Dionysius Bp of Corinth (c. 170 A.D.) that St Peter and St Paul both worked in Corinth (Eus. H. E. ii. 25).

The tradition that St Peter visited Pontus and other provinces of Asia Minor, mentioned by Origen (Eus. H. E. iii. 1), Epiphanius (Haer. xxvii. 6), the Syriac Doctrine of the Apostles and the Acts of Andrew, is probably only based upon the opening salutation in 1 Pet. and is not supported by other references in the Epistle to the evangelization of those districts.

Antioch in Syria is described as a special centre of St Peter's work. Thus Origen (in Luc. Hom. vi.), possibly borrowing from a second century list of Antiochene Bishops, describes Ignatius as "the second Bishop of Antioch after the blessed Peter" (cf. Eus. H. E. iii. 36). Chrysostom and Theodoret also connect St Peter with Antioch, and later tradition describes him as having been Bishop of Antioch for seven years. The Clementine Romance, despite its Ebionite inventions about the supposed hostility of St Peter towards Pauline teaching, seems itself to have originated in Syria, and is probably correct in making that district one of the chief centres of St Peter's activity.

Rome. St Peter's work and martyrdom in Rome are attested by evidence so early, so wide-spread and so unanimous that even the most determined opponent of Papal claims could not dispute it with any success.

For a full discussion of the evidence Dr Chase's Article in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, and Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, ii. pp. 481 ff. should be consulted.

Clement of Rome (chapter 5) (c. 95 A.D.) seems to select the martyrdoms of SS. Peter and Paul because they took place in Rome.

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 115 A.D.) (ad Rom. c. iv.) says "I do not command you as Peter and Paul”—again probably selecting the two Apostles who had worked in Rome.

Papias of Hierapolis (c. 130 A.D.) (Eus. H. E. iii. 39, cf. ii. 15) probably described 1 Pet. as written from Rome (see p. xxviii). Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170 A.D.) (Eus. H. E. ii. 25) describes St Peter and St Paul as visiting Italy and suffering martyrdom. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 190 A.D.) (Haer. iii. 1) says "Matthew published a Gospel...while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church in Rome." (Haer. iii. 3) "The Churches of

Rome founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul....They entrusted the ministration of the bishop to Linus... after Linus Anencletus, after Anencletus in the third place from the Apostles Clement is elected bishop."

Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 A.D.) (Eus. H. E. vi. 14) says "When Peter had preached the word publicly in Rome the bystanders...exhorted Mark to write out his statements."

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 200 A.D.) is the earliest writer who describes the mode of St Peter's death and places it in the reign of Nero at Rome. He also (de Baptismo 4) speaks of those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber and (de Praescriptione 32) says that Clement was ordained by Peter.

Gaius the Roman presbyter (c. 200-220 A.D.) speaks of the tombs of St Peter and St Paul as still existing at the Vatican and the Ostian Way (Eus. H. E. ii. 25).

Origen of Alexandria (c. 250 A.D.) (Eus. H. E. iii. 1) says that St Peter was crucified head downwards at Rome. This last detail is also found in the Gnostic Acts of Peter, which possibly originated in Asia Minor in the second century and contain also the "Domine quo vadis?" legend and the story of St Peter's conflict with Simon Magus in Rome. The Catholic Acts of Peter, which contain similar details, cannot in their extant form be earlier than the fifth century.

The date and duration of St Peter's visit to Rome.

Eusebius (H. E. ii. 14) describes St Peter as coming to Rome in the reign of Claudius and there contending with Simon Magus, "the author of all heresy," and (ii. 17) he mentions a report that Philo in the reign of Claudius became acquainted at Rome with Peter who was preaching there.

The Chronicon of Eusebius (?based upon Julian Africanus, c. 221 A.D.) in the Armenian version assigns St Peter's visit to Rome to the third year of Caius 39-40 A.D. and adds that he remained there as "antistes" of the Church twenty years, but in a later passage the martyrdom of Peter and Paul at Rome is placed in the 13th year of Nero, i.e. 67–68 a.d.

Jerome places St Peter's arrival in the second year of Claudius 43-43 A.D. and says that he held the bishopric 25 years, placing the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in 68 A.D.

The Liberian Catalogue of Roman Bishops (354 A.D.) describes St Peter as Bishop of Rome for 25 years but dates it 30-55 A.D., apparently assuming that he was made a Bishop by our Lord and that his see must have been Rome.

The Liber Pontificalis has several contradictory notices:

(a) that St Peter held the Bishopric of Antioch for 7 years, (b) that he entered Rome in the reign of Nero and held the Bishopric of Rome for 25 years,

(c) that he was in the reigns of Tiberius, Caius, Claudius and Nero,

(d) that he suffered martyrdom together with St Paul in the 38th year after the Crucifixion, i.e. 67 a.d.

