Various Arguments from the Holy Scriptures

In this demonstration we will set aside the method used by Sebastian Frank, Gysius, and others, who have written syllogistically on this subject, and will confine ourselves entirely to the express testimony of (or at least plain inferences from) Holy Scripture, on which we intend to found our arguments.

Reason. First Argument. When Paul drew near the city of Rome, where he was to be arraigned before Caesar, the brothers* came out of the city to meet him, as far as Appii Forum and the Three Taverns; and when Paul saw them, he took courage. Acts 28, verse 15. But among these Peter is not once mentioned, which would undoubtedly have been the case had he been with them and occupied the episcopal throne at that place, as is claimed. [n71-1]

Second Argument. When it happened that Paul was to give an account before the emperor for the first time, he was forsaken by all, and no one stood with him, so that he complained of it to Timothy. Second Timothy 4, verse 16. Now, if Peter had been at Rome, he certainly would not have forsaken Paul, whom he used to call his beloved brother, Second Peter 3, verse 15, but would have stood by him with counsel and real help, according to his ability. This, however, did not happen, which clearly shows that he was not there at that time — unless someone should conclude that he who had before forsaken his Lord and Savior (which was a matter of much consequence) now probably also forsook Paul, who was of less account.

This may serve as a reply: that Peter, at the time he forsook Christ, was not filled with the gift of the Holy Ghost, which was not poured out on the apostles until after Christ's ascension, Acts 2, verses 1 to 3, and so he could easily come to this fall. But now, being filled with the Holy Ghost,* it was quite otherwise, so much so that he and his fellow apostles feared no suffering, not even death itself. Compare Acts 4, verses 19 to 21 with chapter 5, verses 40 to 42, and chapter 12, verses 3 and 4. Also First Peter 3, verse 14, and chapter 4, verse 16.

Moreover, in Paul's complaint to Timothy not a word is said about Peter having forsaken him, which, had it happened, would certainly, as a notable matter, not have been passed over in silence; the more so because he names some of those who forsook him, such as Demas, Alexander the coppersmith, and so on.

Third Argument. When Paul was confined in prison at Rome, and bound in chains, he commended Onesiphorus, because he had visited him and was not ashamed of his chain, without mentioning anything about others, saying: "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus; for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain" (Second Timothy 1, verse 16).

But why does he not commend Peter for having visited him in his bonds? Or, if Peter was there and did not do so, but was ashamed of his chain, why does he not complain that so great a man, who ought to have been a leader to others, was so negligent in it?

Doubtless, if Peter had been in the city at that time, and had visited him in prison, or had not visited him, Paul would not have passed it over in utter silence, without commending or complaining of it.

Fourth Argument. When many had departed from Paul, while he was in prison, he made mention of one who had remained by, or with, him, namely, in the city of Rome. He calls him Luke, and says: Only Luke is with (or by) me. Second Timothy 4, verse 11. It follows, therefore, that at the time when Paul wrote this, Peter was not at Rome, or it could not have been that only Luke was with him. [n71-2]

Fifth Argument. A little further on from the words mentioned above, Paul asks Timothy that when he came to him he should bring Mark with him, since Mark would be very useful to him for his ministry, saying: Take Mark, and bring him with you (when you come); for he is profitable to me for the ministry. Second Timothy 4, verse 11.

Now, if Peter was in Rome at that time, why was Paul under the necessity of sending for Mark for the ministry? Or, if he was not there, why did he not send for Peter? Certainly, if he had sent for him, he would not have refused to come, unless prevented by some important cause; and then it could be concluded that Peter was there a considerable time, since, as we find, they both died a considerable time afterward.

But it does not appear that Paul sent for him, and so it cannot be concluded that he came in answer to his summons. And even if he had come at that time, his stay there could not have lasted several years, much less twenty-five years, as the papists say, since death overtook him as well as Paul, as has been shown in its proper place. The preparation of this whole argument, however, is unnecessary and superfluous.

