{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_71888/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_71888","id":"gutenberg_71888","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71888","summary":null,"tags":["Apostles","Category: Biographies","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"LIVES OF THE APOSTLES\n OF JESUS CHRIST\n\n\n\n\n \u250c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2510\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Transcriber\u2019s Notes \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Punctuation has been standardized. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in \u2502\n \u2502 printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for \u2502\n \u2502 easier reading. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 The text may show quotations within quotations, all set \u2502\n \u2502 off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been \u2502\n \u2502 changed to alternate quote marks for improved readability. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Non-printable characteristics have been given the following \u2502\n \u2502 Italic text: --> _text_ \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 This book was written in a period when many words had \u2502\n \u2502 not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have \u2502\n \u2502 multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in \u2502\n \u2502 the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated \u2502\n \u2502 with a Transcriber\u2019s Note. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 The symbol \u2018\u2021\u2019 indicates the description in parenthesis has \u2502\n \u2502 been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there \u2502\n \u2502 is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image \u2502\n \u2502 adequately. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Transcriber\u2019s Notes are used when making corrections to the \u2502\n \u2502 text or to provide additional information for the modern \u2502\n \u2502 reader. These notes are identified by \u2666\u2660\u2665\u2663 symbols in the \u2502\n \u2502 text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which \u2502\n \u2502 they appear. \u2502\n \u2514\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2518\n\n\n\n\n Illustration:\n Painted by Raphael. Eng\u1d48 by A. Daggett.\n CHRIST\u2019S CHARGE TO PETER.\n Matthew XVI 18, 19\n\n\n\n\n LIVES\n OF\n THE APOSTLES\n OF\n JESUS CHRIST.\n\n\n NEW HAVEN: L. H. YOUNG.\n\n 1836.\n\n\n\n\n Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1835,\n By DAVID FRANCIS BACON, Author,\n in the office of the Clerk of the District Court\n of the District of Connecticut.\n\n\n WILLIAM STORER, JR. Print\n New-Haven, Ct\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE.\n\n\nTHE fair and just fulfilment of the promise made to the public, in\nthe previous announcement of this work, would require that it should\ncontain, simply, \u201ca distinct, plain, historical narrative of the\nlife of each of the apostles, illustrated by such aids as could be\ndrawn from the works of various authors, of former ages, and of other\ncountries, which hitherto, in the inaccessible forms of a dead or\nforeign tongue, have been too long covered from the eyes of thousands,\nwho might be profited by their more open communication;\u2015\u2015from these\nsources, as well as from the sacred record, to draw the materials\nof the narrative,\u2015\u2015to throw occasionally the lights of historical,\ntopographical, and scientific, as well as exegetical illustrations\non the word of truth,\u2015\u2015and from all, to learn how we may live, labor,\nand die, as did these first champions of Christ crucified.\u201d A hope\nwas also expressed by the author, that the facilities of his situation\nwould enable him, by research among the long-hidden treasures of large\nand costly libraries, to bring forth, in direct illustration of this\nnarrative, much of those treasures of scriptural knowledge, which, by\ntheir size and rarity, are beyond the reach and the means of a vast\nnumber of Biblical students, who would derive great advantage and\npleasure from their perusal; and that even clergymen and students\nof theology, might find in this work many things, drawn from these\nvaluable materials, that would make this a desirable book for them.\nYet far from promising the combined results of _all_ the labors of the\nlearned on these subjects, the author then distinctly professed his\nmain object to be, the collection and combination of such facts and\nillustrations as would make the work acceptable and interesting to\nreaders of _all classes_,\u2015\u2015to _popular_, as well as to learned readers;\nand he accordingly engaged to present all the contents of the book,\nclear and plain, even to those whose minds have not been accustomed\nto deep research in Biblical study.\n\nWith these objects constantly in view, the author has long been\nsteadily and laboriously devoted to the preparation and composition of\nthis book. In presenting this result of his labors, he is not conscious\nof having actually failed to comply with the general terms of his\npublished engagement; yet the critical eyes of many among his readers\nwill doubtless light upon parts of the work, which have been materially\naffected in their character by the very peculiar circumstances under\nwhich the labor has been undertaken and prosecuted; circumstances\nso _very_ peculiar, that, in accordance with the universal custom\nof those who have completed such tasks, he is justified in referring\nto some important details of the history of the writing. The first\nsummons to the task found him engrossed in pursuits as foreign to the\ninvestigations necessary for this work, as any department of knowledge\nthat can be conceived; and though the study of critical and exegetical\ntheology had, at a former period, been to him an object of regular\nattention, the invitation to this work seemed so uncongenial to his\nadopted pursuits, that he rejected it decidedly; nor was it until after\nrepeated and urgent solicitations, that he consented to undertake it.\nBut even then, so little aware was he of the inexhaustible richness of\nhis noble subject, that he commenced his researches with oft-expressed\ndoubts, whether it would admit of such ample disquisition as was hoped\nby the original proposer. How just those doubts were, may be best\nlearned from the hurried and brief notice which many important points\nin this great theme have necessarily received within such narrow limits.\n\nBegun under these unfavorable auspices, the work was an object\nof pursuit with him through a long period of time; nor did his\ninvestigations proceed far, before he was fully assured that it\nwas vast, beyond his highest expectations; and from that time the\ndifficulty has been, not to meet the expectation of a large book, but\nto bring these immense materials within this limited space. Growing\nthus in his hands, through months and years, his subject soon increased\nalso in its interest to him, till in the progress of time and various\nother contemporaneous \u2666occupations, it rose from the character of a\ntask to that of a delightful, a dignified, and dignifying pursuit; and\nhe was soon disposed to look on it not as a labor, but as a recreation\nfrom avocations less congenial to his taste. It called him first from\nthe study of a profession, sickening and disgusting in many of its\nparticulars; and was his frequent resource for enjoyment in many a\nseason of repose. His attention was often distracted from it, by calls\nto diverse and opposite pursuits; by turns to the public labors and\nresponsibilities of an editor and an instructor,\u2015\u2015but in the midst of\nthese it was his solace and refreshment, till at last it wholly drew\nhim away from everything besides itself, and became for months his sole,\nconstant, absorbing and exhausting occupation. Too often, indeed, were\nthe pursuits with which it was at first varied and interchanged, the\noccasion of disturbances and anxieties that did anything but fit him\nfor the comfortable pursuit of his noble task; yet these evils\nthemselves became the means of inspiring him with a higher and purer\nregard for it, because they drove him to this as an only consolation.\nAs was most eloquently and beautifully said by the evangelical George\nHorne, at the conclusion of a similar task,\u2015\u2015\u201cAnd now, could the author\nflatter himself, that anyone would take half the pleasure in reading\nthe work, which he hath taken in writing it, he would not fear the loss\nof his labor.\u201d Well would it be, both for the writer and his work, if\nhe could truly add in the melodious sentence which Horne subjoins, that\n\u201cthe employment detached him from the bustle and hurry of life, and the\nnoise of folly;\u201d\u2015\u2015that \u201cvanity and vexation flew away for a season,\n\u2015\u2015care and disquietude came not nigh his dwelling.\u201d\n\n \u2666 \u201cocccupations\u201d replaced with \u201coccupations\u201d\n\n\n\n\n THE LIVES OF THE APOSTLES.\n\n\nTHE word APOSTLE has been adopted into all the languages of Christendom,\nfrom the Greek, in which the earliest records of the Christian history\nare given to us. In that language, the corresponding word is derived\nfrom a verb which means \u201csend,\u201d so that the simplest primary meaning\nof the derivative is \u201c_one sent_;\u201d and in all the uses of the word this\nmeaning is kept in view. Of its ordinary meanings, the most frequent\nwas that of \u201ca person employed at a distance to execute the commands,\nor exercise the authority, of the supreme power,\u201d in which sense it\nwas appropriated as the title of an embassador, a messenger, or a\nnaval commander; and it is used to designate all these officers in\nthe classic Grecian writers. In reference to its general, and probably\nnot to any technical meaning, it was applied by Jesus Christ to those\nof his followers whom he chose as the objects of his most careful\ninstruction, and as the inheritors of his power; whom thus indued, he\n_sent_ into all the world, to preach the gospel to every creature. The\nuse of the term in connection with this high and holy commission, did\nnot give it such a character of peculiar sanctity or dignity, as to\nlimit its application among Christians of the early ages, to the chosen\nministers of Christ\u2019s own appointment; but it is applied even in the\nwritings of the New Testament, as well as by the Grecian and Latin\nfathers of the churches, to other persons of inferior rank, that\nmight be included under its primary meaning. It was also extended, in\nthe peculiar sense in which Christ first applied it, from the twelve\nto other eminent and successful preachers of the gospel who were\ncontemporary with them, and to some of their successors.\n\n [It will be noticed that, throughout this book, the text is,\n on many pages, broken by matters thrown in at the ends of\n paragraphs, in smaller type. The design is, that these notes,\n thus running through the body of the work, shall contain all\n such particulars as would too much break the thread of the\n story if made a part of the common text, and yet are of the\n highest importance as illustrations, explanations, and proofs\n of passages in the history. In many places, there will be need\n of references to history, antiquities, topography, and various\n collateral helps, to make the story understood. All these things\n are here given in minute type, proportioned to the minuteness of\n the investigations therein followed. Being separated in this way,\n they need be no hindrance to those who do not wish to learn the\n reasons and proofs of things, since all such can pass them by at\n once, and keep the thread of the narrative, in the larger type,\n unbroken.\n\n This first note being a mere exegesis of a single word, is\n the least attractive of all to a common reader; and some,\n perhaps, will object to it as needlessly protracted into minute\n investigations of points not directly important to the narrative;\n and the writer may have been led beyond the necessity of the\n case, by the circumstance of his previous occupations having\n drawn his attention particularly to close etymological and\n lexicographical research in the Greek language; but he is\n consoled by the belief that there will be some among his readers\n who can appreciate and enjoy these minuti\u00e6.]\n\n _Apostle._\u2015\u2015The most distant theme, to which this word can be\n traced in Greek, is the verb \u03a3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9, _stello_, which enters into\n the composition of \u0391\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9, _apostello_, from which _apostle_\n is directly derived.\n\n As to the primary meaning of \u03a3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9, there appears to be some\n difference of opinion among lexicographers. All the common\n lexicons give to the meaning \u201c_send_\u201d the first place, as\n the original sense from which all the others are formed, by\n different applications of the term. But a little examination\n into the history of the word, in its uses by the earlier Greeks,\n seems to give reason for a different arrangement of the meanings.\n\n In searching for the original force of a Greek word, the first\n reference must, of course, be to the father of Grecian song and\n story. In HOMER, this word, \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9, is found in such a variety\n of connections, as to give the most desirable opportunities for\n reaching its primary meaning. Yet in none of these passages does\n it stand in such a relation to other words, as to _require_ the\n meaning of \u201c_send_.\u201d Only a single passage in Homer has ever\n been supposed to justify the translation of the word in this\n sense, and even that is translated with equal force and justice,\n and far more in analogy with the usages of Homer, by the meaning\n of \u201c_equip_,\u201d or \u201c_prepare_,\u201d which is the idea expressed by it\n in all other passages where it is used by that author. (See Damm,\n sub voc.) This is the meaning which the learned Valckenaer gives\n as the true primary signification of this word, from which, in\n the revolutions of later usage, the secondary meanings have been\n derived. In this opinion I have been led to acquiesce, by the\n historical investigation of the earlier uses of the term, and\n by the consideration of the natural transition from the primary\n meaning of \u201c_fix_,\u201d \u201c_equip_,\u201d or \u201c_fit out_,\u201d to that of\n \u201c_send_,\u201d and other secondary meanings, all which occur only in\n the later authors. Pindar limits it like Homer. Herodotus never\n uses the word in the sense of \u201c_send_,\u201d but confines it to the\n meaning of \u201c_equip_,\u201d \u201c_furnish_,\u201d \u201c_clothe_.\u201d \u00c6schylus gives it\n the meaning of \u201c_go_,\u201d but not of \u201c_send_.\u201d Sophocles and\n Euripides also exclude this application of the term.\n\n This brief allusion to these early authorities will be\n sufficient, without a prolonged investigation, to show that\n the meaning of \u201c_send_\u201d was not, historically, the first\n signification. But a still more rational ground for this opinion\n is found in the natural order of transition in sense, which\n would be followed in the later applications of the word. It is\n perfectly easy to see how, from this primary meaning of \u201c_fix_,\u201d\n or \u201c_equip_,\u201d when applied to a person, in reference to an\n expedition or any distant object, would insensibly originate the\n meaning of \u201c_send_;\u201d since, in most cases, to equip or fix out\n an expedition or a messenger, is to commission and send one. In\n this way, all the secondary meanings flow naturally from this\n common theme, but if the order should be inverted in respect to\n any one of them, the beautiful harmony of derivation would be\n lost at once. There is no other of the meanings of \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 which\n can be thus taken as the natural source of all the rest, and\n shown to originate them in its various secondary applications.\n The meanings of \u201carray,\u201d \u201cdress,\u201d \u201cadorn,\u201d \u201ctake in,\u201d &c., are\n all deducible from the original idea conveyed by \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9, and are,\n like \u201c_send_,\u201d equally incapable of taking the rank of the\n primary meaning.\n\n In tracing the minute and distant etymology of this word,\n it is worth noticing that the first element in \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 is the\n sound _st_, which is at once recognized by oriental scholars as\n identical with the Sanscrit and Persian root _st_, bearing in\n those and in many combinations in the various languages of their\n stock, the idea of \u201c_fixity_.\u201d This idea is prominent in the\n primary meaning of \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 given by Passow, who, in his Greek\n lexicon, (almost the only classical one that properly classifies\n and deduces the meanings of words,) gives the German word\n _stellen_ as the original ground-meaning of the term before us.\n This is best expressed in English by \u201cfix,\u201d in all its vagueness\n of meaning, from which, in the progress of use, are deduced the\n various secondary senses in which \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 is used, which here\n follow in order:\n\n 1. Equip, Fit out, Arrange, Prepare. In this sense it is applied\n to armaments, both to hosts and to individuals, and thus in\n reference to warlike preparations expresses nearly the idea of\n \u201cArm.\u201d This is, it seems to me, the meaning of the word in the\n verse of Homer already alluded to. The passage is in the Iliad\n xii. 325, where Sarpedon is addressing Glaucus, and says, \u201cIf\n we could hope, my friend, after escaping this contest, to shun\n forever old age and death, I would neither myself fight among\n the foremost, nor _prepare_ you for the glorious strife.\u201d (Or as\n Heyne more freely renders it, _hortarer_, \u201curge,\u201d or \u201cincite.\u201d)\n The inappropriateness of the meaning \u201csend,\u201d given in this place\n by Clark, (_mitterem_) and one of the scholiasts, (\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9)\n consists in the fact, that the hero speaking was himself to\n accompany or rather lead his friend into the deadly struggle,\n and of course could not be properly said to _send_ him, if he\n went with him or before him. It was the partial consideration\n of this circumstance, no doubt, which led the same scholiast\n to offer as an additional probable meaning, that of \u201cprepare,\u201d\n \u201cmake ready,\u201d (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9,) as though he had some misgiving\n about the propriety of his first translation. For a full account\n of these renderings, see Heyne in loc. and Stephens\u2019s Thesaurus\n sub voc. In the latter also, under the second paragraph of\n \u03a3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9, are given numerous other passages illustrating this\n usage, in passive and middle as well as active forms, both from\n Homer and later writers. In Passow\u2019s Griechisch W\u00f6rterbuch,\n other useful references are given sub voc.; and in Damm is found\n the best account of its uses in Homer.\n\n 2. In the applications of the word in this first meaning, the\n idea of equipment or preparation was always immediately followed\n by that of future action, for the very notion of equipment or\n preparation implies some departure or undertaking immediately\n subsequent. In the transitive sense, when the subject of the\n verb is the instrument of preparing _another_ person for the\n distant purpose, there immediately arises the signification\n of \u201c_send_,\u201d constituting the second branch of definition,\n which has been so unfortunately mistaken for the root, by all\n the common lexicographers. In the reflexive sense, when the\n subject prepares _himself_ for the expected action, in the same\n manner originates, at once, the meaning \u201c_go_,\u201d which is found,\n therefore, the prominent secondary sense of the middle voice,\n and also of the active, when, as is frequent in Greek verbs,\n that voice assumes a reflexive force. The origin of these two\n definitions, apparently so incongruous with the rest and with\n each other, is thus made consistent and clear; and the identity\n of origin here shown, justifies the arrangement of them both\n together in this manner.\n\n The tracing out of the other meanings of this word from the\n ground-meaning, would be abundantly interesting to many; but\n all that can be here allowed, is the discussion of precedence\n between the first two, here given. Those who desire to pursue\n the research, have most able guides in the great German\n lexicographers, whose materials have been useful in illustrating\n what is here given. For abundant references illustrating these\n various meanings, see H. Stephens\u2019s Thesaurus, Scapula\u2019s, Damm\u2019s,\n Schneider\u2019s, Passow\u2019s, Donnegan\u2019s, Porti\u2019s, and Jones\u2019s Lexicons.\n\n The simple verb \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9, thus superabundantly illustrated,\n among its numerous combinations with other words, is compounded\n with the preposition \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf, (_apo_,) making the verb \u0391\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9,\n (_apostello_.) This preposition having the force of \u201caway,\u201d\n \u201cfrom,\u201d when united with a verb, generally adds to it the idea\n of motion off from some object. Thus \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 acquires by this\n addition the sense of \u201caway,\u201d which however only gives precision\n and force to the meaning \u201csend,\u201d which belongs to the simple\n verb. By prefixing this preposition, the verb is always confined\n to the definition \u201csend,\u201d and the compound never bears any other\n of the definitions of \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 but this. The simple verb without\n the prefix expresses the idea of \u201csend\u201d only in certain peculiar\n relations with other words, while the compound, limited and\n aided by the preposition, always implies action directed \u201caway\n from\u201d the agent to a distance, and thus conveys the primary idea\n of \u201csend,\u201d so invariably, that it is used in no passage in which\n this word will not express its meaning. From this compound verb\n thus defined, is directly formed the substantive which is the\n true object and end of this protracted research.\n\n \u0391\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, (_Apostolos_) is derived from the preceding verb\n by changing the penult vowel \u0395 into \u039f, and displacing the\n termination of the verb by that of the noun. The change of the\n penult vowel is described in the grammars as caused by its being\n derived from the perfect middle, which has this peculiarity in\n its penult. The noun preserves in all its uses the uniform sense\n of the verb from which it is derived, and in every instance\n maintains the primary idea of \u201ca person or thing _sent_.\u201d It\n was often used adjectively with a termination varying according\n to the gender of the substantive to which it referred. In this\n way it seems to have been used by Herodotus, who gives it the\n termination corresponding to the neuter, when the substantive\n to which it refers is in that gender. (See Porti Dictionarium\n Ionicum Gr\u00e6co Latinum.) Herodotus is the earliest author in whom\n I am able to discover the word, for Homer never uses the word\n at all, nor does any author, as far as I know, previous to the\n father of history. Though always preserving the primary idea of\n the word, he varies its meaning considerably, according as he\n applies it to a person or a thing. With the neuter termination\n \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, (_apostolo_N,) referring to the substantive \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n (_ploion_,) it means a \u201cvessel _sent_\u201d from place to place.\n In Plato, (Epistle 7,) it occurs in this connection with the\n substantive \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd expressed, which in Herodotus is only implied.\n For an exposition of this use of the term, see H. Stephens\u2019s\n Thesaurus, (sub voc. \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.) With the masculine termination,\n Herodotus, applying it to persons, uses it first in the sense\n of \u201cmessenger,\u201d \u201cembassador,\u201d or \u201cherald,\u201d in Clio, 21, where\n relating that Halyattes, king of Lydia, sent a herald (\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03c5\u03be,)\n to treat for a truce with the Milesians, he mentions his arrival\n under this synonymous term. \u201cSo the messenger (\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\n _apostolos_,) came to Miletus.\u201d (\u1f49 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n \u039c\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd.) In Terpsichore, 38, he uses the same term.\n \u201cAristagoras the Milesian went to Laced\u00e6mon by ship, as\n _embassador_ (or delegate) from the assembly of Ionic tyrants,\u201d\n (\u0391\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf.) These two passages are the earliest Greek\n in which I can find this word, and it is worth noticing here,\n that the word in the masculine form was distinctly applied to\n persons, in the sense given as the primary one in the text of\n this book. But, still maintaining in its uses the general idea\n of \u201csent,\u201d it was not confined, in the ever-changing usage of\n the flexible Greeks, to individual persons alone. In reference\n to its expression of the idea of \u201cdistant destination,\u201d it\n was applied by later writers to naval expeditions, and in the\n speeches of Demosthenes, who frequently uses the word, it is\n entirely confined to the meaning of a \u201cwarlike expedition,\n _fitted out_ and _sent_ by sea to a distant contest.\u201d\n (References to numerous passages in Demosthenes, where this term\n is used, may be found in Stephens\u2019s Thesaurus, on the word.)\n From the fleet itself, the term was finally transferred to the\n naval commander _sent out_ with it, so that in this connection\n it became equivalent to the modern title of \u201cAdmiral.\u201d\n\n Besides these political and military uses of the word, it also\n acquired in the later Greek a technical meaning as a _legal_\n term, and in the law-writers of the Byzantine school, it is\n equivalent to \u201c_letters of appeal_\u201d from the decision of a lower\n tribunal to a higher one. But this, as well as the two previous\n meanings, must be considered as mere technical and temporary\n usages, while the original sense of \u201cmessenger,\u201d \u201cherald,\u201d\n \u201cembassador,\u201d remained in constant force long after the word\n had received the peculiar application which is the great object\n of this long investigation. Yet various as are these meanings,\n it should be noticed that all those which refer to persons,\n have this one common idea, that of \u201cone sent to a distance to\n execute the commands of a higher power.\u201d This sense is likewise\n preserved in that sacred meaning, which the previous inquiry\n has now somewhat prepared the reader as well as the writer to\n appreciate in its true force.\n\n The earliest passage in the sacred records of Christianity,\n in which the word apostle is used, is the second verse of the\n tenth chapter of Matthew, where the distinct nomination of the\n twelve chief disciples is first mentioned. They are here called\n apostles, and as the term is used in connection with their\n being _sent out_ on their first mission, it seems plain that\n the application of the name had a direct reference to this\n primary signification. The word, indeed, which Jesus uses in the\n sixteenth verse, (when he says \u2018Behold! I SEND _you forth_ as\n sheep in the midst of wolves,\u2019) is \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9, (_apostello_), and\n when in the fifth verse, Matthew, after enumerating and naming\n the apostles, says \u201cThese twelve Jesus _sent forth_,\u201d the past\n tense of the same verb is used, (\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd, _apesteilen_.)\n Mark also, in his third chapter, relating the appointment and\n commissioning of the twelve, uses this verb, in verse 14. \u201cAnd\n he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he\n might SEND _them forth_ to preach,\u201d (\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7, _apostell\u00e9_.)\n Luke merely mentions the name apostle, in giving the list of the\n twelve, in chapter 6, verse 13; and in chapter 9, verse 2, gives\n the verb in the same way as Matthew. The term certainly is of\n rare occurrence in all the gospels; those persons who are thus\n designated being commonly mentioned under the general title of\n _disciple_ or learner, (\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2,) and when it is necessary to\n separate them from the rest of Christ\u2019s followers, they are\n designated from their number \u201cthe twelve.\u201d John never uses\n it in this sense, nor does Mark in giving the list, though he\n does in vi. 30, and the only occasion on which it is applied to\n the twelve by Matthew, is that of their being _sent forth_ on\n their brief experimental mission through the land of Israel, to\n announce the approach of the Messiah\u2019s reign. The simple reason,\n for this remarkable exclusion of the term from common use in the\n gospel story, is that only on that one occasion just mentioned,\n did they assume the character of _apostles_, or persons _sent\n forth_ by a superior. This circumstance shows a beautiful\n justness and accuracy in the use of words by the gospel writers,\n who in this matter, at least, seem to have fully apprehended\n the true etymological force of the noble language in which they\n wrote. The twelve, during the whole life of Jesus, were never\n _sent forth_ to proclaim their Lord\u2019s coming, except once; but\n until the Ascension, they were simple _learners_, or disciples,\n (\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, _mathetai_,) and not apostles or messengers, who had\n so completely learned the will of God as to be qualified to\n teach it to others. But immediately after the final departure\n of Jesus, the sacred narrative gives them the title of apostles\n with much uniformity, because they had now, by their ascending\n Lord, been solemnly commissioned in his last words, and _sent\n forth_ as messengers and embassadors to \u201call nations.\u201d A common\n reader of the New Testament must notice that, in the Acts of the\n Apostles, this title is the most usual one given to the chosen\n twelve, though even there, an occasional use is made of the\n collective term taken from the idea of their number. It deserves\n notice, however, that Luke, the author of the Acts, even in his\n gospel, uses this name more frequently than any other of the\n evangelists; and his individual preference for this word may,\n perhaps, have had some influence in producing its very frequent\n use in the second part of his narrative, though the whole number\n of times when it is used in his gospel is only six, whereas in\n Acts it occurs twenty-seven times. So that on the whole it would\n seem clear, that the change from the common use of the term\n \u201cDISCIPLE,\u201d in the gospels, to that of \u201cAPOSTLE,\u201d in the history\n of their acts after the ascension, was made in reference to the\n corresponding change in the character and duties of the persons\n thus named.\n\n The lexicography of the word \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, (_apostolos_,) I arrange\n as follows, after a full comparison and investigation of all the\n standard authorities.\n\n The primary idea or ground-meaning which runs through all the\n secondary significations, and is distinctly recognizable in all\n their various applications, is as has already been remarked,\n that of \u201cone sent forth,\u201d referring either to persons or things,\n but more commonly to persons. These secondary meanings being all\n directly derived from the ground-stock, and not by a repetition\n of transformations in sense, it is hard to settle any order of\n precedence among them; which might be easily done if a distinct\n gradation could be traced, as in the definition of most words.\n I have chosen to follow what seems to be the historical order\n of application, as already traced, although several very high\n authorities give a different arrangement.\n\n I. _A messenger, herald, embassador_; a _person_ sent with a\n message. This is the use made of the term by Herodotus, above\n quoted, and being thus historically the earliest, as well as\n flowing naturally from the ground-meaning, may therefore justly\n hold the first place. And when other variable meanings had been\n lost in the revolutions of usage, this retained its place, being\n applied to many different persons whose offices included the\n idea of being sent abroad by commission from a higher power.\n Under this meaning is most justly included that peculiar\n Christian use of the word, which is the object of this\n investigation, and under this head therefore I rank all the New\n Testament usages of \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. 1.\u00a0It is used in the simple sense\n here given, with the first primary idea conveyed by the term.\n There is no Greek sentence extant which refers so forcibly to\n the ground-meaning as that in John\u2019s gospel, xiii. 16; where the\n words in the common English translation are \u201c_he that is sent_,\u201d\n though in the original Greek the word is \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, which might\n be more justly translated \u201cmessenger,\u201d in order to make a\n difference in English corresponding to that in Greek, between\n \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2, (_pempsas_,) without giving the same word\n \u201c_send_\u201d for two different words in Greek. Still the common\n translation gives the true meaning of each word, though not so\n simply and gracefully just, as it might be if the difference of\n terms in the two members of the sentence was kept up in English.\n In this same general sense of \u201cmessenger,\u201d or \u201cany person\n sent,\u201d it is used in 2 Corinthians viii. 23, (in common English\n translation \u201cmessenger,\u201d) and in Philippians ii. 25, (common\n translation \u201cmessenger.\u201d) 2.\u00a0It is used to designate persons\n directly sent by God to men, and in this sense is frequently\n given to us in connection with \u201c_prophet_,\u201d as in Luke xi. 49;\n Ephesians iii. 5; Revelation xviii. 20. In this sense also it is\n applied to Jesus, in Hebrews iii. 1, 3. It is used as the title\n of several classes of persons, employed by Jesus in propagating\n the gospel. These are [1]\u00a0the twelve chief disciples, commonly\n distinguished above all others but one, by this name. Matthew\n x. 2; Mark vi. 30; Luke vi. 13; ix. 10; xxii. 14; Acts i. 26;\n and in other places too numerous to be mentioned here, but to\n which a good concordance will direct any curious investigator.\n [2]\u00a0Paul, as the great messenger of truth to the Gentiles,\n so called in many passages; and with him Barnabas is also\n distinctly included under this term, in Acts xiv. 4, 14; and\n xv. 33. (Griesbach however, has changed this last passage from\n the common reading. See his editions.) [3]\u00a0Other persons, not\n of great eminence or fame; as Andronicus and Junius, Paul\u2019s\n assistants, Romans xvi. 7; the companions of Titus in collecting\n the contributions of the churches, 2 Corinthians viii. 23; and\n perhaps also Epaphroditus, Philippians ii. 25. This seems to be\n as clear an arrangement of the New Testament lexicography of the\n term as can be given, on a comparison of high authorities. Those\n who can refer to Wahl, Bretschneider, Parkhurst and Schleusner,\n will find that I have not servilely followed either, but have\n adopted some things from all.\n\n The extensions and variations of the New Testament usage of the\n word, among the Grecian and Latin Christian Fathers, were, 1,\n the application of it to the seventy disciples whose mission is\n narrated by Luke, x. 29. These are repeatedly called apostles.\n 2.\u00a0The companions of Paul and others are frequently honored by\n this title. Timothy and Mark are called apostles, and many later\n ministers also, as may be seen by the authorities at the end of\n Cave\u2019s Introduction to his Lives of the Apostles.\n\n In application to persons, it is used by Athenian writers as a\n name for the commander of a naval expedition, (See Demosthenes\n as quoted by Stephens,) but this seems to have come by\n transferring to the man, the name of the expedition which he\n commanded, so that this cannot be derived from the definition\n which is here placed first. This term in the later Greek is\n also applied to the \u201c_bride-man_,\u201d or bridegroom\u2019s friend, who\n on wedding festivals was sent to conduct the bride from her\n father\u2019s house to her husband\u2019s. (_Phavorinus_ quoted by Witsius\n in Vita Pauli.) This however is a very unusual sense, which I\n can find on no other authority than that here given. None of the\n lexicons contain it.\n\n II. The definition which occupies the first place in most of\n the arrangements of this word in the common Greek lexicons, is\n that of a \u201cnaval expedition,\u201d \u201c_apparatus classium_,\u201d \u201cfleet.\u201d\n There appears, however, to be no good reason for this order,\n but there is historical argument, at least, as well as analogy,\n for putting those meanings which refer to _persons_, before\n those which refer to _things_. This meaning, as far as I can\n learn, seems to be confined to Demosthenes, and there is nothing\n to make us suppose that it is anterior in use to the simple\n permanent sense which is here given first. Hesychius gives\n us only the meaning of \u201cthe commander of a fleet,\u201d which may\n indeed be derivable from this sense rather than the preceding\n _personal_ uses, though it seems to me not impossible that the\n name was transferred from the commander to the object of his\n command, thus making the personal meanings prior to those of\n inanimate things. The adjective use of the word in Herodotus\n and Plato, however, makes it certain that in that way it was\n early applied to a single vessel, and the transition to its\n substantive use for a whole fleet is natural enough.\n\n The legal use of it for \u201cletters of appeal,\u201d (_literae\n dimissoriae_,) of course comes under the head of the later\n usages in application to _things_, and is the last modification\n of meaning which the word underwent before the extinction of the\n ancient Greek language.\n\n The corresponding Hebrew word, and that which was, no doubt,\n used by Christ in his discourse to his apostles, was \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7 or \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d7\n (_sheluh_, or _shelih_,) whose primary meaning, like that of the\n Greek word, is \u201c_one sent_,\u201d and is derived from the passive Kal,\n participle of the verb \u05e9\u05dc\u05d7 meaning \u201che sent,\u201d This word is often\n used in the Old Testament, and is usually translated in the\n Alexandrian Greek version, by the word \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. A remarkable\n instance occurs in 1 Kings xiv. 6; where the prophet Ahijah,\n speaking to the wife of Jeroboam, says, \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05da \u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05d7 \u201cto thee am I\n sent;\u201d the Alexandrian version gives the noun \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, so as\n to make it literally \u201cto thee I am an _apostle_,\u201d or \u201cmessenger,\u201d\n or truly, in the just and primary sense of this Greek word,\n \u201cto thee I am _sent_.\u201d This passage is a valuable illustration\n of the use of the same Greek word in John xiii. 16; as above\n quoted.\n\n The Hebrews had another word also, which they used in the sense\n of an apostle or messenger. This was \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da (_mal ak_,) derived\n from a verb which means \u201c_send_,\u201d so that the primary meaning of\n this also is \u201cone sent.\u201d It was commonly appropriated to angels,\n but was sometimes a title of prophets and priests. (Haggai i. 19;\n Malachi ii. 7.) It was on the whole the more dignified term\n of the two, as the former was never applied to angels, but was\n restricted to men. The two terms are very fairly represented by\n the two Greek words \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, in English \u201capostle\u201d\n and \u201cangel,\u201d the latter, like its corresponding Hebrew term,\n being sometimes applied to the human servants of God, as in\n John\u2019s address to the seven churches.\n\nThe scope of the term, as used in the title of this book, is limited\nto the twelve chosen disciples of Jesus Christ, and those few of their\nmost eminent associates, who are designated by the same word in the\nwritings of the early Christians. These persons fall under two natural\ndivisions, which will be followed in the arrangement of their lives in\nthis work. These are, first, the TWELVE, or Peter and his companions;\nand second, Paul and his companions, including also some to whom the\nname apostle is not given by the New Testament writers, but who were\nso intimate with this great preacher of Christ, and so eminent by their\nown labors, that they may be very properly ranked with him, in the\nhistory of the first preachers of Christianity.\n\nThe persons whose lives are given in this book are,\n\nI. The Galilean apostles, namely,\n\n SIMON PETER, and ANDREW his brother,\n\n JAMES, and JOHN, the sons of Zebedee,\n\n PHILIP, and BARTHOLOMEW,\n\n MATTHEW, and THOMAS,\n\n JAMES, the son of Alpheus, and SIMON ZELOTES,\n\n JUDE, the brother of James, and JUDAS ISCARIOT, in whose\n place was afterwards chosen by the apostles, MATTHIAS.\n\nII. The Hellenist apostles, namely, PAUL and BARNABAS, with whom are\nincluded their companions, MARK and LUKE, the evangelists.\n\nThese two classes of Apostles are distinguished from each other, mainly,\nby the circumstances of the appointment of each; the former being all\ndirectly appointed by Jesus himself, (excepting Matthias, who took the\nforfeited commission of Judas Iscariot,) while the latter were summoned\nto the duties of the apostleship after the ascension of Christ; so\nthat they, however highly equipped for the labors of the office, had\nnever enjoyed his personal instructions; and however well-assured of\nthe divine summons to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, theirs was\nnot a distinct personal and bodily commission, formally given to them,\nand repeatedly enforced and renewed, as it was to the chosen ones of\nChrist\u2019s own appointment. These later apostles, too, with hardly one\nexception, were foreign Jews, born and brought up beyond the bounds of\nthe land of Israel, while the twelve were all Galileans, whose homes\nwere within the holy precincts of their fathers\u2019 ancient heritage.\nYet if the extent of their labors be regarded, the later commissioned\nmust rank far above the twelve. Almost two thirds of the New Testament\nwere written by Paul and his companions; and before one of those\ncommissioned by Jesus to go into all the world on their great errand,\nhad ever gone beyond the boundary of Palestine, Paul, accompanied\neither by Barnabas, Mark, Silas, or Luke, had gone over Syria and Asia,\ntraversed the sea into Greece, Macedonia, and Illyria, bringing the\nknowledge of the word of truth to tens of thousands, who would never\nhave heard of it, if they had been made to wait for its communication\nby the twelve. This he did through constant toils, dangers and\nsufferings, which as far transcended all which the Galilean Apostles\nhad endured, as the mighty results of his labors did the immediate\neffects of theirs. And afterwards, while they were struggling with\nthe paltry and vexatious, though not very dangerous tyranny of the\nSanhedrim, within the walls of Jerusalem, Paul was uttering the solemn\ntruths of his high commission before governors and a king, making them\nto tremble with doubt and awe at his words; and, at last, bearing,\nfirst of all, the name of Jesus to the capital of the world, he sounded\nthe call of the gospel at the gates of C\u00e6sar. The Galilean apostles\nwere indued with no natural advantages for communicating freely with\nforeigners; their language, habits, customs and modes of instruction,\nwere all hindrances in the way of a rapid and successful progress in\nsuch a labor, and they with great willingness gave up this vast field\nto the Hellenist preachers, while they occupied themselves, for the\nmost part, with the still immense labor which their Lord had himself\nbegun. For all the subtleties and mysticisms of their solemn foes, they\nwere abundantly provided; the whole training, which they had received,\nunder the personal instruction of their master, had fitted them mainly\nfor this very warfare; and they had seen him, times without number,\nsweep away all these refuges of lies. But, with the polished and truly\nlearned philosophers of Athens, or the majestic lords of Rome, they\nwould have felt the want of that minute knowledge of the characters and\nmanners of both Greeks and Romans, with which Paul was so familiar, by\nthe circumstances of his birth and education, in a city highly favored\nby Roman laws and Grecian philosophy. Thus was it wisely ordained, for\nthe complete foundation and rapid extension of the gospel cause, that\nfor each great field of labor there should be a distinct set of men,\neach peculiarly well fitted for their own department of the mighty work.\nAnd by such divinely sagacious appointments, the certain and resistless\nadvance of the faith of Christ was so secured, and so wonderfully\nextended beyond the deepest knowledge, and above the brightest hopes of\nits chief apostles, that at this distant day, in this distant land, far\nbeyond the view even of the prophetic eye of that age, millions of a\nrace unknown to them, place their names above all others, but one, on\nearth and in heaven; and to spread the knowledge of the minute details\nof their toils and triumphs, the laborious scholar should search the\nrecorded learning of eighteen hundred years, and bring forth the fruits\nin the story of their lives.\n\nWith such limitations and expansions of the term, then, this book\nattempts to give the history of the lives of the apostles. Of some who\nare thus designated, little else than their names being known, they can\nhave no claim for a large space on these pages; while to a few, whose\nactions determined the destiny of millions, and mainly effected the\nestablishment of the Christian faith, the far greater part of the work\nwill be given.\n\nThe MATERIALS of this work should be found in all that has been written\non the subject of New Testament history, since the scriptural canon\nwas completed. But \u201cwho is sufficient for these things?\u201d A long life\nmight find abundant employment in searching a thousand libraries, and\ncompiling from a hundred thousand volumes, the facts and illustrations\nof this immense and noble subject; and then the best energies of\nanother long life would be needed to bring the mighty masses into form,\nand give them in a narrative for the mind of the unlearned. What, then,\nis here attempted, as a substitute for this immensity? To give a clear\ndistinct narrative of each apostle\u2019s life, with such illustrations of\nthe character of the era, and the scene in which the incidents occurred,\nand such explanations of the terms in which they are recorded, as may,\nconsistently with the limits of this work, be drawn from the labors of\nthe learned of ancient and modern times, which are within the writer\u2019s\nreach. Various and numerous are the books that swell the list of\nfaithful and honest references; many and weighty the volumes that\nhave been turned over, in the long course of research; ancient and\nvenerable the dust, which has been shaken into suffocating clouds\nabout the searcher\u2019s head, and have obscured his vision, as he dragged\nmany a forgotten folio from the slumber of ages, to array the modern\nplunderer in the shreds and patches of antique lore. Histories, travels,\ngeographies, maps, commentaries, criticisms, introductions, and\nlexicons, have been \u201cdaily and nightly turned in the hand;\u201d and of this\nlabor some fruit is offered on every page. But the unstained source of\nsacred history! the pure well-spring, at which the wearied searcher\nalways refreshed himself, after unrequited toils, through dry masses\nof erudition, was the simple story of the Apostles and Evangelists,\ntold by themselves. In this same simple story, indeed, were found the\npoints on which the longest labor was required; yet these, at best only\nillustrated, not improved, by all the labors of the learned of various\nages, were the _materials_ of the work. These are the preparations of\nmonths and years; the execution must decide on their real value,\u2015\u2015and\nthat is yet to come.\n\n A list of the various works which have furnished the materials\n for this book might be proper here; but in order to insure its\n completeness and accuracy, it is deferred to the end of the\n volume.\n\nA VIEW OF THE WORLD, _as it was at the when the apostles began the work\nof spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ_, may be convenient to remind\nsome readers, and necessary to inform others, in what way its political\norganization operated to aid or hinder the progress of the faith. The\npeculiarities of the government of the regions of civilization, were\nclosely involved in the results of this religious revolution, and may\nbe considered as having been, on the whole, most desirably disposed for\nthe triumphant establishment of the dominion of Christ.\n\nFrom the shores of the Atlantic to the banks of the Euphrates, the sway\nof the Roman Caesar was acknowledged, by the millions of Western and\nSouthern Europe, Northern Africa and South-western Asia. The strong\ngrasp of warlike power was a bond which held together in peace many\nnations, who, but for that constraint, would, as their previous and\nsubsequent history shows, have been arrayed against each other, in\ncontests, destructive alike of the happiness of the contending parties\nand the comfort of their neighbors. The mighty force of Roman genius\nhad overcome the thousand barriers which nature and art had reared\nbetween the different nations of the three continents in which it ruled,\nand the passage from one end of that vast empire to the other, was\nwithout any hindrance to those who traveled on errands of peace. The\nbloody strife which once distracted the tribes of Gaul, Germany and\nBritain, had rendered those grand sections of Europe impassable, and\nshut up each paltry tribe within a narrow boundary, which could never\nbe crossed but with fire and sword. The deadly and furious contests\namong the nations of South-western Asia and South-eastern Europe, had\nlong discouraged the philosophical and commercial enterprise, once of\nold so rife and free among them, and offered a serious hindrance to\nthe traveler, whether journeying for information or trade; thus greatly\nchecking the spread of knowledge, and limiting each nation, in a great\nmeasure, to its own resources in science and art. The Roman conquest,\nburying in one wide tomb all the jealousies and strifes of aspiring\nnational ambition, thus put an end at once to all these causes of\nseparation; it brought long-divided nations into close union and\nacquaintance, and produced a more extensive and equal diffusion of\nknowledge, as well as greater facilities for commercial intercourse,\nthan had ever been enjoyed before. The rapid result of the conquerors\u2019\npolicy was the consolidation of the various nations of that vast empire\ninto one people,\u2015\u2015peaceful, prosperous, and for the most part protected\nin their personal and domestic rights. The savage was tamed, the\nwanderers were reclaimed from the forest, which fell before the march\nof civilization, or from the desert, which soon rejoiced and blossomed\nunder the mighty beneficence of Roman power.\n\nThe fierce Gaul forsook his savage hut and dress together, robing\nhimself in the graceful toga of the Roman citizen, or the light tunic\nof the colonial cultivator, and reared his solid and lofty dwelling in\nclustering cities or villages, whose deep laid foundations yet endure,\nin lasting testimony of the nature of Roman conquest and civilization.\nUnder his Roman rulers and patrons, he raised piles of art, unequaled\nin grandeur, beauty and durability, by any similar works in the world.\nAqueducts and theaters, still only in incipient ruin, proclaim, in\ntheir slow decay, the greatness of those who reared them, in a land so\nlately savage.\n\n The Pont du gard, at Nismes, and the amphitheaters, temples,\n arches, gates, baths, bridges, and mausolea, which still adorn\n that city and Arles, Vienne, Rheims, Besancon, Autun and Metz,\n are the instances, to which I direct those whose knowledge of\n antiquity is not sufficient to suggest these splendid remains.\n Almost any well-written book of travels in France will give the\n striking details of their present condition. Malte-Brun also\n slightly alludes to them, and may be consulted by those who\n wish to learn more of the proofs of my assertion than this brief\n notice can give.\n\nThe warlike Numidian and the wild Mauritanian, under the same\niron instruction, had long ago learned to robe their primitive\nhalf-nakedness in the decent garments of civilized man. Even the\ndistant Getulian found the high range of Atlas no sure barrier, against\nthe wave of triumphant arms and arts, which rolled resistlessly over\nhim, and spent itself only on the pathless sands of wide Sahara. So far\ndid that all-subduing genius spread its work, and so deeply did it make\nits marks, beyond the most distant and impervious boundary of modern\ncivilization, that the latest march of discovery has found far older\nadventurers before it, even in the great desert; and within a dozen\nyears, European travelers have brought to our knowledge walls and\ninscriptions, which, after mouldering unknown in the dry, lonely waste,\nfor ages, at last met the astonished eyes of these gazers, with the\nstill striking witness of Roman power.\n\n The travels of Denham and Clapperton across the desert, from\n Tripoli to Bornou,\u2015\u2015of Ritchie and Lyon, to Fezzan,\u2015\u2015of Horneman\n and others, will abundantly illustrate this passage.\n\nEgypt, already twice classic, and renowned through two mighty and\ndistant series of ages, renewed her fading glories under new conquerors,\nno less worthy to possess and adorn the land of the Pharaohs, than were\nthe Ptolemies. In that ancient home of art, the new conquerors achieved\nworks, inferior indeed to the still lasting monuments of earlier\ngreatness, but no less effectual in securing the ornament and defense\nof the land. With a warlike genius far surpassing the most triumphant\nenergy of former rulers, the legionaries of Rome made the valley of\nthe Nile, from its mouth to the eighth cataract, safe and wealthy. The\ndesert wanderers, whose hordes had once overwhelmed the throne of the\nPharaohs, and baffled the revenge of the Macedonian monarchs, were now\ncrushed, curbed, or driven into the wilds; while the peaceful tiller\nof the ground, secure against their lawless attacks, brought his rich\nharvests to a fair and certain market, through the ports and million\nships of the Mediterranean, to the gate of his noble conquerors, within\nthe capital of the world.\n\nThe grinding tyranny of the cruel despots of Pontus, Armenia and Syria,\nhad, one after another, been swept away before the republican hosts\nof Sylla, Lucullus and Pompey; and the remorseless, stupid selfishness\nthat has always characterized oriental despotism, even to this day,\nhad been followed by the mild and generous exercise of that almost\nomnipotent sway, which the condition of the people, in most cases,\nshowed to have been administered, in the main, for the good of its\nsubjects.\n\n The case of Verres will perhaps rise to the minds of some of my\n readers, as opposed to this favorable view of Roman government;\n but the whole account of this and similar tyranny shows that\n such cases were looked on as most remarkable enormities, and\n they are recorded and noticed in such terms of abhorrence, as to\n justify us in quoting with peculiar force, the maxim, \u201cExceptio\n probat regulam.\u201d\n\nTowards the farthest eastern boundary of the empire, the Parthian,\nfighting as he fled, held out against the advance of the western\nconquerors, in a harassing and harassed independence. The mountains\nand forests of central Europe, and of North Britain, too, were still\nmanfully defended by their savage owners; yet, when they at last met\nthe iron hosts of Germanicus, Trajan, and Agricola, they, in their turn,\nfell under the last triumphs of the Roman eagle. But the peace and\nprosperity of the empire, and even of provinces near the scene, were\nnot moved by these disturbances. And thus, in a longitudinal line of\nfour thousand miles, and within a circuit of ten thousand, the energies\nof Roman genius had hushed all wars, and stilled the nations into a\nlong, unbroken peace, which secured the universal good. So nearly true\nwas the lyric description, given by Milton, of the universal peace\nwhich attended the coming of the Messiah:\n\n \u201cNo war or battle sound,\n Was heard the world around;\n The idle spear and shield were high uphung;\n The hooked chariot stood,\n Unstained with hostile blood,\n The trumpet spake not to the armed throng;\n And kings sat still with awful eye,\n As if they surely knew their sovran lord was by.\u201d\n\nThe efforts of the conquerors did not cease with the mere military\nsubjugation of a country, but were extended far beyond the extinction\nof the hostile force. The Roman soldier was not a mere fighter,\nnor were his labors, out of the conflict, confined to the erection\nof military works only. The stern discipline, which made his arms\ntriumphant in the day of battle, had also taught him cheerfully to\nexchange those triumphant arms for the tools of peaceful labor, that he\nmight insure the solid permanency of his conquests, by the perfection\nof such works as would make tranquillity desirable to the conquered,\nand soothe them to repose under a dominion which so effectually secured\ntheir good. Roads, that have made Roman _ways_ proverbial, and which\nthe perfection of modern art has never equaled in more than one or\ntwo instances, reached from the capital to the farthest bounds of the\nempire. Seas, long dangerous and almost impassable for the trader and\nenterprising voyager, were swept of every piratical vessel; and the\nmost distant channels of the Aegean and Levant, where the corsair\nlong ruled triumphant, both before and since, became as safe as the\nporches of the capitol. Regions, to which nature had furnished the\nindispensable gift of water, neither in abundance nor purity, were soon\nblessed with artificial rivers, flowing over mighty arches, that will\ncrumble only with the pyramids. In the dry places of Africa and Asia,\nas well as in distant Gaul, mighty aqueducts and gushing fountains\nrefreshed the feverish traveler, and gave reality to the poetical\nprophecy, that\n\n \u201cIn the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams\n in the desert.\u201d\n\n _Roads._\u2015\u2015I was at first disposed to make some few exceptions to\n this sweeping commendation of the excellence of Roman roads, by\n referring simply to my general impressions of the comparative\n perfection of these and modern works of the same character;\n but on revising the facts by an examination of authorities, I\n have been led to strike out the exceptions. Napoleon\u2019s great\n road over the Simplon, the great northern road from London to\n Edinburgh, and some similar works in Austria, seemed, before\n comparison, in extent, durability, and in their triumphs over\n nature, to equal, if not surpass, the famed Roman WAYS; but a\n reference to the minute descriptions of these mighty works, sets\n the ancient far above the modern art. The Via Appia, \u201c_regina\n viarum_,\u201d (_Papinius Statius in Surrentino Pollii_,) stretching\n three hundred and seventy miles from Rome to the bounds of Italy,\n built of squared stone, as hard as flints, and brought from\n a great distance, so laid together that for miles they seemed\n but a single stone, and so solidly fixed, that at this day, the\n road is as entire in many places as when first made,\u2015\u2015the Via\n Flaminia, built in the same solid manner,\u2015\u2015the Via Aemilia, five\n hundred and twenty-seven miles long,\u2015\u2015the Via Portuensis, with\n its enormous double cause-way,\u2015\u2015the vaulted roads of Puzzuoli\n and Baiae, hewn half a league through the solid rock, and the\n thousand remains of similar and contemporaneous works in various\n parts of the world, where some are in use even to this day, as\n far better than any modern highway,\u2015\u2015all these are enough to\n show the inquirer, that the commendation given to these works in\n the text, is not over-wrought nor unmerited. The minute details\n of the construction of these extraordinary works, with many\n other interesting particulars, may be much more fully learned in\n Rees\u2019s Cyclop\u00e6dia, Articles _Way_, _Via_, _Road_, _Appian_, &c.\n\n _Aqueducts._\u2015\u2015The common authorities on this subject, refer to\n none of these mighty Roman works, except those around the city\n of Rome itself. Those of Nismes and Metz, in Gaul, and that of\n Segovia, in Spain, are sometimes mentioned; but the reader would\n be led to suppose, that other portions of the Roman empire were\n not blessed with these noble works. Rees\u2019s Cyclop\u00e6dia is very\n full on this head, in respect to the aqueducts of the great\n city itself, but conveys the impression that they were not known\n in many distant parts of the empire. Montfaucon gives no more\n satisfactory information on the subject. But a reference to\n books of travels or topography, which describe the remains of\n Roman art in its ancient provinces in Africa and Asia, will\n at once give a vivid impression of the extent and frequency of\n these works. Shaw\u2019s travels in northern Africa, give accounts\n of aqueducts, cisterns, fountains, and reservoirs, along through\n all the ancient Roman dominions in that region. The Modern\n Traveler (by Conder) will give abundant accounts of the remains\n of these works, in this and various other countries alluded to\n in the text; and some of them, still so perfect, as to serve the\n common uses of the inhabitants to this day.\n\nAll these mighty influences, working for the peace and comfort of\nmankind, and so favorable to the spread of religious knowledge, had\nbeen further secured by the triumphant and firm establishment of\nthe throne of the Caesars. Under the fitful sway of the capricious\ndemocracy of Rome, conquest had indeed steadily stretched east, west,\nnorth and south, alike over barbarian and Greek, through the wilderness\nand the city. A long line of illustrious consuls, such as Marcellus,\nthe Scipios, Aemilius, Marius, Sylla, Lucullus and Pompey, had, during\nthe last two centuries of the republic, added triumph to triumph, in\nbright succession, thronging the streets of the seven-hilled city with\ncaptive kings, and more than quadrupling her dominion. But while the\ncorruption of conquest was fast preparing the dissipated people to\nmake a willing exchange of their political privileges, for \u201cbread and\namusements;\u201d the enlightened portion of the citizens were getting tired\nof the distracting and often bloody changes of popular favoritism, and\nwere ready to receive as a welcome deliverer, any man who could give\nthem a calm and rational despotism, in place of the remorseless and\nferocious tyranny of a brutal mob. In this turn of the world\u2019s destiny,\nthere arose one, in all points equal to the task of sealing both\njustice and peace to the vanquished nations, by wringing from the hands\nof a haughty people, the same political power which they had caused\nso many to give up to their unsparing gripe. He was one who, while,\nto common eyes, he seemed devoting the flower of his youth and the\nstrength of his manhood to idleness and debauchery, was learning\nsuch wisdom as could never have been learned in the lessons of the\nsage,\u2015\u2015wisdom in the characters, the capabilities, the corruption and\nvenality of his plebeian sovrans. And yet he was not one who scorned\nthe lessons of the learned, nor turned away from the records of others\u2019\nknowledge. In the schools of Rhodes, he sat a patient student of the\nart and science of the orator, and searched deeply into the stored\ntreasures of Grecian philosophy. Resplendent in arms as in arts, he\ndevoted to swift and deserved destruction the pirates of the Aegean,\nwhile yet only a raw student; and with the same energy and rapidity, in\nRome, attained the peaceful triumphs of the eloquence which had so long\nbeen his study. The flight of years passed over him, alike victorious\nin the factious strife of the capital, and in the deadly struggle\nwith the Celtic savages of North-western Europe. Ruling long-conquered\nSpain in peace, and subjugating still barbarous Gaul, he showed\nthe same ascendent genius which made the greatest minds of Rome his\nwilling and despised tools, and crushed them when they at last dreamed\nof independence or resistance. In the art military, supreme and\nunconquered, whether met by the desperate savage of the forest or\ndesert, or by the veteran legions of republican Rome,\u2015\u2015in the arts of\nintrigue, more than a match for the subtlest deceivers of a jealous\ndemocracy,\u2015\u2015as an orator, winning the hearts and turning the thoughts\nof those who were the hearers of Cicero,\u2015\u2015as a writer, unmatched\neven in that Ciceronian age, for strength and flowing ease, though\nwriting in a camp, amid the fatigues of a savage warfare,\u2015\u2015in all the\naccomplishments that adorn and soften, and in all the manly exercises\nthat ennoble and strengthen, alike complete,\u2015\u2015in battle, in storm, on\nthe ocean and on land, in the collected fury of the charge, and the\nsudden shock of the surprise, always dauntless and cool, showing a\ncourage never shaken, though so often tried,\u2015\u2015to his friends kind and\ngenerous,\u2015\u2015to his vanquished foes, without exception, merciful and\nforgiving,\u2015\u2015beloved by the former, respected by the latter, and adored\nby the people,\u2015\u2015a scholar, an astronomer, a poet, a wit, a gallant,\nan orator, a statesman, a warrior, a governor, a monarch,\u2015\u2015his vast\nand various attainments, so wonderful in that wonderful age, have\nsecured to him, from the great of his own and all following ages, the\nundeniable name of THE MOST PERFECT CHARACTER OF ALL ANTIQUITY. Such\na man was CAIUS JULIUS CAESAR. He saved the people from themselves;\nhe freed them from their own tyranny, and ended forever, in Rome,\nthe power of the populace to meddle with the disposal of the great\ninterests of the consolidated nations of the empire. It was necessary\nthat it should be so. The empire was too vast for an ignorant and\nstupid democracy to govern. The safety and comfort of the world\nrequired a better rule; and never was any man, in the course of\nProvidence, more wonderfully prepared as the instrument of a mighty\nwork, than was Julius Caesar, as the founder of a power which was to\nlast till the fall of Rome. For the accomplishment of this wonderful\npurpose, every one of his countless excellences seems to have done\nsomething; and nothing less than he, could have thus achieved a task,\nwhich prepared the way for the advance of a power, that was to outlast\nhis throne and the Eternal city. Under the controlling influence of\nhis genius, the world was so calmed, subjugated and arranged, that\nthe gates of all nations were opened for the peaceful entrance of the\npreachers of the gospel. So solidly did he lay the foundation of his\ndominion, that even his own murder, by the objects of his undeserved\nclemency, made not the slightest change in the fate of Rome; for the\npaltry intrigues and fights of a few years ended in placing the power,\nwhich Caesar had won, in the hands of his heir and namesake, whose most\nglorious triumphs were but straws on the mighty stream of events, which\nJulius had set in motion.\n\n _Caesar._\u2015\u2015Those who are accustomed merely to the common cant\n of many would-be philanthropists, about the destruction of\n the liberties of Rome, and the bloody-minded atrocity of their\n destroyer, will doubtless feel shocked at the favorable view\n taken of his character, above. The truth is, there was no\n liberty in Rome for Caesar to destroy; the question of political\n freedom having been long before settled in the triumphant\n ascendency of faction, the only choice was between one tyrant\n and ten thousand. No one can question that Caesar was the fair\n choice of the great mass of the people. They were always on\n his side, in opposition to the aristocracy, who sought his ruin\n because they considered him dangerous to their privileges, and\n _their_ liberty (to tyrannize;) and their fears were grounded on\n the very circumstance that the vast majority of the people were\n for him. This was the condition of parties until Caesar\u2019s death,\n and long after, to the time of the final triumph of Octavius.\n Not one of Caesar\u2019s friends among the people ever became his\n enemy, or considered him as having betrayed their affection by\n his assumptions of power. Those who murdered him, and plunged\n the world from a happy, universal peace, into the devastating\n horrors of a wide spread and protracted civil war, were not\n the patriotic avengers of an oppressed people; they were the\n jealous supporters of a haughty aristocracy, who saw their\n powers and dignity diminished, in being shared with vast numbers\n of the lower orders, added to the senate by Caesar, whose steady\n determination to humble them they saw in his refusal to pay\n them homage by rising, when the hereditary aristocracy of Rome\n took their seats in senate. It was to redeem the failing powers\n of their privileged order, that these aristocratic assassins\n murdered the man, whose mercy had triumphed over his prudence,\n in sparing the forfeited lives of these hereditary, dangerous\n foes of popular rights. Nor could they for a moment blind the\n people to the nature and object of their action; for as soon as\n the murder had been committed, the universal cry for justice,\n which rose at once from the whole mass of the people, indignant\n at the butchery of their friend, drove the gang of conspirators\n from Rome and from Italy, which they were never permitted again\n to enter. Those who thronged to the standards of the heir and\n friend of Caesar, were the hosts of democracy, who never rested\n till they had crushed and exterminated the miserable faction\n of aristocrats, who had hoped to triumph over the mass of the\n people, by the death of the people\u2019s great friend. Now if the\n people of Rome chose to give up their whole power, and the\n disposal of their political affairs, into the hands of a great,\n a talented, a generous and heroic man, like Caesar, who had so\n effectually vindicated and secured their freedom against the\n claims of a domineering aristocracy, and if they afterwards\n remained so well satisfied with the use which he made of\n this power, as never to make the slightest effort, nor on any\n occasion to express the least wish, to resume it, I would like\n to know who had any business to hinder the sovran people from so\n doing, or what blame can in any way be laid to Caesar\u2019s charge,\n for accepting, and for nobly and generously using the power so\n freely and heartily given up to him.\n\n The protracted detail of his mental and physical greatness,\n given in the sketch of his character above, would need for its\n full defense and illustration, the mention of such numerous\n particulars, that I must be content with challenging any doubter,\n to a reference to the record of the actions of his life, and\n such a reference will abundantly confirm every particular of the\n description. The steady and unanimous decision of the learned\n and the truly great of different ages, since his time, is enough\n to show his solid claims to the highest praise here given.\n Passing over the glory so uniformly yielded to him by the\n learned and eloquent of ancient days, we have among moderns the\n disinterested opinions of such men as the immortal Lord Verulam,\n from whom came the sentence given above, pronouncing him \u201cthe\n most perfect character of all antiquity;\u201d a sentiment which,\n probably, no man of minute historical knowledge ever read,\n without a hearty acquiescence. This opinion has been quoted with\n approbation by our own greatest statesman, Alexander Hamilton,\n than whom none knew better how to appreciate real greatness.\n Lord Byron (Note 47 on Canto IV. of Childe Harold,) also quotes\n this sentence approvingly, and in the same passage gives a\n most interesting view of Caesar\u2019s versatile genius and varied\n accomplishments, entering more fully into some particulars than\n that here given. The sentence of the Roman historian, Suetonius,\n (_Jure_ caesus existimetur,) seems to me to refer, not to\n the moral fitness or actual _right_ of his murder, but to\n the common law or ancient usage of Rome, by which any person\n of great influence, who was considered powerful enough to be\n dangerous to the ascendency of the patrician rank, or to the\n established order of things in any way, might be killed by\n any self-constituted executioner, even though the person thus\n murdered on bare suspicion of a liability to become dangerous,\n should really be innocent of the charge of aspiring to supreme\n power. (\u201cMelium _jure_ caesum pronuntiavit, _etiam si regni\n crimine insons fuerit_.\u201d Livy book iv. chapter 48.) The idea,\n that such an abominable outrage on the claim of an innocent man\n to his own life, could ever be seriously defended as morally\n _right_, is too palpably preposterous to bear a consideration.\n Such a principle of policy must have originated in a\n republicanism, somewhat similar to that which sanctions those\n exertions of democratic power, which have lately become famous\n under the name of Lynch law. It was a principle which in Rome\n enabled the patrician order to secure the destruction of any\n popular man of genius and intelligence, who, being able, might\n become willing to effect a revolution which would humble the\n power of the patrician aristocracy. The murder of the Gracchi,\n also, may be taken as a fair manifestation of the way in which\n the aristocracy were disposed to check the spirit of reform.\n\n The work of Caesar, then, was twofold, like the tyranny which\n he was to subvert; and well did he achieve both objects of his\n mighty efforts. Having first brought down the pride and the\n power of an overbearing aristocracy, he next, by the force\n of the same dominant genius, wrested the ill-wielded dominion\n from the unsteady hands of the fickle democracy, making\n them willingly subservient to the great purpose of their own\n subjugation, and acquiescent in the generous sway of one, whom\n a sort of political instinct taught them to fix on, as the man\n destined to rule them.\n\n Thus were the complicated and contradictory principles of Roman\n government exchanged for the simplicity of monarchical rule;\n an exchange most desirable for the peace and security of the\n subjects of the government. The empire was no longer shaken\n with the constant vacillations of supremacy from the aristocracy\n to the democracy, and from the democracy to the demagogues,\n alternately their tyrants and their slaves. The solitary tyranny\n of an emperor was occasionally found terrible in some of its\n details, but the worst of these could never outgo the republican\n cruelties of Marius and Sylla, and there was, at least, this one\n advantage on the side of those suffering under the monarchical\n tyranny, which would not be available in the case of the victims\n of mob-despotism. This was the ease with which a single stroke\n with a well-aimed dagger could remove the evil at once, and\n secure some chance of a change for the better, as was the case\n with Caligula, Nero, and Domitian; and though the advantages of\n the change were much more manifest in the two latter cases than\n in the former, yet, even in that, the relief experienced was\n worth the effort. But a whole tyrannical populace could not be\n so easily and summarily disposed of; and those who suffered by\n such despotism, could only wait till the horrible butcheries of\n civil strife, or the wasting carnage of foreign warfare, had\n used up the energies and the superfluous blood of the populace,\n and swept the flower of the democracy, by legions, to a wide and\n quiet grave. The remedy of the evil was therefore much slower,\n and more undesirable in its operation, in this case, than in the\n other; while the evil itself was actually more widely injurious.\n For, on the one hand, what imperial tyrant ever sacrificed so\n many victims in Rome, or produced such wide-wasting ruin, as\n either of those republican chiefs, Marius and Sylla? And on the\n other hand, when, in the most glorious and peaceful days of the\n aristocratic or democratic sway, did military glory, literature,\n science, art, commerce, and the whole common weal, so flourish\n and advance, as under the imperial Augustus, the sage Vespasian\n and the amiable Titus, the heroic Trajan, the polished Adrian,\n or the wise and philosophic Antonines? Never did Rome wear\n the aspect of a truly majestic city, till the imperial pride\n of her long line of Caesars had filled her with the temples,\n amphitheaters, circuses, aqueducts, baths, triumphal columns\n and arches, which to this day perpetuate the solid glory of the\n founders, and make her the wonder of the world, while not one\n surviving great work of art claims a republican for its author.\n\n To such a glory did the Caesars raise her, and from such a\n splendor did she fade, as now.\n\n \u201cSuch is the moral of all human tales;\n \u2019Tis but the same rehearsal of the past,\u2015\u2015\n First freedom, and then glory\u2015\u2015when that fails,\n Wealth, vice, corruption,\u2015\u2015barbarism at last,\n And history, with all her volumes vast,\n Hath but one page.\u201d\n\nAn allusion to such a man, in such a book as this, could not be\njustified, but on this satisfactory ground;\u2015\u2015that the changes which he\nwrought in the Roman government, and the conquests by which he spread\nand secured the influence of Roman civilization, seem to have done\nmore than any other political action could do, to effect the general\ndiffusion, and the perpetuity of the Christian faith. A glance at these\ngreat events, in this light, will show to us the first imperial Caesar,\nas Christ\u2019s most mighty precursor, unwittingly preparing the way for\nthe advance of the Messiah,\u2015\u2015a bloody and all-crushing warrior, opening\nthe path for the equally resistless triumphs of the Prince of Peace.\nEven this striking characteristic, of cool and unscrupulous ambition,\nbecame a most glorious means for the production of this strange result.\nThis same moral obtuseness, too, about the right of conquest, so\nheinous in the light of modern ethics, but so blameless, and even\npraise-worthy in the eyes of the good and great of Caesar\u2019s days,\nshows us how low was the world\u2019s standard of right before the coming\nof Christ; and yet this insensibility became, in the hands of the God\nwho causes the wrath of man to praise him, a doubly powerful means of\nspreading that faith, whose essence is love to man.\n\nLook over the world, then, as it was before the Roman conquest, and see\nthe difficulties, both physical and moral, that would have attended the\nuniversal diffusion of a new and peaceful religious faith. Barbarous\nnations, all over the three continents, warring with each other,\nand with the failing outworks of civilization,\u2015\u2015besotted tyranny,\nwearing out the energies of its subjects, by selfish and all-grasping\nfolly,\u2015\u2015sea and land swarming with marauders, and every wheel of\nscience and commerce rolling backward or breaking down. Such was the\nseemingly resistless course of events, when the star of Roman fortune\nrose on the world, under whose influence, at once destructive and\nbenign, the advancing hosts of barbarity were checked and overthrown,\nand their triumphs stayed for five hundred years; the elegance of\nGrecian refinement was transplanted from the unworthy land of its birth,\nto Italian soil, and the most ancient tracks of commerce, as well as\nmany new ones, were made as safe as they are at this peaceful day.\nThe mighty Caesar, last of all, casting down all thrones but his, and\nlaying the deep basis of its lasting dominion in the solid good of\nmillions, filled up the valleys, leveled the mountains, and smoothed\nthe plains, for the march of that monarch, whose kingdom is without end.\n\nThe connection of such a political change with the success of the\nChristian enterprise, and with the perfect development and triumph\nof our peaceful faith, depends on the simple truth, that Christianity\nalways flourishes best in the most highly civilized communities, and\ncan never be so developed as to do full justice to its capabilities,\nin any state of society, short of the highest point of civilization.\nIt never has been received, and held uncorrupt, by mere savages\nor wanderers; and it never can be. Thus and therefore it was, that\nwherever Roman conquest spread, and secured the lasting triumphs of\ncivilization, thither Christianity followed, and flourished, as on a\ncongenial soil, till at last not one land was left in the whole empire,\nwhere the eagle and the dove did not spread their wings in harmonious\ntriumph. In all these lands, where Roman civilization prepared the way,\nChristian churches rose, and gathered within them the noble and the\nrefined, as well as the humble and the poor. Spain, Gaul, Britain and\nAfrica, as well as the ancient homes of knowledge, Egypt, Greece and\nAsia, are instances of this kind. And in every one of these, the reign\nof the true faith became coeval with civilization, yielding in some\ninstances, it is true, on the advance of modern barbarism, but only\nwhen the Arabian prophet made them bow before his sword. Yet while\nwithin the pale of Roman conquest, Christianity supplanted polytheism,\nbeyond that wide circle, heathenism remained long undisturbed, till\nthe victorious march of the barbarian conquerors, over the empire of\nthe Caesars, secured the extension of the gospel to them also;\u2015\u2015the\nvanquished, in one sense, triumphing in turn over the victors, by\nmaking them the submissive subjects of Roman civilization, language,\nand religion;\u2015\u2015so that, for the first five hundred years of the\nChristian era, the dominion of the Caesars was the most efficient\nearthly instrument for the extension of the faith. The persecution\nwhich the followers of the new faith occasionally suffered, were the\nresults of aberrations from the general principles of tolerance, which\ncharacterized the religious policy of the empire; and after a few such\nacts of insane cruelty, the natural course of reaction brought the\npersecuted religion into fast increasing and finally universal favor.\n\nIf the religion, thus widely and lastingly diffused, was corrupted from\nthe simplicity of the truth as it was in Jesus, this corruption is to\nbe charged, not against the Romans, but against the unworthy successors\nof the apostles and ancient fathers, who sought to make the severe\nbeauty of the naked truth more acceptable to the heathenish fancies\nof the people, by robing it in the borrowed finery of mythology. Yet,\nthough thus humiliated in its triumph, the victory of Christianity over\nthat complex and dazzling religion, was most complete. The faith to\nwhich Italians and Greeks had been devoted for ages,\u2015\u2015which had drawn\nits first and noblest principles from the mysterious sources of the\nantique Etruscan, Egyptian and Phoenician, and had enriched its dark\nand boundless plan with all that the varied superstitions of every\nconquered people could furnish,\u2015\u2015the faith which had rooted itself so\ndeeply in the poetry, the patriotism, and the language of the Roman,\nand had so twined itself with every scene of his nation\u2019s glory,\nfrom the days of Romulus,\u2015\u2015now gave way before the simple word of\nthe carpenter of Nazareth, and was so torn up and swept away from its\nstrong holds, that the very places which through twenty generations its\ntriumphs had hallowed, were now turned into shrines for the worship of\nthe God of despised Judah. So utterly was the Olympian Jove unseated,\nand cast down from his long-dreaded throne, that his name passed away\nforever from the worship of mankind, and has never been recalled, but\nwith contempt. He, and all his motley train of gods and goddesses,\nare remembered no more with reverence, but vanishing from even the\nknowledge of the mass of the people, are\n\n \u201cGone glimmering through the dream of things that were,\u201d\u2015\u2015\n \u201cA school-boy\u2019s tale.\u201d\n\nEvery ancient device for the perpetuation of the long established faith,\ndisappeared in the advancing light of the gospel. Temples, statues,\noracles, festivals, and all the solemn paraphernalia of superstition,\nwere swept to oblivion, or, changing their names only, were made the\ninstruments of recommending the new faith to the eyes of the common\npeople. But, however the pliant spirit of the degenerate successors of\nthe early fathers might bend to the vulgar superstitions of the day,\nthe establishment of the Christian religion, upon the ruins of Roman\nheathenism, was effected with a completeness that left not a name to\nlive behind them, nor the vestige of a form, to keep alive in the minds\nof the people, the memory of the ancient religion. The words applied\nby our great poet to the time of Christ\u2019s birth, have something more\nthan poetical force, as a description of the absolute extermination of\nthese superstitions, both public and domestic, on the final triumph of\nChristianity:\n\n \u201cThe oracles are dumb;\n No voice or hideous hum\n Rolls through the arched roof in words deceiving.\n Apollo from his shrine\n Can no more divine,\n With hollow shriek the steep of Delphos leaving.\n No nightly trance or breathed spell,\n Inspires the pale-eyed priest from the prophetic cell.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cIn consecrated earth\n And on the holy hearth,\n The Lars and Lemures moan with midnight plaint;\n In urns and altars round,\n A drear and dying sound,\n Affrights the Flamens at their service quaint;\n And the chill marble seems to sweat,\n While each peculiar power foregoes his wonted seat.\u201d\n\nThus were the mighty labors of human ambition made subservient to\nthe still greater achievements of divine benevolence; thus did the\nunholy triumphs of the hosts of heathenism become, in the hands of\nthe All-wise, the surest means of spreading the holy and peace-making\ntruths of Christianity, to the ends of the earth,\u2015\u2015otherwise\nunapproachable without a miracle. The dominion which thus grew upon\nand over the vast empire of Rome, though growing with her growth and\nstrengthening with her strength, sunk not with her weakness, but,\nstretching abroad fresh branches, whose leaves were for the healing\nof nations then unknown, showed its divine origin by its immortality;\nwhile, alas! its human modifications betrayed themselves in its\ndiminished grace and ill-preserved symmetry. Yet in spite of these,\nrather than by means of them, it rose still mightier above the ruins of\nthe empire, under whose shadow it had grown, till, at last, supplanting\nRoman and Goth alike, it fixed its roots on the seven hills of the\nEternal city; where, thenceforth, for hundreds of years, the head of\nChristendom, ruling with a power more absolute than her imperial sway,\nsaw more than the Roman world beneath him. Even to this day, vast and\ncountless \u201cregions, Caesar never knew,\u201d own him of Rome as \u201cthe center\nof unity;\u201d and lands\n\n \u201cfarther west\n Than the Greek\u2019s islands of the blest,\u201d\n\nand farther east than the long unpassed bounds of Roman conquest, turn,\nwith an adoration and awe immeasurably greater than the most exalted of\nthe apotheosized Caesars ever received, to him who claims the name of\nthe successor of the poor fisherman of Galilee.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSuch, and so vast, was the revolution, to the achievement of which,\nthe lives and deeds of the apostles most essentially contributed,\u2015\u2015a\nrevolution which, even if looked on as the result of mere human effort,\nmust appear the most wonderful ever effected by such humble human means,\nas these narratives will show to have been used. The character of the\nmen first chosen by the founder of the faith, as the instruments of\nspreading the lasting conquests of his gospel,\u2015\u2015their birth, their\ncountry, their provincial peculiarities,\u2015\u2015all marked them as most\nunlikely persons to undertake the overthrow of the religious prejudices\neven of their own countrymen; and still less groundless must have been\nthe hope that any of Jewish race, however well taught in the wisdom of\nthe world, could so far overcome the universal feeling of dislike, with\nwhich this peculiar nation were regarded, as to bring the learned, the\npowerful and the great of Rome and Greece, and of Eastern lands, to\nown a low-born Galilean workman as their guide to truth,\u2015\u2015the author\nof their hopes of life eternal. Yet went they forth even to this task,\nwhose achievement was so far beyond the range of human hopes; and with\na zeal as far above the inspiration of human ambition, they gave their\nenergies and their lives to this desperate commission. Without a hope\nof an earthly triumph or an earthly reward,\u2015\u2015without even a prospect\nof a peaceful death or an honored grave, while they lived, they spent\ntheir strength fearlessly for him who SENT them forth; and when they\ndied, their last breath went out in triumph at the near prospect of\ntheir lasting gain.\n\nIn giving the lives of these men, many incidents will require notice,\nin which no individual apostle was concerned alone, but the whole\ncompany to which he belonged. In each class of the apostles, these\nincidents will be given under the head of the principal person in that\nclass, whose life is placed before the rest. Thus, those matters in\nwhich all the twelve had a common interest, and in which no particular\napostle is named, will find a place in the life of Peter, their great\nleader; and among the later apostles, the distinct pre-eminence of Paul\nwill, of course, cause all matters of common interest to be absorbed\nin his life, while of his companions nothing farther need be recorded,\nthan those things which immediately concern them.\n\n\n\n\n I. THE GALILEAN APOSTLES.\n\n\n\n\n SIMON CEPHAS,\n COMMONLY CALLED SIMON PETER.\n\n\n HIS APOSTOLIC RANK.\n\nTHE order in which the names of the apostles are arranged in this book,\ncan make little difference in the interest which their history will\nexcite in the reader\u2019s mind, nor can such an arrangement, of itself,\ndo much to affect his opinion of their comparative merits; yet to their\nbiographer, it becomes a matter of some importance, as well as interest,\nto show not only authority, but reason, for the order in which he ranks\nthem.\n\nSufficient _authority_ for placing Simon Cephas first, is found in\nthe three lists of the apostles given respectively by Matthew, Mark\nand Luke, which, though differing as to their arrangement in some\nparticulars, entirely agree in giving to this apostle the precedence of\nall. But it would by no means become the earnest and faithful searcher\ninto sacred history, to rest satisfied with a bare reference to\nthe unerring word, on a point of so much interest. So far from it,\nthe strictest reverence for the sacred record both allows and urges\nthe inquiry, as to what were the circumstances of Peter\u2019s life\nand character, that led the three evangelists thus unanimously and\ndecidedly to place him at the head of the sacred band, on all whom, in\ncommon, rested the commissioned power of doing the marvelous works of\nJesus, and spreading his gospel in all the world. Was this preference\nthe result of mere incidental circumstances, such as age, prior calling,\n&c.? Or, does it mark a pre-eminence of character or qualifications,\nentitling him to lead and rule the apostolic company in the name of\nChrist, as the commissioned chief of the faithful?\n\nThe _reason_ of this preference, as far as connected with his character,\nwill of course be best shown in the incidents of his life and conduct,\nas detailed in this narrative. But even here much may be brought\nforward to throw light on the ground of Peter\u2019s rank, as first of the\napostles. It is no more than fair to remark, however, that some points\nof this inquiry have been very deeply, and at the same time, very\nunnecessarily involved in the disputes between Protestants and Papists,\nrespecting the original supremacy of the church of Rome, as supposed to\nhave been founded or ruled by this chief apostle.\n\nOf the many suppositions which might be made to account for Peter\u2019s\npriority of station on the apostolic list, it may be enough to notice\nthe following: That he was by birth the oldest of the twelve. This\nassertion, however boldly made by some, rests entirely on conjecture,\nas we have no certain information on this point, either from the\nNew Testament or any ancient writer of indisputable credit. Those\nof the early Christian writers who allude to this matter, are quite\ncontradictory in their statements, some supposing Peter to be the\noldest of the apostles, and some supposing Andrew to be older than his\nbrother;\u2015\u2015a discrepancy that may well entitle us to conclude that they\nhad no certain information about the matter. The weight of testimony,\nhowever, seems rather against the assertion that Peter was the oldest,\ninasmuch as the earliest writer who alludes at all to the subject, very\ndecidedly pronounces Andrew to have been the older brother. Enough,\nthen, is known, to prevent our relying on his seniority as the true\nground of his precedence. Still this point must be considered as\nentirely doubtful; so doubtful that it cannot be considered as proof,\nin the argument.\n\n The oldest Christian writer, who refers in any way to the\n comparative age of Peter, is Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, as\n early as A.\u00a0D. 368. In his great work against heresies, (book ii.\n vol. 1, heresy 51,) in narrating the call of Andrew and Peter,\n he says, \u201cThe meeting (with Jesus) happened first to Andrew,\n Peter being less than him in age,\u201d (\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff3\n \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2.) \u201cBut afterwards, when their complete forsaking of\n all earthly things is mentioned, Peter takes precedence, since\n God, who sees the turn of all characters, and knows who is fit\n for the highest places, chose Peter as the chief leader (\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd)\n of his disciples.\u201d This, certainly, is a very distinct assertion\n of Peter\u2019s juniority, and is plainly meant to give the idea that\n Peter\u2019s high rank among the apostles was due to a superiority of\n talent, which put him above those who were older.\n\n In favor of the assertion that Peter was older than Andrew, the\n earliest authority that has ever been cited, is John Chrysostom,\n bishop of Constantinople, about A.\u00a0D. 400. This Father, in his\n homily on Matthew xvii. 27, (Homily 59,) says that Peter was a\n \u201cfirst-born son,\u201d (\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2.) In this passage, he is speaking\n of the tribute paid by Jesus and Peter for the expenses of the\n temple. He supposes that this tribute was the redemption-money\n due from the first-born sons of the Jews, for their exemption\n from the duties of the priesthood. But the account of this\n tax, in Numbers iii. 44\u201251, shows that this was a tax of _five_\n shekels apiece, while that spoken of by Matthew, is called the\n _didrachmon_, a Greek coin equivalent to a _half_-shekel. Now\n the half-shekel tax was that paid by _every_ Jew above the age\n of twenty years, for the expenses of the temple service, as\n is fully described in Exodus xxx. 12\u201216; xxxviii. 26. Josephus\n also mentions this half-shekel tax, as due from _every_ Jew, for\n the service of the temple. (See Hammond on Matthew xvii. 24.)\n Chrysostom is therefore wholly in the wrong, about the nature of\n the tax paid by Jesus and Peter; (verse 27, \u201cgive it for me and\n thee,\u201d) and the reason which he gives for the payment, (namely,\n that they were both first-born sons,) being disproved, his\n belief of Peter\u2019s seniority is shown to be based on an error,\n and therefore entitled to no credit whatever; more particularly,\n when opposed to the older authority of Epiphanius.\n\n Lardner, in support of the opinion that Peter was the oldest,\n quotes also Cassian and Bede; but it is most manifest that a\n bare assertion of two writers, who lived, one of them 424, and\n the other 700 years after Christ,\u2015\u2015an assertion unsupported by\n any proof whatever, cannot be received as evidence in the case.\n The most natural _conjecture_ of any one who was accounting\n for the eminence of Peter, would be that he was older than the\n brother of whom he takes precedence so uniformly; and it is no\n more than just to conclude, therefore, that the ground of this\n notion was but a mere guess. But in the case of Epiphanius,\n besides the respect due to the early authority, it is important\n to observe, that he could have no motive for inventing the\n notion of Andrew\u2019s seniority, since the uniform prominence\n of Peter would most naturally suggest the idea that _he_ was\n the oldest. It is fair to conclude, then, that an opinion, so\n unlikely to be adopted without special proof, must have had the\n authority of uniform early tradition; for Epiphanius mentions it\n as if it were a universally admitted fact; nor does he seem to\n me to have invented the notion of Andrew\u2019s seniority, to account\n for his being first known to Jesus, though he mentions these two\n circumstances in their natural connection. Yet Lampius, in his\n notes on John i. supposing that Epiphanius arranged the facts on\n the principle \u201cpost hoc, ergo, propter hoc,\u201d has rejected this\n Father\u2019s declaration of Andrew\u2019s seniority, as a mere invention,\n to account for this apostle\u2019s prior acquaintance with Jesus. The\n reader may judge between them.\n\n Lardner, moreover, informs us that Jerome maintains the opinion,\n that Peter was preferred before the other apostles on account\n of his age. But a reference to the original passage, shows that\n the comparison was only between Peter and John, and not between\n Peter and the rest of the apostles. Speaking of Peter as the\n constituted head of the church, he says that was done to avoid\n dissensions, (_ut schismatis tollatur occasio_.) The question\n might then arise, why was not John chosen first, being so pure\n and free from connections that might interfere with apostolic\n duties? (Cur non Johannes electus est virgo? Aetati delatum\n est, quia Petrus _senior_ erat; ne adhuc adolescens ac pene\n puer progressae aetatis hominibus praeferretur.) \u201cIt was out\n of regard to age, because Peter was _older_ (than John;) nor\n could one who was yet immature, and little more than a boy, be\n preferred to a man of mature age.\u201d The passage evidently does\n not touch the question of Peter\u2019s being the oldest of all, nor\n does it contradict, in any way, the opinion that Andrew was\n older, as all which Jerome says is, merely, that Peter was older\n than John,\u2015\u2015an opinion unquestionably accordant with the general\n voice of all ancient Christian tradition.\n\n The character of Epiphanius, however, it must be acknowledged,\n is so low for judgment and accuracy, that his word is not\n of itself sufficient to establish any very doubtful fact, as\n certain. Yet in this case, there is no temptation to pervert\n facts on a point of so little interest or importance, and one on\n which no prejudice could govern his decision. We may therefore\n give him, in this matter, about all the credit due to his\n antiquity. Still, there is much more satisfactory proof of\n Peter\u2019s not being the oldest apostle, founded on various\n circumstances of apostolic history, which will be referred to\n in their places.\n\nNor can priority of calling be offered as the reason of this apparent\nsuperiority; for the minute record given by the evangelist John, makes\nit undeniable that Andrew became acquainted with Jesus before Peter,\nand that the eminent disciple was afterwards first made known to Jesus,\nby means of his less highly honored brother.\n\nThe only reasonable supposition left, then, is, that there was an\nintentional preference of Simon Cephas, on the score of eminence\nfor genius, zeal, knowledge, prudence, or some other quality which\nfitted him for taking the lead of the chief ministers of the Messiah.\nThe word \u201c_first_,\u201d which accompanies his name in Matthew\u2019s list,\ncertainly appears, in the view of some, to have some force above the\nmere tautological expression of a fact so very self-evident from the\ncollocation, as that he was first on the list. The Bible shows not an\ninstance of a list begun in that way, with this emphatic word so vainly\nand unmeaningly applied. The analogies of expression in all languages,\nancient and modern, would be very apt to lead a common reader to think\nthat the numeral adjective thus prefixed, was meant to give the idea\nthat Simon Peter was put _first_ for some better reason than mere\naccident. Any person, in giving a list of twelve eminent men, all\ndevoted to a common pursuit, and laboring in one great cause, whose\nprogress he was attempting to record, would, in arranging them, if\nhe disregarded the circumstances of seniority, &c., very naturally\ngive them place according to their importance in reference to the\ngreat subject before him. If, as in the present case, three different\npersons should, in the course of such a work, make out such a\nlist, an individual difference of opinion about a matter of mere\npersonal preference, like this, might produce variations in the minor\nparticulars; but where all three united in giving to one and the same\nperson, the first and most honorable place, the ordinary presumption\nwould unavoidably be, that the prior rank of the person thus\ndistinguished, was considered, by them at least, at the time when they\nwrote, as decidedly and indisputably established. The determination\nof a point so trifling being without any influence on matters of faith\nand doctrine, each evangelist might, without detriment to the sanctity\nand authority of the record which he bears, be left to follow his\nown private opinion of the most proper principle of arrangement to be\nfollowed in enumerating the apostles. Thus, while it is noticeable that\nthe whole twelve were disposed in six pairs by each of the evangelists,\nyet the order and succession of these is somewhat changed, by different\ncircumstances directing the choice of each writer. Matthew modestly\nputs himself after Thomas, with whom he seems by all the gospel\nlists, to have some close connection; but Mark and Luke combine to\ngive Matthew the precedence, and invert the order in which, through\nunobtrusiveness, he had, as it would seem, robbed true merit of its due\nsuperiority. And yet these points of precedence were so little looked\nto, that in the first chapter of Acts, Luke makes a new arrangement of\nthese names, advancing Thomas to the precedency, not only of Matthew,\nbut of Bartholomew, who, in all other places where their names are\ngiven, is mentioned before him. So also Matthew prefers to mention the\nbrothers together, and gives Andrew a place immediately after Peter,\nalthough, in so many places after, he speaks of Peter, James and\nJohn together, as most highly distinguished by Christ, and favored by\nopportunities of beholding him and his works, on occasions when other\neyes were shut out. Mark, on the contrary, gives these names with\nmore strict reference to distinction of rank, and mentions the favored\ntrio together, first of all, making the affinities of birth of less\nconsequence than the share of favor enjoyed by each with the Messiah.\nLuke, in his gospel, follows Matthew\u2019s arrangement of the brothers,\nbut in the first chapter of Acts puts the three great apostles first,\nseparating Andrew from his brother, and mentioning him after the\nsons of Zebedee. These changes of arrangement, while they show of how\nlittle vital importance the order of names was considered, yet, by the\nuniform preservation of Peter in the first rank, prove that the exalted\npre-eminence of Peter was so universally known and acknowledged, that\nwhatever difference of opinion writers might entertain respecting more\nobscure persons,\u2015\u2015as to him, no inversion of order could be permitted.\n\nHow far Peter was by this pre-eminence endowed with any supremacy over\nthe other apostles, may of course be best shown in those places of his\nhistory, which appear either to maintain or question this position.\n\nThat Simon Cephas, or Peter, then, was the first or chief of the\napostles, appears from the uniform precedence with which his name is\nhonored on all occasions in the Scriptures, where the order in which\nnames are mentioned could be made to depend on rank,\u2015\u2015by the universal\ntestimony of the Fathers, and by the general impressions entertained on\nthis point throughout the Christian world, in all ages since his time.\n\n\n HIS BIRTH.\n\nFrom two separate passages in the gospels, we learn that the name\nof the father of Simon Peter was Jonah, but beyond this we have no\ndirect information as to his family. From the terms in which Peter is\nfrequently mentioned along with the other apostles, we infer, however,\nthat he must have been from the lowest order of society, which also\nappears from the business to which he devoted his life, before he\nreceived the summons that sent him forth to the world, on a far higher\nerrand. Of such a humble family, he was born at Bethsaida, in Galilee,\non or near the shore of the sea of Galilee, otherwise called lake\nTiberias, or Gennesaret. Upon this lake he seems to have followed his\nlaborious and dangerous livelihood, which very probably, in accordance\nwith the hereditary succession of trades, common among the Jews, was\nthe occupation of his father and ancestors before him. Of the time of\nhis birth no certain information can be had, as those who were able\nto inform us, were not disposed to set so high a value upon ages and\ndates, as the writers and readers of later times. The most reasonable\nconjecture as to his age, is, that he was about the same age with\nJesus Christ; which rests on the circumstances of his being married\nat the period when he was first called by Christ,\u2015\u2015his being made the\nobject of such high confidence and honor by his Master, and the eminent\nstanding which he seems to have maintained, from the first, among the\napostles. Still there is nothing in all these circumstances, that is\nirreconcilable with the supposition that he was younger than Christ;\nand if any reader prefers to suppose the period of his birth so much\nlater, there is no important point in his history or character that\nwill be affected by such a change of dates.\n\n _Bethsaida._\u2015\u2015The name of this place occurs in several passages\n of gospel history, as connected with the scenes of the life of\n Jesus. (Matthew xi. 21; Mark vi. 45, viii. 22\u201226; Luke ix. 10,\n x. 13; John i. 45, xii. 21.) The name likewise occurs in the\n writings of Josephus, who describes Bethsaida, and mentions some\n circumstances of its history. The common impression among the\n New Testament commentators has been, that the Bethsaida which is\n so often mentioned in the gospels, was on the western shore of\n lake Gennesaret, near the other cities which were the scenes of\n important events in the life of Jesus. Yet Josephus distinctly\n implies that Bethsaida was situated on the eastern shore of the\n lake, as he says that it was built by Philip the tetrarch, in\n Lower Gaulonitis, (Jewish war, book ii. chapter 9, section 1,)\n which was on the eastern side of the Jordan and the lake,\n though not in _Peraea_, as Lightfoot rather hastily assumes; for\n Peraea, though by its derivation (from \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, _peran_, \u201cbeyond,\u201d)\n meaning simply \u201cwhat was beyond\u201d the river, yet was, in the\n geography of Palestine, applied to only that portion of the\n country east of Jordan, which extends from Moab on the south,\n northward, to Pella, on the Jabbok. (Josephus, Jewish war, book\n iii. chapter 3, section 3.) Another point in which the account\n given by Josephus differs from that in the gospels, is, that\n while Josephus places Bethsaida in Gaulonitis, John (xii. 21,)\n speaks of it distinctly as a city of Galilee, and Peter, as well\n as others born in Bethsaida, is called a Galilean. These two\n apparent disagreements have led many eminent writers to conclude\n that there were on and near the lake, two wholly different\n places bearing the name of Bethsaida. Schleusner, Bretschneider,\n Fischer, Pococke, Reland, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, and\n others, have maintained this opinion with many arguments. But\n Lightfoot, Cave, Calmet, Baillet, Macknight, Wells, and others,\n have decided that these differences can be perfectly reconciled,\n and all the circumstances related in the gospels, made to agree\n with Josephus\u2019s account of the situation of Bethsaida.\n\n Illustration: TIBERIAS AND THE SEA OF GALILEE.\n Mark i. 16. John vi. 1.\n\n The first passage in which Josephus mentions this place, is in\n his Jewish Antiquities, book xviii. chapter 2, section 1. \u201cAnd\n he, (Philip) having granted to the village of Bethsaida, near\n the lake of Gennesaret, the rank of a city, by increasing its\n population, and giving it importance in other ways, called it\n by the name of Julia, the daughter of Caesar,\u201d (Augustus.) In\n his History of the Jewish War, book ii. chapter 9, section 1,\n he also alludes to it in a similar connection. Speaking, as in\n the former passage, of the cities built by Herod and Philip in\n their tetrarchies, he says, \u201cThe latter built Julias, in Lower\n Gaulanitis.\u201d In the same history, book iii. chapter 9, section 7,\n describing the course of the Jordan, he alludes to this city.\n \u201cPassing on (from lake Semechonitis,) one hundred and twenty\n furlongs farther, _to_ the city Julias, it flows through the\n middle of lake Gennesar.\u201d In this passage I translate the\n preposition \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 (_meta_,) by the English \u201c_to_,\u201d though Hudson\n expresses it in Latin by \u201c_post_,\u201d and Macknight by the English\n \u201c_behind_.\u201d Lightfoot very freely renders it \u201c_ante_,\u201d but with\n all these great authorities against me, I have the consolation\n of finding my translation supported by the antique English\n version of the quaint Thomas Lodge, who distinctly expresses\n the preposition in this passage by \u201c_unto_.\u201d This translation of\n the word is in strict accordance with the rule that this Greek\n preposition, when it comes before the accusative after a verb\n of motion, has the force of \u201c_to_,\u201d or \u201c_against_.\u201d (See Jones\u2019s\n Lexicon, sub voc. \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1; also Hederici Lexicon.) But in reference\n to _places_, it never has the meaning of \u201c_behind_,\u201d given\n to it by Macknight, nor of \u201c_post_,\u201d in Latin, as in Hudson\u2019s\n translation, still less of \u201c_ante_,\u201d as Lightfoot very queerly\n expresses it. The passage, then, simply means that the Jordan,\n after passing out of lake Semechonitis, flows one hundred and\n twenty furlongs _to_ the city of Julias or Bethsaida, (not\n _behind_ it, nor _before_ it,) and there enters lake Gennesar,\n the whole expressing as clearly as may be, that Julias stood on\n the river just where it widens into the lake. That Julias stood\n on the Jordan, and not on the lake, though near it, is made\n further manifest, by a remark made by Josephus, in his memoirs\n of his own life. He, when holding a military command in the\n region around the lake, during the war against the Romans, on\n one occasion, sent against the enemy a detachment of soldiers,\n who \u201cencamped near the river Jordan, about a furlong from Julias.\u201d\n (Life of Josephus, section 72.)\n\n It should be remarked, moreover, that, at the same time when\n Philip enlarged Bethsaida, in this manner, and gave it the name\n of Julia, the daughter of Augustus Caesar, his brother Herod\n Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, with a similar ambition\n to exalt his own glory, and secure the favor of the imperial\n family, rebuilt a city in his dominions, named Betharamphtha,\n to which he gave the name _Julias_ also; but in honor, not\n of the daughter, but of the wife of Augustus, who bore the\n family name, Julia, which passed from her to her daughter.\n This multiplication of namesake towns, has only created new\n confusion for us; for the learned Lightfoot, in his Chorographic\n century on Matthew, has unfortunately taken this for the Julias\n which stood on the Jordan, at its entrance into the lake,\n and accordingly applies to Julias-Betharamphtha, the last two\n quotations from Josephus, given above, which I have applied to\n Julias-Bethsaida. But it would seem as if this most profound\n Biblical scholar was certainly in the wrong here; since\n Julias-Betharamphtha must have been built by Herod Antipas\n within his own dominions, that is, in Galilee proper, or Peraea\n proper, as already bounded; and Josephus expressly says that\n this Julias was in Peraea; yet Lightfoot, in his rude little\n wood-cut map, (Horae Hebraica et Talmudicae in Marci, Decas\n Chorographica chapter v.) has put this in Gaulanitis, far north\n of its true place, at the influx of the Jordan into the lake,\n (\u201cad ipsissimum influxum Jordanis in lacum Gennesariticum,\u201d)\n and Julias-Bethsaida, also in Gaulanitis, some miles lower down,\n at the south-east corner of the lake, a position adopted by no\n other writer that I know of. This peculiarity in Lightfoot\u2019s\n views, I have thus stated at length, that those who may\n refer to his _Horae_ for more light, might not suppose a\n confusion in my statement, which does not exist; for since the\n Julias-Betharamphtha of Herod could not have been in Gaulanitis,\n but in Peraea, the Julias at the influx of the Jordan into\n the lake, must have been the Bethsaida embellished by Philip,\n tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, (Luke iii. 1,) which\n included Gaulanitis, Batanea, &c. east of Jordan and the\n lake, and north of Peraea proper. The substance of Josephus\u2019s\n information on this point, is, therefore, that Bethsaida stood\n on the eastern side of the Jordan, just where it enters lake\n Gennesar, or Gennesaret, (otherwise called lake Tiberias and the\n sea of Galilee,)\u2015\u2015that it stood in the province of Gaulanitis,\n within the dominions of Philip, son of Herod the Great, and\n tetrarch of all that portion of Palestine which lies north\n of Peraea, on the east of Jordan, and the lake, as well as of\n the region north of Galilee, his tetrarchy forming a sort of\n crescent,\u2015\u2015that this prince, having enlarged and embellished\n Bethsaida, raised it from a village to the rank of a city, by\n the name of Julias, in honor of Julia, daughter of Augustus\n Caesar. This was done during the reign of Augustus, (Josephus,\n in Jewish Antiquities book i. chapter 2, section 1,) and of\n course long before Jesus Christ began his labors, though after\n his birth, because it was after the death of Herod the Great.\n\n The question now is, whether the Bethsaida mentioned by\n the evangelists is by them so described as to be in any way\n inconsistent with the account given by Josephus, of the place\n to which he gives that name. The first difficulty which has\n presented itself to the critical commentators, on this point, is\n the fact, that the Bethsaida of the gospels is declared in them\n to have been a city of Galilee, (John xii. 21,) and those who\n were born and brought up in it are called Galileans, (Mark xiv.\n 70, Luke xxii. 59, Acts i. 7, ii. 7.) Yet Josephus expressly\n tells us, that Bethsaida was in Gaulanitis, which was not in\n Galilee, as he bounds it, but was beyond its eastern boundary,\n on the eastern side of the river and lake. (Jewish war, book\n xviii. chapter 2, section 1.) This is therefore considered by\n many, as a diversity between the two accounts, which must make\n it impossible to apply them both to the same place. But there\n is no necessity for such a conclusion. The different application\n of the term Galilee, in the two books, must be noticed, in\n order to avoid confusion. Josephus is very exact in the use of\n names of places and regions, defining geographical positions\n and boundaries with a particularity truly admirable. Thus, in\n mentioning the political divisions of Palestine, he gives the\n precise limits of each, and uses their names, not in the loose,\n popular way, but only in his own accurate sense. But the gospel\n writers are characterized by no such minute particularity, in\n the use of names, which they generally apply in the popular,\n rather than the exact sense. Thus, in this case, they use the\n term Galilee, in what seems to have been its common meaning in\n Judea, as a name for all the region north of Samaria and Peraea,\n on both sides of the Jordan, including, of course, Gaulanitis\n and all the dominions of Philip. The difference between them and\n Josephus, on this point, is very satisfactorily shown in another\n passage. In Acts v. 37, Gamaliel, speaking of several persons\n who had at different times disturbed the peace of the nation,\n mentions one Judas, the _Galilean_, as a famous rebel. Now this\n same person is very particularly described by Josephus, (Jewis\n Antiquities book xv. chapter 1, section 1,) in such a manner\n that there can be no doubt of his identity with the previous\n description. Yet Josephus calls him distinctly, Judas the\n _Gaulanite_, and only once Judas the _Galilean_; showing him\n to have been from the city of Gamala, in the country east of\n Jordan and the lake; so that the conclusion is unavoidable,\n that the term Galilee is used in a much wider sense in the New\n Testament than in Josephus, being applied indiscriminately to\n the region on both sides of the lake. The people of southern\n Palestine called the whole northern section Galilee, and all its\n inhabitants, Galileans, without attending to the nicer political\n and geographical distinctions; just as the inhabitants of the\n southern section of the United States, high and low, call every\n stranger a Yankee, who is from any part of the country north of\n Mason and Dixon\u2019s line, though well-informed people perfectly\n well know, that the classic and not despicable name of Yankee\n belongs fairly and truly to the ingenious sons of New England\n alone, who have made their long-established sectional title\n so synonymous with acuteness and energy, that whenever an\n enterprising northerner pushes his way southward, he shares in\n the honors of this gentile appellative. Just in the same vague\n and careless way, did the Jews apply the name Galilean to all\n the energetic, active northerners, who made themselves known\n in Jerusalem, either by their presence or their fame; and thus\n both Judas of Gaulanitis, and those apostles who were from the\n eastern side of the river, were called Galileans, as well as\n those on the west, in Galilee proper. Besides, in the case of\n Bethsaida, which was immediately on the line between Galilee and\n Gaulanitis, it was still more natural to refer it to the larger\n section on the west, with many of whose cities it was closely\n connected.\n\n Besides, that the Jews considered Galilee as extending beyond\n Jordan, is most undeniably clear from Isaiah ix. 1, where the\n prophet plainly speaks of \u201cGalilee of the nations, as being\n by the side of the sea, beyond Jordan.\u201d This was the ancient\n Jewish idea of the country designated by this name, and the\n idea of limiting it to the west of Jordan, was a mere late\n term introduced by the Romans, and apparently never used by the\n Jews of the gospel times, except when speaking of the political\n divisions of Palestine. The name Gaulanitis, which is the proper\n term for the province in which Bethsaida was, never occurs in\n the bible. Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, &c. give a different view,\n however, of \u201cbeyond Jordan,\u201d on Matthew iv. 15.\n\n But a still more important difficulty has been suggested, in\n reference to the identity of the place described by Josephus,\n with that mentioned in the gospels. This is, the fact that in\n the gospels it is spoken of in such a connection, as would seem\n to require its location on the western side. A common, but very\n idle argument, in favor of this supposition, is, that Bethsaida\n is mentioned frequently along with Capernaum and other cities\n of Galilee proper, in such immediate connection as to make it\n probable that it was on the same side of the river and lake\n with them. But places separated merely by a river, or at most\n by a narrow lake, whose greatest breadth was only five miles,\n could not be considered distant from each other, and would\n very naturally be spoken of as near neighbors. The most weighty\n argument, however, rests on a passage in Mark vi. 45, where\n it is said that Jesus constrained his disciples to \u201cget into a\n vessel, to go before him to the other side _unto_ Bethsaida,\u201d\n after the five thousand had been fed. Now the parallel passage\n in John vi. 17, says that they, following this direction, \u201cwent\n over the sea towards Capernaum,\u201d and that when they reached the\n shore, \u201cthey came into the land of Gennesaret,\u201d both which are\n understood to be on the western side. But on the other hand, we\n are distinctly told, by Luke, (ix. 10,) that the five thousand\n were fed in \u201ca desert place, belonging to (or near) the city\n which is called Bethsaida.\u201d On connecting these two passages,\n therefore, (in John and Mark,) according to the common version,\n the disciples sailed from Bethsaida on one side, to Bethsaida\n on the other, a construction which has been actually adopted\n by those who maintain the existence of two cities of the same\n name on different sides of the lake. But what common reader is\n willing to believe, that in this passage Luke refers to a place\n totally different from the one meant in all other passages where\n the name occurs, and more particularly in the very next chapter,\n ( x. 13,) where he speaks of the Bethsaida which had been\n frequented before by Jesus, without a word of explanation to\n show that it was a different place? But in the expression,\n \u201cto go before him to the other side, TO Bethsaida,\u201d the word\n \u201cTO\u201d may be shown, by a reference to the Greek, to convey an\n erroneous idea of the situation of the places. The preposition\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, (_pros_,) may have, not merely the sense of _to_, with\n the idea of motion towards a place, but in some passages even\n of Mark\u2019s gospel, may be most justly translated \u201c_near_,\u201d or\n \u201c_before_,\u201d (as in ii. 2, \u201cnot even _about_\u201d or \u201c_before_\u201d the\n door, and in xi. 4, \u201ctied _by_\u201d or _before_ \u201cthe door.\u201d) This is\n the meaning which seems to be justified by the collocation here,\n and the meaning in which I am happy to find myself supported by\n the acute and accurate Wahl, in his Clavis Novi Testamenti under\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, which he translates in this passage by the Latin _juxta_,\n _prope ad_; and the German _bey_, that is, \u201cby,\u201d \u201cnear to,\u201d\n a meaning supported by the passage in Herodotus, to which he\n refers, as well as by those from Mark himself, which are given\n above, from Schleusner\u2019s references under this word, (definition\n 7.) Scott, in order to reconcile the difficulties which he\n saw in the common version, has, in his marginal references,\n suggested the meaning of \u201cover against,\u201d a rendering, which\n undoubtedly expresses correctly the relations of objects in\n this place, and one, perhaps, not wholly inconsistent with\n Schleusner\u2019s 7th definition, which is in Latin _ante_, or\n \u201cbefore;\u201d since what was _before_ Bethsaida, as one looked from\n that place across the river, was certainly _opposite to_ that\n city. I had thought of this meaning as a desirable one in this\n passage, but had rejected it, before I saw it in Scott, for the\n reason, that I could not find this exact meaning in any lexicon,\n nor was there any other passage in Greek, in which this could\n be distinctly recognized as the proper one. The propriety of\n the term, however, is also noticed, in the note on this passage\n in the great French Bible, with commentaries, harmonies, &c.\n (Sainte Bible en Latin et Francois avec des notes, &c. Vol. xiv.\n p. 263, note,) where it is expressed by \u201cl\u2019autre cote du lac,\n _vis-a-vis_ Bethsaide: c. a. d. sur le bord occidental _oppos\u00e9_\n a la ville Bethsaide que etait sur le bord oriental,\u201d a meaning\n undoubtedly geographically correct, but not grammatically exact,\n and I therefore prefer to take \u201c_near_,\u201d as the sense which both\n reconciles the geographical difficulties, and accords with the\n established principles of lexicography.\n\n After all, the sense \u201c_to_\u201d is not needed in this passage, to\n direct the action of the verb of motion (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _proagein_,\n \u201cgo before,\u201d) to its proper object, since that is previously\n done by the former preposition and substantive, \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd,\n (_eis to peran_.) That is, when we read \u201cJesus constrained his\n disciples to go before him,\u201d and the question arises in regard\n to the object towards which the action is directed, \u201cWhither\n did he constrain them to go before him?\u201d the answer is in the\n words immediately succeeding, \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, \u201cto the other side,\u201d\n and in these words the action is complete; but the mere general\n direction, \u201cto the other side,\u201d was too vague of itself, and\n required some limitation to avoid error; for the place to which\n they commonly directed their course westward, over the lake,\n was Capernaum, the home of Jesus, and thither they might on\n this occasion be naturally expected to go, as we should have\n concluded they did, if nothing farther was said; therefore,\n to fix the point of their destination, we are told, in answer\n to the query, \u201cTo what part of the western shore were they\n directed to go?\u201d \u201cTo that part which was _near_ or _opposite to_\n Bethsaida.\u201d The objection which may arise, that a place on the\n western side could not be very near to Bethsaida on the east,\n is answered by the fact that this city was separated from the\n western shore, not by the whole breadth of the lake, but simply\n by the little stream of Jordan, here not more than twenty yards\n wide, so that a place on the opposite side might still be very\n near the city. And this is what shows the topographical justness\n of the term, \u201c_over against_,\u201d given by Scott, and the French\n commentator, since a place not directly across or opposite,\n but down the western shore, in a south-westerly direction, as\n Capernaum was, would not be _very near_ Bethsaida, nor much\n less than five miles off. Thus is shown a beautiful mutual\n illustration of the literal and the liberal translations of the\n word.\n\n Macknight ably answers another argument, which has been offered\n to defend the location of Bethsaida on the western shore,\n founded on John vi. 23. \u201cThere came other boats from Tiberias,\n nigh unto the place where they did eat bread,\u201d as if Tiberias\n had been near the desert of Bethsaida, and consequently near\n Bethsaida itself. \u201cBut,\u201d as Macknight remarks, \u201cthe original,\n rightly pointed, imports only, that boats from Tiberias came\n into some creek or bay, nigh unto the place where they did\n eat bread.\u201d Besides, it should be remembered that the object\n of those who came in the boats, was to find Jesus, whom they\n expected to find \u201cnigh the place where they ate bread,\u201d as the\n context shows; so that these words refer to their destination,\n and not to the place from which they came. Tiberias was down\n the lake, at the south-western corner of it, and I know of no\n geographer who has put Bethsaida more than half way down, even\n on the western shore. The difference, therefore, between the\n distance to Bethsaida on the west and to Bethsaida on the east,\n could not be at most above a mile or two, a matter not to be\n appreciated in a voyage of sixteen miles, from Tiberias, which\n cannot be said to be near Bethsaida, in any position of the\n latter that has ever been thought of. This objection, of course,\n is not offered at all, by those who suppose two Bethsaidas\n mentioned in the gospels, and grant that the passage in Luke ix.\n 10, refers to the eastern one, where they suppose the place of\n eating bread to have been; but others, who have imagined only\n one Bethsaida, and that on the western side, have proposed this\n argument; and to such the reply is directed.\n\n For all these reasons, topographical, historical and grammatical,\n the conclusion of the whole matter is\u2015\u2015that there was but\n _one_ Bethsaida, the same place being meant by that name in all\n passages in the gospels and in Josephus\u2015\u2015that this place stood\n within the verge of Lower Gaulanitis, on the bank of the Jordan,\n just where it passes into the lake\u2015\u2015that it was in the dominions\n of Philip the tetrarch, at the time when it is mentioned\n in the gospels, and afterwards was included in the kingdom\n of Agrippa\u2015\u2015that its original Hebrew name, (from \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea _beth_,\n \u201c_house_,\u201d and \u05e6\u05d3\u05d4, _tsedah_, \u201c_hunting, or fishing_,\u201d \u201ca house\n of fishing,\u201d no doubt so called from the common pursuit of its\n inhabitants,) was changed by Philip into JULIAS, by which name\n it was known to Greeks and Romans.\n\n By this view, we avoid the undesirable notion, that there\n are two totally different places mentioned in two succeeding\n chapters of the same gospel, without a word of explanation\n to inform us of the difference, as is usual in cases of local\n synonyms in the New Testament; and that Josephus describes a\n place of this name, without the slightest hint of the remarkable\n fact, that there was another place of the same name, not half a\n mile off, directly across the Jordan, in full view of it.\n\n The discussion of the point has been necessarily protracted to a\n somewhat tedious length; but if fewer words would have expressed\n the truth and the reasons for it, it should have been briefer;\n and probably there is no reader who has endeavored to satisfy\n himself on the position of Bethsaida, in his own biblical\n studies, that will not feel some gratitude for what light this\n note may give, on a point where all common aids and authorities\n are in such monstrous confusion.\n\n For the various opinions and statements on this difficult\n point, see Schleusner\u2019s, Bretschneider\u2019s and Wahl\u2019s Lexicons,\n Lightfoot\u2019s Chorographic century and decade, Wetstein\u2019s New\n Testament commentary on Matthew iv. 12, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller,\n Fritzsche, Macknight, &c. On the passages where the name occurs,\n also the French Commentary above quoted,\u2015\u2015more especially in\n Vol. III. Remarques sur le carte geographique section 7, p. 357.\n Paulus\u2019s \u201ccommentar ueber das neue Testament,\u201d 2d edition, Vol.\n II. pp. 336\u2012342. Topographische Erlaeuterungen.\n\n _Lake Gennesaret._\u2015\u2015This body of water, bearing in the gospels\n the various names of \u201cthe sea of Tiberias,\u201d and \u201cthe sea of\n Galilee,\u201d as well as \u201cthe lake of Gennesaret,\u201d is formed like\n one or two other smaller ones north of it, by a widening of the\n Jordan, which flows in at the northern end, and passing through\n the middle, goes out at the southern end. On the western side,\n it was bounded by Galilee proper, and on the east was the lower\n division of that portion of Iturea, which was called Gaulanitis\n by the Greeks and Romans, from the ancient city of Golan,\n (Deuteronomy iv. 43; Joshua xx. 8, &c.) which stood within its\n limits. Pliny (book I. chapter 15,) well describes the situation\n and character of the lake. \u201cWhere the shape of the valley first\n allows it, the Jordan pours itself into a lake which is most\n commonly called Genesara, sixteen (Roman) miles long, and six\n broad. It is surrounded by pleasant towns; on the east, it\n has Julias (Bethsaida) and Hippus; on the south, Tarichea, by\n which name some call the lake also; on the west, Tiberias with\n its warm springs.\u201d Josephus also gives a very clear and ample\n description. (Jewish War, book 3, chapter 9, section 7.) \u201cLake\n Gennesar takes its name from the country adjoining it. It is\n forty furlongs (about five or six miles) in width, and one\n hundred and forty (seventeen or eighteen miles) in length; yet\n the water is sweet, and very desirable to drink; for it has its\n fountain clear from swampy thickness, and is therefore quite\n pure, being bounded on all sides by a beach, and a sandy shore.\n It is moreover of a pleasant temperature to drink, being warmer\n than that of a river or a spring, on the one hand, but colder\n than that which stands always expanded over a lake. In coldness,\n indeed, it is not inferior to snow, when it has been exposed\n to the air all night, as is the custom with the people of that\n region. In it there are some kinds of fish, different both in\n appearance and taste from those in other places. The Jordan\n cuts through the middle of it.\u201d He then gives a description\n of the course of the Jordan, ending with the remark quoted in\n the former note, that it enters the lake at the city of Julias.\n He then describes, in glowing terms, the richness and beauty\n of the country around, from which the lake takes its name,\u2015\u2015a\n description too long to be given here; but the studious reader\n may find it in section eighth of the book and chapter above\n referred to. The Rabbinical writers too, often refer to the\n pre-eminent beauty and fertility of this delightful region, as\n is shown in several passages quoted by Lightfoot in his Centuria\n Chorographica, chapter 79. The derivation of the name there\n given from the Rabbins, is \u05d2\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, _ginne sarim_, \u201cthe gardens of\n the princes.\u201d Thence the name genne-sar. They say it was within\n the lands of the tribe of Naphtali; it must therefore have\n been on the western side of the lake, which appears also from\n the fact that it was near Tiberias, as we are told on the\n same authority. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament under\n this name, but the Rabbins assure us that the place called\n _Cinnereth_, in Joshua xx. 35; Chinneroth in xi. 2, is the same;\n and this lake is mentioned in xiii. 27, under the name of \u201cthe\n sea of Chinnereth,\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cthe sea of Chinneroth,\u201d in xii. 3, &c.\n\n The best description of the scenery, and present aspect of the\n lake, which I can find, is the following from Conder\u2019s Modern\n Traveler, Vol. 1. (Palestine) a work made up with great care\n from the observations of a great number of intelligent travelers.\n\n \u201cThe mountains on the east of Lake Tiberias, come close to its\n shore, and the country on that side has not a very agreeable\n aspect; on the west, it has the plain of Tiberias, the\n high ground of the plain of Hutin, or Hottein, the plain of\n Gennesaret, and the foot of those hills by which you ascend\n to the high mountain of Saphet. To the north and south it has\n a plain country, or valley. There is a current throughout the\n whole breadth of the lake, even to the shore; and the passage\n of the Jordan through it, is discernible by the smoothness of\n the surface in that part. Various travelers have given a very\n different account of its general aspect. According to Captain\n Mangles, the land about it has no striking features, and the\n scenery is altogether devoid of character. \u2018It appeared,\u2019 he\n says, \u2018to particular disadvantage to us, after those beautiful\n lakes we had seen in Switzerland; but it becomes a very\n interesting object, when you consider the frequent allusions to\n it in the gospel narrative.\u2019 Dr. Clarke, on the contrary, speaks\n of the uncommon grandeur of this memorable scenery. \u2018The lake of\n Gennesaret,\u2019 he says, \u2018is surrounded by objects well calculated\n to highten the solemn impression,\u2019 made by such recollections,\n and \u2018affords one of the most striking prospects in the Holy Land.\n Speaking of it comparatively, it may be described as longer\n and finer than any of our Cumberland and Westmoreland lakes,\n although perhaps inferior to Loch Lomond. It does not possess\n the vastness of the Lake of Geneva, although it much resembles\n it in certain points of view. In picturesque beauty, it comes\n nearest to the Lake of Locarno, in Italy, although it is\n destitute of any thing similar to the islands by which that\n majestic piece of water is adorned. It is inferior in magnitude,\n and in the hight of its surrounding mountains, to the Lake\n Asphaltites.\u2019 Mr. Buckingham may perhaps be considered as having\n given the most accurate account, and one which reconciles,\n in some degree, the different statements above cited, when,\n speaking of the lake as seen from Tel Hoom, he says, \u2018that its\n appearance is grand, but that the barren aspect of the mountains\n on each side, and the total absence of wood, give a cast of\n dulness to the picture; this is increased to melancholy, by the\n dead calm of its waters, and the silence which reigns throughout\n its whole extent, where not a boat or vessel of any kind is to\n be found.\u2019\n\n \u201cAmong the pebbles on the shore, Dr. Clarke found pieces of a\n porous rock, resembling _toad-stone_, its cavities filled with\n zeolite. Native gold is said to have been found here formerly.\n \u2018We noticed,\u2019 he says, \u2018an appearance of this kind; but, on\n account of its trivial nature, neglected to pay proper attention\n to it. The water was as clear as the purest crystal; sweet,\n cool, and most refreshing. Swimming to a considerable distance\n from the shore, we found it so limpid that we could discern the\n bottom covered with shining pebbles. Among these stones was a\n beautiful, but very diminutive, kind of shell; a nondescript\n species of _Buccinum_, which we have called _Buccinum Galil\u00e6um_.\n We amused ourselves by diving for specimens; and the very\n circumstance of discerning such small objects beneath the\n surface, may prove the high transparency of the water.\u2019 The\n situation of the lake, lying as it were in a deep basin between\n the hills which enclose it on all sides, excepting only the\n narrow entrance and outlets of the Jordan, at either end,\n protects its waters from long-continued tempests. Its surface\n is in general as smooth as that of the Dead Sea; but the same\n local features render it occasionally subject to whirlwinds,\n squalls, and sudden gusts from the mountains, of short duration,\n especially when the strong current formed by the Jordan, is\n opposed by a wind of this description, from the south-east;\n sweeping from the mountains with the force of a hurricane, it\n may easily be conceived that a boisterous sea must be instantly\n raised, which the small vessels of the country would be unable\n to resist. A storm of this description is plainly denoted by\n the language of the evangelist, in recounting one of our Lord\u2019s\n miracles. \u2018There _came down_ a storm of wind on the lake, and\n they were filled with water, and were in jeopardy.... Then he\n arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water; and\n they ceased, and there was a calm.\u2019 (Luke viii. 23, 24.)\u201d\n\nThe question of Peter\u2019s being the oldest son of his father has been\nalready alluded to, and decided by the most ancient authority, in\nfavor of the opinion, that he was younger than Andrew. There surely\nis nothing unparalleled or remarkable in the fact, that the younger\nbrother should so transcend the elder in ability and eminence; since\nScripture history furnishes us with similar instances in Jacob, Judah\nand Joseph, Moses, David, and many others throughout the history\nof the Jews, although that nation generally regarded the rights of\nprimogeniture with high reverence and respect.\n\n\n HIS INTRODUCTION TO JESUS.\n\nThe earliest passage in the life of Peter, of which any record can\nbe found, is given in the first chapter of John\u2019s Gospel. In this, it\nappears that Peter and Andrew were at Bethabara, a place on the eastern\nbank of the Jordan, more than twenty miles south of their home at\nBethsaida, and that they had probably left their business for a time,\nand gone thither, for the sake of hearing and seeing John the Baptist,\nwho was then preaching at that place, and baptizing the penitent in\nthe Jordan. This great forerunner of the Messiah, had already, by his\nstrange habits of life, by his fiery eloquence, by his violent and\nfearless zeal in denouncing the spirit of the times, attracted the\nattention of the people, of all classes, in various and distant parts\nof Palestine; and not merely of the vulgar and unenlightened portion of\nsociety, who are so much more susceptible to false impressions in such\ncases, but even of the well taught followers of the two great learned\nsects of the Jewish faith, whose members flocked to hear his bold and\nbitter condemnation of their precepts and practices. So widely had\nhis fame spread, and so important were the results of his doctrine\nconsidered, that a deputation of priests and Levites was sent to\nhim, from Jerusalem, (probably from the Sanhedrim, or grand civil and\nreligious council,) to inquire into his character and pretensions. No\ndoubt a particular interest was felt in this inquiry, from the fact\nthat there was a general expectation abroad at that time, that the\nlong-desired restorer of Israel was soon to appear; or, as expressed by\nLuke, there were many \u201cwho waited for the consolation of Israel,\u201d and\n\u201cwho in Jerusalem looked for redemption.\u201d Luke also expressly tells us,\nthat the expectations of the multitude were strongly excited, and that\nall men mused in their hearts whether he were the Christ or not. In\nthe midst of this general notion, so flattering, and so tempting to an\nambitious man, John vindicates his honesty and sincerity, by distinctly\ndeclaring to the multitude, as well as to the deputation, that he was\n_not_ the Christ, and claimed for himself only the comparatively humble\nname and honors of the preparer of the way for the true king of Israel.\nThis distinct disavowal, accompanied by the solemn declaration, that\nthe true Messiah stood at that moment among them, though unknown in his\nreal character, must have aggravated public curiosity to the highest\npitch, and caused the people to await, with the most intense anxiety,\nthe nomination of this mysterious king, which John was expected to make.\nNeed we wonder, then, at the alacrity and determination with which\nthe two disciples of John, who heard this announcement, followed the\nfootsteps of Jesus, with the object of finding the dwelling place of\nthe Messiah, or at the deep reverence with which they accosted him,\ngiving him at once the highest term of honor which a Jew could confer\non the wise and good,\u2015\u2015\u201cRABBI,\u201d or master? Nor is it surprising that\nAndrew, after the first day\u2019s conversation with Jesus, should instantly\nseek out his beloved and zealous brother, and tell him the joyful and\nexciting news, that they had found the Messiah. The mention of this\nfact was enough for Simon, and he suffered himself to be brought at\nonce to Jesus. The salutation with which the Redeemer greeted the\nman who was to be the leader of his consecrated host, was strikingly\nprophetical and full of meaning. His first words were the annunciation\nof his individual and family name, (no miracle, but an allusion to the\nhidden meaning of his name,) and the application of a new one, by which\nhe was afterwards to be distinguished from the many who bore his common\nname. All these names have a deeply curious and interesting meaning.\nTranslating them all from their original Aramaic forms, the salutation\nwill be, \u201cThou art a _hearer_, the _son of divine grace_\u2015\u2015thou shalt\nbe called a _rock_.\u201d The first of these names (_hearer_) was a common\ntitle in use among the Jews, to distinguish those who had just offered\nthemselves to the learned, as desiring wisdom in the law; and the\nsecond was applied to those who, having past the first probationary\nstage of instruction, were ranked as the approved and improving\ndisciples of the law, under the hopeful title of the \u201csons of divine\ngrace.\u201d The third, which became afterwards the distinctive individual\nname of this apostle, was given, no doubt, in reference to the\npeculiar excellences of his natural genius, which seems to be thereby\ncharacterized as firm, unimpressible by difficulty, and affording fit\nmaterials for the foundation of a mighty and lasting superstructure.\n\n The name Simon, \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e0 was a common abridgment of Simeon, \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\n which means a hearer, and was a term applied technically as here\n mentioned. (For proofs and illustrations, see Poole\u2019s Synopsis\n and Lightfoot.) The technical meaning of the name Jonah, given\n in the text, is that given by Grotius and Drusius, but Lightfoot\n rejects this interpretation, because the name Jonah is not\n fairly derived from \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05d0 (which is the name corresponding to\n John,) but is the same with that of the old prophet so named,\n and he is probably right in therefore rejecting this whimsical\n etymology and definition.\n\nWith this important event of the introduction of Simon to Jesus, and\nthe application of his new and characteristic name, the life of Peter,\nas a follower of Christ, may be fairly said to have begun; and from\nthis arises a simple division of the subject, into the two great\nnatural portions of his life; _first_, in his state of pupilage and\ninstruction under the prayerful, personal care of his devoted Master,\nduring his earthly stay; and _second_, of his labors in the cause of\nhis murdered and risen Lord, as his preacher and successor. These two\nportions of his life may be properly denominated his _discipleship_ and\nhis _apostleship_; or perhaps still better, Peter the _learner_, and\nPeter the _teacher_.\n\n Illustration: THE FORDS OF THE JORDAN.\n\n\n\n\n I. PETER\u2019S DISCIPLESHIP;\n OR,\n PETER THE LEARNER AND FOLLOWER.\n\n\nAFTER his first interview with Christ, Peter seems to have returned to\nhis usual business, toiling for his support, without any idea whatever\nof the manner in which his destiny was connected with the wonderful\nbeing to whom he had been thus introduced. We may justly suppose,\nindeed, that being convinced by the testimony of John, his first\nreligious teacher and his baptizer, and by personal conversation with\nJesus, of his being the Messiah, that he afterwards often came to him,\n(as his home was near the Savior\u2019s,) and heard him, and saw some of the\nmiracles done by him. \u201cWe may take it for granted,\u201d as Lardner does,\n\u201cthat they were present at the miracle at Cana of Galilee, it being\nexpressly said that Jesus and his _disciples_ were invited to the\nmarriage solemnity in that place, as described in the second chapter of\nJohn\u2019s gospel. It is also said in the same chapter, \u2018this beginning of\nmiracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory;\nand his disciples believed on him;\u2019 that is, were confirmed in the\npersuasion that he was the Messiah.\u201d And among the _disciples_ of Jesus,\nSimon and his brother were evidently numbered, from the time when they\nreceived their first introduction to him, and were admitted to the\nhonors of an intimate acquaintance. The formal manner in which Jesus\nsaluted Simon, seems to imply his adoption, or nomination at least,\nas a disciple, by referring to the remarkable coincidence of meaning\nbetween his name and the character of a hopeful learner in the school\nof divine knowledge. Still the two brothers had plainly received no\nappointment which produced any essential change in their general habits\nand plans of life, for they still followed their previous calling,\nquietly and unpretendingly, without seeming to suppose, that the new\nhonors attained by them had in any way exempted them from the necessity\nof earning their daily bread by the sweat of their brow. To this they\ndevoted themselves, laboring along the same sea of Galilee, whose\nwaters and shores were the witnesses of so many remarkable scenes of\nthe life of Christ. Yet their business was not of such a character\nas to prevent their enjoying occasional interviews with their divine\nmaster, whose residence by the lake, and walks along its shores, must\nhave afforded frequent opportunities for cultivating or renewing an\nacquaintance with those engaged on its waters. There is nothing in the\ngospel story inconsistent with the belief, that Jesus met his disciples,\nwho were thus occupied, on more occasions than one; and had it been the\nBible plan to record all the most interesting details of his earthly\nlife, many instructive accounts might, no doubt, have been given of the\ninterviews enjoyed by him and his destined messengers of grace to the\nworld. But the multiplication of such narratives, however interesting\nthe idea of them may now seem, would have added no essential doctrine\nto our knowledge, even if they had been so multiplied as that, in the\nparadoxical language of John, the whole world could not contain them;\nand the necessary result of such an increased number of records, would\nhave been a diminished valuation of each. As it is, the scripture\nhistorical canon secures our high regard and diligent attention, and\nits careful examination, by the very circumstance of its brevity, and\nthe wide chasms of the narrative;\u2015\u2015like the mysterious volumes of the\nCumaean Sybil, the value of the few is no less than that of the many,\nthe price of each increasing in proportion as the number of the whole\ndiminishes. Thus in regard to this interesting interval of Peter\u2019s life,\nwe are left to the indulgence of reasonable conjecture, such as has\nbeen here mentioned.\n\nThe next direct account given in the Bible, of any event immediately\nconcerning him, is found in all the first three gospels. It is thought\nby some, that his father Jonah was now dead; for there is no mention\nof him, as of Zebedee, when his two sons were called. This however\nis only a mere conjecture, and has no more certainty than that he had\nfound it convenient to make his home elsewhere, or was now so old as\nto be prevented from sharing in this laborious and perilous occupation,\nor that he had always obtained his livelihood in some other way;\nthough the last supposition is much less accordant with the well-known\nhereditary succession of trades, which was sanctioned by almost\nuniversal custom throughout their nation. However, it appears that\nif still alive, their connection with him was not such as to hinder\nthem a moment in renouncing at once all their former engagements\nand responsibilities, at the summons of Christ. Jesus was at this\ntime residing at Capernaum, which is said by Matthew to be by the\n_sea-coast_, better translated \u201cshore of the lake;\u201d for it is not on\nthe coast of the Mediterranean, as our modern use of these terms would\nlead us to suppose, but on the shore of the small inland lake Tiberias,\nor _sea_ of Galilee, as it was called by the Jews, who, with their\nlimited notions of geography, did not draw the nice distinctions\nbetween large and small bodies of water, which the more extended\nknowledge of some other nations of antiquity taught them to make.\nCapernaum was but a few miles from Bethsaida, on the other side of the\nlake, and its nearness would often bring Jesus in his walks, by the\nplaces where these fishermen were occupied, in whichever of the two\nplaces they at that time resided. On one of these walks he seems to\nhave given the final summons, which called the first four of the twelve\nfrom their humble labors to the high commission of converting the world.\n\n _Capernaum._\u2015\u2015Though no one has ever supposed that there were\n two places bearing this name, yet about its locality, as about\n many other points of sacred topography, we find that \u201cdoctors\n disagree,\u201d though in this case without any good reason; for the\n scriptural accounts, though so seldom minute on the situations\n of places, here give us all the particulars of its position,\n as fully as is desirable or possible. Matthew, (iv. 13,) tells\n us, that Capernaum was upon \u201cthe shore of the lake, on the\n boundaries of Zebulon and Naphtali.\u201d A reference to the history\n of the division of territory among these tribes, (Joshua xix.)\n shows that their possessions did not reach the other side of the\n water, but were bounded on the east by Jordan and the lake, as\n is fully represented in all the maps of Palestine. Thus, it is\n made manifest, that Capernaum must have stood on the western\n shore of the lake, where the lands of Zebulon and Naphtali\n bordered on each other. Though this boundary line cannot be very\n accurately determined, we can still obtain such an approximation,\n as will enable us to fix the position of Capernaum on the\n northern end of the western side of the lake, where most of the\n maps agree in placing it; yet some have very strangely put it on\n the eastern side. The maps in the French bible, before quoted,\n have set it down at the mouth of the Jordan, in the exact place\n where Josephus has so particularly described Bethsaida as placed.\n Lightfoot has placed it on the west, but near the southern end;\n and all the common maps differ considerably as to its precise\n situation, of which indeed we can only give a vague conjecture,\n except that it must have been near the northern end. Conder\n (Modern Traveler, Palestine,) gives the following account of\n modern researches after its site, among the ruins of various\n cities near the lake.\n\n \u201cWith regard to Chorazin, Pococke says, that he could find\n nothing like the name, except at a village called _Gerasi_,\n which is among the hills west of the village called _Telhoue_,\n in the plain of Gennesaret. Dr. Richardson, in passing through\n this plain, inquired of the natives whether they knew such\n a place as Capernaum? They immediately rejoined, \u2018Cavernahum\n wa Chorasi, they are quite near, but in ruins.\u2019 This evidence\n sufficiently fixes the proximity of Chorazin to Capernaum, in\n opposition to the opinion that it was on the east side of the\n lake; and it is probable that the Gerasi of Pococke is the same\n place, the orthography only being varied, as Dr. Richardson\u2019s\n Chorasi.\u201d\n\n\n HIS CALL.\n\nIn giving the minute details, we find that Luke has varied widely\nfrom Matthew and Mark, in many particulars. Taking the accounts found\nin each gospel separately, we make out the following three distinct\nstories.\n\n1. Matthew, in his fourth chapter, says that Jesus, after leaving\nNazareth, came and dwelt at Capernaum, where he began the great work\nfor which he came into the world,\u2015\u2015preaching repentance and making\nknown the near approach of the reign of heaven on earth. In pursuance\nof this great object, it would seem that he went forth from the city\nwhich he made his home, and walked by the sea of Galilee, not for the\nsake of merely refreshing his body with the fresh air of that broad\nwater, when languid with the confinement and closeness of the town, but\nwith the higher object of forwarding his vast enterprise. On this walk\nhe saw two brothers, Simon and Andrew, casting their net, or rather\nseine, into the sea; for they were fishermen by trade, and not merely\noccupied in this as an occasional employment, by way of diversion in\nthe intervals of higher business. Jesus directly addressed them in a\ntone of unqualified command, \u201cFollow me, and I will make you fishers\nof men.\u201d And they, without questioning his authority or his purpose,\nimmediately left their business at its most interesting and exciting\npart, (just at the drawing of the net,) and followed him, as it\nhere seems at once, through Galilee, on his pilgrimage of mercy and\nlove. Matthew gives no other particulars whatever, connected with the\ncall of these two brothers; and had we been left to obtain the whole\ngospel-history from him alone, we should have supposed that, before\nthis, Peter had no acquaintance, of a personal character at least,\nwith Jesus; and that the call was made merely in a private way, without\nthe presence of any other than ordinary accidental witnesses. From\nMatthew we hear nothing further respecting Peter, until his name is\nmentioned in the apostolic list, in the tenth chapter, except the\nmention in chapter eighth, of the illness of his mother in-law at\nhis house. But the other gospel-writers give us many interesting\nand important particulars in addition, which throw new light on the\nprevious circumstances, the manner and the consequences of the call.\n\n2. Mark, in his first chapter, makes it appear as if, immediately after\nthe temptation of Christ, and before his entrance into Capernaum, he\nmet and summoned the two pairs of brothers, of which call the immediate\ncircumstances are given there, in words which are a very literal\ntranscript of those of Matthew, with hardly the slightest addition. But\nthe events which followed the summons are given in such a manner, as to\nconvey an impression quite different from that made by Matthew\u2019s brief\nand simple narrative. After the call, _they_, both Jesus and his four\ndisciples, entered into Capernaum, of which place Mark has before made\nno mention; and going at once into the synagogue, Jesus preached, and\nconfirmed the wonderful authority with which he spoke, before the face\nof the people, by the striking cure of a demoniac. From the synagogue\nhe went to the house of Simon and Andrew, by which it appears that they\nalready resided in Capernaum. Here a new occasion was given for the\ndisplay of the power and benevolence of the Messiah, in the case of\nSimon\u2019s mother-in-law, who, laboring under an attack of fever, was\ninstantly entirely relieved, upon the word of Jesus. This event is\ngiven by Matthew in a totally different connection. Very early in the\nnext morning, Jesus retired to a neighboring solitude, to enjoy himself\nin meditation apart from the busy scenes of the sabbath, in which the\nfame of his power had involved him the evening before. To this place,\nSimon and those with him, no doubt his brother and the sons of Zebedee\nmerely, (already it would seem so well acquainted with their great\nmaster as to know his haunts,) followed him, to make known to him the\nearnest wish of the admiring people for his presence among them. Jesus\nthen went out with them through the villages of Galilee, in the earnest\nperformance of the work for which he came. It is not till this place,\nin the story of the leper healed, that the statements of Matthew\nand Mark again meet and coincide. Mark evidently makes significant\nadditions to the narrative, and gives us a much more definite and\ndecided notion of the situation and conduct of those concerned in this\ninteresting transaction.\n\n3. Luke has given us a view of the circumstances, very different, both\nin order and number, as well as character, from those of the former\nwriters. His account of the first call of the disciples, seems to\namount to this; giving the events in the order in which he places\nthem in his fourth and fifth chapters. The first mention which is here\nmade of Simon, is in the end of the fourth chapter, where his name\nis barely mentioned in connection with the account of the cure of his\nmother-in-law, which is brought in without any previous allusion to any\ndisciple, but is placed in other respects, in the same connection as\nin Mark\u2019s narrative. After a full account of this case, which is given\nwith the more minuteness, probably from the circumstance that this\nwriter was himself a physician, he goes on to relate the particulars\nof Simon\u2019s call, in the beginning of the fourth chapter, as if it\nwas a subsequent event. The general impression from the two preceding\nnarratives, would naturally be, that Jesus went out on his walk by the\nshore of the lake, by himself, without any extraordinary attendance.\nBut it now appears, that as he stood on the shore, he was beset by an\neager multitude, begging to hear from him the word of God. On this,\ncasting his eyes about for some convenient place to address them, he\nnoticed two fishing vessels drawn up near him by the shore, and the\nowners disembarked from them, engaged in washing their nets. He then\nfirst spoke to Simon, after going on board of his boat, to beg him to\npush off again a little from the land, and his request being granted,\nhe sat down, and from his seat in the boat, taught the multitude\ngathered on the shore. After the conclusion of his discourse,\nperhaps partly, or in some small measure, with the design of properly\nimpressing his hearers by a miracle, with the idea of his authority to\nassume the high bearing which so characterized his instructions, and\nwhich excited so much astonishment among them, he urged Simon to push\nout still further into deep water, and to open his nets for a draught.\nSimon, evidently already so favorably impressed respecting his visitor,\nas to feel disposed to obey and gratify him, did according to the\nrequest, remarking, however, that as he had toiled all night without\ncatching any thing, he opened his net again only out of respect to his\nDivine Master, and not because, after so many fruitless endeavors, so\nlong continued, it was reasonable to hope for the least success. Upon\ndrawing in the net, it was found to be filled with so vast a number\nof fishes, that having been used before its previous rents had been\nentirely mended, it broke with the unusual weight. They then made known\nthe difficulty to their friends, the sons of Zebedee, who were in the\nother boat, and were obliged to share their burden between the two\nvessels, which were both so overloaded with the fishes as to be in\ndanger of sinking. At this event, so unexpected and overwhelming, Simon\nwas seized with mingled admiration and awe; and reverently besought\nJesus to depart from a sinful man, so unworthy as he was to be a\nsubject of benevolent attention from one so mighty and good. As might\nbe expected, not only Peter, but also his companions,\u2015\u2015the sons of\nZebedee,\u2015\u2015were struck with a miracle so peculiarly impressive to them,\nbecause it was an event connected with their daily business, and yet\nutterly out of the common course of things. But Jesus soothed their\nawe and terror into interest and attachment, by telling Simon that\nhenceforth he should find far nobler employment in taking men.\n\n4. John takes no notice whatever of this scene by the lake of Galilee,\nbut gives us, what is not found in the first three gospels, an\ninteresting account, already quoted, of the first introduction of Peter\nto Christ, not choosing to incumber his pages with a new repetition or\nvariation of the story of his direct call.\n\nThe office of an apostolic historian becomes at once most arduous and\nmost important, and the usefulness of his labors is most fully shown\nin such passages as this, where the task of weaving the various threads\nand scraps of sacred history in one even and uniform text, is one to\nwhich few readers, taking the parts detailed in the ordinary way, are\ncompetent, and which requires for its satisfactory achievement, more\naids from the long accumulated labors of the learned of past ages, than\nare within the reach of any but a favored few. To pass back and forth\nfrom gospel to gospel, in the search after order and consistency,\u2015\u2015to\nbring the lights of other history to clear up the obscurities, and\nshow that which fills up the deficiencies of the gospel story,\u2015\u2015to add\nthe helps of ancient and modern travelers in tracing the topography\nof the Bible,\u2015\u2015to find in lexicons, commentaries, criticisms and\ninterpretations, the true and full force of every word of those\npassages in which an important fact is expressed,\u2015\u2015these are a few of\nthe writer\u2019s duties in giving to common readers the results of the\nmental efforts of the theologians of this and past ages, whose humble\ncopyist and translator he is. Often aiming, however, at an effort\nsomewhat higher than that of giving the opinions and thoughts of others,\nhe offers his own account and arrangement of the subject, in preference\nto those of the learned, as being free from such considerations as are\ninvolved in technicalities above the appreciation of ordinary readers,\nand as standing in a connected narrative form, while the information\non these points, found in the works of eminent biblical scholars, is\nmostly in detached fragments, which, however complete to the student,\nrequire much explanation and illustration, to make them useful or\ninteresting to the majority of readers. Thus in this case, having given\nthe three different accounts above, he next proceeds to arrange them\ninto such a narrative as will be consistent with each, and contain all\nthe facts. In the discussion of particular points, reference can be\nproperly made to the authority of others, where necessary to explain\nor support.\n\nTaking up the apostolic history, then, where it is left by John, as\nreferred to above, and taking the facts from each gospel in what seems\nto be its proper place and time; the three narratives are thus combined\ninto one whole, with the addition of such circumstances as may be\ninferred by way of explanation, though not directly stated.\n\nLeaving Nazareth, Jesus had come to Capernaum, at the northwestern\nend of the lake, and there made his home. About this time, perhaps on\noccasion of his marriage, Simon had left Bethsaida, the city of his\nbirth, and now dwelt in Capernaum, probably on account of his wife\nbeing of that place, and he may have gone into the possession of a\nhouse, inherited by his marriage, which supposition would agree with\nthe circumstance of the residence of his wife\u2019s mother in her married\ndaughter\u2019s family, which would not be so easily explainable on the\nsupposition that she had also sons to inherit their father\u2019s property,\nand furnish a home to their mother. It has also been suggested, that\nhe probably removed to Capernaum after his introduction to Christ, in\norder to enjoy his instructions more conveniently, being near him. This\nmotive would no doubt have had some weight. Here the two brothers dwelt\ntogether in one house, which makes it almost certain that Andrew was\nunmarried, for the peculiarity of eastern manners would hardly have\npermitted the existence of two families, two husbands, two wives in the\nsame domestic circle. Making this place the center of their business,\nthey industriously devoted themselves to honest labor, extending their\nfishing operations over the lake, on which they toiled night and day.\nIt seems that the house of Simon and Andrew was Jesus\u2019s regular place\nof abode while in Capernaum, of which supposition the manifest proofs\noccur in the course of the narrative. Thus when Jesus came out of the\nsynagogue, he went to Simon\u2019s house,\u2015\u2015remained there as at a home,\nduring the day, and there received the visits of the immense throng\nof people who brought their sick friends to him; all which he would\ncertainly have been disposed to do at his proper residence, rather than\nwhere he was a mere occasional \u2666visitor. He is also elsewhere mentioned,\nas going into Peter\u2019s house in such a familiar and habitual kind of way,\nas to make the inference very obvious, that it was his home. On these\nterms of close domestic intimacy, did Jesus remain with these favored\ndisciples for more than a year, during which time he continued to\nreside at Capernaum. He must have resided in some other house, however,\non his first arrival in Capernaum, because, in the incident which\nis next given here, his conduct was evidently that of a person much\nless intimately acquainted with Simon than a fellow-lodger would be.\nThe circumstances of the call evidently show, that Peter, although\nacquainted with Christ previously, in the way mentioned by John, had\nby no means become his intimate, daily companion. We learn from Luke,\nthat Jesus, walking forth from Capernaum, along the lake, saw two boats\nstanding by the lake, but the fishers having gone out of them, were\nengaged in putting their nets and other fishing tackle in order. As\non his walk the populace had thronged about him, from curiosity and\ninterest, and were annoying him with requests, he sought a partial\nrefuge from their friendly attacks, on board of Simon\u2019s boat, which\nwas at hand, and begging him to push out a little from the land, he\nimmediately made the boat his pulpit, in preaching to the throng on\nshore, sitting down and teaching the people out of the boat. When he\nhad left off speaking, he said to Simon, \u201cLaunch out into the deep, and\nlet down your nets for a draught.\u201d And Simon answered, \u201cMaster, we have\ntoiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless, at thy word I will\nlet down the net.\u201d As soon as they did so, they took into the net a\ngreat multitude of fishes, and the net broke. They then beckoned to\ntheir partners, who were in the other vessel, that they should come and\nhelp them. And they came and filled both vessels, so that they began to\nsink. When Simon saw what was the result, he fell down at Jesus\u2019s knees,\nsaying, \u201cDepart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.\u201d For both he,\nand they that were with him, Andrew, James and John, were astonished\nat the draught of fishes they had taken. But Jesus said to Simon, \u201cFear\nnot; from henceforth thou shalt catch men;\u201d and then gave both to him\nand his brother a distinct call, \u201cFollow me\u2015\u2015come after me, and I will\nmake you fishers of men.\u201d And as soon as they had brought their ships\nto land, they forsook their nets, ships and all, and followed him,\nnot back into Capernaum, but over all Galilee, while he preached to\nwondering thousands the gospel of peace, and set forth to them his high\nclaims to their attention and obedience, by healing all the diseased\nwhich his great fame induced them to bring in such multitudes. This was,\nafter all, the true object of his calling his disciples to follow him\nin that manner. Can we suppose that he would come out of Capernaum,\nin the morning, and finding there his acquaintances about their honest\nbusiness, would call on them, in that unaccountable manner, to follow\nhim back into their home, to which they would of course, naturally\nenough, have gone of their own accord, without any divine call, for\na simple act of necessity? It was evidently with a view to initiate\nthem, at once, into the knowledge of the labors to which he had called\nthem, and to give them an insight into the nature of the trials and\ndifficulties which they must encounter in his service. In short, it was\nto enter them on their apprenticeship to the mysteries of their new and\nholy vocation. On this pilgrimage through Galilee, then, he must have\nbeen accompanied by his four newly chosen helpers, who thus were daily\nand hourly witnesses of his words and actions, as recorded by all the\nfirst three evangelists. (Matthew chapters iv.\u2012viii. Mark, chapters\ni.\u2012iii. &c. Luke, chapters v.\u2012vi.)\n\n \u2666 \u201cvisiter\u201d replaced with \u201cvisitor\u201d\n\n The accounts which Matthew and Mark give of this call, have\n seemed so strikingly different from that of Luke, that Calmet,\n Thoynard, Macknight, Hug, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Marsh, Paulus,\n (and perhaps some others,) have considered Luke\u2019s story in v.\n 1\u201211, as referring to a totally distinct event. See Calmet\u2019s,\n Thoynard\u2019s, Macknight\u2019s, Michaelis\u2019s, and Vater\u2019s harmonies,\n in loc. Also Eichhorn\u2019s introduction, 1. \u00a7 58, V. II.,\u2015\u2015Marsh\u2019s\n dissertation on the origin of the three gospels, in table\n of coincident passages,\u2015\u2015Paulus\u2019s \u201cCommentar weber das Neue\n Testament.\u201d 1 Theil xxiii. Abschnitt; compare xix. Abschnitt,\n \u2015\u2015Hug\u2019s \u201cEinleitung in das Neue Testament,\u201d Vol. II. \u00a7 40.\n \u201cErste auswanderung, Lucas, iii.,\u201d compare Mark.\n\n These great authorities would do much to support any arrangement\n of gospel events, but the still larger number of equally\n high authorities on the other side, justifies my boldness\n in attempting to find a harmony, where these great men could\n see none. Lightfoot, Le Clerc, Arnauld, Newcome, with all his\n subsequent editors, and Thirlwall, in their harmonies, agree in\n making all three evangelists refer to the same event. Grotius,\n Hammond, Wetstein, Scott, Clarke, Kuinoel, and Rosenmueller,\n in their several commentaries in loco,\u2015\u2015also Stackhouse in his\n history of the Bible, and Horne in his introduction, with many\n others, all take the view which I have presented in the text,\n and may be consulted by those who wish for reasons at greater\n length than my limits will allow.\n\n \u201c_Peter and Andrew dwell together in one house._\u201d\u2015\u2015This appears\n from Mark i. 29, where it is said that, after the call of the\n brothers by Jesus, \u201cthey entered the house of Simon and Andrew.\u201d\n\n \u201c_Sat down and taught the people out of the ship_,\u201d verse 3.\n This was a convenient position, adopted by Jesus on another\n occasion also. Matthew xiii. 2. Mark iv. 1.\n\n \u201c_Launch out._\u201d\u2015\u2015Luke v. 4. \u0395\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5, (Epanagage,) the same\n word which occurs in verse 3, there translated in the common\n English version, \u201c_thrust_ out.\u201d It was, probably, a regular\n nautical term for this backward movement, though in the classic\n Greek, \u0395\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, (exanagein,) was the form always used to\n express this idea, insomuch that it seems to have been the\n established technical term. Perhaps Luke may have intended this\n term originally, which might have been corrupted by some early\n copyist into this word, which is in no other place used with\n this meaning.\u2015\u2015\u201c_Let down_,\u201d (\u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, khalasate, in the plural;\n the former verb singular.) More literally, \u201c_loosen_,\u201d which is\n the primary signification of the verb, and would be the proper\n one, since the operation of preparing the net to take the fish,\n consisted in _loosening_ the ropes and other tackle, which, of\n course, were drawn tight, when the net was not in use, closing\n its mouth. \u201cMASTER, _we have toiled_,\u201d &c. verse 5. The word\n \u0395\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, (Epistata,) here translated _Master_, is remarkable,\n as never occurring in the Testament, except in this gospel.\n Grotius remarks, (_in loc._) that doubtless Luke, (the most\n finished and correct Greek scholar of all the sacred writers,)\n considered this term as a more faithful translation of the\n Hebrew \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9, (_Rabbi_,) than the common expressions of the\n other evangelists, \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5, (_Kurie_, _Lord_,) and \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5,\n (_didaskale_, _teacher_.) It was a moderate, though dignified\n title, between these two in its character, rather lower than\n \u201cLord,\u201d and rather higher than \u201cTeacher.\u201d It is used in the\n Alexandrian version, as the proper term for a \u201csteward,\u201d a\n \u201cmilitary commander,\u201d &c. (See Grotius theol. op. Vol. II. p.\n 372; or Poole\u2019s Synopsis on this passage.) \u201c_Toiled all night._\u201d\n This was the best time for taking the fish, as is well known to\n those who follow fishing for a living.\n\nOn this journey, they saw some of his most remarkable miracles, such\nas the healing of the leper, the paralytic, the man with the withered\nhand, and others of which the details are not given. It was also\nduring this time, that the sermon on the mount was delivered, which\nwas particularly addressed to his disciples, and was plainly meant for\ntheir instruction, in the conduct proper in them as the founders of the\ngospel faith. Besides passing through many cities on the nearer side,\nhe also crossed over the lake, and visited the rude people of those\nwild districts. The journey was, therefore, a very long one, and must\nhave occupied several weeks. After he had sufficiently acquainted them\nwith the nature of the duties to which he had consecrated them, and had\nabundantly impressed them with the high powers which he possessed, and\nof which they were to be the partakers, he came back to Capernaum, and\nthere entered into the house of Simon, which he seems henceforth to\nhave made his home while in that city. They found, that, during their\nabsence, the mother-in-law of Simon had been taken ill, and was then\nsuffering under the heat of a violent fever. Jesus at once, with a word,\npronounced her cure, and immediately the fever left her so perfectly\nhealed, that she arose from her sick bed, and proceeded to welcome\ntheir return, by her grateful efforts to make their home comfortable\nto them, after their tiresome pilgrimage.\n\n \u201c_Immediately the fever left her._\u201d\u2015\u2015Matthew viii. 15: Mark\n i. 31: Luke iv. 39. It may seem quite idle to conjecture the\n specific character of this fever; but it seems to me a very\n justifiable guess, that it was a true intermittent, or fever and\n ague, arising from the marsh influences, which must have been\n very strong in such a place as Capernaum,\u2015\u2015situated as it was,\n on the low margin of a large fresh water lake, and with all the\n morbific agencies of such an unhealthy site, increased by the\n heat of that climate. The immediate termination of the fever,\n under these circumstances, was an abundant evidence of the\n divine power of Christ\u2019s word, over the evil agencies, which\n mar the health and happiness of mankind.\n\nDuring some time after this, Peter does not seem to have left his home\nfor any long period at once, until Christ\u2019s long journeys to Judea\nand Jerusalem, but no doubt accompanied Jesus on all his excursions\nthrough Galilee, besides the first, of which the history has been here\ngiven. It would be hard, and exceedingly unsatisfactory, however, to\nattempt to draw out from the short, scattered incidents which fill\nthe interesting records of the gospels, any very distinct, detailed\nnarrative of these various journeys. The chronology and order of\nmost of these events, is still left much in the dark, and most of the\npains taken to bring out the truth to the light, have only raised the\ngreater dust to blind the eyes of the eager investigator. To pretend\nto roll all these clouds away at once, and open to common eyes a clear\nview of facts, which have so long confused the minds of some of the\nwisest and best of almost every Christian age, and too often, alas!\nin turn, been confused by them,\u2015\u2015such an effort, however well meant,\ncould only win for its author the contempt of the learned, and the\nperplexed dissatisfaction of common readers. But one very simple, and\ncomparatively easy task, is plainly before the writer, and to that\nhe willingly devotes himself for the present. This task is, that of\nseparating and disposing, in what may seem their natural order, with\nsuitable illustration and explanation, those few facts contained in the\ngospels, relating distinctly to this apostle. These facts, accordingly,\nhere follow.\n\n\n HIS FIRST MISSION.\n\nThe next affair in which Peter is mentioned, by either evangelist, is\nthe final enrolling of the twelve peculiar disciples, to whom Jesus\ngave the name of apostles. In their proper place have already been\nmentioned, both the meaning of this title and the rank of Peter on the\nlist; and it need here only be remarked, that Peter went forth with\nthe rest, on this their first and experimental mission. All the first\nthree gospels contain this account; but Matthew enters most fully into\nthe charge of Jesus, in giving them their first commission. In his\ntenth chapter, this charge is given with such particularity, that a\nmere reference of the reader to that place will be sufficient, without\nany need of explanation here. After these minute directions for their\nbehavior, they departed, as Mark and Luke record, and went through the\ntowns, preaching the gospel, that men should repent. And they cast out\nmany devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.\nHow far their journey extended, cannot be positively determined, but\nthere is no probability that they went beyond the limits of Galilee.\nDivided as they were into couples, and each pair taking a different\nroute, a large space must have been gone over in this mission, however\nbrief the time can be supposed to have been. As to the exact time\noccupied, we are, indeed, as uncertain as in respect to the distance\nto which they traveled; but from the few incidents placed by Mark and\nLuke between their departure and return, it could hardly have been more\nthan a few weeks, probably only a few days. The only affair mentioned\nby either evangelist, between their departure and return, is, the\nnotice taken by Herod of the actions of Jesus, to whom his attention\nwas drawn by his resemblance to John the Baptist. They then say, that\nthe apostles, when they were returned, gathered themselves together\nto Jesus, and told him all things,\u2015\u2015both what they had done and what\nthey had taught. As this report was received by Jesus, without any\ncomment that is recorded, it is fair to conclude, that their manner\nof preaching, and the success of their labors, had been such as to\ndeserve his approbation. In this mission, there is nothing particularly\ncommemorated with respect to Peter\u2019s conduct; but no doubt the same\nfiery zeal which distinguished him afterwards, on so many occasions,\nmade him foremost in this his earliest apostolic labor. His rank,\nas chief apostle, too, probably gave him some prominent part in the\nmission, and his field of operations must have been more important\nand extensive than that of the inferior apostles, and his success\nproportionably greater.\n\n It is deserving of notice, that on this first mission,\n Jesus seems to have arranged the twelve in _pairs_, in which\n order he probably sent them forth, as he certainly did the\n seventy disciples, described in Luke x. 1. The object of this\n arrangement, was no doubt to secure them that mutual support\n which was so desirable for men, so unaccustomed to the high\n duties on which they were now dispatched.\n\n Their _destination_, also, deserves attention. The direction\n of Jesus was, that they should avoid the way of the heathen,\n and the cities of the Samaritans, who were but little better,\n and should go to the _lost sheep_ of the house of Israel. This\n expression was quoted, probably, from those numerous passages in\n the prophets, where this term is applied to the Israelites, as\n in Jeremiah l. 6, Isaiah liii. 6, Ezekiel xxxiv. 6, &c., and\n was used with peculiar force, in reference to the condition of\n those to whom Jesus sent his apostles. It seems to me, as if\n he, by this peculiar term, meant to limit them to the provinces\n of Galilee, where the state and character of the Jews was\n such as eminently to justify this melancholy appellative. The\n particulars of their condition will be elsewhere shown. They\n were expressly bounded on one side, from passing into the\n heathen territory, and on the other from entering the cities\n of the Samaritans, who dwelt between Galilee and Judea proper,\n so that a literal obedience of these instructions, would\n have confined them entirely to Galilee, their native land.\n Macknight also takes this view. The reasons of this limitation,\n are abundant and obvious. The peculiarly abandoned moral\n condition of that outcast section of Palestine,\u2015\u2015the perfect\n familiarity which the apostles must have felt with the people\n of their own region, whose peculiarities of language and habits\n they themselves shared so perfectly as to be unfitted for a\n successful outset among the Jews of the south, without more\n experience out of Galilee,\u2015\u2015the shortness of the time, which\n seems to have been taken up in this mission,\u2015\u2015the circumstance\n that Jesus sent them to proclaim that \u201cthe kingdom of heaven was\n at hand,\u201d that is, that the Messiah was approaching, which he\n did in order to arouse the attention of the people to himself,\n when he should go to them, (compare Luke x. 1,) thus making\n them his forerunners; and the fact, that the places to which\n he actually did go with them, on their return, were all in\n Galilee, (Matthew xi., xix. 1, Mark vi. 7, x. 1, Luke ix. 1\u201251,)\n all serve to show that this first mission of the apostles,\n was limited entirely to the Jewish population of Galilee. His\n promise to them also in Matthew x. 2, 3, \u201cyou shall not _finish\n the cities of Israel_, before the son of man come,\u201d seems to\n me to mean simply, that there would be no occasion for them to\n extend their labors to the Gentile cities of Galilee, or to the\n Samaritans; because, before they could finish their specially\n allotted field of survey, he himself would be ready to follow\n them, and confirm their labors. This was mentioned to them in\n connection with the prediction of persecutions which they would\n meet, as an encouragement. For various other explanations of\n this last passage, see Poole\u2019s Synopsis, Rosenmueller, Wetstein,\n Macknight, Le Sainte Bible avec notes, &c. in loc. But Kuinoel,\n who quotes on his side Beza, Bolten, and others, supports the\n view, which an unassisted consideration induced me to suggest.\n\n \u201c_Anointed with oil._\u201d Mark vi. 13. The same expression occurs\n in James v. 14, and needs explanation from its connection\n with a peculiar rite of the Romish church,\u2015\u2015extreme unction,\n from which it differs, however, inasmuch as it was always a\n hopeful operation, intended to aid the patient, and secure\n his recovery, while the Romish ceremony is always performed in\n case of complete despair of life, only with a view to prepare\n the patient, by this mummery, for certain death. The operation\n mentioned as so successfully performed by the apostles, for the\n cure of diseases, was undoubtedly a simple remedial process,\n previously in long-established use among the Hebrews, as\n clearly appears by the numerous authorities quoted by Lightfoot,\n Wetstein, and Paulus, from Rabbinical Greek and Arabic sources;\n yet Beza and others, quoted in Poole\u2019s Synopsis, as well as\n Rosenmueller, suggest some symbolical force in the ceremony, for\n which see those works in loc. See also Kuinoel, and Bloomfield\n who gives numerous references. See also Marlorat\u2019s Bibliotheca\n expositionum, Stackhouse\u2019s History of the Bible, Whitby, &c.\n\n\n THE SCENES ON THE LAKE.\n\nAfter receiving the report of his apostles\u2019 labors, Jesus said to\nthem, \u201cCome ye yourselves apart into a retired place, and rest awhile:\u201d\nfor there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much\nas to eat. And he took them and went privately by ship aside, into a\n_lonely_ place, near the city called Bethsaida. And the people saw him\ndeparting, and many knew him, and went on foot to the place, out of\nall the country, and outwent them, and came together to him as soon\nas he reached there. And he received them, and spoke unto them of the\nkingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing. It was on\nthis occasion that he performed the miracle of feeding the multitude\nwith five loaves and two fishes. So great was the impression made on\ntheir minds by this extraordinary act of benevolence and power, that\nhe thought it best, in order to avoid the hindrance of his great task,\nby any popular commotion in his favor, to go away in such a manner as\nto be effectually beyond their reach for the time.\u2015\u2015With this view he\nconstrained his disciples to get into the ship, and go before him to\nthe other side of the lake, opposite to Bethsaida, where they then\nwere; while he sent away the people. After sending the multitude away,\nhe went up into a mountain, apart, to pray. And after night fall, the\nvessel was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land. Thence\nhe saw them toiling with rowing, (for the wind was contrary to them,\nand the ship tossed in the waves:) and about three or four o\u2019clock in\nthe morning, he comes to them, walking on the sea, and appeared as if\nabout to pass unconcernedly by them. But when they saw him walking upon\nthe sea. they supposed it to have been a spirit, and they all cried\nout, \u201cIt is a spirit;\u201d for they all saw him, and were alarmed; and\nimmediately he spoke to them, and said \u201cBe comforted; it is I; be not\nafraid.\u201d And Peter, foremost in zeal on this occasion, as at almost all\ntimes, said to him, \u201cLord, if it be thou, bid me come to thee upon the\nwater.\u201d And he said, \u201cCome.\u201d And when Peter had come down out of the\nvessel, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the\nwind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, \u201cLord,\nsave me.\u201d And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught\nhim; and said to him, \u201cO thou of little faith! wherefore didst thou\ndoubt?\u201d And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased; and\nthey were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered. And\nall they that were in the vessel came and worshiped him, saying, \u201cOf\na truth, thou art the Son of God.\u201d This amazement and reverence was\ncertainly very tardily acknowledged by them, after all the wonders they\nhad seen wrought by him; but they considered not the miracle of the\nloaves, the most recent of all, which happened but a few hours before.\nFor this thoughtlessness, in a matter so striking and weighty, Jesus\nhimself afterwards rebuked them, referring both to this miracle of\nfeeding the five thousand, and to a subsequent similar one. However,\nthe various great actions of a similar character, thus repeated before\nthem, seem at last to have had a proper effect, since, on an occasion\nnot long after, they boldly and clearly made their profession of faith\nin Jesus, as the Christ.\n\n \u201c_A lonely place._\u201d\u2015\u2015The word _desert_, which is the adjective\n given in this passage, in the common English version, (Matthew\n xiv. 13, 15, Mark vi. 31, 32, 35, Luke ix. 10, 12,) does not\n convey to the reader, the true idea of the character of the\n place. The Greek word \u0395\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 (_eremos_) does not in the passages\n just quoted, mean \u201c_desert_,\u201d in our modern sense of that\n English word, which always conveys the idea of \u201cdesolation,\u201d\n \u201cwildness\u201d and \u201cbarrenness,\u201d as well as \u201csolitude.\u201d But the\n Greek word by no means implied these darker characteristics. The\n primary, uniform idea of the word is, \u201c_lonely_,\u201d \u201c_solitary_,\u201d\n and so little does it imply \u201cbarrenness,\u201d that it is applied\n to lands, rich, fertile and pleasant, a connection, of course,\n perfectly inconsistent with our ideas of a _desert_ place.\n Schleusner gives the idea very fairly under \u0395\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1, (_eremia_,)\n a derivative of this word. \u201cNotat locum aliquem vel tractum\n terrae, non tam _incultum_ et _horridum_, quam minus habitabilem,\n \u2015\u2015_solitudinem_,\u2015\u2015locum vacuum quidem ab hominibus, _pascuis_\n tamen et _agris abundantem_, et _arboribus obsitum_.\u201d \u201cIt means\n a place or tract of land, not so much uncultivated and wild, as\n it does one thinly inhabited,\u2015\u2015a solitude, a place empty of men\n indeed, yet rich in pastures and fields, and planted with trees.\u201d\n But after giving this very clear and satisfactory account of\n the derivative, he immediately after gives to the primitive\n itself, the primary meaning \u201c_desertus, desolatus, vastus,\n devastatus_,\u201d and refers to passages where the word is applied\n to ruined cities; but in every one of those passages, the\n true idea is that above given as the meaning, \u201cstripped of\n inhabitants,\u201d and not \u201cdesolated\u201d or \u201claid waste.\u201d Hedericus\n gives this as the first meaning, \u201c_desertus, solus, solitarius,\n inhabitatus_.\u201d Schneider also fully expresses it, in German,\n by \u201c_einsam_,\u201d (_lonely, solitary_,) in which he is followed by\n Passow, his improver, and by Donnegan, his English translator.\n Jones and Pickering, also give it thus. Bretschneider and Wahl,\n in their New Testament Lexicons, have given a just and proper\n classification of the meanings. The word \u201c_desert_\u201d came into\n our English translation, by the minute verbal adherence of the\n translators to the Vulgate or Latin version, where the word is\n expressed by \u201c_desertum_\u201d probably enough because _desertus_,\n in Latin, does not mean _desert_ in English, nor any thing like\n it, but simply \u201clonely,\u201d \u201cuninhabited;\u201d\u2015\u2015in short, it has the\n force of the English participle, \u201c_deserted_,\u201d and not of the\n adjective \u201c_desert_,\u201d which has probably acquired its modern\n meaning, and lost its old one, since our common translation was\n made; thus making one instance, among ten thousand others, of\n the imperfection of this ancient translation, which was, at best,\n but a servile English rendering of the Vulgate. Campbell, in his\n four gospels, has repeated this passage, without correcting the\n error, though Hammond, long before, in his just and beautiful\n paraphrase, (on Matthew xiv. 13,) had corrected it by the\n expression, \u201c_a place not inhabited_.\u201d Charles Thomson, in\n his version, has overlooked the error in Matthew xiv. 13, 15,\n but has corrected it in Mark vi. 31, &c., and in Luke ix. 10;\n expressing it by \u201c_solitary_.\u201d The remark of the apostles to\n Jesus, \u201cThis place is lonely,\u201d does not require the idea of a\n barren or wild place; it was enough that it was far from any\n village, and had not inhabitants enough to furnish food for\n five thousand men; as in 2 Corinthians xi. 26, it is used in\n opposition to \u201ccity,\u201d in the sense of \u201cthe country.\u201d\n\n\n HIS DECLARATION OF CHRIST\u2019S DIVINITY.\n\nJourneying on northward, Jesus came into the neighborhood of \u2666Caesarea\nPhilippi, and while he was there in some solitary place, praying alone\nwith his select disciples, at the conclusion of his prayer, he asked\nthem, \u201cWho do men say that I, the son of man, am?\u201d And they answered\nhim, \u201cSome say that thou art John the Baptist:\u201d Herod, in particular,\nwe know, had this notion; \u201csome, that thou art Elijah, and others\nthat thou art Jeremiah, or one of the prophets, that is risen again.\u201d\nSo peculiar was his doctrine, and so far removed was he, both in\nimpressive eloquence and in original views, from the degeneracy and\nservility of that age, that the universal sentiment was, that one of\nthe bold, pure \u201cspirits of the fervent days of old,\u201d had come back\nto call Judah from foreign servitude, to the long remembered glories\nof the reigns of David and Solomon. But his chosen ones, who had by\nrepeated instruction, as well as long acquaintance, better learned\ntheir Master, though still far from appreciating his true character\nand designs, had yet a higher and juster idea of him, than the\nunenlightened multitudes who had been amazed by his deeds. To draw\nfrom them the distinct acknowledgment of their belief in him, Jesus at\nlast plainly asked his disciples, \u201cBut who do ye say that I am?\u201d Simon\nPeter, in his usual character as spokesman, replied for the whole band,\n\u201cThou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.\u201d Jesus, recognizing in\nthis prompt answer, the fiery and devoted spirit that would follow the\ngreat work of redemption through life, and at last to death, replied to\nthe zealous speaker in terms of marked and exalted honor, prophesying\nat the same time the high part which he would act in spreading and\nstrengthening the kingdom of his Master: \u201cBlessed art thou, Simon, son\nof Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this unto thee, but my\nFather who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art a ROCK,\nand on this _rock_ I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall\nnot prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom\nof heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in\nheaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in\nheaven.\u201d In such high terms was the chief apostle distinguished, and\nthus did his Master peculiarly commission him above the rest, for the\nhigh office, to which all the energies of his remaining life were to be\ndevoted.\n\n \u2666 \u201cCesarea\u201d replaced with \u201cCaesarea\u201d\n\n _Who do men say that I am._\u2015\u2015The common English translation,\n here makes a gross grammatical blunder, putting the relative\n in the objective case,\u2015\u2015\u201c_Whom_ do men say,\u201d &c. (Matthew xvi.\n 13\u201215.) It is evident that on inverting the order, putting the\n relative last instead of first, it will be in the nominative,\n \u2015\u2015\u201cMen say that I am who?\u201d making, in short, a nominative after\n the verb, though it here comes before it by the inversion which\n the relative requires. Here again the blunder may be traced to\n a heedless copying of the Vulgate. In Latin, as in Greek, the\n relative is given in the accusative, and very properly, because\n it is followed by the infinitive. \u201cQuem dicunt homines esse\n Filium hominis?\u201d which literally is, \u201cWhom do men say the son of\n man to be?\u201d\u2015\u2015a very correct form of expression; but the blunder\n of our translators was, in preserving the accusative, while they\n changed the verb, from the infinitive to the finite form; for\n \u201c_whom_\u201d cannot be governed by \u201c_say_.\u201d Hammond has passed over\n the blunder; but Campbell, Thomson, and Webster, have corrected\n it.\n\n _Son of Man._\u2015\u2015This expression has acquired a peculiarly exalted\n sense in our minds, in consequence of its repeated application\n to Jesus Christ, and its limitation to him, in the New Testament.\n But in those days it had no meaning by which it could be\n considered expressive of any peculiar characteristic of the\n Savior, being a mere general emphatic expression for the common\n word \u201cman,\u201d used in solemn address or poetical expressions. Both\n in the Old and New Testament it is many times applied to men\n in general, and to particular individuals, in such a way as\n to show that it was only an elegant periphrasis for the common\n term, without implying any peculiar importance in the person\n thus designated, or referring to any peculiar circumstance as\n justifying this appellative in that case. Any concordance will\n show how commonly the word occurred in this connection. The\n diligent Butterworth enumerates eighty-nine times in which this\n word is applied to Ezekiel, in whose book of prophecy it occurs\n oftener than in any other book in the Bible. It is also applied\n to Daniel, in the address of the angel to him, as to Ezekiel;\n and in consideration of the vastly more frequent occurrence\n of the expression in the writers after the captivity, and its\n exclusive use by them as a formula of solemn address, it has\n been commonly considered as having been brought into this usage\n among the Hebrews, from the dialects of Chaldea and Syria,\n where it was much more common. In Syriac, more particularly, the\n simple expression, \u201cman,\u201d is entirely banished from use by this\n solemn periphrasis,\n\n Illustration: (\u2021 Syriac word)\n\n (_bar-nosh_,) \u201cSON OF MAN,\u201d which every where takes the place\n of the original direct form. It should be noticed also, that in\n every place in the Old Testament where this expression (\u201cson of\n man\u201d) occurs, before Ezekiel, the former part of the sentence\n invariably contains the direct form of expression, (\u201cman,\u201d)\n and this periphrasis is given in the latter part of every such\n sentence, for the sake of a poetical repetition of the same idea\n in a slightly different form. Take, for instance, Psalm viii. 4,\n \u201cWhat is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man,\n that thou visitest him?\u201d And exactly so in every other passage\n anterior to Ezekiel, as Numbers xxiii. 19, Job xxv. 16, xxxv. 8,\n Isaiah li. 12, lvi. 2, and several other passages, to which any\n good concordance will direct the reader.\n\n The New Testament writers too, apply this expression in other\n ways than as a name of Jesus Christ. It is given as a mere\n periphrasis, entirely synonymous with \u201cman,\u201d in a general or\n abstract sense, without reference to any particular individual,\n in Mark iii. 28, (compare Matthew xii. 13, where the simple\n expression \u201cmen\u201d is given,) Hebrews ii. 6, (a mere translation\n of Psalm viii. 4,) Ephesians iii. 5, Revelation i. 13, xiv. 14.\n In the peculiar emphatic limitation to which this note refers,\n it is applied by Jesus Christ to himself about eighty times in\n the gospels, but is never used by any other person in the New\n Testament, as a name of the Savior, except by Stephen, in Acts,\n vii. 56. It never occurs in this sense in the apostolic epistles.\n (Bretschneider.) For this use of the word, I should not think\n it necessary to seek any mystical or important reason, as so\n many have done, nor can I see that in its application to Jesus,\n it has any very direct reference to the circumstance of his\n having, though divine, put on a human nature, but simply a nobly\n modest and strikingly emphatic form of expression used by him,\n in speaking of his own exalted character and mighty plans, and\n partly to avoid the too frequent repetition of the personal\n pronoun. It is at once evident that this indirect form,\n in the third person, is both more dignified and modest in\n solemn address, than the use of the first person singular\n of the pronoun. Exactly similar to this are many forms of\n circumlocution with which we are familiar. The presiding\n officer of any great deliberative assembly, for instance, in\n announcing his own decision on points of order, by a similar\n periphrasis, says \u201cThe chair decides,\u201d &c. In fashionable forms\n of intercourse, such instances are still more frequent. In many\n books, where the writer has occasion to speak of himself, he\n speaks in the third person, \u201cthe author,\u201d &c.; as in an instance\n close at hand, in this book it will be noticed, that where it is\n necessary for me to allude to myself in the _text_ of the work,\n which, of course, is more elevated in its tone than the _notes_,\n I speak, according to standard forms of scriptorial propriety,\n in the third person, as \u201cthe author,\u201d &c.; while here, in\n these small discussions, which break in on the more dignified\n narrative, I find it at once more convenient and proper, to use\n the more familiar and simple forms of \u2666expression.\n\n \u2666 \u201cexpresssion\u201d replaced with \u201cexpression\u201d\n\n This periphrasis (\u201c_son of_\u201d) is not peculiar to oriental\n languages, as every Greek scholar knows, who is familiar with\n Homer\u2019s common expression \u03c5\u03b9\u03b5\u03c2 \u0391\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, (_uies Akhaion_,) \u201csons\n of Grecians,\u201d instead of \u201cGrecians\u201d simply, which by a striking\n coincidence, occurs in Joel xiii. 6, in the same sense. Other\n instances might be needlessly \u2666multiplied.\n\n \u2666 \u201cmultipled\u201d replaced with \u201cmultiplied\u201d\n\n _Thou art a Rock_, &c.\u2015\u2015This is the just translation of Peter\u2019s\n name, and the force of the declaration is best understood by\n this rendering. As it stands in the original, it is \u201cThou art\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, (_Petros_, \u2018a rock,\u2019) and on this \u03a0\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 (_Petra_, \u2018a\n rock\u2019) I will build my church,\u201d\u2015\u2015a play on the words so palpable,\n that great injustice is done to its force by a common tame,\n unexplained translation. The variation of the words in the\n Greek, from the masculine to the feminine termination, makes\n no difference in the expression. In the Greek Testament, the\n feminine \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 (_petra_) is the only form of the word used as\n the common noun for \u201crock,\u201d but the masculine \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (_petros_)\n is used in the most finished classic writers of the ancient\n Greek, of the Ionic, Doric and Attic, as Homer, Herodotus,\n Pindar, Xenophon, and, in the later order of writers, Diodorus\n Siculus.\n\n H. Stephens gives the masculine form as the primitive, but\n Schneider derives it from the feminine.\n\nAfter this distinct profession of faith in him, by his disciples,\nthrough Peter, Jesus particularly and solemnly charged them all, that\nthey should not, then, assert their belief to others, lest they should\nthereby be drawn into useless and unfortunate contests about their\nMaster, with those who entertained a very different opinion of him. For\nJesus knew that his disciples, shackled and possessed as they were with\ntheir fantasies about the earthly reign of a Messiah, were not, as yet,\nsufficiently prepared to preach this doctrine: and wisely foresaw that\nthe mass of the Jewish people would either put no faith at all in such\nan announcement, or that the ill disposed and ambitious would abuse\nit, to the purposes of effecting a political revolution, by raising\na rebellion against the Roman rulers of Palestine, and oversetting\nforeign power. He had, it is true, already sent forth his twelve\napostles, to preach the coming of the kingdom, (Matthew x. 7,) but\nthat was only to the effect that the time of the Messiah\u2019s reign was\nnigh,\u2015\u2015that the lives and hearts of all must be changed,\u2015\u2015all which\nthe apostles might well preach, without pretending to announce who the\nMessiah was.\n\n\n HIS AMBITIOUS HOPES AND THEIR HUMILIATION.\n\nThis avowal of Peter\u2019s belief that Jesus was the Messiah, to which\nthe other apostles gave their assent, silent or loud, was so clear\nand hearty, that Jesus plainly perceived their persuasion of his\ndivine authority to be so strong, that they might now bear a decisive\nand open explanation of those things which he had hitherto rather\ndarkly and dimly hinted at, respecting his own death. He also at this\ntime, brought out the full truth the more clearly as to the miseries\nwhich hung over him, and his expected death, with the view the\nmore effectually to overthrow those false notions which they had\npreconceived of earthly happiness and triumph, to be expected in the\nMessiah\u2019s kingdom; and with the view, also, of preparing them for the\nevents which must shortly happen; lest, after they saw him nailed to\nthe cross, they should all at once lose their high hopes, and utterly\ngive him up. He knew too, that he had such influence with his disciples,\nthat if their minds were shocked, and their faith in him shaken, at\nfirst, by such a painful disclosure, he could soon bring them back\nto a proper confidence in him. Accordingly, from this time, he began\ndistinctly to set forth to them, how he must go to Jerusalem, and\nsuffer many things from the elders, and chief priests, and scribes,\nand be killed, and be raised again the third day. There is much room\nfor reasonable doubt, as to the manner in which those who heard this\ndeclaration of Christ, understood it at the time. As to the former\npart of it, namely, that he would be ill-treated by the great men of\nthe Jewish nation, both by those ruling in the civil and religious\ngovernment, it was too plain for any one to put any but the right\nmeaning upon it. But the promise that he should, after this horrible\nfate, rise again from the dead on the third day, did not, as it is\nevident, by any means convey to them the meaning which all who read\nit now, are able to find in it. Nothing can be more plain to a careful\nreader of the gospels, than that his disciples and friends had not\nthe slightest expectation that he would ever appear to them after his\ncruel death; and the mingled horror and dread with which the first news\nof that event was received by them, shows them to have been utterly\nunprepared for it. It required repeated positive demonstration, on\nhis part, to assure them that he was truly alive among them, in his\nown form and character. The question then is\u2015\u2015what meaning had they\nall along given to the numerous declarations uttered by him to them,\napparently foretelling this, in the distinct terms, of which the above\npassage is a specimen? Had they understood it as we do, and yet so\nabsolutely disbelieved it, that they put no faith in the event itself,\nwhen it had so palpably occurred? And had they, for months and years,\nfollowed over Palestine, through labors, and troubles, and dangers,\na man, who, as they supposed, was boldly endeavoring to saddle their\ncredulity with a burden too monstrous for even them to bear? They\nmust, from the nature of their connection with him, have put the most\nunlimited confidence in him, and could not thus devotedly have given\nthemselves up to a man whom they believed or suspected to be constantly\nuttering to them a falsehood so extravagant and improbable. They\nmust, then, have put some meaning on it, different from that which our\nclearer light enables us to see in it; and that meaning, no doubt, they\nhonestly and firmly believed, until the progress of events showed them\nthe power of the prophecy in its wonderful and literal fulfilment. They\nmay have misunderstood it in his life time, in this way: the universal\ncharacter of the language of the children of Shem, seems to be a\nremarkable proneness to figurative expressions, and the more abstract\nthe ideas which the speaker wishes to convey, the more strikingly\nmaterial are the figures he uses, and the more poetical the language in\nwhich he conveys them. Teachers of morals and religion, most especially,\nhave, among those nations of the east, been always distinguished for\ntheir highly figurative expressions, and none abound more richly in\nthem than the writers of the Old and New Testament. So peculiarly\neffective, for his great purposes, did Jesus Christ, in particular,\nfind this variety of eloquence, that it is distinctly said of him, that\nhe seldom or never spoke to the people without a parable, which he was\noften obliged to expound more in detail, to his chosen followers, when\napart with them. This style of esoteric and exoteric instruction, had\nearly taught his disciples to look into his most ordinary expressions\nfor a hidden meaning; and what can be more likely than that often, when\nleft to their own conjectures, they, for a time, at least, overleaped\nthe simple literal truth, into a fog of figurative interpretations, as\ntoo many of their very modern successors have often done, to their own\nand others\u2019 misfortune. We certainly know that, in regard to those very\nexpressions about raising the dead, there was a very earnest inquiry\namong the three chief apostles, some time after, as will be mentioned\nin place, showing that it never seemed possible to them that their Lord,\nmighty as he had showed himself, could ever mean to say to them, that,\nwhen his bitter foes had crowned his life of toil and cares with a\nbloody and cruel exit, he\u2015\u2015even HE, could dare to promise them, that\nhe would break through that iron seal, which, when once set upon the\nenergies of man, neither goodness, nor valor, nor knowledge, nor love,\nhad ever loosened, but which, since the first dead yielded his breath,\nnot the mightiest prophet, nor the most inspired, could ever break\nthrough for himself. The figure of death and resurrection, has often\nbeen made a striking image of many moral changes;\u2015\u2015of some one of which,\nthe hearers of Jesus probably first interpreted it. In connection with\nwhat he had previously said, nothing could seem more natural to them,\nthan that he, by this peculiarly strong metaphor, wished to remind them\nthat, even after his death, by the envious and cruel hands of Jewish\nmagistrates, over but a few days, his name, the ever fresh influence\nof his bright and holy example\u2015\u2015the undying powers of his breathing and\nburning words, should still live with them, and with them triumph after\nthe momentary struggles of the enemies of the truth.\n\nThe manner, also, in which Simon Peter received this communication,\nshows that he could not have anticipated so glorious and dazzling\na result of such horrible evils: for, however literally he may have\ntaken the prophecy of Christ\u2019s cruel death, he used all his powers\nto dissuade his adored master from exposing himself to a fate so dark\nand dreadful,\u2015\u2015so sadly destructive of all the new-born hopes of his\nchosen followers, and from which the conclusion of the prophecy seemed\nto offer no clear or certain mode of escape. Never before, had Jesus\nspoken in such plain and decided terms, about the prospect of his\nown terrible death. Peter, whose heart had just been lifted up to the\nskies with joy and hope, in the prospect of the glorious triumphs to\nbe achieved by his Lord through his means, and whose thoughts were even\nthen dwelling on the honors, the power, the fame, which were to accrue\nto him for his share in the splendid work,\u2015\u2015was shocked beyond measure,\nat the strange and seemingly contradictory view of the results, now\ntaken by his great leader. With the confident familiarity to which\ntheir mutual love and intimacy entitled him, in some measure, he laid\nhis hand expostulatingly upon him, and drew him partly aside, to urge\nhim privately to forget thoughts of despondency, so unworthy of the\ngreat enterprise of Israel\u2019s restoration, to which they had all so\nmanfully pledged themselves as his supporters. We may presume, that\nhe, in a tone of encouragement, endeavored to show him how impossible\nit would be for the dignitaries of Jerusalem to withstand the tide of\npopularity which had already set so strongly in favor of Jesus; that\nso far from looking upon himself as in danger of a death so infamous,\nfrom the Sanhedrim, he might, at the head of the hosts of his zealous\nGalileans, march as a conqueror to Jerusalem, and thence give laws from\nthe throne of his father David, to all the wide territories of that\nfar-ruling king. Such dreams of earthly glory seemed to have filled\nthe soul of Peter at that time; and we cannot wonder, then, that every\nambitious feeling within him recoiled at the gloomy announcement, that\nthe idol of his hopes was to end his days of unrequited toil, by a\ndeath so infamous as that of the cross. \u201cBe it far from thee, Lord,\u201d\n\u201cGod forbid,\u201d \u201cDo not say so,\u201d \u201cDo not thus damp our courage and high\nhopes,\u201d \u201cThis must not happen to thee.\u201d\u2015\u2015Jesus, on hearing these words\nof ill-timed rebuke, which showed how miserably his chief follower\nhad been infatuated and misled, by his foolish and carnal ambition,\nturned away indignantly from the low and degraded motives, by which\nPeter sought to bend him from his holy purposes. Not looking upon him,\nbut upon the other disciples, who had kept their feelings of regret\nand disappointment to themselves, he, in the most energetic terms,\nexpressed his abhorrence of such notions, by his language to the\nspeaker. \u201cGet thee behind me, Satan; thou art a scandal to me; for thou\nsavorest not the things which be of God, but the things which be of men.\nIn these fervent aspirations after eminence, I recognize none of the\npure devotion to the good of man, which is the sure test of the love\nof God; but the selfish desire for transient, paltry distinction, which\ncharacterizes the vulgar ambition of common men, enduring no toil or\npain, but in the hope of a more than equal earthly reward speedily\naccruing.\u201d After this stern reply, which must have strongly impressed\nthem all with the nature of the mistake of which they had been guilty,\nhe addressed them still further, in continuation of the same design, of\ncorrecting their false notion of the earthly advantages to be expected\nby his companions in toil. He immediately gave them a most untempting\npicture of the character and conduct of him, who could be accepted as a\nfit fellow-worker with Jesus. \u201cIf any one wishes to come after me, let\nhim deny himself, and let him take up his cross, (as if we should say,\nlet him come with his halter around his neck, and with the gibbet on\nhis shoulder,) and follow me. For whosoever shall save his life for\nmy sake, shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake,\nshall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the _whole\nworld_, and lose his own soul? For the Son of Man shall come in the\nglory of his Father, with his angels; and THEN, he shall _reward_\nevery man according to his works.\u201d \u201cI solemnly tell you, there are\nsome standing here who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son\nof Man coming in his kingdom.\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cIn vain would you, in pursuit of your\nidle dreams of earthly glory, yield up all the powers of your soul, and\nspend your life for an object so worthless. After all, what is there\nin all the world, if you should have the whole at your disposal\u2015\u2015what,\nfor the momentary enjoyment of which, you can calmly pay down your soul\nas the price? Seek not, then, for rewards so unworthy of the energies\nwhich I have recognized in you, and have devoted to far nobler purposes.\nHigher honors will crown your toils and sufferings, in my service;\n\u2015\u2015nobler prizes are seen near, with the eye of faith. Speedily will\nthe frail monuments of this world\u2019s wonders crumble, and the memory of\nits greatnesses pass away; but over the ruins of kingdoms, the coming\nof the MAN to whom you have joined yourselves is sure, and in that\ntriumphant advent, you shall find the imperishable requital of your\nfaithful and zealous works. And of the nature and aspect of the glories\nwhich I now so dimly shadow in words, some of those who now hear me\nshall soon be the living witnesses, as of a foretaste of rewards,\nwhose full enjoyment can be yours, only after the weariness and misery\nof this poor life are all passed. Years of toil, dangers, pain, and\nsorrow,\u2015\u2015lives passed in contempt and disgrace,\u2015\u2015deaths of ignominy,\nof unpitied anguish, and lingering torture, must be your passage to the\njoys of which I speak; while the earthly honors which you now covet,\nshall for ages continue to be the prize of the base, the cruel, and the\nfoolish, from whom you vainly hope to snatch them.\u201d\n\n\n THE TRANSFIGURATION.\n\nThe mysterious promise thus made by Jesus, of a new and peculiar\nexhibition of himself, to some of his chosen ones, he soon sought an\noccasion of executing. About six or eight days after this remarkable\nconversation, he took Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee, James and\nJohn, and went with them up into a high mountain, apart by themselves.\nAs to the name and place of this mountain, a matter of some interest\ncertainly, there have been two opinions among those who have attempted\nto illustrate the topography of the gospels. The phrase, \u201ca high\nmountain,\u201d has instantly brought to the thoughts of most learned\nreaders, Mount Tabor, famous for several great events in Bible history,\nwhich they have instantly adopted, without considering the place in\nwhich the previous account had left Jesus, which was Caesarea Philippi;\nhereafter described as in the farthest northern part of Galilee. Now,\nMount Tabor, however desirable in other particulars, as the scene of a\ngreat event in the life of Jesus, was full seventy miles south of the\nplace where Jesus had the conversation with his disciples, which led to\nthe remarkable display which followed a few days after, on the mountain.\nIt is true, that the intervening period of a week, was sufficient\nto enable him to travel this distance with ease; but the difficulty\nis, to assign some possible necessity or occasion for such a journey.\nCertainly, he needed not to have gone thus far to find a mountain,\nfor Caesarea Philippi itself stands by the base of Paneas, which is\na part of the great Syrian range of Antilibanus. This great mountain,\nor mountain chain, rises directly behind the city, and parts of it are\nso high above the peak of Tabor, or any other mountain in Palestine,\nas to be covered with snow, even in that warm country. The original\nreaders of the gospel story, were dwellers in Palestine, and must have\nbeen, for the most part, well acquainted with the character of the\nplaces which were the scenes of the incidents, and could hardly have\nbeen ignorant of the fact, that this splendid city, so famous as the\nmonument of royal vanity and munificence, was near the northern end of\nPalestine, and of course, must have been known even by those who had\nnever seen it, nor heard it particularly described, to be very near\nthe great Syrian mountains; so near too, as to be very high elevated\nabove the cities of the southern country, since not far from the city\ngushed out the most distant sources of the rapid Jordan. But another\ndifficulty, in respect to this journey of seventy miles to Tabor, is,\nthat while the gospels give no account of it, it is even contradicted\nby Mark\u2019s statement, that after departing from the mountain, he passed\nthrough Galilee, and came to Capernaum, which is between Tabor and\nCaesarea Philippi, twenty or thirty miles from the former, and forty\nor fifty from the latter. Now, that Jesus Christ spared no exertion of\nbody or mind, in \u201cgoing about doing good,\u201d no one can doubt; but that\nhe would spend the strength devoted to useful purposes, in traveling\nfrom one end of Galilee to the other, for no greater good than to\nascend a particular mountain, and then to travel thirty miles back on\nthe same route, is a most unnecessary tax upon our faith. But here,\nclose to Caesarea Philippi, was the mighty range of Antilibanus, known\nin Hebrew poetry by the name of Hermon in this part; and _He_, whose\npresence made all places holy, could not have chosen, among all the\nmountains of Palestine, one which nature had better fitted to impress\nthe beholder who stood on the summit, with ideas of the vast and\nsublime. Modern travelers assure us that, from the peaks behind the\ncity, the view of the lower mountains to the south,\u2015\u2015of the plain\nthrough which the young Jordan flows, soon spreading out into the broad\nsheet of lake Houle, (Samachonitis lacus,) and of the country, almost\nto lake Tiberias, is most magnificent. The precise peak which was the\nscene of the event here related, it is impossible to conjecture. It may\nhave been any one of three which are prominent: either the castle hill,\nor, farther off and much higher, Mount Bostra, once the site of a city,\nor farther still, and highest of all, Merura Jubba, which is but a few\nhours walk from the city. The general impression of the vulgar, however,\nand of those who take the traditions of the vulgar and the ignorant,\nwithout examination, has been, that Tabor was the scene of the event,\nso that, at this day, it is known among the stupid Christians of\nPalestine, by the name of the Mount of the Transfiguration. So idly\nare these foolish local traditions received, that this falsehood, so\npalpable on inspection, has been quietly handed down from traveler to\ntraveler, ever since the crusades, when hundreds of these and similar\nlocalities, were hunted up so hastily, and by persons so ill-qualified\nfor the search, that more modern investigators may be pardoned for\ntreating with so little consideration the voice of _such_ antiquity,\nwhen it is found opposed to a rational and consistent understanding\nof the gospel story. When the question was first asked, \u201cWhere is the\nmount of the transfiguration?\u201d there were enough persons interested to\nreply, \u201cMount Tabor.\u201d No reason was probably asked for the decision,\nand none was given; but as the scene was acted on a high mountain\nin Galilee, and as Tabor answered perfectly to this very simple\ndescription, and was moreover interesting on many other accounts, both\nhistorical and natural, it was adopted for the transfiguration without\nany discussion whatever, among those on the spot. Still, to learned and\ndiligent readers of the gospels, the \u2666inconsistencies of such a belief\nhave been so obvious, that many great theologians have decided, for the\nreasons here given, that the transfiguration must have taken place on\nsome part of Mount Paneas, as it was called by the Greeks and Romans,\nknown among the Jews, however, from the earliest times, by the far\nolder name of Mount HERMON. On the determination of this point, more\nwords have been expended than some may deem the matter to deserve; but\namong the various objects of the modern historian of Bible times, none\nis more important or interesting, \u2660than that of settling the often\ndisputed topography of the sacred narrative; and as the ground here\ntaken differs so widely from the almost universally received opinion,\nthe minute reasons were loudly called for, in justification of the\nauthor\u2019s boldness. The ancient blunders here detected, and shown to be\nbased only upon a guess, is a very fair specimen of the way in which,\nin the moral as in the natural sciences, \u201cthey all copy from one\nanother,\u201d without taking pains to look into the truth of small matters.\nAnd it seems to show, moreover, how, when men of patient and zealous\naccuracy, have taken the greatest pains to expose and correct so\ncauseless an error, common readers and writers too, will carelessly\nand lazily slip back into the old blunder, thus making the counsels of\nthe learned of no effect, and loving darkness rather than light, error\nrather than exactness, because they are too shiftless to find a good\nreason for what is laid down before them as truth. But so it is. It\nis, and always has been, and always will be, so much easier for men to\nswallow whole, or reject whole, the propositions made to them, that the\nvast majority had much rather believe on other people\u2019s testimony, than\ngo through the harassing and tiresome task, of looking up the proofs\nfor themselves. In this very instance, this important topographical\nblunder was fully exposed and corrected a century and a half ago, by\nLightfoot, the greatest Hebrew scholar that ever lived; and we see how\nmuch wiser the world is for his pains.\n\n \u2666 \u201cinconsistences\u201d replaced with \u201cinconsistencies\u201d\n\n \u2660 duplicate word \u201cthan\u201d removed\n\n _Caesarea Philippi._\u2015\u2015This city stood where all the common\n maps place it, in the farthest northern part of Palestine, just\n at the foot of the mountains, and near the fountain head of\n the Jordan. The name by which it is called in the gospels, is\n another instance, like Julias Bethsaida, of a compliment paid\n by the servile kings, of the divisions of Palestine, to their\n imperial masters, who had given, and who at any time could take\n away, crown and kingdom from them. The most ancient name by\n which this place is known to have been mentioned in the Hebrew\n scriptures, is _Lasha_, in Genesis x. 19, afterwards variously\n modified into _Leshem_, (Joshua xix. 47,) and _Laish_, (Judges\n xviii. 7: xiv. 29,) a name somewhat like the former in sound,\n though totally different in meaning, (\u05dc\u05e9\u05dd _leshem_, \u201ca precious\n stone,\u201d and \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9 _laish_, \u201ca lion,\u201d) undoubtedly all three being\n from the same root, but variously modified in the changing\n pronunciations of different ages and tribes. In the earliest\n passage, (Genesis x. 19,) it is clearly described as on the\n farthest northern limit of the land of Canaan, and afterwards,\n being conquered long after most of the cities of that region, by\n the tribe of Dan, and receiving the name of this tribe, as an\n addition to its former one, it became proverbially known under\n the name of _Dan_, as the farthest northern point of the land of\n Israel, as Beersheba was the southern one. It did not, however,\n lose its early Canaanitish name till long after, for, in Isaiah\n x. 30, it is spoken of under the name of Laish, as the most\n distant part of Israel, to which the cry of the distressed could\n reach. It is also mentioned under its later name of Dan, in\n Genesis xiv. 14, and Deuteronomy xxxiv. 1, where it is given by\n the writer, or some copyist, in anticipation of the subsequent\n account of its acquiring this name after the conquest. Josephus\n also mentions it, under this name, in Antiquities book i.\n chapter 10, and book viii. chapter 8, section 4, in both which\n places he speaks of it as standing at one of the sources of\n the Jordan, from which circumstance, no doubt, the latter part\n of the river\u2019s name is derived. After the overthrow of the\n Israelitish power in that region, it fell into the hands of new\n possessors, and under the Greeks and Romans, went by the name of\n Panias, (Josephus and Ptolemy,) or Paneas, (Josephus and Pliny,)\n which name, according to Ptolemy, it had under the Phoenicians.\n This name, supposed to have been taken from the Phoenician name\n of the mountain near, Josephus gives to it, in all the later\n periods of his history, until he speaks of the occasion on which\n it received a new change of name.\n\n Its commanding and remarkable position, on the extremity of\n Palestine, made it a frontier post of some importance; and it\n was therefore a desirable addition to the dominions of Herod the\n Great, who received it from his royal patron, Augustus Caesar,\n along with its adjacent region between Galilee and Trachonitis,\n after the death of Zenodorus, its former possessor. (Josephus\n Antiquities book xv. chapter 10, section 3.) Herod the Great,\n out of gratitude for this princely addition to his dominions,\n at a time when attempts were made to deprive him of his imperial\n master\u2019s favor, raised near this city, a noble monument to\n Augustus. (Josephus as above quoted.) \u201cHe built a monument to\n him, of white marble, in the land of Zenodorus, near Panium.\n There is a beautiful cave in the mountain, and beneath it there\n is a chasm in the earth, rugged, and of immense depth, full\n of still water, and over it hangs a vast mountain; and under\n the cave rise the springs of the Jordan. This place, already\n very famous, he adorned with the temple which he consecrated to\n Caesar.\u201d A lofty temple of white marble, on such a high spot,\n contrasted with the dark rocks of the mountain and cave around,\n must have been a splendid object in the distance, and a place of\n frequent resort.\n\n This city, along with the adjacent provinces, after the death\n of the first Herod, was given to his son Philip, made tetrarch\n of Iturea and Trachonitis. This prince, out of gratitude to\n the royal donor, at the same time when he rebuilt and repaired\n Bethsaida, as already mentioned, \u201calso embellished Paneas, at\n the fountains of the Jordan, and gave it the name of Caesarea.\u201d\n (Josephus Antiquities book xviii. chapter 2, section 1, also\n Jewish War, book ii. chapter 9, section 1,) and to distinguish\n it from other Caesareas, hereafter to be mentioned, it was\n called from the name of its royal builder, Caesarea Philippi,\n that is, \u201cthe Caesarea of Philip.\u201d By this name it was most\n commonly known in the time of Christ; but it did not answer the\n end of perpetuating the name of its builder and his patron, for\n it shortly afterwards recovered its former name, Paneas, which,\n probably, never went wholly out of use. As late as the time\n of Pliny, (about A.\u00a0D. 70,) Paneas was a part of the name of\n Caesarea. _Fons Paneas, qui cognomen dedit Caesareae_, \u201cthe\n fountain Paneas, which gave to Caesarea a surname.\u201d (Pliny\n Natural History book v. chapter 15,) which shows, that at that\n time, the name Paneas was one, by which even foreign geographers\n recognized this city, in spite of the imperial dignity of its\n new title. Eusebius, (about A.\u00a0D. 315,) speaks of \u201cCaesarea\n Philippi, which the Phoenicians call Paneas, at the foot\n of mount Panium.\u201d (\u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u039a\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f21\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1 \u0398\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, &c. Church History book vii. chapter 17.) Jerome,\n (about A.\u00a0D. 392,) never mentions the name Caesarea Philippi,\n as belonging to this city, except in commenting on Matthew\n xvi. 13, where he finds it necessary to explain this name, as\n an antiquated term, then out of use. _Caesaream Philippi, quae\n NUNC dicitur Paneas_, \u201cCaesarea Philippi, which is _now_ called\n Paneas;\u201d and in all the other places where he has occasion to\n mention the place, he gives it only the name of Paneas. Thus, in\n commenting on Amos viii. 14, he says, \u201cDan, on the boundary of\n the Jewish territory, where _now_ is Paneas.\u201d And on Jeremiah\n iv. 15,\u2015\u2015\u201cThe tribe Dan, near mount Lebanon, and the city which\n is _now_ called Paneas,\u201d &c.\u2015\u2015See also commentary on Daniel\n xiii. 16.\n\n After the death of Philip, this city, along with the rest of\n his dominions, was presented by Cains Caligula to Agrippa, who\n added still farther to the improvements made by Philip, more\n particularly ornamenting the Panium, or famous source of the\n Jordan, near the city, as Josephus testifies. (Jewish War, book\n iii. chapter 9, section 7.) \u201cThe natural beauty of the Panium,\n moreover, was still more highly adorned (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03be\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) with\n royal magnificence, being embellished by the wealth of Agrippa.\u201d\n This king also attempted to perpetuate the name of one of\n his imperial patrons, in connection with the city, calling it\n _Neronias_, in honor of one who is well enough known without\n this aid. (Josephus Antiquities book xx. chapter 8, section 3.)\n The perfectly transient character of this idle appellation, is\n abundantly shown from the preceding copious quotations.\n\n The city, now called Banias, (not _Belinas_, as Wahl erroneously\n says,) has been visited and examined in modern times by several\n travelers, of whom, none has described it more minutely than\n Burckhardt. His account of the mountains around the city,\n so finely illustrates my description of the scene of the\n transfiguration, that I extract largely from it here. In order\n to appreciate the description fully, it must be understood that\n _Heish_ is now the general Arabic name for the mountain chain,\n which was by ancient authors variously called Lebanon, Libanus,\n Anti-Libanus, Hermon, and Panium; for all these names have been\n given to the mountain-range, on whose slope Caesarea Philippi,\n or Paneas, stood.\n\n \u201cThe district of Banias is classic ground; it is the ancient\n _Caesarea Philippi_; the lake Houle, is the _Lacus Samachonitis_.\n Immediately after my arrival, I took a man of the village to\n shew me the way to the ruined castle of Banias, which bears\n East by South from it. It stands on the top of a mountain, which\n forms part of the mountain of Heish, at an hour and a quarter\n from Banias; it is now in complete ruins, but was once a very\n strong fortress. Its whole circumference is twenty-five minutes.