the words are well rendered in our version. But, literally, they might be translated in this manner. "Now in the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Cæsar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea." As for the words being in the plural number, it is no uncommon thing to prefer that to the singular, when we are obliged to be cautious, and intend, as I suppose Clement did, to speak in a general way. In short, Clement shows, that Peter and Paul had died by martyrdom, and not in a tumult of the people, but by order of the magistrate, meaning the emperor, though he is 'not named. .. So that I must take the liberty to say, that Pearson's observation, that Peter and Paul were put to death, not by Nero, but by the prefects of Rome, or some other great officer, in the absence of the emperor, appears to be of no value. And it is destitute of all authority from history. For we shall see, as we proceed, that the death of these apostles is continually ascribed to Nero by all who speak distinctly about it. One thing more I must take notice of. From these passages of Clement it has been argued, that Peter never was at Rome, in this manner. Clemens Romanus, (who was personally ⚫ acquainted with the apostles, and knew very well where they travelled) writes a letter from Rome to Corinth, and mentions St. Paul's travelling very far to spread the gospel: but in the same section, though he mentions St. Peter's sufferings and martyrdom, yet he says nothing of his travelling much, nor one word of his ever having been at Rome.' b Upon which I beg leave to observe, first. It seems to me that Clement says, Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom at Rome, for speaking of the great multitude of the elect, who had been an excellent example of patience among them,' meaning the Romans, he says, they were joined to' or with the good apostles,' before mentioned. 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 particu larly 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 travelled a great deal. Nor does it imply that he had not been at Rome. St. Paul must have been twice 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 write 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 would render his exhortations effectual. с I shall now transcribe below some like observations of Pearson, in his Confutation of Salmasius. 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. d Ignatius, about 108, writing to the Romans says, I do not command you, as Peter and Paul. They were apostles. I am a condemned person.' Ignatius must have supposed that the Christians at Rome had been instructed by Peter, as well as by Paul. The observations of * Pearson, and Barratier, upon this place, which I put below, appear very just. * See Dr. Benson's Preface to St. Peter's first epistle, sect. iii. p. 157. second edition. • Τέτοις-συνηθροίσθη πολύ πλήθος εκλεκτών: Denique manifestum est, nihil hic a Clemente de Urbe vel de Imperatore diserte et expressim dictum esse, quia a Romanis ad Corinthios scripsit, qui hæc omnia, non minus quam ipse, noverunt. Imo Clemens mentionem loci non fecit, non quia ipse ignorabat, sed quia illi cognoverunt. Nam si ignorâsset quo in loco, quâ in regione, aut quà in orbis parte, mortuus est Petrus, quomodo asserere potuit, eum martyrio coronatum fuisse ?Proculdubio hæc loci omissio non ex ignorantiâ cujuspiam, aut scriptoris alterius, sed ext certissimâ omnium, ad quos spectabat hæc epistola, tum Romanorum, tum Corinthiorum, aliorumque fidelium cognitione et exploratâ scientia, quæ ulteriorem expositionem minime requirebat. Ac tandem argumentum hoc negativum ex Clemente productum, non eorum sed nostrum est. Clemens optime novit, et ubi, et quomodo passus est S. Petrus. Idem etiam bene noverunt tum Romani, tum Corinthii. Aliter eos ea de re certiores fecisset Clemens. Pearson. de Success. prim. Romæ Episc. Diss. i. cap. 8. sect. ix. 4 Ουχ ως Πέτρος και Παύλος διατασσομαι υμιν. Εκείνοι ax050, yw xaraxpires. Ad Rom. cap. 4. • Quid enim ex his verbis ad Romanos scriptis apertius, quam sanctissimum martyrem in eâ sententiâ fuisse, quod Petrus, non minus quam Paulus, Romæ evangelium prædicavit, et passus sit? Pearson. ib. cap. 7. n. ii. f Ignatius,- -Romanis scribens, negat se ipsis, tamquam Petrum et Paulum, præcipere velle. Cur Petrum et Paulum una nominat, nisi quod uterque Romæ fuerit? Cur Petrum, si cum Romanis nullum nexum habuerit? Si enim Romæ non fuerit, cum Romanis non scripserit, nil