which can only admit of minute and elaborate disquisitions upon points directly and evidently within the declared scope of our publication. Whether Peter ever was at Rome, or not, or whether Paul was in Britain or not, there is no foundation for the pretence of the Bishop of Rome's being a successor of St. Peter in any way, much more as the Supreme Ruler of the church. Indeed our respectable correspondent admits the foundation to be fabulous as far as concerns the four and twenty years bishopric of St. Peter at Rome; which is in fact all that is necessary.

But we rather suspect that our excellent friend did not give us that full credit which he safely might have afforded, respecting our statement concerning the tract which we inserted; though we trust that he is now satisfied that it was really published anonymously at York four years ago : and is probably of a much older date. In fact, with the author of it, we can have no controversy, for he is, in all probability, gone to

"The undiscovered country from whose bouin

"No traveller returns."

And we deprecate the calling forth of any of our friends to descend into the arena, and combat, upon points which can hardly admit of a clear decision.

We are rather surprised that it has escaped the almost scrupulous industry of Lardner, or the accuracy of our very learned correspondent, that the fable, for such we consider it to be, of Peter's coming to Rome, "to oppose Simon Magus," is not a device of Isidore, in the year 596; but is to be found in Eusebius, E. H. L. ii. c. 14.

REMARKS ON THE FABULOUS FOUNDATION OF THE

POPEDOM.

To the Editor of the Protestant Advocate.

SIR, The elaborate controversial tract inserted in a foregoing number, (Vol. II. p. 510) maintaining the fabulous foundation of the Popedom, by shewing that it cannot be proved [from SCRIPTURE] that St. Peter was ever at Rome, and thence tacitly concluding, that St. Peter never was at Rome, and the story of his suffering death at Rome, an untruth ;" attempts to prove too much, and so far injures the sacred cause of truth. For even admitting that the apostle visited Rome, and suffered martyrdom there, the foundation of the papacy may still appear to be fabulous, if, as you justly observe, he never was bishop of Rome in the sense affixed to the word by our adversaries; nor bishop in any sense, which did not equally, or even more forcibly, apply to St. Paul; and certainly, not for so long a period, as four or five and twenty years. Wishing, therefore, to narrow the question of Peter's vaunted primacy at Rome, within its

just and proper limits, " amidst this interminable and never to be aban doned controversy," as you rightly style it, permit me, as your coadjutor, possessed of more leisure for such disquisitions, than falls to your lot, as Editor of a periodical publication, to correct some aberrations, and supply some deficiencies in the tract of your well-intentioned, but rather over-zealous correspondent.

Admitting that "it does not appear from SCRIPTURE, that St. Peter was ever at Rome," why does this tract neglect the aid of ecclesiastical history, in a point about which Scripture is silent? Especially, if it can be proved that the positive testimony of the fact, is perfectly reconcileable with his scriptural travels. This, I shall endeavour to shew, by the most authentic, and unexceptionable testimonies of the early fathers of the Greek and Latin church, taken principally from the valuable collections of Lardner, (last edit. 11 vols. 8vo. 1789, Johnson, London,) to which I refer the reader.

1. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, A. D. 170, in his epistle to the Ro mans, writes thus: "You have joined together the plantation of the Roman and Corinthian [churches] made by Peter and Paul. For they both, coming to our city of Corinth, planted and taught us. And in like manner, going together to Italy, they taught, and suffered martyrdom there, about the same time. Lardner, vol. 11. p. 135. This is perfectly conformable to St. Paul's account, that Cephas or Peler visited Corinth, and made converts there. 1 Cor. i. 12, iii. 22.

2 Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, A. D. 178, relates, that "the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, having preached the Gospel in Rome, and founded the church, committed the administration of the episcopacy to Linus." Bishop Burgess's Letter to the Clergy of St. David's, p. 9, 10, 8vo.

1812.

3. Tertullian, of Carthage, A. D 200, speaks thus of the church of Rome. "How happy is that church to which the apostles delivered the whole Evangelical doctrine, along with their blood! where Peter suffered the same death with our Lord; where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist]." Lardner, 11, p. 268.

