Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/728

 696 PETER back into the 1st century, and into the personal relations between the two apostles, the violent controversies between the catholic and the Jewish parties which came to a head in the 2d century, they framed a romance of which Peter was the hero, and in which, under the mask of Simon Magus, Paul played the part of the &quot; false apostle.&quot; The romance in its original form has perished ; its substance is partly preserved and partly recast in the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, of which the former exist in their original Greek, the latter in an incomplete Latin translation. In course of time, the original identity of Paul with Simon Magus was forgotten, and in the later forms of the legend (see the Acts of Peter and Paul below) Peter and Paul are joined together in the combat with the pretender. But in almost all later patristic accounts of Peter Simon Magus has an important place ; he is said to have gone to Rome in the time of Claudius, and Peter is said to have at once followed him in 42 A.D. ; hence, as Peter lived until the Neronian persecution in 67 there was room for an episcopate of twenty -five years. This last tradition can hardly be reconciled with the facts mentioned in the New Testament of his presence at Jerusalem and at Antioch (Acts xv. ; Gal. ii.) ; but Lipsius has endeavoured to show, not only that single points in the story must be given up, but that the whole tradition of the presence of Peter at Rome is a fiction which grew out of the Judseo- Christian attack upon Paul. The probabilities of the case are evenly balanced ; on the one hand it is difficult to account for the complete silence as to Peter in the Pauline epistles, and it is impos sible with those epistles in sight to regard Peter as the founder of the Roman community ; on the other hand, it is difficult to suppose that so large a body of tradition had no foundation in fact ; such a supposition, besides its general improbability, would assume that the extreme form of Judieo-Christianity which the Clementines reflect had a much greater influence over the conceptions of the 2d century than the evidence warrants. 1 1 The question whether Peter was ever at Rome has been so much discussed that the following list of the chief treatises and articles on either side will be convenient for reference ; it is not exhaustive. The question was at first discussed as one between Protestants and Catholics. The earliest treatise on the Protestant side is probably that of Ulrich Vehlen (Velenus) in his Demonstratio contra Romani papse primatiis figmentum, 1520, reprinted by M. Flacius Illyricus in his Refutatio invectives Bruni contra centurias historise ecclesiastics!, p. 86 ; it was answered at the time by Bishop Fisher of Rochester in his Convulsio calumniarum Aldrichi Veleni, reprinted in his works, ed. Wurzburg, 1597, p. 1299. The most complete account of the older arguments on the Lutheran side is that of Spanheim, Dissertatio de ficta profectione Petri Apostoli in urban Romam deque non una traditionis origine, 1679, reprinted in his works, Leyden ed., 1703, vol. ii. p. 331. In modern times the question has been discussed chiefly on literary grounds and without reference to its bearing on the Roman controversy. Jt was first stated on the negative side by Baur in the TvHringen Zeit- schrift far Theologie, 1831, p. 136, and in his Paulus, E. T., vol. i. p. 228. His most important follower has been Lipsius, whose two works, the L hronologie der romisclien Bischofe, Kiel, 1869, and Die Quttten der rijmischen Petrus - Sage, Kiel, 1872, are of great value apart from the results which they endeavour to establish ; he also deals with the question more concisely in the Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol., 1876, p. 561. On the same side are Mayerhoff, llistorisch-kritische Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften, Hamburg, 1835; Gundert, in iheJahrbb.f. deutsche Theol, 1869, p. 306 ; Holtzman, s.v. &quot;Petrus,&quot; in Schenkel s Bibellexicon ; Hausrath, NTliche Zeitgeschichte, vol. iii. p. 344 ; Zeller, in the Deutsche Rundschau, 1875, p. 215 (reprinted in his Vortriige u. AbJiandlungen, 2te Samml., 1877), and in the Z. f. wissensch. Tlieol, 1876, p. 31. The truth of the early tradition has leen maintained in opposition to these writers by Credner, Einleitung in das .V. T., 1836, p. 628; Olshausen, Rwnerbr., 1840, p. 40 ; Wieseler, Chronologic des apost. Zeitalters, 1 848, p. 552 ; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, vol. vi. p. 616 ; Hilgenfeld, in his Z. f. wissensch, Theol., 1872 p. 372, 1876 p. 57 (in answer to the article of Zeller in the same number mentioned above), 1877 p. 486 (in answer to the article of Lipsius mentioned above); Delitzsch, in Stud, und Krit., 1874, p. 213; lieuan, L Antechrist, p. 186, and appendix; Seyerlen, Entstehunj It would be inappropriate to enter in the present article into the causes and consequences of the enormous influence which the belief that Peter founded and presided over the first Christian community at Rome lias exercised upon Christianity. It was no doubt natural, considering that