![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2024\/05\/LittledaleRichard-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cPlease Hit \u2018Subscribe\u2019\u201d!<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span>If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, \u201cSign Me Up!\u201d: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a\u00a0YouTube<\/em>\u00a0channel. Please also consider\u00a0following me on Twitter \/ X<\/a>\u00a0and purchasing\u00a0one or more of my 55 books<\/a>. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I am responding to the book, Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome<\/em> <\/a>(London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1880), by Richard Frederick Littledale<\/a> (1833-1890), an Anglo-Irish clergyman and prolific author. He received LL.B. and LL.D. degrees from Trinity College Dublin, in 1862, and a D.C.L. from Oxford. He was renowned as a father confessor, and next to Edward Pusey<\/a> is said to have heard more confessions than any other priest of the church of England. His Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome,<\/i> a volume of which thirty-six thousand copies were issued in 1880 and following years, evoked replies from the Rev. W. Horsfall, the Rev. A. Mills, Oxoniensis, and H. I. D. Ryder<\/a>. I will be addressing certain of his claims regarding Peter and the Church fathers early in this book. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n It is little more than a guess<\/em>\u2014 though no doubt one with much in its favour \u2014 that St. Peter was ever at Rome at all; it is only a guess<\/em> that he was ever Bishop of Rome, and for this there is very little evidence of any kind; it is only a guess<\/em> that he had the power to appoint any heir to his special privilege, whatever that was; it is only a guess<\/em> that he did so appoint the Bishops of Rome \u2014 and for these two guesses not the smallest scrap or tittle of evidence ever has been produced, or can be so much as reasonably supposed ever to have existed<\/strong> . . . the Ultramontane interpretation put on the three great texts in the Gospels which are relied on to support the \u201d Privilege of Peter,\u201d\u2014 namely, St. Matt. xvi. 18, that St. Peter is the rock and foundation of the Church; St. Luke xxii. 31, 32, that St. Peter was infallible, and charged with guiding the faith of the other Apostles; and St. John xxi. 15- 17, that he was given jurisdiction over the Apostles and the whole Church \u2014 is contrary to the \u201cunanimous consent of the Fathers,\u201d<\/strong> who agree by a great majority<\/strong> that either Christ Himself, or St. Peter\u2019s confession of Christ, is the rock and foundation of the Church . . . (pp. 25-26; my bolding)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n St. Irenaeus (130-202) wrote:<\/p>\n 2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the\u00a0Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an\u00a0evil\u00a0self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the\u00a0apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally\u00a0known\u00a0Church\u00a0founded and organized at\u00a0Rome\u00a0by the two most\u00a0glorious\u00a0apostles, Peter and\u00a0Paul; as also [by pointing out] the\u00a0faith\u00a0preached to\u00a0men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the\u00a0bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every\u00a0Church\u00a0should agree with this\u00a0Church, on account of its\u00a0preeminent authority<\/span>\u00a0[potiorem principalitatem<\/em>]<\/span>. (Against Heresies<\/em>, Bk. III, ch. 3, 2<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Tertullian (c. 160-c. 225) stated:<\/p>\n For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter<\/strong>. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em>, 32<\/a>; c. 200)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The\u00a0Ecclesiastical History<\/em><\/a>, by Eusebius<\/a> (c. 260\/265-339) was the first and by far most important comprehensive history of the Church, and was completed in its first edition before 300 AD (later editions: c. 313-323):<\/p>\n After<\/span>\u00a0the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter<\/strong>,\u00a0Linus<\/a>\u00a0[start of reign between 64-68] was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle. [2 Tim 4:21] (EH<\/em>,\u00a0Bk III, 2, 1<\/a>; cf.\u00a0III, 4, 9<\/a>. In\u00a0Bk III, ch. 13<\/a>, Eusebius says that Linus was bishop for twelve years)<\/p>\n Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer [Phil 4:3] . . .