Sixth Argument. Paul wrote various epistles from his prison at Rome to the believers, as to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, to Timothy, Philemon, and so on, in which he puts various greetings from believers of the church at Rome, and also, at the beginning of them, sometimes mentions his fellow laborers; but he never mentions Peter. We will show here the way in which this is done.

At the beginning of the epistle to the Philippians he writes these words: Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ. Now, why does he not add here: and Simon Peter?

In nearly the same way he begins the epistle to the Colossians, saying: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus, our brother." Why does he not add: and Peter, the chief apostle?

In closing these epistles he adds the greetings of the saints who were with him. To the Philippians he writes: "All the saints salute you

. . . chiefly those who are of Caesar's household " (Philippians 4, verses 21 and 22). To the Colossians he addresses these words: " Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, salutes you" (Colossians 4, verse 12). Also: Luke, the physician, greets you. Verse 14.

Peter is not mentioned here at all, which certainly, had he been there, would have been highly necessary.

He followed this same manner in all the other epistles which he wrote from Rome. To Timothy he says: "Eubulus greets you, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia" (Second Timothy 4, verse 21).

To Philemon: "There salute you Epaphras . . . Marcus, Aristarchus" (Philemon, verses 23 and 24).

Much might be said upon this subject, but it would all amount to this: that it would be a strange thing, if Peter was at Rome when Paul wrote his epistles from the Roman prison, that Paul never mentioned in these epistles a greeting from Peter (which, as has been shown, he did not), seeing he mentions greetings from various leaders and members of the Roman church, whom he calls by name. Hence it is quite reasonable to conclude that Peter was not there during that time.

Besides the six arguments mentioned, proving that during the time Paul was imprisoned under Nero, Peter was not at Rome, as far as the testimony of the Holy Scriptures goes in regard to this, there follow various circumstances showing (by the like virtue of Holy Scripture) that also during the time Paul was out of prison, Peter was not to be found in this city.

First Circumstance. Here we must consider why Paul wrote an epistle to the Roman church, both for the confirming of the Christian faith and for stirring them up in the moral virtues (which epistle is still in existence), if Peter was there at that time and had the charge of that church. Or, if it was necessary for important reasons that he should write to them, why did he not send this epistle to Peter as their leader, as he did to Timothy, the teacher of the Ephesian church, and to Titus, the teacher of the church on the Island of Crete?

Or, at least, if we look at the contents of this epistle, we may well consider why he did not address a greeting to him, or once mention him by name, seeing he filled nearly a whole chapter with the names of those whom he greets at Rome: Aquila with his wife Priscilla, Epenetus and Mary, together with Andronicus, Junia, Amplias, Urbanus, Apelles, Herodion, those of the household of Narcissus (the women), Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Philologus, Nereus, and so on, Romans 16 throughout, without mentioning in any way whatever the person or name of Peter. From this there may again be concluded, with good reason, what has been concluded before from the account of the greetings which Paul wrote while in prison at Rome, namely, that Peter was not in this city at that time

Second Circumstance. When it afterward happened that Paul, having traveled through Arabia and the country of Damascus, returned after three years with a particular desire to see Peter, he did not look for him at Rome, but at Jerusalem; and when he had found him there, he stayed with him fifteen days, and then departed again into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Galatians 1, verses 17 to 21.

Third Circumstance. When fourteen more years had passed, namely, those spent by Paul in his Syrian and Cilician journey, where was Peter to be found? Certainly not at Rome, but at Antioch; for Paul came to him there and rebuked him, because he had eaten with the Gentiles in the presence of the Jews. Compare Galatians 2, verse 1 with verses 11 and 12.

Fourth Circumstance. When some came down from Judea and troubled the brothers, saying that unless they were circumcised after the manner of Moses they could not be saved, and Paul, Barnabas, and other pious men were sent to the apostles and elders to consult about the matter, Peter, as well as the others to whom they were sent, was found at Jerusalem. Acts 15, verses 1 to 7.

