Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

those parts of the Law which were abandoned, and bound those which were reserved." Hence the power of loosing and binding, committed to Peter, had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers; he had only to forgive seventy-fold sins against himself. In his book against heretics (chap. 22), Tertullian makes this allusion to Peter: "Men ask, Was anything withheld from Peter, who had the keys of knowledge? To John, who leaned on his breast, Jesus told what he did not to Peter." The heretics made an objection that Paul rebuked Peter because he was to be blamed. "They should show (chap. 23) that he added another form of the gospel to that which Peter and the other apostles had previously set forth." But he went to consult them, and they gave to him the right hand of fellowship. Peter's "fault was one of conduct, not of teaching." Again he says (chap. 24), "I will put in as defence for Peter, that Paul became all things to all men;" and Peter might have censured Paul for circumcising Timothy. "It is a happy fact that Peter is on the same level with Paul in the glory of martyrdom." Describing afterwards Peter's martyrdom, he says (chap. 36), "Peter, in suffering, was like to his Lord; Paul was crowned with the death of John." In his book against Marcion (book v. chap. 3), Tertullian repeats his view of Paul's statement to the Galatians; and, alluding to the "false brethren unawares brought in," he says: "Let us attend to the clear sense and the reason of the thing, and the perversion of the Scripture will be apparent." Then showing that the case of Titus is one unlike to that of Timothy, and that Paul's duty at Jerusalem, where he paid his vow in the temple, was unlike to his obligation as a gospel herald among Greeks, he adds that the circumstances demand this interpretation: "Paul censures Peter solely because of his inconsistency in the matter of eating, and not for any perverse opinion." This view, he continues, is confirmed by Paul's added statement, "seeing man is not justified," etc. Again, and more fully (Contr. Marc. iv. 3), Tertullian says:

Marcion finding the epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he censures even apostles for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, as well as accusing certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labors very hard to destroy the character of those gospels which are published as genuine. But, indeed, if Paul censures Peter, James and John, who were thought to be pillars, it is for a manifest reason. They seemed to be changing their associations from respect to persons. And yet, as Paul himself became all things to all men, that he might gain all, it was possible that Peter might have betaken himself to the same plan of practicing somewhat differently from what he taught.

It is important here to observe that even the shrewdness of Marcion was compelled to discriminate between a true teacher practicing contrary to his teaching, and a false teacher; a distinction most marked in Paul's epistle to the Galatians. It is also to be remarked that Tertullian approaches, though he does not fully present, the contradiction seen in Peter.

Some years ago, Christian scholars were favored to gain fresh means to aid in the defense of Christian truth, by the recovering of yet another of those ancient testimonials which Providence seems to bring to light just when needed. In the long-lost works of the bishop of Cappadocia, martyred under Maximinus A. D. 235, in his treatise on "The Twelve Apostles," Hippolytus thus writes: "Peter preached the gospel in Pontus and Galatia, Cappadocia, Betavia, Italy and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by Nero, in Rome, with his head downwards, as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner." By Betavia is probably meant Bithynia, which had other local names, as Bebricia, familiar, doubtless, to Hippolytus, as a resident of Asia Minor; while "Asia" is, as in Luke's narrative, the Asia of the Greek colonists, who used the term as the English now employ the designations, America and India. As Hippolytus was a permanent resident of Cappadocia, he could have received his information only from the original source of native tradition, the foundation of all authentic history.

Another principal witness is heard, in the same age, from Africa. Clement of Alexandria, in Egypt-a man of varied learning, whose works so aided Champollion in his Egyptian studies, that they won him to the study and acknowledgment of the Christian faithClement, about A. D. 230, thus characterizes the conjugal spirit of Peter, manifested first during the life, and then at the death of his wife. Strom. iii. "Peter and Philip had children, and both led about with them their wives, who acted as their coadjutors in ministering to women at their own homes. By their means the doctrine of the Lord penetrated without scandal into the privacy of women's apartments." No thoughtful mind can fail to observe how like light from another world such facts as to the great apostle appear; indicating that the plan of modern mission labor is apostolic, and that Peter, instead of a potentate seated at Rome, was a self-denying travelling preacher. Of the closing scenes of the life of Peter's wife, Clement records:

They relate that the blessed Peter, seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home; and that he called very encouragingly and comfortingly to her, addressing her by name, and saying, "Remember thou the Lord." Such was the marriage of the

blessed, and their true attachment towards those dearest to them. Thus also the apostle says, "that he who marries should be as though he married not;" deeming his marriage free from all sensuous desire, and inseparable from love to the Lord, to which love the true husband so clings even on her departure out of the world.

It is easy to recall many an illustration of this "true attachment of the blessed" in the missionary history of our own day. Clement's testimony as to Peter's relation to Mark's Gospel is met in the citations of Eusebius.

Another added testimony is found in Cyprian, a man of towering intellect, converted late in life, and bishop of Carthage from A. D. 248 to 258, when he was made a martyr. Meeting the spirit of envy at Rome, turned upon him because of his success, the Carthaginian bishop thus reasons (Epistle lxx. 3):

For Peter, whom the Lord first chose, and upon whom he built his church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, did not insolently claim anything to himself, nor arrogantly assume any pre-eminence. He did not reply that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices, and those who had come in lately to the church. He did not despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the church, but he admitted the counsel of truth, and easily yielded to the legitimate reason which Paul urged, and thus he set an example for future times. . . . Likewise, too, Paul seeks concord in the church, when he writes (1 Cor. xiv. 29-33), "Let the prophets speak two or three," etc.

