« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Bishop Pearson has argued from this place, that * Peter and Paul did not die by order of Nero himself, but by order of the prefects of the city, when Nero was absent, and, particularly, on Feb. 22, in the year of Christ 68, and the last year of Nero. And he says, that" the Greek word, which I have rendered governors or magistrates, never denotes the emperor, but only the prefects of the city or of the provinces. But Pearson was very unhappy in that observation. For Nero was at Rome in the beginning of the year 68. Pagi" and Basnage * have shown, that whereas Nero was absent from Rome almost two years, the greatest part of 66, and 67, he arrived at Rome from Greece in bo. ber 67. And the word, which I have rendered ‘governors,’ is often used, not only for prefects, but also for kings and emperors, or other supreme magistrates. Of " which I place several instances in the margin. However both the noun and the verb are general words, and are used concerning governors supreme and subordinate. As is apparent from that well known text, Luke iii. I, “Now * in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea.” As the words are well rendered in our version. But, literally, they might be translated in this manner. “Now in the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea.” As for the words being in the plural number, it is no uncommon thing to prefer that to the singular, when we are obliged to be cautious, and intend, as I suppose Clement did, to speak in a general way. In short, Clement shows, that Peter and Paul had died by martyrdom, and not in a tumult of the people, but by order of the magistrate, meaning the emperor, though he is not named. So that I must take the liberty to say, that Pearson’s observation, that Peter and Paul were put to death, not by Nero, but by the prefects of Rome, or some other great officer, in the absence of the emperor, appears to be of no value. And it is destitute of all authority from history. For we shall see as we proceed, that the death of these two apostles is continually ascribed to Nero by all who speak distinctly about it. One thing more I must take notice of. From these passages of Clement it has been argued, that Peter never was at Rome, in this manner. ‘Clemens Romanus, (who was personally acquainted with the apostles, and knew very ‘well where they travelled,) writes a letter from Rome to * Corinth, and mentions St. Paul’s travelling very far to “spread the gospel : but in the same section, though he “mentions St. Peter's sufferings and martyrdom, yet he “says nothing of his travelling much, nor one word of his “ever having been at Rome.’ Upon which I beg leave to observe, first. It seems to me that Clement says, Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom at Rome, for speaking of the “great multitude of the elect, * who had been an excellent example of patience among “ them,” meaning the Romans, he says, “they É were joined ‘...to' or with ‘the good apostles, before mentioned. Therefore the apostles had suffered in the same place. Certainly Clement, who wrote this, did not think that Peter died at Babylon in Mesopotamia, and Paul at Rome in Italy. Secondly. The reason why Clement so particularly mentions St. Paul's travels, probably, was, because the extent of his preaching was very remarkable. And it is likely, that Clement refers to Rom. xv. 19. Thirdly, his omitting to
* S. Paulus (cum Petro) ultimo Neronis anno martyrium fecit. Factum autem id est sub Praefectis in urbe, ut testatur Clemens Romanus, absente scilicet Nerone, Februarii die 22. Ann. Paulin. p. 25. A. D. 68.
* Quod si Roman diserte non expresserit, Neronem certe multo minus delineavit. Dicit enim Paulum situ rov joyspsvov.––Neque enim #yausvos Imperatore, in provinciis praesertim, Praesidum loca sub variis nominibus obtinebant. Neque haec vox tantum in provinciis solennis fuit, sed etiam Romão—Tales erant Roma, ultimo Neronis anno, duo Praefecti Praetorio, Tigellines et Sabinus, et cum summâ potestate Helius. De Succession. prim. Romae Episcop. Diss. i. cap. 8. sect. ix.
* Amn. 67. num. ii. ° Ann. 66. num. vi. et 67, n. v.
* 1 Kings xv. 13, it is said of Asa, “And also Maachah his mother he removed from being queen.” In the LXX. it is thus: Kat rmy ava ruv pumrspa šavre usresno's re um swat #yspsumv. 2 Chron. vii. 18. When God appeared to Solomon, he said, “Then will I establish the throne of thy kingdom. There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel.” Ovc séapónasra, got myspevoc avmp sv IapamA. 2 Chr. ix. 26, “And he reigned over all the kings from the river.” Kat my #yapeyoc travrov row 6agiXsov atro ra Torage. When St. Matth. ch. ii. 6, quotes the words of the prophet Micah: “Out of thee shall come a governor, myspsvoc, that shall rule my people Israel:” he does not mean a governor of inferior rank, but the Messiah himself. I shall add only a like instance or two from Josephus, and from a Greek classic, though many might be mentioned—psypt erec Śwóskate rmv Nepovoc hyspiovuag. Joseph. Ant. l. 20. Cap. X. Sect. ult. n. 2.—ówóskarp pev erst trig Nepowog joysuovuag. De B. I. l. 2. cap. 14, n. 4.—tov Tpeogvrepov avrov atroësićat ‘Papawv hyspiova. Dion. Hal. l. 4. cap. 4, p. 202. ed. Hudson. * Everet Ös trèvrekatēskarq, rmg flyepovac Togepts Kato apoc, hypovsvovrog IIovris IIlkara rmg Isèataç.
* See Dr. Benson's Preface to St. Peter's first epistle, sect. iii. p. 157 second edition. * Tsroug—--ovvmépoto 6m troAv trànflog skAskrajy.
speak of Peter's travels is mot a demial of his having travelled a great deal. Nor does it imply that he had not been at Rome. St. Paul must have béeii twice in the west, and at Rome, if he suffered martyrdom there. But Clement does not say so, though he knew it very well. As did the Corinthians likewise. But when we speak or write of things well known (as these things were at that time) there is no need to be very particular. It was sufficient if C!ement mentioned such things as would render his exhortations effectual. I shall now transcribe below h some like observations of Pearsom, in his confutation of Salmasius. Upom the whole, I cannot but think that these passages of Clement bear a testimony to the martyrdoms both of Peter and Paul, and that at Rome, which cannot be evaded. Ignatius, about 108, writing to the Romams says, * I * do * not command you, as Peter and Paul. They were apos* thes. I am a condemned persom.' Ignatius must have supposed that the christians at Rome had been instructed by Peter, as well as by Paul. The observations of * Pearson, and ' Barratier, upon this place, which I put below, appear very just. The preaching of Peter, or of Peter and Paul, quoted
* Denique manifestum est, nihil hic a Clemente de Urbe vel de Imperatore diserte et expressim dictum e$$e, quia a Romanis ad Corinthios scripsit, qui hæc omnia, non minus quam ipse, noverunt. Imo Clemens mentionem loci non fecit, non quia ipse ignorabat, sed quia illi cognoverunt. Nam si ignorâsset quo in loco, quâ in regione, aut quâ in orbis parte, mortuus est Petrus, quomodo asserere potuit, eum martyrio coronatum fuisse? Proculdubio hæc loci omissio non ex ignorantiâ cujuspiam, aut scriptoris alterius, sed ex certissimâ omnium, ad quos spectabat hæc epistola, tum Romanorum, tum Corinthiorum, aliorumque fidelium cognitione et exploratâ scientiâ quæ ulteriorem expositionem minime requirebat. Ac tamdem argumentum hoc negativum ex Clemente productum, non eorum sed mostrùm est. Clemens optime novit, et ubi, et quomodo passus est S. Petrus. Idem etiam bene moverunt tum Romani, tum Corinthii. Aliter eos eâ de re certiores fecisset Clemens. Pearson. de Success. prim. Romæ Episc. Diss. i. cap. 8. sect. ix.
' Ovx' ἀc IIετρος και IIav\oc διarao oopav ίμιν. Ekεινοι atroso\ov, syω katakpuroc. Ad Rom. cap. 4.
* Quid enim ex his verbis ad Romanos scriptis apertius, quam sanctissimum martyrem in eâ sententiâ fuisse, quod Petrus, non minus quam Paulus, Romæ evangelium prædicavit, et passus sit? Pearson, ib. cap. 7. n. ii.
' Ignatius, Romanis scribens, negat se ipsis, tamquam Petrum et Paulum, præcipere velle. Cur Petrum et Paulum unâ nominat, misi quod uterque Romæ fuerit ? Cur Petrum, si cum Romanis nullum nexum habuerit? Si enim Romæ non fuerit, cum Romanis non scripserit, nil magis cum iis commune habebat, vel iis præceperat, quam Jacobus, vel Judas, vel Joannes. Manifestum est, Ignatium Romanum Petri iter novisse. Barrat. ubi supr. num. iii. p. 5.
