Luke, in mentioning the departure of Peter from Jerusalem after his
escape from prison by night, merely says, “And going out, he went
to _another place_.” The vague, uncertain manner in which this
circumstance is mentioned, seems to imply that the writer really knew
nothing about this “other place.” It was not a point essential to
the integrity of the narrative, though interesting to all the readers
of the history, since the most trifling particulars about the chief
apostle might well be supposed desirable to be known. But though if
it had been known, it would have been well worth recording, it was
too trifling a matter to deserve any investigation, if it had not been
mentioned to Luke by those from whom he received the accounts which he
gives of Peter; and since he is uniformly particular in mentioning even
these smaller details, when they fall in the way of his narrative, it
is but fair to conclude that in this instance he would have satisfied
the natural and reasonable curiosity of his readers, if he had had the
means of doing so. There could have been no motive when he wrote, for
concealing the fact, and he could have expressed the whole truth in as
few words as he has given to show his own ignorance of the point. From
the nature of the apostle’s motives in departing from Jerusalem, it
must have been at that time desirable to have his place of refuge known
to as few as possible; and the fact, at that time unknown, would, after
the motive for concealment had disappeared, be of too little interest
to be very carefully inquired after by those to whom it was not obvious.
In this way it happened, that this circumstance was never revealed to
Luke, who not being among the disciples at Jerusalem, would not be in
the way of readily hearing of it, and in writing the story would not
think it worth inquiring for. But one thing seems morally certain;
if Peter had taken refuge in any important place or well known city,
it must have been far more likely to have been afterwards a fact
sufficiently notorious to have come within the knowledge of his
historian; but as the most likely place for a secret retirement would
have been some obscure region, this would increase the chances of
its remaining subsequently unknown. This consideration is of some
importance in settling a few negative facts in relation to various
conjectures which have at different times been offered on the place
of Peter’s refuge.
Among these, the most idle and unfounded is, that on leaving Jerusalem
he went to Caesarea. What could have suggested this queer fancy to its
author, it is hard to say; but it certainly implies the most senseless
folly in Peter, when seeking a hiding place from the persecution of
king Herod Agrippa, to go directly to the capital of his dominions,
where he might be expected to reside for the greater part of the time,
and whither he actually did go, immediately after his disappointment
about this very apostle. It was jumping out of the frying-pan into the
fire, to go thus away from among numerous friends who might have found
a barely possible safety for him in Jerusalem, and to seek a refuge
in Caesarea where there were but very few friends of the apostles, and
where he would be in constant danger of discovery from the numerous
minions of the king, who thronged all parts of that royal city, and
from the great number of Greeks, Romans and Syrians, making up the
majority of the population, who hated the very sight of a Jew, and
would have taken vast pleasure in gratifying their spite, and at the
same time gaining high favor with the king by hunting out and giving up
to wrath an obscure heretic of that hated race. It would not have been
at all accordant with the serpent-wisdom enjoined on the apostle, to
have run his head thus into the lion’s mouth, by seeking a quiet and
safe dwelling-place beneath the very nose of his powerful persecutor.
Another conjecture vastly less absurd, but still not highly probable,
is, that Antioch was the “other place” to which Peter went from
Jerusalem; but an objection of great force against this, is that
already alluded to above, in reference to the ineligibility of a great
city as a place of concealment; and in this instance is superadded the
difficulty of his immediately making this long journey over the whole
extent of Agrippa’s dominions, northward, at such a time, when the
king’s officers would be every where put on the alert for him, more
particularly in the direction of his old home in Galilee, which would
be in the nearest way to Antioch. His most politic movement, therefore,
would be to take some shorter course out of Palestine. Moreover, in
this case, there is a particular reason why Luke would have mentioned
the name of Antioch if that had been the place. What the proof of this
reason is, can be best shown in his life; but the bare statement of the
fact may be sufficient for the present,――that he was himself a citizen
of that place, and could not have been ignorant or negligent of the
circumstance of this visit, if it had occurred.
It has been suggested by others that the expression, “to another
place,” does not imply a departure from Jerusalem, but is perfectly
reconcilable with the supposition that Peter remained concealed in some
safe and unknown part of the city. This view would very unobjectionably
accord with the vagueness of the passage,――since if merely another
part of Jerusalem was meant, no name could be expected to describe
it. But it would certainly seem like a presumptuous rashness in Peter,
to risk in so idle a manner the freedom which he owed to a miraculous
interposition; for the circumstance of such an interposition could not
be intended to justify him in dispensing with a single precaution which
would be proper and necessary after an escape in any other mode. Such
is not the course of divine dealings, whether miraculous or ordinary;
and in a religious as well as an economical view, the force and truth
of Poor Richard’s saying is undoubted,――“God helps them who help
themselves;” nor is his helping them any reason why they should cease
to help themselves. Peter’s natural impulse, as well as a considerate
prudence, then, would lead him to immediate exertions to keep the
freedom so wonderfully obtained, and such an impulse and such a
consideration would at once teach him that the city was no place
for him, at a time when the most desperately diligent search might
be expected. For as soon as his escape was discovered, Luke says,
that the king “sought most earnestly for him,” and in a search
thus characterized, inspired too by the most furious rage at the
disappointment, hardly a hole or corner of Jerusalem could have
been left unransacked; so that this preservation of the apostle from
pursuers so determined, would have required a continual series of
miracles, fully as wonderful as that which effected his deliverance
from castle Antonia. His most proper and reasonable course would then
have been directly eastward from Jerusalem,――a route which would give
him the shortest exit from the territories of Herod Agrippa, leading
him directly into Arabia, a region that was, in another great instance
hereafter mentioned, a place of comfortable and undisturbed refuge for
a person similarly circumstanced. A journey of fifty or sixty miles
through an unfrequented and lonely country, would put him entirely
beyond pursuit; and the character of the route would make it
exceedingly difficult to trace his flight, as the nature of the country
would facilitate his concealment, while its proximity to Jerusalem
would make his return after the removal of the danger by the death of
Agrippa, as easy as his flight thither in the first place.
