For his feparating from them, as unfit for converfe and communion with the Apostles of Chrift, and the believers from among the Jews, implied, that they were not acceptable in the fight of God, nor in the way of fal vation and that in order to be faved, it was needful for them to be circumcifed, and keep the law.

It was, as I fuppofe, foon after the Council, and the year 50. in which Peter came to Antioch. And I imagine, that he now first of all went abroad out of Judea into Gentil countreys. It is very likely that he was defirous to see the Chriftian people at Antioch. But hitherto he had been little used to converfe with Gentils. And when fomie zealous Jewish believers came to Antioch from Jerufalem, he was alarmed: recollecting, it is likely, how fome at Jerufalem had contended with him after he was come from Cefarea, because he had been with men uncire cumcifed, and did eat with them. Acts xi. 23. and very well knowing, from long and frequent experience, the prevailing temper of the people of his countrey. But it is reasonable to think, that Peter never more fhewed the like unsteadineдe, but was firm ever afterwards.

This is the laft time, that Peter is exprefsly mentioned in the New Teftament, excepting in his own epiftles, and i Cor. i. 12. and iii. 22. From which texts Pearfon concludes, that (t) St. Peter had been at Corinth, before St, Paul wrote his first epistle to the church there. But others think that (u) there were some at Corinth, who had heard Peter preach in Judea and fome, who had feen Peter in prifon. They who faid, I am of Cephas, or of Chrift, muft be fuppofed to have been Jews, either by descent or religion.

I do not think, thefe words can prove that Peter had been at Corinth, before Paul wrote this epiftle. At ch. iii. 6. St. Paul fays: I have planted. Apollos watered. He makes no mention of Peter's labours among the Corinthians. Peter may have been at Corinth afterwards, in his way to Rome. But I do not fee any proof from this epiftle of his having been there.

IV. We

17

impropriety of the ufe of the word, Judaizer, now very common among learned moderns, as denoting a man, who is for impofing Judaifm upon

others.

() At certiffimum eft, Petrum non minus quam Paulum Corinthi fuiffe, et quidem antequam S. Paulus primam epiftolam dedit ad Corinthios. Ita enim Apoftolus loquitur, 1 Cor. 1. 12. Unde colligitur, non minus Cepham, et Apollo, quam Paulum Corinthi fuiffe. Pearf. Op. Poft, Diff. i. cap. vii. P. 37

() Alii ergo Corinthi ab Apollo inftituti poft Pauli abitum, alii ab ipfo Paulo, alii qui ex Judaa venerant a Petro, fub illis nominibus, alia atque alia dogmata tradebant.,,. Ego autem Chrifti. Venerant enim ex Judæa quidam, qui ipfum Chriftum docentem audierant, Grot, ad 1 Cor. i, 12, Vid. et Witf. de Vita Pauli, fect. 7, num, xx. Miletem. p. 104. 105.

Sunt viri docti qui exiftimant, Petrum Apoftolum hoc anno Corinthum veniffe, dum in ea urbe etiamnum effet Apollos.... Sed propenfio in Petrum effe potuit, licet Corinthum pedem non intuliffet. Nihil enim vetat fuiffe Chriftianos Corinthi, qui cum Petrum in Judæa aut alibi audiviffent, magiftrum eum fuum dictitarent, et Paulo præferrent. Itaque iter hoc Petri nimis levi conjecturâ nititur. Cleric. H. E. ann. 55. num. v.

His Travels, and IV. We have no where any very diftinct account of the Time of his this Apoftle's travels. He might return to Judea, and coming to Rome. stay there a good while after having been at Antioch, at the time spoken of by St. Paul in the epiftle to the Galatians. However, I formerly quoted Epiphanius, faying, that (x) Peter was often in the countreys of Pontus, and Bithynia. And by Eufebius we are affured, that Origen in the third tome of his Expofition of the book of Genefis, writes to this purpose: "Peter (y) is fuppofed to have preached to the Jews "of the difperfion in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and "Afia. Who at length coming to Rome, was crucified with his "head downwards, himself having defired it might be in that manner." For the time of Peter's coming to Rome, no ancient writer is now more regarded by learned moderns, than Lactantius, or whoever is the author of the book Of the Deaths of Perfecutors. Who fays, that (≈) Peter came thither in the time of Nero. Infomuch that (a) Pagi affents to this account: and has fhewn it to be altogether improbable, that (b) St. Peter came thither in the time of Claudius. He likewife (c) obferves fome difficulties, which they are liable to, who fuppofe, that he first came to Rome in the reign of Claudius, and afterwards in the reign of Nero. But though Peter did not come to Rome before the reign of Nero, which began in the year of Chrift 54. we cannot fay exactly the time, when he came thither, as is alfo (d) acknowledged by the fame excellent chronologer.

