him as soon as might be convenient. While in these circumstances, or as others say, before he was imprisoned, he was earnestly exhorted by the disciples in Rome, to make his escape. He accordingly, though very desirous of being killed, (a most abominably irreligious wish, by the way,) began to move off, one dark night; but had hardly got beyond the walls of the city,—indeed he was just passing out of the gate-way,—when, whom should he meet but Jesus Christ himself, coming towards Rome. Peter asked, with some reasonable surprise, "Lord! where are you going?" Christ answered, "I am coming to Rome, to be crucified again." Peter at once took this as a hint that he ought to have stayed, and that Christ meant to be crucified again in the crucifixion of his apostle. He accordingly turned right about, and went back into the city, where, having given to the wondering brethren an account of the reasons of his return, he was immediately seized, and was crucified, to the glory of God. Now it is a sufficient answer to this or any similar fable, to judge the blasphemous inventor out of his own mouth, and out of the instructions given by Christ himself to his servants, for their conduct, in all cases where they were threatened with persecution, as above quoted.
Referring to his being bound to the cross.—Tertullian seems to have first suggested
this rather whimsical interpretation:—"Tunc Petrus ab altero cingitur, quum cruci
adstringitur." (Tertull. Scorpiac. 15.) There seems to be more rhyme than reason
in the sentence, however.
The rejection of this forced interpretation is by no means a new notion. The critical Tremellius long ago maintained that the verse had no reference whatever to a prophecy of Peter's crucifixion, though he probably had no idea of denying that Peter did actually die by crucifixion. Among more modern commentators too, the prince of critics, Kuinoel, with whom are quoted Semler, Gurlitt and Schott, utterly deny that a fair construction of the original will allow any prophetical idea to be based on it. The critical testimony of these great commentators on the true and just force of the words, is of the very highest value; because all received the tale of Peter's crucifixion as true, having never examined the authority of the tradition, and not one of them pretended to deny that he really was crucified. But in spite of this pre-conceived erroneous historical notion, their nice sense of what was grammatically and critically just, would not allow them to pervert the passage to the support of this long-established view; and they therefore pronounce it as merely expressive of the helplessness and imbecility of extreme old age, with which they make every word coincide. But Bloomfield, entirely carried away with the tide of antique authorities, is "surprised that so many recent commentators should deny that crucifixion is here alluded to, though they acknowledge that Peter suffered crucifixion." Now this last circumstance might well occasion surprise, as it certainly did in me, when I found what mighty names had so disinterestedly supported the interpretation which I had with fear and trembling adopted, in obedience to my own long-established, unaided convictions; but my surprise was of a decidedly agreeable sort.
The inventors of fables go on to give us the minute particulars
of Peter's death, and especially note the circumstance that he
was crucified with his head downwards and his feet uppermost,
he himself having desired that it might be done in that manner,