\n It is surrounded by a wall ten feet thick, flanked with numerous\n round towers, built with equal blocks of stone, each about\n two feet square. The keep, or citadel, seems to have been on\n the highest summit, on the eastern side, where the walls are\n stronger than on the lower, or western side. The view from\n thence over the Houle and a part of its lake, the Djebel Safad,\n and the barren Heish, is magnificent. On the western side,\n within the precincts of the castle, are ruins of many private\n habitations. At both the western corners, runs a succession of\n dark, strongly built, low apartments, like cells, vaulted, and\n with small narrow loop holes, as if for musquetry. On this side\n also, is a well more than twenty feet square, walled in, with a\n vaulted roof at least twenty-five feet high; the well was, even\n in this dry season, full of water: there are three others in the\n castle. There are many apartments and recesses in the castle,\n which could only be exactly described by a plan of the whole\n building. It seems to have been erected during the period of\n the crusades, and must certainly have been a very strong hold\n to those who possessed it. I could discover no traces of a road\n or paved way leading up the mountain to it. In winter time,\n the shepherds of the Felahs of the Heish, who encamp upon the\n mountains, pass the night in the castle with their cattle.\n\n \u201cBanias is situated at the foot of the Heish, in the plain,\n which in the immediate vicinity of Banias is not called Ard\n Houle, but Ard Banias. It contains about one hundred and fifty\n houses, inhabited mostly by Turks: there are also Greeks, Druses,\n and Enzairie. It belongs to Hasbeya, whose Emir nominates the\n Sheikh. On the north-east side of the village, is the source\n of the river of Banias, which empties itself into the Jordan\n at the distance of an hour and a half, in the plain below. Over\n the source is a perpendicular rock, in which several niches\n have been cut to receive statues. The largest niche is above a\n spacious cavern, under which the river rises. This niche is six\n feet broad and as much in depth, and has a smaller niche in the\n bottom of it. Immediately above it, in the perpendicular face of\n the rock, is another niche, adorned with pilasters, supporting a\n shell ornament.\n\n \u201cRound the source of the river are a number of hewn stones.\n The stream flows on the north side of the village, where is\n a well built bridge, and some remains of the ancient town,\n the principal part of which seems, however, to have been on\n the opposite side of the river, where the ruins extend for a\n quarter of an hour from the bridge. No walls remain, but great\n quantities of stones and architectural fragments are scattered\n about.\n\n \u201cI went to see the ruins of the ancient city of Bostra, of which\n the people spoke much. Bostra must not be confounded with Boszra,\n in the Haouran; both places are mentioned in the Books of Moses.\n The way to the ruins lies for an hour and a half in the road by\n which I came from Rasheyat-el-Fukhar, it then ascends for three\n quarters of an hour a steep mountain to the right, on the top\n of which is the city; it is divided into two parts, the largest\n being upon the very summit, the smaller at ten minutes walk\n lower down, and resembling a suburb to the upper part. Traces\n are still visible of a paved way that had connected the two\n divisions. There is scarcely any thing in the ruins worth notice;\n they consist of the foundations of private habitations, built\n of moderate sized square stones. The lower city is about twelve\n minutes walk in circumference; a part of the four walls of one\n building only remains entire; in the midst of the ruins was\n a well, at this time dried up. The circuit of the upper city\n may be about twenty minutes; in it are the remains of several\n buildings. In the highest part is a heap of wrought stones, of\n larger dimensions than the rest, which seem to indicate that\n some public building had once stood on the spot. There are\n several columns of one foot, and of one foot and a half in\n diameter. In two different places, a short column was standing\n in the centre of a round paved area of about ten feet in\n diameter. There is likewise a deep well, walled in, but now dry.\n\n \u201cThe country around these ruins is very capable of cultivation.\n Near the lower city are groups of olive trees.\n\n \u201cI descended the mountain in the direction towards the source of\n the Jordan, and passed, at the foot of it, the miserable village\n of Kerwaya. Behind the mountain of Bostra is another, still\n higher, called Djebel Meroura Djoubba.\u201d [Burckhardt\u2019s Syria,\n pp. 37\u201242.]\n\n From Conder\u2019s Modern Traveler I also draw a sketch of other\n travelers\u2019 observations on the place and the surrounding country.\n\n \u201cBURCKHARDT, in coming from Damascus, pursued the more direct\n route taken by the caravans, which crosses the Jordan at Jacob\u2019s\n Bridge. Captains Irby and Mangles left this road at Khan Sasa,\n and passed to the westward for Panias, thus striking between the\n road to Acre, and that by Raschia and Hasbeya. The first part\n of the road from Sasa, led through a fine plain, watered by a\n pretty, winding rivulet, with numerous tributary streams, and\n many old ruined mills. It then ascended over a very rugged and\n rocky soil, quite destitute of vegetation, having in some places\n traces of an ancient paved way, \u2018probably the Roman road from\n Damascus to Caesarea Philippi.\u2019 The higher part of Djebel Sheikh\n was seen on the right. The road became less stony, and the\n shrubs increased in number, size and beauty, as they descended\n into a rich little plain, at the immediate foot of the mountain.\n \u2018From this plain,\u2019 continues captain M., \u2018we ascended, and,\n after passing a very small village, saw on our left, close to\n us, a very picturesque lake, apparently perfectly circular,\n of little more than a mile in circumference, surrounded on\n all sides by sloping hills, richly wooded. On quitting Phiala,\n at but a short distance from it, we crossed a stream which\n discharges into the larger one which we first saw: the latter\n we followed for a considerable distance; and then, mounting a\n hill to the south-west, had in view the great Saracenic castle,\n near Panias, the town of that name, and the plain of the Jordan,\n as far as the Lake Houle, with the mountains on the other\n side of the plain, forming altogether a fine _coup d\u2019\u0153il_. As\n we descended towards Panias, we found the country extremely\n beautiful. Great quantities of wild flowers, and a variety of\n shrubs, just budding, together with the richness of the verdure,\n grass, corn and beans, showed us, all at once, the beauties of\n spring, (February 24,) and conducted us into a climate quite\n different from Damascus. In the evening we entered Panias,\n crossing a causeway constructed over the rivulet, which flows\n from the foot of Djebel Sheikh. The river here rushes over great\n rocks in a very picturesque manner, its banks being covered with\n shrubs and the ruins of ancient walls.\u2019\n\n \u201cPanias, afterwards called Caesarea Philippi, has resumed its\n ancient name. The present town of Banias is small. Seetzen\n describes it as a little hamlet of about twenty miserable huts,\n inhabited by Mahomedans. The \u2018Castle of Banias\u2019 is situated\n on the summit of a lofty mountain: it was built, Seetzen says,\n without giving his authority, in the time of the caliphs.\u201d\n [Modern Traveler Vol. I. pp. 353\u20126.]\n\n The distance, in time, from Mount Tabor to Caesarea Philippi,\n may be conceived from the account given by Ebn Haukal, an\n Arabian geographer and traveler of the tenth century. He says\n \u201cfrom Tibertheh (Tiberias, which is near Tabor) to _Sur_, (Tyre,)\n is one day\u2019s journey; and from that to _Banias_, (Paneas,) is\n two day\u2019s easy journey.\u201d [Sir W. Ouseley\u2019s translation of Ebn\n Haukal\u2019s Geography, pp. 48, 49.]\n\nThis was an occasion on which Christ did not choose to display his\nglories to the eyes of the ignorant and impertinent mobs that usually\nthronged his path, drawn together as they were, by idle curiosity,\nby selfish wishes for relief from various diseases, or by the\ndetermination to profit by the mischief, which almost always results\nfrom such a promiscuous assemblage. It may be fairly considered a moral\nimpossibility, for such disorderly and spontaneous assemblies to meet,\nwithout more evils resulting, than can possibly be counterbalanced\nby the good done to the assembly as a whole, whatever it may be to\nindividuals. So, at least, Jesus Christ seems always to have thought,\nfor he never encouraged such gatherings, and took every desirable\nopportunity of getting rid of them, without injury to themselves, or of\nwithdrawing himself quietly from them, as the easiest way of dispersing\nthem; knowing how utterly hopeless must be the attempt to do any great\ngood among such a set of idlers, compared with what he might do by\nprivate and special intercourse with individuals. It is worthy of\nnote, that Matthew and all whose calls are described, were about\ntheir business. Thus, on an occasion already mentioned, when Jesus was\nwalking by the sea of Galilee, with the simple object of doing most\ngood, he did not seek among the multitude that was following him, for\nthe devoted laborers whom he might call to the great work of drawing\nin men to the knowledge of the truth as revealed in him. No: he turned\nfrom all the zealous loungers who had left their business, if they had\nany, to drag about after the wonderful man who had attracted general\nattention by his great and good deeds. He dispatched them as fast as\npossible with a few words of instruction and exhortation; for though\nhe did not seek these undesirable occasions, yet he would have been\nas much wanting in benevolence as in wisdom, if, when all the evils of\nsuch a throng had occurred by the meeting, he had not hastened to offer\nthe speediest antidote to the mischief, and the best compensation for\nthe loss of time to the company, by giving them such words of counsel,\nreproof, correction or encouragement, as, even when cast like bread\nupon the waters, or seed by the way side, might yet perchance, or by\ngrace, \u201cbe found after many days,\u201d returning to the hands of the giver,\nin gratitude, by springing up and bearing some fruit to the praise and\nglory of God. Having thus sent off the throng, he addressed himself\nto the honest men whom he had found quietly following their daily\nemployments, and immediately performed with them there, and, as is\nevident, mainly for their benefit, a most remarkable miracle; and when\nthey had been thus impressed with his power and wisdom, summoned them\nto his aid in converting the world; sagely and truly judging, that\nthose who had been faithful in few things, would be the best rulers\nover many things,\u2015\u2015that they who had steadily and faithfully worked at\ntheir proper business, had the best talent and disposition for laboring\nin a cause which needed so much patient industry and steady application\nin its devotees. These were the men whom he hoped to make by his\ninstructions, the successful founders of the Christian faith; and these\nwere the very men whom, out of thousands who longed for the honors\nof his notice, he now chose as the objects of his special instruction\nand commission, and called them apart to view the display of the most\nwonderful mystery of his life.\n\nAmong these three favored ones, we see Peter included, and his name, as\nusual, _first_ of all. By this it appears, that, however great his late\nunfortunate misapprehension of the character and office of Christ, and\nhowever he may have deserved the harsh rebuff with which his forward\nbut well meant remonstrance was met; still he was so far from having\nlost his Master\u2019s favor on this account, that he yet held the highest\nplace in the favor of Jesus, who had been moved by the exposure of\nhis favorite\u2019s ignorance, only to new efforts to give him a just and\nclear view of the important truths in which he was most deficient; for\nafter all, there was nothing _very_ surprising in Peter\u2019s mistake. In\npursuance of this design, he took these three, Peter, James and John,\nwith him, up into the high mountain peaks of Hermon, from which their\neyes might glance far south over the land of Israel\u2015\u2015the land of\ntheir fathers for ages on ages, stretching away before them for a vast\ndistance, and fancy could easily extend the view. In this land, so holy\nin the recollections of the past, so sad to the contemplation of the\npresent, were to begin their mighty labors. Here, too, bright and early,\none of the three was to end his; while his brother and friend were to\nspread their common Master\u2019s dominion over thousands and millions who\nhad never yet heard of that land, or its ancient faith. Jesus Christ\nalways sought the lonely tops of mountains, with a peculiar zest, in\nhis seasons of retirement, as well as for the most impressive displays\nof his eloquence, or his miraculous power. The obvious reasons were the\nadvantages of perfect solitude and security against sudden intrusion;\n\u2015\u2015the free, pure air of the near heaven, and the broad light of the\nimmense prospect, were powerful means of lifting the soul to a state of\nmoral sublimity, equal to the impressions of physical grandeur, made by\nthe objects around. Their most holy historical associations, moreover,\nwere connected with the tops of high mountains, removed from which, the\nmost awful scenes of ancient miracle would, to the fancy of the dweller\nof mountainous Palestine, have seemed stripped of their most imposing\naids. Sinai, Horeb, Moriah, Zion, Ebal, Gerizim and Tabor, were\nthe classic ground of Hebrew history, and to the fiery mind of the\nimaginative Israelite, their high tops seemed to tower in a religious\n\u2666sublimity, as striking and as lasting as their physical elevation.\nFrom these lofty peaks, so much nearer to the dwelling place of God,\nhis soul took a higher flight than did ever the fancy of the Greek,\nfrom the classic tops of Parnassus, Pelion, Ida, or the skyish head of\nblue Olympus; and the three humble gazers, who now stood waiting there\nwith their divine Master, felt, no doubt, their devotion proportionally\nexalted with their situation, by such associations. It was the\nsame spirit, that, throughout the ancient world, led the earliest\nreligionists to avail themselves of these physical advantages, as they\ndid in their mountain worship, and with a success just in proportion\nas the purity and sincerity of their worship, and the high character of\nits object, corresponded with the lofty grandeur of the place.\n\n \u2666 \u201csnblimity\u201d replaced with \u201csublimity\u201d\n\n \u201cNot vainly did the early Persian make\n His altar the high places, and the peak\n Of earth-o\u2019er-gazing mountains, there to seek\n The spirit, in whose honor shrines are weak,\n Upreared of human hands. Come and compare\n Columns and idol-dwellings, Goth or Greek,\n With nature\u2019s realms of worship, earth and air;\n Nor fix on fond abodes to circumscribe thy prayer.\u201d\n\nIn such a scene, and inspired by such sympathies, were the chosen three,\non this occasion. The bare details, as given in the three gospels, make\nit evident that the scene took place in the night, as will be shown\nin the course of the narrative; and this was in accordance also with\nChrist\u2019s usual custom of choosing the night, as the season of solitary\nmeditation and prayer. (Matthew xiv. 23.) Having reached the top, he\nengaged himself and them in prayer. How solemn\u2015\u2015how awful the scene!\nThe Savior of all, afar from the abodes of men, from the sound and\nsight of human cares and sins, alone with his chosen three, on the vast\nmountains, with the world as far beneath their eyes as its thoughts\nwere below their minds;\u2015\u2015in the silence of the night, with the lights\nof the city and villages faintly gleaming in the distance on the lower\nhills and the plain,\u2015\u2015with no sound near them but the murmuring of the\nnight wind about the rocks,\u2015\u2015with the dark canopy of gathering clouds\nabove them,\u2015\u2015Jesus prayed. His voice went up from this high altar of\nearth\u2019s wide temple to the throne of his Father, to whom he commended\nin words of supplication, those who were to labor for him when his\nearthly work should cease. We may well suppose that the substance\nof his prayer was, that their thoughts, before so groveling, and now\nso devotedly clinging to visions of earthly dominion and personal\naggrandizement, might \u201cleave all meaner things, to low ambition and\nthe pride of kings,\u201d and might rise, as on that high peak, from earth\ntowards heaven, to the just sense of the far higher efforts and honors\nto which they were destined. With their thoughts and feelings thus\nkindled with the holy associations of the hour, the place and the\nperson, their souls must have risen with his in that solemn and earnest\nsupplication, and their prayers for new devotion and exaltation of\nspirit must have been almost equally ardent. Probably some hours were\npassed in this employment, varied perhaps by the eloquent and pointed\ninstructions given by Jesus, to prepare these chiefs of the apostolic\nband, for the full understanding of the nature of his mission and\ntheirs. How vastly important to their success in their labors, and to\ntheir everlasting happiness, must these prayers and instructions have\nbeen! The three hearers, we may presume, gave for a long time the most\ndevoted attention which a scene so impressive could awaken; but yet\nthey were men, and weary ones too, for they had come a considerable\ndistance up a very steep way, and it was now late at night,\u2015\u2015no doubt\nlong past their bed-time. The exercise which their journey to the spot\nhad given them, was of a kind for which their previous habits of life\nhad quite unfitted them. They were all fishermen, and had dwelt all\ntheir lives in the low flat country on the shores of lake Tiberias and\nthe valley of the Jordan, where they had nothing to do with climbing\nhills. And though their constant habits of hard labor must have made\nthem stout men in their vocation, yet we all know that the muscles\ncalled into action by the management of the boat and net, are very\ndifferent from those which support and advance a man in ascending\nacclivities. Every one that has noticed the sturdy arms and slender\nlegs of most sailors, has had the practical proof, that a man may work\nall his life at pulling the seine and drag-net, hauling the ropes of a\nvessel, and tugging at the oar, without being thereby, in the slightest\ndegree, fitted for labors of a different character. The work of toiling\nup a very high, steep mountain, then, was such as all their previous\nhabits of life had wholly unfitted them for, and their over-stretched\nlimbs and bodies must have been both sore and weary, so that when they\ncame to a resting place, they very naturally were disposed to repose,\nand must have felt drowsy. In short, they fell asleep; and that too,\nas it would appear, in the midst of the prayers and counsels of their\nadorable Lord. And yet who, that considers all the reasons above given,\ncan wonder? for it is very possible for a man to feel the highest\ninterest in a subject offered to his consideration,\u2015\u2015an interest, too,\nwhich may for a long time enable a zealous mind to triumph over bodily\nincapacity,\u2015\u2015yet there is a point beyond which the most intense energy\nof mind cannot drag the sinking body, when fatigue has drained its\nstrength, which nothing but sleep can renew. Men, when thus worn down,\nwill sleep in the midst of a storm, or on the eve of certain death.\nIn such a state were the bodies of the companions of Jesus, and thus\nwearied, they slept long, in spite of the storm which is supposed by\nmany to have arisen, and to have been the immediate cause of some of\nthe striking appearances which followed. It is said by many standard\ncommentators, that the fairest account of such of the incidents as are\nconnected with natural objects, is, that a tremendous thunder-storm\ncame down upon the mountain while they were asleep, and that a loud\npeal bursting from this, was the immediate cause of their awaking. All\nthe details that are given, certainly justify the supposition. They are\ndescribed as suddenly starting from their sleep, in such a manner as\nwould naturally follow only from a loud noise violently arousing the\nslumbering senses. Awakened thus by a peal of thunder, the first sight\nthat struck their amazed eyes, was their Master, resplendent through\nthe darkness of night and storm, with a brilliant light, that so shone\nupon him and covered him, as to change his whole aspect to a degree\nof glory indescribable. To add to their amazement and dread, they saw\nthat he was not alone, but two mysterious and spiritual personages,\nannounced to them as Moses and Elijah, were now his companions, having\nfound means to join him, though high on the mighty rock, alone and in\ndarkness, so inaccessible to human approach. These two ancient servants\nof God now appeared by his beloved Son, whose labors, and doctrines\nand triumphs were so far to transcend theirs, and in the hearing of the\nthree apostles, uttered solemn words of prophecy about his approaching\ndeath, and triumph over death. The two sons of Zebedee were so startled\nas to be speechless, but the boldness and the talkativeness of Peter,\nalways so pre-eminent, enabled him, even here, to speak his deep awe\nand reverence. Yet confused with half-awakened sleep, and stunned by\nthe bursting thunder, he spoke as a man thus suddenly awaked naturally\nspeaks, scarcely separating the thoughts of his dream, from the objects\nthat met his opening eye. He said \u201cLord, it is good for us to be here;\nand if thou wilt, let us make three tabernacles, (or resting places;)\none for thee, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.\u201d These things he said\nbefore his confused thoughts could fully arrange themselves into words\nproper to express his feelings of awe, and he, half dreaming still,\nhardly knew what he said. But as he uttered these words, the dark cloud\nabove them suddenly descended upon the mountain\u2019s head, inwrapping and\novershadowing them, and amid the flash of lightnings and the roar of\nthunders, given out in the concussion, they distinguished, in no human\nvoice, these awful words, \u201cThis is my beloved Son, in whom I am well\npleased; hear ye him.\u201d Who can wonder that a phenomenon so tremendous,\nboth morally and physically, overwhelmed their senses, and, that\nalarmed beyond measure, they fell again on their faces to the earth, so\nastonished that they did not dare to rise or look up, until Jesus came\nto them and reassured them with his friendly touch, saying \u201cArise and\nbe not afraid.\u201d And lifting up their eyes, they saw no man any more,\nsave Jesus only with themselves. The whole object of their retirement\nto this solitude being now accomplished, they prepared to return to\nthose whom they had left to wonder at their strange absence. It was\nnow probably about morning; the storm was passed,\u2015\u2015the clouds had\nvanished,\u2015\u2015the thunder was hushed, and the cheerful sun now shone on\nmountain and plain, illuminating their downward path towards the city,\nand inspiring their hearts with the joyous emotions suited to their\nenlarged views of their Lord\u2019s kingdom, and their own duties. As they\nwent down, Jesus charged them to tell no man what things they had seen,\ntill he, the son of man, rose from the dead. And they kept it close,\nand told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.\nBut they questioned much with one another what the rising from the dead\nshould mean. So that it appears, that after all the repeated assurances\nJesus had given them of the certainty of this event, they had never put\nany clear and definite meaning upon his words, and were still totally\nin the dark as to their essential import. This proof of their continued\nignorance serves to confirm the view already taken of the way in which\nthey understood, or rather misunderstood, the previous warning of\nthe same event, in connection with his charge and rebuke of Peter.\nIn connection also with what they had seen on the mountain, and the\ninjunction of secrecy, another question arose, why they could not be\nallowed to speak freely on the subject. \u201cFor if they had now distinctly\nseen the prophet Elijah returned from the other world, as it appeared,\nwhy could they not properly announce publicly, so important and\ndesirable an event? Else, why did the Jewish teachers say that Elijah\nmust first come before the Messiah? And why, then, should they not\nfreely offer their testimony of his presence with Jesus on this\noccasion, as the most satisfactory proof of his Messiahship?\u201d The\nanswer of Jesus very clearly informed them that they were not to\nconsider this vision as having any direct connection with the prophecy\nrespecting Elijah\u2019s re-appearance, to precede and aid the true Messiah\nin the establishment of the ancient Jewish dominion; but that all that\nwas intended in that prophecy had been fully brought to pass in the\ncoming of John the Baptist, who, in the spirit and power of Elijah,\nhad already run his bright but brief course as the Messiah\u2019s precursor.\nWith such interesting conversation they continued their course in\nreturning towards the city. The way in which Luke here expresses\nthe circumstances of the time of their return, is the last and most\nsatisfactory proof to be offered of the fact, that their visit to the\nmountain had been in the night. His words are, \u201cAnd it came to pass\nthat on the next day, when they came down from the mountain, a large\nmultitude met them,\u201d &c. This shows that they did not go and return\nthe same day, between sunrise and sunset; and the only reasonable\nsupposition left to agree with the other circumstances, is, that they\nwent at evening, and returned early in the morning of the next day.\nAfter their descent, they found that the remaining disciples had been\nmaking an unsuccessful attempt to relieve a lunatic person, who was\nrelieved, however, at a word, as soon as brought to Jesus himself. They\ncontinued no very long time in this part of Galilee, after these events,\nbut journeyed slowly southwards, towards the part which Jesus had\nformerly made his home. This journey was made by him with particular\ncare to avoid public notice, and it is particularly expressed by Mark\nthat he went on this homeward journey through by-ways or less public\nroads than usual. For as he went, he renewed the sad warning, that\nhe was in constant danger of being given up into the hands of the\nwicked men, who feeling reproved and annoyed by his life and doctrine,\nearnestly desired his death; and that soon their malice would be\nfor a time successful, but that after they had done their worst, he\nshould at last triumph over them. Still this assurance, obvious as its\nmeaning may now seem to us, was not understood by them, and though they\npuzzled themselves extremely about it, they evidently considered their\nignorance as of a somewhat justly blamable nature, for they dared not\nask for a new explanation. This passage still farther shows, how far\nthey must have been from rightly appreciating his first declaration on\nthis subject. Having followed the less direct routes, for these reasons,\nhe came, (doing much good on the journey, no doubt, in a quiet and\nunnoticed way, as we know he always did,) to Capernaum, which he\nstill regarded as his home; and here again, as formerly, went directly\nto the house of Simon Peter, which he is represented as entering on\nhis first arrival in the city, in such a way as to show that there was\nhis dwelling, and a welcome entertainment. Indeed we know of no other\nfriend whom he had in Capernaum, with whom he was on such terms of\nintimacy, and we cannot suppose that he kept house by himself,\u2015\u2015for\nhis relations had never yet removed from Nazareth.\n\n Of the scenes of the transfiguration, so great a variety of\n opinions have been entertained, that it would be impossible for\n me to discuss the various views within my narrow limits. The\n old speculations on the subject are very fully given in Poole\u2019s\n Synopsis, and the modern ones by Kuinoel, who mentions a vast\n number of German writers, of whom few of us have ever seen even\n the names elsewhere.\n\n The view which I have taken is not peculiar to me, but is\n supported by many high authorities, and is in accordance with\n what seemed to me the simplest and fairest construction which\n could be put upon the facts, after a very full and minute\n consideration of the various circumstances, chronologically,\n topographically and grammatically. It should be noticed that\n my arrangement of the facts in reference to the time of day,\n is this. Jesus and the three disciples ascended the mountain\n in the evening, about sunset, remained there all night during\n a thunder-storm, and returned the next morning.\n\n\n THE TRIBUTE MONEY.\n\nOn the occasion of his return and entrance into Peter\u2019s house, a new\ninstance occurred both of his wisdom and his special regard for this\napostle. Some of those who went about legally authorized to collect\nthe tax due from all conforming Jews, to defray the expenses of the\ntemple-worship at Jerusalem, appear to have been waiting for Christ\u2019s\nreturn from this journey, to call on him for his share, if he were\nwilling to pay it as a good Jew. They seem to have had some doubts,\nhowever, as to the manner in which so eminent a teacher would receive\na call to pay those taxes, from which he might perhaps deem himself\nexempted by his religious rank, more especially as he had frequently\ndenounced, in the most unmeasured terms, all those concerned in the\nadministration of the religious affairs of the Jewish nation. As soon\nas he had returned, therefore, they took the precaution to make the\ninquiry of Peter, as the well-known intimate of Jesus, \u201cDoth not your\nMaster pay tribute?\u201d Peter, knowing well the steady, open reverence\nwhich Jesus always manifested for all the established usages of his\ncountry, readily and unhesitatingly answered \u201cYes.\u201d And when he was\ncome into the house, and was upon the point of proposing the matter to\nhim, Jesus anticipated him, saying, \u201cHow thinkest thou, Simon? of whom\ndo the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children,\nor of the children of others?\u201d Peter says, \u201cFrom others\u2019 children.\u201d\nJesus says again to him, \u201cThen are the children free.\u201d That is: \u201cIf,\nwhen the kings and rulers of the nations gather their taxes, for the\nsupport of their royal state and authority, they pass over their own\nchildren untaxed, as a thing of course, then I, the son of that God\nwho is the eternal king of Israel, am fairly exempt from the payment of\nthe sum due from other Jews, for the support of the ceremonials of my\nFather\u2019s temple in Jerusalem.\u201d Still he did not choose to avail himself\nof this honorable pretext, but went on to tell Simon, \u201cNevertheless,\nlest we should give needless occasion for offense, we will pay what\nthey exact; and for this purpose, go thou to the sea, and take up the\nfish that comes up first; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou\nshalt find a piece of money; take that and give it them for me and\nthee.\u201d\n\n _Anticipated him._\u2015\u2015This word I substitute in the place of\n \u201c_prevented_\u201d which is the expression used in our common English\n Bible, and which in the changes of modern usage has entirely\n lost the signification which it had when the translators\n applied it to this passage. The Greek word here is \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd,\n (_proephthasen_,) and literally means \u201cforespake\u201d or \u201cspake\n before\u201d him. This was the idea which the English translators\n wished to express by the word \u201c_prevented_,\u201d whose true original\n meaning is \u201canticipated,\u201d or \u201cwas beforehand with him,\u201d being\n in Latin compounded of the words _prae_, \u201cbefore,\u201d and _venio_,\n \u201ccome.\u201d Among the numerous conveniences of Webster\u2019s improved\n edition of the Bible, for popular use, is the fact that in this\n and similar passages he has altered the obsolete expression, and\n changed it for a modern one, which is just and faithful to the\n original idea. In this passage I find he has very properly given\n the word above suggested, without my knowledge of the\n coincidence.\n\n _Of the children of others._\u2015\u2015This expression too is a variation\n from the common English translation, which here expresses itself\n so vaguely, that a common reader can get no just idea whatever\n of the passage, and is utterly unable to find the point of the\n allusion. The Greek word is \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, (_allotrion_,) which is\n simply the genitive plural of an adjective, which means \u201cof,\n or belonging to others,\u201d and is secondarily applied also to\n \u201cstrangers, foreigners,\u201d &c., as persons \u201cbelonging to other\n lands;\u201d but the primary meaning is absolutely necessary to be\n given here, in order to do justice to the sense, since the idea\n is not that they take tribute money of foreigners rather than of\n their own subjects; but of their subjects rather than of their\n own children, who are to enjoy the benefit of the taxation.\n\n _A piece of money._\u2015\u2015The term thus vaguely rendered, is in\n Greek \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, (_stater_,) which was a coin of definite value,\n being worth among the Jews about four attic drachms, and exactly\n equivalent to their shekel, a little more than half a dollar of\n federal money. The tax here paid was the half-shekel tax, due\n from every Jew for the service of the temple, so that the \u201cpiece\n of money,\u201d being one shekel, was just sufficient to pay for\n both Jesus and Peter. The word translated \u201cthe tribute money\u201d\n (in verse 24) is equally definite in the Greek,\u2015\u2015\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd,\n (_didrachmon_,) equivalent to the Jewish _half_-shekel, and\n being itself worth half a _stater_. The stater, however, as a\n name for Attic and Byzantine _gold_ coins, was equivalent to\n twenty or thirty times the value of the shekel. (See Stephens\u2019s\n Thesaurus, Donnegan\u2019s, Jones\u2019s and Pickering\u2019s Lexicons.) On\n this passage see Hammond\u2019s Annotations, which are here quite\n full on values. See too, Lightfoot\u2019s Horae Hebraica on Matthew\n xvii. 25. Macknight\u2019s Paraphrase, Poole and Kuinoel, for a very\n full account of the matter. Also my note on page 32.\n\n There have been two different accounts of this little\n circumstance among commentators, some considering the tribute\n money to have been a Roman tax, and others taking the ground\n which I do, that it was the Jewish tax for the expenses of the\n temple-worship. The reasons may be found at great length, in\n some of the authorities just quoted; and it may be remarked\n that the point of the allusion in Jesus\u2019s question to Peter,\n is all lost on the supposition of a Roman tax; for how could\n Jesus claim exemption as a son of the Roman emperor, as he\n justly could from the Jewish tax for the service of the heavenly\n king, his Father? The correspondence of values too, with the\n half-shekel tax, is another reason for adopting that view; nor\n is there any objection to it, except the circumstance, that the\n time at which this tax is supposed to have been demanded, does\n not agree with that to which the collection of the temple-tax\n was limited. (Exodus xxx. 13, and Lightfoot on Matthew xvii. 24.)\n\n\n THE QUESTION OF SUPERIORITY.\n\nSoon after the last mentioned event, there arose a discussion among the\napostles, as to who should have the highest rank in the administration\nof the government of the Messiah\u2019s kingdom, when it should be finally\ntriumphantly established. The question shows how pitiably deficient\nthey still were, in a proper understanding of the nature of the cause\nto which they were devoted; but the details of this circumstance may be\ndeferred to a more appropriate place, under the lives of the persons,\nwho, by their claims, afterwards originated a similar discussion, in\nconnection with which this may be most properly mentioned. However, it\ncannot be amiss to remark here, that the very fact of such a discussion\nhaving arisen, shows, that no one supposed that, from the peculiar\ndistinctions already conferred on Peter, he was entitled to the\nassumption of anything like _power_ over the rest of the twelve, or\nthat anything else than a peculiar regard of Christ for him, and a\nconfidence in his zeal and ability to advance the great cause, was\nexpressed in his late honorable and affectionate declaration to him.\nThe occurrence of this discussion is also a high and satisfactory proof\nof Peter\u2019s modest and unassuming disposition; for had he maintained\namong the apostles the authority and rank which his Master\u2019s decided\npreference might seem to warrant, these high pretensions of the sons of\nZebedee would not have been thus put forward against one so secure in\nChrist\u2019s favor by high talents, and long habits of close intimacy.\n\n\n THE RULE OF BROTHERLY FORBEARANCE.\n\nThe next occasion on which the name of Peter is mentioned in the\ngospels, is his asking Jesus, \u201chow many times he should forgive an\noffending brother? If the brother should repeat the offense _seven_\ntimes, should he each time accord him the forgiveness asked?\u201d This\nquestion was suggested to Peter\u2019s mind, by the rules which Christ had\njust been giving his disciples, for the preservation of harmony, and\nfor the redress of mutual grievances among them. His charge to them on\nthis subject, injoined the repeated exercise of forbearance towards a\nbrother who had trespassed, and urged the surrender of every imagined\nright of private redress, to the authority and sanction of the common\nassembly of the apostles. The absolute necessity of some such rule,\nfor the very existence of the apostles\u2019 union, was plain enough. They\nwere men, with all the passions and frailties of common, uneducated\nmen, and with all the peculiar, fervid energy, which characterizes\nthe physiology of the races of south-western Asia. From the constant\nattrition of such materials, no doubt individually discordant in\ntemperament and constitution, how could it be hoped, that in the\ncommon course of things, there would not arise frequent bursts of human\npassion, to mar or hinder the divine work which brought them together?\nWith a most wise providence for these liabilities to disagreement,\nJesus had just arranged a principle of reference and quiet decision, in\nall cases of dispute in which the bond of Christian fellowship would be\nstrained or broken. His charge to them, all and each, was this: \u201cIf thy\nbrother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between\nthee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother;\nbut if he will not hear thee, take with thee on thy second call, one or\ntwo more, that, according to the standard forms of the Mosaic law, by\nthe mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And\nif he shall refuse to hear them, tell it at last to the common assembly\nof the apostles; and after they have given their decision in favor\nof the justice of the complaint and demand, if he still maintain his\nenmity and wrong against thee, thou art no longer held by the apostolic\npledge to treat him with brotherly regard; but having slighted all\nfriendly advice, and the common sentiment of the brethren, he has lost\nthe privilege of their fellowship, and must be to thee as one of the\nlow world around him\u2015\u2015a heathen and an outcast Jew.\u201d On this occasion,\nalso, he renewed to them all, the commission to bind and loose, which\nhe had before particularly delivered only to Peter. As he had, in\nspeaking of the treatment, made abundant requisitions for the exercise\nof forbearance, without mentioning the proper limit to these acts of\nforgiveness, Peter now put his question: \u201cIf my brother sin against me\nseven times, and as often make the reparation which I may honestly ask,\nshall I continue to forgive him?\u201d That is, \u201cShall I not seem, by these\nrepeated acts of forbearance, at last to be offering him inducements\nto offend against one so placable? And if these transgressions are\nthus enormously multiplied, will it not be right that I should withhold\nthe kind consideration which is made of so little account?\u201d The answer\nof Jesus is, \u201cI say to thee, not merely till seven times, but till\nseventy times seven.\u201d That is, \u201cTo your forbearance towards an erring\nand returning Christian brother, there should be no limit but his own\nobstinate adhesion to his error. In coming out from the world to follow\nme, you have given up your natural rights to avenge, either legally or\npersonally, those injuries which pass the bounds of common forbearance.\nThe preservation of perfect harmony in the new community to which\nyou have joined yourself, is of so much importance to the triumphant\nadvancement of our cause, as to require justly all these sacrifices\nof personal ill-will.\u201d With his usual readiness in securing an abiding\nremembrance of his great leading rules of action, Jesus, on this\noccasion, concluded the subject with illustrating the principle,\nby a beautiful parable or story; a mode of instruction, far more\nimpressive to the glowing imagination of the oriental, than of the\nmore calculating genius of colder races.\n\n This inquiry may have been suggested to Peter by a remark made\n by Christ, which is not given by Matthew as by Luke, (xvii. 4.)\n \u201cIf he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times\n turn again, &c. thou shalt forgive him.\u201d So Maldorat suggests,\n but it is certainly very hard to bring these two accounts to\n a minute harmony, and I should much prefer to consider Luke as\n having given a general statement of Christ\u2019s doctrine, without\n referring to the occasion or circumstances, while Matthew\n has given a more distinct account of the whole matter. The\n discrepancy between the two accounts has seemed so great, that\n the French harmonists, Newcome, LeClerc, Macknight, Thirlwall,\n and Bloomfield, consider them as referring to totally different\n occasions,\u2015\u2015that in Matthew occurring in Capernaum, but that\n in Luke, after his journey to Jerusalem to the feast of the\n tabernacles. But the utter absence of all chronological order in\n the greater part of Luke\u2019s gospel, is enough to make us suspect,\n that the event he alludes to may coincide with that of Matthew\u2019s\n story, since the amount of the precept, and the general form of\n expression, is the same in both cases. This is the view taken by\n Rosenmueller, Kuinoel, Vater, Clarke, Paulus, and which seems to\n be further justified by the consideration, that the repetition\n of the precept must have been entirely unnecessary, after having\n been so clearly laid down, and so fully re-examined in answer to\n Peter\u2019s inquiry, as given by Matthew.\n\n _Seven times._\u2015\u2015This number was a general expression among\n the Hebrews for a frequent repetition, and was perfectly vague\n and indefinite as to the number of repetitions, as is shown\n in many instances in the Bible where it occurs. _Seventy times\n seven_, was another expression of the recurrences carried to\n a superlative number, and is also a standard Hebraism, (as in\n Genesis iv. 24.) See Poole, Lightfoot, Clarke, Scott, and other\n commentators, for Rabbinical illustrations of these phrases.\n\n _A heathen and an outcast._\u2015\u2015This latter expression I have\n chosen, as giving best the full force of the name _publican_,\n which designated a class of men among the Jews, who were\n considered by all around them as having renounced national\n pride, honor and religion, for the base purpose of worldly gain;\n serving under the Roman government as tax-gatherers, that is,\n hiring the taxes of a district, which they took by paying the\n government a definite sum, calculating to make a rich profit\n on the bargain by systematic extortion and oppression. The\n name, therefore, was nearly synonymous with the modern word\n renegade,\u2015\u2015one who, for base motives, has renounced the creed\n and customs of his fathers.\n\n\n THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM.\n\nThe occurrence which occasioned this discussion, took place at\nCapernaum, where Jesus seems to have resided with his apostles for\nsome time after his northern tour to Caesarea Philippi, giving them,\nas opportunity suggested, a great number and variety of practical\ninstructions. At length he started with them, on his last journey\nto Jerusalem, the only one which is recorded by the first three\nevangelists, although John gives us accounts of three previous visits\nto the Jewish capital. On this journey, while he was passing on to\nJerusalem, by a somewhat circuitous course, through that portion of\nJudea which lies east of the Jordan, he had taken occasion to remark,\n(in connection with the disappointment of the rich young man, who could\nnot give up his wealth for the sake of the gospel,) how hard it was for\nthose that had riches, and put their trust in them, to join heartily\nin the promotion of the cause of Christ, or share in the honors of its\nsuccess. Peter, then, speaking for himself and the faithful few who\nhad followed Jesus thus far through many trials, to the risk and loss\nof much worldly profit, reminded Jesus of what they had given up for\nhis sake. \u201cBehold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee. What shall\nwe have therefore?\u201d The solemn and generous assurance of Jesus, in\nreply, was, that those who had followed him thus, should, in the final\nestablishment of his kingdom, when he should receive the glories of his\ntriumph, share in the highest gifts which he, conqueror of all, could\nbestow. Then, those who had forsaken kindred and lands for his sake,\nshould find all these sacrifices made up to them, in the enjoyment of\nrewards incalculably beyond those earthly comforts in value.\n\nThis conversation took place, just about as they were passing the\nJordan, into the western section of Judea, near the spot where Joshua\nand the Israelitish host of old passed over to the conquest of Canaan.\nA little before they reached Jericho, Jesus took a private opportunity\nto renew to the twelve his oft repeated warning of the awful events,\nnow soon to happen after his entry into Jerusalem. \u201cBehold, we go up\nto Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be betrayed to the chief priests\nand to the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death. And they shall\ndeliver him to the heathen, to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify\nhim; and the third day, he shall rise again.\u201d Yet, distinct as was\nthis declaration, and full as the prediction was in these shocking\nparticulars, Luke assures us, that \u201cthey understood none of these\nthings; and this saying was hid from them; neither knew they the things\nwhich were spoken.\u201d Now, we cannot easily suppose that they believed\nthat he, to whom they had so heartily and confidently devoted their\nlives and fortunes, was trying their feelings by an unnecessary fiction,\nso painful in its details. The only just supposition which we can make,\nthen, is that they explained all these predictions to themselves, in\na way best accordant with their own notions of the kingdom which the\nMessiah was to found, and on the hope of whose success they had staked\nall. The account of his betrayal, ill-treatment, and disgraceful death,\nthey could not literally interpret, as the real doom which awaited\ntheir glorious and mighty Lord; it could only mean, to them, that for a\nbrief space, the foes of the Son of God were to gain a seeming triumph\nover the hosts that were to march against Jerusalem, to seat him on\nthe throne of David. The traitorous heads of the Jewish faith, the\nmembers of the great Sanhedrim, the hypocritical Pharisees, and the\nlying, avaricious lawyers, would, through cowardice, selfishness, envy,\njealousy, or some other meanness, basely conspire to support their\ncompound tyranny, by attempting to crush the head of the new faith,\nwith the help of their Roman masters, whom they would summon to the aid\nof their falling power. This unpatriotic and treacherous effort would\nfor a time seem to be perfectly successful, but only long enough for\nthe traitors to fill up the measure of their iniquities. Then, vain\nwould be the combined efforts of priest and soldier,\u2015\u2015of Jewish and of\nRoman power. Rising upon them, like life from the dead, the Son of God\nshould burst forth in the might of his Father,\u2015\u2015he should be revealed\nfrom heaven with ten thousand angels, and recalling his scattered\nfriends, who might have been for a moment borne down before the iron\nhosts of Rome, he should sweep every foreign master, and every domestic\nreligious tyrant, from Israel\u2019s heritage, setting up a throne, whose\nsway should spread to the uttermost parts of the earth, displacing\neven the deep-rooted hold of Roman power. What then, would be the fate\nof the faithful Galileans, who, though few and feeble, had stood by\nhim through evil and good report, risking all on his success? When\nthe grinding tyranny of the old Sanhedrim had been overthrown, and\nchief priests, scribes, Pharisees, lawyers, and all, displaced from\nthe administration, the chosen ones of his own early adoption, his\ncountrymen, and intimate companions for years, would be rewarded,\nsitting on twelve thrones, judging the ransomed and victorious twelve\ntribes of Israel. Could they doubt their Lord\u2019s ability for this\nglorious, this miraculous \u2666achievement? Had they not seen him maintain\nhis claim for authority over the elements, over diseases, over the dark\nagencies of the demoniac powers, and over the mighty bonds of death\nitself? And could not the same power achieve the still less wonderful\nvictory over the opposition of these unworthy foes? It was natural,\nthen, that, with the long cherished hopes of these dazzling triumphs in\ntheir minds, the twelve apostles, though so often and so fully warned\nof approaching evils, should thus unsuspectingly persist in their\nmistake, giving every terrible word of Jesus such a turn as would\nbest confirm their baseless hopes. Even Peter, already sternly rebuked\nfor his forward effort to exalt the ambition of Jesus, above even the\ntemporary disgrace which he seemed to foreordain for himself,\u2015\u2015and so\nfavored with the private instructions and counsels of his master, thus\nerred,\u2015\u2015even James and John, also sharers in the high confidence and\nfavor of Jesus, though thus favored and taught, were immediately after\nbrought under his deserved censure for their presumptuous claims for\nthe ascendency, which so moved the wrath of the jealous apostles, who\nwere all alike involved in this monstrous and palpable misconception.\nNor yet can we justly wonder at the infatuation to which they were\nthus blindly given up, knowing as we do, that, in countless instances,\nsimilar error has been committed on similar subjects, by men similarly\ninfluenced. What Biblical commentary, interpretation, introduction,\nharmony, or criticism, from the earliest Christian or Rabbinic fathers,\nto the theological schemer of the latest octavo, does not bear sad\nwitness on its pages, to the wonderful infatuation which can force upon\nthe plainest and clearest declaration, a version elaborately figurative\nor painfully literal, just as may most comfortably cherish and confirm\na doctrine, or notion, or prejudice, which the writer would fain \u201cadd\nto the things which are written in the book?\u201d Can it be reasonably\nhoped, then, that this untaught effort to draw out the historical truth\nof the gospel, will be an exception to this harshly true judgment on\nthe good, the learned, and the critical of past ages?\n\n \u2666 \u201cachievment\u201d replaced with \u201cachievement\u201d\n\n\n THE ENTRY INTO THE CITY.\n\nWith these fruitless admonitions to his followers, Jesus passed on\nthrough Jericho to Bethphage, on the verge of the holy city. Here, the\nenthusiastic and triumphant rejoicings, which the presence of their\nMaster called forth, from the multitudes who were then swarming to\nJerusalem from all parts of Palestine, must have lifted up the hearts\nof the apostles, with high assurance of the nearness of the honors for\nwhich they had so long looked and waited. Their irrepressible joy and\nexultation burst out in songs of triumph, as Jesus, after the manner of\nthe ancient judges of Israel, rode into the royal seat of his fathers.\nAnd as he went down the descent of the Mount of Olives, to go into the\ncity, the whole train of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God,\nwith a loud voice, for all the mighty works that they had seen; saying,\n\u201cBlessed be the KING of Israel, that cometh in the name of the Lord!\nPeace in heaven! Glory in the highest! Blessed be the kingdom of our\nfather David! Hosanna!\u201d These acclamations were raised by the disciples,\nand heartily joined in by the multitudes who knew his wonderful works,\nand more especially those who were acquainted with the very recent\nmiracle of raising Lazarus. A great sensation of wonder was created\nthroughout the city, by such a burst of shouts from a multitude,\nsweeping in a long, imposing train, with palm branches in their\nhands, down the mountain, on which they could have been seen all over\nJerusalem. As he entered the gates, all the city was moved to say, \u201cWho\nis this?\u201d And the rejoicing multitude said, \u201cThis is Jesus, the prophet\nof Nazareth in Galilee.\u201d What scorn did not this reply awaken in many\nof the haughty aristocrats of Jerusalem, to learn that all this solemn\nparade had been got up for no better purpose than merely to honor a\ndweller of that outcast region of mongrels, Galilee! And of all places,\nthat this prophet, so called, should have come from Nazareth! A prophet\nfrom Galilee, indeed! Was it from this half-heathen district, that the\nfavored inhabitants of the capital of Judaism were to receive a teacher\nof religion? Were the strict faith, and the rigid observances of their\nlearned and devout, to be displaced by the presumptuous reformations\nof a self-taught prophet, from such a country? Swelling with these\nfeelings, the Pharisees could not repress a remonstrance with Jesus,\nagainst these noisy proceedings. But he, evidently affected with\npleasure at the honest tribute thus wrung out in spite of sectional\nfeeling, forcibly asserted the propriety and justice of this free\noffering of praise. \u201cI tell you, that if these should hold their peace,\nthe stones would immediately cry out.\u201d\n\n _With palm-branches in their hands._\u2015\u2015This tree, the emblem of\n joy and triumph in every part of the world where it is known,\n was the more readily adopted on this occasion, by those who\n thronged to swell the triumphal train of Jesus of Nazareth,\n because the palm grew along the way-side where they passed,\n and the whole mount was hardly less rich in this than in the\n far famed olive from which it drew its name. A proof of the\n abundance of the palm-trees on Olivet is found in the name\n of the village of Bethany, \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d7\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9, (_beth-hene_,) \u201c_house of\n dates_,\u201d which shows that the tree which bore this fruit must\n have been plentiful there. The people, as they passed on with\n Jesus from this village whence he started to enter the city,\n would therefore find this token of triumph hanging over their\n heads, and shading their path every where within reach, and\n the emotions of joy at their approach to the city of God in the\n company of this good and mighty prophet, prompted them at once\n to use the expressive emblems which hung so near at hand; and\n which were alike within the reach of those who journeyed with\n Jesus, and those who came forth from the city to meet and escort\n him in. The presence of these triumphal signs would, of course,\n remind them at once of the feast of the tabernacles, the day on\n which, in obedience to the Mosaic statute, all the dwellers of\n the city were accustomed to go forth to the mount, and bring\n home these branches with songs of joy. (Leviticus xxiii. 40,\n Nehemiah viii. 15, 16.) The remembrance of this festival at\n once recalled also the beautifully appropriate words of the\n noble national and religious hymn, which they always chanted in\n praise of the God of their fathers on that day, (see Kuinoel,\n Rosenmueller, Wolf, &c.) and which was so peculiarly applicable\n to him who now \u201ccame in the name of the Lord,\u201d to honor and to\n bless his people. (Psalm cxviii. 26.)\n\n _The descent of the Mount of Olives._\u2015\u2015To imagine this scene,\n with something of the force of reality, it must be remembered\n that the Mount of Olives, so often mentioned in the scenes of\n Christ\u2019s life, rose on the eastern side of Jerusalem beyond the\n valley of the Kedron, whose little stream flowed between this\n mountain and Mount Moriah, on which the temple stood. Mount\n Olivet was much higher than any part of the city within the\n walls, and the most commanding and satisfactory view of the holy\n city which modern travelers and draughtsmen have been able to\n present to us in a picture, is that from the more than classic\n summit of this mountain. The great northern road passing through\n Jericho, approaches Jerusalem on its north-eastern side, and\n comes directly over the top of Olivet, and as it mounts the\n ridge, it brings the holy city in all its glory, directly on the\n traveler\u2019s view.\n\n _Hosanna._\u2015\u2015This also is an expression taken from the same\n festal hymn, (Psalm cxviii. 25,) \u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d4\u05be\u05e0\u05d0 (_hoshia-na_) a pure\n Hebrew expression, as Drusius shows, and not Syriac, (See\n Poole\u2019s Synopsis on Matthew xxi. 9,) but corrupted in the vulgar\n pronunciation of this frequently repeated hymn, into Hosanna.\n The meaning of the Hebrew is \u201csave him\u201d or \u201cbe gracious to him,\u201d\n that is in connection with the words which follow in the gospel\n story, \u201cBe gracious, O Lord, to the son of David.\u201d This is the\n same Hebrew phrase which, in the psalm above quoted, (verse 25,)\n is translated \u201cSave now.\u201d The whole expression was somewhat like\n the English \u201cGod save the king,\u201d in its import.\n\n _Nazareth._\u2015\u2015This city, in particular, had an odious name,\n for the general low character of its inhabitants. The passage\n in John i. 46, shows in what estimation this city and its\n inhabitants were held, by their own neighbors in Galilee; and\n the great scorn with which all Galileans were regarded by the\n Jews, must have redoubled their contempt of this poor village,\n so despised even by the despicable. The consequence was that the\n Nazarenes acquired so low a character, that the name became a\n sort of byword for what was mean and foolish. (See Kuinoel on\n Matthew ii. 23, John i. 46. Also Rosenmueller on the former\n passage and Bloomfield on the latter.)\n\n _Galilee._\u2015\u2015In order to appreciate fully, the scorn and\n suspicion with which the Galileans were regarded by the citizens\n of Jerusalem, a complete view of their sectional peculiarities\n would be necessary. Such a view will hereafter be given in\n connection with a passage which more directly refers to those\n peculiarities, and more especially requires illustration and\n explanation.\n\n\n THE BLIGHTING OF THE FIG-TREE.\n\nHaving thus, by his public and triumphant entrance into Jerusalem,\ndefied and provoked the spite of the higher orders, while he secured an\nattentive hearing from the common people, when he should wish to teach\nthem,\u2015\u2015Jesus retired at evening, for the sake of quiet and comfort,\nto the house of his friends, Lazarus, Mary and Martha, at Bethany, in\nthe suburbs. The next morning, as he was on his way with his disciples,\ncoming back from this place to Jerusalem, hungry with the fatigues of\nhis long walk, he came to a fig-tree, near the path, hoping to find\nfruit for his refreshment, as it seemed from a distance flourishing\nwith abundance of leaves, and was then near the season of bearing.\nBut when he came near, he found nothing but leaves on it, for it was\nsomewhat backward, and its time of producing figs was not yet. And\nJesus, seizing the opportunity of this disappointment to impress his\ndisciples with his power, personifying the tree, denounced destruction\nagainst it. \u201cMay no man eat fruit of thee hereafter, forever.\u201d And his\ndisciples heard it. They returned to Bethany, as usual, that evening,\nto pass the night,\u2015\u2015but as they passed, probably after dark, they took\nno notice of the fig-tree. But the next morning, as they went back to\nthe city, they saw that it had dried up from the roots. Simon Peter,\nalways ready to notice the instances of his Master\u2019s power, called\nout in surprise to Jesus, to witness the effect of his malediction\nupon its object. \u201cMaster, behold, the fig-tree which thou didst curse,\nis withered away.\u201d Jesus noticing their amazement at the apparent\neffect of his words, in so small a matter, took occasion to turn\ntheir attention to other and higher objects of faith, on which they\nmight exert their zeal in a spirit, not of withering denunciation and\ndestroying wrath, such as they had seen so tremendously efficient in\nthis case, but in the spirit of love and forgiveness, as well as of the\nholy energy that could overthrow and overcome difficulties, not less\nthan to uproot Mount Olivet from its everlasting base and hurl it into\nthe sea.\n\n\n THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SECTARIES.\n\nThe disciples steadily remained the diligent and constant attendants of\ntheir heavenly teacher, in his long and frequent seasons of instruction\nin the temple, where he boldly met the often renewed attacks of his\nvarious adversaries, whether Herodians, scribes, Pharisees or Sadducees,\nand in spite of their long-trained subtleties, beat them out and out,\nwith the very weapons at which they thought themselves so handy. The\ndisplay of genius, of taste, of learning, of ready and sarcastic wit,\nand of heart-searching acuteness, was so amazing and super-human, that\nthese few days of open discussion established his divinely intellectual\nsuperiority over all the elaborate science of his accomplished\nopponents, and at the same time secured the fulfilment of his destiny,\nby the spite and hatred which their repeated public defeats excited in\nthem. Imagine their rage. Exposed thus before the people, by whom they\nhad hitherto been regarded as the sole depositaries of learning, and\nadored as the fountains of right, they saw all their honors and power,\nto which they had devoted the intense study of their whole lives,\nsnatched coolly and easily from them, by a nameless, untaught pretender,\nwho was able to hold them up, baffled and disgraced, for the amusement\nof the jeering multitude. Here was ground enough for hatred;\u2015\u2015the\nhatred of conceited and intolerant false learning, against the\ndiscerning soul that had stripped and humbled it;\u2015\u2015the hatred of\nconfident ambition against the heroic energy which had discomfited it,\nand was doing much to free a long enslaved people from the yoke which\nformal hypocrisy and empty parade had long laid on them. And again,\nthe intolerable thought that all this heavy disgrace had been brought\non the learned body of Judaism by a Galilean! a mere carpenter of\nthe lowest orders, who had come up to Jerusalem followed by a select\ntrain of rude fishermen and outcast publicans;\u2015\u2015and who, not being\nable to command a single night\u2019s lodging in the city, was in the\nhabit of boarding and lodging in a paltry suburb, on the charity of\nsome personal friends, from which place he quietly walked in for the\ndistance of two miles every morning, to triumph over the palace-lodged\nheads of the Jewish faith. From such a man, thus humbly and even\npitiably circumstanced, such an invasion and overthrow could not\nbe endured; and his ruin was rendered doubly easy by his very\ninsignificance, which now constituted the chief disgrace of their\ndefeat. Never was cause more closely followed by its effect, than this\ninsulted dignity was by its cruel vengeance.\n\n\n THE PROPHECY OF THE TEMPLE\u2019S RUIN.\n\nIn preparing his disciples for the great events which were to take\nplace in a few years, and which were to have a great influence on their\nlabors, Jesus foretold to them the destruction of the temple. As he\nwas passing out through the mighty gates of the temple on some occasion\nwith his disciples, one of them, admiring the gorgeous beauty of the\narchitecture and the materials, with all the devotion of a Jew now\nvisiting it for the first time, said to him, \u201cMaster, see! what stones\nand what buildings!\u201d To him, Jesus replied with the awful prophecy,\nmost shocking to the national pride and religious associations of every\nIsraelite,\u2015\u2015that ere long, upon that glorious pile should fall a ruin\nso complete, that not one of those splendid stones should be left upon\nanother. These words must have made a strong impression of wonder on\nall who heard them; but no farther details of the prophecy were given\nto the disciples at large. Not long afterwards, however, as he sat\nmusingly by himself, in his favorite retirement, half-way up the Mount\nof Olives, over against the temple, the four most loved and honored of\nthe twelve, Peter, James, John and Andrew, came to him, and asked him\nprivately, to tell them when these things should be, and by what omen\nthey should know the approach of the great and woful ruin. Sitting\nthere, they had a full view of the enormous pile which rose in immense\nmasses very near them, on the verge of mount Moriah, and was even\nterraced up, from the side of the slope, presenting a vast wall, rising\nfrom the depths of the deep ravine of Kedron, which separated the\ntemple from mount Olivet, where they were. It was morning when the\nconversation took place, as we may fairly guess, for this spot lay\non the daily walk to Bethany, where he lodged;\u2015\u2015the broad walls, high\ntowers, and pillars of the temple, were doubtless illuminated by the\nfull splendors of the morning sun of Palestine; for Olivet was directly\neast of Jerusalem, and as they sat looking westward towards the temple,\nwith the sun behind them, the rays, leaving their faces in the shade,\nwould shine full and bright on all which crowned the highth beyond. It\nwas at such a time, as the Jewish historian assures us, that the temple\nwas seen in its fullest grandeur and sublimity; for the light, falling\non the vast roofs, which were sheeted and spiked with pure gold,\nbrightly polished, and upon the turrets and pinnacles which glittered\nwith the same precious metal, was reflected to the eye of the gazer\nwith an insupportable brilliancy, from the million bright surfaces and\nshining points which covered it. Here, then, sat Jesus and his four\nadoring chosen ones, with this splendid sight before them crowning\nthe mountain, now made doubly dazzling by contrast with the deep gloom\nof the dark glen below, which separated them from it. There it was,\nthat, with all this brightness and glory and beauty before them, Jesus\nsolemnly foretold in detail the awful, total ruin which was to sweep\nit all away, within the short lives of those who heard him. Well might\nsuch words sink deep into their hearts,\u2015\u2015words coming from lips whose\nperfect and divine truth they could not doubt, though the things now\nforetold must have gone wofully against all the dreams of glory, in\nwhich they had made that sacred pile the scene of the future triumphs\nof the faith and followers of Christ. This sublime prophecy, which need\nnot here be repeated or descanted upon, is given at great length by all\nthe first three evangelists, and is found in Matthew xxiv. Mark xiii.\nand Luke xxi.\n\n _The view of the temple._\u2015\u2015I can find no description by any\n writer, ancient or modern, which gives so clear an account of\n the original shape of Mount Moriah, and of the modifications\n it underwent to fit it to support the temple, as that given\n by Josephus. (Jewish War, book V. chapter v.) In speaking of\n the original founding of the temple by Solomon, (Antiquities\n book VIII. chapter iii. section 2,) he says, \u201cThe king laid the\n foundations of the temple in the very depths, (at the bottom\n of the descent,) using stones of a firm structure, and able to\n hold out against the attacks of time, so that growing into a\n union, as it were, with the ground, they might be the basis and\n support of the pile that was to be reared above, and through\n their strength below, easily bear the vast mass of the great\n superstructure, and the immense weight of ornament also; for\n the weight of those things which were contrived for beauty\n and magnificence was not less than that of the materials which\n contributed to the highth and lateral dimension.\u201d In the full\n description which he afterwards gives in the place first quoted,\n of the later temple as perfected by Herod, which is the building\n to which the account in the text refers, he enters more fully\n into the mode of shaping the ground to the temple. \u201cThe temple\n was founded upon a steep hill, but in the first beginning of the\n structure there was scarcely flat ground enough on the top for\n the sanctuary and the altar, for it was abrupt and precipitous\n all around. And king Solomon, when he built the sanctuary,\n having _walled it out_ on the eastern side, (\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, that\n is, \u2018having built _out_ a wall on that side\u2019 for a terrace,)\n then reared upon the terraced earth a colonnade; but on the\n other sides the sanctuary was _naked_,\u2015\u2015(that is, the wall was\n unsupported and unornamented by colonnades as it was on the\n east.) But in the course of ages, the people all the while\n beating down the terraced earth with their footsteps, the hill\n thus growing flat, was made broader on the top; and having taken\n down the wall on the north, they gained considerable ground\n which was afterwards inclosed within the outer court of the\n temple. Finally, having walled the hill entirely around with\n three terraces, and having advanced the work far beyond any hope\n that could have been reasonably entertained at first, spending\n on it long ages, and all the sacred treasures accumulated from\n the offerings sent to God from the ends of the world, they\n reared around it, both the upper courts and the lower temple,\n walling the latter up, in the lowest part, from a depth of three\n hundred cubits, (450 feet,) and in some places more. And yet the\n whole depth of the foundations did not show itself, because they\n had greatly filled up the ravines, with a view to bring them\n to a level with the streets of the city. The stones of this\n work were of the size of forty cubits, (60 feet,) for the\n profusion of means and the lavish zeal of the people advanced\n the improvements of the temple beyond account; and a perfection\n far above all hope was thus attained by perseverance and time.\n\n \u201cAnd well worthy of these foundations were the works which stood\n upon them. For all the colonnades were double, consisting of\n pillars twenty-five cubits (40 feet) in highth, each of a single\n stone of the whitest marble, and were roofed with fretwork\n of cedar. The natural beauty of these, their high polish and\n exquisite proportion, presented a most glorious show; but their\n surface was not marked by the superfluous embellishments of\n painting and carving. The colonnades were thirty cubits broad,\n (that is, forty-five feet from the front of the columns to the\n wall behind them;) while their whole circuit embraced a range\n of six _stadia_, (more than three-quarters of a mile!) including\n the castle of Antonia. And the whole _hypethrum_ (\u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd,\n the floor of the courts or inclosures of the temple, which\n was exposed to the open air, there being no roof above it) was\n variegated by the stones of all colors with which it was laid,\u201d\n (making a Mosaic pavement.) Section 1.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cThe outside of the temple too, lacked nothing that could strike\n or dazzle the mind and eye. For it was on all sides overlaid\n with _massy plates of gold_, so that _in the first light of\n the rising sun_, IT SHOT FORTH A MOST FIERY SPLENDOR, which\n turned away the eyes of those who compelled themselves (mid.\n \u03b2\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) to gaze on it, as from the rays of the sun itself.\n To strangers, moreover, who were coming towards it, it shone\n from afar like a complete mountain of snow: for where it was\n not covered with gold it was most dazzlingly white, and above\n on the roof it had golden spikes, sharpened to keep the birds\n from lighting on it. And some of the stones of the building\n were forty-five cubits long, five high, and six broad;\u201d\u2015\u2015(or\n sixty-seven _feet_ long, seven and a half high, and nine broad.)\n Section 6.\n\n \u201cThe Antonia was placed at the angle made by the meeting of two\n colonnades of the outer temple, the western and the northern. It\n was built upon a rock, fifty cubits high, and precipitous on all\n sides. It was the work of king Herod, in which, most of all, he\n showed himself a man of exalted conceptions.\u201d Section 8.\n\n * * * * *\n\n In speaking of Solomon\u2019s foundation, he also says, (Antiquities\n book VIII. chapter iii. section 9,)\n\n \u201cBut he made the outside of the temple wonderful beyond account,\n both in description and to sight. For having piled up huge\n terraces, from which, on account of their immense depth, it was\n hardly possible to look down, and reared them to the highth of\n four hundred cubits, (six hundred feet!) he made them on the\n same level with the hill\u2019s top on which the _shrine_ (\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2) was\n built, and thus the open floor of the _temple_ (\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, or the\n outer court\u2019s inclosure) was level with the _shrine_.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n I have drawn thus largely from the rich descriptions of this\n noble and faithful describer of the old glories of the Holy\n Land, because this very literal translation gives the exact naked\n detail of the temple\u2019s aspect, in language as gorgeous as the\n most high-wrought in which it could be presented in a mere fancy\n picture of the same scene; and because it will prove that my\n conception of its glory, as it appeared to Christ and the four\n disciples who \u201csat _over against_ it upon the Mount of Olives,\u201d\n is not overdrawn, since it is thus supported by the blameless\n and invaluable testimony of him who saw all this splendor in its\n most splendid day, and afterwards in its unequaled beauty and\n with all its polished gold and marble, shining and sinking amid\n the flames, which swept it utterly away from his saddening eyes\n forever, to a ruin the most absolute and irretrievable that ever\n fell upon the works of man.\n\n This was the temple on which the sons of Jonah and Zebedee gazed,\n with the awful denunciation of its utter ruin falling from their\n Lord\u2019s lips, and such was the desolation to which those terrible\n words devoted it. This full description of its location shows\n the manner in which its terraced foundations descended with\n their vast fronts, six hundred feet into the valley of Kedron,\n over which they looked. To give as clear an idea of the place\n where they sat, and its relations to the rest of the scene, I\n extract from Conder\u2019s Modern Traveler the following description\n of Mount Olivet.\n\n \u201cThe Mount of Olives forms part of a ridge of limestone hills,\n extending to the north and the south-west. Pococke describes\n it as having four summits. On the lowest and most northerly of\n these, which, he tells us, is called _Sulman Tashy_, the stone\n of Solomon, there is a large domed sepulcher, and several other\n Mohammedan tombs. The ascent to this point, which is to the\n north-east of the city, he describes as very gradual, through\n pleasant corn-fields planted with olive-trees. The second summit\n is that which overlooks the city: the path to it rises from the\n ruined gardens of Gethsemane, which occupy part of the valley.\n About half way up the ascent is a ruined monastery, built,\n as the monks tell us, on the spot where the Savior wept over\n Jerusalem. From this point the spectator enjoys, perhaps, the\n best view of the Holy City. (Here Jesus sat, in our scene.)\n\n \u201cThe valley of Jehoshaphat, which lies between this mountain\n and the hills on which Jerusalem is built, is still used as a\n burial-place by the modern Jews, as it was by their ancestors.\n It is, generally speaking, a rocky flat, with a few patches\n of earth here and there, about half a mile in breadth from\n the Kedron to the foot of Mount Olivet, and nearly of the same\n length from Siloa to the garden of Gethsemane. The Jews have\n a tradition, evidently founded on taking literally the passage\n Joel iii. 12, that this narrow valley will be the scene of the\n final judgment. The prophet Jeremiah evidently refers to the\n same valley under the name of the valley of the Son of Hinnom,\n or the valley of Tophet, the situation being clearly marked as\n being by the entry of the _east_ gate. (Jeremiah xix. 2, 6.)\n Pococke places the valley of Hinnom to the south of Jerusalem,\n but thinks it might include part of that to the east. It formed\n part of the bounds between the tribes of Benjamin and Judah,\n (Joshua xv. 8. xviii. 16,) but the description is somewhat\n obscure.\u201d [Modern Traveler Palestine, pp. 168, 172.]\n\n Illustration: MOUNT MORIAH.\n\n\n THE LAST SUPPER.\n\nMeanwhile the offended and provoked dignitaries of Judaism were fast\nmaking arrangements to crush the daring innovator, who had done so\nmuch to bring their learning and their power into contempt. Some of the\nmost fiery spirits among them, were for defying all risks, by seizing\nthe Nazarene openly, in the midst of his audacious denunciations\nof the higher orders; and the attempt was made to execute this act\nof arbitrary power; but the mere hirelings sent upon the errand,\nwere too much awed by the unequaled majesty of the man, and by the\nstrong attachment of the people to him, to be willing to execute their\ncommission. But there were old heads among them, that could contrive\nsafer and surer ways of meeting the evil. By them it was finally\ndetermined to seize Jesus when alone or unattended by the throngs\nwhich usually encompassed him,\u2015\u2015to hurry him at once secretly through\nthe forms of law necessary for his commitment, and then to put him\nimmediately into the hands of the Roman governor, as a condemned rioter\nand rebel, who would be obliged to order his execution in such a way\nas that no popular excitement would rescue the victim from the grasp\nof the soldiery. This was the plan which they were now arranging, and\nwhich they were prepared to execute before the close of the passover,\nif they could get intelligence of his motions. These fatal schemes of\nhate could not have been unknown to Jesus; yet the knowledge of them\nmade no difference in his bold devotion to the cause for which he came\ninto the world. Anxious to improve the few fast fleeting hours that\nremained before the time of his sufferings should come on, and desirous\nto join as a Jew in this great national festival, by keeping it in form\nwith his disciples, he directed his two most confidential apostles,\nPeter and John, to get ready the entertainment for them in the city, by\nan arrangement made with a man already expecting to receive them. This\ncommission they faithfully executed, and Jesus accordingly ate with\nhis disciples the feast of the first day of the passover, in Jerusalem,\nwith those who sought his life so near him. After the supper was over,\nhe determined to use the brief remnant of time for the purpose of\nuprooting that low feeling of jealous ambition which had already made\nso much trouble among them, in their anxious discussions as to who\nshould be accounted the greatest, and should rank as the ruler of the\ntwelve. To impress the right view upon their minds most effectually, he\nchose the oriental mode of a ceremony which should strike their senses,\nand thus secure a regard and remembrance for his words which they\nmight fail in attaining if they were delivered in the simple manner of\ntrite and oft spoken oral truisms. He therefore rose after supper, and\nleaving his place at the head of the table, he laid aside his upper\ngarments, which, though appropriate and becoming him as a teacher\nin his hours of public instruction, or social communion, were yet\ninconvenient in any active exertion which needed the free use of the\nlimbs. Being thus disrobed, he took the position and character of a\nmenial upon him, and girding himself with a towel, he poured water\ninto a basin and began to wash the disciples\u2019 feet in it, wiping them\nwith his towel. He accordingly comes to Simon Peter, in the discharge\nof his servile office; but Peter, whose ideas of the majesty and\nripening honors of his Master were shocked at this extraordinary\naction, positively refused to be even the passive instrument of such an\nindignity to one so great and good,\u2015\u2015first inquiring \u201cLord, dost thou\nwash my feet?\u201d Jesus in answer said to him, \u201cWhat I do, thou knowest\nnot now, but thou shalt know hereafter.\u201d That is, \u201cthis apparently\ndegrading act has a hidden, useful meaning, at this moment beyond your\ncomprehension, but which you will learn in due time.\u201d Peter, however,\nnotwithstanding this plain and decided expression of Christ\u2019s wise\ndetermination to go through this painful ceremony, for the instruction\nof those who so unwillingly submitted to see him thus degraded,\u2015\u2015still\nled on by the fiery ardor of his own headlong genius,\u2015\u2015manfully\npersisted in his refusal, and expressed himself in the most positive\nterms possible, saying to Jesus, \u201cThou shalt never wash my feet.\u201d Jesus\nanswered, \u201cIf I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.\u201d This solemn\nremonstrance had the effect of checking Peter\u2019s too forward reverence,\nand in a tone of deeper submission to the wise will of his Master, he\nyielded, replying however, \u201cLord, wash not my feet only, but also my\nhands and my head.\u201d Since so low an office was to be performed by one\nso venerated, he would not have the favor of his blessed touch confined\nto the baser limbs, but desired that the nobler parts of the body\nshould share in the holy ablution. But the high purpose of Jesus\ncould not accommodate itself to the whims of his zealous disciple;\nfor his very object was to take the humblest attitude before them,\nby performing those personal offices which were usually committed to\nslaves. He therefore told Peter, \u201cHe that is washed needs not save\nto wash his feet, but is clean in every part;\u201d\u2015\u2015a very familiar and\nexpressive illustration, alluding to the circumstance that those who\nhave been to a bath and there washed themselves, will on their return\nfind themselves wholly clean, except such dust as may cling to their\nfeet as they have passed through the streets on their return. And any\none may feel the force of the beautiful figure, who has ever gone into\nthe water for the purposes of cleanliness and refreshment, on a warm\nsummer\u2019s day in this country, and has found by experience that after\nall possible ablution, on coming out and dressing himself, his wet\nfeet in contact with the ground have become loaded with dirt which\ndemands new diligence to remove it; and as all who have tried it know,\nit requires many ingenious efforts to return with feet as clean as\nthey came to the washing; and in spite of all, after the return, an\ninspection may forcibly illustrate the truth, that \u201che that is washed,\nthough he is clean in every part, yet needs to wash his feet.\u201d Such\nwas the figure with which Jesus expressed to his simple-minded and\nunlettered disciples, the important truth, that since they had been\nalready washed, (baptized by John or himself,) if that washing had been\neffectual, they could need the repurification only of their feet\u2015\u2015the\ncleansing away of such of the world\u2019s impure thoughts and feelings as\nhad clung to them in their journeyings through it. So, after he had\nwashed their feet, and had taken his garments and sat down again, he\nsaid to them, \u201cKnow ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and\nLord; and ye say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master,\nhave washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another\u2019s feet. For I\nhave given you this as an example, that ye should do as I have done to\nyou. Truly the servant is not greater than his lord, neither is he that\nis sent greater than him that sent him. If ye know these things, happy\nare ye if ye do them.\u201d\u2015\u2015A charge so clear and simple, and so full, that\nit needs not a word of comment to show any reader the full force of\nthis touching ceremony.\n\nShortly after, in the same place and during the same meeting, Jesus\nspeaking to them of his near departure, affectionately and sadly said,\n\u201cLittle children, but a little while longer am I with you. Ye shall\nseek me; and as I said to the Jews, \u2018whither I go, ye cannot come,\u2019\u2015\u2015so\nnow I say to you.\u201d To this Simon Peter soon after replied by asking him,\n\u201cLord whither goest thou?\u201d Jesus answered him, \u201cWhither I go thou canst\nnot follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards.\u201d Peter, perhaps\nbeginning to perceive the mournful meaning of this declaration, replied,\nstill urging, \u201cLord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my\nlife for thy sake.\u201d Jesus answered, \u201cWilt thou lay down thy life for\nmy sake? I tell thee assuredly, the cock shall not crow till thou hast\ndenied me thrice.\u201d\u2015\u2015Soon after, at the same time and place, noticing\nthe confident assurance of this chief disciple, Jesus again warned him\nof his danger and his coming fall. \u201cSimon! Simon! behold, Satan has\ndesired to have you (_all_) that he may sift you as wheat; but I have\nprayed for _thee_ (_especially_) that _thy_ faith fail not; and when\n_thou_ art converted, strengthen thy brethren.\u201d Never before had higher\nand more distinctive favor been conferred on this chief apostle, than\nby this sad prophecy of danger, weakness and sin, on which he was to\nfall, for a time, to his deep disgrace; but on him alone, when rescued\nfrom ruin by his Master\u2019s peculiar prayers, was to rest the task of\nstrengthening his brethren. But his Master\u2019s kind warning was for\nthe present lost on his immovable self-esteem; he repeated his former\nassurance of perfect devotion through every danger, \u201cLord, I am ready\nto go with thee into prison and to death.\u201d Where was affectionate\nand heroic devotion ever more affectingly and determinedly expressed?\nWhat heart of common man would not have leaped to meet such love and\nfidelity? But He, with an eye still clear and piercing, in spite of\nthe tears with which affection might dim it, saw through the veil\nthat would have blinded the sharpest human judgment, and coldly met\nthese protestations of burning zeal with the chilling prediction again\nuttered, \u201cI tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before\nthou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.\u201d Then making a sudden\ntransition, to hint to them the nature of the dangers which would soon\ntry their souls, he suddenly reverted to their former security. \u201cWhen\nI sent you forth without purse, or scrip, or shoes, did ye need any\nthing?\u201d And they said \u201cNothing.\u201d Then said he to them \u201cBut now, let\nhim that has a purse, take it, and likewise his scrip; and let him that\nhas no sword sell his cloak and buy one.\u201d They had hitherto, in their\nwanderings, every where found friends to support and protect them; but\nnow the world was at war with them, and they must look to their own\nresources both for supplying their wants and guarding their lives. His\ndisciples readily apprehending some need of personal defense, at once\nbestirred themselves and mustered what arms they could on the spot, and\ntold him that they had two swords among them, and of these it appears\nthat one was in the hands of Peter. It was natural enough that among\nthe disciples these few arms were found, for they were all Galileans,\nwho, as Josephus tells us, were very pugnacious in their habits; and\neven the followers of Christ, notwithstanding their peaceful calling,\nhad not entirely laid aside their former weapons of violence, which\nwere the more needed by them, as the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem\nwas made very dangerous by robbers, who lay in wait for the defenseless\ntraveler wherever the nature of the ground favored such an attack.\nOf this character was that part of the road between Jerusalem and\nJericho, alluded to in the parable of the wounded traveler and the\ngood Samaritan,\u2015\u2015a region so wild and rocky that it has always been\ndangerous, for the same reasons, even to this day; of which a sad\ninstance occurred but a few years ago, in the case of an eminent\nEnglish traveler, who going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, fell among\nthieves and was wounded near the same spot mentioned by Christ, in\nspite of the defenses with which he was provided. It was in reference\nto such dangers as these, that two of his disciples had provided\nthemselves with hostile weapons, and Peter may have been instigated\nto carry his sword into such a peaceful feast, by the suspicion that\nthe danger from the chief priests, to which Christ had often alluded,\nmight more particularly threaten them while they were in the city\nby themselves, without the safeguard of their numerous friends in\nthe multitude. The answer of Jesus to this report of their means of\nresistance was not in a tone to excite them to the very zealous use of\nthem. He simply said, \u201cIt is enough,\u201d a phrase which was meant to quiet\nthem, by expressing his little regard for such a defense as they were\nable to offer to him, with this contemptible armament.\n\n Some have conjectured that this washing of feet (page 97) was\n a usual rite at the Paschal feast. So Scaliger, Beza, Baronius,\n Casaubon and other learned men have thought. (See Poole\u2019s\n Synopsis, on John xiii. 5.) But Buxtorf has clearly shown the\n falsity of their reasons, and Lightfoot has also proved that it\n was a perfectly unusual thing, and that there is no passage in\n all the Rabbinical writings which refers to it as a custom. It\n is manifest indeed, to a common reader, that the whole peculiar\n force of this ablution, in this instance, consisted in its being\n an entirely unusual act; and all its beautiful aptness as an\n illustration of the meaning of Jesus,\u2015\u2015that they should cease\n their ambitious strife for precedence,\u2015\u2015is lost in making it\n anything else than a perfectly new and original ceremony, whose\n impressiveness mainly consisted in its singularity. Lightfoot\n also illustrates the design of Jesus still farther, by several\n interesting passages from the Talmudists, showing in what way\n the ablution would be regarded by his disciples, who like other\n Jews would look upon it as a most degraded action, never to\n be performed except by inferiors to superiors. These Talmudic\n authorities declare, that \u201cAmong the duties to be performed by\n the wife to her husband, this was one,\u2015\u2015that she should wash\n his face, his hands and his feet.\u201d (_Maimonides on the duties of\n women._) The same office was due from a son to his father,\u2015\u2015from\n a slave to his master, as his references show; but he says he\n can find no precept that a disciple should perform such a duty\n to his teacher, unless it be included in this, \u201cThe teacher\n should be more honored by his scholar than a father.\u201d\n\n He also shows that the feet were never washed separately, with\n any idea of legal purification,\u2015\u2015though the Pharisees washed\n their hands separately with this view, and the priests washed\n their hands and feet both, as a form of purification, but\n never the feet alone. And he very justly remarks upon all this\n testimony, that \u201cthe farther this action of Christ recedes from\n common custom, the higher its fitness for their instruction,\n \u2015\u2015being performed not merely for an example but for a precept.\u201d\n (Lightfoot\u2019s Horae Hebraica in Gospel of John xiii. 5.)\n\n _Laid aside his garments._\u2015\u2015The simple dress of the races of\n western Asia, is always distinguishable into two parts or sets\n of garments,\u2015\u2015an inner, which covered more or less of the body,\n fitting it tightly, but not reaching far over the legs or arms,\n and consisted either of a single cloth folded around the loins,\n or a tunic fastened with a girdle; sometimes also a covering for\n the thighs was subjoined, making something like the rudiment of\n a pair of breeches. (See Jahn Archaeologia Biblica \u00a7 120.) These\n were the permanent parts of the dress, and were always required\n to be kept on the body, by the common rules of decency. But the\n second division of the garments, (\u201c_superindumenta_,\u201d Jahn,)\n thrown loosely over the inner ones, might be laid aside, on any\n occasion, when active exertion required the most unconstrained\n motion of the limbs. One of these was a simple oblong, broad\n piece of cloth, of various dimensions, but generally about\n three yards long, and two broad, which was wrapped around the\n body like a mantle, the two upper corners being drawn over the\n shoulders in front, and the rest hanging down the back, and\n falling around the front of the body, without any fastenings\n but the folding of the upper corners. This garment was called by\n the Hebrews \u05e9\u05de\u05dc\u05d4 or \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d4, (_simlah_ or _salmah_,) and sometimes\n \u05d1\u05d2\u05d3; (_begedh_;)\u2015\u2015by the Greeks, \u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. (_himation_.) Jahn\n Archaeologia Biblica. This is the garment which is always\n meant by this Greek word in the New Testament, when used in\n the singular number,\u2015\u2015translated \u201ccloak\u201d in the common English\n version, as in the passage in the text above, where Jesus\n exhorts him that has no sword to sell his _cloak_ and buy one.\n When this Greek word occurs in the plural, (\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1, _himatia_,)\n it is translated \u201cgarments,\u201d and it is noticeable that in most\n cases where it occurs, the sense actually requires that it\n should be understood only of the outer dress, to which I have\n referred it. As in Matthew xxi. 8, where it is said that the\n people spread their _garments_ in the way,\u2015\u2015of course only their\n outer ones, which were loose and easily thrown off, without\n indecent exposure. So in Mark xi. 7, 8: Luke xix. 35. There is\n no need then, of supposing, as Origen does, that Jesus took off\n all his clothes, or was naked, in the modern sense of the term.\n A variety of other outer garments in common use both among the\n early and the later Jews, are described minutely by Jahn in his\n Archaeologia Biblica, \u00a7 122. I shall have occasion to describe\n some of these, in illustration of other passages.\n\n My exegesis on the passage \u201cHe that is washed, needs not,\u201d &c.\n may strike some as rather bold in its illustration, yet if great\n authorities are necessary to support the view I have taken,\n I can refer at once to a legion of commentators, both ancient\n and modern, who all offer the same general explanation, though\n not exactly the same illustration. Poole\u2019s Synopsis is rich in\n references to such. Among these, Vatablus remarks on the need\n of washing the feet of one already washed, \u201c_scil. viae causa_.\u201d\n Medonachus says of the feet, \u201cquos calcata terra iterum inquinat.\u201d\n Hammond says, \u201che that hath been initiated, and entered into\n Christ, &c. is _whole clean_, and hath no need to be so washed\n again, all over. All that is needful to him is the daily\n ministering of the word and grace of Christ, to cleanse and\n wash off the frailties, and imperfections, and lapses of our\n weak nature, those feet of the soul.\u201d Grotius says, \u201cHoc tantum\n opus ei est, ut ab iis se purget quae ex occasione nascuntur.\n Similitudo sumpta ab his _qui a balneo nudis pedibus abeunt_.\u201d\n Besides these and many others largely quoted by Poole, Lampius\n also (in commentary in Gospel of John) goes very fully into the\n same view, and quotes many others in illustration. Wolfius (in\n Cur. Philology) gives various illustrations, differing in no\n important particular, that I can see, from each other, nor from\n that of Kuinoel, who calls them \u201ccontortas expositiones,\u201d but\n gives one which is the same in almost every part, but is more\n fully illustrated in detail, by reference to the usage of the\n ancients, of going to the bath before coming to a feast, which\n the disciples no doubt had done, and made themselves clean in\n all parts except their feet, which had become dirtied on the\n way from the bath. This is the same view which Wolf also quotes\n approvingly from Elsner. Wetstein is also on this point, as on\n all others, abundantly rich in illustrations from classic usage,\n to which he refers in a great number of quotations from Lucian,\n Herodotus, Plato, Terence and Plutarch.\n\n _Sift you as wheat._\u2015\u2015The word \u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9 (_siniazo_) refers to the\n process of _winnowing_ the wheat after threshing, rather than\n _sifting_ in the common application of the term, which is to\n the operation of separating the flour from the bran. In oriental\n agriculture the operation of winnowing is performed without any\n machinery, by simply taking up the threshed wheat in a large\n shovel, and shaking it in such a way that the grain may fall\n out into a place prepared on the ground, while the wind blows\n away the chaff. The whole operation is well described in the\n fragments appended to Taylor\u2019s editions of Calmet\u2019s dictionary,\n ( Hund. i. No. 48, in Vol. III.) and is there illustrated\n by a plate. The phrase then, was highly expressive of a\n thorough trial of character, or of utter ruin, by violent and\n overwhelming misfortune, and as such is often used in the Old\n Testament. As in Jeremiah xv. 7. \u201cI will fan them with a fan,\u201d\n &c. Also in li. 3. In Psalm cxxxix. 2. \u201cThou winnowest my path,\u201d\n &c.; compare translation \u201cThou _compassest_ my path.\u201d The same\n figure is effectively used by John the Baptist, in Matthew iii.\n 12, and Luke iii. 17.\n\n _Galilean pugnacity._\u2015\u2015Josephus, who was very familiar with the\n Galileans by his military service among them, thus characterizes\n them. \u201cThe Galileans are fighters even from infancy, and are\n every where numerous, nor are they capable of fear.\u201d Jewish War,\n book III. chapter iii. section 2.\n\n _From Jerusalem to Jericho._\u2015\u2015The English traveler here referred\n to, is Sir Frederic Henniker, who in the year 1820, met with\n this calamity, which he thus describes in his travels, pp.\n 284\u2012289.\n\n \u201cThe route is over hills, rocky, barren and uninteresting; we\n arrived at a fountain, and here my two attendants paused to\n refresh themselves; the day was so hot that I was anxious to\n finish the journey, and hurried forwards. A ruined building\n situated on the summit of a hill was now within sight, and I\n urged my horse towards it; the janissary galloped by me, and\n making signs for me not to precede him, he rode into and round\n the building, and then motioned me to advance. We next came to\n a hill, through the very apex of which has been cut a passage,\n the rocks overhanging it on either side. Quaresmius, (book vi.\n chapter 2.) quoting Brocardus, 200 years past, mentions that\n there is a place horrible to the eye, and full of danger,\n called Abdomin, which signifies blood; where he, descending\n from Jerusalem to Jericho, fell among thieves. I was in the act\n of passing through this ditch, when a bullet whizzed by, close\n to my head; I saw no one, and had scarcely time to think, when\n another was fired some distance in advance. I could yet see no\n one,\u2015\u2015the janissary was beneath the brow of the hill, in his\n descent; I looked back, but my servant was not yet within sight.\n I looked up, and within a few inches of my head were three\n muskets, and three men taking aim at me. Escape or resistance\n were alike impossible. I got off my horse. Eight men jumped down\n from the rocks, and commenced a scramble for me; I observed also\n a party running towards Nicholai. At this moment the janissary\n galloped in among us with his sword drawn.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cA sudden panic seized the janissary; he cried on the name of\n the Prophet, and galloped away. As he passed, I caught at a rope\n hanging from his saddle. I had hoped to leap upon his horse, but\n found myself unable;\u2015\u2015my feet were dreadfully lacerated by the\n honey-combed rocks\u2015\u2015nature would support me no longer\u2015\u2015I fell,\n but still clung to the rope. In this manner I was drawn some few\n yards, till, bleeding from my ancle to my shoulder, I resigned\n myself to my fate. As soon as I stood up, one of my pursuers\n took aim at me, but the other casually advancing between us,\n prevented his firing; he then ran up, and with his sword, aimed\n such a blow as would not have required a second; his companion\n prevented its full effect, so that it merely cut my ear in\n halves, and laid open one side of my face; they then stripped me\n naked.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cIt was now past mid-day, and burning hot; I bled profusely,\n \u2015\u2015and two vultures, whose business it is to consume corpses,\n were hovering over me. I should scarcely have had strength to\n resist, had they chosen to attack me. At length we arrived about\n 3 P.\u00a0M. at Jericho.\u2015\u2015My servant was unable to lift me to the\n ground; the janissary was lighting his pipe, and the soldiers\n were making preparations to pursue the robbers; not one person\n would assist a half-dead Christian. After some minutes a few\n Arabs came up and placed me by the side of the horse-pond, just\n so that I could not dip my finger into the water. This pool is\n resorted to by every one in search of water, and that employment\n falls exclusively upon females;\u2015\u2015they surrounded me, and seemed\n so earnest in their sorrow, that, notwithstanding their veils, I\n almost felt pleasure at my wound. One of them in particular held\n her pitcher to my lips, till she was sent away by the Chous;\u2015\u2015I\n called her, she returned, and was sent away again; and the third\n time she was turned out of the yard. She wore a red veil, (the\n sign of not being married,) and therefore there was something\n unpardonable in _her_ attention to any man, especially to a\n Christian; she however returned with her mother, and brought me\n some milk. I believe that Mungo Park, on some dangerous occasion\n during his travels, received considerable assistance from the\n compassionate sex.\u201d\n\n\n THE SCENES OF GETHSEMANE.\n\nAfter much more conversation and prayer with his disciples in the\nsupper-room, and having sung the hymn of praise which usually concluded\nthe passover feast among the Jews, Jesus went with them out west\nof the city, over the brook Kedron, at the foot of the Olive mount,\nwhere there was a garden, called Gethsemane, to which he had often\nresorted with his disciples, it being retired as well as pleasant.\nWhile they were on the way, a new occasion happened of showing Peter\u2019s\nself-confidence, which Jesus again rebuked with the prediction that\nit would too soon fail him. He was telling them all, that events would\nsoon happen that would overthrow their present confidence in him, and\nsignificantly quoted to them the appropriate passage in Zechariah xiii.\n7. \u201cI will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.\u201d Peter,\nglad of a new opportunity to assert his steadfast adherence to his\nMaster, again assured him that, though all should be offended, or lose\ntheir confidence in him, yet would not he; but though alone, would\nalways maintain his present devotion to him. The third time did Jesus\nreply in the circumstantial prediction of his near and certain fall.\n\u201cThis day, even this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny\nme thrice.\u201d This repeated distrustful and reproachful denunciation,\nbecame, at last, too much for Peter\u2019s warm temper; and in a burst of\noffended zeal, he declared the more vehemently, \u201cIf I should die with\nthee, I will not deny thee in any wise.\u201d To this solemn protestation\nagainst the thought of defection, all the other apostles present gave\ntheir word of hearty assent.\n\n Illustration: VALLEY OF THE BROOK KEDRON\n BETWEEN JERUSALEM AND THE MOUNT OF OLIVES.\n John xviii.\u00a01.\n\nThey now reached the garden, and when they had entered it, Jesus spoke\nto all the disciples present, except his three chosen ones, saying,\n\u201cSit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.\u201d He retired accordingly into\nsome recess of the garden, with Peter and the two sons of Zebedee,\nJames and John; and as soon as he was alone with them, begun to give\nutterance to feelings of deep distress and depression of spirits.\nLeaving them, with the express injunction to keep awake and wait for\nhim, he went for a short time still farther, and there, in secret\nand awful woe, that wrung from his bowed head the dark sweat of\nan unutterable agony, yet in submission to God, he prayed that the\nhorrible suffering and death to which he had been so sternly devoted,\nmight not light on him. Returning to the three appointed watchers, he\nfound them asleep! Even as amid the lonely majesty of Mount Hermon,\nhuman weakness had borne down the willing spirit in spite of the\nsublime character of the place and the persons before them; so here,\nnot the groans of that beloved suffering Lord, for whom they had just\nexpressed such deep regard, could keep their sleepy eyes open, when\nthey were thus exhausted with a long day\u2019s agitating incidents, and\nwere rendered still more dull and stupid by the chilliness of the\nevening air, as well as the lateness of the hour of the night; for it\nwas near ten o\u2019clock. At this sad instance of the inability of their\nminds to overcome the frailties of the body, after all their fine\nprotestations of love and zeal, he mildly and mournfully remonstrates\nwith Peter in particular, who had been so far before the rest in\nexpressing a peculiar interest in his Master. And he said to _Peter_,\n\u201cSimon! sleepest _thou_? What! could ye not watch with me one hour?\nWatch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit indeed\nis willing, but the flesh is weak.\u201d Well might he question thus the\nconstancy of the fiery zeal which had so lately inspired Peter to\nthose expressions of violent attachment. What! could not all that\nwarm devotion, that high pride of purpose, sustain his spirit against\nthe effects of fatigue and cold on his body? But they had, we may\nsuppose, crept into some shelter from the cold night air, where they\nunconsciously forgot themselves. After having half-roused them with\nthis fruitless appeal, he left them, and again passed through another\ndreadful struggle between his human and divine nature. The same strong\nentreaty,\u2015\u2015the same mournful submission,\u2015\u2015were expressed as before,\nin that moment of solitary agony, till again he burst away from the\ninsupportable strife of soul, and came to see if yet sympathy in his\nsorrows could keep his sleepy disciples awake. But no; the gentle\nrousing he had before given them had hardly broken their slumbers. For\na few moments the voice of their Master, in tones deep and mournful\nwith sorrow, might have recalled them to some sense of shame for their\nheedless stupidity; and for a short time their wounded pride moved them\nto an effort of self-control. A few mutual expostulations in a sleepy\ntone, would pass between them;\u2015\u2015an effort at conversation perhaps,\nabout the incidents of the day, and the prospect of coming danger which\ntheir Master seemed to hint;\u2015\u2015some wonderings probably, as to what\ncould thus lead him apart to dark and lonely devotion;\u2015\u2015very likely\ntoo, some complaint about the cold;\u2015\u2015a shiver\u2015\u2015a sneeze,\u2015\u2015then a\nmovement to a warmer attitude, and a wrapping closer in mantles;\u2015\u2015then\nthe conversation languishing, replies coming slower and duller, the\nattitude meanwhile declining from the perpendicular to the horizontal,\ntill at last the most wakeful waits in vain for an answer to one of his\ndrowsy remarks, and finds himself speaking to deaf ears; and finally\novercome with impatience at them and himself, he sinks down into his\nformer deep repose, with a half-murmured reproach to his companions\non his lips. In short, as every one knows who has passed through such\nefforts, three sleepy men will hardly keep awake the better for each\nother\u2019s company; but so far from it, on the contrary, the force of\nsympathy will increase the difficulty, and the very sound of drowsy\nvoices will serve to lull all the sooner into slumber. In the case of\nthe apostles too, who were mostly men accustomed to an active life, and\nwho were in the habit of going to bed as soon as it was night, whenever\ntheir business allowed them to rest, all their modes of life served to\nhasten the slumbers of men so little inured to self-control of any kind.\nThese lengthy reasons may serve to excite some considerate sympathy\nfor the weakness of the apostles, and may serve as an apology for their\nrepeated drowsiness on solemn occasions; for a first thought on the\nsubject might suggest to a common man, the irreverent notion, that\nthose who could slumber at the transfiguration of the Son of God on\nMount Hermon, and at his agony in Gethsemane, must be very sleepy\nfellows. On this occasion these causes were sufficient to enchain their\nsenses, in spite of the repeated exhortations of Jesus, for on his\ncoming to them the second time, and saying in a warning voice, \u201cRise\nand pray, lest ye enter into temptation; why sleep ye?\u201d they wist not\nwhat to answer him, for their eyes were very heavy, and they slept\nfor sorrow. Still again he retired about a stone\u2019s throw from them,\nas before, and there, prone on the ground, he renewed the strife with\nhis feelings. Alone and unsympathized with by his friends, did the\nRedeemer of men endure the agonies of that hour, yet not wholly alone\nnor unsupported; for as Luke assures us, there appeared to him an\nangel from heaven, strengthening him. At last the long struggle ceased.\nDistant voices coming over the glen through the stillness of the night,\nand the glare of torches flashing from the waters of the Kedron through\nthe shades of the garden, gave him notice that those were near who\ncame to drag him to a shameful death. Yet the repugnance of nature with\nwhich his late strife had been so dreadful, was now so overcome that he\nshrank not from the \u2666approaching death, but calmly walked to meet it.\nComing forward to his sleeping disciples, he said to them, \u201cSleep on\nnow and take your rest; behold, the time is at hand when the son of\nman is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Arise, let us be going.\u201d\nThe rush of the armed bands of the temple guards followed his words,\nand when the apostles sprung to their feet, their drowsiness was most\neffectually driven off by the appalling sight of a crowd of fierce\nmen, filling the garden and surrounding them. As soon as the villainous\nleaders of the throng could overcome the reverence which even the\nlowest of their followers had for the majestic person of the Savior,\nthey brought them up to the charge, and a retainer of the high priest,\nby name Malchus, with the forward officiousness of an insolent menial,\nlaid hold of Jesus. Now was the time for Galilean spunk to show itself.\nThe disciples around instantly asked, \u201cLord, shall we smite with the\nsword?\u201d But without waiting for an answer, Peter, though amazed by\nthis sudden and frightful attack, as soon as he saw the body of his\nadored Master profaned by the rude hands of base hirelings, foremost in\naction as in word, regardless of numbers, leaped on the assailants with\ndrawn sword, and with a movement too quick to be shunned, he gave the\nforemost a blow, which, if the darkness had not prevented, might have\nbeen fatal. As it was, there could not have been a more narrow escape,\nfor the sword lighting on the head of the priest\u2019s zealous servant,\njust grazed his temple and cut off his ear. But this display of courage\nwas after all, fruitless; for he was surrounded by a great body of\nmen, armed in the expectation of this very kind of resistance; and in\naddition to this, the remonstrance of Jesus must have been sufficient\nto damp the most fiery valor. He said to his zealous and fierce\ndefender, \u201cPut up thy sword again into its sheath, for they that take\nthe sword shall perish by the sword. The cup which my Father hath given\nme, shall I not drink? Thinkest thou that if I should now pray to my\nFather, he would not instantly send me twelve legions of angels at a\nword? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, which say that\nit must be thus?\u201d Having thus stopped the ineffectual and dangerous\nopposition of his few followers, he quietly gave himself up to his\ncaptors, interceding however for his poor, friendless and unprotected\ndisciples. \u201cI am Jesus of Nazareth: if therefore you seek me, let these\ngo their way.\u201d This he said as it were in reference to a literal and\ncorporeal fulfilment of the words which he had used in his last prayer\nwith his disciples,\u2015\u2015\u201cOf them whom thou gavest me I lost none.\u201d The\ndisciples after receiving from Jesus such a special command to abstain\nfrom resistance, and perceiving how utterly desperate was the condition\nof affairs, without waiting the decision of the question, all forsaking\nhim, fled; and favored by darkness and their familiar knowledge of the\ngrounds, they all escaped in various directions.\n\n \u2666 \u201cap-approaching\u201d replaced with \u201capproaching\u201d\n\n _Gethsemane._\u2015\u2015This place has already been alluded to in the\n description of Mount Olivet. [Note on p. 96.] From the same\n source I extract a further brief notice of the present aspect of\n this most holy ground. \u201cProceeding along the valley of Kedron,\n at the foot of Mount Olivet, is the garden of Gethsemane:\n an even plat of ground, not above fifty-seven yards square,\n where are shown some old olive trees, supposed to identify the\n spot to which our Lord was wont to repair. John xviii. 1, 2.\u201d\n [Modern Traveler, Palestine, p. 156.] It is also remarked by\n Dr. Richardson, [p. 78 of the same work,] that \u201cthe gardens of\n Gethsemane are still in the sort of a ruined cultivation; the\n fences are broken down, and the olive trees decaying, as if the\n hand that dressed and fed them was withdrawn.\u201d\n\n The etymology and meaning of the name Gethsemane, is given by\n Lightfoot, (Centuria Chorographica in Matthew, chapter 41.)\n The name is derived from the product of the tree which was\n so abundantly raised there, and which gave name also to the\n mountain. Gethsemane is compounded of \u05d2\u05ea, \u201ca press,\u201d and \u05e9\u05de\u05e0\u05d0,\n \u201colive oil,\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201can oil-press;\u201d because the oil was pressed out\n and manufactured on the spot where the olive was raised.\n\n _Ten o\u2019clock._\u2015\u2015This I conclude to have been about the time,\n because (in Matthew xxvi. 20) it is said that it was evening\n already, (that is, about 6 o\u2019clock,) when Jesus sat down to\n supper with his disciples, and allowing time on the one hand for\n the events at the supper-table and on the walk, as well as those\n in the garden,\u2015\u2015and on the other hand for those which took place\n before midnight, (cock crowing,) we must fix the time as I have\n above.\n\n _The glare of torches._\u2015\u2015John (xviii. 3.) is the only evangelist\n who brings in this highly picturesque circumstance of the\n equipment of the band with the means of searching the dark\n shades and bowers of the garden.\n\n\n HIS THREE-FOLD DENIAL.\n\nPeter, however, had he not so soon forgot his zealous attachment to\nJesus, as to leave him in such hands, without farther knowledge of his\nfate; but as soon as he was satisfied that the pursuit of the disciples\nwas given up, he, in company with John, followed the band of officers\nat safe distance, and ascertained whither they were carrying the\ncaptive. After they had seen the train proceed to the palace of the\nhigh priest, they proceeded directly to the same place. Here John,\nbeing known to the high priest, and having friends in the family, went\nboldly in, feeling secure by his friendship in that quarter, against\nany danger in consequence of his connection with Jesus. Being known to\nthe servant girl who kept the door, as a friend of the family, he got\nin without difficulty, and had also influence enough to get leave to\nintroduce Peter, as a friend of his who had some curiosity to see what\nwas going on. Peter, who had stood without the door waiting for the\nresult of John\u2019s maneuver, was now brought into the palace, and walked\nboldly into the hall where the examination of Jesus was going on,\nhoping to escape entirely unnoticed by keeping in the dimly lighted\nparts of the hall, by which he would be secure, at the same time that\nhe would the better see what was going on near the lights. Standing\nthus out of the way in the back part of the room, he might have\nwitnessed the whole without incurring the notice of anybody. But the\nservants and others, who had been out over the damp valley of the\nKedron after Jesus, feeling chilled with the walk, (for the long nights\nof that season are in Jerusalem frequently in strong contrast with the\nwarmth of mid-day,) made up a good fire of coal in the back part of the\nhall, where they stood looking on. Peter himself being, too, no doubt\nthoroughly chilled with his long exposure to the cold night air, very\nnaturally and unreflectingly came forward to the fire, where he sat\ndown and warmed himself among the servants and soldiers. The bright\nlight of the coals shining directly on his anxious face, those who\nstood by, noticing a stranger taking such interest in the proceedings,\nbegan to scrutinize him more narrowly. At last, the servant girl\nwho had let him in at the door, with the inquisitive curiosity so\npeculiarly strong in her sex, knowing that he had come in with John\nas his particular acquaintance, and concluding that he was like him\nassociated with Jesus, boldly said to him, \u201cThou also art one of this\nman\u2019s disciples.\u201d But Peter, like a true Galilean, as ready to lie\nas to fight, thinking only of the danger of the recognition, at once\ndenied him, forgetting the lately offensive prediction, in his sudden\nalarm. He said before them all, \u201cWoman, I am not!\u2015\u2015I know him not;\nneither do I understand what thou sayest.\u201d This bold and downright\ndenial silenced the forward impertinence of the girl, and for a time\nmay have quieted the suspicions of those around. Peter, however,\nstartled by this sudden attack, all at once perceived the danger into\nwhich he had unthinkingly thrust himself, and drawing back from his\nprominent station before the fire, which had made him so unfortunately\nconspicuous, went out into the porch of the building, notwithstanding\nthe cold night air, preferring the discomfort of the exposure, to the\ndanger of his late position. As he walked there in the open air, he\nheard the note of the cock sounding clear, through the stillness of\nmidnight, announcing the beginning of the third watch. The sound had a\nsad import to him, and must have recalled to his mind some thought of\nhis master\u2019s warning; but before it could have made much impression,\nit was instantly banished altogether from his mind, by a new alarm\nfrom the inquisitiveness of some of the retainers of the palace, who,\nseeing a stranger lurking in a covert manner about the building at\nthat time of night, very naturally felt suspicious enough of him to\nexamine his appearance narrowly. Among those who came about him, was\nanother of those pert damsels who seem to have been very numerous and\nforward about the house of the head of the Jewish faith. She, after\na satisfactory inspection of the suspicious person, very promptly\ninformed those that were there also about him, \u201cThis fellow also was\nwith Jesus of Nazareth.\u201d Peter\u2019s patience being at last worn out with\nthe pertinacious annoyances of these spiteful lasses, not only flatly\ncontradicted the positive assertion of the girl, but backed his words\nwith an oath, which seems to have had the decisive effect of hushing\nhis female accusers entirely, and he considered himself to have turned\noff suspicion for a time so effectually, that, after cooling himself\nsufficiently in the porch, being distracted with anxiety about the\nprobable fate of his beloved Master, he at last ventured again into\nthe great hall of the palace, where the examination of Jesus was still\ngoing on. Here he remained a deeply interested spectator and auditor\nfor about an hour, without being disturbed, when some of the bystanders\nwho were not so much interested in the affair before them as to be\nprevented by it from looking about them, had their attention again\ndrawn to the stranger who had been an object of such suspicion. There\nwere probably more than one that recognized the active and zealous\nfollower of the Nazarene, as Peter had been in such constant attendance\non him throughout his whole stay in Jerusalem. But no one seems to have\ncared to provoke an irascible Galilean by an accusation which he might\nresent in the characteristic manner of his countrymen; till another\nof the servants of the high priest, a relation of Malchus, whose ear\nPeter had cut off, after looking well at him, and being provoked at the\nimpudence of such a vagabond in thrusting himself into the home of the\nvery man whom he had so shockingly mutilated and so nearly murdered,\ndetermined to bring the offender to punishment, and speaking to his\nfellow-servants, he indignantly and confidently affirmed, \u201cThis fellow\nalso was with him, for he is a Galilean.\u201d And turning to Peter, whom\nhe had seen in Gethsemane, when engaged at the time of the capture\nof Jesus, he imperiously asked him, \u201cDid I not see thee in the garden\nwith him?\u201d And others, joining in the charge, said decidedly to him,\n\u201cSurely thou art one of them also: for thy very speech, thy accent,\nunquestionably, betrays thee to be a Galilean.\u201d Peter began at last to\nsee that his situation was growing quite desperate, and finding that\nhis distress about his Lord had brought him within a chance of the\nsame fate, determined to extricate himself by as unscrupulously using\nhis tongue in his own defense as he had before used his sword for his\nMaster. Besides, he had already told two flat lies within about three\nhours, and it was not for a Galilean in such a pass to hesitate about\none more, even though seconded by a perjury. For he then began to curse\nand to swear, saying, \u201cMan, I know not what thou sayest.\u2015\u2015I know not\nthe man of whom ye speak.\u201d And immediately, while he was yet speaking,\nthe cock crew the second time. At that moment, the Lord turned and\nlooked upon Peter, and at the same sound the conscience-stricken\ndisciple turning towards his Lord, met that glance. And what a look!\nHe who cannot imagine it for himself, cannot conceive it from the ideal\npicture of another; but its effect was sufficiently dramatic to impress\nthe least picturesque imagination. As the Lord turned and looked\nupon him, Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to\nhim, \u201cBefore the cock shall crow twice this night, thou shalt deny me\nthrice.\u201d And thinking thereon, he went out, and wept bitterly. Tears of\nrebuked conceit,\u2015\u2015of self-humbled pride, over fallen glory and sullied\nhonor,\u2015\u2015flowed down his manly cheeks. Where was now the fiery spirit\nonce in word so ready to brave death, with all the low malice of base\nfoes, for the sake of Jesus? Where was that unshaken steadiness, that\ndauntless energy that once won him from the lips of his Master, when\nfirst his searching eye fell on him, the name of the ROCK,\u2015\u2015that name\nby which again he had been consecrated as the mighty foundation-ROCK of\nthe church of God? Was this the chief of the apostles?\u2015\u2015the keeper of\nthe keys of the kingdom of heaven?\u2015\u2015binding and loosing on earth what\nshould be bound or loosed in heaven? Where were the brave, high hopes\nof earthly glory to be won under the warlike banners of his kingly\nMaster? Where was that Master and Lord? The hands of the rude were now\nlaid on him, in insult and abuse,\u2015\u2015his glories broken and faded,\u2015\u2015his\npower vain for his own rescue from sufferings vastly greater than\nthose so often relieved by him in others,\u2015\u2015his followers dispirited and\nscattered,\u2015\u2015disowning and casting out as evil the name they had so long\nadored. The haughty lords of Judaism were now exulting in their cruel\nvictory, re-established in their dignity, and strengthened in their\ntyranny by this long-wished triumph over their deadly foe. He wept for\nbright hopes dimmed,\u2015\u2015for crushed ambition,\u2015\u2015but more than all, for\nbroken faith,\u2015\u2015for trampled truth,\u2015\u2015and for the three-fold and perjured\ndenial of his betrayed and forsaken Lord. Well might he weep\u2015\u2015\n\n \u201cThere\u2019s bliss in tears,\n When he who sheds them inly feels\n Some lingering stain of early years\n Effaced by every drop that steals.\n The fruitless showers of worldly woe\n Fall dark to earth and never rise;\n But tears that from repentance flow,\n In bright exhalement reach the skies.\u201d\n\n _The soldiers_, &c.\u2015\u2015It has been supposed by some that this\n armed force was a part of the Roman garrison which was always\n kept in Castle Antonia, close by the temple; (see note on page\n 95;) but there is nothing in the expressions of either of the\n evangelists which should lead us to think so; on the contrary,\n their statement most distinctly specifies, that those concerned\n in the arrest were from a totally different quarter. Matthew\n (xxvi. 47) describes them as \u201ca great throng, with swords and\n staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.\u201d The\n whole expression implies a sort of half-mob of low fellows,\n servants and followers of the members of the Sanhedrim,\n accompanying the ordinary temple-guard, which was a mere band of\n Levite peace-officers under the priests, whose business it was\n to keep order in the courts of the temple\u2015\u2015a duty hardly more\n honorable than that of a sweeper or \u201cdoorkeeper in the house\n of the Lord,\u201d from which office, indeed, it was probably not\n distinct. These watchmen and porters, for they were no better,\n were allowed by the Roman government of the city and kingdom,\n a kind of contemptuous favor in bearing swords to defend from\n profane intrusion their holy shrine, which Gentile soldiers\n could not approach as guards, without violating the sanctity of\n the place. Such a body as these men and their chance associates,\n are therefore well and properly described by Matthew, as a\n \u201cthrong with swords and clubs;\u201d but what intelligent man would\n ever have thought of characterizing in this way, a regular\n detachment of the stately and well-armed legion which maintained\n the dignity and power of the Roman governor of Judea? Mark (xiv.\n 43) uses precisely the same expression as Matthew, to describe\n them: Luke (xxii. 52) represents Jesus as speaking to \u201cthe chief\n priests and _captains of the temple_ and the elders, who had\n come against him, saying, \u2018Have you come out as against a thief,\n with swords and clubs?\u2019\u201d John (xviii. 3) speaks of the band\n as made up in part of the servants of \u201cthe chief priests and\n Pharisees,\u201d &c. So that the whole matter, unquestionably, was\n managed and executed entirely by the Jews; and the progress of\n the story shows that they did not call in the aid of the heathen\n secular power, until the last bloody act required a consummation\n which the ordinances of Rome forbade to the Jews, and then\n only did they summon the aid of the governor\u2019s military force.\n Indeed, they were too careful in preserving their few peculiar\n secular privileges still left, to give up the smallest power of\n tyrannizing, permitted by their Roman lords.\n\n _The long nights in contrast with the heat of the day._\u2015\u2015It\n should be remembered, that according to a just calculation,\n these events happened in the month of March, when the air\n of Palestine is uncomfortably cold. Conder, in his valuable\n topographical compilation, says, \u201cduring the months of May,\n June, July and August, the sky is for the most part cloudless;\n but during the night, the earth is moistened with a copious dew.\n Sultry days are not unfrequently succeeded by intensely cold\n nights. To these sudden vicissitudes, references are made in\n the Old Testament. Genesis xxxi. 40: Psalm cxxi. 6.\u201d [Modern\n Traveler, Palestine, p. 14.]\n\n The cold season, (\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8 _Qor_,) immediately following the true\n winter, (\u05d7\u05e8\u05e4 _Hhoreph_,) took in the latter part of the Hebrew\n month Shebeth, the whole of Adar, and the former half of\n Nisan; that is in modern divisions of time,\u2015\u2015from the beginning\n of February to the beginning of April, according to the\n _Calendarium Palestinae_, in the Critica Biblica, Vol. III:\n but according to Jahn, (Archaeologia Biblica \u00a7 21,) from the\n _middle_ of February to the _middle_ of April, the two estimates\n varying with the different views about the dates of the ancient\n Hebrew months.\n\n _Galilean, ready to lie as to fight._\u2015\u2015This may strike some, as\n rather too harsh a sentence to pass upon the general character\n of a whole people, but I believe I am borne out in this seeming\n abuse, by the steady testimony of most authorities to which\n I can readily refer. Josephus, whom I have already quoted in\n witness of their pugnacity, (on page 102,) seems to have been\n so well pleased with this trait, and also with their \u201cindustry\n and activity,\u201d which he so highly commends in them, as well as\n the richness of the natural resources of the country, all which\n characteristics, both of the people and the region, he made so\n highly available in their defense during the war with the Romans,\n that he does not think it worth while to criticise their morals,\n to which, indeed, the season of a bloody war gives a sort of\n license, that made such defects less prominent, being apparently\n rather characteristic of the times than the people. But there is\n great abundance of condemnatory testimony, which shows that the\n Galileans bore as bad a character among their neighbors, as my\n severest remark could imply. Numerous passages in the gospels\n and Acts show this so plainly, as to convey this general\n impression against them very decidedly. Kuinoel (on Matthew ii.\n 23) speaks strongly of their proverbially low moral character.\n \u201c_All_ the Galileans were so despised by the dwellers of\n Jerusalem and Judea, that when they wished to characterize a\n man as a low and outcast wretch, they called him a Galilean.\u201d On\n other passages also, (as on John vii. 52, and Matthew iv. 17,)\n he repeats this intellectual and moral condemnation in similar\n terms. Beza and Grotius also, in commenting on these passages,\n speak of Galilee as \u201ccontempta regio.\u201d Rosenmueller also, (on\n John vii. 52,) says \u201cNullus, aiunt, Galilaeus unquam a Deo\n donatus est spiritu prophetico: _gens est Deo despecta_.\u201d That\n is, \u201cIt was a saying among them, that no Galilean was ever\n indued with a spirit of prophecy: they are a people _despised by\n God_.\u201d I might quote at great length from many commentators to\n the same effect, but these will serve as a specimen. It should\n be remarked, however, that the Galileans, though they might be\n worse than most Jews in their general character, were not very\n peculiar in their neglect of truth; for from the time of Abraham,\n Isaac and Jacob, to the present moment, the Asiatic races,\n generally, have been infamous for falsehood, and there are many\n modern travelers who are ready to testify that an Oriental,\n generally, when asked an indifferent question, will tell a lie\n at a venture, unless he sees some special personal advantage\n likely to result to him from telling the truth.\n\n Yet in minute legal observances, the Galileans were, for the\n most part, much more rigid in interpreting and following the law\n of Moses, than the inhabitants of Judea, as is abundantly shown\n by Lightfoot in his numerous Talmudic quotations, (_Centuria\n Chorographica_ chapter 86,) where the comparison is, on many\n accounts, highly favorable to such of the Galileans as pretended\n to observe and follow the Jewish law at all.\n\n _Thy accent betrays thee._\u2015\u2015Lightfoot is very rich in happy\n illustrations of this passage, (Centuria Chorographica chapter\n 87.) He has drawn very largely here from the Talmudic writers,\n who are quite amusing in the instances which they give of the\n dialectic differences between the Galileans and the Judeans.\n Several of the puns which they give, would not be accounted dull\n even in modern times, and indeed, the Galilean brogue seems to\n have been as well marked, and to have given occasion for nearly\n as much wit as that of Ireland. The Galileans, thus marked by\n dialect as well as by manners, held about the same place in the\n estimation of the pure Judean race, as the modern Irish do among\n those of Saxon-English tongue and blood; and we cannot better\n conceive of the scorn excited in the refined Jews by the idea of\n a Galilean prophet with his simple disciples, than by imagining\n the sort of impression that would be made, by a raw Irishman\n attempting the foundation of a new sect in London or Boston,\n with a dozen rough and uneducated workmen for his preachers and\n main supporters.\n\n _The bright light of the fire shining on his face_, &c.\u2015\u2015This\n incident is taken from Luke xxii. 56, where the expression\n in the common version is, \u201ca certain maid saw him as he sat\n by the _fire_.\u201d But in the original Greek this last word is\n \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, (_phos_,) which means \u201clight,\u201d and not \u201cfire;\u201d and it is\n translated here in this peculiar manner, because it evidently\n refers to the light of the _fire_, from its connection with the\n preceding verse, where it is said that \u201cPeter sat down among\n them \u2018before\u2019 the _fire_ which they had kindled;\u201d the word fire\n in this passage being in the Greek \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1, (_pur_,) which is never\n translated otherwise. But the unusual translation of the word\n \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, by \u201cfire\u201d in the other verse, though it gives a just idea\n of Peter\u2019s position, makes a common reader lose sight of the\n prominent reason of his detection, which was, that the \u201c_light_\n of the fire\u201d shone on his face.\n\n In speaking of Peter\u2019s fall and its attendant circumstances,\n Lampius (in Gospel of John xviii. 17,) seems to be most\n especially scandalized by the _means_ through which Peter\u2019s ruin\n was effected. \u201cSed ab _ancilla_ Cepham vinci, dedecus ejus auget.\n Quanta inconstantia! Qui in armatos ordines paulo ante irruperat\n nunc ad vocem levis mulierculae tremit. Si Adamo probrosum,\n quod a femina conjuge seductus erat, non minus Petro, quod ab\n ancilla.\u201d That is, \u201cBut that Cephas should have been overcome by\n a _girl_, increases his disgrace. How great the change! He who,\n but a little before, had charged an armed host, now trembled at\n the voice of a silly woman. If it was a shame to Adam, that he\n had been seduced by his wife, it was no less so to Peter, that\n he was by a girl.\u201d\n\n _The cock crew._\u2015\u2015By this circumstance, the time of the denial\n in all its parts is well ascertained. The first cock-crowing\n after the first denial marked the hour of midnight, and the\n second cock-crowing announced the first dawn of day. As Lampius\n says, \u201cAltera haec erat \u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1, praenuncia lucis, non\n tantum in terra, sed et in corde Petri, tenebris spississimis\n obsepto, mox iterum oriturae.\u201d \u201c_This_ was the second\n cock-crowing, the herald of light, soon to rise again, not only\n on earth, but also in the heart of Peter, now overspread with\n the thickest darkness.\u201d\n\n _And thinking thereon, he wept._\u2015\u2015This expression is taken from\n Mark xiv. 72, and accords with our common translation, though\n very different from many others that have been proposed. The\n word thus variously rendered, is in the original Greek, \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd,\n (_epibalon_,) and bears a great variety of definitions which can\n be determined only by its connections, in the passages where it\n occurs. Campbell says, \u201cThere are not many words in scripture\n which have undergone more interpretations than this term;\u201d\n and truly the array of totally diverse renderings, each ably\n supported by many of the most learned Biblical scholars that\n ever lived, is truly appalling to the investigator. (1.) Those\n who support the common English translation are Kypke, Wetstein,\n Campbell and Bloomfield, and others quoted by the latter.\n \u2015\u2015(2.) Another translation which has been ably defended is,\n \u201c_he began_ to weep.\u201d This is the expression in the common\n German translation, (Martin Luther\u2019s,) \u201cER HOB AN ZU WEINEN.\u201d\n It is also the version of the Vulgate, (\u201cCoepit flere,\u201d) the\n Syriac, Gothic, Persian, and Armenian translations, as Kuinoel\n and Heinsius observe, who also maintain this rendering.\n \u2015\u2015(3.) Another is, \u201c_He proceeded_ to weep,\u201d (\u201cAddens flevit.\u201d)\n which is that of Grotius, LeClerc, Simon, Petavius and others.\n \u2015\u2015(4.) Another is, \u201c_covering his head_, he wept.\u201d This seems\n to have begun with Theophylact, who has been followed by a great\n number, among whom Salmasius, Wolf, Suicer, Macknight, and Krebs,\n are the most prominent.\u2015\u2015(5.) Another is, \u201c_rushing out_, he\n wept.\u201d This is maintained by Beza, Rosenmueller, Schleusner,\n Bretschneider and Wahl.\u2015\u2015(6.) Another is, \u201c_Having looked at\n him_,\u201d (Jesus,) \u201che wept.\u201d This is the version of Hammond and\n Palairet.\u2015\u2015\u201cWho shall decide when\u201d so many \u201cdoctors disagree?\u201d\n I should feel safest in leaving the reader, as Parkhurst does,\n to \u201cconsider and judge\u201d for himself; but in defense of my own\n rendering, I would simply observe, that the _common English\n version_ is that which is most in accordance with the rules\n of grammar, and is best supported by classic usage, while\n the second and third are justly objected to by Bloomfield and\n Campbell as ungrammatical, and unsupported by _truly_ parallel\n passages, notwithstanding the array of classical quotations\n by Bp. \u2666Bloomfield and others; and the fourth and fifth equally\n deserve rejection for the very tame and cold expression which\n they make of it, the fourth also being ungrammatical like the\n second and third. The sixth definition also may be rejected\n on grammatical grounds, as well as for lack of authorities and\n classic usage to support such an elliptical translation.\u2015\u2015For\n long and numerous discussions of all these points, see any or\n every one of the writers whose names I have cited in this note.\n\n \u2666 \u201cBlomfield\u201d replaced with \u201cBloomfield\u201d\n\n\n CHRIST\u2019S CRUCIFIXION.\n\nFrom that moment we hear no more of the humbled apostle, till after the\nfatal consummation of his Redeemer\u2019s sufferings. Yet he must have been\na beholder of that awful scene. When the multitude of men and women\nfollowed the cross-bearing Redeemer down the vale of Calvary, mourning\nwith tears and groans, Peter could not have sought to indulge in\nsolitary grief. And since the son of Zebedee stood by the cross during\nthe whole agony of Jesus, the other apostles probably had no more cause\nof fear than John, and Peter also might have stood near, among the\ncrowd, without any danger of being further molested by those whom he\nhad offended, since they now looked on their triumph as too complete to\nneed any minor acts of vengeance, to consummate it over the fragments\nof the broken Nazarene sect. Still, it was in _silent_ sorrow and\nhorror that he gazed on this sight of woe, and the deep despair which\nnow overwhelmed his bright dreams of glory was no longer uttered\nin the violent expressions to which his loquacious genius prompted him.\nHe now had time and reason enough to apprehend the painfully literal\nmeaning of the oft-repeated predictions of Christ about these sad\nevents\u2015\u2015predictions which once were so wildly unheeded or perversely\nmisconstrued as best suited the ambitious disciples\u2019 hopes of power,\nwhich was to be set up over all the civil, religious, and military\ntyrants of Palestine, and of which they were to be the chief partakers.\nThese hopes all went out with the last breath of their crucified Lord,\nand when they turned away from that scene of hopeless woe, after taking\na last look of the face that had so long been the source of light and\ntruth to them, now fixed and ghastly in the last struggle of a horrible\ndeath, they must have felt that the delusive dream of years was now\nbroken, and that they were but forlorn and desperate outcasts in the\nland which their proud thoughts once aspired to rule. What despairing\nanguish must have been theirs, as climbing the hillside with sad and\nslow steps, they looked back from its top down upon the cross, that\nmight still be seen in the dark valley, though dim with the shades of\nfalling night! Their Lord, their teacher, their guide, their friend,\n\u2015\u2015hung there between the heavens and the earth, among thieves, the\nvictim of triumphant tyranny; and they, owing their safety only to the\ncontemptuous forbearance of his murderers, must now, strangers in a\nstrange land, seek a home among those who scorned them.\n\n _The VALE of Calvary_.\u2015\u2015This expression will no doubt excite\n vast surprise in the minds of many readers, who have all their\n lives heard and talked of _Mount_ Calvary, without once taking\n the pains to find out whether there ever was any such place.\n Such persons will, no doubt, find their amazement still farther\n increased, on learning that no _Mount_ Calvary is mentioned in\n any part of the Bible, nor in any ancient author.\n\n The whole account given of this name in the Bible, is in Luke\n xxiii. 33, where in the common translation it is said that\n Christ was crucified in \u201cthe place called Calvary.\u201d In the\n parallel passages in the other gospels, the Hebrew name only is\n given, Golgotha, which means simply \u201ca skull.\u201d (Matthew xxvii.\n 33: Mark xv. 22: John xix. 17.) This particular place does not\n seem to be named and designated in any part of the Old Testament,\n but a very clear idea of its general situation can be obtained,\n from the consideration of the fact, that there was a place\n beyond the walls of Jerusalem, where all the dead were buried,\n and whither all the carcasses of slain animals were carried and\n left to moulder. This was that part of the valley of the Kedron\n which was called the valley of Tophet, or the vale of the son\n of Hinnom. This is often alluded to as the place of dead bodies.\n (Jeremiah vii. 32, &c.) Besides, all reason and analogy utterly\n forbid the supposition, that dead carcasses would be piled up\n on a \u201cmount\u201d or hill, to rot and send their effluvia all over\n the city in every favorable wind; while on the other hand, a\n deep valley like that of Hinnom would be a most proper place for\n carrying such offensive matters. Josephus, in his description\n of the temple, very particularly notices the fact, that all the\n blood and filth which flowed from the numerous sacrifices, was\n conveyed by a subterraneous channel or drain to this very valley.\n\n\n THE RESURRECTION.\n\nWith such feelings they returned to Jerusalem, where the eleven,\nwho were all Galileans, found places of abode with those of Christ\u2019s\nfollowers who were dwellers in the city. Here they passed the Sabbath\nheavily and sorrowfully, no doubt, and their thoughts must now have\nreverted to their former business, to which it now became each one\nof them to return, since he who had called them from their avocations\ncould now no more send them forth on his errands of love. On the\nday after the sabbath, while such thoughts and feelings must still\nhave distressed them, almost as soon as they had risen, some of them\nreceived a sudden and surprising call from several of the alarmed women,\nwho having faithfully ministered to all the necessities of Jesus during\nhis life, had been preparing to do the last sad offices to his dead\nbody. The strange story brought by these was, that having gone early in\nthe morning to the sepulcher, in the vale of Calvary, with this great\nobject, they had been horror-struck to find the place in which the\nbody had been deposited on sabbath eve, now empty, notwithstanding the\ndouble security of the enormous rock which had closed the mouth of the\ncave, and the stout guard of Roman soldiers who were posted there by\nrequest of the Jews, to prevent expected imposition. On hearing this\nstrange story, Peter and John, followed by Mary of Magdala, started\nat once for the sepulcher. As they made all possible haste, the youth\nof John enabled him to reach the place before his older companion;\nbut Peter arrived very soon after him, and, outdoing his companion now\nin prompt and diligent examination, as he had before been outdone in\nbodily speed, he immediately made a much more thorough search of the\nspot, than John in his hurry and alarm had thought of. He had contented\nhimself with looking down into the sepulcher, and having distinctly\nseen the linen clothes lying empty and alone, he went not in. But when\nSimon Peter came following him, he went into the sepulcher and saw the\nlinen clothes lie; and the napkin that was about his head, not lying\nwith the other clothes, but folded up carefully in a place by itself.\nHaving thus made a thorough search, as this shows, into every nook and\ncorner, he satisfied himself perfectly that the body had in some way or\nother been actually removed, and on his reporting this to his companion,\nhe also came down into the cave, and made a similar examination, with\nthe same result. The only conclusion to which these appearances brought\ntheir minds, was that some person, probably with the design of further\ninsult and injury, had thus rifled the tomb, and dragged the naked\nbody from its funeral vestments. For, as yet, they understood not the\nscripture, nor the words of Christ himself, that he must rise from the\ndead. The two disciples, therefore, overwhelmed with new distress, went\naway again to their own temporary home, to consult with the rest of the\ndisciples, leaving Mary behind them, lingering in tears about the tomb.\n\nSome time after their return, but before they had been able to explain\nthese strange appearances, Mary followed them home, and as soon as\nshe found them, added to their amazement immensely, by a surprising\nstory of her actually having seen Jesus himself, alive, in bodily form,\nwho had conversed with her, and had distinctly charged her to tell\nhis disciples, and Peter especially, that he would go before them\ninto Galilee, where he would meet them. When she came and told them\nthis, they were mourning and weeping. But when they had heard that he\nwas alive, though the story was confirmed with such a minute detail\nof attendant circumstances, and though assured by her that she had\npersonally seen him, they yet believed not. So dark were their minds\nabout even the possibility of his resurrection, that afterwards,\nwhen two of their own number, who had gone about seven miles into the\ncountry, to Emmaus, returned in great haste to Jerusalem, and told the\ndisciples that they too had seen Jesus, and had a long talk with him,\nthey would not believe even this additional proof, but supposed that\nthey, in their credulous expectation, had suffered themselves to be\nimposed on by some one resembling Jesus in person, who chose to amuse\nhimself by making them believe so palpable a falsehood. Yet some of\nthem, even then, suffering their longing hopes to get the better of\ntheir prudent scepticism, were beginning to express their conviction\nof the fact, saying, \u201cThe Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared unto\nSimon.\u201d Of this last-mentioned appearance, no farther particulars are\nany where given, though it is barely mentioned in 1 Corinthians xv. 5.\nand it is impossible to give any certain account of the circumstances.\nWhile assembled at their evening meal, and thus discussing the various\nstrange stories brought to their ears in such quick succession, after\nthey had fastened the doors for security against interruption from the\nJews, all at once, without any previous notice, Jesus himself appeared\nstanding in the midst, and said, \u201cPeace be unto you.\u201d They seeing the\nmysterious object of their conversation, so strangely and suddenly\npresent among them, while they were just discussing the possibility\nof his existence, were much frightened, and in the alarm of the moment\nsupposed that they were beholding a disembodied spirit. But he soon\ncalmed their terrors, and changed their fear into firm and joyful\nassurance, that he was indeed the same whom they had so long known,\nand to prove that the body now before them was the same which they had\ntwo days before seen fastened expiring to the cross, he showed them his\nhands, his feet, and his side, with the very marks which the spear and\nnails had made in them. And while they yet could not soberly believe\nfor joy, and stood wondering, he, to show them that his body still\nperformed the functions of life, and required the same support as\ntheirs, asked them for a share of the food on the table, and taking\nsome from their hands, he ate it before them. He then upbraided them\nwith their unbelief and stupidity in not believing those who had seen\nhim after he was risen from the dead. He recalled to their minds his\nformer repeated warnings of these very events, literally as they had\nbeen brought to pass. He said to them, \u201cThese are the words which\nI spake to you while I was yet with you, that all things must be\nfulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets,\nand in the psalms, concerning me.\u201d Then opened he their understandings,\nthat they might understand the scriptures. Then it was, that at last\nburst upon them the light so long shut out; they knew their own past\nblindness, and they saw in the clear distinctness of reality, all his\nrepeated predictions of his humiliation, suffering, death, resurrection,\nand of their cowardice and desertion, brought before them in one glance,\nand made perfectly consistent with each other and with the result.\nSo that, amid the rejoicings of new hope born from utter despair, at\nthe same time expired their vain and idle notion of earthly glory and\npower under his reign. Their Master had passed through all this anguish\nand disgrace, and come back to them from the grave; yet, though thus\nvindicating his boundless power, he did not pretend to use the least\nportion of it in avenging on his foes all the cruelties which he had\nsuffered from their hands. They could not hope, then, for a better fate,\nsurely, than his; they were to expect only similar labors, rewarded\nwith similar sufferings and death.\n\n\n THE MEETING ON THE LAKE.\n\nAfter this meeting with him, they saw him again repeatedly, but no\nincident, relating particularly to the subject of this memoir, occurred\non either of these occasions, except at the scene on lake Tiberias, so\nfully and graphically given by John, in the last chapter of his gospel.\nIt seems that at that time, the disciples had, in accordance with the\nearliest command of Jesus after his resurrection, gone into Galilee to\nmeet him there. The particular spot where this incident took place was\nprobably near Capernaum and Bethsaida, among their old familiar haunts.\nPeter at this time residing at his home in Capernaum, it would seem,\nvery naturally, while waiting for the visit which Christ had promised\nthem, sought to pass the time as pleasantly as possible in his old\nbusiness, from which he had once been called to draw men into the grasp\nof the gospel. With him at this time, were Thomas, or Didymus, and\nNathanael, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples, whether of\nthe eleven or not, is not known. On his telling them that he was going\nout a fishing, they, allured also by old habits and a desire to amuse\nthemselves in a useful way, declared that they also would go with him.\nThey went forth accordingly, and taking the fishing-boat, pushed off\nin the evening as usual, the night being altogether the best time for\ncatching the fish, because the lake not then being constantly disturbed\nby passing vessels, the fish are less disposed to keep themselves in\nthe depths of the waters, but feeling bolder in the stillness, rise\nto the surface within reach of the watchful fisherman. But on this\noccasion, from something peculiar in the state of the air or water,\nthe fish did not come within the range of the net; and that night they\ncaught nothing. Having given up the fruitless effort, they were towards\nmorning heavily working in towards the shore, and were about a hundred\nyards from it, when they noticed some person who stood on the land;\nbut in the gray light of morning his person could not be distinguished.\nThis man called to them in a friendly voice, as soon as they came\nwithin hailing distance, crying out in a free and familiar way, \u201cBoys!\nhave you anything to eat?\u201d To which they answered \u201cNo.\u201d The unknown\nfriend then called to them in a confident tone, telling them to cast\nthe net on the right side of the ship, and they should find plenty.\nThey cast accordingly, and on closing and drawing the net, were not\nable to pull it in, for the weight of the fishes taken in it. In a\nmoment flashed on the ready mind of John, the remembrance of the former\nsimilar prodigy wrought at the word of Jesus near the same spot, and\nhe immediately recognized in the benevolent stranger, his Lord. Turning\nto Simon, therefore, who had been too busy tugging at the net to\nthink of the meaning of the miracle, he said to him, \u201cIt is the Lord.\u201d\nConviction burst on him with equal certainty as on his companion, and\ngiving way to his natural headlong promptitude in action, he leaped at\nonce into the water, after girding his great coat around him, and by\npartly swimming and partly wading through the shallows, he soon reached\nthe shore, where his loved and long-expected Master was. At the same\ntime, with as little delay as possible, the rest of them, leaving their\nlarge vessel probably on account of the shallows along that part of the\ncoast, came ashore in a little skiff, dragging the full net behind them.\nIn this they showed their considerate prudence, for had they all in\nthe first transport of impatience followed Peter, and left boat and net\ntogether at that critical moment, the net would have loosened and the\nfishes have escaped; thus making the kind miracle of no effect by their\ncarelessness. As soon as they were come to land they saw Jesus placed\ncomposedly by a fire of coals which he had made, and on which he had\ndesigned to cook for their common entertainment, some fish previously\ncaught, dished with some bread. Jesus without ceremony ordered them to\ncome and bring some of the fish they had just caught. Simon Peter now\nmindful of his late heedless desertion of his comrades in the midst of\ntheir worst labor, stepped forward zealously, and, unassisted, dragged\nthe heavy net out of the water; and though on opening it they found one\nhundred and fifty-three large fishes in it, notwithstanding the weight,\nthe net was not broken. When they had obeyed his command, and supplied\nthe place of the fish already cooked on the fire by fresh ones from the\nnet, Jesus in a kind and hearty tone invited them to come and breakfast\nwith him on what he had prepared. The disciples, notwithstanding the\nreadiness with which they had come ashore to their Master, still seem\nto have felt somewhat shy; not, however, because they had any solid\ndoubt as to his really being the person they had supposed him, for\nno man durst say to him \u201cwho art thou?\u201d knowing him to be the Lord.\nPerhaps it was not yet full day-light, which may account for their\nshyness and want of readiness in accepting his invitation. But Jesus,\nin order fully to assure them, comes and takes bread, and puts it into\ntheir hands, with a share of fish likewise to each. They now took hold\nheartily, and without scruple sat down around the fire to breakfast\nwith him. So when they had done breakfast, as men are usually best\ndisposed to be social after eating, he on this occasion addressed\nhimself to Peter in words of reproof, warning and commission. He first\ninquired of him, \u201cSimon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me more than these?\u201d\nTo this Peter readily replied, \u201cYea, Lord, thou knowest that I love\nthee.\u201d Jesus then said to him, \u201cFeed my lambs.\u201d Peter had learned some\nhumility by his late fall from truth and courage. Before, he had boldly\nprofessed a regard for Christ, altogether surpassing in extent and\npermanency the affection which the other disciples felt for him, and\nhad, in the fullness of his self-sufficiency, declared that though\nall the rest should forsake him, yet would he abide by him, and follow\nhim even to prison and to death. But now that high self-confidence\nhad received a sad fall, and the remembrance of his late disgraceful\nconduct was too fresh in his mind to allow him any more to assume that\ntone of presumption. He therefore modestly confined his expression of\nattachment to the simple and humble reference to the all-knowing heart\nof his Divine Master, to which he solemnly and affectingly appealed as\nhis faithful witness in this assertion of new and entire devotion to\nhim, whom he had once so weakly denied and deserted. No more high-toned\nboastings\u2015\u2015no more arrogant assertion of superior pretensions to\nfidelity and firmness; but a humble, submissive, beseeching utterance\nof devoted love, that sought no comparisons to enhance its merit,\nbut in lowly confidence appealed to the searcher of hearts as the\nundeceivable testifier of his honesty and truth. Nor was his deep and\nrenewed affection, thus expressed, disregarded; but Jesus accepting\nhis purified self-sacrifice, at once in the same words both offered\nhim the consoling pledge of his restoration to grace, and again\ncharged him with the high commission, which, while it proved his Lord\u2019s\nconfidence, gave him the means of showing to all mankind the sincerity\nand permanency of his change of heart. From the words of the Messiah\u2019s\nreply, he learned that the solid proof of his deserved restoration\nshould be seen in his devotion to the work which that Messiah had begun;\nthat by guiding, guarding and feeding the young and tender of Christ\u2019s\nflock, when left again without their Master, he might set forth his new\nlove. Already had Jesus, before that sad trial of their souls, in his\nparting, warning words to his near and dear ones, told them, \u201cIf ye\nkeep my commandments ye shall abide in my love. Ye are my friends if\nye do whatsoever I command you. By this shall all men know that ye are\nmy disciples, if ye have love one to another.\u201d And here, in practical\ncomment on that former precept, did he give his restored apostle this\ntest of unchanged love. So harmoniously and beautifully does the sacred\nrecord make precept answer and accord with precept. In the minute\ndetail of mere common incident, we may wander and stagger bewildered\namong insignificant differences and difficulties; but the rule of\naction, the guide of life, leads steadily and clearly through every\nmaze, uneffaced by the changes of order, time and place.\n\n \u201c_Boys._\u201d\u2015\u2015The Greek word here (\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 _paidia_) has a neuter\n termination, and is applicable to persons of both sexes, like\n the English word \u201c_children_,\u201d which is here given in the common\n version. But Jerome\u2019s Latin translation (the Vulgate) gives\n \u201c_pueri_,\u201d \u201cboys,\u201d as the just meaning in this place, and I\n have preferred it, as more in accordance with our usual forms of\n familiar address in such cases, than the one given in the common\n English version.\n\n _Great coat._\u2015\u2015This I consider as giving a better idea of the\n garment called in the Greek \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, (_ependuten_,) which\n is derived from a verb which means \u201cputting on over another\n garment,\u201d and is of course described with more justice to the\n original by the English \u201c_great-coat_,\u201d or \u201cover-coat,\u201d than by\n \u201c_fisher\u2019s_ coat,\u201d as in the common translation. I suppose it\n was a rough outer dress designed as a protection against rain\n and spray, and which he put on in such a way, that he might wade\n in it without the inconvenience of its hanging about his legs.\n It must have been a sort of \u201c_over all_,\u201d that he had pulled off\n while at work, and _put on_ to wade in the water; for the verb\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9 (_diazonnumi_) has also that meaning as well as \u201cgird\n about,\u201d and his object in thus \u201cputting on his over alls\u201d may\n have been to keep himself dry, by covering both his legs and\n body from the water; for it may have come down over the legs\n like a sort of outside trowsers, and being tied tight, would\n make a very comfortable protection against cold water. See Poole\n and Kuinoel on this passage, John xxi. 7.\n\n Luther in his German translation has very queerly expressed\n this word, \u201cGUERTETE ER DAS HEMDE UM SICH,\u201d \u201che girt his _shirt_\n about him;\u201d being led into this error probably, by taking the\n following sentence in too strong a sense, concluding that he\n was perfectly _naked_. But I have already alluded (note on page\n 101) to the peculiar force of this word in the Bible, nor can\n it mean anything but that he was without his outer garments;\n and it implies no more indecent exposure than in the case of\n Christ, when laying aside his garments to wash his disciples\u2019\n feet. Besides, I have shown that the etymology of \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n (_ependutes_) will not allow any meaning to it, but that of an\n \u201c_outer_ garment\u201d _worn over_ other clothes.\n\n _A little skiff._\u2015\u2015The Greek word here is \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n (_ploiarion_,) and means \u201ca _small_ boat,\u201d and is the diminution\n of \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, (_ploion_,) the word used in the third verse of the\n same chapter, as the name of the larger vessel in which they\n sailed, and which probably drew too much water to come close\n to the shore in this part of the lake, where it was probably\n shallow, so as to make it necessary for them to haul the net\n ashore with this little skiff, which seems to have been a sort\n of drag-boat to the larger vessel, kept for landing in such\n places.\n\n \u201c_Come and BREAKFAST._\u201d\u2015\u2015This is certainly a vast improvement\n on the common English version, which here gives the word\n \u201c_dine_.\u201d For it must strike an ordinary reader as a very early\n _dinner_ at that time of the morning, (John xix. 4,) and what\n settles the question is, that the Greek word here is \u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5,\n (_aristesate_,) which primarily and almost always was applied\n only to the eating of the earliest meal, or breakfast, being\n derived from \u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cbreakfast,\u201d the first meal in the day,\n according to Homer and Xenophon.\n\nMany other unrecorded words of wisdom and love must have been spoken at\nthis time, in the course of which Jesus again took occasion to put this\nmeaning and moving question, \u201cSimon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me?\u201d The\nfirst answer of Peter had sufficiently shown, that he had no more of\nthat disposition to claim a merit superior to his fellow disciples, and\nJesus did not again urge upon him a comparison with them, but merely\nrenewed the inquiry in a simple, absolute form. Again Peter earnestly\nexpressed his love, with the same appeal to Christ\u2019s own knowledge of\nhis heart for the testimony of his loyalty, \u201cYea, Lord, thou knowest\nthat I love thee.\u201d He saith to him, \u201cFeed my sheep.\u201d If thou lovest\nme, show that love, by supplying the place of my earthly care, to those\nwhom I love. Love and feed those for whom I have bled and died.\u2015\u2015What\ncould be more simple and clear than this question? What more earnest\nand honest than the answer? What more abiding than the impression made\nby this charge? Yet did not the far-seeing Savior desist from trying\nhis disciple with these questions. Once more was it solemnly repeated,\n\u201cSimon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me?\u201d Peter was grieved that he asked\nhim the third time, \u201clovest thou me?\u201d He saw at last the reproachful\nmeaning of the inquiry. Three times had this same apostle, by his\nfalse-hearted denial, renounced all love and interest in his Master,\nand three times did that injured and forgiving Master call upon him\nto pledge again his forfeited faith and affection. He thus pointed\nout the past weakness of Peter, and showed the means of maintaining\nand insuring future fidelity. Peter again still more movingly avowed\nhis honest attachment, half remonstrating at this repetition of the\nquestion by one who must already know the heart of the answerer too\nfully for words to inform him anew.\u2015\u2015\u201cLord, thou knowest all things;\nthou knowest that I love thee.\u201d Jesus said to him, \u201cFeed my sheep.\u201d\nHe now passed on to a new prediction of his future fortunes, in the\nservice to which he had in these words devoted him, making known to\nhim the earthly reward which his services would at last receive. \u201cI\nsolemnly say to thee, when thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and\nwalkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt\nstretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee\nwhither thou wouldest not.\u201d This he said, to signify to him by what\nsort of death he should glorify God. That is, he in these words plainly\nforetold to him that he should, through all his toils and dangers in\nhis Master\u2019s service, survive to old age; and he also alludes to the\nloss of free agency in his own movements; but the circumstances are so\ndarkly alluded to, that the particular mode of his death could never\nbe made to appear clearly from the prediction. The particular meaning\nof the expressions of this prophecy, can of course be best shown in\nconnection with the circumstances of his death, as far as they are\nknown; and to that part of his history the explanations are deferred.\n\nAfter this solemn prediction, he said to him, \u201cFollow me.\u201d This command\nseems not to have any connection, as some have supposed, with the\npreceding words of Jesus referring to his future destiny, but to be a\nmere direction to follow him on his return from the lake, either back\nto Capernaum, or to the mountain appointed for his meeting with the\ngreat body of his disciples. From what comes after this in the context,\nindeed, this would seem to be a fair construction; for it is perfectly\nplain that as Christ said these words, he turned and walked away; and\nthat not only Peter followed at the direction of Christ, but also John\nof his own accord,\u2015\u2015and it is perfectly natural to suppose that the\ngreater part of the disciples would choose to walk after Jesus, when\nthey had met under such delightful and unexpected circumstances; only\nleaving somebody to take care of the boats and fish. Peter following\nhis Lord as he was commanded, turned around to see who was next to him,\nand seeing John, was instantly seized with a desire to know the future\nfortunes of this apostle, who shared with him the highest confidence\nof his Master, and was even before him in his personal affections. He\naccordingly asked, \u201cLord, and what shall this man do?\u201d or more properly,\n\u201cWhat shall become of this man?\u201d But the answer of Jesus was not at\nall calculated to satisfy his curiosity, though it seemed, in checking\nhis inquiries, to intimate darkly, that this young apostle would\noutlive him, and be a witness of the events which had been predicted in\nconnection with the destruction of Jerusalem, and the second coming of\nChrist in judgment on his foes of the Jewish nation. This interesting\nscene here abruptly closes,\u2015\u2015the Savior and his followers passing off\nthis spot to the places where he remained with them during the rest of\nthe few days of his appearance after his resurrection.\n\n _The mountain appointed for his meeting_, &c.\u2015\u2015It would be\n hard to settle the locality of this mountain with so few data\n as we have, but a guess or two may be worth offering. Grotius\n concludes it to have been Mount Tabor, \u201cwhere,\u201d as he says,\n \u201cJesus formerly gave the three a taste of his majesty;\u201d but\n I have fully shown, on much better authority, that Tabor was\n _not_ the mount of the transfiguration; nor can we value highly\n the fact, that \u201chabet veteris famae auctoritatem,\u201d for we have\n abundant reason to think that in such matters, \u201cthe authority of\n ancient tradition\u201d is not worth much.\n\n There are better reasons, however, for believing Tabor to have\n been the mountain in Galilee, where Christ met his disciples.\n These are, the fact that it was near the lake where he seems to\n have been just before, and was in the direction of some of his\n former places of resort, and was near the homes of his disciples.\n None of the objections that I brought against its being the\n mount of the transfiguration, can bear against this supposition,\n but on similar grounds I now _agree_ with the common notion.\n\n Paulus suggests Mount Carmel, as a very convenient place for\n such a meeting of so many persons who wished to assemble unseen,\n it being full of caverns, in which they might assemble out of\n view; while Tabor is wholly open (GANZ OFFEN) and exposed to\n view; for it is evident that all the exhibitions of Christ to\n his disciples after his resurrection, were very secret. For this\n reason Rosenmueller remarks, that Jesus probably appointed some\n mountain which was lonely and destitute of inhabitants, for the\n meeting. But Tabor is, I should think, sufficiently retired for\n the privacy which was so desirable, and certainly is capable\n of accommodating a great number of persons on its top, so that\n they could not be seen from below. The objection to Carmel is,\n that it was a great distance off, on the sea coast, and should\n therefore be rejected for the same reasons which caused us to\n reject Tabor for the transfiguration.\n\n\n THE ASCENSION.\n\nThe only one of his other interviews with them, to which we can follow\nthem, is the last, when he stood with them at Bethany, on the eastern\nslope of Mount Olivet, about a mile from Jerusalem, where he passed\naway from their eyes to the glory now consummated by the complete\nevents of his life and death. Being there with them, he commanded them\nnot to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promised Comforter\nfrom the Father, of which he had so often spoken to them. \u201cFor John\ntruly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy\nGhost not many days hence.\u201d Herein he expressed a beautiful figure,\npowerfully impressive to them, though to most common perceptions\nperhaps, not so obvious. In the beginning of those bright revelations\nof the truth which had been made to that age, John, the herald and\nprecursor of a greater preacher, had made a bold, rough outset in\nthe great work of evangelization. The simple, striking truths which\nhe brought forward, were forcibly expressed in the ceremony which he\nintroduced as the sign of conversion; as the defilements of the body\nwere washed away in the water, so were the deeper pollutions of the\nsoul removed by the inward cleansing effected by the change which\nfollowed the full knowledge and feeling of the truth. The gross and\ntangible liquid which he made the sign of conversion, was also an\nemblem of the rude and palpable character of the truths which he\npreached; so too, the final token which the apostles of Jesus, when at\nlast perfectly taught and equipped, should receive as the consecrated\nand regenerated leaders of the gospel host, was revealed in a form and\nin a substance as uncontrollably and incalculably above the heavy water,\nas their knowledge, and faith, and hope were greater than the dim\nforeshadowing given by the baptist, of good things to come. Water is a\nheavy fluid, capable of being seen, touched, tasted, weighed and poured;\nit has all the grosser and more palpable properties of matter. But\nthe air is, even to us, and seemed more particularly to the ancients,\nbeyond the apprehension of most of the senses, by which the properties\nof bodies are made known to man. We cannot see it, or at least are not\ncommonly conscious of its visibility; yet we feel its power to terrify,\nand to comfort, and see the evidences of its might in the ruins of\nmany of the works of man and of nature, which oppose its movements. The\nsources of its power too, seem to a common eye, to be within itself,\nand when it rises in storms and whirlwind, its motions seem like the\ncapricious volitions of a sentient principle within it. But water,\nwhenever it moves, seems only the inanimate mass which other agents put\nin motion. The awful dash of the cataract is but the continued fall of\na heavy body impelled by gravity, and even \u201cwhen the myriad voices of\nocean roar,\u201d the mighty cause of the storm is the unseen power of the\nair, which shows its superiority in the scale of substances, by setting\nin terrible and overwhelming motion the boundless deep, that, but\nfor this viewless and resistless agency, would forever rest, a level\nplain, without a wrinkle on its face. To the hearers of Christ more\nparticularly, the air in its motions, was a most mysterious agency,\u2015\u2015a\nconnecting link between powers material and visible, and those too\nsubtle for any thing but pure thought to lay hold of. \u201cThe wind blew\nwhere it would, and they heard the sound thereof, but could not tell\nwhence it came or whither it went.\u201d They might know that it blew from\nthe north toward the south, or from the east toward the west, or the\nreverse of these; but the direction from which it came could not point\nout to them the place where it first arose, in its unseen power, to\npass over the earth,\u2015\u2015a source of ceaseless wonder, to the learned and\nunlearned alike. This was the mighty and mysterious agency which Jesus\nChrist now chose as a fit emblem to represent in language, to his\napostles, that power from on high so often promised. Yet clear as\nwas this image, and often as he had warned them of the nature of the\nduties for which this power was to fit them,\u2015\u2015in spite of all the deep\nhumiliation which their proud earthly hopes had lately suffered, there\nwere still in their hearts, deep-rooted longings after the restoration\nof the ancient dominion of Israel, in which they once firmly expected\nto share. So their question on hearing this charge and renewed promise\nof power hitherto unknown, was, \u201cLord, wilt thou not at this time\nrestore the kingdom to Israel?\u201d Would not this be a satisfactory\ncompletion of that triumph just achieved over the grave, to which the\nvain malice of his foes had sent him? Could his power to do it be now\nbe doubted? Why then, should he hesitate at what all so earnestly and\nconfidently hoped? But Jesus was not to be called down from heaven to\nearth on such errands, nor detained from higher glories by such prayers.\nHe knew that this last foolish fancy of earthly dominion was to pass\naway from their minds forever, as soon as they had seen the event for\nwhich he had now assembled them. He merely said to them, \u201cIt is not for\nyou to know the times or the seasons which the Father has appointed,\naccording to his own judgment.\u201d Jesus knew that, though the minds of\nhis disciples were not then sufficiently prepared to apprehend the\nnature of his heavenly kingdom, yet they, after his departure, becoming\nbetter instructed and illuminated by a clearer light of knowledge,\nwould of their own accord, lay aside that preconceived notion about his\nearthly reign, and would then become fully impressed with those things\nof which he had long before warned them, while they were still in the\nenjoyment of his daily teachings. Being now about to bid them farewell,\n\u2015\u2015lest by entirely cutting off their present hope, he might for a\ntime overwhelm them,\u2015\u2015he so moderated his answer, as not to extinguish\nutterly all hope of the kingdom expected by them, nor yet give them\nreason to think that such a dominion as they hoped for, was to be\nestablished. He therefore, to their inquiries whether he would at that\ntime restore the ancient kingdom of Israel, replied that it was not\nfor them to know the times which the Father had reserved in his own\ncounsels, for the completion of that event. But he went on to inform\nthem of something which _was_ for them to know. \u201cYou shall receive\npower, when the Holy Ghost shall have come upon you; and you shall be\nwitnesses of these things for me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea,\nand in Samaria, and even to the farthest parts of the earth.\u201d And when\nhe had spoken these things, he was taken away from them as they were\nlooking at him, for a cloud received him out of their sight. And while\nthey looked earnestly towards heaven, as he went up, behold, two men\nstood by them in white apparel, and said, \u201cYe men of Galilee, why stand\nye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus who is taken up from you\ninto heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen him go into\nheaven.\u201d They now understood that they had parted from their loved\nMaster forever, in earthly form; yet the consolations afforded by this\nlast promise of the attendant spirits, were neither few nor small. To\nbring about that bright return, in whose glories they were to share,\nwas the great task to which they devoted their lives; and they went\nback to Jerusalem, sorrowful indeed for the removal of their great\nguide and friend, but not sorrowing as those who have no hope.\n\n _To Bethany._\u2015\u2015This place was on the Mount of Olives, probably\n near its summit, and perhaps within sight of Jerusalem. See\n notes on pp. 90 and 95.\n\nHere ceased their course of instruction under their Divine Master;\nlaying down their character as _Disciples_, they now took up the higher\ndignity, responsibility and labors of _Apostles_. Here too ceases the\nrecord of \u201cPETER\u2019S DISCIPLESHIP;\u201d\u2015\u2015no longer a _learner_ and _follower_\nof any one on earth, he is exalted to the new duties and dangers of\nthe APOSTLESHIP, of which the still more interesting story here begins;\nand he must henceforth bear the new character and title of \u201cPeter the\n_teacher_ and _leader_.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n II. PETER\u2019S APOSTLESHIP;\n OR\n PETER THE TEACHER AND LEADER.\n\n\n THE PENTECOST.\n\nAfter the ascension, all the apostles seem to have removed their\nfamilies and business from Galilee, and to have made Jerusalem their\npermanent abode. From this time no more mention is made of any part of\nGalilee as the home of Peter or his friends; and even the lake, with\nits cities, so long hallowed by the presence and the deeds of the son\nof man, was thenceforth entirely left to the low and vulgar pursuits\nwhich the dwellers of that region had formerly followed upon it,\nwithout disturbance from the preaching and the miracles of the Nazarene.\nThe apostles finding themselves in Jerusalem the object of odious, or\nat best of contemptuous notice from the great body of the citizens,\nbeing known as Galileans and as followers of the crucified Jesus,\ntherefore settled themselves in such a manner as would best secure\ntheir comfortable and social subsistence. When they came back to the\ncity from Galilee, (having parted from their Master on the Olive mount,\nabout a mile off,) they went up into a chamber in a private house,\nwhere all the eleven passed the whole time, together with their\nwives, and the women who had followed Jesus, and with Mary, the\nmother of Jesus, and his brethren. These all continued with one accord\nin this place, with prayer and supplication, at the same time no\ndoubt comforting and instructing one another in those things, of\nwhich a knowledge would be requisite or convenient for the successful\nprosecution of their great enterprise, on which they were soon to\nembark. In the course of these devout and studious pursuits, the\ncircumstances and number of those enrolled by Christ in the apostolic\nband, became naturally a subject of consideration and discussion, and\nthey were particularly led to notice the gap made among them, by the\nsad and disgraceful defection of Judas Iscariot. This deficiency the\nSavior had not thought of sufficient importance to need to be filled\nby a nomination made by him, during the brief period of his stay among\nthem after his resurrection, when far more weighty matters called\nhis attention. It was their wish however, to complete their number\nas originally constituted by their Master, and in reference to the\nimmediate execution of this pious and wise purpose, Peter, as their\nleader, forcibly and eloquently addressed them, when not less than one\nhundred and twenty were assembled. The details of his speech, and the\nconclusion of the business, are deferred to the account of the lives of\nthose persons who were the subjects of the transaction. In mentioning\nit now, it is only worth while to notice, that Peter here stands most\ndistinctly and decidedly forward, as the director of the whole affair,\nand such was his weight in the management of a matter so important,\nthat his words seem to have had the force of law; for without further\ndiscussion, commending the decision to God in prayer, they adopted\nthe action suggested by him, and filled the vacancy with the person\napparently designated by God. In the faithful and steady confidence\nthat they were soon to receive, according to the promise of their risen\nLord, some new and remarkable gift from above, which was to be to them\nat once the seal of their divine commission, and their most important\nequipment for their new duties, the apostles waited in Jerusalem until\nthe great Jewish feast of the pentecost. This feast is so named from a\nGreek word meaning \u201c_fiftieth_,\u201d because it always came on the fiftieth\nday after the day of the passover feast. Jesus had finally disappeared\nfrom his disciples about forty days after his resurrection,\u2015\u2015that is\nforty-two days after the great day of the passover, which will leave\njust one week for the time which passed between the ascension and the\nday of pentecost. These seven days the apostolic assembly had passed\nin such pursuits as might form the best preparation for the great event\nthey were expecting. Assembled in their sacred chamber, they occupied\nthemselves in prayer and exhortation. At length the great feast\narrived, on which the Jews, according to the special command of Moses,\ncommemorated the day, on which of old God gave the law to their fathers,\non Mount Sinai, amid thunder and lightning. On this festal occasion,\ngreat numbers of Jews who had settled in different remote parts of the\nworld, were in the habit of coming back to their father-land, and their\nholy city, to renew their devotion in the one great temple of their\nancient faith, there to offer up the sacrifices of gratitude to their\nfathers\u2019 God, who had prospered them even in strange lands among the\nheathen. The Jews were then, as now, a wandering, colonizing people\nwherever they went, yet remained perfectly distinct in manners, dress\nand religion, never mixing in marriage with the people among whom\nthey dwelt, but every where bringing up a true Israelitish race, to\nworship the God of Abraham with a pure religion, uncontaminated by\nthe idolatries around them. There was hardly any part of the world,\nwhere Roman conquest had planted its golden eagles, to which Jewish\nmercantile enterprise did not also push its adventurous way, in the\nsteady pursuit of gainful traffic. The three grand divisions of the\nworld swarmed with these faithful followers of the true law of God, and\nfrom the remotest regions, each year, gathered a fresh host of pilgrims,\nwho came from afar, many for the first time, to worship the God of\ntheir fathers in their fathers\u2019 land. Amid this fast gathering throng,\nthe feeble band of the apostles, unknown and unnoticed, were assembled\nin their usual place of meeting, and employed in their usual devout\noccupations. Not merely the twelve, but all the friends of Christ in\nJerusalem, to the number of one hundred and twenty, were here awaiting,\nin prayer, the long promised Comforter from the Father. All of a sudden,\nthe sound of a mighty wind, rushing upon the building, roared around\nthem, and filled the apartments with its appalling noise, rousing them\nfrom the religious quiet to which they had given themselves up. Nor\nwere their ears alone made sensible of the approach of some strange\nevent. In the midst of the gathering gloom which the wind-driven clouds\nnaturally spread over all, flashes of light were seen by them, and\nlambent flames playing around, lighted at last upon them. At once\nthe anxious prayers with which they had awaited the coming of the\nComforter, were hushed: they needed no longer to urge the fulfilment\nof their Master\u2019s word; for in the awful rush of that mighty wind,\nthey recognized the voice they had so long expected, and in that solemn\nsound, they knew the tone of the promised Spirit. The approach of\nthat feast-day must have raised their expectations of this promised\nvisitation to the highest pitch. They knew that this great national\nfestival was celebrated in commemoration of the giving of the old law\non Mount Sinai to their fathers, through Moses, and that no occasion\ncould be more appropriate or impressive for the full revelation of the\nperfect law which the last restorer of Israel had come to teach and\nproclaim. The ancient law had been given on Sinai, in storm and thunder\nand fire; when therefore, they heard the roar of the mighty wind about\nthem, the firm conviction of the approach of their new revelation must\nhave possessed their minds at once. They saw too, the dazzling flash\nof flame among them, and perceived, with awe, strange masses of light,\nin the shape of tongues, settling with a tremulous motion on the head\nof each of them. The tempest and the fire were the symbols of God\u2019s\npresence on Sinai of old, and from the same signs joined with these\nnew phenomena, they now learned that the aid of God was thus given to\nequip them with the powers and energies needful for their success in\nthe wider publication of the doctrine of Christ. With these tokens of\na divine presence around them, their feelings and thoughts were raised\nto the highest pitch of joy and exultation; and being conscious of a\nnew impulse working in them, they were seized with a sacred glow of\nenthusiasm, so that they gave utterance to these new emotions in words\nas new to them as their sensations, and spoke in different languages,\npraising God for this glorious fulfilment of his promise, as this holy\ninfluence inspired them.\n\n _An upper room._\u2015\u2015The location of this chamber has been the\n subject of a vast quantity of learned discussion, a complete\n view of which would far exceed my limits. The great point mooted\n has been, whether this place was in a private house or in the\n temple. The passage in Luke xxiv. 53, where it is said that the\n apostles \u201cwere continually in the temple, praising and blessing\n God,\u201d has led many to suppose that the same writer, in this\n continuation of the gospel story, must have had reference to\n some part of the temple, in speaking of the upper room as the\n place of their abode. In the Acts ii. 46, also, he has made\n a similar remark, which I can best explain when that part of\n the story is given. The learned Krebsius (Observationes in\n Novvm Testamentvm e Flavio Iosepho, pp. 162\u2012164) has given a\n fine argument, most elegantly elaborated with quotations from\n Josephus, in which he makes it apparently quite certain from\n the grammatical construction, and from the correspondence of\n terms with Josephus\u2019s description of the temple, that this upper\n room must have been there. It is true, that Josephus mentions\n particularly a division of the inner temple, on the upper side\n of it, under the name of \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff3\u03bf\u03bd, (_hyperoon_,) which is the\n word used by Luke in this passage, but Krebsius in attempting\n to prove this to be a place in which the disciples might be\n constantly assembled, has made several errors in the plan of the\n later temple, which I have not time to point out, since there\n are other proofs of the impossibility of their meeting there,\n which will take up all the space I can bestow on the subject.\n Krebsius has furthermore overlooked entirely the following part\n of the text in Acts i. 13, where it is said, that when they\n returned to Jerusalem, \u201cthey went up into an upper room _where\n they had been staying_,\u201d in Greek, \u03bf\u1f51 \u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\n (_hou esan katamenontes_,) commonly translated \u201cthey _abode_.\u201d\n The true force of this use of the present participle with the\n verb of existence is _repeated_ action, as is frequently true\n of the imperfect of that verb in such combinations. Kuinoel\n justly gives it this force,\u2015\u2015\u201c_ubi commorari_ sive _convenire\n solebant_.\u201d But the decisive proof against the notion that this\n room was in the temple, is this. In specifying the persons there\n assembled, it is said, (Acts i. 14,) that the disciples were\n assembled there with the _women_ of the company. Now it is most\n distinctly specified in all descriptions of the temple, that\n the women were always limited to one particular division of the\n temple, called the \u201cwomen\u2019s court.\u201d Josephus is very particular\n in specifying this important fact in the arrangements of the\n temple. (Jewish War, V. 5. 2.) \u201cA place on this part of the\n temple specially devoted to the religious use of the women,\n being entirely separated from the rest by a wall, it was\n necessary that there should be another entrance to this. *\u00a0*\u00a0*\n There were on the other sides of this place two gates, one on\n the north and one on the south, through which the court of the\n women was entered; for women were not allowed to enter through\n any others.\u201d (Also V. 5, 6.) \u201cBut women, even when pure, were\n not allowed to pass within the limit before mentioned.\u201d This\n makes it evident beyond all doubt, that women could never be\n allowed to assemble with men in this upper chamber within the\n forbidden precincts, to which indeed it was impossible for them\n to have access, entering the temple through two private doors,\n and using only one court, which was cut off by an impenetrable\n wall, from all communication with any other part of the sacred\n inclosure.\n\n This seems to me an argument abundantly sufficient to upset all\n that has ever been said in favor of the location of this upper\n apartment within the temple; and my only wonder is, that so many\n learned critics should have perplexed themselves and others with\n various notions about the matter, when this single fact is so\n perfectly conclusive.\n\n The _upper room_, then, must have been in some private house,\n belonging to some wealthy friend of Christ, who gladly received\n the apostles within his walls. Every Jewish house had in\n its upper story a large room of this sort, which served as\n a dining-room, (Mark xiv. 15: Luke xxii. 12,) a parlor, or\n an oratory for private or social worship. (See Bloomfield\u2019s\n Annotations, Acts i. 13.) Some have very foolishly supposed this\n to have been the house of Simon the leper, (Matthew xxvi. 6,)\n but his house was in Bethany, and therefore by no means answers\n the description of their entering it after their return to\n Jerusalem from Bethany. Others, with more probability, the house\n of Nicodemus, the wealthy Pharisee; but the most reasonable\n supposition, perhaps, is that of Beza, who concludes this to\n have been the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, which\n we know to have been afterwards used as a place of religious\n assembly. (Acts xii. 12.) Others have also, with some reason,\n suggested that this was no doubt the same \u201cupper room furnished,\u201d\n in which Jesus had eaten the last supper with his disciples.\n These two last suppositions are not inconsistent with each other.\n\n _Tongues of fire._\u2015\u2015This is a classic Hebrew expression for\n \u201ca lambent flame,\u201d and is the same used by Isaiah, (v. 24,)\n where the Hebrew is \u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05e9 (_leshon esh_,) \u201ca tongue of fire;\u201d\n \u2015\u2015commonly translated, simply \u201cfire.\u201d In that passage there\n seems to be a sort of poetical reference to the tongue, as an\n organ used in devouring food, (\u201cas the tongue of fire devoureth\n the stubble,\u201d) but there is abundant reason to believe that the\n expression was originally deduced from the natural similitude of\n a rising flame to a tongue, being pointed and flexible, as well\n as waving in its outlines, and playing about with a motion like\n that of licking, whence the Latin expression of \u201ca _lambent_\n flame,\u201d\u2015\u2015from _lambo_, \u201click.\u201d Wetstein aptly observes, that\n a flame of fire, in the form of a divided tongue, was a sign\n of the gift of tongues, corresponding to the Latin expression\n _bilinguis_, and the Greek \u03b4\u03b9\u03b3\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, (_diglossos_,) \u201ctwo-tongued,\u201d\n as applied to persons skilled in a plurality of languages. He\n also with his usual classic richness, gives a splendid series of\n quotations illustrative of this idea of a lambent flame denoting\n the presence of divine favor, or inspiration imparted to the\n person about whom the symbol appeared. Bloomfield copies these\n quotations, and also draws illustrations in point, from other\n sources.\n\n My own opinion of the _nature_ of this whole phenomenon is\n that of Michaelis, Rosenmueller, Paulus and Kuinoel,\u2015\u2015that a\n tremendous tempest actually descended at the time, bringing down\n clouds highly charged with electricity, which was not discharged\n in the usual mode, by thunder and lightning, but quietly\n streamed from the air to the earth, and wherever it passed from\n the air upon any tolerable conductor, it made itself manifest\n in the darkness occasioned by the thick clouds, in the form\n of those pencils of rays, with which every one is familiar who\n has seen electrical experiments in a dark room; and which are\n well described by the expression, \u201ccloven tongues of fire.\u201d\n The temple itself being covered and spiked with gold, the best\n of all conductors, would quietly draw off a vast quantity of\n electricity, which, passing through the building, would thus\n manifest itself on those within the chambers of the temple, if\n we may suppose the apostles to have been there assembled. These\n appearances are very common in peculiar electrical conditions\n of the air, and there are many of my readers, no doubt, who have\n seen them. At sea, they are often seen at night on the ends of\n the masts and yards, and are well known to sailors by the name\n which the Portuguese give them, \u201ccorpos santos,\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201choly bodies,\u201d\n \u2015\u2015connecting them with some popish superstitions. A reference\n to the large quotations given by Wetstein and Bloomfield, will\n show that this display at the pentecost is not the only occasion\n on which these electric phenomena were connected with spiritual\n mysteries. No one would have the slightest hesitation in\n explaining these passages in other credible historians, by this\n physical view; and I know no rule in logic or common sense,\u2015\u2015no\n religious doctrine or theological principle, which compels me\n to explain two precisely similar phenomena of this character,\n in two totally different ways, because one of them is found\n in a heathen history, and the other in a sacred and inspired\n record. The vehicle thus chosen was not unworthy of making\n the peculiar manifestation of the presence of God, and of the\n outpouring of his spirit;\u2015\u2015nor was it an unprecedented mode of\n his display. The awful thunder which shook old Sinai, and the\n lightnings which dazzled the eyes of the amazed Israelites,\n were real thunder and lightning, nor will an honest and reverent\n interpretation of the sacred text allow us to pronounce them\n acoustical and optical delusions. If they were real thunder\n and lightning, they were electrical discharges, and cannot be\n conceived of in any other way. Why should we hesitate at the\n notion that He who \u201cholds the winds in the hollow of his hand,\u201d\n and \u201cmakes a way for the lightning of thunder,\u201d should use these\n same awful instruments as the symbols of his presence, to strike\n awe into the hearts of men, making the physical the token of\n the moral power; and accomplishing the deep prophetic meaning\n of the solemn words of the Psalmist, \u201cHe walks upon the wings of\n the wind\u2015\u2015he makes the winds his messengers\u2015\u2015the lightnings his\n ministers.\u201d For this is the just translation of Psalm civ. 4.\n See Lowth, Clarke, Whitby, Calmet, Thomson, &c. But Jaspis,\n Bloomfield, Stuart, &c., support the common version.\n\n _Were all assembled_, &c.\u2015\u2015It has been questioned whether\n this term, \u201c_all_,\u201d refers to the one hundred and twenty, or\n merely to the apostles, who are the persons mentioned in the\n preceding verse, (Acts i. 26, ii. 1,) and to whom it might\n be grammatically limited. There is nothing to hinder the\n supposition that all the brethren were present, and Chrysostom,\n Jerome, Augustine and other ancient fathers, confirm this view.\n The place in which they met, need not, of course, be the same\n where the events of the preceding chapter occurred, but was\n very likely some one of the thirty apartments, (\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9, _oikoi_,\n Josephus, Antiquities, viii. 3. 2,) which surrounded the inner\n court of the temple, where the apostles might very properly\n assemble at the third hour, which was the hour of morning\n prayer, and which is shown in verse 15, to have been the time\n of this occurrence. Besides, it is hard to conceive of this vast\n concourse of persons (verse 41,) as occurring in any other place\n than the temple, in whose vast and thronged courts it might\n easily happen, for Josephus says \u201cthat the apartments around\n the courts opened into each other,\u201d \u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u201cand\n there were entrances to them on both sides, from the gate of\n the temple,\u201d thus affording a ready access on any sudden noise\n attracting attention towards them.\n\n _Foreign Jews staying in Jerusalem._\u2015\u2015The phrase \u201cdwelling,\u201d\n (Acts ii. 5,) in the Greek \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, (_katoikountes_,) does\n not necessarily imply a fixed residence, as Wolf and others\n try to make it appear, but is used in the LXX. in the sense of\n temporary residence; and seems here to be applied to foreign\n Jews, who chose to remain there, from the passover to the\n pentecost, but whose _home_ was not in Jerusalem; for the\n context speaks of them as dwellers in Mesopotamia, &c. (verse 9.)\n A distinction is also made between two sorts of Jews among those\n who had come from Rome,\u2015\u2015the Jews by birth and the proselytes,\n (verse 10,) showing that the Mosaic faith was flourishing, and\n making converts from the Gentiles there.\n\n\n PETER\u2019S SERMON.\n\nThis wonderful event took place in the chamber of the temple, which\nthey had used as a place of worship ever since their Lord\u2019s departure.\nAs the whole temple was now constantly thronged with worshipers, who\nwere making their offerings on this great feast day, this room in which\nthe followers of Jesus were devoutly employed, must, as well as all the\nothers, have been visited by new comers: for the mere prior occupation\nof the room by the disciples, could not entitle them to exclude from\na public place of that kind any person who might choose to enter. The\nmultitude of devotees who filled all parts of the temple, soon heard of\nwhat was going on in this apartment, and came together to see and hear\nfor themselves. When the inquiring crowds reached the spot, they found\nthe followers of Christ breaking out in loud expressions of praise to\nGod, and of exhortation, each in such a language as best suited his\npowers of expression, not confining themselves to the Hebrew, which in\nall places of public worship, and especially in Jerusalem on the great\nfestivals, was the only language of devotion. Among the crowds that\nthronged to the place of this strange occurrence, were Jews from many\ndistant regions, whose language or dialects were as widely various as\nthe national names which they bore. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites,\n\u2015\u2015those who dwelt in Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia,\nPhrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt and Africa, and some even from distant\nRome, were all among those who heard the spirit-moving language of the\ndisciples. Some of the more scrupulous among these foreign Jews, were\nprobably, notwithstanding their amazement, somewhat offended at this\nprofanation of worship, in the public use of these heathen languages\nfor the purposes of devotion; and with a mixture of wonder and\ndispleasure they asked, \u201cAre not all these men who are talking in these\nvarious languages, Galileans? How then are they able to show such an\nimmense diversity of expression, so that all of us, even those from\nthe most distant countries, hear them in our various languages, setting\nforth the praises of God?\u201d And they were all surprised and perplexed,\nand said one to another, \u201cWhat will this come to?\u201d But to some who\nwere present, the whole proceeding was so little impressive, and had\nso little appearance of anything miraculous, that they were moved only\nto expressions of contempt, and said, in a tone of ridicule, \u201cThese\nmen are drunk on sweet wine.\u201d This seems to show that to them there\nwas no conclusive evidence of Divine agency in this speaking in various\nlanguages; and they, no doubt, supposed that among these Galileans\nwere foreigners also from many other parts of the world, who, mingling\nwith Christ\u2019s disciples, had joined in their devotions, and caught\ntheir enthusiasm. Seeing this assembly thus made up, now occupied in\nspeaking violently and confusedly in these various languages, they at\nonce concluded that they were under the influence of some artificial\nexhilarant, and supposed that during this great festal occasion\nthey had been betrayed into some unseasonable jollity, and were now\nunder the excitement of hard drinking. Such as took this cool view\nof the matter, therefore, immediately explained the whole by charging\nthe excited speakers with drunkenness. But Peter, on hearing this\nscandalous charge, rose up, as the leader and defender of these objects\nof public notice, and repelled the contemptuous suggestion that he and\nhis companions had been abusing the occasion of rational religious\nenjoyment, to the purposes of intemperate and riotous merriment.\nCalling on all present for their attention, both foreign Jews and those\nsettled in Jerusalem, he told them that the violent emotions which had\nexcited their surprise could not be caused by wine, as it was then but\nnine o\u2019clock in the morning, and as they well knew, it was contrary to\nall common habits of life to suppose that before that early hour, these\nmen could have been exposed to any such temptation. They knew that the\nuniversal fashion of the devout Jews was to take no food whatever on\nthe great days of public worship, until after their return from morning\nprayers in the temple. How then could these men, thus devoutly occupied\nsince rising, have found opportunity to indulge in intoxicating drinks?\n\nPeter then proceeded to refer them for a more just explanation of this\nstrange occurrence, to the long recorded testimonies of the ancient\nprophets, which most distinctly announced such powerful displays of\nreligious zeal and knowledge, as about to happen in those later days,\nof which the present moment seemed the beginning. He quoted to them\na passage from Joel, which pointedly set forth these and many other\nwonders with the distinctness of reality, and showed them how all these\nstriking words were connected with the fate of that Jesus whom they had\nso lately sacrificed. He now, for the first time, publicly declared to\nthem, that this Jesus, whom they had vainly subjected to a disgraceful\ndeath, had by the power of God been raised from the grave to a glorious\nand immortal life. Of this fact he assured them that all the disciples\nwere the witnesses, having seen him with their own eyes after his\nreturn to life. He now showed them in what manner the resurrection\nof Jesus might be explained and illustrated by the words of David,\nand how the psalm itself might be made to appear in a new light, by\ninterpreting it in accordance with these recent events. He concluded\nthis high-toned and forcible appeal to scripture and to fact, by\ncalling them imperatively to learn and believe. \u201cLet all the house\nof Israel know, then, that God has made this Jesus, whom you have\ncrucified, both Lord and Christ.\u201d This declaration, thus solemnly\nmade and powerfully supported, in connection with the surprising\ncircumstances which had just occurred, had a most striking and\nconvincing effect on the hearers, and almost the whole multitude giving\nway to their feelings of awe and compunction, being stung with the\nremembrance of the share they had had in the murder of Jesus, cried out,\nas with one voice, \u201cBrethren, what shall we do?\u201d Peter\u2019s instant reply\nwas, \u201cChange your mind, and be each one of you baptized to the name of\nJesus Christ, for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the\ngift of the Holy Spirit.\u201d That same divine influence, whose in-workings\nhad just been so wonderfully displayed before their eyes, was now\npromised to them, as the seal of Christ\u2019s acceptance of the offer of\nthemselves in the preliminary sign of baptism. To them and to their\nchildren, upon whom, fifty days before, they had solemnly invoked the\ncurse of the murdered Redeemer\u2019s blood, was this benignant promise of\npardoning love now made; and not only to them, but to all, however far\noff in place or in feeling, whom their common Lord and God should call\nto him. Inspired with the glorious prospect of success now opening\nto him, and moved to new earnestness by their devout and alarmed\nattention, Peter zealously went on, and spoke to them many other words,\nof which the sacred historian has given us only the brief but powerful\nconcluding exhortation,\u2015\u2015\u201cSuffer yourselves to be saved from this\nperverse generation,\u201d\u2015\u2015from those who had involved themselves and their\nrace in the evils resulting to them from their wicked rejection of\nthe truth offered by Jesus. The whole Jewish nation stood at that\ntime charged with the guilt of rejecting the Messiah; nor could any\nindividual be cleared from his share of responsibility for the crime,\nexcept by coming out and distinctly professing his faith in Christ.\n\n\n THE CHURCH\u2019S INCREASE.\n\nThe success which followed Peter\u2019s first effort in preaching the gospel\nof his murdered and risen Lord, was most cheering. Those who heard him\non this occasion, gladly receiving his words, were baptized, and on\nthat same day converts to the number of three thousand were added to\nthe disciples. How must these glorious results, and all the events of\nthe day, have lifted up the hearts of the apostles, and moved them to\nnew and still bolder efforts in their great cause! They now knew and\nfelt the true force of their Master\u2019s promise, that they should \u201cbe\nindued with power from on high;\u201d for what less than such power could\nin one day have wrought such a change in the hearts of the haughty\nJews, as to make them submissive hearers of the followers of the lately\ncrucified Nazarene, and bring over such immense numbers of converts\nto the new faith, as to swell the small and feeble band of disciples\nto more than twenty times its former size? Nor did the impression made\non this multitude prove to be a mere transient excitement; for we are\nassured that \u201cthey held steadily to the doctrine taught by the apostles,\nand kept company with them in all their daily religious duties and\nsocial enjoyments.\u201d So permanent and complete was this change, as to\ncause universal astonishment among those who had not been made the\nsubjects of it; and the number of those who heard the amazing story,\nmust have been so much the greater at that time, as there was then at\nJerusalem so large an assemblage of Jews from almost every part of the\ncivilized world. On this account, it seems to have been most wisely\nordered that this first public preaching of the Christian faith, and\nthis great manifestation of its power over the hearts of men, should\ntake place on this festal occasion, when its influence might at once\nmore widely and quickly spread than by any other human means. The\nforeign Jews then at Jerusalem, being witnesses of these wonderful\nthings, would not fail, on their return home, to give the whole affair\na prominent place in their account of their pilgrimage, when they\nrecounted their various adventures and observations to their inquiring\nfriends. Among these visitors, too, were probably some who were\nthemselves on this occasion converted to the new faith, and each one of\nthese would be a sort of missionary, preaching Christ crucified to his\ncountrymen in his distant home, and telling them of a way to God, which\ntheir fathers had not known. The many miracles wrought by the apostles,\nas signs of their authority, served to swell the fame of the Christian\ncause, and added new incidents to the fast-traveling and far-spreading\nstory, which, wherever it went, prepared the people to hear the\napostles with interest and respect, when, in obedience to their Lord\u2019s\nlast charge, they should go forth to distant lands, preaching the\ngospel.\n\n\n PETER\u2019S PROMINENCE.\n\nThis vast addition to the assembly of the disciples at Jerusalem, made\nit necessary for the apostles to complete some farther arrangements, to\nsuit their enlarged circumstances; and at this period the first church\nof Christ in the world seems to have so far perfected its organization\nas to answer very nearly to the modern idea of a permanent religious\ncommunity. The church of Jerusalem was an individual worshiping\nassembly, that at this time met daily for prayer and exhortation,\nwith twelve ministers who officiated as occasion needed, without\nany order of service, as far as we know, except such as depended\non their individual weight of character, their natural abilities or\ntheir knowledge of the doctrines of their Lord. Among these, the three\nmost favored by Christ\u2019s private instructions would have a natural\npre-eminence, and above all, he who had been especially named as the\nrock on which the church should be built, and as the keeper of the keys\nof the kingdom, and had been solemnly and repeatedly commissioned as\nthe pastor and leader of the flock, would now maintain an undisputed\npre-eminence, unless he should by some actual misconduct prove himself\nunworthy of the rank. Such a pre-eminence it is unquestionable that\nPeter always did maintain among the apostles; and so decidedly too,\nthat on every occasion when any thing was to be said or done by\nthem as a body, Peter invariably stands out alone, as the undisputed\nrepresentative and head of the whole community. Indeed the whole\nhistory of the apostles, after the ascension, gives but a single\ninstance in which the words of any one of the twelve besides Peter\nare recorded, or where any one of them, except in that single case, is\nnamed as having said any thing whatever. On every occasion of this sort,\nthe matters referred to were no more the concern of Peter than of any\nother of the twelve, yet they all seem to have been perfectly satisfied\nwith quietly giving up the expression of their views to him. One\ninstance, indeed, occurs, in which some persons attempted to blame his\nconduct when on a private mission, but even then his explanation of\nhis behavior hushed all complaint. Often, when he was publicly engaged\nin the company of John, the most beloved of Jesus, and his faithful\nwitness, it would seem that if there was any assumption by Peter of\nmore than due importance, this distinguished son of Zebedee or his\nequally honored brother would have taken such a share in speaking and\ndoing, as would have secured them an equal prominence. But no such low\njealousies ever appear to have arisen among the apostles; not one seems\nto have had a thought about making himself an object of public notice,\nbut their common and unanimous care was to advance their great Master\u2019s\ncause, without reference to individual distinctions. Peter\u2019s natural\nforce of character and high place in his Master\u2019s confidence, justified\nthe ascendency which he on all public occasions claimed as his\nindisputable right, in which the rest acquiesced without a murmur.\n\n\n THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY.\n\nIn the constitution of the first church of Christ, there seems to\nhave been no other noticeable peculiarity, than the number of its\nministers, and even this in reality amounted to nothing; for the\ndecided pre-eminence and superior qualifications of Peter were such as,\nin effect, to make him the sole pastor and preacher for a long time,\nwhile the other apostles do not seem to have performed any duty much\nhigher than that of mere assistants to him, or exhorters, and perhaps\nteachers. Still, not a day could pass when every one of them would not\nbe required to labor in some way for the gospel; and indeed the sacred\nhistorian uniformly speaks of _them_ in the plural number, as laboring\ntogether and alike in the common cause. Thus they went on quietly and\nhumbly laboring, with a pure zeal which was as indifferent to fame\nand earthly honor, as to the acquisition or preservation of earthly\nwealth. They are said to have held all things common, which is to be\nunderstood, however, not as implying literally that the rich renounced\nall individual right to what they owned, but that they stood ready to\nprovide for the needy to the full extent of their property, and in that\nsense, all these pecuniary resources were made as _common_ as if they\nwere formally thrown into one public stock, out of which every man drew\nas suited his own needs. To an ordinary reader, this passage, taken by\nitself, might seem to convey fully the latter meaning; but a reference\nto other passages, and to the whole history of the primitive Christians,\nshows clearly, that a real and literal community of goods was totally\nunknown to them, but that in the bold and free language of the age\nand country, they are said to have \u201chad all things in common,\u201d just as\namong us, a man may say to his friend, \u201cMy house is yours;\u2015\u2015consider\nevery thing I have as your own property;\u201d and yet no one would ever\nconstrue this into a surrender of his individual rights of possession.\nSo the wealthy converts to the Christian faith sold their estates and\ngoods, as occasion required, for the sake of having ready money to\nrelieve the wants of those who had no means of support. Thus provided\nfor, the apostles steadily pursued their great work, passing the\ngreater part of every day in the temple; but taking their food at home,\nthey ate what was so freely and generously provided, with thankful and\nunanxious hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people.\nIn these happy and useful employments they continued, every day finding\nnew sources of enjoyment and new encouragement, in the accession of\nredeemed ones to their blessed community.\n\n _Taking their food at home._\u2015\u2015This is my interpretation of\n \u03ba\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, (_klontes kat\u2019 oikon arton_.) Acts ii.\n 46, commonly translated \u201cbreaking bread from house to house,\u201d a\n version which is still supported by many names of high authority;\n but the attendant circumstances here seem to justify this\n variation from them. A reference to the passage will show that\n the historian is speaking of their regular unanimous attendance\n in the temple, and says, \u201cthey attended every day with one\n accord in the temple,\u201d that is, during the regular hours of\n daily worship, but as they would not suffer untimely devotion\n to interfere with their reasonable conveniences, he adds,\n \u201cthey broke bread,\u201d (a Hebraistic form of expression for\n simply \u201ctaking food,\u201d) \u201c_at home_, and partook of their food\n in humility and thankfulness.\u201d This seems to me, to require a\n sort of opposition in sense between \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, (_hieron_,) \u201ctemple,\u201d\n and \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, (_oikos_,) \u201chouse\u201d or \u201chome,\u201d for it seems as if\n the writer of the Acts wished in these few words, to give a\n complete account of the manner in which they occupied themselves,\n devoting all their time to public devotion in the temple except\n that, as was most seemly, they returned to their houses to take\n their \u2666necessary food, which they did humbly and joyfully. But\n the _distributive_ force which some wish to put upon \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd,\n by translating it \u201cfrom house to house,\u201d is one which does not\n seem to be required at all by any thing in the connection, and\n one which needs a vast deal of speculation and explanation to\n make it appear why they should go \u201cfrom house to house,\u201d about\n so simple a matter of fact as that of eating their victuals,\n which every man could certainly do to best advantage at one\n steady boarding-place. That the expression, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, most\n commonly means \u201cat home,\u201d is abundantly proved by standard\n common Greek usage, as shown in the best Lexicons. But \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1,\n in connexion with a singular noun, has the _distributive_ force\n only when the noun itself is of such a character and connection\n in the sentence as to _require_ this meaning. Thus \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1,\n would hardly ever be suspected of any other meaning than\n \u201cmonthly,\u201d or \u201cevery month,\u201d or \u201cfrom month to month;\u201d\u2015\u2015so \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 means \u201cfrom city to city,\u201d but the singular \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd,\n almost uniformly means \u201cin a city,\u201d without any distributive\n application, except where the other words in the sentence imply\n this idea. (Acts xv. 21: xx. 23.) But here the simple common\n meaning of the preposition \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, when governing the accusative,\n (that is, the meaning of \u201cat\u201d or \u201cin\u201d a place,) is not merely\n allowed, but required by the other words in the connection, in\n order to give a meaning which requires no other explanation, and\n which corresponds to the word \u201ctemple\u201d in the other clause; for\n the whole account seems to require an opposition in these words,\n as describing the two places where the disciples passed their\n time.\n\n \u2666 \u201cneeessary\u201d replaced with \u201cnecessary\u201d\n\n There are great names, however, opposed to this view, which seem\n enough to overpower almost any testimony that can be brought in\n defense of an interpretation which they reject. Among these are\n Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, Ernesti, and Bloomfield, whose very names\n will perhaps weigh more with many, than the hasty statement\n of the contrary view which I am able here to give. Yet I am\n not wholly without the support of high authorities; for De\n Dieu, Bengel, Heinrichs, Hammond, and Oecumenius, reject the\n _distributive_ sense here.\n\n\n THE CURE OF THE CRIPPLE.\n\nIn the course of these regular religious observances, about the same\ntime or soon after the events just recorded, Peter and John went up to\nthe temple to pray, at three o\u2019clock in the afternoon, the usual hour\nfor the second public prayers. As they went in at the outer gate of\nthe temple, which being made of polished Corinthian brass, was for its\nsplendor called the BEAUTIFUL, their attention was called to one of the\nobjects of pity which were so common on those great days of assembly,\nabout the common places of resort. A man, who, by universal testimony,\nhad been a cripple from his birth, was lying in a helpless attitude at\nthis public entrance, in order to excite the compassion of the crowds\nwho were constantly passing into the temple, and were in that place\nso much under the influence of religious feeling as to be easily moved\nby pity to exercise so prominent a religious duty as charity to the\ndistressed. This man seeing Peter and John passing in, asked aims of\nthem in his usual way. They both instantly turned their eyes towards\nhim, and looking earnestly on him, Peter said, \u201cLook on us.\u201d The\ncripple, supposing from their manner that they were about to give\nsomething to him, accordingly yielded them his interested attention.\nPeter then said to him, \u201cSilver and gold have I none, but I give thee\nwhat I have; in the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, rise up and\nwalk.\u201d As he said this, he took hold of the lame man and raised him;\nand he at once was able to support himself erect. Leaping up in the\nconsciousness of strength, he stood and walked with them into the\ntemple, expressing thankfulness and joy as he went, both by motions\nand words. The attention of the worshiping assembly in the great courts\nof the temple was at once directed to this strange circumstance; for\nall who had passed in at the gate, recognized this vivacious companion\nof the two apostles, as the man who had all his life been a cripple,\nwithout the power of voluntary locomotion, and they were utterly amazed\nat his present altered condition and actions. As the recovered cripple,\nleaning on Peter and John, still half doubting his new strength,\naccompanied them on to the porch of Solomon, the whole multitude ran\nafter them thither, still in the greatest astonishment. All eyes were\nat once turned to the two wonderful men who had caused this miraculous\nchange, and the astonishment which this deed had inspired must have\nbeen mingled with awe and reverence. Here surely was an occasion to\ntest the honesty and sincerity of these followers of Christ, when they\nsaw the whole people thus unhesitatingly giving to them the divine\nhonor of this miraculous cure. What an opportunity for a calculating\nambition to secure power, favor, and renown! Yet, with all these\ngolden chances placed temptingly within their reach, they, so lately\nlonging for the honors of an earthly dominion, but now changed by the\ninworkings of a purer spirit and a holier zeal, turned calmly and\nfirmly to the people, utterly disclaiming the honor and glory of the\ndeed, but rendering all the praise to their crucified Lord. Peter, ever\nready with eloquent words, immediately addressed the awe-struck throngs\nwho listened in silence to his inspired language, and distinctly\ndeclared the merit of this action to belong not to him and his\ncompanion, but to \u201cthat same Jesus, whom they, but a short time before,\nhad rejected and put to death as an impostor.\u201d He then went on to\ncharge them boldly with the guilt of this murder, and summing up the\nevidences and consequences of their crime, he called on them to repent,\nand yield to this slain and risen Jesus the honors due to the Messiah.\nIt was his name which, through faith in his name, had made this\nlame man strong, and restored him to all his bodily energies, in the\npresence of them all. That name, too, would be equally powerful to save\nthem through faith, if they would turn to him, the prophet foretold\nby Moses, by Samuel, and all the prophets that followed them, as the\nrestorer and leader of Israel, and through whom, as was promised to\nAbraham, _all the families of the earth_ should be blest. But first\nof all to them, the favored children of Abraham, did God send his\nprophet-son, to bless them in turning away every one of them from their\niniquities.\n\n _The beautiful gate._\u2015\u2015The learned Lightfoot has brought much\n deep research to bear on this point, as to the position of this\n gate and the true meaning of its name; yet he is obliged to\n announce the dubious result in the expressive words, \u201c_In bivio\n hic stamus_,\u201d (\u201c_we here stand at a fork of the road_.\u201d) The\n main difficulty consists in the ambiguous character of the word\n translated \u201cbeautiful,\u201d in Greek, \u1f69\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, (_horaian_,) which may\n have the sense of \u201csplendid,\u201d \u201cbeautiful,\u201d or, in better keeping\n with its root, \u1f69\u03c1\u03b1, (_hora_,) \u201ctime,\u201d it may be made to mean\n the \u201cgate of time.\u201d Now, what favors the latter derivation and\n translation, is the fact that there actually was, as appears\n from the Rabbinical writings, a gate called Hhuldah, (\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d4)\n probably derived from \u05d7\u05dc\u05d3 (_hheledh_) \u201cage,\u201d \u201ctime,\u201d \u201clife,\u201d\n \u2015\u2015from the Arabic root \u062e\u0644\u062f (_khaladh_) \u201cendure,\u201d \u201clast,\u201d so\n that it may mean \u201clasting or permanent.\u201d There were two gates\n of this name distinguished by the terms _greater_ and _smaller_,\n both opening into the court of the Gentiles from the great\n _southern_ porch or colonnade, called the Royal colonnade.\n Through these, the common way from Jerusalem and from Zion led\n into the temple, and through these would be the natural entrance\n of the apostles into it. This great _royal porch_, also, where\n such vast numbers were passing, and which afforded a convenient\n shelter from the weather, would be a convenient place for a\n cripple to post himself in.\n\n There was, however, another gate, to which the epithet\n \u201c_beautiful_\u201d might with eminent justice be applied. This is\n thus described by Josephus. (Jewish War. book V. chapter 5,\n section 3.) \u201cOf the gates, nine were overlaid with gold and\n silver,\u2015\u2015*\u00a0*\u00a0* but there was one on the outside of the temple,\n made of Corinthian brass, which far outshone the plated and\n gilded ones.\u201d This is the gate to which the passage is commonly\n supposed to refer, and which I have mentioned as the true one\n in the text, without feeling at all decided on the subject,\n however; for I certainly do think the testimony favors the gate\n Huldah, and the primary sense of the word \u1f69\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 seems to be best\n consulted by such a construction.\n\n _The porch of Solomon._\u2015\u2015\u03a3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b1 \u03a3\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, (_stoa Solomonos_.)\n This was the name commonly applied to the great eastern\n colonnade of the temple, which ran along on the top of the vast\n terrace which made the gigantic rampart of Mount Moriah, rising\n from the depth of six hundred feet out of the valley of the\n Kedron. (See note on page 94.) The Greek word, \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b1, (_stoa_,)\n commonly translated \u201cporch,\u201d does not necessarily imply an\n entrance to a building, as is generally true of our modern\n _porches_, but was a general name for a \u201ccolonnade,\u201d which is a\n much better expression for its meaning, and would always convey\n a correct notion of it; for its primary and universal idea is\n that of a row of columns running along the side of a building,\n and leaving a broad open space between them and the wall, often\n so wide as to make room for a vast assemblage of people beneath\n the ceiling of the architrave. That this was the case in this\n STOA, appears from Josephus\u2019 description given in my note on\n page 95, section 1. The _stoa_ might be so placed as to be\n perfectly inaccessible from without, and thus lose all claim\n to the name of _porch_, with the idea of an entrance-way. This\n was exactly the situation and construction of Solomon\u2019s _stoa_,\n which answers much better to our idea of a _gallery_, than of a\n porch. (See Donnegan, _sub voc._)\n\n It took the name of Solomon, from the fact that when the great\n temple of that magnificent king was burned and torn down by the\n Chaldeans, this eastern terrace, as originally constructed by\n him, was too vast, and too deeply based, to be easily made the\n subject of such a destroying visitation, and consequently was by\n necessity left a lasting monument of the strength and grandeur\n of the temple which had stood upon it. When the second temple\n was rebuilt, this vast terrace of course became again the great\n eastern foundation of the sacred pile, but received important\n additions to itself, being strengthened by higher and broader\n walls, and new accessions of mounded earth; while over its long\n trampled and profaned pavement, now beautified and renewed with\n splendid Mosaic, rose the mighty range of gigantic snow-white\n marble columns, which gave it the name and character of a STOA\n or _colonnade_, and filled the country for a vast distance with\n the glory of its pure brightness. (See note on page 95. See\n also Lightfoot, Disquisit. Chor. cap. vi. \u00a7 2.) Josephus further\n describes it, explaining the very name which Luke uses. \u201cAnd\n this was a colonnade of the outer temple, standing over the\n verge of a deep valley, on walls four hundred cubits in highth,\n built of hewn stones perfectly white,\u2015\u2015the length of each stone\n being twenty cubits, and the highth six. _It was the work of_\n SOLOMON, who first built the whole temple.\u201d (Josephus,\n Antiquities, XX. viii. 7.)\n\n\n THE FIRST SEIZURE OF THE APOSTLES.\n\nWhile the apostles were thus occupied in speaking words of wisdom to\nthe attentive people, they were suddenly interrupted by the entrance of\nthe guards of the temple, who, under the command of their captain, came\nup to the apostles, and seizing them in the midst of their discourse,\ndragged them away to prison, where they were shut up, for examination\non the next day, before the civil and ecclesiastical court of the Jews.\nThis act of violence was committed by order of the priests who had the\ncare of the temple, more immediately instigated by the Sadducees, who\nwere present with the priests and guards when the arrest was made. The\nreason why this sect, in general not active in persecuting Jesus and\nhis followers, were now provoked to this act of unusual hostility,\nwas, that the apostles were now preaching a doctrine directly opposed\nto the main principles of Sadducism. The assertion that Jesus had\nactually risen from the dead, so boldly made by the apostles, must,\nif the people believed it, entirely overthrow their confidence in the\nSadducees, who absolutely denied the existence of a spirit, and the\npossibility of a resurrection of the dead. It was now evening, and\nthe apostles being thus dragged away abruptly, in the midst of their\ndiscourse, the people were obliged to disperse for the night, without\nhearing all that the speakers had intended to say; yet even the\nfragment of discourse which they had heard, was not without a mighty\neffect. So convincing and moving were these few words of Peter, and\nso satisfactory was the evidence of the miracle, that almost the whole\nmultitude of hearers and beholders seems to have come over in a mass\nto the faith of Christ; for converts to the astonishing number of five\nthousand are mentioned by the sacred historian, who all professed their\nbelief in Jesus, as the resurrection and the life, and the healing.\n\n _The guards of the temple_, &c.\u2015\u2015This was the same set of men\n above described, as made up of the Levite porters and watchmen\n of the temple. See note on page 111. Also Lightfoot Horae\n Hebraica in Acts iv. 1.\u2015\u2015Rosenmueller, ibid. and Kuinoel.\n But Hammond has made the mistake of supposing this to be a\n detachment of the Roman garrison.\n\n\n THEIR FIRST TRIAL.\n\nThe next morning the high court of the Jewish nation, having the\nabsolute control of all religious matters, was called together to\ndecide upon the fate of the apostles, and probably also of the lame man\nwhom they had cured. This great court was the same whose members had,\nby unwearied exertions, succeeded a few weeks before, in bringing about\nthe death of Jesus, and were therefore little disposed to show mercy\nto any who were trying to perpetuate his name, or the innovations which\nhe had attempted against the high authority of the ecclesiastical\nrulers of the nation. Of these, the principal were Annas and Caiaphas,\nthe high priests, with John and Alexander, and many others, who were\nentitled to a place in the council, by relationship to the high priests.\nBesides these, there were the rulers and elders of the people, and the\nscribes, who had been so active in the condemnation of Jesus. These\nall having arrayed themselves for judgment, the apostles and their poor\nhealed cripple were brought in before them, and sternly questioned,\nby what power and by what name they had done the thing for which they\nhad been summoned before the court. They stood charged with having\narrogated to themselves the high character and office of teachers, and\nwhat was worse, reformers, of the national religion,\u2015\u2015of that religion\nwhich had been, of old, received straight from God by the holy prophets,\nand which the wisdom of long-following ages had secured in sanctity\nand purity, by entrusting it to the watchful guardianship of the most\nlearned and venerable of a hereditary order of priests and scholars.