PETER
14
PETER
Eusebius refers this statement to the third year of I Caius Caligula.
But the account found in Irenaus (liar, iii, 1) dif- fers materially from thai above noticed. He tells us tli.it Pel r and Paul were in Rome, and there founded a Church in company; and Eusebiua (ii, 25, in a quota- tion from Dionysius, bishop of < lorintb) adds that they Buffered martyrdom together i Peter being crucified, according to Origen, in Euseb. iii, 1 ; Niceph. ii, 36). Eusebius in bis Chronicle places their martyrdom, ac- cording to his reckoning of twenty-five years for Pe- ter's episcopacy, in the fourteenth j ear of Nero's reign, which extended from the middle of October, A.l>. 67, to the same time in A.D.68. This joint martyrdom of Paul and Peter (without however any special men- tion of the manner of Peter's crucifixion, comp. Mean- der, Pflanz. ii, 514) is also mentioned by Tertullian (Prascript. Hunt. 36) and Lactantius {Mori. Persec. 2; Tnstitut. Div. iv, 21). The graves of both apostles were pointed out in Koine as early as the close of the second century (Euseb. ii. 25). Yet the whole story iv-t- ultimately on the testimony of Dionysius alone, who must have died about A.l). 17G. (The passages in Clemens Romanus, 1 to Cor. v, and Ignatius, to the Romans, v, settle nothing.) Thus, on the one hand, we are not at liberty to reject all doubt as to the truth of this account with Berth oldt (loc.cit.~) as hypercritical, <>r with Gieseler (Ch. Hist, i, 92 sq. 3d ed.) as partisan polemics; nor, on the other, can we suppose it to have sprung from the interpretation <>f 1 Pel sr v, 13, where at an early day Babylon was understood to stand for Rome (Euseb. xv, 2; Niceph. //. E. ii, 15. Comp. Baur, ]). 215). The genetic development of the whole story attempted by Baur (in the Tubingen Zeitschrift. f. Theol. 1831, iv, 162 sq. Comp. his Paulus, p. 214 sq., 671 sq.) deserves close attention. But c< mpare Neander, Pflanz. ii, 519 sq. ; and further against any visit to Rome by Peter, see M. Velenus, Lib. ouo /'<- trum Romam non venire asserUur (1520); Vedelius, De tempore Ulriusque Episcopatus Petri (Geneva, 162 I ) : Spanheim, De ficta prqfectione Petri Ap. in urbem Rom. (Lug. Bat, 1679; also in his Opera, ii. 331 Bq.); also an anonymous writer in the Bibliotk. fur theol. Schriftkunde, vol. iv, No. 1 (extract in the Leip , Lit.- Zi it. 1808, No. 130); Maj erhoff, Einl. in d.Pi trin. Schrif- ten, p. 73 sq. ; Reiche, Erlclar. des Briefes an d. Rotm r, i, 39 sq. ; Von Amnion. Fortbild. iv, 322 sq. ; Ellen- dorf, IstPetrus in Rom. u. Bischofd. Rom. Kirche gewe- sen? (Darmstadt, 1841; translated in the Bibliutheca Sun, i. July. 1858; Jan. 1859; answered by Binterim, Dusseldorf, 1842). On the other side of the question, the older writings are enumerated by Fabricius, Lux Evang. p. '.'7 sq. The usual arguments of the Catho- lics are given by Bellarmine, Conirov.d Rom. Pontif. lib. ii. But the chief work on that Bide is still that of Cortesius, De Romano itinere gestisqui princip. Apos- tol. lib. ii (Venice, 1573; revised by Constantinus, Rom. 1770). Comp. es|i. Foggini, De Romano Petri it in: n , etc. 1 1 lor. 1741). On the same side in general, though with many modifications, are the following later writers: Mynster, Kltine theol. Schriflen, p. 141 sq., who holds thai Peter was in Rome twice. See contra, Baur, tip. < it. p. isi si|. ; Berbst, in the Tubing r Kutlioi. -thiol. Quartalschr. ls-_'(>, iv, 1, who places Pe
ter in Roi it least during the hist years of Nero's
reign, though bul tor a short time. See, however, Baur, Op. '-it. p. 161 Bq. ; < llshausen, Studi n » Krit. 1838, p. 940 jq., in hi wer to Baur; Stenglein, in the Tubingt r Quartalschr. 1840, 2d and 3d parts, who make Peter to have visited Koine in the second year of Claudius; to have been driven away In- the well-known edict of that emperor; and at length to have retained under Nero. Comp. al-o llaiden, Di itinert /'. Romano (Prag. 47*. 1 i, and Windischmann, ['indicia Petri (Ratisb. 1836). It is not in the Least necessary for
those who oppose the Bomiafa Church, which makes
Peter first bishop of Rome (see Van Til, lie Ptbn
Roma martyre non pontifice [Lug. Bat. 1710]), and grounds on this the primacy of the pope (Matthaeucci, Opusdognuit. adtH reus //< therodox [sic !], p. 212 sq. ; Bel- larmine, Conirov. de Rom. Pontif. ii, 3, and elsew here >, to he influenced in the question of Peter's journey by these views, inasmuch as this primacy, when all the historical evidences claimed are allowed, remains, in spite of every effort to defend it, without foundation rig, Untersuch.der Vorzuge des Ap. I'. [ Hand . 1788]; Baumgarten, Polem. iii, 370 sq. ; Paulus, in Sophroniz. iii, 131 sq.). The first intimation that Peter hail a share in founding the Roman Church, and that he spent twenty-five years there as bishop, appears in Eusebius (Chron. ad secund. aim. Claud.) and Jerome (Script. Peel, i) ; while Eusebius (II. E. iii, 2) tells us that after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, Linus was made the first bishop of the Church of the Romans; a most remarkable statement, if Peter had been bishop before him (comp. iii. 4). Epiphanius (xxvii, 6) even calls Paul the bishop (i7r«'<7K07roc) of Christianity in Rome.