However, it appears to me very probable, that St. Peter did not come to Rome before the year of Christ 63. or 64. nor till after St. Paul's departure thence, at the end of his two years imprisonment in that city.

The books of the New Teftament afford a very plaufible, and probable, if not a certain argument for it. After our Lord's afcenfion we find Peter with the rest of the Apoftles at Jerufalem. He and John were fent by the Apoftles from Jerufalem to Samaria, whence they returned to Jerufalem. When Paul came to Jerufalem three years after his converfion, he found Peter there. Upon occafion of the tranquillity of the churches in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, near the end of the reign of Caligula, Peter left Jerufalem, and vifited the churches in the feveral parts of that countrey, particularly, at Lydda, and Joppa, where he tarried

(x) Vol. viii. p. 310.

many

(γ) Πέτρος δὲ ἐν πόντῳ κεκηρυκέναι τοῖς ἐν διασπορᾶ ἰεδάτοις ἔοικεν. Ὃς καὶ ἐπὶ τέλει ἐν ρώμη γενόμενος, ανεσκολοπίσθη κατά κεφαλῆς, έτως αυτὸς ἀξιώσας abu. Eufeb. H. E. l. 3. cap. i.

(≈). . . et per annos xxv. ufque ad principium Neroniani imperii per omnes provincias et civitates Ecclefiæ fundamenta miferunt. Cumque jam Nero imperaret, Petius Romam advenit, et editis quibufdam miraculis, quæ virtute ipfius Dei, data fibi ab co poteflate, faciebat, convertit multos ad juftitiam, Deoque templum fd le ac ftabile collocavit. Quâ re ad Neronem delata et primus omnium perfecutus Dei fervos, Petrum craci adfixit, et Paulum interfecit. De Mort. Perfec. cap. 2.

(a) Critic. in Baron. ann. 43. num. iii. (b) Ibid. num. ii.

(c) Ibid. num. iii.

(d) cum verus ejus adventûs annus nos lateat. Id. ann. 54. num. ii.

many days. Thence he went to Cefarea by the fea-fide, where he preached to Cornelius, and his companie. Thence he returned to Jerufalem. And fome time afterwards he was imprisoned there by Herod Agrippa. This brings down the hiftorie of our Apoftle to the year 44. A few years after this he was prefent at the Council of Jerufalem. Nor is there any evidence, that he came, thither barely for that occafion. It is more probable, that he had not yet been out of Judea. Soon after that Council he was at Antioch, where he was reproved by St. Paul. The books of the New Teftament afford no light for determining, where Peter was for feveral years after that. But to me it appears not unlikely, that he returned in a fhort time to Judea from Antioch: and that he staid in Judea a good while, before he went thence any more. And it seems to me, that when he left Judea, he went again to Antioch the chief city of Syria. Thence he might go into other parts of the continent, particularly, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Afia, and Bithynia, which are exprefsly mentioned at the begining of his first epiftle. In those countreys he might stay a good while. It is very likely, that he did fo: and that he was well acquainted with the Chriftians there, to whom he afterwards wrote two epiftles.

When he left those parts, I think, he went to Rome: but not till after Paul had been in that city, and was gone from it. Several of St. Paul's epiftles furnish out a cogent argument of Peter's abfence from Rome for a confiderable space of time. St. Paul, in the last chapter of his epiftle to the Romans, writ, as we suppose, in the begining of the year 58. falutes many by name, without mentioning Peter. And the whole tenour of the epiftle makes it reasonable to think, that the Chriftians there had not yet had the benefit of that Apostle's prefence, and inftructions. During his two years confinement at Rome, which ended, as we fuppofe, in the fpring of the year 63. St. Paul wrote four, or five epiftles, thofe to the Ephefians, the fecond epiftle to Timothic, to the Philippians, the Coloffians, and Philemon: in none of which is any mention of Peter. Nor is any thing faid, or hinted, whence it can be concluded, that he had ever been there.

