Part II.

It was late before Aunt Nancy felt the approach of sleep that night. She turned restlessly from side to side, thinking over Bessie’s strange behavior, and trying to find a solution for it. The appearance of a mystery disturbed all calculations based upon her plain and outspoken experience.

But the habits of years are not easily broken, and sleep, that for more than six decades had been wont to settle over this woman’s head as regularly as darkness settled on the earth, began now to dim her senses. She was about losing consciousness, when the vague sense of pain and perplexity which still clung to her mind strengthened and took a new form. It was no longer a woman who laughed bitterly when she should have wept, but a woman sobbing violently, she knew not why.

The sound continued, and before its dreary persistence Aunt Nancy’s hovering sleep took flight. She started up and listened, not yet quite recalled to recollection. It was indeed a woman’s voice sobbing uncontrollably. For one moment, the listener’s blood chilled with a superstitious fear; the next, she recollected that she was not alone in the house. It was Bessie who mourned. “_Rachel weeping for her children, because they were not_,” the old woman thought pityingly.

Poor Bessie had forgotten how thin the walls were in her old home, and, when the door opened and a tall figure clad in white entered her room, she uttered a cry of affright.

“You poor child! I couldn’t stand it to hear you cry so,” Aunt Nancy said, going to her bedside and bending down to put a caressing arm around her. “Don’t cry! Try to remember that you have not lost everything.”

“I’m sorry I disturbed you, Aunt Nancy,” Bessie said faintly, sinking back on the pillow. “You had better leave me to have it out alone. I don’t often get a chance to have a good cry, and you have no idea what a relief it is.”

“I know all about it!” Aunt Nancy replied, and her voice, low and deep, had a sound like a tolling bell. “I have seen ’em all go and leave me, one after another, father and mother, brothers and sisters, husband and children, till every earthly hope was covered over with dust, and it seemed as though there was dust on the very bread I ate. Yes, I know what it is better than you, for you have your husband and one child left yet, and I have nothing on earth!”

“I have not!” Bessie cried out passionately, with the jealousy of one whose grief is underestimated. “John and the boy are further away from me than my dead children are!”

The barrier was down. She had betrayed herself, and must tell the whole, though she might be sorry afterward for having spoken. Concealment and self‐control were no longer possible.

It was a tale too often true, though not so often told. The husband, engrossed in business, and missing no home care which the love and duty of his wife could bestow, had forgotten, or did not care, or did not believe, that any return was due from him save a pecuniary support, or that he could be guilty of any sin of omission toward his wife, save the omission to provide her with food and shelter.

Perhaps no woman ever saw the heart she had once possessed slipping away from her, without making a mistake in her efforts to retain it. Indifference is her surest means of success, but indifference the loving heart can never affect. As well might flame hope to hide itself, living, in ashes.

The reserve and gravity of wounded feeling, when at length the husband noticed them, he named sulkiness, and the meanness of the causes to which he ascribed that were felt as an insult. The few timid reproaches and petitions the wife had brought herself to utter he listened to with surprise and annoyance, or with ridicule. Why, what in the world did she want?—to begin their courting days over again? In order to do that, they must first be divorced. What had he done? Had he beaten, or scolded, or starved her? Had he gone gallivanting about with other women? Nonsense! He had his business to attend to. Of course he loved her, but she mustn’t bother him.

What reply is possible to such arguments? How small seem all our sweetest human needs when they are put into words, simply because words can never express them! In such a controversy, hard natures have always the advantage over sensitive ones, and seem to triumph by their very inferiority.

Bessie was silent, and her husband thought that she was convinced, and dismissed the subject from his mind. If he observed that she grew pale, he supposed that city air did not agree with her. He missed no home comfort, heard no complaint, and therefore took for granted that all was right. He frequently absented himself from home on business, never asking his wife to accompany him, women being in the way on such occasions, and she seemed satisfied to see nothing beyond her own fireside. He brought home his plans and studies at evening, and, when the children’s play and caresses disturbed him, their mother took them away and amused them elsewhere. When, later, her little ones asleep, as she sat by her husband silently working, he found that the snip of her scissors and the rattle of her spools fretted him, Bessie said not a word, but went off to bed, and wet her pillow with bitter and unavailing tears, finding no comfort.

The thought of seeking comfort and help in her religion had not once entered her mind. She was dead to its obligations. They had never been impressed on her, and her heart had been engrossed by other interests. Her children had been baptized, and she usually went to an early Mass on Sunday, but never heard a sermon, and never read a religious book. She prayed often, but it was the outcry of pain, the petition for an earthly good, not the prayer for resignation and wisdom.

Of his wife’s real life John Maynard knew no more than he did of life at the antipodes. His profession engrossed his heart. His happiness was to work and study over polished metals, to fit cylinder, crank, and valve with nicety into their places; and at last, when that exquisite but irresistible power of steam, so delicate in its fineness, yet so terrible in its strength, began to steal into his work, to see the creature of brass and iron grow alive, and become more mighty than an army of giants, how tenderly could he handle, how carefully arrange, how patiently study out, the parts of his work! For the problem of that infinitely more exquisite mechanism—his wife’s heart—he had no time.

The boy, as boys will, followed in the footsteps of his father. He emulated the slighting of which the father was himself unconscious, and treated his mother with that intolerable mixture of patronizing kindness and impatient superiority so often witnessed in the presumptuous children of our time.

When Bessie Maynard had poured out her complaint, with many an illustration of which a woman could well understand the bitterness, Aunt Nancy was silent a moment.

“It’s pretty hard, dear,” she said then, embarrassed what to say. “Some men have that way of not caring anything about their wives, as soon as they have got them; but I never thought John would act so. And you know, Bessie, that, if it is hard, still he is your husband, and you can’t leave him for that. Try to be patient, and don’t lose courage. I’m sure he loves you, though he doesn’t show it; and he’ll come round by‐and‐by.”

The reply almost broke in on this trite advice: “I did not mean to leave him. I came down here to think. I can’t think there. I wanted to see again this place where I was a child, and where I was so happy. I thought that perhaps some of the old feelings might come back. I have been afraid of some things. Aunt Nancy, I was afraid I should grow to hate John!”

“Oh! no, Bessie,” the old woman exclaimed. “Never let yourself hate your own husband! It would be a dreadful sin; and, besides, it wouldn’t mend matters. It is better for a woman to love one who cares nothing for her than not to love anybody. I don’t believe but John is fond of you still, if he’d only stop to think of it.”

There was no reply.

“What else were you afraid of?” Aunt Nancy asked presently. “You said you were afraid of some things?”

Bessie did not answer.

That other fear that, shunned at first, then glanced upon, then brooded over silently till it had grown almost a probability, flashed out again on her in all its original hatefulness when she found herself about to explain it to a listener like this.

“If you don’t want to tell, I won’t ask you,” Aunt Nancy said, with almost childlike timidity. “But, may be, since you have begun, you would feel better not to keep anything back. You know, Bessie, I am on your side, though I am John’s own aunt.”

The younger woman crept nearer into the arm that half held her, and said, in a hurried whisper, “Every one is not so indifferent to me as John is!”

