Peter, Saint, Prince of the Apostles.—The life of St. Peter may be conveniently considered under the following heads: I. Until the Ascension of Christ; II. St. Peter in Jerusalem and Palestine after the Ascension; III. Missionary Journeys in the East; The Council of the Apostles; IV. Activity and Death in Rome; Burial-place; V. Feasts of St. Peter; VI. Representations of St. Peter.
I. UNTIL THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST
St. Peter’s true and original name was Simon (Simen), sometimes occurring in the form Sumeen (Acts, xv, 14; II Pet., i, 1). He was the son of Jona (Johannes) and was born in Bethsaida (John, i, 42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth, the position of which cannot be established with certainty, although it is usually sought at the northern end of the lake. The Apostle Andrew was his brother, and the Apostle Philip came from the same town. Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matt., viii, 14; Luke, iv, 38) at the beginning of Christ’s public ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children. The same writer relates the tradition that Peter’s wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi, ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxxi) from Clement, the ancient Christian literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth, possessing his own boat (Luke, v, 3). Like so many of his Jewish contemporaries, he was attracted by the Baptist’s preaching of penance and was, with his brother Andrew, among John’s associates in Bethania on the eastern bank of the Jordan. When, after the High Council had sent envoys for the second time to the Baptist, the latter pointed to Jesus who was passing, saying, “Behold the Lamb of God“, Andrew and another disciple followed the Savior to his residence and remained with Him one day.
Later, meeting his brother Simon, Andrew said “We have found the Messias“, and brought him to Jesus, who, looking upon him, said: “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter”. Already, at this first meeting, the Savior foretold the change of Simon’s name to Cephas (Kephas; Aramaic Kipha, rock), which is translated Petros (Lat., Petrus) a proof that Christ had already special views with regard to Simon. Later, probably at the time of his definitive call to the Apostolate with the eleven other Apostles, Jesus actually gave Simon the name of Cephas (Petrus), after which he was usually called Peter, especially by Christ on the solemn occasion after Peter’s profession of faith (Matt., xvi, 18; cf. below). The Evangelists often combine the two names, while St. Paul uses the name Cephas. After the first meeting Peter with the other early disciples remained with Jesus for some time, accompanying Him to Galilee (Marriage at Cana), Judaea, and Jerusalem, and through Samaria back to Galilee (John, ii-iv). Here Peter resumed his occupation of fisherman for a short time, but soon received the definitive call of the Savior to become one of His permanent disciples. Peter and Andrew were engaged at their calling when Jesus met and addressed them: “Come ye after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men”. On the same occasion the sons of Zebedee were called (Matt., iv, 18-22; Mark, i, 16-20; Luke, v, 1-11; it is here assumed that Luke refers to the same occasion as the other Evangelists). Thenceforth Peter remained always in the immediate neighborhood of Our Lord. After preaching the Sermon on the Mount and curing the son of the centurion in Capharnaum, Jesus came to Peter’s house and cured his wife’s mother, who was sick of a fever (Matt., viii, 14-15; Mark, i, 29-31). A little later Christ chose His Twelve Apostles as His constant associates in preaching the Kingdom of God.
Among the Twelve Peter soon became conspicuous. Though of irresolute character, he clings with the greatest fidelity, firmness of faith, and inward love to the Savior; rash alike in word and act, he is full of zeal and enthusiasm, though momentarily easily accessible to external influences and intimidated by difficulties. The more prominent the Apostles become in the Evangelical narrative, the more conspicuous does Peter appear as the first among them. In the list of the Twelve on the occasion of their solemn call to the Apostolate, not only does Peter stand always at their head, but the surname Petrus given him by Christ is especially emphasized (Matt., x, 2): “Duodecim autem Apostolorum nomina haec: Primus Simon qui dicitur Petrus…”; Mark, iii, 14-16: “Et feeit ut egsent duodecim cum illo, et ut mitteret eos praedicare… et imposuit Simoni nomen Petrus”; Luke, vi, 13-14: “Et cum dies factus esset, vocavit discipulos suos, et elegit duodecim ex ipsis (quos et Apostolos nominavit): Simonem, quem cognominavit Petrum…” On various occasions Peter speaks in the name of the other Apostles (Matt., xv, 15; xix, 27; Luke, xii, 41, etc.). When Christ’s words are addressed to all the Apostles, Peter answers in their name (e.g., Matt., xvi, 16). Frequently the Savior turns specially to Peter (Matt., xxvi, 40; Luke, xxii, 31, etc.).
