Paul so completely ignoring him? Further, Paul wrote a number of his letters from Rome, and in these he made reference to other Christians in Rome who were with him or who also sent greetings, but never a word regarding Peter. Why the great silence if Peter actually were there at the time? And had Peter established himself as bishop of Rome could he still have been termed the apostle to the circumcision? To claim that Peter’s reference to Babylon in his first epistle (1Pe 5:13) refers to Rome merely is to admit how weak the case is for Peter’s having been in Rome.

According to Bishop Strossmayer, one Scaliger (termed by the Encyclopedia Americana “the founder of the science of chronology” and therefore no mean authority) did not hesitate to say that “St. Peter’s episcopate and residence at Rome ought to be classed with ridiculous legends”.

Thus we see that both the Scriptures and historical facts unite to testify that the Christian congregation is built on Christ Jesus and not on the apostle Peter, that Peter was not the first pope, and that there is no proof that he was ever in Rome. Truly, “the truth will set you free.”—John 8:32, NW.

Two Classic Letters of Great Importance

TRAJAN, ruler of the sprawling Roman empire, needed a governor for the province of Bithynia-Pontus in Asia Minor. He therefore appointed his trusted friend Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, otherwise called Pliny the Younger. Arriving in Bithynia A.D. 111, Pliny died two years later, but during that time he wrote many letters to Trajan on a variety of subjects. One of these, together with Trajan’s reply, deals with early Christians and is highly regarded as a monumental document of antiquity. It reveals the attitude, conduct and disposition of God’s consecrated servants as viewed through non-Christian eyes. Of such historical importance (they were written only a very short time after the last of the apostles died) are these letters that they are herewith reproduced, as translated and published in the Harvard Classics, 1909, vol. 9, pp. 425-428.

“It is my invariable rule, Sir, to refer to you in all matters where I feel doubtful; for who is more capable of removing my scruples or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them. Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; or if a man has been once a Christian, it avails nothing to desist from his error; whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt. In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated