cannot do better than to quote the words and experience of that clear-sighted man, and most genial teacher of young men, Dr. B. B. Edwards: "This aid," he says, "enables the student to proceed in his calling without distracting anxieties. Nothing is more harrassing to a scholar than perpetual pecuniary embarrassment, and the dread of incurring liabilities which he has no prospect of meeting. The mind must be free in order to act well. Depressing anxiety from any source cripples the will, palsies the resolution, and leaves the poor subject, in the midst of his unaccomplished studies, the prey of melancholy, if not of misanthropy. There are, indeed, some hardy spirits, who can climb over these formidable steeps by the aid of a powerful body and an indomitable will. But their education will be marred and imperfect. It was a wise man who said, that those separated themselves, who would seek and intermeddle with all wisdom. Leisure, retirement, and a tranquil state of the emotions, opportunities of acquiring habits of patient thinking, are absolutely necessary for one who is to be the public teacher of his fellow men. He will have experience enough of the strong ocean he is to buffet. He will not need. to be in the ministry more than six months, to learn by heart several chapters in the book of human experience. How inestimable, then, will be those mental and moral habits, which will enable him to pursue his way with quiet decision, but which cannot be acquired ordinarily, if the griping hand of poverty has been upon him in his preparatory course. And if he is properly educated, he will not be a novice in the science of human nature. He has studied those books which have given him an insight into the subject, especially the book of his own heart, and as face answereth to face, so doth the heart of man to man."

Art. III.-LIPSIUS ON THE ROMAN PETER-
LEGEND.*

By SAMUEL M. JACKSON, A.B., New York.

THE question of Peter's sojourn in Rome forms one of the chief points of contention between Romanists and Protestants. The former assert, not only that Peter was in Rome, but that he was the first Roman bishop; and, moreover, suffered martyrdom there under Nero. The latter have hitherto very generally denied the fact, with its consequences.

The usual repugnance on the part of Protestants to accept any of the distinctive Romish beliefs, may have first led, at least in part, to this denial. It was considered that it would be yielding too much to the Papal assumptions to grant that Peter ever was in Rome. Hence, the earliest Protestant Church historians, such as Velenus (1520), Flacius (1554), and Salmasius (1645) "spared no pains to remove from its place the cornerstone upon which rests the proud structure of the Church of Rome."

But modern scholars, feeling much surer of their ground, deny the necessary connection between the presence of Peter in Rome and the Roman Primacy. Many, indeed, it would seem the majority, yield the point. And, surely, if mere array of passages, in which this sojourn is spoken of, could carry the day, the question might be considered settled.

Popular interest in the matter has been lately renewed by the famous debate in Rome, in February, 1872. In the same year there appeared a German work, by Prof. Lipsius, now of Jena, with the title, "A Critical Examination of the Sources of the Roman Peter-Legend" (Kiel, 1872). The book was written in the fall of 1871, and hence was not called forth by the debate. As was to have been expected from a man of Dr. Lipsius' deep learning and critical acumen, it is a thorough and masterly treatise.

*Die Quellen der römischen Petrus-Sage kritisch untersucht, von R. A. Lipsius; Kiel: 1872. Also, an Introduction to the same, in MS., by Dr. Lipsius, intended to accompany an English translation of his work.

It is the object of this article to give the views of Dr. Lipsius upon this question, as contained, not only in the work mentioned, but also in a special Introduction to it, prepared quite recently by him for a projected translation on the part of the present writer.

In this Introduction Dr. Lipsius thus criticises the debate, of which we have just spoken:

"It affords the amplest proof of the incompetency of church partisanship to comprehend all the merits of the question, and answer it upon purely historic grounds. The principal argument upon which the evangelical preachers relied, is the silence of the Pauline Epistles, and of the Acts of the Apostles, concerning this pretended fact. Skillfully used, this silence is really one of the chief weapons against the Roman tradition. But in their hands it received a most unhappy turn; for the reception of a fact not expressly stated in the New Testament, was attacked as a denial of the inspiration and divine authority of the Bible! Of course, against such a line of argument the Roman Catholic priest, Guidi, played a winning game. And, generally speaking, the truth is, that the representatives of the Roman Church, and particularly Canon Fabiani, were superior to their adversaries in point of learning. Neither side, however, handled the subject scientifically."

Dr. Lipsius then proceeds to an examination of the passages, both in the New Testament and the Fathers, which have been quoted by the advocates of this belief.