“I’m glad of it, child,” was the calm reply. “I don’t like to praise people to their faces, but you always had a sweet, winning way. I am glad that other people are good to you.” She waited again for the explanation, not dreaming that it had been given.

Bessie Maynard drew a breath, like one who plunges into water. “There’s some one who thinks me worth watching and sympathizing with, if John doesn’t,” she said.

“You don’t mean a man!” exclaimed Aunt Nancy.

“Of course I do,” answered Bessie almost pettishly.

The words were scarcely out of her mouth, before she was flung back on to the pillow by the arms that had held her so tenderly, and Aunt Nancy stood erect by the bedside. “Aren’t you ashamed of yourself, Bessie Maynard?” she cried out indignantly.

“No, I am not!” was the dogged answer. “I have nothing to be ashamed of.”

The flash of the old woman’s eyes could be seen in the dim light. “What! you, a married woman, not ashamed to let a man who is not your husband talk love to you!”

“He never spoke a word of love to me,” said Bessie, still sulky.

Aunt Nancy was utterly puzzled. “How do you know, then?” she asked.

Neither by nature nor education was this woman fitted to understand that subtile manner by which impressions and assurances are conveyed without a word having been spoken. A man would have been obliged to use plain language indeed, if he would have had her, a wife, understand that he loved her.

While Bessie described some of the delicate kindnesses of this dangerous friend of hers, Aunt Nancy listened attentively, and presently resumed her seat by the bed. She really could not see that the child had done, or meant, or wished any real harm.

“But, still, you must look out for the fellow, dear,” she said. “He wouldn’t hang round you so if he was what he ought to be. You never know what these city gentlemen are.”

“He isn’t a bad man!” Bessie exclaimed. “I won’t have him called so. I’m afraid; but, for all that, I respect him. I wish John were half as good.”

The story was ended; but with the feeling of relief which followed the disburdening of her heart came also the uneasiness and half regret we always experience when we have been led unawares to confide a secret to one whom we have not deliberately chosen as a confidant. Conscious of this new uneasiness, Bessie wished to close the conversation.

“Don’t let me keep you any longer,” she said. “Go to bed now, and forget all the nonsense I have been talking. I am sorry I disturbed you.”

Aunt Nancy paid no attention to this request. She sat a few moments in deep thought, then spoke abruptly: “Bessie, did you ever go to any of your priests about this business?”

“To a priest!” repeated Bessie, astonished at such a question from a rigid Puritan like her aunt, and doubtful in what spirit it was asked. “What made you think of that?”

“I am not a Catholic,” the old woman said, “but you are. And I like to see people live up to their religion, whatever it is. A religion that won’t help you in a strait like this isn’t worth having.”

Bessie was silent, knowing not what to say. Her faith was sleeping. That religion would help as really as the trials of earth can hurt she had not thought. Like many others, she invoked the aid of the church on the great events, the births, the marriages, and the deaths, but let the rest of life fight its own battles.

“Now, you listen to me,” Aunt Nancy said earnestly. “I’m not very wise, but I’m going to give you the best advice that you can get anywhere. Just you write to old Father Conners, the priest that married you and John, and tell him what a trouble you are in. I’ve seen him, and I believe he’s a good Christian, if he is a priest, and a sensible man, too. He comes three or four times a year up to a Mr. Blake’s, over on the railroad, and says Mass in his house. There are a good many Catholics round there now. It’s about time for him to come again. You write to him, and you won’t be sorry for it. There’s nothing else for you to do. Will you write, Bessie? I want you to promise.”

The promise was given hesitatingly, doubtingly, more to get rid of the subject than from any conviction of its wisdom.

But a promise is a promise, and next morning Bessie wrote the letter, not because she wished to, but because she must; and a very dry, cold letter it was. She was a little helped to the writing of it by the pleasant prospect of carrying it to mail. That would give her a long, solitary walk and a whole afternoon quite to herself; for the post‐office was in a desk, in a corner of the sitting‐room of a farm‐house four miles distant. This house was at the end of postal and stage accommodations in that direction. Three times a week a double‐seated open wagon was driven there from a seaport town thirty miles to the southward, passing through several small villages on its way. This stage had brought Bessie up, and was to return the next morning.

She set out on her walk soon after their early dinner, and reached the post‐office just at the high tide of that country afternoon leisure, when, their noon dinner quite cleared away, the women of the house are ordinarily free from everything that they would call labor. At this time the housewife smooths her hair and ties on a clean apron. One hears the snap of knitting‐needles through the silence, or the drowsy hum of the spinning‐wheel, or the sound of the loom where the deep‐blue woollen web grows, thread by thread, while the weaver tosses her shuttle to and fro.

Bessie had dreaded the gossip which she must expect to encounter; but, as she approached, the sight of blue and pink sun‐bonnets out in the field, where the women were raking, hay, relieved her fear. Not a soul was in the house. The watch‐dog, recollecting her, gave no alarm, only walked gravely by her side, and looked on while she slipped her letter into the bag left to receive the mail. All the doors and windows stood open, and the sunshine lay bright and clear on the white bare floors. Large, stupid flies bumped their heads against the panes of glass, and a bumble‐bee flew in at the front door, wandered noisily about the rooms, and out again by the back door. The painted wooden chairs stood straightly against the yellow‐washed walls, and a large rocking‐chair, with a chintz cushion, occupied one corner. A braided cloth mat covered the hearth, and the fireplace was filled with cedar boughs, through which glittered the brass andirons. On the high mantel‐piece stood a pair of brass candlesticks, and a tumbler filled with wild roses.

Bessie glanced hurriedly about, then stole out, trembling lest she should be discovered and pounced upon by some loud‐voiced man or woman from whom escape would be impossible. But no one appeared, and in a few minutes she was out of sight of the house.

Loud would be their exclamations of wonder and regret when they should discover that letter, knowing who must have brought it. How curiously would they handle it over, and examine it, and try to peep into it while they speculated and guessed concerning its contents!

“One comfort,” said Bessie to herself, as she glanced over her shoulder, and saw the last sun‐bonnet disappear, “I sealed it so that not even a particle of air could get in; and they can’t see a word without committing felony.”

The June day was passing away in a soft glory. All the world was green, all the sky was blue, and all the air was golden. But the green was so various, from a verdant blackness, through many tints, to a vivid green that was almost yellow, it seemed many‐colored as it was many‐shaped. There was every shape and size, from the graceful plume of ferns to the square‐topped oak with its sturdy, horizontal branches. Through it all wound the narrow brown road, with a line of grass in the middle between the wagon‐wheels where the horses feet spared it. The birds were singing their evening song, and a brook at the roadside lisped faintly here and there, then lay still and shone, then suddenly laughed outright.

On such an evening one does long to be happy; and, if happy, then one feels that it is not enough. Bessie walked on slowly, taking long breaths of the clear, perfumed air that had now an evening coolness. She would fain have stayed out till night fell. The house was near, so she stepped aside, sat down on a mossy rock, and looked at the sunset. The last, thin, shining cloud there melted in the fervid light, grew faint, and disappeared. Bessie’s eyes, so tearful that all this universe of green and gold swam before them, were fixed on the sky, and she thought over, with a clearer mind now, the last feverish, miserable years of her life.

