Here then we have the interesting fact before us, that, on the one side, a Father of the Church maintains, in opposition to the Sacred text, a fiction to be a truth, accusing St. Luke of having, by virtue of a historian's license, wilfully suppressed that truth; and that, on the other side, an infallible Pope, out of his chair, commands a tradition of the Church (not because it is in contradiction with Holy Scripture, but because men will no longer believe that thirty-two are equal to twenty-five,) to be declared a falsehood; and yet, in his chair, continues to demand of every functionary of the Church to swear to that falsehood as a holy truth.

In immediate connexion with the tradition of St. Peter's sojourn at Rome in the reign of Claudius, stands that of St. Mark having written his Gospel in the Roman capital, according to Clement Alex. (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 15, and vi. 14,) and Jerome (Catal. c. 8,) during the lifetime of St. Peter; according to Irenaeus (adv. Haer. iii. 1,) after his death. St. Mark being the companion of St. Peter at Babylon, (1 Pet. v. 13,) and his interpreter (épunvevrns,) writing down from memory what he had heard St. Peter verbally relate of the acts of our Lord, (Papias ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3, 39,) the latter tradition was the necessary consequence of the former, and has no other foun

tiochenae et Romanae," the writer says among other things :-" Ex historia Act. Apost. de Petri apud Antiochiam Cathedram simulque de adventu ad urbem nihil colligi posse videtur, quod in utramque partem trahi commodo disputando non possit. Nihil enim aliud ex historia de Petro (quod ad hanc quaestionem attinet) certum habemus, quam post carceris liberationem concilia apostolorum interfuisse. Conjecturis igitur Honufrius eam rationem secutus videtur, qua, nisi fallor, etiam si nullam cum haereticis contentionem suscepisset, expeditior exitus ab obscura et incoluta quaestione pateret. Si enim Petrus annos xxv. Romae cathedram tenuit, quod omnes fere scriptores fatentur, initiumque ejus anno secundo Claudii Imperatoris fuit, id est anno post Christi adscensum x. aut etiam xi., qui simul collecti summam faciunt saltem ann. xxv. manifesto constat id temporis intervallum ad ultimum Neronis Imperatoris annum extendi, ideoque ad septem annos Antiochenae Cathedrae tribuendos ex praedicto numero nihil posse decidi; superaddi vero quicquam non posse. Haec Honufrii conjectura, si quis, ut ego sentio, diligenter consideret rem, de qua agitur, non absurda, non levis, sed maxime consentanea atque probabilis censeatur necesse est. Antiochiae enim cathedram fundatam a Petro intra id temporis spatium, quod usque ad secundum Claudii annum fluxit, quo tempore ex Judaea Petrum vix pedem extulisse ex Lucae historia aperte constat, non facile quisquam probabit. Ea vero res ut maximi alicujus momenti a Luca commemoranda esse videbatur, non silentio praetermittenda. Quare in aliud tempus, quam in ipsum xxv. annorum curriculum septennium Antiochenae cathedrae incidere commode non posse Honufrius statuit. Neque id solus vel primus ausus est affirmare. Si enim, quae scripsit Bedas Venerablis in cap. xiii. Act. Apost. vera sunt, necesse est, credamus Apostolos ex Christi praecepto annos xii. in Judaea evangelium praedicasse, ut refert ipse ex Ecclesiastica historia constare. Quare non video cur hanc Honufrii opinionem aut absurdam aut a Sacra Scriptura alienam accusare vere quisquam possit.... Ex aedibus 40 Idus Maii 1586. (Latinii Epist. p. 307-9. Romae, 1659, 4to.)

The Gospel of St. Mark written at Babylon.

55

dation. Chrysostom (Homil. 1 in Matt.) mentions the Gospel to have been written in Egypt, to which country St. Mark is said to have proceeded from Rome, and there to have founded several churches, (Epiph. li. 6; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 16; Niceph. ii. 15, 43; Jerome, de vir. illust. c. viii.) The latter Father adds that he died in the eighth year of Nero; but which is in contradiction with Irenaeus (adv. Haer. iii. 1,) and proved to be erroneous by 1 Peter v. 13.

On the authority of the concluding note to the Gospel of St. Mark in the Peschito, confirmed by marginal notes of the Philoxeniana, of the Codex Cantab. (but here from a later hand,) and some other manuscripts, Baronius was the first to assert (Annal. Eccl. ad an. 45) that it had originally been written in Latin. This, however, is positively contradicted by Jerome, (ad Damasc.) and Augustin (de cons. ev. i. 4,) as well as by the notes of other manuscripts, (Wetsten. N. T. I., 642.) The note of the Peschito may possibly owe its origin, as De Wette thinks (Introd. § 99,) to Clement Alex. (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 15;) but we hold it sufficiently accounted for by the circumstance of that translation dating certainly not beyond the latter end of the second century, when the tradition of St. Peter's sojourn at Rome had already commenced very much to spread. We have every reason to believe, as will appear from the sequel, that St. Mark wrote his Gospel at Babylon, after the martyrdom of St. Paul, and consequently designed it for the use of the Latin as well as the Asiatic, mostly Gentile churches, whose care had then altogether devolved on St. Peter. This appears to us to explain in a most satisfactory manner, the occurrence in it of a few Latin words and Latinized expressions,* upon which the supposition of its having been written at Rome, after all, chiefly

rests.

