Chapter XV: Part 15

_The date of the foundation._――All this is announced with the
most elaborate solemnity, in all the older papist writers,
because on this point of the foundation of the Roman church by
Peter, they were long in the habit of basing the whole right
and title of the bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, to the
supremacy of the church universal. The great authorities, quoted
by them in support of this exact account of the whole affair,
with all its dates, even to the month and day, are the bulls
of some of the popes, enforcing the celebration of that day
throughout all the churches under the Romish see, and the forms
of prayer in which this occasion is commemorated even to this
day. Moreover, a particular form is quoted from some of the
old rituals of the church, not now in use, in which the ancient
mode of celebrating this event, in prayer and thanksgiving,
is verbally given. “Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui ineffabili
sacramento, apostolo tuo Petro principatum Romae urbis tribuisti,
unde se evangelica veritas per tota mundi regna diffunderet:
praesta quaesumus, ut quod in orbem terrarum ejus praedicatione
manavit, universitas Christiana devotione sequatur.”――“Almighty,
eternal God, who by an ineffable consecration, didst give to thy
apostle Peter the dominion of the city of Rome, that thence the
gospel truth might diffuse itself throughout all the kingdoms
of the world: grant, we pray, that what has flowed into the
whole circuit of the earth by his preaching, all Christendom
may devoutly follow.”――A prayer so melodiously expressed, and
in such beautiful Latin, that it is a great pity it should
have been a mere trick, to spread and perpetuate a downright,
baseless lie, which had no other object than the extension of
the gloomy, soul-darkening tyranny of the papal sway. Other
forms of prayer, for private occasions, are also mentioned by
Baronius, as commemorating the foundation of the church of Rome
by Peter; and all these, as well as the former, being fixed
for the fifteenth of February, as above quoted. Those records
of fables, also, the old Roman martyrologies, are cited for
evidence. The later Latin fathers add their testimony, and even
the devout Augustin (sermons 15, 16, de sanct, &c.) is quoted
in support of it. Baronius gives all these evidences, (Annales,
45, § 1,) and goes on to earn the cardinal’s hat, which finally
rewarded his zealous efforts, by maintaining the unity and
universality of this apostolic foundation, and the absolute
supremacy consequently appertaining to the succession of Peter
in the Roman see.

_Peter’s chair._――This fable (page 225) is from Baronius, who
wrote about 1580; but alas! modern accidental discoveries make
dreadful havoc with papistical antiquities, and have done as
much to correct the mistake in this matter, as in Justin’s
blunder about Simon Magus. I had transcribed Baronius’s story
into the text as above without knowing of the fact, till a
glance at the investigations of the sagacious Bower gave me the
information which I here extract from him.

“They had, as they thought, till the year 1662, a pregnant proof,
not only of St. Peter’s erecting their chair, but of his sitting
in it himself; for till that year, the very chair, on which
they believed, or would make others believe, he had sat, was
shown and exposed to public adoration on the 18th of January,
the festival of the said chair. But while it was cleaning, in
order to be set up in some conspicuous place of the Vatican,
the twelve labors of Hercules unluckily appeared engraved on it.
‘Our worship, however,’ says Giacomo Bartolini, who was present
at this discovery, and relates it, ‘was not misplaced, since
it was not to the wood we paid it, but to the prince of the
apostles, St. Peter.’ An author of no mean character, unwilling
to give up the holy chair, even after this discovery, as having
a place and a peculiar solemnity among the other saints, has
attempted to explain the labors of Hercules in a mystical
sense, as emblems representing the future exploits of the popes.
(Luchesini catedra restituita a S. Pietro.) But the ridiculous
and distorted conceits of that writer are not worthy our notice,
though by Clement X. they were judged not unworthy of a reward.”
(Bower’s Lives of the Popes, Vol. I. p. 7, 4to. ed. 1749.)

The next noticeable thing that Peter is made to do at Rome, is the sending out of his disciples from Rome to act as missionaries and bishops in the various wide divisions of the Roman empire, westward from the capital, which were yet wholly unoccupied by the preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In his supposed character of keeper of the great flock of Christ, having now fully established the Roman see, he turned his eyes to those distant regions, and considering their religious wants and utter spiritual destitution, sent into them several disciples whom he is supposed to have qualified for such labors by his own minute personal instructions. Thus, as rays from the sun, and as streams from the fountain, did the Christian faith go forth through these from the see of Peter, and spread far and wide throughout the world. So say the imaginative papist historians, whose fancy not resting satisfied with merely naming the regions to which these new missionaries were now sent, goes on with a catalogue of the persons, and of the places where they became finally established in their bishoprics. But it would be honoring such fables too much, to record the long string of names which are in the papist annals, given to designate the missionaries thus sent out, and the particular places to which they were sent. It is enough to notice that the sum of the whole story is, that preachers of the gospel were thus sent not only into the western regions alluded to, but into many cities of Italy and Sicily. In Gaul, Spain and Germany, many are said to have been certainly established; and to extend the fable as far as possible, it is even hinted that Britain received the gospel through the preaching of some of these missionaries of Peter; but this distant circumstance is stated rather as a conjecture, while the rest are minutely and seriously given, in all the grave details of persons and places.

