LIVES OF THE APOSTLES
                            OF JESUS CHRIST




  ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │                                                                │
  │                      Transcriber’s Notes                       │
  │                                                                │
  │                                                                │
  │  Punctuation has been standardized.                            │
  │                                                                │
  │  Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in    │
  │  printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for   │
  │  easier reading.                                               │
  │                                                                │
  │  The text may show quotations within quotations, all set       │
  │  off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been    │
  │  changed to alternate quote marks for improved readability.    │
  │                                                                │
  │  Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps.      │
  │                                                                │
  │  Non-printable characteristics have been given the following   │
  │      Italic text:             --> _text_                       │
  │                                                                │
  │  This book was written in a period when many words had         │
  │  not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have     │
  │  multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in   │
  │  the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated     │
  │  with a Transcriber’s Note.                                    │
  │                                                                │
  │  The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has   │
  │  been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there    │
  │  is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image   │
  │  adequately.                                                   │
  │                                                                │
  │  Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the   │
  │  text or to provide additional information for the modern      │
  │  reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the     │
  │  text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which   │
  │  they appear.                                                  │
  └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘




  Illustration:
    Painted by Raphael.                          Engᵈ by A. Daggett.
                       CHRIST’S CHARGE TO PETER.
                          Matthew XVI 18, 19




                                 LIVES
                                  OF
                             THE APOSTLES
                                  OF
                             JESUS CHRIST.


                        NEW HAVEN: L. H. YOUNG.

                                 1836.




        Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1835,
                    By DAVID FRANCIS BACON, Author,
           in the office of the Clerk of the District Court
                  of the District of Connecticut.


                       WILLIAM STORER, JR. Print
                             New-Haven, Ct




                               PREFACE.


THE fair and just fulfilment of the promise made to the public, in
the previous announcement of this work, would require that it should
contain, simply, “a distinct, plain, historical narrative of the
life of each of the apostles, illustrated by such aids as could be
drawn from the works of various authors, of former ages, and of other
countries, which hitherto, in the inaccessible forms of a dead or
foreign tongue, have been too long covered from the eyes of thousands,
who might be profited by their more open communication;――from these
sources, as well as from the sacred record, to draw the materials
of the narrative,――to throw occasionally the lights of historical,
topographical, and scientific, as well as exegetical illustrations
on the word of truth,――and from all, to learn how we may live, labor,
and die, as did these first champions of Christ crucified.” A hope
was also expressed by the author, that the facilities of his situation
would enable him, by research among the long-hidden treasures of large
and costly libraries, to bring forth, in direct illustration of this
narrative, much of those treasures of scriptural knowledge, which, by
their size and rarity, are beyond the reach and the means of a vast
number of Biblical students, who would derive great advantage and
pleasure from their perusal; and that even clergymen and students
of theology, might find in this work many things, drawn from these
valuable materials, that would make this a desirable book for them.
Yet far from promising the combined results of _all_ the labors of the
learned on these subjects, the author then distinctly professed his
main object to be, the collection and combination of such facts and
illustrations as would make the work acceptable and interesting to
readers of _all classes_,――to _popular_, as well as to learned readers;
and he accordingly engaged to present all the contents of the book,
clear and plain, even to those whose minds have not been accustomed
to deep research in Biblical study.

With these objects constantly in view, the author has long been
steadily and laboriously devoted to the preparation and composition of
this book. In presenting this result of his labors, he is not conscious
of having actually failed to comply with the general terms of his
published engagement; yet the critical eyes of many among his readers
will doubtless light upon parts of the work, which have been materially
affected in their character by the very peculiar circumstances under
which the labor has been undertaken and prosecuted; circumstances
so _very_ peculiar, that, in accordance with the universal custom
of those who have completed such tasks, he is justified in referring
to some important details of the history of the writing. The first
summons to the task found him engrossed in pursuits as foreign to the
investigations necessary for this work, as any department of knowledge
that can be conceived; and though the study of critical and exegetical
theology had, at a former period, been to him an object of regular
attention, the invitation to this work seemed so uncongenial to his
adopted pursuits, that he rejected it decidedly; nor was it until after
repeated and urgent solicitations, that he consented to undertake it.
But even then, so little aware was he of the inexhaustible richness of
his noble subject, that he commenced his researches with oft-expressed
doubts, whether it would admit of such ample disquisition as was hoped
by the original proposer. How just those doubts were, may be best
learned from the hurried and brief notice which many important points
in this great theme have necessarily received within such narrow limits.

Begun under these unfavorable auspices, the work was an object
of pursuit with him through a long period of time; nor did his
investigations proceed far, before he was fully assured that it
was vast, beyond his highest expectations; and from that time the
difficulty has been, not to meet the expectation of a large book, but
to bring these immense materials within this limited space. Growing
thus in his hands, through months and years, his subject soon increased
also in its interest to him, till in the progress of time and various
other contemporaneous ♦occupations, it rose from the character of a
task to that of a delightful, a dignified, and dignifying pursuit; and
he was soon disposed to look on it not as a labor, but as a recreation
from avocations less congenial to his taste. It called him first from
the study of a profession, sickening and disgusting in many of its
particulars; and was his frequent resource for enjoyment in many a
season of repose. His attention was often distracted from it, by calls
to diverse and opposite pursuits; by turns to the public labors and
responsibilities of an editor and an instructor,――but in the midst of
these it was his solace and refreshment, till at last it wholly drew
him away from everything besides itself, and became for months his sole,
constant, absorbing and exhausting occupation. Too often, indeed, were
the pursuits with which it was at first varied and interchanged, the
occasion of disturbances and anxieties that did anything but fit him
for the comfortable pursuit of his noble task; yet these evils
themselves became the means of inspiring him with a higher and purer
regard for it, because they drove him to this as an only consolation.
As was most eloquently and beautifully said by the evangelical George
Horne, at the conclusion of a similar task,――“And now, could the author
flatter himself, that anyone would take half the pleasure in reading
the work, which he hath taken in writing it, he would not fear the loss
of his labor.” Well would it be, both for the writer and his work, if
he could truly add in the melodious sentence which Horne subjoins, that
“the employment detached him from the bustle and hurry of life, and the
noise of folly;”――that “vanity and vexation flew away for a season,
――care and disquietude came not nigh his dwelling.”

    ♦ “occcupations” replaced with “occupations”




                      THE LIVES OF THE APOSTLES.


THE word APOSTLE has been adopted into all the languages of Christendom,
from the Greek, in which the earliest records of the Christian history
are given to us. In that language, the corresponding word is derived
from a verb which means “send,” so that the simplest primary meaning
of the derivative is “_one sent_;” and in all the uses of the word this
meaning is kept in view. Of its ordinary meanings, the most frequent
was that of “a person employed at a distance to execute the commands,
or exercise the authority, of the supreme power,” in which sense it
was appropriated as the title of an embassador, a messenger, or a
naval commander; and it is used to designate all these officers in
the classic Grecian writers. In reference to its general, and probably
not to any technical meaning, it was applied by Jesus Christ to those
of his followers whom he chose as the objects of his most careful
instruction, and as the inheritors of his power; whom thus indued, he
_sent_ into all the world, to preach the gospel to every creature. The
use of the term in connection with this high and holy commission, did
not give it such a character of peculiar sanctity or dignity, as to
limit its application among Christians of the early ages, to the chosen
ministers of Christ’s own appointment; but it is applied even in the
writings of the New Testament, as well as by the Grecian and Latin
fathers of the churches, to other persons of inferior rank, that
might be included under its primary meaning. It was also extended, in
the peculiar sense in which Christ first applied it, from the twelve
to other eminent and successful preachers of the gospel who were
contemporary with them, and to some of their successors.

  [It will be noticed that, throughout this book, the text is,
  on many pages, broken by matters thrown in at the ends of
  paragraphs, in smaller type. The design is, that these notes,
  thus running through the body of the work, shall contain all
  such particulars as would too much break the thread of the
  story if made a part of the common text, and yet are of the
  highest importance as illustrations, explanations, and proofs
  of passages in the history. In many places, there will be need
  of references to history, antiquities, topography, and various
  collateral helps, to make the story understood. All these things
  are here given in minute type, proportioned to the minuteness of
  the investigations therein followed. Being separated in this way,
  they need be no hindrance to those who do not wish to learn the
  reasons and proofs of things, since all such can pass them by at
  once, and keep the thread of the narrative, in the larger type,
  unbroken.

  This first note being a mere exegesis of a single word, is
  the least attractive of all to a common reader; and some,
  perhaps, will object to it as needlessly protracted into minute
  investigations of points not directly important to the narrative;
  and the writer may have been led beyond the necessity of the
  case, by the circumstance of his previous occupations having
  drawn his attention particularly to close etymological and
  lexicographical research in the Greek language; but he is
  consoled by the belief that there will be some among his readers
  who can appreciate and enjoy these minutiæ.]

  _Apostle._――The most distant theme, to which this word can be
  traced in Greek, is the verb Στελλω, _stello_, which enters into
  the composition of Αποστελλω, _apostello_, from which _apostle_
  is directly derived.

  As to the primary meaning of Στελλω, there appears to be some
  difference of opinion among lexicographers. All the common
  lexicons give to the meaning “_send_” the first place, as
  the original sense from which all the others are formed, by
  different applications of the term. But a little examination
  into the history of the word, in its uses by the earlier Greeks,
  seems to give reason for a different arrangement of the meanings.

  In searching for the original force of a Greek word, the first
  reference must, of course, be to the father of Grecian song and
  story. In HOMER, this word, στελλω, is found in such a variety
  of connections, as to give the most desirable opportunities for
  reaching its primary meaning. Yet in none of these passages does
  it stand in such a relation to other words, as to _require_ the
  meaning of “_send_.” Only a single passage in Homer has ever
  been supposed to justify the translation of the word in this
  sense, and even that is translated with equal force and justice,
  and far more in analogy with the usages of Homer, by the meaning
  of “_equip_,” or “_prepare_,” which is the idea expressed by it
  in all other passages where it is used by that author. (See Damm,
  sub voc.) This is the meaning which the learned Valckenaer gives
  as the true primary signification of this word, from which, in
  the revolutions of later usage, the secondary meanings have been
  derived. In this opinion I have been led to acquiesce, by the
  historical investigation of the earlier uses of the term, and
  by the consideration of the natural transition from the primary
  meaning of “_fix_,” “_equip_,” or “_fit out_,” to that of
  “_send_,” and other secondary meanings, all which occur only in
  the later authors. Pindar limits it like Homer. Herodotus never
  uses the word in the sense of “_send_,” but confines it to the
  meaning of “_equip_,” “_furnish_,” “_clothe_.” Æschylus gives it
  the meaning of “_go_,” but not of “_send_.” Sophocles and
  Euripides also exclude this application of the term.

  This brief allusion to these early authorities will be
  sufficient, without a prolonged investigation, to show that
  the meaning of “_send_” was not, historically, the first
  signification. But a still more rational ground for this opinion
  is found in the natural order of transition in sense, which
  would be followed in the later applications of the word. It is
  perfectly easy to see how, from this primary meaning of “_fix_,”
  or “_equip_,” when applied to a person, in reference to an
  expedition or any distant object, would insensibly originate the
  meaning of “_send_;” since, in most cases, to equip or fix out
  an expedition or a messenger, is to commission and send one. In
  this way, all the secondary meanings flow naturally from this
  common theme, but if the order should be inverted in respect to
  any one of them, the beautiful harmony of derivation would be
  lost at once. There is no other of the meanings of στελλω which
  can be thus taken as the natural source of all the rest, and
  shown to originate them in its various secondary applications.
  The meanings of “array,” “dress,” “adorn,” “take in,” &c., are
  all deducible from the original idea conveyed by στελλω, and are,
  like “_send_,” equally incapable of taking the rank of the
  primary meaning.

  In tracing the minute and distant etymology of this word,
  it is worth noticing that the first element in στελλω is the
  sound _st_, which is at once recognized by oriental scholars as
  identical with the Sanscrit and Persian root _st_, bearing in
  those and in many combinations in the various languages of their
  stock, the idea of “_fixity_.” This idea is prominent in the
  primary meaning of στελλω given by Passow, who, in his Greek
  lexicon, (almost the only classical one that properly classifies
  and deduces the meanings of words,) gives the German word
  _stellen_ as the original ground-meaning of the term before us.
  This is best expressed in English by “fix,” in all its vagueness
  of meaning, from which, in the progress of use, are deduced the
  various secondary senses in which στελλω is used, which here
  follow in order:

  1. Equip, Fit out, Arrange, Prepare. In this sense it is applied
  to armaments, both to hosts and to individuals, and thus in
  reference to warlike preparations expresses nearly the idea of
  “Arm.” This is, it seems to me, the meaning of the word in the
  verse of Homer already alluded to. The passage is in the Iliad
  xii. 325, where Sarpedon is addressing Glaucus, and says, “If
  we could hope, my friend, after escaping this contest, to shun
  forever old age and death, I would neither myself fight among
  the foremost, nor _prepare_ you for the glorious strife.” (Or as
  Heyne more freely renders it, _hortarer_, “urge,” or “incite.”)
  The inappropriateness of the meaning “send,” given in this place
  by Clark, (_mitterem_) and one of the scholiasts, (πεμποιμι)
  consists in the fact, that the hero speaking was himself to
  accompany or rather lead his friend into the deadly struggle,
  and of course could not be properly said to _send_ him, if he
  went with him or before him. It was the partial consideration
  of this circumstance, no doubt, which led the same scholiast
  to offer as an additional probable meaning, that of “prepare,”
  “make ready,” (παρασκευαζοιμι,) as though he had some misgiving
  about the propriety of his first translation. For a full account
  of these renderings, see Heyne in loc. and Stephens’s Thesaurus
  sub voc. In the latter also, under the second paragraph of
  Στελλω, are given numerous other passages illustrating this
  usage, in passive and middle as well as active forms, both from
  Homer and later writers. In Passow’s Griechisch Wörterbuch,
  other useful references are given sub voc.; and in Damm is found
  the best account of its uses in Homer.

  2. In the applications of the word in this first meaning, the
  idea of equipment or preparation was always immediately followed
  by that of future action, for the very notion of equipment or
  preparation implies some departure or undertaking immediately
  subsequent. In the transitive sense, when the subject of the
  verb is the instrument of preparing _another_ person for the
  distant purpose, there immediately arises the signification
  of “_send_,” constituting the second branch of definition,
  which has been so unfortunately mistaken for the root, by all
  the common lexicographers. In the reflexive sense, when the
  subject prepares _himself_ for the expected action, in the same
  manner originates, at once, the meaning “_go_,” which is found,
  therefore, the prominent secondary sense of the middle voice,
  and also of the active, when, as is frequent in Greek verbs,
  that voice assumes a reflexive force. The origin of these two
  definitions, apparently so incongruous with the rest and with
  each other, is thus made consistent and clear; and the identity
  of origin here shown, justifies the arrangement of them both
  together in this manner.

  The tracing out of the other meanings of this word from the
  ground-meaning, would be abundantly interesting to many; but
  all that can be here allowed, is the discussion of precedence
  between the first two, here given. Those who desire to pursue
  the research, have most able guides in the great German
  lexicographers, whose materials have been useful in illustrating
  what is here given. For abundant references illustrating these
  various meanings, see H. Stephens’s Thesaurus, Scapula’s, Damm’s,
  Schneider’s, Passow’s, Donnegan’s, Porti’s, and Jones’s Lexicons.

  The simple verb στελλω, thus superabundantly illustrated,
  among its numerous combinations with other words, is compounded
  with the preposition απο, (_apo_,) making the verb Αποστελλω,
  (_apostello_.) This preposition having the force of “away,”
  “from,” when united with a verb, generally adds to it the idea
  of motion off from some object. Thus αποστελλω acquires by this
  addition the sense of “away,” which however only gives precision
  and force to the meaning “send,” which belongs to the simple
  verb. By prefixing this preposition, the verb is always confined
  to the definition “send,” and the compound never bears any other
  of the definitions of στελλω but this. The simple verb without
  the prefix expresses the idea of “send” only in certain peculiar
  relations with other words, while the compound, limited and
  aided by the preposition, always implies action directed “away
  from” the agent to a distance, and thus conveys the primary idea
  of “send,” so invariably, that it is used in no passage in which
  this word will not express its meaning. From this compound verb
  thus defined, is directly formed the substantive which is the
  true object and end of this protracted research.

  Αποστολος, (_Apostolos_) is derived from the preceding verb
  by changing the penult vowel Ε into Ο, and displacing the
  termination of the verb by that of the noun. The change of the
  penult vowel is described in the grammars as caused by its being
  derived from the perfect middle, which has this peculiarity in
  its penult. The noun preserves in all its uses the uniform sense
  of the verb from which it is derived, and in every instance
  maintains the primary idea of “a person or thing _sent_.” It
  was often used adjectively with a termination varying according
  to the gender of the substantive to which it referred. In this
  way it seems to have been used by Herodotus, who gives it the
  termination corresponding to the neuter, when the substantive
  to which it refers is in that gender. (See Porti Dictionarium
  Ionicum Græco Latinum.) Herodotus is the earliest author in whom
  I am able to discover the word, for Homer never uses the word
  at all, nor does any author, as far as I know, previous to the
  father of history. Though always preserving the primary idea of
  the word, he varies its meaning considerably, according as he
  applies it to a person or a thing. With the neuter termination
  αποστολον, (_apostolo_N,) referring to the substantive πλοιον,
  (_ploion_,) it means a “vessel _sent_” from place to place.
  In Plato, (Epistle 7,) it occurs in this connection with the
  substantive πλοιον expressed, which in Herodotus is only implied.
  For an exposition of this use of the term, see H. Stephens’s
  Thesaurus, (sub voc. αποστολος.) With the masculine termination,
  Herodotus, applying it to persons, uses it first in the sense
  of “messenger,” “embassador,” or “herald,” in Clio, 21, where
  relating that Halyattes, king of Lydia, sent a herald (κηρυξ,)
  to treat for a truce with the Milesians, he mentions his arrival
  under this synonymous term. “So the messenger (αποστολος,
  _apostolos_,) came to Miletus.” (Ὁ μεν δη αποστολος ες την
  Μιλητον ἦν.) In Terpsichore, 38, he uses the same term.
  “Aristagoras the Milesian went to Lacedæmon by ship, as
  _embassador_ (or delegate) from the assembly of Ionic tyrants,”
  (Αποστολος εγινετο.) These two passages are the earliest Greek
  in which I can find this word, and it is worth noticing here,
  that the word in the masculine form was distinctly applied to
  persons, in the sense given as the primary one in the text of
  this book. But, still maintaining in its uses the general idea
  of “sent,” it was not confined, in the ever-changing usage of
  the flexible Greeks, to individual persons alone. In reference
  to its expression of the idea of “distant destination,” it
  was applied by later writers to naval expeditions, and in the
  speeches of Demosthenes, who frequently uses the word, it is
  entirely confined to the meaning of a “warlike expedition,
  _fitted out_ and _sent_ by sea to a distant contest.”
  (References to numerous passages in Demosthenes, where this term
  is used, may be found in Stephens’s Thesaurus, on the word.)
  From the fleet itself, the term was finally transferred to the
  naval commander _sent out_ with it, so that in this connection
  it became equivalent to the modern title of “Admiral.”