_At Jerusalem._――This notion I find nowhere but in Lardner, who
approves it, quoting Lenfant. [Lardner, History of the Apostles
and Evangelists, Life of Peter.]
Another series of papistical fables carries him on his supposed tour on
the coast, beyond Caesarea, and, uniting two theories, makes him visit
Antioch also; and finally extends his pilgrimage into the central and
northern parts of Asia Minor. This fabulous legend, though different
in its character from the preceding accounts, because it impudently
attempts to pass off a bald invention as an authentic history, while
those are only offered honestly as probable conjectures, yet may be
worthy of a place here, because it is necessary in giving a complete
view of all the stories which have been received, to present dishonest
inventions as well as justifiable speculations. The clearest fabulous
account given of his journey thither, is, that parting from Jerusalem
as above-mentioned, he directed his way westwards toward the sea-coast
of Palestine, first to Caesarea Stratonis, (or Augusta,) where he
constituted one of the presbyters who attended him from Jerusalem,
bishop of the church founded there by him on his visit;――that leaving
Caesarea he went northwards along the coast into Phoenicia, arriving
at the city of Sidon;――that there he performed many cures and also
appointed a bishop; next to Berytus, (now Beyroot,) in Syria, and there
also appointed a bishop. Going on through Syria, along the coast of
the Mediterranean, they bring him next, in his curiously detailed
track, to Biblys, then to the Phoenician Tripoli, to Orthosia, to
Antandros, to the island of Aradus, near the coast, to Balaenas, to
Panta, to Laodicea, and at last to Antioch,――planting churches in all
these hard-named towns on the way, and sowing bishops, as before, by
handfulls, as well as performing vast quantities of miracles. The story
of Peter’s journey goes on to say, that after leaving Antioch he went
into Cappadocia, and stayed some time in Tyana, a city of that province.
Proceeding westward thence, he came to Ancyra, in Galatia, where he
raised a dead person, baptized believers, and instituted a church, over
which he ordained a bishop. Thence northward, into Pontus, where he
visited the cities of Sinope and Amasea, on the coast of the Euxine
sea. Then turning eastward into Paphlagonia, stopped at Gangra and
Claudiopolis; next into Bithynia, to the cities of Nicomedia and Nicaea;
and thence returned directly to Antioch, whence he shortly afterwards
went to Jerusalem.
This ingenious piece of apostolic romance is due to the same
veracious Metaphrastes, above quoted. I have derived it from
him through Caesar Baronius, who gives it in his Annales
Ecclesiastici. (44, § 10, 11.) The great annalist approves and
adopts it, however, only as far as it describes the journey
of Peter to Antioch; and there he leaves the narrative of
Metaphrastes, and instead of taking Peter on his long tour
through Asia Minor and back to Jerusalem, as just described,
carries him off upon a far different route, achieving the great
journey westward, which accords with the view taken by the
vast majority of the old ecclesiastical writers, and which is
next given here. Metaphrastes also maintains this view, indeed,
but supposes and invents all the events just narrated, as
intermediate occurrences, between Peter’s escape and his great
journey, and begins the account of this latter, after his return
from his Asian circuit.
To connect all this long pilgrimage with the story given in the
sacred record, the sage Baronius makes the ingenious suggestion,
that this was the occult reason why Agrippa was wroth with those
of Tyre and Sidon; namely, that Peter had gone through their
country when a fugitive from the royal vengeance, and had been
favorably received by the Tyrians and Sidonians, who should
have seized him as a runaway from justice, and sent him back to
Agrippa. This acute guess, he thinks, will show a reason also
for the otherwise unaccountable fact, that Luke should mention
this quarrel between Agrippa and those cities, in connection
with the events of Peter’s escape and Agrippa’s death. For the
great cardinal does not seem to appreciate the circumstance
of its close relation to the latter event, in presenting
the occasion of the reconciliation between the king and the
offending cities, on which the king made his speech to the
people, and received the impious tribute of praise, which
was followed by his death;――the whole constituting a relation
sufficiently close between the two events, to justify the
connection in Luke.