Date of St. Peter's First Epistle.

49

divided it from the Roman territory. Frequent wars were the consequence; but alternately victorious and defeated, the Parthians were yet never subdued by the arms of conquering Rome, (Strabo xvi.; Pliny vi. 29, 30; compare 1 Maccab. xiv. 2.) The city of Babylon contained a very large population, and an extensive colony of Jews, (Joseph. Antiq. xv. c. 2, sect. 2 ; xv. 3, 1; xviii. 9, 1; Philo. op. ii. pp. 578, 587.) It was therefore, in every respect, a fit place for St. Peter to select as the centre of his later apostolical activity, Babylon being, so to speak, the capital of the East, as Rome, the seat of St. Paul's activity, was that of the West; and it would seem that the plans of the two Apostles had been concerted by a mutual understanding.*

The First Epistle of St. Peter, like all the other Epistles, bears no date, but contains sufficient internal evidence to enable us to arrive at the approximate time at which it was written. It is addressed by the Apostle of the Circumcision to the Christian Churches of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, (i. 1,) consisting principally of Gentiles, (i. 14, 18; ii. 9, seq.; iii. 6; iv. 3,) and, at least for the greater part, founded by St. Paul and his companions. The first inference to be drawn from this striking fact is, that the epistle must have been written after St. Paul's death. It is in vain to attempt any other explanation: the unbiassed judgment will ever return to that one unvarying conclusion. It has been contended, that the fact is satisfactorily accounted for by the supposition of the epistle having been composed during St. Paul's captivity at Cesarea; but have not numerous epistles been written in the course of the very same period by St. Paul himself? Nothing, we repeat it, but the death of St. Paul could have necessitated or warranted St. Peter in interfering with the special duties of the former. In this conclusion we are fully borne out by the passage, v. 12; and by the frequent allusions in the epistle to the Neronian persecution, (i. 6, 7; iii. 13-16; iv. 12-19; v. 10.) That there can be no question of any other suffering endured by the early Christian Church, is evident from the simple circumstance of its being the

*This is confirmed by the following passage from the Libr. de non iterand. bapt. (Cypr. op. ed. Rigalt. app. p. 139 :)_"Liber qui inscribitur Pauli praedicatio, in quo libro... invenies, post tanta tempora Petrum et Paulum, post conlationem evangelii in Hierusalem, et mutuam altercationem et rerum agendarum dispositionem, postremo in urbe, quasi tunc primum, invicem sibi esse cognitos." That mutual explanation and agreement must consequently have taken place during St. Paul's presence at Jerusalem at the time of the Council of the Apostles, and to which the text seems distinctly to refer; for had St. Peter visited or resided in the Jewish capital during St. Paul's captivity, St. Luke would assuredly have mentioned it. The pretended "Praedicatio Pauli" appears to have formed the conclusion of the "Praedicatio Petri," and dates probably from about the middle of the second century, which explains the latter part of the sentence quoted.

VOL. X. NO. XIX.

D

first of so general and terrible a character, as described by St. Peter, which that Church had to undergo. The expressions, i. 7,-"Though your faith be tried with fire," and, iv. 12, "Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you," compared with Tacitus, Annals xv. 44,*-can, in our opinion, leave no doubt on the subject.

We have, therefore, every reason to conclude that the first epistle of St. Peter was written, at the earliest, towards the end of 64, or the beginning of 65. That it cannot have been written any considerable time before that period, is proved by a comparison of i. 3 with Ephes. i. 3; of ii. 1 with Col. iii. 8; of ii. 13 with Rom. xiii. 1-4; of iv. 9 with Phil. ii. 14, &c. &c.; showing that St. Peter, when he wrote it, was already acquainted with the epistles of St. Paul to the Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians. A further support for our opinion we have in the passage iv. 17, which contains an evident allusion to St. Luke xxi. 12, and, as such, would again point to the time of the Neronian persecution; and lastly, it is confirmed by the second epistle of St. Peter, inasmuch as it is addressed to the same Churches, (iii. 1,) and plainly refers to the death of St. Paul.

