Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11.djvu/816

 PETER

748

PETER

Concerning Peter's subseqiionl at t Kudo on this ques- tion St. Paul gives us no explicit information. But it is highly lirohable that Peter ratilicd the contention of the .Anosllcs of the (ieutiles, ami thenceforth con- (lucte<l himself towards the Christianized pagans as at first. As the princijjal opponents of his views in this connexion, Paul names and combats in all his writings only the extreme .liuisji Christians coming "from James" (i. e., from Jerusalem). While the date of this occurrence, whether before or after the Council of the Apostles, cannot be determined, it probably took place after the council (see below). The later tradition, which existed as early as the enil of the sec- ond century (Origen, "Horn, vi in Luiam"; Kusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", Ill, xxxvi), that Peter founded the CluM'ch of Antioch, indicates the fact that he la- boured a long period there, and also perhaps that he dwelt there towards the end of his life and then ap- pointed Evodius, the first of the line of Antiochian bi.'ihops, head of the community. This latter view would best explain the tradition referring the founda- tion of the Church of Antioch to St. Peter.

It is also probable that Peter pursued his Apostolic labours in various districts of Asia Minor, for it can scarcely be supposed that the entire period between his liberation from prison and the Coimcil of the Apostles was spent uninterruptedly in one city,whether Antioch, Rome, or el^sewhere. And, since he subsequently ad- dressed the first of his K))istles to the faithful in the Provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia, one may reasonably assume that he had laboured per- sonally at least in certain cities of these provinces, devoting himself chiefly to the Diaspora. The Epistle, however, is of a general character, and gives little indi- cation of personal relations with the jiersons to whom it is addressed. The tradition related by Bishop Dionysius of Corinth (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii) in his letter to the Roman Church under Pope Soter (165-74), that Peter had (like Paul) dwelt in Corinth and planted the Church there, cannot be entirely rejected. Even though the tradition should receive no sujiport from the existence of the "party of Cephas", which Paul mentions among the other divi- sions of the Church of Corinth (I Cor., i, 12; iii, 22), still Peter's sojourn in Corinth (even in connexion with the planting and government of the Church by Paul) is not impossible. That 8t. Peter undertook various Apostolic journeys (doubtless about this time, espe- cially when he was no longer permanently residing in Jerusalem) is clearly established by the general re- mark of St. Paul in I Cor., ix, 5, concerning the "rest of the apostles, and the brethren [cousins] of the Lord, and Cephas", who were travelling around in the exer- cise of their Apostleship.

Peter returned occasionally to the original Christian Church of Jerusalem, the guidance of which was en- trusted to St. James, the relative of Jesus, after the departure of the Prince of the Apostles (a. d. 42—44). The last mention of St. Peter in the Acts (xv, 1-29; cf. Clal., ii, 1-Ui) occurs in the report of the Council of the Apostles on the occasion of such a passing visit. In consequence of the trouble caused by extreme Jewish Christians to Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, the ('hurch of this city sent these two Apostles with other envoys to Jerusalem to secure a definitive decision con- •■erning the obligations of the converted pagans (see JuDAiZERs). In addition to James, Peter and John were then (about a. d. .50-51) in Jerusalem. In the discussion and decision of this important question, Peter naturally exercised a decisive influence. When a great divergence of views had manifested itself in the assembly, Peter spoke the deciding word. Long be- fore, in accordance with (iod's testimony, he had announced the Gospels to the heathen (conversion of Cornelius and his household) ; why, therefore, attempt to place the Jewish yoke on the necks of converted pagans? After Paul and Barnabas had related how

C.od had wrought among the Gentiles by them, James, the chief representative of the Jewish Christians, adopted Peter's view and in agreement therewith made jjroposals which were expressed in an encyclical to the converted pagans.

The occiuTcnces in Cirsarea and Antioch and the debate at thcCoimi'ilof Jcru.salem show clearly Peter's attitude towards tlie converts from ])aganism. Like the other eleven original Apostles, he regarded himself as called to preach the Faith in Jesvis lirst among the Jews (Acts, x, 42), so that the chosen people of God might share in the salvation in Christ, promised to them primarily and issuing from their midst. The vision at Joppe and the effusion of the Holy Ghost over the converted pagan Cornelius and his kinsmen determined Peter to a<lmit these forthwith into the community of the faithful, without imjKising on them the Jewish Law. Dining his Apostolic journeys out- side Palestine, he recognized in practice the equality of Gentile and Jewish converts, as his original conduct at Antioch proves. His aloofness from the Gentile converts, out of consideration for the Jewish Chris- tians from Jerusalem, was by no means an official recognition of the views of the extreme Judaizers, who were so oiiposed to St. Paul. This is established clearly and incont est ably by his attitude at the Council of Jerusalem. Between Peter and Paul there was no dogmatii- ilitTcrcnce in their conception of salvation for Jewish and (ientile Christians. The recognition of Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles (Gal., ii, 1-9) was entirely sincere, and excludes all question of a funda- mental divergence of views. St. Peter and the other Apostles recognized the converts from paganism as Clu'istian brothers on an equal footing; Jewish and (ientile Christians formed a single Kingdom of Christ. If therefore Peter devoted the preiionderating portion of his Apostolic activity to the Jews, this arose chiefly from practical considerations, and from tlic position of Israel as the Chosen People. Baur's hypothesis of opposing currents of "Petrinism" and "Paulinism" in the early Church is absolutely untenable, and is to- day entirely rejected by Protestants.

iV. Activity and De,\th in Rome; Burial Place. — It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martjT- dom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are estab- lished beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the en<l of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands. That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first cen- tury is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ's proiihecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not: "And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God" (John, xxi, 18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter. St. Peter's F'irst Epistle was written almost undoubt- edly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (v, 13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capi- tal; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem can-