Very characteristic is the expression of true fidelity to Jesus, which Peter addressed to Him in the name of the other Apostles. Christ, after He had spoken of the mystery of the reception of His Body and Blood (John, vi, 22 sqq.) and many of His disciples had left Him, asked the Twelve if they too should leave Him; Peter’s answer comes immediately: “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou halt the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Holy One of God” (Vulg. “thou art the Christ, the Son of God“). Christ Himself unmistakably accords Peter a special precedence and the first place among the Apostles, and designates him for such on various occasions. Peter was one of the three Apostles (with James and John) who were with Christ on certain special occasions—the raising of the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Mark, v, 37; Luke, viii, 51); the Transfiguration of Christ (Matt., xvii, 1; Mark, ix, 1; Luke, ix, 28); the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemani (Matt., xxvi, 37; Mark, xiv, 33). On several occasions also Christ favored him above all the others; He enters Peter’s boat on Lake Genesareth to preach to the multitude on the shore (Luke, v, 3); when He was miraculously walking upon the waters, He called Peter to come to Him across the lake (Matt., xiv, 28 sqq.); He sent him to the lake to catch the fish in whose mouth Peter found the stater to pay as tribute (Matt., xvii, 24 sqq.).
In especially solemn fashion Christ accentuated Peter’s precedence among the Apostles, when, after Peter had recognized Him as the Messias, He promised that he would be head of His flock. Jesus was then dwelling with His Apostles in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, engaged on His work of salvation. As Christ’s coming agreed so little in power and glory with the expectations of the Messias, many different views concerning Him were current. While journeying along with His Apostles, Jesus asks them: “Whom do men say that the Son of man is?” The Apostles answered: “Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets”. Jesus said to them: “But whom do you say that I am?” Simon said: “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God“. And Jesus answering said to him: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock]; and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ (Matt., xvi, 13-20; Mark, viii, 27-30; Luke, ix, 18-21).
By the word “rock” the Savior cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for “Peter” and “rock”. His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ. This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words “bind” and “loose” are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ. Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops. Entirely inconsistent and in itself untenable is the position of Protestants who (like Schnitzer in recent times) assert that the primacy of the Roman bishops cannot be deduced from the precedence which Peter held among the Apostles. Just as the essential activity of the Twelve Apostles in building up and extending the Church did not entirely disappear with their deaths, so surely did the Apostolic Primacy of Peter not completely vanish. As intended by Christ, it must have continued its existence and development in a form appropriate to the ecclesiastical organism, just as the office of the Apostles continued in an appropriate form. Objections have been raised against the genuineness of the wording of the passage, but the unanimous testimony of the manuscripts, the parallel passages in the other Gospels, and the fixed belief of pre-Constantine literature furnish the surest proofs of the genuineness and untampered state of the text of Matthew (cf. “Stimmen aus Maria-Laach“, I, 1896, 129 sqq.; “Theologie and Glaube”, II, 1910, 842 sqq.).
In spite of his firm faith in Jesus, Peter had so far no clear knowledge of the mission and work of the Savior. The sufferings of Christ especially, as contradictory to his worldly conception of the Messias, were inconceivable to him, and his erroneous conception occasionally elicited a sharp reproof from Jesus (Matt., xvi, 21-23; Mark, viii, 31-33). Peter’s irresolute character, which continued notwithstanding his enthusiastic fidelity to his Master, was clearly revealed in connection with the Passion of Christ. The Savior had already told him that Satan had desired him that he might sift him as wheat. But Christ had prayed for him that his faith fail not, and, being once converted, he confirms his brethren (Luke, xxii, 31-32). Peter’s assurance that he was ready to accompany his Master to prison and to death, elicited Christ’s prediction that Peter should deny Him (Matt., xxvi, 30-35; Mark, xiv, 26-31; Luke, xxii, 31-34; John, xiii, 33-38). When Christ proceeded to wash the feet of His disciples before the Last Supper, and came first to Peter, the latter at first protested, but, on Christ’s declaring that otherwise he should have no part with Him, immediately said: “Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head” (John, xiii, 1-10). In the Garden of Gethsemani Peter had to submit to the Savior’s reproach that he had slept like the others, while his Master suffered deadly anguish (Mark, xiv, 37). At the seizing of Jesus, Peter in an outburst of anger wished to defend his Master by force, but was forbidden to do so. He at first took to flight with the other Apostles (John, xviii, 10-11; Matt., xxvi, 56); then turning he followed his captured Lord to the courtyard of the High Priest, and there denied Christ, asserting explicitly and swearing that he knew Him not (Matt., xxvi, 58-75; Mark, xiv, 54-72; Luke, xxii, 54-62; John, xviii, 15-27). This denial was of course due, not to a lapse of interior faith in Christ, but to exterior fear and cowardice. His sorrow was thus so much the greater, when, after his Master had turned His gaze towards him, he clearly recognized what he had done. In spite of this weakness, his position as head of the Apostles was later confirmed by Jesus, and his precedence was not less conspicuous after the Resurrection than before.
