PETER IN ROME
CHAPTER VI
The Third Century — Tertullian And Origen
In
our study of statements linking Peter with Rome by the early ecclesiastical
writer, we come now to the first of the Latin writers, Tertullian, a
Carthaginian whose works were done in the first quarter of the third century. It is from this Western presbyter that we
receive the most definite statements about Peter’s death at Rome — along with
some other surprising statements.
Though he later had a falling
out with the Roman clergy for his Montanist views, Tertullian was a vehement
opponent of heresy and wrote profusely, especially against Marcion and
Valentinus. In his Prescription
Against Heretics we read:
Since, moreover, you are
close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own
hands the very authority (of Apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which Apostles poured forth all their
doctrine along with their blood! where
Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s!
where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! where the Apostle
John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his
island-exile! See what fellowship has
had with even (our) churches in Africa!
One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and
Christ Jesus (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law
and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and
Apostles, from which she drinks in her faith.
This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy Ghost,
feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline
thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer. [Tertullian, The Prescription
Against Heretics, trans. by Peter Holmes (Vol. III, The Ante-Nicene
Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951; p.
260), I, 36.]
Here we have not only the
clear inference that Peter was crucified at Rome and that Paul was there
beheaded like John the Baptist, but that the Apostle John was miraculously
spared from being boiled in oil at the Roman capital before being exiled to
Patmos. I have included the rest of the
passage to give the distinctive early Catholic flavor of it with reference to
the Virgin Mary, the resurrection of the flesh (to unite body and soul as also Augustine later has it), the
Eucharist as a sacrament, etc.
While not a Romist,
Tertullian was throughout most of his life in clear sympathy with Rome in
philosophy and religion. Eusebius tells
us he was well acquainted with Roman laws, having his early training as a
lawyer. [Eusebius, Church History,
trans. by Arthur C. McGiffert (Vol. I, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed.
Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace; Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952; p. 106), II, 2, 4.] In Scorpiace, Tertullian
writes:
And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public
record, the archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of
Jerusalem. We read the lives of the
Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first
who stained with blood the rising faith.
Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the
cross. Then does Paul obtain a
birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in Rome he springs to life again ennobled
by martyrdom. [Tertullian, op.
cit. (p. 258), I, 32.]
Here for the first time Nero
is mentioned as persecuting Christians to the death. But note that Tertullian does not specifically make Nero
responsible for Peter’s death, which he puts before Paul’s, though the Biblical
evidence, especially from II Peter, would seem to be the reverse. (Peter seems to be summing up Paul’s
writings when he makes mention of “all his epistles” in II Peter 3:16.)
A final and most enigmatic
passage from Tertullian in Against Heretics gives us the information
that Peter ordained Clement, the third bishop of Rome:
But if there be any
(heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the
Apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the
Apostles, because they existed in the time of the Apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of
their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due
succession from the beginning in such a manner that (that first bishop of
theirs), ed. note bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor
some one of the Apostles or of Apostolic men — a man, moreover, who continued
stedfast with the Apostles. For this is
the manner in which the Apostolic Churches transmit their registers: as the Church of Smyrna, which records that
Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the Church of Rome, which makes
Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. [Ibid.]
The passage raises more
questions than it answers. We know from
Irenaeus that Linus and Anacletus preceded Clement in the Roman bishopric.
[Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” American ed.
by A. Cleveland Coxe (Vol. I, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed.
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950; p. 416), III, 3.] Eusebius tells us that Linus was the bishop
of Rome twelve years, [Eusebius, op.
cit. (p. 416), III, 3.] and that
Anacletus likewise served in that post twelve years before being succeeded by
Clement. [Ibid., Chap. 15.] This succession he distinctly states as
occurring in the twelfth year of Domitian. [Ibid.] Since Domitian succeeded his brother Titus
in 81, that would put Clement’s ordination by Peter in 93 A.D.! Granted, the length of reigns and order of
the first Roman bishops is a greatly disputed matter and subject to wide
interpretation, but despite this fact, there is nothing to indicate that Linus
and Anacletus died almost as soon as ordained to necessitate Clement’s
ordination by Peter before 68 A.D., the year of Nero.
And if Peter and Paul labored
side by side at Rome until their deaths “at the same time” as Dionysius and
Irenaeus assert, then why is Clement ordained by Peter only? Would not the Apostle of the Gentiles have joined in ordaining the
Bishop of Rome?
Clearly, there are grave
inconsistencies in the stories we have received from the church fathers,
causing us to wonder how much of true facts they really knew as they wrote one
to two centuries later. It would be
utterly impossible to reconcile all their testimonies. Early Catholic fables seem interwoven with
half-truths and contradictions in the continuing evolution of the stories of
Rome, and the lives and deaths of the Apostles.
Origen
What little we can glean from
Origen (185-254 A.D.) has been preserved for us only by Eusebius, who makes the
following statement concerning Peter and Paul:
Peter appears to have preached in Pontus,
Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was
crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this
way. What do we need to say
concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to
Illyricum, and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero? These facts are related by Origen in the
third volume of his Commentary on Genesis. [Ibid., (pp. 132-133), III,
1, 2.]
Here we find the crucifixion
of Peter at Rome repeated with the additional detail that it was head-downwards
at his own request. Origen is the first
to give this tradition though afterward it became quite common and well
accepted. And while Paul is said to
have been martyred by Nero, Peter’s death is not attributed to him by Origen.
Thus we have yet to see any
of the early writers state definitely that Nero was responsible for Peter’s
death, nor did any of them attempt to date Peter’s death up through and
into the third century. While the
tradition had evolved as to location (Rome) and manner of death (crucifixion),
it had not yet been assigned a time element before Eusebius.