magis cum iis commune habebat, vel iis præceperat, quam Jacobus, vel Judas, vel Joannes. Manifestum est, Ignatium Romanum Petri iter novisse. Barrat. ubi supr. num. iii. p. 5. a The preaching of Peter, or of Peter and Paul, quoted by several ancient writers (as has been shown in this work,) though not as a book of authority, composed about the middle of the second century, or sooner, makes mention of Peter's being at Rome in this manner, as cited by Lactantius b After his resurrection Christ opened to his disciples all things that should come to pass, which things Peter and Paul preached at Rome.' And what follows. There is another large quotation of this book in the author of Rebaptizing, written about 256, where it is supposed that Peter and Paul were together at Rome. d Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, about 170, in a letter to the church of Rome, inscribed to Soter their bishop, as cited by Eusebius, takes notice, that Peter and Paul going to Italy, taught there, and suffered martyrdom about the same time.' Irenæus, about 178, speaks of the church of Rome, as founded and established by the two great apostles Peter and Paul.' In another place he says, that Matthew wrote his gospel whilst Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and establishing the church there.' Irenæus, who was likely to know as most, had no doubt about these things. And some of his arguments with heretics are partly built upon them; well knowing that they could not be contested, and that they were generally allowed. According to Clement of Alexandria, who flourished about the year 194, St. Mark's gospel was written at the desire of St. Peter's hearers at Rome. h Tertullian, about the year 200, and after, often speaks of Peter being at Rome, and teaching there, and suffering martyrdom there, together with Paul, or about the same time. Caius, about 212, observes, that in his time were to be seen at Rome the tombs of the apostles Peter and Paul, who had established that church. k Origen, about 230, as cited by Eusebius, says, that Peter having preached at Pontus, Galatia, and other places, at length came to Rome, where he was crucified. Cyprian at Carthage, about 248, and afterwards, always supposeth the church of Rome to have been established by Peter. So " likewise does Firmilian in Cappadocia, in his letter written in 258. m Lactantius" about 306, in his Institutions, ascribes the death of Peter and Paul to Nero at Rome. The same Lactantius, or whoever is the author of the book of the Deaths of Persecutors, is very clear, that in the reign of Nero, Peter came to Rome, and that by his order Peter was crucified, and Paul also put to death. See Vol. ii. p. 39. δε και εις Ιταλιαν όμοσε διδάξαντες εμαρτύρησαν Ομοιως, κατά τον αυτον καιρον. Ap. Euseb. 1. 2. cap. 25. p. 68. The same passage is largely quoted Vol. i. P. 353. Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones; maximæ, et antiquissimæ, et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis Apostolis, Petro et Paulo, Romæ formatæ et constitutæ ecclesiæ, eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem, et annuntiatam omnibus fidem, &c. Adv. Hær. 1. 3. cap. 3. Adv. Hær. 1. 3. cap. 1. et ap. Euseb. 1. 5. cap. 8. Vid. Euseb. H. E. 1. 2. cap. 15. et lib. VI. cap. 14. and of this work, Vol. i. p. 394. h Si autem Italiæ adjaces, habes Romam.-Ista quam felix ecclesia, cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt! Ubi Petrus passioni Dominicæ adæquatur; ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronatur, De Præser. Hær. cap. 36. p. 245. Nec quidquam refert inter eos, quos Joannes in Jordane, et quos Petrus in Tiberi tinxit. De Baptism. cap. 4. p. 257. Videamus quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauserint. -Quid etiam Romani de proximo sonent, quibus evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque suo signatum reliquerunt. Adv. Marcion 1. 4. cap. 5. p. 505. B. Orientem fidem Romæ primus Nero cruentavit. Tunc Petrus ab altero cingitur, quum cruci adstringitur. Tunc k Ap. Euseb. 1. 3. cap. i. Factus est autem Cornelius episcopus de Dei et Christi ejus judicio cum nemo ante se factus esset, cum Fabiani locus, id est, cum locus Petri, et gradus cathedræ sacerdotalis vacaret. Cyprian. ad Antonian. ep. 55. p. 104, Post ista adhuc insuper pseudo-episcopo sibi ab hæreticis. constituto, navigare audent, et ad Petri cathedram, atque ecclesiam principalema schismaticis et profanis literas ferre-Cyprian Cornelio. ep. 59. p. 135. Oxon. 1682. m Atque ego in hac parte juste indignor ad hanc tam apertam et manifestam Stephani stultitiam, quod qui sic de episcopatûs sui loco gloriatur, et se successionem Petri tenere contendit multas alias petras inducat. Stephanus, qui per successionem cathedram Petri habere se prædicat, nullo adversus hæreticos zelo excitatur. Firmilian, ep, Cyprian. 