The women, who were the first to find Christ’s tomb empty, received from the angel a special message for Peter (Mark, xvi, 7). To him alone of the Apostles did Christ appear on the first day after the Resurrection (Luke, xxiv, 34; I Cor., xv, 5). But, most important of all, when He appeared at the Lake of Genesareth, Christ renewed to Peter His special commission to feed and defend His flock, after Peter had thrice affirmed his special love for his Master (John, xxi, 15-17). In conclusion Christ foretold the violent death Peter would have to suffer, and thus invited him to follow Him in a special manner (ibid., 20-23). Thus was Peter called and trained for the Apostleship and clothed with the primacy of the Apostles, which he exercised in a most unequivocal manner after Christ’s Ascension into Heaven.
II. ST. PETER IN JERUSALEM AND PALESTINE AFTER THE ASCENSION
Our information concerning the earliest Apostolic activity of St. Peter in Jerusalem, Judaea, and the districts stretching northwards as far as Syria is derived mainly from the first portion of the Acts of the Apostles, and is confirmed by parallel statements incidentally in the Epistles of St. Paul. Among the crowd of Apostles and disciples who, after Christ’s Ascension into Heaven from Mount Olivet, returned to Jerusalem to await the fulfilment of His promise to send the Holy Ghost, Peter is immediately conspicuous as the leader of all, and is henceforth constantly recognized as the head of the original Christian community in Jerusalem. He takes the initiative in the appointment to the Apostolic College of another witness of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ to replace Judas (Acts, i, 15-26). After the descent of the Holy Ghost on the feast of Pentecost, Peter standing at the head of the Apostles delivers the first public sermon to proclaim the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and wins a large number of Jews as converts to the Christian community (ibid., ii, 14-41). First of the Apostles he worked a public miracle, when with John he went up into the temple and cured the lame man at the Beautiful Gate. To the people crowding in amazement about the two Apostles, he preaches a long sermon in the Porch of Solomon, and brings new increase to the flock of believers (ibid., iii, 1-iv, 4).
In the subsequent examinations of the two Apostles before the Jewish High Council, Peter defends in undismayed and impressive fashion the cause of Jesus and the obligation and liberty of the Apostles to preach the Gospel (ibid., iv, 5-21). When Ananias and Sapphira attempt to deceive the Apostles and the people, Peter appears as judge of their action, and God executes the sentence of punishment passed by the Apostle by causing the sudden death of the two guilty parties (ibid., v, 1-11). By numerous miracles God confirms the Apostolic activity of Christ’s confessors, and here also there is special mention of Peter, since it is recorded that the inhabitants of Jerusalem and neighboring towns carried their sick in their beds into the streets so that the shadow of Peter might fall on them and they might be thereby healed (ibid., v, 12-16). The ever-increasing number of the faithful caused the Jewish supreme council to adopt new measures against the Apostles, but “Peter and the Apostles” answer that they “ought to obey God rather than men” (ibid., v, 29 sqq.). Not only in Jerusalem itself did Peter labor in fulfilling the mission entrusted to him by his Master. He also retained connection with the other Christian communities in Palestine, and preached the Gospel both there and in the lands situated farther north. When Philip the Deacon had won a large number of believers in Samaria, Peter and John were deputed to proceed thither from Jerusalem to organize the community and to invoke the Holy Ghost to descend upon the faithful. Peter appears a second time as judge, in the case of the magician Simon, who had wished to purchase from the Apostles the power that he also could invoke the Holy Ghost (ibid., viii, 14-25). On their way back to Jerusalem, the two Apostles preached the joyous tidings of the Kingdom of God. Subsequently, after Paul’s departure from Jerusalem and conversion before Damascus, the Christian communities in Palestine were left at peace by the Jewish council.
Peter now undertook an extensive missionary tour, which brought him to the maritime cities, Lydda, community, frequenting their houses and sharing Joppe, and Caesarea. In Lydda he cured the palsied their meals. But when the Christianized Jews arrived Eneas; in Joppe he raised Tabitha (Dorcas) from the in Jerusalem, Peter, fearing lest these rigid observers dead; and at Caesarea, instructed by a vision which he of the Jewish ceremonial law should be scandalized had in Joppe, he baptized and received into the thereat, and his influence with the Jewish Chris-Church the first non-Jewish Christians, the centurion tians be imperiled, avoided thenceforth eating with Cornelius and his kinsmen (ibid., ix, 31-x, 48). On Peter’s return to Jerusalem a little later, the strict Jewish Christians, who regarded the complete observance of the Jewish law as binding on all, asked him why he had entered and eaten in the house of the Christianized pagans. Peter tells of his vision and defends his action, which was ratified by the Apostles and the faithful in Jerusalem (ibid., xi, 1-18).
