greatest cruelty and injustice towards Christians, nevertheless use equally strong language about civil rulers.

E.g. Clement of Rome, c. 96 A.D., says (cc. lx. lxi.) “Give concord and peace to us and to all that dwell on the earth-while we render obedience to Thine Almighty and most excellent Name and to our rulers and governors upon the earth. Thou, O Lord and Master, hast given them the power of sovereignty through Thine excellent and unspeakable might, that we, knowing the glory and honour which Thou hast given them, may submit ourselves unto them, in nothing resisting Thy will."

Still it must be admitted that it would have been easier for St Peter to speak so hopefully about civil rulers before the outbreak of the Neronian persecution rather than during or after it, and this would add some slight support to other considerations which also point to an early date for the Epistle.

D. The probable date (a) of St Peter's death, (b) of an occasion when St Peter, St Mark and Silvanus were present together in Rome, as is implied in v. 12, 13.

(a) Ramsay, who dates this Epistle 75-80 A.D., suggests that St Peter's life may have been prolonged to that date on the following grounds: (1) that the evidence for St Peter's martyrdom in the reign of Nero is not very early; (2) that there must be some foundation in fact for the strong tradition that St Peter worked for a long time in Rome, whereas if he died in the reign of Nero it is hardly possible that he can have resided long in Rome.

The evidence for St Peter's death in the reign of Nero is as follows:

(1) Clement of Rome (c. 96 A.D.) (cc. v., vi.) couples the martyrdoms of St Peter and St Paul closely together, placing that of St Peter first, and says that "to them was gathered a great company of the elect, who, being the victims of jealousy, by reason of many outrages and tortures became a noble example among us."

It is argued (Dr Chase, Hastings' D. of B., iii. 769) that "the great company" must refer to the Neronian victims, and as they are described as being "gathered to" (ovvn@poioon) Peter and Paul it is suggested that those two Apostles were among the

earliest victims and must consequently have been put to death in A.D. 64 or 65, as the great fire which served as the pretext for Nero's persecution happened in July 64 A.D.

In answer to this it may be urged:

(a) That when once Nero had set the example of persecuting the Christians such persecution was more or less chronic, and therefore later victims than those of Nero's reign may be included in "the great company."

(b) That Peter and Paul are named first, not necessarily because they were the earliest victims, but because they alone were Apostles and therefore the ringleaders to whom both earlier and later victims might be described as being “gathered.”

(c) That the traditional date for St Paul's death is 67 or 68 A.D., i.e. three or four years after the fire when the first violence of the Neronian persecution had spent itself. If persecution was more or less chronic from 64 A.D. onwards such later date for St Paul's martyrdom is by no means impossible and is more consistent with the evidence of the Pastoral Epistles. The extended missionary work implied in them can with difficulty be accounted for if the period between his release from his first imprisonment and his death was only two or three years. Again in 2 Tim. St Paul speaks of his "first defence" and yet contemplates surviving till the winter and invites Timothy and Mark to join him in Rome. This evidence implies a lengthy remand and comparative safety for other well known Christians to visit Rome and is hardly consistent with the theory that St Paul suffered in the first outbreak of the Neronian persecution.

It is therefore possible, or even probable, that neither St Peter nor St Paul were present in Rome in 64 A.D. and that consequently they escaped martyrdom until a later date.

Still Clement does couple the martyrdoms of St Peter and St Paul together and that of St Paul was almost certainly in Nero's reign.

(2) Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170) (as quoted by Eus. H. E. ii. 25. 8) after speaking of the joint work of Peter and Paul in Corinth, says that, "having gone together (or 'to the same place') to Italy and taught, they suffered martyrdom at the same time."

(3) Tertullian (c. 200) (Scorp. 15) says "Nero was the first to stain the rising faith with blood at Rome." "Then Peter is 'girded by another' when he is bound to the cross." Then Paul etc.

(4) Origen (c. 250) (ap. Eus. iii. 1) mentions St Peter's death by crucifixion in Rome before St Paul's martyrdom, and dates the latter in the reign of Nero.

(5) Commodian (c. 250) (Carmen Apologeticum 820 f.) speaks of Peter and Paul as suffering in Rome under Nero.

(6) The Chronicon of Eusebius. The Armenian version puts the Neronian persecution, when the Apostles Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome, in the thirteenth year of Nero, i.e. 67-68 A.D., while Jerome's version gives the fourteenth year of Nero, i.e. 68 A.D., as the date.

(7) The Catholic Acts of Peter (ed. Lipsius, p. 172 f.) (probably fifth century but based upon a second century document) connect with St Peter's death a prophecy that "Nero should be destroyed not many days hence."

