with Eusebius as to the time and the occasion of Peter's going to Rome; and most of them make Peter to be the first bishop of Rome. According to them, Peter remained in Judea only about four years after the ascension; then he was bishop of Antioch seven years, and in the second year of Claudius, A. D. 43, removed his chair to Rome, where he was bishop for twenty-five years, or until his death, A. D. 68. And this is the account generally given by the papists, quite down to the present times.
OBJECTIONS TO THE TRADITIONARY HISTORY OF PETER.
1. So far as the later fathers contradict those of the three first centuries,
they ought to be rejected; because, they could not have so good means of information.
Oral tradition must, in three centuries, have become worthless,
compared with what it was in the second and third centuries;—and written
testimony, which could be relied on, they had none, except that of the early
fathers. Besides, we have seen how these later fathers were led astray. They
believed the fable of Simon Magus's legerdemain at Rome, and his deification
there. They read the Clementine fictions, and supposed them to be novels
founded on facts. In their eulogies of Peter, they were fond of relating marvelous
and affecting stories about him, and therefore too readily admitted fabulous
traditions. And lastly, the bishops of Rome and their numerous adherents
had a direct and an immense interest depending on this traditional history;—for
by it alone, they made out their succession to the chair of Peter, and
the legitimacy of their ghostly power.
2. The later fathers invalidate their own testimony, by stating what is incredible, and what neither they nor their modern adherents can satisfactorily explain. They state that Linus succeeded Peter, for about twelve years; then followed Cletus or Anacletus, for about twelve years more; and then succeeded Clement. And yet they tell us, all the three were ordained by the hands of Peter How could this be? Did Peter ordain three successive bishops, after he was dead?—or did he resign his office to these bishops, and retire to a private station, more than twenty-five years before his crucifixion? No, says Epiphanius, (Haer. 27,) and after him most of the modern papists; (Nat. Alex. H. E. saecul. I. Diss. XIII. Burius, &c.) but Peter being often absent from Rome, and having a vast weight of cares, had assistant bishops; and Linus and Cletus were not the successors but the assistants of Peter. But Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, and all the authorized catalogues of popes, explicitly make Linus and Cletus to be successors to Peter. Besides, why did Peter need an assistant any more than the succeeding pontiffs? And what age since has ever witnessed an assistant pope at Rome? A more plausible solution (but which the papists cannot admit) is given by Rufinus. (Praef. ad Recogn. Clem.) "As I understand it," says he, "Linus and Cletus were the bishops of Rome in Peter's life-time; so that they performed the episcopal functions, and he, those of an apostle. And, in this way the whole may be true," says Rufinus. Granted, if this were the only objection; and if it could be made out that Peter went to Rome full twenty-four years before his martyrdom. But supposing it true, how can the successors of Linus and Cletus, the bishops, be successors of Peter, the apostle.
3. Peter removed his chair to Rome, (say the later fathers and most of the Catholics,) in the second year of Claudius, that is, A. D. 43; and he resided there twenty-four years, or till his death. But we have the best proof,—that of holy writ,—that Peter was resident at Jerusalem, as late as the year A. D. 44; when king Agrippa seized him there, and imprisoned him, with intent to kill him. (Acts xii. 3-19.) And we have similar proof that he was still there in the year 51; when he deliberated and acted with the other apostles and brethren of Jerusalem, on the question of obliging Gentiles to observe the law of Moses. (Acts xv. 7, &c.; Gal, ii. 1-9.) And, moreover, some time after this, as Paul tells us, (Gal. ii. 11-14,) he came to Antioch, in Syria, and there dissembled about eating with the Gentiles. The common reply of the Cath-