A confirmation of the position accorded to Peter by Luke, in the Acts, is afforded by the testimony of St. Paul (Gal., i, 18-20). After his conversion and three years’ residence in Arabia, Paul came to Jerusalem “to see Peter”. Here the Apostle of the Gentiles clearly designates Peter as the authorized head of the Apostles and of the early Christian Church. Peter’s long residence in Jerusalem and Palestine soon came to an end. Herod Agrippa I began (A.D. 42-44) a new persecution of the Church in Jerusalem; after the execution of James, the son of Zebedee, this ruler had Peter cast into prison, intending to have him also executed after the Jewish Pasch was over. Peter, however, was freed in a miraculous manner, and, proceeding to the house of the mother of John Mark, where many of the faithful were assembled for prayer, informed them of his liberation from the hands of Herod, commissioned them to communicate the fact to James and the brethren, and then left Jerusalem to go to “another place” (Acts, xii, 1-18). Concerning St. Peter’s subsequent activity we receive no further connected information from the extant sources, although we possess short notices of certain individual episodes of his later life.
III. MISSIONARY JOURNEYS IN THE EAST; COUNCIL OF THE APOSTLES
St. Luke does not tell us whither Peter went after his liberation from the prison in Jerusalem. From incidental statements we know that he subsequently made extensive missionary tours in the East, although we are given no clue to the chronology of his journeys. It is certain that he remained for a time at Antioch; he may even have returned thither several times. The Christian community of Antioch was founded by Christianized Jews who had been driven from Jerusalem by the persecution (ibid., xi, 19 sqq.). Peter’s residence among them is proved by the episode concerning the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law even by Christianized pagans, related by St. Paul (Gal., ii, 11-21). The chief Apostles in Jerusalem—the “pillars”, Peter, James, and John—had unreservedly approved St. Paul’s Apostolate to the Gentiles, while they themselves intended to labor principally among the Jews. While Paul was dwelling in Antioch (the date cannot be accurately determined), St. Peter came thither and mingled freely with the non-Jewish Christians of the community, frequenting their houses and sharing their meals. But when the Christianized Jews arrived in Jerusalem, Peter, fearing, lest these rigid observers of the Jewish ceremonial law should be scandalized thereat, and his influence with the Jewish Christians be imperiled, avoided thenceforth eating with the uncircumcised.
His conduct made a great impression on the other Jewish Christians at Antioch, so that even Barnabas, St. Pauls companion, now avoided eating with the Christianized pagans. As this action was entirely opposed to the principles and practice of Paul, and might lead to confusion among the converted pagans, this Apostle addressed a public reproach to St. Peter, because his conduct seemed to indicate a wish to compel the pagan converts to become Jews and accept circumcision and the Jewish law. The whole incident is another proof of the authoritative position of St. Peter in the early Church, since his example and conduct was regarded as decisive. But Paul, who rightly saw the inconsistency in the conduct of Peter and the Jewish Christians, did not hesitate to defend the immunity of the converted pagans from the Jewish Law. Concerning Peter’s subsequent attitude on this question St. Paul gives us no explicit information. But it is highly probable that Peter ratified the contention of the Apostles of the Gentiles, and thenceforth conducted himself towards the Christianized pagans as at first. As the principal opponents of his views in this connection, Paul names and combats in all his writings only the extreme Jewish 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 end of the second century (Origen, “Horn. vi in Lucam”; Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, III, xxxvi), that Peter founded the Church of Antioch, indicates the fact that he labored a long period there, and also perhaps that he dwelt there towards the end of his life and then appointed Evodius, the first of the line of Antiochian bishops, head of the community. This latter view would best explain the tradition referring the foundation of the Church of Antioch to St. Peter.
It is also probable that Peter pursued his Apostolic labors in various districts of Asia Minor, for it can scarcely be supposed that the entire period between his liberation from prison and the Council of the Apostles was spent uninterruptedly in one city, whether Antioch, Rome, or elsewhere. And, since he subsequently addressed the first of his Epistles to the faithful in the Provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia, one may reasonably assume that he had labored personally 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 indication of personal relations with the persons 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 support from the existence of the “party of Cephas”, which Paul mentions among the other divisions of the Church of Corinth (I Cor., i, 12; iii, 22), still Peter’s sojourn in Corinth (even in connection with the planting and government of the Church by Paul) is not impossible. That St. Peter undertook various Apostolic journeys (doubtless about this time, especially when he was no longer permanently residing in Jerusalem) is clearly established by the general remark 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 exercise of their Apostleship.
