AUTHENTIC KEPOET 
 
 OP THE 
 
 DISCUSSION HELD IN EOME 
 
 On the Evenings of February 9th and 10th, 1872, 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND EVANGELICAL 
 MINISTERS, 
 
 CONCERNING THE COMING OF ST. PETER TO ROME. 
 
 TRANSLATED BY 
 
 WILLIAM ARTHUR, A.M., 
 
 AUTHOR OF “ITALY IN TRANSITION,” ETC., ETC. 
 
 THIRTEENTH THOUSAND. 
 
 UTonbon:: 
 
 T. WOOLMER, 2, CASTLE STREET, CITY ROAD, E.C. 
 
 AND 66, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.O. 
 
HAYMAN BROTHERS AND LILLY, 
 PRINTERS, 
 
 HATTON HOUSE, 113, FARRINGDON ROAD, 
 LONDON, E.C. 
 
a.n^w i 
 
 
 TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 
 Rm8 I 
 
 Had Mr. Disraeli, when writing “ Lothair,” laid a scene in 
 Rome, not four years after the battle of Mentana, in which the 
 hall of a pontifical academy, brilliantly lighted by Catholic hands, 
 was crowded with an audience divided into two parts : Roman 
 Catholics on the right, admitted by yellow tickets; non-Romanists 
 on the left, admitted by red j to hear a debate between Priests and 
 Protestants on the question whether St. Peter ever was in Rome;— 
 had he set over the discussion four Presidents; on the one side a 
 Roman Prince with an Advocate of fame and title, on the other, 
 two Pastors, the one of Hebrew extraction, the other an English 
 Methodist residing in Italy ;—had he introduced as Disputants a 
 distinguished Canon, with two erudite Roman ecclesiastics, and 
 opposed to these the famous ex-Monk Gavazzi, with a Pastor of 
 the old Waldensian Church, and a converted Franciscan,—a 
 Methodist;—further, had he represented the debate as able and 
 fervent, yet proceeding with temper and ending with shaking of 
 hands, would not the critics have said that, of all the improbable 
 things in the book, that was the most extravagant ? Yet, at seven 
 o’clock on the evening of February 9th, 1872, that scene opened, 
 not to dissolve until after eleven, and then only to re-open on the 
 evening following. And the public already knows, through the 
 correspondence of “ The Times,” “ The Daily News,” and other 
 papers, that the conditions just named were fulfilled. 
 
 Besides its intrinsic interest, the Discussion here translated will 
 always claim a place in the history of thought and of political 
 
 A 2 
 
4 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 institutions; for here inquiry advances to joust with authority in 
 fair and honourable lists, opened on ground where for ages lie durst 
 not show his head; and here a public meeting, for earnest but 
 orderly debate, is held where, of all institutions, the public dis¬ 
 cussion has been the most alien, and popular assemblies have been 
 only for rites or amusements, unless we except the lottery. But the 
 deepest interest of the discussion will lie in its bearing on religious 
 belief; always the strongest force in moulding both thought and 
 institutions. 
 
 Bor .Roman Catholics, owing to the principles whereon they 
 have, for ages, proceeded in the construction of their ecclesiastical 
 system, the question treated is vital. It touches nothing less than 
 their foundations, and new life is thrown into the inquiry when it 
 is urged on the one side and the other, not far off from Rome, or by 
 men of alien blood and sympathies; but when the voices of the 
 speakers stir the air that fans the Vatican, and at every turn the 
 words “here,” “in this city,” “in this metropolis,” “ we,” “us,” 
 “in this centre of the world,” fall from lips glowing with the local 
 associations of the past, and earnestly contending for the vantage 
 ground of faith whence to command the future. 
 
 The following statement of the circumstances which led to the 
 discussion is condensed from the “ Corriere Evangelico ” for Feb¬ 
 ruary, published in Padua, and has the authority of one of the 
 Presidents, Mr. Piggott. On Wednesday, January 31st, Sciarelli, 
 according to his custom, announced in the journal “ La Capitate ” 
 the subject he should treat on the evening following, the pretended 
 arrival of St. Peter in Rome. Already the order had issued from 
 the Vatican to accept a public challenge from the Evangelicals; 
 and what subject could be more propitious ? especially as the form 
 wherein Sciarelli had advertised his Thesis committed him to the proof 
 of a universal negative. On Thursday evening Sciarelli had no sooner 
 mounted the pulpit than a large document was delivered to him, 
 signed by six Priests, announcing that they accepted a public dis¬ 
 cussion unon his Thesis in the terms advertised in “ La Capitate ,” 
 
TeEFaCE. 
 
 5 
 
 on condition that Presidents of the debate should be chosen on 
 both sides, and rules for fair play and good order be arranged 
 beforehand. 
 
 The next day, Signori Sciarelli and Piggott, on the part of the 
 Protestants, and Signori Cipolla and Cicolini on that of the Catholics, 
 met in the room in Via Barbiere, and agreed that the proposition 
 discussed should stand in the terms of the advertisement; that each 
 side should choose three disputants and two Presidents ; and that 
 admission should be by ticket, and in equal numbers for each 
 side. 
 
 The Presidents selected were Prince Chigi, of Campagnano, 
 brother of the well-known Papal Nuncio to Paris, and the cele¬ 
 brated Advocate Commendatore De Dominicis-Tosti, for the 
 Catholics; and, on the other side, the Bev. Henry J. Piggott, and 
 Dr. Hermann Philip. They held their preliminary meetings in the 
 palace of Prince Chigi, and resolved to employ two sets of report¬ 
 ers ; for the Catholics those of the (Ecumenical Council, for the 
 Protestants those of the Italian Parliament; from the collation of 
 whose work an authenticated report was to be published. 
 
 The journals fanned the rising interest; and had the tickets been 
 as many thousands as they were hundreds, they would have been 
 all taken. In front of the Presidents sat the Disputants, three on 
 a side, then the reporters, and then the dense and orderly audience. 
 The names of the Disputants on the Catholic side did not transpire 
 till the night of meeting. Canon Fabiani, an accomplished scholar 
 and archaeologist, came forward with Signor Cipolla, a priest of 
 Borne, and Signor Guidi, whose repute for talent and learning is 
 considerable. As their opponents, Sciarelli, a Neapolitan, and 
 Bibetti, from the Alpine valleys, represented the two ends of Italy, 
 while Gavazzi, the Boman, stood on his native soil, joining hands 
 with them both, to meet as free men those who at last came out to 
 fight against them with only the lawful weapons of thought. 
 
 With exceeding pleasure I give literally the last paragraph of 
 Mr. Piggott's account in the “ Corriere Evangeiico : ” “ One word 
 
6 
 
 i?BE7ACE. 
 
 in conclusion : a word of praise to our adversaries, justly merited 
 by the spirit of courtesy and fair play in which everything was 
 arranged and conducted by them from the beginning to the end. 
 Neither from the presidential chair, nor from the bench of the 
 Disputants, had we to complain of an ungentlemanly ( inurbana) 
 word, or of an act less than honourable. Be this said for love of 
 the truth, and as a return of politeness.” 
 
 The importance of this discussion in Italy may be partly 
 gathered from the fact that, throughout the country, the press took 
 it up with gravity and intelligent interest. And, on the other side, 
 from the appointment by the Pope of a triduum , or holy day of three 
 successive days, for a ceremonial in St. Peter’s, as first announced in 
 the “ Daily News,” and afterwards fully described in the “ Times ” of 
 March the 18th, with a view to “ offer reparation for the horrible 
 blasphemies with which, in these latter days, infidels have denied 
 the presence and death of St. Peter in Kome.” Decrevit habendas 
 triduum ferias, as Cicero would have said; and thousands 
 crowded to the cathedral, of whom many added to the reparation, 
 the further homage to St. Peter of devoutly kissing the toe of his 
 statue. Since the discussion the journal “ La Capitate ,” of March 
 the 6th, occupies two pages with a report of the “ Solemn 
 Inauguration of the Italian Bible Society,” in the Sala Argentina in 
 Pome; to which it describes the population as crowding “ with an 
 ardour that seemed like fanaticism.” There Bibetti delivered to 
 the vast crowd the solemn greeting of the old Waldensian Church, 
 and at the name of Sciardli, who followed the celebrated French 
 orator, Father Hyacinthe, “the assembly broke out into earnest 
 plaudits.” And Gavazzi rose amid great applause, and sat down 
 amid greater. 
 
 It need hardly be said that, as with the original, so with this 
 translation, the desire for speed forbade any aim at literary finish. 
 One thing only have I attempted,—to enable the English reader, 
 as far as the case admitted, to see through my sentences those of 
 the speakers. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The speeches delivered in the Discussion, excepting that of 
 Signor Francesco Sciarelli, Minister of the Evangelical Methodist 
 Church, were taken down by reporters on both sides; and are 
 printed as they came out after the collation of the two, without 
 even the revision necessary to improve the style. 
 
8 
 
 DECLARATION ATTACHED TO THE ROOT OF 
 THE AUTHENTIC MANUSCRIPT. 
 
 The present manuscript, to the number of two hundred and 
 sixty-eight pages, and of thirty-one lines to the page, is a faithful 
 and exact copy, by the undersigned Presidents approved in all and 
 every its parts, both of the thesis read by the Evangelical Minister, 
 Signor Erancesco Sciarelli, and of the speeches delivered by the 
 Catholic Priests and Evangelical Ministers on the evenings of the 
 ninth and tenth of this current month of February, in the hall of 
 the Pontificia Accademia Tiberinu , on the question of the coming 
 of St. Peter to Rome* 
 
 In Faith, &c. 
 
 Rome, this twenty-fourth day of February, one thousand eight 
 hundred and seventy-two. 
 
 Comm. Giovanni Battista De Dominicis-Tosti, 
 
 Avv. Cone. 
 
 M. Chigi, Principe di Campagnano. 
 
 Henry J. Piggott, B.A. 
 
 Hermann Philip, D.D., M.D. 
 
9 
 
 FRIDAY EVENING, SEVEN O’CLOCK. 
 
 President Signor De Dominicis-Tosti.— Most honourable 
 gentlemen, the discussion is opened upon this thesis,—(reads from 
 tne four hundred and ninety-second number of “ La Capitale ,”)— 
 “ Signor Francesco Sciarelli, Evangelical Minister, will give a pub¬ 
 lic lecture, in which he will show by arguments drawn from the 
 Bible and the Holy Bathers that St. Peter never was in Rome.” 
 
 I pray you, most honourable gentlemen, not to give expressions 
 either of approval or disapprobation, that the debate may proceed 
 with order and tranquillity. 
 
 Gavazzi. —Gentlemen Presidents, permit me a word ! As we 
 are here convened not for a worldly or theatrical end, but for a reli¬ 
 gious one, I think that we should begin with prayer; and since no 
 one can forbid that prayer which Jesus Christ taught us, I would 
 beg of the President that some one should commence with the 
 Lord’s Prayer. This no one can forbid. 
 
 Canon Fabiani says that it is to be supposed that every one has 
 already prayed privately, and that he does not see the necessity of 
 doing it in public. 
 
 President De Dominicis-Tosti. —The necessity of this praying 
 in public does not appear, every one does it for himself; besides in 
 this we must proceed according to the stipulations agreed upon 
 between the parties, between the Presidents. 
 
 Prince di Campagnano wishes to say that time can be given 
 that every one may offer up a prayer inwardly, before commencing 
 the discussion. 
 
 This time having been given, the President, De Dominicis-Tosti, 
 alls upon Signor Sciarelli to read his paper. 
 
 Sciarelli. —Gentlemen, I should very willingly have resigned to 
 my honourable colleagues, more experienced than I, the honour of 
 developing the thesis which is to form the subject of our discus¬ 
 sion, if in the conditions of debate previously settled it had not 
 been resolved that I must do it, as being the person by whom the 
 discussion itself was proposed. Confident, therefore, not in my 
 
10 
 
 abilities, which little avail, but in the undeniable and irrecusable 
 character of the proofs I shall employ, I am here before you, gen¬ 
 tlemen, to show the falsity of the Roman Catholic belief with 
 regard to the arrival and 'pontificate of St. Peter in Home. 
 
 All that Catholic theologians have hitherto asserted with regard to 
 such a belief, may be summed up in these words :— St. Peter 
 came to Pome in the second year of the reign of Claudius ; that is , 
 in the forty-second of the vulgar era ; here he held the pontificate 
 for twenty-five years; and here was martyred in the year 66, 
 in the time of the Emperor Nero. Now, against this belief, I 
 shall prove that St. Peter did not come to establish his 
 see in Rome from 42 to 46 of the vulgar era, and 
 
 THAT NOT HAVING COME DURING THIS TIME HE COULD NOT 
 HAVE HELD THE PONTIFICATE HERE FOR THE SPACE OF 
 TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, NOR HERE HAVE SUFFERED MARTYRDOM 
 IN THE SAME YEAR OF 66 IN THE TIME OF THE EMPEROR 
 
 Nero. 
 
 We are well convinced and persuaded that St. Peter could 
 not have come to establish his see in Rome in the second year of 
 the reign of Claudius, that is, in the forty-second of the vulgar 
 era, for the following reasons. According to the most accurate 
 and most accredited calculations, and according to the results 
 obtained in his investigations by the very learned Roman Catholic 
 Ellendorf, Professor in the University of Berlin, the conversion ot 
 St. Paul must have taken place in the thirty-ninth year of the 
 Christian era. Now in the Epistle which this Apostle wrote to 
 the Galatians, it is said, Gal. i. 15-18 :—“But when it pleased Him 
 who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His 
 grace to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among 
 the Gentiles, immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood, 
 neither went I to Jerusalem to the Apostles who were before me; 
 but I went to Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. Then 
 after three years I went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and I tarried 
 with him fifteen days.” (This quotation is according to the trans¬ 
 lation of Monsignor Martini, from which I take every passage of 
 the Bible, in order that doubt or misunderstanding may not 
 arise.)* Three years, then, after his conversion, that is, just in 
 the year 42 of the vulgar era, St. Paul went up to Jerusalem, and 
 
 * As far as possible to meet this view of Signor Sciarelli, all his quotations 
 of Scripture are given in English, not from the Authorized Version, but from 
 the Douay. 
 
11 
 
 for what ? To visit St. Peter. This Apostle, therefore, in the 
 second year of the reign of Claudius, that is, in the forty-second of 
 the Christian era, had not yet come to Borne. But it may be said, 
 “ Perhaps he came immediately after the visit paid to him by St. 
 Paul.” Let us see. In the book of the Acts of the Apostles 
 after this same voyage of Paul to Jerusalem is named, this is 
 said : Acts ix. 31-35 :—“^iow the Church had peace throughout 
 all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and was edified, walking in 
 the fear of the Lord, and was filled with the consolation of the 
 Holy Ghost. It came to pass that Peter, as he passed through, 
 visiting all, came to the saints who dwelt in Lydda. And he 
 found there a certain man named Eneas who had kept his bed for 
 eight years, who was ill of the palsy. And Peter said to him, 
 Eneas, the Lord Jesus Christ healeth thee: arise, and make thy 
 bed. And immediately he arose. And all that dwelt at Lydda 
 and Saron saw him, who were converted to the Lord.” 
 
 St. Peter then, after the Apostle St. Paul had left Jerusalem, 
 began to go about every where, and thus he came to Lydda, a 
 country town eight leagues distant from Jerusalem. How, there¬ 
 fore, could he have come to Borne immediately after the visit paid 
 him by St. Paul P But perhaps he came later, that is, after his 
 stay in Lydda. Let us observe. In the same book of the Acts of 
 the Apostles, it is written, Acts xi. 36-43 :—“ And in Joppa there 
 was a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is 
 called Dorcas : this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds 
 which she did. And it came to pass in those days, that she was 
 sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an 
 upper chamber. And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh unto Joppa, 
 the disciples hearing that Peter was there, sent unto him two men, 
 desiring that he would not be slack to come unto them. And 
 Peter rising up went with them. And when he was come they 
 brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood 
 about him weeping and showing the coats and garments which 
 Dorcas made them. And they all being put forth, Peter kneeling 
 down prayed, and turning to the body he said, Tabitha, arise ! 
 And she opened her eyes. Seeing Peter she sat up. And giving 
 her his hand he lifted her up. And when he had called the saints 
 and the widows, he presented her alive. And it was made known 
 throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord. And it 
 came to pass that he abode many days in Joppa with one Simon a 
 tanner.” 
 
 l 
 
12 
 
 If St. Peter then, after being in Lydda, was called to Joppa, 
 where he stayed many days, he certainly would not have come to 
 Eome shortly after his stay in Lydda. But perhaps he came 
 immediately after his departure from Joppa P Let us see. The 
 same book of the Acts of the Apostles, having told of Cornelius 
 the Centurion, who had sent to Joppa to cal) St. Peter, thus 
 
 observes : “ He arose and went with them.on the morrow, 
 
 after he entered into Caesarea.” And St. Peter having preached 
 Jesus Christ to Cornelius, and to those who were with him, they 
 believed, and were baptized. Then they “ desired him that he 
 would stay with them some days (Acts x., passim .) So St. 
 Peter, after he had remained many days in Joppa, was called by 
 Cornelius to Caesarea, in which he was prayed to remain some 
 days. It is certain that he could not have come to Eome imme¬ 
 diately after his stay in Joppa. But perhaps he came here as soon 
 as he had passed a few days in Caesarea. It is stated in the same 
 book of the Acts of the Apostles, that after the conversion and 
 baptism of Cornelius, (Acts xi. 2,) “ And when Peter was come up to 
 Jerusalem , then they that were of the circumcision contended 
 with him.” 
 
 Now if St. Peter, after he had remained for some days in 
 Caesarea, went up to Jerusalem, and there had to reason with the 
 circumcision, evidently he could not have come to Eome after he 
 had passed a few days in Caesarea. 
 
 Thus, in the second year of the reign of Claudius, namely, in the 
 forty-second of the vulgar era, if St. Peter had to accomplish all these 
 journeys, to endure all these labours, and to fulfil all this mission, 
 how can the theologians of Catholicism assert with reason that in 
 that same year he came to Eome ? Besides which, the book of the 
 Acts of the Apostles having so particularly and circumstantially 
 described to us all this period of the life of St. Peter, how comes 
 it that it holds its peace with regard to his journey to Eome? 
 Let us say frankly, either the journey of St. Peter to Eome in the 
 second year of the reign of Claudius is one of those tales which, 
 taking birth one knows not how, passed on from age to age, until 
 they were examined and reviewed by some one with good eyes; 
 or, on the other hand, the silence of the Acts of the Apostles is an 
 unpardonable silence, and one that would dispel our belief in its 
 inspiration. Out of this is no escape. Now every one who 
 believes in the inspiration of the Bible will feel it impossible to 
 admit the second supposition. We must, then, admit the first, 
 
13 
 
 namely, that it is false that St. Peter came to Borne in the second 
 year of the reign of Claudius, and in the forty-second of the vulgar 
 era. And this Antonio Pagi the Pranciscan Priar well saw, who, 
 commenting upon the Annals of Baronius, did not hesitate to affirm 
 that the supposition of St. Peter’s coming to Eome in the scond 
 year of the reign of Claudius is in contradiction to Holy Writ. 
 Calmet affirms that, even before his times, the hypotheses of Baro¬ 
 nius were given up as impossible ; and finally, the Dominican 
 Priars in the Bibliotheca Sacra of 1822 have openly declared 
 themselves against the hypotheses of Baronius, and say that Peter 
 came to Eome only during the reign of Nero. Here, then, is a 
 respectable number of writers, more than orthodox, who, instead 
 of adopting the curious legend, wish to preserve intact the autho¬ 
 rity of the Acts of the Apostles, and to respect the law of sound 
 criticism. 
 
 But perhaps the theologians of Catholicism might add, if St. 
 Peter did not come to Eome in the second year of the reign of 
 Claudius, he might have come in the year following; for, after all, 
 it is not an article of faith that he came just in the forty-second 
 year of the Christian era; a year more or less does not destroy 
 credence in his journey to Eome. Very well; but then what would 
 become of the twenty-five years in which the same theologians 
 affirm that St Peter held the pontificate in Eome P By all means 
 let us see if this be possible. 
 
 History teaches us as undoubted that Herod Agrippa, the grand¬ 
 son of Herod the Great, died in the year 45 of the vulgar era. 
 Now, according to what is said in the Acts of the Apostles, this 
 Herod Agrippa, not long before his death, (Acts xii. 1-4, 
 12-17,) “ stretched forth bis hands, to afflict some of the Church. 
 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And 
 seeing that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter also . 
 Now it was in the day of the azymes. And when he had appre¬ 
 hended him, he cast him into prison, delivering him to four files of 
 soldiers to be kept, intending after the pasch to bring him forth to 
 
 the people.And considering he came to the house of Mary the 
 
 mother of John, who was surnamed Mark, where many were 
 gathered together and praying. And when he knocked at the door 
 of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, whose name was Ehoda, 
 and as soon as she heard Peter’s voice, she opened not the gate for 
 joy, but running in she told that Peter stood before the gate. But 
 they said to her, Thou art mad. But she affirmed that it was so. 
 
14 
 
 Then said they, It is his angel. But Peter continued knocking,. 
 And when they had opened, they saw him, and were astonished. 
 But he beckoning to them with his hand, to hold their peace, told 
 how the Lord had brought him out of prison, and he said, Tell 
 these things to James, and to the brethren. And going out, he 
 went into another place” 
 
 If then not long before the year 45 of the vulgar era, St. Peter 
 was put in prison by Herod Agrippa, was liberated by an angel, 
 and went to the house of Mary the mother of John, surnamed 
 Mark, it is a proof that up to this time he had not come to Borne, 
 but that he was still in Jerusalem, and that his pretended pontifi¬ 
 cate of twenty-five years in the seat of empire must be shortened 
 at least by three years. 
 
 However, the Catholic theologians might here reply to us, “ St. 
 Peter came to Borne just after being liberated by the angel, for 
 the same book of the Acts tells us that he departed and went 
 elsewhere; * this elsewhere was Borne.” But this elsewhere, could 
 it ever be Borne? Was Borne a hovel or a village, that it should 
 be designated by the mean word, “elsewhere ? ” Had not Borne 
 its proper name as much as Lydda, or Joppa, or Caesarea &c., 
 that recourse must be had to the obscure word “elsewhere? ” Is 
 it natural ? Is it possible ? Is it after the habit of the writer of 
 the Acts of the Apostles ? But, above all, is it corroborated by 
 that which further on in the Holy Scripture is said concerning 
 the Apostle Peter ? Let us see. 
 
 According to what is said in the second chapter of the Epistle 
 to the Galatians the apostolic council held in Jerusalem took place 
 fourteen years after St. Paul had gone up to that city to visit St. 
 Peter, namely, in the fifty-sixth of the Christian era. Now, in this 
 council we find that St. Peter was present, because it is said in the 
 book of the Acts: (Acts xv. 1, 2, 4-7, 12 :)—“ And some coming 
 down from Judaea, taught the brethren, that except you be circum¬ 
 cised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved. And when 
 Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them they determined 
 that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should 
 go up to the Apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question. 
 
 .And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by 
 
 the Church, and by the Apostles, and ancients, declaring how great 
 things God had done with them. But there arose some of the 
 sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying, They must be circum- 
 * Martini’s translation of els trepov rtnxov is altrove. — Translator. 
 
15 
 
 cised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses. And the 
 Apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. And 
 when there had been much disputing, Peter rising up , said to them, 
 Men and brethren, you know that in former days God made choice 
 among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of 
 
 the Gospel and believe.And all the multitude held their peace, 
 
 and they heard Barnabas and P&ul telling what great signs and 
 wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.” 
 
 Therefore in the year 5 6 of the Christian era, St. Peter was still 
 in Jerusalem : how, then, could he have come to Pome to establish 
 his see just after being liberated from the hands of Herod by means 
 of an angel P How can the word “ elsewhere ” be understood as 
 designating the capital of the empire ? But it may be suggested 
 that St. Peter, having come to Rome immediately after he was 
 liberated from prison, may have returned to Jerusalem to attend the 
 Council. To this objection we reply : Did the Council of Jerusa¬ 
 lem originate in an act of convocation, by invitation, or by letter ? 
 Does it not, on the contrary, appear that the Apostles, instead of 
 having to be invited before the time to come at a date fixed before¬ 
 hand, were found together in Jerusalem as in their settled abode, 
 in their natural centre, up to that time P But even admitting that 
 the Council had been previously convoked, how comes it, in that 
 case, mat St. Peter, coming from Rome, said nothing on that most 
 solemn occasion of his own journey, which would have been of so 
 great importance, or of the new and shining destinies of Rome ? 
 And such silence is all the more inexplicable, inasmuch as in the 
 same meeting St. Paul and St. Barnabas rendered an exact and par¬ 
 ticular account of what had been wrought among the Gentiles by 
 them. The advances made by Christianity were enumerated in 
 that solemn assembly, and was Rome a matter so small ? It must 
 then be confessed that St. Peter could not have come to Rome, 
 there to establish his see, before the Council of Jerusalem, that is, 
 till the year 56 of the Christian era; and that his pretended ponti¬ 
 ficate of twenty-five years must be cut short by fifteen. 
 
 But could not St. Peter at least have come to Rome immediately 
 after the Council at Jerusalem? We find that he could not, since 
 from the Epistle to the Galatians we gather that, on the con¬ 
 trary, he went to Antioch, where having encountered St. Paul, he 
 had to endure the grave rebukes of the Apostle of the Gentiles. 
 Galatians ii. 11-14 :— 
 
 “ But when Cephas was come to Antioch , I withstood him to the 
 
16 
 
 face, because lie was to be blamed. For before that some came 
 from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were 
 come, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them who were 
 of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews 
 consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into dissimula¬ 
 tion. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the 
 truth of the Gospel, I said to 'Cephas before them all, If thou, 
 being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the 
 Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the 
 Jews? ” 
 
 But may not Peter have come to Borne after being in Antioch ? 
 Let us see. We know that St. Paul, towards the year 58 of the 
 vulgar era, wrote his sublime and beautiful Epistle to the Bomans. 
 Now surely if St. Peter at this time had been in Borne, the Apostle 
 of the Gentiles would have sent him a salutation, would have called 
 him to mind, would have made some allusion to his presence and 
 his work in this metropolis; and yet St. Paul, while in his letter 
 saluting every one, while filling almost a chapter with greetings, 
 and sending them to every person in office in this Church, says 
 nothing of St. Peter. “ Perhaps St. Peter was absent,” will say 
 the Catholic theologians. But how ? Even suppose that, how is 
 it explained that, in commencing his Epistle, St. Paul says, Bern, 
 i. 10, 11, 15 ?— 
 
 “ Always in my prayers making request, if by any means now 
 at length I may have a prosperous journey, by the will of God to 
 come unto you. For I long to see you, that I may impart unto 
 you some spiritual grace, to strengthen you ; so, as much as in 
 me, I am ready to preach the Gospel to you also that are at 
 Borne.” 
 
 Now, what need of the evangelizing of St. Paul, if St. Peter 
 already was in Borne ? What gift could Paul communicate which 
 already had not been imparted by St. Peter ? Had not Peter the 
 authority to confirm in the faith ? It is evident, then, that St. 
 Peter could not have been here in Borne at the time in which St. 
 Paul sent his letter to the faithful in this city; and therefore the 
 twenty-five years of his pretended pontificate in this metropolis of 
 the empire must be reduced by seventeen. 
 
