Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter
XIV.—The Preaching of the Apostle
Peter in Rome.
1. The
evil power,378
378 See the previous chapter, note 1. | who hates all that is good and
plots against the salvation of men, constituted Simon at that time the
father and author of such wickedness,379
379 See chap. 1, note 25. | as if to
make him a mighty antagonist of the great, inspired apostles of our
Saviour.
2. For that divine and celestial
grace which co-operates with its ministers, by their appearance and
presence, quickly extinguished the kindled flame of evil, and humbled
and cast down through them “every high thing that exalted itself
against the knowledge of God.”380
3. Wherefore neither the
conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the others who arose at that
period could accomplish anything in those apostolic times. For
everything was conquered and subdued by the splendors of the truth and
by the divine word itself which had but lately begun to shine from
heaven upon men, and which was then flourishing upon earth, and
dwelling in the apostles themselves.
4. Immediately381
381 The significance of the word “immediately” as employed
here is somewhat dark. There is no event described in the preceding
context with which it can be connected. I am tempted to think that
Eusebius may have been using at this point some unknown source and that
the word “immediately” refers to an encounter which Simon
had had with Peter (perhaps his Cæsarean discussion, mentioned in
the Clementines), of which an account was given in the document
employed by Eusebius. The figure employed here is most
remarkable. | the above-mentioned impostor was smitten
in the eyes of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash, and after the
evil deeds done by him had been first detected by the apostle Peter in
Judea,382
382 Acts viii. 9 sqq. This
occurred in Samaria, not in Judea proper, but Eusebius evidently uses
the word “Judea” in a wide sense, to indicate the Roman
province of Judea, which included also Samaria. It is not impossible,
especially if Eusebius is quoting here from a written source, that some
other encounter of Simon and Peter is referred to. Such a one e.g. as
is mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions, VI. 8. | he fled and made a great journey across
the sea from the East to the West, thinking that only thus could he
live according to his mind.
5. And coming to the city of
Rome,383
383 Rome was a great gathering place of heretics and schismatics. They
were all attracted thither by the opportunities for propagandism which
the city afforded, and therefore Eusebius, with his transcendental
conception of heresy, naturally makes it the especial seat of the
devil. | by the mighty co-operation of that
power which was lying in wait there, he was in a short time so
successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt there honored him as
a god by the erection of a statue.384
384 See above, chap. 13, note 11. |
6. But this did not last long.
For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and
gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that
strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of
his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome385
385 Upon the historic truth of Peter’s visit to Rome, see below,
chap. 25, note 7. Although we may accept it as certain that he did
visit Rome, and that he met his death there, it is no less certain that
he did not reach there until late in the reign of Nero. The tradition
that he was for twenty-five years bishop of Rome is first recorded by
Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 1), and since his time has been almost
universally accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, though in recent
years many more candid scholars of that communion acknowledge that so
long an episcopate there is a fiction. The tradition undoubtedly took
its rise from the statement of Justin Martyr (quoted in the previous
chapter) that Simon Magus came to Rome during the reign of Claudius.
Tradition, in the time of Eusebius, commonly connected the Roman visits
of Simon and of Peter; and consequently Eusebius, accepting the earlier
date for Simon’s arrival in Rome, quite naturally assumed also
the same date for Peter’s arrival there, although Justin does not
mention Peter in connection with Simon in the passage which Eusebius
quotes. The assumption that Peter took up his residence in Rome during
the reign of Claudius contradicts all that we know of Peter’s
later life from the New Testament and from other early writers. In 44
a.d. he was in Jerusalem (according to
Acts xii.
3);
in 51 he was again there (according to Acts xv.); and a little
later in Antioch (according to Gal. i. 11 sq.). Moreover,
at some time during his life he labored in various provinces in Asia
Minor, as we learn from his first epistle, and probably wrote that
epistle from Babylon on the Euphrates (see chap. 15, note 7). At any
rate, he cannot have been in Rome when Paul wrote his epistle to the
Romans (57 or 58 a.d.), for no mention is made
of him among the brethren to whom greetings are sent. Nor can he have
been there when Paul wrote from Rome during his captivity (61 or 62 to
63 or 64 a.d.). We have, in fact, no trace of
him in Rome, except the extra-Biblical but well-founded tradition (see
chap. 25, note 7) that he met his death there. We may assume, then,
that he did not reach Rome at any rate until shortly before his death;
that is, shortly before the summer of 64 a.d.
As most of the accounts put Simon Magus’ visit to Rome in the
reign of Nero (see above, chap. 13, note 9), so they make him follow
Peter thither (as he had followed him everywhere, opposing and
attacking him), instead of precede him, as Eusebius does. Eusebius
follows Justin in giving the earlier date for Simon’s visit to
Rome; but he goes beyond Justin in recording his encounter there with
Peter, which neither Justin nor Irenæus mentions. The earlier date
for Simon’s visit is undoubtedly that given by the oldest
tradition. Afterward, when Peter and Paul were so prominently connected
with the reign of Nero, the visit of Simon was postponed to synchronize
with the presence of the two apostles in Rome. A report of
Simon’s meeting with Peter in Rome is given first by Hippolytus
(VI. 15); afterward by Arnobius (II. 12), who does not describe the
meeting; by the Ap. Const., the Clementine Recognitions
and Homilies, and the Acts of the Apostles Peter and
Paul. It is impossible to tell from what source Eusebius drew his
information. Neither Justin, Irenæus, nor Tertullian mentions it.
Hippolytus and Arnobius and the App. Const. give too much, as
they give accounts of his death, which Eusebius does not follow. As to
this, it might, however, be said that these accounts are so conflicting
that Eusebius may have omitted them entirely, while yet recording the
meeting. Still, if he had read Hippolytus, he could hardly have omitted
entirely his interesting account. Arnobius and Tertullian, who wrote in
Latin, he did not read, and the Clementines were probably too late for
him; at any rate, they cannot have been the source of his account,
which differs entirely from theirs. It is highly probable, therefore,
that he followed Justin and Irenæus as far as they go, and that he
recorded the meeting with Peter in Rome as a fact commonly accepted in
his time, and one for which he needed no written authority; or it is
possible that he had another source, unknown to us, as suggested above
(note 4). | against this great corrupter of life. He
like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly
merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those
who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which
brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.386
386 A
most amazing mixture of metaphors. This sentence furnishes an excellent
illustration of Eusebius’ rhetorical style. | E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|