  Besides these political and military uses of the word, it also
  acquired in the later Greek a technical meaning as a _legal_
  term, and in the law-writers of the Byzantine school, it is
  equivalent to “_letters of appeal_” from the decision of a lower
  tribunal to a higher one. But this, as well as the two previous
  meanings, must be considered as mere technical and temporary
  usages, while the original sense of “messenger,” “herald,”
  “embassador,” remained in constant force long after the word
  had received the peculiar application which is the great object
  of this long investigation. Yet various as are these meanings,
  it should be noticed that all those which refer to persons,
  have this one common idea, that of “one sent to a distance to
  execute the commands of a higher power.” This sense is likewise
  preserved in that sacred meaning, which the previous inquiry
  has now somewhat prepared the reader as well as the writer to
  appreciate in its true force.

  The earliest passage in the sacred records of Christianity,
  in which the word apostle is used, is the second verse of the
  tenth chapter of Matthew, where the distinct nomination of the
  twelve chief disciples is first mentioned. They are here called
  apostles, and as the term is used in connection with their
  being _sent out_ on their first mission, it seems plain that
  the application of the name had a direct reference to this
  primary signification. The word, indeed, which Jesus uses in the
  sixteenth verse, (when he says ‘Behold! I SEND _you forth_ as
  sheep in the midst of wolves,’) is αποστελλω, (_apostello_), and
  when in the fifth verse, Matthew, after enumerating and naming
  the apostles, says “These twelve Jesus _sent forth_,” the past
  tense of the same verb is used, (απεστειλεν, _apesteilen_.)
  Mark also, in his third chapter, relating the appointment and
  commissioning of the twelve, uses this verb, in verse 14. “And
  he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he
  might SEND _them forth_ to preach,” (αποστελλη, _apostellé_.)
  Luke merely mentions the name apostle, in giving the list of the
  twelve, in chapter 6, verse 13; and in chapter 9, verse 2, gives
  the verb in the same way as Matthew. The term certainly is of
  rare occurrence in all the gospels; those persons who are thus
  designated being commonly mentioned under the general title of
  _disciple_ or learner, (μαθητης,) and when it is necessary to
  separate them from the rest of Christ’s followers, they are
  designated from their number “the twelve.” John never uses
  it in this sense, nor does Mark in giving the list, though he
  does in vi. 30, and the only occasion on which it is applied to
  the twelve by Matthew, is that of their being _sent forth_ on
  their brief experimental mission through the land of Israel, to
  announce the approach of the Messiah’s reign. The simple reason,
  for this remarkable exclusion of the term from common use in the
  gospel story, is that only on that one occasion just mentioned,
  did they assume the character of _apostles_, or persons _sent
  forth_ by a superior. This circumstance shows a beautiful
  justness and accuracy in the use of words by the gospel writers,
  who in this matter, at least, seem to have fully apprehended
  the true etymological force of the noble language in which they
  wrote. The twelve, during the whole life of Jesus, were never
  _sent forth_ to proclaim their Lord’s coming, except once; but
  until the Ascension, they were simple _learners_, or disciples,
  (μαθηται, _mathetai_,) and not apostles or messengers, who had
  so completely learned the will of God as to be qualified to
  teach it to others. But immediately after the final departure
  of Jesus, the sacred narrative gives them the title of apostles
  with much uniformity, because they had now, by their ascending
  Lord, been solemnly commissioned in his last words, and _sent
  forth_ as messengers and embassadors to “all nations.” A common
  reader of the New Testament must notice that, in the Acts of the
  Apostles, this title is the most usual one given to the chosen
  twelve, though even there, an occasional use is made of the
  collective term taken from the idea of their number. It deserves
  notice, however, that Luke, the author of the Acts, even in his
  gospel, uses this name more frequently than any other of the
  evangelists; and his individual preference for this word may,
  perhaps, have had some influence in producing its very frequent
  use in the second part of his narrative, though the whole number
  of times when it is used in his gospel is only six, whereas in
  Acts it occurs twenty-seven times. So that on the whole it would
  seem clear, that the change from the common use of the term
  “DISCIPLE,” in the gospels, to that of “APOSTLE,” in the history
  of their acts after the ascension, was made in reference to the
  corresponding change in the character and duties of the persons
  thus named.

  The lexicography of the word αποστολος, (_apostolos_,) I arrange
  as follows, after a full comparison and investigation of all the
  standard authorities.

  The primary idea or ground-meaning which runs through all the
  secondary significations, and is distinctly recognizable in all
  their various applications, is as has already been remarked,
  that of “one sent forth,” referring either to persons or things,
  but more commonly to persons. These secondary meanings being all
  directly derived from the ground-stock, and not by a repetition
  of transformations in sense, it is hard to settle any order of
  precedence among them; which might be easily done if a distinct
  gradation could be traced, as in the definition of most words.
  I have chosen to follow what seems to be the historical order
  of application, as already traced, although several very high
  authorities give a different arrangement.

  I. _A messenger, herald, embassador_; a _person_ sent with a
  message. This is the use made of the term by Herodotus, above
  quoted, and being thus historically the earliest, as well as
  flowing naturally from the ground-meaning, may therefore justly
  hold the first place. And when other variable meanings had been
  lost in the revolutions of usage, this retained its place, being
  applied to many different persons whose offices included the
  idea of being sent abroad by commission from a higher power.
  Under this meaning is most justly included that peculiar
  Christian use of the word, which is the object of this
  investigation, and under this head therefore I rank all the New
  Testament usages of αποστολος. 1. It is used in the simple sense
  here given, with the first primary idea conveyed by the term.
  There is no Greek sentence extant which refers so forcibly to
  the ground-meaning as that in John’s gospel, xiii. 16; where the
  words in the common English translation are “_he that is sent_,”
  though in the original Greek the word is αποστολος, which might
  be more justly translated “messenger,” in order to make a
  difference in English corresponding to that in Greek, between
  αποστολος and πεμψας, (_pempsas_,) without giving the same word
  “_send_” for two different words in Greek. Still the common
  translation gives the true meaning of each word, though not so
  simply and gracefully just, as it might be if the difference of
  terms in the two members of the sentence was kept up in English.
  In this same general sense of “messenger,” or “any person
  sent,” it is used in 2 Corinthians viii. 23, (in common English
  translation “messenger,”) and in Philippians ii. 25, (common
  translation “messenger.”) 2. It is used to designate persons
  directly sent by God to men, and in this sense is frequently
  given to us in connection with “_prophet_,” as in Luke xi. 49;
  Ephesians iii. 5; Revelation xviii. 20. In this sense also it is
  applied to Jesus, in Hebrews iii. 1, 3. It is used as the title
  of several classes of persons, employed by Jesus in propagating
  the gospel. These are [1] the twelve chief disciples, commonly
  distinguished above all others but one, by this name. Matthew
  x. 2; Mark vi. 30; Luke vi. 13; ix. 10; xxii. 14; Acts i. 26;
  and in other places too numerous to be mentioned here, but to
  which a good concordance will direct any curious investigator.
  [2] Paul, as the great messenger of truth to the Gentiles,
  so called in many passages; and with him Barnabas is also
  distinctly included under this term, in Acts xiv. 4, 14; and
  xv. 33. (Griesbach however, has changed this last passage from
  the common reading. See his editions.) [3] Other persons, not
  of great eminence or fame; as Andronicus and Junius, Paul’s
  assistants, Romans xvi. 7; the companions of Titus in collecting
  the contributions of the churches, 2 Corinthians viii. 23; and
  perhaps also Epaphroditus, Philippians ii. 25. This seems to be
  as clear an arrangement of the New Testament lexicography of the
  term as can be given, on a comparison of high authorities. Those
  who can refer to Wahl, Bretschneider, Parkhurst and Schleusner,
  will find that I have not servilely followed either, but have
  adopted some things from all.

  The extensions and variations of the New Testament usage of the
  word, among the Grecian and Latin Christian Fathers, were, 1,
  the application of it to the seventy disciples whose mission is
  narrated by Luke, x. 29. These are repeatedly called apostles.
  2. The companions of Paul and others are frequently honored by
  this title. Timothy and Mark are called apostles, and many later
  ministers also, as may be seen by the authorities at the end of
  Cave’s Introduction to his Lives of the Apostles.

  In application to persons, it is used by Athenian writers as a
  name for the commander of a naval expedition, (See Demosthenes
  as quoted by Stephens,) but this seems to have come by
  transferring to the man, the name of the expedition which he
  commanded, so that this cannot be derived from the definition
  which is here placed first. This term in the later Greek is
  also applied to the “_bride-man_,” or bridegroom’s friend, who
  on wedding festivals was sent to conduct the bride from her
  father’s house to her husband’s. (_Phavorinus_ quoted by Witsius
  in Vita Pauli.) This however is a very unusual sense, which I
  can find on no other authority than that here given. None of the
  lexicons contain it.

  II. The definition which occupies the first place in most of
  the arrangements of this word in the common Greek lexicons, is
  that of a “naval expedition,” “_apparatus classium_,” “fleet.”
  There appears, however, to be no good reason for this order,
  but there is historical argument, at least, as well as analogy,
  for putting those meanings which refer to _persons_, before
  those which refer to _things_. This meaning, as far as I can
  learn, seems to be confined to Demosthenes, and there is nothing
  to make us suppose that it is anterior in use to the simple
  permanent sense which is here given first. Hesychius gives
  us only the meaning of “the commander of a fleet,” which may
  indeed be derivable from this sense rather than the preceding
  _personal_ uses, though it seems to me not impossible that the
  name was transferred from the commander to the object of his
  command, thus making the personal meanings prior to those of
  inanimate things. The adjective use of the word in Herodotus
  and Plato, however, makes it certain that in that way it was
  early applied to a single vessel, and the transition to its
  substantive use for a whole fleet is natural enough.

  The legal use of it for “letters of appeal,” (_literae
  dimissoriae_,) of course comes under the head of the later
  usages in application to _things_, and is the last modification
  of meaning which the word underwent before the extinction of the
  ancient Greek language.

  The corresponding Hebrew word, and that which was, no doubt,
  used by Christ in his discourse to his apostles, was שלוּח or שליח
  (_sheluh_, or _shelih_,) whose primary meaning, like that of the
  Greek word, is “_one sent_,” and is derived from the passive Kal,
  participle of the verb שלח meaning “he sent,” This word is often
  used in the Old Testament, and is usually translated in the
  Alexandrian Greek version, by the word αποστολος. A remarkable
  instance occurs in 1 Kings xiv. 6; where the prophet Ahijah,
  speaking to the wife of Jeroboam, says, אליך אנכי שלוח “to thee am I
  sent;” the Alexandrian version gives the noun αποστολος, so as
  to make it literally “to thee I am an _apostle_,” or “messenger,”
  or truly, in the just and primary sense of this Greek word,
  “to thee I am _sent_.” This passage is a valuable illustration
  of the use of the same Greek word in John xiii. 16; as above
  quoted.

  The Hebrews had another word also, which they used in the sense
  of an apostle or messenger. This was מלאך (_mal ak_,) derived
  from a verb which means “_send_,” so that the primary meaning of
  this also is “one sent.” It was commonly appropriated to angels,
  but was sometimes a title of prophets and priests. (Haggai i. 19;
  Malachi ii. 7.) It was on the whole the more dignified term
  of the two, as the former was never applied to angels, but was
  restricted to men. The two terms are very fairly represented by
  the two Greek words αποστολος and αγγελος, in English “apostle”
  and “angel,” the latter, like its corresponding Hebrew term,
  being sometimes applied to the human servants of God, as in
  John’s address to the seven churches.

The scope of the term, as used in the title of this book, is limited
to the twelve chosen disciples of Jesus Christ, and those few of their
most eminent associates, who are designated by the same word in the
writings of the early Christians. These persons fall under two natural
divisions, which will be followed in the arrangement of their lives in
this work. These are, first, the TWELVE, or Peter and his companions;
and second, Paul and his companions, including also some to whom the
name apostle is not given by the New Testament writers, but who were
so intimate with this great preacher of Christ, and so eminent by their
own labors, that they may be very properly ranked with him, in the
history of the first preachers of Christianity.

The persons whose lives are given in this book are,

I. The Galilean apostles, namely,

    SIMON PETER, and ANDREW his brother,

    JAMES, and JOHN, the sons of Zebedee,

    PHILIP, and BARTHOLOMEW,

    MATTHEW, and THOMAS,

    JAMES, the son of Alpheus, and SIMON ZELOTES,

    JUDE, the brother of James, and JUDAS ISCARIOT, in whose
    place was afterwards chosen by the apostles, MATTHIAS.

II. The Hellenist apostles, namely, PAUL and BARNABAS, with whom are
included their companions, MARK and LUKE, the evangelists.

These two classes of Apostles are distinguished from each other, mainly,
by the circumstances of the appointment of each; the former being all
directly appointed by Jesus himself, (excepting Matthias, who took the
forfeited commission of Judas Iscariot,) while the latter were summoned
to the duties of the apostleship after the ascension of Christ; so
that they, however highly equipped for the labors of the office, had
never enjoyed his personal instructions; and however well-assured of
the divine summons to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, theirs was
not a distinct personal and bodily commission, formally given to them,
and repeatedly enforced and renewed, as it was to the chosen ones of
Christ’s own appointment. These later apostles, too, with hardly one
exception, were foreign Jews, born and brought up beyond the bounds of
the land of Israel, while the twelve were all Galileans, whose homes
were within the holy precincts of their fathers’ ancient heritage.
Yet if the extent of their labors be regarded, the later commissioned
must rank far above the twelve. Almost two thirds of the New Testament
were written by Paul and his companions; and before one of those
commissioned by Jesus to go into all the world on their great errand,
had ever gone beyond the boundary of Palestine, Paul, accompanied
either by Barnabas, Mark, Silas, or Luke, had gone over Syria and Asia,
traversed the sea into Greece, Macedonia, and Illyria, bringing the
knowledge of the word of truth to tens of thousands, who would never
have heard of it, if they had been made to wait for its communication
by the twelve. This he did through constant toils, dangers and
sufferings, which as far transcended all which the Galilean Apostles
had endured, as the mighty results of his labors did the immediate
effects of theirs. And afterwards, while they were struggling with
the paltry and vexatious, though not very dangerous tyranny of the
Sanhedrim, within the walls of Jerusalem, Paul was uttering the solemn
truths of his high commission before governors and a king, making them
to tremble with doubt and awe at his words; and, at last, bearing,
first of all, the name of Jesus to the capital of the world, he sounded
the call of the gospel at the gates of Cæsar. The Galilean apostles
were indued with no natural advantages for communicating freely with
foreigners; their language, habits, customs and modes of instruction,
were all hindrances in the way of a rapid and successful progress in
such a labor, and they with great willingness gave up this vast field
to the Hellenist preachers, while they occupied themselves, for the
most part, with the still immense labor which their Lord had himself
begun. For all the subtleties and mysticisms of their solemn foes, they
were abundantly provided; the whole training, which they had received,
under the personal instruction of their master, had fitted them mainly
for this very warfare; and they had seen him, times without number,
sweep away all these refuges of lies. But, with the polished and truly
learned philosophers of Athens, or the majestic lords of Rome, they
would have felt the want of that minute knowledge of the characters and
manners of both Greeks and Romans, with which Paul was so familiar, by
the circumstances of his birth and education, in a city highly favored
by Roman laws and Grecian philosophy. Thus was it wisely ordained, for
the complete foundation and rapid extension of the gospel cause, that
for each great field of labor there should be a distinct set of men,
each peculiarly well fitted for their own department of the mighty work.
And by such divinely sagacious appointments, the certain and resistless
advance of the faith of Christ was so secured, and so wonderfully
extended beyond the deepest knowledge, and above the brightest hopes of
its chief apostles, that at this distant day, in this distant land, far
beyond the view even of the prophetic eye of that age, millions of a
race unknown to them, place their names above all others, but one, on
earth and in heaven; and to spread the knowledge of the minute details
of their toils and triumphs, the laborious scholar should search the
recorded learning of eighteen hundred years, and bring forth the fruits
in the story of their lives.

With such limitations and expansions of the term, then, this book
attempts to give the history of the lives of the apostles. Of some who
are thus designated, little else than their names being known, they can
have no claim for a large space on these pages; while to a few, whose
actions determined the destiny of millions, and mainly effected the
establishment of the Christian faith, the far greater part of the work
will be given.

The MATERIALS of this work should be found in all that has been written
on the subject of New Testament history, since the scriptural canon
was completed. But “who is sufficient for these things?” A long life
might find abundant employment in searching a thousand libraries, and
compiling from a hundred thousand volumes, the facts and illustrations
of this immense and noble subject; and then the best energies of
another long life would be needed to bring the mighty masses into form,
and give them in a narrative for the mind of the unlearned. What, then,
is here attempted, as a substitute for this immensity? To give a clear
distinct narrative of each apostle’s life, with such illustrations of
the character of the era, and the scene in which the incidents occurred,
and such explanations of the terms in which they are recorded, as may,
consistently with the limits of this work, be drawn from the labors of
the learned of ancient and modern times, which are within the writer’s
reach. Various and numerous are the books that swell the list of
faithful and honest references; many and weighty the volumes that
have been turned over, in the long course of research; ancient and
venerable the dust, which has been shaken into suffocating clouds
about the searcher’s head, and have obscured his vision, as he dragged
many a forgotten folio from the slumber of ages, to array the modern
plunderer in the shreds and patches of antique lore. Histories, travels,
geographies, maps, commentaries, criticisms, introductions, and
lexicons, have been “daily and nightly turned in the hand;” and of this
labor some fruit is offered on every page. But the unstained source of
sacred history! the pure well-spring, at which the wearied searcher
always refreshed himself, after unrequited toils, through dry masses
of erudition, was the simple story of the Apostles and Evangelists,
told by themselves. In this same simple story, indeed, were found the
points on which the longest labor was required; yet these, at best only
illustrated, not improved, by all the labors of the learned of various
ages, were the _materials_ of the work. These are the preparations of
months and years; the execution must decide on their real value,――and
that is yet to come.

  A list of the various works which have furnished the materials
  for this book might be proper here; but in order to insure its
  completeness and accuracy, it is deferred to the end of the
  volume.

A VIEW OF THE WORLD, _as it was at the when the apostles began the work
of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ_, may be convenient to remind
some readers, and necessary to inform others, in what way its political
organization operated to aid or hinder the progress of the faith. The
peculiarities of the government of the regions of civilization, were
closely involved in the results of this religious revolution, and may
be considered as having been, on the whole, most desirably disposed for
the triumphant establishment of the dominion of Christ.

