S. Peter's converts at Rome, and that S. Peter gave to it his approbation; and in his Chronicon he puts S. Mark's arrival at Alexandria in the 1st (2d) of Claudius [A.D. 41-42.] This could easily have happened had S. Peter, as he had before stated, visited Rome in A.D. 39; but this, we have seen, is impossible, and indeed the whole series of dates given by Eusebius in his Chronicon for the acts of S. Peter and S. Mark, though selfconsistent, are clearly too early. Valesius follows the Alexandrian Chronicle which puts S. Peter's visit to Rome in the 7th of Claudius [A.D. 47], and he makes S. Mark to have arrived at Alexandria in the 9th [A.D. 49.] We still think that S. Paul's Epistle to the Romans proves this date to be too early, but if Eusebius's account, in itself, of the composition of S. Mark's Gospel be true, which may easily be the case (the impossible date which he assigns to it alone being rejected), S. Peter must, of course, have gone to Rome some time before his martyrdom, and most probably after S. Paul's first visit there; and as he was not in the city when S. Paul wrote his second epistle to S. Timothy, he may have left it again in a short time. Accordingly it has been held by some of both sides that S. Peter visited Rome more than once; at an earlier period (whether in the year 44, as Eusebius says; or 47, according to the Alexandrian Chronicle; or, as we think, not much either before or after A.D. 62), and again when he returned to suffer martyrdom with S. Paul in the year 66. That S. Peter came to Rome in pursuit of Simon Magus, rests chiefly on the original authority of Arnobius, the Clementines, and the Apostolic Constitutions: and if we could be sure that Eusebius had taken his account from them, the whole tradition would probably be thought of little value. But that he visited the city during the reign of Nero, and was martyred there with S. Paul, was the tradition of the whole Church. The time of his arrival thither we would place, as we have said, after the second epistle to Timothy was written.

Mr. Greenwood says that there is no evidence for S. Peter's 'presence in Rome, in direct and positive terms, by any extant Christian writer of the first three centuries.' We cannot understand these words by the side of the ample list of authorities he has subsequently given for this very thing. Bishop Pearson, in his posthumous work Dissertationes,' &c., published among his Opuscula by Archdeacon Churton from Dodwell; and Cave in his life of S. Peter, have also treated largely of this question. Among their list of authors are the names of S. Ignatius, Papias, S. Dionysius of Corinth, S. Irenæus, Tertullian, Caius, Origen, S. Cyprian, and others.

We cannot in our limited space discuss the whole of this

cloud of witnesses, but we will say a few words on some of the most important amongst them. Those whom we shall cite lived at a time when these facts must have been universally known; they represent different branches of the Church, in each of which existed the same tradition on the circumstance; and the works of each were composed independently of the others. Their testimony therefore, would, by the laws of evidence, barring any reasonable suspicion of forgery or corruption, be deemed conclusive.

S. Ignatius, in his epistle to the Romans-in a passage, by the way, the genuineness of which is disputed by none--says, Not as Peter and Paul Siaraoσóμat "pas. They were apos'tles, I am condemned; they were free, I am even now a slave.' Mr. Greenwood translates the passage as follows: 'I am not, as Peter and Paul were, your teacher; for they were apostles, 'I am a condemned man; they were free-born men, but I am a 'slave even to this time' (page 24); and he observes on it that it may be merely an allusion to S. Peter's general epistle, directed originally to the circumcision of Asia, but by that time brought also to Rome. His mistake lies in the meaning he has given to the word διατασσόμαι. It means much more than this rendering would ascribe to it. It means, as used in Holy Scripture, to set in order as by a personal agency and presence-conf. S. Mat. xi. 1, 1 Cor. ix. 14, and especially xi. 34, rà de Xoiπà os âv ἔλθω διατάξομαι. And the antithesis between the Apostles as free men, and S. Ignatius as a captive, would be wholly lost if there had been no free presence of S. Peter in Rome to contrast with, and give point and meaning to, the captivity of S. Ignatius. The two things would not have been capable of comparison. Properly rendered, we consider the passage conclusive of the belief at least of S. Ignatius (who could not have been mistaken in the matter of fact) that S. Peter had been in Rome; and we think our readers will desert Mr. Greenwood, and agree with Bishop Pearson, who asks, 'What can be clearer from these 'words than that the most holy martyr held the opinion that S. 'Peter, not less than S. Paul, preached at Rome and suffered 'there?' 6 'Assuredly,' he continues, S. Chrysostom seems to have had this passage in view when he said of Rome, "Peter ' and Paul, and after them he (S. Ignatius), were all offered as 'sacrifices there." (Opusc. Dissertat. I, cap. vii. sec. 2.)

