WAS THE APOSTLE PETER EVER AT ROME? ^-:«N W--\\N-SSW^V \\ CO REV. MASON GALLAGHER,D. D. , . .^ ti-. iFnim tl|p ICtbrarg of iSpqupatl|0li bg Ijtm to \\\t IGibrary of Prtnr^ton S^falngtral g>pmt«ar^ BS 2515 .G34 1894 Gallagher, Mason Was the Apostle Peter ever at Rome? WAS THE APOSTLE PETER EVER AT ROME? A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE QUESTION MAf 13 REV. MASON GALLAGHER, D. D., AUTHOR OP " TRUE CHURCHMANSHIP VINDICATED," " THE DUTY AND NECESSITY OP REVISION," "a chapter OP UNWRITTEN HISTORY," " THE TRUE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE." INTRODUCTION BY REV. JOHN HALL, D. D., Pastor Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, New York. NEW YORK PRINTED BY HUNT & EATON 150 Fifth Avenue 1894 "The origin and prevalence of the tradition respecting Peter's supposed Episcopacy at Rome are among the curiosities of history, and well worthy of the attention of the critical scholar." — Sawyer's Organic Christianity. "The validity of the Petrine claims directly affects every matter, and every act within the spiritual domain of the Papacy, whether belonging to the sphere of Faith or that of Discipline."— Littledale, Peti'ine Claims. " The question of the supremacy of Rome is far enough from being out of date. It is one of the chief living, burning questions of our time."— S. H. Kellogg, Christian Tt'easury. " There is no evidence from Scripture that Peter ever was in Rome, and it is far from being probable that he could have visited heathen Rome and have said nothing about it and have given no account of his labors there; and as the evidence of Scripture is negatively against his being there the burden of proof is upon the shoulders of those who assert the fncV—P?inceton Heview, iii. 253. Copyright, 1894, By REV. MASON GALLAGHER, D. D. THE MBRSHON COMPANY PRESS, RAHWAY, N. J. TRUSTEES AND FACULTY OF U. S. GRANT UNIVERSITY, Athens and Chattanooga, Tennessee. THIS VOLUME IS INSCRIBED IN TOKEN OF THEIR COURTESY IN CONFERRING THE DEGREE, DOCTORIS DIVINITATIS, UPON THE AUTHOR, Chaplain U. S. Grant Post, 33~, G. A. R., BROOKLYN, N Y. " For though you believe all the Scripture, yet if you believe not that Peter vyas at Rome, you know who will tell you, you had as good believe nothing."— Dr. John Lightfoot. "The great fact of the Roman Church is founded solely on the coming of St. Peter to Rome. This fact would be absurd, it would be inexplicable, it would be madness, if it be not admitted that St. Peter came to Rome to preach. It is by the coming of St. Peter, that the Roman Church exists." —Father Guidi, Diss, at Rome, 1873. " We cannot find fault with a Protestant, when relying on the proofs which the oldest Fathers, Clement of Rome and Justin, present, he holds the abode of Peter at Rome, and all connected with it, for a tale derived from the Apocrypha." — Ellendorf, Roman Catholic Professor, Berlin. " St. Peter the good, honest, married Apostle of Babylon, and the East, who left as the last legacy to his followers, not to make themselves 'lords over God's heritage.' ""—Edinburgh Eeview, July, 1893. INTRODUCTION. There has not been given much attention by the good people of the United States to the arguments by which the doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome have been assailed from the one side and defended from the other. The reasons for this are not discreditable to a young Nation busily engaged in shaping its own life, and satisfied that religious convictions are a man's own affair and need not be discussed by his neighbors. There is, however, an increasing attention being given to History, and the element of Religion cannot be ruled out of historical investigation. It is, moreover, being shown to thoughtful students of the questions of the day, that there are such religious convictions as do affect others than those who hold them, and that they become a factor in social and political life. We rejoice in freedom, but we must scrutinize forces, even though " religious," that appear to be opposed to accepted ideas of human freedom. Is there an infallible, visible, divinely appointed Head of the Church — the whole and only Church of Christ in the world ? How much submission is due to such a Head, if the title to the position be accepted ? Can the vii viii INTRODUCTION. title be sustained ? Did the Chief Shepherd and Bishop of souls make Peter his representative, and arrange for an unbroken line of successors to the Apostle ? More than one field of investigation must be traversed in seek- ing for replies. We must go into the exegesis of our Lord's words to his disciple. They who read in these words a Primacy conferred have to face another ques- tion. Where is the evidence of Divine selection of Rome as the seat of this Primacy of the universal Church ? It is easy to see how, in the absence of any authorita- tive reply to this question, the pleaders for such an appointment would welcome tradition and take refer- ences to the Apostle's stay in Rome as a providential indication of the Divine Avill. Even the language of 1 Peter v. 13, " The Church that is at Babylon . . . saluteth you," has been grasped as an argument for the apostle's sojourn and labors in the Roman capital, which, they say, for reasons of his own, he describes as "Babylon." One wonders that they do not fear to identify it with the " Babylon " of John, the character and doom of which are so vividly presented in the Revelation. Is there real historical evidence of Peter's being in Rome, in any such sense as would make him the Founder and Head of the local Church ? To this question Dr. Gallagher has given thought and careful investigation. He has not ignored the arguments of the adherents of INTRODUCTION. ix the Papal view, whether in traditions or Patristic litera- ture. He has tried to set their true value upon points of supposed evidence, and he has presented calmly and dispassionately the arguments upon the other side. He has shown, by the admission of scholarly Roman Catho- lics, how necessary it is to have settled beliefs on this matter, if one is to be a sincere and loyal subject of the Vatican. I can cordially commend the book to careful study. It would moderate the views of candid Roman Catholics regarding Protestants, to have shown to them the uncertainty to our minds of a matter which they have accepted as proved. They would not blame us for rejecting their theory when the Scripture reference to it will not stand the test of exegesis, and when the historical evidence at so many points suggests the verdict " not proven." And it would be profitable to many Protestants to have their attention called to the alleged basis of a spiritual claim of authority in the gravest human affairs — a claim which is becoming a real thing to American citi- zens. We reject the claim, for cause. We should be able to give a reason for this objection. Dr. Gallagher's book, it is to be hoped, will strengthen intelligent Protestant conviction, and give encouragement to us all to speak to our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, " the truth in love." J, Hall. PREFACE. Rome rests her claim on Peter. That our Lord con- ferred an especial distinction on this Apostle must be conceded. When he said : " Thou art Peter, and on this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever tliou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever tliou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven," Matt. xvi. 17, 18 ; whatever was meant by these words, the honor conferred was great. We read of no authority given him to exercise over his fellow Apostles. He never claimed it. His fellows never admitted it. Instead of regarding it, they strove among themselves who should be greatest. The wife of Zebedee desired the pre-eminence for her sons. Peter disowned the claim when he styled himself "a fellow elder." He discouraged such aspirations when he wrote : " Be clothed with humility," under divine guid- ance ; he gave us no charge to build on a dead Peter but to "come to a Living Stone and be built up a spiritual house," to offer praise to God through Jesus Christ. Paul does not direct the Corinthians to build on Peter, who had followers among them, but declares : " Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is xi xii PREFACE. Jesus Christ." This he says, Divinely inspired, and with all who give due honor to the word of God, it will be enough to condemn a Petrine Foundation. But Rome interprets the charge to Peter as a gift of authority over the universal church : that Peter has been made the foundation, and that, apart from him, no soul can be built up in the faith of Christ ; can obtain forgiveness of sin ; can be sanctified by the Spirit, and be prepared for eternal judgment and heavenly glory. When Rome sends her heralds to this land who come to me in the name of Peter and demand my adherence, and complete subjection, I reply : Granted that Peter had such power, proved by Holy Writ, did he convey that power to any other mortal, and was it to be handed down from generation to generation, and to the end of time? If this is proven, I ask again, what connection has the city of Rome with Peter, the Apostle of the Circum- cision, and how can the Bishop of Rome derive power from tlie dead Peter in the nineteenth century, over any immortal soul in this distant land ? By what right can an Italian minister of Christ interfere with the spiritual liberty of an intelligent American, who has the Bible in his hand, and who there finds that some of the doctrines and usages of Rome are clearly and emphatically con- demned, and woes denounced against those who present " Another Gospel " ? Examining carefully the history of the Church of Rome, and all the evidence she presents for the validity of her authority, I find none that will bear an impartial and thorough scrutiny. I find no ancient writer whose testimony to a Roman visit would be received in any court of justice, or even in a matter which concerned PREFACE. xin worldly property. Shall I risk my immortal soul on such an uncertainty? I find that the vast body of enlightened scholarship, outside the Roman communion, decisively reject the claim that Peter lived and labored in Rome, and con- sider the statement too improbable to be believed. I find that learned lawyers have thoroughly investi- gated the subject, and discover no evidence that is reli- able, and likewise numerous Roman Catholic authors assert that Peter lived and labored in the East. I am justified therefore in rejecting the proposals of Rome, and in regarding her claim to authority, through Peter, as baseless and vain, and that all who have bowed to her dictation have been deceived ; and considering tiie influence that Church has exercised on nations to their spiritual and temporal harm, I am bound to make known the truth, that others may be benefited by its reception. All evidence that Rome has presented for herPetrine claim is here considered, and the views of the leading scholars of different nations, with respect to the life and labors of the Chief of the Apostles, together with other matters cognate to the subject. It will be seen that in this inquiry the title of Saint has been omitted. This course has been pursued, inas- much as there is no precedent or authority in Scripture, nor in the Primitive Church for the practice. The Apostles were not thus styled in the best days of Christianity, nor for many generations after their decease. As for later and uninspired men, the practice origi- nated in a degenerate age, and cannot be defended on reasonable grounds. There was no especial merit to warrant this invidious XIV PREFACE. • appellation, neither have those who received the dis- tinction excelled the Christians of our own time in divine knowledge, or in the possession and manifestation of the graces of the Christian character. By the Apostles all the members of the one body were equally styled " saints." By departing from the Scriptural statement some of the brethren have been unduly magnified. Distance has lent enchantment to the view, and clothed imperfect humanity with a false luster. Evil lias naturally fol- lowed. Those styled saints have been honored with a species of worship. Adoration^ instead of being con- fined to one Supreme Being, has been offered in some measure to his creatures, and the displeasure of the Almighty has been manifested, in the withdrawal of his presence and favor from an Institution which has favored such a practice. Superstition has widely extended, the truth of the Divine "Word has been corrupted into falsehood, and spiritual darkness has enveloped both priests and people. Such being the undeniable results, we regard the use of the title to be honored more in the breach, than in the observance. That the Divine Head of the Church may bless this investigation to the extension of the truth, and to the removal of error, and thus to the enlightenment of souls, is the author's earnest prayer. Brooklyn, N. Y., March 9, 1894. CONTENTS. CHAPTER PAGE I. Statement of the Case, 1 II. Ignatius, 23 III. Clement of Rome, 33 IV. Fathers of the Second Century, . . 51 V. Testimony of the Scripture, ... 58 VI. Was the Babylon of Peter, Rome ? . . 68 VII. Origin of the Story : Babylon Meant Rome, . 74 VIII. Canon Farrar on the Question of Babylon, 81 IX. The View of the Orientalist Lightfoot, . 87 X. Dr. G. W. Samson's Argument, . . 93 XI. Rome not Babylon— Arguments of English Authors, 100 XII. Views of Continental Writers, . . 107 XIII. Gavazzi's Argujient, 117 XIV. The Apostles Peter and John, . . 133 XV. The Second Epistle of John, To Whom Ad- dressed ? 131 XVI. Results of Inquiry Thus Far, ... 141 XVII. Rome's Appeal to Antiquity, . . . 150 XVIII. Iren^us, 160 XV XVI CONTENTS. CHAPTER PAGE XIX. "The Trophies" of Caius, . . .174 XX. Tertullian ajstd Hippolytus, . . . 184 XXI. Origen, Clemens, Cyprian 194 XXII. EusEBius, 206 XXIII. Professor Ramsey's Theory 218 XXIV. Recapitulation, ..... 234 XXV. Index, . , 247 WAS THE APOSTLE PETER EVER AT ROME ? CHAPTER I. Statement of tbe Case. "The conclusion Avliich follows from the fact of St. Peter being Bishop of Rome is important, and one which every Catholic looks upon as the foundation of his faith." — Rev. S. B. Smith's, D. D., Teachings of THE Holy Catholic Church. Imprimatur: Cardinals McCloskey and Gibbons ; Bishops Gihnour, Lynch, and Elder. 1884. " The simplest way of proving that the Bishop of Rome is not the successor of St. Peter, is by establishing as a stubborn fact that St. Peter himself, the presumed source of the Roman claims, never was Bishop of Rome ; in fact that he never was in the Eternal City." — Rev. Reuben Parsons, D. D., Studies in Church History. Imprimatur : Archbishop Corrigan, New York. 1886. Considering the generally accepted opinion on this question, it is remarkable that the weight of modern argument is so largely with those who deny tliat there is satisfactory or respectable evidence that the Apostle Peter ever resided in, or visited the Imperial City ; evi- dence based on testimony JudiciaUi/ scrutinized, which 2 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? alone is wortliy to be accepted in an investigation so important with respect to the spiritual, eternal interests involved. For if Peter went to Rome, and the results followed which over half the visible Christian Church are taught to believe as an essential article of faith, then the writer, and all who with him reject and oppose the Roman Catholic Church, because not a sound and ])ure part of the kingdom of Christ, are thereby doomed to eternal and irretrievable damnation with the devil and liis angels. AVHAT ROME TEACHES. "If anyone should deny that it is by the institution of Christ, the Lord, or by Divine Right, that blessed Peter should liave a perpetual line of successors in the primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in the Pri- macy, let him be anathema ! " — Decree of Vatican Council, 1870. "He that acknowledgeth not himself to be under the Bishop of Rome, and that the Bishop of Rome is ordained of God to have Primacy over all the world, is a heretic and cannot be saved, nor is of the flock of Christ." — Canon Law Ch. of Rome. Creed of Pope Pius IV., 1564 : "I acknowledge the Holy 'Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church, for the mother and mistress of all Churches ; and I promise true obedience to tlie Bishop of Rome — successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ. I do at this present freely profess, and sincerely hold, this true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved." THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 3 Catechismus Romaxus, ii. vii. xvii. : " The Roman Bisliop . . . occupying as he does the cliair of St. Peter, the Prince of tlie Apostles, who most assuredly himself occupied it till tlie time of his death, is, in it, entitled to the iiighest honors, and tlie most unbounded jurisdiction, as having been conferred on him, not by the decrees of any council or other human authority, but by God liimself." Decree of Boniface VIII., ed. Gregory XII., 1648: "Tliere are one Body, one Head of the one and sole Church, viz., Christ and Christ's Vicar, Peter, and the successors of Peter. . . Moreover we say, determine, and pronounce, that every human creature is subject to the Roman Pontiff, as of absolute necessity to salvation." "After the death of St. Peter, tlie Pope, tlie Bishop of Rome, has always been taken as the visible head of Christ's Cliurch, because St. Peter established his See at Rome and consecrated it with his blood." — Fam.Ex.Cath. Doctrine, p. iii, 1888. Imprimatur : Cardinal Gibbons. "Whoever would seek for salvation must adhere to tliis unity ; to this authority of St. Peter and liis suc- cessors." — Barras., Gen. Hist. Catholic Church, i. 24. Imprimatur : Archbishops McCloskey, Spalding, and Purcell. WHERE THE BURDEN OF rROOF LIES. I am aware that the Roman claim of the Primacy of Peter would not be established by such a visit, nor by an asserted residence of twenty-five years in that city. I insist, also, that the burden of proof in this matter rests with those who make the eternal salvation of man- kind depend upon their belief in Peter, as livitig and ruling in Rome, supreme Bishop of the Christian Church. For it is absolutely essential for the confirmation of 4 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? Roman Catholic claims that Peter should have lived in Rome ; should have been Bishop of Rome ; sliould have handed down plenary apostolic power to his supposed successors. The whole fabric of the Roman edifice needs for its support, the production of well authen- ticated and indisputable testimony to establish Peter's visit to and residence in Rome. Cardinal Perrone, one of the most learned of recent Roman controversialists, in a work published in 1864, says : " None but an apostate Catholic could assert that Peter was not at Rome ; for the reason of that fact is that the coming of St. Peter at Rome, and the seat there established by him, is connected with an article of our faith — that is, the Primacy of Order and Jurisdiction belonijincr of Divine Right to the Roman Pontiff. Hence it follows that he cannot be a Catholic who docs not believe the coming, the episcopate, and the death of St. Peter in Rome." Cardinal Bellarmine acknowledges that " the right of succession of the Popes is founded on this, that Peter established his seat in Rome b}'^ Divine command, and occupied it till his death." It overthrows the foundations of the Church of Rome to show, that there is no clear or reliable proof that Peter visited Rome, because the whole fabric of Popery falls without the establishment of this assumption. It is as essential to this argument as the brain or the heart is to the human body. RECENT CRITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. This whole subject has received of late years a more thorough investigation on the part of legal minds accustomed to sift evidence ; and it has been clearly shown that there is not a traditio7i of the first century ROMAN CATHOLIC ABMISfilONS. 5 after Peter''!< death, that lie iras in Home ; and that there is no assertion of the fact till the heginnlng of the third century^ in any authentic document. That Holy Scripture makes no such statement is con- cetled by all, except those who unwarrantably assume that the Apostle, when he writes Babj^lon, means Rome, a position denied by many eminent Romanists, and by the great bulk of scholars outside that Chui-ch, of which the proof will be presented. ROMAN CATHOLIC ADMISSIONS. A marked feature of this controversy is the character of the admissions made b}^ Roman Catholic writers. Simon, in his " Mission and Martyrdom of St. Peter," refers to some of these admissions. Introd., p. 10 : " Charles \y\s Moulin, the great ecclesiastical lawyer (a. d. 1566), whom Father Calmet speaks of as a stead- fast Roman Catholic, and than whom no writer ever enjoyed a higher reputation for learning and intel- ligence, has unequivocally stated it as his opinion, that there never was even a vague tradition among the ancients about Peter's having left the East, and that one might very well be a Roman Catholic without thinking there was." In one passage he writes thus : " Even when, after the breaking up of the empire, the Bish&ps of Rome began to extend their authority over other Churches, they never alleged or put forward this story of Peter's being at Rome, and of his Primacy devolving in succession upon them, which they would not have omitted to do if there had been any such thing to put forward ; a clear proof that there was not ; the story, I suppose, not hav- ing yet been invented." (Vol. iv. p. 460.) 6 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? Father Leland, the celebrated English Antiquarian (a. d. 1552), and Maesilius, a distinguished Italian jurist (a. d. 1324), both of whom Calmet also mentions as menibers of bis Church, were equally positive on this point. Father Caron, an Irish Franciscan of the highest eminence (a. d. 1666), took the same view of the matter ; as also did Father IIardouin, a French Jesuit (a. d. 1729), likewise in very high repute in Rome. " We Roman Catholics hold," says Father Hardouix, "that at least Peter's head was brought to Rome after his crucifixion, and that it ought to be duly worshiped there ; but that the Pope is Christ's substi- tute and Peter's successor is clear enough withoixt our being bound to suj^pose that Peter himself ever came to Rome." De Cormenin, a Roman Catholic, Hist. Popes, pp. 17, 18, remarks : " We are compelled to admit the force of reasoning of the Protestants, who steadily deny the existence of the journey of St. Peter to Rome. There is no proof that his blood was shed at, Rome, despite the opinions of Baronius, Fleurj', and others." Ellendorf, Roman Catholic professor at Berlin, Bib. Sac, January, 1859, 105: "Peter's abode at Rome can never be proved." Francis Turretin, Op., p. 144, presents, as openly denying the visit of Peter to Rome, John Bapt. Man- tuan, M. CfEsenas, jMarsilius Patavinus, J. Aventinus, Car. Molina?us, and others, all Roman Catholics. THE verdict of PROTESTANT SCHOLARSHIP. CONTINENTAL AUTHORS. George Stanley Faber, among England's ablest writers, refers to one who was regarded as the greatest PBOTESTAXT A UTIIOlilTIES. 7 scliolar of liis age : " Many persons will incline to rest, either partiall}^ or wliolly, in the strongly expressed judgment of the learned Scaliger : ' As for the com- ing of Peter to Rome, liis Roman episcopate of twenty years, and his final martyrdom at Rome, no man, whose head can boast a grain of common sense, will believe a single syllable.'" —Facts and Assertions, etc., p. 58. IiT a treatise on the Feigned Departure of Peter, etc., Spaniieim maintains that " Peter never was in Rome." Salmasius asserts that " there is no better evidence for Peter having gone thither, than for the preaching of James in Spain, or of Joseph of Arimathea in Britain ; and by calculation of dates it is proved, with the utmost certainty, " that the Apostle was never at Rome." (See Robins' " Evidence of Scripture Against the Claims of the Roman Church," p. 106.) F. TuRRETix, Op. iii. 148, Am. Ed,: " That Peter was at Rome is doubtful and extremely uncertain ; it is far more certain tliatbe never saw Rome." Raxke affirms : " Historical criticism has shown that it is a matter of doubt whether the Apostle ever was at Rome at all." (Ref. C, ii. ch. 3, p. 472.) Yax Oosterzee, Christ. Dogm., p. 702 : " Even if we allow that Peter was actually at Rome (though the Scriptures do not actually decide it, and hardly leave room to suppose it), nothing is thereby determined in favor of his episcopate over that chnrch." Lipsius, a great German critic, asserts : " The Roman Peter Legend proves itself to be from beginning to end a fiction, and thus our critical judgment is con- firmed. The feet of Peter Never Trod the Streets of 7iO«ostle, is appealed to both by Protestant and Roman writers in support of the tradition that Peter visited the Imperial City. If this writer makes this affirmation, it is enough to settle the question. " Clement," says Chevalier in his Introduction to his traiislation of the Epistle of this writer: "is believed upon the general testinionj^ of ecclesiastical historians, to have been the same whom St. Paul mentions among his fellow-laboreis, whose names are written in the book of life." — Philippians iv. 3. "The epistle of Clement to the Church at Corinth is the only genuine work of any uninspired writer of the first centurj^ noAV extant." — Riddle's Eccles. Chron., p. 13. " By ecclesisatical writers generally nothing that is not divine is admitted to be of higher authority." — Cole- man's Apos. and Prim. Ch., p. 164. Clement, accoi'ding to Bunsen's Chronology, Hip- polytus, vol. i. p. 44, was bishoj> between the years 78 and 86. Of this Epistle Bishop Lightfoot writes: " ^Ye can- not hesitate to accept the universal testimony of antiq- uity that it was written by Clement, the reputed Bishop of Rome." Of his office he remarks: "He was rather the chief of the presbyters, than the chief over the presbyters." — Christ. Ministry, p. 67. 