\nAnd who were they that now proposed to take into their hands the\nreligion given by Moses and the prophets, and to offer to the people a\nnew dispensation? Were they deep and critical scholars in the law, the\nprophets, the history of the faith, or the stored wisdom of the ancient\nteachers of the law? No; they were a set of rude, ill-taught men, who\nhad left their honest but low employments in their miserable province,\nand had come down to Jerusalem with their Master, on the likely\nenterprise of overturning the established order of things in church\nand state, and erecting in its place an administration which should be\nmanaged by the Nazarene and his company of Galileans. In this seditious\nattempt their Master had been arrested and punished with death, and\nthey whose lives were spared by the mere clemency of their offended\nlords, were now so little grateful for this mercy, and so little awed\nby this example of justice, that they had been publicly haranguing the\npeople in the temple, and imposing on them with a show of miracles, all\nwith the view of raising again those disturbances which their Master\nhad before excited, but too successfully, by the same means, until his\ndeath. In this light would the two apostles stand before their stern\nand angry judges, as soon as they were recognized as the followers\nof Jesus. And how did they maintain their ground before this awful\ntribunal? Peter had, only a few weeks before, absolutely denied all\nconnection and acquaintance with Jesus, when questioned by the mere\nmenials in attendance on his Master\u2019s trial. And on this solemn\noccasion, tenfold more appalling, did that once false disciple find in\nhis present circumstances, consolations to raise him above his former\nweakness? Peter was now changed; and he stood up boldly before his\noverbearing foes, to meet their tyranny by a dauntless assertion of his\nrights and of the truth of what he had preached. Freshly indued with a\ncourage from on high, and full of that divine influence so lately shed\nabroad, he and his modest yet firm companion, replied to the haughty\ninquiries of his judges, by naming as the source of their power, and\nas their sanction in their work, the venerated name of their crucified\nMaster. \u201cPrinces of the people and elders of Israel, if we to-day are\ncalled to account for this good deed which we have done to this poor\nman, and are to say in whose name this man has been cured; be it known\nto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus\nChrist, the Nazarene, whom you crucified, and whom God raised from\nthe dead, this man now stands before you, made sound and strong. This\ncrucified Jesus is the stone which, though rejected by you builders,\nhas become the chief corner stone; and in no other name is there\nsalvation, (or healing;) for there is no other name given under heaven,\namong men, by which any can be saved,\u201d (or healed.) When the judges\nsaw the free-spoken manner of Peter and John, observing that they were\nunlearned men, of the lower orders, they were surprised; and noticing\nthem more particularly, they recognized them as the immediate personal\nfollowers of Jesus, remembering now that they had often seen them in\nhis company. This recognition made them the more desirous to put a stop\nto their miracles and preaching. Yet there stood the man with them,\nwhom they had healed, and with this palpable evidence before their\neyes, how could the members of the Sanhedrim justify themselves to the\npeople, for any act of positive violence against these men? These high\ndignitaries were a good deal perplexed, and sending the apostles out of\nthe court, they deliberated with one another, and inquired, \u201cWhat can\nwe do with these men? For there is a general impression that they have\ndone a great miracle, among all who are now in Jerusalem, both citizens\nand strangers, and we cannot disprove it. Still we cannot let these\nthings go on so, nor suffer this heresy to spread any further among the\npeople; and we will therefore charge them threateningly to use the name\nof Jesus no more to the people.\u201d Having come to this conclusion, they\nsummoned the prisoners once more into the court, and gave them a strict\ncommand, never to teach any more nor utter a word in the name of Jesus.\nBut Peter and John, undismayed by the authority of their great judges,\nboldly avowed their unshaken resolution to proceed as they had begun.\n\u201cWe appeal to you, to say if it is right in the sight of God to obey\nyou rather than God. For we cannot but speak what we have seen and\nheard?\u201d The judges being able to bring these stubborn heretics to no\nterms at all, after having threatened them still further, were obliged\nto let them go unpunished, not being able to make out any plea against\nthem, that would make it safe to injure them, while the popular voice\nwas so loud in their favor, on account of the miracle. For the man\nwhom they had so suddenly healed, being more than forty years old, and\nhaving been lame from his birth, no one could pretend to say that such\na lameness could be cured by any sudden impression made on his\nimagination.\n\n _Salvation_, (_or healing_.)\u2015\u2015The Greek word here in the\n original, \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, (_Soteria_,) is entirely dubious in its\n meaning, conveying one or the other of these two ideas according\n to the sense of the connection; and here the general meaning of\n the passage is such, that either meaning is perfectly allowable,\n and equally appropriate to the context. This ambiguity in the\n substantive is caused by the same variety of meaning in the verb\n which is the root, \u03a3\u03b1\u03c9, (_Sao_,) whose primary idea admits of\n its application either to the act of saving from ruin and death,\n or of relieving any bodily evil, that is, of healing. In this\n latter sense it is frequently used in the New Testament, as in\n Matthew ix. 21, 22. commonly translated \u201cmade whole.\u201d Also, Mark\n v. 28, 33: vi. 56: x. 52. In Luke vii. 50, and in viii. 48, the\n same expression occurs, both passages being exactly alike in\n Greek; but the common translation has varied the interpretation\n in the two places, to suit the circumstances,\u2015\u2015in the former,\n \u201c_saved_ thee,\u201d and in the latter, \u201c_made_ thee _whole_.\u201d In\n this passage also, Acts iv. 12, the word is exactly the same as\n that used in verse 9, where the common translation gives \u201cmade\n whole.\u201d The close connection therefore between these two verses\n would seem to require the same meaning in the word thus used,\n and hence I should feel justified in preferring this rendering;\n but the general power of the verb makes it very probable that\n in this second use of it here, there was a sort of intentional\n equivoque in the writer and speaker, giving force to the\n expression, by the play on the meaning afforded by the present\n peculiar circumstances.\n\n\n THEIR RENEWED ZEAL.\n\nThe apostles, as soon as they were released from this unjust\nconfinement, went directly to their own companions, and reported\nall that the high priests and elders had said to them. And when the\ndisciples heard of the threats which these tyrannical hierarchs had\nlaid on their persecuted brethren, with one mind they raised a voice\nto God in a prayer of unequalled beauty and power, in which they called\nupon the Lord, as the God who had made heaven, and earth, and sea, and\nall in them, to look down upon them, thus endangered by their devotion\nto his cause, and to give them all boldness of speech in preaching his\nword; and to vindicate their authority still further, by stretching out\nhis hand to heal, and by signs and miracles. No sooner had they uttered\ntheir prayer than they received new assurance of the help of God, and\nhad new evidence of a divine influence. \u201cThe place where they were\nassembled was shaken, and they were all filled again with the Holy\nSpirit, and spake the word of God with renewed boldness.\u201d This first\nattack upon them, by their persecutors, so far from dispiriting or\ndisuniting them, gave them redoubled courage, and bound them together\nstill with the ties of a common danger and a common helper. \u201cAll those\nwho believed were of one heart and one soul,\u201d and were so perfectly\ndevoted to each others\u2019 good, that \u201cnone of them said that any of the\nthings which he possessed was his own, but held them as the common\nsupport of all.\u201d And in spite of the repeated denunciations of the\nSadducees and the Sanhedrim, the apostles, with great power and effect,\nbore witness of the resurrection of their Lord; and the result of their\npreaching was, that they were all in the highest favor with the people.\nNeither was any one of them suffered to want any comfort or convenience\nof life; for many that owned houses and lands at a distance, turned\nthem into ready money by selling them, and brought the money thus\nobtained, to the apostles, with whom they deposited it in trust,\nfor distribution among the needy, according to their circumstances.\nThis was done more particularly by the foreign Jews, many of whom\nwere converted at the pentecost, when, being gathered from all parts,\nthey heard for the first time of the Messiah, from the mouths of his\napostles, and saw their words supported by such wonders. Among these\nwas a native of Cyprus, by name Joseph, a Levite, who so distinguished\nhimself by his labors of love among them, and gave such promise of\nexcellence as a teacher of the new faith which he had adopted, that the\napostles honored him with a new name, by which he was ever after known,\ninstead of his previous one. They called him Barnabas, which means\n\u201cthe son of exhortation,\u201d no doubt referring to those talents which\nhe afterwards displayed as an eminent and successful minister of the\ngospel.\n\n _Raised a voice._\u2015\u2015This is literal; and can mean nothing more\n than the common modern expression, \u201cunite in prayer,\u201d with\n which it is perfectly synonymous. The judicious Bloomfield\n (Annotations in Acts iv. 24,) observes, \u201cWe cannot rationally\n suppose that this prefatory address was (as some conjecture) not\n pronounced _extempore_, but a pre-composed form of prayer, since\n the words advert to circumstances not known until that very time;\n as, for instance, the threatenings of the Sanhedrim, (verse 29,)\n of which they had been but just then informed; and the words\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1fc3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd will not allow us to imagine\n any interval between the report of Peter and John, and the\n prayer.\u201d Kuinoel\u2019s view is precisely the same.\n\n _Were in the highest favor with the people._\u2015\u2015Very different\n from the common translation, \u201cgreat grace was upon them all.\u201d\n But the Greek word, \u03a7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, (_Kharis_,) like the Latin _gratia_,\n (in the Vulgate,) means primarily \u201cfavor;\u201d and the only question\n is, whether it refers to the favor of God or of man. Beza,\n Whitby, Doddridge, &c. prefer the former, but Kuinoel justly\n argues from a comparison of the parallel passages, (ii. 47,\n and iv. 34,) that it refers to their increasing influence on\n the attention and regard of the people, which was indeed the\n great object of all their preaching and miracles. Grotius,\n Rosenmueller, Bloomfield and others, also support this view.\n\n _Deposited in trust._\u2015\u2015This is a free, but just version of\n \u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, (_etithoun para tous podas_,) Acts iv.\n 35, literally and faithfully rendered in the common translation\n by \u201claid at the feet;\u201d but this was an expression very common\n not only in Hebrew, but in Greek and Latin usage, for the\n idea of \u201cdeposit in trust;\u201d as is shown by Rosenmueller\u2019s apt\n quotations from Cicero, \u201cante pedes praetoris in foro expensum\n est auri pondo centum,\u201d Defence of Flaccus, chapter 28; and from\n Heliodorus, \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n But Kuinoel seems not to think of these, and quotes it as a mere\n Hebraism.\n\n _Barnabas, son of exhortation._\u2015\u2015This is the translation of this\n name, which seems best authorized. A fuller account of it will\n be given in the life of Barnabas.\n\n\n ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA.\n\nThe great praise and universal gratitude which followed Barnabas, for\nthis noble and self-denying act of pure generosity, was soon after the\noccasion of a most shameful piece of imposition, ending in an awful\nexpression of divine vengeance. Led by the hope of cheaply winning the\nsame praise and honor which Barnabas had acquired by his simple-minded\nliberality, a man named Ananias, with the knowledge and aid of his wife\nSapphira, having sold a piece of land, brought only a part of the price\nto the apostles, and deposited it in the general charity-fund, alleging\nat the same time, that this was the whole amount obtained for the land.\nBut Peter, having reason to believe that this was only a part of the\nprice, immediately questioned Ananias sternly on this point, charging\nhim directly with the crime of lying to God. He remarked to him that\nthe land was certainly his own, and no one could question his right to\ndo just as he pleased with that, or the money obtained for it; since\nhe was under no obligation to give it away to the poor of the church.\nBut since he had of his own accord attempted to get a reputation for\ngenerosity, by a base and avaricious act of falsehood, he had incurred\nthe wrath of an insulted God. No sooner had Ananias heard this awful\ndenunciation, than, struck with the vengeance he had brought on himself,\nhe fell lifeless before them, and was carried out to the burial by the\nattendants. His wife soon after coming in, not having heard of what had\nhappened, boldly maintained her husband\u2019s assertion, and repeated the\nlie most distinctly to Peter. He then declared his knowledge of her\nguilt, and made known to her the fate of her husband, which she was\ndoomed to share. The words had hardly left his lips, when they were\nconfirmed by her instant death, and she was at once carried out and\nlaid with her husband. The effect of these shocking events on the minds\nof the members of the church generally, was very salutary; exhibiting\nto them the awful consequences of such deliberate and hardened sin.\n\n _Attendants._\u2015\u2015The common English translation here gives the\n expression, \u201cyoung men,\u201d which is the primary meaning of the\n Greek \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9, (_neaniskoi_,) and is quite unobjectionable;\n but the connection here seems to justify and require its\n secondary use in application to \u201cservants,\u201d \u201cattendants,\u201d &c.\n This interpretation has the authority of the learned Mosheim,\n who considers the persons here mentioned, to have been regularly\n appointed officers, who performed the necessary duties about the\n assemblies of the disciples, and executed all the commands of\n the apostles. He says, \u201cunless you suppose these _young men_ to\n have been of this sort, it is hard to understand why they alone\n instantly rose up and carried out the bodies of Ananias and his\n wife, and buried them. But if you suppose them to have been men\n discharging an official duty in the public assembly, you see a\n reason why, even without orders, they took that sad duty upon\n themselves. And that there were public servants of this sort in\n the first Christian church, no one certainly can doubt, who will\n imagine for himself either its circumstances or the form of the\n assemblies of that age. For instance, there were the places of\n meeting to be cleaned,\u2015\u2015the seats and tables to be arranged,\n \u2015\u2015the sacred books to be brought and carried away,\u2015\u2015the dishes\n to be set out and cleared off,\u2015\u2015in short, there were many things\n to be done which absolutely required particular men.\u201d (Mosheim,\n Commentary de rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum, p. 114, b.)\n This passage is quoted by Kuinoel, and is so clear in its\n representation of the circumstance, as to justify me in\n translating it entire.\n\n\n THE INCREASING FAME OF THE APOSTLES.\n\nThe apostles, daily supported anew by fresh tokens of divine aid, went\non in their labors among the people, encouraged by their increasing\nattention and favor. So deep was the impression of awe made by the\nlate occurrence, that none of the rest of the church dared to mingle\nfamiliarly with the apostles, who now seemed to be indued with the\npower of calling down the vengeance of God at will, and appeared to be\npersons too high and awful for common men to be familiar with. Yet the\nnumber of the church members, both men and women, continued to enlarge,\nand the attendance of the people to increase, so that there was no\nplace which would accommodate the vast crowd of hearers and beholders,\nexcept the great porch of Solomon, already described, where the\napostles daily met the church and the people, to teach and strengthen\nthem, and to work the cures which their Master had so often wrought.\nSo high was the reputation of the apostles, and so numerous were those\nwho came to solicit the favor of their healing power, for themselves or\nfriends, that all could not get access to them even in the vast court\nof the temple which they occupied, insomuch that they brought the sick\ninto the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, along the path\nwhich the apostles were expected to pass, that at least the shadow\nof Peter, passing by, might overshadow some of them. Nor was this\nwonderful fame and admiration confined to Jerusalem; for as the news\nwas spread abroad by the pilgrims returning from the pentecost, there\ncame also a multitude out of the cities round about Jerusalem, bringing\nsick folks and those who were affected by evil spirits, and they were\nhealed, every one.\n\n _Mingle familiarly with them._\u2015\u2015Commonly translated, \u201cjoin\n himself to them,\u201d which conveys a totally erroneous idea, since\n all their efforts were given to this end, of making as many\n as possible \u201cjoin themselves to them.\u201d The context (verse 14,)\n shows that their numbers were largely increased by such\n additions. \u201cYet no one of the common members (\u03bf\u1f31 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9) dared\n mingle familiarly (\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) with them; but the people held\n them in great reverence.\u201d Acts v. 13.\n\n _Met the church and people._\u2015\u2015This distinction may not seem very\n obvious in a common reading of the Acts, but in v. 11, it is\n very clearly drawn. \u201cGreat fear was upon the whole church _and_\n on all the hearers of these things.\u201d And throughout the chapter,\n a nice discrimination is made between \u1f41 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2, (_ho laos_,) \u201cthe\n people,\u201d or \u201cthe congregation,\u201d and \u1f21 \u03b5\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, (_he ekklesia_,)\n \u201cthe church.\u201d See Kuinoel in v. 13, 14.\n\n _The shadow of Peter._\u2015\u2015This is one of a vast number of passages\n which show that high and perfectly commanding pre-eminence of\n this apostolic chief. The people evidently considered Peter\n as concentrating all the divine and miraculous power in his\n own person, and had no idea at all of obtaining benefit from\n anything that the minor apostles could do. In him, alone, they\n saw the manifestations of divine power and authority;\u2015\u2015he spoke\n and preached and healed, and judged and doomed, while the rest\n had nothing to do but assent and aid. Peter, then, _was_ THE\n great pastor of the church, and it is every way desirable that\n over-zealous Protestants would find some better reason for\n opposing so palpable a fact, than simply that Papists support it.\n\n\n THEIR SECOND SEIZURE AND TRIAL.\n\nThe triumphant progress of the new sect, however, was not unnoticed\nby those who had already taken so decided a stand against it. The\nSadducees, who had so lately come out against them, were not yet\ndisposed to leave the apostles to enjoy their boldness with impunity.\nThe high priest Annas, who had always been the determined enemy of\nChrist, belonging to the Sadducean sect, was easily led to employ all\nhis authority with his brethren, against the apostles. He at last,\nprovoked beyond endurance at their steady and unflinching contempt of\nthe repeated solemn injunction of the Sanhedrim, whose president and\nagent he was, rose up in all his anger and power, and, backed by his\nfriends, seized the apostles and put them into the common jail, as\ninveterate disturbers of the peace of the city, and of the religious\norder of the temple. This commitment was intended to be merely\ntemporary, and was to last only until a convenient time could be found\nfor bringing them to trial, when the crowd of strangers should have\nretired from the city to their homes, and the excitement attendant on\nthe preaching and miracles of the apostles should have subsided, so\nthat the ordinary course of law might go on safely, even against these\npopular favorites, and they might be brought at last to the same fate\nas their Master. After the achievment of this project, \u201ca consummation\nmost devoutly to be wished\u201d by every friend of the established order\nof things, the sect which was now making such rapid advances would fall\npowerless and lifeless, when its great heads were thus quietly lopped\noff. This seems to have been their well-arranged plan,\u2015\u2015but it was\ndestined to be spoiled in a way unlooked for; and this first step in it\nwas to be made the means of a new triumph to the persecuted subjects of\nit. That very night, the prison doors were opened by a messenger of God,\nby whom the apostles were brought out of their confinement, and told,\n\u201cGo, stand and speak in the temple, to the people, all the words of\nthis life.\u201d According to this divine command, they went into the temple\nand taught, early in the morning, probably before their luxurious\ntyrants had left their lazy pillows. While the apostles were thus\ncoolly following their daily labors of mercy in the temple, the\nhigh priest and his train called the council together, and the whole\nsenate of all the children of Israel, and having deliberately arrayed\nthemselves in the forms of law, they ordered the imprisoned heretics to\nbe brought forthwith into the awful presence of this grand council and\nsenate of the Jewish nation and faith. The officers, of course, as in\nduty bound, went to execute the order, but soon returned to report the\nimportant deficiency of the persons most needed to complete the solemn\npreparation for the trial. Their report was simply, \u201cThe prison truly\nwe found shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without, before\nthe doors; but when we had opened, we found no man within.\u201d Here was\na non-plus, indeed; all proceedings were brought to a stand at once;\nand \u201cwhen the high priest and the chief officer of the temple, and\nthe chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them, whereunto\nthey would grow.\u201d But these eminent dignitaries were not left long to\nperplex their sage heads about the unworthy objects of their tender\nsolicitude; for some faithful sycophant, rejoicing in such a glorious\nopportunity to serve the powers that were, came running to tell them,\n\u201cBehold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple,\nand teaching the people.\u201d This very simple but valuable piece\nof information relieved the grave judges very happily from their\nunfortunate quandary; and without further delay, a detachment of\nofficers was sent to bring these unaccountable runaways to account.\nBut as it appeared that the criminals were now in the midst of a vast\nassemblage of their friends, who were too perfectly devoted to them to\nsuffer them to receive any violence, it was agreed to manage the thing\nas quietly and easily as might be, and to coax them away if possible\nto the tribunal. To insure the still and effectual performance of this\norder, the captain of the temple himself went with the officers, and\nquietly drew the apostles away, with their own consent, and without any\nviolence; for the minions of the law knew perfectly well that the least\nshow of injury towards these righteous men, would insure to those who\nattempted it, broken heads and bones, from the justly provoked people,\nwhose deserved indignation would soon make the very stones to rise\nin mutiny for the defence of their beloved teachers and benefactors.\nThe apostles themselves, however, showed no unwillingness whatever to\nappear before their bitter persecutors again, and presented themselves\naccordingly, with bold unflinching fronts, before the bar of the\nSanhedrim. When they were fairly set before the council, the high\npriest, turning his lately perplexed face into \u201ca look of austere\ndignity,\u201d asked them, \u201cDid we not particularly charge you, that you\nshould not teach in his name? And now, indeed, in open contempt of\nour authority, you have filled all Jerusalem with your doctrine, and\nmean to bring this man\u2019s blood upon us?\u201d They, the high priest and his\nsupporters, had, at no small pains and trouble, effected the death of\nJesus, and had naturally hoped that there would be an end of him; but\nhere now were his disciples constantly using his name to the excitable\npopulace in their daily teachings, thus keeping alive the memory of\nthese painful incidents which it was so desirable to forget, and slowly\nplotting the means of avenging upon the Sanhedrim the death of their\nMaster. To this sort of address, Peter and all the other apostles,\nwho now shared the fate of their two distinguished friends, replied,\neven as had been said on the previous summons, \u201cWe ought to obey God\nrather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew\nand hanged on a tree: him now has God uplifted to sit beside his own\nright hand, to be a Prince and a Savior, to give to Israel a change\nof heart and views, and remission of sins. And we are his witnesses of\nthese things, and what is far more, so also is the Holy Spirit, which\nGod has given to those who obey him, as the reward and the sign of\ntheir obedience.\u201d This bold and solemn speech, breathing nothing but\nresistance against all hindrances, and steady persistance in their\ncourse,\u2015\u2015and denouncing, too, as murderers, the judges, while it\nexalted their victim to honors the highest in the universe, was not at\nall calculated to conciliate the friendly regard of the hearers of it,\nbut roused them to the most violent and deadly hate. Deeply wounded\nand insulted as they were, they determined to try remonstrance no\nlonger; but in spite of the danger of popular ferment, to silence these\naudacious bravers of their authority, in death. While they were on the\npoint of pronouncing this cruel decision, the proceedings were stayed\nby Gamaliel, a man of vast learning and influence, an eminent Pharisee\nof great popularity, and beyond all the men of that age, in knowledge\nof the law of Moses and of Hebrew literature. This great man, rising\nup in the midst of their wrathful resolutions, moved to suspend the\ndecision for a few minutes, and to withdraw the prisoners from the bar,\nuntil the court could form their opinions by deliberating with more\nfreedom than they could in the presence of the subjects of the trial.\nAs soon as the apostles were put out of the court, Gamaliel addressed\nthem, prompted by a noble humanity, as well as by a deep knowledge\nof human nature, and acting in accordance, also, with the general\nprinciples of the Pharisees, who were very averse to cruelty and\nbloodshed, and were generally disposed to punish even criminals in\nthe mildest ways. Possibly, too, he might have been affected by some\njealousy of the forwardness of the rival sect. His words were these:\n\u201cMen of Israel! take care what you do to these men. For you know that,\nnot long ago, rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody, and\ngathered a gang about him, to the number of four hundred. But as soon\nas the attention of our Roman masters was drawn to his outrageous\ndoings, they put him entirely down at once, killing him and breaking up\nhis band, by slaughter and banishment; so that without any trouble or\nexertion on our part, all this sedition was brought to nought. And when,\nafter him, Judas the Galilean raised a great party about him, in the\ndays of the taxing, this rebellion against the government met with the\nsame inevitable fate, from the resistless soldiery of Rome; and all\nthis was done without any need of interference from us. And now, with\nthese remarkable instances in view, I warn you to let these men alone,\nand leave them to determine their fate by their own future conduct.\nFor if, in all their active efforts of seeming benevolence, they have\nbeen prompted by any base ambition to head a faction, which may raise\nthem to the supreme power in religious and political affairs, and by a\nrevengeful wish to punish those concerned in the death of their Master;\n\u2015\u2015if, in short, their plan or their work is a mere contrivance of men,\nit will come to nought of itself, without your interference, as did the\ntwo miserable riots which I have just mentioned. But if, inspired by a\nholier principle of action, they are laboring with pure love of their\nconverts; if all these wonderful cures which you consider mere tricks\nand impostures, shall prove to be true miracles, wrought by the hand\nof God, and if their plan be of God,\u2015\u2015you cannot overthrow it; and do\nyou look to it, sirs, that you do not find yourselves at last fighting\nagainst God.\u201d This noble and sensible speech, aided by the high rank\nand great weight of character which belonged to the speaker, instantly\nhushed all the lately outrageous proposals which had been made against\nthe prisoners. If there were any in the council who did not feel\nsatisfied with his reasoning, they were wise enough to acquiesce, with\nat least the appearance of content. They knew too well, that Gamaliel,\nsupported by his unbounded popularity with the whole nation, and his\neminently exalted character for justice and virtue, was abundantly\nable to put down every appearance of opposition, and set the apostles\nfree, in spite of high priest and Sadducees. Adopting his resolution,\ntherefore, they called in the apostles, and having vented their paltry\nmalice by beating them, and having exposed themselves to new contempt\nby repeating their oft-despised command, that the apostles should not\nspeak in the name of Jesus, they let them go, being fully assured that\nthe first use the apostles would make of their freedom would be to\nbreak this idle injunction. For they went out of the judgment-hall,\nrejoicing that they were honored by suffering this shameful treatment\nin their Master\u2019s name. They now recalled to mind his early words of\nencouragement, which he had given them in a wise determination to\nprepare them for evils of which they had then so little notion. The\npassage from the sermon on the mount was particularly appropriate to\ntheir present circumstances. \u201cBlessed are they who are persecuted for\nrighteousness\u2019 sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are\nye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of\nevil against you falsely, for my name\u2019s sake. Rejoice and be exceeding\nglad; for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the\nprophets who were before you.\u201d Comforted by such words as these, they\nreturned to their labors as before, and daily, in the temple, and\nmoreover in private houses, ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus\nChrist, in the very face of the express prohibition of their thwarted\npersecutors.\n\n _Messenger._\u2015\u2015This is a fair and literal interpretation of\n \u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, (_angelos_,) and one justifiable in every place where\n it occurs in the Bible. Wherever it is applied to a supernatural\n being sent from God, the connection will abundantly explain\n the term, without rendering it by a different word. Thus I have\n chosen to do, and to leave each reader to judge for himself,\n from the other attendant circumstances, of the character of the\n _messenger_. See Kuinoel in loc.\n\n _All the words of this life._\u2015\u2015I here follow the common\n translation, though Kuinoel and most interpreters consider this\n as a _hypallage_, and transpose it into \u201call these words of\n life.\u201d But it does not seem necessary to take such a liberty with\n the expression, since the common version conveys a clear idea.\n \u201cThe words of _this_ life\u201d evidently can mean only the words of\n _that_ life which they had before preached, in accordance with\n their commission; that is, of life from the dead, as manifested\n in the resurrection of Jesus, which was in itself the pledge and\n promise of life and bliss eternal, to all who should hear and\n believe these \u201cwords.\u201d This view is supported by Storr, and a\n similar one is advanced by Rosenmueller, in preference to any\n _hypallage_.\n\n _Change of heart._\u2015\u2015I have in general given this translation\n of \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5, (_Metanoeite_,) as more minutely faithful to\n the etymology of the word, and also accordant with popular\n religious forms of expression; though the common translation is\n unobjectionable.\n\n _Deeply wounded._\u2015\u2015In the Greek, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, (dieprionto,) from\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9, \u201cto saw through;\u201d in the passive, of course, \u201cto be\n sawn through,\u201d or figuratively, \u201cdeeply wounded in the moral\n feelings.\u201d This is the commonly translated, \u201ccut to the heart,\u201d\n which I have adopted, with such a variation of the words as will\n assimilate it most nearly to common modern forms of expression.\n But Kuinoel prefers the peculiar force of the middle voice,\n (where this word can be made, owing to the identity of the\n imperfect tenses of the two voices,) given by Hesychius, \u201cto\n gnash the teeth,\u201d doubtless taken from the similarity of sound\n between \u201csawing,\u201d and \u201cgrating the teeth.\u201d This sense being also\n highly appropriate here, to men in a rage, makes the passage\n perfectly ambiguous, and accordingly great authorities divide\n on the point. In such cases, it seems to me perfectly fair to\n consider the phrase as originally intended for an equivoque.\n Luke was Grecian enough, doubtless, to know the two meanings of\n this form, and must have been very careless if he did not think\n of it as he wrote it down; but either meaning is powerfully\n expressive of the idea here, and why should he reject or explain\n it? It is rather an advantage and a charm than otherwise, in\n a language, to possess this ambiguity, making occasionally a\n richly expressive play of meanings. It seems, however, more\n in accordance with Luke\u2019s ordinary expressions, to prefer the\n passive sense, as in Acts vii. 54, \u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 (\u201cto their\n hearts\u201d) is added, there, of course, requiring the passive.\n For similar forms of expression, see Luke ii. 35: Acts ii.\n 37.\u2015\u2015Consult Bretschneider in loc. In favor of the passive sense,\n see Bloomfield, Rosenmueller, Wolf, Hammond and Gataker. On the\n middle sense, Kuinoel, Beza and Wetstein.\n\n _Gamaliel._\u2015\u2015I shall give a full account of this venerable sage,\n in the beginning of the life of Paul.\n\n _In the temple and in private houses._\u2015\u2015Acts vi. 42. In the\n Greek, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, (_kat\u2019 oikon_,) the same expression as in\n ii. 46, alluded to in my note on pages 139, 140. Here too occurs\n precisely the same connection with \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff3, (_en to hiero_,)\n with the same sense of opposition in place, there alluded to.\n The indefinite sense, then, rather than the _distributive_,\n is proper here as there, showing that they preached and\n taught not only in their great place of assembly, under the\n eastern colonnade of the temple, (v. 12,) but also in private\n houses, that is, at their home, or those of their friends.\n The expression \u201cfrom house to house,\u201d however, is much less\n objectionable _here_, because in this passage it can give only\n an _indefinite_ idea of place, without any particular idea of\n _rotation_; but in the other passage, in connection with \u201cthe\n taking of food,\u201d it makes an erroneous impression of their mode\n of life, which the text is meant to describe.\n\n\n THE APPOINTMENT OF DEACONS.\n\nThe successful progress of their labors had now gathered around them a\ngreat church, numbering among its members a vast throng both of Hebrew\nand of foreign Jews. The apostles being devoted wholly to their high\nduties of prayer and preaching, were unable to superintend particularly\nthe daily distribution of the means of support to the needy, out of the\ncharity-fund which had been gathered from the generous contributions\nof the wealthy members of the church. Among the foreign Jews who had\njoined the fraternity of the disciples, were many of those who, by\neducation, language and manners, though not by race or religion, were\nGreeks. These, with the proselytes, being fewer than those who adhered\nto the genuine manners and language of Palestine, had comparatively\nlittle weight in the administration of the affairs of the church, and\nhad no hand in the distribution to the church poor. Being a minority,\nand being moreover looked on with invidious eyes by the genuine Hebrews,\nas a sort of half renegades, they were overlooked and put back, in\nthe daily ministration to the needy, and to such a degree, that even\nthe helpless widows among them were absolutely suffering through this\nneglect. The natural consequence was, that murmurs and open complaints\narose among them, at this shameful and unbrotherly partiality. As soon\nas the report of the difficulty reached the ears of the twelve, they\nimmediately called a full church-meeting, and laid the matter before\nit in these words. \u201cIt is not proper that we should leave the preaching\nof the word of God, to wait on tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye\nout among you seven reputable men, full of a holy spirit and of wisdom,\nwhom we may intrust with this business; while we continue to give\nour time up wholly to prayer and the ministry of the word.\u201d This wise\nplan pleased all parties, and the church proceeded to elect the proper\npersons for the charge. To soothe the feelings of the Hellenists, the\nwhole seven were chosen from their number, as the names (which are\nall Greek) fully show. This makes it probable that there were already\npersons appointed from among the Hebrews, who had administered these\ncharities from the beginning, and whose partial management of these\nmatters had given offense to those whom they slighted. The seven\nHellenists now chosen to this office, were Stephen, resplendent\nin spiritual and intellectual endowments; Philip, also highly\ndistinguished afterwards by his successful preaching; Prochorus,\nNicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch; by\nwhich last circumstance, (as well as by the case of Barnabas,) is shown\nthe fact that some Hellenist converts, from a distance, had settled\nat Jerusalem, and permanently joined the followers of Christ. These\nseven being formally elected by the church, were brought in before the\napostles, for approval and confirmation. And after they had prayed,\nthey laid their hands on them, in token of imparting to them the\nblessing and the power of that divine influence which had inspired\nits previous possessors to deeds so energetic and triumphant. The\nefficiency of this prayer and benediction, in calling down divine grace\non the heads thus touched by the hands of the apostles, was afterwards\nmost remarkably demonstrated in the case of two of the seven, and in\nthe case of the first of them, almost immediately.\n\n _Greeks._\u2015\u2015The original word here is not \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, (_Hellenes_,)\n but \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, (_Hellenistoi_,) which means not _Grecians_,\n but _Grecizers_; that is, those who imitated Grecian language or\n customs.\n\n _Genuine Hebrews._\u2015\u2015By these are meant those who used the Hebrew\n language still in their synagogues, as the only sacred tongue,\n and looked with much scorn on the Hellenists, that is, those\n foreign Jews, who, from birth or residence in other lands,\n had learned the Greek as their sole language in common life,\n and were thus obliged to use the Greek translation, in order\n to understand the scriptures. This matter will have a fuller\n discussion in another place. Lightfoot has brought a most\n amazing quantity of learned and valuable illustration of\n this difference, from Talmudic literature. (Horae Hebraica et\n Talmudicae in Acts vi. 1.)\n\n\n CHRIST\u2019S FIRST MARTYR.\n\nStephen, after thus being set apart for the service of the church,\nthough faithfully discharging the peculiar duties to which he was\ncalled, did not confine his labors to the mere administration of the\npublic charities. The word of God had now so spread, under the ministry\nof the apostles, that the number of the disciples in Jerusalem was\ngreatly enlarged, and that not merely from the lower and ignorant\norders; but a great number of the priests, who, in their daily service\nin the temple, had been frequently unintentional hearers of the word\npreached in its courts, now professed themselves the submissive friends\nof the new faith. This remarkable increase excited public attention\nmore and more, and required redoubled exertions to meet the increasing\ncall for instruction. Stephen, therefore, immediately entered boldly\nand heartily on this good work; and, inspired by a pure faith, and\nthe confidence of help from above, he wrought among the people such\nmiracles as had hitherto followed only the ministry of the apostles.\nThe bold actions of this new champion did not fail to excite the wrath\nof the enemies of the cause of Christ; but as the late decision of\nthe Sanhedrim had been against any further immediate resort to violent\nmeasures, his opponents confined themselves to the forms of verbal\ndebate for a while. As Stephen was one of those Jews who had adopted\nthe Greek language and habits, and probably directed his labors more\nparticularly to that class of persons, he soon became peculiarly\nobnoxious to those Hellenist Jews who still held out against the\nnew doctrine. Of the numerous congregations of foreign Jews that\nfilled Jerusalem, five in particular are mentioned as distinguishing\nthemselves by this opposition,\u2015\u2015that of the freed-men, or captive Jews\nonce slaves in Rome, and their descendants,\u2015\u2015that of the Cyrenians,\u2015\u2015of\nthe Alexandrians,\u2015\u2015the Cilicians and the Asians. Some of the more\nzealous in all these congregations came out to meet Stephen in debate,\nwith the polished points of Grecian logic which their acquaintance with\nthat language enabled them to use against him. But not all the combined\npowers of sacred and profane literature availed any thing against their\nlearned and inspired opponent. Prepared beforehand, thoroughly, in all\nsorts of wisdom, and borne on resistlessly, moreover, by that divine\ninfluence whose movements they could see but could not understand, he\nfoiled them completely at all their own weapons, and exposed them, in\ntheir low bigotry and stupidity, baffled and silenced by his single\nvoice. But among all the refinements and elegances with which their\nclassical knowledge had made them acquainted, they had failed to\nlearn that noblest effort of the rhetorical art, which is to know how\nto bear a fair defeat in open debate, gracefully. These low-minded,\nhalf-renegade bigots, burning with brutal rage for this defeat, which\ntheir base behavior made more disgraceful, determined to find a means\nof punishing him, which no logic nor rhetoric could resist. They found\nmen base enough for their vile purposes, and instructed them to testify\nthat they had heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and\nagainst God. On the strength of this heinous charge, they made out to\nrouse some of the people, as well as the elders and the scribes, to a\nsimilar hostile feeling; and coming upon him with a throng of these,\nthey seized him and dragged him away to the Sanhedrim, to undergo the\nform of a trial. They then brought forward their perjured witnesses,\nwho testified only in vague terms of abuse, \u201cThis man ceases not to\nspeak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law. For we\nhave heard him say that this Jesus, the Nazarene, will destroy this\nplace, and will do away with the customs which Moses delivered to\nus.\u201d This was, after all, a kind of accusation which brought him more\nparticularly under the invidious notice of the Pharisees, whose leader\nhad lately so decidedly befriended the apostles; for that sect guarded\nwith the most jealous care all the minute details of their religion,\nand were ever ready to punish, as a traitor to the national faith\nand honor, any one who spoke slightingly, or even doubtingly, of the\nperpetuity of the law of Moses, and its hallowed shrine. Perhaps there\nwas no one of all the sayings of Jesus himself, which had given deeper\noffense than his remark about destroying the temple and re-building it\nin three days, which his silly hearers took up seriously, and construed\ninto a serious, blasphemous insult of the chief glory of the Jewish\nname, and bore it in mind so bitterly, as to throw it back on him, in\nhis last agonies on the cross. Such a saying, therefore, when laid to\nthe charge of Stephen, could not but rouse the worst feelings against\nhim, in the hearts of all his judges. But he, calm and undisturbed amid\nthe terrors of this trial, as he had been in the fury of the dispute,\nbore such an aspect of composure, that all who sat in the council were\nstruck with his angelic look. The high priest, however, having heard\nthe accusation, solemnly called on the prisoner to say \u201cwhether these\nthings were so.\u201d Stephen then, with a determination to meet the charge\nby a complete exhibition of his views of the character and objects of\nthe Jewish faith, ran over the general history of its rise and progress,\nand of the opinions which its founders and upholders had expressed\nconcerning the importance and the perpetuity of those types and forms,\nand of the glorious temple which was their chief seat, when compared\nwith the revelation to be expected through the prophet promised to\nthem by God and foretold by Moses. Warming as he went on, he quoted\nthe poetical words of Isaiah, on the dwelling-place of the Almighty,\nas not being confined to the narrow bounds of the building which was\nto them an object of such idolatrous reverence, as the sole place of\nJehovah\u2019s abode, but as being high in the heavens, whence his power and\nlove spread their boundless grasp over sea and land, and all nations\nthat dwelt beneath his throne. As the words of the prophet of the\nfire-touched lips rolled from the voice of Stephen, they kindled his\nsoul into an ecstacy of holy wrath; and in open scorn of their mean\ncruelty, he broke away from the plan of his discourse, bursting out\ninto burning expressions of reproach and denunciation, which carried\ntheir rage away beyond all bounds of reason. Conscious of their\nphysical power to avenge the insult, the mob instantly rose up, and\nhurried him away from the court, without regard to the forms of law;\nand taking him without the city, they stoned him to death, while he\ninvoked on them, not the wrath, but the mercy of their common God. In\nsuch prayers, gloriously crowning such labors and sufferings, he fell\nasleep, commending his spirit to the hands of that Lord and Savior,\nwhom it was his exalted honor to follow, first of all, through the\nbitter agonies of a bloody death.\n\n\n THE PERSECUTION.\n\nAmong the nameless herd of Stephen\u2019s murderers and disputants, there\nwas one only whose name has been preserved from the impenetrable\noblivion which hides their infamy. And that name now is brought to\nthe mind of every Christian reader, without one emotion of indignation\nor contempt, for its connection with this bloody murder. That man is\nnow known to hundreds of millions, and has been for centuries known to\nmillions of millions, as the bright leader of the hosts of the ransomed,\nand the faithful martyr who sealed with his blood the witness which\nthis proto-martyr bore beneath the messengers of death to which his\nvoice had doomed him. In the synagogue of the Cilicians, which was so\nactive in the attack on Stephen, was a young man, who was not behind\nthe oldest and the fiercest, in the steady, unrelenting hate which he\nbore to this devouring heresy. He gave his voice amid the clamors of\nthe mob, to swell the cry for the death of the heretic; and when the\nstout murderers hurled the deadly missiles on the martyr\u2019s naked head,\nit was he who took charge of the loose garments which they had thrown\noff, that they might use their limbs with greater freedom. Neither the\nsight of the saintly martyr, kneeling unresistingly to meet his bloody\ndeath, nor the sound of his voice, rising in the broken tones of the\ndeath-agony, in prayer for his murderers, could move the deep hate of\nthis young zealot, to the least relenting; but the whole scene only\nled him to follow this example of merciless persecution, which he here\nviewed with such deep delight. Abundant opportunities for the exercise\nof this persecuting spirit soon occurred. In connection with the charge\nagainst Stephen, which, however unfounded, brought him to this illegal\ndeath, there was a general and systematic disturbance raised by the\nsame persons, against the church in Jerusalem, more particularly\ndirected, as it would seem, against the Hellenist members, who were\ninvolved, by general suspicion, in the same crime for which Stephen,\ntheir eminent brother, had suffered. Saul now distinguished himself\nat once above all others, by the active share which he took in this\npersecution. Raging against the faithful companions of the martyred\nStephen, he, with the most inquisitorial zeal, sought them out, even\nin their own quiet dwellings, and violating the sanctity of home, he\ndragged out the inmates to prison, visiting even on helpless women the\ncrime of believing as their consciences prompted, and without regard to\ndelicacy or decency, shutting them up in the public dungeons. As soon\nas the storm began to burst on the new converts, those who were in any\nspecial danger of attack very properly sought safety in flight from\nthe city, in accordance with the wise and merciful injunction laid upon\nthe apostles by their Lord, when he first sent them forth as sheep in\nthe midst of wolves,\u2015\u2015\u201cWhen they persecute you in one city, flee into\nanother.\u201d The consequences of this dispersion, however, were such as to\nturn the foolish rage of the persecutors to the solid advantage of the\ncause of Christ, and to show in what a variety of ways God can cause\nthe wrath of man to praise him. For all those who were thus driven\nout of their peaceful homes, became missionaries of the word of truth,\namong the people of the various cities and countries through which they\nwere scattered. All those of whose wanderings we have any account, seem\nto have journeyed northward and north-westward, probably all of them\nforeign Jews, who naturally returned home when driven out of Jerusalem.\nSome of these went, in this way, to the Phoenician coast, to Antioch,\nand to Cyprus, all laboring to extend the knowledge of that truth for\nwhich they were willing sufferers. But of all those who went forth\non this forced mission, none appear to have been more successful than\nPhilip, who stood next to the martyred Stephen on the list of the\nseven Hellenist servants of the church, and who appears to have been\nsecond not even to his great fellow-servant in ability and energy. His\nhome was in Caesarea, on the sea-coast; but he had higher objects than\nmerely to take refuge in his own domestic circle; for instead of thus\nindulging his feelings of natural affection, he also turned his course\nnorthward, and made his first sojourn in the city of Samaria, where\nhe immediately began to preach Christ to them, as the common Messiah,\nso long desired by Samaritans as well as Jews. Here, the people being\nruled by no tyrannical sectaries, like the Pharisees and Sadducees,\nand the various orders of ecclesiastical power in Jerusalem, were left\nentirely to follow the impulse of their better feelings towards the\ntruth, without the fear of any inquisition into their movements. Under\nthese happy circumstances of religious freedom, they all with one\naccord gave heed to the preaching of Philip, hearing and seeing the\nwonderful works of kindness which he did. For foul spirits, which,\npossessing many sufferers, had long wasted their bodies and deranged\ntheir minds, now at the word of this preacher of Christ, came out\nof many of them, crying with a loud voice in attestation of the\nirresistible power which had overcome them. Many also that were\naffected with palsies and that were lame, were healed in the same\nmiraculous manner; so that, in consequence of this removal of so many\nbodily and spiritual evils, there was great joy in the city, at the\narrival of this messenger of mercy. But before the coming of Philip,\nthe people of Samaria had been the subjects of arts of a somewhat\ndifferent kind, from a man who could claim for his works none of the\nholy character of disinterested humanity, which belonged to those of\nthe preacher of Christ. This was one Simon, a man who, by the use of\nsome magical tricks, had so imposed upon the simple-minded citizens,\nthat they were profoundly impressed with the notion, which he was\nanxious to make them believe, namely, that he was a great man. To\nhim they all, both young and old, paid the deepest reverence, in\nconsequence of the triumphant ability displayed by him in the arts\nof sorcery; and so low were their notions of the nature of miraculous\nagency, that they concluded that the tricks which he played were tokens\nof divine interposition in his favor, and universally allowed that\nhe was himself a personification of the mighty power of God. But when\nPhilip came among them, and exhibited the genuine workings of the holy\nspirit of God, they immediately saw how much they had been mistaken in\ntheir previous estimate of its operations, and changed their degraded\nnotions, for a more just appreciation of its character. On hearing the\nword of truth so fully revealed and supported, they believed in the\nnew view which he gave them of the kingdom of God on earth, and in the\nname of Jesus Christ; and were baptized, both men and women. Even Simon\nhimself, overwhelmed with the evidences of a higher power than any\nthat he knew, confessed the fallacy of his own tricks, and submissively\nowned the power of God as manifested in the words and deeds of Philip,\nwith whom he now remained, a humble and wondering observer of the\nmiracles and signs wrought by him.\n\n\n THE VISIT TO SAMARIA.\n\nIn the mean time, the apostles had remained at Jerusalem, apparently\nnot directly affected by the persecution against Stephen and his\nfriends, or at least not disturbed by it so as to be prevented from\nremaining at their original post, in the discharge of duty. For, a\ntrue regard for the instructions long ago given them by their Master,\nwould have required them to leave Jerusalem, if the opposition to\ntheir preaching became so settled and extensive as to prevent them\nfrom advancing the cause of Christ there, more rapidly than they\nmight in other places. The spirit with which they had been taught to\nmeet tyrannical opposition, was not one of idle bravado or useless\npertinacity, but of deliberate and calculating steadiness in their\nplan, which knew when to prudently give way, as well as when to boldly\nwithstand. It is therefore fair to conclude, that the persecution here\nreferred to, was so limited as not to be directed against the apostles\nthemselves, nor to hinder their useful labors. If any of them had been\nimprisoned during this persecution, certainly the rest would have been\nblamable for not escaping; but the fact that they remained perfectly\nfree, appears from their leaving the city without delay, on the\noccasion which now required their presence and assistance elsewhere.\nFor as soon as they heard of the preaching of Philip at Samaria, and of\nthe willingness with which the Samaritans had received and believed the\nfirst communications of the word, they immediately sent to them Peter\nand John, who, as the chief teachers of the doctrines of Christ, might\ngive the new converts a fuller preparation for their duties in their\ncalling, than could be expected from one so lately commissioned as the\nzealous preacher who had first awakened them. These two great apostles,\nhaving come down to Samaria, prayed for the believers there that they\nmight receive the Holy Spirit; for this heavenly gift had not yet been\nimparted to them; the only sign of their acceptance into the new faith\nhaving been their baptism by the hands of Philip, who does not seem to\nhave been empowered to indue others with the same divine spirit which\nhe had so abundantly received on himself. But the apostles laying their\nhands on them, as they had before done with such powerful effect on\nStephen, Philip and their fellow-servants, now also inspired these\nsecond fruits with the same divine energy, which was instantly made\nmanifest in them, by the usual signs. As soon as Simon saw the display\nof the new powers, with which those were suddenly gifted who had been\nmade the subjects of this simple ceremony, he immediately concluded\nthat he had at last found out the means of acquiring those miraculous\npowers at which he had been so deeply amazed, and which he thought\nhe could make vastly profitable to himself in his business, as a very\ndecided improvement upon his old tricks. Thinking only of the motive\nwhich always moved _his_ mind to the bestowment of such favors, he\nimmediately took out the money he had gained by his impositions on\nthe people, and offered the apostles a handsome share of it, if they\nwould simply give him the valuable privilege of conferring this divine\nagency on all upon whom he should lay his hands, in the same manner as\nthey. But his mercenary hopes were soon blasted by the indignant terms\nin which Peter rejected his insulting proposal. \u201cThy money perish with\nthee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God could be bought\nwith money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy\nheart is not right in the sight of God. Change thy mind, therefore,\nfrom this wickedness of thine, and ask God, if indeed there is any\npossibility, that the iniquity of thy heart may be forgiven thee; for\nI see that thou art still full of the bitterness of thy former poisons,\nand bound fast in the chains of thy old iniquities.\u201d Simon, hushed and\noverawed in his impertinent offers by this stern rebuke, sunk into a\npenitent tone again, and begged of them that they would pray for him,\nthat the doom to perish with his money, as declared by Peter, might\nnot fall on him. Of the depth and sincerity of his penitence, no good\ntestimony is left us; but his submissive conduct, at best, seems to\nhave been rather the result of a personal awe of the apostles, as his\nsuperiors in supernatural powers, than prompted by any true regard\nfor their pure faith, or any just appreciation of their character and\nmotives. The apostles, however, waited no longer to enlighten the mind\nof one so dark in his views of the divine agency; but after they had\nborne witness to the truth of Philip\u2019s words and doctrines by their own\npreaching, they returned to Jerusalem, proclaiming the gospel in many\nvillages of the Samaritans, on the way. Philip also, having had his\nlabors thus triumphantly crowned by the ministrations of the apostles,\nleft Samaria, and turned his course southwards, towards Gaza, under\nthe impulse and guidance of a divine spirit. On this journey, occurred\nhis most interesting adventure with the lord high treasurer of the\nEthiopian queen, after which Philip was found at Ashdod, on the sea,\nfrom which place, journeying northwards again, he went preaching\nthrough all the towns on the coast, till he arrived at his home, at\nCaesarea.\n\n Illustration: JAFFA\u2015\u2015JOPPA.\n\n\n THE BEGINNING OF PEACE.\n\nSoon after the return of the apostles to Jerusalem, an event occurred,\nwhich had a more mighty influence on the progress of the Christian\nreligion than any other that had occurred since the ascension of Jesus.\nThe members of the church who still withstood the storm of persecution\nin the city, were struck with no small amazement by the sudden\nappearance, before them, of Saul of Tarsus, the most bloody persecutor\nof their Hellenist brethren, who, having exhausted the opportunities\nfor the gratification of his spite against them in Jerusalem, had\ngone to Damascus, to seize such as there supposed themselves safe in\nfollowing the new faith. This man, yet stained, as it were, with the\nblood of Stephen, now presented himself to them as a convert to the\ngospel, prepared to join them as a brother. The whole affair seemed\nto bear so decidedly the aspect of a palpable imposition, that they\naltogether refused to have any thing to do with him, and suspected\nthe whole to be a deep-laid snare, on the part of this bloody foe of\nthe gospel, who now appeared to be seeking, by false professions, to\nget into their confidence, that he might have the means of betraying\nthem to utter ruin. But Barnabas, who was better acquainted with Saul,\ndetailed to the church all the wonderful circumstances so fully, that\nthey no longer hesitated to receive him as a brother and fellow-laborer.\nThis remarkable conversion was of vast benefit to the cause of the\ngospel, not only by bringing to its aid the services of a laborer so\ncompetent, but also by removing from among its adversaries one who had\nbeen a leader and a contriver of every plot of mischief. As soon as\nhe left the ranks of the foe, the vindictive persecution, which had\nraged ever since the death of Stephen, ceased, as though it had lost\nits great author and main support, by the defection of Saul of Tarsus.\nIndeed, the last act of this persecution, which is recorded, was\ndirected against this very man, who had once been a leader in it, and\ndrove him out of the city which had been the scene of his cruelties.\nTherefore, the churches had rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee,\nand Samaria, strengthening and advancing in piety, and filled with\nthe impulses of the Holy Spirit. This opportunity of quiet seemed\npeculiarly favorable for a minute survey of the condition of these\nscattered churches, most of which had grown up without any direct\nagency of the apostles, and therefore needed their attention at this\ncritical period.\n\n\n THE SURVEY OF THE CHURCHES.\n\nThe most proper person for this responsible charge, was the great\nleader of the apostolic band; and Peter, therefore, taking the task\nreadily upon himself, went through all the churches, to give them\nthe advantages of the minute personal ministry of a chief apostle,\nwho might organize them, and instruct the disciples in their peculiar\nduties as members of a new religious community. On this tour of duty,\npassing down from the interior towards the sea-coast, he came to Lydda,\nabout forty or fifty miles from Jerusalem, and about twelve from the\nsea. Here there was a company of the faithful, whom he visited, to\ninstruct them anew, and to enlarge their numbers, by his preaching and\nmiracles. A particular case is recorded as having occurred here, which\ndisplayed both the compassion of Peter and his divine power to heal and\nstrengthen. Among the friends of Christ whom he visited here, was an\ninvalid, whose name, Aeneas, shows him to have been a Hellenist. This\nman had for the long period of eight years been deprived of the use of\nhis limbs, by a palsy, which, during that tedious interval, confined\nhim to his bed. Peter, on seeing him, said, \u201cAeneas, Jesus Christ heals\nthee. Arise, and make thy bed for thyself.\u201d The command to spread and\nsmooth the couch, which he now quitted in health, was given, that he\nmight show and feel, at once, how fully strength was restored to his\nhands as well as his feet. This miracle soon became known, not only to\nthe citizens of Lydda, but also to the people inhabiting the extensive\nand fertile plain of Sharon, which stretched to the northward of\nLydda, along the coast, from Joppa to Caesarea, bounded on the west\nby the highlands of Samaria. The effect of this display of power and\nbenevolence, was such, on their minds, that, without exception, they\nprofessed their faith in Christ.\n\n _Lydda._\u2015\u2015This was a place of far more importance and fame,\n than would be supposed from the brief mention of its name in the\n apostolic narrative. It is often mentioned in the writings of\n the Rabbins, under the name of \u05dc\u05d5\u05d3 (_Ludh_,) its original Hebrew\n name, and was long the seat of a great college of Jewish law\n and theology, which at this very period of Peter\u2019s visit was\n in its most flourishing state. This appears from the fact that\n Rabbi Akiba, who raised the school to its greatest eminence,\n was contemporary with the great Rabban Gamaliel, who bears an\n important part in the events of the apostolic history. (The\n data of this chronological inference I find in Lightfoot.) It\n is easy to see, then, why so important a seat of Jewish theology\n should have been thought deserving of the particular notice\n and protracted stay of Peter, who labored with remarkable\n earnestness and effect here, inspired by the consciousness\n of the lasting and extensive good, that would result from an\n impression made on this fountain of religious knowledge. The\n members of the college, however, did not all, probably, profess\n themselves followers of Christ.\n\n It is also described as possessing some importance in addition\n to its literary privileges. Josephus (Antiquities XX. vi. 3.)\n mentions \u201cLydda\u201d as \u201ca village not inferior to a city in\n greatness.\u201d Its importance was, no doubt, in a great measure\n derived from the remarkably rich agricultural district which\n surrounded it. This was the plain of Sharon, so celebrated in\n the Hebrew scriptures for its fruitful fields and rich pastures,\n \u2015\u2015its roses and its flocks. (Solomon\u2019s Song ii. 1: Isaiah xxxiii.\n 9: xxxv. 2: lxv. 10: 1 Chronicles xxvii. 29.) \u201cAll this country\n is described by Pococke as very rich soil, throwing up a great\n quantity of herbage; among which he specifies chardons, rue,\n fennel, and the striped thistle, \u2018probably on this account\n called the holy thistle.\u2019 A great variety of anemonies, he\n was told, grow in the neighborhood. \u2018I saw likewise,\u2019 he adds,\n \u2018many tulips growing wild in the fields (in March;) and any\n one who considers how beautiful those flowers are to the eye,\n would be apt to conjecture that these are the lilies to which\n Solomon, in all his glory, was not to be compared.\u2019\u201d\u2015\u2015[Modern\n Traveler, p. 57.] Its distance from Jerusalem is ascertained,\n by Lightfoot, to be one day\u2019s journey, as it is stated with\n some circumlocution in the Mishna. It was destroyed, as Josephus\n relates, by Cestius Gallus, the Roman general, who marched his\n army through that region, in the beginning of the war, which\n ended in the destruction of Jerusalem. Under the peaceful times\n of the later Roman sway in Palestine, it was rebuilt, and called\n Diospolis. But like many other such instances, it has lost its\n temporary heathen name, and is now called by its old scripture\n appellation, _Ludd_. Travelers describe it as now a poor village,\n though the stones to be seen in the modern buildings show that\n it has been a place of great consequence.\n\n The New Testament name _Lydda_, (\u039b\u03c5\u03b4\u03b4\u03b1,) by which Josephus also\n mentions it, is only so much changed from the Hebrew _Ludh_,\n as was necessary to accommodate it to the regular forms and\n inflexions of the Greek language. Lightfoot well refutes the\n blunder of many modern geographers who make the two names refer\n to different places. This learned author is remarkably full in\n the description of this place, and is very rich in references\n to the numerous allusions which are made to it in the Talmudic\n writings. See his _Centuria Chorographica_, (Chapter 16,)\n prefixed to Horae Hebraica et Talmudicae in Matthew.\n\n _Aeneas._\u2015\u2015This name is unquestionably Greek, which seems to\n show the man to have been a Hellenist; and that he was already\n a believer in Christ, would appear from the fact of Peter\u2019s\n finding him among the brethren there.\n\n\n THE VISIT TO JOPPA.\n\nHardly had this instance of divine favor occurred in Lydda, when a\nnew occasion for a similar effort presented itself, in the neighboring\nseaport town of Joppa. A female disciple of the faith of Christ,\nin that city, by name Tabitha, or in the Greek, Dorcas, (both names\nmeaning Gazelle,) had distinguished herself and honored her religious\nprofession, by the generous and charitable deeds which constantly\nemployed her hands. This lady, so respected by all, and so loved by the\npoor, who gave witness to her goodness,\u2015\u2015such an honor to the religious\ncommunity which she had joined,\u2015\u2015seemed to have so nobly done her part\nin life, that the order of Providence had apparently called her to rest\nfrom these labors, in that sleep from which no piety nor usefulness can\nsave or recall their possessor. After a few days of illness, she died,\nand was, after the usual funeral ablutions, laid in an upper chamber,\nto await the burial. In the midst of the universal grief for this\nsad loss, the members of the church at Joppa, knowing that Peter was\nin Lydda, within a few hours\u2019 journey, sent two messengers to him, to\nbeg his presence among them, as some consolation in their distress.\nPeter, on hearing of this occasion for his presence, with great\nreadiness accompanied the messengers back, and on arriving at Joppa,\nwent straight to the house of mourning. He was immediately led into\nthe chamber, where he found a most affecting testimony to the nature of\nthe loss which the afflicted community had suffered. Around the dead,\nstood the widows who, in their friendlessness, had been relieved by\nthe sympathy of Dorcas, now pouring their tears and uttering their\nlamentations over her, and showing that even the garments which they\nwore were the work of her industrious hand,\u2015\u2015that hand which, once\nso untiring in these labors of love, was now cold and motionless in\ndeath. From that resistless doom, what mortal voice could ever recall\neven one so amiable and useful? But, while they were sorrowing thus,\nPeter ordered them all to leave him alone with the dead; and when all\nwitnesses were removed, he kneeled and prayed. The words of that prayer\nare not recorded; and it is only by its successful efficiency that\nwe know it to have been that fervent effectual prayer of a righteous\nman, which availeth much. It was such a prayer as, of old, the son\nof Shaphat offered over the dead child of the Shunamite, when alone\nwith him; and its effect was not less mighty. Rising at length, and\nturning towards the body, he said \u201cTabitha, arise!\u201d Awaking from the\nunbreathing sleep of death, as from a light slumber of an hour, she\nopened her eyes, and when she saw the majestic man of God alone, and\nherself robed for the tomb, she sat up and gazed in amazement. Peter,\nthen, giving her his hand, lifted her from the funeral couch, and\ncalling in the brethren and the widows; he presented her to their\nastonished eyes, alive. Their overwhelming joy and wonder, we are left\nto imagine. The story, when made known through the city, brought many\nto acknowledge the truth of that religion whose minister could work\nsuch wonders; and many believed in Christ. The field of labor which now\nopened to Peter in this place, seemed so wide that he did not continue\nhis journey any further at that time, but took up his abode, for\nseveral days, in Joppa, lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, whose\nhouse stood by the sea, near the water.\n\n _Joppa_, now called _Jaffa_.\u2015\u2015This was from very early times a\n place of great importance, from the circumstance of its being\n the nearest seaport to Jerusalem. It is mentioned in reference\n to this particular of its situation, in 2 Chronicles ii. 17,\n where it is specified (in Hebrew \u05d9\u05e4\u05d5 _Japho_) as the port to which\n the cedar timber from Lebanon should be floated down in rafts,\n to be conveyed to Jerusalem for building the temple. It stood\n within the territories of the tribe of Dan, according to Joshua\n xix. 46, and lies about East-North-east from Jerusalem. Strabo,\n (xvi.) in describing it, refers to it as the scene of the\n ancient Grecian fable of Andromeda rescued from the sea-monster\n by Perseus. He describes its site as \u201cquite elevated,\u2015\u2015so much\n so, indeed, that it was a common saying that Jerusalem might\n be seen from the place; the inhabitants of which city use it\n as their seaport, in all their maritime intercourse.\u201d Josephus\n mentions that it was added to the dominions of Herod the\n Great by Augustus. Its present appearance is thus described by\n travelers.\n\n \u201cIt is situated in latitude 32 degrees 2 minutes North, and\n longitude 34 degrees 53 minutes East, and is forty miles West\n of Jerusalem. Its situation, as the nearest port to the Holy\n City, has been the chief cause of its importance. As a station\n for vessels, according \u2666to Dr. Clarke, its harbor is one of\n the worst in the Mediterranean. Ships generally anchor about a\n mile from the town, to avoid the shoals and rocks of the place.\n The badness of the harbor is mentioned, indeed, by Josephus.\n (Josephus, Antiquities, book xv. chapter 9.) *\u00a0*\u00a0* The road\n is protected by a castle built on a rock, and there are some\n storehouses and magazines on the sea-side. The coast is low,\n but little elevated above the level of the sea; but the town\n occupies an eminence, in the form of a sugar-loaf, with a\n citadel on the summit. The bottom of the hill is surrounded with\n a wall twelve or fourteen feet high, and two or three feet thick.\n *\u00a0*\u00a0* There are no antiquities in Jaffa: the place would seem to\n be too old to have any\u2015\u2015to have outlived all that once rendered\n it interesting. The inhabitants are estimated at between four\n and five thousand souls, of whom the greater part are Turks\n and Arabs; the Christians are stated to be about six hundred,\n consisting of Roman Catholics, Greeks, Maronites, and Armenians.\u201d\n [Modern Traveler, Palestine, pp. 41, 42.]\n\n \u2666 \u201cio\u201d replaced with \u201cto\u201d\n\n _Dorcas._\u2015\u2015This is the Greek translation of the old Hebrew \u05e6\u05d1\u05d9\n (_Tsebi_,) in the Aramaic dialect of that age, changed into \u05ea\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0\n (_Tabitha_,) in English, \u201c_gazelle_,\u201d a beautiful animal of the\n antelope kind, often mentioned in descriptions of the deserts\n of south-western Asia, in which it roams; and not unfrequently\n the subject of poetical allusion. The species to which it is\n commonly supposed to belong, is the _Antilopa Dorcas_ of Prof.\n Pallas, who named it on the supposition that it was identical\n with this animal, called by the Greeks, \u0394\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2, (_Dorkas_,) from\n \u0394\u03b5\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf, (_Derko_,) \u201cto look,\u201d from the peculiar brightness of\n \u201cits soft black eye.\u201d\n\n\n THE CALL TO THE HEATHEN.\n\nThe apostles had now, with great zeal and efficiency, preached the\ngospel of Jesus Christ to the worshipers of the true God, beginning at\nJerusalem, and spreading the triumphs of his name to the bounds of the\nland of Israel. But in all their devotion to their Master\u2019s work, they\nhad never had a thought of breaking over the bounds of the faith of\ntheir fathers, or of making their doctrine anything else than a mere\ncompletion or accompaniment to the law of Moses; nor did they imagine\nthat they were ever to extend the blessings of the gospel to any who\ndid not bow down to all the tedious rituals of the ancient covenant.\nThe true power of their Lord\u2019s parting command, \u201cGo and teach _all\nnations_,\u201d they had never felt; and even now, their great chief\nsupposed that the change of heart and remission of sins, which he was\ncommissioned to preach, were for none but the devout adherents of the\nJewish faith. A new and signal call was needed, to bring the apostles\nto a full sense of their enlarged duties; and it is among the highest\nhonors vouchsafed to Peter, that he was the person chosen to receive\nthis new view of the boundless field now opened for the battles and\ntriumphs of the cross. To him, as the head and representative of\nthe whole band of the apostles, was now spread out, in all its moral\nvastness and its physical immensity, the coming dominion of that faith,\nwhose little seed he was now cherishing, with but a humble hope; but\nwhose stately trunk and giant branches were, from that small and low\nbeginning, to stretch, in a mighty growth, over lands, and worlds, to\nhim unknown. Thus far he had labored with a high and holy zeal, in a\ncause whose vastness he had never appreciated,\u2015\u2015every moment building\nup, unwittingly, a name for himself, which should outlast all the\nglories of the ancient covenant; and securing for his Master a dominion\nwhich the religion of Moses could never have reached. He had never had\nan idea, that he with his companions was founding and spreading a new\nreligion;\u2015\u2015to purify the religion of the law and the prophets, and to\nrescue it from the confusion and pollutions of warring sectaries, was\nall that they had thought of; yet with this end in view, they had been\nsecuring the attainment of one so far above and beyond, that a full\nand sudden view of the consequences of their humble deeds, would have\nappalled them. But though the mighty plan had never been whispered nor\ndreamed of, on earth,\u2015\u2015though it was too immense for its simple agents\nto endure its full revelation at once,\u2015\u2015its certain accomplishment\nhad been ordained in heaven, and its endless details were to be fully\nlearned only in its triumphant progress through uncounted ages. But,\nlimited as was the view which the apostles then had of the high destiny\nof the cause to which they had devoted themselves, it was yet greatly\nextended from the low-born notions with which they had first followed\nthe steps of their Master. They now no longer entertained the vagary\nof a worldly triumph and a worldly reward; they had left that on the\nmount where their Lord parted from them, and they were now prayerfully\nlaboring for the establishment of a pure spiritual kingdom in the\nhearts of the righteous. To give them a just idea of the exalted\nfreedom to which the gospel brought its sons, and to open their hearts\nto a Christian fellowship, as wide as the whole human family, God now\ngave the apostolic leader an unquestionable call to tell to the world\nthe glad tidings of salvation, for all men, through a new and living\nway, by change of heart and remission of sins. The incidents which led\nto this revelation are thus detailed.\n\nThe peace and good order of Palestine were now secured by several\nlegions, whose different divisions, larger or smaller according to\ncircumstances, were quartered in all the strong or important places\nin the country, to repress disorders, and enforce the authority of the\ncivil power, when necessary. Besides this ordinary peace-establishment\nof the province, there was a cohort which took its name from the\ncircumstance that it had been levied in Italy,\u2015\u2015a distinction, now so\nrare, in consequence of the introduction of foreign mercenaries into\nthe imperial hosts, as to become the occasion of an honorable eminence,\nwhich was signified by the title here given, showing that this division\nof the Roman armies was made up of the sons of that soil which had\nso long sent forth the conquerors of the world. Of all the variety\nof service required of the different detachments of the army, in the\nprovince which it guarded, by far the most honorable was that of being\nstationed next the person of the governor of the province, to maintain\nthe military dignity of his vice-imperial court, and defend his\nrepresentative majesty. Caesarea, on the sea-shore, was now the seat\nof the Roman government of Palestine; and here, in attendance on the\nperson of the governor, was this aforesaid Italian cohort, at the head\nof a company in which, was a centurion named Cornelius. Though nothing\nis given respecting his birth and family but this single name, a very\nslight knowledge of Roman history and antiquities enables the historian\nto decide, that he was descended from a noble race of patricians, which\nhad produced several of the most illustrious families of the imperial\ncity. Eminent by this high birth and military rank, he must have\nbeen favored with an education worthy of his family and station. It\nis therefore allowable to conclude, that he was an intelligent and\nwell-informed gentleman, whom years of foreign service, in the armies\nof his country must have improved by the combined advantages of\na traveler and a disciplined warrior. Of his moral and religious\ncharacter such an account is given, as proves that his principles,\nprobably implanted in early life, had been of such firmness as to\nwithstand the numerous temptations of a soldier\u2019s life, and to secure\nhim in a course of most uncommon rectitude in his duties towards God\nand towards man. In the merciful exercise of his power over the people\nwhose safety and quiet he came to maintain, and, moreover, in the\ngenerous use of his pecuniary advantages, he passed his blameless life;\nand the high motive of this noble conduct, is discovered in the steady,\npure devotion, in which he employed many hours of daily retirement,\nand in which he caused his whole family publicly to join, on proper\noccasions. Thus is he briefly and strongly characterized by the sacred\nhistorian: \u201cdevout, and fearing God with all his house; giving much\nalms, and praying to God always.\u201d\n\n _Noble race of patricians._\u2015\u2015The _gens Cornelia_, or \u201cCornelian\n race,\u201d was unequaled in Rome for the great number of noble\n families sprung from its stock. The Scipios, the Sullas, the\n Dolabellas, the Cinnas, the Lentuli, the Cethegi, the Cossi,\n and many other illustrious branches of this great race, are\n conspicuous in Roman history; and the Fasti Consulares, record\n more than sixty of the Cornelian race, who had borne the\n consular dignity previous to the apostolic era. This is always\n a _family_ name, and Ainsworth very grossly errs in calling it\n \u201cthe _praenomen_ of several Romans.\u201d Every Roman name of the\n middle and later ages of the commonwealth, had at least three\n parts, which were the _praenomen_, marking the individual,\u2015\u2015the\n _nomen_ marking the _gens_, (\u201crace,\u201d \u201cstock,\u201d) and the\n _cognomen_, marking the family or division of that great stock.\n Thus in the name \u201cPublius Cornelius Scipio,\u201d the _last_ word\n shows that the person belonged to the Scipio family, which by\n the _second_ word is seen to be of the great Cornelian stock,\n while the first shows that this member of the family was\n distinguished from his relations, by the name of Publius.\n (See Adams\u2019s Roman Antiquities, on Names.) Wherever this name,\n Cornelius, occurs, if the whole appellation of the man is given,\n this comes in the middle, as the _nomen_, marking the race;\n as is the case with every one of those quoted by Ainsworth,\n in his blundering account of the word. See also Sallust, (The\n Catilinarian Conspiracy, 47, 55,) in defense of this peculiar\n limitation of the word to the _gens_. Not a single instance can\n be brought of its application to any person not of this noble\n patrician race, or of its use as a mere individual appellation.\n I am therefore authorized in concluding that this Cornelius\n mentioned in the Acts was related to this line of high nobility.\n It might, perhaps, be conjectured, that he had borrowed this\n name from that noble race, from having once been in the service\n of some one of its families, as was common in the case of\n freedmen, after they had received their liberty; but this\n supposition is not allowable; for he is expressly particularized\n as belonging to an _Italian_ division of the army, which fact\n excludes the idea of that foreign origin which would belong\n to a slave. The Jews having but one name for each man, seldom\n gave all of a Roman\u2019s name, unless of a very eminent man, as\n Pontius Pilate, Sergius Paulus, and other official characters;\n but selecting any one of the three parts which might be most\n convenient, they made that the sole appellative, whether\n _praenomen_, _nomen_, or _cognomen_. As in Luke ii. 2: Acts\n xxiii. 24: xxv. 1: xxvii. 1: xxviii. 7, &c.\n\n Illustration: JERUSALEM, FROM THE LATIN CONVENT.\n Luke xxi. 24.\n\n _The Italian cohort._\u2015\u2015The word \u03a3\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 (_Speira_) I translate\n \u201c_cohort_,\u201d rather than \u201c_legion_,\u201d as the older commentators\n did. Jerome translates it \u201c_cohortem_,\u201d and he must have known\n the exact technical force of the Greek word, and to what Latin\n military term it corresponded, from his living in the time when\n these terms must have been in frequent use. Those who prefer\n to translate it \u201clegion,\u201d are misled by the circumstance, that\n Tacitus and other writers on Roman affairs, mention a legion\n which had the distinctive appellation of \u201c_the Italian Legion_;\u201d\n while it has been supposed that these ancient authors make no\n mention of an Italian _cohort_. But the deeply learned Wetstein,\n with his usual vast classical research, has shown several such\n passages, in Arrian and others, in which mention _is_ made\n of an Italian cohort; and in Gruter\u2019s inscriptions, quoted by\n Kuinoel, there is an account of \u201ca volunteer cohort of _Italian_\n soldiers in Syria;\u201d and Palestine was at this time included\n with Syria, under the presidency of Petronius. This inscription,\n too, justifies my remark as to the high character of those who\n served in this corps. \u201cCohors militum Italicorum _voluntaria_\u201d\n seems to imply a body of soldiers of a higher character than the\n ordinary mercenary mass of the army, being probably made up of\n _volunteers_ from respectable families of Italy, who chose to\n enlarge their knowledge of the world by foreign military service,\n in this very honorable station of life-guard to the Roman\n governor, as Doddridge and others suppose this to have been.\n (See Doddridge on this passage; also C.\u00a0G. Schwartz in Wolff,\n Cur. Philology in loc.) It is considered also as fairly proved\n that the \u201cItalian _legion_\u201d was not formed till a much later\n period; so that it is rendered in the highest degree probable\n and unquestionable, that this was a _cohort_, and, as Schwartz\n and Doddridge prove, not a mere ordinary cohort, making the\n tenth part of a common legion of 4200, but a distinct and\n independent corps, attached to no legion, and devoted to the\n exclusive honorable service above mentioned. (See Bloomfield,\n Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, &c.)\n\n _Devout._\u2015\u2015Some have tried hard to make out that Cornelius was\n what they call \u201ca proselyte of the gate;\u201d that is, one who,\n though not circumcised, nor conforming to the rituals generally,\n yet was an observer of the _moral_ law. But Lardner very fully\n shows that there were not two sorts of proselytes; all who bore\n that name fully conforming to the Jewish rituals, but still\n called \u201cstrangers,\u201d &c.; because, though admitted to all the\n religious privileges of the covenant, they were excluded from\n the civil and political privileges of Jews, and could not be\n freeholders. Cornelius must then have been a mere Gentile. (See\n Lardner in his life of Peter; also Kuinoel and Bloomfield.)\n\n _Caesarea._\u2015\u2015This is another of those cities enlarged or rebuilt\n by the princes of the Herodian line, and honored with the\n names of the imperial family. This city stood on the sea-shore,\n about 30 miles north of Joppa; and (Modern Traveler) 62\n north-north-west from Jerusalem. (600 stadia Josephus.) It has\n been idly conjectured by the Rabbinical writers, that this was\n the same with Ekron, of the Old Testament, Zephaniah ii. 4;\n while the Arabic version gives it as Hazor, Joshua xi. 1,\u2015\u2015both\n with about equal probability. The earliest name by which it\n can be certainly recognized, is Apollonia, which it bore when\n it passed from the Syro-Grecians to the Maccabean princes.\n Its common name, in the time of Herod the Great, was \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03a3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _turris Stratonis_, \u201cStraton\u2019s castle,\u201d from the name\n of a Greek pirate who had built a strong hold here. Herod the\n Great made it the most splendid city in his dominions, and even\n in all the eastern part of the Roman empire; and in honor of\n Augustus Caesar, called it Caesarea Augusta. It was sometimes\n called Caesarea _Palestinae_, to distinguish it from Caesarea\n _Philippi_; for Palestine was then a name limited to the\n southern part of the coast of the Holy Land, and was bounded on\n the north by Phoenicia. This city was the capital of the whole\n Holy Land throughout the period of the later Herodian and Roman\n sway.\n\nTo this man was sent the first heavenly call, which ended in bringing\nin the Gentiles to the knowledge of the truth revealed by Jesus. After\nhaving fasted all day, he was employed in his regular devotions, at\nthe usual hour of prayer, (three o\u2019clock in the afternoon,) when his\nsenses were overwhelmed by a vision, in which he had a distinct view\nof a messenger of God, in shining garments, coming to him; and heard\nhim call him by his name, \u201cCornelius!\u201d Looking at him as steadily as\nhe was able in his great alarm, Cornelius asked, \u201cWhat is it, Lord?\u201d\nThe heavenly visitant replied, in words of consolation and high praise,\n\u201cThy prayers and thy alms have come up in remembrance before God. And\nnow send men to Joppa, and call for a man named Simon Peter, lodging\nwith Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea-side. He, when he comes,\nshall tell thee what it is right that thou shouldst do.\u201d When the\nsurprising messenger had given this charge, he departed; and Cornelius,\nwithout delay, went to fulfil the minute directions he had received.\nHe called two of his domestics, and a devout soldier of the detachment\nthen on duty near him, and having related to them all that he had just\nseen and heard, he sent them to Joppa, to invite Peter according to the\norder. The distance between the two places is about thirty-five miles,\nand being too great to be easily traveled in one day, they journeyed\nthither during a part of two days, starting immediately when they\nreceived the command, though late in the afternoon. While they were\ncontinuing their journey, the next day, and were now near to the city\nof Joppa, Peter, without any idea of the important task to which he\nwas soon to be summoned, went up, as usual, to the Alijah, or place of\nprayer, upon the house-top, at about twelve o\u2019clock, mid-day. Having,\naccording to the usual custom of the Jews, fasted for many hours, for\nthe sake of keeping the mind clear from the effects of gross food on\nthe body, and at length becoming sensible that he had pushed himself to\nthe utmost limits of safe abstinence, he wished for food, and ordered\nhis dinner. While the servants were preparing it, he continued above,\nin the place of prayer, where, enfeebled by fasting, and over-wrought\nby mental effort, he fell into a state of spiritual excitement, in\nwhich the mind is most susceptible of strong impressions of things\nbeyond the reach of sense. In this condition, there appeared to him\na singular vision, which subsequent events soon enabled him fully to\ninterpret. It seemed to him that a great sheet was let down from the\nsky, to which it was fastened by the four corners, containing on its\nvast surface all sorts of animals that were forbidden as food by the\nMosaic law. While the apostle gazed upon this vast variety of animals,\nwhich education had taught him to consider unclean, there came a voice\nto him, calling him by name, and commanding him to arise, kill, and\neat. All his prejudices and early religious impressions were roused\nby such a proposal; and, resisting the invisible speaker as the agent\nof temptation to him in his bodily exhaustion, he replied, in all the\npride of a scrupulous and unpolluted Jew, \u201cBy no means, Lord, because\nI have never eaten anything improper or unclean.\u201d The mysterious voice\nagain said, \u201cWhat God hath cleansed, do not thou consider improper.\u201d\nThis impressive scene having been twice repeated, the whole was\nwithdrawn back into heaven. This remarkable vision immediately called\nout all the energies of Peter\u2019s mind, in its explanation. But before\nhe had time to decide for himself what was meant by it, the messengers\nof Caesarea had inquired out the house of Simon, and, coming to the\noutside door, they called to learn whether Simon, who was surnamed\nPeter, lodged there. And while the mind of Peter was still intently\noccupied with the vision, he received an intimation from the unerring\nspirit, that his presence was required elsewhere. \u201cBehold! three men\nare seeking thee, but rise up and go with them, without hesitation;\nfor I have sent them.\u201d Thus urged and encouraged, Peter went directly\ndown to the men sent by Cornelius, and said, \u201cBehold! I am he whom ye\nseek. What is your object in coming here?\u201d They at once unfolded their\nerrand. \u201cCornelius, a centurion, a just man, fearing God, and of good\nrepute among all the Jews, was instructed by a holy messenger, to send\nfor thee to his house, that he may hear something from thee.\u201d Peter,\nalready instructed as to the proper reception of the invitation, asked\nthem in, and hospitably entertained them till the next day, improving\nthe delay, no doubt, by learning as many of the circumstances of the\ncase as they could give him. The news of this remarkable call was also\nmade known to the brethren of the church in Joppa, some of whom were so\nhighly interested in what they heard that evening, that they resolved\nto accompany Peter the next day, with the messengers, to see and hear\nfor themselves the details of a business which promised to result so\nfairly in the glory of Christ\u2019s name, and the wide enlargement of his\nkingdom. On the next day, the whole party set out together, and reached\nCaesarea, the second day of their journey; and going straight to the\nhouse of Cornelius, they found quite a large company there, awaiting\ntheir arrival. For Cornelius, expecting them, had invited his relations\nand his intimate friends, to hear the extraordinary communications\nwhich had been promised him, from his visitor. The kindred here alluded\nto were, perhaps, those of his wife, whom, according to a very common\nusage, he may have married in the place where he was stationed; for it\nis hardly probable that a Roman captain from Italy could have had any\nof his own blood relations about him, unless, perhaps, some of them\nmight have enlisted with him, and now been serving with him on this\nhonorable post. His near friends, who completed the assembly, were\nprobably such of his brother officers as he knew to possess kindred\ntastes with himself, and to take an interest in religious matters. Such\nwas the meeting that Peter found sitting in expectation of his coming;\nand so high were the ideas which Cornelius had formed of the character\nof his visitor, that, as soon as he met him on his entrance into the\nhouse, he fell down at his feet, and paid him reverence as a superior\nbeing;\u2015\u2015an act of abasement towards the inhabitant of a conquered\ncountry, most rare and remarkable in a Roman officer, and one to which\nnothing but a notion of supernatural excellence could ever have brought\nhim, since this was a position assumed not even by those who approached\nthe emperor himself. Peter, however, had no desire to be made the\nobject of a reverence so nearly resembling idolatry. Raising up the\nprostrate Roman, he said, \u201cStand up: for I myself am also a man.\u201d\nEntering into familiar discourse with him, he now advanced into the\nhouse, and going with him to the great room, he there found a numerous\ncompany. He addressed them in these words: \u201cYou know how unlawful it is\nfor a Jew to be familiar, or even to visit, with one of another nation;\nbut God has taught me to call no man vulgar or unclean. Wherefore, I\ncame at your summons, without hesitation. Now, then, I ask with what\ndesign have you sent for me?\u201d And Cornelius said, \u201cFour days ago, I\nwas fasting till this hour; and at the ninth hour I was praying in my\nhouse;\u201d and so having gone on to narrate all the circumstances of his\nvision, as given above, concluded in these words, \u201cFor this reason I\nsent for thee, and thou hast done well in coming, for we are all here,\nbefore God, to hear what has been imparted to thee, from God.\u201d And\nPeter began solemnly to speak, and said, \u201cOf a truth, I perceive that\nGod is no respecter of persons; but that in every nation, he that\nfears him and does what is right, is approved by him.\u201d With this solemn\nprofession of a new view of this important principle of universal\nreligion, as a beginning, he went on to satisfy their high expectations,\nby setting forth to them the sum and substance of the gospel doctrine,\nof whose rise and progress they had already, by report, heard a vague\nand partial account. The great and solemn truth which the Spirit had\nsummoned him to proclaim, was that Jesus Christ the crucified was\nordained by God the judge of both living and dead, and that through\nhim, as all the prophets testified, every one that believed should have\nremission of sins. Of his resurrection from the dead, Peter declared\nhimself the witness, as well as of his labors of good will towards\nman, when, anointed with the Spirit of God, he went about doing good.\nThus did Peter discourse, excited by the novel and divinely appointed\noccasion, till the same divine influence that moved his heart and\ntongue was poured out on his charmed hearers, and they forthwith\nmanifested the signs of change of heart and devout faith in Christ, as\nthe Son of God and the judge of the world; and made known the delight\nof their new sensations, in words of miraculous power. At this display\nof the equal and impartial grace of God, the Jewish church-members\nfrom Joppa, who had accompanied Peter to Caesarea, were greatly amazed,\nhaving never before imagined it possible for the influences of the\ndivine spirit to be imparted to any who had not devoutly conformed to\nall the rituals of the holy law of old given by God to Moses, whose\nhigh authority was attested amid the smoke and flame and thunder of\nSinai. And what change was this? In the face of this awful sanction,\nthese believing followers of Moses and Christ saw the outward signs\nof the inward action of that Spirit which they had been accustomed\nto acknowledge as divine, now moving with the same holy energy the\nsouls and voices of those born and bred among the heathen, without the\nconsecrating aid of one of those forms of purification, by which Moses\nhad ordained their preparation for the enjoyment of the blessings\nof God\u2019s holy covenant with his own peculiar people. Moved by that\nsame mysterious and holy influence, the Gentile warriors of Rome now\nlifted up their voices in praise of the God of Israel and of Abraham,\n\u2015\u2015doubtless too, _their_ God and Father, though Abraham were ignorant\nof them, and Israel acknowledged them not; since through his son Jesus\na new covenant had been sealed in blood, opening and securing the\nblessings of that merciful and faithful promise to all nations. On\nJehovah they now called as their Father and Redeemer, whose name was\nfrom everlasting,\u2015\u2015known and worshiped long ere Abraham lived. Never\nbefore had the great partition-wall between Jews and Gentiles been thus\nbroken down, nor had the noble and equal freedom of the new covenant\never yet been so truly and fully made known. And who was he that had\nthus boldly trampled on the legal usages of the ancient Mosaic covenant,\nas consecrated by the reverence of ages, and had imparted the holy\nsigns of the Christian faith to men shut out from the mysteries\nof the inner courts of the house of God? It was not a presumptuous\nor unauthorized man, nor one thoughtless of the vastly important\nconsequences of the act. It was the constituted leader of the apostolic\nband, who now, in direct execution of his solemn commission received\nfrom his Master, and in the literal fulfilment of the prophetic charge\ngiven therewith at the base of distant Hermon, opened the gates of the\nkingdom of heaven to all nations. Bearing the keys of the kingdom of\nGod on earth, he now, in the set time of divine appointment, at the\ncall of his Master in heaven, so signally given to him both directly\nand indirectly, unlocked the long-closed door, and with a voice of\nheavenly charity, bade the waiting Gentiles enter. This was the mighty\ncommission with which Jesus had so prophetically honored this chief\ndisciple at CAESAREA _Philippi_, and here, at CAESAREA _Augusta_, was\nachieved the glorious fulfilment of this before mysterious announcement;\n\u2015\u2015Simon Peter now, in the accomplishment of that divinely appointed\ntask, became the ROCK, on which the church of Christ was, through the\ncourse of ages, reared; and in this act, the first stone of its broad\nGentile foundation was laid.\n\n _On duty about him._\u2015\u2015This phrase is the just translation of the\n technical term \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, (_proskarterounton_,) according\n to Price, Kuinoel, Bloomfield, &c.\n\nOf all the honors with which his apostolic career was marked, there is\nnone which equals this,\u2015\u2015the revolutionizing of the whole gospel plan\nas before understood and advanced by its devotees,\u2015\u2015the enlargement of\nits scope beyond the widest range of any merely Jewish charity,\u2015\u2015and\nthe disenthralment of its subjects from the antique formality and\ncumbrous ritual of the Jewish worship. And of all the events which the\napostolic history records, there is none which, in its far-reaching and\nlong-lasting effects, can match the opening of Christ\u2019s kingdom to the\nGentiles. What would have been the rate of its advancement under the\nmanagement of those, who, like the apostles hitherto, looked on it\nas a mere improvement and spiritualization of the old Mosaic form, to\nwhich it was, in their view, only an appendage, and not a substitute?\nThink of what chances there were of its extension under such views to\nthose far western lands where, ages ago, it reached with its benign\ninfluences the old Teutonic hordes from whom we draw our race;\u2015\u2015or of\nwhat possibility there was of ever bringing under the intolerable yoke\nof Jewish forms, the hundreds of millions who now, out of so many lands\nand kindreds and tongues, bear the light yoke, and own the simpler\nfaith of Jesus, confessing him Lord, to the glory of God the Father.\nYet hitherto, so far from seeing these things in their true light,\nall the followers of Christ had, notwithstanding his broad and\nopen commission to them, steadily persisted in the notion, that the\nobservance of the regulations laid down by Moses for proselytes to\nhis faith, was equally essential for a full conversion to the faith of\nChrist. And now too, it required a new and distinctly repeated summons\nfrom above, to bring even the great chief of the apostles to the just\nsense of the freedom of the gospel, and to the practical belief that\nGod was no respecter of persons. But the whole progress of the event,\nwith all its miraculous attestations, left so little doubt of the\nnature of the change, that Peter, after the manifestation of a holy\nspirit in the hearts and voices of the Gentile converts, triumphantly\nappealed to the Jewish brethren who had accompanied him from Joppa, and\nasked them, \u201cCan any one forbid the water for the baptizing of these,\nwho have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?\u201d Taking the unanimous\nsuffrage of their silence to his challenge, as a full consent, he gave\ndirections that the believing Romans should be baptized in the name of\nthe Lord, as Jesus in his parting charge had constituted that ordinance\nfor the seal of redemption to every creature, in all the nations to\nwhom the gospel should be preached. Having thus formally enrolled\nthe first Gentile converts, as the free and complete partakers of the\nblessings of the new covenant, he stayed among them several days, at\ntheir request, strengthening their faith, and enlarging their knowledge\nby his pastoral instruction; which he deemed a task of sufficient\nimportance to detain him, for a while, from his circuit among the new\nconverts, scattered about in other places throughout Palestine, and\nfrom any immediate return to his friends and converts at Joppa, where\nthis call had found him.\n\nMeanwhile, this mighty innovation on the established order of sacred\nthings could not be long unknown beyond the cities of Caesarea and\nJoppa, but was soon announced by the varied voice of rumor to the\namazed apostles and brethren at Jerusalem. The impression made on\nthem by this vague report of their great leader\u2019s proceedings, was\nmost decidedly unfavorable; and there seem to have been not a few who\nregarded this unprecedented act of Peter as a downright abuse of the\ndignity and authority with which the special commission of his Master\nhad invested him. Doubtless, in that little religious community, as in\nevery other association of men ever gathered, there were already many\nhuman jealousies springing up like roots of bitterness, which needed\nbut such an occasion as this, to manifest themselves in decided censure\nof the man, whose remarkable exaltation over them might seem like a\nstigma on the capacities or merits of those to whom he was preferred.\nThose in whose hearts such feelings had been rankling, now found\na great occasion for the display of their religious zeal, in this\nbold movement of their constituted leader, who herein seemed to\nhave presumed on his distinction and priority, to act in a matter of\nthe very highest importance, without the slightest reference to the\nfeelings and opinions of those, who had been with him chosen for the\ngreat work of spreading the gospel to all nations. And so much of free\nopinion and expression was there among them, that this act of the chief\napostle called forth complaints both deep and loud, from his brethren,\nagainst this open and unexplained violation of the holy ordinances\nof that ancient law, which was still to them and him the seal and\nsign of salvation. Peter, at length, after completing his apostolic\ncircuit among the churches, of which no farther account is given to\nus, returned to Jerusalem to meet these murmurs with the bold and clear\ndeclaration of the truth. As soon as he arrived, the grumblers burst\nout on him with open complaints of his offensive violations of the\nstrict religious exclusiveness of demeanor, which became a son of\nIsrael professing the pure reformed faith of Jesus. The unhesitating\nboldness with which this charge of a breach of order was made against\nPeter by the sticklers for circumcision, is a valuable and interesting\nproof, that all his authority and dignity among them, did not amount to\nanything like a _supremacy_; and that whatever he might bind or loose\non earth for the high sanction of heaven, he could neither bind the\ntongues and opinions, nor loose the consciences of these sturdy and\nfree-spoken brethren. Nor does Peter seem to have had the least idea\nof claiming any exemption from their critical review of his actions;\nbut straightway addressed himself respectfully to them, in a faithful\ndetail of his conduct, and the reasons of it. He distinctly recounted\nto them the clear and decided call which he considered himself to\nhave received from heaven, by which he was summoned as the spiritual\nguide of the inquiring Gentiles. And after the honest recital of the\nwhole series of incidents, and of the crowning act of the whole, the\nimparting to them the outward sign of inward washing from their sins,\nhe boldly appealed to the judgments of his accusers, to say whether,\nin the face of such a sanction, they would have had him do otherwise.\n\u201cWhen the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning, then\nremembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said,\u201d (when parting\nfrom us, on the top of Olivet, to rise to the bosom of his father,\nprophetically announcing a new and holy consecration and endowment for\nour work,) \u201cJohn indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized\nwith the Holy Ghost.\u201d This peculiar gift thus solemnly announced, we\nhad indeed received at the pentecost, and its outward signs we had\nthereby learned infallibly by our own experience; and even so, at\nCaesarea, I recognized in those Gentiles the same tokens by which I\nknew the workings of divine grace in myself and you. \u201cForasmuch, then,\nas God gave them the like gift as to us, who believed on the Lord\nJesus Christ, what was I, that I should withstand God?\u201d\u2015\u2015This clear and\nunanswerable appeal silenced the clamors of the bold assertors of the\ninviolability of Mosaic forms; and when they heard these things, they\nheld their peace, and, softened from their harsh spirit of rebuke, they,\nin a noble feeling of truly Christian triumph, forgot all their late\nexclusiveness, in a pure joy for the new and vast extension of the\ndominion of Christ, secured by this act, whose important consequences\nthey were not slow in perceiving. They praised God for such a beginning\nof mighty results, and laying aside, in this moment of exultation,\nevery feeling of narrow Jewish bigotry, they acknowledged that \u201cto the\nGentiles also, God had granted repentance unto life.\u201d\n\n\n HEROD AGRIPPA.\n\nAt this time, the monarch of the Roman world was Caius Caesar, commonly\nknown by his surname, Caligula. Among the first acts of a reign,\nwhose outset was deservedly popular for its numerous manifestations of\nprudence and benevolence, forming a strange contrast with subsequent\ntyranny and folly, was the advancement of a tried and faithful friend,\nto the regal honors and power which his birth entitled him to claim,\nand from which the neglectful indifference at first, and afterwards the\nrevengeful spite of the preceding Caesar, Tiberius, had long excluded\nhim. This was Herod Agrippa, grandson of that great Herod, who, by\nthe force of his own exalted genius, and by the favor of the imperial\nAugustus, rose from the place of a friendless foreign adventurer, to\nthe kingly sway of all Palestine. This extensive power he exercised\nin a manner which was, on the whole, ultimately advantageous to\nhis subjects; but his whole reign, and the later years of it more\nparticularly, were marked by cruelties the most infamous, to which he\nwas led by almost insane fits of the most causeless jealousy. On none\nof the subjects of his power, did this tyrannical fury fall with such\nfrequent and dreadful visitations, as on his own family; and it was\nthere, that, in his alternate fits of fury and remorse, he was made the\navenger of his own victims. Among these numerous domestic cruelties,\none of the earliest, and the most distressing, was the murder of the\namiable Mariamne, the daughter of the last remnants of the Asmonaean\nline,\u2015\u2015\n\n \u201cHerself the solitary scion left\n Of a time-honored race,\u201d\n\nwhich Herod\u2019s remorseless policy had exterminated. Her he made his wife,\nand after a few years sacrificed her to some wild freak of jealousy,\nonly to reap long years of agonizing remorse for the hasty act, when\na cooler search had shown, too late, her stainless innocence. But a\npassionate despot never yet learned wisdom by being made to feel the\nrecoil of his own folly; and in the course of later years this cruelty\nwas equalled, and almost outdone, by a similar act, committed by him\non those whom her memory should have saved, if anything could. The\ninnocent and unfortunate Mariamne left him two sons, then mere children,\nwhom the miserable, repentant tyrant, cherished and reared with an\naffectionate care, which might almost have seemed a partial atonement\nfor the injuries of their murdered mother. After some years passed in\nobtaining a foreign education at the imperial court of Rome, these two\nsons, Alexander and Aristobulus, returned at their father\u2019s summons,\nto his court, where their noble qualities, their eloquence and manly\naccomplishments, as well as the interest excited by their mother\u2019s fate,\ndrew on them the favorable and admiring regard of the whole people. But\nall that made them admirable and amiable to others, was as powerless\nas the memory of their mother, to save them from the fury of the\nsuspicious tyrant. Those whose interests could be benefited by such a\ncourse, soon found means to make them objects of jealousy and terror\nto him, and ere long involved them in a groundless accusation of\nconspiring against his dominion and life. The uneasiness excited in\nHerod by their great popularity and their commanding talents, led\nhim to believe this charge; and the miserable old tyrant, driven\nfrom fear to jealousy, and from jealousy to fury, at last crowned\nhis own wretchedness and their wrongs, by strangling them both, after\nan imprisonment of so great a length as to take away from his crime\neven the shadowy excuse of hastiness. This was one of the last acts\nof a bloody life; but ere he died, returning tenderness towards the\nunfortunate race of Mariamne, led him to spare and cherish the infant\nchildren of Aristobulus, the younger of the two, who left three sons\nand two daughters to the tender mercies of his cruel father. One of\nthese was the person who is concerned in the next event of Peter\u2019s life,\nand whose situation and conduct in reference to that affair, was such\nas to justify this prolonged episode. He received in infancy the name\nof Agrippa, out of compliment to Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, the favorite\nand minister of Augustus Caesar, and the steady friend of the great\nHerod. This name was exclusively borne by this son of Aristobulus in\nchildhood, nor was it ever displaced by any other, except by some of\nthe Jews, who, out of compliment to the restoration of the Herodian\nline of kings, in place of the Roman sub-governors, gave him the name\nof his royal grandfather, so that he is mentioned only by the name\nof Herod in the story of the Acts of the Apostles; but the Romans and\nGreeks seem to have known him only by his proper name of Agrippa. The\ntardy repentance of his grandfather did not extend to any important\npermanent provision for the children of Aristobulus; but on his death a\nfew years after, they were left with the great majority of the numerous\nprogeny of Herod, to the precarious fortunes of dependent princes. The\nyoung Agrippa having married his own cousin, Cypros, the daughter of a\ndaughter of Herod and Mariamne, sailed to Rome, where he remained for\nseveral years, a sort of beggar about the court of Tiberius Caesar,\nthrough whose favor he hoped for an advancement to some one of the\nthrones in Palestine, which seemed to be prizes for any of Herod\u2019s\nnumerous descendents who could best secure the imperial favor, and\ndepress the possessors in the Caesar\u2019s opinion. Passing at Rome and\nelsewhere through a romantic variety of fortune, this adventurer was\nat last lucky in securing to himself the most friendly regard of Caius\nCaesar, then the expected successor of the reigning emperor. This\nafterwards proved the basis of his fortunes, which for a while, however,\nwere darkened by the consequences of an imprudent remark made to Caius,\nexpressive of a wish for the death of Tiberias, which was reported\nto the jealous tyrant by a listening slave, and finally caused the\nspeaker\u2019s close imprisonment during the rest of the emperor\u2019s life.\nThe death of Tiberius, followed by the accession of Caius Caesar to\nthe throne, raised Agrippa from his chains to freedom, and to the\nmost intimate favor of the new monarch. The tetrarchy of Iturea and\nTrachonitis, then vacant by the death of Philip, was immediately\nconferred on him; and soon after, Herod Antipas having been exiled, his\nterritories, Galilee and Peraea, were added to the former dominions of\nHerod Agrippa, and with them was granted to him the title of _king_,\nwhich had never yet been given to any of the descendents of Herod the\nGreat. In this state were the governments of these countries at the\ntime of the events last narrated; but Herod Agrippa, often visiting\nRome, left all Palestine in the hands of Publius Petronius, the\njust and benevolent Roman president of Syria. In this state, affairs\nremained during all the short reign of Caius Caligula Caesar, who,\nafter four years mostly characterized by folly, vice and cruelty, ended\nhis days by the daggers of assassins. But this great event proved no\ncheck to the flourishing fortunes of his favorite, king Herod Agrippa;\nwho, in the course of the events which ended in placing Claudius on\nthe throne, so distinguished himself in the preliminary negociations\nbetween the new emperor and the senate, sharing as he did the\nconfidence and regard of both parties, that he was justly considered by\nall, as the most active means of effecting the comfortable settlement\nof their difficulties; and he was therefore deemed well deserving\nof the highest rewards. Accordingly, the first act of Claudius\u2019s\ngovernment, like the first of Caligula\u2019s, was the presentation of a\nnew kingdom to this favorite of fortune,\u2015\u2015Judea being now added to\nthe other countries in his possession, and thus bringing all Palestine\ninto one noble kingdom, beneath his extensive sway. With a dominion\ncomprising all that the policy of his grandfather had been able to\nattain during a long and active life, he now found himself, at the\nage of fifty-one, one of the most extraordinary instances of romantic\nfortune that had ever occurred; and anxious to enjoy something of the\nsolid pleasure of visiting and governing his great and flourishing\nkingdom, he set sail from Rome, which had been so long to him the\nscene of such varied fortune, such calamitous poverty and tedious\nimprisonment,\u2015\u2015and now proceeded as the proud king of Palestine, going\nhome in triumph to the throne of his ancestor, supported by the most\nboundless pledges of imperial favor. The emperor Claudius, though\nregretting exceedingly the departure of the tried friend whom he had\nso much reason to love and cherish, yet would not detain him from\na happiness so noble and desirable, as that of arranging and ruling\nhis consolidated dominion. Even his departure, however, was made the\noccasion of new marks of imperial favor; for Claudius gave him letters\nby which all Roman governors were bound to acknowledge and support him\nas the rightful sovereign of Palestine. He arrived in Palestine shortly\nafter, and just before the passover, made his appearance in Jerusalem,\nwhere he was received with joy and hope by the expecting people, who\nhailed with open hearts a king whose interests would be identified\nwith theirs, and with the glory of the Jewish name. His high and\nroyal race,\u2015\u2015his own personal misfortunes and the unhappy fate of\nhis early-murdered father, as well as his descent from the lamented\nMariamne,\u2015\u2015his well-known amiability of character, and his regard for\nthe holy Jewish faith, which he had shown by exerting and even risking\nall his favor with Caligula to prevent, in co-operation with the\namiable Petronius, the profanation of the temple as proposed by the\nerection of the emperor\u2019s statue within it,\u2015\u2015all served to throw a most\nattractive interest around him, and to excite brilliant hopes, which\nhis first acts immediately more than justified. The temple, though now\nso resplendent with the highest \u2666achievements of art, and though so\nvast in its foundations and dimensions, was still considered as having\nsome deficiencies, so great, that nothing but royal munificence could\nsupply them. The Jews therefore seized the fortunate occasion of the\naccession of their new and amiable monarch to his throne, to obtain the\nperfection of a work on which the hearts of the people were so much set,\nand the completion of which would so highly advance the monarch in the\npopular favor. The king at once benignantly heard their request, and\ngladly availing himself of this opportunity to gratify his subjects,\nand secure a regard from them which might some day be an advantage to\nhim, immediately ordered the great work to proceed at his expense. The\nsatisfaction of the people and the Sanhedrim was now at the highest\npitch; and, \u2660emboldened by these displays of royal favor, some of the\nsage plotters among them hoped to obtain from him a favorable hearing\non a matter which they deemed of still deeper importance to their\nreligion, and in which his support was equally indispensable. This\nmatter brings back the forsaken narrative to consideration.\n\n \u2666 \u201cachievments\u201d replaced with \u201cachievements\u201d\n\n \u2660 \u201cemboldenened\u201d replaced with \u201cemboldened\u201d\n\n _Herod Agrippa._\u2015\u2015All the interesting details of this richly\n romantic life, are given in a most delightful style by Josephus.\n (Antiquities, XVIII. v. 3,\u2012viii. 9. and XIX. i\u2012ix.) The same\n is more concisely given by the same author in another place.\n (Jewish War, II. ix. 5,\u2012xi. 6.) The prominent events of\n Petronius\u2019s administration, are also given in the former.\n\n\n THE PEACEFUL PROGRESS OF THE FAITH.\n\nThe apostles, after the great events last narrated, gave themselves\nwith new zeal to the work which was now so vastly extended by the\nopening of the wide field of the Gentiles. Others of the refugees from\nthe popular rage, at the time of Stephen\u2019s murder, had gone even beyond\nthe boundaries of Palestine, bringing into the sphere of apostolic\noperations a great number of interesting subjects, before unthought of.\nSome of the bold, free workers, who had heard of the late changes in\nthe views of the apostles, respecting the characters of those for whom\nthe gospel was designed, now no longer limited their efforts of love\nto the children of the stock of Abraham, but proclaimed the faith of\nJesus to those who had before never heard his name. The gospel was\nthus carried into Syria and Cyprus, and thence rapidly spread into many\nother countries, where Macedonian conquest and Hellenic colonization\nhad made the Greek the language of cities, courts, commerce, and, to\na great extent, of literature. The great city of Antioch soon became\na sort of metropolis of the numerous churches, which sprang up in that\nregion, beyond the immediate reach of Jerusalem, now the common home of\nthe apostles, and the center of the Christian, as of the Jewish faith.\nGrecians as well as Jews, in this new march of the gospel, were made\nsharers in its blessings; and the multiplication of converts among\nthem was so rapid as to give a new importance, at once, to this sort\nof Christians. The communication of these events to the apostles at\nJerusalem, called for some systematic action on their part, to confirm\nand complete the good work thus begun by the random and occasional\nefforts of mere wandering fugitives from persecution. They accordingly\nselected persons especially fitted for this field of labor, and\ndespatched them to Antioch, to fulfil the duties imposed on the\napostles in \u2666reference to this new opening. The details of the\noperations of these new laborers, will be given in their lives\nhereafter.\n\n \u2666 \u201crefereuce\u201d replaced with \u201creference\u201d\n\nIn performing the various offices required in their domestic and\nforeign fields of labor, now daily multiplying, Peter and his\nassociates had continued for several years steadily occupied, but\nachieving no particular action that has received notice in the history\nof their acts; so that the most of this part of their lives remains a\nblank to the modern investigator. All that is known is, that between\nthe churches of Syria and Palestine there was established a frequent\nfriendly intercourse, more particularly between the metropolitan\nchurches of Jerusalem and Antioch. From the former went forth preachers\nto instruct and confirm the new and untaught converts of the latter,\nwho had been so lately strangers to God\u2019s covenant of promise with his\npeople; while from the thriving and benevolent disciples of Antioch\nwere sent back, in grateful recompense, the free offerings of such aid\nas the prevalence of a general dearth made necessary for the support\nof their poor and friendless brethren in Jerusalem; and the very men\nwho had been first sent to Antioch with the commission to build up and\nstrengthen that infant church, now returned to the mother church at\nJerusalem, with the generous relief which gratitude prompted these new\nsons to render to the authors of their faith.\n\n\n ROMAN TOLERANCE.\n\nThese events and the occasion of them occurred in the reign of Claudius\nCaesar, as Luke particularly records,\u2015\u2015thus marking the lapse of time\nduring the unregistered period of the apostolic acts; which is also\nconfirmed by the circumstances of Herod Agrippa\u2019s reign, mentioned\nimmediately after, as occurring \u201cabout that time;\u201d for, as has been\nspecified above, Herod Agrippa did not rule Judea till the reign of\nClaudius. The crucifixion of Jesus occurred three years before the\ndeath of Tiberius; and as the whole four years of the reign of Caligula\nwas passed over in this space, it could not have been less than\nten years after the crucifixion, when these events took place. This\ncalculation allows time for such an advance of the apostolic enterprise,\nas would, under their devoted energy, make the sect most formidable\nto those who regarded its success as likely to shake the security of\nthe established order of religious things, by impairing the popular\nreverence for the regularly constituted heads of Judaism. Such had been\nits progress, and such was the impression made by its advance. There\ncould no longer be any doubt as to the prospect of its final ascendency,\nif it was quietly left to prosper under the steady and devoted labors\nof its apostles, with all the advantages of the re-action which had\ntaken place from the former cruel persecution which they had suffered.\nFor several years the government of Palestine had been in such hands\nthat the Sanhedrim had few advantages for securing the aid of the\nsecular power, in consummating their exterminating plans against the\ngrowing heresy. Not long after the time of Pilate, the government\nof Judea had been committed by the emperor to Publius Petronius, the\npresident of Syria, a man who, on the valuable testimony of Josephus,\nappears to have been of the most amiable and upright character,\u2015\u2015wholly\ndevoted to the promotion of the real interests of the people whom he\nruled. On several occasions, he distinguished himself by his tenderness\ntowards the peculiarly delicate religious feelings of the Jews, and\nonce even risked and incurred the wrath of the vindictive Caligula,\nby disobeying his commands to profane the temple at Jerusalem by the\nerection of that emperor\u2019s statue within its holy courts,\u2015\u2015a violation\nof the purity of the place which had been suggested to his tyrannical\ncaprice by the spiteful hint of Apion, of Alexandria. But though\nPetronius, in this matter, showed a disposition to incur every hazard\nto spare the national and devotional feelings of the Jews so awful\nan infliction, there is nothing in his conduct which would lead us\nto suppose that he would sacrifice justice to the gratification of\nthe persecuting malice of the Jews, any more than to the imperious\ntyranny of Caligula. The fairest conclusion from the events of his\nadministration, is, that he regulated his behavior uniformly by his\nown sense of justice, with hardly any reference to the wild impulses,\neither of popular or imperial tyranny. A noble personification of\nindependent and invincible justice; but one not beyond the range of\nthe moral conceptions of a Roman, even under the corrupt and corrupting\nrule of the Caesars;\u2015\u2015for thus wrote the great moral poet of the\nAugustan age, though breathing the enervating air of a servile court,\nand living on the favor of a monarch who exacted from his courtiers a\nreverence truly idolatrous:\n\n Justum et tenacem propositi virum,\n Non civium ardor prava jubentium,\n Non vultus instantis tyranni\n Mente quatit solida. *\u00a0*\u00a0*\n\nThe moral energy of the Roman character made the exemplifications of\nthis fair ideal not uncommon, even in these latter days of Roman glory.\nThere were some like Petronius, who gave life and reality to this\npoetical conception of Horace,\u2015\u2015\u201cA man just and resolute, unshaken\nfrom his firm purpose alike by the wild impulses of popular rage, and\nby the frown of an overbearing tyrant.\u201d And these were among the chief\nblessings of the Roman sway, to those lands in which it ruled,\u2015\u2015that\nthe great interests of the country were not subjected to the blind\nmovements of a perverse public opinion, changing with each year,\nand frustrating every good which required a steady policy for its\naccomplishment,\u2015\u2015that the majority of the people were not allowed to\ntyrannize over the minority, nor the minority over the majority;\u2015\u2015and\nthat a mighty power amenable to neither, but whose interest and glory\nwould always coincide with the good of the whole, held over all a\ndominion unchecked by the demands of popular caprice. But, alas! for\nthe imperfections of all human systems;\u2015\u2015among the curses of that Roman\nsway, must be numbered its liability to fall from the hands of the wise\nand amiable, into those of the stupid and brutal; changes which but\ntoo often occurred,\u2015\u2015overturning, by the mismanagement of a moment,\nthe results of years of benevolent and prudent policy. And in this\nvery case, all the benefits of Petronius\u2019s equitable and considerate\nrule, were utterly neutralized and annihilated by the foolishness or\nbrutality of his successors, till the provoked irritability of the\nnation at last broke out with a fierceness that for a time overcame the\nsecurities even of Roman dominion, and was finally quieted only in the\nutter ruin of the whole Jewish nation. But during the period of several\nyears following the exit of Pilate, its beneficial energy was felt in\nthe quiet tolerance of religious opinion, which he enforced on all,\nand which was most highly advantageous to the progress of the doctrine\nof Christ. To this circumstance may justly be referred that remarkable\nrepose enjoyed by the apostles and their followers from all the\ninterference with their labors by the Roman government. The death of\nJesus Christ himself, indeed, was the only act in which the civil power\nhad interfered at all! for the murder of Stephen was a mere freak of\nmob-violence, a mere Lynch-law proceeding, which the Roman governor\nwould not have sanctioned, if it had been brought under his cognizance,\n\u2015\u2015being done as it was, so directly in the face of those principles\nof religious tolerance which the policy of the empire enforced every\nwhere, excepting cases in which sedition and rebellion against their\ndominion was combined with religious zealotism, like the instances\nof the Gaulanitish Judas, Theudas, and others. Even Jesus himself,\nwas thus accused by the Jews, and was condemned by Pilate for his\nalleged endeavors to excite a revolt against Caesar, and opposing the\npayment of the Roman taxes,\u2015\u2015as is shown by the statement of all the\nevangelists, and more particularly by Pilate\u2019s inscription on the cross.\nThe persecution which followed the murder of Stephen was not carried\non under the sanction of the Roman government, nor yet was it against\ntheir authority; for they permitted to the Sanhedrim the punishment of\nmost minor offences, so long as they did not go beyond imprisonment,\nscourging, banishment, &c. But the punishment of death was entirely\nreserved to the civil and military power; and if the Jewish magnates\nhad ever formally transgressed this limitation, they would have been\ninstantly punished for it, as a treasonable assumption of that supreme\npower which their conquerors were determined to guard with the most\nwatchful jealousy. The Sanhedrim, being thus restricted in their means\nof vengeance, were driven to the low expedient of stirring up the\nlawless mob to the execution of these deeds of desperate violence,\nwhich their religious rulers could wink at, and yet were prepared to\ndisown, when questioned by the Romans, as mere popular ferments, over\nwhich they had no control whatever. So they managed with Stephen; for\nhis murder was no doubt preconcerted among the chief men, who caused\nthe formal preamble of a trial, with the design of provoking the mob,\nin some way, to this act; in which scheme they were too much favored\nby the fiery spirit of the martyr himself, who had not patience enough\nwith their bigotry, to conceal his abhorrence of it. Their subsequent\nsystematic and avowed acts of violence, it should be observed, were\nall kept strictly within the well-defined limits of their penal\njurisdiction; for there is no evidence whatever that any of the\npersecuted Hellenists ever suffered _death_ by the condemnation of\nthe Sanhedrim, or by the sentence of a Roman tribunal. The progress\nof these events, however, showed that this irritating and harassing\nsystem of whippings, imprisonments and banishments, had a tendency\nrather to excite the energies of these devoted heretics, than to\ncheck or crush their spirit of innovation and denunciation. Among\nthe numerous instances of malignant assault on the personal rights of\nthese sufferers, and the cruel violation of the delicacy due to the\nweaker sex, there must have been, also, many occasions in which the\never-varying feelings of the public would be moved to deep sympathy\nwith sufferers who bore, so steadily and heroically, punishments\nmanifestly disproportioned to the offense with which they were\ncharged,\u2015\u2015a sympathy which might finally rise to a high and resistless\nindignation against their remorseless oppressors. It is probable,\ntherefore, that this persecution was at last allayed by other causes\nthan the mere defection of its most zealous agent. The conviction must\nhave been forced on the minds of the persecutors, that this system,\nwith all its paltry and vexatious details, must be given up, or\nexchanged for one whose operations should be so vast and sweeping in\nits desolating vengeance, as to overawe and appal, rather than awaken\nzeal in the objects of the punishment, or sympathy in the beholders.\nThe latter alternative, however, was too hopeless, under the steady,\nbenignant sway of Petronius, to be calculated upon, until a change\nshould take place which should give the country a ruler of less\nindependent and scrupulous character, and more disposed to sacrifice\nhis own moral sense to the attainment of favor with the most important\nsubjects of his government. Until that desirable end should be attained,\nin the course of the frequent changes of the imperial succession, it\nseemed best to let matters take their own course; and they accordingly\ndropped all active proceedings, leaving the new sect to progress as it\nmight, with the impulse gained from the re-action consequent on this\nlate unfortunate excitement against it. But they still kept a watchful\neye on their proceedings, though with hands for a while powerless; and\ntreasured up accumulating vengeance through tedious years, for the day\nwhen the progress of political changes should bring the secular power\nbeneath their influence, and make it subservient to their purpose of\ndreadful retribution. That day had now fully come.\n\n\n PETER\u2019S THREATENED MARTYRDOM.\n\nThe long expected favorite and friend of the Jewish people, having been\nthus hailed sovereign by their grateful voices, and having strengthened\nhis throne and influence by his opening acts of liberality and devotion\nto the national faith, now entered upon a reign which presented only\nthe portents of a course most auspicious to his own fame and his\npeople\u2019s good. Uniting in his person the claims of the Herodian and\nAsmonaean lines,\u2015\u2015with the blood of the heroic Maccabees in his veins,\n\u2015\u2015crowned by the imperial lord of the civilized world, whose boundless\npower was pledged in his support, by the obligations of an intimate\npersonal friendship, and of a sincere gratitude for the attainment\nof the throne of the Caesars through his prompt and steady exertions,\n\u2015\u2015received with universal joy and hope by all the dwellers of the\nconsolidated kingdoms of his dominion, which had been long thriving\nunder the mild and equitable administration of a prudent governor,\n\u2015\u2015there seemed nothing wanting to complete the happy auspices of a\nglorious reign, under which the ancient honors of Israel should be more\nthan retrieved from the decline of ages. Yet what avails the bright\narray of happily conspiring circumstances, to prince or people, against\nthe awful majesty of divine truth, or the pure, simple energy of human\ndevotion? Within the obscurer corners of his vast territories, creeping\nfor room under the outermost colonnades of that mighty temple whose\nglories he had pledged himself to renew,\u2015\u2015wandering like outcasts from\nplace to place,\u2015\u2015seeking supporters only among the unintellectual mass\nof the people,\u2015\u2015were a set of men of whom he probably had not heard\nuntil he entered his own dominions. They were now suggested to his\nnotice for the first time, by the decided voice of censure from the\ndevout and learned guardians of the purity of the law of God, who\ninvoked the aid of his sovran power, to check and utterly uproot this\nheresy, which the unseasonable tolerance of Roman government had too\nlong shielded from the just visitations of judicial vengeance. Nor did\nthe royal Agrippa hesitate to gratify, in this slight and reasonable\nmatter, the express wishes of the reverend heads of the Jewish faith\nand law. Ah! how little did he think, that in that trifling movement\nwas bound up the destiny of ages, and that its results would send his\nname\u2015\u2015though then so loved and honored\u2015\u2015like Pharaoh\u2019s, down to all\ntime, a theme of religious horror and holy hatred, to the unnumbered\nmillions of a thousand races, and lands then unknown;\u2015\u2015an awful doom,\nfrom which one act of benign protection, or of prudent kindness, to\nthat feeble band of hated, outcast innovators, might have retrieved\nhis fame, and canonized it in the faithful memory of the just, till\nthe glory of the old patriarchs and prophets should grow dim. But,\nwithout one thought of consequences, a prophetic revelation of which\nwould so have appalled him, he unhesitatingly stretched out his arm\nin vindictive cruelty over the church of Christ, for the gratification\nof those whose praise was to him more than the favor of God. Singling\nout first the person whom momentary circumstances might render most\nprominent or obnoxious to censure, he at once doomed to a bloody death\nthe elder son of Zebedee, the second of the great apostolic THREE. No\nsooner was this cruel sentence executed, than, with a most remarkable\nsteadiness in the execution of his bloody plan, he followed up this\naction, so pleasing to the Jews, by another similar movement. Peter,\nthe active leader of the heretical host, ever foremost in braving\nthe authority of the constituted teachers of the law, and in exciting\ncommotion and dissatisfaction among the commonalty, was now seized\nby a military force, too strong to fear any resistance from popular\nmovements, which had so much deterred the Sanhedrim. This occurred\nduring the week of the passover; and such was king Agrippa\u2019s profound\nregard for all things connected with his national religion, that he\nwould not violate the sanctity of this holy festival by the execution\nof a criminal, however deserving of vengeance he might seem in that\ninstance. The fate of Peter being thus delayed, he was therefore\ncommitted to prison, (probably in castle Antonia,) and to prevent all\npossibility of his finding means to escape prepared ruin again, he was\nconfined to the charge of sixteen Roman soldiers, divided into four\nsets, of four men each, who were to keep him under constant supervision\nday and night, by taking turns, each set an equal time; and according\nto the established principles of the Roman military discipline, with\nthe perfect understanding that if, on the conclusion of the passover,\nthe prisoner was not forthcoming, the guards should answer the failure\nwith their lives. These decided and careful arrangements being made,\nthe king, with his gratified friends in the Sanhedrim and among the\nrabble, gave themselves up to the enjoyment of the great national\nfestival, with a peculiar zest, hightened by the near prospect of the\nutter overthrow of the advancing heresy, by the sweeping blow that\nrobbed them of their two great leaders, and more especially of him who\nhad been so active in mischievous attempts to perpetuate the memory\nof the original founder of the sect, and to frustrate the good effect\nof his bloody execution, by giving out that the crucified Jesus still\nlived, and would yet come in vengeance on his murderers. While such\ntriumphant reflections swelled the festal enjoyments of the powerful\nfoes of Christ, the unhappy company of his persecuted disciples passed\nthrough this anniversary-week with the most mournful reminiscences and\nanticipations. Ten years before, in unutterable agony and despair, they\nhad parted, as they then supposed forever, with their beloved Lord; and\nnow, after years of devotion to the work for which he had commissioned\nthem, they were called to renew the deep sorrows of that parting, in\nthe removal of those who had been foremost among them in the great work,\ncheering them and leading them on through toil and peril, with a spirit\ntruly holy, and with a fearless energy, kindred with that of their\ndivine Lord. Of these two divinely appointed chiefs, one had already\npoured out his blood beneath the executioner\u2019s sword, and the other,\ntheir great leader, the _Rock_ of the church, was now only waiting\nthe speedy close of the festal week, to crown his glorious course, and\nhis enemies\u2019 cruel policy, by the same bloody doom; meanwhile held in\nthe safe keeping of an ever-watchful Roman guard, forbidding even the\nwildest hope of escape. Yet why should they wholly despair? On that\npassover, ten years before, how far more gloomy and hopeless the glance\nthey threw on the cross of their Lord! Yet from that doubly hopeless\ndarkness, what glorious light sprang up to them? And was the hand that\nthen broke through the bands of death and the gates of Hades, now so\nshortened that it could not sever the vile chains of paltry tyranny\nwhich confined this faithful apostle, nor open wide the guarded gates\nof his castle prison? Surely there was still hope for faith which had\nbeen taught such lessons of undoubting trust in God. Nor were they\nthoughtless of the firm support and high consolations which their\nexperience afforded. In prayer intense and unceasing, they poured\nout their souls in sympathetic grief and supplication, for the relief\nof their great elder brother from his deadly peril; and in sorrowful\nentreaty the whole church continued day and night, for the safety of\nPeter.\n\n _Castle Antonia._\u2015\u2015For Josephus\u2019s account of the position and\n erection of this work, see my note on page 95, (section 8.)\n There has been much speculation about the place of the prison\n to which Peter was committed. The sacred text (Acts xii. 10,)\n makes it plain that it was without the city itself, since after\n leaving the prison it was still necessary to enter the city by\n \u201cthe iron gate.\u201d Walch, Kuinoel and Bloomfield adopt the view\n that it was in one of the towers or castles that fortified the\n walls. Wolf and others object to the view that it was without\n the walls; because, as Wolf says, it was not customary to\n have public prisons outside of the cities, since the prisoners\n might in that case be sometimes rescued by a bold assault from\n some hardy band of comrades, &c. But this objection is worth\n nothing against castle Antonia, which, though it stood entirely\n separated from the rest of the city, was vastly strong, and by\n its position as well as fortification, impregnable to any common\n force;\u2015\u2015a circumstance which would at once suggest and recommend\n it as a secure place for one who, like Peter, had escaped once\n from the common prison. There was always a Roman garrison in\n Antonia. (Josephus, Jewish War, V. v. 8.)\n\nIn the steady contemplation of the nearness of his bloody doom, the\ngreat apostle remained throughout the passover, shut off from all the\nconsolations of fraternal sympathy, and awaiting the end of the few\nhours which were still allotted by the religious scruples of his mighty\nsovran. In his high and towering prison in Castle Antonia, parted\nonly by a deep, broad rift in the precipitous rocks, from the great\nterraces of the temple itself, from whose thronged courts now rung the\nthanksgiving songs of a rejoicing nation, he heard them, sending up\nin thousands of voices the praise of their fathers\u2019 God, who still\nremembered Israel in mercy, renewing their ancient glories under the\nbright and peaceful dominion of their new-crowned king. And with the\nanthems of praise to God which sounded along the courts and porches\nof the temple, were no doubt heard, too, the thanks of many a grateful\nHebrew for the goodness of the generous king, who had pledged his\nroyal word to complete the noble plan of that holy pile, as suited\nthe splendid conceptions of the founder. And this was the king whose\ndecree had doomed that lonely and desolate prisoner in the castle, to\na bloody and shameful death,\u2015\u2015as a crowning offering at the close of\nthe great festival; and how few among that vast throng, before whose\neyes he was to yield his life, would repine at the sentence that dealt\nexterminating vengeance on the obstinately heretical preacher of the\ncrucified Nazarene\u2019s faith! Well might such dark visions of threatening\nruin appal a heart whose enthusiasm had caught its flame from the\nunholy fires of worldly ambition, or devoted its energies to the low\npurpose of human ascendency. And truly sad would have been the lonely\nthoughts of this very apostle, if this doom had found him in the spirit\nwhich first moved him to devote himself to the cause which now required\nthe sacrifice of life. But higher hopes and feelings had inspired his\ndevoted exertions for _ten years_, and higher far, the consolations\nwhich now sustained him in his friendless desolation. This very fate,\nhe had long been accustomed to regard as the earthly meed of his labors;\nand he had too often been threatened with it, to be overwhelmed by\nits near prospect. Vain, then, were all solemn details of that awful\nsentence, to strike terror into his fixed soul,\u2015\u2015vain the dark sureties\nof the high, steep rock, the massive, lofty walls, the iron gates, the\never-watchful Roman guards, the fetters and manacles, to control or\ncheck the\n\n \u201cEternal spirit of the chainless mind!\u2015\u2015\n Brightest in dungeons, Liberty! thou art,\n For there thy habitation is the heart.\u201d\n\nThus sublimely calm, sat Peter in his prison, waiting for death. Day\nafter day, all day long, the joyous feast went on beneath him:\u2015\u2015the\noffering, the prayer and the hymn varying the mighty course, from the\nearliest morning supplication to the great evening sacrifice. Up rolled\nthe glorious symphony of the Levites\u2019 thousand horns, and the choral\nharmony of their chanting voices,\u2015\u2015up rolled the clouds of precious\nincense to the skiey throne of Israel\u2019s God,\u2015\u2015and with this music and\nfragrance, up rolled the prayers of Israel\u2019s worshiping children; but\nthough the glorious sound and odor fell delightfully on the senses of\nthe lonely captive, as they passed upwards by his high prison-tower,\nno voice of mercy came from below, to cheer him in his desolation. But\nfrom above, from the heaven to which all these prayer-bearing floods\nof incense and harmony ascended, came down divine consolation and\nmiraculous delivery to this poor, despised prisoner, with a power and\na witness that not all the solemn pomp of the passover ceremony could\nsummon in reply to its costly offerings. The feeble band of sorrowing\nNazarenes, from their little chamber, were lifting unceasing voices\nof supplication for their brother, in his desperate prospects, which\nentered with his solitary prayer into the ears of the God of Hosts,\nwhile the ostentatious worship of king Agrippa and his reverend\nsupporters, only brought back shame and woful ruin on their impious\nsupplications for the divine sanction to their bloody plans of\npersecution. At last the solemn passover-rites of \u201cthe last great day\nof the feast\u201d were ended;\u2015\u2015the sacrifice, the incense and the song,\nrose no more from the sanctuary,\u2015\u2015the fires on the altars went out,\nthe hum and the roar of worshiping voices was hushed, and the departing\nthrongs poured through the \u201cETERNAL\u201d and the \u201cBEAUTIFUL\u201d gates, till at\nlast the courts and porches of the temple were empty through all their\nvast extent, and hushed in a silence, deep as the ruinous oblivion to\nwhich the voice of their God had doomed them shortly to pass; and all\nwas still, save where the footfall of the passing priest echoed along\nthe empty colonnades, as he hurried over the vast pavements into the\ndormitories of the inner temple; or where the mighty gates thundered\nawfully as they swung heavily together under the strong hands of the\nweary Levites, and sent their long reverberations among the walls.\nEven these closing sounds soon ceased also; the Levite watchmen took\ntheir stand on the towers of the temple, and paced their nightly\nrounds along the flat roofs, guarding with careful eyes their holy\nshrine, lest the impious should, under cover of night, again profane\nit, (as the Samaritans had secretly done a few years before.) And on\nthe neighboring castle of Antonia, the Roman garrison, too, had set\ntheir nightly watch, and the iron warriors slumbered, each in his turn,\ntill the round of duty should summon him to relieve guard. Within the\n_dungeon keep_ of the castle, was still safely held the weighty trust\nthat was to be answered for, on peril of life; and all arrangements\nwere made which so great a responsibility seemed to require. The\nprisoner already somewhat notorious for making unaccountable escapes\nfrom guarded dungeons, was secured with a particularity, quite\ncomplimentary to his dexterity as a jail-breaker. The quaternion on\nduty was divided into two portions; each half being so disposed and\nposted as to effect the most complete supervision of which the place\nwas capable,\u2015\u2015two men keeping watch outside of the well-bolted door\nof the cell, and two within, who, not limited to the charge of merely\nkeeping their eyes on the prisoner, had him fastened to their bodies,\nby a chain on each side. In this neighborly proximity to his rough\ncompanions, Peter was in the habit of passing the night; but in the\nday-time was freed from one of these chains, remaining attached to only\none soldier. (This arrangement was in accordance with the standard mode\nof guarding important state-prisoners among the Romans.) Matters being\nthus accommodated, and the watch being set for the next three hours,\nPeter\u2019s two _fast_ companions, finding him but indifferent company, no\ndoubt, notwithstanding his sociable position, soon grew quite dull in\nthe very tame employment of seeing that he did not run away with them;\nfor as to getting away _from_ them, the idea could have no place at\nall in the supposition. These sturdy old veterans had probably, though\nGentiles, conformed so far to Judaical rituals as to share in the\ncomfortable festivities of this great religious occasion, and could\nnot have suffered any heathenish prejudices to prevent them from a\nhearty participation in the joyous draughts of the wine, which as usual\ndid its part to enliven the hearts and countenances of all those who\npassed the feast-day in Jerusalem. The passover coming so many months\nafter the vintage too, the fermentation of a long season must have\nconsiderably energized \u201cthe pure juice of the grape,\u201d so that its\nexhilarant and narcotic powers could have been by no means feeble;\nand if the change thus wrought by time and its own inherent powers,\nat all corresponds to that which takes places in cider in this country\nunder the same circumstances, the latter power must have so far\npredominated, as to leave them rather below than above the ordinary\nstandard of vivacity, and induce that sort of apathetic indifference\nto consequences, which is far from appropriate in a soldier on duty\nover an important trust. Be that as it may, Peter\u2019s two room-mates soon\ngave themselves quietly up to slumber. If any scruple arose in their\nheavy heads as to the risk they ran in case of his escape, that was\nsoon soothed by the consideration of the vast number of impassable\nsecurities upon the prisoner. They might well reason with themselves,\n\u201cIf this sharp Galilean can manage to break his chains without waking\nus, and burst open this stout door in spite of bars, without rousing\nthe sentinels who are posted against it on the outside, and make his\nway unseen and unchecked through all the gates and guards of Castle\nAntonia\u2015\u2015why, let him. But there\u2019s no use in our losing a night\u2019s\nrest by any uneasiness about such a chance.\u201d So stretching themselves\nout, they soon fell into a sound sleep, none the less pleasant for\ntheir lying in such close quarters; for it is natural to imagine, that\nin a chilly March night in Jerusalem, stowing three in a bed was no\nuncomfortable arrangement. Circumstanced as he was, Peter had nothing\nto do but conform to their example, for the nature of his attachment\nto them was such, that he had no room for the indulgence of his own\nfancies about his position; and he also lay down to repose. He slept.\nThe sickening and feverish confinement of his close dungeon had not\nyet so broken his firm and vigorous frame, nor so drained its energies,\nas to hinder the placid enjoyment of repose; nor did the certainty of\na cruel and shameful death, to which he was within a few hours to be\ndragged, before the eyes of a scoffing rabble, move his high spirit\nfrom its self-possession:\u2015\u2015\n\n \u201cAnd still he slumbered\n While in \u2018decree, his hours\u2019 were numbered.\u201d\n\nHe slept. And from that dark prison-bed what visions could beguile his\nslumbering thoughts? Did fancy bear them back against the tide of time,\nto the humble, peaceful home of his early days,\u2015\u2015to the varied scenes\nof the lake whereon he loved to dwell, and along whose changeful waters\nhe had learned so many lessons of immortal faith and untrembling hope\nin his Lord? Amid the stormy roar of its dark waters, the voice of that\nLord once called him to tempt the raging deep with his steady foot, and\nwhen his feeble faith, before untried, failed him in the terrors of the\neffort, His supporting hand recalled him to strength and safety. And\nhad that lesson of faith and hope been so poorly learned, that in this\ndark hour he could draw no consolation from such remembrances? No. He\ncould even now find that consolation, and he did. In the midst of this\n\u201csea of troubles,\u201d he felt the same mighty arm now upholding him, that\nbore him above the waters, \u201cwhen the blue wave rolled nightly on deep\nGalilee.\u201d Again he had stood by those waters, swelling brightly in\nthe fresh morning breeze, with his risen Lord beside him, and received\nthe solemn commission, oft-renewed, to feed the flock that was so soon\nto lose the earthly presence of its great Shepherd. In the steady and\ndauntless execution of that parting commission, he had in the course\nof long years gone on in the face of death,\u2015\u2015\u201cfeeding the lambs\u201d of\nChrist\u2019s gathering, and calling vast numbers to the fold; and for the\nfaithful adherence to that command, he now sat waiting the fulfilment\nof the doom that was to cut him down in the midst of life and in\nthe fullness of his vigor. Yet the nearness of this sad reward of\nhis labors, seemingly offering so dreadful an interpretation of\nthe mystical prophecy that accompanied that charge, moved him to no\ndesperation or distress, and still he calmly slept, with as little\nagitation and dread as at the transfiguration, and at the agony of the\ncrucifixion eve; nor did that compunction for heedless inattention,\nthat then hung upon his slumbering senses, now disturb him in the\nleast. It is really worth noticing, in justice to Peter, that his\nsleepiness, of which so many curious instances are presented in the\nsacred narrative, was not of the criminally selfish kind that might\nbe supposed on a partial view. If he slept during his Master\u2019s prayers\non Mount Hermon, and in Gethsemane, he slept too in his own condemned\ncell; and if in his bodily infirmity he had forgotten to watch and pray\nwhen death threatened his Lord, he was now equally indifferent to his\nown impending destruction. He was, evidently, a man of independent and\nregular habits. Brought up a hard-working man, he had all his life been\naccustomed to repose whenever he was at leisure, if he needed it; and\nnow too, though the \u201cheathen might rage, and the people imagine a vain\nthing,\u2015\u2015though the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers\ntook counsel together\u201d against him, and doomed him to a cruel death,\n\u2015\u2015in spite of all these, Peter would sleep when he was sleepy. Not the\nroyal Agrippa could sleep sounder on his pavilioned couch of purple.\nIn the calm confidence of one steadily fixed in a high course, and\nperfectly prepared for every and any result, the chained apostle gave\nhimself coolly to his natural rest, without borrowing any trouble from\nthe thought, that in the morning the bloody sword was to lay him in\n\u201cthe sleep that knows no earthly waking.\u201d So slept the Athenian sage,\non the eve of his martyrdom to the cause of clearly and boldly spoken\ntruth,\u2015\u2015a sleep that so moved the wonder of his agonizing disciples,\nat the power of a good conscience and a practical philosophy to sustain\nthe soul against the horrors of such distress; but a sleep not sounder\nnor sweeter than that of the poor Galilean outcast, who, though not\nknowing even the name of philosophy, had a consolation far higher, in\nthe faith that his martyred Lord had taught him in so many experimental\ninstructions. That faith, learned by the painful conviction of his own\nweakness, and implanted in him by many a fall when over confident in\nhis own strength, was now his stay and comfort, so that he might say\nto his soul, \u201cHope thou in God, for I shall yet praise him, who is the\nhelp of my countenance and my God.\u201d Nor did that hope prove groundless.\nFrom him in whom he trusted, came a messenger of deliverance; and from\nthe depths of a danger the most appalling and threatening, he was soon\nbrought, to serve that helping-God through many faithful years, feeding\nthe flock till, in his old age, \u201canother should gird him, and carry him\nwhither he would not.\u201d He who had prayed for him in the revelation of\nhis peculiar glories on Mount Hermon, and had so highly consecrated him\nto the great cause, had yet greater things for him to do; and to new\nworks of love and glory he now called him, from the castle-prison of\nhis royal persecutor.\n\n _Ten years._\u2015\u2015This piece of chronology is thus settled. Jesus\n Christ, according to all common calculation, was crucified as\n early as the _twentieth_ year of the reign of Tiberius. Irenaeus\n maintains that it was in the _fifteenth_ of that reign. Eusebius\n and Epiphanius fix it in the _eighteenth_, or, according to\n Petavius\u2019s explanation of their meaning, in the _seventeenth_\n of his actual reign. Tertullian, Julius Africanus, Jerome,\n and Augustin, put it in the _sixteenth_. Roger Bacon, Paulus\n Burgensis, and Tostatus, also support this date, on the ground\n of an astronomical calculation of the course of the moon, fixing\n the time when the passover must have occurred, so as to accord\n with the requirement of the Mosaic law, that it should be\n celebrated on a new moon. But Kepler has abundantly shown\n the fallacy of this calculation. Antony Pagus, also, though\n rejecting this astronomical basis, adheres to the opinion of\n Tertullian, Jerome, &c. Baronius fixes it in the _nineteenth_\n of Tiberius. Pearson, L. Cappel, Spanheim, and Witsius, with\n the majority of the moderns, in the _twentieth_ of Tiberius. So\n that the unanimous result of all these great authorities, places\n it as early as this last mentioned year. A full and highly\n satisfactory view of all these chronological points and opinions,\n is given by the deeply learned Antony Pagus, in his great\n \u201cCritical Historico-Chronological Review of Baronii.\u201d Saecul. I.\n Ann. Per. Gr.\u2012Rom. 5525. \u00b6 3\u201213.\n\n Now, from Josephus it is perfectly evident that Agrippa did not\n leave Rome until some time after the beginning of the reign of\n Claudius, and it is probable not before the close of the first\n year. Counting backwards through the four years of Caligula,\n this makes _five_ years after the death of Tiberius, and _eight_\n on the latest calculation from the death of Christ; while\n according to the higher and earlier authority, it amounts\n to _nine_, _ten_, _eleven_, or to _twelve_ years from the\n crucifixion to Agrippa\u2019s arrival in Judea. And moreover, it\n is not probable that the persecution referred to occurred\n immediately on his arrival. Indeed, from the close way in which\n Luke connects Agrippa\u2019s death with the preceding events, it\n would seem as if he would fix his \u201cgoing down from Jerusalem\n to Caesarea,\u201d and his death at the latter place, very soon\n after the escape of Peter. This of course being in the end of\n Claudius\u2019s _third_ year, brings the events above, down to the\n _eleventh_ or _twelfth_ from the crucifixion, even according to\n the latest conjecture as to the date of that event. Probably,\n however, the connection of the two events was not as close as\n a common reading of the Acts would lead one to suppose.\n\n So also Lardner, in his Life of Peter, says, \u201cThe death of\n Herod Agrippa happened before the end of that year,\u201d in which he\n escaped. (Lardner\u2019s Works 4to. Vol. III. p. 402, bottom.)\n\n Natalis Alexander fixes Peter\u2019s escape in the _second_ year\n of Claudius, and the _forty-fourth_ from Christ\u2019s birth, which\n is, according to his computation, the _tenth_ from his death.\n (Church History, Saec. I. Cap. vi.)\n\n _A chain on each side._\u2015\u2015That this was a common mode of\n fastening such prisoners among the Romans, appears from the\n authorities referred to by Wolf, (Cur. Philology in Acts xii. 6,)\n Kuinoel and Rosenmueller, (quoting from Walch,) and Bloomfield,\n all in loc.\n\n _Quaternion._\u2015\u2015That is, a band of _four_. See Bloomfield in\n defense of my mode of disposing them about the prison,\u2015\u2015also\n Rosenmueller, &c. Wolf quotes appositely from Polybius; but\n Kuinoel is richest of all in quotations and illustrations.\n (Acts xii. 4, 5.)\n\n\n THE DELIVERANCE.\n\nPeter was now quietly sleeping between his two guards, when his rest\nwas suddenly broken by a smart blow on the side, too energetically\ngiven to be mistaken for an accidental knock from the elbow of one of\nhis heavy bed-fellows. Rousing his senses, and opening his eyes, he\nwas startled by a most remarkable light shining throughout his dungeon,\nwhich his last waking glance had left in utter darkness. In this\nunaccountable illumination, he saw standing before him and bending over\nhim, a form in which he could recognize only the divine messenger of\ndeliverance. The shock of such a surprise must have been overwhelming;\n\u2015\u2015to be waked from a sound sleep by an appearance so utterly unearthly,\nmight have struck horror into the stoutest heart; but Peter seems to\nhave suffered no such emotion to hinder his attendance to the heavenly\ncall. The apparition, before he could exercise thought enough to sit\nup of himself, had raised him up from his bed, and that without the\nslightest alarm to his still slumbering keepers,\u2015\u2015for \u201cimmediately the\nchains fell from his hands,\u201d\u2015\u2015a motion which by the rattling of the\nfalling irons should have aroused the sleepers if any sound could have\nimpressed their senses. The impulse of the now unmanacled captive might\nhave been to spring forth his dungeon without the slightest delay, but\nhis deliverer\u2019s next command forbade any such unnecessary haste. His\nfirst words were, \u201cGird thyself; and tie on thy sandals.\u201d Before laying\nhimself down, he had, as usual, thrown off his outer garments and\nloosened his girdle, so that his under dress need not so much confine\nhim in sleep as to prevent that perfect relaxation which is necessary\nfor comfortable repose. Just as now-a-days, a man in taking up such a\nlodging as often falls to a traveler\u2019s lot, will seldom do more than\npull off his coat and boots, as Peter did, and perhaps unbutton his\nwaist-band and suspenders, so that on a sudden alarm from his rest, the\nfirst direction would very properly be, to \u201cgird himself,\u201d (button his\ntrowsers,) \u201cand tie on his sandals,\u201d (put on his shoes or boots.) The\nnext direction given to Peter, also, \u201cCast thy garment about thee,\u201d\n(put on thy coat,) would be equally appropriate. The meaning of all\nthis particularity and deliberation was, no doubt, that there was no\nneed whatever of hurry or slyness about the escape. It was not to be\nconsidered a mere smart trick of jail-breaking, by which Peter was to\ncrawl out of his dungeon in such a hurry as to leave his coat and shoes\nbehind him, but a truly miraculous providence insuring his deliverance\nwith a completeness and certainty that allowed him to take every\nthing that belonged to him. Having now perfectly accoutred himself\nin his ordinary style, Peter immediately obeyed the next order of his\ndeliverer,\u2015\u2015\u201cFollow me.\u201d Leaving his two bed-fellows and room-mates\nsleeping hard, without the slightest idea of the evacuation of the\npremises which was so deliberately going on, to their great detriment,\nPeter now passed out through the open door, following the divine\nmessenger in a state of mind altogether indescribable, but still with\njust sense enough to obey the directions which thus led him on to\nblissful freedom. The whole scene bore so perfectly the character of\none of those enchanting dreams of liberty with which painful hope often\ncheats the willing senses of the poor captive in slumber, that he might\nwell and wisely doubt the reality of an appearance so tempting, and\nwhich his wishes would so readily suggest to his forgetful spirit. But\npassing on with his conductor, he moved between the sentinels posted\nat the doors, who were also equally unaware of the movement going on\nso boldly under their noses, or rather _over_ them, for they, too, were\nfaster bound in slumber than their prisoner had been in his chains; and\nhe now stepped over their outstretched bodies as they lay before the\nentrances. These soldiers, too, evidently looked upon their duty as a\nsort of sinecure, rationally concluding that their two stout comrades\non the inside were rather more than a match for the fettered and\nmanacled captive, and that if he should be at all obstreperous, or even\nuneasy, the noise would soon enough awake them from their nap. And thus\nexcessive precaution is very apt to overshoot itself, each part of the\narrangement relying too much on the security of all the rest. The two\npassengers soon reached the great iron gate of the castle, through\nwhich they must pass in order to enter the city. But all the seeming\ndifficulties of this passage vanished as soon as they approached it.\nThe gate swung its enormous mass of metal self-moving through the air,\nand the half-entranced Peter went on beneath the vacant portal, and now\nstood without the castle, once more a free man in the fresh, pure air.\nThe difficulties and dangers were not all over yet, however. During all\nthe great feast-days, when large assemblies of people were gathered at\nJerusalem from various quarters, to guard against the danger of riots\nand insurrection in these motley throngs,\u2015\u2015the armed Roman force on\nduty, as Josephus relates, was doubled and tripled, occupying several\nnew posts around the temple, and, as the same historian particularly\nmentions, on the approaches of castle Antonia, where its foundations\ndescended towards the terraces of the temple, and gave access to the\ncolonnades of the temple. On all these places the guard must have been\nunder arms during this passover, and even at night the sentries would\nbe stationed at all the important posts, as a reasonable security\nagainst the numerous strangers of a dubious character, who now thronged\nthe city throughout. Yet all these peculiar precautions, which, at\nthis time, presented so many additional difficulties to the escaping\napostle, hindered him not in the least. Entering the city, he followed\nthe footsteps of his blessed guide, unchecked, till they had passed\non through the first street, when all at once, without sign or word\nof farewell, the mysterious deliverer vanished, leaving Peter alone\nin the silent city, but free and safe. Then flashed upon his mind\nthe conviction of the true character of the apparition. The departure\nof his guide leaving him to seek his own way, his senses were, by\nthe necessity of this self-direction, recalled from the state of\nstupefaction, in which he had mechanically followed on from the prison.\nWith the first burst of reflection, he broke out in the exclamation,\n\u201cNow I know of a truth, that the Lord has sent forth his messenger,\nand has rescued me out of the hand of Herod, in spite of all the\nexpectation of the Jewish people.\u201d Refreshed and encouraged by this\nimpression, he now used his thoroughly awakened senses to find his\nexact situation, and after looking about him, he made his way through\nthe dark streets to a place where he knew he should find those whose\ndespairing hearts would be inexpressibly rejoiced by the news of his\ndeliverance. This was the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where\nthe disciples were accustomed to assemble. Going up to the gate-way,\nhe rapped on the door, and at once aroused those within; for in their\nsleepless distress for the imprisoned apostle, several of the brethren\nhad given up all thoughts of sleep, and, as Peter had suspected, were\nnow watching in prayer within this house. The noise of a visitant at\nthis unseasonable hour of the night, immediately brought to the door\na lively damsel, named Rhoda; who, according to the Jewish custom of\nemploying females in this capacity, acted as portress of the mansion\nof Mary. Prudently requiring some account of the person who made this\nlate call, before she opened the door of the persecuted Christians to\nan unknown and perhaps an ill-disposed character, she was struck with\nalmost frantic joy at hearing the well-known voice of the much mourned\nPeter, craving admittance. In the highth of her thoughtless gladness,\nshe ran off at once to make known the delightful fact to the disciples\nin the house, without even seeming to think of the desirableness of\nadmitting the apostle, perhaps because she very naturally wanted to\ntell such pleasant news first herself. Bursting into the room where\nthe disciples were at prayer for their lamented leader, whom they\nsupposed to be then fast bound for death in the dungeon of Antonia,\nshe communicated the joyful fact, that \u201cPeter was before the gate.\u201d\nA declaration so extravagantly improbable, at once suggested the\nidea of her having lost her wits through her affectionate sorrow for\nthe sufferings and anticipated death of the great apostle, and they\ntherefore replied, \u201cThou art crazy.\u201d Rhoda, somewhat excited by such a\nprovoking expression of incredulity, loudly repeated her slighted piece\nof good news, and so gravely maintained the truth of it, that some of\nthe more superstitious at last began to think there must be something\nin it, and seriously suggested, that it must be a supernatural\nmessenger come to give them notice of his certain doom,\u2015\u2015\u201cIt is his\nguardian angel.\u201d Peter, however, was all this while standing outside\nduring this grave debate about his real entity, and shivering with\nthe cold of a chilly March night, grew quite impatient at the girl\u2019s\ninconsiderate folly, and knocked away with might and main, making\na noise of most unspiritual character, till at last the disciples\ndetermined to cut short the debate by an actual observation; so opening\nthe door to the shivering apostle, the light brought his material\nexistence to a certainty beyond all doubt. Their amazement and joy\nwas bursting forth with a vivacity which quite made up for their\nprevious incredulity; when the apostle, making a hushing sign with\nhis hand,\u2015\u2015and with a reasonable fear, too, no doubt, that their\nobstreperous congratulations might be heard in other houses around, so\nas to alarm the neighbors and bring out some spiteful Jews, who would\nprocure his detection and recapture,\u2015\u2015having obtained silence, went\non to give them a full account of his being brought out of prison by\nthe Lord, and after finishing his wonderful story, said to them, \u201cTell\nthese things to James and the brethren.\u201d From this it would seem that\nthe apostles were all somewhere else, probably having found that a\ntemporary concealment was expedient for their safety, but were still\nnot far from the city. His own personal danger was of so imminent a\ncharacter, however, that Jerusalem could not be a safe place for him\nduring the search that would be immediately instituted after him by\nhis disappointed and enraged persecutors. It was quite worth while,\ntherefore, for him to use the remaining darkness of the night to\ncomplete his escape; and without staying to enjoy their outflowing\nsympathies, he bade them a hasty farewell, and, as the historian\nbriefly says, went to ANOTHER PLACE. Where this \u201cother place\u201d was,\nhe does not pretend to tell or know, and the only certain inference\nto be drawn from the circumstance is, that it was beyond the reach\nor knowledge of the mighty and far-ruling king, who had taken such\nparticular pains to secure Peter\u2019s death. The probabilities as to the\nreal place of his retirement will, however, be given, as soon as the\nsequel of events in Jerusalem has been narrated, as far as concerns the\ndiscovery of his escape.\n\n _Bright light._\u2015\u2015Some commentators have attempted to make\n out an explanation of this phenomenon, by referring the whole\n affair to the effects of a sudden flash and stroke of lightning,\n falling on the castle, and striking all the keepers senseless,\n \u2015\u2015_melting_ Peter\u2019s chains, and illuminating the place, so that\n Peter, unhurt amid the general crash, saw this opportunity for\n escaping, and stepping over their prostrate bodies, made his way\n out of the prison, and was out of sight before they _came to_.\n The most important objection to this ingenious speculation is,\n that it directly contradicts every verse in Luke\u2019s account of\n the escape, as well as the general spirit of the narrative.\n Another weighty reason is, that the whole series of natural\n causes and effects, proposed as a substitute for the simple\n meaning, is brought together in such forced and uncommon\n coincidences, as to require a much greater effort of faith\n and credulity for its belief, than the miraculous view, which\n it quite transcends in incredibility. The introduction of\n explanations of miracles by natural phenomena, is justifiable\n only so far as these may illustrate the _accompaniments_ of\n the event, by showing the mode in which those things which are\n actually mentioned as physical results, operated in producing\n the impressions described. Thus, when thunder and lightning are\n mentioned in connection with miraculous events, they are to be\n considered as _real_ electrical discharges, made to accompany\n and manifest the presence of God; and where lambent flames\n are described as appearing in a storm, they, like the _corpos\n santos_, are plainly also results of electrical discharges.\n So too, when mighty winds are mentioned, they are most\n honestly taken to be _real_ winds, and not deceptive sounds or\n impressions; and when a cloud is mentioned, it is but fair to\n consider it a real cloud, made up, like all other clouds, of\n vapor, and not a mere non-entity, or a delusion existing only\n in the minds of those who are mentioned as beholding it. But\n where nothing of this kind is spoken of, and where a distinct\n personal presence is plainly declared, the attempt to substitute\n a physical accident for such an apparition, is a direct attack\n on the _honesty_ of the statement. Such attempts, too, are\n devoid of the benefits of such illustrations as I have alluded\n to as desirable; they bring in a new set of difficulties with\n them, without removing any of those previously obstructing the\n interpretation of the facts. In this case, the only circumstance\n which could be reasonably made to agree with the idea of\n lightning, is the mention of the bright light; while throughout\n the whole account, the presence of a supernaturally mysterious\n _person_, acting and speaking, is perfectly unquestionable. The\n violation of all probability, shown in this forced explanation,\n will serve as a fair instance of the mode in which many modern\n German critics are in the habit of distorting the simple,\n manifest sense of the sacred writers, for the sake of dispensing\n with all supernatural occurrences. (See Kuinoel for an enlarged\n view and discussion of this opinion. Other views of the nature\n of the phenomenon are also given by him, and by Rosenmueller, on\n Acts xii. 7.)\n\nMorning dawned at last upon the towers and temple-columns of the Holy\nCity. On the gold-sheeted roofs and snowy-pillared colonnades of the\nhouse of God, the sunlight poured with a splendor hardly more glorious\nthan the insupportable brilliancy that was sent back from their\ndazzling surfaces, streaming like a new morning upon the objects around,\nwhose nearer sides would otherwise have been left in shade by the\neastern rays. Castle Antonia shared in this general illumination, and\nat the first blaze of sunrise, the order of Roman service announced\nthe moment for relieving guard. The bustle of the movement of the\nnew sentries towards their stands, must at last have reached the ears\nof Peter\u2019s forsaken companions. Their first waking thoughts would\nof course be on their responsible charge, and they now became for\nthe first time aware of the important deficiency. In vain did their\nheavy eyes, at first winking with sleepiness, but now wide open with\namazement, search the dim vacancy for their eloped bed-fellow. The most\ninquisitive glance fell only on the blank space between them, scarcely\nblanker than the forlorn visages of the poor keepers, who saw in\nthis disappearance the seal of their certain death, for having let\nthe prisoner escape. But they had not much time to consider their\nmisfortune, or condole upon it; for the change of sentries now brought\nto the door the quaternion whose turn on duty came next. With a\nmiserable grace did the unhappy occupants of the cell show themselves\nat the open door, with the empty chains and fetters dangling at their\nsides, from which their late companion had so curiously slipped.\nMost uncomfortable must have been the aspect of things to the two\nsentinels who had been keeping their steady watch outside of the door,\nand who shared equally with the inside keepers, in the undesirable\nresponsibilities of this accident. There stood their comrades with the\nuseless chains displayed in their original attachments; but, _amazing!_\nwhat in the world had they done with the prisoner? The ludicrous\ndistress and commotion resulting from this unpleasant revelation, was\nevidently well appreciated even by the sacred historian, whose brief\nbut pithy expression is not without a latent comic force. \u201cThere was\nno small stir among the soldiers to know what was become of Peter.\u201d\nA general search into all the holes and corners of the dungeon, of\ncourse, ensued; and the castle was no doubt ransacked from top to\nbottom for the runaway, whose escape from its massive gates seemed\nstill impossible. But not even his cloak and sandals, which he had laid\nbeside him at the last change of guards,\u2015\u2015not a shred, not a thread had\nbeen left to hint at the mode of his abstraction. Yet this was so bad\na story for the ears of the royal Agrippa, that it would not do to give\nup the search while any chance whatever remained. But all rummaging\nwas perfectly fruitless; and with sorrowful hearts, they now went\nwith their report to the vindictive king, to acknowledge that most\nunpardonable crime in Roman soldiers,\u2015\u2015to have slept on their posts,\nso that a prisoner of state had escaped on the eve of execution.\n\n Baronius, (Church Annuals, 44, \u00a7 8,) speaking of Peter\u2019s escape\n from his chains, favors us with a solemn statement of the\n important and interesting circumstance, deriving the proofs\n from Metaphrastes, (that prince of papistical liars, and grand\n source of Romish apostolical fables,) that these very chains\n of Peter are still preserved at Rome, among other venerable\n relics of equal authenticity; having been faithfully preserved,\n and at last found after the lapse of four hundred years. The\n veritable history of this miraculous preservation, as given by\n the inventive Metaphrastes, is, that the said chains happened\n to fall into the hands of one of Agrippa\u2019s servants who was a\n believer in Christ, and so were handed down for four centuries,\n and at last brought to light. It is lamentable that the list\n of the various persons through whose hands they passed, is not\n given, though second in importance only to the authentic record\n of the papal succession. This impudent and paltry falsehood will\n serve as a fair specimen of a vast quantity of such stuff, which\n litters up the pages of even the sober ecclesiastical histories\n of many papistical writers. The only wonderful thing to me about\n this story is, that Cave has not given it a place in his Lives\n of the Apostles, which are made up with so great a portion of\n similar trash.\n\n Baronius, in connection with this passage, suggests the castle\n of Antonia as the most probable place of Peter\u2019s confinement.\n \u201cJuxta templum fortasse in ea munitissima turri quae dicebatur\n Antonia.\u201d (Baronius, Church Annuals, C. 44, \u00a7 5.) A conjecture\n which certainly adds some weight to my own supposition to that\n effect; although I did not discover the coincidence in time to\n mention it in my note on page 194.\n\nMeanwhile, with the early day, up rose the royal Agrippa from his\npurple couch, to seize the first moment after the close of the passover\nfor the consummation of the doom of the wretched Galilean, who, by the\nroyal decree, must now yield the life already too many days spared, out\nof delicate scruple about the inviolate purity of that holy week. Up\nrose also the saintly princes of the Judaic law, coming forth in their\nsolemn trains and broad phylacteries, to grace this most religious\noccasion with their reverend presence, out of respectful gratitude\nto their great sovran for his considerate disposition to accord the\nsanction of his absolute secular power to their religious sentence.\nExpectation stood on tiptoe for the comfortable spectacle of the\nstreaming life-blood of this stubborn leader of the Nazarene heresy,\nand nothing was wanting to the completion of the ceremony, but the\ncriminal himself. That \u201cdesideratum, so much to be desired,\u201d was,\nhowever, not so easily supplied; for the entrance of the delinquent\nsentinels now presented the _non-est-inventus_ return to the solemn\nsummons for the body of their prisoner. Confusion thrice confounded\nnow fell on the faces that were just shining with anticipated triumph\nover their hated foe, while secret, scornful joy illuminated the\ncountenances of the oppressed friends of Jesus. But on the devoted\nminions of the baffled king, did his disappointed vengeance fall most\ncruelly; in his paroxysm of vexation, and for an event wholly beyond\ntheir control they now suffered an undeserved death; making so tragical\na catastrophe to a story otherwise decidedly comical, that the reader\ncan only comfort himself with the belief that they were a set of\ninsolent reprobates who had insulted the distresses of their frequent\nvictims, and would have rejoiced in the bloody execution of the apostle.\n\nKing Herod Agrippa, after this miserable failure in his attempt to\n\u201cplease the Jews,\u201d does not seem to have made a very long stay in\nJerusalem. Before his departure, however, to secure his own solid\nglory and his kingdom\u2019s safety, as well as the favor of his subjects,\nhe not only continued the repairs of the temple, but instituted such\nimprovements in the fortifications of the city, as, if ever completed,\nwould have made it utterly impregnable even to a Roman force; so\nthat the emperor\u2019s jealousy soon compelled him to abandon this work;\nand soon after he left Jerusalem, and went down to Caesarea Augusta,\non the sea-coast, long the seat of government of Palestine, and\na more agreeable place for the operations of a Gentile court and\nadministration, (for such Agrippa\u2019s must have been from his Roman\nresidence,) than the punctilious religious capital of Judea. But he was\nnot allowed to remain much longer on the earth, to hinder the progress\nof the truth, by acts of tyranny in subservience to the base purposes\nof winning the favor of his more powerful subjects. The hand of God\nwas laid destroyingly on him, in the midst of what seemed the full\nfruition of that popular adulation for which he had lived,\u2015\u2015in which\nhe now died. Arrayed in a splendid and massy robe of polished silver,\nhe seated himself on the throne erected by his grandfather Herod,\nin the great Herodian theater at Caesarea, early in the morning of\nthe day which was appointed for the celebration of the great festal\ngames, in honor of his royal patron, Claudius Caesar. On this occasion,\nto crown his kingly triumph, the embassadors of the great commercial\nPhoenician cities, Tyre and Sidon, appeared before him to receive\nhis condescending answer to their submissive requests for the\nre-establishment of a friendly intercourse between his dominions and\ntheirs,\u2015\u2015the agricultural products of the former being quite essential\nto the thriving trade of the latter. Agrippa\u2019s reply was now publicly\ngiven to them, in which he graciously granted all their requests, in\nsuch a tone of eloquent benignity, that the admiring assembly expressed\ntheir approbation in shouts of praise, and at last some bold adulators\ncatching the idea from the rays of dazzling light which flashed from\nthe polished surfaces of his metallic robe, and threw a sort of glory\nover and around him, cried out, in impious exclamation, \u201cIt is the\nvoice of a God, and not of a man.\u201d So little taste had the foolish king,\nthat he did not check this pitiful outbreak of silly blasphemy; but\nsat swallowing it all, in the most unmoved self-satisfaction. But in\nthe midst of this profane glory, he was called to an account for which\nit ill prepared him. In the expressive though figurative language of\nLuke,\u2015\u2015\u201cimmediately the messenger of the Lord struck him, because he\ngave not the glory to God.\u201d The Jewish historian, too, in a similar\nmanner assigns the reason. \u201cThe king did not rebuke the flatterers,\nnor refuse their impious adulation. Shortly after he was seized with\na pain in the belly, dreadfully violent from the beginning. Turning\nto his friends he said, \u2018Behold! I, your god, am now appointed to end\nmy life,\u2015\u2015the decree of fate having at once falsified the voices that\nbut just now were uttering lies about me; and I, who have been called\nimmortal by you, am now carried off dying.\u2019 While he uttered these\nwords he was tortured by the increasing violence of his pain, and was\naccordingly carried back to his palace. After five days of intense\nanguish, he died, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the\nseventh of his reign; having reigned four years under Caius Caesar, and\nthree under Claudius.\u201d Thus ended the days of the conscience-stricken\ntyrant, while the glorious gospel cause which he had so vainly thought\nto check and overthrow, now, in the words of Luke, \u201cgrew and was\nmultiplied;\u201d the spiteful Jews having lost the right arm of their\npersecuting authority, in the death of their king, and all Palestine\nnow passing again under the direct Roman rule, whose tolerant\nprinciples became once more the great protection of the followers of\nJesus.\n\n _Agrippa\u2019s death._\u2015\u2015My combination of the two different accounts\n given by Luke and Josephus of this event, I believe accords\n with the best authorities; nor am I disposed, as Michaelis is,\n to reject Josephus\u2019s statement as irreconcilable with that in\n the Acts, though deficient in some particulars, which are given\n in the latter, and though not rightly apprehending fully the\n motives and immediate occasions of many things which he mentions.\n In the same way, too, several minor circumstances are omitted in\n Luke, which can be brought in from Josephus so as to give a much\n more vivid idea of the whole event, than can be learned from the\n Acts alone. (See Michaelis\u2019s introduction to the New Testament,\n \u2015\u2015on Luke. Also Wolf and Kuinoel.)\n\n\n PETER\u2019S PLACE OF REFUGE.\n\nLuke, in mentioning the departure of Peter from Jerusalem after his\nescape from prison by night, merely says, \u201cAnd going out, he went\nto _another place_.\u201d The vague, uncertain manner in which this\ncircumstance is mentioned, seems to imply that the writer really knew\nnothing about this \u201cother place.\u201d It was not a point essential to\nthe integrity of the narrative, though interesting to all the readers\nof the history, since the most trifling particulars about the chief\napostle might well be supposed desirable to be known. But though if\nit had been known, it would have been well worth recording, it was\ntoo trifling a matter to deserve any investigation, if it had not been\nmentioned to Luke by those from whom he received the accounts which he\ngives of Peter; and since he is uniformly particular in mentioning even\nthese smaller details, when they fall in the way of his narrative, it\nis but fair to conclude that in this instance he would have satisfied\nthe natural and reasonable curiosity of his readers, if he had had the\nmeans of doing so. There could have been no motive when he wrote, for\nconcealing the fact, and he could have expressed the whole truth in as\nfew words as he has given to show his own ignorance of the point. From\nthe nature of the apostle\u2019s motives in departing from Jerusalem, it\nmust have been at that time desirable to have his place of refuge known\nto as few as possible; and the fact, at that time unknown, would, after\nthe motive for concealment had disappeared, be of too little interest\nto be very carefully inquired after by those to whom it was not obvious.\nIn this way it happened, that this circumstance was never revealed to\nLuke, who not being among the disciples at Jerusalem, would not be in\nthe way of readily hearing of it, and in writing the story would not\nthink it worth inquiring for. But one thing seems morally certain;\nif Peter had taken refuge in any important place or well known city,\nit must have been far more likely to have been afterwards a fact\nsufficiently notorious to have come within the knowledge of his\nhistorian; but as the most likely place for a secret retirement would\nhave been some obscure region, this would increase the chances of\nits remaining subsequently unknown. This consideration is of some\nimportance in settling a few negative facts in relation to various\nconjectures which have at different times been offered on the place\nof Peter\u2019s refuge.\n\nAmong these, the most idle and unfounded is, that on leaving Jerusalem\nhe went to Caesarea. What could have suggested this queer fancy to its\nauthor, it is hard to say; but it certainly implies the most senseless\nfolly in Peter, when seeking a hiding place from the persecution of\nking Herod Agrippa, to go directly to the capital of his dominions,\nwhere he might be expected to reside for the greater part of the time,\nand whither he actually did go, immediately after his disappointment\nabout this very apostle. It was jumping out of the frying-pan into the\nfire, to go thus away from among numerous friends who might have found\na barely possible safety for him in Jerusalem, and to seek a refuge\nin Caesarea where there were but very few friends of the apostles, and\nwhere he would be in constant danger of discovery from the numerous\nminions of the king, who thronged all parts of that royal city, and\nfrom the great number of Greeks, Romans and Syrians, making up the\nmajority of the population, who hated the very sight of a Jew, and\nwould have taken vast pleasure in gratifying their spite, and at the\nsame time gaining high favor with the king by hunting out and giving up\nto wrath an obscure heretic of that hated race. It would not have been\nat all accordant with the serpent-wisdom enjoined on the apostle, to\nhave run his head thus into the lion\u2019s mouth, by seeking a quiet and\nsafe dwelling-place beneath the very nose of his powerful persecutor.\n\nAnother conjecture vastly less absurd, but still not highly probable,\nis, that Antioch was the \u201cother place\u201d to which Peter went from\nJerusalem; but an objection of great force against this, is that\nalready alluded to above, in reference to the ineligibility of a great\ncity as a place of concealment; and in this instance is superadded the\ndifficulty of his immediately making this long journey over the whole\nextent of Agrippa\u2019s dominions, northward, at such a time, when the\nking\u2019s officers would be every where put on the alert for him, more\nparticularly in the direction of his old home in Galilee, which would\nbe in the nearest way to Antioch. His most politic movement, therefore,\nwould be to take some shorter course out of Palestine. Moreover, in\nthis case, there is a particular reason why Luke would have mentioned\nthe name of Antioch if that had been the place. What the proof of this\nreason is, can be best shown in his life; but the bare statement of the\nfact may be sufficient for the present,\u2015\u2015that he was himself a citizen\nof that place, and could not have been ignorant or negligent of the\ncircumstance of this visit, if it had occurred.\n\nIt has been suggested by others that the expression, \u201cto another\nplace,\u201d does not imply a departure from Jerusalem, but is perfectly\nreconcilable with the supposition that Peter remained concealed in some\nsafe and unknown part of the city. This view would very unobjectionably\naccord with the vagueness of the passage,\u2015\u2015since if merely another\npart of Jerusalem was meant, no name could be expected to describe\nit. But it would certainly seem like a presumptuous rashness in Peter,\nto risk in so idle a manner the freedom which he owed to a miraculous\ninterposition; for the circumstance of such an interposition could not\nbe intended to justify him in dispensing with a single precaution which\nwould be proper and necessary after an escape in any other mode. Such\nis not the course of divine dealings, whether miraculous or ordinary;\nand in a religious as well as an economical view, the force and truth\nof Poor Richard\u2019s saying is undoubted,\u2015\u2015\u201cGod helps them who help\nthemselves;\u201d nor is his helping them any reason why they should cease\nto help themselves. Peter\u2019s natural impulse, as well as a considerate\nprudence, then, would lead him to immediate exertions to keep the\nfreedom so wonderfully obtained, and such an impulse and such a\nconsideration would at once teach him that the city was no place\nfor him, at a time when the most desperately diligent search might\nbe expected. For as soon as his escape was discovered, Luke says,\nthat the king \u201csought most earnestly for him,\u201d and in a search\nthus characterized, inspired too by the most furious rage at the\ndisappointment, hardly a hole or corner of Jerusalem could have\nbeen left unransacked; so that this preservation of the apostle from\npursuers so determined, would have required a continual series of\nmiracles, fully as wonderful as that which effected his deliverance\nfrom castle Antonia. His most proper and reasonable course would then\nhave been directly eastward from Jerusalem,\u2015\u2015a route which would give\nhim the shortest exit from the territories of Herod Agrippa, leading\nhim directly into Arabia, a region that was, in another great instance\nhereafter mentioned, a place of comfortable and undisturbed refuge for\na person similarly circumstanced. A journey of fifty or sixty miles\nthrough an unfrequented and lonely country, would put him entirely\nbeyond pursuit; and the character of the route would make it\nexceedingly difficult to trace his flight, as the nature of the country\nwould facilitate his concealment, while its proximity to Jerusalem\nwould make his return after the removal of the danger by the death of\nAgrippa, as easy as his flight thither in the first place.\n\n _At Jerusalem._\u2015\u2015This notion I find nowhere but in Lardner, who\n approves it, quoting Lenfant. [Lardner, History of the Apostles\n and Evangelists, Life of Peter.]\n\nAnother series of papistical fables carries him on his supposed tour on\nthe coast, beyond Caesarea, and, uniting two theories, makes him visit\nAntioch also; and finally extends his pilgrimage into the central and\nnorthern parts of Asia Minor. This fabulous legend, though different\nin its character from the preceding accounts, because it impudently\nattempts to pass off a bald invention as an authentic history, while\nthose are only offered honestly as probable conjectures, yet may be\nworthy of a place here, because it is necessary in giving a complete\nview of all the stories which have been received, to present dishonest\ninventions as well as justifiable speculations. The clearest fabulous\naccount given of his journey thither, is, that parting from Jerusalem\nas above-mentioned, he directed his way westwards toward the sea-coast\nof Palestine, first to Caesarea Stratonis, (or Augusta,) where he\nconstituted one of the presbyters who attended him from Jerusalem,\nbishop of the church founded there by him on his visit;\u2015\u2015that leaving\nCaesarea he went northwards along the coast into Phoenicia, arriving\nat the city of Sidon;\u2015\u2015that there he performed many cures and also\nappointed a bishop; next to Berytus, (now Beyroot,) in Syria, and there\nalso appointed a bishop. Going on through Syria, along the coast of\nthe Mediterranean, they bring him next, in his curiously detailed\ntrack, to Biblys, then to the Phoenician Tripoli, to Orthosia, to\nAntandros, to the island of Aradus, near the coast, to Balaenas, to\nPanta, to Laodicea, and at last to Antioch,\u2015\u2015planting churches in all\nthese hard-named towns on the way, and sowing bishops, as before, by\nhandfulls, as well as performing vast quantities of miracles. The story\nof Peter\u2019s journey goes on to say, that after leaving Antioch he went\ninto Cappadocia, and stayed some time in Tyana, a city of that province.\nProceeding westward thence, he came to Ancyra, in Galatia, where he\nraised a dead person, baptized believers, and instituted a church, over\nwhich he ordained a bishop. Thence northward, into Pontus, where he\nvisited the cities of Sinope and Amasea, on the coast of the Euxine\nsea. Then turning eastward into Paphlagonia, stopped at Gangra and\nClaudiopolis; next into Bithynia, to the cities of Nicomedia and Nicaea;\nand thence returned directly to Antioch, whence he shortly afterwards\nwent to Jerusalem.\n\n This ingenious piece of apostolic romance is due to the same\n veracious Metaphrastes, above quoted. I have derived it from\n him through Caesar Baronius, who gives it in his Annales\n Ecclesiastici. (44, \u00a7 10, 11.) The great annalist approves and\n adopts it, however, only as far as it describes the journey\n of Peter to Antioch; and there he leaves the narrative of\n Metaphrastes, and instead of taking Peter on his long tour\n through Asia Minor and back to Jerusalem, as just described,\n carries him off upon a far different route, achieving the great\n journey westward, which accords with the view taken by the\n vast majority of the old ecclesiastical writers, and which is\n next given here. Metaphrastes also maintains this view, indeed,\n but supposes and invents all the events just narrated, as\n intermediate occurrences, between Peter\u2019s escape and his great\n journey, and begins the account of this latter, after his return\n from his Asian circuit.\n\n To connect all this long pilgrimage with the story given in the\n sacred record, the sage Baronius makes the ingenious suggestion,\n that this was the occult reason why Agrippa was wroth with those\n of Tyre and Sidon; namely, that Peter had gone through their\n country when a fugitive from the royal vengeance, and had been\n favorably received by the Tyrians and Sidonians, who should\n have seized him as a runaway from justice, and sent him back to\n Agrippa. This acute guess, he thinks, will show a reason also\n for the otherwise unaccountable fact, that Luke should mention\n this quarrel between Agrippa and those cities, in connection\n with the events of Peter\u2019s escape and Agrippa\u2019s death. For the\n great cardinal does not seem to appreciate the circumstance\n of its close relation to the latter event, in presenting\n the occasion of the reconciliation between the king and the\n offending cities, on which the king made his speech to the\n people, and received the impious tribute of praise, which\n was followed by his death;\u2015\u2015the whole constituting a relation\n sufficiently close between the two events, to justify the\n connection in Luke.\n\n\n THE FIRST VISIT TO ROME.\n\nBut the view of this passage in Peter\u2019s history, which was long adopted\nuniversally by those who took the pains to ask about this \u201cother place,\u201d\nmentioned by Luke, and the view which involves the most important\nrelations to other far greater questions, is, that ROME was the chief\napostle\u2019s refuge from the Agrippine persecution, and that in the\nimperial city he now laid the deep foundations of the church universal.\nOn this point some of the greatest champions of papistry have expended\nvast labor, to establish a circumstance so convenient for the support\nof the dogma of the divinely appointed supremacy of the Romish church,\nsince the belief of this early visit of Peter would afford a very\nconvenient basis for the very early apostolical foundation of the Roman\nsee. But though this notion of his refuge has received the support of\na vast number of great names from the very early periods of Christian\nliterature, and though for a long period this view was considered\nindubitable, from the sanction of ancient authorities, there is not\none of the various conjectures offered which is so easily overthrown\non examination, from the manner in which it is connected with other\nnotions most palpably false and baseless. The old papistical notion\nwas, that Peter at this time visited Rome, founded the church there,\nand presided over it, as bishop, _twenty-five_ years, but occasionally\nvisiting the east. As respects the minute details of this journey to\nRome, the papist historians are by no means agreed, few of them having\nput any value upon the particulars of such an itinerary, until those\nperiods when such fables were sought after by common readers with\nmore avidity. But there is at least one hard-conscienced narrator, who\nundertakes to go over all the steps of the apostle on the road to the\neternal city, and from his narrative are brought these circumstances.\nThe companions assigned him by this romance, on his journey, were the\nevangelist Mark, Appollinaris, afterwards, as the story goes, appointed\nby him bishop of Ravenna, in Italy; Martial, afterwards a missionary in\nGaul, and Rufus, bishop of Capua, in Italy. Pancratius, of Tauromenius,\nand Marcian, of Syracuse, in Sicily, had been sent on by Peter to\nthat island, while he was yet staying at Antioch, but on his voyage he\nlanded there and made them his companions also. His great route is said\nto have led him to Troy, on the northern part of the Asian coast of\nthe Aegean sea, whence they seem to have made him cross to the eastern\nport of Corinth. At this great city of Greece, they bring him into\nthe company of Paul and Silas, who were sent thither, to be sure, on\na mission, but evidently at a different time, a circumstance which,\namong many others, helps to show the bungling manner in which the\nstory is made up. From Corinth they carry him next to Syracuse, as\njust mentioned. Thence to Neapolis, (Naples,) in Campania, where, as\nthe monkish legend says, this chief of the apostles celebrated with\nhis companions a mass, for the safe progress of his voyage to Italy.\nHaving now reached Italy, he is made the subject of a new fable for\nthe benefit of every city along the coast, and is accordingly said to\nhave touched at Liburnum, (_Livorno_, Leghorn,) being driven thither\nby stress of weather, and thence to Pisa, near by, where he offered\nup another mass for his preservation, as is still maintained in local\nfables; but the general Romish legend does not so favor these places,\nbut brings the apostle, without any more marine delay or difficulty,\ndirectly over land from Naples to Rome; and on this route again, one\nlie suggesting another, a local superstition commemorates the veritable\ncircumstances, that he made this land-journey from Naples to Rome, on\nfoot; and on the way stopped at the house of a Galilean countryman of\nhis own, named Mark, in a town called Atina, of which the said Mark was\nafterwards made bishop.\n\n Respecting these minute accounts of Peter\u2019s stopping-places\n on this apocryphal journey, Baronius says, \u201cNobilia in iis\n remanserunt antiquitatis vestigia, sed traditiones potius\n quam scriptura firmata.\u201d \u201cThere are in those places some noble\n remains of this ancient history, but rather traditions than well\n assured written accounts.\u201d The part of the route from Antioch to\n Sicily he takes on the authority of the imaginative Metaphrastes;\n but the rest is made up from different local superstitions of\n a very modern date, not one of which can be traced farther back\n than the time when every fable of this sort had a high pecuniary\n value to the inventors, in bringing crowds of money-giving\n pilgrims to the spot which had been hallowed by the footsteps of\n the chief apostle. Even the devout Baronius, however, is obliged\n to confess at the end of this story, \u201cSed de rebus tam antiquis\n et incertis, quid potissimum affirmare debeamus, non satis\n constat.\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cBut as to matters so ancient and uncertain, it\n is not sufficiently well established what opinion we may most\n safely pronounce.\u201d\n\n As to the early part of the route, speaking of the account\n given by Metaphrastes of Peter\u2019s having on his way through\n Troy ordained Cornelius, the centurion, bishop of that place,\n Baronius objects to the truth of this statement, the assertion\n that Cornelius had been previously ordained bishop of Caesarea,\n where he was converted. A very valuable refutation of one fable\n by another as utterly unfounded.\n\nRespecting the _causes_ of this great journey of the apostle to the\ncapital of the world, the opinions even of papist writers are as\nvarious as they are about the route honored by his passage. Some\nsuppose his motive to have been merely a desire for a refuge from the\npersecution of Agrippa;\u2015\u2015a most unlikely resort, however, for nothing\ncould be more easy than his detection in passing over such a route,\nespecially by sea, where every vessel could be so easily searched\nat the command of Agrippa, whose influence extended far beyond his\nown territory, supported as he was, by the unbounded possession of\nthe imperial Caesar\u2019s favor, which would also make the seizure of\nthe fugitive within the great city itself, a very easy thing. Others,\nhowever, do not consider this journey as connected in any way with his\nflight from Agrippa, (for many suppose it to have been made after the\ndeath of that king,) and find the motive for such an effort in the vast\nimportance of the field opened for his labors in the great capital of\nthe world, where were so many strong holds of error to be assaulted,\nand from which an influence so wide and effectual might be exerted\nthrough numerous channels of communication to all parts of the world.\nOthers have sought a reason of more definite and limited character,\nand with vast pains have invented and compiled a fable of most absurdly\namusing character, to make an object for Peter\u2019s labors in the distant\ncapital. The story which has the greatest number of supporters, is\none connected with Simon Magus, mentioned in the sacred record, in\nthe account of the labors of Philip in Samaria, and the visit of\nPeter and John to that place. The fable begins with the assertion that\nthis magician had returned to his former tricks after his insincere\nconformity to the Christian faith, and had devoted himself with new\nenergy to the easy work of popular deception, adding to his former evil\nmotives, that of deadly spite against the faith to which he appeared\nso friendly, at the time when the sacred narrative speaks of him last.\nIn order to find a field sufficiently ample for his enlarged plans,\nhe went to Rome, and there, in the reign of Claudius Caesar, attained\na vast renown by his magical tricks, so that he was even esteemed a\ngod, and was even so pronounced by a solemn decree of the Roman senate,\nconfirmed by Claudius himself, who was perfectly carried away with\nthe delusion, which seems thus to have involved the highest and the\nlowest alike. The fable proceeds to introduce Peter on the scene, by\nthe circumstance of his being called by a divine vision to go to Rome\nand war against this great impostor, thus advancing in his impious\nsupremacy, who had already in Samaria been made to acknowledge the\nmiraculous efficacy of the apostolic word. Peter thus brought to Rome\nby the hand of God, publicly preached abroad the doctrine of salvation,\nand meeting the arch-magician himself, with the same divine weapons\nwhose efficacy he had before experienced, overcame him utterly,\nand drove him in confusion and disgrace from the city. Nor were the\nblessings that resulted to Rome from this visit of Peter, of a merely\nspiritual kind. So specially favored with the divine presence and\nblessing were all places where this great apostle happened to be, that\neven their temporal interests shared in the advantages of the divine\ninfluence that every where followed him. To this cause, therefore, are\ngravely referred by papistical commentators, the remarkable success\nwhich, according to heathen historians, attended the Roman arms in\ndifferent parts of the world during the second year of Claudius, to\nwhich date this fabulous visit is unanimously referred by all who\npretend to believe in its occurrence.\n\n _Importance of the field of labor._\u2015\u2015This is the view taken by\n Leo, (in sermon 1, in nat. apost. quoted by Baronius, Annales 44,\n \u00a7 26.) \u201cWhen the twelve apostles, after receiving from the Holy\n Spirit the power of speaking _all_ languages,\u201d (an assertion, by\n the way, no where found in the sacred record,) \u201chad undertaken\n the labor of imbuing the world with the gospel, dividing its\n several portions among themselves; the most blessed Peter, the\n chief of the apostolic order was appointed to the capital of\n the Roman empire, so that the light of truth which was revealed\n for the salvation of all nations, might from the very head,\n diffuse itself with the more power through the whole body of\n the world. For, what country had not some citizens in this city?\n Or what nation anywhere, could be ignorant of anything which\n Rome had been taught? Here were philosophical dogmas to be put\n down\u2015\u2015vanities of worldly wisdom to be weakened\u2015\u2015idol-worship to\n be overthrown,\u201d\u2015\u2015&c. \u201cTo this city therefore, thou, most blessed\n apostle Peter! didst not fear to come, and (sharing thy glory\n with the apostle Paul, there occupied with the arrangement\n of other churches,) didst enter that forest of raging beasts,\n and didst pass upon that ocean of boisterous depths, with more\n firmness than when thou walkedst on the sea. Nor didst thou fear\n Rome, the mistress of the world, though thou didst once, in the\n house of Caiaphas, dread the servant maid of the priest. Not\n because the power of Claudius, or the cruelty of Nero, were less\n dreadful than the judgment of Pilate, or the rage of the Jews;\n but because the power of love now overcame the occasion of fear,\n since thy regard for the salvation of souls would not suffer\n thee to yield to terror. *\u00a0*\u00a0* The miraculous signs, gifts\n of grace, and trials of virtue, which had already been so\n multiplied to thee, now increased thy boldness. Already hadst\n thou taught those nations of the circumcision who believed.\n Already hadst thou filled Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia\n and Bithynia with the gospel; and now, without a doubt of the\n advance of the work, or of the certainty of thy own fate, thou\n didst plant the trophy of the cross of Christ upon the towers of\n Rome.\u201d Arnobius is also quoted by Baronius to similar effect.\n\n _Simon Magus._\u2015\u2015This fable has received a wonderfully wide\n circulation, and long maintained a place among the credible\n accounts of early Christian history, probably from the\n circumstance of its taking its origin from so early a source.\n Justin Martyr, who flourished from the year 140 and afterwards,\n in his apology for the Christian religion, addressed to the\n emperor Antoninus Pius, says, \u201cSimon, a Samaritan, born in a\n village named _Gitthon_, in the time of Claudius Caesar, was\n received as a god in your imperial city of Rome, and honored\n with a statue, like other gods, on account of his magical powers\n there exhibited by the aid of demons; and this statue was set\n up in the river Tiber, between two bridges, and had this Latin\n inscription, SIMONI DEO SANCTO. Him too, all the Samaritans\n worship, and a few of other nations, acknowledging him as the\n highest god, (\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd.) They also worship a certain Helena,\n who at that time followed him about,\u201d &c. &c. &c. with more\n dirty trash besides, than I can find room for. And in another\n passage of the same work, he alludes to the same circumstances.\n \u201cIn your city, the mistress of the world, in the time of\n Claudius Caesar, Simon Magus struck the Roman senate and people\n with such admiration of himself, that he was ranked among the\n gods, and was honored with a statue.\u201d _Irenaeus_, who flourished\n about the year 180, also gives this story with hardly any\n variation from Justin. Tertullian, about A.\u00a0D. 200, repeats the\n same, with the addition of the circumstance, that not satisfied\n with the honors paid to himself, he caused the people to debase\n themselves still further, by paying divine honors to a woman\n called (by Tertullian) Larentina, who was exalted by them to\n a rank with the goddesses of the ancient mythology, though the\n good father gives her but a bad name. Eusebius, also, about A.\u00a0D.\n 320, refers to the testimonies of Justin and Irenaeus, and adds\n some strange particulars about a sect, existing in his time,\n the members of which were said to acknowledge this Simon as the\n author of their faith, whom they worshiped along with this woman\n Helena, falling prostrate before the pictures of both of them,\n with incense and sacrifices and libations to them, with other\n rites, unutterably and unwritably bad. (See Eusebius, Church\n History, II. 13.)\n\n In the three former writers, Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian,\n this absurd story stands by itself, and has no connection with\n the life of Peter; but Eusebius goes on to commemorate the\n circumstance, previously unrecorded, that Peter went to Rome for\n the express purpose of putting down this blasphemous wretch, as\n specified above, in the text of my narrative, from this author.\n (Eusebius, Church History, II. 14.)\n\n Now all this fine series of accounts, though seeming to bear\n such an overwhelming weight of testimony in favor of the truth\n and reality of Simon Magus\u2019s visit to Rome, is proved to be\n originally based on an absolute falsehood; and the nature of\n this falsehood is thus exposed. In the year 1574, during the\n pontificate of Pope Gregory XIII., there was an excavation made\n for some indifferent purpose in Rome, on the very island in\n the Tiber, so particularly described by Justin, as lying in the\n center of the river between two bridges, each of which rested an\n abutment on it, and ran from it to the opposite shores. In the\n progress of this excavation, the workmen, as is very common in\n that vast city of buried ruins, turned up, among other remains\n of antiquity, the remnant of a statue with its pedestal, which\n had evidently once stood erect upon the spot. Upon the pedestal\n was an inscription most distinctly legible, in these words:\n SEMONI SANGO DEO FIDIO SACRUM\u2015\u2015SEX POMPEIUS S.\u00a0P.\u00a0F. COL.\n MUSSIANUS\u2015\u2015QUINQUENNALIS DECUR. BIDENTALIS\u2015\u2015DONUM DEDIT. (This\n was in four lines, each line ending where the blank spaces are\n marked in the copy.) In order to understand this sentence, it\n must be known, that the Romans, among the innumerable objects\n of worship in their complicated religion, had a peculiar set of\n deities which they called SEMONES. A SEMO was a kind of inferior\n god, of an earthly character and office, so low as to unfit\n him for a place among the great gods of heaven, Jupiter, Juno,\n Apollo, &c., and was accordingly confined in his residence\n entirely to the earth; where the Semones received high honors\n and devout worship, and were commemorated in many places, both\n in city and country, by statues, before which the passer might\n pay his worship, if devoutly disposed. These statues were often\n of a votive character, erected by wealthy or distinguished\n persons for fancied aid, received from some one of these Semones,\n in some particular season of distress, or for general prosperity.\n This was evidently the object of the statue in question. Priapus,\n Hipporea, Vertumnus, and such minor gods were included under\n the general title of Semones; and among them was also ranked a\n Sabine divinity, named SANGUS or SANCUS, who is, by some writers,\n considered as corresponding in character to the Hercules of\n the Greeks. Sangus or Sancus is often alluded to in the Roman\n classics. Propertius (book 4) has a verse referring to him as\n a Sabine deity. \u201cSic Sancum Tatiae composuere Cures.\u201d Ovid\n also, \u201cQuaerebam Nonas Sanco fidio ne referrem.\u201d As to this\n providentially recovered remnant of antiquity, therefore, there\n can be no doubt that it was a votive monument, erected by Sextus\n Pompey to Sangus the Semo, for some reason not very clearly\n expressed.\n\n Baronius tells also that he had seen a stone similarly inscribed.\n \u201cSANGO SANCTO SEMON.\u2015\u2015DEO FIDIO SACRUM\u2015\u2015DECURIO SACERDOTUM\n BIDENTALIUM\u2015\u2015RECIPERATIS VECTIGALIBUS.\u201d That is, \u201cSacred to\n Sangus, the holy Semo, the god Fidius,\u2015\u2015a decury (company\n of ten) of the priests of the Bidental sacrifices have raised\n this in gratitude for their recovered incomes.\u201d Dionysius\n Halicarnassaeus is also quoted by Baronius as referring to the\n worship of the Semo, Sangus; and from him and various other\n ancient writers, it appears that vows and sacrifices were\n offered to this Sangus, for a safe journey and happy return from\n a distance.\n\n From a consideration of all the circumstances of this remarkable\n discovery, and from the palpable evidence afforded by the\n inherent absurdity of the story told by Justin Martyr and his\n copyists, the conclusion is justifiable and irresistible, that\n Justin himself, being a native of Syria, and having read the\n story of Simon Magus in the Acts, where it is recorded that he\n was profoundly reverenced by the Samaritans, and was silenced\n and rebuked by Peter when he visited that place,\u2015\u2015with all\n this story fresh in his mind, (for he was but a new convert\n to Christianity,) came to Rome, and going through that city,\n an ignorant foreigner, without any knowledge of the religion,\n or superstitions, or deities, and with but an indifferent\n acquaintance with their language, came along this bridge over\n the Tiber to the island, where had been erected this votive\n statue to Semo Sangus; and looking at the inscription in the way\n that might be expected of one to whom the language and religion\n were strange, he was struck at once with the name Semon, as so\n much resembling the well-known eastern name Simon, and began\n speculating at once, about what person of that name could ever\n have come from the east to Rome, and there received the honors\n of a god. Justin\u2019s want of familiarity with the language of the\n Romans, would prevent his obtaining any satisfactory information\n on the subject from the passers-by; and if he attempted to\n question them about it, he would be very apt to interpret their\n imperfect communications in such a way as suited the notion\n he had taken up. If he asked his Christian brethren about the\n matter, their very low character for general intelligence,\n the circumstance that those with whom he was most familiar,\n must have been of eastern origin, and as ignorant as he of the\n minute peculiarities of the Roman religion, and their common\n disposition to wilfully pervert the truth, and invent fables\n for the sake of a good story connected with their own faith,\n (of which we have evidences vastly numerous, and sadly powerful\n in the multitude of such legends that have come down from the\n Christians of those times,) would all conspire to help the\n invention and completion of the foolish and unfounded notion,\n that this statue here erected _Semoni Sanco Deo_, was the same\n as _Simoni Deo Sancto_, that is, \u201c_to the holy god Simon_;\u201d\n and as it was always necessary to the introduction of a new\n god among those at Rome, that the Senate should pass a solemn\n act and decree to that effect, which should be confirmed by\n the approbation of the emperor, it would at once occur to his\n own imaginative mind, or to the inventions of his fabricating\n informers, that Simon must of course have received such a decree\n from the senate and Caesar. This necessarily also implied vast\n renown, and extensive favor with all the Romans, which he must\n have acquired, to be sure, by his magical tricks, aided by\n the demoniac powers; and so all the foolish particulars of the\n story would be made out as fast as wanted. The paltry fable\n also appended to this by all the Fathers who give the former\n story, to the effect, that some woman closely connected with\n him, was worshiped along with him, variously named Helena,\n Selena and Larentina, has no doubt a similarly baseless origin;\n but is harder to trace to its beginnings, because it was not\n connected with an assertion, capable of direct ocular, as well\n as historical, refutation, as that about Simon\u2019s statue most\n fortunately was. The second name, _Selena_, given by Irenaeus,\n is exactly the Greek word for the moon, which was often\n worshiped under its appropriate name; and this tale may have\n been caught up from some connection between such a ceremony and\n the worship of some of the Semones,\u2015\u2015all the elegant details\n of her life and character being invented to suit the fancies\n of the reverend fathers. The story, that she had followed Simon\n to Rome from the Phoenician cities, Tyre and Sidon, suggests to\n my mind at this moment, that there may have been a connection\n between this and some old story of the importation of a piece of\n idolatry from that region, so famed for the worship of the\n\n \u201c_mooned_ Ashtaroth,\n Heaven\u2019s queen and mother both.\u201d\n\n But this trash is not worth the time and paper I am spending\n upon it, since the main part of the story, concerning Simon\n Magus as having ever been seen or heard of in Rome, by senate,\n prince or people, in the days of Claudius, is shown, beyond\n all reasonable question, to be utterly false, and based on\n a stupid blunder of Justin Martyr, who did not know Latin\n enough to tell the difference between _sanco_ and _sancto_, nor\n between _Semoni_ and _Simoni_. And after all, this is but a fair\n specimen of Justin Martyr\u2019s usual blundering way, of which his\n few pages present other instances for the inquiring reader to\n stumble over and bewilder himself upon. Take, for example, the\n gross confusion of names and dates which he makes in a passage\n which accidentally meets my eye, on a page near that from which\n the above extract is taken. In attempting to give an account\n of the way in which the Hebrew Bible was first translated into\n Greek, he says that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, sent to Herod, king\n of the Jews, for a copy of the Bible. But when or where does\n any history, sacred or profane, give any account whatever of any\n Ptolemy, king of Egypt, who was cotemporary with either of the\n Herods? The last of the Ptolemies was killed, while a boy, in\n the Egyptian war with Julius Caesar, before Herod had himself\n attained to manhood, or had the most distant thought of the\n throne of Palestine. The Ptolemy who is said to have procured\n the Greek translation of the Bible, however, lived about three\n hundred years before the first Herod. It is lamentable to think\n that such is the character of the earliest Christian father who\n has left works of any magnitude. Who can wonder that Apologies\n for the Christian religion, full of such gross blunders, should\n have failed to secure the belief, or move the attention of\n either of the Antonines, to whom they were addressed,\u2015\u2015the\n Philosophic, or the Pious? And by a writer who pretended to\n tell the wisest of the Caesars, that in his imperial city, had\n been worshiped, from the days of Claudius, a miserable Samaritan\n impostor, who, an outcast from his own outcast land, had in Rome,\n by a solemn senatorial and imperial decree, been exalted to the\n highest god-ship, and that the evidence of this fact was found\n in a statue which that emperor well knew to be dedicated to\n the most ancient deities of Etruscan origin, worshiped there\n ever since the days of Numa Pompilius, but which this Syrian\n Christian had blunderingly supposed to commemorate a man who\n had never been heard of out of Samaria, except among Christians.\n And as for such _martyrs_, if there is any truth whatever in the\n story that his foolish head was cut off by the second Antonine,\n the only pity is, it was not done a little sooner, so as to have\n kept the Christian world from the long belief of all this folly\n about an invention so idle, and saved me the trouble of exposing\n it.\n\n The fullest account ever given of this fable and all its\n progress, is found in the Annales Ecclesiastici of Caesar\n Baronius, (A.\u00a0C. 44. \u00a7 51\u201259.) who, after furnishing the most\n ample references to sacred and profane authorities, which\n palpably demonstrate the falsity of the story, returns with all\n the solemn bigotry of a papist, to the solemn conviction that\n the fathers and the saints who tell the story, _must_ have had\n some very good reason for believing it.\n\n The other copyists of Justin hardly deserve any notice; but it\n is interesting and instructive to observe how, in the progress\n of fabulous invention, one lie is pinned on to the tail of\n another, to form a glorious chain of historical sequences, for\n some distant ecclesiastical annalist to hang his servile faith\n upon. Eusebius, for instance, enlarges the stories of Justin\n and Irenaeus, by an addition of his own,\u2015\u2015that in his day there\n existed a sect which acknowledged this same Simon as God, and\n worshiped him and Helena or Selena, with some mysteriously\n wicked rites. Now all that his story amounts to, is, that in his\n time there was a sect called by a name resembling that of Simon,\n how nearly like it, no one knows; but that by his own account\n their worship was of a secret character, so that he could, of\n course, know nothing certainly. But this is enough for him to\n add, as a solemn confirmation of a story now known to have been\n founded in falsehood. From this beginning, Eusebius goes on\n to say that Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius,\n to war against this Simon Magus, who never went there; so that\n we know how much this whole tale is worth by looking into the\n circumstance which constitutes its essential foundation. The\n idea of Peter\u2019s visit to Rome at that time, is no where given\n before Eusebius, except in some part of the Clementina, a long\n series of most unmitigated falsehoods, forged in the name of\n Clemens Romanus, without any certain date, but commonly supposed\n to have been made up of the continued contributions of several\n impudent liars, during different portions of the second, third\n and fourth centuries.\n\n Creuzer also, in his deep and extensive researches into the\n religions of antiquity, in giving a \u201cview of some of the older\n Italian nations,\u201d speaks of \u201cSancus Semo.\u201d He quotes Augustin\n (De civitate Dei. XVIII. 19,) as authority for the opinion that\n he was an ancient king, deified. He also alludes to the passage\n in Ovid, (quoted above by Baronius,) where he is connected with\n Hercules, and alluded to under three titles, as Semo, Sancus and\n Fidius. (Ovid, Fasti, VI. 213, et seq.) But the learned Creuzer\n does not seem to have any correct notion of the character of\n the _Semones_, as a distinct order of inferior deities;\u2015\u2015a fact\n perfectly certain as given above, for which abundant authority\n is found in Varro, (de Mystag.) as quoted by Fulgentius and\n Baronius. From Creuzer I also notice, in an accidental immediate\n connection with Semo Sancus, the fact that the worship of the\n moon (Luna) was also of Sabine origin; and being introduced\n along with that of Sancus, by Numa, may have had some relation\n to that Semo, and may have concurred in originating the notion\n of the fathers about the woman Selena or Helena, as worshiped\n along with Simon. He also just barely alludes to the fact that\n Justin and Irenaeus have confounded this Semo Sancus with Simon\n Magus. (See Creuzer\u2019s Symbolik und Mythologie der alter Voelker,\n II. Theil. pp. 964\u2012965.)\n\nThe next conclusion authorized by those who support this fable is,\nthat Peter, after achieving this great work of vanquishing the impostor\nSimon, proceeded to preach the gospel generally; yet not at first to\nthe hereditary citizens of imperial Rome, nor to any of the Gentiles,\nbut to his own countrymen the Jews, great numbers of whom then made\ntheir permanent abode in the great city. These foreigners, at that time,\nwere limited in Rome to a peculiar section of the suburbs, and hardly\ndwelt within the walls of the city itself;\u2015\u2015an allotment corresponding\nwith similar limitations existing in some of the modern cities of\nEurope, Asia, and northern Africa, and even in London, though there,\nonly in accordance with long usage, and with actual convenience, but\nnot with any existing law. The quarter of Rome in which the Jews dwelt\nin the days of Claudius, was west of the central section of the city,\nbeyond the Tiber; and to this suburban portion, the story supposes\nthe residence and labors of Peter to have been at first confined. But\nafter a time, the fame of this mighty preacher of a new faith spread\nbeyond, from this despised foreign portion of the environs, across the\nTiber, over the seven hills themselves, and even into the halls of the\npatrician lords of Rome. Such an extension of fame, indeed, seems quite\nnecessary to make these two parts of this likely story hang together at\nall; for it is hard to see how a stranger, from a distant eastern land,\ncould thus appear suddenly among them, and overturn, with a defeat so\ntotal and signal, the pretensions of one who had lately been exalted\nby the opinions of an adoring people to the character of a god, and\nhad even received the solemn national sanction of this exaltation by\na formal decree of the senate of Rome, confirmed by the absolute voice\nof the Caesar himself; and after such a victory, over such a person,\nbe left long unnoticed in an obscure suburb. In accordance, therefore,\nwith this reasonable notion, it is recorded in the continuation of\nthe story, that when Peter, preaching at Rome, grew famous among the\nGentiles, he was no longer allowed to occupy himself wholly among the\nJews, but was thereafter taken by Pudens, a senator who believed in\nChrist, into his own house, on the Viminal Mount, one of the seven\nhills, but near the Jewish suburb. In the neighborhood of this house,\nas the legend relates, was afterwards erected a monument, called \u201cthe\nShepherd\u2019s,\u201d\u2015\u2015a name which serves to identify this important locality\nto the modern Romans to this day. Being thus established in these\nlordly patrician quarters, the poor Galilean fisherman might well\nhave thought himself blessed, in such a pleasant change from the\nuncomfortable lodgings with which the royal Agrippa had lately\naccommodated him, and from which he had made so willing an exit.\nBut the legend does the faithful and devoted apostle the justice, to\nrepresent him as by no means moved by these luxurious circumstances, to\nthe least forgetfulness of the high commission which was to be followed\nthrough all sorts of self-denial,\u2015\u2015no less that which drew him from\nthe soft and soul-relaxing enjoyments of a patrician palace, than\nthat which led him to renounce the simple, hard-earned profits of a\nfisherman, on the changeful sea of Gennesaret, or to calmly meet the\nthreats, the stripes, the chains, and the condemned cell, with which\nthe enmity of the Jewish magistrates had steadily striven to quench\nhis fiery and energetic spirit. He is described as steadily laboring\nin the cause of the gospel among the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and\nwith such success during the whole of the first year of his stay, that\nin the beginning of the following year he is said by papist writers to\nhave solemnly and formally founded THE CHURCH OF ROME. This important\nfictitious event is dated with the most exact particularity, on\nthe fifteenth of February, in the forty-third year of Christ, and\nthe third year of the reign of the emperor Claudius. The empty,\nunmeaning pomposity of this announcement is a sufficient evidence of\nits fictitious character. According to the story itself, here Peter\nhad been preaching nearly a whole year at Rome; and if preaching,\nhaving a regular congregation, of course, and performing the usual\naccompaniments of preaching, as baptism, &c. Now there is not in the\nwhole apostolic history the least account, nor the shadow of a hint, of\nany such ceremony as the founding of a church, distinct from the mere\ngathering of an assembly of believing listeners, who acknowledged their\nfaith in Jesus by profession and by the sacraments. The organization\nof this religious assembly might indeed be made more perfect at one\ntime than at another; as for instance, a new church, which during an\napostle\u2019s stay with it and preaching to it, had been abundantly well\ngoverned by the simple guidance of his wise, fatherly care, would,\non his departure, need some more regular, permanent provision for its\ngovernment, lest among those who were all religious co-equals, there\nshould arise disputes which would require a regularly constituted\nauthority to allay them. The apostle might, therefore, in such advanced\nrequirements of the church, ordain elders, and so on; but such an\nappendix could not, with the slightest regard to common sense or the\nrules of honest interpretation of language, be said to constitute the\nfounding of a church. The very phrase of ordaining elders in a church,\npalpably implies and requires the previous distinct, complete existence\nof the church. In fact the entity of a church implies nothing more\nthan a regular assembly of believers, with an authorized ministry;\nand if Peter had been preaching several months to the Jews of the\ntrans-Tiberine suburb, or to the Romans of the Viminal mount, there\nmust have been in one or both of those places, a _church_, to all\nintents, purposes, definitions and etymologies of a church. So that for\nhim, almost a year after, to proceed to _found_ a church in Rome, was\nthe most idle work of supererogation in the world. And all the pompous\nstatements of papist writers about any such formality, and all the\nquotations that might be brought out of the fathers in its support,\nfrom Clement downwards, could not relieve the assertion of one particle\nof its palpable, self-evident absurdity. But the fable proceeds in\nthe account of this important movement, dating the apostolic reign\nof Peter from this very occasion, as above fixed, and running over\nvarious imaginary acts of his, during the tedious seven years for which\nthe story ties him down to this one spot. Among many other unfounded\nmatters, is specified the assertion, that from this city during the\nfirst year of his episcopate, he wrote his first epistle, which he\naddressed to the believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and\nBithynia,\u2015\u2015the countries which are enumerated as visited by him in\nhis fictitious tour. This opinion is grounded on the circumstance of\nits being dated from Babylon, which several later fathers understood\nas a term spiritually applied to Rome; but in the proper place this\nnotion will be fully discussed, and the true origin of the epistle\nmore satisfactorily given. Another important event in the history of\nthe scriptures,\u2015\u2015the writing of the gospel of Mark,\u2015\u2015is also commonly\nconnected with this part of Peter\u2019s life, by the papist historians; but\nthis event, with an account of the nature of this supposed connection,\nand the discussion of all points in this subject, can be better shown\nin the life of that evangelist; and to that it is therefore deferred.