From what precedes, we have seen that St. Peter, as acknowledged by papal authority, cannot, previously to the year 55, have sojourned at Rome, except between the latter end of 44 and the year 47. There is ample and incontrovertible testimony to prove that the epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians was written previous to the Council of the Apostles. The passages ii. 2, and 9 alone, would appear to us to place this beyond a doubt. It

* In the 12th chapter, v. 42, λeπrà dúo is explained by xodgάv rns, the Roman coin Quadrans; chap. vi. 27, the Latin word souλάrwe is used; and chap. xv. 39, 44, 45, that of nevrugiwv, centurio, instead of inarovrapxns. Chap. vi. 37, and xiv. 5, we find devάgiov (denarius;) chap. xii. 14, xvros (census;) chap. v. 9, 15, λsysáv (legio ;) chap. vii. 4, 8, gayeλλów (flagello ;) chap. xv. 16, рaitάgiv (praetorium;) chap. xv. 15, Tŷ öxλw Tò inavov moiñas (populo satisfacere; and chap. v. 23, irxáτws ixu (in extremis esse.)

is equally certain that St. Paul's journey to Jerusalem, alluded to chap. ii. 1, is identical with the journey, mentioned by St. Luke, Acts xi. 30; xii. 25. The famine, which chiefly occasioned it, we know from Josephus, (Antiq. xx. c. 5. sect. 6,) to have taken place in the years 45 and 46; and which is in perfect accordance with other parts of Holy Scripture. In all probability, therefore, St. Paul arrived at Jerusalem towards the latter end of 45. At that time St. Peter was present in the Jewish capital, (Gal. ii. 8, 9,) to which he had most likely returned immediately after the death of Agrippa, and somewhat later we find him at Antioch, (Gal. ii. 11,) as we have before remarked, in 46; St. Paul having started on his first missionary journey towards the latter end of that year. If at any time, therefore, St. Peter visited some of the provinces of Asia Minor, as Origen, (ap. Euseb. H. E. ii. 15,) Jerome, and others, inform us he did previously to his going to Rome-and his presence at Antioch would seem scarcely to leave a doubt on this point-he must have visited them in the years 46 and 47; for at the beginning of 49, we know him to have been again at Jerusalem. (Acts xv. 7.)

Scripture and tradition thus unite to show that St. Peter, during the years 44-47, was preaching the Gospel in Palestine and Asia Minor, instead of sojourning at Rome; at which capital, therefore, he cannot, according to the sentence of Panvinius, have arrived till the year 55. St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, and St. Luke's account, Acts xxvii. 15-24, prove that seven years later, the scattered adherents of the Christian faith at Rome, had till then continued without an apostolical teacher, and that the Jews—although, according to the Romish tradition, the apostle of the circumcision had for the last twenty years held his episcopal chair in the capital-yet looked to the apostle of the Gentiles for the first authoritative information regarding "the sect that everywhere was spoken against."

Let us now examine the unanimous tradition of St. Peter having suffered martyrdom at Rome-a tradition, the truth of which is admitted even by the far greater majority of Protestant writers. The earliest testimony which is generally alleged in support of it is that of Clement, third Bishop of Rome, who in his first epistle to the Corinthians, (p. 5,) exhorts the latter to look for courage and perseverance to the example set by the apostles; and then draws a parallel between St. Peter and St. Paul, both having suffered martyrdom for the sake of Christ. But he does not add one syllable as to where and when they suffered; and the inference, drawn from his words, is therefore wholly gratuitous; the more so, as he nowhere else mentions that St. Peter ever set his foot in Rome. A similar interpretation is forced upon an

Alleged Journeys of St. Paul.

57

expression of Ignatius, in whose epistle to the Romans the words "I command you not like Peter and Paul, (ovx ws Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν ;) but, surely, if such expressions be proof, what is there that may not be proved?"

Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, ( 176,) writes in an epistle to the Romans, (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 25,) that both St. Peter and St. Paul, having together instructed the Corinthians, had at the same time left Corinth for Italy, and after also together instructing the Romans, suffered martyrdom in the same manner.* It is this Father who bears the earliest witness† to the martyrdom of St. Peter at Rome, provided the epistle attributed to him by Eusebius was a genuine document. Its authenticity is, however, much doubted. At all events, the last part of the sentence of Dionysius is in direct contradiction of Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 25, and iii. 1; Tertullian, contr. Marc. iv. 5; and Lactantius, de mort. persecut. c. ii.; the former with St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians iv. 15: compare iii. 6, 10; ix. 1, 2; and, lastly, the remaining assertion of St. Peter having accompanied St. Paul on his journey to Rome, with the account of St. Luke, Acts xxviii.