Our next testimony shall be that of Papias. He was at latest a contemporary of the followers of the Apostles; and he has left it on record that S. Peter wrote his first epistle at Rome (Euseb. ii. 15). Mr. Greenwood, indeed, objects to him that he was, as Eusebius describes him, a man of but slight intelligence; but surely this very thing would render it impossible that he could

have related such a plain matter of fact, if it had not been the universal belief of the time.

Eusebius has preserved an extract of S. Dionysius of Corinth to the same effect as the above. S. Dionysius, in addressing the Romans, says, By means of this admonition you have mixed 'together that plantation of the Romans and Corinthians which was effected by Peter and Paul: for both of these (apostles) have planted us also in our (city of) Corinth, and taught us in 'like manner; in like manner also, having taught in Italy as well, [óμóσe didáğaνTes,] in the same place, they suffered martyrdom, about the same time.' Bishop Pearson translates the words 'óμóσe didáğavres audacter docentes, and he refers to Suidas for that meaning of the word ouooe; sic ouooe,' he says, 'exponit Suidas,” ἐξ ἐναντίας, σφοδρῶς, θρασέως; but Suidas also allows, and indeed prefers the sense we have given above, as appearing to us, on the whole, in better harmony with the context. says, ὁμόσε, ὁμοῦ εἰς τὸν αὔτον τόπον, ἡ ἐξ ἐναντίας, κ.τ.λ. • Nihil hic igitur, 'says Bishop Pearson, huic Dionysii testimonio objici potest, quod non facile refellitur.' Mr. Greenwood, on the contrary, thinks that

He

'It would be no easy matter to determine whether the "teaching' mentioned in this passage was oral or by writing. Paul had instructed the Romans in both modes; and it may be said of Peter that he had taught all the churches by his written addresses. Still the mention of Corinth and Rome, as the joint plantation of both apostles, would, in the ordinary sense of the words, imply a joint or several presence of both in the churches they are said to have founded. But the terms used by Dionysius are extremely vague; and it is to be noticed that this is the first and only intimation of a participation of Peter in the planting of the Church of Corinth we meet with in ecclesiastical history,-that Church being otherwise universally regarded as the sole foundation of the Apostle Paul. If it should be doubted whether Peter had any personal share in the planting of the Church of Corinth, there would also be the same reason to question his presence in Italy as the personal associate of Paul in that country.'— P. 30.

Exactly: and we may bear in mind Bishop Pearson's words e converso, If Peter were at Corinth, who will deny that he was also at some time in Rome? But it is most certain that Peter, not less than Paul, was at Corinth, and that before S. 'Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians; for thus says the Apostle: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I 'am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas (1 Cor. i. 12)."' (Pearson, Diss. I. cap. vii. sec. 3.)

In the same chapter as that in which Eusebius gives the above extract from S. Dionysius, and immediately preceding it, he brings others from Tertullian and Caius. The former relates the martyrdom of S. Peter and S. Paul at Rome by Nero, as a

1 Dis. I. cap. vii. § iii.

tradition (all it could be to him); but a tradition confirmed, adds Eusebius, by their title still remaining in the cemeteries of the city. In his De Baptismo he compares the baptism of John in Jordan with that of S. Peter in the Tiber (chap. iv).

Caius, himself a presbyter of the Roman Church, was born about the beginning of the third century, in the pontificate of Zephyrinus. He says much the same as Tertullian, viz., that the trophies of both the Apostles were remaining in Rome in his time, and that both suffered martyrdom together. The authority of Papias, Tertullian, S. Dionysius, and Caius, appear quite sufficient to have caused Eusebius himself to believe, as he assuredly did, that S. Peter had been at Rome.