\nThese matters and several others as little in place, seem to be\nintroduced into this part of Peter\u2019s life, mainly for the sake of\ngiving him something particular to do, during his somewhat tedious\nstay in Rome, where they make him remain seven years after his first\njourney thither; and give him here the character, office and title of\n_bishop_,\u2015\u2015a piece of nomenclature perfectly unscriptural and absurd,\nbecause no apostle, in the New Testament, is ever called a bishop;\nbut on the contrary, the office was evidently created to provide a\nsubstitute for an apostle,\u2015\u2015a person who might perform the pastoral\nduties to the church, in the absence of its apostolic founder,\n_overseeing_ and managing all its affairs in his stead, to report to\nhim at his visitations, or in reply to his epistolary charges. To call\nan apostle a bishop, therefore, implies the absurdity of calling a\nsuperior officer by the title of his inferior,\u2015\u2015as to call a captain,\nlieutenant, or a general-in-chief, colonel, or even as to call a\nbishop, deacon. During the life-time of the apostles, \u201c_bishop_\u201d was\nonly a secondary title, and it was not till the death of all those\ncommissioned by Christ, that this became the supreme officer in all\nchurches. But the papists not appreciating any difficulty of this kind,\ngo on crowning one absurdity with another, which claims, however, the\nadditional merit of being amusing in its folly. This is the minute\nparticularization of the shape, stuff, accoutrements and so on, of the\nchair in which bishop Peter sat at Rome in his episcopal character.\nThis identical wooden chair in which his apostolical body was seated\nwhen he was exerting the functions of his bishopric, is still,\naccording to the same high papal authorities which maintain the fact of\nhis ever having been bishop, preserved in the Basilica of the Vatican,\nat Rome, and is even now, on certain high occasions, brought out from\nits holy storehouse to bless with its presence the eyes of the adoring\npeople. This chair is kept covered with a linen veil, among the various\nsimilar treasures of the Vatican, and has been eminent for the vast\nnumbers of great miracles wrought by its presence. As a preliminary\nstep, however, to a real faith in the efficacy of this old piece of\nfurniture, it is necessary that those who hear the stories should\nbelieve that Peter was ever at Rome, to sit in this or any other chair\nthere. It is observed, however, in connection with this lumbering\narticle, in the papist histories, that on taking possession of this\nchair, as bishop of Rome, Peter resigned the bishopric of Antioch,\ncommitting that see to the charge of Euodius, it having been the\noriginal diocese of this chief apostle,\u2015\u2015a story about as true, as that\nany apostle was ever _bishop_ any where. The apostles were missionaries,\nfor the most part, preaching the word of God from place to place,\nappointing bishops to govern and manage the churches in their absence,\nand after their final departure, as their successors and substitutes;\nbut no apostle is, on any occasion whatever, called a bishop in any\npart of the New Testament, or by any _early_ writer. The most important\nobjection, however, to all this absurd account of Peter, as bishop of\nRome, is the fact uniformly attested by those early fathers, who allude\nto his having ever visited that city, that having founded the church\nthere, he appointed Linus the FIRST BISHOP,\u2015\u2015a statement in exact\naccordance with the view here given of the office of a bishop, and of\nthe mode in which the apostles constituted that office in the churches\nfounded and visited by them.\n\n _The date of the foundation._\u2015\u2015All this is announced with the\n most elaborate solemnity, in all the older papist writers,\n because on this point of the foundation of the Roman church by\n Peter, they were long in the habit of basing the whole right\n and title of the bishop of Rome, as Peter\u2019s successor, to the\n supremacy of the church universal. The great authorities, quoted\n by them in support of this exact account of the whole affair,\n with all its dates, even to the month and day, are the bulls\n of some of the popes, enforcing the celebration of that day\n throughout all the churches under the Romish see, and the forms\n of prayer in which this occasion is commemorated even to this\n day. Moreover, a particular form is quoted from some of the\n old rituals of the church, not now in use, in which the ancient\n mode of celebrating this event, in prayer and thanksgiving,\n is verbally given. \u201cOmnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui ineffabili\n sacramento, apostolo tuo Petro principatum Romae urbis tribuisti,\n unde se evangelica veritas per tota mundi regna diffunderet:\n praesta quaesumus, ut quod in orbem terrarum ejus praedicatione\n manavit, universitas Christiana devotione sequatur.\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cAlmighty,\n eternal God, who by an ineffable consecration, didst give to thy\n apostle Peter the dominion of the city of Rome, that thence the\n gospel truth might diffuse itself throughout all the kingdoms\n of the world: grant, we pray, that what has flowed into the\n whole circuit of the earth by his preaching, all Christendom\n may devoutly follow.\u201d\u2015\u2015A prayer so melodiously expressed, and\n in such beautiful Latin, that it is a great pity it should\n have been a mere trick, to spread and perpetuate a downright,\n baseless lie, which had no other object than the extension of\n the gloomy, soul-darkening tyranny of the papal sway. Other\n forms of prayer, for private occasions, are also mentioned by\n Baronius, as commemorating the foundation of the church of Rome\n by Peter; and all these, as well as the former, being fixed\n for the fifteenth of February, as above quoted. Those records\n of fables, also, the old Roman martyrologies, are cited for\n evidence. The later Latin fathers add their testimony, and even\n the devout Augustin (sermons 15, 16, de sanct, &c.) is quoted\n in support of it. Baronius gives all these evidences, (Annales,\n 45, \u00a7\u20031,) and goes on to earn the cardinal\u2019s hat, which finally\n rewarded his zealous efforts, by maintaining the unity and\n universality of this apostolic foundation, and the absolute\n supremacy consequently appertaining to the succession of Peter\n in the Roman see.\n\n _Peter\u2019s chair._\u2015\u2015This fable (page 225) is from Baronius, who\n wrote about 1580; but alas! modern accidental discoveries make\n dreadful havoc with papistical antiquities, and have done as\n much to correct the mistake in this matter, as in Justin\u2019s\n blunder about Simon Magus. I had transcribed Baronius\u2019s story\n into the text as above without knowing of the fact, till a\n glance at the investigations of the sagacious Bower gave me the\n information which I here extract from him.\n\n \u201cThey had, as they thought, till the year 1662, a pregnant proof,\n not only of St. Peter\u2019s erecting their chair, but of his sitting\n in it himself; for till that year, the very chair, on which\n they believed, or would make others believe, he had sat, was\n shown and exposed to public adoration on the 18th of January,\n the festival of the said chair. But while it was cleaning, in\n order to be set up in some conspicuous place of the Vatican,\n the twelve labors of Hercules unluckily appeared engraved on it.\n \u2018Our worship, however,\u2019 says Giacomo Bartolini, who was present\n at this discovery, and relates it, \u2018was not misplaced, since\n it was not to the wood we paid it, but to the prince of the\n apostles, St. Peter.\u2019 An author of no mean character, unwilling\n to give up the holy chair, even after this discovery, as having\n a place and a peculiar solemnity among the other saints, has\n attempted to explain the labors of Hercules in a mystical\n sense, as emblems representing the future exploits of the popes.\n (Luchesini catedra restituita a S. Pietro.) But the ridiculous\n and distorted conceits of that writer are not worthy our notice,\n though by Clement X. they were judged not unworthy of a reward.\u201d\n (Bower\u2019s Lives of the Popes, Vol. I. p.\u00a07, 4to. ed. 1749.)\n\nThe next noticeable thing that Peter is made to do at Rome, is the\nsending out of his disciples from Rome to act as missionaries and\nbishops in the various wide divisions of the Roman empire, westward\nfrom the capital, which were yet wholly unoccupied by the preachers\nof the gospel of Jesus Christ. In his supposed character of keeper of\nthe great flock of Christ, having now fully established the Roman see,\nhe turned his eyes to those distant regions, and considering their\nreligious wants and utter spiritual destitution, sent into them several\ndisciples whom he is supposed to have qualified for such labors by his\nown minute personal instructions. Thus, as rays from the sun, and as\nstreams from the fountain, did the Christian faith go forth through\nthese from the see of Peter, and spread far and wide throughout the\nworld. So say the imaginative papist historians, whose fancy not\nresting satisfied with merely naming the regions to which these new\nmissionaries were now sent, goes on with a catalogue of the persons,\nand of the places where they became finally established in their\nbishoprics. But it would be honoring such fables too much, to record\nthe long string of names which are in the papist annals, given to\ndesignate the missionaries thus sent out, and the particular places to\nwhich they were sent. It is enough to notice that the sum of the whole\nstory is, that preachers of the gospel were thus sent not only into the\nwestern regions alluded to, but into many cities of Italy and Sicily.\nIn Gaul, Spain and Germany, many are said to have been certainly\nestablished; and to extend the fable as far as possible, it is even\nhinted that Britain received the gospel through the preaching of some\nof these missionaries of Peter; but this distant circumstance is stated\nrather as a conjecture, while the rest are minutely and seriously given,\nin all the grave details of persons and places.\n\nIn various works of this character, Peter is said by the propagators\nof this fable to have passed seven years at Rome, during all which\ntime he is not supposed to have gone beyond the bounds of the city.\nThe occasion of his departure at the end of this long period, as stated\nby the fabulous records from which the whole story is drawn, was the\ngreat edict of Claudius Caesar, banishing all Jews from Rome, among\nwhom Peter must of course have been included. This imperial sentence of\ngeneral banishment, is not only alluded to in the Acts of the Apostles,\nbut is particularly specified in the Roman and Jewish historians of\nthose times; from which its exact date is ascertained to have been\nthe _ninth_ year of the reign of Claudius, from which, as Peter is\nsupposed to have gone to Rome in the _second_ year of that reign,\nthe intervening time must have been, as above stated, _seven_ years.\nThe particulars of this general banishment, its motives and results,\nwill be better given in that part of this work where important points\nin authentic true history are connected with the event. Under these\ncircumstances, however, the great first bishop of Rome is supposed to\nhave left this now consecrated capital of Christendom, and traveled\noff eastward, along with the general throng of Jewish fugitives. Some\nof the papist commentators on this story are nevertheless, so much\nscandalized at the thought of Peter\u2019s running away in this seemingly\nundignified manner, (though this is in fact the part of the story\nwhich is most consistent with the real truth, since no apostle was ever\ntaught to consider it beneath his dignity to get out of danger,) that\nthey therefore strive to make it appear that he still stayed in Rome,\nin spite of the imperial edict, and boldly preached the gospel, without\nreference to danger, until, soon after, it became necessary for him to\ngo to the east on important business. The majority, however, are agreed\nthat he did remove from Rome along with the rest of the Jews, though\nwhile he remained there, he is supposed to have kept up the apostolic\ndignity by preaching at all risks. His journey eastward is made out in\nrather a circuitous manner, probably for no better reason than to make\ntheir stories as long as possible; and therefore it is enough to say,\nthat he is carried by the continuation of the fable, from Rome first\ninto Africa, where he erected a church at Carthage, over which he\nordained Crescens, one of his Roman disciples, as bishop. Proceeding\nnext along the northern coast of the continent, he is brought\nto Alexandria, where, of course, he founds a church, leaving the\nevangelist Mark in it, as bishop; and passing up the Nile to Thebes,\nconstitutes Rufus there, in the same capacity. Thence the fabulous\nchroniclers carry him at once to Jerusalem; and here ends this tedious\nstring of details, the story being now resumed from the clear and\nhonest record of the sacred historian, to the great refreshment of the\nwriter as well as the reader, after dealing so long in what is utterly\nunalloyed falsehood.\n\n _Peter, bishop of Rome._\u2015\u2015The great question of his having ever\n visited this city, has two separate and distinct parts, resting\n on totally different grounds, since they refer to two widely\n distant periods of time; but that part which refers to his\n early visit, being connected with this portion of the history,\n I proceed in this place to the full examination of _all_ the\n evidences, which have ever been brought in support of both\n divisions of this great subject in papal dogmatic history, from\n the supposed records of this event in the writings of the early\n Christian Fathers. On this head, instead of myself entering into\n a course of investigations among these writers, which my very\n slight acquaintance with their works would make exceedingly\n laborious to me, and probably very incomplete after all, I\n here avail myself of the learned and industrious research of my\n friend, the Rev. Dr. Murdock, widely and honorably known as the\n Translator and Annotator of Mosheim\u2019s Ecclesiastical History.\n Through his kindness, I am allowed the free use of a long\n series of instructive lectures, formerly delivered by him\n as a professor of Ecclesiastical History, which having been\n subsequently modified to suit a popular audience, will bring the\n whole of this learned matter, with the fullest details of the\n argument, in a form perfectly intelligible and acceptable to my\n readers.\n\n\n THE TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS.\n\n In the latter part of the first century, Clement, bishop of\n Rome, (Epistle I. to Corinth, \u00a7 5,) speaks of Paul and Peter as\n persecuted, and dying as martyrs. But he does not say when, or\n where. In the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr speaks\n of Simon Magus, his magic and his deification, at Rome; but\n makes no mention of Peter\u2019s going to Rome, to combat him. Nor\n does any other father, so far as I know, till after A.\u00a0D. 300.\n About twenty years after Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, (bishop of\n Lyons,) wrote his five books against the heretics; in which he\n confutes them, by the testimony of those churches which were\n _said_ to have been founded immediately by the apostles. The\n following extract from him will fully illustrate that mode of\n reasoning, and also show us what Irenaeus knew of Peter\u2019s being\n at Rome. He says: \u201cThe doctrine preached to all the world by the\n apostles, is now found in the church;\u2015\u2015as all may see if they\n are willing to learn; and we are able to name the persons whom\n the apostles constituted the bishops of the churches, and their\n successors down to our times; who have never taught or known any\n such doctrine as the heretics advance. Now if the apostles had\n been acquainted with [certain] recondite mysteries, which they\n taught privately, and only to such as were the most perfect,\n they would certainly have taught them to those men to whom they\n committed the care of the churches; for they required them to\n be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom they made\n their successors and substitutes in office;\u2015\u2015because, if they\n conducted aright, great advantage would result; but if they\n should go wrong, immense evils would ensue. But, as it would\n be tedious, in the present work, to enumerate the successions\n in all the churches, I will mention but one, viz. the greatest,\n most ancient, and well-known by all, _the church founded and\n established at Rome, by the two most glorious apostles, Peter\n and Paul_. The faith of this church was the result of apostolic\n teaching, and the same as was every where preached; and it has\n come down to us through a succession of bishops; and by this\n example we confound all those who, in any manner, either from\n selfish views and vain glory, or from blindness to truth and\n erroneous belief, hold forth false doctrine. For with this\n church, on account of its superior pre-eminence, every other\n church,\u2015\u2015that is, the true believers every where,\u2015\u2015must agree;\n because, in it has ever been preserved the doctrine derived\n immediately from the apostles, and which was every where\n propagated. The blessed apostles having founded and instructed\n this church, _committed the episcopacy of it to Linus_; who is\n mentioned by Paul in his epistle to Timothy. Anacletus succeeded\n Linus; and after him, the third bishop from the apostles, was\n Clement, who saw the apostles themselves, and conferred with\n them, while their preaching and instruction was still sounding\n in his ears.\u201d Irenaeus then enumerates the succeeding bishops,\n down to Eleutherius, \u201cwho,\u201d he says, \u201cis now the twelfth bishop\n from the apostles.\u201d In the preceding section, Irenaeus tells\n us that Matthew wrote his gospel \u201cwhile Peter and Paul were\n preaching, and founding the church at Rome.\u201d\n\n Here is full and explicit testimony, that Paul and Peter,\n unitedly, preached and founded the church at Rome; and that they\n constituted LINUS THE FIRST BISHOP there. The language _excludes\n both Peter and Paul_,\u2015\u2015and excludes both equally, _from the\n episcopal chair at Rome_. \u201cThey committed the episcopacy to\n Linus;\u201d who was the first bishop, as Clement was the third,\n and Eleutherius the twelfth. Contemporary with Irenaeus was\n Dionysius, bishop of Corinth. In reply to a monitory letter\n from the Romish church, of which Eusebius (Church History,\n II. 25,) has preserved an extract, Dionysius says: \u201cBy this your\n excellent admonition, you have united in one the planting, by\n Peter and Paul, of the Romans and Corinthians. For both of them\n coming to our Corinth, planted and instructed us;\u2015\u2015and in like\n manner, going to Italy together,\u2015\u2015after teaching there, they\n suffered martyrdom at the same time.\u201d From this testimony we may\n learn how and when Peter went to Rome; as well as what relation\n he sustained to the church there. He and Paul came to Corinth\n together; and when they had regulated and instructed that church,\n they went on together to Italy, and did the same things at Rome\n as before at Corinth. Now this, if true, must have been after\n the captivity of Paul at Rome, mentioned in the book of Acts.\n For Paul never went directly from Corinth to Rome before that\n captivity, since he never was at Rome before he was carried\n there a prisoner, in the year A.\u00a0D. 62. But, if released in the\n year 64, he might have visited Corinth afterwards, with Peter,\n and then have traveled with him to Rome. To the church of Rome,\n Peter and Paul sustained the same relation; and that was the\n same as they had sustained to the church of Corinth, viz. that\n of _apostolic teachers and founders_,\u2015\u2015not that of ORDINARY\n BISHOPS. That is, Peter was no more the bishop of Rome than\n Paul was; and neither of them, any more the bishop of Rome than\n both were bishops of Corinth. Dionysius likewise, here affirms,\n that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom \u201cat the same time;\u201d and\n probably at Rome, where they last taught. That Rome was the\n place is proved by Caius, a Romish ecclesiastic, about A.\u00a0D. 200,\n as quoted by Eusebius, (Church History, II. 25.) \u201cI am able,\u201d\n says he, \u201cto show the trophies [the sepulchers] of the apostles.\n For if you will go to the Vatican, or along the Via Ostia, you\n will find the trophies of those who established this church.\u201d\n\n The next father, Clement of Alexandria, (about A.\u00a0D. 200,)\n reports it as tradition, that Mark wrote his gospel at Rome,\n while Peter was preaching there. (Eusebius, Church History,\n VI. 14.) In the forepart of the third century, lived Tertullian,\n a fervid and learned writer. He assailed the heretics with\n the same argument as Irenaeus did. \u201cRun over,\u201d says he, \u201cthe\n apostolic churches, in which the chairs of apostles still\n preside in their places, and in which the autographs of their\n epistles are still read. If you are near to Italy, you have Rome,\n a witness for us; and how blessed a church is that on which\n apostles poured out their whole doctrine, together with their\n blood! where Peter equaled our Lord in his mode of suffering;\n and where Paul was crowned, with the exit of John the Baptist.\u201d\n (De praescriptione haereticorum c.\u00a036.) In another work he says:\n \u201cLet us see what the Romans hold forth; to whom Peter and Paul\n imparted the gospel sealed with their own blood.\u201d (adversus\n Marcion, IV. c.\u00a05.) Again he says: \u201cNeither is there a disparity\n between those whom John baptized in the Jordan, and Peter in the\n Tiber.\u201d (de Baptismo.) He moreover testifies that Peter suffered\n in the reign of Nero, (Scorpiac. c.\u00a015,) and that this apostle\n ordained Clement bishop of Rome. (Praescriptione c.\u00a032.) In the\n middle of the third century, Cyprian of Carthage, writing to\n the bishop of Rome, (Epistle 55, to Cornelius) calls the church\n of Rome \u201cthe principal church;\u201d and that where \u201cPeter\u2019s chair\u201d\n was;\u2015\u2015and \u201cwhose faith was derived from apostolic preaching.\u201d\n In the end of the third century or the beginning of the fourth,\n Lactantius (Divine Institutes, IV. c.\u00a021,) speaks of \u201cPeter\n and Paul\u201d as having wrought miracles, and uttered predictions\n at Rome; and describes their prediction of the destruction\n of Jerusalem. And in his work on the Deaths of Persecutors,\n (chapter 2,) he says: \u201cDuring the reign of Nero, Peter came to\n Rome; and having wrought several miracles by the power of God,\n which rested on him, he converted many to righteousness, and\n erected a faithful and abiding temple for God. This became known\n to Nero, who, learning that multitudes, not only at Rome but in\n all other places, were abandoning idolatry and embracing the new\n religion, and being hurried on to all sorts of cruelty by his\n brutal tyranny, set himself, the first of all, to destroy this\n religion, and to persecute the servants of God. So he ordered\n Peter to be crucified and Paul to be beheaded.\u201d I have now\n detailed every important testimony which I could find in the\n genuine works of the fathers, in the three first centuries. The\n witnesses agree very well; and they relate nothing but what may\n be true. They make Peter and Paul to go from Corinth to Rome,\n in company, during the reign of Nero; and after preaching and\n strengthening the church at Rome, and ordaining Linus to be\n its first bishop,\u2015\u2015both suffering martyrdom at Rome on the same\n day; Peter being crucified and Paul decapitated. There is no\n representation of Peter\u2019s being any more bishop of Rome than\n Paul was;\u2015\u2015and Irenaeus in particular, expressly makes Linus the\n first bishop, and to be ordained by the two apostles.\n\n We now come to Eusebius, who wrote about A.\u00a0D. 325. He quotes\n most of the fathers above cited, but departs widely from them,\n in regard to the time, and the occasion, of Peter\u2019s going to\n Rome. He says it was in the reign of Claudius;\u2015\u2015and for the\n purpose of opposing Simon Magus, (as the Clementine novels\n represented the matter.) Yet he does not make Peter to be bishop\n of Rome. The subsequent writers of the fourth and following\n centuries, agree with Eusebius as to the time and the occasion\n of Peter\u2019s going to Rome; and most of them make Peter to be the\n first bishop of Rome. According to them, Peter remained in Judea\n only about four years after the ascension; then he was bishop\n of Antioch seven years, and in the second year of Claudius,\n A.\u00a0D. 43, removed his chair to Rome, where he was bishop for\n twenty-five years, or until his death, A.\u00a0D. 68. And this is\n the account generally given by the papists, quite down to the\n present times.\n\n\n OBJECTIONS TO THE TRADITIONARY HISTORY OF PETER.\n\n 1. So far as the later fathers contradict those of the three\n first centuries, they ought to be rejected; because, they could\n not have so good means of information. Oral tradition must, in\n three centuries, have become worthless, compared with what it\n was in the second and third centuries;\u2015\u2015and written testimony,\n which could be relied on, they had none, except that of the\n early fathers. Besides, we have seen how these later fathers\n were led astray. They believed the fable of Simon Magus\u2019s\n legerdemain at Rome, and his deification there. They read the\n Clementine fictions, and supposed them to be novels founded on\n facts. In their eulogies of Peter, they were fond of relating\n marvelous and affecting stories about him, and therefore too\n readily admitted fabulous traditions. And lastly, the bishops\n of Rome and their numerous adherents had a direct and an immense\n interest depending on this traditional history;\u2015\u2015for by it alone,\n they made out their succession to the chair of Peter, and the\n legitimacy of their ghostly power.\n\n 2. The later fathers invalidate their own testimony, by stating\n what is incredible, and what neither they nor their modern\n adherents can satisfactorily explain. They state that Linus\n succeeded Peter, for about twelve years; then followed Cletus\n or Anacletus, for about twelve years more; and then succeeded\n Clement. And yet they tell us, all the three were ordained\n by the hands of Peter. How could this be? Did Peter ordain\n three successive bishops, after he was dead?\u2015\u2015or did he resign\n his office to these bishops, and retire to a private station,\n more than twenty-five years before his crucifixion? No, says\n Epiphanius, (Against Heresies, 27,) and after him most of the\n modern papists; (Nat. Alex. H. E. saecul. I. Diss. XIII. Burius,\n &c.) but Peter being often absent from Rome, and having a\n vast weight of cares, had assistant bishops; and Linus and\n Cletus were not the successors but the assistants of Peter. But\n Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, and all the authorized catalogues\n of popes, explicitly make Linus and Cletus to be successors to\n Peter. Besides, why did Peter need an assistant any more than\n the succeeding pontiffs? And what age since has ever witnessed\n an assistant pope at Rome? A more plausible solution (but which\n the papists cannot admit) is given by Rufinus. (Preface to\n Clementine Recognitions) \u201cAs I understand it,\u201d says he, \u201cLinus\n and Cletus were the bishops of Rome in Peter\u2019s life-time; so\n that they performed the episcopal functions, and he, those of an\n apostle. And, in this way the whole may be true,\u201d says Rufinus.\n Granted, if this were the only objection; and if it could be\n made out that Peter went to Rome full twenty-four years before\n his martyrdom. But supposing it true, how can the successors\n of Linus and Cletus, the bishops, be successors of Peter, the\n apostle.\n\n 3. Peter removed his chair to Rome, (say the later fathers and\n most of the Catholics,) in the second year of Claudius, that is,\n A.\u00a0D. 43; and he resided there twenty-four years, or till his\n death. But we have the best proof,\u2015\u2015that of holy writ,\u2015\u2015that\n Peter was resident at Jerusalem, as late as the year A.\u00a0D. 44;\n when king Agrippa seized him there, and imprisoned him, with\n intent to kill him. (Acts xii. 3\u201219.) And we have similar proof\n that he was still there in the year 51; when he deliberated\n and acted with the other apostles and brethren of Jerusalem, on\n the question of obliging Gentiles to observe the law of Moses.\n (Acts xv. 7, &c.; Galatians ii. 1\u20129.) And, moreover, some time\n after this, as Paul tells us, (Galatians ii. 11\u201214,) he came to\n Antioch, in Syria, and there dissembled about eating with the\n Gentiles. The common reply of the Catholics is, that Peter often\n made long journeys; and he might happen to be at Jerusalem, and\n at Antioch, at these times. But this solution is rejected by\n the more candid Romanists themselves, who agree with the early\n fathers, asserting that Peter first went to Rome in the reign of\n Nero. (See Pagi Critique of Baronius\u2019s Annale, 43.)\n\n 4. Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans in the year 59, as is\n supposed. And from this epistle it is almost certain, Peter was\n not then at Rome; and highly probable he had never been there.\n Throughout the epistle, Peter\u2019s name is not even mentioned; nor\n is that of Linus or Cletus, his supposed assistants, who always,\n it is said, supplied his place when he was absent. Indeed,\n so far as can be gathered from Paul\u2019s epistle, the Romish\n Christians appear not to have had, at that time nor previously,\n any bishop or any ecclesiastical head. The epistle is addressed\n \u201cTo all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints.\u201d\n (Romans i. 7.) It exhorts them to obey magistrates;\u2015\u2015but not to\n reverence and obey their spiritual rulers. (Romans xiii. 1, &c.)\n It inculcates on them all, the duty of living in harmony,\u2015\u2015of\n being modest and humble,\u2015\u2015of using their different gifts for\n the common good; (Romans xii. 3, &c.;) but gives no intimation\n that they were amenable to any ecclesiastical authorities. It\n gives them rules for conducting their disciplinary acts, as a\n popular body, (Romans xiv. 1, &c.,) but does not refer to any\n regulations given them by St. Peter and his assistants. It\n contains salutations to near thirty persons, male and female,\n whom Paul knew personally, or by hearsay, (chapter xvi.) but\n neither Peter, nor Linus, nor Cletus is of the number; nor is\n any one spoken of as bishop, or elder, or pastor, or as clothed\n with any ecclesiastical authority. Priscilla and Aquila, and\n several others whom he had known in Greece or Asia, are named;\n and seem to be the leading persons in the church. Indeed, it\n would seem that no apostle had, as yet, ever been at Rome. Paul\n says he had \u201chad a great desire, for many years,\u201d to visit them,\n and he intended to do so as soon as possible. (Romans xv. 23.)\n And he tells them why he longed to see them, that he might\n impart to them \u201csome spiritual gifts;\u201d\u2015\u2015that is, some of those\n miraculous gifts, which none but apostles could confer. (Romans\n i. 11.) I may add, that Paul gives them a whole system of\n divinity in this epistle; and crowds more theology into it, than\n into any other he ever wrote;\u2015\u2015as if he considered this church\n as needing fundamental instruction in the gospel, more than\n any other. Now, how could all this be, if Peter had been there\n fifteen years, with an assistant bishop to aid him; and had\n completely organized, and regulated, and instructed this central\n church of all Christendom? What Catholic bishop, at the present\n day, would dare to address the church of Rome without once\n naming his liege lord, the pope; and would give them a whole\n system of theology, and numerous rules and regulations for their\n private conduct and for their public discipline, without even\n an intimation that they had any spiritual guides and rulers, to\n whom they were accountable?\n\n 5. Three years after this epistle was written, (that is, A.\u00a0D.\n 62,) Paul arrived at Rome, and was there detained a prisoner\n for two years, or until A.\u00a0D. 64. Now let us see if we can find\n Peter there, at or during this period. When it was known at\n Rome that Paul was approaching the city, the Christians there\n went twenty miles to meet him, and escort him;\u2015\u2015so eager were\n they to see an apostle of Jesus Christ. Three days after his\n arrival, \u201cPaul called the chief of the Jews together,\u201d to have\n conversation with them. They had heard nothing against him, and\n they were glad to see him,\u2015\u2015for they wished to hear more about\n the Christian sect; \u201cfor,\u201d said they, \u201cas concerning this sect,\n we know that it is every where spoken against;\u201d and \u201cwe desire\n to hear of thee what thou thinkest.\u201d (Acts xxviii. 22.) They\n appointed him a day, when they all assembled for the purpose,\n and he addressed them \u201cfrom morning till evening.\u201d Now could\n Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, have been near twenty\n years bishop of Rome, and so full of business as to employ an\n assistant bishop, and yet the Jews there be so ignorant of\n Christianity, and so glad to meet with one who could satisfy\n their curiosity to learn something about it? Moreover, Paul\n now continued to preach the gospel in \u201chis own hired house,\u201d at\n Rome, for two years; (Acts xxviii. 30, 31;) and it would seem,\n was very successful. During this time he wrote his epistles to\n the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and perhaps,\n that to the Hebrews. In these epistles he often speaks of his\n success in making converts, and of the brethren who labored\n with him;\u2015\u2015but he does not once even name Peter, or Linus, or\n Cletus,\u2015\u2015or intimate, at all, that there was a cathedral church\n at Rome, with an apostle or any bishop at its head. He sends\n numerous salutations from individuals whom he names, and\n from little companies of Christians in their houses,\u2015\u2015but no\n salutations from Peter, or from any bishop, or other officer\n of the church there. The Catholics tell us, Peter might happen\n to be absent during this period. What! absent two whole years!\n and his assistant bishop also? Very negligent shepherds!\n But where was the church all this time,\u2015\u2015the enlightened\n Christian community, and the elders and deacons, who governed\n and instructed it, from Sabbath to Sabbath? Were all these, too,\n gone a journey? No: it is manifest Paul was now the only regular\n preacher of the gospel at Rome: and he was breaking up fallow\n ground, that had never before been cultivated, and sown, and\n made to bear fruit.\n\n [This closes the learned argument on the testimonies of the\n Fathers, extracted from Dr. Murdock\u2019s manuscripts.]\n\n Lardner also gives a sort of abstract of the passages in the\n fathers, which refer to this subject, but not near so full,\n nor so just to the original passages, as that of Dr. Murdock,\n although he refers to a few authors not alluded to here, whose\n testimony, however, amounts to little or nothing. Lardner\u2019s\n disposition to believe all these long-established Roman fables,\n seems very great, and, on these points, his critical accuracy\n appears to fail in maintaining its general character. However,\n in the simple passage from Clemens Romanus, referred to above,\n he is very full, not only translating the whole passage relating\n to Peter and Paul, but entering into a very elaborate discussion\n of the views taken of it; but after all he fails so utterly in\n rearing an historical argument on this slender basis, that I\n cannot feel called on to do anything more than barely refer the\n critical reader to the passage in his life of Peter, (VII.)\n\n Bower has given numerous quotations, too, from these sources,\n but nothing not contained in the abstract above, of which a\n great merit is, that it gives all the passages _in full_, in a\n faithful and highly expressive translation. (See Bower\u2019s Lives\n of the Popes. \u201cPeter.\u201d)\n\n\n THE COUNCIL OF THE APOSTLES AT JERUSALEM.\n\nThe last circumstance of Peter\u2019s life and actions, recorded in the\nActs of the Apostles, is one so deeply involved also in the conduct\nof others of the holy band, that the history of the whole affair can\nbe best given in connection with their lives; more especially as the\nimmediate occasion of it arose under the labors of these other persons.\nAll the statement which is here necessary to introduce the part which\nPeter took in the sayings and doings on this occasion, is simply as\nfollows. Paul and Barnabas, having returned to Antioch from their first\ngreat mission from that city, throughout almost the whole circuit of\nAsia Minor, were, soon after their arrival in that city, involved in\na vexatious dispute with a set of persons, who, having come down from\nJerusalem, had undertaken to give the Syrian Christians more careful\ninstructions in the minutiae of religious duty, than they had received\nfrom those who had originally effected their conversion. These new\nteachers being directly from that holy city, which, having been the\ngreat scene of the instructions and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and\nstill being the seat of the apostolic college, was regarded by all,\nas the true source of religious light, to Christians as well as Jews,\nthroughout the world, therefore made no small commotion in the church\nof Antioch, when they began to inculcate, as essential to salvation, a\nfull conformity to all the minute ritual observances of the Mosaic law.\nThe church of Antioch, having been planted and taught by men of a more\ncatholic spirit, had gathered within itself a large number of heathen\nfrom that Gentile city, who, led by their convictions of the truth and\nspirituality of the Christian faith, had renounced entirely all the\nidolatries in which they had been brought up, giving themselves, as\nit would seem, with honest resolution, to a life of such moral purity,\nas they considered alone essential to the maintenance of their new\nreligious character. Still, they had never supposed, that in renouncing\ntheir idolatrous superstitions, they had bound themselves to throw off\nalso those customs of their country, which could have no connection\nwith moral purity of conduct, and had therefore still remained in\nnational peculiarities, Gentiles; though in creed, and religious\npractice, Christians. In this course they had been encouraged by the\nliberal and enlarged views of their religious instructors, who had\nnever once hinted at the necessity of imposing upon Gentile Christians\nthe burden of the Jewish law, which all the impressions of education\nand previous habits of life would have made quite intolerable. The\nwisdom of this enlightened spirit was seen in the great accessions of\nGentiles, who, being convinced of the necessity of a moral change, were\nnot met by any ceremonial impediments to the full adoption of a pure\nreligion. Paul and Barnabas were, therefore, not a little troubled\nwith this new difficulty, brought in by these Jewish teachers, who,\nbeing fresh from the fountain of religious knowledge, claimed great\nauthority in reference to all delicate points of this nature. At last,\nafter long and violent disputes between these old-school and new-school\ntheologians, it was resolved to refer the whole matter to the\ntwelve apostles themselves, at Jerusalem, who might well be supposed\nqualified to say what they considered to be the essential doctrines\nand observances of Christianity. Paul and Barnabas, therefore, with\nsome of the rest engaged in the discussion, went up to Jerusalem as\na delegation, for this purpose, and presented the whole difficulty to\nthe consideration of the apostles. So little settled, after all, were\nthe views and feelings of these first preachers of Christianity about\nthe degree of freedom to be enjoyed by the numerous Gentile converts,\nthat all the Jewish prejudices of many of them burst out at once, and\nhigh ground was taken against any dispensation in favor of Gentile\nprejudices. After a long discussion, in full assembly of both apostles\nand church-officers, Peter arose in the midst of the debate, taking the\nsuperiority to which his peculiar commission and his long precedence\namong them entitled him, and in a tone of dignified decision addressed\nthem. He reminded them, in the first place, of that unquestionable call\nby which God had chosen him from among all the apostles, to proclaim\nto the heathen the word of the gospel, and of that solemn sign by which\nGod had attested the completeness of their conversion, knowing, as\nhe did, the hearts of all his creatures. The signs of the Holy Spirit\nhaving been imparted to the heathen converts with the same perfection\nof regenerating influence that had been manifested in those of the\nJewish faith who had believed, it was manifestly challenging the\ntestimony of God himself, to try to put on them the irksome yoke of the\ntedious Mosaic ritual, a yoke which not even the Jewish disciples, nor\ntheir fathers before them, had been able to bear in all the appointed\nstrictness of its observances; and much less, then, could they expect\na burden so intolerable, to be supported by those to whom it had\nnone of the sanctions of national and educational prejudice, which\nso much assisted its dominion over the feelings of the Jews. And all\nthe disciples, even those of Jewish race, must be perfectly satisfied\nthat their whole reliance for salvation should be, not on any legal\nconformity, but on that common favor of their Lord, Jesus Christ, in\nwhich the Gentile converts also trusted.\n\n _Challenge the testimony of God._\u2015\u2015This is the substance of\n Kuinoel\u2019s ideas of the force of this passage, (Acts xv. 10.)\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd, (_peirazete ton Theon_.) His words\n are, \u201cTentare Deum dicuntur, qui veritatem, omnipotentiam,\n omniscientiam, etc. Dei in dubium vocare, vel nova divinae\n potentiae ac voluntatis documenta desiderant, adeoque Deo\n obnituntur.\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cThose are said to tempt God who call in question\n God\u2019s truth, omnipotence, omniscience, &c., or demand new\n evidences of the divine power or will, and thus strive against\n God.\u201d He quotes Pott and Schleusner in support of this view of\n the passage. Rosenmueller and Bloomfield take the same view,\n as well as many others quoted by the latter and by Poole.\n Bloomfield is very full on the whole of Peter\u2019s speech, and on\n all the discussion, with the occasions of it.\n\n _Chose me._\u2015\u2015This passage has been the subject of much\n discussion, but I have given a free translation which disagrees\n with no one of the views of its _literal_ force. The fairest\n opinion of the matter is, that the expression \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u03bd \u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd,\n is a Hebraism. (See Vorstius and others quoted by Bloomfield.)\n\nThis logically clear statement of whole difficulty, supported by the\ndecisive authority of the chief of the apostles, most effectually\nhushed all discussion at once; and the whole assembly kept silence,\nwhile Paul and Barnabas recounted the extent and success of their\nlabors. After they had finished, James, as the leader of the Mosaic\nfaction, arose and expressed his own perfect acquiescence in the\ndecision of Simon Peter, and proposed an arrangement for a dispensation\nin favor of the Gentile converts, perfectly satisfactory to all.\nThis conclusion, establishing the correctness of the tolerant and\naccommodating views of the chief apostle, ended the business in a\nprudent manner, the details of which will be given in the lives of\nthose more immediately concerned in the results; and though so abrupt\na conclusion may be undesirable here, it will be only robbing Peter to\npay Paul.\n\n Illustration: ANTIOCH, IN SYRIA.\n Acts xi. 26.\n\n\n PETER\u2019S VISIT TO ANTIOCH.\n\nThe historian of the Acts of the Apostles, after the narration of the\npreceding occurrence, makes no farther allusion to Peter; devoting\nhimself wholly to the account of the far more extensive labors of Paul\nand his companions, so that for the remaining records of Peter\u2019s life,\nreference must be had to other sources. These sources, however, are but\nfew, and the results of investigations into them must be very brief.\n\nFrom some passages in the first part of Paul\u2019s epistle to the Galatians,\nin which he gives an account of his previous intercourse with the\ntwelve apostles, having mentioned his own visit to Jerusalem and its\nresults, as just described above, he speaks of Peter as coming down to\nAntioch, soon after, where his conduct, in some particulars, was such\nas to meet the very decided reprehension of Paul. On his first arrival\nin that Gentile city, Peter, in accordance with the liberal views\ntaught him by the revelation at Joppa and Caesarea, mingled, without\nscruple, among all classes of believers in Christ, claiming their\nhospitalities and all the pleasures of social intercourse, making\nno distinction between those of Jewish and of heathen origin. But\nin a short time, a company of persons came down from Jerusalem, sent\nparticularly by James, no doubt with a reference to some especial\nobservations on the behavior of the chief apostle, to see how it\naccorded with the Jerusalem standard of demeanor towards those, whom,\nby the Mosaic law, he must consider improper persons for the familiar\nintercourse of a Jew. Peter, probably knowing that they were disposed\nto notice his conduct critically on these matters of ceremonial\npunctilio, prudently determined to quiet these censors by avoiding all\noccasion for any collision with their prejudices. Before their arrival,\nhe had mingled freely with the Grecian and Syrian members of the\nChristian community, eating with them, and conforming to their customs\nas far as was convenient for unrestrained social intercourse. But he\nnow withdrew himself from their society, and kept himself much more\nretired than when free from critical observation. The sharp-eyed Paul,\non noticing this sudden change in Peter\u2019s habits, immediately attacked\nhim with his characteristic boldness, charging him with unworthy\ndissimulation, in thus accommodating his behavior to the whims of these\nsticklers for Judaical strictness of manners. The common supposition\nhas been, that Peter was here wholly in the wrong, and Paul wholly in\nthe right: a conclusion by no means justified by what is known of the\nfacts, and of the characters of the persons concerned. Peter was a much\nolder man than Paul, and much more disposed by his cooler blood, to\nprudent and careful measures. His long personal intercourse with Jesus\nhimself, also gave him a great advantage over Paul, in judging of what\nwould be the conduct in such a case most conformable to the spirit of\nhis divine Master; nor was his behavior marked by anything discordant\nwith real honesty. The precept of Christ was, \u201cBe _wise_ as serpents;\u201d\nand a mere desire to avoid offending an over-scrupulous brother in a\ntrifling matter, implied no more wariness than that divine maxim\ninculcated, and was, moreover, in the spirit of what Paul himself\nenjoined in very similar cases, in advising to avoid \u201coffending a\nbrother by eating meat which had been offered in sacrifice to idols.\u201d\nThere is no scriptural authority to favor the opinion that Peter\never acknowledged he was wrong; for all that Paul says is\u2015\u2015\u201cI rebuked\nhim,\u201d\u2015\u2015but he does not say what effect it had on one who was an older\nand wiser man than his reprover, and quite as likely to be guided by\nthe spirit of truth. It is probable, however, that Peter had something\nto say for himself; since it is quite discordant with all common ideas,\nto suppose that a great apostle would, in the face of those who looked\nup to him as a source of eternal truth, act a part which implied an\nunjustifiable practical falsehood. After all, the difference seems to\nhave been on a point of very trifling importance, connected merely with\nthe ceremonials of familiar intercourse, between individuals of nations\nwidely different in manners, habits, prejudices, and the whole tenor of\ntheir feelings, as far as country, language and education, would affect\nthem; and a fair consideration of the whole difficulty, by modern\nethical standards, will do much to justify Peter in a course designed\nto avoid unnecessary occasions of quarrel, until the slow operations\nof time should have worn away all these national prejudices,\u2015\u2015the rigid\nsticklers quietly accommodating themselves to the neglect of ceremonies,\nwhich experience would prove perfectly impracticable among those\nprofessing the free faith of Christ.\n\n\n HIS RESIDENCE IN BABYLON.\n\nThe first epistle of Peter contains at the close a general salutation\nfrom the church in Babylon, to the Christians of Asia Minor, to whom it\nwas addressed. From this, the unquestioned inference is, that Peter was\nin that city when he wrote. The only point mooted is, whether the place\nmeant by this name was Babylon on the Euphrates, or some other city\ncommonly designated by that name. The most irrational conjecture on the\nsubject, and yet the one which has found most supporters, is, that this\nname is there used in a spiritual or metaphorical sense for Rome, whose\nconquests, wide dominion, idolatries, and tyranny over the worshipers\nof the true God, were considered as assimilating it to the ancient\ncapital of the eastern world. But, in reference to such an unparalleled\ninstance of useless allegory, in a sober message from one church\nto a number of others, serving as a convenient date for a letter,\nit should be remembered that at that time there were at least two\ndistinct, important places, bearing the name of Babylon,\u2015\u2015so well known\nthroughout the east, that the simple mention of the name would at once\nsuggest to a common reader, one of these as the place seriously meant.\nOne of these was that which stood on the site of the ancient Chaldean\nBabylon, a place of great resort to the Jews, finally becoming to them,\nafter the destruction of Jerusalem, a great city of refuge, and one of\nthe two great capitals of the Hebrew faith, sharing only with Tiberias\nthe honors of its literary and religious pre-eminence. Even before\nthat, however, as early as the time of Peter, it was a city of great\nimportance and interest in a religious point of view, offering a\nmost ample and desirable field for the labors of the chief apostle,\nnow advancing in years, and whose whole genius, feelings, religious\neducation and national peculiarities, qualified him as eminently for\nthis oriental scene of labor, as those of Paul fitted him for the\ntriumphant advancement of the Christian faith among the polished and\nenergetic races of the mighty west. Here, then, it seems reasonable and\npleasant to imagine, that in this glorious \u201cclime of the east,\u201d\u2015\u2015away\nfrom the bloody strife between tyranny and faction, that distracted and\ndesolated the once blessed land of Israel\u2019s heritage, during the brief\ndelay of its awful doom,\u2015\u2015among the scenes of that ancient captivity,\nin which the mourning sons of Zion had drawn high consolation and\nlasting support from the same word of prophecy, which the march of\ntime in its solemn fulfilments had since made the faithful history\nof God\u2019s believing people,\u2015\u2015here the chief apostle calmly passed the\nslow decline of his lengthened years. High associations of historical\nand religious interest gave all around him a holy character. He sat\namid the ruins of empires, the scattered wrecks of ages,\u2015\u2015still in\ntheir dreary desolation attesting the surety of the word of God. From\nthe lonely waste, mounded with the dust of twenty-three centuries,\ncame the solemn witness of the truth of the Hebrew seers, who sung,\nover the highest glories of that plain in its brightest days, the\nlong-foredoomed ruin that at last overswept it with such blighting\ndesolation. Here, mighty visions of the destiny of worlds, the rise and\nfall of empire, rose on the view of Daniel and Ezekiel, whose prophetic\nscope, on this vast stage of dominion, expanded far beyond the narrow\nlimits that bounded all the future in the eyes of the sublimest of\nthose prophets, whose whole ideas of what was great were taken from the\nlittle world of Palestine. Like them, too, the apostolic chief lifted\nhis aged eyes above the paltry commotions and troubles of his own land\nand times, and glanced far over all, to the scenes of distant ages,\u2015\u2015to\nthe broad view of the spiritual consummation of events,\u2015\u2015to the final\ntriumphs of a true and pure faith,\u2015\u2015to the achievement of the world\u2019s\ndestiny.\n\n _Babylon._\u2015\u2015The great Sir John David Michaelis enters with\n the most satisfactory fullness into the discussion of this\n locality;\u2015\u2015with more fullness, indeed, than my crowded limits\n will allow me to do justice to; so that I must refer my reader\n to his Introduction to the New Testament, (chapter xxvii. \u00a7 4,\n 5,) where ample statements may be found by those who wish to\n satisfy themselves of the justice of my conclusion about the\n place from which this epistle was written. He very ably exposes\n the extraordinary absurdity of the opinion that this date was\n given in a mystical sense, at a time when the ancient Babylon,\n on the Euphrates, was still in existence, as well as a city on\n the Tigris, Seleucia, to which the name of modern Babylon was\n given. And he might have added, that there was still another of\n this name in Egypt, not far from the great Memphis, which has,\n by Pearson and others, been earnestly defended as the Babylon\n from which Peter wrote. Michaelis observes, that through some\n mistake it has been supposed, that the ancient Babylon, in the\n time of Peter, was no longer in being; and it is true that in\n comparison with its original splendor, it might be called, even\n in the first century, a desolated city; yet it was not wholly a\n heap of ruins, nor destitute of inhabitants. This appears from\n the account which Strabo, who lived in the time of Tiberius, has\n given of it. This great geographer compares Babylon to Seleucia,\n saying, \u201cAt present Babylon is not so great as Seleucia,\u201d which\n was then the capital of the Parthian empire, and, according to\n Pliny, contained six hundred thousand inhabitants. The acute\n Michaelis humorously remarks, that \u201cto conclude that Babylon,\n whence Peter dates his epistle, could not have been the ancient\n Babylon, because this city was in a state of decay, and thence\n to argue that Peter used the word mystically, to denote Rome,\n is about the same as if, on the receipt of a letter dated from\n Ghent or Antwerp, in which mention was made of a Christian\n community there, I concluded that because these cities are\n no longer what they were in the sixteenth century, the writer\n of the epistle meant a spiritual Ghent or Antwerp, and that\n the epistle was really written from Amsterdam.\u201d And in the\n next section he gives a similar illustration of this amusing\n absurdity, equally apt and happy, drawn in the same manner\n from modern places about him, (for Goettingen was the residence\n of the immortal professor.) \u201cThe plain language of epistolary\n writing does not admit of figures of poetry; and though it would\n be very allowable in a poem, written in honor of Goettingen, to\n style it another Athens, yet if a professor of this university\n should, in a letter written from Goettingen, date it Athens, it\n would be a greater piece of pedantry than any learned man was\n ever yet guilty of. In like manner, though a figurative use of\n the word Babylon is not unsuitable to the animated and poetical\n language of the Apocalypse, yet in a plain and unadorned epistle,\n Peter would hardly have called the place whence he wrote, by\n any other appellation than that which literally and properly\n belonged to it.\u201d (Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament,\n Marsh\u2019s translation, chapter xxvii. \u00a7 4, 5.)\n\n The most zealous defender of this mere popish notion of a\n mystical Babylon, is, alas! a Protestant. The best argument ever\n made out in its defense, is that by Lardner, who in his account\n of Peter\u2019s epistles, (History of the Apostles and Evangelists,\n chapter xix. \u00a7 3,) does his utmost to maintain the mystical\n sense, and may be well referred to as giving the best possible\n defense of this view. But the course of Lardner\u2019s great work\n having led him, on all occasions, to make the most of the\n testimonies of the fathers, in connection with the establishment\n of the credibility of the gospel history, he seems to have been\n unable to shake off this reverence of every thing which came on\n authority as old as Augustin; and his critical judgment on the\n traditionary history of Christianity is therefore worth very\n little. Any one who wishes to see all his truly elaborate and\n learned arguments fairly met, may find this done by a mind\n of far greater originality, critical acuteness and biblical\n knowledge, (if not equal in acquaintance with the fathers,)\n and by a far sounder judgment, in Michaelis, as above quoted,\n who has put an end to all dispute on these points, by his\n presentation of the truth. So well settled is this ground now,\n that we find in the theology of Romish writers most satisfactory\n refutations of an error, so convenient for the support of\n Romish supremacy. The learned Hug (pronounced very nearly like\n \u201c_Hookh_;\u201d U sounded as in b_u_ll, and G strongly aspirated) may\n here be referred to for the latest defense of the common sense\n view. (Introduction vol. II. \u00a7 165.) In answer to the notion\n of an Egyptian Babylon, he gives us help not to be found in\n Michaelis, who makes no mention of this view. Lardner also\n quotes from Strabo what sufficiently shows, that this Babylon\n was no town of importance, but a mere military station for one\n of the three Roman legions which guarded Egypt.\n\n The only other place that could in any way be proposed as the\n Babylon of Peter, is Seleucia on the Tigris; but Michaelis has\n abundantly shown that though in poetical usage in that age, and\n in common usage afterwards, this city was called Babylon, yet\n in Peter\u2019s time, grave prose statements would imply the ancient\n city and not this. He also quotes a highly illustrative passage\n from Josephus, in defense of his views; and which is of so much\n the more importance because Josephus was a historian who lived\n in the same age with Peter, and the passage itself relates to an\n event which took place thirty-six years before the Christian era;\n namely, \u201cthe delivery of Hyrcanus, the Jewish high priest, from\n imprisonment, with permission to reside in Babylon, where there\n was a considerable number of Jews.\u201d (Josephus, Antiquities, XV.\n ii. 2.) Josephus adds, that \u201cboth the Jews in Babylon and all\n who dwelt in that country, respected Hyrcanus as high priest\n and king.\u201d That this was the ancient Babylon and not Seleucia,\n appears from the fact, that wherever else he mentions the latter\n city, he calls it Seleucia.\n\n Wetstein\u2019s supposition that Peter meant the province of Babylon,\n being suggested only by the belief that the ancient Babylon did\n not then exist, is, of course, rendered entirely unnecessary by\n the proof of its existence.\n\n Besides the great names mentioned above, as authorities for the\n view which I have taken, I may refer also to Beza, Lightfoot,\n Basnage, Beausobre, and even Cave, in spite of his love of\n Romish fables.\n\n To give a complete account of all the views of the passage\n referring to Babylon, (1 Peter v. 13,) I should also mention\n that of Pott, (on the cath. epist.,) mentioned by Hug. This is\n that by the phrase in the Greek, \u1f21 \u03b5\u03bd \u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7, is\n meant \u201cthe woman chosen with him in Babylon,\u201d that is, Peter\u2019s\n wife; as if he wished to say, \u201cmy wife, who is in Babylon,\n salutes you;\u201d and Pott concludes that the apostle himself was\n somewhere else at the time. For the answer to this notion, I\n refer the critical to Hug. This same notion had been before\n advanced by Mill, Wall, and Heumann, and refuted by Lardner.\n (Supp. xix. 5.)\n\n\n HIS FIRST EPISTLE.\n\nInspired by such associations and remembrances, and by the spirit of\nsimple truth and sincerity, Peter wrote his first epistle, which he\ndirected to his Jewish brethren in several sections of Asia Minor,\nwho had probably been brought under his ministry only in Jerusalem,\non their visits there in attendance on the great annual feasts, which\nin all years, as in that of the Pentecost on which the Spirit was\noutpoured, came up to the Holy city to worship; for there is no _proof_\nwhatever, that Peter ever visited those countries to which he sent\nthis letter. The character of the evidence offered, has been already\nmentioned. These believers in Christ had, during their annual visits\nto Jerusalem for many years, been in the habit of seeing there this\nvenerable apostolic chief, and of hearing from his lips the gospel\ntruth. But the changes of events having made it necessary for him to\ndepart from Jerusalem to the peaceful lands of the east, the annual\nvisitors of the Holy city from the west, no longer enjoyed the presence\nand the spoken words of this greatest teacher. To console them for\nthis loss, and to supply that spiritual instruction which seemed most\nneedful to them in their immediate circumstances, he now wrote to them\nthis epistle; the main purport of which seems to be, to inspire them\nwith courage and consolation, under some weight of general suffering,\nthen endured by them or impending over them. Indeed, the whole scope\nof the epistle bears most manifestly on this one particular point,\u2015\u2015the\npreparation of its readers, the Christian communities of Asia Minor,\nfor heavy sufferings. It is not, to be sure, without many moral\ninstructions, valuable in a mere general bearing, but all therein\ngiven have a peculiar force in reference to the solemn preparation\nfor the endurance of calamities, soon to fall on them. The earnest\nexhortations which it contains, urging them to maintain a pure\nconscience, to refute the calumnies of time by innocence,\u2015\u2015to show\nrespect for the magistracy,\u2015\u2015to unite in so much the greater love and\nfidelity,\u2015\u2015with many others, are all evidently intended to provide\nthem with the virtues which would sustain them under the fearful doom\nthen threatening them. In the pursuance of the same great design, the\napostle calls their attention with peculiar earnestness to the bright\nexample of Jesus Christ, whose behavior in suffering was now held up to\nthem as a model and guide in their afflictions. With this noble pattern\nin view, the apostle calls on them to go on in their blameless way, in\nspite of all that affliction might throw in the path of duty.\n\n _No proof that he ever visited them._\u2015\u2015The learned Hug, _truly_\n catholic (but not papistical) in his views of these points,\n though connected with the Roman church, has honestly taken\n his stand against the foolish inventions on which so much\n time has been spent above. He says, \u201cPeter had not seen the\n Asiatic provinces; they were situated in the circuit of Paul\u2019s\n department, who had traveled through them, instructed them,\n and even at a distance, and in prison, did not lose sight of\n them.\u201d (As witness his epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians,\n and Colossians, all which are comprehended within the circle\n to which Peter wrote.) \u201cHe was acquainted with their mode of\n life, foibles, virtues and imperfections; their whole condition,\n and the manner in which they ought to be treated.\u201d The learned\n writer, however, does not seem to have fully appreciated Peter\u2019s\n numerous and continual opportunities for personal communications\n with these converts at Jerusalem. In the brief allusion made in\n Acts ii. 9, 10, to the foreign Jews visiting Jerusalem at the\n pentecost, three of the very countries to which Peter writes,\n \u201cCappadocia, Pontus and Asia,\u201d are commemorated with other\n neighboring regions, \u201cPhrygia and Pamphylia.\u201d Hug goes on,\n however, to trace several striking and interesting coincidences\n between this epistle and those of Paul to the Ephesians, to\n the Colossians and to Timothy, all which were directed to this\n region. (Hug\u2019s introduction to New Testament, volume II. \u00a7 160.)\n He observes that \u201cPeter is so far from denying his acquaintance\n with the epistles of Paul, that he even in express terms refers\n his readers to these compositions of his \u2018beloved brother,\u2019\n (2 Peter iii. 15.) and recommends them to them.\u201d Hug, also,\n in the succeeding section, (\u00a7 161,) points out some still more\n remarkable coincidences between this and the epistle of James,\n which, in several passages, are exactly uniform. As 1 Peter i.\n 6, 7, and James i. 2:\u2015\u20151 Peter i. 24, and James i. 10:\u2015\u20151 Peter\n v. 5, 6, and James iv. 6\u201210.\n\n _Asia._\u2015\u2015It must be understood that there are three totally\n distinct applications of this name; and without a remembrance of\n the fact, the whole subject will be in an inextricable confusion.\n In modern geography, as is well known, it is applied to all that\n part of the eastern continent which is bounded west by Europe\n and Africa, and south by the Indian ocean. It is also applied\n sometimes under the limitation of \u201cMinor,\u201d or \u201cLesser,\u201d to that\n part of Great Asia, which lies between the Mediterranean and the\n Black sea. But in this passage it is not used in either of these\n extended senses. It is confined to that very narrow section of\n the eastern coast of the Aegean sea, which stretches from the\n Caicus to the Meander, including but a few miles of territory\n inland, in which were the seven cities to which John wrote in\n the Apocalypse. The same tract also bore the name of Maeonia.\n Asia Minor, in the modern sense of the term, is also frequently\n alluded to in Acts, but no where else in the New Testament\n unless we adopt Griesbach\u2019s reading of Romans xvi. 5, (Asia\n instead of Achaia.)\n\nIn the outset of his address, he greets them as \u201cstrangers\u201d in all the\nvarious lands throughout which they were \u201cscattered,\u201d\u2015\u2015bearing every\nwhere the stamp of a peculiar people, foreign in manners, principles\nand in conduct, to the indigenous races of the regions in which they\nhad made their home, yet sharing, at the same time, the sorrows and\nthe glories of the doomed nation from which they drew their origin,\u2015\u2015a\n_chosen_, an \u201celect\u201d order of people, prepared in the counsels of God\nfor a high and holy destiny, by the consecrating influence of a spirit\nof truth. Pointing them to that hope of an unchanging, undefiled,\nunfading heritage in the heavens, above the temporary sorrows of the\nearth, he teaches them to find in that, the consolation needful in\ntheir various trials. These trials, in various parts of his work, he\nspeaks of as inevitable and dreadful,\u2015\u2015yet appointed by the decrees of\nGod himself as a fiery test, beginning its judgments, indeed, in his\nown household, but ending in a vastly more awful doom on those who had\nnot the support and safety of obedience to his warning word of truth.\nAll these things are said by way of premonition, to put them on their\nguard against the onset of approaching evil, lest they should think\nit strange that a dispensation so cruel should visit them; when, in\nreality, it was an occasion for joy, that they should thus be made,\nin suffering, partakers of the glory of Christ, won in like manner. He\nmoreover warns them to keep a constant watch over their conduct, to be\nprudent and careful, because \u201cthe accusing prosecutor\u201d was constantly\nprowling around them, seeking to attack some one of them with his\ndevouring accusations. Him they were to meet, with a solid adherence\nto the faith, knowing as they did, that the responsibilities of their\nreligious profession were not confined within the narrow circle of\ntheir own sectional limits, but were shared with their brethren in the\nfaith throughout almost the whole world.\n\nFrom all these particulars the conclusion is inevitable, that there was\nin the condition of the Christians to whom he wrote, a most remarkable\ncrisis just occurring,\u2015\u2015one too of no limited or local character;\nand that throughout Asia Minor and the whole empire, a trying time\nof universal trouble was immediately beginning with all who owned the\nfaith of Jesus. The widely extended character of the evil, necessarily\nimplies its emanation from the supreme power of the empire, which,\nbounded by no provincial limits, would sweep through the world in\ndesolating fury on the righteous sufferers; nor is there any event\nrecorded in the history of those ages, which could thus have affected\nthe Christian communities, except the first Christian persecution, in\nwhich Nero, with wanton malice, set the example of cruel, unfounded\naccusation, that soon spread throughout his whole empire, bringing\nsuffering and death to thousands of faithful believers.\n\n _Accusing prosecutor._\u2015\u2015The view which Hug takes of the scope\n of the epistle, throws new light on the true meaning of this\n passage, and abundantly justifies this new translation, though\n none of the great New Testament lexicographers support it.\n The primary, simple senses of the words also, help to justify\n the usage, as well as their similar force in other passages.\n A reference to any lexicon will show that elsewhere, these\n words bear a meaning accordant with this version. The first noun\n never occurs in the New Testament except in a _legal_ sense. The\n Greek is \u1f49 \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, (1 Peter v. 8,) in which the\n last word (_diabolos_) need not be construed as a substantive\n expression, but may be made an adjective, belonging to the\n second word, (_antidikos_.) The last word, under these\n circumstances, need not necessarily mean \u201cthe devil,\u201d in\n any sense; but referring directly to the simple sense of its\n primitive, must be made to mean \u201ccalumniating,\u201d \u201cslanderous,\u201d\n \u201caccusing,\u201d\u2015\u2015and in connection with the technical, legal term,\n \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, (whose primary, etymological sense is uniformly a\n _legal_ one, \u201cthe plaintiff or prosecutor in a suit at law,\u201d)\n can mean only \u201cthe calumniating (or accusing) prosecutor.\u201d The\n common writers on the epistle, being utterly ignorant of its\n general scope, have failed to apprehend the true force of this\n expression; but the clear, critical judgment of Rosenmueller,\n (though he also was without the advantage of a knowledge of\n its history,) led him at once to see the greater justice of the\n view here given; and he accordingly adopts it, yet not with the\n definite, technical application of terms justly belonging to the\n passage. He refers vaguely to others who have taken this view,\n but does not give names.\n\n _The time_ when this epistle was written is very variously fixed\n by the different writers to whom I have above referred. Lardner\n dating it at Rome, concludes that the time was between A.\u00a0D. 63\n and 65, because he thinks that Peter could not have arrived at\n Rome earlier. This inference depends entirely on what he does\n not prove,\u2015\u2015the assertion that by Babylon, in the date, is meant\n Rome. The proofs of its being another place, which I have given\n above, will therefore require that it should have been written\n before that time, if Peter did then go to Rome. And Michaelis\n seems to ground upon this notion his belief, that it \u201cwas\n written either not long before, or not long after, the year 60.\u201d\n But the nobly impartial Hug comes to our aid again, with the\n sentence, which, though bearing against a fiction most desirable\n for his church, he unhesitatingly passes on its date. From his\n admirable detail of the contents and design of the epistle, he\n makes it evident that it was written (from Babylon) some years\n after the time when Peter is commonly said to have gone to Rome,\n never to return. This is the opinion which I have necessarily\n adopted, after taking his view of the design of the epistle.\n\nAnother series of passages in this epistle refers to the remarkable\nfact, that the Christians were at that time suffering under an\naccusation that they were \u201cevil-doers,\u201d malefactors, criminals liable\nto the vengeance of the law; and that this accusation was so general,\nthat the name, Christian, was already a term denoting a criminal\ndirectly liable to this legal vengeance. This certainly was a state of\nthings hitherto totally unparalleled in the history of the followers\nof Christ. In all the accounts previously given of the nature of the\nattacks made on them by their enemies, it is made to appear that no\naccusation whatever was sustained or even brought against them, in\nreference to moral or legal offences; but they were always presented in\nthe light of mere religious dissenters and sectaries. At Corinth, the\nindependent and equitable Gallio dismissed them from the judgment-seat,\nwith the upright decision that they were chargeable with no crime\nwhatever. Felix and Festus, with king Agrippa II., also, alike esteemed\nthe whole procedure against Paul as a mere theological or religious\naffair, relating to doctrines and not to moral actions. At Ephesus,\neven one of the high officers of the city did not hesitate to declare,\nin the face of a mob raging against Paul and his companions, that they\nwere innocent of all crime. And even as late as the seventh year of\nNero, the name of Christian had so little of an odious or criminal\ncharacter, that Agrippa II. did not disdain to declare himself almost\npersuaded to assume the name and character. And the whole course of\ntheir history abundantly shows, that so far from the idea of attacking\nthe Christian brotherhood in a mass, as guilty of legal offenses,\nand making their very name nearly synonymous with criminal, no trace\nwhatever of such an attack appears, until three years after the last\nmentioned date, when Nero charged the Christians, as a sect, with\nhis own atrocious crime, the dreadful devastation by fire of his own\ncapital; and on this ground, every where instituted a cruel persecution\nagainst them. In connection with this procedure, the Christians are\nfirst mentioned in Roman history, as a new and peculiar class of people,\ncalled _Christiani_, from their founder, _Christus_; and in reference\nto this matter, abusive charges are brought against them.\n\n _Evil doers._\u2015\u2015These passages are in ii. 12, iii. 16, iv. 15,\n where the word in Greek is \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, (_kakopoioi_,) which\n means a malefactor, as is shown in John xviii. 30, where the\n whole point of the remark consists in the fact, that the person\n spoken of was considered an actual violator of known law; so\n that the word is evidently limited throughout, to those who were\n _criminals in the eye of the law_.\n\n _The name Christian denoting a criminal._\u2015\u2015This is manifest from\n iv. 16, where they are exhorted to suffer for this alone, and to\n give no occasion whatever for any other criminal accusation.\n\n Illustration: BETHLEHEM, AT NIGHT.\n\nA third characteristic of the circumstances of those to whom this\nepistle is addressed, is, that they were obliged to be constantly on\ntheir guard against accusations, which would expose them to capital\npunishment. They were objects of scorn and obloquy, and were to\nexpect to be dragged to trial as thieves, murderers, and as wretches\nconspiring secretly against the public peace and safety; and to\nall this they were liable in their character as Christians. The\napostle, therefore, in deep solicitude for the dreadful condition and\nliabilities of his friends, warns those who, in spite of innocence, are\nthus made to suffer, to consider all their afflictions as in accordance\nwith the wise will of God, and, in an upright course of conduct, to\ncommit the keeping of their souls to him, as a faithful guardian, who\nwould not allow the permanent injury of the souls which he had created.\nNow, not even a conjecture can be made, much less, any historical proof\nbe brought, that beyond Palestine any person had ever yet been made to\nsuffer death on the score of religion, or of any stigma attaching to\nthat sect, before the time when Nero involved them in the cruel charge\njust mentioned. The date of the first instances of such persecutions\nwas the eleventh year of the reign of Nero, under the consulships of\nCaius Lecanius Bassus, and Marcus Licinius Crassus, according to the\nRoman annals. The commencement of the burning of Rome, which was the\noccasion of this first attack on the Christians, was in the last part\nof the month of July; but the persecution did not begin immediately.\nAfter various contrivances to avert the indignation of the people from\ntheir imperial destroyer, the Christians were seized as a proper\nexpiatory sacrifice, the choice being favored by the general dislike\nwith which they were regarded. This attack being deferred for some\ntime after the burning, could not have occurred till late in that\nyear. The epistle cannot have been written before its occurrence, nor\nindeed until some time afterwards; because a few months must be allowed\nfor the account of it to spread to the provinces of Asia, and it must\nhave been still later when the news of the difficulty could reach\nthe apostle, so as to enable him to appreciate the danger of those\nChristians who were under the dominion of the Romans. It is evident,\nthen, that the epistle was not written in the same year in which the\nburning occurred; but in the subsequent one, the twelfth of Nero\u2019s\nreign, and the sixty-fifth of the Christian era. By that time the\ncondition and prospects of the Christians throughout the empire were\nsuch as to excite the deepest solicitude in the great apostle, who,\nthough himself residing in the great Parthian empire, removed from\nall danger of injury from the Roman emperor, was by no means disposed\nto forget the high claims the sufferers had on him for counsel and\nconsolation. This dreadful event was the most important which had ever\nyet befallen the Christians, and there would certainly be just occasion\nfor surprise, if it had called forth no consolatory testimony from\nthe founders of the faith, and if no trace of it could be found in the\napostolic records.\n\n _Committing the keeping of their souls to God._\u2015\u2015This view of\n the design of the epistle gives new force to this passage, (iv.\n 19.)\n\n _First mentioned in Roman history._\u2015\u2015This is by Tacitus, (Annals\n xv. 44,) who thus speaks of them:\u2015\u2015\u201cNero condendae urbis novae\n et cognomento suo appellandae gloriam quaerere, et sic jussum\n incendium credebatur. Ergo abolendo rumori subdidit reos,\n et quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos,\n vulgus Christianos appellabat,\u201d &c.\u2015\u2015\u201cIt was believed that Nero,\n desirous of building the city anew, and of calling it by his\n surname, had thus caused its burning. To get rid of this general\n impression, therefore, he brought under this accusation, and\n visited with the most exquisite punishments, a set of persons,\n hateful for their crimes, commonly called Christians. The name\n was derived from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was\n seized and punished by Pontius Pilate, the procurator. The\n ruinous superstition, though checked for a while, broke out\n again, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but also in\n the city, (Rome.) Therefore those who professed it were first\n seized, and then, on their confession, a great number of others\n were convicted, not so much on the charge of the arson, as on\n account of the universal hatred which existed against them. And\n their deaths were made amusing exhibitions, as, being covered\n with the skins of wild beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs,\n or were nailed to crosses, or, being daubed with combustible\n stuff, were burned by way of light, in the darkness, after the\n close of day. Nero opened his own gardens for the show, and\n mingled with the lowest part of the throng, on the occasion.\u201d\n (The description of the cruel manner in which they were burned,\n may serve as a forcible illustration of the meaning of \u201cthe\n fiery trial,\u201d to which Peter alludes, iv. 12.) By Suetonius,\n also, they are briefly mentioned. (Nero, chapter 15.) \u201cAfflicti\n suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae et\n _maleficae_.\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cThe Christians, a sort of men of a new and\n pernicious (_evil doing_) superstition, were visited with\n punishments.\u201d\n\n That this Neronian persecution was as extensive as is here\n made to appear, is proved by Lardner and Hug. The former in\n particular, gives several very interesting evidences, in his\n \u201cHeathen testimonies,\u201d especially the remarkable inscription\n referring to this persecution, found in Portugal. (Collection\n of Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, chapter iii.)\n\nFrom the uniform tone in which the apostle alludes to the danger as\nthreatening only his readers, without the slightest allusion to the\ncircumstance of his being involved in the difficulty, is drawn another\nimportant confirmation of the locality of the epistle. He uniformly\nuses the second person when referring to trials, but if he himself had\nthen been so situated as to share in the calamity for which he strove\nto prepare them, he would have been very apt to have expressed his own\nfeelings in view of the common evil. Paul, in those epistles which were\nwritten under circumstances of personal distress, is very full of warm\nexpressions of the state of mind in which he met his trials; nor was\nthere in Peter any lack of the fervid energy that would burst forth in\nsimilarly eloquent sympathy, on the like occasions. But from Babylon,\nbeyond the bounds of Roman sway, he looked on their sufferings only\nwith that pure sympathy which his regard for his brethren would excite;\nand it is not to be wondered, then, that he uses the second person\nmerely, in speaking of their distresses. The bearer of this epistle to\nthe distressed Christians of Asia Minor, is named Silvanus, generally\nsupposed to be the same with Silvanus or Silas, mentioned in Paul\u2019s\nepistles, and in the Acts, as the companion of Paul in his journeys\nthrough some of those provinces to which Peter now wrote. There is\ngreat probability in this conjecture, nor is there anything that\ncontradicts it in the slightest degree; and it may therefore be\nconsidered as true. Some other great object may at this time have\nrequired his presence among them, or he may have been then passing on\nhis journey to rejoin Paul, thus executing this commission incidentally.\n\n This view of the scope and contents of this epistle is taken\n from Hug, who seems to have originated it. At least I can\n find nothing of it in any other author whom I have consulted.\n Michaelis, for instance, though evidently apprehending the\n general tendency of the epistle, and its design to prepare its\n readers for the coming of some dreadful calamity, was not led\n thereby to the just apprehension of the historical circumstances\n therewith connected. (Hug, II. \u00a7\u00a7 162\u2012165.\u2015\u2015Michaelis Vol. IV.\n chapter xxvii. \u00a7\u00a7 1\u20127.)\n\n\n THE SECOND EPISTLE.\n\nAfter writing the former epistle to the Christians of Asia Minor,\nPeter probably continued to reside in Babylon, since no occurrence is\nmentioned which could draw him away, in his old age, from the retired\nbut important field of labor to which he had previously confined\nhimself. Still exercising a paternal watchfulness, however, over\nhis distant disciples, his solicitude before long again excited\nhim to address them in reference to their spiritual difficulties\nand necessities. The apprehensions expressed in the former epistle,\nrespecting their maintenance of a pure faith in their complicated\ntrials, had in the mean time proved well-grounded. During the\ndistracting calamities of Nero\u2019s persecution, false teachers had\narisen, who had, by degrees, brought in pernicious heresies among them,\naffecting the very foundations of the faith, and ending in the most\nruinous consequences to the belief and practice of some. This second\nepistle he wrote, therefore, to stir up those who were still pure in\nheart, to the remembrance of the true doctrines of Christianity, as\ntaught by the apostles; and to warn them against the heretical notions\nthat had so fatally spread among them. Of the errors complained of, the\nmost important seems to have been the denial of the judgment, which had\nbeen prophesied so long. Solemnly re-assuring them of the certainty of\nthat awful series of events, he exhorted them to the steady maintenance\nof such a holy conduct and godly life, as would fit them to meet the\ngreat change which he so sublimely pictured, whenever and however\nit should occur; and closed with a most solemn charge to beware lest\nthey also should be led away by the error of the wicked, so as to\nfall from their former steadfast adherence to the truth. In the former\npart of the epistle he alluded affectingly to the nearness of his own\nend, as an especial reason for his urgency with those from whom he\nwas so soon to be parted. \u201cI think it meet as long as I am in this\ntabernacle, to stir you up to the remembrance of these things, knowing\nas I do that the putting off of my tabernacle is very near, according\nto what our Lord Jesus Christ made known to me.\u201d This is an allusion\nto the prophecy of his Master at the meeting on the lake, after\nthe resurrection, described in the last chapter of John\u2019s gospel.\n\u201cTherefore,\u201d writes the aged apostle, \u201cI will be urgent that you, after\nmy departure, may always hold these things in your memory.\u201d All which\nseems to imply an anticipated death, of which he was reminded by the\ncourse of natural decay, and by the remembrance of the parting prophecy\nof his Master, and not by anything very imminently dangerous or\nthreatening in his external circumstances, at the time of writing. This\nwas the last important work of his adventurous and devoted life; and\nhis allusions to the solemn scenes of future judgment were therefore\nmost solemnly appropriate. Those to whom he wrote could expect to see\nhis face no more, and his whole epistle is in a strain accordant with\nthese circumstances, dwelling particularly on the awful realities of a\ncoming day of doom.\n\nThe first epistle of Peter has always been received as authentic, ever\nsince the apostolic writings were first collected, nor has there ever\nbeen a single doubt expressed by any theologian, that it was what it\npretended to be; but in regard to the epistle just mentioned as his\nsecond, and now commonly so received, there has been as much earnest\ndiscussion as concerning any other book in the sacred canon, excepting,\nperhaps, the epistle to the Hebrews and John\u2019s Revelation. The weight\nof historical testimony is certainly rather against its authenticity,\nsince all the early Fathers who explicitly mention it, speak of it\nas a work of very doubtful character. In the first list of the sacred\nwritings that is recorded, this is not put among those generally\nacknowledged as of divine authority, but among those whose truth\nwas disputed. Still, quotations from it are found in the writings of\nthe Fathers, in the first, second and third centuries, by whom it is\nmentioned approvingly, although not specified as inspired or of divine\nauthority. But even as late as the end of the fourth century there\nwere still many who denied it to be Peter\u2019s, on account of supposed\ndifferences of style observable between this and the former epistle,\nwhich was acknowledged to be his. The Syrian Christians continued to\nreject it from their canon for some time after; for in the old Syriac\nversion, executed before A.\u00a0D. 100, this alone, of all books supposed\nto have been written before that translation that are now considered\na part of the New Testament, is not contained, though it was regarded\nby many among them as a good book, and is quoted in the writings of\none of the Syrian Fathers, with respect. After this period, however,\nthese objections were soon forgotten, and from the fifth century\ndownwards, it has been universally adopted into the authentic\ncanon, and regarded with that reverence which its internal evidences\nof truth and genuineness so amply justify. Indeed, it is on its\ninternal evidence, almost entirely, that its great defense must be\nfounded,\u2015\u2015since the historical testimonies, (by common confession of\ntheologians,) will not afford that satisfaction to the investigator,\nwhich is desirable on subjects of this nature; and though ancient usage\nand its long-established possession of a place in the inspired code\nmay be called up in its support, still there will be occasion for the\naid of internal reasons, to maintain a positive decision as to its\nauthenticity. And this sort of evidence, an examination by the rigid\nstandards of modern critical theology proves abundantly sufficient\nfor the effort to which it is summoned; for though it has been said,\nthat since the ancients themselves were in doubt, the moderns cannot\nexpect to arrive at certainty, because it is impossible to get more\n_historical_ information on the subject, in the nineteenth century,\nthan ecclesiastical writers had within reach in the third and fourth\ncenturies; still, when the question of the authenticity of the work\nis to be decided by an examination of its contents, the means of\nascertaining the truth are by no means proportioned to the antiquity\nof the criticism. In the early ages of Christianity, the science of\nfaithfully investigating truth hardly had an existence; and such has\nbeen the progress of improvement in this department of knowledge, under\nthe labors of modern theologians, that the writers of the nineteenth\ncentury may justly be considered as possessed of far more extensive and\ncertain means of settling the character of this epistle by _internal_\nevidence, than were within the knowledge of those Christian fathers\nwho lived fourteen hundred years ago. The great objection against\nthe epistle in the fourth century, was an alleged dissimilarity of\nstyle between this and the former epistle. Now, there can be no doubt\nwhatever that modern Biblical scholars have vastly greater means for\njudging of a rhetorical question of this kind, than the Christian\nfathers of the fourth century, of whom those who were Grecians were\nreally less scientifically acquainted with their own language, and no\nmore qualified for a comparison of this kind, than those who live in\nan age when the principles of criticism are so much better understood.\nWith all these superior lights, the results of the most accurate modern\ninvestigations have been decidedly favorable to the authenticity of\nthe second epistle ascribed to Peter, and the most rigid comparisons of\nits style with that of the former, have brought out proofs triumphantly\nsatisfactory of its identity of origin with that,\u2015\u2015proofs so much the\nmore unquestionable, as they are borrowed from coincidences which must\nhave been entirely natural and incidental, and not the result of any\ndeliberate collusion.\n\n This account of the second epistle is also taken from Hug and\n Michaelis, to whom, with Lardner, reference may be made for the\n details of all the arguments for and against its authenticity.\n\nAs to the place and time of writing this epistle, it seems quite\nprobable that it was written where the former one was, since there\nis no account or hint whatever of any change in Peter\u2019s external\ncircumstances; and that it was written some months after it, is\nunquestionable, since its whole tenor requires such a period to have\nintervened, as would allow the first to reach them and be read by them,\nand also for the apostle to learn in the course of time the effects\nultimately produced by it, and to hear of the rise of new difficulties,\nrequiring new apostolical interference and counsel. The first seems\nto have been directed mainly to those who were complete Jews, by birth\nor by proselytism, as appears from the terms in which he repeatedly\naddresses them in it; but the sort of errors complained of in this\nepistle seem to have been so exclusively characteristic of Gentile\nconverts, that it must have been written more particularly with\nreference to difficulties in that part of the religious communities of\nthose regions. He condemns and refutes certain heretics who rejected\nsome of the fundamental truths of the Mosaic law,\u2015\u2015errors which no\nwell-trained Jew could ever be supposed to make, but which in motley\nassemblages of different races, like the Christian churches, might\nnaturally enough arise among those Gentiles, who felt impatient at the\ninferiority in which they seemed implicated by their ignorance of the\ndoctrines of the Jewish theology, in which their circumcised brethren\nwere so fully versed. It seems to have been more especially aimed at\nthe rising sect of the Gnostics, who are known to have been heretical\non some of the very points here alluded to. Its great similarity, in\nsome passages, to the epistle of Jude, will make it the subject of\nallusion again in the life of that apostle.\n\n\n HIS DEATH.\n\nHenceforth the writings of the New Testament are entirely silent as to\nthe chief apostle. Not a hint is given of the few remaining actions of\nhis life, nor of the mode, place, or time of his death; and all these\nconcluding points have been left to be settled by conjecture, or by\ntradition as baseless. The only passage which has been supposed to give\nany hint of the manner of his death, is that in the last chapter of\nJohn\u2019s gospel. \u201cJesus says to him\u2015\u2015\u2018I most solemnly tell thee, when\nthou wast young, thou didst gird thyself and walk whither thou wouldst;\nbut when thou shalt be old, another shall gird thee, and carry thee\nwhither thou wouldst not.\u2019 This he said, to make known by what sort\nof death he should glorify God.\u201d It has been commonly said that this\nis a distinct and unquestionable prophecy that he should in his old\nage be crucified,\u2015\u2015the expression, \u201canother shall gird thee and carry\nthee whither thou wouldst not,\u201d referring to his being bound to the\ncross and borne away to execution, since this was the only sort of\ndeath by which an apostle could be said, with much propriety or force,\nto _glorify God_. And the long-established authority of tradition\ncoinciding with this view, or rather, suggesting it, no very minute\nexamination into the sense of the passage has ever been made. But the\nwords themselves are by no means decisive. Take a common reader, who\nhas never heard that Peter was crucified, and it would be hard for\nhim to make out such a circumstance from the bare prophecy as given\nby John. Indeed, such unbiased impressions of the sense of the passage\nwill go far to justify the conclusion that the words imply nothing\nbut that Peter was destined to pass a long life in the service of his\nMaster,\u2015\u2015that he should after having worn out his bodily and mental\nenergies in his devoted exertions, attain such an extreme decrepid old\nage as to lose the power of voluntary motion, and die thus,\u2015\u2015at least\nwithout _necessarily_ implying any bloody martyrdom. Will it be said\nthat by such a quiet death he could not be considered as _glorifying_\nGod? The objection surely is founded in a misapprehension of the nature\nof those demonstrations of devotion, by which the glory of God is\nmost effectually secured. There are other modes of martyrdom than the\ndungeon, the sword, the axe, the flame, and the stone; and in all ages\nsince Peter, there have been thousands of martyrs who have, by lives\nsteadily and quietly devoted to the cause of truth, no less glorified\nGod, than those who were rapt to heaven in flame, in blood, and in\ntortures inflicted by a malignant persecution. Was not God truly\nglorified in the deaths of the aged Xavier, and Eliot, and Swartz, or\nthe bright, early exits of Brainerd, Mills, Martyn, Parsons, Fisk, and\nhundreds whom the apostolic spirit of modern missions has sent forth\nto labors as devoted, and to deaths as glorious to God, as those of\nany who swell the deified lists of the ancient martyrologies? The\nwhole notion of a bloody martyrdom as an essential termination to the\nlife of a saint, grew out of a papistical superstition; nor need the\nenlightened minds of those who can better appreciate the manner in\nwhich God\u2019s highest glory is secured by the lives and deaths of his\nservants, seek any such superfluous aids to crown the mighty course of\nthe great apostolic chief, whose solid claims to the name and honors\nof _Martyr_ rest on higher grounds than so insignificant an accident as\nthe manner of his death. All those writers who pretend to particularize\nthe mode of his departure, connect it also with the utterly impossible\nfiction of his residence at Rome, on which enough has been already\nsaid. Who will undertake to say, out of such a mass of matters, what is\ntruth and what is falsehood? And if the views above given, on the high\nauthority of the latest writers of even the Romish church, are of any\nvalue for any purpose whatever, they are perfectly decisive against\nthe notion of Peter\u2019s martyrdom at Rome, in the persecution under\nNero, since Peter was then in Babylon, far beyond the vengeance of the\nCaesar; nor was he so foolish as ever after to have trusted himself\nin the reach of a perfectly unnecessary danger. The command of Christ\nwas, \u201cWhen you are persecuted in one city, flee into another,\u201d\u2015\u2015the\nnecessary and unquestionable inference from which, was, that when\nout of the reach of persecution they should not wilfully go into it.\nThis is a simple principle of Christian action, with which papist\nfable-mongers were totally unacquainted, and they thereby afford the\nmost satisfactory proof of the utter falsity of the actions and motives\nwhich they ascribe to the apostles. One of these stories thus disproved\nis connected with another adventure with that useful character,\nSimon Magus, who, as the tale runs, after being first vanquished so\nthoroughly by Peter in the reign of Claudius, returned to Rome, in the\nreign of Nero, and made such progress again in his magical tricks, as\nto rise into the highest favor with this emperor, as he had with the\nformer. This of course required a new effort from Peter, which ended in\nthe disgrace and death of the magician, who, attempting to fly through\nthe air in the presence of the emperor and people in the theater, was\nby the prayer of Peter caused to fall from his aspiring course, to\nthe ground, by which he was so much injured as to die soon after. The\nemperor being provoked at the loss of his favorite, turned all his\nwrath against the apostle who had been directly instrumental in his\nruin, and imprisoned him with the design of executing him as soon as\nmight be convenient. While in these circumstances, or as others say,\nbefore he was imprisoned, he was earnestly exhorted by the disciples\nin Rome, to make his escape. He accordingly, though very desirous of\nbeing killed, (a most abominably irreligious wish, by the way,) began\nto move off, one dark night; but had hardly got beyond the walls of\nthe city,\u2015\u2015indeed he was just passing out of the gate-way,\u2015\u2015when, whom\nshould he meet but Jesus Christ himself, coming towards Rome. Peter\nasked, with some reasonable surprise, \u201cLord! where are you going?\u201d\nChrist answered, \u201cI am coming to Rome, to be crucified again.\u201d Peter\nat once took this as a hint that he ought to have stayed, and that\nChrist meant to be crucified again in the crucifixion of his apostle.\nHe accordingly turned right about, and went back into the city, where,\nhaving given to the wondering brethren an account of the reasons of his\nreturn, he was immediately seized, and was crucified, to the glory of\nGod. Now it is a sufficient answer to this or any similar fable, to\njudge the blasphemous inventor out of his own mouth, and out of the\ninstructions given by Christ himself to his servants, for their conduct,\nin all cases where they were threatened with persecution, as above\nquoted.\n\n _Referring to his being bound to the cross._\u2015\u2015Tertullian seems\n to have first suggested this rather whimsical interpretation:\n \u2015\u2015\u201cTunc Petrus ab altero cingitur, quum cruci adstringitur.\u201d\n (Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15.) There seems to be more rhyme than\n reason in the sentence, however.\n\n The rejection of this forced interpretation is by no means a\n new notion. The critical Tremellius long ago maintained that\n the verse had no reference whatever to a prophecy of Peter\u2019s\n crucifixion, though he probably had no idea of denying that\n Peter did actually die by crucifixion. Among more modern\n commentators too, the prince of critics, Kuinoel, with whom\n are quoted Semler, Gurlitt and Schott, utterly deny that a\n fair construction of the original will allow any prophetical\n idea to be based on it. The critical testimony of these great\n commentators on the true and just force of the words, is of the\n very highest value; because all received the tale of Peter\u2019s\n crucifixion as true, having never examined the authority of the\n tradition, and not one of them pretended to deny that he really\n was crucified. But in spite of this pre-conceived erroneous\n historical notion, their nice sense of what was grammatically\n and critically just, would not allow them to pervert the passage\n to the support of this long-established view; and they therefore\n pronounce it as merely expressive of the helplessness and\n imbecility of extreme old age, with which they make every\n word coincide. But Bloomfield, entirely carried away with the\n tide of antique authorities, is \u201csurprised that so many recent\n commentators should deny that crucifixion is here alluded\n to, though they acknowledge that Peter suffered crucifixion.\u201d\n Now this last circumstance might well occasion surprise,\n as it certainly did in me, when I found what mighty names\n had so disinterestedly supported the interpretation which I\n had with fear and trembling adopted, in obedience to my own\n long-established, unaided convictions; but my surprise was of\n a decidedly agreeable sort.\n\nThe inventors of fables go on to give us the minute particulars\nof Peter\u2019s death, and especially note the circumstance that he was\ncrucified with his head downwards and his feet uppermost, he himself\nhaving desired that it might be done in that manner, because he thought\nhimself unworthy to be crucified as his Master was. This was a mode\nsometimes adopted by the Romans, as an additional pain and ignominy.\nBut Peter must have been singularly accommodating to his persecutors,\nto have suggested this improvement upon his tortures to his malignant\nmurderers; and must have manifested a spirit more accordant with that\nof a savage defying his enemies to increase his agonies, than with that\nof the mild, submissive Jesus. And such has been the evident absurdity\nof the story, that many of the most ardent receivers of fables have\nrejected this circumstance as improbable, more especially as it is\nnot found among the earliest stories of his crucifixion, but evidently\nseems to have been appended among later improvements.\n\n\n PETER\u2019S MARTYRDOM.\n\n The only authority which can be esteemed worthy of consideration\n on this point, is that of Clemens Romanus, who, in the latter\n part of the first century, (about the year 70, or as others\n say, 96,) in his epistle to the Corinthians, uses these words\n respecting Peter:\u2015\u2015\u201cPeter, on account of unrighteous hatred,\n underwent not one, or two, but many labors, and _having thus\n borne his testimony_, departed to the place of glory, which was\n his due,\u201d\u2015\u2015(\u1f41\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b7\u03c2.) Now it is by no means certain that the prominent word\n (_marturesas_) necessarily means \u201cbearing testimony by death,\u201d\n or _martyrdom_ in the modern sense. The primary sense of this\n verb is merely \u201c_to witness_,\u201d in which simple meaning alone, it\n is used in the New Testament; nor can any passage in the sacred\n writings be shown, in which this verb means \u201cto bear witness to\n any cause, _by death_.\u201d This was a _technical_ sense, (if I may\n so name it,) which the word at last acquired among the Fathers,\n when they were speaking of those who bore witness to the truth\n of the gospel of Christ by their blood; and it was a meaning\n which at last nearly excluded all the true original senses\n of the verb, limiting it mainly to the notion of a death by\n persecution for the sake of Christ. Thence our English words,\n _martyr_ and _martyrdom_. But that Clement by this use of the\n word, in this connection, meant to convey the idea of Peter\u2019s\n having been killed for the sake of Christ, is an opinion utterly\n incapable of proof, and moreover rendered improbable by the\n words joined to it in the passage. The sentence is, \u201cPeter\n underwent many labors, and having thus borne witness\u201d to the\n gospel truth, \u201cwent to the place of glory which he deserved.\u201d\n Now the adverb \u201c_thus_,\u201d (\u1f41\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2,) seems to me most distinctly\n to show what was the nature of this testimony, and the manner\n also in which he bore it. It points out more plainly than any\n other words could, the fact that his testimony to the truth of\n the gospel was borne in the zealous labors of a devoted life,\n and _not_ by the agonies of a bloody death. There is not in\n the whole context, nor in all the writings of Clement, any hint\n whatever that Peter was _killed_ for the sake of the gospel; and\n we are therefore required by every sound rule of interpretation,\n to stick to the primary sense of the verb, in this passage.\n Lardner most decidedly mis-translates it in the text of his work,\n so that any common reader would be grossly deceived as to the\n expression in the original of Clement,\u2015\u2015\u201cPeter underwent many\n labors, _till at last_ being martyred, he went,\u201d &c. The Greek\n word, \u1f41\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, (_houtos_,) means always, \u201cin this manner,\u201d \u201cthus,\u201d\n \u201cso,\u201d and is not a mere expletive, like the English phrase, \u201cand\n _so_,\u201d which is a mere form of transition from one part of the\n narrative to the other.\n\n In the similar passage of Clemens which refers to _Paul_, there\n is something in the connection which may seem to favor the\n conclusion that he understood Paul to have been put to death\n by the Roman officers. His words are,\u2015\u2015\u201cand after having _borne\n his testimony_ before governors, he was _thus_ sent out of the\n world,\u201d &c. Here the word \u201cthus,\u201d coming after the participle,\n may perhaps be considered, in view also of its other connections,\n as implying his removal from the world by a violent death, _in\n consequence of_ the testimony borne by him before the governors.\n This however, will bear some dispute, and will have a fuller\n discussion elsewhere.\n\n But in respect to the passage which refers to Peter, the burden\n of proof may fairly be said to lie on those who maintain the old\n opinion. Here the word is shown to have, in the New Testament,\n no such application to _death_ as it has since acquired; and\n the question is whether Clemens Romanus, a man himself of the\n apostolic age, who lived and perhaps wrote, before the canon was\n completed, had already learned to give a new meaning to a verb,\n before so simple and unlimited in its applications. No person\n can pretend to trace this meaning to within a century of the\n Clementine age, nor does Suicer refer to any one who knew of\n such use before Clement of Alexandria (See his Thesaurus; \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1.\n ) Clement himself uses it in the same epistle (\u00a7 xvii.) in its\n unquestionable primary sense, speaking of Abraham as having\n received an honorable testimony,\u2015\u2015(\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7\u03b8\u03b7;) for who will say\n that Abraham was _martyred_, in the modern sense? The fact too\n that Clement nowhere else gives the least glimmer of a hint that\n Peter died any where but in his bed, fixes the position here\n taken, beyond all possibility of attack, except by its being\n shown that he uses this verb somewhere else, with the sense of\n _death_ unquestionably attached to it.\n\n There is no other _early_ writer who can be said to speak of\n the manner of Peter\u2019s death, before Dionysius of Corinth, who\n says that \u201cPeter and Paul having taught in Italy together, _bore\n their testimony_\u201d (_by death_, if you please,) \u201cabout the same\n time.\u201d An argument might here also be sustained on the word\n \u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, (_emarturesan_,) but the evidence of Dionysius,\n mixed as it is with a demonstrated fable, is not worth a\n _verbal_ criticism. The same may be said of Tertullian and the\n rest of the later Fathers, as given in the note on pages 228\u2012233.\n\n An examination of the word \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1, in Suicer\u2019s Thesaurus\n Ecclesiasticus, will show the critical, that even in later times,\n this word did not necessarily imply \u201cone who bore his testimony\n to the truth at the sacrifice of life.\u201d Even Chrysostom, in\n whose time the peculiar limitation of the term might be supposed\n to be very well established, uses the word in such applications\n as to show that its original force was not wholly lost. By\n Athanasius too, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego are styled\n _martyrs_. Gregory Nazianzen also speaks of \u201cliving martyrs.\u201d\n (\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2.) Theophylact calls the apostle John a _martyr_,\n though he declares him to have passed through the hands of his\n persecutors unhurt, and to have died by the course of nature.\n Clemens Alexandrinus has similar uses of the term; and the\n Apostolical Constitutions, of doubtful date, but much later than\n the first century, also give it in such applications. Suicer\n distinctly specifies several classes of persons, not martyrs\n in the modern sense, to whom the Greek word is nevertheless\n applied in the writings of even the later Fathers; as \u201cthose\n who testified the truth of the gospel of Christ, at the peril\n of life merely, without the loss of it,\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cthose who obeyed the\n requirements of the gospel, by restraining passion,\u201d &c. In some\n of these instances however, it is palpable that the application\n of the word to such persons is secondary, and made in rather\n a poetical way, with a reference to the more common meaning\n of loss of life for the sake of Christ, since there is always\n implied a _testimony_ at the risk or loss of something; still\n the power of these instances to render doubtful the meaning\n of the term, is unquestionable. (See Suicer\u2019s Thesaurus\n Ecclesiasticus, \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1, III. 2, 5, 6.)\n\n Perhaps it is hardly worth while to dismiss these fables\n altogether, without first alluding to the rather ancient one,\n first given by Clemens Alexandrinus. (Stromata, 7. p. 736.) and\n copied verbatim by Eusebius, (Church History, III. 30.) Both the\n reverend Fathers however, introduce the story as a tradition,\n a mere _on dit_, prefacing it with the expressive phrase,\n \u201cThey say,\u201d &c. (\u03a6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9.) \u201cThe blessed Peter seeing his wife\n led to death, was pleased with the honor of her being thus\n called by God to return home, and thus addressed her in words\n of exhortation and consolation, calling her by name,\u2015\u2015\u2018O woman!\n remember the Lord.\u2019\u201d The story comes up from the hands of\n tradition rather too late however, to be entitled to any credit\n whatever, being recorded by Clemens Alexandrinus, full 200 years\n after Christ. It was probably invented in the times when it was\n thought worth while to cherish the spirit of voluntary martyrdom,\n among even the female sex; for which purpose instances were\n sought out or invented respecting those of the apostolic days.\n That Peter had a wife is perfectly true; and it is also probable\n that she accompanied him about on his travels, as would appear\n from a passage in Paul\u2019s writings; (1 Corinthians ix. 5;) but\n beyond this, nothing is known of her life or death. Similar\n fables might be endlessly multiplied from papistical sources;\n more especially from the Clementine novels, and the apostolical\n romances of Abdias Babylonius; but the object of the present\n work is true history, and it would require a whole volume like\n this to give all the details of Christian mythology.\n\n In justification of the certainty with which sentence is\n pronounced against the whole story of Peter\u2019s ever having gone\n to Rome, it is only necessary to refer to the decisive argument\n on pages 228\u2012233, in which the whole array of ancient evidence\n on the point, is given by Dr. Murdock. If the support of great\n names is needed, those of Scaliger, Salmasius, Spanheim, and\n Bower, all mighty minds in criticism, are enough to justify\n the boldness of the opinion, that Peter never went west of the\n Hellespont, and probably never embarked on the Mediterranean.\n In conclusion of the whole refutation of this long-established\n error, the matter cannot be more fairly presented, than in the\n words with which the critical and learned Bower opens his Lives\n of the Popes:\n\n \u201cTo avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat tradition as we\n do a notorious and known liar, to whom we give no credit unless\n what he says is confirmed to us by some person of undoubted\n veracity. If it is affirmed by him alone, we can at most\n but suspend our belief, not rejecting it as false, because\n a liar may sometimes speak truth; but we cannot, upon his\n bare authority, admit it as true. Now that St. Peter was at\n Rome, that he was bishop of Rome, we are told by tradition\n alone, which, at the same time tells us of so many strange\n circumstances attending his coming to that metropolis, his\n staying in it, his withdrawing from it, &c., that in the opinion\n of every unprejudiced man, the whole must savor strongly of\n romance. Thus we are told that St. Peter went to Rome chiefly\n to oppose Simon, the celebrated magician; that at their first\n interview, at which Nero himself was present, he flew up into\n the air, in the sight of the emperor and the whole city; but\n that the devil, who had thus raised him, struck with dread and\n terror at the name of Jesus, whom the apostle invoked, let him\n fall to the ground, by which fall he broke his legs. Should you\n question the truth of this tradition at Rome, they would show\n you the prints of St. Peter\u2019s knees in the stone, on which he\n kneeled on this occasion, and another stone still dyed with the\n blood of the magician. (This account seems to have been borrowed\n from Suetonius, who speaks of a person that, in the public\n sports, undertook to fly, in the presence of the emperor Nero;\n but on his first attempt, fell to the ground; by which fall\n his blood sprung out with such violence that it reached the\n emperor\u2019s canopy.)\n\n \u201cThe Romans, as we are told, highly incensed against him for\n thus maiming and bringing to disgrace one to whom they paid\n divine honors, vowed his destruction; whereupon the apostle\n thought it advisable to retire for a while from the city, and\n had already reached the gate, when to his great surprise, he\n met our Savior coming in, as he went out, who, upon St. Peter\u2019s\n asking him where he was going, returned this answer: \u2018_I am\n going to Rome, to be crucified anew_;\u2019 which, as St. Peter\n understood it, was upbraiding him with his flight; whereupon he\n turned back, and was soon after seized by the provoked Romans,\n and, by an order from the emperor, crucified.\u201d\n\nNor do the fables about Peter, by the inveterate papists, cease with\nhis death. In regard to the place of his tomb, a new story was needed,\nand it is accordingly given with the usual particularity. It is said\nthat he was buried at Rome in the Vatican plain, in the district beyond\nthe Tiber, in which he was said to have first preached among the Jews,\nand where stood the great circus of Nero, in which the apostle is said\nto have been crucified. Over this bloody spot, a church was afterwards\nraised, by Constantine the Great, who chose for its site part of the\nground that had been occupied by the circus, and the spaces where the\ntemples of Mars and Apollo had stood. The church, though of no great\narchitectural beauty, was a building of great magnitude, being three\nhundred feet long, and more than one hundred and fifty feet wide.\nThis building stood nearly twelve hundred years, when becoming ruinous\nin spite of all repairs, it was removed to give place to the present\ncathedral church of St. PETER, now the most immense and magnificent\nbuilding in the world,\u2015\u2015not too much praised in the graphic verse in\nwhich the pilgrim-poet sets it beyond all comparison with the greatest\npiles of ancient or modern art:\n\n \u201cBut lo! the dome! the vast and wondrous dome,\n To which Diana\u2019s marvel was a cell;\u2015\u2015\n Christ\u2019s mighty shrine above his martyr\u2019s tomb.\u2015\u2015\n I have beheld the Ephesians\u2019 miracle,\n Its columns strew the wilderness, and dwell\n The hyena and the jackall in their shade.\n I have beheld Sophia\u2019s bright roofs swell\n Their glittering mass in the sun, and have surveyed\n Its sanctuary, while the usurping Moslem prayed.\n\n \u201cBut thou, of temples old, or altars new,\n Standest alone, with nothing like to thee.\n Worthiest of God, the holy and the true!\n Since Zion\u2019s desolation, when that He\n Forsook his former city, what could be\n Of earthly structures in his honor piled,\n Of a sublimer aspect?\u201d\u2015\u2015\n\nWithin the most holy place of this vast sanctuary,\u2015\u2015beneath the very\ncenter of that wonderful dome, which rises in such unequaled vastness\nabove it, redounding far more to the glory of the man who reared it,\nthan of the God whose altar it covers,\u2015\u2015in the vaulted crypt which\nlies below the pavement, is a shrine, before which a hundred lamps are\nconstantly burning, and over which the prayers of thousands are daily\nrising. This is _called_ the tomb of the saint to whom the whole pile\nis dedicated, and from whom the great high priest of that temple draws\nhis claim to the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power to bind\nand loose, and the assurance of heaven\u2019s sanction on his decrees. But\nwhat a contrast is all this \u201cpride, pomp and circumstance,\u201d to the\nbare purity of the faith and character of the simple man whose life\nand conduct are recorded on these pages! If any thing whatever may be\ndrawn as a well-authorized conclusion from the details that have been\ngiven of his actions and motives, it is that Simon Peter was a \u201cplain,\nblunt\u201d man, laboring devotedly for the object to which he had been\ncalled by Jesus, and with no other view whatever, than the advancement\nof the kingdom of his Master,\u2015\u2015the inculcation of a pure spiritual\nfaith, which should seek no support, nor the slightest aid, from the\ncircumstances which charm the eye and ear, and win the soul through the\nmere delight impressed upon the senses, as the idolatrous priests who\nnow claim his name and ashes, maintain their dominion in the hearts of\nmillions of worse than pagan worshipers. His whole life and labors were\npointed at the very extirpation of forms and ceremonies,\u2015\u2015the erection\nof a pure, rational, spiritual dominion in the hearts of mankind, so\nthat the blessings of a glorious faith, which for two thousand years\nbefore had been confined to the limits of a ceremonial system, might\nnow, disenthralled from all the bonds of sense, and exalted above\nthe details of tedious forms, of natural distinctions, and of antique\nrituals,\u2015\u2015spread over a field as wide as humanity. For this he lived\nand toiled, and in the clear hope of a triumphant fulfilment of that\nplan, he died. And if, from his forgotten, unknown grave, among the\nashes of the Chaldean Babylon, and from the holy rest which is for\nthe blessed, the now glorified apostle could be called to the renewal\nof breathing, earthly life, and see the results of his energetic,\nsimple-minded devotion,\u2015\u2015what wonder, what joy, what grief, what glory,\nwhat shame, would not the revelation of these mighty changes move\nwithin him! The simple, pure gospel which he had preached in humble,\nfaithful obedience to the divine command, without a thought of glory\nor reward, now exalted in the idolatrous reverence of hundreds of\nmillions,\u2015\u2015but where appreciated in its simplicity and truth? The cross\non which his Master was doomed to ignominy, now exalted as the sign of\nsalvation, and the seal of God\u2019s love to the world!\u2015\u2015(a spectacle as\nstrange to a Roman or Jewish eye, as to a modern would be the gallows,\nsimilarly consecrated,) but who burning with that devotion which led\nhim of old to bear that shameful burden? His own humble name raised\nto a place above the brightest of Roman, of Grecian, of Hebrew,\nor Chaldean story! but made, alas! the supporter of a tyranny over\nsouls, far more grinding and remorseless than any which he labored to\noverthrow. The fabled spot of his grave, housed in a temple to which\nthe noblest shrine of ancient heathenism \u201cwas but a cell!\u201d but in which\nare celebrated, under the sanction of his sainted name, the rites of an\nidolatry, than which that of Rome, or Greece, or Egypt would seem more\nspiritual,\u2015\u2015and of tedious, unmeaning ceremonies, compared with which\nthe whole formalities of the Levitical ritual might be pronounced\nsimple and practical!\n\nThese would be the first sights that would meet the eye of the\ndisentombed apostle, if he should rise over the spot which claims the\nhonors of his martyr-tomb, and the consecration of his commission. How\nmournfully would he turn from all the mighty honors of that idolatrous\nworship,\u2015\u2015from the deified glories of that sublimest of shrines that\never rose over the earth! How earnestly would he long for the high\ntemple of one humble, pure heart, that knew and felt the simplicity\nof the truth as it was in Jesus! How joyfully would he hail the\nmanifestations of that active evangelizing spirit that consecrated and\nfitted him for his great missionary enterprise! His amazed and grieved\nsoul would doubtless here and there feel its new view rewarded, in the\nsight of much that was accordant with the holy feeling that inspired\nthe apostolic band. All over Christendom, might he find scattered\nthe occasional lights of a purer devotion, and on many lands he would\nsee the truth pouring, in something of the clear splendor for which\nhe hoped and labored. But of the countless souls that owned Jesus as\nLord and Savior, millions on millions,\u2015\u2015and vast numbers too, even in\nthe lands of a reformed faith,\u2015\u2015would be found still clinging to the\nvain support of forms, and names, and observances,\u2015\u2015and but a few, a\nprecious few, who had learned what _that_ means\u2015\u2015\u201cI will have mercy\nand not sacrifice\u201d\u2015\u2015works and not words,\u2015\u2015deeds and not creeds,\u2015\u2015high,\nsimple, active, energetic, enterprising devotion, and not cloistered\nreverence,\u2015\u2015chanceled worship,\u2015\u2015or soul-wearying rituals. Would not\nthe apostle, sickened with the revelations of such a resurrection,\nand more appalled than delighted, call on the power that brought him\nup from the peaceful rest of the blessed, to give him again the calm\nrepose of those who die in the Lord, rather than the idolatrous honors\nof such an apotheosis, or the strange sight of the results of such\nan evangelization?\u2015\u2015\u201cLet me enter again the gates of Hades, but not\nthe portals of these temples of superstition. Let me lie down with\nthe souls of the humble, but not in the shrine of this heathenish\npile. Leave me once more to rest from my labors, with my works still\nfollowing; and call me not from this repose till the labors I left\non earth unachieved, have been better done. We did not follow these\ncunningly-devised fables, when we made known to men the power and\ncoming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but the simple eye-witness story of\nhis majesty. We had a surer word of prophecy; and well would it have\nbeen, if these had turned their wandering eyes to it, as to a light\nshining in a dark place, and kept that steady beacon in view, through\nthe stormy gloom of ages, until the day dawn and the day-star arise in\ntheir hearts. These are not the new heavens and the new earth, wherein\ndwelleth righteousness, for which we looked, according to God\u2019s promise.\nThose must the faithful still look for, believing that Jehovah, with\nwhom a thousand years are as one day, is not slack concerning his\npromise, but desires all to come to repentance, and will come himself\nat last in the achievment of our labors. Then call me.\u201d\n\nWhat a life was this! Its early recorded events found him a poor\nfisherman, in a rude, despised province, toiling day by day in a low,\nlaborious business,\u2015\u2015living with hardly a hope above the beasts that\nperish. By the side of that lake, one morning, walked a stranger, who,\nwith mild words but wondrous deeds, called the poor fisherman to leave\nall, and follow him. Won by the commanding promise of the call, he\nobeyed, and followed that new Master, with high hopes of earthly glory\nfor a while, which at last were darkened and crushed in the gradual\ndevelopments of a far deeper plan than his rude mind could at first\nhave appreciated. But still he followed him, through toils and sorrows,\nthrough revelations and trials, at last to the sight of his bloody\ncross; and followed him, still unchanged in heart, basely and almost\nhopelessly wicked. The fairest trial of his virtue proved him after all,\nlazy, bloody-minded, but cowardly,\u2015\u2015lying, and utterly faithless in the\npromise of new life from the grave. But a change came over him. He, so\nlately a cowardly disowner of his Master\u2019s name, now, with a courageous\nmartyr-spirit dared the wrath of the awful magnates of his nation, in\nattesting his faith in Christ. Once a fierce, brawling, ear-cutting\nGalilean,\u2015\u2015henceforth he lived an unresisting subject of abuse, stripes,\nbonds, imprisonment and threatened death. When was there ever such a\ntriumph of grace in the heart of man? The conversion of Paul himself\ncould not be compared with it, as a moral miracle. The apostle of\nTarsus was a refined, well-educated man, brought up in the great\ncollege of the Jewish law, theology and literature, and not wholly\nunacquainted with the Grecian writers. The power of a high spiritual\nfaith over such a mind, however steeled by prejudice, was not so\nwonderful as its renovating, refining and elevating influence on the\nrude fisherman of Bethsaida. Paul was a man of considerable natural\ngenius, and he shows it on every page of his writings; but in Peter\nthere are seen few evidences of a mind naturally exalted, and the\nwhole tenor of his words and actions seems to imply a character of\nsound common sense, and great energy, but of perceptions and powers of\nexpression, great, not so much by inborn genius, as by the impulse of\na higher spirit within him, gradually bringing him to the possession\nof new faculties,\u2015\u2015intellectual as well as moral. This was the spirit\nwhich raised him from the humble task of a fisherman, to that of\ndrawing men and nations within the compass of the gospel, and to a\nglory which not all the gods of ancient superstition ever attained.\n\nMost empty honors! Why hew down the marble mountains, and rear them\ninto walls as massive and as lasting? Why raise the solemn arches\nand the lofty towers to overtop the everlasting hills with their\nheavenward heads? Or lift the skiey dome into the middle heaven, almost\noutswelling the blue vault itself? Why task the soul of art for new\ncreations to line the long-drawn aisles, and gem the fretted roof?\nThere is a glory that shall outlast all\n\n \u201cThe cloud-capped towers,\u2015\u2015the gorgeous palaces,\n The solemn temples,\u2015\u2015the great globe itself,\u2015\u2015\n Yea all which it inherit;\u201d\n\n\u2015\u2015a glory far beyond the brightest things of earth in its brightest day;\nfor \u201cthey that be wise shall shine as the firmament, and _they that\nturn many to righteousness_ as the stars, for ever and ever.\u201d Yet in\nthis the apostle rejoices not;\u2015\u2015not that adoring millions lift his name\nin prayers, and thanksgivings, and songs, and incense, from the noblest\npiles of man\u2019s creation, to the glory of a God,\u2015\u2015not even that over\nall the earth, in all ages, till the perpetual hills shall bow with\ntime,\u2015\u2015till \u201ceternity grows gray,\u201d the pure in heart will yield him\nthe highest human honors of the faith, on which nations, continents\nand worlds hang their hopes of salvation;\u2015\u2015he \u201crejoices not that the\nspirits\u201d of angels or men \u201care subject to him,\u2015\u2015but that HIS NAME IS\nWRITTEN IN HEAVEN.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n ANDREW.\n\n\n HIS AUTHENTIC HISTORY.\n\nTHE name of this apostle is here brought in directly after his eminent\nbrother, in accordance with the lists of the apostles given by Matthew\nand Luke, in their gospels, where they seem to dispose them all in\npairs; and very naturally, in this case, prefer family affinity as a\nprinciple of arrangement, putting together in this and the following\ninstances, those who were sons of the same father. The most eminent\nson of Jonah, deservedly taking the highest place on all the lists,\nhis brother might very properly so far share in the honors of this\ndistinction, as to be mentioned along with him, without any necessary\nimplication of the possession of any of that moral and intellectual\nsuperiority, on which Peter\u2019s claim to the first place was grounded.\nThese seem, at least, to have been sufficient reasons for Matthew,\nin arranging the apostles, and for Luke in his gospel; while in his\nhistory of the Acts of the Apostles he followed a different plan,\nputting Andrew fourth on the list, and giving the sons of Zebedee\na place before him, as Mark did also. The uniform manner in which\nJames and John are mentioned along with Peter on great occasions,\nto the total neglect of Andrew, seems to imply that this apostle was\nquite behind his brother in those excellences which fitted him for\nthe leading place in the great Christian enterprise; since it is most\nreasonable to believe that, if he had possessed faculties of such a\nhigh order, he would have been readily selected to enjoy with him the\npeculiar privileges of a most intimate personal intercourse with Jesus,\nand to share the high honors of his peculiar revelations of glory and\npower.\n\nThe question of the relative age of the two sons of Jonah, has been\nalready settled in the beginning of the life of Peter; and in the same\npart of the work have also been given all the particulars about their\nfamily, rank, residence, and occupation, which are desirable for the\nillustration of the lives and characters of both. So too, throughout\nthe whole of the sacred narrative, everything that could concern Andrew\nhas been abundantly expressed and commented on, in the life of Peter.\nThe occasions on which the name of this apostle is mentioned in the New\nTestament, indeed, except in the bare enumeration of the twelve, are\nonly three,\u2015\u2015his first introduction to Jesus,\u2015\u2015his actual call,\u2015\u2015and\nthe circumstance of his being present with his brother and the sons of\nZebedee, at the scene on the mount of Olives, when Christ foretold the\nutter ruin of the temple. Of these three scenes, in the first only did\nhe perform such a part, as to receive any other than a bare mention\nin the gospel history; nor even in that solitary circumstance does his\nconduct seem to have been of much importance, except as leading his\nbrother to the knowledge of Jesus. From this circumstance, however, of\nhis being specified as the first of all the twelve who had a personal\nacquaintance with Jesus, he has been honored by many writers with\nthe distinguishing title of \u201cTHE FIRST CALLED,\u201d although others have\nclaimed the dignity of this appellation for another apostle, in whose\nlife the particular reasons for such a claim will be mentioned.\n\n THE FIRST CALLED.\u2015\u2015In Greek \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, (_protokletos_,) by\n which name he is called by Nicephorus Callistus, (Church History,\n II. 39,) and by several of the Greek Fathers, as quoted by\n Cangius, (Gloss. in voc.) Suicer, however, makes no reference\n whatever to this term.\n\nFrom the minute narrative of the circumstances of the call, given\nby John in the first chapter of his gospel, it appears, that Andrew,\nexcited by the fame of the great Baptizer, had left his home at\nBethsaida, and gone to Bethabara, (on the same side of the Jordan, but\nfarther south,) where the solemn and ardent appeals of the bold herald\nof inspiration so far equalled the expectation awakened by rumor, that,\nalong with vast multitudes who seem to have made but an indifferent\nprogress in religious knowledge, though brought to the repentance and\nconfession of their sins, he was baptized in the Jordan, and was also\nattached to the person of the great preacher in a peculiar manner, as\nit would seem, aiming at a still more advanced state of indoctrination,\nthan ordinary converts could be expected to attain. While in this\ndiligent personal attendance on his new Master, he was one day standing\nwith him upon the banks of the Jordan, the great scene of the mystic\nsacrament, listening to the incidental instructions which fell from\nthe lips of the holy man, in company with another disciple, his\ncountryman and friend. In the midst of the conversation, perhaps, while\ndiscoursing upon the deep question then in agitation, about the advent\nof the Messiah, suddenly the great preacher exclaimed, \u201cBehold the Lamb\nof God!\u201d The two disciples at once turned their eyes towards the person\nthus solemnly designated as the Messiah, and saw walking by them, a\nstranger, whose demeanor was such as to mark him for the object of the\nBaptizer\u2019s apostrophe. With one accord, the two hearers at once left\nthe teacher, who had now referred them to a higher source of truth\nand purity, and both followed together the footsteps of the wonderful\nstranger, of whose real character they knew nothing, though their\ncuriosity must have been most highly excited, by the solemn mystery of\nthe words in which his greatness was announced. As they hurried after\nhim, the sound of their hasty feet fell on the ear of the retiring\nstranger, who, turning towards his inquiring pursuers, mildly met\ntheir curious glances with the question, \u201cWhom seek ye?\u201d\u2015\u2015thus giving\nthem an opportunity to state their wishes for his acquaintance. They\neagerly answered by the question, implying their desire for a permanent\nknowledge of him,\u2015\u2015\u201cRabbi! (Master,) where dwellest thou?\u201d He kindly\nanswered them with a polite invitation to accompany him to his lodgings;\nfor there is no reason to believe that they went with him to his\npermanent home in Capernaum or Nazareth; since Jesus was probably then\nstaying at some place near the scene of the baptism. Being hospitably\nand familiarly entertained by Jesus, as his intimate friends, it being\nthen four o\u2019clock in the afternoon, they remained with him till the\nnext day, enjoying a direct personal intercourse, which gave them the\nbest opportunities for learning his character and his power to impart\nto them the high instructions which they were prepared to expect, by\nthe solemn annunciation of the great Baptizer; and at the same time it\nshows their own earnestness and zeal for acquiring a knowledge of the\nMessiah, as well as his benignant familiarity in thus receiving them\nimmediately into such a domestication with him. After this protracted\ninterview with Jesus, Andrew seems to have attained the most perfect\nconviction that his newly adopted teacher was all that he had been\ndeclared to be; and in the eagerness of a warm fraternal affection, he\nimmediately sought his dear brother Simon, and exultingly announced to\nhim the great results of his yesterday\u2019s introduction to the wonderful\nman;\u2015\u2015\u201cWe have found the Messiah!\u201d Such a declaration, made with the\nconfidence of one who knew by personal experience, at once secured the\nattention of the no less ardent Simon, and he accordingly gave himself\nup to the guidance of the confident Andrew, who led him directly to\nJesus, anxious that his beloved brother should also share in the high\nfavor of the Messiah\u2019s friendship and instruction. This is the most\nremarkable recorded circumstance of Andrew\u2019s life; and on his ready\nadherence to Jesus, and the circumstance that he, first of all the\ndisciples, declared him to be the Messiah, may be founded a just claim\nfor a most honorable distinction of Andrew.\n\n _Bethabara._\u2015\u2015Some of the later critics seem disposed to\n reject this now common reading, and to adopt in its place\n that of _Bethany_, which is supported by such a number of old\n manuscripts and versions, as to offer a strong defense against\n the word at present established. Both the Syriac versions, the\n Arabic, Aethiopic, the Vulgate, and the Saxon, give \u201c_Bethany_;\u201d\n and Origen, from whom the other reading seems to have arisen,\n confesses that the previously established word was _Bethany_,\n which he, with about as much sense of justice and propriety as\n could be expected from even the most judicious of the Fathers,\n rejected for the unauthorized Bethabara, on the simple ground\n that there is such a place on the Jordan, mentioned in Judges\n vii. 24,\u2015\u2015while Bethany is elsewhere in the gospels described as\n close to Jerusalem, on the mount of Olives; the venerable Father\n never apprehending the probability of two different places\n bearing the same name, nor referring to the etymology of Bethany,\n which is \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 (_beth anyah_,) \u201cthe house (or place) of a boat,\u201d\n equivalent to a \u201cferry.\u201d (Origen on John, quoted by Wolf.)\n Chrysostom and Epiphanius are also quoted by Lampe, as defending\n this perversion on similar grounds. Heracleon, Nonnus and Beza\n are referred to in defense of _Bethany_; and among moderns, Mill,\n Simon and others, are quoted by Wolf on the same side. Campbell\n and Bloomfield also defend this view. Scultetus, Grotius and\n Casaubon, argue in favor of Bethabara. Lightfoot makes a long\n argument to prove that Bethany, the true reading, means not\n any village or particular spot of that name, but the province or\n tract, called \u2666Batanea, lying beyond the Jordan, in the northern\n part of its course,\u2015\u2015a conjecture hardly supported by the\n structure of the word, nor by the opinion of any other writer.\n This Bethany _beyond the Jordan_, seems to have been thus\n particularized as to position, in order to distinguish it from\n the place of the same name near Jerusalem. Its exact situation\n cannot now be ascertained; but it was commonly placed about\n fifteen or twenty miles south of Lake Gennesaret.\n\n \u2666 \u201cBatanaea\u201d replaced with \u201cBatanea\u201d\n\n _Lamb of God._\u2015\u2015This expression has been the subject of much\n discussion, and has been amply illustrated by the labors\n of learned commentators. Whether John the Baptizer expected\n Jesus to atone for the sins of the world, by death, has been\n a question ably argued by Kuinoel and Gabler _against_, and\n by Lampe, Wolf, and Bloomfield, _for_ the idea of an implied\n sacrifice and expiation. The latter writer in particular,\n is very full and candid: Wolf also gives a great number of\n references, and to these authors the critical must resort for\n the minutiae of a discussion, too heavy and protracted for this\n work. (See the above authors on John i. 29.)\n\nAfter narrating the particulars of his call, in which he was merely\na companion of his brother, and after specifying the circumstance of\nhis being present at the prophecy of the temple\u2019s destruction, the\nNew Testament history takes not the slightest notice of any action of\nAndrew\u2019s life; nor is he even mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles,\nexcept in the mere list of their names in the first chapter. For\nanything further, reference must be made to that most dubious of\nhistorical materials, the tradition of the Fathers; and the most\nreasonable opinion that can be pronounced upon all the rest of Andrew\u2019s\nlife is, that _nothing whatever is known about it_. He probably\nremained all his life in Palestine, quietly and humbly devoting himself\nto the trials and labors of the apostolic life, without reference\nto the production of any great admiration of his actions, or to the\nperpetuation of his fame. Being older than Peter, he probably died\nbefore him, and perhaps before the last great war of the Jews with the\nRomans, ending in the destruction of Jerusalem, which compelled the\nChristians to leave the city. He may, however, have gone eastward with\nhis brother, and passed the last years of his life in Babylon.\n\n\n HIS FABULOUS HISTORY.\n\nBut such a simple conclusion to this apostle\u2019s life would by no means\nanswer the purposes of the ancient writers on these matters; and\naccordingly the inquirer into apostolic history is presented with a\nlong, long talk of Andrew\u2019s journey into Europe, through Greece and\nThrace, where he is said to have founded many churches, undergone\nmany labors, and performed many miracles,\u2015\u2015and at last to have been\ncrucified in a city of Greece. The brief, but decided condemnation of\nall this imposition, however, is found in its absolute destitution of\nproof, or of truly ancient authority. Not the most antique particular\nof this tedious falsehood can be traced back to a date within two\nhundred years of the time of the pretended journey; and the whole story\nfrom beginning to end, was undoubtedly made up to answer the demands of\na credulous age, when, after the triumphant diffusion of Christianity\nthroughout the Roman empire, curiosity began to be greatly awakened\nabout the founders of the faith,\u2015\u2015a curiosity too great to be satisfied\nwith the meager statements of the records of truth. Moreover, every\nprovince of Christendom, following the example of the metropolis, soon\nbegan to claim some one of the apostolic band, as having first preached\nthe gospel in its territories; and to substantiate these claims, it\nwas necessary to produce a record corresponding to the legend which at\nfirst floated about only in the mouths of the inventors and propagators.\nAccordingly, apocryphal gospels and histories were manufactured in vast\nnumbers, to meet this new demand, detailing long series of apostolic\nlabors and journeys, and commemorating martyrdoms in every civilized\ncountry under heaven, from Britain to India. Among these, the Grecian\nprovinces must needs come in for their share of apostolic honor; and\nAndrew was therefore given up to them, as a founder and martyr. The\nnumerous particulars of fictitious miracles and persecutions might be\namusing, but cannot deserve a place in this work, to the exclusion of\nserious matters of fact. A cursory view of the fables, however, may be\nallowed, even by these contracted limits.\n\nThe earliest story about Andrew is, that he was sent to Scythia\nfirst, when the apostles divided the world into provinces of duty.\nHis route is said to have been through Greece, Epirus, and then\ndirectly northward into Scythia. Another later writer however, makes\na different track for him, leading from Palestine into Asia Minor,\nthrough Cappadocia, Galatia and Bithynia;\u2015\u2015thence north through the\ncountry of the cannibals and to the wild wastes of Scythia;\u2015\u2015thence\nsouth along the northern, western and southern shores of the Black sea,\nto Byzantium, (now Constantinople,) and after some time, through Thrace,\nsouthwestwards into Macedonia, Thessaly, and Achaia, in which last, his\nlife and labors are said to have ended. By the same author, he is also\nin another passage said to have been driven from Byzantium by threats\nof the persecution, and therefore to have crossed over the Black sea to\ncity of Argyropolis, on its southern coast, where he preached two years,\nand constituted Stachys bishop of a church which he there founded; and\nthence to Sinope in Paphlagonia. It is said by others that, on his\ngreat northern journey, he went not only into Scythia but into Sogdiana,\n(now Tartary,) and even to the Sacae, (near the borders of Thibet,) and\nto India.\n\n The earliest mention made of the apostle Andrew, by any writer\n whatever, after the evangelists, is by Origen, (about A.\u00a0D. 230\n or 240,) who speaks of him as having been sent to the Scythians.\n (Commentary on Genesis, 1. 3.) The passage is preserved only\n in the Latin translation of his writings, the original Greek of\n that part having been lost. The date of the original however,\n is too late to deserve any credit. A story making its first\n appearance nearly two centuries after the occurrence which it\n commemorates, with no reference to authorities, is but poor\n evidence. Eusebius (Church History, III. 1.) mentions barely\n the same circumstance as Origen, (A.\u00a0D. 315.) Gregory Nazianzen\n (orat. in Ar.) is the first who says that Andrew went to Greece.\n (A.\u00a0D. 370.) Chrysostom also (Homily on xii. apostles) mentions\n this. (A.\u00a0D. 398.) Jerom (Script. Ecc.) quotes Sophronius, as\n saying that Andrew went also to the Sogdians and Sacans. (A.\u00a0D.\n 397.)\n\n Augustin (the faith against Manichaeanism) is the first who\n brings in very much from tradition, respecting Andrew; and his\n stories are so numerous and entertaining in their particulars,\n as to show that before his time, fiction had been most busily\n at work with the apostles;\u2015\u2015but the details are all of such a\n character as not to deserve the slightest credit. The era of his\n writings moreover, is so late, (A.\u00a0D. 395,) that he along with\n his contemporaries, Jerom and Chrysostom, may be condemned as\n receivers of late traditions, and corrupters of the purity of\n historical as well as sacred truth.\n\nBut the later writers go beyond these unsatisfactory generalities,\nand enter into the most entertaining particulars, making out very\ninteresting and romantic stories. The monkish apostolical novelists,\nof the fifth century and later, have given a great number of stories\nabout Andrew, inconsistent with the earlier accounts, with each other,\nand with common sense. Indeed there is no great reason to think that\nthey were meant to be believed, but written very honestly as fictitious\ncompositions, to gratify the taste of the antique novel-readers. There\nis therefore, really, no more obligation resting on the biographer of\nthe apostles to copy these fables, than on the historian of Scotland\nto transcribe the details of the romances of Scott, Porter and others,\nthough a mere allusion to them might occasionally be proper. The most\nserious and the least absurd of these fictions, is one which narrates\nthat, after having received the grace of the Holy Spirit by the gift\nof fiery tongues, he was sent to the Gentiles with an allotted field of\nduty. This was to go through Asia Minor, more especially the northern\nparts, Cappadocia, Galatia and Bithynia. Having traversed these and\nother countries as above stated, he settled in Achaia. Where, as in\nthe other provinces, during a stay of many years, he preached divine\ndiscourses, and glorified the name of Christ by wonderful signs and\nprodigies. At length he was seized by Aegeas, the Roman proconsul of\nthat province, and by him crucified, on the charge of having converted\nto Christianity, Maximilla, the wife, and Stratocles, the brother of\nthe proconsul, so that they had learned to abhor that ruler\u2019s\nwickedness.\n\n This story is from Nicephorus Callistus, a monk of the early\n part of the fourteenth century. (See Lardner, Credibility of\n Gospel History chapter 165.) He wrote an ecclesiastical history\n of the period from the birth of Christ to the year 610, in which\n he has given a vast number of utterly fabulous stories, adopting\n all the fictions of earlier historians, and adding, as it would\n seem, some new ones. His ignorance and folly are so great,\n however, that he is not considered as any authority, even by\n the Papist writers; for on this very story of Andrew, even\n the credulous Baronius says, \u201cSed fide nutant haec, ob apertum\n mendacium de Zeuzippo tyranno,\u201d &c. \u201cThese things are unworthy\n of credit, on account of the manifest lie about king Zeuzippus,\n because there was no king in Thrace at that time, the province\n being quietly ruled by a Roman president.\u201d (Baronius, Annals, 44.\n \u00a7 31.) The story itself is in Nicephorus, Church History, II. 39.\n\nOne of the longest of these novels contains a series of incidents,\nreally drawn out with considerable interest, narrating mainly his\nsupposed adventures in Achaia, without many of the particulars of his\njourney thither. It begins with simply announcing that, at the time\nof the general dispersion of the apostles on their missionary tours,\nAndrew began to preach in Achaia. but was soon after interrupted for\na time by an angelic call, to go a great distance, to a city called\nMyrmidon, to help the apostle Matthew out of a scrape, that he had\nfallen into of himself, but could not get out of without help. Where\nin the world this place was, nobody can tell; for there is a great\nclashing among the saintly authorities, whether it was in Scythia or\nEthiopia; and as the place is never mentioned by any body else, they\nhave the dispute all in their own hands. But since the story says\nhe went all the way by ship, from Achaia to the city, it would seem\nmost likely to have been in that part of Scythia which touched the\nnortheastern border of the Black sea. Having finished this business,\nas will be elsewhere told, he went back towards Achaia, and resumed\nthe good works, but just begun, soon gathering around him a throng of\ndisciples. Walking out with them one day, he met a blind man, who made\nthe singular request that the apostle would _not_ restore him to sight,\nthough confessedly able, but simply give him some money, victuals and\nclothes. The acute Andrew straightway smelt a devil, (and a mighty\nsilly one too,) in this queer speech, and declaring that these were not\nthe words of the blind man himself, but of a devil who had possessed\nhim, ordered the foolish demon to come out, and restored the man to\nsight, supplying him also with clothes from the backs of his disciples.\nThe fame of this and other miracles spread far and fast, and the\nconsequence was that the apostle had as many calls as a rising quack\ndoctor. Every body that was in any sort of trouble or difficulty, came\nto him as a thing of course, to get a miracle done to suit the case\nexactly. A rich man who had lost a favorite slave, by death, had him\nraised to life by Andrew. A young lad whose mother had wrongfully\naccused him, before the proconsul, also called for help or advice;\n\u2015\u2015Andrew went into court and raised a terrible earthquake, with thunder\nand lightning, whereby all present were knocked down to the ground,\nand the wicked woman killed. The proconsul, as soon as he could get up,\nbecame converted, with all who had shared in the tumble. The apostle\nstill increasing in business, soon had a call to Sinope, to see a whole\nfamily who were in a very bad way,\u2015\u2015the old gentleman, Cratinus by name,\nbeing quite sick with a fever,\u2015\u2015his wife afflicted with a dreadful\ndropsy, and his son possessed with a devil. These were all healed, with\nsundry charges about their secret sins, and some particulars as to the\nmode of cure, not worth translating, since it reads better in Latin\nthan in English. He then went on through Asia to the city of Nicaea,\nin Bithynia, where his arrival was hailed with a universal shout of joy\nfrom the whole community, who were terribly pestered with seven naughty\ndevils, that had taken up their quarters among the tombs close to the\nhighway, where they sat with a large supply of grave-stones constantly\non hand, for no earthly purpose but to pelt decent people as they went\nby, and doing it with such a vengeance that they had killed several\noutright,\u2015\u2015besides broken bones not counted. Andrew, after exacting\nfrom the inhabitants a promise to become Christians if he cleared out\nthis nuisance, brought out the seven devils, in spite of themselves,\nin the shape of dogs, before all the city; and after he had made them\na speech, (given in very bad Latin, in the story, as it stands,) the\nwhole seven gave a general yelp and ran off in the wilderness according\nto Andrew\u2019s direction. The inhabitants of course, were all baptized;\nand Callistus was left bishop over them. Going on from Nicaea, Andrew\ncame next to Nicomedia, the capital, where he met a funeral procession\ncoming out of the city. Andrew immediately raised the dead person,\u2015\u2015the\nscene being evidently copied from that of the widow\u2019s son raised\nat Nain, considerably enlarged with new particulars. Going out from\nNicomedia, the apostle embarked on the Black sea, sailing to Byzantium.\nOn the passage there was occasion for a new miracle,\u2015\u2015a great storm\narising, which was immediately stilled by the apostle. Going on from\nByzantium through Thrace, he came among a horde of savages, who made\na rush at him, with drawn swords. But Andrew _making the sign of the\ncross_ at them, they all dropped their swords and fell flat. He then\npassed over them, and went on through Thrace into Macedonia.\n\n This story is _literally_ translated from one of the\n \u201capostolical stories\u201d of a monk of the middle ages, who passed\n them off as true histories, written by Abdias, said to have been\n one of the seventy disciples sent out by Jesus, (Luke x. 1,)\n and to have been afterwards ordained bishop of Babylon, (by\n Simon Zelotes and Jude.) It is an imposition so palpable however,\n in its absurdities, that it has always been condemned by the\n best authorities, both Protestant and Papist: as Melancthon,\n Bellarmin, Scultetus, Rivetus, the \u2666Magdeburg centuriators,\n Baronius, Chemnitius, Tillemont, Vossius, and Bayle, whose\n opinions and censures are most of them fully given in the\n preface to the work itself, by Johann Albert Fabricius, (Codex\n apocrypha of the New Testament, part 2.)\n\n \u2666 \u201cMagdeburgh\u201d replaced with \u201cMagdeburg\u201d\n\n Besides all these series of fictions on Andrew\u2019s life, there are\n others, quoted as having been written in the same department.\n \u201cThe Passion of St. Andrew,\u201d a quite late apocryphal story,\n professing to have been written by the elders and deacons of the\n churches of Achaia, was long extensively received by the Papists,\n as an authentic and valuable book, and is quoted by the eloquent\n and venerable Bernardus, with the most profound respect. It\n abounds in long, tedious speeches, as well as painfully absurd\n incidents. The \u201cMenaei,\u201d or Greek calendar of the saints, is\n also copious on this apostle, but is too modern to deserve any\n credit whatever. All the ancient fables and traditions were at\n last collected into a huge volume, by a Frenchman named Andrew\n de Saussay, who, in 1656, published at Paris, (in Latin,) a\n book, entitled \u201cAndrew, brother of Simon Peter, or, Twelve\n Books on the Glory of Saint Andrew, the Apostle.\u201d This book was\n afterwards abridged, or largely borrowed from, by John Florian\n Hammerschmid, in a treatise, (in Latin,) published at Prague, in\n 1699,\u2015\u2015entitled \u201cThe Apostolic Cross-bearer, or, St. Andrew, the\n Apostle, described and set forth, in his life, death, martyrdom,\n miracles and discourses.\u201d\u2015\u2015Baillet\u2019s Lives of the Saints, (in\n French,) also contains a full account of the most remarkable\n details of these fables. (Baillet, Vies de Saints, Vol. I.\n February 9th.)\n\nBy following these droll stories through all their details, the life\nof Andrew might easily be made longer than that of Peter; but the\ncharacter of this work would be much degraded from its true historical\ndignity by such contents. The monkish novels and romances would\nundoubtedly make a very amusing, and in some senses, an instructive\nbook; and a volume as large as this might be easily filled with these\ntales. But this extract will serve very well as a specimen of their\ngeneral character. A single passage farther, may however be presented,\ngiving a somewhat interesting fictitious account of his crucifixion.\n\nAfter innumerable works of wonder, Andrew had come at last to Patras,\na city in the northwestern part of Achaia, still known by that name,\nstanding on the gulf of Lepanto, famous in modern Greek history as\nthe scene of a desperate struggle with the Turks, during a long siege,\nin the war of Grecian independence. In this city, as the fable states,\nthen resided the Roman proconsul of the province, whose name is\nvariously given by different story-tellers; by some, Aegeas,\u2015\u2015by\nothers, Aegeates and Aegeatus, and by others, Egetes. The apostle was\nsoon called on to visit his family, by a female servant, who had been\nconverted by the preaching of one of Andrew\u2019s disciples. She, coming\nto Andrew, fell at his feet, clasping them, and besought him in the\nname of the proconsul\u2019s wife, Maximilla, her mistress, then very sick\nwith a fever, to come to her house, that she might hear from him the\ngospel. The apostle went, therefore, and on entering the room found the\nproconsul in such an agony of despair about the sickness of his beloved\nwife, that he had at that moment drawn his sword to kill himself.\nAndrew immediately cried out, \u201cProconsul! do thyself no harm; but put\nup thy sword into its place, for the present. There will be a time for\nyou to exercise it upon us, soon.\u201d The ruler, without perceiving the\npoint of the remark, gave way, in obedience to the word of the apostle.\nHe then, drawing nigh the bed of the invalid, after some discourse,\ntook hold of her hand, when she was immediately covered with a profuse\nsweat, the symptoms being all relieved and the fever broken up. As\nsoon as the proconsul saw the wonderful change, he, in a spirit of\nliberal remuneration, which deserves the gratitude of the whole medical\nprofession, ordered to be paid to the holy man the liberal fee of one\nhundred pieces of silver; but not appreciating this liberality, Andrew\ndecidedly refused to receive any pay at all, not choosing to render\nsuch medical services with the view of any compensation, and would not\nso much as look at it,\u2015\u2015exciting no small astonishment in the proconsul\nby such extraordinary disinterestedness. The apostle then leaving the\npalace, went on through the city, relieving the most miserable beggars\nlying in the dirt, with the same good will which he had shown in the\nfamily of the ruler. Passing on, he came to the water-side, and there\nfinding a poor, wretched, dirty sailor, lying on the ground, covered\nwith sores and vermin, cured him directly, lifted him up, and taking\nhim into the water, close by, gave him a good washing, which at the\nsame time served for both body and soul,\u2015\u2015for the apostle at once\nmaking it answer for a baptism, pronounced him pure in the name of the\nTrinity. Soon after this occurrence, which gained him great fame, he\nwas called to relieve a boy belonging to Stratocles, the brother of\nthe proconsul, the apostle having been recommended to him as a curer of\ndiseases, by Maximilla and her maid. The devil having been, of course,\ncast out of the boy, Stratocles believed, as did his brother\u2019s wife,\nwho was so desirous of hearing the apostle preach, that at last she\ntook advantage of her husband\u2019s absence in Macedonia, and had regular\nreligious meetings in her husband\u2019s great hall of state, where he\nheld his courts,\u2015\u2015quite an extraordinary liberty for any man\u2019s wife\nto take with his affairs, behind his back. It happened at last, that\nthe unsuspecting gentleman suddenly returned, when his wife had not\nexpected him, and would have immediately burst into the room, then\nthronged with a great number of all sorts of people; but Andrew,\nforeseeing what was about to happen, managed, by a queer kind of\nmiracle, to make it convenient for him to go somewhere else for a\nwhile, until every one of the audience having been made invisible with\n_the sign of the cross_, by Andrew, sneaked off unseen; so that the\ndeceived proconsul, when he came in, never suspected what tricks had\nbeen played on him. Maximilla, being now prevented by her husband\u2019s\nreturn from having any more meetings in his house, afterwards resorted\nto the apostle\u2019s lodgings, where the Christians constantly met to hear\nhim,\u2015\u2015and became at last so assiduous in her attendance by day and by\nnight, that her husband began to grow uneasy about her unseasonable\nabsences, because he had no sort of pleasure with her since she had\nbeen so given up to her mysterious occupations, away from him almost\nconstantly. He accordingly began to investigate the difficulty, and\nfinding that it was the work of Andrew, who had been teaching the\nlady a new religion, which wholly absorbed her in devotion, to the\nexclusion of all enjoyment with her family, sent for him, and commanded\nhim to take his choice between renouncing his troublesome faith, and\ncrucifixion. But the apostle indignantly and intrepidly declared his\nreadiness to maintain the doctrine of Jesus Christ, through all peril,\nand even to death, and then went on to give the sum and substance\nof his creed. The unyielding proconsul however, put him in prison\nimmediately, where Andrew occupied himself all night in exhorting his\ndisciples to stand fast in the faith. Being brought the next day before\nthe proconsul\u2019s tribunal, he renewed his refusal to sacrifice to idols,\nand was therefore dragged away to the cross, after receiving twenty-one\nlashes. The proconsul, enraged at his pertinacity, ordered him to be\nbound to the cross, instead of being nailed in the usual way;\u2015\u2015(a very\nagreeable exchange, it would seem, for any one would rather have his\nhands and feet tied with a cord to a cross, than be nailed to it;\nand it is hard to see how this could operate to increase his torture,\notherwise than by keeping him there till he starved to death.) On\ncoming in sight of the cross, he burst out into an eloquent strain of\njoy and exultation, while yet at some distance,\u2015\u2015exclaiming as they\nbore him along, \u201cHail! O cross! consecrated by the body of Christ, and\nadorned with the pearls of his precious limbs! I come to thee confident\nand rejoicing, and do thou receive, with exultation, the disciple of\nhim who once hung on thee, since I have long been thy lover and have\nlonged to embrace thee. Hail! O cross! that now art satisfied, though\nlong wearied with waiting for me. O good cross! that hast acquired\ngrace and beauty from the limbs of the Lord! long-desired and dearly\nloved! sought without ceasing, and long foreseen with wishful mind!\ntake me from men and give me back to my Master, that by thee He may\nreceive me, who by thee has redeemed me.\u201d After this personifying\naddress to the inanimate wood, he gave himself up to the executioners,\nwho stripped him, and bound his hands and feet as had been directed,\nthus suspending him on the cross. Around the place of execution stood\na vast throng of sympathizing beholders, numbering not less than twenty\nthousand persons, to whom the apostle, unmoved by the horrors which\nso distressed them, now coolly addressed them in the words of life,\nthough himself on the verge of death. For two days and nights, in this\nsituation, in fasting and agony, he yet continued without a moment\u2019s\ncessation to exhort the multitude who were constantly thronging to\nthe strange sight; till at last, on the third day, the whole city,\nmoved beyond all control, by the miracle of energy and endurance,\nrushed in one mass to the proconsul, and demanded the liberation of\nthe God-sustained apostle. The ferocious tyrant, overawed by the solemn\npower of the demand, coming from such an excited multitude, at last\nyielded; and to the great joy of the people, went out to the cross to\nrelease the holy sufferer, at the sight of whose enraptured triumph\nover pain and terror, the hard-hearted tyrant himself melted, and in\nsorrow and penitence he drew near the cross to exercise his new-born\nmercy. But Andrew, already on the eve of a martyr\u2019s triumph, would\nnot bear to be snatched back from such glories so nearly attained; and\nin earnest remonstrance cried out, praying, \u201cO Lord Jesus Christ! do\nnot suffer thy servant, who for thy name\u2019s sake hangs on the cross, to\nbe thus freed,\u2015\u2015nor let me, O merciful God! when now clinging to thy\nmysteries, be given up again to human conversations. But take thou me,\nmy Master! whom I have loved,\u2015\u2015whom I have known,\u2015\u2015whom I hold,\u2015\u2015whom\nI long to see,\u2015\u2015in whom I am what I am. Let me die then, O Jesus,\ngood and merciful.\u201d And having said these things for so long a\ntime,\u2015\u2015praising God and rejoicing, he breathed out his soul, amid the\ntears and groans of all the beholders.\n\n Here ends the tale of the fictitious Abdias Babylonius, of\n which this concluding abstract is another _literal_ specimen,\n presenting its most effective part in the pathetic line, as the\n former does of its ludicrous portions. The story of Andrew is\n altogether the longest and best constructed, as well as the most\n interesting in the character of its incidents, of all contained\n in the book of the Pseudo-Abdias; and I have therefore been more\n liberal in extracts from this, because it would leave little\n occasion for any similar specimens under the lives of the rest\n of the apostles.\n\n All this long story may, very possibly, have grown up from a\n beginning which was true; that is, there may have been another\n Andrew, who, in a later age of the early times of Christianity,\n may have gone over those regions as a missionary, and met with\n somewhat similar adventures; and who was afterwards confounded\n with the apostle Andrew. The Scotch, for some reason or other,\n formerly adopted Andrew as their national saint, and represent\n him on a cross of a peculiar shape, resembling the letter X,\n known in heraldry by the name of a _saltier_, and borne on the\n badges of the knights of the Scottish order of the Thistle, to\n this day. This idea of his cross, however, has originated since\n the beginning of the twelfth century, as I shall show by a\n passage from Bernardus.\n\n The truly holy Bernard, (Abbot of Clairvaux, in France, A.\u00a0D.\n 1112,) better worthy of the title of _Saint_ than ninety-nine\n hundredths of all the canonized who lived before him, even\n from apostolic days,\u2015\u2015has, among his splendid sermons, three\n most eloquent discourses, preached in his abbey church, on St.\n Andrew\u2019s day, in which he alludes to the actions of this apostle,\n as recorded in the \u201cPassion of St. Andrew,\u201d\u2015\u2015a book which he\n seems to quote as worthy of credit. In Latin of Ciceronian\n purity, he has given some noble specimens of a pulpit eloquence,\n rarely equalled in any modern language, and such as never\n blesses the ears of the hearers of these days. He begins\n his first discourse on this subject with saying, that in\n \u201ccelebrating the glorious triumphs of the blessed Andrew,\n they had that day been delighted with the words of grace, that\n proceeded out of his mouth;\u201d\u2015\u2015(doubtless in hearing the story of\n the crucifixion read from the fictitious book of the Passion of\n St. Andrew, which all supposed to be authentic.) \u201cFor there was\n no room for sorrow, where he himself was so intensely rejoiced.\n No one of us mourned for him in his sufferings, for no one dared\n to weep over him, while he was thus exulting. So that he might\n most appropriately say to us, what the cross-bearing Redeemer\n said to those who followed him with mourning,\u2015\u2015\u2018Weep not for me;\n but weep for yourselves.\u2019 And when the blessed Andrew himself\n was led to the cross, and the people, grieving for the unjust\n condemnation of the holy and just man, would have prevented his\n execution,\u2015\u2015he, with the most urgent prayer, forbade them from\n depriving him of his crown of suffering. For \u2018he desired indeed\n to be released, and to be with Christ,\u2019\u2015\u2015but on the cross;\n he desired to enter the kingdom,\u2015\u2015but by the door. Even as he\n said to that loved form, \u2018that by thee, he may receive me, who\n by thee has redeemed me.\u2019 Therefore if we love him, we shall\n rejoice with him; not only because he was crowned, but because\n he was crucified.\u201d (A bad, and unscriptural doctrine! for no\n apostle ever taught, or was taught, that it was worth while for\n any man to be crucified, when he could well help it.)\n\n In his second sermon on the same subject, the animated Bernard\n remarks furthermore, in comment on the behavior of Andrew, when\n coming in sight of his cross,\u2015\u2015\u201cYou have certainly heard how the\n blessed Andrew was stayed on the Lord, when he came to the place\n where the cross was made ready for him,\u2015\u2015and how, by the spirit\n which he had received along with the other apostles, in the\n _fiery tongues_, he spoke truly fiery words. And so, seeing from\n afar the cross prepared, he did not turn pale, though mortal\n weakness might seem to demand it; his blood did not freeze,\u2015\u2015his\n hair did not rise,\u2015\u2015his voice did not cleave to his throat, (non\n stetere comae, aut vox faucibus haesit.) Out of the abundance of\n his heart, his mouth did speak; and the deep love which glowed\n in his heart, sent forth the words like burning sparks.\u201d He\n then quotes the speech of Andrew to the cross, as above given,\n and proceeds: \u201cI beseech you, brethren, say, is this a man who\n speaks thus? Is it not an angel, or some new creature? No: it\n is merely a \u2018man of like passions with ourselves.\u2019 For the very\n agony itself, in whose approach he thus rejoiced, proves him\n to have been \u2018a man of passion.\u2019 Whence, then, in man, this new\n exultation, and joy before unheard of? Whence, in man, a mind so\n spiritual,\u2015\u2015a love so fervent,\u2015\u2015a courage so strong? Far would\n it be from the apostle himself, to wish, that we should give the\n glory of such grace to him. It is the \u2018perfect gift, coming down\n from the Father of Lights,\u2019\u2015\u2015from him, \u2018who alone does wondrous\n things.\u2019 It was, dearly beloved, plainly, \u2018the spirit which\n helpeth our infirmities,\u2019 by which was shed abroad in his heart,\n a love, strong as death,\u2015\u2015yea, and stronger than death. Of which,\n O may we too be found partakers!\u201d\n\n The preacher then goes on with the practical application of the\n view of these sufferings, and the spirit that sustained them,\n to the circumstances of his hearers. After some discourse to\n this effect, he exhorts them to seek this spirit. \u201cSeek it then,\n dearest! seek it without ceasing,\u2015\u2015seek it without doubting;\u2015\u2015in\n all your works invoke the aid of this spirit. For we also,\n my brethren, with the blessed Andrew, must needs take up our\n cross,\u2015\u2015yea, with that Savior-Lord whom he followed. For, in\n this he rejoiced,\u2015\u2015in this he exulted;\u2015\u2015because not only for him,\n but with him, he would seem to die, and be planted, so \u2018that\n suffering with him, he might also reign with him.\u2019 With whom,\n that we may also be crucified, let us hear more attentively\n with the ears of our hearts, the voice of him who says, \u2018He who\n will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross,\n and follow me.\u2019 As if he said, \u2018Let him who desires me, despise\n himself: let him who would do my will, learn to break his own.\u2019\u201d\n\n Bernard then draws a minute parallel, more curious than\n admirable, between the cross and the trials of life,\u2015\u2015likening\n the four difficulties in the way of holiness, to the four ends\n of the cross; bodily fear being the foot-piece; open assaults\n and temptations, the right arm-piece; secret sins and trials,\n the left hand-piece; and spiritual pride, the head-piece. Or, as\n he briefly recapitulates, the four virtues attached to the four\n horns of the cross, are these:\u2015\u2015continence, patience, prudence,\n and humility. A truly forcible figure, and one not without its\n effect, doubtless, on the hearers. This arrangement of the cross,\n moreover, seems to prove, that in the time of Bernard, the idle\n story about Andrew\u2019s cross being shaped like the letter X, was\n entirely unknown; for it is evident that the whole point of\n the allusion here consists in the hearers supposing that Andrew\n was crucified on a cross of the common shape,\u2015\u2015upright, with a\n transverse bar and head-piece.\n\n In conclusion of all this fabulous detail, may be appropriately\n quoted the closing passage of the second discourse of Bernard,\n the spirit of which, though coming from a Papist, is not\n discordant with the noblest essential principles of truly\n catholic Christianity, seldom indeed, found so pure in the\n Romish church, as in this \u201cLast of the Fathers,\u201d as he has been\n justly styled. This, with all the passages above quoted, may be\n found by those who can enjoy the original, in his works. (Divi\n Bernardi Opera Omnia Joh. Picard. Antwerp, 1609, folio; columns\n 322\u2012333.)\n\n So accordant are these words with the spirit which it becomes\n this work to inculcate, that I may well adopt them into the text,\n glad to hang a moral to the end of so much falsehood, though\n drawn from such a theme, that it seems like \u201cgathering grapes of\n thorns, or figs of thistles.\u201d\n\n Bernard has in this part of his discourse been completing\n all the details of his parallel between the cross and the\n Christian\u2019s life, and in this conclusion, thus crowns the simile,\n by exhorting his saintly hearers to cling, each to his own cross,\n in spite of all temptation to renounce it; that is, to persevere\n in daily crucifying their sins, by a pure deportment through\n life.\n\nHappy the soul that glories and triumphs on this cross, if it only\npersevere, and do not let itself be cast down in its trials. Let every\none then, who is on this cross, like the blessed Andrew, pray his Lord\nand Master, not to let him be taken down from it. For what is there\nwhich the malign adversary will not dare? what will he not impiously\npresume to try? For what he thought to do to the disciple by the hands\nof Aegeas, the same he once thought to do to the Master by the scornful\ntongues of the Jews. In each instance alike, however, driven by too\nlate experience of his folly, he departed, vanquished and confounded.\nO may he in like manner depart from us, conquered by Him who triumphed\nover him by Himself, and by His disciple. May He cause, that we also\nmay attain the same happy end, on the crosses which we have borne, each\none in his own peculiar trials, for the glory of His name, \u201cwho is God\nover all, blessed forever.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n JAMES BOANERGES;\n THE SON OF ZEBEDEE.\n\n\n HIS RANK AND CHARACTER.\n\nWHATEVER may have been the peculiar excellences of this apostle\u2019s\ncharacter, as recognized by the searching eye of Him who knew the\nhearts of all men, the early close of his high career has prevented\nthe full development of energies, that might, in the course of a\nlonger life, have been made as fruitful in works of wonder and praise,\nas those of the other members of the elect TRIO, his friend and his\nyounger brother; and his later years, thus prolonged, might have left\nsimilar recorded testimonies of his apostolic zeal. Much too, that\ntruly concerns his brief life, is swallowed up in the long narrative\nof the eminent chief of the twelve, whose superiority was on all\noccasions so distinctly marked by Jesus, that he never imparted to\nthis apostle any exalted favor in which Peter did not also share,\nand in the record of which his name is not mentioned first. In the\nfirst call,\u2015\u2015in the raising of the daughter of Jairus to life,\u2015\u2015at the\ntransfiguration,\u2015\u2015and on the apostolic roll,\u2015\u2015James is uniformly placed\nafter Peter; and such too, was the superior activity and talkative\ndisposition of Peter, that whenever and wherever there was anything\nto be said, he was always the first to say it,\u2015\u2015cutting off the sons\nof Zebedee from the opportunity, if they had the disposition, to make\nthemselves more prominent. Yet the sons of Zebedee are not entirely\nunnoticed in the apostolic history, and even the early-martyred James\nmay be said to have a character quite decidedly marked, in those\nfew passages in the sacred record, where facts concerning him are\ncommemorated. In the apostolic list given by Mark, it is moreover\nmentioned, that he with his brother had received a name from Jesus\nChrist, which being given to them by him, doubtless with a decided\nreference to their characters, serves as a valuable means of\nascertaining their leading traits. The name of \u201cBOANERGES,\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201csons\nof thunder,\u201d seems to imply a degree of decided boldness, and a fiery\nenergy, not exactly accordant with the usual opinions of the characters\nof the sons of Zebedee; but it is an expression in the most perfect\nharmony with the few details of the conduct of both, which are given\nin the New Testament.\n\n BOANERGES.\u2015\u2015This word is one, whose composition and derivation,\n (as is the case with many other New Testament proper names,)\n have caused great discussion and difference of opinion among\n the learned. It occurs only in Mark iii. 17, where it is\n incidentally mentioned in the list of the apostles, as a new\n name given to the sons of Zebedee by Jesus. Those who are\n curious, can find all the discussion in any critical commentator\n on the passage. Poole\u2019s Synopsis, in one heavy folio column\n and half of another, gives a complete view of all the facts and\n speculations concerning this matter, up to his time; the amount\n of all which, seems to be, that, as the word now stands, it\n very nearly sets all etymologies at defiance,\u2015\u2015whether Hebrew,\n Syriac, Chaldee or Arabic,\u2015\u2015since it is impossible to say how\n the word should be resolved into two parts, one of which should\n mean \u201csons,\u201d and the other \u201cthunder;\u201d so that it is well for\n us we have Mark\u2019s explanation of the name, since without it,\n the critics would probably have never found either \u201cson\u201d or\n \u201cthunder\u201d in the word. As to the _reason_ of the name\u2019s being\n appropriated to James and John, conjectures equally numerous\n and various may be found in the same learned work; but all\n equally unsatisfactory. Lampe also is very full on this point.\n (Prolegomena to a Johannine Theology cap. I. lib. ii. \u00a7\u00a7 9\u201215.\n\n\n HIS FAMILY AND CALL.\n\nOf the first introduction of this apostle to Jesus, it may be\nreasonably conjectured, that he formed an acquaintance with him at\nthe same time with his brother John and the sons of Jonah, as already\ncommemorated in the former lives, from the brief record in the first\nchapter of John\u2019s gospel. After this, he and his brother, as well\nas Peter and Andrew, returned quietly to their honest business of\nfishing on the lake of Gennesaret, on whose shore, no doubt, was their\nhome,\u2015\u2015perhaps too, in Bethsaida or Capernaum, as their intimacy and\nfellowship with the sons of Jonah would seem to imply a vicinity of\nresidence; though their common occupation might bring them frequently\ntogether in circumstances where friendly assistance was mutually needed;\nand the idea of their residence in some other of the numerous villages\nalong the northern end of the lake, on either side, is not inconsistent\nwith any circumstance specified in their history. In their occupation\nof fishing, they were accompanied by their father Zebedee, who it\nseems, was not so far advanced in years as to be unable to aid his sons\nin this very laborious and dangerous business; which makes it quite\napparent that James and John being the sons of so active a man, must\nthemselves have but just attained manhood, at the time when they are\nfirst mentioned. Respecting the character of this brisk old gentleman,\nunfortunately very few data indeed are preserved; and the vagueness of\nthe impression made by his name, though so often repeated in connection\nwith his sons, may be best conceived by reference to that deeply\nenigmatical question, with which grave persons of mature age are\nsometimes wont to puzzle the inquisitive minds of young aspirants after\nBiblical knowledge, \u201cWho was the father of Zebedee\u2019s children?\u201d\u2015\u2015a\nquery which certainly implies a great deficiency of important facts, on\nwhich the curious learner could found a definite idea of this somewhat\ndistinguished character. Indeed \u201cthe mother of Zebedee\u2019s children\u201d\nseems to posses in the minds of most readers of the gospels a much\nmore prominent place than \u201cthe father of them;\u201d for the simple occasion\non which she presents herself to notice, is of such a nature as to\nshow that she was the parent from whom the sons inherited at least one\nprominent trait,\u2015\u2015that of high, aspiring ambition, with which, in them\nas well as in her, was joined a most decidedly comfortable degree of\nself-esteem, that would not allow them to suspect that other people\ncould be at all behind them in appreciating those talents, which in\ntheir own opinion, and their fond mother\u2019s, showed that they were\n\u201cborn to command.\u201d Indeed it appears manifest, that there was much\nmore \u201cthunder\u201d in her composition, than in her husband\u2019s, and it is but\nfair to suppose, from the decided way in which she put herself forward\nin the family affairs, on at least one important occasion, without\nany pretension whatever on his part, to any right of interference or\ndecision, that she must have been in the habit of having her own way\nin most matters;\u2015\u2015a peculiar prominence in the domestic administration,\nvery naturally resulting from the \u2666circumstance, that her husband\u2019s\nfrequent long absences from home must have left the responsibilities\nof the family often upon her alone, and he, like a prudent man, on his\nreturn, may have valued domestic quiet above the maintenance of any\nvery decided supremacy. If the supposition may be adopted, however,\nthat Zebedee died soon after the call of his sons, the silence of\nthe sacred record respecting him is easily accounted for, and the\nabove conclusion as to his domestic management, may be considered\nunnecessarily derogatory to his dignity of character.\n\n \u2666 \u201ccirstance\u201d replaced with \u201ccircumstance\u201d\n\nSprung from such parents, and brought up by them on the shores and\nwaters of Gennesaret, James had learned the humble business of his\nfather, and was quietly devoting himself to the labors of a fisherman,\nprobably never dreaming of an occasion that should ever call forth\nhis slumbering energies in \u201cthunder,\u201d or hold up before his awakened\nambition, the honors of a name that should outlast the wreck of\nkingdoms, and of the brightest glories of that age. But on the morning,\nwhen the sons of Jonah received the high call and commission to become\n\u201cfishers of men,\u201d James and his brother too,\u2015\u2015at the solemn command,\n\u201cFollow me,\u201d\u2015\u2015laid down their nets, and left the low labors and\namusements of the fishing, to their father, who toiled on with his\nservants, while his sons went forth through Galilee, following him\nwho had called them to a far higher vocation. No acts whatever are\ncommemorated, as performed by them in this first pilgrimage; and it\nwas not until after their return from the north of Galilee, and the\nbeginning of their journey to Jerusalem, that the occasion arose, when\ntheir striking family trait of ambition was most remarkably brought out.\n\n\n HIS AMBITIOUS CLAIMS.\n\nTheir intellectual and moral qualities being of a comparatively high\norder, had already attracted the very favorable attention of Jesus,\nduring the first journey though Galilee; and they had already, on\nat least two occasions, received most distinguishing marks of his\nregard,\u2015\u2015they alone of all the twelve, sharing in the honor of being\npresent with Peter at the raising of the daughter of Jairus, and being\nstill more highly favored by the view of the solemn events of the night\nof the transfiguration, amid the thunders of Hermon. On that occasion,\nthe terrors of the scene overcame even their aspiring souls; and when\nthe cloud burst over them, they both sunk to the earth, in speechless\ndread, along with Peter, too, who had previously manifested so much\ngreater self-command than they, in daring to address in complaisant\nwords the awful forms before them; while they remained silent with\nterror at a phenomenon for which their views of their Master\u2019s\ncharacter had but poorly prepared them. From all these prostrating\nterrors they had since, however, fully recovered, and were now\ncompletely restored to their former confidence in themselves, and were\nstill rooted in their old views of the Messiah\u2019s earthly glories,\u2015\u2015in\nthis particular, however, only sharing the common error of the whole\ntwelve. In this state of mind, looking upon Jesus Christ only as an\nambitious man, of powerful mind, vast knowledge, divine consecration,\nand miraculous gifts, which fitted him for the subversion of the Roman\ndominion, and the erection of a kingdom of his own,\u2015\u2015their thoughts\nwere all the while running on the division of the spoils and honors,\nwhich would be the reward of the chief followers of the conqueror;\nand in this state of mind, they were prepared to pervert all the\ndeclarations of Jesus, so as to make them harmonize with their own\nhopes and notions. While on this journey southward, to Jerusalem, after\nthey had passed into the eastern sections of Judea, beyond the Jordan,\nJesus was one day, in answer to an inquiry from Peter, promising his\ndisciples a high reward for the sacrifices they had made in his service;\nand assuring them, that in return for houses or lands or relatives or\nfriends, left for his name\u2019s sake, they should all receive a return,\na hundred-fold greater than the loss. Especially were their fancies\nstruck by a vivid picture, which he presented to their minds, of the\nhigh rewards accruing to all the twelve, declaring that after the\ncompletion of the change which he was working, and when he had taken\nhis own imperial throne, they should sit around him on twelve thrones,\njudging the twelve tribes of Israel. Here was a prospect, enough\nto satisfy the most aspiring ambition; but along with the hopes now\nawakened, arose also some queries about the preference of places in\nthis throned triumph, which were not easily settled so as to satisfy\nall at once. In the proposed arrangement, it was perfectly evident,\nthat of the whole circle of thrones, by far the most honorable\nlocations would be those immediately on the right and left of the\nMessiah-king; and their low ambition set them at once contriving how\nto get these pre-eminent places for themselves. Of all the apostolic\nband, none could so fairly claim the right hand throne as Peter;\nalready pronounced the Rock on which the church should be founded,\nand commissioned as the keeper of the keys of the kingdom. But Peter\u2019s\ndevotion to his Master seems to have been of too pure a character, to\nlet him give any thought to the mere rewards of the victory, so long\nas he could feel sure of the full return of that burning affection\nto his Lord, with which his own ardent soul glowed; and he left it\nto others to settle points of precedency and the division of rewards.\nOn no occasion throughout his whole life, is there recorded any\nevidence of the slightest disposition to claim the mere honors of a\npre-eminence, though his superior force of character made the whole\nband instinctively look to him for guidance, on all times of trouble\nand danger, after the ascension. His modest, confiding, disinterested\naffection for his Master, indeed, was the main ground of all the\nhigh distinctions conferred on him so unsparingly by Jesus, who would\nhave been very slow to honor thus, one who was disposed to grow proud\nor overbearing under the possession of these favors. But this very\ncharacter of modesty and uncalculating affection, gave occasion also\nto the other disciples, to push themselves forward for a claim to those\npeculiar exaltations, which his indifference to personal advancement\nseemed to leave unoccupied, for the more ambitious to assume. In this\ninstance, particularly, James and John were so far moved with the\ndesire of the enviable distinction of this primacy, that they made\nit a matter of family consultation, and accordingly brought the case\nbefore their fondly ambitious mother, who instantly determined that\nthe great object should be achieved before any one else could secure\nthe chance for the place; and resolved to use her influence in favor\nof her darling sons. On the first favorable opportunity she therefore\nwent with them to Jesus; and, as it would appear by the combination\nof the accounts of Matthew and Mark, both she and they presented the\nrequest at once and together,\u2015\u2015James and John, however, prefacing the\ndeclaration of their exact purpose by a general petition for unlimited\nfavor,\u2015\u2015\u201cMaster, we would that thou shouldst do for us whatever we\ndesire?\u201d To this modest petition, Jesus replied by asking, \u201cWhat\nwould ye that I should grant?\u201d They, with their mother, falling\ndown at his feet in fawning, selfish worship, then urged their grand\nrequest:\u2015\u2015\u201cGrant,\u201d said the ambitious SALOME, \u201cthat these my two sons\nmay sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, when\nthou reignest in thy glory.\u201d Jesus, fully appreciating the miserable\nstate of selfish ignorance which inspired the hope and the question,\nin order to show them their ignorance, and to make them express their\nminds more fully, assured them that they knew not the meaning of their\nown request, and asked them whether they were able to drink of the\ncup that he should drink of, and be baptized with the baptism that he\nshould be baptized with? With unhesitating self-conceit, they answered,\n\u201cWe are able.\u201d But Jesus replied in such a tone as to check all further\nsolicitation of this kind from them, or from any other of his hearers.\n\u201cYe shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that\nI am baptized with; but to sit on my right hand and on my left, is not\nmine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared by\nmy father.\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cThe cup of sorrow, and suffering, and agony,\u2015\u2015the baptism\nof spirit, fire, and blood,\u2015\u2015of these you shall all drink in a solemn\nand mournful reality, which you are now far from conceiving; but\nthe high places of the kingdom which I come to found, are not to be\ndisposed of to those who think to forestall my personal favor; they\nare for the blessed of my father, who, in the time appointed in his\nown good pleasure, will give it to them, in the end of days.\u201d The\ndisappointed family of Zebedee retired, quite confounded with the\nrejection of their petition, and with the darkly told prophecy that\naccompanied it, dooming them to some mysterious fate of which they\ncould form no idea whatever. The rest of the twelve, hearing of the\nambitious attempt of the sons of Zebedee to secure the supremacy,\nby a secret movement, and by family influence, were moved with great\nindignation against the intriguing aspirants, and expressed their\ndispleasure so decidedly, that Jesus called them around him, to improve\nthis manifestation of folly and passion, to their advantage; and said,\n\u201cYou know that the nations are governed by princes and lords, and that\nnone exercise authority over them but the great ones of the land. Now\nit shall not be so among you; but he who will be great among you, must\nbe your servant; and he who shall be your chief, shall be the slave of\nall the rest. For even the Son of Man himself came not to make others\nhis slaves, but to be himself a slave to many, and even to sacrifice\nhis life in their service.\u201d\n\n _Salome._\u2015\u2015The reason for the supposition that this was really\n the name of the mother of James, consists in the comparison of\n two corresponding passages of Matthew and Mark. In Matthew xxvii.\n 56, it is said that among the women present at the crucifixion,\n were \u201cMary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of Joses, and _the mother\n of Zebedee\u2019s children_.\u201d In the parallel passage, Mark xv. 40,\n they are mentioned as \u201cMary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of\n James and Joses, and _Salome_.\u201d In Mark xvi. 1, _Salome_ is also\n mentioned among those who went to the sepulcher. This is not\n proof positive, but it is reasonable ground for the supposition,\n more especially as Matthew never mentions Salome by name, but\n repeatedly speaks of \u201cthe mother of Zebedee\u2019s children.\u201d\n\n If, as is probable then, Salome and the mother of Zebedee\u2019s\n children were identical, it is also reasonable to suppose, as\n Lampe does, that Zebedee himself may have died soon after the\n time when the call of his sons took place. For Salome could\n hardly have left her husband and family, to go, as she did,\n with Jesus on his journeys, ministering to his necessities,\u2015\u2015but\n if her husband was really dead, she would have but few ties\n to confine her at home, and would therefore very naturally be\n led, by her maternal affection, and anxiety for her sons, to\n accompany them in their wandering life. The supposition of\n Zebedee\u2019s death is also justified by the circumstance, that John\n is spoken of in his own gospel, (John xix. 27,) as possessing\n a house of \u201chis _own_,\u201d which seems to imply the death of his\n father; since so young a man would hardly have acquired property,\n except by inheritance.\n\nThus he laid out before them all the indispensable qualities of the\nman who aspired to the dangerous, painful and unenviable primacy among\nthem,\u2015\u2015humility, meekness and laborious industry. But vain were all the\nearnest teachings of his divine spirit. Schemes and hopes of worldly\neminence and imperial dominion, were too deeply rooted in their hearts,\nto be displaced by this oft-repeated view of the labors and trials\nof his service. Already, on a former occasion too, had he tried to\nimpress them with the true spirit of the apostleship. When on the way\nto Capernaum, at the close of this journey through Galilee, they had\ndisputed among themselves on the question, which of them should be\nthe prime minister of their Messiah-king, when he had established\nhis heavenly reign in all the dominions of his father David. On their\nmeeting with him in the house at Capernaum, he brought up this point\nof difference. Setting a little child before them, (probably one\nof Peter\u2019s children, as it was in his house,) and taking the little\ninnocent into his arms, he assured them that unless they should become\nutterly changed in disposition and in hope, and become like that little\nchild in simplicity of character, they should have no share whatever,\nin the glories of that kingdom, which was to them an object of so many\nambitious aspirations. But neither this charge nor the repetition of\nit, could yet avail to work that necessary change in their feelings.\nStill they all lived on in vain and selfish hope, scheming for personal\naggrandizement, till the progress of events bringing calamity and trial\nupon them, had purified their hearts, and fully fitted them for the\nduties of the great office to which they had so unthinkingly devoted\nthemselves. Then indeed, did the aspiring James receive, in a deeper\nsense than he had ever dreamed of, the reward for which he now longed\nand begged;\u2015\u2015drinking first of the cup of agony, and baptized first in\nblood, he ascended first to the place on the right hand of the Messiah\nin his eternal kingdom. But years of toil and sorrow, seen and felt,\nwere his preparation for this glorious crown.\n\n James has also been made the subject of a long series of fables,\n though the early termination of his apostolic career would\n seem to leave no room whatever, for the insertion of any very\n great journeys and labors upon the authentic history. But the\n Spaniards, in the general rage for claiming some apostle as a\n national patron saint, long ago got up the most absurd fiction,\n that James, the son of Zebedee, during the period intervening\n between Christ\u2019s ascension and his own execution at Jerusalem,\n actually performed a voyage over the whole length of the\n Mediterranean, into Spain, where he remained several years,\n preaching, founding churches, and performing miracles, and\n returned to Jerusalem in time for the occurrence of the\n concluding event, as recorded in the twelfth chapter of Acts.\n This story probably originated in the same manner as that\n suggested to account for the fables about Andrew; that is,\u2015\u2015that\n some preacher of Christianity, of this name, in a later age,\n actually did travel into Spain, there preaching the gospel, and\n founding churches; and that his name being deservedly remembered,\n was, in the progress of the corruptions of the truth, confounded\n with that of the apostle James, son of Zebedee,\u2015\u2015this James\n being selected rather than the son of Alpheus, because the\n latter had already been established by tradition, as the hero of\n a story quite inconsistent with any Spanish journey, and being\n also less dignified by the Savior\u2019s notice. Be that as it may,\n Saint James (Santo Jago) is to this day esteemed the patron\n saint of Spain, and his tomb is shown in Compostella, in that\n kingdom; for they will have it, that, after his decapitation by\n Herod Agrippa, his body was brought all the way over the sea, to\n Spain, and there buried in the scene of his toils and miracles.\n A Spanish order of knighthood, that of St. Jago de Compostella,\n takes its name from this notion.\n\n The old romancer, Abdias Babylonius, who is so rich in stories\n about Andrew, has much to tell about James, and enters at great\n length into the details of his crucifixion; crowning the whole\n with the idle story, that when he was led to death, his accuser,\n Josiah, a Pharisee, suddenly repenting, begged his forgiveness\n and professed his faith in Christ,\u2015\u2015for which he also was\n beheaded along with him, after being baptized by James in some\n water that was handed to him by the executioner, in a calabash.\n (Abdias Babylonius, History of the Apostolical Contest, IV. \u00a7\u00a09.)\n\nFrom the time of this event, there occurs no mention whatever of any\nact of James, until the commemoration of the occasion of his exit; and\neven this tragic circumstance is mentioned so briefly, that nothing can\nbe learned but the mere fact and manner of his death. On the occasion\nfully described above, in the life of Peter, Herod Agrippa I. seized\nthis apostle, and at once put him to death by the executioner\u2019s\nsword. The particular grounds, on which this act of bloody cruelty was\njustified by the tyrant and his friends, are wholly unknown. Probably\nthere was a pretence at a set accusation of some crime, which would\nmake the act appear less atrocious at the time, than appears from\nLuke\u2019s silence as to the grounds of the proceeding. The remarkable\nprominence of James, however, was enough to offer a motive to the\npopularity-seeking Agrippa, whose main object, being to \u201cplease the\nJews,\u201d led him to seize those who had most displeased them, by laboring\nfor the advancement of the Nazarene heresy. And that this actually\nwas his governing principle in selecting his victims, is made further\napparent by the circumstance that Peter, the great chief of the band,\nwas next marked for destruction. Though no particular acts of James\nare recorded as having made him prominently obnoxious to the Jews,\nyet there is every reason to believe, that the exalted ardor and now\nchastened ambition of this Son of Thunder, had made him often the bold\nassaulter of sophistry and hypocrisy,\u2015\u2015a heroism which at once sealed\nhis doom, and crowned him with the glory of THE APOSTOLIC PROTO-MARTYR.\n\n\n\n\n JOHN;\n THE SON OF ZEBEDEE.\n\n\n HIS CHARACTER.\n\nTHIS other son of Zebedee and of \u201cthunder,\u201d whenever any description\nof the apostles has been given, has been by most religious writers\ngenerally characterized as a mild, amiable person, and is thus figured\nin strong contrast with the bold and often bitter spirit of Peter. The\ncircumstance that he is described as \u201cthe disciple whom Jesus loved,\u201d\nhas doubtless done much to cause the almost universal impression which\nhas prevailed, as to the meekness of his disposition. But this is\ncertainly without just reason; for there is no ground for supposing\nthat any peculiar softness was essential to the formation of the\ncharacter for which the Redeemer could feel a strong affection. On the\ncontrary, the almost universal behavior of the apostolic band, seems to\nshow that the natural characteristics which he marked as betraying in\nthem the deeper qualities that would best fit them for his service, and\nqualify them as the sharers of his intimate instruction and affection,\nwere more decidedly of the stern and fiery order, than of the meek\nand gentle. Nor is there any circumstance recorded of John, whether\nauthentic or fabulous, that can justify the supposition that he was an\nexception to these general, natural characteristics of the apostles;\nbut instances sufficiently numerous are given in the gospels, to make\nit clear, that he was not altogether the soft and gentle creature, that\nhas been commonly presented as his true image.\n\nIt has been commonly supposed that he was the youngest of all the\napostles; nor is there any reason to disbelieve an opinion harmonizing,\nas this does, with all that is recorded of him in the New Testament, as\nwell as with the undivided voices of all tradition. That he was younger\nthan James, may be reasonably concluded from the circumstance that he\nis always mentioned after him, though his importance in the history\nof the foundation of the Christian faith might seem to justify an\ninversion of this order; and in the life of James, it has already been\nrepresented as probable, that he too must have been quite young, being\nthe son of a father who was still so much in the freshness of his vigor,\nas to endure the toils of a peculiarly laborious and dangerous business.\nOn this point, also, the opinion even of tradition is entitled to\nsome respect, on the ground taken by an author quoted in the life of\nPeter,\u2015\u2015that though we consider tradition as a notorious liar, yet\nwe may give some attention to its reports, because even a liar may\nsometimes speak the truth, where he has no object in deceiving us.\n\n _The youngest of the disciples._\u2015\u2015All that can be said on this\n opinion is, that it is possible, and if the testimony of the\n Fathers were worth the slightest consideration on any historical\n question concerning the apostles, it might be called even\n probable; but no early writer alludes to his age at all, till\n Jerome, who very decidedly calls John, \u201cthe youngest of all\n the apostles.\u201d Several later Fathers make the same assertion,\n but the voice of antiquity has already been shown to be worth\n very little, when it is not heard within three centuries of the\n events on which it offers its testimony. But at any rate the\n assertion of John\u2019s juniority is not improbable.\n\n A great deal of violent discussion has been lavished on the\n almost equally important question, whether John was ever married.\n The earliest established testimony on this point is that of\n Tertullian, who numbers John among those who had restrained\n themselves from matrimony for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.\n Testimony as late as the third century, however, on an opinion\n which favored monastic views, is worth nothing. But on the\n strength of this, many Fathers have made great use of John, as\n an instance of celibacy, accordant with monastic principles.\n Epiphanius, Jerome and Augustin allude frequently to the\n circumstance, the latter Father in particular insisting that\n John was engaged to be married when he was called, but gave up\n the lady, to follow Jesus. Some ingenious modern theologians\n have even improved upon this so far as to maintain that the\n marriage of Cana in Galilee was that of John, but that he\n immediately left his wife after the miracle. (See Lampe,\n Prolegomena, I. i. 13, notes.)\n\n\n HIS FAMILY AND BUSINESS.\n\nThe authentic history of the life of this apostle must also necessarily\nbe very brief; most of the prominent incidents which concern him,\nhaving already been abundantly described in the preceding lives.\nBut there are particulars which have not been so fully entered into,\nsome of which concern this apostle exclusively, while in others he is\nmentioned only in conjunction with his brother and friends; and these\nmay all, with great propriety, be more fully given in this life, since\nhis eminence, his writings, and long protracted labors, make him a\nproper subject for a minute disquisition.\n\nBeing the son of Zebedee and Salome, as has already been mentioned in\nthe life of his brother, he shared in the low fortunes and laborious\nlife of a fisherman, on the lake of Gennesaret. This occupation indeed,\ndid not necessarily imply the very lowest rank in society, as is\nevident from the fact that the Jews held no useful occupation to be\nbeneath the dignity of a respectable person, or even a learned man.\nStill the nature of their business was such, as to render it improbable\nthat they had adopted it with any other view than that of maintaining\nthemselves by it, or of enlarging their property, though perhaps not of\nearning a support which they had no other means whatever of procuring.\nIt has been said, that doubtless, there were many other inhabitants of\nthe shores of the lake, who occasionally occupied themselves in fishing,\nand yet were by no means obliged to employ themselves constantly in\nthat avocation. But the brief statement of circumstances in the gospels\nis enough to show that such an equipage of boats and nets, and such\nsteady employment all night, were not indicative of anything else than\na regular devotion of time to it, in the way of business. Yet that\nZebedee was not a man in very low circumstances, as to property, is\nquite manifest from Mark\u2019s statement, that when they were called,\nthey left their father in the vessel, along with the \u201cservants,\u201d or\nworkmen,\u2015\u2015which implies that they carried on their fishing operations,\non so extended a scale, as to have a number of men in their service,\nand probably had a vessel of considerable size, since it needed such a\nplurality of hands to manage it, and use the apparatus of the business\nto advantage; a circumstance in which their condition seems to have\nbeen somewhat superior to that of Peter and Andrew, of whom no such\nparticulars are specified,\u2015\u2015all accounts representing them as alone,\nin a small vessel, which they were able to manage of themselves.\nThe possession of some family estate is also implied, in numerous\nincidental allusions in the gospels; as in the fact that their mother\nSalome was one of those women who followed Jesus and \u201cministered to him\nof their substance\u201d or possessions. She is also specified among those\nwomen who brought precious spices for embalming the body of Jesus. John\nis also mentioned in his own gospel, as having a house of his own, in\nwhich he generously supported the mother of Jesus, as if he himself had\nbeen her son, throughout the remainder of her life; an act of friendly\nand pious kindness to which he would not have been competent, without\nthe possession of some property in addition to the house.\n\n\n HIS EDUCATION.\n\nThere is reason to suppose, that in accordance with the established\nprinciples of parental duty among the Jews, he had learned the\nrudiments of the knowledge of the Mosaic law; for a proverbial sentence\nof the religious teachers of the nation, ranked among the vilest of\nmankind, that Jew, who suffered a son to grow up without being educated\nin the first principles, at least, of his national religion. But that\nhis knowledge, at the time when he first became a disciple of Jesus,\nextended beyond a barely respectable degree of information on religious\nmatters, there is no ground for believing; and though there is nothing\nwhich directly contradicts the idea that he may have known the alphabet,\nor have made some trifling advances in literary knowledge,\u2015\u2015yet the\nmanner in which he, together with Peter, was spoken of by the proud\nmembers of the Sanhedrim, seems to imply that they did not pretend to\nany knowledge whatever of literature. And the terms in which both Jesus\nand his disciples are constantly alluded to by the learned scribes\nand Pharisees, seem to show that they were all considered as utterly\ndestitute of literary education, though, by reason of that very\nignorance, they were objects of the greatest wonder to all who saw\ntheir striking displays of a religious knowledge, utterly unaccountable\nby a reference to anything that was known of their means of arriving\nat such intellectual eminence. Indeed, there seems to have been a\ndistinct design on the part of Christ, to select for his great purpose,\nmen whose minds were wholly free from that pride of opinion and learned\narrogance, almost inseparable from the constitutions of those who\nhad been regularly trained in the subtleties of a slavish system\nof theology and law. He did not seek among the trained and drilled\nscholars of the formal routine of Jewish dogmatism, for the instruments\nof regenerating a people and a world,\u2015\u2015but among the bold, active, and\nintelligent, yet uneducated Galileans, whose provincial peculiarities\nand rudeness, moreover, in a high degree incapacitated them from taking\nrank among the polished scholars of the Jewish capital. Thus was it,\nthat on the followers of Christ, could never he put the stigma of mere\ntheological disputants; and all the gifts of knowledge, and the graces\nof mental power, which they displayed under his divine teachings,\nwere totally free from the slightest suspicion of any other than a\nmiraculous origin. Some have, indeed, attempted to conjecture, from the\nalleged elegance of John\u2019s style in his gospel and epistles, that he\nhad early received a finished education, in some one of the provincial\nJewish colleges; and have even gone so far as to suggest, that probably\nJairus, \u201cthe ruler of the synagogue\u201d in Capernaum, or more properly,\n\u201cthe head of the school of the law,\u201d had been his instructor,\u2015\u2015a guess\nof most remarkable profundity, but one that, besides lacking all sort\nof evidence or probability, is furthermore made totally unnecessary,\nby the indubitable fact, that no signs of any such perfection of\nstyle are noticeable in any of the writings of John, so as to require\nany elaborate hypothesis of this kind to explain them. The greatest\nprobability is, that all his knowledge, both of Hebrew literature and\nthe Greek language, was acquired after the beginning of his apostolic\ncourse.\n\n\n HIS NAME.\n\nThe Jews were accustomed, like most of the ancient nations of the east,\nto confer upon their children significant names, which were made to\nrefer to some circumstance connected with the person\u2019s prospects, or\nthe hopes of his parents respecting him. In their son\u2019s name, probably\nZebedee and Salome designed to express some idea auspicious of his\nprogress and character in after life. The name \u201cJohn,\u201d is not only\ncommon in the New Testament, but also occurs in the Hebrew scriptures\nin the original form \u201cJohanan,\u201d which bears the happy signification\nof \u201cthe favor of Jehovah,\u201d or, \u201cfavored by Jehovah.\u201d They probably\nhad this meaning in mind when they gave the name to him, and on that\naccount preferred it to one of less hopeful religious character; but\nto suppose, as some commentators have, that in conferring it, they were\nindued with a prophetic spirit, which for the moment directed them to\nthe choice of an appellation expressive of the high destiny of a chosen,\nfavored herald of the grace of God, to Israel and to the Gentiles,\u2015\u2015is\na conjecture too absurdly wild to be entertained by a sober and\ndiscreet critic for a moment. Yet there are some, who, in the rage for\nfinding a deep meaning in the simplest matters, interpret this simple,\ncommon name, as prophetically expressive of the beginning of the reign\nof grace, and of the abrogation of the formal law of Moses, first\nannounced by John the Baptist, whose testimony was first fully recorded\nin the gospel of John the Apostle. Such idle speculations, however,\nserve no useful purpose, and only bring suspicion upon more rational\ninvestigations in the same department.\n\n\n HIS CALL AND DISCIPLESHIP.\n\nThe first introduction of John to Jesus, appears to be distinctly,\nthough modestly, described by himself, in the first chapter of his\ngospel, where he has evidently designated himself in the third person,\nas \u201cthe other disciple\u201d of John the Baptist, who accompanied Andrew\non his first visit to Jesus. After this introduction above narrated,\nhe seems to have remained near the newly found Messiah for some days,\nbeing of course, included among those disciples who were present at\nthe marriage in Cana. He appears to have returned, soon after, to\nhis avocation on the lake, where he, for some time, appears to have\nfollowed the business in which he had been brought up, till the word\nof his already adopted Master came to summon him to the actual duties\nof the discipleship. On the journeys that followed this call, he was\nengaged in no act of importance, in which he was not also associated\nwith those disciples, in whose lives these incidents have been already\nfully described. On one occasion however, a solitary instance is\nrecorded by Luke, of a remark made by John, during a conversation which\ntook place in Capernaum, after the return from the mission through\nGalilee, and not long before the great journey to Jerusalem. It seems\nto have been at the time when Jesus was inculcating a child-like\nsimplicity, as an essential characteristic of his followers; and\nthe remark of John is, both by Mark and Luke, prefaced with the\nwords,\u2015\u2015\u201cand John answered and said,\u201d\u2015\u2015though no very clear connection\ncan be traced between what he said and the preceding words of Jesus.\nThe passage however is interesting, as showing that John was not always\nmost discreet in his regard for the peculiar honors of his Master,\u2015\u2015and\nin the case which he refers to, had in his restrictive zeal, quite gone\nbeyond the rules of action, by which Jesus expected him to be guided.\nThe remark of John on this occasion was,\u2015\u2015\u201cMaster, we saw one casting\nout devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not\nwith us.\u201d This confession betrays a spirit still strongly under the\ninfluence of worldly feelings, manifesting a perfectly natural emotion\nof jealousy, at the thought of any intrusion, upon what he deemed the\npeculiar and exclusive privilege of himself and his eleven associates\nin the fellowship of Christ. The high commission of subduing the malign\nagencies of the demoniac powers, had been specially conferred on the\nelect twelve, when they first went forth on the apostolic errand. This\ndivine power, John had supposed utterly above the reach of common men,\nand it was therefore with no small surprise, and moreover with some\nindignant jealousy, that he saw a nameless person, not enrolled in the\nsacred band, nor even pretending to follow in any part of their train,\nboldly and successfully using the name of Jesus Christ, as a charm to\nsilence the powers of darkness, and to free the victims of their evil\ninfluences. This sort of feeling was not peculiar to John, but occurs\nwherever there arises a similar occasion to suggest it. It has been\nrife among the religious, as well as the worldly, in all ages; and not\na month now passes when it is not openly manifested, marring by its low\ninfluences, the noblest schemes of Christian benevolence, as well as\nchecking the advances of human ambition. So many there are who, though\nimbued in some degree with the high spirit of apostolic devotion, yet,\nwhen they have marked some great field of benevolence for their efforts,\nare apt to regard it as their own peculiar province, and are disposed\nto view any action in that department of exertion as an intrusion and\nan encroachment on their natural rights. This feeling is the worst\ncharacteristic of ultra-sectarianism,\u2015\u2015a spirit which would \u201ccompass\nsea and land,\u201d not merely \u201cto gain one proselyte,\u201d but also to hinder\na religious rival from the attainment of a similar purpose,\u2015\u2015a spirit\nwhich in its modes of manifestation, and in its results, is nearer to\nthat of the demon it aspires to expel, than to that of Him in whose\nname it professes to work. But that such was not the spirit of Him\nwho went about doing good, is seen in the mild, yet earnest reply\nwith which he met the manifestation of this haughty and jealous\nexclusiveness in his beloved disciple. \u201cForbid him not; for there is\nno man who can do a miracle in my name, who will lightly speak evil of\nme. For he who is not against us is on our part.\u201d And then referring\nto the previous train of his discourse, he went on to say,\u2015\u2015\u201cFor he who\nshall give you a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ,\nI tell you, indeed, he shall not lose his reward.\u201d So simple were the\nmeans of manifesting a true regard for Christ, and so moderate were the\nservices which would constitute a claim to his remembrance, and to a\nparticipation in the rights of his ministry. If the act of kindness or\nof apostolic ministration had been done in his name, and had answered\nits good purpose, this was enough to show that he who performed it was\nsuch a friend as, so far from speaking evil of Jesus, would insure the\nbest glory of his name, though he had not attached himself in manner\nand form to the train of regular disciples. Jesus Christ did not\nrequire a formal profession of regular discipleship, as essential to\nthe right of doing good in his name, or to the surety of a high and\npure reward. How many are there among his professed followers in these\ntimes, who are \u201cable to receive this saying?\u201d There are few indeed, who,\nhearing it on any authority but his, would not feel disposed to reject\nit, at once, as a grievous heresy. Yet such was, unquestionably, the\nspirit, the word, and the practice of Jesus. It was enough for him to\nknow that the weight of human woe, which called him forth on his errand\nof mercy, was lightened; and that the spirit before darkened and bound\ndown by the powers of evil, was now brought out into glorious light\nand freedom. Most earnestly did he declare this solemn principle of\ncatholic communion; and most distinctly did he reiterate it in a varied\nform. The simplest act of kindness done to the commissioned of Christ,\nwould, of itself, constitute a certain claim to his divine favor. But,\non the other hand, the least wilful injury of one sent forth from him,\nwould at once insure the ruin of the perpetrator.\n\nSoon after this solemn inculcation of universal charity, Jesus began\nto prepare his disciples for their great journey to Jerusalem; and\nat last having completed his preliminary arrangements, he went on his\nway, sending forward messengers, (James and John, as it would seem,)\nto secure a comfortable stopping-place, at a Samaritan village which\nlay on his road. These select emissaries accordingly proceeded in the\nexecution of their honorable commission, and entering the village,\nannounced to the inhabitants the approach of the far-famed Galilean\nprophet, Jesus of Nazareth, who, being then on his way to attend the\ngreat annual feast in Jerusalem, would that night deign to honor their\nvillage with his divine presence;\u2015\u2015all which appears to have been\ncommunicated by the two messengers, with a full sense of the importance\nof their commission, as well as of the dignity of him whose approach\nthey announced. But the sturdy Samaritans had not yet forgotten the\nrigid principles of mutual exclusiveness, which had so long been\nmaintained between them and the Jews, with all the combined bitterness\nof a national and a religious quarrel; and so they doggedly refused\nto open their doors in hospitality to one whose \u201cface was as though\nhe would go to Jerusalem.\u201d At this manifestation of sectarian and\nsectional bitterness, the wrath of the messengers knew no bounds, and\nreporting their inhospitable and scornful rejection to Jesus, the two\nBoanerges, with a spirit quite literally accordant with their surname,\ninquired, \u201cLord! wilt thou that we command fire to come down from\nheaven, and consume them as Elijah did?\u201d The stern prophet of the days\nof Ahaziah, had called down fire from heaven to the destruction of\ntwo successive bands of the insolent myrmidons of the Samaritan king;\nand might not the wonder-doing Son of Man, with equal vindictiveness,\ncommission his faithful followers to invoke the thunder on the\ninhospitable sectaries of the modern Samaritan race? But however this\nsort of summary justice might suit the wrathful piety of James and\nhis \u201camiably gentle\u201d brother, it was by Jesus deemed the offspring of\na spirit too far from the forgiving benevolence of his gospel, to be\npassed by, unrebuked. He therefore turned reprovingly to these fierce\n\u201cSons of Thunder,\u201d with the reply,\u2015\u2015\u201cYe know not what manner of spirit\nye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men\u2019s lives, but\nto save them.\u201d And thus silencing their forward, destructive zeal, he\nquietly turned aside from the inhospitable sectarians who had refused\nhim admission, and found entertainment in another village, where the\ninhabitants were free from such notions of religious exclusiveness.\n\n So idolatrous was the reference with which many of the Fathers\n and ancient theologians were accustomed to regard the apostles,\n that they would not allow that these chosen ones of Christ ever\n committed any sin whatever; at least, none after their calling\n to be disciples. Accordingly, the most ridiculous attempts have\n been made to justify or excuse the faults and errors of those\n apostles, who are mentioned in the New Testament as having\n committed any act contrary to the received standards of right.\n Among other circumstances, even Peter\u2019s perjured denial of his\n Lord, has found stubborn defenders and apologists; and among\n the saintly commentators of both Papist and Protestant faiths,\n have been found some to stand up for the immaculate soundness of\n James and John, in this act of wicked and foolish zeal. Ambrose\n of Milan, in commenting on this passage, must needs maintain\n that their ferocity was in accordance with approved instances\n of a similar character in the Old Testament. \u201cNec discipuli\n peccant,\u201d says he, \u201cqui legem sequuntur;\u201d and he then refers to\n the instance of extemporaneous vindictive justice in Phineas,\n as well as to that of Elijah, which was quoted by the sons of\n Zebedee themselves. He argues, that, since the apostles were\n indued with the same high privileges as the prophets, they\n were in this instance abundantly justified in appealing to such\n authority for similar acts of vengeance. He observes, moreover,\n that this presumption was still farther justified in them, by\n the name which they had received from Jesus; \u201cbeing \u2018sons of\n _thunder_,\u2019 they might fairly suppose that fire would come down\n from heaven at their word.\u201d But Lampe very properly remarks,\n that the prophets were clearly moved to these acts of wrathful\n justice, by the Holy Spirit, and thereby also, were justified in\n a vindictiveness, which might otherwise be pronounced cruel and\n bloody. The evidence of this spirit-guidance, those old prophets\n had, in the instantaneous fiery answer from heaven, to their\n denunciatory prayer; but on the other hand, in this case, the\n words of Jesus in reply to the Sons of Thunder, show that they\n were not actuated by _a_ holy spirit, nor by _the_ Holy Spirit,\n for he says to them, \u201cYe know not what manner of spirit ye are\n of,\u201d\u2015\u2015which certainly implies that they were altogether mistaken\n in supposing that the spirit and power of Elijah rested on\n them, to authorize such wide-wasting and indiscriminate ruin\n of innocent and guilty,\u2015\u2015women and children, as well as men,\n inhabiting the village; and he rebukes and condemns their\n conduct for the very reason that it was the result of an\n _un_holy and sinful spirit.\n\n Yet, not only the Romish Ambrose, but also the Protestant\n Calvin, has, in his idolatrous reverence for the infallibility\n of the apostles, (an idolatry hardly less unchristian than the\n saint-worship against which _he_ strove,) thought it necessary\n to condemn and rebuke Maldonado, as guilty of a detestable\n presumption, in declaring the sons of Zebedee to have been\n lifted up with a foolish arrogance. On the arguments by which\n Calvin justifies James and John, Lampe well remarks, that the\n great reformer uses a truly Jesuitical weapon, (propria vineta\n caedit Loyolita,) when he says that \u201cthey desired vengeance\n not for themselves, but for Christ; and were not led into error\n by any _fault_, but merely by _ignorance_ of the spirit of the\n gospel and of Christ.\u201d But was not this ignorance itself a sin,\n showing itself thus in the very face of all the oft-repeated\n admonitions of Jesus against this bloody spirit, even in _his_\n or _any_ cause? and of all his inculcations of a universal rule\n of forbearance and forgiveness?\n\nJohn is not mentioned again in the gospel history, until near the\nclose of the Savior\u2019s labors, when he was about to prepare his twelve\nchosen ones, for the great change which awaited their condition, by\nlong and earnest instruction, and by prayer. In making the preliminary\narrangements for this final meeting, John was sent along with Peter,\nto see that a place was provided for the entertainment. After this\ncommission had been satisfactorily executed, they joined with Jesus and\nthe rest of the twelve disciples in the Paschal feast, each taking a\nhigh place at the board, and John in particular reclining next to Jesus.\nAs a testimony of the intimate affection between them, it is recorded\nby this apostle himself in his gospel, that during the feast he lay\non Jesus\u2019s breast,\u2015\u2015a position which, though very awkward, and even\nimpossible, in the modern style of conducting feasts in the sitting\nposture, was yet rendered both easy and natural, in the ancient mode,\nboth Oriental and Roman, of reclining on couches around the table.\nUnder these circumstances, those sharing the same part of the couch,\nwhose feelings of affection led them most readily together,\u2015\u2015such a\nposition as that described by John, would occur very naturally and\ngracefully. It here, in connection with John\u2019s own artless, but\nexpressive sentence, mentioning himself as the disciple whom Jesus\nloved, presents to the least imaginative mind, a most beautifully\nstriking picture of the state of feeling between the young disciple and\nhis Lord,\u2015\u2015showing how closely their spirits were drawn together, in an\naffection of the most sacred and interesting character, far surpassing\nthe paternal and filial relation in the high and pure nature of\nthe feeling, because wholly removed from the mere _animalities_ and\ninstincts that form and modify so much of all natural love. The regard\nbetween these two beings was by no means essentially dependent on\nany striking similarity of mind or feeling. John had very little of\nthat mild and gentle temperament which so decidedly characterized\nthe Redeemer;\u2015\u2015he had none of that spirit of meekness and forgiveness\nwhich Jesus so often and earnestly inculcated; but a fierce, fiery,\nthundering zeal, arising from a temperament, ardent alike in anger and\nin love. Nor was such a character at all discordant with the generality\nof those for whom Jesus seemed to feel a decided preference. There is\nno one among the apostolic band, whether Galilean or Hellenistic, of\nwhose characters any definite idea is given, that does not seem to\nbe marked most decidedly by the fiercer and harsher traits. Yet like\nthose of all children of nature, the same hearts seem to glow, upon\noccasion, as readily with affectionate as with wrathful feeling, both,\nin many instances, combining in their affection for Jesus. The whole\ngospel record, as far as the twelve disciples are concerned, is a most\nsatisfactory comment on the characteristics ascribed by Josephus to\nthe whole Galilean race,\u2015\u2015\u201cardent and fierce.\u201d And this was the very\ntemperament which recommended them before all men in the world, for the\ngreat work of laying the deep foundations of the Christian faith, amid\nopposition, hatred, confusion, and blood. And among these wild, but\nardent dispositions, did even the mild spirit of the Redeemer find much\nthat was congenial to its frame, as well as its purposes; for in them,\nhis searching eye recognized faculties which, turned from the base ends\nof worldly strife and low, brawling contest, might be exalted, by a\nmere modification, and not eradication, to the great works of divine\nbenevolence. The same temperament that once led the ardent Galileans\ninto selfish quarrels, under the regenerating influences of a holy\nspirit, might be trained to a high devoted self-sacrifice for the good\nof others; and the valor which once led them to disregard danger and\ndeath in spiteful enmity, could, after an assimilation to the spirit of\nJesus, be made equally energetic in the dangerous labors of the cause\nof universal love. Such is most clearly the spirit of the Galilean\ndisciples, as far as any character can be recognized in the brief,\nartless sketches, incidentally given of them in the New Testament\nhistory. Nor is there any good reason to mark John as an exception\nto these harsher attributes. The idea, now so very common, of his\nsoftness and amiability, seems to have grown almost entirely out of the\ncircumstance, that he was \u201cthe disciple whom Jesus loved;\u201d as if the\nhigh spirit of the Redeemer could feel no sympathy with such traits as\nbravery, fierce energy, or even aspiring ambition. Tempted originally\nby the great source of evil, yet without sin, he himself knew by what\nspiritual revolutions the impulses which once led only to evil, could\nbe made the guides to truth and love, and could see, even in the worst\nmanifestations of that fiery ardor, the disguised germ of a holy zeal,\nwhich, under his long, anxious, prayerful care and cultivation, would\nbecome a tree of life, bringing forth fruits of good for nations.\nEven in these low, depraved mortals, therefore, he could find much to\nlove,\u2015\u2015nor is the circumstance of his affectionate regard, in itself,\nany proof that John was deficient in the most striking characteristics\nof his countrymen; and that he was not so, there is proof positive and\nunquestionable in those details of his own and his brother\u2019s conduct,\nalready given.\n\nAt this Paschal feast, lying, as described, on the bosom of Jesus, he\npassed the parting hours in most intimate communion with his already\ndoomed Lord. And so close was their proximity, and so peculiarly\nfavored was he, by the confidential conversation of Jesus, that when\nall the disciples were moved with painful doubt and surprise at the\nmysterious annunciation that there was a traitor among them, Peter\nhimself, trusting more to the opportunities of John than to his own,\nmade a sign to him to put to his Master a question, to which he would\nbe more likely to receive an answer than anybody else. The beloved\ndisciple, therefore, looking up from the bosom of Jesus, into his\nface, with the confidence of familiar affection, asked him, \u201cWho is\nit, Lord?\u201d And to his eager inquiry, was vouchsafed at once a most\nunhesitating and satisfactory reply, marking out, in the most definite\nmanner, the person intended by his former dark allusion.\n\nAfter the scenes of Gethsemane, when the alarmed disciples fled from\ntheir captured Master, to avoid the same fate, John also shared in the\nrace; but on becoming assured that no pursuit of the secondary members\nof the party was intended, he quietly walked back after the armed\ntrain, keeping, moreover, close to them, as appears by his arriving\nat the palace gate along with them, and entering with the rest. On his\nway, in the darkness, he fell in with his friend Peter, also anxiously\nfollowing the train, to learn the fate of his Master. John now proved\nof great advantage to Peter; for, having some acquaintance with the\nhigh priest\u2019s family, he might expect admission to the hall without\ndifficulty. This incident is recorded only by John himself, in his\ngospel, where, in relating it, he refers to himself in the third person,\nas \u201canother disciple,\u201d according to his usual modest circumlocution.