75. p. 225. n Itaque post illorum obitum, cum eos Nero interemisset, Judæorum nomen et gentem Vespasianus exstinxit, fecitque omnia quæ illi futura prædixerant. Institut. 1. 4. cap. 21. p. 423. • Cumque jam Nero imperaret, Petrus Romam advenit. -et convertit multos ad justitiam.—Quâ re ad Neronem delatâ et primus omnium persecutus Dei servos, Petrum cruci adfixit, et Paulum interfecit. De Mort. Persec. cap. 2. b Eusebius, both in his Demonstration, and in his Ecclesiastical History, bears witness to the same things. Not now to insist on his Chronicle. In the former, he says, that Peter was .crucified at Rome with his head downward, and Paul beheaded.' In his ecclesiastical history, speaking of Nero, as the first persecutor of the Christians,' he says, that he put to death the apostles, at which time Paul was beheaded at Rome, and Peter crucified, as history relates. And the account,' he says, 'is confirmed by the monuments still seen in the cemeteries of that city, with their names inscribed upon them. And what follows. In another chapter of the same work, he says: that Linus was the first bishop of Rome after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter.' It is needless to refer to any more of the many places of this learned bishop of Cæsarea, where he appears to have been fully persuaded that these two apostles accomplished their martyrdom at Rome. Athanasius supposes both Peter and Paul to have suffered martyrdom in that city. с f Epiphanius, as may be remembered, says, that Matthew wrote first, and Mark soon after, being a companion of Peter at Rome.' In another place he speaks of Peter and Paul as the first apostles and bishops of Rome. After whom, he says, were Linus, Cletus, Clement. Jerom's opinion is well known from his article of St. Peter in his book of Illustrious Men, where he says, that Peter was crucified at Rome in the fourteenth year of Nero's reign:' and from his chapter of St. Mark, whom he calls the disciple and interpreter of Peter, and says, that at the desire of the brethren at Rome, he wrote a short gospel, according to what he had heard from Peter.' Not now to refer to any other places. k 1 We lately saw how Chrysostom says, that Peter having been at Antioch, afterwards went to Rome. In another place he says, that after Peter and Paul, Ignatius also suffered martyrdom at Rome. And he thinks it a wise disposal of Providence, that so many should bear the most signal testimony to truth in a place which was then the chief seat of impiety and superstition. According to Sulpicius Severus, who wrote about the year 401, Paul and Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome in Nero's persecution. Prudentius, about 405, has several times celebrated the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul at Rome. One place was transcribed from him not long" ago.. To him I subjoin P. Orosius about 416. P And Theodoret, about 423, well observes, that though Nero put to death two of the principal Christian lawgivers, Peter and Paul, he could not abolish their laws. I omit Augustine, and many others, who speak to the like purpose. But I would add, for showing how general this tradition is, that Abdias Babylonius, as he is called in his Apostolical history, supposes Peter to have been at Rome, and to have suffered martyrdom there. Nor can any of my readers forbear to recollect the general, and almost unanimous testimony of ancient writers concerning St. Mark: that he was a disciple of St. Peter, that his gospel is the substance of St. Peter's preaching, and that it was written at Rome. It is not needful to make many remarks upon this tradition. But it is easy to observe, that • Της δε Ρωμαιων εκκλησίας μετα την Παυλο και Πετρε μαρτυρίαν, πρωτος κληρεται την επισκοπην Λινος. Η. Ε. 1. 3. cap. 2. d Πετρος δε, ὁ δια τον φόβον των Ιεδαίων κρυπτομενος, και Παύλος εν σαργανη χαλασθείς, και φυγών, ακέσαντες, εις Ρωμην δει ὑμᾶς μαρτύρησαι, εκ ανεβάλοντο την αποδημίαν. Apol. pro fugâ suâ, p. 331. e See in this work, Vol. ii. p. 487. et opp. syr. tom. I. p. 553. i See Vol. ii. p. 418. from Hær. 51. num. vi. 8 Εν Ρώμη γαρ γεγονασι πρωτοι Πετρος και Παυλος οἱ αποςολοι και επισκοποί, ειτα Λινος, κ. λ. Hær. 27. num. vi. Nam primus Romæ Christianos suppliciis et mortibus adfecit, ac per omnes provincias pari persecutione excruciari imperavit Ipsumque nomen extirpare conatus, beatissimos Christi apostolos, Petrum cruce, Paulum gladio occidit. Oros. Hist. 1. 