Peter returned occasionally to the original Christian Church of Jerusalem, the guidance of which was entrusted 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. Gal., ii, 1-10) 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 Church of this city sent these two Apostles with other envoys to Jerusalem to secure a definitive decision concerning 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 before, in accordance with God‘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 God had wrought among the Gentiles by them, James, the chief representative of the Jewish Christians, adopted Peter’s view and in agreement therewith made proposals which were expressed in an encyclical to the converted pagans.
The occurrences in Caesarea and Antioch and the debate at the Council of Jerusalem show clearly Peter’s attitude towards the converts from paganism. Like the other eleven original Apostles, he regarded himself as called to preach the Faith in Jesus first 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 admit these forthwith into the community of the faithful, without imposing on them the Jewish Law. During his Apostolic journeys outside 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 Christians from Jerusalem, was by no means an official recognition of the views of the extreme Judaizers, who were so opposed to St. Paul. This is established clearly and incontestably by his attitude at the Council of Jerusalem. Between Peter and Paul there was no dogmatic difference in their conception of salvation for Jewish and Gentile Christians. The recognition of Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles (Gal., ii, 1-9) was entirely sincere, and excludes all question of a fundamental divergence of views. St. Peter and the other Apostles recognized the converts from paganism as Christian brothers on an equal footing; Jewish and Gentile Christians formed a single Kingdom of Christ. If therefore Peter devoted the preponderating portion of his Apostolic activity to the Jews, this arose chiefly from practical considerations, and from the 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 today entirely rejected by Protestants.
IV. ACTIVITY AND DEATH IN ROME; BURIAL PLACE
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter labored in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyr-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 labors, 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 established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end 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 century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ’s prophecy 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 First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly 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 capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Apoc., xvii, 5; xviii, 10; “Oracula Sibyl.”, V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffeken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xv; III, xl; VI, xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Adv. hoer., III, i). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle. Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): “Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles—St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (marturesas), has entered the merited place of glory”. He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom “among us” (en emin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chap. lv), He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.
In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavors by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: “I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive” (Ad. Rom., iv). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles labored personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there. Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says: “You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom” (In Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xxviii). Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of Apostolic tradition, as “the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” (Adv. hoer., III, iii; cf. III, i). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.
In his “Hypotyposes” (Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, IV, xiv), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: “After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them” (see above). Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labors of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In “De Praescriptione”, xxxv, he says; “If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John” (scil. the Baptist). In “Scorpiace”, xv, he also speaks of Peter’s crucifixion. “The bud-ding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross”. As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (“On Baptism“, ch. v) that there is “no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber”; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, “to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood” (Adv. Marc., IV, v).
The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome, in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his “Dialogue with Proclus” (in Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xxviii), directed against the Montanists: “But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church“. By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators, who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to “the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there” (i.e. at Rome). There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment (“Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat”, ed. Preuschen, Tubingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter’s death in Rome. The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome (Lipsius, “Acta Apostolorum apocrypha”, I, Leipzig, 1891, pp. 1 sqq., 78 sqq., 118 sqq., cf. Idem, “Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten and Apostellegenden”, 110, Brunswick, 1887, pp. 84 sqq.).
In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure. It was asserted that the tradition concerning Peter’s residence in Rome first originated in Ebionite circles, and formed part of the Legend of Simon the Magician, in which Paul is opposed by Peter as a false Apostle under Simon; just as this fight was transplanted to Rome, so also sprang up at an early date the legend of Peter’s activity in that capital (thus in Baur, “Paulus”, 2nd ed., 245 sqq., followed by Hase and especially Lipsius, “Die quellen der romischen Petrussage”, Kiel, 1872). But this hypothesis is proved fundamentally untenable by the whole character and purely local importance of Ebionitism, and is directly refuted by the above genuine and entirely independent testimonies, which are at least as ancient. It has moreover been now entirely abandoned by serious Protestant historians (cf., e.g., Harnack’s remarks in “Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur”, II, i, 244, n. 2). A more recent attempt was made by Erbes (Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch., 1901, pp. 1 sqq., 161 sqq.) to demonstrate that St. Peter was martyred at Jerusalem. He appeals to the apocryphal Acts of St. Peter, in which two Romans, Albinus and Agrippa, are mentioned as persecutors of the Apostles. These he identifies with the Albinus, Procurator of Judaea, and successor of Festus, and Agrippa II, Prince of Galilee, and thence concludes that Peter was condemned to death and sacrificed by this procurator at Jerusalem. The untenableness of this hypothesis becomes immediately apparent from the mere fact that our earliest definite testimony concerning Peter’s death in Rome far antedates the apocryphal Acts; besides, never throughout the whole range of Christian antiquity has any city other than Rome been designated the place of martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul.