\nJohn, somehow or other, was well and favorably known to the high\npriest himself, for a very mysterious reason; but certainly the most\nunaccountable point in Bible history is this:\u2015\u2015how could a faithful\nfollower of the persecuted and hated Jesus, be thus familiar and\nfriendly in the family of the most powerful and vindictive of the\nJewish magnates? Nor can the difficulty be any way relieved, by\nsupposing the expression, \u201canother disciple\u201d to refer to a person\ndifferent from John; for all the disciples of Jesus would be equally\nunlikely persons for the intimacy of the Jewish high priest. Whatever\nmight be the reason of this acquaintance, John was well-known\nthroughout the family of the high priest, as a person high in favor\nand familiarity with that great dignitary; so that a single word from\nhim to the portress, was sufficient to procure the admission of Peter\nalso, who had stood without, not daring to enter as his brother apostle\ndid, not having any warrant to do so on the ground of familiarity. Of\nthe conduct of John during the trial of Jesus, or after it, no account\nwhatever is given,\u2015\u2015nor is he noticed in either of the gospels except\nhis own, as present during any of these sad events; but by his story\nit appears, that, in the hour of darkness and horror, he stood by the\ncross of his beloved Lord, with those women who had been the constant\nservants of Jesus during life, and were now faithful, even through his\ndeath. Among these women was the mother of the Redeemer, who now stood\nin the most desolate agony, by the cross of her murdered son, without\na home left in the world, or a person to whom she had a natural right\nto look for support. Just before the last agony, Jesus turned to\nthe mournful group, and seeing his mother near the disciple whom he\nloved, he said, \u201cWoman! behold thy son!\u201d And then to John, \u201cBehold thy\nmother!\u201d The simple words were sufficient, without a gesture; for the\nnailed and motionless hands of Jesus could not point out to each, the\nperson intended as the object of parental or filial regard. Nor was\nthis commission, thus solemnly and affectingly given, neglected; for,\nas the same disciple himself assures us, \u201cfrom that hour, he took her\nto his own house.\u201d The highest token of affection and confidence that\nthe Redeemer could confer, was this,\u2015\u2015marking, as it did, a most\npre-eminent regard, by committing to his charge a trust, that might\nwith so much propriety have been committed to others of the twelve who\nwere very nearly related to the mother of Jesus, being her own nephews,\nthe sons of her sister. But so high was the confidence of Jesus in\nthe sincerity of John\u2019s affection, that he unhesitatingly committed to\nhim this dearest earthly charge, trusting to his love for its keeping,\nrather than to the considerations of family, and of near relationship.\n\nIn the scenes of the resurrection, John is distinguished by the\ncircumstance of his hurrying first, along with Peter, to the sepulcher,\non hearing from the women the strange story of what had happened;\nand both hastening in the most intense anxiety to learn the nature of\nthe occurrences which had so alarmed the women, the nimbleness of the\nyouthful John soon carried him beyond Peter, and outstripping him in\nthe anxious race, he came down to the sepulcher before him, and there\nstood, breathless, looking down into the place of the dead, in vain,\nfor any trace of its late precious deposit. While he was thus glancing\ninto the place, Peter came up, and with a much more considerate zeal,\ndetermined on a satisfactory search, and accordingly went down into\nthe tomb himself, and narrowly searched all parts; and John, after his\nreport, also then descended to assure himself that Peter had not been\ndeceived by a too superficial examination of the inside. But having\ngone down into the tomb, and seen for himself the grave-clothes lying\ncarefully rolled up, but no signs whatever of the body that had once\noccupied them, he also believed the report of the women, that the\nremains of Jesus had been stolen away in the night, probably by some\nill-disposed persons, for an evil purpose, and perhaps to complete\nthe bloody triumph of the Jews, by denying the body so honorable an\ninterment as the wealthy Joseph had charitably given it. In distress\nand sorrowful doubt, therefore, he returned with Peter to his own house,\nwithout the slightest idea of the nature of the abstraction.\n\nThe next account of John is in that interesting scene, described in\nthe last chapter of his own gospel, on the lake of Galilee, where Jesus\nmet the seven disciples who went on the fishing excursion by night,\nas already detailed in the life of Simon Peter, who was the first to\npropose the thing, and who, in the scenes of the morning, acted the\nmost conspicuous part. The only passage which immediately concerns\nJohn, is the concluding one, where the prophecy of Jesus is recorded\nrespecting the future destiny of this beloved disciple. Peter, having\nheard his Master\u2019s prophecy of the mode in which he should conclude\nhis life, hoping to pry still farther into futurity, asked what\nwould be the fate of John also. \u201cLord, what shall this man do?\u201d which\nJesus replied, \u201cIf I will that he tarry till I come, what is that\nto thee?\u201d\u2015\u2015an answer evidently meant to check his curiosity, without\ngratifying it in the least; as John himself, remarking on the fact,\nthat this saying originated an unfounded story, that Jesus had promised\nhim that he should never die,\u2015\u2015says that Jesus never specified any such\nthing, but merely said those few unsatisfactory words in reply to Peter.\nThe words, \u201c_till I come_,\u201d referred simply to the time when Christ\nshould come in judgment on Jerusalem, for that unquestionably was the\n\u201ccoming,\u201d of which he had so often warned them, as an event for which\nthey must be prepared; and it was partly from a misinterpretation\nof these words, by applying them to the final judgment, that the\nidle notion of John\u2019s immortality arose. John probably surviving the\nother apostles many years, and living to a very great age, the second\ngeneration of Christians conceived the idea of interpreting this remark\nof Jesus as a prophecy that his beloved disciple should never die. And\nJohn, in his gospel, knowing that this erroneous opinion was prevalent,\ntook pains to specify the exact words of Jesus, showing that they\nimplied no direct prophecy whatever, nor in any way alluded to the\npossibility of his immortality. After the ascension, John is mentioned\nalong with the rest who were in the upper room, and is otherwise\nparticularized on several occasions, in the Acts of the Apostles. He\nwas the companion of Peter in the temple, at the healing of the lame\nman, and was evidently considered by the chief apostle, a sharer in\nthe honors of the miracle; nor were the Sanhedrim disposed to deem\nhim otherwise than criminally responsible for the act, but doomed him,\nalong with Peter, to the dungeon. He is also honorably distinguished\nby being deputed with Peter to visit the new church in Samaria, where\nhe united with him in imparting the confirming seal of the spirit to\nthe new converts,\u2015\u2015and on the journey back to Jerusalem, preached the\ngospel in many villages of the Samaritans.\n\nFrom this time no mention whatever is made of John in the Acts of the\nApostles; and the few remaining facts concerning him, which can be\nderived from the New Testament, are such only as occur incidentally in\nthe epistolary writings of the apostles. Paul makes a single allusion\nto him, in his epistle to the Galatians, where, speaking of his\nreception by the apostles on his second visit to Jerusalem, he mentions\nJames, Cephas and _John_, as \u201cpillars\u201d in the church, and says that\nthey all gave him the right hand of fellowship. This little incidental\nallusion, though so brief, is worth recording, since it shows that John\nstill resided in Jerusalem, and there still maintained his eminence and\nhis usefulness, standing like a pillar, with Cephas and James, rising\nhigh above the many, and upholding the bright fabric of a pure faith.\nThis is the only mention ever made of him in the epistles of Paul,\nnor do any of the remaining writings of the New Testament contain\nany notice whatever of John, except those which bear his own name.\nBut as these must all be referred to a later period, they may be left\nunnoticed until some account has been given of the intervening portions\nof his long life. Here then the course of investigation must leave the\nsure path of scripture testimony, and lead on through the mazy windings\nof traditionary history, among the baseless records of the Fathers.\n\n _Pillars._\u2015\u2015This was an expressive figurative appellation, taken\n no doubt, with direct allusion to the noble white columns of\n the porches of the temple, subserving in so high a degree the\n purposes both of use and ornament. The term implies with great\n force, an exalted excellence in these three main supporters\n of the first Christian church, and besides expressing the idea\n of those eminent virtues which belonged to them in common with\n other distinguished teachers of religion, it is thought by Lampe,\n that there is implied in this connection, something peculiarly\n appropriate to these apostles. Among the uses to which columns\n were applied by Egyptians, Jews, Greeks and Romans, was that of\n bearing inscriptions connected with public ordinances of state\n or religion, and of commemorating facts in science for the\n knowledge of other generations. To this use, allusion seems to\n be made in Proverbs ix. 1. \u201cWisdom has built her house,\u2015\u2015she\n has _engraved_ her seven pillars.\u201d And in Revelation iii. 12,\n a still more unquestionable reference is made to the same\n circumstance. \u201cHim that overcomes, will I make a _pillar_ in the\n temple of my God, and he shall go no more out; and I will write\n upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God,\n the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from God,\u2015\u2015and\n my own new name;\u201d\u2015\u2015a passage which Grotius illustrates by a\n reference to this very use of pillars for inscriptions. It is\n in connection with this idea, that Lampe considers the term\n as peculiarly expressive in its application to \u201cJames, Cephas\n and John,\u201d since from them, in common with all the apostles,\n proceeded the oracles of Christian truth, and those principles\n of doctrine and practice, which were acknowledged as the rule\n of faith, by the churches of the new covenant. To these three,\n moreover, belonged some peculiar attributes of this character,\n since they distinguished themselves above the most of the twelve,\n by their written epistolary charges, as well as by the general\n pre-eminence accorded to them by common consent, leaving to them\n the utterance of those apostolic opinions, which went forth from\n Jerusalem as law for the Christian churches.\n\n Lampe quotes on this point Vitringa, (Sacred Observations, I.\n iii. 7,) Suicer, (Church Thesaurus voc. \u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,) and Gataker,\n (Cinnus, ii. 20.) He refers also to Jerome, commenting on\n Galatians ii. 9; who there alludes to the fact that John, one of\n the \u201cpillars,\u201d in his Revelation, introduces the Savior speaking\n as above quoted. (Revelation iii. 12.)\n\n\n THE RESULTS OF TRADITION.\n\nProbably there are few results of historical investigation, that will\nmake a more decided impression of disappointment on the mind of a\ncommon reader, than the sentence, which a rigid examination compels\nthe writer to pass, with almost uniform condemnatory severity, on all\napostolic stories which are not sanctioned by the word of inspiration.\nThere is a universal curiosity, natural, and not uncommendable, felt\nby all the believers and hearers of the faith which the apostles\npreached, to know something more about these noble first witnesses\nof the truth, than the bare broken and unconnected details which the\ngospel, and the apostolic acts can furnish. At this day, the most\ntrifling circumstances connected with them,\u2015\u2015their actions, their\ndwelling-places, their lives or their deaths, have a value vastly above\nwhat could ever have been appreciated by those of their own time, who\nacted, dwelt, lived, and died with them,\u2015\u2015a value increasing through\nthe course of ages, in a regular progression, rising as it removes from\nthe objects to which it refers. But the very course of this progression\nimplies a diminution of the means of obtaining the desired information,\nproportioned to the increase of the demand for it;\u2015\u2015and along with\nthis condition of things, the all-pervading and ever-active spirit\nof invention comes in, to quench, with deep draughts of delightful\nfalsehood, the honest thirst for literal truth. The misfortune of this\nconstitution of circumstances, being that the want is not felt till the\nmeans of supplying it are irrecoverably gone, puts the investigation of\nthe minutiae of all antiquity, sacred or profane, upon a very uncertain\nground, and requires the most critical test for every assertion,\noffered to satisfy a curiosity which, for the sake of the pleasure\nthus derived, feels interested in deceiving itself; for\n\n \u201cDoubtless the pleasure is as great\n Of being cheated as to cheat.\u201d\n\nEven the spirit of deep curiosity which beguiles the historical\ninquirer into a love of the fabulous and unfounded tales of tradition,\nthough specifically more elevated by its intellectual character, is yet\ngenerically the same with the spirit of superstitious credulity, that\nleads the miserable Papist to bow down with idolatrous worship before\nthe ridiculous trash, called relics, which are presented to him by\nthe consecrated impostors who minister to him in holy things; and the\nfeeling of indignant horror with which he repulses the Protestant zeal,\nthat would rob his spirit of the comfortable support afforded by the\npossession of an apostolical toe-nail, a lock of a saint\u2019s hair, or by\nthe sight of the Savior\u2019s handkerchief, or of a drop of his blood,\u2015\u2015is\nall perfectly kindred to that indignant regret with which even a\nreformed reader regards all these critical assaults upon agreeable\nhistorical delusions,\u2015\u2015and to that stubborn attachment with which he\noften clings to antique falsehood. Yet the pure consolations of the\ntruth, known by research and judgment, are so far above these baser\nenjoyments, that the exchange of fiction, for historical knowledge,\nthough merely of a negative kind, becomes most desirable even to an\nuncritical mind.\n\nThe sweeping sentence of condemnation against all traditionary stories,\nmay, however, be subjected to some decided exceptions in the case\nof John, who, living much longer than any other of the apostles,\nwould thus be much more widely and lastingly known than they, to the\nChristians of the first and second generations after the immediate\ncontemporaries of the twelve. On this account the stories about John\ncome with much higher traditionary authority, than those which pretend\nto give accounts of any other apostle; and this view is still further\nconfirmed by the character of most of the stories themselves; which are\ncertainly much less absurd and vastly more probable in their appearance,\nthan the great mass of apostolic traditions. Indeed, in respect to\nthis apostle, may be said, what can _not_ be said of any other, that\nsome tolerably well-authorized, and a very few decidedly authentic,\nstatements of his later life, may be derived from passages in the\n_genuine_ writings of the early Fathers.\n\n\n HIS JUDAICAL OBSERVANCES.\n\nThe first point in John\u2019s history, on which the authentic testimony of\nthe Fathers is offered to illustrate his life, after the Acts of the\nApostles cease to mention him, is, that during the difficulties between\nthe weak-minded, Judaizing Christians, and those of a freer spirit who\nadvocated an open communion with those Gentile brethren that did not\nconform to the Mosaic ritual, he, with Peter, and more particularly\nwith James, joined in recommending a compromise with the inveterate\nprejudices of the Jewish believers; and to the end of his life, though\nconstantly brought in contact with Gentiles, he himself still continued,\nin all legal and ritual observances, a Jew. A striking and probable\ninstance of this adherence to Judaism, is given in the circumstance,\nthat he always kept the fourteenth day of March as holy time, in\nconformity with one of the most common of the religious usages in\nwhich he had been brought up; and the respect with which he regarded\nthis observance is strongly expressed in the fact that he countenanced\nand encouraged it, also, in his disciples, some of whom preserving it\nthroughout life as he did, brought down the notice of the occurrence\nto those days when the extinction of almost all the Judaical part of\nprimitive Christianity made such a peculiarity very remarkable. This,\nthough a small, is a highly valuable incident in the history of John,\ncontaining a proof of the strong affection which he always retained\nfor the religion of his fathers,\u2015\u2015a feeling which deserves the highest\ncommendation, accompanied as it was, by a most catholic spirit towards\nthose Gentile Christians who could not bear a yoke, which education and\nlong habit alone made more tolerable to him.\n\n _With Peter and James._\u2015\u2015The authority for this is Irenaeus,\n (A.\u00a0D. 150\u2012170,) who says, \u201cThose apostles who were with James,\n permitted the Gentiles indeed to act freely, leaving us to the\n _spirit_ of God. They themselves, too, knowing the same God,\n persevered in their ancient observances. *\u00a0*\u00a0* Thus the apostles\n whom the Lord made witnesses of his whole conduct and his whole\n teaching, (for every where are found standing together with him,\n Peter, James and JOHN,) religiously devoted themselves to the\n observance of the _law_, which is by Moses, thus acknowledging\n both [the law and the spirit] to be from one and the same God.\u201d\n (Irenaeus, Against Heresies.)\n\n _Fourteenth day of March._\u2015\u2015This refers to the practice of\n observing the feast of the resurrection of Christ, on the\n fourteenth day of March, corresponding with the passover of the\n Jews,\u2015\u2015a custom long kept up in the eastern churches, instead\n of always keeping it on Sunday. The authority for the statement\n is found in two ancient writers; both of whom are quoted by\n Eusebius. (Church History, V. 24.) He first quotes Polycrates,\n (towards the end of the second century, ) as writing to Victor,\n bishop of Rome, in defense of the adherence of the eastern\n churches to the practice of their fathers, in keeping the\n passover, or Easter, on the fourteenth day of the month, without\n regard to the day of the week on which it occurred, though the\n great majority of the Christian churches throughout the world,\n by common consent, always celebrated this resurrection feast\n on the Lord\u2019s day, or Sunday. Polycrates, in defense of the\n oriental practice of his flock and friends, so accordant with\n early Jewish prejudices, quotes the example of the Apostle John,\n who, he says, died at Ephesus, where he (Polycrates) was bishop.\n He says, that John, as well as his brother-apostle, Philip, and\n Polycarp his disciple, \u201call observed Easter on the fourteenth\n day of the month, never varying from that day, at all.\u201d Eusebius\n (ibid.) quotes also Irenaeus, writing to the same bishop Victor,\n against his attempt to force the eastern churches into the\n adoption of the practice of the Roman church, in celebrating\n Easter always on a Sunday, instead of uniformly on the\n fourteenth day of the month, so as to correspond with the Jewish\n passover. Irenaeus, in defense of the old eastern custom, tells\n of the practice of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of\n John. Polycarp, coming to Rome in the days of bishop Anicetus,\n (A.\u00a0D. 151\u2012160,) though earnestly exhorted by that bishop to\n renounce the eastern mode of celebrating Easter always on the\n fourteenth, like the Jewish passover, steadily refused to change;\n giving as a reason, the fact that John, the disciple of Jesus,\n and others of the apostles, whom he had intimately known, had\n always followed the eastern mode.\n\n This latter authority, fairly derived from a person who had been\n the intimate friend of John himself, may be pronounced entitled\n to the highest respect, and quite clearly establishes this\n little circumstance, which is valuable only as showing John\u2019s\n pertinacious adherence to Jewish forms, to the end of his life.\n\n Socrates, an ecclesiastical historian, (A.\u00a0D. 439,) alludes\n to the circumstance, that those who observed Easter on the\n fourteenth, referred to the authority of the Apostle John, as\n received by tradition.\n\n\n THE DEPARTURE FROM JERUSALEM.\n\nSome vain attempts have been made to ascertain the time at which the\napostle John left Jerusalem; but it becomes an honest investigator\nto confess, here, the absolute want of all testimony, and the total\nabsence of such evidence as can afford reasonable ground even for\nconjecture. All that can be said, is, that there is no account of his\nhaving left the city before the Jewish war; and there is some reason,\ntherefore, to suppose that he remained there till driven thence by the\nfirst great alarm occasioned by the unsuccessful attack from Cestius\nGallus. This Roman general, in the beginning of the Jewish war, (A.\u00a0D.\n66,) advanced to Jerusalem, and began a siege, which, however, he\nsoon raised, without any good reason; and suffering a fine opportunity\nof ending the war at once, thus to pass by, unimproved, he marched\noff, though in reality the inhabitants were then but poorly provided\nwith means to resist him. His retreat, however, gave them a chance to\nprepare themselves very completely for the desperate struggle which,\nas they could see, was completely begun, and from which there could\nnow be no retraction. This interval of repose, after such a terrible\npremonition, also gave opportunity to the Christians to withdraw from\nthe city, on which, as they most plainly saw, the awful ruin foretold\nby their Lord, was now about to fall. Cestius \u2666Gallus, taking his stand\non the hills around the city, had planted the Roman eagle-standards on\nthe highths of Zophim, on the north, where he fortified his camp, and\nthence pushed the assault against Bezetha, or the upper part of the\ncity. These were signs which the apostles of Jesus, who had heard his\nprophecy of the city\u2019s ruin, could not misunderstand. Here was now \u201cthe\nabomination of desolation, standing in the holy place where it ought\nnot;\u201d and as Matthew records the words of Jesus, this was one great\nsign of coming ruin. \u201cWhen they should see Jerusalem encompassed with\narmies, they were to know that the desolation thereof was nigh;\u201d for so\nLuke records the warning. \u201cThen let them which are in Judea flee to the\nmountains; and let them who are in the midst of it depart out; and let\nnot them that are in other countries enter into it. For these are the\ndays of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.\u201d\nThe apostles, therefore, reading in all these signs the literal\nfulfilment of the prophetic warning of their Lord, gathered around them\nthe flock of the faithful; and turning their faces to the mountains of\nthe northwest, to seek refuge beyond the Jordan,\u2015\u2015\n\n \u2015\u2015\u201cTheir backs they turned\n On those proud towers, to swift destruction doomed.\u201d\n\nNor were they alone; for as the Jewish historian, who was an\neye-witness of the sad events of those times, records, \u201cmany of the\nrespectable persons among the Jews, after the alarming attack of\nCestius, left the city, like passengers from a sinking ship.\u201d And this\nfruitless attack of the Romans, he considers to have been so arranged\nby a divine decree, to make the final ruin fall with the more certainty\non the truly guilty.\n\n \u2666 \u201cGallas\u201d replaced with \u201cGallus\u201d for consistency\n\n THE REFUGE IN PELLA.\n\nA tradition, entitled to more than usual respect, from its serious and\nreasonable air, commemorates the circumstance that the Christians, on\nleaving Jerusalem, took refuge in the city of Pella, which stood on a\nsmall western branch of the Jordan, about sixty miles north-west from\nJerusalem, among the mountains of Gilead. The locality on some accounts\nis a probable one, for it is distant from Jerusalem and beyond Judea,\nas the Savior directed them to flee; and being also on the mountains,\nanswers very well to the other particulars of his warning. But\nthere are some reasons which would make it an undesirable place of\nrefuge, for a very long time, to those who fled from scenes of war\nand commotion, for the sake of enjoying peace and safety. That part\nof Galilee which formed the adjacent territory on the north of Pella,\na few months after, became the scene of a devastating war. The city\nof Gamala, not above twenty miles off, was besieged by Vespasian, the\ngeneral of the Roman invading army, (afterwards emperor,) and was taken\nafter a most obstinate and bloody contest, the effect of which must\nhave been felt throughout the country around, making it any thing but\na comfortable place of refuge, to those who sought peace. The presence\nof hostile armies in the region near, must have been a source of great\ntrouble and distress to the inhabitants of Pella, so that those who\nfled from Jerusalem to that place, would, in less than a year, find\nthat they had made no very agreeable exchange. These bloody commotions\nhowever, did not begin immediately, and it was not till nearly one year\nafter the flight of the Christians from Jerusalem, that the war was\nbrought into the neighborhood of Pella; for Josephus fixes the retreat\nof Cestius Gallus on the twelfth of November, in the twelfth year of\nNero\u2019s reign, (A.\u00a0D. 66,) and the taking of Gamala, on the twenty-third\nof October, in the following year, after one month\u2019s siege. There was\nthen a period of several months, during which this region was quiet,\nand would therefore afford a temporary refuge to the fugitives from\nJerusalem; but for a permanent home they would feel obliged to look not\nmerely beyond Judea, but out of Palestine. Being in Pella, so near the\nborders of Arabia, which often afforded a refuge to the oppressed in\nits desert-girdled homes, the greater portion would naturally move off\nin that direction, and many too, probably extend their journey eastward\ninto Mesopotamia, settling at last in Babylon, already becoming a new\ndwelling-place for both Jews and Christians, among whom, as has been\nrecorded in a former part of this work, the Apostle Peter had made\nhis home, where he probably remained for the rest of his life, and\nalso died there. Respecting the movements of the Apostle John in this\ngeneral flight, nothing certain can be affirmed; but all probability\nwould, without any other evidence, suggest that he followed the course\nof the majority of those who were under his pastoral charge; and as\ntheir way led eastward, he would be disposed to take that route also.\nAnd here the floating fragments of ancient tradition may be cited, for\nwhat they are worth, in defense of a view which is also justified by\nnatural probabilities.\n\n THE JOURNEY EASTWARD.\n\nThe earliest testimony on this point does not appear, however, until\nnear the close of the fourth century; when it arises in the form of a\nvague notion, that John had once preached to the Parthians, and that\nhis first epistle was particularly addressed to them. From a few such\nremnants of history as this, it has been considered extremely probable,\nby some, that John passed many years, or even a great part of his\nlife, in the regions east of the Euphrates, within the bounds of the\ngreat Parthian empire, where a vast number of his refugee countrymen\nhad settled after the destruction of Jerusalem, enjoying peace and\nprosperity, partly forgetting their national calamities, in building\nthemselves up almost into a new people, beyond the bounds of the Roman\nempire. These would afford to him an extensive and congenial field of\nlabor; they were his countrymen, speaking his own language, and to them\nhe was allied by the sympathies of a common misfortune and a common\nrefuge. Abundant proof has already been offered, to show that in this\nregion was the home of Peter, during the same period; and probabilities\nare strongly in favor of the supposition, that the other apostles\nfollowed him thither, making Babylon the new apostolic capital of the\neastern churches, as Jerusalem had been the old one. From that city, as\na center, the apostles would naturally extend their occasional labors\ninto the countries eastward, as far as their Jewish brethren had spread\ntheir refugee settlements; for beyond the Roman limits, Christianity\nseems to have made no progress whatever among the Gentiles, in the time\nof the apostles; and if there had been no other difficulties, the great\ndifference of language and manners, and the savage condition of most\nof the races around them, would have led them to confine their labors\nwholly to those of their own nation, who inhabited the country watered\nby the Euphrates and its branches; or still farther east, to lands\nwhere the Jews seem to have spread themselves to the banks of the\nIndus, and perhaps within the modern boundaries of India. Some wild\ntraditionary accounts, of no great authority, even offer reports, that\nthe Apostle John preached in India; and some of the Jesuit missionaries\nhave supposed that they had detected such traditions among the tribes\nof that region, among whom they labored. All that can be said of these\naccounts is, that they accord with a reasonable supposition, which is\nmade probable by other circumstances; but traditions of such a standing\ncannot be said to _prove_ anything.\n\n _Parthia._\u2015\u2015The earliest trace of this story is in the writings\n of Augustin, (A.\u00a0D. 398,) who quotes the first epistle of\n John as \u201cthe epistle to the Parthians,\u201d from which it appears\n that this was a common name for that epistle, in the times of\n Augustin. Athanasius is also quoted by Bede, as calling it by\n the same name. If he wrote to the Parthians in that familiar\n way, it would seem probable that he had been among them, and\n many writers have therefore adopted this view. Among these, the\n learned Mill (Prolegomena in New Testament \u00a7 150) expresses his\n opinion very fully, that John passed the greater part of his\n life among the Parthians, and the believers near them. Lampe\n (Prolegomena to a Johannine Theology, Lib. I. cap. iii. \u00a7 12,\n note) allows the probability of such a visit, but strives to fix\n its date long before the destruction of Jerusalem; yet offers no\n good reason for such a notion.\n\n _India._\u2015\u2015The story of the Jesuit missionaries is given by\n Baronius, (Annals 44. \u00a7 30.) The story is, that letters from\n some of these missionaries, in 1555, give an account of their\n finding such a tradition, among an East Indian nation, called\n the Bassoras, who told them that the apostle John once preached\n the gospel in that region. No further particulars are given; but\n this is enough to enable us to judge of the value of a story,\n dating fifteen centuries from the event which it commemorates.\n\n\n HIS RESIDENCE IN ASIA.\n\nThe great mass of ancient stories about this apostle, take no notice\nat all of his residence in the far eastern regions, on and beyond the\nEuphrates, but make mention of the countries inhabited by Greeks and\nRomans, as the scenes of the greater part of his long life, after the\ndestruction of Jerusalem. The palpable reason of the character of these\ntraditions, no doubt, is, that they all come from the very regions\nwhich they commemorate as the home of John; and the authors of the\nstories being interested only to secure for their own region the\nhonor of an apostolic visit, cared nothing about the similar glory of\ncountries far eastward, with which they had no connection whatever,\nand of which they knew nothing. That region which is most particularly\npointed out as the great scene of John\u2019s life and labors, is ASIA, in\nthe original, limited sense of the term, which includes only a small\nportion of the eastern border of the Aegean sea, as already described\nin the life of Peter. The most important place in this _Little_ Asia,\nwas Ephesus; and in this famous city the apostle John is said to have\nspent the latter part of his life, after the great dispersion from\nPalestine.\n\nThe _motives_ of John\u2019s visit to Ephesus, are variously given by\ndifferent writers, both ancient and modern. All refer the primary\nimpulse to the Holy Spirit, which was the constant and unerring guide\nof all the apostles in their movements abroad on the great mission of\ntheir Master. The divine presence of their Lord himself, too, was ever\nwith them to support and encourage, in their most distant wanderings,\neven as he promised at parting,\u2015\u2015\u201cLo! I am with you always, even to\nthe end of the world.\u201d But historical investigation may very properly\nproceed with the inquiry into the real _occasion_ which led him, under\nthat divine guidance, to this distant city, among a people who were\nmostly foreign to him in language, habits and feelings, even though\nmany of them owned the faith of Christ, and reverenced the apostle\nof his word. It is said, but not proved, that a division of the great\nfields of labor was made by the apostles among themselves, about\nthe time of the destruction of Jerusalem; and that, when Andrew took\nScythia, and others their sections of duty, Asia was assigned to\nJohn, who passed the rest of his life there accordingly. This field\nhad already, indeed, been gone over by Paul and his companions, and\nalready at Ephesus itself had a church been gathered, which was now\nflourishing under the pastoral care of Timothy, who had been instructed\nand commissioned for this very field, by Paul himself. But these\ncircumstances, so far from deterring the apostle John from presenting\nhimself on a field of labor already so nobly entered, are supposed\nrather to have operated as incitements to draw him into a place where\nso solid a foundation had been laid for a complete fabric. As a center\nof missionary action, indeed, Ephesus certainly did possess many local\nadvantages of a high order. The metropolis of all Asia Minor,\u2015\u2015a noble\nemporium for the productions of that great section of the eastern\ncontinent, on whose farthest western shore it stood,\u2015\u2015and a grand\ncenter for the traffic of the great Mediterranean sea, whose waters\nrolled from that haven over the mighty shores of three continents,\nbearing, wherever they flowed, the ships of Ephesus,\u2015\u2015this port\noffered the most ready and desirable means of intercourse with all the\ncommercial cities of the world, from Tyre, or Alexandria, or Sinope,\nto the pillars of Hercules, and gave the quickest and surest access to\nthe gates of Rome itself. Its widely extended commerce, of course, drew\naround its gates a constant throng of people from many distant parts of\nthe world, a few of whom, if imbued with the gospel, would thus become\nthe missionaries of the word of truth to millions, where the name of\nJesus was before unknown. And since, after the death of all the other\napostles, John survived alone, so long, it was desirable for all the\nChristian churches in the world, that the only living minister of the\nword who had been instructed from the lips of Jesus himself, should\nreside in some such place, where he might so easily be visited by all,\nand whence his instructions might quickly go forth to all. His inspired\ncounsels, and his wonder-working prayers, might be sought for all who\nneeded them, and his apostolic ordinances might be heard and obeyed,\nalmost at once, by the most distant churches. But the circumstance,\nwhich more especially might lead the wanderer from the ruined city and\nhomes of his fathers, to Ephesus, was the great gathering of Jews at\nthis spot, who of course thus presented to the Jewish apostle an ample\nfield for exertions, for which his natural and acquired endowments best\nfitted him.\n\nIn the account given in the Acts of the Apostles of Paul\u2019s visit to\nEphesus, particular mention is made of a synagogue there, in which\nhe preached and disputed daily, for a long period, with great effect.\nYet Paul\u2019s labors had by no means attained such complete success among\nthe Jews there, as to make it unnecessary for another apostle to labor\nin the ministry of the circumcision, in that same place; for it is\nespecially mentioned that Paul, after three months\u2019 active exertion\nin setting forth the truth in the synagogues, was induced by the\nconsideration of the peculiar difficulties which beset him, among these\nproud and stubborn adherents of the old Mosaic system, to withdraw\nhimself from among them; and during the remainder of his two years\u2019\nstay, he devoted himself, for the most part, to the instruction of the\nwilling Greeks, who opened the schools of philosophy for his teachings,\nwith far more willingness than the Jews did their house of religious\nassembly. And it appears that the greater part of his converts were\nrather among the Greeks than the Jews; for in the great commotions\nthat followed, the attack upon the preachers of Christianity was\nmade entirely by a _heathen_ mob, in which no Israelite seems to\nhave had any hand whatever; so that Paul had evidently made but\nlittle impression, comparatively, on the latter class. Among the\nJews then, there was still a wide field open for the labors of one,\nconsecrated, more especially, for the ministry of the circumcision.\nThe circumstances of the times, also, presented many advantages for a\nsuccessful assault upon the religious prejudices of his countrymen. The\ngreat Center of Unity for the race of Israel throughout the world, had\nnow fallen into an irretrievable oblivion, under the fire and sword of\nthe invader. The glories of the ancient covenant seemed to have passed\naway forever; and in the high devotion of the Jew, a blank was now\nleft, by the destruction of the only temple of his ancient faith, which\nnothing else on earth could fill. Henceforth he might be trained to\nlook for a spiritual temple,\u2015\u2015a city eternal in the heavens, whose\nlasting foundations were laid by no mortal hand, for the heathen to\nsweep away in unholy triumph; but whose builder and maker was God. Thus\nprepared, by the mournful consummation of their country\u2019s utter ruin,\nfor the reception of a pure faith, the condition of the disconsolate\nJews must have appeared in the highest degree interesting to the\nsolitary surviving apostle of Jesus; and he would naturally devote the\nremnant of his days to that portion of the world where he might make\nthe deepest impression on them, and where his influence might spread\nwidest to the scattered members of a people, then as now, eminently\ncommercial.\n\nUnder these peculiarly interesting circumstances, the Apostle John is\nsupposed to have arrived at Ephesus, where Timothy, still holding the\nepiscopal chair in which he had been placed by the Apostle Paul, must\nhave hailed with great delight the arrival of the venerable John, from\nwhose instructions and counsels, he might hope to derive advantages so\nmuch the more welcome, since the sword of the heathen persecution had\nremoved his original apostolic teacher from the world. John must have\nbeen, at the time of his journey to Ephesus, considerably advanced\nin life. His precise age, and the date of his arrival, are altogether\nunknown, nor are there any fixed points on which the most critical\nand ingenious historical investigation can base any certain conclusion\nwhatever, as to these interesting matters. Various and widely different\nhave been the conclusions on these points;\u2015\u2015some fixing his journey\nto Ephesus in the reign of Claudius, long before the destruction\nof Jerusalem, and even before the council on the question of the\ncircumcision. The true character of this tale can be best appreciated\nby a reference to another circumstance, which is gravely appended\nto it by its narrators;\u2015\u2015which is, that he was accompanied on this\ntour by the Virgin Mary, and that she lived there with him for a long\ntime. This journey too, is thus made to precede the journey of Paul\nto Ephesus, by many years, and yet no account whatever is given of the\nreasons of the profound silence observed in the Acts of the Apostles,\non an event so important to the history of the propagation of the\ngospel, nor why John could have lived so long at Ephesus, and yet have\neffected so little, that when Paul came to the same place, the very\nname of Christ was new there. But such stories are not worth refuting,\nstanding as they do, self-convicted falsehoods. Others however, are\nmore reasonable, and date this journey in the year of the destruction\nof Jerusalem, supposing that Ephesus was the first place of refuge\nto which the apostle went. But this conjecture is totally destitute\nof all ancient authority, and is inconsistent with the very reasonable\nsupposition adopted above,\u2015\u2015that he, in the flight from Jerusalem,\nfirst journeyed eastward, following the general current of the\nfugitives, towards the Euphrates. Where there is such a total want of\nall data, any fixed decision is out of the question; but it is very\nreasonable to suppose that John\u2019s final departure from the east did\nnot take place till some years after this date; probably not until the\nreign of Domitian. (A.\u00a0D. 81 or 82.) He had lived in Babylon therefore,\ntill he had seen most of his brethren and friends pass away from\nhis eyes. The venerable Peter had sunk into the grave, and had been\nfollowed by the rest of the apostolic band, until the youngest apostle,\nnow grown old, found himself standing alone in the midst of a new\ngeneration, like one of the solitary columns of desolate Babylon,\namong the low dwelling places of its refugee inhabitants. But among\nthe hourly crumbling heaps of that ruined city, and the fast-darkening\nregions of that half-savage dominion, there was each year less and\nless around him, on which his precious labor could be advantageously\nexpended. Christianity never seizes readily on the energies of a broken\nor degenerating people, nor does it flourish where the influences of\ncivilization are losing their hold. Its exalted and exalting genius\nrather takes the spirits that are already on the wing for an upward\ncourse, and rises with them, giving new energy to the ascending\nmovement. It may exert its elevating influence too, on the yet wild\nspirit of the uncivilized, and give, in the new conceptions of a\npure faith and a high destiny, the first impulse to the advance of\nman towards refinement, in knowledge, and art, and freedom; but its\nvery existence among them is dependent on this _forward_ and _upward_\nmovement,\u2015\u2015and the beginning of its mortal decay dates from the\ncessation of the developments of the intellectual and physical\nresources of the race on which it operates. Among the subjects of the\nParthian empire, this downward movement was already fully decided; and\nthey were fast losing those refinements of feeling and thought on which\nthe new faith could best fasten its spiritual and inspiring influences;\nthey therefore soon became but hopeless objects of missionary exertion,\nwhen compared with the active and enterprising inhabitants of the\nstill improving regions of the west. \u201cWestward\u201d then, \u201cthe star\u201d of\nChristianity as \u201cof empire, took its way;\u201d and the last of the apostles\nwas but following, not leading, the march of his Lord\u2019s advancing\ndominion, when he shook off the dust of the darkening eastern lands\nfrom his feet, forever; turning his aged face towards the setting sun,\nto find in his latter days, a new home and a foreign grave among the\nchildren of his brethren; and to rejoice his old eyes with the glorious\nsight of what God had done for the churches, among the flourishing\ncities of the west, that were still advancing under Grecian art and\nRoman sway.\n\n _Ephesus._\u2015\u2015On the importance of this place, as an apostolic\n station, the Magdeburg Centuriators are eloquent; and such is\n the classic elegance of the Latin in which these moderns have\n expressed themselves, that the passage is worth giving entire,\n for the sake of those who can enjoy the beauty of the original.\n \u201cConsidera mirabile Dei consilium. Joannes in Ephesum ad littus\n maris Aegei collocatus est: ut inde, quasi e specula, retro\n suam Asiam videret, suaque fragrantia repleret: ante se vero\n Graeciam, totamque Europam haberet; ut inde, tanquam tuba Domini\n sonora, etiam ultra-marinos populos suis concionibus ac scriptis\n inclamaret et invitaret ad Christum; presertim, cum ibi fuerit\n admodum commodus portus, plurimique mercatores ac homines\n peregrini ea loca adierint.\u201d The beauty of such a sentence\n is altogether beyond the force of English, and the elegant\n paronomasia which repeatedly occurs in it, increasing the power\n of the original expression to charm the ear and mind, is totally\n lost in a translation, but the meanings of the sentences may be\n given for the benefit of those readers to whom the Latin is not\n familiar.\u2015\u2015\u201cRegard the wonderful providence of God. John was\n stationed at Ephesus, on the shore of the Aegean sea; so that\n there, as in a mirror, he might behold his peculiar province,\n Asia, behind him, and might fill it with the incense of his\n prayers: before him too, he had Greece and all Europe; so that\n there, as with the far-sounding trumpet of the Lord, he might\n summon and invite to Christ, by his sermons and writings, even\n the nations beyond the sea, by the circumstance that there,\n was a most spacious haven, and that vast numbers of traders and\n travelers thronged to the place.\u201d\n\n Chrysostom speaks also of the importance of Ephesus as an\n apostolic station, alluding to it as a strong hold of heathen\n philosophy; but there is no reason to think that John ever\n distinguished himself by any assaults upon systems with which\n he was not, and could never have been sufficiently acquainted\n to enable him to attack them; for in order to meet an evil, it\n is necessary to understand it thoroughly. There is no hint of\n an acquaintance with philosophy in any part of his writings,\n nor does any historian speak of his making converts among them.\n Chrysostom\u2019s words are,\u2015\u2015\u201cHe fixed himself also in Asia, where\n anciently all the sects of Grecian philosophy cultivated their\n sciences. There he flashed out in the midst of the foe, clearing\n away their darkness, and storming the very citadel of demons.\n And with this design he went to this place, so well suited to\n one who would work such wonders.\u201d (Homily 1, on John.)\n\n The idea of John\u2019s visit to Ephesus, where Timothy was already\n settled over the church as bishop, has made a great deal of\n trouble to those who stupidly confound the office of an apostle\n with that of a bishop, and are always degrading an apostle into\n a mere church-officer. Such blunderers of course, are put to\n a vast deal of pains to make out how Timothy could manage to\n keep possession of his bishopric, with the Apostle John in the\n same town with him; for they seem to think that a bishop, like\n the flag-officer on a naval station, can hold the command of the\n post not a moment after a senior officer appears in sight; but\n that then down comes the broad blue pennon to be sure, and never\n is hoisted again till the greater officer is off beyond the\n horizon. But no such idle arrangements of mere etiquette were\n ever suffered to mar the noble and useful simplicity of the\n primitive church government, in the least. The presence of an\n apostle in the same town with a bishop, could no more interfere\n with the regular function of the latter, than the presence of a\n diocesan bishop in any city of his diocese, excludes the rector\n of the church there, from his pastoral charge. The sacred duties\n of Timothy were those of the pastoral care of a single church,\u2015\u2015a\n sort of charge that no apostle ever assumed out of Jerusalem;\n but John\u2019s apostolic duties led him to exercise a general\n supervision over a great number of churches. All those in Little\n Asia would claim his care alike, and the most distant would look\n to him for counsel; while that in Ephesus, having been so well\n established by Paul, and being blessed by the pastoral care of\n Timothy, who had been instructed and commissioned for that very\n place and duty, by him, would really stand in very little need\n of any direct attention from John. Yet among his Jewish brethren\n he would still find much occasion for his missionary labor,\n even in that city; and this was the sort of duty which was most\n appropriate to his apostolic character; for the apostles were\n missionaries and not bishops.\n\n Others pretend to say, however, that Timothy was dead when John\n arrived, and that John succeeded him in the bishopric,\u2015\u2015a mere\n invention to get rid of the difficulty, and proved to be such\n by the assertion that the apostle was a bishop, and rendered\n suspicious also by the circumstance of Timothy being so young\n a man.\n\n The fable of the Virgin Mary\u2019s journey, in company with John, to\n Ephesus, has been very gravely supported by Baronius, (Annals,\n 44, \u00a7 29,) who makes it happen in the second year of the reign\n of Claudius, and quotes as his authority a groundless statement,\n drawn from a mis-translation of a synodical epistle from the\n council of Ephesus to the clergy at Constantinople, containing\n a spurious passage which alludes to this story, condemning the\n Nestorians as heretics, for rejecting the tale. There are, and\n have long been, however, a vast number of truly discreet and\n learned Romanists, who have scorned to receive such contemptible\n and useless inventions. Among these, the learned Antony Pagus,\n in his Historico-Chronological Review of Baronius, has utterly\n refuted the whole story, showing the spurious character of\n the passage quoted in its support. (Pagus, Critica Baronius\n Annals, 42. \u00a7 3.) Lampe quotes moreover, the Abbot Facditius,\n the Trevoltian collectors and Combefisius, as also refuting the\n fable. Among the Protestant critics, Rivetus and Basnage have\n discussed the same point.\n\nOf the incidents of John\u2019s life at Ephesus, no well authorized account\nwhatever can be given. Yet on this part of apostolic history the\nFathers are uncommonly rich in details, which are interesting, and\nsome of which present no improbability on examination; but their worst\ncharacter is, that they do not make their appearance until above one\nhundred years after the date of the incidents which they commemorate,\nand refer to no authority but loose and floating tradition. In\nrespect to these, too, occurs exactly the same difficulty which has\nalready been specified in connection with the traditionary history of\nPeter,\u2015\u2015that the same early writers, who record as true these stories\nwhich are so probable and reasonable in their character, also present\nin the same grave manner other stories, which do bear, with them,\non their very faces, the evidence of their utter falsehood, in their\npalpable and monstrous absurdity. Among the possible and probable\nincidents of John\u2019s life, narrated by the Fathers, are a journey to\nJerusalem, and one also to Rome,\u2015\u2015but of these there is no certainty,\nnor any acceptable evidence. These long journeys, too, are wholly\nwithout any sufficient assigned object, which would induce so old a man\nto leave his quiet and useful residence at Ephesus, to travel hundreds\nand thousands of miles. The churches of both Rome and Jerusalem were\nunder well organized governments, which were perfectly competent to the\nadministration of their own affairs, without the presence of an apostle;\nor, if they needed his counsel in an emergency, he could communicate\nhis opinions to them with great certainty, by message, and with far\nmore quickness and ease, than by a journey to them. Such an occasion\nfor a direct call on him, however, could but very rarely occur,\u2015\u2015nor\nwould so unimportant an event as the death of one bishop and the\ninstallation of another, ever induce him to take a journey to sanction\na mere formality by his presence. His help certainly was not needed\nby any church out of his own little Asian circle, in the selection of\nproper persons to fill vacant offices of government or instruction.\nThey knew best their own wants, and the abilities of their own members\nto exercise any official duty to which they might be called; while\nJohn, a perfect stranger to most of them, would feel neither disposed\nnor qualified for meddling with any part of the internal policy of\nother churches. But the principal condemnation of the statement of his\njourney to Rome is contained in the foolish story connected with it,\nby its earliest narrator,\u2015\u2015that on his arrival there, he was, by order\nof the emperor Domitian, thrown into a vessel full of hot oil; but,\nso far from receiving the slightest injury from such a frying, he came\nout of this greasy place of torture, quite improved in every respect\nby the immersion; and, as the story goes, arose from it perfumed like\nan _athleta_ anointed for the combat. There are very great variations,\nhowever, in the different narrations of this affair; some representing\nthe event as having occurred in Ephesus, under the orders of the\nproconsul of Asia, and not in Rome, under the emperor, as the earlier\nform of the fable states. Among the statements which fix the scene of\nthis miracle in Rome, too, there is a very important chronological\ndifference,\u2015\u2015some dating it under the emperor Nero, which would carry\nit back as early as the time of Peter\u2019s fabled martyrdom, and implies\na total contradiction of all established opinions on his prolonged\nresidence in the east. In short, the whole story is so completely\ncovered over with gross blunders and contradictions about times and\nplaces, that it can not receive any place among the details of serious\nand well-authorized history.\n\n _Thrown into a vessel of oil._\u2015\u2015This greasy story has a\n tolerably respectable antiquity, going farther back with its\n authorities than any other fable in the Christian mythology,\n except Justin Martyr\u2019s story about Simon Magus. The earliest\n authority for this is Tertullian, (A.\u00a0D. 200,) who says that\n \u201cat Rome, the Apostle John, having been immersed in hot oil,\n suffered no harm at all from it.\u201d (De Praescriptionibus adversus\n Haereticos, c. 36.) \u201cIn oleum igneum immersus nihil passus est.\u201d\n But for nearly two hundred years after, no one of the Fathers\n refers to this fable. Jerome (A.\u00a0D. 397.) is the next of any\n certain date, and speaks of it in two passages. In the first\n (Against Jovinianus I. 14,) he quotes Tertullian as authority,\n but bunglingly says, that \u201che was thrown into the kettle by\n order of _Nero_,\u201d\u2015\u2015a most palpable error, not sanctioned by\n Tertullian. In the second passage, (Commentary on Matthew xx.\n 23,) he furthermore refers in general terms to \u201cecclesiastical\n histories, in which it was said that John, on account of his\n testimony concerning Christ, was thrown into a kettle of boiling\n oil, and came out thence like an _athleta_, to win the crown\n of Christ.\u201d From these two sources, the other narrators of\n the story have drawn it. Of the modern critics and historians,\n besides the great herd of Papists, several Protestants are\n quoted by Lampe, as strenuously defending it; and several of\n the greatest, who do not absolutely receive it as true, yet do\n not presume to decide against it; as the Magdeburg Centuriators,\n (Century 1, lib. 2. c. 10,) who however declare it very doubtful\n indeed, \u201c_rem incertissimam_;\u201d\u2015\u2015Ittig, Le Clerc and Mosheim\n taking the same ground. But Meisner, Cellarius, Dodwell,\n Spanheim, Heumann and others, overthrow it utterly, as a\n baseless fable. They argue against it _first_, from the bad\n character of its only ancient witness. Tertullian is well known\n as most miserably credulous, and fond of catching up these idle\n tales; and even the devoutly credulous Baronius condemns him in\n the most unmeasured terms for his greedy and undiscriminating\n love of falsehood. _Secondly_, they object the profound silence\n of all the Fathers of the second, third and fourth centuries,\n excepting him and Jerome; whereas, if such a remarkable incident\n were of any authority whatever, those numerous occasions on\n which they refer to the banishment of John to Patmos, which\n Tertullian connects so closely with this story, would suggest\n and require a notice of the causes and attendant circumstances\n of that banishment, as stated by him. How could those eloquent\n writers, who seem to dwell with so much delight on the noble\n trials and triumphs of the apostles, pass over this wonderful\n peril and miraculous deliverance? Why did Irenaeus, so studious\n in extolling the glory of John, forget to specify an incident\n implying at once such a courageous spirit of martyrdom in this\n apostle, and such a peculiar favor of God, in thus wonderfully\n preserving him? Hippolytus and Sulpitius Severus too, are silent;\n and more than all, Eusebius, so diligent in scraping together\n all that can heap up the martyr-glories of the apostles, and\n more particularly of John himself, is here utterly without a\n word on this interesting event. Origen, too, dwelling on the\n modes in which the two sons of Zebedee drank the cup of Jesus,\n as he prophesied, makes no use of this valuable illustration.\n\n On the origin of this fable, Lampe mentions a very ingenious\n conjecture, that some such act of cruelty may have been\n meditated or threatened, but afterwards given up; and that\n thence the story became accidentally so perverted as to make\n what was merely designed, appear to have been partly put in\n execution.\n\n In this decided condemnation of the venerable Tertullian, I\n am justified by the example of Lampe, whose reverence for the\n authority of the Fathers is much greater than that of most\n theologians of later days. He refers to him in these terms:\n \u201cTERTULLIANUS, cujus credulitas, in arripiendis futilibus\n narratiunculis alias non ignota est.\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cWhose credulity in\n catching up idle tales is well known in other instances.\u201d\n Haenlein also calls him \u201cder leichtglaubige Tertullian,\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cthe\n credulous Tertullian.\u201d (Haenlein\u2019s Einleitung in Neuen\n Testamentes vol. III. p. 166.)\n\n This miraculous event procured the highly-favored John, by\n this _extreme unction_, all the advantages with none of the\n disadvantages of martyrdom; for in consequence of this peril he\n has received among the Fathers the name of a \u201cliving martyr.\u201d\n (\u03b6\u03bf\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1) Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Athanasius,\n Theophylact and others, quoted by Suicer, [sub voc. \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1,]\n apply this term to him. \u201cHe had the _mind_ though not the _fate_\n of a martyr.\u201d \u201cNon defuit animus martyrio,\u201d &c. [Jerome and\n Cyprian.] Through ignorance of the meaning of the word \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1,\n in this peculiar application to John, the learned Haenlein\n seems to me to have fallen into an error on the opinion of these\n Fathers about his mode of death. In speaking of the general\n testimony as to the quiet death of this apostle, Haenlein says:\n \u201cBut Chrysostom, only in one ambiguous passage, (Homily 63\n in Matthew) and his follower Theophylact, number the Apostle\n John among the martyrs.\u201d [Haenlein\u2019s Einleitung in Neuen\n Testamentes vol. III. chap. vi. \u00a7 1, p. 168.] The fact is, that\n not only these two, but several other Fathers, use the term in\n application to John, and they all do it without any implication\n of an actual, fatal martyrdom; as may be seen by a reference to\n Suicer, sub voc.\n\n So little reverence have the critical, even among the Romanists,\n for any of these old stories about John\u2019s adventures, that the\n sagacious Abbot Facditius (quoted by Lampe) quite turns these\n matters into a jest. Coupling this story with the one about\n John\u2019s chaste celibacy, (as supported by the monachists,) he\n says, in reference to the latter, that if John made out to\n preserve his chastity uncontaminated among such a people as the\n Jews were, in that most corrupt age, he should consider it a\n greater miracle than if John had come safe out of the kettle of\n boiling oil; but on the reverend Abbot\u2019s sentiment, perhaps many\n will remark with Lampe,\u2015\u2015\u201cquod pronuntiatum tamen nimis audax\n est.\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cIt is rather too bold to pronounce such an opinion.\u201d\n Nevertheless, such a termination of life would be so much in\n accordance with the standard mode of dispatching an apostle,\n that they would never have taken him out of the oil-kettle,\n except for the necessity of sending him to Patmos, and dragging\n him on through multitudes of odd adventures yet to come. So we\n might then have had the satisfaction of winding up his story,\n in the _literal_ and happy application of the words of a certain\n venerable poetical formula for the conclusion of a nursery tale,\n which here makes not only rhyme but reason,\u2015\u2015\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n HIS BANISHMENT.\n\nThis fable of his journey to Rome is by all its propagators connected\nwith the well-authorized incident of his banishment to Patmos. This\nevent, given on the high evidence of the Revelation which bears his\nname, is by all the best and most ancient authorities, referred to the\nperiod of the reign of Domitian. The precise year is as much beyond any\nmeans of investigation, as most other exact dates in his and all the\nother apostles\u2019 history. From the terms in which the ancient writers\ncommemorate the event, it is known, with tolerable certainty, to have\noccurred towards the close of the reign of Domitian, though none of the\nearly Fathers specify the year. The first who pretend to fix the date,\nrefer it to the fourteenth year of that emperor, and the most critical\namong the moderns fix it as late; and some even in the fifteenth or\nlast year of his reign; since that persecution of the Christians,\nduring which John seems to have been banished, may be fairly presumed,\nfrom the known circumstances as recorded in history, to have been\nthe last great series of tyrannical acts committed by this remarkably\nwicked monarch. It certainly appears, from distinct assertions in the\ncredible records of ecclesiastical history, that there was a great\npersecution begun about this time by Domitian, against the Christians;\nbut there is no reasonable doubt that the extent and vindictiveness of\nit has been very much overrated, in the rage among the later Fathers,\nfor multiplying the sufferings of the early Christians far beyond the\ntruth. The first Christian writers who allude to this persecution very\nparticularly, specify its character as far less aggravated than that\nof Nero, of which they declare it to have been but a shadow,\u2015\u2015and the\npersecutor himself but a mere _fraction_ of Nero in cruelty. There is\nnot a single authenticated instance of any person\u2019s having suffered\ndeath in this persecution; all the creditable historians who describe\nit, most particularly demonstrate that the whole range of punishments\ninflicted on the subjects of it, was confined to banishment merely.\nAnother reason for supposing that this attack on the Christians was\nvery moderate in its character, is the important negative fact, that\nnot one heathen historian makes the slightest mention of any trouble\nwith the new sect, during that bloody reign; although such repeated,\nvivid accounts are given of the dreadful persecution waged by Nero,\nas related above, in the Life of Peter. It is reasonable to suppose,\ntherefore, that there were no great cruelties practised on them; but\nthat many of them, who had become obnoxious to the tyrant and his\nminions, were quietly put out of the way, that they might occasion\nno more trouble,\u2015\u2015being sent from Rome and some of the principal\ncities, into banishment, along with many others whose removal was\nconsidered desirable by the rulers of Rome or the provinces; so that\nthe Christians, suffering with many others, and some of high rank and\ncharacter, a punishment of no very cruel nature, were not distinguished\nby common narrators, from the general mass of the banished; but were\nnoticed more particularly by the writers of their own order, who thus\nspecified circumstances that otherwise would not have been made known.\nAmong those driven out from Ephesus at this time, John was included,\nprobably on no special accusation otherwise than that of being\nprominent as the last survivor of the original founders, among these\nmembers of the new faith, who by their pure lives were a constant\nreproach to the open vices of the proud heathen around them; and by\ntheir refusal to conform to idolatrous observances, exposed themselves\nto the charge of non-conformity to the established religion of the\nstate,\u2015\u2015an offence of the highest order even among the Romans, whose\ntolerance of new religions was at length limited by the requisition,\nthat no doctrine whatever should be allowed to aim directly at the\noverthrow of the settled order of things. When, therefore, it began\nto be apprehended that the religion of Jesus would, in its progress,\novercome the securities of the ancient worship of the Olympian gods,\nthose who felt their interests immediately connected with the system of\nidolatry, in their alarmed zeal for its support, made use of the worst\nspecimens of imperial tyranny to check the advancing evil.\n\n\n PATMOS.\n\nThe place chosen for his banishment was a dreary desert island in\nthe Aegean sea, called Patmos. It is situated among that cluster of\nislands, called the Sporades, about twenty miles from the Asian coast,\nand thirty or forty southwest of Ephesus. It is at this day known\nby the observation of travelers, to be a most remarkably desolate\nplace, showing hardly anything but bare rocks, on which a few poor\ninhabitants make but a wretched subsistence. In this insulated desert\nthe aged apostle was doomed to pass the lonely months, far away from\nthe enjoyments of Christian communion and social intercourse, so dear\nto him, as the last earthly consolation of his life. Yet to him, his\nresidence at Ephesus was but a place of exile. Far away were the scenes\nof his youth and the graves of his fathers. \u201cThe shore whereon he\nloved to dwell,\u201d\u2015\u2015the lake on whose waters he had so often sported or\nlabored in the freshness of early years, were still the same as ever,\nand others now labored there, as he had done ere he was called to a\nhigher work. But the homes of his childhood knew him no more forever,\nand rejoiced now in the light of the countenances of strangers, or\nlay in blackening desolation beneath the brand of a wasting invasion.\nThe waters and the mountains were there still,\u2015\u2015they are there now;\nbut that which to him constituted all their reality was gone then,\nas utterly as now. The ardent friends, the dear brother, the faithful\nfather, the fondly ambitious and loving mother,\u2015\u2015who made up his little\nworld of life, and joy, and hope,\u2015\u2015where were they? All were gone; even\nhis own former self was gone too, and the joys, the hopes, the thoughts,\nthe views of those early days, were buried as deeply as the friends\nof his youth, and far more irrevocably than they. Cut off thus utterly\nfrom all that once excited the earthly and merely human emotions within\nhim, the whole world was alike a desert or a home, according as he\nfound in it communion with God, and work for his remaining energies,\nin the cause of Christ. Wherever he went, he bore about with him his\nresources of enjoyment,\u2015\u2015his home was within himself; the friends of\nhis youth and manhood were still before him in the ever fresh images of\ntheir glorious examples; the brother of his heart was near him always,\nand nearest now, when the persecutions of imperial tyranny seemed\nto draw him towards a sympathetic participation in the pains and\nthe glories of that bloody death. The Lord of his life, the author\nof his hopes, the guide of his youth, the cherisher of his spirit,\nwas over and around him ever, with the consolations of his promised\npresence,\u2015\u2015\u201cwith him always, even to the end of the world.\u201d\n\n\n THE APOCALYPSE.\n\nThe Revelation of John the Divine opens with a moving and splendid view\nof these circumstances. Being, as it is recorded, in the isle that is\ncalled Patmos, for preaching the word of God, and for bearing witness\nof Jesus Christ, he was in his lonely banishment, one Lord\u2019s day,\nsitting wrapped in a holy spiritual contemplation, when he heard behind\nhim a great voice, as of a trumpet, which broke upon his startled ear\nwith a most solemnly grand annunciation of the presence of one whose\nbeing was the source and end of all things. As the amazed apostle\nturned to see the person from whom came such portentous words, there\nmet his eye a vision so dazzling, yet appalling in its beauty and\nsplendor, amid the bare, dark rocks around, that he fell to the earth\nwithout life, and lay motionless until the heavenly being, whose awful\nglories had so overwhelmed him, recalled him to his most vivid energies,\nby the touch of his life-giving hand. In the lightning-splendors of\nthat countenance, far outshining the glories of Sinai, reflected from\nthe face of Moses, the trembling eye of the apostolic seer recognized\nthe lineaments of one whom he had known in other days, and upon whose\nbosom he had hung in the warm affection of youth. Even the eye which\nnow flashed such rays, he knew to be that which had once been turned\non him in the aspect of familiar love; nor did its glance now bear a\nstrange or forbidding expression. The trumpet-tones of the voice, which\nof old, on Hermon, roused him from the stupor into which he fell at\nthe sight of the foretaste of these very glories, now recalled him to\nlife in the same encouraging words, \u201cBe not afraid.\u201d The crucified\nand ascended Jesus, living, though once dead, now called on his\nbeloved apostle to record the revelations which should soon burst\nupon his eyes and ears; that the churches that had lately been under\nhis immediate attention, might learn the approach of events which\nmost nearly concerned the advance of their faith. First, therefore,\naddressing an epistolary charge to each of the seven churches, he\ncalled them to a severe account for their various errors, and gave\nto each such consolations and promises as were suited to its peculiar\ncircumstances. Then dropping these individualizing exhortations, he\nleaves all the details of the past, and the minutiae of the state\nof the seven churches, for a glance over the events of coming ages,\nand the revolutions of empires and of worlds. The full explanation of\nthe scenes which follow, is altogether beyond the range of a mere\napostolic historian, and would require such ability and learning\nin the writer,\u2015\u2015such a length of time for their application to this\nmatter, and such an expanse of paper for their full expression, as\nare altogether out of the question in this case. Some few points in\nthis remarkable writing, however, fall within the proper notice of the\napostle\u2019s biographer, and some questions on the scope of the Apocalypse\nitself, as well as on the history of it, as a part of the sacred canon,\nwill therefore be here discussed.\n\nThe minute history of the apostolic writings,\u2015\u2015the discussion of their\nparticular scope and tenor,\u2015\u2015and the evidences of their inspiration\nand authenticity,\u2015\u2015are topics, which fall for the most part under a\ndistinct and independent department of Christian theology, the common\ndetails of which are alone sufficient to fill many volumes; and are of\ncourse altogether beyond the compass of a work, whose main object is\nlimited to a merely historical branch of religious knowledge. Still,\nsuch inquiries into these deeper points, as truly concern the personal\nhistory of the apostles, are proper subjects of attention, even here.\nThe life of no literary or scientific man is complete, which does\nnot give such an account of his writings as will show under what\ncircumstances,\u2015\u2015with what design,\u2015\u2015for what persons,\u2015\u2015and at what\ntime, they were written. But a minute criticism of their style, or\nillustrations of their meaning, or a detail of all the objections which\nhave been made to them, might fairly be pronounced improper intrusions\nupon the course of the narrative. With the danger of such an extension\nof these investigations, in view, this work here takes up those points\nin the history of John\u2019s writings, that seem to fall under the general\nrule in making up a personal and literary biography.\n\nIn the case of this particular writing, moreover, the difficulties of\nan enlarged discussion are so numerous and complicated, as to offer\nan especial reason to the apostolic historian, for avoiding the almost\nendless details of questions that have agitated the greatest minds in\nChristendom, for the last four hundred years. And the decision of the\nmost learned and sagacious of modern critics, pronounces the Apocalypse\nof John to be \u201cthe most difficult and doubtful book of the New\nTestament.\u201d\n\nThe points proper for inquiry in connection with a history of the\nlife of John, may be best arranged in the form of questions with their\nanswers severally following.\n\n\n I. DID THE APOSTLE JOHN WRITE THE APOCALYPSE?\n\n Many will doubtless feel disposed to question the propriety\n of thus bringing out, in a popular book, inquiries which have\n hitherto, by a sort of common consent, been confined to learned\n works, and wholly excluded from such as are intended to convey\n religious knowledge to ordinary readers. The principle has\n been sometimes distinctly specified and maintained, that some\n established truths in exegetical theology, must needs be always\n kept among the arcana of religious knowledge, for the eyes and\n ears of the learned few, to whom \u201cit is given to know these\n mysteries;\u201d \u201cbut that to them that are without,\u201d they are ever\n to remain unknown. This principle is often acted on by the\n theologians of Germany and England, so that a distinct line\n seems to be drawn between an _exoteric_ and an _esoteric_\n doctrine,\u2015\u2015a public and a private belief,\u2015\u2015the latter being the\n literal truth, while the former is such a view of things, as\n suits the common religious prejudices of the mass of hearers and\n readers. But such is not the free spirit of true Protestantism;\n nor is any deceitful doctrine of \u201c_accommodation_\u201d accordant\n with the open, single-minded honesty of apostolic teachings.\n Taking from the persons who are the subjects of this history,\n something of their simple freedom of word and action, for the\n reader\u2019s benefit, several questions will be boldly asked, and\n as boldly answered, on the authorship, the scope, and character\n of the Apocalypse. And first, on the present personal question\n in hand, a spirit of tolerant regard for opinions discordant\n with those of some readers, perhaps may be best learned, by\n observing into what uncertainties the minds of the greatest and\n most devout of theologians, and of the mighty founders of the\n Protestant faith, have been led on this very point.\n\n The great Michaelis (Introduction to the New Testament, vol. IV.\n c. xxxiii. \u00a7 1.) apologizes for his own doubts on the Apocalypse,\n justifying himself by the similar uncertainty of the immortal\n Luther; and the remarks of Michaelis upon the character of the\n persons to whom Luther thus boldly published his doubts, will be\n abundantly sufficient to justify the discussion of such darkly\n deep matters, to the readers of the Lives of the Apostles.\n\n Not only Martin Luther as here quoted by Michaelis, but the\n other great reformers of that age, John Calvin and Ulric Zwingle,\n boldly expressed their doubts on this book, which more modern\n speculators have made so miraculously accordant with anti-papal\n notions. Their learned cotemporary, Erasmus, also, and the\n critical Joseph Scaliger, with other great names of past ages,\n have contributed their doubts, to add a new mark of suspicion to\n the Apocalypse.\n\n \u201cAs it is not improbable that this cautious method of proceeding\n will give offense to some of my readers, I must plead in my\n behalf the example of Luther, who thought and acted precisely in\n the same manner. His sentiments on this subject are delivered,\n not in an occasional dissertation on the Apocalypse, but in the\n preface to his German translation of it, a translation designed\n _not merely_ for the learned, but for _the illiterate_, and even\n for _children_. In the preface prefixed to that edition, which\n was printed in 1522, he expressed himself in very strong terms.\n In this preface he says: \u2018In this book of the Revelation of\n St. John, I leave it to every person to judge for himself: I\n will bind no man to my opinion; I say only what I feel. Not one\n thing only fails in this book; so that I hold it neither for\n apostolical, nor prophetical. First and chiefly, the apostles\n do not prophesy in visions, but in clear and plain words, as St.\n Peter, St. Paul, and Christ in the gospel do. It is moreover the\n apostle\u2019s duty to speak of Christ and his actions in a simple\n way, not in figures and visions. Also no prophet of the Old\n Testament, much less of the New, has so treated throughout his\n whole book of nothing but visions: so that I put it almost in\n the same rank with the fourth book of Esdras, and _cannot any\n way find that it was dictated by the Holy Ghost_. Lastly, let\n every one think of it what his own spirit suggests. My spirit\n can make nothing out of this book; and I have reason enough not\n to esteem it highly, since Christ is not taught in it, which an\n apostle is above all things bound to do, as he says, (Acts i.)\n Ye are my witnesses. Therefore I abide by the books which teach\n Christ clearly and purely.\u2019\n\n \u201cBut in that which he printed in 1534, he used milder and less\n decisive expressions. In the preface to this later edition,\n he divides prophecies into three classes, the third of which\n contains visions, without explanations of them; and of these\n he says: \u2018As long as a prophecy remains unexplained and has\n no determinate interpretation, it is a hidden silent prophecy,\n and is destitute of the advantages which it ought to afford to\n Christians. This has hitherto happened to the Apocalypse: for\n though many have made the attempt, no one to the present day,\n has brought any thing certain out of it, but several have made\n incoherent stuff out of their own brain. On account of these\n uncertain interpretations, and hidden senses, we have hitherto\n left it to itself, especially since some of the ancient Fathers\n believed that it was not written by the apostle, as is related\n in Lib. III. Church History. In this uncertainty we, for our\n part, still let it remain: but do not prevent others from taking\n it to be the work of St. John the apostle, if they choose. And\n because I should be glad to see a certain interpretation of it,\n I will afford to other and higher spirits occasion to reflect.\u2019\n\n \u201cStill however, he declared he was not convinced that the\n Apocalypse was canonical, and recommended the interpretation of\n it to those who were more enlightened than himself. If Luther\n then, the author of our reformation, thought and acted in\n this manner, and the divines of the last two centuries still\n continued, without the charge of heresy, to print Luther\u2019s\n preface to the Apocalypse, in the editions of the German Bible\n of which they had the superintendence, surely no one of the\n present age ought to censure a writer for the avowal of similar\n doubts. Should it be objected that what was excusable in Luther\n would be inexcusable in a modern divine, since more light has\n been thrown on the subject than there had been in the sixteenth\n century, I would ask in what this light consists. If it consists\n in newly discovered testimonies of the ancients, they are rather\n unfavorable to the cause; for the canon of the Syrian church,\n which was not known in Europe when Luther wrote, decides against\n it. On the other hand, if this light consists in a more clear\n and determinate explanation of the prophecies contained in the\n Apocalypse, which later commentators have been able to make out,\n by the aid of history, I would venture to appeal to a synod of\n the latest and most zealous interpreters of it, such as Vitringa,\n Lange, Oporin, Heumann, and Bengel, names which are free from\n all suspicion; and I have not the least doubt, that at every\n interpretation which I pronounced unsatisfactory, I should have\n at least three voices out of the five in my favor. At all events\n they would never be unanimous against me, in the places where I\n declared that I was unable to perceive the new light, which is\n supposed to have been thrown on the subject since the time of\n Luther.\n\n \u201cI admit that Luther uses too harsh expressions, where he speaks\n of the epistle of St. James, though in a preface not designed\n for Christians of every denomination: but his opinion of the\n Apocalypse is delivered in terms of the utmost diffidence,\n which are well worthy of imitation. And this is so much the more\n laudable, as the Apocalypse is a book, which Luther\u2019s opposition\n to the church of Rome must have rendered highly acceptable\n to him, unless he had thought impartially, and had refused to\n sacrifice his own doubts to polemical considerations.\u201d\n\n To pretend to decide with certainty on a point, which Martin\n Luther boldly denied, and which John David Michaelis modestly\n doubted, implies neither superior knowledge of the truth, nor a\n more holy reverence for it; but rather marks a mere presumptuous\n self-confidence, and an ignorant bigotry, arising from the\n prejudices of education. Yet from the deep researches of the\n latter of these writers, and of other exegetical theologians\n since, much may be drawn to support the view taken in the\n text of this Life of John, which is accordant with the common\n notion of its authorship. The quotation just given, however,\n is valuable as inculcating the propriety of hesitation and\n moderation in pronouncing upon results.\n\n _The testimony of the Fathers_, on the authenticity of the\n Apocalypse as a work of John, the apostle, may be very briefly\n alluded to here. The full details of this important evidence\n may be found by the scholar in J.\u00a0D. Michaelis\u2019s Introduction to\n the New Testament (Vol. IV. c. xxxiii. \u00a7 2.) Hug\u2019s Introduction\n to the New Testament (Vol. II. \u00a7 176.) Lardner\u2019s Credibility of\n Gospel History (Supplement, chapter 22.) Fabricii Bibliotheca\n Graeca. (Harles\u2019s 4to. edition with Keil\u2019s, Kuinoel\u2019s, Gurlitt\u2019s,\n and Heyne\u2019s notes, vol. IV. pp. 786\u2012795, corresponding to vol.\n III. pp. 146\u2012149, of the first edition.) Lampe, Prolegomena to\n a Johannine Theology.\n\n Justin Martyr (A.\u00a0D. 140,) is the first who mentions this book.\n He says, \u201cA man among us, named John, one of the apostles of\n Christ, has, in a revelation which was made to him, prophesied,\u201d\n &c. Melito (A.\u00a0D. 177.) is quoted by Eusebius and by Jerome, as\n having written a treatise on the Revelation. He was bishop of\n Sardis, one of the seven churches, and his testimony would be\n therefore highly valuable, if it were certain whether he wrote\n _for_ or _against_ the authenticity of the work. Probably he\n was _for_ it, since he calls it \u201cthe Apocalypse of John,\u201d in\n the title of his treatise, and the silence of Eusebius about\n the opinion of Melito may fairly be construed as showing that\n he did not write _against_ it. Irenaeus, (A.\u00a0D. 178,) who in\n his younger days was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple\n and personal friend of John, often quotes this book as \u201cthe\n Revelation of John, the disciple of the Lord.\u201d And in another\n place, he says, \u201cIt was seen not long ago, almost in our own age,\n _at the end of the reign of Domitian_.\u201d This is the most direct\n and valuable kind of testimony which the writings of the Fathers\n can furnish on any point in apostolic history; for Irenaeus here\n speaks from personal knowledge, and, as will be hereafter shown,\n throws great light on the darkest passage in the Apocalypse, by\n what he had heard from those persons who _had seen John himself,\n face to face_, and who heard these things from his own lips.\n Theophilus of Antioch, (A.\u00a0D. 181,)\u2015\u2015Clemens of Alexandria,\n (A.\u00a0D. 194,\u2015\u2015Tertullian of Carthage, (A.\u00a0D. 200,)\u2015\u2015Apollonius of\n Ephesus, (A.\u00a0D. 211,)\u2015\u2015Hippolytus of Italy, (A.\u00a0D. 220,)\u2015\u2015Origen\n of Alexandria and Caesarea, (A.\u00a0D. 230,)\u2015\u2015all received and\n quoted it as a work of John the apostle, and some testify very\n fully as to the character of the evidence of its authenticity,\n received from their predecessors and from the contemporaries of\n John.\n\n But from about the middle of the third century, it fell under\n great suspicion of being the production of some person different\n from the _apostle_ John. Having been quoted by Cerinthus and\n his disciples, (a set of Gnostical heretics, in the first\n century,) in support of their views, it was, by some of their\n opponents, pronounced to be a fabrication of Cerinthus himself.\n At this later period, however, it suffered a much more general\n condemnation; but though denied by some to be an _apostolic_\n work, it was still almost universally granted to be inspired.\n Dionysius of Alexandria, (A.\u00a0D. 250,) in a book against the\n Millenarians, who rested their notions upon the millenial\n passages of this revelation, has endeavored to make the\n Apocalypse useless to them in support of their heresy. This\n he has done by referring to the authority of some of his\n predecessors, who rejected it on account of its maintaining\n Cerinthian doctrines. This objection however, has been ably\n refuted by modern writers, especially by Michaelis and Hug, both\n of whom, distinctly show that there are many passages in the\n Revelation, so perfectly opposite to the doctrines of Cerinthus,\n that he could never have written the book, although he may have\n been willing to quote from it such passages as accorded with his\n notions about a sensual millenium,\u2015\u2015as he could in this way meet\n those, who did take the book for an inspired writing.\n\n Dionysius himself, however, does not pretend to adopt this view\n of the authorship of it, but rather thinks that it was the work\n of John the _presbyter_, who lived in Ephesus in the age of John\n the _apostle_, and had probably been confounded with him by the\n early Fathers. This John is certainly spoken of by Papias, (A.\u00a0D.\n 120,) who knew personally both him and the apostle; but Papias\n has left nothing on the Apocalypse, as the work of either of\n them. (The substance of the whole argument of Dionysius is very\n elaborately given and reviewed, by both Michaelis and Hug.)\n After this bold attack, the apostolic character of the work\n seems to have received much injury among most of the eastern\n Fathers, and was generally rejected by both the Syrian and Greek\n churches, having no place in their New Testament canon. Eusebius,\n (A.\u00a0D. 315,) who gives the first list of the writings of the New\n Testament, that is known, divides all books which had ever been\n offered as apostolical, into three classes,\u2015\u2015the _universally\n acknowledged_, (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 _homologoumena_,)\u2015\u2015the _disputed_,\n (\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 _antilegomena_,)\u2015\u2015and the _spurious_, (\u03bd\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\n _notha_.) In the first class, he puts all now received into the\n New Testament, except the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistles\n of James and Jude, the second of Peter, the second and third\n of John, and the Revelation. These exceptions he puts into the\n second, or _disputed_ class, along with sundry writings now\n universally considered apocryphal. Eusebius says also, \u201cIt is\n likely that the Revelation was seen by John the presbyter, if\n not by John the apostle.\u201d\u2015\u2015Cyril of Jerusalem, (A.\u00a0D. 348,) in\n his catalogue of the Scriptures, does not allow this a place.\n Epiphanius of Salamis, in Cyprus, (A.\u00a0D. 368,) though himself\n receiving it as of apostolic origin, acknowledged that others\n in his time rejected it. The council of Laodicea, (A.\u00a0D. 363,)\n sitting in the seat of one of the seven churches, did not give\n the Revelation a place among the sacred writings of the New\n Testament, though their list includes all others now received.\n Gregory, of Nazianzus, in Cappadocia, (A.\u00a0D. 370,) gives\n a catalogue of the canonical scriptures, but excludes the\n Revelation. Amphilochius, of Iconium, in Lycaonia, (A.\u00a0D. 370,)\n in mentioning the canonical scriptures, says, \u201cThe Revelation\n of John is approved by some; but many say it is spurious.\u201d\n The scriptural canon of the Syrian churches rejects it, even\n as given by Ebed Jesu, in 1285; nor was it in the ancient\n Syriac version completed during the first century; but the\n reason for this may be, that the Revelation was not then\n promulgated.\u2015\u2015Jerome of Rome, (A.\u00a0D. 396,) receives it, as\n do all the Latin Fathers; but he says, \u201cthe Greek churches\n reject it.\u201d\u2015\u2015Chrysostom (A.\u00a0D. 398,) never quotes it, and is not\n supposed to have received it. Augustin, of Africa, (A.\u00a0D. 395,)\n receives it, but says that it was not received by all in\n his time. Theodoret, (A.\u00a0D. 423,) of Syria, and all the\n ecclesiastics of that country, reject it also.\n\n The result of all this evidence is, as will be observed by\n glancing over the _dates_ of the Fathers quoted, that, until\n the year 250, no writer can be found who scrupled to receive the\n Apocalypse as the genuine work of John the _apostle_,\u2015\u2015that the\n further back the Fathers are, the more explicit and satisfactory\n is their testimony in its favor,\u2015\u2015and that the fullest of all,\n is that of Irenaeus, who had his information from Polycarp,\n the most intimate and beloved disciple of John himself. Now,\n where the evidence is not of the ordinary cumulative character,\n growing weighty, like a snowball, the farther it travels from\n its original starting-place, but as here, is strongest at the\n source,\u2015\u2015it may justly be pronounced highly valuable, and an\n eminent exception to the usual character of such historical\n proofs, which, as has been plentifully shown already in this\n book, are too apt to come \u201cbut-end first,\u201d as the investigator\n travels from the last to the first. It will be observed also,\n by a glance at the _places_ where these Fathers flourished, that\n all those who rejected the Apocalypse belonged to the EASTERN\n section of the churches, including both the Greeks and the\n Syrians, while the WESTERN churches, both the Europeans and\n Latino-Africans, adopted the Apocalypse as an apostolic writing.\n This is not so fortunate a concurrence as that of the _dates_,\n since the _easterns_ certainly had better means of investigating\n such a point than the _westerns_. A reason may be suggested\n for this, in the circumstance, that the Cerinthians and other\n heretics, who were the occasion of the first rejection of\n the Apocalypse, annoyed only the eastern churches, and thus\n originated the mischief only among them. Lampe, Michaelis and\n others, indeed, quote Caius of Rome, as a solitary exception\n to this geographical distribution of the difficulty, but Paulus\n and Hug have shown that the passage in Caius, to which they\n refer, has been misapprehended, as the scholar may see by a\n reference to Hug\u2019s Introduction to the New Testament, vol. II.\n pp. 647\u2012650, [Wait\u2019s translation,] pp. 593\u2012596, [original.]\n There is something in Jerome too, which implies that some of\n the Latins, _in his time_, were beginning to follow the Greek\n fashion of rejecting this book, but he scouts this new notion,\n and says he shall stick to the old standard canon.\n\n _The internal evidence_ is also so minutely protracted in its\n character, that only a bare allusion to it can be here permitted,\n and reference to higher and deeper sources of information, on\n such an exegetical point, may be made for the benefit of the\n scholar. Lampe, Wolf, Michaelis, Mill, Eichhorn and others,\n quoted by Fabricius, [Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. IV. p. 795, note\n 46.] Hug and his English translator, Dr. Wait, are also full on\n this point.\n\n This evidence consists for the most part in a comparison of\n passages in this book with similar ones in the other writings of\n John, more especially his gospel. Wetstein, in particular, has\n brought together many such parallelisms, some of which are so\n striking in the peculiar expressions of John, and yet so merely\n accidental in their character, as to afford most satisfactory\n evidence to the nicest critics, of the identity of authorship.\n A table of these coincidences is given from Wetstein, by Wait,\n Hug\u2019s translator, (p. 636, note.) Yet on this very point,\u2015\u2015the\n style,\u2015\u2015the most serious objection to the Apocalypse, as a work\n of the author of John\u2019s gospel, has always been founded;\u2015\u2015the\n rude, wild, thundering sublimity of the vision of Patmos,\n presenting such a striking contrast with the soft, love-teaching,\n and beseeching style of the gospel and the epistles of John.\n But such objectors have forgotten or overlooked the immense\n difference between the circumstances under which these works\n were suggested and composed. Their period, their scene, their\n subject, their object, were all widely removed from each other,\n and a thoughtful examination will show, that writings of such\n widely various scope and tendency could not well have less\n striking differences, than those observable between this and the\n other writings of John. In such a change of circumstances, the\n structure of sentences, the choice of words, and the figures\n of speech, could hardly be expected to show the slightest\n similarity between works, thus different in design, though by\n the same author. But in the minuter peculiarities of language,\n certain favorite expressions of the author,\u2015\u2015particular\n associations of words, such as a forger could never hit upon\n in that uninventive age,\u2015\u2015certain personal views and sentiments\n on trifling points, occasionally modifying the verbal forms of\n ideas\u2015\u2015these and a multitude of other characteristics, making\n up that collection of abstractions which is called an author\u2019s\n _style_,\u2015\u2015all quite beyond the reach of an imitator, but\n presenting the most valuable and honest tests to the laborious\n critic,\u2015\u2015constitute a series of proofs in this case, which\n none can fully appreciate but the investigators and students\n themselves.\n\n\n II. WITH WHAT DESIGN WAS THE APOCALYPSE WRITTEN?\n\nThere is no part of the Bible which has been the subject of so much\nperversion, or on which the minds of the great mass of Christian\nreaders have been suffered to fall into such gross errors, as the\nApocalypse. This is the opinion of all the great exegetical theologians\nof this age, who have examined the scope of the work most attentively;\nand from the time of Martin Luther till this moment, the opinions of\nthe learned have for the most part been totally different from those\nwhich have made up the popular sentiment,\u2015\u2015none or few, caring to give\nthe world the benefit of the simple truth, which might be ill received\nby those who loved darkness rather than light; and those who knew the\ntruth, have generally preferred to keep the quiet enjoyment of it to\nthemselves. This certainly is much to be regretted; for in consequence\nof this culpable negligence of the duty of making religious knowledge\navailable for the good of the whole, this particular apostolic writing\nhas been the occasion of the most miserable and scandalous delusions\namong the majority even of the more intelligent order of Bible\nreaders,\u2015\u2015delusions, which, affecting no point whatever in creeds and\nconfessions of faith, those bulwarks of sects, have been suffered to\nrage and spread their debasing error, without subjecting those who\nthus indulged their foolish fancies, to the terrors of ecclesiastical\ncensure. The Revelation of John has, accordingly, for the last century\nor two, been made a licensed subject for the indulgence of idle fancies,\nand used as a grand storehouse for every \u201cfilthy dreamer\u201d to draw\nupon, for the scriptural prophetical supports of his particular\nnotions of \u201cthe signs of the times,\u201d and for the warrant of his special\ndenunciations of divine wrath and coming ruin, against any system that\nmight happen to be particularly abominable in his religious eyes. Thus,\na most baseless delusion has been long suffered to pervade the minds\nof common readers, respecting the general scope of the Apocalypse,\nperverting the latter parts of it into a prophecy of the rise, triumph\nand downfall of the Romish papal tyranny; while in respect to the\nminor details, every schemer has been left to satisfy himself, as his\nprivate fancy or sectarian zeal might direct him. Now, not only is all\nthis ranting trash directly opposed to the clear, natural and simple\nexplanations, given by those very persons among the earliest Christian\nwriters, who had John\u2019s own private personal testimony as to his\nreal meaning, in the dark passages which have in modern times been\nmade the subject of such idle, fanciful interpretations; but they are\nso palpably inconsistent both with the general scope and the minute\ndetails of the writing itself, that even without the support of this\nmost incontrovertible evidence of the earliest Christian antiquity,\nthe falsehood of the idea of any anti-papal prophecy can be most\ntriumphantly and unanswerably settled; and this has been repeatedly\ndone, in every variety of manner, by the learned labors of all the\nsagest of the _orthodox_ theologians of Germany, Holland, France and\nEngland, for the last three hundred years. A most absurd notion seems\nto be prevalent, that the idea of a rational historical interpretation\nof the Apocalypse, is one of the wicked results of that most horrible\nof abstract monsters, \u201c_German neology_;\u201d and the dreadful name of\nEichhorn is straightway referred to, as the source of this common\nsense view. But Eichhorn and all those of the modern German schools\nof theology, who have taken up this notion, so far from originating\nthe view or aspiring to claim it as their invention, were but quietly\nfollowing the standard authorities which had been steadily accumulating\non this point for sixteen hundred years; and instead of being the\nresult of _neo_logy or of anything _new_, it was as old as the time\nof Irenaeus. The testimony of all the early writers on this point,\nis uniform and explicit; and they all, without a solitary exception,\nexplain the great mass of the bold expressions in it, about coming\nruin on the enemies of the pure faith of Christ, as a distinct, direct\nprophecy of the downfall of imperial ROME, as the great _heathen_\nfoe of the saints. There was among them no very minute account of\nthe manner in which the poetical details of the prophecy was to be\nfulfilled; but the general meaning of the whole was considered to be\nso marked, dated, and individualized, that to have denied this manifest\ninterpretation in their presence, must have seemed an absurdity not\nless than to have denied the authentic history of past ages. Not all,\nnor most of the Christian Fathers however, have noticed the design and\ncharacter of the Apocalypse, even among those of the western churches;\nwhile the scepticism of the Greek and Syrian Fathers, after the third\ncentury, about the authenticity of the work, has deprived the world of\nthe great advantage which their superior acquaintance with the original\nlanguage of the writing, with its peculiarly oriental style, allusions\nand quotations, would have enabled them to afford in the faithful\ninterpretation of the predictions. From the very first, however, there\nwere difficulties among the different sects, about the allegorical and\nliteral interpretations of the expressions which referred to the final\ntriumph of the followers of Christ; some interpreting those passages\nas describing an actual personal reign of Christ on earth, and a\nreal worldly triumph of his followers, during a _thousand years_,\nall which was to happen shortly;\u2015\u2015and from this notion of a Chiliasm,\nor a Millennium, arose a peculiar sect of heretics, famous in early\necclesiastical history, during the two first centuries, under the name\nof _Chiliasts_ or \u2666_Millenarians_,\u2015\u2015the Greek or the Latin appellative\nbeing used, according as the persons thus designated or those\ndesignating them, were of eastern or western stock. Cerinthus and\nhis followers so far improved this worldly view of the subject, as to\ninculcate the notion that the faithful, during that triumph, were to\nbe further rewarded, by the full fruition of all bodily and sensual\npleasures, and particularly that the whole thousand years were to be\npassed in nuptial enjoyments. But these foolish vagaries soon passed\naway, nor did they, even in the times when they prevailed, affect the\nstandard interpretation of the general historical relations of the\nprophecy.\n\n \u2666 \u201cMillennarians\u201d replaced with \u201cMillenarians\u201d\n\nIt was not until a late age of modern times, that any one pretended\nto apply the denunciations of ruin, with which the Apocalypse abounds,\nto any object but _heathen_, IMPERIAL Rome, or to the pagan system\ngenerally, as personified or concentrated in the existence of that\ncity. During the middle ages, the Franciscans, an order of monks, fell\nunder the displeasure of the papal power; and being visited with the\ncensures of the head of the Romish church, retorted, by denouncing him\nas an Anti-Christ, and directly set all their wits to work to annoy\nhim in various ways, by tongue and pen. In the course of this furious\ncontroversy, some of them turned their attention to the prophecies\nrespecting Rome, which were found in the Apocalypse, then received\nas an inspired book by all the adherents of the church of Rome; and\nsearching into the denunciations of ruin on the Babylon of the seven\nhills, immediately saw by what a slight perversion of expressions, they\ncould apply all this dreadful language to their great foe. This they\ndid accordingly, with all the spite which had suggested it; and in\nconsequence of this beginning, the Apocalypse thenceforward became the\ngreat storehouse of scriptural abuse of the Pope, to all who happened\nto quarrel with him. This continued the fashion, down to the time\nof the Reformation; but the bold Luther and his coadjutors, scorned\nthe thought of a scurrilous aid, drawn from such a source, and with\na noble honesty not only refused to adopt this construction, but even\ndid much to throw suspicion on the character of the book itself. Luther\nhowever, had not the genius suited to minute historical and critical\nobservations; and his condemnation of it therefore, though showing\nhis own honest confidence in his mighty cause, to be too high to allow\nhim to use a dishonest aid, yet does not affect the results to which\na more deliberate examination has led those who were as honest as\nhe, and much better critics. This however, was the state in which\nthe early reformers left the interpretation of the Apocalypse. But\nin later times, a set of spitefully zealous Protestants, headed by\nNapier, Mede, and bishop Newton, took up the Revelation of John, as a\ncomplete anticipative history of the triumphs, the cruelties and the\ncoming ruin of the Papal tyranny. These were followed by a servile\nherd of commentators and sermonizers, who went on with all the\nelaborate details of this interpretation, even to the precise meaning\nof the teeth and tails of the prophetical locusts. These views were\noccasionally varied by others tracing the whole history of the world in\nthese few chapters, and finding the conquests of the Huns, the Saracens,\nthe Turks, &c. all delineated with most amazing particularity.\n\nBut while these idle fancies were amusing the heads of men, who showed\nmore sense in other things, the great current of Biblical knowledge\nhad been flowing on very uniformly in the old course of rational\ninterpretation, and the genius of modern criticism had already been\ndoing much to perfect the explanation of passages on which the wisdom\nof the Fathers had never pretended to throw light. Of all critics who\never took up the Apocalypse in a rational way, none ever saw so clearly\nits real force and application as HUGO GROTIUS; and to him belongs\nthe praise of having been the first of the moderns to apprehend and\nexpose the truth of this sublimest of apostolic records. This mighty\nchampion of Protestant evangelical theology, with that genius which was\nso resplendent in all his illustrations of Divine things as well as of\nhuman law, distinctly pointed out the _three_ grand divisions of the\nprophetical plan of the work. \u201cThe visions as far as to the end of the\neleventh chapter, describe the affairs of the Jews; then, as far as to\nthe end of the twentieth chapter, the affairs of the Romans; and thence\nto the end, the most flourishing state of the Christian church.\u201d Later\ntheologians, following the great plan of explanation thus marked out,\nhave still farther perfected it, and penetrated still deeper into\nthe mysteries of the whole. They have shown that the two cities, Rome\nand Jerusalem, whose fate constitutes the most considerable portions\nof the Apocalypse, are mentioned only as the seats of two religions\nwhose fall is foretold; and that the third city, the New Jerusalem,\nwhose triumphant heavenly building is described in the end, after the\ndownfall of the former two, is the religion of Christ. Of these three\ncities, the first is called Sodom; but it is easy to see that this name\nof sin and ruin is only used to designate another devoted by the wrath\nof God to a similar destruction. Indeed, the sacred writer himself\nexplains that this is only a metaphorical or spiritual use of the\nterm,\u2015\u2015\u201cwhich is _spiritually_ called Sodom and Egypt;\u201d\u2015\u2015and to set its\nlocality beyond all possibility of doubt, it is furthermore described\nas the city \u201cwhere also our Lord was crucified.\u201d It is also called\nthe \u201cHoly city,\u201d and in it was the temple. Within, have been slain two\nfaithful witnesses of Jesus Christ; these are the two Jameses,\u2015\u2015the\ngreat apostolic proto-martyrs; James the son of Zebedee, killed by\nHerod Agrippa, and James the brother of our Lord, the son of Alpheus,\nkilled by order of the high priest, in the reign of Nero, as described\nin the lives of those apostles. The ruin of the city is therefore\nsealed. The second described, is called Babylon; but that Chaldean city\nhad fallen to the dust of its plain, centuries before; and this city,\non the other hand, stood on _seven hills_, and it was, at the moment\nwhen the apostle wrote, the seat of \u201cthe kingdom of the kingdoms of\nthe earth,\u201d the capital of the nations of the world,\u2015\u2015expressions which\ndistinctly mark it to be IMPERIAL ROME. The seven angels pour out the\nseven vials of wrath on this Babylon, and the awful ruin of this mighty\ncity is completed.\n\nTo give repetition and variety to this grand view of the downfall of\nthese two dominant religions, and to present these grand objects of\nthe Apocalypse in new relations to futurity, which could not be fully\nexpressed under the original figures of the cities which were the\ncapital seats of each, they are each again presented under the poetical\nimage of a female, whose actions and features describe the fate of\nthese two systems, and their upholders. First, immediately after the\naccount of the city which is called Sodom, a female is described as\nappearing in the heavens, in a most peculiar array of glory, clothed\nin the sun\u2019s rays, with the moon beneath her feet, and upon her head\na crown of _twelve_ stars. This woman, thus splendidly arrayed, and\nexalted to the skies, represents the ancient covenant, crowned with\nall the old and holy honors of the twelve tribes of Israel. A huge red\ndragon (the image under which Daniel anciently represented idolatry)\nrises in the heavens, sweeping away the third part of the stars, and\ncharacterized by seven heads and ten horns, (thus identified with a\nsubsequent metaphor representing imperial Rome;)\u2015\u2015he rages to devour\nthe offspring to which the woman is about to give existence. The child\nis born destined to rule all nations with a rod of iron,\u2015\u2015and is caught\nup to the throne of God, while the mother flees from the rage of the\ndragon into the wilderness, where she is to wander for ages, till\nthe time decreed by God for her return. Thus, when from the ancient\ncovenant had sprung forth the new revelation of truth in Jesus, it\nwas driven by the rage of heathenism from its seat of glory, to wander\nin loneliness, unheeded save by God, till the far distant day of its\nblissful re-union with its heavenly offspring, which is, under the\nfavor of God, advancing to a firm and lasting dominion over the nations.\nEven in her retirement, she is followed by the persecutions of the\ndragon, now cast down from higher glories; but his fury is lost,\u2015\u2015she\nis protected by the earth, (sheltered by the Parthian empire;) yet the\ndragon still persecutes those of her children who believe in Christ,\nand are yet within his power; (Jews and Christians persecuted in Rome,\nby Nero and Domitian.)\n\nAgain, after the punishment and destruction of imperial Babylon have\nbeen described, a second female appears, not in heaven, like the first,\nbut in an earthly wilderness, splendidly attired, but not with the\nheavenly glories of the sun, moon and stars. Purple and scarlet robes\nare her covering, marking an imperial honor; and gold, silver, and all\n_earthly_ gems, adorn her,\u2015\u2015showing only _worldly_ greatness. In her\nhand is the golden cup of sins and abominations, and she is designated\nbeyond all possibility of mistake, by the words, \u201c_Mystery, Babylon\nthe Great_.\u201d This refers to the fact, that Rome had another name which\nwas kept a profound secret, known only to the priests, and on the\npreservation of which religious \u201cmystery,\u201d the fortunes of the empire\nwere supposed to depend. The second name also identifies her with the\ncity before described as \u201cBabylon.\u201d She sits on a scarlet beast, with\nseven heads and ten horns. The former are afterwards minutely explained,\nby the apostle himself, in the same chapter, as the seven hills on\nwhich she sits; they are also seven kings, that is, it would seem,\nseven periods of empire, of which five are past, one now is, and one\nbrief one is yet to come, and the bloody beast itself\u2015\u2015the religion\nof heathenism\u2015\u2015is another. The ten horns are the ten kings or sovrans\nwho never received any lasting dominion, but merely held the sway one\nafter another, a brief hour, with the beast, or spirit of heathenism.\nThese, in short, are the ten emperors of Rome before the days of the\nApocalypse;\u2015\u2015Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho,\nVitellius, Vespasian and Titus. These had all reigned, each his hour,\ngiving his power to the support of heathenism, and thus warring against\nthe faith of the true believers. Still, though reigning over the\nimperial city, they shall hate her, and make her desolate; strip her of\nher costly attire, and burn her with fire. How well expressed here the\ntyranny, of the worst of the Caesars, plundering the state, banishing\nthe citizens, and, in the case of Nero, \u201cburning her with fire!\u201d\n\nWho can mistake the gorgeously awful picture? It is heathen, imperial\nRome, desolating and desolated, at that moment suffering under the\ntyrannic sway of him whom the apostle cannot yet number with the gloomy\nTEN, that have passed away to the tomb of ages gone. It is the mystic\nBabylon, drunk with the blood of the faithful witnesses of Christ, and\ntriumphing in the agonies of his saints, \u201cbutchered to make a Roman\nholiday!\u201d No wonder that the amazement of the apostolic seer should\ndeepen into horror, and highten to indignation. Through her tyranny\nhis brethren had been slaughtered, or driven out from among men, like\nbeasts; and by that same tyranny he himself was now doomed to a lonely\nexile from friends and apostolic duties, on that wild heap of barren\nrocks. Well might he burst out in prophetic denunciation of her ruin,\nand rejoice in the awful doom, which the angels of God sung over her;\nand listen exultingly to the final wail over her distant fall, rolling\nup from futurity, in the coming day of the Gothic and Hunnish ravagers,\nwhen she should be \u201cthe desolator desolate, the victor overthrown.\u201d\n\nAs there are three mystically named cities\u2015\u2015Sodom, Babylon, and the\nNew Jerusalem; so there are three metaphoric females,\u2015\u2015the star-crowned\nwoman in heaven, the bloody harlot on the beast in the wilderness, and\nthe bride, the Lamb\u2019s wife. A peculiar fate befalls each of the three\npairs. The SPIRITUAL SODOM falls under a temporary ruin, trodden under\nfoot by the Gentiles, forty-two mystic months; and the star-crowned\ndaughter of Zion wanders desolate in the wilderness of the world, for\ntwelve hundred and sixty days, till the hand of her God shall restore\nher to grace and glory. The GREAT BABYLON of the seven hills, falls\nunder a doom of far darker, and of irrevocable desolation,\u2015\u2015like the\ndashing roar of the sinking rock thrown into the sea, she is thrown\ndown, and shall be found no more at all. And such too, is the doom of\nthe fierce scarlet rider of the beast,\u2015\u2015\u201cRejoice over her, O heaven!\nand ye holy apostles and prophets! for God has avenged you on her.\u201d But\nbeyond all this awful ruin appears a vision of contrasting, splendid\nbeauty.\n\n \u201cThe first _two_ acts already past,\n The _third_ shall close the drama with the day;\u2015\u2015\n Time\u2019s noblest offspring is the last.\u201d\n\nThe shouts of vindictive triumph over the dreadful downfall of the\nbloody city, now soften and sweeten into the songs of joy and praise,\nwhile the NEW JERUSALEM, the church of God and Christ, comes down from\nthe heavens in a solemn, glorious mass of living splendor, to bless\nthe earth with its holy presence. In this last great scene, also,\nthere is a female, the third of the mystic series; not like her of\nthe twelve stars, now wandering like a _widow_ disconsolate, in the\nwilderness;\u2015\u2015not like her of the jeweled, scarlet and purple robes,\ncast down from her lofty seat, like an abandoned _harlot_, now desolate\nin ashes, from which her smoke rises up forever and ever;\u2015\u2015but it\nis one, all holy, happy, pure, coming down stainless from the throne\nof God,\u2015\u2015a _bride_, crowned with the glory of God, adorned for her\nhusband,\u2015\u2015the One slain from the foundation of the world. He through\nthe opening heavens, too, has come forth before her, the Word of God,\nthe Faithful and the True,\u2015\u2015known by his bloody vesture, stained, not\nin the gore of slaughtered victims, but in the pure blood poured forth\nby himself, for the world, from its foundation. Yet now he rode forth\non his white horse, as a warrior-king, dealing judgment upon the world\nwith the sword of wrath,\u2015\u2015with the sceptre of iron. Behind him rode the\narmies of heaven,\u2015\u2015the hallowed hosts of the chosen of God,\u2015\u2015like their\nleader, on white horses, but not like him, in crimson vesture; their\ngarments are white and clean; by a miracle of purification, they are\nwashed and made white in blood. This mighty leader, with these bright\narmies, now returns from the conquests to which he rode forth from\nheaven so gloriously. The kings and the hosts of the earth have arrayed\nthemselves in vain against him;\u2015\u2015the mighty imperial monster, in all\nthe vastness of his wide dominion,\u2015\u2015the false prophets of heathenism,\ncombining their vile deceptions with his power, are vanquished, crushed\nwith all their miserable slaves, whose flesh now fills and fattens\nthe eagles, the vultures, and the ravens. The spirit of heathenism\nis crushed; the dragon, the monster of idolatry, is chained, and\nsunk into the bottomless pit,\u2015\u2015yet not for ever. After a course of\nages,\u2015\u2015a mystic thousand years,\u2015\u2015he slowly rises, and winding with\nserpent cunning among the nations, he deceives them again; till at\nlast, lifting his head over the world, he gathers each idolatrous\nand barbarous host together, from the whole breadth of the earth,\nencompassing and assaulting the camp of the saints; but while they\nhope for the ruin of the faithful, fire comes down from God, and\ndevours them. The accusing deceiver,\u2015\u2015the genius of idolatry and\nsuperstition,\u2015\u2015is at last seized and bound again; but not for a mere\ntemporary imprisonment. With the spirit of deception and imposture, he\nis cast into a sea of fire, where both are held in unchanging torment,\nday and night, forever. But one last, awful scene remains; and that\nis one, that in sublimity, and vastness, and overwhelming horror, as\nfar outgoes the highest effort of any genius of human poetry, as the\nboundless expanse of the sky excels the mightiest work of man. \u201cA great\nwhite throne is fixed, and One sits on it, from whose face heaven and\nearth flee away, and no place is found for them.\u201d \u201cThe dead, small\nand great, stand before God; they are judged and doomed, as they rise\nfrom the sea and from the land,\u2015\u2015from Hades, and from every place of\ndeath.\u201d Over all, rises the new heaven and the new earth, to which\nnow comes down the city of God,\u2015\u2015the church of Christ,\u2015\u2015into which the\nvictorious, the redeemed, and the faithful enter. The Conqueror and\nhis armies march into the bridal city of the twelve jewelled gates,\non whose twelve foundation-stones are written the names of the mighty\nfounders, the twelve apostles of the slain one. The glories of that\nlast, heavenly, and truly eternal city, are told, and the mighty course\nof prophecy ceases. The three great series of events are announced; the\nendless triumphs of the faithful are achieved.\n\n\n III. WHAT IS THE STYLE OF THE APOCALYPSE?\n\nThis inquiry refers to the language, spirit and rhetorical structure\nof the writing, to its rank as an effort of composition, and to its\npeculiarities as expressive of the personal character and feelings of\nits inspired writer. The previous inquiry has been answered in such\na way as to illustrate the points involved in the present one; and a\nrecapitulation of the simple results of that inquiry, will best present\nthe facts necessary for a satisfactory reply to some points of this.\n\nFirst, the Apocalypse is a _prophecy_, in the common understanding of\nthe term; but is not limited, as in the ordinary sense of that word, to\na mere declaration of futurity; it embraces in its plan the events of\nthe past, and with a glance like that of the Eternal, sweeps over that\nwhich has been and that which is to be, as though both were _now_; and\nin its solemn course through ages, past, present, and future, it bears\nthe record of faithful _history_, as well as of glorious prophecy.\n\nSecond, the Apocalypse is _poetry_, in the highest and justest sense\nof the word. All prophecy is poetry. The sublimity of such thoughts\ncan not be expressed in the plain unbroken detail of a prose narrative;\nand even when the events of past history are combined in one harmonious\nseries with wide views of the future, they too rise from the dull\nunpictured record of a mere narrator, and share in the elevation\nof the mighty whole. The spirit of the writer, replete, not with\nmere particulars, but with vivid images, seeks language that paints,\n\u201cthoughts that breathe, and words that burn;\u201d and thus the writing\nthat flows forth is poetry,\u2015\u2015the imaginative expression of deep, high\nfeeling\u2015\u2015swelling where the occasion moves the writer, into the energy\nof passion, whether dark or holy.\n\nThe character of the Apocalypse, as affected by the passionate feelings\nof the writer, is also a point which has been illustrated by foregoing\nhistorical statements of his situation and condition at the time of\nthe Revelation. He was the victim of an unjust and cruel sentence,\ndeprived of all the sweet earthly solaces of his advanced age, and left\non a desert rock,\u2015\u2015useless to the cause of Christ and beyond even the\nknowledge of its progress. The mournful sound of sweeping winds and\ndashing waves, alone broke the dreary silence of his loneliness, and\nawaking sensations only of a melancholy order, sent back his thoughts\ninto the sadder remembrances of the past, and called up also many of\nthe sterner emotions against those who had been the occasions of the\npast and present calamities which grieved him. The very outset is in\nsuch a tone as these circumstances would naturally inspire. A deep,\nholy indignation breaks forth in the solemn annunciation of himself, as\ntheir \u201cbrother and companion in tribulation.\u201d Sadness is the prominent\nsentiment expressed in all the addresses to the churches; and in the\nprelude to the great Apocalypse, while the ceremonies of opening the\nbook which contains it are going on, the strong predominant emotion of\nthe writer is again betrayed in the vision of \u201cthe souls of them that\nwere slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they bore;\u201d\nand the solemnly mournful cry which they send up to him for whom they\ndied, expresses the deep and bitter feeling of the writer towards the\nmurderers,\u2015\u2015\u201cHow long, O Lord! holy and true! dost thou not judge and\navenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?\u201d The apostle was\nthinking of the martyrs of Jerusalem and Rome,\u2015\u2015of those who fell under\nthe persecutions of the high priests, of Agrippa, and of Nero. And\nwhen the seven seals are broken, and the true revelation, of which this\nceremony was only a poetical prelude, actually begins, the first great\nview presents the bloody scenes of that once Holy city, which now, by\nits cruelties against the cause which is to him as his life,\u2015\u2015by the\nremorseless murder of those who are near and dear to him,\u2015\u2015has lost\nall its ancient dominion over the affections and the hopes of the last\napostle and all the followers of Christ.\n\nAgain the mournful tragedies of earlier apostolic days pass before him.\nAgain he sees his noble brother bearing his bold witness of Jesus; and\nwith him that other apostle, who in works and fate as much resembled\nthe first, as in name. Their blood pouring out on the earth, rises to\nheaven, but not sooner than their spirits,\u2015\u2015whence their loud witness\ncalls down woful ruin on the blood-defiled city of the temple. And when\nthat ruin falls, no regret checks the exulting tone of the thanksgiving.\nAll that made those places holy and dear, is gone;\u2015\u2015God dwells there no\nmore; \u201cthe temple of God is opened in heaven, and there is seen in his\ntemple the ark of his covenant,\u201d and all heaven swells the jubilee over\nthe destruction of Jerusalem. And after this, when the apostle\u2019s view\nmoved forward from the past to the future, and his eye rested on the\ncrimes and the destiny of heathen Rome, the bitter remembrance of her\ncruelties towards his brethren, lifted his soul to high indignation,\nand he burst forth on her in the inspired wrath of a Son of Thunder;\u2015\u2015\n\n \u201cEvery burning word he spoke,\n Full of rage, and full of grief.\n\n \u201cRome shall perish; write that word\n In the blood that she has spilt.\n Rome shall perish,\u2015\u2015fall abhorred,\u2015\u2015\n Deep in ruin as in guilt.\u201d\n\nIn respect to the _learning_ displayed in the Apocalypse, some most\nremarkable facts are observable. Apart from the very copious matters\nborrowed from the canonical writings of the Old Testament, from\nIsaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and other prophets, from which, as any reader\ncan see, some of the most splendid imagery has been taken almost\nverbatim,\u2015\u2015it is undeniable, that John has drawn very largely from a\nfamous apocryphal Hebrew writing, called the BOOK OF ENOCH, which Jude\nhas also quoted in his epistle; and in his life it will be more fully\ndescribed. The vision of seven stars, explained to be angels,\u2015\u2015of the\npair of balances in the hand of the horseman, after the opening of the\nthird seal,\u2015\u2015the river and tree of life,\u2015\u2015the souls under the altar,\ncrying for vengeance,\u2015\u2015the angel measuring the city,\u2015\u2015the thousand\nyears of peace and holiness,\u2015\u2015are all found vividly expressed in that\nancient book, and had manifestly been made familiar to John by reading.\nIn other ancient apocryphal books, are noticed some other striking and\nliteral coincidences with the Apocalypse. The early Rabbinical writings\nare also rich in such parallel passages. The name of the Conqueror,\n\u201cwhich no one knows but himself,\u201d\u2015\u2015the rainbow stretched around the\nthrone of God,\u2015\u2015the fiery scepter,\u2015\u2015the seven angels,\u2015\u2015the sapphire\nthrone,\u2015\u2015the cherubic four beasts, six-winged, and crying Holy, Holy,\nLord God of hosts,\u2015\u2015the crowns of gold on the heads of the saints,\nwhich they cast before the throne,\u2015\u2015the book with seven seals,\u2015\u2015the\nsouls under the altar,\u2015\u2015the silence in heaven,\u2015\u2015the Abaddon,\u2015\u2015the child\ncaught up to God,\u2015\u2015Satan, as the accuser of the saints, day and night\nbefore God,\u2015\u2015the angel of the waters,\u2015\u2015the hail of great weight,\u2015\u2015the\nsecond death,\u2015\u2015the new heaven and earth,\u2015\u2015the twelve-gated city of\nprecious stones,\u2015\u2015and Rome, under the name of \u201cGreat Babylon,\u201d\u2015\u2015are all\nfound in the old Jewish writings, in such distinctness as to make it\npalpable that John was deeply learned in Hebrew literature, both sacred\nand traditional.\n\nYet all these are but the forms of expression, not of thought. The\napostle used them, because long, constant familiarity with the writings\nin which such imagery abounded, made these sentences the most natural\nand ready vehicles of inspired emotions. The tame and often tedious\ndetails of those old human inventions, had no influence in moulding\nthe grand conceptions of the glorious revelation. This had a deeper,\na higher, a holier source, in the spirit of eternal truth,\u2015\u2015the mighty\nsuggestions of the time-over-sweeping spirit of prophecy,\u2015\u2015the same\nthat moved the fiery lips of those denouncers of the ancient Babylon,\nwhose writings also had been deeply known to him by years of study,\nand had furnished also a share of consecrated expressions. That spirit\nhe had caught during his long eastern residence in the very scene of\ntheir prophecy and its awful fulfilment. If this notion of his dwelling\nfor a time with Peter in Babylon is well founded, as it has been\nabove narrated, it is at once suggested also, that in that Chaldean\ncity,\u2015\u2015then the capital seat of all Hebrew learning, and for ages the\nfount of light to the votaries of Judaism,\u2015\u2015he had, during the years\nof his stay, been led to the deep study and the vast knowledge of\nthat amazing range of Talmudical and Cabbalistical learning, which is\ndisplayed in every part of the Apocalypse. But how different all these\nresources in knowledge, from the mighty production that seemed to flow\nfrom them! How far are even the sublimest conceptions of the ancient\nprophets, in their unconnected bursts and fragments of inspiration,\nfrom the harmonious plan, the comprehensive range, and the faultless\ndramatic unity, or rather tri-unity, of this most perfect of historical\nviews, and of poetical conceptions!\n\n All these coincidences, with a vast number of other learned\n references, highly illustrative of the character of the\n Apocalypse, as enriched with Oriental imagery, may be found\n in Wait\u2019s very copious notes on Hug\u2019s Introduction.\n\n There are many things in this view of the Apocalypse which\n will occasion surprise to many readers, but to none who are\n familiar with the views of the standard orthodox writers on\n this department of Biblical literature. The view taken in the\n text of this work, corresponds in its grand outlines, to the\n high authorities there named; though in the minute details,\n it follows none exactly. Some interpretations of particular\n passages are found no where else; but these occasional\n peculiarities cannot affect the general character of the view;\n and it will certainly be found accordant with that universally\n received among the Biblical scholars of Germany and England,\n belonging to the Romish, the Lutheran, the Anglican, and\n Wesleyan churches. The authority most closely followed, is\n Dr. Hug, Roman Catholic professor of theology in an Austrian\n university, further explained by his translator, Dr. D. G. Wait,\n of the church of England, more distinguished in Biblical and\n oriental literature, probably, than any other of the numerous\n learned living divines of that church. These views are also\n found in the commentary of that splendid orientalist, Dr. Adam\n Clarke, a work which, fortunately for the world, is fast taking\n the place of the numerous lumbering, prosing quartos that have\n too long met the mind of the common Bible reader with mere\n masses of dogmatic theology, where he needs the help of simple,\n clear interpretation and illustration, which has been drawn by\n the truly learned, from a minute knowledge of the language and\n critical history of the sacred writings. This noble work, as\n far as I know, is the first which took the honest ground of the\n ancient interpretation of the Apocalypse, with common readers,\n and constitutes a noble monument to the praise of the good and\n learned man, who first threw light for such readers on the most\n sublime book in the sacred canon, and among all the writings\n ever penned by man,\u2015\u2015a book which ignorant visionaries had too\n long been suffered to overcloud and perplex for those who need\n the guidance of the learned in the interpretation of the \u201cmany\n things hard to be understood\u201d in the volume of truth. The first\n book of a popular character, ever issued from the American\n press, explaining the Apocalypse according to the standard\n mode, is a treatise on the Millennium, by the learned Professor\n Bush, of the New York University, in which he adopts the grand\n outlines of the plan above detailed, though I have not had the\n opportunity of ascertaining how it is, in the minor details.\n\n In reference to the tone assumed in some passages of the\n statement in the text, perhaps it may be thought that more\n freedom has been used in characterizing opposite views, than is\n accordant with the principles of \u201cmoderation and hesitation,\u201d\n proposed in comment upon Luther and Michaelis. But where, in the\n denunciation of popular error, a reference to the motive of the\n inculcators of it would serve to expose most readily its nature,\n such a freedom of pen has been fearlessly adopted; and severity\n of language on these occasions is justified by the consideration\n of the character of the delusion which is to be overthrown.\n The statements too, which are the occasion and the support\n of these condemnations of vulgar notions, are drawn not from\n the mere conceptions of the writer of this book, but from the\n unanswerable authorities of the great standards of Biblical\n interpretation. The opportunity of research on this point has\n been too limited to allow anything like an enumeration of all\n the great names who support this view; but references enough\n have already been made, to show that an irresistible weight of\n orthodox sentiment has decided in favor of these views as above\n given.\n\n Some of the minute details, particularly those not authorized by\n learned men, who have already so nearly perfected the standard\n view, may fall under the censure of the critical, as fanciful,\n like those so freely condemned before; but they were written\n down because it seemed that there was, in those cases, a\n wonderfully minute correspondence between these passages and\n events in the life of John, not commonly noticed. The greater\n part of this view, however, may be found almost verbatim in\n Wait\u2019s translation of Hug\u2019s Introduction.\n\n The most satisfactory evidence of the meaning of the great\n mystery of the Apocalypse, is in the true interpretation of \u201cthe\n number of the beast,\u201d the mystic 666. In the Greek and oriental\n languages, the letters are used to represent numbers, and thence\n arose in mystic writings a mode of representing a name by any\n number, which would be made up by adding together the numbers\n for which its letters stood; and so any number thus mystically\n given may be resolved into a name, by taking any word whose\n letters when added together will make up that sum. Now the word\n LATINUS, (\u039b\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,) meaning the Latin or Roman empire, (for the\n names are synonymous,) is made up of Greek letters representing\n the numbers whose sum is 666. Thus \u039b-30, \u03b1-1, \u03c4-300, \u03b5-5, \u03b9-10,\n \u03bd-50, \u03bf-70, \u03c2-200\u2015\u2015all which, added up, make just 666. What\n confirms this view is, that Irenaeus says, \u201cJohn himself told\n those who saw him face to face, that this was what he meant\n by the number;\u201d and Irenaeus assures us that he himself heard\n this from the personal acquaintances of John. (See Wait\u2019s note.\n Translation of Hug\u2019s Introduction II. 626\u2012629, note.)\n\n\n HIS LAST RESIDENCE IN EPHESUS.\n\nThe date of John\u2019s return from Patmos is capable of more exact proof\nthan any other point in the chronology of his later years. The death\nof Domitian, who fell at last under the daggers of his own previous\nfriends, now driven to this measure by their danger from his murderous\ntyranny, happened in the sixteenth of his own reign, (A. D. 96.) On\nthe happy \u2666consummation of this desirable revolution, Cocceius Nerva,\nwho had himself suffered banishment under the suspicious tyranny\nof Domitian, was now recalled from his exile, to the throne of the\nCaesars; and mindful of his own late calamity, he commenced his just\nand blameless reign by an auspicious act of clemency, restoring to\ntheir country and home all who had been banished by the late emperor.\nAmong these, John was doubtless included; for the decree was so\ncomprehensive that he could hardly have been excluded from the benefit\nof its provisions; and to give this view the strongest confirmation,\nit is specified by the heathen historians of Rome, that this senatorial\ndecree of general recall did not except even those who had been found\nguilty of religious offenses. Christian writers also, of a respectable\nantiquity, state distinctly that the apostle John was recalled from\nPatmos by this decree of Nerva. Some of the early ecclesiastical\nhistorians, indeed, have pretended that this persecution against\nthe Christians was suspended by Domitian himself, on some occasion\nof repentance; but critical examination and a comparison of higher\nauthorities, both sacred and profane, have disproved the notion.\nThe data above-mentioned, therefore, fix the return of John from\nbanishment, in the first year of Nerva, which, according to the most\napproved chronology, corresponds with A.\u00a0D. 96. This date is useful\nalso, in affording ground for a reasonable conjecture respecting the\ncomparative age of John. He could not have been near as old as Jesus\nChrist, since the attainment of the age of ninety-six must imply an\nextreme of infirmity necessarily accompanying it, unless a miracle\nof most unparalleled character is supposed; and no one can venture to\nrequire belief in a pretended miracle, of which no sacred record bears\ntestimony. If he was, on his return from Patmos, as well as during his\nresidence there, able to produce writings of such power and such clear\nexpression, as those which are generally attributed to these periods,\nit seems reasonable to suppose that he was many years younger than\nJesus Christ. The common Christian era, also, fixing the birth of\nChrist some years too late, this circumstance will require a still\nlarger subtraction from this number, for the age of John.\n\n \u2666 \u201cconsummamation\u201d replaced with \u201cconsummation\u201d\n\n\n HIS GOSPEL.\n\nThe united testimony of early writers who allude to this matter, is\nthat John wrote his gospel, long after the completion and circulation\nof the writings of the three first evangelists. Some early testimony\non the subject dates from the end of the second century, and specifies\nthat John, observing that in the other gospels, those things were\ncopiously related which concern the humanity of Christ, wrote a\nspiritual gospel, at the earnest solicitations of his friends and\ndisciples, to explain in more full detail, the divinity of Christ. This\naccount is certainly accordant with what is observable of the structure\nand tendency of this gospel; but much earlier testimony than this,\ndistinctly declares that John\u2019s design in writing, was to attack\ncertain heresies on the same point specified in the former statement.\nThe Nicolaitans and the followers of Cerinthus, in particular, who were\nboth Gnostical sects, are mentioned as having become obnoxious to the\npurity of the truth, by inculcating notions which directly attacked\nthe true divinity and real Messiahship of Jesus. The earliest heresy\nthat is known to have arisen in the Christian churches, is that of\nthe Gnostics, who, though divided among themselves by some minor\ndistinctions, yet all agreed in certain grand errors, against which\nthis gospel appears to have been particularly directed. The great\nsystem of mystical philosophy from which all these errors sprung,\ndid not derive its origin from Christianity, but existed in the\neast long before the time of Christ; yet after the wide diffusion\nof his doctrines, many who had been previously imbued with this\noriental mysticism, became converts to the new faith. But not rightly\napprehending the simplicity of the faith which they had partially\nadopted, they soon began to contaminate its purity by the addition\nof strange doctrines, drawn from their philosophy, which were totally\ninconsistent with the great revelations made by Christ to his apostles.\nThe prime suggestion of the mischief, and one, alas! which has not at\nthis moment ceased to distract the churches of Christ, was a set of\nspeculations, introduced \u201cto account for the _origin and existence\nof evil in the world_,\u201d\u2015\u2015which seemed to them inconsistent with the\nperfect work of an all-wise and benevolent being. Overleaping all\nthose minor grounds of dispute which are now occupying the attention\nof modern controversialists, they attacked the very basis of religious\ntruth, and adopted the notion that the world was not created by the\nsupreme God himself, but by a being of inferior rank, called by them\nthe Demiurgus, whom they considered deficient in benevolence and in\nwisdom, and as thus being the occasion of the evil so manifest in the\nworks of his hands. This Demiurgus they considered identical with the\nGod of the Jews, as revealed in the Old Testament. Between him and the\nSupreme Deity, they placed an order of beings, to which they assigned\nthe names of the \u201cOnly-begotten,\u201d \u201cthe Word,\u201d \u201cthe Light,\u201d \u201cthe\nLife,\u201d &c.; and among these superior beings, was Christ,\u2015\u2015a distinct\nexistence from Jesus, whom they declared a mere man, the son of Mary;\nbut acquiring a divine character by being united at his baptism to\nthe Divinity, Christ, who departed from him at his death. Most of the\nGnostics utterly rejected the law of Moses; but Cerinthus is said to\nhave respected some parts of it.\n\n A full account of the prominent characteristics of the Gnostical\n system may be found in Mosheim\u2019s Ecclesiastical History,\n illustrated by valuable annotations in Dr. Murdock\u2019s translation\n of that work. The scholar will also find an elaborate account of\n this, with other Oriental mysticisms, in Beausobre\u2019s Histoire de\n Manichee et du Manicheisme. J.\u00a0D. Michaelis, in his introduction\n to the New Testament, (vol. III. c. ii. \u00a7 5,) is also copious\n on these tenets, in his account of John\u2019s gospel. He refers\n also to Walch\u2019s History of Heretics. Hug\u2019s Introduction also\n gives a very full account of the peculiarities of Cerinthus, as\n connected with the scope of this gospel. Introduction vol. II.\n \u00a7\u00a7 49\u201253, [of the original,] \u00a7\u00a7 48\u201252, [Wait\u2019s translation.]\n\n In connection with John\u2019s living at Ephesus, a story became\n afterwards current about his meeting him on one occasion and\n openly expressing a personal abhorrence of him. \u201cIrenaeus\n [Against Heresies, III. c. 4. p. 140,] states from Polycarp,\n that John once going into a bath at Ephesus, discovered\n Cerinthus, the heretic, there; and leaping out of the bath he\n hastened away, saying he was afraid lest the building should\n fall on him, and crush him along with the heretic.\u201d Conyers\n Middleton, in his Miscellaneous works, has attacked this story,\n in a treatise upon this express point. (This is in the edition\n of his works in four or five volumes, quarto; but I cannot\n quote the volume, because it is not now at hand.) Lardner also\n discusses it. (Vol. I. p. 325, vol. II. p. 555, 4to. edition.)\n\n There can be no better human authority on any subject\n connected with the life of John, than that of Irenaeus of Lyons,\n [A.\u00a0D. 160,] who had in his youth lived in Asia, where he was\n personally acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple and intimate\n friend of John, the apostle. His words are, \u201cJohn, the disciple\n of the Lord, wishing by the publication of his gospel to remove\n that error which had been sown among men, by Cerinthus, and\n much earlier, by those called Nicolaitans, who are a fragment\n of _science_, (or the _Gnosis_,) _falsely so called_;\u2015\u2015and that\n he might both confound them, and convince them that there is\n but one God, who made all things by his word, and not, as they\n say, one who was the Creator, and another who was the Father\n of our Lord.\u201d (Heresies, lib. III. c. xi.) In another passage\n he says,\u2015\u2015\u201cAs John the disciple of the Lord confirms, saying,\n \u2018But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the\n Son of God, and that believing, you may have eternal life in\n his name,\u2019\u2015\u2015guarding against these blasphemous notions, which\n _divide_ the Lord, as far as they can, by saying that he was\n made of two different substances.\u201d (Heresies, lib. III. c. xvi.)\n Michaelis, in his Introduction on John, discusses this passage,\n and illustrates its true application.\n\nIt appears well established by respectable historical testimony,\nthat Cerinthus was contemporary with John at Ephesus, and that he had\nalready made alarming progress in the diffusion of these and other\npeculiar errors, during the life of the apostle. John therefore, now\nin the decline of life, on the verge of the grave, would wish to bear\nhis inspired testimony against the advancing heresy; and the occasion,\nscope, and object of his gospel are very clearly illustrated by a\nreference to these circumstances. The peculiar use of terms, more\nparticularly in the first part,\u2015\u2015terms which have caused so much\nperplexity and controversy among those who knew nothing about the\npeculiar technical significations of these mystical phrases, as they\nwere limited by the philosophical application of them in the system\nof the Gnostics,\u2015\u2015is thus shown in a historical light, highly valuable\nin preventing a mis-interpretation among common readers. This view of\nthe great design of John\u2019s gospel, will be found to coincide exactly\nwith the results of a minute examination of almost all parts of it,\nand gives new force to many passages, by revealing the particular error\nat which they were aimed. The details of these coincidences cannot\nbe given here, but have been most satisfactorily traced out, at great\nlength, by the labors of the great modern exegetical theologians, who\nhave occupied volumes with the elucidation of these points. The whole\ngospel indeed, is not so absorbed in the unity of this plan, as to\nneglect occasions for supplying general historical deficiences in\nthe narratives of the preceding evangelists. An account is thus\ngiven of two journeys to Jerusalem, of which no mention had ever been\nmade in former records, while hardly any notice whatever is taken of\nthe incidents of the wanderings in Galilee, which occupy so large a\nportion of former narratives,\u2015\u2015except so far as they are connected\nwith those instructions of Christ which accord with the great object\nof this gospel. The scene of the great part of John\u2019s narrative is\nlaid in Judea, more particularly in and about Jerusalem; and on the\nparting instructions given by Christ to his disciples, just before\nhis crucifixion, he is very full; yet, even in those, he seizes hold\nmainly of those things which fall most directly within the scope of\nhis work. But throughout the whole, the grand object is seen to be, the\npresentation of Jesus as the Messiah, the son of the living, eternal\nGod, containing within himself the Life, the Light, the Only-begotten,\nthe Word, and all the personified excellences, to which the Gnostics\nhad, in their mystic idealism, given a separate existence. It thus\ndiffers from all the former gospels, in the circumstance, that\nits great object and its general character is not historical, but\ndogmatical,\u2015\u2015not universal in its direction and tendency, but aimed\nat the establishment of particular doctrines, and the subversion of\nparticular errors.\n\nAnother class of sectaries, against whose errors John wrote in this\ngospel, were the Sabians, or disciples of John the Baptist;\u2015\u2015for some\nof those who had followed him during his preaching, did not afterwards\nturn to the greater Teacher and Prophet, whom he pointed out as the\none of whom he was the forerunner; and these disciples of the great\nBaptizer, after his death, taking the pure doctrines which he taught,\nas a basis, made up a peculiar religious system, by large additions\nfrom the same Oriental mysteries from which the Gnostics had drawn\ntheir remarkable principles. They acknowledged Jesus Christ as a\nbeing of high order, and designate him in their religious books as the\n\u201cDisciple of LIFE;\u201d while John the Baptist, himself somewhat inferior,\nis called the \u201cApostle of LIGHT,\u201d\u2015\u2015and is said to have received his\npeculiar glorified transfiguration, from a body of flesh to a body of\nlight, from Jesus at the time of his baptism in the Jordan; and yet is\nrepresented as distinguished from the \u201cDisciple of LIFE,\u201d by possessing\nthis peculiar attribute of Light.\n\nThis mystical error is distinctly characterized in the first chapter of\nthis gospel, and is there met by the direct assertions, that in Jesus\nChrist, the Word, and the God, was not only _life_, but that the LIFE\nitself was the LIGHT of men;\u2015\u2015and that John the Baptist \u201cwas _not_ the\nLIGHT, but was only sent to bear witness of the LIGHT;\u201d and again, with\nall the tautological earnestness of an old man, the aged writer repeats\nthe assertion that \u201c_this_ was the true Light, which enlightens every\nman that comes into the world.\u201d Against these same sectaries, the\ngreater part of the first chapter is directed distinctly, and the whole\ntendency of the work throughout, is in a marked manner opposed to their\nviews. With them too, John had had a local connection, by his residence\nin Ephesus, where, as it is distinctly specified in the Acts of the\nApostles, Paul had found the peculiar disciples of John the Baptist\nlong before, on his first visit to that city; and had successfully\npreached to some of them, the religion of Christ, which before was a\nstrange and new thing to them. The whole tendency and scope of this\ngospel, indeed, as directed against these two prominent classes of\nheretics, both Gnostics and Sabians, are fully and distinctly summed up\nin the conclusion of the twentieth chapter;\u2015\u2015\u201cThese things are written,\nthat ye might believe that JESUS _is the_ CHRIST, the SON OF GOD, and\nthat in believing on him, ye might have LIFE through his name.\u201d\n\nAs to the _place_ where this gospel was written, there is a very\ndecided difference of opinion among high authorities, both ancient and\nmodern,\u2015\u2015some affirming it to have been composed in Patmos, during his\nexile, and others in Ephesus, before or after his banishment. The best\nauthority, however, seems to decide in favor of Ephesus, as the place;\nand this view seems to be most generally adopted in modern times.\nEven those who suppose it to have been written in Patmos, however,\ngrant that it was first given to the Christian world in Ephesus,\u2015\u2015the\nweight of early authority being very decided on this latter point.\nThis distinction between the place of composition and the place\nof publication, is certainly very reasonable on some accounts, and\nis supported by ancient authorities of dubious date; but there are\nimportant objections to the idea of the composition of both this and\nthe Apocalypse, in the same place, during about one year, which was\nthe period of his exile. There seem to be many things in the style of\nthe gospel which would show it to be a work written at a different\nperiod, and under different circumstances from the Apocalypse; and\nsome Biblical critics, of high standing, have thought that the gospel\nbore marks in its style, which characterized it as a production of a\nmuch older man than the author of the energetic, and almost furious\ndenunciations of the Apocalypse, must have been. In this case, where\nancient authority is so little decisive, it is but fair to leave the\npoint to be determined by evidence thus connected with the date, and\ndrawn from the internal character of the composition itself,\u2015\u2015a sort of\nevidence, on which the latest moderns are far more capable of deciding\nthan the most ancient, and the sagest of the Fathers. The _date_\nitself is of course inseparably connected with the determination of the\nplace, and like that, must be pronounced very uncertain. The greatest\nprobability about both these points is, that it was written at Ephesus,\n_after_ his return from Patmos; for the idea of its being produced\n_before_ his banishment, during his first residence in Asia, has long\nago been exploded; nor is there any late writer of authority on these\npoints, who pretends to support this unfounded notion.\n\n\n HIS FIRST EPISTLE.\n\nAll that has been said on the character and the objects of the gospel,\nmay be exactly applied to this very similar production. So completely\ndoes it resemble John\u2019s gospel, in style, language, doctrines\nand tendencies, that even a superficial reader might be ready to\npronounce, on a common examination, that they were written in the same\ncircumstances and with the same object. This has been the conclusion at\nwhich the most learned critics have arrived, after a full investigation\nof the peculiarities of both, throughout; and the standard opinion\nnow is, that they were both written at the same time and for the same\npersons. Some reasons have been given by high critical authority, for\nsupposing that they were both written at Patmos, and sent together\nto Ephesus,\u2015\u2015the epistle serving as a preface, dedication, and\naccompaniment of the gospel, to those for whom it was intended, and\ncommending the prominent points in it to their particular attention.\nThis beautiful and satisfactory view of the _object_ and _occasion_ of\nthe epistle, may certainly be adopted with great propriety and justice;\nbut in regard to the _places_ of its composition and direction, a\ndifferent view is much more probable, as well as more consistent with\nthe notion, already presented above, of the date and place of the\ngospel. It is very reasonable to suppose that the epistle was written\nsome years after John\u2019s return to Ephesus,\u2015\u2015that it was intended,\n(along with the gospel, for the churches of Asia generally, to whom\nJohn hoped to make an apostolic pastoral visit, shortly,) to confirm\nthem in the faith, as he announces in the conclusion. There is not\na single circumstance in gospel or epistle, which should lead any\none to believe that they were directed to Ephesus in particular. On\nthe contrary, the total absence of anything like a personal or local\ndirection to the epistle, shows the justice of its common title, that\nit is a \u201cgeneral epistle,\u201d a circular, in short, to all the churches\nunder his special apostolic supervision,\u2015\u2015for whose particular dangers,\nerrors and necessities, he had written the gospel just sent forth, and\nto whom he now minutely commended that work, in the very opening words\nof his letter, referring as palpably and undeniably to his gospel,\nas any words can express. \u201cOf that which \u2018was from the _beginning_,\nof the _Word_,\u2019 which I have heard, which I have seen with my eyes,\nwhich I have looked upon, which my hands have handled,\u2015\u2015of the _Word_\nof _Life_\u201d &c.; particularizing with all the minute verbosity of old\nage, his exact knowledge of the facts which he gives in his gospel,\nassuring them thus of the accuracy of his descriptions. The question\nconcerns his reputation for fidelity as a historian; and it is easy\nto see therefore, why he should labor thus to impress on his readers\nhis important personal advantages for knowing exactly all the facts\nhe treats of, and all the doctrines which he gives at such length in\nthe discourses of Christ. Again and again he says, \u201cI write,\u201d and \u201cI\nhave written,\u201d recapitulating the sum of the doctrines which he has\ndesigned to inculcate; and he particularizes still farther that he\nhas written to all classes and ages, from the oldest to the youngest,\nintending his gospel for the benefit of all. \u201cI have written to you,\n_fathers_,\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cunto you, _young men_,\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cunto you, _little children_,\u201d\n&c. What else can this imply, than a dedication of the work concerning\n\u201cthe WORD,\u201d to all stations and ages,\u2015\u2015to the whole of the Christian\ncommunities, to whom he commits and recommends his writings;\u2015\u2015as\nhe writes \u201cto the fathers\u2015\u2015because they know him _who was from\nthe beginning_,\u201d\u2015\u2015in the same way \u201cto the young men, because they\nare constant, and the _Word of God_ dwells in them,\u201d and \u201cthat the\ndoctrine they have received may remain unchangeable in them,\u201d and\n\u201con account of THOSE WHO WOULD SEDUCE THEM.\u201d He recapitulates all the\nleading doctrines of his gospel,\u2015\u2015the Messiahship, and the Divinity\nof Jesus,\u2015\u2015his Unity, and identity with the divine abstractions of the\nGnostic theology. Here too, he inculcates and renewedly urges the great\nfeeling of Christian brotherly love, which so decidedly characterizes\nthe discourses of Jesus, as reported in his gospel. So perfect was\nthe connection of origin and design, between the gospel and this\naccompanying letter, that they were anciently placed together, the\nepistle immediately following the gospel; as is indubitably proved by\ncertain marks in ancient manuscripts.\n\n It was mentioned, in connection with a former part of John\u2019s\n life, that this epistle is quoted by Augustin and others,\n under the title of the epistle to the Parthians. It seems\n very probable that this may have been also addressed to those\n churches in the east, about Babylon, which had certainly\n suffered much under the attacks of these same mystical heretics.\n It is explained, however, by some, that this was an accidental\n corruption in the copying of the Greek.\u2015\u2015The _second_ epistle\n was quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, under the title of \u201cthe\n epistle to the _virgins_,\u201d \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, which, as some of\n the modern critics say, must have been accidentally changed\n to \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, by dropping some of the syllables, and afterwards\n transferred to the _first_ (!) as more appropriate;\u2015\u2015a perfectly\n unauthorized conjecture, and directly in the face of all rules\n of criticism.\n\n\n THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES.\n\nThese are both evidently private letters from John to two of his\nintimate personal friends, of whose circumstances nothing whatever\nbeing known, except what is therein contained, the notice of these\nbrief writings must necessarily be brief also. They are both honorably\nreferred to, as entertainers of the servants of Jesus Christ as they\ntravel from place to place, and seem to have been residents in some\nof the Asian cities within John\u2019s apostolic circuit, and probably\nreceived him kindly and reverently into their houses on his tours of\nduty; and them he was about to visit again shortly. The _second_\nepistle is directed to a Christian female, who, being designated by\nthe very honorable title of \u201c_lady_,\u201d was evidently a person of rank;\nand from the remark towards the conclusion, about the proper objects\nof her hospitality, it is plain that she must have been also a person\nof some property. Mention is made of her children as also objects\nof warm affection to the aged apostle; and as no other member of\nher family is noticed, it is reasonable to conclude that she was a\nwidow. The contents of this short letter are a mere transcript, almost\nverbatim, of some important points in the first, inculcating Christian\nlove, and watchfulness against _deceivers_;\u2015\u2015(no doubt the Gnostical\nheretics,\u2015\u2015the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans.) He apologizes for the\nshortness of the letter, by saying that he hopes shortly to visit her;\nand ends by communicating the affectionate greetings of her sister\u2019s\nchildren, then residents in Ephesus, or whatever city was then the home\nof John. The _third_ epistle is directed to Gaius, (that is, Caius, a\nRoman name,) whose hospitality is commemorated with great particularity\nand gratitude in behalf of Christian strangers, probably preachers,\ntraveling in his region. Another person, named Diotrephes, (a Greek\nby name, and probably one of the partizans of Cerinthus,) is mentioned\nas maintaining a very different character, who, so far from receiving\nthe ministers of the gospel sent by the apostle, had even excluded\nfrom Christian fellowship those who did exercise this hospitality to\nthe messengers of the apostle. John speaks threateningly of him, and\ncloses with the same apology for the shortness of the letter, as in the\nformer. There are several persons, named Gaius, or Caius, mentioned in\napostolic history; but there is no reason to suppose that any of them\nwas identified with this man.\n\n For these lucid views of the objects of all these epistles, I am\n mainly indebted to Hug\u2019s Introduction, to whom belongs the merit\n of expressing them in this distinctness, though others before\n him have not been far from apprehending their simple force.\n Michaelis, for instance, is very satisfactory, and much more\n full on some points. In respect to the _place_ whence they were\n written, Hug appears to be wholly in the wrong, in referring\n them to Patmos, just before John\u2019s return. Not the least glimmer\n of a reason appears, why all the writings of John should be\n huddled together in his exile. I can make nothing whatever of\n the learned commentator\u2019s reason about the deficiency of \u201cpen,\n ink and paper,\u201d (mentioned in Epistle ii. 12, and iii. 13.) as\n showing that John must still have been in \u201cthat miserable place,\u201d\n Patmos. The idea seems to require a great perversion of simple\n words, which do not seem to be capable of any other sense than\n that adopted in the above account.\n\n\n THE TRADITIONS OF HIS LIFE IN EPHESUS.\n\nTo this period of his life, are referred those stories of his miracles\nand actions, with which the ancient fictitious apostolic narratives are\nso crowded,\u2015\u2015John being the subject of more ancient traditions than any\nother apostle. Some of those are so respectable and reasonable in their\ncharacter, as to deserve a place here, although none of them are of\nsuch antiquity as to deserve any confidence, on points where fiction\nhas often been so busy. The first which follows, is altogether the most\nancient of all apostolic stories, which are not in the New Testament;\nand even if it is a work of fiction, it has such merits as a mere tale,\nthat it would be injustice to the readers of this book, not to give\nthem the whole story, from the most ancient and best authorized record.\n\nIt is related that John, after returning from banishment, was often\ncalled to the neighboring churches to organize them, or to heal\ndivisions, and to ordain elders. On one occasion, after ordaining a\nbishop, he committed to his particular care and instruction a fine\nyoung man, whom he saw in the congregation, charging the bishop, before\nthe whole church, to be faithful to him. The bishop accordingly took\nthe young man into his house, watched over him, and instructed him,\nand at length baptized him. After this, viewing the young man as a\nconfirmed Christian, the bishop relaxed his watchfulness, and allowed\nthe youth greater liberties. He soon got into bad company, in which\nhis talents made him conspicuous, and proceeding from one step to\nanother, he finally became the leader of a band of robbers. In this\nstate of things, John came to visit the church, and presently called\nupon the bishop to bring forward his charge. The bishop replied that\nhe was dead,\u2015\u2015dead to God;\u2015\u2015and was now in the mountains, a captain\nof banditti. John ordered a horse to be brought immediately to the\nchurch door, and a guide to attend him; and mounting, he rode full\nspeed in search of the gang. He soon fell in with some of them, who\nseized him, to be carried to their head quarters. John told them that\nthis was just what he wanted, for he came on purpose to see their\ncaptain. As they drew near, the captain stood ready to receive them;\nbut on seeing John, he drew back, and began to make off. John pursued\nwith all the speed his aged limbs would permit, crying out, \u201cMy son,\nwhy do you run from your own father, who is unarmed and aged? Pity\nme, my son, and do not fear. There is yet hope of your life. I will\nintercede for you; and, if necessary, will cheerfully suffer death\nfor you, as the Lord did for us. Stop,\u2015\u2015believe what I say; Christ\nhath sent me.\u201d The young man stopped, looked on the ground, and then\nthrowing down his arms, came trembling, and with sobs and tears, begged\nfor pardon. The apostle assured him of the forgiveness of Christ; and\nconducting him back to the church, there fasted and prayed with him,\nand at length procured his absolution.\n\nAnother story, far less probable, is related in the ancient\nmartyrologies, and by the counterfeit Abdias. Craton, a philosopher, to\nmake a display of contempt for riches, had persuaded two wealthy young\nmen, his followers, to invest all their property in two very costly\npearls; and then, in the presence of a multitude, to break them, and\npound them to dust. John happening to pass by, at the close of the\ntransaction, censured this destruction of property, which might better\nhave been given in alms to the poor. Craton told him, if he thought so,\nhe might miraculously restore the dust to solid pearls again, and have\nthem for charitable purposes. The apostle gathered up the particles,\nand holding them in his hand, prayed fervently, that they might become\nsolid pearls, and when the people said \u201cAmen,\u201d it took place. By this\nmiracle, Craton, and all his followers, were converted to Christianity;\nand the two young men took back the pearls, sold them, and then\ndistributed the avails in charity. Influenced by this example, two\nother young men of distinction, Atticus and Eugenius, sold their\nestates, and distributed the avails among the poor. For a time, they\nfollowed the apostle, and possessed the power of working miracles. But,\none day, being at Pergamus, and seeing some well-dressed young men,\nglittering in their costly array, they began to regret that they had\nsold all their property, and deprived themselves of the means of making\na figure in the world. John read in their countenances and behavior\nthe state of their minds; and after drawing from them an avowal of\ntheir regret, he bid them bring him each a bundle of straight rods,\nand a parcel of smooth stones from the sea shore. They did so,\u2015\u2015and\nthe apostle, after converting the rods into gold, and the stones into\npearls, bid them take them, and sell them, and redeem their alienated\nestates, if they chose. At the same time, he plainly warned them,\nthat the consequence would be the eternal loss of their souls. While\nhe continued his long and pungent discourse, a funeral procession\ncame along. John now prayed, and raised the dead man to life. The\nresuscitated person began to describe the invisible world, and so\ngraphically painted to Atticus and Eugenius the greatness of their\nloss, that they were melted into contrition. The apostle ordered them\nto do penance thirty days,\u2015\u2015till the golden rods should become wood,\nand the pearls become stones. They did so, and were afterwards very\ndistinguished saints.\n\nAnother story, of about equal merit, is told by the same authority.\nWhile John continued his successful ministry at Ephesus, the idolaters\nthere, in a tumult, dragged him to the temple of Diana, and insisted on\nhis sacrificing to the idol. He warned all to come out of the temple,\nand then, by prayer, caused it to fall to the ground, and become a heap\nof ruins. Then, addressing the pagans on the spot, he converted twelve\nthousand of them in one day. But Aristodemus, the pagan high priest,\ncould not be convinced, till John had drunken poison without harm,\nby which two malefactors were killed instantly, and also raised the\nmalefactors to life. This resuscitation he rendered the more convincing\nto Aristodemus, by making him the instrument of it. The apostle pulled\noff his tunic, and gave it to Aristodemus. \u201cAnd what is this for?\u201d said\nthe high priest. \u201cTo cure you of your infidelity,\u201d was the reply. \u201cBut\nhow is your tunic to cure me of infidelity?\u201d \u201cGo,\u201d said the apostle,\n\u201cand spread it upon the dead bodies, and say: \u2018The apostle of our Lord\nJesus Christ hath sent me to resuscitate you, in his name, that all may\nknow, that life and death are the servants of Jesus Christ, my Lord.\u2019\u201d\nBy this miracle the high priest was fully convinced; and afterwards\nconvinced the proconsul. Both of them were baptized,\u2015\u2015and persecution,\nfrom that time, ceased. They also built the church dedicated to St.\nJohn, at Ephesus.\n\n For this series of fables I am indebted again to the kindness\n of Dr. Murdock, in whose manuscript lectures they are so well\n translated from the original romances, as to make it unnecessary\n for me to repeat the labor of making a new version from the\n Latin. The sight of the results of abler efforts directly before\n me, offers a temptation to exonerate myself from a tedious and\n unsatisfactory effort, which is too great to be resisted, while\n researches into historical _truth_ have a much more urgent claim\n for time and exertion.\n\n The only one of all these fables that occurs in the writings of\n the Fathers, is the first, which may be pronounced a tolerably\n respectable and ancient story. It is narrated by Clemens\n Alexandrinus, (about A.\u00a0D. 200.) The story is copied from\n Clemens Alexandrinus by Eusebius, from whom we receive it,\n the original work of Clemens being now lost. Chrysostom also\n gives an abridgement of the tale. (I. Paraenes ad Theodosius)\n Anastasius Sinaita, Simeon Metaphrastes, Nicephorus Callistus,\n the Pseudo-Abdias, and the whole herd of monkish liars, give\n the story almost verbatim from Clemens; for it is so full in\n his account as to need no embellishment to make it a good story.\n Indeed its completeness in all these interesting details, is\n one of the most suspicious circumstances about it; in short,\n it is almost too good a story to be true. Those who wish to\n see all the evidence for and against its authenticity, may find\n it thoroughly examined in Lampe\u2019s Prolegomena to a Johannine\n Theology (I. v. 4\u201210.) It is, on the whole, the best authorized\n of all the stories about the apostles, which are given by\n the Fathers, and may reasonably be considered to have been\n true in the essential parts, though the minute details of the\n conversations, &c., are probably embellishments worked in by\n Clemens Alexandrinus, or his informants.\n\n The rest of these stories are, most unquestionably, all\n unmitigated falsehoods; nor does any body pretend to find the\n slightest authority for a solitary particular of them. They\n are found no where but in the novels of the Pseudo-Abdias, and\n the martyrologies. (Abdiae Babyloniae episcopi et Apostolorum\n discipuli de Historia, lib. V., St. John.)\n\n\n HIS DEATH.\n\nRespecting the close of his life, _all antiquity_ is agreed that it was\nnot terminated by martyrdom, nor by any violent death whatever, but by\na calm and peaceful departure in the course of nature, at a very great\nage. The precise number of years to which he attained can not be known,\nbecause no writer who lived within five hundred years of his time has\npretended to specify his exact age. It is merely mentioned on very\nrespectable ancient authority, that he survived to the beginning of the\nreign of Trajan. This noblest of the successors of Julius, began his\nsplendid reign in A.\u00a0D. 98, according to the most approved chronology;\nso that if John did not outlive even the first year of Trajan, his\ndeath is brought very near the close of the first century; and from\nwhat has been reasonably conjectured about his age, compared with that\nof his Lord, it may be supposed that he attained upwards of eighty\nyears,\u2015\u2015a supposition which agrees well enough with the statement of\nsome of the Fathers, that he died worn out with old age.\n\n Jerome has a great deal to say also, about the age of John at\n the time when he was called, arguing that he must have been a\n mere boy at the time, because tradition asserts that he lived\n till the reign of Trajan. Lampe very justly objects, however,\n that this proof amounts to nothing, if we accept another common\n tradition, that he lived to the age of 100 years; which, if we\n count back a century from the reign of Trajan, would require\n him to have attained mature age at the time of the call. Neither\n tradition however, is worth much. Our old friend Baronius, too,\n comes in to enlighten the investigation of John\u2019s age, by what\n he considers indubitable evidence. He says that John was in his\n twenty-second year when he was called, and passing three years\n with Christ, must have been twenty-five years old at the time\n of the crucifixion; \u201c_because_,\u201d says the sagacious Baronius,\n \u201che was then initiated into the priesthood.\u201d An assertion which\n Lampe with indignant surprise stigmatizes as showing \u201cremarkable\n boldness,\u201d (insignis audacia,) because it contains two very\n gross errors,\u2015\u2015first in pretending that John was ever made a\n priest, (sacerdos,) and secondly in confounding the age required\n of the Levites with that of the priests when initiated. For\n Baronius\u2019s argument resting wholly on the very strange and\n unfounded notion, that John was made a priest, is furthermore\n supported on the idea that the prescribed age for entering\n the priesthood was twenty-five years; but in reality, the age\n thus required was _thirty_ years, so that if the other part\n of this idle story was true, this would be enough to overthrow\n the conclusion. Lampe also alludes to the absurd idea of the\n painters, in representing John as a young man, even while\n writing his gospel; while in reality all writers agree that\n that work was written by him in his old age. This idea of\n his perpetual youth, once led into a blunder some foolish\n Benedictine monks, who found in Constantinople an antique\n agate intaglio, representing a young man with a cornucopia,\n and an eagle, and with a figure of victory placing a crown\n on his head. This struck their monkish fancies at once, as\n an unquestionable portrait of John, sent to their hands by a\n miraculous preservation. Examination however, has shown it to\n be a representation of the apotheosis of Germanicus.\n\nBut even here, the monkish inventors have found room for new fables;\nand though the great weight of all ancient testimony deprives them\nof the opportunity to enter into the horrible details of a bloody and\nagonizing death, they can not refuse themselves the pleasure of some\ntedious absurdities, about the manner of his death and burial, which\nare barely worth a partial sketch, to show how determined the apostolic\nnovelists are to follow their heroes to the very last, with the glories\nof a fancifully miraculous departure.\n\nThe circumstances of his death are described in the martyrologies, and\nby Abdias, in this manner. He had a vision acquainting him with his\napproaching exit, five days before it happened. On a Lord\u2019s-day morning,\nhe went to the great church at Ephesus, bearing his name, and there\nperformed public worship as usual, at day-break. About the middle of\nthe forenoon, he ordered a deacon, and some grave diggers, with their\ntools, to accompany him to the burying ground. He then set them to\ndigging his grave, while he, after ordering the multitude to depart,\nspent the time in prayer. He once looked into the grave, and bid them\ndig it deeper. When it was finished, he took off his outer garment,\nand spread it in the grave. Then, standing over it, he made a speech\nto those present, (which is not worth repeating,) then gave thanks to\nGod for the arrival of the time of his release,\u2015\u2015and placing himself\nin the grave, and wrapping himself up, he instantly expired. The grave\nwas filled up; and afterwards miracles took place at it, and a kind of\nmanna issued from it, which possessed great virtues.\n\nThere is no need, however, of such fables, to crown with the false\nhonors of a vain prodigy, the calmly glorious end of the \u201cLast of the\nApostles.\u201d It is enough for the Christian to know, that, with the long,\nbright course of almost a century behind him, and with the mighty works\nof his later years around him, John closed the solemn apostolic drama,\nbearing with him in his late departure the last light of inspiration,\nand the last personal \u201ctestimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of\nprophecy.\u201d Blessed in his works thus following him, he died in the Lord,\nand now rests from his labors on the breast of that loved friend, who\ncherished so tenderly the youthful Son of Thunder;\u2015\u2015on the bosom of his\nRedeemer and his Lord,\u2015\u2015\n\n \u201cThe bosom of his Father and his God.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n PHILIP.\n\n\nIN all the three gospel lists, this apostle is placed fifth in\norder, the variations in the arrangements of the preceding making no\ndifference in his position. In the first chapter of Acts, however,\na different arrangement is made of his name, as will be hereafter\nmentioned. The mere mention of his name on the list, is all the notice\ntaken of him by either of the three first evangelists, and it is only\nin the gospel of John, that the slightest additional circumstance can\nbe learned about him. From this authority it is ascertained that he\nwas of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter, and probably also the\nhome or frequent visiting-place of the sons of Zebedee, by the younger\nof whom he is so particularly commemorated. Immediately after the\nnarration of the introduction of Andrew, John and Peter, to Jesus, in\nthe first chapter of this gospel, it is said that Jesus next proceeded\nfrom Bethabara into Galilee, and there finds Philip; but the particular\nplace is not mentioned, though Bethsaida being immediately after\nmentioned as his home, very probably was the place of the meeting.\nAndrew and Peter, on their return home, had doubtless had no small\ntalk among their acquaintances, about the wonderful person announced as\nthe Messiah, to whom they had been introduced, and had thus satisfied\nthemselves that he was really the divine character he was said to be.\nPhilip too, must have heard of him in this way, before he saw him; so\nthat when Jesus met him, he was prepared at once to receive the call\nwhich Jesus immediately gave him,\u2015\u2015\u201cFollow me.\u201d From the circumstance\nthat he was the first person who was summoned by Jesus, in this\nparticular formula of invitation to the discipleship, some writers\nhave, not without reason, claimed for Philip the name and honors of\nthe PROTOCLETE, or \u201c_first-called_;\u201d though Andrew has commonly been\nconsidered as best entitled to this dignity, from his being the first\nmentioned by name, as actually becoming acquainted with Jesus. Philip\nwas so devoutly engaged, at once, in the cause of his new Master,\nthat he, like Andrew, immediately sought out others to share the\nblessings of the discipleship; and soon after meeting one of his\nfriends, Nathanael, he expressed the ardor of his faith in his new\nteacher, by the words in which he invited him to join in this honorable\nfellowship,\u2015\u2015\u201cWe have found him of whom Moses, in the law, and all the\nprophets did write,\u2015\u2015Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.\u201d The result\nof this application will be related in the life of the person most\nimmediately concerned. After this, no notice whatever is taken of\nPhilip except where incidental remarks made by him in the conversations\nof Jesus, are recorded by John. Thus, at the feeding of the five\nthousand, upon Jesus\u2019s asking whether they had the means of procuring\nfood for the multitude, Philip answered, that \u201ctwo hundred pence would\nnot buy enough for them, that every one might take a little,\u201d\u2015\u2015thus\nshowing himself not at all prepared by his previous faith in Jesus,\nfor the great miracle which was about to happen; though Jesus had\nasked the question, as John says, with the actual design of trying the\nextent of his confidence in him. He is afterwards mentioned in the last\nconversations of Jesus, as saying to him, \u201cShow us the Father, and it\nsufficeth us,\u201d\u2015\u2015here too, betraying also a most unfortunate deficiency,\nboth of faith and knowledge, and implying also a vain desire to gratify\nhis eyes with still more miraculous displays of the divine power of his\nMaster; though, even in this respect, he probably was no worse off than\nall the rest of the disciples, before the resurrection of Jesus.\n\n PROTOCLETE.\u2015\u2015Hammond claims this peculiar honor for Philip, with\n great zeal. (See his notes on John i. 43.)\n\nOf his _apostleship_ not one word is recorded in the New Testament,\nfor he is no where mentioned in the Acts, except as being one of the\napostles assembled in the upper chamber after the ascension; nor do\nthe epistles contain the slightest allusion to him. Some of the most\nancient authorities among the Fathers, however, are distinct in their\nmention of some circumstances of his later life; but all these accounts\nare involved in total discredit, by the fact that they make him\nidentical with Philip the deacon, whose active and zealous labors in\nSamaria, and along the coast of Palestine, from Gaza, through Ashdod\nto Caesarea, his home, are minutely related in the Acts, and have\nbeen already alluded to, in that part of the life of Peter which is\nconnected with these incidents. It has always been supposed, with\nmuch reason, in modern times, that the offices of an _apostle_ and a\n_deacon_ were so totally distinct and different, that they could never\nboth be borne by one and the same person; but the Fathers, even the\nvery ancient ones, seem to have had not the slightest idea of any\nsuch incompatibility; and therefore uniformly speak of Philip the\napostle, as the same person with Philip, one of the seven deacons,\nwho is mentioned by Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, as having lived\nat Caesarea, in Palestine, with his daughters, who were virgins and\nprophetesses. Testimony more distinct than this, can no where be found,\namong all the Fathers, on any point whatever; and very little that\nis more ancient. Yet how does it accord with the notions of those\nwho revere these very Fathers as almost immaculate in truth, and in\nall intellectual, as well as moral excellence? What is the evidence\nof these boasted Fathers worth, on any point in controversy about\napostolic church government, or doctrine, or criticism, if the modern\nnotion of the incompatibility of the two offices of apostle and deacon\nis correct?\n\n The testimony of the Fathers on this point, is simply this.\n Eusebius (Church History, III. 31,) quotes Polycrates, bishop of\n Ephesus, who, in his letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, (written\n A.\u00a0D. 195, or 196,) makes mention of Philip in these _exact_\n words: \u201cPhilip, who was _one of the twelve_ apostles, died in\n Hierapolis;\u201d (in Phrygia;) \u201cand so did _two of his daughters_,\n who had grown old in virginity. And another of his daughters,\n after having passed her life under the influence of the Holy\n Spirit, was buried at Ephesus.\u201d This certainly is a most perfect\n identification of Philip the apostle with Philip the deacon; for\n it is this latter person who is particularly mentioned in Acts,\n xxi. 8, 9, as \u201chaving four daughters who did prophesy.\u201d He is\n there especially designated as \u201cPhilip the evangelist, _one\n of the seven_,\u201d while Polycrates expressly declares, that this\n same person \u201cwas _one of the twelve_.\u201d Eusebius also, in the\n preceding chapter, quotes Clemens Alexandrinus as mentioning\n Philip among those _apostles_ who were married, because _he_\n is mentioned as having had daughters; and Clemens even adds\n that these were afterwards married, which directly contradicts\n the previous statement of Polycrates, that three of them died\n virgins, in old age. Yet Eusebius quotes all this stuff, with\n approbation.\n\n Papias, (A.\u00a0D. 140,) bishop of Hierapolis, the very place of the\n death and burial of Philip, is represented by Eusebius as having\n been well acquainted with the daughters of Philip, mentioned in\n Acts, as the virgin prophetesses. Papias says that he himself\n \u201cheard these ladies say that their father once raised a dead\n person to life, in their time.\u201d But it deserves notice, that\n Papias, the very best authority on this subject, is no where\n quoted as calling this Philip \u201can apostle;\u201d though Eusebius,\n on his own authority, gives this name to the Philip of whom\n Papias speaks. It is therefore reasonable to conclude, that\n this blunder, betraying such a want of familiarity with the\n New Testament history, originated after the time of Papias,\n whose intimate acquaintance with Philip\u2019s family would have\n enabled him to say, at once, that this was the _deacon_, and not\n the _apostle_; though it is not probable that he was any less\n deplorably ignorant of the scriptures than most of the Fathers\n were.\n\n Now what can be said of the testimony of the Fathers on\n points where they can not refer, either to their own personal\n observation, or to informants who have seen and heard what they\n testify? The only way in which they can be shielded from the\n reproach of a gross blunder and a disgraceful ignorance of the\n New Testament, is, that they were right in identifying these\n two Philips, and that modern theologians are wrong in making\n the distinction. On this dilemma I will not pretend to decide;\n for though so little reverence for the judgment and information\n of the Fathers has been shown in this book, there does seem\n to me to be some reason for hesitation on this point, where\n the Fathers _ought_ to have been as well informed as any\n body. They must have known surely, whether, according to the\n notions of those primitive ages of Christianity, there was any\n incompatibility between the apostleship and the deaconship! If\n their testimony is worth anything on such points, it ought to\n weigh so much on this, as to cause a doubt whether they are not\n right, and the moderns wrong. However, barely suggesting this\n query, without attempting a decision, as Luther says, \u201cI will\n afford to other and higher spirits, occasion to reflect.\u201d\n\nThis is all the satisfaction that the brief records of the inspired\nor uninspired historians of Christianity can give the inquirer, on\nthe life of this apostle;\u2015\u2015so unequal were the labors of the first\nministers of Christ, and their claims for notice. Philip, no doubt,\nserved the purpose for which he was called, faithfully; but in these\nbrief sketches, there are no traces of any genius of a high character,\nthat could distinguish him above the thousands that are forgotten,\nbut whose labors, like those of the minutest animals in a mole-hill,\ncontribute an indispensable portion to the completion of the mass, in\nwhose mighty structure all their individual efforts are swallowed up\nforever.\n\nAnd though the ancient Polycrates may have blundered grievously, in\nrespect to the apostle\u2019s personal identity, his hope of the glorious\nresurrection of those whom he supposed to have died in Asia will\ndoubtless be equally well rewarded, if, to the amazement of the Fathers,\nthe _apostle_ Philip should rise at last from the dust of Babylon, or\nthe ashes of Jerusalem, while his namesake, the evangelist, shall burst\nfrom his tomb in Hierapolis. \u201cFor,\u201d as Polycrates truly says, \u201cin Asia,\nsome great lights have gone down, which shall rise again on that day of\nthe Lord\u2019s approach, when he shall come from the heavens in glory, and\nshall raise up all his saints;\u2015\u2015Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who\nsleeps at Hierapolis, with his venerable virgin daughters,\u2015\u2015John, who\nlay in the bosom of the Lord, and who is laid at Ephesus,\u2015\u2015Polycarp,\nat Smyrna,\u2015\u2015Thraseas, at Eumenia,\u2015\u2015Sagaris, at Laodicea,\u2015\u2015Papirius\nand Melito, at Sardis\u2015\u2015all await the visitation of the Lord from the\nheavens, in which he shall raise them from the dead.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n NATHANAEL, BAR-THOLOMEW.\n\n\n HIS NAME AND CALL.\n\nIN respect to this apostle, there occurs a primary question about his\nname, which is given so differently in different sacred authorities,\nas to induce a strong suspicion that the two names refer to two totally\ndistinct persons. The reasons for applying the two words, Nathanael\nand Bartholomew, to the same person, are the circumstances,\u2015\u2015that none\nof the three first evangelists mention any person named Nathanael, and\nthat John never mentions the name Bartholomew,\u2015\u2015that Bartholomew and\nNathanael are each mentioned on these different authorities, among the\nchosen disciples of Jesus,\u2015\u2015that Bartholomew is mentioned by the three\nfirst evangelists, on all the lists, directly after Philip, who is by\nJohn represented as his intimate friend,\u2015\u2015and that Bartholomew is not\nan individual name, but a word showing parentage merely,\u2015\u2015the first\nsyllable being often prefixed to Syriac names, for this purpose; and\n_Bar_-Tholomew means the \u201cson of Tholomew,\u201d or \u201cTholomai;\u201d just as\nBar-Jonah means the \u201cson of Jonah;\u201d nor was the former any more in\nreality the personal, individual name of Nathanael, than the latter was\nof Peter; but some circumstance may have occurred to make it, in this\ninstance, often take the place of the true individual name.\n\nA few very brief notices are given of this apostle by John, who alone\nalludes to him, otherwise than by a bare mention on the list. It\nis mentioned in his gospel that Nathanael was of Cana, in Galilee,\na town which stood about half-way between lake Gennesaret and the\nMediterranean sea; but the circumstances of his call seem to show\nthat he was then with Philip, probably at or near Bethsaida. Philip,\nafter being summoned by Jesus to the discipleship, immediately sought\nto bring his friend Nathanael into an enjoyment of the honors of a\npersonal intercourse with Jesus, and invited him to become a follower\nof the Messiah, foretold by Moses and the prophets, who had now\nappeared, as Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. On hearing of that\nmean place, as the home of the promised King of Israel, Nathanael,\nwith great scorn, replied, in inquiry, \u201cCan any good thing come out\nof Nazareth?\u201d To this sneering question, Philip answered by the simple\nproposition, \u201cCome and see;\u201d\u2015\u2015wisely judging that no argument could\nanswer his friend\u2019s prejudice so well as an actual observation of the\ncharacter and aspect of the Nazarene himself. Nathanael, accordingly,\npersuaded by the earnestness of his friend, came along with him,\nperhaps, partly to gratify him, but, no doubt, with his curiosity\nsomewhat moved to know what could have thus brought Philip into this\ndevout regard for a citizen of that dirty little town; and he therefore\nreadily accompanied him to see what sort of prophet could come out of\nNazareth.\n\nThe words with which Jesus greeted Nathanael, even before he had been\npersonally introduced, or was prepared for any salutation, are the\nmost exalted testimonial of his character that could be conceived, and\nshow at once his very eminent qualifications for the high honors of the\napostleship. When Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, he said, \u201cBehold\na true son of Israel, in whom is no guile!\u201d\u2015\u2015manifesting at once a\nconfidential and intimate knowledge of his whole character, in thus\npronouncing with such ready decision, this high and uncommon tribute\nof praise upon him, as soon as he appeared before him. Nathanael,\nquite surprised at this remarkable compliment from one whom he had\nnever seen until that moment, and whom he supposed to be equally\nignorant of him, replied with the inquiry, \u201cWhence knowest thou me?\u201d\nJesus answered, \u201cBefore Philip called thee, when thou wast under the\nfig-tree, I saw thee.\u201d The fig-trees of Palestine, presenting a wide,\nleafy cover, and a delightful shade, were often used in the warm season\nas places of retirement, either in company, for conversation, or in\nsolitude, for meditation and prayer, as is shown in numerous passages\nof the Rabbinical writings; and it was, doubtless, in one of these\noccupations that Nathanael was engaged, removed, as he supposed, from\nall observation, at the time to which Jesus referred. But the eye\nthat could pierce the stormy shades of night on the boisterous waves\nof Galilee, and that could search the hearts of all men, could also\npenetrate the thick, leafy veil of the fig-tree, and observe the most\nsecret actions of this guileless Israelite, when he supposed the whole\nworld to be shut out, and gave himself to the undisguised enjoyment\nof his thoughts, feelings, and actions, without restraint. Nathanael,\nstruck with sudden but absolute conviction, at this amazing display of\nknowledge, gave up all his proud scruples against the despised Nazarene,\nand adoringly exclaimed, \u201cRabbi! thou art the Son of God,\u2015\u2015thou art the\nKing of Israel.\u201d Jesus, recognizing with pleasure the ready faith of\nthis pure-minded disciple, replied, \u201cBecause I said unto thee, \u2018I saw\nthee under the fig-tree,\u2019\u2015\u2015believest thou? Thou shalt see yet greater\nthings than these.\u201d Then turning to Philip as well as to Nathanael,\nhe says to them both, \u201cI solemnly assure you, hereafter ye shall see\nheaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the\nSon of Man.\u201d\n\nOn the day but one after this occurrence, as John records, Jesus\nwas in Cana of Galilee, the residence of Nathanael, and was present\nat a wedding which took place there. From the circumstance that the\nmother of Jesus was there also, it would seem likely that it was the\nmarriage of some of their family friends; otherwise the conjecture\nmight seem allowable, that the presence of Jesus and his disciples\non this occasion, was in some way connected with the introduction of\nNathanael to Jesus; and that this new disciple may have been some way\nconcerned in this interesting event. The manner in which the occurrence\nis announced,\u2015\u2015it being next specified, that two days after the\noccurrences recorded in the end of the first chapter, Jesus was present\nat a marriage in Cana of Galilee,\u2015\u2015would seem to imply very fairly,\nthat Jesus had been in some other place immediately before; and it is\nprobable therefore, that he accompanied Nathanael home from Bethsaida,\nor whatever place was the scene of his calling to the discipleship,\nalong with Philip. The terms of the statement are not, however,\nabsolutely incompatible with the idea of this first introduction of\nthese two disciples to Jesus, in Cana itself, which may have been the\npart of Galilee into which Jesus is said to have gone forth, after\nleaving Bethabara; although, the reasons above given make it probable\nthat Bethsaida was the scene. After this first incident, no mention\nwhatever is made of Nathanael, either under his proper name, or his\npaternal appellation, except that when the twelve were sent forth in\npairs, he was sent with his friend Philip, that those who had been\nsummoned to the work together, might now go forth laboring together\nin this high commission. One solitary incident is also commemorated by\nJohn, in which this apostle was concerned, namely, the meeting on the\nlake of Gennesaret, after the resurrection, where his name is mentioned\namong those who went out on the fishing excursion with Peter. His\nfriend Philip is not there mentioned, but may have been one of the\n\u201ctwo disciples,\u201d who are included without their names being given. From\nthis trifling circumstance, some have concluded that Nathanael was a\nfisherman by trade, as well as the other four who are mentioned with\nhim; and certainly the conjecture is reasonable, and not improbable,\nexcept from the circumstance, that his residence was at Cana, which\nis commonly understood to have been an inland town, and too far\nfrom the water, for any of its inhabitants to follow fishing as a\nbusiness. Other idle conjectures about his occupation and rank might\nbe multiplied from most anciently and venerably foolish authorities;\nbut let the dust of ages sleep on the prosy guesses of the Gregories,\nof Chrysostom, Augustin, and their reverential copyists in modern\ntimes. There is too much need of room in this book, for the detail\nand discussion of truth, to allow paper to be wasted on baseless\nconjectures, or impudent falsehoods.\n\n\n HIS APOSTLESHIP.\n\nThere is a dim relic of a story, of quite ancient date, that after\nthe dispersion of the apostles, he went to Arabia, and preached there\ntill his death. This is highly probable, because it is well known that\nmany of the Jews, more particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem,\nsettled along the eastern coasts of the Red sea, where they were\ncontinued for centuries. Nothing can be more reasonable then, than\nto suppose that after the wasting fury of invasion had desolated the\ncity and the land of their fathers, many of the Christian Jews too,\nwent forth to seek a new home in the peaceful regions of Arabia Felix;\nand that with them also went forth this true Israelite without guile,\nto devote the rest of his life to apostolic labors, in that distant\ncountry, where those of his wandering brethren, who had believed\nin Christ, would so much need the support and counsel of one of the\ndivinely commissioned ministers of the gospel. Those Israelites too,\nwho still continued unbelievers, would present objects of importance,\nin the view of the apostle. All the visible glories of the ancient\ncovenant had departed; and in that distant land, with so little of\nthe chilling influence of the dogmatical teachers of the law around\nthem, they would be the more readily led to the just appreciation of\na spiritual faith, and a simple creed.\n\n All the testimony which antiquity affords on this point, is\n simply this:\u2015\u2015Eusebius (Church History, V. 10,) says, in giving\n the life of Pantaenus of Alexandria, (who lived about A.\u00a0D. 180,)\n that this enterprising Christian philosopher penetrated, in his\n researches and travels, as far as to the inhabitants of India.\n It has been shown by Tillemont, Asseman and Michaelis, that this\n term, in this connection, means Arabia Felix, one part of whose\n inhabitants were called _Indians_, by the Hebrews, the Syrians\n and the early ecclesiastical historians. Eusebius relates that\n Pantaenus there found the gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, and that\n the tradition among these people was, that _Bartholomew_, one\n of the twelve apostles, had formerly preached there, and left\n this gospel among them. This tradition being only a hundred\n years old when Pantaenus heard it, ranks among those of _rather_\n respectable character.\n\nThe tradition certainly appears authentic, and is a very interesting\nand valuable fragment of early Christian history, giving a trace of\nthe progress of the gospel, which otherwise would never have been\nrecognized,\u2015\u2015besides the satisfaction of such a reasonable story about\nan apostle of whom the inspired narrative records so little, although\nhe is represented in such an interesting light, by the account of\nhis introduction to Jesus. Here he learned the meaning of the solemn\nprophecy with which Jesus crowned that noble profession of faith. Here\nhe saw, no doubt, yet greater tokens of the power of Christ, than in\nthe deep knowledge of hidden things then displayed. And here, resting\nat last from his labors, he departed to the full view of the glories\nthere foretold,\u2015\u2015to \u201csee heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending\nand descending upon the Son of Man.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n MATTHEW.\n\n\n HIS RANK AND NAME.\n\nIn his own gospel, Matthew is not ranked immediately after the\npreceding apostle, but numbers himself eighth on the list, and after\nhis associate, Thomas; but all the other lists agree in giving this\napostle a place immediately after Nathanael. The testimony of others in\nregard to his rank has therefore been adopted, in preference to his own,\nwhich was evidently influenced by a too modest estimation of himself.\n\nIn connection with this apostle, as in other instances, there is a\nserious question about his name and individual identity, arising from\nthe different appellations under which he is mentioned in different\nparts of the sacred record. In his own gospel, he is referred to by no\nother name than his common one; but by Mark and Luke, the circumstances\nof his call are narrated, with the details almost precisely similar to\nthose recorded of the same occurrence by himself, and yet the person\nthus called, (in the same form of words used in summoning the other\napostles,) is named Levi, the son of Alpheus; though Mark and Luke\nrecord Matthew by his common name among the twelve, in the list of\nnames. Some have thought that the circumstance of their mentioning\nMatthew in this manner, without referring at all to his identity with\nthe person named Levi, proves that they too had no idea that the former\nname was applied to the same person as the latter, and on the contrary,\nwere detailing the call of some other disciple,\u2015\u2015perhaps Jude, who also\nis called by the similar name, Lebbeus, and is known to have been the\nson of Alpheus. This view is not improbable, and is so well supported\nby coinciding circumstances, as to throw great uncertainty over the\nwhole matter; though not entirely to set aside the probabilities\narising from the almost perfect similarity between Matthew\u2019s call, as\nrelated by himself, and the call of Levi, the son of Alpheus, as given\nin the other gospels.\n\n On the question of Matthew\u2019s identity with Levi, Michaelis is\n full. (Introduction, III. iv. 1.) Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca,\n IV. vii. 2,) discusses the question quite at length, and his\n annotators give abundance of references to authors, in detail,\n in addition, to those mentioned by himself, in the text.\n\n\n HIS CALL.\n\nThe circumstances of his call, as narrated by himself, are represented\nas occurring at or near Capernaum. \u201cJesus, passing out of the city,\nsaw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, and he said\nto him,\u2015\u2015\u2018Follow me.\u2019 And he arose, and followed him.\u201d This account\nshows Matthew\u2019s occupation, which is also known from the title of \u201cthe\ntax-gatherer,\u201d annexed to his name, in his own list of the apostles.\nThis was an occupation which, though unquestionably a source of great\nprofit to those employed in it, and consequently as much sought after\nas such offices are in these days, and in this country, was always\nconnected with a great deal of popular odium, from the relation in\nwhich they stood to the people, in this profitable business. The class\nof collectors to which Matthew belonged, in particular, being the mere\ntoll-gatherers, sitting to collect the money, penny by penny, from the\nunwilling people, whose national pride was every moment wounded by the\ndegrading _foreign_ exactions of the Romans, suffered under a peculiar\nignominy, and were supposed to have renounced all patriotism and\nhonor, in stooping, for the base purposes of pecuniary gain, to act\nas instruments of such a galling form of servitude, and were therefore\nvisited with a universal popular hatred and scorn. A class of men thus\ndeprived of all character for honor and delicacy of feeling, would\nnaturally grow hardened, beyond all sense of shame; and this added\nto the usual official impudence which characterizes all mean persons,\nholding a place which gives them the power to annoy others, the\ndespised publicans would generally repay this spite, on every occasion,\nwhich could enable them to be vexatious to those who came in contact\nwith them. Yet out of this hated class, Jesus did not disdain to take\nat least one,\u2015\u2015perhaps more,\u2015\u2015of those whom he chose for the express\npurpose of building up a pure faith, and of evangelizing the world. No\ndoubt, before the occasion of this call, Matthew had been a frequent\nhearer of the words of truth which fell from the divinely eloquent\nlips of the Redeemer,\u2015\u2015words that had not been without a purifying and\nexalting effect on the heart of the publican, though long so degraded\nby daily and hourly familiarity with meanness and vice. And so weaned\nwas his soul from the love of the gainful pursuit to which he had been\ndevoted, that at the first call from Jesus, he arose from the place\nof toll-gathering, and followed his summoner, to a duty for which his\nprevious occupation had but poorly prepared him. With such satisfaction\ndid he renounce his old vocation, for the discipleship of the Nazarene,\nthat he made it a great occasion of rejoicing, and celebrated the day\nas a festival, calling in all his old friends as well as his new ones,\nto share in the hospitable entertainment which he spread for all who\ncould join with him in the social circle. Nor did the holy Redeemer\ndespise the rough and indiscriminate company to which the grateful\njoy of Matthew had invited him; but rejoicing in an opportunity\nto do good to a class of people so seldom brought under the means\nof grace, he unhesitatingly sat down to the entertainment with his\ndisciples,\u2015\u2015Savior and sinners, toll-gatherers and apostles, all\nthronging in one motley group, around the festive board. What a sight\nwas this for the eyes of the proud Pharisees who were spitefully\nwatching the conduct of the man who had lately taken upon himself the\nexalted character of a teacher, and a reformer of the law! Passing\ninto the house with the throng who entered at the open doors of the\nhospitable Matthew,\u2015\u2015they saw the much glorified prophet of Nazareth,\nsitting at the social table along with a parcel of low custom-house\ncollectors, toll-gatherers, tide-waiters and cheats, one of whose\nhonorable fraternity he had just adopted into the goodly fellowship\nof his disciples, and was now eating and drinking with these outcast\nvillains, without repelling the familiar merriment even of the lowest\nof them. At this spectacle, so degrading to such a dignity as they\nconsidered most becoming in one who aspired to be a teacher of morals\nand religion, the scribes and Pharisees sneeringly asked the disciples\nof Jesus,\u2015\u2015\u201cWhy eateth your Master with tax-gatherers and sinners?\u201d\nJesus, hearing the malicious inquiry, answered it in such a tone of\nirony as best suited its impertinence. \u201cThey that are whole, need not\na physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what this\nmeans,\u2015\u2015\u2018I will have mercy, rather than sacrifice;\u2019 for I am not come\nto call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.\u201d\n\n\n HIS GOSPEL.\n\nAfter the history of his call, not one circumstance is related\nrespecting him, either in the gospels, the Acts or the epistles. In\nhis own gospel, he makes not the slightest allusion to anything either\nsaid or done by himself; nor does his name anywhere occur except in the\napostolic lists. Even the Fathers are silent as to any other important\ncircumstances of his life, and it is only in the noble record which\nhe has left of the life of Christ, in the gospel which bears his name,\nthat any monument of his actions and character can now be found. Yet\nthis solitary remaining effort of his genius is of such importance in\nthe history of revealed religion, that hardly the most eminent of the\napostles is so often brought to mind, as the evangelist, whose clear,\nsimple, but impressive testimony to the words and deeds of his Lord,\nnow stands at the head of the sacred canon.\n\nOn the history of this portion of the Christian scriptures, the\ntestimony of the Fathers, from very early times, is very decided in\nmaintaining the fact, that it was written in the vernacular language\nof Palestine. The very earliest testimony on this point, dating within\nseventy-five years of the time of Matthew himself, expressly declares\nthat Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew language; and that each\none interpreted it for himself as he could. It is also said on somewhat\nearly authority, that he wrote his gospel when about to depart from\nPalestine, that those whom he left behind him might have an authentic\nrecord of the facts in the life of Christ. So that by these and a great\nnumber of other testimonies, uniformly to the same effect, the point\nseems well established that Matthew wrote in Hebrew; and that what is\nnow extant as his gospel, is only a translation into Greek, made in\nsome later age, by some person unknown.\n\n\n I. IN WHAT LANGUAGE DID MATTHEW WRITE HIS GOSPEL?\n\n In mentioning the Hebrew as the original language of the gospel\n of Matthew, it should be noticed, that the dialect spoken by the\n Jews of the time of Christ and his apostles, was by no means the\n language in which the Old Testament was written, and which is\n commonly meant by this name at present. The true ancient Hebrew\n had long before become a dead language, as truly so as it is now,\n and as much unknown to the mass of the people, as the Latin is\n in Italy, or the Anglo-Saxon in England. Yet the language was\n still called \u201cthe _Hebrew_,\u201d as appears from several passages\n in the New Testament, where the Hebrew is spoken of as the\n vernacular language of the Jews of Palestine. It seems proper\n therefore, to designate the later Hebrew by the same name\n which is applied to it by those who spoke it, and this is\n still among modern writers the term used for it; but of late,\n some, especially Hug and his commentator, Wait, have introduced\n the name \u201cAramaic,\u201d as a distinctive title of this dialect,\n deriving this term from _Aram_, the original name of Syria,\n and the regions around, in all which was spoken in the time of\n Christ, this or a similar dialect. This term however, is quite\n unnecessary; and I therefore prefer to use here the common\n name, as above limited, because it is the one used in the New\n Testament, and is the one in familiar use, not only with common\n readers, but, as far as I know, with the majority of Biblical\n critics.\n\n Though the evidence that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, is\n apparently of the most uniform, weighty and decisive character,\n there have been many among the learned, within the three last\n centuries, who have denied it, and have brought the best of\n their learning and ability to prove that the Greek gospel of\n Matthew, which is now in the New Testament, is the original\n production of his pen; and so skilfully has this modern view\n been maintained, that this has already been made one of the\n most doubtful questions in the history of the canon. In Germany\n more particularly, (but not entirely,) this notion has, during\n the last century, been strongly supported by many who do not\n like the idea, that we are in possession only of a translation\n of this most important record of sacred history, and that the\n original is now lost forever. Those who have more particularly\n distinguished themselves on this side of the controversy, are\n Maius, Schroeder, Masch and Hug, but the great majority of\n critics still support the old view.\n\n The earliest evidence for the _Hebrew_ original of Matthew\u2019s\n gospel, is Papias of Hierapolis, (as early as A.\u00a0D. 140,) not\n long after the times of the apostles, and acquainted with many\n who knew them personally. Eusebius (Church History, III. 39,)\n quotes the words of Papias, (of which the original is now lost,)\n which are exactly translated here:\u2015\u2015\u201cMatthew therefore wrote the\n divine words in the Hebrew language; and every one translated\n them as he could.\u201d By which it appears that in the time of\n Papias there was no universally acknowledged translation of\n Matthew\u2019s gospel; but that every one was still left to his own\n private discretion, in giving the meaning in Greek from the\n original Hebrew. The value of Papias\u2019s testimony on any point\n connected with the history of the apostles, may be best learned\n from his own simple and honest account of his opportunities and\n efforts to inquire into their history; (as recorded by Eusebius\n in a former part of the same chapter.) \u201cIf any person who had\n ever been acquainted with the elders, came into my company, I\n inquired of them the words of the elders;\u2015\u2015what Andrew and Peter\n said?\u2015\u2015what Thomas, and James, and John, and Matthew, and the\n other disciples of the Lord used to say?\u201d\u2015\u2015All this shows an\n inquiring, zealous mind, faithful in particulars, and ready\n in improving opportunities for acquiring historical knowledge.\n Yet because in another part of the works of Eusebius, he is\n characterized as rather enthusiastic, and very weak in judgment,\n more particularly in respect to doctrines, some moderns have\n attempted to set aside his testimony, as worth nothing on this\n simple historical point, the decision of which, from the direct\n personal witness of those who had seen Matthew and read his\n original gospel, needed no more judgment than for a man to\n remember his own name. The argument offered to discredit Papias,\n is this:\u2015\u2015\u201cHe believed in a bodily reign of the Messiah on the\n earth, during the whole period of the millennium, and for this\n and some similar errors, is pronounced by Eusebius, \u2018a man\n of very weak judgment,\u2019\u2015\u2015(\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c5 \u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd.) Therefore,\n he could not have known in what language Matthew wrote.\u201d\n The objection certainly is worth something against a man\n who made such errors as Papias, in questions where any nice\n discrimination is necessary, but in a simple effort of a\n ready memory, he is as good a witness as though he had the\n discrimination of a modern skeptical critic. (In Michaelis\u2019s\n Introduction to the New Testament, vol. III. c. iv. \u00a7 4, is a\n full discussion of Papias\u2019s character and testimony, and the\n objections to them.)\n\n The second witness is Irenaeus, (A.\u00a0D. 160,) who, however,\n coupling his testimony with a demonstrated falsehood, destroys\n the value which might be otherwise put upon a statement so\n ancient as his. His words are quoted by Eusebius, (Church\n History, V. 8.) \u201cMatthew published among the Hebrews his gospel,\n written in _their own_ language, (\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u1fb3 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u1ff3,) while\n Peter and Paul were preaching Christ at Rome, and laying the\n foundations of the church.\u201d This latter circumstance is no great\n help to the story, after what has been proved on this point in\n the notes on Peter\u2019s life; but the critics do not pretend to\n attack it on this ground. They urge against it, that as Irenaeus\n had a great regard for Papias, and took some facts on his word,\n he probably took this also from him, with no other authority,\u2015\u2015a\n _guess_, which only wants proof, to make it a very tolerable\n argument. Let Irenaeus go for what he is worth; there are enough\n without him.\n\n The third witness is Pantaenus of Alexandria, already quoted\n in the note on Nathanael\u2019s life, (p. 363,) as having found this\n Hebrew gospel still in use, in that language, among the Jews of\n Arabia-Felix, towards the end of the second century.\n\n The fourth witness is Origen, (A.\u00a0D. 230,) whose words on\n this point are preserved only in a quotation made by Eusebius,\n (Church History, VI. 25,) who thus gives them from Origen\u2019s\n commentary on Matthew. \u201cAs I have learned by tradition\n concerning the four gospels, which alone are received without\n dispute by the church of God under heaven: the first was written\n by Matthew, once a tax-gatherer, afterwards an apostle of Jesus\n Christ, who published it for the benefit of the Jewish converts,\n having composed it in the HEBREW language, &c.\u201d The term,\n \u201c_tradition_,\u201d (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,) here evidently means something more\n than floating, unauthorized information, coming merely by vague\n hearsay; for to this source only he refers all his knowledge\n of the fact, that \u201cthe gospel was written by Matthew;\u201d so that,\n in fact, we have as good authority in this place, for believing\n that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, as we have that he wrote at all.\n The other circumstances specified, also show clearly, that he\n did not derive all his information on this point from Papias,\n as some have urged; because this account gives facts which that\n earlier Father did not mention,\u2015\u2015as that it was written first,\n and that it was intended for the benefit of the Jewish converts.\n\n Later authorities, such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem,\n Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others, might be quoted\n in detail, to the same effect; but this general statement is\n sufficient for this place. The scholar of course, will refer to\n the works on critical theology for detailed abstracts of these,\n as well as the former writers. Michaelis is very full, both in\n extracts and discussions. Hug also gives a minute account of the\n evidence, with the view of refuting it.\n\n The testimony of Jerome [A.\u00a0D. 395,] is however, so full\n and explicit, and so valuable from his character as a Hebrew\n scholar, that it may well be esteemed of higher importance\n to the question, than that of some earlier writers. His words\n are,\u2015\u2015\u201cMatthew composed his gospel in _Hebrew letters and words_,\n but it is not very well known who afterwards translated it.\n Moreover, the very Hebrew original itself is preserved even to\n this day, in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus,\n most industriously collected. I also had the opportunity of\n copying [describendi] this book by means of the Nazareans\n in Beroea, a city of Syria, who use this book.\u201d [Jerome De\n scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. Vita Matthew.] Another passage\n from the same author is valuable testimony to the same\n purpose,\u2015\u2015\u201cMatthew wrote his gospel _in the Hebrew language_,\n principally for the sake of those Jews who believed in Jesus.\u201d\n\n Now these testimonies, though coming from an authority so\n late, are of the highest value when his means of learning the\n truth are considered. By his own statement it appears that he\n _had actually seen and examined_ the original Hebrew gospel of\n Matthew, or what was considered to be such, as preserved in the\n valuable collections of \u2666Pamphilus, at a place within the region\n for which it was first written. It has been urged that Jerome\n confounded the \u201cgospel according to the Hebrews,\u201d an apocryphal\n book, with the true original of Matthew. But this is disproved,\n from the circumstance that Jerome himself translated this\n apocryphal gospel from the Hebrew into Latin, while he says that\n the translator of Matthew was unknown.\n\n \u2666 \u201cPamphilius\u201d replaced with \u201cPamphilus\u201d\n\n In addition to these authorities from the Fathers, may be\n quoted the statements appended to the ancient Syriac and Arabic\n versions, which distinctly declare that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.\n This was also the opinion of all the learned Syrians.\n\n The great argument with which all this evidence is met, (besides\n discrediting the witnesses,) is that Matthew _ought_ to have\n written in Greek, and therefore _did_. (Matthaeus Graece\n scribere _debuit_. Schubert. Diss. \u00a7 24.) This sounds very\n strangely; that, without any direct ancient testimony to support\n the assertion, but a great number of distinct assertions against\n it from the very earliest Fathers, moderns should now pronounce\n themselves better judges of what Matthew _ought_ to do, than\n those who were so near to his time, and were so well acquainted\n with his design, and all the circumstances under which it was\n executed. Yet, strangely as it sounds, an argument of even this\n presumptuous aspect, demands the most respectful consideration,\n more especially from those who have had frequent occasion, on\n other points, to notice the very contemptible character of the\n \u201ctestimony of the Fathers.\u201d It should be noticed however, that,\n in this case, the argument does not rest on a mere floating\n tradition, like many other mooted points in early Christian\n history, but in most of the witnesses, is referred to direct\n personal knowledge of the facts, and, in some cases, to actual\n inspection of the original.\n\n It is proper to notice the reasons for thinking that Matthew\n _ought_ to have written in Greek, which have influenced such\n minds as those of Erasmus, Beza, Ittig, Leusden, Spanheim,\n LeClerc, Semler, Hug and others, and which have had a decisive\n weight with such wonderfully deep Hebrew scholars, as Wagenseil,\n Lightfoot, John _Henry_ Michaelis, and Reland. The amount of\n the argument is, mainly, that the Greek was then so widely and\n commonly spoken even in Palestine, as to be the most desirable\n language for the evangelist to use in preserving for the benefit\n of his own countrymen, the record of the life of Christ. The\n particulars of the highly elaborate and learned arguments, on\n which this assertion has been rested, have filled volumes, nor\n can even an abstract be allowed here; but a simple reference\n to common facts will do something to show to common readers,\n the prominent objections to the notion of a Greek original. It\n is perfectly agreed that the Hebrew was the ordinary language\n spoken by Christ, in his teachings, and in all his usual\n intercourse with the people around him. That this language was\n that in which the Jews also commonly wrote and read at that\n time, as far as they were able to do either, in any language, is\n equally plain. In spite of all that Grecian and Roman conquests\n could do, the Jews were still a distinct and peculiar people;\n nor is there any reason whatever to suppose that they were\n any less so in language, than they were in dress, manners,\n and general character. He, therefore, who desired to write\n anything for the benefit of the Jews, as a nation, would insure\n it altogether the best attention from them, if it came in a\n form most accordant with their national feelings. They would\n naturally be the first persons whose salvation would be an\n object to the apostolic writers, as to the apostolic preachers,\n and the feelings of the writer himself, being in some degree\n influenced by love of his own countrymen, he would aim first\n at the direct spiritual benefit of those who were his kindred\n according to the flesh. Among all the historical writings of the\n New Testament, that there should be not one originally composed\n in the language of the people among whom the Savior arose, with\n whom he lived, talked and labored, and for whom he died, would\n be very strange. The fact that a gospel in the Hebrew language\n was considered absolutely indispensable for the benefit of\n the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, is rendered perfectly\n incontestable by the circumstance that those apocryphal gospels\n which were in common use among the heretical denominations of\n that region, were _all in Hebrew_; and the common argument, that\n the Hebrew gospel spoken of by the Fathers was translated into\n Hebrew from Matthew\u2019s Greek, is itself an evidence that it was\n absolutely indispensable that the Jews should be addressed in\n writing, in that language alone. The objection, that the Hebrew\n original of Matthew was lost so soon, is easily answered by\n the fact, that the Jews were, in the course of the few first\n centuries, driven out of the land of their Fathers so completely,\n as to destroy the occasion for any such gospel in their language;\n for wherever they went, they soon made the dialect of the\n country in which they lived, their only medium of communication,\n written or spoken.\n\n Fabricius may be advantageously consulted by the scholar for\n a condensed view of the question of the original language of\n Matthew\u2019s gospel, and his references to authorities, ancient and\n modern, are numerous and valuable, besides those appended by his\n editors.\u2015\u2015The most complete argument ever made out in defense\n of a Greek original, is that by Hug, in his Introduction, whose\n history of the progress of Grecian influence and language in\n Syria and Palestine, is both interesting and valuable on its own\n account, though made the inefficient instrument of supporting an\n error. He is very ably met by his English translator, Wait, in\n the introduction to the first volume. A very strong defense of\n a Greek original of Matthew, is also found in a little quarto\n pamphlet, containing a thesis of a Goettingen student, on taking\n his degree in theology, in 1810. (Diss. Crit. Exeg. in serm.\n Matt. &c. Auct. Frid. Gul. Schubert.)\n\n\n II. WHAT WERE THE MATERIALS OF MATTHEW\u2019S GOSPEL?\n\n This point has been made the subject of more discussion and\n speculation, within the last fifty years, among the critical\n and exegetical theologians of Europe, than any other subject\n connected with the New Testament. Those who wish to see the\n interesting details of the modes of explaining the coincidences\n between the three first evangelists, may find much on this\n subject in Michaelis\u2019s Introduction to the New Testament, and\n especially in the translation by Bishop Marsh, who, in his notes\n on Vol. III. of Michaelis, has, after a very full discussion\n of all previous views of the origin of the gospels, gone on\n to build one of the most ingenious speculations on this point\n that was ever conceived on any subject, but which, in its very\n complicated structure, will present a most insuperable objection\n to its adoption by the vast majority of even his critical\n readers; and accordingly, though he has received universal\n praise for the great learning and ingenuity displayed in its\n formation, he has found few supporters,\u2015\u2015perhaps none. His\n views are fully examined and fairly discussed, by the anonymous\n English translator of Dr. F. Schleiermacher\u2019s Commentary on\n Luke, in an introductory history of all the German speculations\n on this subject with which he has prefaced that work. The\n historical sketch there given of the progress of opinion on the\n sources and materials of the three first gospels, is probably\n the most complete account of the whole matter that is accessible\n in English, and displays a very minute acquaintance with the\n German theologians. Hug is also very full on this subject,\n and also discusses the views of Marsh and Michaelis. Hug\u2019s\n translator, Dr. Wait, has given, in an introduction to the\n first volume, a very interesting account of these critical\n controversies, and has large references to many German writers\n not referred to by his author. Bertholdt and Bolten, in\n particular, are amply quoted and disputed by Wait. Bloomfield\n also, in the prefaces to the first and second volumes of his\n critical Annotations on the New Testament, gives much on the\n subject that can hardly be found any where else by a mere\n English reader. Large references might be made to the works\n of the original German writers; but it would require a very\n protracted statement, and would be useless to nearly all\n readers, because those to whom these rare and deep treasures\n of sacred knowledge are accessible, are doubtless better able\n to give an account of them than I am. It may be worth while\n to mention, however, that of all those statements of the facts\n on this subject with which I am acquainted, none gives a more\n satisfactory view, than a little Latin monograph, in a quarto\n of eighty pages, written by H.\u00a0W. Halfeld, (a Goettingen\n theological student, and a pupil of Eichhorn, for whose views\n he has a great partiality,) for the Royal premium. Its title\n is, \u201cCommentatio de origine quatuor evangeliorum, et de eorum\n canonica auctoritate.\u201d (Goettingen, 1796.) The Bibliotheca\n Graeca of Fabricius, (Harles\u2019s edition with notes,) contains, in\n the chapters on the gospels, very rich references to the learned\n authors on these points. Lardner, in his History of the Apostles\n and Evangelists, takes a learned view of the question, \u201cwhether\n either of the three evangelists had seen the others\u2019 writings.\u201d\n This he gives after the lives of all four of the evangelists,\n and it may be referred to for a very full abstract of all the\n old opinions upon the question. Few of these points have any\n claim for a discussion in this book, but some things may very\n properly be alluded to, in the lives of the other evangelists,\n where a reference to their resemblances and common sources, will\n be essential to the completeness of the narrative.\n\n\n III. AT WHAT TIME DID MATTHEW WRITE HIS GOSPEL?\n\nThis is a question on which the records of antiquity afford no light,\nthat can be trusted; and it is therefore left to be settled entirely by\n_internal_ evidence. There are indeed ancient stories, that he wrote it\nnine years after the ascension,\u2015\u2015that he wrote it fifteen years after\nthat event,\u2015\u2015that he wrote it while Peter and Paul were preaching at\nRome,\u2015\u2015or when he was about leaving Palestine, &c., all which are about\nequally valuable. The results of the examinations of modern writers,\nwho have labored to ascertain the date, have been exceedingly various,\nand only probabilities can be stated on this most interesting point\nof gospel history. The most probable conjecture on this point is one\nbased on the character of certain passages in Christ\u2019s prophecy of the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, which by their vividness in the evangelist\u2019s\nrecord, may be fairly presumed to have been written down when the\ncrisis in Jewish affairs was highest, and most interesting; and when\nthe perilous condition of the innocent Christians must have been\na matter of the deepest solicitude to the apostles,\u2015\u2015so much as to\ndeserve a particular provision, by a written testimony of the impending\nruin. A reference made also to a certain historical fact in Christ\u2019s\nprophecy, which is known on the testimony of Josephus, the Jewish\nhistorian, to have happened about this time, affords another important\nground for fixing the date. This is the murder of Zachariah, the son\nof Barachiah, whom the Jews slew between the temple and the altar. He\nrelates that the ferocious banditti, who had possessed themselves of\nthe strong places of the city, tyrannized over the wretched inhabitants,\nexecuting the most bloody murders daily, among them, and killing, upon\nthe most unfounded accusations, the noblest citizens. Among those thus\nsacrificed by these bloody tyrants, Josephus very minutely narrates the\nmurder of Zachariah, the son of Baruch, or Baruchus, a man of one of\nthe first families, and of great wealth. His independence of character\nand freedom of speech, denouncing the base tyranny under which the\ncity groaned, soon made him an object of mortal hatred, to the military\nrulers; and his wealth also constituted an important incitement to his\ndestruction. He was therefore seized, and on the baseless charge of\nplotting to betray the city into the hands of Vespasian and the Romans,\nwas brought to a trial before a tribunal constituted by themselves,\nfrom the elders of the people, in the temple, which they had profaned\nby making it their strong hold. The righteous Zachariah, knowing\nthat his doom was irrevocably sealed, determined not to lay aside his\nfreedom of speech, even in this desperate pass; and when brought by his\niniquitous accusers before the elders who constituted the tribunal, in\nall the eloquent energy of despair, after refuting the idle accusations\nagainst him, in few words, he turned upon his accusers in just\nindignation, and burst out into the most bitter denunciations of their\nwickedness and cruelty, mingling with these complaints, lamentations\nover the desolate and miserable condition of his ruined country.\nThe ferocious Zealots, excited to madness by his dauntless spirit of\nresistance, instantly drew their swords, and threateningly called out\nto the judges to condemn him at once. But even the instruments of their\npower, were too much moved by the heroic innocence of the prisoner, to\nconsent to this unjust doom; and, in spite of these threats, acquitted\nhim at once. The Zealots then burst out, at once, into fury against\nthe judges, and rushed upon them to punish their temerity, in declaring\nthemselves willing to die with him, rather than unjustly pronounce\nsentence upon him. Two of the fiercest of the ruffians, seizing\nZachariah, slew him in _the middle of the temple_, insulting his last\nagonies, and immediately hurled his warm corpse over the terrace of the\ntemple, into the depths of the valley below.\n\nThis was, most evidently, the horrible murder, to which Jesus referred\nin his prophecy. Performed thus, just on the eve of the last, utter\nruin of the temple and the city, it is the only act that could be\ncharacterized as the crowning iniquity of all the blood unrighteously\nshed, from the earliest time downwards. It has sometimes been supposed\nby those ignorant of this remarkable event, that the Zachariah here\nreferred to, was Zachariah, son of Jehoiada, who in the reign of Joash,\nking of Judah, was stoned by the people, at the command of the king,\nin the outer court of the temple. But there are several circumstances\nconnected with that event, which render it impossible to interpret\nthe words of Jesus as referring merely to that, although some of\nthe coincidences are truly amazing. That Zachariah was the son of\n_Jehoiada_,\u2015\u2015this was the son of _Baruch_ or _Barachiah_;\u2015\u2015that\nZachariah was slain in the outer court,\u2015\u2015this was slain \u201cin the midst\nof the temple,\u201d\u2015\u2015that is, \u201cbetween the temple and the altar.\u201d Besides,\nJesus evidently speaks of this Zachariah as a person yet to come.\n\u201cBehold, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and writers; and some of\nthem you _shall_ kill and crucify; and some of them you shall scourge\nand persecute; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon\nthe earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah,\nthe son of Barachiah, whom _ye slew_ between the temple and the altar.\nAll these things shall come upon this generation.\u201d It is true that here,\nthe writer, in recording the prophecy, now referring to its fulfilment,\nturns to the Jews, charging it upon them as a crime already past, when\nhe writes, though not at the time when the Savior spoke; and it is\ntherefore, by a bold change of tense, that he represents Jesus speaking\nof a future event, as past. But the whole point of the discourse\nplainly refers to future crimes, as well as to future punishment.\nThe multitude who heard him, indeed, no doubt considered him as\npointing, in this particular mention of names, only to a past event;\nand notwithstanding the difference of minor circumstances, probably\ninterpreted his words as referring to the Zachariah mentioned in 2\nChronicles, who was stoned for his open rebukes of the sins of king\nand people;\u2015\u2015a conclusion moreover, justified by the previous words\nof Jesus. He had just been denouncing upon them the sin of their\nfathers, as the murderers of the prophets, whose tombs they were now\nso ostentatiously building; and if this wonderful accomplishment of his\nlatter words had not taken place, it might reasonably be supposed, that\nhe spoke of these future crimes only to show that their conduct would\nsoon justify his imputation to them of their fathers\u2019 guilt; that they\nwould, during that same generation, murder similar persons, sent to\nthem on similar divine errands, and thus become sharers in the crime\nof their fathers, who slew Zachariah, the son of Jehoiada, in the\nouter temple. But here now is the testimony of the impartial Josephus,\na Jew,\u2015\u2015himself a contemporary learner of all these events, and an\neye-witness of some of them,\u2015\u2015who, without any bias in favor of Christ,\nbut rather some prejudice against him,\u2015\u2015in this case too, without the\nknowledge of any such prophecy spoken or recorded,\u2015\u2015gives a clear,\ndefinite statement of the outrageous murder of Zachariah, the son of\nBaruch or Barachiah, who, as he says, exactly, was \u201cslain in the middle\nof the temple,\u201d\u2015\u2015that is, half-way \u201cbetween the temple-courts and the\naltar.\u201d He mentions it too, as the last bloody murder of a righteous\nman, for proclaiming the guilt of the wicked people; and it therefore\nvery exactly corresponds to the idea of the crime, which was \u201cto fill\nup the measure of their iniquities.\u201d This event, thus proved to be\nthe accomplishment of the prophecy of Jesus, and being shown moreover,\nto have been expressed in this peculiar form, with a reference to\nthe recent occurrence of the murder alluded to,\u2015\u2015is therefore a most\nvaluable means of ascertaining the date of this gospel. Josephus dates\nthe murder of Zachariah in the month of October, in the thirteenth\nyear of the reign of Nero, which corresponds to A.\u00a0D. 66. The Apostle\nMatthew then, must have written after this time; and it must be settled\nby other passages, _how long after_, he recorded the prophecy.\n\n The passage containing the prophecy of \u2666the death of Zachariah,\n is in Matthew xxiii. 35; and that of \u201cthe abomination of\n desolation,\u201d is in xxiv. 15.