From the shores of the Atlantic to the banks of the Euphrates, the sway
of the Roman Caesar was acknowledged, by the millions of Western and
Southern Europe, Northern Africa and South-western Asia. The strong
grasp of warlike power was a bond which held together in peace many
nations, who, but for that constraint, would, as their previous and
subsequent history shows, have been arrayed against each other, in
contests, destructive alike of the happiness of the contending parties
and the comfort of their neighbors. The mighty force of Roman genius
had overcome the thousand barriers which nature and art had reared
between the different nations of the three continents in which it ruled,
and the passage from one end of that vast empire to the other, was
without any hindrance to those who traveled on errands of peace. The
bloody strife which once distracted the tribes of Gaul, Germany and
Britain, had rendered those grand sections of Europe impassable, and
shut up each paltry tribe within a narrow boundary, which could never
be crossed but with fire and sword. The deadly and furious contests
among the nations of South-western Asia and South-eastern Europe, had
long discouraged the philosophical and commercial enterprise, once of
old so rife and free among them, and offered a serious hindrance to
the traveler, whether journeying for information or trade; thus greatly
checking the spread of knowledge, and limiting each nation, in a great
measure, to its own resources in science and art. The Roman conquest,
burying in one wide tomb all the jealousies and strifes of aspiring
national ambition, thus put an end at once to all these causes of
separation; it brought long-divided nations into close union and
acquaintance, and produced a more extensive and equal diffusion of
knowledge, as well as greater facilities for commercial intercourse,
than had ever been enjoyed before. The rapid result of the conquerors’
policy was the consolidation of the various nations of that vast empire
into one people,――peaceful, prosperous, and for the most part protected
in their personal and domestic rights. The savage was tamed, the
wanderers were reclaimed from the forest, which fell before the march
of civilization, or from the desert, which soon rejoiced and blossomed
under the mighty beneficence of Roman power.

The fierce Gaul forsook his savage hut and dress together, robing
himself in the graceful toga of the Roman citizen, or the light tunic
of the colonial cultivator, and reared his solid and lofty dwelling in
clustering cities or villages, whose deep laid foundations yet endure,
in lasting testimony of the nature of Roman conquest and civilization.
Under his Roman rulers and patrons, he raised piles of art, unequaled
in grandeur, beauty and durability, by any similar works in the world.
Aqueducts and theaters, still only in incipient ruin, proclaim, in
their slow decay, the greatness of those who reared them, in a land so
lately savage.

  The Pont du gard, at Nismes, and the amphitheaters, temples,
  arches, gates, baths, bridges, and mausolea, which still adorn
  that city and Arles, Vienne, Rheims, Besancon, Autun and Metz,
  are the instances, to which I direct those whose knowledge of
  antiquity is not sufficient to suggest these splendid remains.
  Almost any well-written book of travels in France will give the
  striking details of their present condition. Malte-Brun also
  slightly alludes to them, and may be consulted by those who
  wish to learn more of the proofs of my assertion than this brief
  notice can give.

The warlike Numidian and the wild Mauritanian, under the same
iron instruction, had long ago learned to robe their primitive
half-nakedness in the decent garments of civilized man. Even the
distant Getulian found the high range of Atlas no sure barrier, against
the wave of triumphant arms and arts, which rolled resistlessly over
him, and spent itself only on the pathless sands of wide Sahara. So far
did that all-subduing genius spread its work, and so deeply did it make
its marks, beyond the most distant and impervious boundary of modern
civilization, that the latest march of discovery has found far older
adventurers before it, even in the great desert; and within a dozen
years, European travelers have brought to our knowledge walls and
inscriptions, which, after mouldering unknown in the dry, lonely waste,
for ages, at last met the astonished eyes of these gazers, with the
still striking witness of Roman power.

  The travels of Denham and Clapperton across the desert, from
  Tripoli to Bornou,――of Ritchie and Lyon, to Fezzan,――of Horneman
  and others, will abundantly illustrate this passage.

Egypt, already twice classic, and renowned through two mighty and
distant series of ages, renewed her fading glories under new conquerors,
no less worthy to possess and adorn the land of the Pharaohs, than were
the Ptolemies. In that ancient home of art, the new conquerors achieved
works, inferior indeed to the still lasting monuments of earlier
greatness, but no less effectual in securing the ornament and defense
of the land. With a warlike genius far surpassing the most triumphant
energy of former rulers, the legionaries of Rome made the valley of
the Nile, from its mouth to the eighth cataract, safe and wealthy. The
desert wanderers, whose hordes had once overwhelmed the throne of the
Pharaohs, and baffled the revenge of the Macedonian monarchs, were now
crushed, curbed, or driven into the wilds; while the peaceful tiller
of the ground, secure against their lawless attacks, brought his rich
harvests to a fair and certain market, through the ports and million
ships of the Mediterranean, to the gate of his noble conquerors, within
the capital of the world.

The grinding tyranny of the cruel despots of Pontus, Armenia and Syria,
had, one after another, been swept away before the republican hosts
of Sylla, Lucullus and Pompey; and the remorseless, stupid selfishness
that has always characterized oriental despotism, even to this day,
had been followed by the mild and generous exercise of that almost
omnipotent sway, which the condition of the people, in most cases,
showed to have been administered, in the main, for the good of its
subjects.

  The case of Verres will perhaps rise to the minds of some of my
  readers, as opposed to this favorable view of Roman government;
  but the whole account of this and similar tyranny shows that
  such cases were looked on as most remarkable enormities, and
  they are recorded and noticed in such terms of abhorrence, as to
  justify us in quoting with peculiar force, the maxim, “Exceptio
  probat regulam.”

Towards the farthest eastern boundary of the empire, the Parthian,
fighting as he fled, held out against the advance of the western
conquerors, in a harassing and harassed independence. The mountains
and forests of central Europe, and of North Britain, too, were still
manfully defended by their savage owners; yet, when they at last met
the iron hosts of Germanicus, Trajan, and Agricola, they, in their turn,
fell under the last triumphs of the Roman eagle. But the peace and
prosperity of the empire, and even of provinces near the scene, were
not moved by these disturbances. And thus, in a longitudinal line of
four thousand miles, and within a circuit of ten thousand, the energies
of Roman genius had hushed all wars, and stilled the nations into a
long, unbroken peace, which secured the universal good. So nearly true
was the lyric description, given by Milton, of the universal peace
which attended the coming of the Messiah:

         “No war or battle sound,
          Was heard the world around;
          The idle spear and shield were high uphung;
          The hooked chariot stood,
          Unstained with hostile blood,
          The trumpet spake not to the armed throng;
          And kings sat still with awful eye,
          As if they surely knew their sovran lord was by.”

The efforts of the conquerors did not cease with the mere military
subjugation of a country, but were extended far beyond the extinction
of the hostile force. The Roman soldier was not a mere fighter,
nor were his labors, out of the conflict, confined to the erection
of military works only. The stern discipline, which made his arms
triumphant in the day of battle, had also taught him cheerfully to
exchange those triumphant arms for the tools of peaceful labor, that he
might insure the solid permanency of his conquests, by the perfection
of such works as would make tranquillity desirable to the conquered,
and soothe them to repose under a dominion which so effectually secured
their good. Roads, that have made Roman _ways_ proverbial, and which
the perfection of modern art has never equaled in more than one or
two instances, reached from the capital to the farthest bounds of the
empire. Seas, long dangerous and almost impassable for the trader and
enterprising voyager, were swept of every piratical vessel; and the
most distant channels of the Aegean and Levant, where the corsair
long ruled triumphant, both before and since, became as safe as the
porches of the capitol. Regions, to which nature had furnished the
indispensable gift of water, neither in abundance nor purity, were soon
blessed with artificial rivers, flowing over mighty arches, that will
crumble only with the pyramids. In the dry places of Africa and Asia,
as well as in distant Gaul, mighty aqueducts and gushing fountains
refreshed the feverish traveler, and gave reality to the poetical
prophecy, that

        “In the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams
                            in the desert.”

  _Roads._――I was at first disposed to make some few exceptions to
  this sweeping commendation of the excellence of Roman roads, by
  referring simply to my general impressions of the comparative
  perfection of these and modern works of the same character;
  but on revising the facts by an examination of authorities, I
  have been led to strike out the exceptions. Napoleon’s great
  road over the Simplon, the great northern road from London to
  Edinburgh, and some similar works in Austria, seemed, before
  comparison, in extent, durability, and in their triumphs over
  nature, to equal, if not surpass, the famed Roman WAYS; but a
  reference to the minute descriptions of these mighty works, sets
  the ancient far above the modern art. The Via Appia, “_regina
  viarum_,” (_Papinius Statius in Surrentino Pollii_,) stretching
  three hundred and seventy miles from Rome to the bounds of Italy,
  built of squared stone, as hard as flints, and brought from
  a great distance, so laid together that for miles they seemed
  but a single stone, and so solidly fixed, that at this day, the
  road is as entire in many places as when first made,――the Via
  Flaminia, built in the same solid manner,――the Via Aemilia, five
  hundred and twenty-seven miles long,――the Via Portuensis, with
  its enormous double cause-way,――the vaulted roads of Puzzuoli
  and Baiae, hewn half a league through the solid rock, and the
  thousand remains of similar and contemporaneous works in various
  parts of the world, where some are in use even to this day, as
  far better than any modern highway,――all these are enough to
  show the inquirer, that the commendation given to these works in
  the text, is not over-wrought nor unmerited. The minute details
  of the construction of these extraordinary works, with many
  other interesting particulars, may be much more fully learned in
  Rees’s Cyclopædia, Articles _Way_, _Via_, _Road_, _Appian_, &c.

  _Aqueducts._――The common authorities on this subject, refer to
  none of these mighty Roman works, except those around the city
  of Rome itself. Those of Nismes and Metz, in Gaul, and that of
  Segovia, in Spain, are sometimes mentioned; but the reader would
  be led to suppose, that other portions of the Roman empire were
  not blessed with these noble works. Rees’s Cyclopædia is very
  full on this head, in respect to the aqueducts of the great
  city itself, but conveys the impression that they were not known
  in many distant parts of the empire. Montfaucon gives no more
  satisfactory information on the subject. But a reference to
  books of travels or topography, which describe the remains of
  Roman art in its ancient provinces in Africa and Asia, will
  at once give a vivid impression of the extent and frequency of
  these works. Shaw’s travels in northern Africa, give accounts
  of aqueducts, cisterns, fountains, and reservoirs, along through
  all the ancient Roman dominions in that region. The Modern
  Traveler (by Conder) will give abundant accounts of the remains
  of these works, in this and various other countries alluded to
  in the text; and some of them, still so perfect, as to serve the
  common uses of the inhabitants to this day.

All these mighty influences, working for the peace and comfort of
mankind, and so favorable to the spread of religious knowledge, had
been further secured by the triumphant and firm establishment of
the throne of the Caesars. Under the fitful sway of the capricious
democracy of Rome, conquest had indeed steadily stretched east, west,
north and south, alike over barbarian and Greek, through the wilderness
and the city. A long line of illustrious consuls, such as Marcellus,
the Scipios, Aemilius, Marius, Sylla, Lucullus and Pompey, had, during
the last two centuries of the republic, added triumph to triumph, in
bright succession, thronging the streets of the seven-hilled city with
captive kings, and more than quadrupling her dominion. But while the
corruption of conquest was fast preparing the dissipated people to
make a willing exchange of their political privileges, for “bread and
amusements;” the enlightened portion of the citizens were getting tired
of the distracting and often bloody changes of popular favoritism, and
were ready to receive as a welcome deliverer, any man who could give
them a calm and rational despotism, in place of the remorseless and
ferocious tyranny of a brutal mob. In this turn of the world’s destiny,
there arose one, in all points equal to the task of sealing both
justice and peace to the vanquished nations, by wringing from the hands
of a haughty people, the same political power which they had caused
so many to give up to their unsparing gripe. He was one who, while,
to common eyes, he seemed devoting the flower of his youth and the
strength of his manhood to idleness and debauchery, was learning
such wisdom as could never have been learned in the lessons of the
sage,――wisdom in the characters, the capabilities, the corruption and
venality of his plebeian sovrans. And yet he was not one who scorned
the lessons of the learned, nor turned away from the records of others’
knowledge. In the schools of Rhodes, he sat a patient student of the
art and science of the orator, and searched deeply into the stored
treasures of Grecian philosophy. Resplendent in arms as in arts, he
devoted to swift and deserved destruction the pirates of the Aegean,
while yet only a raw student; and with the same energy and rapidity, in
Rome, attained the peaceful triumphs of the eloquence which had so long
been his study. The flight of years passed over him, alike victorious
in the factious strife of the capital, and in the deadly struggle
with the Celtic savages of North-western Europe. Ruling long-conquered
Spain in peace, and subjugating still barbarous Gaul, he showed
the same ascendent genius which made the greatest minds of Rome his
willing and despised tools, and crushed them when they at last dreamed
of independence or resistance. In the art military, supreme and
unconquered, whether met by the desperate savage of the forest or
desert, or by the veteran legions of republican Rome,――in the arts of
intrigue, more than a match for the subtlest deceivers of a jealous
democracy,――as an orator, winning the hearts and turning the thoughts
of those who were the hearers of Cicero,――as a writer, unmatched
even in that Ciceronian age, for strength and flowing ease, though
writing in a camp, amid the fatigues of a savage warfare,――in all the
accomplishments that adorn and soften, and in all the manly exercises
that ennoble and strengthen, alike complete,――in battle, in storm, on
the ocean and on land, in the collected fury of the charge, and the
sudden shock of the surprise, always dauntless and cool, showing a
courage never shaken, though so often tried,――to his friends kind and
generous,――to his vanquished foes, without exception, merciful and
forgiving,――beloved by the former, respected by the latter, and adored
by the people,――a scholar, an astronomer, a poet, a wit, a gallant,
an orator, a statesman, a warrior, a governor, a monarch,――his vast
and various attainments, so wonderful in that wonderful age, have
secured to him, from the great of his own and all following ages, the
undeniable name of THE MOST PERFECT CHARACTER OF ALL ANTIQUITY. Such
a man was CAIUS JULIUS CAESAR. He saved the people from themselves;
he freed them from their own tyranny, and ended forever, in Rome,
the power of the populace to meddle with the disposal of the great
interests of the consolidated nations of the empire. It was necessary
that it should be so. The empire was too vast for an ignorant and
stupid democracy to govern. The safety and comfort of the world
required a better rule; and never was any man, in the course of
Providence, more wonderfully prepared as the instrument of a mighty
work, than was Julius Caesar, as the founder of a power which was to
last till the fall of Rome. For the accomplishment of this wonderful
purpose, every one of his countless excellences seems to have done
something; and nothing less than he, could have thus achieved a task,
which prepared the way for the advance of a power, that was to outlast
his throne and the Eternal city. Under the controlling influence of
his genius, the world was so calmed, subjugated and arranged, that
the gates of all nations were opened for the peaceful entrance of the
preachers of the gospel. So solidly did he lay the foundation of his
dominion, that even his own murder, by the objects of his undeserved
clemency, made not the slightest change in the fate of Rome; for the
paltry intrigues and fights of a few years ended in placing the power,
which Caesar had won, in the hands of his heir and namesake, whose most
glorious triumphs were but straws on the mighty stream of events, which
Julius had set in motion.

  _Caesar._――Those who are accustomed merely to the common cant
  of many would-be philanthropists, about the destruction of
  the liberties of Rome, and the bloody-minded atrocity of their
  destroyer, will doubtless feel shocked at the favorable view
  taken of his character, above. The truth is, there was no
  liberty in Rome for Caesar to destroy; the question of political
  freedom having been long before settled in the triumphant
  ascendency of faction, the only choice was between one tyrant
  and ten thousand. No one can question that Caesar was the fair
  choice of the great mass of the people. They were always on
  his side, in opposition to the aristocracy, who sought his ruin
  because they considered him dangerous to their privileges, and
  _their_ liberty (to tyrannize;) and their fears were grounded on
  the very circumstance that the vast majority of the people were
  for him. This was the condition of parties until Caesar’s death,
  and long after, to the time of the final triumph of Octavius.
  Not one of Caesar’s friends among the people ever became his
  enemy, or considered him as having betrayed their affection by
  his assumptions of power. Those who murdered him, and plunged
  the world from a happy, universal peace, into the devastating
  horrors of a wide spread and protracted civil war, were not
  the patriotic avengers of an oppressed people; they were the
  jealous supporters of a haughty aristocracy, who saw their
  powers and dignity diminished, in being shared with vast numbers
  of the lower orders, added to the senate by Caesar, whose steady
  determination to humble them they saw in his refusal to pay
  them homage by rising, when the hereditary aristocracy of Rome
  took their seats in senate. It was to redeem the failing powers
  of their privileged order, that these aristocratic assassins
  murdered the man, whose mercy had triumphed over his prudence,
  in sparing the forfeited lives of these hereditary, dangerous
  foes of popular rights. Nor could they for a moment blind the
  people to the nature and object of their action; for as soon as
  the murder had been committed, the universal cry for justice,
  which rose at once from the whole mass of the people, indignant
  at the butchery of their friend, drove the gang of conspirators
  from Rome and from Italy, which they were never permitted again
  to enter. Those who thronged to the standards of the heir and
  friend of Caesar, were the hosts of democracy, who never rested
  till they had crushed and exterminated the miserable faction
  of aristocrats, who had hoped to triumph over the mass of the
  people, by the death of the people’s great friend. Now if the
  people of Rome chose to give up their whole power, and the
  disposal of their political affairs, into the hands of a great,
  a talented, a generous and heroic man, like Caesar, who had so
  effectually vindicated and secured their freedom against the
  claims of a domineering aristocracy, and if they afterwards
  remained so well satisfied with the use which he made of
  this power, as never to make the slightest effort, nor on any
  occasion to express the least wish, to resume it, I would like
  to know who had any business to hinder the sovran people from so
  doing, or what blame can in any way be laid to Caesar’s charge,
  for accepting, and for nobly and generously using the power so
  freely and heartily given up to him.

  The protracted detail of his mental and physical greatness,
  given in the sketch of his character above, would need for its
  full defense and illustration, the mention of such numerous
  particulars, that I must be content with challenging any doubter,
  to a reference to the record of the actions of his life, and
  such a reference will abundantly confirm every particular of the
  description. The steady and unanimous decision of the learned
  and the truly great of different ages, since his time, is enough
  to show his solid claims to the highest praise here given.
  Passing over the glory so uniformly yielded to him by the
  learned and eloquent of ancient days, we have among moderns the
  disinterested opinions of such men as the immortal Lord Verulam,
  from whom came the sentence given above, pronouncing him “the
  most perfect character of all antiquity;” a sentiment which,
  probably, no man of minute historical knowledge ever read,
  without a hearty acquiescence. This opinion has been quoted with
  approbation by our own greatest statesman, Alexander Hamilton,
  than whom none knew better how to appreciate real greatness.
  Lord Byron (Note 47 on Canto IV. of Childe Harold,) also quotes
  this sentence approvingly, and in the same passage gives a
  most interesting view of Caesar’s versatile genius and varied
  accomplishments, entering more fully into some particulars than
  that here given. The sentence of the Roman historian, Suetonius,
  (_Jure_ caesus existimetur,) seems to me to refer, not to
  the moral fitness or actual _right_ of his murder, but to
  the common law or ancient usage of Rome, by which any person
  of great influence, who was considered powerful enough to be
  dangerous to the ascendency of the patrician rank, or to the
  established order of things in any way, might be killed by
  any self-constituted executioner, even though the person thus
  murdered on bare suspicion of a liability to become dangerous,
  should really be innocent of the charge of aspiring to supreme
  power. (“Melium _jure_ caesum pronuntiavit, _etiam si regni
  crimine insons fuerit_.” Livy book iv. chapter 48.) The idea,
  that such an abominable outrage on the claim of an innocent man
  to his own life, could ever be seriously defended as morally
  _right_, is too palpably preposterous to bear a consideration.
  Such a principle of policy must have originated in a
  republicanism, somewhat similar to that which sanctions those
  exertions of democratic power, which have lately become famous
  under the name of Lynch law. It was a principle which in Rome
  enabled the patrician order to secure the destruction of any
  popular man of genius and intelligence, who, being able, might
  become willing to effect a revolution which would humble the
  power of the patrician aristocracy. The murder of the Gracchi,
  also, may be taken as a fair manifestation of the way in which
  the aristocracy were disposed to check the spirit of reform.

