often leaves much
to be desired, has here confused Simon and the Etruscan divinity Semo
Sancus. In the sixteenth century, as a matter of fact, on this very
island of the Tiber, there was discovered the base of a statue with the
words upon it Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum. Later still, on the
Quirinal, where there was a temple to this divinity, two similar
inscriptions were discovered. On the other hand the literary tradition
of the meeting, of which one finds traces as early as the third
century, may derive from the Acts of Peter, which dates from this time.
But this work, romantic in character, Gnostic in origin, Docetist in
tendency, is too slight an authority to have any credit at all. It is
to this work, too, that we owe the story of Quo Vadis -- St. Peter
leaving Rome to escape martyrdom meets Our Lord Who invites him,
tactfully, to return to the city.
All things considered, if it is not possible to deny absolutely the
meeting of St. Peter and Simon it is impossible at present to prove it
scientifically. As far as regards St. Peter's death, on the other hand,
we possess some data of the very best authenticity coming from
Tertullian and Origen. The first says clearly (Scorpiace, 15) that he
died in the time of Nero, the second (EUSEBIUS, H.E., iii, I) placing
the martyrdom of St. Paul at this time seems to associate with it that
of St. Peter. The two writers add that he was crucified (TERTULLIAN, De
Praescriptione, 36, Scorpiace, 15; ORIGEN loc. cit.) and Origen says,
too, that he was crucified head downwards, not an unusual circumstance
as the custom of the day went and one which is to be found in other
cases too (cf. P. Allard, Histoire des persecutions pendant les deux
premiers siecles, p. 79).
|
|