32 CLEMENT OF ROME. 33 The testimony of this earliest and most esteemed of uninspired writers is of great importance as settling the question, that the order of bishops and presbyters was the same, in both the Churches of Corinth and of Rome; and no argument whatever can be based on it in support of the authority of the Episcopal office as a distinct order. As to the hypothesis of Peter's visit to Rome, some Roman Catholic and Protestant writers have claimed Clement as a witness for the affirmative. Baronius, Bellarmine, and Pearson prudently refrain from appealing to bis testimony. Feuardent, Baratier, Lardner, and McCorry claim him as an authority for Peter's residence at Rome. McCoRKY writes thus in his Treatise, p. 67: "The first witness that we shall bring is Clement the Roman, a disciple of Peter. After the persecution of Diocletian had subsided, he wrote an epistle to the Corinthians; in which he speaks of those who had suffered martyrdom at Rome, and makes distinct mention of St. Peter as the great bishop Avho had founded and governed the Roman Church. He says: 'Let us always have before our eyes those good Apostles : Peter, who endured so many labors, and who, dying a mart3'r, departed to glory; and Paul, who obtained the reward by patience, and suffered mar- tyrdom under the emperors. To these men, who had led so angelic a life, a vast multitude of the elect were added, who rivaling one another in suffering reproaches and torments, have left behind them for our sake the most beautiful example.' Now here is a declaration from a contemporary writer bearing evidence to the fact that the prince of the Apostles died a martyr at Rome." Dr. Lardner, in his Histoiy of the Apostles, in the 34 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? article on Peter, renders Clement's language thus: "Let us set before our eyes the excellent Apostles: Peter, who through unrighteous zeal underwent not one or two, but many labors, till at last being martyred, he went to the place of glory that was due unto him. Through zeal, Paul obtained the reward of patience. Seven times he was in bonds; he was whipped, he was stoned. He preached both in the East and West, and having taught the world righteousness, and coming to the borders of the West, and suffering martyrdom under the governors, so he departed out of the world, and Avent to the most holy place, being a most eminent pattern of patience." Similar is the translation of this writer, b}^ Wake, Che- valier, Greenwood, and Simon, except the passage, "the borders of the West." Wake renders it, "the utmost bounds"; Chevalier, "the furthest extremity"; Simon, "the remotest limits"; Greenwood, "the extreme verge." With respect to the false version of this passage of Clement, offered by Father McCorry, Simon, p. 309, remarks: "The translations oi this writer are invalu- able as showing to what lengths a few of the Roman clergy now among us go, and are obliged to go upon this subject, and these passages." We have another illustration of this style of version, in Bishop Kenrick on the Primacy, i">. 94, ed. 1848, who says: "Clement. . . . declares that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome, before his eyes." The argument of Lardner founded on these words of Clement, for the supposed Roman residence of Peter, is as follows; "From these jiassages I think it may be justly concluded that Peter and Paul were martyrs at Rome, in the time of Nero's persecution. For they suffered among the Romans, where Clement was bishop, CLEMENT OF ROME? 35 and in whose name be was writing to the Corinthians. They were martyrs, when many others were an example, ov pattern, of a like patience among them. To these Ajwstles, says Clement, v:as joined a great multitude of choice ones, that is. Christians. This is a manifest de- scription of Nero's persecution at Rome, when a multi- tude of Christians there were put to death, under griev- ous reproaches and exquisite torments, as we are as- sured by Tacitus. These were joined to the excellent Apostles, Peter and Paul, before mentioned. There- fore Peter and Paul had suffered at that place, and at that time; and as it seems, according to this account, at the beginning of that persecution, which may be reckoned not at all improbable. "When Clement saj'^s ihnX, Vax\\ suffered martyrdom under the governors, he may be understood to mean by order of the magistrate. It cannot be here inferred that Peter and Paul did not die by Nero's order, or in virtue of his edict against the Christians. It should be con- sidered that Clement is not an historian. He is writing an epistle containing divers exhortations. It is not needful for him to be more particular. He does not name the city in which Peter and Paul died, nor the death they underwent. But he intimates that they suffered a cruel death, together with many choice ones among them, which must mean Rome; and he plainly represents these Apostles as martyrs, who had suffered through envy and unrighteous zeal. The place and the manner of their death were well-known to the Christians at Corinth, to whom Clement was writing." Lardner goes on to say that Clement was obliged to be "circumspect" in his language in that period of "perse- cution." Lardner argues, against Pearson, that Nero 36 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? was in Rome ia the j^ear 68, and tliat therefore the terra "governors" may refer to that Emperor. "As for the word being in the phiral number; it is no uncommon thing to prefer that to the singular when we are obliged to be cautious, etc. . . So that I must take the liberty to saj^, that Pearson's observation, that Peter and Paul were put to death, not by Nei'o, but by the Prefect of Rome, or some other great officer, in the absence of the Emperor, appears to be of no value, and it is desti- tute of all authority." — See Watson's Theological Tracts, vol. ii. pp. 433-435. Dr. Lardner has made as much of Clement's words for his argument as is possible. (See N. Brit. i?ey., November, 1848, p. 32.) We give on the other side the comments of three bar- risters who have thoroughly examined the question. Ecclesiastical events demand as careful investigation as any^ matters of importance. The one we are considering has been made by the Church of Rome one of vital import, and it is bound to furnish irresistible, incontestable evidence. The supposed journey of Peter to Rome does not appear to be sustained by trustworthy testimony, according to the view of the learned lawyers whose opinions are herewith presented. Greenwood, Avho has written the political history of the Latin Pontificate, in his Cathedra Petri, i. 20, writes on Clement's language: " In proof of the facts here stated respecting Peter and Paul as parts of one transaction, it has been observed that, the sufferings and death of both being mentioned, as it were in the same breath, by one who was in a posi- tion to be an eye-witness of the things he relates, a pre- CLEMENT OF JiOME. 37 sumption arises that both Apostles -were together at Rome, at some j^oint of time between the closing inci- dents of St. Luke's narrative and the death of Paul in the Neronian persecution. Peter's martyrdom, hoAvcvcr, is only remotely alluded to, and not in any way as syn- chronous with that of Paul. Several things are said of Paul that are not said of Peter, more especially the act of preaching the Gospel in the far West. Lastly, neither time nor place of the martyrdom of either is mentioned; consequently, all ground for concluding, from this pass- age in the writings of Clement of Rome, that Peter and Paul dwelt and suffered together in that city — seems to fall to the ground." Simon, another competent legal critic, who, for the purpose of investigating the question here discussed, came to London, and almost dwelt in the British Museum for nine months; in his Mission and Mart^n'dom of Peter, p. 34, writes with respect to Clement's statement: "The first question that here suggests itself is. Why is Paul's journey into Europe and Paul's martyrdom at Rome, so pointedly stated in the very same paragraph in which nothing more is said of Peter's travels or of Peter's martyrdom, than what manifestly presupposes the Scripture account about his going to the Jews of the Dispersion, as he was directed by his Divine Master, and about his being put to death at Babylon as his own epistles intimate? How is it that Clement makes no allusion to a residence in Europe, or even to a martyr- dom there for the Apostle of the Cii'cumcision as well as for the Apostle of the Gentiles? Peter's martyrdom took place in Clement's lifetime; how is it that Clement never heard of anything connected with it at variance with the facts that are laid before us in the Scriptures? 38 WAS PETER EVER AT ROMKf But we do not inquire for the evideuces of Peter's hav- ing lived and died as is indicated in the sacred text. Our inquiry is for the alleged evidence of his not having done so. Father IVIcCorry supposes St. Clement to speak of the martyrs that had fallen in his own city! whereas Clement speaks of those who had fallen within the memory of that present generation. " 'Let us look at the illustrious examples of our oavn age,' says the Bishop of Rome; 'let us take, for instance, the Apostles!' " BouziQUE, a recent member of the French bar and legislature, in his History of Christianity, in his ex- amination of Clement, remarks, vol. i, p. 360: "This passage, which clearly excludes the idea of a punishment simultaneously undergone at Rome by the two Apostles, seems nevertheless to have been one of the principal sources whence proceeded the legends on the abode of Peter in that city, and on the tragical end Avhich the Apostle to the Gentiles found there at the same time. It is necessary to remember that in the first centuries Clement's epistle was in some sort received as a sacred Scripture, and read publicly in the Churches of Greece, Asia Minor, and all the Hellenic lands. This habitual reading singularly formed the opinions which legend had got possession of. Clement said nothing else but that Peter and Paul were persecuted through envy, which caused the death of one on the confines of the West, and made the other seven times endure, before God called him to himself. "But in ceaselessly hearing in the epistle the death of the two Apostles mentioned close together, the Greek Churches came to believe that thej perished at the same time, and as the letter came from Rome, at Rome the CLEMENT OF ROME. 39 hearers placed their siniultancons punishment in thought. "It was supposed that Clement had been the disciple of the one, as of the other, and the ocular witness of their death. . . If you call to mind the evils endured as much by Peter as by Paul, j^ou see that it is the intention of offering in them illustrious examples of the evil that envy may engender, and not to make them perish in the same time and in the same place. "But the Christian populace made a mistake. Clem- ent associated the two in the example, the popular legend associated them in suffering and death. It is only two or three generations after the first epistle of Clement that we begin to find some traces of the legend on the journey and the death of Peter at Rome; all this time was needful for it to gain a certain consistency. "The whole drift of Clement's testimony, then, while it breathes not one word of support of St. Peter's visit to Rome, does imply by the distinction drawn between him and St Paul, that he did not preach both in the East and in the West — i. e., that he did not visit Rome." Bacox, in his Lives of the Apostles, thus refers to Lardner's criticism. Alluding to manuscript lectures of Professor Murdock on this subject he writes: "Lardner also gives a sort of abstract of the passage in the Fathers which refers to this subject, but not near so full, nor so close 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 fully established Roman fables is too pronounced, and on these points his accurac}' appears to fail in maintaining its sreneral character. 40 WAS PETER EVEE AT DOME? "However, in the siiigle 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 \Q\y elaborate discussion of the views taken of it; but upon all he fails so utterly' in rearing an historical argument on this slender basis, that I cannot feel called on, in this place, to do an}'- thing more than barely refer the critical reader to the passage in his Life of Peter." Faussett, in Com. on 1 Peter, remarks: "Clem- ent of Rome 1 Epist. ad Corinthos, Sec. 4, 5, often quoted for, is really against it. He mentions Paul and Peter together, but makes it a distinguishing circum- stance of Paul, that he preached both in the East and West, implying that Peter was never in the West (2 Pet. i. 14). " *I must shortly put off this my taber- nacle' implies his martyrdom was near; j^et he makes no allusion to Rome, or of any intention of visit- ing it." Giesler's comment is brief: "Clement testifies to his mart3a'dom, Ignatius alludes to it." — Hist. i. 81. As we are dealing with a question of vital import, as related to the exclusive claims of the Church of Rome, with its one hundred millions of adherents, too much importance cannot be attached to the testimony of the witness who, alone of all appealed to, had personal cog- nizance of the facts in the case. Clement, as we have seen, was a contemporary of the Apostle Peter, and is the only writer of the period who has Avritten a line bearing on the subject, now extant. Peter's residence in Rome is "the very nech which attaches the head to the body — the 'Primacy of Peter' to the Roman Papacy." We must do justice to the CLEMENT OF ROME. 41 arguments of the eminent writers, both Papal and Prot- estant, who claim for the Apostle a residence in Rome. No one has argued in the affirmative more ably than the "celebrated" Protestant scholar, Lardner. To the argument drawn from one of Clement's expressions to establish clearly the fact that the Apostle was not at Rome, Dr, Lardner thus replies. He refers to the Preface to St. Peter's 1st Epistle, written by the com- mentator Dr. Benson, who says: "Clemens Romanus (who was personally acquainted with the Apostles and knew very well where they trav- eled) writes a letter from Rome to Corinth, and mentions St. Paul's traveling very far to spread the Gospel ; but in the same section, though he mentions St. Peter's suffer- ings and martrydom, yet he says nothing of his travel- ing much, not one word of his ever having been in Rome." To this Lardner replies: '■^ First. It seems to me that Clement says Peter and Paul suffered mar- tyrdom at Rome. For speaking of the great multitude of the elect, loho had been an excellent example of x><^- tience among them^ meaning the Romans, he says they loere joined to or with the good Apostles, before men- tioned. Therefore the Apostles had suffered in the same place. Certainly Clement, who wrote this, did not think that Peter died at Babylon in Mesopotamia, and Paul at Rome in Italy. ^^ Secondly. The reason why Clement so particularly mentions St. Paul's travels probably was because the extent of his preaching was very remarkable. And it is likely that Clement refers to Rom. xv. 19. " Thirdly. His omitting to speak of Peter's travels is not a denial of his having traveled a great deal. Nor does it imply that he had not been at Rome. St. Paul *2 WAS PETER EVM AT ROME? must have been some time in the West, and at Rome, if he suffered martyrdom there. But Clement does not say so, though he knew it very well. As did the Corinthians likewise. But when we speak or Avrite of things well known (as these things were at that time), there is no need to be very particular. It was sufficient if Clement mentioned such things as Avould render his exhortations effectual. " Upon the whole I cannot but think that these passages of Clement bear a testimony to the martyrdoms both of Peter and Paul, and that at Rome, which cannot be evaded." See Beecher's Pap. Conspiracy, p. 248: Shepherd's Hist. Ch. of Rome, p. 529: Ellendorf, Bib. Sac, Janu- ary, 1859, p. IIV, Butler's St. Paul in Rome, p. 266. llie Christian Observer, November, 185:3, p. 741, takes an entirely opposite view of Clement's words. He writes: "We remark two things: First. There is no allusion whatever to Rome. That city is not named or referred to in any way whatever. The Apostle does not allude to our own country', or our own Church, but he passes from ancient examples to the examples of otir oicn age or time. " Secondly. But, speaking of the two most eminent Apostles, Peter and Paul, he particularizes one charac- teristic of St. Paul, which does not apply to St. Peter. Peter, he says, underwent many sufferings, till at last, being martyred, he went to the place of glory that was due to him. "But of Paul he says, seven times he was in bonds, he was whipped, he was stoned, he preached both in the East and in the West; and so having taught the whole world righteousness, and for that end traveled even unto CLEMENT OF HOME. 4S the utmost bounds of the East, he at last suffered mar- tyrdom. Here is a feature ascribed to St. Paul which is not touched upon in the description of St. Peter. "Now, when I describe two eminent men, and speak of one of them as deeply learned, I thereby imply that this is a point in which he is distinguished from the other. "If I say of two brothers that the younger one has traveled much, the hearer quite understands me to imply that the same thing cannot be said of the elder. "And so in like manner, when, panegyrizing the two apostles, Clement points out the feature in St. Paul, that he preached both in the East and in the West, and speaks especially of his travels; we rightly understand now, to- day, by implication, that this was a point in which he exceeded St. Peter — in short, that St. Paul, going to the Gentiles, preached both in the East and in the West; while St. Peter, the Apostle of the Circumcision, stayed in Babylon, where the Jews were chiefly resident. "The whole drift of Clement's testimony, then, while it breathes not one word in support of St. Peter's visit to Rome, does imply, by the distinction drawn between him and St. Paul, that he did not preach both in the East and in the West — /. e., that he did not visit Rome. His testimony, therefore, is not in Father McCorry's favor, but rather against him. Thus, the very first witness produced, instead of proving the advocate's case, goes far to establish the very opposite.'''' The North British Review, November, 1888, on Scheler's translation of Ellendorf's essay on Peter's Roman residence, says of Clement : " The earliest testi- mony Avhich is generally alleged in support of the tra- dition is that of Clement, third Bishop of Rome, who, 44 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? ill liis lirst Epistle to the Corinthians (p. 5), exhorts the latter to look for courage and perseverance to the examples set by the Apostles; and then draws a parallel between Peter and Paul both having suffered martyr- dom for the sake of Christ. But be does not add one word as to where and lohen they suffered, and the inference drawn from his words is therefore wholly gratuitous: the more so, as he nowhere else mentions that St. Peter ever set foot in Rome. A similar inter- l^retation is forced upon an expression of Ignatius, in whose Epistle to the Romans the words occur: 1 com- mand you not like Peter and Paul,' but surely, if such expressions be proof, what is there that may not be I^roved?" Dick, Theology, ii. p. 468, observes: "Clement, who is so favorably mentioned in the New Testament, in an Epistle \vritten from Rome to the church at Corinth, says that Paul suffered martyrdom in the West, but takes no notice of the martyrdom of Peter. His silence is absolutely unaccountable if, as the Papists tell us, Peter had been Bishop of Rome, and had been crucified before the eyes of Clement." Froschammer, Romance of Rom., p. 20, remarks: "If Peter had labored and died in Rome as well as Paul, why does not Clement say also of him, that having preached in the East and West, he also died in the West? Mani- festly Clement in these w^ords means to say something of Paul Avhich could not be ascribed to Peter." Ellexdorf, a Roman Catholic Professor in Berlin, has w-ritten an exhaustive critical inquiry on the subject here discussed, which was translated in the Bihliotheca Sacra for Julj', 1858, and January, 1859. With respect to Clement's language he remarks : " When w' e remem- CLEMENT'S EPISTLE SUPPRESSED. 45 ber that accordiug to Tertullian's account, Clement was consecrated by Peter as Bishop of Rome, the strange way in which Clement here mentions Peter is very re- markable, and renders the account suspicious. When Clement says distinctly of Paul, that he came to Rome and suffered martyrdom under Nero, the same reason he had likewise in the case of Peter, if he really had been at Rome, and was his friend and teacher." With respect to the alleged testimony of Ignatius, the same writer says: "Are the Epistles of Ignatius genu- ine? Is that, particularly, to the Romans genuine? And if it be genuine, is not that Petrus smuggled in, like so many other things of Avhich criticism must clear these Epistles before they have their former shape? They can hardly serve as testimony in so important a matter: least of all can that passage, which in every re- spect has nothing of evidence in itself, even if it be genuine" (1859, p. 85). Clement's epistle suppressed. How this epistle of Clement was practically suppressed and lost in the Western Church, for so man}'- centuries, is an interesting subject of inquiry — we have not time to dwell on it. KE>fNiON in his work, "St. Peter and Rome," p. 25, thus writes on this point: "As an instance of the attempt to get rid of docu- ments which are found inconvenient, I may mention perhaps that very epistle of Clement you allude to. When we remember the high character and prominent position of Clement, and the great estimation in which this epistle Avas held, we cannot but wonder how it came to be so completely suppressed that for many centuries no copy was known to exist, and that when found it was 46 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? not in the Western, but in the Eastern Church — the first MS. coming from Alexandria, the second from Con- stantinople, and the third from Syria. The wonder ceases when we find that the epistle is altogether incon- sistent with the pretensions of the mediaeval Romish Church. Clement of Rome writes as a Protestant bishop might do, but certainly not as Pio IX. would have done under the same circumstances." "Clement was a Roman bishop," writes Edgar in his "Variations of Popery," p. 44, "and interested in a peculiar manner in the dignity of the Roman See. An apostolic predecessor, besides, would have reflected honor on his successor in the hierarchy. He mentions his pretended predecessor indeed, but omits any allusion to his journey to Rome, or his occupation of the Pon- tifical throne." There were good reasons for the panegyrists of the Roman See, who boasted that tioo Apostles founded their church, and that they possessed their bones and their sepulchers, to put out of their Avay the letters of a Roman bishop, a contemporary, who, writing of these Apostles, says nothing of the execution of one, Avhose martyrdom he must have witnessed, and whose funeral services he would naturally have conducted, if this Apostle had died at Rome. Especially, moreover, as it is claimed that Clement had been consecrated by Peter. The silence of this letter of Bishop Clement on these points was too convincing a negative argument, and efforts would be made to consign it to oblivion, by those who were so busy in manufacturing evidence from idle Romances, to establish a Roman residence for Peter. Turretin, Op., iii. 148, well argues: "Who could believe that Clem- ent would omit to mention Peter's visit to the West, CLEMENT'S EPISTLE SUPPRESSED. 47 and his stay in Rome, and his martyrdom under the governors there, which he narrates of Pan], if these events had occnrred? " In what obscurity are involved the far more impor- tant contests of Peter at Rome, his punishment like that of Christ — nay, more severe — his body inverted, over- looking Rome; and moreover, the previous consecration of his church and appointment of his successor, even as they would have it, of Clement himself? "Neither are these authors to be mentioned, on the other part, who relate the visit and the mart3^rdom of Peter at Rome, as Ignatius or Papias, who were either later than Clement, or were certainly of doubtful author- ity or judgment." Uhlor^t in Schaflf-Herzog. Encyc. presents the his- tory of the Epistles: "Clement's two Ejnstles to the Corinthians, especially the first, belong among the most important documents still extant. "In the ancient Church they were held in the greatest esteem, and in many places thej^ were read in Divine Service. Nevertheless, after the fifth centur}', they disappeared from the Western Church, and remained completely unknown until Junius rediscovered them in the celebrated Cod-. Alex., a present from Cyrillus Lucai'is to King Charles I., and published them at Ox-. ford (1633). "Up to 1875 this manuscript remained the only one known. . . In 1875 Bryennios, Metropolitan of Ser- ra?, gave an edition from a newl}^ discovered manu- script in the library of the Holy Sepulcher at Farnari, Constantinople." 48 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? WAS PETER MARTYRED r Another point of great importance in this inquiry is tbe fact, that Clement does not affirm that the Apostle Peter suffered martyrdom. He is the only authority worthy of consideration as to the matter Avho has been appealed to, and this from a misconception, we think, of his language. Clement's words are thus rendered by an able writer in the Neio BrunsioicJc Hevieio, August, 1854, p. 293: "It is certainly a remarkable fact that Clement, whom the 'Letters of the Pope' makes the immediate successor of Peter in the Roman Pontificate, should have written this long and important letter and never have spoken directly or indirectly of Peter having been 'in Rome.' The only allusion it contains to Peter is the following sentence: 'Peter having on account of zeal, suffered not one, but many hardships (ponoics), and thus having given his testimony (houtos marturesas), went to the deserved place of glory.' "The testimony of death is jjlainly not alluded to here, for the expression 'thus' implies that it was the testimony of ''many hardships.'' " When we consider that the primary meaning of the verb here used, and as always employed in the New Testament, is merely "to witness"; that it had no other meaning for a century after Clement's time; that Clem- ent uses the same word with respect to Abraham (Sec. xvii.), who certainly was not executed; it is clear that he gives no testimony to show that the Apostle Peter died by violence. This point is fully discussed in Bacon's "Lives of the Apostles," pp. 265-67. He writes : WAS PETER MARTYRED ? ^ '^ "The only authority which can be esteemed worthy of consideration on this point is that of Clemens Romanus, who in the latter part of the first century (about the year 70, or as others say, 96), in his Epistle to the Corinthians uses these words respecting Peter: 'Peter on account of unrighteous hatred, underwent not one, or two, but many labors, and having thus borne his testimony, departed to the place of glory which was his due' {ovroj? [xaprvptjaa? inopsv^t] €i? rov 6q)eiXo^uvov roTtov 6o^tj?). "Now it is by no means certain that the prominent word (marturesas) necessarily means 'bearing witness by death,' or martyrdom in the modern sense. The primary sense of this word is merely Ho loitness,^ in which simple meaning alone it is used in the New Tes- tament: nor can any passage in the sacred writings be shown, in which this verb means 'to bear witness to any cause, by death.'' This was a technical sense (if I may so name it), which the word at last acquired among the Fathers, when they were speaking of those who bore witness to the truth by their blood; and it was a mean- ing which at last nearly excluded all the true original senses of the verb; limiting it mainly to the notion of a death by persecution for the sake of Christ. Thence our English Avords martyr and martyrdom. "But that Clement by the use of the word, in this connection, meant to convey the idea of Peter's having been killed for the sake of Christ, is an opinion utterly incapable of proof, and rendered improbable by the words joined to it in the passage. The sentence is, 'Peter underwent many labors, and having THUS borne witness to the gospel truth, went to the place of glory which he deserved.' Now the adverb Hhus'' {ovtgo?) 