Chapter X. Short Description of the Life of S. Peter, and of the Institution of his First Successors

There is no question which the ministers fight over so pertinacioiisly as this. For they try by force of conjectures, presumptions, dilemmas, explanations, and by every means, to prove that S. Peter was never at Eome: — except Calvin, who, seeing that this was to belie all antiquity, and that it was not needed for his opinion, contents himself with saying that at least S. Peter was not long Bishop at Rome: " On account of the consent of writers, I do not dispute that he was at Eome. But that he was bishop, especially for a long time, I cannot admit." But in truth, though he were Bishop of Eome for but a very short time, if he died there he left there his chair and his succession. So that as to Calvin we should not have great cause for discussion, provided that he was resolved to acknowledge sincerely that S. Peter died at Eome, and that he was bishop there when he died. And as to tha others we have sufficiently proved above that S. Peter died Bishop of Eome.

The statements which are made to the contrary are more captious than hard to resolve; and because he who shall have the true account of the life of S. Peter before his eyes will have enough answer for all the objections, I will briefly say what I think the more probable, in which I will follow the opinion of that excellent theologian, Gilbert Genebrard, Archbishop of Aix, in his Chronology^ and of Eobert Bellarmine,

Jesuit, in his Controversies, who closely follow S. Jerome, and Eusebius in Chronico.

Our Lord then ascended into heaven in the eighteenth year of Tiberius, and commanded his Apostles to stay in Jerusalem twelve years, according to the ancient tradition of Thraseas, martyr, not all indeed but some of them (to verify the word spoken by Isaias,* and as SS. Paul and Barnabas seem to imply t), for S. Peter was in Lydda and in Joppa before the twelve years had expired: — it was enough that some Apostles should remain in Judsea as witnesses to the Jews. S. Peter then remained in Judaea about five years after the Ascension, preaching and announcing the Gospel, and at the end of the first year, or soon afterwards, S. Paul was converted, who after three years went to Jerusalem to see Peter, | with whom he stayed fifteen days. S. Peter then having preached about five years in Judaea, towards the end of the fifth year went to Antioch, where he remained Bishop about seven years, that is, till the second year of Claudius, but meanwhile making evangelic journeys into Galatia, Asia, Cappadocia, and elsewhere, for the conversion of the nations. From thence, having committed his episcopal charge to the good Evodius, he returned to Jerusalem, on his arrival in which place he was imprisoned by Herod to please the Jews § about the time of the Passover. But escaping from the prison soon afterwards under the direction of the angel, he came, that same year, which was the second of Claudius, to Eome, where he established his chair, which he held about twenty-five years, during which he did not omit to visit various provinces, according

• Ixv. t Acts xiii. 46. X Gal. i. 18. § Acts xii, 6,

ART. VT. c. XI.] The Rule of Faith. 287 to the necessity of the Christian commonwealth; but amongst other things, about the eighteenth year of the Passion and Ascension of the Saviour, which was the ninth of Claudius, he was driven with the rest of the Hebrews from Eome, and went away to Jerusalem, where the Council of Jerusalem was celebrated, in which S. Peter presided. Then Claudius being dead, S. Peter returned to Eome, taking up again his first work of teaching and of visiting from time to time various provinces, where at last Nero, having imprisoned him for death, with S. Paul his companion, Peter, yielding to the holy importunities of the faithful, was about to make his escape and get out of the city by night, when meeting Our Saviour by the gate he said to him: Domine quo vaclis? — Lord, whither goest thou? He answered: I go to Eome to be crucified anew: * an answer which S. Peter well knew pointed towards his cross. So that, after having been about five years in Judaea, seven years in Antioch, twenty-five years at Eome, in the fourteenth year of Nero's empire he was crucified, head downwards, and on the same day S. Paul had his head cut off.