\n\n \u2666 remove duplicated word \u201cthe\u201d\n\n This interesting event is recorded by Josephus; (History of\n Jewish War, IV. v. 4;) and is one of the numerous instances\n which show the vast benefit which the Christian student of the\n New Testament may derive from the interesting and exact accounts\n of this Jewish historian.\n\nAnother remarkable passage occurring in the prophecy of Jesus to his\ndisciples, respecting the ruin of the temple, recorded by Matthew\nimmediately after the discourse to the multitude, just given, affords\nreasonable ground for ascertaining this point in the history of this\ngospel. When Jesus was solemnly forewarning Peter, Andrew, James and\nJohn, of the utter ruin of the temple and city, he mentioned to them,\nat their request, certain signs, by which they might know the near\napproach of the coming judgment upon their country, and might thus\nescape the ruin to which the guilty were doomed. After many sad\npredictions of personal suffering, which must befall them in his\nservice, he distinctly announced to them a particular event, by the\noccurrence of which they might know that \u201cthe end was come,\u201d and might\nthen, at the warning, flee from the danger to a place of safety. \u201cWhen\nye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by\nDaniel the prophet, (_whoso READETH, let him understand_,) then let\nthem that are in Judea flee to the mountains.\u201d This parenthetical\nexpression is evidently thrown in by Matthew, as a warning to his\n_readers_, of an event which it behoved them to notice, as the token of\na danger which they must escape. The expression was entirely local and\noccasional, in its character, and could never have been made a part of\nthe discourse by Jesus; but the writer himself, directing his thoughts\nat that moment to the circumstances of the time, called the attention\nof his Christian countrymen to the warning of Jesus, as something which\nthey must understand and act upon immediately. The inquiry then arises\nas to the meaning of the expression used by Jesus in his prophecy. \u201cThe\nabomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, as standing\nin the holy place,\u201d unquestionably refers to the horrible violation of\nthe sanctity of the holy places of the temple, by the banditti, styling\nthemselves \u201c_Zealots_ for their country,\u201d who, taking possession of\nthe sanctuary, called in the savage Idumeans, a heathen people, who not\nonly profaned the temple, by their unholy presence, but defiled it with\nvarious excesses, committing there a horrible massacre, and flooding\nits pavements with blood. This was the abomination to which both\nDaniel and Matthew referred, and which the latter had in mind when\nhe mentioned it to his brethren to whom he wrote, as the sign which\n_they in reading should understand_, and upon the warning, flee to\nthe mountains. These horrible polluting excesses are the only events\nrecorded in the history of the times, which can with such certainty and\njustice be pronounced the sad omens, to which Jesus and his evangelist\nreferred. They are known to have occurred just before the death of\nZachariah; and therefore also show this gospel to have been written\nafter the date above fixed for that event. That it must have been\nwritten _before_ the last siege of Jerusalem, is furthermore manifest\nfrom the fact, that, in order to have the effect of a _warning_, it\nmust have been sent to those in danger before the avenues of escape\nfrom danger were closed up, as they certainly were after Titus had\nfully encompassed Jerusalem with his armies, and after the ferocious\nJewish tyrants had made it certain death for any one to attempt to pass\nfrom Jerusalem to the Roman camp. To have answered the purpose for\nwhich it was intended, then, it must have been written at some period\nbetween the murder of Zachariah, which was in the winter of the year 66,\nand the march of Titus from Galilee to Jerusalem, before which place he\npitched his camp in the month of March, in A.\u00a0D. 70. The precise point\nof time in these three years it is impossible to fix; but it was, very\nprobably, within a short time after the commission of the bloody crimes\nto which he refers; perhaps in the beginning of the year 67.\n\n This view of these passages and the circumstances to which they\n refer, with all the arguments which support the inferences drawn\n from them, may be found in Hug\u2019s Introduction, (Vol. II. \u00a7 4.)\n He dates Matthew\u2019s gospel much later than most writers do; it\n being commonly supposed to have been written in the year 41, or\n in the year 61. Michaelis makes an attempt to reconcile these\n conjectures, by supposing that it was written in Hebrew by\n Matthew, in A.\u00a0D. 41, and translated in 61. But this is a mere\n guess, for which he does not pretend to assign a reason, and\n only says that he \u201ccan see no impropriety in supposing so.\u201d\n (Introduction, III. iv. 1, 2.)\n\n Eichhorn suggests, that a reason for concluding that Matthew\n wrote his gospel a long time after the events which he relates,\n is implied in the expression used in chap. xxvii. 8, and xxviii.\n 15. \u201cIt is so called, _to this day_,\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cIt is commonly reported,\n _to this day_,\u201d\u2015\u2015are expressions which, to any reader, convey\n the idea of many years intervening between the incidents and\n the time of their narration. In xxvii. 15, also, the explanation\n which he gives of the custom of releasing a prisoner to the\n Jews on the feast-day, implies that the custom had been so\n long out of date, as to be probably forgotten by most of his\n readers, unless their memories were refreshed by this distinct\n explanation.\n\n\n IV. WITH WHAT SPECIAL DESIGN WAS THIS GOSPEL WRITTEN?\n\nThe circumstances of the times, as alluded to under the last inquiry,\nafford much light on the immediate object which Matthew had in view, in\nwriting his gospel. It is true, that common readers of the Bible seldom\nthink of it as anything else than a mere complete revelation made to\nall men, to lead them in the way of truth and salvation; and few are\nprepared for an inquiry which shall take each portion of the scriptures\nby itself, and follow it through all its individual history, to the\nvery source,\u2015\u2015searching even into the immediate and temporary purpose\nof the inspired writers. Indeed, very many never think or know, that\nthe historical portions of the New Testament were written with any\nother design than to furnish to believers in Christ, through all ages,\nin all countries, a complete and distinct narrative of the events of\nthe history of the foundation of their religion. But such a notion\nis perfectly discordant, not only with the reasonable results of an\naccurate examination of these writings, in all their parts, but with\nthe uniform and decided testimony of all the Fathers of the Christian\nchurch, who may be safely taken as important and trusty witnesses of\nthe notions prevalent in their times, about the scope and original\ndesign of the apostolic records. And though, as to the minute\nparticulars of the history of the sacred canon, their testimony is\nworth little, yet on the general question, whether the apostles wrote\nwith only a universal reference, or also with some special design\nconnected with their own age and times,\u2015\u2015the Fathers are as good\nauthority as any writers that ever lived could be, on the opinions\ngenerally prevalent in their own day. In this particular case, however,\nvery little reference can be made to external historical evidence, on\nthe scope of Matthew\u2019s gospel; because very few notices indeed, are\nfound, of its immediate object, among the works of the early writers.\nBut a view of the circumstances of the times, before referred to, will\nillustrate many things connected with the plan of the work, and show\na peculiar force in many passages, that would otherwise be little\nappreciated.\n\nIt appears on the unimpeachable testimony of the historians of those\nvery times, of Josephus, who was a Jew, and of Tacitus and Suetonius,\nwho were Romans, that both before and during the civil disturbances\nthat ended in the destruction of Jerusalem, there was a general\nimpression among the Jews, that their long-foretold Savior and national\nrestorer, the Messiah-king, would soon appear; and in the power of God,\nlead them on to a certain triumph over the seemingly invincible hosts,\nwhich even the boundless strength of Rome could send against them. In\nthe expectation of the establishment of his glorious dominion, under\nwhich Israel should more than renew the honors and the power of David\nand Solomon, they, without fear of the appalling consequences of their\ntemerity, entered upon the hopeless struggle for independence; and\naccording to the testimony of the above-mentioned historians, this\nprevalent notion did much, not only to incite them to the contest,\nbut also to sustain their resolution under the awful calamities which\nfollowed. The revolt thus fully begun, drew the whole nation together\ninto a perfect union of feeling and interest; all sharing in the\npopular fanaticism, became Jews again, whereby the Christian faith must\nhave lost not a few of its professors.\n\nIn these circumstances, and while such notions were prevalent, Matthew\nwrote his sketch of the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus; and\nthroughout the whole of his narrative makes constant references, where\nthe connection can suggest, to such passages in the ancient holy books\nof the Hebrews, as were commonly supposed to describe the character and\ndestiny of the Messiah. Tracing out in all these lineaments of ancient\nprophecy, the complete picture of the Restorer of Israel, he thus\nproved, by a comparison with the actual life of Jesus of Nazareth, that\nthis was the person, whose course throughout, had been predicted by\nthe ancient prophets. In this way, he directly attacked the groundless\nhopes, which the fanatical rebels had excited, showing, as he did, that\nhe for whom they looked as the Deliverer of Israel from bondage, had\nalready come, and devoted his life to the disenthralment and salvation\nof his people from their sins. A distinct and satisfactory proof,\ncarried on through a chain of historical evidence to this effect,\nwould answer the purpose as fully as the written truth could do, of\noverthrowing the baseless imposition with which the impudent Zealots\nwere beguiling the hopes of a credulous people, and leading them on,\nwillingly deceived, to their utter ruin. In this book, containing a\nclear prediction of the destruction of the temple and Holy city, and\nof the whole religious and civil organization of the Jewish nation,\nmany would find the revealed truth, making them wise in the way of\nsalvation, though, for a time, all efforts might seem in vain; for the\nliteral fulfilment of these solemn prophecies thus previously recorded,\nafterwards ensuing, the truth of the doctrines of a spiritual faith\nconnected with these words of prediction, would be strongly impressed\non those whom the consummation of their country\u2019s ruin should lead to\na consideration of the errors in which they had been long led astray.\nThese prophecies promised, too, that after all these schemes of worldly\ntriumph for the name and race of Israel, had sadly terminated in the\nutter, irretrievable ruin of temple and city,\u2015\u2015and when the cessation\nof festivals, and the taking away of the daily sacrifice, had left the\nJew so few material and formal objects, to hang his faith and hopes\non,\u2015\u2015the wandering ones should turn to the pure spiritual truths, which\nwould prove the best consolation in their hopeless condition, and own,\nin vast numbers, the name and faith of him, whose sorrowful life and\nsad death were but too mournful a type of the coming woes of those who\nrejected him. Acknowledging the despised and crucified Nazarene as the\ntrue prophet and the long-foretold Messiah-king of afflicted Judah, the\nheart-broken, wandering sons of Israel, should join themselves to that\noft-preached heavenly kingdom of virtue and truth, whose only entrance\nwas through repentance and humility. Hence those numerous quotations\nfrom the Prophets, and from the Psalms, which are so abundant in\nMatthew, and by which, even a common reader is able to distinguish the\npeculiar, definite object that this writer has in view:\u2015\u2015to show to the\nJews, by a minute detail, and a frequent comparison, that the actions\nof Jesus, even in the most trifling incidents, corresponded with those\npassages of the ancient scriptures, which foreshadowed the Messiah. In\nthis particular, his gospel is clearly distinguished from the others,\nwhich are for the most part deficient in this distinct unity of design;\nand where they refer to the grand object of representing Jesus as the\nMessiah,\u2015\u2015the Son of God,\u2015\u2015they do it in other modes, which show that\nit was for more general purposes, and directed to the conversion of\nGentiles rather than Jews. This is the case with John, who plainly\nmakes this an essential object in his grand scheme; but he combines the\nestablishment of this great truth, with the more immediate occasions of\nsubverting error and checking the progress of heretical opinions that\naimed to detract from the divine prerogatives of Jesus. But John deals\nvery little in those pointed and apt references to the testimony of\nthe Hebrew scriptures, which so distinguish the writings of Matthew;\nhe evidently apprehends that those to whom he writes, will be less\naffected by appeals of that kind, than by proofs drawn from his actions\nand discourses, and by the testimony of the great, the good, and the\ninspired, among those who saw and heard him. The work of Matthew was,\non the other hand, plainly designed to bring to the faith of Jesus,\nthose who were already fully and correctly instructed in all that\nrelated to the divinely exalted character of the Messiah, and only\nneeded proof that the person proposed to them as the Redeemer thus\nforetold, was in all particulars such as the unerring word of ancient\nprophecy required. Besides this object of converting the unbelieving\nJews, its tendency was also manifestly to strengthen and preserve those\nwho were already professors of the faith of Jesus; and such, through\nall ages, has been its mighty scope, enlightening the nations with the\nclearest historical testimony ever borne to the whole life and actions\nof Jesus Christ, and rejoicing the millions of the faithful with the\nplainest record of the events that secured their salvation.\n\nBeyond the history of this gospel, the Fathers have hardly given the\nleast account, either fanciful or real, of the succeeding life of\nMatthew. A fragment of tradition, of no very ancient date, specifies\nthat he wrote his gospel when he was about to leave Palestine to go\nto other lands; but neither the region nor the period is mentioned.\nProbably, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, he followed\nthe eastward course of the Jewish Christians; but beyond this, even\nconjecture is lost. But where all historical grounds fail, monkish\ninvention comes in with its tedious details of fabulous nonsense; and\nin this case, as in others already alluded to, the writings of the\nmonks of the fourteenth century, produce long accounts of Matthew\u2019s\nlabors in Ethiopia, where he is carried through a long series of fabled\nmiracles, to the usual crowning glory of martyrdom.\n\n _Ethiopia._\u2015\u2015The earliest testimony on this point by any\n ecclesiastical history, is that of Socrates, (A.\u00a0D. 425,) a\n Greek writer, who says only, that \u201cwhen the apostles divided\n the heathen world, by lot, among themselves,\u2015\u2015to Matthew was\n allotted Ethiopia.\u201d This is commonly supposed to mean Nubia, or\n the country directly south of Egypt. The other Fathers of the\n fifth and following centuries, generally assign him the same\n country; but it is quite uncertain what region is designated\n by this name. Ethiopia was a name applied by the Greeks to\n such a variety of regions, that it is quite in vain to define\n the particular one meant, without more information about the\n locality.\n\nBut no such idle inventions can add anything to the interest which this\napostolic writer has secured for himself by his noble Christian record.\nNot even an authentic history of miracles and martyrdom, could increase\nhis enduring greatness. The tax-gatherer of Galilee has left a monument,\non which cluster the combined honors of a literary and a holy fame,\u2015\u2015a\nmonument which insures him a wider, more lasting, and far higher glory,\nthan the noblest \u2666achievements of the Grecian or the Latin writers,\nin his or any age could acquire for them. Not Herodotus nor Livy,\u2015\u2015not\nDemosthenes nor Cicero,\u2015\u2015not Homer nor Virgil,\u2015\u2015can find a reader\nto whom the despised Matthew\u2019s simple work is not familiar; nor did\nthe highest hope or the proudest conception of the brilliant Horace,\nwhen exulting in the extent and durability of his fame, equal the\nboundless and eternal range of Matthew\u2019s honors. What would Horace\nhave said, if he had been told that among the most despised of these\nsuperstitious and barbarian Jews, whom his own writings show to have\nbeen proverbially scorned, would arise one, within thirty or forty\nyears, who, degraded by his avocation, even below his own countrymen\u2019s\nstandard of respectability, would, by a simple record in humble prose,\nin an uncultivated and soon-forgotten dialect, \u201ccomplete a monument\nmore enduring than brass,\u2015\u2015more lofty than the pyramids,\u2015\u2015outlasting\nall the storms of revolution and of disaster,\u2015\u2015all the course of ages\nand the flight of time?\u201d Yet such was the result of the unpretending\neffort of Matthew; and it is not the least among the miracles of the\nreligion whose foundation he commemorated and secured, that such a\nwonder in fame should have been achieved by it.\n\n \u2666 \u201cachievments\u201d replaced with \u201cachievements\u201d\n\n\n\n\n THOMAS, DIDYMUS.\n\n\nTHE second name of this apostle is only the Greek translation of the\nformer, which is the Syriac and Hebrew word for a \u201ctwin-brother,\u201d from\nwhich, therefore, _one_ important circumstance may be safely inferred\nabout the _birth_ of Thomas, though unfortunately, beyond this,\nantiquity bears no record whatever of his circumstances previous to his\nadmission into the apostolic fraternity.\n\nNor is the authentic history of the apostles, much more satisfactory in\nrespect to subsequent parts of Thomas\u2019s history. A very few brief but\nstriking incidents, in which he was particularly engaged, are specified\nby John alone, who seems to have been disposed to supply, by his gospel,\nsome characteristic account of several of the apostles, who had been\nnoticed only by name, in the writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Those\nin particular who receive this peculiar notice from him, are Andrew,\nPhilip, Nathanael, Thomas, and John himself,\u2015\u2015of all whom, as well\nas of Peter, are thus learned some interesting matters, which, though\napparently so trivial, do much towards giving a distinct impression of\nsome of the leading traits in their characters. Among those facts thus\npreserved respecting Thomas, however, there is not one which gives any\naccount of his parentage, rank in life, or previous occupation; nor\ndo any other authentic sources bring any more facts to view on these\npoints. The only conclusion presented even by conjecture, about his\nearly history, is, that he was a publican, like Matthew,\u2015\u2015a notion\nwhich is found in some of the Fathers,\u2015\u2015grounded, no doubt, altogether\non the circumstance, that in all the gospel lists, he is paired with\nMatthew, as though there were some close connection between them. This\nis only a conjecture, and one with even a more insignificant basis\nthan most trifling speculations of this sort, and therefore deserving\nno regard whatever. Of the three incidents commemorated by John,\ntwo at least, are such as to present Thomas in a light by no means\nadvantageous to his character as a ready and zealous believer in Jesus;\nbut on both these occasions he is represented as expressing opinions\nwhich prove him to have been very slow, not only in believing, but in\ncomprehending spiritual truths. The first incident is that mentioned\nby John in his account of the death of Lazarus, where he describes the\neffect produced on the disciples by the news of the decease of their\nfriend, and by the declaration made at the same time by Jesus, of his\nintention to go into Judea again, in spite of all the mortal dangers\nto which he was there exposed by the hatred of the Jews, who, enraged\nat his open declarations of his divine character and origin, were\ndetermined to punish with death, one who advanced claims which they\npronounced absolutely blasphemous. This mortal hatred they had so\nopenly expressed, that Jesus himself had thought it best to retire\nawhile from that region, and to avoid exposing himself to the fatal\neffects of such malice, until the other great duties of his earthly\nmission had been executed, so as to enable him, at last, to proceed to\nthe bloody fulfilment of his mighty task, with the assurance that he\nhad finished the work which his Father gave him to do.\n\nBut in spite of the pressing remonstrances of his disciples, Jesus\nexpressed his firm resolution to go, in the face of all mortal dangers,\ninto Judea, there to complete the divine work which he had only begun.\nThomas, finding his Master determined to rush into the danger, which,\nby once retreating from it for a time, he had acknowledged to be\nimminent, resolved not to let him go on, alone; and turning to his\nfellow-disciples, said, \u201cLet us also go, that we may die with him.\u201d\nThe proposal, thus decidedly made, shows a noble resolution in Thomas,\nto share all the fortunes of him to whom he had joined himself, and\npresents his character in a far more favorable light than the other\npassages in which his conduct is commemorated. While the rest were\nfearfully expostulating on the peril of the journey, he boldly proposed\nto his companions to follow unhesitatingly the footsteps of their\nMaster, whithersoever he might go,\u2015\u2015thus evincing a spirit of far more\nexalted devotion to the cause.\n\n The view here taken differs from the common interpretation of\n the passage, but it is the view which has seemed best supported\n by the whole tenor of the context, as may be decided by a\n reference to the passage in its place, (John xi. 16.) The\n evidence on both views can not be better presented than in\n Bloomfield\u2019s note on this passage, which is here extracted\n entire.\n\n \u201cHere again the commentators differ in opinion. Some, as Grotius,\n Poole, Hammond, Whitby, and others, apply the \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 to _Lazarus_,\n and take it as equivalent to \u2018let us go and die together with\n him.\u2019 But it is objected by Maldonati and Lampe, that Lazarus\n was _already_ dead; and die like him they could not, because\n a _violent_ death was the one in Thomas\u2019s contemplation. But\n these arguments seem inconclusive. It may with more justice\n be objected that the sense seems scarcely natural. I prefer,\n with many ancient and modern interpreters, to refer the\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 to _Jesus_, \u2018let us go and die with him.\u2019 Maldonati\n and Doddridge regard the words as indicative of the most\n affectionate attachment to our Lord\u2019s person. But this is\n going into the other extreme. It seems prudent to hold a middle\n course, with Calvin, Tarnovius, Lyser, Bucer, Lampe, and (as it\n should appear) Tittman. Thomas could not dismiss the idea of the\n imminent danger to which both Jesus and they would be exposed,\n by going into Judea; and, with characteristic bluntness, and\n some portion of ill humor, (though with substantial attachment\n to his Master\u2019s person,) he exclaims: \u2018Since our Master will\n expose himself to such imminent, and, as it seems, unnecessary\n danger, let us accompany him, if it be only to share his fate.\u2019\n Thus there is no occasion, with Markland and Forster, apud\n Bowyer, to read the words interrogatively.\u201d (Bloomfield\u2019s\n Annotations, vol. III. p. 426, 427.)\n\nIn John\u2019s minute account of the parting discourses of Christ at\nthe Last Supper, it is mentioned, that Jesus after speaking of his\ndeparture, as very near, in order to comfort his disciples, told them,\nhe was going \u201cto prepare a place for them, in his Father\u2019s house, where\nwere many mansions.\u201d Assuring them of his speedy return to bring them\nto these mansions of rest, he said to them, \u201cWhither I go ye know, and\nthe way ye know.\u201d But so lost, for the time, were all these words of\ninstruction and counsel, that not one of his followers seems to have\nrightly apprehended the force of this remark; and Thomas was probably\nonly expressing the general doubt, when he replied to Jesus, in much\nperplexity at the language, \u201cLord, we know not whither thou goest; and\nhow can we know the way?\u201d Jesus replied, \u201cI am the way, the truth, and\nthe life: no man comes to the Father but by me.\u201d But equally vain was\nthis new illustration of the truth. The remark which Philip next made,\nbegging that they might have their curiosity gratified by a sight of\nthe Father, shows how idly they were all still dreaming of a worldly,\ntangible and visible kingdom, and how uniformly they perverted all\nthe plain declarations of Jesus, to a correspondence with their own\npre-conceived, deep-rooted notions. Nor was this miserable error\nremoved, till the descent of that Spirit of Truth, which their\nlong-suffering and ever watchful Lord invoked, to teach their still\ndarkened souls the things which they would not now see, and to bring\nto their remembrance all which they now so little heeded.\n\nThe remaining incident respecting this apostle, which is recorded\nby John, further illustrates the state of mind in which each new\nrevelation of the divine power and character of Jesus, found his\ndisciples. None of them expected his resurrection;\u2015\u2015none would\nreally believe it, until they had seen him with their own eyes.\nThomas therefore showed no remarkable skepticism, when, hearing\nfrom the others, that one evening, when he was not present, Jesus\nhad actually appeared alive among them, he declared his absolute\nunbelief,\u2015\u2015protesting, that far from suffering himself to be as lightly\ndeceived as they had been, he would give no credit to any evidence but\nthat of the most unquestionable character,\u2015\u2015that of seeing and touching\nthose bloody marks which would characterize, beyond all possibility of\nmistake, the crucified body of Jesus. \u201cExcept I shall see in his hands\nthe print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails,\nand thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.\u201d After eight\ndays, the disciples were again assembled, and on this occasion Thomas\nwas with them. While they were sitting, as usual, with doors closed\nfor fear of the Jews, Jesus again, in the same sudden and mysterious\nmanner as before, appeared all at once in the midst, with his solemn\nsalutation, \u201cPeace be with you!\u201d Turning at once to the unbelieving\ndisciple, whose amazed eyes now for the first time fell on the body of\nhis risen Lord, he said to him, \u201cThomas! Put thy finger here, and see\nmy hands; and put thy hand here, and thrust it into my side; and be not\nfaithless, but believing.\u201d The stubbornly skeptical disciple was melted\nat the sight of these mournful tokens of his Redeemer\u2019s dying agonies,\nand in a burst of new exalted devotion, he exclaimed, \u201cMy Lord! and my\nGod!\u201d The pierced hands and side showed beyond all question the body\nof his \u201cLord;\u201d and the spirit that could, of itself, from such a death,\nreturn to perfect life, could be nothing else than \u201cGod.\u201d The reply\nof Jesus to this expression of faith and devotion, contained a deep\nreproach to this slow-believing disciple, who would take no evidence\nwhatever of the accomplishment of his Master\u2019s dying words, except the\nsight of every tangible thing that could identify his person. \u201cThomas!\nbecause thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they, who\nthough not seeing, yet believe.\u201d\n\n \u201c_Put thy finger here._\u201d\u2015\u2015This phrase seems to express the\n graphic force of the original, much more justly than the common\n translation. The adverb of place, \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5, gives the idea of the\n _very place_ where the wounds had been made, and brings to the\n reader\u2019s mind the attitude and gesture of Jesus, with great\n distinctness. The adverb \u201c_here_,\u201d refers to the print of the\n nails; and Jesus holds out his hand to Thomas, as he says these\n words, telling him to put his finger into the wound.\n\n _Not seeing, yet believe._\u2015\u2015This is the form of expression best\n justified by the indefiniteness of the Greek _aorists_, whose\n very name implies this unlimitedness in respect to time. The\n limitation to the past, implied in the common translation, is by\n no means required by the original; but it is left so vague, that\n the action may be referred to the present and the future also.\n\nBeyond this, the writings of the New Testament give not the\nleast account of Thomas; and his subsequent history can only be\nuncertainly traced in the dim and dark stories of tradition, or in the\ncontradictory records of the Fathers. Different accounts state that\nhe preached the gospel in Parthia,\u2015\u2015Media,\u2015\u2015Persia,\u2015\u2015Ethiopia,\u2015\u2015and\nat last, India. A great range of territories is thus spread out before\nthe investigator, but the traces of the apostle\u2019s course and labors are\nboth few and doubtful. Those of the Fathers who mention his journeys\ninto these countries, give no particulars whatever of his labors; and\nall that is now believed respecting these things, is derived from other,\nand perhaps still more uncertain sources.\n\nIndia is constantly asserted by the Fathers, from the beginning of the\nthird century, to have very early received the gospel, and this apostle\nis named as the person through whom this evangelization was effected;\nbut this evidence alone would be entitled to very little consideration,\nexcept from the circumstance, that from an early period, to this\nday, there has existed in India, a large body of Christians, who give\nthemselves the name of \u201cSt. Thomas\u2019s Christians,\u201d of whose antiquity\nproofs are found in the testimony, both of very ancient and very\nmodern travelers. They still retain many traditions of the person whom\nthey claim as their founder,\u2015\u2015of his place of landing,\u2015\u2015the towns he\nvisited,\u2015\u2015the churches he planted,\u2015\u2015his places of residence and his\nretreats for private devotion,\u2015\u2015the very spot of his martyrdom, and\nhis grave. A tradition, however, floating down unwritten for fifteen\ncenturies, can not be received as very good evidence; and the more\nminute such stories are in particulars, the more suspicious they are\nin their character for truth. But in respect to the substance of this,\nit may well be said, that it is by no means improbable, and is in the\nhighest degree consistent with the views, already taken, in former\nparts of this work, of the eastward course of the apostles after the\ndestruction of Jerusalem. The great body of them, taking refuge at\nBabylon, within the limits of the great Parthian empire, the more\nadventurous might follow the commercial routes still farther eastward,\nto the mild and generally peaceful nations of distant India, whose\ncharacter for civilization and partial refinement was such as to\npresent many facilities for the introduction and wide diffusion of the\ngospel among them. These views, in connection with the great amount of\nrespectable evidence from various other sources, make the whole outline\nof the story of Thomas\u2019s labors in India very possible, and even highly\nprobable.\n\n The earliest evidence among the Fathers that has ever been\n quoted on this point, is that of Pantaenus, of Alexandria, whose\n visit to what was then called India, has been mentioned above;\n (page 363;) but as has there been observed, the investigations\n of Michaelis and others, have made it probable that Arabia-Felix\n was the country there intended by that name. The first distinct\n mention made of any eastward movement of Thomas, that can be\n found, is by Origen, who is quoted by Eusebius, (Church History,\n III. 1,) as testifying, that when the apostles separated to go\n into all the world, and preach the gospel, Parthia was assigned\n to Thomas; and Origen is represented as appealing to the common\n tradition, for the proof of this particular fact. Jerome speaks\n of Thomas, as preaching the gospel in Media and Persia. In\n another passage he specifies India, as his field; and in this he\n is followed by most of the later writers,\u2015\u2015Ambrose, Nicephorus,\n Baronius, Natalis, &c. Chrysostom (Oration on the 12 Apostles)\n says that Thomas preached the gospel in Ethiopia. As the\n geography of all these good Fathers seems to have been somewhat\n confused, all these accounts may be considered very consistent\n with each other. Media and Persia were both in the Parthian\n Empire; and all very distant countries, east and south, were, by\n the Greeks, vaguely denominated India and Ethiopia; just \u2666as all\n the northern unknown regions were generally called Scythia.\n\n \u2666 removed duplicate \u201cas\u201d\n\n Natalis Alexander (Church History, IV. p. 32,) sums up all\n these accounts by saying, that Thomas preached the gospel to the\n Parthians, Medes, Persians, Brachmans, Indians, and the other\n neighboring nations, subject to the empire of the Parthians. He\n quotes as his authorities, besides the above-mentioned Fathers,\n Sophronius, (A.\u00a0D. 390,) Gregory Nazianzen, (A.\u00a0D. 370,) Ambrose,\n (370,) Gaudentius, (A.\u00a0D. 387.) The author of the imperfect\n work on Matthew, (A.\u00a0D. 560,) says, that Thomas found in his\n travels, the three Magi, who adored the infant Jesus, and having\n baptized them, associated them with him, in his apostolic labors.\n Theodoret, (A.\u00a0D. 423,) Gaudentius, Asterius, (A.\u00a0D. 320,) and\n others, declare Thomas to have died by martyrdom. Sophronius\n (390,) testifies that Thomas died at Calamina, in India. This\n Calamina is now called Malipur, and in commemoration of a\n tradition, preserved, as we are told, on the spot, to this\n effect, the Portuguese, when they set up their dominion in India,\n gave it the name of the city of St. Thomas. The story reported\n by the Portuguese travelers and historians is, that there was a\n tradition current among the people of the place, that Thomas was\n there martyred, by being thrust through with a lance. (Natalis\n Alexander, Church History, vol. IV. pp. 32, 33.)\n\n A new weight of testimony has been added to all this, by the\n statements of Dr. Claudius Buchanan, who, in modern times, has\n traced out all these traditions on the spot referred to, and has\n given a very full account of the \u201cChristians of St. Thomas,\u201d in\n his \u201cChristian researches in India.\u201d\n\nOn this evidence, may be founded a rational belief, though not an\nabsolute certainty, that Thomas actually did preach the gospel in\ndistant eastern countries, and there met with such success as to leave\nthe lasting tokens of his labors, to preserve through a course of ages,\nin united glory, his own name and that of his Master. In obedience\nto His last earthly command, he went to teach \u201cnations unknown to\nCaesar,\u201d proclaiming to them the message of divine love,\u2015\u2015solitary, and\nunsupported, save by the presence of Him, who had promised to \u201cbe with\nhim always, EVEN TO THE END OF THE WORLD.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n JAMES, THE LITTLE;\n THE SON OF ALPHEUS.\n\n\n HIS NAME.\n\nIT will be observed, no doubt, by all readers, that the most important\ninquiry suggested in the outset of the most of these apostolic\nbiographies, is about the name and personal identification of the\nindividual subject of each life. This difficulty is connected with\npeculiarities of those ancient times and half-refined nations, that\nmay not, perhaps, be very readily appreciated by those who have\nbeen accustomed only to the definite nomenclature of families and\nindividuals, which is universally adopted among civilized nations at\nthe present day. With all the refined nations of European race, the\nlast part of a person\u2019s name marks his family, and is supposed to have\nbeen borne by his father, and by his ancestors, from the time when\nfamily names were first adopted. The former part of his name, with\nequal definiteness, marks the individual; and generally remains fixed\nfrom the time when he first received his name. Whenever any change\ntakes place in any part of his appellation, it is generally done in\nsuch a formal and permanent mode, as never to make any occasion for\nconfusion in respect to the individual, among those concerned with him.\nBut no such decisive limitation of names to persons, prevailed among\neven the most refined nations of the apostolic age. The name given to\na child at birth, indeed, was very uniformly retained through life;\nbut as to the other parts of his appellation, it was taken, according\nto circumstances, chance or caprice, from the common name of his\nfather,\u2015\u2015from some personal peculiarity,\u2015\u2015from his business,\u2015\u2015from\nhis general character,\u2015\u2015or from some particular incident in his life.\nThe name thus acquired, to distinguish him \u2666from others bearing his\nformer name, was used either in connection with that, or without; and\nsometimes two or more such distinctive appellations belonged to the\nsame man, all or any of which were used together with the former, or\nseparate from it, without any definite rule of application. To those\nacquainted with the individual so variously named, and contemporary\nwith him, no confusion was made by this multiplicity of words; and\nwhen anything was recorded respecting him, it was done with the perfect\nassurance, that all who then knew him, would find no difficulty in\nrespect to his personal identity, however he might he mentioned. But\nin later ages, when the personal knowledge of all these individual\ndistinctions has been entirely lost, great difficulties necessarily\narise on these points,\u2015\u2015difficulties which, after tasking historical\nand philological criticism to the highest efforts, in order to settle\nthe facts, are, for the most part, left in absolute uncertainty.\nThus, in respect to the twelve apostles, it will be noticed, that this\nconfusion of names throws great doubt over many important questions.\nAmong some of them, too, these difficulties are partly owing to other\ncauses. Their names were originally given to them, in the peculiar\nlanguage of Palestine; and in the extension of their labors and fame,\nto people of different languages, of a very opposite character, their\nnames were forced to undergo new distortions, by being variously\ntranslated, or changed in termination; and many of the original Hebrew\nsounds, in consequence of being altogether unpronounceable by Greeks\nand Romans, were variously exchanged for softer and smoother ones,\nwhich, in their dissimilar forms, would lose almost all perceptible\ntraces of identity with each other, or with the original word.\n\n \u2666 replace word omitted from text \u201cfrom\u201d\n\nThese difficulties are in no case quite so prominent and serious as in\nregard to the apostle who is the subject of this particular biography.\nBearing the same name with the elder son of Zebedee, he was of course\nnecessarily designated by some additional title, to distinguish him\nfrom the other great apostle James. This title was not always the same,\nnor was it uniform in its principle of selection. On all the apostolic\nlists, he is designated by a reference to the name of his father, as is\nthe first James. As the person first mentioned by this name is called\nJames, the son of Zebedee, the second is called James, the son of\nAlpheus; nor is there, in the enumeration of the apostles by Matthew,\nMark or Luke, any reference to another distinctive appellation of this\nJames. But in one passage of Mark\u2019s account of the crucifixion, it\nis mentioned, that among the women present, was Mary the mother of\nJames the _Little_, and of Joses. In what sense this word _little_ is\napplied,\u2015\u2015whether of age, size, or dignity,\u2015\u2015it is utterly impossible\nto ascertain at this day; for the original word is known to have been\napplied to persons, in every one of these senses, even in the New\nTestament. But, however this may be, a serious question arises, whether\nthis James the Little was actually the same person as the James, called,\non the apostolic lists, the son of Alpheus. In the corresponding\npassage in John\u2019s gospel, this same Mary is called Mary the wife of\n_Clopas_; and by Matthew and Mark, the same James is mentioned as the\nbrother of Joses, Juda, and Simon. In the apostolic lists given by\nLuke, both in his gospel, and in the Acts of the Apostles, Juda is also\ncalled \u201cthe brother of James;\u201d and in his brief general epistle, the\nsame apostle calls himself \u201cthe brother of James.\u201d In the beginning\nof the epistle to the Galatians, Paul, describing his own reception\nat Jerusalem, calls him \u201cJames, the brother of our Lord;\u201d and by\nMatthew and Mark, he, with his brothers, Joses, Juda and Simon, is\nalso called the brother of Jesus. From all these seemingly opposite\nand irreconcilable statements, arise three inquiries, which can, it\nis believed, be so answered, as to attribute to the subject of this\narticle every one of the circumstances connected with _James_, in these\ndifferent stories.\n\n _James, the Little._\u2015\u2015This adjective is here applied to him in\n the positive degree, because it is so in the original Greek,\n [\u0399\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, Mark xv. 40,] and this expression too, is\n in accordance with English forms of expression. The comparative\n form, \u201cJames, the _Less_,\u201d seems to have originated in the\n Latin Vulgate, \u201cJacobus Minor,\u201d which may be well enough in that\n language; but in English, there is no reason why the original\n word should not be literally and faithfully expressed. The Greek\n original of Mark, calls him \u201cJames, the _Little_,\u201d which implies\n simply, that he was a _little_ man; whether little in size, or\n age, or dignity, every one is left to guess for himself;\u2015\u2015but\n it is more accordant with usage, in respect to such nicknames,\n in those times, to suppose that he was a short man, and was\n thus named to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, who\n was probably taller. The term thus applied by Mark, would be\n understood by all to whom he wrote, and implied no disparagement\n to his mental eminence. But the term applied, in the sense of\n a smaller dignity, is so slighting to the character of James,\n who to the last day of his life, maintained, according to both\n Christian and Jewish history, the most exalted fame for religion\n and intellectual worth,\u2015\u2015that it must have struck all who heard\n it thus used, as a term altogether unjust to his true eminence.\n His weight of character in the councils of the apostles, soon\n after the ascension, and the manner in which he is alluded to in\n the accounts of his death, make it very improbable that he was\n _younger_ than the other James.\n\nFirst: Was James the son of _Alpheus_ the same person as James the son\nof _Clopas_? The main argument for the identification of these names,\nrests upon the similarity of the consonants in the original Hebrew\nword which represents them both, and which, according to the fancy of a\nwriter, might be represented in Greek, either by the letters of Alpheus\nor of Clopas. This proof, of course, can be fully appreciated only by\nthose who are familiar with the power of the letters of the oriental\nlanguages, and know the variety of modes in which they are frequently\ngiven in the Greek, and other European languages. The convertibility of\ncertain harsh sounds of the dialects of southwestern Asia, into either\nhard consonants, or smooth vowel utterances, is sufficiently well-known\nto Biblical scholars, to make the change here supposed appear perfectly\nprobable and natural to them. It will be observed by common readers,\nthat all the consonants in the two words are exactly the same, except\nthat _Clopas_ has a hard C, or K, in the beginning, and that Alpheus\nhas the letter P aspirated by an H, following it. Now, both of these\ndifferences can, by a reference to the original Hebrew word, be shown\nto be only the results of the different modes of expressing the same\nHebrew letters; and the words thus expressed may, by the established\nrules of etymology, be referred to the same oriental root. These two\nnames, then, _Alpheus_ and _Clopas_, may be safely assigned to the same\nperson; and Mary the wife of Clopas and the mother of James the Little,\nand of Joses, was, no doubt, the mother of him who is called \u201cJames the\nson of Alpheus.\u201d\n\n_Clopas and Alpheus._\u2015\u2015It should be noticed, that in the common\ntranslation of the New Testament, the former of these two words is\nvery unjustifiably expressed by Cleophas, whereas the original (John\nxix. 25,) is simply \u039a\u03bb\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2. (_Clopas._) This is a totally different\nname from _Cleopas_, (Luke xxiv. 18, \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2,) which is probably Greek\nin its origin, and abridged from _Cleopater_, (\u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,) just as\nAnti_pas_ from Anti_pater_, and many other similar instances, in which\nthe Hellenizing Jews abridged the terminations of Greek and Roman words,\nto suit the genius of the Hebrew tongue. But _Clopas_, being very\ndifferently spelt in the Greek, must be traced to another source; and\nthe circumstances which connect it with the name _Alpheus_, suggesting\nthat, like that, it might have a Hebrew origin, directs the inquirer to\nthe original form of that word. The Hebrew \u05d7\u05dc\u05e4\u05d0 (HHALPHA) may be taken\nas the word from which both are derived; each being such an expression\nof the original, as the different writers might choose for its fair\nrepresentation. The first letter in the word, \u05d7, (_hhaith_,) has in\nHebrew two entirely distinct sounds; one a strong guttural H, and\nthe other a deeply aspirated KH. These are represented in Arabic by\ntwo different letters, but in Hebrew, a single character is used to\ndesignate both; consequently the names which contain this letter, may\nbe represented in Greek and other languages, by two different letters,\naccording as they were pronounced; and where the original word which\ncontained it, was sounded differently, by different persons, under\ndifferent circumstances, varying its pronunciation with the times and\nthe fashion, even in the same word, it would be differently expressed\nin Greek. Any person familiar with the peculiar changes made in those\nOld Testament names which are quoted in the New, will easily apprehend\nthe possibility of such a variation in this. Thus, in Stephen\u2019s speech,\n(Acts vii.) Haran is called Charran; and other changes of the same\nsort occur in the same chapter. The name Anna, (Luke ii. 36,) is the\nsame with Hannah, (1 Samuel i. 2,) which in the Hebrew has this same\nstrongly aspirated H, that begins the word in question,\u2015\u2015and the same\ntoo, which in Acts vii. 2, 4, is changed into the strong Greek _Ch_;\nwhile all its harshness is lost, and the whole aspiration removed, in\n_Anna_. These instances, taken out of many similar ones, may justify to\ncommon readers, the seemingly great change of letters in the beginning\nof Alpheus and Clopas. The other changes of vowels are of no account,\nsince in the oriental languages particularly, these are not fixed parts\nof the word, but mere _modes_ of uttering the consonants, and vary\nthroughout the verbs and nouns, in almost every inflexion these parts\nof speech undergo. These therefore, are not considered radical or\nessential parts of the word, and are never taken into consideration\nin tracing a word from one language to another,\u2015\u2015the consonants being\nthe fixed parts on which etymology depends. The change also from the\naspirate _Ph_, to the smooth mute P, is also so very common in the\noriental languages, and even in the Greek, that it need not be regarded\nin identifying the word.\n\n Taking into consideration then, the striking and perfect\n affinities of the two words, and adding to these the great body\n of presumptive proofs, drawn from the other circumstances that\n show or suggest the identity of persons,\u2015\u2015and noticing moreover,\n the circumstance, that while Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of\n Alpheus, they never speak of Clopas,\u2015\u2015and that John, who alone\n uses the name Clopas, never mentions Alpheus,\u2015\u2015it seems very\n reasonable to adopt the conclusion, that the last evangelist\n means the same person as the former.\n\nSecond: Was James the son of Alpheus the same person as \u201cJames, the\nbrother of our Lord?\u201d An affirmative answer to this question seems to\nbe required by the fact, that Mary the wife of Clopas is named as the\nmother of James and Joses; and elsewhere, James and Joses, and Juda\nand Simon, are called the brothers of Jesus. It should be understood\nthat the word \u201c_brother_\u201d is used in the scriptures often, to imply\na relationship much less close than that of the children of the same\nfather and mother. \u201cCousins\u201d are called \u201cbrothers\u201d in more cases than\none, and the oriental mode of maintaining family relationship closely\nthrough several generations, made it very common to consider those\nwho were the _children of brothers_, as being themselves _brothers_;\nand to those familiar with this extension of the term, it would not\nnecessarily imply anything more. In the case alluded to, all those to\nwhom the narratives and other statements containing the expression,\n\u201cJames the brother of our Lord,\u201d were first addressed, being well\nacquainted with the precise nature of this relationship, would find\nno difficulty whatever in such a use of words. The nature of his\nrelationship to Jesus seems to have been that of cousin, whether by the\nfather\u2019s side or mother\u2019s, is very doubtful. By John indeed, Mary the\nwife of Clopas is called the _sister_ of the mother of Jesus; but it\nwill seem reasonable enough to suppose,\u2015\u2015since two sisters, daughters\nof the same parents, could hardly bear the same name,\u2015\u2015that Mary the\nmother of James, must have been only the sister-in-law of the mother of\nJesus, either the wife of her brother, or the sister of her husband; or,\nin perfect conformity with this use of the term \u201csister,\u201d she may have\nbeen only a cousin or some such relation.\n\nThe third question which has been originated from these various\nstatements,\u2015\u2015whether James, the brother of Jesus and the author of\nthe epistle, was an APOSTLE,\u2015\u2015must, of course, be answered in the\naffirmative, if the two former points have been correctly settled.\n\n All the opinions on these points are fully given and discussed\n by Michaelis, in his Introduction to the epistle of James. He\n states five different suppositions which have been advanced\n respecting the relationship borne to Jesus by those who are in\n the New Testament called his brothers. 1.\u00a0That they were the\n sons of Joseph, by a former wife. 2.\u00a0That they were the sons\n of Joseph, by Mary the mother of Jesus. 3.\u00a0That they were the\n sons of Joseph by the widow of a brother, to whom he was obliged\n to raise up children according to the laws of Moses. 4.\u00a0That\n this deceased brother of Joseph, to whom the laws required\n him to raise up issue, was Alpheus. 5.\u00a0That they were brothers\n of Christ, not in the strict sense of the word, but in a more\n lax sense, namely, in that of cousin, or relation in general,\n agreeably to the usage of this word in the Hebrew language.\n (Genesis xiv. 16: xiii. 8: xxix. 12, 15: 2 Samuel xix. 13:\n Numbers viii. 26: xvi. 10: Nehemiah iii. 1.) This opinion which\n has been here adopted, was first advanced by Jerome, and has\n been very generally received since his time; though the first\n of the five was supported by the most ancient of the Fathers.\n Michaelis very clearly refutes all, except the first and the\n fifth, between which he does not decide; mentioning, however,\n that though he had been early taught to respect the latter, as\n the right one, he had since become more favorable to the first.\n\nThe earliest statement made concerning these relations of Jesus, is by\nJohn, who, in giving an account of the visit made by Jesus to Jerusalem,\nat the feast of the tabernacles, mentions, that the brethren of Jesus\ndid not believe in him, but, in a rather sneering tone, urged him to\ngo up to the feast, and display himself, that the disciples who had\nformerly there followed him, might have an opportunity to confirm their\nfaith by the sight of some new miracle done by him. Speaking to him in\na very decidedly commanding tone, they said, \u201cDepart hence, and go into\nJudea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For\nthere is no man that does anything in secret, while he himself seeks to\nbe widely known; if thou do these things, show thyself to the world.\u201d\nThe whole tenor of this speech shows a spirit certainly very far from\na just appreciation of the character of their divine brother; and the\nbase, sordid motives, which they impute to him as ruling principles of\naction, were little less than insults to the pure, high spirit, which\nlifted him so far above their comprehension. The reply which Jesus\nmade to their taunting address, contained a decided rebuke of their\npresumption in thus attacking his motives. \u201cMy time is not yet come,\nbut yours is always ready. The world can not hate you, but me it hates,\nbecause I testify of it that its works are evil. Go ye up to this\nfeast; but I am not going yet; for my time is not yet fully come.\u201d They\nmight always go where mere inclination directed them, nor was there\nany occasion to refer to any higher object. But a mighty scheme was\nconnected with his movements, to which he directed every action. In his\ngreat work, he had already exposed himself to the hatred of the wicked,\nand his movements were now checked by a regard to the proper time\nfor exposing himself to it; and when that time should come, he would\nunhesitatingly meet the results.\n\nBy a passage in Mark\u2019s gospel, it appears also, that at the first\nbeginning of the ministry of Jesus, his relations generally were so\nlittle prepared for a full revelation of the character and destiny\nof him with whom they had long lived so familiarly as a brother and\nan intimate, that they viewed with the most disagreeable surprise and\nastonishment, his remarkable proceedings, in going from place to place\nwith his disciples,\u2015\u2015neglecting the business to which he had been\neducated, and deserting his family friends,\u2015\u2015preaching to vast throngs\nof wondering people, and performing strange works of kindness to those\nwho seemed to have no sort of claim on his attention. Distressed at\nthese strange actions, they could form no conclusion about his conduct\nthat seemed so reasonable and charitable, as that he was beside himself,\nand needed to be confined, to prevent him from doing mischief to\nhimself and others, by his seemingly extravagant and distracted conduct.\n\u201cAnd they came out to lay hold on him, for they said \u2018He is beside\nhimself.\u2019\u201d With this very purpose, as it seems, his brothers and family\nrelations had come to urge and persuade him back to their home if\npossible, and stood without, utterly unable to get near him, on account\nof the throngs of hearers and beholders that had beset him. They were\ntherefore obliged to send him word, begging him to stop his discourse\nand come out to them, because they wanted to see him. The request was\ntherefore passed along from mouth to mouth, in the crowd, till at last\nthose who sat next to Jesus communicated the message to him,\u2015\u2015\u201cBehold\nthy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with\nthee.\u201d Jesus fully apprehending the nature of the business on which\ntheir ill-discerning regard had brought them thither, only suspended\nthe train of his discourse to make such a remark as would impress all\nwith the just idea of the value which he set upon earthly affections,\nwhich were liable to operate as hindrances to him in the great work\nto which he had been devoted; and to convince them how much higher and\nstronger was the place in his affections held by those who had joined\nthemselves to him for life and for death, to promote the cause of God,\nand to do with him the will of his Father in heaven,\u2015\u2015in the striking\nlanguage of inquiry, he said, \u201cWho is my mother or my brethren?\u201d Then\nlooking with an expression of deep affection around, on those who sat\nnear him, he said, \u201cBehold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever\nshall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister and\nmother.\u201d It appears by this remark, as well as by another passage, that\nhe had not only brothers, but sisters, who lived at Nazareth at that\ntime, and were well known as his relations. No mention however is any\nwhere made of his father; so that it would appear that Joseph was now\ndead.\n\nThis remarkable faithlessness on the part of the brothers of Jesus,\nmay be thought to present an insuperable difficulty in the way of the\nsupposition that any of them could have been numbered with the apostles.\nBut great as seems to have been their error, it hardly exceeded many\nthat were made by his most select followers, even to the time of his\nascension. All the apostles may be considered to have been in a great\nmeasure unbelievers, until the descent of the Holy Spirit,\u2015\u2015for until\nthat time, on no occasion did one of them manifest a true faith in the\nwords of Jesus. Times almost without number, did he declare to them\nthat he should rise from the dead; but notwithstanding this assertion\nwas so often made to them in the most distinct and solemn manner, not\none of them put the slightest confidence in his words, or believed\nthat he would ever appear to them again after his crucifixion. Not\neven the story of his resurrection, repeatedly and solemnly attested by\nthe women and others, could overcome their faithlessness; so that when\nthe risen Lord, whose words they had so little heeded, came into their\npresence, moved with a just and holy anger, \u201che upbraided them with\ntheir unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not those\nwho had seen him after he was risen.\u201d So that his brothers at this\nearly period, can not be considered any worse off than the rest of\nthose who knew and loved him best; and if any are disposed to oppose\nthe view that his brethren were apostles, by quoting the words of John,\nthat \u201cneither did his brethren believe in him,\u201d a triumphant retort may\nbe found in the fact, that NEITHER DID HIS APOSTLES BELIEVE IN HIM.\n\nThere were, however, other \u201cbrothers\u201d of Jesus, besides those who were\napostles. By Matthew and Mark is also mentioned Joses, who is nowhere\nmentioned as an apostle; and there may have been others still, whose\nnames are not given; for, in the account given, in the first chapter\nof Acts, it is recorded that, besides all the eleven apostles, there\nwere also assembled in the upper room, Mary the mother of Jesus, and\nhis brethren. It is very likely, that Jesus may have had several other\ncousins, who followed his fortunes, though they were not considered by\nhim, qualified to rank among his chosen apostles. But a very prominent\nobjection to the notion that they were the children of his mother,\nwith whom they are mentioned in such close connection,\u2015\u2015is, that when\nJesus was on the cross, he commended her to the care of John, his\nbeloved disciple, as though she were destitute of any immediate natural\nprotector; and certainly, if she had at that time several sons living,\nwho were full-grown, she could not have needed to be intrusted thus to\nthe kindness of one who claimed no relationship whatever to her; but\nwould, of course, have been secure of a home, and a comfortable support,\nso long as her sons could have worked for her. These also may have\nbeen those brethren who did not believe in him, and who considered him\nbeside himself, though there seems no good reason to except any of\nthose who are mentioned by Matthew and Mark, as his brethren,\u2015\u2015James,\nJuda, Joses and Simon.\n\nBeyond these allusions to him, in connection with others, the gospels\ntake no notice whatever of this apostle; and it is only in the Acts of\nthe Apostles, and some of the epistles of Paul, that he is mentioned\nwith any great distinctness. In all those passages in the apostolic\nwritings where he is referred to, he is presented as a person of high\nstanding and great importance, and his opinions are given in such a\nmanner as to convey the impression that they had great weight in the\nregulation of the apostolic doings. This is particularly evident in\nthe only passage of the Acts of the Apostles where his words are given,\nwhich is in the account of the consultation at Jerusalem about the\ngreat question of communion between the circumcised and uncircumcised.\nOn this occasion, James is mentioned in such a way as to make it\nevident that he was considered the most prominent among those who were\nzealous for the preservation of the Mosaic forms, and to have been\nby all such, regarded in the light of a leader, since his decision\nseems to have been esteemed by them as a sort of law; and the perfect\nacquiescence of even the most troublesome in the course which he\nrecommended, is a proof of his predominant influence. The tone and\nstyle of the address itself, also imply that the speaker thought he had\ngood reason to believe that others were looking to him in particular,\nfor the decision which should regulate their opinions on this doubtful\nquestion. After Simon Peter, as the great chief of the apostles, had\nfirst expressed his opinion on the question under discussion, and had\nreferred to his own inspired divine revelations of the will of God in\nrespect to the Gentiles, Paul and Barnabas next gave a full account\nof their operations, and of the signs and wonders with which God had\nfollowed their labors.\n\nAfter the full exposition made by Paul and Barnabas, of all their\nconduct, James arose to make his reply in behalf of the close adherents\nof Mosaic forms, and said, \u201cMen and brethren! listen to me. Simeon\nhas set forth in what manner God did first condescend to take from\nthe heathen a people for his name. And with this, all the words of the\nprophets harmonize, as it is written, \u2018After these things I will turn\nback, and will rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David; I will both\nrebuild its ruins and erect it again, IN ORDER THAT THE REST OF MANKIND\nmay seek out the Lord, together with all the heathen who are called\nby my name, saith the Lord who made all things.\u2019 \u2018Well known to God\nare all his works from eternity.\u2019 So I think that we ought not to make\ntrouble for those who have turned from the heathen, to God; but that\nwe should direct them to refrain from things that have been offered\nunto idols, and from fornication, and from what has been strangled, and\nfrom blood. For Moses has, from ancient generations, in these cities,\nthose who make him known,\u2015\u2015his law being read every sabbath day.\u201d This\nopinion, formed and delivered in a truly Christian spirit of compromise,\nseems to have had the effect of a permanent decision; and the great\nleader of the rigid Judaizers, having thus renounced all opposition\nto the adoption of the converted heathen into full and open Christian\ncommunion, though without the seals of the Mosaic covenant,\u2015\u2015all those\nwho had originated this vexatious question, ceased their attempts\nto distract the harmony of the apostles; and the united opinions of\nthe great apostolic chief, who had first opened the gates of Christ\u2019s\nkingdom to the heathen, and of the eminent defender of Mosaic forms,\nso silenced all discussion, that thenceforth these opinions, thus fully\nexpressed, became the common law of the Christian churches, throughout\nthe world, in all ages.\n\n This address of James (Acts xv. 13\u201221.) may justly be pronounced\n the most obscure passage of all that can be found in the\n New Testament, of equal length,\u2015\u2015almost every verse in it\n containing some point, which has been made the subject of some\n dispute. Schoettgen (quoted by Bloomfield,) thus analyzes this\n discourse:\u2015\u2015\u201cIt consists of three parts;\u2015\u2015the _Exordium_, (verse\n 13,) in which the speaker uses a form of expression calculated\n to secure the good-will of his auditors;\u2015\u2015the _Statement_,\n (verses 16\u201218,) containing also a confirmation of it from the\n prophets, and the reason;\u2015\u2015the _Proposition_, (verses 19\u201220,)\n that the Gentiles are not to be compelled to Judaism, but are\n only to abstain from certain things particularly offensive to\n the spirit of the Mosaic institutions.\u201d\n\n _Simeon._ (verse 14.) This peculiar form of Peter\u2019s first name,\n has led some to suppose that he could not be the person meant,\n since he is mentioned in all other narratives by the name of\n Simon. Wolf imagines that Simon Zelotes must have been the\n person thus distinguished, though all the difficulties are\n the same in his case as in Peter\u2019s. But Simeon (\u03a3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd) and\n Simon are the same name, the latter being only an abridged\n form, better suited to the inflections of the Greek than the\n former.\u2015\u2015This preference of the full Hebrew form was doubtless\n meant to be characteristic of James, who seems to have been in\n general very zealous for ancient Jewish usages in all things.\n\n _Has condescended to take._ Common translation: \u201cdid visit them\n to take,\u201d &c. This much clearer translation is justified by the\n meaning which Bretschneider has given to \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, _benigne\n voluit_, &c., for which he quotes the Greek of the Alexandrian\n version.\n\n _Harmonize._ (verse 15.) The original (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) refers\n in the same manner as this word does to the primary idea of\n accordance in _sound_, (_symphony_,) and thence by a metonymy\n is applied to agreement in general. The passage of prophecy\n is quoted by James from Amos ix. 11, 12, and accords, in\n the construction which he puts upon it, much better with the\n Alexandrian Greek version, than with the original Hebrew or\n the common translations. The prophet (as Kuinoel observes) is\n describing the felicity of the golden age, and declares that\n the Jews will subdue their enemies and all nations, and that\n all will worship Jehovah. Now this, James _accomodates_ to the\n present purpose, and _applies_ to the propagation of the gospel\n among the Gentiles, and their reception into the Christian\n community. (See Rosenmueller, Acts, xv. 17, for a very full\n exegesis of this passage.)\n\n _Well known to God are all his works._ These words have been\n made the subject of a great deal of inquiry among commentators,\n who have found some difficulties in ascertaining their\n connection with the preceding part of the discourse. Various new\n and unauthorized renderings of the words have been proposed, but\n have been generally rejected. It seems to me that the force of\n the passage is considerably illustrated by throwing the whole\n emphasis of the sentence upon the word \u201c_all_,\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cKnown unto\n God are _all_ his works from the beginning of ages.\u201d James is\n arguing on the equal and impartial grace of God, as extended not\n only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles;\u2015\u2015not to one nation\n merely, but to _all_ his creatures. \u201cThus saith the Lord who\n makes (or does) _all_ things.\u201d The original Hebrew of the\n prophecy indeed, does not contain this, but that is itself a\n circumstance which shows that James had a particular object in\n this \u2666_accommodation_ of the words to this form and purpose.\n\n \u2666 \u201caccomodation\u201d replaced with \u201caccommodation\u201d\n\n _So I think_, &c. (verse 19.) Hammond and others have attempted\n to find in the original of this verb (\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9) a peculiar force,\n implying that James announced his decision with a kind of\n judicial emphasis, in the character of \u201cBishop of Jerusalem.\u201d\n The groundlessness of this translation is shown by Bloomfield\u2019s\n numerous references to classical authority for the simple\n meaning of \u201cthink.\u201d The difficulties in the twentieth verse are\n so numerous and weighty, and have been made the subject of such\n protracted and minute discussions by all the great commentators,\n that it would be vain to attempt any account of them here.\n\nThe great eminence of James among the apostles is very fully shown\nin several incidental allusions made to him in other passages of the\napostolic writings. Thus when Peter, after his miraculous release\nfrom prison, came to the house of Mary the mother of John Mark,\nhe, at departing from the Christians there assembled, told them to\ntell _James_ and the brethren; implying, of course, that James was\naltogether the most prominent person among them, and might justly be\nconsidered chief apostle in the absence of Peter; and that to him any\nmessage intended for all, might be appropriately first addressed. In\nthe same way did the angel, at the resurrection of Jesus, distinguish\nPeter among all the apostles, mentioning him alone by name, as the\nindividual person to whom the divine message was to be delivered.\n\nBut no where is his eminence among the apostles so strongly marked,\nas in Paul\u2019s account of his own visits to Jerusalem, and the incidents\nconnected with them. He there mentions \u201cJames, the brother of our\nLord,\u201d in such terms as to show that he must have been one of the\napostles; thus adding a valuable confirmation to the testimony above\nadduced in favor of this very point, that James, the brother of Jesus,\nwas an apostle. Paul\u2019s words are, \u201cOther of the apostles, (besides\nPeter,) saw I none, except James, the Lord\u2019s brother;\u201d an expression\nwhich all analogy requires to be construed into a clear assertion that\nthis James was an apostle. In speaking of his second visit, fourteen\nyears after, Paul also bears a noble testimony to the eminence of James,\nand, what is remarkable, gives him the very first place among those\nthree whom he mentions by name. He says, \u201cWhen James, Cephas, and\nJohn, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to\nme, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.\u201d This\nvery peculiar arrangement of these three great names, has seemed so\nstrange to the more stubborn Papists, that they can not believe that\nthe _Cephas_ here mentioned in the second place, is their great idol,\nPeter; and many of them have maintained, in long arguments, that he\nwas not Peter,\u2015\u2015a notion which might seem plausible at first glance,\nfrom the circumstance, that throughout his whole narrative, Paul\nhas been speaking of Peter by the common Greek form of his surname,\nwhile in this particular passage, he uses the original Hebrew word,\nCephas. But this verbal change is of no consequence whatever, except\nas showing that in this connection there was something which suggested\na preference of the Hebrew name, while mentioning him along with the\ntwo other great apostolic chiefs, James and John. And even this very\npeculiar promotion of James to the first place, is easily explained\nby a consideration of the subject in connection with which these\npersonages are mentioned. James was unquestionably the great leader of\nthe sticklers for Mosaic forms; and he is therefore the most important\nperson to be quoted in reference to Paul\u2019s reception, while the\ndissensions about circumcision were raging. Peter, on the other hand,\nbeing himself the great champion of open Gentile communion, from his\nhaving been himself the first of all men to bring them under the gospel,\nwas, of course, understood to be a favorer of Paul\u2019s views, of the\nnoble catholic extension of Christianity; and his name was therefore of\nreally less importance in Paul\u2019s statement, than the name of James, who\nwas everywhere known as the head of the circumcision party, and being\nmentioned as having shown such respect to Paul, would make it evident\nthat the two Hellenist apostles were taken into favor by all parties,\nand heartily commended to the great work of evangelizing the heathen.\n\nThe especially watchful zeal of James, for the preservation of Mosaic\nforms, is very distinctly implied in another passage of the same\nepistle. He had, in a nobly considerate spirit of compromise, agreed\nthat it was best to receive all the Gentile converts as Christian\nbrethren, though they conformed only very partially to the Mosaic\ninstitutions. It was perfectly a matter of common sense, to every\nreasonable man, that the progress of the gospel would be greatly\nhindered, and almost brought to a stand, among the heathen, if a minute\nadherence to all the corporeal observances of the Levitical code,\nwere required for Christian communion; and James, though profoundly\nreverencing all the requirements of his national religion, was too wise\nto think of imposing all these rituals upon those whose whole habits\nwould be at war with the observance of them, though in heart and in\nlife they might be fully fitted to appreciate and enjoy the blessings\nof Christ\u2019s spiritual covenant. He therefore distinctly expressed his\naccordance with Peter, in these general principles of Christian policy,\nyet, as subsequent events show, he was by no means disposed to go\nto all lengths with the more zealous chief of the apostles, in his\nreadiness to renounce, in his own person, all the peculiarities of\nJewish habits; and seems to have still maintained the opinion, that\nthe original, pure Hebrew apostles, should live in the most scrupulous\nobservance of their religious exclusiveness, towards those whom the\nLevitical law would pronounce unclean, and too much polluted with\nvarious defilements, to be the familiar associates of a truly religious\nJew. This sentiment of James appears to have been well known to\nPeter, who, conscious of the peculiar rigidity of his great apostolic\nassociate, on these points, wisely sought to avoid all occasions\nof needlessly exciting complaints and dissensions among the chief\nministers of the word of truth. For this reason, as has already been\nnarrated in his life, when he was at Antioch, though during the first\npart of his residence there, he had, without the slightest scruple,\ngone familiarly and frequently into the company of the unbelieving\nGentiles, eating and drinking with them, without regard to any\nliability to corporeal pollutions, that were against the rules of\nLevitical purity,\u2015\u2015yet when some persons came down from \u2666Jerusalem,\nfrom James, he entirely withdrew himself, all at once, within the\nstrict bounds of Mosaic observances. Perhaps these visitors from James\nhad been specially instructed by him to note the demeanor of Peter,\nand to see whether, in his zeal for removing all obstruction out of the\nway of the Gentile converts, he might not forget what was due to his\nown character as a descendant of Abraham, and a disciple of him who\nso faithfully fulfilled all the righteousness of the law. However this\nmight be, Peter\u2019s actions plainly expressed some dread of offending\nJames, and those who came from him; else he certainly would not\nhave refrained, in this remarkable manner, from a course of conduct,\nwhich he had before followed unhesitatingly, as though he had not the\nslightest doubt of its perfect moral propriety; and the conclusion\nis reasonable, that he now changed his demeanor, only from views of\nexpediency, and a regard to the jealous sensitiveness of his great\nassociate, on points of Levitical law.\n\n \u2666 \u201cJerasalem\u201d replaced with \u201cJerusalem\u201d\n\n\n HIS APOSTOLIC OFFICE.\n\nFrom these and other passages, implying a great eminence of James in\nthe direction of the plans of evangelization, it is evident, that,\nin the absence of Peter, he must have been the most important person\namong the apostles at Jerusalem; and after the permanent removal\nof the commissioned apostolic chief, to other and wider fields of\naction, his rank, as principal person among all the ministers of\nChrist in Jerusalem, must have been very decidedly established. From\nthis circumstance has originated the notion that he was \u201cbishop of\nJerusalem;\u201d and this is the title with which the later Fathers have\nattempted to decorate him,\u2015\u2015as if any honor whatever could be conferred\non an apostle, by giving him the title of a set of inferior ministers\nappointed by the original commissioned preachers of Christ, to be\nmerely their substitutes in the instruction and management of those\nnumerous churches which could not be blessed by the presence of\nan apostle, and to be their successors in the supreme earthly\nadministration of the affairs of the Christian community, when the\ngreat founders had all been removed from their labors, to their rest.\nHow nearly the duties performed by James corresponded to the modern\nepiscopal function, it is utterly impossible to say, for the simple\nreason that not the slightest record of his actions is left, to which\nreferences can be made, on this interesting question. That he was the\nmost eminent of the apostles resident at Jerusalem, is quite clear;\nand that by him, under these circumstances, were performed the great\nproportion of the pastoral duties among the believers in that city,\nmay be most justly supposed; and his influence over Christian converts\nwould by no means be limited by the walls of the Holy city. In his\napostolic functions, he, of course, became known to all resorting to\nthat place; and his faithful and eminent ministry in the capital of the\nJewish religion would extend not only his fame, but the circle of his\npersonal acquaintances, throughout all parts of the world, from which\npilgrims came to the great annual festivals in Jerusalem. His immense\napostolic diocese, therefore, could not be very easily bounded, nor\nwas it defined with any exactness, to prevent it from running into the\nlimits of those divisions of the fields of duty, in which Peter, Paul,\nJohn and others, had been more especially laboring. His influence among\nthe Jews in general, (whether believers in Christ or not,) would, from\nvarious accounts, appear to have been greater than that of any other\napostle; and this, combined with the circumstances of his location,\nwould seem to entitle him very fairly to the rank and character of\nthe apostle of the \u201cDISPERSION.\u201d This was a term transferred from the\nabstract to the concrete sense, and was applied in a collective meaning\nto the great body of Jews in all parts of the world, through which they\nwere scattered by chance, choice, or necessity.\n\n _Bishop of Jerusalem._ The first application of this title to\n James, that appears on record, is in Eusebius, who quotes the\n still older authority of Clemens Alexandrinus. (Church History,\n II. 1.) The words of Eusebius are, \u201cThen James, who was called\n the brother of our Lord, because he was the son of Joseph, and\n whom, on account of his eminent virtue, those of ancient times\n surnamed the Just, is said to have first held the chair of\n the bishopric of Jerusalem. Clemens, in the sixth book of his\n Institutes, distinctly confirms this. For he says that \u2018after\n the Saviour\u2019s ascension, although the Lord had given to Peter,\n James, and John, a rank before all the rest, yet they did not\n therefore contend among themselves for the first distinction,\n but chose James the Just, to be bishop of Jerusalem.\u2019 And the\n same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, says these\n things of him, besides: \u2018To James the Just, and John, and Peter,\n did the Lord, after the resurrection, grant the knowledge, [the\n _gnosis_, or knowledge of mysteries,] and these imparted it to\n the other disciples.\u2019\u201d\n\n In judging of the combined testimony of these two ancient\n writers, it should be observed that it is not by any means\n so ancient and direct as that of Polycrates, on the identity\n of Philip the apostle, and Philip the deacon, which these\n very Fathers quote with assent. Nor can their opinion be worth\n any more in this case than in the other. On no point, where a\n knowledge of the New Testament, and a sound judgment are the\n only guides, can the testimony of the Fathers be considered\n of any value whatever; for the most learned of them betray a\n disgraceful ignorance of the Bible in their writings; nor can\n the most acute of them compare, for sense and judgment, with\n the most ordinary of modern commentators. The whole course of\n Patristic theology affords abundant instances of the very low\n powers of these writers, for the discrimination of truth and\n falsehood. The science of historical criticism had no existence\n among them\u2015\u2015nor indeed is there any reason why they should be\n considered persons of any historical authority, except so far\n as they can refer directly to the original sources, and to the\n persons immediately concerned in the events which they record.\n On all matters of less unexceptionable authority, where their\n testimony does not happen to contradict known truth or common\n sense, all that can be said in their favor, is, that the thing\n thus reported is not improbable; but all supplements to the\n accounts given in the New Testament, unless they refer directly\n to eye-witnesses, may be pronounced very suspicious and wholly\n uncertain. In this case, Eusebius\u2019s opinion that James, the\n brother of our Lord was the son of Joseph, is worth no more\n than that of the latest commentator; because he had no more\n historical aids than the writers of these days. Nor is the story\n of Clemens, that James was bishop of Jerusalem, worth any more;\n because he does not refer to any historical evidence.\n\n\n HIS EPISTLE.\n\nNoticing some peculiar circumstances in the condition of his\ncountrymen, throughout this wide dispersion, the apostle addressed to\nthem a written exhortation, suited to their spiritual necessities. In\nthe opening, he announces himself simply by the title of \u201cJames, the\n_servant_ of Jesus Christ,\u201d not choosing to ground any claim for their\nrespect or obedience on the accidents of birth or relationship, but\non the mere character of one devoted to the cause of Christ for life\nand for death,\u2015\u2015and entitled, by the peculiar commission of his Lord,\nto teach and direct his followers in his name. In consequence of this\nomission of the circumstance of relationship, a query has been even\nraised whether the author of this epistle could really be the same\nperson as the brother of Jesus. But a trifle of this kind can never\nbe allowed to have any weight in the decision of such a question. He\ndirects himself, in general terms, to all the objects of his extended\napostolic charge;\u2015\u2015\u201cto the twelve tribes that are in the _Dispersion_.\u201d\n\nA brief review of the contents of the epistle will furnish the best\nmeans of ascertaining its scope and immediate object, and will also\nafford just ground for tracing the connection, between the design of\nthe apostle and the remarkable events in the history of those times,\nwhich are recorded by the other writers of that age. He first urges\nthem to persevere in faith, without wavering or sinking under all the\npeculiar difficulties then pressing on them; and refers them to God\nas the source of that wisdom which they need for their direction. From\nhim alone, all good proceeds; but no sin, nor temptations to sin. The\ncause of that, lies in man himself: let him not then blasphemously\nascribe his evil dispositions nor the occasions of their development,\nto God; but seeking wisdom and strength from above, let him resist\nthe tempter:\u2015\u2015blessed is the man that thus endures and withstands\nthe trial. He next points out to them the utter worthlessness of all\nthe distinctions of rank and wealth among those professing the faith\nof Jesus. Such base respect of persons on the score of accidental\nworldly advantages, is denounced, as being foreign to the spirit of\nChristianity. True religion requires something more than a profession\nof faith; its substance and its signs are the energetic and constant\npractice of virtuous actions, and it allows no dispensations or excuses\nto any one. He next dwells especially on the high responsibilities\nof those who assume the office of teaching. The tongue requires a\nmost watchful restraint, lest passion or haste pervert the advantages\nof eminence and influence, into the base instruments of human wrath.\nThe true manifestations of religious knowledge and zeal, must be in a\nspirit of gentleness, forbearance, and love,\u2015\u2015not in the expressions of\nhatred, nor in cursing. But of this pure, heavenly spirit, their late\nconduct had shown them to be lamentably destitute. Strifes, tumults,\nand bitter denunciations, had betrayed their un-Christian character.\nThey needed therefore, to humbly seek this meek spirit from God, and\nnot proudly to assume the prerogatives of judgment and condemnation,\nwhich belonged to Him alone. His condemnation was indeed about to fall\non their country. With most peculiar ruin would it light on those now\nreveling in their ill-gotten riches, and rejoicing in the vain hope of\na perpetual prosperity. But let the faithful persevere, cheered by the\nmemory of the bright examples of the suffering pious of other days, and\nby the hope of the coming of their Lord, whose appearance in glory and\njudgment, would soon crown their fervent prayers. Meanwhile, supported\nby this assurance, let them continue in a virtuous course, watching\neven their words, visiting the sick in charity and mercy, and all\nexhorting and instructing each other in the right way.\n\nThe peculiar difficulties of the times here referred to, are\u2015\u2015a state\nof bloody intestine commotion, disturbing the peace of society, and\ndesolating the land with hatred, contention and murder;\u2015\u2015a great\ninequality of condition, in respect to property,\u2015\u2015some amassing\nvast wealth by extortion, and abusing the powers and privileges\nthereby afforded, to the purposes of tyranny,\u2015\u2015condemning and killing\nthe just;\u2015\u2015a perversion of laws for the gratification of private\nspite;\u2015\u2015and everywhere a great occasion for good men to exercise\npatience and faith, relying upon God alone, for the relief of the\ncommunity from its desperate calamities. But a prospect was already\npresented of a consummation of these distracting troubles, in the\nutter ruin of the wicked; a change in the condition of things was\nabout to occur, which would bring poverty and distress upon the haughty\noppressors, who had heaped treasure together only for _the last days_.\nThe brethren therefore, had but a little time to wait for _the coming\nof the Lord_. Both of these two latter expressions point very clearly\nat the destruction of Jerusalem,\u2015\u2015for this is the uniform reference\nwhich these terms had, in those days, among the Christians. Jesus\nhad promised his chosen disciples, that their generation should not\npass away, till all those awful calamities which he denounced on the\nJewish state, should be fulfilled; and for this event all his suffering\nfollowers were now looking, as the seal of the truth of Christ\u2019s word.\nSearching in the history of the times, a few years previous to that\nfinal desolation, it is found in the testimony of impartial writers,\nthat these were the too faithful details of the evils which then\nraged in Palestine. \u201cFor, under Felix, and again under Portius Festus,\ndesperate patriots marched through the country, in whole bodies, and\nforcibly tore away with them the inhabitants of open places, and if\nthey would not follow them, set fire to the villages, and enacted\nbloody scenes. They even made their appearance in the capital and at\nthe feasts, where they mixed among the crowd of people, and committed\nmany secret assassinations with concealed weapons. As to that which\nregards the external circumstances and the civil condition of the Jews\nand Jewish Christians, they were far from being agreeable. The praetors,\nunder all manner of pretexts, made extortions, and abused their legal\nauthority for the sake of enriching themselves; a person was obliged\nto purchase with money his liberation from their prisons, as well as\nhis safety and his rights; he might even purchase a license to commit\ncrimes. In this state, under these circumstances, and in this degree of\ncivil disorder, the author might probably have regarded his countrymen;\nfor, although he wrote to the whole world, yet his native land passed\nmore immediately before his eyes.\u201d\n\n For the sources, and for the minuter proofs and illustrations of\n these views, see Hug\u2019s Introduction, as translated by Wait, Vol.\n II. \u00a7\u00a7 148\u2012159.\n\nIn the immediate consideration of all these present iniquities\nand coming desolations, he wrote to prepare the believing Jews, in\nPalestine more particularly, but also throughout the world, for the\noverwhelming consummation of their nation\u2019s destiny. Terrible as would\nbe this doom, to the wicked, and mournful as would be these national\ndesolations, to all, the righteous should find consolations in the\npeaceful establishment of the spiritual kingdom of their Lord, over the\nruins of the dominion of his murderers,\u2015\u2015of those who had \u201ccondemned\nand killed the just One, though he did not resist them.\u201d But in all\nthese awful signs, should the faithful see the forewarned coming of the\nSon of Man; and as he himself told his chosen apostles, \u201cthen should\nthey lift up their heads; for their redemption drew nigh.\u201d\n\nBesides these external troubles, there were others of a different\ncharacter, arising and existing solely among those who professed the\nreligion of Christ. The instructions given by Paul, in reference to\nthe absolute necessity of faith, and the insufficiency of a mere formal\nroutine of religious duties, had been most grossly perverted into a\nwarrant for the all-sufficiency of a mere _belief_, as the means of\nsalvation;\u2015\u2015an error by no means limited in its mischievous existence,\nto the days of the apostles, but so comfortable to the minds of\nmere religious formalists, in all ages of Christianity, that a new\nrevelation, like that here made by James, though directly repeated\nthrough every century of the Christian era, would be equally vain, for\nthe prevention or the remedy of this never-dying heresy. All the words\nof James on the subject of faith and works, are evidently aimed at the\nrefutation of those who had taken advantage of the opinions which Paul\nhad expressed, on the same subjects; but which were expressed with a\ntotally different reference, being stated not generally nor abstractly,\nbut in application to some particular dogmatic errors. James, after\ndistinctly condemning the \u201cunlearned and unstable, who thus wrested to\ntheir own destruction the things hard to be understood in the writings\nof Paul,\u201d next attacks certain persons who, without being authorized\nor qualified, had assumed the station and responsibility of religious\nteachers. Many persons taking up the office of instructors in this\nmanner, had caused great confusion, by using their hasty tongues, in\nmere polemic and denunciatory discourse, condemning and cursing, in\nunmeasured terms, those who differed from them in opinion. These he\nrebukes, as thus \u201cgiving occasion for offense and error to all;\u201d and\nsets forth the character of that true wisdom which comes from above,\nand which is peaceable, \u201csowing the fruit of righteousness in peace.\u201d\n\n _Many teachers._ In order to understand this reference,\n it should be noticed that the word _masters_ in the common\n translation of chap. iii. verse 1, of this epistle, is not to\n be taken in the common modern sense, but in that of \u201creligious\n teachers.\u201d The original is not \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 (_Kurioi_,) \u201cLords,\u201d\n \u201cMasters,\u201d\u2015\u2015but \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 (_didaskaloi_,) \u201cteachers.\u201d The\n translators probably intended it only in the latter sense; for\n the word \u201cMaster\u201d really has that meaning in such connections,\n in good authors of that age; and even at this day, in England,\n the same usage of the word is very common, though almost unknown\n in this country, except in technical phrases.\n\n\n HIS DEATH.\n\nThe epistle was probably the last great act of his life. No record,\nindeed, of any of his labors, except this living instance, exists\nof his later years; but there is certain ground for supposing that\nhis residence in Jerusalem was characterized by a steady course of\napostolic labors, in the original sphere of action, to which the twelve\nhad first confined themselves for many years. When, by the special\ncalls of God, in providences and in revelations, one and another of the\napostles had been summoned to new and distant fields, east, west, north\nand south, \u201cpreaching repentance and remission of sins, in his name,\namong all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,\u201d and bearing witness of his\nworks, thence, \u201cthrough Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part\nof the earth,\u201d there was still needed one, who, highly \u201cindued with\npower from on high,\u201d might remain in that city to which all the sons of\nIsrael, throughout the world, looked as the fountain of religious light.\nThere too was the scene of the first great triumphs of the Christian\nfaith, as well as of the chief toils, the trials, and the death of the\ngreat founder himself. All these circumstances rendered Jerusalem still\nan important post to the apostles; and they therefore left on that\nstation the apostle, whose steady courage in the cause of Christ, and\nblameless yet jealous conformity to the law of Moses, fitted him at\nonce for the bold maintenance of his Master\u2019s commission, and for the\nsuccessful advancement of the gospel among the faithful believers of\nthe ancient covenant. Thus James continued at Jerusalem throughout\nhis life, being kept at this important station, perhaps on account\nof his age, as well as for his fitness in other respects; as there is\nsome reason to think that he was older than those more active apostles\nwho assumed the foreign departments of the work. His great weight of\ncharacter, as evinced in the council of the apostles, and by the fear\nwhich Peter showed of offending him, very naturally gives the idea\nof a greater age than that of the other apostles; and this notion\nis furthermore confirmed by the circumstance that the _brethren_ of\nJesus, among whom this apostle was certainly included, are mentioned as\nassuming an authority over their divine relation, and claiming a right\nto control and direct his motions, which could never have been assumed,\naccording to the established order of Jewish families, unless they had\nbeen older than he. It is therefore a rational supposition, that James\nwas one of the oldest, perhaps the oldest, of the apostles; and at any\nrate he appears to have been more advanced in life than any of those\nwho are characterized with sufficient distinctness to offer the means\nof conjecture on this point.\n\nFrom the high charge of this great central apostolic station, in which\nhe had, through a course of more than twenty-five years, accumulated\nthe ripe honors of a \u201crighteous\u201d name upon his hoary head, James was\nnow called to end a career, which so much resembled that of the ancient\nprophets, by a death equally assimilated to the bloody fate to which\nso many of them had been doomed by the subjects of their reproofs.\nThe fact and circumstances of his death are given on an authority so\nblameless and disinterested as not to admit of dispute; nor is there\nany thing in the narrative which can throw the slightest suspicion\nupon it. The eminent Jewish historian, Josephus, himself a resident\nin Jerusalem at that time, and an eye-witness of these events, and\nacquainted by sight and fame, at least, with James, has given a clear\naccount of the execution of this apostle, which can best evince its own\nmerit by being given entire.\n\nThe account which Josephus has given, shows that the death of James,\nmust have happened during Paul\u2019s imprisonment, and is delivered in the\nfollowing words:\u2015\u2015\u201cThe emperor, being informed of the death of Festus,\nsent Albinus to be prefect of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as\nwe said before, was made high priest, was haughty in his behavior, and\nvery ambitious. He was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who, as we\nhave also observed before, are above all other Jews severe in their\njudicial sentences. This then being the temper of Ananus, he, thinking\nhe had a convenient opportunity, because Festus was dead, and Albinus\nwas not yet arrived, called a council, and brought before it James,\nbrother of Jesus, who was called Christ, with several others, where\nthey were accused of being transgressors of the law, and stoned to\ndeath. But the most moderate men of the city, who were also the most\nlearned in the laws, were offended at this proceeding. They sent\ntherefore privately to the king, and entreated him to give orders to\nAnanus to abstain from such conduct in future. And some went to meet\nAlbinus, who was coming from Alexandria, and represented to him, that\nAnanus had no right to call a council without his permission. Albinus,\napproving of what they said, wrote a very severe letter to Ananus,\nthreatening to punish him for what he had done. And king Agrippa took\naway from him the priesthood, after he had possessed it three months,\nand appointed in his stead Jesus, the son of Damnaeus.\u201d From this\naccount of Josephus we learn, that James, notwithstanding he was a\nChristian, was so far from being an object of hatred to the Jews, that\nhe was rather beloved and respected. At least his death excited very\ndifferent sensations from that of the first James; and the Sadducean\nhigh priest, at whose instigation he suffered, was punished for his\noffense by the loss of his office.\n\n This translation is taken from Marsh\u2019s Michaelis, (Introduction,\n Vol. IV. pp. 287, 288.) The original is in the Jewish\n Antiquities of Josephus. (XX. ix. 1.)\n\nThis however, is not the statement which the early Christian writers\ngive of the death of James the Just; but from the oldest historian\nof the church, is derived another narrative, so highly decorated with\nminute particulars, that while it is made very much more interesting\nthan the concise and simple account given by Josephus, it is at the\nsame time rendered altogether suspicious by the very circumstance of\nits interesting minuteness. Josephus had no temptation whatever to\npervert the statement. He gives it in terms strongly condemnatory of\nthe whole transaction; but the Christian writers, as they have shown\nin other such instances, are too often disposed to sacrifice truth, for\nthe sake of making a story whose incidents harmonize best with their\nnotions of a desirable martyrdom. The story however, deserves a place\nhere, both for the sake of a fair comparison, and on account of its own\ninteresting character.\n\n\u201cJames, the brother of our Lord, surnamed the Just, was holy from his\nmother\u2019s womb. He drank neither wine, nor strong drink; nor ate any\ncreature wherein was life. There never came a razor upon his beard;\u2015\u2015he\nanointed not himself with oil, neither did he use a bath. To him only\nit was lawful to enter into the holy of holies. He wore no woolen, but\nonly linen garments; and entered the temple alone, where he was seen\nupon his knees, supplicating for the forgiveness of the people, till\nhis knees became hard, and covered with a callus, like those of a camel.\nOn account of his eminent righteousness, he was called the Just, and\nOblias, which signifies \u2018the people\u2019s fortress.\u2019 Then, after describing\nthe divisions among the people respecting Christianity, the account\nstates, that all the leading men among the Scribes and Pharisees,\ncame to James, and entreated him to stand up on the battlements of\nthe temple, and persuade the people assembled at the passover, to\nhave juster notions concerning Jesus; and that, when thus mounted\non the battlements, he cried with a loud voice, \u2018Why do ye question\nme about Jesus, the Son of Man? He even sits in heaven, at the right\nhand of great power, and will come in the clouds of heaven.\u2019 With this\ndeclaration, many were satisfied, and cried \u2018Hosanna to the Son of\nDavid.\u2019 But the unbelieving Scribes and Pharisees, mortified at what\nthey had done, produced a riot; for they consulted together, and then\ncried out, \u2018Oh! oh! even the Just one is himself deceived.\u2019 They went\nup, therefore, and cast down the Just, and said among themselves, \u2018Let\nus stone James the Just.\u2019 And they began to stone him, for he did not\ndie with his fall; but turning, he kneeled, saying, \u2018I entreat, O Lord\nGod the Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.\u2019 And\nwhile they were stoning him, one of the priests, of the sons of Rahab,\nspoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, \u2018Cease; what do ye?\nJustus prays for us.\u2019 But a certain one among them, a fuller, took a\nlever, such as he had used to squeeze garments, and smote Justus on the\nhead. Thus he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him in that place,\nand his grave-stone yet remains near the temple.\u201d\n\n This story is from Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, to whom\n alone we owe its preservation,\u2015\u2015the works of the original author\n being all lost, except such fragments, accidentally quoted by\n other writers. The translation I have taken from the MS. of\n the Rev. Dr. Murdock, to whose research I am already so much\n indebted in similar instances.\n\n The comments of Michaelis on these two testimonies, may be\n appropriately subjoined. (Introduction, Vol. IV. pp. 288, 291.\n Marsh\u2019s translation.)\n\n\u201cThe account given by Hegesippus, contains an intermixture of truth and\nfable; and in some material points contradicts the relation of Josephus,\nto \u2666which no objection can be made. It confirms however the assertion,\nthat James was in great repute among the Jews, even among those who did\nnot believe in Christ; and that they paid him much greater deference\nthan we might suppose they would have shown to a Christian bishop,\nand a brother of Christ, whom they had crucified. Many parts of the\npreceding account are undoubtedly fabulous, especially that part which\nrelates to the request of the Jews, that James would openly declare\nfrom the battlements of the temple, that Jesus was not the Messiah.\nIndeed, if this were true, it would not redound to his honor; for it\nwould imply that he had acted with duplicity, and not taken a decided\npart in favor of Christianity, or the Jews could never have thought\nof making such a request. But that a person, who was the head of the\nchurch in Jerusalem, should have acted such a double part as to leave\nit undecided what party he had embraced, and that too for thirty years\nafter the ascension, is in itself almost incredible. It is inconsistent\nlikewise with the relation of Josephus, and is virtually contradicted\nboth by Paul and by Luke, who always speak of him with the utmost\nrespect, and have no where given the smallest hint, that he concealed\nthe principal doctrines of the Christian religion.\u201d\n\n \u2666 \u201cwhieh\u201d replaced with \u201cwhich\u201d\n\nThus gloriously ended the steady, bright career of \u201cthe second\napostolic martyr.\u201d Honored, even by the despisers of the faith and\nhaters of the name of Christ, with the exalted title of \u201cTHE JUST,\u201d he\nadded the solemn witness of his blood, to that of his divine brother\nand Lord, and to that of his young apostolic brother, whose name and\nfate were equally like his,\u2015\u2015a testimony which sealed anew the truth\nof his own record against the sins of the oppressors, published in his\nlast great earthly work:\u2015\u2015\u201cYe have condemned and killed the JUST; yet\nhe doth not resist you.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n SIMON ZELOTES.\n\n\n HIS NAME.\n\nTHE ever-recurring difficulty about the distinctive appellations of\nthe apostles, forms the most prominent point of inquiry in the life\nof this person, otherwise so little known as to afford hardly a\nsingle topic for the apostolic historian. The dispute here indeed\ninvolves no question about personal identity, but merely refers to\nthe coincidence of signification between the two different words by\nwhich he is designated in the apostolic lists, to distinguish him\nfrom the illustrious chief of the twelve, who bore the same name with\nhim. Matthew and Mark in giving the names of the apostles,\u2015\u2015the only\noccasion on which they name him,\u2015\u2015call him \u201cSimon the Cananite;\u201d but\nLuke, in a similar notice, mentions him as \u201cSimon Zelotes;\u201d and the\nquestion then arises, whether these two distinctive appellations have\nnot a common origin. In the vernacular language of Palestine, the word\nfrom which _Cananite_ is derived, has a meaning identical with that of\nthe root of the Greek word _Zelotes_; and hence it is most rationally\nconcluded, that the latter is a translation of the former,\u2015\u2015Luke, who\nwrote entirely for Greeks, choosing to translate into their language a\nterm whose original force could be apprehended only by those acquainted\nwith the local circumstances with which it was connected. The name\n_Zelotes_, which may be faithfully translated by its English derivative,\n_Zealot_, has a meaning deeply involved in some of the most bloody\nscenes in the history of the Jews, in the apostolic age. This name,\nor rather its Hebrew original, was assumed by a set of ferocious\ndesperadoes, who, under the honorable pretense of a holy _zeal_ for\ntheir country and religion, set all law at defiance, and constituting\nthemselves at once the judges and the executors of right, they went\nthrough the land waging war against the Romans, and all who peacefully\nsubmitted to that foreign sway. This sect, however, did not arise\nby this name until many years after the death of Jesus, and there\nis no good reason to suppose that Simon derived his surname from any\nconnection with the bloody Zealots who did their utmost to increase\nthe last agonies of their distracted country, but from a more holy\nzeal displayed in a more righteous manner. It may have been simply\ncharacteristic of his general conduct, or it may have referred to some\nparticular occasion in which he decidedly evinced this trait of zeal in\na righteous cause.\n\n _The Cananite._\u2015\u2015In respect to this name, a most absurd and\n unjustifiable blunder has stood in all the common versions of it,\n which deserves notice. This is the representation of the word\n in the form, \u201c_Canaanite_,\u201d which is a gross perversion of the\n original. The Greek word is \u039a\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, (_Kananites_,) a totally\n different word from that which is used both in the New Testament,\n and in the Alexandrian version of the Old, to express the Hebrew\n term for an inhabitant of Canaan. The name of the land of Canaan\n is always expressed by the aspirated form, \u03a7\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b1\u03bd, which in\n the Latin and all modern versions is very properly expressed\n by \u201c_Chanaan_.\u201d In Matthew xv. 22, where the Canaanitish woman\n is spoken of, the original is \u03a7\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1, (_Chananaia_,) nor is\n there any passage in which the name of an inhabitant of Canaan\n is expressed by the form \u039a\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, (_Cananites_,) with the\n smooth K, and the single A. Yet the Latin ecclesiastic writers,\n and even the usually accurate Natalis Alexander, express this\n apostle\u2019s name as \u201cSimon _Chananaeus_,\u201d which is the word for\n \u201cCanaanite.\u201d\n\n The true force and derivation of the word is this. The name\n assumed in the language of Palestine by the ferocious sect above\n mentioned, was derived from the Hebrew primitive \u05e7\u05e0\u05d0 (_Qana_\n or _Kana_,) and thence the name \u05e7\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9 (_Kanani_) was very fairly\n expressed, according to the forms and terminations of the\n Greek, by \u039a\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, (_Kananites_.) The Hebrew root is a verb\n which means \u201cto be _zealous_,\u201d and the name derived from it of\n course means, \u201cone who is _zealous_,\u201d of which the just Greek\n translation is the word \u0396\u03b7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, (_Zelotes_,) the very name by\n which Luke represents it in this instance. (Luke vi. 15; Acts\n i. 13.) One of these names is, in short, a mere translation of\n the other,\u2015\u2015nor is there any way of evading this construction,\n except by supposing that Luke was mistaken in supposing that\n Simon was called \u201cthe Zealot,\u201d being deceived by the resemblance\n of the name \u201c_Cananites_\u201d to the Hebrew name of that sect. But\n no believer in the inspiration of the gospel can allow this\n supposition. Equally unfounded, and inconsistent with Luke\u2019s\n translation, is the notion that the name Cananite is derived\n from Cana the village of Galilee, famous as the scene of\n Christ\u2019s first miracle.\n\n The account given in the Life of Matthew shows the character of\n this sect, as it existed in the last days of the Jewish state.\n Josephus describes them very fully in his history of the Jewish\n War, (iv. 3.) Simon probably received this name, however, not\n from any connection with a sect which arose long after the death\n of Christ, but from something in his own character which showed\n a great _zeal_ for the cause which he had espoused.\n\n\n HIS HISTORY.\n\nNo very direct statement as to his parentage is made in the New\nTestament; but one or two incidental allusions to some circumstances\nconnected with it, afford ground for a reasonable conclusion on\nthis point. In the enumeration which Matthew and Mark give of the\nfour brothers of Jesus, in the discourse of the offended citizens\nof Nazareth, Simon is mentioned along with James, Juda and Joses.\nIt is worthy of notice, also, that on all the apostolic lists, Simon\nthe apostle is mentioned between the brothers James and Juda; an\narrangement that can not be accounted for, except by supposing that\nhe was also the brother of James. The reason why Juda is distinctly\nspecified as the brother of James, while Simon is mentioned without\nreference to any such relationship, is, doubtless, that the latter\nwas so well known by the appellation of the Zealot, that there was no\nneed of specifying his relations, to distinguish him from Simon Peter.\nThese two circumstances, incidentally mentioned, may be considered as\njustifying the supposition, that Simon Zelotes was the same person as\nSimon the brother of Jesus. In this manner, all the old writers have\nunderstood the connection; and though such use is no authority, it is\nworth mentioning that the monkish chroniclers always consider Simon\nZelotes as the brother of Juda; and they associate these two, as\nwandering together in eastern countries, to preach the gospel in Persia\nand Mesopotamia. Others carry him into much more improbable wanderings.\nEgypt and Northern Africa, and even Britain, are mentioned as the\nscenes of his apostolic labors, in the ingenious narratives of those\nwho undertook to supply almost every one of the nations of the eastern\ncontinent with an apostolic patron saint. All this is very poor\nconsolation for the general dearth of facts in relation to this apostle;\nand the searcher for historical truth will not be so well satisfied\nwith the tedious tales of monkish romance, as with the decided and\nunquestionable assurance, that the whole history of this apostle, from\nbeginning to end, is perfectly unknown, and that not one action of his\nlife has been preserved from the darkness of an utterly impenetrable\noblivion.\n\n\n\n\n JUDA.\n\n\n HIS NAME.\n\nTHE number of instances, among the men of the apostolic age, of two\npersons bearing the same name, is very curious, and seems to show a\ngreat poverty of appellatives among their parents. Among the twelve\nthere are two Simons, two Jameses, and two Judases; and including those\nwhose labors were any way connected with theirs, there are three Johns,\n(the Baptist, the Apostle, and John Mark,) and two Philips, besides\nother minor coincidences. The confusion which this repetition of names\ncauses among common readers, is truly undesirable; and it requires\nattention for them to avoid error. In the case of this apostle, indeed,\nthe occasion of error is obviated for the most part, by a slight change\nin the termination; his name being generally written Juda, (in modern\nversions, Jude, ) while the wretched traitor who bears the same name,\npreserves the common form terminating in S, which is also the form\nin which Luke and John express this apostle\u2019s name. A more serious\ndifficulty occurs, however, in a diversity noticed between the account\ngiven by the two first evangelists, and the forms in which his name is\nexpressed in the writings of Luke and John, and in the introduction to\nhis own epistle. Matthew and Mark, in giving the names of the apostles,\nmention in the tenth place, the name of Thaddeus, to whom the former\nevangelist also gives the name of Lebbeus. They give him a place before\nSimon Zelotes, and immediately after James, the son of Alpheus. Luke\ngives the tenth place to Simon Zelotes, in both his lists, and after\nhim mentions \u201cJudas, the brother of James\u201d; and John speaks of \u201cJudas,\n(not Iscariot,\u201d) among the chosen disciples. Juda, in his epistle\nalso, announces himself as \u201cthe brother of James.\u201d From all these\ncircumstances it would seem to be very fairly inferred, that Judas,\nor Juda, the brother of James, and Lebbeus or Thaddeus, were all only\ndifferent names of the same apostle. But this view is by no means\nuniversally received, and some have been found bold enough to declare,\nthat these two sets of names referred to different persons, both of\nwhom were at different times numbered among the twelve apostles, and\nwere received or excluded from the list by Jesus, from some various\ncircumstances, now unknown;\u2015\u2015or were perhaps considered such by\none evangelist or another, according to the notions and individual\npreferences of each writer. But such a view is so opposed to the\nestablished impressions of the uniform and fixed character of the\napostolic list, and of the consistency of different parts of the sacred\nrecord, that it may very justly be rejected without the trouble of a\ndiscussion.\n\nAnother inquiry still, concerning this apostle, is, whether he is\nthe same as that Judas who is mentioned along with James, Joses and\nSimon, as the brother of Jesus. All the important points involved in\nthis question, have been already fully discussed in the life of James,\nthe Little; and if the conclusion of that argument is correct, the\nirresistible consequence is, that the apostle Jude was also one of\nthese relatives of Jesus. The absurdity of the view of his being a\ndifferent person, can not be better exposed than by a simple statement\nof its assertions. It requires the reader to believe that there was\na Judas, and a James, brothers and apostles; and another Judas and\nanother James, also brothers, and brothers of Jesus, but not apostles;\nand that these are all mentioned in the New Testament without anything\nlike a satisfactory explanation of the reality and distinctness of\nthis remarkable duplicate of brotherhoods. Add to this, moreover, the\ncircumstance that Juda, the author of the epistle, specifies himself\nas \u201cthe brother of James,\u201d as though that were sufficient to prevent\nhis being confounded with any other Judas or Juda in this world;\u2015\u2015a\nspecification totally useless, if there was another Judas, the brother\nof another James, all eminent as Christian teachers.\n\nThere is still another question connected with his simple entity and\nidentity. Ancient traditions make mention of a Thaddeus, who first\npreached the gospel in the interior of Syria; and the question is,\nwhether he is the same person as the apostle Juda, who is called\nThaddeus by Matthew and Mark. The great majority of ancient writers,\nmore especially the Syrians, consider the missionary Thaddeus not as\none of the twelve apostles, but as one of the seventy disciples, sent\nout by Jesus in the same way as the select twelve. Another confirmation\nof the view that he was a different person from the apostle Jude, is\nfound in the circumstance, that the epistle which bears the name of the\nlatter, was not for several centuries received by the Syrian churches,\nthough generally adopted throughout all Christendom, as an inspired\napostolic writing. But surely, if their national evangelizer had been\nidentical with the apostle Jude who wrote that epistle, they would have\nbeen the first to acknowledge its authenticity and authority, and to\nreceive it into their scriptural canon.\n\nSo perfectly destitute are the gospel and apostolic history, of the\nslightest account of this apostle\u2019s life and actions, that his whole\nbiography may be considered completed in the mere settlement of his\nname and identity. The only word that has been preserved as coming\nfrom his lips, is recorded in John\u2019s account of the parting discourses\nof Jesus to his disciples, on the eve of his crucifixion. Jesus was\npromising them that the love of God should be the sign and the reward\nof him who faithfully kept his commandments,\u2015\u2015\u201cHe that holds and keeps\nmy commandments, is the man that loves me; and he that loves me shall\nbe loved by my Father; and I will love him and manifest myself to\nhim.\u201d These words constituted the occasion of the remark of Judas,\nthus recorded by John. \u201cJudas (not Iscariot) says to him, \u2018Lord! how\nis it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us as thou dost not to the\nworld?\u2019 Jesus answered and said to him, \u2018If a man love me, he will\nkeep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him,\nand make our abode with him.\u2019\u201d A natural inquiry, aptly and happily\nsuggested, and most clearly and satisfactorily answered, in the plain\nbut illustrative words of the divine teacher! Would that the honest\ninquirer after the true, simple meaning of the words of God, might have\nhis painful researches through the wisdom of ages, as well rewarded as\ndid the favored hearers of Jesus! And would that the trying efforts of\ncritical thought might end in a result so brilliant and so cheering!\n\n\n HIS EPISTLE.\n\nThe solitary monument and testimony of his apostolic labors, are found\nin that brief, but strongly characterized and peculiar writing, which\nbears his name, and forms the last portion, but one, of the modern\nscriptural canon. Short as it is, and obscure too, by the numerous\nreferences it contains, to local and temporary circumstances, there is\nmuch expressed in this little portion of the apostolic writings, which\nis highly interesting to the inquirer into the darker portions of the\nearliest Christian history.\n\nSeveral very remarkable circumstances in this epistle, have, from\nthe earliest ages of Christian theology, excited great inquiry among\nwriters, and in many cases have not only led commentators and critics\nto pronounce the work very suspicious in its character, but even\nabsolutely to condemn it as unworthy of a place in the sacred canon.\nOne of these circumstances is, that the writer quotes apocryphal\nbooks of a mystical and superstitious character, that have never been\nreceived by Christians or Jews, as possessing any divine authority,\nnor as entitled to any regard whatever in religious matters. At least\ntwo distinct quotations from these confessedly fictitious writings,\nare found in this brief epistle. The first is from the book of Enoch,\nwhich has been preserved even to the present day, in the Ethiopic\ntranslation; the original Hebrew having been irrecoverably lost. Some\nof the highest authorities in orthodoxy and in learning have pronounced\nthe original to have been a very ancient writing;\u2015\u2015a forgery, indeed,\nsince it professed to be the writing of Enoch himself,\u2015\u2015but made up\nin the earliest ages of Rabbinical literature, after the Old Testament\ncanon was completed, but before any portion of the New Testament was\nwritten,\u2015\u2015probably some years before the Christian era, though the\nmeans of ascertaining its exact date are wanting. Another quotation,\nequally remarkable, occurs in this epistle, without any mention being\nmade, however, of the exact source from which the passage has been\ndrawn; and the point is at present a subject of dispute,\u2015\u2015as references\nhave been made by different authorities, ancient and modern, to\ndifferent apocryphal Jewish books, which contain similar passages. But\nthe most valuable authorities, both ancient and modern, decide it to\nbe a work now universally allowed to be apocryphal,\u2015\u2015\u201cthe Ascension of\nMoses,\u201d which is directly quoted as authority on a subject altogether\nremoved from human knowledge, and on which no testimony could be of any\nvalue, except it were derived directly and solely from the sources of\ninspiration. The consequence of these references to these two doubtful\nauthorities, is, that many of the critical examiners of this epistle,\nin all ages, have felt themselves justified in condemning it.\n\n Tertullian (A.\u00a0D. 200) is the earliest writer who has distinctly\n quoted this epistle. He refers to it in connection with the\n quotation from the book of Enoch. \u201cHence it is that Enoch is\n quoted by the apostle Jude.\u201d (De cultu feminarum, 3.) Clement\n of Alexandria also repeatedly quotes the epistle of Jude as an\n apostolic writing. Origen (A.\u00a0D. 230,) very clearly expresses\n his opinion in favor of this epistle as the production of Jude,\n the brother of Jesus. In his commentary on Matthew xiii. 55,\n where James, Simon and Jude are mentioned, he says, \u201cJude wrote\n an epistle, of few lines indeed, but full of powerful words of\n heavenly grace, who, at the beginning says, \u2018Jude, the servant\n of Jesus Christ, and the brother of James.\u2019\u201d Origen thought\n everything connected with this epistle, of such high authority,\n that he considered the apocryphal book of \u201cthe Ascension of\n Moses,\u201d a work of authority, because it had been quoted by\n Jude, (verse 9.) He confesses however, that there were some who\n doubted the authenticity of the epistle of Jude; and that this\n was the fact, appears still more distinctly from the account\n of the apostolic writings, given by Eusebius, (A.\u00a0D. 320,) who\n sets it down among the _disputed_ writings. The ancient Syriac\n version (executed before A.\u00a0D. 100,) rejects this as well as\n the second of Peter, and the second and third of John. After the\n fourth century all these became universally established in the\n Greek and Latin churches. The great Michaelis however, utterly\n condemns it as probably a forgery. (Introduction, IV. xxix. 5.)\n\n The clearest statement of the character of this reference to\n the book of Enoch, is given by Hug\u2019s translator, Dr. Wait.\n (Introduction. Vol. II. p. 618, note.)\n\n \u201cThis manifestly appears to have been the reason why Jude cited\n apocryphal works in his epistle, viz. for the sake of refuting\n their own assertions from those productions, which, like the\n rest of their nation, they most probably respected. For this\n purpose the book of Enoch was peculiarly calculated, since in\n the midst of all its _ineptiae_ and absurdities, this point,\n and the orders of the spiritual world, are strongly urged and\n discussed in it. It is irrelevant to the inquiry, how much of\n the present book existed at this time, for that it was framed by\n different writers, and at different periods, no critic can deny;\n yet that this was the leading character of the work, and that\n these were the prominent dogmata of those parts which were then\n in existence, we have every presumptive evidence. The Hebrew\n names of angels, &c., such as the Ophanim, plainly indicate\n it to have been a translation from some lost Jewish original,\n which was doubtless known both to Peter and to Jude; nor can\n the unprejudiced examiner of these epistles well hesitate to\n acknowledge Hug\u2019s explanation of them to be the most correct and\n the most reasonable.\u201d\n\nThe whole defense of the epistle against these imputations, may be\ngrounded upon the supposition, that the apostle was writing against a\npeculiar class of heretics, who did acknowledge these apocryphal books\nto be of divine authority, and to whom he might quote these with a view\nto show, that even by their own standards of truth, their errors of\ndoctrine and life must be condemned. The sect of the Gnostics has been\nalready mentioned in the life of John, as being the first ever known\nto have perverted the purity of Christian doctrine, by heresy. These\nheretics certainly are not very fully described in those few passages\nof this short epistle that are directed at the errors of doctrine; but\nthe character of those errors which Jude denounces, is accordant with\nwhat is known of some of the prominent peculiarities of the Gnostics.\nBut whatever may have been the particular character of these heretics,\nit is evident that they must, like the great majority of the Jews in\nthose days, have acknowledged the divine authority of these ancient\napocryphal writings; and the apostle was therefore right in making use\nof quotations from these works, to refute their very remarkable errors.\nThe evils which he denounced, however, were not merely of a speculative\ncharacter; but he more especially condemns their gross immoralities,\nas a scandal and an outrage on the purity of the Christian assemblies\nwith which they still associated. In all those passages where these\nvices are referred to, it will be observed that both immoralities\nand doctrinal errors are included in one common condemnation, which\nshows that both were inseparably connected in the conduct of those\nheretics whom the writer condemns. This circumstance also does much to\nidentify them with some of the Gnostical sects before alluded to,\u2015\u2015more\nespecially with the Nicolaitans, as they are called by John in the\nbeginning of the Apocalypse, where he is addressing the church of\nPergamos. In respect to this very remarkable peculiarity of a vicious\nand abominable life, combined with speculative errors, the ancient\nChristian writers very fully describe the Nicolaitans; and their\naccounts are so unanimous, and their accusations so definite, that\nit is just and reasonable to consider this epistle as directed\nparticularly against them.\n\n _Nicolaitans._\u2015\u2015An allusion has already been made to this sect\n in the life of John, but they deserve a distinct reference\n here also, as they are so distinctly mentioned in Jude\u2019s\n epistle. The explanation of the name which in the former passage\n (page 343,) was crowded out by other matters prolonging that\n part of the work beyond its due limits, may here be given\n most satisfactorily, in the words of the learned Dr. Hug.\n (Introduction, Vol. II. note, \u00a7 182, original, \u00a7 174,\n translation.)\n\n \u201cThe arguments of those who decide them to have been the\n Nicolaitans, according to my opinion, are at present the\n following:\u2015\u2015John in the Apocalypse describes the Nicolaitans\n nearly as the heretics are here represented to us, with the\n same comparison, and with the same vices; persons who exercise\n the arts of Balaam, who taught Balak to ensnare the children of\n Israel, and to induce them to partake of idolatrous sacrifices,\n and to fornicate, (Acts ii. 14: Jude 2: 2 Peter ii. 15.) Even\n \u05d1\u05dc\u05e2\u05dd according to its derivation, is equivalent to \u039d\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2. They\n also certainly denied the Lord\u2019s creation and government of the\n world. Alterum quidem fabricatorem, alium autem Patrem Domini ...\n et eam conditionem, quae est secundum nos non a primo Deo factam,\n sed a Virtute aliqua valde deorsum subjecta. (Irenaeus L. iii.\n c. 11.) If now all corporeal and material existence has its\n origin from the Creator of the world, who is a very imperfect\n and gross spirit, it flows naturally from this notion, that\n they could not admit a corporeal resuscitation by the agency\n of the Supreme Being, or by the agency of Jesus, in a universal\n day of judgment. With respect to the spiritual world, they\n also actually taught such absurdities, that it must be said\n of them \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9; for they supposed, Aeones quosdam\n turpitudinis natos; et complexus, et permixtiones execrabiles,\n et obscaenas. (Tertullianus in append. ad Lib. de praescript. c.\n 46.) But, as to their excesses and abominable mode of life, the\n accounts of the ancients are so unanimous, and the accusations\n are so constituted, that the two apostolic epistles may have\n most pertinently referred to them.\u201d\n\n The passage from Irenaeus relating to this sect, (quoted on\n page 343,) contains a remarkable Latin word, \u201cvulsio,\u201d not found\n in any other author, and not explained at all, in the common\n dictionaries. That miserable, unsatisfactory mass of words,\n Ainsworth\u2019s Thesaurus, does not contain it, and I was left to\n infer the meaning from the theme, _vello_, and it was therefore\n translated \u201c_fragment_,\u201d\u2015\u2015a meaning not inconsistent with its\n true sense. Since that was printed, a learned friend, to whom\n the difficulty was mentioned, on searching for the word in\n better dictionaries, found it in Gesner\u2019s Thesaurus, distinctly\n quoted from the very passage, with a very satisfactory\n explanation of its exact meaning. Gesner\u2019s account of it is as\n follows: \u201c_Vulsio_, Irenaeus, iii. 11. Nicolaitae sunt vulsio\n ejus. i.\u00a0e. _surculus inde enatus, et revulsus, stolo_, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f40\u03c1\u03c1\u03ce\u03be.\n _Secta una ex altera velut pullulavit._\u201d The meaning therefore\n is a \u201csucker,\u201d \u201ca shoot or scion, springing out of the root\n or side of the stock,\u201d and the expression in this passage may\n therefore be translated, \u201cThe Nicolaitans are a slip or sprig of\n the old stock of the _Gnosis_.\u201d And as Gesner happily explains\n it, \u201cOne sect, as it were, sprouted up from another.\u201d\n\n The word \u201c_scientia_\u201d in this wretched Latin translation,\n is quoted along with the adjacent words from Paul\u2019s second\n epistle to Timothy, (vi. 20.) where he is warning him against\n the delusions of the Gnostics, and speaks of \u201cthe dogmas of\n the GNOSIS,\u201d (\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,) translated \u201cscience,\u201d but the word is\n evidently technical in this passage. Irenaeus no doubt quoted\n it in the Greek, but his ignorant translator, not perceiving\n the peculiar force of the word, translated it \u201cscientia,\u201d losing\n all the sense of the expression. The common translations of the\n Bible have done the same, in the passage in 2 Timothy vi. 20.\n\nAnother circumstance in this epistle which has attracted a critical\nnotice, and which has occasioned its condemnation by some, is the\nremarkable coincidence both of sense and words between it and the\nsecond chapter of the second epistle of Peter. There are probably\nfew diligent readers of the New Testament to whom this has not been\na subject of curious remark, as several verses in one, seem a mere\ntranscript of corresponding passages in the other. Various conjectures\nhave been made to account for this resemblance in matter and in\nwords,\u2015\u2015some supposing Jude to have written first, and concluding\nthat Peter, writing to the same persons, made references in this\nmanner to the substance of what they had already learned from another\napostle,\u2015\u2015and others supposing that Peter wrote first, and that Jude\nfollowed, and amplified a portion of the epistle which had already\nlightly touched in some parts only upon the particular errors which\nthe latter writer wished more especially to refute and condemn. This\ncoincidence is nevertheless no more a ground for rejecting one or\nthe other of the two writings, than the far more perfect parallelisms\nbetween the gospels are a reason for concluding that only one of\nthem can be an authorized document. Both the apostles were evidently\ndenouncing the same errors and condemning the same vices, and nothing\nwas more natural than that this similarity of purpose should produce a\nproportional similarity of language. Either of the above suppositions\nis consistent with the character of the writings;\u2015\u2015Peter may have\nwritten first, and Jude may have taken a portion of that epistle as\nfurnishing hints for a more protracted view of these particular points;\nor, on the supposition that Jude wrote first, Peter may have thought it\nworth while only to refer generally, and not to dwell very particularly\non those points which his fellow-apostle had already so fully and\npowerfully treated.\n\nThe particular churches to which this epistle was addressed, are\nutterly unknown; nor do modern writers pretend to find any means of\ndetecting the places to which it was addressed in any peculiar passage,\nexcept so far as the chief seats of the heretics, against whom he wrote,\nare supposed to be known. Asia Minor, Syria and the East, were the\nregions to which the Gnostical errors were mostly confined; and in the\nformer country more especially they were objects of attention, to the\nministers of truth, during the apostolic age and in succeeding times.\nIt was probably intended for the same persons to whom Peter wrote;\nand what has been said on the direction of his two epistles, will\nillustrate the immediate design of this also.\n\nIts date is involved in the same uncertainty that covers all points\nin its own history and that of its author; the prominent difficulty\nbeing its great brevity, in consequence of which it offers but few\ncharacteristics of any kind, for the decision of doubtful points;\nand the life and works of Juda must therefore be set down among\nthose matters, in which the indifference of those who could once have\npreserved historical truth for the eyes of posterity, has left even the\nresearch of modern criticism, not one hook to hang a guess upon.\n\n\n\n\n JUDAS ISCARIOT.\n\n\nTHIS name doubtless strikes the eye of the Christian reader, as almost\na stain to the fair page of apostolic history, and a dishonor to the\nnoble list of the holy, with whom the traitor was associated. But\nhe who knew the hearts of all men from the beginning, even before\ntheir actions had developed and displayed their characters, chose\nthis man among those whom he first sent forth on the message of coming\ngrace; and all the gospel records bear the name of the traitor along\nwith those who were faithful even unto death; nor does it behove the\nunconsecrated historian to affect, about the arrangement of this name,\na delicacy which the gospel writers did not manifest.\n\nOf his birth, his home, his occupation, his call, and his previous\ncharacter, the sacred writers bear no testimony; and all which the\ninventive genius of modern criticism has been able to present in\nrespect to any of these circumstances, is drawn from no more certain\nsource than the various proposed etymologies and significations of\nhis name. But the plausibility which is worn by each one of these\nnumerous derivations, is of itself a sufficient proof of the little\ndependence which can be placed upon any conclusion so lightly founded.\nThe inquirer is therefore safest in following merely the reasonable\nconjecture, that his previous character had been respectable, not\nmanifesting to the world at least, any baseness which would make him\nan infamous associate. For though the Savior in selecting the chief\nministers of his gospel, did not take them from the wealthy, the\nhigh-born, the refined, or the learned; and though he did not scruple\neven to take those of a low and degraded occupation, his choice would\nnevertheless entirely exclude those who were in any way marked by\nprevious character, as more immoral than the generality of the people\namong whom they lived. In short, it is very reasonable to suppose;\nthat Judas Iscariot was a respectable man, probably with a character as\ngood as most of his neighbors had, though he may have been considered\nby some of his acquaintance, as a close, sharp man in money matters;\nfor this is a character most unquestionably fixed on him in those few\nand brief allusions which are made to him in the gospel narratives.\nWhatever may have been the business to which he had been devoted during\nhis previous life, he had probably acquired a good reputation for\nhonesty, as well as for careful management of property; for he is on\ntwo occasions distinctly specified as the treasurer and steward of the\nlittle company or family of Jesus;\u2015\u2015an office for which he would not\nhave been selected, unless he had maintained such a character as that\nabove imputed to him. Even after his admission into the fraternity,\nhe still betrayed his strong acquisitiveness, in a manner that will be\nfully exhibited in the history of the occurrence in which it was most\nremarkably developed.\n\n _Iscariot._\u2015\u2015The present form of this word appears from the\n testimony of Beza, to be different from the original one, which,\n in his oldest copy of the New Testament, was given without the\n _I_ in the beginning, simply; \u03a3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2; (_Scariotes_;) and this\n is confirmed by the very ancient Syriac version, which expresses\n it by\n\n Illustration: (\u2021 Syriac word)\n\n (_Sekaryuta_.) Origen also, the oldest of the Christian\n commentators, (A.\u00a0D. 230,) gives the word without the initial\n vowel, \u201c_Scariot_.\u201d It is most reasonable therefore to conclude\n that the name was originally _Scariot_, and that the _I_ was\n prefixed, for the sake of the easier pronunciation of the\n two initial consonants; for some languages are so smoothly\n constructed, that they do not allow even _S_ to precede a mute,\n without a vowel before. Just as the Turks, in taking up the\n names of Greek towns, change _Scopia_ into _Iscopia_, &c. The\n French too, change the Latin _Spiritus_ into _Esprit_, as do the\n Spaniards into _Espiritu_; and similar instances are numerous.\n\n The very learned Matthew Poole, in his Synopsis Criticorum,\n (Matthew x. 4,) gives a very full view of the various\n interpretations of this name. _Six_ distinct etymologies and\n significations of this word have been proposed, most of which\n appear so plausible, that it may seem hard to decide on their\n comparative probabilities. That which is best justified by\n the easy transition from the theme, and by the aptness of the\n signification to the circumstances of the person, is the _First_,\n proposed by an anonymous author, quoted in the Parallels of\n Junius, and adopted by Poole. This is the derivation from the\n Syriac\n\n Illustration: (\u2021 Syriac word)\n\n (_sekharyut_,) \u201c_a bag_,\u201d or \u201c_purse_;\u201d root cognate with the\n Hebrew \u05e1\u05db\u05e8 (_sakhar_.) No. 1, Gibbs\u2019s Hebrew Lexicon, and \u05e1\u05d2\u05e8\n (_sagar_,) Syrian & Arabic _id._ The word thus derived must\n mean the \u201c_bag-man_,\u201d the \u201c_purser_,\u201d which is a most happy\n illustration of John\u2019s account of the office of Judas, (xii. 6:\n xiii. 29.) It is, in short, a name descriptive of his peculiar\n duty in receiving the money of the common stock of Christ and\n his apostles, buying the necessary provisions, administering\n their common charities to the poor, and managing all their\n pecuniary affairs,\u2015\u2015performing all the duties of that officer\n who in English is called a \u201csteward.\u201d Judas ISCARIOT, or rather\n \u201c_Scariot_,\u201d means therefore \u201cJudas the STEWARD.\u201d\n\n The _second_ derivation proposed is that of Junius, (_Parall._)\n who refers it to a sense descriptive of his fate. The Syriac,\n Hebrew, and Arabic root, \u05e1\u05db\u05e8 (_sakar_,) has in the first of these\n languages, the secondary signification of \u201c_strangle_,\u201d and the\n personal substantive derived from it, might therefore mean, \u201cone\n who was strangled.\u201d Lightfoot says that if this theme is to be\n adopted, he should prefer to trace the name to the word \u05d0\u05e9\u05db\u05e8\u05d0\n which with the Rabbinical writers is used in reference to the\n same primitive, in the meaning of \u201cstrangulation.\u201d But both\n these, even without regarding the great aptness of the first\n definition above given, may be condemned on their own demerits;\n because, they suppose either that this name was applied to him,\n only _after_ his death,\u2015\u2015an exceedingly unnatural view,\u2015\u2015or\n (what is vastly more absurd) that he was thus named during his\n life-time, by a _prophetical anticipation_, that he would die\n by the halter!!! It is not very uncommon, to be sure, for such\n charitable prophetic inferences to be drawn respecting the\n character and destiny of the graceless, and the point of some\n vulgar proverbs consists in this very allusion, but the utmost\n stretch of such predictions never goes to the degree of fixing\n upon the hopeful candidate for the gallows, a surname drawn from\n this comfortable anticipation of his destiny. Besides, it is\n hard to believe that a man wearing thus, as it were, a halter\n around his neck, would have been called by Jesus into the goodly\n fellowship of the apostles; for though neither rank, nor wealth,\n nor education, nor refinement were requisites for admission, yet\n a tolerable good moral character may be fairly presumed to have\n been an indispensable qualification.\n\n The _third_ derivation is of such a complicated and far-fetched\n character, that it bears its condemnation on its own face. It is\n that of the learned Tremellius, who attempts to analyze Iscariot\n into \u05e9\u05db\u05e8 (_seker_,) \u201cwages,\u201d \u201creward,\u201d and \u05e0\u05d8\u05d4 (_natah_,) \u201cturn\n away,\u201d alluding to the fact that for money he revolted from his\n Master. This, besides its other difficulties, supposes that the\n name was conferred after his death; whereas he must certainly\n have needed during his life, some appellative to distinguish him\n from Judas the brother of James.\n\n The _fourth_ is that of Grotius and Erasmus, who derive it from\n \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e9\u05db\u05e8 (_Ish Issachar_,) \u201ca man of Issachar,\u201d\u2015\u2015supposing the\n name to designate his tribe, just as the same phrase occurs in\n Judges x. 1. But all these distinctions of origin from the ten\n tribes must have been utterly lost in the time of Christ; nor\n does any instance occur of a Jew of the apostolic age being\n named from his supposed tribe.\n\n The _fifth_ is the one suggested and adopted by Lightfoot. In\n the Talmudic Hebrew, the word \u05e1\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d8\u05d9\u05d0 (_sekurti_,)\u2015\u2015also written\n with an initial \u05d0 (_aleph_) and pronounced _Iscurti_,\u2015\u2015has the\n meaning of \u201c_leather_ apron;\u201d and this great Hebraician proposes\n therefore, to translate the name, \u201cJudas _with the leather\n apron_;\u201d and suggests some aptness in such a personal appendage,\n because in such aprons they had pockets or bags in which money,\n &c. might be carried. The whole derivation, however, is forced\n and far-fetched,\u2015\u2015doing great violence to the present form\n of the word, and is altogether unworthy of the genius of its\n inventor, who is usually very acute in etymologies.\n\n The _sixth_ is that of Beza, Piscator and Hammond, who make it\n \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05be\u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea (_Ish-Qerioth_ or _Kerioth_,) \u201ca man of _Kerioth_,\u201d a\n city of Judah. (Joshua xv. 25.) Beza says that a very ancient MS.\n of the Greek New Testament, in his possession, (above referred\n to,) in all the five passages in John, where Judas is mentioned,\n has this surname written \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. (_apo Cariotou_,)\n \u201cJudas _of Kerioth_.\u201d Lucas Brugensis observes, that this\n form of expression is used in Ezra ii. 22, 23, where the \u201cmen\n of Anathoth,\u201d &c. are spoken of; but there is no parallelism\n whatever between the two cases; because in the passage quoted\n it is a mere general designation of the inhabitants of a\n place,\u2015\u2015nor can any passage be shown in which it is thus\n appended to a man\u2019s name, by way of surname. The peculiarity of\n Beza\u2019s MS. is therefore undoubtedly an unauthorized perversion\n by some ancient copyist; for it is not found on any other\n ancient authority.\n\nThe motives which led such a man to join himself to the followers of\nthe self-denying Nazarene, of course could not have been of a very\nhigh order; yet probably were about as praiseworthy as those of any\nof the followers of Jesus. Not one of the chosen disciples of Jesus\nis mentioned in the solemnly faithful narrative of the evangelists, as\ninspired by a self-denying principle of action. Wherever an occasion\nappeared on which their true motives and feelings could be displayed,\nthey all without exception, manifested the most sordid selfishness,\nand seemed inspired by no idea whatever but that of worldly honors,\ntriumphs, and rewards to be won in his service! Peter, indeed, is not\nvery distinctly specified as betraying any remarkable regard for his\nown individual interest, and on several occasions manifested, certainly\nby starts, much of a true self-sacrificing devotion to his Master; yet\nhis great views in following Jesus were unquestionably of an ambitious\norder, and his noblest conception was that of a worldly triumph of a\nMessiah, in which the chosen ones were to have a share proportioned no\ndoubt to their exertions for its attainment. The two Boanerges betrayed\nthe most determined selfishness, in scheming for a lion\u2019s share in\nthe spoils of victory; and the whole body of the disciples, on more\nthan one occasion, quarreled among themselves about the first places\nin Christ\u2019s kingdom. Judas therefore, was not greatly worse than\nhis fellow-disciples,\u2015\u2015no matter how bad may have been his motives;\nand probably at the beginning maintained a respectable stand among\nthem, unless occasion might have betrayed to them the fact, that he\nwas mean in money matters. But he, after espousing the fortunes of\nJesus, doubtless went on scheming for his own advancement, just as\nthe rest did for theirs, except that probably, when those of more\nliberal conceptions were contriving great schemes for the attainment\nof power, honor, fame, titles, and glory, both military and civil,\nhis penny-saving soul was reveling in golden dreams, and his thoughts\nrunning delightedly over the prospects of vast gain to be reaped in\nthe confiscation of the property of the wealthy Pharisees and lawyers,\nthat would ensue immediately on the establishment of the empire of\nthe Nazarene and his Galileans. While the great James and his amiable\nbrother were quarreling with the rest of the fraternity about the\npremierships,\u2015\u2015the highest administration of spiritual and temporal\npower,\u2015\u2015the discreetly calculating Iscariot was doubtless expecting\nthe fair results of a regular course of promotion, from the office\nof bag-carrier to the strolling company of Galileans, to the stately\nhonors and immense emoluments of lord high-treasurer of the new kingdom\nof Israel; his advancement naturally taking place in the line in which\nhe had made his first beginning in the service of his Lord, he might\nwell expect that in those very particulars where he had shown himself\nfaithful in few things, he would be made ruler over many things, when\nhe should enter into the joy of his Lord,\u2015\u2015sharing the honors and\nprofits of His exaltation, as he had borne his part in the toils and\nanxieties of his humble fortunes. The careful management of his little\nstewardship, \u201cbearing the bag, and what was put therein,\u201d and \u201cbuying\nthose things that were necessary\u201d for all the wants of the brotherhood\nof Jesus,\u2015\u2015was a service of no small importance and merit, and\ncertainly would deserve a consideration at the hands of his Master.\nSuch a trust also, certainly implied a great confidence of Jesus in\nhis honesty and discretion in money matters, and shows not only the\nblamelessness of his character in those particulars, but the peculiar\nturn of his genius, in being selected, out of the whole twelve, for\nthis very responsible and somewhat troublesome function.\n\nYet the eyes of the Redeemer were by no means closed to the baser\ninclinations of this much-trusted disciple. He knew (for what did he\nnot know?) how short was the step from the steady adherence to the\npractice of a particular virtue, to the most scandalous breach of honor\nin that same line of action,\u2015\u2015how slight, and easy, and natural was\nthe perversion of a truly mean soul, or even one of respectable and\nhonorable purposes, from the honest pursuit of gain, to the absolute\ndisregard of every circumstance but personal advantage, and safety\nfrom the punishment of crime,\u2015\u2015a change insensibly resulting from the\ntotal absorption of the soul in one solitary object and aim; for in all\nsuch cases, the honesty is not the _purpose_; it is only an incidental\nprinciple, occasionally called in to regulate the modes and means of\nthe grand acquisition;\u2015\u2015but _gain_ is the great end and essence of\nsuch a life, and the forgetfulness of every other motive, when occasion\nsuggests, is neither unnatural nor surprising. With all this and vastly\nmore knowledge, Jesus was well able to discriminate the different\nstates of mind in which the course of his discipleship found this\ncalculating follower. He doubtless traced from day to day, and from\nweek to week, and from month to month, as well as from year to year\nof his weary pilgrimage, the changes of zeal, resolution and hope,\ninto distaste and despair, as the day of anticipated reward for these\nsacrifices seemed farther and farther removed, by the progress of\nevents. The knowledge too, of the manner in which these depraved\npropensities would at last develope themselves, is distinctly expressed\nin the remark which he made in reply to Peter\u2019s declaration of the\nfidelity and devotion of himself and his fellow disciples, just\nafter the miracle of feeding the five thousand by the lake, when some\nrenounced the service of Christ, disgusted with the revelations which\nhe there made to them of the spiritual nature of his kingdom, and\nits rewards, and of the difficult and disagreeable requisites for his\ndiscipleship. Jesus seeing the sad defection of the worldly, turned\nto the twelve and said, \u201cWill ye also go away?\u201d Simon Peter, with ever\nready zeal replied, \u201cLord! to whom shall we go but unto thee? For thou\nonly hast the words of eternal life.\u201d Jesus answered them, \u201cHave I\nnot chosen you twelve, and one of you is an _accuser_?\u201d This reply,\nas John in recording it remarks, alluded to Judas Iscariot, the son\nof Simon; for he it was that was to betray him, though he was one of\nthe twelve. He well knew that on no ear would these revelations of the\npure spiritualism of his kingdom, and of the self-denying character of\nhis service, fall more disagreeably than on that of the money-loving\nsteward of the apostolic family, whose hopes would be most wofully\ndisappointed by the uncomfortable prospects of recompense, and whose\nthoughts would be henceforth contriving the means of extricating\nhimself from all share in this hopeless enterprise. Still he did\nnot, like those mal-contents who were not numbered among the twelve,\nopenly renounce his discipleship, and return to the business which\nhe had left for the deceptive prospect of a profitable reward. He\nfound himself too deeply committed to do this with advantage, and he\ntherefore discontentedly continued to follow his great summoner, until\nan opportunity should occur of leaving this undesirable service, with\na chance of some immediate profit in the exchange. Nor did he yet,\nprobably, despair entirely of some more hopeful scheme of revolution\nthan was now held up to view. He might occasionally have been led to\nhope, that these gloomy announcements were but a trial of the constancy\nof the chosen, and that all things would yet turn out as their high\nexpectations had planned. In the occasional remarks of Jesus, there was\nalso much, which an unspiritual and sordid hearer, might very naturally\nconstrue into a more comfortable accomplishment of his views, and in\nwhich such a one would think he found the distinct expression of the\nreal purposes of Jesus in reference to the reward of his disciples.\nSuch an instance, was the reply made to Peter when he reminded his\nMaster of the great pecuniary sacrifices which they had all made in\nhis service: \u201cLo! we have left all, and followed thee.\u201d The assurances\ncontained in the reply of Jesus, that among other things, those who\nhad left houses and lands for his sake, should receive a hundred fold\nmore in the day of his triumph, must have favorably impressed the\nbaser-minded, with some idea of a real, solid return for the seemingly\nunprofitable investment which they had made in his scheme. Or, on the\nother hand, if the faith and hope of Iscariot in the word of Jesus were\nalready too far gone to be recalled to life by any cheering promises,\nthese sayings may have only served to increase his indifference, or\nto deepen it into downright hatred, at what he would regard as a new\ndeceit, designed to keep up the sinking spirits of those, who had begun\nto apprehend the desperate character of the enterprise in which they\nhad involved themselves. If his feelings had then reached this point\nof desperation, the effect of this renewal of promises, which he might\nconstrue into a support of his original views of the nature of the\nrewards accruing to the followers of Christ, on the establishment\nof his kingdom, would only excite and strengthen a deep rooted spite\nagainst his once-adored Lord, and his malice, working in secret over\nthe disappointment, would at last be ready to rise on some convenient\noccasion into active revenge.\n\n _An accuser._\u2015\u2015This is the true primary force of \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n (_diabolos_) in this passage. (John vi. 70.) This word is never\n applied to any individual in the sense of \u201cdevil,\u201d except to\n Satan himself; but wherever it occurs as a common substantive\n appellation, descriptive of character, pointedly refers to its\n primary signification of \u201caccuser,\u201d \u201ccalumniator,\u201d \u201cinformer,\u201d\n &c., the root of it being \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9, which means \u201cto accuse,\u201d \u201cto\n calumniate;\u201d and when applied to Satan, it still preserves this\n sense,\u2015\u2015though it then has the force of a proper name; since \u05e9\u05d8\u05df\n (_Satan_,) in Hebrew, means primarily \u201c_accuser_\u201d but acquires\n the force of a proper name, in its ordinary use. Grotius however,\n suggests that in this passage, the word truly corresponds to the\n Hebrew \u05e6\u05e8 (_tsar_,) the word which is applied to Haman, (Esther\n vii. 6. viii. 1.) and has here the general force of \u201caccuser,\u201d\n \u201cenemy,\u201d &c. The context here (verse 71,) shows that John\n referred to this sense, and that Christ applied it to Judas\n prophetically,\u2015\u2015thus showing his knowledge of the fact, that\n this apostle would \u201c_accuse_\u201d him, and \u201cinform\u201d against him,\n before the Sanhedrim. Not only Grotius, but Vatablus, Erasmus,\n Lucas Brugensis, and others, maintain this rendering.\n\nThis occasion, before long, presented itself. The successful labors\nof Jesus, in Jerusalem, had raised up against him a combination of foes\nof the most determined and dangerously hostile character. The great\ndignitaries of the nation, uniting in one body all the legal, literary\nand religions honors and influence of the Hebrew name, and strengthened\ntoo by the weight of the vast wealth belonging to them and their\nimmediate supporters, as well as by the exaltation of high office and\nancient family, had at last resolved to use all this immense power, (if\nless could not effect it,) for the ruin of the bold, eloquent man, who,\nwithout one of all the privileges which were the sources and supports\nof their power, had shaken their ancient dominion to its foundation\nby his simple words, and almost overthrown all their power over the\npeople, whose eyes were now beginning to be opened to the mystery of\n\u201chow little wisdom it took, to govern them!\u201d Self-preservation seemed\nto require an instantaneous and energetic action against the bold\nReformer; and they were not the men to scruple about the means or\nmode of satisfying both revenge and ambition by his destruction. This\nstate of feeling among the aristocracy could not have been unknown\nto Iscariot. He had doubtless watched its gradual developments, from\nday to day, during the displays in the temple; and as defeat followed\ndefeat in the strife of mind, he had abundant opportunity to see the\nhostile feeling of the baffled and mortified Pharisees, Sadducees,\nscribes and lawyers, mounting to the highest pitch of indignation, and\nfurnishing him with the long-desired occasion of making up for his own\ndisappointment in his great plans for the recompense of his sacrifices,\nin the cause of Jesus. He saw that there was no chance whatever for\nthe triumphant establishment of that kingdom in whose honors he had\nexpected to share. All the opportunities and means for effecting\nthis result, Jesus was evidently determined to throw away, nor could\nanything ever move him to such an effort as was desirable for the\ngratification of the ambition of his disciples. The more splendid\nand tempting the occasions for founding a temporal dominion, the more\nresolutely did he seem to disappoint the golden hopes of his followers;\nand, proceeding thus, was only exposing himself and them to danger,\nwithout making any provision for their safety or escape. And where\nwas to be the reward of Iscariot\u2019s long services in the management\nof the stewardship of the apostolic fraternity? Had he not left his\nbusiness, to follow them about, laboring in their behalf, managing\ntheir affairs, procuring the means of subsistence for them, and\nexercising a responsibility which none else was so competent to assume?\nAnd what recompense had he received? None, but the almost hopeless ruin\nof his fortunes in a desperate cause. That such were the feelings and\nreflections which his circumstances would naturally suggest, is very\nevident. The signs of the alienation of his affections from Jesus,\nare also seen in the little incident recorded by all the evangelists,\nof the anointing of his feet by Mary. She, in deep gratitude to the\nadored Lord who had restored to life her beloved brother, brought,\nas the offering of her fervent love, the box of precious ointment of\nspikenard, and poured it over his feet, anointing them, and wiping them\nwith her hair, so that the whole house was filled with the fragrance.\nThis beautiful instance of an ardent devotion, that would sacrifice\neverything for its object, awakened no corresponding feeling in\nthe narrow soul of Iscariot; but seizing this occasion for the\nmanifestation of his inborn meanness, and his growing spite against his\nMaster, he indignantly exclaimed, (veiling his true motive, however,\nunder the appearance of charitable regard for the poor,) \u201cTo what\npurpose is this waste? Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred\npence, and given to the poor?\u201d So specious was this honorable pretense\nfor blaming what seemed the inconsiderate and extravagant devotion of\nMary, that others of the disciples joined in the indignant remonstrance\nagainst this useless squandering of property, which might be converted\nto the valuable purpose of ministering to the necessities of the poor,\nmany of whose hearts might have been gladdened by a well-regulated\nexpenditure of the price of this costly offering, which was now\nirrecoverably lost. But honorable as may have been the motives of\nthose who joined with Iscariot in this protest, the apostle John most\ndistinctly insists that he was moved by a far baser consideration.\n\u201cThis he said, NOT because he cared for the poor, but because he was a\nthief, and kept the coffer, and carried what was cast into it.\u201d This is\na most distinct exposition of a piece of villainy in the traitor, that\nwould have remained unknown, but for the record which John gives of\nthis transaction. It is here declared in plain terms, that Iscariot had\ngrossly betrayed the pecuniary trust which had been committed to him\non the score of his previous honesty, and had been guilty of downright\npeculation,\u2015\u2015converting to his own private purposes, the money which\nhad been deposited with him as the treasurer and steward of the whole\ncompany of the disciples. He had probably made up his mind to this\nrascally abuse of trust, on the ground that he was justified in thus\nbalancing what he had lost by his connection with Jesus; and supposed,\nno doubt, that the ruin of all those whom he was thus cheating, would\nbe effectually secured before the act could be found out. What renders\nthis crime doubly abominable, is, that it was robbing the poor of\nthe generous contributions which, by the kindness of Jesus, had been\nappropriated to their use, out of this little common stock; for it\nseems that Iscariot was the minister of the common charities of the\nbrotherhood, as well as the provider of such things as were necessary\nfor their subsistence, and the steward of the common property. With\nthe pollution of this base crime upon his soul, before stirred up to\nspite and disgust by disappointed ambition, he was now so dead to honor\nand decency, that he was abundantly prepared for the commission of the\ncrowning act of villainy. The words in which Jesus rebuked his specious\nconcern for the economical administration of the money in charity, was\nalso in a tone that he might construe into a new ground of offense,\nimplying, as it did, that his zeal had some motive far removed from\na true affection for that Master, whose life was in hourly peril,\nand might any moment be so sacrificed by his foes, that the honorable\nforms of preparation for the burial might be denied; and being thus\nalready devoted to death, he might well accept this costly offering of\npure devotion, as the mournful unction for the grave. In these sadly\nprophetic words, Judas may have found the immediate suggestion of his\nact of sordid treachery; and incited, moreover, by the repulse which\nhis remonstrance had received, he seems to have gone directly about the\nperpetration of the crime.\n\nThe nature and immediate object of this plot may not be perfectly\ncomprehended, without considering minutely the relations in which Jesus\nstood to the Jewish Sanhedrim, and the means he had of resisting or\nevading their efforts for the consummation of their schemes and hopes\nagainst him. Jesus of Nazareth was, to the chief priests, scribes and\nPharisees, a dangerous foe. He had, during his visits to Jerusalem,\nin his repeated encounters with them in the courts of the temple, and\nall public places of assembly, struck at the very foundation of all\ntheir authority and power over the people. The Jewish hierarchy was\nsupported by the sway of the Romans, indeed, but only because it was\nin accordance with their universal policy of tolerance, to preserve\nthe previously established order of things, in all countries which they\nconquered, so long as such a preservation was desired by the people;\nbut no longer than it was perfectly accordant with the feelings of the\nmajority. The Sanhedrim and their dependents therefore knew perfectly\nwell that their establishment could receive no support from the Roman\ngovernment, after they had lost their dominion over the affections of\nthe people; and were therefore very ready to perceive, that if they\nwere to be thus confounded and set at nought, in spite of learning\nand dignity, by a poor Galilean, and even their gravest and most\npuzzling attacks upon his wisdom and prudence, turned into an absolute\njest against them,\u2015\u2015it was quite clear that the amused and delighted\nmultitude would soon cease to regard the authority and opinions of\ntheir venerable religious and legal rulers, whose subtleties were\nso easily foiled by one of the common, uneducated mass. But the very\ncircumstances which effected and constituted the evil, were also the\ngrand obstacles to the removal of it. Jesus was by these means seated\nfirmly in the love and reverence of the people,\u2015\u2015and of the vast\nnumbers of strangers then in Jerusalem at the feast, there were very\nmany who would have their feelings strongly excited in his favor, by\nthe circumstance that they, as well as he, were Galileans, and would\ntherefore be very apt to make common cause with him in case of any\nviolent attack. All these obstacles required management; and after\nhaving been very many times foiled in their attempts to seize him,\nby the resolute determination of the thousands by whom he was always\nencircled, to defend him, they found that they must contrive some way\nto get hold of him when he was without the defenses of this admiring\nhost. This could be done, of course, only by following him to his\nsecret haunts, and coming quietly upon him before the multitude could\nassemble to his aid. But his movements were altogether beyond their\nnotice. No armed band could follow him about, as he went from the city\nto the country in his daily and nightly walks. They needed some spy who\ncould watch his private movements when unattended, save by the little\nband of the twelve, and give notice of the favorable moment for a\nseizure, when the time, the place, and the circumstances, would all\nconspire to prevent a rescue. Thus taken, he might be safely lodged\nin some of the impregnable fortresses of the temple and city, so as\nto defy the momentary burst of popular rage, on finding that their\nidol had been taken away. They knew too, the fickle character of\nthe commonalty, well enough to feel certain, that when the tide\nof condemnation was once strongly set against the Nazarene, the\nlip-worship of \u201cHosannas\u201d could be easily turned, by a little\nmanagement, into the ferocious yell of deadly denunciation. The mass\nof the people are always essentially the same in their modes of action.\nMobs were then managed by the same rules as now, and demagogues were\nequally well versed in the tricks of their trade. Besides, when Jesus\nhad once been formally indicted and presented before the secular\ntribunal of the Roman governor, as a rioter and seditious person, no\nthought of a rescue from the military force could be thought of; and\nhowever unwilling Pilate might be to minister to the wishes of the\nJews, in an act of unnecessary cruelty, he could not resist a call\nthus solemnly made to him, in the character of preserver of the Roman\nsway, though he would probably have rejected entirely any proposition\nto seize Jesus by a military force, in open day, in the midst of the\nmultitude, so as to create a troublesome and bloody tumult, by such\nan imprudent act. In the full consideration of all these difficulties,\nthe Jewish dignitaries were sitting in conclave, contriving means to\neffect the settlement of their troubles, by the complete removal of\nhim who was unquestionably the cause of all. At once their anxious\ndeliberations were happily interrupted by the entrance of the trusted\nsteward of the company of Jesus, who changed all their doubts and\ndistant hopes into absolute certainty, by offering, for a reasonable\nconsideration, to give up Jesus into their hands, a prisoner, without\nany disturbance or riot. How much delay and debate there was about\nterms, it would be hard to say; but after all, the bargain made,\ndoes not seem to have been greatly to the credit of the liberality\nof the Sanhedrim, or the sharpness of Judas. Thirty of the largest\npieces of silver then coined, would make but a poor price for such\nan extraordinary service, even making all allowance for a scarcity of\nmoney in those times. And taking into account the wealth and rank of\nthose concerned, as well as the importance of the object, it is fair to\npronounce them a very mean set of fellows. But Judas especially seems\nto forfeit almost all right to the character given him of acuteness in\nmoney matters; and it is only by supposing him to be quite carried out\nof his usual prudence, by his woful abandonment to crime, that so poor\na bargain can be made consistent with the otherwise reasonable view of\nhis character.\n\n _Thirty pieces of silver._\u2015\u2015The value of these pieces is\n seemingly as vaguely expressed in the original as in the\n translation; but a reference to Hebrew usages throws some light\n on the question of definition. The common Hebrew coin thus\n expressed was the shekel,\u2015\u2015equivalent to the Greek _didrachmon_,\n and worth about sixteen cents. In Hebrew the expression, thirty\n \u201cshekels of silver,\u201d was not always written out in full; but\n the name of the coin being omitted, the expression was always\n equally definite, because no other coin was ever left thus\n to be implied. Just so in English, the phrase, \u201ca million of\n money,\u201d is perfectly well understood here, to mean \u201ca million of\n _dollars_;\u201d while in England, the current coin of that country\n would make the expression mean so many _pounds_. In the same\n manner, to say, in this country, that any thing or any man is\n worth \u201cthousands,\u201d always conveys, with perfect definiteness,\n the idea of \u201cdollars;\u201d and in every other country the same\n expression would imply a particular coin. Thirty pieces of\n silver, each of which was worth sixteen cents, would amount\n only to four dollars and eighty cents, which are just one pound\n sterling. A small price for the great Jewish Sanhedrim to pay\n for the ruin of their most dangerous foe! Yet for this little\n sum, the Savior of the world was bought and sold!\n\nHaving thus settled this business, the cheaply-purchased traitor\nreturned to the unsuspecting fellowship of the apostles, mingling with\nthem, as he supposed, without the slightest suspicion on the part of\nany one, respecting the horrible treachery which he had contrived for\nthe bloody ruin of his Lord. But there was an eye, whose power he had\nnever learned, though dwelling beneath its gaze for years,\u2015\u2015an eye,\nwhich saw the vainly hidden results of his treachery, even as for years\nit had scanned the base motives which governed him. Yet no word of\nreproach or denunciation broke forth from the lips of the betrayed One;\nthe progress of crime was suffered unresistedly to bear him onward to\nthe mournfully necessary fulfilment of his destiny. Judas meanwhile,\nfrom day to day, waited and watched for the most desirable opportunity\nof meeting his engagements with his priestly employers. The first day\nof the feast of unleavened bread having arrived, Jesus sat down at\nevening to eat the Paschal lamb with his twelve disciples, alone.\nThe whole twelve were there without one exception,\u2015\u2015and among those\nwho reclined around the table, sharing in the social delights of the\nentertainment which celebrated the beginning of the grand national\nfestival, was the dark-souled accuser also, like Satan among the sons\nof God. Even here, amid the general joyous hilarity, his great scheme\nof villainy formed the grand theme of his meditations,\u2015\u2015and while the\nrest were entering fully into the natural enjoyments of the occasion,\nhe was brooding over the best means of executing his plans. During the\nsupper, after the performance of the impressive ceremony of washing\ntheir feet, Jesus made a sudden transition from the comments with which\nhe was illustrating it; and, in a tone of deep and sorrowful emotion,\nsuddenly exclaimed, \u201cI solemnly assure you, that one of you will betray\nme.\u201d This surprising assertion, so emphatically made, excited the\nmost distressful sensations among the little assembly;\u2015\u2015all enjoyment\nwas at an end; and grieved by the imputation, in which all seemed\nincluded until the individual was pointed out, they each earnestly\ninquired, \u201cLord, is it I?\u201d As they sat thus looking in the most painful\ndoubt around their lately cheerful circle, the disciple who held\nthe place of honor and affection at the table, at the request of\nPeter, whose position gave him less advantage for familiar and private\nconversation,\u2015\u2015plainly asked of Jesus, \u201cWho is it, Lord?\u201d Jesus, to\nmake his reply as deliberate and impressive as possible, said, \u201cIt is\nhe to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it.\u201d The design of\nall this circumlocution in pointing out the criminal, was, to mark the\nenormity of the offense. \u201cHe that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up\nhis heel against me.\u201d It was his familiar friend, his chosen companion,\nenjoying with him at that moment the most intimate social pleasures of\nthe entertainment, and occupying one of the places nearest to him, at\nthe board. As he promised, after dipping the sop, he gave it to Judas\nIscariot, who, receiving it, was moved to no change in his dark purpose;\nbut with a new Satanic spirit, resolved immediately to execute his plan,\nin spite of this open exposure, which, he might think, was meant to\nshame him from his baseness. Jesus, with an eye still fixed on his most\nsecret inward movements, said to him, \u201cWhat thou doest, do quickly.\u201d\nJudas, utterly lost to repentance and to shame, coolly obeyed the\ndirection, as if it had been an ordinary command, in the way of his\nofficial duty, and went out at the words of Jesus. All this, however,\nwas perfectly without meaning, to the wondering disciples, who, not yet\nrecovered from their surprise at the very extraordinary announcement\nwhich they had just heard of the expected treachery, could not suppose\nthat this quiet movement could have anything to do with the occurrence\nwhich preceded it; but concluded that Judas was going about the\nbusiness necessary for the preparation of the next day\u2019s festal\nentertainment,\u2015\u2015or that he was following the directions of Jesus about\nthe charity to be administered to the poor out of the funds in his\nkeeping, in accordance with the commendable Hebrew usage of remembering\nthe poor on great occasions of enjoyment,\u2015\u2015a custom to which, perhaps,\nthe previous words of Judas, when he rebuked the waste of the ointment\nby Mary, had some especial reference, since at that particular time,\nmoney was actually needed for bestowment in alms to the poor. Judas,\nafter leaving the place where the declaration of Jesus had made him\nan object of such suspicion and dislike, went, under the influence of\nthat evil spirit, to whose direction he was now abandoned, directly\nto the chief priests, (who were anxiously waiting the fulfilment of\nhis promise,) and made known to them that the time was now come. The\nband of watchmen and servants, with their swords and cudgels, were\naccordingly mustered and put under the guidance of Judas, who, well\nknowing the place to which Jesus would of course go from the feast,\nconducted his band of low assistants across the brook Kedron, to the\ngarden of Gethsemane. On the way he arranged with them the sign by\nwhich they should recognize, in spite of the darkness and confusion,\nthe person whose capture was the grand object of this expedition. \u201cThe\nman whom I shall kiss is he: seize him.\u201d Entering the garden, at length,\nhe led them straight to the spot which his intimate familiarity with\nJesus enabled him to know, as his favorite retreat. Going up to him\nwith the air of friendly confidence, he saluted him, as if rejoiced to\nfind him, even after this brief absence,\u2015\u2015another instance of the very\nclose intimacy which had existed between the traitor and the betrayed.\nJesus submitted to this hollow show, without any attempt to repulse\nthe movement which marked him for destruction, only saying, in mild\nbut expressive reproach,\u2015\u2015\u201cJudas! Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a\nkiss?\u201d Without more delay he announced himself in plain terms, to those\nwho came to seize him; thus showing how little need there was of artful\ncontrivance in taking one who did not seek to escape. \u201cIf ye seek Jesus\nof Nazareth, I am he.\u201d The simple majesty with which these words were\nuttered, was such as to overawe even the low officials; and it was not\ntill he himself had again distinctly reminded them of their object,\nthat they could execute their errand. So vain was the arrangement of\nsignals, which had been studiously made by the careful traitor.\n\nNo further mention is made of Iscariot after the scene of his treachery,\nuntil the next morning, when Jesus had been condemned by the high\ncourt of the Sanhedrim, and dragged away to undergo punishment from\nthe secular power. The sun of another day had risen on his crime; and\nafter a very brief interval, he now had time for cool meditation on\nthe nature and consequences of his act. Spite and avarice had both now\nreceived their full gratification. The thirty pieces of silver were\nhis, and the Master whose instructions he had hated for their purity\nand spirituality, because they had made known to him the vileness of\nhis own character and motives, was now in the hands of those who were\nimpelled, by the darkest passions, to secure his destruction. But after\nall, now came the thought, and inquiry, \u2018what had the pure and holy\nJesus done, to deserve this reward at his hands?\u2019 He had called him\nfrom the sordid pursuits of a common life, to the high task of aiding\nin the regeneration of Israel. He had taught him, labored with him,\nprayed for him, trusted him as a near and worthy friend, making him\nthe steward of all the earthly possessions of his apostolic family, and\nthe organ of his ministrations of charity to the poor. All this he had\ndone without the prospect of a reward, surely. And why? To make him an\ninstrument, not of the base purposes of a low ambition;\u2015\u2015not to acquire\nby this means the sordid and bloody honors of a conqueror,\u2015\u2015but to\neffect the moral and spiritual emancipation of a people, suffering\nfar less under the evils of a foreign sway, than under the debasing\ndominion of folly and sin. And was this an occasion to arm against\nhim the darker feelings of his trusted and loved companions?\u2015\u2015to turn\nthe instruments of his mercy into weapons of death? Ought the mere\ndisappointment of a worldly-minded spirit, that was ever clinging to\nthe love of material things, and that would not learn the solemn truth\nof the spiritual character of the Messiah\u2019s reign, now to cause it to\nvent its regrets at its own errors, in a traitorous attack upon the\nlife of him who had called it to a purpose whose glories and rewards it\ncould not appreciate? These and other mournful thoughts would naturally\nrise to the repentant traitor\u2019s mind, in the awful revulsion of feeling\nwhich that morning brought with it. But repentance is not atonement;\nnor can any change of feeling in the mind of the sinner, after the\nperpetration of the sinful act, avail anything for the removal or\nexpiation of the evil consequences of it. So vain and unprofitable,\nboth to the injurer and the injured, are the tears of remorse! And\nherein lay the difference between the repentance of Judas and of Peter.\nThe sin of Peter affected no one but himself, and was criminal only\nas the manifestation of a base, selfish spirit of deceit, that fell\nfrom truth through a vain-glorious confidence,\u2015\u2015and the effusion of\nhis gushing tears might prove the means of washing away the pollution\nof such an offense from his soul. But the sin of Judas had wrought a\nwork of crime whose evil could not be affected by any tardy change of\nfeeling in him. Peter\u2019s repentance came too late indeed, to exonerate\nhim from guilt; because all repentance is too late for such a purpose,\nwhen it comes after the commission of the sin. The repentance of an\nevil purpose, coming in time to prevent the execution of the act, is\nindeed available for good; but both Peter and Judas came to the sense\nof the heinousness of sin, only after its commission. Peter however,\nhad no evil to repair for others,\u2015\u2015while Judas saw the bloody sequel\nof his guilt, coming with most irrevocable certainty upon the blameless\nOne whom he had betrayed. Overwhelmed with vain regrets, he took the\nnow hateful, though once-desired price of his villainy, and seeking\nthe presence of his purchasers, held out to them the money, with\nthe useless confession of the guilt, which was too accordant with\ntheir schemes and hopes, for them to think of redeeming him from its\nconsequences. The words of his confession were, \u201cI have sinned, in\nbetraying innocent blood.\u201d This late protestation was received by the\nproud priests, with as much regard as might have been expected from\nexulting tyranny, when in the enjoyment of the grand object of its\nefforts. With a cold sneer they replied, \u201cWhat is that to us? See thou\nto that!\u201d Maddened with the immovable and remorseless determination\nof the haughty condemners of the just, he flung down the price of his\ninfamy and woe, upon the floor of the temple, and rushed out of their\npresence, to seal his crimes and eternal misery by the act that put him\nfor ever beyond the power of redemption. Seeking a place removed from\nthe observation of men, he hurried out of the city, and contriving the\nfatal means of death for himself, before the bloody doom of him whom\nhe betrayed had been fulfilled, the wretched man saved his eyes the\nrenewed horrors of the sight of the crucifixion, by closing them in the\nsleep which earthly sights can not disturb. But even in the mode of his\ndeath, new circumstances of horror occurred. Swinging himself into the\nair, by falling from a highth, as the cord tightened around his neck,\nchecking his descent, the weight of his body produced the rupture of\nhis abdomen, and his bowels bursting through, made him, as he swung\nstiffening and convulsed in the agonies of this doubly horrid death,\na disgusting and appalling spectacle,\u2015\u2015a monument of the vengeance\nof God on the traitor, and a shocking witness of his own remorse and\nself-condemnation.\n\n A very striking difference is noticeable between the account\n given by Matthew of the death of Judas, and that given by\n Luke in the speech of Peter, Acts i. 18, 19. The various modes\n of reconciling these difficulties are found in the ordinary\n commentaries. In respect to a single expression in Acts i. 18,\n there is an ingenious conjecture offered by Granville Penn, in a\n very interesting and learned article in the first volume of the\n transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, which may very\n properly be mentioned here, on account of its originality and\n plausibility, and because it is found only in an expensive work,\n hardly ever seen in this country. Mr. Penn\u2019s view is, that \u201cthe\n word \u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 (_elakese_,) in Acts i. 18, is only an inflection\n of the Latin verb, _laqueo_, (to halter or strangle,) rendered\n insititious in the Hellenistic Greek, under the form \u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c9.\u201d He\n enters into a very elaborate argument, which can not be given\n here, but an extract may be transcribed, in order to enable\n the learned to apprehend the nature and force of his views.\n (Translated by R. S. Lit. Vol. I. P. 2, pp. 51, 52.)\n\n \u201cThose who have been in the southern countries of Europe know,\n that the operation in question, as exercised on a criminal, is\n performed with a great length of cord, with which the criminal\n is _precipitated_ from a high beam, and is thus violently\n _laqueated_, or snared in a noose, _mid-way_\u2015\u2015_medius_ or _in\n medio_; \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, and _medius_, referring to _place_ as well as\n to _person_; as, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd. (John i. 26.) \u2018Considit\n scopulo medius\u2015\u2015\u2015\u2015\u2019 (Virgil, Georgics, iv. 436.) \u2018\u2015\u2015\u2015\u2015 medius\n prorumpit in hostes.\u2019 (Aeneid, x. 379.)\n\n \u201cErasmus distinctly perceived this sense in the words \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, although he did not discern it in the word \u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5,\n which confirms it: \u2018\u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 Graecis dicitur, qui _vultu est in\n terram dejecto_: expressit autem _gestum et habitum_ LAQUEO\n PRAEFOCATI; alioquin, ex hoc sane loco non poterat intelligi,\n quod Judas _suspenderit se_,\u2019 (in loc.) And so Augustine also\n had understood those words, as he shows in his _Recit. in Act.\n Apostol._ l. i. col. 474. \u2018et collem sibi alligavit, et dejectus\n in faciem,\u2019 &c. Hence one MS., cited by Sabatier, for \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, reads \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; and Jerom, in his new vulgate,\n has substituted _suspensus_ for the _pronus factus_ of the old\n Latin version, which our old English version of 1542 accordingly\n renders, _and when he was hanged_.\n\n \u201cThat which follows, and which evidently determined the vulgar\n interpretation of \u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u2015\u2015\u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5,\n _all his bowels gushed out_\u2015\u2015states a natural and probable\n effect produced, by the sudden interruption in the fall and\n violent capture in the noose, in a frame of great corpulency\n and distension, such as Christian antiquity has recorded that\n of the traitor to have been; so that a term to express rupture\n would have been altogether unnecessary, and it is therefore\n equally unnecessary to seek for it in the verb \u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5. Had the\n historian intended to express disruption, we may justly presume\n that he would have said, as he had already said in his gospel,\n v. 6, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bd\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf, or xxiii. 45, \u03b5\u03c3\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2: it is difficult\n to conceive, that he would here have traveled into the language\n of ancient Greek poetry for a word to express a common idea,\n when he had common terms at hand and in practice; but he used\n the Roman _laqueo_, \u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c9, to mark the infamy of the death.\n\n \u201c(\u03a0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1, \u1f61\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b7 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n Papias, from Routh's _Reliqui\u00e6 Sacr\u00e6_ tom. I. p. 9. and\n Oecumenius, thus rendered by Zegers, _Critici Sacri_, Acts i.\n 18, _in tantum enim corpore inflatus est ut progredi non\n posset_. The tale transmitted by those writers of the first\n and tenth centuries, that Judas was crushed to death by a\n chariot proceeding rapidly, from which his unwieldiness rendered\n him unable to escape, merits no further attention, after the\n authenticated descriptions of the traitor\u2019s death which we have\n here investigated, than to suggest a possibility that the place\n where the suicide was committed might have overhung a public\n way, and that the body falling by its weight might have been\n traversed, after death, by a passing chariot;\u2015\u2015from whence might\n have arisen the tales transmitted successively by those writers;\n the first of whom, being an inhabitant of Asia Minor, and\n therefore far removed from the theater of Jerusalem, and being\n also (as Eusebius witnesses, iii. 39,) a man of a very weak\n mind\u2015\u2015\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u2015\u2015was liable to be deceived by false\n accounts.)\n\n \u201cThe words of St. Peter, in the Hellenistic version of St.\n Luke, will therefore import, _praeceps in ora fusus, laqueavit_\n (_i.\u00a0e._ implicuit se laqueo) _medius_; (_i.\u00a0e._ in medio,\n inter trabem et terram;) _et effusa sunt omnia viscera\n ejus_\u2015\u2015_throwing himself headlong, he caught mid-way in\n the noose, and all his bowels gushed out_. And thus the two\n reporters of the suicide, from whose respective relations\n charges of disagreement, and even of contradiction, have been\n drawn in consequence of _mistaking an insititious Latin word\n for a genuine Greek word of corresponding elements_, are found,\n by tracing that insititious word to its true origin, to report\n identically the same fact; the one by a _single term_, the other\n by a _periphrasis_.\u201d\n\nSuch was the end of the twelfth of Jesus Christ\u2019s chosen ones.\nTo such an end was the intimate friend, the trusted steward, the\nfestal companion of the Savior, brought by the impulse of some not\nvery unnatural feelings, excited by occasion, into extraordinary\naction. The universal and intense horror which the relation of his\ncrime now invariably awakens, is by no means favorable to a just\nand fair appreciation of his sin and its motives, nor to such an\nhonest consideration of his course from rectitude to guilt, as is\nmost desirable for the application of the whole story to the moral\nimprovement of its readers. Originally not an infamous man, he was\nnumbered among the twelve as a person of _respectable_ character, and\nlong held among his fellow-disciples a responsible station, which is\nitself a testimony of his unblemished reputation. He was sent forth\nwith them, as one of the heralds of salvation to the lost sheep of the\nhouse of Israel. He shared with them the counsels, the instructions,\nand the prayers of Jesus. If he was stupid in apprehending, and\nunspiritual in conceiving the truths of the gospel, so were they. If\nhe was an unbeliever in the resurrection of Jesus, so were they; and\nhad he survived till the accomplishment of that prophecy, he could not\nhave been slower in receiving the evidence of the event, than they. As\nit was, he died in his unbelief; while they lived to feel the glorious\nremoval of all their doubts, the purification of all their gross\nconceptions, and the effusion of that spirit of truth, through which,\nby the grace of God alone, they afterwards were what they were. Without\na merit, in _faith_, beyond Judas, they maintained their dim and\ndoubtful adherence to the truth, only by their nearer approximation to\n_moral_ perfection; and by their nobler freedom from the pollution of\nsordid and spiteful feeling. Through passion alone he fell, a victim,\nnot to a want of faith merely,\u2015\u2015for therein, the rest could hardly\nclaim a superiority,\u2015\u2015but to the radical deficiency of true _love_\nfor Jesus, of that \u201ccharity which never faileth,\u201d but \u201cendureth to the\nend.\u201d It was their simple, devoted affection, which, through all their\nignorance, their grossness of conception, and their faithlessness in\nhis word, made them still cling to his name and his grave, till the\nfull revelations of his resurrection and ascension had displaced their\ndoubts by the most glorious certainties, and given their faith an\neternal assurance. The great cause of the awful ruin of Judas Iscariot,\nthen, was the fact, that _he did not LOVE Jesus_. Herein was his grand\ndistinction from all the rest; for though their regard was mingled\nwith so much that was base, there was plainly, in all of them, a solid\nfoundation of true, deep affection. The most ambitious and skeptical\nof them, gave the most unquestionable proofs of this. Peter, John,\nboth the Jameses, and others, are instances of the mode in which these\nseemingly opposite feelings were combined. But Judas was without this\ngreat refining and elevating principle, which so redeemed the most\nsordid feelings of his fellows. It was not merely for the love of\nmoney that he was led into this horrid crime. The love of four dollars\nand eighty cents! Who can believe that this was the sole motive? It\nwas rather that _his_ sordidness and selfishness, and ambition, if\nhe had any, lacked this single, purifying emotion, which redeemed\ntheir characters. Is there not, in this reflection, a moral which\neach Christian reader can improve to his own use? For the lack of the\nlove of Jesus alone, Judas fell from his high estate, to an infamy as\nimmortal as their fame. Wherever, through all ages, the high heroic\nenergy of Peter, the ready faith of Andrew, the martyr-fire of James\nBoanerges, the soul-absorbing love of John, the willing obedience\nof Philip, the guileless purity of Nathanael, the recorded truth\nof Matthew, the slow but deep devotion of Thomas, the blameless\nrighteousness of James the Just, the appellative zeal of Simon, and\nthe earnest warning eloquence of Jude, are all commemorated in honor\nand bright renown,\u2015\u2015the murderous, sordid spite of Iscariot, will\ninsure him an equally lasting proverbial shame. Truly, \u201cTHE SIN OF\nJUDAS IS WRITTEN WITH A PEN OF IRON ON A TABLET OF MARBLE.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n MATTHIAS.\n\n\nTHE events which concern this person\u2019s connection with the apostolic\ncompany, are briefly these. Soon after the ascension of Jesus, the\neleven disciples being assembled in their \u201cupper room,\u201d with a large\ncompany of believers, making in all, together, a meeting of one hundred\nand twenty, Peter arose and presented to their consideration, the\npropriety and importance of filling, in the apostolic college, the\nvacancy caused by the sad defection of Judas Iscariot. Beginning with\nwhat seems to be an apt allusion to the words of David concerning\nAhithophel,\u2015\u2015(a quotation very naturally suggested by the striking\nsimilarity between the fate of that ancient traitor, and that of the\nbase Iscariot,) he referred to the peculiarly horrid circumstances\nof the death of this revolted apostle, and also applied to these\noccurrences the words of the same Psalmist concerning those upon whom\nhe invoked the wrath of God, in words which might with remarkable\nemphasis be made descriptive of the ruin of Judas. \u201cLet his habitation\nbe desolate,\u201d and \u201clet another take his office.\u201d Applying this last\nquotation more particularly to the exigency of their circumstances, he\npronounced it to be in accordance with the will of God that they should\nimmediately proceed to select a person to \u201ctake the office\u201d of Judas.\nHe declared it an essential requisite for this office, moreover, that\nthe person should be one of those who, though not numbered with the\nselect twelve, had been among the intimate companions of Jesus, and had\nenjoyed the honors and privileges of a familiar discipleship, so that\nthey could always testify of his great miracles and divine instructions,\nfrom their own personal knowledge as eye-witnesses of his actions, from\nthe beginning of his divine career at his baptism by John, to the time\nof his ascension.\n\nAgreeably to this counsel of the apostolic chief, the whole company of\nthe disciples selected two persons from those who had been witnesses\nof the great actions of Christ, and nominated them to the apostles, as\nequally well qualified for the vacant office. To decide the question\nwith perfect impartiality, it was resolved, in conformity with the\ncommon ancient practice in such cases, to leave the point between these\ntwo candidates to be settled by lot; and to give this mode of decision\na solemnity proportioned to the importance of the occasion, they first\ninvoked, in prayer, the aid of God in the appointment of a person\nbest qualified for his service. They then drew the lots of the two\ncandidates, and Matthias being thus selected, was thenceforth enrolled\nwith the eleven apostles.\n\nOf his previous history nothing whatever is known, except that,\naccording to what is implied in the address of Peter, he must have\nbeen, from the beginning of Christ\u2019s career to his ascension, one of\nhis constant attendants and hearers. Some have conjectured that he\nwas one of the seventy, sent forth by Jesus as apostles, in the same\nmanner as the twelve had gone; and there is nothing unreasonable in the\nsupposition; but still it is a conjecture merely, without any fact to\nsupport it. The New Testament is perfectly silent with respect to both\nhis previous and his subsequent life, and not a fact can be recorded\nrespecting him. Yet the productive imaginations of the martyrologists\nof the Roman and Greek churches, have carried him through a protracted\nseries of adventures, during his alleged preaching of the gospel,\nfirst in Judea, and then in Ethiopia. They also pretend that he was\nmartyred, though as to the precise mode there is some difference in\nthe stories,\u2015\u2015some relating that he was crucified, and others, that he\nwas first stoned and then dispatched by a blow on the head with an axe.\nBut all these are condemned by the discreet writers even of the Romish\nchurch, and the whole life of Matthias must be included among those\nmany mysteries which can never be in any way brought to light by the\nmost devoted and untiring researches of the Apostolic historian; and\nthis dim and unsatisfactory trace of his life may well conclude the\nfirst grand division of a work, in which the reader will expect to\nfind so much curious detail of matters commonly unknown, but which\nno research nor learning can furnish, for the prevention of his\ndisappointment.\n\n\n\n\n II. THE HELLENIST APOSTLES.\n\n\n\n\n SAUL, AFTERWARDS NAMED PAUL.\n\n\n HIS COUNTRY.\n\nON the farthest north-eastern part of the Mediterranean sea, where\nits waters are bounded by the great angle made by the meeting of the\nSyrian coast with the Asian, there is a peculiarity in the course of\nthe mountain ranges, which deserves notice in a view of the countries\nof that region, modifying as it does, all their most prominent\ncharacteristics. The great chain of Taurus, which can be traced far\neastward in the branching ranges of Singara, Masius and Niphates,\nrunning connectedly also into the distant peaks of mighty Ararat,\nhere sends off a spur to the shore of the Mediterranean, which\nunder the name of Mount Amanus meets its waters, just at their great\nnorth-eastern angle in the ancient gulf of Issus, now called the gulf\nof Scanderoon. Besides this connection with the mountain chains of\nMesopotamia and Armenia on the northeast, from the south the great\nSyrian Lebanon, running very nearly parallel with the eastern shore\nof the Mediterranean, at the Issic angle, joins this common center of\nconvergence, so insensibly losing its individual character in the Asian\nridge, that by many writers, Mount Amanus itself is considered only\na regular continuation of Lebanon. These, however, are as distinct as\nany of the chains here uniting, and the true Libanic mountains cease\njust at this grand natural division of Syria from the northern coast\nof the Mediterranean. A characteristic of the Syrian mountains is\nnevertheless prominent in the northern chain. They all take a general\ncourse parallel with the coast and very near it, occasionally sending\nout lateral ridges which mark the projections of the shore with high\npromontories. Of these, however, there are much fewer on the southern\ncoast of Asia Minor; and the western ridge of Taurus, after parting\nfrom the grand angle of convergence, runs exactly parallel to the\nmargin of the sea, in most parts about seven miles distant. The country\nthus fenced off by Taurus, along the southern coast of Asia Minor, is\nvery distinctly characterized by these circumstances connected with\nits orography, and is in a very peculiar manner bounded and inclosed\nfrom the rest of the continent, by these natural features. The great\nmountain barrier of Taurus, as above described, stretches along the\nnorth, forming a mighty wall, which is at each end met at right angles\nby a lateral ridge, of which the eastern is Amanus, descending within\na few rods of the water, while the western is the true termination of\nTaurus in that direction,\u2015\u2015the mountains here making a grand curve from\nwest to south, and stretching out into the sea, in a bold promontory,\nwhich definitely marks the farthest western limit of the long, narrow\nsection, thus remarkably enclosed. This simple natural division, in\nthe apostolic age, contained two principal artificial sub-divisions. On\nthe west, was the province of Pamphylia, occupying about one fourth of\nthe coast;\u2015\u2015and on the east, the rest of the territory constituted the\nprovince of CILICIA, far-famed as the land of the birth of that great\napostle of the Gentiles, whose life is the theme of these pages.\n\nCILICIA,\u2015\u2015opening on the west into Pamphylia,\u2015\u2015is elsewhere inclosed\nin mountain barriers, impenetrable and impassable, except in two or\nthree points, which are the only places in which it is accessible\nby land, though widely exposed, on the sea, by its long open coast.\nOf these two adits, the most important, and the one through which\nthe vast proportion of its commercial intercourse with the world, by\nland, has always been carried on, is the eastern, which is just at the\noft-mentioned great angle of the Mediterranean, where the mountains\ndescend almost to the waters of the gulf of Issus. Mount Amanus, coming\nfrom the north-east, and stretching along the eastern boundary of\nCilicia an impassable barrier, here advances to the shore; but just\nbefore its base reaches the water, it abruptly terminates, leaving\nbetween the high rocks and the sea a narrow space, which is capable\nof being completely commanded and defended from the mountains which\nthus guard it; and forming the only land passage out of Cilicia to\nthe eastern coast of the Mediterranean, it was thence anciently called\n\u201cTHE GATES OF SYRIA.\u201d Through these \u201cgates,\u201d has always passed all the\ntraveling by land between Asia Minor and Palestine; and it is therefore\nan important point in the most celebrated route in apostolic history.\nThe other main opening in the mountain walls of this region, is the\npassage through the Taurus, made by the course of the Sarus, the\nlargest river of the province, which breaks through the northern ridge,\nin a defile that is called \u201cTHE GATES OF CILICIA.\u201d\n\nThe boundaries of Cilicia are then,\u2015\u2015on the north, mountainous\nCappadocia, perfectly cut off by the impenetrable chain of Taurus,\nexcept the narrow pass through \u201cthe gates of Cilicia;\u201d\u2015\u2015on the east,\nequally well guarded by Mount Amanus, Northern Syria, the only land\npassages being through the famed \u201cSyrian gates,\u201d and another defile\nnorth of the coast, toward the Euphrates;\u2015\u2015on the south, stretches\nthe long margin of the sea, which in the western two-thirds of the\ncoast takes the name of \u201cthe Cilician strait,\u201d because it here flows\nbetween the mainland and the great island of Cyprus, which lies off\nthe shore, always in sight, being less than thirty miles distant, the\neastern third of the coast being bounded by the waters of the gulf\nof Issus;\u2015\u2015and on the west Cilicia ends in the rough highlands of\nPamphylia. The territory itself is distinguished by natural features,\ninto two divisions,\u2015\u2015Rocky Cilicia and \u201cLevel Cilicia,\u201d\u2015\u2015the former\noccupying the western third, and the latter the eastern part,\u2015\u2015each\ndistrict being abundantly well described by the term applied to it.\nWithin the latter, lay the opening scenes of the apostle\u2019s life.\n\nThus peculiarly guarded, and shut off from the world, it might be\nexpected that this remarkable region would nourish, on the narrow\nplains of its fertile shores, and the vast rough mountains of its\ngigantic barriers, a race strongly marked in mental, as in physical\ncharacteristics. In all parts of the world, the philosophical observer\nmay notice a relation borne by man to the soil on which he lives, and\nto the air which he breathes,\u2015\u2015hardly less striking than the dependence\nof the inferior orders of created things, on the material objects which\nsurround them. Man is an animal, and his natural history displays as\nmany curious correspondences between his varying peculiarities and the\nlocality which he inhabits, as can be observed between the physical\nconstitution of inferior creatures, and the similar circumstances which\naffect them. The inhabitants of a wild, broken region, which rises\ninto mighty inland mountains, or sends its cliffs and vallies into\na vast sea, are, in all ages and climes, characterized by a peculiar\nenergy and quickness of mind, which often marks them in history as\nthe prominent actors in events of the highest importance to mankind in\nall the world. Even the dwellers of the cities of such regions, share\nin that peculiar vivacity of their countrymen, which is especially\nimbibed in the air of the mountains; and carry through all the world,\ntill new local influences have again subjected them, the original\ncharacteristics of the land of their birth. The restless activity and\ndauntless spirit of Saul, present a striking instance of this relation\nof scenery to character. The ever-rolling waters of the tideless sea\non one side presenting a boundless view, and on the other the blue\nmountains rearing a mighty barrier to the vision,\u2015\u2015the thousand streams\nthence rolling to the former,\u2015\u2015the white sands of the long plains,\ngemmed with the green of shaded fountains, as well as the active\nmovements of a busy population, all living under these same inspiring\ninfluences,\u2015\u2015would each have their effect on the soul of the young\nCilician as he grew up in the midst of these modifying circumstances.\n\nAlong these shores, from the earliest period of Hellenic\ncolonization, Grecian enterprise had planted its busy centers of\ncivilization. On each favorable site, where agriculture or commerce\ncould thrive, cities grew up in the midst of prosperous colonies, in\nwhich wealth and power in their rapid advance brought in the lights\nof science, art, literature, and all the refinements and elegances\nwhich Grecian colonization made the invariable accompaniments of\nits march,\u2015\u2015adorning its solid triumphs with the graceful polish of\nall that could exalt the enjoyment of prosperity. Issus, Mopsuestia,\nAnchialus, Selinus and others, were among the early seats of Grecian\nrefinement; and the more modern efforts of the Syro-Macedonian sway,\nhad blessed Cilicia with the fruits of royal munificence, in such\ncities as Cragic Antioch, Seleucia the Rocky, and Arsinoe; and in\nstill later times, the ever-active and wide-spreading beneficence of\nRoman dominion, had still farther multiplied the peaceful triumphs\nand trophies of civilization, by here raising or renewing cities, of\nwhich Baiae, Germanicia and Pompeiopolis are only a specimen. But of\nall these monuments of ancient or later refinement, there was none\nof higher antiquity or fame than TARSUS, the city where was born this\nillustrious apostle, whose life was so greatly instrumental in the\ntriumphs of Christianity.\n\nTARSUS stands north of the point of a wide indentation of the coast of\nCilicia, forming a very open bay, into which, a few miles south, flow\nthe waters of the classic Cydnus, a narrow stream which runs a brief\ncourse from the barrier of Taurus, directly southward to the sea. The\nriver\u2019s mouth forms a spacious and convenient harbor, to which the\nlight vessels of ancient commerce all easily found safe and ready\naccess, though most of the floating piles in which the productions\nof the world are now transported, might find such a harbor altogether\ninaccessible to their heavier burden.\n\nAmmianus Marcellinus, the elegant historian of the decline of the Roman\nempire, speaks in high descriptive terms, both of the province, and\nthe city which makes it eminent in Christian history. In narrating\nimportant events here performed during the times whose history he\nrecords, he alludes to the character of the region in a preliminary\ndescription. \u201cAfter surmounting the peaks of Taurus, which towards\nthe east rise into higher elevation, Cilicia spreads out before the\nobserver, in far stretching areas,\u2015\u2015a land, rich in all good things.\nTo its right (that is the west, as the observer looks south from\nthe summits of Taurus) is joined Isauria,\u2015\u2015in equal degree verdant\nwith palms and many fruits, and intersected by the navigable river\nCalycadnus. This, besides many towns, has two cities,\u2015\u2015Seleucia, the\nwork of Seleucus Nicator of Syria, and Claudiopolis, a colony founded\nby Claudius Caesar. Isauria however, once exceedingly powerful, has\nformerly been desolated for a destructive rebellion, and therefore\nshows but very few traces of its ancient splendor. But CILICIA, which\nrejoices in the river Cydnus, is _ennobled_ by TARSUS, a splendid\ncity,\u2015\u2015by Anazarbus, and by Mopsuestia, the dwelling-place of that\nMopsus, who accompanied the Argonauts. These two provinces (Isauria\nor \u2018Cilicia the Rocky,\u2019 and Cilicia proper or \u2018level\u2019) being formerly\nconnected with hordes of plunderers in a piratical war, were subjugated\nby the proconsul Servilius, and made tributary. And these regions,\nplaced, as it were, on a long tongue of land, are separated from the\neastern world by Mount Amanus.\u201d\n\n This account by Ammianus Marcellinus is found in book XIV. of\n his history, (p. 19, edited by Vales.)\n\nThe native land of Saul was classic ground. Within the limits of\nCilicia, were laid the scenes of some of the most splendid passages\nin early Grecian fable; and here too, were acted some of the grandest\nevents in authentic history, both Greek and Roman. The very city of\nhis birth, Tarsus, is said to have been founded by Perseus, the son of\nJupiter and Danae, famed for his exploit at another place on the shore\nof this part of the Mediterranean. More authentic history however,\nrefers its earliest foundation to Sardanapalus, king of Assyria, who\nbuilt Tarsus and Anchialus in Cilicia, nine hundred years before Christ.\nIts origin is by others ascribed to Triptolemus with an Argive colony,\nwho is represented on some medals as the founder. These two stories may\nbe made consistent with each other, on the supposition that the same\nplace was successively the scene of the civilizing influence of each\nof these attributed founders. So too, may be taken, the legend which\nAmmianus Marcellinus records and approves,\u2015\u2015that it was founded by\nSandan, a wealthy and eminent person from Ethiopia, who at some early\nperiod not specified, is said to have built Tarsus. It was however,\nat the earliest period that is definitely mentioned, subject to the\nAssyrian empire; and afterwards fell under the dominion of each of the\nsovranties which succeeded it, passing into the hands of the Persian\nand of Alexander, as each in turn assumed the lordship of the eastern\nworld. While under the Persian sway, it is commemorated by Xenophon\nas having been honored by the presence of the younger Cyrus, when\non his march through Asia to wrest the empire from his brother. On\nthis occasion, he entered this region through the northern \u201cgates of\nCilicia,\u201d and passed out through the \u201cgates of Syria,\u201d a passage which\nis, in connection with this event, very minutely described by the\nelegant historian of that famous expedition.\n\n _Sardanapalus._\u2015\u2015The fact of the foundation both of Tarsus and\n Anchialus by this splendid but unfortunately extravagant monarch,\n the last of his line, is commemorated by Arrian, who refers to\n the high authority of an inscription which records the event.\n\n \u201cAnchialus is said to have been founded by the king of Assyria,\n Sardanapalus. The fortifications, in their magnitude and extent,\n still, in Arrian\u2019s time, bore the character of greatness, which\n the Assyrians appear singularly to have affected in works of\n the kind. A monument, representing Sardanapalus, was found there,\n warranted by an inscription in Assyrian characters, of course\n in the old Assyrian language, which the Greeks, whether well\n or ill, interpreted thus: \u2018Sardanapalus, son of Anacyndaraxes,\n in one day founded Anchialus and Tarsus. Eat, drink, play: all\n other human joys are not worth a fillip.\u2019 Supposing this version\n nearly exact, (for Arrian says it was not quite so,) whether the\n purpose has not been to invite to civil order a people disposed\n to turbulence, rather than to recommend immoderate luxury,\n may perhaps reasonably be questioned. What, indeed, could be the\n object of a king of Assyria in founding such towns in a country\n so distant from his capital, and so divided from it by an\n immense extent of sandy desert and lofty mountains, and, still\n more, how the inhabitants could be at once in circumstances to\n abandon themselves to the intemperate joys which their prince\n has been supposed to have recommended, is not obvious; but\n it may deserve observation that, in that line of coast, the\n southern of Lesser Asia, ruins of cities, evidently of an\n age after Alexander, yet barely named in history, at this day\n astonish the adventurous traveler by their magnificence and\n elegance.\u201d (Mitford\u2019s Greece, Vol. IX. pp. 311, 312.)\n\nOver the same route passed the conquering armies of the great Alexander.\nAt Issus, within the boundaries of Cilicia, he met, in their mightiest\narray, the vast hosts of Darius, whom here vanquishing, he thus decided\nthe destiny of the world. Before this great battle, halting to repose\nat Tarsus, he almost met his death, by imprudently bathing in the\nclassic Cydnus, whose waters were famed for their extreme coldness.\nBy a remarkable coincidence, the next conqueror of the world, Julius\nCaesar, also rested at Tarsus for some days before his great triumphs\nin Asia Minor. Cilicia had in the interval between these two visits\npassed from the Macedonian to the Roman dominion, being made a Roman\nprovince by Pompey, about sixty years before Christ, at the time when\nall the kingdoms of Asia and Syria were subjugated. After this it\nwas visited by Cicero, at the time of his triumphs over the cities of\neastern Cilicia; and its classic stream is still farther celebrated\nin immortal verse and prose, as the scene where Marcus Antony met\nCleopatra for the first time. It was the Cydnus, down which she sailed\nin her splendid galley, to meet the conqueror, who for her afterwards\nlost the empire of the world. During all the civil wars which desolated\nthe Roman empire through a long course of years in that age, Tarsus\nsteadily adhered to the house of Caesar, first to the great Julius and\nafterwards to Augustus. So remarkable was its attachment and devotion\nto the cause of Julius, that when the assassin Cassius marched through\nAsia into Syria to secure the dominion of the eastern world, he\nlaid siege to Tarsus, and having taken it, laid it waste with the\nmost destructive vengeance for its adherence to the fortunes of\nhis murdered lord; and such were its sufferings under these and\nsubsequent calamities in the same cause, that when Augustus was at\nlast established in the undivided empire of the world, he felt himself\nbound in honor and gratitude, to bestow on the faithful citizens of\nTarsus the most remarkable favors. The city, having at the request of\nits inhabitants received the new name of _Julio_polis, as a testimony\nof their devotion to the memory of their murdered patron, was lavishly\nhonored with almost every privilege which the imperial Augustus could\nbestow on these most faithful adherents of his family. From the terms\nin which his acts of generosity to them are recorded, it has been\ninferred,\u2015\u2015though not therein positively stated,\u2015\u2015that he conferred on\nit the rank and title of a Roman colony, or free city, which must have\ngiven all its inhabitants the exalted privileges of _Roman citizens_.\nThis assertion has been disputed however, and forms one of the most\ninteresting topics in the life of the great apostle, involving the\ninquiry as to the mode in which he obtained that inviolable privilege,\nwhich, on more than one occasion, snatched him from the clutches of\ntyrannical persecutors. Whether he held this privilege in common with\nall the citizens of Tarsus, or inherited it as a peculiar honor of\nhis own family, is a question yet to be decided. But whatever may have\nbeen the precise extent of the municipal favors enjoyed by Tarsus,\nit is certain that it was an object of peculiar favor to the imperial\nCaesars during a long succession of years, not only before but after\nthe apostle\u2019s time, being crowned with repeated acts of munificence\nby Augustus, Adrian, Caracalla and Heliogabalus, so that through many\ncenturies it was the most favored city in the eastern division of the\nRoman empire.\n\n The history of Cilicia since the apostolic age, is briefly this:\n It remained attached to the eastern division of the Roman empire,\n until about A.\u00a0D. 800, when it first fell under the Muhammedan\n sway, being made part of the dominion of the Califs by Haroun\n Al Rashid. In the thirteenth century it reverted to a Christian\n government, constituting a province of the Armenian kingdom of\n Leo. About A.\u00a0D. 1400, it fell under the sway of Bajazet II.,\n Sultan of the Ottoman empire, and is at present included in that\n empire,\u2015\u2015most of it in a single Turkish pashalic, under the name\n of Adana.\n\n _Roman citizens._\u2015\u2015Witsius very fully discusses this point, as\n follows. (Witsius _on the Life of Paul_ \u00a7 1. \u00b6 V.)\n\n \u201cIt is remarkable that though he was of Tarsus, he should say\n that he was a ROMAN citizen, and that too by the right of\n _birth_: Acts xxii. 28. There has been some discussion whether\n he enjoyed that privilege in common with all the Tarsans, or\n whether it was peculiar to his family. Most interpreters firmly\n hold the former opinion. Beza remarks, \u2018that he calls himself a\n Roman, not by country, but by right of citizenship; since Tarsus\n had the privileges of a Roman colony.\u2019 He adds, \u2018Mark Antony,\n the triumvir, presented the Tarsans with the rights of citizens\n of Rome.\u2019 Others, without number, bear the same testimony.\n Baronius goes still farther,\u2015\u2015contending that \u2018Tarsus obtained\n from the Romans, the _municipal_ right,\u2019 that is, the privileges\n of free-born citizens of Rome; understanding Paul\u2019s expression\n in Acts xxi. 39, to mean that he was a _municeps_ of Tarsus,\n or a Tarsan with the freedom of the city of Rome. Now the\n _municipal_ towns, or free cities, had rights superior to those\n of mere colonies; for the _free-citizens_ were not only called\n Roman citizens as the _colonists_ were, but also, as Ulpian\n records, could share in all the honors and offices of Rome.\n Moreover, the _colonies_ had to live under the laws of the\n Romans, while the municipal towns were allowed to act according\n their own ancient laws, and country usages. To account for the\n distinction enjoyed by Tarsus, in being called a \u2018_municipium_\n of Romans,\u2019 the citizens are said to have merited that honor,\n for having in the civil wars attached themselves first to Julius\n Caesar, and afterwards to Octavius, in whose cause they suffered\n much. For so attached was this city to the side of Caesar, that,\n as Dion Cassius records, their asked to have their name changed\n from Tarsus to _Juliopolis_, in memory of Julius and in token of\n good will to Augustus; and for that reason they were presented\n with the rights of a colony or a _municipium_, and this general\n opinion is strengthened by the high testimony of Pliny and\n Appian. On the other hand Heinsius and Grotius strongly urge\n that these things have been too hastily asserted by the learned;\n for scarcely a passage can be found in the ancient writers,\n where Tarsus is called a colony, or even a _municipium_. \u2018And\n how could it be a colony,\u2019 asks Heinsius, \u2018when writers on\n Roman law acknowledge but two in Cilicia? Ulpian (_Liber I.\n De censibus_) says of the Roman colonies in Asia Minor, \u201cthere\n is in Bithynia the colony of Apamea,\u2015\u2015in Pontus, Sinope,\u2015\u2015in\n Cilicia there are Selinus and Trajanopolis.\u201d But why does he\n pass over Tarsus or Juliopolis, if that had place among them?\u2019\n Baronius proves it to have been a _municipium_, only from the\n Latin version of Acts, where that word is used; though the term\n in the original Greek (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) means nothing more than the\n common word, citizen, (as it is rendered in the English version.)\n Pliny also calls Tarsus not a colony, nor a _municipium_,\n but a free city. (libera urbs.) Book V. chap xxvii. Appian\n in the first book of the civil wars, says that Antony granted\n to the Tarsans _freedom_, but says nothing of the rights of a\n _municipium_, or colony. Wherefore Grotius thinks that the only\n point established is, that some one of the ancestors of Paul, in\n the civil wars between Augustus Caesar, and Brutus and Cassius,\n and perhaps those between this Caesar and Antony, received the\n grant of the privileges of a Roman citizen. Whence he concludes\n that Paul must have been of an opulent family. These opinions of\n Grotius have received the approval of other eminent commentators.\n These notions however, must be rejected as unsatisfactory;\n because, though some writers have but slightly alluded to Tarsus\n as a _free city_, yet Dio Chrysostom, (_in Tarsica posteriore_,)\n has enlarged upon it in a tone of high declamation. \u2018Yours,\n men of Tarsus, was the fortune to be first in this nation,\u2015\u2015not\n only because you dwell in the greatest city of Cilicia, and one\n which was a metropolis from the beginning,\u2015\u2015but also because the\n second Caesar was remarkably well-disposed and gracious towards\n you. For, the misfortunes which befell the city in his cause,\n deservedly secured to you his kind regard, and led him to make\n his benefits to you as conspicuous as the calamities brought\n upon you for his sake. Therefore did Augustus confer on you\n everything that a man could on friends and companions, with a\n view to outdo those who had shown him so great good-will,\u2015\u2015your\n land, laws, honors, the right of the river and of the\n neighboring sea.\u2019 On which words Heinsius observes in comment,\n that by _land_ is doubtless meant that he secured to them their\n own territory, free and undisturbed. By _laws_ are meant such\n as relate to the liberty usually granted to free towns. _Honor_\n plainly refers to the right of citizenship, as the most exalted\n he could offer. The point then seems to be established, if this\n interpretation holds good, and it is evidently a rational one.\n For when he had made up his mind to grant high favors to a city,\n in return for such great merits, why, when it was in his power,\n should Augustus fail to grant it the rights of Roman citizenship,\n which certainly had been often granted to other cities on much\n slighter grounds? It would be strange indeed, if among the\n exalted honors which Dio proclaims, that should not have been\n included. This appears to be the drift, not only of Dio\u2019s\n remarks, but also of Paul\u2019s, who offers no other proof of his\n being a Roman citizen, than that he was a Tarsan, and says\n nothing of it as a special immunity of his own family, although\n some such explanation would otherwise have been necessary to\n gain credit to his assertion. Whence it is concluded that it\n would be rash to pretend, contrary to all historical testimony,\n any peculiar merits of the ancestors of Paul, towards the Romans,\n which caused so great an honor to be conferred on a _Jewish_\n family.\u201d\n\n But from all these ample and grandiloquent statements of Dio\n Chrysostom, it by no means follows that Tarsus had the privilege\n of Roman citizenship; and the conclusion of the learned Witsius\n seems highly illogical. The very fact, that while Dio was\n panegyrizing Tarsus in these high terms, and recounting all\n the favors which imperial beneficence had showered upon it, he\n yet did _not_ mention among these minutiae, the privilege of\n citizenship, is quite conclusive against this view; for he would\n not, when thus seeking for all the particulars of its eminence,\n have omitted the greatest honor and advantage which could be\n conferred on any city by a Roman emperor, nor have left it\n vaguely to be inferred. Besides, there are passages in the\n Acts of the Apostles which seem to be opposed to the view,\n that Tarsus was thus privileged. In Acts xxi. 39, Paul is\n represented as distinctly stating to the tribune, that he was\n \u201ca _citizen_ of Tarsus;\u201d yet in xxii. 24, 25, it is said, that\n the tribune was about proceeding, without scruple, to punish\n Paul with stripes, and was very much surprised indeed, to learn\n that he was a Roman citizen, and evidently had no idea that a\n citizen of Tarsus was, as a matter of course, endowed with Roman\n citizenship;\u2015\u2015a fact, however, with which a high Roman officer\n must have been acquainted, for there were few cities thus\n privileged, and Tarsus was a very eminent city in a province\n adjoining Palestine, and not far from the capital of Judea. And\n the subsequent passages of chap. xxii. represent him as very\n slow indeed to believe it, after Paul\u2019s distinct assertion.\n\n Hemsen is very clear and satisfactory on this point, and\n presents the argument in a fair light. See his note in his\n \u201cApostel Paulus\u201d on pp. 1, 2. He refers also to a work not\n otherwise known here;\u2015\u2015John Ortwin Westenberg\u2019s \u201cDissert. de\n jurisp. Paul. Apost.\u201d Kuinoel in Act. Apost. xvi. 37. discusses\n the question of citizenship.\n\n \u201cIt ought not to seem very strange, that the ancestors of\n Paul should have settled in Cilicia, rather than in the land\n of Israel. For although Cyrus gave the whole people of God\n an opportunity of returning to their own country, yet many\n from each tribe preferred the new country, in which they had\n been born and bred, to the old one, of which they had lost the\n remembrance. Hence an immense multitude of Jews might be found\n in almost all the dominions of the Persians, Greeks, Romans\n and Parthians; as alluded to in Acts ii. 9, 10. But there were\n also other occasions and causes for the dispersion of the Jews.\n Ptolemy, the Macedonian king of Egypt, having taken Jerusalem\n from the Syro-Macedonians, led away many from the hill-country\n of Judea, from Samaria and Mount Gerizim, into Egypt, where\n he made them settle; and after he had given them at Alexandria\n the rights of citizens in equal privilege with the Macedonians,\n not a few of the rest, of their own accord, moved into Egypt,\n allured partly by the richness of the land, and partly by\n the good will that Ptolemy had shown towards their nation.\n Afterwards, Antiochus the Great, the Macedonian king of Syria,\n about the thirtieth year of his reign, two hundred years before\n the Christian era, brought out two thousand Jewish families from\n Babylonia, whom he sent into Phrygia and Lydia with the most\n ample privileges, that they might hold to their duty the minds\n of the Greeks, who were then inclining to revolt from his sway.\n These were from Asia Minor, spread abroad over the surrounding\n countries, between the Mediterranean sea, the Euphrates and\n Mount Amanus, on the frontiers of Cilicia. Besides, others\n afterwards, to escape the cruelty of Antiochus Epiphanes, betook\n themselves to foreign lands, where, finding themselves well\n settled, they and their descendants remained. Moreover, many, as\n Philo testifies, for the sake of trade, or other advantages, of\n their own accord left the land of Israel for foreign countries:\n whence almost the whole world was filled with colonies of Jews,\n as we see in the directions of some of the general epistles,\n (James i. 1: 1 Peter i. 1.) Thus also Tarsus had its share\n of Jewish inhabitants, among whom were the family of Paul.\u201d\n (Witsius in Vita Pauli, \u00a7 1. \u00b6 v.)\n\nNor were the solid honors of this great Asian city, limited to the\nmere favors of imperial patronage. Founded, or early enlarged by the\ncolonial enterprise of the most refined people of ancient times, Tarsus,\nfrom its first beginning, shared in the glories of Helleno-Asian\ncivilization, under which philosophy, art, taste, commerce, and\nwarlike power attained in these colonies a highth before unequalled,\nwhile Greece, the mother country, was still far back in the march\nof improvement. In the Asian colonies arose the first schools of\nphilosophy, and there is hardly a city on the eastern coast of the\nAegean, but is consecrated by some glorious association with the name\nof some Father of Grecian science. Thales, Anaxagoras, Anaximander, and\nmany others of the earliest philosophers, all flourished in these Asian\ncolonies; and on the Mediterranean coast, within Cilicia itself, were\nthe home and schools of Aratus and the stoic Chrysippus. The city of\nTarsus is commemorated by Strabo as having in very early times attained\ngreat eminence in philosophy and in all sorts of learning, so that \u201cin\nscience and art it surpassed the fame even of Athens and Alexandria;\nand the citizens of Tarsus themselves were distinguished for individual\nexcellence in these elevated pursuits. So great was the zeal of the\nmen of that place for philosophy, and for the rest of the circle of\nsciences, that they excelled both Athens and Alexandria, and every\nother place which can be mentioned, where there are schools and\nlectures of philosophers.\u201d Not borrowing the philosophic glory of their\ncity merely from the numbers of strangers who resorted thither to enjoy\nthe advantages of instruction there afforded, as is almost universally\nthe case in all the great seats of modern learning; but entering\nthemselves with zeal and enjoyment into their schools of science,\nthey made the name of TARSUS famous throughout the civilized world,\nfor the cultivation of knowledge and taste. Even to this day the\nstranger pauses with admiration among the still splendid ruins of\nthis ancient city, and finds in her arches, columns and walls, and in\nher chance-buried medals, the solid testimonies of her early glories\nin art, taste and wealth. Well then might the great apostle recur\nwith patriotic pride to the glories of the city where he was born and\neducated, challenging the regard of his military hearers for his native\nplace, by the sententious allusion to it, as \u201cNO MEAN CITY.\u201d\n\n \u201cIt appears on the testimony of Paul, (Acts xxi. 39,) that\n Tarsus was a city of no little note, and it is described by\n other writers as the most illustrious city of all Cilicia; so\n much so indeed, that the Tarsans traced their origin to Ionians\n and Argives, and a rank superior even to these;\u2015\u2015referring their\n antiquity of origin not merely to heroes, but even to demi-gods.\n It was truly exalted, not only by its antiquity, situation,\n population and thriving trade, but by the nobler pursuits\n of science and literature, which so flourished there, that\n according to Strabo it was worthy to be ranked with Athens\n and Alexandria; and we know that Rome itself owed its most\n celebrated professors to Tarsus.\u201d (Witsius. \u00a7 1, \u00b6 iv.)\n\n The testimony of Strabo is found in his Geography, book XIV.\n Cellarius (Geog. Ant.) is very full on the geography of Cilicia,\n and may be advantageously consulted. Conder\u2019s Modern Traveler\n (Syria and Asia Minor 2.) gives a very full account of its\n ancient history, its present condition, and its topography.\n\n The present appearance of this ancient city must be a matter of\n great interest to the reader of apostolic history; and it can\n not be more clearly given than in the simple narrative of the\n enterprising Burckhardt, who wrote his journal on the very spot\n which he describes. (Life of Burckhardt, prefixed to his travels\n in Nubia, pp. xv. xvi.)\n\n \u201cThe road from our anchoring place to Tarsus crosses the\n above-mentioned plain in an easterly direction: we passed\n several small rivulets which empty themselves into the sea, and\n which, to judge from the size of their beds, swell in the rainy\n season to considerable torrents. We had rode about an hour, when\n I saw at half an hour\u2019s distance to the north of our route, the\n ruins of a large castle, upon a hill of a regular shape in the\n plain; half an hour further towards Tarsus, at an equal distance\n from our road, upon a second tumulus, were ruins resembling\n the former; a third insulated hillock, close to which we passed\n midway of our route, was over-grown with grass, without any\n ruins or traces of them. I did not see in the whole plain any\n other elevations of ground but the three just mentioned. Not far\n from the first ruins, stands in the plain an insulated column.\n Large groups of trees show from afar the site of Tarsus. We\n passed a small river before we entered the town, larger than\n those we had met on the road. The western outer gate of the town,\n through which we entered, is of ancient structure; it is a fine\n arch, the interior vault of which is in perfect preservation:\n on the outside are some remains of a sculptured frieze. I did\n not see any inscriptions. To the right and left of this gateway\n are seen the ancient ruined walls of the city, which extended\n in this direction farther than the town at present does. From\n the outer gateway, it is about four hundred paces to the modern\n entrance of the city; the intermediate ground is filled up by\n a burying ground on one side of the road, and several gardens\n with some miserable huts on the other. *\u00a0*\u00a0*\u00a0* The little I saw\n of Tarsus did not allow me to estimate its extent; the streets\n through which I passed were all built of wood, and badly; some\n well furnished bazars, and a large and handsome mosque in the\n vicinity of the Khan, make up the whole register of curiosities\n which I am able to relate of Tarsus. Upon several maps Tarsus\n is marked as a sea town: this is incorrect; the sea is above\n three miles distant from it. On our return home, we started in\n a south-west direction, and passed, after two hours and a half\u2019s\n march, Casal, a large village, half a mile distant from the\n sea-shore, called the Port of Tarsus, because vessels freighted\n for Tarsus usually come to anchor in its neighborhood. From\n thence turning towards the west, we arrived at our ship at the\n end of two hours. The merchants of Tarsus trade principally with\n the Syrian coast and Cyprus: imperial ships arrive there from\n time to time, to load grain. The land trade is of very little\n consequence, as the caravans from Smyrna arrive very seldom.\n There is no land communication at all between Tarsus and Aleppo,\n which is at ten journeys (caravan traveling) distant from\n it. The road has been rendered unsafe, especially in later\n times, by the depredations of Kutshuk Ali, a savage rebel,\n who has established himself in the mountains to the north of\n Alexandretta. Tarsus is governed by an Aga, who I have reason to\n believe is almost independent. The French have an agent there,\n who is a rich Greek merchant.\u201d\n\n A fine instance of the value of the testimony of the Fathers on\n points where knowledge of the Scriptures is involved, is found\n in the story by Jerome, who says that \u201cPaul was born at Gischali,\n a city of Judea,\u201d (in Galilee,) \u201cand that while he was a child,\n his parents, in the time of the laying waste of their country\n by the Romans, removed to Tarsus, in Cilicia.\u201d And yet this most\n learned of the Fathers, the translator of the whole Bible into\n Latin, did not know, it seems, that Paul himself most distinctly\n states in his speech to the Jewish mob, (Acts xxii. 3,) that\n he was \u201c_born_ in Cilicia,\u201d as the common translation has\n it;\u2015\u2015in Greek, \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd \u039a\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1,\u2015\u2015words which so far\n from allowing any such assertion as Jerome makes, even imply\n that Paul, with Tristram Shandy-like particularity, would\n specify that he was \u201c_begotten_ in Cilicia.