5 50 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? seems to me most distinctly to show what was the nature of this testimony, and the manner also in which he bore it. It i^oints out more plainly than any other words could, the fact that his testimony to the truth of the Gospel was borne in the zealous labors of a devoted life, and not by the agonies of a bloody death. There is not in the whole context, nor in all the writings of Clement, any hint whatever that Peter was killed for the sake of the Gospel: and we are therefore required by every sound rule of interpretation to stick to the primar}'^ sense of the verb in this passage." Bacon refers to Suicer's Thesaurus, and to several Fathers, to substan- tiate his position. We have the more critically investigated the testi- mon}' of Clement, as he is the only contemporary of Peter whose writings have come down to us, and because he is claimed as a witness to the fact of Peter's presence in Rome. We have seen that a cai'eful examination of Clement's words presents a damaging argument against the pre- tensions of the Roman Church, and goes far to explain the fact why the noble epistle of this eminent Apostolic Christian laborer was apparenth' suppressed for cen- turies in the Western Church. The silence of Clement, like the silence of Paul, and the entire New Testament, including the Apostle Peter himself, innneasurabl}^ out- weighs all subsequent traditions and fables with respect to the latter's residence in Rome. "When we come to the very coupling which is to hold the long train of the Papacy to its motive power, we look for a bolt, and we iind instead a bulrush." CHAPTER IV. jfatbere of tbe Second Century. We have seen in our previous examination of this question that neither Ignatius nor Clement, of the first century, alludes to any visit of Peter to Rome. If the fact be true that Peter was in Rome, and all the schemes connected therewith by the Church of Rome be considered; is it not marvelous that Clement, a Bishop of Rome and writing from Rome, and Ignatius a Bishop of Antioch and Avriting to Rome, present no testimony whatever bearing on the point in question; both writers living in the first century. If it can also be shown that in the five additional authentic documents of the century after Peter's death, which alone have reached us, there is a similar silence on this matter, regarded by so many as of vital import, will it not require absolute demonstration to establish the Roman claim? "The authority of the Bishops of Rome is either a divine ordinance to which all Christian people are bound to submit, if they would not ino^ir the guilt of rebellion, or it is a shameless usurpation, and an intolerable tyranny, which it is our duty to resist." The claim rests upon the supposed residence of the Apostle Peter in Rome — we are examining now that question — and after presenting all in Clement and Ignatius, claimed as evidence, and finding it without value; we shall in- quire whether Polycarp, or Barnabas, or Hernias, or 51 •52 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? Justin Martyr, or the newly found Didache, all of the century following Peter, present any testimony to establish the claim that this Apostle was ever at Rome. POLYCARP. PoLYCARP is supposed to have been born in the city of Smyrna, in Nero's reign, about the year 67. After the death of Buculus, the Bishop of Smyrna, by whom he had been ordained deacon, he was selected to succeed him. Irenaeus states that Polycarp "had been instructed by the Apostles and had familiar intercourse with many who had seen Christ." lie has left us one letter to the Church at Philippi, written about the year 108. Its authenticity has not been disputed. Le Moyne writes that "there is not, perhaps, any Avork extant that has more entire evidence of its being genuine than this." Eusebius says of it that "it was publicly read in the churches." We can only remark of this letter of Poly- carp exhorting the Philippians to the performance of Christian duties, that there is no mention made of Rome, or of Peter. This omission cannot be reconciled with the existence of a just claim of the Roman Church as the See of the Apostle Peter. Poh^carp visited Rome to confer with Bishop Ani- cetus as to the time when the festival of Easter should be kept. The Roman Church observed the Feast on the Sunday after the Jewish Passover; the Asiatics kept it on the third day after the fourteenth day of the first month. The two bishops conferred as to the matter; neither could persuade the other to change his views. Each held to his own opinion, and after an amicable discussion and the celebration of the Lord's Supper, at BARNABAS. 53 which the Bishop of Rome requested Polycarp to preside, the bishops separated. Bower in his "Lives of the Popes" remarks : " St. Polycarp, though well acquainted with the doctrine of the Apostles, was a stranger, it seems, to that of Bellarmine, Baronius, etc. — viz., that the whole Catholic Church is bound to conform to the rites, ceremonies, and customs of the Church of Rome." Vol. i. p. 13, Am. Ed. BARNABAS. Whether the Epistle of Barnabas was written by the companion of Paul, the associate of the Apostles, or some other Christian, does not affect the bearing of the testimony on the matter M^e are considering. If written by the former it has been largely inter2:iolated, like the letters of Ignatius, for there are statements in it which could not have been made by an Apostolic Avriter. The best critics make the time of its composition in the reign of Hadrian — the first quarter of the second century. In the latter part of the Epistle there are directions with respect to the " Way of Light," which are a summary of what a Christian is to do that he may be happy for- ever; also the "Way of Darkness" is described, and Avhat kind of persons shall be forever cast out of the kingdom of heaven. No modern Roman Catholic writer could allude to such a topic without directing his readers to the Church of Rome as the "Way of Life," the Church founded by Peter at Rome. As neither Rome nor Peter is ever mentioned by this author, who wrote Avithin fifty years after the Apostle's decease, the silence of the Epistle is an additional argument that the Petrine claims were not 54 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? known at that period. The Apostles and their associates surely knew better Avbat was essential to the faith than any successor. HEEMAS. There is a work written about the same time as the let- ter of Barnabas, entitled " The Shepherd of Hermas." It is of a much higher order than that last described, and was regarded by some of the early Christians as inspired, and publicly read in the Eastern Churches. It is an allegorical work, written somewhat in the style of the "Pilgrim's Progress." There is intei'nal evidence that the book was written in Italy, probably in Rome. In the vision the writer is directed to write two books, and send one to Clement and one to Grapte. "But thou shalt read it in this city with the ciders who preside over the Church." Archbishop Wake in his edition strangely omitted the word "preside." We read again, "I say unto j^ou who are set over the Church and love the first seats;" elsewhere, "The earthly sjDirit revealeth itself and Mill have the first claim;" and again, "They are such as had some envy and strife among themselves for principality and dignity." The Avritings of Hermas so far from bearing any wit- ness to a primacy of Peter as Bishoj) of Rome, make no allusion to him, and testify to the fact that the Church was then ruled by elders, and warns these elders against the sin of aspiring to precedence, as the Lord Jesus Christ warned his Apostles. The testimony of Hermas is, therefore, still more strongly against the claim that Peter was at Rome, and its bishop. Bishop LiGHTFOOT, a high authority, confirms this opinion, Ignatius and Polycarp, i. 399. "The next JUSTIN MABTTR. 55 document emanating from the Roman Church is ' Tlie Shepherd of Hernias.' Here again we are met with a singular phenomenon. If we had no other information, we should be at a loss to say what was the form of government when ' The Shepherd ' was written, . . The episcopate, though doubtless it existed in some form or other in Rome, had not yet (it would seem) assumed the same strong and well defined monarchical character, with Avhich we are confronted in the Eastern Churches." JUSTIN MARTYR. Our next witness is a converted heathen philosopher who was born soon after the death of Peter, and died about the year 160. His apology for Christianity is regarded as written about the year 140. Justin names the Apostles a few times, and alludes to Peter, James, and John as having had their names changed, but there is not the slightest trace in anything that he had said of any distinction of power, or of any primacj^ among them. He never even names any Bishop of Rome. Justin speaks of Simon Magus, his magic, and his deifi- cation at Rome, but makes no mention of Peter's going to Rome to combat him, nor does any Father narrate this fable till after the year 300. Justin describes the worship of the early Christians on the Lord's da}'-, the Lord's Supper, and the presiding Presbyters, Avith the Deacons; but no mention is made even of a third order of the ministry, much less of a Bishop, or Pope, the Vice Regent of God and successor of Peter. The absence of such Avitness, in the works of this learned man, written at Rome, bears very strongly asrainst the force of the Petrine claim. 56 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? THE DIDACIIE, OR TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. We speak last of this recently discovered Avork, edited by Bryexxios, Metropolian of Nicomedia, tliougb it possesses deeper interest and value than those previously mentioned. It is a discovery of inestimable value, as it is the first Church Manual we possess, Avritten, according to the best critics, at the beginning of the second century, and perhaps earlier. "It contains a true and graphic picture of the faith, discipline, and practice of the Chris- tians of the second century." Plere we would expect to find, if anywhere, a state- ment with respect to the Apostle Peter's claim to the primacy, and his position as Bishop and Pope of Rome, if Peter had been at Rome, and had presided there. But though the work discourses on the ministry', the Aj^ostles and other ministers, on baptism and the Lord's Supper and the duties of Christians — there is no mention of Peter, nor of the Church of Rome. The subject is entireh' ignored, as of no importance. The writer appears not even to have heard of such a claim as Peter's residence and precedence in Rome. Outside of the Scriptures, we do not possess another such interesting and authori- tative document, on this matter, as the Didache. Taken in consideration with the utter silence on this point of Justin, Hernias, Barnabas, and Polycarp, the above writings are, with this precious document, the sole authentic testimonies preserved from the centur}' following Peter's death. Its abstinence from all allu- sion to the subject i;nder consideration, seems to settle conclusively the fact, that the Church of Christ was not aware that the Apostle Peter had been in Rome, had founded the Church there, had given it precedence over THE DTD ACHE. 51 other Cliurches in consequence thereof; and whatever later writers might state could not give force or efficacy to any claim of the Church of Rome, which it is clearly evident the earh' Christians had no knowledge of for a century after the death of the Apostle. We feel authorized to assert with Lipsius, the great German critic, "The Roman-Peter legend proves itself to be, from beginning to end, a fiction, and thus our critical judgment is confirmed : The feet of Peter never TROD THE STREETS OF ROME." * * See Examination of Lipsius — Presb. Quarterly, April, 1876. CHAPTER V. G:e0timoni2 ot Scripture. If it were a matter of great importance to the Cburch of Christ to know that the Apostle Peter had resided in Rome, and was its Bishop while there, the AYord of God would have contained the narrative, and thus have settled the fact beyond contradiction, for all time. The Holy Scriptures contain the names of a number of Christian workers in Rome. Peter's name is not among them. In our previous examination we have presented the writings of all the authors who wrote during the century after Peter's death, whose works have reached us, and find that in them, as also in the Didache, a work of the same period, nothing is said of a visit of Peter to the Imperial City. Clement, Ignatius, Barnabas, Poly- carp, Hennas, and Justin are silent on this topic. THE TEADITIOXAL TIME OF PETER's RESIDENCE. The Roman doctrine of the time of Peter's visit to Rome, and the length of his sojourn there, are based on the statement of Eusebius, a. d. 340, and that of Jerome, transcribed from that of Eusebius. Binius, Labbeus, Petavius, Bede, Baronius, and Valesius agree with the above Fathers, in sending Peter to Rome in the reign of the Emj^eror Claudius. This is now the universally accepted teaching in the Church of Rome. We need only to present the language of the latest extended Church history, that of the Abbe Darras, which bears 58 rnrE of peters residence. 59 tlie Imprimatur of Po])e PiusIX., Arcbbisho2)s McClos- key, Spalding, and Purcell. In vol. i., page 42, we read "The pontificate of St. Peter lasted thirty-three years, of which twenty-five Avere passed in Rome." Having tlie dictum of their infallible Pope, Romanists are bound henceforth to adhere to this declaration. In view of claimed infallibility, the discrepancy among tlie Papal writers is remarkable. The Bullarium states Peter was in Rome twenty-four years, three months, and twelve days; Eusebius, in the Armenian version of his Chronicon, twenty years; in the Latin, twenty-five; Jerome, twenty-four; Baronius, twenty -five; Herbst, not beyond a year; Valesius Pagi, Baluze, Hug, Klee, during the later years of Nero's reign. The Dominican Fathers, in their Bibliotheque Sacree, dismiss the sub- ject very brieflj', stating: " What is certain is that Peter did not ffo to Rome until the reig-n of Nero." TuRRETiN, Op., iii. p. 144, remarks: "Some think that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius, as Eusebius and Jerome. Others in his fourth year, as Thomas, Beda, and Fasciculus Temporum; others in Anno 43, as the Passionale de Vitis Sanctorum; others that he remained there twenty-three years, and others twenty-five years. The common opinion which Baro- nius and Bellarmine adopted is, that Peter after the death of our Lord remained in Judea five years, whence, A. D. 30, he came to Antioch, accepted the Episcopate, whence he departed and came to Rome after seven years, when he established the Church, and presided. "In the meantime it happened that in the year 51, by the edict of Claudius, Peter with the rest of the Jews was expelled from Rome, and took occasion to come to the Council at Jerusalem, held that year. Then on the 60 ir.4.S^ PETER EVER AT HOME f death of Claudius, he returned to Rome, where he pre- sided till his death by niartyi'dom." Meyee, an accurate and judicious writer, Intro. Ejiis. Rom. p. 20, says: "We maj' add that our Epistle — since Peter cannot have labored in Rome before it Avas written — is a fact destructive of the historical basis of the Papacy, in so far as the latter is made to rest on the founding of the Roman Church and the exercise of the Episcopate by that Apostle. '' For Paul, the writing of such a didactic Epistle to a Church of which he knew Peter to be the founder and bishop, would have been, according to the principle of his Apostolic independence, impossible in consistency." Meyer writes elsewhere of "the tradition of the Roman Church having been founded by Peter; a view disputed even by Catholic theologians like Hug, Feil- moser, Klee, Ellendorf, Maier, and Stengel." Duff, Early Church, p. 64, writes: "The tradition, which cannot be traced back further than the end of the fourth century (Jerome's version of Eusebius), is not only unsupported by satisfactorj^ evidence, as maj' be said of the legends given above, and even of the position that Peter was ever at Rome at all; but with the Scripture data we have in our hand, it is so incredible that some Roman Catholic writers have abandoned it; and have reduced it twenty-five to one. The truth is we know nothing with certainty of Peter, but what we learn from the New Testament itself." But what do we learn from Scripture as to Peter's residence in Rome? Edgar, Var. Popery, p. 44, wittil}^ remarks: "A single hint is not afforded by Peter him- self nor b}" his inspired companions, Luke, James, Jude, Paul, and John. Pope Peter, in his epistolary produc- TIME OF PETERS RESIDENCE. 6 1 tious, mentions nothing of bis Roman residency, epis- copacy, or supreniac3% Paul Avrote a letter to the Romans, and from the Roman city addressed the Gala- tians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy, and Philemon. lie sent salutations to various Roman friends, such as Priscilla, Aquila, Epenetus, Mary, An- dronicus, Junia, and Amplias; but forgets Simon, the supposed Roman hierarch. ^Vriting from Rome to the Colossians, he mentions Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristar- chus, Marcus, Justus, Epaphras, Luke, and Demas, who had afforded him consolation; but strange to tell, neg- lects the sovereign pontiff! Addressing Timothy from the Roman city, Paul of Tarsus remembers Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia, but overlooks the Roman bishop! No man, except Luke, stood with Paul at his tii'st answer, or at the nearer approach of dissolution. Luke also is silent on this theme. John, who published his Gospel after the other Evangelists, and his Revela- tion at the close of the first centurj^, maintains, on this agitated subject, a provoking silence." TuRRETix, Op. iii. p. 147, on the singular neglect of Peter to welcome Paul on his arrival in the Imperial City, if he were present there, says: "When Paul came to Rome, the brethren hastened to meet him at the Appii Forum; if Peter had been there, he surely would have accompanied them, but his name is not mentioned. "Afterward, on the third day, Paul assembles the Chief Jews. These, who certainly were not Christians, desired to hear the sentiments of Paul. And if Peter was in Rome, and its bishop, Avould not these have heard concerning the Christians from him, especiall}^ if he were their Apostle? "In vain does Bellarmine assert that Peter was at that 62 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? time absent. Who can believe that Peter Avould have been absent so long from his Church, where he could be in safety? If he was bishop of that Church, where ought he to have been, rather than at Rome? How otherwise could he escape the charge of idleness and neglect of duty?" J. A. Wylie, The Papacy, 234, writes: "We have eight instances of Paul communicating with Rome — two letters to, and six from that city — during Peter's alleged Episcopate, and yet not the slightest allusion to Peter occurs in any of these letters. This is wholly inexpli- cable on the supposition that Peter was in Rome." Calvin writes, Tracts, iii. 272: "Paul Avrites various Epistles from prison; he mentions the names of certain persons of no mean rank; there is no jilace for Peter among them. If he were there, such silence would be a marked insult. "Then, when he complains that at his first defense no man stood by him, would he not affix the stigna of extreme perfidy on Peter, if he were then the pastor of the city?" WHAT THE SCRIPTURE SAYS. The Scripture informs us that Jerusalem was the resi- dence of Peter. It is said (Acts viii. 1) that, "At that time" (the stoning of Stephen, A. d. .34), there was a great persecution of the Church which was at Jeru- salem. And they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria except the Apostles." Chapter viii. 14, avc read of Peter and John being sent to Samaria. Here Peter met Simon Magus. In the 9th chapter, Peter's visitation at Lydda and Joppa is nar- rated. In the 10th chapter, at Ca^sarea, he admits Corne- WHAT THE SCRIPTURE SAYS. 63 lius to the Church by baptism. He returned to Jerusa- lem, and was present at the Council, a. d. 52. It is obvious that he could not have gone very far froni Jeru- salem on journeys, or that, if he had gone to the Imperial Capital, no mention could have been made of it. Peter was, therefore, not at Rome "when the Council sat in Jerusalem, a. d. 52. Gal. i. 8, we read that Paul went to Jerusalem to see Peter, three years after his conversion, a. d. 38, and found him there. Four- teen years after (Gal. ii. 1), he goes again to Jerusalem, and there meets Peter. If, according to Pope Pius IX., and the Roman Church, Peter was then at Rome, why did not Paul seek him there? According to their state- ment, he would have been there six to eight years. This, we have seen, the Scriptures plainly contradict. On Peter's alleged journey to Rome after his escape from Herod (Acts. xii. 17) J. Addison Alexander remarks: "That Peter went to Rome is a 'conjecture' in order to sustain the tradition that Peter was for many years the bishop of the Church there, a tradition incon- sistent with the absolute silence of Paul respecting him, in writing to and from Rome." Baumgaeten on the same points, Apos. Hist., i. 325, says: "The opinion of the Romanists, who look upon Rome as the unnamed locality to Avhich Peter betook himself, is the very widest from the truth." TESTIMONY OF ELLENDORF. We now present the criticism of a learned Roman Catholic professor in Berlin, who has exhaustivelj'^ treated of Peter's claimed visit to Rome, and finds it to be a fable. His treatise may be found in the Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1858, January, 1859. He writes, p. 582: 64 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? "In A. D. 45, Peter had not yet come to Antiocb, to say nothing of his coming to Rome; he had not even crossed the boundaries of Palestine. The opinion, then, that Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius, A. J). 42, is proved to be wholly false." That he Avas Bishop of Antioch, as the Pope and others claim, Ellendorf emphatically denies. After examining all authorities presented, he writes, p. 590: "We see what is the weight of these testimonies — just nothing at all: they are from the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries. Peter's bishopric at Antioch is shown to be, in all re- spects, a fable." In p. 576 he says: "If Paul's conversion occurred, as we have proved above, in a. u. 38 or 39, then the Council of Jerusalem is to be placed in a. d. 52 or 53. In this year, therefore, Peter had not gone to Rome. All that is maintained of the journey to Rome is not above a mere story or fiction, at the bottom of which there lies nothing solid. . . Peter had not come to Rome in the beginning of the reign of Nero, that is in a. d. 54 and 55; Ave Avill uoav prove that he had not come there uj) to A. D. 64." Analyzing Paul's Epistles and the book of Acts mi- nutely, Ellendorf arrives at the conclusion (p. 605) : "We must have lost all common sense and regard for truth if Ave maintain, under these circumstances, that Peter and his disciples were with Paul at Rome in a. d, 61-63, Avhen he Avrote these Epistles. "While Paul developed such a widesjiread and deeper penetrating activity at Rome; while there he concen- trated the action of almost the Avhole body of the important intellects of the Church, or pointed out to them abroad the circle of operation; and while he ELLENBORVS ADMISSION. 