Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ

by David Francis Bacon

3. Peter removed his chair to Rome, (say the later fathers and most of the Catholics,) in the second year of Claudius, that is, A. D. 43; and he resided there twenty-four years, or till his death. But we have the best proof,——that of holy writ,——that Peter was resident at Jerusalem, as late as the year A. D. 44; when king Agrippa seized him there, and imprisoned him, with intent to kill him. (Acts xii. 3–19.) And we have similar proof that he was still there in the year 51; when he deliberated and acted with the other apostles and brethren of Jerusalem, on the question of obliging Gentiles to observe the law of Moses. (Acts xv. 7, &c.; Galatians ii. 1–9.) And, moreover, some time after this, as Paul tells us, (Galatians ii. 11–14,) he came to Antioch, in Syria, and there dissembled about eating with the Gentiles. The common reply of the Catholics is, that Peter often made long journeys; and he might happen to be at Jerusalem, and at Antioch, at these times. But this solution is rejected by the more candid Romanists themselves, who agree with the early fathers, asserting that Peter first went to Rome in the reign of Nero. (See Pagi Critique of Baronius’s Annale, 43.)

4. Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans in the year 59, as is supposed. And from this epistle it is almost certain, Peter was not then at Rome; and highly probable he had never been there. Throughout the epistle, Peter’s name is not even mentioned; nor is that of Linus or Cletus, his supposed assistants, who always, it is said, supplied his place when he was absent. Indeed, so far as can be gathered from Paul’s epistle, the Romish Christians appear not to have had, at that time nor previously, any bishop or any ecclesiastical head. The epistle is addressed “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints.” (Romans i. 7.) It exhorts them to obey magistrates;——but not to reverence and obey their spiritual rulers. (Romans xiii. 1, &c.) It inculcates on them all, the duty of living in harmony,——of being modest and humble,——of using their different gifts for the common good; (Romans xii. 3, &c.;) but gives no intimation that they were amenable to any ecclesiastical authorities. It gives them rules for conducting their disciplinary acts, as a popular body, (Romans xiv. 1, &c.,) but does not refer to any regulations given them by St. Peter and his assistants. It contains salutations to near thirty persons, male and female, whom Paul knew personally, or by hearsay, (chapter xvi.) but neither Peter, nor Linus, nor Cletus is of the number; nor is any one spoken of as bishop, or elder, or pastor, or as clothed with any ecclesiastical authority. Priscilla and Aquila, and several others whom he had known in Greece or Asia, are named; and seem to be the leading persons in the church. Indeed, it would seem that no apostle had, as yet, ever been at Rome. Paul says he had “had a great desire, for many years,” to visit them, and he intended to do so as soon as possible. (Romans xv. 23.) And he tells them why he longed to see them, that he might impart to them “some spiritual gifts;”——that is, some of those miraculous gifts, which none but apostles could confer. (Romans i. 11.) I may add, that Paul gives them a whole system of divinity in this epistle; and crowds more theology into it, than into any other he ever wrote;——as if he considered this church as needing fundamental instruction in the gospel, more than any other. Now, how could all this be, if Peter had been there fifteen years, with an assistant bishop to aid him; and had completely organized, and regulated, and instructed this central church of all Christendom? What Catholic bishop, at the present day, would dare to address the church of Rome without once naming his liege lord, the pope; and would give them a whole system of theology, and numerous rules and regulations for their private conduct and for their public discipline, without even an intimation that they had any spiritual guides and rulers, to whom they were accountable?

5. Three years after this epistle was written, (that is, A. D. 62,) Paul arrived at Rome, and was there detained a prisoner for two years, or until A. D. 64. Now let us see if we can find Peter there, at or during this period. When it was known at Rome that Paul was approaching the city, the Christians there went twenty miles to meet him, and escort him;——so eager were they to see an apostle of Jesus Christ. Three days after his arrival, “Paul called the chief of the Jews together,” to have conversation with them. They had heard nothing against him, and they were glad to see him,——for they wished to hear more about the Christian sect; “for,” said they, “as concerning this sect, we know that it is every where spoken against;” and “we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest.” (Acts xxviii. 22.) They appointed him a day, when they all assembled for the purpose, and he addressed them “from morning till evening.” Now could Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, have been near twenty years bishop of Rome, and so full of business as to employ an assistant bishop, and yet the Jews there be so ignorant of Christianity, and so glad to meet with one who could satisfy their curiosity to learn something about it? Moreover, Paul now continued to preach the gospel in “his own hired house,” at Rome, for two years; (Acts xxviii. 30, 31;) and it would seem, was very successful. During this time he wrote his epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and perhaps, that to the Hebrews. In these epistles he often speaks of his success in making converts, and of the brethren who labored with him;——but he does not once even name Peter, or Linus, or Cletus,——or intimate, at all, that there was a cathedral church at Rome, with an apostle or any bishop at its head. He sends numerous salutations from individuals whom he names, and from little companies of Christians in their houses,——but no salutations from Peter, or from any bishop, or other officer of the church there. The Catholics tell us, Peter might happen to be absent during this period. What! absent two whole years! and his assistant bishop also? Very negligent shepherds! But where was the church all this time,——the enlightened Christian community, and the elders and deacons, who governed and instructed it, from Sabbath to Sabbath? Were all these, too, gone a journey? No: it is manifest Paul was now the only regular preacher of the gospel at Rome: and he was breaking up fallow ground, that had never before been cultivated, and sown, and made to bear fruit.

[This closes the learned argument on the testimonies of the Fathers, extracted from Dr. Murdock’s manuscripts.]

