Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ

by David Francis Bacon

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

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

THE TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS.

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIONS TO THE TRADITIONARY HISTORY OF PETER.

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

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