I think therefore, that Peter did not come to Rome before the year 63. or perhaps 64. And, as I fuppofe, he obtained the crown of martyrdom in the year 64. or 65. Confequently, St. Peter could not refide very long at Rome, before his death.

. It is very remarkable, that (4) Nicephorus, at the begining of the ninth centurie, in his Chronographie, computes St. Peter's epifcopate at Rome to have been of two years duration only. For that paffage I am indebted to (ƒ) Bafnage, whofe argument upon it I have placed below. Nicephorus,

(ε) Οι ἐν ρώμῃ ἐπισκοπέυσαντες ἀπὸ χρισῦ, καὶ τῶν ἀποτόλων ο Πέτρος ἀποςολο; ἔτη b.

Ap. Scalig. Thef. Temp. p. 308.

(f) Lactantius Eufebio paullo antiquior Petrum non Claudio quidem, fed Nerone imperante Romam venifle tradit. . . . Neque Lactantio propria chronologia hæc eft. In Nicephori enim Chronographia legimus: Qui Romæ epifcopatum gefferunt a Chrifto et Apoftolis. Petrus apoftolus annis duobus. Quibus

confequens

phorus, therefore, (and probably others like wife,) must have fuppofed, that Peter did not come to Rome, till near the end of his life.

As the foregoing is the moft likely account of St. Peter's travels, which I have been able to form; I do not fee any reason to believe, that he ever was in Chaldea. Cofmas, of Alexandria, who thought, that by (g) Babylon at the end of St. Peter's first epistle is meant Babylon in Perfia, muft have fuppofed, that this Apoftle was in that countrey. And learned men (b) who understand Babylon in the fame fenfe, take it for granted, that St. Peter travelled into that part of the world. But I do not perceive them to fupport their opinion by teftimonies of ancient writers. Which furely would have been of advantage to it.

And there are fome paffages of ancient authors, where it would be reasonable to expect an account of fuch a journey, if there had been in those times any knowledge of it, or well attested tradition about it.

Origen, in the paffage cited by (i) Eufebius, and already quoted by us likewife from him, fays; "Peter is faid to have preached to the Jews of the difperfion in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Afia. Who at length coming to Rome was crucified."

Eufebius, in his Chronical Canon, as published by Scaliger, fays, in the Greek, "that (4) Peter having founded the church in Antioch, went away "to Rome preaching the gospel."

..Jerome, in his book of Illuftrious Men, in like manner fays: "that (4) Peter having been at Antioch, and preached to the Jews of the dif perfion in Pontus, and the neighboring countreys, went to Rome." In another place Jerome fays: "that (m) Chrift was with the Apoftles in all the places whither they went. He was with Thomas in India, with Peter at Rome, with Paul in Illyricum, with Titus in Crete, with Andrew in Achaia." Why does he not alfo fay, that Chrift was with Peter in Babylon?

Ephraim

confequens eft, Petrum biennium circiter ante mortem iter in urbem direxiffe, Secus diuturniorem ei epifcopatum vindicaffet Nicephorus. Bafn, ann.

42. num. x.

(g) See vol. xi. 275.

(b)... Verum ego priorem fententiam tanquam longe verifimiliorem amplector, tum quod in Babylone Parthicâ magna effet Judæorum frequentia, qui arxμarorax fuum habuerunt: tum quod Petro Antiochia difcedenti facilior ac commodior cffet in hæc loca tranfitus, in quibus eum diu prædicaffe, nemo, opinor, facile negabit. Cav. H. L. in Petro. p. 6. Et Conf. Bafnag. Ann. 57. num. iii. et ann. 46. num,

(i) Vid. Euf. H. E. 1. 3. cap. i.

