change the sun into a source of cold and darkness, sending down upon the earth black rays of midnight, instead of light and heat. No; the influence of learning will live; will be felt; will be respected. But in order to its most salutary influence, it must be combined with holiness. What evil a man of high cultivation may do by practical atheism! How his example will spoil the lower classes! How it will encourage and sustain them in rejecting the gospel! He might write the finest treatises to instruct his fellow-men in the evidences of religion, and in the duties of practical Christianity. But he himself would live down his own writings. An argument from the life makes a deeper impression than an argument from the lips. Religion has claims upon the learned, therefore, in consequence of the position they occupy in society. It claims that they should enlighten, and bless, and save a dying world. It is time for men of cultivated intellect to understand, that if any one, they especially ought to be religious. They are peculiarly called to it. It is eminently for their own interest. The community should be considered as demanding it. If the poor and the ignorant need it, in their comparatively irresponsible stations, the great and the refined, who sway the spirits of men involuntarily, need it much more. The former need it as a rule of life and a solace in trial. The latter not only require it for these purposes, but also that they may be the benefactors of souls, that, in the wide sphere to which God has called them, they may not be a bane, instead of a blessing. They need religion, not as a speculative theory, but as a practical reality, regenerating, transforming, redeeming, sanctifying. Theirs will be a more deep and merited condemnation than falls to the lot of other men, if they enter into eternity without it. Chorazin, and Bethsaida, and Capernaum must give place, that to them may be awarded a more conspicuous and alarming doom. We say again,— "To whom much is given, of him shall much be required."

Man attains not to the perfection of his nature, under any view of it, without religion. He whose mind is never employed upon divine things leaves the most efficient means of discipline and enlargement untried. He drinks turbid waters at every streamlet, but goes not to the crystal nectar at the fountain-head. He deprives himself of the, exercise of the most important element of influence. He

finds access to the reason of his fellow-men; but has no passage to their hearts. He can convince them; but it is doubtful whether they will be moved. The man of cultivated taste, who is without piety, makes ample provision for the enjoyment of time; but none for the enjoyment of a blessed immortality. He prepares himself assiduously for this world; but leaves his spirit unsheltered, unpardoned, to meet what doom it may in the world to come. With many of the learned of our own and of former ages, he has drunk deeply at the fountains of knowledge. His mind is enriched with all wisdom. He can hold fellowship with their mighty spirits on equal ground. But he has not, like them, superadded the dignity of the Christian to the dignity of the man. The saint is neglected for the scholar. Heavenly wisdom is wholly excluded from his mind, for the sake of earthly science. The life of the soul is left to take care of itself. A heaven of intercourse with those great and glorious spirits, who have shone so brilliantly on the darkness of the world, is hazarded for the poor gratifications of mortality. Human nature bewails its frailty when he is dead. Religion sighs over his memory. Faith records no triumphs respecting him. And concerning the final blessedness of his separate spirit, hope is silent.

We feel that this is a serious subject. We have been treading on holy ground. Our theme is of infinite interest to a most respectable and rapidly increasing portion of the community. The claims we have urged are not hypothetical, but real. Our views, we solemnly believe, are founded in truth. Whatever attainments a man may possess, we believe religion is imperiously demanded to adorn and sanctify them all; and that he will fall short of the true end of his nature without it. We may be noble in form, dignified in character, polite, learned, affable, affectionate, moral, influential; but while these qualities may satisfy men, they are beneath the claims of God. They do not satisfy the monitor in our own hearts. We feel the obligation to be something more. Our expanding nature and growing powers can reach forth towards something higher; and they ought to do it. Religion is the only path of safety and contentment; of pleasure, honor, usefulness and final glorification. It is our reasonable service. Why should we delay to yield it?

F.

[In presenting to our readers this extract from Hemsen, we would take occasion to say, that Professor Hackett has it in contemplation to prepare a translation of the entire work. It must be confessed, that we have in our language, at present, no copious and critical history of the apostle Paul, such as is adapted to the wants of the higher class of students; and should this design of rendering the results of the labors of Hemsen accessible to them, be executed, it will, in our opinion, form an important addition to our means of biblical study. The work, with such changes as it is proposed to make, by omissions, where the original admits of abridgement, and by brief additions, perhaps, on a few points, which may not seem to be fairly presented, may be reduced to a convenient size, and yet lose none of its value, as a source of thorough knowledge on the subjects to which it relates. The countrymen of the author hold it in high estimation. We may add some particulars at another time.—EDITOR.]