In various works of this character, Peter is said by the propagators of this fable to have passed seven years at Rome, during all which time he is not supposed to have gone beyond the bounds of the city. The occasion of his departure at the end of this long period, as stated by the fabulous records from which the whole story is drawn, was the great edict of Claudius Caesar, banishing all Jews from Rome, among whom Peter must of course have been included. This imperial sentence of general banishment, is not only alluded to in the Acts of the Apostles, but is particularly specified in the Roman and Jewish historians of those times; from which its exact date is ascertained to have been the _ninth_ year of the reign of Claudius, from which, as Peter is supposed to have gone to Rome in the _second_ year of that reign, the intervening time must have been, as above stated, _seven_ years. The particulars of this general banishment, its motives and results, will be better given in that part of this work where important points in authentic true history are connected with the event. Under these circumstances, however, the great first bishop of Rome is supposed to have left this now consecrated capital of Christendom, and traveled off eastward, along with the general throng of Jewish fugitives. Some of the papist commentators on this story are nevertheless, so much scandalized at the thought of Peter’s running away in this seemingly undignified manner, (though this is in fact the part of the story which is most consistent with the real truth, since no apostle was ever taught to consider it beneath his dignity to get out of danger,) that they therefore strive to make it appear that he still stayed in Rome, in spite of the imperial edict, and boldly preached the gospel, without reference to danger, until, soon after, it became necessary for him to go to the east on important business. The majority, however, are agreed that he did remove from Rome along with the rest of the Jews, though while he remained there, he is supposed to have kept up the apostolic dignity by preaching at all risks. His journey eastward is made out in rather a circuitous manner, probably for no better reason than to make their stories as long as possible; and therefore it is enough to say, that he is carried by the continuation of the fable, from Rome first into Africa, where he erected a church at Carthage, over which he ordained Crescens, one of his Roman disciples, as bishop. Proceeding next along the northern coast of the continent, he is brought to Alexandria, where, of course, he founds a church, leaving the evangelist Mark in it, as bishop; and passing up the Nile to Thebes, constitutes Rufus there, in the same capacity. Thence the fabulous chroniclers carry him at once to Jerusalem; and here ends this tedious string of details, the story being now resumed from the clear and honest record of the sacred historian, to the great refreshment of the writer as well as the reader, after dealing so long in what is utterly unalloyed falsehood.

_Peter, bishop of Rome._――The great question of his having ever
visited this city, has two separate and distinct parts, resting
on totally different grounds, since they refer to two widely
distant periods of time; but that part which refers to his
early visit, being connected with this portion of the history,
I proceed in this place to the full examination of _all_ the
evidences, which have ever been brought in support of both
divisions of this great subject in papal dogmatic history, from
the supposed records of this event in the writings of the early
Christian Fathers. On this head, instead of myself entering into
a course of investigations among these writers, which my very
slight acquaintance with their works would make exceedingly
laborious to me, and probably very incomplete after all, I
here avail myself of the learned and industrious research of my
friend, the Rev. Dr. Murdock, widely and honorably known as the
Translator and Annotator of Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History.
Through his kindness, I am allowed the free use of a long
series of instructive lectures, formerly delivered by him
as a professor of Ecclesiastical History, which having been
subsequently modified to suit a popular audience, will bring the
whole of this learned matter, with the fullest details of the
argument, in a form perfectly intelligible and acceptable to my
readers.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS.

In the latter part of the first century, Clement, bishop of
Rome, (Epistle I. to Corinth, § 5,) speaks of Paul and Peter as
persecuted, and dying as martyrs. But he does not say when, or
where. In the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr speaks
of Simon Magus, his magic and his deification, at Rome; but
makes no mention of Peter’s going to Rome, to combat him. Nor
does any other father, so far as I know, till after A. D. 300.
About twenty years after Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, (bishop of
Lyons,) wrote his five books against the heretics; in which he
confutes them, by the testimony of those churches which were
_said_ to have been founded immediately by the apostles. The
following extract from him will fully illustrate that mode of
reasoning, and also show us what Irenaeus knew of Peter’s being
at Rome. He says: “The doctrine preached to all the world by the
apostles, is now found in the church;――as all may see if they
are willing to learn; and we are able to name the persons whom
the apostles constituted the bishops of the churches, and their
successors down to our times; who have never taught or known any
such doctrine as the heretics advance. Now if the apostles had
been acquainted with [certain] recondite mysteries, which they
taught privately, and only to such as were the most perfect,
they would certainly have taught them to those men to whom they
committed the care of the churches; for they required them to
be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom they made
their successors and substitutes in office;――because, if they
conducted aright, great advantage would result; but if they
should go wrong, immense evils would ensue. But, as it would
be tedious, in the present work, to enumerate the successions
in all the churches, I will mention but one, viz. the greatest,
most ancient, and well-known by all, _the church founded and
established at Rome, by the two most glorious apostles, Peter
and Paul_. The faith of this church was the result of apostolic
teaching, and the same as was every where preached; and it has
come down to us through a succession of bishops; and by this
example we confound all those who, in any manner, either from
selfish views and vain glory, or from blindness to truth and
erroneous belief, hold forth false doctrine. For with this
church, on account of its superior pre-eminence, every other
church,――that is, the true believers every where,――must agree;
because, in it has ever been preserved the doctrine derived
immediately from the apostles, and which was every where
propagated. The blessed apostles having founded and instructed
this church, _committed the episcopacy of it to Linus_; who is
mentioned by Paul in his epistle to Timothy. Anacletus succeeded
Linus; and after him, the third bishop from the apostles, was
Clement, who saw the apostles themselves, and conferred with
them, while their preaching and instruction was still sounding
in his ears.” Irenaeus then enumerates the succeeding bishops,
down to Eleutherius, “who,” he says, “is now the twelfth bishop
from the apostles.” In the preceding section, Irenaeus tells
us that Matthew wrote his gospel “while Peter and Paul were
preaching, and founding the church at Rome.”