  The work of Caesar, then, was twofold, like the tyranny which
  he was to subvert; and well did he achieve both objects of his
  mighty efforts. Having first brought down the pride and the
  power of an overbearing aristocracy, he next, by the force
  of the same dominant genius, wrested the ill-wielded dominion
  from the unsteady hands of the fickle democracy, making
  them willingly subservient to the great purpose of their own
  subjugation, and acquiescent in the generous sway of one, whom
  a sort of political instinct taught them to fix on, as the man
  destined to rule them.

  Thus were the complicated and contradictory principles of Roman
  government exchanged for the simplicity of monarchical rule;
  an exchange most desirable for the peace and security of the
  subjects of the government. The empire was no longer shaken
  with the constant vacillations of supremacy from the aristocracy
  to the democracy, and from the democracy to the demagogues,
  alternately their tyrants and their slaves. The solitary tyranny
  of an emperor was occasionally found terrible in some of its
  details, but the worst of these could never outgo the republican
  cruelties of Marius and Sylla, and there was, at least, this one
  advantage on the side of those suffering under the monarchical
  tyranny, which would not be available in the case of the victims
  of mob-despotism. This was the ease with which a single stroke
  with a well-aimed dagger could remove the evil at once, and
  secure some chance of a change for the better, as was the case
  with Caligula, Nero, and Domitian; and though the advantages of
  the change were much more manifest in the two latter cases than
  in the former, yet, even in that, the relief experienced was
  worth the effort. But a whole tyrannical populace could not be
  so easily and summarily disposed of; and those who suffered by
  such despotism, could only wait till the horrible butcheries of
  civil strife, or the wasting carnage of foreign warfare, had
  used up the energies and the superfluous blood of the populace,
  and swept the flower of the democracy, by legions, to a wide and
  quiet grave. The remedy of the evil was therefore much slower,
  and more undesirable in its operation, in this case, than in the
  other; while the evil itself was actually more widely injurious.
  For, on the one hand, what imperial tyrant ever sacrificed so
  many victims in Rome, or produced such wide-wasting ruin, as
  either of those republican chiefs, Marius and Sylla? And on the
  other hand, when, in the most glorious and peaceful days of the
  aristocratic or democratic sway, did military glory, literature,
  science, art, commerce, and the whole common weal, so flourish
  and advance, as under the imperial Augustus, the sage Vespasian
  and the amiable Titus, the heroic Trajan, the polished Adrian,
  or the wise and philosophic Antonines? Never did Rome wear
  the aspect of a truly majestic city, till the imperial pride
  of her long line of Caesars had filled her with the temples,
  amphitheaters, circuses, aqueducts, baths, triumphal columns
  and arches, which to this day perpetuate the solid glory of the
  founders, and make her the wonder of the world, while not one
  surviving great work of art claims a republican for its author.

  To such a glory did the Caesars raise her, and from such a
  splendor did she fade, as now.

         “Such is the moral of all human tales;
            ’Tis but the same rehearsal of the past,――
          First freedom, and then glory――when that fails,
            Wealth, vice, corruption,――barbarism at last,
          And history, with all her volumes vast,
          Hath but one page.”

An allusion to such a man, in such a book as this, could not be
justified, but on this satisfactory ground;――that the changes which he
wrought in the Roman government, and the conquests by which he spread
and secured the influence of Roman civilization, seem to have done
more than any other political action could do, to effect the general
diffusion, and the perpetuity of the Christian faith. A glance at these
great events, in this light, will show to us the first imperial Caesar,
as Christ’s most mighty precursor, unwittingly preparing the way for
the advance of the Messiah,――a bloody and all-crushing warrior, opening
the path for the equally resistless triumphs of the Prince of Peace.
Even this striking characteristic, of cool and unscrupulous ambition,
became a most glorious means for the production of this strange result.
This same moral obtuseness, too, about the right of conquest, so
heinous in the light of modern ethics, but so blameless, and even
praise-worthy in the eyes of the good and great of Caesar’s days,
shows us how low was the world’s standard of right before the coming
of Christ; and yet this insensibility became, in the hands of the God
who causes the wrath of man to praise him, a doubly powerful means of
spreading that faith, whose essence is love to man.

Look over the world, then, as it was before the Roman conquest, and see
the difficulties, both physical and moral, that would have attended the
universal diffusion of a new and peaceful religious faith. Barbarous
nations, all over the three continents, warring with each other,
and with the failing outworks of civilization,――besotted tyranny,
wearing out the energies of its subjects, by selfish and all-grasping
folly,――sea and land swarming with marauders, and every wheel of
science and commerce rolling backward or breaking down. Such was the
seemingly resistless course of events, when the star of Roman fortune
rose on the world, under whose influence, at once destructive and
benign, the advancing hosts of barbarity were checked and overthrown,
and their triumphs stayed for five hundred years; the elegance of
Grecian refinement was transplanted from the unworthy land of its birth,
to Italian soil, and the most ancient tracks of commerce, as well as
many new ones, were made as safe as they are at this peaceful day.
The mighty Caesar, last of all, casting down all thrones but his, and
laying the deep basis of its lasting dominion in the solid good of
millions, filled up the valleys, leveled the mountains, and smoothed
the plains, for the march of that monarch, whose kingdom is without end.

The connection of such a political change with the success of the
Christian enterprise, and with the perfect development and triumph
of our peaceful faith, depends on the simple truth, that Christianity
always flourishes best in the most highly civilized communities, and
can never be so developed as to do full justice to its capabilities,
in any state of society, short of the highest point of civilization.
It never has been received, and held uncorrupt, by mere savages
or wanderers; and it never can be. Thus and therefore it was, that
wherever Roman conquest spread, and secured the lasting triumphs of
civilization, thither Christianity followed, and flourished, as on a
congenial soil, till at last not one land was left in the whole empire,
where the eagle and the dove did not spread their wings in harmonious
triumph. In all these lands, where Roman civilization prepared the way,
Christian churches rose, and gathered within them the noble and the
refined, as well as the humble and the poor. Spain, Gaul, Britain and
Africa, as well as the ancient homes of knowledge, Egypt, Greece and
Asia, are instances of this kind. And in every one of these, the reign
of the true faith became coeval with civilization, yielding in some
instances, it is true, on the advance of modern barbarism, but only
when the Arabian prophet made them bow before his sword. Yet while
within the pale of Roman conquest, Christianity supplanted polytheism,
beyond that wide circle, heathenism remained long undisturbed, till
the victorious march of the barbarian conquerors, over the empire of
the Caesars, secured the extension of the gospel to them also;――the
vanquished, in one sense, triumphing in turn over the victors, by
making them the submissive subjects of Roman civilization, language,
and religion;――so that, for the first five hundred years of the
Christian era, the dominion of the Caesars was the most efficient
earthly instrument for the extension of the faith. The persecution
which the followers of the new faith occasionally suffered, were the
results of aberrations from the general principles of tolerance, which
characterized the religious policy of the empire; and after a few such
acts of insane cruelty, the natural course of reaction brought the
persecuted religion into fast increasing and finally universal favor.

If the religion, thus widely and lastingly diffused, was corrupted from
the simplicity of the truth as it was in Jesus, this corruption is to
be charged, not against the Romans, but against the unworthy successors
of the apostles and ancient fathers, who sought to make the severe
beauty of the naked truth more acceptable to the heathenish fancies
of the people, by robing it in the borrowed finery of mythology. Yet,
though thus humiliated in its triumph, the victory of Christianity over
that complex and dazzling religion, was most complete. The faith to
which Italians and Greeks had been devoted for ages,――which had drawn
its first and noblest principles from the mysterious sources of the
antique Etruscan, Egyptian and Phoenician, and had enriched its dark
and boundless plan with all that the varied superstitions of every
conquered people could furnish,――the faith which had rooted itself so
deeply in the poetry, the patriotism, and the language of the Roman,
and had so twined itself with every scene of his nation’s glory,
from the days of Romulus,――now gave way before the simple word of
the carpenter of Nazareth, and was so torn up and swept away from its
strong holds, that the very places which through twenty generations its
triumphs had hallowed, were now turned into shrines for the worship of
the God of despised Judah. So utterly was the Olympian Jove unseated,
and cast down from his long-dreaded throne, that his name passed away
forever from the worship of mankind, and has never been recalled, but
with contempt. He, and all his motley train of gods and goddesses,
are remembered no more with reverence, but vanishing from even the
knowledge of the mass of the people, are

    “Gone glimmering through the dream of things that were,”――
    “A school-boy’s tale.”

Every ancient device for the perpetuation of the long established faith,
disappeared in the advancing light of the gospel. Temples, statues,
oracles, festivals, and all the solemn paraphernalia of superstition,
were swept to oblivion, or, changing their names only, were made the
instruments of recommending the new faith to the eyes of the common
people. But, however the pliant spirit of the degenerate successors of
the early fathers might bend to the vulgar superstitions of the day,
the establishment of the Christian religion, upon the ruins of Roman
heathenism, was effected with a completeness that left not a name to
live behind them, nor the vestige of a form, to keep alive in the minds
of the people, the memory of the ancient religion. The words applied
by our great poet to the time of Christ’s birth, have something more
than poetical force, as a description of the absolute extermination of
these superstitions, both public and domestic, on the final triumph of
Christianity:

     “The oracles are dumb;
      No voice or hideous hum
      Rolls through the arched roof in words deceiving.
      Apollo from his shrine
      Can no more divine,
      With hollow shriek the steep of Delphos leaving.
      No nightly trance or breathed spell,
      Inspires the pale-eyed priest from the prophetic cell.”

                   *       *       *       *       *

     “In consecrated earth
      And on the holy hearth,
      The Lars and Lemures moan with midnight plaint;
      In urns and altars round,
      A drear and dying sound,
      Affrights the Flamens at their service quaint;
      And the chill marble seems to sweat,
      While each peculiar power foregoes his wonted seat.”

Thus were the mighty labors of human ambition made subservient to
the still greater achievements of divine benevolence; thus did the
unholy triumphs of the hosts of heathenism become, in the hands of
the All-wise, the surest means of spreading the holy and peace-making
truths of Christianity, to the ends of the earth,――otherwise
unapproachable without a miracle. The dominion which thus grew upon
and over the vast empire of Rome, though growing with her growth and
strengthening with her strength, sunk not with her weakness, but,
stretching abroad fresh branches, whose leaves were for the healing
of nations then unknown, showed its divine origin by its immortality;
while, alas! its human modifications betrayed themselves in its
diminished grace and ill-preserved symmetry. Yet in spite of these,
rather than by means of them, it rose still mightier above the ruins of
the empire, under whose shadow it had grown, till, at last, supplanting
Roman and Goth alike, it fixed its roots on the seven hills of the
Eternal city; where, thenceforth, for hundreds of years, the head of
Christendom, ruling with a power more absolute than her imperial sway,
saw more than the Roman world beneath him. Even to this day, vast and
countless “regions, Caesar never knew,” own him of Rome as “the center
of unity;” and lands

                                 “farther west
              Than the Greek’s islands of the blest,”

and farther east than the long unpassed bounds of Roman conquest, turn,
with an adoration and awe immeasurably greater than the most exalted of
the apotheosized Caesars ever received, to him who claims the name of
the successor of the poor fisherman of Galilee.

                   *       *       *       *       *

Such, and so vast, was the revolution, to the achievement of which,
the lives and deeds of the apostles most essentially contributed,――a
revolution which, even if looked on as the result of mere human effort,
must appear the most wonderful ever effected by such humble human means,
as these narratives will show to have been used. The character of the
men first chosen by the founder of the faith, as the instruments of
spreading the lasting conquests of his gospel,――their birth, their
country, their provincial peculiarities,――all marked them as most
unlikely persons to undertake the overthrow of the religious prejudices
even of their own countrymen; and still less groundless must have been
the hope that any of Jewish race, however well taught in the wisdom of
the world, could so far overcome the universal feeling of dislike, with
which this peculiar nation were regarded, as to bring the learned, the
powerful and the great of Rome and Greece, and of Eastern lands, to
own a low-born Galilean workman as their guide to truth,――the author
of their hopes of life eternal. Yet went they forth even to this task,
whose achievement was so far beyond the range of human hopes; and with
a zeal as far above the inspiration of human ambition, they gave their
energies and their lives to this desperate commission. Without a hope
of an earthly triumph or an earthly reward,――without even a prospect
of a peaceful death or an honored grave, while they lived, they spent
their strength fearlessly for him who SENT them forth; and when they
died, their last breath went out in triumph at the near prospect of
their lasting gain.

In giving the lives of these men, many incidents will require notice,
in which no individual apostle was concerned alone, but the whole
company to which he belonged. In each class of the apostles, these
incidents will be given under the head of the principal person in that
class, whose life is placed before the rest. Thus, those matters in
which all the twelve had a common interest, and in which no particular
apostle is named, will find a place in the life of Peter, their great
leader; and among the later apostles, the distinct pre-eminence of Paul
will, of course, cause all matters of common interest to be absorbed
in his life, while of his companions nothing farther need be recorded,
than those things which immediately concern them.




                       I. THE GALILEAN APOSTLES.




                             SIMON CEPHAS,
                     COMMONLY CALLED SIMON PETER.


                          HIS APOSTOLIC RANK.

THE order in which the names of the apostles are arranged in this book,
can make little difference in the interest which their history will
excite in the reader’s mind, nor can such an arrangement, of itself,
do much to affect his opinion of their comparative merits; yet to their
biographer, it becomes a matter of some importance, as well as interest,
to show not only authority, but reason, for the order in which he ranks
them.

Sufficient _authority_ for placing Simon Cephas first, is found in
the three lists of the apostles given respectively by Matthew, Mark
and Luke, which, though differing as to their arrangement in some
particulars, entirely agree in giving to this apostle the precedence of
all. But it would by no means become the earnest and faithful searcher
into sacred history, to rest satisfied with a bare reference to
the unerring word, on a point of so much interest. So far from it,
the strictest reverence for the sacred record both allows and urges
the inquiry, as to what were the circumstances of Peter’s life
and character, that led the three evangelists thus unanimously and
decidedly to place him at the head of the sacred band, on all whom, in
common, rested the commissioned power of doing the marvelous works of
Jesus, and spreading his gospel in all the world. Was this preference
the result of mere incidental circumstances, such as age, prior calling,
&c.? Or, does it mark a pre-eminence of character or qualifications,
entitling him to lead and rule the apostolic company in the name of
Christ, as the commissioned chief of the faithful?

The _reason_ of this preference, as far as connected with his character,
will of course be best shown in the incidents of his life and conduct,
as detailed in this narrative. But even here much may be brought
forward to throw light on the ground of Peter’s rank, as first of the
apostles. It is no more than fair to remark, however, that some points
of this inquiry have been very deeply, and at the same time, very
unnecessarily involved in the disputes between Protestants and Papists,
respecting the original supremacy of the church of Rome, as supposed to
have been founded or ruled by this chief apostle.

Of the many suppositions which might be made to account for Peter’s
priority of station on the apostolic list, it may be enough to notice
the following: That he was by birth the oldest of the twelve. This
assertion, however boldly made by some, rests entirely on conjecture,
as we have no certain information on this point, either from the
New Testament or any ancient writer of indisputable credit. Those
of the early Christian writers who allude to this matter, are quite
contradictory in their statements, some supposing Peter to be the
oldest of the apostles, and some supposing Andrew to be older than his
brother;――a discrepancy that may well entitle us to conclude that they
had no certain information about the matter. The weight of testimony,
however, seems rather against the assertion that Peter was the oldest,
inasmuch as the earliest writer who alludes at all to the subject, very
decidedly pronounces Andrew to have been the older brother. Enough,
then, is known, to prevent our relying on his seniority as the true
ground of his precedence. Still this point must be considered as
entirely doubtful; so doubtful that it cannot be considered as proof,
in the argument.

  The oldest Christian writer, who refers in any way to the
  comparative age of Peter, is Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, as
  early as A. D. 368. In his great work against heresies, (book ii.
  vol. 1, heresy 51,) in narrating the call of Andrew and Peter,
  he says, “The meeting (with Jesus) happened first to Andrew,
  Peter being less than him in age,” (μικροτερου οντος τω χρονῳ
  της ἡλικιας.) “But afterwards, when their complete forsaking of
  all earthly things is mentioned, Peter takes precedence, since
  God, who sees the turn of all characters, and knows who is fit
  for the highest places, chose Peter as the chief leader (αρχηγον)
  of his disciples.” This, certainly, is a very distinct assertion
  of Peter’s juniority, and is plainly meant to give the idea that
  Peter’s high rank among the apostles was due to a superiority of
  talent, which put him above those who were older.

  In favor of the assertion that Peter was older than Andrew, the
  earliest authority that has ever been cited, is John Chrysostom,
  bishop of Constantinople, about A. D. 400. This Father, in his
  homily on Matthew xvii. 27, (Homily 59,) says that Peter was a
  “first-born son,” (πρωτοτοκος.) In this passage, he is speaking
  of the tribute paid by Jesus and Peter for the expenses of the
  temple. He supposes that this tribute was the redemption-money
  due from the first-born sons of the Jews, for their exemption
  from the duties of the priesthood. But the account of this
  tax, in Numbers iii. 44‒51, shows that this was a tax of _five_
  shekels apiece, while that spoken of by Matthew, is called the
  _didrachmon_, a Greek coin equivalent to a _half_-shekel. Now
  the half-shekel tax was that paid by _every_ Jew above the age
  of twenty years, for the expenses of the temple service, as
  is fully described in Exodus xxx. 12‒16; xxxviii. 26. Josephus
  also mentions this half-shekel tax, as due from _every_ Jew, for
  the service of the temple. (See Hammond on Matthew xvii. 24.)
  Chrysostom is therefore wholly in the wrong, about the nature of
  the tax paid by Jesus and Peter; (verse 27, “give it for me and
  thee,”) and the reason which he gives for the payment, (namely,
  that they were both first-born sons,) being disproved, his
  belief of Peter’s seniority is shown to be based on an error,
  and therefore entitled to no credit whatever; more particularly,
  when opposed to the older authority of Epiphanius.