But before dying, taking by the hand his disciple S. Clement, S. Peter appointed him his successor, an office which S. Clement would not accept nor exercise till after the death of Linus and of Cletus, who had been coadjutors of S. Peter in the administration of the Eoman bishopric. So that to him who would know why some authors place S. Clement first in order after S. Peter, and others S. Linus, I will make him an answer by S. Epiphanius,

• Amb. contra Aiix.; Origen iu Gen. iii; Athan. pro fugd; Jeroma de Vir. ill.; Eusebius in Chron; Ado j Tertull. de ^rcescr.

an author worthy of credit, whose words are these: * " Let no man wonder that Linus and Cletus took up the episcopate before S. Clement, he being a disciple of the Apostles, contemporary with Peter and Paul; for they also were contemporaries of the Apostles; whether therefore whilst they were alive he received from Peter the imposition of the hands of the episcopate, and refusing the office waited, or, after the departure of the Apostles was appointed by the bishop Cletus, we do not clearly know."

Because therefore S. Clement had been chosen by S. Peter, as he himself testifies, and yet would not accept the charge before the death of Linus and Cletus, some, in consideration of the election made by S. Peter, place him the first in order, others, looking at the refusal he gave and at his leaving the exercise of it to Linus and Cletus, place him the fourth.

Besides, S. Epiphanius may have had reason to doubt about the election of S. Clement made by S. Peter, for want of having had sufficient proofs; while possibly Tertnllian, Damasus, Eufinus, and others may have had means of ascertaining the truth; and this may be the reason why S. Epiphanius speaks thus indecisively. Tertullian, who was more ancient, states positively: " The Church of the Eomans publishes that Clement was ordained by Peter," that is, proves by documents and public acts. As for myself I prefer, and reasonably, to place myself on the side of those who are certain; because he who doubts what a man of probity and sense distinctly certifies contradicts the speaker; on the contrary, to be sure of that which another doubts about is simply to imply that the

• Hser. 27.

ART. VI. c. XL] The Rule of Faith. 289 doubter does not know all, as indeed he has first confessed himself, by doubting, — for doubting is nothing but not certainly knowing the truth of a thing.

And now, having seen by this short account of the life of S. Peter, which bears every mark of probability, that S. Peter did not always stay in Eome, but, having his chair there, did not omit to visit many provinces, to return to Jerusalem and to fulfil the apostolic ofiice, all those frivolous reasons which are drawn from the negative authority of the Epistle of S. Paul will no longer have entrance into your judgments. For if it be said that S. Paul, writing to Eome and from Eome, has made no mention of S. Peter, we need not be surprised, for, perhaps, he was not there at that time.

So, it is quite oertain that the First Epistle of S. Peter was written from Eome, as S. Jerome witnesses: * "Peter," says he, "in his first Epistle, figuratively signifying Eome under the name of Babylon, says: " The Church which is in Babylon, elected together, saluteth you." This that most ancient man Papias, a disciple of the Apostles, had previously attested, as Eusebius records. But would this consequence be good — S. Peter, in that Epistle, gives no sign that S. Paul was with him, therefore Paul was never in Eome? This Epistle does not contain everything, and if it does not say that he was there, it also does not say that he was not. It is probable that he was not there then, or that if he were it was not expedient to name him in that place for some reason. I say the same of S. Paul's letter.

Lastly, to adjust the times of the life of S. Peter to lU.

T the reigns of Tiberius, Caius Caligula, and Nero, we can lay them out something in this fashion. In the eighteenth year of Tiberius, Our Lord ascended into heaven, and Tiberius survived Our Lord in this world about six years; five years after the Ascension, in the last year of the Empire of Tiberius, S. Peter came to Antioch, where having stayed about seven years — that is, what remained of Tiberius, four years of Caius Caligula, and two of Claudius — towards the end of the second of Claudius he came to Eome, where he remained seven years, that is, till the ninth of Claudius, when the Jews were driven out of Eome, which caused S. Peter to withdraw into Judsea. About five years afterwards, Claudius being dead in the fourteenth year of his reign, S. Peter returned to Eome, where he stayed till the fourteenth and last year of Nero. This makes about thirty-seven years that S. Peter lived after the death of his Master, of which he lived twelve partly in Judaea partly in Antioch, and twenty-five he lived as Bishop of Eome.