There is, certainly, another tradition, which states St. Paul to have been liberated from his Roman captivity, (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 22,) and subsequently to have travelled over nearly the whole known world, (Niceph. ii. 34; Cyrillus, Metaphr., &c.,) but Eusebius himself says, "it is said," (oyos exe,) and he seems, otherwise, to rest his own belief in the probability of the report exclusively on 2 Timothy iv. 17; assuming this epistle to have been written subsequently to St. Paul's (first) stay at Rome. A journey of St. Paul to Spain has, in connexion with his intentions to that effect, as expressed in his epistle to the Romans, (xv. 24, 28,) been also inferred from a passage of Clement of Rome in his first epistle to the Corinthians, c. v., where, in speaking of the apostles, he says, " and when he had come to the boundary of the west,”—καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθὼν)—an infer

...

...

* The words of Eusebius are :— Ὡς δὲ κατά τὸν αὐτὸν ἄμφω καιρὸν ἐμαρτύρησαν, Διονύσιος παρίστησι καὶ γὰρ ἄμφω καὶ εἰς ἡμετέραν Κόρινθον φυτεύσαντες ἡμᾶς, ὁμοίως ἐδίδαξαν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν ὁμόσε διδάξαντες, ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν.

+ Dr. Scheler, p. 87, states, that the tradition of St. Peter's (second) voyage to, and his martyrdom at Rome, rests on the earliest testimony of Papias (164.) This is an error. The first of the two passages which he quotes (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 15,) belongs partly to Clement Alex. and partly to Eusebius himself, who refers to the testimony of Papias only as far as concerns the approval of St. Mark's Gospel by St. Peter, bearing, no doubt, the very passage from Papias in mind, which Dr. Scheler further quotes, (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.) With the sentence: "Porro Marci mentionem fieri aiunt a Petro in priore epistola, quam Romae scriptam contendunt," &c., Papias has evidently nothing to do.

*

ence, however, which in itself is perfectly unwarrantable. Origen (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 1,) evidently knows nothing of St. Paul's journey. This tradition appears, therefore, to be as void of all historical truth as is the doubtful assertion of Dionysius, which has probably no other foundation than the passage, 1 Cor. i. 12.

We know for certain that St. Paul arrived in the Roman capital in the spring of 62, and that "he dwelt two years in his own hired house, preaching the kingdom of God." At first, he had been placed in separate confinement under the guard of a soldier. (Acts xxviii. 16.) The conflagration of Rome commenced on the 19th July 64, (Tacit. Ann. xv. 41.) At this period, therefore, we have the strongest reason to believe he was still in that capital. The Neronian persecution broke out immediately afterwards. Let us, from the description of Tacitus, (see p. 39,) picture to our mind's eye the terrible scenes which followed, and ask ourselves, can the idea that St. Paul, the head of " the hated for their vileness and their crimes," should have escaped the loosened fury of the Roman populace, excited to madness by the sight of the burning ruins of their city, and led on by the monster Nero in person, for one moment be reasonably entertained? But if there were still room left for the least doubt, it would be dispersed by the testimony of the two epistles of St. Peter; and to the unbiassed judgment the death of St. Paul at Rome, at the very commencement of the Neronian persecution, cannot, therefore, but appear an indubitable fact.

With the testimony of Dionysius of Corinth for the martyrdom of St. Peter at Rome, Eusebius combines also that of the Roman presbyter Gaius, (215,) from whose work, "Adv.

* Clement immediately adds :καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη TO zoopov. The common translation of this passage, and which also Dr. Scheler has followed, is, (and when he had come to the boundary of the west,)" he suffered martyrdom under those in authority, and so he quitted this world." But such a construction, besides its being ungrammatical, connected with a journey to Spain would evidently imply that St. Paul had also died in Spain. Clement has just been alluding to the extensive travels of St. Paul in the east and in the west: Διὰ ζῆλον ὁ Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς ἀπέσχεν ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας, ῥαβδισθεὶς, λιπασθείς, κήρυξ γενόμενος ἔν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει, τὸ γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν, δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών, κ. τ. λ. We therefore take the meaning of Clement's words to be, and when he (St. Paul) had come to the end of his travels in the west (namely to Rome,) and testified Christ before the rulers and the mighty, he, &c. There is no reason whatever to refer yousvo, as has been done, exclusively to Helios and Polykletos, the actual regents of the Roman empire during Nero's absence from the capital. On the other hand, the translation of the word by "the mighty of the earth," which De Wette approves of, (Introd. 122,) would again imply a journey to Spain, inasmuch as it would disconnect the boundary of the west" from the place of St. Paul's martyrdom. We therefore prefer interpreting the expression of the chief authorities of Rome generally.