7. cap. 7. P See of this Vol. p. 15. from Theod. Serm. 9. De Legibus, tom. IV. p. 611. D. Apostol. Hist. de Petro, sect. xvi. &c. Ap. Fabr. tom. II. it is the general, uncontradicted, disinterested testimony of ancient writers, in the several parts of the world, Greeks, Latins, Syrians. As our Lord's prediction concerning the death of Peter is recorded in one of the four gospels, it is very likely, that Christians would observe the accomplishment of it. Which must have been in some place. And about this place there is no difference among Christian writers of ancient times. Never any other place was named, beside Rome. Nor did any other city ever glory in the martyrdom of Peter. There were in the second and third centuries disputes between the bishop of Rome and other bishops and churches about the time of keeping Easter, and about the baptism of heretics. Yet none denied the bishop of Rome to have what they called the chair of Peter. C It is not for our honour, nor our interest, either as Christians, or protestants, to deny the truth of events, ascertained by early and well attested tradition. If any make an ill use of such facts, we are not accountable for it. We are not from a dread of such abuses, to overthrow the credit of all history: the consequence of which would be fatal. d Fables and fictions have been mixed with the accounts of Peter's being at Rome. But they are not in the most early writers. They have been added since. And it is well known that fictions have been joined with histories of the most certain and important facts. The traditions, concerning Peter's being at Rome and Paul's preaching in Spain, ought not to be compared together. They are not at all alike. The latter is not attested by so many, nor so early writers, as the other: and is, probably, a mere conjecture, without any foundation, but the words of Rom. xv. 28, which are no proof at all. This argument may be censured by some as prolix, and even needless. But as some of our own times, as well as formerly, have denied, or disputed this point; I have thought it expedient to let my readers see the evidences of what appears to myself, as well as to many other protestants, very certain: that St. Peter was at Rome, and suffered martyrdom there. CHAP. XIX. THE TWO EPISTLES OF ST. PETER. 1. Their Genuineness shown from Testimony and internal Characters. II. The People to whom they were sent. III. The Place where. IV. The time when they were written, V. Remarks upon 1 Pet. v. 18. HAVING written the history of the apostle Peter, I now proceed to his epistles. Concerning which three or four things are to be considered by us: their genuineness, the persons to whom they were sent, the place where, and the time when they were written. Gloria decorique maximo ecclesiis fuit, quod et doctrinâ et sanguine Apostolorum conderentur. Hinc exclamabat olim Tertullianus: Felix ecclesia, cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt. Qui fit ergo, ut nulla, præter Romanam, ecclesia in morte Petri exultărit et triumphârit? Id. ib. Cum gravissimos in adversarios inciderint olim Episcopi Romani, Cyprianos, Firmilianos, aliosque bene multos, nonne eorum aliquis eam perstrinxisset; et gloriationem, quâ Romana se efferebat ecclesia, utpote quæ nunquam præsentiâ Petri, sanguineque floruerit, etsi ad ravim usque utroque ornamento superbiret? Id. ib. * Neque ulla unquam traditio fait, quæ majore testiuma numero cingatur; ut de Petri in urbem adventu dubitari non possit, quin omnia historiæ fundamenta convellantur. Basn. ann. 64. n. ix. Tantus hac in re omnium consensus fuit, ut same miraculo debuerit esse, quosdam nostris seculis ortos, factum adeo manifestum negare præsumsisse. Barrat. de Success. Ep. Rom. cap. i. num. i. Verum hi omnium veterum patrum testimonio refelluntur. Quæ (malum !) impudentia est, id quidem quod nemo veterum dixit, temere affirmare, Petrum scilicet sedem fixisse Babylone; id vero quod veteres omnes ecclesiastici scriptores disertissime prodiderunt, adventum videlicet Petri Apostoli in urbem Romam, pertinaciter negare! Atqui nihil în totå historià ecclesiasticâ illustrius, nihil certius, atque testatius, quam adventus Petri Apostoli in urbem Romam. Vales. Annot. ad Euseb. 