65 formed, organized, founded, and governed the C'hurcli at Rome, and from it lending form and aid, be made his attacks on the East and West, nothing is jyerceiued of Peter, not a loord is breathed of his abode at Home, or of his activity there. The stale conversion of the name of Babylon into Rome (1 Peter v. 13), is the only argument by Avhich they venture to prove Peter's abode at Rome, his Episcopate, and his Popedom from the Holy Scriptures. It would not pay for the trouble to waste a word on it." Page 620: "Finally, we have proved from the above- mentioned authorities that not the slightest share can be shoion for Peter in the founding of the Church at Romej and much more that this Avas exclusively owing to Paul and his disciples. The mode and manner of conducting this proof has been twofold, 2^ositive and negative. In the former we proved that Peter was elsewhere at the time in which he is placed at Rome; in the latter, that the silence of the authorities renders that residence of Peter at Rome wholly inadmissible." We have preferred to present the argument at the hands of a candid, cultured Roman Catholic scholar, in- asmuch as it comes with twofold force from one who was obliged to disregard the doctrine of his powerful Communion with its infallible head, while presenting historical truths. ellendorf's admission. "We cannot find fault with a Protestant," writes Ellendorf, "when, relying on the proofs which the Holy Scriptures and the oldest Fathers, Clemens of Rome and Justin, present, he holds the abode of Peter at Rome, and all connected with it, for a tale drawn from the 66 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? Apocrypha. This much is certain, that no one of the arguments which can be opposed to him has so much weight that lie is morally bound to acknowledge the story as truth. Peter''s abode at Home can never he proved; neither, therefore, can the Primacy of the Romish Church, based on it, be so." BouziQUE, a French barrister and statesman, in his Historj^ of Christianity, i. 362, briefly sums up a similar examination thus: "The sojourn of Peter in Rome, and his journey through Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy can be reconciled neither with the Acts of the Apostles, nor Avith the Epistles of Peter and Paul; nor can they be reconciled with the absolute silence of the flrst century and of the ■ Apostolic times. The journeys and the preaching of Peter in those divers lands Avould have been facts too considerable in the history of the Church for Paul or Luke, or any other waiter of that time, not to have spoken of them directly or indirectly. That silence, and the different facts supplied by the Acts, the Epistles, and the other parts of the New Testament, ofl^er then an insurmountable obstacle for every unpreju- diced mind." Marsilius of Padua, jurist and counselor to the Emperor Lewas of Bavaria, and under him, Papal Vicar at Rome, and at one time rector of the University of Paris; in his Defensor Pacis, written 1322, states that he finds no proof in Scripture that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, or ever was in Rome. "If this were so, how surprising it is," he remarks, "that St. Paul, in rebuking the Jews in Rome for their want of faith, makes no allusion to the preaching there of St. Peter; and though he resided in Rome two years does he appear to have met him; nor does the historian ELLENDORF'8 ADMISSION. 67 of the Church state that Peter was in the city." The original language may be seen in Neander (Church History, vol. ix. p. 45, Bohn's edition). Farrar in his "Early Days of Christianity," p. 77, refers to Dollixgeb, Waterwokth, and Allxatt, additional Roman Catholic authorities, as holding that "if Peter was ever at Rome at all, it could only have been very briefly before his martyrdom." Waterworth, Engl, and Rome, ii; Allnatt, Cathedra Petri, p. 114. The argument of these Roman Catholic investigators, combined with that of this acute French lawyer and the erudite scholars which have been presented, we may safely say, leaves no ground for an opponent to stand upon. We have the more thoroughly treated this point because, if the visit of Peter to Rome cannot rest ujion any testimony of Scripture, but simply on tradition and inference, it is taken out of the domain of faith and conscience; and clearly has no connection with the sal- vation of the human soul, as is asserted by the Roman Catholic Church. Our Heavenly Father will not require us to believe any doctrine which we cannot find plainly set forth in His revealed Word, the infallible standard and constitution of His Church; of whose existence and authority we have satisfactory proof in that Word alone. As we have seen, Scripture, thus far, is against the Petrine claim. It remains to consider w^here was Babylon, where Peter wrote his first Epistle? CHAPTER VI. TlClas tbc JSab^lon ot peter, IRome ? In the course of our examination of this question, we have seen that in the New Testament, and in the writ- ings of earl}^ Christian authors who lived in the first century after Peter's death, whose works have reached us, thei'e is nothing to be found to show that this Apos- tle was ever in or near Rome. When the scheme and claims which rest upon the residence and Episcopate of Peter in Rome, are consid- ered, what has already been established w^ould reason- ably appear to be enough to decide the question against the Papacy. In connection with the Scripture argument it remains, however, that we notice the controversy with respect to Babylon, where the Apostle wrote his First Epistle. In chapter v. verse 13, 1st Epistle, the Apostle writes: " The Church which is at Babylon, elected together with 3'ou, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son." Babylon, argue many writers, is Rome ; for so the Apostle John designates the Imperial City in his Reve- lation ; hence Peter wrote his Epistle there. We have seen that Professor EUendorf, a Roman Catholic, alludes to this view, but deems it not worthy of notice, remarking " The stale conversion of the name of Babylon into Rome (1 Peter v. 13) is the only argu- ment by which they venture to prove Peter's abode at WAS THE BABYLON OF PETER. ROME? 69 Rome, liis Episcopate and liis Popedom, from the Holy Scriptures." "It would not pay for the trouble to waste a word on it." (p. 608.) Simon, in his work on the Mission and Martyrdom of St. Peter, for the preparation of whicli work he spent nine months in the British Museum Library in London, remarks on this point : " Father Calraet men- tions several members of his Church as having aban- doned this interpretation of the carnal-minded Jews. * Some [Roman] Catholic writers,' says he ; * for in- stance, Peter de Marca, John Baptist Mantuan, Michael de Ceza, Marsile de Padua, John Aventin, John Leland, Charles du Moulin, and perhaps some others, have expressed their misgivings as to the truth of this inter- pretation.' " (Calmet's Com., Prelim. Diss., on 1 Peter.) But it is not misgivings that they express, it is unquali- fied denial, as anyone may see by reference to their works. For instance : " St. Peter went to Antioch," says Peter de Marca, Archbishop of Paris, a writer of extreme celebrity and favor in the Roman Church, " and from there to Babylon, where the hereditary Patriarch of the first dispersion of the Jews resided. When established in that city he wrote his First Epistle, as is clear from the words, ' the Church at Babylon salutes you.' For although the ancients supposed Peter to have here meant Rome, Scaliger can be shown to be right when he says that this letter was written from Babylon itself to those dispersed Jews whose provincial syna- gogues depended upon the Patriarch of Babylon." (De Marca de Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii, lib. vi. c. 1.) "It is not misgivings, then, that these writers have expressed." — Simon, p. 189, 190. Father Dupix writes, i. 348, Lond. ed., 171.3 : "The 70 WAS PETER EVEIt AT ROMEf First Epistle of Peter is dated .it Babj'loii. Man}' of the ancients have understood tliat name to signify Rome ; but no reason appears tliat couhl prevail with St. Peter to change the name of Rome into that of Babylon. How could those to whom he wrote understand that Babylon was Rome ? " We cannot precisely assign the time it was written, but we may consider that it was written at Bab3don, A. D. 65." — Prelim. Diss., sec. 4. The learned Hug, Professor at Freiburg, in his Intro- duction, and Erasmus, both Roman Catholics, take the same view. "Why," says Erasmus, "is the Apostle here supposed to put Babylon enigmatically for Rome ? Because idols were worshiped in Rome ? That was done everywhere. That he might not reveal his own where- about ? Whence this so great timidity in him ? " De CoRMEJfiN, another Romanist, writes : " The First Epistle of St. Peter is dated from Babylon, which has led some visionary to declare that he gave this name to the capital of the empire." — Hist, of Popes, p. 17. We might properly regard this question as settled by these Roman Catholic authors, De Marca, Erasmus, Hug, De Cormenin, Ellendorf, and others, in favor of the obvious and natural interpretation ; but inasmuch as learned Protestants have held to the mj'stical interpre- tation that Babylon means Rome, and also to another view ; the opinions of the most learned scholars, gener- ally, on this interesting topic will be presented. BABYLON IS KOME. The learned Dr. McKnight, in his Diss. sec. v. Pref. to St. Peter, writes : " Whitby, Grotius, and all the learned of the Romish communion are of opinion that BABYLON WAS IN EGYPT. VI I»y Babylon Peter figuratively meant Rome, called Babylon by Jolin likewise. (Rev. xvii., xviii.) And their opinion is confirmed by the general testimony of antiquity, which, as Lardner states, is of no small weight." These are strong Protestant names, and to their side may be added those of Bede, Hales, Cave, Hammond, Tomline, Miltier, Wells, Buckley, Home, Cook, Farrar, Ellicott, Seabury, Sainsoii, Schaff, Fry, Doyly and Mant, Coglan, A. I. Mason, Bishops Hinds and W. Alexander, Poole, T. Jones, Townsend, Lundy, Quarry, Cumming, Salmon, Maclaren, Rees' Encyclopedia. Of Continental scholars, Luther, Hoffman, Hengstenberg, Cludius, Schott, Thiersch, Wiesenger, Windishman, Myns'ter, Renan, Hitzig, Godet, Valckn, Ewald, Est, Hilgenfield, Weisacker, Mangold, Deitlein, Sieffert, Olsl'.ausen. BABYLON WAS IX EGYPT. Another opinion has been held by some learned men that Babylon Avas an Egyptian city where Peter resided. Such was the opinion of Fulke, Pearon, Mill, Greswell, Leclerc, Calov, Pott, Burton, Bertram, Wolf, Wall, Vitringa, Fabric, and Trevor, " This Babylon was a town of considerable importance near Heliopolis, mentioned by Strabo and Ptolemy. Josephus reports that the Jews afterward built a temple there. We may thence conclude that they Avere already there in considerable numbers. And as Mark, who was generally in attendance on Peter, is supposed to haA'e planted the Church of Alexandria, it is not improbable that Peter visited Egypt and may, therefore, have dated his First Epistle from Babj'lon near Heliopolis." This view gives increased interest to the Cliurch of Alexan- dria. '- WAS PETER EVER AT ROMEf Canon Trevor, in his work on Rome, p. 62, regards this view favorably. He Avrites : " Peter was at tills time probably at Babylon, the place from which his Epistle is dated ; and though Eusebius, with most of the Fathers in reference to the tradition, interpreted this word as a mj^stic name for Rome, this interpreta- tion is now universally exploded. The visions of the Apocalypse which, however, had not then been revealed, do indeed call Rome by this name. AVith the date of a letter must, in all i-eason, be the actual name of the place. This Avas either the well-known city on the Eui^hrates or, more probably, Babylon on the Nile. These were the two largest seats of Jewish population out of Palestine, and, therefore, as appropriate to Petei"'s mission as Rome, the capital of the world, was to St. Paul." He refers to his work on Egypt, p. 115. " The only existing Babylon as a city was that of Egypt. It is not probable, though some of the ancients so understood it, that Peter wrote from Rome, disguis- ing the place under the name of Babylon. Egypt, according to the testimony of Church History, was the Province of St. Mark's missionary labors." — Chester and JoxEs, N. Test. Illust., 1, 108. Murray, in his Handbook of Egypt, relates an inter- view with the Patriarch of Alexandria, in which the latter says, " there is no tradition in the Coptic Church that Peter ever visited Egypt." " The view that by Babylon is meant Egypt, has nothing to commend it, the less so that this Babj'lon was simply a military garrison." — Meyer on 1 Peter. "A most unnatural interpretation." — Neander, Hist. Plant. Ch. i. 373. In Hertzog's Encyc. we read : "There was another BABYLON WA^ IN EGYPT. 73 Babylon in Egypt, founded by Babylonians, wlio settled along the Nile after the Persian invasions, but it is nowhere alluded to in the Bible. 1 Peter v. 13 refers to ancient Babylon, a portion of whose ruins was occupied by Jews." — Art. Babel. Dr. T. L. CuYLER, in his " Travels From the Nile to Norwa}'," writes, p. TSl: '* From the Museum we drove to that wonderful region of antiquity, ' Old Cairo,' which lies three miles from the present city. It was built as an Arab city right after Mahomet's death ; but even then an old Roman town stood there, part of which was called ' Babylon.' It seems quite probable that the Apostle Peter Avrote his Epistle in that ancient Roman town, or in a part settled by a colony from the Persian Babylon. We rode through the spot where this Babylon stood, and gazed with awe upon the solid Roman bastions which have withstood both the sieges of the Caliph Omar and of time itself. Inside of these walls, oh, what delicious oddities of antiquity ! " That by Babylon, Jerusalem was intended by tlie Apostle, was the opinion of Capellus, Spanheim, Har- douin, and Semler. CHAPTER VII. ©rlgin of tbe Storg: asabglon meant TRomc. It is interesting to inquire how the opinion arose that b\' Babylon the Apostle Peter meant Rome. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, who died a. d. 155, is charged with the origin of the stor3\ Professor Whittaker of Oxford, whom Bellavmine styles "tlie most learned heretic he had ever read," Disp. p. G64, makes this charge and remarks : "Papias was the father and master of tradition. Eusebins says he wrote many things from unwritten traditions, but they are full of commentititious fables. He wrote, as Ensebius tells us, five books concerning the Lord's dis- courses, but these, through the goodness of God, are lost." Bishop Bull, Vindi. Ch. England, p. 42, writes : " Some very learned men have observed that the above tradition of St. Peter's voyage to Rome was first de- rived from Papias, an author indeed ver}' ancient, but also very credulous and of mean judgment." Charles Elliot, on Romanism, ii. 222, writes : "Because Papias had among his traditions strange and novel parables and doctrines concerning our Saviour, and other things more fabulous, and that he fell into these errors chiefly by his ignorance and misunderstanding of Scripture, yet he is the principal witness that the Church of Rome has to prove that Peter was at Rome. They have no other place in Scripture to favor their interpre- 74 OBIGIX OF THE STORY: BABYLON MEANT ROME. 75 tation, and only Papias for that. For all the other ecclesiastical historians do nothing more than copy the error of Papias. Siicli is the only and the best ground that Rome has to sliow that Peter ever was at Rome," KiRWAN (Dr, N, Murray) to Bishop Hughes, p, 57, states : " At about the close of the second century, Irenseus records it as a tradition received from one Papias, and is followed by your other authorities. But who Papias was, whilst there are various conjectures, nobody knows. And Eusebius speaks of the matter as a doubtful tradition. Here, sir, is the amount of your testimony, and it resolves itself into the truth or false- hood of a prattling Papias, who told Iremeus that somebody told him that Peter was Pope at Rome." S, T, Bloomfield writes. Notes on 1 Peter : " Others suppose that by Bab^'lon is here figuratively denoted Rome. Yet for this no stronger testimony exists than a bare tradition derived f ron Papias ; and as it rests on no sufficient authority, so neither is it borne out by probability, for no probable reason has ever been alleged why the Apostle should here call Rome by the name Babylon, and withhold its true name," F, TuRRETix, who has written so abl}' and fully with respect to the Roman residence of Peter, presents the same view with respect to Papias, as the author of the tradition. He says. Op, iii, p. 148 : "The unanimity of the ancients, who firmly held that Peter lived and died at Rome, has absolutely no weight, for this story has its origin in Papias, Bishop of Hierapolita, in Phrygia, who, according to the testimony of Eusebius, was not merely of mediocre talents, ignorant and credulous, but deceptive and inclined to fables ; who has handed down many incredible and unrecorded stories, more like /■6 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? fables tlian reliable histories (Ens. Lib. iii. cli. 3). He was also the author of tlie story of the Chiliasts. He was the first to write that Peter had been at Rome. After him followed Hegesippus, Irenseus, Clemens Alex., and others after, and so their statement is value- less, according to the testimony of this same Eusebius, who stated that the majority of the ecclesiastical writers, especiall}'' Irenanis, gave occasion for this same error. Since, therefoi*e, the credibilit}'^ of this same writer is so doubtful in other matters, how can he have our assent when there are so many arguments from the Scriptures, which have been taken up in order, to the contrary ? After Eusebius, Jerome is authority that Papias was not a hearer of John the Apostle, but John the Presb}'ter, bearing the same name, but another than the Apostle ; and Baronius proves that in many w^ays, and plainly shows Papias' veracity to be doubtful, quot- ing the words of Eusebius, ' from which you can easily understand,' he says, ' that discrimination should be sliown regarding traditions, so that whoever says that he has accepted any of the traditions of the elders, considers them all credible." Professor McGiffert, who has given a new and accurate translation of Eusebius, and has enriched his work with notes as valuable as they are extensive, thus expresses his view of Papias, vol. i. p. 171 : "Eusebius' judgment of Papias may have been unfavorably influ- enced b}'- his hostility to the strong Chiliasm of the lat- ter; yet a perusal of the extant fragments of Papias' writings will lead anyone to think that Eusebius was not far wronor in his estimate of the man." CAN THE CHARGE A GAINST P API AS BE PRO VED ? V 7 CAN THE CHARGE AGAINST PAPIAS BE PROVED? Notwithstanding that Papias is so generally regarded as the author of this statement, it is not clear that the cliarge is proven. Eusebius, referring to a statement that Mark's Gospel was written at the request of Peter's hearers, writes (ii. 15): "This story is given by Clement of Alexandria, and corroborated by Papias, There is, however, a report that it is this Mark that Peter men- tions in his First Epistle, which it is also pretended was written at Rome, and that Peter intimates this himself by using the term ' Babylon ' in a metaphorical sense for Rome." The translation is by Simon. Cardinal Bellarmine, attributing this metaphorical use of Babylon to Papias, to whom it does not belong, places it at the head of his proofs for Peter's residence in Rome. This is his sole Scriptural authority for Peter's Roman residence. Does Papias here state that Peter used Babylon in a metaphorical sense? Many able authors deny the charge. Valesius, the Roman Catholic editor of Eusebius, writes : " These words are to be kept perfectly distinct from tlie preceding, as I find has been carefully done by Jerome and Nicephorus." (Lib. ii. c. 15.) Father Dupin on this point remarks: "Some have thought that Papias and St. Clement of Alexandria, cited in this chapter by Eusebius, were of this opinion, but it is not on this point that Eusebius cited them." BouziQUE, the Fi-ench jurist, writes : " According to Papias, John the Presbyter ascribed that Gospel to Mark, a disciple of Peter, but without saying it Avas i)ut is WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? together in Rome (Eus. iii. 39). Eusebius, reading this passage agreeably to the opinion of this time, inferred from it, as Clement of Alexandria, that the interpreter of Peter was then in Rome in company with the Apos- tle ; while Papias says, solely with John the Pi-esbyter, that Mark wrote the Gospel such as it was taught by Peter, Neither the Presbyter nor Papias, his disciple, speaks of sojourn or preaching in the Imperial City." (History of Christianity, pp. 364, 371.) Dr. Jarvis remarks (Church Review, i. 166): " It is not certain, as Valesius and other critics of the Roman communion admit, that these were the words of Papias ; and if so, we have only the testimony of the fourth century." Thus according to Jerome and Nicephorus ; Valesius and Dtipin ; Bouzique and Jarvis ; all scholars of note ; two of tliem Roman Catholics ; the advocates of the o])inion that Peter wrote Babylon for Rome, are de- prived of Patristic authority, founded on a mistaken assertion with respect to Papias. Not until the fourth century do we find that the Babylon of Peter was interpreted as representing Rome. If the view is correct, as taught by Auberlin and others, that the Apocal3''pse is a sequel to Daniel, the name Babylon Avas naturally used in the Revelation symbolically ; but inasmuch as the book was probably written at the close of the century, there is no good reason to believe that Peter ever saw^ it, or knew of such use ; the contrary is most reasonable. Nor M'ould the dispersion have understood such an allusion, for we read in Lange : " According to Schottgen the Jews did not begin to call Rome Bab^'lon till after the destruc- tion of Jerusalem ;" and this event occurred, according CAN THE CHARGE A GAINST PAPIAS BE PRO VED ? 7 9 to Wiesler, more than six years after Peter's death. It is also to be noticed that John employs the term " Babylon the Great." KiTTO writes (Int. to 1 Peter) : "The strongest argu- ment against the Babylon of the Apostle being taken for Rome seems to be that urged by Professor Stuart in his note on Hug's Introduction — ' That mystical Babylon,' i. e., Rome, is meant, is still less probable. Mystical names of this kiud in a prosaic epistle, consist- ing of plain and hortatory matter, are not to be expected, and caimot be admitted without strong reasons," Arguing in the same line, Michaelis remarks : "The plain language of epistolarj^ writing does not admit of figures of poetry ; and though it would be very allow- able in a poem written in honor of Gottingen, to style it another Athens, yet if a Professor of this University should in a letter from Gottingen date it Athens, it would be a greater piece of pedantry than was ever yet charged upon the learned." "Our own city is sometimes called Athens, from its situation and from its being a seat of learning, but it would not do to argue that a letter came from Edin- burgh, because it is dated from Athens." — Brown, 1 Peter i. 548. We therefore prefer to believe that the Apostle of the Circumcision traveled six hundred miles to Babylon, where Josephus says (Antiqui. xxxi, 5) the Jews in Peter's time were "infinite myriads, whose nimiber it is not possible to calculate ;" and with Philo, another con- temporary, that they constituted "almost one-half the inhabitants." We see no good reason why he should travel two thousand miles to Rome (a two months' journey at that time) to preach to eight thousand of 80 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? his countrymen, who were all sometimes banished by a single order." The great Dr. Bareoav wisely says, Wks. i. 509 : "Peter was too skillful a fisherman to cast his net there, where there were no fish." CHAPTER VIII. Canon jfarcar on tbe (Question ot :KabsIon. Among modern writers Canon Farrar has strongly advocated the opinion that the Apostle Peter wrote his Epistles in the City of Rome. We present and examine his argument. In the "Early Ages of Christianity," p. 595, he writes : " Against the literal acceptance of the word 'Babylon' there are four powerful arguments. (1) There is not the faintest tradition in those regions of any visit from St. Peter. (2) If St, Peter was in Babylon at the time this Epistle was written, there is great difficulty in accounting for his familiarity with the Epistle to the Ephesians, which was not written till A. D. 63. (3) It becomes difficult to imagine circum- stances which could have brought him from the far East into the very crisis of the Neronian persecution in the Babylon of the West. (4) If Marcus be the Evan- gelist, he was with St. Peter between a. d, 61-63, and probably rejoined him just before his martjn-dom in A. D. 68. We should not, therefore, expect to find him so far away as Babylon in a. d. 67." In reply to Dr. Farrar, we remark, (]) That it is clear that we have onlv manufactured and confused traditions concerning Peter, and these framed for an obvious purpose. We have nothing reliable concerning his later years, except the disputed passage concerning 82 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? Babylon, and a faint tradition in Origen, that he labored in Asia Minor, (2) Many authors regard Peter's Epistle as Avritten after the death of Paul, and there was no reason why the Epistle to the Ephesians should not have been carried to Babylon, an eight days' journey, by the hands of Silvanus, whom he states was with him when the letter was written. (3) It is difficult to imagine circumstances to have drawn Peter from Babylon, iiis proper field of labor, to Rome, where he was not needed, at any time, and par- ticularly in his old age ; to lead him to rush into danger, contrary to his Lord's command ; leaving his vastly im- portant work, where he was protected by the Parthian authorities. This whole question is largely a balance of probabilities, and this greatl}^ preponderates in favor of tlie literal interpretation. This, we trust, will be made clear in the course of investigation. (4) Mark's connection with Peter is a matter of great interest, and will warrant a thorough examination. Peter's connection with mark. Sawyer, in " Organic Christianity," p. 47, says : " Mark's supposed residence at Rome depends upon the supposition that Peter resided there, and has no other foundation. Mark was Peter's companion at Babylon. 