It seemed to her that, if she had been less exclusively devoted to her husband, and had interested herself in other people and in the events of the day, she would have been wiser and happier. She had made herself as a slave, and had received a slave’s portion. It would be better to stand on a more equal footing, and, since works of supererogation, instead of winning his gratitude and affection, only fostered his selfishness and lowered her, to confine herself to the duties she was bound to perform.

“But it is my nature to love something with my whole strength, so that all else seems small in comparison,” she said, sighing. “How can I help it?”

While she gazed fixedly at the sky, at first without seeing, she presently became aware of a red‐gold crescent moon that had grown visible under her eyes, curved like a bow when the arrow is just singing from the string, like the new moon whereon Our Lady stands, a tower of ivory.

The tears in Bessie’s eyes made the shining curve tremble in the sky as though a hand held it; and, as though it were a bent bow, an arrowy thought flew from it, and struck quivering into her heart:

“Love God, and all will be well!”

She sat a minute longer, then rose and went quietly homeward. Aunt Nancy would be anxious about her; and the desire for solitude was gone. She was glad now that she had written to Father Conners, though the letter might have shown a gentler spirit. It was a comfort to have done something that was right, though it was not much.

One does not ordinarily become pious in a moment. We may recognize the voice of God, and be startled at the clearness and suddenness of the summons, but our sluggish faith has ever an excuse for a little more folding of the hands to sleep. But though not obedient at once, Bessie Maynard felt, rather than saw, that there was a refuge which made it no longer possible for her to despair.

Within a few days she received an answer to her letter. The priest was coming to that neighborhood by the last of the week, and would see her. The letter was brief and to the point, and contained not one word of sympathy or exhortation; but the tremulous characters, that told of age or infirmity touched the heart of the reader. This old man gave her no soft words, but he was hastening to her relief. For the first time, she anxiously asked herself if it had not been possible for her to avoid all her trouble, and if there was any element in her story which could reasonably be expected to call forth anything but reproof for herself from a man whose whole life had been one of charity and self‐denial. She wished to see him indeed, but she awaited his coming with a feeling little short of terror.

Bessie had not written to her husband. She could not bring herself to do that, for she did not wish to write coldly to him, and she would not use expressions of affection which had no echo in her heart. But she wrote to her son a gentle and tender letter, of which he was neither old nor sensitive enough to feel the pathos. Only one reproach found a place there: “I thought you might like to hear from me, though you cared more for your play than you did to say good‐by to me when I came here, and left me to go to the depot alone.” She did not intimate, though she thought, that the business which had called her husband away at the same time might as easily have been postponed.

Father Conners came. His open buggy was driven to the door one morning, and the boy who sat with him held the horse while the priest slowly alighted. He was a large, powerful‐looking man, still vigorous, though slightly bent and stiff with age. Snow‐white hair framed his expressive face, in which sternness and benevolence were strangely mingled. His color was fresh, perfect teeth gave a brilliancy to his infrequent smile, and his pale‐blue eyes were almost too penetrating to be met with ease. He walked with his head slightly bent down and his gaze fixed upon the ground till he reached the door, then looked up to see Bessie standing on the threshold.

She was a pretty creature still, in spite of troubled years, and her manner and expression would have propitiated a sterner judge. Blushes overspread her face, and she trembled; yet an impulse of joyful welcome broke through and brightened her, as a sunbeam brightens the cloud.

The priest stopped short, with no ceremony of greeting, and regarded her a moment, while she waited for him to speak.

The scrutiny satisfied him apparently.

“You did well to come back here,” he said then, and made a motion to enter. She stood aside for him to pass, and followed him into the little parlor which she had spent all the morning in preparing for him. An arm‐ chair had been improvised out of a barrel, some pillows, and a shawl, the rude fireplace was filled with green, and there were dishes of flowers about.

Her visitor did not appear to notice these simple efforts to do him honor. Almost before seating himself, he began to speak of what had brought him there.

“Now, my child, though I have time enough to say and hear all that is necessary, though it should take a week, I have no time to waste. Tell me the meaning of your letter?”

No time for gradual approach, for timid intimations, or delicate reserves till, warming with the subject, she could show plainly all that was in her heart. She must make the “epic plunge” without delay. Stimulated by the necessity, Bessie called up her wits and her courage, and, without being aware of it, told everything in a few words.

When she paused and expected him to question her, to her surprise he seemed already to know the whole. And, to her still greater pleasure, those points on which she had touched lightly, fearing that they might seem trivial in his eyes, he spoke of with sympathy.

“It is those little attentions and kindnesses which sweeten human life, my child, and help to sustain us under its heavier trials,” he said.

Bessie lifted her grateful, tearful eyes, and thanked him with a sad smile.

“And now,” he continued, “I want you to go to confession.”

Her eyes dilated with astonishment. She was confused and distressed, and a painful blush rose to her face.

“I have not confessed for years,” she stammered. “I am not prepared. When I have time to think, I will go to confession in a church. It seems strange to confess here.”

The priest was by nature and habits peremptory, and he knew that this was the proper time to exercise that quality. “Any place is proper for confession, if a better one is not to be had,” he said. “As to being prepared, let us see. You tell me that you have been thinking this all over this week, to see wherein you may have done wrong. There, then, is an examen of your conscience as to your duties toward your husband and, indirectly, toward God. You say that you have not practised your religion, but mean to do so in future. There is attrition, at least, and a purpose of amendment. You say that you know all you have committed of serious wrong in these years, don’t you?”

“Yes,” was the answer.

“You know humanly, as far as you can know, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit?” the priest corrected.

“Yes,” said Bessie again. “But I want to think it over, and make sure of my sorrow and good resolutions.”

“In short, you wish to reform and convert yourself, then go to God,” said Father Conners. “That is not the way. It is God who is to convert you. You need not stay to try to conquer your feelings, and hesitate for fear you may not be able to. Your reason is convinced. It is enough. Go to God, and ask him to help you to do the rest. While you are thinking the subject over in the woods here, you may die, or the devil may come and tempt you in the shape of this friend of yours. I will give you half an hour. While I have gone out to read my office under the trees, you kneel down here, and first ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten you, and reveal all your sins. Then say, and mean, that you are sorry, and plan how you may do better with God’s help in the future.”

He had risen while speaking, and was going toward the door. Refusal was impossible. Bessie carried her shawl‐covered arm‐chair out, and set it under a thick old pine‐tree on the slippery brown pine‐needles, through which tiny ants were running in every direction, very busy about some buildings of their own, carrying sticks larger than themselves.

Father Conners seated himself, set his hat on the ground by his side, spread a red silk handkerchief over his head, and took out his Breviary. He had but little time to attend to the beauties of nature, but the situation brought an expression of pleasure to his face. He gave one glance up into the overshadowing branches that spread their fragrant screen between him and the sun, then a kindlier glance to the young woman who stood looking wistfully at him.

“Come here for your confession when you are ready, child,” he said, “and don’t be afraid. See how peaceful the skies are. Is God less gentle? And here! take my watch, and come back in twenty‐five minutes. You have lost five minutes already.”

Bessie took the large silver watch on its black ribbon, and hastened to shut herself in her room, and Father Conners became absorbed in his office. So much absorbed was he, he did not observe that the silk handkerchief slipped slowly from his head, and that a large spider let itself down by a thread from the tree above, stopped within a few inches of that silvery hair, which it contemplated curiously, then ran up its silken ladder again as a young woman came out of the house, walked with faltering steps across the sward, and sank on her knees by the priest’s side.

An hour later, Father Conners climbed laboriously into his carriage, and drove away, and Bessie leaned on the bars, and watched him as long as he was in sight. She felt strong and peaceful. She counted over the promises she had made him, and resolved anew that they should be kept.

She stood there so long that Aunt Nancy, after having kept her dinner waiting out of all reason, came down to speak to her. She came with anxiety and hesitation, not knowing whether her niece was better or worse for this visit.

“You gave me good advice, Aunt Nancy,” Bessie said, turning at the sound of her step.

The old lady was delighted. “So you’re all right?” she said.

“I have got into the right track, at least,” Bessie answered, as they walked up toward the house. “I have been to confession.”

Aunt Nancy’s face clouded again on hearing this avowal. That was all the priest’s visit had amounted to, then—that John’s wife had been induced to go to confession! How could people be so superstitious, so subjected, to their priests? She had hoped that Bessie might have received some good sound advice and instruction.

This she thought, but said nothing.

How was she to know that in that one word confession was included advice, instruction, good resolution, and sorrow for sin, as well as the mystical rite which she abhorred?

To Be Continued.

S. Peter’s Roman Pontificate.

The history of mankind presents us innumerable facts that strike the reader with astonishment, and tax his ingenuity to its utmost to explain. The sudden fall of nations from the height of prosperity to misery and subjection, the invasion of hordes of barbarians to substitute their uncouthness and ferocity for the polish and civilization of centuries, the apparent vocation of some one nation, at different epochs, to assume a preponderance over all others in the government of the world, the appearance of some one great mind that shone like a sun amid the galaxy of intellect, revolutionizing his time, and then setting, without leaving any one to continue his work; all these facts confuse the mind, and, when man has lost the light that was sent into this world to guide him, seem to him but the bitter irony of destiny. Not so, however, are they viewed by him to whom revelation has imparted its illumining rays. He sees Providence everywhere, and, knowing some wise end has been intended by the Creator whose power conserves and directs the evolutions of the planets and the vicissitudes of human life, he is encouraged to inquire into the end for which such wonderful events have been brought about. ’Twas by this light the great Bishop of Hippo saw the providential disposition of the changes that took place in the world; looked on all history but as the preparation and continuation of the master‐work of God—his church. ’Twas by this light that, following in the footsteps of S. Augustine, Bossuet understood the relations of such different facts, and showed their connection in his _Universal History_. These men, and those who, like them, have studied the history of the nations of the earth, had no difficulty in realizing the relation of all these facts, and in looking on them as so many confirmations of the truth of Christianity; but those who are without faith stand aghast at the inexplicable phenomena they see before them, and of all none so sets at naught their judgment and defies their explanation as the greatest, the most persistent, the most important of all historical facts—the existence of the Catholic Church. They see it everywhere; modifying everything; setting at defiance all calculation; and when, according to human judgment, it should cease to exist, coming forth from the ordeal purer, stronger, more brilliant and powerful than before. Yet, they are not willing to learn by experience, but look forward to a future day when an expedient or a means will be discovered to destroy in its turn this gigantic fabric that appears to scorn the ravages of time and the fury of tempest, just as the Jews look forward to the Messiah who is to deliver them from captivity among the nations. In their useless hope, they leave nothing untried, and often scruple not at what in their private capacity they might scorn—distortion of history and downright calumny. No human institution could ever have withstood the array of powerful enemies the church of Christ has had since she first went forth from Mount Sion. No age has ever seen her without them; sometimes fierce persecutors, sometimes insidious plotters, sometimes open impugners of her dogmas; at other times dangerous foes, cloaking their hostility under the garb of devotion that they might better strike deep into her bosom the poison with which, in their foolish hate, they fancied they were to deprive her of life. But the spouse of Christ has always cast them from her, and walked majestically over the ruins they themselves had brought about, and this she will ever do. And why? Because she does not lean on a broken reed nor put her trust in an arm of flesh. She bears about her a charm that defies all attack—the protection of the Most High—and presents to all the proof of her holy character, those motives of credibility, that as they were intended for all time, so now as on the day of Pentecost, accompany her wherever she goes, invincibly proving to the mind of man her own divine origin and her claim to his obedience. As she was one, in the union of all her children in one faith and in one baptism; as she was holy in the lives of those that obeyed her; as she was catholic and universal, embracing peoples of _all_ climes and of _all_ ages; as she was apostolic in her origin and in the succession of her ministry, so is she now, one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in the succession of her priesthood and in the infallibility of her head. As she was able to point to the wonders wrought by the apostle in the name of her divine founder, so now can she point to the miracles of her chosen servants: an Alphonsus de Liguori, a Paul of the Cross, a Ven. Pallotta, a Maria Taigi, a Maria Moerl, and a host of others, down to the martyred victims of communistic fury. She can show in the XIXth century, as she did in the first, a host of martyrs; old men and youths, matrons and tender virgins, who, when arraigned for their faith before the Chinese mandarin, fulfilled the promise of Christ, and gave inspired answers, as did the glorious children of the early church, and sealed, too, with their blood the belief they held dearer than life.

We can understand, then, how the church can look fearlessly at the storms that ever and anon burst upon her, because, built on the solidity of her belief, she knows the waves can but break harmless at her feet. She has no need of human means to secure her existence, for that has a promise of perennial duration. The condition, too, of her being is one of struggle and warfare, and, when it comes upon her, her only act is to oppose the shield of faith and the sword of the word of God—her only arms the truth. And as it is written that truth will prevail, so in every battle in which she has been engaged she has come forth at last with victory inscribed on her banner—victory through the truth.

We have said that the condition of her being is struggle and warfare. This, therefore, is never wanting; as all the world knows, she is called on to defend herself just now against the fiercest attacks she has perhaps ever suffered—perhaps even beyond what she underwent in that fearful persecution, in which her enemies directed against her every engine of destruction, and in their mad rejoicing recorded the inscription, _Christiano nomine deleto_. To‐day the openly declared foes of her faith are seated in triumph in her stronghold, and strain every nerve to uproot from the mind and heart of her children the faith of their fathers. Not content with attacking the dogmas she teaches, they assail every fact which in any way may favor her, no matter how clearly the history of past ages may proclaim its truth. An instance of this we have had but recently, but a few months ago, when an attempt was made to prove that the fact upon which the whole jurisdiction of the church is grounded never occurred—that S. Peter forsooth never came to Rome, and never founded the church there! With what success the champions of this assertion advocated their cause is known; and it may still further be judged of from the fact that a person who came to the discussion, doubting of the fact of S. Peter’s having been in Rome, left the hall after hearing the Catholic speakers, convinced that such an historical personage as S. Peter had lived and been in Rome, and he recorded his belief in one of the leading journals of Italy not favorable to the Catholic cause.