\u201d Jerome\u2019s ridiculous\n blunder, Witsius, after exposing its inconsistency with Jewish\n history, indignantly condemns, as \u201ca most shameful falsehood,\u201d\n (_putidissima_ fabula,) which is as hard a name as has been\n applied to anything in this book.\n\n But if this blunder is so shameful in Jerome, what shall be said\n of the learned Fabricius, who (Bibliotheca Graeca, IV. p. 795,)\n copies this story from Jerome as authentic history, without a\n note of comment, and without being aware that it most positively\n contradicts the direct assertion of Paul? And this blunder\n too is passed over by all the great critical commentators of\n Fabricius, in Harles\u2019s great edition. Keil, Kuinoel, Harles,\n Gurlitt, and others equally great, who revised all this, are\n involved in the discredit of the blunder. \u201cNon omnes omnia.\u201d\n\n\n HIS GRECIAN LEARNING.\n\nIn this splendid seat of knowledge, Saul was born of purely Jewish\nparents. \u201cA Hebrew of the Hebrews,\u201d he enjoyed from his earliest\ninfancy that minute religious instruction, which every Israelite was\nin conscience bound to give his children; and with a minuteness and\nattention so much the more careful, as a residence in a foreign land,\nfar away from the consecrated soil of Palestine and the Holy city of\nhis faith, might increase the liabilities of his children to forget\nor neglect a religion of which they saw so few visible tokens around\nthem, to keep alive their devotion. Yet, though thus strictly educated\nin the religion of his fathers, Saul was by no means cut off by this\ncircumstance from the enjoyment of many of the advantages in profaner\nknowledge, afforded in such an eminent degree by Tarsus; but must,\nalmost without an effort, have daily imbibed into his ready and ever\nactive mind, much of the refining influence of Grecian philosophy.\nThere is no proof, indeed, that he ever formally entered the schools\nof heathen science; such a supposition, is, perhaps, inconsistent with\nthe idea of his principles of rigid Judaism, and is rendered rather\nimprobable by the great want of Grecian elegance and accuracy in his\nwritings; which are so decidedly characterized by an unrhetorical style,\nand by irregular logic, that they never could have been the production\nof a scholar, in the most eminent philosophical institutions of Asia.\nBut a mere birth and residence in such a city, and the incidental but\nconstant familiarity with those so absorbed in these pursuits, as very\nmany of his fellow-citizens were, would have the unavoidable effect of\nfamiliarizing him also with the great subjects of conversation, and the\ngrand objects of pursuit, so as ever after to prove an advantage to him\nin his intercourse with the refined and educated among the Greeks and\nRomans. The knowledge thus acquired, too, is ever found to be of the\nmost readily available kind, always suggesting itself upon occasions\nwhen needed, according to the simple principle of association, and thus\nmore easily applied to ordinary use than that which is more regularly\nattained, and is arranged in the mind only according to formal systems.\nThus was it, with most evident wisdom, ordained by God, that in this\ngreat seat of heathen learning, that apostle should be born, who was to\nbe the first messenger of grace to the Grecian world, and whose words\nof warning, even Rome should one day hear and believe.\n\n\n HIS FAMILY AND BIRTH.\n\nThe parents of Saul were Jews, and his father at least, was of the\ntribe of Benjamin. In some of those numerous emigrations from Judea\nwhich took place either by compulsion or by the voluntary enterprise of\nthe people, at various times after the Assyrian conquest, the ancestors\nof Saul had left their father-land, for the fertile plains of Cilicia,\nwhere, under the patronizing government of some of the Syro-Macedonian\nkings, they found a much more profitable home than in the comparatively\nuncommercial land of Israel. On some one of these occasions, probably\nduring the emigration under Antiochus the Great, the ancestors of Saul\nhad settled in Tarsus, and during the period intervening between this\nemigration and the birth of Saul, the family seems to have maintained\nor acquired a very respectable rank, and some property. From the\ndistinct information which we have that Saul was a free-_born_ Roman\ncitizen, it is manifest that his parents must also have possessed that\nright; for it has already been abundantly shown that it was not common\nto the citizens of Tarsus, but must have been a peculiar privilege\nof his family. After the subjugation of Cilicia, (sixty-two years\nbefore Christ,) when the province passed from the Syrian to the Roman\nsway, the family were in some way brought under the favorable notice\nof the new lords of the eastern world, and were honored with the high\nprivilege of Roman citizenship, an honor which could not have been\nimparted to any one low either in birth or wealth. The precise nature\nof the service performed by them, that produced such a magnificent\nreward, it is impossible to determine; but that this must have been the\nreason, it is very natural to suppose. But whatever may have been the\nextent of the favors enjoyed by the parents of Saul, from the kindness\nof their heathen rulers, they were not thereby led to neglect the\ninstitutions of their fathers,\u2015\u2015but even in a strange land, observed\nthe Mosaic law with peculiar strictness; for Saul himself plainly\nasserts that his father was a Pharisee, and therefore he must have been\nbound by the rigid observances of that sect, to a blameless deportment,\nas far as the Mosaic law required. Born of such parents, the destined\napostle at his birth was made the subject of the minute Mosaic rituals.\n\u201cCircumcised the eighth day,\u201d he then received the name of _Saul_, a\nname connected with some glorious and some mournful associations in the\nancient Jewish history, and probably suggested to the parents on this\noccasion, by a reference to its signification, for Hebrew names were\noften thus applied, expressing some circumstance connected with the\nchild; and in this name more particularly, some such meaning might be\nexpected, since, historically, it must have been a word of rather evil\nomen. The original Hebrew means \u201c_desired_,\u201d \u201casked for,\u201d and hence it\nhas been rather fancifully, but not unreasonably conjectured that he\nwas an oldest son, and particularly desired by his expecting parents,\nwho were, like the whole Jewish race, very earnest to have a son to\nperpetuate their name,\u2015\u2015a wish however, by no means peculiar to the\nIsraelites.\n\n The name Saul is in Hebrew, \u05e9\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc the regular noun from the\n passive _Kal_ participle of \u05e9\u05d0\u05dc (_sha-al_ and _sha-el_) \u201cask\n for,\u201d \u201cbeg,\u201d \u201crequest;\u201d and the name therefore means \u201casked for,\u201d\n or \u201crequested,\u201d which affords ground for Neander\u2019s curious\n conjecture, above given.\n\nOf the _time_ of his birth nothing is definitely known, though it is\nstated by some ancient authority of very doubtful character, that he\nwas born in the second year after Christ. All that can be said with\nany probability, is, that he was born several years after Christ; for\nat the time of the stoning of Stephen, (A.\u00a0D. 34,) Saul was a \u201c_young_\nman.\u201d\n\n\n HIS TRADE.\n\nThere was an ancient Jewish proverb,\u2015\u2015often quoted with great respect\nin the Rabbinical writings,\u2015\u2015\u201cHe that does not teach his son a trade,\ntrains him to steal.\u201d In conformity with this respectable adage,\nevery Jewish boy, high or low, was invariably taught some mechanical\ntrade, as an essential part of his education, without any regard to\nthe wealth of his family, or to his prospect of an easy life, without\nthe necessity of labor. The consequence of this was, that even the\ndignified teachers of the law generally conjoined the practice of some\nmechanical business, with the refined studies to which they devoted\nthe most of their time, and the surnames of some of the most eminent\nof the Rabbins are derived from the trades which they thus followed in\nthe intervals of study, for a livelihood or for mental relaxation. The\nadvantages of such a variation from intense mental labor to active and\nsteady bodily exercise, are too obvious, both as concerns the benefit\nof the body and the mind, to need any elucidation; but it is a happy\ncoincidence, worth noticing, that, the better principles of what is now\ncalled \u201cMANUAL LABOR INSTRUCTION,\u201d are herein fully carried out, and\nsanctioned by the authority and example of some of the most illustrious\nof those ancient Hebrew scholars, whose mighty labors in sacred lore,\nare still a monument of the wisdom of a plan of education, which\ncombines bodily activity and exertion with the full development of\nthe powers of thought. The labors of such men still remain the wonder\nof later days, and form in themselves, subjects for the excursive\nand penetrating range of some of the greatest minds of modern times,\nthrowing more light on the minute signification and local application\nof scripture, than all that has been done in any other field of\nillustrative research.\n\n \u201cIn the education of their son, the parents of Saul thought it\n their duty according to the fashion of their nation, not only\n to train his mind in the higher pursuits of a liberal education,\n but also to accustom his hands to some useful trade. As we learn\n from Acts xviii. 3, \u2018he was by trade a tent-maker,\u2019 occupying\n the intervals of his study-hours with that kind of work. For it\n is well established that this was the usual habit of the most\n eminent Jewish scholars, who adopted it as much for the sake of\n avoiding sloth and idleness, as with a view to provide for their\n own support. The Jews used to sum up the duties of parents in a\n sort of proverb, that \u2018they should circumcise their son, redeem\n him, (Leviticus chapter xxvii.) teach him the law and a _trade_,\n and look out a wife for him.\u2019 And indeed the importance of\n some business of this kind was so much felt, that a saying is\n recorded of one of the most eminent of their Rabbins, that \u2018he\n who neglects to teach his son a trade, does the same as to bring\n him up to be a thief.\u2019 Hence it is that the wisest Hebrews held\n it an honor to take their surnames from their trades; as Rabbins\n Nahum and Meir, the _scriveners_ or book writers,\u201d (a business\n corresponding to that of printers in these times,) \u201cRabbi\n Johanan the _shoemaker_, Rabbi Juda the _baker_, and Rabbi Jose\n the _currier_ or _tanner_. How trifling then is the sneer of\n some scoffers who have said that Paul was nothing but a stitcher\n of skins, and thence conclude that he was a man of the lowest\n class of the populace.\u201d (Witsius \u00a7 I. \u00b6 12.)\n\nThe trade which the parents of Saul selected for their son, is\ndescribed in the sacred apostolic history as that of a \u201ctent-maker.\u201d\nA reference to the local history of his native province throws\ngreat light on this account. In the wild mountains of Cilicia, which\neverywhere begin to rise from the plains, at a distance of seven or\neight miles from the coast, anciently ranged a peculiar species of\nlong-haired goats, so well known by name throughout the Grecian world,\nfor their rough and shaggy aspect, that the name of \u201cCilician goat\u201d\nbecame a proverbial expression, to signify a rough, ill-bred fellow,\nand occurs in this sense in the classic writers. From the hair of these,\nthe Cilicians manufactured a thick, coarse cloth,\u2015\u2015somewhat resembling\nthe similar product of the camel\u2019s hair,\u2015\u2015which, from the country\nwhere the cloth was made, and where the raw material was produced, was\ncalled _cilicium_ or _cilicia_, and under this name it is very often\nmentioned, both by Grecian and Roman authors. The peculiar strength\nand incorruptibility of this cloth was so well known, that it was\nconsidered as one of the most desirable articles for several very\nimportant purposes, both in war and navigation, being the best material\nfor the sails of vessels, as well as for military tents. But it was\nprincipally used by the Nomadic Arabs of the neighboring deserts of\nSyria, who, ranging from Amanus and the sea, to the Euphrates, and\nbeyond, found the tents manufactured from this stout cloth, so durable\nand convenient, that they depended on the Cilicians to furnish them\nwith the material of their moveable homes; and over all the east,\nthe _cilicium_ was in great demand, for shepherd\u2019s tents. A passage\nfrom Pliny forms a splendid illustration of this interesting little\npoint. \u201cThe wandering tribes, (_Nomades_,) and the tribes who plunder\nthe Chaldeans, are bordered by Scenites, (_tent-dwellers_,) who are\nthemselves also wanderers, but take their name from their tents, which\nthey raise of _Cilician_ cloth, wherever inclination leads them.\u201d This\nwas therefore an article of national industry among the Cilicians, and\nafforded in its manufacture, profitable employment to a great number\nof workmen, who were occupied, not in large establishments like the\ngreat manufactories of modern European nations, but, according to the\ninvariable mode in eastern countries, each one by himself, or at most\nwith one or two companions. Saul, however, seems to have been occupied\nonly with the concluding part of the manufacture, which was the making\nup of the cloth into the articles for which it was so well fitted\nby its strength, closeness and durability. He was a maker of tents\nof Cilician camlet, or goat\u2019s-hair cloth,\u2015\u2015a business which, in its\ncharacter and implements, more resembled that of a sail-maker than any\nother common trade in this country. The details of the work must have\nconsisted in cutting the camlet of the shape required for each part\nof the tent, and sewing it together into the large pieces, which were\nthen ready to be transported, and to form, when hung on tent-poles,\nthe habitations of the desert-wanderers.\n\n This illustration of Saul\u2019s trade is from Hug\u2019s Introduction,\n Vol. II. note on \u00a7 85, pp. 328, 329, original, \u00a7 80, pp. 335,\n 336, translation. On the manufacture of this cloth, see Gloss.\n Basil, _sub voc._ \u039a\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, &c. \u201cCilician goat,\u2015\u2015a\n rough fellow;\u2015\u2015for there are such goats in Cilicia; whence also,\n things made of their hair are called _cilicia_.\u201d He quotes also\n Hesychius, Suidas, and Salmasius in Solinum, p. 347. As to the\n use of the cloths in war and navigation, he refers to Vegetius,\n De re milit. IV. 6, and Servius in Georgica III. 312.\u2015\u2015The\n passage in Pliny, showing their use by the Nomadic tribes of\n Syria and Mesopotamia for _shepherd\u2019s tents_, is in his Natural\n History, VI. 28. \u201cNomadas infestatoresque Chaldaeorum, Scenitae\n claudunt, et ipsi vagi, sed a tabernaculis cognominati quae\n ciliciis metantur, ubi libuit.\u201d The reading of this passage\n which I have adopted is from the Leyden Hackian edition of\n Pliny, which differs slightly from that followed by Hug, as the\n critical will perceive. Hemsen quotes this note almost verbatim\n from Hug. (Hemsen\u2019s \u201cApostel Paulus,\u201d page 4.)\n\n The particular species or variety of goat, which is thus\n described as anciently inhabiting the mountains of Cilicia,\n can not now be distinctly ascertained, because no scientific\n traveler has ever made observations on the animals of that\n region, owing to the many difficulties in the way of any\n exploration of Asia Minor, under the barbarous Ottoman sway.\n Neither Griffith\u2019s Cuvier nor Turton\u2019s Linnaeus contains any\n reference to Cilicia, as inhabited by any species or variety\n of the genus _Capra_. The nearest approach to certainty, that\n can be made with so few data, is the reasonable conjecture\n that the Cilician goat was a variety of the species CAPRA\n _Aegagrus_, to which the common domestic goat belongs, and which\n includes several remarkable varieties,\u2015\u2015at least six being well\n ascertained. There are few of my readers, probably, who are not\n familiar with the descriptions and pictures of the famous Angora\n goat, which is one of these varieties, and is well-known for\n its long, soft, silky hair, which is to this day used in the\n manufacture of a sort of camlet, in the place where it is found,\n which is Angora and the region around it, from the Halys to the\n Sangarius. This tract of country is in Asia Minor, only three\n or four hundred miles north of Cilicia, and therefore at once\n suggests the probability of the Cilician goat being something\n very much like the Angora goat. (See Modern Traveler, III. p.\n 339.) On the other side of Cilicia also, in Syria, there is an\n equally remarkable variety of the goat, with similar long, silky\n hair, used for the same manufacture. Now Cilicia, being directly\n on the shortest route from Angora to Syria, and half-way between\n both, might very naturally be supposed to have another variety\n of the CAPRA _Aegagrus_, between the Angoran and the Syrian\n variety, and resembling both in the common characteristic of\n long shaggy or silky hair; and there can be no reasonable doubt\n that future scientific observation will show that the Cilician\n goat forms another well-marked variety of this widely diffused\n species, which, wherever it inhabits the mountains of the\n warm regions of Asia, always furnishes this beautiful product,\n of which we have another splendid and familiar specimen in\n the Tibet and Cashmere goats, whose fleeces are worth more\n than their weight in gold. The hair of the Syrian and Cilician\n goats, however, is of a much coarser character, producing a much\n coarser and stouter fibre for the cloth.\n\n On the subject of Paul\u2019s trade, the learned and usually\n accurate Michaelis was led into a very great error, by taking\n up too hastily a conjecture founded on a misapprehension of the\n meaning given by Julius Pollux, in his Onomasticon, on the word\n \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (_skenopoios_,) which is the word used in Acts xiii.\n 3, to designate the trade of Saul and Aquilas. Pollux mentions\n that in the language of the old Grecian comedy, \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 was\n equivalent to \u03bc\u03b7\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, (_mechanopoios_,) which Michaelis\n very erroneously takes in the sense of \u201ca maker of mechanical\n instruments,\u201d and this he therefore maintains to have been\n the trade of Saul and Aquilas. But it is capable of the most\n satisfactory proof, that Julius Pollux used the words here\n merely in the technical sense of theatrical preparation,\u2015\u2015the\n first meaning simply \u201ca scene-maker,\u201d and the second \u201ca\n constructor of theatrical machinery,\u201d\u2015\u2015both terms, of course,\n naturally applied to the same artist. (Michaelis, Introduction,\n IV. xxiii. 2. pp. 183\u2012186. Marsh\u2019s translation.\u2015\u2015Hug, II. \u00a7 85,\n original; \u00a7 80, translation.)\n\n The Fathers also made similar blunders about the nature of\n Saul\u2019s trade. They call him \u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, (_skutotomos_,) \u201ca\n skin-cutter,\u201d as well as \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, \u201ca tent-maker.\u201d This\n was because they were entirely ignorant of the material used\n for the manufacture of tents; for, living themselves in the\n civilized regions of Greece, Italy, &c. they knew nothing of\n the habitations of the Nomadic tent-dwellers. Chrysostom in\n particular, calls him \u201cone who worked in skins.\u201d\n\n Fabricius gives some valuable illustrations of this point.\n (Bibliotheca Graeca, IV. p. 795, _bb._) He quotes Cotelerius,\n (ad. Apost. Const. II. 63,) Erasmus, &c. (ad Acts xviii. 3,)\n and Schurzfleisch, (in diss. de Paulo, &c.) who brings sundry\n passages from Dio Chrysostom and Libanius, to prove that there\n were many in Cilicia who worked in _leather_, as he says;\n in support of which he quotes Martial, (epigraph xiv. 114,)\n alluding to \u201c_udones cilicii_,\u201d or \u201c_cilician cloaks_,\u201d (used\n to keep off rain, as water-proof,)\u2015\u2015not knowing that this word,\n _cilicium_, was the name of a very close and stout cloth, from\n the goat\u2019s hair, equally valuable as a covering for a single\n person, and for the habitation of a whole family. In short,\n Martial\u2019s passage shows that the Cilician camlet was used like\n the modern camlet,\u2015\u2015for _cloaks_. Fabricius himself seems to\n make no account of this _leather_ notion of Schurzfleisch; for\n immediately after, he states (what I can not find on any other\n authority) that \u201ceven at this day, as late books of travels\n testify, variegated cloths are exported from Cilicia.\u201d This is\n certainly true of Angora in Asia Minor, north-west of Cilicia,\n (Modern Traveler, III. p. 339,) and may be true of Cilicia\n itself. Fabricius notices 2 Corinthians v. 1: and xii. 9, as\n containing figures drawn from Saul\u2019s trade.\n\n\n HIS EDUCATION.\n\nBut this was not destined to be the most important occupation of\nSaul\u2019s life. Even his parents had nobler objects in view for him,\nand evidently devoted him to this handicraft, only in conformity with\nthose ancient Jewish usages which had the force of law on every true\nIsraelite, whether rich or poor; and accordingly he was sent, while yet\nin his youth, away from his home in Tarsus, to Jerusalem, the fountain\nof religious and legal knowledge to all the race of Judah and Benjamin,\nthroughout the world. To what extent his general education had been\ncarried in Tarsus, is little known; but he had acquired that fluency\nin the Greek, which is displayed in his writings, though contaminated\nwith many of the provincialisms of Cilicia, and more especially with\nthe barbarisms of Hebrew usage. Living in daily intercourse, both in\nthe way of business and friendship, with the active Grecians of that\nthriving city, and led, no doubt, by his own intellectual character and\ntastes, to the occasional cultivation of those classics which were the\ndelight of his Gentile acquaintances, he acquired a readiness and power\nin the use of the Greek language, and a familiarity with the favorite\nwriters of the Asian Hellenes, that in the providence of God most\neminently fitted him for the sphere to which he was afterwards devoted,\nand was the true ground of his wonderful acceptability to the highly\nliterary people among whom his greatest and most successful labors\nwere performed, and to whom all of his epistles, but two, were written.\nAll these writings show proofs of such an acquaintance with Greek, as\nis here inferred from his opportunities in education. His well-known\nquotations also from Menander and Epimenides, and more especially his\nhappy impromptu reference in his discourse at Athens, to the line\nfrom his own fellow-Cilician, Aratus, are instances of a very great\nfamiliarity with the classics, and are thrown out in such an unstudied,\noff-hand way, as to imply a ready knowledge of these writers. But all\nthese were, no doubt, learned in the mere occasional manner already\nalluded to in connection with the reputation and literary character of\nTarsus. He was devoted by all the considerations of ancestral pride and\nreligious zeal to the study of \u201ca classic, the best the world has ever\nseen,\u2015\u2015the noblest that has ever honored and dignified the language of\nmortals.\u201d\n\n\n HIS REMOVAL TO JERUSALEM.\n\nStrabo, in speaking of the remarkable literary and philosophical zeal\nof the refined inhabitants of Tarsus, says that \u201cafter having well laid\nthe foundations of literature and science in their own schools at home,\nit was usual for them to resort to those in other places, in order\nto zealously pursue the cultivation of their minds still further,\u201d\nby the varied modes and opportunities presented in different schools\nthroughout the Hellenic world,\u2015\u2015a noble spirit of literary enterprise,\naccordant with the practice of the most ancient philosophers, and like\nthe course also pursued by the modern German scholars, many of whom\ngo from one university to another, to enjoy the peculiar advantages\nafforded by each in some particular department. It was therefore, only\nin a noble emulation of the example of his heathen fellow-townsmen,\nin the pursuit of profane knowledge, that Saul left the city of his\nbirth and his father\u2019s house, to seek a deeper knowledge of the sacred\nsources of Hebrew learning, in the capital of the faith. This removal\nto so great a distance, for such a purpose, evidently implies the\npossession of considerable wealth in the family of Saul; for a literary\nsojourn of that kind, in a great city, could not but be attended with\nvery considerable expense as well as trouble.\n\n\n HIS TEACHER.\n\nSaul having been thus endowed with a liberal education at home, and\nwith the principles of the Jewish faith, as far as his age would\nallow,\u2015\u2015went up to Jerusalem to enjoy the instruction of Gamaliel.\nThere is every reason to believe that this was Gamaliel the elder,\ngrandson of Hillel, and son of Simeon, (probably the same, who, in\nhis old age, took the child Jesus in his arms,) and father of another\nSimeon, in whose time the temple was destroyed; for the Rabbinical\nwritings give a minute account of him, as connected with all these\npersons. This Gamaliel succeeded his ancestors in the rank which\nwas then esteemed the highest; this was the office of \u201chead of the\ncollege,\u201d otherwise called \u201cPrince of the Jewish senate.\u201d Out of\nrespect to this most eminent Father of Hebrew learning, as it is\nrecorded, Onkelos, the renowned Chaldee paraphrast, burned at his\nfuneral, seventy pounds of incense, in honor to the high rank and\nlearning of the deceased. This eminent teacher was at first not\nill-disposed towards the apostles, who, he thought, ought to be left\nto their own fate; being led to this moderate and reasonable course,\nperhaps, by the circumstance that the Sadducees, whom he hated, were\nmost active in their persecution. The sound sense and humane wisdom\nthat mark his sagely eloquent opinion, so wonderful in that bloody time,\nhave justly secured him the admiration and respect of all Christian\nreaders of the record; and not without regret would they learn, that\nthe after doings of his life, unrecorded by the sacred historian, yet\non the testimony of others, bear witness against him as having changed\nfrom this wise principle of action. If there is any ground for the\nstory which Maimonides tells, it would seem, that when Gamaliel saw the\nnew heretical sect multiplying in his own days, and drawing away the\nIsraelites from the Mosaic forms, he, together with the Senate, whose\nPresident he was, gave his utmost endeavors to crush the followers\nof Christ, and composed a form of prayer, by which God was besought\nto exterminate these heretics; which was to be connected to the usual\nforms of prayer in the Jewish liturgy. This story of Maimonides, if\nit is adopted as true, on so slight grounds, may be reconciled with\nthe account given by Luke, in two ways. First, Gamaliel may have\nthought that the apostles and their successors, although heretics,\nwere not to be put down by human force, or by the contrivances of\nhuman ingenuity, but that the whole matter should be left to the\nhidden providence of God, and that their extermination should be\nobtained from God by prayers. Or, second,\u2015\u2015to make a more simple and\nrational supposition,\u2015\u2015he may have been so struck by the boldness of\nthe apostles, and by the evidence of the miracle performed by them,\nas to express a milder opinion on them at that particular moment; but\nafterwards may have formed a harsher judgment, when, contrary to all\nexpectation, he saw the wonderful growth of Christianity, and heard\nwith wrath and uncontrollable indignation, the stern rebuke of Stephen.\nBut these loose relics of tradition, offered on such very suspicious\nauthority as that of a Jew of the ages when Christianity had become so\nodious to Judaism by its triumphs, may without hesitation be rejected\nas wholly inconsistent with the noble spirit of Gamaliel, as expressed\nin the clear, impartial account of Luke; and both of the suppositions\nhere offered by others, to reconcile sacred truth with mere falsehood,\nare thus rendered entirely unnecessary.\n\n _At the feet_ of this Gamaliel, then, was Saul brought up.\n (Acts xxii. 3.) It has been observed on this passage, by\n learned commentators, that this expression refers to the fashion\n followed by students, of sitting and lying down on the ground or\n on mats, at the feet of their teacher, who sat by himself on a\n higher place. And indeed so many are the traces of this fashion\n among the recorded labors of the Hebrews, that it does not seem\n possible to call it in question. The labors of Scaliger in his\n \u201cElenchus Trihaeresii,\u201d have brought to light many illustrations\n of the point; besides which another is offered in a well-known\n passage from \u05e4\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea PIRKE ABOTH, or \u201cFragments of the Fathers.\u201d\n Speaking of the wise, it is said, \u201cMake thyself dusty in\n the dust of their feet,\u201d\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05de\u05ea\u05d0\u05d1\u05e7 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e4\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\u2015\u2015meaning that the\n young student is to be a diligent hearer at the feet of the\n wise;\u2015\u2015thus raising a truly \u201clearned dust,\u201d if the figure may be\n so minutely carried out. The same thing is farther illustrated\n by a passage which Buxtorf has given in his Lexicon of the\n Talmud, in the portion entitled \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d9\u05ea (BERACHOTH,) \u05de\u05e0\u05e2\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05d5\u05df\n \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d9 \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u201cTake away your sons from the study of the\n Bible, and make them sit between the knees of the disciples of\n the wise;\u201d which is equivalent to a recommendation of oral, as\n superior to written instruction. The same principle, of varying\n the mode in which the mind receives knowledge, is recognized\n in modern systems of education, with a view to avoid the\n self-conceit and intolerant pride which solitary study is apt\n to engender, as well as because, from the living voice of the\n teacher, the young scholar learns in that practical, simple mode\n which is most valuable and efficient, as it is that, in which\n alone all his knowledge of the living and speaking world must be\n obtained. It should be observed, however, that Buxtorf seems to\n have understood this passage rather differently from Witsius,\n whose construction is followed in the translation given above.\n Buxtorf, following the ordinary meaning of \u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05d1\u05df (HEG-YON,) seems\n to prefer the sense of \u201cmeditation.\u201d He rejects the common\n translation\u2015\u2015\u201cstudy of the Bible,\u201d as altogether irreligious.\n \u201cIn hoc sensu, praeceptum impium est.\u201d He says that other Glosses\n of the passage give it the meaning of \u201cboyish talk,\u201d (_garritu\n puerorum_.) But this is a sense perfectly contradictory to all\n usage of the word, and was evidently invented only to avoid\n the seemingly irreligious character of the literal version.\n But why may not all difficulties be removed by a reference to\n the primary signification, which is \u201csolitary meditation,\u201d in\n opposition to \u201cinstruction by others?\u201d\n\n We have in the gospel history itself, also, the instance of\n Mary. (Luke x. 39.) The passage in Mark iii. 32, \u201cThe multitude\n sat down around him,\u201d farther illustrates this usage. There\n is an old Hebrew tradition, mentioned with great reverence by\n Maimonides, to this effect. \u201cFrom the days of Moses down to\n Rabban Gamaliel, they always studied the law, standing; but\n after Rabban Gamaliel was dead, weakness descended on the world,\n and they studied the law, sitting.\u201d (_Witsius._)\n\n\n HIS JEWISH OPINIONS.\n\nJerusalem was the seat of what may be called the great Jewish\nUniversity. The Rabbins or teachers, united in themselves, not merely\nthe sources of Biblical and theological learning, but also the whole\nsystem of instruction in that civil law, by which their nation were\nstill allowed to be governed, with only some slight exceptions as to\nthe right of punishment. There was no distinction, in short, between\nthe professions of divinity and law, the Rabbins being teachers of the\nwhole Mosaic system, and those who entered on a course of study under\nthem, aiming at the knowledge of both those departments of learning,\nwhich, throughout the western nations, are now kept, for the most part,\nentirely distinct. Saul was therefore a student both of theology and\nlaw, and entered himself as a hearer of the lectures of one, who may,\nin modern phrase, be styled the most eminent professor in the great\nHebrew university of Jerusalem. From him he learned the law and\nthe Jewish traditional doctrines, as illustrated and perfected by\nthe Fathers of the \u2666Pharisaic order. His steady energy and resolute\nactivity were here all made available to the very complete attainment\nof the mysteries of knowledge; and the success with which he prosecuted\nhis studies may be best appreciated by a minute examination of his\nwritings, which everywhere exhibit indubitable marks of a deep and\ncritical knowledge of all the details of Jewish theology and law. He\nshows himself to have been deeply versed in all the standard modes of\nexplaining the Scriptures among the Hebrews,\u2015\u2015by allegory,\u2015\u2015typology,\naccommodation and tradition. Yet though thus ardently drinking the\nstreams of Biblical knowledge from this great fountain-head, he seems\nto have been very far from imbibing the mild and merciful spirit of\nhis great teacher, as it had been so eminently displayed in his sage\ndecision on the trial of the apostles. The acquisition of knowledge,\neven under such an instructor, was, in Saul, attended with the somewhat\ncommon evils to which a young mind rapidly advanced in dogmatical\nlearning, is naturally liable,\u2015\u2015a bitter, denunciatory intolerance\nof any opinions contrary to his own,\u2015\u2015a spiteful feeling towards all\ndoctrinal opponents, and a disposition to punish speculative errors as\nactual crimes. All these common faults were very remarkably developed\nin Saul, by that uncommon harshness and fierceness by which he was so\nstrongly characterized; and his worst feelings broke out with all their\nfury against the rising heretics, who, without any regular education,\nwere assuming the office of religious teachers, and were understood\nto be seducing the people from their allegiance and due respect to\nthe qualified scholars of the law. The occasion on which these dark\nreligious passions first exhibited themselves in decided action against\nthe Christians, was the murder of Stephen, of which the details have\nalready been fully given in that part of the Life of Peter which is\nconnected with it. Of those who engaged in the previous disputes with\nthe proto-martyr, the members of the Cilician synagogue are mentioned\namong others; and with these Saul would very naturally be numbered;\nfor, residing at a great distance from his native province, he would\nwith pleasure seek the company of those residents in Jerusalem who\nwere from Cilicia, and join with them in the study of the law and the\nweekly worship of God. What part he took in these animated and angry\ndiscussions, is not known; but his well-known power in argument affords\ngood reason for believing, that the eloquence and logical acuteness\nwhich he afterwards displayed in the cause of Christ, were now made use\nof, against the ablest defenders of that same cause. His fierce spirit,\nno doubt, rose with the rest in that burst of indignation against the\nmartyr, who fearlessly stood up before the council, pouring out a flood\nof invective against the unjust destroyers of the holy prophets of\nGod; and when they all rushed upon the preacher of righteousness, and\ndragged him away from the tribunal to the place of execution, Saul also\nwas consenting to his death; and when the blood of the martyr was shed,\nhe stood by, approving the deed, and kept the clothes of them who slew\nhim.\n\n \u2666 \u201cPharasaic\u201d replaced with \u201cPharisaic\u201d\n\n\n HIS PERSECUTING CHARACTER.\n\nThe very active share which Saul took in this and the subsequent\ncruelties of a similar nature, is in itself a decided though terrible\nproof of that remarkable independence of character, which was so\ndistinctly displayed in the greatest events of his apostolic career.\nSaul was no slave to the opinions of others; nor did he take up his\nactive persecuting course on the mere dictation of higher authority.\nOn the contrary, his whole behavior towards the followers of Jesus was\ndirectly opposed to the policy so distinctly urged and so efficiently\nmaintained, in at least one instance, by his great teacher, Gamaliel,\nwhose precepts and example on this subject must have influenced his\nbold young disciple, if any authority could have had such an effect\non him. From Gamaliel and his disciples, Saul must have received his\nearliest impressions of the character of Christ and his doctrines; for\nit is altogether probable that he did not reach Jerusalem until some\ntime after the ascension of Christ, and there is therefore no reason\nto suppose that he himself had ever heard or seen him. Nevertheless,\nbrought up in the school of the greatest of the Pharisees, he would\nreceive from all his teachers and associates, an impression decidedly\nunfavorable, of the Christian sect; though the uniform mildness of the\nPharisees, as to vindictive measures, would temper the principles of\naction recommended in regard to the course of conduct to be adopted\ntowards them. The rapid advance of the new sect, however, soon brought\nthem more and more under the invidious notice of the Pharisees, who in\nthe life-time of Jesus had been the most determined opposers of him and\nhis doctrines; and the attention of Saul would therefore be constantly\ndirected to the preparation for contest with them.\n\nStephen\u2019s murder seems to have unlocked all the persecuting spirit\nof Saul. He immediately laid his hand to the work of persecuting the\nfriends of Jesus, with a fury that could not be allayed by a single act.\nNor was he satisfied with merely keeping a watchful eye on everything\nthat was openly done by them; but under authority from the Sanhedrim,\nbreaking into the retirement of their homes, to hunt them out for\ndestruction, he had them thrown into prison, and scourged in the\nsynagogues, and threatened even with death; by all which cruelties\nhe so overcame the spirit of many of them, that they were forced to\nrenounce the faith which they had adopted, and blaspheme the name of\nChrist in public recantations. This furious persecution soon drove them\nfrom Jerusalem in great numbers, to other cities. Samaria, as well as\nthe distant parts of Judea, are mentioned as their places of refuge,\nand not a few fled beyond the bounds of Palestine into the cities of\nSyria. But even these distant exiles were not, by their flight into\nfar countries, removed from the effects of the burning zeal of their\npersecutor. Longing for an opportunity to give a still wider range to\nhis cruelties, he went to the great council, and begged of them such\na commission as would authorize him to pursue his vindictive measures\nwherever the sanction of their name could support such actions. Among\nthe probable inducements to this selection of a foreign field for\nhis unrighteous work, may be reasonably placed, the circumstance that\nDamascus was at this time under the government of Aretas, an Arabian\nprince, into whose hands it fell for a short time, during which the\nequitable principles of Roman tolerance no longer operated as a check\non the murderous spite of the Jews; for the new ruler, anxious to\nsecure his dominion by ingratiating himself with the subjects of\nit, would not be disposed to neglect any opportunity for pleasing\nso powerful and influential a portion of the population of Damascus\nas the Jews were,\u2015\u2015who lived there in such numbers, that in some\ndisturbances which arose a few years after, between them and the other\ninhabitants, ten thousand Jews were slain unarmed, while in the public\nbaths, enjoying themselves after the fatigues of the day, without any\nexpectation of violence. So large a Jewish population would be secure\nof the support of Aretas in any favorite measure. Saul, well knowing\nthese circumstances, must have been greatly influenced by this motive,\nto seek a commission to labor in a field where the firm tolerance of\nRoman sway was displaced by the baser rule of a petty prince, whose\nweakness rendered him subservient to the tyrannical wishes of his\nsubjects. In Jerusalem the Roman government would not suffer anything\nlike a systematic destruction of its subjects, nor authorize the\ntaking of life by any religious tribunal, though it might pass over,\nunpunished, a solitary act of mob violence, like the murder of Stephen.\nIt is perfectly incontestable therefore, that the persecution in\nJerusalem could not have extended to the repeated destruction of\nlife, and that passage in Paul\u2019s discourse to Agrippa; which has been\nsupposed to prove a plurality of capital punishments, has accordingly\nbeen construed in a more limited sense, by the ablest modern\ncommentators.\n\n Kuinoel on Acts xxv. 1, 10, maintains this fully, and quotes\n other authorities.\n\n \u201cIt seems to some a strange business, that Paul should have had\n the Christians whipped through the _synagogues_. Why, in a house\n consecrated to prayer and religion, were sentences of a criminal\n court passed, and the punishment executed on the criminal? This\n difficulty seemed so great, even to the learned and judicious\n Beza, that in the face of the testimony of all manuscripts, he\n would have us suspect the genuineness of the passage in Matthew\n x. 17, where Christ uses the same expression. Such a liberty as\n he would thus take with the sacred text, is of course against\n all modern rules of sacred criticism. For what should we do\n then with Matthew xxiii. 34, where the same passage occurs\n again? Grotius, to explain the difficulty, would have the word\n synagogues understood, not in the sense of houses of prayer, but\n of civil courts of justice; since such a meaning may be drawn\n from the etymology of the Greek word thus translated. (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b7,\n a gathering together, or assembling for any purpose.) But that\n too is a forced construction, for no instance can be brought out\n of the New Testament, where the word is used in that sense, or\n any other than the common one. What then? We cannot be allowed\n to set up the speculations which we have contrived to agree with\n our own notions, against accounts given in so full and clear\n a manner. Suppose, for a moment, that we could find no traces\n of the custom of scourging in the synagogues, in other writers;\n ought that to be considered doubtful, which is thus stated by\n Christ and Paul, in the plainest terms, as a fact commonly and\n perfectly well known in their time? Nor is there any reason why\n scourging in the synagogues should seem so unaccountable to us,\n since it was a grade of discipline less than excommunication,\n and less disgraceful. For it is made to appear that some of\n the most eminent of the wise, when they broke the law, were\n thus punished,\u2015\u2015not even excepting the head of the Senate, nor\n the high priest himself.\u201d (Witsius, \u00a7 1, \u00b6 xix.\u2012xxi.) Witsius\n illustrates it still farther, by the stories which follow.\n\n\u201cBut there are instances of flagellation in synagogues found in other\naccounts. Grotius himself quotes from Epiphanius, that a certain Jew\nwho wished to revolt to Christianity, was whipped in the synagogue. The\nstory is to the following purport. \u2018A man, named Joseph, a messenger of\nthe Jewish patriarch, went into Cilicia by order of the patriarch, to\ncollect the tithes and first-fruits from the Jews of that province; and\nwhile on his tour of duty, lodged in a house near a Christian church.\nHaving, by means of this, become acquainted with the pastor, he\nprivately begs the loan of the book of the gospels, and reads it. But\nthe Jews, getting wind of this, were so enraged against him, that on a\nsudden they made an assault on the house, and caught Joseph in the very\nact of reading the gospels. Snatching the book out of his hands, they\nknocked him down, and crying out against him with all sorts of abuse,\nthey led him away to the synagogue, where they whipped him with rods.\u2019\n\n\u201cVery much like this is the more modern story which Uriel Acosta tells\nof himself, in a little book, entitled \u2018the Pattern of Human Life.\u2019 The\nthing took place in Amsterdam, about the year 1630. It seems this Uriel\nAcosta was a Jew by birth, but being a sort of Epicurean philosopher,\nhad some rather heretical notions about most of the articles of the\nJewish creed; and on this charge, being called to account by the\nrulers of the synagogue, stood on his trial. In the end of it, a\npaper was read to him, in which it was specified that he must come\ninto the synagogue, clothed in a mourning garment, holding a black\nwax-light in his hand, and should utter openly before the congregation\na certain form of words prescribed by them, in which the offenses he\nhad committed were magnified beyond measure. After this, that he should\nbe flogged with a cowskin or strap, publicly, in the synagogue, and\nthen should lay himself down flat on the threshhold of the synagogue,\nthat all might walk over him. How thoroughly this sentence was executed,\nis best learned from his own amusing and candid story, which are given\nin the very words, as literally as they can be translated. \u2018I entered\nthe synagogue, which was full of men and women, (for they had crammed\nin together to see the show,) and when it was time, I mounted the\nwooden platform, which was placed in the midst of the synagogue for\nconvenience in preaching, and with a loud voice read the writing drawn\nup by them, in which was a confession that I really deserved to die\na thousand times for what I had done; namely, for my breaches of the\nsabbath, and for my abandonment of the faith, which I had broken so far\nas even by my words to hinder others from embracing Judaism, &c. After\nI had got through with the reading, I came down from the platform,\nand the right reverend ruler of the synagogue drew near to me, and\nwhispered in my ear that I must turn aside to a certain corner of\nthe synagogue. Accordingly, I went to the corner, and the porter\ntold me to strip. I then stripped my body as low as my waist,\u2015\u2015bound\na handkerchief about my head,\u2015\u2015took off my shoes, and raised my\narms, holding fast with my hands to a sort of post. The porter of\nthe synagogue, or sexton, then came up, and with a bandage tied up\nmy hands to the post. When things had been thus arranged, the clerk\ndrew near, and taking the cowskin, struck my sides with thirty-nine\nblows, according to the _tradition_; while in the mean time a psalm\nwas chanted. After this was over, the preacher approached, and absolved\nme from excommunication; and thus was the gate of heaven opened to\nme, which before was shut against me with the strongest bars, keeping\nme entirely out. I next put on my clothes, went to the threshhold of\nthe synagogue and laid myself down on it, while the porter held up my\nhead. Then all who came down, stepped over me, boys as well as old men,\nlifting up one foot and stepping over the lower part of my legs. When\nthe last had passed out, I got up, and being covered with dust by him\nwho helped me, went home.\u2019 This story, though rather tediously minute\nin its disgusting particulars, it was yet thought worth while to copy,\nbecause this comparatively modern scene seemed to give, to the life,\nthe old fashion of \u2018scourging in the synagogues.\u2019\u201d\n\n\n HIS JOURNEY TO DAMASCUS.\n\nThus equipped with the high commission and letters of the supreme court\nof the Jewish nation, Saul, breathing out threatenings and slaughter\nagainst the disciples of the Lord, went on his way to Damascus,\nwhere the sanction of his superiors would have the force of despotic\nlaw, against the destined victims of his cruelty. The distance from\nJerusalem to this great Syrian city, can not be less than 250 or 300\nmiles, and the journey must therefore have occupied as many as ten\nor twelve days, according to the usual rate of traveling in those\ncountries. On this long journey therefore, Saul had much season for\nreflection. There were indeed several persons in his company, but\nprobably they were only persons of an inferior order, and merely the\nattendants necessary for his safety and speed in traveling. Among these\ntherefore, he would not be likely to find any person with whom he could\nmaintain any sympathy which could enable them to hold much conversation\ntogether, and he must therefore have been left through most of the time\nto the solitary enjoyment of his own thoughts. In the midst of the\npeculiar fatigues of an eastern journey, he must have had many seasons\nof bodily exhaustion and consequent mental depression, when the fire\nof his unholy and exterminating zeal would grow languid, and the\npainful doubts which always come in at such dark seasons, to chill the\nhopes of every great mind,\u2015\u2015no matter what may be the character of the\nenterprise,\u2015\u2015must have had the occasional effect of exciting repentant\nfeelings in him. Why had he left the high and sacred pursuits of a\nliterary and religious life, in the refined capital of Judaism, to\nendure the fatigues of a long journey over rugged mountains and sandy\ndeserts, through rivers and under a burning sun, to a distant city, in\na strange land, among those who were perfect strangers to him? It was\nfor the sole object of carrying misery and anguish among those whose\nonly crime was the belief of a doctrine which he hated, because it\nwarred against that solemn system of forms and traditions to which he\nso zealously clung, with all the energy that early and inbred prejudice\ncould inspire. But in these seasons of weariness and depression, would\nnow occasionally arise some chilling doubt about the certain rectitude\nof the stern course which he had been pursuing, in a heat that seldom\nallowed him time for reflection on its possible character and tendency.\nMight not that faith against which he was warring with such devotedness,\nbe true?\u2015\u2015that faith which, amid blood and dying agonies, the martyr\nStephen had witnessed with his very last breath? At these times of\ndoubt and despondency would perhaps arise the remembrance of that\nhorrible scene, when he had set by, a calm spectator, drinking in with\ndelight the agonies of the martyr, and learning from the ferocity of\nthe murderers, new lessons of cruelty. to be put in practice against\nothers who should thus adhere to the faith of Christ. No doubt too, an\noccasional shudder of gloom and remorse for such acts would creep over\nhim in the chill of evening, or in the heats of noon-day, and darken\nall his schemes of active vengeance against the brethren. But still\nhe journeyed northward, and each hour brought him nearer the scene of\nlong-planned cruelty. On the last day of his wearisome journey, he at\nlength drew near the city, just at noon; and from the terms in which\nhis situation is described, it is not unreasonable to conclude that\nhe was just coming in sight of Damascus, when the event happened which\nrevolutionized his purposes, hopes, character, soul, and his whole\nexistence through eternity,\u2015\u2015an event connected with the salvation of\nmillions that no man can yet number.\n\n Illustration: DAMASCUS.\n\nDescending from the north-eastern slope of Hermon, over whose mighty\nrange his last day\u2019s journey had conducted him, Saul came along the\ncourse of the Abana, to the last hill which overlooks the distant city.\nHere Damascus bursts upon the traveler\u2019s view, in the midst of a mighty\nplain, embosomed in gardens, and orchards, and groves, which, with\nthe long-known and still bright streams of Abana and Pharphar, and the\ngolden flood of the Chrysorrhoas, give the spot the name of \u201cone of the\nfour paradises.\u201d So lovely and charming is the sight which this fair\ncity has in all ages presented to the traveler\u2019s view, that the Turks\nrelate that their prophet, coming near Damascus, took his station on\nthe mountain Salehiyeh, on the west of the hill-girt plain in which\nthe city stands; and as he thence viewed the glorious and beautiful\nspot, encompassed with gardens for thirty miles, and thickly set\nwith domes and steeples, over which the eye glances as far as it can\nreach,\u2015\u2015considering the ravishing beauty of the place, he would not\ntempt his frailty by entering into it, but instantly turned away with\nthis reflection: that there was but one paradise designed for man,\nand for his part, he was resolved not to take his, in this world. And\nthough there is not the slightest foundation for such a story, because\nthe prophet never came near to Damascus, nor had an opportunity of\nentering into it, yet the conspiring testimony of modern travelers\njustifies the fable, in the impression it conveys of the surpassing\nloveliness of the view from this very spot,\u2015\u2015called the Arch of Victory,\nfrom an unfinished mass of stonework which here crowns the mountain\u2019s\ntop. This spot has been marked by a worthless tradition, as the scene\nof Saul\u2019s conversion; and the locality is made barely probable, by the\nmuch better authority of the circumstance, that it accords with the\nsacred narrative, in being on the road from Jerusalem, and \u201cnigh unto\nthe city.\u201d\n\n \u201cDamascus is a very ancient city, which the oldest records\n and traditions show by their accordant testimony to have been\n founded by Uz, the son of Aram, and grandson of Shem. It was\n the capital or mother city of that Syria which is distinguished\n by the name of Aram Dammesek or Damascene Syria, lying between\n Libanus and Anti-Libanus. The city stands at the base of Mount\n Hermon, from which descend the famous streams of Abana and\n Pharphar; the latter washing the walls of the city, while the\n former cuts it through the middle. It was a very populous,\n delightful, and wealthy place; but as in the course of its\n existence it had suffered a variety of fortune, so it had often\n changed masters. To pass over its earlier history, we will\n only observe, that before the Christian era, on the defeat\n of Tigranes, the Armenian monarch, it was yielded to the\n Romans, being taken by the armies of Pompey. In the time of\n Paul, as we are told in \u26662 Corinthians xi. 32, it was held\n under the (temporary) sway of Aretas, a king of the Arabians,\n father-in-law of Herod the tetrarch. It had then a large Jewish\n population, as we may gather from the fact, that in the reign of\n Nero, 10, 000 of that nation were slaughtered, unarmed, and in\n the public baths by the Damascenes, as Josephus records in his\n history of the Jewish War, II. Book, chapter 25. Among the Jews\n of Damascus, also, were a considerable number of Christians, and\n it was raging for the destruction of these, that Saul, furnished\n with the letters and commission of the Jewish high priest, now\n flew like a hawk upon the doves.\u201d (Witsius, \u00a7 2, \u00b6 1.)\n\n \u2666 \u201c2\u201d omitted in the original text.\n\nThe sacred narrative gives no particulars of the other circumstances\nconnected with this remarkable event, in either of the three statements\npresented in different parts of the book of Acts. All that is\ncommemorated, is that at mid-day, as Saul with his company drew near to\nDamascus, he saw a light exceeding the sun in brightness, which flashed\nupon them from heaven, and struck them all to the earth. And while they\nwere all fallen to the ground, Saul alone heard a voice speaking to\nhim in the Hebrew tongue, and saying, \u201cSaul! Saul! Why persecutest thou\nme? It is hard for thee to kick against thorns.\u201d To this, Saul asked in\nreply, \u201cWho art thou, Lord?\u201d The answer was, \u201cI am Jesus the Nazarene,\nwhom thou persecutest.\u201d Saul, trembling and astonished, replied, \u201cLord,\nwhat wilt thou that I should do?\u201d And the voice said, \u201cRise and stand\nupon thy feet, and go into the city; there thou shalt be told what to\ndo, since for this purpose I have appeared to thee, to make use of thee\nas a minister and a witness, both of what thou hast seen and of what\nI will cause thee to see,\u2015\u2015choosing thee out of the people, and of the\nheathen nations to whom I now SEND thee,\u2015\u2015to open their eyes,\u2015\u2015to turn\nthem from darkness to light, and from the dominion of Satan unto God,\nthat they may receive remission of sins, and an inheritance among them\nthat are sanctified, by faith in me.\u201d\n\n These words are given thus fully only in Saul\u2019s own account\n of his conversion, in his address to king Agrippa. (Acts xxvi.\n 14\u201218.) The original Greek of verse 17, is most remarkably and\n expressively significant, containing, beyond all doubt, the\n formal commission of Saul as the \u201cAPOSTLE OF THE GENTILES.\u201d The\n first word in that verse is translated in the common English\n version, \u201cdelivering;\u201d whereas, the original, \u0395\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\n means also \u201ctaking out,\u201d \u201cchoosing;\u201d and is clearly shown by\n Bretschneider, sub voc. in numerous references to the usages of\n the LXX., and by Kuinoel, in loc., to bear this latter meaning\n here. Rosenmueller and others however, have been led, by the\n circumstance that Hesychius gives the meaning of \u201crescue,\u201d to\n prefer that. Rosenmueller\u2019s remark, that the context demands\n this meaning, is however certainly unauthorized; for, on this\n same ground, Kuinoel bases the firmest support of the meaning\n of \u201cchoice.\u201d The meaning of \u201crescue\u201d was indeed the only one\n formerly received, but the lights of modern exegesis have\n added new distinctness and aptness to the passage, by the\n meaning adopted above. Beza, Piscator, Pagninus, Arias Montanus,\n Castalio, &c., as well as the oriental versions, are all quoted\n by Poole in defense of the common rendering, nor does he seem to\n know of the sense now received. But Saul was truly chosen, both\n \u201cout of the people\u201d of Israel, (because he was a Jew by birth\n and religion,) \u201cand out of the heathen,\u201d (because he was born\n and brought up among the Grecians, and therefore was taken\n out from among them, as a minister of grace to them,) and the\n whole passage is thus shown to be most beautifully just to the\n circumstances which so eminently fitted him for his Gentile\n apostleship. The Greek verb used in the conclusion of the\n passage, is the consecrating word, \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9, (_apostello_,)\n and makes up the formula of his _apostolic_ commission, which is\n there given in language worthy of the vast and eternal scope of\n the sense,\u2015\u2015words fit to be spoken from heaven, in thunder, amid\n the flash of lightnings, that called the bloody-minded, bitter,\n maddened persecutor, to the peaceful, devoted, unshrinking\n testimony of the cause, against the friends of which he before\n breathed only threatenings and slaughter.\n\n Illustration: \u0395\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03bf\u1f51\u03c2 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5 \u0391\u03a0\u039f\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039b\u03a9.\n\nAll this took place while the whole company of travelers were lying\nprostrate on the ground, stunned and almost senseless. Of all those\npresent, however, Saul only heard these solemn words of warning,\ncommand, and prophecy, thus sent from heaven in thunder; for he himself\nafterwards, in narrating these awful events before the Jewish multitude,\nexpressly declares \u201cthe men that were with me, saw the light, indeed,\nand were afraid; but they _heard NOT the voice_ of him who spoke to\nme.\u201d And though in the previous statement given by Luke, in the regular\ncourse of the narrative, it is said that \u201cthe men who journeyed with\nSaul were speechless,\u2015\u2015hearing a _voice_, but seeing no man;\u201d yet\nthe two statements are clearly reconciled by the consideration of the\ndifferent meanings of the word translated \u201c_voice_\u201d in both passages,\nbut which the accompanying expressions sufficiently limit in the latter\ncase only to the articulate sounds of a human voice, while in the\nformer it is left in such terms as to mean merely a \u201csound,\u201d as of\nthunder, or any thing else which can be supposed to agree best with the\nother circumstances. To them, therefore, it seemed only surprising, not\nmiraculous; for they are not mentioned as being impressed, otherwise\nthan by fear and amazement, while Saul, who alone heard the words,\nwas moved thereby to a complete conversion. The whole circumstances,\ntherefore, allow and require, in accordance with other similar passages,\nthat the material phenomena which were made the instruments of this\nmiraculous conversion, were, as they are described, _first_ a flash of\nlightning, which struck the company to the earth, giving all a severe\nshock, but affecting Saul most of all, and, _second_, a peal of thunder,\nheard by all as such, except Saul, who distinguished in those awful,\nrepeated sounds, the words of a heavenly voice, with which he held\ndistinct converse, while his wondering companions thought him only\nmuttering incoherently to himself, between the peals of thunder;\u2015\u2015just\nas in the passage related by John, when Jesus called to God, \u201cFather!\nglorify thy name;\u201d and then there came a voice from heaven, saying, \u201cI\nboth have glorified it and will glorify it;\u201d yet the people who then\nstood by, said, \u201cIt _thundered_,\u201d\u2015\u2015having no idea of the expressive\nutterance which was so distinctly heard by Jesus and his disciples.\nThere is no account, indeed, in either case, of any thunder storm\naccompanying the events; but there is nothing in the incidents to\nforbid it; and the nature of the effects upon the company who heard and\nsaw, can be reconciled only with the supposition of a burst of actual\nthunder and lightning, which God made the organ of his awful voice,\nspeaking to Saul in words that called him from a course of sin and\ncruelty, to be a minister of grace, mercy and peace, to all whose\ndestroying persecutor he had before been. The sequel of the effects,\ntoo, are such as would naturally follow these material agencies. The\nmen who were least stunned, rose to their feet soon after the first\nshock; and when the awful scene was over, they bestirred themselves to\nlift up Saul, who was now found, not only speechless, but blind,\u2015\u2015the\neyes being so dazzled by such excess of light, that the nerve loses all\nits power, generally, forever. Saul being now raised from the ground,\nwas led, helpless and thunder-struck, by his distressed attendants,\ninto the city, which he had hoped to make the scene of his cruel\npersecutions, but which he now entered, more surely bound, than could\nhave been the most wretched of his destined captives.\n\n Kuinoel and Bloomfield will furnish the inquiring reader with\n the amusing details of the hypotheses, by which some of the\n moderns have attempted to explain away the whole of Saul\u2019s\n conversion, into a mere remarkable succession of natural\n occurrences, without any miracle at all.\n\n\n HIS STAY IN DAMASCUS.\n\nThus did the commissioned persecutor enter the ancient capital of Aram.\nBut as they led him along the flowery ways into this Syrian paradise,\nhow vain were its splendors, its beauties and its historic glories,\nto the eyes which had so long strained over the far horizon, to catch\nthe first gleam of its white towers and rosy gardens, beyond the\nmountain-walls. In vain did Damascus invite the admiring gaze of the\npassing traveler, to those _damask_ roses embowering and hedging his\npath, which take their name in modern times, from the gardens where\nthey first bloomed under the hand of man. In vain did their fragrance\nwoo his nobler sense to perceive their beauty of form and hue; in vain\ndid the long line of palaces and towers and temples, still bright in\nthe venerable splendor of the ancient Aramaic kings, rise in majesty\nbefore him. The eyes that had so often dwelt on these historical\nmonuments, in the distant and brilliant fancies of studious youth,\nwere now closed to the not less brilliant splendors of the reality;\nand through the ancient arches of those mighty gates, and along the\ncrowded streets, amid the noise of bustling thousands, the commissioned\nminister of wrath now moved distressed, darkened, speechless and\nhorror-struck,\u2015\u2015marked, like the first murderer, (of whose crime that\nspot was the fabled scene,) by the hand of God. The hand of God was\nindeed on him, not in wrath, but in mercy, sealing his abused bodily\nvision for a short space, until his mental eyes, purified from the\nscales of prejudice and unholy zeal, should have become fitted for\nthe perception of objects, whose beauty and glory should be the theme\nof his thoughts and words, through all his later days, and of his\ndiscourse to millions for whom his heart now felt no love, but for\nwhose salvation he was destined to freely spend and offer up his life.\nPassing along the crowded ways of the great city, under the guidance\nof his attendants, he was at last led into the street, which for its\nregularity was called the \u201cSTRAIGHT WAY,\u201d and there was lodged in\nthe house of a person named Judas,\u2015\u2015remaining for three days in utter\ndarkness, without the presence of a single friend, and without the\nglimmer of a hope that he should ever again see the light of day.\nDisconsolate and desolate, he passed the whole of this period in\nfasting, without one earthly object or call, to distract his attention\nfrom the solemn themes of his heavenly vision. He had all this long\ninterval for reflection on the strange reversion of destiny pointed out\nby this indisputable decree, which summoned him from works of cruelty\nand destruction, to deeds of charity, kindness and devotion to those\nwhose ruin he had lately sought with his whole heart. At the close\nof this season of lonely but blessed meditation, a new revelation of\nthe commanding presence of the Deity was made to a humble and devout\nChristian of Damascus, named Ananias, known even among the Jews as a\nman of blameless character. To him, in a vision, the Lord appeared, and\ncalling him by name, directed him most minutely to the house where Saul\nwas lodging, and gave him the miraculous commission of restoring to\nsight that same Saul, now deprived of this sense by the visitation of\nGod, but expecting its restoration by the hands of Ananias himself, who\nthough yet unknown to him in the body, had been distinctly seen in a\nvision by the blind sufferer, as his healer, in the name of that Jesus\nwho had met him in the way and smote him with this blindness, dazzling\nhim with the excess of his unveiled heavenly glories. Ananias, yet\nappalled by the startling view of the bright messenger, and doubting\nthe nature of the vision which summoned him to a duty so strangely\ninconsistent with the dreadful fame and character of the person named\nas the subject of his miraculous ministrations, hesitated to promise\nobedience, and parleyed with his summoner. \u201cLord! I have heard by many,\nof this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; and\nhere, he has commission from the chief priests to bind all that call\non thy name.\u201d The merciful Lord, not resenting the rational doubts\nof his devout but alarmed servant, replied in words of considerate\nexplanation, renewing his charge, with assurances of the safe and\nhopeful accomplishment of his appointed task. \u201cGo thy way: for he is a\nchosen instrument of mercy for me, to bear my name before nations and\nkings, and the children of Israel: for I will show him how great things\nhe must suffer for the sake of my name.\u201d Ananias, no longer doubting,\nnow went his way as directed, and finding Saul, clearly addressed him\nin terms of confidence and even of affection, recognizing him, on the\ntestimony of the vision, as already a friend of those companions of\nJesus, whom he had lately persecuted. He put his hands on him, in the\nusual form of invoking a blessing on any one, and said, \u201cBrother Saul!\nthe Lord Jesus, who appeared to thee in the way, as thou camest, has\nsent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with a\nholy spirit.\u201d And immediately there fell from the eyes of the blinded\npersecutor, something like scales, and he saw now, in bodily, real\npresence, him who had already been in form revealed to his spirit, in\na vision. At the same moment, fell from his inward sense, the obscuring\nfilm of prejudice and bigotry. Renewed in mental vision, he saw with\nthe clear eye of confiding faith and eternal hope, that Jesus, who\nin the full revelation of his vindictive majesty having dazzled and\nblinded him in his murderous career, now appeared to his purified sense,\nin the tempered rays and mild effulgence of redeeming grace. Changed\ntoo, in the whole frame of his mind, he felt no more the promptings\nof that dark spirit of cruelty, but, filled with a holy spirit, before\nunknown to him, he began a new existence, replete with the energies of\na divine influence. No longer fasting in token of distress, he now ate,\nby way of thanksgiving for his joyful restoration, and was strengthened\nthereby for the great task which he had undertaken. He was now admitted\nto the fellowship of the disciples of Jesus, and remained many days\namong them as a brother, mingling in the most friendly intercourse with\nthose very persons, against whom he came to wage exterminating ruin.\nNor did he confine his actions in his new character to the privacies of\nChristian intercourse. Going immediately into the synagogues, he there\npublicly proclaimed his belief in Jesus Christ, and boldly maintained\nhim to be the Son of God. Great was the amazement of all who heard him.\nThe fame of Saul of Tarsus, as a ferocious and determined persecutor of\nall who professed the faith of Jesus, had already pervaded Palestine,\nand spread into Syria; and what did this strange display now mean? They\nsaw him, whom they had thus known by his dreadful reputation as a hater\nand exterminator of the Nazarene doctrine, now preaching it in the\nschools of the Jewish law and the houses of worship for the adherents\nof Mosaic forms, and with great power persuading others to a similar\nrenunciation of all opposition to the name of Jesus; and they said, \u201cIs\nnot this he who destroyed them that called on this name in Jerusalem,\nand came hither, with the very purpose of taking them bound, to the\nSanhedrim, for punishment?\u201d But Saul, each day advancing in the\nknowledge and faith of the Christian doctrine, soon grew too strong in\nargument for the most skilful of the defenders of the Jewish faith; and\nutterly confounded them with his proofs that Jesus was the very Messiah.\nThis triumphant course he followed for a long time; until, at last,\nthe stubborn Jews, provoked to the highest degree by the defeats which\nthey had suffered from this powerful disputant, lately their most\nzealous defender, took counsel to put him to death, as a renegade from\nthe faith, of which he had been the trusted professor, as well as the\ncommissioned minister of its vengeance on the heretics whose cause he\nhad now espoused, and was defending, to the great injury and discredit\nof the Judaical order. In contriving the means of executing this scheme,\nthey received the support and assistance of the government of the\ncity,\u2015\u2015Damascus being then held, not by the Romans, but by Aretas, a\npetty king of northern Arabia. The governor appointed by Aretas did not\nscruple to aid the Jews in their murderous project; but even himself,\nwith a detachment of the city garrison, kept watch at the gates, to\nkill Saul at his first outgoing. But all their wicked plots were set\nat nought by a very simple contrivance. The Christian friends of Saul,\nhearing of the danger, determined to remove him from it at once; and\naccordingly, one night, put the destined apostle of the Gentiles in\na basket; and through the window of some one of their houses, which\nadjoined the barriers of the city, they let him down outside of the\nwall, while the spiteful Jews, with the complaisant governor and his\ndetachment of the city guard, were to no purpose watching the gates\nwith unceasing resolution, to wreak their vengeance on this dangerous\nconvert.\n\n Michaelis alludes to the difficulties which have arisen about\n the possession of Damascus by Aretas, and concludes as follows:\n\n \u201cThe force of these objections has been considerably weakened,\n in a dissertation published in 1755, \u2018De ethnarcha Aretae Arabum\n regis Paulo insidiante,\u2019 by J.\u00a0G. Heyne, who has shown it to be\n highly probable, first, that Aretas, against whom the Romans,\n not long before the death of Tiberius, made a declaration of war,\n which they neglected to put in execution, took the opportunity\n of seizing Damascus, which had once belonged to his ancestors;\n an event omitted in Josephus, as forming no part of the Jewish\n history, and by the Roman historians as being a matter not\n flattering in itself, and belonging only to a distant province.\n Secondly, that Aretas was by religion a Jew,\u2015\u2015a circumstance\n the more credible, when we reflect that Judaism had been widely\n propagated in that country, and that even kings in Arabia Felix\n had recognized the law of Moses. *\u00a0*\u00a0* And hence we may explain\n the reason why the Jews were permitted to exercise, in Damascus,\n persecutions still severer than those in Jerusalem, where the\n violence of their zeal was awed by the moderation of the Roman\n policy. Of this we find an example in the ninth chapter of the\n Acts, where Paul is sent by the high priest to Damascus, to\n exercise against the Christians, cruelties which the return of\n the Roman governor had checked in Judea. These accounts agree\n likewise with what is related in Josephus, that the number of\n Jews in Damascus amounted to ten thousand, and that almost all\n the women, even those whose husbands were heathens, were of the\n Jewish religion.\u201d (Michaelis, Introduction, Vol. IV. Part I. c.\n ii. \u00a7 12.)\n\n\n HIS RESIDENCE IN ARABIA.\n\nOn his escape from this murderous plot, Saul, having now received from\nGod, who called him by his grace, the revelation of his Son, that he\nmight preach him among the heathen, immediately resolved not to confer\nwith any mortal, on the subject of his task, and therefore refrained\nfrom going up to Jerusalem, to visit those who were apostles before\nhim. Turning his course southeastward, he found refuge from the rage of\nthe Damascan Jews, in the solitudes of the eastern deserts, where, free\nalike from the persecutions and the corruptions of the city, he sought\nin meditation and lonely study, that diligent preparation which was\nnecessary for the high ministry to which God had so remarkably called\nhim. A long time was spent by him in this wise and profitable seclusion;\nbut the exact period cannot be ascertained. It is only probable that\nmore than a year was thus occupied; during which he was not a mere\nhermit, indeed, but at any rate, was a resident in a region destitute\nof most objects which would be apt to draw off his attention from study.\nThat part of Arabia in which he took refuge, was not a mere desert, nor\na wilderness, yet had very few towns, and those only of a small size,\nwith hardly any inhabitants of such a character as to be attractive\ncompanions to Saul. After some time, changes having taken place in\nthe government of Damascus, he was enabled to return thither with\nsafety, the Jews being now checked in their persecuting cruelty by the\nre-establishment of the Roman dominion over that part of Syria. He did\nnot remain there long; but having again displayed himself as a bold\nassertor of the faith of Jesus, he next set his face towards Jerusalem,\non his return, to make known in the halls of those who had sent him\nforth to deeds of blood, that their commission had been reversed by\nthe Father of all spirits, who had now not only summoned, but fully\nequipped, their destined minister of wrath, to be \u201ca chosen instrument\nof mercy\u201d to nations who had never yet heard of Israel\u2019s God.\n\n The different accounts given of these events, in Acts ix. 19\u201225,\n and in Galatians i. 15\u201224, as well as 2 Corinthians xi. 32\u201233,\n have been united in very opposite ways by different commentators,\n and form the most perplexing passages in the life of Saul. The\n journey into Arabia, of which he speaks in Galatians i. 17, is\n supposed by most writers, to have been made during the time when\n Luke mentions him as occupied in and about Damascus; and it is\n said that he went thence into Arabia _immediately_ after his\n conversion, before he had preached anywhere; and such writers\n maintain that the word \u201c_straightway_,\u201d or \u201c_immediately_,\u201d\n in Acts ix. 20, (\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2,) really means, that it was not until\n a long time after his conversion that he preached in the\n synagogues!! Into this remarkable opinion they have been led\n by the fact, that Saul himself says, (Galatians i. 16,) that\n when he was called by God to the apostleship, \u201cimmediately he\n conferred not with flesh and blood, nor went up to Jerusalem,\n but went into Arabia.\u201d All this however, is evidently specified\n by him only in reference to the point that he did not derive\n his title to the apostleship from \u201cthose that were apostles\n before him,\u201d nor from any human authority; and full justice is\n therefore done to his words, by applying them only to the fact,\n that he went to Arabia before he went to Jerusalem, without\n supposing them to mean that he left Damascus _immediately_ after\n his baptism by Ananias. All the historical writers however, seem\n to take this latter view. Witsius, Cappel, Pearson, Lardner,\n Murdock, Hemsen, &c. place his journey to Arabia between his\n baptism and the time of his escape, and suppose that when he\n fled from Damascus, he went directly to Jerusalem. In the\n different arrangement which I make of these events, however, I\n find myself supported by most of the great exegetical writers,\n as Wolf, Kuinoel, and Bloomfield; and I can not better support\n this view than in the words of the latter.\n\n Acts ix. 19. \u201c\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u03a3\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. Paul (Galatians \u2666i. 17,)\n relates that he, after his conversion, did not proceed to\n Jerusalem, but repaired to Arabia, and from thence returned to\n Damascus. Hence, according to the opinion of Pearson, in his\n Annales Paulini, p. 2. the words \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u03a3\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 are to\n be separated from the preceding passage, and constitute a new\n story, in which is related what happened at Damascus after Saul\u2019s\n return from Arabia. But the words \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 may and ought\n to be referred to the whole time of Paul\u2019s abode at Damascus,\n before he went into Arabia; and thus with the \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 be\n numbered the \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 mentioned at verse 19: for the sense\n of the words is this: \u2018Saul, when he spent some days with the\n Damascene Christians, immediately taught in the synagogues. Now\n Luke entirely passes by Paul\u2019s journey into Arabia. (Kuinoel.)\n Doddridge imagines that his going into Arabia, (to which, as\n he observes, Damascus now belonged,) was only making excursions\n from that city into the neighboring parts of the country, and\n perhaps taking a large circuit about it, which might be his\n employment between the time in which he began to preach in\n Damascus, and his quitting it after having been conquered by the\n Romans under Pompey.\u2019 But in view of this subject I cannot agree\n with him. The country in the _neighborhood of Damascus_ is not\n properly _Arabia_.\u201d\n\n \u2666 \u201c1, 17\u201d replaced with \u201ci. 17\u201d\n\n 22\u201224. \u201c\u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u2015\u2015\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. In 2 Corinthians xi.\n 32, we read that the Ethnarch of Aretas, king of Arabia, had\n placed a guard at the gates of Damascus, to seize Paul. Now it\n appears that Syria Damascene was, at the end of the Mithridatic\n war, reduced by Pompey to the Roman yoke. It has therefore been\n inquired how it could happen that Aretas should then have the\n government, and appoint an Ethnarch. That Aretas had, on account\n of the repudiation of his daughter by Herod Antipas, commenced\n hostilities against that monarch, and in the last year of\n Tiberius (A. D. 37,) had completely defeated his army, we learn\n from Josephus Antiquities, 18, 5, 1. seqq. Herod had, we find,\n signified this by letter to Tiberius, who, indignant at this\n audacity, (Josephus L. c.) gave orders to Vitellius, prefect\n of Syria, to declare war against Aretas, and take him alive,\n or send him his head. Vitellius made preparations for the war,\n but on receiving a message acquainting him with the death of\n Tiberius, he dismissed his troops into winter quarters. And\n thus Aretas was delivered from the danger. At the time, however,\n that Vitellius drew off his forces, Aretas invaded Syria, seized\n Damascus, and continued to occupy it, in spite of Tiberius\u2019s\n stupid successor, Caligula. This is the opinion of most\n commentators, and among others, Wolf, Michaelis, and Eichhorn.\n But I have already shewn in the Prolegomena \u00a7 de chronologia\n lib. 2, 3, that Aretas did not finally subdue Damascus until\n Vitellius had already departed from the province.\u201d (Kuinoel.)\n (Bloomfield\u2019s Annotations, Vol. IV. pp. 322\u2012324.)\n\n\n HIS RETURN TO JERUSALEM.\n\nArriving in the city, whence only three years before he had set out, in\na frame of mind so different from that in which he returned, and with\na purpose so opposite to his present views and plans,\u2015\u2015he immediately,\nwith all the confidence of Christian faith, and ardent love for those\nto whom his religious sympathies now so closely fastened him, assayed\nto mingle in a familiar and friendly manner with the apostolic company,\nand offered himself to their Christian fellowship as a devout believer\nin Jesus. But they, already having too well known him in his previous\ncharacter as the persecutor of their brethren, the aider and abettor in\nthe murder of the heroic and innocent Stephen, and the greatest enemy\nof the faithful,\u2015\u2015very decidedly repulsed his advances, as only a new\ntrick to involve them in difficulties, that would make them liable to\npunishment which their prudence had before enabled them to escape. They\ntherefore altogether refused to receive Saul; for \u201cthey were all afraid\nof him, and believed not that he was a disciple.\u201d In this disagreeable\ncondition,\u2015\u2015cast out as a hypocrite, by the apostles of that faith,\nfor which he had sacrificed all earthly prospects,\u2015\u2015he was fortunately\nfound by Barnabas, who being, like Saul, a Hellenist Jew, naturally\nfelt some especial sympathy with one whose country was within a few\nmiles of his own; and by this circumstance, being induced to notice\nthe professed convert, soon recognized in him, the indubitable signs\nof a regenerated and sanctified spirit, and therefore brought him to\nthe chief apostles, Peter, and James, the Lord\u2019s brother; for with\nthese alone did Saul commune, at this visit, as he himself distinctly\ntestifies. Still avoiding the company of the great mass of the apostles\nand disciples, he confined himself almost wholly to the acquaintance\nof Peter, with whom he abode in close familiarity for fifteen days.\nIn order to reconcile the narrative of Luke in the Acts, with the\naccount given by Saul himself, in the first chapter of the epistle\nto the Galatians, it must be understood that the \u201c_apostles_\u201d\nspoken of by the former are only the two above-mentioned, and it was\nwith these only that he \u201cwent in and out at Jerusalem,\u201d\u2015\u2015the other\napostles being probably absent on some missionary duties among the new\nchurches throughout Judea and Palestine. Imitating the spirit of the\nproto-martyr, whose death he had himself been instrumental in effecting,\n\u201che spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against\nthe Hellenists,\u201d doubtless the very same persons among whom he himself\nhad formerly been enrolled as an unshrinking opposer of that faith\nwhich he was now advocating. By them he was received with all that\nvindictive hate which might have been expected; and he was at once\ndenounced as a vile renegade from the cause which in his best days he\nhad maintained as the only right one. To show most satisfactorily that,\nthough he might change, they had not done so, they directly resolved\nto punish the bold disowner of the faith of his fathers, and would soon\nhave crowned him with the fate of Stephen, had not the disciples heard\nof the danger which threatened the life of their new brother, and\nprovided for his escape by means not less efficient than those before\nused in his behalf, at Damascus. Before the plans for his destruction\ncould be completed, they privately withdrew him from Jerusalem, and\nhad him safely conducted down to Caesarea, on the coast, whence, with\nlittle delay, he was shipped for some of the northern parts of Syria,\nfrom which he found his way to Tarsus,\u2015\u2015whether by land or sea, is\nunknown.\n\n\n HIS VISIT TO TARSUS.\n\nThis return to his native city was probably the first visit which\nhe had made to it, since the day when he departed from his father\u2019s\nhouse, to go to Jerusalem as a student of Jewish theology. It must\ntherefore have been the occasion of many interesting reflections and\nreminiscences. What changes had the events of that interval wrought in\nhim,\u2015\u2015in his faith, his hopes, his views, his purposes for life and for\ndeath! The objects which were then to him as idols,\u2015\u2015the aims and ends\nof his being,\u2015\u2015had now no place in his reverence or his affection; but\nin their stead was now placed a name and a theme, of which he could\nhardly have heard before he first left Tarsus,\u2015\u2015and a cause whose\ntriumph would be the overthrow of all those traditions of the Fathers,\nof which he had been taught to be so exceeding zealous. To this new\ncause he now devoted himself, and probably at this time labored \u201cin\nthe regions of Cilicia,\u201d until a new apostolic summons called him to a\ndistant field. He was yet \u201cpersonally unknown to the churches of Judea,\nwhich were in Christ; and they had only heard, that he who persecuted\nthem in times past, now preached the faith which once he destroyed;\nthey therefore glorified God on his account.\u201d The very beginnings\nof his apostolic duties were therefore in a foreign field, and not\nwithin the original premises of the lost sheep of the house of Israel,\nwhere indeed he was not even known but by fame, except to a few in\nJerusalem. In this he showed the great scope and direction of his\nfuture labors,\u2015\u2015among the Gentiles, not among the Jews; leaving the\nlatter to the sole care of the original apostles, while he turned to\na vast field for which they were in no way fitted, by nature, or by\napostolic education, nor were destined in the great scheme of salvation.\n\n\n HIS APOSTOLIC LABORS IN ANTIOCH.\n\nDuring this retirement of Saul to his native home, the first great\ncall of the Gentiles had been made through the summons of Simon Peter\nto Cornelius. There was manifest wisdom in this arrangement of events.\nThough the original apostles were plainly never intended, by providence,\nto labor to any great extent in the Gentile field, yet it was most\nmanifestly proper that the first opening of this new field should be\nmade by those directly and personally commissioned by Jesus himself,\nand who, from having enjoyed his bodily presence for so long a time,\nwould be considered best qualified to judge of the propriety of\na movement so novel and unprecedented in its character. The great\napostolic chief was therefore made the first minister of grace to\nthe Gentiles; and the violent opposition with which this innovation\non Judaical sanctity was received by the more bigoted, could of course\nbe much more efficiently met, and disarmed, by the apostle specially\ncommissioned as the keeper of the keys of the heavenly kingdom,\nthan by one who had been but lately a persecutor of the faithful,\nand who, by his birth and partial education in a Grecian city, had\nacquired such a familiarity with Gentile usages, as to be reasonably\nliable to suspicion, in regard to an innovation which so remarkably\nfavored them. This great movement having been thus made by the\nhighest Christian authority on earth,\u2015\u2015and the controversy immediately\nresulting having been thus decided,\u2015\u2015the way was now fully open for the\ncomplete extension of the gospel to the heathen, and Saul was therefore\nimmediately called, in providence, from his retirement, to take up the\nwork of evangelizing Syria, which had already been partially begun at\nAntioch, by some of the Hellenistic refugees from the persecution at\nthe time of Stephen\u2019s martyrdom. The apostles at Jerusalem, hearing of\nthe success which attended these incidental efforts, dispatched their\ntrusty brother Barnabas, to confirm the good work, under the direct\ncommission of apostolic authority. He, having come to Antioch, rejoiced\nhis heart with the sight of the success which had crowned the work\nof those who, in the midst of the personal distress of a malignant\npersecution, that had driven them from Jerusalem, had there sown a seed\nthat was already bringing forth glorious fruits. Perceiving the immense\nimportance of the field there opened, he immediately felt the want of\nsome person of different qualifications from the original apostles,\nand one whose education and habits would fit him not only to labor\namong the professors of the Jewish faith, but also to communicate\nthe doctrines of Christ to the Grecians. In this crisis he bethought\nhimself of the wonderful young convert with whom he had become\nacquainted, under such remarkable circumstances, a few years before,\nin Jerusalem,\u2015\u2015whose daring zeal and masterly learning had been so\nsignally manifested among the Hellenists, with whom he had formerly\nbeen associated as an equally active persecutor. Inspired both by\nconsiderations of personal regard, and by wise convictions of the\npeculiar fitness of this zealous disciple for the field now opened in\nSyria, Barnabas immediately left his apostolic charge at Antioch, and\nwent over to Tarsus, to invite Saul to this great labor. The journey\nwas but a short one, the distance by water being not more than one\nhundred miles, and by land, around through the \u201cSyrian gates,\u201d about\none hundred and fifty. He therefore soon arrived at Saul\u2019s home, and\nfound him ready and willing to undertake the proposed apostolic duty.\nThey immediately returned together to Antioch, and earnestly devoted\nthemselves to their interesting labors.\n\n \u201c_Antioch_, the metropolis of Syria, was built, according to\n some authors, by Antiochus Epiphanes; others affirm, by Seleucus\n Nicanor, the first king of Syria after Alexander the Great, in\n memory of his father Antiochus, and was the \u2018royal seat of the\n kings of Syria.\u2019 For power and dignity, Strabo, (lib. xvi. p.\n 517,) says it was not much inferior to Seleucia, or Alexandria.\n Josephus, (lib. iii. cap. 3,) says, it was the third great city\n of all that belonged to the Roman provinces. It was frequently\n called Antiochia Epidaphne, from its neighborhood to Daphne,\n a village where the temple of Daphne stood, to distinguish it\n from other fourteen of the same name mentioned by Stephanus\n de Urbibus, and by Eustathius in Dionysius p. 170; or as\n Appianus (in Syriacis,) and others, sixteen cities in Syria,\n and elsewhere, which bore that name. It was celebrated among the\n Jews for \u2018Jus civitatis,\u2019 which Seleucus Nicanor had given them\n in that city with the Grecians and Macedonians, and which, says\n Josephus, they still retain, Antiquities, lib. xii. cap. 13;\n and for the wars of the Maccabeans with those kings. Among\n Christians, for being the place where they first received that\n name, and where Saul and Barnabas began their apostolic labors\n together. In the flourishing times of the Roman empire, it was\n the ordinary residence of the prefect or governor of the eastern\n provinces, and also honored with the residence of many of the\n Roman emperors, especially of Verus and Valens, who spent here\n the greatest part of their time. It lay on both sides of the\n river Orontes, about twelve miles from the Mediterranean sea.\u201d\n (Wells\u2019s Geography New Testament\u2015\u2015Whitby\u2019s Table.) (J.\u00a0M.\n Williams\u2019s Notes on Pearson\u2019s _Annales Paulinae_.)\n\nHaving arrived at Antioch, Saul gave himself, with Barnabas, zealously\nto the work for which he had been summoned, and labored among the\npeople to good purpose, assembling the church and imparting to all that\nwould hear, the knowledge of the Christian doctrine. Under these active\nexertions the professors of the faith of Jesus became so numerous and\nso generally known in Antioch, that the heathen inhabitants found it\nconvenient to designate them by a distinct appellation, which they\nderived from the great founder and object of their religion,\u2015\u2015calling\nthem _Christians_, because the heathen inhabitants of Syria were not\nacquainted with the terms, \u201cNazarene\u201d and \u201cGalilean,\u201d which had been\napplied to the followers of Christ by the Jews, partly from the places\nwhere they first appeared, and partly in opprobium for their low\nprovincial origin.\n\n The name now first created by the Syrians to distinguish the\n sect, is remarkable, because being derived from a Greek word,\n _Christos_, it has a Latin adjective termination, Christ_ianus_,\n and is therefore incontestably shown to have been applied by\n the Roman inhabitants of Antioch; for no Grecian would ever\n have been guilty of such a barbarism, in the derivation of one\n word from another in his own language. The proper Greek form of\n the derivation would have been _Christicos_, or _Christenos_,\n and the substantive would have been, not Christianity, but\n _Christicism_, or _Christenism_,\u2015\u2015a word so awkward in sound,\n however, that it is very well for all Christendom, that the\n Roman barbarism took the place of the pure Greek termination.\n And since the Latin form of the first derivative has prevailed,\n and Christi_an_ thus been made the name of \u201ca believer\n in Christ,\u201d it is evident to any classical scholar, that\n Christian_ity_ is the only proper form of the substantive\n secondarily derived. For though the appending of a Latin\n termination upon a Greek word, as in the case of Christ_ianus_,\n was unquestionably a blunder and a barbarism in the first place,\n it yet can not compare, for absurdity, with the notion of\n deriving from this Latin form, the substantive Christian_ismus_,\n with a Greek termination foolishly pinned to a Latin one,\u2015\u2015a\n folly of which the French are nevertheless guilty. The error,\n of course, can not now be corrected in that language; but those\n who stupidly copy the barbarism from them, and try to introduce\n the monstrous word, ChristianISM, into English, deserve the\n reprobation of every man of taste.\n\n \u201cBefore this they were called \u2018disciples,\u2019 as in this\n place\u2015\u2015\u2018believers,\u2019 Acts v. 14\u2015\u2015\u2018men of the church,\u2019 Acts\n xii. 1\u2015\u2015\u2018men of the way,\u2019 Acts ix. 2\u2015\u2015\u2018the saints,\u2019 Acts ix.\n 13\u2015\u2015\u2018those that called on the name of Christ,\u2019 verse 14\u2015\u2015and\n by their enemies, Nazarenes and Galileans, and \u2018men of the\n sect;\u2019\u2015\u2015but now, by the conversion of so many heathens, both in\n Caesarea and Antioch, the believing Jews and Gentiles being made\n all one church, this new name was given them, as more expressive\n of their common relation to their Master, Christ. Whitby\n slightly alludes to the prophecy, Isaiah lxv.\u201d (J.\u00a0M. Williams\u2019s\n Notes on Pearson.)\n\nWhile Saul was thus effectually laboring in Antioch, there came down to\nthat city, from Jerusalem, certain persons, indued with the spirit of\nprophecy, among whom was one, named Agabus, who, under the influence of\ninspiration, made known that there would be a great famine throughout\nthe world;\u2015\u2015a prediction which was verified by the actual occurrence of\nthis calamity in the days of Claudius Caesar, during whose reign,\u2015\u2015as\nappears on the impartial testimony of the historians of those times,\nboth Roman and Jewish,\u2015\u2015the Roman empire suffered at different periods\nin all its parts, from the capital to Jerusalem,\u2015\u2015and at this latter\ncity, more especially, in the sixth year of Claudius, (A.\u00a0D. 46,)\nas is testified by Josephus, who narrates very particularly some\ncircumstances connected with the prevalence of this famine in Jerusalem.\nThe disciples at Antioch, availing themselves of this information,\ndetermined to send relief to their brethren in Judea, before the famine\nshould come on; and having contributed, each one according to his\nability, they made Barnabas and Saul the messengers of their charity,\nwho were accordingly dispatched to Jerusalem, on this noble errand.\nThey remained in Jerusalem through the period of Agrippa\u2019s attack upon\nthe apostles by murdering James, and imprisoning Peter; but they do\nnot seem to have been any way immediately concerned in these events;\nand when Peter had escaped, they returned to Antioch. How long they\nremained here, is not recorded; but the date of subsequent events seems\nto imply that it was a space of some years, during which they labored\nat Antioch in company with several other eminent prophets and teachers,\nof whom are mentioned Simeon, who had the Roman surname of Niger,\nLucius, the Cyrenian, and Manaen, a foster-brother of Herod the\ntetrarch. During their common ministrations, at a season of fasting,\nthey received a direction from the spirit of truth which guided them,\nto set apart Saul and Barnabas for the special work to which the Lord\nhad called them. This work was of course understood to be that for\nwhich Saul in particular, had, at his conversion, been so remarkably\ncommissioned,\u2015\u2015\u201cto open the eyes of the GENTILES,\u2015\u2015to turn them from\ndarkness to light, and from the dominion of Satan to God.\u201d His brethren\nin the ministry therefore, understanding at once the nature and object\nof the summons, now specially consecrated both him and Barnabas for\ntheir missionary work; and after fasting and praying, they invoked on\nthem the blessing of God, in the usual oriental form of laying their\nhands on them, and then bade them farewell.\n\n \u201cThat this famine was felt chiefly in Judea may be conjectured\n with great reason from the nature of the context, for we find\n that the disciples are resolving to send relief to the elders\n in Judea; consequently they must have understood that those in\n Judea would suffer more than themselves. Josephus declared that\n this famine raged so much there, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u2018so that many perished for want of victuals.\u2019\u201d\n\n \u201c\u2018Throughout the whole world,\u2019 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, is first to\n be understood, orbis terrarum habitabilis: Demosthenes in Corona,\n \u00c6schines contra Ctesiphon Scapula. Then the Roman and other\n empires were styled \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, \u2018the world.\u2019 Thus Isaiah xiv.\n 17, 26, the counsel of God against the empire of Babylon, is\n called his counsel, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u2018against all the\n earth.\u2019\u2015\u2015(Elsley, Whitby.) Accordingly Eusebius says of this\n famine, that it oppressed almost the whole _empire_. And as for\n the truth of the prophecy, this dearth is recorded by historians\n most averse to our religion, viz., by Suetonius in the life\n of Claudius, chapter 18, who informs us that it happened \u2018ob\n assiduas sterilitates;\u2019 and Dion Cassius History lib. lx. p.\n 146, that it was \u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, \u2018a very great famine.\u2019 Whitby\u2019s\n Annotations, Doddridge enumerates nine famines in various years,\n and parts of the empire, in the reign of Claudius; but the first\n was the most severe, and affected particularly Judea, and is\n that here meant.\u201d (J.\u00a0M. Williams\u2019s notes on Pearson.)\n\n\n HIS FIRST APOSTOLIC MISSION.\n\nGoing from Antioch directly eastward to the sea, they came to Seleucia,\nthe nearest port, only twelve miles from Antioch, and there embarked\nfor the island of Cyprus, the eastern end of which is not more than\neighty miles from the coast of Syria. The circumstance that more\nparticularly directed them first to this island, was probably that\nit was the native home of Barnabas, and with this region therefore he\nwould feel so much acquainted as to know its peculiar wants, and the\nfacilities which it afforded for the advancement of the Christian cause;\nand he would also know where he might look for the most favorable\nreception. Landing at Salamis, on the south-eastern part of the island,\nthey first preached in the synagogues of the Jews, who were very\nnumerous in Cyprus, and constituted so large a part of the population\nof the island, that some years afterwards they attempted to get\ncomplete possession of it, and were put down only by the massacre of\nmany thousands. Directing their efforts first to these wandering sheep\nof the house of Israel, the apostles everywhere preached the gospel in\nthe synagogues, never forsaking the Jews for the Gentiles, until they\nhad been driven away by insult and injury, that thus the ruin of their\nnation might lie, not upon the apostles, but upon them only, for their\nrejection of the repeated offers of salvation. Here, it would seem,\nthey were joined by John Mark, the nephew of Barnabas, who was probably\nstaying upon the island at that time, and who now accompanied them\nas an assistant in their apostolic ministry. Traversing the whole\nisland from east to west, they came to Paphos, a splendid city near the\nwestern end, famed for the magnificent temple and lascivious worship\nof the Paphian Venus, a deity to whom all Cyprus was consecrated; and\nfrom it she derived one of her numerous appellatives, _Cypris_ being a\nname under which she was frequently worshipped; and the females of the\nisland generally, were so completely devoted to her service, not merely\nin temple-worship, but in life and manners, that throughout the world,\nthe name _Cyprian woman_, even to this day, is but a polite expression\nfor one abandoned to wantonness and pleasure. The worship of this\nlascivious goddess, the apostles now came to exterminate, and to plant\nin its stead the dominion of a faith, whose essence is purity of heart\nand action. At this place, preaching the gospel with openness, they\nsoon attracted such general notice, that the report of their remarkable\ncharacter soon reached the ears of the proconsul of Cyprus, then\nresident in Paphos. This great Roman governor, by name Sergius Paulus,\nwas a man of intelligence and probity, and hearing of the apostles,\nsoon summoned them to his presence, that he might have the satisfaction\nof hearing from them, in his own hall, a full exposition of the\ndoctrine which they called the word of God. This they did with such\nenergy and efficiency, that they won his attention and regard; and he\nwas about to profess his faith in Jesus, when a new obstacle to the\nsuccess of the gospel was presented in the conduct of one of those\npresent at the discourse. This was an impostor, called Elymas,\u2015\u2015a name\nwhich seems to be a Greek form of the Oriental \u201c_Alim_\u201d meaning \u201ca\nmagician,\u201d\u2015\u2015who had, by his tricks, gained a great renown throughout\nthat region, and was received into high favor by the proconsul himself,\nwith whom he was then staying. The rogue, apprehending the nature of\nthe doctrines taught by the apostles to be no way agreeable to the\nschemes of self-advancement which he was so successfully pursuing, was\nnot a little alarmed when he saw that they were taking hold of the mind\nof the proconsul, and therefore undertook to resist the preaching of\nthe apostles; and attempted to argue the noble convert into a contempt\nof these new teachers. At this, Saul, (now first called Paul,) fixing\nhis eyes on the miserable impostor, in a burst of inspired indignation,\ndenounced on him an awful punishment for his resistance of the truth.\n\u201cO, full of all guile and all tricks! son of the devil! enemy of all\nhonesty! wilt thou not stop perverting the ways of the Lord? And now,\nlo! the hand of the Lord is on thee, and thou shalt be blind, not\nseeing the sun for a time.\u201d And immediately there fell on him a mist\nand a darkness; and turning around, he sought some persons to lead him\nby the hand. At the sight of this manifest and appalling miracle, thus\nfollowing the denunciation of the apostle, the proconsul was so struck,\nthat he no longer delayed for a moment his profession of faith in the\nreligion whose power was thus attested, but believed in the doctrine of\nJesus, as communicated by his apostles.\n\n \u201c_Seleucia_ was a little north-west of Antioch, upon the\n Mediterranean sea, named from its founder, Seleucus.\u2015\u2015_Cyprus_,\n so called from the flower of the Cypress-trees growing\n there.\u2015\u2015Pliny, lib. xii. cap. 24.\u2015\u2015Eustathius. In Dionysius p.\n 110. It was an island, having on the east the Syrian, on the\n west the Pamphylian, on the south the Phoenician, on the north\n the Cilician sea. It was celebrated among the heathens for its\n fertility as being sufficiently provided with all things within\n itself. Strabo, lib. xiv. 468, 469. It was very infamous for\n the worship of Venus, who had thence her name \u039a\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2. It was\n memorable among the Jews as being an island in which they so\n much abounded; and among Christians for being the place where\n Joses, called Barnabas, had the land he sold, Acts iv. 36; and\n where Mnason, an old disciple, lived; Acts xxi. 16.\u2015\u2015(Whitby\u2019s\n Table.) Salamis was once a famous city of Cyprus, opposite to\n Seleucia, on the Syrian coast.\u2015\u2015(Wells.) It was in the eastern\n part of Cyprus. It was famous among the Greek writers for the\n story of the Dragon killed by Chycreas, their king; and for the\n death of Anaxarchus, whom Nicocreon, the tyrant of that island,\n pounded to death with iron pestles.\u201d\u2015\u2015(Bochart, Canaan, lib. i.\n c. 2\u2015\u2015Laert, lib. ix. p. 579.) Williams\u2019s Pearson.\n\n _Proconsul._\u2015\u2015The Greek title \u0391\u03bd\u03b8\u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, was applied only\n to those governors of provinces who were invested with\n _proconsular_ dignity. \u2018And on the supposition that Cyprus was\n not a province of this description, it has been inferred that\n the title given to Sergius Paulus in this place, was a title\n that did not properly belong to him. A passage has indeed been\n quoted from Dion Cassius, (History of Rome, lib. liv. p. 523,\n edited by Hanoviae, 1690,) who, speaking of the governors of\n Cyprus and some other Roman provinces, applies to them the same\n title which is applied to Sergius Paulus. But, as Dion Cassius\n is speaking of several Roman provinces at the same time, one\n of which was certainly governed by a proconsul, it has been\n supposed, that for the sake of brevity, he used one term for all\n of them, whether it applied to all of them or not. That Cyprus,\n however, ought to be excluded, and that the title which he\n employed, as well as St. Luke, really _did_ belong to the Roman\n governors of Cyprus, appears from the inscription on a coin\n belonging to Cyprus itself. It belonged to the people of that\n island as appears from the word \u039a\u03a5\u03a0\u03a1\u0399\u03a9\u039d on the reverse: and,\n though not struck while Sergius Paulus himself was governor,\n it was struck, as appears from the inscription on the reverse,\n in the time of Proclus, who was next to Sergius Paulus in the\n government of Cyprus. And, on this coin the same title \u0391\u039d\u0398\u03a5\u03a0\u0391\u03a4\u039f\u03a3,\n is given to Proclus, which St. Luke gives Sergius Paulus.\u2019\n (Bishop Marsh\u2019s Lecture part v. pp. 85, 86.) That Cyprus was a\n proconsulate, is also evident \u2666from an ancient inscription of\n Caligula\u2019s reign, in which Aquius Scaura is called the proconsul\n of Cyprus. (Gruteri Corpus Inscriptionem, tom. i. part ii. p,\n cccix. No. 3, edited by Graevii Amsterdam, 1707.) Horne\u2019s Introd.\n\n \u2666 \u201clrom\u201d replaced with \u201cfrom\u201d\n\n\n HIS CHANGE OF NAME.\n\nIn connection with this first miracle of the apostle of Tarsus, it\nis mentioned by the historian of the Acts of the Apostles, that Saul\nthenceforth bore the name of Paul, and the reader is thence fairly\nled to suppose, that the name was taken from that of Sergius Paul,\nwho is the most important personage concerned in the event; and being\nthe first eminent man who is specified as having been converted by\nthe apostle, seems therefore to deserve, in this case, the honor of\nconferring a new name on the wonder-working Saul. This coincidence\nbetween the name and the occasion, may be justly esteemed sufficient\nground for assuming this as the true origin of the name by which the\napostle was ever after designated,\u2015\u2015which he applies to himself in his\nwritings, and by which he is always mentioned throughout the Christian\nworld, in all ages. With the name of \u201cSaul of Tarsus,\u201d there were\ntoo many evil associations already inseparably connected, in the\nminds of all the Jewish inhabitants of the east, and the troublesome\ncharacter of those prevalent impressions having been perhaps\nparticularly obvious to the apostle, during his first missionary tour,\nhe seized this honorable occasion, to exchange it for one that had no\nsuch evil associations; and he was therefore afterwards known only by\nthe name of PAUL.\n\nEmbarking at Paphos, the apostles, after doubling cape Acamas, the most\nwestern point of the island, sailed northwestward, towards the northern\ncoast of Asia Minor,\u2015\u2015and after a voyage of about two hundred miles,\nreached Perga, a city in Pamphylia. This place was not a sea-port, but\nstood on the west bank of the river Cestrus, about eight miles from the\nsea. It was there built by the Attalian kings of south-western Asia,\nand was by them made the most splendid city of Pamphylia. Near the\ntown, and on a rising ground, was a very famous temple of Diana, to\nwhich every year resorted a grand religious assembly, to celebrate\nthe worship of this great Asian goddess. In such a strong hold\nof heathenism, the apostles must have found much occasion for the\npreaching of the gospel; but the historian of their Acts gives no\naccount of anything here said or done by them, and only mentions that\nat this place their companion, John Mark, gave up his ministration with\nthem, and returned to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas then went on without\nhim, to the north, and proceeded, without any material delay, directly\nthrough Pamphylia, and over the ranges of Taurus, through Pisidia, into\nPhrygia Katakekaumene, where they made some stay at the city of Antioch,\nwhich was distinguished from the great capital of Syria bearing the\nsame royal name, by being called \u201cAntioch of Pisidia,\u201d because, though\nreally within the boundaries of Phrygia, it was often numbered among\nthe cities of the province next south, near whose borders it stood,\nand was therefore associated with the towns of Pisidia by those who\nlived south and east of them. At this place the apostles probably\narrived towards the last of the week, and reposing here on the\nsabbath, they went into the Jewish synagogue, along with the usual\nworshiping assembly, and took their seats quietly among the rest.\nAfter the regular service of the day (consisting of the reading of\nselect portions of the law and the prophets) was over, the minister\nof the synagogue, according to custom, gave an invitation to the\napostles to preach to the people, if they felt disposed to do so. It\nshould be noticed, that in the Jewish synagogues, there was no regular\nperson appointed to preach, the _minister_ being only a sort of reader,\nwho conducted the devotions of the meeting, and chanted the lessons\nfrom the Scriptures, as arranged for each sabbath. When these regular\nduties were over, the custom was to invite a discourse from any person\ndisposed or qualified to address the people,\u2015\u2015the whole being always\nthus conducted somewhat on the plan of a modern \u201cconference meeting.\u201d\nOn this day, the minister, noticing two grave and intelligent-looking\npersons among the worshipers, joining devoutly in the service of God,\nand perceiving them to be of a higher order than most of the assembly,\nor perhaps having received a previous hint of the fact that they\nwere well-qualified religious teachers, who had valuable doctrines to\ncommunicate to the people,\u2015\u2015sent word to them, \u201cBrethren! if you have\nany word of exhortation for the people, say on.\u201d Paul then,\u2015\u2015as usual,\ntaking the precedence of Barnabas in speaking, on account of his own\nsuperior endowments as an orator,\u2015\u2015addressed the meeting, beginning\nwith the usual form of words, accompanied with a graceful gesticulation,\nbeseeching their favor. \u201cMen of Israel! and you that fear God! give\nyour attention.\u201d The two different classes of persons included in\nthis formula, are evidently, first, those who were Jews by birth\nand education, and second, those devout Gentiles who reverenced the\nGod of Israel and conformed to the law of Moses, worshiping with the\nJews on the sabbath. Paul, in his sermon, which was of considerable\nlength, began in the usual form of an apostolic discourse to the\nJews, by recurring to the early Hebrew history, and running over the\ngreat leading events and persons mentioned in their sacred writings,\nthat might be considered as preparing the way for the Messiah. Then,\nproceeding to the narration of the most important points in the history\nof the new dispensation, he applied all the quoted predictions of\nthe inspired men of old, to the man Christ Jesus, whom they now\npreached. The substance of his discourse was, that in Jesus Christ were\nfully accomplished those splendid prophecies contained in the Psalms,\nconcerning the future glories of the line of David; and more especially\nthat by his attested resurrection he had fulfilled the words spoken\nby the Psalmist, of the triumphs of the \u201cHoly One\u201d over the grave\nand corruption. Paul thus concluded,\u2015\u2015\u201cBe it known to you therefore,\nbrethren, that through this man is preached to you forgiveness of sins;\nand every one that believes in him is justified from all things, from\nwhich you could not be justified by the law of Moses. Beware therefore,\nlest that come upon you which is spoken by the prophets,\u2015\u2015\u2018See! you\ndespisers! and wonder and be amazed; for I will do a work in your days,\nwhich you shall not believe, even if one should tell it to you.\u2019\u201d These\ndenunciatory concluding words are from the prophet Habakkuk, where he\nis foretelling to the Israelites of his day, the devastating invasion\nof the Chaldeans; and the apostle in quoting them, aimed to impress\nhis hearers with the certainty of similar evils to fall upon their\nnation,\u2015\u2015evils so tremendous, that they might naturally disbelieve the\nwarning, if it should give them the awful particulars of the coming\nruin, but whose solemn truth they would, nevertheless, too soon learn\nin its actual accomplishment. These words being directed in a rather\nbitter tone of warning to the Jews in particular, that portion of the\naudience do not appear to have been much pleased with his address; but\nwhile the most of them were retiring from the synagogue, the Gentiles\ndeclared their high satisfaction with the discourse, and expressed\nan earnest desire that it might be repeated to them on the next\nsabbath,\u2015\u2015a request with which ministers in these modern times are very\nrarely complimented by their congregations. After the meeting broke\nup, many of the audience were so loth to part with preachers of this\nextraordinary character, that they followed the apostles to their\nlodgings. These were mostly the religious proselytes from the heathen\nwho worshiped with the Jews in the synagogue, but some even of the\nJews were so well satisfied with what they had heard, that they also\naccompanied the throng that followed the apostles. Paul and Barnabas\ndid not suffer this occasion to pass unimproved; but as they went along,\ndiscoursed to the company, exhorting them to stand fast in the grace\nof God. They continued in the city through the week, and meanwhile the\nfame of their doctrines and their eloquence extended so fast and so\nfar, that when on the next sabbath they went to the synagogue to preach\naccording to promise, almost the whole city came pouring in, along with\nthem, to hear the word of God. But when the Jews, who had already been\nconsiderably displeased by the manner in which they had been addressed\nthe last sabbath, saw the multitudes which were thronging to hear these\nnew interlopers, they were filled with envy, and when Paul renewed\nhis discourse, they openly disputed him,\u2015\u2015denied his conclusions, and\nabused him, and his doctrine. Paul and Barnabas, justly indignant at\nthis exhibition of meanness, that thus set itself against the progress\nof the truth among the Gentiles, from whom the Jews, not content with\nrejecting the gospel themselves, would also exclude the light of the\nword,\u2015\u2015boldly declared to them\u2015\u2015\u201cIt was necessary that the word of God\nshould be first spoken to you; but since you have cast it off, and thus\nevince yourselves unworthy of everlasting life,\u2015\u2015behold, we turn to the\nheathen. For thus did God command us, \u2018I have set thee for a light to\nthe _heathen_, that thou mightest be for their salvation, even to the\nuttermost part of the earth.\u2019\u201d And the heathen hearing this, rejoiced,\nand glorified the word of the Lord, and many of them believed, to their\neverlasting salvation. And the word of God was spread throughout that\nwhole country; but the opposition of the Jews increasing in proportion\nto the progress of the faith of Christ, a great disturbance was raised\nagainst the apostles among the aristocracy of the city, who favored\nthe Jews, and more especially among the women of high family, who were\nproselytes; and the result of the commotion was, that the apostles\nwere driven out of the city. Paul and Barnabas, in conformity to the\noriginal injunction of Jesus to the twelve, shook off the dust of their\nfeet, as an expressive testimony against them,\u2015\u2015and turning eastward,\ncame to another city, named Iconium, in Lycaonia, the most eastern\nprovince of Phrygia.\n\n Lycaonia is a province of Asia Minor, accounted the southern\n part of Cappadocia, having Isauria on the west, Armenia Minor\n on the east, and Cilicia on the south. Its chief cities are\n all mentioned in this chapter xiv. _viz._, Iconium, Lystra, and\n Derbe. They spake _in the Lycaonian tongue_, verse 10, which is\n generally understood to have been a corrupt Greek, intermingled\n with many Syriac words.\u2015\u2015Horne\u2019s Introduction.\n\nIconium was the capital of Lycaonia, and is mentioned by the Grecian\nand Roman writers, before and after the apostolic times, as a place\nof some importance; but nothing definite is known of its size and\ncharacter. It appears, at any rate, from the apostolic record, that\nthis flourishing city was one of the numerous centers of the Jewish\npopulation, that filled so much of Asia Minor; and here, according\nto their custom, the apostles made their first communication of the\ngospel, in the Jewish synagogue. Entering this place of worship, they\nspoke with such effect, that a great number both of Greeks and Jews\nwere thoroughly convinced of the truth of the Christian doctrine, and\nprofessed their faith in Jesus. But, as usual, there was in Iconium\na great residue of bigoted adherents to the Mosaic faith, who could\nappreciate neither the true scope of the ancient dispensation, nor the\nperfection of gospel truth; and a set of these fellows undertook to\nmake trouble for the apostles, in the same way that it had been done\nat the Pisidian Antioch. Not having power or influence enough among\nthemselves to effect any great mischief, they were obliged to resort\nto the expedient of exciting the ill-will of the Gentile inhabitants\nand rulers of the city, against the objects of their mischievous\ndesigns,\u2015\u2015and in this instance were successful, inasmuch as \u201cthey made\ntheir minds disaffected against the brethren.\u201d But in spite of all\nthis opposition, thus powerfully manifested, \u201clong time they abode\nthere, speaking boldly in the Lord,\u201d who did not fail to give them the\never-promised support of his presence, but \u201cgave testimony to the word\nof his grace, and caused signs and miracles to be done by their hands.\u201d\nThe immediate effect of this bold maintenance of the truth was, that\nthey soon made a strong impression on the feelings of the mass of the\npeople, and created among them a disposition to defend the preachers\nof the word of heavenly grace, against the malice of their haters. The\nconsequence of course was, that the whole city was directly divided\ninto two great parties, one for and the other against the apostles. On\none hand the supporters of the Jewish faction were bent upon driving\nout the innovators from the city, and on the other, the numerous\naudiences, who had been interested in the preaching of Paul and\nBarnabas, were perfectly determined to stand by the apostles at\nall hazards, and the whole city seems to have been on the eve of a\nregular battle about this difference. But it did not suit the apostles\u2019\nscheme to make use of such means for their own advancement or defence;\nand hearing that a grand crisis in affairs was approaching, in the\nopposition of the Jewish faction, they took the resolution of evading\nthe difficulty, by withdrawing themselves quietly from the scene of\ncommotion, in which there was but very little prospect of being useful,\njust then. The whole gang of their opponents, both Gentiles and Jews,\nrulers and commonalty, having turned out for the express purpose of\nexecuting popular vengeance on these odious agitators, by abusing and\npelting them, the apostles, on getting notice of the scheme, moved off,\nbefore the mob could lay hands on them, and soon got beyond their reach,\nin other cities.\n\nThese fugitives from popular vengeance, after having so narrowly\nescaped being sacrificed to public opinion, turned their course\nsouthward, and stopped next on their adventurous route at the city of\nLystra, also within Lycaonia, where they preached the gospel, and not\nonly in the city and its immediate vicinity, but also throughout the\nwhole surrounding region, and in the neighboring towns. In the progress\nof their labors in Lystra, they one day were preaching in the presence\nof a man who had been lame from his birth, being in exactly the same\npredicament with the cripple who was the subject of the first miracle\nof Peter and John, in the temple. This unfortunate auditor of Paul and\nBarnabas believed the word of truth which they preached; and as he sat\namong the rest, being noticed by the former apostle, was recognized as\na true believer. Looking earnestly on him, Paul, without questioning\nhim at all as to his faith, said to him at once, in a loud voice, \u201cRise,\nand stand on thy feet.\u201d Instantly the man sprang up, and walked. When\nthe people saw this amazing and palpable miracle, they cried out, in\ntheir Lycaonian dialect, \u201cThe gods are come down to us in the likeness\nof men.\u201d Struck with this notion, they immediately sought to designate\nthe individual deities who had thus honored the city of Lystra with\ntheir presence; and at once recognized in the stately form, and solemn,\nsilent majesty of Barnabas, the awful front of JUPITER, the Father\nof all the gods; and as for the lively, mercurial person attending\nupon him, and acting, on all occasions, as the spokesman, with such\nvivid, burning eloquence,\u2015\u2015who could he be but the attendant and\nagent of Jupiter, HERMES, the god of eloquence and of travelers? Full\nof this conceit, and anxious to testify their devout sense of this\ncondescension, the citizens bustled about, and with no small parade\nbrought out a solemn sacrificial procession, with oxen and garlands,\nheaded by the priests of Jupiter, and were proceeding to offer a\nsacrifice in solemn form to the divine personages who had thus veiled\ntheir dignity in human shape, when the apostles, horror-struck at this\ndegrading exhibition of the idolatrous spirit against which they were\nwarring, and without a single sensation of pride or gratitude for this\ngreat compliment done them, ran in among the people, rending their\nclothes in the significant and fantastic gesture of true Orientals,\nand cried out with great earnestness, \u201cSirs! what do you mean? We also\nare men of like constitutions with yourselves, and we preach to you\nwith the express intent that you should turn from these follies to\nthe living God, who made heaven and earth and sea, and all that is in\nthem.\u2015\u2015He, indeed, in times past, left all nations to walk in their\nown ways. Yet he left himself not wholly without witness of his being\nand goodness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and\nfruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.\u201d With\nthese words of splendid eloquence and magnificent conception bursting\nfrom their lips in the inspiration of the moment,\u2015\u2015the apostles,\nwith no small ado, stopped the idolatrous folly of the Lystrans, who\nprobably felt and looked very silly, when the mistake into which they\nhad been drawn by a mere mob-cry, was shown to them. Indignant, not\nso much at themselves, who alone were truly blamable for the error, as\nagainst the persons who were the nobly innocent occasions of it,\u2015\u2015they\nwere in a state of feeling to overbalance this piece of extravagance\nby another,\u2015\u2015much more wicked, because it was not mere nonsense, but\ndownright cruelty. When, therefore, certain spiteful Jews came to\nLystra from Antioch and Iconium, from which places they had been\nhunting, like hounds, on the track of the apostles, and told their\nabusive lies to the people about the character of these two strange\ntravelers, the foolish Lystrans were easily persuaded to crown their\nabsurdity by falling upon Paul, who seemed to be the person most active\nin the business. Having seized him, before he could slip out of their\nhands, as he usually did from his persecutors, they pelted him with\nsuch effect that he fell down as if dead; and they, with no small\nalacrity, dragged him out of the city as a mere carcase. But the mob\nhad hardly dispersed, when he rose up, to the great wonder of the\nbrethren who stood mourning about him, and went back with them into\nthe city. The whole of this interesting series of events is a firm\ntestimony to the honesty of the apostolic narrative, exhibiting,\nas it does, so fairly, the most natural, and at the same time, the\nmost contemptible tendencies of the human character. Never was there\ngiven such a beautiful illustration of the value and moral force of\npublic opinion! unless, perhaps, in the very similar case of Jesus, in\nJerusalem:\u2015\u2015\u201cHosanna,\u201d to-day, and \u201cCrucify him,\u201d to-morrow. One moment,\nexalting the apostles to the name and honors of the highest of all the\ngods; the next, pelting them through the streets, and kicking them out\nof the city as a nuisance. The Bible is everywhere found to be just so\nbitterly true to human nature, and the whole world cannot furnish a\nstory in which the character and moral value of popular movements are\nbetter exhibited than in the adventures of the apostles, as recorded by\nLuke.\n\n Acts xiv. 12. \u201cIt has been inquired why the Lystrans suspected\n that Paul and Barnabas were Mercury and Jupiter? To this it may\n be answered, 1st.\u00a0that the ancients supposed the gods especially\n visited those cities which were sacred to them. Now from\n verse 13, it appears that _Jupiter_ was worshiped among these\n people; and that Mercury too was, there is no reason to doubt,\n considering how general his worship would be in so commercial a\n tract of Maritime Asia. (Gughling de Paulo Mercurio, p. 9, and\n Walch Spic. Antiquities, Lystra, p. 9.) How then was it that the\n priest of Mercury did not also appear? This would induce one\n rather to suppose that there was no temple to Mercury at Lystra.\n Probably the worship of that god was confined to the _sea-coast_;\n whereas Lystra was in the interior and mountainous country. 2.\u00a0It\n appears from mythological history, that Jupiter was thought to\n generally descend on earth accompanied by _Mercury_. See Plautus,\n Amphitryon, 1, 1, 1. Ovid, Metamorphoses, 8, 626, and Fasti,\n 5, 495. 3.\u00a0It was a very common story, and no doubt, familiar\n to the Lystrans, that Jupiter and Mercury formerly traversed\n Phrygia together, and were received by Philemon and Baucis.\n (See Ovid, Metamorphoses, 8, 611, Gelpke in Symbol. ad Interp.\n Acts xiv. 12.) Mr. Harrington has yet more appositely observed,\n (in his _Works_, p. 330,) that this persuasion might gain\n the more easily on the minds of the Lycaonians, on account of\n the well-known fable of Jupiter and Mercury, who were said to\n have descended from heaven in human shape, and to have been\n entertained by Lycaon, from whom the Lycaonians received their\n name.\n\n \u201cBut it has been further inquired why they took Barnabas for\n Jupiter, and Paul for Mercury. Chrysostom observes, (and after\n him Mr. Fleming, Christology Vol. II. p. 226,) that the heathens\n represented Jupiter as an old but vigorous man, of a noble and\n majestic aspect, and a large robust make, which therefore he\n supposes might be the form of Barnabas; whereas Mercury appeared\n young, little, and nimble, as Paul might probably do, since\n he was yet in his youth. A more probable reason, however, and\n indeed the true one, (as given by Luke,) is, that Paul was so\n named, _because he was the leading speaker_. Now it was well\n known that Mercury was the god of eloquence. So Horace, Carmen\n Saeculare, 1, 10, 1. Mercuri facunde nepos Atlantis Qui feros\n cultus hominum recentum Voce formasti cantus. Ovid, Fasti,\n 5, 688. Macrobius, Saturnalia, 8, 8. Hence he is called by\n Jamblichus, de Mysteriis, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u1f7c\u03bd, a passage\n exactly the counterpart to the present one, which we may render,\n \u2018for he had led the discourse.\u2019\u201d (Bloomfield\u2019s Annotations, New\n Testament, Vol. IV. c. xiv. \u00a7 12.)\n\n \u201cThey called Paul Mercury, because he was the chief speaker,\u201d\n verse 12. Mercury was the god of eloquence. Justin Martyr says\n Paul is \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, _the word;\n that is, the interpreter and teacher of all men_. Apology ii. p.\n 67. Philo informs us that Mercury is called Hermes, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, _as being the interpreter and prophet of\n divine things_, apud Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica, Lib. iii.\n c. 2. He is called by Porphyry \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, _the exhibitor or\n representor of reason and eloquence_. Seneca says he was called\n Mercury, _quia ratio penes illum est_. De Beneficiis, Lib. iv.\n cap. 7.\u2015\u2015Calmet, Whitby, Stackhouse.\n\nAll this pelting and outcry, however, made not the slightest impression\non Paul and Barnabas, nor had the effect of deterring them from the\nwork, which they had so unpropitiously carried on. Knowing, as they did,\nhow popular violence always exhausts itself in its frenzy, they without\nhesitation immediately returned by the same route over which they had\nbeen just driven by such a succession of popular outrages. The day\nafter Paul had been stoned and stunned by the people of Lystra, he left\nthat city with Barnabas, and both directed their course eastward to\nDerbe, where they preached the gospel and taught many. Then turning\ndirectly back, they came again to Lystra, then to Iconium, and then\nto Antioch, in all of which cities they had just been so shamefully\ntreated. In each of these places, they sought to strengthen the faith\nof the disciples, earnestly exhorting them to continue in the Christian\ncourse, and warning them that they must expect to attain the blessings\nof the heavenly kingdom, only through much trial and suffering. On\nthis return journey they now formally constituted regular worshiping\nassemblies of Christians in all the places from which they had before\nbeen so tumultuously driven as to be prevented from perfecting their\ngood work,\u2015\u2015ordaining elders in every church thus constituted, and\nsolemnly, with fasting and prayer, commending them to the Lord on whom\nthey believed. Still keeping the same route on which they had come,\nthey now turned southward into Pamphylia, and came again to Perga. From\nthis place, they went down to Attalia, a great city south of Perga,\non the coast of Pamphylia, founded by Attalus Philadelphus, king of\nPergamus. At this port, they embarked for the coast of Syria, and soon\narrived at Antioch, from which they had been commended to the favor of\nGod, on this adventurous journey. On their arrival, the whole church\nwas gathered to hear the story of their doings and sufferings, and to\nthis eager assembly, the apostles then recounted all that happened to\nthem in the providence of God, their labors, their trials, dangers,\nand hair-breadth escapes, and the crowning successes in which all these\nprovidences had resulted; and more especially did they set forth in\nwhat a signal manner, during this journey, the door of Christ\u2019s kingdom\nhad been opened to the Gentiles, after the rejection of the truth\nby the unbelieving Jews; and thus happily ended PAUL\u2019S FIRST GREAT\nAPOSTOLIC MISSION.\n\n Bishop Pearson here allots three years for these journeys of the\n apostles, viz. 45, 46, and 47, and something more. But Calmet,\n Tillemont, Dr. Lardner, Bishop Tomline, and Dr. Hales, allow two\n years for this purpose, viz. 45 and 46; which period corresponds\n with our Bible chronology. (Williams on Pearson.)\n\n\n THE DISPUTES ON THE CIRCUMCISION.\n\nThe great apostle of the Gentiles now made Antioch his home, and\nresided there for many years, during which the church grew prosperously.\nBut at last some persons came down from Jerusalem, to observe the\nprogress which the new Gentile converts were making in the faith; and\nfound, to their great horror, that all were going on their Christian\ncourse, in utter disregard of the ancient ordinances of the holy Mosaic\ncovenant, neglecting altogether even that grand seal of salvation,\nwhich had been enjoined on Abraham and all the faithful who should\nshare in the blessings of the promise made to him; they therefore took\nthese backsliders and loose converts, to task, for their irregularities\nin this matter, and said to them, \u201cUnless you be circumcised \u2666according\nto the Mosaic usage, you can not be saved.\u201d This denunciation of\neternal ruin on the Gentile non-conformists, of course made a great\ncommotion among the Antiochians, who had been so hopefully progressing\nin the pure, spiritual faith of Christ,\u2015\u2015and were not prepared by\nany of the instructions which they had received from their apostolic\nteachers, for any such stiff subjection to tedious rituals. Nor were\nPaul and Barnabas slow in resisting this vile imposition upon those who\nwere just rejoicing in the glorious light and freedom of the gospel;\nand they at once therefore, resolutely opposed the attempts of the\nbigoted Judaizers to bring them under the servitude of the yoke which\nnot even the Jews themselves were able to bear. After much wrangling on\nthis knotty point, it was determined to make a united reference of the\nwhole question to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, and that Paul\nand Barnabas should be the messengers of the Antiochian church, in this\nconsultation. They accordingly set out, escorted beyond the city by\nthe church; and passing first directly southward, along the Phoenician\ncoast, they next turned inland through Samaria, everywhere visiting\nthe churches on the route, and making known to them the joyful story\nof the conversions among the Gentiles of Asia Minor, which was news\nto the Christians of Palestine, and caused great congratulations among\nthem, at these unexpected triumphs of their common faith. Arriving at\nJerusalem, they there, for the first time, gave to the twelve apostles,\na detailed account of their long Asian mission; and then brought\nforward the grand question under debate. As soon as this point was\npresented, all the obstinate Jewish prejudices of that portion of\nthe church who were of the order of the Pharisees, were instantly\naroused,\u2015\u2015and with great earnestness they insisted \u201cthat it was\nnecessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of\nMoses.\u201d This first meeting however, adjourned without coming to any\nconclusion; and the apostles and elders were called together again to\nconsider upon the matter. As soon as they were assembled they all fell\nto disputing with great violence, and, of course, with no decisive or\nprofitable result; but at last the great apostolic chief rising up,\nended the debate with a very clear statement of the results of his own\npersonal experience of the divine guidance in this matter, and with\nbrief but decisive eloquence hushed their clamors, that they might give\nBarnabas and Paul a chance to declare in what manner God had sanctioned\ntheir similar course. The two apostles of the Gentiles then narrated\nwhat miracles and wonders God had wrought among the heathen by them.\nSuch was the decisive effect of their exposition of these matters of\nfact, that all debate was checked at once; and James himself, the great\nleader of the Judaical order, rose to express his perfect acquiescence\nin the decision of the apostolic chief and the Hellenists. His opinion\nwas, that only so much conformity to the Mosaic institutions should be\nrequired of the Gentile converts, as they might without inconvenience\nsubmit to, out of respect to the old covenant, and such observances as\nwere necessary for the moral purity of a professing Christian of any\nnation. The whole assembly concurred; and it was resolved to dispatch\ntwo select persons out of their own company, to accompany Paul and\nBarnabas to Antioch, and thus by their special commission, enforce the\ndecision of the apostolic and presbyterial council. The decision of the\ncouncil was therefore committed to writing, in a letter which bore high\ntestimony to the zeal and courage of Barnabas and Paul, as \u201cmen who had\nhazarded their lives for the sake of the gospel,\u201d\u2015\u2015and it was announced\nas the inspired decision of the apostles, elders and brethren, that the\nGentile converts should not be troubled with any greater burden than\nthese necessary things:\u2015\u2015\u201cThat you abstain from things offered to idols,\nand from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication;\u201d and\nif they should only keep themselves from these, they would do well.\nJude and Silas were the envoys commissioned with the charge of this\nepistle, and accordingly accompanied Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch.\n\n \u2666 \u201cacccording\u201d replaced with \u201caccording\u201d\n\n \u201cThose who maintained this position were Jews, of the sect of\n the Pharisees, Acts, xv. 5, converted to Christianity, but still\n too zealous for the observance of the law; and their coming\n immediately from Judea might make it rather believed, that the\n necessity of circumcision, in order to salvation, was a tenet\n of the apostles. The Jews themselves indeed were of different\n opinions in this matter, even as to the admission of a man into\n _their_ religion. For some of them would allow those of other\n nations who owned the true God, and practised moral duties,\n to live quietly among them, and even without circumcision, to\n be admitted into their religion; whilst others were decidedly\n opposed to any such thing. Thus Josephus tells us that when\n Izates, the son of Helen, queen of Adiabene, embraced the Jews\u2019\n religion, Ananias, who converted him, declared that he might\n do it without circumcision; but Eleazer, another eminent Jew,\n maintained, that it was a great impiety in such circumstances,\n to remain uncircumcised; and this difference of opinion\n continued among the Jewish Christian converts, some allowing\n Gentiles to become converts to Christianity, without submitting\n to circumcision and the Jewish law: whilst others contended\n that without circumcision, and the observance of the law,\n their profession of the Christian faith would not save them.\u201d\n (_Stackhouse_ from Whitby and Beausobre.)\n\n \u201cIt is very evident, that this is the same journey to which\n the apostle alludes in Galatians ii. First, from the agreement\n of the history here and the apostle\u2019s relation in the epistle,\n as that \u2018he communicated to them the gospel, which he preached\n among the Gentiles,\u2019 Galatians ii. 2. which he now did, Acts\n xv. 4. That circumcision was not then judged necessary to the\n Gentiles, verse 3, as we find, Acts xv. 24, \u2018that, when they saw\n the gospel of uncircumcision was committed to him, they gave to\n him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship,\u2019 Galatians ii. 9,\n as they did here, sending their very decree with one consent to\n the Gentiles, \u2018_by the hands of Paul and Barnabas_,\u2019 Acts xv. 22,\n 25, who were received by the \u2018_whole church_,\u2019 verse 4. and\n styled _beloved_,\u2019 verse 25.\n\n \u201cSecondly, it appears unlikely that the apostle, writing this\n epistle about nine years after this council, should make no\n mention of a thing so advantageous to a cause he is pleading\n here, and so proper to confute the pretenses of the adversaries\n he disputes against. And,\n\n \u201cThirdly, James, Peter, and John, being all the apostles now\n present at the council, the mention of their consent to his\n doctrine and practice was all that was necessary to his purpose\n to be mentioned concerning that council, It is no objection to\n this opinion, that we find no mention, in Acts xv. of Titus\u2019s\n being with him; for he is not mentioned in the whole of the Acts,\n during which interval the journey must have happened.\u201d (Whitby.)\n\n \u201c_The Council of Jerusalem_ was assembled in the fourteenth year\n after St. Paul\u2019s conversion. For the apostle adverts to this\n same journey, and determinately specifies the time in Galatians\n ii. 1, 2. Grotius is of opinion that four years should be here\n written instead of fourteen; who, nevertheless, allows, that the\n one mentioned in Galatians, is this journey to the Council. But\n the reason is evident why the apostle should date these years\n from the epoch of his conversion, from the scope of the first\n and second chapters. He styles himself an apostle, not of men,\n neither by man, chap. i. 1: he declared that his gospel was not\n according to men, and that he neither received nor learned it\n from men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, verses 11, 12.\n And this he proves to the Galatians by his conversion, which\n was not unknown to them. He begins with his strict profession of\n the Jewish religion, according to the tenets of the Pharisees,\n which ended in a most violent persecution of the Christians.\n Then he goes on to show how God revealed his Son to him, and\n that immediately he conferred not with flesh and blood, he\n neither held communion with any man, neither did he go up to\n Jerusalem to them that were apostles before him, by whom he\n could have been taught more fully the mind of God, \u2018but went\n into Arabia,\u2019 where he received the gospel by revelation; and\n he returned to Damascus, and preached the word of God to the\n confounding of the Jews: \u2018Then after three years he went up to\n Jerusalem to see Peter.\u2019 From all this it appears evident, that\n the epoch of these _three years_ should commence at the time of\n his conversion. The same is to be said of the other epoch of the\n _fourteen years_. \u2018Then, after fourteen years, I went up again\n to Jerusalem,\u2019 chap. ii. 1, because the scope of both is the\n same,\u2015\u2015and they both date from the same period of time. The word\n \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 does not connect this sentence with that of the three\n years, as if the beginning of these should be dated from the\n close of those, because there is another \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 which comes\n between these two texts, viz. in verse 21, of chap. i. where\n he begins to relate his travels in Syria and Cilicia, but does\n not specify the period of time he remained in those regions;\n therefore no chronological connexion can have been intended by\n him. The apostle still following up his design, says \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 and\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd, but neither does \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 refer to his stay in Syria and\n Cilicia,\u2015\u2015nor \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd to his second coming to Jerusalem: for he\n had been with a second collection to Jerusalem, then suffering\n from famine, accompanied by Barnabas, but not by Titus; and\n because he then saw none of the apostles, he omitted mentioning\n that journey, considering it quite foreign to his present\n purpose.\u201d (Pearson, Annales, 49.)\n\n\n PAUL\u2019S QUARREL WITH PETER.\n\nThe whole company of envoys, both Barnabas and Paul, the original\nmessengers of the Syrian church, and Jude and Silas, the deputies\nof the apostolic college, presented the complete results of the\nJerusalem consultation before a fall meeting of the whole congregation\nof believers at Antioch, and read the epistle of the council to them.\nThe sage and happy exhortations which it contained were not only\nrespectfully but joyfully received; and in addition to the comfort\nof these, _the first written words of Christian inspiration_, the two\nenvoys, Jude and Silas, also discoursed to the church, commenting at\nmore length on the apostolic message of which they were the bearers,\nand confirmed their hearers in the faith. After remaining there for\nsome time, Jude bade them farewell, and returned to his apostolic\nassociates; but Silas was so much pleased with the opportunities thus\nafforded him of doing good among the Gentiles, of whom he himself\nalso was one, as his name shows,\u2015\u2015that he stayed in Antioch after the\ndeparture of Jude, and labored along with Paul and Barnabas, teaching\nand preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. This is\ncommonly understood to be the time of Paul\u2019s dissension with Peter, as\nmentioned in the epistle to the Galatians. The circumstances of this\ndisagreeable occurrence have already been narrated and commented on,\nin the Life of Peter,\u2015\u2015nor need anything additional be presented here\nin relation to Paul, except the observation, that his dispute with\nthe chief apostle, and his harsh censure of his conduct, are very much\nin accordance with the impressions of his character, given in other\npassages of his life. He was evidently a man of violent and hasty\npassions; and is uniformly represented, both by his historian and by\nhimself, as exceedingly bitter and harsh in his denunciations of all\nwho differed from him on practical or speculative points, both before\nand after his calling to the apostleship; and this trait is manifested\non such a variety of occasions, as to be very justly considered an\ninseparable peculiarity of his natural disposition and temperament.\nDoubtless there are many to whom it seems very strange, that the\nApostle Paul should ever be spoken of as having been actually and truly\nangry, or ever having made an error in his conduct after his conversion;\nbut there are instances enough to show that it was not a mere modest\ninjustice to himself for him to tell the Lystran idolaters that he was\na man of like passions with them,\u2015\u2015but a plain matter of fact, made\nevident not only by his own noble and frank confession, but by many\nunfortunate instances throughout his recorded life. Yet there are a\ngreat many Protestants, who have been in the habit of making such a\nkind of idol or demi-god out of Paul, that they are as little prepared\nas the Lystrans to appreciate the human imperfections of his character;\nand if Paul himself could at this moment be made fully sensible of the\ndumb idolatrous reverence with which many of his modern and enlightened\nadorers regard him, he would be very apt to burst out in the same\nearnest and grieved tone, in which he checked the similar folly of\nthe Lystrans,\u2015\u2015\u201cSirs! why do ye these things? I also am a man of like\npassions with yourselves.\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cThe spirit of divine truth which actuated\nme, and guided me in the way of light, by which I led others to\nlife eternal, still did not make me anything more than a man,\u2015\u2015a man\nin moral as in bodily weakness, nor exempt from liabilities to the\naccidents of passion, any more than to the pains of mortal disease. The\nSpirit that guided my pen in the record of eternal truth, and my tongue\nin the preaching of the word of salvation, did not exalt me above the\nerrors, the failings and distresses of mortality; and I was still all\nmy lifetime subject to the bondage of sin, groaning under that body\nof death, and longing for the day when I should pass away from the\nfrailties and distresses of earth, to that state of being which alone\nis wholly sinless and pure.\u201d\n\n \u201cFrom the opposition to St. Peter, which they suppose to be\n before the Council at Jerusalem, some would have it, that this\n Epistle to the Galatians was written before that Council; as\n if what was done before the Council could not be mentioned in a\n letter written after the Council. They also contend, that this\n journey, mentioned here by St. Paul, was not that wherein he\n and Barnabas went up to that Council to Jerusalem, but that\n mentioned Acts xi. 30; but this with as little ground as the\n former. The strongest reason they bring, is, that if this\n journey had been to the Council, and this letter after that\n Council, St. Paul would not certainly have omitted to have\n mentioned to the Galatians that decree. To which it is answered,\n 1.\u00a0The mention of it was superfluous; for they had it already,\n see Acts xvi. 4. 2. The mention of it was impertinent to the\n design of St. Paul\u2019s narrative here. For it is plain, that his\n aim, in what he relates here of himself, and his past actions,\n is to shew, that having received the gospel from Christ by\n immediate revelation, he had all along preached that, and\n nothing but that, everywhere; so that he could not be supposed\n to have preached circumcision, or by his carriage, to have shewn\n any subjection to the law; all the whole narrative following\n being to make good what he says, \u2666chap. i. 11, \u2018that the gospel\n which he preached was not accommodated to the humoring of men;\n nor did he seek to please the Jews (who were the men here meant)\n in what he taught.\u2019 Taking this to be his aim, we shall find the\n whole account he gives of himself, from that verse 11 of chap.\n i., to the end of the second chapter, to be very \u2660clear and\n easy, and very proper to invalidate the report of his preaching\n circumcision.\u201d (Locke\u2019s Paraphrase.)\n\n \u2666 \u201cehap.\u201d replaced with \u201cchap.\u201d\n\n \u2660 \u201cctear\u201d replaced with \u201cclear\u201d\n\n \u201cI conceive that this happened at the time here stated, because\n Paul intimates in Galatians ii. 11, that he was in Antioch when\n Peter came there; and Peter had never been to Antioch before\n Paul was in that city after the Council of Jerusalem; and\n besides the dissension between Paul and Barnabas, who was the\n intimate friend of Peter, appears to have originated here.\u201d\n Pearson\u2019s Annales Paul. (A.\u00a0D. 50.)\n\n A fine exhibition of a quibbling, wire-drawn argument, may be\n found in Baronius, (Annales, 51,) who is here put to his wits\u2019\n end to reconcile the blunt, \u201cround, unvarnished tale,\u201d in Paul\u2019s\n own account, (in Galatians ii. 11\u201214,) with the papistical\n absurdity of the moral infallibility of the apostles. He lays\n out an argument of five heavy folio pages to prove that, though\n Paul quarreled thus with Peter, yet neither of them was in the\n slightest degree to blame, &c. But the folly of explaining away\n the Scriptures in this manner, is not confined wholly to the\n bigoted, hireling historian of papal Rome; some of the boldest\n of protestants have, in the same manner, attempted to reconcile\n the statement of Paul with the vulgar notions of apostolic\n infallibility. Witsius (Vita Pauli, iv. 12,) expends a paragraph\n to show that neither of them was to blame; but following the\n usual course of anti-papist writers, he represents the great\n protestant idol, Paul, in altogether the most advantageous\n light, according to the perfectly proverbial peculiarity of\n the opponents of the church of Rome, who, in their apostolic\n distinctions, uniformly \u201crob Peter to pay Paul.\u201d\n\n\n PAUL\u2019S QUARREL WITH BARNABAS.\n\nThe church of Antioch having thus made great advances under these very\nabundant and extraordinary instructions, the apostles began to turn\ntheir eyes again to a foreign field, and longed for a renewal of those\nadventurous labors from which they had now had so long a repose. Paul\ntherefore proposed to Barnabas that they should go over their old\nground again:\u2015\u2015\u201cLet us go again and visit our brethren in every city,\nwhere we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.\u201d To\nthis frank and reasonable proposition, Barnabas readily agreed, and as\nit was desirable that they should have an assistant with them on this\njourney, he proposed that his nephew Mark should accompany them in this\ncapacity as he had done on their former voyage. But Paul, remembering\nthe manner in which he had forsaken them just as they were entering\nupon the arduous missionary fields of Asia Minor, refused to try again\none who had once failed to do them the desired service, at a time\nwhen he was most needed. Yet Barnabas, being led, no doubt by his near\nrelationship to the delinquent evangelist, to overlook this single\ndeficiency, and perhaps, having good reason to think that he had now\nmade up his mind to stick to them through thick and thin, through\ngood and bad fortune, was disposed to give him another trial in the\napostolic service, and therefore strongly urged Paul to accept of him\nas their common assistant in this new tour for which he was well fitted\nby his knowledge of the routes. Paul, however, no doubt irritated\nagainst Mark, for the wavering spirit already manifested by him at\nPerga, utterly refused to have anything to do with him after such a\ndisplay of character, and wished to take some other person who had\nbeen tried in the good work with more satisfactory results as to his\nresolution and ability. Barnabas of course, was not at all pleased to\nhave his sister\u2019s son treated so slightingly, and refused to have any\nsubstitute whatever, insisting that Mark _should_ go, while Paul was\nequally resolved that he should _not_. The conclusion of the whole\nmatter was, that these two great apostles, the authorized messengers\nof God to the Gentiles, quarreled downright; and after a great deal\nof furious contention, they parted entirely from one another; and so\nbitter seems to have been the division between them that they are not\nknown to have ever after been associated in apostolic labors, although\nthey had been the most intimate friends and fellow-travelers for many\nyears, standing by one another through evil and good report, through\ntrials, perils, distresses and almost to death. A most lamentable\nexhibition of human \u2666weakness marring the harmonious progress of the\ngreat scheme of evangelization! Yet it must be esteemed one of the\nmost valuable facts relating to the apostles, that are recorded in\nthe honest, simple, clear, and truly impartial narrative of Luke;\nbecause it reminds the Christian reader of a circumstance, that he\nmight otherwise forget, in an undue reverence for the character of\nthe apostles,\u2015\u2015and that is, the circumstance that these consecrated\nministers of the word of truth were, really and practically, in spite\nof their holiness, \u201cmen of like passions with ourselves,\u201d and even in\nthe arrangement of their apostolic duties, were liable to be governed\nby the impulses of human passion, which on a few occasions like this,\nacting in opposite directions in different persons at the same time,\nbrought them into open collisions and disputes,\u2015\u2015which, if men of\ntheir pure martyr-spirit, mostly too, under the guidance of a divine\ninfluence, could not avoid, nor could satisfactorily settle, neither\nmay the unconsecrated historian of a later age presume to decide. Who\nwas right and who was wrong in this difficulty, it is impossible to\nsay; and each reader may judge for himself. It may be remarked, however,\nthat Paul was no more likely to be right than Barnabas; he was a\nyounger man, as it would appear from the circumstance that he is named\nafter him in the apostolic epistle;\u2015\u2015he was no more an apostle than\nBarnabas was; for both are thus named by Luke in his account of their\nfirst journey, and both were expressly called by a distinct revelation\nfrom the Holy Spirit to undertake the apostleship of the Gentiles\ntogether. Paul also is known to have quarreled with other persons, and\nespecially with Peter himself, and that too without very just cause;\nand although Barnabas may have been influenced to partiality by his\nrelationship to Mark, yet much also may be justly chargeable to Paul\u2019s\nnatural violence and bitterness of temper, which often led him into\nhasty acts, of which he afterwards repented, as he certainly did in\nthis very case, after some time; for he repeatedly mentions Mark in his\nepistles in terms of regard, and what is most in point, declares him to\nbe \u201cprofitable to him in the ministry.\u201d\n\n \u2666 \u201cweaknes\u201d replaced with \u201cweakness\u201d\n\n Witsius remarks, (Vita Pauli, iv. 16,) that the ancient\n Christian writers ascribe the greatest part of the blame of this\n quarrel to Barnabas, whom they consider as having been unduly\n influenced by natural affection for his kindred according to the\n flesh. \u201cBut\u201d, as Witsius rather too cautiously remarks, \u201cit may\n well be doubted whether Paul\u2019s natural violence of temper did\n not carry him somewhat beyond the bounds of right. The Greeks\n have not unwisely remarked\u2015\u2015\u1f49 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f41\n \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf \u03a0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u2018Paul demanded what was just\u2015\u2015Barnabas,\n what was charitable.\u2019 It might have been well enough if Barnabas\n had yielded to the zeal of Paul; but it would not have been bad\n if Paul had persuaded himself to allow something to the feelings\n of that most mild and amiable man. Meanwhile, it deserves notice,\n that God so ordered this, that it turned out as much for the\n individual benefit of Mark, as for the general benefit of the\n church. For the kind partiality of Barnabas was of advantage\n to Mark, in preventing him from being utterly cast off from\n apostolic companionship, and forsaken as unworthy; while to the\n church, this separation was useful, since it was the means of\n confirming the faith of more of the churches in the same time.\u201d\n (Witsius.)\n\n \u201cFrom hence we may learn, not only that these great lights in\n the Christian church were men of the like passions with us,\n but that God, upon this occasion, did most eminently illustrate\n the wisdom of his providence, by rendering the frailties of two\n such eminent servants instrumental to the benefit of his church,\n since both of them thenceforward employed their extraordinary\n industry and zeal singly and apart, which till then had been\n united, and confined to the same place.\u201d (Stanhope on the\n Epistles and Gospels, vol. 4.)\n\n\n HIS SECOND APOSTOLIC MISSION.\n\nAfter this unhappy dispute, the two great apostles of the Gentiles\nseparated; and while Barnabas, accompanied by his favorite nephew,\npursued the former route to Cyprus, his native island, Paul took a\ndifferent direction, by land, north and west. In selecting a companion\nfor a journey which he had considered as urgently requiring such\nblameless rectitude and firmness of resolution, he had set his heart\nupon Silas, the efficient Hellenist deputy from Jerusalem, whose\ncharacter had been fully tested and developed during his stay in\nAntioch, where he had been so active in the exercise of those talents,\nas a preacher, which had gained for him the title of \u201cprophet\u201d before\nhis departure from Jerusalem. Paul, during his apostolic association\nwith him, had laid the foundation of a very intimate friendship; and\nbeing thus attached to him by motives of affection and respect, he\nnow selected him as the companion of his missionary toils. Bidding the\nchurch of Antioch farewell, and being commended by them to the favor\nof God, he departed,\u2015\u2015not by water, but through the cities of Syria, by\nland,\u2015\u2015whence turning westward, he passed through the Syrian gates into\nCilicia; in all these places strengthening the churches already planted,\nby making large additions to them from the Gentiles around them.\nJourneying northwest from Cilicia, he came by the Cilician gates of\nTaurus, to his old scenes of labor and suffering, in Lycaonia, at Derbe\nand Lystra, where he proceeded in the task of renewing and completing\nthe good work which he had himself begun on his former tour with\nBarnabas; with whom he might now doubtless have effected vastly more\ngood, and whose absence must have been deeply regretted by those who\nowed their hopes of salvation to the united prayers and labors of him\nand Paul. Among those who had been converted here by the apostles on\ntheir first mission, was a half-bred Jew, by name Timotheus, his father\nhaving been a Greek who married Eunice, a Jewess, and had maintained a\nhigh character among his countrymen in that region, both in Lystra and\nIconium. Under the early and careful instructions of his pious mother,\nwho had herself received a superior religious education under her own\nmother Lois, Timothy had acquired a most uncommon familiarity with\nthe Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation; and\nthat he had learned them and appreciated their meaning in a much more\nspiritual and exalted sense than most Jews, appears from the fact, that\nnotwithstanding his early regard for the law as well as the prophets,\nhe had never complied with the Mosaic rite of circumcision,\u2015\u2015perhaps\nbecause his father may have been prejudiced against the infliction of\nsuch a sign upon his child. Paul becoming acquainted with Timothy,\nand seeing in the young man the germ of those talents which were\nafterwards so eminent in the gospel cause, determined to train him to\nbe an assistant and associate with him in the apostolic ministry,\u2015\u2015and\nin order to make him so far conform to all the rites of the ancient\ncovenant, as would fit him for an acceptable ministry among the Jews as\nwell as the Gentiles, he had him circumcised; and he was induced still\nfarther to this step of conformity, by the consideration of the effect\nit would have on the Jews in that immediate neighborhood, who were\nalready very suspicious that Paul was in reality aiming at the utter\noverthrow and extinction of all the Mosaic usages, and was secretly\ndoing all that he could to bring them into contempt and disuse. Having\nmade this sacrifice to the prejudices of his countrymen, he now\nconsidered Timothy as completely fitted for usefulness in the apostolic\nministry, and henceforth made him his constant companion for years.\n\n\n HIS WESTWARD JOURNEY.\n\nWith this accession to his company, Paul proceeded through the cities\nof that region which he had before visited, and communicated to them\nthe decrees passed by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, for the\nregulation of the deportment of professing Christians, in regard to\nthe observance of Mosaic usages. They all, moreover, labored for the\nextension of the churches already founded, and thus caused them to be\nbuilt up, so that they received fresh additions daily. Nor did Paul\nlimit his apostolic labors to the mere confirmation of the work begun\non his tour with Barnabas; but after traversing all his old fields\nof exertion, he extended his journey far north of his former route,\nthrough all Phrygia, and Galatia, a province which had never before\nbeen blessed with the presence of a Christian missionary,\u2015\u2015and after\nlaboring in his high vocation there, he was disposed to move west,\nto the Ionian or true Asian shore of the Aegean, but was checked by\na direction which he could not resist; and passing northward of the\ntrue Asian cities, he came out of Phrygia into Mysia, the province\nthat occupies the northwestern corner of all Asia Minor, bounded\nnorth by the Propontis and Hellespont, and west by the northern\npart of the Aegean,\u2015\u2015the true Asia lying south of it, within the\ngeographical division commonly named Lydia. Having entered Mysia, they\nwere expecting to turn northeast into Bithynia, when again their own\npreferences and counsels were overruled by the same mysterious impulse\nas before, and they therefore continued their westward journey to the\nshore of the Hellespont and Aegean, arriving within the classic region\nof the Troad, at the modern city of Alexandria Troas, some miles south\nof that most glorious of all the scenes of Grecian poetical antiquity,\nwhere, thirteen hundred years before, \u201cTROY WAS.\u201d Here they rested for\na brief space, and while they were undecided as to the course which\nthey ought next to pursue, Paul had a remarkable vision, which gave a\nsummons too distinct to be mistaken or doubted, to a field in which the\nmost noble triumphs of the cross were destined to be won under his own\npersonal ministration, and where through thousands of years the name of\nChrist should consecrate and re-exalt the land, over all whose hills,\nmountains, streams, valleys, and seas, then as now, clustered the\nrich associations of the most splendid antiquity that is marked in the\nrecords of the past, with the beautiful and the excellent in poetry,\nart, taste, literature, philosophy and moral exaltation. In the night,\nas Paul was slumbering at his stopping-place, in the Troad, there\nappeared to him a vision of a Macedonian, who seemed to cry out\nbeseechingly to him\u2015\u2015\u201cCome over into Macedonia, and help us!\u201d This\nvoice of earnest prayer for the help of Christ, rolling over the wide\nAegean, was enough to move the ardent spirit of Paul, and on waking he\ntherefore summoned his companions to attend him in his voyage to this\nnew field. He had been joined here by a new companion, as appears from\nthe fact, that the historian of the Acts of the apostles now begins\nto speak in the first person, of the apostolic company, and it thence\nappears that besides Silas and Timotheus, Paul was now attended by\nLuke. Setting sail from Troas, as soon as they could get ready for this\nunexpected extension of their travels, the whole four were wafted by\na fresh south-eastern breeze from the Asian coast, first to the large\nisland of Samothrace; and on the second day, they came to Neapolis, a\ntown on the coast of Macedonia, which is the seaport of the great city\nof Philippi.\n\n\n HIS MISSION IN MACEDONIA.\n\nThey without delay proceeded to Philippi, the chief city of that part\nof Macedonia, taking its name from that sage monarch who laid the\nfoundation of the Macedonian dominion over the Grecian world, and gave\nthis city its importance and splendor, re-building it, and granting\nit the honors of his peculiar favor. Under the Roman conquest it had\nlost no part of its ancient importance, but had been endowed by Julius\nCaesar, in a special decree, with the high privileges of a Roman\ncolony, and was in the apostolic age one of the greatest cities in that\npart of Europe. Here Paul and his companions staid for several days;\nand seeking on the sabbath, for some place where they could, in that\nheathen land, observe the worship, and celebrate the praises of the\nGod of their fathers, they wandered forth from the great pagan city,\nand sat down, away from the unholy din of mirth and business, in a\nretired place on the banks of the little stream which ran by the town,\nbeing made up of numerous springs that rise at the foot of the hills\nnorth of it,\u2015\u2015which gave it the name of CRENIDES, or \u201cthe city of\n_springs_;\u201d\u2015\u2015the common name of the town before its conquest by Philip.\nIn such places, by the side of streams and other waters, the Jews were\nalways accustomed to construct their places for social worship; and\nhere, in this quiet place, a few Jewish residents of the city resorted\nfor prayer, remembering the God of their fathers, though so far from\nhis sanctuary. Those who thus kept up the worship of God in this place,\nare mentioned as being women only; for it may always be observed that\nit is among the softer sex that religion takes its deepest root, and\namong them a regard to its observances is always found, long after\nthe indifference generated by a change of circumstances, or by the\nengrossing cares of business, has turned away the devotions of men.\nSo was it in Philippi; while the sons of Judah had grown indifferent\nto those observances of their religion, which were inconvenient,\nby interfering with the daily arrangements of business intercourse\nwith their heathen fellow-citizens, the daughters of Zion came still\nregularly together, to the place where prayer was wont to be made.\nHere the apostolic company met them, and preached to them the new word\nof grace, now revealed for all the scattered race of Israel, far and\nnear,\u2015\u2015and not for them only, but also for the Gentiles. Among these\ngentle auditors of the word of grace, now first proclaimed in Greece,\nwas a Jewess, named Lydia, who had emigrated from Thyatira, in Lydian\nAsia, and now carried on in Philippi, a trade in the purple dye, for\nwhich the region from which she came was so famous, even from the time\nof Homer. While listening to the words of Paul, her heart was opened\nto the comprehension of the truth of the gospel, and she professed\nher faith in Jesus. Having been baptized with all her household, she\nwas so moved with regard for those who had thus taught her the way of\nsalvation, that she earnestly invited them to make her house their home.\nComplying with her benevolent and hospitable invitation, Paul, Silas,\nTimothy and Luke, took up their abode in her house, and remained there\nthroughout their whole stay in Philippi.\n\nSuch was the beginning of the propagation of the gospel in\nGreece,\u2015\u2015such was the foundation of the first church ever planted east\nof the Hellespont; and thus did Europe first receive the doctrines of\nthat faith, which now holds in all that mighty division of the world, a\ntriumphant seat, and constitutes the universal religion of the nations\nthat hold within themselves the sources of art, learning,\u2015\u2015all the\nrefinements of civilization,\u2015\u2015and of the dominion of half the globe.\nFour pilgrims entered the city of Philippi, unknown, friendless, and\nscorned for their foreign, half-barbarian aspect. Strolling about from\nday to day, to find the means of executing their strange errand, they\nat last found a few Jewish women, sitting in a little retired place,\non the banks of a nameless stream. To them they made known the message\nof salvation;\u2015\u2015one of the women with her household believed the gospel,\nand professed the faith of Jesus;\u2015\u2015and from this beginning did those\nglorious results advance, which in their progress have changed the\nface of Europe, revolutionized the course of empires, and modified the\ndestiny of the world!\n\nAn incident soon occurred, however, which brought them into more public\nnotice, though not in a very desirable manner. As they went out to\nthe usual place of prayer on the bank of the stream, they at last were\nnoticed by a poor bedeviled crazy girl, who, being deprived of reason,\nhad been made a source of profit to a set of mercenary villains, who\ntaking advantage of the common superstition of their countrymen about\nthe supernatural endowments of such unfortunate persons, pretended\nthat she was a Pythoness, indued by the Pythian Apollo with the spirit\nof prophecy; for not only at Delphi, on his famous tripod, but also\nthroughout Greece, he was believed to inspire certain females to utter\nhis oracles, concerning future events. The owners and managers of this\npoor girl therefore made a trade of her supposed soothsaying faculty,\nand found it a very profitable business, through the folly of the wise\nGreeks of Philippi. This poor girl had her crazy fancy struck by the\nappearance of the apostolic company, as they passed along the streets\nto their place of prayer, and following them, perceived, under the\nimpulse of the strange influence that possessed her, the real character\nof Paul and his companions; and cried out after them, \u201cThese men are\nthe servants of the most high God, who show us the way of salvation.\u201d\nThis she did daily for a long time, till at last, Paul, annoyed by this\nkind of proclamation thus made at his heels, turned about, and by a\nsingle command subdued the demoniac influence that possessed her, and\nrestored her to the freedom of sense and thought. Of course she was\nnow no longer the submissive instrument of the will of her mercenary\nmanagers, and it was with no small vexation that they found all chance\nof these easy gains was forever gone. In their rage against the authors\nof what they deemed their calamity, they caught Paul and Silas, as the\nforemost of the apostolic company, and dragging them into the forum\nor courthouse, where the magistrates were in session, they presented\ntheir prisoners as a downright nuisance: \u201cThese men, who are Jews, do\nexceedingly trouble our city; and teach customs which are not lawful\nfor us to adopt nor observe, if we are to maintain the privileges of\nRoman citizens.\u201d What the latter part of the accusation referred to,\nin particular, it is not easy to say, and probably there was no very\ndefinite specification made by the accusers; for the general prejudice\nagainst the Jews was such, that the mob raised a clamor against them\nat once; and the magistrates seeing in the apostles only some nameless\nforeign vagabonds, who having come into the city without any reasonable\nobject in view were disturbing the peace of the inhabitants, had\nno hesitation whatever in ordering them to be punished in the most\nignominious manner, and without any question or defense, conforming\nto the dictation of that universally divine and immaculate source of\njustice,\u2015\u2015the voice of the people,\u2015\u2015instantly had them stripped and\nflogged at the discretion of their persecutors. After having thus\nshamefully abused them, they did not dismiss them, but cast them into\nprison, and set their feet in the stocks.\n\n \u201c_Philippi_ was a city of Macedonia, of moderate extent, and not\n far from the borders of Thrace. It was formerly called Crenides,\n from its \u2666numerous springs, from which arises a small stream,\n mentioned Acts xvi. 13, though it is commonly omitted in the\n maps. The name of Philippi it received from Philip, father of\n Alexander, who enlarged it, and fortified it as a barrier town\n against the Thracians. Julius Caesar sent hither a Roman colony,\n as appears from the following inscription on a medal of this\n city, COL. IUL. AUG. PHIL. quoted in Vaillant Num. \u00e6n. imp.\n T. I. p. 160, and from Spon Misc. p. 173. See also Pliny, L. IV.\n c. ii. and the authors in Wolfii Curae, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, \u2018the first city of that district of Macedonia:\u2019\n but in what sense the word \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7, or \u2018first,\u2019 is here to\n be taken, admits of some doubt. Paulus \u00c6milius had divided\n Macedonia into four districts, and that in which Philippi was\n situated, was called \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7, or the first district. But of this\n district, Philippi does not appear to be entitled, in any sense,\n to the name of \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2. For if \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7 be taken in the sense\n of \u2018first in respect to place,\u2019 this title belonged rather to\n Neapolis, which was the frontier town of Macedonia, towards\n Thrace, as appears from Acts xvii. 1. And, if taken in the sense\n of \u2018first in respect to rank,\u2019 it belonged rather to Amphipolis,\n which was the capital of this district of Macedonia, as appears\n from the following passage Livii History Lib. XLV. 29. Capita\n regionum, ubi concilia fierent, primae regionis Amphipolin,\n secundae Thessalonicen, &c. But the difficulty is not so great\n as it appears to be. For, though Amphipolis was made the capital\n of the first district of \u2660Macedonia in the time of Paulus\n \u00c6milius, and therefore entitled to the name of \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7, it is not\n impossible that in a subsequent age, the preference was given\n to Philippi. Or even if Amphipolis still continued to be the\n capital of the district, or the seat of the Roman provincial\n government, yet the title \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7 may have been claimed by the\n city of Philippi, though it were not the very first in point of\n rank. We meet with many instances of this kind, on the medals\n of the Greek cities, on which we find that more than one city\n of the same province, assumed the title of \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7. St. Luke,\n therefore, who spent a long time at Philippi, and was well\n acquainted with the customs of the place, gave this city the\n title which it claimed, and which, according to the custom of\n the Greek cities, was inscribed probably on its coins. Hence\n it appears that the proposal made by Pierce to alter \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\n \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 to \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, is unnecessary.\u201d (Michaelis\u2019s\n Introduction, Vol. IV. pp. 152\u2012154. Marsh\u2019s translation.)\n\n \u2666 \u201cnumerons\u201d replaced with \u201cnumerous\u201d\n\n \u2660 \u201cMacodonia\u201d replaced with \u201cMacedonia\u201d\n\n \u201c\u2018_Where prayer was wont to be made._\u2019 xvi. 13. This proseuchae\n signifies an oratory, a place appointed for prayer; in heathen\n countries, they were erected in sequestered retreats, commonly\n on the banks of rivers (as here) or on the sea-shore. Josephus\n has preserved the decree of the city of Halicarnassus,\n permitting the Jews to erect oratories, part of which is in the\n following terms:\u2015\u2015\u2018We ordain that the Jews, who are willing,\n both men and women, do observe the Sabbaths and perform sacred\n rites according to the Jewish law, and _build proseuchae by\n the seaside, according to the custom of their country_; and if\n any man, whether magistrate or private person, give them any\n hinderance or disturbance, he shall pay a fine to the city.\u2019\n (Josephus, Antiquities, lib. xiv, cap. 10.) (Al. 24.)\n\n \u201cMany commentators, viz. Grotius, Drs. Whitby, Doddridge, and\n Lardner, agree with Josephus, Philo, and Juvenal, that these\n places of worship were synonymous with synagogues. But Calmet,\n Prideaux, and Hammond, contend that they were _nearly_ the same,\n yet there was a _real_ difference between them; the synagogues\n were within the cities, while the proseuchae were without,\n in retired spots, particularly in heathen countries, by the\n river-side, with galleries or the shades of trees for their only\n shelter. Prideaux considers them to be of greater antiquity than\n the synagogues, and that they were formed by the Jews in open\n courts, that those who lived at a distance from Jerusalem might\n offer their private worship as in the open courts of the Temple\n or Tabernacle. In the synagogues, Prideaux observes, _public_\n worship was performed, and in the proseuchae _private_ prayer\n was used to be made. It is highly probable that these proseuchae\n were the same which are called in the Old Testament \u2018high\n places.\u2019 (Hammond on Luke vi. 12, and Acts xvi. 13\u201216. Calmet\u2019s\n Dictionary voce proseucha. Prideaux\u2019s Connec, part i. book iv.\n sub anno 444. vol. I. pp. 387\u2012390. edition 1720.) (Horne\u2019s\n Introduction.)\n\n \u201c\u2018And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the\n city of Thyatira.\u2019 verse 14. It is a remarkable fact, that among\n the ruins of Thyatira, there is an inscription extant with the\n words \u039f\u0399 \u0392\u0391\u03a6\u0395\u0399\u03a3, _the dyers_. Wheler\u2019s Journey into Greece, vol.\n iii. p. 233. Spon, Miscellanea Eruditae Antiquitates, p. 113;\n from whence we learn that the art and trade of dyeing purple\n were carried on in that city.\u201d (Horne\u2019s Introduction.)\n\nHere was fine business for the apostle and his companion! \u201c_Come over\ninto Macedonia and help us!_\u201d Such were the words of deep agonizing\nentreaty, in which the beseeching Macedonian had, in the night-vision,\nsummoned the great apostle of the Gentiles to this new field of\nevangelizing labor. Taking that summons for a divine command, he had\nobeyed it\u2015\u2015had crossed the wide Aegean, and sought in this great city\nof Macedonia, the occasions and the means of \u201chelping\u201d the idolatrous\ncitizens to a knowledge of the truth as it was in Jesus. Week after\nweek they had been inoffensively toiling in the faithful effort to\nanswer this Macedonian cry for help; and what was the result and the\nreward of all these exertions? For no crime whatever, and for no reason\nexcept that they had rescued a gentle and unfortunate spirit from a\nmost degrading thraldom to demoniac agencies, and to men more vile\nand wicked than demons, they had been mobbed,\u2015\u2015abused by a parcel\nof mercenary scoundrels,\u2015\u2015stripped naked in the forum, and whipped\nthere like thieves,\u2015\u2015and at last thrown into the common jail among\nfelons, with every additional injury that could be inflicted by their\ndetermined persecutors, being fettered so that they could not repose\ntheir sore and exhausted bodies. Was not here enough to try the\npatience of even an apostle? What man would not have burst out in\nfurious vexation against the beguiling vision which had led them away\ninto a foreign land, among those who were disposed to repay their\nassiduous \u201chelp,\u201d by such treatment? Thus might Paul and Silas have\nexpressed their vexation, if they had indeed been misled by a mere\nhuman enthusiasm; but they knew Him in whom they had trusted, and were\nwell assured that He would not deceive them. So far from giving way to\ndespondency and silence, they uplifted their voices in _praise_! Yes,\n_praise_ to the God and Father of Jesus Christ, that he had accounted\nthem worthy to suffer thus for the glory of his name. \u201cAt midnight\nPaul and Silas prayed and sang praises to God, and the prisoners heard\nthem.\u201d In the dreary darkness,\u2015\u2015inclosed between massive walls, and\nbound in weighty fetters, their spirits rose in prayer,\u2015\u2015doubtless\nfor those persecutors whom they came over to \u201chelp,\u201d and not for\nthemselves,\u2015\u2015since their souls were already so surely stayed on God.\nTo him they raised their voices in praise, for their own peace and joy\nin believing. Not yielding like those inspired by the mere impulses of\nhuman ambition or wild enthusiasm,\u2015\u2015they passed the dreary night, _not_\n\n \u201cIn silence or in fear.\u2015\u2015\n They shook the depths of the prison gloom,\n With their hymns of lofty cheer.\u2015\u2015\n Amid the storm they sang,\u201d\n\nfor He whom they thus invoked did not leave them in their heroic\nendurance, without a most convincing testimony that their prayers and\ntheir songs had come up in remembrance before him. In the midst of\ntheir joyous celebration of this persecution, while their wondering\nfellow-prisoners, waked from their sleep by this very unparalleled\nnoise, were listening in amazement to this manifestation of the manner\nof spirit with which their new companions were disposed to meet their\ndistresses,\u2015\u2015a mighty earthquake shook the city, and heaved the whole\nprison-walls on their foundations, so that all the firmly barred doors\nwere burst open, and, what was more remarkable, all the chains fell\nfrom the prisoners. The jailer waking up amidst this horrible crash,\nand seeing all the prison-doors open, supposed that the prisoners had\nall escaped; and knowing how utterly certain would be his ruin if his\ncharge should thus be broken,\u2015\u2015in a fit of vexation and despair, he\ndrew his sword, and would have instantly killed himself, had not Paul,\nseeing through the darkness the frenzied actions of the wretched man,\ncalled out to him in a loud voice, clear and distinct amid the dreadful\ndin, \u201cDo thyself no harm, for we are all here.\u201d\n\nHearing these consolatory words, the jailer called for a light, and\nsprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,\nsaying,\u2015\u2015\u201cSirs! What must I do to be saved?\u201d They replied\u2015\u2015\u201cBelieve\non the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, with all thy\nhouse.\u201d The jailer of course spoke of being saved merely from present\ndanger,\u2015\u2015and appalled by the shock of the earthquake, concluded at\nonce that it had some connection with the prayers and songs of the\ntwo Jewish prisoners, whom he knew to have been unjustly punished\nand imprisoned. He supposed therefore, that from those who were the\noccasion of the awful occurrence, he might best learn the means of\nescaping its destructive consequences. But his alarmed inquiries were\nmade instrumental in teaching him the way of escape from a peril of far\ngreater magnitude, threatening his spirit with the eternal ruin that\nwould fall at last on all the sinful opposers of the truth. The two\nimprisoned preachers then proclaimed to him the word of the Lord, and\nnot only to him, but to all that were in his house. No sooner had the\njailer thus learned, by their eloquent words, the real character and\nobjects of his prisoners, than he immediately determined to make them\nall the atonement in his power, for the shameful treatment which they\nhad received from his fellow-citizens. He took them that same hour\nof the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized with all his\nhouse. Of course he could no longer suffer those who were the authors\nof his hopes of salvation, to lie any longer among felons; and he\nimmediately brought them out of the jail into his own house, and gave\nthem food, making it a sort of festal \u2666occasion for himself and his\nwhole family, who were all rejoicing with him in the knowledge of\nthe gospel. When it was day the magistrates sent the officers of\njustice with a verbal order for the release of the two prisoners, of\nwhose abominable usage they were now quite ashamed, after a night\u2019s\nreflection, without the clamors of a mob to incite them; and perhaps\nalso their repentance may have been promoted by the great earthquake\nduring the night, for which the Greeks and Romans would, as usual,\nseek some moral occasion, looking on it of course, as a prodigy,\nexpressive of the anger of the gods, who might be supposed perhaps,\nto be indignant at the flagrant injustice committed against these two\nfriendless strangers. But however satisfactory this atonement might\nseem to the magistrates, Paul was by no means disposed to let them off\nso quietly, after using him and Silas in this outrageous manner, in\nabsolute defiance of all forms of law and justice. To this permission\nthus given him to sneak off quietly, he therefore returned the\nindignant answer\u2015\u2015\u201cThey have openly beaten us uncondemned, though we\nare Roman citizens, and they have cast us into prison; and now do they\nthrust us out so slily? No, indeed; but let them come themselves and\nfetch us out.\u201d This was alarming news indeed, to the magistrates. Here\nthey were found guilty of having violated \u201cthe sacred privilege of\nRoman citizenship!\u201d\u2015\u2015a privilege which always shielded its possessor\nfrom irregular tyranny, and required, throughout the Roman world, that\nhe should never be subjected to punishment without the most open and\nformal investigation of the charge; a privilege too, whose violation\nwould bring down on them the most remorseless vengeance of the imperial\nfountain of Roman power. So nothing would do, but they must submit to\nthe uncomfortable necessity of bringing down their magisterial dignity,\nto the low business of visiting their poor, abused prisoners in the\njail, and humbly apologizing for their own cruelty.\n\n \u2666 \u201caccasion\u201d replaced with \u201coccasion\u201d\n\nThe magistrates of the great city of Philippi therefore came to the\nprison, and brought out their abused victims, respectfully requesting\nthem to depart out of the city. The two prisoners accordingly consented\nto retire quietly from the city, without making any more trouble for\ntheir persecutors. Going first to the house of their kind hostess,\nLydia, they saw the brethren who had believed the gospel there, during\ntheir apostolic ministrations, and having exhorted them, bade them\nfarewell, and in company with their two companions, Timothy and Luke,\nleft the city.\n\nTurning southwestwards towards Greece proper, and keeping near the\ncoast, they came next to Amphipolis, a Macedonian city on the river\nStrymon, near where it flows into the Strymonic gulf; but making\nno stay that is mentioned, they continued their journey in the same\ndirection to Apollonia, an inland town on the river Chabrius, in the\npeninsula of Chalcidice; whence turning northwest they came next to\nThessalonica, a large city at the head of the great Thermaic gulf.\nIn this place was a synagogue of the Jews,\u2015\u2015the first that they had\nfound in their European travels; for in this thriving commercial place\nthe Jews were, and always have been, in such large numbers, that they\nwere abundantly able to keep their own house of worship and religious\ninstruction, and had independence enough, as well as regard for the\ninstitutions of their fathers, to attend in large numbers weekly at\nthis sanctuary. So zealous and successful indeed had they been in their\ndevotion to their religion, that they had drawn into a profession of\nthe faith of the God of Israel, a vast number of Greeks who attended\nworship with them; for such was the superior purity of the religion\nof the Jews, which regarded the one only living God, who was to be\nworshiped not in the debasing forms of statues, but in spirit and truth,\nthat almost every place throughout the regions of Grecian civilization,\nin which the Jews had planted their little commercial settlements,\nand reared the houses of religious instruction, showed abundance\nof such instances as this, in which the bright intellectual spirit\nof the Greek readily appreciated the exalted character and the holy\ntruth of the faith owned by the sons of Israel, and felt at once\nhow far more suited to the conceptions of Hellenic genius was such\na religion, than the degrading polytheism which the philosophy and\npoetry of a thousand years had striven in vain to redeem from its\ninherent absurdities. Among these intelligent but mixed congregations,\nPaul and his companions entered, and taking advantage of the freedom of\nreligious discourse allowed to all by the order of a Jewish synagogue,\nthey on three successive sabbaths reasoned with them out of the\nscriptures, on that great and all-absorbing point in the original\napostolic theology,\u2015\u2015that the Christ, the Messiah, so generally\nunderstood to be distinctly foretold in the Hebrew scriptures, was\nalways described as destined to undergo great sufferings during his\nearthly career, and after a death of shame, was to rise from the\ngrave;\u2015\u2015and at last concluded with the crowning doctrine\u2015\u2015\u201cThis Jesus,\nwhom I preach to you, is this Christ.\u201d\n\nThis glorious annunciation of a new and spiritual dispensation, was\nat once well received by a vast majority of the hearers\u2015\u2015but more\nespecially by the Greeks, whose conceptions of the religion which they\nhad espoused, were far more rational and exalted than even the notions\nof the original Israelites, whose common ideas of a Redeemer being\nconnected and mixed up, as their whole faith was, so much with what\nwas merely national and patriotic in their feelings, had led them\nto disregard the necessarily spiritual nature of the new revelation\nexpected, and had caused them almost universally to image the Messiah\nas a mere Jewish conqueror, who was to aim mainly at the restoration\nof the ancient dominion of long-humbled Judah. Therefore, while the\nGreeks readily and joyfully accepted this glorious completion of the\nfaith whose beginnings they had learned under the old covenant,\u2015\u2015the\nJews for the most part scornfully rejected the revelation which\npresented to them as their Messiah, \u201ca man of sorrows,\u201d\u2015\u2015a Galilean,\u2015\u2015a\nNazarene,\u2015\u2015one without pomp or power; the grand achievment of whose\nearthly career was that most ignominious death on the cross. No: this\nwas not the Messiah for whom they looked and longed, as the glorious\nrestorer of Israel, and the bloody conqueror of the Gentiles; and it\nwas therefore with the greatest indignation that they saw the great\nmajority of those converts from heathenism, whom they had made with\nso much pains, now wholly carried away with the humbling doctrines\nof these new teachers. Thus \u201cmoved with _envy_,\u201d the unbelieving Jews\nresorted to their usual expedient of stirring up a mob; and accordingly,\ncertain low fellows of the baser sort among them, gathered a gang, and\nset the whole city on an uproar,\u2015\u2015an effect which might seem surprising,\nfrom a cause apparently so trifling and inadequate, did not every\nmonth\u2019s observation on similar occurrences, among people that call\nthemselves the most enlightened and free on the globe, suffice to show\nevery reader, that to \u201cset a whole city in an uproar,\u201d is the easiest\nthing in the world, and one more often done by \u201ccertain lewd fellows\nof the baser sort,\u201d about the merest trifle, than in any other way.\nAnd here then again, is another of those fac-simile exhibitions of\ntrue human nature, with which the honest and self-evident story of Luke\nabounds; and in this particular instance what makes him so beautifully\ngraphical and natural in his description of this manifestation of\npublic opinion, is the fact that he himself was a spectator of the\nwhole proceedings at Thessalonica,\u2015\u2015and therefore gives an eye-witness\nstory. The mob being thus gathered, immediately made a desperate\nassault on the house of Jason, where Paul and Silas were known to lodge,\nand sought to drag them out to the people. (One would think that this\nwas a mere prophetic account of perfectly similar occurrences, that\npass every month under the noses of modern Europeans.) Paul and Silas,\nhowever, had been wise enough to make off at the first alarm, and had\nfound some place of concealment, beyond the reach of the mob. Provoked\nat not obtaining the prime object of the attack, the rascals then\nseized Jason and other Christians whom they found there, and dragged\nthem before the magistrates, crying\u2015\u2015\u201cThese that have turned the world\nupside down, have come hither also,\u2015\u2015whom Jason has entertained; and\nthey all do contrary to the statutes of Caesar, saying that there is\nanother king,\u2015\u2015one Jesus.\u201d This communication of the mode in which\nthe great mundane inversion had been effected by these four travelers\nand their new converts, excited no small commotion among all the\ninhabitants; for it amounted to a distinct charge of a treasonable\nconspiracy against the Roman government, and could not fail to bring\ndown the most disagreeable consequences on the city, if it was made\nknown, even though it should amount to nothing. However, the whole\nproceedings against Jason and his friends were conducted with a\nmoderation truly commendable, and far above any mob-action in these\nenlightened times; for without any personal injury, they simply\nsatisfied themselves with taking security of Jason and his companions,\nthat they should keep the peace, and attempt nothing treasonable, and\nthen quietly let them go. Who would expect any modern European mob to\nrelease their victims in this moderate and reasonable way?\n\n \u201c_Amphipolis_ is a city of Macedonia, on the confines of Thrace,\n called so, as Thucydides informs us, (lib. iv. p. 321,) because\n the rivers encompassed it. Suidas and others place it in Thracia,\n giving it the name of the Nine Ways. It had the name likewise of\n Chrysopolis.\u201d (Wells, Whitby.)\n\n \u201c_Apollonia_, a city of Macedonia, lying between Amphipolis and\n Thessalonica. Geographers affirm that there were fourteen cities,\n and two islands of that name. Stephanus reckons twenty-five.\u201d\n (Whitby.)\n\n _Thessalonica_, a large and populous city and sea-port of\n Macedonia, the capital of the four districts into which the\n Romans divided that country, after its conquest by Paulus\n \u00c6milius. It was situated on the Thermian Bay, and was anciently\n called Thermae; but, being rebuilt by Philip, the father of\n Alexander, after his victory over the Thessalians, it then\n received the name of Thessalonica.\n\n \u201cAt the time of writing the Epistle to the Thessalonians,\n Thessalonica was the residence of the Proconsul who governed the\n province of Macedonia, and of the Quaestor who had the charge\n of the imperial revenues. Besides being the seat of government,\n this port carried on an extensive commerce, which caused a great\n influx of strangers from all quarters; so that Thessalonica\n was remarkable for the number, wealth, and learning of its\n inhabitants. The Jews were extremely numerous here. The modern\n name of this place is Salonichi; it is the chief port of modern\n Greece, and has a population of sixty thousand persons, twelve\n thousand of whom are Jews. According to Dr. Clarke, this\n place is the same now as it was then; a set of turbulent Jews\n constituted a very considerable part of its population; and when\n St. Paul came here from Philippi to preach the gospel to the\n Thessalonians, the Jews were numerous enough to \u2018set all the\n city in an uproar.\u2019\u201d (Williams.)\n\nAfter this specimen of popular excitement, it was too manifest that\nnothing could be done just then at Thessalonica by the apostolic\nministers of Christ, and that very night therefore the brethren sent\noff Paul and Silas in the darkness, to Beroea, a city also in Macedonia,\nabout fifty miles from Thessalonica, exactly west, being on the same\nparallel of latitude, standing on the south bank of the river Astroeus.\nArriving there, they went into the synagogue of the Jews, who were\nhere for the most part of a much better character than the mean Jews of\nthe great trading city of Thessalonica, and being more independent and\nspiritual in their religious notions, were also much better prepared\nto appreciate the spiritual doctrines preached by Paul and Silas.\nThey listened respectfully to the new preachers, and when the usual\nreferences were made to the standard passages in the Old Testament,\nuniversally supposed to describe the Messiah, they diligently examined\nthe passages for themselves, and studied out their correspondence with\nthe events in the life of Jesus, which were mentioned by his preachers\nas perfectly parallel with these distinct prophecies. The natural\nresult of this nobly candid and rational examination of this great\nquestion was, that many of these fair-minded and considerate Jews of\nBeroea professed their perfect conviction that Jesus was the Christ,\nand had by the actions of his life fully answered and completed the\nprophetic types of the Messiah. Here, too, as in Thessalonica, the\nGreek proselytes to Judaism readily and heartily accepted the doctrines\nof Jesus. But the gospel messengers were not long allowed the enjoyment\nof this fine field of apostolic enterprise; for their spiteful foes\nin Thessalonica, hearing how things were going on in Beroea, took\nthe pains and trouble to journey all the way to that place, for the\nexpress purpose of hunting out the preachers of Jesus by a new mob:\nand in this they were so successful, that the brethren, according to\nthe established rules of Christian expediency, immediately sent away\nPaul to the south, because he seemed to be the grand object of the\npersecution; but Silas and Timothy being less obnoxious, still remained\nin Beroea.\n\n \u201c_Beroea_ was a city of Macedonia; a great and populous city.\n Lucian de Asino, p. 639. D.\u201d (Whitby.) It was situated to the\n west of Thessalonica, and not \u201c_south_,\u201d as Wells absurdly says,\n \u201calmost directly on the way to Athens.\u201d\n\n\n HIS VISIT TO ATHENS.\n\nPaul, thus obeying the command given by Jesus in his first charge to\nthe original twelve, went on under the guidance of his Beroean brethren,\naccording to his own request, by sea, to Athens, where he parted from\nthem, giving them charge to tell Silas and Timothy to come on after\nhim, as soon as their commission in Macedonia would allow. He then\nwent about Athens, occupying the interval while he waited for them,\nin observations upon that most glorious of all earthly seats of art\nand taste. As he wandered on, an unheeded stranger, among the still\nsplendid and beautiful, though then half-decaying works, which the\ncombined devotion, pride and patriotism of the ancient Athenians\nhad raised to their gods, their country, and its heroes,\u2015\u2015in the\nbeautifully picturesque yet simple expression of the apostolic\nhistorian, \u201cPaul saw the city wholly given to idolatry.\u201d How many\nsplendid associations does it call up before the mental eye of the\nclassical scholar who reads it? As the apostle wandered along among\nthese thousand works of art, still so hallowed in the fond regard\nof the scholar, the antiquarian, the man of taste, the poet, and the\npatriot, his spirit was moved within him, when he every where saw how\nthe whole city was given to idolatry. Not a spot but had its altar;\nevery grove was consecrated to its peculiar nymphs, its Dryads and\nits Fauns; every stream and fountain had the votive marble for its\nown bright Naiad;\u2015\u2015along the plain rose the splendid colonnades of the\nyet mighty temples of Jupiter, and all the Olympian gods; and above\nall, on the high Acropolis, the noble PARTHENON rose over the glorious\ncity, proclaiming to the eye of the distant traveler, the honors of\nthe virgin goddess of wisdom, of taste and philosophic virtue, whose\nname crowned the city, of which she, was throughout all the reign of\nPolytheism, the guardian deity.\n\nThese splendid but mournful testimonies of the misplaced energies of\nthat inborn spirit of devotion, which, all over the world in all times,\nmoves the heart of man to the worship of that Eternal power of whose\nexistence he is ever conscious, touched the spirit of Paul with other\nemotions than those of delight and admiration. The eye of the citizen\nof classical and splendid Tarsus, was not indeed blind to the beauties\nof these works of art, whose fame was spread throughout the civilized\nworld, and with whose historic and poetic glories his eye and ear\nhad long been made familiar; but over them all was cast a moral and\nspiritual gloom which darkened all these high and rich remembrances,\notherwise so bright. Under the impulse of such feelings, he immediately\nsought occasion to make an attack on this dominant spirit of idolatry.\nHe accordingly, in his usual theater of exertion,\u2015\u2015the Jewish\nsynagogue,\u2015\u2015freely made known the new revelation of the truth in Jesus,\nboth to the Jews, and to those Gentiles who reverenced the God of\nIsrael, and listened to religious instruction in the Jewish house of\nworship. With such effect did he proclaim the truth, and with such\nfervid, striking oratory, that the Athenians, always admirers and\ncultivators of eloquence, soon had their attention very generally drawn\nto the foreign teacher, who was publishing these very extraordinary\ndoctrines, in a style of eloquence so peculiar and irregular. The\nconsequence was, that his audiences were soon extended beyond the\nregular attendants on the Jewish synagogue worship, and many of the\nphilosophic sages of the Athenian schools sat listening to the apostle\nof Jesus. They soon undertook to encounter him in argument; and Paul\nnow resorting to that most classic ground, the Athenian forum, or\n_Agora_, was not slow to meet them. On the spot where Socrates once\nled the minds of his admiring hearers to the noble conceptions of moral\ntruth, Paul now stood uttering to unaccustomed ears, the far more noble\nconceptions of a divine truth, that as far outwent the moral philosophy\nof \u201cAthena\u2019s wisest son,\u201d as did the life, and death, and triumphs of\nthe crucified Son of Man, the course and fate of the hemlock-drinker.\nGreatly surprised were his philosophical hearers, at these very\nremarkable doctrines, before unheard of in Greece, and various were\nthe opinions and comments of the puzzled sages. Some of those of\nthe Epicurean and Stoic schools, more particularly, had their pride\nand scorn quite moved at the seeming presumption of this fluent\nspeaker, who without diffidence or doubt uttered his strange doctrines,\nthough characterized by a style full of irregularities, and a dialect\nremarkably distinguished by barbarous provincialisms, and scornfully\nasked, \u201cWhat does this rattling fellow mean?\u201d Others, observing that\nhe claimed such divine honors for Jesus, the founder of his faith,\nremarked, that \u201che seemed to be a preacher of foreign deities.\u201d At last,\ndetermined to have their difficulties resolved by the very highest\nauthority, they took him before the very ancient and venerable court\nof the Areopagus, which was the supreme council in all matters that\nconcerned religion. Here they invited him to make a full communication\nof the distinctive articles of his new faith, because they felt\nan honest desire to have the particulars of a subject never before\nintroduced to their notice; and a vast concourse stood by to hear that\ngrand object of life to the news-hunting Athenians,\u2015\u2015\u201cA NEW THING.\u201d\n\n \u201cWith regard to the application of _babbler_, Eustathius\n gives two senses of the word \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. 1.\u00a0The Attics called\n those \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 who conversed in the market, and places of\n merchandise. (In Odys. B. ad finem.) And Paul was disputing with\n those he met in the market-place. 2.\u00a0It is used of those who,\n from some false opinions, boasted unreasonably of their learning.\n (Idem.) \u0152cumenius says, a little bird that gathered up the seeds\n scattered in the market-place, was called \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2; in this\n etymology, Suidas, Phavorinus, the scholiast upon Aristophanes\n de Avibus, p. 569, and almost all grammarians agree. (Cave\u2019s\n Lives of the Apostles.) (Whitby\u2019s Annotations.)\n\n \u201c18. \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. This word is properly used of those little\n insignificant birds which support a precarious existence\n by picking up seeds scattered by the sower, or left above\n ground after the soil has been harrowed. See Maximus of Tyre,\n Dissertations, 13, p. 133., Harpocrates, Aristophanes Av. 232.,\n and the Scholiast, and Plutarch, T. 5, 50, edited by _Reiske_.\n It was metaphorically applied also to paupers who prowled about\n the market place, and lived by picking up any thing which might\n be dropped by buyers and sellers; and likewise to persons who\n gleaned in the corn fields. See Eustathius on Homer\u2019s Odyssey\n \u03b5 241. Hence it was at length applied to all persons of mean\n condition, who, as we say, \u201clive on their wits.\u201d Thus it is\n explained by Harpocrates \u03b5\u1f50\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1f74\u03c2, _mean_ and _contemptible_.\n And so Philo 1021 c. \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u2015\u2015\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9.\u201d\n (Bloomfield\u2019s Annotations, Acts xvii. 18.)\n\n \u201cThe _Areopagus_ was a place in Athens, where the senate usually\n assembled and took its name (as some think) from \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 which is\n the same as Mars, the god of war, who was the first person tried\n here, for having killed Apollo\u2019s son. Others think that, because\n \u1f04\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 sometimes signifies _fighting_, murder, or violence of any\n kind, and that \u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 is properly a _rock_, or rising hill, it\n therefore seems to denote a court situated upon an eminence,\n (as the Areopagus was,) where causes of murder, &c. were tried.\n This court at present is out of the city, but in former times\n it stood almost in the middle of it. Its foundations, which are\n still standing, are built with square stones of prodigious size,\n in the form of a semi-circle, and support a terrace or platform,\n of about a hundred and forty paces, which was the court where\n this senate was held. In the midst of it, there was a tribunal\n cut in a rock, and all about were seats also of stone, where the\n senate heard causes in the open air, without any covering, and\n (as some say) in the night time, that they might not be moved to\n compassion at the sight of any criminal that was brought before\n them. This judicature was held in such high esteem for its\n uprightness, that when the Roman proconsuls ruled there, it was\n a very common thing for them to refer difficult causes to the\n judgment of the Areopagites. After the loss of their liberty,\n however, the authority of the senate declined, so that in\n the apostles\u2019 times, the Areopagus was not so much a court\n of judicature as a common rendezvous, where all curious and\n inquisitive persons, who spent their time in nothing else, but\n either in hearing or telling some new thing, were accustomed\n to meet, Acts xvii. 21. Notwithstanding, they appeared still\n to have retained the privilege of canonizing all gods that\n were allowed public worship; and therefore St. Paul was brought\n before them as an assertor and preacher of a Deity, whom they\n had not yet admitted among them. It does not appear that he was\n brought before them as a criminal, but merely as a man who had\n a new worship to propose to a people religious above all others,\n but who took care that no strange worship should be received on\n a footing of a _tolerated religion_, till it had the approbation\n of a court appointed to judge such matters. The address of the\n court to St. Paul, \u2018May we know what this doctrine is whereof\n thou speakest?\u2019 implies rather a request to a teacher, than an\n interrogatory to a criminal; and accordingly his reply has not\n the least air of _an apology_, suiting a person accused, but is\n one continued information of important truths, such as it became\n a teacher or benefactor, rather than a person arraigned for\n crime, to give. He was therefore neither acquitted nor condemned,\n and dismissed as a man _coram non judice_. We are indeed told,\n that when they heard of \u2018the resurrection of the dead,\u2019 some\n mocked, and others said, \u2018We will hear thee again of this\n matter,\u2019 putting off the audience to an indefinite time; so\n that nothing was left him but to depart.\u201d (Calmet\u2019s Commentary.\n Beausobre\u2019s and Hammond\u2019s Annotations, and Warburton\u2019s Divine\n Legation.)\n\n Illustration: THE AREOPAGUS, OR MARS HILL;\n WITH THE TEMPLE OF THESEUS, ATHENS.\n Acts xvii. 22.\n\n \u201cThat Athens _was_ wholly enslaved to idolatry, has been\n abundantly proved by our philological illustrators, especially\n the indefatigable Wetstein, from Pausanias Attic. 1, 24: Strabo\n 10. p. 472, c: Lucian, t. 1. Prometheus p. 180: Livy 45, 27.\n So also Pausanias in Attic. c. 18, 24. (cited by Pearce and\n Doddridge,) who tells us, that Athens had more images than\n all the rest of Greece; and Petronius Satyricon c. 17, who\n humorously says, \u2018It was easier to find a god than a man\n there.\u2019\u201d (Bloomfield Annotations.)\n\n \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6. Of the _market-places_ at Athens, of which\n there were many, the most celebrated were the Old and the New\n Forum. The former was in the Ceramicus, a very ample space, part\n within, and part without the city. See Meursius, dissertatione\n de Ceramico Gemino, \u00a7\u00a046. and Potter\u2019s Archaeology 1, 8. p. 30.\n The latter was outside of the Ceramicus, in a place called\n Eretria. See Meursius, Ath. Attic. l. 1. c. 6. And this seems\n to be the one here meant. For no forum, except the Ceramicus and\n the Eretriacum, was called, absolutely, \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1, but had a name\n to denote _which_ was meant, as Areopagiticum, Hippodamium,\n Piraeum, &c. In process of time, and at the period when Paul\n was at Athens, the forum was transferred from the Ceramicus into\n the Eretria; a change which, indeed, had been introduced in the\n time of Augustus; and that this was the most frequented part of\n the city, we learn from Strabo 10. p. 447. Besides, the Eretriac\n forum was situated before the \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1f70, or portico, in which the\n Stoics, of whom mention is just after made, used to hold their\n public discourses. It was moreover called \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, from its round\n form.\u201d\n\n \u201c\u1f0c\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, _Mars\u2019 Hill_. \u03a0\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 signifies properly a _high\n situation_. _This_ was a hill opposite to that of the citadel\n on the west; as we learn from Herodias 8, 52. [See the passages\n produced supra, to which I add Livy 26, 44. Tumulum quem\n Mercurii vocant. Editor.] It was so called, either because it\n had been consecrated to Mars (as the Campus Martius at Rome,)\n or because (as \u2666Pausanias relates, Att. C. 28,) Mars, when he\n had slain Halyrrothius, son of Neptune, was the first who there\n pleaded a capital cause, which took place before the twelve gods.\n The judges used to sit by night, and _sub dio_; and whatever\n was done was kept _very secret_. [whence the proverb \u1f08\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, to which may be compared ours, \u2018_as grave as a\n Judge_.\u2019 Editor.] They gave their judgment, not _viva voce_, but\n in writing. Nor were any admitted into the number of Areopagists\n but persons of noble birth, of unspotted morality, and eminent\n for justice and equity. See more in Meursius de Areopago.\u201d\n (Kuinoel.) (Bloomfield Annotations.)\n\n \u2666 \u201cPausanius\u201d replaced with \u201cPausanias\u201d\n\nPaul taking his stand there, in that splendid scene, uttered in a bold\ntone and in his noblest style, the great truths which he was divinely\nconsecrated to reveal. Never yet had Athens, in her most glorious state,\nheard a discourse which, for solemn beauty and lofty eloquence, could\nequal this brief declaration of the providence of God in the religion\nof his creatures. Never did the world see an orator in a sublimer scene,\nor in one that could awaken higher emotions in those who heard, or him\nwho spoke. He stood on the hill of Mars, with Athens beneath and around\nhim, and the mighty Acropolis rising with its \u201ctiara of proud towers,\u201d\nwalls and temples, on the west,\u2015\u2015bounding and crowning the view in\nthat direction;\u2015\u2015to the north-east lay the forum, the late scene\nof his discussions, and beyond lay the philosophic Academia, around\nand through which rolled the flowery Cephisus. Before him sat the\nmost august and ancient court in the Grecian world, waiting for\nthe revelation of his solemn commission respecting the new deities\nwhich he was expected to propose as an addition to their polytheistic\nlist;\u2015\u2015around him were the sages of the Athenian schools, listening\nin grave but curious attention, for the new things which the eastern\nstranger had brought to their ears. The apostle raised his eyes to all\nthe monuments of Athenian devotion which met the view on every side.\nBefore him on the high Acropolis was the mighty temple of the Athenian\nMinerva; on the plain beyond was the splendid shrine of the Olympian\nJove; on his right was the temple of Theseus, the deified ancient king\nof Attica, who laid the first foundation of her glories; and near were\nthe new piles which the later Grecian adulation had consecrated to the\nworship of her foreign conquerors\u2015\u2015to the deified Caesars. Beginning\nin that tone of dignified politeness, which always characterized his\naddress towards the great ones of earth, he won their hearts and their\nattention by a courteously complimentary allusion to the devout though\nmisguided zeal, whose solid tokens everywhere surrounded him. \u201cYe men\nof Athens! I see in all places that you are VERY RELIGIOUS. For passing\nalong and gazing at the shrines of your devotion, I found an altar on\nwhich was written,\u2015\u2015\u2018TO THE UNKNOWN GOD;\u2019\u2015\u2015Him therefore, whom, not\nknowing, you worship, I preach to you.\u201d The rest of this splendid,\nthough brief discourse, need not be repeated, because it is given with\ntolerable fidelity in the common English translation; but it deserves\nnotice how readily and completely, on all occasions, Paul accommodated\nhimself to the circumstances of his hearers. His style on this occasion\nis remarkably protracted and rounded in its periods, highly cumulative\nin structure, and harmonious in its almost rhythmical flow;\u2015\u2015the whole\nbearing the character which was best suited to the fancy and fashion of\nthe Athenians,\u2015\u2015though still very decidedly marked by the peculiarities\nof his eastern origin. Here too, he gave them a favorable impression of\nhis knowledge of the Grecian classics, by his apt and happy quotation\nfrom Aratus, the philosophical poet of his native province, Cilicia.\n\u201cFor we also are his offspring.\u201d\n\n _Very religious._\u2015\u2015This is unquestionably the just meaning of\n xvii. 22. See Bloomfield and all the standard commentators. \u201cToo\n superstitions\u201d is insulting.\n\n \u201c\u2018TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.\u2019 (xvii. 23.)\u2015\u2015It is very evident from the\n testimony of Laertius, that the Athenians had altars in their\n public places, inscribed to unknown gods or demons. He informs\n us, that when Athens was visited with a great plague, the\n inhabitants invited Epimenides the philosopher, to lustrate\n their city. The method adopted by him was to carry several\n sheep to the Areopagus; whence they were left to wander as\n they pleased, under the observation of persons sent to attend\n them. As each sheep lay down, it was sacrificed on the spot to\n the _propitious god_; (In vita Epimenides lib. xi.) and as the\n Athenians were ignorant of what god was propitious, they erected\n an altar with this inscription, \u2666\u0398\u0395\u039f\u0399\u03a3 \u0391\u03a3\u0399\u0391\u03a3, \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0395\u03a5\u03a1\u03a9\u03a0\u0397\u03a3, \u039a\u0391\u0399\n \u039b\u0399\u0392\u0397\u03a5\u03a3, \u0398\u0395\u03a9 \u0391\u0393\u039d\u03a9\u03a3\u03a4\u03a9 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u039e\u0395\u039d\u03a9:\u2015\u2015_To the gods of Asia, Europe, and\n Africa, to the strange and unknown god_.\n\n \u2666 \u201cA\u0399\u0392\u0397\u03a5\u03a3\u201d replaced with \u201c\u039b\u0399\u0392\u0397\u03a5\u03a3\u201d and\n \u201cK\u039bI\u201d replaced with \u201c\u039a\u0391\u0399\u201d\n\n \u201cOn the architrave of a Doric portico at Athens, which was\n standing when that city was visited about sixty years since,\n by Dr. Chandler and Mr. Stuart, is a Greek inscription to the\n following purport:\u2015\u2015\u2018The people\u2019 [of Athens have erected this\n fabric] \u2018with the donations to Minerva Archegetia,\u2019 [or the\n conductress,] \u2018by the god Caius Julius Caesar and his son the\n god Augustus, when Nicias was Archon.\u2019 Over the middle of the\n pediment was a statue of Lucius Caesar, with this inscription:\n \u2015\u2015\u2018The people\u2019 [honor] \u2018Lucius Caesar, the son of the Emperor\n Augustus Caesar, the son of the god.\u2019 There was also a statue\n to Julia, the daughter to Augustus, and the mother of Lucius,\n thus inscribed:\u2015\u2015\u2018The Senate of the Areopagus, and the Senate of\n the Six Hundred\u2019 [dedicate this statue to] \u2018the goddess Julia,\n Augusta, Provident.\u2019 These public memorials supply an additional\n proof of the correctness of Paul\u2019s observations on the Athenians,\n that they were too much addicted to the adoption of objects for\n worship and devotion.\u201d (Hammond\u2019s Annotations of Cave\u2019s Lives of\n the Apostles, Horne\u2019s Introduction.)\n\nAs he concluded however, with the solemn declaration of the great\nfoundation-truth of Christianity,\u2015\u2015that God had raised Jesus from\nthe dead,\u2015\u2015there was a very general burst of contempt from the more\nscornful portion of his audience, at the idea of anything so utterly\nagainst all human probability. Of the immortality of the soul, the\ndivinest of their own philosophers had reasoned,\u2015\u2015and it was by most of\nthe Athenian sects, considered on the whole, tolerably well established;\nbut the notion of the actual revivification of the perished body,\u2015\u2015the\nrecall of the scattered dust and ashes, to the same breathing, moving,\nacting, thinking form, which for ages had ceased to be,\u2015\u2015all amounted\nto a degree of improbable absurdity,\u2015\u2015that not the wildest Grecian\nspeculator had ever dreamed of. So the proud Epicureans and Stoics\nturned sneeringly away from the barbarian stranger who had come so far\nto try their credulity with such a tale; and thus they for ever lost\nthe opportunity to learn from this new-opened fountain of truth, a\nwisdom that the long researches of all the Athenian schools had never\nreached and could never reach, without the light of this truly divine\neastern source, which they now so thoughtlessly scorned. But there\nwere some, more considerate, among the hearers of the apostle, who\nhad learned that it is the most decided characteristic of a true\nphilosopher, to reject nothing at first sight or hearing, though it\nmay happen to be contrary to his own personal experience and learning;\nand these, weighing the matter with respectful doubt, told Paul\u2015\u2015\u201cWe\nwill hear thee again about this.\u201d Without any further attempt to unfold\nthe truth at that time, Paul departed from the Areopagus, and no more\nuplifted his voice on the high places of Athens, in testimony of that\nsolemn revelation of the Son of Man from the dead,\u2015\u2015the conviction\nof whose truth, in spite of all philosophic sneers, was destined\nto oversweep the whole of that world which they knew, and a new one\nbeyond it, and to exalt the name of that despised wanderer to a fame\ncompared with which that of Socrates should be small. Paul was however\nafterwards visited by several of those who heard him before the\nAreopagus; and after a free, conversational discussion of the whole\nsubject, and a more familiar exhibition of the evidences of his\nremarkable assertions, professed their satisfaction with the arguments,\nand believed. Among these, even one of the judges of the august\nAreopagus owned himself a disciple of Jesus. Besides him is mentioned\na woman named Damaris; and others not specified, are said to have\nbelieved.\n\n \u201c\u2018_Dionysius the Areopagite._\u2019 Acts xvii. 34.\u2015\u2015Dionysius is\n said to have been bred at Athens in all the arts and sciences:\n at the age of twenty-five he went into Egypt to learn astronomy.\n At the time of our Savior\u2019s death he was at Heliopolis, where,\n observing the darkness that attended the passion, he cried\n out thus:\u2015\u2015\u2018That certainly, at that time, either God himself\n suffered, or was much concerned for somebody that did.\u2019\n Returning to Athens he became one of the senators of the\n Areopagus; he was converted by St. Paul, and by him appointed\n bishop of Athens. Having labored and suffered much for the holy\n cause, he became a martyr to the faith, being burnt to death\n at Athens, in the 93d year of Christ.\u201d (Cave\u2019s Lives of the\n Apostles. Stanhope on Epistles and Gospels. Calmet\u2019s Dictionary.)\n\n From the grave manner in which this story is told, the reader\n would naturally suppose that these great writers had some\n authority for these incidents; but in reality, everything that\n concerns Dionysius the Areopagite, is utterly unknown; and not\n one of these impudent inventions can be traced back further than\n the sixth century.\n\nAfter this tolerably hopeful beginning of the gospel in Athens, Paul\nleft that city, and went southwestward to Corinth, then the most\nsplendid and flourishing city of all Greece, and the capital of the\nRoman province of Achaia. It was famous, beyond all the cities of the\nworld, for its luxury and refinement,\u2015\u2015and the name of \u201cCorinthian\u201d had,\nlong before the time of Paul, gone forth as a proverbial expression for\nwhat was splendid in art, brilliant in invention, and elegant in vice.\n\nHere first arose that sumptuous order of architecture that still\nperpetuates the proverbial elegance of the splendid city of its birth,\nand the gorgeously beautiful style of the rich Corinthian column,\n\u201cwaving its wanton wreath,\u201d\u2015\u2015may be taken as an aptly expressive emblem\nof the general moral and internal, as well as external characteristics\nof this last home of true Grecian art. Here longest tarried the taste,\nart and refinement, which so eminently marked the first glories of\nGreece, and when the triumphs of that ancient excellence were beginning\nto grow dim in its brighter early seats in Attica and in Ionian Asia,\nthey flashed out with a most dazzling beauty in the splendid city of\nthe Isthmus,\u2015\u2015but alas!\u2015\u2015in a splendor that was indeed only a passing\nflash,\u2015\u2015a last brilliant gleam from this glorious spot, before the lamp\nof Hellenic glory in art, went out forever. In the day of the apostle\u2019s\nvisit however, it was in its most \u201chigh and palmy state,\u201d\u2015\u2015the queen of\nthe Grecian world. It was glorious too, in the dearest recollections of\nthe patriotic history of Greece; for here was the center of that last\nbrilliant Achaian confederacy, which was cherished by the noble spirits\nof Aratus and Philopoemen; and here too was made the last stand against\nthe all-crushing advance of the legions of Rome: and when it fell at\nlast before that resistless conquering movement,\u2015\u2015\u201cgreat was the fall\nof it.\u201d The burning of Corinth by Mummius, (B.\u00a0C. 144, the year of the\nfall of Carthage,) is infamous above all the most barbarous acts of\nRoman conquest, for its melancholy destruction of the works of ancient\nart, with which it then abounded. But from the ashes of this mournful\nruin, it rose soon after, under the splendid patronage of Roman\ndominion, to a new splendor, that equalled, or perhaps outwent the\nglories of its former perfection, which had been ripening from the day\nwhen, as recorded by old Homer, in the freshness of its early power, it\nsent forth its noble armaments to the siege of Troy, or set afloat the\nearliest warlike navy in the world, or was made, through a long course\nof centuries, the center of the most brilliant of Grecian festivals,\nin the celebration of the Isthmian games before its walls. The Roman\nconquerors, as if anxious to make to this ancient seat of Grecian\nsplendor, a full atonement for the barbarous ruin with which they had\noverwhelmed it, now showered on it all the honors and favors in their\npower. It was rebuilt as a Roman colony,\u2015\u2015endowed by the munificence\nof senates, consuls, and emperors, and made the capital of the Roman\nprovince of Achaia, until the dismemberment of the empire. Shining in\nits gaudy fetters, it became what it has been described to be in the\napostolic age, and was then beyond all doubt the greatest Grecian city\nin Europe, if not in the world. Athens was then mouldering in more than\nincipient decay\u2015\u2015\u201cthe ghost of its former self;\u201d for even Cicero, long\nbefore this, describes it as presenting everywhere spectacles of the\nmost lamentable ruin and decline; but Corinth was in the highth of\nits glory,\u2015\u2015its luxury,\u2015\u2015its vice,\u2015\u2015its heathen wickedness,\u2015\u2015and may\ntherefore be justly esteemed the most important scene of labor into\nwhich apostolic enterprise had ever yet made its way, and to have been\nwell worthy of the attention which it ever after received from him,\nto the very last of his life, being made the occasion and object of a\nlarger and a more splendid portion of his epistolary labors, than all\nwith which he ever favored any other place in the world; nor can this\nprotracted notice of its condition and character be justly blamed for\nits intrusion on this hurried narrative.\n\n \u201c_Corinth._\u2015\u2015There is scarcely any one of the seats of ancient\n magnificence and luxury, that calls up more vivid and powerful\n associations, than are awakened by the name of this once opulent\n and powerful city. Corinth, \u2018the prow and stern of Greece,\u2019\n the emporium of its commerce, the key and bulwark of the\n Peloponnesus, was proverbial for its wealth as early as the\n time of Homer. Its situation was so advantageous for the\n inexperienced navigation of early times, that it became of\n necessity the center of trade. The first naval battle on record\n was fought between Corinth and its colony Corcyra, about 657\n B.\u00a0C. \u2018Syracuse, the ornament of Sicily, Corcyra, some time\n sovran of the seas, Ambracia in Epirus, and several other cities\n more or less flourishing, owe their origin to Corinth.\u2019 (Travels\n of \u2666Anacharsis, vol. III. c. 37.) Thucydides states, that the\n Corinthian ship-builders first produced galleys with three\n benches of oars. The circumnavigation of the peninsula was\n tedious and uncertain to a proverb; while at the Isthmus, not\n only their cargoes, but, if requisite, the smaller vessels might\n be transported from sea to sea. By its port of Cenchreae, it\n received the rich merchandise of Asia, and by that of Lechaeum,\n it maintained intercourse with Italy and Sicily. The Isthmian\n Games, by the concourse of people which they attracted at their\n celebration, contributed not a little to its immense opulence;\n and the prodigality of its merchants rendered the place so\n expensive, that it became a saying, \u2018It is not for every one\n to go to Corinth.\u2019 Even after its barbarous destruction by\n the Romans, it must have been an extremely magnificent city.\n Pausanias mentions in and near the city, a theater, an odeum,\n a stadium, and sixteen temples. That of Venus possessed above a\n thousand female slaves. \u2018The women of Corinth are distinguished\n by their beauty; the men by their love of gain and pleasure.\n They ruin their health by convivial debauches, and love with\n them is only licentious passion. Venus is their principal\n deity.... The Corinthians, who performed such illustrious acts\n of valor in the Persian war, becoming enervated by pleasure,\n sunk under the yoke of the Argives; were obliged alternately\n to solicit the protection of the Lacedaemonians, the Athenians,\n and the Thebans; and are at length reduced to be only the\n wealthiest, the most effeminate, and the weakest state in\n Greece.\u2019\u201d (Anacharsis.) (Modern Traveler, pp. 160, 161.)\n\n \u2666 \u201cAnarchasis\u201d replaced with \u201cAnacharsis\u201d\n\nThe Hebrew stranger, entering without despondency, this new scene of\nlabor, passed on unnoticed, and looking about for those with whom he\nmight be bold to communicate, on the score of national and religious\nsympathies, he found among those who like himself were strangers, a\nJew, by name Aquilas, who with his wife Priscilla had lately arrived\nfrom Italy, whence they had just been driven by a vexatious decree of\nClaudius Caesar, which, on some groundless accusation, ordered all the\nJews to depart from Rome. Aquilas, though lately a resident in Italy,\nwas originally from Pontus in the northern part of Asia Minor, not very\nfar from Paul\u2019s native province; and this proximity of origin joined\nto another circumstance arising out of it, drew the strangers together,\nin this foreign city. In Pontus even at this day is carried on that\nsame famous manufacture of camlet articles for which Cilicia was also\ndistinguished and proverbial, and it is therefore perfectly reasonable\nto suppose that in that age also, this business was common in the same\nregion, because the variety of goat which produces the material, has\nalways been confined within those limits. Being of the same trade, then,\nand both of them friendless strangers, seeking employment and support,\nPaul and Aquilas fell into one another\u2019s company and acquaintance,\nand getting work at the same time, they seem to have set up a kind of\npartnership in their trade, living together, and working in the same\nway, from day to day. This, of course, gave constant opportunity for\nthe freest communication on all subjects of conversation; and Aquila\nwould not be long in finding out the great object, which had led Paul\naway from his country and friends, to a place where his necessities\ndrove him to the laborious exercise of an occupation, which a person\nof his rank and character could not originally have acquired with\nany intention of gaining his livelihood thereby. That this was the\nsole motive of his present application to his tedious business, is\nabundantly testified in the epistles, which he afterwards wrote to this\nsame place; for he expressly says, that he \u201cwas chargeable to no man,\u201d\nbut \u201clabored with his own hands.\u201d Yet the diligent pursuit of this\nlaborious avocation, did not prevent him from appearing on the sabbath,\nin the synagogue, as a teacher of divine things; nor would the noble\nprinciples of Jewish education permit any man to despise the stranger\non account of his necessitous and apparently humble circumstances.\nHis weekly ministry was therefore pursued without hindrance, and with\nsuccess; for \u201che persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.\u201d Among those who\nreceived the most eminent advantage from his apostolic labors, was his\nfellow-workman Aquilas, who with his wife Priscilla, here imbibed such\na portion of Christian knowledge, as ever after made both him and her,\nhighly useful as teachers of the new faith, to which they were at this\ntime converted. It would seem, however, that Paul did not, during the\nfirst part of his ministrations, very openly and energetically proclaim\nthe grand doctrine of the faith; for it was not till after the arrival\nof Silas and Timothy from Macedonia, that he \u201cpressed on in the word,\nand testified to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.