1 Peter v. 13. " The most probable supposition in respect to the composition of St. Mark's Gospel is, that it was written at Babylon after the death of the Apostle Paul, and designed for general circulation in the Roman Empire." Faussett in his Bib. Cyclop., Art, Mark, gives a satis- PETER'S CONNECTION WITH MARK. 83 factory statement of this question, " After Paul's death Mark joined Peter, with whom he had been asso- ciated in the writing of tlie Gospel. Mark was with Paul, intending to go to Asia Minor, a. d. 01-63 (Col. iv. 10). In 2 Tim. iv. 11, a. d. 67, Mark was near Ephesus, whence he was about to be taken by Timothy to Rome. " It is not likely Peter would have trenched on Paul's field of labor, the Churches of Asia Minor, during Paul's lifetime. At his death Mark joined liis old father in the faith at Babj'lon. Silvanus or Silas had been substituted for Mark, as Paul's companion, because of Mark's temporary unfaithfulness ; but Mark, now restored, is associated with Silvanus (1 Peter v. 12), Paul's companion, in Peter's esteem, as Mark was already reinstated in Paul's esteem. "Naturally Mark salutes the Asiatic Churches with whom he had already been, under Paul, spiritually con- nected. The tradition (Clemens Alex, in Euseb. H. E. vi. 14 ; Clem. Alex. Hyp. 6) that Mark was Peter's companion at Home, arose from misunderstanding ' Babylon ' (1 Peter v. 13) to be Home. A friendly salu- tation is not the place where an enigmatical prophetical title could be used (Rev. xvii. 5). "Babylon was the center from which the Asiatic dispersion whom Peter (1 Peter i. 2) addresses was derived. Alexandria was the final scene of Mark's labors, bishopric, and martyrdom." — Nicephorus, H. E. ii. 43. "It is very probable that about the year a. d. 63 or 64 Mark visited Colossre and the adjacent regions, and then went to Babylon to see Peter, and made known to him the affairs of the Churches in Asia Minor, u^dou the 84 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? receipt of which information the Apostle addressed his Epistle to these Churches." — Harman's Intro. H. Script, ed. Crooks and Hurst, p. 697. Bishop Ellicott's view is, Intro. Com. Mark, p. 189: "Mark accompanied Barnabas (a. d. 52) in his work among the Jews and Gentiles of Cyprus (Acts XV. 39). About eight years after he was with St. Peter on the banks of the Euphrates, which still bore the name of old Babylon, and there must have met Silvanus or Silas, who had taken his place as the companion and minister of St. Paul (1 Peter v. 12, 13)." Bleek, Intro. Mark, vol. ii., writes: " When 1st Peter was written Mark must have been with Peter in Baby- lon, or its neighborhood. This Epistle, as we shall see, Avas not certainly written at an early date, though we cannot exactly say when ; perhaps between the writing of that to the Colossians and of 2d Timothy ; so that, in the interval, Mark must have visited Peter at Babylon." mark secretary to peter. The general tradition has been that Mark was the interpreter and amanuensis of the Apostle. On this Meyer, Intro. Com. Mark, remarks : "At 1 Peter v. 13, Ave find Mark again with his spiritual father Peter at Babylon. His special relation to Peter is specified by the unanimous testimony of the ancient Church, as having been that of interpreter . . . denoting the ser- vice of a secretary, who had to write down the oral communications of his Apostle, whether from dictation or in a more free exercise of his own activitN^, and thus became his interpreter vi toriting to others. This view is plainly confirmed by Jerome, ad. Hedib. ii." MARK SECRETARY TO PETER. 85 Archbislioi^ Tiiomsox, Speak. Com. Intro. INIavk, writes : " Somewhat later Mark is with Peter in Baby- lon (1 Peter v. 13). Some have considered Babylon to be a name given here to Rome in a mystical sense ; surely witliout reason, since tlie date of a letter is not the place to look for a figure of speech. Of the journey to Babylon we have no more evidence ; of its date, causes, results, we know nothing. It may be con- jectured that Mark journeyed to Asia Minor (c. iv. 10), and thence went to join Peter in Babylon. . . Ancient writers with one consent make the Evangelist the inter- preter of the Apostle Peter." With regard to the argument drawn from a few Latin- ized expressions, that Mark wrote at Rome, the JVorth Brit. Rev., November, 1848, p. 30, replies : "We have every reason to believe, as will appear from the sequel, that St, Mark wrote his Gospel at Babylon after tlie martyrdom of St. Paul, and consequently designed it for tlie use of the Latin as well as the Asiatic Churches, whose care had then altogether devolved on St. Peter. This appears to us to explain in a most satisfactory manner the occurrence in it of a few Latin Avords and Latinized expressions, upon which the supposition of its having been written at Rome after all depends." Steiger, on 1 Peter, ii. 316, writes: " This tradition, so generally received and well authenticated, of Mark's relation to Peter, constrains us, since there is nothing to invalidate it, to regard him as the companion of Peter named here, although we need not on that account suppose witli Papias (Eus. 1, ii. 15) and Clemens, what appears to be only their own opinion, that this Epistle was written in Rome, as is also affirmed in the false superscriptions of small copies. We con- 86 ]VAS PETER EVER AT ROMEt elude, then, that Mark is one and the same person with the Jolin Mark mentioned in tlie Acts of the Apostles. See Hug's Intro, ii. § 13." Brown, on 1 Peter, quotes Da Costa, a brilliant converted Hebrew layman of Holland, as presenting a probable and interesting suggestion that Mark was the devout soldier sent by Cornelius to Peter ; consequently he was among the first-fruits of the Apostle's work among the Gentiles, and naturally was endeared to liini as Timothy was to Paul. He notes the military expressions in Mark's Gospel as a ground for this not improbable oj)inion. The Roman name of Mark and the Latin words used by him are, by this view, satisfactorily explained. It adds greatly to the force of the argument that three pre-eminent Roman Catholic authors, Yalesius, DupiN, and De Marca, maintain that " St. Mark's Gospel was Avritten from the Mesojiotamian capital, and not from Rome." See Greenwood's Cathedra Petri, i. 245. Valesius was the editor of Eusebius ; Dupin, tlie emi- nent Church historian ; De IVfarca, Archbishop of Paris. The natural view of the Apostle's language is clearly that Mark was with him in ]\[esopotamia, acting as his secretary, and together with Silvanns assisting in the vast work among the m^-riads of the Circumcision in that region. The tradition which places him at Rome with Peter is altogether improbable, and has no facts to give it credibility. CHAPTER IX. ^be Diew of tbe ©rientalist %igbtfoot. There is probably no author wlio lias written on our subject whose authority is of more value than that of John Lightfoot. " Lightfoot, one of the greatest Hebrew scholars in history, to-day enjoys a universal fame." — Schaff-Herzog Enc3^c. " In Biblical criticism I consider Lightfoot the first of all English writers."— Dr. Adam Clarke. " By his deep researches into the Rabbinical writings he has done more to illustrate the phraseology of the Holy Scriptures . . . than any other writer before or since." — T. H, Home, Bibl. Intro. Lightfoot, who flourished in the seventeenth century, preached a sermon on 1 Peter v. 13, before the Univer- sity of Cambridge, from which we quote, p. 3 : "The falsities and fictions in ecclesiastical stovy, which are not few nor small, have proceeded, especiallv, from four originals, one, or more, or all : J^irsf, from ignorance or misconstruction ; Second, from over offi- ciousness in the relator ; Third, from favor to a party ; Fourth, from a mind or purpose to deceive." These causes Lightfoot elaborates, and says he as- cribes more influence to the two things, " viz.. Officious, ness to Peter and a study to advance Rome . . . Avhen writers in their relations were minded to honor singular places, persons, and actions, it is hard to find them 88 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? keeping witliin bounds." P. 6 : " Every place almost had Paul for their founder, it was fit sure the Church of Rome should outvie others, as being the nobler place ; therefore historical ofiiciousness brings Peter thither also. For that Church strove for dignity of jilace before it did for dignity of episcopac3^ And upon this account it was like it was invented that the minister of Circumcision, Peter, as well as the minister of Uncircum- cision, Paul, was brought thither." P. 7 : " Babylon is here to be properl}'^ taken for Bab^'lon in Chaldea. First. Peter was the minister of Circumcision ; what had he to do Avith Rome, the chief city of the Gentiles ? Paul was there justly, but if Peter had been there he would have been in Paul's line. Herein he held agree- ment with Paul, Gal. ii. 9. He, with James and John, gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, that these should go to the Heathen and they to the Circumcision." Lightfoot continues : " Take Peter, chief minister of the Circumcision, and he is in the midst of the Uncir- cumcision. Need I show how there were multitudes of Jews in Babylon, avIio returned not with Ezra ; need I tell you that there were in that country three Jewish universities ; or need I speak how there were scattered ten tribes in Assyria ? Then how proper it was for Peter to have been there ? " Second. The word 'Bosor' in St. Peter ii. 15, speaks Peter in Babylon. What would the}'^ think of it to whom he wrote, if he wrote from Rome ? But if he wrote from Chaldea it was the idiom of that country ! Bosor was the name of the place where Balaam was, ' Balaam of Bosor.' But in Numbers xxii. 5, it is called ' Pethor,' Pethor being turned into Bosor by a change VIEW OF THE ORIENTALIST LIGHTFOOT. 89 of two letters, ordinarily done by the Jews of those times ; their language being now degenerated into Syriac. . . And Peter speaking in the dialect of Babylon, it is a fair conjecture that he was at Babylon when he spoke, *' I shall add more. Every argument that is used to prove that Peter was not at Rome, is sound argument for this that we are upon, viz., that he was at Babj'lon. And the consideration that Peter ended liis days at Babylon is very useful, if my judgment fail not, at the setting out of ecclesiastical story." Lightfoot commenting on 1 Cor. xiv., says : *' Begin- ning from the East there was the vast settlement in Babylonia of those Jews who had remained after the return from the captivity. Of the twenty-four courses of priests only four had followed Ezra into Palestine. " No less than three universities of Jews existed in Mesopotamia alone. It was a well known saying, ' Who- ever dwells in Babylon is as though he dwelt in the land of Israel.' " Doddridge tells us that it was Lightfoot's argument which convinced Bishop Cumberland that Babylon was not Rome. Ecclesiastical history becomes more luminous and intelligible, with respect to Apostolic experiences, if we keep Peter in his proper place, and do not allow vague traditions, and selfish motives in authors, to transfer him two thousand miles, where he M^as not needed, and where no rational motive could have taken him. THE ORDER OF PROVINCES. A strong geographical argument in favor of the Chaldean Babylon is found in the order of the prov- OO WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? inces to Avliicli the Epistle is addressed. Tlie_y read from ICast to West, not from West to East. Tliis inter- pretation is natural. Dean Hoavson, in his valuable "ITorie Petrina?," p. 132, puts the case strongly : " In approaching the ques- tion on which so much has been written, whether it was really the Eastern Babylon or the great city of the West, described under an allegorical name, from which St. Peter sent this letter, Ave have a strong prima facie argument in the geographical order in which at the outset he ranges the Churches addressed by him. "He begins with the North and sweeps around to the West. This Avould be quite unnatural in the case of one who was writing from a city of the West, but it would be an easy and obvious order to follow when writing from a city of the East, to residents in Provinces distributed according to that succession. This may seem at first sight a somewhat trivial argument, but it is really a strong one, because it has more obvious naturalness in the style of writing." Dean Alford in Proleg. 1 Peter, 130, contending for the literal interpretation of the word, adds : " It is some corroboration of the view that our Epistle was written from the Assyrian Babylon, to find that the countries mentioned in his address are enumerated, not as a per- son in Rome or in Egypt would enumerate them, but in an order proceeding, as has already been noticed, from East to West and South, and also to find that Cosmas-Indico-Pleustes, in the sixth century, quotes the conclusion of our Epistle 'as a proof of the early prog- ress of the Christian religion without the bounds of the Roman empire,' b}^ which, therefore, we perceive that by Babylon he did not understand Rome." THE ORDER OF PROVINCES. 91 Dr.LiTTLEDALE, ill his"Pl;iin Reasons Against Rome," argues in the same line. "There is nothing whatever in Scripture to connect St. Peter witli Rome direct!}', except the ancient guess that 'Babylon,' in 1 Peter v. 13, may mean Rome, while even if it does, nothing is said about any authority there. . . " St. Peter's own opening words contain a very cogent argument the other way. ' Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia ' (1 Peter i. l), are named in order from East to West; natural enougli in a writer at Babj'lon in Mesopotamia addressing people in Asia Minor, but the exact reverse of the order which a writer at Rome would be likely to adopt if sending a letter to the East." NiEBUHE, the eminent historian, confirms this view : " In St. Peter i. 1, the countries are addressed not from West to East (as would be natural to one Avriting from Rome), but from East to West (as would be natural in writing from Babylon)." Quoted in Expositor iii. 4. 4. " In Holy Scripture, whenever a number of different nations, countries, or provinces is mentioned, the order is to begin with that which is geographically nearest to the writer at the time of writing, and to end with the more remote. This order is the natural order and it is never reversed, which has always seemed to us a conclusive argument against the Roman hypothesis." " Romanism," 156. — J. II. Hopkins. John Wesley writes. Notes, etc.: "He names those five provinces in the order wherein they occurred to those writing from the East." "The fact that the countries to Avhich the Epistle is addressed are named in the order in which a writer in Babylon would naturallv view them, confirms that con- clusion." — Whedon's Cora. CHAPTER X. Dr. (5. W. Samson's argument. In I]a2)t. Qnar. Rev., July, 1873, Dr. Samson has an elaborate and instructive article on " Peter and his rela- tions to the Roman Church," which fully summarizes the line of argument in favor of Rome as the Babylon of Peter. On p. 333 we read : "The place called Babylon is without any reasonable doubt Rome, where Peter was then held for trial, and where he was soon after crucified. The evidence as to this is clear and connected. Two suppositions as to the reference are possible : first, that it is literal ; second, that it is symbolic in its meaning ; while if it is literal, either Babylon on the Euphrates or Babylon on the Nile must be referred to. It is sufficient here to remark that the universal historical testimony makes Rome the city referred to." Dr. Samson accepts the tradition as to the early visit to Rome as true : " During seven or eight subsequent years, up to A. D. 50, Peter disappears. . . It is worthy of note that it is during this interesting period of several years' duration, as the early Christian writers all agree, that Peter followed up his influence gained among Romans by a visit to Rome." He alludes here to the conversion of Cornelius. The allusions of Paul to Peter in 1 Cor. are regarded as proof of Peter's visit to Corinth, and naturally an DR. G. W. SAIISOJV'S ARGUMENT. 93 extension of his visit to Rome. The same writer notes likenesses between the two Apostles' epistles, indi- cating personal association and intercourse in Rome. He says : " Moreover, the common companionship of Silvanus, or Silas, and Mark with both Peter and Paul is inexplicable, unless we suppose them to have been associated at Rome." He directs attention to the words of Clement, Igna- tius, Papias, Irenaeus, the Clementines, the Apostolic Constitutions, Origen, Dionysius, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clemens Alex., Cyprian, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Euse- bius, and Jerome. He says : "Peter was at Rome from A. D. 43 to 49. On a second visit to Rome he Avas emi- nently useful to Jewish disciples scattered abroad. . . Finally, Peter met with special firmness the martyr's trial, according to the prophecy of Jesus (John xxi. 18, 19), in the eleventh year of Nero, a. d, 67." A similar elaborate defense of the same position, will be found in Intro. 1 Peter, Speaker's Commentary, by Canon F. C. Cook. All that can be said on that side of the question is forcibly presented by these two able scholars. We propose, in reply to the preceding arguments, to present extensively the reasonings of standard authors, who have tauglit that Peter resided in Babylon in Parthia, and there wrote his Epistles. At this stage of the investigation we introduce a con- sideration which has a bearing on the inquiry, and is worthy of notice : What has led Rome to assume the name of the city specially marked with the Divine Curse ? 04 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? Rome's figurative interpretation a confession of weakness. It is acknowledged by the Roman Church that the Babylon of St. Peter is Rome, and that the Babylon of St. Joliii in the Apocalypse is likewise Rome. Her writers claim that the Divine woes are j^redicted concerning Rome Pagan, some affirming that the de- struction foretold was inflicted by the Goths in the fifth century, others that aii Apostate Rome of the future is indicated. Singular is it, that many of her own writers in the past, in view of her history and condition, have pro- nounced that the predictions of Rev. xvii. and xviii. concern Rome Papal. When we consider tliat the vast multitude of her children who left her at the period of the Reformation, with remarkable unanimity held to the same view and were influenced in action by this belief ; it is certainly a proof that no other passage in Scripture can be claimed in support of Peter's visit to Rome ; else this Church, under the circumstances, would not thus have acknowl- edged the possibility of her being the object of the Divine Curse, as a vast multitude of the most godly and enlightened Christian scholars have believed and aflirmed. Before proceeding to consider Dr. Samson's argument Ave will further illustrate the point here noticed. Roman scholars confess that there is no evidence for Peter's Roman visit, outside his first Epistle. Albert Barnes clearly states this question, Intro. 1 Peter: ''On the supposition that the word Babylon refers to Rome, rests nearly all the evidence which the A CONFESSIO^^ OF WEAAWE.SS. 95 Roman Catliolics can adduce that the Apostle Peter was ever at Rome at all." " There is nothing else in the New Testament that furnishes the slightest proof that he ever was there. The only passage on which Bellarmine relies to show that Peter was at Rome is the passage now under con- sideration. " That Peter was at one time at Rome," he says, " we show first from the testimony of Peter him- self, who thus speaks at the end of his first epistle : 'The Church which is at Babj'lon, elected together with 3'ou, saluteth you.' He does not pretend to cite any other evidence from Scripture, nor does any other writer." That the Babylon of Revelation is Rome hardly requires argument. Bishop \yoKDswoRTH, on Rev. xvii. (ii. 250), says : " The voice of the Christian Cliurch, in the age of St. John himself, and for many centuries after it, has given an almost unanimous verdict on that subject : "That the Seven-hilled City, the great cit}^ the Queen of the Earth, Babjdon the Great of the Apocalypse, is the city of Rome." Bishop Newton, on the Prophecies, 553, asserts : " By Babylon was meant Rome, as all authors of all ages and countries agree." All Roman authors here agree. Baronius will answer for them, Baronius' Annals, a. d. 45 : " All per- sons confess that Rome is denoted by the name of Babylon in the Apocalypse of St. John." lie also affirms that " the fall of Rome, effected by Alaric, was the fulfillment of the prophecy of St. John." Such also is the statement of Bellarmine, Bossuet, ami others. But as Rome revived, and the Bishops of Rome have lived and reigned for centuries since, a new interpreta- 96 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? tion was required; which is, that in the ficture a heathen apostate Rome will arise, and in this power will the predictions be accomplished. Bishop Wordsworth writes, Com. ii. 251 : "This is the hypothesis of some learned Romish theologians. It is maintained by Juarez, Viegas, Ribera, Lessius, Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, particu- larly Dr. Manning, in our own day. "This hypothesis is important to be noticed, as an avowal on their part that the other theory, above stated, of their co-religionists, Bellarraine, Baron ius, Bossuet, and many more — who say that these prophecies were fulfilled in ancient heathen Rome — is untenable. "Here, then, is a remarkable phenomenon. Here are two discordant scliools of Romish theologians. The one school says that these Ajjocalyptic 2:)rophecies con- cern the Rome that was destroyed more than a thousand years ago. The other school affirms that they relate to the Rome of some future time. They differ widely from each other in the interpretation of these prophecies, which they all agree concern their own city. And yet they say they have an infallible interpreter of Scripture resident at Rome. And thej^ boast much of their own unity. "There is something ominous in this discord. It makes their agreement more striking. It confirms the proof that these Apocalyptic prophecies concern Rome. Both tliese schools of Roman Catholic expositors allow that Babylon is Mome. A remarkable avowal, Avhicli is carefully to be borne in mind." This is not the place to discuss the question of the reference of John xvii. and xviii. to the Papal Church, as held by most Protestant expositors. We simply note A CONCEDED WEAKNESS OF PEOOF. 97 the fact, and that with them agreed many preceding Roman Catholic writers. "This interpretation is not a new one," says Words- wortli. " It may be traced in the writings of JPeter of Blois, and in the expositions of Joachim, abbot of Calabria at the end of the twelfth centnry, of Luher- tinus di Casali, Peter Olivi, and others in the thirteenth century, Marsilius of Padua, and those of the illustrious Dante and Petrarch." Dr. C. Hodge, Syst. Theo., iii. 882, writes : "Not only the poets Dante and Petrarch denounced the corruptions of the Church of Rome, but down to the time of the Re- formation that Church was held up by a succession of theologians or ecclesiastics, as the Babylon of the Apoca- lypse which was to be overthrown and rendered desolate." A CONCEDED AVEAKNESS OF PKOOF. In view of the above considerations, that Rome con- sents to the view that the Bab3'lon of Peter is Rome, it seems clear that this Church sees the necessity for some Scriptural evidence for her Peter-Roman story, and that she can find no other than 1 Peter v. 13. Some writers have put this matter in forcible terms : " It is singular that the Romish Church contends earnestly for that figurative meaning. See the Rhemish Nexo Testament, where they call the Protestants ' dis- honest and partial handlers of God's Word ' for opposing this view from which they endeavor to build a proof that Peter was at Rome. Fulke fairly remarks : * You are content that Rome be the See of Antichrist, so you may have Peter at Rome ; seeing you will needs have Rome to be Babylon in this place, as in Rev. xvi. and xvii. you cannot avoid the See of Antichrist from the city 98 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? of Rome ; for tlie Holy Ghost in the Revelation speaks not only of tlie persecution of the heathen emperors, but also of the incitements to false doctrine, etc." — Com. Rel. Tr. Soc, 1 Pet. v. 13. The English version of Poole's Commentary is of like force. " The Papists would have Babylon here to be Rome as Rev. xvii. and that Peter gives it that name rather than its own, because being escaped out of prison at Jerusalem, Act xii. 17, he would not have it known where he was. "But how comes it that he who had been so bold before should be so timorous now ? Did this become the Head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the Prince of the Apostles ? And is it probable that he should live twenty-five years at Rome (as they pretend he did) and yet not be known to be there ? Wherever he was, he had Mark with him now, who is said to have died in Alexandria, the eighth j^ear of Nero, and Peter not till six years after. " If Mark then did first constitute the Church of Alexandria and govern it (as they say he did) for so many years, it will be hard to find him and Peter at Rome together. But if they will needs have Rome meant Babylon, let them enjoy their zeal, who rather than not find Peter's chair, would go to hell to seek it, and are more concerned to have Rome the seat of Peter, than the Church of Christ." Poole himself, in his Sj^nopsis, adopts the figurative view. W. M. Taylor, Life of Peter, 333, remarks : "When Peter wrote his first epistle he was at Babylon on the Euphrates. An attempt indeed has been made to prove that this means Rome, but such a view is ludi- A CONCEDED WEAKNESS OF PROOF. 99 crous in itself, and for the Church in whose interests it is advanced, destructive. . . If it be insisted on that by Babylon Peter actually meant Rome, then to Rome must belong the character and doom of the Apocalyptic Babylon." " A very old opinion," says Lillie on 1 Peter, " held likewise by nearly all Roman Catholic writers, who would thus succeed, though under a bad name, in get- ting New Testament evidence of Peter's connection with the Imperial City." " It is singular," writes Hovey, Am. Com., " Roman Catholics should incline to apply to Rome the name of such a city as Babylon, but it is intended to help a theory which needs all possible support." "If Peter was at Rome, the text that is quoted to show it, shows that Rome is delineated in Rev. xviii." J. Cummi'ng, Hammersmith Disc, p. 507. The strait in which the Church of Rome is placed to secure some proof from Scripture of Peter's Roman residence is evident from her appeal to the thirteenth verse of the fifth chapter of his first Epistle. If we mistake not, the argument works somewhat on the principle of the boomerang, which is apt to return to the injury of the one who uses it. The figurative interpretation, we hold, therefore, to be a concession on the part of Rome, that the Word of God furnishes no rational or convincing evidence in support of her supreme spiritual claim upon the con- sciences of men ; her aflirmation, with anathema, that there is no salvation beyond her jurisdiction, founded, as it is, on the supposition that the Apostle Peter ruled in Rome, and transmitted the Primacy of Christendom to his successors. CHAPTER XI. IRome not JSabglon— arguments of JEngligb Butbors. The opinion of the commentator S. T, Bloomfield is of more interest and value from the fact that he had been led, bj'' more thorough investigation, to change his views. In his " Recensio Synoptica," published in 1827, 8 vols., he accepts the traditional view that Peter by Baby- lon meant Rome. We quote from the latest edition of Notes, N. Test., 1855: "Of the city here intended, no little diversity of opinion exists. Some suppose Babylon is Egypt, an opinion, however, highly improbable in itself, and which has been completely overturned b\^ Lardner." He tlien states that the figurative interpretation rests solely on a tradition of Papias. See p. 75, quoted above. " We may, indeed, justly regard it as mere notion, first originating in error, and afterward caught up by Romanists for the purpose of supporting their asser- tion that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. In fact Calvin has almost proved to a demonstration that it cannot mean the Church of Rome, arguing from Eusebius and others, who afiirm it, saying what is contra- dictory and does not hang together, as involving a gross anachronism : whence Calvin is warranted in arguing that since Peter had, when he wrote the Epistle, Mark then with him, as a companion, it is, a priori, highly 100 ENGLISH A UTH0RITIE8. 