But being essential to the dogma of the Roman supremacy, and our being members of Christ's Church, it is fatally significant that scriptural proof of Peter's visit is lacking. Not only is this wanting, but there are no contemporaneous witnesses to a fact so essential, and upon which it is claimed the whole structure of the Christian Church depends. Nor in the apologists, or defenders of the Church, in the second century, where, if it were a matter of importance, it would surely find a place, is it to be found. Just as Saint Paul, as the Apostle to the Gentile world, would most naturally desire to visit the world's capital, so Peter, the special Apostle to the Jews, would naturally be greatly drawn to visit Babylon, the place of their great captivity. The order in which he mentions in his epistle the countries adjacent to his abode beginning with those nearest is somewhat corroborative of Babylon being then his residence.
Commentators differ and the solution remains in doubt.
But if indeed the Holy Spirit has thus concealed the true fact from us, whatever it was it is a natural inference that He would not have us base anything of Church doctrine upon it. This is a more reasonable supposition than that Peter through fear sought to conceal his whereabouts. The next bit of evidence offered is in Saint Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, at the close of the first century. This is obviously very indefinite, and, upon an issue upon which men's salvation is said to depend, of little worth. This does not state that they were ever at Rome, for Ignatius might in his humility only be saying that he, their successor in the see of Antioch, could not address them with the apostolic authority of his predecessors.