by several ancient writers, (as has been shown in this work.) though not as a book of authority, composed " about the middle of the second century, or sooner, makes mention of Peter's being at Rome in this manner, as cited by Lactantius. “After " his resurrection Christ opened to his disci‘ples all things that should come to pass, which things ‘Peter and Paul preached at Rome.’ And what fo!lows. There * is another large quotation of this book in the author of Rebaptizing, written about 256, where it is supposed that Peter and Paul were together at Rome. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, about 170, in a letter to the church of Rome, inscribed to Soter their bishop, as cited by Eusebius, takes notice, ‘that P Peter and Paul ‘going to Italy, taught there, and suffered martyrdom ‘ about the same time.” Irenaeus, about 178, speaks of the church of Rome, ‘‘ as ‘ founded and established by the two great apostles Peter ‘ and Paul.” In another place he says, “that Matthew ‘wrote his gospel whilst Peter and Paul were preaching at * Rome, and establishing the church there.” Irenaeus, who was as likely to know as most, had no doubt about these things. And some of his arguments with heretics are partly built upon them ; well knowing that they could not be contested, and that they were generally allowed. According to Clement of Alexandria, who flourished about the year 194, St. Mark’s gospel" was written at the desire of St. Peter's hearers at Rome. Tertullian, about the year 200, and after, often speaks
* See Vol. ii. p. 255, note ". " Sedet futura aperuit illis omnia, quae Petrus et Paulus Roma prædicaverunt. Et ea prædicatio in memoriam scripta permansit. Lactant. Inst. l. 4. cap. 21. p. 422. * See Vol. iii. p. 70. P Opowg, Ös kat sig Ira)\lav Špoo's 6tóašavreg spaprupmoav kara row avrov kaupov. Ap. Euseb. l. 2. cap. 25. p. 68. The same passage is largely quoted, Vol. ii. p. 135. * Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones: maximae, et antiquissimae, et omnibus cognitae, a gloriosissimis apostolis, Petro et Paulo, Romão formatae et constitutae ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab apostolis traditionem, et annuntiatam omnibus fidem, &c. Adv. Haer. l. 3. cap. 3. * Adv. Haer. l. 3. cap. 1. et ap. Euseb. 1. 5. cap. 8. * Vid. Euseb. H. E. l. 2. cap. 15. et lib. VI. cap. 14, and of this work, Vol. ii. p. 224. * Si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Romam. Ista quam felix ecclesia, cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunts Ubi Petrus passioni Dominicae adaequatur; ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronatur. De Praeser. Haer. cap. 36. p. 245. Nec quidquam refert inter eos, quos Joannes in Jordane, et quos Petrus in Tiberi tinzit. De Baptism. cap. 4. p. 257. Videamus quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauserint.—Quid etiam Romani de
of Peter being at Rome, and teaching thére, and suffering martyrdom there, together with Pau!, or about the same time. Caius, about 212, observes, that " in his time were to be seen at Rome the tombs of the apostles Peter and Paul, who had established that church. Origen, about 230, as cited by Eusebius, says, that " Peter I having preached in Pontus, Galatia, and other places, at length came to Rome, where he was crucified. Cyprian " at Carthage about 248, and afterwards, always supposeth the church of Rome to have been established by Peter. So* likewise does Firmilian in Cappadocia, in his letter written in 258. Lactantius y about 306, in his Institutions, ascribes the death of Peter and Paul to Nero at Rome. The same Lactantius, or whoever is the author of the book of the Deaths of Persecutors, is very clear, that ? in the reign of Nero, Peter came to Tome, and that by his order Peter was crucified, and Paul also put to death. Eusebius, both in his Demonstration, and in his Ecclesiastical History, bears witness to the same things. Not now to insist on his Chronicle. In the former,* he says,
proximo sonent, quibus evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque suo signatum reliquerunt. Adv. Marciom l. 4. cap. 5. p. 505. B. Orientem fidem Romæ primus Nero cruentavit. Tunc Petrus ab altero cingitur, quum cruci adstringitur. Tunc Paulus civitatis Romanæ consequitur nativitatem, quum illic martyrii renascitur generositate. Scorpiac. cap. 15.
" Factus est autem Cornelius episcopus de Dei et Christi ejus judicio— cum nemo ante se factus esset, cum Fabiani locus, id est, cum locus Petri, et gradus cathedræ sacerdotalis vacaret. Cypriam. ad Antoniam. ep. 55. p. 104. Post ista adhuc insuper pseudo-episcopo sibi ab hæreticis constituto, navigare audent, et ad Petri cathedram, atque ecclesiam principalem—a schismaticis et profanis literas ferre—Cypriam. Cornelio. ep. 59. p. 135. Oxon. 1682. * Atque ego in hac parte juste indignor ad hanc tam apertam et manifestam Stephani stultitiam, quod qui sic de episcopatùs sui loco gloriatur, et se successiónem Petri tenere contendit—multas alias petras inducat. Stephanus, qui per successionem cathedram Petri haberese prædicat, mullo adversus hæreticos zelo excitatur. Firmilian. ep. Cyprian. 75. p. 225. > Itaque post illorum obitum, cum eos Nero interemisset, Judæorum nomen et gentem Vespasianus exstinxit, fecitque omnia quæ illi futura prædixerant. Institut. l. 4. cap. 21. p. 423. * Cumque jam Nero imperaret, Petrus Romam advenit.—et convertit multos ad justitiam——Quâ re ad Neronem delatâ——et primus ómnium persecutus Dei servos, Petrum cruci adfixit, et Paulum interfecit. De Mort. Persec. cap. 2. * Kat [Iετρος δε ετι 'Pwpung kara ke%a\n< savparat, IIav\oc δε αττοτεμνετaι. Dem. Ev. l. 3. p. 116. C.