 But could not St. Peter come to Borne after the year 58? Let 
 us see. In the year 61 of the Christian era, St. Paul arrived at 
 Borne in person, and the brethren went out to give him the meet¬ 
 ing. "Lliis time, certainly, St. Peter will be mentioned; and yet see 
 
17 
 
 how the book of the Acts of the Apostles speaks of this event. 
 Acts xxviii. 14-22 :— 
 
 “Where finding brethren, we were desired to tarry with 
 them seven days : and so we went to Rome. And from thence, 
 when the brethren had heard of us, they came to meet us as far as 
 Appii Forum and the three taverns ; whom when Paul saw, he 
 gave thanks to God, and took courage. And when we were come 
 to Rome, Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier 
 that kept him. And after the third day he called together the 
 chief of the Jews. And when they were assembled, he said to 
 them, Men and brethren, I having done nothing against the 
 people, or the customs of our fathers, was delivered prisoner from 
 Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. Who, when they 
 examined me, would have released me, for that there was no cause 
 of death in me. But the Jews contradicting it, I was constrained 
 to appeal unto Crnsar; not that I have any thing to accuse my 
 nation of. For this cause therefore I desired to see you, and to 
 speak to you : because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with 
 this chain. But they said to him, We neither received letters con¬ 
 cerning thee from Judsea, neither did any of the brethren that came 
 hither relate or speak any evil of thee . But we desire to hear of 
 thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect , we know that 
 it is gainsay ed every where” 
 
 Now, is it likely, is it possible, that, in the book of the Acts of 
 the Apostles, St. Paul in Rome should be thus spoken of, if St. 
 Peter at the same time was in the city ? How comes it that the 
 two Apostles did not meet one another ? How comes it that the 
 Jews of Rome had to learn anything from St. Paul concerning the 
 Jews of Jerusalem ? How comes it that St. Peter, the Apostle of 
 the circumcision, had not already given to them a just and exact 
 idea of that which they go no farther than to call a sect ? Does 
 not this their language show that they had not yet heard any apos¬ 
 tolic preaching ? It is impossible, then, to think that St. Peter 
 could have been in Rome at the time when St. Paul arrived in the 
 city,—that is, in the year 61 of the vulgar era,—and therefore his 
 pretended pontificate of twenty-five years must be abridged by 
 twenty. 
 
 But could not St. Peter come to Rome after the year 61 of the 
 vulgar era ? Let us see. St. Paul passed two years in Rome. 
 The book of the Acts says, (Acts xxviii. 30, 31,) “And he 
 remained two whole years in his hired lodging: and he received 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 all that came to him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching 
 the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, 
 without prohibition.” 
 
 Now, it is undoubted that he wrote hence some of his Epistles. 
 He wrote to Philemon, (Philemon 22, 23,) “ There salute thee 
 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus ; Mark, Aristarchus, 
 Demas, and Luke, my fellow labourers.” And of St. Peter what 
 does he say ? Nothing. If at this time he had been in Rome, would 
 not St. Paul have enumerated him among the companions of his 
 work ? He wrote, besides, to the Colossians, and in the close of the 
 Epistle he says, (Col. iv. 10, 11,) ‘‘Aristarchus my fellow prisoner 
 saluteth you, and Mark the cousin-german of Barnabas, (touching 
 whom you have received commandments: if he come unto you, 
 receive him;) and Jesus, that is called Justus: who are of the 
 circumcision : these only are my helpers in the kingdom of God; 
 who have been a comfort to me.” 
 
 Here St. Paul speaks of all those that surrounded him, and who 
 were a help to him in the work of the kingdom of God. How 
 comes it that of St. Peter he does not say anything ? It is a proof 
 that St. Peter was not in Rome. And, finally, all agree in admit¬ 
 ting that the Second Epistle to Timothy was written to St. Paul in 
 the year 66 of the Christian era, shortly before he suffered martyr¬ 
 dom. Well, in this it is written, (2 Timothy iv. 9-11, 16,) “ Eor 
 JDemas hath left me, loving the world, and is gone to Thessalonica; 
 Crescens into Galatia, Titus into Dalmatia: only Luke is with me. 
 Take Mark, and bring him with thee : for he is profitable unto me 
 for the ministry. At my first answer no man stood with me, but 
 all forsook me : may it not be laid to their charge.” 
 
 Now could St. Paul have pitifully complained, saying that Luke 
 alone was found as his companion, and that no one had stood by 
 him in his first defence, and that all had forsaken him, in case 
 St. Peter had then been in Rome ? Do you mean that that Apostle 
 had rendered himself culpable of this base desertion? He was a 
 prisoner, perhaps the theologians of Catholicism will say. Well, in 
 that case, St. Paul would certainly have mentioned to Timothy the 
 imprisonment of his co-Apostle, in the same way in which to Phi¬ 
 lemon he had mentioned the imprisonment of Epaphras, and to the 
 Corinthians he had named Sosthenes, who was with him in prison. 
 It is therefore by necessity that we conclude that in the year in 
 which this letter was written St. Peter had not yet come to Rome; 
 but the year in which the letter was written is the year 66 of the 
 
19 
 
 vulgar era; and the year 66 of the vulgar era is, for Catholic theo¬ 
 logians, the year in which St. Peter had to suffer martyrdom. 
 Then, according to that which the Holy Scriptures teach us, it is 
 not true that St. Peter came to Rome to establish his see here. 
 
 And further, besides what hitherto we have said, we find in the 
 Holy Scripture that St. Peter, in order to be faithful to the special 
 mission received from Jesus Christ, should not and could not, by 
 any means, come to Rome to establish his residence. Let us see 
 if that be true. In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul writes 
 the following words, Gal. ii. 6-9 : “ But of them who seemed to 
 be something, (what they were sometime it is nothing to me. 
 God accepteth not the person of man,) for to me they that seemed 
 to be something added nothing. But contrariwise, when they had 
 seen that to me was committed the Gospel of the uncircumcision, 
 as to Peter was that of the circumcision. (For He who wrought 
 in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also 
 among the Gentiles).” 
 
 It is true that all the Apostles, without distinction, had from 
 Jesus Christ the command to go into all the world, and preach the 
 Gospel to every creature; but those words written in the Epistle 
 to the Galatians show us that St. Peter had further received a 
 special mission , that, namely, of preaching the Gospel to the 
 Hebrews, to the circumcised. Now, how could the Apostle of the 
 Gentiles have written that to St. Peter was committed the Gospel 
 of the circumcision, that God had powerfully worked in St. Peter 
 for the apostleship of the circumcision, if St. Peter had betaken 
 himself to Rome, there to set up his residence in a city of the 
 uncircumcised, a city of the Gentiles ? Perhaps St. Peter did not 
 obey the special mission received from Jesus Christ. But the Acts 
 of the Apostles bear witness to the work that he did in Jeru¬ 
 salem and in the country round about; and his Epistle written 
 from Babylon to the inhabitants of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, 
 Asia, and Bithynia, (1 Peter i. 1,) shows us that his residence was 
 in the centre of the dispersion of Israel. 
 
 Neither avails the assertion of Catholic theologians and others 
 in regard to this Epistle of St. Peter bearing date # from Babylon, 
 wishing us to believe that the Apostle intended to designate Rome 
 under the name of Babylon. What ? they say the date from 
 Babylon is not to be understood literally. St. Peter was writing j 
 
 * In the Italian, data is here used for the place where, without including the 
 time when, the liter ce were data .— Translator. 
 
 B 2 • 
 
20 
 
 from Home; but he said Babylon to hide by this metaphor the 
 true place of his dwelling, that he might not fall into persecution. 
 But was St. Peter once more timorous as when for three times he 
 denied his Master ? Was he not now the same who, before any of the 
 others, spoke with such courage on the day of Pentecost ? Was 
 he not the same who, to those of the Sanhedrim, had said, “ If it be 
 just in the sight of God, to hear you rather than God, judge ye? ” 
 (Actsiv. 19,) 
 
 Of no more avail are the other kinds of assertions which are objected 
 concerning this date of Babylon, since all have been abundantly 
 refuted by men very learned in the Holy Scriptures, and in the 
 history of ancient times. Here is what the learned Michaelis 
 has said : “ It is exceedingly strange that the Apostle having 
 dated his letter from Babylon, it should enter the head of any 
 commentator to give a mystical sense to this word, rather than take 
 it in its proper sense, since in the first century the ancient Babylon 
 was in existence. It is true that it might be called desolate, if 
 compared with what it had been in the time of Nebuchadnezzar; 
 nevertheless, we gather from Strabo that it was not a heap of ruins, 
 nor void of inhabitants. The simple epistolary language does not 
 admit of poetical figures, and although in a poem written to extol 
 Gottingen, we might bear its being called Athens; if a professor 
 of this university attached to one of his letters, written from 
 Gottingen, the date of Athens, he would show such bad taste as to 
 make himself ridiculous. Thus, although it is not unsuitable to 
 the poetical language of the Apocalypse to make a metaphor of 
 Babylon, in an epistle which is literal, and not metaphorical, Peter 
 would never have called the city from which he wrote by any name 
 but the literal one.” 
 
 But is not patristic tradition in favour of the Catholic theolo¬ 
 gians? Have not Eusebius, St. Jerome, and other fathers of the 
 Church asserted it ? It appears impossible that they should always 
 blindly go upon the testimony of others! Now, first of all, 
 Eusebius did not assert that it was so. He reported this statement 
 as a simple opinion, and even remarked that this metaphor appeared 
 to him rather forced. Besides, we must remember that the assent 
 of St. Jerome, and of all the Fathers, depends upon these words of 
 Eusebius himself, from which they have all taken this statement, so 
 that this general consent is similar to a crowd of persons who 
 repeat as true a fable which every one of them has heard told and 
 affirmed by one and tl^e same man. Of what value, then, is the voice 
 
21 
 
 
 of thousands and thousands? None. Besides which, it is beyond 
 doubt that among the Fathers, the writers anterior to Eusebius 
 make no mention whatever of this metaphor; and it is further 
 beyond doubt that, according to the testimony of Clarke, the 
 ancient writers nearest to Babylon, such as the Syrians and the 
 Arabs, believed that this name ought to be taken literally. It is 
 indubitable, then, that setting aside chronological arguments drawn 
 from the Holy Scriptures, we can by the words of St. Paul, written 
 in the Epistle to the Galatians, prove that St. Peter, if he meant to 
 be faithful, as truly he was, to the special mission received from 
 Jesus Christ, should not and could not come to Borne, there to 
 set up his residence. 
 
 Now that we have demonstrated by the Holy Scriptures the 
 impossibility of the journey of St. Peter, and his pontificate in Borne, 
 we wish to see if in the times nearest to the Apostles it was 
 believed or not. The theologians of Catholicism say, “ Yes ; ” we 
 maintain, “ No.” Let us see which is right. 
 
 They cite three documents: first, the Epistle of St, Clement to 
 the Corinthians; secondly, the Epistle of St. Ignatius to the 
 Remans ; thirdly, the authority of Fapias. 
 
 THE EPISTLE OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 This celebrated Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians was 
 undoubtedly written before the year 70 of the Christian era, because 
 it speaks of the temple of Jerusalem, and of Jewish rites as still 
 existing. In it there is no allusion, such as the theologians of 
 Catholicism pretend, to the journey or the pontificate of St. Peter 
 in Borne, and only from one passage, the authenticity of which 
 critics have suspected, is it gathered that at this time St. Peter and 
 St. Paul were already departed. Here are the words :—“ Peter, 
 from wrongful ill-will, endured not one or two, but many travails, 
 and in this manner, having testified, he went to the place of glory 
 which he merited for himself- Paul, from an equal ill-will, endured 
 the conflict of patience, being seven times put into chains, and 
 scourged and stoned, a herald in the east and in the west, he bore 
 witness before the rulers, and passed out of the wc.Hd, and 
 went to the holy place.” Now, where is here anything said con¬ 
 cerning the voyage and the pontificate of St. Peter in Borne ? Very 
 vague, on the contrary, is the way in which St. Clement expresses 
 
22 
 
 himself concerning St. Peter. He says that this Apostle died for 
 bearing witness to the faith, but he does not say, and he does not 
 leave it to be inferred, that he had died in Rome. If, however, 
 it is true, as some critics hold, among whom are Cote-lerius and 
 Gallandi, that this passage, quoted from St. Clement, is comment 
 and interpolation, surprising would be his silence concerning the 
 death of the two most celebrated Apostles, since it must have taken 
 place here in Rome under his own eyes, and since he had so fine an 
 occasion for speaking of it,—a proof this, that St. Clement did 
 not believe in the journey and pontificate of St. Peter in Rome. 
 
 THE EPISTLE OF ST. IGNATIUS TO THE KOMAN8. 
 
 This Epistle of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, to the Romans, 
 was written from Smyrna, in the year 107 of the Christian era, 
 while St. Ignatius was being conveyed to Rome to be here exposed 
 to the wild beasts. Now without remarking that all his Epistles 
 were much corrupted, and that it still rests uncertain if, in the edi¬ 
 tion which is taken for the best, they are free from interpolations, 
 it is to be observed that, in that to the Romans, there is truly a 
 pompous eulogium of their Church, which is designated as superior 
 to all others in the empire ; but not one word giving it to be under¬ 
 stood that it was founded by St. Peter, although the opportunity 
 was so favourable. In this Epistle St. Ignatius begs the Romans 
 not to interpose to withdraw him from death, because he, being 
 God’s wheat, wished to be ground under the teeth of wild beasts, 
 that he might become worthy bread of Christ. “ I do not com¬ 
 mand it to you,” he adds, “ like Peter and Paul, those Apostles, I, 
 still a slave; but if I suffer, I shall be the free man of Christ, 
 and I shall arise free in Him.” Here Catholic theologians pre¬ 
 tend to see a testimony to the journey and the pontificate of St. 
 Peter in Rome. But is this possible P We cannot see it. The 
 same silence is held in the Acts of St. Ignatius, written by the 
 companions of his voyages and the witnesses of his martyrdom; 
 who say only that, when they arrived opposite to Puzzuoli, St. 
 Ignatius would have wished to land to go to Rome, treading in the 
 footsteps of St. Paul; but that the ship, baffled by the winds, could 
 uot gain a landing place till they reached Porto Romano. Of St. 
 
Peter there is not one hint; a proof that the fable of the journey 
 and pontificate of the Apostle in the city of Rome had not been 
 then invented. 
 
 THE AUTHORITY OF PAPrAS. 
 
 There is no one who to this day has been able to find a single 
 writing of this Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis. His writings were 
 lost from the beginning. Eusebius alone appears to have had 
 them in his hands; and, pronouncing a judgment upon them, he 
 has to say that Papias was “ a man of very little understanding/’ 
 But is it true that Papias bears witness to the journey and pontifi¬ 
 cate of St. Peter in Rome P Eusebius, in the second book of his 
 “ Ecclesiastical History,” in the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters, 
 reports the tradition of the journey of St. Peter to Rome. 
 Hence he speaks of another fact,—that is, that the Christians of 
 Rome wished to have in writing the substance of the preaching of 
 St. Peter; and he says that then this Apostle dictated his Gospel 
 to St. Mark. After that Eusebius adds, “ This is what St. Clement 
 tells us in the fourth book of his * Institute; ’ and Papias, Bishop 
 of Hierapolis, equally testifies to it.” These words are obscure, 
 and we cannot tell whether Papias renders testimony to the journey 
 of St. Peter to Rome, or to the Gospel written by St. Mark. 
 Hence the testimony of Papias cannot be received, because his 
 books do not exist; because Eusebius calls him a man of little 
 sense; and because his testimony itself is equivocal. 
 
 It is not true, then, that in the times nearest to the Apostles, 
 the journey and pontificate of St. Peter in Rome was believed in, as 
 the Catholic theologians pretend. 
 
 However, Catholic theologians, to corroborate the voyage and 
 pontificate of St. Peter in Rome, strengthen themselves and take 
 post, as if under an inexpugnable bulwark, behind the unanimous 
 assent of tradition which explicitly, from Irenseus to modern days, 
 has always corroborated such an event. But we must understand 
 one another in regard to tradition. We certainly bow before the 
 majestic teaching of tradition, because we know that God reveals 
 Himself in a certain sense in the development of humanity, that 
 God in a certain way appears in the deeds of men, that the light 
 of the Word illuminates every intelligent creature, and in them 
 manifests its own power: but nevertheless, in traditional teaching, 
 with the touchstone of the Bible, which for both us and the Catholic 
 
24 
 
 theologians is the Word of God, we can separate the human 
 element from the Divine; we can select the result of 
 ignorance, of fraud, and of corruption from that of knowledge, of 
 truth, of progress. We, in a word, admit tradition only then 
 when it is conformed to the book of the Lord, to the Bible, and 
 we throw it away whenever it contradicts that, or postpones it to 
 pretended human infallibility. Hence of the unanimous consent 
 of tradition, which from the times of Irenseus to modern times 
 has always explicitly confirmed the journey and pontificate of St. 
 Peter in Borne, we shall make no account, until Catholic theologians 
 shall have refuted with undeniable and irrecusable arguments those 
 which we have drawn from the Holy Scriptures against such a belief. 
 Further, we must distinguish the value and force of tradition 
 according as it is brought forward to corroborate doctrine or fact . 
 When we are treating of facts, not of doctrines, tradition must be 
 divided into two periods. In the first is to be placed the testi¬ 
 mony of those who lived shortly after the facts to be established ; 
 in the second the testimony of those who followed in the course 
 of years. Testimonies of the first period have a certain value, but 
 those of the second period, if without any of the first, have not 
 value of any sort. Now what happens in the present case ? Can the 
 Catholic theologians allege explicit, clear, luminous testimonies of 
 men who lived shortly after the fact of the pretended arrival and 
 pretended pontificate of St. Peter in Borne P No, certainly no ! 
 Then what avails the assent of tradition which only from Irenmus 
 to modern times has testified in their favour ? 
 
 Gentlemen, it is needless that I should expend more words in 
 support of my thesis. By what I have already said for every 
 sincere and unprejudiced conscience it remains firmly established 
 and proved with undeniable and irrecusable arguments, that the 
 Catholic belief which for us Evangelicals is of no moment, and for 
 the followers of Catholicism is everything,—the belief, namely, of 
 the arrival of St. Peter in Borne,—is impossible to be sustained, and 
 that we are able with certainty to affirm and to proclaim on high, 
 that St. Peter did not come to set up his seat here in Borne from 
 the year 42 to 66 of the vulgar era, and that not having come 
 during this time he could not here have held the pontificate for the 
 space of twenty-five years, nor here have suffered martyrdom in the 
 year 66, in the time of the Emperor Nero. 
 
 Let not the timorous consciences of Boman Catholics take fright 
 at this. Criticism, it is true, is a chain of struggles, a series of 
 
25 
 
 enterprises against received opinions. Where it plants its banner, 
 nothing is seen but ifuins all around; but these ruins are fertile, 
 sad in a short lapse of time, the infected air of untruth being 
 dissipated, life will come back again, and then nothing will be seen 
 but festivals of intelligence, of truth, and of the Gospel of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 The paper being ended, Canon Fabiana is the speaker. 
 
 Canon Enrico Fabiani.— However full, Gentlemen, of erudition 
 and study we may confess the exposition to be with which our 
 honourable opponent has opened our debate, or rather this loving 
 conference, which we have undertaken in the desire that the truth 
 should be always more diffused, should always further spread and 
 gradually illuminate all minds and conquer all hearts, nevertheless 
 it seems to me that he has wandered almost entirely from the sub¬ 
 ject and the idea which on this evening ought to be discussed 
 between us. Did I recapitulate in few words the many and choice 
 words of our opponent, I should remark that he has done nothing 
 but reproduce with an array of eloquent and glowing language, 
 and with a profusion of Biblical statements and of extracts, which 
 have certainly been welcome to the heart of every one who loves 
 the Divine Word, but which do not directly appertain to our proper 
 question,—he, I say, has done nothing but reproduce here before 
 us those arguments which, already so often repeated, have 
 been dealt with, discussed, and, I shall say, repeating the same 
 words which fell from the lips of my opponent, so often well con¬ 
 futed by learned men. Those arguments reduce themselves, firstly, 
 to chronological difficulties drawn from the Acts of the Apostles 
 and the Epistles of St. Paul, against the diverse chronologies 
 which authors—Catholic and Protestant—have brought forward to 
 determine the precise moment of the arrival and stay of St. Peter 
 in Eome; secondly, into the silence observed in these same 
 Epistles, in the Acts respecting the person of Peter himself in 
 some circumstances in which, according to the same chronologies, 
 Peter must have been in those places of which the Acts make 
 mention. In the third place, he said that a special charge com.' 
 mitted to Peter, that of being the Apostle of the Circumcision* 
 must have bound him to places in Judsea alone, and never per¬ 
 mitted him to come to Home. Finally, that he was in Babylon 
 while he wrote his letters ; and, in conclusion, descending from the 
 arguments drawn from Scripture to those which may be called of 
 the Fathers, he wished to show that, in the earliest times after 
 
26 
 
 Peter, no memory existed among the Fathers of this his coming to 
 Borne, and that, as for later ones, we must not pay to them any 
 attention. But in thus speaking, I believe that we must not con¬ 
 found two things ; one, namely, the circumstances, the manner, 
 the duration, and whatever regards the stay of Peter in Borne; 
 and the other the event around which alone our subject to-night 
 revolves. 
 
 Here we are not speaking of how long Peter was in Borne; 
 here we are not speaking of when and how often he may have 
 come. The Thesis which we have to handle is very simple and 
 dear, and reduces itself to two words, that Peter never did come 
 here. One single hour that Peter had been in Borne would entirely 
 destroy this Thesis; and that has nothing whatever to do with the 
 question whether this Thesis is numbered by either us or our 
 opponents among our articles of faith, or regarded as a simple 
 fact. Gentlemen, the Spirit of God, which came by the means of 
 Christ and His Apostles, to illuminate the minds of all, He that 
 first spoke through the prophets and afterwards through the Son of 
 God Himself, this Spirit has announced many things; but not all 
 those which He has announced were so hidden from men that they 
 could not have known them by other means even before that 
 announcement. And such are the facts of history, which every 
 man sees with his own eyes, and concerning which criticism will 
 have the foundation sought in those proofs which still proclaim and 
 accredit to man all other facts. 
 
 Jesus Christ came upon the earth ; a child was born in Bethle¬ 
 hem, lived in Nazareth and Capernaum, preached, wrought 
 miracles, was crucified under Pilate, showed Himself in the pre¬ 
 sence of men as man, and as such every eye saw Him, every heart 
 could recognise Him. But He was the Son of God; but He was 
 the Messiah expected of the nations ; but He was the Bedeemer of 
 the whole world ; and this was not seen manifestly by the eye ; 
 and for this a Divine testimony was necessary, which our oppo¬ 
 nents and those of the Church place only in the Holy Scriptures, 
 and we place together with the Holy Scriptures in the teaching 
 and authority of the Church and in its traditions. Let us, then, 
 distinguish, first of all, these two sides. 
 
 First of all, let us take heed to purely historical facts which 
 any one may see, and then let us search under these what may be 
 spiritually revealed, mysterious, hidden. Peter came to Borne. 
 It' this fact is attested, is proved by the rules of criticism, it will 
 
27 
 
 be an event of history which cannot be denied. Then we should De 
 able to discuss, and it would be quite a different point, and very 
 remote from the present question, whether this Peter who came was 
 the head of the other Apostles, whether he carried with him a 
 primacy into Rome, whether he brought an infallibility and all the 
 grandeur of the Roman Pontificate. This is matter for Divine 
 revelation. 
 
 It is true that when Holy Scripture states facts we must accept 
 them, even though it was considered for a moment as not inspired, 
 because its witnesses are witnesses which are ocular and irrefra¬ 
 gable, as to the different works narrated ; but if this testimony 
 failed, human facts could be equally ascertained in the other way. 
 
 And here it is that we come to the historical question of to-day, 
 here we have to prove historically the arrival in Rome of St. Peter, 
 and here we must search for proofs according to all the rules of 
 criticism. This is a great fact for all Christians, a great fact, as he 
 well said in his preceding argument, (pointing to Sciarelli,) that it 
 behoves the Church to know if she is the true catholic, or if she is 
 another Church. This fact is, then, for all Christians of capital 
 importance. Rome was by no means a small place, or some little 
 village standing forsaken in a remote corner of the world. Capital 
 of the entire world about these times, Rome saw within her bosom, 
 flowing in with all facility, the multitude of the nations from 
 every side, and with it the multitude of Christians. History tells 
 us, and criticism, that for a hundred reasons the Christians, to 
 whatever race they belonged, did no other than rush to Rome; 
 some because they were here dragged as martyrs, as happened to 
 Ignatius of Antioch; some because tney came to learn ancient history, 
 ancient traditions, and ancient learning, as did Hegesippus; here came 
 heretics, as Valentinus and Marcion, as so many others, endeavouring 
 to deceive the heads of the Roman Church, and to draw them over 
 to their party; hither came Irenseus, hither came Polycarp, hither 
 came hundreds and hundreds whom now I do not remember, 
 neither could I enumerate them all, to discuss the affairs of this 
 Church and of the Church universal. It was a continual going 
 and coming. Origen, Hippolyte, Tertullian, and hundreds upon 
 hundreds of others were here at every moment; and I speak only 
 of those illustrious for science or for rank who have left a memory, 
 a great name; for the multitude that came to venerate the 
 memory of the tombs of the Apostles were not able to leave a trace 
 of their names. But even in the words of Julian the Apostate, an 
 
28 
 
 indication is found that from the earliest times, when John had 
 not yet written his Gospel, the memory of the Apostles was already 
 venerated, and held in esteem and honour. This coming of all 
 men, of all Christians, to Borne, rendered, then, this fact a noto¬ 
 rious fact, a most noble one, a universal fact, of which, therefore, 
 the memory could not be lost, could not be cancelled. It is from 
 the memory of all those present and future that we must draw 
 forth, according to the rules of criticism, the proofs of this histo¬ 
 rical fact, which comes before any decision whatever as to the dog¬ 
 matic value which this fact might have. 
 
 Now we find this series of testimonies that our adversary has 
 just pointed out, and which does not commence, as he says, only 
 with Irenseus, but stretches through all the centuries, and goes up 
 truly to the days of the Apostles themselves, through the medium of 
 their first successors ; a series which, as [touching a] fact more known 
 and manifest, commences with sweet and covert allusions, such as in 
 a letter of affection a man is accustomed to make, who speaks of a 
 thing perfectly known by himself and by him to whom he writes. 
 Little by little it becomes the foundation of all discussions, of 
 which what follows must take account, or to determine 
 some other point of history less known. Let us explain ourselves. 
 
 When the Fathers of the Church wished to combat the heretics, 
 they did not by any means find this tale new; but from its being 
 known and certain that Peter had been in Borne, they argued 
 against these heretics, combatting to destroy them. And these 
 heretics never were able to deny, and never dared to deny, those 
 foundations which the Fathers laid for their argument. “ Thou 
 knowest,” for example, says Optatus, when writing against 
 the Donatists, “ thou knowest,” and you will allow me to read 
 these words, since we must not change one of them, because they 
 are too precious, for they issued from the mind, from the heart, 
 from the tongue of a good man: [Beads:] “ Then thou canst not 
 deny, thou knowest in the city of Borne the episcopal chair was held 
 by Peter from the beginning.’* I do not intend to examine anything 
 that could impugn the veracity of this text. (Movement.) We 
 shall speak of it again. I mean to say to you, how sacred this basis 
 was which the Fathers laid down for their discourse. “ Then 
 thou knowest,” he said, “thou canst not deny,” “thou knowest,” 
 igitur negare non potes , Petrus , “ in the city of Borne by Peter was 
 held from the beginning the episcopal chair.” Irenseus himself, 
 who a short while ago was quoted by our opponent, in the same 
 
29 
 
 manner, and with equal certainty, speaks: “ I could enumerate all 
 those who were instituted bishops of the Church by the Apostles 
 and their successors down to us.” He is speaking against here¬ 
 tics. “ To these,” he says, “ you ought to give heed, and not to 
 others ; because that which Jesus Christ has taught to the Apostles, 
 that is the truth, and that which the Apostles have taught to their 
 Church and to their successors, that you should believe. Then, 
 coming to the Churches which were founded from the beginning 
 by the Apostles, I could number them for you ; but since it is too 
 long in this our volume to number the succession of all the 
 Churches, by indicating the tradition of the faith announced to 
 men, which leads from the Apostles to our time by means of the 
 succession of the Bishops, the greatest, the most ancient, and 
 known to all, the Church of Borne, founded and constituted by the 
 most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, we shall confound all 
 those who, whether it be from self-love or from error, argue against 
 duty.” 
 
 Here we are not speaking of an historical fact that did not 
 interest any one, or one that, having occurred in some corner of 
 the world, could remain unknown, or be easily forgotten. 
 
