778 P E 
Second Epiftle to Timothy, to the Philippians, the Col- 
loflians, and Philemon; in none of which is any mention 
of Peter. Nor is any thing faid or hinted whence it can 
be concluded that he had ever been there. I think, 
therefore, that Peter did not come to Rome before the 
year 63 or 64; and, as I fuppofe, he obtained the crown 
of martyrdom in the year 64 or 65. Confequently St. 
Peter could not refide very long at Rome before his death.” 
Jerome, in his book De Vir. Illuft. cap. 1. fays, that 
Peter was bifhop of Rome during five-and-twenty years; 
but fuch a ftatement is totally irreconcileable with the 
hiftory in the Arts of the Apoftles. On the other hand, 
feveral learned men, particularly Scaliger, Salmafius, 
Frederic Spanheim, and others, have denied that Peter 
ever was at Rome at all. But their opinion is fatisfaCto- 
rily oppofed by a great majority of critics, Proteftants as 
well as Catholics. In Lardner, as referred to below, the 
reader may meet with a concentrated view of the evidence 
from antiquity, on which Peter’s having been at Rome 
refts. Among the ancient writers, who teftify to the 
fame fa£t, we may enumerate Clement of Rome, in his 
Epiftle to the Corinthians, written before the year of 
Chrift 70, or, as fome think, about the year 96; Ignatius, 
about 108; Dionyfius, about 170 ; Irenaeus, about 178; 
Clement of Alexandria, about 194; Tertullian, about 
2005 Caius, about 212; Origen, about 230; Cyprian, 
about 248 ; LaCtantius, about 306; Eufebius, Athanafius, 
Ephrem the Syrian, about 370 ; Epiphanius, Jerome, 
Chryfoftom, Sulpicius Severus, about 401 ; Prudentius, 
about 405; Orofius, about 416; Theodoret, about 423 ; 
Auguftine, &c. &c. The “Preaching of Peter,” or of 
Peter and Paul, quoted by feveral ancient writers, though 
not as a book of authority, compofed about the middle of 
the fecond century, or fooner, makes mention of Peter’s 
being at Rome. 
In our life of St. Paul (p. 400.) we have already fhown 
it to be moil probable, that he and St. Peter were both 
put to death at Rome, in the year 64 or 65. With re- 
fpe£t to what is faid in the paflage cited from Eufebius, 
concerning Peter’s defire that he might be crucified 
with his head downwards, as the circumftance is not 
noticed by fome ancient writers who fpeak of his mar¬ 
tyrdom, its accuracy has been queftioned. There is no 
doubt but that, among the Romans, fome were fo cruci¬ 
fied, to add to their pain and ignominy; and Lardner 
admits that Peter might be crucified in that manner, and 
that it might be owing to the malice of thofe who put 
him to death. He adds, however, “the faying that it 
was at his own defire may have been at firft the oratorical 
flight of fome man of more wit than judgment; but the 
thought was pleafing, and therefore has been followed by 
many.” Marcellinus the Prelbyter embalmed his relics, 
which were buried in the Vatican, near the Triumphal 
Way; and over his grave a fmall church was ereCted, 
which having been deftroyed by the emperor Heliogaba- 
lus, the holy remains were removed to the Appian Way, 
two miles from Rome. About the year 250, Cornelius, 
the twentieth bilhop of Rome, re-conveyed them to the 
Vatican ; and Conftantine the Great, the firft Chriftian 
emperor, caufed a ftately church to be raifed on the fpot, 
which has fince increafed fo much in fplendour and mag¬ 
nificence, as juftly to become the wonder and admiration 
of the world. The prefent fabric is indifputably the 
largeft building that was ever ereCted ; the ftupendous 
Temple of Solomon, that of Herod at Jerufalem, and 
the great Pyramid of Egypt, excepted. His feltival is 
celebrated with that of St. Paul, on the 29th of June. 
(See the article Paul.) It is very remarkable, that, while 
the Roman Catholics confider Peter to have been the firft 
bilhop (or pope) of Rome, not one of the popes has 
afi'umed that name: on the contrary, fome who had it 
originally have changed it upon gaining the popedom : 
the firft inftance which we recoiled was in 884, when 
Pietro de Bocca Porca, or Hog’s-fnout, took the name of 
T E /R, 
Sergius the Second, thinking himfelf unworthy to bear 
the name of the great apoftle and martyr. 
