of tradition. Instead of leaving him to fade out of view, as was fitting for one who clung to Jewish ideas, and could not adapt himself so readily, as the far greater Apostle did, to the logical results of the teachings of Christ, they bring him prominently before us as the hero of many a battle-field, and carry him to Rome, as a trained warrior, to receive, in the city of the Cæsars, the deathless crown of martyrdom.

There is nothing wonderful in this. It is in perfect keeping with the story-telling spirit of the age. The men who could not refrain from obscuring the spiritual grandeur of the Master by the murky mist of fable, surely would cover the disciple with a much less unsightly tissue of the same. The only wonder is, that more scholars have not closed their ears to these idle tales, or have not perceived the animus which prompted them.

The first witness to be examined is the Roman Clement. He has been styled "the only direct witness." The passage to be considered is the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Corinthians, which reads thus: "But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the crown of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limits of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place. having proved himself a striking example of patience." (AnteNicene Library: Apostolic Fathers.)

The phrase, "the extreme limits of the west," has been variously interpreted. Some say it shows that Paul carried his message as far as Britain! Most critics apply it to Spain or Rome. Dr. Lipsius says: “it is now almost universally acknowl

edged that it refers to Rome." Thus, then, we have the testimony of Clement to Paul's martyrdom there. The reason why the place is not mentioned is, that Clement wrote from Rome to Corinthian Christians, who were, therefore, acquainted with the facts of current church history, and did not need everything to be stated in detail.

We do not, however, accept the inference, that Peter also was martyred in Rome, from this supposed acquaintanceship on the part of contemporary Christians. Clement does not omit the name "because the place (Rome) of Peter's martyrdom was, of course, well known to his readers," as has been said. Rather the omission is due to ignorance.

It has often been remarked, that what is said of Peter is much less definite than what is said of Paul. But how is this possible if the writer knew of one as exactly as of the other? The elevation of Peter above the other disciples, the constant mention of his name before Paul's, prove that this difference was not planned. And yet, while Peter's sufferings are mentioned in a very general way, of Paul we are told, that he was seven times imprisoned (a statement implying either greater knowledge on the part of Clement than we have, for we know of only two, or else that he is unreliable); again, that Paul was compelled to flee, was stoned, preached both in the east and unto the extreme limits of the west, and finally suffered martyrdom under the prefects. But how is the difference in the fulness of information possible? Because the Corinthians knew Peter better than Paul, and therefore need have no particulars given them about him? Hardly. Is not the explanation sufficient, that Clement, living in Rome, was acquainted with many who had been converted under Paul's ministry, yes, had known him personally, if the epistle be assigned to A.D. 97? Look again at the expressions. We learn the place and occasion of Paul's martyrdom-indeed, the very court which condemned him. It is not so with Peter. We learn nothing definitely. And yet, the design is to draw a parallel between them. If Paul and Peter were the victims of the same persecution, why is not the fact stated?

Some have urged, that since Peter and Paul are both spoken of as martyrs, and in the next chapter the Neronian persecution is alluded to, that, therefore, they were victims of this per

secution. Nothing, however, can be made out of this connection in Clement, because he repeatedly conjoins facts, actually separated in space and time. Thus, in c. 55, after instancing cases of self sacrifice among the Gentiles, he passes immediately over to similar ones among the believers, or, as has been supposed, in the Roman church. And then follow the examples of Judith and Esther! "With even greater right than it has been sought to connect Peter with the Neronian persecution, because he is linked with Paul, might one conclude here that Judith and Esther were Roman Christians."

Hitherto we have taken the word "martyrdom" as applying - equally to Peter and Paul, and since he speaks of martyrs in the context, it is more natural to apply the word to Peter. But, although this is Dr. Lipsius' present opinion, he confesses to a difficulty in the way of its acceptance. Only of Paul is it stated that his μaprvpía ended in death. Peter is spoken of as suffering ovoz, and since this is all that the Old Testament examples are said to have suffered, it is not necessary to interpret the word as implying actual martyrdom. "The characteristic of this passage is, that it leaves the fate of Peter in unilluminated darkness. One knows not whether he should be described as a martyr in the strict sense or not. I no longer assert that the latter opinion is the only possible one. I grant rather all that can be said pertinently for the former. Nevertheless, the matter is not to be decided in one way more certainly than in another."

