Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ

by David Francis Bacon

That this Neronian persecution was as extensive as is here made to appear, is proved by Lardner and Hug. The former in particular, gives several very interesting evidences, in his “Heathen testimonies,” especially the remarkable inscription referring to this persecution, found in Portugal. (Collection of Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, chapter iii.)

From the uniform tone in which the apostle alludes to the danger as threatening only his readers, without the slightest allusion to the circumstance of his being involved in the difficulty, is drawn another important confirmation of the locality of the epistle. He uniformly uses the second person when referring to trials, but if he himself had then been so situated as to share in the calamity for which he strove to prepare them, he would have been very apt to have expressed his own feelings in view of the common evil. Paul, in those epistles which were written under circumstances of personal distress, is very full of warm expressions of the state of mind in which he met his trials; nor was there in Peter any lack of the fervid energy that would burst forth in similarly eloquent sympathy, on the like occasions. But from Babylon, beyond the bounds of Roman sway, he looked on their sufferings only with that pure sympathy which his regard for his brethren would excite; and it is not to be wondered, then, that he uses the second person merely, in speaking of their distresses. The bearer of this epistle to the distressed Christians of Asia Minor, is named Silvanus, generally supposed to be the same with Silvanus or Silas, mentioned in Paul’s epistles, and in the Acts, as the companion of Paul in his journeys through some of those provinces to which Peter now wrote. There is great probability in this conjecture, nor is there anything that contradicts it in the slightest degree; and it may therefore be considered as true. Some other great object may at this time have required his presence among them, or he may have been then passing on his journey to rejoin Paul, thus executing this commission incidentally.

This view of the scope and contents of this epistle is taken from Hug, who seems to have originated it. At least I can find nothing of it in any other author whom I have consulted. Michaelis, for instance, though evidently apprehending the general tendency of the epistle, and its design to prepare its readers for the coming of some dreadful calamity, was not led thereby to the just apprehension of the historical circumstances therewith connected. (Hug, II. §§ 162–165.——Michaelis Vol. IV. chapter xxvii. §§ 1–7.)

THE SECOND EPISTLE.

After writing the former epistle to the Christians of Asia Minor, Peter probably continued to reside in Babylon, since no occurrence is mentioned which could draw him away, in his old age, from the retired but important field of labor to which he had previously confined himself. Still exercising a paternal watchfulness, however, over his distant disciples, his solicitude before long again excited him to address them in reference to their spiritual difficulties and necessities. The apprehensions expressed in the former epistle, respecting their maintenance of a pure faith in their complicated trials, had in the mean time proved well-grounded. During the distracting calamities of Nero’s persecution, false teachers had arisen, who had, by degrees, brought in pernicious heresies among them, affecting the very foundations of the faith, and ending in the most ruinous consequences to the belief and practice of some. This second epistle he wrote, therefore, to stir up those who were still pure in heart, to the remembrance of the true doctrines of Christianity, as taught by the apostles; and to warn them against the heretical notions that had so fatally spread among them. Of the errors complained of, the most important seems to have been the denial of the judgment, which had been prophesied so long. Solemnly re-assuring them of the certainty of that awful series of events, he exhorted them to the steady maintenance of such a holy conduct and godly life, as would fit them to meet the great change which he so sublimely pictured, whenever and however it should occur; and closed with a most solemn charge to beware lest they also should be led away by the error of the wicked, so as to fall from their former steadfast adherence to the truth. In the former part of the epistle he alluded affectingly to the nearness of his own end, as an especial reason for his urgency with those from whom he was so soon to be parted. “I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up to the remembrance of these things, knowing as I do that the putting off of my tabernacle is very near, according to what our Lord Jesus Christ made known to me.” This is an allusion to the prophecy of his Master at the meeting on the lake, after the resurrection, described in the last chapter of John’s gospel. “Therefore,” writes the aged apostle, “I will be urgent that you, after my departure, may always hold these things in your memory.” All which seems to imply an anticipated death, of which he was reminded by the course of natural decay, and by the remembrance of the parting prophecy of his Master, and not by anything very imminently dangerous or threatening in his external circumstances, at the time of writing. This was the last important work of his adventurous and devoted life; and his allusions to the solemn scenes of future judgment were therefore most solemnly appropriate. Those to whom he wrote could expect to see his face no more, and his whole epistle is in a strain accordant with these circumstances, dwelling particularly on the awful realities of a coming day of doom.

The first epistle of Peter has always been received as authentic, ever since the apostolic writings were first collected, nor has there ever been a single doubt expressed by any theologian, that it was what it pretended to be; but in regard to the epistle just mentioned as his second, and now commonly so received, there has been as much earnest discussion as concerning any other book in the sacred canon, excepting, perhaps, the epistle to the Hebrews and John’s Revelation. The weight of historical testimony is certainly rather against its authenticity, since all the early Fathers who explicitly mention it, speak of it as a work of very doubtful character. In the first list of the sacred writings that is recorded, this is not put among those generally acknowledged as of divine authority, but among those whose truth was disputed. Still, quotations from it are found in the writings of the Fathers, in the first, second and third centuries, by whom it is mentioned approvingly, although not specified as inspired or of divine authority. But even as late as the end of the fourth century there were still many who denied it to be Peter’s, on account of supposed differences of style observable between this and the former epistle, which was acknowledged to be his. The Syrian Christians continued to reject it from their canon for some time after; for in the old Syriac version, executed before A. D. 100, this alone, of all books supposed to have been written before that translation that are now considered a part of the New Testament, is not contained, though it was regarded by many among them as a good book, and is quoted in the writings of one of the Syrian Fathers, with respect. After this period, however, these objections were soon forgotten, and from the fifth century downwards, it has been universally adopted into the authentic canon, and regarded with that reverence which its internal evidences of truth and genuineness so amply justify. Indeed, it is on its internal evidence, almost entirely, that its great defense must be founded,——since the historical testimonies, (by common confession of theologians,) will not afford that satisfaction to the investigator, which is desirable on subjects of this nature; and though ancient usage and its long-established possession of a place in the inspired code may be called up in its support, still there will be occasion for the aid of internal reasons, to maintain a positive decision as to its authenticity. And this sort of evidence, an examination by the rigid standards of modern critical theology proves abundantly sufficient for the effort to which it is summoned; for though it has been said, that since the ancients themselves were in doubt, the moderns cannot expect to arrive at certainty, because it is impossible to get more historical information on the subject, in the nineteenth century, than ecclesiastical writers had within reach in the third and fourth centuries; still, when the question of the authenticity of the work is to be decided by an examination of its contents, the means of ascertaining the truth are by no means proportioned to the antiquity of the criticism. In the early ages of Christianity, the science of faithfully investigating truth hardly had an existence; and such has been the progress of improvement in this department of knowledge, under the labors of modern theologians, that the writers of the nineteenth century may justly be considered as possessed of far more extensive and certain means of settling the character of this epistle by internal evidence, than were within the knowledge of those Christian fathers who lived fourteen hundred years ago. The great objection against the epistle in the fourth century, was an alleged dissimilarity of style between this and the former epistle. Now, there can be no doubt whatever that modern Biblical scholars have vastly greater means for judging of a rhetorical question of this kind, than the Christian fathers of the fourth century, of whom those who were Grecians were really less scientifically acquainted with their own language, and no more qualified for a comparison of this kind, than those who live in an age when the principles of criticism are so much better understood. With all these superior lights, the results of the most accurate modern investigations have been decidedly favorable to the authenticity of the second epistle ascribed to Peter, and the most rigid comparisons of its style with that of the former, have brought out proofs triumphantly satisfactory of its identity of origin with that,——proofs so much the more unquestionable, as they are borrowed from coincidences which must have been entirely natural and incidental, and not the result of any deliberate collusion.

This account of the second epistle is also taken from Hug and Michaelis, to whom, with Lardner, reference may be made for the details of all the arguments for and against its authenticity.

As to the place and time of writing this epistle, it seems quite probable that it was written where the former one was, since there is no account or hint whatever of any change in Peter’s external circumstances; and that it was written some months after it, is unquestionable, since its whole tenor requires such a period to have intervened, as would allow the first to reach them and be read by them, and also for the apostle to learn in the course of time the effects ultimately produced by it, and to hear of the rise of new difficulties, requiring new apostolical interference and counsel. The first seems to have been directed mainly to those who were complete Jews, by birth or by proselytism, as appears from the terms in which he repeatedly addresses them in it; but the sort of errors complained of in this epistle seem to have been so exclusively characteristic of Gentile converts, that it must have been written more particularly with reference to difficulties in that part of the religious communities of those regions. He condemns and refutes certain heretics who rejected some of the fundamental truths of the Mosaic law,——errors which no well-trained Jew could ever be supposed to make, but which in motley assemblages of different races, like the Christian churches, might naturally enough arise among those Gentiles, who felt impatient at the inferiority in which they seemed implicated by their ignorance of the doctrines of the Jewish theology, in which their circumcised brethren were so fully versed. It seems to have been more especially aimed at the rising sect of the Gnostics, who are known to have been heretical on some of the very points here alluded to. Its great similarity, in some passages, to the epistle of Jude, will make it the subject of allusion again in the life of that apostle.

HIS DEATH.