\u00a0 (EH<\/em>,\u00a0Bk III, 4, 10<\/a>)<\/p>\n In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, delivered his office to\u00a0Anencletus<\/a>. (EH<\/em>,\u00a0Bk III, 13, 1<\/a>)<\/p>\n In<\/span>\u00a0the twelfth year of the same reign [92\/93]\u00a0Clement<\/a>\u00a0succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. (EH<\/em>,\u00a0Bk III, 15, 1<\/a>)<\/p>\n At that time Clement still ruled the church of Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after Paul and Peter<\/strong>. Linus was the first, and after him came Anencletus. (EH<\/em>,\u00a0Bk III, 21, 1-3<\/a>)<\/p>\n Clement\u00a0committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus, and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all. (EH<\/em>,\u00a0Bk III, 34, 1<\/a>)<\/p>\n At that time also\u00a0Alexander<\/a>\u00a0[r. c. 107-109 \u2013 c. 115-119], the fifth in the line of succession from Peter<\/strong> and Paul, received the episcopate at Rome, after Evarestus had held the office eight years. (EH<\/em>,\u00a0Bk IV, 1, 1-2<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Epiphanius (c. 315-403) wrote:<\/p>\n 6 Paul even reached Spain, and Peter often visited Pontus and Bithynia. But after Clement had been appointed and declined, if this is what happened\u2014I suspect this but cannot say it for certain\u2014he could have been compelled to hold the episcopate in his turn, after the deaths of Linus and Cletus who were bishops for twelve years each after the death of Saints Peter and Paul in the twelfth year of Nero.) 7 In any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order: Peter<\/strong> and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on the list. And no one need be surprised at my listing each of the items so exactly; precise information is always given in this way. (Panarion<\/em> 27.6.6-7)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Likewise, St. Jerome (c. 343-420) wrote:<\/p>\n Clement, of whom the\u00a0apostle\u00a0Paul\u00a0writing to the Philippians says\u00a0 Hegesippus\u00a0[c. 110-c. 180]\u00a0who lived at a period not far from the Apostolic age, . . . says that he went to Rome in the time of Anicetus\u00a0[d. 168], the tenth bishop after Peter<\/strong>, and continued there till the time of Eleutherius\u00a0[d. 185 or 193], bishop of the same city, who had been formerly deacon under Anicetus.\u00a0(De Viris Illustribus<\/em><\/a>, section 22)<\/p>\n Simon Peter<\/strong> . . . \u00a0himself chief of the\u00a0apostles, after having been\u00a0bishop\u00a0of the\u00a0church of Antioch . . . pushed on to\u00a0Rome . . . and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero.\u00a0(De Viris Illustribus<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[On Illustrious Men<\/em>], section 1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Regarding the confusion or mixed reports about the chronology of the earliest popes, see,\u00a0\u201cPope St. Clement I\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>, John Chapman, 1908). He states, for example: \u201cAt the present time no critic doubts that Cletus, Anacletus, Anencletus, are the same person. Anacletus is a Latin error; Cletus is a shortened (and more Christian) form of Anencletus.\u201d<\/p>\n Was Peter In Rome?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Tertullian,\u00a0in\u00a0The Demurrer Against the Heretics<\/em>\u00a0(A.D. 200), noted of Rome, \u201cHow happy is that church\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John\u2019s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].\u201d Protestants admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there.<\/p>\n In the same book, Tertullian wrote that \u201cthis is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.\u201d This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. Clement wrote his\u00a0Letter to the Corinthians<\/em>\u00a0perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.<\/p>\n In his\u00a0Letter to the Romans<\/em>\u00a0(A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.<\/p>\n Irenaeus, in\u00a0Against Heresies<\/em>\u00a0(A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel \u201cwhile Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.\u201d A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter\u2019s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.<\/p>\n Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work\u00a0Sketches<\/em>\u00a0is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea\u2019s\u00a0Ecclesiastical History<\/em>, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, \u201cWhen Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.\u201d<\/p>\n Lactantius, in a treatise called\u00a0The Death of the Persecutors<\/em>, written around 318, noted that \u201cWhen Nero was already reigning [Nero reigned from 54\u201368], Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.\u201d<\/p>\n These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens\u2019 books or to the Catholic Answers tract\u00a0Peter\u2019s Roman Residency<\/em>.<\/a>) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. (\u201cWas Peter in Rome?,\u201d<\/a> Catholic Answers, 2004)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Eighteen Church Fathers Who Thought Peter was the Rock, the Foundation of the Church and its Leader, Based on Matthew 16\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Tertullian<\/strong>, writing around 200-220, stated that \u201cPeter . . . is called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built\u201d (Prescription against Heretics<\/em>, 22<\/a>).