Here is full and explicit testimony, that Paul and Peter,
unitedly, preached and founded the church at Rome; and that they
constituted LINUS THE FIRST BISHOP there. The language _excludes
both Peter and Paul_,――and excludes both equally, _from the
episcopal chair at Rome_. “They committed the episcopacy to
Linus;” who was the first bishop, as Clement was the third,
and Eleutherius the twelfth. Contemporary with Irenaeus was
Dionysius, bishop of Corinth. In reply to a monitory letter
from the Romish church, of which Eusebius (Church History,
II. 25,) has preserved an extract, Dionysius says: “By this your
excellent admonition, you have united in one the planting, by
Peter and Paul, of the Romans and Corinthians. For both of them
coming to our Corinth, planted and instructed us;――and in like
manner, going to Italy together,――after teaching there, they
suffered martyrdom at the same time.” From this testimony we may
learn how and when Peter went to Rome; as well as what relation
he sustained to the church there. He and Paul came to Corinth
together; and when they had regulated and instructed that church,
they went on together to Italy, and did the same things at Rome
as before at Corinth. Now this, if true, must have been after
the captivity of Paul at Rome, mentioned in the book of Acts.
For Paul never went directly from Corinth to Rome before that
captivity, since he never was at Rome before he was carried
there a prisoner, in the year A. D. 62. But, if released in the
year 64, he might have visited Corinth afterwards, with Peter,
and then have traveled with him to Rome. To the church of Rome,
Peter and Paul sustained the same relation; and that was the
same as they had sustained to the church of Corinth, viz. that
of _apostolic teachers and founders_,――not that of ORDINARY
BISHOPS. That is, Peter was no more the bishop of Rome than
Paul was; and neither of them, any more the bishop of Rome than
both were bishops of Corinth. Dionysius likewise, here affirms,
that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom “at the same time;” and
probably at Rome, where they last taught. That Rome was the
place is proved by Caius, a Romish ecclesiastic, about A. D. 200,
as quoted by Eusebius, (Church History, II. 25.) “I am able,”
says he, “to show the trophies [the sepulchers] of the apostles.
For if you will go to the Vatican, or along the Via Ostia, you
will find the trophies of those who established this church.”

The next father, Clement of Alexandria, (about A. D. 200,)
reports it as tradition, that Mark wrote his gospel at Rome,
while Peter was preaching there. (Eusebius, Church History,
VI. 14.) In the forepart of the third century, lived Tertullian,
a fervid and learned writer. He assailed the heretics with
the same argument as Irenaeus did. “Run over,” says he, “the
apostolic churches, in which the chairs of apostles still
preside in their places, and in which the autographs of their
epistles are still read. If you are near to Italy, you have Rome,
a witness for us; and how blessed a church is that on which
apostles poured out their whole doctrine, together with their
blood! where Peter equaled our Lord in his mode of suffering;
and where Paul was crowned, with the exit of John the Baptist.”
(De praescriptione haereticorum c. 36.) In another work he says:
“Let us see what the Romans hold forth; to whom Peter and Paul
imparted the gospel sealed with their own blood.” (adversus
Marcion, IV. c. 5.) Again he says: “Neither is there a disparity
between those whom John baptized in the Jordan, and Peter in the
Tiber.” (de Baptismo.) He moreover testifies that Peter suffered
in the reign of Nero, (Scorpiac. c. 15,) and that this apostle
ordained Clement bishop of Rome. (Praescriptione c. 32.) In the
middle of the third century, Cyprian of Carthage, writing to
the bishop of Rome, (Epistle 55, to Cornelius) calls the church
of Rome “the principal church;” and that where “Peter’s chair”
was;――and “whose faith was derived from apostolic preaching.”
In the end of the third century or the beginning of the fourth,
Lactantius (Divine Institutes, IV. c. 21,) speaks of “Peter
and Paul” as having wrought miracles, and uttered predictions
at Rome; and describes their prediction of the destruction
of Jerusalem. And in his work on the Deaths of Persecutors,
(chapter 2,) he says: “During the reign of Nero, Peter came to
Rome; and having wrought several miracles by the power of God,
which rested on him, he converted many to righteousness, and
erected a faithful and abiding temple for God. This became known
to Nero, who, learning that multitudes, not only at Rome but in
all other places, were abandoning idolatry and embracing the new
religion, and being hurried on to all sorts of cruelty by his
brutal tyranny, set himself, the first of all, to destroy this
religion, and to persecute the servants of God. So he ordered
Peter to be crucified and Paul to be beheaded.” I have now
detailed every important testimony which I could find in the
genuine works of the fathers, in the three first centuries. The
witnesses agree very well; and they relate nothing but what may
be true. They make Peter and Paul to go from Corinth to Rome,
in company, during the reign of Nero; and after preaching and
strengthening the church at Rome, and ordaining Linus to be
its first bishop,――both suffering martyrdom at Rome on the same
day; Peter being crucified and Paul decapitated. There is no
representation of Peter’s being any more bishop of Rome than
Paul was;――and Irenaeus in particular, expressly makes Linus the
first bishop, and to be ordained by the two apostles.