1 1 probable that he wrote the Epistle from Babylon, and hence well designates that Church as your 'Sister Church of Babylon.' " The best founded opinion is, I apprehend, that of Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Lightfoot, Cave, Scaliger, Salmasius, Le Cierc, Wettstein, Bengel, Benson, Rosen- miiller, A. Clarke, Steiger, Dr. Peile, Wiesler, and Dr. Davidson, that it means Babylon in Assyria, though they are not agreed whether we are to understand Seleucia, i. e., new Babylon or old Babylon. . . There is ever}'- reason to think that Babylon was a sort of metropolis of the Eastern Dispersion of the Jews, Avhere a great number of them had gone to settle, in addition to those who were the posterity of those who remained in Babylon, and did not return." Of our next authority. Dean Milma?^^, Jackson's Con- cise Dictionary declares, " He was the first (and is still the chief) English ecclesiastical historian, who wrote simply in a fair, scientific spirit, not holding a brief for any party or set of opinions." Milman writes, Hist. Jews, i. 160 : " This Babylo- nian settlement is of great importance in Jewish history, and not less, perhaps, in Christian. I have long held, and more than once expressed, a strong opinion that the Babylon from which St. Peter's Epistle was dated, is this Babylonian settlement. " What more likely tlian that the Apostle of the Cir- cumsion should place himself in the midst of his brethren in that quarter, and address, as it were, a pastoral letter to the conterminous settlement in Asia. " It must have been to these Jews dwelling among the Ano- Barbarous, that Josephus wrote the first version of his Jewish War in tlieir native tongue (Aramaic). 102 WAS PETER EVER AT ROMEf It shows their importance at the period immediately- after the Jewish war, even to a man so highly Roman- ized as Josephus." W. A. Wright, in Smith's Bib, Diet., Hackett's Ed., of the figurative view, says : "Although this opinion is held by Grotius, Lardner, Cave, Whitby, Macknight, Hales, and others, it may be rejected as improbable. There is nothing to indicate that the name is used figuratively, and the subscription to an Epistle is the last place we should expect to find a mythical inter- pretation. . . " The most natural supposition of all is that by Bab- ylon is intended the old Babylon of Assyria, which was largely inhabited by Jews at the time in question (Joseph. Ant. xv. 3, § 1. Philo de Viri, p. 1023, Ed. Franc. 1691). The only argument against this view is the negative evidence from the silence of historians as to Peter's having visited the Ass^'rian Babylon ; but this remark cannot be allowed to have much weight. Liglitfoot's remarks are very suggestive. In a sermon preached at St, Mary's, Cambridge (Wks, ii. 1144), he maintained that Babylon of Assyria is intended, 'be- cause it was one of the greatest knots of Jews in the world,' and St. Peter was the minister of the Circum- cision. , . Bentley gave his suffrage in favor of the ancient Babylon, quoting Josephus, etc." Dean Merivale, Hist. Rome, substantiates Light- foot's statement as to the overwhelming number of Jews in that region. " After the fall of Babylon and the distribution of its people, the Jews, if we may be- lieve their own writers, took the place of the native races throughout the surrounding districts." Robertson, Hist. Christ. Ch., i. p. 2, writes : " St. ENOLISII AUTHORITIES. 103 Peter is said to have founded the Church at Antioch, and after having presided over it for seven years, to have left Euodias as his successor, while he himself penetrated into Partliia and other countries of the East, and it would seem more reasonable to understand the date of Babylon in his first Epistle (v. 13) as meaning the Eastern city of that name than as a mystical designa- tion of Pagan Rome." In Patrick Fairbairn's Imp. Bib. Diet, we read : " There is no reason why Peter should have disguised under such a figurative appellation the place from which he wrote his Epistle ; and in an Epistle remarkable for its simplicity and directness of speech, it would have been a sort of anomaly to fall at its close, upon a sym- bolical designation of his place of residence for Avhich the Epistle itself could furnish no key, and which is also without parallel in any other of the Epistles of the New Testament." Of Lawrence Echard, Dean Prideaux says : *' The Ecclesiastical History of Mr. Lawrence Echard is the best of its kind in the English tongue." In Cent. 1, B. IL, Ch. v., p. 200, this author writes: "Wliile this great Apostle of the Uncircumcision was thus diligently pursuing his ministry, the other of the Circumcision, St. Peter, after his departure from Antioch, preached the gospel to the tfeios in several provinces of lesser Asia, and traveling eastward arrived at the ancient city Babylon in Chaldea, above seven hundred miles east of Jerusalem, where great numbers of Jews resided, having a famous Academy and several schools. In this city it is probable Silas or Silvanus came to him, leaving Paul at Ephesus, and having the evangelist Mark with him. From this place and in the year 54, as Mr. Dodwell 104 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? fairly conjectures, be wrote his first Epistle, which is called a catholic or general Epistle." Rennel, Geog. Herod. § 15, testifies to the abound- ing numbers of the Babylonian Jews: "So great a number of Jews was found in Babylon as is astonishing. Tliey are spoken of by Josephus as possessing towns and districts in that country about forty j^ears after Christ. They were in great numbers in Babylon itself." Salmond writes : " The allegorical interpretation be- comes less likely when it is observed that other geo- graphical designations in this Epistle (ch. i. 1) have undoubtedly the literal meaning. The tradition itself, too, is uncertain." Wells, in Sacred Geography, p. 261, alludes to an interesting point, the connection between the labors of the Apostles Peter and Jude. "It is of some importance to know that the Apostle Jude labored pretty far eastward in this pious work, because it contributes to account for the similarity of the Epistle with some parts of the second of Peter, Avhich seems strongly to confirm the idea that they were both in the habit of addressing the same kind of people. " In fact the Oriental style of imagery, elevation, and metaphor which they adoj)t is altogether conformable to Eastern usage, and marks a phraseology to which the Western world reconciles itself with difficulty, and which it rarely adopts in regular and correct composi- tion." Bishop Wordsworth, on the Canon, puts the argu- ment strongly and concisely : "Hence w^e see why Peter the Apostle of the Circumcision went to Babylon, in Parthian Babylonia. It was the headquarters of those ENGLISH A UTHORITIES. 1 05 whom lie had addressed with such wonderful success on the day of Pentecost, and who are named first in order by the inspired historian of the Acts. " Hence we see why, being at Babylon, St. Peter ad- dressed an epistle to tlie strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. They were derived from Babylon. They were co-elect with the Church there." We close the present list of eminent English scholars with the venerated name of Dean Stanley, who thus eloquently writes : " Whether the Babylon from the neighborhood of which the Epistle is dated be the city of Mesopotamia, or, as in Rev. xix., a metaphorical name for Rome, caimot perhaps be settled for certain t3^ . . On the whole there does not seem sufficient reason for abandoning the literal meaning of the passage ; see Com. Steiger, Mayerhoff, etc. " We catch a glimpse of St. Peter with the partner of liis labors and his son Mark, far awa^^ in the distant East, by the waters of Babylon, among the descendants of those who long ago had hung their harps upon the willows that are there. " It was — if we take the most probable conjecture as to the time and place of its composition — it Avas now that from the Euphrates there came that great Epistle, addressed to all the Asiatic Churches, from the eastern hills of Pontus down to the cities on the -^gean Sea." — Serm. Apost. Age, p. 91. A few brief American opinions are here presented : Edward Robinson, Bib. Diet., Article Peter : " The Epistle was written from Babylon, but whether the Egyptian or Chaldean Bab^don cannot be determined." Art. Babylon : " Some critics have supposed that Peter 106 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? wrote his Epistle from this Babylon, but we have no evidence that he ever was in Egypt, and probability tends to the opposite conclnsion." Professor Stowe, Bks. Bibl. 399: "It is only the anxiety of some to give Peter a long residence at Rome, that ever imagined here a spiritual Babylon, that is Rome." McClintock and Strong Enctl.: "The natural meaning of the designation Babylon is held by Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Lightfoot, Wiesler, Mayerhoff, Bengel, DeWette, Bleek, and perhaps the majority of modern critics." Professor Shedd, Com. Rom. : " According to 1 Peter v. 13, Peter is connected with the Church in Bab3'loii as late as a. d. 60, "That this is the literal Babylon is favored by the fact, that the first Epistle of Peter was addressed to the Jewish Church in Asia Minor (1 Pet. i. 1), whose condition and needs could liave much more naturaHy come under the eye of an Apostle on the banks of the Euphrates, than on the banks of the Tiber." G. H. Whitney, Hand-Book, Bible Geography : " The Babylon of 1 Pet. v, 1 3 doubtless refers to an- cient Babylon, a portion of whose ruins was long occu- pied by Jews." CHAPTER XII. Diews of Continental Timriters. Among the most able of Biblical commentators, is tlie well known John David Michaelis. In Lis Intro- duction to the New Testament he has answered the arguments of Dr. Lardner, one of the most strenuous defenders of the figurative interpretation. Michaelis' opinion is of special weight, inasmuch as he was of those who, like Bloomfield already quoted, changed their view after more thorough investigation. He writes : " St. Peter, in the close of his Epistle, sends a salutation from the Church at Babylon, which consequently is the place where he wrote his Epistle. But commentators do not agree in regard to the word Babylon, some taking it in its literal and projjer sense, others giving it a figurative and mystical interpreta- tion. "Among the latter have been men of such learning and abilities that I was misled by their authority in the younger part of my life, to subscribe to it ; but at present, as I have more impartiall}' examined the ques- tion, it appears to me very extraordinary that, when an Apostle dates his Epistle from Babylon, it should ever occur to any commentator to ascribe to this word a mystical meaning, instead of taking it in its literal and proper sense." Describing Babylon and Seleucia, he continues : " In 107 108 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? the last tu'o editions of this Introduction I preferred the former sense : but after a more mature consideration, I tliink it much more probable at present that St. Peter meant the ancient Babylon. . . Before I conclude this section I must take notice of a j^assage in Josephus, which not onl}' confutes all notions of a spiritual or mystical Babylon, but throws a great light on our present inquiry ; and this passage is of so much the more importance, because Josephus was a historian who lived in the same age with St. Peter." After quoting this passage, he presents Dr. Lardner'8 reasons for the opposite view : " First, There were no Jews in Babylon in the time of Peter ; second, That the ancient fathers mostly explain the word figura- tively ; third, No mention is made of Peter's journey to Babylon ; fourth, Peter's charge to ' honor the king,' which must have meant the Roman Emperor." These arguments Michaelis thoroughly examines. He thus concludes : " It appears then that the argu- ments which have been alleged to show that St. Peter did not write his first Epistle in tlie country of Baby- lonia are without foundation, and consequently the notion of a mystical Babylon, as denoting either Jeru- salem or Rome, loses its whole support. " For in itself tlie notion is highly improbable ; and, therefore, the bare possibility that St. Peter took a journey to Babylon, properly so called, renders it inad- missible. The plain language of epistolary writing does not admit of the figures of poetry : and though it would be very allowable in a poem written in honor of Gottingen, to style it another Athens, it would be a greater piece of pedantry tlian was ever laid to the charge of the learned. In like manner, though a VIEWS OF CONTINENTAL WRITERS. 109 figurative use of the word Babylon is not unsuitable to the animated and poetical language of tlie Apoca- lypse, yet St. Peter, in a plain and unadorned Epistle, would hardly have called the place where he wrote by any other appellation than that which literally and properly belonged to it." Dr. Adam Clarke, who quotes in his Com. on 1 Peter the entire argument of Michaelis, thus remarks upon it : "Tliat many persons, both of learning and eminence, have been of a different opinion from Pro- fessor Michaelis, the intelligent reader is well aware ; but Dr. Lardner, of all others, has written most argu- mentatively in vindication of the mystic Babylon, i. e., as being the place from which the Apostle wrote this Epistle. His weightiest arguments, however, are answered by Michaelis ; and to me it appears that there is a great balance in favor of the opinion that Babylon on the Euphrates is the place intended. The decision of this question, though not an article of faith, is nevertheless of some importance." He elsewhere writes : " After considering all that has been said by learned men and critics on this place, I am quite of the opinion that the Apostle does not mean Baby- lon in Egypt, nor Jerusalem, nor Borne, as figurative Babylon, but the ancient celebrated Babylon in Assyria." Witli respect to Dr. Lardner, Kitto says : " Lardner's principal argument that the terms of tlie injunction to loyal obedience (ii. 13, 14,) implj^ that Peter was -within the bounds of the Roman Empire, proves nothing ; for as Davidson remarks, ' the phrase "the king" in a letter written by a person in one country to a person in another, may mean the king either of the person writ- ing, or of him to whom the letter is written.' " 110 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? J. OwEX, vicar of Tlirussington, writes concerning Lardner's tendency to credit patristic legends : " Even sucli a man as Lardiier seemed unwilling to reject this tale, for fear of lessening the credit of history, evidently mistaking the ground on which history has a title to credit." Francis Turretin, whose works Principal Cunning- ham describes as being "of inestimable" value, has also fully argued this question. This author was of a remark- able family. His father and his son, like himself, were pastors of the Italian Congregation at Geneva, and were, moreover, professors at the Theological Seminary of that city. Turretin argues that Peter was never at Rome : (l) from the silence of Luke ; (2) from that of Paul ; (3) from tliat of Peter ; (4) from a computation of the times ; (5) from the distribution of work between Paul and Peter ; (6) from tlie chronolog}^ ; (7) from the origin of tlie tradition. We give a portion of his argument : " XI. Possibly Babylon, concerning which John speaks in the Apocalypse, is none other than Rome, since it is described as possessing those characteristics which could belong to no other city ; esj^ecially because it was Seven-hilled, and at that time held, vested in the kings, the government of the world ; it does not follow that this same is to be understood for Babylon (1 Peter V. 13) ' the Church which is at Babylon saluteth yon.' Because John wrote a prophecy, and therefore spoke ambiguously and enigmatically, but Peter wrote as a writer of history, and with simplicity, because he wrote a letter in which everytliing was narrated in a manner clear and easily comprehended. " Nor had he other reasons for concealing the name VIEWS OF CONTINENTAL WRITERS. 1 1 1 of the city than Paul, wlio lets it be openly known when he writes at Rome. And it is a singular thing that the Papists wish to understand the literal Babylon in the Apocalypse, which was written in an ambiguous and pro- phetic manner, and to take figuratively that name which was mentioned, merely as historical, to show the place where the letter was written. Moreover, there is no reason why he should have designated Rome as Baby- lon. Was it because idols were worshiped there ? But that is done everywhere. From fear lest it be known where he was working ? But whence such extraordinary timidity ? Had not Paul written to the Romans, and written many Epistles at Rome, witliout either suppress- ing or clianging its name, but freely mentioning it? Rome is principally spoken of as Babj^on in the Apoc- alypse, on account of the spiritual servitude which the Church was to suffer through her. It cannot be said that Rome was commonly so called. John mentions this name as a type of a figure. " Nor should the testimony of Papias and those Avho followed him convince us of this, for it is of trifling weight, as will be shown afterward. For no other can be designated more consistently and plainly as Babylon than the capital of the Assvrians and Chaldeans, which was the head and, center of government, the chief city of that dispersion to which Peter wrote, Pontus, Gala- tia, etc., whicli had aixf^ocXooTapuev, and many of the Circumcision, the care of which belonged to Peter and John. " How great a confluence of Jews was there may be evident from the following : because so many Jewish schools were removed from Palestine to Babylon, whence is the Babylonian name Talmud. 112 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? " Finally, wlien nothing renders it necessary to depart f I'om the i^roper signification of the text, there's no need of seeking a figurative meaning, for the literal one remains. Bellarmine recognizes this, * De Eucharistica, Lib. 1, Cap. xii.' " Turretin's further argument will be found in the previous chapter on Papias, p. 75. Neander, Hist. Plant. Christ., i. 573, writes : "This Epistle of Peter leads us rather to suppose that the scene of his labors was in the Parthian Empire, for as he sends salutations from his wife in Babj'lon, this naturall}^ suggests the conclusion that he himself was in that neighborhood. . . It appears, then, that after Peter had found a suitable field of exertion in the Parthian Empire, he wrote to the Churches founded by Paul and his assistants in Asia, an Epistle, which is the only memorial preserved to us of his later labors. . . The opinion of the Ancients is perfectly arbitrar}^, that under this name (Babylon) Rome was meant, and there is nothing against our supposing that an inhabited jDor- tion of the immense Babylon was still left." We give Neander's language inasmuch as he has been claimed as holding the opposite view. Steigee, Intro. Epis. Pet. i. 29 : " In proof that Peter did not confine his activity to Palestine, speaks also the Place from which this Epistle is written. That this is not to be understood symbolically for a designa- tion of Rome as the ancients took it (Clem. Alex, in Euseb. H. E. ii. 15), is now admitted, to say nothing of similar interpretations (see Bertholdt, Hug, etc.). . . By Babylon we understand Babylon nar' e^ox^v (which is also regarded as probable by Neander, etc.), for, had it been any other, a mark of distinction would have VIEWS OF CONTINENTAL WRITERS. 113 been the more nocessavy, tlie more remote and unknown it was." Steiger enters fully into the discussion of the questions involved. GuERiKE, Ch. Hist, translated by Professor Shedd, p. 52: "From the passage 1 Peter v. 13, if tlie name of Babylon be taken literallj'^, as the character of the Epistle warrants, the conclusion is justified that Peter, attended by Mark, his frequent companion, and the writer of the second Gospel, Avhicli obtained its canonical authority from Peter, bad extended his labors into Persia, where man}'- Jews had taken up their residence ; and had chosen this part of Asia, generally, as the seat of his missionary efforts ; from here, or at least soon after his return from here, about the year 60, he wrote his first Epistle." Presexse, a French author, in his *' Apostolic Age," p. 311, writes: "The Epistle of Peter was written before the Apocalypse, and the persecution under Nero, that is to say before the time when Pagan Rome was to the Church what Babylon had been to the Jews of old. Up to this time the Christians had had much more to suffer from the Jews than from the Gentiles. It is worthy of remark, also, that the st^'le of Peter in his Epistle is not raised to the lyric tone of ancient prophecy, and its conclusion is as simple as possible. There can, then, be no reason for attaching a far-fetched symbolic meaning to a designation perfectly clear in itself. " Peter had succeeded in founding a Church in Baby- lon ; this Church had become a center of light to all the Jewish colonj^ Silas, one of the companions of Paul, joined Peter at Babylon, and the description given by him of the critical condition of the Churches in 114 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? Asia Minor doubtless led the Apostle to address to them a letter of consolation. " Persecution was, in truth, imminent ; like a violent tempest it was giving precursive tokens of its approach, and it was well that words of earnest exhortation should be multiplied on the eve of so terrible a conflict. Peter pleaded with holy eloquence, magnif3'ing, like Paul, the greatness and glory of Christian endurance, and himself preparing to seal with his blood his witness to the truth." Reuss, of the same nation as the last author. Hist. N. Test., is of much the same mind : "The idea that Baby- lon is a mythical name for Rome accords neither with the spirit of the Epistle, nor with any ecclesiastical combination reaching back into the immediate neigh- borhood of the Apocalyptic period. A doctrinal Epistle is not an Apocalypse, neither is it demonstrated nor probable that in later times the Apocalyptic use of lan- guage, Avithout intimation, was general)}' accepted among Christians. "The persecutions, as they are described, do not give the impression of something fierce and bloody like that of Nero. They lend, therefore, no support to a com- position at Rome in the last years of Nero. . . That Peter met his death at Rome is a bare possibility." We close this chapter of authorities with the convinc- ing evidence of three pre-eminent modern authorities, in support of the view of the vast extent of the field of the Apostolic labors among the Circumcision, in the neighborhood of the Parthian Babylon. Professor Sciiurer, Hist. Jew. People, etc., vol. i. pt. ii. p. 228, remarks : "In Mesopotamia, Media, and Babylon, lived the descendants of the members of the VIEWS OF CONTINENTAL WRITERS. 