 They, namely, the Fathers, appeal to this certainty. Neither 
 does that suffice. When the synchronisms of history have to be 
 established, they take this fact as the foundation of their argu¬ 
 ment. When they wish to determine the time in which the 
 Gospel of St. Mark was written, they appeal to that great epoch, 
 such (much more certain than the time itself in which, accord¬ 
 ing to them, the Gospel was written) as was the arrival of 
 St. Peter in Borne. When they wished to determine the 
 foundation of the debate, whatever it was, of Simon Magus 
 against St. Peter himself, they speak of his arrival in Borne, and 
 thus they proceed. In fact, all antiquity, till the beginning of that 
 century in which unhappily the brethren of Germany and England 
 detached themselves from the Church, recognised as a fact abso¬ 
 lutely notorious and most public, this event, which was the founda¬ 
 tion of all the faith of all Christianity. Now while by this fact 
 the Church was increasing, while Borne was becoming gigantic, no 
 one of the heretics whom I have named dared to deny this fact; 
 and it must be noted that the same, although they recognised the 
 grand, the lortj , the sublime power which was derived to the Church 
 from the coming of St. Peter to Borne, did net in any way contest 
 it; but all admitted it. Tertullian admitted it, an enemy of the 
 
30 
 
 Roman Pontiffs; and the other, who calls himself the author of the 
 Philosoplmmena , the rabid calumniator of the Pontiff St. Calixtus, his 
 contemporary, St. Cyprian, at the same time in which between him 
 and the Pontiff the question of baptism was agitated. And so again 
 Firmilianus of Caesarea, summoned on the same question. The other 
 heretics, who came one after another, Nestorians, Jacobites, and 
 whatever they were, never dared to deny the coming of Peter 
 to which their enemies, the Roman Pontiffs, traced the beginning of 
 the power which was striking them down. The most illustrious 
 men in heresy itself were not able to deny it, while Rome dominated 
 so much by reason of this coming. But if St. Peter never was in 
 Rome, if he did not die in Rome, he must surely have died in some 
 other corner of the world, and some other Church must have 
 remembered his deeds, and shown, if nothing else, his tomb. And 
 would she not have lifted up her voice and said, “ Rome, give me 
 back what belongs to me : Peter is not thine, but mine P ” 
 
 For fourteen, for fifteen centuries, no one ever dared so to speak; 
 and this is a most powerful argument, because it is not a fact that 
 passes away, but a fact that abides in the memory, and of which 
 every one was a witness, and it is so known that, (without for the 
 present saying whether those words which a little while ago were 
 cited from the earliest Fathers, prove directly or indirectly our 
 Thesis,) it was so known, that these same words show it to us. 
 St. Clement speaks of this death of Peter and Paul, and speaks of it 
 as if already all knew it. Where he died he does not say, whether in 
 Rome or not, because he speaks of it as of a thing that is already 
 known and told by the lips of all. He writes to the Corinthians, and 
 he says, “ Come, come, if the authority of the examples of the Old 
 Testament does not suffice, admit this which has come to pass 
 amongst us,—Peter dead among us.” (Movement on the side of 
 the Evangelicals.) Do not fear for the present, I do not say, what 
 means this “among us,” whether it intends, “among us Christians,” 
 or “ among us Romans.” Let us leave for the moment that little 
 question, and let us grant that it signifies not “among us Romans,” 
 but “among us Christians.” “That which has happened among 
 us you know; you know it very well.” He does not say it was 
 this and that; he does not say again where they were martyred. 
 Why ? Because “ you know it,” because this place is known, and 
 this circumstance of martyrdom, and John himself in his Gospel, 
 (and John wrote after St. Peter was dead at Rome or elsewhere: no 
 one can doubt that the Gospel of St. John was posterior to the 
 
31 
 
 death of St. Peter,) now he in his Gospel records the prophecy 
 which before had been given by Jesus Christ that Peter should die 
 by the death on the cross. “ But when thou shalt be old, thou 
 shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead 
 thee whither thou wouldest not.” (John xxi. 18.) 
 
 Now this death had occurred already when John thus wrote the 
 Gospel. You see how he speaks of a fact known to all the earth. 
 He does not hint at anything, because it was not necessary to hint 
 where this death had occurred. 
 
 Here, then, is the necessity of considering this fact as an historical 
 fact, but an historical fact of a notoriety and of a force really 
 singular, truly all its own. Then the testimonies of the Fathers 
 and of all the writers that have spoken of it are the consequence, or 
 but a single part of the consequences which flow from this fact, 
 because every human event truly grand and truly noble carries with 
 it many consequences; as that of the conversion of Rome carried 
 the consequence of changing the aspect of the world. Whoever he 
 was that converted the capital of the Roman world was the first 
 fundamental author of that change that has transformed humanity 
 from Paganism and Judaism into the Church; it was he who for 
 the deities of the Capitol and for the temple of Jehovah, which had 
 become a temple of Pharisees, substituted the Church, lowered the 
 apex of the Roman Augur and the miznefet # of the High Priest, 
 and for them substituted the tiara. A fact so solemn and 
 grand has a thousand consequences, one of which is that con¬ 
 temporaries allude to it, and make one feel its value, without 
 needing to descend to exact particulars, because all other men of 
 the epoch knew it, affirmed it in all their language and in all their 
 expressions. 
 
 If you allow me, I shall pause for a moment. (Brief repose.) 
 
 In order that what I have said may not appear vague to any one, 
 I shall allow myself, not to read the testimonies of the Fathers 
 which might be produced, but briefly to run over a list of those 
 who have spoken directly of St. Peter’s being in Rome, and of 
 the deeds which he here accomplished, at least, down to the 
 time of Gregory the Great. Not to be tedious, I do not push 
 further an investigation into posterior times, (but I do not, 
 however, restrain myself to too few generations,) because it would 
 be useless, almost impossible, to name all those who have 
 
 * Canon Fabiani, instead of any Italian equivalent for “ mitre,” uses thf 
 Hebrew word to designate the head dress of the High Priest. 
 
32 
 
 spoken of it. I do not go further then, because already this fact 
 was so interesting, so public and known, and becoming every day 
 more and more important, that it would be for the interest of any 
 person not only in the first, but in the second, the third, the fourth 
 and fifth and tenth century, to set himself in opposition to it, if 
 he had the slightest pretext for denying it. 
 
 The Fathers commence, according to me, with Papias, who has 
 been named by my opponent, and with Ireneeus of Lyons,—with 
 Irenaeus, who at least in three places repeatedly speaks of this fact. 
 Tertullian records it in his book Of Baptism, in the Scorpiace , 
 and in the book against Marcion. Then Clement of Alexandria, 
 then the author of the PhilosopJiumena , then Origen in two places, 
 and Cyprian in two places; afterwards the author of the book 
 against Bebaptizers, a bishop, and probably a Boman Pontiff, coeval 
 with St. Cyprian, St. Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, Arnobius, 
 Victor Petavionensis, Peter of Alexandria, Lactantius in his 
 book of the Divine Institutions, and in his book on the Death of 
 Persecutors, if this book is by Lactantius, and if not, the author 
 of this book is another witness; Eusebius of Caesarea, from 
 whom I shall beg to read one single testimony, not as a proof, 
 but to point out the state of the question, as we are accustomed 
 to accept and to compare it in historic facts, which is by this author 
 tolerably well indicated. 
 
 This passage is taken from the Theophany of Eusebius himself, 
 fragment 5, published in the new Bibliotheca of the most erudite 
 Cardinal Mai, at page 120. He reads :—“ Of the things done by 
 Peter, the proofs are those same Churches which shortly afterwards 
 shone out, such as, for example, the Church of Caesarea, in Palestine, 
 as, again, that of Antioch, of Syria, and the Church of the sit / of Borne 
 itself; since it has been handed down for the memory of posterity 
 that the same Peter founded those Churches and all those around 
 them; and thus even that of Egypt and Alexandria itself, although 
 these not in person but by the medium of Mark his disciple, 
 because at that time he was occupied in Italy and among the 
 nations surrounding.” I now continue the list of names:— 
 Lucifer of Cagliari, Cyril of Jerusalem; the Chronologies of Bucher 
 and Berne, of Palemio Silvio, Athanasius, the author of the 
 Synopsis, so called, of Anastasius, the chronicle prefixed to the 
 text of the letters of Athanasius, Julian the Apostate, Ephrem 
 the Syrian, Pope Damaso, Optatus, Julius Pollux, Philastrio of 
 Brescia, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, in 
 
83 
 
 several places, Prudentius, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Moses, James 
 of Sarug, Abraham Mamiconensis, Nurcetes a Nestorian, Paulinus 
 of Nola in many places, Eusebius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, 
 Jerome, in very many places, Augustin of Hippo, in very many 
 places, Leo the Grand, and many others, down to Gregory the 
 Great, who in whole or in part relate or indicate and allude to the 
 residence of St. Peter in Home. I wish to mention even Fathers 
 who, very distant from the language and the place, and also some¬ 
 times from the religious sentiments of Eome,—for they were not 
 all Catholics,—have confessed this fact. 
 
 Behold the multitude and the grandeur of these critical witnesses 
 who can be brought forward for this historical fact, visible to the 
 eyes of all, without need that it should be authenticated by a 
 particular revelation of the arrival of St. Peter in Rome. 
 
 And hence we should demand proofs to the contrary from 
 whoever says that he never was here, and they would be well 
 received by us if they were authoritative. 
 
 We should be silent if, for instance, the Scriptures said that 
 Peter died elsewhere, since it is the point of his death that is the 
 greatest and the most solemn in this our question, even if in the 
 Scriptures there was a command to Peter not to come to Rome, or 
 at all events a prophecy. We have many other facts also visible of 
 which the Scriptures assure us, independently of the dogmatic 
 value which its word may possess. Instead of authoritative proofs, 
 two sole arguments are opposed to us. The one is that which in 
 the schools is called “ the argument of silence,” and is founded on 
 the silence which in this respect the Scriptures preserve ; the other 
 is the argument of chronological difficulty. But gently ! The 
 first already we know. We ought to believe that which Holy 
 Scripture says, but we are not obliged to believe nothing on which 
 Holy Scripture is silent, even with regard to historic facts. 
 (Movement.) 
 
 Let us allow for a moment that it may be said by our opponents 
 according to their sentiments, “ This is not dogma; the coming 
 of Peter to Rome is not dogma,” and we should reply that it is 
 an historic fact. Silence is a negative argument, and I should 
 repeat, as I have said to our opponent, the argument of silence has 
 so often been adduced, or rather, it is not necessary to say it 
 when there are positive arguments of such numbers and of such 
 force contrary to this silence. The argument of chronology which 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 is opposed is not, however, drawn from Scripture. Then what is it 
 that is opposed to us ? 
 
 Whoever would avail himself of this argument must commence 
 by adopting the opinion of Signor Ellendorf; he must commence 
 by saying that it is commonly received, that in such a year this fact 
 has happened, and in such a year such another fact has happened. 
 But the Scripture does not give us a chronology; and are we to 
 fabricate it ? (Movement.) 
 
 The President. —Gentlemen, we pray you to keep silence. 
 
 Fabiani.—Then doubts and difficulties may arise from our bad 
 interpretation. If we wish to construct any chronology whatever, 
 we must first of all take for our basis facts that are absolute and 
 certain, facts that are well known; and if the scheme of chronology 
 we should construct upon the words of Scripture should not include 
 these certified facts, it would not be the error of Scripture, but our 
 error. Every year the Protestants reconstruct those chronologies 
 from the Scripture; but they have never been able, and they never 
 will be able, to put themselves in accord one with another! What 
 are the certainties, I do not say of the coming of St. Peter, but of 
 the coming of St. Paul to Rome ? That St. Paul did come to Rome 
 the Scripture says; St. Luke says it; his own letters say it. Thus 
 to an unbeliever, even to an unbeliever who did not recognise either 
 the Scripture or revelation, not merely to an evangelical Protestant 
 or to a Catholic, who both venerate the Scripture as the Word of God, 
 this fact is so clear and certain that it could not be denied. There 
 have been barely one or two men, the maddest among the Ration¬ 
 alists,—I do not remember if it is Mayer or Strauss,—who, wish¬ 
 ing to deny the arrival of St. Paul in Rome, had to deny the 
 genuineness of the Acts, and to say that the letters of St. Paul 
 were not his, and such other follies, to which no one gave heed, and 
 they have found no followers. 
 
 Now this fact of St. Paul, this clear, this luminous fact of his 
 coming to Rome, which is the foundation of all that chronology 
 which has been opposed to us, when did it take place ? In what 
 year? Who can say ? 
 
 Eusebius makes him arrive in the year 55. (He reads from his 
 own book, “ Notizie di Simon Mago . Roma , 1868.”) Excuse this 
 book, which has been published now for many years; and so addi¬ 
 tions might be made to what I am reading. Eusebius in 55, 
 Bengel and Sepp in 56, Jerome, Baronius, Capello in 57. He 
 came in 58 according to Patrizi, in the year 60 according to Bas- 
 
35 
 
 nage, Vogel, and Kuhnoel, in 61 according to Conybeare and 
 Howson, Pearson, Spanhemio, Tillemont, Bertholdt, Feilmoser, 
 Winer, Wurm, Anger, Wieseler. For 62 are Hug, Schmid, 
 Schrader, Hemsen, Schotz. For 63 Usher, Michaelis, Heinrichs, 
 Eichhorn. 
 
 But when all the chronologies, according to the authors cited by 
 me, are in such uncertainty, how can you by chronology come to 
 argue against a fact so universally attested by so many witnesses P 
 And what! was St. Peter a bronze statue, so that Catholics are 
 bound to believe that, once come to Borne, he must stay there, 
 nailed up, and could not move ? What difficulty was there for him 
 to go and come from one country to another, in the same manner as 
 St. Paul did, itinerating from Church to Church, ruling Borne, and 
 nevertheless being found now in Antioch, now in Jerusalem, 
 now in some other place where he wished to be, or where he might 
 have been called by the Holy Spirit ? 
 
 How many days were necessary, for example, to come from 
 Caesarea to Borne ? Little more than fifteen days. There were no 
 steamers, as you know; there were no railways, it is true; but, in 
 the grand and immense commerce which the human race then held 
 with Borne the opportunities of going and coming were very 
 frequent,—were daily. 
 
 Finally, very learned men among the Protestants, the most 
 deeply studied in the same age, the most skilled in what regards 
 the maritime art,—Smith and Penrose,—have calculated from the 
 voyage of St. Paul himself, and from the narratives found in 
 the Acts, the time which ships employed to come from Caesarea to 
 Borne. They sailed seven knots an hour, by which one hundred 
 and seventy-seven hours or seven days and one-third were required 
 to come from Caesarea to Puteoli; and thus Pliny himself assures 
 us that he came from Alexandria to Puteoli in nine days; from 
 Alexandria in Egypt in nine days, and in seven days from Alexan¬ 
 dria to Messina. Caesarea and Jerusalem, you know, are at a dis¬ 
 tance from Borne little different from that of Alexandria in Egypt. 
 From Messina and Puteoli in two or three days they came to Borne. 
 Thus the journey from Borne to Palestine did not occupy more than 
 the half of a month ; and even if Peter had gone to Babylon some¬ 
 times, this journey, six hundred miles, or thereabouts,—much 
 longer as a journey than that which carried him to Borne, because 
 to Borne they came by sea, and much more quickly, and the journey 
 to Babylon must have been made by caravans, which did not travel 
 
 c 2 
 
36 
 
 more than fifteen or twenty miles a day,—I say that this journey 
 would not have occupied more than a couple of months. 
 
 And here I am asked, why St. Peter sometimes appears in this 
 place and in that, and why he remains in the East ? and hence it 
 is said that chronology does not give the time for him to come in, 
 while, if I have not ill understood, in this chronology we suddenly 
 passed from the year 45 to the year 56, without rendering an 
 account of the interval. Leaving on one side this chronology of 
 Ellendorf, of Michaelis, and of others, if even there was a chrono¬ 
 logy to which no objection could be raised ; had a chronology 
 actually been framed in which we could confide, which had all 
 the veritable elements of time and place, and made all these 
 accord together, then this difficulty might arise. But if in this 
 system of chronology it proved impossible to introduce an event 
 so well known, so certain as the coming of St. Peter to Eome, this 
 alone would make that chronology false, because chronology is 
 based upon facts certified in history, before it can walk alone. 
 
 And, I say to my opponents, you do not consider that besides 
 the Catholics, who with you seek and really desire to find the truth, 
 you have other enemies, you have the infidels and the rationalists, 
 who study the Scriptures not to draw thence some profit to 
 their souls, not there to find the truth, but to destroy it, to 
 annihilate it. 
 
 Do you know what these would say to you, had we come to 
 this hard conclusion that the chronology of Scripture, not that 
 constructed by us on certain Scriptural data, but the chronology of 
 Scripture, did altogether exclude the coming of St. Peter to Borne? 
 They do not receive the Scripture as a Divine word: they would say 
 that of the coming of St. Peter to Borne there are hundreds and 
 hundreds of witnesses, that he who said that after fourteen years 
 he came to Borne {sic) is but Paul alone, and that against so 
 many witnesses the word and authority of Paul do not avail, and 
 they would employ this argument against you:— 
 
 I have completed one-and-forty years; (permit that for a 
 moment I speak of myself, not to introduce the person of a man 
 into this sacred discussion upon the Word of God;) but I have 
 completed forty-one years since I began to study the numbers 
 found in Divine Scripture, to study this Scriptural chronology, and 
 two years have not yet passed since I ventured to submit to public 
 view the result of these very long labours, not yet terminated. 
 The discovery of the long series of Assyrian inscriptions, namely. 
 
3 ? 
 
 those of the rulers of Assyria which have lately been found in 
 cuneiform writing, offered to me the opportunity; these discoveries 
 gave me an occasion for publishing the result of studies concerning 
 that part of Scriptural chronology. A name revered among the 
 learned, Dr. Bichard Lepsius, whom many of you will have 
 heard of, as in our day the patriarch of studies in oriental 
 chronology, said in 1860 that since the discovery of this series of 
 Assyrian inscriptions Scriptural chronology was dead, and that 
 henceforth it was useless to attempt to reconcile the words of the 
 sacred books of Kings with these monuments newly come forth to 
 light. 
 
 There were illustrious men, Dr. Oppert, De Saulci, and others, 
 who endeavoured to reply. I also tried : I know not whether I 
 hit the mark, but certainly what I had to say was different enough 
 from all that had before been said in Scriptural chronology. 
 
 Ah ! perhaps, had one of my opponents given a few hours to 
 these studies, and toiled, as one must toil at those ciphers before 
 being able to frame any solution in the very least degree creditable 
 or trustworthy, he would not speak with such want of reserve of 
 Scriptural chronology. And here let us not argue as to the 
 chronology of St. Peter, which our opponent has compared to his 
 chronology taken from Scripture, let us not argue as to his arrival 
 in Borne; a single day, I repeat, spent by St. Peter in Borne gives 
 the victory to the Thesis we defend. 
 
 As to the twenty-five years, our opponent has said that among 
 Catholics themselves, by one they are understood in one way, by 
 another in a different one. This is not the point of the question; 
 every one has his chronology, because from the words of Scripture 
 they can draw hundreds and hundreds, Catholics and Protestants. 
 
 Yes, I repeat, this is not the point of our question. We must 
 see if St. Peter has been in Borne, since, if he has been a single 
 day, it is false to say that he never came. 
 
 Pinally, as to certain points indicated by our opponent, we wish 
 only to make a slight addition, a little observation. 
 
 We shall speak first of the intellectual quality of Papias, if we 
 do not, indeed, at another time return to that subject. 
 
 It is true that Papias was not a man of much talent; but he 
 was exceedingly desirous and eager to know what had been done by 
 the Apostles and disciples of our Lord. With this view, according 
 to Eusebius, he undertook many voyages, and spent a great part of 
 his life. And then his not being of lively talent was a reason why 
 
38 
 
 he was held to the repetition of what he heard, without making 
 additions. Eepeating others, he could not himself invent. When 
 it is a question of his opinions in his mode of understanding 
 scientific subjects, he could easily fall into error, in fact did fall 
 into the error of taking in a material sense expressions concerning 
 the kingdom of Christ, and of believing that the whole host of the 
 saints of the Lord should reign for a thousand years amid balls 
 and feastings, in a perpetual carnival, (hilarity,) ill interpreting, 
 because not of strong mind, the words regarding the future king¬ 
 dom of Christ in Paradise. But in repeating a historical fact 
 which he had heard he had no need of peculiar talent, or a great 
 intellect. So apparently (yet this is a question of criticism which 
 we should leave on one side, but which it is well to indicate) so 
 apparently with regard to the words of Ignatius, whatever be their 
 value. 
 
 Eemember that the Epistles of St. Ignatius have come down to 
 us in many forms, and it is not certain that the longest or the shortest 
 are absolutely the most veritable and genuine, as it is not known 
 who may perhaps have made additions and comments; and who on 
 the other hand wished only to have a compendium. However, it 
 must be noted that the words which contain the allusion made by 
 Ignatius to the Apostles Peter and Paul are found in all the 
 versions of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, not excepting the Syriac 
 translation, which is the briefest, and which, not long since, was 
 published by the learned and erudite Tischendorf; so that among 
 critics there is no room whatever for doubt, as to the genuineness 
 of these words, upon which a question might be raised. 
 
 In the conclusion, he wished to regard as absolutely absurd the 
 opinion of those who think that Babylon might be a fictitious 
 name for Eome, as a symbol used before the days of 
 Christians who considered the prophecies of Isaiah, of Micah, and 
 other prophets who wrote, menacing Babylon, as referring to Eome ; 
 and afterwards this letter of Peter, and afterwards the Apocalypse 
 and the letters of St. Paul. 
 
 My learned opponent has wished almost to treat, as absolutely 
 absurd, this opinion which regards Babylon as a nom de guerre 
 representing Eome, and he has told us that Signor Michaelis, a 
 fair and bright name, but after all, one who wrote some time ago, 
 that is, at the end of the last century, has taken this point as 
 altogether settled. 
 
 I do not wish to enter into a particular discussion of this question, 
 although my opponent has confessed that all the tradition of the 
 
39 
 
 best ancient interpreters, or nearly all, is on our side. However, 
 I believe that doubt exists as to what has been said, that in the 
 East the ancients thought otherwise, because a single ancient author, 
 Cosmo Indicopleustes, a native of Egypt, who passed through the 
 East and went round by Csesarea, has maintained that the Babylon 
 of this Epistle of St. Peter was the Babylon of Chaldea. There 
 was also some other author later in the twelfth century, or the 
 thirteenth or fourteenth; but this cannot be called tradition of the 
 ancients to be opposed to that of St. Jerome and the others who 
 have been named by my opponent, and yet others who could be 
 named, who have said that Babylon was Borne. And these more 
 recent authors besides did not deny, that if Peter had been at 
 Babylon, he also had been in Kome. 
 
 Not to unduly lengthen this part of the debate, I shall bring 
 only the testimony of one very recent author, greatly to be respected 
 among the number of the non-Catholics, who commenced to print 
 his commentary upon this letter of St. Peter and upon the Catholic 
 Epistles in 1870, which was not published till 1871, by reason, I 
 believe, of the war that interrupted his labours ; and this is a name 
 of the greatest reputation among Protestant writers, and the senior, 
 I believe, of all the interpreters of Germany,—Ewald. Now he 
 has admitted, in this work of his, of last year, that Babylon means 
 Borne, and that from Borne this letter was written by Peter himself. 
 The proofs, therefore, of Clarke and Michaelis are not quite as 
 strong as they were taken to be by our opponent, since not only 
 the Catholics, but non-Catholic writers themselves, are not at the 
 present day ready to admit them; and Ewald calls the opinion 
 that does not * recognise Borne,—an opinion without foundation. 
 
 If I do not mistake, he says ganz grundlose. Now he does not 
 rest upon the argument of tradition, but on arguments concerning 
 this Epistle. I speak of his opinion; I do not inte <id to make his 
 judgment mine; but to the authority brought forward, that of 
 Michaelis and Clarke, I oppose an authority which I believe 
 worthy of greater respect, because he was able to see and to weigh 
 that which Michaelis (a great name he also) had said, and able, 
 also, to avail himself of new studies still more recent. It is the 
 name of Heinrich Ewald. I think that his learning and his critical 
 skill is of the utmost weight. Now he employs geographical 
 
 * The original reads:—“TJna opinione seDza nessun fondamento quella che 
 vi riconosce Roma.” The argument requires a “ non” before “ riconosce,” and 
 1 have translated accordingly. 
 
40 
 
 arguments, and says a letter written from Babylon, for example, 
 would not first of all arrive at Pontus, then at Galatia, and after¬ 
 wards at Cappadocia, and Asia, and Bithynia. Quite the contrary. 
 Coming from Babylon, it must have first arrived in Cappadocia, 
 afterwards at Pontus, on the other side Asia, and finally at Galatia 
 and Bithynia. There were continually travellers, who from Borne 
 went by sea, and perhaps these were brought from Pontus by vessels 
 laden with tunny fish for Borne, and by them returned thither; 
 and it was they who carried these letters. On the sea-shore lay 
 Pontus; afterwards from Pontus the way to Babylon lay across 
 Cappadocia, and on this account it came second in the super¬ 
 scription, and the same may be said of the others, which provinces 
 were thus related in this superscription, as they were related to the 
 route along which these letters must be distributed from Pontus to 
 the other places. He adds many other reasons to show that in 
 all these letters Peter speaks properly according to the sentiments 
 which made him judge and arbiter, as we say, among those who 
 wished to destroy too much of the ancient doctrines, and those who 
 wished to conserve too much. He adds many other things. He 
 says, “ Bemark that Peter speaks of a persecution which commenced 
 and which threatened equally him who wrote and those who were 
 in Pontus and Asia, Bithynia and Cappadocia. Now if this is 
 very clear, it shows that it was the persecution that Nero the 
 Boman Emperor waged.” Now, had he been in Babylon, he would 
 not have been subject to this persecution, because Babylon did not 
 belong to the Boman empire; and he would have been free; he 
 would have been entirely separated from it: and I repeat I do not 
 bring my opinion. I oppose the word of a non-Catholic of the 
 highest respectability, I oppose a recent and modern decision to an 
 authority that has been brought forward. But then, my dear 
 Gentlemen, you see at a glance what small and miserable points 
 they are which they would set in opposition to a great fact, which 
 is the foundation of the whole Church, not only for us, but for all, 
 even for our opponents, because if Peter came to Borne, then 
 you know that for all those whom Christ has called, it is necessary 
 to obey the voice of the successors of the Apostle, necessary for all 
 the men whom Jesus has come to redeem. 
 
 But do you not see this event so shining, so interesting, so fully 
 attested by an immense multitude of witnesses of every century, 
 of every time, and every opinion, in which are united ancient 
 heretics and ancient Catholics, the learned with the unlearned, the 
 
41 
 
 East with the West, the Pontiffs with heads of schisms, with 
 Patriarchs of the other Churches, with those Churches which 
 separated themselves from Pome ; an event which has been repre¬ 
 sented by painters, by sculptors, by artists; an event in which all 
 men, we may say, who lived in the Christian religion for so 
 many ages, recognised the foundation of their faith as that which 
 enabled the hierarchy to rule over them, and gave it a dominion 
 which many called even tyrannical ? is an event thus known, to 
 be opposed upon a question of a year more or a year less, according 
 to the opinion of Michaelis or of Ellendorf ? 
 