influence, that curiosity should bo largely exercised as to the details of his life and death at Rome, and that legends of respectable antiquity should express themselves in visible memorials. Modern Rome contains many such memorials. The chapel of S. Pietro in Carcere preserves the tradition that he was imprisoned in the Tullianum, and that a spring of water issued from the ground that he might baptize his gaolers. The churches of S. Prassede and S. Pudcnziana preserve the tradition that much of the later part of his life at Rome was spent in the house of Pudens on the Viminal Hill. The latest localization of a legend has built a church outside the old Porta Capena to mark the spot where, when he was fleeing from persecution, he met his Master going into Rome. &quot; Lord, whither goest Thou ? &quot; (Domine, quo vadis ? ) was his question. &quot; I go to Rome to be crucified again &quot; was his Mas ter s answer. - Besides these visible memorials of Petrine legends there are four annual feasts. (1) On 29th June is celebrated the Feast of St Peter and St Paul. The day is supposed to be that of their martyrdom ; it is in reality that of the ruburial of their supposed remains in 258, which is recorded in the Kalendarium Libcrianum of 354 (printed by Mommsen in the AbJumdlungcn der konigl. sacks. Gescllschaft, pliil. -hist. Classe, 1850, p. 362). Those of Peter were then reburied &quot;ad catacumbas,&quot; i.e., in the ceme tery of St Sebastian on the Appian Way ; they were afterwards said to have been transferred to the basilica which Constantino erected on the Vatican. (2) On 22d February is celebrated a feast in commemoration of Peter as bishop of Antioch (Festum Cathcdrx Pctri AntiochciiK), which also is mentioned as early as the Kalcnd. Libcrianum, (3) On 18th January has been celebrated since the 8th century a feast in commemoration of his bishopric of Rome. (4) On 1st August has been celebrated since the 9th century a feast in commemoration of his imprisonment (Festum S. Petri ad Vincula], but whether of that by Herod which is mentioned in Acts xii., or of that by Nero, is uncertain. Besides the two canonical epistles (sec PKTEI;, EPISTLES OF) the following works have either been (erroneously) attributed to him or bear closely upon his history. 1. The Gospel according to Peter. Euscbius (//. E., vi. 12, 2-6) mentions that the public use of this Gospel was at one time allowed, but afterwards disallowed on the ground of its Docetism, by Sera- pion, the successor of Theophilus in the bishopric of Antioch (191- 213). It is mentioned by Origen (Horn, in Matt., x. 17, vol. iii. p. 462), by Jerome (De Vir. Ilhistr., c. 1), and by Theodoret (H&rct. Fab., ii. 2). Hilgenfeld (Nov. Test, extra canon, rcc., fasc. iv. p. 39) thinks that it held a middle place between the Gospel according to the Hebrcics and the Gospel of the Ebionites. Xo certain fragments of it remain. 2. The Preaching of Peter (Htrpov Kripvy/j.a} ; and 3. The Journeys of Peter (Ittrpov irfpiodoi).- These two works are mentioned together in the Epistle to James which is prefixed to tho Clementine Recognitions ; the former appears to have been Judreo- Christian ; the latter was an attack on Paul under the guise of Simon Magus. Both works underlie the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies ; the patristic references to them will be found in Hilgen feld, I.e., p. 52, and Einlcitung, pp. 42, 155, 580, 613. 4. TJie Preaching of Peter and Paul. This, in distinction from the preceding, belongs to the period at which Pauline and Petrine tendencies had become combined. The fragments of it and refer ences to it are collected by Hilgenfeld, I.e., p. 56. 5. The Acts of Peter and Paul. The history of this work is obscure ; in its present form (as printed by Tischcndorf, Acta Apos- toJorum Apocrypha, pp. 1-39) it is probably a late recasting of an earlier work or works. Of such earlier work or works there aro traces which arc collected by Hilgenfeld, I.e., p. 66 ; in addition to these it has been thought that the Martyr turn Pctri ct Pauli of Symeon Metaphrastes contains part of the original Acts of Peter ; but the section of the great work of Lipsius, Die apok. Apostelgesch. u. Apmtellcg., which will probably unravel the present literary difficulties of these Acts has not yet (1884) appeared. 6. The Apocalypse of Peter. This is mentioned as a deutero- canonical book in the Muratorian Fragment, by Clement of Alex andria (an. Euseb., H. E., vi. 14, 1), and by Ensebins (//. E., iii. 25, 4). Methodius of Tyre placed it &quot; among the inspired Scriptures &quot; (Sympos., ii. 6), and Sozomen (//. E., vii. 19) says that in some churches of Palestine it was publicly road once a year. A few short underste Schicksale der Christengemeindezu Rom, 1874, p. 51 ; Schmid, Petrus in Rom, Lucerne, 1879 (which is a convenient summary of earlier literature and arguments rather than an independent contribution to the subject) ; Langen, Geschichte der romischen Kirche, 1881, p. 40 ; Siefiert, in Herzog-Plitt, R. E., s.v. &quot;Petrus.&quot; The story is first found in a sermon sometimes attributed to St Ambrose and printed in some editions of his works, e.g., ed. Paris, 1603, vol. v. p. 100.