circumstances of the Acts of the apostles; for while Peter was
preaching at Cesarea, Antioch, Jerusalem, and in other places, Paul was
brought to Rome, and, having arrived there, “dwelt two whole years in
his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching
the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord
Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.” Here the
account of the Acts of the Apostles ends, without mentioning anything
further of Peter. See Acts 28:30,31.
VARIOUS ARGUMENTS FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, SHOWING THAT PETER WAS NOT
AT ROME DURING THE TIME PAUL WAS THERE, EXCEPT (AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED
ABOVE) AT THE CLOSE OF HIS LIFE.
In this demonstration we shall forego the method employed by Sebastian
Frank, Gysius, and others, who have written syllogistically upon this
subject, and shall confine ourselves solely to the express testimony
of (or, at least, plain inferences from) Holy Scripture, upon which we
propose to found our arguments.
_Reason._--_First Argument._--When Paul drew near the city of Rome,
where he was to be arraigned before Cesar, the brethren[53] came out
of the city to meet him, as far as Appii Forum, and the Three Taverns,
whom, when Paul saw, he took courage. Acts 28:15. But among these Peter
is not once mentioned, which would undoubtedly have been the case, had
he been with them and occupied the episcopal throne at that place, as
is pretended.
[53] By which of the other apostles these brethren at Rome were
converted, is not mentioned in the text; but it may have been that
they were converted on the day of Pentecost at Jerusalem, for at that
time strangers of Rome were there. Acts 2:10.
_Second Argument._--When it came to pass, that Paul was to give an
account before the emperor for the first time, he was forsaken by all,
and no man stood with him, so that he complained of it to Timothy. 2
Tim. 4:16. Now, if Peter had been at Rome, he certainly would not have
forsaken Paul, whom he was wont to call his beloved brother, 2 Pet.
3:15; but would have stood by him with counsel and actual assistance,
according to his ability. This, however did not happen; which clearly
shows _that he was not there at that time_; unless some one might
conclude, that he, who before had forsaken his Lord and Savior (which
was a matter of much consequence), now probably also forsook Paul, who
was inferior.
To this may serve as reply: That Peter, at the time he forsook Christ,
was not filled with the gift of the Holy Ghost, which was not poured
upon the apostles until after Christ’s ascension, Acts 2:1–3; hence he
could easily come to this fall; but now, being filled with the Holy
Ghost,[54] it was quite otherwise, so much so, that he and his fellow
apostles feared no suffering, not even death itself. Compare Acts
4:19–21 with 5:40–42 and 12:3,4. Also 1 Pet. 3:14 and 4:16.
[54] Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you
into all truth. John 16:13.
Moreover, in Paul’s complaint to Timothy not a word is mentioned as to
Peter having forsaken him; which, had it happened, would certainly,
as a notable matter, not have been passed over in silence; more
especially, as he mentions some of those who forsook him, by name, as,
Demas, Alexander the coppersmith, etc.
_Third Argument._--When Paul was confined in prison at Rome, and bound
in chains, he commended Onesiphorus, because he had visited him, and
was not ashamed of his chain; without mentioning anything about others,
saying: “The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft
refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain. 2 Tim. 1:16.
But why does he not commend Peter as having visited him in his bonds?
or, if Peter was there and did not do so, but was ashamed of his chain,
why does he not complain, that so great a man, who ought to have had
been a leader unto others, was so negligent therein?
Doubtless, if Peter had been in the city at that time, and visited, or
not visited, him in prison, Paul would not have passed it over in utter
silence, without commending or complaining of it.
_Fourth Argument._--When many had departed from Paul, while he was
in prison, he made mention of one who had remained by, or with, him,
namely, in the city of Rome. He calls him Luke, and says: Only Luke is
with (or by) me. 2 Tim. 4:11. It follows, therefore, that at the time
when Paul wrote this, Peter was not at Rome, or it could not have been
that only Luke was with him.
_Fifth Argument._--A little further on from the above mentioned words,
Paul requests of Timothy, that when he came to him, he should bring
Mark with him, since the same would be very profitable to him for
his ministry, saying: Take Mark, and bring him with thee (when thou
comest): for he is profitable to me for the ministry. 2 Tim. 4:11.