 In conclusion, not to forget anything of what has been intimated, 
 it was said that St. Peter and St. Paul had diverse missions. It is 
 true Peter was designated to preach to the circumcised ; and thus 
 he calls himself the Apostle of the Circumcision; Paul for the 
 Gentiles. Therefore it is said, Peter did not come to Rome. Then in 
 Rome were there no circumcised ? In Rome were there no Hebrews P 
 Do I not remember Cicero, in his speech Pro Flacco, says, “ I 
 must speak now of the gold Placcus has hindered from being car¬ 
 ried into Judrna; and I must speak in a low voice, lest these Jews 
 make tumults and uproar ? ” They were then so powerful, 
 —although the Jewish colony had only a few years ago begun 
 to come to Rome,—they were so powerful as to frighten Cicero, 
 and to make him speak with bated breath. The Jews were pro¬ 
 tected by Csesar, and afterwards by Augustus. And have we not, 
 in a number of Latin poets, a remembrance of the Trigesimo Sab - 
 batha ? one poet, who says, solas deducere verpas —to show the road 
 only to the circumcised, and to no others ? And then, does not 
 Josephus tell us how great was the power of these Hebrews in 
 Rome up to the moment that Poppaea Sabina, a Hebrew proselyte, 
 sat by the side of Nero? And Paul, does he not tell us that there 
 were Hebrews in Eome? those who remained hardened in Judaism, 
 those who were dissentients? Were not these, also, a part of the 
 Hebrews to whom, with every right, Peter would have preached the 
 Gospel? among whom he would, with every right, have exercised 
 his apostleship ? Indeed, this formed an evidence, a strength of 
 the same fact. Ah, I believe that, ere one would combat a fact so 
 serious, so solemn, by the silence of the Bible, by negative argu¬ 
 ments, by little difficulties of chronology constructed by ourselves, 
 —before we should combat with these, we should need the strength 
 of other opposing proofs capable of destroying this universality 
 and notoriety of the event; the ample confession of so many 
 
42 
 
 writers and of so manv ages which attest the coming of St. Peter 
 to Borne. 
 
 Eibetti. —Gentlemen, I am sorry that I cannot say, like my 
 honourable opponent, that I have studied the question forty years; 
 because I am not yet so old. Nevertheless, I have given some 
 study to the question now under discussion. I do not ask you to 
 receive my words as infallible ; I only ask you to hear my argu¬ 
 ment; to hold it fast, if it be good ; to reject it, if it be bad. 
 
 My opponent commenced by saying that my colleague had wan¬ 
 dered from the theme. On the contrary, my colleague went direct 
 to the point, and has proved, by the only real proofs,—that is, by 
 Holy Scripture, which even our opponents are constrained to 
 respect,—that St. Peter did not come to Borne. Our opponents, 
 like learned men as they are, know what has been written for cen¬ 
 turies against the Church of Borne; and they have the habit of 
 saying to their hearers, who (I may say this without offending any 
 one) do not understand these matters, “ They are the old objec¬ 
 tions; it is the old story; ” solite cose . And when a Boman theo¬ 
 logian has said, “ The old thing, the old story,” a good Boman 
 Catholic ought to bow his head before the ecclesiastical authority, 
 and ought to say, “ It is all settled ; it is all concluded.” But we 
 that do not so easily bow the head; we, the children of free inquiry 
 and of the Holy Scriptures, open our eyes, and wish to see for 
 ourselves before we believe. 
 
 Our honourable opponent said that my colleague had made dis¬ 
 tinctions as to the circumstances, the mariner, and the duration of 
 the coming of St. Peter in Borne. Shall we have such distinc¬ 
 tions ? Let them be made, by all means; only let U3 make a little 
 observation. By the confession of our opponents, or, to speak 
 more accurately, of our opponent, they are content if they can 
 prove, just as two and two make four, that Peter came even for one 
 hour to Borne. But the pontificate of twenty-five years ? Then 
 that remains a point gained for debate, and it is of no moment, 
 whether Peter was here during twenty-five years. 
 
 Fabiani. —A moment. To the question! Here we do not con¬ 
 sider the time that he was in Borne, but whether St. Peter ever was 
 in Borne. The Thesis does not speak of twenty-five years. 
 
 President Tosti. —Let the Thesis be kept in mind, that Signor 
 Sciarelli would deliver a public lecture, in which he would show, 
 by arguments drawn from the Bible and the holy Fathers, that St. 
 Peter never was in Borne. 
 
43 
 
 Ribetti —Starting from this point, I would observe that my 
 opponent was not called to order when he entered upon this question. 
 Distinguishing between the facts, he said the facts are proved histo¬ 
 rically, and, in a certain class of ideas, those proofs are sufficient. 
 Then there are spiritual things for which the authority of the 
 Church is necessary; and here there is no question of the autho¬ 
 rity of the Church, but of the coming of St. Peter to Rome. And, 
 as our opponent went away from the question, perhaps I, also, may 
 be permitted to do so. I do not wish to treat—(interruption). 
 
 President. —Proceed; but I pray you to confine yourself to the 
 terms of the question. 
 
 Ribetti, —I must follow my opponent. My opponent has 
 carried me over diversified ground, and I am constrained to 
 follow him, not to allow him to hide anywhere. We are dealing 
 with a simple fact, that of the arrival of the Apostle Peter in 
 Rome. With this the idea of supremacy, cleverly insinuated by 
 our opponent, has nothing to do. He has spoken of mysterious 
 things, and I say, looking to the fact, that the arrival of St. Peter 
 is not a mysterious thing which must be proved by the authority 
 of the Church; it is not a matter to be manipulated in places into 
 which I cannot enter. Were it so, not entering into the domain 
 of general history, it would not be a fact purely historical; and 
 this is the most evident condemnation of the argumentation of 
 my opponent, since, if the arrival of St. Peter in Rome is myste¬ 
 rious, that means that I, an enemy of mystery, one who studies 
 history simply, cannot enter into this matter, and by consequence 
 not being able ever to have proof, I must submit myself to the 
 authority of the Church. I understand : this is what is meant; 
 but it is precisely that which I do not mean; since I wish to 
 destroy the foundation of the Roman edifice by demonstrating 
 historically, that it is impossible to prove that St. Peter has been 
 in Rome. We say that the Roman edifice was not built either by 
 Jesus Christ or by His Apostles; but as our opponent very well 
 said, there were first of all insinuations (understand ?) as when a 
 person writes a letter to a friend. The fact is not explained, 
 because it is a fact known. This is an insinuation, as many have 
 been thrown out in past ages, as the conception was insinuated. 
 A little at a time the insinuation becomes an explanation, which 
 eventually becomes a decree. (Movement.) But, dear Gentlemen, 
 this is to the question. They are insinuations. In fact, they did 
 not dare to say that in the first Fathers of the Church are to be 
 
44 
 
 found any declarations, but they say that there are insinuations, 
 and it is precisely for this that in historical matters we are 
 enemies of insinuations; and did a historian fall into one’s hand 
 that proceeded by insinuation, I do not care to say, my dear 
 Gentlemen, how I should look upon him; but certainly I 
 should have no confidence whatever in an historian who would 
 proceed not by facts, but by insinuations ; since he would go on 
 amplifying insinuations, till what at the beginning no one could 
 take for facts, by passing from hand to hand, and finding a 
 prepared soil, gain a footing ; but they are always insinuations. 
 It is precisely here that the Church of Rome is weak. She must 
 always labour with difficulty to take root, and where she succeeds 
 she developes, becomes a tree, and spreads around. She claims 
 to imitate the grain of mustard seed in the parable of Christ, 
 which stretches forth its branches under which the beasts of the 
 field take shelter, and in which the birds of the air build their 
 nests, and she pretends to the empire of the world. She has 
 always to proceed in this manner, and especially to establish her 
 principal dogma on which the whole edifice rests, that is, the 
 coming and the primacy of St. Peter in Rome. She always 
 proceeded thus with pious insinuations. They say Papias has 
 made an insinuation, and then the others have taken courage, 
 quoting insinuations; afterwards came Ignatius, and made an 
 insinuation; Clement of Rome came, and he made insinuations. 
 You are free, if you please, to admit, as you do admit, my dear 
 Gentlemen, a system of insinuations. I should not admit it 
 certainly; therefore I repeat that they must prove to us with 
 historical facts which cannot be destroyed, that the fact of the 
 coming of the Apostle St. Peter to Rome was asserted by ocular 
 and contemporaneo*us witnesses. How is it possible, my dear 
 Gentlemen, that the capital fact in the history of Roman Catholicism 
 is received by Roman Catholics through insinuations? Ah, this 
 is the same as would be attempting to raise the edifice of the Church 
 on the point of a needle, since much less than the point of a needle 
 is an insinuation. Give me a positive assertion of St. John, St. 
 Paul, or St. Luke ; give me even a single word of St. Peter that says, 
 “ I have been in Rome ; ” I bow my head and say, “ He did come 
 to Rome.” But if you do not find in the Scriptures or con¬ 
 temporary witnesses, if you do not find in the Bible, the supreme 
 judge and incontrovertible authority, a proof of St. Peter’s arrival 
 in Rome, you have proved nothing at all. 
 
45 
 
 They have quoted the Fathers of the Church, commenced my 
 opponent; and that what he advanced might not be feeble, 
 he began with the fourth century, from authors who no longer 
 made insinuations, because they had received it, and by conse¬ 
 quence say, It is true. Why ? Because the thing was already 
 well insinuated. So commencing with Optatus, afterwards 
 Irenaeus, he comes further down and speaks to us of Tertuilian, 
 of Cyprian, and of others, who lived in the year 200, in 250, 
 in 300, and consequently are not ocular witnesses, and have no 
 authority, since they have amplified an insinuation which cannot 
 be considered as a fact. Afterwards he went on to speak of one 
 worthy of greater respect, of Clement of Borne. 
 
 It is not necessary that I should confute my opponent on this 
 point, since he himself has not asserted that Clement said that 
 St. Peter did come to Borne, and, in fact, the assertion does not 
 exist. Clement of Borne speaks in general of the ancient 
 martyrs anterior to his time, and speaking of the martyrs he 
 points to the martyrdom of St. Peter as to the martyrdom of 
 St. Paul. Indeed he speaks much more of St. Paul than of St. 
 Peter; a thing incredible this for a Bishop of Borne who, if in 
 his time he had believed himself to be Pope of the universal 
 Church founded upon the see of St. Peter, would have been bound to 
 make much of the supremacy of Peter, and not to occupy himself 
 so much with St. Paul, leaving Peter in the shade. Quite the 
 contrary was done by the Father St. Clement, which signifies 
 that in his time he did not even dream of the insinuations 
 whereof they have spoken to us. 
 
 At last they spoke of the Apostle John, saying that he asserted 
 that St. Peter died in Borne. Gentlemen, I should be exceedingly 
 fortunate if any one should show me this proof. Many times as I 
 have read the Apostle St. John I have never been able to see it; 
 and as a doubt begins to rise in my mind that I may be blind, I 
 should be pleased that any one should open my eyes, and let me see 
 the passage where he says that St. Peter came to Borne. But this 
 passage does, not exist. Would you have it that St. John also has 
 insinuated? He has not insinuated anything. He narrates simply 
 that when Peter had been re-established in his apostleship after his 
 repentance, after his tears, the Lord demanded of him three times, 
 “ Lovest thou Me more than these ? ” hurting the amour-propre of 
 the Apostle. The Apostle, hearing Christ three times put to him 
 the same question, was afflicted, and he thought that He took him 
 
46 
 
 for a coward, and said, “Thou knowest that I love Thee;” but 
 he did not say, “ More than these,” because he had denied Jesus 
 Christ. Well, then, Jesus Christ said to him, “A moment will 
 come in which another shall bind thee, and will carry thee whither 
 thou wouldest not.” Now I do not see that this is a proof of his 
 death in Rome. Without doubt he died; without doubt he was a 
 martyr; but if you can read the name of Rome in these words 
 of Christ, I admire your clearsightedness. 
 
 My opponent has spoken of all the Fathers who have maintained 
 that St. Peter was in Rome. He has given us a very long list of 
 names. I do not know what end this list can serve, for once an 
 insinuation has grown up in the mind as insinuations do grow 
 up, once it has become an incontrovertible fact, all the authors 
 accept it, and repeat it, because, as takes place in this world, 
 we do repeat one another. The child repeats what he has 
 heard from the father, we repeat that we have heard said by our 
 predecessors, and if we do not accurately study we shall always 
 live in our prejudices; and what is civilization, if not a constant 
 struggle against prejudice ? We ought hence to combat it wherever 
 we find it. 
 
 Do you think that an ancient error has a right to be accepted by 
 our mind? But the ancient error ought to be banished more 
 speedily than a new one, because it has done more harm. Then 
 this is a very ancient error which penetrated into the heart of man, 
 and the most distinguished men in the Middle Ages, all said on 
 the faith of ancient authors that Peter came to Rome. I know 
 it well; but, Gentlemen, this proves not at all that Peter did come, 
 because the antiquity of an error cannot transform it into truth. 
 Besides, do you think that there is any prescription for things 
 which are not true, which are not just ? There is no prescription 
 before God. There may be before human tribunals, but not before 
 the tribunal of the Lord. Then, if it is an ancient error, it is an 
 error also now, only for many centuries it was not recognised. Here 
 we should have to enter into a discussion as to the testimony of 
 the Fathers, and I confess that I pity the auditory, as that discussion 
 would be rather long. 
 
 We must say something further concerning Papias. Papias is 
 considered by Eusebius as a propagator of fables. Now, do you 
 wish to believe in the fables narrated by Papias ? As my opponent 
 himself has said to you, Papias believed that the recompense of 
 Christians would be a carnival without end. But, my dear Gentle- 
 
47 
 
 men, a Minister of Christ who for eternal recompense promises a 
 carnival, scandalizes me. I am sorry, but I cannot have faith in 
 this Papias, who makes promises so fine and so spiritual, that they 
 remind one a little of those of Mohammed, who, to his followers, 
 promised also a species of carnival,—promised houris. Besides, 
 where are the writings of Papias? They do not exist. Only 
 some quotations from them are found in those of Eusebius. 
 Further, Did Papias really say that St. Peter was in Borne ? No. 
 Our opponent has not been able to cite a passage where Papias 
 said that St. Peter came to Borne. 
 
 Dionysius has been cited; but Dionysius complained even in his 
 own time of the falsification of his works. He said that they had 
 spoiled them. Besides, where does Dionysius say that Peter came 
 to Borne ? When I should see a passage cited, I might discuss it, but 
 it was not cited. Dionysius says that they have interpolated 
 many things into his writings, that they have falsified them, which 
 was very easy in the times when printing did not exist, and an 
 author did not put forth editions of his works by thousands of 
 copies, accurately revised and corrected by himself. Then, when 
 an author published a book, it was transcribed by copyists, and 
 one introduced one thing and another another. It is in this 
 mode, Gentlemen, that tradition was falsified, a thing which can 
 be proved if we have further conferences with our honourable 
 opponents. 
 
 Irenseus has been quoted; but Irenseus lived at the end of the 
 second or the beginning of the third century : hence, he was not 
 an eye-witness. He could not say that he had seen. Take care.' 
 When religion is in question, I listen willingly to those who, like ‘ 
 St. John, say to me, “ The things that we have seen with our eyes, 
 the things that we have handled, declare we unto you; ” but if 
 any one wishes to take into his hands the direction of my soul, 
 relying upon uncertain traditions, I say, that my soul is too valuable 
 for me to give it up into his hands. (Movement.) I believe St. i 
 John, because St. John speaks to me of Christ with authority, 
 because he says, “ I have seen; ” “I have touched.” Thus I 
 believe the Apostles, but I cannot put my faith in this Irenseus. 
 Should I examine the observations of my opponent relative to the 
 Fathers of the Church who wrote upon the same subject in times 
 very much posterior to the facts asserted, there would be much 
 matter to unfold, which frightens me, but this would carry me 
 very far, and I fear would drive my audience away. Our opponent, 
 
48 
 
 f not being able to produce proof that Peter ever was in Borne, 
 beyond an insinuation which afterwards transformed itself into a 
 fact, according to his view, he comes back, and demands of us 
 proof that he has not been here. There is a Father of the Church 
 who was called Clement of Borne, who has written a certain letter 
 to the Corinthians, where he speaks of the Arabian phoenix. “ That 
 it exists, every one says ; where it is, no one knows.” It is, then, a 
 father of the Church that has spread this fable. The phoenix is 
 a marvellous bird covered wih brilliant feathers of gold and 
 purple, lives five hundred years, and after this time dies. Then 
 a worm springs from the body of the phoenix, which worm becomes 
 feathered, the feathers grow, and the worm becomes the Arabian 
 phoenix. On this account it is said that this bird rises from iis 
 ashes. Thus Clement of Borne, the Pope, teaches. Do you 
 believe in the Arabian phoenix P I do not. Then even you see 
 that these Fathers make mistakes in such an extraordinary way 
 that they can receive for truth the fable of the phoenix. I cannot. 
 Nevertheless, Clement of Borne was one of those Fathers that lived 
 shortly after the apostolic generation, and he had known the 
 Apostle St. Paul, since he was rather the disciple of St. Paul than 
 of the Apostle St. Peter. But if my opponent says to me, 
 “ Prove that the phoenix does not exist,” (since a good Catholic 
 ought to believe what a Pope has written,) “ till you prove to 
 me that there is not an Arabian phoenix, I shall believe that 
 there is,” I wyll answer to him, “ But how do you imagine that 
 I can prove to you that the phoenix does not exist ? ” I cannot 
 prove it; and if you should show it to me, I should ask if it was 
 embalmed, or if it was living. 
 
 Well, Gentlemen, there is a fact in history which for me is 
 the Arabian phoenix, and it is the arrival of St. Peter in 
 Borne. His arrival cannot be proved, and I cannot in a 
 mathematical way prove that he never did come; but I ask 
 you, find me an author who says that he did come to Borne, 
 and that he died there, and an author in whom I can pub 
 confidence. This proof they cannot produce, because it does not 
 exist, consequently they are constrained to ask us to prove a 
 thing which is sufficiently proved, because it is clear that zerG 
 multiplied by zero makes zero. In fact, when there are no 
 witnesses that prove that a fact is true, the fact is not true. 
 Now, says our opponent, although there is a silence very significant 
 in the first centuries as to the coming of St. Peter to Borne, even 
 
49 
 
 a fact on which silence is maintained may be believed. Anything 
 can be done; one can believe anything that one wishes; but our 
 business is to know if we can believe with reason. Now, this is 
 what no one can with reason believe, namely, that Peter came or 
 that Peter died in Pome, when this fact is not proved, and he 
 that would believe it would place himself in the power of super¬ 
 stition, and would pass for one without sense. 
 
 We should now enter into the intricate labyrinth of chronology, 
 but I do not mean to do it; (movement;) all the more because I 
 find myself in the presence of an opponent who has studied it for 
 forty years, while I have studied it much less; on which account 
 his assertions ought to be much more authoritative than mine; 
 but let him be kind enough to present us with his chronology, since 
 he has not given it, and we shall see if his chronology will stand in 
 accord with the facts narrated in the Holy Scripture; and if he 
 will show me a scheme of chronology adapted to the Scripture 
 itself, then, I say, he is right. But it is not sufficient for me that 
 he tells me that he is more learned in chronology than I and my 
 colleagues can be. We are not convinced so easily. We wish 
 proofs, Gentlemen; and without proofs we do not believe anything, 
 and ye have not any. (Movement.) 
 
 It is true that our opponent says that we Protestants should go 
 over to the Rationalists, who have gone as far as denying that 
 which is written in the Bible, even the coming of St. Paul to Borne. 
 He may cite authors if he wishes. I do not take the trouble to 
 verify his quotations, because it does not concern me in the least. 
 The Church of Borne one day had in the seminary of St. Sulpice m 
 Paris a young alumnus of considerable distinction called Renan. 
 He was a good Roman Catholic. What has Renan become now ? 
 If I should hold my opponents responsible for the opinions of 
 Renan, they would have cause to say that I was not a reasonable 
 man. So, when they speak to me of Protestant Rationalists, I 
 reply, that I have nothing to do with them, as you have nothing 
 to do with Voltaire and Renan. Then let us set that question 
 aside. 
 
 Our adversary says that the dates are variable; that every one 
 fixes them by caprice. It may be so ; but reasonable men do not 
 act thus. We accurately study, and we endeavour to fix the dates 
 according to the best possible criteria. Thus do all the non- 
 Catholics of the great nations which have separated from Rome; 
 and they are not the furthest behind in civilisation. We do not 
 
 V 
 
50 
 
 lay our reason aside, but we study and investigate things. We 
 cannot do anything more, and be assured that, when we have done 
 what we can for the discovery of the truth, we have our consciences 
 at rest. 
 
 I know that they may say to me, “ No, it is not true ; you can¬ 
 not have your conscience tranquil, because you must know that 
 Peter has been in Eome. We tell you so, and you ought to 
 believe.” Stay! Isay. Believe in you? No. I believe in good, 
 solid arguments; and, as you have them not, I do not believe in 
 you. 
 
 It is very true that for them it is sufficient to believe; yield, 
 commit yourself into their hands, leaving yourself to be led by their 
 knowledge through the most intricate questions, because they have 
 the infallible authority. (Movement.) But I do not believe in this 
 infallible authority. Permit me to say so ; and, consequently, I 
 am forced to return to my criterion which is not infallible; in 
 which, however, one can confide, because I do not allow anything 
 important to escape me; or at least what appears to me important, 
 since I cannot have a blind faith. 
 
 Our opponent has spoken of another question very interesting; 
 that is, whether St. Peter wrote his Epistle to the Hebrews of the 
 Dispersion from Babylon or from Borne. My opponent maintains 
 that the two letters were written from Borne. I maintain, on the 
 contrary, that they were written from Babylon. And in fact, on 
 what do they rely to prove that the Babylon of St. Peter is Borne ? 
 They rely—he has not said it, but I know it well—they rely upon 
 the Apocalypse. (. A voice .— He said it.) 
 
 Bibetti—Ah, he said it; so much the better. I beg pardon. 
 
 {Voices from the bench of the Roman Catholic Priests. —No, no.) 
 
 Bibetti.—Well, let us admit for a moment that the opponent 
 was right. What would be the consequence ? The consequence 
 would be that Borne is that great Babylon which is anathematized 
 by the Word of God, that great Babylon which has caused all the 
 hurt done in the Church of our Saviour Jesus Christ. It would 
 result that the Church of Borne is truly the persecuting Church 
 spoken of in the Apocalypse: it would result that the Apostle St. 
 John, employing in his writings divers metaphors, calls the Church 
 of Borne that woman who was seated upon the beast, which is 
 generally interpreted to mean the worldly power, calls her the woman 
 who has apostatized from the verity of the Gospel. I do not go 
 further. It was just needful that I should intimate, if we admitted 
 
51 
 
 the hypothesis of my opponent, namely, that Babylon may be Borne, 
 the consequence that would flow from it. But no, nothing of all this. 
 When St. John wrote the Apocalypse, he wrote a book of a nature 
 different from the Epistles of St. Peter. In fact, what do you find 
 in the Apocalypse ? Visions. You there find lofty metaphor, you 
 there find figures from the beginning to the end. Is this the 
 epistolary style? Very different. If you received a letter of a 
 similar kind, you would throw it away, because it is not thus that 
 letters are written. Letters are written in a sober style, allegories 
 are not employed in them, or visions, &c. Now precisely thus 
 wrote St. Peter. Laying aside visions and allegories, he wrote to 
 his dear Hebrew brethren dispersed in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, 
 and Cappadocia, and he gave them his counsel and his instructions, 
 W r ith the greatest simplicity he said that he wrote from Babylon< 
 What would you say if some one, as my colleague observed, writing 
 from Elorence, which is accustomed to call itself the Athens of 
 Italy, under date of the year 1872, instead of writing “Elorence, 5 * 
 such a day of such a month, should write “Athens ? ” You would 
 laugh, and you would say it was silliness. Now, the Apostle St. 
 Peter would not commit such a puerility ; therefore, when he said 
 that he wrote from Babylon, it is evident that he did write from 
 Babylon. Who can say that Babylon no longer existed at that 
 time, as certain individuals erroneously hold ? But our opponent 
 has not said this. He did not say that Babylon did not exist at 
 that time, because Babylon did exist, and the proofs are found in 
 Philo, in Josephus Elavius, and in many other authors. Then it 
 existed. 
 
 It will be said to me that it was no longer the ancient splendid 
 Babylon in which many myriads of Israelites lived. Now it was 
 precisely this city, where were found not few Israelites, as is said of 
 Borne, but myriads; for it was a centre of many provinces where 
 dispersed Israelites dwelt: that was the natural place for the 
 Apostle of the circumcision. Our opponents do not deny that St. 
 Peter was the Apostle of the circumcision, because this i3 clearly 
 indicated in sacred writ, and they are constrained to admit it. It 
 is of no avail saying that in Borne there were many Hebrews. 
 There are many now, but if any one said that he who wished to 
 take charge of the Hebrews must establish himself at Borne, he 
 would be told that he made a mistake, because the Hebrews are 
 much more numerous in other cities than in Borne. If you say to 
 me that St. Peter came to Borne, because this city was the capital 
 
 d 2 
 
52 
 
 of the empire, I understand you; but if you say he came as the 
 Apostle of the Hebrews, because in Eome there were Hebrews, you 
 cut the ground from under your own feet,—permit me the ex¬ 
 pression. In fact, if Peter came to Eome for the Hebrews, he was 
 no longer the head of the universal Church, he was a pastor of the 
 Hebrews. This is what is evident. But Peter did not 
 come to Eome; he was at Babylon. This is proved by the Epistles 
 of Peter themselves, and in regard to this it is strange to see how 
 our opponents put St. Peter in the wrong. Let them respect the 
 authority of St. Peter, at least as they respect that of his successors. 
 Moreover, I say that St. Peter was truly infallible, that he wrote 
 under Divine direction : hence his letter dated from Babylon proves 
 that truly he was in the city. With your rhetorical figures you 
 would make me turn into smoke the best ascertained facts of history, 
 and if we proceed with insinuations and metaphors, I do not know 
 where we shall stop. Let us leave, therefore, metaphors and 
 insinuations. When dealing with a letter written in a clear and 
 simple style, let us stand by what it says, and let us not fantas¬ 
 tically go after I know not what inventions. Let us hold, then, 
 that the Apostle St. Peter was in Babylon, and without spending 
 more time on this point, I shall pass to another. 
 
 My opponent has found an admirable proof to demonstrate that 
 truly the Apostle St. Peter did not write from Babylon. He had 
 recourse to a geographical one, saying that whoever leaves Eome 
 first, finds Pontus, after that, Cappadocia, then Galatia, and next, 
 Bithynia. Hence, St. Peter having enumerated these regions in 
 this order, his letter must have come from Eome. Dear Gentlemen, 
 permit me to tell you with all simplicity, this seems to be a puerile 
 argument,—a cavil. When St. Peter was writing to the Hebrews 
 dispersed in Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, what mattered it 
 placing one of those regions foremost rather than another ? When 
 Italy, Germany, and Prance are spoken of, perhaps we take great 
 care to preserve the geographical order of these countries. No, 
 since it is one of those questions which the French characterize by 
 the adage bonnet blanc, blanc bonnet . (Laughter.) Hence I entirely 
 reject the geographical proof presented by our opponent. 
 
 Our honourable opponent says that the Apostle St. Peter speaks 
 of persecutions which were about to fall upon those to whom he 
 wrote, and upon himself. Here our opponent thinks that he 
 triumphs; this according to him proves that St. Peter was not in 
 Babylon, since that city was not in the Eomar empire. He could 
 
53 
 
 not fear for himself the persecutions which were preparing in the 
 empire of Rome. At this day, when I hear the preaching of the 
 Roman Catholics, what do I hear ? I hear them speaking of per¬ 
 secutions in Rome, of persecutions out of Rome, of persecutions 
 everywhere. But everywhere Victor Emmanuel does not reign, as 
 everywhere did not reign the Emperor Nero. Notwithstanding 
 this they speak in general of persecution. Yery well. St. Peter 
 also spoke of persecutions, and it does not matter to us that 
 Babylon was not in the Roman empire. Let us admit that it 
 was not. That matters nothing, as he could be persecuted out of 
 the Roman empire, or on its frontier. Therefore this proof has 
 not any force. 
 
 My opponent has said that he admitted the differing missions of 
 the Apostles Peter and Paul. I am glad of it, because these 
 differing missions being once admitted, we must not change them. 
 Therefore St. Peter received from Christ the mission to preach to 
 the Hebrews. Then he would preach to the Hebrews, and he 
 would not be universal Pope of the Church; and the Apostle St. 
 Paul, who received the special mission to preach to the Gentiles, 
 and who called himself the Apostle of the Gentiles, ought to have 
 come into the capital of the empire and of paganism. This he did, 
 coming to Rome, and preaching here, while Peter the Apostle of the 
 Hebrews lived and preached always in Jerusalem, Samaria, Baby¬ 
 lonia, and Galatia, and in the countries where the greatest number 
 of his co-nationalists, the Israelites, were found. He exactly fulfilled 
 his mission in the east, and St. Paul exactly his in the west. There 
 was a moment in which they separated, after the dispute that took 
 place in Antioch. They went so far as to form a division, not of 
 faith but of labour, and thus one laboured among the Gentiles, and 
 the other among the Hebrews. Leave then Peter to his work, and 
 do not take him from his mission to transform him into a Pope of 
 the universal Church sitting in Rome. 
 