We now come to Eusebius, who wrote about A. D. 325. He quotes
most of the fathers above cited, but departs widely from them,
in regard to the time, and the occasion, of Peter’s going to
Rome. He says it was in the reign of Claudius;――and for the
purpose of opposing Simon Magus, (as the Clementine novels
represented the matter.) Yet he does not make Peter to be bishop
of Rome. The subsequent writers of the fourth and following
centuries, agree with Eusebius as to the time and the occasion
of Peter’s going to Rome; and most of them make Peter to be the
first bishop of Rome. According to them, Peter remained in Judea
only about four years after the ascension; then he was bishop
of Antioch seven years, and in the second year of Claudius,
A. D. 43, removed his chair to Rome, where he was bishop for
twenty-five years, or until his death, A. D. 68. And this is
the account generally given by the papists, quite down to the
present times.

OBJECTIONS TO THE TRADITIONARY HISTORY OF PETER.

1. So far as the later fathers contradict those of the three
first centuries, they ought to be rejected; because, they could
not have so good means of information. Oral tradition must, in
three centuries, have become worthless, compared with what it
was in the second and third centuries;――and written testimony,
which could be relied on, they had none, except that of the
early fathers. Besides, we have seen how these later fathers
were led astray. They believed the fable of Simon Magus’s
legerdemain at Rome, and his deification there. They read the
Clementine fictions, and supposed them to be novels founded on
facts. In their eulogies of Peter, they were fond of relating
marvelous and affecting stories about him, and therefore too
readily admitted fabulous traditions. And lastly, the bishops
of Rome and their numerous adherents had a direct and an immense
interest depending on this traditional history;――for by it alone,
they made out their succession to the chair of Peter, and the
legitimacy of their ghostly power.

2. The later fathers invalidate their own testimony, by stating
what is incredible, and what neither they nor their modern
adherents can satisfactorily explain. They state that Linus
succeeded Peter, for about twelve years; then followed Cletus
or Anacletus, for about twelve years more; and then succeeded
Clement. And yet they tell us, all the three were ordained
by the hands of Peter. How could this be? Did Peter ordain
three successive bishops, after he was dead?――or did he resign
his office to these bishops, and retire to a private station,
more than twenty-five years before his crucifixion? No, says
Epiphanius, (Against Heresies, 27,) and after him most of the
modern papists; (Nat. Alex. H. E. saecul. I. Diss. XIII. Burius,
&c.) but Peter being often absent from Rome, and having a
vast weight of cares, had assistant bishops; and Linus and
Cletus were not the successors but the assistants of Peter. But
Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, and all the authorized catalogues
of popes, explicitly make Linus and Cletus to be successors to
Peter. Besides, why did Peter need an assistant any more than
the succeeding pontiffs? And what age since has ever witnessed
an assistant pope at Rome? A more plausible solution (but which
the papists cannot admit) is given by Rufinus. (Preface to
Clementine Recognitions) “As I understand it,” says he, “Linus
and Cletus were the bishops of Rome in Peter’s life-time; so
that they performed the episcopal functions, and he, those of an
apostle. And, in this way the whole may be true,” says Rufinus.
Granted, if this were the only objection; and if it could be
made out that Peter went to Rome full twenty-four years before
his martyrdom. But supposing it true, how can the successors
of Linus and Cletus, the bishops, be successors of Peter, the
apostle.

3. Peter removed his chair to Rome, (say the later fathers and
most of the Catholics,) in the second year of Claudius, that is,
A. D. 43; and he resided there twenty-four years, or till his
death. But we have the best proof,――that of holy writ,――that
Peter was resident at Jerusalem, as late as the year A. D. 44;
when king Agrippa seized him there, and imprisoned him, with
intent to kill him. (Acts xii. 3‒19.) And we have similar proof
that he was still there in the year 51; when he deliberated
and acted with the other apostles and brethren of Jerusalem, on
the question of obliging Gentiles to observe the law of Moses.
(Acts xv. 7, &c.; Galatians ii. 1‒9.) And, moreover, some time
after this, as Paul tells us, (Galatians ii. 11‒14,) he came to
Antioch, in Syria, and there dissembled about eating with the
Gentiles. The common reply of the Catholics is, that Peter often
made long journeys; and he might happen to be at Jerusalem, and
at Antioch, at these times. But this solution is rejected by
the more candid Romanists themselves, who agree with the early
fathers, asserting that Peter first went to Rome in the reign of
Nero. (See Pagi Critique of Baronius’s Annale, 43.)

4. Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans in the year 59, as is
supposed. And from this epistle it is almost certain, Peter was
not then at Rome; and highly probable he had never been there.
Throughout the epistle, Peter’s name is not even mentioned; nor
is that of Linus or Cletus, his supposed assistants, who always,
it is said, supplied his place when he was absent. Indeed,
so far as can be gathered from Paul’s epistle, the Romish
Christians appear not to have had, at that time nor previously,
any bishop or any ecclesiastical head. The epistle is addressed
“To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints.”
(Romans i. 7.) It exhorts them to obey magistrates;――but not to
reverence and obey their spiritual rulers. (Romans xiii. 1, &c.)
It inculcates on them all, the duty of living in harmony,――of
being modest and humble,――of using their different gifts for
the common good; (Romans xii. 3, &c.;) but gives no intimation
that they were amenable to any ecclesiastical authorities. It
gives them rules for conducting their disciplinary acts, as a
popular body, (Romans xiv. 1, &c.,) but does not refer to any
regulations given them by St. Peter and his assistants. It
contains salutations to near thirty persons, male and female,
whom Paul knew personally, or by hearsay, (chapter xvi.) but
neither Peter, nor Linus, nor Cletus is of the number; nor is
any one spoken of as bishop, or elder, or pastor, or as clothed
with any ecclesiastical authority. Priscilla and Aquila, and
several others whom he had known in Greece or Asia, are named;
and seem to be the leading persons in the church. Indeed, it
would seem that no apostle had, as yet, ever been at Rome. Paul
says he had “had a great desire, for many years,” to visit them,
and he intended to do so as soon as possible. (Romans xv. 23.)
And he tells them why he longed to see them, that he might
impart to them “some spiritual gifts;”――that is, some of those
miraculous gifts, which none but apostles could confer. (Romans
i. 11.) I may add, that Paul gives them a whole system of
divinity in this epistle; and crowds more theology into it, than
into any other he ever wrote;――as if he considered this church
as needing fundamental instruction in the gospel, more than
any other. Now, how could all this be, if Peter had been there
fifteen years, with an assistant bishop to aid him; and had
completely organized, and regulated, and instructed this central
church of all Christendom? What Catholic bishop, at the present
day, would dare to address the church of Rome without once
naming his liege lord, the pope; and would give them a whole
system of theology, and numerous rules and regulations for their
private conduct and for their public discipline, without even
an intimation that they had any spiritual guides and rulers, to
whom they were accountable?

5. Three years after this epistle was written, (that is, A. D.
62,) Paul arrived at Rome, and was there detained a prisoner
for two years, or until A. D. 64. Now let us see if we can find
Peter there, at or during this period. When it was known at
Rome that Paul was approaching the city, the Christians there
went twenty miles to meet him, and escort him;――so eager were
they to see an apostle of Jesus Christ. Three days after his
arrival, “Paul called the chief of the Jews together,” to have
conversation with them. They had heard nothing against him, and
they were glad to see him,――for they wished to hear more about
the Christian sect; “for,” said they, “as concerning this sect,
we know that it is every where spoken against;” and “we desire
to hear of thee what thou thinkest.” (Acts xxviii. 22.) They
appointed him a day, when they all assembled for the purpose,
and he addressed them “from morning till evening.” Now could
Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, have been near twenty
years bishop of Rome, and so full of business as to employ an
assistant bishop, and yet the Jews there be so ignorant of
Christianity, and so glad to meet with one who could satisfy
their curiosity to learn something about it? Moreover, Paul
now continued to preach the gospel in “his own hired house,” at
Rome, for two years; (Acts xxviii. 30, 31;) and it would seem,
was very successful. During this time he wrote his epistles to
the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and perhaps,
that to the Hebrews. In these epistles he often speaks of his
success in making converts, and of the brethren who labored
with him;――but he does not once even name Peter, or Linus, or
Cletus,――or intimate, at all, that there was a cathedral church
at Rome, with an apostle or any bishop at its head. He sends
numerous salutations from individuals whom he names, and
from little companies of Christians in their houses,――but no
salutations from Peter, or from any bishop, or other officer
of the church there. The Catholics tell us, Peter might happen
to be absent during this period. What! absent two whole years!
and his assistant bishop also? Very negligent shepherds!
But where was the church all this time,――the enlightened
Christian community, and the elders and deacons, who governed
and instructed it, from Sabbath to Sabbath? Were all these, too,
gone a journey? No: it is manifest Paul was now the only regular
preacher of the gospel at Rome: and he was breaking up fallow
ground, that had never before been cultivated, and sown, and
made to bear fruit.

[This closes the learned argument on the testimonies of the
Fathers, extracted from Dr. Murdock’s manuscripts.]

Lardner also gives a sort of abstract of the passages in the
fathers, which refer to this subject, but not near so full,
nor so just to the original passages, as that of Dr. Murdock,
although he refers to a few authors not alluded to here, whose
testimony, however, amounts to little or nothing. Lardner’s
disposition to believe all these long-established Roman fables,
seems very great, and, on these points, his critical accuracy
appears to fail in maintaining its general character. However,
in the simple passage from Clemens Romanus, referred to above,
he is very full, not only translating the whole passage relating
to Peter and Paul, but entering into a very elaborate discussion
of the views taken of it; but after all he fails so utterly in
rearing an historical argument on this slender basis, that I
cannot feel called on to do anything more than barely refer the
critical reader to the passage in his life of Peter, (VII.)

Bower has given numerous quotations, too, from these sources,
but nothing not contained in the abstract above, of which a
great merit is, that it gives all the passages _in full_, in a
faithful and highly expressive translation. (See Bower’s Lives
of the Popes. “Peter.”)

THE COUNCIL OF THE APOSTLES AT JERUSALEM.

