Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

dius the first bishop of Antioch, he decidedly denies that Peter was the first bishop there.

3. Hieron. in Catalogo: Ignatius Antiochiæ ecclesiæ tertius post Petrum apostolum episcopus-"Ignatius, the third bishop of the church of Antioch after the apostle Peter." Here then, for the first time, Peter makes his appearance as bishop of Antioch. Jerome wrote after a. D. 400.

4. Chrysostomus, homil. de Laudibus S. Ignatii: Ignatius S. Petro in episcopatus dignitate successit. Nam ut, si quis e fundamentis magnum lapidem eruat, alterum ei parem in ejus loco conatur constituere; alioqui totum edificium labascet et corruet; ita, cum Petrus Antiochia esset discessurus, alterum Petro parem preceptorem gratia Spiritus substituit, ne inchoata jam ædificatio successoris contemtu debilior fieret-"Ignatius succeeded St. Peter in the dignity of the episcopate. For, as if any one tear away a mighty stone from the foundations, he endeavors to place another equal to it in its place; otherwise the whole fabric may slide and fall to ruin; so, when the apostle Peter left Antioch, the Spirit graciously substituted another teacher equal to Peter, lest the begun building should be weakened from contempt of the successor." Chrysostom writes this as a presbyter of Antioch. With him it is not Euodius but Ignatius who is the first successor of Peter. With so little firmness does the succession stand.

1 To what inconsistencies bald Ultramontanism conducts even otherwise able men, a single example may show.

We have seen, that some make not Euodius but Ignatius the first bishop of Antioch. To harmonize the two accounts, Natalis, p. 177, col. 2, says: "From this indeed it is understood that St. Ignatius was ordained bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, that he might discharge the Episcopal office in that city for a time, but not up to his death. That I may assert this, I infer from a conjecture which I draw from Book VII. of the Apostolical Constitutions, though I know they are not altogether unquestionable. They are decidedly spurious, and belong to the fifth century. We read there, c. 46, Euodius was created bishop of Antioch by St. Peter and Ignatius, so by St. Paul. not indeed one after another, but at the same time. Which, indeed, I conjecture, was then done when the dissension was excited among the believers who were of the circumcision and those who had come to the faith from the Gentiles. Then the remedy was applied, that as long as this state of things existed both should have a see at Antioch, and one of them should preside over those of the circumcision, but the other over those who should come

5. Theodoret, in dialogo: Immutabilis; De illo enim Ignatio omnino audisti, qui per magni Petri dextram pontificatum, suscepit—"You have heard concerning that Ignatius who received the pontificate by the hand of the great Peter."

6. Felix III., in Ep. ad zenon. imperat.: Ignatium dextera Petri esse ordinatum Antiochena sedis episcopum -"Igna tius was ordained bishop of the see of Antioch by the hand of Peter."

7. Conc. Rom. sub Damaro: Tertia vero sedes apud Antiochiam apostoli Petri habetur honorabilis, eo quod illam primitus quam Romam venit, habitavit, et illic primum nomen Christianum novellæ gentis exortum est "The third see, at Antioch, is regarded as honored through the apostle Peter, because before he came to Rome he occupied it, and there first the name Christian, of a new nation, had its origin."

8. S. Leo, Serm. I. in nat. apost. : Jam Antiochenam, b. Petre, ecclesiam, ubi primum Christiani nominis dignitas exorta est, fundaveras "Thou hast now, O blessed Peter, founded the church of Antioch, where first arose the dignity of the Christian name."

9. Greg. I., Epist., L. vi. 37: S. Petrus firmavit sedem, in qua septem annis quamvis discessurus sedit-"St. Peter established the see in which he sat for seven years, though he was to leave it."

We see what is the weight of these testimonies -- just nothing at all; they are from the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries. Peter's bishopric at Antioch is shown to be, in all respects, a fable.

into the church from the Gentiles. But that wall of division being at length removed and both parties united into one assembly, there was no longer need of two, but of one bishop only. Then Euodius remained in that sacred office, to whom Ignatius willingly yielded as Clemens did to Linus in the church at Rome. To such nonsense, yea, to the invention of a schism in the church of the apostles, these men have recourse in order to confirm their fables.

§ 10. Time of the Council at Jerusalem.

We proceed with our investigations respecting Peter's abode. We have seen above, that Peter, up to about A. D. 45, when Herod put him in prison at Jerusalem, had not left Palestine. We will now see where he was from this time onward.