Now, if Peter was in Rome at that time, why was Paul under the
necessity of sending for Mark for the ministry? or, if he was not
there, why did he not send for Peter? Certainly, if he had sent for
him, he would, unless prevented by some important cause, not have
refused to come: and then it could be concluded, _that Peter was there
a considerable time_, since, as we find, they both died considerable
time afterwards.
But it does not appear that Paul sent for him; hence, it cannot be
concluded, that he came in answer to his summons; and even if he
had come at that time, his stay there could not have lasted several
years, much less twenty-five years, as the papists say, since death
overtook him as well as Paul, as has been shown in its proper place.
The preparation, however, of this whole argument is unnecessary and
superfluous.
_Sixth Argument._--Paul wrote various epistles from his prison at
Rome to the believers; as to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, to Timothy, Philemon, etc., in which he puts various
salutations from believers of the church at Rome, as also, in the
beginning of the same makes mention sometimes of his fellow laborers;
but he never mentions Peter. We will show here the manner in which this
is done.
In the beginning of the epistle to the Philippians he writes these
words: Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ. Now, why does
he not add here: and Simon Peter?
Nearly in the same manner he commences the epistle to the Colossians,
saying: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and
Timotheus, our brother.” Why does he not add: and Peter, the chief
apostle?
In concluding these epistles he adds the salutations of the saints who
were with him. To the Philippians he writes: “All the saints salute you
... chiefly they that are of Cæsar’s household.” Phil. 4:21,22. To the
Colossians he addresses these words: “Epaphras, who is one of you, a
servant of Christ, saluteth you.” Col. 4:12. Also: Luke, the physician,
greets you. Verse 14.
Peter is not mentioned here at all, which, certainly, had he been
there, would have been highly necessary.
This same manner he followed in all the other epistles which he wrote
from Rome. To Timothy he says: “Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and
Linus, and Claudia.” 2 Tim. 4:21.
To Philemon: “There salute thee Epaphras ... Marcus, Aristarchus.”
Phil. 23,24.
There might be much said upon this subject, but it would all amount
to this: that it would be a strange thing, if Peter was at Rome, when
Paul wrote his epistles from the Roman prison, that the latter did
never mention in these epistles a salutation from Peter (which, as has
been shown, he did not); seeing he mentions salutations from different
leaders and members of the Roman church, whom he calls by name: hence
it is quite reasonable to conclude, that Peter was not there during
that time.
Besides the six arguments mentioned, proving that during the time
Paul was imprisoned under Nero, Peter was not at Rome, as far as the
testimony of Holy Scriptures go in regard to this, there follow various
circumstances showing (by like virtue of Holy Scripture), _that also
during the time Paul was out of prison, Peter was not to be found in
this city_.
_First Circumstance._--Here is to be considered, why Paul wrote an
epistle to the Roman church, as well for the confirmation of the
Christian faith, as for stirring up in the moral virtues (which epistle
is still in existence), if Peter was there at that time, and had the
charge of said church? or, if it was necessary for important reasons,
that he should write to them, why he did not send this epistle to Peter
as their leader, like he did to Timothy, the teacher of the Ephesian
church; and to Titus, the teacher of the church in the Island of Crete?
Or, at least, if we look at the contents of this epistle, we may well
consider, why he did not address a salutation to him, or once mention
him by name? seeing he filled nearly a whole chapter with the names
of those whom he salutes at Rome: as, Aquila with his wife Priscilla,
Epenetus and Mary, together with Andronicus, Junia, Amplias, Urbanus,
Apelles, Herodion, those of the household of Narcissus (the women),
Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas,
Patrobas, Philologus, Nereus, etc., Rom. 16 throughout; without
mentioning in any way whatever the person or name of Peter; from which
there may be concluded again with good reason, that which has been
concluded before from the account of the salutations which Paul wrote
while in prison at Rome, namely, _that Peter was not in this city at
that time_?
_Second Circumstance._--When it afterwards happened that Paul, having
traveled through Arabia and the country of Damascus, returned after
three years, with a particular desire to see Peter; he did not seek him
at Rome, but at Jerusalem; where, when he had found him, he abode with
him fifteen days; and then departed again into the regions of Syria and
Cilicia. Gal. 1:17–21.
_Third Circumstance._--When fourteen more years had elapsed, namely,
those spent by Paul in his Syrian and Cilician journey, where was Peter
to be found? Certainly not at Rome, but at Antioch; for there Paul came
to him, and rebuked him, because he had eaten with the Gentiles in the
presence of the Jews. Compare Gal. 2:1 with verses 11,12.
_Fourth Circumstance._--When some came down from Judea, and troubled
the brethren, saying that, unless they were circumcised after the
manner of Moses, they could not be saved; and Paul, Barnabas, and other
pious men were sent to the apostles and elders, to consult about the
matter; Peter as well as the others to whom they were sent, was found
at Jerusalem. Acts 15:1–7.
_Fifth Circumstance._--Gal. 2:7, we read, that the uncircumcision
(that is, the Gentiles) was committed to Paul, but the circumcision
(that is, the Jews or the Jewish nation) to Peter; also, verse 9, that
Peter (there called Cephas) together with James and John gave to Paul
and Barnabas the right hand and agreed, that these should go unto the
heathen, but they unto the circumcision (the Jews); namely, to preach
the Gospel unto them.
It is, therefore, a settled fact, that Peter was properly a teacher of
the Jews (after this agreement was made), and not of the Gentiles.
But if he had taught among the Romans, who were Gentiles by nature, he
would have gone altogether beyond his engagement and promise; which
certainly is not to be supposed of so great and eminent a man as Peter
was at that time.
_Sixth Circumstance._--From the two epistles of Peter, especially from
the words, 1 Pet. 1:1, it evidently appears, that he preached to the
strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and
Bithynia (namely those who were scattered there from the twelve tribes
of Israel, according to the statement of James, chap. 1:1); for which
preaching, since these countries are very far, some even a hundred and
more leagues apart, several years were required, in order to travel
through them; during which time Peter apparently could not be there and
at Rome at once; this is incontrovertible.
_Seventh Circumstance._--At the end of the first epistle of Peter,
namely 1 Pet. 5:13, are these words: “The church that is at Babylon,
elected ... saluteth you.”
How could Peter send a salutation from the church at Babylon, unless
he was with it in Babylon at that time? But if he was in Babylon, he
was not at Rome, unless he had two bodies; of which we do not read
anything, nor have we any reason to believe it.
_Eighth Circumstance._--Those who hold that Peter was bishop at Rome,
make no distinction between the words _apostle_, or messenger, and
_bishop_, or overseer; yet there always has been a marked difference
between the office of an apostle and that of a bishop.
The office of an apostle was to travel from one country to another,
yea, through the whole world, and preach the Gospel to those who had
not yet heard it; without being bound to any particular place or
church, as appears from Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15.
On the other hand, the office of a bishop or overseer was to watch
over, care for, feed and govern, as a shepherd his flock, a particular
church, unto which the Gospel had been already preached, and which had
accepted faith and the sign of holy baptism. Compare Acts 20:28 with 1
Tim. 3:1–5; Tit. 1:5–7.
Now, it is a fact, that properly not the latter, but the former office
was enjoined upon Peter, for he gives himself the first mentioned
name--apostle (see 1 Pet. 1:1 and 2 Pet. 1:1); for which purpose Christ
himself had chosen him, Luke 6:13,14, and sent him out, as can plainly
be seen in the last chapter of Matthew and of Mark.
How could it be then, that Peter sat as bishop of the church in the
city of Rome? and, what is still more--for a considerable number of
years! unless it be said that Peter abandoned his charge, and accepted
another office and ministry than the one to which he was called; which
it would be difficult to prove, since nothing is mentioned of it in
Holy Writ.
_Further Remarks on the foregoing circumstances_--If one should confine
himself solely to the testimony of the holy Scriptures, not accepting
anything else as worthy of belief, it could in no wise be shown that
Peter was ever at Rome; but, since the holy Scriptures do not relate
all that has happened, the testimony of some accepted authors of that
time may be recognized as credible, as far as their testimony is not
contrary to what is expressed in holy Scripture.
We have shown from the apostolic writings, that during the time Paul
wrote his epistles in the prison at Rome, and also during the whole
period that he (Peter) was preaching in foreign countries, Peter was
not in Rome, but in Jerusalem, Antioch, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,
and in other places where the Jews were scattered. This we have plainly
shown, first by six arguments, and then by eight circumstances, derived
from the holy Scriptures. But as to where Peter was, or how he died,
after Paul wrote his last epistle from Rome, the Scriptures are silent.
Hence the testimony of those writers whom we have just mentioned
cannot well be contradicted; who maintain, that Peter shortly before
his death came to Rome, and there laid down his life for the doctrine
of the Evangelical truth; without mentioning anything there about his
bishopric, much less, popedom.