Although the fact of St. Peter’s activity and death in Rome is so clearly established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn. The narratives contained in the apocryphal literature of the second century concerning the supposed strife between Peter and Simon Magus belong to the domain of legend. From the already mentioned statements regarding the origin of the Gospel of St. Mark, we may conclude that Peter labored for a long period in Rome. This conclusion is confirmed by the unanimous voice of tradition which, as early as the second half of the second century, designates the Prince of the Apostles the founder of the Roman Church. It is widely held that Peter paid a first visit to Rome after he had been miraculously liberated from the prison in Jerusalem; that, by “another place”, Luke meant Rome, but omitted the name for special reasons. It is not impossible that Peter made a missionary journey to Rome about this time (after 42 A.D.), but such a journey cannot be established with certainty. At any rate, we cannot appeal in support of this theory to the chronological notices in Eusebius and Jerome, since, although these notices extend back to the chronicles of the third century, they are not old traditions, but the result of calculations on the basis of episcopal lists. Into the Roman list of bishops dating from the second century, there was introduced in the third century (as we learn from Eusebius and the “Chronograph of 354”) the notice of a twenty-five years’ pontificate for St. Peter, but we are unable to trace its origin. This entry consequently affords no ground for the hypothesis of a first visit by St. Peter to Rome after his liberation from prison (about 42). We can therefore admit only the possibility of such an early visit to the capital.
The task of determining the year of St. Peter’s death is attended with similar difficulties. In the fourth century, and even in the chronicles of the third, we find two different entries. In the “Chronicle” of Eusebius the thirteenth or fourteenth year of Nero is given as that of the death of Peter and Paul (67-68); this date, accepted by Jerome, is that generally held. The year 67 is also supported by the statement, also accepted by Eusebius and Jerome, that Peter came to Rome under the Emperor Claudius (according to Jerome, in 42), and by the above-mentioned tradition of the twenty-five years’ episcopate of Peter (cf. Bartolini, “Sopra l’anno 67 se fosse quello del martirio dei gloriosi Apostoli”, Rome, 1868). A different statement is furnished by the “Chronograph of 354” (ed. Duchesne, “Liber Pontificalis“, I, 1 sqq.). This refers St. Peter’s arrival in Rome to the year 30, and his death and that of St. Paul to 55.
Duchesne has shown that the dates in the “Chronograph” were inserted in a list of the popes which contains only their names and the duration of their pontificates, and then, on the chronological supposition that the year of Christ’s death was 29, the year 30 was inserted as the beginning of Peter’s pontificate, and his death referred to 55, on the basis of the twenty-five years’ pontificate (op. cit., introd., vi sqq.). This date has however been recently defended by Kellner (“Jesus von Nazareth u. seine Apostel im Rahmen der Zeitgeschichte”, Ratisbon, 1908; “Tradition geschichtl. Bearbeitung u. Legende in der Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters”, Bonn, 1909). Other historians have accepted the year 65 (e.g., Bianchini, in his edition of the “Liber Pontificalis” in P.L., CXXVII, 435 sqq.) or 66 (e.g. Foggini, “De romani b. Petri itinere et episcopatu”, Florence, 1741; also Tillemont). Harnack endeavored to establish the year 64 (i.e. the beginning of the Neronian persecution) as that of Peter’s death (“Gesch. der altchristl. Lit. bis Eusebius”, pt. II, “Die Chronologie”, I, 240 sqq.). This date, which had been already supported by Cave, du Pin, and Wieseler, has been accepted by Duchesne (Hist. ancienne de l’eglise, I, 64). Erbes refers St. Peter’s death to February 22, 63, St. Paul’s to 64 (“Texte u. Untersuchungen”, new series, IV, i, Leipzig, 1900, “Die Todestage der Apostel Petrus u. Paulus u. ihre rom. Denkmaler”). The date of Peter’s death is thus not yet decided; the period between July, 64 (outbreak of the Neronian persecution), and the beginning of 68 (on July 9 Nero fled from Rome and committed suicide) must be left open for the date of his death. The day of his martyrdom is also unknown; June 29, the accepted day of his feast since the fourth century, cannot be proved to be the day of his death (see below).