The last circumstance of Peter’s life and actions, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, is one so deeply involved also in the conduct of others of the holy band, that the history of the whole affair can be best given in connection with their lives; more especially as the immediate occasion of it arose under the labors of these other persons. All the statement which is here necessary to introduce the part which Peter took in the sayings and doings on this occasion, is simply as follows. Paul and Barnabas, having returned to Antioch from their first great mission from that city, throughout almost the whole circuit of Asia Minor, were, soon after their arrival in that city, involved in a vexatious dispute with a set of persons, who, having come down from Jerusalem, had undertaken to give the Syrian Christians more careful instructions in the minutiae of religious duty, than they had received from those who had originally effected their conversion. These new teachers being directly from that holy city, which, having been the great scene of the instructions and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and still being the seat of the apostolic college, was regarded by all, as the true source of religious light, to Christians as well as Jews, throughout the world, therefore made no small commotion in the church of Antioch, when they began to inculcate, as essential to salvation, a full conformity to all the minute ritual observances of the Mosaic law. The church of Antioch, having been planted and taught by men of a more catholic spirit, had gathered within itself a large number of heathen from that Gentile city, who, led by their convictions of the truth and spirituality of the Christian faith, had renounced entirely all the idolatries in which they had been brought up, giving themselves, as it would seem, with honest resolution, to a life of such moral purity, as they considered alone essential to the maintenance of their new religious character. Still, they had never supposed, that in renouncing their idolatrous superstitions, they had bound themselves to throw off also those customs of their country, which could have no connection with moral purity of conduct, and had therefore still remained in national peculiarities, Gentiles; though in creed, and religious practice, Christians. In this course they had been encouraged by the liberal and enlarged views of their religious instructors, who had never once hinted at the necessity of imposing upon Gentile Christians the burden of the Jewish law, which all the impressions of education and previous habits of life would have made quite intolerable. The wisdom of this enlightened spirit was seen in the great accessions of Gentiles, who, being convinced of the necessity of a moral change, were not met by any ceremonial impediments to the full adoption of a pure religion. Paul and Barnabas were, therefore, not a little troubled with this new difficulty, brought in by these Jewish teachers, who, being fresh from the fountain of religious knowledge, claimed great authority in reference to all delicate points of this nature. At last, after long and violent disputes between these old-school and new-school theologians, it was resolved to refer the whole matter to the twelve apostles themselves, at Jerusalem, who might well be supposed qualified to say what they considered to be the essential doctrines and observances of Christianity. Paul and Barnabas, therefore, with some of the rest engaged in the discussion, went up to Jerusalem as a delegation, for this purpose, and presented the whole difficulty to the consideration of the apostles. So little settled, after all, were the views and feelings of these first preachers of Christianity about the degree of freedom to be enjoyed by the numerous Gentile converts, that all the Jewish prejudices of many of them burst out at once, and high ground was taken against any dispensation in favor of Gentile prejudices. After a long discussion, in full assembly of both apostles and church-officers, Peter arose in the midst of the debate, taking the superiority to which his peculiar commission and his long precedence among them entitled him, and in a tone of dignified decision addressed them. He reminded them, in the first place, of that unquestionable call by which God had chosen him from among all the apostles, to proclaim to the heathen the word of the gospel, and of that solemn sign by which God had attested the completeness of their conversion, knowing, as he did, the hearts of all his creatures. The signs of the Holy Spirit having been imparted to the heathen converts with the same perfection of regenerating influence that had been manifested in those of the Jewish faith who had believed, it was manifestly challenging the testimony of God himself, to try to put on them the irksome yoke of the tedious Mosaic ritual, a yoke which not even the Jewish disciples, nor their fathers before them, had been able to bear in all the appointed strictness of its observances; and much less, then, could they expect a burden so intolerable, to be supported by those to whom it had none of the sanctions of national and educational prejudice, which so much assisted its dominion over the feelings of the Jews. And all the disciples, even those of Jewish race, must be perfectly satisfied that their whole reliance for salvation should be, not on any legal conformity, but on that common favor of their Lord, Jesus Christ, in which the Gentile converts also trusted.

_Challenge the testimony of God._――This is the substance of
Kuinoel’s ideas of the force of this passage, (Acts xv. 10.)
πειραζετε τον θεον, (_peirazete ton Theon_.) His words
are, “Tentare Deum dicuntur, qui veritatem, omnipotentiam,
omniscientiam, etc. Dei in dubium vocare, vel nova divinae
potentiae ac voluntatis documenta desiderant, adeoque Deo
obnituntur.”――“Those are said to tempt God who call in question
God’s truth, omnipotence, omniscience, &c., or demand new
evidences of the divine power or will, and thus strive against
God.” He quotes Pott and Schleusner in support of this view of
the passage. Rosenmueller and Bloomfield take the same view,
as well as many others quoted by the latter and by Poole.
Bloomfield is very full on the whole of Peter’s speech, and on
all the discussion, with the occasions of it.

_Chose me._――This passage has been the subject of much
discussion, but I have given a free translation which disagrees
with no one of the views of its _literal_ force. The fairest
opinion of the matter is, that the expression εξελεξατο εν ημιν,
is a Hebraism. (See Vorstius and others quoted by Bloomfield.)

This logically clear statement of whole difficulty, supported by the decisive authority of the chief of the apostles, most effectually hushed all discussion at once; and the whole assembly kept silence, while Paul and Barnabas recounted the extent and success of their labors. After they had finished, James, as the leader of the Mosaic faction, arose and expressed his own perfect acquiescence in the decision of Simon Peter, and proposed an arrangement for a dispensation in favor of the Gentile converts, perfectly satisfactory to all. This conclusion, establishing the correctness of the tolerant and accommodating views of the chief apostle, ended the business in a prudent manner, the details of which will be given in the lives of those more immediately concerned in the results; and though so abrupt a conclusion may be undesirable here, it will be only robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Illustration: ANTIOCH, IN SYRIA.
Acts xi. 26.

PETER’S VISIT TO ANTIOCH.

The historian of the Acts of the Apostles, after the narration of the preceding occurrence, makes no farther allusion to Peter; devoting himself wholly to the account of the far more extensive labors of Paul and his companions, so that for the remaining records of Peter’s life, reference must be had to other sources. These sources, however, are but few, and the results of investigations into them must be very brief.

