Rome. But there is no good evidence of either of those opinions. Says Mr. L'Enfant upon the place: 'If St. Peter had gone to some celebrated city, for instance, Antioch, ' according to some, or Rome, according to others, no doubt St. Luke would have mentioned it, and some of the bre• thren would have accompanied him, according to custom. From the manner in which St. Luke expresseth himself, nothing is more natural, than to suppose, that St. Peter, that he might not expose to danger the faithful at the house where he first called, and where many were assembled, retired to some other place in Jerusalem.'

In the year 49, or 50, was assembled the council of Jerusalem, concerning the question, "whether it was needful to circumcise the Gentiles who believed, and to command them to keep the law." At this assembly Peter was present, and in the debate clearly declared his opinion, that "the yoke of the law should not be laid upon the neck of the disciples" from among the Gentiles. As a cogent argument for his opinion, he reminded the assembly, how by divine appointment he had preached the word of the gospel to Gentiles at Cæsarea, and that God, "who knoweth the hearts of all men," had shown his acceptance of them by giving to them the Holy Ghost, though uncircumcised. By which it had been made manifest, that they might be saved by faith in Jesus Christ, without the rituals of the law.

Whilst Paul was this time at Jerusalem, James, Peter, and John, "gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship," that they might proceed in preaching to Gentiles: whilst they, and the other apostles, still continued in Judea to preach to those of the circumcision. Gal. ii. 6-10.

III. Some short time afterwards, as it seems, Peter was at Antioch, as we learn from St. Paul, Gal. ii. 11-16. I place this journey of Peter to Antioch, after the council of Jerusalem, according to the general opinion. But Basnage argues, that it was before it. If it was not till after it (as I rather think) it could not be long. For Barnabas was now at Antioch. Whereas in a short time after their return

b Illud nobis verisimilius, Concilii Hierosolymitani celebrationi antecessisse Petrinam hanc in Syriæ metropoli commorationem. Argumento est disceptatio Pauli cum Petro, cujus dissimulationem obruisset auctoritate Synodi, si jam coacta fuisset. Quin imo nulla Petro, et timendi Judæos, et eorum gratiâ sese separandi a Gentibus, causa fuit, si tum temporis promulgata fuisset Concilii Hierosolymitani Epistola; quo veluti clypeo, ad omnes telorum Judaicorum ictus tutus erat. Basnag. Ann. 46. num. xxv.

thither from Jerusalem, he and Paul parted. Here Peter at first conversed freely with the Gentile converts. But when there came thither from Judea some Jewish believers, zealous for the law," he separated himself, fearing them of the circumcision." Herein Peter acted contrary to his own judgment and declared opinion, through fear of the displeasure of others. St. Paul therefore represents his conduct, as dissimulation, or hypocrisy. What he now did, in compliance with the zealots for the law, was a thing of very bad tendency. St. Paul therefore justly "withstood him," and so showed him to be blamable, that Peter acquiesced. Hereby, as Paul expresseth it, "he compelled the Gentiles to judaize," or become Jews. For his separating from them, as unfit for converse and communion with the apostles of Christ, and the believers from among the Jews, implied, that they were not acceptable in the sight of God, nor in the way of salvation: and that in order to be saved, it was needful for them to be circumcised, and keep the law.

с

It was, as I suppose, soon after the council, and the year 50, in which Peter came to Antioch. And I imagine, that he now first of all went abroad out of Judea, into Gentile countries. It is very likely, that he was desirous to see the christian people at Antioch. But hitherto he had been little used to converse with Gentiles. And when some zealous Jewish believers came to Antioch from Jerusalem, he was alarmed: recollecting, it is likely, how some at Jerusalem had contended with him after he was come from Cæsarea, because he had been with men uncircumcised, and" did eat with them," Acts xi. 23, and very well knowing, from long and frequent experience, the prevailing temper of the people of his country. But it is reasonable to think, that Peter never more showed the like unsteadiness, but was firm ever afterwards.