 You see that the base of the colossus of the Roman Church is 
 a base of chalk, or, if you wish, as I have already said, it is a 
 needle’s point, because it rests in the beginning upon an insinua¬ 
 tion received and amplified by the imagination of authors in the 
 early centuries. In the Middle Ages, a time of the propagation of 
 the greatest errors and prejudices, it became colossal. The Papal 
 authority was set up, which, however, was not yet what it is to¬ 
 day. A little while ago it was still further amplified; but already 
 it had been insinuated that the Pope must be infallible; and thus 
 
54 
 
 you see that the colossus altogether rests upon a base of clay. We 
 have given a light stroke to this base of clay, and the colossus has 
 crumbled. (Movement in the audience.) 
 
 However, our opponent has said, as a conclusion of his discourse, 
 in which he thought that he had irrefragably proved that Peter 
 came to Rome, If Peter did come to Rome, all ought to come and 
 take refuge in Rome. He believes that the conclusion is logical; 
 I do not. Why, suppose that Peter was in Rome; was here for 
 twenty-five years, and not merely for an hour, as our opponent 
 said, reducing twenty-five years to one hour,—I ask by what right 
 a man will say to me, “ You are to obey me as you would have 
 obeyed Peter ? ” (Movement.) But here they tell me not to enter 
 into that argument. Let us leave it till another time to treat it 
 more at large and expressly. I conclude, then; and I say, for my 
 part, I have no need whatever of Peter, or rather, of the successor 
 of Peter. I have the Master of Paul and of Peter ; I have Christ 
 Himself for my Master; and, instead of receiving instruction 
 at second hand, I receive it directly from Him who rules over me 
 better than the successors of Peter. Instead of committing myself 
 to fallible men, I commit myself to the infallible Christ; instead 
 of entrusting that which is most precious, the salvation of my soul, 
 into the hands of a man, I place it in the hands of Christ, who 
 died upon the cross to save me and all those who believe in Him. 
 (Noise and exclamations on the right.) 
 
 President Tosti. —Pardon me. I have prayed from the begins 
 ning this honourable audience to be pleased to keep silence ; not 
 to disapprove nor to approve. This is required by the character 
 and nature of this discussion. I again pray you not to utter 
 expressions of any sort. Do me this favour, if you wish that the 
 discussion shall proceed with peace, respect, and tranquillity. 
 
 Ribetti. —I commit my eternal interests, the salvation and the 
 peace of my soul, into the hands of one more potent than St. 
 Peter, into the hands of Christ who died for me upon the cross. 
 Saved by Him, you will understand how little matters to me a 
 historical fact which cannot have any influence on my eternal 
 future. Whether I believe or not that Peter came to Rome, no one 
 can condemn me, because I recognise, with my opponents, that it is 
 not a doctrine, but that it is merely a historical fact. Gentlemen, 
 the religion of our Saviour Jesus Christ is not localized, it has not 
 a capital, consequently in this world it has not a centre, like the 
 Mosaic law, which had one in Jerusalem. God is a Spirit, infinite, 
 
55 
 
 universal, and everywhere, and Christ my Saviour also is every¬ 
 where. Without coming to Eome let any one, wherever he may be, 
 even in the most remote deserts, turn to Christ, to God; and 
 from Him he will receive an answer, receive pardon, and that 
 suffices. 
 
 The President calls on Signor Cipoffa. 
 
 Cipolla,— (Advertisement) The speech of Signor Cipolla could 
 not be caught by the stenographers from causes independent of their 
 art , Hence it was agreed to admit the present brief summary 
 given by Signor Cipolla himself and which was found conformable to 
 the exposition that he made viva voce on the evening of the §th of 
 February.) He remarked in the first place that the opponent had 
 not understood his colleague. He declared that the distinction 
 between an historical fact and a fact that wears the nature of 
 dogma was brought forward to clear the question which was being 
 treated, and to show how and when a fact may be related to the 
 Holy Bible, and to define the position that the actual question was 
 merely an historical fact to be proved by the criteria and argu¬ 
 ments of history, and not capable of being negatived from the 
 Bible unless it said the contrary, for its naked silence does not 
 suffice. 
 
 He pointed out a distinction between the words “ allusion ” 
 and “ insinuation.” The first includes and especially denotes a 
 fact referred to in the words of one who is speaking on another 
 subject; the second may simply indicate a suggestion. Hence he 
 blamed the opponent, because he had ill understood this word, on 
 the lips of his colleague, and had afterwards ill applied it, as if to 
 show that the belief of the coming of St. Peter to Eome sprang from 
 talk and fables; and because he had attributed this system to the 
 conduct of the Eoman Catholic Church as to other truths. He 
 declared that he had gone from the question, and had not 
 answered. 
 
 He remarked on the number and variety of the testimonies 
 adduced, that besides their having been coeval, as nearly as possible 
 after the burning of the books, and these of great value, they all 
 must be taken together by reason of the occasions on which they arose, 
 so as to form almost a contemporaneous and perennial testimony; 
 and thus even testimonies the most distant might have the force 
 of those that were coeval, because the Bathers in speaking of the 
 Church of Eome always referred to that fact, namely, that St. 
 Peter had been there, without any one who had an opposing 
 
interest having dared to deny it, not the jealous for love of country, 
 not heretics, to escape the judgment of Borne. He remarked that 
 this was an argument so strong that Basnage himself concluded, 
 after having alleged the first authorities which we allege, that who¬ 
 ever denies their force more than denies the coming of St. Peter to 
 Home,—denies and ruins the whole of history. 
 
 He remarked that his colleague had adduced a passage in St. 
 John upon the death of Peter, not as saying that Peter died in 
 Borne, of which he had been wrongly accused by his opponent, 
 but only as saying that his death was a noted one. Speaking of 
 the testimonies in particular, and specially coeval ones, he adduced 
 the words of St. Ignatius:—“ The Apostles Peter and Paul 
 command you; ” and he remarked that this included the con¬ 
 fession that Peter and Paul had been in Borne, without which, 
 what he said would be void of sense. This, he said, is a true 
 allusion, not an insinuation, and this is equivalent to a positive 
 assertion. He defended the authority of Papias, whom the 
 opponent had treated as a fabulist, noticing in this sense that 
 Eusebius blames him for some defects; but he does not lose his 
 authority as a man capable of attesting a fact, if, for want of much 
 sense, he falls into an error with regard to the millennial kingdom. 
 
 He equally defended the authority of Clement, wrongly described 
 by the opponent as a man of little account, for having employed a 
 metaphor treated as a fable, almost confounding it with history : 
 and finally he showed that the opponent had passed over many 
 other testimonies already adduced, although they were of great 
 value according to Basnage himself. He historically demonstrated 
 the arrival of St. Paul in Borne, and he went on to inquire if it 
 could be negatived by the chronology of the Bible, as the 
 opponent pretended, and he said, “ No,” because the result of the 
 studies of the learned even to our own day was, that they gave 
 diverse chronologies more or less founded, and one or other of which 
 might prudently be followed in the research of smaller points of 
 time, affecting the arrival of St. Peter in Borne, or the duration 
 of his permanent abode. And this is not the whole of our case, as 
 the presence of Peter in Borne must be excluded from every space of 
 time, by opposing to it the dates which in the Bible are wanting for 
 many facts, nevertheless, perhaps chronologically narrated. At all 
 events, a certain chronology would be required, distinct, and 
 admitted of all; and this is wanting by the confession of the 
 opponent himself, who has said that one cannot be framed except on 
 
the principle of the best possible. Following the steps of the 
 opponent, he says that there can be no argument from the letters 
 of St. Peter that the word “ Babylon ” indicates whence he wrote, 
 because the writers, Catholic and Protestant, do not agree among 
 themselves, whether, in the symbolic sense, Borne is intended, or, in 
 the literal sense, Babylon in Chaldea. To the authority of Michaelis 
 he opposed, besides the authority of the Fathers, that of Grotius 
 and of other learned Protestants down to Ewald, of very recent 
 date, and no reasons have been found beyond those already brought 
 forward by the ancients which could help their cause. On the 
 contrary, the most recent re-consideration was adverse. And here 
 he noted that the reasons of Ewald, brought forward by Fabiani, 
 which made our opponent laugh, were not produced by him as his 
 own, but as those of the writer, without his giving any opinion 
 whatever upon them. 
 
 Whatever may be said of this interpretation, he remarked that 
 he and his colleagues on the present question did not put forward 
 this Epistle, and that the Protestants could not turn it to their account; 
 for, if taken in their sense, though that is not conceded, even then it 
 would not conclude anything, because it might be a proof that 
 Peter was in Babylon, but not a disproof of his ever having 
 come to Borne. And here he noted the facility of travelling in 
 those times already shown by his colleague. 
 
 Speaking of the argument taken from the Bible upon the nature 
 of the apostleship of Peter to the circumcision, and of Paul to the 
 Gentiles, he said that the nature of this mission was not exclusive, 
 so as to hinder Peter from preaching to the Gentiles, or Paul to 
 the Hebrews. He explained largely the sense of the agreement 
 made between Paul, Cephas, James, &c., which was, namely, for a 
 patronage or special care, which they should take of this portion or 
 that, without laying aside the care that they ought to have for all, 
 and did not hinder that Peter should come to Borne, especially in 
 the sense of the thesis. 
 
 He then examined the argument of Sciarelli, which divided into 
 three epochs the twenty-five years assigned by Catholics to Peter in 
 Borne, and aimed at proving that Peter was not in Borne in the year 
 42, because in that year he was in Jerusalem. He might 
 deny that the conversion of St. Paul took place in 39, which he 
 (Sciarelli) fixed as the basis of his calculation, because it is a point 
 on which even the Protestants are not themselves agreed. Let this, 
 however, be supposed, but not conceded, he would still deny that it 
 
58 
 
 proved that Peter could not have been in Home. In the beginning 
 of the year he might be in Jerusalem, in the later months in Eome i 
 for if St. Luke describes what Peter did in these years in Jerusalem, 
 that is, that he raised up a young woman, that he went into the 
 house of Cornelius, as Sciarelli recounted, these were not such 
 things that in order to accomplish them he must stay there all the 
 year. 
 
 In regard to the second period, namely, from the years 42 to 56, 
 he showed that the alleged impossibility of his coming was founded 
 on the silence which Peter held with regard to it in the Council, 
 while Paul spoke of his journeys; but that amounts to nothing. 
 Perhaps he did not say anything, because his coming had already 
 been recounted. Perhaps he mentioned it when he spoke of the 
 fruits of his mission, noting that St. Luke indicates the subject of 
 the discourse of Peter and Paul, and does not report their words. 
 Neither because Paul spoke of his journey was it necessary that 
 Peter should speak of his. 
 
 Touching the silence of St. Luke as to this period, and as to the 
 subsequent one down to 66, he remarked that the silence does not 
 contradict what St. Luke does not say, because it was not his 
 design to speak of the voyage of Peter, but of Paul, whose actions 
 he wished to relate. He showed that, if other things after 
 the Council were wrought by Peter in Judaea, they could not be 
 shown to be such as to prevent his coming to Eome. The mea¬ 
 sure, he said, which our opponents have of thus enlarging and 
 prolonging is so convenient, that they might show that not 
 twenty-five years alone were necessary, but even thirty. Pinally, as 
 to the silence of the Epistles of Paul, who does not send to the 
 Churches the salutations of Peter, he said that that proves nothing, 
 because it may be explained by the fact that these Epistles were 
 written in circumstances when Peter was not in Eome, seeing that 
 he did not stop there immovably. And, besides, other hypotheses 
 might be set up to explain them. All this, nevertheless, consti¬ 
 tuted an argument merely negative; of no value against a positive 
 argument drawn from historical documents; and he concluded 
 that, if the opponents wished to be in the right, they must show 
 that the Bible positively denied the fact. Then remarking 
 that the second opponent had concluded his speech by saying 
 that he put his trust in Christ, and that he did not desire the 
 insinuations of men, he proclaimed that we all of us ought to put • 
 our trust in Him, using, however, the means established by Him, 
 
59 
 
 that is, listening to the voice of his Apostolate. “ Fides ex auditu , 
 auditusper verbum Christi; ” therefore when it is insinuated by the 
 legitimate man, we do not entrust ourselves to man, but entrust 
 ourselves to Christ. 
 
 President— It would now be the turn of Signor Gavazzi. 
 
 Gavazzi.—I rise to say that the hour is late, and as the audience 
 is already very tired, if it is thought well the discussion can be 
 adjourned till to-morrow evening, since, did I begin, 1 asssure you 
 that before half-past two o’clock in the morning the debate would 
 not close. This is a liberty which I take, and I take it in all 
 confidence, because we have permitted our honourable opponents 
 to speak as much as they pleased. I am ready: all the more so 
 as I have to reply upon a historical fact. The decision then 
 rests with the Presidents, to say whether they wish the discussion 
 to be resumed to-morrow evening at the point where we now 
 leave off, or to go on this evening. (Voices: “No, no; 
 to-morrow.”) 
 
 President. —If you are afraid of the lateness of the hour, it may 
 be adjourned till to-morrow. Those gentlemen who have received 
 tickets for this evening can return to-morrow evening. If any of 
 those gentlemen from any reason should not be able to return, 
 or do not wish to come, they might be courteous enough to give 
 back their tickets to the respective Presidents, that they might 
 be given to so many others who have asked for them; or, 
 even if any one meant not to return, he might give up his ticket 
 at the door. There are many persons who have wished to have 
 them, and have not been able to obtain them. If all wish to 
 come again, then it is all right, to-morrow, at the same hour. 
 
 (The audience began to move , and some words of the President 
 were lost . It was a quarter past eleven .) 
 
so 
 
 SATURDAY EVENING, SEVEN O’CLOCK. 
 
 President Chigi. —The treatment of the Thesis will now be 
 continued, that is, to show by arguments drawn from the Bible and 
 the Holy Fathers, that St. Peter never was in Rome. I beg the 
 audience to abstain from even the least sign of approval or disap¬ 
 probation, not to disturb the order of the debate. 
 
 Signou Piggott calls upon Signor Gavazzi to speak. 
 
 Gavazzi. —The question is now confined within its true limits, 
 that is, to a historical fact, and as a historical fact we deny that St. 
 Peter ever came to Rome; but as a historical fact our opponents 
 affirm that St. Peter has been in Rome. There is a difference in 
 our conclusions. The difference results from diversity in the 
 proofs, as also from diversity in the mode of judging the fact. We 
 confine ourselves to the Bible, and with it we deny absolutely that 
 St. Peter came to Rome. Our opponents, entrenching themselves 
 behind contemporary historical criticism, which we shall see 
 translates itself into nothing but tradition, affirm that St. Peter did 
 come to Rome. They reproach us with the insufficiency of our 
 proofs, although they come from the Bible, since they say that 
 silence is a negative proof, whereas an affirmative proof is required. 
 They say, “ Prove to us that the Bible has said St. Peter never did 
 come to Rome.” I may reply, “ Prove to us that the Bible has 
 said that St. Peter did come to Rome.” 
 
 As the matter stands in these terms, I shall endeavour to show to 
 the best of my power that the silence of the Bible is not a negative 
 proof, but that it is a proof most posititive and most explicit that 
 St. Peter did not come to Rome. 
 
 On this question of silence permit a preliminary observation 
 which is not out of place. Cardinal Bellarmine says that from the 
 silence of the Bible it may be argued and ought to be inferred that 
 St. Peter came to Rome ; at the same time I find that Cardinal 
 Baronius asserts that from the silence of the Bible it cannot be 
 inferred that St. Peter ever was in Babylon. We have then a 
 Cardinal who says that the silence of the Bible is a proof of the 
 coming of St. Peter to Rome, and another Cardinal who affirms 
 that from the silence of the Bible we cannot draw a proof that St. 
 
61 
 
 Peter went to Babylon. Silence is then for you an elastic gum. 
 which you pull as you please. But if from the silence of the 
 Bible it ought to be deduced that St. Peter came to Rome, then by 
 way of comparison I should say, Thiers in his History of the Consu¬ 
 late and the Empire does not speak at all of the journey of Napoleon 
 the First to North America, or of a visit of his to Washington : 
 then just because Thiers does not speak of it Napoleon did go to 
 America and to Washington. Gentlemen, can we in logic admit 
 such a conclusion ? No ; for he does not speak of it, just because 
 Napoleon did not go. From the silence of the Bible, then, I draw 
 my logical consequence that St. Peter did not come to Rome. ] 
 insist upon the proof of silence, and I shall show it to be positive. 
 If the Bible had not had occasion to treat, and if it had not treated, 
 the history of the primitive Church, in such a case contemporary 
 history might have supplied to us the historical fact concerning 
 which we are now arguing. But the Bible had to deal with the 
 history of the primitive Church, wherefore we ought to take the 
 principal facts of the history from the Bible itself. What, indeed, 
 are the Acts of the Apostles ? They are nothing else than the 
 history,—true, official, authentic, particularized from the first—of the 
 development, the progress, the persecutions suffered, and the 
 triumphs won by the primitive Church. The principal end of this 
 history is to narrate the labours of the glorious Apostles. The 
 historian elected for this is Luke, who is the proper historian, the 
 legitimate historian, the impartial historian, because the inspired 
 historian. Could he have been silent as to the journey of St. Peter to 
 Rome? No ; he would have had no reason to be so as an inspired 
 and impartial historian. He has spoken of Peter on all the 
 occasions in which this Apostle was found labouring for his Lord; 
 he has spoken of him in Samaria, he has spoken of him in Lydda, 
 he has spoken of him in Joppa, he has spoken of him in Caesarea, 
 he has spoken of him in Jerusalem many times; why should he 
 not speak of his coming to Rome ? 
 
 Some one alleges that silence was opportune, that St. Peter might 
 not be compromised. This excuse does not avail even for a 
 pretext, because when St. Luke was writing his history the 
 danger was past. Granting that danger there had once been, there 
 then was nothing to compromise him. Then arises before my view 
 justice,—he ought to have told it in order by anticipation to cut off 
 anything that in after times might have lessened Peter. We 
 cannot deny that in this primitive apostolic college the figure of 
 
62 
 
 Peter appears as the principal, whether by a pre-eminence of word 
 or by a pre-eminence of action, and in consequence Luke could 
 not pass over this primary figure. Then comes the comprimary 
 figure, which is that of Paul, an elect vessel,—of Paul because he had 
 a special delegation, which was a true apostleship both in the 
 apostolic commission and in the evangelistic. Peter coming to 
 Rome, why should Luke neglect to write his journey ? If he had 
 never described any arrival in Rome, well and good; but 
 he did describe the journey of the Apostle Paul in all its most 
 minute particulars; and this Apostle Paul in the primitive 
 apostolic college would only be a secondary figure, and his journey 
 would only be of secondary importance. Wherefore, then, has 
 Luke said nothing whatever of the primary personage in the primitive 
 apostolic college and of his primary voyage? Why has he 
 spoken of the one and passed over the other? Is it impartiality in 
 an inspired writer ? I should not think so. Consequently, and 
 for the honour of the historical writer, I must say that if he does not 
 narrate it, it is because he did not come. But it is said. It is a fact 
 that St. Peter was in Rome because contemporaries speak of it; and 
 I say that the inspired history, the natural, the original, the primary 
 one, does not speak of it. It has never said this to us, and that 
 would be an injustice, a partiality. If the primary historian does 
 not speak of it, what becomes of the affirmation of the later ones ? 
 especially when of those later ones it may be said that there is not 
 ii single one that was an eye witness. They are not witnesses, they 
 are only second-hand evidence, that is, bearing testimony de auditu; 
 consequently, how should you expect the authority of the 
 primary historian not to prevail when I have not even 
 secondaries who affirm it, as we shall see ? Hence it is that in this 
 case the silence of the Bible is not a negative proof, but the positive 
 proof, that St. Peter has not been in Rome, because the only history 
 that ought to say it has not said it. Then he was not here. 
 
 And here 1 shall make a digression, to say two words as to 
 an objection which was brought forward last night, namely, that 
 it was not so difficult for Peter to come to Rome, but that he 
 might have had time in the intervals of events that were 
 spoken of yesterday evening in chronology, on account of the 
 facility of the journey, since my excellent opponent, who is most 
 learned and erudite, held that the journey from Jerusalem to Rome 
 was so easy, that in eighteen days you could accomplish it. 
 
 G entlemen, I say nothing of the facility of coming from Jerusalem 
 
63 
 
 to Rome in those times, because I believe that you know the 
 difficulty that exists to-day in going to Jerusalem, with all the 
 railways, and all the steamers; but I would have our opponents 
 reflect that it is not true what was said yesterday evening, that 
 it was more easy to come from Jerusalem to Rome than to go 
 from Jerusalem to Babylon, because it is proved geographically 
 that to go from Jerusalem to Babylon, you needed a quarter of 
 the time that was needed to come to Rome by the most prac¬ 
 ticable roads, for they were not the roads of the present day. 
 But here the question is not of the time nor of the facility for 
 St. Peter to come to Rome. He might have had plenty of 
 time and all facility, for our position is, that he did 
 not come; because I say that if he had come either under 
 Claudius or under Nero, or before or after the Council of Jeru¬ 
 salem, Luke would have said it, because he ought to have said it 
 in justice to the Apostleship of Peter, in justice to the primitive 
 Church, in justice to the Church of Rome, in justice to himself. 
 Luke has not said it: then his silence is a positive proof that he 
 did not come, because, I repeat it, if he had come he ought to 
 have said it. 
 
 And here passing from the principal history which I should 
 call the absolutely necessary in this our fact, to such as 
 I should call the incidentally necessary, which are all the other 
 parts of the New Testament in which might occur the mention 
 of the coming of St. Peter to Rome, I add the proposition 
 that the silence even of this part of the history proves the non¬ 
 arrival of St. Peter in Rome, and, above all, the argument turns 
 upon the silence which St. Paul held on divers occasions as to 
 the coming of St. Peter to Rome, when he ought to have 
 mentioned it. I heard it said yesterday evening that in this 
 silence of St. Paul there was a reason of discretion. I do not under¬ 
 stand what kind of discretion there could have been either on the 
 part of Peter or on the part of Paul. Not to compromise Peter? 
 Gentlemen, no. I have too much respect for Peter to believe that 
 he was such a poltroon, such a coward, and so timorous, as to 
 be frightened at martyrdom; and I have too much respect for 
 Paul to believe that he would have such an opinion of his 
 co-Apostle. It is said, “But it might have brought him too much 
 into view, naming him among the Christians.” 0, Gentlemen, 
 by this Paul would compromise no one, because Paul was too noble 
 and too delicate (and moreover an inspired writer) to compromise 
 
64 
 
 any one whatever: consequently, if he did not think that it com¬ 
 promised those his helpers who were with him in prison, and did 
 not think that he compromised even those who were of the house¬ 
 hold of Caesar when he sent to salute them, much less do I think 
 that he would be in fear of compromising Peter by a salutation 
 which he might have sent to him. I insist that the silence of 
 Paul on so many occasions proves nothing else, but proves at 
 least this, that at the time in which Paul wrote to Pome, and 
 wrote from Rome, at least at that time Peter was not in Rome. 
 
 Here we have a sufficient quantity of proofs whence to infer that 
 he could not have come unless it might have been as some will 
 have it, in the very last days of his life. 
 
 But in the Bible, Gentlemen, there are not only what you call 
 the negative proof of silence, but also those which I should call 
 positive proofs, which are neither negation nor silence. Yester¬ 
 day evening the prophecy of Christ was mentioned, and it was 
 said that as John wrote these things after Peter had been crucified, 
 that crucifixion must have taken place. Very good. But let us 
 place this prophecy in John, side by side with another of Christ’s 
 in St. Matthew, in the twenty-third chapter, where He reproves 
 the Pharisees, saying, “ Ye will crucify some one of My Apostles.” 
 Then according to the words of Christ it was to be the Jews who 
 were to crucify some one of His Apostles. Now we have only 
 tw T o Apostles who were crucified, one in tradition, namely, Andrew, 
 another in the Bible, Peter. Therefore, the prophecy must have 
 particularly indicated Peter. But Christ charges this crucifixion 
 upon the Jews. It must then have occurred by the action of the 
 Jews, and consequently could not have happened in Rome, where the 
 Jews had no power whatever, but must have happened in some place 
 where they had power. This place could not be any other than 
 Babylon, because Babylon was a place where the Jews, as we 
 shall see, were in greater number and greater power, even in 
 such power that the King of the Parthians had granted to them 
 to have a High Priest, and that they had all the forms of their Mosaic 
 law still existing. In this part of the dispersion, then, they were 
 very powerful; and so we may argue reasonably and logically, 
 taking our stand upon history, that the crucifixion of St. Peter 
 must be attributed to the Jews. But in Babylon, during the 
 persecution of Nero, they had an opportunity to excite the 
 anger of the governors against Peter, and to procure his cruci¬ 
 fixion, in the same way as, under Tiberius, availing themselves of 
 
65 
 
 the privileges of autonomy which the Roman law had left to them, 
 they obtained the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. 
 
 The manner wherein St. Peter was put to death is not conformed 
 to the Roman usage, but to that of the barbarians, practised by 
 the Parthians. Crucifixion with the head down was not practised 
 by the Romans. The Romans crucified with the head up, 
 in order that the suffering might endure longer; in fact, so long 
 did it endure, that to put the patient to death the legs were broken. 
 The penalty of crucifixion with the head down appeared more 
 ignominious, but it lasted a less time from asphyxia, and to render 
 it still shorter, the barbarians were in the habit of kindling straw 
 under the head, by which the patient was suffocated. The manner, 
 then, of the crucifixion of Peter is an historical proof that he was 
 not crucified in Rome, but that he must have been crucified in 
 Babylon. 
 
 Yesterday it was said with some emphasis, that this could not be, 
 because, the Babylonian provinces not being subject to the Roman 
 yoke, the persecution of Nero could not have there taken effect. 
 I could not help feeling considerable astonishment at this observa¬ 
 tion, since I have too much respect for my opponents, and 
 especially for the distinguished scholar who yesterday evening 
 delivered the first reply, to think that they can be ignorant of 
 what Eusebius tells us on this subject. Eusebius clearly says 
 that the Babylonian provinces were subject to Nero, explicitly 
 says that Nero commenced his persecution after having sub¬ 
 jugated the Babylonian provinces. These provinces, then, were 
 already under the Romans, and the persecution began after the 
 Roman occupation. That the persecutions of Nero did extend to 
 the Babylonian provinces is known on the authority of Orosius, 
 which will be acknowledged to be the highest, because he 
 produces a number of witnesses sufficiently worthy of attention 
 in reference to the extension of the persecutions of Nero in the 
 provinces of Babylonia. On this supposition every thing appears 
 natural, and we understand how Peter being at Babylon, in the 
 centre of his apostolate, should write of his approaching death, and 
 should anticipate the announcement of his martyrdom to his 
 flocks, and that he should animate them by the example of the 
 courageous acts of witness-bearing accomplished by others, and 
 especially in the city of Rome. The manner then in which St. 
 Peter was crucified, leads me to the conclusion that he was not 
 
 E 
 
66 
 
 at Borne even for Ills martyrdom, but that he was subjected to 
 martyrdom in the Chaldaic Babylon; 
 
 Another proof for us, Biblical and positive, that St. Peter did not 
 come to Borne, T find in the apostolate of St. Paul in Borne itseli, 
 not so much from what he says in the first chapter of his Epistle to 
 the glorious fathers in Borne, quoted yesterday, as from what is 
 said in the fifteenth chapter of the same Epistle. In the first chapter 
 Paul, as you will remember, says to the Bomans, that he desires 
 exceedingly to see them, to communicate to them some spiritual 
 gift, that they may be strengthened. Now would it be accord¬ 
 ing to good logic, and would it not be still less according to justice, 
 that he should so speak, if Peter had already communicated this gift, 
 $nd had already confirmed the Bomans ? But in the fifteenth chapter 
 and the twentieth verse he says, u And I have so preached this 
 Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon 
 another man’s foundation.” If Paul did not wish to preach where 
 Christ had been mentioned, that he might not build upon another 
 man’s foundation, by coming to Borne where Peter already was, (I 
 speak of the epoch in which he wrote to the Bomans,) he would 
 have built upon the foundation of Peter, and he would have 
 evangelized where Peter had already evangelized, which would be 
 contrary to what he wrote to the Bomans. Had he been writing to 
 others, well and good; but by so writing to the Bomans, he proves 
 that no one had evangelized before him, because he was not willing 
 to build upon another man’s foundation. 
 