1. 2. c. 15. C a b I. The first epistle was all along received by catholic Christians as authentic and genuine. This we learn from Eusebius. Who likewise says: Of the controverted books of the New Testament, but yet well known, and approved by many, are that called the epistle of James, ⚫ and that of Jude, and the second of Peter, and the second and third of John.' And in another place: One epistle of Peter, called the first, is universally received. This the presbyters of ancient times have quoted in their writings, as undoubtedly genuine. But that called his second, we have been informed, [by tradition] has not been received as a part of the New Testament. Nevertheless appearing to many to be useful, it has been carefully studied with the other scriptures.' By which, I think, we may be assured, that a great regard was shown to this epistle by many Christians in the time of our learned Ecclesiastical Historian. с Jerom says: Peter wrote two epistles, called catholic: the second of which is denied by many to be his, because of the difference of the style from the former.' f And Origen before them, in his Commentaries upon the gospel of St. Matthew, as cited by Eusebius, says: Peter on whom the church is built, has left one epistle, [universally] acknowledged. Let it be granted, that he also wrote a second. For it is doubted of.' Ꮒ What those learned writers of the third and fourth centuries say of these two epistles, we have found agreeable to the testimony of more ancient writers, whom we have consulted. For the first epistle seems to be referred to by Clement of Rome. It is plainly referred to by Polycarp several times. It is also referred to by the martyrs at Lyons. It was received by Theophylus, bishop of Antioch. It was quoted by Papias. It is quoted in the remaining writings of Irenæus," Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Consequently, it was all along received. But we do not perceive the second epistle to be quoted by P Papias, nor by Irenæus, nor Tertullian, nor Cyprian. r m However, both these epistles were generally received in the fourth, and following centuries, by all Christians, except the Syrians. For they were received by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, the council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Jerom, Rufin, Augustine, and others. As may be seen in the alphabetical table, in St. Peter, at the end of the eleventh volume, to which the reader is referred. Such are the testimonies of ancient writers concerning these two epistles. If we consult the epistles themselves, and endeavour to form a judgment by internal evidence: I suppose it will appear very probable that both are of the same author. And it may seem somewhat strange, that any of the ancients hesitated about it, who had the two epistles before them. For with regard to some of the most ancient writers, it may be supposed that the second epistle had not been seen by them, it not having come to their hands together with the first. 66 The first epistle being allowed to be St. Peter's, we can argue in favour of the other also after this manner. It bears in the inscription the name of the same apostle. For so it begins: "Simon Peter, a servant, and an apostle of Jesus Christ.' And in ch. i. 14, are these words: Knowing, that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ has showed me.' "The writer of this epistle may have had a particular revelation concerning the time of his death, not long before writing this. But it is probable, that here is a reference to our Lord's predictions concerning St. Peter's death, and the manner of it, which are recorded in John xxi. 18, 19. From ch. i. 16, 17, 18, it appears, that the writer was one of the disciples, who were with Jesus in the mount, when he was transfigured in a glorious manner. This certainly leads us to Peter, who was there, and whose name the epistle bears in the inscription. Ch. iii. 1. "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you: in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:" plainly referring to the former epistle, which has been always acknowledged for Peter's. These words are express. But it might have been argued with some degree of probability from ch. i. 12-15, that he had before written to the same persons. Once more, ch. iii. 15, 16, he calls Paul brother, and otherwise so speaks of him and his epistles, as must needs be reckoned most suitable to an apostle. |