In the Gospels there is a vague prophecy made by Christ, that Peter would die a violent death. But no place is assigned for the martyrdom, and if the parallel between the Master and the disciple be pushed, it would seem natural to suppose that Jerusalem would be the scene. The remark, in John, xiii: 36. "Thou shalt follow me afterward," refers, probably, rather to his following Christ into his heavenly kingdom, than to any following in the mode of his death. In John, xxi: 18, 19, however, the reference to Peter's crucifixion is undoubted. But there is no mention of Rome as the place.

In the Acts of the Apostles the history of Peter's life is carried no further than the Jerusalem conference. For the incident in Antioch, we are indebted to Paul (Gal. ii: 1-10). There is no reference to Peter as having been in Rome.

In the Pauline Epistles there is also no such reference. Thus the possibility of his presence there during Paul's time of writing is excluded. The incontestibility of this testimonium e silentio, has led some extreme critics to suppose that Peter's

name was intentionally omitted. But such a supposition is unworthy of the lofty character of the great apostle. If Peter came to Rome, most assuredly Paul would have met him, and labored with him to advance in the capital of the world the cause of their common Lord.

Our account of Paul's life closes with his two years' imprisonment in Rome. If now it ended with his martyrdom under Nero (A.D. 64), there is evidently no space for Peter. "One must, therefore, have recourse to the entirely incredible legend of a second imprisonment, and then, in contradiction to all church tradition, bring the Neronian persecution down to a later date." It should be remarked, however, that Dr. Lipsius believes that the Pastoral Epistles are spurious.

The only way of satisfactorily accounting for the abrupt close of the Acts, is to suppose that the end of the second year of Paul's confinement coincided with the Neronian perse-cution.

The events, after the burning of Rome in July, A. D. 64, crowd upon one another so rapidly, that there is scarcely time during the persecution for the supposition, made by some, that Peter was called to Rome by the Jewish-Christians, and that his arrival was so exactly timed, that he became one of its victims. And besides, what conceivable purpose could his call to Rome have served?

In the Acts, then, there is no mention of Peter's sojourn in Rome. But why has the author of the Acts not mentioned. this interesting fact, especially since he describes so minutely Peter's part in the foundation of Christianity? Why has he not given the fitting close to his work by detailing the incidents of the meeting in Rome between Peter and Paul? And even supposing that Peter came thither after Paul's death, is it credible that Luke would have failed to give the place of Peter's final labors? It is no argument against this conjecture to say, that Luke left Peter's history and busied himself with Paul alone; for there is not in the narrative a very great regard for exact order.

The only New Testament passage yet unexamined is 1. Peter, v: 13" The church that is at Babylon." It seems strange that this name should ever have excited any controversy, and yet, it has been a point earnestly and repeatedly

discussed. Many learned men have decided, that by Babylon Peter means Rome; that, consequently, he must have been in Rome when he wrote his epistle. Thus this text has been cited by the advocates of the theory, as proving that, at least, a part of Peter's life was spent in the Eternal City. The ground upon which this singular decision rests is, that Babylon is the ordinary designation for Rome in the Revelation. Now, orthodox critics assign the latter book to the years A.D. 95-97; and 1 Peter to A.D. 63-68, therefore, some thirty years earlier. There are weighty objections to taking the name allegorically. It occurs in the midst of simple and matter-of-fact sayings. As Alford says: "The apostle, in ch. i: 1, had seen fit to localize the Christians whom he was addressing, and he now sends greetings from their sister, an elect Christian woman in Babylon. There might obviously be a reason why he should thus designate her, but no reason whatever why he should go out of his way to make an enigma for all future readers, if he meant the Church at Rome by these words." It will be seen by this passage that Alford holds that ǹ ovvenλeur refers to some female, probably Peter's wife. But even if we understand it differently, the argument is forcible.

But there is no difficulty at all in the way of our taking the name literally. Babylon, at that time, yet stood, and was the centre of a large Jewish population. It was, therefore, an appropriate field for the Apostle to the Circumcision. There was no reason for applying the epithet, Babylon, to Rome until the Neronian persecution. Because, then, for the first time, did Rome occupy toward the New Testament Church the position which Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar had taken toward the Old. If then, by Babylon, in this passage, Rome is meant, the reference must have been customary, otherwise, the reader could not have guessed the mystical meaning of the word. But as this mystical meaning was popularized or created by its use in the Revelation, it follows, either that the epistle is postapostolic, or by that Babylon, simply Babylon is meant. Accepting this latter inference, we say that if Peter wrote this letter from Babylon as soon as the news of the Neronian persecution in Asia Minor reached him, as some have supposed, although there is no evidence that that persecution ever extended to the provinces, then it is simply impossible that he