From some passages in the first part of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, in which he gives an account of his previous intercourse with the twelve apostles, having mentioned his own visit to Jerusalem and its results, as just described above, he speaks of Peter as coming down to Antioch, soon after, where his conduct, in some particulars, was such as to meet the very decided reprehension of Paul. On his first arrival in that Gentile city, Peter, in accordance with the liberal views taught him by the revelation at Joppa and Caesarea, mingled, without scruple, among all classes of believers in Christ, claiming their hospitalities and all the pleasures of social intercourse, making no distinction between those of Jewish and of heathen origin. But in a short time, a company of persons came down from Jerusalem, sent particularly by James, no doubt with a reference to some especial observations on the behavior of the chief apostle, to see how it accorded with the Jerusalem standard of demeanor towards those, whom, by the Mosaic law, he must consider improper persons for the familiar intercourse of a Jew. Peter, probably knowing that they were disposed to notice his conduct critically on these matters of ceremonial punctilio, prudently determined to quiet these censors by avoiding all occasion for any collision with their prejudices. Before their arrival, he had mingled freely with the Grecian and Syrian members of the Christian community, eating with them, and conforming to their customs as far as was convenient for unrestrained social intercourse. But he now withdrew himself from their society, and kept himself much more retired than when free from critical observation. The sharp-eyed Paul, on noticing this sudden change in Peter’s habits, immediately attacked him with his characteristic boldness, charging him with unworthy dissimulation, in thus accommodating his behavior to the whims of these sticklers for Judaical strictness of manners. The common supposition has been, that Peter was here wholly in the wrong, and Paul wholly in the right: a conclusion by no means justified by what is known of the facts, and of the characters of the persons concerned. Peter was a much older man than Paul, and much more disposed by his cooler blood, to prudent and careful measures. His long personal intercourse with Jesus himself, also gave him a great advantage over Paul, in judging of what would be the conduct in such a case most conformable to the spirit of his divine Master; nor was his behavior marked by anything discordant with real honesty. The precept of Christ was, “Be _wise_ as serpents;” and a mere desire to avoid offending an over-scrupulous brother in a trifling matter, implied no more wariness than that divine maxim inculcated, and was, moreover, in the spirit of what Paul himself enjoined in very similar cases, in advising to avoid “offending a brother by eating meat which had been offered in sacrifice to idols.” There is no scriptural authority to favor the opinion that Peter ever acknowledged he was wrong; for all that Paul says is――“I rebuked him,”――but he does not say what effect it had on one who was an older and wiser man than his reprover, and quite as likely to be guided by the spirit of truth. It is probable, however, that Peter had something to say for himself; since it is quite discordant with all common ideas, to suppose that a great apostle would, in the face of those who looked up to him as a source of eternal truth, act a part which implied an unjustifiable practical falsehood. After all, the difference seems to have been on a point of very trifling importance, connected merely with the ceremonials of familiar intercourse, between individuals of nations widely different in manners, habits, prejudices, and the whole tenor of their feelings, as far as country, language and education, would affect them; and a fair consideration of the whole difficulty, by modern ethical standards, will do much to justify Peter in a course designed to avoid unnecessary occasions of quarrel, until the slow operations of time should have worn away all these national prejudices,――the rigid sticklers quietly accommodating themselves to the neglect of ceremonies, which experience would prove perfectly impracticable among those professing the free faith of Christ.

HIS RESIDENCE IN BABYLON.

The first epistle of Peter contains at the close a general salutation from the church in Babylon, to the Christians of Asia Minor, to whom it was addressed. From this, the unquestioned inference is, that Peter was in that city when he wrote. The only point mooted is, whether the place meant by this name was Babylon on the Euphrates, or some other city commonly designated by that name. The most irrational conjecture on the subject, and yet the one which has found most supporters, is, that this name is there used in a spiritual or metaphorical sense for Rome, whose conquests, wide dominion, idolatries, and tyranny over the worshipers of the true God, were considered as assimilating it to the ancient capital of the eastern world. But, in reference to such an unparalleled instance of useless allegory, in a sober message from one church to a number of others, serving as a convenient date for a letter, it should be remembered that at that time there were at least two distinct, important places, bearing the name of Babylon,――so well known throughout the east, that the simple mention of the name would at once suggest to a common reader, one of these as the place seriously meant. One of these was that which stood on the site of the ancient Chaldean Babylon, a place of great resort to the Jews, finally becoming to them, after the destruction of Jerusalem, a great city of refuge, and one of the two great capitals of the Hebrew faith, sharing only with Tiberias the honors of its literary and religious pre-eminence. Even before that, however, as early as the time of Peter, it was a city of great importance and interest in a religious point of view, offering a most ample and desirable field for the labors of the chief apostle, now advancing in years, and whose whole genius, feelings, religious education and national peculiarities, qualified him as eminently for this oriental scene of labor, as those of Paul fitted him for the triumphant advancement of the Christian faith among the polished and energetic races of the mighty west. Here, then, it seems reasonable and pleasant to imagine, that in this glorious “clime of the east,”――away from the bloody strife between tyranny and faction, that distracted and desolated the once blessed land of Israel’s heritage, during the brief delay of its awful doom,――among the scenes of that ancient captivity, in which the mourning sons of Zion had drawn high consolation and lasting support from the same word of prophecy, which the march of time in its solemn fulfilments had since made the faithful history of God’s believing people,――here the chief apostle calmly passed the slow decline of his lengthened years. High associations of historical and religious interest gave all around him a holy character. He sat amid the ruins of empires, the scattered wrecks of ages,――still in their dreary desolation attesting the surety of the word of God. From the lonely waste, mounded with the dust of twenty-three centuries, came the solemn witness of the truth of the Hebrew seers, who sung, over the highest glories of that plain in its brightest days, the long-foredoomed ruin that at last overswept it with such blighting desolation. Here, mighty visions of the destiny of worlds, the rise and fall of empire, rose on the view of Daniel and Ezekiel, whose prophetic scope, on this vast stage of dominion, expanded far beyond the narrow limits that bounded all the future in the eyes of the sublimest of those prophets, whose whole ideas of what was great were taken from the little world of Palestine. Like them, too, the apostolic chief lifted his aged eyes above the paltry commotions and troubles of his own land and times, and glanced far over all, to the scenes of distant ages,――to the broad view of the spiritual consummation of events,――to the final triumphs of a true and pure faith,――to the achievement of the world’s destiny.