  Lardner, in support of the opinion that Peter was the oldest,
  quotes also Cassian and Bede; but it is most manifest that a
  bare assertion of two writers, who lived, one of them 424, and
  the other 700 years after Christ,――an assertion unsupported by
  any proof whatever, cannot be received as evidence in the case.
  The most natural _conjecture_ of any one who was accounting
  for the eminence of Peter, would be that he was older than the
  brother of whom he takes precedence so uniformly; and it is no
  more than just to conclude, therefore, that the ground of this
  notion was but a mere guess. But in the case of Epiphanius,
  besides the respect due to the early authority, it is important
  to observe, that he could have no motive for inventing the
  notion of Andrew’s seniority, since the uniform prominence
  of Peter would most naturally suggest the idea that _he_ was
  the oldest. It is fair to conclude, then, that an opinion, so
  unlikely to be adopted without special proof, must have had the
  authority of uniform early tradition; for Epiphanius mentions it
  as if it were a universally admitted fact; nor does he seem to
  me to have invented the notion of Andrew’s seniority, to account
  for his being first known to Jesus, though he mentions these two
  circumstances in their natural connection. Yet Lampius, in his
  notes on John i. supposing that Epiphanius arranged the facts on
  the principle “post hoc, ergo, propter hoc,” has rejected this
  Father’s declaration of Andrew’s seniority, as a mere invention,
  to account for this apostle’s prior acquaintance with Jesus. The
  reader may judge between them.

  Lardner, moreover, informs us that Jerome maintains the opinion,
  that Peter was preferred before the other apostles on account
  of his age. But a reference to the original passage, shows that
  the comparison was only between Peter and John, and not between
  Peter and the rest of the apostles. Speaking of Peter as the
  constituted head of the church, he says that was done to avoid
  dissensions, (_ut schismatis tollatur occasio_.) The question
  might then arise, why was not John chosen first, being so pure
  and free from connections that might interfere with apostolic
  duties? (Cur non Johannes electus est virgo? Aetati delatum
  est, quia Petrus _senior_ erat; ne adhuc adolescens ac pene
  puer progressae aetatis hominibus praeferretur.) “It was out
  of regard to age, because Peter was _older_ (than John;) nor
  could one who was yet immature, and little more than a boy, be
  preferred to a man of mature age.” The passage evidently does
  not touch the question of Peter’s being the oldest of all, nor
  does it contradict, in any way, the opinion that Andrew was
  older, as all which Jerome says is, merely, that Peter was older
  than John,――an opinion unquestionably accordant with the general
  voice of all ancient Christian tradition.

  The character of Epiphanius, however, it must be acknowledged,
  is so low for judgment and accuracy, that his word is not
  of itself sufficient to establish any very doubtful fact, as
  certain. Yet in this case, there is no temptation to pervert
  facts on a point of so little interest or importance, and one on
  which no prejudice could govern his decision. We may therefore
  give him, in this matter, about all the credit due to his
  antiquity. Still, there is much more satisfactory proof of
  Peter’s not being the oldest apostle, founded on various
  circumstances of apostolic history, which will be referred to
  in their places.

Nor can priority of calling be offered as the reason of this apparent
superiority; for the minute record given by the evangelist John, makes
it undeniable that Andrew became acquainted with Jesus before Peter,
and that the eminent disciple was afterwards first made known to Jesus,
by means of his less highly honored brother.

The only reasonable supposition left, then, is, that there was an
intentional preference of Simon Cephas, on the score of eminence
for genius, zeal, knowledge, prudence, or some other quality which
fitted him for taking the lead of the chief ministers of the Messiah.
The word “_first_,” which accompanies his name in Matthew’s list,
certainly appears, in the view of some, to have some force above the
mere tautological expression of a fact so very self-evident from the
collocation, as that he was first on the list. The Bible shows not an
instance of a list begun in that way, with this emphatic word so vainly
and unmeaningly applied. The analogies of expression in all languages,
ancient and modern, would be very apt to lead a common reader to think
that the numeral adjective thus prefixed, was meant to give the idea
that Simon Peter was put _first_ for some better reason than mere
accident. Any person, in giving a list of twelve eminent men, all
devoted to a common pursuit, and laboring in one great cause, whose
progress he was attempting to record, would, in arranging them, if
he disregarded the circumstances of seniority, &c., very naturally
give them place according to their importance in reference to the
great subject before him. If, as in the present case, three different
persons should, in the course of such a work, make out such a
list, an individual difference of opinion about a matter of mere
personal preference, like this, might produce variations in the minor
particulars; but where all three united in giving to one and the same
person, the first and most honorable place, the ordinary presumption
would unavoidably be, that the prior rank of the person thus
distinguished, was considered, by them at least, at the time when they
wrote, as decidedly and indisputably established. The determination
of a point so trifling being without any influence on matters of faith
and doctrine, each evangelist might, without detriment to the sanctity
and authority of the record which he bears, be left to follow his
own private opinion of the most proper principle of arrangement to be
followed in enumerating the apostles. Thus, while it is noticeable that
the whole twelve were disposed in six pairs by each of the evangelists,
yet the order and succession of these is somewhat changed, by different
circumstances directing the choice of each writer. Matthew modestly
puts himself after Thomas, with whom he seems by all the gospel
lists, to have some close connection; but Mark and Luke combine to
give Matthew the precedence, and invert the order in which, through
unobtrusiveness, he had, as it would seem, robbed true merit of its due
superiority. And yet these points of precedence were so little looked
to, that in the first chapter of Acts, Luke makes a new arrangement of
these names, advancing Thomas to the precedency, not only of Matthew,
but of Bartholomew, who, in all other places where their names are
given, is mentioned before him. So also Matthew prefers to mention the
brothers together, and gives Andrew a place immediately after Peter,
although, in so many places after, he speaks of Peter, James and
John together, as most highly distinguished by Christ, and favored by
opportunities of beholding him and his works, on occasions when other
eyes were shut out. Mark, on the contrary, gives these names with
more strict reference to distinction of rank, and mentions the favored
trio together, first of all, making the affinities of birth of less
consequence than the share of favor enjoyed by each with the Messiah.
Luke, in his gospel, follows Matthew’s arrangement of the brothers,
but in the first chapter of Acts puts the three great apostles first,
separating Andrew from his brother, and mentioning him after the
sons of Zebedee. These changes of arrangement, while they show of how
little vital importance the order of names was considered, yet, by the
uniform preservation of Peter in the first rank, prove that the exalted
pre-eminence of Peter was so universally known and acknowledged, that
whatever difference of opinion writers might entertain respecting more
obscure persons,――as to him, no inversion of order could be permitted.

How far Peter was by this pre-eminence endowed with any supremacy over
the other apostles, may of course be best shown in those places of his
history, which appear either to maintain or question this position.

That Simon Cephas, or Peter, then, was the first or chief of the
apostles, appears from the uniform precedence with which his name is
honored on all occasions in the Scriptures, where the order in which
names are mentioned could be made to depend on rank,――by the universal
testimony of the Fathers, and by the general impressions entertained on
this point throughout the Christian world, in all ages since his time.


                              HIS BIRTH.

From two separate passages in the gospels, we learn that the name
of the father of Simon Peter was Jonah, but beyond this we have no
direct information as to his family. From the terms in which Peter is
frequently mentioned along with the other apostles, we infer, however,
that he must have been from the lowest order of society, which also
appears from the business to which he devoted his life, before he
received the summons that sent him forth to the world, on a far higher
errand. Of such a humble family, he was born at Bethsaida, in Galilee,
on or near the shore of the sea of Galilee, otherwise called lake
Tiberias, or Gennesaret. Upon this lake he seems to have followed his
laborious and dangerous livelihood, which very probably, in accordance
with the hereditary succession of trades, common among the Jews, was
the occupation of his father and ancestors before him. Of the time of
his birth no certain information can be had, as those who were able
to inform us, were not disposed to set so high a value upon ages and
dates, as the writers and readers of later times. The most reasonable
conjecture as to his age, is, that he was about the same age with
Jesus Christ; which rests on the circumstances of his being married
at the period when he was first called by Christ,――his being made the
object of such high confidence and honor by his Master, and the eminent
standing which he seems to have maintained, from the first, among the
apostles. Still there is nothing in all these circumstances, that is
irreconcilable with the supposition that he was younger than Christ;
and if any reader prefers to suppose the period of his birth so much
later, there is no important point in his history or character that
will be affected by such a change of dates.

  _Bethsaida._――The name of this place occurs in several passages
  of gospel history, as connected with the scenes of the life of
  Jesus. (Matthew xi. 21; Mark vi. 45, viii. 22‒26; Luke ix. 10,
  x. 13; John i. 45, xii. 21.) The name likewise occurs in the
  writings of Josephus, who describes Bethsaida, and mentions some
  circumstances of its history. The common impression among the
  New Testament commentators has been, that the Bethsaida which is
  so often mentioned in the gospels, was on the western shore of
  lake Gennesaret, near the other cities which were the scenes of
  important events in the life of Jesus. Yet Josephus distinctly
  implies that Bethsaida was situated on the eastern shore of the
  lake, as he says that it was built by Philip the tetrarch, in
  Lower Gaulonitis, (Jewish war, book ii. chapter 9, section 1,)
  which was on the eastern side of the Jordan and the lake,
  though not in _Peraea_, as Lightfoot rather hastily assumes; for
  Peraea, though by its derivation (from περαν, _peran_, “beyond,”)
  meaning simply “what was beyond” the river, yet was, in the
  geography of Palestine, applied to only that portion of the
  country east of Jordan, which extends from Moab on the south,
  northward, to Pella, on the Jabbok. (Josephus, Jewish war, book
  iii. chapter 3, section 3.) Another point in which the account
  given by Josephus differs from that in the gospels, is, that
  while Josephus places Bethsaida in Gaulonitis, John (xii. 21,)
  speaks of it distinctly as a city of Galilee, and Peter, as well
  as others born in Bethsaida, is called a Galilean. These two
  apparent disagreements have led many eminent writers to conclude
  that there were on and near the lake, two wholly different
  places bearing the name of Bethsaida. Schleusner, Bretschneider,
  Fischer, Pococke, Reland, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, and
  others, have maintained this opinion with many arguments. But
  Lightfoot, Cave, Calmet, Baillet, Macknight, Wells, and others,
  have decided that these differences can be perfectly reconciled,
  and all the circumstances related in the gospels, made to agree
  with Josephus’s account of the situation of Bethsaida.

  Illustration:    TIBERIAS AND THE SEA OF GALILEE.
                        Mark i. 16. John vi. 1.

  The first passage in which Josephus mentions this place, is in
  his Jewish Antiquities, book xviii. chapter 2, section 1. “And
  he, (Philip) having granted to the village of Bethsaida, near
  the lake of Gennesaret, the rank of a city, by increasing its
  population, and giving it importance in other ways, called it
  by the name of Julia, the daughter of Caesar,” (Augustus.) In
  his History of the Jewish War, book ii. chapter 9, section 1,
  he also alludes to it in a similar connection. Speaking, as in
  the former passage, of the cities built by Herod and Philip in
  their tetrarchies, he says, “The latter built Julias, in Lower
  Gaulanitis.” In the same history, book iii. chapter 9, section 7,
  describing the course of the Jordan, he alludes to this city.
  “Passing on (from lake Semechonitis,) one hundred and twenty
  furlongs farther, _to_ the city Julias, it flows through the
  middle of lake Gennesar.” In this passage I translate the
  preposition μετα (_meta_,) by the English “_to_,” though Hudson
  expresses it in Latin by “_post_,” and Macknight by the English
  “_behind_.” Lightfoot very freely renders it “_ante_,” but with
  all these great authorities against me, I have the consolation
  of finding my translation supported by the antique English
  version of the quaint Thomas Lodge, who distinctly expresses
  the preposition in this passage by “_unto_.” This translation of
  the word is in strict accordance with the rule that this Greek
  preposition, when it comes before the accusative after a verb
  of motion, has the force of “_to_,” or “_against_.” (See Jones’s
  Lexicon, sub voc. μετα; also Hederici Lexicon.) But in reference
  to _places_, it never has the meaning of “_behind_,” given
  to it by Macknight, nor of “_post_,” in Latin, as in Hudson’s
  translation, still less of “_ante_,” as Lightfoot very queerly
  expresses it. The passage, then, simply means that the Jordan,
  after passing out of lake Semechonitis, flows one hundred and
  twenty furlongs _to_ the city of Julias or Bethsaida, (not
  _behind_ it, nor _before_ it,) and there enters lake Gennesar,
  the whole expressing as clearly as may be, that Julias stood on
  the river just where it widens into the lake. That Julias stood
  on the Jordan, and not on the lake, though near it, is made
  further manifest, by a remark made by Josephus, in his memoirs
  of his own life. He, when holding a military command in the
  region around the lake, during the war against the Romans, on
  one occasion, sent against the enemy a detachment of soldiers,
  who “encamped near the river Jordan, about a furlong from Julias.”
  (Life of Josephus, section 72.)

  It should be remarked, moreover, that, at the same time when
  Philip enlarged Bethsaida, in this manner, and gave it the name
  of Julia, the daughter of Augustus Caesar, his brother Herod
  Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, with a similar ambition
  to exalt his own glory, and secure the favor of the imperial
  family, rebuilt a city in his dominions, named Betharamphtha,
  to which he gave the name _Julias_ also; but in honor, not
  of the daughter, but of the wife of Augustus, who bore the
  family name, Julia, which passed from her to her daughter.
  This multiplication of namesake towns, has only created new
  confusion for us; for the learned Lightfoot, in his Chorographic
  century on Matthew, has unfortunately taken this for the Julias
  which stood on the Jordan, at its entrance into the lake,
  and accordingly applies to Julias-Betharamphtha, the last two
  quotations from Josephus, given above, which I have applied to
  Julias-Bethsaida. But it would seem as if this most profound
  Biblical scholar was certainly in the wrong here; since
  Julias-Betharamphtha must have been built by Herod Antipas
  within his own dominions, that is, in Galilee proper, or Peraea
  proper, as already bounded; and Josephus expressly says that
  this Julias was in Peraea; yet Lightfoot, in his rude little
  wood-cut map, (Horae Hebraica et Talmudicae in Marci, Decas
  Chorographica chapter v.) has put this in Gaulanitis, far north
  of its true place, at the influx of the Jordan into the lake,
  (“ad ipsissimum influxum Jordanis in lacum Gennesariticum,”)
  and Julias-Bethsaida, also in Gaulanitis, some miles lower down,
  at the south-east corner of the lake, a position adopted by no
  other writer that I know of. This peculiarity in Lightfoot’s
  views, I have thus stated at length, that those who may
  refer to his _Horae_ for more light, might not suppose a
  confusion in my statement, which does not exist; for since the
  Julias-Betharamphtha of Herod could not have been in Gaulanitis,
  but in Peraea, the Julias at the influx of the Jordan into
  the lake, must have been the Bethsaida embellished by Philip,
  tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, (Luke iii. 1,) which
  included Gaulanitis, Batanea, &c. east of Jordan and the
  lake, and north of Peraea proper. The substance of Josephus’s
  information on this point, is, therefore, that Bethsaida stood
  on the eastern side of the Jordan, just where it enters lake
  Gennesar, or Gennesaret, (otherwise called lake Tiberias and the
  sea of Galilee,)――that it stood in the province of Gaulanitis,
  within the dominions of Philip, son of Herod the Great, and
  tetrarch of all that portion of Palestine which lies north
  of Peraea, on the east of Jordan, and the lake, as well as of
  the region north of Galilee, his tetrarchy forming a sort of
  crescent,――that this prince, having enlarged and embellished
  Bethsaida, raised it from a village to the rank of a city, by
  the name of Julias, in honor of Julia, daughter of Augustus
  Caesar. This was done during the reign of Augustus, (Josephus,
  in Jewish Antiquities book i. chapter 2, section 1,) and of
  course long before Jesus Christ began his labors, though after
  his birth, because it was after the death of Herod the Great.

  The question now is, whether the Bethsaida mentioned by
  the evangelists is by them so described as to be in any way
  inconsistent with the account given by Josephus, of the place
  to which he gives that name. The first difficulty which has
  presented itself to the critical commentators, on this point, is
  the fact, that the Bethsaida of the gospels is declared in them
  to have been a city of Galilee, (John xii. 21,) and those who
  were born and brought up in it are called Galileans, (Mark xiv.
  70, Luke xxii. 59, Acts i. 7, ii. 7.) Yet Josephus expressly
  tells us, that Bethsaida was in Gaulanitis, which was not in
  Galilee, as he bounds it, but was beyond its eastern boundary,
  on the eastern side of the river and lake. (Jewish war, book
  xviii. chapter 2, section 1.) This is therefore considered by
  many, as a diversity between the two accounts, which must make
  it impossible to apply them both to the same place. But there
  is no necessity for such a conclusion. The different application
  of the term Galilee, in the two books, must be noticed, in
  order to avoid confusion. Josephus is very exact in the use of
  names of places and regions, defining geographical positions
  and boundaries with a particularity truly admirable. Thus, in
  mentioning the political divisions of Palestine, he gives the
  precise limits of each, and uses their names, not in the loose,
  popular way, but only in his own accurate sense. But the gospel
  writers are characterized by no such minute particularity, in
  the use of names, which they generally apply in the popular,
  rather than the exact sense. Thus, in this case, they use the
  term Galilee, in what seems to have been its common meaning in
  Judea, as a name for all the region north of Samaria and Peraea,
  on both sides of the Jordan, including, of course, Gaulanitis
  and all the dominions of Philip. The difference between them and
  Josephus, on this point, is very satisfactorily shown in another
  passage. In Acts v. 37, Gamaliel, speaking of several persons
  who had at different times disturbed the peace of the nation,
  mentions one Judas, the _Galilean_, as a famous rebel. Now this
  same person is very particularly described by Josephus, (Jewis
  Antiquities book xv. chapter 1, section 1,) in such a manner
  that there can be no doubt of his identity with the previous
  description. Yet Josephus calls him distinctly, Judas the
  _Gaulanite_, and only once Judas the _Galilean_; showing him
  to have been from the city of Gamala, in the country east of
  Jordan and the lake; so that the conclusion is unavoidable,
  that the term Galilee is used in a much wider sense in the New
  Testament than in Josephus, being applied indiscriminately to
  the region on both sides of the lake. The people of southern
  Palestine called the whole northern section Galilee, and all its
  inhabitants, Galileans, without attending to the nicer political
  and geographical distinctions; just as the inhabitants of the
  southern section of the United States, high and low, call every
  stranger a Yankee, who is from any part of the country north of
  Mason and Dixon’s line, though well-informed people perfectly
  well know, that the classic and not despicable name of Yankee
  belongs fairly and truly to the ingenious sons of New England
  alone, who have made their long-established sectional title
  so synonymous with acuteness and energy, that whenever an
  enterprising northerner pushes his way southward, he shares in
  the honors of this gentile appellative. Just in the same vague
  and careless way, did the Jews apply the name Galilean to all
  the energetic, active northerners, who made themselves known
  in Jerusalem, either by their presence or their fame; and thus
  both Judas of Gaulanitis, and those apostles who were from the
  eastern side of the river, were called Galileans, as well as
  those on the west, in Galilee proper. Besides, in the case of
  Bethsaida, which was immediately on the line between Galilee and
  Gaulanitis, it was still more natural to refer it to the larger
  section on the west, with many of whose cities it was closely
  connected.