(8) The lists of Roman Bishops give Linus as the first Bishop after the Apostles with 12 years' episcopate, then Anacletus as second Bishop with 12 years' episcopate, followed by Clement as third Bishop. Eusebius dates the accession of Clement in 92 A.D. which would place the appointment of Linus in 68 A.D., but Lightfoot would date Clement's accession 86-88 A.D. which would place Linus 62-64 A.D.

If Linus is regarded as succeeding to the Bishopric on St Peter's death this would corroborate the Neronian date for the martyrdom.

Irenaeus however describes Linus as being appointed Bishop by St Peter and St Paul, the founders of the Church in Rome, and no writers of the first two centuries or more describe St Peter himself as Bishop of Rome. Therefore Linus may have been Bishop in St Peter's lifetime, and in that case his accession affords no clue for the date of St Peter's martyrdom.

(9) It seems probable that St Mark's written record of St Peter's preaching (which was either our second Gospel or at least the basis of it) was written before the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and Irenaeus states that Mark wrote it after the godos

of Peter and Paul, which probably means after their death. Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Jerome on the other hand represent St Mark as writing during St Peter's lifetime. But Irenaeus is more likely to represent the tradition current in Rome, and St Peter's death would make the need of a written record much stronger. Moreover "the presbyter" quoted by Papias (Eus. iii. 39) describes St Mark as having to rely upon his memory of what St Peter preached, and this suggests that St Peter was dead.

The general consensus of tradition therefore seems to place St Peter's martyrdom in the reign of Nero, and this would make 68 the latest possible date for the Epistle.

(b) We have next to consider the most probable date at which St Peter, St Mark and Silvanus were in Rome together.

The apparent traces of the Epistle to the Ephesians contained in 1 Peter make it unnecessary to consider any earlier date than 61 A.D., and reasons have been given above (see p. xviii f.) for the view that St Peter had not worked in Rome before that date. On the other hand there is a strong tradition that St Peter worked for a considerable time in Rome, and there is some evidence that St Peter and St Paul worked together in Rome. There is therefore reasonable ground for presuming that St Peter arrived in Rome very soon after Colossians and Ephesians were written and before St Paul left the city. We know from Col. iv. 10 that St Mark was already in Rome, "touching whom," St Paul says, "ye received commandments, if he come unto you receive him.” This suggests three questions:

(a) What were these "commandments"? (b) Why had it been necessary to send them? (c) Why does St Paul go out of his way to refer to them?

A plausible answer is (a) that the commands were the words which follow, namely instructions which had been sent to the Colossians (probably by St Paul himself) to receive St Mark if he passed that way on his journey to Rome; (b) that such instructions were necessary because St Mark, as a previous deserter, whom St Paul had declined to accept as a fellowworker (possibly, as Dr Chase suggests, because St Mark was not in full sympathy with his policy towards the Gentiles)

might well have been coldly received unless his journey was known to have St Paul's full concurrence, (c) that St Paul desired to shew the Colossians how fully St Mark's visit to Rome had justified the hopes which he had formed in preparing for it. As one of the leading representatives "of the Circumcision" St Mark had been a great comfort to him at a time when others were preaching Christ out of faction (Phil. i. 17). If this explanation be accepted there is no ground for believing that St Mark was thinking of leaving Rome in 61 A.D. and contemplating a possible visit to Colossae. He may therefore have remained in Rome and been St Peter's companion there from 61 to 64 A.D. On the other hand it suggests that St Mark's visit to Rome had been carefully arranged for and undertaken with St Paul's concurrence, if not at his request.

Dr Chase (Hastings' D. of B.) hazards a further conjecture that St Peter's own visit to Rome was also at St Paul's request. St Paul's ardent desire was to unite Jewish and Gentile Christians in One Body, and if this could be accomplished in a mixed Church like that of Rome, the capital and meeting-place of the Empire, the problem would be largely solved for the rest of Christendom. This had been the great object of St Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Its fulfilment would be enormously furthered if St Peter the Apostle to "those of the Circumcision” and Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles were seen working together in Rome. Such an object-lesson of unity would shew how completely "the middle wall of partition" was broken down. In any case, whether it were at St Paul's request or on his own initiative, St Peter would certainly welcome such an opportunity of again "giving the right hand of fellowship" to St Paul's work. He had himself been chosen to "open the door" to Gentile converts. It was he who advocated their exemption from Circumcision and the observance of the Law. If on one occasion at Antioch he withdrew from intercourse with Gentiles it was obviously not from any personal bigotry of his own but merely out of deference to Jewish scruples. There is no evidence that he resented St Paul's outspoken rebuke when once he realized that his conduct involved a breach of principle.

Although his own sphere of work had been specially among those of the Circumcision he must have been genuinely distressed