 I do not mean to say that before the arrival of Paul the Gospel 
 had not been preached, or, to speak more correctly, had not been 
 carried into Borne. I do not shut out Peter from having a part, by 
 the medium of his converts, in the foundation of the Church of 
 Rome, since at the Pentecost the Bomans who were present, 
 having left Jerusalem, carried the Gospel to Borne. 
 
 I do not say that there was not a Church in Borne, that there was 
 not Christianity; but that the Gospel had not been preached by 
 Peter, but carried by disciples of Peter and Paul, and especially by 
 Aquila and Priscilla, before that Paul came to Borne. But it was 
 not as yet the Gospel preached in the face of the Gentiles and the 
 Caesars; it was still a preaching in private, in families. It was not 
 as yet a preaching by an apostolic person. 
 
 Neither let it be objected that it may still be said that Peter had 
 preached the Gospel, if not to others, to the Israelites, because we 
 know from the Acts of the Apostles that when Paul came to Borne 
 
he gathered the Jews around him, and these showed him that thev 
 knew nothing as yet concerning this sect, of which no one could 
 have given them information. And this proof, the apostolate of 
 St. Paul, leads me to the conclusion that up to that moment the 
 Gospel had not been among the Hebrews in Rome, and for me 
 these are positive proofs that St. Peter had not been in Rome. 
 
 But it was said yesterday, that the Apostles had from Christ*" 
 the mandate in their apostolical and evangelic commissions to go 
 into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; and 
 hence there was no prohibition against going to Rome, and among 
 the rest there was no prohibition for Peter. Here, Gentlemen, I 
 wish you to pay a little attention. 
 
 We maintain the thesis that Peter did not come, not that Peter 
 could not come. In consequence, when I speak of history and not 
 of Biblical exegesis, (because I could prove in another sense that 
 he could not come, considering his special mission to the Hebrews,) 
 then I say not, indeed, that he could not come, because he could 
 have come, but that he did not come. 
 
 In fact, all the Apostles had the power to go and preach the 
 Gospel to every creature. Well, did all the Apostles come to 
 Rome, because they were not prohibited? No, they did not come. 
 How do you know that they did not come? Because St. Luke 
 does not say it; and then I say, No more did Peter come, for the 
 same reason, that Luke does not say it, and if he had come, Luke 
 must have said it. And I insist upon the word “must,” although 
 some will say to me, “Where did they go?” They went where 
 Divine grace inspired them to go, where the Spirit, as we have it 
 in the Acts of the Apostles, showed them to go; and this Spirit is 
 the guide that we find throughout the whole Bible, who regulates 
 all the steps of the Apostles; so that I find the beautiful text as to 
 Paul and Barnabas: “ When they had passed through Phrygia and 
 the country of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Ghost to 
 preach the Word in Asia. And when they came into Mysia they 
 attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered 
 them not.” (Actsxv. 6, 7.) And wherefore all this hindrance and 
 prohibition ? Because these countries were the special field of Peter, 
 because Christ did not wish encroachments in the apostolate, and 
 Paul did not wish to build upon another man’s foundation. 
 
 So that, Gentlemen, here I am obliged to say a thing which all 
 know: Deus et natura nihil agunt frustra. No, God works 
 nothing needlessly; and God having expressly chosen an Apostle for 
 
 e 2 
 
68 
 
 the Gentiles, to carry Hisname before the Kings, and having called 
 Paul to this mission, no one was to encroach on the apostolate of 
 Paul, and the Spirit would not have permitted it; so that, Gentle¬ 
 men, there is a word in the Bible, (and it is the Word of God 
 Himself, which for me avails more than all the authorities that may 
 be opposed to me,) against the coming of St. Peter to Borne. 
 I have the Word of God to Paul, Acts xxiii. 11 : “ As thou hast 
 testified of Me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at 
 Borne” 
 
 Of no other Apostle, not of Peter himself, were these words 
 said, that he must bear witness in Borne; and it is on this account 
 that I say that Paul did come, because there is the voice of God 
 which calls him hither, the Spirit of God which impels him 
 hither, and the Scriptures of God which have narrated it for 
 me. Then how can they attempt to deny that there are posi¬ 
 tive words in the Scriptures? Why will they attempt to cast 
 doubt upon such clear evidence ? 
 
 Yesterday they wished to make a vagabond of Paul, and why 
 deny a similar facility to Peter? Pardon the word “ vagabond/’ 
 because I do not think that an Apostle who goes about to evange¬ 
 lize ought to be called a vagabond or a vagrant. However, if the 
 journey of Paul is beyond doubt, it is because I find it recorded; 
 and if I do not admit the journey of Peter, it is because 1 do not 
 find it recorded. Peter goes to Lydda, to Joppa, to Csesarea, to 
 Samaria, to Antioch, and comes back to stay in Jerusalem: it is 
 mentioned. Paul goes to many places of the east and of the west: 
 it is mentioned. As you could not ask me to deny that Paul has 
 been in Corinth, in Athens, in Thessalonica, in Macedonia, in 
 Borne, because I read it in the Bible, so you cannot ask me to 
 believe that Peter has been in Borne, because this I do not read. 
 This never was said, never written, by the inspired authors. It is 
 on this account I say that in the Bible are found not only 
 what you call the negative proof of silence, but I say and main¬ 
 tain that I find even positive proof, that Peter has not been in 
 Borne, since his crucifixion itself, by its necessity and nature, carries 
 me at the very last period of his life to Babylon, where par¬ 
 ticularly he held his apostolate in the midst of the Dispersion. 
 Peter had not come to Borne, not because he could not have come, 
 but because, as I say, the Spirit of God prohibited him, and because 
 Peter was designated to carry the Gospel to the circumcision and 
 Paid to the Gentiles. 
 
69 
 
 As to the Biblical proof of the non-arrival of St. Peter in Borne 
 it is necessary that I reply to some observations of my learned 
 opponents of yesterday evening as to chronology, and, in particular, 
 as to the date from Babylon. 
 
 I commence with the chronology. It was said by my learned 
 opponent in the first speech, that, as to chronology, everything is 
 still in obscurity and uncertainty. I admit that there are yet 
 imperfections; I admit that perhaps still we must proceed in the 
 midst of obscurity and uncertainty; I admit that this is a matter 
 which God has given over to the disputations of men, since whether 
 it be by the nature of the matter related, or by the habit of the 
 narrator, either in the New Testament generally, or in the Gospels 
 especially, we find that they do not pay attention to dates, and 
 consequently it behoves lovers of truth, of whatever shade they 
 may be, who devote themselves with sincerity and affection to this 
 study, to find the most approximate dates of Biblical chronology; 
 and here we speak of the New Testament, for then we shall arrive 
 at a Biblical conclusion. 
 
 Yesterday evening the observation was made that the art of 
 verifying the chronological dates of the Bible is so obscure, that 
 we cannot settle the epoch of the arrival of St. Paul in Borne. I 
 beg pardon. The epoch of the arrival of St. Paul in Borne is in 
 the year 61; and comes from an ascertained date. When men 
 have in hand an ascertained date, it is like Archimedes, who, had he 
 obtained a fulcrum, could have moved the world with his lever. The 
 ascertained date is the arrival of Portius Festus the Governor, 
 and we know that this occurred in 61, and in the same year Paul 
 was sent a prisoner to Borne. I find that is an ascertained date. 
 Some might say it is not yet quite certain, there is still some little 
 doubt, (for me, no,) since it is not altogether positive that Portius 
 arrived in that year. I should make then a slight observation, 
 and it is that the ascertained date is this, namely, that Paul 
 arrived in Borne the year that the Governor Portius arrived, a 
 year fixed by profane history, since the date of the arrival of this 
 Governor is known from the consular and imperial acts. 
 
 And even if you showed me that this is not yet well settled, 
 then I should take the argument of the learned Kabiani of yester¬ 
 day evening, who said that, by the new discoveries, he had found 
 chronological dates which have so intoxicated the minds of some 
 who were not favourable to the Bible, as to make them exclaim 
 that by these discoveries the Biblical dates were all destroyed. 
 
70 
 
 I have already said to my honourable opponent that I do not fear 
 that, and even he will not fear it, because the Bible is four square 
 against every assault, and will always triumph. 
 
 But I say, that if you have been able to find by new discoveries 
 these perfectly certain dates, and to fix your chronology, you will 
 be able to arrive by other discoveries at some monument, at some 
 stone, which can tell us more certainly that Portius arrived as 
 Governor in Judea in such a year. Here then we have in the Bible 
 ascertained dates, and it is not true that all is in obscurity : there 
 is one ascertained date, and we know that when we can depart from 
 the known for the unknown it is not so difficult to reach our point. 
 
 Nor do all the ascertained dates end here, because we have another 
 positive datum in the Bible to enable us to fix a date, and that is the 
 going up of St. Paul to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, 
 or fourteen years afterwards for the meeting of the Council. 
 
 I was almost frightened yesterday when I heard that it might be 
 objected to us by Atheists and Rationalists that we had only one 
 testimony, and that we could quote no one but the Apostle Paul. 
 Gentlemen, when I have in my hands an inspired writer, when this 
 writer speaks of a positive fact, of' a personal fact, I do not fear 
 though it were ten million of Atheists and Rationalists ; they are 
 impotent to strike down a Colossus such as one inspired writer. 
 
 Then Paul suffice? for me; and when I have the testimony of 
 Paul giving me two ascertained dates, I go forward and say, as we have 
 the known, we should arrive at what is unknown. If this mode 
 of proceeding be not admitted, there can be no study of chronology. 
 
 The question then depends on when the conversion of St. Paul 
 occurred. I do not spend more words upon this point; I say to my 
 learned adversaries that I do not allow myself to be awed by anv 
 one, not even by Ellendorf, of whom I specially reject one portion 
 of his chronology, that the death of Stephen and the persecutions 
 against the Christians immediately succeeded one another. This 
 difference may be perhaps small, and cannot alter the grand traits 
 and lineaments of Biblical history. The stoning of Stephen may 
 be clearly proved to have taken place under Tiberius, but the per¬ 
 secutions against the Christians did not happen at the same period. 
 This I say, because the character of Tiberius was adverse to perse¬ 
 cutions ; on the contrary, he prevented persecutions to which he 
 was solicited by the Roman Senators, who wished the Christians 
 expelled from Rome. Under Tiberius, Stephen may have been put 
 to death, as Jesus Christ had been put to death by the instigation 
 
71 
 
 of the Jews, who accused the one and the other of blasphemy, and 
 by that phantom of autonomy which the Romans had left to them, 
 they procured in the case of Jesus the consent of Pilate to their 
 desire. Under Tiberius, then, the death of Stephen might happen; 
 but I repeat again that the persecutions could not happen ; they 
 occurred under Caligula. But under Caligula the persecutions 
 raged. We cannot admit that under Caligula occurred the death 
 of Stephen, Prom this Biblical text I deduce an argument whereby 
 I prove that at the time of the death of Stephen Paul was yet a 
 youth. He kept the raiment of those who stoned Stephen ; he had 
 not yet come to the age when they put on the toga virilis, he was 
 a minor. Therefore we must leave a space between the death of 
 Stephen, which happened at a time in which Paul was yet a minor, 
 and the persecutions that occurred when Paul must have been of 
 full age, as he obtained from the High Priests letters to head the 
 persecutions, which would not have been granted to a youth. You 
 see, then, that with chronology and with some calculation it is 
 possible, taking our departure from a known, to discover an un¬ 
 known ; nay, I repeat that the chronology, as was in a certain 
 manner proved yesterday, even leads us to conclude that the Apostle 
 Peter has not been in Rome. 
 
 I say, however, for the second time, I raise no question about 
 time or opportunity, because St. Peter would have had full time 
 and opportunity in the interval; I say only that he did not come. 
 Then in chronology we have a proof in very many data that St. 
 Peter never came to Rome. Passing from chronology to the special 
 mission , I not only accept, but I absolutely maintain, the opinion 
 of my learned first opponent, that we must not restrict this com¬ 
 mission ; on the contrary, it is fitting that we should always pro¬ 
 ceed with this good rule of wisdom dictated by Christ, who said 
 that the Gospel must be preached first in Jerusalem, then in Judea, 
 then in Samaria, and finally to the ends of the earth, which is as 
 much as to say, we should first act at home, then among the dis¬ 
 persed sheep of the house of Israel, and then among Gentiles. 
 
 I admit, then, that thus Peter was an Apostle of the Gentiles, 
 as well as of the Hebrews, as Paul was an Apostle of the Hebrews 
 as well as of the Gentiles. As to this we raise no question ; but 
 I insist that a special commission was given to these two Apostles. 
 I here speak particularly of the commission of St. Peter, because 
 that leads towards my conclusion. It was observed yesterday 
 evening that in what is said in the Epistle to the Galatians, we 
 
72 
 
 /?'■' 
 
 may see a friendly agreement between the Apostles, or, as would 
 be said in our day, a compromise. No, Gentlemen, it is not an 
 agreement nor a compromise; it is a special commission from 
 God Himself. And, observe, that if even it had been but an 
 agreement among themselves, being an agreement of persons 
 guided by the Spirit of God, we must always suppose that they 
 would have treated such an agreement made among them with 
 veneration. But I do not insist upon an agreement, but upon a 
 special commission, since I find in the Epistle of Paul to the 
 Galatians: (ii. 7-9 :) “ When they had seen that to me 
 was committed the Gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was 
 that of the circumcision, for He who wrought in Peter to the 
 Apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the 
 Gentiles, and when they had known the grace that was given to me, 
 James, and Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to 
 me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should 
 go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision.’* It is not 
 then an agreement, but it is that they recognised in him the grace 
 of the Lord, who had committed to him the Gospel for the uncir¬ 
 cumcised and the Gentiles. Thus it was a real commission, the 
 appointment of which came from God Himself. And now by this 
 commission, Gentlemen, (as yesterday evening for several reasons 
 of convenience my good and most excellent opponent observed 
 was most agreeable to the Jews,) I find that by this special com¬ 
 mission Peter should primarily and, in a certain mode, almost 
 exclusively labour for the Jews. He who had obtained, as 
 Ambrose says, a primacy, a primacy of faith, a primacy of 
 speech, among the Jews on the day of Pentecost, v h primacy which 
 God had promised him, and which he so maintained that Peter 
 was the first to publish the Gospel in Jerusalem on the day of 
 Pentecost: God granted to him, if you will, the primacy also 
 of action as well as the primacy of word, in the first announce¬ 
 ment of the Gospel to the Gentiles in Cmsarea, in the baptism of 
 the first from among them, which for us is a great national glory, 
 since it was an Italian, a Boman of the Cornelia family, and we 
 can say that for us it is glorious that the first Gentile converted 
 to Christianity, and baptized, was not only an Italian, but also a 
 Boman. 
 
 Peter took a principal part in the Council of Jerusalem, on the 
 question of the circumcision, and had to go to Antioch, where 
 Hebrews lived, particularly to deal with this question. 
 
73 
 
 It was objected yesterday, “ But if Peter laboured so rrmcn for 
 the Hebrews, he must necessarily have come to Rome, because 
 even at Rome there were Hebrews : ” but I reply, What could poor 
 Peter have done if he had been obliged to go wherever there 
 were Hebrews? He must have gone round the whole world, 
 because the Hebrews were scattered even then over the entire 
 world ; and I find that Paul met with them wherever he went. 
 Then even this is not a good argument, because in such a case 
 Peter would have been obliged, according to you, to perform over 
 again all the journeys made by Paul, to speak to the Hebrews 
 scattered everywhere. 
 
 But it is said that he must have come particularly to Rome, 
 because that in Rome the Hebrews were powerful. I reply that 
 in Rome they were not powerful as in Alexandria, where they were 
 morally and materially potent and influential, as also scientifically, 
 having there their famous academy, where indeed the version of the 
 Seventy was made. Perhaps on this account, he went to Alex¬ 
 andria? No. Then I find no reason why he should have come 
 to Rome, only because the Jews were powerful in it. 
 
 I ask pardon of my good and learned adversary if, in his 
 enthusiasm for Cicero, for whom I also am enthusiastic, he said 
 that he was obliged to speak low, because the Jews were power¬ 
 ful. In money I do not deny it, but by multitude, or by social 
 position, they were not powerful, because we know that, in spite 
 of the fact that in the time of Claudius and Nero Rome was not 
 what it was under Trajan,—we know positively that the authors 
 of that time did not set the number of Jews above five or six 
 thousand, and fi^e or six thousand Hebrews among five million 
 of Romans made only a very small fraction. 
 
 Then it cannot be said that he came here to evangelize the 
 Hebrews, and Peter must have gone where the Hebrews were not 
 only considerable for their money or social position, but where they 
 were in great number and of powerful influence, as they were in the 
 Chaldean provinces, whither his Apostleship called him, among the 
 dispersed sheep of the house of Israel. The Jews were numerous 
 in the provinces of Babylon, partly by recent immigration, partly 
 because many Hebrews had never returned after the Babylonian 
 captivity. We have Flavius and Strabo, who affirm that there were 
 myriads and myriads, and who make for us a calculation of not less 
 than four millions in the heart of Asia and in the provinces of 
 Babylon alone. Then, dear Gentlemen, let Peter go into the very 
 
74 
 
 centre of his Apostleship, into the midst of Babylon. But they will 
 say to me, “ Where will you make him go specially after that James 
 and John divided among themselves the Apostleship of the circum¬ 
 cision which they had held with Peter?” Leave John free to go 
 to Ephesus, leave James in Jerusalem, and follow Peter into the 
 centre of his mission, among the Hebrews, to the capital of the 
 dispersion of the twelve tribes, not as a proper capital, but because 
 it included the greater number of Israelitish strangers, or those of 
 the dispersion. When I find that it is Peter himself who testifies 
 to the fidelity of his mission, as this is the honour of his Apostle¬ 
 ship, why would ye wish to take it from him ? Peter received the 
 mission to the wandering sheep of the house of Israel: we find that 
 the centre of this mission is Babylon, as he testifies to me, and I 
 find that you wish to destroy this testimony, saying that the date of 
 his letter is a metaphor, and that consequently under this metaphor 
 we must understand Rome, and that Babylon must be taken as a 
 metaphor, and not otherwise. Then why must we take it for a 
 metaphor ? To hide himself. I do not say that my good and 
 learned opponents wished to advance this opinion, but some have 
 objected that it was done to conceal himself from his persecutors. 
 I repeat that it was not fear of the persecutors, all the more 
 because martyrdom had been prophesied for him by Christ Plimself. 
 Then it is not a metaphor to conceal himself. Is it a metaphor, 
 then, from poetical style or literary caprice? O, in an Apostle 
 that would be ridiculous. Yesterday evening it was said that a letter 
 would be ridiculous with a poetical date instead of a literal one, 
 and to-day I would call it ridiculous in the Ypostle St. Peter to 
 have employed this metaphor, because, remember, it was perhaps 
 later than the Apocalypse (which was so many years after) that the 
 death of Peter took place. Now the metaphor is used in the time 
 of Peter, and to the men who lived at the same time with Peter. 
 If the metaphor was used after the Apocalypse by a levity of style, 
 we might let it pass, but even then we should be obliged to observe 
 that John had written against Babylon, personifying it in the 
 woman who made the Kings and the people to commit fornication; 
 consequently he gave it a distinguishing mark, and called it Babylon 
 “theGreat.” But Peter did not say, Babylon the Great: he said 
 Babylon ; and as Babylon had not been named in his times by any 
 one, not even by John in the Apocalypse, then how can we 
 understand Rome by Babylon ? By Babylon I must understand 
 what it is, namely, the capital of Chaldea, which was the centre of 
 
75 
 
 bis true Apostlesbip, and his mission to the sheep of Israel. And 
 remember, there is yet another observation to be made, which is 
 inherent to the Bible, and it is when this word occurs, when he says, 
 “ The Church which is with me in Babylon elect with me salutes 
 you.” Now when I find constantly in all the Epistles that it is said 
 to me, “ The Church that is in Corinth,” “ The Church that is in 
 Ephesus,” “ The Church that is in Philippi,” “ salutes you,” why 
 will you have it that the Apostle when he comes forth to say, “ The 
 Church that is with me in Babylon,” meant Borne to be understood ? 
 It would have been an insult to Borne in his time to call it 
 Babylon, in the sense in which St. John called it so. And, 
 remember, that the commentators and students are not certain even 
 that by this word “Babylon ” pagan Borne was intended, because 
 some would have it that Borne was meant, and some Constan¬ 
 tinople. Then it cannot be said all at once that by Babylon even 
 John intended Borne, since if it is in doubt to-day among the 
 great commentators whether or not by Babylon in the Apocalypse 
 Borne was intended, we can still less understand Babylon to 
 mean Borne in the letter of St. Peter, which would be ridiculous 
 and insulting. 
 
 Yesterday evening I was told that the very position of the words 
 in this letter proves that it must have started from Borne instead 
 of Babylon. Were it not for the sincere veneration which I have 
 for my first objector, I should say that lie himself did not believe 
 in this geographical description, because, while the description of 
 the provinces is legitimate starting from Babylon, it becomes 
 altogether illegitimate starting from Borne. 
 
 Having perceived his error, he sought a pretext, and said that 
 the letter was dated from Borne, and consigned to navigators that 
 went to Pontus. But my learned adversary had before said that 
 to come to Borne Peter would have started from Caesarea, and that 
 he would have only taken about fifteen days on the voyage. But 
 then, why not make the letter go by the same road? Why make 
 it pass through the whole Mediterranean and part of the Adriatic, 
 enter the Hellespont, and go through the Black Sea to reach 
 Pontus ? Instead of this very long route, why not have chosen 
 the shortest ? 
 
 My opponent said that the letter passed over the longest route 
 because Peter had consigned it to the sellers of tunny fish. I do 
 not think that the Apostles consigned their letters to the sellers of 
 tunny fish, because 1 read that they did consign them always to 
 
76 
 
 the most faithful of the disciples. Hence, I cannot admit the 
 geography which was expounded to us yesterday evening, and I 
 believe that, considering the position of the countries indicated in 
 the letter of St. Peter, that letter itself could not have started from 
 Pome, but did start really from Babylon. 
 
 One of our adversaries displayed a certain emphatic wonder 
 because one of my excellent colleagues had quoted Michaelis, who 
 will not allow the meaning Rome for the expression “ Babylon.” 
 He said that if Michaelis excludes this interpretation, Grotius 
 thinks it natural and reasonable. Let Grotius think it rational or 
 not, it is nothing to me, because Eusebius does not think it rational. 
 Having cited the passage of Papias, Eusebius says, “ A report 
 circulated that this Mark, be it the Evangelist or be it the one 
 whom he mentions in his First Epistle, which professes to be written 
 from Babylon, and under that metaphor from Rome, and this,” adds 
 Eusebius, “ this metaphor is too hardy.” Thus, he speaks not of 
 a fact, but of a report that was in circulation, and we know what 
 reports in circulation are. 
 
 Then let Grotius admit the metaphor, though Eusebius finds it 
 too hardy. I should stand with Eusebius, and let my opponent 
 stand with Grotius. But there is something more: Jerome in his 
 commentary on Isaiah says that in his time the Hebrews tried to 
 substitute Rome for Babylon ; not wishing to confess the Babylo¬ 
 nian captivity, they referred to the Roman, and he says that one 
 must be a fool to permit them to substitute Rome for Babylon. 
 
 Then, Gentlemen, even for Jerome such a substitution would 
 have been a folly, and how can we admit it, much less wish it, 
 especially in the Epistle of St. Peter, which among other things 
 was inspired P And then the date of Babylon being for me the 
 true Babylon carries me where the Apostle Peter, faithful to his 
 Apostolic commission, planted the banner of his Apostleship, and 
 where he died; and here is the conclusion at which I arrive,— where 
 he died. But it is said, if he died in Babylon, why did that city 
 not make an outcry to reclaim the honour of the martyrdom of 
 St. Peter ? I reply without any emphasis that this is a very simple 
 matter; first of all because in the times of the blessed Apostles in 
 that primitive simplicity they did not make so much ado and so 
 much noise about the death, nay, not even of the Apostles. It is 
 true that in the profane history of Greece there were seven cities 
 that contended for Homer, but when I come into Christianity 1 
 find in the Acts of the Apostles that after Stephen was stoned his 
 
77 
 
 friends mourned for him, and buried him; that is all. Thus were 
 buried all the blessed Apostles who were martyred, and there was 
 no great stir made to receive their bones, and to honour them after 
 death. Here is a very simple reason drawn from the times. 
 
 In the second place it is said, “ But if he died in Babylon, and 
 Rome had claimed his death for herself, Babylon would have been 
 excited.” First of all, as at that time no one in Rome did claim the 
 death of Peter, Babylon was not excited. It began only in the 
 fourth century to be determined that Peter had been in Rome, for 
 it was never so determined previously, until the time when Babylon 
 was already what would now be called a diocese in partibus infi- 
 delium; and, hence, who was there to make reclamations? No 
 one. Thus, you see, that this objection is of no force. 
 
 But it is said, Why do you make him die in Babylon ? Because 
 I find that the final Epistles of the Apostles indicate to us the place 
 of their death. We know positively that Paul died in Rome, even 
 from the last Epistle that he wrote to Timothy, in which he gave 
 the announcement of his approaching decapitation; hence, he died 
 in Rome. But Peter wrote his second letter in the same city where 
 he had written the first, and this is undoubted, because it is directed 
 to the same dispersion, and because it speaks of his approach to 
 martyrdom, and prepares his flocks for it. This was written from 
 Babylon, and in Babylon did he die. Thus everything comes 
 naturally, and taking even the last of the objections drawn from the 
 word “Babylon,” this,however, considered in its simplicity, does not 
 at all prove that Peter ever was in Rome, since he remained faithful 
 to his commission, which was to the erring sheep of the house of 
 Israel. It is said, however, that his relics are in Rome; and 
 remember that many put forward this argument: “ If his relics are 
 in Rome, then he was martyred in Rome.” Here, it is said, is his 
 tomb, or his monument, or his trophy, or his martyr-memorial, and 
 therefore St. Peter was martyred in Rome. By no means : that 
 proves nothing. There was a martyr-memorial of Lorenzo at 
 Ravenna, and Lorenzo was not martyred at Ravenna; there was a 
 martyr-memorial of Stephen in Ancona, and Stephen was not 
 martyred in Ancona; there were twelve martyr-memorials in honour 
 of the Twelve Apostles in Constantinople in the time of St. Sophia, 
 and the Twelve Apostles were not martyred in Constantinople. 
 Then even should there be tombs, martyr-memorials, and trophies 
 of the Apostle Peter in Rome, that would not prove that he died 
 in Rome. But his relics? Softly with these relics, Gentlemen ! 
 
'/8 
 
 T do not speak of my own time, I speak of the times to which we 
 refer, which are the earliest ages of the Church. In Eome, I am 
 told, there is the body of St. Stephen in one of your basilicas; 
 remember, I am told it: I do not guarantee it; but because the 
 relics of St. Stephen are found in Eome, perhaps St. Stephen suffered 
 his martyrdom in Rome? Perhaps he never was present in Eome? 
 Then, Gentlemen, do not bring forward superficially the argument 
 of the relics of St. Peter in Eome. Granted that they were in Eome, 
 yet it would not be a valid argument, for they might have been 
 carried thither from somewhere else. 
 