DISCORDANCE OF PAPISTIC WRITERS. 1. WHETHER PETER WAS AT ROME. 2. HOW
LONG HE WAS BISHOP THERE. 3. WHO FOLLOWED HIM.
The common tenet of the papists is, that Peter sat as the chief bishop
upon the Roman throne; yet the authors whom they adduce for this
purpose greatly differ. For, as respects his arrival in that city, some
fix it in the year 41 after Christ; others in the beginning of the
reign of the Emperor Claudius; others in the second year of this same
Claudius; others in the fourth year; others in the beginning of the
reign of Nero; others in the fourteenth year after Paul’s conversion,
etc., as is noted in Ireneus, Orosius, Damasus, Hornantius, Th.
Aquinus, The Lives of the Saints, etc.
Concerning the length of time he was bishop, there is not less
disagreement; as also in regard to how long he was absent from his
bishopric sojourning in other places. Cortesius writes of eighteen
years, Onuphrius of seven years; but the general opinion among them is,
that he sat twenty-five years upon the chair governing their church;
although some flatly oppose it. See the last mentioned three authors.
Touching the person who succeeded him in his bishopric, there is much
confusion and uncertainty in what is said concerning this subject.
Some write, that Clemens succeeded Peter; as Septimus Florens Tert.;
others, that Linus followed him; as Ireneus, Eusebius, Epiphan., etc.,
_De Praes 32. 1. Contr. Jov._; others, that Linus discharged Peter’s
office two years before the death of the latter; as Damasus, etc.;
others, that Peter ordered that Clemens should succeed after the death
of Linus; _In Pontific_. _Petr. etc., Clem. in Epist. ad Jacobum,
etc._; others, that the chair of Peter was vacant while Linus and
Cletus lived, Clemens, who was ordained by Peter as his successor, not
being willing, as they say, to occupy the chair in their lifetime;
which is testified to by Bellarminus; others that Linus occupied the
chair eleven years after Peter’s death; see Eusebius; others, that
Linus died before Peter, and, consequently was not his successor in
the bishopric; see Turrianus, Sophronius, etc.; others, that Anacletus
succeeded Peter, and Clemens, Anacletus. See _Homil. de Agon. Pet. and
Paul. In Chron. in Anno Clem._; others, finally, that Peter and Linus
were bishops simultaneously in the city of Rome; yet so, that Peter was
the superior, and Linus, the inferior bishop. See Ruffinus, Sabellicus,
Turrianus, _In vita Petri_.
OF THE RISE OF THE POPES AFTER THE YEAR 606, AS ALSO OF THE
INTERRUPTION OF THE SUCCESSION OF THE SAME.
Besides, that in the first three centuries after the death of the
apostles, nothing was known in the Roman church, as regards rulers
of the same, but common bishops or overseers, until the time of
Constantine the Great, and from that time on to the year 600, only
archbishops and patriarchs, but no popes, till after the year 606,
when, by the power of the Emperor Phocas, the Roman Bishop Boniface
III. was declared and established the general head and supreme ruler
of the whole church;--the succession also of the following popes was
interrupted by many important occurrences, with respect to the manner
of the papal election as well as to the doctrine and the life of
the popes themselves, as also with regard to various circumstances
pertaining to these matters. Of this an account shall presently be
given.
NOTE.--Besides what we have mentioned in our account of holy baptism,
for the year 606, of the rise and establishment of the Roman pope,
there is also found, concerning the cause of the same (in the _Chronijk
van den Ondergang der Tyrannen_, edition of 1617, book VII., page
211, col. 2), this annotation: When the patriarch at Constantinople
reproved the Emperor Phocas for the shameful murder he had committed,
or would not consent to, or remit it, while the bishop of Rome
winked at, or excused this wicked deed, the Emperor Phocas, in his
displeasure, deprived the church of Constantinople of the title, _Head
of Christendom_, and, at the request of Boniface III., conferred it
upon the Roman church; which was done amidst great contentions, for the
eastern churches could not well consent to it, that the see of Rome
should be considered by everybody, and everywhere, as the head and the
supreme (of the) church. Compare this with _Platinae Reg. Pap. fol.
123; Fasc. Temp. fol. 122; Pol. Virgil, lib. 4. cap. 10; Hist. Georg.
lib. 4; Conrad. Oclutar. fol. 15; Tract, called, Ouden en Nieuwen Godt.
lib. 1; M. Zanchij Tract. Pap. fol. 41; Zeg. Chron. Rom. Pap. fol 132_.