<\/p>\n St. Hippolytus<\/strong>\u00a0wrote around 225: \u201cBy this Spirit Peter spoke that blessed word, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established\u201d (The Discourse on the Holy Theophany<\/em>, 9<\/a>).<\/p>\n Origen<\/strong>\u00a0writing around 230-250, called Peter \u201cthat great foundation of the Church, and most solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church\u201d (In Exod. Hom<\/em>. v. n. 4, tom. ii) and \u201cUpon him (Peter)\u00a0 . . . the Church was founded\u201d (In Epist. ad Rom<\/em>. lib. v. c. 10, tom. iv) and \u201cPeter upon whom is built Christ\u2019s Church\u201d (T. iv. In Joan. Tom<\/em>. v.).<\/p>\n St.<\/strong>\u00a0Cyprian<\/strong>, c. 246, wrote about \u201cPeter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built\u201d (Epistle 54 to Cornelius, 7<\/a>).<\/p>\n Firmilian<\/strong>, c. 254, wrote about \u201cone Church, which was once first established by Christ on a Rock\u201d (Inter Ep. S. Cyp. Ep. lxxv<\/em>).<\/p>\n Aphraates<\/strong>\u00a0(c. 336) stated that \u201cthe Lord . . . set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the Church\u201d (Homily<\/em>\u00a07:15,\u00a0De Paenitentibus<\/em>).<\/p>\n St. Ephraem<\/strong>\u00a0(c. 350-370) called Peter \u201cthe foundation of the holy Church\u201d (Homilies<\/em>\u00a04:1).<\/p>\n St. Hilary of Poitiers\u00a0<\/strong>in 360 held that Peter was \u201cthe foundation-stone of the Church\u201d (On the Trinity<\/em>, Bk. VI, 20<\/a>).<\/p>\n St. Cyril of Jerusalem<\/strong>\u00a0(c. 363), commenting on Matthew 16, calls peter \u201cthe foremost of the apostles and chief herald of the Church\u201d (Catechetical Lecture<\/em>\u00a011, 3<\/a>).<\/p>\n St. Optatus<\/strong>\u00a0(c. 370), commenting on the same passage, wrote that Peter was \u201cto be preferred before all the Apostles\u201d and was \u201cThe Head of the Apostles\u201d (De Schism. Don. l. vii. n. 3<\/em>).<\/p>\n St. Gregory of Nazianzen<\/strong>\u00a0(370) stated that Peter \u201cis entrusted with the Foundations of the Church\u201d (T. i. or. xxxii<\/em>. n. 18).<\/p>\n St. Gregory of Nyssa<\/strong>\u00a0(371) wrote that Peter was \u201cthe Head of the Apostles . . . (upon him) is the Church of God firmly established. . . . that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church\u201d (Alt. Or. De S. Steph.<\/em>).<\/p>\n St. Basil the Great<\/strong>\u00a0(371) stated that Peter \u201creceived on himself the building of the Church\u201d (Adversus Eunomius<\/em>\u00a02:4).<\/p>\n St. Epiphanius<\/strong>\u00a0(c. 385): \u201cupon which (Rock) the Church is in every way built . . . Foundation of the house of God\u201d (Adv. Haeres<\/em>.).<\/p>\n St. Ambrose<\/strong>\u00a0(c. 385-389): \u201cwhom when He styles a Rock, He pointed out the Foundation of the Church\u201d (T. ii. l. iv. De Fide<\/em>, c. v. n. 56).<\/p>\n St. John Chrysostom\u00a0<\/strong>(c. 387): \u201cHead or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church . . . that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples\u201d (T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paenit<\/em>. n. 4).<\/p>\n St. Jerome<\/strong>\u00a0(385): \u201cPeter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church\u201d (Letters<\/em>\u00a041, 2<\/a>).<\/p>\n St. Cyril of Alexandria\u00a0<\/strong>(424): \u201cthe church . . . over this he sets Peter as shepherd\u201d (Comm. on Matt., ad. loc<\/em>.).<\/p>\n Nine Church Fathers Who Thought That John 21 was \u201cPapal\u201d: Indicative of Peter Being the Leader of the Early Church<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Origen\u00a0<\/strong>(c. 216): \u201cthe Chief Authority as regards the feeding of the sheep was delivered to Peter\u201d (T. iv. l. 5, in Ep. ad Rom. n. 1<\/em>).<\/p>\n St. Cyprian<\/strong>\u00a0(c. 246): \u201cto the same [Peter] He says, after His resurrection,\u00a0 St. Ephraem<\/strong>\u00a0(c. 350-370): \u201cThe Lord . . . delivered his flock to Simon . . . Three pledges he took from him as shepherd, that with love he should shepherd his lambs, and should visit his sheep with mercy, and should guard his ewes with fear.\u201d (HVirg<\/em>. 36, 6; CSCO 223, Syr. 94).<\/p>\n Ambrosiaster<\/strong>\u00a0(c. 380-384): \u201cAfter the Saviour all were included in Peter; for He constituted him to be their head, that he might be the shepherd of the Lord\u2019s flock\u201d (Quaest<\/em>. 75,\u00a0ex N. Test. in App. St. August<\/em>. tom. iii. 2894).<\/p>\n St. Ambrose<\/strong>\u00a0(385): Therefore did Christ also commit to Peter to feed His flock\u201d (Ib. in. Ps. cxviii<\/em>. [Mem] n. 3).<\/p>\n St. Epiphanius\u00a0<\/strong>(c. 385): \u201cHe heard from the same God, \u2018Peter, feed My lambs;\u2019 to him was intrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master.\u201d (Tom. ii.\u00a0In Anchorat<\/em>. n. 9).