It may be said to be a strange phenomenon that a fact of history so notorious, and for which so great an amount of proof exists, which has at its command every fount of human certitude, as that of the coming of S. Peter to Rome, ever should have been called in question. But what will not party spirit attempt? It is not the first time nor will it be the last that partisans will seek to rid themselves of troublesome facts by downright denial of them. This spirit, however, is a dangerous one, and especially unbecoming the sincere student of history. We know what Bacon has said about the _idola_, and it is incumbent on every one who is searching after historic truth to lay aside prejudice or even the desire that facts may favor him. He must look at them merely as they are, take them on their proof, without, striving to lessen them or give them other proportions than are inherent in them. If the scope of all research is to find out the truth, it is our duty to seek it only, and not mar its beauty by adding to or detracting from it. In the present case the remark is highly applicable. Catholics have nothing to fear in examining the historic proofs on which the coming of S. Peter to Rome rests; while those who differ from them, in so far as they love truth, should be equally glad to look well into the claims to truth which this same fact puts forward. We propose to go briefly over the ground. We say briefly because it seems almost presumptuous, since so many able pens have dedicated themselves to this task, that we should undertake it anew. There seems to us, however, a want to be supplied, on this subject, something succinct and not too learned or too lengthy for the ordinary reader, engrossed in pursuits that do not allow time for more extended studies. This must be our excuse as well as our reason for the present undertaking.

In the discussion that took place in Rome on the 9th and 10th February, 1872, the chief speaker on the negative side ended his discourse by saying that, no matter what weight of testimony could be brought to sustain S. Peter’s coming to Rome, the silence of Scripture was for him an unanswerable argument; the Scripture should have spoken of the fact had it existed; it said nothing about it, therefore it had never existed. Were it not that the subject is too serious for such quotations, we should say with Gratiano, “We thank thee for teaching us that word!” This was the feeling that came over us as we heard the expression from the lips of the speaker, and now, after so much has been written, we have it still. It is needless to say that such an expression betrays anxiety with regard to positive argument, if not a suspicion of weakness in one’s own cause. We shall endeavor to show that there was reason both for this suspicion and this anxiety.

And, first, the opinion which is least probable concerning the death of S. Peter satisfactorily accounts for the silence of the Acts and of the Epistle to the Romans, the portions of Scripture on which our adversaries lay most stress in this matter. According to this opinion, S. Peter was martyred in Rome, _Nerone et Vetere Consulibus_, _i.e._, according to the Bucherian Catalogue, in the second year of Nero, the year 54 of the Christian era, this leaving S. Peter twenty‐five years of pontificate, from the year 29 to the year 54. S. Linus succeeded him, and ruled the church twelve years, dying after S. Paul, who was put to death before Nero went into Greece. S. Peter was therefore, according to this chronology, dead before S. Paul reached Rome. It is not strange, then, the Acts does not speak of his being there. As for the Epistle to the Romans, if it was written in the year 53, or two years before S. Paul came to Rome according to Eusebius, the reasons we adduce further on will explain the silence with regard to S. Peter. If, as the ordinary opinion has it, the Epistle was written from Corinth, in the year 58, S. Peter being already four years dead, the omission of his name is easily accounted for.

We say, secondly, that, in the belief that S. Peter and S. Paul died at the same time in Rome, sufficient reason can be found for the silence both of the Acts and of the Epistle to the Romans.

We beg particular attention to what we are going to say. Those portions of Scripture do not prove by their silence that S. Peter _never_ came to Rome, first, because the Acts and the Epistle to the Romans are not adequate witnesses in the case; secondly, because neither the Acts nor the Epistle to the Romans was called on by circumstances to allude to S. Peter’s being in Rome.

And, first, the Acts and Epistle to the Romans are not adequate witnesses that S. Peter _never_ came to Rome. We call attention to the fact that the Epistle to the Romans was written two years before S. Paul came to Rome. What therefore we are going to say under this first head regarding the Acts applies with greater force to the Epistle to the Romans. We shall then confine our remarks wholly to the Acts in this connection. We say, then, that, in order that the Acts should be received as an adequate witness, it should cover the whole period from the time S. Peter first left Judæa to that of his death as fixed by received historical data, for we cannot arbitrarily determine the period of his death. Now, it is well known that history indicates the date of S. Peter’s death as that of S. Paul’s. They are represented as dying on the same day and in the same year, one by the sword, the other on the cross; such are the words of the Roman Martyrology. This being so, we call attention to the fact that the chief disputant on the negative side of the question fixed on the year 61, from the _Fasti Consulares—atti consolari_, as that in which S. Paul came to Rome, this being the year in which Portius Festus went to take possession of his province.(146) The Acts tells us that after S. Paul came to Rome he dwelt for two years in his own hired house. Here the narration ceases, leaving Paul alive and in the year 63 of the Christian era. From that time to his death, according to historical data, occurs a period, according to different computations, of from two to four years. About this period of time no mention is made in the Acts for the simple reason that it is not embraced there; the narrative breaks off just as it begins. What was to prevent S. Peter’s coming to Rome during this period of from two to four years? If he had, the Acts could have said nothing about it, nor could it if he had not. The conclusion is simple, the Acts, and, _a fortiori_, the Epistle to the Romans, written prior to it, are no competent or adequate witnesses to prove S. Peter _never_ came to Rome, nor died there.

We come to the second head: neither the Acts nor the Epistle to the Romans was called on to mention the fact of S. Peter’s being in Rome. With regard to the Acts, any one who will carefully read it will see that S. Luke narrates the acts of S. Paul. It was necessary to begin with some account of the commencement of the church to show S. Paul’s connection with it. This S. Luke does, speaking of the descent of the Holy Ghost, of the instantaneous and marvellous results of the preaching of S. Peter, of his admission of the Gentiles after the vision of the cloth containing all manner of animals, and then passes on to speak of S. Paul, of his persecution of the church, of the martyrdom of S. Stephen, of the wonderful conversion of S. Paul. Here S. Paul is brought into contact with S. Peter; but after the Council of Jerusalem, when S. Paul sets out to evangelize the heathen, S. Peter is no more heard of, not even when S. Paul returns to Jerusalem, as narrated in chapter xxi. Was he dead? Had this been so ere S. Paul left Judæa, from his intimate contact with S. Peter, it is probable S. Luke would have mentioned a fact so important as the death of the first of the apostles. He was not dead. He and the other apostles no longer appear in the narration of S. Luke, if we except S. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, whom S. Paul saw (chapter xxi.), because S. Luke did not propose to give a complete history of the church at that time, or of the apostles, but only of S. Paul and his acts. The Acts are contained in twenty‐eight chapters. In chapter vii., v. 57, Saul the persecutor is spoken of for the first time; in the next four chapters he is frequently mentioned. In the xv., S. Peter is mentioned for the last time; and from this to the xxviii. S. Paul is the theme of the inspired writer. In the 15th verse of chapter xxviii. the Christians go out to meet Paul at Forum Appii, and in verse 16 he is in Rome a prisoner; verse 7 shows him to us calling together not the Christians, but the chief men of the Jews, to explain that he has not appealed to Cæsar because he had anything against his people. After these words, at verse 21, the Jews reply to him, and he instructs or upbraids them as far as verse 29, which represents the Jews going away incredulous. Verse 30 says: “He remained two years in his own hired house, and received all who came unto him; 31, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching with all confidence, and without prohibition, the things that are of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Here the Acts ends. Does there seem to the reader any place in these two verses for a mention of Peter? Ought the inspired writer to have added more to his account? It seems to us not, for the end he had in view was gained. He had been a companion of S. Paul, he had told those who knew it not what had happened in their travels, and now S. Paul was in Rome, and dwelling there, in the centre of the world, he did not deem it needful to say any more, otherwise he would have told us some of the actions of S. Paul, for wonders and conversions he certainly wrought in those two years. But as S. Luke says nothing about these, nor about the flourishing Church of Rome to which S. Paul two years before had addressed his Epistle from Corinth, it is not strange he says nothing about S. Peter.