 As to these relics, however, I find in Eusebius, since you are so 
 fond of this coeval ancient history, that Eusebius himself tells me 
 that it is not improbable that the relics of Peter were found in Eome 
 in the times of Nero. He says, it is not improbable. Then it is 
 not certain. And so Augustine speaks of it: Dicunt homines: 
 “ People say that the body of Peter is in Borne.” Further he says, 
 “ The body of Paul is there.” You see that as to Paul he affirms, 
 and as to Peter he suggests ,—People say so. Then Peter’s body 
 being here is a report, not a certainty; Paul’s is beyond doubt. 
 And, finally, I shall conclude by quoting what I find in Julian the 
 Apostate, (I should be sorry to find it only in Julian the Apostate, 
 but as I find it also in Cyril of Alexandria, who confirms it, and takes 
 it for a fact, which in his time he had received as certain information,) 
 that while John was writing his Gospel the trophies, the martyr- 
 memorials, the sepulchral urns, of the Apostles Peter and Paul 
 were carried in procession around from place to place by devout 
 bearers. The conclusion is, that you can found very little upon these 
 relics, and take it that everything stood in its own place, that 
 every one kept the body of his own Apostle. But yet tradition is 
 rumour, rumour, and nothing but rumour. We know of no city 
 that ever made a strife for the relics of the Apostles ; they were 
 left where they died; but we are not certain as to any one. 
 
 With the Bible in hand, Gentlemen, we have not only the proof 
 which is called “negative,” and silence which to me sufficiently 
 demonstrates that Peter never was in Eome, but we have positive 
 proofs and the other concomitant ones, of the crucifixion of the Apostle 
 Peter, of his special commission, of the Apostleship of Paul, and of 
 the date of Babylon, all which lead me to conclude that St. Peter 
 never did come to Eome. And if you refuse the certain testimony 
 of the Bible you must supplement it by an authentic historical 
 fact, by a contemporaneous affirmation, and that is what you will 
 
79 
 
 never be able to do. Now, not having other proofs to show that 
 St. Peter has been in Pome, you have fallen upon the Bible, which 
 is your rule of faith, and which can never contradict itself, and I 
 shall always reply to you, “ Prove by the Bible that St. Peter has 
 been in Borne, if you wish to stand by the Bible.” But Biblical 
 proof not being forthcoming, my opponents take refuge in contem¬ 
 porary history, and tell me that the silence of the Bible is com¬ 
 pensated for by historical affirmation. If, the negation of the 
 Bible being acknowledged in a historical question, we could have a 
 positive intimation of contemporary history, then we might dispute 
 whether or not we should receive the substitute ; but since I affirm 
 that contemporary history does not prove, either explicitly or 
 approximately, the coming of St. Peter to Borne, the Biblical 
 negative remains. Gentlemen, here we must not go forward with 
 uncertainties and obscurities, with, as Eusebius says, rumours that 
 circulate, vague reports, with “they say,” “it is supposed;” but 
 we must proceed on positive facts. Now when I speak of contem¬ 
 porary history, I mean true historians of the first grade. Conse¬ 
 quently, only contemporary historians are witnesses de visit, that is, 
 by eyesight, in so far as they have personal knowledge of the men 
 and things whereof they speak. 
 
 After these in the second grade come witnesses de auditu , who 
 receive from the witnesses de visu a narrative of the facts, and hand 
 them down, but in a second rank. 
 
 Then after these the third, that is, those who receive narrations 
 from the first which they have heard from them, and thus the 
 third are only collectors, and are but improperly called historians. 
 
 After the third I take no notice of the others. Let them come 
 by millions, I shall not any longer call them historians ; I shall call 
 them collectors, gatherers of information. I may call them 
 historians for the critical judgment and philosophy which they may 
 bring to the composition of these things, but true historians are 
 only coevals or contemporaries. And then if in one of these 
 posterior historians I find the things already said by the first 
 witnesses, I call him a copyist; if I find new things, 1 call him a 
 fabulist. But it is said, “ We have a great mass of these witnesses: 
 then the multitude itself proves that the fact was true and notorious.” 
 Softly, I shall proceed with a comparison. Titus Livius, the Boman 
 historian, when narrating things which he had collected from the 
 consular/a^i, from the inscriptions, from the monuments, and from 
 all that we call “ aids to history,” for the greater part is veracious 
 
80 
 
 and may be believed; but when he enters upon the “it is said” of 
 the vulgar, then he weaves fables of the origines of Eome which 
 lose themselves in Pagan mythology. But because these things 
 were said by Titus Livius, for seventeen centuries all admitted his 
 gossip upon the origin of Eome; but to-day, with criticism and 
 with philosophy, who any longer admits it? No one. Then to 
 what does the mass of witnesses which has been heaped up serve ? 
 And so, Gentlemen, in following centuries St. Peter in Eome 
 was invented, and it was not found in contemporary writers. If 
 even a million of those witnesses who were not either de visu or 
 de auditu , though most respectable men, should come forward and 
 affirm it, I should say that they were only fabulists. 
 
 In fact, yesterday evening it could not be denied that in 
 truth there were no contemporary writers but one, Clement, and all 
 the rest were secondary de auditu; add that the contemporary writer 
 has not one positive affirmation, not an explicit statement, but a 
 graceful allusion. And why ? cc Because,*' reply my opponents, 
 “the fact was so notorious that that sufficed.” Gently; because I 
 may reply on my side that the fact was so notorious that Peter had 
 died in the East, and Paul in the West, that it was sufficient to 
 allude to their death, because then, with the notorious facts, one 
 would believe that Paul had died in Eome, and the other would 
 believe that Peter had died in Babylon. Then let us go quietly 
 with this notorious fact, because it may be taken in the mode and 
 way in which every one understands it. But, Gentlemen, permit 
 me to say, when you have spoken of the graceful allusion, you have 
 not attributed much authority or reason to the historians whom you 
 have cited in your support. History does not arise from allusions, 
 but from truth. Prom allusions arise fables, mythology, and, if you 
 will, tradition. Truth is naked: allusions are a veil which covers 
 flaws. For history you do not need allusions; and if it is so, of 
 what use are your documents? 
 
 Yesterday you conceded much in saying that the passage from 
 St. Clement had been tampered with, and that for the words “ a 
 most noble example of our times,” the expression had been sub¬ 
 stituted, “ a most noble example of our city.” Then, having sub¬ 
 stituted “ city” for “ times,” you apply to Eome all that is said of 
 Christianity in general. But what did Clement say on that point ? 
 Clement, the single writer contemporary to the facts of which we 
 are speaking, when does he mention Peter ? He says that Peter, 
 after having endured many persecutions, suffered martyrdom. But 
 
81 
 
 where did he suffer persecutions? In the West? No; we find 
 that he suffered persecutions in Jerusalem, and in other parts of 
 the East. But when he comes to speak of Paul, what does he say ? 
 He says, that after having traversed all the West, even to its extreme 
 boundaries, he gave up his life in the face of the Governors of the 
 world. Bemark in what manner he specifies Borne! Now, in 
 the only coeval writer who speaks of these facts you do not find 
 one word touching the presence of Peter in Borne, while he 
 authenticates the presence of Paul in this city. 
 
 Not to take up time, I shall not speak of the testimony of 
 Ignatius, because Baronius and Bellarmine tell me that it is not 
 testimony to be produced. As to Papias, regarding whom there 
 was so much discussion yesterday, I congratulate myself that even 
 my excellent opponents have acknowledged the authenticity of the 
 text of Eusebius, not interpolated specially from the margin of 
 Valesius; namely, that Papias was a man of very narrow under¬ 
 standing, but they wished to add that he was very accurate in his 
 investigations, and in collecting facts. Bid:, Gentlemen, when you 
 give me a man of very narrow mind, you give me one of those who 
 are called credulous, and mere store-closets (creduli e credenzoni) 
 collectors of everything. Such a one will collect even sweepings, 
 A man who has left the specimen of his sense which was mentioned 
 with regard to the millennium of Jesus Christ, a man whom you 
 yourself acknowledge to be of the shortest sight in doctrinal matters, 
 how can you attempt to make him an eagle in historical matters ? 
 Such a man can be nothing more than a collector of everything 
 which comes to hand. Bemember, that of this author but one 
 single passage exists, that which has been reported by Eusebius, 
 and in which it is said that Mark, from memory, dictated the things 
 which he had heard from Peter at the instance of those who in the 
 East had been edified by his doctrine and his eloquence. Eusebius 
 adds that these hints were given by Clement of Alexandria, and 
 confirmed by Papias. This is an error in logic for which we must 
 pardon Eusebius; he ought to have said that these historical hints 
 were given by Papias, and were confirmed by the Alexandrine. But, 
 remember, that he says that Mark set down from memory what he 
 had heard. Then Mark, when he indited his Gospel, was not where 
 Peter had been; he indited it, Peter not being present. Hence, of 
 Peter we know only this, and this does not prove that Peter was in 
 Home. We know from Clement that when the Gospel of Mark 
 was presented to Peter he was surprised at it, which proves that it 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 was not written under his dictation. What then does your Papias 1 
 prove in favour of Peter in Rome, when you have not the first 
 writers de visu ? You say that Irenseus tells that Papias was a 
 hearer of John, but you have Eusebius who refutes Irenseus, and 
 says that he was not a hearer of John, but that he had heard those 
 who had heard the Apostles. Then he is a witness de auditu; 
 coeval history does not give us any positive proof that Peter was in 
 Rome. I come then to my conclusion, and say that in the mode 
 of appreciating facts we have a confusion and variety. You will 
 have it that Peter was in Rome, and before you, many writers, and * 
 of the best, if you will, from the fourth century downwards, have 
 said this; but I say that Eusebius neither in his Chronicon , nor in 
 his History, affirmatively or explicitly proves that Peter ever w T as 
 in Rome. 
 
 I know the five passages, and if I had to answer them I should 
 say that in no one of the five passages is there a single affirmative 
 and explicit word as to the coming of St. Peter to Rome, but the 
 original Chronicon from which especially Peter’s pontificate of 
 twenty-five years is derived, you know that it does not exist; 
 and that the first volume of the Chronicon , which you have now, 
 is of Cedrenus, and of Syncellus, in the eleventh century. The 
 second volume is Scaliger’s; and as to the translation of Jerome, we 
 can take little account of it, because Scaliger, who was very 
 learned, had to accuse him of ignorance of the Greek of 
 Eusebius. I, however, say, that the original Chronicon no longer 
 exists, and that of Jerome is only a paraphrase and interpolation 
 of an amanuensis. As to Eusebius as a philosophical collector of 
 ancient history, Gentlemen, I maintain (though I do not accept 
 him as a contemporary witness, seeing that he was of the fourth 
 century) that nevertheless in his real History, in the body of it, there 
 is nothing that positively affirms the coming of St. Peter to Rome. 
 
 But the foundation of the Church of Rome has been spoken of. 
 
 It is certain that Peter contributed to the foundation of the Church 
 of Rome, that he took a part in it both by his sermon on the day of 
 Pentecost, by means of his neophytes, and by means of his 'pro¬ 
 clamation, by which he confirmed the believers in the faith of Jesus 
 Cnrist. And I speak of this as of a thing which, having appeared 
 toward the end of the first century, was accepted in the middle 
 of the second; but at Rome in person he was not. 
 
 As to the chair of St. Peter, I heard it said yesterday that 
 Cyprian and Irenseus speak of this chair of St. Peter; but what 
 
83 
 
 does the chair of St. Peter mean? Perhaps yon intend a 
 material piece of furniture that is preserved in the Vatican. Put 
 the chair of St. Peter does not mean a material piece of furniture. 
 It is the same St. Jerome who tells us that by the chair of the 
 Apostles he means the doctrines of the Apostles. This is its true 
 signification, and it is on this account that I find in the fathers at 
 one time the chair of St. Peter, at another time of St. Paul, at 
 other times the chair of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, 
 because it is the doctrine of the Apostles. Wherefore, when 
 we speak of the chair of Peter in Pome, we mean the doctrine 
 of Peter in Rome, who sent hither his converts, and his 
 proclamation. But this is in its true signification non-material, 
 because thus it agrees with the fine expression of Cyprian, and 
 of Augustine, that Rome is the chair of Christ. 
 
 And now, Gentlemen, what remains for me to come to my 
 conclusion ? 
 
 They say, “And you Evangelicals to-day wish to dispute a 
 thing, which even the ancient heretics, and the most distinguished 
 modern Protestants, admit as in fact true ! ” As to the ancient 
 heretics, little do I care for them, because the ancient dissidents 
 from Rome had not even an opportunity of impugning the coming 
 of Peter to Rome. For certain, they could not have denied it, 
 because it had not as yet been advanced, neither affirmed by any 
 one; and how do you expect that they would deny a thing which 
 had not even been hinted at ? 
 
 My good adversaries have said that in the first centuries there 
 were only allusions. Now if there were only allusions, they were 
 not affirmations, and no one had occasion to deal with an allusion 
 to contradict it. Opponents and contradictors had something 
 else to do. They did not even know of this pretended coming 
 of Peter to Rome, much less of his having been Pontiff here. 
 They might give a pretext to our opponents to affirm that they 
 came to Rome to lead away and to entangle the Pontiffs; but this 
 would be another subject, because at Rome in the third and fourth 
 centuries they only began to operate, and the primacy over other 
 Churches was beginning to take form, but were we obliged to 
 enter upon the argument of the primacy, we should stray far from 
 the question. 
 
 Protestants of authority have opposed our view! They have 
 admitted the coming of Peter to Rome ! Gentlemen, by the grace 
 of God I am independent in my opinion and in my conscience. I 
 
 f 2 
 
do not stand by any man, when I am persuaded by my Bible, which 
 is my sole rule of faith, that it absolutely repels any admission that 
 Peter ever was in Borne, then if all the Protestants of the world 
 should encamp against the Bible, and all the rationalistic heretics, 
 I should not surrender. They have their school, but I do not 
 recognise it, and although to you they appear most distinguished, 
 I stand with old Horace. 
 
 Si fractus ill ah at ur orhis, 
 
 Impavidum ferient ruince / 
 
 1 do not wish to let fall anything which is not fitting to be said 
 m this our friendly, not to say fraternal and Christian, discussion. 
 
 Yesterday evening I heard it said that the coming of St. Peter to 
 Borne must be held because even painters have magnified it and 
 illustrated it. Gentlemen, let us leave the artists to their calling, 
 and let us fulfil ours, which is the discovery of truth from among 
 fables and allegories. If I had to believe all the fantasticalities and 
 whims of the artists, I should have to believe that the three Magi 
 were of three different colours, to believe in the existence of St. 
 Veronica ( Veron-icon ) as a real woman that wiped the countenance of 
 Christ, and who never existed ; I should have to believe in cherubims 
 with nothing but a head and two wings, and even that the eternal 
 Father consists in an eye within a triangle. (A laugh.) O, let the 
 artists follow their caprices, but do not drag them into a serious 
 argument! We are not making sentiment, we are making history. 
 
 Do not make any appeal to me, nor to the Bomans, nor to the 
 Catholics. Do not say to the Bomans that their glory is tarnished, 
 that of having had St. Peter for their Apostle, which, even though 
 in person he did not come to Borne, they have had just the same, 
 as all other Christians, because they had the first lights of 
 the Gospel from his disciples, or were confirmed by his proclama¬ 
 tions. It is already a great glory for the Bomans to be certain that 
 they have had an Apostle to be evangelist, and to confirm their 
 Churches. Let them hold up their head because they have had the 
 greatest of all the Apostles, for they had St. Paul, since it is not 
 becoming to offer to Peter a fictitious glory which in the Gospel he 
 has not; but when we refer to true evangelical glory, Paul, although 
 he calls himself the least, laboured more than all the other 
 Apostles, and was the greatest teacher of the Gentiles. Hence, 
 greater is the glory to have had Paul, not only by his Epistle, but 
 also by his personal evangelization; and this is enough as to the 
 aopeal to the Bomans. 
 
85 
 
 As to the appeal to the Catholics it is said, “ What would become 
 of the Church, if St. Peter had not been in Rome?” What would 
 become of it ? But Christ has promised to be with the Church to 
 the end of the world, not with Peter, not with Paul, nor by means 
 of Peter nor by means of Paul, but by His Spirit, and where 
 the Spirit of Christ is, there is no need of the Church of Peter or 
 of Paul. And as to superintending it, regulating it, sanctifying it, 
 completing it in every work of holiness and in eternal salvation; 
 there is the written Word, of which it is said in the Second Epistle 
 ot St. Paul to Timothy, iii. 16 : “ All Scripture inspired of God is 
 profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that 
 the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” 
 
 I recapitulate. The Evangelicals deny the coming of St. Peter to 
 Rome; they deny that St. Peter ever was in Rome ; and they deny 
 it, sustained by the only history which should have said that St. Peter 
 had been in Rome ; and as the only history which should have said 
 it has not said it, as the Scripture, impartial and inspired, which 
 should have narrated it, has not narrated it, then the Evangelicals 
 say with the Bible, and maintain, and affirm, and will never be 
 defeated, that St. Peter has never been in Rome. 
 
 Our adversaries will not admit our proof, because they say that 
 it is not sufficient, although logical; and they contend on the other 
 hand that their historical proof is true, which not only is not 
 explicit, but is not even logical, since they have nothing of posi¬ 
 tive affirmation that St. Peter was in Rome, and by themselves 
 this history has already been called a graceful allusion. And then 
 in what do we go round and round ? We turn round and 
 revolve in tradition. They would crush us Evangelicals 
 under a heap, an immense multitude of testimonies, and those 
 after several centuries, believing that with these they have not 
 only felled us, but beaten us to pieces, and dispersed even our 
 memory. In the first century there is only Clement: your writers 
 of the second, who are few, and say, in fact, nothing, your seconds 
 are only clouds before the sun; in the third,—and follow down, 
 down, as was said yesterday evening, down to Gregory the Great 
 and to Augustine, and coming still further down to Thomas 
 Aquinas and Bernard of Chiarovalle, and still down to the 
 thirteenth century; all the rest is only a troop of apes, copying the 
 earliest centuries; only a multitude of parrots repeating what 
 contemporaries have said; only a flock of sheep, of which it may 
 be said with Dante, 
 
 Love Vuna va e Valtre vannoJ 
 
86 
 
 “ Where one goes, there go the others.” This is said by way of 
 comparison. 
 
 Gentlemen, we are serious. If you have not the first 
 and the second century to give you a history of Peter in 
 Rome, do not count millions of historians who cannot say it 
 except by inference. And then my conclusion is this, that your 
 traditions, that this accumulation of testimonies, and specially 
 the testimonies coming after the third and fourth centuries, are 
 like to soap bubbles launched in the air by children; they are 
 shining, they beautifully refract the sunlight, but the breath of a 
 babe dissolves them. You say that tradition is to be respected, 
 because it arises from a notorious fact. But I tell you that the 
 well-known fact may be known in. different ways. Gentlemen, if 
 you would be tenacious of tradition, remember the advice of an 
 ancient writer,—advice which cannot offend any one, because it is 
 not we that have created the tradition. “ Tradition then,” says 
 this writer, “ must be held in the same account as a liar. No one 
 believes in the liar, even when he tells the truth. In order to 
 believe a liar they demand testimony that will justify his 
 
 statements. The same is the case with tradition.” Bind in the 
 Bible one proof which attests as true the fact of the coming of St. 
 Peter to Rome, related to us by tradition, and then we will believe, 
 not by force of the tradition, but because of the Bible, which 
 
 will have confirmed it. We, the Evangelicals, are disciples of 
 
 the truth, because disciples of the Bible. W r e are neither 
 
 heretics nor apostates, as you call us, since we follow r the Bible. 
 Then so long as the Bible demonstrates to us, not with negative 
 proofs but with positive ones, that Peter did not come to Rome, 
 so long as we do not find the journey of St. Peter to Rome 
 attested by the Bible, as it would have been had St. Peter come 
 to Rome, we Evangelicals will persist in our conclusion, that 
 Peter never was in Rome. 
 
 The President. —It is now the turn of the Catholic Priest Signor 
 Guidi. 
 
 Guidi, —Before I begin to reply to our learned opponent, I may 
 be allowed to premise. 
 
 The Presidents would inform the speaker, that his opponents 
 gave up the right of reply, which might be a guide to him. 
 
 Sciarelli. —We do give up the right to reply, because we believe 
 that what has been said by Signor Gavazzi sums up all the argu¬ 
 ments necessary to prove our Thesis, and that whatever reasons 
 
87 
 
 our opponents may adduce cannot weaken wliat has been said by 
 Signor Gavazzi. 
 
 Fabiani. — I accept what has been stated. My colleague 
 Guidi shall reply, and the public shall judge. 
 
 Guidi. —Before beginning to reply to our opponent, I may be 
 allowed to premise that no one must be surprised at the calm 
 and quiet, if you will, the cold manner in which I intend to reply 
 to what has been said against our Thesis. It is not by any means 
 for want of love to the truth I maintain; it is only because 
 that in questions to which one ought to apply one’s self with all 
 imaginable diligence and gravity, matters so grand, so serious, 
 I do not regard as suitable a style so vivacious, so impassioned, 
 and, permit me to say, almost scenic and dramatic, which I can 
 admire in my opponent, but do not choose for myself. 
 
 I feel that I ought to reply with all the rigour dictated to me by 
 logic and the philosophy of history. Let us understand one another ! 
 by no means that logic and philosophy of history which teach 
 us abstractions, subtleties, speculations, after the manner one might 
 say of Kant and Hegel, but logic and the philosophy of history 
 such as mother Nature has put in the mind, and heart, and 
 upon the lips of all, the greatest among the learned and erudite 
 equally with the child and the untutored and vulgar man. 
 
 The laws of logic teach me many things, but I shall only name 
 them. First, they teach me that before proceeding to discuss a 
 question, it is necessary well to establish the kind and value of the 
 arguments w T e are going to employ. 
 
 Our opponents have always repeated, they repeat thousands and 
 thousands of times, that their single proof is the Scripture. Now 
 they will permit me to remark that in this pretension of our 
 opponents there is something equivocal, and equivocal in that 
 which logically needs to be extremely clear. It is equivocal in 
 this, that the Scripture is used in the same manner in a question 
 merely historical as it would be in a doctrinal one. Whether 
 Scripture is the only source of proof for doctrines, for what is to 
 be believed by a Christian, is a question that I do not touch. It is 
 the one that divides us Catholics from the Protestants. 
 
 Beside the Scripture we admit the Divine traditions; we admit 
 the authority of the Church, and the Protestants do not admit it: 
 they will net have it, and we shall not attempt to prove which is 
 right. But this is altogether apart from the present question, which 
 i3 a historical question. When the Scriptures are brought in to 
 
88 
 
 decide a historical question, then, to intrench one's self behind 
 Scripture is the same as all at once denying us any other 
 argument such as history may suggest, or criticism, or those 
 monuments from which men learn facts. Tacts, which as was well 
 observed by my colleague yesterday evening, may perhaps assume a 
 doctrinal value, do not on that account lose their own nature, their 
 essence as facts, and facts purely historical. 
 
 Facts, then, are not to be proved only by Scripture; but they 
 may be proved by the whole of those documents which all men in 
 all times according to common sense have called in as tests whether 
 a fact had taken place or not. I repeat then that to intrench one’s 
 self behind the Scriptures alone in order to decide a historical 
 fact, if the expression be allowed me, is fanaticism, is superstition, 
 is ignorance, (movement,) is to deny all from which, beside the 
 Scriptures, we have the right, denied to us by no one, to learn facts 
 discoverable by science and by natural criticism. This 
 distinction, Gentlemen, which is logical, and I may say also 
 historical, lies in our question itself, because—mark, if our question 
 was not purely historical, but if doctrine entered into it, and if we 
 in a question simply historical were to deal only with Scripture, 
 then all those who dissent from our doctrine must also dissent from 
 our history. 
 
 But it is quite the contrary. In fact, in the question with which 
 for these two evenings we are occupied we have, Gentlemen, three 
 opinions:—the one, that generally received by Catholics, that St. 
 Peter not only came to Rome, not only died in Rome, but that his 
 permanent residence lasted for twenty-five years or thereabout. And 
 on this point it may not be unnecessary to remark that, if one of my 
 colleagues yesterday evening said, that for our Thesis an hour would 
 suffice, that a day in which Peter had been in Rome would suffice, 
 it must by no means be argued that therefore we concede that St. 
 Peter was not twenty-five years in Rome. That is quite a different 
 master. We have acted by concession, and we retired simply to 
 maintain our Thesis, and I repeat, as my colleague repeated, in 
 order to maintain our Thesis, that St. Peter has been in Rome, a day 
 suffices, an hour suffices. (Movement.) The second opinion is 
 that of Protestants who are called “ moderate,” who maintain that 
 Peter at the very least in the concluding years of his life came and 
 died in Rome. And lest you should believe that I am uttering 
 uncertain and doubtful opinions, that I am making myself 
 sponsor for my own opinions, permit me to read some brief 
 
89 
 
 words of a Protestant author. We have a very recent document, a 
 Biblical Dictionary printed by Bouttel, published in the year 1871. 
 In this book, in the article upon St. Peter, it is said,—that St. Peter 
 did not visit Rome before the last years of his life, but in that 
 period he took an active and important part in aiding St. Paul in 
 completing the formation of the Roman Church, are points which, 
 although they may be disputed, ought to be considered as firmly 
 established; and even this is positively certain, that the preaching 
 of his Lord was crowned in Rome by the martyrdom of St. 
 Peter at the same time, or thereabout, when St. Paul became a 
 martyr. After Bouttel I might name Pearson, Geisler, and Cave; 
 but I am bound specially to name the learned Ernest de Bunsen, 
 who wrote on the fifth of June last year a letter in the “ Times,” 
 in which he acknowledged the coming of St. Peter to Rome in the 
 year 42, especially relying on the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, 
 where Eusebius says, that in the reign of Claudius, according to the 
 Armenian version, in the second year of his reign, that is, in the 
 forty-second of the Christian era, Philo had familiar intercourse 
 with St. Peter in Rome, while St. Peter was preaching the Gospel. 
 
 Then it is a fact, that among the Protestants themselves, indeed, 
 one might say, universally among the moderate Protestants, the 
 coming of St. Peter to Rome, and his death, or at least his coming 
 for a certain time, is held. Those who deny this coming and this 
 death of Peter in Rome are only the exaggerated Protestants, those 
 who border upon the Rationalists, who, if they deny our traditions 
 and the authority of our Church, equally deny the Bible. (Move¬ 
 ment.) I do not say this in the least to place our opponents in the 
 same category with the Rationalists. No. I do not wish to make 
 any insinuations : I do not wish to offer an affront to any one. On 
 the contrary, I ought to thank our opponents for the courtesy 
 which they have been pleased to show to us in this our disputation, 
 and thus again, in return, I have no difficulty in professing that if 
 I cannot respect and esteem their opinions, I do, however, respect 
 and esteem their persons: indeed I have no difficulty in here affirm¬ 
 ing that I love them, and that I love them with the love which is 
 not of flesh and blood, but with the love which Jesus Christ 
 commands, that we may love all men though they be our enemies. 
 
 I have brought forward the various opinions of Protestants only 
 to demonstrate that not only is it logical, but that in the very nature 
 of modern science the distinction between Scripture as a source of 
 doctrine, and Scripture as a source of historical information, exists. 
 
The Scripture, as a source of historical information, must be com¬ 
 pleted, must be united with other means, which, in the natural 
 order, we employ to acquire the knowledge of facts. Faith, 
 Gentlemen, all know, does not destroy science; faith does not 
 destroy criticism, because grace has not to destroy nature, but to 
 complete it, to exalt, to sublime. 
 
 This remark being made with regard to the logic which we ought 
 to employ in this investigation, I would in the second place observe, 
 and logic teaches it to us, that in every inquiry it is, before all 
 things, necessary to remove and eliminate whatever does not belong 
 to the question itself. Therefore, in the first place, we ought to 
 eliminate all that a little while ago has fallen from the lips of our 
 opponents with regard to our beliefs, specially with regard to the 
 docility of Catholics; more particularly with regard to what is 
 called our credulity. We ought to eliminate all that was said with 
 regard to the Arabian phoenix mentioned by Clement, which has 
 nothing to do with Pontifical Infallibility, as even a child among 
 the Catholics would know, and which has, so to speak, less than 
 nothing to do with the question of the coming of St. Peter to Pome. 
 In the second place, logic teaches us to keep secondary questions 
 in their place, as in every inquiry the easiest criticism and the 
 most elementary has always taught that it is necessary to deter¬ 
 mine the substance of the fact by separating it from all its accidents. 
 