с

This is the last time that Peter is expressly mentioned

He compelled the Gentiles to judaize,' or become Jews.] Our translation is, "Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" But it is far from being exact. Τι τα εθνη αναγκάζεις ιδδαΐζειν ; to judaize is to become a Jew, or proselyte to the Jewish religion. Esther viii. 17,“ And many of the people of the land became Jews." Or, as in the seventy-“ were circumcised and judaized.” Και πολλοι των εθνων περιετεμνοντο, και sdaïlov. The Greek word is used in the same sense by Josephus. De B. J. 1. 2. cap. 18. n. 2. Απεσκευασθαι γαρ τες Ιεδαίες δοκέντες έκατοι, τες eðaïšov ̃aç εxov ev vпоia. To christianize, arianize, sabellianize, is to become a Christian, an Arian, a Sabellian. And to judaize is to become a Jew. Which, if I may be allowed to say it, shows the impropriety of the use of the word Judaizer, now very common among learned moderns, as denoting a man, who is for imposing judaism upon others.

е

in the New Testament, excepting his own epistles, and 1 Cor. i. 12, and ch. iii. 22. From which texts Pearson concludes, that d St. Peter had been at Corinth, before St. Paul wrote his first epistle to the church there. But others think, that there were some at Corinth, who had heard Peter preach in Judea and some who had seen Christ in person. They who said, "I am of Cephas, or of Christ," must be supposed to have been Jews, either by descent, or religion.

I do not think these words can prove that Peter had been at Corinth, before Paul wrote this epistle. At ch. iii. 6, St. Paul says: "I have planted, Apollos watered." He makes no mention of Peter's labours among the Corinthians. Peter may have been at Corinth afterwards, in his way to Rome. But I do not see any proof from this epistle of his having been there.

f

IV. We have no where any very distinct account of this apostle's travels. He might return to Judea, and stay there a good while after having been at Antioch, at the time spoken of by St. Paul in the epistle to the Galatians. However, I formerly quoted Epiphanius, saying, that Peter was often in the countries of Pontus, and Bithynia. And by Eusebius we are assured, that Origen, in the third tome of his exposition of the book of Genesis, writes to this purpose: Peter is supposed to have preached to the Jews of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia. Who at length coming to Rome, was crucified ' with his head downwards, himself having desired it might 'be in that manner.'

For the time of Peter's coming to Rome, no ancient writer d At certissimum est, Petrum non minus quam Paulum Corinthi fuisse, et quidem antequam S. Paulus primam epistolam dedit ad Corinthios. Ita enim Apostolus loquitur. 1 Cor. i. 12. Unde colligitur, non minus Cepham, et Apollo, quam Paulum Corinthi fuisse. Pears. Op. Post. Diss. i. cap. vii. p. 37. e Alii ergo Corinthi ab Apollo instituti post Pauli abitum, alii ab ipso Paulo, alii qui ex Judæâ venerant a Petro, sub illis nominibus, alia atque alia dogmata tradebant. -- Ego autem Christi.' Venerant enim ex Judæâ quidam, qui ipsum Christum docentem audierant. Grot. ad 1 Cor. i. 12. Vid. et Wits. de Vita Pauli. sect. 7. num. xx. Meletem. p. 104, 105.

Sunt viri docti qui existimant, Petrum Apostolum hoc anno Corinthum venisse, dum in eâ urbe etiamnum esset Apollos.Sed propensio in Petrum esse potuit, licet Corinthum pedem non intulisset. Nihil enim vetat fuisse Christianos Corinthi, qui cum Petrum, in Judæâ aut alibi audivissent, magistrum eum suum dictitarent, et Paulo præferrent. Itaque iter hoc Petri nimis levi conjecturâ nititur. Cleric. H. E. ann. 55. num. v.

f Vol. iv. ch. lxxxiv. num. iv.

8 Πετρος δε εν Ποντῳ- κεκηρυκεναι τοις εν διασπορα Ιεδαιοις εοικεν. και επι τελει εν Ῥωμη γενόμενος, ανεσκολοπίσθη κατα κεφαλης, ούτως αυτος ağıwoas madɛiv. Euseb. H. E. 1. 3. cap. i.

k

i

is now more regarded by learned moderns than Lactantius, or whoever is the author of the book of the Deaths of Persecutors who says, that h Peter came thither in the time of Nero. Insomuch that Pagi assents to this account; and has shown it to be altogether improbable that St. Peter came thither in the time of Claudius. He likewise observes some difficulties, which they are liable to, who suppose that he first came to Rome in the reign of Claudius, and afterwards in the reign of Nero. But though Peter did not come to Rome before the reign of Nero, which began in the year of Christ 54, we cannot say exactly the time when he came thither, as is also m acknowledged by the same excellent chronologer.