The silence of S. Paul in regard to S. Peter, in his Epistle to the Romans, is not only of no avail to our adversaries, but the Epistle itself contains matter for strong argument that S. Peter was permanently in Rome, and in fact founded the church there.

First, with respect to the silence of S. Paul in regard to S. Peter. It is a received canon of criticism that the silence of authors does not affect the existence of a fact, when that fact is proven from documents of weight; and this all the more when no valid reason can be put forward to show the author or authors should have mentioned the fact in question. Now, this is precisely the case with regard to S. Paul’s silence about S. Peter. We have documentary and monumental evidence, as we shall see hereafter, that S. Peter did come to Rome, while there was no practical reason why S. Paul should mention S. Peter:—not for the sake of commending him, for that was neither becoming, as S. Peter was head of the apostolic college, nor necessary, as S. Peter’s works bore the stamp of divine sanction; not for the purpose of asking permission to labor in Rome, as the apostles were equal in the ministry, and united in a bond of perfect harmony and mutual understanding, though with subjection to the centre of unity, S. Peter, without, however, the distinctions of the various rights and duties afterwards introduced by ecclesiastical custom; not for the purpose of salutation, for he could not address S. Peter as head of the church in a tone of authoritative teaching; and salutations, if, contrary to what is generally held, Peter were in Rome at the time the letter was written, could be made privately by the messenger who carried the letter, and thus the duty of urbanity or charity, the only one that could require express notice of S. Peter, may have been fulfilled. In fact, propriety itself required this latter mode of salutation, lest it should be said that S. Paul, instead of having directly addressed S. Peter, had saluted him publicly through those to whom he wrote—the Christians of Rome, the spiritual subjects of S. Peter. The silence, then, of S. Paul is of no weight to prove S. Peter never was in Rome.

The argument of silence, therefore, falls to the ground.

We said the Epistle to the Romans contains matter to show S. Peter was in Rome, and founded the church there.

Let us bear in mind who S. Peter was—the Apostle of the Gentiles. Why was it he did not go at once to the centre of the Gentile world? Could any more potent means have been adopted to spread Christianity? There centred the civilization of the known world; there the Ethiopian met the Scythian, the swarthy men from the banks of the Ganges were face to face with those who first saw light by the waters of the Tagus, and the Numidian horseman and the German warrior strolled through the Forum, admiring the temples of the gods of Rome. Nowhere was there more certainty of success in spreading abroad novelty of any kind than in this Babylon, receiving into its vast enclosure men of all the nations over which it ruled, and sending them forth again filled with wonder at what they saw, and eager to impart to their less fortunate countrymen what they had learned in their sojourn in the great city. Thither, however, S. Paul did not go, and why? Because some one was there already—some one of power and authority; some one whose labors had been crowned with success, and who had built up a church, the faith of which at the time this epistle was written was known throughout the whole world. S. Peter tells us himself he desired to go to the Romans to impart to them something of spiritual grace to strengthen them, that is, to be comforted in them “by that which is mutual—your faith and mine.” The mode of expression of S. Paul in this place, vv. 11 and 12, is worthy of notice. He says to the Romans he longs to see them to _strengthen them_, and, as if he might be misunderstood, he adds immediately, “_that is to say_, that I may be comforted together in you.” Evidently he speaks here as one who is careful lest he seem to usurp the place of another, or assume a right of teaching with authority which belonged to another. He would not have the Romans think he considers that the one who rules them is inferior to himself or stands in need of his support. In verse 18 he says: “I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, that I have often proposed to come unto you (and I have been prevented hitherto) that I may have some fruit among you as among other peoples.” It is manifest here that S. Paul’s duties with the Greeks kept him from going to Rome, and this, as we said before, because, the Romans being already provided with one who could teach them, there was not the pressing need of him that would make him leave those who had none to preach to them.

What we have said with regard to the tone of the first chapter of the Epistle is confirmed by the words of the apostle in chapter xv. 19‐26. Here S. Paul says why he had not gone to Rome—because he was preaching to those _who had no one to preach to them_. Had the Romans had no apostle preaching to them, this would not have been a reason to put forward, because the superiority of an apostle over any other preacher of the word was such as to do away with the necessity of any comparison, and to make all desirous in an eminent degree of seeing and hearing the chosen men the sound of whose voice was to be heard throughout the whole world. S. Paul then continues: “When I shall begin to take my journey into Spain, I hope _that as I pass_, I shall see you, and be brought on my way thither by you, if first, in part, I shall have enjoyed you.” From this it results, first, that S. Paul had no intention of remaining in Rome; and, secondly, that what he desired was to enjoy, in meeting the Romans, the consolation of seeing their faith, and of sharing with them the spiritual gifts he himself had received, which should serve to make them yet more steadfast in their fidelity to the Gospel, precisely as, to use an example, the preaching of the same doctrine they have heard from their own bishop, by a bishop who is his guest, strengthens the faithful in their religious belief.

The fact, then, stands that a flourishing church existed in Rome at the time S. Paul wrote his Epistle, and this is still further shown by the salutations in the last chapter. Who founded it? History is silent regarding any one but S. Peter. As Alexandria claims S. Peter and S. Mark; as Ephesus, S. John; as innumerable other cities and countries their respective apostles, so does Rome claim S. Peter as its first evangelizer. It would be absurd to say that all these other cities and nations could retain the memory of him who first preached to them the word of God, and Rome—the greatest of all, where so notorious a fact as the preaching of Jesus Christ could not pass by unnoticed, especially when its effects were so luminously conspicuous as S. Paul tells us they were—this Rome should alone be ungratefully forgetful of her best benefactor. The thing is absurd on the face of it. But history is silent about any other founder except S. Peter; therefore we are justified in concluding that S. Peter, and S. Peter alone, was the original founder of the Church of Rome, and that Rome is right in holding her tradition that such was the fact.

