It is therefore probable, yea, certain with me, that the stop ought to be after ἁμαρτίαι, and μετὰ δώδεκα črn joined to the following clause, and then the sense will run clear and smooth: "If any Jew shall repent and believe the gospel, he shall be pardoned; but after twelve years, go ye into all the world; that none may pretend that they have not heard the sound of the gospel." The apostles were first to preach the gospel to the Jews for some considerable time, twelve years after Christ's ascension, in and about Judæa, and then to betake themselves to the provinces of the Gentile world, to make known to them the glad tidings of salvation; exactly answerable to the tradition mentioned by Apollonius. Besides, the Chronicon Alexandrinum tells us, that Peter came not to Rome till the seventh year of Claudius, anno Christi, 49. So little certainty can there be of any matter wherein there is no truth. Nay, the same excellent man, before mentioned, ' does not stick elsewhere to profess, he wonders at Baronius, that he should make Peter come from Rome, banished thence by Claudius's edict, to the synod at Jerusalem the same year, viz. the ninth of Claudius; a thing absolutely inconsistent with that story of the apostle's acts recorded by St. Luke, wherein there is the space of no less than three years, from the time of that synod to the decree of Claudius. It being evident, what he observes, that after the celebration of the council, St. Paul went back to Antioch; afterwards into Syria and Cilicia, to preach the gospel; thence into Phrygia, Galatia, and Mysia; from whence he went into Macedonia, and first preached at Philippi, 1 H. Vales. Annot. in Euseb. lib. ii. c. 18, p. 37. then at Thessalonica and Beroa, afterwards stayed some considerable time at Athens, and last of all went to Corinth, where he met with Aquila and Priscilla, lately come from Italy, banished Rome, with the rest of the Jews, by the decree of Claudius; all which, by an easy and reasonable computation, can make up no less than three years at least. 6. That which caused Baronius to split upon so many rocks, was not so much want of seeing them, which a man of his parts and industry could not but in a great measure see, as the unhappy necessity of defending those unsound principles which he had undertaken to maintain. For being to make good Peter's five-and-twenty years' presidency over the church of Rome, he was forced to confound times, and dislocate stories, that he might bring all his ends together. What foundation this story of Peter's being five-and-twenty years bishop of Rome has in antiquity, I find not; unless it sprang from hence, that Eusebius places Peter's coming to Rome in the second year of Claudius, and his martyrdom in the fourteenth of Nero; between which there is just the space of five-andtwenty years; whence those that came after concluded that he sat bishop there all that time. cannot be denied but that in St. Jerome's translation it is expressly said, that he continued five-andtwenty years bishop of that city: but then it is as evident that this was his own addition, who probably set things down as the report went in his time, no such thing being to be found in the Greek copy of Eusebius. Nor indeed does he ever there or 1 It 1 Πέτρος ὁ κορυφαῖος τὴν ἐν ̓Αντιοχεία πρώτην θεμελιώ σας ἐκκλησίαν εἰς Ρώμην ἄπεισι κηρύττων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. Χρον. Καν. ad num. ΜΓ. p. 204. elsewhere positively affirm St. Peter to have been bishop of Rome, but only that he preached the gospel there; and expressly affirms, that he and St. Paul being dead, Linus was the first bishop of Rome. To which I may add, that when the ancients speak of the bishops of Rome, and the first originals of that church, they equally attribute the founding and the episcopacy and government of it to Peter and Paul, making the one as much concerned in it as the other. Thus Epiphanius, reckoning up the bishops of that see, places Peter and Paul in the front, as the first bishops of Rome; ¿v Ῥώμη γάρ γεγονασι πρῶτοι Πέτρος και Παῦλος, οἱ ἀπόςτολοι αὐτοὶ καὶ ̓επίσκοποι: “ Peter and Paul, apostles, became the first bishops of Rome; then Linus," &c. And again, a little after; ἡ τῶν ἐν Ρώμῃ επισκόπων διαδοχὴ ταύτην ἔχοι τὴν ἀκολεθίαν: “ The succession of the bishops of Rome was in this manner; Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus," &c. And Hegesippus, speaking of their coming to Rome, equally says of them, that they were Doctores Christianorum, sublimes operibus, clari magisterio:3 "The instructors of the Christians, admirable for miracles, and renowned for their authority." However, granting not only that he was there, but that he 1 Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 2, p. 71. The words of Eusebius are, that Clemens was the third among the bishops from Peter and Paul; Linus having been the first, and Anencletus the second. On this passage the learned editor, Valesius observes, that it is not to be supposed that Paul was more honourable than Peter because named first; that in the seals of the Roman church he was placed on the right hand, and Peter on the left; and that though Eusebius indeed does not here number the apostles in the order of bishops, he, in his Chronicon, ascribes the Roman episcopacy to Peter alone. 2 Contr. Carpocrat. Hæres. xxvii. p. 51. 3 De excid. Jud. lib. iii. c. 2, p. 292. was bishop, and that for five-and-twenty years together, yet what would this make for the unlimited sovereignty and universality of that church, unless a better evidence than 'feed my sheep' could be produced for its uncontrolable supremacy and dominion over the whole Christian world? 7. The sum is this: granting what none that has any reverence for antiquity will deny, that St. Peter was at Rome; he probably came thither some few years before his death, joined with and assisted St. Paul in preaching of the gospel, and then both sealed the testimony of it with their blood. The date of his death is differently assigned by the ancients. Eusebius' places it in the year 69, in the fourteenth of Nero; Epiphanius in the twelfth. That which seems to me most probable is, that it was in the tenth, or the year 65; which I thus compute. Nero's burning of Rome is placed by Tacitus,' under the consulship of C. Lecanius and M. Licinius, about the month of July, that is, anno Chr. 64. This act procured him the infinite hatred and clamours of the people, which having in vain endeavoured several ways to remove and pacify, he at last resolved upon this project, to drive the odium upon the Christians; whom therefore, both to appease the gods and please the people, he condemned as guilty of the fact, and caused to be executed with all manner of acute and exquisite tortures. This persecution we may suppose began about the end of that, or the beginning of the following year. And under this persecution, I doubt not, it was that St. Peter suffered, and changed earth for heaven. 1 Chron. p. 162. 173 AN APPENDIX то THE PRECEDING SECTION, Containing a vindication of St. Peter's being at Rome. FINDING the truth of what is supposed and granted in the foregoing section, to wit, St. Peter's going to and suffering at Rome, not only doubted of heretofore in the beginning of the Reformation, while the paths of antiquity were less frequented and beaten out; but now again, lately, in this broad daylight of ecclesiastical knowledge, not only called in question, but exploded as most vain and fabulous, and that especially by a foreign professor of name and note,' it may not be amiss, having the opportunity of this impression, to make some few remarks for the better clearing of this matter. 2. And first, I observe that this matter of fact is attested by witnesses of the most remote antiquity, persons of great eminency and authority, and who lived near enough to those times to know the truth and certainty of those things which they reported. And perhaps there is scarce any one piece of an 1 Fred. Spanhem. Dissert. de temere credita Petri in urb. Romam profectione. L. Bat. edit 1679. Vid. etiam Brutum Fulmen, or Observations on the Bull against Queen Elizabeth, p. 88, &c. Lond. 1681. 4. Spanhiem, the author alluded to, is a writer of great learning and ability, but he expresses his opinions with the spirit of a controversialist; and not only disputes facts which contradict his views, but too frequently ascribes the actions and sentiments of those to whom he is opposed to false motives.—ED. |