ARTICLE II.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

Origin of the Church at Rome-its condition-occasion and object of the Epistle. Translated from Hemsen's "Der Apostel Paulus. Sein Leben, Wirken und seine Schriften." By H. B. HACKETt.

-We are next to institute some inquiry respecting the church to which this Epistle was directed. This is a point of far more difficulty than that relating to the time and place of its composition. In the first place, as regards the origin of the Roman church, it cannot be decided with certainty either by whom or at what time it was established. Our difficulty here is, not that we are in want of conjectures on the subject, but that we find them unsupported by the evidence which is necessary to sustain them. The generally received tradition is, that the apostle Peter first preached the gospel at Rome; and the Romish church not only attributes to him the office of a bishop there, but elevates him to the chair of chief bishop over all the churches of Christendom. This latter statement is an hypothesis destitute of all historical support, and the former is con

trary, at least, to all historical probability. A long time before the first journey of the apostle Paul among the Gentiles, Peter is said to have come to Rome, namely, in the year 44 (according to others, 46), and after the defeat of Simon Magus, to have founded a church there, to have presided over it as its head for twenty-five years, and finally to have suffered martyrdom. But that much of this can be regarded only as a fabrication, which made its first appearance after the apostolic age, has been admitted and proved, not only by many learned Protestants, particularly by Samuel Basnage, but by learned members also of the Romish church. Indeed, it has even been denied by some Protestant writers, that Peter ever went to Rome at all. This, however, contradicts both the general tradition of the church, extant from the earliest times, and incontrovertible testimony from the second century of the Christian era. We find that there existed even among the earliest authorities different opinions respecting the time of the arrival of Peter at Rome; some represent him as having come to the capital of the Roman empire under Claudius; others, for the first time, under Nero.

Thus much we may venture to consider as settled, namely, that he did not come before the composition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. In the first place, we know, as has been already remarked, that Peter was cast into prison in the last year of the reign of Agrippa I. This was in the third or fourth year of the reign of Claudius. Hence Peter could not have come to Rome in the second year of the reign of this emperor, as some have affirmed. Further, he was still present at Jerusalem at the time of the decree of the Apostolic Council, that is, in the year 53, which was the twelfth of the reign of Claudius. Again, when Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans, in the year 60, the fifth year of the reign of Nero, Peter was certainly not yet at Rome. Otherwise his name would not surely have been omitted among those, to whom salutations are sent at the close of the Epistle. It could be said, perhaps, in reply to this, that Peter might have been at Rome, and yet Paul have had no knowledge of the fact. But considering the intercourse which constantly took place between Rome and the cities where Paul had lately spent most of his time, namely, Ephesus and Corinth, considering the attention which the prosperous state of the Roman church

had excited abroad, we cannot reasonably suppose, that Paul would have been long unapprized of an event so important to the Roman Christians as the arrival of Peter. What decides still more strongly against the supposition of his presence among them thus early, is the manner, in which Paul has addressed them in the letter under remark. Had these believers been already under the direction of another apostle, Paul would either have not written to them at all, or in altogether a different style; since it was contrary to his principles to obtrude himself into the work of others. When, furthermore, we add to this, that Peter and Paul had entered into a solemn compact with each other to labor, the former among the Jews, and the latter among the Gentiles, we must regard it as still more improbable, that Peter should have been after this the first to be found at Rome. And, finally, it is not presuming too much to say, that Luke surely would have mentioned Peter, had he been at Rome, when Paul came thither. Upon these grounds, we may safely conclude, that the coming of Peter was subsequent, not only to the date of the letter to the Roman church, but to the arrival of Paul himself. Hence he can neither have been the founder of this church, nor can he have labored long for its increase and establishment, since he could have reached Rome, at the farthest, only two or three years before the persecution, in which he is said to have lost his life.

But while it is thus impossible to ascribe the origin of the Roman church to the apostle Peter, it has been thought by some that the effects of the descent of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost were extended, through the Jews from Rome who were present on that occasion, even to this capital of the world. The possibility of this no one will deny, although this first seed of the gospel cannot be considered as the only cause of the flourishing state, which the church subsequently attained. Bertholdt supposes it even probable that the first foundation of a church at Rome was laid while Christ still remained on earth. Judea being subject to the dominion of the Romans, an active commerce was constantly maintained between that country and Rome. Thus, besides proper Jews, others also may have found their way thither, who acknowledged him who had now appeared as the true Messiah, and who made him known as such to the Jews and Gentile pros