That Paul was there much earlier and longer, appears from all the circumstances of the Acts of the apostles; for while Peter was preaching at Cesarea, Antioch, Jerusalem, and in other places, Paul was brought to Rome, and, having arrived there, “dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.” Here the account of the Acts of the Apostles ends, without mentioning anything further of Peter. See Acts 28:30,31.
VARIOUS ARGUMENTS FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, SHOWING THAT PETER WAS NOT AT ROME DURING THE TIME PAUL WAS THERE, EXCEPT (AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED ABOVE) AT THE CLOSE OF HIS LIFE.
In this demonstration we shall forego the method employed by Sebastian Frank, Gysius, and others, who have written syllogistically upon this subject, and shall confine ourselves solely to the express testimony of (or, at least, plain inferences from) Holy Scripture, upon which we propose to found our arguments.
Reason.—First Argument.—When Paul drew near the city of Rome, where he was to be arraigned before Cesar, the brethren[53] came out of the city to meet him, as far as Appii Forum, and the Three Taverns, whom, when Paul saw, he took courage. Acts 28:15. But among these Peter is not once mentioned, which would undoubtedly have been the case, had he been with them and occupied the episcopal throne at that place, as is pretended.
Second Argument.—When it came to pass, that Paul was to give an account before the emperor for the first time, he was forsaken by all, and no man stood with him, so that he complained of it to Timothy. 2 Tim. 4:16. Now, if Peter had been at Rome, he certainly would not have forsaken Paul, whom he was wont to call his beloved brother, 2 Pet. 3:15; but would have stood by him with counsel and actual assistance, according to his ability. This, however did not happen; which clearly shows that he was not there at that time; unless some one might conclude, that he, who before had forsaken his Lord and Savior (which was a matter of much consequence), now probably also forsook Paul, who was inferior.
To this may serve as reply: That Peter, at the time he forsook Christ, was not filled with the gift of the Holy Ghost, which was not poured upon the apostles until after Christ’s ascension, Acts 2:1–3; hence he could easily come to this fall; but now, being filled with the Holy Ghost,[54] it was quite otherwise, so much so, that he and his fellow apostles feared no suffering, not even death itself. Compare Acts 4:19–21 with 5:40–42 and 12:3,4. Also 1 Pet. 3:14 and 4:16.
Moreover, in Paul’s complaint to Timothy not a word is mentioned as to Peter having forsaken him; which, had it happened, would certainly, as a notable matter, not have been passed over in silence; more especially, as he mentions some of those who forsook him, by name, as, Demas, Alexander the coppersmith, etc.
Third Argument.—When Paul was confined in prison at Rome, and bound in chains, he commended Onesiphorus, because he had visited him, and was not ashamed of his chain; without mentioning anything about others, saying: “The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain. 2 Tim. 1:16.
But why does he not commend Peter as having visited him in his bonds? or, if Peter was there and did not do so, but was ashamed of his chain, why does he not complain, that so great a man, who ought to have had been a leader unto others, was so negligent therein?
Doubtless, if Peter had been in the city at that time, and visited, or not visited, him in prison, Paul would not have passed it over in utter silence, without commending or complaining of it.