However, it appears to me very probable, that St. Peter did not come to Rome before the year of Christ 63, or 64, nor till after St. Paul's departure thence, at the end of his two years' imprisonment in that city.

The books of the New Testament afford a very plausible, and probable, if not a certain argument for it. After our Lord's ascension we find Peter, with the rest of the apostles, at Jerusalem. He and John were sent by the apostles from Jerusalem to Samaria, whence they returned to Jerusalem. When Paul came to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, he found Peter there. Upon occasion of the tranquillity of the churches in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, near the end of the reign of Caligula, Peter left Jerusalem, and visited the churches in the several parts of that country, particularly at Lydda and Joppa, where he tarried many days. Thence he went to Cæsarea by the sea side, where he preached to Cornelius, and his company. Thence he returned to Jerusalem: and some time afterwards he was imprisoned there by Herod Agrippa. This brings down the history of our apostle to the year 44. A few years after this he was present at the council of Jerusalem. Nor is there any evidence that he came thither barely for that occasion. It is more probable, that he had not yet

h et per annos xxv. usque ad principium Neroniani imperii per omnes provincias et civitates ecclesiæ fundamenta miserunt. Cumque jam Nero imperaret, Petrus Romam advenit, et editis quibusdam miraculis, quæ virtute ipsius Dei, datâ sibi ab eo potestate, faciebat, convertit multos ad justitiam, Deoque templum fidele ac stabile collocavit. Quâ re ad Neronem delatâ et primus omnium persecutus Dei servos, Petrum cruci adfixit, et Paulum interfecit. De Mort. Persec. cap. 2.

i Critic. in Baron. ann. 43. num. iii.

k Ibid. num. ii.

m

num. ii.

1 Ibid. num. iii.

cum verus ejus adventûs annus nos lateat. Id. ann. 54

been out of Judea.

Soon after that council he was at An

tioch, where he was reproved by St. Paul.

The books of the New Testament afford no light for determining where Peter was for several years after that. But to me it appears not unlikely, that he returned in a short time to Judea from Antioch: and that he stayed in Judea a good while before he went thence any more. And it seems to me, that when he left Judea, he went again to Antioch, the chief city of Syria. Thence he might go into other parts of the continent, particularly Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, which are expressly mentioned at the beginning of his first epistle. In those countries be might stay a good while. It is very likely that he did so; and that he was well acquainted with the christians there, to whom he afterwards wrote two epistles.

When he left those parts, I think, he went to Rome: but not till after Paul had been in that city, and was gone from it. Several of St. Paul's epistles furnish out a cogent argument of Peter's absence from Rome for a considerable space of time. St. Paul, in the last chapter of his epistle to the Romans, written, as we suppose, in the beginning of the year 58, salutes many by name without mentioning Peter. And the whole tenor of the epistle makes it reasonable to think, that the christians there had not yet had the benefit of that apostle's presence and instructions. During his two years' confinement at Rome, which ended, as we suppose, in the spring of the year 63, St. Paul wrote four, or five epistles, those to the Ephesians, the second epistle to Timothy, to the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon in none of which is any mention of Peter. Nor is any thing said, or hinted, whence it can be concluded that he had ever been there.

I think therefore that Peter did not come to Rome before

the year 63, or perhaps 64. And, as I suppose, he obtained the crown of martyrdom in the year 64, or 65. Consequently, St. Peter could not reside very long at Rome before his death.

n

It is very remarkable, that Nicephorus at the beginning of the ninth century, in his Chronography, computes St. Peter's episcopate at Rome to have been of two years' duration only. For that passage I am indebted to Basnage,

* Οἱ εν Ρώμη επισκοπεύσαντες απο Χρισε, και των αποςόλων" α' Πετρος aπosodos eтn ß+ Ap. Scalig. Thes. Temp. p. 308.

• Lactantius, Eusebio paullo antiquior, Petrum non Claudio quidem, sed Nerone imperante, Romam venisse tradit. Neque Lactantio propria chronologia hæc est.- -In Nicephori enim Chronographiâ legimus: Qui Romæ