Concerning the manner of Peter’s death, we possess a tradition—attested to by Tertullian at the end of the second century (see above) and by Origen (in Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, i)—that he suffered crucifixion. Origen says: “Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer”. As the place of execution may be accepted with great probability the Neronian Gardens on the Vatican, since there, according to Tacitus, were enacted in general the gruesome scenes of the Neronian persecution; and in this district, in the vicinity of the Via Cornelia and at the foot of the Vatican Hills, the Prince of the Apostles found his burial place. Of this grave (since the word rp6-iraiov was, as already remarked, rightly understood of the tomb) Caius already speaks in the third century. For a time the remains of Peter lay with those of Paul in a vault on the Appian Way, at the place ad Catacumbas, where the Church of St. Sebastian (which on its erection in the fourth century was dedicated to the two Apostles) now stands. The remains had probably been brought thither at the beginning of the Valerian persecution in 258, to protect them from the threatened desecration when the Christian burial places were confiscated. They were later restored to their former resting-place, and Constantine the Great had a magnificent basilica erected over the grave of St. Peter at the foot of the Vatican Hill. This basilica was replaced by the present St. Peter’s in the sixteenth century. The vault with the altar built above it (confessio) has been since the fourth century the most highly venerated martyr’s shrine in the West. In the substructure of the altar, over the vault which contained the sarcophagus with the remains of St. Peter, a cavity was made. This was closed by a small door in front of the altar. By opening this door the pilgrim could enjoy the great privilege of kneeling directly over the sarcophagus of the Apostle. Keys of this door were given as precious souvenirs (cf. Gregory of Tours, “De gloria martyrum”, I, xxviii).
The memory of St. Peter is also closely associated with the Catacomb of St. Priscilla on the Via Salaria. According to a tradition, current in later Christian antiquity, St. Peter here instructed the faithful and administered baptism. This tradition seems to have been based on still earlier monumental testimonies. The catacomb is situated under the garden of a villa of the ancient Christian and senatorial family, the Acilii Glabriones, and its foundation extends back to the end of the first century; and since Manius Acilius Glabrio (q.v.), consul in 91, was condemned to death under Domitian as a Christian, it is quite possible that the Christian faith of the family extended back to Apostolic times, and that the Prince of the Apostles had been given hospitable reception in their house during his residence at Rome. The relations between Peterand Pudens, whose house stood on the site of the present titular church of Pudens (now Santa Pudentiana) seem to rest rather on a legend.
Concerning the Epistles of St. Peter, see Epistles of Saint Peter; concerning the various apocrypha bearing the name of Peter, especially the Apocalypse and the Gospel of St. Peter, see Apocrypha. The apocryphal sermon of Peter gk (K’pvy?Ç¬µa), dating from the second half of the second century, was probably a collection of supposed sermons by the Apostle; several fragments are preserved by Clement of Alexandria (cf. Dobschutz, “Das Kerygma Petri kritisch untersucht” in “Texte u. Untersuchungen”, XI, i, Leipzig, 1893).
V. FEASTS OF ST. PETER
As early as the fourth century a feast was celebrated in memory of Sts. Peter and Paul on the same day, although the day was not the same in the East as in Rome. The Syrian Martyrology of the end of the fourth century, which is an excerpt from a Greek catalogue of saints from Asia Minor, gives the following feasts in connection with Christmas (December 25): December 26, St. Stephen; December 27, Sts. James and John; December 28, Sts. Peter and Paul. In St. Gregory of Nyssa‘s panegyric on St. Basil we are also informed that these feasts of the Apostles and St. Stephen follow immediately after Christmas. The Armenians celebrated the feast also on December 27; the Nestorians on the second Friday after the Epiphany. It is evident that 28 (27) December was (like December 26 for St. Stephen) arbitrarily selected, no tradition concerning the date of the saints’ death being forth-coming. The chief feast of Sts. Peter and Paul was kept in Rome on June 29 as early as the third or fourth century. The list of feasts of the martyrs in the Chronograph of Philocalus appends this notice to the date: “III. Kai. Jul. Petri in Catacumbas et Pauli Ostiense Tusco et Basso Coss.” (= the year 258). The “Martyrologium Hieronyminanum” has, in the Berne MS., the following notice for June 29: “Rome via Aurelia natale sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, Petri in Vaticano, Pauli in via Ostiensi, utrumque in catacumbas, passi sub Nerone, Basso et Tusco consulibus” (ed. de Rossi—Duchesne, 84).
The date 258 in the notices shows that from this year the memory of the two Apostles was celebrated on June 29 in the Via Appia ad Catacumbas (near San Sebastiano fuori le mura), because on this date the remains of the Apostles were translated thither (see above). Later, perhaps on the building of the church over the graves on the Vatican and in the Via Ostiensis, the remains were restored to their former resting-place: Peter’s to the Vatican Basilica and Paul’s to the church on the Via Ostiensis. In the place Ad Catacumbas a church was also built as early as the fourth century in honor of the two Apostles. From 258 their principal feast was kept on June 29, on which date solemn Divine Service was held in the above-mentioned three churches from ancient times (Duchesne, “Origines du culte chretien”, 5th ed., Paris, 1909, 271 sqq., 283 sqq.; Urbain, “Ein Martyrologium der christl. Gemeinde zu Rom an Anfang des 5. Jahrh.”, Leipzig, 1901, 169 sqq.; Kellner, “Heortologie”, 3rd ed., Freiburg, 1911, 210 sqq.). Legend sought to explain the temporary occupation by the Apostles of the grave Ad Catacumbas by supposing that, shortly after their death, the Oriental Christians wished to steal their bodies and bring them to the East. This whole story is evidently a product of popular legend. (Concerning the Feast of the Chair of Peter, see Chair of Peter.)