  Besides, that the Jews considered Galilee as extending beyond
  Jordan, is most undeniably clear from Isaiah ix. 1, where the
  prophet plainly speaks of “Galilee of the nations, as being
  by the side of the sea, beyond Jordan.” This was the ancient
  Jewish idea of the country designated by this name, and the
  idea of limiting it to the west of Jordan, was a mere late
  term introduced by the Romans, and apparently never used by the
  Jews of the gospel times, except when speaking of the political
  divisions of Palestine. The name Gaulanitis, which is the proper
  term for the province in which Bethsaida was, never occurs in
  the bible. Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, &c. give a different view,
  however, of “beyond Jordan,” on Matthew iv. 15.

  But a still more important difficulty has been suggested, in
  reference to the identity of the place described by Josephus,
  with that mentioned in the gospels. This is, the fact that in
  the gospels it is spoken of in such a connection, as would seem
  to require its location on the western side. A common, but very
  idle argument, in favor of this supposition, is, that Bethsaida
  is mentioned frequently along with Capernaum and other cities
  of Galilee proper, in such immediate connection as to make it
  probable that it was on the same side of the river and lake
  with them. But places separated merely by a river, or at most
  by a narrow lake, whose greatest breadth was only five miles,
  could not be considered distant from each other, and would
  very naturally be spoken of as near neighbors. The most weighty
  argument, however, rests on a passage in Mark vi. 45, where
  it is said that Jesus constrained his disciples to “get into a
  vessel, to go before him to the other side _unto_ Bethsaida,”
  after the five thousand had been fed. Now the parallel passage
  in John vi. 17, says that they, following this direction, “went
  over the sea towards Capernaum,” and that when they reached the
  shore, “they came into the land of Gennesaret,” both which are
  understood to be on the western side. But on the other hand, we
  are distinctly told, by Luke, (ix. 10,) that the five thousand
  were fed in “a desert place, belonging to (or near) the city
  which is called Bethsaida.” On connecting these two passages,
  therefore, (in John and Mark,) according to the common version,
  the disciples sailed from Bethsaida on one side, to Bethsaida
  on the other, a construction which has been actually adopted
  by those who maintain the existence of two cities of the same
  name on different sides of the lake. But what common reader is
  willing to believe, that in this passage Luke refers to a place
  totally different from the one meant in all other passages where
  the name occurs, and more particularly in the very next chapter,
  ( x. 13,) where he speaks of the Bethsaida which had been
  frequented before by Jesus, without a word of explanation to
  show that it was a different place? But in the expression,
  “to go before him to the other side, TO Bethsaida,” the word
  “TO” may be shown, by a reference to the Greek, to convey an
  erroneous idea of the situation of the places. The preposition
  προς, (_pros_,) may have, not merely the sense of _to_, with
  the idea of motion towards a place, but in some passages even
  of Mark’s gospel, may be most justly translated “_near_,” or
  “_before_,” (as in ii. 2, “not even _about_” or “_before_” the
  door, and in xi. 4, “tied _by_” or _before_ “the door.”) This is
  the meaning which seems to be justified by the collocation here,
  and the meaning in which I am happy to find myself supported by
  the acute and accurate Wahl, in his Clavis Novi Testamenti under
  προς, which he translates in this passage by the Latin _juxta_,
  _prope ad_; and the German _bey_, that is, “by,” “near to,”
  a meaning supported by the passage in Herodotus, to which he
  refers, as well as by those from Mark himself, which are given
  above, from Schleusner’s references under this word, (definition
  7.) Scott, in order to reconcile the difficulties which he
  saw in the common version, has, in his marginal references,
  suggested the meaning of “over against,” a rendering, which
  undoubtedly expresses correctly the relations of objects in
  this place, and one, perhaps, not wholly inconsistent with
  Schleusner’s 7th definition, which is in Latin _ante_, or
  “before;” since what was _before_ Bethsaida, as one looked from
  that place across the river, was certainly _opposite to_ that
  city. I had thought of this meaning as a desirable one in this
  passage, but had rejected it, before I saw it in Scott, for the
  reason, that I could not find this exact meaning in any lexicon,
  nor was there any other passage in Greek, in which this could
  be distinctly recognized as the proper one. The propriety of
  the term, however, is also noticed, in the note on this passage
  in the great French Bible, with commentaries, harmonies, &c.
  (Sainte Bible en Latin et Francois avec des notes, &c. Vol. xiv.
  p. 263, note,) where it is expressed by “l’autre cote du lac,
  _vis-a-vis_ Bethsaide: c. a. d. sur le bord occidental _opposé_
  a la ville Bethsaide que etait sur le bord oriental,” a meaning
  undoubtedly geographically correct, but not grammatically exact,
  and I therefore prefer to take “_near_,” as the sense which both
  reconciles the geographical difficulties, and accords with the
  established principles of lexicography.

  After all, the sense “_to_” is not needed in this passage, to
  direct the action of the verb of motion (προαγειν, _proagein_,
  “go before,”) to its proper object, since that is previously
  done by the former preposition and substantive, εις το περαν,
  (_eis to peran_.) That is, when we read “Jesus constrained his
  disciples to go before him,” and the question arises in regard
  to the object towards which the action is directed, “Whither
  did he constrain them to go before him?” the answer is in the
  words immediately succeeding, εις το περαν, “to the other side,”
  and in these words the action is complete; but the mere general
  direction, “to the other side,” was too vague of itself, and
  required some limitation to avoid error; for the place to which
  they commonly directed their course westward, over the lake,
  was Capernaum, the home of Jesus, and thither they might on
  this occasion be naturally expected to go, as we should have
  concluded they did, if nothing farther was said; therefore,
  to fix the point of their destination, we are told, in answer
  to the query, “To what part of the western shore were they
  directed to go?” “To that part which was _near_ or _opposite to_
  Bethsaida.” The objection which may arise, that a place on the
  western side could not be very near to Bethsaida on the east,
  is answered by the fact that this city was separated from the
  western shore, not by the whole breadth of the lake, but simply
  by the little stream of Jordan, here not more than twenty yards
  wide, so that a place on the opposite side might still be very
  near the city. And this is what shows the topographical justness
  of the term, “_over against_,” given by Scott, and the French
  commentator, since a place not directly across or opposite,
  but down the western shore, in a south-westerly direction, as
  Capernaum was, would not be _very near_ Bethsaida, nor much
  less than five miles off. Thus is shown a beautiful mutual
  illustration of the literal and the liberal translations of the
  word.

  Macknight ably answers another argument, which has been offered
  to defend the location of Bethsaida on the western shore,
  founded on John vi. 23. “There came other boats from Tiberias,
  nigh unto the place where they did eat bread,” as if Tiberias
  had been near the desert of Bethsaida, and consequently near
  Bethsaida itself. “But,” as Macknight remarks, “the original,
  rightly pointed, imports only, that boats from Tiberias came
  into some creek or bay, nigh unto the place where they did
  eat bread.” Besides, it should be remembered that the object
  of those who came in the boats, was to find Jesus, whom they
  expected to find “nigh the place where they ate bread,” as the
  context shows; so that these words refer to their destination,
  and not to the place from which they came. Tiberias was down
  the lake, at the south-western corner of it, and I know of no
  geographer who has put Bethsaida more than half way down, even
  on the western shore. The difference, therefore, between the
  distance to Bethsaida on the west and to Bethsaida on the east,
  could not be at most above a mile or two, a matter not to be
  appreciated in a voyage of sixteen miles, from Tiberias, which
  cannot be said to be near Bethsaida, in any position of the
  latter that has ever been thought of. This objection, of course,
  is not offered at all, by those who suppose two Bethsaidas
  mentioned in the gospels, and grant that the passage in Luke ix.
  10, refers to the eastern one, where they suppose the place of
  eating bread to have been; but others, who have imagined only
  one Bethsaida, and that on the western side, have proposed this
  argument; and to such the reply is directed.

  For all these reasons, topographical, historical and grammatical,
  the conclusion of the whole matter is――that there was but
  _one_ Bethsaida, the same place being meant by that name in all
  passages in the gospels and in Josephus――that this place stood
  within the verge of Lower Gaulanitis, on the bank of the Jordan,
  just where it passes into the lake――that it was in the dominions
  of Philip the tetrarch, at the time when it is mentioned
  in the gospels, and afterwards was included in the kingdom
  of Agrippa――that its original Hebrew name, (from בית _beth_,
  “_house_,” and צדה, _tsedah_, “_hunting, or fishing_,” “a house
  of fishing,” no doubt so called from the common pursuit of its
  inhabitants,) was changed by Philip into JULIAS, by which name
  it was known to Greeks and Romans.

  By this view, we avoid the undesirable notion, that there
  are two totally different places mentioned in two succeeding
  chapters of the same gospel, without a word of explanation
  to inform us of the difference, as is usual in cases of local
  synonyms in the New Testament; and that Josephus describes a
  place of this name, without the slightest hint of the remarkable
  fact, that there was another place of the same name, not half a
  mile off, directly across the Jordan, in full view of it.

  The discussion of the point has been necessarily protracted to a
  somewhat tedious length; but if fewer words would have expressed
  the truth and the reasons for it, it should have been briefer;
  and probably there is no reader who has endeavored to satisfy
  himself on the position of Bethsaida, in his own biblical
  studies, that will not feel some gratitude for what light this
  note may give, on a point where all common aids and authorities
  are in such monstrous confusion.

  For the various opinions and statements on this difficult
  point, see Schleusner’s, Bretschneider’s and Wahl’s Lexicons,
  Lightfoot’s Chorographic century and decade, Wetstein’s New
  Testament commentary on Matthew iv. 12, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller,
  Fritzsche, Macknight, &c. On the passages where the name occurs,
  also the French Commentary above quoted,――more especially in
  Vol. III. Remarques sur le carte geographique section 7, p. 357.
  Paulus’s “commentar ueber das neue Testament,” 2d edition, Vol.
  II. pp. 336‒342. Topographische Erlaeuterungen.

  _Lake Gennesaret._――This body of water, bearing in the gospels
  the various names of “the sea of Tiberias,” and “the sea of
  Galilee,” as well as “the lake of Gennesaret,” is formed like
  one or two other smaller ones north of it, by a widening of the
  Jordan, which flows in at the northern end, and passing through
  the middle, goes out at the southern end. On the western side,
  it was bounded by Galilee proper, and on the east was the lower
  division of that portion of Iturea, which was called Gaulanitis
  by the Greeks and Romans, from the ancient city of Golan,
  (Deuteronomy iv. 43; Joshua xx. 8, &c.) which stood within its
  limits. Pliny (book I. chapter 15,) well describes the situation
  and character of the lake. “Where the shape of the valley first
  allows it, the Jordan pours itself into a lake which is most
  commonly called Genesara, sixteen (Roman) miles long, and six
  broad. It is surrounded by pleasant towns; on the east, it
  has Julias (Bethsaida) and Hippus; on the south, Tarichea, by
  which name some call the lake also; on the west, Tiberias with
  its warm springs.” Josephus also gives a very clear and ample
  description. (Jewish War, book 3, chapter 9, section 7.) “Lake
  Gennesar takes its name from the country adjoining it. It is
  forty furlongs (about five or six miles) in width, and one
  hundred and forty (seventeen or eighteen miles) in length; yet
  the water is sweet, and very desirable to drink; for it has its
  fountain clear from swampy thickness, and is therefore quite
  pure, being bounded on all sides by a beach, and a sandy shore.
  It is moreover of a pleasant temperature to drink, being warmer
  than that of a river or a spring, on the one hand, but colder
  than that which stands always expanded over a lake. In coldness,
  indeed, it is not inferior to snow, when it has been exposed
  to the air all night, as is the custom with the people of that
  region. In it there are some kinds of fish, different both in
  appearance and taste from those in other places. The Jordan
  cuts through the middle of it.” He then gives a description
  of the course of the Jordan, ending with the remark quoted in
  the former note, that it enters the lake at the city of Julias.
  He then describes, in glowing terms, the richness and beauty
  of the country around, from which the lake takes its name,――a
  description too long to be given here; but the studious reader
  may find it in section eighth of the book and chapter above
  referred to. The Rabbinical writers too, often refer to the
  pre-eminent beauty and fertility of this delightful region, as
  is shown in several passages quoted by Lightfoot in his Centuria
  Chorographica, chapter 79. The derivation of the name there
  given from the Rabbins, is גני סרים, _ginne sarim_, “the gardens of
  the princes.” Thence the name genne-sar. They say it was within
  the lands of the tribe of Naphtali; it must therefore have
  been on the western side of the lake, which appears also from
  the fact that it was near Tiberias, as we are told on the
  same authority. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament under
  this name, but the Rabbins assure us that the place called
  _Cinnereth_, in Joshua xx. 35; Chinneroth in xi. 2, is the same;
  and this lake is mentioned in xiii. 27, under the name of “the
  sea of Chinnereth,”――“the sea of Chinneroth,” in xii. 3, &c.

  The best description of the scenery, and present aspect of the
  lake, which I can find, is the following from Conder’s Modern
  Traveler, Vol. 1. (Palestine) a work made up with great care
  from the observations of a great number of intelligent travelers.

  “The mountains on the east of Lake Tiberias, come close to its
  shore, and the country on that side has not a very agreeable
  aspect; on the west, it has the plain of Tiberias, the
  high ground of the plain of Hutin, or Hottein, the plain of
  Gennesaret, and the foot of those hills by which you ascend
  to the high mountain of Saphet. To the north and south it has
  a plain country, or valley. There is a current throughout the
  whole breadth of the lake, even to the shore; and the passage
  of the Jordan through it, is discernible by the smoothness of
  the surface in that part. Various travelers have given a very
  different account of its general aspect. According to Captain
  Mangles, the land about it has no striking features, and the
  scenery is altogether devoid of character. ‘It appeared,’ he
  says, ‘to particular disadvantage to us, after those beautiful
  lakes we had seen in Switzerland; but it becomes a very
  interesting object, when you consider the frequent allusions to
  it in the gospel narrative.’ Dr. Clarke, on the contrary, speaks
  of the uncommon grandeur of this memorable scenery. ‘The lake of
  Gennesaret,’ he says, ‘is surrounded by objects well calculated
  to highten the solemn impression,’ made by such recollections,
  and ‘affords one of the most striking prospects in the Holy Land.
  Speaking of it comparatively, it may be described as longer
  and finer than any of our Cumberland and Westmoreland lakes,
  although perhaps inferior to Loch Lomond. It does not possess
  the vastness of the Lake of Geneva, although it much resembles
  it in certain points of view. In picturesque beauty, it comes
  nearest to the Lake of Locarno, in Italy, although it is
  destitute of any thing similar to the islands by which that
  majestic piece of water is adorned. It is inferior in magnitude,
  and in the hight of its surrounding mountains, to the Lake
  Asphaltites.’ Mr. Buckingham may perhaps be considered as having
  given the most accurate account, and one which reconciles,
  in some degree, the different statements above cited, when,
  speaking of the lake as seen from Tel Hoom, he says, ‘that its
  appearance is grand, but that the barren aspect of the mountains
  on each side, and the total absence of wood, give a cast of
  dulness to the picture; this is increased to melancholy, by the
  dead calm of its waters, and the silence which reigns throughout
  its whole extent, where not a boat or vessel of any kind is to
  be found.’

  “Among the pebbles on the shore, Dr. Clarke found pieces of a
  porous rock, resembling _toad-stone_, its cavities filled with
  zeolite. Native gold is said to have been found here formerly.
  ‘We noticed,’ he says, ‘an appearance of this kind; but, on
  account of its trivial nature, neglected to pay proper attention
  to it. The water was as clear as the purest crystal; sweet,
  cool, and most refreshing. Swimming to a considerable distance
  from the shore, we found it so limpid that we could discern the
  bottom covered with shining pebbles. Among these stones was a
  beautiful, but very diminutive, kind of shell; a nondescript
  species of _Buccinum_, which we have called _Buccinum Galilæum_.
  We amused ourselves by diving for specimens; and the very
  circumstance of discerning such small objects beneath the
  surface, may prove the high transparency of the water.’ The
  situation of the lake, lying as it were in a deep basin between
  the hills which enclose it on all sides, excepting only the
  narrow entrance and outlets of the Jordan, at either end,
  protects its waters from long-continued tempests. Its surface
  is in general as smooth as that of the Dead Sea; but the same
  local features render it occasionally subject to whirlwinds,
  squalls, and sudden gusts from the mountains, of short duration,
  especially when the strong current formed by the Jordan, is
  opposed by a wind of this description, from the south-east;
  sweeping from the mountains with the force of a hurricane, it
  may easily be conceived that a boisterous sea must be instantly
  raised, which the small vessels of the country would be unable
  to resist. A storm of this description is plainly denoted by
  the language of the evangelist, in recounting one of our Lord’s
  miracles. ‘There _came down_ a storm of wind on the lake, and
  they were filled with water, and were in jeopardy.... Then he
  arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water; and
  they ceased, and there was a calm.’ (Luke viii. 23, 24.)”

The question of Peter’s being the oldest son of his father has been
already alluded to, and decided by the most ancient authority, in
favor of the opinion, that he was younger than Andrew. There surely
is nothing unparalleled or remarkable in the fact, that the younger
brother should so transcend the elder in ability and eminence; since
Scripture history furnishes us with similar instances in Jacob, Judah
and Joseph, Moses, David, and many others throughout the history
of the Jews, although that nation generally regarded the rights of
primogeniture with high reverence and respect.


                      HIS INTRODUCTION TO JESUS.

