that Polycarp was placed there by John, and the Church of Rome that Clement was in like manner ordained by Peter. In exactly the same way, the other apostolic churches produce those whom, as having been appointed by the apostles to the episcopate, they regard as the transmitters of the apostolic seed."1 According to Tertullian, each apostolic church traced back its succession to its first bishop, its "primus episcopus," who was himself appointed and ordained by his "predecessor" (antecessor), the apostolic "auctor," or founder. Thus the "primus episcopus" of Smyrna was S. Polycarp, who was ordained by S. John, the founder of the Church of Smyrna; and the "primus episcopus" of Rome was (so Tertullian implies) S. Clement, who was ordained by S. Peter, the founder of the Church of Rome. The apostolic founder was, of course, the predecessor of "the first bishop" in a large sense of the word "predecessor." No one supposes that S. John was ever, strictly speaking, the local Bishop of Smyrna, although Tertullian implies that he was S. Polycarp's predecessor. No doubt before S. Polycarp's consecration the Church of Smyrna, as well as other Asian churches, had been under S. John's apostolic care; and similarly the Church of Rome had, before the consecration of its first bishop, been under the joint supervision of S. Peter and S. Paul. But these two apostles had also the care of many other churches, which they had founded or organized. There is no reason to suppose that they were in a true sense diocesan Bishops of Rome, any more than that they were diocesan Bishops of Corinth. S. John ordinarily resided at Ephesus, but he was not the Bishop of Ephesus. "angel" or bishop of the Church of Ephesus was an entirely different person, as is clear from the Apocalypse.2 The sees of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, and the rest were not apostolic sees because S. John died in them, but because S. John founded them; and similarly the see of Rome was an apostolic see, not because S. Peter died in it, but because S. Peter and S. Paul founded it. This was evidently the view of Tertullian, who agreed with S. Irenaeus in teaching, or at least implying, that S. Peter was never Bishop of Rome. Bishop Lightfoot, who had, I suppose, studied the literature

The

1 "Edant ergo origines ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successionem ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveraverit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc enim modo ecclesiae apostolicae census suos deferunt, sicut Smyrnaeorum ecclesia Polycarpum ab Ioanne collocatum refert, sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum itidem. Perinde utique et ceterae exhibent quos ab apostolis in episcopatum constitutos apostolici seminis traduces habeant."-Tertull., De Praescript. Haeret., cap. xxxii.

2 See Rev. ii. I; and see also Additional Note 12, p. 442.

of the early Church more minutely and accurately than any one before him, writes as follows: "I cannot find that any writers for the first two centuries and more speak of S. Peter as Bishop of Rome. Indeed, their language is inconsistent with the assignment of this position to him." If it be true, as it certainly is true, that the language of the Christian writers of the first two centuries is inconsistent with the notion that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome, then it is morally certain that S. Peter was not Bishop of Rome; and, even if all the writers of later centuries asserted that he was, which, however, is very far from being the case, their evidence would have no weight, and might safely be neglected. It is not at all an uncommon thing to find earlier writers handing on the true account of some historical event, while later writers distort or altogether falsify the tradition. It is not necessary to impute mendacity to these later writers. They often record in perfect good faith the account, as they have received it. But the fact remains that, where the later witnesses differ from the earlier witnesses, there is normally an overwhelming probability that the earlier form of the tradition approximates most closely to the truth.

It is no part of my business to explain how the story of S. Peter's Roman episcopate was originated and spread. Various theories about its origination might be suggested. Dr. Bright has told us that for his part he thinks that the story "was likely enough to grow up anyhow, as the great name of Peter was more and more emphasized, and, as it were, isolated, in the thought of Roman ecclesiastics." 2 The fact that S. James was undoubtedly the first Bishop of Jerusalem might suggest the notion that at Rome also the first bishop was an apostle; and who could that be but the senior of the two apostolic founders? However, for my own part, I feel little doubt that it is to the Clementine romance that we must look for the true origin of the story. This romance was a heretical production, written by some unknown author in the interests of the Ebionitish sect. It has come down to our times in two principal forms: the one called The Clementine Homilies, the other The Clementine Recognitions. But there seems to have been a form older than either of these, which was known as The Circuits of Peter, and there may have been other earlier documents containing germs of the story. To one or more of these editions of the Romance was

1 S. Clement of Rome, ii. 501.

2 The Guardian for September 9, 1896, p. 1376; compare Dr. Bright's treatment of the matter in The Roman See in the Early Church, pp. 13-15.