 Por the accessory circumstances the same unanimity that is 
 necessary for the substance of fact is by no means claimed. And 
 not only so, but the variety, the diversity, which may exist among 
 various narrators, has always been taken, not to weaken, not to 
 invalidate, but to strengthen, and better establish the substance of 
 the fact itself, inasmuch as variety in the accidents shows that 
 the writers have not copied one from the other, but have written 
 each one by conscience, by conviction, by intentions of his own. 
 It shows even better, that these writers had drawn from different 
 sources; consequently, the greater the variety in the accidents 
 of the question, so much greater is the proof, that many sources 
 existed from which the certainty of the fact itself could be drawn. 
 In the category of matters absolutely secondary, I place both the 
 question of chronology, and the question as to Babylon. I regret 
 having to reiterate what has been said by my colleagues; I 
 regret having to adduce some arguments with regard to which the 
 saying may be repeated, “ They are the old stories of the Catholics; ” 
 but what else would you have ? Truth has no date; truth is not lor 
 
91 
 
 yesterday, nor for to-day, nor for to-morrow ; truth, which is Christ 
 Himself, truth is eternal; it is yesterday, to-day, and for all the cen¬ 
 turies. Now, if it is necessary every day, every hour, every moment, 
 if you please, to repeat the same truth, we should not be so silly 
 as to cease to repeat those truths, only seeking a variety in what 
 is said. The same errors are opposed to us, the same difficulties, 
 and we should confront them with the same verities. 
 
 As to chronology, we have from the beginning fixed this criterion. 
 In the question which engages us, the substance of the fact is, that 
 St. Peter did come to Rome. To this fact is attached a great 
 difficulty in chronology as to when it occurred. This, then, ought 
 not to cause any one to wonder, because it is experienced equally 
 by the Catholics, the Protestants, and the Rationalists, because 
 thousands and thousands of opinions, so to speak, exist with regard 
 to this diversity of chronology. 
 
 Now, no one has ever dreamed that the difference in the estimate 
 of the chronology of a fact can be an argument for denying the 
 fact itself, when, independently of chronology, it is established. It 
 is said that chronology excludes the coming of St. Peter to Rome; 
 but what system of chronology? That which some one may 
 invent, that which some one may suppose; but we, by the same 
 right, could oppose to that another, and yet another, scheme of 
 chronology, into which the coming of St. Peter to Rome would 
 very easily enter. To decide, then, which is the true chronology, logic 
 teaches us to advance from known to unknown, from the more 
 to the less certain; it teaches us to follow that which is really 
 ascertained. Now, what is ascertained is the fact of the coming 
 of St. Peter to Rome ; what is uncertain, is the chronology. Let 
 us hope that we may be able to find this chronology, certain always 
 that the criterion whereby to judge the truth of it will be that St. 
 Peter did arrive in Rome, and our opponent himself has not been 
 able to deny in this chronological question that we must be content 
 with dates more or less approximate. He, himself, has had recourse 
 to other dates than those which are in the Bible; dates drawn 
 from Roman history. This I point out in passing, to demonstrate 
 that even our opponents cannot confine themselves, when they are 
 speaking of historical facts, to the sole argument, to the simple 
 word of Scripture. (Movement.) 
 
 He has made a comparison between the chronology of the 
 arrival of St. Peter in Rome, (said to be imagined by Catholics,) 
 and that of the arrival of St. Paul; and has endeavoured to show 
 
that in this chronology exists a sure foundation whence to 
 demonstrate the arrival of St. Paul in Pome. Gentlemen, on this 
 question permit me to repeat a little what I said not long ago as to 
 the logical value of Scriptural proofs in dealing with purely histori¬ 
 cal facts, and I return to it in order to say that if from the 
 Scriptures alone we ought to decide or to deny the coming of 
 St. Peter to Pome, then from the Scriptures alone we ought to deny 
 so many other facts. 
 
 For example, no one can deny that in the Scriptures Augustus 
 is spoken of, no one can deny that in the Scriptures his death is 
 supposed, because his successors are mentioned; but where in the 
 Scriptures does it stand written that Augustus died in Nola? 
 Must we say, then, on this account, that the going of Augustus to 
 Nola is false? And I might say even in the Scriptures it is not 
 said where Paul died; it is not said either where or when. Now 
 should we deny the death of Paul in Pome, because the Scripture 
 is silent regarding it P Certainly, no one would receive this 
 argument. In chronology we are told that St. Paul’s arrival in 
 Pome can be fixed wdth some certainty, by the date of Portius 
 Festus in Caesarea. Well, notwithstanding all this probability for 
 fixing the arrival of this personage, the greatest difference reigns 
 among the erudite concerning the chronology of the arrival of Paul 
 in Pome. No one can deny, T say, no one that has any knowledge 
 of critical studies which have been pushed to perfection in our 
 time, that the opinions of chronologists on the arrival of St. Peter 
 in Pome, vary not less than ten years, and even more. 
 
 After this I ask, Have the chronological difficulties as to the arrival 
 of St. Paul in Pome ever caused it to be suspected that St. Paul 
 did not die in Pome ? No, certainly. 
 
 The chronological difficulties as to the arrival of Peter in Pome— 
 with what right should they cause it to be suspected that St. 
 Peter did not come and did not die in Pome ? I repeat, then, 
 the chronological question is not ours. To all the difficulties 
 which can be drawn from this quarter I reply, a fact does not 
 depend upon its chronology. And if this is true of a fact of 
 whatever kind related in whatever history, declared by whatever 
 author, O Gentlemen, above all must it be averred when we speak 
 of facts which, it is taken for granted, must necessarily be registered 
 in the Bible, because the Bible does not give us, and does not 
 care, so to speak, to give us, dates ? 
 
 Indeed, I say further, in the Acts of the Apostles themselves it 
 
93 
 
 is doubted by the erudite whether the first chapters are distributed in 
 chronological order. In the very letters written by the Apostles 
 the dates on which they were written are wanting, and while we 
 see so great exactness in the Pagan writers in giving the dates on 
 which they wrote their letters, we see either that the Apostles who 
 wrote did not themselves care to give them, or that the Christians 
 who received their letters did not care to preserve them. 
 
 All this shows that, if it is vain in any other history to make 
 the substance of a fact depend upon its chronology, it is, beyond 
 all expression, vain when we have to do with facts which it is 
 supposed ought to be recorded in the Bible. 
 
 In the second place, I believe that we ought to number among 
 secondary questions, as to which, so far as concerns the substance 
 of our fact, we need not care, all that has been said about 
 Babylon. Gentlemen, on this subject I ought first to point out a 
 misapprehension of our opponents. What was said yesterday 
 evening concerning the opinions that explained Babylon by Borne, 
 and concerning the arguments which might sustain that hypothesis, 
 was taken and was believed as if it was our opinion and our judg¬ 
 ment, and such a judgment and opinion of ours that upon its truth 
 should depend the truth or falsehood of our Thesis. 
 
 I return again to logic. Against the authority of Michaelis, which 
 was quoted against us to prove that by Babylon Borne could not be 
 meant, we have opposed the authority of a writer much more 
 recent and much more learned than Michaelis, who maintains that 
 by Babylon Borne may be very well understood. Carrying 
 the argument further for this opinion, we have not rested 
 anything upon it. We have expounded it, and we have said that 
 it was sufficient, at the least, to have a probability, and, if you wish 
 so to say, a possibility for this opinion. Nothing more would be 
 necessary, I repeat, according to logic. We need not make the 
 arrival of St. Peter in Borne depend upon the Question of his 
 letters written from Babylon, since it has been already demon¬ 
 strated; and it is vain to repeat it, that even if Peter had 
 written that letter from Babylon, still Peter could very well have 
 come to Borne. Then, precluding every question that might be raised 
 with regard to the sense of the word “ Babylon,” it is impossible to 
 demonstrate that St. Peter on that account did not come to Borne. 
 
 In the third place, among the things which, according to histo¬ 
 rical logic, are of secondary importance, and consequently ought 
 not to be looked upon as substantial difficulties against our Thesis 
 
94 
 
 is the difference in the missions of Peter and Paul. Here, it seems 
 to me, there has been more a play of words than serious argument. 
 
 Gentlemen, who is there that can deny that St. Peter, together 
 with the special patronage, call it what you will, of the Jews, had 
 also a mission to the whole world ? I believe it is vain to demon¬ 
 strate it. The very words of Peter, when, for the first time, he 
 finds himself before his united brethren, showed too clearly the 
 sublimity of his mission, which was not limited to the places 
 where were the Hebrews, but extended so as to have no other 
 confines than those of the earth. Again, who can deny that Paul, 
 together with the special mission which he had for the Gentiles, 
 could and should also preach to the Jews P for Paul himself 
 affirms that he ought to announce the word and to carry the grace of 
 God to all the nations, it is true, without excluding the Jews ; 
 “ Judceo primum et Graeco." 
 
 Then this mission, this distribution of duties, could not in any 
 way exclude either the commission which Peter held over all the 
 faithful, or the commission which Paul had to make known the 
 truth also to the Hebrews. It could not shut out in any way the 
 mission which Peter had to teach the truth to the whole world. 
 Then in St. Peter we ought to distinguish two missions; the one 
 particular, special, which referred to the Jews, the other, universal, 
 which referred to the whole Church. This mission it was that 
 resulted from the words which we read in the Gospel, and which 
 no one among the Protestants or the Rationalists has been able to 
 root out of it, from the words with which Christ declared that Peter 
 is the rock on which He will build His Church, so that the gates 
 of hell shall not prevail against her. 
 
 Sciarelli—To the Thesis ; to the Thesis. That is beside the 
 question. (Movement.) 
 
 President Dominicis.—I beg the audience to be silent, and to 
 allow the speaker to proceed with his discourse. 
 
 Guidi.—I may declare that in making this quotation I have not 
 strayed from the question, because this passage would have 
 shown the universal mission of Peter. (Applause on the right.) 
 
 Ribetti—We also admit the universal mission. 
 
 Guidi.—Consequently it would have demonstrated that St. 
 Peter might come, ought to have come, to Rome, if not for a 
 special mission to the Hebrews, at least for the universal 
 mission, which he had for the whole world. 
 
 President Piggott. —The universal mission being admitted, I 
 think that it is not necessary to enter upon this argument. 
 
95 
 
 Guidi. — It is on this account that I maintain, that this 
 question ought to be placed among the secondary in our Thesis. 
 Moreover I believe that it was sufficiently shown yesterday evening, 
 that in Eome not only the multitude but the importance of the Jews 
 was such as might well call St. Peter here even for his special 
 mission to the Hebrews. When Cicero said that he must speak 
 with a low voice, on account of the Hebrews, he did not at all 
 allude to their other qualities, but alluded only to their multitude : 
 when, truly from this text we gather the spread of the Hebrews in 
 Eome, which besides is gathered from many other things, as you 
 have already heard, which demonstrate their importance at that 
 time in Eome. 
 
 Then, I repeat, this variety in the missions of Paul and Peter 
 cannot and ought not in any way to enfeeble or to weaken the 
 coming of Peter to Eome. It is, then, one of the secondary 
 circumstances not to be taken into calculation when treating of the 
 substance of the fact. 
 
 Logic teaches me that when occupied with the proof of a 
 fact I ought above all things to calculate its importance. Gentle¬ 
 men, it is said that we have not explicit contemporary witnesses 
 who affirm the coming of St. Peter to Eome. Well, were it even 
 so, were we obliged to conclude that none of those contemporary 
 witnesses can give us information of the arrival of St. Peter at 
 Eome,—I ask our opponents what would become of all the history 
 of humanity if we laid down this criterion. Is everything to be 
 denied that is not attested by explicit contemporary testimony? 
 the grand, the immense portion of history which would dis¬ 
 appear altogether 1 This would be a work of demolition as to all 
 that treasure of historical knowledge, which with certainty we 
 possess, although we have not coeval historical documents. 
 
 But in the mean time the reality, the truth is this, that when for a 
 fact, great, important, universal, we cannot give a reason but by 
 affirming the truth of another fact, the testimony of this latter fact, 
 the cause, is living, and present, and coeval, in proportion as is 
 living, present, and coeval, the verity of the other fact the conse¬ 
 quence. Permit me to remind you that when we speak of the long 
 series of witnesses, of writers, of the fathers of the Church who 
 affirmed the arrival of St. Peter in Eome; when we speak of this 
 long series, we do not at all reckon them one by one as we might 
 enumerate one after another the various witnesses who agree in the 
 affirmation of a fact. It is in the ensemble ’, in their collective force. 
 
96 
 
 tliat they ought to be reckoned; but I do not say only, ensemble and 
 collective body of the witnesses, of the fathers, of the historians whom 
 we have for us; I say, the ensemble of those witnesses together with all 
 the facts which regard the Roman Church, its internal government, 
 its exterior relations, whether with the heretics, with the 
 believers, with the devout, or even with the civil power, all 
 these relations,—in one word, the life of this Church was tied to 
 this one condition, that St. Peter had come to Rome ! Then I 
 may be allowed to fix the attention of all on this criterion, that our 
 proofs of the coming of St. Peter to Rome cannot be valued by 
 this or that isolated testimony. When we said that the earliest 
 fathers or writers have allusions to this grand fact, we meant by 
 this to say that it is a certain fact, a great fact, universally received 
 by all those who were living in the same times in which it was 
 verified, and this fact had no need to be recorded every moment, 
 just because it was universally acknowledged. It cannot be com¬ 
 pared with other historical facts. Let us understand one another well. 
 To establish an equality, other historical facts must be found of 
 the same importance, of the same universality, of the same efficacy, 
 of the same vitality, as this fact of the arrival and death of St. Peter 
 in Rome. Then a parallel may be established, then an equality 
 may be set up; but when this is not showed, it is of no avail to 
 make comparisons of any other fact with this, which we call 
 a solemn, constant, notorious, and universal fact. 
 
 Now as to our proof, I think that it may be summed up in these 
 words. Gentlemen, the fact of the Catholic Church, or if you 
 wish that I say so, the fact of the Roman Church, is a universal 
 fact, an undeniable fact, and incontrovertible; it is a fact so great 
 that it may be truly called gigantic, colossal. And so true is it 
 that the simple grandeur of this fact may explain the struggle 
 which this Church of Rome has had to sustain against the 
 Protestant separation. Now I say this fact so solemn, so great, of 
 the Church of Rome, has been declared by its doctors, has been 
 sustained against heretics and schismatics, has always been sus¬ 
 tained and declared through fifteen centuries by the coming of St. 
 Peter to Rome, without any one among either the heretics or the 
 schismatics standing up to deny it. Neither does it avail to say 
 that the heretics and schismatics did not care to deny this fact 
 because the fathers of the Church did not allude to it. O, Gentle¬ 
 men, quite otherwise. Whenever they wanted to sustain the truth 
 of the Roman Church and of its faith against heretics and 
 
97 
 
 schismatics, it was from this point that they started,—St. Peter 
 came to Eome, the Eoman Church is the doctrine of St. Peter, 
 and since the doctrine of St. Peter is the foundation of the Church, 
 come to this Church and learn the truth. Always and continually 
 they argued in this way. Irensens and Tertullian and so many 
 others, but especially Irenmus, in a time so remote had no 
 argument more ready and effectual against heretics than to call 
 them to a reckoning and comparison with the faith of Eome. And 
 why ? Because at Eome Peter by his preaching had established and 
 by his death had sealed the true faith of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Then we have this great, this undeniable, this grand fact, of the 
 Eoman Church, which has relation to the whole earth, which has 
 relation to every social interest* This great fact is founded only 
 upon the coming, preaching, martyrdom, and death of St. Peter in 
 Eome. 
 
 This fact of the Eoman Church has evidence in itself. It is 
 useless to tergiversate in any other path, to search other arguments, 
 and to start difficulties from any other side; I repeat, this argument, 
 this fact, which is coeval and present to every one of us, I would 
 say palpable, this fact is an absurdity, a contradiction, a folly, if 
 you do not admit as its foundation the coming, the preaching, and 
 the death of St. Peter in Eome. 
 
 Then, when the coming of St. Peter to Eome is ascertained, what 
 value have arguments to prove that coming P It has been attested, 
 as has been attested and is attested, the existence of the Eoman 
 Church ; it is its defence against heretics and schismatics; it has been 
 attested and is certain as the existence of this Eoman Church is certain. 
 But this fact is contemporaneous, this fact is present, this fact is 
 always living. Then, notwithstanding its antiquity, the assertion 
 of the coming of St. Peter to Eome is always living, and always 
 contemporaneous, always present. I do not in the least say this as 
 giving up coeval testimonies of which our opponents themselves 
 have conceded to us at least one, and to which I might add Ignatius 
 and Papias. Of him finally it may be said, he was of small 
 intelligence, but so to say, in passing, no one will prove to me that 
 because a man is of poor understanding he could not bear witness 
 to a fact that might be seen by all. But it is not necessary to take 
 this poor intelligence of Papias in such a way as to make him an 
 imbecile or fool, since, on the other hand, we have for Papias 
 this, that Eusebius himself in the third book, chapter xxxvi., affirms 
 that he was a man rather learned and well-skilled in the Scriptures. 
 
 G 
 
98 
 
 We find regarding the same Papias that St. Jerome in his seventy-first 
 Epistle, Ad Lucinum , in the twenty-eighth paragraph, (reads the 
 Latin text,) excused himself for not being able to translate the 
 volumes of Papias and of Polycarp because he did not feel that he 
 had sufficient leisure, nor was he of sufficient ability to turn into 
 another language those volumes with the same care and perfection 
 with which they were written. Was this then a fool ? This testimony 
 with regard to Papias proves that he was a man who could bear 
 witness especially to a fact that without any science, without any 
 erudition, all might take knowledge of and attest. 
 
 Allow me, in order to render still more evident my argument, to 
 cite an example. Tell me what you would say if I demanded of a 
 Eoman, “ Art thou certain of being a Eoman?” “ 0, certainly/’ 
 he would answer me, with an ironical laugh; and if to this laugh I 
 rejoin, “ Well, show me that thou art a Eoman; ” I believe that 
 the demonstration would not be necessary for the reason which I 
 now give; but if it was demanded, and the ground was taken 
 that from contemporary evidence it could not be found, or that if 
 even it might, it could never be from the universality and the 
 notoriety of any one whosoever of the Eomans; and here is the 
 reason. When I ask of one, “ Show me that thou art a Eoman,” I 
 do not say to him, “ Show to me that thou standest in this house and 
 amid these walls;” but, “ Show me that this place is the same place 
 in which all the great facts of history which we record of Eome 
 itself have been accomplished.” And consequently, a critical, 
 perfect, absolute demonstration of this verity would demand 
 that we confront with the topography of Eome all those 
 historical facts which were accomplished in it, and there¬ 
 fore it would demand, according to the logic of our oppo¬ 
 nents, coeval testimony from all the writers who have asserted the 
 existence of these facts. I repeat, that were this demonstration 
 possible no one would demand it, because to be at Eome 
 signifies to make part of the society, of the citizenship, of 
 which all the world has become cognisant as the society and the 
 citizenship of Eome. Now this fact of the Eoman society and 
 citizenship which lived and perpetuated itself throughout so many 
 centuries, this fact is as true and present, is as far removed from 
 the need of demonstration, as the fact that it has for its founda¬ 
 tion is certain, namely, that truly this is the city of Eome. Therefore 
 the assertion that this city is truly Eome is founded upon this life, 
 which is the whole of the society, the citizenship of Eome, and 
 which has been held as such by all the world. 
 
99 
 
 In the same way the coming of St. Peter to Eome has as much 
 certainty and evidence as the life, the development, the action, 
 all the facts, all the vicissitudes, and all the victories of the 
 Church of Eome have of certainty and evidence. This, then, is 
 the great fact upon which by us is established the certainty of the 
 coming of St. Peter to Eome. We therefore can say that we have 
 proof positive of the coming of St. Peter to Eome. If our 
 opponents have positive proofs, let them show them, or let them 
 show positive proofs by which it may be concluded that St. Peter 
 never did come to Eome. These two evenings they have opposed to us 
 only chronology, which we thought ought to be absolutely kept out 
 of the question. They have only opposed the silence of Scrip¬ 
 tures. Now it is said the Eoman theologians believe that the 
 silence of Scriptures is a negative argument. Truly by itself 
 silence cannot be and ought not to be anything but a negative 
 argument, when on the other side very positive arguments 
 demonstrate the fact. 
 
 Put this evening, to remove the difficulty, it is added that in 
 this case silence is equivalent to a positive argument, because the 
 Scriptures ought to have reco-oited the fact of which we treat. 
 Gentlemen, to arrive at this poult, to la} clown this proposition, 
 that the Scriptures ought to have registered this fact; I tell you 
 the truth, it needs a good deal of audacity. Before saying that 
 the Scriptures ought to record this fact, it would be necessary to 
 demonstrate that the Scripture is properly history, successive and 
 complete, of the facts, which were ascertained in the earliest times 
 of Christendom. Now whoever knows the history of the various 
 parts of the Holy Scriptures knows that they were written for 
 particular occasions, and in accordance with the end which the 
 author proposed to himself. No one has ever dreamed that in 
 the Scripture we should find an entire doctrinal exposition, or 
 even an entire historical exposition of the origin and the develop¬ 
 ment of Christianity. Christianity sprang forth, was already 
 much developed and diffused, before a single writer of the New 
 Testament had appeared. It is not only then from the Scrip¬ 
 ture that we ought to have the narrative of the origin and 
 development of Christianity. Speaking more particularly of the 
 Acts of the Apostles, these Acts were written by Luke, with a 
 very special end, the narration of the mission, and the deeds of 
 Paul, and the grace which he had to carry to the Gentiles to whom 
 he was sent; and if in the first chapters of his Acts he recounts 
 
 G % 
 
100 
 
 also the deeds of the other Apostles, he recounts them only 
 because in the outset must be unfolded the first rise of the estab¬ 
 lishment of the Church, whence, in the sequel, comes, as a 
 consequence, the mission of Paul. 
 
 Were we obliged to learn from the Scriptures and the Acts of 
 the Apostles all the facts regarding primordial Christianity, too 
 many other facts would be wanting to us, and in vain should we 
 go to demand them from the Scriptures. 
 
 Now, properly speaking, we cannot ask or require from Luke 
 facts, except such as are bound in a particular manner to his 
 object. On the contrary, all the circumstances under which a 
 man writes may so vary, that from Luke himself we cannot at 
 all claim that he should recount for us particular facts, even 
 those which pertain only to the mission of Paul, so true is it that 
 many things concerning Paul himself are very well known which 
 have not been told by Luke.. 
 
 Then the end, the particular object of Luke, absolutely exclude 
 the necessity of speaking of the arrival, of the residence, and of the 
 death of St. Peter in Eome. 
 
 Gentlemen, when we speak of the existence of a great fact,—a 
 solemn and universal one,—we cannot have recourse except to 
 reasons which are equally certain, determinate, solemn, and uni¬ 
 versal.' But the most elementary philosophy of history teaches us 
 that for facts proportionate causes must be asked; and, for the fact 
 of the existence of the Eoman Church, and of the continual tra¬ 
 dition of that Church, no other proportionate cause can be assigned 
 than the coming of St. Peter to Eome. And here permit me, as 
 by parenthesis, to utter a word of veneration for all those who 
 framed this original tradition ; a word of reparation, in some sort 
 for what seemed to me too harsh an expression that fell from the 
 lips of our opponents. O, when I name, when I speak of Augus¬ 
 tine, of Jerome, of Gregory Nazianzen, of Gregory of Nyssae, of 
 Chrysostom, and of so many others ; I speak of men the greatest 
 that existed in those times; when I speak of these men, although 
 of the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, and the seventh century, I can¬ 
 not by any means allow that they were a flock of apes or of 
 sheep. (Eapturous applause from the Catholic side.) 
 
 The President.—Gentlemen, I again beg you to keep silence, 
 and not to applaud, or express disapprobation. The dispute 
 ought to proceed in tranquillity; such being the very nature and 
 character of such a discussion. I expect, then, from your 
 
101 
 
 courtesy and your consideration silence and quietness. I rely 
 upon it. 
 
 Guidi.—We cannot, then, assert that all the grand and solemn 
 things related to us by these men are to pass as of no account, 
 only because they came three or four centuries after, even losing 
 sight of the vitality, of the efficacy, of this prime fact, which, as 
 I said, is always sustained in the whole Eoman Church, by the 
 simple reason of her existence and of her influence in the entire 
 world. Then, closing this parenthesis, I say that, for the particu¬ 
 lar facts of the silence of St. Luke, of the silence of St. Paul, 
 of the different chronologies; of the uncertainty as to the date of 
 Babylon; particular facts which in no way touch the question of 
 this fact so certain, so substantial, very many reasons might be 
 assigned. Who is there of us in the nineteenth century who 
 could well know all the minute circumstances which were known 
 in that age, a single one of which might suffice why silence as to this 
 fact should have been observed? I repeat, of a fact so grand, so 
 universal, as the Eoman Church, we can find no other sufficient 
 cause than the coming of St. Peter to Eome. The fact of the 
 silence of this or that writer, of this or that Apostle, be he 
 inspired, is not to be set in opposition; for let us well remember 
 that, speaking of historical questions, as I said in the beginning, 
 we take nothing away whatever from the veneration and love in 
 which we ought to hold all the Scripture, when we say that its 
 silence takes nothing whatever from the truth of a fact. 
 
 Por the silence of this or that writer, be he even inspired and 
 holy, we can render so many reasons; and if even we could not 
 confirm them now, (as hitherto they have not been determined, but 
 proposed as hypotheses, as probabilities, of which it is not our 
 duty to offer a demonstration or to maintain any one in particular) 
 and if even, I say, we could not confirm any one, not merely of 
 those proposed by Catholic writers, but also of those proposed 
 by so many Protestants writers, we should not have a right in any 
 way to conclude that there was not this special circumstance; that 
 there was not that particular motive why silence as to the arrival 
 of St. Peter in Eome should be observed. 
 
 I conclude by summing up the character of our Thesis on which 
 only we have accepted the discussion. The coming of St. Peter to 
 Eome is proved by a testimony so grand and colossal as is the Church 
 of Eome herself. This results from the ensemble of the witnesses 
 who from the earliest centuries have affirmed this fact; it results 
 
102 
 
 from its not having been denied, or being able to be denied, by any 
 heretic, even by schismatics themselves, for whom to deny it would 
 have been of the first importance: it results from the fact that no 
 Church was ever found to arrogate to itself this glory, when they 
 absolutely had need of it to shake from their shoulders the yoke of 
 the Eoman Church, which according to them pressed heavily. 
 Yes, as I say, to shake off this yoke nothing was more easy than 
 to deny the coming of St. Peter to Borne, and no one did deny it ; 
 and speaking thus I would have you take notice that if Babylon did 
 not do it for herself as our opponent said, because then Babylon 
 was a Church in partibus , there was not only Babylon to say St. 
 Peter died in Babylon , there were all the other sects of heretics 
 and schismatics who would have been able to appeal to this fact of 
 the death of St. Peter in Babylon, and yet no one of these Churches 
 or sects even thought of raising a doubt as to his having really died 
 in Eome. 
 
 It remains then, Gentlemen, that the fact which we maintain 
 results from the fact of the Eoman Church; it results from those 
 testimonies which have been propagated from the first century 
 down to our own; it results from the life of this Church, from its 
 action, from the conflict it has always sustained upon the earth ; 
 and I do not know if this testimony ought to be less esteemed. 
 But what do I say ? only to put it in comparison with the words 
 of a contemporary witness! To this testimony is set in opposition 
 a silence, and for this silence, even though we do not know them 
 now, so many explanations may be imagined. 
 
 Then a silence is set in opposition,—no positive fact, to this 
 testimony of the coming of St. Peter to Eome. 
 
 I then believe that notwithstanding the learning, the eloquence, 
 which in this discussion our opponents have displayed, notwith¬ 
 standing the friendship and kindness which we ought always to 
 maintain towards them, I believe, notwithstanding all this, that the 
 Cal holies have good right to remain firm in their opinion that St. 
 Peter did come and died in Eome. 
 
 The President. —On both sides the discussion is declared to be 
 exhausted. 
 
 The sitting closed at ten o’clock.