Page:Readings in European History Vol 1.djvu/532

 496 Readings in European History Improba- bility of the current tradition of Peter's episcopate. many conflicts with Simon Magus, and at the same time stoutly withstood emperors and their ministers in the cause of the faith. Finally, according to the same story, both were decapitated at the same time for confessing Christ, and slept in the Lord, thus consecrating the Roman Church in Christ. It is most astonishing, however, that neither St. Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, nor St. Paul, makes any mention of St. Peter. Moreover the last chapter of Acts makes it very probable that St. Peter had not arrived in Rome before them. For when Paul addressed the Jews upon his arrival, in explaining the reason for his coming to Rome, he said, among other things, " But when the Jews spake against it [his liberation] I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar." And they said unto him, " We neither received letters out of Jerusalem concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest : for as concerning this sect [of the Christians] we know that every where it is spoken against." I would that any one anxious for the truth, and not bent upon mere discussion, should tell me if it be probable that St. Peter had preceded Paul in Rome and yet had made no proclamation of Christ's faith, which the Jews, in speaking to Paul, call a " sect." Moreover would not Paul, in reprov- ing them for their incredulity, have spoken of Peter had he been there preaching, and ha^e called as a witness one who, according to the third chapter of Acts, beheld Christ's resur- rection? Then, from what has been said, who could suppose that Paul could spend two years in Rome and still have no intercourse or communication with St. Peter ? And if he had, why did the author of Acts make absolutely no men- tion of the fact? In other less important towns, when Paul came upon Peter he makes mention of him and associated with him, for example, in Corinth (i Cor. iii), and in Antioch (Gal. ii), and so in other places. Why does he say nothing of Peter if he found him in Rome, the most cele- brated of all cities, where, according to the story mentioned above, Peter was conspicuous as bishop ?