There are also still extant two shorter and probably later forms, commonly called The Epitomes.

prefixed a spurious epistle, purporting to have been addressed, after the death of S. Peter, by S. Clement to S. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and describing how S. Peter, before his death, consecrated S. Clement to be his successor as Bishop of Rome. In this spurious letter S. Peter is represented as speaking a good deal about his chair; but this chair is not the throne of government of the universal Church, but "the chair of discourse," 2 or, as we should say, the pulpit, in the local community at Rome. S. Peter is represented as saying, shortly before his death, to the assembly of Roman Christians, "Hear me, brethren and fellow-servants. Since... the day of my death is approaching, I lay hands on this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse," 8 etc. Then Clement is represented as kneeling before S. Peter, and entreating him, "declining the honour and authority of the chair." However, S. Peter insists; and after giving a somewhat lengthy charge, he lays his hands on Clement, and compels him " to sit in his own chair." 5

All this is, of course, pure romance. No one now dreams of attaching the smallest importance to the story as being in any way historically true; but in the third and fourth and following centuries, it was accepted as true. Even when the discourses and teaching attributed in the romance to S. Peter were perceived to be heretical, and were rejected, yet considerable portions of the framework of the story were supposed to give a true account of what had actually happened.

Now, it appears that one great object of the author of the romance was to depreciate S. Paul. S. Peter is represented as speaking of S. Paul as "the man who is my enemy," who leads the Gentiles to reject "my preaching of the law." S. Paul's labours among the heathen are ignored, and S. Peter is substituted for him as the apostle of the Gentiles. S. Peter, we are told, "as being fittest of all, was commanded to enlighten the darker part of the world, namely the West, and was enabled to accomplish it." 7

See the Additional Note 13, p. 443.

2 Τὴν ἐμὴν τῶν λόγων καθέδραν.

3 See The Epistle of Clement to James (prefixed to The Clementine Homilies), cap. ii., Clem. Rom. Homiliae, ed. Dressel, p. 11.

Cf. cap. iii. p. 12.

Eis Thy AUTOU кalédрav. Cf. cap. xix. p. 23.

See The Epistle of Peter to James, prefixed to The Clementine Homilies (Hom., ed. Dressel, p. 4). Compare also very specially Hom. xvii. 19 (Op. cit., PP. 351, 352), where Kaтeyvwoμévov evidently refers to Gal. ii. II: see also Dr. Salmon's article on Clementine Literature, in Smith and Wace, D.C.B., i. 576, and Bishop Lightfoot's preface to his commentary on S. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (ninth edit., pp. 61, 62); also his notes on Gal. ii. 11, 13, iv. 10, 16, 24, and in the same volume his excursus on S. Paul and the Three (pp. 327-330). Epistle of Clement to James, cap. i. p. 10.

7

It naturally results from this anti-Pauline tendency that when S. Peter is represented as consecrating Clement to be his successor, he makes him "sit in his own chair." From the nature of the case, the author being an Ebionite, S. Paul's relation to the Church of Rome is passed over in silence. The episcopal chair at Rome is described as the chair of Peter. It is obvious that this spurious letter of Clement to James would, wherever it was received as authentic, tend to bring about that "isolation" of the great name of Peter in connexion with the see of Rome, to which Dr. Bright alludes in a passage which I have already quoted. The impression produced by the Clementine letter in regard to the apostolic foundation and organization of the Roman Church is very different from that which results from a consideration of the real historical facts. What really happened was that the Church of Rome was first brought into relation with S. Paul, who prepared the way for his apostolic visit by addressing to it the greatest of his Epistles; and afterwards spent at least two whole years in Rome, living in his own hired dwelling, receiving there all that went in unto him, and preaching to them the Kingdom of God; and later on, after the absence of unknown duration which followed his first acquittal, returned once more to Rome, and there took up again his work of preaching and organizing, and finally in Rome underwent his last trial and martyrdom.