Henceforth the writings of the New Testament are entirely silent as to the chief apostle. Not a hint is given of the few remaining actions of his life, nor of the mode, place, or time of his death; and all these concluding points have been left to be settled by conjecture, or by tradition as baseless. The only passage which has been supposed to give any hint of the manner of his death, is that in the last chapter of John’s gospel. “Jesus says to him——‘I most solemnly tell thee, when thou wast young, thou didst gird thyself and walk whither thou wouldst; but when thou shalt be old, another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldst not.’ This he said, to make known by what sort of death he should glorify God.” It has been commonly said that this is a distinct and unquestionable prophecy that he should in his old age be crucified,——the expression, “another shall gird thee and carry thee whither thou wouldst not,” referring to his being bound to the cross and borne away to execution, since this was the only sort of death by which an apostle could be said, with much propriety or force, to glorify God. And the long-established authority of tradition coinciding with this view, or rather, suggesting it, no very minute examination into the sense of the passage has ever been made. But the words themselves are by no means decisive. Take a common reader, who has never heard that Peter was crucified, and it would be hard for him to make out such a circumstance from the bare prophecy as given by John. Indeed, such unbiased impressions of the sense of the passage will go far to justify the conclusion that the words imply nothing but that Peter was destined to pass a long life in the service of his Master,——that he should after having worn out his bodily and mental energies in his devoted exertions, attain such an extreme decrepid old age as to lose the power of voluntary motion, and die thus,——at least without necessarily implying any bloody martyrdom. Will it be said that by such a quiet death he could not be considered as glorifying God? The objection surely is founded in a misapprehension of the nature of those demonstrations of devotion, by which the glory of God is most effectually secured. There are other modes of martyrdom than the dungeon, the sword, the axe, the flame, and the stone; and in all ages since Peter, there have been thousands of martyrs who have, by lives steadily and quietly devoted to the cause of truth, no less glorified God, than those who were rapt to heaven in flame, in blood, and in tortures inflicted by a malignant persecution. Was not God truly glorified in the deaths of the aged Xavier, and Eliot, and Swartz, or the bright, early exits of Brainerd, Mills, Martyn, Parsons, Fisk, and hundreds whom the apostolic spirit of modern missions has sent forth to labors as devoted, and to deaths as glorious to God, as those of any who swell the deified lists of the ancient martyrologies? The whole notion of a bloody martyrdom as an essential termination to the life of a saint, grew out of a papistical superstition; nor need the enlightened minds of those who can better appreciate the manner in which God’s highest glory is secured by the lives and deaths of his servants, seek any such superfluous aids to crown the mighty course of the great apostolic chief, whose solid claims to the name and honors of Martyr rest on higher grounds than so insignificant an accident as the manner of his death. All those writers who pretend to particularize the mode of his departure, connect it also with the utterly impossible fiction of his residence at Rome, on which enough has been already said. Who will undertake to say, out of such a mass of matters, what is truth and what is falsehood? And if the views above given, on the high authority of the latest writers of even the Romish church, are of any value for any purpose whatever, they are perfectly decisive against the notion of Peter’s martyrdom at Rome, in the persecution under Nero, since Peter was then in Babylon, far beyond the vengeance of the Caesar; nor was he so foolish as ever after to have trusted himself in the reach of a perfectly unnecessary danger. The command of Christ was, “When you are persecuted in one city, flee into another,”——the necessary and unquestionable inference from which, was, that when out of the reach of persecution they should not wilfully go into it. This is a simple principle of Christian action, with which papist fable-mongers were totally unacquainted, and they thereby afford the most satisfactory proof of the utter falsity of the actions and motives which they ascribe to the apostles. One of these stories thus disproved is connected with another adventure with that useful character, Simon Magus, who, as the tale runs, after being first vanquished so thoroughly by Peter in the reign of Claudius, returned to Rome, in the reign of Nero, and made such progress again in his magical tricks, as to rise into the highest favor with this emperor, as he had with the former. This of course required a new effort from Peter, which ended in the disgrace and death of the magician, who, attempting to fly through the air in the presence of the emperor and people in the theater, was by the prayer of Peter caused to fall from his aspiring course, to the ground, by which he was so much injured as to die soon after. The emperor being provoked at the loss of his favorite, turned all his wrath against the apostle who had been directly instrumental in his ruin, and imprisoned him with the design of executing him as soon as might be convenient. While in these circumstances, or as others say, before he was imprisoned, he was earnestly exhorted by the disciples in Rome, to make his escape. He accordingly, though very desirous of being killed, (a most abominably irreligious wish, by the way,) began to move off, one dark night; but had hardly got beyond the walls of the city,——indeed he was just passing out of the gate-way,——when, whom should he meet but Jesus Christ himself, coming towards Rome. Peter asked, with some reasonable surprise, “Lord! where are you going?” Christ answered, “I am coming to Rome, to be crucified again.” Peter at once took this as a hint that he ought to have stayed, and that Christ meant to be crucified again in the crucifixion of his apostle. He accordingly turned right about, and went back into the city, where, having given to the wondering brethren an account of the reasons of his return, he was immediately seized, and was crucified, to the glory of God. Now it is a sufficient answer to this or any similar fable, to judge the blasphemous inventor out of his own mouth, and out of the instructions given by Christ himself to his servants, for their conduct, in all cases where they were threatened with persecution, as above quoted.