The earliest passage in the life of Peter, of which any record can
be found, is given in the first chapter of John’s Gospel. In this, it
appears that Peter and Andrew were at Bethabara, a place on the eastern
bank of the Jordan, more than twenty miles south of their home at
Bethsaida, and that they had probably left their business for a time,
and gone thither, for the sake of hearing and seeing John the Baptist,
who was then preaching at that place, and baptizing the penitent in
the Jordan. This great forerunner of the Messiah, had already, by his
strange habits of life, by his fiery eloquence, by his violent and
fearless zeal in denouncing the spirit of the times, attracted the
attention of the people, of all classes, in various and distant parts
of Palestine; and not merely of the vulgar and unenlightened portion of
society, who are so much more susceptible to false impressions in such
cases, but even of the well taught followers of the two great learned
sects of the Jewish faith, whose members flocked to hear his bold and
bitter condemnation of their precepts and practices. So widely had
his fame spread, and so important were the results of his doctrine
considered, that a deputation of priests and Levites was sent to
him, from Jerusalem, (probably from the Sanhedrim, or grand civil and
religious council,) to inquire into his character and pretensions. No
doubt a particular interest was felt in this inquiry, from the fact
that there was a general expectation abroad at that time, that the
long-desired restorer of Israel was soon to appear; or, as expressed by
Luke, there were many “who waited for the consolation of Israel,” and
“who in Jerusalem looked for redemption.” Luke also expressly tells us,
that the expectations of the multitude were strongly excited, and that
all men mused in their hearts whether he were the Christ or not. In
the midst of this general notion, so flattering, and so tempting to an
ambitious man, John vindicates his honesty and sincerity, by distinctly
declaring to the multitude, as well as to the deputation, that he was
_not_ the Christ, and claimed for himself only the comparatively humble
name and honors of the preparer of the way for the true king of Israel.
This distinct disavowal, accompanied by the solemn declaration, that
the true Messiah stood at that moment among them, though unknown in his
real character, must have aggravated public curiosity to the highest
pitch, and caused the people to await, with the most intense anxiety,
the nomination of this mysterious king, which John was expected to make.
Need we wonder, then, at the alacrity and determination with which
the two disciples of John, who heard this announcement, followed the
footsteps of Jesus, with the object of finding the dwelling place of
the Messiah, or at the deep reverence with which they accosted him,
giving him at once the highest term of honor which a Jew could confer
on the wise and good,――“RABBI,” or master? Nor is it surprising that
Andrew, after the first day’s conversation with Jesus, should instantly
seek out his beloved and zealous brother, and tell him the joyful and
exciting news, that they had found the Messiah. The mention of this
fact was enough for Simon, and he suffered himself to be brought at
once to Jesus. The salutation with which the Redeemer greeted the
man who was to be the leader of his consecrated host, was strikingly
prophetical and full of meaning. His first words were the annunciation
of his individual and family name, (no miracle, but an allusion to the
hidden meaning of his name,) and the application of a new one, by which
he was afterwards to be distinguished from the many who bore his common
name. All these names have a deeply curious and interesting meaning.
Translating them all from their original Aramaic forms, the salutation
will be, “Thou art a _hearer_, the _son of divine grace_――thou shalt
be called a _rock_.” The first of these names (_hearer_) was a common
title in use among the Jews, to distinguish those who had just offered
themselves to the learned, as desiring wisdom in the law; and the
second was applied to those who, having past the first probationary
stage of instruction, were ranked as the approved and improving
disciples of the law, under the hopeful title of the “sons of divine
grace.” The third, which became afterwards the distinctive individual
name of this apostle, was given, no doubt, in reference to the
peculiar excellences of his natural genius, which seems to be thereby
characterized as firm, unimpressible by difficulty, and affording fit
materials for the foundation of a mighty and lasting superstructure.

  The name Simon, שמונ was a common abridgment of Simeon, שמעונ
  which means a hearer, and was a term applied technically as here
  mentioned. (For proofs and illustrations, see Poole’s Synopsis
  and Lightfoot.) The technical meaning of the name Jonah, given
  in the text, is that given by Grotius and Drusius, but Lightfoot
  rejects this interpretation, because the name Jonah is not
  fairly derived from יוחנא (which is the name corresponding to
  John,) but is the same with that of the old prophet so named,
  and he is probably right in therefore rejecting this whimsical
  etymology and definition.

With this important event of the introduction of Simon to Jesus, and
the application of his new and characteristic name, the life of Peter,
as a follower of Christ, may be fairly said to have begun; and from
this arises a simple division of the subject, into the two great
natural portions of his life; _first_, in his state of pupilage and
instruction under the prayerful, personal care of his devoted Master,
during his earthly stay; and _second_, of his labors in the cause of
his murdered and risen Lord, as his preacher and successor. These two
portions of his life may be properly denominated his _discipleship_ and
his _apostleship_; or perhaps still better, Peter the _learner_, and
Peter the _teacher_.

  Illustration: THE FORDS OF THE JORDAN.




                       I. PETER’S DISCIPLESHIP;
                                  OR,
                    PETER THE LEARNER AND FOLLOWER.


AFTER his first interview with Christ, Peter seems to have returned to
his usual business, toiling for his support, without any idea whatever
of the manner in which his destiny was connected with the wonderful
being to whom he had been thus introduced. We may justly suppose,
indeed, that being convinced by the testimony of John, his first
religious teacher and his baptizer, and by personal conversation with
Jesus, of his being the Messiah, that he afterwards often came to him,
(as his home was near the Savior’s,) and heard him, and saw some of the
miracles done by him. “We may take it for granted,” as Lardner does,
“that they were present at the miracle at Cana of Galilee, it being
expressly said that Jesus and his _disciples_ were invited to the
marriage solemnity in that place, as described in the second chapter of
John’s gospel. It is also said in the same chapter, ‘this beginning of
miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory;
and his disciples believed on him;’ that is, were confirmed in the
persuasion that he was the Messiah.” And among the _disciples_ of Jesus,
Simon and his brother were evidently numbered, from the time when they
received their first introduction to him, and were admitted to the
honors of an intimate acquaintance. The formal manner in which Jesus
saluted Simon, seems to imply his adoption, or nomination at least,
as a disciple, by referring to the remarkable coincidence of meaning
between his name and the character of a hopeful learner in the school
of divine knowledge. Still the two brothers had plainly received no
appointment which produced any essential change in their general habits
and plans of life, for they still followed their previous calling,
quietly and unpretendingly, without seeming to suppose, that the new
honors attained by them had in any way exempted them from the necessity
of earning their daily bread by the sweat of their brow. To this they
devoted themselves, laboring along the same sea of Galilee, whose
waters and shores were the witnesses of so many remarkable scenes of
the life of Christ. Yet their business was not of such a character
as to prevent their enjoying occasional interviews with their divine
master, whose residence by the lake, and walks along its shores, must
have afforded frequent opportunities for cultivating or renewing an
acquaintance with those engaged on its waters. There is nothing in the
gospel story inconsistent with the belief, that Jesus met his disciples,
who were thus occupied, on more occasions than one; and had it been the
Bible plan to record all the most interesting details of his earthly
life, many instructive accounts might, no doubt, have been given of the
interviews enjoyed by him and his destined messengers of grace to the
world. But the multiplication of such narratives, however interesting
the idea of them may now seem, would have added no essential doctrine
to our knowledge, even if they had been so multiplied as that, in the
paradoxical language of John, the whole world could not contain them;
and the necessary result of such an increased number of records, would
have been a diminished valuation of each. As it is, the scripture
historical canon secures our high regard and diligent attention, and
its careful examination, by the very circumstance of its brevity, and
the wide chasms of the narrative;――like the mysterious volumes of the
Cumaean Sybil, the value of the few is no less than that of the many,
the price of each increasing in proportion as the number of the whole
diminishes. Thus in regard to this interesting interval of Peter’s life,
we are left to the indulgence of reasonable conjecture, such as has
been here mentioned.

The next direct account given in the Bible, of any event immediately
concerning him, is found in all the first three gospels. It is thought
by some, that his father Jonah was now dead; for there is no mention
of him, as of Zebedee, when his two sons were called. This however
is only a mere conjecture, and has no more certainty than that he had
found it convenient to make his home elsewhere, or was now so old as
to be prevented from sharing in this laborious and perilous occupation,
or that he had always obtained his livelihood in some other way;
though the last supposition is much less accordant with the well-known
hereditary succession of trades, which was sanctioned by almost
universal custom throughout their nation. However, it appears that
if still alive, their connection with him was not such as to hinder
them a moment in renouncing at once all their former engagements
and responsibilities, at the summons of Christ. Jesus was at this
time residing at Capernaum, which is said by Matthew to be by the
_sea-coast_, better translated “shore of the lake;” for it is not on
the coast of the Mediterranean, as our modern use of these terms would
lead us to suppose, but on the shore of the small inland lake Tiberias,
or _sea_ of Galilee, as it was called by the Jews, who, with their
limited notions of geography, did not draw the nice distinctions
between large and small bodies of water, which the more extended
knowledge of some other nations of antiquity taught them to make.
Capernaum was but a few miles from Bethsaida, on the other side of the
lake, and its nearness would often bring Jesus in his walks, by the
places where these fishermen were occupied, in whichever of the two
places they at that time resided. On one of these walks he seems to
have given the final summons, which called the first four of the twelve
from their humble labors to the high commission of converting the world.

  _Capernaum._――Though no one has ever supposed that there were
  two places bearing this name, yet about its locality, as about
  many other points of sacred topography, we find that “doctors
  disagree,” though in this case without any good reason; for the
  scriptural accounts, though so seldom minute on the situations
  of places, here give us all the particulars of its position,
  as fully as is desirable or possible. Matthew, (iv. 13,) tells
  us, that Capernaum was upon “the shore of the lake, on the
  boundaries of Zebulon and Naphtali.” A reference to the history
  of the division of territory among these tribes, (Joshua xix.)
  shows that their possessions did not reach the other side of the
  water, but were bounded on the east by Jordan and the lake, as
  is fully represented in all the maps of Palestine. Thus, it is
  made manifest, that Capernaum must have stood on the western
  shore of the lake, where the lands of Zebulon and Naphtali
  bordered on each other. Though this boundary line cannot be very
  accurately determined, we can still obtain such an approximation,
  as will enable us to fix the position of Capernaum on the
  northern end of the western side of the lake, where most of the
  maps agree in placing it; yet some have very strangely put it on
  the eastern side. The maps in the French bible, before quoted,
  have set it down at the mouth of the Jordan, in the exact place
  where Josephus has so particularly described Bethsaida as placed.
  Lightfoot has placed it on the west, but near the southern end;
  and all the common maps differ considerably as to its precise
  situation, of which indeed we can only give a vague conjecture,
  except that it must have been near the northern end. Conder
  (Modern Traveler, Palestine,) gives the following account of
  modern researches after its site, among the ruins of various
  cities near the lake.

  “With regard to Chorazin, Pococke says, that he could find
  nothing like the name, except at a village called _Gerasi_,
  which is among the hills west of the village called _Telhoue_,
  in the plain of Gennesaret. Dr. Richardson, in passing through
  this plain, inquired of the natives whether they knew such
  a place as Capernaum? They immediately rejoined, ‘Cavernahum
  wa Chorasi, they are quite near, but in ruins.’ This evidence
  sufficiently fixes the proximity of Chorazin to Capernaum, in
  opposition to the opinion that it was on the east side of the
  lake; and it is probable that the Gerasi of Pococke is the same
  place, the orthography only being varied, as Dr. Richardson’s
  Chorasi.”


                               HIS CALL.

In giving the minute details, we find that Luke has varied widely
from Matthew and Mark, in many particulars. Taking the accounts found
in each gospel separately, we make out the following three distinct
stories.

1. Matthew, in his fourth chapter, says that Jesus, after leaving
Nazareth, came and dwelt at Capernaum, where he began the great work
for which he came into the world,――preaching repentance and making
known the near approach of the reign of heaven on earth. In pursuance
of this great object, it would seem that he went forth from the city
which he made his home, and walked by the sea of Galilee, not for the
sake of merely refreshing his body with the fresh air of that broad
water, when languid with the confinement and closeness of the town, but
with the higher object of forwarding his vast enterprise. On this walk
he saw two brothers, Simon and Andrew, casting their net, or rather
seine, into the sea; for they were fishermen by trade, and not merely
occupied in this as an occasional employment, by way of diversion in
the intervals of higher business. Jesus directly addressed them in a
tone of unqualified command, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers
of men.” And they, without questioning his authority or his purpose,
immediately left their business at its most interesting and exciting
part, (just at the drawing of the net,) and followed him, as it
here seems at once, through Galilee, on his pilgrimage of mercy and
love. Matthew gives no other particulars whatever, connected with the
call of these two brothers; and had we been left to obtain the whole
gospel-history from him alone, we should have supposed that, before
this, Peter had no acquaintance, of a personal character at least,
with Jesus; and that the call was made merely in a private way, without
the presence of any other than ordinary accidental witnesses. From
Matthew we hear nothing further respecting Peter, until his name is
mentioned in the apostolic list, in the tenth chapter, except the
mention in chapter eighth, of the illness of his mother in-law at
his house. But the other gospel-writers give us many interesting
and important particulars in addition, which throw new light on the
previous circumstances, the manner and the consequences of the call.

2. Mark, in his first chapter, makes it appear as if, immediately after
the temptation of Christ, and before his entrance into Capernaum, he
met and summoned the two pairs of brothers, of which call the immediate
circumstances are given there, in words which are a very literal
transcript of those of Matthew, with hardly the slightest addition. But
the events which followed the summons are given in such a manner, as to
convey an impression quite different from that made by Matthew’s brief
and simple narrative. After the call, _they_, both Jesus and his four
disciples, entered into Capernaum, of which place Mark has before made
no mention; and going at once into the synagogue, Jesus preached, and
confirmed the wonderful authority with which he spoke, before the face
of the people, by the striking cure of a demoniac. From the synagogue
he went to the house of Simon and Andrew, by which it appears that they
already resided in Capernaum. Here a new occasion was given for the
display of the power and benevolence of the Messiah, in the case of
Simon’s mother-in-law, who, laboring under an attack of fever, was
instantly entirely relieved, upon the word of Jesus. This event is
given by Matthew in a totally different connection. Very early in the
next morning, Jesus retired to a neighboring solitude, to enjoy himself
in meditation apart from the busy scenes of the sabbath, in which the
fame of his power had involved him the evening before. To this place,
Simon and those with him, no doubt his brother and the sons of Zebedee
merely, (already it would seem so well acquainted with their great
master as to know his haunts,) followed him, to make known to him the
earnest wish of the admiring people for his presence among them. Jesus
then went out with them through the villages of Galilee, in the earnest
performance of the work for which he came. It is not till this place,
in the story of the leper healed, that the statements of Matthew
and Mark again meet and coincide. Mark evidently makes significant
additions to the narrative, and gives us a much more definite and
decided notion of the situation and conduct of those concerned in this
interesting transaction.

3. Luke has given us a view of the circumstances, very different, both
in order and number, as well as character, from those of the former
writers. His account of the first call of the disciples, seems to
amount to this; giving the events in the order in which he places
them in his fourth and fifth chapters. The first mention which is here
made of Simon, is in the end of the fourth chapter, where his name
is barely mentioned in connection with the account of the cure of his
mother-in-law, which is brought in without any previous allusion to any
disciple, but is placed in other respects, in the same connection as
in Mark’s narrative. After a full account of this case, which is given
with the more minuteness, probably from the circumstance that this
writer was himself a physician, he goes on to relate the particulars
of Simon’s call, in the beginning of the fourth chapter, as if it
was a subsequent event. The general impression from the two preceding
narratives, would naturally be, that Jesus went out on his walk by the
shore of the lake, by himself, without any extraordinary attendance.
But it now appears, that as he stood on the shore, he was beset by an
eager multitude, begging to hear from him the word of God. On this,
casting his eyes about for some convenient place to address them, he
noticed two fishing vessels drawn up near him by the shore, and the
owners disembarked from them, engaged in washing their nets. He then
first spoke to Simon, after going on board of his boat, to beg him to
push off again a little from the land, and his request being granted,
he sat down, and from his seat in the boat, taught the multitude
gathered on the shore. After the conclusion of his discourse,
perhaps partly, or in some small measure, with the design of properly
impressing his hearers by a miracle, with the idea of his authority to
assume the high bearing which so characterized his instructions, and
which excited so much astonishment among them, he urged Simon to push
out still further into deep water, and to open his nets for a draught.
Simon, evidently already so favorably impressed respecting his visitor,
as to feel disposed to obey and gratify him, did according to the
request, remarking, however, that as he had toiled all night without
catching any thing, he opened his net again only out of respect to his
Divine Master, and not because, after so many fruitless endeavors, so
long continued, it was reasonable to hope for the least success. Upon
drawing in the net, it was found to be filled with so vast a number
of fishes, that having been used before its previous rents had been
entirely mended, it broke with the unusual weight. They then made known
the difficulty to their friends, the sons of Zebedee, who were in the
other boat, and were obliged to share their burden between the two
vessels, which were both so overloaded with the fishes as to be in
danger of sinking. At this event, so unexpected and overwhelming, Simon
was seized with mingled admiration and awe; and reverently besought
Jesus to depart from a sinful man, so unworthy as he was to be a
subject of benevolent attention from one so mighty and good. As might
be expected, not only Peter, but also his companions,――the sons of
Zebedee,――were struck with a miracle so peculiarly impressive to them,
because it was an event connected with their daily business, and yet
utterly out of the common course of things. But Jesus soothed their
awe and terror into interest and attachment, by telling Simon that
henceforth he should find far nobler employment in taking men.

4. John takes no notice whatever of this scene by the lake of Galilee,
but gives us, what is not found in the first three gospels, an
interesting account, already quoted, of the first introduction of Peter
to Christ, not choosing to incumber his pages with a new repetition or
variation of the story of his direct call.

The office of an apostolic historian becomes at once most arduous and
most important, and the usefulness of his labors is most fully shown
in such passages as this, where the task of weaving the various threads
and scraps of sacred history in one even and uniform text, is one to
which few readers, taking the parts detailed in the ordinary way, are
competent, and which requires for its satisfactory achievement, more
aids from the long accumulated labors of the learned of past ages, than
are within the reach of any but a favored few. To pass back and forth
from gospel to gospel, in the search after order and consistency,――to
bring the lights of other history to clear up the obscurities, and
show that which fills up the deficiencies of the gospel story,――to add
the helps of ancient and modern travelers in tracing the topography
of the Bible,――to find in lexicons, commentaries, criticisms and
interpretations, the true and full force of every word of those
passages in which an important fact is expressed,――these are a few of
the writer’s duties in giving to common readers the results of the
mental efforts of the theologians of this and past ages, whose humble
copyist and translator he is. Often aiming, however, at an effort
somewhat higher than that of giving the opinions and thoughts of others,
he offers his own account and arrangement of the subject, in preference
to those of the learned, as being free from such considerations as are
involved in technicalities above the appreciation of ordinary readers,
and as standing in a connected narrative form, while the information
on these points, found in the works of eminent biblical scholars, is
mostly in detached fragments, which, however complete to the student,
require much explanation and illustration, to make them useful or
interesting to the majority of readers. Thus in this case, having given
the three different accounts above, he next proceeds to arrange them
into such a narrative as will be consistent with each, and contain all
the facts. In the discussion of particular points, reference can be
properly made to the authority of others, where necessary to explain
or support.

Taking up the apostolic history, then, where it is left by John, as
referred to above, and taking the facts from each gospel in what seems
to be its proper place and time; the three narratives are thus combined
into one whole, with the addition of such circumstances as may be
inferred by way of explanation, though not directly stated.