115 kingdom of tlie ten tribes, and of the kingdom of Judah, wlio had been carried away thither by the Cliai- deans and Ass3'rians. . . Tlie Jews in these provinces were numbered not by thousands but by millions. "Their attitude was always of political importance to the Empire. Josephus names the strong cities of Nebardea and Nisibis, the former on the Euphrates, the latter in the valley, as the chief dwelling places of the Babylonian and Mesopotaniian Jews. Around Nisibis were grouped the descendants of the ten tribes, and around Nebardea the descendants of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah." Dr. Emanuel Deutscii, a brilliant Hebrew schdlar, who died greatly lamented in 1873, assistant librarian to the British Museum, in Kitto's Encycl. Alexander's Ed., Art. Dispersion, writes : "Foremost in the two or three chief groups into which the Jewish Dispersion had been divided stands the Babylonian, embracing the Jews of the Persian Empire, into every part of which, Babylonia, Media, Susiana, Mesopotamia, Assyria, etc., they penetrated. The Jews of Babylonia prided them- selves on the exceptional purity of their language, a boast uniformly recognized throughout the nation. What Judea, it was said, was with respect to the dis- persion of other countries — as pure flour to dough — that Babylonia was to Judea. " Herod pretended to have sprung from Babylonian ancestors, and also bestowed the high priesthood upon a man from Babylon. In the messages sent by the Sanhedrim to the whole dispersion, Babj'lonia received the precedence, although it remained a standing re- proach against the Babylonians that tliey held aloof from the national cause when their brethren returned to 116 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? Palestine, and thus bad caused tlie weakness of the Jewish state ; as, indeed, living in Palestine, under any circumstances, is enumerated among the Jewish ordi- nances. The very territory of Babylonia was, for cer- tain ritual purposes, considered to be as pure as Pales- tine itself." Edersheim, a converted Hebrew, and among the most valued of modern writers, in his " Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," has largely dwelt upon this topic. He says : " Far other was the estimate in which the Baby- lonians were held by the leaders of Judaism. Indeed, according to one view of it, Bab3'lonia, as well as Syria as far north as Antioch, was regarded as forming part of the Land of Israel. Every other country was con- sidered outside ' the Land,' as Palestine Avas called, with the exception of Babylonia, which Avas reckoned a part of it. . . " It was just between the Euphrates and the Tigris that the largest and Avealtliiest settlements of the Jews were, to such an extent that a later writer designated them as ' the land of Israel.' . . According to Josephus, with whom Pliilo substantiallv agrees, vast numbers, estimated as millions, inliabited the Trans-Euphratic provinces. . . "Such was their influence that as late as the j'ear 40 A. D., the Roman Legate shrank from provoking tlieir hostility. . . After the destruction of Jerusalem tlie spiritual supremacy of Palestine passed to Baby- lonia. . . Only eight days' journey separated them from Palestine. And every pulsation there vibrated in Babylonia. It was aniong the same community that Peter wrote and labored." Vol. i. 7-14. CHAPTER XIII. (5ava33t's Brgumcnt. In February, 1872, a public discussion was held in Rome on the question — " Whether the Apostle Peter had visited that city." Three learned priests main- tained the affirmative. Three Protestant divines con- tended for the negative. At the head of the latter was Gavazzi, a converted priest, who had held a high official position, had been chaplain to Garibaldi's army, and had acquired much fame by his eloquence, on his visits to England and the United States. We present a portion of Gavazzi's argument : " The silence of the Bible upon the coming of Peter to Rome is not any means a negative proof, but a positive and most explicit one. Cardinal Bellarmine says that silence is a positive proof. . . Let us look at some parallel. Thiers, for instance, does not say a word in his ' History of the Consulate and Empire,' of Napoleon having gone to Washington in America. This is perhaps proof that he went there? No, quite the contrary. By the same logic it might be said that Peter never went to Rome. " The Acts of the Apostles, which say not a word of the coming of St. Peter to Rome, are the true, official, authentic history, giving a particular account of the development, of the progress, of the persecutions, of the triumphs of the Church. Their aim is to show the 117 1 1 8 WA S PETER E VEB A T ROME ? labors of tlie Apostles. These Acts are a legitimate impartial account, because St. Luke was inspired. How could he be silent about St. Peter going to Rome, when he speaks of so many other cities of minor importance ? " He says he went to Lydda, to Joppa, to Samaria, to Csesarea, to Jerusalem ; why should he not also have said he went to Rome, if he really went there. The Acts of the Apostles are, in short, for the Apostles, what Thiers' account of the Consulate and Empire is for Napoleon. Would it have been possible for Thiers to be silent about Napoleon's going to Moscow ? No. Well then, St. Peter's going to Rome would have been a thousand times more important for the Apostolate, and the Church, than Napoleon's going to Moscow for tlie Empire, " Our adversaries say that perhaps the going of St, Peter to Rome is not mentioned for fear of compromis- ing him. Fear? No, it was not the case ; because when the Acts of the Apostles were written, the danger was past. I resjiect Peter too much to believe that he was afraid, Peter was not a coward to fear martyrdom. Nor did Paul reckon him as such. The silence of Paul then is a positive proof that, during the time he was in Rome, St. Peter was not there." One who has written exhaustively on this subject says : " There is no more properly historical evi- dence that Peter visited Rome than there is that General Washington visited London, or Napoleon, New York, No report, rumor, or legend, to the latter effect, has yet been heard of. It is too soon. There is time enough fifty years hence. , , If history is to be made of tropes, bon-mots, half legends, and the like pliable OAVAZZrS ARGUMENT. 119 and expansible materials, there is nothing to forbid the expectation that, fifteen centuries hence, a colossal statue and magnificent monument may mark the identical spot where George Washington stood on Tower Hill, and a perpetual anniversary celebrate the arrival of Napoleon, attended by all his marshals, in New York." Gavazzi presents an original argument in response to his antagonists : " They defy us to find a prophecy which would allude to tlie death of Peter anywhere else than at Rome, Well ? the prophecy is this. Christ said to the Pharisees these words : 'Some of them ye shall crucify.' Now they were Jews, who, according to the words of Clirist, were to crucify some of his disciples — not the Romans. Well, of those crucified, there were only, according to the Church, Andrew and Peter ; the others were stoned or beheaded. He alluded then to these two : these two were the 'some' meant of Christ. "The crucifixion of Peter, that it might fulfill the prophecy of Christ, should have happened by the hand of the Jews, not of the Romans, at least in a country where the Jews exercised the utmost power. Now the Jews in Rome had no power of this kind. In Baby- lon ? Yes, it was possible that crucifixion might take place there ; there the Jews were so powerful that it is known that some Babjdonish King allowed them to have a high priest. At Babylon the prophecy of Christ could be fulfilled, at Rome it could not. Besides, the mode of Peter's death — crucified with the head down- ward — is not Roman : it is a punishment in use among the Parthians. The Romans crucified with the head upward, and then broke the legs. The very death of Peter, then, is a proof that it did not happen at Rome." 120 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? This conjecture of Gavazzi is well wortliy of consider- ation. It is the strongest confirmation of the tradition that Peter died by crucifixion. The interpretation of our Lord's prediction with respect to tliis Apostle, in the last chapter of John's Gospel, " when thou art old another shall gird thee and carry thee Avhither thou wouldst not," etc., that it signified crucifixion, is simply a conjecture. Bacon states. Lives of Apos.,p. 254, that Tertullian originated this idea. lie says ; "The rejec- tion of the forced interpretation is by no means a new notion. The critical Tremellius long ago maintained that the verse had no reference whatever to a prophecy of Peter's crucifixion, though he probably had no idea of denying that Peter did actually die by crucifixion. Among more modern commentators too, the prince of critics, Kuinoel, wnth wdiom are quoted Semler, Gurlitt, Schott, utterly deny that a fair construction of the original will allow any prophetical idea to be based upon it. "The critical testimony of these great commentators on the true and just force of the words is of the very highest value : because all received the tale of Peter's crucifixion as true, having never examined the authority of the tradition, and not one of them pretended to deny that he Avas really crucified . . . they therefore pro- nounce it as merely expressing the helplessness and imbecility of extreme old age, with which they make every word coincide." Elsewhere Bacon forcibly remarks : " Take a common reader, who has never heard that Peter Avas crucified, and it would be hard for him to make out such a cir- cumstance from the bare prophecy given by John. Indeed such unbiased impressions of the sense of the GAVAZZrS ARGUMENT. 121 passage will go far to justify the conclusion that the words imply nothing but that Peter was destined to pass a long life in the service of his Master — that he should, after having worn out his bodily and mental energies in his devoted exertions, attain such an extreme decrepit old age, as to lose the power of voluntary motion and die thus, at least, without necessai'ily imply- ing any bloody mart^^'dom. " Will it be said that by such a quiet death he could not be considered as glorifying God ? . . Was not God truly glorified, in the deaths of the aged Xavier, and Elliot, and Schwartz, or the bright, early exits of Brainerd, Mills, Mart^'n, Parsons, Fisk, and hundreds whom the apostolic spirit of modern missions has sent forth to labors as devoted, and to deaths as glorious to God, as those of any who swell the deified lists of the ancient martyrologies ? The whole notion of a bloody martyrdom, as an essential termination to the life of a saint, grew out of a Papistical supersti- tion. . , " All those writers who pretend to particularize the mode of his departure connect it also with the utterly impossible fiction of his residence at Rome, on which enough has been already said. . . Peter was then in Babylon, far beyond the vengeance of the Coesar : nor was he so foolish as ever after to have trusted himself in the reach of a perfectly unnecessary danger. The command of Christ was, ' when you are persecuted in one city, flee unto another.' The necessarj^ and un- questionable inference from which, was, that when out of reach of persecution they should not willfully go into it. This is a simple principle of Christian action Avith which papist fable-mongers were totally unac- 122 WAS PETER EVER AT ROMEf quainted, and they thereby afford the most satisfactory proof of the actions and motives they ascribe to the Apostles." We may justly affirm that the fables about Peter, which were mostly concocted to aggrandize a par- ticular Church, in an age of ignorance and consequent credulity, are based on a principle in direct antagonism to the commands of our Lord, and forbid us reasonably to believe that the Apostle Peter would journey from his abundant and legitimate field of labor, where he was protected by the authorities, and at great personal risk and expense, on a romantic expedition, to terminate at Rome, by a violent death, needlessly, his life and abounding usefulness in preaching the Gospel of his Lord. There is no testimony, as has been amply shown, either from Scripture, or from any writer within a cen- tury after the death of Peter, that he ever left the East ; nor is there a solitary statement on record since, which, on critical examination, as will be made evident, is worthy of credit, that the Apostle's feet ever entered Rome. This fabulous transfer of Peter from Babylon to Rome, made for an evident purpose, has had the effect in some respects of dislocating ecclesiastical history. The correction of the error, in the words of the learned Lightfoot, "The consideration that Peter ended his da^^s at Babjdon, is very useful, if my judgment fail not, at the setting out of ecclesiastical story." CHAPTER XIV. trbe Bpostles peter anO 5obn. Professor McDonald, in bis commentary on St. John, presents a reasonable and interesting suggestion concerning the joint work of tliese two Apostles. On p. 138, he writes : " It appeal's to be as well established a fact, not recorded in the Scriptures, that Peter, follow- ing the emigrants and colonists of his own nation, journeyed Eastward, and made the Provinces of the Parthian Empire, and the regions east of the Euphrates, the scene of his labors. "The number of Jews in the city of Babylon, and the Provinces around it had, it is said, been increased at this time to such a degree that they constituted a very large portion of the population. (Joseph. Antiq., xviii.) St. Peter would be led to follow them as he prosecuted his Apostolic work. His first Epistle seems to have been written from Babylon, and is addressed to the Christians scattered abroad, beginning with Pontus, the place nearest to him on the northeast of Asia Minor. That St. Peter uses Babylon in a metaphorical sense for Rome, is a conjecture which has few supporters among scholars. "Michaelis (I. D.) very ably exposes the absurdity of the opinion that Peter dates from ]?abylon in a mystical sense. And as Babylon in Egypt was a mere military station, there can be no doubt the place named by 123 124 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? Peter Avas the ancient Assyrian or Chaldean Babylon, or the city that in his day stood on its site. 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, feeling, and religious education and natural 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. With Peter went also others of the Apostolic band." Bacon's Lives of the Apostles, p. 260. " As there are no traces of John in any other direc- tion, it is not improbable, as he had thus far been so intimately associated with Peter in Apostolic labors in Judea and Samaria, they were not separated now; at least for a portion of the time Peter was in the Parthian dominions. As far back as the time of Augustine, a. d, 398, the First Epistle of John Avas known as the Epistle to the Parthians. He quotes 1 John iii. 2, which he in- troduces, ' which is said by John in the Epistle to the Parthians.' "It seems indeed pleasant to contemplate these emi- nent Apostles, 'in this glorious clime of the East,' amid the scenes of that Ancient Captivity, in which the mourn- ing sons of Zion had drawn consolation and support from the word of Prophecy, Avhich the march of time 'in its solemn fulfillment,' had now made the faithful history of God's children ; amid the ruins of Empires, and natural wrecks of ages, attesting, in the dreary desolation, the surety of the word of God." This view of McDonald and others, that Parthia was the scene of the Apostolic labors of these foremost THE APOSTLES PETER AND JOHN. 125 ministers to the circuincisioii, is rendered the more prob- able from the security then enjoyed both by Jew and Christian in that kingdom. W. C. Taylor, in his Man'I. Anc. Hist., p. 167, says : " After Christianity began to spread, its progress was tolerated, if not directly encouraged, by the Parthian monarchs, who liberally offered shelter to Christians flying from the persecutions of the Pagans, and we must add, from those of their brethren who belonged to a dif- ferent sect." Gkeenwood, Cath. Petri. II. viii, confirms this state- ment of the tolerant spirit of this people, when he refers to " that degree of repose and social dignity which, we are authentically informed, the Jews of Babylonia for ages afterward enjoyed, under the patronage of the Parthian and Persian sovereigns." Again, he writes, vol. i. 244 : " When Ave take into account that Peter's mission was to those of the Cir- cumcision, as Paul's was to those of theUncircumcision; it is most natural to suppose that they bore their testi- mony, where it was most likely to continue prudential — the conversion, to wit, of Gentiles by Paul, and of Jews by Peter. . . We cannot therefore help thinking it far more probable that Peter suffered in the Mesopotamian capital, than that he traveled in the latest period of his life to Rome, to partake the honor of martrydom with his colleague Paul. " The tolerance of the Parthian authorities is confirmed b}^ Dr. Wm. Smith in his New Testament History, p. 636, Am. ed., where he says : " If we suj^pose that Peter was visiting his Jewish brethren of the Eastern Disper- sion, there is no place which he would be more likely to make the goal and headquarter of such a tour. Baby- 126 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? Ion was at that time, and for some hundreds of years afterward, a chief seat of Jewish culture. Under the tolerant rule of the Parthians the Jewish families formed a separate and wealthy community ; and thence they had spread to many of the districts of Asia Minor, to which the Epistle was addressed. Their intercourse with Judea was uninterrupted ; and their language, probably a mixture of Hebrew and Nabatean, must have borne a near affinity to the Galilean dialect." John's epistle to the parthians. With respect to tlie visit of John to Parthia, where it is so reasonable, and higlily probable, that he labored for so many years with Peter as his colleague, we find Bede quoting Athanasius as giving to John's first Epistle the title, " To the Parthians." Many writers have adopted the same view ; among them the learned Mill (in Pro- legom. in Joan. N. T, § 150). He expresses himself fully in favor of the view that John passed the greater part of his life among the Parthians and the believers near them. Lampe (Prolegom. in Joan. Lib. 1. cap. iii. § 12, note) favors that supposition. Grotius, Ainiot. Prolegom., suggests " that the Epistle was written to trans-Euphratic converted Jews, who were Parthian subjects, and forwarded to them by Epiiesian merchants : but that the cautious Ajjostle, foreseeing tliat such a correspondence of Ephesian Chris- tians with a hostile country, if discovered, would be hurtful to Christians in the Roman Empire in general, omitted the usual beginning and conclusion." Jesuit missionaries in 1555 found a tradition in India, among the Bassoras, that this same Apostle presented the Gospel in that region. Baronius (Ann. -44. § 30). JOHN'S EPISTLE TO THE PARTHIANS. 127 As this is a matter of profound interest, tlirowing liglit on the careers of the two foremost Apostles Peter and John, we give the satisfactory language of D. F. Bacon, in his Lives of the Apostles, the most complete work in English on the subject. He sa3's, p. 308 : "It has been considered extremely probable, b}'' some, that John passed many years, or even a great part of his life, in the regions east of the Euphrates, within the bounds of the great Partliian empire, Avhero a vast number of his refugee countr^nnen had settled after the destruction of Jerusalem ; enjoying peace and prosperity, partly for- getting their nationalcalamities, in building themselves up into a new people, beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire. These would afford to liim an extensive and congenial field of labor : they were his countrj'men, speaking his own language, and to them he was allied by the sympathies of a common misfortune and a com- mon refuge. " Abundant proof lias already been offered to show that in this region was the home of Peter, daring the same period ; and probabilities are strongly in favor of the supposition that the other Apostles followed him thither, making Babjdon the new Apostolic capital of the Eastern churches, as Jerusalem had been of the old one. From tliat city as a center, the Apostles could naturally extend their occasional labors into the coun- tries eastward, as far as tlieir Jewish brethren had spread their refugee settlements ; for beyond the Roman limits, Christianity seems to have made no progress what- ever among the Gentiles in the time of the Apostles. " If there had been no other difficulties, the great dif- ference of language and manners, and the savage condi- tion of most of the races around them, would have led 128 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? them to confine their labors wliolly to those of their own nation, who inhabited the country watered bj' the Eu- phrates and its branches : or still farther east, to lands where the Jews seem to liave spread themselves on the banks of the Indus, and perhaps within the modern boun- daries of India." A most interesting confirmation of the spread of the Gospel in the East comes from the Egyptian author of the sixth century, Cosmas Ixdico-Pleustes of Alexan- dria, A. D. 535. Dr. Lardner, vol. v. 57, writes of him : "Cosmas quotes the conclusion of the First Epistle of Peter, 'the Church which is at Babylon saluteth you,' as a proof of the early progress of the Christian religion without the bounds of the Roman Empire, by which, therefore, we perceive, he had not understood Rome, p. 101. He mentions a great many countries remote from each other, where the Gospel liad been planted ; and particularly, several places in the Indies, where he had been, in which were many churches. He expressly says that ' in Persia were many churches and bishops, and people, and many martyrs ; as also in Ethiopia and Arabia.' " JOHN IN BABYLON. With reference to the Apostle John, who, as the loved of the Lord, the appointed guardian of his mother, as well as from his writings and character, is especially dear to all Christians ; we have seen how little is known of his history and labors after the meeting of the Council at Jerusalem, a. d. 50. By far the most probable supposition is, as already stated, that he la- bored with Peter in the center of the Jewish population in Babylon. JOHN IN BABYLON. 129 In charge of her, most "blessed of women," he would naturally seek the most favored spot, where life was safest, and the surroundings most desirable. With Peter and his household, too, would be congenial society. There is nothing against this supposition, while there is much in its favor. We are justified, therefore, in regard to John, in contemplating him in Babylon, till he went to Ephesus. We again quote from Bacon, p. 313, his sensible and eloquent words. " Where there is such a want of all data, any fixed decision is out of the question ; but it is very reasonable to suppose that John's final departure from the East did not take place till some years after this date ; probabh'^ not till the time of Domitian (a. d. 81 or 82). He had lived in Babylon, therefore, till lie had seen most of his brethren and friends pass away from before his eyes. The venerable Peter had sunk into the grave, and had been followed by the rest of the Apostolic band ; until the youngest Apostle, now grown old, found himself standing alone in the midst of a new generation, like one of the solitary columns of desolate Babylon, among the low dwelling places of its refugee inhabitants. But among the hourly crumbling heaps of that ruined city, the fast darkening regions of that half-savage dominion, there was each year less and less around him on which his precious labor could be advantageously expended. " Among the subjects of the Parthian Empire, this downward movement was already fully decided ; they were fast losing those refinements of feeling and thought on which the new faith could best fasten its spiritual and refining influences ; they there soon became but hope- less objects to missionary exertion, when compared with the active and enterprising inhabitants of the still im- 10 130 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? proving regions of the west. ' Westward,' then, ' the star ' of Christianity as 'of empire took its way'; and the last of the Apostles was but following, not leading, the march of his Lord's advancing dominion, when he shook the dust of the darkening lands from his feet forever, turning his aged face toward the setting sun, to find, in his latter days, a new home and a foreign grave among the children of liis brethren ; and to rejoice his old eyes with the glorious light of what God had done for the cliurches among the flourishing cities of the west, that were still advancing under Grecian art and Roman sway." S. R, Green, in his Lifeof St. Peter, p. 125, also alludes forcibly to the decline of this region : "This interpre- tation also accounts for the fact that the records of the Apostles' latter days have perished. The memorials of those Eastern lands have passed away with the races which inhabited them. No literature survives from those once favored regions. Modern history has almost nothing to tell of them, but that they were made deso- late by war ; and the cradle of the human race, once fondlj' chosen as the rallj'ing point for mankind, has for ages been a solitary waste. But one memorial of that melancholy land shall survive to all time. For there it was that the Apostle Peter, before he passed away from earth, Avrote his first great epistle to the scattered CHURCHES." CHAPTER XV. Zbc SeconD Bpletic of Jobn. XLo wbom BDDresscD 1 An examination of the Secoud Epistle of the Apostle John may serve to throw further light on this deeply interesting question, with respect to the field of labor of the beloved disciple. We have noticed the tradition with respect to the most reasonable supposition, that John labored with Peter among the vast myriads of the Cir- cumcision of Babylon and its neigliborhood, under the protection of the Parthian rulers. The language of the Second Epistle suggests that it was written by the Apostle to another (7/i«/rc/i, probably one in the further East, in whi^h he had previously labored. We present the views of highly learned men on this question. Davidsox, Intro. N. Test., p. 319, says : " The words refer to a particular Christian Church, to the JElect Ckurch. Even Jerome referred uvpia to the Church generally ; and though the word occurs nowhere else in this sense, it is natural for the Christian Church to be called so, because of its relation to the Lord [uvpioi). The children are the individual members of the Church. The contents of the letter agree best with the figurative sense. There is no individual reference to one person ; on the contrary the children ' walk in truth ' ; mutual love is enjoined them as an admonition, 'Look to your- selves,' and tlie bringing in of ' doctrine ' is mentioned. Besides it is improbable that the children of an elect 131 132 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? sister would send a greeting by the writer to an ' elect Kyria ' and her children. A sister church might natu- rally salute another." Bishop LiGHTFooT, Epist. Col. and Phil., p. 305, re- marks: "The ' salutation ' to the 'elect lady ' (verse ii) from her 'elect sister' (verse 13) will then be a greeting sent to one church from another ; just as in 1 Pet. the letter is addressed at the outset £hX€htoi? Uovtov, h. T. A. (i. 1), and contains at the close a salutation from £v BaftvXoovi avveHXeuT?) (v. 13) ... I take the view that the Kvpia addressed in the Second Epistle of John is some church 2:>ersonified. The whole tenor of the Epistle seems to imply this, especially verses 4-7, seq." DoLLiNGER, second to none in learning in this cen- tury, also gives his assent to the view that a church is here addressed. He says : "First Age of the Church," i.l98 : "The Second !