Luke indeed relates, that Peter in the same night when he was freed from prison by an angel, left Jerusalem (Acts 12: 17)" And he departed and went into another place;" but in this it is not said that he went to Rome. If this had been the case, Luke would certainly have mentioned it; indeed he would have said he went to another country; another place indicates only a journey to another city in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. We may then properly suppose that Peter, having from fear of Herod left Jerusalem, betook himself to another city of Palestine, which lay in that portion. not under Herod's sway. And since Herod, as Luke relates (Acts 12: 20—23), immediately after died at Cæsarea, so nothing prevents us from supposing that Peter returned again to Jerusalem, the centre of his activity hitherto. This is probable, also, even in case that Peter had intended to leave Palestine and go to Rome. Such a journey, too, he could not enter on before a. D. 46, nor complete it before a. d. 47. But Peter certainly had not, at that time, undertaken this journey. In the first place Luke says nothing of this jour ney; and, though he is occupied from a. D. 45, after chapter xii., mainly with Paul, and is silent as to Peter, yet from this silence a journey to Rome cannot indeed be deduced, as in chapter xv. he introduces Peter as a member of the church of Jerusalem. Let us now look further:

Although it cannot be ascertained when Claudius forbade to the Jews admission to Rome (Suet. Claud., Acts 18: 2), yet it may be supposed that it took place in the first year of his reign. And even if we assume, with Baronius and Natalis, that this prohibition was in the ninth year of Claudius, yet it would only allow a two-years' abode of Peter at Rome,

namely, from A. D. 47 to A. D. 49. But this cannot be assumed.

From Galatians 2: 7, and many other passages of Scripture, it is evident that the preaching of the gospel among the Jews was especially entrusted to Peter, as that of preaching it to the Gentiles was to Paul. Both of Peter's Epistles are directed to churches which he had formed of Jews in Asia Minor. In accordance with this his special calling, Peter was particularly pointed to the East; for here dwelt the Jews first, in Palestine; then, in Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Media, Parthia, Egypt, and Asia Minor, as is evident from Acts 2: 10, 11. Now Peter had just turned to the Jews in Palestine; we have seen above that, up to a. d. 45, he had not yet passed out over the boundaries of Palestine. How can we then suppose, that wholly leaving aside and neglecting the other numberless Jews of the East, he had turned himself immediately to the West, to Rome, the seat of the Gentiles, where there were hardly any Jews (for it was first after the destruction of Jerusalem that they spread themselves in large numbers in the West)? It would, at all events, be strange if, merely to support the Ultramontanist fable of Peter's twenty-five years' bishopric in Rome, to say nothing of the Holy Scriptures and the oldest fathers, any one should assume that Peter had, at the very outset, become untrue to his calling to labor in the East, among Jews, where the harvest was so great, and turned to the Gentiles, whose apostle Paul preeminently was. If any one (for which there is absolutely no reason) will make Peter actually take his departure from Jerusalem and Palestine in A. D. 45 or 46, why should he exactly then journey to Rome, of which journey the oldest and most certain sources of authority mention nothing, and not to the East, where we find the Babylon from which Peter's first Epistle is dated; or to Asia Minor, where were many churches to whom Peter addressed his Epistle? Why must he, as we might say, per

force travel off to Rome?

But we can pass in silence over this journey which, at least for the time named, has never risen above the rank of

a groundless hypothesis. As we find Peter still in Jerusalem in A. D. 45 (Acts xii.), so he makes his appearance again here in chapter xv., and at the council which the apostles here held in reference to the circumcision of the Gentile Christians. At this council we find, once more, all the apostles together; afterward, never again: a proof that Jerusalem hitherto had been the central point to which they always returned (as did also Paul) from their excursions into neighboring regions, and which they now appear to have definitively left in order to scatter themselves abroad in the whole world. We hence conclude that Peter also, up to this time, had not left the churches of Palestine. Why should we suppose a journey to Rome, of which no authority makes any mention? How could he, then, be again in Jerusalem at the time of the council?

It is noAnd now

But Bellarmin, Baronius, Natalis Alexander, etc., know of an expedient. They say that precisely then Claudius had banished the Jews from Rome, and on this account Peter returned back to Palestine. But where does this stand written? What authority has transmitted it to us? thing but an empty, airy opinion of these men. granting that this edict of the emperor was issued precisely before that time of the council of Jerusalem, what then justifies us in concluding that it caused Peter to flee from Rome, i. e. from fear of men, to leave his church and be untrue to his calling? Who can say that the edict affected him, as he was not a Jew but a Christian, and as such presented to the former a remarkable contrast? And though he had now left Rome, why must he, precisely then, return directly back to Palestine? Had he then convened that council, as Natalis would have it, or was it called by the common agreement of the apostles, in which Peter likewise took a part? or, finally, as it had its occasion in the controversy between the Gentile and Jewish Christians at Antioch (Acts 15: 1, 2), had they advised Peter thence and enabled him to leave Italy and hasten to Jerusalem to the council?1 Of all these

1 This could not be, as there would not be time for Peter to receive the message and to make the journey from Rome, after the arrival of Paul and Barna

« AnteriorContinuar »