would have done so. Had Christ Jesus been present, could we imagine him letting James thus sum up the matter?—Acts 15:13-21.

EARLY “CHURCH FATHERS” DID NOT CONSIDER PETER THE ROCK

Neither the early Christian congregation nor the early “church fathers” held that Peter was the rock on which the church was built. This is clearly seen from the facts brought to our attention by one Bishop Strossmayer of Bosnia, in his speech made before the college of cardinals in 1870, at the time that the dogma of the infallibility of the pope was discussed. Among other things this bishop told that august assembly:

“I come now to speak of the great argument—which you mentioned before—to establish the primacy of the Bishop of Rome by the rock (petra). If this were true, the dispute would be at an end; but our forefathers—and they certainly knew something—did not think of it as we do. St. Cyril, in his fourth book on the Trinity, says, ‘I believe that by the rock you must understand the unshaken faith of the apostles.’ St. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, in his second book on the Trinity, says, ‘The rock (petra) is the blessed and only rock of the faith confessed by the mouth of St. Peter;’ and in the sixth book of the Trinity, he says, ‘It is on this rock of the confession of faith that the church is built.’ ‘God,’ says St. Jerome in the sixth book on St. Matthew, ‘has founded His church on this rock, and it is from this rock that the apostle Peter has been named.’ After him St. Chrysostom says in his fifty-third homily on St. Matthew, ‘On this rock I will build my church—that is, on the faith of the confession.’ Now, what was the confession of the apostle? Here it is—’Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Ambrose, the holy Archbishop of Milan (on the second chapter of the Ephesians), St. Basil of Seleucia, and the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, teach exactly the same thing. Of all the doctors of Christian antiquity St. Augustine occupies one of the first places for knowledge and holiness. Listen then to what he writes in his second treatise on the first epistle of St. John: ‘What do the words mean, I will build my church on this rock? On this faith, on that which said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ In his treatise on St. John we find this most significant phrase ‘On this rock which thou hast confessed I will build my church, since Christ was the rock.’ The great bishop believed so little that the church was built on St. Peter that he said to the people in his thirteenth sermon, ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock (petra) which thou hast confessed, on this rock which thou hast known, saying, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, I will build my church—upon Myself, who am the son of the living God: I will build it on Me, and not Me on thee.’ That which St. Augustine thought upon this celebrated passage was the opinion of all Christendom in his time.” (Augustine died A.D. 430, or about 400 years after Jesus spoke those words to Peter.)

NO BISHOP OF ROME

Nor was Peter the first bishop of Rome, any more than he was the “rock” or the first pope. Many scriptures show that Paul was in Rome. Why should Paul find it necessary to give the Roman Christians so much counsel if Peter were there and were superior to Paul? In his letter to the Romans Paul mentions 35 Christians by name and sends greetings to 26 of them, but no mention of Peter, no greetings for him. If Peter had been in Rome and there as the pope or bishop, could we imagine Paul so completely ignoring him? Further, Paul wrote a number of his letters from Rome, and in these he made reference to other Christians in Rome who were with him or who also sent greetings, but never a word regarding Peter. Why the great silence if Peter actually were there at the time? And had Peter established himself as bishop of Rome could he still have been termed the apostle to the circumcision? To claim that Peter’s reference to Babylon in his first epistle (1Pe 5:13) refers to Rome merely is to admit how weak the case is for Peter’s having been in Rome.

According to Bishop Strossmayer, one Scaliger (termed by the Encyclopedia Americana “the founder of the science of chronology” and therefore no mean authority) did not hesitate to say that “St. Peter’s episcopate and residence at Rome ought to be classed with ridiculous legends”.

Thus we see that both the Scriptures and historical facts unite to testify that the Christian congregation is built on Christ Jesus and not on the apostle Peter, that Peter was not the first pope, and that there is no proof that he was ever in Rome. Truly, “the truth will set you free.”—John 8:32, NW.

Two Classic Letters of Great Importance

TRAJAN, ruler of the sprawling Roman empire, needed a governor for the province of Bithynia-Pontus in Asia Minor. He therefore appointed his trusted friend Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, otherwise called Pliny the Younger. Arriving in Bithynia A.D. 111, Pliny died two years later, but during that time he wrote many letters to Trajan on a variety of subjects. One of these, together with Trajan’s reply, deals with early Christians and is highly regarded as a monumental document of antiquity. It reveals the attitude, conduct and disposition of God’s consecrated servants as viewed through non-Christian eyes. Of such historical importance (they were written only a very short time after the last of the apostles died) are these letters that they are herewith reproduced, as translated and published in the Harvard Classics, 1909, vol. 9, pp. 425-428.

“It is my invariable rule, Sir, to refer to you in all matters where I feel doubtful; for who is more capable of removing my scruples or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them. Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; or if a man has been once a Christian, it avails nothing to desist from his error; whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt. In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated