It appears next to a certainty that Peter was not at Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle in 57 or
58, for he sends no salutation to Peter: — And also that he had not been there previous to that time;
for it is wholly unreasonable to suppose, that, had he been there, Paul would have made no reference
to his labours. It further amounts almost to a certainty, that Peter was not at Rome when Paul was
for two years a prisoner there, from 61 to 63; for he makes no mention of him in any way, not even
in the four or five Epistles which he wrote during that time: And that Peter was not at Rome during
Paul’s last imprisonment in 65 and 66, is evident from the second Epistle to Timothy; for he makes
no mention of Peter, and what he says of Christians there, that they “all forsook him,” would have
been highly discreditable to Peter, if he was there. So that we have the strongest reasons to conclude,
that Peter had no part in forming and establishing a Church in Rome during Paul’s life, whatever
share in the work he might have had afterwards.^7 But the first tradition, or the first account, given
by Irenœus and Tertullian, refers only to a co-operation: and yet this co-operation is wholly
inconsistent with what has been stated, the force of which no reasonable man can resist.
The learned Pareus proceeds in a different way to prove that Peter was never at Rome. He shows
from different parts of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians, that Peter was in
Judea at the time when tradition declares that he was at Rome. Peter was in Judea when Paul was
converted, Acts 9; and three years after this — that is, in the year 38, Galatians 1:8. He was in
Judea in the year 45, when he was imprisoned by Herod, Acts 12, and in 49, fourteen years after
Paul’s conversion, Acts 15, Galatians 2:1-9. Had he been to Rome during this time, some account
of such a journey must surely have been given. After this time we find that he was at Antioch,
Galatians 2:11. If it be asked, where did he afterwards exercise his ministry? Where more likely
than among the Jews, as he had hitherto most clearly done; for he was the Apostle of the
Circumcision, and among those to whom he sent his Epistles. The dating of the first at “Babylon,”
has led some to conjecture that it was a figurative term for Rome; but why not for Jerusalem, or
for Antioch? for Christians were at that time treated everywhere like captives or aliens, and especially
in the land of Judea.
What then are we to say as to this tradition? The same, according to the just remark of Pareus,
as what we must say of many other traditions of that age, that it is nothing but a fable, which, like
many others, would have passed away, had it not been allied to a growing superstition. With respect
to what Eusebius says of the testimony of a presbyter, named Caius, that about the beginning of
the third century he saw the graves of Peter and Paul at Rome, it may be easily accounted for: it
was the age of pious fraud, when the relics of saints could be found almost everywhere; and, in the
next century, the wood and the nails of the Cross were discovered! Those who can believe these
things, may have a credulity large enough to swallow up the testimony of Caius.^8
of Linus;” and it is said in what are called the Apostolic Constitutions, that “Linus was ordained bishop by Paul, and Clement
after the death of Linus by Peter.” — see Dr. Barrow on the Pope’s Supremacy, pages 127-129.(^7) But this cannot be admitted, as the same informant, Tradition, tells us, that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom at the same
time. The only thing which Peter appears to have had to do in forming and founding a church at Rome, was to have been the
instrument in the conversion, at the day of Pentecost, of those who in all probability were the first who introduced the gospel
into Rome: and it is probable that it was this circumstance which occasioned the tradition, that he had been the founder of that
church. Less occasion has often produced tales of this kind.
(^8) Let it not be supposed, that by discrediting some things, we discredit every thing said by the Fathers. They ought to be
treated as all other historians. What we find on examination to be unfounded, ought to be so viewed: and what we have every
reason to believe to be true, ought to be so received. Even such a man as Dr. Lardner seemed unwilling to reject this tale, from
fear of lessening the credit of history; evidently mistaking the ground on which history has a title to credit. The many authorities