Fifth Circumstance. In Galatians 2, verse 7, we read that the uncircumcision (that is, the Gentiles) was committed to Paul, but the circumcision (that is, the Jews, or the Jewish nation) to Peter; also, in verse 9, that Peter (there called Cephas), together with James and John, gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand and agreed that these should go to the heathen, but they to the circumcision (the Jews), namely, to preach the Gospel to them.

It is, therefore, a settled fact that Peter was properly a teacher of the Jews (after this agreement was made), and not of the Gentiles. But if he had taught among the Romans, who were Gentiles by nature, he would have gone altogether beyond his engagement and promise, which certainly is not to be supposed of so great and eminent a man as Peter was at that time.

Sixth Circumstance. From the two epistles of Peter, especially from the words of First Peter 1, verse 1, it evidently appears that he preached to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (namely, those who were scattered there from the twelve tribes of Israel), according to the statement of James, chapter 1, verse 1. For that preaching, since these countries are very far apart, some even a hundred leagues and more, several years were required in order to travel through them, during which time Peter apparently could not be there and at Rome at once. This is incontrovertible. [n71-5]

Seventh Circumstance. At the end of the first epistle of Peter, namely First Peter 5, verse 13, are these words: "The church that is at Babylon, elected . . . salutes you."

How could Peter send a greeting from the church at Babylon, unless he was with it in Babylon at that time? But if he was in Babylon, he was not at Rome, unless he had two bodies, of which we do not read anything, nor have we any reason to believe it.

Eighth Circumstance. Those who hold that Peter was bishop at Rome make no distinction between the words apostle, or messenger, and bishop, or overseer; yet there always has been a marked difference between the office of an apostle and that of a bishop.

The office of an apostle was to travel from one country to another, indeed, through the whole world, and to preach the Gospel to those who had not yet heard it, without being bound to any particular place or church, as appears from Matthew 28, verse 19; Mark 16, verse 15.

On the other hand, the office of a bishop or overseer was to watch over, care for, feed and govern, as a shepherd does his flock, a particular church to which the Gospel had already been preached, and which had accepted faith and the sign of holy baptism. Compare Acts 20, verse 28 with First Timothy 3, verses 1 to 5; Titus 1, verses 5 to 7.

Now, it is a fact that properly not the latter but the former office was laid upon Peter, for he gives himself the first-mentioned name, apostle (see First Peter 1, verse 1, and Second Peter 1, verse 1); for which purpose Christ Himself had chosen him, Luke 6, verses 13 and 14, and sent him out, as can plainly be seen in the last chapter of Matthew and of Mark.

How could it be, then, that Peter sat as bishop of the church in the city of Rome? And, what is still more, for a considerable number of years! Unless it be said that Peter abandoned his charge and accepted another office and ministry than the one to which he was called; which it would be difficult to prove, since nothing is said of it in Holy Writ.

Further Remarks on the foregoing circumstances. If one should confine himself solely to the testimony of the holy Scriptures, not accepting anything else as worthy of belief, it could in no way be shown that Peter was ever at Rome. But since the holy Scriptures do not relate all that has happened, the testimony of some accepted authors of that time may be recognized as credible, as far as their testimony is not contrary to what is expressed in holy Scripture.

We have shown from the apostolic writings that during the time Paul wrote his epistles in the prison at Rome, and also during the whole period that he (Peter) was preaching in foreign countries, Peter was not in Rome, but in Jerusalem, Antioch, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and in other places where the Jews were scattered. This we have plainly shown, first by six arguments, and then by eight circumstances, drawn from the holy Scriptures. But as to where Peter was, or how he died, after Paul wrote his last epistle from Rome, the Scriptures are silent.

Hence the testimony of those writers whom we have just mentioned cannot well be contradicted, who maintain that Peter, shortly before his death, came to Rome, and there laid down his life for the doctrine of the Evangelical truth, without saying anything there about his bishopric, much less popedom.