(3) The Verdict of Protestant Scholarship. George Stanley Faber, among England's ablest writers, refers to the learned Scaliger as saying: "As for the coming of Peter to Rome. his epis copate of twenty years, and his final martyrdom, no man with a grain of common sense will be lieve a single syllable." Facts and Assertions, etc., p. 58.
Spanheim and Salmasius also deny the fact. F. Turretin, Op. iii, 148 Ant. ed.: "That Peter was at Rome is doubtful and uncertain: it is far more certain that he never saw Rome." Ranke also in Ref. C, II, Chap. 3, p. 472. says : "Historical criticism has shown that it is a matter of doubt whether the Apostle was ever at Rome at all." Lipsius. a great German critic, asserts : "The Roman Peter Legend proves itself to be from beginning to end a fiction. and thus our critical judgment is confirmed. The feet of Peter never trod the Streets of Rome." Pres. Quar., Apr., 1876.
(4) Views of British Scholars. Taking the Reformation writers we have Cranmer and Cover dale, Bishop Hooper, Bradford and Willet, who argue strongly against Peter's ever having visited Rome.
The Orientalist, Lightfoot, denies it.
John Owen asserts his belief that Peter was never in Rome.
Bishop Bull says: "St. Clement, Bishop of Rome in the Apostolic age, speaking of the labors of St. Peter and St. Paul, briefly touches on the former, but dwells on praises of the latter, not so much as mentioning St. Peter's coining to Rome." J. H. Browne in Peter thc Apostle never at Rome, p. 45: says: * * * "the conclusion of Bishop Bull, as it seems to me, must be assented to, and the testimony accepted, which he consid ers must he drawn from the silence of Clement of Rome, Thar the Apostle Peter was never in that city." Of modern scholars we have Adam Clarke, who asserts: "I am of the opinion that St. Pe ter did not write front Rome—that he was neither Bishop of Rome nor martyred at Rome—in a ord, that Ile never was at Rome." Dr. Kitto declares in his Cyclopxdia: "There is no sufficient reason for believing that Peter was ever even so much as within the walls of Rome." Dick in his Theology denies it. Hill, Divinity, page 7o, calls it extremely doubtful. Robert Hall writes "That Peter was ever at Rome, we have no evidence but vague uncertain traditions." Bishop Copleston in his Errors in Romanism says: "There is no historical evidence of the fact, and there is much probability against it." Along these same lines in denial, the following authors are found: Greenwood in Cathedra Petri; Edgar, Var. Popery, p. 68; Timpson Ch. Hist. p. 35; Powell on Succession, p. 119; Alex. Bishop, Two Baby ions; McGavin's Protestant; Arrowsmith, Geog. Diet. Scrip.; J. A. Wylie, The Papacy, p. 233.
Littledale, in Plain Reasons, says: "That St. Peter was ever at Rome at all, there is no first hand or contemporaneous testimony to the opin ion, whether in Scripture or elsewhere; whence it is clear that God has not considered it important enough to be certified for as being a matter of faith."
Davidson.—Intr. N. T. i, 142: says: "The con nection of Peter with Rome, though it appears in early ecclesiastical literature, rests on an insecure basis. Distinguished critics reject it, not without reason." Kennard affirms, Controv. with McLachlan, p. 49: "I boldly and advisedly assert there is na evidence to show that St. Peter was ever at Rome." Bagby's Tray. in East, p. 7o2; I\Iassey, Secret. Hist. Rome, North British Review, Nov. 1848; Blakie in Bible History, p. 418; Encyc. Brit. Ar ticle, Popedom.
(5) Views of American Writers. The follow ing authors maintain that St. Peter was never in Rome: Smyth, Apostalical Succcs., p. 233: C. Hodge, Syst. Theo/., i. 132; Elliot, on Romanism, ii. 223 ; Lect. Cat., ii. 35o; Jacobus, C0111., i7; I lurst. .S'hort Hist. Early Ch., p. 6; Strong, Syst. Theol., p. 5o7; Dr. N. Murray (Kir wan) Let. to BP. Hughes, 57; H. C. Vedder. Bap. Quar. Rev. xi, 5o9; R. E. Thompson, Mag. Christ. Literature, Aug., 1892.
\V. M. Taylor, Life of Peter, 343; Lansing, Rome and the Rep., 205; Emerton, Intr. Mid. Ages, io2; Shimeall, End of Prelacy; p. 289; New Englander, October. 1872; Princeton Rev. iii, 252; T. V. Moore, South Meth. Rev. Jan. 1856; Bacon, Lives of Apos., p. 253-257; Dowling on Romanism; Snodgrass, A pos. Succ., 221; N. L. Rice, Rom. not Christianity, p. 139; Nourse, Prot.
Rev., July, 1846, p. 220; Sawyer's Organ, Chris tianity, p. 49; Prof. Clement M. Butler in his work St. Paut in Rome, p. 26o, says: "\\ e find no contemporaneous witness saying that Si. Peter was at Rome, nor even saying that it was said. The chain of testimony fails for the want of con necting links between the first witnesses and the facts alleged. Nothing is accomplished by adding a: thousand links to the other end of the chain." Dr. Chas. Hodge, intr. Com. Epist. Rom. says: "The tradition rests on very uncertain authority." Dr. John Owen describing the untrustworthiness of the Patristic writings says: "The truth is, the corruption and fiction of the epistolical writ ings in the first ages was so intolerable as that very little of that kind is preserved sincere and unquestionable. Hence Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth, complained that in his own time his own epistles were so corrupted by additions and sub tractions that it seems he would have them no more esteemed as his. He said: 'As the brethren desired me to write epistles, I wrote them, and these the Apostles of the devil have filled with tares, exchanging some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved.' " M. G.