It is there said: "Wherefore, beloved account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written (eypaev) unto you; as also, in all his epistles (ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς) speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable, wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction." Would St. Peter have thus written to "the children" of St. Paul (Gal. iv. 19) during

* A3 we shall have further occasion to refer to this passage, we will quote it here: Ergo, abolendo rumori (that the conflagration of Rome owed its origin to Nero's orders,) Nero subdidit reos, et quaesitissimis poenis affecit quos, per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis ejus Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum, supplicio affectus erat. Repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursus erumpebat, non modo per Judaeam, originem ejus mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens, haud perinde in crimine incendii, quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. Et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut, ferarum tergis contecti, laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus affixi, aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. Hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat, et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi, vel curriculo insistens. Unde, quanquam adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos, miseratio oriebatur, tanquam non utilitate publica, sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur."

Testimony of the Early Fathers.

51

the lifetime of their instructor, who, in case of any doubt as to the meaning of his words, had only to be referred to? Besides, the grammatical construction of the sentence fully bears us out in our conclusion. In the first place, the Greek Aorist, for which we have no corresponding tense in our language, representing in the narrative the pluperfect, and probably nowhere in the New Testament the perfect form of the verb, the meaning of eypayev may either be rendered by "he (once) wrote," or " he used to write ;" for, though we admit that the Aorist is rarely employed in the latter sense by the apostolical writers, yet, in the passage before us, it would seem to us certainly to warrant, if not to demand, this construction; more particularly as, in the second place, the article joined to waoaîs émioroλaîs denotes the epistles of St. Paul as a definitely closed series, but which they could only become by his death. In some editions of the New Testament, therefore, the article is omitted, but without sufficient critical authority. This epistle was composed when St. Peter expected his approaching death, (2 Pet. i. 14,) after the first (iii. 1,) as well as after the epistle of Jude, to confirm which would appear to have been one of its objects, (comp. 2 Pet. i. 2 with Jude 2; 2 Pet. i. 5, 12, 13, 15 with Jude 3; 2 Pet. ii. 1-3 with Jude 4; 2 Pet. ii. 4 with Jude 6; 2 Pet. ii. 6, 10 with Jude 7, 8, &c. &c.; and at a time when the Christians had already commenced to feel disappointed of the promise of our Lord's return. (2 Pet. iii. 4.) For this reason, it has been the opinion many that the epistle was not written till after the destruction of Jerusalem; but the epistle of Jude having doubtless been composed previously to that event, we do not think there is sufficient ground for such a supposition, and would, therefore, rather assign to it a date between the years 65 and 67.

of

Having thus stated what we know, or are able to infer from the sacred text, in regard to the later history of St. Peter, we will proceed to examine the accounts of the early Fathers, upon whose testimony the Church of Rome rests her actual power, not less than her pretensions. According to them St. Peter twice visited Rome, the first time in the second year of Claudius, A.D. 42, after having previously founded the Episcopal Chair of Antioch. This tradition dates from Eusebius, ( 340 in Chronic. ad. ann. ii. Claudii.) It is confirmed and embellished by Jerome, (420,) who adds to it, that the immediate object of St. Peter's journey was to combat Simon the Magician, and that he held the Episcopal Chair of Rome for five and twenty years, till the last year of Nero, 68, (in Catal. c. i. comp. Scaliger. not. ad Euseb. chron. p. 189.) St. Leo (461) subsequently fixed the duration of his Antiochian Episcopacy at seven

years. (Serm. lxxx. 5.) But we have no sooner set our foot on the field of the Romish tradition, than we find ourselves surrounded by inextricable contradictions. Lactantius, ( 325,) who lived before Eusebius, states that St. Peter did not arrive in Rome till the reign of Nero, (cumque jam Nero imperaret, De mort. persecut. c. 2;) and Origen, (253,) who lived before either, assures us that he only went there to die, (èì Téλe, ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 1.) What admits of no doubt is, that, as we have already seen from the Acts, St. Peter had not left Jerusalem at the beginning of 44. It is, therefore, generally acknowledged, by Roman Catholic as well as by Protestant writers, that the above tradition, at least as far as the second year of Claudius is concerned, is false.*

The origin of the error of Eusebius is easily traced, through Clement Alex. († 220,) (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 15,) to a misunderstanding of Justin Martyr, (168,) who, interpreting the inscription of a statue of the Sabian-Roman deity Semo of Simon the Magician, and bearing in mind, no doubt, the relation of St. Luke, (Acts viii. 18, seq.,) accused the Romans of making a god of him, and thereby laid the foundation of the fabulous tradition of St. Peter's sojourn at Rome in the reign of Claudius, and the still more fabulous history of his combat with Simon the Magician-a combat and a sojourn, however, of which he himself knows nothing.†

The Church of Antioch was, according to St. Luke, Acts xi. 19-26, founded by St. Paul and Barnabas, in all probability in the year 39. Yet, if we were to believe the Roman tradition, St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch from the 22d February 36, to 18th January 43. (St. Jerome, St. Leo, St. Gregor. ep. 37;

Even Valesius says: 66 Quum anno quarto Claudii mortuus sit Agrippa, ut inter omnes convenit, Petrus ante hunc annum Romam proficisci non potuit." (ln Not. ad EUSEB. Hist. Eccl. ii. 16.)