<\/p>\n St. John Chrysostom<\/strong>\u00a0(c. 387): \u201cHe puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren . . . [and] says, \u2018If Thou lovest Me, preside over the brethren\u2019 . . . He sets the presidency over his own sheep . . . He appointed this man (Peter) teacher . . . of the world.\u201d (In Joan. Hom<\/em>. lxxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii.).<\/p>\n \u201cWhat advantage, pray, could be greater than to be seen doing those things which Christ with his own lips declared to be proofs of love to Himself? For addressing the leader of the\u00a0apostles\u00a0He said,\u00a0 St. Augustine<\/strong>\u00a0(c. 400): \u201c. . . the Lord commended his sheep to Peter himself to feed . . . when Christ speaks to one, unity is commended \u2014 and to Peter for the first time, because Peter is first among the apostles.\u201d (Sermo. 295<\/em>).<\/p>\n \u201c[T]here are many other things which most\u00a0justly\u00a0keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the\u00a0Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by\u00a0miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by\u00a0love, established by age. The succession of\u00a0priests\u00a0keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His\u00a0resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present\u00a0episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of\u00a0Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many\u00a0heresies, the\u00a0Church\u00a0has thus retained; so that, though all\u00a0heretics\u00a0wish to be called\u00a0Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the\u00a0Catholic\u00a0Church\u00a0meets, no\u00a0heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.\u201d (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus<\/em>, ch. 4, 5<\/a>).<\/p>\n \u201cThe Lord, indeed, had told His disciples\u00a0to carry a sword; but He did not tell them to use it. But that after this\u00a0sin\u00a0Peter should become a pastor of the\u00a0Church\u00a0was no more improper than that\u00a0Moses, after smiting the\u00a0Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation.\u201d (Contra Faustum<\/em>, Book XXII, 70<\/a>).<\/p>\n \u201cAnd again the Lord asked this question, and a third time He asked it. And when he asserted in reply his love, He commended to him the flock. For each several time the Lord Jesus said to Peter, as he said,\u00a0 \u201cPeter generally stands for a figure of the\u00a0Church.\u201d (Sermon 25 on the New Testament<\/em>, 10<\/a>; cf.\u00a0Sermon 96<\/a>;\u00a0Sermon 88, 4<\/a>).<\/p>\n \u201cFor He says to Peter, in whom singly He forms the Church;\u00a0 St. Peter Chrysologus<\/strong>\u00a0(432): \u201cHe commends His sheep to be fed by Peter, in His stead\u201d (Serm. vi. In Ps. xcix<\/em>).<\/p>\nWith Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,<\/q>\u00a0the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter<\/strong>, if indeed the second was Linus\u00a0[d. c. 76]\u00a0and the third Anacletus\u00a0[d. c. 92], although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle. He wrote, on the part of the church of Rome, an especially valuable\u00a0Letter to the church of the Corinthians<\/em>, . . .\u00a0(De Viris Illustribus<\/em><\/a>, section 15)<\/p>\n
Feed my sheep.<\/q>\u00a0And although to all the\u00a0apostles, after His\u00a0resurrection, He gives an equal power, . . . yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one.\u201d (Treatise 1:\u00a0On the Unity of the Church<\/em>, 4<\/a>).<\/p>\n
Peter, do you love me?<\/q>\u00a0and when\u00a0he confessed that he did, the Lord added,\u00a0
if you\u00a0love\u00a0me tend my sheep.<\/q>\u00a0The Master asked the\u00a0disciple\u00a0if He was loved by him, not in order to get information (how should He who penetrates the hearts of all\u00a0men?), but in order to teach us how great an interest He takes in the superintendence of these sheep. This being plain, it will likewise be manifest that a great and unspeakable reward will be reserved for him whose labors are concerned with these sheep, upon which Christ places such a high value. . . . For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors. . . . Will you, then, still contend that you were not rightly deceived, when you are about to superintend the things which belong to\u00a0God, and are doing that which when Peter did the Lord said he should be able to surpass the rest of the\u00a0apostles, for His words were,\u00a0
Peter, do you love me more than these?<\/q>\u00a0. . . one is required to preside over the\u00a0Church, and to be entrusted with the care of so many\u00a0souls . . .\u201d (On the Priesthood<\/em>, Book II, 1-2<\/a>)<\/p>\n
I\u00a0love\u00a0you;<\/q>\u00a0
Feed My lambs,<\/q>\u00a0feed My\u00a0
little sheep.<\/q>\u00a0In this one Peter was figured the unity of all pastors . . .\u201d (Sermon 97 on the New Testament<\/em>, 2<\/a>).<\/p>\n
Peter, do you love Me?<\/q>\u00a0He answered,\u00a0
Lord, I do\u00a0love\u00a0You.<\/q>\u00a0
Feed My sheep.<\/q>\u00a0\u201d (Sermon 87 on the New Testament<\/em>, 3<\/a>).<\/p>\n