_Babylon._――The great Sir John David Michaelis enters with
the most satisfactory fullness into the discussion of this
locality;――with more fullness, indeed, than my crowded limits
will allow me to do justice to; so that I must refer my reader
to his Introduction to the New Testament, (chapter xxvii. § 4,
5,) where ample statements may be found by those who wish to
satisfy themselves of the justice of my conclusion about the
place from which this epistle was written. He very ably exposes
the extraordinary absurdity of the opinion that this date was
given in a mystical sense, at a time when the ancient Babylon,
on the Euphrates, was still in existence, as well as a city on
the Tigris, Seleucia, to which the name of modern Babylon was
given. And he might have added, that there was still another of
this name in Egypt, not far from the great Memphis, which has,
by Pearson and others, been earnestly defended as the Babylon
from which Peter wrote. Michaelis observes, that through some
mistake it has been supposed, that the ancient Babylon, in the
time of Peter, was no longer in being; and it is true that in
comparison with its original splendor, it might be called, even
in the first century, a desolated city; yet it was not wholly a
heap of ruins, nor destitute of inhabitants. This appears from
the account which Strabo, who lived in the time of Tiberius, has
given of it. This great geographer compares Babylon to Seleucia,
saying, “At present Babylon is not so great as Seleucia,” which
was then the capital of the Parthian empire, and, according to
Pliny, contained six hundred thousand inhabitants. The acute
Michaelis humorously remarks, that “to conclude that Babylon,
whence Peter dates his epistle, could not have been the ancient
Babylon, because this city was in a state of decay, and thence
to argue that Peter used the word mystically, to denote Rome,
is about the same as if, on the receipt of a letter dated from
Ghent or Antwerp, in which mention was made of a Christian
community there, I concluded that because these cities are
no longer what they were in the sixteenth century, the writer
of the epistle meant a spiritual Ghent or Antwerp, and that
the epistle was really written from Amsterdam.” And in the
next section he gives a similar illustration of this amusing
absurdity, equally apt and happy, drawn in the same manner
from modern places about him, (for Goettingen was the residence
of the immortal professor.) “The plain language of epistolary
writing does not admit of figures of poetry; and though it would
be very allowable in a poem, written in honor of Goettingen, to
style it another Athens, yet if a professor of this university
should, in a letter written from Goettingen, date it Athens, it
would be a greater piece of pedantry than any learned man was
ever yet guilty of. In like manner, though a figurative use of
the word Babylon is not unsuitable to the animated and poetical
language of the Apocalypse, yet in a plain and unadorned epistle,
Peter would hardly have called the place whence he wrote, by
any other appellation than that which literally and properly
belonged to it.” (Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament,
Marsh’s translation, chapter xxvii. § 4, 5.)

The most zealous defender of this mere popish notion of a
mystical Babylon, is, alas! a Protestant. The best argument ever
made out in its defense, is that by Lardner, who in his account
of Peter’s epistles, (History of the Apostles and Evangelists,
chapter xix. § 3,) does his utmost to maintain the mystical
sense, and may be well referred to as giving the best possible
defense of this view. But the course of Lardner’s great work
having led him, on all occasions, to make the most of the
testimonies of the fathers, in connection with the establishment
of the credibility of the gospel history, he seems to have been
unable to shake off this reverence of every thing which came on
authority as old as Augustin; and his critical judgment on the
traditionary history of Christianity is therefore worth very
little. Any one who wishes to see all his truly elaborate and
learned arguments fairly met, may find this done by a mind
of far greater originality, critical acuteness and biblical
knowledge, (if not equal in acquaintance with the fathers,)
and by a far sounder judgment, in Michaelis, as above quoted,
who has put an end to all dispute on these points, by his
presentation of the truth. So well settled is this ground now,
that we find in the theology of Romish writers most satisfactory
refutations of an error, so convenient for the support of
Romish supremacy. The learned Hug (pronounced very nearly like
“_Hookh_;” U sounded as in b_u_ll, and G strongly aspirated) may
here be referred to for the latest defense of the common sense
view. (Introduction vol. II. § 165.) In answer to the notion
of an Egyptian Babylon, he gives us help not to be found in
Michaelis, who makes no mention of this view. Lardner also
quotes from Strabo what sufficiently shows, that this Babylon
was no town of importance, but a mere military station for one
of the three Roman legions which guarded Egypt.