PETER
10
PETER
More important in its bearings upon later contro- versies is the question of Peter's connection with Rome. It may he considered as a settled point that he did not visit Rome hefore the last year of his life. Too much Btress may perhaps be laid on the fact that there is no notice of Peter's labors or presence in that city in the Epistle to the Romans; hut that negative evidence
Apostolus, they mean Paul, not Peter — a very weighty fact.
The lime and manner of the apostle's martyrdom art- less certain. The early writers imply, or distinctly state, that he suffered at or about the same time (Dionysius, Kara riv ai)Tuv icaipui>) with Paul, and in the Keroni- an persecution. All agree that he was crucified, a point
not counterbalanced by any statement of undoubted sufficiently determined by our Lord's prophecy. < hrigen
antiquity. The date given by Eusebius rests npon a (ap. Euseb. iii, 1), who could easily ascertain the fact, and,
miscalculation, and is irreconcilable with the notices of though fanciful in speculation, is not inaccurate in his-
Peter in the Acts of the Apostles. He gives A.D. 42 in torica] mailers, says thai at his own request he was cru-
the Chronicon | i. e. in the Armenian text), and Bays that Peter remained at Lome twenty year-. In this he is followed by Jerome, Catal. c. 1 (who gives twenty-five year-i, and by most Roman Catholic writers. Protes- tant critics, with scarcely one exception, are unani- mous upon this point, and Roman controversialist- are
cified Kara pcf0dAije; probably meaning by the heady and not, as generally understood, with his head down- wards. (See below.) This statement was generally received by Christian antiquity; nor does it seem in- consistent with the fervent temperament and deep hu- mility of the apostle to have chosen Buch a death — one,
far from being agreed in their attempts to remove the • moreover, not unlikely to have been inflicted in mockery difficulty. The most ingenious effort is that of Win- by the instruments of Nero's wanton and ingenious cru- dischmann | Vindicia Petrifies, p. 112 si[.). He assumes elty. The legend found in St. Ambrose is interesting. that Peter went to Rome immediately after his deliv- and may have some foundation in fact. When the erance from prison (Acts xii), i. e. A.I). 44, and left in persecution began, the Christians at Rome, anxious to consequence of the Claudian persecution between A.D. preserve their great teacher, persuaded him to flee, a 49 and 51. (See below.) course which they had scriptural warrant to recommend
and he to follow; but at the gate he met our Lord. "Lord, whither goesl thou?" asked the apostle. "I go to Rome," was the answer. " there once more to be cru-
The fact, however, of Peter's martyrdom at Rome rests upon very different grounds. The evidence for it is complete, while there is a total absence of any contrary statement in the writings of the early fathers. We have in the first place the certainty of his martyr- dom in our Lord's own prediction (John xxi, 18, 19). Clement of Kome, writing hefore the end of the first century, speaks of it, but does not mention the place, that being of course well known to his readers. Igna- tius, in the undoubtedly genuine Epistle to the Romans
cified." Peter well understood the meaning of those words, returned at once and was crucified. See Tille- mont, Menu i. 187,555. He shows that the account ot Ambrose (which is not to be found in the Bened. edit.) is contrary to the apocryphal legend. Later writers rather value it as reflecting upon Peter's want of cour- age or constancy. That Peter, like all good men. val-
(ch.iv), speaks of Peter in terms which imply a special ued his life and Buffered reluctantly, may be inferred connection with their Church. Other early notices of [from our Lord's words (John xxi); but his flight is
less weight coincide with this, as that of Papias (Euseb. more in harmony with the principles of a Christian
ii, 15), and the apocryphal Pradicatio Petri, quoted by than wilful exposure to persecution. Origen n fers to
Cyprian. In the second century, Dionysius of Corinth, the words then said to have been spoken by our Lord,
in the Epistle to Soter, bishop of Rome (ap. Euseb. //. but quotes an apocryphal work (On SU John, torn. ii).
/■;. ii. 25), states, as a fact universally known, and ac- Thus closes the apostle's life. Some additional facta,
counting for the intimate relations between Corinth not perhaps unimportant, may be accepted on early tes-
and Lome, that Peter and Paul both taught in Italy, timony. From Raid's words it may be inferred with
and suffered martyrdom about the same time. Irense- certainly that he did not give ap the ties ot family life
us, who was connected with the apostle John, being a when lie forsook his temporal calling. His wife ac-
disciple of Polycarp, a hearer of that apostle, and thor- companied him in his wanderings. Clement ofAIex-
oughly conversant with Roman matters, bears distinct andria, a writer well informed in matters of ecclesiasti-
witness to Peter's presence at Lome (Adv. Ear. iii, 1 cal interest, and thoroughly trustworthy, Bays
and 3). It i- incredible that he should have been mis- iii, p. 148) that " Peter and Philip had children, and