66

+ The words of Justin are, “ Σίμωνα μὲν τινα Σαμαρία τὴν ἀπὸ κώμης λεγομένης Τίττων, ὃς ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου καίσαρος διὰ τῆς τῶν ἐνεργούντων δαιμόνων τέχνης δυνάμεις ποιήσας μαγικὰς ἐν τῇ πόλει ὑμῶν βασιλίδι Ρώμῃ θεὸς ἐνομίσθη, καὶ ἀνδριάντι παρ' ὑμῶν ὡς θεὸς τετίμηται· ὃς ἀνδριὰς ἀνεγήγερται ἐν τῷ Τίβερι ποταμῷ, μεταξὺ τῶν δύο γεφυρών, ἔχων ἐπιγραφὴν Ῥωμαϊκὴν ταύτην· Σίμωνι δέῳ σάγατῶ” His error was confirmed and adorned by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Cyrillus Hierosol., Theodoret, Augustine, and others. The statue to which Justin Martyr refers, was in 1574 excavated from the bed of the Tiber. It bears the following inscription:

SEMONI
SANCO
DEO FIDIO

SACRUM

COL MUSSIANUS

QUINQUENNALIS

DECUR

BIDENTA LIS

DONUM DEDIT.

Onuphrius Panvinius.

53

Martyrol. Rom.) We should not even have further alluded to an assertion, which has already been proved to be false, were it not to give an illustration of the manner in which the sacred text is treated by the tradition, and the tradition, in its turn, occasionally by the Church of Rome. Jerome (in Comm. ad Gal. cap. 2,) tells us that we ought not to wonder at St. Luke's passing over in silence the Antiochian episcopacy of St. Peter, because, by virtue of a historian's license, he also omits much concerning St. Paul; and that we may, therefore, feel quite assured, St. Peter, although St. Luke omits to mention the fact, was the first Bishop of Antioch, and that he proceeded thence to Rome in the second year of Claudius.*

In the middle of the sixteenth century, Onuphrius Panvinius, in his work, "Epitome Pontific. Roman. a S. Petro usque ad Paulum IV.," stated, it was clear, that if St. Peter had been twenty-five years Bishop of Rome, and suffered martyrdom in the reign of Nero, he could not have held the chair of Antioch seven years previous to his Roman episcopacy. It was his opinion, therefore, that St. Peter, on leaving Judea, had first gone to Rome; had there established his chair; had in the fourth year of his episcopacy, by the edict of Claudius against the Jews, been expelled from Italy; had proceeded to Antioch; had here founded his second chair; had held it up to the time of the emperor's death (13th October 54;) and had then returned to Rome, not being permitted so to do during the lifetime of Claudius. Among the zealous Romanists of the period, this sentence caused much dissatisfaction and uneasiness; but Sixtus V., perceiving its evident advantages in every respect, (what an example, for instance, of a plurality of benefices!) commanded it in 1586, to be confirmed by Latinus Latinius, who consequently expressed his full approval of the opinion of Panvinius, "because it would be no easy matter for any one to prove that the chair of Antioch had been founded by St. Peter previously to the second year of Claudius; before which time, it is clear from the Acts of St. Luke, that he had scarcely set his foot out of Judea; but surely such a fact, which it would seem St. Luke ought to have commemorated above all others, was not to be passed over in silence," &c.t

"Nec mirum esse," are his words, " si Lucas hanc rem tacuerit, cum et alia multa, quæ Paulus, sustinuisse se replicat, Historiographi licentiâ praetermiserit, et non statim esse contrarium, si quod alius ob causam dignum putavit relatu, alius inter caetera dereliquit. Denique primum Episcopum Antiochenae Ecclesiae Petrum fuisse accipimus, et Romam exinde (anno II. Claudii,) translatum, quod Lucas penitus omisit."

In this semi-official document :-" Latini Latinii Responsio de sententia Honufrii Panvini, quam probat jussu Sixti V., in quaestione Cathedrae S. Petri An