Our last authority shall be S. Irenæus. It must not be forgotten that he had been the disciple of S. Polycarp, and was sent from the martyrs expectant of Lyons to Rome, with letters to the Bishop, Eleutherus, about the year 177, and, therefore, that he could not have escaped the knowledge of the tradition of that Church as to her founder. His great work was written about the year 180,' and consequently, after he had been to Rome. In the third chapter of the third book, which treats of The Traditions of the Apostles, or of the Successors of the Bishops 'by the Apostles in the Churches,' having said that he could enumerate those who had been named Bishops by the Apostles and their successors even to his own time, he confines himself on account of the length of such a work, to the successors of the most ancient and the universally known Church; the Church founded and constituted by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul at Rome. That Church,' he continues, which has her tradition from the Apostles, and her faith announced to 'men through a succession of Bishops, reaching even to us. 'These blessed Apostles, when they founded and built up this 'Church, committed to Linus the service of its episcopate.' (Grabe pp. 200-202.) The Greek of the latter passage has fortunately been preserved by Eusebius.

6

Mr. Greenwood, it is true, thinks that S. Irenæus does not suppose a personal presence of the Apostles necessary to the founding and building up of a Church; and that the real meaning of this passage may be that-

'Some one or more of the Jewish visitors, or "strangers from Rome," present in Jerusalem at the great feast of Pentecost,-and perhaps, also, some of those who were afterwards scattered abroad by the persecution which occurred in the days of Stephen,-carried back with them the glad tidings of the Gospel; and so became the "first beginners" of a Christian Church at Rome. It can hardly be doubted that Peter's converts on the former of these occasions returned to their homes with a profound

1 Burton Lectures.

reverence for the wonderful person whose words had so deeply affected, and so greatly comforted and enlightened them. The earliest and the strongest convictions of the Christian congregation at Rome would thus become intimately connected with the name and person of Peter; in such a state of mind his doctrine would be readily identified or confounded with the preacher himself, and in this form both would be handed down in conjunction to their successors in the faith he had preached; and in this way, naturally enough, an anchoring ground would be obtained for any tradition which would serve to bring the object of their reverence and affection into closer personal relation with the body of his grateful converts.'-P. 36.

But our readers will scarcely admit such a mere hypothesis as this as an explanation of the very plain and emphatic words of S. Irenæus. They will remember that the personal convictions,' the 'confusions,' and the identifications of individuals, do not form the foundation and the edification of a Christian Church. They will think that if this had been S. Irenæus's meaning, he would have said it, and not what he did say. If Mr. Greenwood's theory be the true one, S. Irenæus must have felt when he wrote what he did, that there would be the utmost risk of no one ever rightly apprehending his meaning; as in fact no one before Mr. Greenwood ever has done, and but for him no one ever would have done. Θεμελιώσαντες καὶ οἰκοδομήσαντες are the words of S. Irenæus; and we would ask Mr. Greenwood what words he could have used to express more clearly and forcibly the whole work of the building; or what Mr. Greenwood would have accepted as stating that S. Peter did found and build up that Church, which S. Irenæus, not foreseeing the questions that would be raised in after ages, could possibly have written.

Our readers will differ too, as we think, from Mr. Greenwood in the idea that apostolic presence was not requisite for the θεμελίωσις καὶ οἰκοδόμησις of the Church in that city; for they will call to mind the parallel case of the Church of Samaria in the eighth chapter of the book of Acts, where that which Mr. Greenwood very reasonably supposes to have happened at Rome-that persons went thither from the miraculous Pentecost-actually did take place, and something more too, namely, the visit of the deacon Philip. Yet, because he was only a deacon and not an apostle; and an apostle was required to found, or at any rate to build up the church, S. Peter and S. John were expressly sent thither to that end. For in truth it is a very grave and serious fact, and one which Mr. Greenwood has hardly fathomed, that a Christian Church is not called into existence by oral exhortations or doctrinal teaching of letters, by whomsoever written or delivered, even though by apostles; but is founded and endowed by God the Holy