This tradition of S. Peter’s having been in Rome, having founded the church there, and having died there, gives strength to the conclusion which Scripture has aided us to form. To any one who is at all conversant with Rome, it must always have appeared a very remarkable fact that the discoveries made by the zeal of her archæologists have, as a rule, confirmed the traditions existing among the people both with regard to localities and facts. It would seem as if Providence, in these days of widespread scepticism, were unearthing the long‐hid monuments of the past to put to confusion those who would fain treat the history of early ages as a myth. The monuments stare them in the face, while their value is understood by men of sound practical sense. This is the reason of the reaction that is taking place against the sceptical style of writing history which Niebühr and Dr. Arnold adopted, and made to a certain extent fashionable. The words of a well‐informed writer, whose works have been deservedly well received—Mr. Dyer—are an excellent reply to authors of that stamp, based, as they are, on sound sense and the experience of mankind—the safest guides we can possibly follow; for it is folly to think that those who have gone before us blindly received everything that was told them. Whatever may have happened with regard to individuals, such certainly never was the case with regard to all. As well might we say that, because some writers of to‐day speak in a spirit of scepticism, all writers adopt the same style. Men in general never were sceptical, and never will be; they will use their senses and their intellect, and judge of things on their merits, and not according to the extravagant ideas of any one, however brilliant he be. Mr. Dyer, though speaking of ancient Roman history, makes remarks that are applicable in our case. He says, in the Introduction to the _History of the City of Rome_, p. xvi.: “It would, of course, be impossible to discuss in the compass of this Introduction the general question of the credibility of early Roman history. We can only state the reasons which have led us to doubt a few of the conclusions of modern critics about some of the more prominent facts of that history, and about the existence or the value of the sources on which it professes to be founded. If it can be shown that the attempts to eliminate or to depreciate some of these sources can hardly be regarded as successful, and that the general spirit of modern criticism has been unreasonably sceptical and unduly captious with respect to the principal Roman historian, then the author will at least have established what, at all events, may serve as an apology for the course he has pursued.” And at page lxii.: “There is little motive to falsify the origin and dates of public buildings; and, indeed, their falsification would be much more difficult than that of events transmitted by oral tradition, or even recorded in writing. In fact, we consider the remains of some of the monuments of the Regal and Republican periods to be the best proofs of the fundamental truth of early Roman history.” If this author could justly speak in this manner of a period regarding which there is certainly not a little obscurity, what are we to say when we are speaking of so well‐known an epoch as that of the Roman Empire under Claudius and Nero, and of a fact so luminous as that of the foundation of Christianity in the capital of the world? The certainty of the traditions concerning this fact undoubtedly acquires a strength proportionally greater, and this all the more because we have the monuments around which these traditions centre, and the existence of these monuments in the IId century is attested by the Roman priest Caius writing against Proclus, apud Eusebium, _Hist. Eccl._, c. xxv.: “I can,” he writes, “show you the trophies (tropæa) of the apostles. For, whether you go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, the trophies of those who founded the church will present themselves to your view.” These monuments are the place of imprisonment of S. Peter, the place of his crucifixion, that of the martyrdom of S. Paul, the place of their burial, that in which their remains were deposited for a time, and their final resting‐place, over which the grandest temple of the earth rises in its majesty—a witness of the belief of all ages.

The tradition of S. Peter having founded the church in Rome receives additional force from the fact that but a short period elapsed before writers whose genuine works have come down to us recorded them, and thus transmitted them to us. Not to speak of S. Clement of Rome, of S. Ignatius of Antioch, of Papias, we take the words of S. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, who was martyred in the year 202 of the Christian era. We omit speaking of the other Fathers, not because we consider their testimony without great value, for it is impossible, in our judgment, for any one who takes up their works with an unprejudiced mind, and reads them in connection with later and more precise writers on this subject, not to feel that they refer to a matter so universally and thoroughly known as not to need any further dwelling on than would a fact well known to a correspondent, demand details from the person who writes him the letter. S. Irenæus, we said, died in the year 202. He had been for a long time Bishop of Lyons, whence he wrote to S. Victor, Pope, on the subject of the controversy regarding the celebration of Easter, dissuading him from harsh measures with respect to the Christians of the East. S. Victor was Pope from the year 193 to 202, and succeeded Eleutherius, who became pope in the year 177. To this latter Irenæus was sent by the clergy of Lyons in the case of the Montanist heresy, he having been received and ordained priest of the diocese of Lyons by the Bishop Photinus, and it was during the pontificate of the same pope that he wrote his celebrated work against heresies. He was at this time not a young man, and we shall not be wide of the mark if we put his birth some years before the middle of the second century, and this all the more because he himself in the above‐mentioned book speaks of his early studies as gone by. According to the best authorities, S. John the Apostle was ninety years old when he was thrown into the caldron of boiling oil, under Domitian, in Rome. He lived several years longer at Patmos, and at Ephesus, where he died in the year 101, during the reign of Trajan. We have thus a period of from thirty to forty years between the death of S. John—the witness of what SS. Peter and Paul did, and who was fully acquainted with all that had occurred at Rome—and Irenæus. Independent of the means of information this proximity to the apostles gave him, both because in his youth he must have known many who had in their own youth seen and heard S. Peter, and because he had himself visited Rome, the interval between him and S. John is filled up by the link that unites them in an unbroken tradition, by the celebrated martyr and Bishop of Smyrna, S. Polycarp, the disciple of S. John and the master of S. Irenæus. We ask the reader to say, in all candor, whether this link be not all that can be desired to secure belief in the testimony handed down through it, from the apostles, especially with regard to such a thing as the chief theatre of the life, labors, and death of the head of the apostolic college. Anticipating a favorable answer, we proceed to give the words of S. Irenæus—of undoubted authenticity. In his work, _Contra Hæreses_, l. iii. c. i., he writes: “Matthew among the Hebrews composed his Gospel in their tongue, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome and founding the church. After their decease, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, committed to writing what had been preached by Peter.” In the same book, c. iii. § 3, S. Irenæus says: “But since it is too long to enumerate in a volume of this kind the successions of all the churches, pointing to the tradition of the greatest, most ancient and universally known, founded and constituted at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, to that which it has from the apostles, and to the faith announced to men, through the succession of bishops coming down to our time, we put to confusion all who in any manner, by their own self‐will, or through empty glory, or through blindness, or from malice, gather otherwise than they should. For to this church, by reason of its more powerful headship (principalitatem), it behooves every church to come, that is, those who are faithful everywhere, in which (in qua) has always been preserved by men of every region the tradition which is from the apostles.” He goes on to say: “The holy apostles, founding and building up the church, gave to Linus the episcopate of administration of the church. Paul makes mention of this Linus in his letters to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement (who also saw the apostles, and conferred with them) obtained the episcopate, while he yet had the preaching of the apostles sounding in his ears and tradition before his eyes; not he alone, for there were many then living who had been taught by the apostles. Under this Clement, therefore, a not trifling dissension having arisen among the brethren who were at Corinth, the church which is at Rome wrote a very strong letter etc.... To this Clement succeeded Evaristus, and to Evaristus Alexander, and afterwards the sixth from the apostles was Sixtus, and after him Telesphorus, who also gloriously suffered martyrdom; and then Hyginus, next Pius, after whom Anicetus. When Soter had succeeded Anicetus, now Eleutherius has the episcopate in the twelfth place from the apostles. By this order and succession, that tradition which is from the apostles in the church, and the heralding of the truth, have come down to us. And this is a most full showing that one and the same is the life‐giving faith which from the time of the apostles down to the present has been preserved and delivered in truth. And Polycarp, not only taught by the apostles, and conversing with many of those who saw our Lord, but also constituted by the apostles bishop in Asia, in the church which is at Smyrna, _whom we also saw in our early youth_, taught always the things he had learned from the apostles, which also he delivered to the church, and which are alone true. To these things all the churches, which are in Asia, and those who up to to‐day have succeeded to Polycarp, bear witness.” And in his letter to Florinus, S. Irenæus says more explicitly that he was a disciple of Polycarp, that he had a most vivid recollection of his master, of his ways and words, which he cherished more in his heart even than in his memory.(147) Eusebius, in the _Chronicon_, says that Polycarp was martyred in the year 169, the seventh of Lucius Verus.