^jipistle gives us the impression of being addressed to a Community, for if a private family were signified by ' the elect lady and children,' the writer could not liave said that not only he, but all who knew the truth, loved the children of this elect one. "It is then a Community or part of one that is spoken of : the Apostle rejoices that they walk in the truth, and warns them against false teachers who deny Christ's appearance in the flesh." This interpretation is adopted also by Cassiodorus, Calov, Hammond, Hoffman, Mayer, Huther, Augusti, Baur, and Ewald. BISHOP Wordsworth's argument. No one has, probably, discussed this question more full}'^, more ingeniously, and intelligently than Bishop Wordsworth, on the Canon, 226-232 : THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 133 " Let me liere desire j^our attention to a remarkable connection between the First Epistle of St. Peter, and the Second of St. John. " The First Epistle of St. Peter, as appears from its commencement, is addressed to the ' Elect,'' scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia : that is, to the Jews dispersed in Asia Minor : and at its close we read ' The Church that is at Babijlon, elected together with you, salute you and so doth Mar- cus my son.' " The Second Epistle of St. John begins thus : * The Elder to the Elect Lady and her children wliom I love in the truth :' and it ends with the words, ' The chil- dren of thine Elect Sister greet thee.' " You are aware that it has been doubted ichat place the Babylon was from which St. Peter wrote : and also whether the Elect Lady to whom St. John wrote was a person or a church. " If I may venture to offer an opinion on these con- troverted points, it seems to me that both these questions may be determined at once ; and that, by the solution of them, we gain an important result with respect to the Canon of the New Testament. " In some ancient manuscripts, St. John's ^/rs^ Epistle is inscribed ad Parthos — to tlie Parthians — and as is probable from earlier authorities, as well as from inter- nal evidence, this inscription belongs to St. John's Second Epistle, as well as the First. For the Lathi Translator of a work of Clement of Alexandria (the Greek original of which is not now extant) says, * Secunda Johannis Epistola, quoe ad Vlrgines inscripta est, simplicissima est.' It has been well conjectured that St. Clement wrote Ttpo'? UapS'ov? (ad Parthos) 134 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? which was corrupted into Trpo? Uap^svov?, whence the Latin. Translator wrote ' ad Vlrgines '/ and this is almost certain from tlie fact that none of St. Jolm's Epistle is addressed to Virgins ; and St. Clement himself says that the Second Epistle was written to a certain Babylo- nian, and that the word Electa, the Elect Lady, inti- mates the election of a Church. St. Jei'ome gives the same meaning of the word Electa ; he applies it to a church ; and this is still further confirmed by the word Kvpia, or Lady, which is very appropriate to a church {Kvpiaiaj) as connected with Kvpio?, the Lord. "But what is to be said of the Avord Babylonia, to whom St. Clement affirms St. John wrote an Epistle ; and how is it to be connected with the inscription " Ad Parthos ' — to the Parthians ? " I would suggest the following reply : " St. Peter was the Apostle of the Jews, and he was the beloved fellow Apostle of St. John ; he addresses his First Epistle to the Jews of the Asiatic dispersion ; that is, to those of St. John's peculiar province : and he closes his Epistle with the salutation. ' Your co-elect Sister Church at Babylon salutes you and so doth Mar- cus my son,' And St. John, the brother Apostle of St. Peter, Elect together with him — St. John, specially loved by Christ, as Christ was specially by St. Peter — St. John the Metropolitan of the Elect of Asia, wdiom St. Peter had addressed, writes to the Elect Lady and her children, xohom he loves in the truth, and he closes his Epistle with the salutation, ' The children of thine Elect Sister greet thee.' " '' The Elect I^ady^ I believe was the Churcli of Babylon, and the ' Elect Sister ' the Asiatic Church. " Hence St. Clement says that St. John writes to a THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 135 Babylonian Electa, signifj'ing an Elect Chnreh • and also according to the conjecture already mentioned to tlie Parthians, of whose empire, as it then existed, Babylon, it must be remembered, was the most cele- brated city — as far as the Jews and their history are concerned. Hence, Milton thus speaks : There Babylon the wonder of all tongues. All these the Parthian holds ! " Babylon was the city to which the tioo tribes were carried away captive, and from which those of the Asiatic dispersion, to whom St. Peter writes, were de- rived ; and we know, from Philo and Josephus, that Babylon contained a great many Jews in the Apostolic age. " In fact, the Second (and perhaps, also the First) Epistle of St. John, who is said to have preached the Gospel in Parthia, appears to have been written to the Elect Church of the Parthian Assyrian, of which Babylon Avas the head ; and to be of the nature of a reply to St. Peter's First Epistle to the ^ Elect oi Asia^; written from the same Bab} Ion, and bearing the saluta- tion of the co-elect Church of that city. " But what, it may now be asked, had St. Peter to do with the Assyrian Babylon ? " In reply to this inquiry let me remind you tJiat it has been well observed that there is something very significant in the arrangement of the names of the countries specified by the inspired writer of the Acts of the Apostles, in his enumeration of the Jews of the disper- sion who had flocked to Jerusalem on the Da}' of Pente- cost, and were witnesses of the effects of the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and listened to St. 136 WAS PETER EVER AT ROMEf Peter''s sermon on that day, by wliicli three thousand souls were added to the Church. 'How hear we every man in our tongue wlierein we were born ? ' "Let us remark the sacred liistorian's order. First * Partliians, Medes, and ELamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia and Judea.' These were the Jews of the dispersion of the two tribes and of the ten tribes, and these Jews of the dispersion of the two tribes and the ten tribes were now subject to the Parthiajis, whence the Parthians are named^rs^y and of these the metropolis was Babylon. "Next come those of the Asiatic dispersion, who were devioed from Babylon, and are called in the Acts, * the dwellers in Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrj^gia and Pamphylia.' "Hence we see why St. Peter the Apostle of the circumcision went to Baylon — the Parthian Babylon. It was the headquarters of those whom he himself had addressed with such wonderful success at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, and who are named first by the inspired historian of the Acts. " Hence, also, we see why, being at Babylon, St. Peter addressed an Epistle to the * strangers scattered tliroughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia : they were derived from Babylon ; they were co-elect with the church there. He had preached to them also at Jerusalem ; and they are placed seco?id by the inspired writer of the Acts. " Hence, also, the Apostle St. John, who Avas stationed in Asia, among these strangers of the dispersion there, and who had been St. Peter's inseparable companion at Jerusalem, and is particularly noticed as such in the Acts of the Apostles, takes up St. Peter's language, and THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 13V responds from Asia to Parthia, from Epbesus to Babylon, from the Elect Sister of the one, to the Elect Lady of the other. " Hence, also, we shall see the appropriateness of the mention of ^S"^. JIark in St. Peter's salutation, ' Thy co- elect sister greeteth thee, and so doth 3Iarcus my Son^ " For, if we turn back to the enumeration in the Acts, we find first, as I have said, the Parthian or Assyrian dispersion ; secondly, the Asiatic derived from the Parthian ; thirdly and lastly, the Egyptian, who were carried from Judea into Egypt by Ptolemy Lagus, or, as they are called by the sacred historian of the Acts, 'those of Egypt and In the parts of Libya about Cyrene, Jews and Proselytes, Cretes and Arabians ; we do hear them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.' "These three dispersions were, if we may so speak, St. Peter's audience at Jerusalem on the day of Pente- cost, and they were the spiritual Province of that Apostle — the Apostle of the Circumcision. " Now observe, how did St. Peter provide for all these three dispersions which made up his Province ? lie provided for the first, that of Babylon, by visiting them in person. He provided for the second, the Asiatic, by writing to it from Babylon. " He provided for the third, the Egyptian, by sending to them Marcus his soji, who was the first Bishop of Alexandria. " Thus St. Peter, writing from Babylon to Asia and sending the salutation of Mark, connects all the three dispersions together. Thus he took care of them all. *' Time and the occasion do not allow that I should say anything here on the reply derived from these 138 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME f results, to the Romisli identification of the Babylon of St. Peter's Epistle with Home, and on the claim to uni- versal spiritual supremacy set up for St. Peter, and through him for the Bishop of Home : neither of which allegations is comjjatible with what has now been sub- mitted for 3^our consideration." In a note Bishop Wordsw^orth adds : " After the above had been written, I read with pleasure the fol- lowing words of Estius (in Epis. 1. Joh. Praef. p. 1201, ed. Rothermag 1109) : ' The tradition of the ancients is that John's Epistle was written to the Parthians : Hence the title which Pope Ilyginus gives it, Epist. I, Possidius in Indie, op. Augustini, and Augustine him- self, Quoest. Evang. ii. c. 39; moreover, Pope John the Second in Epist. ad Valerium Episcopum. He writes to the Parthians, who were a neighboring nation to the Medes, for in that region were many Jews of the ancient dispersion of the ten tribes, whence in Acts, chapter second, the Parthians are first named. Wherefore, just as Peter sent his Epistle to the Jews of the Dis- persion in Pontus, etc., whom Luke enumerated later, so also John Avrote to the Jews in the East, that is in Parthia and the neighboring localities, not but that each Apostle desired that his Epistle should be com- municated also to the Gentiles of those regions who believed in Christ and w^ere members of his church.' " Bishop Wordsworth also remarks : " If an3'one is disposed to doubt whether the Babylon of St. Peter is the Babylon of Assyria, let me refer him to Lightfoot's sermon on 1 Peter v. 13. vol. ii. p. 1144." See p. 87. Prebendary Townsend, Notes N. Test., 1 Epist. St. John, has presented valuable and suggestive thoughts, which serve to throw light on a subject concerning THE SECOND EPISTLE OE JOHN. 139 which we have no authenicatctl facts, but simply con- jectures, and a balance of probabilities, by which to determine our judgment. He saj'S : " A more important question is, whether St. John lived exclusively among the Greek cities of Asia, in the interval between the overthrow of Jeru- salem and the banishment to Patmos in the last year of Domitian. This cannot be satisfactorily^ decided. The learned Mill places some dependence upon the tradition that the Apostle traveled into Parthia and Asia. " llis first Epistle was called, by Augustine, the Epistle to the Parthians ; and the Jesuits' Letters cited by Baronius, affirm that the people of a town in India believed the Gospel to have been preached there by St. John ; and the same is asserted, as I find by Lampe, by the people of a town in Arabia. " It is not probable that he would immediately estab- lish himself in Ephesus, as Timothy, who is generally declared by the ecclesiastical historians to have been bishop of that place, was probably still alive. " Others, whose opinion is strongly condemned by Lampe, have been of the opinion that St. John did not take up his residence in Ephesus till near the end of the reign of Domitian. This opinion seems to be supported by the little remaining evidence which can enable us to come to any decision on a point so obscure. The Apostles were commanded to preach throughout the world, and they would probably have adopted that plan which they are said to have done, that each should take his peculiar district, and to that direct his attention. "As part, at least, of Asia Minor had been placed under the care of Timothy, it is not unlikely that St. John would have traveled to other parts of the East be- 140 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? fore he came to Epliesus, to reside there. The course of his travels might have been from tlie east of Judea to Parthia and round from thence to India, and returning by Arabia to Asia, he tliere preached and founded the churches of Smyrna, Pergamus, Tlij'atira, Sard is, Pliila- delphia, Laodicea, and othei-s. These he might have established at the conclusion of his route. "In Parthia, India, and Arabia, he would not have required the Greek language, and during the short period which elapsed between his arrival in Asia and his banishment at the latter end of the reign of Domitian, he would have been more likely to have acquired that kind of language which we find in the Apocalypse, than the more polished style of the Epistles and the Gospel. The former shows less acquaintance with the language than the latter ; and the fact is fully accounted for, if we suppose that the Apostle, when he wrote the Apocalypse, had not so frequent intercourse with the people as at a subsequent period ; and the course of his travels explains the causes of this fact. " If we may thus decide respecting the travels of St. John after the destruction of Jerusalem, w^e reconcile many of the various traditions of antiquity, and account for the difference between the language of the Apocalypse, and the other writings of the Apostle." Note.— W. M. Thomson, Land and Book, -'31, eays that John was in Jeru- salem, A. D. 50 or 53. Acts xv. " Mary must have been between sixty-five and seventy years of age. If St. John subsequently went to Babylon, before removing to Ephesus, as many suppose, it is highly probable that he had fulfilled the honorable mission of our Lord, in respect to the care of his mother, and that shortly after her decease he left Jerusalem." CHAPTER XVI. IResults of Ifuquirg G:bus 3Far. In our examination of Scripture and ancient authors for a century after the death of Peter, we have not been able to find a trace of him in Rome, or west of Caesarea. The historian of tlie Apostles gives no account of his later labors, nor of any visit to the West. Clement, his contemporary, speaks of his abundant labors, and of Paul's, and his language fairly intimates that he did not, like Paul, travel to the West. Ignatius mentions Peter's name, but, writing to Rome, does not refer to liim as present there. Justin, Barnabas, Polycarp, and Hernias of the second century do not notice him, an omission which cannot be reconciled with his presence in Rome, The Prince of the Apostles could not thus be ignored. Dr. Lakdner, the most noted advocate of the Peter- Roman legend, was found to have presented no conclusive evidence in the affirmative, nor to have advanced any reason why Peter should not have labored in Babylon. Canon FAERAR,who adopts the stor^' of Peter's Roman visit, it was seen, presents no sufficient argument for its reception : enough to answer its exceeding improba- bility. Dr. Samsox, who strongly asserts the Apostle's early visit and death at Rome, Avas answered, in general, by an extended Catena of the views of English and Con- 141 142 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? tinental writers, who deny his position. What these three critics liave not presented to establish the resi- dence of Peter in Rome, it is not necessary to notice. It has been stated, that the great volume of modern opinion of Protestant scholars is against Rome as the field of Peter's labors. Before establishing the fact, a more specific reply will be made to tlie points of evi- dence in the afiirmative, as enumerated b}'^ Dr. Samson. DR. Samson's argument noted. Dr. Samson says, " universal historical testimony makes Rome the city referi-ed to " (as Babylon), and that " the earl^r Christian writers all agree," with re- spect to the " visit to Rome." The reply to this is, that it has been shown that no writer for a hundred years after Peter's death speaks of the Roman visit. With respect to the later writers whom he enumerates, the rest of the Examination in this vol- ume will be devoted to their opinions. That Paul mentions Peter in his first letter to Corinth is regarded as an evidence of Peter's visit there, and subsequentl}^ to Rome. To this it may be said that because it is stated that there was a Petrine party in Corinth, this did not deraan 160 IBENyEUS. 161 World. . . Its episcopate was the ' Evangelical See ' as founded by the Evangelist Mark. . . Its occupant, as we have seen, was the only potentate of the time who bore the name of ' Pope.' . . ' The Head of the Alexandrian Church,' says Gregory Nazianzen, ' is the head of the world.' In his own province his jurisdiction was even more extensive than that of the Roman Pontiff." Such a false statement as this discredits the remainder of the story, and seems to indicate the purpose of the writer to glorify that See at the expense of the truth, and to give it more credit by attaching the name Irenteus to it. On the erroneous principle, so common among the Fathers, that it was right to deceive, to advance the interest of religion ; this Latin scribe would be strongly tempted to augment the grandeur of the Roman See, by inventing the bombastic statement that it was " founded by the glorious Apostles Peter and Paul," with " tradi- tions," received from the Apostles themselves, handed down " through a regular succession of bishops to our day." On these words, for which Ave have no evidence that Irenfeus wrote in Greek the statement they affirm, has been built up mainly the Petrine visit to Rome, and also tbe.so-called doctrine of Apostolic Succession, Avhich as of a personal, tactual, uninterrupted character, connected with an assumed third Divine order of Ministers, was entirely unknown to the Primitive Church previous to Cyprian, a. d. 250 ; there being no Christian writing ex- tant in that period which mentions it. Succession of Apostolic Doctrine the Church possesses, and a ministry from the Apostles ; but not a third Divine, ecclesiastical order. This Jerome and otlier Fathers assert in lan- guage as clear as possible. Tliere is no credible testi- 13 162 WAS rSTEB EVER AT ROME? mony to a second ordination to the Episcopate, previous to Cyprian. The Pope of Rome is simply a bishop, with no Divine autliority over a single Presbyter, and never possessed it. The Papal and Sacerdotal schemes, having no sup- port in the Holy Scriptures, rest simply for acceptance on garbled, unauthentic passages from the Fathers. Both are invariably destructive of evangelic truth, and have corrupted every body of Christians which has given them countenance. A writer in the Christian Observe)', November, 1853, p. 745, reviewing the mission and martyrdom of St. Peter, remarks : " We readily admit that, till we had read Mr. Simon's work, we were accustomed to understand these jiassages in the popular sense ; and to suppose that Peter, as well as Paul, visited that city and transacted important matters there." As this testimony was presented (if the language is that of Irenoeus) nearly a century and a half after the supposed event — an event unnoticed by any authentic writing preceding the time of this author — we are justi- fied in declining to receive it. For with Ellendorf we may rightl}'^ believe that, " no testimon}^ of the Fathers, made a hundred and more 3^ears afterward, can impart credibility." And with Sciarelli, in the debate in Rome on Peter in 1872, p. 24 : " We must distinguish the value and force of tradition according as it is brought forward to coroborate 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 testimony of those who lived shortly after the facts to be estab- lished ; in the second, the testimony of those who fol- IREN^US. 163 lowed in the course of years. Testimonies of the first period have a certain value, but those of the second period, without any of the first, have no vahie of any sort. . . Then what avails the assent of tradition which only from Irenseus to modern times has testified in their favor?" " The nearer we approach any true event," says SiiiMEALL wisely, " the more numerous should be the voiicliers of its reality and authenticity ; and that, if dependent on tradition, that that tradition should be proved." In this case, unfortunately for Irengeus, it has been shown, that there is not one authentic voucher for his statements with regard to Peter. Moreover, we have to consider that Irenaeus was a Greek, and writes in this language ; that his works are not extant; and wliat we have of him is in a Latin version found some hundreds of years afterward. Bates, College Lect., p. 58 : "Irenoeus' extant work is a treatise in five books entitled 'A Refutation of Knowledge falsely so called,' written originally in Greek ; the greater part of the first, and fragments of the other books, are extant in tliat language, and there is a Latin version of the whole of ancient date, quoted by Tertullian and Augustine, but the translator was indifferently acquainted either with the language or the subject." McClintock and Strong Enc^'C,. Art. Irenseus, " The text both of the Greek arid Latin, as far as extant, is often most uncertain, and this has made it a diflicult task for translation into English." On Irenaeus, Encyc. Britan. says : " The original Greek text, except the greater jjart of the first book, 164 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? which has been 'preserved in quotations by Hippoly- tus and Epiphanius, lias been lost, and the treatise has been preserved in a somewhat barbarous transla- tion." What evidence have we that in the Latin version there were not changes made, to manufacture evidence to establish the Petrine Claim, as already advanced in the Clementine Legends, and in forgeries so glaringly manifest in much of the Igiiatian Literature, designed to aggrandize the Episcopal office ? When we read what the Roman Catholic Dupin states with respect to the " forging ecclesiastical and profane monuments," and how " the Catholics invented false histories, false miracles, and false lives of the saints to nourish and keep up the piety of the faithful," it is manifest how little credence is to be given to this second- hand version of the earliest tradition which we possess with respect to the presence of Peter in Rome ; Avhat is there to fasten the chain to Rome and Peter, when no links are to be had for over a hundred years from the Apostle's death, Dupin Eccl. Hist., Pref. p. 8. THK FATHERS UNRELIABLE. MosiiEiM says of the Fathers that, in their age, this among other errors was adopted, " that to deceive and lie is a virtue, when religion can be promoted by it. . . I cannot accept Ambrose, nor Hilary, nor Augustine, nor Gregory Nazianzen, nor Jerome." No one has been better qualified to give an opinion on this subject, and no Church historian has a better reputation for candor and accuracy than this pre-emi- nently learned Gottingen professor. How, earlier, in the case of Dionysius of Corinth, the works of the Fathers THE FATHERS UNRELIABLE. 165 were designedly corrupted, we have sliown in the pre- vious chapter. Erasmus, a most erudite Roman scholar, testifies strongly to the common Patristic corruptions. He writes (in Hilarium, Epist. lib. 28): "What is this temerity with other people's books, especially those- of the Ancients, whose memory is, or ought to be sacred tons . . . that everyone, according to his fancy, should shave, expunge, and take away, change, substitute : " and again (Athan., Epist.), he says : " We have given some fragments of this sort, for what purpose ? You will say. That it may hence appear with what impiety the Greek scribes have raged against the monuments of such men, in which even to change a syllable is a sacrilege. "And what has not the same temerity dared to do among the Latins, in substituting, mutilating, increasing, and contaminating the Commentaries of the Orthodox." The Benedictine Fathers in the Preface to Basil's Wks. (Paris, 1721), remark : " It is difficult to say how great diligence must be applied by him who wishes cer- tainly and safely to decide respecting the spuriousness or genuineness of any work ; for it is wonderful, since truth and falsehood so greatly differ, yet one frequently BO much resembles the other that, in distinguishing between them, we can scarcely avoid error, unless we take great care." GiESLER, i. 82 ; " The later traditions respecting the Apostles and Apostolic men, which have partly been indebted for their origin to the wish of many nations to trace their Christianity up to the Apostolic age, are, to say the least, uncertain, and in part so manifestly forged that they sufficiently prove their own falseness." 166 WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? "I impute," says Daille, On the Fatliers, p, 16, "a great part of the cause of the mischief to tliose men who, before the invention of printing, were tlie tran- scribers and copiers of manuscripts, of whose negli- gence and boldness in tlie corruption of books St. Jerome very much complained even in his time, that is : ' tliey write not what they find, but what they under- stand : and where they endeavor to correct other men's errors, they show their own,' " and elsewhere Daille says, p. 20 : " Some of the Fathers made use of tliese kinds of forgeries, as we have formerl}^ said : others have favored them because they served their turn." It seems liardly just to unfavorably criticise a writer, when we have no reliable evidence that we possess his authentic works. It will be necessary, however, to dissect this imaginary Irenreus, on whom Romanists and some Protestants greatly rely to prove that Peter ruled and labored in Rome. It is, moreover, with respect to facts, we regret to say, that Irenieus is proved to be an inconsiderate, credulous, unreliable writer. Riddle speaks of his treatise against Heresies as "badly executed — from the pen of a writer who was not thoroughly acquainted with either Greek or Latin ; it contains much sound and valuable matter mingled with much also that is weak, useless, and erroiie- ous ; disfigured by many extravagant or foolish interpre- tations of the Scriptures." Among his statements is that our Saviour lived to an old age, or was fifty years old at least at the time of his crucifixion. This, he says, was "the unanimous tra- dition and positive testimony of all the old men who had lived with St. John and the other Apostles," Another is " that Enoch and Elias were translated THE FATHERS UNRELIABLE. 167 into that very Paradise from Avhich A