THE ALLEGED EPISCOPATE AT ROME

“All the claims and pretensions of the Pope,” says Professor Frohschammer, “rest, as is well known, upon the assertion that the Apostle Peter was invested by Christ with a precedence over all the other Apostles, and that as Prince of the Apostles, he has thus acquired a certain supremacy and authority over them; that Peter subsequently governed the Roman Church as its first bishop, and having as such suffered martyrdom, he transmitted all his authority and powers to his successors, the Bishops of Rome” (Rock of Peter, p. 2). It has already been shewn that Peter was not invested by Christ with a precedence over all the other Apostles. It now remains to be shewn that, as far as his residence or episcopate at Rome are concerned, that Scripture maintains an unaccountable silence. This matter, be it remembered, is of the highest importance to the Church of Rome, for if it can be proved that Peter was never at Rome, it would necessarily invalidate all the claims of the long line of so-called successors from Apostolic times to the present in the Roman pontificate. It is admitted that, from very early times there is a tradition that Peter was at Rome, that he exercised his episcopate there for the period of twenty-five years, and that he suffered martyrdom there by crucifixion. It is not our intention at present to deal with the historical question of the rise of this tradition, but to proceed by again making our appeal to the testimony of the Scripture.

1. In the famous charter text in which it is alleged Christ bestowed the pre-eminent prerogatives upon Peter, there is not a word about Rome; neither is there the slightest hint that Peter was “to establish there, the foundation of the whole Christian Church, or to rule it from that city as its centre.” It is well that the importance of this question from the Romish standpoint should be duly and properly weighed. It is very forcibly stated by Professor Frohschammer. “From the Roman view of Christianity,” he says, “this is so essential, that Christ could rather be supposed to have left out the enunciation of the love of God and our neighbour as the fundamental law of His religion, than to have left unmentioned the special function and authority claimed by Rome in His Church. For, according to the Papal doctrine,

the attempt to obey these commands avails man nothing, and is at the best but worthless Rationalism and Pelagianism without the priestly dispensation of grace, which has it source solely and exclusively in Rome; while, on the other hand, the non-fulfilment of these commands can be easily compensated for by the magical effect of a communication of grace through the Roman priest.” What means this silence of the Son of God on a matter of such vital importance?

1. In the inspired accounts of the labours and journeys of the Apostles, there is not the slightest hint made by Luke of a journey by Peter to Rome, nor any account of his work in that place. He tells us of Paul’s journey to Rome and his residence in the imperial city. But the Acts of the Apostles is by no means silent as to Peter’s labours in other places. We find him in Jerusalem preaching on the ever-memorable day of Pentecost; at Lydda also, Joppa and Caesarea. He was present at the Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv.), and we know from Paul that he was at Antioch (Gal. ii.). Now, it seems passing strange that we should have references to his labours in different places covering a period of over twenty years, and never the faintest allusion to any journey to Rome or to his residence there. The arrival of Peter at Rome and his founding a Church there, was a matter he could not possibly have omitted had it been to him of such importance as it is to modern Romanists. When Paul reached Rome, he gathered together the chief Jews at Rome, and after intimating to them his intention for doing so, they say to him:—”We desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against” (Acts xxviii. 22). It is to be remembered that Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision as Paul was of the Uncircumcision, and how does it follow that these Jews should indicate their lack of knowledge concerning the new sect, except that everywhere it was spoken against, if Peter had been at Rome and exercising his apostolic gifts there? The fact that there is no mention of Peter when the brethren went as far as the Appii Forum and the Three Taverns to meet Paul, is further evidence of Peter’s absence from Rome at this time.

2. It is further to be observed that in the speeches of Peter recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, there is no mention made by him of any journey to Rome or any of his labours there. This, taken in conjunction with the fact that he gave an account of his labours to the Council at Jerusalem, renders it all the more difficult to believe that he should have engaged in such epoch-making work at Rome without making any mention of it.

3. When we turn to the Epistles of Paul we find him often referring to Peter. But when he “mentions Peter, he was not then at Rome, and wherever he speaks of Rome, he makes no mention of Peter.” He mentions him as present at Jerusalem (Galatians i. 18), Antioch (Galatians ii. 11), and meets him again at Jerusalem

(Acts xv. 7). At the conclusion of his Epistle to the Romans, Paul sends salutations to a great number of believers at Rome, such as Priscilla, Aquila, Epænetus, Mary, Andronicus, Junia, Amplias, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus’ household, Herodion, Narcissus’ household, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Herma, Patrobas, Hermes, Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, Olympas and all the saints which are with them (Romans xvi. 3-15). But the name of Peter is not once mentioned; an omission quite unaccountable, if he were at Rome and had the position of Prince of the Apostles. Then, again, not only did the Apostle send an Epistle to Rome, but he sent letters from thence during the period of his imprisonment. Among these Epistles of the Imprisonment are to be reckoned those addressed to Philemon and to the Colossians. In the concluding sentences of his letter to Philemon, he writes:—”There salute thee Epaphras, my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus; Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellow-labourers,” but not a word about Peter. Similarly in the conclusion of the Epistle to the Colossians a number of names are mentioned, but Peter’s is again absent (Col. iv.). Finally in his second Epistle to Timothy, written it is generally supposed before his death, Paul exhorts him: “Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: for Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica, Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry. . . . At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge” (2 Tim. iv. 9-16). These do not appear to be the words of a man conscious of the fact that Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, was in the city and governing the Church of Christ from that centre. In fact, the whole evidence produced under this head conclusively proves that Paul had no knowledge of Peter’s presence at Rome.

1. But if his presence at Rome is of such vital importance, then it may be argued that, if anywhere, his own Epistles will be the likeliest place to have references to the same. We turn to these Epistles, and reading them carefully from beginning to end, there is not the slightest hint that the writer was resident at Rome, and that from thence he exercised the functions of his so-called pontificate. True, he says:—”The Church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son” (1 Peter v. 13). Now, say Romanists, Babylon is the mystical name for Rome, and in this interpretation, they are followed by such distinguished authorities as Sir William Ramsay and Dr. Salmon; but, while it is not the purpose of this paper to review this opinion and the arguments brought forward in support of it, it may be said that there is nothing so formidable about them as to debar us from accepting the commonly-received

interpretation that Babylon is simply the Chaldaean city. So that even here, without laying undue stress on the interpretation adopted, the Church of Rome has very scanty ground for being dogmatic about Peter’s episcopate at Rome.

The conclusion, then, of our argument from the Biblical evidence produced, is certainly directly in the face of the theory that Peter was at Rome and exercised his pontificate there. The closely related questions of the rise of the tradition which affirms that he lived at Rome, and other historical questions, do not enter into the scope of this essay: our purpose is to show that the Scripture makes no mention of Peter’s residence in the imperial city, and in the preceding pages that evidence has been laid before the reader.