Nothing clearer, more explicit, or of greater value than a tradition with such links as S. John the Evangelist, S. Polycarp, and S. Irenæus could be desired to establish beyond a doubt that S. Peter came to Rome and founded the church there.

This fact having been shown to rest on a solid basis, we have now to say a word with regard to the time at which S. Peter came to Rome. On this point there is a difference of opinion; but this very difference of opinion as regards the epoch is a new proof of the fact. The most probable opinion, that which seems to have found most favor, fixes it at the year 42 of the Christian era, the second year of Claudius. This is what S. Jerome, following Eusebius, records. The learned Jesuit Zaccaria puts it at the year 41, in the month of April, the 25th of which was kept as a holyday, in the time of S. Leo the Great, in honor of S. Peter. This writer bears witness to the very remarkable unanimity among the Fathers with respect to the twenty‐five years’ duration of the pontificate of S. Peter in Rome, which according to S. Jerome would fix the date of his death as the fourteenth year of Nero, the 67th of the present era. The words of S. Jerome are: “Simon Peter went to Rome to overthrow Simon Magus, and had there his sacerdotal chair for twenty‐five years, up to the last year of Nero, that is, the fourteenth; by whom also he was crowned with martyrdom by being affixed to the cross.”(148) S. Jerome, we know, was well versed in the history of the church, had dwelt for a long time at Rome, and may consequently be presumed to have been excellently well informed with regard to the general belief and tradition of the people of Rome. The manner of the death of both apostles is mentioned by Tertullian, in his book _De Præscriptionibus_, c. 126, where, after bidding those he addresses have recourse to the apostolic churches, he says: “If you be near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also we have authority. How happy is this church, for which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine with their blood, where Peter equals his Lord’s Passion, where Paul is crowned with the end of John (the Baptist), where the Apostle John, after suffering no harm from his immersion in the fiery oil, is banished to an island.” Origen, too, says: “Peter is thought to have preached to the Jews throughout Pontus, Galatia, Bythinia, Cappadocia, and Asia; who, when he came to Rome, was finally affixed to the cross with his head down.”(149)

Before concluding what we have undertaken to say on the subject of S. Peter’s coming to Rome, we wish to notice the objection against this fact, and the duration of his pontificate, which must naturally appear to those not well acquainted with antiquity one of not a little strength. How could S. Peter hold the primacy at Rome, when the Acts represents him continually as in Judæa, among those of his nation to whom he had, as S. Paul says, a peculiar mission, the apostleship of circumcision? We reply, first: that the apostleship of S. Peter to the Jews did not exclude his labors with the Gentiles; in fact, we know from the Acts that S. Peter had a vision which led him to work for the latter, and that vision was immediately followed by the admission, by S. Peter himself, of the centurion Cornelius. Moreover, it is well known that there were Jews dispersed throughout the world, to whom S. Peter is said to have gone, as we have shown—in Pontus and the other countries of Asia Minor; and also in Rome they were numerous. Duty therefore, both to the Jew and Gentile, could and did lead S. Peter to Rome.

We say, secondly: there is no difficulty in the fact of S. Peter having been often in Judæa. The apostles, from their very charge, were obliged to travel much; and the sound of their voice was heard in every land. As is narrated of them, they divided the nations among them; and, burning with the fire of zeal sent down upon them on the day of Pentecost, they went about, everywhere kindling in others the flame that burned within themselves. As for the difficulties or facilities of travel, especially in the case of S. Peter, we cannot do better than to cite the words of the learned Canon Fabiani in his _Discussion_ with those who impugned the coming of S. Peter to Rome. In the authentic report of this discussion, page 52, he says: “How many days were required for a journey from Cæsarea to Rome? Little more than fifteen days.... Lately very learned men among Protestants, and at the same time men thoroughly skilled in what regards the seafaring art, Smith and Penrose, have calculated from the very voyage of S. Paul, and from the narrations in the Acts, the time that vessels took to come from Cæsarea to Rome. They went at the rate of seven knots an hour, so that it took one hundred and seventy‐seven hours, or seven days and a third, to came from Cæsarea to Pozzuoli; and Pliny himself assures us that vessels came from Alexandria to Pozzuoli in nine days, from Alexandria in Egypt in nine days, and from Alexandria to Messina in seven days. Cæsarea and Jerusalem, you know, differ but little in distance to Rome, from Alexandria in Egypt. The journey from Messina and Pozzuoli to Rome was made in about two or three days, so that the whole time required to go from Rome to Jerusalem was not more than half a month.” It is easy, then, to understand how S. Peter could be often in Judæa, though he had fixed his permanent residence in Rome.

To sum up what we have been saying, no argument can be had from the silence of Scripture to prove S. Peter never came to Rome, because the Acts and Epistle to the Romans do not cover the whole epoch of S. Peter’s apostleship. Moreover, the silence of Scripture does not prove that S. Peter did not rule the Church of Rome twenty‐five years, because, as we have shown, there was no reason why either the Acts or the Epistle to the Romans should speak of S. Peter’s going to Rome and being there. What we have here asserted is all the more true because we have positive testimony not only with regard to S. Peter’s coming to Rome, but also respecting the date of his coming, the period of his ruling the church there, the time and the manner of his death there, and because we have the monuments recording the memory of the Apostles Peter and Paul, the trophies of the apostles, as Caius calls them, _tropæa apostolorum_, which exist to this day, surrounded by the marks of veneration and the pious traditions of the people of Rome. Against all these proofs difficulties of history and chronology are of no avail; for, in the first place, the very difficulties and discussions only serve to confirm the fact, especially since these difficulties and discussions have lasted for fifteen centuries without bringing about the rejection of the main fact; in the next place, we know there are many well‐established facts regarding which there exist difficulties to clear up, and this nowhere more than in past history. When we have proved by one solid, unanswerable argument a fact, we should not trouble ourselves much regarding what may be brought against it. The elucidation of knotty points may delight us and reward the labors of the erudite; for common practical use the matter is settled; and any one who rises up against it must not wonder if he be looked on as either not well informed, or, to say the least, eccentric.

Sayings.

“Rejoice not in riches or other transient gifts, for thou shalt be deprived of them like the actor, who, after finishing his part, lays aside his costume,”—_S. Chrysostom._

“God has implanted in us conscience, and by this he acts in a manner more loving than our natural father; for this latter, after he has warned his son ten and a hundred times, expels him from his home; but God ceases not to warn us by conscience even to the latest breath.”—_Ibid._

“To restrain anger assimilates man to his Creator.”—_Ibid._

“The man who forgives his enemy is like God.”—_S. Augustine._

“He is a true Christian who carries with him the whole belief of Christ, who acts virtuously through the spirit of Christ, and who dies to sin through the following of Christ.”—_S. Thomas._

“No one is lost without knowing it; and no one is deceived without wishing to be deceived.”—_S. Thomas._

The Progressionists.

From The German Of Conrad Von Bolanden.