It would seem therefore that there is no mention of St Peter as Bishop of Rome until the fourth century, and the earlier lists of Bishops all reckon Linus as the first bishop. The 25 years' episcopate may perhaps have been based upon a legend that our Lord ordered the Apostles to wait 12 years before going out into the world. This story was contained in the Preaching of Peter, probably an early second century book, quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. vi. 5), and also in the Gnostic Acts of Peter, which represented St Peter as coming to Rome when the 12 years had expired and there contending with Simon Magus. But the story is placed after St Paul's departure to Spain, which would imply a much later date. If however the Crucifixion is dated 30 A.D. 12 years would bring us to 42 A.D. and this would leave 25 years before the traditional date of St Peter's death.

The evidence of the first three centuries suggests a comparatively late date for St Peter's work in Rome, placing it after previous work in Antioch, Corinth or Asia Minor, coupling it. with St Paul's work in Rome which certainly did not begin until about 59 A.D., and connecting it with the issue of Gospels by St Matthew and St Mark or with the Neronian persecution.

This later date is far more consistent with the language of St Paul's Epistles. The Epistle to the Romans alike by its statements and its silence makes it incredible that St Peter was then in Rome or had previously worked there. The ignorance of Christianity professed by the Jews in Rome on St Paul's arrival (Acts xxviii. 22), even if it was wilfully exaggerated, is

hardly consistent with the view that St Peter had been working in Rome.

In the Epistles of his first Roman Captivity St Paul mentions numerous fellow-workers, including St Mark and others "of the circumcision," but is absolutely silent about St Peter.

Therefore it is most difficult to believe that St Peter worked in Rome earlier than 61 A.D.

On the other hand there is considerable evidence that St Peter did work in Rome for a considerable time, and a fair amount of early evidence that St Peter and St Paul worked together in Rome. It is therefore a very plausible conjecture of Dr Chase (Hastings' D. of B., iii. 778) that St Peter may have come to Rome on St Paul's invitation about the time of St Paul's release, and that they worked there together for a time before St Paul started on the Missionary work implied in the Pastoral Epistles, and that St Peter remained in Rome with St Mark, until he was summoned to Jerusalem in 63 or early in 64 to take part in the election of Symeon Bp of Jerusalem. Dr Chase suggests that St Peter returned to Rome and was one of the earliest victims of the Neronian persecution in 64 A.D. This would tally with his burial place being in the Vatican near the hideous scenes of Nero's gardens.

If however the traditional date 67 or 68 A.D. is accepted for St Peter's martyrdom, we must assume that he was absent from Rome during the first fury of the persecution and returned or was brought to Rome only to be martyred at the end of Nero's reign, possibly after St Paul's death.

The "first trial" and protracted remand of St Paul, referred to in 2 Tim., and the invitation to Timothy to join him before winter and bring Mark with him seem hardly consistent with the view that the first fury of the Neronian persecution was then raging.

The Mission work implied in the Pastoral Epistles also demands a longer period of liberty than would be the case if St Paul was executed in 64 A.D. It is therefore easier to date St Paul's martyrdom about 67 A.D., and if St Peter had already suffered we should have expected St Paul to refer to his death.

For an account of the various apocryphal writings ascribed to St Peter and a discussion of the legends about his conflict with Simon Magus the Article "Simon Peter" in Hastings' D. of B. should be consulted.

2. AUTHORSHIP.

The chief arguments in favour of the Petrine authorship are: A. External.

The Epistle is quoted as the work of St Peter by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and other early writers (possibly including Papias), while the Second Epistle of St Peter, which is certainly very early even if not genuine, refers to a previous epistle bearing the name of St Peter which most probably means our Epistle.

The attestation of the Epistle by so many witnesses widely separated in place and circumstances shews that it had a circulation and authority in the early Church such as it could hardly have acquired unless it was regarded as the work of some leading Apostle.

B. Internal.

(1) The Epistle itself claims to be written by Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and the opening salutation can only be rejected on one of two theories:

(a) that it is an interpolation added in the second century to a document which was previously circulated anonymously. This view has been suggested by Harnack but it is most improbable. A treatise such as "Hebrews" or a homily such as 2 Clement might have been circulated anonymously, but 1 Peter reads distinctly like a letter, and as such must surely have had some writer's name attached to it from the first. Moreover if this letter was originally anonymous, it is difficult to account for its subsequent ascription to St Peter rather than to St Paul to whose writings it has a decided resemblance.

(b) that the Epistle is a forgery. For this no adequate reason can be assigned, unless we are to adopt the theory of the Tübingen school that St Peter and St Paul and their respective followers were diametrically opposed to one another and that this Epistle, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, was written by some well-meaning forger of the second century, who desired to promote the union of the two branches of the Church by attributing Pauline views to the leading Jewish Apostle St Peter. Apart from this theory, which is now discredited by nearly all