OF THE ELECTION OF THE POPE; AND OF SUCH AS HAVE USURPED THE CHAIR.
In the introduction to the _Martyrs Mirror_ (edition of 1631, fol. 25,
26, 27) mention is made from Cardinal Baronius (we have looked into his
history, and found it to be so at the place referred to), of various
popes who ran of themselves, without lawful election or mission; and
also of some who usurped the chair, without the consent of the church,
merely by the power of princes and potentates.
Among the popes who, without lawful election or mission, ran of
themselves, are numbered Stephen VII., Christopher, and Sergius III.,
with whom it was as follows:
Stephen VII. expelled Boniface VI. by force from the Roman see, after
the death of Formosus; and afterwards committed an abominable deed on
the dead body of said Formosus, who was counted a lawful and good pope;
which deed the Cardinal C. Baronius describes from Luytprandus and
others as follows:
“In this same year was perpetrated the great wickedness which
Luytprandus and others relate, but incorrectly by Sergius; since
the acts of the aforementioned Synod under Pope John IX., to which
doubtless more credence is to be given, impute it to the then existing
pope, Stephen IX.
He caused the dead body of Formosus to be exhumed, and placed it on the
pope’s throne, dressed in all his papal robes; whereupon he upbraided
Formosus, as though he were alive, that he, through great ambition, had
come from the chair of Porto into that of Rome; anathematized him on
this account, had the dead body stripped of all the robes, as also the
three fingers with which Formosus according to custom used to ordain,
cut off from the same, and thus thrown into the Tiber. Besides this he
deposed all those who had been ordained by Formosus, and re-ordained
them; all of which he did from pure madness.” See _C. Baron. histor.
Eccl. Anno 897. num. 1. 2_.
After this the same Baronius relates of Christophorus, who also thrust
himself into the papal chair, the following:
“Further, in the following year of Christ ... in the tenth
indiction,[55] Pope Benedict died, and was buried in St. Peter’s
church. In his place succeeded Leo, the fifth of this name, a native
of Ardea, who held the chair only forty days, being expelled and
imprisoned after that by Christophorus, who himself occupied the chair
after him.” _Baron. Ann. 906. 907. num. 2._
[55] A cycle of fifteen years, instituted by Constantine the Great,
in connection with the payment of tribute, and afterwards made a
substitute for Olympiads in reckoning time. It was much used in the
ecclesiastical chronology of the middle ages, and is reckoned from
the year 313 as its origin.--_Webster’s Dictionary._
The aforementioned Christophorus, who had expelled his predecessor, Leo
V., from the chair, and taken possession of it himself, was, in his
turn, robbed of the occupancy of the chair by another, called Sergius
III., who was ambitious of the same dominion; which Sergius, although
he attained to the papal dignity, without being elected or called,
yea, more than that, was, according to the testimony of the papists
themselves, fearfully tyrannical and unchaste, is nevertheless recorded
with the aforementioned upon the Register of the legitimate popes of
Rome. See _Baron. Ann. 907. num. 2., Ann. 908. num. 3._
In the midst of this account this papistic writer declares, _that these
were the dreadful times when every self-constituted pope immediately
nullified that which his predecessor had made. Ann. 908. num. 2._
Confirmatory of this matter is also that which is adduced in the
“_Chronijk van den Ondergang_,” edition 1617, for the year 891, page
315. col. 1. 2. from the tract of “_Den Onpartijdigen Rechter_.”
If one will but consider, says this writer, the spiritual or
ecclesiastical perfidiousness and rebelliousness of the popes, he
will find in ancient history, that the Roman popes have at all times
quarreled and contended with one another for the papal chair.
Thus John XXIV., having come to Bononia with many soldiers, threatened
all the cardinals severely, if they would elect a pope who would not
please him. When many had been nominated to him, and he would assent
to none of them, he was finally requested to state whom he would elect
thereto. He replied: “Give me Peter’s robe, and I shall deliver it to
the future pope.” But, when that was done, he put the robe upon his own
shoulders, saying: “I am the pope.” And though this greatly displeased
the other cardinals, they were nevertheless compelled to acquiesce in
it.
In the same manner John XXII. elected himself pope when the election
was committed to him. See 9th book of the above mentioned chronicle,
for the year 891, at the place there referred to.