(4) Πέτρος ο κορυφαῖος τὴν ἐν αντιοχεία πρώτην θεμελιώσας ἐκκλησίαν εἰς ῥώμην έπεισε κηρύττων το ευαγγέλιον. Chr. Can. p. 204.

(4) Simon Petrus, ... princeps Apoftolorum, poft epifcopatum Antio chenfis ecclefiæ, et prædicationem difperfionis eorum, qui de circumcifione crediderant, in Ponto... fecundo Claudii Imperatoris anno, ad expugnau dum Simonem Magum, Romam pergit. De V. I. cap, i.

(m) Tom, iv, P.i. p. 167. ad Marcell. ep. 148.

Ephraim the Syrian fays, " that (n) Peter preached at Rome, John at Ephefus, Matthew in Palestine, and Thomas in the Indies."

Gregorie Nazianzen (o) fpeaks of Paul, as having for his province all the Gentils in general, Peter Judea, Luke Achaia, Andrew Epirus, John Ephefus, Thomas the Indies, and Mark Italie.

Why do none of these writers take in Babylon, or Perfia, or Chaldea, as the Apostle Peter's province?

Once more. Says Chryfoftom: "This (p) is one prerogative of our city, (Antioch,) that we had at the begining the chief of the Apoftles for our mafter. For it was fit, that the place, which was first honoured with the name of Chriftians, fhould have the chief of the Apoftles for its Paftour But though we had him for a mafter a while, we did not detain him, but refigned him to the royal city, Rome. Or rather, we have him ftill For though we have not his body, we have his faith." I might refer to other places of Chryfoftom, where he fpeaks of Peter's having been at Rome. But why does he not alfo mention Babylon?

. I therefore relye upon the account before given of St. Peter's travels, as most likely. And in particular I obférve, that we have not in an cient Chriftian writers any good affurance of his having ever been in Perfia, or Parthia. A learned writer of our time, who contends that he was there, and that his first epiftle was writ at the Affyrian Babylon, acknowledgeth, that (4) from that epiftle of S. Peter alone we have any affurance of his having been at Babylon.

V. In the hiftorie of St. Paul I have already fhewn it to be probable, that he and Peter fuffered martyrdom at Rome in 64. or 65.

The Time of his Death.

Cave (r) likewife, in his life of St. Peter, writ in English, in 1676. placeth the death of this Apoftle in 64. or 65. Nor was his mind much altered, when he publifhed his Hiftoria Literaria in 1688. For there

(n) See Val, ix. p. 211.

.

(a) Orat. 25. p. 438. A.

alfo

(β) Εν γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο πλεονέκτημα τῆς ἡμετέρε πόλεως, τὸ τῶν ἀποτόλων κορυ φαιον λαβεῖν ἐν ἀρχῇ διδάσκαλον. Ἀλλὰ . . . οὐκ εἰς τέλος κατέχομεν, αλα παρεχωρήσαμεν τῇ βασιλίδι ῥώμη. κ. λ. In Princip. Ad. Af. home 2. Το 3ο p. 70.

"Ap.

3.

(q) Supereft aliquid, quod ex hoc Petri loco difcamus. Primum igitur cognofcimus hic, quod aliunde non conftat, Babylone etiam fuiffe Petrum, magnamque ibi meffuiffe Chrifto mellem. Heumann. Nova Sylloge Diff. Part. 2. p. 113.

()"The date of his death is differently affigned by the ancients. . That which feems to me moft probable, is, that it was in the tenth of Ne10, or the year lxv. Which thus compute, Nero's burning of Rome is placed by Tacitus under the Confulfhip of C. Lucanus, and M. Licinius, about the month of July, that is, A. Ch. Ixiv. This act procured him the hatred and clamours of the people. Which having in vain endeavored feveral ways to remove and pacify, he at last refolved upon this project, to derive the odium upon the Chriftians. Whom therefore, both to appeafe the Gods, and please the people, he condemned as guilty of the fact, and caufed to be executed with all manner of acute and exquifite tortures. This perfecution began, as we may fuppofe, about the end of that, or the begining of the following year. And under this perfecution, I doubt not, it was, St. Peter fuffered, and changed earth for heaven." Cave's Life of St. Peter, fe&t. xi.