The character of St. Peter may be fufficiently collected 
from the preceding narrative. In the canon of the New 
Teftament are two Epiltles bearing the name of St. Peter, 
the firft of which has been univerfally acknowledged to 
be authentic and genuine, from the earlieft Chriftian times, 
though fome doubts were anciently entertained concern¬ 
ing the fecond. However, both thefe Epiftles were ge¬ 
nerally received, in the fourth and following centuries, 
by all Chriftian3 excepting the Syrians. And, if we 
confult the Epiftles themfelves, and endeavour to form 
our judgment by internal evidence, we fhall find ftrong 
grounds for believing that they muft have been both 
written by the fame author. For an ample difcullion of 
this point, we refer our readers to what is faid on the 
fubjeCt by Lardner and Michaelis. The Firft Epiftle, as 
appears from the conclufion of it, was written at Babylon; 
the meaning of which word has been differently under- 
ftood by commentators, fome giving it a figurative and 
myftical interpretation, and others taking it in its literal 
and proper fenfe. By the majority of learned men, both 
among the ancients and moderns, it has been underftood 
figuratively, and fuppofed to mean Rome; but others 
contend, we conceive with advantage over their oppo¬ 
nents, that fuch a fenfe is forced and unnatural, and that 
the word fhould be taken literally, as intended either for 
Babylon on the Euphrates, or Seleucia on the Tigris, but 
moft probably for the former city. The arguments on 
both fides of the queftion may be feen in Lardner and 
Michaelis. With refpeCt to the date of this Epiftle, like- 
wife, the learned widely differ ; fome placing it under the 
year 54, others about 60, and others between 63 and 65. 
The Second Epiftle of St. Peter was addreffed to the fame 
communities with the firft, and written only a fhort time 
before his death ; but whether before or after his arrival 
at Rome, is wholly uncertain. The defign of thefe 
Epiftles was to point out to the Chriftian converts the 
invaluable advantages which they enjoyed in common 
under the gofpel-difpenfation ; to exhort them to patience 
under the fufferings which they endured from their per- 
fecutors, toavoid whatever might give offence to the ma- 
giftrates or their fellow-citizens, and to-cultivate the 
important duties of civil and focial life, particularly bro¬ 
therly love; and alfo to combat fome falfe opinions which, 
at fo early a period, had arifen among the profeffors of 
Chriftianity; particularly thofe of fome teachers who were 
advocates for a loofe fyftem of morality, and denied the 
doCtrines of a general judgment and the difi'olution of 
the world. Befides thefe Epiftles, feveral fpurious wri¬ 
tings were circulated in an early age of the church, under 
the name of St. Peter, of which the reader may meet with 
an account either in Mill’s Prolegomena, or in Cave. 
Cave's Hift. Lit. vol. i. Lardner's Suppl. vol. iii. ch. 
xviii. Marjh's Michaelis, vol. vi. ch. xxvii. xxviii. 
Sherlock's Dijf. on Peter. 
PE'TER, a faint in the Roman martyrology, and one 
of the moft illuftrious prelates of his time, if not a native 
of Alexandria, was educated there, under the inftrudions 
of Theonas, the bilhop of that fee; and acquired a high 
chara&er for his proficiency in facred literature, his ex¬ 
emplary manners, and diftinguifhed piety. On the death 
of Theonas, in the year 300, he was chofen his fucceflbr; 
and, according to Eufebius, “ he obtained great honour 
during his epifcopate, which lafted twelve years. He was 
a moft excellent teacher of the Chriftian doCtrine; an 
ornament to the epifcopal character, both for holinefs of 
life, and laborious application in ftudying and explaining 
the Scriptures. He governed the church three years be¬ 
fore the perfection. The reft of his time he palled in a 
more ft rift and mortified courfe of life, but without ne¬ 
glecting the common good of the churches.” Byacom- 
parifon of Eufebius’s language in the Lift fentence, with 
Sozomen’s ftatement that he fled, or withdrew, in the 
time 