There seems to be no good reason for supposing that S. Peter was ever at Rome until after his brother apostle's first acquittal. Bishop Lightfoot thinks that S. Peter was only a few months in Rome, and that he was put to death during the Neronian persecution. If we accept Harnack's revised chronology, S. Peter's stay in Rome may have extended to the length of four or five years. It seems highly probable that S. Paul returned to Rome the second time before S. Peter's martyrdom, for S. Irenaeus tells us that S. Matthew's Gospel was published "while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church in Rome," 3 and he also tells us that, "having founded and built up the Church, they committed the ministry of the episcopate to Linus."4 As we have seen, this consecration of Linus may have taken place some time 1 Compare Bishop Lightfoot's S. Clement of Rome, ii. 497; and see Additional Note 14, p. 444.

The chronology of the later portion of S. Paul's life depends very largely on the date which may be assigned for the commencement of the Judaean procuratorship of Porcius Festus. Formerly it was generally supposed that Festus arrived at Caesarea in the year 60. But of late some critics of great name have been led to think that the true date is 56. See Harnack's Chronologie der Altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, pp. 239, 718; and compare Mgr. Batiffol in the Revue Biblique for July, 1897, pp. 423, 424.

3 III. i. I.

III. ii. 3.

before the death of the two apostles. Nor is it by any means certain that their deaths were contemporaneous. Many learned writers suppose that S. Peter's martyrdom preceded S. Paul's by at least one year. From all this it follows that S. Paul was equally with S. Peter a founder of the Roman Church; that, in fact, S. Paul was in close relations with the Roman Church before S. Peter came to the city; that S. Paul very possibly prolonged his residence in Rome some time after the death of his brother apostle; and that, before that event had taken place, the two apostles had joined in consecrating Linus to be the first Roman bishop. But according to the Clementine letter to James, Peter was the sole apostolic founder of the Roman Church, and the sole consecrator of his successor, Clement. Thus we may fairly say that authentic history puts S. Peter and S. Paul on a level in the matter of the foundation of the Roman Church, whereas the Clementine romance suppresses S. Paul and isolates S. Peter. Belief in the historical truth of the Clementine romance would tend to substitute the idea of the see of Peter in lieu of the older and truer idea, which would think of the episcopal chair at Rome as being the see founded by S. Peter and S. Paul. And when once men had become familiarized with the expression "the see of Peter," it would be very easy to conclude that, as S. James was the first bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, so S. Peter was not merely the founder, but also the first bishop of the Church of Rome.1

Thus, if it could be shown that the Clementine romance had any influence in Rome between the time of S. Irenaeus and the close of the first quarter of the third century, we should be able to account very easily for the fact that, whereas the writers of the first two centuries knew nothing of S. Peter's Roman episcopate, some Western writers of the middle of the third century seem to imply that they believed that S. Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

Have we, then, any reason to suppose that the Clementine romance, in one or other of its various forms, did circulate among and influence the members of the Roman Church during the last two decades of the second century and during

1 The process of transforming an apostolic founder into a local bishop would be facilitated by the fact that the apostolic churches were accustomed to draw up catalogues of their bishops, and it was usual for the list of names to be headed by the name of the apostolic founder (cf. Tertull., de Praescript. Haeret., cap. xxxii., quoted on pp. 39, 40). This practice was originally adopted in order that it might clearly appear that "the first bishop" "had for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of the apostolic men." But it is not difficult to see how easy it would be to assimilate the first name on the list with those that followed, so that in time the apostle would be accepted as the first bishop, and he who was formerly venerated as the first bishop would come to be regarded as the second, and so on.