\u201d As had usually\nbeen the case, whenever he had proclaimed this solemn truth to his own\ncountrymen, he was met by the Corinthian Jews, for the most part, with\na most determined and scornful opposition; so that renouncing their\nfellowship in the expressive gesture of an Oriental,\u2015\u2015shaking his\nraiment,\u2015\u2015he declared\u2015\u2015\u201cYour blood be on your own heads:\u2015\u2015I am clean.\nHenceforth, I will go to the Gentiles.\u201d Leaving their company, he then\nwent into the house of a religious friend, close to the synagogue,\nand there took up his abode. But not all the Jews were involved in\nthe condemnation of this rejection. On the contrary, one of the most\neminent men among them, Crispus, either then or formerly the ruling\nelder of the synagogue, professed the faith of Jesus, notwithstanding\nits unpopularity. Along with him his whole family were baptized,\nand many other Corinthians received the word in the same manner. In\naddition to these nobly encouraging results of his devoted labors, his\nardor in the cause of Jesus received a new impulse from a remarkable\ndream, in which the Lord appeared to him, uttering these words of\nhigh consolation,\u2015\u2015\u201cFear not, but speak, and hold not thy peace; for\nI am with thee, and no one shall hurt thee. I have many people in this\ncity.\u201d Under the combined influence of both natural and supernatural\nencouragements, he therefore remained zealously laboring in Corinth,\nand made that city his residence, as Luke very particularly records,\nfor a year and six months.\n\n \u201cxviii. 5. \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9, &c. The common reading is \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9.\n Now since \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, among other significations, denotes\n _angi_, _maerore corripi_, (see Luke \u2666xii. 50, and the note on\n Matthew \u2666iv. 24,) many Commentators, as Hammond, Mill, and Wolf,\n explain, \u201cangebatur Paulus animo, dum docebat Judaeos, Jesum\n esse Messiam;\u201d viz. \u201csince he could produce no effect among\n them.\u201d And they compare verse 6. But this interpretation is at\n variance with the context.\n\n \u2666 \u201c12\u201d replaced with \u201cxii\u201d and\n \u00a0\u201c4\u201d replaced with \u201civ\u201d for consistency\n\n \u201cNow this verb also signifies to _incite_, _urge_; as in\n 2 Corinthians v. 14. Hence Beza, Pricaeus, and others,\n explain: \u2018intus et apud se aestuebat prae zeli ardore;\u2019 which\n interpretation I should admit, if there were not reason to\n suppose, from the authority of MSS. and Versions, that the true\n reading, (though the more difficult one,) is \u03bb\u03cd\u03b3\u1ff3, of which the\n best interpretation, and that most suitable to the context, is\n the one found in the Vulgate \u2018instabat verbo.\u2019 For \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n denotes also to be _held, occupied by_ anything; as in Sappho 17,\n 20. Herodotus 1, 17, 22. Aelian, Varia Historia, 14, 22. This\n \u2666signification of the word being admitted, the sense will be:\n \u2018When they had approached whom Paul (who knew that _combined_\n strength is most efficacious) had expected as his assistants in\n promulgating the Christian doctrine, and of whom, in so large\n and populous a city there was need, _then_ he _applied himself\n closely_ to the work of teaching.\u2019 Kuinoel. (Bloomfield\u2019s\n Annotations, p. 593.)\n\n \u2666 \u201csignificaiion\u201d replaced with \u201csignification\u201d\n\n\n HIS EPISTLES WRITTEN FROM CORINTH.\n\nThe period of his residence in this city is made highly interesting\nand important in the history of the sacred canon, by the circumstance\nthat here he wrote some of the first of those epistles to his various\nmissionary charges, which constitute the most controverted and the most\ndoctrinal portion of the New Testament. In treating of these writings,\nin the course of the narrative of his life, the very contracted limits\nnow left to his biographer, will make it necessary to be much more\nbrief in his literary history, than in that of those other apostles,\nwhose writings have claimed and received so full a statement, under\ntheir respective lives. Nor is there so much occasion for the labors\nof the apostolic historian on this part of the history of the apostolic\nworks, as on those already so fully treated; for while the history of\nthe writings of Peter, John, Matthew, James and Jude, has so seldom\nbeen presented to the eyes of common readers, the writings of Paul,\nwhich have always been the great storehouse of Protestant dogmatism,\nhave been discussed and amplified in their history, scope, character,\nand style, more fully than all the rest of the Bible, for common\nreaders; but in the great majority of instances, proving such a comment\non the sadly prophetical words of Peter on these very writings, that\nthe apostolic historian may well and wisely dread to immerse himself\nin such a sea of difficulties as presents itself to view; and he\ntherefore cautiously avoids any intermeddling with discussions which\nwill possibly involve him in the condemnation pronounced by the great\napostolic chief, on those \u201cunlearned and unstable,\u201d who even in his\ntime had begun to \u201cwrest to their own destruction, the things hard\nto be understood in the epistles of his beloved brother Paul;\u201d a\nsentence which seems to have been wholly overlooked by the great\nherd of dogmatizing commentators, who, very often, without either the\n\u201clearning\u201d or the \u201cstability,\u201d which Peter thought requisite for the\nsafe interpretation of the Pauline epistles, have rushed on to the\ntask of vulgarizing these noble and honest writings, to suit the base\npurposes of some popular system of mystical words and complex doctrines.\nIf then, the \u201cunlearned and unstable\u201d have been thus distinctly warned\nby the highest apostolic authority, against meddling with these obscure\nand peculiar writings; and since the whole history of didactic theology\nis so full of melancholy comments on the undesignedly prophetical force\nof Peter\u2019s denunciation,\u2015\u2015it is no more than prudent to decline the\nslightest interference with a subject, which has been on such authority\ndeclared to require the possession of so high a degree of learning and\nstability, for its safe and just treatment. The few things which may\nbe safely stated, will merely concern the place, time and immediate\noccasion of the writing of each of these epistles.\n\nIn the first place, as to the _order_ in which these works of Paul are\narranged in the common New Testament canon, it should be observed that\nit has reference neither to date, subject, nor anything whatever in\ntheir character or object, except the very arbitrary circumstance of\nthe _rank_ and _importance_ of the places and persons that were the\noriginal objects of their composition. The epistle to the Romans is\nalways placed first, because the imperial city to which it was directed\nwas beyond all question the greatest in the world. The epistles to\nthe Corinthians are next, because that city was the nearest in rank\nand importance to Rome, of all those which were the objects of Paul\u2019s\nepistolary attentions. The epistle to the Galatians is next, because\nit was directed to a great province, inferior indeed in importance,\nto the two great cities before mentioned, but vastly above any of the\nother places to which Paul wrote. The epistle to the Ephesians comes\nnext, because Ephesus ranked far above any of the cities which follow.\nPhilippi was _supposed_, by those who arranged the canon, greater than\nColosse and Thessalonica, because it was thought to have been a capital\ncity. Thus all those epistles which are addressed to whole churches,\nare placed first; and those which are addressed to individuals in the\nsame manner, form a class by themselves; that to Timothy being placed\nfirst of these, because he was the most eminent of all the apostle\u2019s\nassistants,\u2015\u2015Titus being inferior to him in dignity, and Philemon,\na person of no account at all, except from the bare circumstance,\nthat he was accidentally the subject of Paul\u2019s notice. The epistle to\nthe Hebrews is last of all, because it is altogether peculiar in its\ncharacter, addressed neither to churches, nor to an individual, but\nto a whole nation, being published and circulated for their general\nbenefit. The circumstance also that it was long denied a place in the\ncanon, and considered as a spurious writing, improperly attributed to\nPaul, probably caused it to be put last of all his writings, when in\nthe course of time, it was at length allowed a place in the canon.\n\n\n FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.\n\nThat epistle which the great majority of all modern critics consider\nas the earliest of all those writings of Paul that are now preserved,\nis the first to the Thessalonians. It is directed to them from Paul,\nSilvanus, (or Silas,) and Timothy, which shows that it was written\nafter Paul had been joined by these two brethren, which was not until\nsome time after his arrival in Corinth. It appears by the second and\nthird chapters, that the apostle, having been hindered by some evil\nagency of the wicked, from visiting Thessalonica, as he had earnestly\ndesired to do, had been obliged to content himself with sending Timothy\nto the brethren there, to comfort them in their faith, and to inquire\nwhether they yet stood fast in their first honorable profession; for he\ndeclares himself to have been anxious to know whether by some means the\ntempter might not have tempted them, and his labor have thus been in\nvain. But he now informs them how he has lately been greatly comforted\nby the good news brought from them by Timothy, who had assured the\napostle of their faith and love, and that they had great remembrance\nof him always, desiring much to see him, as he them. Making known\nto them the great joy which these tidings had caused in him, he now\naffectionately re-assures them of his high and constant regard for\nthem, and of his continued remembrance of them in his prayers. He then\nproceeds briefly to exhort them to a perseverance in the Christian\ncourse, in which they had made so fair an outset, urging upon them more\nespecially, those virtues which were peculiarly rare among those with\nwhom they were daily brought in contact,\u2015\u2015purity of life, rigid honesty\nin business transactions, a charitable regard for the feelings of\nothers, a quiet, peaceable, inoffensive deportment, and other minuter\ncounsels, according to the peculiar circumstances of different persons\namong them. The greater portion of this brief letter, indeed, is taken\nup with these plain, practical matters, with no reference to any deep\ndoctrinal subjects, the whole being thus evidently well-suited to the\ncondition of believers who had but just begun the Christian course,\nand had been in no way prepared to appreciate any learned discussion\nof those obscure points which in later periods were the subject of so\nmuch controversy among some of Paul\u2019s converts. Their dangers hitherto\nhad also been mainly in the moral rather than in the doctrinal way,\nand the only error of mere belief, to which he makes reference, is one\nwhich has always been the occasion of a great deal of harmless folly\namong the ignorant and the weak minded in the Christian churches, from\nthe apostolic age to this day. The evil however, was considered by\nthe apostle of so much importance, that he thought it worth while\nto briefly expose its folly to the Thessalonians, and he accordingly\ndiscourses to them of the day of judgment, assuring them that those\nwho might happen to be alive at the moment of Christ\u2019s coming, would\nderive no peculiar advantage from that circumstance, because those\nwho had died in Christ should rise first, and the survivors be then\ncaught up to meet the Lord in the air. But as for \u201cthe times and the\nseasons,\u201d\u2015\u2015those endless themes for the discursive nonsense of the\nvisionary, even to the present day and hour,\u2015\u2015he assures them that\nthere was no need at all that he should write to them, because they\nalready well knew that the day of the Lord should come as a thief in\nthe night, according to the words of Jesus himself. The only practical\nbenefit which they could expect to derive then, from this part of\ntheir faith, was the conviction of the necessity of constantly bearing\nin mind the shortness and uncertainty of their earthly stay, and the\nimportance of watchfulness and sobriety. After several sententious\nmoral exhortations, he concludes with affectionate salutations, and\nwith an earnest, solemn charge, that the letter should be read to all\nthe brethren of the church.\n\nIt will be observed, that at the conclusion of the epistle is a\nstatement that it was written from _Athens_,\u2015\u2015an assertion perfectly\nabsurd, and rendered evidently so by the statements contained in the\nepistle itself, as above shown. All the similar statements appended to\nhis other epistles are equally unauthorized, and most of them equally\nfalse;\u2015\u2015being written by some exceedingly foolish copyists, who\nwere too stupid to understand the words which they transcribed. Yet\nthese idle falsehoods are gravely given in all copies of the English\ntranslation, and are thus continually sent abroad to mislead common\nreaders, many of whom, seeing them thus attached to the apostolic\nwritings, suppose them to be also of inspired authority, and are\ndeceived accordingly. And they probably will continue to be thus copied,\nin spite of their palpable and mischievous falsehood, until such a\nrevolution in the moral sense of common people takes place, that they\nshall esteem a new negative truth more valuable and interesting, than\nan old, groundless blunder.\n\nFor some time after the writing of the first epistle to the\nThessalonians, with these triumphs and other encouragements, Paul and\nhis faithful helpers appear to have gone on steadily in their apostolic\nlabors, with no special obstacle or difficulty, that is commemorated in\nthe sacred record. But at last their old difficulties began to manifest\nthemselves in the gradually awakened enmity of the Jews, who, though\nat his first distinct public ministrations they had expressed a decided\nand scornful opposition to the doctrine of a crucified Savior, yet\nsuffered the new teachers to go on, without opposing them any farther\nthan by scornful verbal hostility, blasphemy and abuse. But when they\nsaw the despised heresy making such rapid advances, notwithstanding\nthe contempt with which it was visited, they immediately determined\nto let it no longer take advantage of their inefficiency in resisting\nits progress. Of course, deprived themselves, of all political power,\nthey had not the means of meeting the evil by physical violence, and\nthey well knew that any attempt on their part to raise an illegal\ncommotion against the strangers, would only bring down on the exciters\nof the disturbance, the whole vengeance of their Roman rulers, who\nwere unsparing in their vengeance on those that undertook to defy the\nforms of their laws, for the sake of persecution, or any private ends;\nand least of all would a class of people so peculiar and so disliked\nas the Jews, be allowed to take any such treasonable steps, without\ninsuring them a most dreadful punishment. These circumstances therefore\ncompelled them to proceed, as usual, under the forms of law; and\ntheir first step against Paul therefore, was to apprehend him, and\ntake him, as a violator of religious order, before the highest Roman\ntribunal,\u2015\u2015that of the proconsul.\n\nThe proconsul of Achaia, holding his supreme seat of justice in Corinth,\nthe capital of that Roman province, was Lucius Junius GALLIO, a man\nwell known to the readers of one of the classic Latin writers of that\nage,\u2015\u2015Seneca,\u2015\u2015as one of the most remarkable exemplifications of those\nnoble virtues which were the great theme of this philosopher\u2019s pen.\nOut of many beautiful illustrations which may be drawn from Roman\nand Jewish writers, to explain and amplify the honest and faithful\napostolic history of Luke, there is none more striking and gratifying\nthan the aid here drawn from this fine philosophical classic, on the\ncharacter of the noble proconsul, who by his upright, wise, and clement\ndecision, against the mean persecutors of Paul,\u2015\u2015and by his indignant\nrefusal to pervert and degrade his vice-regal power to the base ends of\nprivate abuse, has acquired the grateful regard and admiring respect of\nall Christian readers of apostolic history. The name of Lucius Junius\nGallio, by which he is known to Roman writers as well as in apostolic\nhistory, was not his original family designation, and therefore gives\nthe reader no idea of his interesting relationship to one of the finest\nmoralists of the whole period of the Roman empire. His original family\nname was Marcus Annaeus Novatus Seneca,\u2015\u2015which appellation he exchanged\nfor his later one, on being adopted by Lucius Junius Gallio, a noble\nRoman, who being destitute of children, adopted, according to a very\ncommon custom of the imperial city, one of a family that had already\ngiven promise of a fine reward to those who should take its offspring\nas theirs. The famous philosopher before mentioned,\u2015\u2015Lucius Annaeus\nSeneca,\u2015\u2015was his own brother; both of them being the sons of Marcus\nAnnaeus Seneca, a distinguished orator and rhetorician of the Augustan\nage. A strong and truly fraternal affection always continued to hold\nthe two brothers together, even after they had been separated in\nname by the adoption of the older into the family of Gallio; and the\nphilosopher often commemorates his noble brother, in terms of high\nrespect; and dedicated to him one of the most perfect of those moral\ntreatises which have immortalized the name of Seneca.\n\nThe philosopher Seneca, after having been for many years banished\nfrom Rome by Claudius, was at length recalled by that emperor in the\nninth year of his reign, corresponding to A.\u00a0D. 49. He was immediately\nmade a senator, and was still further honored by being intrusted with\nthe education of Domitius, the son of Agrippina, afterwards adopted by\nClaudius as heir to the throne, to which he succeeded on the emperor\u2019s\ndeath, under the name of NERO, by which he has now become so infamous\nwherever the Roman name is known. Being thus elevated to authority\nand great influence with the emperor, Seneca made use of his power, to\nprocure for his brother Gallio such official honors as his talents and\ncharacter justly claimed. In the eleventh year of Claudius he was made\nconsul, as is recorded in the Fasti Consulares; and was soon after sent\ninto Greece, as proconsul of Achaia. Arriving at Corinth in the year\n53, he was immediately addressed by the Jewish citizens of that place\nin behalf of their plot against Paul; for they naturally supposed that\nthis would be the best time for the attempt to bend the new governor\nto their purposes, when he was just commencing his administration, and\nwould be anxious to please the subjects of his power by his opening\nacts. But Gallio had no disposition to acquire popularity with any\nclass of citizens, by any such abuse of power, and by his conduct on\nthis occasion very fairly justifies the high character given him by his\nbrother Seneca. When the Jews came dragging Paul before the proconsular\ntribunal, with the accusation\u2015\u2015\u201cThis fellow persuades men to worship\nGod in a manner contrary to the ritual,\u201d\u2015\u2015before Paul could open his\nmouth in reply, Gallio carelessly answered\u2015\u2015\u201cIf it were a matter of\ncrime or misdemeanor, ye Jews! it would be reasonable that I should\nbear with you; but if it be a question of words and names, and of\nyour ritual, look ye to it; for I do not wish to be a judge of those\nthings.\u201d With this contemptuous reply, he cleared the court of them.\nThe Jews thus found their fine scheme of abusing Paul under the\nsanction of the Roman tribunal, perfectly frustrated; nor was their\ncalamity confined to this disappointment; for all the Greeks who were\npresent at the trial,\u2015\u2015indignant at the scandalous character of the\nproceeding,\u2015\u2015took Sosthenes, the ruling elder of the synagogue, who\nhad probably been most active in the persecution of Paul, as he was\nthe regular legal chief of the Jews, and gave him a sound threshing in\nthe court, before he could obey the orders of the Proconsul, and move\noff from the tribunal. Gallio was so far from being displeased at this\nvery irregular and improper outbreak of public feeling, that he took\nno notice of the action whatever, though it was a shameful violation\nof the dignity of his tribunal; and it may therefore be reasonably\nconcluded that he was very much provoked against the Jews, and was\ndisposed to sympathize with Paul; otherwise he would have been apt to\nhave punished the outrage of the Greeks upon Sosthenes.\n\n \u201cThe name of this proconsul was Marcus Annaeus Novatus, but\n being adopted by Lucius Junius Gallio, he took the name of his\n adopted father; he was brother to the famous Seneca, tutor to\n Nero. That philosopher dedicated to Gallio his book, \u2018De Vita\n Beata.\u2019 The Roman historians concur in giving him the character\n of a sweet disposition, an enemy to all vice, and particularly a\n hater of flattery. He was twice made proconsul of Achaia, first\n by Claudius, and afterwards by Nero. As he was the sharer of his\n brother\u2019s prosperity, so he was of his misfortunes, when he fell\n under Nero\u2019s displeasure, and was at length put to death by the\n tyrant, as well as his brother.\u201d (Calmet\u2019s Commentary. Poole\u2019s\n Annotations. Williams on Pearson.)\n\n \u201cIn Acts xviii. 12\u201216, we find Paul is brought before Gallio by\n the Jews, but this proconsul refused to judge any such matters,\n as not coming within his jurisdiction. The character for justice,\n impartiality, prudence, and mildness of disposition, which this\n passage gives to Gallio, is confirmed by Seneca, his brother, in\n these words:\u2015\u2015Solebam tibi dicere, Gallionem fratrem meum (quem\n nemo non parum amat, etiam qui amare plus non potest,) alia\n vitia non nosse, hoc etiam, (i.\u00a0e. adulationem,) odisse.\u2015\u2015Nemo\n enim mortalium uni tam dulcis est, quam hic omnibus. Hoc quoque\n loco blanditiis tuis restitit, ut exclamares invenisse te\n inexpugnabilem virum adversus insidias, quas nemo non in sinum\n recipit. (Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Natural Questions, lib. iv.\n in preface, op. tom. iv. p. 267, edited by Bipont.) In our\n translation Gallio is styled the _deputy_, but the real Greek\n word is \u0391\u03bd\u03b8\u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _proconsul_. The accuracy of Luke\n in this instance is very remarkable. In the partition of\n the provinces of the Roman empire, Macedonia and Achaia were\n assigned to the people and Senate of Rome. In the reign of\n Tiberius they were, at their own request, made over to the\n emperor. In the reign of Claudius, (A.\u00a0U.\u00a0C. 797. A.\u00a0D. 44,)\n they were again restored to the Senate, after which time\n proconsuls were sent into this country. Nero afterwards made the\n Achaians a free people. The Senate therefore lost this province\n again. However, that they might not be sufferers, the emperor\n gave them the island of Sardinia, in the room of it. Vespasian\n made Achaia a province again. There is likewise a peculiar\n propriety in the name of the province of which Gallio was\n proconsul. The country subject to him was all Greece; but the\n proper name of the province among the Romans was Achaia, as\n appears from various passages of the Roman historians, and\n especially from the testimony of Pausanias. \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c7\u2019\n \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u2019 \u2666\u0391\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1fec\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u0391\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. (Pausanias\n Description of Greece. lib. vii. p. 563. Lardner\u2019s Works, 4to.\n vol. I. p. 19.)\n\n \u2666 \u201c\u0391\u03b1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u201d replaced with \u201c\u0391\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u201d\n\n \u201cThe words \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 ought to be rendered,\n with Heumann, Walch, Antiquities, Corinth, p. 35., and Reichard,\n (as indeed is required by the context,) \u2018when Gallio had been\n made Proconsul,\u2019 or \u2018on Gallio\u2019s entering on the Proconsulship.\u2019\n (Kuinoel.) In the same sense it was also taken by Beza and\n Piscator; and this appears to be the true one. The Jews, it\n seems, waited for the arrival of a new Proconsul to make their\n request, as thinking that they should then be less likely\n to meet with a refusal.\u201d (Bloomfield\u2019s Annotations, Vol. IV.\n p. 600.)\n\n \u201c\u2018_Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the\n synagogues._\u2019 verse 17. In the 8th verse we read that Crispus\n was the chief ruler of the synagogue in Corinth. And from this\n we may suppose that there were more than one synagogue in that\n city, or that there might be more than one ruler in the same\n synagogue; or that Crispus, after his conversion to Christianity,\n might have been succeeded by Sosthenes; but then we are at a\n loss to know who the people are that thus beat and misused him;\n the Greek printed copies tell us that they were the Gentiles;\n and those that read the text imagine, that when they perceived\n the neglect and disregard wherewith the proconsul received the\n Jews, they, to insult them more, fell upon the ruler of their\n synagogue, whether out of hatred to them, or friendship to St.\n Paul, it makes no matter. But others think, that Sosthenes,\n however head of the synagogue, was nevertheless the friend of\n St. Paul, and that the other Jews, seeing themselves slighted\n by Gallio, might vent their malice upon him; for they suppose\n that this was the same Sosthenes, whose name St. Paul, in the\n beginning of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, written about\n three years after this time, joins with his own. This opinion,\n however, was not universally received, since, in the time of\n Eusebius, it was thought the Sosthenes mentioned in the epistle\n was one of the seventy disciples, and, consequently, could not\n be the chief of the synagogue at Corinth, twenty years after\n the death of Jesus Christ.\u201d (Beausobre\u2019s Annotations. Calmet\u2019s\n Commentary and Dictionary.)\n\n \u201c\u2018xviii. 17. \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 There is here\n some variation of reading, and no little question raised as\n to the true one; which consequently leaves the interpretation\n unsettled. Two ancient MSS. and versions omit \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, and\n others read \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9. As to the latter reading, it cannot be\n tolerated; for why should _the Jews_ have beaten him? Neither\n is it likely that they would have taken such a liberty before\n so solemn a tribunal. The words \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 are thought by\n many critics, as Grotius, Mill, Pierce, Bengel, and Kuinoel,\n to be derived from the margin, like the last. Now those were\n _Gentiles_ (say they) who beat Sosthenes; and hence some one\n wrote \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2. As to the reason for the beating, it was to\n make the Jews go away the faster; and to this they were actuated\n partly by their hatred towards the Jews, and partly by a desire\n to please the Procurator.\u2019 But this appears to be pressing\n too much on the word \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, which has by no means any such\n meaning. Besides, it is strange that the words \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 should\n have crept into nearly all the MSS; even into so many _early_\n ones. And, supposing \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 to be removed, what sense is to be\n given to \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2? None (I think) satisfactory, or agreeable to\n the style of the New Testament. It must therefore be retained:\n and then the sense of \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 will be as follows: \u2018all the Greeks,\n both Gentiles and Christians:\u2019 which is so evident, that I am\n surprised the commentators should not have seen it. Some explain\n it of the Gentiles, and others of the Gentile Christians. _Both_\n indeed had reason to take umbrage at the intolerance and bitter\n animosity of the Jews. It is not likely that any should have\n joined in the beating, merely to please the Proconsul, who\n was not a man to be gratified by such a procedure. So that the\n gnomes brought forward by Grotius on the base _assentatio_ of\n courtiers, are not here applicable.\n\n \u201cBy \u1f14\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd is merely to be understood _beating_, or _thumping\n him with their fists_, as he passed along. Anything _more_ than\n that, we cannot suppose they would have ventured upon, or the\n Proconsul have tolerated.\u201d\n\n \u201cBy \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, (verse 17,) we may, I think, understand both the\n accusation brought forward, and the cuffs which followed; to\n neither of which the Proconsul paid much attention; and this\n from disgust at the litigious conduct of the Jews; as also from\n the custom, mentioned by Pricaeus, of the Roman governors, to\n pass by any conduct which did not directly tend to degrade the\n dignity of the Roman name, or weaken its influence, in order\n that the yoke might be as easy as possible to the provincials.\u201d\n (Bloomfield\u2019s Annotations, Vol. IV. pp. 603\u2012605.)\n\n Illustration: CORINTH\u2015\u2015CENCHREA.\n Romans xvi. 1. Acts xviii. 18.\n\nHis character having been thus vindicated, and his safety thus assured\nhim by the supreme civil authority, Paul resided for a long time in\nCorinth, steadily pursuing his apostolic work, without any direct\nhindrance or molestation from the Jews. There is no reason to suppose\nthat he confined all his labor entirely to the city; on the contrary,\nit is quite certain, that the numerous smaller gospel fields throughout\nthe adjacent country, must have attracted his attention, and it appears,\nfrom the commencement of his second epistle to the Corinthians, that\nmany throughout all Achaia had received the gospel, and had been\nnumbered among the saints. Corinth, however, remained the great center\nof his operations in Greece, and from this place he soon after directed\nanother epistle to one of his apostolic charges in Macedonia,\u2015\u2015the\nchurch of Thessalonica. Since his former epistle had been received\nby them, there had arisen a new occasion for his anxious attention\nto their spiritual condition, and in his second letter he alludes\ndistinctly to the fact that there had been misrepresentations of his\nopinion, and seems to imply that a letter had been forged in his name,\nand presented to them, as containing a new and more complete account\nof the exact time of the expected coming of Christ, to which he had\nonly vaguely alluded in the first. In the second chapter of his second\nepistle, he renews his warning against these delusions about the\ncoming of Christ, alluding to the fact, that they had been deceived\nand disturbed by misstatements on this subject, and had been led into\nerror, both by those who pretended to be _inspired_, and by those who\nattempted to show by _prediction_, that the coming of Christ was at\nhand, and also by _the forged epistle_ pretending to contain Paul\u2019s own\nmore decisive opinions on the subject. He exhorts them to \u201clet no man\ndeceive them by any of these means.\u201d He warns them moreover, against\nany that exalt themselves against the doctrines which he had taught\nthem, and denounces all false and presumptuous teachers in very bitter\nterms. After various warnings against these and all disorderly persons\namong them, he refers to his own behavior while with them, as an\nexample for them to follow, and reminds them how blamelessly and\nhonestly he behaved himself. He did not presume on his apostolic office,\nto be an idler, or to eat any man\u2019s bread for naught, but steadily\nworked with his own hands, lest he should be chargeable to any one of\nthem; and this he did, not because his apostolic office did not empower\nhim to live without manual labor, and to depend on those to whom he\npreached for his means of subsistence, but because he wished to make\nhimself, and his fellow-laborers, Silas and Timothy, examples for\ntheir behavior after he was gone. Yet it seemed that, notwithstanding\nthe pains he had taken to inculcate an honest and industrious course,\nseveral persons among them had assumed the office of teaching and\nreproving, and had considered themselves thereby excused from doing\nanything for their own support. In the conclusion, he refers them\ndistinctly to his own signature and salutation, which authenticate\nevery epistle which he writes, and without which, no letter was to be\nesteemed genuine. This he specifies, no doubt, for the sake of putting\nthem on their guard against the repetition of any such deception as had\nbeen lately practised on them in his name.\n\n\n HIS VOYAGE BACK TO THE EAST.\n\nSoon after Paul had written his second epistle to the Thessalonians, he\nleft Corinth, in the spring of A.\u00a0D. 56, as it is commonly calculated,\nand after bidding the brethren farewell, journeyed back to Asia, from\nwhose shores he had now been absent not less than three years. On\nhis return journey, he was accompanied by his two acquaintances and\nfellow-laborers, Aquilas and Priscilla, who were now his most intimate\nfriends, and henceforth were always esteemed among the important aids\nof the apostolic enterprise. Journeying eastward across the isthmus,\nthey came to Cenchreae, the eastern port of Corinth, and at the head\nof the great Saronic gulf, about seven miles from the city itself.\nAt this place Paul discharged himself of the obligation of a vow,\nwhich he had made some time before, in conformity with a common Jewish\ncustom of thus giving force to their own sense of gratitude for the\naccomplishment of any desired object. He had vowed to let his hair grow\nuntil some unknown end was attained, and now, having seen the prayers\nwhich sanctioned that vow granted, he cut off his hair in token of the\njoyful completion of the enterprise on which he had thus solemnly and\nformally invoked the blessing of heaven. The actual purpose of this\nvow is not recorded,\u2015\u2015but when the occasion on which he thus exonerated\nhimself is considered, it seems most reasonable to suppose that now,\nembarking from the shores of Europe, after he had there passed so many\nyears of very peculiar labor and trials, he was thus celebrating the\nprosperous and happy achievment of his first great western mission, and\nthat this vow had been made for his safe return, when he first sailed\nfrom the eastern coast of the Aegean, at Alexandria Troas.\n\nHe sailed from Cenchreae to Ephesus, a great city of Ionic Asia,\nwhich had never been the scene of his apostolic labors, though he had\ntraversed much of the country around it; for it will be remembered,\nthat on his last journey through Asia Minor, when he had passed\nover Galatia and Phrygia, he was about to enter Asia Proper, but\nwas hindered by a special impulse of the Spirit, which sent him in\na different direction. But having thus achieved his great western\nenterprise, there was now no longer any more important commission\nto prevent him from gratifying his eyes with a sight of this very\ninteresting region, and making here an experimental effort to diffuse\nthe knowledge of the gospel through the numerous, wealthy, refined and\npopulous cities of this, the most flourishing and civilized country in\nthe world. He did not intend, however, to make anything more than a\nmere call at Ephesus; for the great object of his voyage from Europe\nwas to return to Jerusalem and Syria, and give to his brethren, a full\nstatement of all the interesting particulars of his long and remarkable\nmission in Macedonia and Greece. But he took occasion to vary this\neastern route, so as to effect as much good as possible by the way;\nand therefore embarked first for Ephesus, where he landed with Aquilas\nand Priscilla, whom he left there, while he continued on his journey,\nsoutheastwards. He stopped with them however, a few days, with a view\nto open this new field of labor with them; and going into the synagogue,\ndiscoursed with the Jews. He was so well received by his hearers,\nthat he was earnestly besought to prolong his stay among them; but he\nexcused himself for his refusal of their kind invitation, by stating\nthe great object which he had in view in leaving Europe at that\nparticular time:\u2015\u2015\u201cI must by all means keep this coming feast at\nJerusalem; but I will return to you,\u2015\u2015God willing.\u201d And bidding them\nfarewell, he sailed away from Ephesus to Caesarea, on the coast of\nPalestine, where he landed. Thence he went up to Jerusalem, to salute\nthe church. In this part of the history of Paul, Luke seems to be\nexceedingly brief; perhaps because he was not then with him, and had\nnever received from him any account of this journey. There is therefore\nno way of ascertaining what was the particular motive or design of\nthis visit. It would appear, however, from the very hurried manner in\nwhich the visit was noticed, that it was exceedingly brief, and his\ndeparture thence may, as Calvin conjectures, have been hastened by the\ncircumstance, that possibly the business on which he went thither did\nnot succeed according to his wishes. At any rate, there seems to have\nbeen something very mysterious about the whole matter, else there would\nnot have been this very studied concealment of the motives and details\nof a journey, which he announced to the brethren of the church at\nEphesus, as _absolutely necessary_ for him to perform. This also may\nhave been concealed for the same reason, which has been conjectured to\nhave caused the visit to be so short, as would seem from the manner in\nwhich it is noticed. From Jerusalem he went down to Antioch, by what\nroute is not specified,\u2015\u2015but probably by way of Caesarea and the sea.\n\n \u201cxviii. 22. _Caesarea._ A town on the sea-coast. [See the\n note on p. 173.] \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u1f70\u03c2, \u2018and having gone up.\u2019 Whither? Some\n commentators, as Camerarius, De Dieu, Wolf, Calov., Heumann,\n Doddridge, Thaleman, Beck, and Kuinoel, refer it to _Caesarea_.\n But this requires the confirmation of examples. And we must\n _take for granted_ that the city was built high above the port,\n (which is not likely,) or that the _church_ was so situated;\n which would be extremely frigid. Neither is it certain\n that there _was_ a church. Besides, how can the expression\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 be proper, as used of traveling from a seaport-town,\n like Caesarea, to Antioch? I therefore prefer the mode\n of interpretation adopted by some ancient and many modern\n commentators, as Beza, Grotius, Mor., Rosenmueller, Reichard,\n Schott, Heinrichs, and others, who supply \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1. This\n may indeed seem somewhat harsh; yet it must be remembered that\n not a few things are so in the New Testament; and \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\n is there often used absolutely of going up to Jerusalem, and\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 of going from thence. Nor is this unexampled in the\n classical writers. Xenophon uses the word in the very same\n sense, of those going from Greece to the capital of Persia. See\n Anabasis 1, 1, 2. Hist. 2, 1. 9, 10. Anabasis 1, 4, 12. Hist. 4,\n 1, 2. 1, 5, 1. 1, 4, 2. and many other passages referred to by\n Sturz in his Lexicon Xenophon in voce. Besides, as the words \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 have just preceded, it is not very harsh to repeat\n them. Kuinoel, indeed, and some others, treat those words as not\n genuine; but their opinion rests on mere suspicion, unsupported\n by any proof.\u201d (Bloomfield Annotations. Vol. IV. p. 607.)\n\nFrom the very brief and general manner in which the incidents of this\nvisit of Paul to the eastern continent are commemorated, the apostolic\nhistorian is left to gather nothing but the most naked circumstances,\nof the route pursued, and from the results, it is but fair to conclude\nthat nothing of consequence happened to the apostle, as his duties\nconsisted merely in a review and completion of the work he had gone\nover before. Luke evidently did not accompany Paul in this Asian\njourney, and he therefore only states the general direction of the\napostle\u2019s course, without a single particular. He says that Paul, after\nmaking \u2666some stay in Antioch,\u2015\u2015where, no doubt he greatly comforted the\nhearts of the brethren, by the glad tidings of the triumphs of Christ\nin Europe,\u2015\u2015went in regular order over the regions of Galatia, and\nPhrygia, everywhere confirming the disciples. Beyond this, no incident\nwhatever is preserved; yet here great amplification of the sacred\nrecord might be made, from the amusing narrative of that venerable\nmonkish story-teller, who assumes the name of Abdias Babylonius. But\nfrom the specimens of his narrative already given, in the lives of\nAndrew and John, the reader will easily apprehend that they contain\nnothing which deserves to be intruded into the midst of the honest,\nauthentic statements, of the original and genuine apostolic history;\nand all these with many other similar inventions are wholly dismissed\nfrom the life of Paul, of whose actions such ample records have\nbeen left in the writings of himself and his companions, that it\nis altogether more necessary for the biographer to condense into a\nmodernized form, with proper illustrations, the materials presented\non the authority of inspiration, than to prolong the narrative with\ntedious inventions. In this part of the apostolic history, all that\nLuke records is, that Paul, after the before-mentioned survey of the\ninland countries of Asia Minor, came down to the western shore, and\nvisited Ephesus, according to the promise which \u2660he had made them\nat his farewell, a few months before. Since that hasty visit made\nin passing, some events important to the gospel cause had happened\namong them. An Alexandrine Jew named Apollos, a man of great Biblical\nlearning, (as many of the Jews of his native city were,) and indued\nalso with eloquence,\u2015\u2015came to Ephesus, and there soon distinguished\nhimself as a religious teacher. Of the doctrines of Jesus Christ and\nhis apostles, indeed, he had never heard; but he had somewhere been\nmade acquainted with the peculiar reforming principles of his great\nforerunner, John the Baptist, and had been baptized, probably by\nsome one of his disciples. With great fervor and power, he discoursed\nlearnedly of the things of the Lord, in the synagogue at Ephesus,\nand of course, was brought under the notice of Aquilas and Priscilla,\nwhom Paul had left to occupy that important field, while he was making\nhis southeastern tour. They took pains to draw Apollos into their\nacquaintance, and found him, like every truly learned man, very ready\nto learn, even from those who were his inferiors in most departments\nof sacred knowledge. From them he heard with great interest and\nsatisfaction, the peculiar and striking truths revealed in Jesus,\nand at once professing his faith in this new revelation, went forth\nagain among the Jews, replenished with a higher learning and a diviner\nspirit. After teaching for some time in Ephesus, he was disposed to\ntry his new powers in some other field; and proposing to journey into\nAchaia, his two Christian friends gave him letters of introduction\nand recommendation to the brethren of the church in Corinth. While\nhe was there laboring with great efficiency in the gospel cause, Paul\nreturning from his great apostolic survey of the inland and upper\nregions of Asia Minor, came to Ephesus. Entering on this work of\nperfecting and uniting the results of the various irregular efforts\nmade by the different persons, who had before labored there, he found,\namong those who professed to hold the doctrines of a new revelation,\nabout a dozen men, who knew very little of the great doctrines which\nPaul had been in the habit of preaching. One of his first questions\nto them, of course, was whether they had yet received that usual\nconvincing sign of the Christian faith,\u2015\u2015the Holy Spirit. To which they\nanswered in some surprise, that they had not yet heard that there was\nany Holy Spirit;\u2015\u2015thus evidently showing that they knew nothing about\nany such sign or its effects. Paul, in his turn considerably surprised,\nat this remarkable ignorance of a matter of such high importance, was\nnaturally led to ask what kind of initiation they had received into\nthe new dispensation; and learning from them, that they had only been\nbaptized according to the baptism of John,\u2015\u2015instantly assured them\nof the incompleteness of that revelation of the truth. \u201cJohn truly\nbaptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people that they\nmust believe on him that should come after him,\u2015\u2015that is on Christ\nJesus.\u201d Hearing this, they consented to receive from the apostle of\nJesus, the renewal of the sign of faith, which they had formerly known\nas the token of that partial revelation made by John; and they were\ntherefore baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,\u2015\u2015a form of words\nwhich of course had never been pronounced over them before. Paul, then\nlaying his hands on them, invoked the influence of the Holy Spirit,\nwhich was then immediately manifested, by the usual miraculous gifts\nwhich accompanied its effusion.\n\n \u2666 removed duplicate word \u201csome\u201d\n\n \u2660 removed duplicate word \u201che\u201d\n\n \u201cxviii. 24. _Apollos._ A name contracted from _Apollonius_,\n (which is read in the Cod. Cant.) as Epaphras from Epaphroditus,\n and Artemas from Artemonius. Of this Apollonius, mention is also\n made in 1 Corinthians i. 12. iii. 5 seq. where Paul speaks of\n the labor he underwent in the instruction of the Corinthians.\n (1 Corinthians iv. 6. xvi. 12.) \u0393\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, _by birth_, i.\u00a0e. country;\n as in 18, 2. The Jews of Alexandria were eminent for Biblical\n knowledge. That most celebrated city of Egypt abounded with men\n of learning, both Jews and Gentiles.\u201d Kuinoel. (Bloomfield\u2019s\n Annotations, Vol. IV. p. 608.)\n\n \u201cThe _Baptism of John_ is put, by synecdoche, for the _whole of\n John\u2019s ordinances_. See the note on Matthew xxi. 25. (Kuinoel.)\n It is generally supposed that he had been baptized by John\n himself: but this must have been twenty years before; and it is\n not probable that during that time he should have acquired no\n knowledge of Christianity. It should rather seem that he had\n been baptized by one of John\u2019s disciples; and perhaps not very\n long before the time here spoken of.\u201d (Bloomfield\u2019s Annotations,\n Vol. IV. p. 610.)\n\n \u201cWith respect to the _letters_ here mentioned, they were written\n for the purpose of encouraging Apollos, and recommending him\n to the brethren. This ancient ecclesiastical custom of writing\n letters of recommendation, (which seems to have originated in\n the necessary caution to be observed in times of persecution,\n and arose out of the interrupted and tardy intercourse which,\n owing to their great distance from each other, subsisted\n between the Christians,) has been well illustrated by a tract\n of Ferrarius de Epistolis Ecclesiasticis, referred to by Wolf.\u201d\n (Bloomfield. Vol. IV. p. 611.)\n\n \u201cEphesus was the metropolis of proconsular Asia. It was situated\n at the mouth of the river Cayster, on the shore of the Aegean\n sea, in that part anciently called Ionia, (but now Natolir,)\n and was particularly celebrated for the temple of Diana, which\n had been erected at the common expense of the inhabitants of\n Asia Proper, and was reputed one of the seven wonders of the\n world. In the time of Paul, this city abounded with orators and\n philosophers; and its inhabitants, in their gentile state, were\n celebrated for their idolatry and skill in magic, as well as\n for their luxury and lasciviousness. Ephesus is now under the\n dominion of the Turks, and is in a state of almost total ruin,\n being reduced to fifteen poor cottages, (not erected exactly\n on its original site,) and its once flourishing church is now\n diminished to _three_ illiterate Greeks. (Revelation ii. 6.)\n In the time of the Romans, Ephesus was the metropolis of Asia.\n The temple of Diana is said to have been four hundred and\n twenty-five feet long, two hundred and twenty broad, and to have\n been supported by one hundred and twenty-seven pillars of marble,\n seventy feet high, whereof twenty-seven were most beautifully\n wrought, and all the rest polished. One Ctesiphon, a famous\n architect, planned it, and with so much art and curiosity, that\n it took two hundred years to finish it. It was set on fire seven\n times; once on the very same day that Socrates was poisoned,\n four hundred years before Christ.\u201d (Horne\u2019s Introduction.\n Whitby\u2019s Table. Wells\u2019s Geography. Williams on Pearson.)\n\nAfter this successful effort to confirm and complete the conversions\nalready effected, Paul went about his apostolic labors in the usual\nway,\u2015\u2015going into the synagogue, and speaking boldly, disputing the\nantiquated sophistry of the Jews, and urging upon all, the doctrines of\nthe new revelation. In this department of labor, he continued for the\nspace of three months; but at the end of that time, he found that many\nobstacles were thrown in the way of the truth by the stubborn adherents\nof the established forms of old Judaism, who would not allow that the\nlowly Jesus was the Messiah for whom their nation had so long looked\nas the restorer of Israel. Leaving the hardened and obstinate Jews, he\ntherefore, according to his old custom in such cases of the rejection\nof the gospel by them, withdrew from their society, and thenceforth\nwent with those who had believed among the more candid Greeks, who,\nwith a truly enlightened and philosophical spirit, held their minds\nopen to the reception of new truths, even though they might not happen\nto accord with those which were sanctioned to them by the prejudices of\neducation. After leaving the synagogue, his new place of preaching and\nreligious instruction was the school of one Tyrannus,\u2015\u2015doubtless one of\nthose philosophical institutions with which every Grecian city abounded.\nThis continued his field of exertion for two years, during which his\nfame became very widely established,\u2015\u2015all the inhabitants of Ionic\nand Aeolic Asia, having heard of the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews\nand Greeks. Among the causes and effects of this general notoriety,\nwas the circumstance, that many miraculous cures were wrought by\nthe hands of Paul; and many began even to attach a divine regard to\nhis person;\u2015\u2015handkerchiefs being brought to the sick from his body,\nwhich, on application to those afflicted, either with bodily or mental\ndiseases, produced a perfect cure. This matter becoming generally known\nand talked of, throughout Ephesus, became the occasion of a ludicrous\naccident, which occurred to some persons who entertained the mistaken\nnotion, that this faculty of curing diseases was transferable, and\nmight be exercised by anybody that had enterprise enough to take the\nbusiness in hand, and say over the form of words that seemed to be so\nefficacious in the mouth of Paul. A set of conjurers of Jewish origin,\nthe seven sons of Sceva, who went about professedly following the trade\nof casting out devils, straightway caught up this new improvement on\ntheir old tricks, (for so they esteemed the divinely miraculous power\nof the apostle,) and soon found an opportunity to experiment with\nthis, which they considered a valuable addition to their old stock\nof impositions. So, calling over the miserable possessed subject of\ntheir foolish experiment, they said\u2015\u2015\u201cWe exorcise you by Jesus, whom\nPaul preaches.\u201d But the devil was not slow to perceive the difference\nbetween this second-hand, plagiaristic mode of operation, and\nthe commanding tone of divine authority with which the demoniacal\npossessions were treated by the apostle of Jesus. He therefore quite\nturned their borrowed mummery into a jest, and cried out through the\nmouth of the possessed man,\u2015\u2015\u201cJesus I know, and Paul I know:\u2015\u2015but who\nare ye?\u201d Under the impulse of the frolicsome, mischievous spirit, the\nman upon whom they were playing their conjuring tricks, jumped up at\nonce, and fell upon these rash doctors with all his might, and with all\nthe energy of a truly crazy demoniac, beat the whole seven, tore their\nclothes off from them, and threshed them to such effect, that they were\nglad to stop their mummery, and make off as fast as possible, but did\nnot escape till they were naked and wounded. The affair of course, was\nsoon very generally talked of, and the story made an impression, on\nthe whole, decidedly favorable to the true source of that miraculous\nagency, which, when foolishly tampered with, had produced such\nappalling results. Many, among both Jews and Greeks, were thereby led\nto repentance and faith, and more particularly those who had been in\nthe way of practising these arts of imposition. A very general alarm\nprevailed among all the conjurers, and many came and confessed the\nmean tricks by which they had hitherto maintained their reputation as\ncontrollers of the powers of the invisible world. Many who had also,\nat great expense of time and money, acquired the arts of imposition,\nbrought the costly books in which were contained all the mysterious\ndetails of their magical mummery, and burned them publicly, without\nregard to their immense estimated pecuniary value, which was not less\nthan nine thousand dollars. In short, the results of this apparently\ntrifling occurrence, followed up by the zealous preaching of Paul,\neffected a vast amount of good, so that the word of God mightily grew\nand prevailed.\n\n Illustration: EPHESUS.\u2015\u2015RUINS OF THE TEMPLE OF DIANA.\n Ephesians i. 1. Revelation ii. 1, 7.\n\n \u201cIn Acts xx. 31, the apostle says, that for the space of three\n years he preached at Ephesus. Grotius and Whitby hold that these\n three years are to be reckoned from his first coming to Ephesus,\n xviii. 19; that he does not specify his being in any other\n city; and that when it is said here, \u2018So that all Asia heard the\n word,\u2019 xix. 40, it arose from the concourse that, on a religious\n account, continually assembled in that city. The Jews also, from\n different parts of Asia, were induced by commerce, or obliged\n by the courts of judicature, to frequent it. Other commentators\n contend that, as only two years, with three months in the\n synagogue, are here mentioned, the remaining three-quarters of\n a year were partly engaged in a progress through the neighboring\n provinces. (Elsley, from Lightfoot and Doddridge.)\n\n \u201cWhile he was at Ephesus, \u2018God wrought special miracles by the\n hands of Paul; so that from his body were brought unto the sick,\n handkerchiefs or aprons,\u2019 &c. &c. Acts \u2666xix. 11, 12. \u03a3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n _aprons_, is slightly changed from the Latin _semicinctum_,\n which workmen put before them when employed at their occupations,\n to keep their clothes from soiling. The difference which\n Theophylact and Oecumenius make between these and \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, is,\n that the latter are applied to the head, as a cap or veil, and\n the former to the hands as a handkerchief. \u2018They carry them,\u2019\n says Oecumenius, \u2018in their hands, to wipe off moisture from\n their face, as tears,\u2019\u201d &c. &c. (Calmet\u2019s Commentary.)\n\n \u2666 removed spurious \u201cv.\u201d\n\n \u201c\u2018And they counted the price of them, [the books,] and found\n it to be fifty thousand pieces of silver,\u2019 verse 19\u2015\u2015\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n is used generally in the Old Testament, LXX. for the shekel,\n in value about 2s. 6d., or the total 6250l. as Numbers vii. 85.\n Deuteronomy xxii. 19. 2 Kings xv. 20. _Grotius._ If it means the\n drachma, as more frequently used by the Greeks at 9d. each, the\n sum will be 1875l.\u201d [$9000.] Doddridge. Elsley\u2019s Annotations.\n (Williams on Pearson, pp. 53\u201255.)\n\n\n THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.\n\nThere is hardly one of the writings of Paul, about the date of which\nthere has been so much discussion, or so many opinions as this; but\nthe results of all the elaborate investigations and argumentations of\nthe learned, still leave this interesting chronological point in such\ndoubt, that this must be pronounced about the most uncertain in date,\nof all the Pauline epistles. It may however, without any inconsistency\nwith the historical narrative of the Acts, or with any passages in the\nother epistles, be safely referred to the period of this residence in\nEphesus, probably to the later part of it. The epistle itself contains\nno reference whatever, direct or indirect, to the place in which he\nwas occupied at the time of writing, and only bare probabilities can\ntherefore be stated on it,\u2015\u2015nor can any decisive objection be made to\nany one of six opinions which have been strongly urged. Some pronounce\nit very decidedly to have been the first of all the epistles written by\nPaul, and maintain that he wrote it soon after his first visit to them,\nat some time during the interval between Paul\u2019s departure from Galatia,\nand his departure from Thessalonica. Others date it at the time of\nhis imprisonment in Rome, according to the common subscription of\nthe epistle. Against this last may, however, perhaps be urged his\nreproof to the Galatians, that they \u201cwere _so soon_ removed from him\nthat called them to the grace of Christ,\u201d\u2015\u2015an expression nevertheless,\ntoo vague to form any certain basis for a chronological conclusion.\nThe great majority of critics refer it to the period of his stay in\nEphesus,\u2015\u2015a view which entirely accords with the idea, that it must\nhave been written soon after Paul had preached to them; for on his last\njourney to Ephesus, he had passed through Galatia, as already narrated,\nconfirming the churches. Some time had, no doubt, intervened since\nhis preaching to them, sufficient at least to allow many heresies and\ndifficulties to arise among them, and to pervert them from the purity\nof the truth, as taught to them by him. Certain false teachers had been\namong them since his departure, inculcating on all believers in Christ,\nthe absolute necessity of a minute and rigid observance of Mosaic\nforms, for their salvation. They also directly attacked the apostolical\ncharacter and authority of Paul,\u2015\u2015declaring his opinion to be of\nno weight whatever, and to be opposed to that of the true original\napostles of Jesus. These, Paul meets with great force in the very\nbeginning of the epistle, entering at once into a particular account\nof the mode of his first entering the apostleship,\u2015\u2015showing that it was\nnot derived from the other apostles, but from the special commission\nof Christ himself, miraculously given. He also shows that he had, on\nthis very question of Judaical rituals, conferred with the apostles\nat Jerusalem, and had received the sanction of their approbation in\nthat course of open communion which he had before followed, on his own\ninspired authority, and had ever since maintained, in the face of what\nhe deemed inconsistencies in the conduct of Peter. He then attacks the\nGalatians themselves, in very violent terms, for their perversion of\nthat glorious freedom into which he had brought the Christian doctrine,\nand fills up the greater part of the epistle with reproofs of these\nerrors.\n\nHis argument against the doctrines of the servile Judaizers is made\nup in his favorite mode of demonstration, by simile and metaphor,\nrepresenting the Christian system under the form of the offspring of\nAbraham, and afterwards images the freedom of the true believers in\nJesus, in the exalted privilege of the descendants of Sara, while those\nenslaved to forms are presented as analogous in their condition to the\nchildren of Hagar. He earnestly exhorts them, therefore, to stand fast\nin the freedom to which Christ has exalted them, and most emphatically\ncondemns all observance of circumcision. Thus pointing out to them,\nthe purely spiritual nature of that covenant, of which they were now\nthe favored subjects, he urges them to a truly spiritual course of\nlife, bidding them aim at the attainment of a perfect moral character,\nand makes the conclusion of the epistle eminently practical in its\ndirection. He speaks of this epistle as being a testimony of the very\nparticular interest which he feels in their spiritual prosperity,\nbecause, (what appears contrary to his practice,) he has written it\nwith his own hand. To the very last, he is very bitter against those\nwho are aiming to bring them back to the observance of circumcision,\nand denounces those as actuated only by a base desire to avoid that\npersecution which they might expect from the Jews, if they should\nreject the Mosaic ritual. Referring to the cross of Christ as his\nonly glory, he movingly alludes to the marks of his conformity to that\nstandard, bearing as he does in his own body, the scars of the wounds\nreceived from the scourges of his Philippian persecutors. He closes\nwithout any mention of personal salutations, and throughout the whole\nmakes none of those specifications of names, with which most of his\nother epistles abound. In the opening salutation, he merely includes\nwith himself those \u201cbrethren that are with him,\u201d which seems to imply\nthat they knew who those brethren were, in some other way,\u2015\u2015perhaps,\nbecause he had but lately been among them with those same persons as\nhis assistants in the ministry.\n\n On this very doubtful point, I have taken the views adopted by\n Witsius, Louis Cappel, Pearson, Wall, Hug and Hemsen. The notion\n that it was written at Rome is supported by Theodoret, Lightfoot,\n and Paley,\u2015\u2015of course making it a late epistle. On the contrary,\n Michaelis makes it the earliest of all, and dates it in the year\n 49, at some place on Paul\u2019s route from Troas to Thessalonica.\n Marcion and Tertullian also supposed it to be one of the\n earliest epistles. Benson thinks it was written during Paul\u2019s\n first residence in Corinth. Lenfant and Beausobre, followed by\n Lardner, conjecture it to have been written either at Corinth or\n at Ephesus, during his first visit, either in A.\u00a0D. 52, or 53.\n Fabricius and Mill date it A.\u00a0D. 58, at some place on Paul\u2019s\n route to Jerusalem. Chrysostom and Theophylact, date it before\n the epistle to the Romans. Grotius thinks it was written\n about the same time. From all which, the reader will see the\n justice of my conclusion, that nothing at all is known with any\n certainty about the matter.\n\n\n THE EPHESIAN MOB.\n\nPaul having now been a resident in Ephesus for nearly three years,\nand having seen such glorious results of his labors, soon began to\nthink of revisiting some of his former fields of missionary exertion,\nmore especially those Grecian cities of Europe which had been such\neventful scenes to him, but a few years previous. He designed to\ngo over Macedonia and Achaia, and then to visit Jerusalem; and when\ncommunicating these plans to his friends at Ephesus, he remarked\nto them in conclusion\u2015\u2015\u201cAnd after that, I must also visit Rome.\u201d\nHe therefore sent before him into Macedonia, as the heralds of his\napproach, his former assistant, Timothy, and another helper not before\nmentioned, Erastus, who is afterwards mentioned as the treasurer of\nthe city of Corinth. But Paul himself still waited in Asia for a short\ntime, until some other preliminaries should be arranged for his removal.\nDuring this incidental delay arose the most terrible commotion that had\never yet been excited against him, and one which very nearly cost him\nhis life.\n\nIt should be noticed that the conversion of so large a number of the\nheathen, through the preaching of Paul, had struck directly at the\nfoundation of a very thriving business carried on in Ephesus, and\nconnected with the continued prevalence and general popularity of that\nidolatrous worship, for which the city was so famous. Ephesus, as is\nwell known, was the chief seat of the peculiar worship of that great\nAsian deity, who is now known, throughout all the world, where the\napostolic history is read, by the name of \u201cDIANA OF THE EPHESIANS.\u201d It\nis perfectly certain, however, that this deity had no real connection,\neither in character or in name, with that Roman goddess of the chase\nand of chastity, to whom the name Diana properly belongs. The true\nclassic goddess Diana was a virgin, according to common stories,\nconsidered as the sister of Apollo, and was worshiped as the beautiful\nand youthful goddess of the chase, and of that virgin purity of\nwhich she was supposed to be an instance, though some stories present\nan exception to this part of her character. Upon her head, in most\nrepresentations of her, was pictured a crescent, which was commonly\nsupposed to show, that she was also the goddess of the moon; but a far\nmore sagacious and rational supposition refers the first origin of this\nsign to a deeper meaning. But when the mythologies of different nations\nbegan to be compared and united, she was identified with the goddess\nof the moon, and with that Asian goddess who bore among the Greeks the\nname of ARTEMIS, which is in fact the name given by Luke, as the title\nof the great goddess of the Ephesians. This ARTEMIS, however, was a\ndeity as diverse in form, character and attributes, from the classic\nDiana, as from any goddess in all the systems of ancient mythology;\nand they never need have been confounded, but for the perverse folly of\nthose who were bent, in spite of all reason, to find in the divinities\nof the eastern polytheism, the perfect synonyms to the objects of\nwestern idolatry. The Asian and Ephesian goddess Artemis, had nothing\nwhatever to do with hunting nor with chastity. She was not represented\nas young, nor beautiful, nor nimble, nor as the sister of Apollo,\nbut as a vast gigantic monster, with a crown of towers, with lions\ncrouching upon her shoulders, and a great array of pictured or\nsculptured eagles and tigers over her whole figure; and her figure was\nalso strangely marked by a multitude of breasts in front. Under this\nmonstrous figure, which evidently was no invention of the tasteful\nGreeks, but had originated in the debasing and grotesque idolatry of\nthe orientals, Artemis of the Ephesians was worshiped as the goddess\nof the earth, of fertility, of cities, and as the universal principle\nof life and wealth. She was known among the Syrians by the name of\nAshtaroth, and was among the early objects of Hebrew idolatry. When\nthe Romans, in their all-absorbing tolerance of idolatry, began to\nintroduce into Italy the worship of the eastern deities, this goddess\nwas also added there, but not under the name of Diana. The classic\nscholar is familiar with the allusions to this deity, worshiped under\nthe name of Cybele, Tellus and other such, and in all the later poets\nof Rome, she is a familiar object, as \u201cthe tower-crowned Cybele.\u201d\nThis was the goddess worshiped in many of the Grecian cities of Asia\nMinor, which, at their first colonization, had adopted this aboriginal\ngoddess of those fertile regions, of whose fertility, civilization,\nagricultural and commercial wealth, she seemed the fit and appropriate\npersonification. But in none of these Asian cities was she worshiped\nwith such peculiar honors and glories as in Ephesus, the greatest city\nof Asia Minor. Here was worshiped a much cherished image of her, which\nwas said to have fallen from heaven, called from that circumstance the\nDIOPETOS; which here was kept in that most splendid temple, which is\neven now proverbial as having been one of the wonders of the ancient\nworld. Being thus the most famous seat of her worship, Ephesus also\nbecame the center of a great manufacture and trade in certain curious\nlittle images or shrines, representing this goddess, which were in\ngreat request, wherever her worship was regarded, being considered as\nthe genuine and legitimate representatives, as well as representations\nof the Ephesian deity.\n\nThis explanation will account for the circumstances related by Luke, as\nensuing in Ephesus, on the success of Paul\u2019s labors among the heathen,\nto whose conversion his exertions had been wholly devoted during the\ntwo last years of his stay in Ephesus. In converting the Ephesians from\nheathenism, he was guilty of no ordinary crime. He directly attacked\na great source of profit to a large number of artizans in the city,\nwho derived their whole support from the manufacture of those little\nobjects of idolatry, which, of course, became of no value to those who\nbelieved Paul\u2019s doctrine,\u2015\u2015that \u201cthose were no gods which were made\nwith hands.\u201d This new doctrine therefore, attracted very invidious\nnotice from those who thus found their dearest interests very\nimmediately and unfortunately affected, by the progress made by its\npreacher in turning away the hearts of Ephesians from their ancient\nreverence for the shrines of Artemis; and they therefore listened with\ngreat readiness to Demetrius, one of their number, when he proposed\nto remedy the difficulty. He showed them in a very clear, though brief\naddress, that \u201cthe craft was in danger,\u201d\u2015\u2015that warning cry which so\noften bestirs the bigoted in defence of the object of their regard;\nand after hearing his artful address, they all, full of wrath, with\none accord raised a great outcry, in the usual form of commendation\nof the established idolatry of their city,\u2015\u2015\u201cGreat is Artemis of the\nEphesians!\u201d This noise being heard by others, and of course attracting\nattention, every one who distinguished the words, by a sort of\npatriotic impulse, was driven to join in the cry, and presently the\nwhole city was in an uproar;\u2015\u2015a most desirable condition of things,\nof course, for those who wished to derive advantage from a popular\ncommotion. All bawling this senseless cry, with about as much idea of\nthe occasion of the disturbance as could be expected from such a mob,\nthe huddling multitudes learning the general fact, that the grand\nobject of the tumult was to do some mischief to the Christians, and\nlooking about for some proper person to be made the subject of public\nopinion, fell upon Gaius and Aristarchus of Macedonia, two traveling\ncompanions of Paul, who happened to be in the way, and dragged them to\nthe theater, whither the whole mob rushed at once, as to a desirable\nscene for any act of confusion and folly which they might choose to\ncommit. Paul, with a lion-like spirit, caring naught for the mob,\nproposed to go in and make a speech to them, but his friends, with far\nmore prudence and cool sense than he,\u2015\u2015knowing that an assembly of the\npeople, roaring some popular outcry, is no more a subject of reason\nthan so many raging wild beasts,\u2015\u2015prevented him from going into the\ntheater, where he would no doubt have been torn to pieces, before he\ncould have opened his mouth. Some of the great magistrates of Asia, too,\nwho were friendly to him, hearing of his rash intentions, sent to him\na very urgent request, that he would not venture himself among the mob.\nMeanwhile the outcry continued,\u2015\u2015the theater being crowded full,\u2015\u2015and\nthe whole city constantly pouring out to see what was the matter, and\nevery soul joining in the religious and patriotic shout, \u201cGreat is\nArtemis of the Ephesians!\u201d And so they went on, every one, of course,\naccording to the universal and everlasting practice on such occasions,\nmaking all the noise he could, but not one, except the rascally\nsilversmiths, knowing what upon earth they were all bawling there for.\nStill this ignorance of the object of the assembly kept nobody still;\nbut all, with undiminished fervor, kept plying their lungs to swell the\ngeneral roar. As it is described in the very graphic and picturesque\nlanguage of Luke,\u2015\u2015\u201cSome cried one thing, and some, another; for the\nwhole assembly was confused;\u2015\u2015and the more knew not wherefore they were\ncome together,\u201d\u2015\u2015which last circumstance is a very common difficulty\nin such assemblies, in all ages. At last, searching for some other\npersons as proper subjects to exercise their religious zeal upon, they\nlooked about upon the Jews, who were always a suspected class among\nthe heathen, and seized one Alexander, who seems to have been one of\nthe Christian converts, for the Jews thrust him forward as a kind of\nscapegoat for themselves. Alexander made the usual signs soliciting\ntheir attention to his words; but as soon as the people understood\nthat he was a Jew, they all drowned his voice with the general cry,\n\u201cGreat is Artemis of the Ephesians!\u201d and this they kept up steadily\nfor two whole hours, as it were with one voice. Matters having come\nto this pass, the recorder of the city came forward, and having\nhushed the people,\u2015\u2015who had some reverence for the lawful authorities,\nthat fortunately were not responsible to them,\u2015\u2015and made them a very\nsensible speech, reminding them that since no one doubted the reverence\nof the Ephesians for the goddess Artemis, and for the DIOPETOS, there\nsurely was no occasion for all this disturbance to demonstrate a fact\nthat every body knew. He told them that the men against whom they\nwere raising this disturbance had neither robbed their temples nor\nblasphemed the goddess; so that if Demetrius and his fellow-craft had\nanything justly against these men, as having injured their business,\nthey had their proper remedy at law. He hinted to them also that they\nwere all liable to be called to account for this manifest breach of\nRoman law, and this defiance of the majesty of the Roman government;\u2015\u2015a\nhint which brought most of them to their senses; for all who had\nanything to lose, dreaded the thought of giving occasion to the awfully\nremorseless government of the province, to fine them, as they certainly\nwould be glad to do on any valid excuse. They all dispersed, therefore,\nwith no more words.\n\n \u201c\u2018_Silver shrines_,\u2019 verse 24. The heathens used to carry the\n images of their gods in procession from one city to another.\n This was done in a chariot which was solemnly consecrated for\n that employment, and by the Romans styled _Thensa_, that is,\n _the chariot of their gods_. But besides this, it was placed in\n a box or shrine, called _Ferculum_. Accordingly, when the Romans\n conferred divine honors on their great men, alive or dead, they\n had the _Circen games_, and in them the _Thensa_ and _Ferculum_,\n the _chariot_ and the _shrine_, bestowed on them; as it is\n related of Julius Caesar. This Ferculum among the Romans did\n not differ much from the Graecian \u039d\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2, _a little chapel_,\n representing the form of a temple, with an image in it, which,\n being set upon an altar, or any other solemn place, having the\n doors opened, the image was seen by the spectators either in\n a standing or sitting posture. An old anonymous scholiast upon\n Aristotle\u2019s Rhetoric, lib. i. c. 15, has these words: \u039d\u03b1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9, \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f31\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70 \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f05\n \u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9, observing the \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03b9 here to be \u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, _chaplets_,\n with images in them, of wood, or metal, (as here of _silver_,)\n which they made and sold, as in verse 25, they are supposed\n to do. Athenaeus speaks of the \u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, \u2018which,\u2019 says he \u2018is a\n vessel wherein they place their images of Jupiter.\u2019 The learned\n Casaubon states, that \u2018these images were put in cases, which\n were made like chapels. (Deipnos. lib. ii. p. 500.) So St.\n Chrysostom likens them to \u2018little cases, or shrines.\u2019 Dion says\n of the Roman ensign, that it was a little temple, and in it a\n golden eagle, (\u03a1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba, lib. 40.) And in another place: \u2018There\n was a little chapel of Juno, set upon a table.\u2019 \u03a1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba, lib. 39.\n This is the meaning of the tabernacle of Moloch, Acts vii. 43,\n where by the \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03b7, _tabernacle_, is meant the chaplet, a shrine\n of that false god. The same was also the \u05e1\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea _the tabernacle\n of Benoth_, or _Venus_.\u201d Hammond\u2019s Annotations. [Williams on\n Pearson, p. 55.]\n\n _Robbers of temples._\u2015\u2015Think of the miserable absurdity of the\n common English translation in this passage, (Acts xix. 37,)\n where the original \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 is expressed by \u201crobbers of\n _churches_!\u201d Now who ever thought of applying the English word\n \u201c_church_,\u201d to anything whatever but a \u201c_Christian_ assembly,\u201d\n or \u201c_Christian_ place of assembly?\u201d Why then is this phrase put\n in the mouth of a heathen officer addressing a heathen assembly\n about persons charged with violating the sanctity of _heathen_\n places of worship? Such a building as a church, (\u03b5\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1,\n _ecclesia_) devoted to the worship of the true God, was not\n known till more than a century after this time; and the Greek\n word \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, (_hieron_, ) which enters into the composition of\n the word in the sacred text, thus mistranslated, was _never_\n applied to a _Christian_ place of worship.\n\n\n FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.\n\nPaul\u2019s residence in Ephesus is distinguished in his literary history,\nas the period in which he wrote that most eloquent and animated of his\nepistles,\u2015\u2015\u201cthe first to the Corinthians.\u201d It was written towards the\nclose of his stay in Asia, about the time of the passover; according\nto established calculations, therefore, in the spring of the year of\nChrist 57. The more immediate occasion of his writing to the Corinthian\nChristians, was a letter which he had received from them, by the hands\nof Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus. Paul had previously written\nto them an epistle, (now lost,) in which he gave them some directions\nabout their deportment, which they did not fully understand, and\nof which they desired an explanation in their letter. Many of these\nquestions, which this epistle of the Corinthians contained, are\ngiven by Paul, in connection with his own answers to them; and from\nthis source it is learned that they concerned several points of\nexpediency and propriety about matrimony. These are answered by\nPaul, very distinctly and fully; but much of his epistle is taken\nup with instructions and reproofs on many points not referred to\nin their inquiries. The Corinthian church was made up of two very\nopposite constituent parts, so unlike in their character, as to render\nexceedingly complicated the difficulties of bringing all under one\nsystem of faith and practice; and the apostolic founder was, at one\ntime, obliged to combat heathen licentiousness, and at another, Jewish\nbigotry and formalism. The church also, having been too soon left\nwithout the presence of a fully competent head, had been very loosely\nfilled up with a great variety of improper persons,\u2015\u2015some hypocrites,\nand some profligates,\u2015\u2015a difficulty not altogether peculiar to the\nCorinthian church, nor to those of the apostolic age. But there were\ncertainly some very extraordinary irregularities in the conduct of\ntheir members, some of whom were in the habit of getting absolutely\ndrunk at the sacramental table; and others were guilty of great sins\nin respect to general purity of life. Another peculiar difficulty,\nwhich had arisen in the church of Corinth, during Paul\u2019s absence,\nwas the formation of sects and parties, each claiming some one of the\ngreat Christian teachers as its head; some of them claiming Paul as\ntheir only apostolic authority; some again preferring the doctrines of\nApollos, who had been laboring among them while Paul was in Ephesus;\nand others again, referred to Peter as the true apostolic chief, while\nthey wholly denied to Paul any authority whatever, as an apostle.\nThere had, indeed, arisen a separate party, strongly opposed to Paul,\nheaded by a prominent person, who had done a great deal to pervert the\ntruth, and to lessen the character of Paul in various ways, which are\nalluded to by Paul in many passages of his epistle, in a very indignant\ntone. Other difficulties are described by him, and various excesses\nare reproved, as a scandal to the Christian character; such as an\nincestuous marriage among their members,\u2015\u2015lawsuits before heathen\nmagistrates,\u2015\u2015dissolute conformity to the licentious worship of the\nCorinthian goddess, whose temple was so infamous for its scandalous\nrites and thousand priestesses. Some of the Corinthian Christians had\nbeen in the habit of visiting this and other heathen temples, and of\nparticipating in the scenes of feasting, riot and debauchery, which\nwere carried on there as a part of the regular forms of idolatrous\nworship.\n\nThe public worship of the Corinthian church had been disturbed also\nby various irregularities which Paul reprehends;\u2015\u2015the abuse of the\ngift of tongues, and the affectation of an unusual dress in preaching,\nboth by men and women. In the conclusion of his epistle he expatiates\ntoo, at great length, on the doctrine of the resurrection of the body,\nvehemently arguing against some Corinthian heretics, who had denied\nany but a spiritual existence beyond the grave. This argument may\njustly be pronounced the best specimen of Paul\u2019s very peculiar\nstyle, reasoning as he does, with a kind of passion, and interrupting\nthe regular series of logical demonstrations, by fiery bursts of\nenthusiasm, personal appeals, poetical quotations, illustrative\nsimiles, violent denunciations of error, and striking references to\nhis own circumstances. All these nevertheless, point very directly\nand connectedly at the great object of the argument, and the whole\ntrain of reasoning swells and mounts, towards the conclusion, in a\nmanner most remarkably effective, constituting one of the most sublime\nargumentative passages ever written. He then closes the epistle with\nsome directions about the mode of collecting the contributions for the\nbrethren in Jerusalem. He promises to visit them, and make a long stay\namong them, when he goes on his journey through Macedonia,\u2015\u2015a route\nwhich, he assures them, he had now determined to take, as mentioned by\nLuke, in his account of the preliminary mission of Timothy and Erastus,\nbefore the time of the mob at Ephesus; but should not leave Ephesus\nuntil after Pentecost, because a great and effectual door was there\nopened to him, and there were many opposers. He speaks of Timothy as\nbeing then on the mission before mentioned, and exhorts them not to\ndespise this young brother, if he should visit them, as they might\nexpect. After several other personal references, he signs his \u2666own name\nwith a general salutation; and from the terms, in which he expresses\nthis particular mark already alluded to in the second epistle to the\nThessalonians, it is very reasonable to conclude, that he was not\nhis own penman in any of these epistles, but used an amanuensis,\nauthenticating the whole by his signature, with his own hand,\nonly at the end; and this opinion of his method of carrying on his\ncorrespondence, is now commonly, perhaps universally, adopted by the\nlearned.\n\n \u2666 \u201cownn,ame\u201d replaced with \u201cown name\u201d\n\n \u201cChapter xvi. 10, 11. \u2018Now, if Timotheus come, see that he may\n be with you without fear; for he worketh the work of the Lord,\n as I also do: let no man therefore despise him, but conduct him\n forth in peace, that he may come unto me, for I look for him\n with the brethren.\u2019\n\n \u201cFrom the passage considered in the preceding number, it appears\n that Timothy was sent to Corinth, either with the epistle, or\n before it: \u2018for this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus.\u2019\n From the passage now quoted, we infer that Timothy was not sent\n _with_ the epistle; for had he been the bearer of the letter, or\n accompanied it, would St. Paul in that letter have said, \u2018_if_\n Timothy come?\u2019 Nor is the sequel consistent with the supposition\n of his carrying the letter; for if Timothy was with the apostle\n when he wrote the letter, could he say, as he does, \u2018I look for\n him with the brethren?\u2019 I conclude, therefore, that Timothy had\n left St. Paul to proceed upon his journey before the letter was\n written. Further, the passage before us seems to imply, that\n Timothy was not expected by St. Paul to arrive at Corinth, till\n after they had received the letter. He gives them directions in\n the letter how to treat him when he should arrive: \u2018if he come,\u2019\n act towards him so and so. Lastly, the whole form of expression\n is more naturally applicable to the supposition of Timothy\u2019s\n coming to Corinth, not directly from St. Paul, but from some\n other quarter; and that his instructions had been, when he\n should reach Corinth, to return. Now, how stands this matter\n in the history? Turn to the nineteenth chapter and twenty-first\n verse of the Acts, and you will find that Timothy did not,\n when sent from Ephesus, where he left St. Paul, and where the\n present epistle was written, proceed by a straight course to\n Corinth, but that he went round through Macedonia. This clears\n up everything; for, although Timothy was sent forth upon his\n journey before the letter was written, yet he might not reach\n Corinth till after the letter arrived there; and he would come\n to Corinth, when he did come, not directly from St. Paul, at\n Ephesus, but from some part of Macedonia. Here therefore is\n a circumstantial and critical agreement, and unquestionably\n without design; for neither of the two passages in the epistle\n mentions Timothy\u2019s journey into Macedonia at all, though nothing\n but a circuit of that kind can explain and reconcile the\n expressions which the writer uses.\u201d (Paley\u2019s Horae Paulinae,\n 1 Corinthians No. IV.)\n\n \u201cChapter v. 7, 8. \u2018For even Christ, our passover, is sacrificed\n for us; therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven,\n neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the\n unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.\u2019\n\n \u201cDr. Benson tells us, that from this passage, compared with\n chapter xvi. 8, it has been conjectured that this epistle was\n written about the time of the Jewish passover; and to me the\n conjecture appears to be very well founded. The passage to which\n Dr. Benson refers us, is this: \u2018I will tarry at Ephesus until\n Pentecost.\u2019 With this passage he ought to have joined another\n in the same context: \u2018And it may be that I will abide, yea,\n and winter with you:\u2019 for, from the two passages laid together,\n it follows that the epistle was written before Pentecost, yet\n after winter; which necessarily determines the date to the part\n of the year, within which the passover falls. It was written\n before Pentecost, because he says, \u2018I will tarry at Ephesus\n until Pentecost.\u2019 It was written after winter, because he tells\n them, \u2018It may be that I may abide, yea, and winter with you.\u2019\n The winter which the apostle purposed to pass at Corinth, was\n undoubtedly the winter next ensuing to the date of the epistle;\n yet it was a winter subsequent to the ensuing Pentecost, because\n he did not intend to set forwards upon his journey till after\n the feast. The words, \u2018let us keep the feast, not with old\n leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but\n with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth,\u2019 look very\n much like words suggested by the season; at least they have,\n upon that supposition, a force and significancy which do not\n belong to them upon any other; and it is not a little remarkable,\n that the hints casually dropped in the epistle, concerning\n particular parts of the year, should coincide with this\n supposition.\u201d (Paley\u2019s Horae Paulinae. 1 Corinthians. No. XII.)\n\n\n SECOND VOYAGE TO EUROPE.\n\nAfter the disturbances connected with the mob raised by Demetrius\nhad wholly ceased, and public attention was no longer directed to the\nmotions of the preachers of the Christian doctrine, Paul determined\nto execute the plan, which he had for some time contemplated, of\ngoing over his European fields of labor again, according to his\nuniversal and established custom of revisiting and confirming his\nwork, within a moderately brief period after first opening the ground\nfor evangelization. Assembling the disciples about him, he bade them\nfarewell, and turning northward, came to Troas, whence, six or seven\nyears before, he had set out on his first voyage to Macedonia. The\nplan of his journey, as he first arranged it, had been to sail from\nthe shores of Asia Minor directly for Corinth. He had resolved however,\nnot to go to that city, until the very disagreeable difficulties which\nhad there arisen in the church, had been entirely removed, according\nto the directions given in the epistle which he had written to them\nfrom Ephesus; because he did not desire, after an absence of years,\nto visit them in such circumstances, when his Corinthian converts were\ndivided among themselves, and against him,\u2015\u2015and when his first duties\nwould necessarily be those of a rigid censor. He therefore waited at\nTroas, with great impatience, for a message from them, announcing the\nsettlement of all difficulties. This he expected to receive through\nTitus, a person now first mentioned in the apostle\u2019s history. Waiting\nwith great impatience for this beloved brother, he found no rest in\nhis spirit, and though a door was evidently opened by the Lord for the\npreaching of the gospel in Troas, he had no spirit for the good work\nthere; and desiring to be as near the great object of his anxieties\nas possible, he accordingly took leave of the brethren at Troas,\nand crossed the Aegean into Macedonia, by his former route. Here\nhe remained in great distress of mind, until his soul was at last\ncomforted by the long expected arrival of Titus. Luke only says, that\nhe went over those parts and gave them much exhortation. But though his\nroute is not given, his apostolic labors are known to have extended to\nthe borders of Illyricum. At this time also, he made another important\ncontribution to the list of the apostolic writings.\n\n\n THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.\n\nThere is no part of the New Testament canon, about the date of which\nall authorities are so well agreed, as on the place and time, at which\nPaul wrote his second epistle to the Corinthians. All authorities,\nancient and modern, decide that it was written during the second visit\nof Paul to Macedonia; although as to the exact year in which this took\nplace, they are not entirely unanimous. The passages in the epistle\nitself, which refer to Macedonia as the region in which the apostle\nthen was, are so numerous indeed, that there can be no evasion of their\nevidence. A great topic of interest with him, at the time of writing\nthis epistle, was the collecting of the contributions proposed for\nthe relief of the Christian brethren in Jerusalem; and upon this he\nenlarges much, informing the Corinthians of the great progress he\nwas making in Macedonia in this benevolent undertaking, and what high\nhopes he had entertained and expressed to the Macedonians, of the zeal\nand ability of those in Achaia, about the contributions. This matter\nhad been noticed and arranged by him, in his former epistle to them,\nas already noticed, and he now proposed to send forward Titus and\nanother person, (who is commonly supposed to be Luke,) to take charge\nof these funds, thus collected. He speaks of coming also himself,\nafter a little time, and makes some allusions to the difficulties which\nhad constituted the subject of the great part of his former epistle.\nOf their amendment in the particulars then so severely censured, he\nhad received a full account through Titus, when that beloved brother\ncame on from Corinth, to join Paul in Macedonia. Paul assures the\nCorinthians of the very great joy caused in him, by the good news\nof their moral and spiritual improvement, and renews his ardent\nprotestations of deep affection for them. The incestuous person, whom\nthey had excommunicated, in conformity with the denunciatory directions\ngiven in the former epistle, he now forgives; and as the offender has\nsince appeared to be truly penitent, he now urges his restoration to\nthe consolations of Christian fellowship, lest he should be swallowed\nup with too much sorrow. He defends his apostolic character for\nprudence and decision, against those who considered his change of\nplans about coming directly from Ephesus to Corinth, as an exhibition\nof lightness and unsettled purpose. His real object in this delay and\nchange of purpose, as he tells them, was, that they might have time\nto profit by the reproofs contained in his former epistle, so that by\nthe removal of the evils of which he so bitterly complained, he might\nfinally be enabled to come to them, not in sorrow, nor in heaviness\nfor their sins, but in joy for their reformation. This fervent hope\nhad been fulfilled by the coming of Titus to Macedonia, for whom he\nhad waited in vain, with so much anxiety at Troas, as the expected\nmessenger of these tidings of their spiritual condition; and he was now\ntherefore prepared to pass on to them from Macedonia, to which region\nhe tells them he had gone from Troas, instead of to Corinth, because\nhe had been disappointed about meeting Titus on the eastern side of\nthe Aegean. With the exception of these things, the epistle is taken up\nwith a very ample and eloquent exhibition of his true powers and office\nas an apostle; and in the course of this argument, so necessary for\nthe re-establishment of his authority among those who had lately been\ndisposed to contemn it, he makes many very interesting allusions to his\nown personal history. The date of the epistle is commonly supposed, and\nwith good reason, to be A.\u00a0D. 58, the fifth of Nero\u2019s reign, and one\nyear after the preceding epistle.\n\n Illustration: MILETUS. Acts xx. 15\u201217.\n\n \u201cChapter ii. 12, 13. \u2018When I came to Troas to preach Christ\u2019s\n gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord, I had no rest\n in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother; but taking\n my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.\u2019\n\n \u201cTo establish a conformity between this passage and the history,\n nothing more is necessary to be presumed, than that St. Paul\n proceeded from Ephesus to Macedonia, upon the same course by\n which he came back from Macedonia to Ephesus, or rather to\n Miletus in the neighborhood of Ephesus; in other words, that,\n in his journey to the peninsula of Greece, he went and returned\n the same way. St. Paul is now in Macedonia, where he had lately\n arrived from Ephesus. Our quotation imports that in his journey\n he had stopped at Troas. Of this, the history says nothing,\n leaving us only the short account, \u2018that Paul departed from\n Ephesus, for to go into Macedonia.\u2019 But the history says, that\n in his _return_ from Macedonia to Ephesus, \u2018Paul sailed from\n Philippi to _Troas_; and that, when the disciples came together\n on the first day of the week, to break bread, Paul preached\n unto them all night; that from Troas he went by land to Assos;\n from Assos, taking ship and coasting along the front of Asia\n Minor, he came by Mitylene to Miletus.\u2019 Which account proves,\n first, that Troas lay in the way by which St. Paul passed\n between Ephesus and Macedonia; secondly, that he had disciples\n there. In one journey between these two places, the epistle, and\n in another journey between the same places, the history makes\n him stop at this city. Of the first journey he is made to say,\n \u2018that a door was in that city opened unto him of the Lord;\u2019 in\n the second, we find disciples there collected around him, and\n the apostle exercising his ministry, with, what was even in him,\n more than ordinary zeal and labor. The epistle, therefore, is\n in this instance confirmed, if not by the terms, at least by\n the probability of the history; a species of confirmation by\n no means to be despised, because, as far as it reaches, it is\n evidently uncontrived.\n\n \u201cGrotius, I know, refers the arrival at Troas, to which the\n epistle alludes, to a different period, but I think very\n improbably; for nothing appears to me more certain, than that\n the meeting with Titus, which St. Paul expected at Troas,\n was the same meeting which took place in Macedonia, viz. upon\n Titus\u2019s coming out of Greece. In the quotation before us, he\n tells the Corinthians, \u2018When I came to Troas, I had no rest in\n my spirit, because I found not Titus, my brother; but, taking my\n leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.\u2019 Then in the\n seventh chapter he writes, \u2018When we were come into Macedonia,\n our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side;\n without were fightings, within were fears; nevertheless, God,\n that comforteth them that are cast down, comforted us by the\n coming of Titus.\u2019 These two passages plainly relate to the\n same journey of Titus, in meeting with whom St. Paul had been\n disappointed at Troas, and rejoiced in Macedonia. And amongst\n other reasons which fix the former passage to the coming of\n Titus out of Greece, is the consideration, that it was nothing\n to the Corinthians that St. Paul did not meet with Titus at\n Troas, were it not that he was to bring intelligence from\n Corinth. The mention of the disappointment in this place, upon\n any other supposition, is irrelative.\u201d (Paley\u2019s Horae Paulinae.\n 2 Corinthians No. VIII.)\n\n\n SECOND JOURNEY TO CORINTH.\n\nAmong his companions in Macedonia, was Timothy, his ever zealous\nand affectionate assistant in the apostolic ministry, who had been\nsent thither before him to prepare the way, and had been laboring in\nthat region ever since, as plainly appears from the fact, that he is\njoined with Paul in the opening address of the second epistle to the\nCorinthians,\u2015\u2015a circumstance in itself sufficient to overthrow a very\ncommon supposition of the critics,\u2015\u2015that Timothy returned to Asia; that\nPaul at that time \u201cleft him in Ephesus,\u201d and at this time wrote his\nfirst epistle to Timothy from Macedonia. It is also most probable that\nTimothy was the personal companion of Paul, not only during the whole\nperiod of his second ministration in Macedonia, but also accompanied\nhim from that province to Corinth; because Timothy is distinctly\nmentioned by Luke, among those who went with Paul from Macedonia to\nAsia, after his brief second residence in that city. No particulars\nwhatever are given by Luke of the labors of Paul in Corinth. From his\nepistles, however, it is learned that he was at this time occupied in\npart, in receiving the contributions made throughout Achaia for the\nchurch of Jerusalem, to which city he was now preparing to go. The\ndifficulties, of which so much mention had been made in his epistles,\nwere now entirely removed, and his work there doubtless went on without\nany of that opposition which had arisen after his first departure.\nThere is however, one very important fact in his literary history,\nwhich took place in Corinth, during his residence there.\n\n\n THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.\n\nFrom the very earliest period of apostolic labor, after the ascension,\nthere appear to have been in Rome, some Jews who professed the faith\nof Jesus. Among the visitors in Jerusalem at the Pentecost, when the\nHoly Spirit first descended, were some from Rome, who sharing in the\ngifts of that remarkable effusion, and returning to their home in the\nimperial city, would there in themselves constitute the rudiment of\na Christian church. It is perfectly certain that they had never been\nblessed in their own city with the personal presence of an apostle and\nall their associated action as a Christian church, must therefore have\nbeen entirely the result of a voluntary organization, suggested by the\nnatural desire to keep up and to spread the doctrines which they had\nfirst received in Jerusalem, under such remarkable circumstances. Yet\nthe members of the church would not be merely those who were converted\nat the Pentecost; for there was a constant influx of Jews from all\nparts of the world to Rome, and among these there would naturally be\nsome who had participated in the light of the gospel, now so widely\ndiffused throughout the eastern section of the world. There is moreover\ndistinct information of certain persons of high qualifications,\nas Christian teachers, who had at Rome labored in the cause of the\ngospel, and had no doubt been among the most efficient means of that\nadvancement of the Roman church, which seems to be implied in the\ncommunication now first made to them by Paul. Aquilas and Priscilla,\nwho had been the intimate friends of Paul at Corinth, and who had been\nalready so active and distinguished as laborers in the gospel cause,\nboth in that city and in Ephesus, had returned to Rome on the death\nof Claudius, when that emperor\u2019s foolish decree of banishment, against\nthe Jews, expired along with its author, in the year of Christ, 54.\nThese, on re-establishing their residence in Rome, made their own\nhouse a place of assembly for a part of the Christians in the capital,\n\u2015\u2015probably for such as resided in their own immediate neighborhood,\nwhile others sought different places, according as suited their\nconvenience in this particular. Many other persons are mentioned by\nPaul at the close of this epistle, as having been active in the work of\nthe gospel at Rome;\u2015\u2015among whom Andronicus and Junias are particularly\nnoticed with respect, as having highly distinguished themselves in\napostolic labors. From all these evangelizing efforts, the church\nof Rome attained great importance, and was now in great need of the\ncounsels and presence of an apostle, to confirm it, and impart to its\nmembers spiritual gifts. It had long been an object of attention and\ninterest to Paul, and he had already expressed a determination to visit\nthe imperial city, in the remarks which he made to the brethren at\nEphesus, when he was making arrangements to go into Macedonia and\nAchaia. The way was afterwards opened for this visit, by a very\npeculiar providence, which he does not seem to have then anticipated;\nbut while residing in Corinth, his attention being very particularly\ncalled to their spiritual condition, he could not wait till he should\nhave an opportunity to see them personally, to counsel them; but wrote\nto them this very copious and elaborate epistle, which seems to have\nbeen the subject of more comment among dogmatic theologians, than\nalmost any other portion of his writings, on account of its being\nsupposed to furnish different polemic writers with the most important\narguments for the peculiar dogmas of one or another, according to the\nfancy of each. It undoubtedly is the most doctrinal and didactic of\nall Paul\u2019s epistles, alluding very little to local circumstances, which\nare the theme of so large a part of most of his writings, but attacking\ndirectly certain general errors entertained by the Jews, on the\nsubject of justification, predestination, election, and many peculiar\nprivileges which they attributed to themselves as the descendants of\nAbraham.\n\nThis epistle, like most of the rest, was written by an amanuensis, who\nis herein particularly named, as Tertius,\u2015\u2015a word of Roman origin; but\nbeyond this nothing else is known of him. It was carried to Rome by\nPhebe, an active female member of the church at Cenchreae, the port of\nCorinth, who happened to be journeying to Rome for some other purposes,\nand is earnestly recommended by Paul to the friendly regard of the\nchurch there.\n\n\n RETURN TO ASIA.\n\nAfter passing three months in Corinth, he took his departure from that\ncity, on his pre-determined voyage to the east, the direction of which\nwas somewhat changed by the information that the Jews of the place\nwhere he then was, were plotting some mischief against him, which he\nthought best to avoid by taking a different route from that before\nplanned, which was a direct voyage to Syria. To escape the danger\nprepared for him by them, at his expected place of embarkation, he\nfirst turned northward by land, through Macedonia to Philippi, and\nthence sailed by the now familiar track over the Aegean to Troas.\nOn this journey, he was accompanied by quite a retinue of apostolic\nassistants,\u2015\u2015not only his faithful disciple and companion Timothy, but\nalso Sosipater of Beroea, Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica,\nGaius, or Caius of Derbe, and Luke also, who now carries on the\napostolic narrative in the first person, thus showing that he was\nhimself a sharer in the adventures which he narrates. Besides these\nimmediate companions, two brethren from Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus,\ntook the direct route from Corinth to Troas, at which place they waited\nfor the rest of the apostolic company, who took the circuitous route\nthrough Macedonia. The date of the departure of Paul is very exactly\nfixed by his companion Luke, who states that they left Philippi at\nthe time of the passover, which was in the middle of March; and other\ncircumstances have enabled modern critics to fix the occurrence in\nthe year of Christ 59. After a five days\u2019 voyage, arriving at Troas\non Saturday, they made a stay of seven days in that place; and on the\nfirst day of the week, the Christians of that place having assembled\nfor the communion usual on the Lord\u2019s day, Paul preached to them:\nand as it was the last day of his stay, he grew very earnest in his\ndiscourse and protracted it very late, speaking two whole hours to the\ncompany, who were met in the great upper hall, where, in all Jewish\nhouses, these festal entertainments and social meetings were always\nheld. It was, of course, the evening, when the assembly met, for this\nwas the usual time for a social party, and there were many lights in\nthe room, which, with the number of people, must have made the air very\nwarm, and had the not very surprising effect of causing drowsiness,\nin at least one of Paul\u2019s hearers, a young man named \u2666Eutychus, whose\ninterest in what was said, could not keep his attention alive against\nthe pressure of drowsiness. He fell asleep; and the occurrence must\nappear so very natural, (more particularly to any one, who has ever\nbeen so unfortunate as to be sleepy at an evening meeting, and knows\nwhat a painful sensation it is, though the drowsiness is wholly beyond\nthe control of the reason,) that it can hardly be thought worth while\nto take pains, as some venerable commentators do, to suppose that the\ndevil was very specially concerned in producing the sleep of Eutychus,\nand that the consequences which ensued, were an exhibition of divine\nwrath against the sleepy youth, for slumbering under the preaching\nof Paul. If the supposition holds equally good in all similar cases,\nthe devil must be very busy on warm Sunday afternoons; and many a\ncomfortable nap would be disturbed by unpleasant dreams, if the dozer\ncould be made to think that his drowsiness was the particular work of\nthe great adversary of souls, or that he was liable to suffer any such\naccident as Eutychus did, who, falling into a deeper sleep, and losing\nall muscular control and consciousness, sunk down from his seat, and\nslipping over the side of the gallery, in the third loft, fell into the\ncourt below, where he was taken up lifeless. But Paul hearing of the\naccident, stopped his discourse, and going down to the young man, fell\non him and embraced him, saying, \u201cTrouble not yourselves, for the life\nis in him.\u201d And his words were verified by the result; for they soon\nbrought him up alive, and were not a little comforted. Paul, certain of\nhis recovery, did not suffer the accident to mar the enjoyment of the\nsocial farewell meeting; but going up and breaking bread with them all,\ntalked with them a long time, passing the whole night in this pleasant\nway, and did not leave them till day-break, when he started to go by\nland over to Assos, about twenty-four miles south-east of Troas, on the\nAdramyttian gulf, which sets up between the north side of the island\nof Lesbos and the mainland. His companions, coming around by water,\nthrough the mouth of the gulf, took Paul on board at Assos, according\nto his plan; and then instead of turning back, and sailing out into the\nopen sea, around the outside of Lesbos, ran up the gulf to the eastern\nend of the north coast of the island, where there is an other outlet to\nthe gulf between the eastern shore of Lesbos and the continent. Sailing\nsouthward through this passage, after a course of between thirty and\nforty miles, they came to Mitylene, on the southeastern side of the\nisland. Thence passing out of the strait, they sailed southwestwards,\ncoming between Chios and the main-land, and arrived the next day at\nTrogyllium, at the southwest corner of Samos. Then turning their course\ntowards the continent, they came in one day to Miletus, near the mouth\nof the \u2660Meander, about forty miles south of Ephesus.\n\n \u2666 \u201cEntychus\u201d replaced with \u201cEutychus\u201d\n\n \u2660 \u201cMaeander\u201d replaced with \u201cMeander\u201d\n\nLanding here, and desiring much to see some of his Ephesian brethren\nbefore his departure to Jerusalem, he sent to the elders of the church\nin that city, and on their arrival poured out his whole soul to them\nin a parting address, which for pathetic earnestness and touching\nbeauty, is certainly, beyond any doubt, the most splendid passage\nthat all the records of ancient eloquence can furnish. No force can\nbe added to it by a new version, nor can any recapitulation of its\nsubstance do justice to its beauty. At the close, took place a most\naffecting farewell. In the simple and forcible description of Luke,\n(who was himself present at the moving scene, seeing and hearing all\nhe narrates,)\u2015\u2015\u201cWhen Paul had thus spoken, he kneeled down and prayed\nwith them all.\u201d The subjects of this prayer were the guardians of that\nlittle flock which he, amid perils and death, had gathered from the\nheathen waste of Ionic Asia, to the fold of Christ. When he left it\nlast, the raging wolves of persecution and wrath,\u2015\u2015the wild beasts of\nEphesus,\u2015\u2015were howling death and destruction to the devoted believers\nof Christ, and they were still environed with temptations and dangers,\nthat threatened to overwhelm these feeble ones, left thus early without\nthe fostering care of their apostolic shepherd. Passing on his way to\nthe great scene of his coming trials, he could not venture among them\nto give them his parting counsels, and could now only intrust to their\nconstituted guardians, this dear charge, with renewed exhortations to\nthem to be faithful, as in the presence of their God, to those objects\nof his labors, his cares, his prayers, and his daily tears. Amid the\nsorrows of that long farewell, arose on the prophetic vision of the\napostle some gloomy foreshadowings of future woes to fall on that\nEphesian charge, and this deepened the melancholy feeling of his heart\nalmost to agony. This no doubt was the burden of his last prayer, when\nwith their elders, and for them, he kneeled down on the shore and sent\nup in earnest petition to God, that voice which they were doomed to\nhear no more forever.\n\nSuch passages as this in the life and words of Paul, constitute a noble\naddition to the reader\u2019s idea of his character. They show how nobly\nwere intermingled in the varied frame of his spirit, the affectionate,\nthe soft, and the winning traits, with the high, the stern, and the\nbitter feelings that so often were called out by the unparalleled\ntrials of his situation. They show \u2666that he truly felt and acted out,\nto the life, that divine principle of Christian love which inspired\nthe most eloquent effort of his pen;\u2015\u2015and that he trusted not to the\nwonder-working powers that moved his lips, as with the eloquence of men\nand angels,\u2015\u2015not to the martyr-spirit, that, sacrificing all earthly\nsubstance, devoted itself to the raging flames of persecution, in the\ncause of God,\u2015\u2015not to the genius whose discursive glance searched all\nthe mysteries of human and divine knowledge,\u2015\u2015but to that pure, exalted\nand exalting spirit of ardent love for those for whom he lived like his\nSavior, and for whom he was ready to die like him, also. This was the\ninspiration of his words, his writings, and his actions,\u2015\u2015the motive\nand spirit of his devotion,\u2015\u2015the energy of his being. Wherever he went\nand whatever he did,\u2015\u2015in spite of the frequent passionate outbreaks of\nhis rougher nature, this honest, fervent, animated spirit of charity,\n\u2015\u2015glowing not to inflame, but to melt,\u2015\u2015softened the austerities of his\ncharacter, and kindled in all who truly knew him, a deep and lasting\naffection for him, like that which was so strikingly manifested on this\noccasion. Who can wonder that to a man thus constituted, the lingering\nEphesians still clung with such enthusiastic attachment? In the fervid\naction of that oriental clime, they fell on his neck and kissed him,\nsorrowing most of all for the words which he said,\u2015\u2015that they should\nsee his face no more. Still loth to take their last look at one so\nloved, they accompanied him to the ship, which bore him away from them,\nto perils, sufferings and chains.\n\n \u2666 duplicate word \u201cthat\u201d removed\n\n \u201c_Assos_ was a sea-port town, situated on the south-west part\n of the province of Troas, and over against the island Lesbos.\n By land it is much nearer Troas than by sea, because of a\n promontory that runs a great way into the sea, and must be\n doubled to come to Assos, which was perhaps the reason that\n the apostle chose rather to walk it.\u201d (Wells\u2019s Geography and\n Calmet\u2019s Commentary.)\n\n Illustration: MYTELENE. Acts xx. 14.\n\n \u201c_Mitylene_, (chapter xx. verse 14,) was one of the principal\n cities in the island of Lesbos, situated on a peninsula with a\n commodious haven on each side; the whole island was also called\n by that name, as well as Pentapolis, from the five cities in it,\n viz. Issa or Antissa, Pyrrhe, Eressos, Arisba, and Mitylene. It\n is at present called Metelin. The island is one of the largest\n in the Archipelago, and was renowned for the many eminent\n persons it produced; such as Sappho, the inventress of Sapphic\n verses,\u2015\u2015Alcaeus, a famous lyric poet,\u2015\u2015Pittacus, one of the\n seven wise men of Greece,\u2015\u2015Theophrastus, the noble physician and\n philosopher,\u2015\u2015and Arion, the celebrated musician. It is now in\n the possession of the Turks. As mentioned by St. Luke, it may\n be understood either the island or the city itself.\u201d (Wells\u2019s\n Geography and Whitby\u2019s Table.)\n\n \u201c_Chios_, (verse 15,) was an island in the Archipelago, next\n to Lesbos, both as to situation and size. It lies over against\n Smyrna, and is not above four leagues distant from the Asiatic\n continent. Horace and Martial celebrate it for the wine and figs\n that it produced. It is now renowned for producing the best\n mastic in the world.\n\n \u201cSir Paul Ricaut, in his \u2018Present State of the Greek Church,\u2019\n tells us, that there is no place in the Turkish dominions where\n Christians enjoy more freedom in their religion and estates\n than in this island, to which they are entitled by an ancient\n capitulation made with Sultan Mahomet II.\u201d (Wells\u2019s Geography.)\n\n \u201c_Samos_, (verse 15,) was another island of the Archipelago,\n lying south-east of Chios, and about five miles from the Asiatic\n continent. It was famous among heathen writers for the worship\n of Juno; for one of the Sibyls called Sibylla Samiana; for\n Pherecydes, who foretold an earthquake that happened there, by\n drinking of the waters; and more especially for the birth of\n Pythagoras. It was formerly a free commonwealth; at present, the\n Turks have reduced it to a mean and depopulated condition; so\n that ever since the year 1676, no Turk has ventured to live on\n it on account of its being frequented by pirates, who carry all\n whom they take into captivity.\u201d (Wells\u2019s Geography and Whitby\u2019s\n Table.)\n\n \u201c_Trogyllium_, (verse 15,) is a promontory at the foot of Mount\n Mycale, opposite to, and five miles from Samos: there was also a\n town there of the same name, mentioned by Pliny, Lib. v, c. 29.\n p. 295.\u201d (Whitby\u2019s Table.)\n\n \u201c_Miletus_, (verse 15,) a sea-port town on the continent of Asia\n Minor, and in the province of Caria, memorable for being the\n birth-place of Thales, one of the seven wise men of Greece, and\n father of the Ionic philosophy; of Anaximander, his scholar;\n Timotheus, the musician; and Anaximenes, the philosopher. It\n is called now, by the Turks, Melas; and not far distant from it\n is the true Meander.\u201d (Whitby\u2019s Table and Wells\u2019s Geography.)\n [Williams on Pearson. pp. 66, 67.]\n\nTearing himself thus from the embraces of his Ephesian brethren, Paul\nsailed off to the southward, hurrying on to Jerusalem, in order to\nreach there if possible, before the Pentecost. After leaving Miletus,\nthe apostolic company made a straight course to Coos, and then rounding\nthe great northwestern angle of Asia Minor, turned eastwardly to\nRhodes, and passing probably through the strait, between that island\nand the continent, landed at Patara, a town on the coast of Lycia,\nwhich was the destination of their first vessel. They therefore at\nthis place engaged a passage in a vessel bound to Tyre, and holding\non southeastward, came next in sight of Cyprus, which they passed,\nleaving it on the left, and then steering straight for the Syrian coast,\nlanded at Tyre, where their vessel was to unlade; so that they were\ndetained here for a whole week, which they passed in the company of\nsome Christian brethren who constituted a church there. These Tyrian\ndisciples hearing of Paul\u2019s plan to visit Jerusalem, and knowing the\ndangers to which he would there be exposed by the deadly hate of the\nJews, were very urgent with him against his journey; but he still\nresolutely held on his course, as soon as a passage could be procured,\nand bade them farewell, with prayer on the shore, to which the brethren\naccompanied him with their women and children. Standing off from the\nshore, they then sailed on south, to Ptolemais, where they spent a\nday with the Christians in that place, and then re-embarking, and\npassing round the promontory of Carmel, reached Caesarea, where their\nsea-voyage terminated. Here they passed several days in the house of\nPhilip the evangelist, one of the seven deacons, who had four daughters\nthat were prophetesses. While they were resting themselves in this\ntruly religious family, from the fatigues of their long voyage, they\nwere visited by Agabus, a prophet from Jerusalem,\u2015\u2015the same who had\nformerly visited Antioch when Paul was there, and who had then foretold\nthe coming famine, which threatened all the world. This remarkable man\npredicted to Paul the misfortunes which awaited him in Jerusalem. In\nthe solemnly impressive dramatic action of the ancient prophets, he\ntook Paul\u2019s girdle, and binding his own hands with it, said\u2015\u2015\u201cThus\nsays the Holy Spirit, \u2018So shall the Jews at Jerusalem, bind the man\nthat owns this girdle, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles.\u2019\u201d On\nhearing this melancholy announcement, all the companions of Paul and\nthe Christians of Caesarea, united in beseeching Paul to give up his\npurpose of visiting Jerusalem. But he, resolute against all entreaty,\ndeclared himself ready not only to be bound, but to die in Jerusalem\nfor the Lord Jesus. And when they found that he would not be persuaded,\nthey all ceased to harass him with their supplications, and resigned\nhim to Providence, saying,\u2015\u2015\u201cThe will of the Lord be done.\u201d They then\nall took carriages, and rode up to Jerusalem, accompanied by some\nbrethren from Caesarea, and by Mnason, an old believer, formerly of\nCyprus, but now of Jerusalem, who had engaged them as his guests in\nthat city.\n\n \u201c_Coos_, (chapter xxi. verse 1,) an island in the Aegean or\n Icarian sea, near Mnydos and Cnidus, which had a city of the\n same name, from which Hippocrates, the celebrated physician, and\n Apelles, the famous painter, were called Coi. Here was a large\n temple of Aesculapius, and another of Juno. It abounded in\n rich wines, and is very often mentioned by the classic poets.\u201d\n (Whitby\u2019s Alphabetic Table.)\n\n Witsius very absurdly defines the situation of this island\n by saying that it is \u201c_near Crete_.\u201d\u2015\u2015\u201cCoos, quae maris\n Mediterranei insula est _prope Cretam_.\u201d It is in the Aegean sea\n properly, and _not_ in the Mediterranean; and can not be less\n than one hundred and twenty miles from Crete, much farther\n off from it than is Rhodes,\u2015\u2015the next island in Paul\u2019s route,\n and there are many islands between Coos and Crete, so that the\n statement gives no just idea of the situation of the island. It\n would be as proper to say that Barbadoes is _near Cuba_, or the\n isle of Man _near France_.\n\n \u201c_Rhodes_, (verse 1,) an island, supposed to have taken its name\n \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03a1\u03bf\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd from the many roses which were known to grow there.\n It lies south of the province of Caria, and it is accounted next\n to Cyprus and Lesbos, for its dignity among the Asiatic islands.\n It was remarkable among the ancients for the expertness of\n its inhabitants in navigation; for a college, in which the\n students were eminent for eloquence and mathematics; and for the\n clearness of its air, insomuch that there was not a day in which\n the sun did not shine upon it; and more especially celebrated\n for its prodigious statue of brass, consecrated especially to\n the sun, and called his Colossus. This statue was seventy cubits\n high, and every finger as large as an ordinary sized man, and\n as it stood astride over the mouth of the harbor, ships passed\n under its legs.\u201d (Whitby\u2019s Table and Wells\u2019s Geography.)\n [Williams on Pearson, pp. 67, 68.]\n\n\n LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.\n\nPaul was now received in Jerusalem by the brethren with great joy, and\ngoing, on the day after his arrival, to see James, now the principal\napostle resident in the Holy city, communicated to him and all the\nelders a full account of all his various labors. Having heard his very\ninteresting communications, they were moved with gratitude to God for\nthis triumph of his grace; but knowing as they did, with what rumors\nagainst Paul these events had been connected by common fame, they\ndesired to arrange his introduction to the temple in such a manner,\nas would most effectually silence these prejudicial stories. The plan\nproposed by them was, that he should, in the company of four Jews of\nthe Christian faith, who had a vow on them, go through with all the\nusual forms of purification prescribed under such circumstances for a\nJew, on returning from the daily impurities to which he was exposed by\na residence among the Gentiles, to a participation in the holy services\nof solemn worship in the temple. The apostles and elders, however, in\nrecommending this course, declared to him, that they believed that the\nGentiles ought not to be bound to the performance of the Jewish rituals,\nbut should be exempt from all restrictions, except such as had formerly\nbeen decided on, by the council of Jerusalem. Paul, always devout\nand exact in the observance of the institutions of his national\nreligion, followed their advice accordingly, and went on quietly and\nunpretendingly in the regular performance of the prescribed ceremonies,\nwaiting for the termination of the seven days of purification, when the\noffering should be made for himself, and one for each of his companions,\nafter which, they were all to be admitted of course, to the full honors\nof Mosaic purity, and the religious privileges of conforming Jews.\nBut these ritual observances were not destined to save him from the\ncalamities to which the hatred of his enemies had devoted him. Near\nthe close of the seven days allotted by the Mosaic ritual for the\npurification of a regenerated Israelite, some of the Asian Jews, who\nhad known Paul in his missionary journeys through their own country,\nand who had come to Jerusalem, to attend the festival, seeing their\nold enemy in the midst of the temple, against whose worship they had\nunderstood him to have been preaching to the Gentiles,\u2015\u2015instantly\nraised a great outcry, and fell upon him, dragging him along, and\nshouting to the multitude around, \u201cMen of Israel! help! This is the man,\nthat every where teaches all men against the people, and the law, and\nthis place; and he has furthermore, brought Greeks into the temple, and\nhas polluted this holy place.\u201d It seems they had seen Trophimus, one of\nhis Gentile companions from Ephesus, with him in the city, and imagined\nalso that Paul had brought him into the temple, within the sanctuary,\nwhose entrance was expressly forbidden to all Gentiles, who were never\nallowed to pass beyond the outermost court. The sanctuary or court\nof the Jews could not be crossed by an uncircumcised Gentile, and\nthe transgression of the holy limit was punished with death. Within\nthis holy court, the scene now described took place; and as the whole\nsanctuary was then crowded with Jews, who had come from all parts\nof the world to attend the festival in Jerusalem, the outcry raised\nagainst Paul immediately drew thronging thousands around him. Hearing\nthe complaint that he was a renegade Jew, who, in other countries, had\nused his utmost endeavors to throw contempt on his own nation, and to\nbring their holy worship into disrepute, and yet had now the impudence\nto show himself in the sanctuary, which he had thus blasphemed,\u2015\u2015and\nhad, moreover, even profaned it by introducing into the sacred\nprecincts one of those Gentiles for whose company he had forsaken\nthe fellowship of Israel,\u2015\u2015they all joined in the rush upon him, and\ndragged him out of the temple, the gates of which were immediately shut\nby the Levites on duty, lest in the riot that was expected to ensue,\nthe consecrated pavement should be polluted with the blood of the\nrenegade. Not only those in the temple, but also all those in the city,\nwere called out by the disturbance, and came running together to join\nin the mob against the profaner of the sanctuary, and Paul now seemed\nin a fair way to win the bloody crown of martyrdom.\n\nThe great noise made by the swarming multitudes who were gathering\naround Paul, soon reached the ears of the Roman garrison in castle\nAntonia, and the soldiers instantly hastened to tell the commanding\nofficer, that \u201cthe whole city was in an uproar.\u201d The tribune, Claudius\nLysias, probably thinking of a rebellion against the Romans, instantly\nordered a detachment of several companies under arms, and hurried\ndown with them, in a few moments, to the scene of the riot. The mob\nmeanwhile were \u2666diligently occupied in beating Paul; but as soon as\nthe military force made their way among the crowd, the rioters left off\nbeating him, and fell back. The tribune coming near, and seeing Paul\nalone in the midst, who seemed to be the object and occasion of all the\ndisturbance, without hesitation seized him, and putting him in chains,\ntook him out of the throng. He then demanded what all this riot meant.\nTo his inquiry, the whole mob replied with various accounts; some\ncried one thing and some another; and the tribune finding it utterly\nimpossible to learn from the rioters who he was or what he had done,\nordered him to be taken up to the castle. Castle Antonia stood at the\nnorthwestern angle of the temple, close by one of the great entrances\nto it, near which the riot seems to have taken place. To this, Paul\nwas now taken, and was borne by the surrounding soldiers, to keep off\nthe multitude, who were raging for his blood, like hungry wolves after\nthe prey snatched from their jaws,\u2015\u2015and they all pressed after him,\nshouting, \u201ckill him!\u201d In this way Paul was carried up the stairs which\nled to the high entrance of the castle, which of course the soldiers\nwould not allow the multitude to mount; and when he had reached the\ntop of the stairs, he was therefore perfectly protected from their\nviolence, though perfectly well situated for speaking to them so as to\nbe distinctly seen and heard. As they were taking him up the stairs, he\nbegged the attention of the tribune, saying, \u201cMay I speak to thee?\u201d The\ntribune hearing this, in some surprise asked, \u201cCanst thou speak Greek?\nArt thou not that Egyptian that raised a sedition some time ago, and\nled away into the wilderness a band of four thousand cut-throats?\u201d This\nalarming revolt had been but lately put down with great trouble, and\nwas therefore fresh in the mind of Lysias, who had been concerned in\nquelling it, along with the whole Roman force in Palestine,\u2015\u2015and from\nsome of the outcries of the mob, he now took up the notion that Paul\nwas the very ringleader of that revolt, and had now just returned from\nhis place of refuge to make new trouble, and had been detected by the\nmultitude in the temple. Paul answered the foolish accusation of the\ntribune, by saying, \u201cI am a Jewish citizen of Tarsus, in Cilicia, which\nis no mean city; and I beg of thee, to let me speak to the people.\u201d The\ntribune, quite glad to have his unpleasant suspicions removed, as an\natonement for the unjust accusation immediately granted the permission\nas requested, and Paul therefore turned to the raging multitude, waving\nhis hand in the usual gesture for requesting silence. The people,\ncurious to hear his account of himself, listened accordingly, and\nhe therefore uplifted his voice in a respectful request for their\nattention to his plea in his own behalf. \u201cMen! Brethren! and Fathers!\nHear ye my defence which I make to you!\u201d\n\n \u2666 \u201cdilgently\u201d replaced with \u201cdiligently\u201d\n\nThose words were spoken in the vernacular language of Palestine, the\ntrue Hebraistic dialect of Jerusalem, and the multitude were thereby\nimmediately undeceived about his character, for they had been as much\nmistaken about him, as the tribune was, though their mistake was of a\nvery opposite character; for they supposed him to be entirely Greek in\nhis habits and language, if not in his origin; and the vast concourse\nwas therefore hushed in profound silence, to hear his address made\nin the true Jewish language. Before this strange audience, Paul then\nstood up boldly, to declare his character, his views, and his apostolic\ncommission. On the top of the lofty rampart of Castle Antonia,\u2015\u2015with\nthe dark iron forms of the Roman soldiery around him, guarding the\nstaircase from top to bottom, against the raging mob,\u2015\u2015and with the\nenormous mass of the congregated thousands of Jerusalem, and of the\nstrangers who had come up to the festival, all straining their fierce\neyes in wrath and hate upon him, as a convicted renegade,\u2015\u2015one feeble,\nslender man, now stood, the object of the most painful attention to\nall,\u2015\u2015yet, less moved with passion and anxiety than any one present.\nThus stationed, he began, and gave to the curious multitude an\ninteresting account of the incidents connected with that great change\nin his feelings and belief, which was the occasion of the present\ndifficulty. After giving them a complete statement of these particulars,\nhe was narrating the circumstance of a revelation made to him in the\ntemple, while in a devotional trance there, on his first return to\nJerusalem, after his conversion. In repeating the solemn commission\nthere confirmed to him by the voice of God, he repeated the crowning\nsentence, with which the Lord removed his doubts about engaging in the\nwork of preaching the gospel, when his hands were yet, as it were, red\nwith the blood of the martyred faithful,\u2015\u2015\u201cAnd he said to me, \u2018Go: for\nI will send thee far hence, unto the GENTILES.\u2019\u201d But when the listening\nmultitude heard this clear declaration of his having considered himself\nauthorized to communicate to the Gentiles those holy things which had\nbeen especially consigned by God to his peculiar people,\u2015\u2015they took it\nas a clear confession of the charge of having desecrated and degraded\nhis national religion, and all interrupted him with the ferocious cry,\n\u201cTake him away from the earth! for such a fellow does not deserve to\nlive.\u201d The tribune, finding that this discussion was not likely to\nanswer any good purpose, instantly put a stop to it, by dragging him\ninto the castle, and gave directions that he should be examined by\nscourging, that they might make him confess truly who he was, and what\nhe had done to make the people cry out so against him,\u2015\u2015a very foolish\nway, it would seem, to find out the truth about an unknown and abused\nperson, to flog him until he should tell a story that would please\nthem. While the guard were binding him with thongs, before they laid\non the scourge, Paul spoke to the centurion, who was superintending\nthe operation, and said in a sententiously inquiring way, \u201cIs it\nlawful for you to scourge a Roman citizen without legal condemnation?\u201d\nThis question put a stop to all proceedings at once. The centurion\nimmediately dropped the thongs, and ran to the tribune, saying, \u201cTake\nheed what thou doest, for this man is a Roman citizen.\u201d The tribune\nthen came to Paul, in much trepidation, and with great solemnity\nsaid\u2015\u2015\u201cTell me truly, art thou a Roman citizen?\u201d Paul distinctly\ndeclared, \u201cYes.\u201d\n\nDesirous to learn the mode in which the prisoner had obtained this most\nsacred and unimpeachable privilege, the tribune remarked of himself,\nthat _he_ had obtained this right by the payment of a large sum of\nmoney,\u2015\u2015perhaps doubting whether a man of Paul\u2019s poor aspect could\nhave ever been able to buy it; to which Paul boldly replied\u2015\u2015\u201cBut I\nwas BORN free.\u201d This clear declaration satisfied the tribune that he\nhad involved himself in a very serious difficulty, by committing this\nillegal violence on a person thus entitled to all the privileges of a\nsubject of law. All the subordinate agents also, were fully aware of\nthe nature of the mistake, and all immediately let him alone. Lysias\nnow kept Paul with great care in the castle, as a place of safety\nfrom his Jewish persecutors; and the next day, in order to have a full\ninvestigation of his character and the charges against him, he took him\nbefore the Sanhedrim, for examination. Paul there opened his defence\nin a very appropriate and self-vindicating style. \u201cMen! Brethren! and\nFathers! I have heretofore lived before God with a good conscience.\u201d\nAt these words, Ananias the high priest, provoked by Paul\u2019s seeming\nassurance in thus vindicating himself, when under the accusation of the\nheads of the Jewish religion, commanded those that stood next to Paul\nto slap him on the mouth. Paul, indignant at the high-handed tyranny\nof this outrageous attack on him, answered in honest wrath\u2015\u2015\u201cGod shall\nsmite thee, thou whited wall! For dost thou command me to be smitten\ncontrary to the law, when thou sittest as a judge over me?\u201d The other\nby-standers, enraged at his boldness, asked him, \u201cRevilest thou God\u2019s\nhigh priest?\u201d To which Paul, not having known the fact that Ananias\nthen held that office, which he had so disgraced by his infamous\nconduct, replied\u2015\u2015\u201cI knew not, brethren, that he was the high priest;\nfor it is written, thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy\npeople.\u201d Then, perceiving the mixed character of the council, he\ndetermined to avail himself of the mutual hatred of the two great\nsects, for his defense, by making his own persecution a kind of party\nquestion; and therefore called out to them\u2015\u2015\u201cI am a Pharisee, the\nson of a Pharisee. Of the hope of the resurrection of the dead, I am\ncalled in question.\u201d These words had the expected effect. Instantly,\nall the violent party feeling between these two sects broke out in full\nforce, and the whole council was divided and confused,\u2015\u2015the scribes who\nbelonged to the Pharisaic order, arising, and declaring, \u201cWe find no\noccasion of evil in this man. But if a spirit or an angel has spoken\nto him, let us not fight against God.\u201d This last remark, of course,\nwas throwing down the gauntlet at the opposite sect; for the Sadducees,\ndenying absolutely the existence of either angel or spirit, could of\ncourse believe no part of Paul\u2019s story about his vision and spiritual\nsummons. They all therefore broke out against the Pharisees, who being\nthus involved, took Paul\u2019s side very determinedly, and the party strife\ngrew so hot that Paul was like to be torn in pieces between them. The\ntribune, seeing the pass to which matters had come, then ordered out\nthe castle-guard, and took him by force, bringing him back to his\nformer place of safety.\n\n \u201cThe reason why St. Paul chose to speak in the Hebrew tongue,\n may be accounted for thus. There were at this time two sorts\n of Jews, some called by Chrysostom \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, _profound\n Hebrews_, who used no other language but the Hebrew, and would\n not admit the Greek Bible into their assemblies, but only the\n Hebrew, with the Jerusalem Targum and Paraphrase. The other\n sort spoke Greek, and used that translation of the scriptures;\n these were called Hellenists. This was a cause of great\n dissension among these two parties, even after they had embraced\n Christianity, (Acts vi. 1.) Of this latter sort was St. Paul,\n because he always made use of the Greek translation of the\n Bible in his writings, so that in this respect he might not be\n acceptable to the other party. Those of them who were converted\n to Christianity, were much prejudiced against him, (Acts xxi.\n 21,) which is given as a reason for his concealing his name\n in his Epistle to the Hebrews. And as for those who were not\n converted, they could not so much as endure him: and this is the\n reason which Chrysostom gives, why he preached to the Hellenists\n only. Acts ix. 28. Therefore, that he might avert the great\n displeasure which the Jews had conceived against him, he\n accosted them in their favorite language, and by his compliance\n in this respect, they were so far pacified as to give him\n audience.\u201d (Hammond\u2019s Annotations.) [Williams\u2019s Pearson, p. 70.]\n\n \u201cScourging was a method of examination used by Romans and other\n nations, to force such as were supposed guilty to confess what\n they had done, what were their motives, and who were accessory\n to the fact. Thus Tacitus tells us of Herennius Gallus, that he\n received several stripes, that it might be known for what price,\n and with what confederates, he had betrayed the Roman army.\n It is to be observed, however, that the Romans were punished\n in this wise, not by whips and scourges, but with rods only;\n and therefore it is that Cicero, in his oration pro Rabirio,\n speaking against Labienus, tells his audience that the Porcian\n law permitted a Roman to be whipped with rods, but he, like a\n good and merciful man, (speaking ironically,) had done it with\n scourges; and still further, neither by whips nor rods could\n a citizen of Rome be punished, until he were first adjudged to\n lose his privilege, to be uncitizened, and to be declared an\n enemy to the commonwealth, then he might be scourged or put to\n death. Cicero Oratio in Verres, says, \u2018It is a foul fault for\n any praetor, &c. to bind a citizen of Rome; a piacular offense\n to scourge him; a kind of parricide to kill him: what shall I\n call the crucifying of such an one?\u2019\u201d (Williams\u2019s notes on\n Pearson, pp. 70, 71.)\n\n \u201cAnanias, the son of Nebedaeus, was high priest at the time\n that Helena, queen of Adiabene, supplied the Jews with corn\n from Egypt, (Josephus Antiquities, lib. xx. c. 5. \u00a7 2,) during\n the famine which took place in the fourth year of Claudius,\n mentioned in the eleventh chapter of the Acts. St. Paul,\n therefore, who took a journey to Jerusalem at that period, (Acts\n xv.) could not have been ignorant of the elevation of Ananias\n to that dignity. Soon after the holding of the first council,\n as it is called, at Jerusalem, Ananias was dispossessed of his\n office, in consequence of certain acts of violence between the\n Samaritans and the Jews, and sent prisoner to Rome, (Josephus,\n Antiquities, lib. xx. c. 6. \u00a7 2,) whence he was afterwards\n released and returned to Jerusalem. Now from that period he\n could not be called high priest, in the proper sense of the word,\n though Josephus (Antiquities, lib. xx. c. 9. \u00a7 2, and Jewish\n War lib. ii. c. 17. \u00a7 9,) has sometimes given him the title\n of \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2, taken in the more extensive meaning of a priest,\n who had a seat and voice in the Sanhedrim; \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in the\n plural number is frequently used in the New Testament, when\n allusion is made to the Sanhedrim;) and Jonathan, though we\n are not acquainted with the circumstances of his elevation, had\n been raised, in the mean time, to the supreme dignity in the\n Jewish church. Between the death of Jonathan, who was murdered\n (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews lib. xx. c. 8. \u00a7 5,) by order\n of Felix, and the high priesthood of Ismael, who was invested\n with that office by Agrippa, (Josephus Antiquities lib. xx.\n c. 8. \u00a7 3,) elapsed an interval in which this dignity continued\n vacant. Now it happened precisely in this interval, that St.\n Paul was apprehended at Jerusalem; and, the Sanhedrim being\n destitute of a president, he undertook of his own authority the\n discharge of that office, which he executed with the greatest\n tyranny. (Josephus Antiquities lib. xx. c. 9. \u00a7 2.) It is\n possible therefore that St. Paul, who had been only a few days\n at Jerusalem, might be ignorant that Ananias, who had been\n dispossessed of the priesthood, had taken upon himself a trust\n to which he was not entitled. He might therefore very naturally\n exclaim, \u2018I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest!\u2019\n Admitting him on the other hand to have been acquainted with the\n fact, the expression must be considered as an indirect reproof,\n and a tacit refusal to recognize usurped authority.\u201d (Michaelis,\n Vol. I. pp. 51, 56.)\n\n \u201cThe prediction of St. Paul, verse 3, \u2018God shall smite thee,\n thou whited wall,\u2019 was, according to Josephus, fulfilled in\n a short time. For when, in the government of Florus, his son\n Eleazar set himself at the head of a party of mutineers, who,\n having made themselves masters of the temple, would permit\n no sacrifices to be offered for the emperor; and being joined\n by a company of assassins, compelled persons of the best\n quality to fly for their safety and hide themselves in sinks\n and vaults;\u2015\u2015Ananias and his brother Hezekias, were both drawn\n out of one of these places, and murdered, (Josephus Jewish War\n lib. ii. c. 17, 18,) though Dr. Lightfoot will have it that he\n perished at the siege of Jerusalem!\u201d (Whitby\u2019s Annotations.)\n [Williams on Pearson.]\n\nDuring that night, the soul of Paul was comforted by a heavenly\nvision, in which the Lord exhorted him to maintain the same high\nspirit,\u2015\u2015assuring him that as he had testified of him in Jerusalem,\neven so he should bear witness in Rome. His dangers in Jerusalem,\nhowever, were not yet over. The furious Jews, now cut off from all\npossibility of doing any violence to Paul, under the sanction of legal\nforms, determined to set all moderation aside, and forty of the most\ndesperate bound themselves by a solemn oath, neither to eat nor drink,\ntill they had slain Paul. In the arrangement of the mode in which their\nabominable vow should be performed, it was settled between them and the\nhigh-priest, that a request should be sent to the tribune to bring down\nPaul before the council once more, as if for the sake of putting some\nadditional inquiries to him for their final and perfect satisfaction;\nand then, that these desperadoes should station themselves, where they\ncould make a rush upon Paul, just as he was entering the council-hall,\nand kill him before the guard could bestir themselves in his defense,\nor seize the murderers; and even if some of them should be caught and\npunished, it never need be known, that the high priest was accessory to\nthe assassination. But while they were arranging this hopeful piece of\nwickedness, they did not manage it so snugly as was necessary for the\nsuccess of the plot; for it somehow or other got to the ears of Paul\u2019s\nnephew,\u2015\u2015a young man no where else mentioned in the New Testament,\nand of whose character and situation, nothing whatever is known. He,\nhearing of the plot, came instantly to his uncle, who sent him to\ncommunicate the tidings to the tribune. Lysias, on receiving this\naccount of the utterly desperate character of the opposition to Paul,\ndetermined not to risk his prisoner\u2019s life any longer in Jerusalem,\neven when guarded by the powerful defenses of castle Antonia. He\ndismissed the young man with the strongest injunctions, to observe\nthe most profound secrecy, as to the fact of his having made this\ncommunication to him; and immediately made preparations to send off\nPaul, that very night, to Caesarea, designing to have him left there\nwith the governor of the province, as a prisoner of state, and thus\nto rid himself of all responsibility about this very difficult and\nperilous business. He ordered two centurions to draw out a detachment,\nof such very remarkable strength, as shows the excess of his fears\nfor Paul. Two hundred heavy-armed soldiers, seventy horsemen, and\ntwo hundred lancers, were detached as a guard for Paul, and were\nall mounted for speed, to take him beyond the reach of the Jerusalem\ndesperadoes, that very night. He gave to that portion of the detachment\nthat was designed to go all the way to Caesarea, a letter to be\ndelivered to Felix the governor, giving a fair and faithful account of\nall the circumstances connected with Paul\u2019s imprisonment and perils in\nJerusalem.\n\n\n RETURN TO CAESAREA.\n\nThe strong mounted detachment, numbering four hundred and seventy\nfull-armed Roman warriors, accordingly set out that night at nine\no\u2019clock, and moving silently off from the castle, which stood near one\nof the western gates of the city, passed out of Jerusalem unnoticed in\nthe darkness, and galloped away to the north-west. After forty miles\nof hard riding, they reached Antipatris before day, and as all danger\nof pursuit from the Jerusalem assassins was out of the question there,\nthe mounted infantry and the lancers returned to Jerusalem, leaving\nPaul however, the very respectable military attendance of the seventy\nhorse-guards. With these, he journeyed to Caesarea, only about\ntwenty-five miles off, where he was presented by the commander of the\ndetachment to Felix, the Roman governor, who always resided in Caesarea,\nthe capital of his province. The governor, on reading the letter and\nlearning that Paul was of Cilicia, deferred giving his case a full\nhearing, until his accusers had also come; and committed him for safe\nkeeping in the interval, to an apartment in the great palace, built by\nHerod the Great, the royal founder of Caesarea.\n\nAfter a delay of five days, the high priest and the elders came down to\nCaesarea, to prosecute their charges against Paul before the governor.\nThey brought with them, as their advocate, a speech-maker named\nTertullus, whose name shows him to have been of Roman connections or\neducation, and who, on account of his acquaintance with the Latin forms\nof oratory and law, was no doubt selected by Ananias and his coadjutors,\nas a person better qualified than themselves to maintain their cause\nwith effect, before the governor. Tertullus accordingly opened the case,\nand when Paul had been confronted with his accusers, began with a very\ntedious string of formal compliments to Felix, and then set forth a\ncomplaint against Paul in very bitter and abusive terms, stating his\noffense to be, the attempt to profane the temple, for which the Jews\nwould have convicted and punished him, if Lysias had not violently\nhindered, and put them to the trouble of bringing the whole business\nbefore the governor, though a matter exclusively concerning their\nreligious law. To all his assertions the Jews testified.\n\nThis presentation of the accusation being made, Paul was then called\non for his defense, which he thereupon delivered in a tone highly\nrespectful to the governor, and maintained that he had been guilty of\nnone of the troublesome and riotous conduct of which he was accused:\nbut quietly, without any effort to make a commotion among the people\nanywhere, had come into the city on a visit, after many years absence,\nto bring alms and offerings; and that when he was seized by the Asian\nJews in the temple, he was going blamelessly through the established\nceremonies of purification. He complained also, that his original\naccusers, the Asian Jews, were not confronted with him, and challenged\nhis present prosecutors to bring any evidence against him. Felix,\nafter this hearing of the case, on the pretence of needing Lysias as\na witness on the facts, deferred his decision, and left both accusers\nand accused to the enjoyment of the delays and \u201cglorious uncertainties\nof the law.\u201d Meanwhile he committed Paul to the charge of a centurion,\nwith directions that he should be allowed all reasonable liberty, and\nshould not be in any particular restricted from the freest intercourse\nwith his friends. The imprisonment of Paul at Caesarea was merely\nnominal; and he must have passed his time both pleasantly and\nprofitably, with the members of the church at Caesarea, with whom he\nhad formerly been acquainted, especially with Philip and his family.\nBesides these, he was also favored with the company of several of his\nassistants, who had been the companions of his toils in Europe and Asia;\nand through them he could hold the freest correspondence with any of\nthe numerous churches of his apostolic charge throughout the world. He\nresided here for two whole years at least, of Felix\u2019s administration;\nand during that time, was more than once sent for by the governor, to\nhold conversations with him on the great objects of his life, in some\nof which he expressed himself so forcibly on righteousness, temperance\nand judgment to come, that the wicked governor,\u2015\u2015at that moment sitting\nin the presence of the apostle with an adulterous paramour,\u2015\u2015trembled\nat the view presented by Paul of the consequences of those sins for\nwhich Felix was so infamous. But his repentant tremors soon passed\noff, and he merely dismissed the apostle with the vague promise, that\nat some more convenient season he would send for him. He did indeed,\noften send for him after this; but the motive of these renewals of\nintercourse seems to have been of the basest order, for it is stated\nby the sacred historian, that his real object was to induce Paul to\noffer him a bribe, which he supposed could be easily raised by the\ncontributions of his devoted friends. But the hope was vain. It was no\npart of Paul\u2019s plan of action to hasten the decision of his movements\nby such means, and the consequence was, that Felix found so little\noccasion to befriend him, that when he went out of the office which he\nhad uniformly disgraced by tyranny, rapine, and murder, he thought it,\non the whole, worth while to gratify the late subjects of his hateful\nsway, by leaving Paul still a prisoner.\n\n \u201cThis Drusilla was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa.\n (Josephus lib. xix. c. 9. in.) Josephus gives the following\n account of her marriage with Felix:\u2015\u2015\u2018Agrippa, having received\n this present from Caesar, (viz. Claudius,) gave his sister\n Drusilla in marriage to the Azizus, king of the Emesenes, when\n he had consented to be circumcised. For Epiphanes, the son of\n king Antiochus, had broken the contract with her, by refusing\n to embrace the Jewish customs, although he had promised her\n father he would. But this marriage of Drusilla with Azizus was\n dissolved in a short time, after this manner. When Felix was\n procurator of Judaea, having had a sight of her, he was mightily\n taken with her; and indeed she was the most beautiful of her\n sex. He therefore sent to her Simon, a Jew of Cyprus, who was\n one of his friends, and pretended to magic, by whom he persuaded\n her to leave her husband, and marry him; promising to make her\n perfectly happy, if she did not disdain him. It was far from\n being a sufficient reason; but to avoid the envy of her sister\n Bernice, who was continually doing her ill offices, because\n of her beauty, she was induced to transgress the laws of her\n country, and marry Felix.\u2019\u201d (Lardner\u2019s Credibility, 4to. Vol. I.\n p. 16, 17, edition, London, 1815.) [Williams on Pearson, p. 78.]\n\n Illustration: SYRACUSE. Acts xxviii. 12.\n\nThe successor of Felix in the government of Palestine, was Porcius\nFestus, a man whose administration is by no means characterized in\nthe history of those times by a reputation for justice or prudence;\nyet in the case of Paul, his conduct seems to have been much more\naccordant with right and reason, than was that of the truly infamous\nFelix. Visiting the religious capital of the Jews soon after his first\nentrance into the province, he was there earnestly petitioned by the\never-spiteful foes of Paul, to cause this prisoner to be brought up\nto Jerusalem for trial, intending when Paul should enter the city,\nto execute their old plan of assassination, which had been formerly\nfrustrated by the benevolent prudence and energy of Claudius Lysias.\nBut Festus, perhaps having received some notification of this plot,\nfrom the friends of Paul, utterly refused to bring the prisoner to\nJerusalem, but required the presence of the accusers in the proper seat\nof the supreme provincial administration of justice at Caesarea. After\na ten days\u2019 stay in Jerusalem, he returned to the civil capital, and\nwith a commendable activity in his judicial proceedings, on the very\nnext day after his arrival in Caesarea, summoned Paul and his accusers\nbefore him. The Jews of course, told their old story, and brought out\nagainst Paul many grievous complaints, which they could not prove.\nHis only reply to all this accusation without testimony was\u2015\u2015\u201cNeither\nagainst the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor yet against\nCaesar, have I offended in any particular.\u201d But Festus having been in\nsome way influenced to favor the designs of the Jews, urged Paul to go\nup to Jerusalem, there to be tried by the supreme religious court of\nhis own nation. Paul replied by a bold and distinct assertion of his\nrights, as a Roman citizen, before the tribunal of his liege lord and\nsovran: \u201cI stand before Caesar\u2019s judgment-seat, where I ought to be\njudged. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.\nIf I am guilty of anything that deserves death, I refuse not to die;\nbut if I have done none of these things of which they accuse me, no\nman can deliver me into their hands. I APPEAL TO CAESAR.\u201d This solemn\nconcluding formula put him at once far beyond the reach of all inferior\ntyranny; henceforth no governor in the world could direct the fate of\nthe appellant Roman citizen, throwing before himself the adamantine\naegis of Roman law. Festus himself, though evidently displeased at\nthis turn of events, could not resist the course of law; but after a\nconference with this council, replied to Paul\u2015\u2015\u201cDost thou appeal to\nCaesar? To Caesar shalt thou go.\u201d\n\nWhile Paul was still detained at Caesarea, after this final reference\nof his case to the highest judicial authority in the world, Festus was\nvisited at Caesarea, by Herod Agrippa II. king of Iturea, Trachonitis,\nAbilene, and other northern regions of Palestine, the son of that\nHerod Agrippa whose character and actions were connected with the\nincidents of Peter\u2019s life. He, passing through Judea with his sister\nBernice, stopped at Caesarea, to pay their compliments to the new\nRoman governor. During their stay there, Festus, with a view to find\nrational entertainment for his royal guests, bethought himself of\nPaul\u2019s case, as one that would be likely to interest them, connected as\nthe prisoner\u2019s fate seemed to be, with the religious and legal matters\nof that peculiar people to whom Agrippa himself belonged, and in the\nminutiae of whose law and theology he had been so well instructed, that\nhis opinion on the case would be well worth having, to one as little\nacquainted with these matters as the heathen governor himself was.\nFestus therefore gave a very full account of the whole case to Agrippa,\nin terms that sufficiently well exhibited the perplexities in which\nhe was involved, and in expressions which are strikingly and almost\namusingly characteristic,\u2015\u2015complaining as he does of the very abstruse\nand perplexing nature of the accusations brought by the Jews, as being\n\u201ccertain questions of their own religion, and of one Jesus, whom Paul\naffirmed to be alive.\u201d Agrippa was so much interested in the case that\nhe expressed a wish to hear the man in person; and Festus accordingly\narranged that he should the next day be gratified with the hearing.\n\n \u201c\u2018_King Agrippa and Bernice._\u2019 Acts. xxv. 13. This Agrippa\n was the son of Herod Agrippa; St. Luke calls him king, which\n Josephus also does very often. (Antiquities lib. xx. c. viii.\n \u00a7 6, et passim.) But St. Luke does not suppose him to be king\n of Judaea, for all the judicial proceedings of that country\n relating to St. Paul, are transacted before Felix, and Festus\n his successor; besides, he says, that \u2018Agrippa came to Caesarea\n to salute Festus,\u2019 to compliment him on his arrival, &c. verse 1.\n When his father died, Claudius would have immediately put him in\n possession of his father\u2019s dominions, but he was advised not to\n do so, on account of the son\u2019s youth, then only seventeen; the\n emperor, therefore, \u2018appointed Cuspius Fadus praefect of Judea\n and the whole kingdom, (Josephus Antiquities lib. xix. c. 9, ad\n fin.) who was succeeded by Tiberius, Alexander, Cumanus, Felix,\n and Festus, though these did not possess the province in the\n same extent that Fadus did.\u2019 (Antiquities xx. Jewish War lib.\n ii.)\n\n \u201cAgrippa had, notwithstanding, at this time, considerable\n territories. \u2018Herod, brother of king Agrippa the Great, died\n in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius. Claudius then gave\n his government to the young Agrippa.\u2019 (Josephus Antiquities\n xx. p. 887.) This is the Agrippa mentioned in this twenty-fifth\n chapter. \u2018The twelfth year of his reign being completed,\n Claudius gave to Agrippa the tetrarchy of Philip and Batanea,\n adding also Trachonitis with Abila. This had been the tetrarchy\n of Lysanias. But he took away from him Chalcis, after he had\n governed it four years.\u2019 (Josephus Antiquities xx. p. 890,\n v. 25, &c.) \u2018After this, he sent Felix, the brother of Pallas,\n to be procurator of Judea, Galilee, Samaria, and Peraea; and\n promoted Agrippa from Chalcis to a greater kingdom, giving\n him the tetrarchy which had been Philip\u2019s. (This is Batanea,\n and Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis;) and he added, moreover, the\n kingdom of Lysanias, and the province that had been Varus\u2019s.\u2019\n (Josephus War of the Jews lib. ii. c. 12. fin.) \u2018Nero, in the\n first year of his reign, gave Agrippa a certain part of Galilee,\n ordering Tiberias and Tarichaea to be subject to him. He gave\n him also Julias, a city of Peraea, and fourteen towns in the\n neighborhood of it.\u2019 (Antiquities xx. c. 7. \u00a7 4.) St. Luke\n is therefore fully justified in styling this Agrippa king at\n this time.\u201d (Lardner\u2019s Credibility, 4to. Vol. I. pp. 17, 18.)\n [Williams\u2019s Pearson, p. 81, 82.]\n\nOn the next day, preparations were made for this audience, with a\nsolemnity of display most honorable to the subject of it. The great\nhall of the palace was arrayed in grand order for the occasion, and, in\ndue time, king Agrippa, with his royal sister, and the Roman governor,\nentered it with great pomp, followed by a train composed of all the\ngreat military and civil dignitaries of the vice-imperial court of\nPalestine. Before all this stately array, the apostolic prisoner\nwas now set, and a solemn annunciation was made by Festus, of the\ncircumstances of the prisoner\u2019s previous accusation, trial, and appeal;\nall which were now summarily recapitulated in public, for the sake of\nform, although they had before been communicated in private, to Agrippa.\nThe king, as the highest authority present, having graciously invited\nPaul to speak for himself, the apostle stretched forth his hand and\nbegan, in that respectful style of elaborately elegant compliment,\nwhich characterizes the exordiums of so many of his addresses to\nthe great. After having, with most admirable skill, conciliated the\nattention and kind regard of the king, by expressing his happiness\nin being called to speak in his own defense before one so learned in\nHebrew law, he went on; and in a speech which is well known for its\nnoble eloquence, so resplendent, even through the disguise of a quaint\ntranslation, presented not merely his own case, but the claims of that\nrevelation, for proclaiming which he was now a prisoner. So admirably\ndid he conduct his whole plea, both for himself and the cause of Christ,\nthat in spite of the sneer of Festus, Agrippa paid him the very highest\ncompliment in his power, and pronounced him to be utterly guiltless\nof the charges. No part of this plea and its attendant discussions,\nneeds to be recapitulated; but a single characteristic of Paul, which\nis most strikingly evinced, deserves especial notice. This is his\nprofound regard for all the established forms of polite address. He is\nnot satisfied with a mere respectful behavior towards his judges, but\neven distinguishes himself by a minute observance of all the customary\nphrases of politeness; nor does he suffer his courtly manner to be\ndisturbed, even by the abrupt remark of Festus, accusing him of frenzy.\nIn his reply, he styles his accuser \u201cMost noble;\u201d and yet every reader\nof Jewish history knows, and Paul knew, that this Festus, to whom he\ngave this honorable title, was one of the very wicked men of those\nwicked times. The instance shows then, that those who, from religious\nscruples, refuse to give the titles of established respect to those who\nare elevated in station, and reject all forms of genteel address, on\nthe same ground, have certainly constructed their system of practical\nreligion on a model wholly different from that by which the apostle\u2019s\ndemeanor was guided; and the whole impression made on a common reader,\nby Luke\u2019s clear statement of Paul\u2019s behavior before the most dignified\nand splendid audience that he ever addressed, must be, that he was\ncomplete in all the forms and observances of polite intercourse; and\nhe must be considered, both according to the high standard of his\nrefined and dignified hearers, and also by the universal standard of\nthe refined of all ages,\u2015\u2015not only a finished, eloquent orator, but\na person of polished manners, delicate tact, ready compliment, and\ngraceful, courtly address:\u2015\u2015in short, A PERFECT GENTLEMAN.\n\n\n VOYAGE TO ROME.\n\nAs Paul, however, had previously appealed to Caesar, his case was\nalready removed from any inferior jurisdiction, and his hearing before\nAgrippa was intended only to gratify the king himself, and to cause\nthe particulars of his complicated case to be more fully drawn out\nbefore his royal hearer, who was so accomplished in Hebrew law, that\nhis opinion was very naturally desired by Festus; for, as the governor\nhimself confessed, the technicalities and abstruse points involved in\nthe charge, were altogether beyond the comprehension of a Roman judge,\nwith a mere heathen education. The object, therefore, of obtaining\na full statement of particulars, to be presented to his most august\nmajesty, the emperor, being completely accomplished by this hearing of\nPaul before Agrippa,\u2015\u2015there was now nothing to delay the reference of\nthe case to Nero; and Paul was therefore consigned, along with other\nprisoners of state, to the care of a Roman officer, Julius, a centurion\nof the Augustan cohort. Taking passage at Caesarea, in an Adramyttian\nvessel, Julius sailed with his important charge from the shores of\nPalestine, late in the year 60. Following the usual cautious course of\nall ancient navigators,\u2015\u2015along the shores, and from island to island,\nventuring across the open sea only with the fairest winds,\u2015\u2015the vessel\nwhich bore the apostle on his first voyage to Italy, coasted along by\nSyria and Asia Minor. Of those Christian associates who accompanied\nPaul, none are known except Timothy, Luke, his graphically accurate\nhistorian, and Aristarchus of Thessalonica, the apostle\u2019s long-known\ncompanion in travel. These, of course, were a source of great enjoyment\nto Paul on this tedious voyage, surrounded, as he was, otherwise, by\nstrangers and heathen, by most of whom he must have been regarded in\nthe light of a mere criminal, held in bonds for trial. He was, however,\nvery fortunate in the character of the centurion to whose keeping\nhe was entrusted, as is shown in more than one incident related by\nLuke. After one day\u2019s sail, the vessel touching at Sidon, Julius here\npolitely gave Paul permission to visit his Christian friends in that\nplace,\u2015\u2015thus conferring a great favor, both on the apostle and on the\nchurch of Sidon. Leaving this place, their course was next along the\ncoast of Syria, and then eastwards, along the southern shore of Asia\nMinor, keeping in the Cilician strait between that province and the\ngreat island of Cyprus, on account of the violence of the southwesters.\nCoasting along by Pamphylia and Lycia, they next touched at Myra, a\ncity in the latter province, where they were obliged to take passage\nin another vessel, bound from Alexandria to Italy. In this vessel, they\nalso kept close to the coast, their course being still retarded by head\nwinds, until they reached Cnidus, the farthest southeastern point of\nAsia Minor, and thence stretched across the Carpathian sea, to Crete,\napproaching it first at Cape Salmone, the most eastern point at the\nisland, and then passing on to a place called \u201cthe Fair Haven,\u201d near\nLasea, probably one of the hundred cities of Crete, but mentioned in no\nother ancient writer. At this place, Paul, whose experience in former\nvoyages was already considerable, having been twice ship-wrecked, had\nsagacity enough to see that any further navigation that season would\nbe dangerous; for it was now the beginning of October, and the most\ndreadful tempests might be reasonably expected on the wintry sea,\nbefore they could reach the Italian coast. He warned the centurion\naccordingly, of the peril to which all their lives were exposed; but\nthe owner and commander of the vessel, anxious to find a better place\nfor wintering than this, persuaded Julius to risk the passage to the\nsouth side of the island, when they might find, in the port of Phoenix,\na more convenient winter harbor. So, after the south wind had nearly\ndied away, they attempted to take advantage of this apparent lull, and\nwork their way, close to the shore along the south side of Crete; but\npresently they were caught by a tremendous Levanter, which carried\nthem with great velocity away to the west, to the island of Clauda,\nwhich lies south of the west end of Crete. Here the danger of the\nship\u2019s breaking in pieces was so great, that having with much ado\noverhauled their boat, they undergirded the ship with cables, to keep\nit together,\u2015\u2015a measure not unknown in modern navigation. Finding that\nthey were in much danger of grounding among the quicksands on the coast\nof the island, they were glad to stand out to sea; and taking in all\nsail, scudded under bare poles for fourteen days, during a great part\nof which time, they saw neither sun, moon nor stars, the whole sky\nbeing constantly overcast with clouds, so that they knew nothing of\ntheir position. The wind of course carried them directly west, over\nwhat was then called the sea of Adria,\u2015\u2015not what is now called the\n_Adriatic_ gulf, but that part of the Mediterranean, which lies between\nGreece, Italy and Africa. In their desperation, the passengers threw\nover their own baggage, to lighten the ship; and they began to lose all\nhope of being saved from shipwreck. Paul, however, encouraged them by\nthe narration of a dream, in which God had revealed to him that every\none of them should escape; and they still kept their hopes alive to\nthe fourteenth night, when the sailors, thinking that the long western\ncourse must have brought them near Sicily, or the main-land of Italy,\nwhich lay not far out of this direction, began to heave the lead, that\nthey might avoid the shore; and at the first sounding, found but twenty\nfathoms, and at the next fifteen. Of course, the peril of grounding was\nimminent, and they therefore cast anchor, and waited for day. Knowing\nthat they were now near some shore, the sailors determined to provide\nfor their own safety, and accordingly undertook to let down the\nboat, to make their escape, and leave the passengers to provide for\nthemselves. But Paul represented to the centurion the certainty of\ntheir destruction, if the ship should be left without any seamen to\nmanage it; and the soldiers of the prisoners\u2019 guard, determined not\nto be thus deserted, though they should all sink together, cut off the\nropes by which the boat was held, and let it fell off. All being thus\ninevitably committed to one doom, Paul exhorted them to take food, and\nthus strengthen themselves for the effort to reach the shore. They did\nso accordingly, and then, as a last resort, flung out the wheat with\nwhich the ship was loaded, and at day-break, when land appeared, seeing\na small creek, they made an effort to run the ship into it, weighing\nanchor and hoisting the mainsail; but knowing nothing of the ground,\nsoon struck, and the overstrained ship was immediately broken by the\nwaves, the bows being fast in the sandbank, while the stern was heaved\nby every surge. The soldiers, thinking first of their weighty charge,\nfor whose escape they were to answer with their lives, advised to kill\nthem all, lest they should swim ashore. But the more humane centurion\nforbade it, and gave directions that every man should provide for his\nown safety. They did so; and those that could not swim, clinging to the\nfragments of the wreck, the whole two hundred and seventy-six who were\nin the vessel, got safe to land.\n\n \u201c\u2018When sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was already\n past.\u2019 verse 9. There is no question but that this is the great\n fast of expiation, Leviticus xvi. 29, the description of which\n we have in Isaiah lviii. under the name of a sabbath, verse 13.\n The precise time of this sabbatic fast is on the tenth day of\n the seventh month, _Tizri_, which falls on the same time very\n nearly with our September, the first day of Tizri on the seventh\n of that, and so the 10th of Tizri on the 16th of September, that\n is, thirteen days before our Michaelmas. This being premised,\n the apostle\u2019s reasoning becomes clear; for it is precisely the\n same as though he should have said, _because it was past the\n twentieth_ (the day Scaliger sets for the solemnization of the\n fast,) _of September_; it being observed by all sailors, that\n for some weeks before and after Michaelmas, there are on the sea\n sudden and frequent storms, (probably the equinoctial,) which\n have in modern times received the name of Michaelmas flaws,\n and must of course make sailing dangerous. Hesiod himself tells\n us, that at the going down of Pleiades, which was at the end of\n autumn, navigation was hazardous.\u201d (Williams.)\n\n \u201c_Undergirding the ship._\u2019 verse 17. We learn from various\n passages in the Greek and Roman writers, that the ancients\n had recourse to this expedient, in order to save the ship from\n imminent danger; and this method has been used in modern times.\n The process of undergirding a ship is thus performed:\u2015\u2015a stout\n cable is slipped under the vessel at the prow, which can be\n conducted to any part of the ship\u2019s keel, and then fasten the\n two ends on the deck, to keep the planks from starting. An\n instance of this kind is mentioned in \u2018Lord Anson\u2019s Voyage round\n the World.\u2019 Speaking of a Spanish man-of-war in a storm, the\n writer says, \u2018They were obliged to throw overboard all their\n upper-deck guns, and _take six turns of the cable round the ship,\n to prevent her opening_.\u2019 (p. 24, 4to. edition.) Bp. Pearce and\n Dr. Clarke, on Acts xxvii. 17. Two instances of undergirding the\n ship are noticed in the \u2018Chevalier de Johnstone\u2019s Memoirs of the\n Rebellion in 1745\u20126, London, 1822, 8vo. pp. 421, 454.\u201d\n (Williams\u2019s notes on Pearson, p. 85.)\n\nThey now found that they had struck on the island of Melita, (now\nMalta,) which lies just south of Sicily, in the direct track in which\nthe eastern gale must have blown them. The uncivilized inhabitants of\nthis desolate spot received the shipwrecked voyagers with the kindest\nattention, and very considerately kindled a fire, to warm and dry them,\nafter their long soaking in cold water. The dripping apostle took hold\nwith the rest to make the fire blaze up, and gathered a bundle of dry\nsticks, for the purpose; but with them he unconsciously gathered a\nviper, which was sheltering itself among them from the cold, and roused\nby the heat of the fire, now crept out upon his hand. He, of course,\nas any other man would, gave a jerk, and shook it off, as soon as he\nsaw it,\u2015\u2015a very natural occurrence; but the superstitious barbarians\nthought this a perfect miracle, as they had before foolishly considered\nit a token of divine wrath; and having looked on him as an object of\nhorror, and a wicked criminal, they now, with equal sense, adored him\nas a God.\n\nAnother incident of more truly miraculous character, occurred to Paul\nsoon after, in the part of the island on which they were wrecked, which\nhad the effect of gaining him a much more solid fame. The father of\nPublius, the Roman officer who governed the island, as the deputy of\nthe praetor of Sicily, was at that time very sick of the dysentery;\nand Paul, going to see him, laid his hands on him and prayed,\u2015\u2015thus\neffecting a complete recovery. This being known, other diseased persons\nwere presented as the subjects of Paul\u2019s miraculous powers, and the\nsame cures following his words, he with his associates soon became the\nobjects of a far more rational reverence than had been excited by the\ndeliverance from the viper. The reverence too, was extended beyond mere\nempty honor. The shipwrecked apostolic company having lost all their\nbaggage and provisions, were abundantly provided with everything that\nthey needed, by the grateful contributions of the islanders;\u2015\u2015and when,\nafter a stay of three months, Paul and his companions departed, they\nwere loaded with things necessary for the voyage.\n\n Illustration: PUTEOLI. Acts xxviii. 13, 14.\n\nSailing, on the return of spring, in another Alexandrine vessel, of\nthe same very common name borne by that in which they were shipwrecked,\nthey came next to Syracuse, on the east side of the island of Sicily,\nand after a stay of three days, turned through the Sicilian strait\nto Rhegium, on the main-land directly opposite the island. There Paul\nfirst saw the soil of Italy, but did not leave the vessel for his land\njourney, till they came, with a fresh south wind, to Puteoli, a port\nin the bay of Naples. Here they found Christians, who invited them to\nrest among them for a week; after which they journeyed along the coast,\non the noble road of Pozzuoli and Baiae, for about a hundred miles, to\nAppius\u2019s Forum, a village about eighteen miles from Rome. At this place,\nthey were met by a number of brethren from the church of Rome; and\nhaving journeyed along the Appian way, to the Three Taverns,\u2015\u2015a little\nstopping place a few miles from the city,\u2015\u2015they were received by still\nanother deputation of Roman Christians, come out to greet the great\napostle, whose name had long been known among them, and whose counsels\nand revelations they had already enjoyed by his writings. This noble\ntestimony of the esteem in which they held him, was a most joyful\nassurance to Paul, that, even on this foreign shore, a stranger and\na prisoner, he had many near and dear friends; and his noble spirit,\nbefore probably depressed and melancholy, in the dark prospect of his\napproach to the awful seat of that remorseless imperial power that was\nto decide his doom, now rose to feelings of exultation and gratitude.\nEntering the vast imperial city, the prisoners were remanded by the\ncenturion to the custody of Burrhus, the noble and influential praefect\nof the praetorian guard, who was, _ex-officio_, the keeper of all\nprisoners of state, brought from the provinces to Rome. Burrhus however,\nwas as kind and accommodating to Paul as Julius had been, and allowed\nhim to live by himself in a private house, with only a soldier as an\nattendant guard.\n\nAfter three days, Paul invited to his lodgings the chief men of the\nJewish faith, in Rome, and made known to them the circumstances under\nwhich he had been sent thither, and his present relations to the heads\nof their religion in Jerusalem. In reply, they merely stated that they\nhad received no formal communications respecting him, from Jerusalem,\nnor had those of their brethren who had arrived from Judea spoken\nill of him. They expressed also a great desire to hear from him the\npeculiar doctrine, for entertaining which he had been thus denounced,\nof which they professed to know nothing, but that there was a universal\nprejudice against it. A day was accordingly appointed for a full\nconference on these very important subjects,\u2015\u2015and at the set time, Paul,\nwith no small willingness, discoursed at great length on his views of\nthe accomplishment of all the ancient prophecies respecting the Messiah,\nin the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. His hearers were very\nmuch divided in opinion about these points, after his discourse was\nover,\u2015\u2015some believing and some disbelieving. Leaving them to meditate\non what he had said, Paul dismissed them with a warning quotation\nfrom Isaiah, against their prejudices, and sternly reminded them, that\nthough they did reject the truth, the waiting Gentiles were prepared\nto embrace it, and should receive the word of God immediately. They\nthen left him, and made his words a subject of much discussion among\nthemselves; but the results are unrecorded. Paul having hired a house\nin Rome, made that city the scene of his active labors for two whole\nyears, receiving all that called to inquire into religious truth, and\nproclaiming the doctrines of Christianity with the most unhesitating\nboldness and freedom; and no man in Rome could molest him in making\nknown his belief to as many as chose to hear him; for it was not till\nmany years after, that the Christians were denounced and persecuted by\nNero.\n\n\n HIS EPISTLES WRITTEN FROM ROME.\n\nWith these facts the noble narrative of Luke ceases entirely, and\nhenceforth no means are left of ascertaining the events of Paul\u2019s life,\nexcept in those incidental allusions which his subsequent writings\nmake to his circumstances. Those epistles which are certainly known\nand universally agreed to have been written from Rome during this\nimprisonment, are those to the Philippians, the Ephesians, the\nColossians, and to Philemon. There are passages in all these which\nimply that he was then near the close of his imprisonment, for he\nspeaks with great confidence of being able to visit them shortly, and\nvery particularly requests preparation to be made for his accommodation\non his arrival.\n\nThere is good reason to think that the epistles to the Ephesians,\nto the Colossians, and to Philemon, were written about the same time\nand were sent together. This appears from the fact, that Tychicus\nis spoken of in both the two former, as sent by the apostle, to make\nknown to them all his circumstances more fully, and is also implied as\nthe bearer of both, while Onesimus, the bearer of the latter, is also\nmentioned in the epistle to the Colossians as accompanying Tychicus.\n\n\n THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.\n\nThe most important question which has been raised concerning this\nepistle, regards the point, whether it was truly directed and sent\nby Paul, to the church in Ephesus, as the common reading distinctly\nspecifies. Many eminent modern critics have maintained that it was\noriginally sent to the church in Laodicea, and that the word Ephesus,\nin the direction and in the first verse, is a change made in later\ntimes, by those who felt interested to claim for this city the honor\nof an apostolic epistle. Others incline to the opinion, that it was\ndirected to no particular church, but was sent as a circular to several\nchurches in Asia Minor, among which were those of Ephesus and Laodicea,\nand that several copies were sent at the same time, each copy being\ndifferently directed. They suppose that when the epistles of Paul\nwere first collected, that copy which was sent to Ephesus was the one\nadopted for this, and that the original manuscript being soon lost, all\nwritten trace of its original general direction disappeared also.\n\nThe prominent reason for this remarkable supposition, unsupported as\nit is by the authority of any ancient manuscript, is that Paul writes\napparently with no local reference whatever to the circumstances of the\nEphesians, among whom he had lived for three years, although his other\nepistles to places which he had visited are so full of personal and\nlocal matters; and that he speaks on the contrary as though he knew\nlittle of them except by hearsay. A reference to the particular details\nof the reasoning by which this opinion is supported, would altogether\ntranscend the proper limits of this work; since even a summary of them\nfills a great many pages of those critical and exegetical works, to\nwhich these discussions properly belong; and all which can be stated\nhere is the general result, that a great weight of authority favors the\nview that this was probably a circular epistle; but the whole argument\nin favor of either notion, rests on so slight a foundation, that it is\nnot worth while to disturb the common impression for it.\n\nThe epistle certainly does not seem to dwell on any local difficulties,\nbut enlarges eloquently upon general topics, showing the holy\nwatchfulness of the apostle over the faith of his readers. He appears,\nnevertheless, to emphasize with remarkable force, the doctrines\nthat Christ alone was the source and means of salvation, \u201cthe chief\ncorner-stone,\u201d and that in him all are united, both Jews and Gentiles,\nin one holy temple. There is something in many such passages, with\nwhich the epistle abounds, that seems peculiarly well fitted to the\ncircumstances of mixed communities, made up of Jews and Gentiles,\nand as if the apostle wished to prevent the former from creating any\ndistinctions in the church, in their own favor. Many passages in this\nepistle also, are very pointedly opposed to those heresies, which\nabout that period were beginning to rise up in those regions, and were\nafterwards famous under the name of the Gnosis,\u2015\u2015the first distinct\nsect that is known to have perverted the purity of Christian truth.\nPaul here aims with remarkable energy, to prove that salvation was\nto be attributed to Christ alone, and not to the intervention of any\nother superior beings, by whatever names they are called, whether\nprincipalities, or powers, or might or dominion, both in this world and\nthe world to come,\u2015\u2015in heavenly places as well as earthly. The apostle\nalso is very full in the moral and practical part,\u2015\u2015urging with great\nparticularity the observance of those virtues which are the essentials\nof the Christian character, and specifying to each particular age, sex,\nrank and condition, its own peculiar duties.\n\n\n THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.\n\nIn the first verse of the second chapter, the apostle expresses a\npeculiar anxiety for the spiritual safety of those Christians who\nhave not seen his face in the flesh, among whom he appears to number\nthe Colossians and Laodiceans. It seems quite evident that he had\nnever been at Colosse; for though he traversed Phrygia, on two several\noccasions before this time, he is not said to have visited either\nColosse or Laodicea;\u2015\u2015but his route is so described, as to make it\nalmost impossible for him to have taken either city directly in his\nway. This circumstance may account for the fact of his distinguishing\nin this manner a single city like Colosse, of no great size or\nimportance; because as it appears from the general tenor of the epistle,\ncertain peculiar errors had arisen among them, which were probably\nmore dangerously rife, from the circumstance of their never having been\nblessed by the personal presence and labors of an apostle. The errors\nwhich he particularly attacks, seem to be those of the Judaizers, who\nwere constantly insisting on the necessity of Mosaical observances,\nsuch as circumcision, sabbaths, abstinence from unclean meats, and\nother things of the same sort. He cautions them particularly against\ncertain false doctrines, also referred to under the names of philosophy,\nvain deceit, the traditions of men, &c. which are commonly thought\nto refer to the errors of the Essenes, a Jewish sect characterised\nby Josephus in terms somewhat similar, and who are supposed to have\nintroduced their ascetic and mystical doctrines into the Christian\nchurch, and to have formed one of the sources of the great system of\nGnosticism, as afterwards perfected. The moral part of this epistle\nbears a very striking similarity, even in words, to the conclusion of\nthat to the Ephesians,\u2015\u2015a resemblance probably attributable in part,\nto the circumstance, that they were written about the same time. The\ncircumstance that he has mentioned to the Colossians an epistle to be\nsent for by them from Laodicea, has given rise to a forged production,\npurporting to be this very epistle from Paul to the Laodiceans; but\nit is manifestly a mere brief rhapsody, collected from Paul\u2019s other\nepistles, and has never for a moment imposed upon the critical. It has\nbeen supposed that the true epistle meant by Paul, is another, now lost,\nwritten by Paul to Laodicea; and the supposition is not unreasonable.\n\n\n THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.\n\nThis was merely a private letter from Paul to a person otherwise not\nknown, but appearing, from the terms in which he is herein mentioned,\nto have been at some time or other associated with Paul in the gospel\nwork; since he styles him \u201cfellow-laborer.\u201d He appears to have been a\nman of some property and generosity, because he had a house spacious\nenough to hold a worshiping assembly, who were freely accommodated by\nhim; and he is likewise mentioned as hospitably entertaining traveling\nChristians. The possession of some wealth is also implied in the\ncircumstance which is the occasion of this epistle. Like almost all\nChristians of that age who were able to do so, he owned at least one\nslave, by name Onesimus, who had run away from him to Rome, and there\nfalling under the notice of Paul, was made the subject of his personal\nattentions, and was at last converted by him to the Christian faith.\nPaul now sends him back to his old master, with this letter, in which\nhe narrates the circumstances connected with the flight and conversion\nof Onesimus, and then with great earnestness, yet with mildness,\nentreats Philemon to receive him now, not as a slave, but as a\nbrother,\u2015\u2015to forgive him his offenses, and restore him to favor. Paul\nhimself offers to become personally responsible for all pecuniary loss\nexperienced by Philemon in consequence of the absence of his servant in\nRome, where he had been ministering to Paul; and the apostle gives \u2666his\nown note of hand for any reasonable amount which Philemon may choose to\nclaim. Throughout the whole, he speaks in great confidence of the ready\ncompliance of Philemon with these requests, and evidently considers him\na most intimate friend, loving and beloved. He also speaks with great\nconfidence of his own speedy release from his bonds, and begs Philemon\nto prepare him a lodging; for he trusts that through his prayers, he\nshall shortly be given to him.\n\n \u2666 duplicate word \u201chis\u201d removed\n\n\n THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.\n\nThat this was written after the others that were sent from Rome by Paul\nduring this imprisonment, is proved by several circumstances. Luke was\ncertainly with him when he wrote to the Colossians and to Philemon; but\nno mention whatever is made of him in the epistle to the Philippians,\nwho would, nevertheless, feel as much interest in him as in Timothy or\nany companion of Paul; because he had resided in Philippi many years,\nand must have had many acquaintances there, who would expect some\naccount of him, and some salutation from him. Paul, moreover, says,\nthat he trusts to send Timothy shortly to them, because he has no\nman with him who is like minded, or who will care for their state;\u2015\u2015a\nremark which, if Luke had been with him, he could not have made with\nany justice to that faithful and diligent associate, who was himself a\npersonal acquaintance of the Philippians. There were some circumstances\nconnected with the situation of Paul, as referred to in this epistle,\nwhich seem to imply a different date from those epistles just mentioned.\nHis condition seems improved in many respects, although before not\nuncomfortable, and his expectations of release still more confident,\nthough before so strong. He speaks also of a new and remarkable field\nin which his preaching had been successful, and that is, the palace\nof the imperial Caesar himself, among whose household attendants were\nmany now numbered among the saints who sent salutations to Philippi.\nThe terms in which he mentions his approaching release, are still more\nremarkable than those in the former epistles. He says\u2015\u2015\u201cHaving this\n_confidence_, I _know_ that I shall abide and continue with you all,\u201d\n&c. \u201cthat your rejoicing may be more abundant, by my coming to you\nagain.\u201d \u201cI trust in the Lord that I shall myself also come shortly.\u201d\n\nThe immediate occasion of this epistle was the return of Epaphroditus,\nthe _apostle_ or messenger of the Philippian church, by whom Paul\nnow wrote this, as a grateful acknowledgment of their generosity in\ncontributing to his support that money, of which Epaphroditus was the\nbearer. In the epistle, he also took occasion, after giving them an\naccount of his life in Rome, to warn them against the errors of the\nJudaizers, whose doctrines were the occasion of so much difficulty in\nthe Christian churches.\n\n\n THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.\n\nThe release which Paul so confidently anticipated, probably happened\nshortly after the writing of the last epistle, and at this time,\njust before leaving Italy for another field of labor, it is commonly\nbelieved that he wrote his epistle to the Hebrews. Of the particular\nplace, the time, the immediate object, and the persons who were the\nreceivers of this epistle, nothing is with any certainty known; and\nthe whole range of statements in standard works of exegetical and\ncritical theology, on this writing, is the most appalling mass of\nvague speculations, unfounded conclusions and contradictory assertions,\nthat presents itself to the historian of the apostolic works in any\ndirection; and in respect to all these points, referring the critical\nto any or all of the thousand and one views, given in the learned\nand elaborate introductions and commentaries, which alone can with\nany justice so much as open the subject, the author excuses himself\nentirely from any discussion of this endless question, in the words\nused on one of these points, by one of the most learned, acute,\ningenious and cautious critics of modern times. \u201cAny thing further\non this subject I am unable to determine, and candidly confess my\nignorance as to the place where the epistle to the Hebrews was written.\nNor do I envy any man who pretends to know more on this subject, unless\nhe has discovered sources of intelligence, which have hitherto remained\nunknown. It is better to leave a question in a state of uncertainty,\nthan, without foundation, to adopt an opinion which may lead to\nmaterial errors.\u201d\n\n\n VOYAGE TO THE EAST.\n\nOn leaving Italy after this release, he seems to have directed\nhis course eastward; but nothing whatever is known of his motions,\nexcept that from the epistle of Titus it is learned that he journeyed\nto Miletus, to Ephesus, to Troas, to Macedonia, to Crete and to\nEpirus,\u2015\u2015and last of all, probably, to Rome. His first movements on\nhis release were, doubtless, in conformity with his previous designs,\nas expressed in his epistles. He probably went first to Asia, visiting\nEphesus, Miletus, Colosse, &c. On this voyage he might have left\nTitus in Crete, (as specified in his letter to that minister,) and\non embarking for Macedonia, left Timothy at Ephesus, (as mentioned in\nthe first epistle to him.) After visiting Philippi and other places in\nMacedonia, where he wrote to Timothy, he seems to have crossed over the\ncountry to the shore of the Ionian sea, to Nicopolis, whence he wrote\nto Titus, to come from Crete, and join him there. These two epistles,\nbeing of a merely personal character, containing instructions for the\nexercise of the apostolic functions of ordination, &c. in the absence\nof Paul, can not need any particular historical notice, being so simple\nin their object that they sufficiently explain themselves. Respecting\nthat to Timothy, however, it may be specified that some of its peculiar\nexpressions seem to be aimed at the rising heresy of the Jewish and\nOriental mystics, who were then infecting the eastern churches with the\nfirst beginnings of that heresy which, under the name of the GNOSIS, or\n_science_, (falsely so called,) soon after corrupted with its dogmas,\na vast number in Asia Minor, Greece and Syria. The style and tenor of\nboth of the epistles are so different from all Paul\u2019s other writings,\nas to make it very evident that they were written at a different time,\nand under very different circumstances from the rest.\n\n\n RETURN TO ROME.\n\nThe only real evidence of this movement of Paul is found in the tenor\nof certain passages in the second epistle to Timothy, which seem to\nshow that it was written during the author\u2019s imprisonment in Rome, but\nwhich cannot be connected with his former confinement there. In the\nformer epistles written from Rome, Timothy was with Paul;\u2015\u2015but this\nof course implies that he was absent. In them, Demas is declared to be\nwith Paul;\u2015\u2015in this he is mentioned as having forsaken him, and gone to\nThessalonica. In the first epistle to Timothy, Mark was also with Paul,\nand joined in saluting the Colossians; in this, Timothy is instructed\nto bring him to Paul, because he is profitable to him in the ministry.\nIn the fourth chapter, Paul says that \u201cErastus abode at Corinth;\u201d\u2015\u2015an\nexpression which implies that Erastus abode in Corinth when Paul left\nit. But Paul took no journey from Corinth before his first imprisonment;\nfor when he left that place for the last time before his journey to\nJerusalem,\u2015\u2015when he was seized and sent to Rome,\u2015\u2015he was accompanied by\nTimothy; and there could therefore be no need of informing him of that\nfact. In the same passage of this epistle he also says, that he had\nleft Trophimus sick at Miletus; but when Paul passed through Miletus,\non that journey to Jerusalem, Trophimus certainly was not left behind\nat Miletus, but accompanied him to Jerusalem; for he was seen there\nwith him by the Asian Jews. These two passages therefore, refer to a\njourney taken subsequent to Paul\u2019s first imprisonment,\u2015\u2015and the epistle\nwhich refers to them, and purports in other passages to have been\nwritten during an imprisonment in Rome, shows that he returned thither\nafter his first imprisonment.\n\nThe most striking passage in this epistle also refers with great\ndistinctness to his expectation of being very speedily removed from\napostolic labors to an eternal apostolic reward. \u201cI am now ready to\nbe offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought\nthe good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith:\nhenceforth, there is laid up for me a crown of life, which the Lord,\nthe righteous judge, shall give me at that day.\u201d All these expressions\nare utterly at variance with those hopes of release and of the speedy\nrenewal of his labors in an eastern field; and show very plainly that\nall the tasks to which he once looked forward were now completed, and\nthat he could hope for no deliverance, but that which should call him\nfrom chains and toils to an eternal crown.\n\n\n HIS DEATH.\n\nThe circumstance of his being again in Rome a prisoner, after having\nbeen once set free by the mandate of the emperor himself, after a\nfull hearing, must at once require a reference to a state of things,\nin which Paul\u2019s religious profession and evangelizing labors, before\nesteemed so blameless that no man in Rome forbade him to preach the\ngospel there,\u2015\u2015had now, by a mighty revolution in opinions, become\na crime, since for these, he was now held in bondage, without the\npossibility of escape from the threatened death. Such a change actually\ndid occur in the latter part of the reign of Nero, when, as already\nrelated in the history of Peter\u2019s first epistle, the whole power of the\nimperial government was turned against the Christians, as a sect, and\nthey were convicted on that accusation alone, as deserving of death.\nThe date of this revolution in the condition of the Christians, is\nfixed by Roman history in the sixty-fourth year of Christ; and the\ntime when Paul was cast into chains the second time, must therefore be\nreferred to this year. His actual death evidently did not take place at\nonce, but was deferred long enough to allow of his writing to Timothy,\nand for him to make some arrangements therein, for a short continuance\nof his labors. The date which is commonly fixed as the time of his\nexecution, is in the year of Christ 65; but in truth, nothing whatever\nis known about it, nor can even a probability be confidently affirmed\non the subject. Being a Roman citizen, he could not die by a mode so\ninfamous as that of the cross, but was beheaded, as a more honorable\nexit; and with this view, the testimony of most of the early Fathers,\nwho particularize his death, distinctly accords.\n\n Of the various fictions which the monkish story-tellers have\n invented to gratify the curiosity which Christian readers\n feel about other particulars of the apostle\u2019s character, the\n following is an amusing specimen. \u201cPaul, if we may believe\n Nicephorus, was of a low and small stature, somewhat stooping;\n his complexion fair; his countenance grave; his head small; his\n eyes sparkling; his nose high and bending; and his hair thick\n and dark, but mixed with gray. His constitution was weak, and\n often subject to distempers; but his mind was strong, and endued\n with a solid judgment, quick invention, and prompt memory,\n which were all improved by art, and the advantages of a liberal\n education. Besides the epistles which are owned to be genuine,\n several other writings are falsely ascribed to him: as an\n epistle to the Laodiceans, a third to the Thessalonians, a third\n to the Corinthians, a second to the Ephesians, his letter to\n Seneca, his Acts, his Revelation, his voyage to Thecla, and his\n Sermons.\u201d (Cave\u2019s Lives of the Apostles.)\n\nBut the honors and saintship of Paul are recorded, not in the vague\nand misty traces of bloody martyr-death, but in the far more glorious\nachievements of a heroic life. In these, are contained the essence\nof his greatness; to these, all the Gentile world owes its salvation;\nand on these, the modern historian, following the model of the sacred\nwriters, dwells with far more minuteness and particularity, than on a\ndull mass of uncertain tradition.\n\n\n\n\n JOSEPH BARNABAS.\n\n\nOF this apostle, so few circumstances are known, that are not\ninseparably connected with the life of Paul, in which they have been\nalready recorded, that only a very brief space can be occupied with the\nevents of his distinct life. The first passage in which he is mentioned,\nis that in the fourth chapter of Acts, where he is specified as having\ndistinguished himself among those who sold their lands, for the sake\nof appropriating the avails to the support of the Christian community.\nIntroduced to the notice of the reader under these most honorable\ncircumstances, he is there described as of the tribe of Levi, and yet a\nresident in the island of Cyprus, where he seems to have held the land\nwhich he sacrificed to the purposes of religious charity. This island\nwas for a long time, before and after that period, inhabited by great\nnumbers of wealthy Jews, and there was hardly any part of the world,\nwhere they were so powerful and so favored, as in Cyprus; so that even\nthe sacred order of the Levites might well find inducements to leave\nthat consecrated soil to which they were more especially attached\nby the peculiar ordinances of the Mosaic institutions, and seek on\nthis beautiful and fertile island, a new home, and a new seat for the\nfaith of their fathers. The occasion on which Joseph (for that was his\noriginal name) left Cyprus to visit Jerusalem, is not known; nor can\nit even be determined whether he was ever himself a personal hearer of\nJesus. He may very possibly have been one of the foreign Jews present\nat the Pentecost, and may there have been first converted to the\nChristian faith. On his distinguishing himself among his new brethren,\nboth by good words and generous deeds, he was honored by the apostles\nwith the name of Barnabas, which is interpreted in Greek by words that\nmay mean either \u201cson of _consolation_,\u201d or \u201cson of _exhortation_.\u201d\nThe former sense, of course, would aptly refer to his generosity in\ncomforting the poor apostolic community, by his pecuniary contributions,\nas just before mentioned; and this has induced many to prefer that\nmeaning; but the majority of critical translators and commentators\nhave been led, on a careful investigation both of the original Hebrew\nword and of the Greek translation of it, to prefer the meaning of\n\u201cson of _exhortation_\u201d or \u201c_instruction_,\u201d a meaning which certainly\nwell accords with the subsequent distinction attained by him in his\napostolic labors. Both senses may, however, have been referred to, with\nan intentional equivoque.\n\n \u201cActs, chapter iv. verse 37. \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 He could not\n have sold that which was his paternal inheritance as a Levite;\n but this might perhaps be some legacy, or purchase of land in\n Judea, to which he might have a title till the next jubilee, or\n perhaps some land in Cyprus. (Doddridge.) That it was lawful for\n the Levites to _buy_ land, we learn from the example of Jeremiah\n himself, who was of the tribe of Levi. See Jeremiah xxxii. 17.\n It is observed by Bp. Pearce, that those commentators who\n contend that this land must have belonged to his wife, because,\n according to the law mentioned in Numbers xviii. 20, 23 and 24,\n _a Levite could have no inheritance in Israel_, seem to have\n mistaken the sense of that law, \u2018which,\u2019 says he, \u2018means only\n that the Levites, as a tribe, were not to have a share in the\n division of Canaan among the other tribes. This did not hinder\n any Levite from possessing lands in Judea, either by purchase or\n by gift, as well as in right of his wife. Josephus was a Levite,\n and a priest too; and yet in his Life, chapter 76, he speaks of\n _lands which he had lying about Jerusalem_, and in exchange of\n which, Vespasian gave him others, for his greater benefit and\n advantage. After all, I see no reason why we may not suppose\n that this land, which Barnabas had and sold, was not land in\n Judea; and if so, the words of the law, \u201cno inheritance in\n Israel,\u201d did not, however understood, affect their case. His\n land might have been in his own country, Cyprus, an island\n of no great distance from Judea; and he might have sold it at\n Jerusalem to some purchaser there; perhaps to one of his own\n countrymen.\u2019\u201d (Bloomfield\u2019s Annotations, Vol. IV. pp. 147, 148.)\n\nIn all the other passages of the New Testament in which he is\nmentioned, he is associated with Paul, and every recorded act of his\nlife has been already given in the life of his great associate. His\nfirst acquaintance with him on his return to Jerusalem after his\nconversion,\u2015\u2015his mission to Antioch and labors there in conjunction\nwith Paul, when he had brought him from Tarsus,\u2015\u2015their visit to\nJerusalem,\u2015\u2015their return to Antioch,\u2015\u2015their first great mission through\nAsia Minor\u2015\u2015their visit to Jerusalem at the council, and their joint\nreport,\u2015\u2015their second return to Antioch,\u2015\u2015their proposed association\nin a new mission,\u2015\u2015their quarrel and separation,\u2015\u2015have all been fully\ndetailed; nor is there any authentic source from which any facts can\nbe derived, as to the subsequent incidents of his life. All that is\nrelated of him in the Acts, is, that after his separation from Paul, he\nsailed to Cyprus; nor is any mention made, in any of the epistles, of\nhis subsequent life. The time and place of his death are also unknown.\n\n\n\n\n JOHN MARK.\n\n\nOF the family and birth of this eminent apostolic associate, it is\nrecorded in the New Testament, that his mother was named Mary, and had\na house in Jerusalem, which was a regular place of religious assembly,\nfor the Christians in that city; for Peter on his deliverance from\nprison, went directly thither, as though sure of finding there some\nof the brethren; and he actually did find a number of them assembled\nfor prayer. Of the other connections of Mark, the interesting fact is\nrecorded, that Mary, his mother, was the sister of Barnabas; and he was\ntherefore by the maternal line, at least, of Levite descent. From the\nmode in which Mary is mentioned, it would seem that her husband was\ndead at that time; but nothing else can be inferred about the father of\nMark. The first event in which he is distinctly mentioned as concerned,\nis the return of Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem to Antioch, after\nPeter\u2019s escape. These two apostles, on this occasion, are said to have\n\u201ctaken with them, John whose surname was Mark;\u201d and he is afterwards\nmentioned under either of these names, or both together. The former was\nhis original appellation; but being exceedingly common among the Jews,\nand being, moreover, borne by one of the apostles, it required another\ndistinctive word to be joined with it. It is remarkable that a Roman,\nheathen appellation, was chosen for this purpose;\u2015\u2015_Marcus_, which is\nthe true form in the original, being a name of purely Latin origin,\nand one of the commonest praenomens among the Romans. It might have\nbeen the name of some person connected with the Roman government in\nJerusalem, who had distinguished himself as a friend or patron of the\nfamily: but the conjecture is hardly worth offering.\n\nAfter returning with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, he was next called\nto accompany them as an assistant in their apostolic voyage through\nCyprus and Asia Minor; but on their coming to Perga, in Pamphylia,\nhe suddenly left them and returned to Jerusalem;\u2015\u2015a change of purpose\nwhich was considered, by Paul at least, as resulting from a want of\nresolution, steadiness, or courage, and was the occasion of a very\nserious difficulty; for Mark having returned to Antioch afterwards, was\ntaken by Barnabas, as a proper associate on the proposed mission over\nthe former fields of labor; but Paul utterly rejected him, because he\nhad already, on the same route, once deserted them, when they needed\nhis services, and he therefore refused to go in his company again. This\ndifference was the occasion of that unhappy contention, the incidents\nof which have already been particularly detailed in the Life of Paul.\nMark however, being resolutely supported by his uncle, accompanied him\nto Cyprus; but of his next movement, as little is known as in respect\nto Barnabas. The next occasion on which his name is mentioned, is by\nPaul, in his epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, as being then\nwith him in Rome; from which it appears, the great apostle had now\nfor a long time been reconciled to him, and esteemed him as a valuable\nassociate in the ministry. He is not mentioned in the epistle to the\nPhilippians, which therefore makes it probable that he had then gone to\nthe east. In the second epistle to Timothy, Paul requests that Mark may\nbe sent to him, because he is profitable to him for the ministry; which\nis a most abundant testimony to his merits, and to the re-establishment\nof Paul\u2019s confidence in his zeal, resolution, and ability. Whether\nhe was actually sent to Rome as requested, does not appear;\u2015\u2015but he\nis afterwards distinctly mentioned by Peter, in that epistle which he\nwrote from Babylon, as being then with him. The title of \u201cson,\u201d which\nPeter gives him, seems to imply a very near and familiar intimacy\nbetween them; and is probably connected with the circumstance of his\nbeing made the subject of the chief apostle\u2019s particular religious\ninstructions in his youth, in consequence of the frequent meetings\nof the brethren at the house of his mother, Mary. This passage is\nsufficient evidence that after Mark had finally left Rome, he journeyed\neastward and joined Peter, his venerable first instructor, who, as has\nalready been abundantly shown in his Life, was at this time in Babylon,\nwhence, in the year 65, he wrote his first epistle.\n\n \u201cIt is thought by Benson that Mark departed because his\n presence was required by the apostles for converting the Jews of\n Palestine. But why then should Paul have expressed indignation\n at his departure? The same objection will apply to the\n conjecture of others, that he departed on account of ill-health.\n The most probable opinion is that of Grotius, Wetstein, Bengel,\n Heumann, and others, that Mark was, _at that time_, somewhat\n averse to labors and dangers; this, indeed, is clear from the\n words, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd. Thus \u1f00\u03c6\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\n is used of _defection_ in Luke viii. 13. 1 Timothy iv. 1. It\n should seem that Mark had now repented of his inconstancy; (and,\n as Bengel thinks, new ardor had been infused into him by the\n decree of the Synod at Jerusalem, and the free admission of\n the Gentiles;) and hence his kind-hearted and obliging relation\n Barnabas wished to take him as a companion of their present\n journey. But Paul, who had \u2018no respect of persons,\u2019 Galatians\n ii. 11, and thought that disposition rather than relationship\n should be consulted, distrusted the constancy of Mark, and\n was therefore unwilling to take him. This severity of Paul,\n however, rendered much service both to Mark and to the cause of\n Christianity. For Mark profited by the well-meant admonition,\n and was, for the future, more zealous and courageous; and the\n gospel, being preached in different places at the same time, was\n the more widely propagated. Nor were the bands of amity between\n Paul and Barnabas permanently separated by this disagreement.\n See 1 Corinthians ix. 6. Nay, Paul afterwards received Mark\n into his friendship. See Colossians iv. 10. 2 Timothy iv. 11.\n Philemon 23.\u201d Kuinoel. (Bloomfield\u2019s Annotations, Vol. IV. p.\n 504, 505.)\n\n\n HIS GOSPEL.\n\nThe circumstance which makes this apostle more especially eminent, and\nmakes him an object of interest to the Christian reader, is, that he\nis the author of an important portion of the historical sacred canon.\nRespecting the gospel of Mark, the testimony of some very early and\nvaluable accounts given by the Fathers, is, that he wrote under the\ngeneral direction and superintendence of his spiritual father, Peter;\nand from this early and uniform tradition, he accordingly bears the\nname of \u201cPeter\u2019s interpreter.\u201d The very common story is also, that\nit was written in _Rome_, but this is not asserted on any early or\ntrustworthy authority, and must be condemned, along with all those\nstatements which pretend that the chief apostle ever was in Italy.\nOthers affirm also, that it was published by him in Alexandria; but\nthis story comes on too late authority to be highly esteemed. Taking\nas true, the very reasonable statement of the early Fathers, that\nwhen he wrote, he had the advantage of the personal assistance or\nsuperintendence of Peter, it is very fair to conclude, that Babylon\nwas the place in which it was written, and that its date was about the\nsame with that of the epistle of Peter, in which Mark is mentioned as\nbeing with him. Peter was then old; and Mark himself, doubtless too\nyoung to have been an intelligent hearer of Jesus, would feel the great\nimportance of having a correct and well-authorized record prepared,\nto which the second generation of Christians might look for the sure\ntestimonies of those divine words, whose spoken accounts were then\nfloating in the parting breath of the few and venerable apostles, and\nin the memories of their favored hearers. As long as the apostles lived\nand preached, there was little or no need of a written gospel. All\nbelievers in Christ had been led to that faith by the living words of\nhis inspired hearers and personal disciples. But when these were gone,\nother means would be wanted for the perpetuation of the authenticated\ntruth; and to afford these means to the greatest possible number,\nand to those most especially in want of such a record, from the\nfact that they had never seen nor heard either Jesus or his personal\ndisciples,\u2015\u2015Mark chose the Greek as the proper language in which to\nmake this communication to the world.\n\nHis gospel is so much like that of Matthew, containing hardly a single\npassage which is not given by that writer, that it has been very\nconfidently believed by many theologians who suppose an early date to\nMatthew\u2019s gospel, that Mark had that gospel before him when he wrote,\nand merely epitomized it. The verbal coincidences between the two\ngospels, in their present state, are so numerous and striking, that\nit has been considered impossible to account for them on any other\nsupposition than this. But these and other questions have filled\nvolumes, and have exercised the skill of critics for ages; nor can any\njustice be done them by a hasty abstract. It seems sufficient, however,\nto answer all queries about these verbal coincidences, without meddling\nwith the question of prior date, by a reference to the fact that,\nduring the whole period, intervening between the death of Christ, and\nthe writing of the gospels, the apostles and first preachers had been\nproclaiming, week after week, and day after day, an oral or spoken\ngospel, in which they were constantly repeating before each other, and\nbefore different hearers, the narrative of the words and actions of\nJesus. These accounts by this constant routine of repetition, would\nunavoidably assume a regular established form, which would at last\nbe the standard account of the acts and words of the Savior. These,\nMark, of course, adopted when he wrote, and the other evangelists doing\nthe same, the coincidences mentioned would naturally result; and as\ndifferent apostles, though speaking under the influence of inspiration,\nwould yet make numerous slight variations in words, and in the minor\ncircumstances expressed or suppressed, the different writers following\none account or the other, would make the trifling variations also\nnoticeable. The only peculiarity that can be noticed in Mark, is,\nthat he very uniformly suppresses all those splendid testimonies\nto the merits and honors of Peter, with which the others abound,\u2015\u2015a\ncircumstance at once easily traceable to the fact that Peter himself\nwas the immediate director of the work, and with that noble modesty,\nwhich always distinguished the great apostolic chief, would naturally\navoid any allusion to matters which so highly exalted his own merits.\nOtherwise, the narrative of Mark can be characterized only as a plain\nstatement of the incidents in the public life of Jesus, with very few\nof his discourses, and none of his words at so great length as in the\nother gospels; from which it is evident, that an account of his acts\nrather than his sermons,\u2015\u2015of his doings rather than his sayings, is\nwhat he designed to give.\n\n \u201cAmong all the quotations hitherto made from the writings of\n the most ancient Fathers, we find no mention made of Mark\u2019s\n having published his gospel at Alexandria. This report, however,\n prevailed in the fourth century, as appears from what is related\n by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome. It is first mentioned by\n Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. ii. cap. 16. It\n appears from the word \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, that Eusebius mentions this only as\n a report; and what is immediately added in the same place, that\n the persons, whose severity of life and manners is described\n by Philo, were the converts which Mark made at Alexandria, is\n evidently false. Epiphanius, in his fifty-first Heresy, ch. vi.\n gives some account of it. According to his statement, Mark\n wrote his gospel in Rome, while Peter was teaching the Christian\n religion in that city; and after he had written it, he was sent\n by Peter into Egypt. A similar account is given by Jerome in\n his \u2018Treatise on Illustrious Men,\u2019 ch. viii. Lastly, the Coptic\n Christians of the present age consider Mark as the founder and\n first bishop of their church; and their Patriarch styles himself,\n \u2018Unworthy servant of Jesus Christ, called by the grace of God,\n and by his gracious will appointed to his service, and to the\n see of the holy evangelist Mark.\u2019 The Copts pretend likewise,\n that Mark was murdered by a band of robbers, near the lake\n Menzale; but if this account be true, he was hardly buried\n at Alexandria, and his tomb in that city must be one of the\n forgeries of early superstition.\u201d (Michaelis, Vol. III. pp.\n 207\u2012209.)\n\n That it is not wholly new to rank Mark among the _apostles_,\n is shown by the usages of the Fathers, who, in the application\n of terms, are authority, as far as they show the opinions\n prevalent in their times. Eusebius says, \u201cthat in the eighth\n year of Nero, Anianus, the first bishop of Alexandria after Mark,\n the _apostle_ and \u2666evangelist, took upon him the care of that\n church.\u201d \u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03b5\u03bd \u0391\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2, \u0391\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n Church History, I. 2. cap. 24. (Lardner\u2019s Credibility of Gospel\n History, Vol. III. p. 176.)\n\n \u2666 \u201cavangelist\u201d replaced with \u201cevangelist\u201d\n\nOf the later movements of Mark, nothing is known with certainty.\nBeing evidently younger than most of the original apostles, it is not\nunreasonable to suppose that he long survived them; but his field of\nlabor is unknown. The common tradition among the Fathers, after the\nthird century, is, that he went to Alexandria, and there founding a\nchurch, became bishop of it till his death;\u2015\u2015but the statement is mixed\nup with so much that is palpably false, that it is not entitled to any\ncredit.\n\n\n\n\n LUKE.\n\n\n VERY little direct mention is made of this valuable contributor\n to the sacred canon, in any part of the New Testament; and those\n notices which seem to refer to him, are so vague, that they have\n been denied to have any connection with the evangelist. The name\n which is given in the title of his gospel is, in the original\n form, _Lucas_, a name undoubtedly of Latin origin, but shown\n by its final syllable to be a Hebrew-Greek corruption and\n abridgment of some pure Roman word; for it was customary for\n the New Testament writers to make these changes, to accord with\n their own forms of utterance. Lucas, therefore, is an abridgment\n of some one of two or three Roman words, either Lucius, Lucilius\n or Lucanus; and as the writers of that age were accustomed\n to write either the full or abridged form of any such name,\n indifferently, it seems allowable to recognize the Lucius\n mentioned in Acts and in the Epistle to the Romans, as the same\n person with the evangelist. From the manner in which this Lucius\n is mentioned in the last chapter of the Epistle to the Romans,\n it would seem that he was related to Paul by blood or marriage,\n since the apostle mentions him along with Jason and Sosipater,\n as his \u201ckinsman.\u201d In the beginning of the thirteenth chapter of\n Acts, Lucius is called \u201cthe Cyrenian,\u201d whence his country may\n be inferred to have been the province of northern Africa, called\n Cyrene, long and early the seat of Grecian refinement, art,\n eloquence and philosophy, and immortalized by having given\n name to one of the sects of Grecian philosophers,\u2015\u2015the Cyrenaic\n school, founded by Aristippus. Whether he was a Jew by birth,\n or a heathen, is not known, and has been much disputed. His\n birth and education in that seat of Grecian literature, may be\n reasonably considered as having contributed to that peculiar\n elegance of his language and style, which distinguishes him as\n the most correct of all the writers of the New Testament.\n\n His relationship to Paul, (if it may be believed on so slight\n grounds,) was probably a reason for his accompanying him as he\n did through so large a portion of his travels and labors. He\n first speaks of himself as a companion of Paul, at the beginning\n of his first voyage to Europe, at Troas; and accompanies him\n to Philippi, where he seems to have parted from him, since, in\n describing the movements of the apostolic company, he no longer\n uses the pronoun \u201c_we_.\u201d He probably staid in or near Philippi\n several years, for he resumes the word, in describing Paul\u2019s\n voyage from Philippi to Jerusalem. He was his companion as\n far as Caesarea, where he probably staid during Paul\u2019s visit\n to Jerusalem; remained with him perhaps during his two years\u2019\n imprisonment in Caesarea, and was certainly his companion on\n his voyage to Rome. He remained with him there till a short time\n before his release; and is mentioned no more till Paul, in his\n last writing, the second epistle to Timothy, says, \u201cLuke alone\n is with me.\u201d Beyond this, not the slightest trace remains of\n his history. Nothing additional is known of him, except that he\n was a physician; for he is mentioned by Paul, in his Epistle to\n the Colossians, as \u201cLuke, the beloved physician.\u201d The miserable\n fiction of some of the papistical romances, that Luke was also a\n painter, and took portraits of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, &c.\n is almost too shamelessly impudent to be ever mentioned; yet the\n venerable Cave, the only writer who has heretofore given in full\n the Lives of the Apostles, refers to it, without daring to deny\n its truth!\n\n (That Luke was also regarded by the Fathers as an _apostle_, is\n shown by the fact that, in the Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius,\n it is said, \u2018that the gospel of Luke was dictated by the apostle\n Paul, and written and published by the blessed _apostle_ and\n physician, Luke.\u2019)\n\n\n HIS WRITINGS.\n\n But a far more valuable testimony of the character of Luke is\n found in those noble works which bear his name in the inspired\n canon. His _gospel_ is characterized by remarkable distinctness\n of expression and clearness of conception, which, with that\n correctness of language by which it is distinguished above\n all the other books of the New Testament, conspire to make\n it the most easy to be understood of all the writings of the\n New Testament; and it has been the subject of less comment and\n criticism than any other of the sacred books. From the language\n which he uses in his preface, about those who had undertaken\n similar works before him, it would seem that though several\n unauthorized accounts of the life and discourses of Jesus were\n published before him, yet neither of the other gospels were\n known by him to have been written. He promises, by means of a\n thorough investigation of all facts to the sources, to give a\n more complete statement than had ever before been given to those\n for whom he wrote. Of the _time_ when he wrote it, therefore, it\n seems fair to conclude, that it was before the other two; but a\n vast number of writers have thought differently, and many other\n explanations of his words have been offered. Of his immediate\n sources of information,\u2015\u2015the place where he wrote, and the\n particular person to whom he addresses it, nothing is known with\n sufficient certainty to be worth recording.\n\n Of the _Acts of the Apostles_, nothing need be said in respect\n to the contents and object, so clear and distinct is this\n beautiful piece of biography, in all particulars. Its date may\n be fixed with exactness at the end of the second year of Paul\u2019s\n first imprisonment, which, according to common calculations, is\n A.\u00a0D. 63. It may well become the modern apostolic historian, in\n closing with the mention of this writing his own prolonged yet\n hurried work, to acknowledge the excellence, the purity, and\n the richness of the source from which he has thus drawn so large\n a portion of the materials of the greatest of these Lives. Yet\n what can he add to the bright testimonies accumulated through\n long ages, to the honor and praise of this most noble of\n historic records? The learned of eighteen centuries have spent\n the best energies of noble minds, and long studious lives, in\n comment and in illustration of its clear, honest truth, and\n its graphic beauty; the humble, inquiring Christian reader, in\n every age too, has found, and in every age will find, in this,\n the only safe and faithful outline of the great events of the\n apostolic history. The most perfect and permanent impression,\n which a long course of laborious investigation and composition\n has left on the author\u2019s mind, of the task which he now lays\n down, exhausted yet not disgusted, is, that beyond the apostolic\n history of Luke, nothing can be known with certainty of the\n great persons of whose acts he treats, except the disconnected\n and floating circumstances which may be gleaned by implication\n from the epistles; and so marked is the transition from the\n pure honesty of the sacred record, to the grossness of patristic\n fiction, that the truth is, even to a common eye, abundantly\n well characterized by its own excellence. On the passages of\n such a narrative, the lights of \u2666criticism, of Biblical learning,\n and of contemporary history, may often be needed, to make\n the sometimes unconnected parts appear in their true historic\n relations. The writer who draws therefrom, too, the facts for\n a connected biography, may, in the amplifications of a modern\n style, perhaps more to the surprise than the admiration of his\n readers, quite protract the bare simplicity of the original\n record, \u201cin many a winding bout of linked\u201d wordiness, \u201clong\n drawn out,\u201d\u2015\u2015but the modernizing extension and illustration,\n though it may bring small matters more prominently to the notice\n and perception of the reader, can never supply the place of the\n original,\u2015\u2015to improve which, comment and illustration are alike\n vain. When will human learning and labor perfect the exposition\n and the illustration of the apostolic history? Its comments\n are written in the eternal hope of uncounted millions;\u2015\u2015its\n illustrations can be fully read only in the destiny of ages.\n This record was the noble task of \u201cthe beloved physician;\u201d in\n his own melodious language\u2015\u2015\u201cTo give knowledge to the people, of\n salvation by remission of sins through the tender mercy of our\n God, whereby the day-spring from on high hath visited us,\u2015\u2015to\n give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of\n death,\u2015\u2015to guide OUR feet in the way of peace!\u201d\n\n \u2666 \u201ccritiicism\u201d replaced with \u201ccriticism\u201d\n\n\n\n\n \u2666ERRATA.\n\n \u2666 All errata noted in this list has been corrected in the\n foregoing text.\n\n\n Page 7, line 32, for \u2018Griechisch_e_\u2019 read \u2018Griechisch.\u2019\n\n Page 9, line 7, for \u2018verse 7,\u2019 read \u2018verse 2.\u2019\n\n Page 10, line 22, for \u201815\u2019, read \u201825.\u2019\n\n Page \u266614, line 38, for \u2018Indus,\u2019 read \u2018Euphrates.\u2019\n\n \u2666 \u201c11\u201d replaced with \u201c14\u201d\n\n Page 18, line 36, for \u2018P_e_rtuensis,\u2019 read \u2018P_o_rtuensis.\u2019\n\n Page 25, line 36, for \u2018dreams,\u2019 read \u2018dream.\u2019\n\n Page 38, line 33, for \u2018not,\u2019 read \u2018only once.\u2019\n\n Page 45, line 17, delete \u2018the number of\u2019.\n\n Page 65, line 23, for \u2018after,\u2019 read \u2018over;\u2019\n line 37 for \u2018was,\u2019 read \u2018were. \u2019\n\n Page 67, line 39, for \u2018avert,\u2019 read \u2019snatch.\u2019\n\n Page 78, line 2, for \u2018ha_v_e,\u2019 read \u2018ha_s_;\u2019\n line 26, for \u2018account_s_,\u2019 read \u2018account.\u2019\n\n Page 107, line 26, before \u2018not,\u2019 read \u2018he.\u2019\n\n Page 110, line 22, for \u2018an hour,\u2019 read \u2018three hours.\u2019\n\n Page 140, line 28, for \u2018pr_o_position,\u2019 read \u2018pr_e_position.\u2019\n\n Page 220, line 44, for \u2018Or that,\u2019 read \u2018And by.\u2019\n\n Page 224, line 20, after \u2018sake,\u2019 insert \u2018of.\u2019\n\n Page 225, line 25, for \u2018of any,\u2019 read \u2018by any.\u2019\n\n Page 242, line 28, for \u2018Aeg_i_an,\u2019 read \u2018Aeg_e_an.\u2019\n\n Page 249, line 34, for \u2018as early as A.\u00a0D. 200,\u2019 read\n \u2018before A.\u00a0D. 100;\u2019\n line 35, after \u2018books,\u2019 read\n \u2018supposed to have been written before that translation.\u2019\n\n Page 262, line 15, for \u2018inherit_s_,\u2019 read \u2018inherit.\u2019\n\n Page 288, line 25, for \u2018second,\u2019 read \u2018third.\u2019\n\n Page 312, line 27, for \u2018or,\u2019 read \u2018and.\u2019\n\n Page 508, transpose \u2018Lois,\u2019 in line 31, with \u2018Eunice,\u2019 in line 35.\n\n Page 522, line 24, for \u2018Nereid,\u2019 read \u2018Naiad.\u2019\n\n Page 45, line 9, before \u2018baptizer,\u2019 insert \u2018his.\u2019\n\n Page 10, line 61, in the second Hebrew word, the final letter\n should be not \u05d4 but \u05d7.\n\n The statement on page 339, respecting the exposition of the\n Apocalypse by Clarke, appears, on a more careful investigation,\n to represent his views rather too decidedly as favoring the\n ancient interpretation. His own notes are such as unquestionably\n support that interpretation; but he has so far conformed to\n popular prejudice, as to admit on his pages some very elaborate\n anti-papal explanations from an anonymous writer, (J.\u00a0E.\u00a0C.)\n which, however, he is very far from adopting as his own. The\n uniform expression made by his own clear and learned notes, must\n be decidedly favorable to the ancient interpretation, and the\n value of his noble work is vastly enhanced by this circumstance.\n\n The view on pages 355 and 361, of the locality of Philip\u2019s and\n Nathanael\u2019s conversion, is undoubtedly erroneous. I overlooked\n the form of the expression\u2015\u2015\u201cThe next day, Jesus would go forth\n into Galilee, and findeth Philip,\u201d &c. This shows that he was\n still at Bethabara when he called both Philip and Nathanael.\n\n\n MATERIALS.\n\n In the narrative of the lives of the twelve, the author has been\n driven entirely to the labor of new research and composition,\n because the task of composing complete biographies of these\n personages had never before been undertaken on so large a scale.\n Cave\u2019s Lives of the Apostles, the only work that has ever gone\n over that ground, is much more limited in object and extent\n than the task here undertaken, and afforded no aid whatever\n to the author of this work, in those biographies. Both the\n text and the notes of that part of the work are entirely new;\n nothing whatever, except a few acknowledged quotations, of\n those biographies, having ever appeared before on this subject.\n A list of the works which were resorted to in the prosecution\n of this new work, would fill many pages, and would answer no\n useful purpose, after the numerous references made to each\n source in connection with the passage which was thence derived.\n It is sufficient in justice to himself to say that all those\n references were made by the author himself; nor in one instance\n that can now be recollected, did he quote second-hand without\n acknowledging the intermediate source. In the second part of\n the work, the labor was in a field less completely occupied by\n previous labor. But throughout that part of the work also, the\n whole text of the narrative is original; and all the fruits of\n others\u2019 research are, with hardly one exception, credited in\n the notes, both to the original, and to the medium through which\n they were derived. In this portion of the work, much labor has\n been saved, by making use of the very full illustrations given\n in the works of those who had preceded the author on the life of\n Paul, whose biography has frequently received the attention and\n labor of the learned.\n\n The following have been most useful in this part of the work.\n \u201cHermanni Witsii Meletemata Leidensia, Part 1. Vita Pauli\n Apostoli.\u201d 4to. Leidiae, 1703.\u2015\u2015\u201cDer Apostel Paulus. Von J. T.\n Hemsen.\u201d 8vo. Goettingen, 1830.\u2015\u2015\u201cPearson\u2019s Annals of Paul,\n translated, with notes, by Jackson Muspratt Williams.\u201d 12mo.\n Cambridge, 1827.\u2015\u2015Much valuable matter contained in the two\n first, however, was excluded by want of room.","title":"Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":311464}