But if Clement, strictly speaking, knew nothing about the closing events of Peter's life, then he is a strong witness against the Roman residence of Peter, and his evidence joins that of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Minor Epistles of Paul, to form an entire chain of counter testimony. To put, in a few words, the result of our examination: "At the close of the first, and up to the beginning of the second century, there was in Pauline circles, inside and outside of Rome, no knowledge of Peter's labors in that city, no knowledge of his martyrdom there under Nero."

But, besides this passage in Clement, there are a few words in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, which are often quoted as proof that Peter was in Rome. They are found in

the fourth chapter: "I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue com

mandments unto you."

Here again Peter and Paul are linked together, and represented as bearing equal relations to the church at Rome. They are spoken of as giving" commandments." We can say, therefore, that" at the time of the composition of the Ignatian Epistles, the close connection of both apostles with the Roman church passed for a settled fact." It is also worthy of note, that the words quoted are found in the Syriac version as well as in the longer and shorter forms of the Greek. Johannes Delitzsch, however, confesses, that "the peculiar connection of the two apostles in this, and in none other, of the Ignatian Epistles, is not, certainly, attributable to the author's perception of any peculiarly personal relation which they bore to the Roman church." And it may be added, that the words, as they stand, really do not prove that Peter was in Rome. Ignatius is said, in the account of his martyrdom (c. iv.), to have written these epistles during his journey to Rome. Hence, strictly speaking, Peter and Paul might have issued commandments unto the church in Rome by letter, never having visited the city. There is, therefore, no proof from the passage that Peter was in Rome. Another confirmation of this view is, that in his Epistle to the Ephesians (c. iii.) he says: "I do [ not issue orders to you as if I were some great person.' The form of expression is similar to that quoted above, and yet it appears, from the epistle itself, that he had no personal acquaintance with the Ephesians.

In the Ignatian Epistles we find several references to Paul, but they are almost all only in the longer Greek form. No reference to Peter is made which has any bearing upon our present discussion, except in c. x, Epistle to the Magnesians, where, in the longer form, the name of Christian is stated to have been first given in Antioch, when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of the church. We notice that here Paul is put first, and also the way in which the phrase "laying the foundations of the church" is used-"laying the foundations," apparently meaning, giving apostolic guidance and instruction. This is not said to have been the case in Rome. We have hitherto treated all forms of the Epistles as genuine. In this case they were probably written about A. D. 115,

Time

or about fifty years after the martyrdom of Peter. enough had therefore elapsed for wild stories to have arisen. But there are weighty objections to receiving the epistles as genuine, in any form. Dr. Lipsius, himself, who formerly held to them in their Syriac form, now says:* "The genuineness of the Syriac recension is as little credible as that of the shorter Greek; on the contrary, this whole literature is hardly older than A. D. 170 or 180. But by that time, the Petro-pauline legend was undoubtedly well known." If this epistle to the Romans is a forgery, then it loses its historic character and argumentative force. Hence, this pretended witness to the theory turns out, upon examination, to have no independent testimony to offer us—at best, merely a repetition of the old story, which places Peter in Rome.

We have already said that Peter was the hero of an extended legend. The remainder of this article will be devoted to the study of this legend, showing where it originated, how it was gradually extended, what was its final form, and lastly, its influence upon the testimony of the fathers, subsequent to Ignatius.

It has been said that a lie, to be successful, must have a coloring of fact. And so this long and improbable legend has a historical foundation. It rests upon the account given in the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. In a city of Samaria, perhaps Sychar, Philip preached the Gospel and wrought miracles. But there was living in the place a notorious sorcerer, Simon by name, who had pretended to work by supernatural power, and whose success caused him to be pronounced "the power of God, which is called great." This man, seeing that the miracles of Philip were more wonderful than his own jugglery, and finding that he was losing control over the people who were listening to Philip's preaching and accepting the message he brought, went to Philip, professed his belief in the Messiah, was baptised, and gave up his magical arts. But the hollowness of his fancied conversion and the real design of his profession soon became painfully evident, when Peter and John arrived in the city. For when Simon perceived the

*For Dr. Lipsius' former and opposite opinion, see McClintock and Strong's Cyclopædia, vol. iv: Article Ignatius.