No more faithful or well-founded remonstrance against the abuse of Peter's name, has been heard in the ages of Protestantism.

Passing now to the next century, we meet again two limited and two extended testimonies, filling up the ancient record of fact and opinion as to Peter's history, and his relation to the Church of Rome.

In a fragment of his works, Ambrose-who about A. D. 370, established at Milan, in Northern Italy, a form of worship, including hymns, prayers, and Scripture readings in the vernacular tongue, which no influence from Rome has, down to this day, been able to change-Ambrose cites the facts as to Peter's martyrdom at Rome; while he denies that he or the bishops of Rome had any supreme authority. Epiphanius, again, bishop of Cyprus, born A. D. 310 and living to A. D. 403, uses this expression (Haer. xxvii. 6): “At Rome, Peter and Paul were the first apostles and bishops." It is worthy of note that the apostles are united, and that up to this age no prefix of the term "saint" was used, even in allusion to the apostles.

At the opening of the fourth century, when Constantine, A. D. 321, came to the throne as a Christian emperor, there was a demand

for a thorough examination and collation of all the scattered records pertaining to the history of the church; just such in its nature as has prompted Macaulay and Grahame to review and digest the history of England and of the American Colonies during the same period of time, two and a half centuries, since which the two countries really began their distinctive history and mission. At that era in Christian history, Eusebius, born at the Roman capital of Judea, a thorough scholar and high in influence with the emperor at Constantinople, undertook the work of preparing a complete history of the church from the apostolic age to his own time. He reviews and cites most of the authorities already quoted. His statements as to Peter relate to his first visit to Rome under Claudius, his subsequent ministry in Asia Minor as the missionary to the circumcision alone, his second visit to Rome and special relation to Mark and his gospel, his own epistles and the place of their composition, and his martyrdom under Nero. These statements are scattered through different chapters of his second and third books, but may be readily collated.

Eusebius writes (B. III, c. 14): "In the reign of Claudius, the benign and loving providence of God brought Peter, that valiant and great apostle, in courage chief of all the rest, to Rome;" and then he mentions the subtle influence of Simon the Magian and the triumph of gospel truth over Asiatic artifice. As to his subsequent ministry, Eusebius says (B. III, c. 1): "Peter, as is apparent, preached to the Jews scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Bythinia, Cappadocia and Asia." Again he writes (B. III, c. 4): "In what provinces Peter, preaching the gospel of Christ to those of the circumcision, delivered to them the doctrine of the new covenant, is apparent from his own words in that epistle... which he wrote for the Jews that were scattered abroad throughout Pontus," etc. Of Peter's subsequent influence at Rome, Eusebius relates as follows B. III, c. 15):

So great a fervor of piety illumined the minds of the hearers of Peter that they... were not content to have received the publication of the doctrine of the celestial revelation by word of mouth and unwritten. Therefore they earnestly entreated Mark, Peter's follower, whose gospel is at this day extant, that he would leave with them some written record of that doctrine which they had heard. Neither did they desist till they had prevailed with the man. And thus they gave the occasion of the writing of that gospel which is now called the gospel according to Mark. When the apostle Peter understood by the Holy Ghost what was done he was much delighted with the ardent desire of the men; and confirmed that writing by his authority, so that thenceforward it should be read in the churches.

Eusebius cites both Papias (B. III, c. 39) and Clement (B. III, c. 15) as authority for this statement; and adds, "Furthermore, Peter mentions Mark in his first epistle." Twice Eusebius (B. II, c. 25, and B. III, c. 1) refers to Peter's last day. Of Nero he says, "Thus this man, declared to be the first and chief enemy to God, set upon slaughtering the apostles. In his time, indeed, it is related that Paul was beheaded at Rome and also Peter was crucified, . . . . with his head downwards; for so he desired to suffer." He cites both Dionysius and Origen as authority for this statement; and adds, "The names of Peter and Paul, remaining unto this day on their sepulchres, confirm this history." Of Peter's first epistle, Eusebius says (B. III, c. 15): "This they relate was written at Rome. Peter himself doth intimate thus much; calling Rome in symbol 'Babylon' in these words, 'The church which is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Mark, my son.' Finally, Eusebius mentions thus the succession of bishops at Rome: "After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was elected to the bishopric of the Roman Church. Paul, writing from Rome, makes mention of him at the end of the epistle to Timothy, saying, 'Eubulus greets thee; also Pudens, and Linus and Claudia.''

In these historical statements respecting Peter, several facts indicating the estimate generally held of him and of his relation to the Christian Church by Oriental writers, before the Roman Church had claimed supreme authority, are important in the discussions of our times. To the mass of the Christian Church in Constantine's day, Peter was esteemed "chief" among the apostles, specially in the virtue of "courage." His mission after the council was understood to be limited to the "Jews;" Eusebius, evidently with design, three times mentioning in successive sentences this as his special mission, while, as if to make the statement more pointed, he affirms that he was called to make known "the doctrine of the new covenant to those of the circumcision." Yet again, Peter's epistles were understood to be adapted to the "Jewish Christians;" while the bishops of Rome, instead of being successors of Peter, begin with a special co-worker with Paul. Finally, his allusion to the confirmation which Peter's epistles gives as to Mark's gospel, throws new light on Peter's expression (2 Pet. i. 15), "Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance;" whose comprehensive statement, as well as its future designation, is felt by many others than Eusebius to have a reference to records more complete than this second epistle affords.

The last writer of the early ages is Jerome; a thorough Roman,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »