SHEWN TO BE A HISTORICAL FACT: WITH A DISSERTATION OF THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY OF THE SYMBOL BY J. H. BROWN, M.A., RECTOR OF MIDDLETON-IN-TEESDALE. Oxford & London : J. H. AND JAS. PARKER. 1861. 100. b. 82. SYNOPSIS. OPENING of the Argument.-Eusebius' (wrote A.D. 315) account of St. Peter's coming to Rome.-Justin wrote A.D. 140.-Irenæus wrote A.D. 178.-What Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 194) says on the subject. -Papias wrote A.D. 116.-Eusebius states the time when St. Peter came to Rome.-Eusebius and Irenæus differ as to the time when St. Mark's Gospel was written.-A brief view of Eusebius' statement.-Jerome wrote A.D. 392.-Sophronius wrote A.D. 390.-Theodore wrote A.D. 394.Valesius shews Justin to be deceived about Simon Magus' coming to Rome.—The Acts of the Apostles examined, as to the support they give to the evidence of Eusebius.-The First Epistle of St. Peter examined in reference to this question.-The Epistles of St. Paul examined in reference to this question.-Pearson and Lardner's statement, that St. Peter went to Rome, examined.-Pearson says St. Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome.-Quotes Clement of Rome as his authority.-What Clement asserts in the passage quoted.-Pearson's manner of dealing with Clement's evidence.-How Clement speaks of the two Apostles, SS. Paul and Peter. The necessary inference to be drawn from his language.— Lardner supposes that St. Peter suffered at Rome.-How the Second Epistle to Timothy influences the determination of this question.— Lardner's statements shewn to be incorrect.-He finds evidence in Clement's Epistle that Peter suffered in Rome.—The passage on which he relies.-Lardner's misinterpretation of the passage corrected.—The other writers whom he quotes all rely upon Eusebius.-Lardner discredits his own witnesses,-and relies on the statement of Lactantius alone, (who wrote A.D. 306).-Pearson's idea that Peter and Paul were the first Bishops of Rome.-Eusebius and Irenæus do not support this idea.-They do not speak of the Apostles as Bishops.Pearson's mistake about Hyginus being ninth Bishop.-An error in the text of Irenæus.-Pearson adopts that error.-Pearson claims Epiphanius, (wrote A.D. 368,) as proving the two Apostles to have been first Bishops of Rome.-What Epiphanius means.-How Valesius understands Epiphanius. - Pearson's argument, drawn from Irenæus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, shewn to be groundless.-Pearson mistranslates a passage of Hegesippus, (wrote A.D. 173).—The object for which he refers to this author.- Pearson quotes Dionysius of Corinth, (wrote A.D. 170).—The value of his authority.-Result of the examination of Pearson's authorities.-Bishop Bull's estimate of the value of the evidence of Eusebius and of Clement.-The importance and force of Bp. Bull's judgment.-All great authorities are against St. Peter's being in Rome in the reign of Claudius.-Barrow quoted.— Summing up of the historical argument.-Eusebius' account of the personal character of St. Peter. It accounts for his pre-eminence amongst the Apostles.-St. Peter's position yielded to him by his brethren, rather than given him by our Lord.-St. Chrysostom's testimony on this point.-Reason for the position which the Epistle to the Romans occupies amongst the Epistles.-St. Paul commanded by our Lord to bear witness of Him in Rome.-How Rome became the chief city of the Catholic Church.-A short and concluding summary of the argument. PETER THE APOSTLE NEVER AT ROME A HISTORICAL FACT. THE HE title of the 14th chapter of the 2nd book of Eusebius is "Concerning the Preaching of the Apostle Peter at Rome." The subject of the preceding chapter is "Concerning Simon Magus," Tepi Ziuwvos TOû μáyov, 'of Simon the magician.' The whole subject is thus introduced in this 13th Opening of chapter:-"The faith in our Saviour and the Argument. Lord Jesus Christ having now been delivered to all men, the enemy of the salvation of men contriving to take possession firstly of (or devising preEusebius' viously to occupy) the imperial city, leads account of St. here Simon who has before been spoken of, to Rome. and combining with the præstigiatory acts of the man, draws over many of those inhabiting Rome to the error. Justin truly shews this, who (wroteA.D.315) Peter's coming Justin wrote was not long after the apostles, plainly declaring it in the work (i. e. his Apology) which we now have. In the 1st of the Apologies to Antoninus, he writing, says thus :-'And after the ascension of our Lord into heaven, the dæmons sent forth certain men, saying that themselves were gods, which men were not only not persecuted by you, but were even esteemed worthy of honours, as Simon a certain Samaritan from the B |