A third Roman feast of the Apostles takes place on August 1: the feast of St. Peters Chains. This feast was originally the dedication feast of the church of the Apostle, erected on the Esquiline Hill in the fourth century. A titular priest of the church, Philippus, was papal legate at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The church was rebuilt by Sixtus III (432-40) at the expense of the Byzantine imperial family. Either the solemn consecration took place on August 1, or this was the day of dedication of the earlier church. Perhaps this day was selected to replace the heathen festivities which took place on August 1. In this church, which is still standing (S. Pietro in Vincoli), were probably preserved from the fourth century St. Peter’s chains, which were greatly venerated, small filings from the chains being regarded as precious relics. The church thus early received the name in Vinculis, and the feast of August 1 became the the feast of St. Peter’s Chains (Duchesne, op. cit., 286 sqq.; Kellner, loc. cit., 216 sqq.). The memory of both Peter and Paul was later associated also with two places of ancient Rome: the Via Sacra, outside the Forum, where the magician Simon was said to have been hurled down at the prayer of Peter, and the prison Tullianum, or Career Mamertinus, where the Apostles were supposed to have been kept until their execution. At both these places, also, shrines of the Apostles were erected, and that of the Mamertine Prison still remains in almost its original form from the early Roman time. These local commemorations of the Apostles are based on legends, and no special celebrations are held in the two churches. It is, however, not impossible that Peter and Paul were actually confined in the chief prison in Rome at the fort of the Capitol, of which the present Carcer Mamertinus is a remnant.
VI. REPRESENTATIONS OF ST. PETER
The oldest extant is the bronze medallion with the heads of the Apostles; this dates from the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, and is preserved in the Christian Museum of the Vatican Library. Peter has a strong, roundish head, prominent jaw-bones, a receding forehead, thick, curly hair and beard. (See illustration in CATACOMBS.) The features are so individual that it partakes of the nature of a portrait. This type is also found in two representations of St. Peter in a chamber of the Catacomb of Peter and Marcellinus, dating from the second half of the third century (Wilpert, “Die Malerein der Katakomben Rom”, plates 94 and 96). In the paintings of the catacombs Sts. Peter and Paul frequently appear as interceders and advocates for the dead in the representations of the Last Judgment (Wilpert, 390 sqq.), and as introducing an Orante (a praying figure representing the dead) into Paradise.
In the numerous representations of Christ in the midst of His Apostles, which occur in the paintings of the catacombs and carved on sarcophagi, Peter and Paul always occupy the places of honor on the right and left of the Savior. In the mosaics of the Roman basilicas, dating from the fourth to the ninth centuries, Christ appears as the central figure, with Sts. Peter and Paul on His right and left, and besides these the saints especially venerated in the particular church. On sarcophagi and other memorials appear scenes from the life of St. Peter: his walking on Lake Genesareth, when Christ summoned him from the boat; the prophecy of his denial; the washing of his feet; the raising of Tabitha from the dead; the capture of Peter and the conducting of him to the place of execution. On two gilt glasses he is represented as Moses drawing water from the rock with his staff; the name Peter under the scene shows that he is regarded as the guide of the people of God in the New Testament.
Particularly frequent in the period between the fourth and sixth centuries is the scene of the delivery of the Law to Peter, which occurs on various kinds of monuments. Christ hands St. Peter a folded or open scroll, on which is often the inscription Lex Domini (Law of the Lord) or Dominus legem dat (The Lord gives the law). In the mausoleum of Constantina at Rome (S. Costanza, in the Via Nomentana) this scene is given as a pendant to the delivery of the Law to Moses. In representations on fifth-century sarcophagi the Lord presents to Peter (instead of the scroll) the keys. In carvings of the fourth century Peter often bears a staff in his hand (after the fifth century, a cross with a long shaft, carried by the Apostle on his shoulder), as a kind of scepter indicative of Peter’s office. From the end of the sixth century this is replaced by the keys (usually two, but sometimes three), which henceforth became the attribute of Peter. Even the renowned and greatly venerated bronze statue in St. Peter’s possesses them; this, the best known representation of the Apostle, dates from the last period of Christian antiquity (Grisar, “Analecta romana”, I, Rome, 1899, 627 sqq.).
J. P. KIRSCH