4. Caius, a presbyter of the church of Rome, A. D. 212, thus speaks of their tombs: "I am able to shew the trophies of the apostles: for whether you go to the Vatican, or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of the founders of this church." Lardner, 11, p. 374.-Peter

was buried in the Vatican: Paul, in the Ostian way.

5. Origen, the most learned of the Greek fathers, A. D. 230, says that "Peter, after having preached to the Jewish converts of the dispersion in Pontus, came, at last, to Rome, and was there crucified with

his head downwards; for so he counted himself worthy to suffer." Lardner, VI, p. 541.

6. Lactantius, a Latin father of note, A. D. 306, says that Peter came to Rome in the reign of Nero, wrought many miracles, and converted many to the faith. Where, Nero, first of all [the Roman emperors] persecuted the servants of God; he crucified Peter, and slew Paul [with the sword]. Lardner, VI. p. 541.

7. Eusebius, bishop of Casarea, A. D. 315, the learned ecclesiastical historian, says that "Peter, the prince of the apostles, having founded the first [Gentile] church at Antioch, went from thence to Rome, preaching the Gospel." Lardner, VI. p. 544.

8. Ephrem the Syrian, A. D. 370, says that "the apostles allotted to themselves distinct provinces; Simon [Peter] taught at Rome; John at Ephesus; Matthew in Palestine; and Thomas in the regions of India." Lardner, IV. p. 437.

9. Jerom, that oracle of the Romish church, who spent three years at Rome as secretary to Pope Damasus, A. D. 382-385, writes, that " Simon Peter, prince of the apostles, after his episcopate of the church of Antioch, and preaching to the believers of the circumcision dispersed in Pontus, &c. proceeded to Rome, in the second year of the emperor Claudius,* (A. D. 41,) to oppose Simon Magus." Lardner, VI. p. 544. That "Paul was sent bound to Rome, where Festus, who succeeded Felix, was procurator of Judea, in the second year of Nero* (A. D. 55,) that is, the five and twentieth year after our Lord's passion (A. D. 31 + 24 = A. D. 55.) And that in the fourteenth year of Nero* (A. D. 67), being the seven and thirtieth year after the passion A. D. 31 +36 = A. D 67.) Paul was beheaded at Rome, for the name of Christ, on the same day with Peter, and was buried in the Ostian way." Lardner, V. 45, 46. And elsewhere Jerom says, CHRIST was with Thomas in India; with Peter at Rome; with Paul in Illyricum; with Titus in Crete; with Andrew in Achaia." Lardner, VI. p. 544.

These dates of Jerom are all incorrect, and have misled many of his followers, both Romish and Protestant, down to the present day. Peter could not possibly have visited Rome so early as A. D. 41, because he was then at Antioch as will be shewn. Paul could not have visited Rome so early as A. D. 55; because he was then employed on his third circuit in the upper regions of Asia Minor. Act. xviii. 23, xix. i. And because Festus was not procurator of Judea, sooner than A. D. 61; as proved from Josephus and Tacitus, Hale's New Analysis, Vol. II. p. 1111–1113. Niws s Pal beheaded so late as A. D. 67, because Nero's persecution, (probably commencin, with the death of these apostles) is fixed by Tacitus to the year A.D. 65. See New Analysis, Vol. II. p. 1141.

1

10. Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, A. D. 398, says, "this is one prerogative of our city (Antioch) that we had, at first, the prince of the apostles for our teacher, for it was fit that the place first honoured with the name of Christians, (Acts xi. 26,) should have the prince of the apostles for its pastor, but though we had him awhile as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but resigned him to imperial Rome. Of rather, we have him still; for though we have not his body, we have his faith. Lardner, VI, p. 544.

11. Theodoret, a Syrian bishop and ecclesiastical writer, A. D. 423, says, that "Nero put to death two of the principal legislators among the Christians, but was not able to extinguish their laws." Lardner, V. p. 201.

12. Isidore, bishop of Seville in Spain, A. D. 596, in his Chronicle, says, that “In the reign of Claudius, the apostle Peter went to Rome to oppose Simon Magus," but afterwards, he refers it to the reign of Nero, by whose order, Peter was crucified, and Paul beheaded." Lardner, V. 309.

13. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, A. D. 806, in his Chronography, reclaims that Peter was bishop of Rome two years only. Lardner, VI. p. 543.

These ancient testimonies of the principal ecclesiastical writers both of the Greek and Latin churches, seem abundantly sufficient to establish the fact of Peter's having visited Rome, and suffered martyrdom there. If so, it is impossible that he could have suffered at Jerusalem, as the tract states, .upon insufficient grounds: for surely, our Lord's indefinite prediction, that "the Jews should kill and crucify some of his prophets, wise men, and teachers," Matt. 23, 34, did not specify Peter; and the further testimony of Jerom, is expressly against it, as we have seen; and that of Lyra, as you remark, does not determine the place of Peter's martyrdom. Is this the way" to prove all things ?"

Equally unfounded are St. Peter's supposed visits to Alexandria, and Babylon. The alleged authority of Nicephorus, for the former, is of no weight, unsupported by more ancient testimony. But, "there is not," says Lardner," in early antiquity, any intimation that the apostle Peler was at all at Alexandria, or in any part of Egypt." Lardner, VI. p. 573. And the supposed evidence of the latter, from the conclusion of St. Peter's first epistle, dated from Babylon, 1 Peter, V, 13, is invalidated by the total silence of ecclesiastical history, respecting this apostle's going either to Babylon in Mesopotamia, or to Babylon in Egypt. Whence it was the prevailing opinion of the earlier Greek and Latin fathers, Papias, Eusebius, Jerom, Ecumenius, Cosmas, Bede, &c. that the word BabyVOL. III. [Prot. Adv. Oct. 1814.] E

lon, is here taken rather in a mystical sense, as denoting Rome, which so strongly resembled ancient Babylon, in her " abominations, her idolatries, of and persecutions of the saints;" and this is corroborated by the usage the Apocalypse, in which the mystical application is unquestionable, Rev. xiv. 8; xvi. 19; xviii. 2, &c. John borrowing it from Peter; or both, by inspiration, from Isaiab's prophecy of the ancient Babylon, xxi. 9. And this derives further confirmation from the bearer of St. Peter's first epistle to Pontus, namely " Silvanus the faithful brother," verse 12; or Silas the faithful companion of St. Paul in his travels,* and who might naturally have been sent by these apostles from Rome, shortly before their decease, to "water" or confirm the churches of Asia Minor, and of the dispersion in Pontus, &c. which both had contributed" to plant," or found.

And that the labours of these apostles were confined to the Roman empire at that time, we may further collect from Cosmas of Alexandria, A. D. 535, who states that the apostle Thaddeus or Jude, preached the Gospel, soon after, in Persia. Lardner, V. p. 272.

II. The imaginary travels of St. Peter being now excluded, it remains to trace his real travels.

For the first twelve years after the foundation of the primitive church on the day of Pentecost,† the apostles remained at Jerusalem; and Peter, in particular, was employed in visiting the home district of Judea and Samaria. In this, all agree.

The second Jewish persecution of the church, A. D. 44, was directed principally against the Apostles. In this, James the elder was slain, and Peter imprisoned, by King Herod Agrippa, which compelled them in general to leave his dominions. At this time Peter, after his miraculous deliverance from prison, quitted Jerusalem, and went to another place, Acts, xii. 1-17. This place, say the Popish writers, was Rome; but from the foregoing testimonies of Eusebius, Jerom, and Chrysostom, it appears to have been Antioch, the metropolis of Syria, where he met Paul and Barnabas, and was rebuked by the former for his dissimulation.* Gal. ii. 12-21. Here he remained, probably, till the first coun

* Silas was the amanuensis of St. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, and joins in the salutation to the saints there, under the name of Tertius. Rom. xvi. 22, for his Hebrew name, w, signifies Tertius.

+ The received date of the passion, A. D. 33, adopted in this tract, is incorrect. A. D. 31, is adopted by Jerom, as we have seen, and proved to be more correct, in Hales's New Analysis of Chronology, Vol. I. p. 166, 167, 205.

* See Hales's New Anvlysis, Vol. II. p. 1219, where (as with most of the commentators) it is shewn that Peter must have visited Antioch at this time, rather than after the council in A. D. 49.