Lardner also gives a sort of abstract of the passages in the fathers, which refer to this subject, but not near so full, nor so just 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 long-established Roman fables, seems very great, and, on these points, his critical accuracy appears to fail in maintaining its general character. However, in the simple 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 very elaborate discussion of the views taken of it; but after all he fails so utterly in rearing an historical argument on this slender basis, that I cannot feel called on to do anything more than barely refer the critical reader to the passage in his life of Peter, (VII.)

Bower has given numerous quotations, too, from these sources, but nothing not contained in the abstract above, of which a great merit is, that it gives all the passages in full, in a faithful and highly expressive translation. (See Bower’s Lives of the Popes. “Peter.”)

THE COUNCIL OF THE APOSTLES AT JERUSALEM.

The last circumstance of Peter’s life and actions, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, is one so deeply involved also in the conduct of others of the holy band, that the history of the whole affair can be best given in connection with their lives; more especially as the immediate occasion of it arose under the labors of these other persons. All the statement which is here necessary to introduce the part which Peter took in the sayings and doings on this occasion, is simply as follows. Paul and Barnabas, having returned to Antioch from their first great mission from that city, throughout almost the whole circuit of Asia Minor, were, soon after their arrival in that city, involved in a vexatious dispute with a set of persons, who, having come down from Jerusalem, had undertaken to give the Syrian Christians more careful instructions in the minutiae of religious duty, than they had received from those who had originally effected their conversion. These new teachers being directly from that holy city, which, having been the great scene of the instructions and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and still being the seat of the apostolic college, was regarded by all, as the true source of religious light, to Christians as well as Jews, throughout the world, therefore made no small commotion in the church of Antioch, when they began to inculcate, as essential to salvation, a full conformity to all the minute ritual observances of the Mosaic law. The church of Antioch, having been planted and taught by men of a more catholic spirit, had gathered within itself a large number of heathen from that Gentile city, who, led by their convictions of the truth and spirituality of the Christian faith, had renounced entirely all the idolatries in which they had been brought up, giving themselves, as it would seem, with honest resolution, to a life of such moral purity, as they considered alone essential to the maintenance of their new religious character. Still, they had never supposed, that in renouncing their idolatrous superstitions, they had bound themselves to throw off also those customs of their country, which could have no connection with moral purity of conduct, and had therefore still remained in national peculiarities, Gentiles; though in creed, and religious practice, Christians. In this course they had been encouraged by the liberal and enlarged views of their religious instructors, who had never once hinted at the necessity of imposing upon Gentile Christians the burden of the Jewish law, which all the impressions of education and previous habits of life would have made quite intolerable. The wisdom of this enlightened spirit was seen in the great accessions of Gentiles, who, being convinced of the necessity of a moral change, were not met by any ceremonial impediments to the full adoption of a pure religion. Paul and Barnabas were, therefore, not a little troubled with this new difficulty, brought in by these Jewish teachers, who, being fresh from the fountain of religious knowledge, claimed great authority in reference to all delicate points of this nature. At last, after long and violent disputes between these old-school and new-school theologians, it was resolved to refer the whole matter to the twelve apostles themselves, at Jerusalem, who might well be supposed qualified to say what they considered to be the essential doctrines and observances of Christianity. Paul and Barnabas, therefore, with some of the rest engaged in the discussion, went up to Jerusalem as a delegation, for this purpose, and presented the whole difficulty to the consideration of the apostles. So little settled, after all, were the views and feelings of these first preachers of Christianity about the degree of freedom to be enjoyed by the numerous Gentile converts, that all the Jewish prejudices of many of them burst out at once, and high ground was taken against any dispensation in favor of Gentile prejudices. After a long discussion, in full assembly of both apostles and church-officers, Peter arose in the midst of the debate, taking the superiority to which his peculiar commission and his long precedence among them entitled him, and in a tone of dignified decision addressed them. He reminded them, in the first place, of that unquestionable call by which God had chosen him from among all the apostles, to proclaim to the heathen the word of the gospel, and of that solemn sign by which God had attested the completeness of their conversion, knowing, as he did, the hearts of all his creatures. The signs of the Holy Spirit having been imparted to the heathen converts with the same perfection of regenerating influence that had been manifested in those of the Jewish faith who had believed, it was manifestly challenging the testimony of God himself, to try to put on them the irksome yoke of the tedious Mosaic ritual, a yoke which not even the Jewish disciples, nor their fathers before them, had been able to bear in all the appointed strictness of its observances; and much less, then, could they expect a burden so intolerable, to be supported by those to whom it had none of the sanctions of national and educational prejudice, which so much assisted its dominion over the feelings of the Jews. And all the disciples, even those of Jewish race, must be perfectly satisfied that their whole reliance for salvation should be, not on any legal conformity, but on that common favor of their Lord, Jesus Christ, in which the Gentile converts also trusted.

Challenge the testimony of God.——This is the substance of Kuinoel’s ideas of the force of this passage, (Acts xv. 10.) πειραζετε τον θεον, (peirazete ton Theon.) His words are, “Tentare Deum dicuntur, qui veritatem, omnipotentiam, omniscientiam, etc. Dei in dubium vocare, vel nova divinae potentiae ac voluntatis documenta desiderant, adeoque Deo obnituntur.”——“Those are said to tempt God who call in question God’s truth, omnipotence, omniscience, &c., or demand new evidences of the divine power or will, and thus strive against God.” He quotes Pott and Schleusner in support of this view of the passage. Rosenmueller and Bloomfield take the same view, as well as many others quoted by the latter and by Poole. Bloomfield is very full on the whole of Peter’s speech, and on all the discussion, with the occasions of it.

Chose me.——This passage has been the subject of much discussion, but I have given a free translation which disagrees with no one of the views of its literal force. The fairest opinion of the matter is, that the expression εξελεξατο εν ημιν, is a Hebraism. (See Vorstius and others quoted by Bloomfield.)