Leaving Nazareth, Jesus had come to Capernaum, at the northwestern
end of the lake, and there made his home. About this time, perhaps on
occasion of his marriage, Simon had left Bethsaida, the city of his
birth, and now dwelt in Capernaum, probably on account of his wife
being of that place, and he may have gone into the possession of a
house, inherited by his marriage, which supposition would agree with
the circumstance of the residence of his wife’s mother in her married
daughter’s family, which would not be so easily explainable on the
supposition that she had also sons to inherit their father’s property,
and furnish a home to their mother. It has also been suggested, that
he probably removed to Capernaum after his introduction to Christ, in
order to enjoy his instructions more conveniently, being near him. This
motive would no doubt have had some weight. Here the two brothers dwelt
together in one house, which makes it almost certain that Andrew was
unmarried, for the peculiarity of eastern manners would hardly have
permitted the existence of two families, two husbands, two wives in the
same domestic circle. Making this place the center of their business,
they industriously devoted themselves to honest labor, extending their
fishing operations over the lake, on which they toiled night and day.
It seems that the house of Simon and Andrew was Jesus’s regular place
of abode while in Capernaum, of which supposition the manifest proofs
occur in the course of the narrative. Thus when Jesus came out of the
synagogue, he went to Simon’s house,――remained there as at a home,
during the day, and there received the visits of the immense throng
of people who brought their sick friends to him; all which he would
certainly have been disposed to do at his proper residence, rather than
where he was a mere occasional ♦visitor. He is also elsewhere mentioned,
as going into Peter’s house in such a familiar and habitual kind of way,
as to make the inference very obvious, that it was his home. On these
terms of close domestic intimacy, did Jesus remain with these favored
disciples for more than a year, during which time he continued to
reside at Capernaum. He must have resided in some other house, however,
on his first arrival in Capernaum, because, in the incident which
is next given here, his conduct was evidently that of a person much
less intimately acquainted with Simon than a fellow-lodger would be.
The circumstances of the call evidently show, that Peter, although
acquainted with Christ previously, in the way mentioned by John, had
by no means become his intimate, daily companion. We learn from Luke,
that Jesus, walking forth from Capernaum, along the lake, saw two boats
standing by the lake, but the fishers having gone out of them, were
engaged in putting their nets and other fishing tackle in order. As
on his walk the populace had thronged about him, from curiosity and
interest, and were annoying him with requests, he sought a partial
refuge from their friendly attacks, on board of Simon’s boat, which
was at hand, and begging him to push out a little from the land, he
immediately made the boat his pulpit, in preaching to the throng on
shore, sitting down and teaching the people out of the boat. When he
had left off speaking, he said to Simon, “Launch out into the deep, and
let down your nets for a draught.” And Simon answered, “Master, we have
toiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless, at thy word I will
let down the net.” As soon as they did so, they took into the net a
great multitude of fishes, and the net broke. They then beckoned to
their partners, who were in the other vessel, that they should come and
help them. And they came and filled both vessels, so that they began to
sink. When Simon saw what was the result, he fell down at Jesus’s knees,
saying, “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” For both he,
and they that were with him, Andrew, James and John, were astonished
at the draught of fishes they had taken. But Jesus said to Simon, “Fear
not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men;” and then gave both to him
and his brother a distinct call, “Follow me――come after me, and I will
make you fishers of men.” And as soon as they had brought their ships
to land, they forsook their nets, ships and all, and followed him,
not back into Capernaum, but over all Galilee, while he preached to
wondering thousands the gospel of peace, and set forth to them his high
claims to their attention and obedience, by healing all the diseased
which his great fame induced them to bring in such multitudes. This was,
after all, the true object of his calling his disciples to follow him
in that manner. Can we suppose that he would come out of Capernaum,
in the morning, and finding there his acquaintances about their honest
business, would call on them, in that unaccountable manner, to follow
him back into their home, to which they would of course, naturally
enough, have gone of their own accord, without any divine call, for
a simple act of necessity? It was evidently with a view to initiate
them, at once, into the knowledge of the labors to which he had called
them, and to give them an insight into the nature of the trials and
difficulties which they must encounter in his service. In short, it was
to enter them on their apprenticeship to the mysteries of their new and
holy vocation. On this pilgrimage through Galilee, then, he must have
been accompanied by his four newly chosen helpers, who thus were daily
and hourly witnesses of his words and actions, as recorded by all the
first three evangelists. (Matthew chapters iv.‒viii. Mark, chapters
i.‒iii. &c. Luke, chapters v.‒vi.)

    ♦ “visiter” replaced with “visitor”

  The accounts which Matthew and Mark give of this call, have
  seemed so strikingly different from that of Luke, that Calmet,
  Thoynard, Macknight, Hug, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Marsh, Paulus,
  (and perhaps some others,) have considered Luke’s story in v.
  1‒11, as referring to a totally distinct event. See Calmet’s,
  Thoynard’s, Macknight’s, Michaelis’s, and Vater’s harmonies,
  in loc. Also Eichhorn’s introduction, 1. § 58, V. II.,――Marsh’s
  dissertation on the origin of the three gospels, in table
  of coincident passages,――Paulus’s “Commentar weber das Neue
  Testament.” 1 Theil xxiii. Abschnitt; compare xix. Abschnitt,
  ――Hug’s “Einleitung in das Neue Testament,” Vol. II. § 40.
  “Erste auswanderung, Lucas, iii.,” compare Mark.

  These great authorities would do much to support any arrangement
  of gospel events, but the still larger number of equally
  high authorities on the other side, justifies my boldness
  in attempting to find a harmony, where these great men could
  see none. Lightfoot, Le Clerc, Arnauld, Newcome, with all his
  subsequent editors, and Thirlwall, in their harmonies, agree in
  making all three evangelists refer to the same event. Grotius,
  Hammond, Wetstein, Scott, Clarke, Kuinoel, and Rosenmueller,
  in their several commentaries in loco,――also Stackhouse in his
  history of the Bible, and Horne in his introduction, with many
  others, all take the view which I have presented in the text,
  and may be consulted by those who wish for reasons at greater
  length than my limits will allow.

  “_Peter and Andrew dwell together in one house._”――This appears
  from Mark i. 29, where it is said that, after the call of the
  brothers by Jesus, “they entered the house of Simon and Andrew.”

  “_Sat down and taught the people out of the ship_,” verse 3.
  This was a convenient position, adopted by Jesus on another
  occasion also. Matthew xiii. 2. Mark iv. 1.

  “_Launch out._”――Luke v. 4. Επαναγαγε, (Epanagage,) the same
  word which occurs in verse 3, there translated in the common
  English version, “_thrust_ out.” It was, probably, a regular
  nautical term for this backward movement, though in the classic
  Greek, Εξαναγειν, (exanagein,) was the form always used to
  express this idea, insomuch that it seems to have been the
  established technical term. Perhaps Luke may have intended this
  term originally, which might have been corrupted by some early
  copyist into this word, which is in no other place used with
  this meaning.――“_Let down_,” (Χαλασατε, khalasate, in the plural;
  the former verb singular.) More literally, “_loosen_,” which is
  the primary signification of the verb, and would be the proper
  one, since the operation of preparing the net to take the fish,
  consisted in _loosening_ the ropes and other tackle, which, of
  course, were drawn tight, when the net was not in use, closing
  its mouth. “MASTER, _we have toiled_,” &c. verse 5. The word
  Επιστατα, (Epistata,) here translated _Master_, is remarkable,
  as never occurring in the Testament, except in this gospel.
  Grotius remarks, (_in loc._) that doubtless Luke, (the most
  finished and correct Greek scholar of all the sacred writers,)
  considered this term as a more faithful translation of the
  Hebrew רבי, (_Rabbi_,) than the common expressions of the
  other evangelists, Κυριε, (_Kurie_, _Lord_,) and διδασκαλε,
  (_didaskale_, _teacher_.) It was a moderate, though dignified
  title, between these two in its character, rather lower than
  “Lord,” and rather higher than “Teacher.” It is used in the
  Alexandrian version, as the proper term for a “steward,” a
  “military commander,” &c. (See Grotius theol. op. Vol. II. p.
  372; or Poole’s Synopsis on this passage.) “_Toiled all night._”
  This was the best time for taking the fish, as is well known to
  those who follow fishing for a living.

On this journey, they saw some of his most remarkable miracles, such
as the healing of the leper, the paralytic, the man with the withered
hand, and others of which the details are not given. It was also
during this time, that the sermon on the mount was delivered, which
was particularly addressed to his disciples, and was plainly meant for
their instruction, in the conduct proper in them as the founders of the
gospel faith. Besides passing through many cities on the nearer side,
he also crossed over the lake, and visited the rude people of those
wild districts. The journey was, therefore, a very long one, and must
have occupied several weeks. After he had sufficiently acquainted them
with the nature of the duties to which he had consecrated them, and had
abundantly impressed them with the high powers which he possessed, and
of which they were to be the partakers, he came back to Capernaum, and
there entered into the house of Simon, which he seems henceforth to
have made his home while in that city. They found, that, during their
absence, the mother-in-law of Simon had been taken ill, and was then
suffering under the heat of a violent fever. Jesus at once, with a word,
pronounced her cure, and immediately the fever left her so perfectly
healed, that she arose from her sick bed, and proceeded to welcome
their return, by her grateful efforts to make their home comfortable
to them, after their tiresome pilgrimage.

  “_Immediately the fever left her._”――Matthew viii. 15: Mark
  i. 31: Luke iv. 39. It may seem quite idle to conjecture the
  specific character of this fever; but it seems to me a very
  justifiable guess, that it was a true intermittent, or fever and
  ague, arising from the marsh influences, which must have been
  very strong in such a place as Capernaum,――situated as it was,
  on the low margin of a large fresh water lake, and with all the
  morbific agencies of such an unhealthy site, increased by the
  heat of that climate. The immediate termination of the fever,
  under these circumstances, was an abundant evidence of the
  divine power of Christ’s word, over the evil agencies, which
  mar the health and happiness of mankind.

During some time after this, Peter does not seem to have left his home
for any long period at once, until Christ’s long journeys to Judea
and Jerusalem, but no doubt accompanied Jesus on all his excursions
through Galilee, besides the first, of which the history has been here
given. It would be hard, and exceedingly unsatisfactory, however, to
attempt to draw out from the short, scattered incidents which fill
the interesting records of the gospels, any very distinct, detailed
narrative of these various journeys. The chronology and order of
most of these events, is still left much in the dark, and most of the
pains taken to bring out the truth to the light, have only raised the
greater dust to blind the eyes of the eager investigator. To pretend
to roll all these clouds away at once, and open to common eyes a clear
view of facts, which have so long confused the minds of some of the
wisest and best of almost every Christian age, and too often, alas!
in turn, been confused by them,――such an effort, however well meant,
could only win for its author the contempt of the learned, and the
perplexed dissatisfaction of common readers. But one very simple, and
comparatively easy task, is plainly before the writer, and to that
he willingly devotes himself for the present. This task is, that of
separating and disposing, in what may seem their natural order, with
suitable illustration and explanation, those few facts contained in the
gospels, relating distinctly to this apostle. These facts, accordingly,
here follow.


                          HIS FIRST MISSION.

The next affair in which Peter is mentioned, by either evangelist, is
the final enrolling of the twelve peculiar disciples, to whom Jesus
gave the name of apostles. In their proper place have already been
mentioned, both the meaning of this title and the rank of Peter on the
list; and it need here only be remarked, that Peter went forth with
the rest, on this their first and experimental mission. All the first
three gospels contain this account; but Matthew enters most fully into
the charge of Jesus, in giving them their first commission. In his
tenth chapter, this charge is given with such particularity, that a
mere reference of the reader to that place will be sufficient, without
any need of explanation here. After these minute directions for their
behavior, they departed, as Mark and Luke record, and went through the
towns, preaching the gospel, that men should repent. And they cast out
many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.
How far their journey extended, cannot be positively determined, but
there is no probability that they went beyond the limits of Galilee.
Divided as they were into couples, and each pair taking a different
route, a large space must have been gone over in this mission, however
brief the time can be supposed to have been. As to the exact time
occupied, we are, indeed, as uncertain as in respect to the distance
to which they traveled; but from the few incidents placed by Mark and
Luke between their departure and return, it could hardly have been more
than a few weeks, probably only a few days. The only affair mentioned
by either evangelist, between their departure and return, is, the
notice taken by Herod of the actions of Jesus, to whom his attention
was drawn by his resemblance to John the Baptist. They then say, that
the apostles, when they were returned, gathered themselves together
to Jesus, and told him all things,――both what they had done and what
they had taught. As this report was received by Jesus, without any
comment that is recorded, it is fair to conclude, that their manner
of preaching, and the success of their labors, had been such as to
deserve his approbation. In this mission, there is nothing particularly
commemorated with respect to Peter’s conduct; but no doubt the same
fiery zeal which distinguished him afterwards, on so many occasions,
made him foremost in this his earliest apostolic labor. His rank,
as chief apostle, too, probably gave him some prominent part in the
mission, and his field of operations must have been more important
and extensive than that of the inferior apostles, and his success
proportionably greater.

  It is deserving of notice, that on this first mission,
  Jesus seems to have arranged the twelve in _pairs_, in which
  order he probably sent them forth, as he certainly did the
  seventy disciples, described in Luke x. 1. The object of this
  arrangement, was no doubt to secure them that mutual support
  which was so desirable for men, so unaccustomed to the high
  duties on which they were now dispatched.

  Their _destination_, also, deserves attention. The direction
  of Jesus was, that they should avoid the way of the heathen,
  and the cities of the Samaritans, who were but little better,
  and should go to the _lost sheep_ of the house of Israel. This
  expression was quoted, probably, from those numerous passages in
  the prophets, where this term is applied to the Israelites, as
  in Jeremiah l. 6, Isaiah liii. 6, Ezekiel xxxiv. 6, &c., and
  was used with peculiar force, in reference to the condition of
  those to whom Jesus sent his apostles. It seems to me, as if
  he, by this peculiar term, meant to limit them to the provinces
  of Galilee, where the state and character of the Jews was
  such as eminently to justify this melancholy appellative. The
  particulars of their condition will be elsewhere shown. They
  were expressly bounded on one side, from passing into the
  heathen territory, and on the other from entering the cities
  of the Samaritans, who dwelt between Galilee and Judea proper,
  so that a literal obedience of these instructions, would
  have confined them entirely to Galilee, their native land.
  Macknight also takes this view. The reasons of this limitation,
  are abundant and obvious. The peculiarly abandoned moral
  condition of that outcast section of Palestine,――the perfect
  familiarity which the apostles must have felt with the people
  of their own region, whose peculiarities of language and habits
  they themselves shared so perfectly as to be unfitted for a
  successful outset among the Jews of the south, without more
  experience out of Galilee,――the shortness of the time, which
  seems to have been taken up in this mission,――the circumstance
  that Jesus sent them to proclaim that “the kingdom of heaven was
  at hand,” that is, that the Messiah was approaching, which he
  did in order to arouse the attention of the people to himself,
  when he should go to them, (compare Luke x. 1,) thus making
  them his forerunners; and the fact, that the places to which
  he actually did go with them, on their return, were all in
  Galilee, (Matthew xi., xix. 1, Mark vi. 7, x. 1, Luke ix. 1‒51,)
  all serve to show that this first mission of the apostles,
  was limited entirely to the Jewish population of Galilee. His
  promise to them also in Matthew x. 2, 3, “you shall not _finish
  the cities of Israel_, before the son of man come,” seems to
  me to mean simply, that there would be no occasion for them to
  extend their labors to the Gentile cities of Galilee, or to the
  Samaritans; because, before they could finish their specially
  allotted field of survey, he himself would be ready to follow
  them, and confirm their labors. This was mentioned to them in
  connection with the prediction of persecutions which they would
  meet, as an encouragement. For various other explanations of
  this last passage, see Poole’s Synopsis, Rosenmueller, Wetstein,
  Macknight, Le Sainte Bible avec notes, &c. in loc. But Kuinoel,
  who quotes on his side Beza, Bolten, and others, supports the
  view, which an unassisted consideration induced me to suggest.

  “_Anointed with oil._” Mark vi. 13. The same expression occurs
  in James v. 14, and needs explanation from its connection
  with a peculiar rite of the Romish church,――extreme unction,
  from which it differs, however, inasmuch as it was always a
  hopeful operation, intended to aid the patient, and secure
  his recovery, while the Romish ceremony is always performed in
  case of complete despair of life, only with a view to prepare
  the patient, by this mummery, for certain death. The operation
  mentioned as so successfully performed by the apostles, for the
  cure of diseases, was undoubtedly a simple remedial process,
  previously in long-established use among the Hebrews, as
  clearly appears by the numerous authorities quoted by Lightfoot,
  Wetstein, and Paulus, from Rabbinical Greek and Arabic sources;
  yet Beza and others, quoted in Poole’s Synopsis, as well as
  Rosenmueller, suggest some symbolical force in the ceremony, for
  which see those works in loc. See also Kuinoel, and Bloomfield
  who gives numerous references. See also Marlorat’s Bibliotheca
  expositionum, Stackhouse’s History of the Bible, Whitby, &c.


                        THE SCENES ON THE LAKE.

After receiving the report of his apostles’ labors, Jesus said to
them, “Come ye yourselves apart into a retired place, and rest awhile:”
for there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much
as to eat. And he took them and went privately by ship aside, into a
_lonely_ place, near the city called Bethsaida. And the people saw him
departing, and many knew him, and went on foot to the place, out of
all the country, and outwent them, and came together to him as soon
as he reached there. And he received them, and spoke unto them of the
kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing. It was on
this occasion that he performed the miracle of feeding the multitude
with five loaves and two fishes. So great was the impression made on
their minds by this extraordinary act of benevolence and power, that
he thought it best, in order to avoid the hindrance of his great task,
by any popular commotion in his favor, to go away in such a manner as
to be effectually beyond their reach for the time.――With this view he
constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and go before him to
the other side of the lake, opposite to Bethsaida, where they then
were; while he sent away the people. After sending the multitude away,
he went up into a mountain, apart, to pray. And after night fall, the
vessel was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land. Thence
he saw them toiling with rowing, (for the wind was contrary to them,
and the ship tossed in the waves:) and about three or four o’clock in
the morning, he comes to them, walking on the sea, and appeared as if
about to pass unconcernedly by them. But when they saw him walking upon
the sea. they supposed it to have been a spirit, and they all cried
out, “It is a spirit;” for they all saw him, and were alarmed; and
immediately he spoke to them, and said “Be comforted; it is I; be not
afraid.” And Peter, foremost in zeal on this occasion, as at almost all
times, said to him, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come to thee upon the
water.” And he said, “Come.” And when Peter had come down out of the
vessel, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the
wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, “Lord,
save me.” And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught
him; and said to him, “O thou of little faith! wherefore didst thou
doubt?” And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased; and
they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered. And
all they that were in the vessel came and worshiped him, saying, “Of
a truth, thou art the Son of God.” This amazement and reverence was
certainly very tardily acknowledged by them, after all the wonders they
had seen wrought by him; but they considered not the miracle of the
loaves, the most recent of all, which happened but a few hours before.
For this thoughtlessness, in a matter so striking and weighty, Jesus
himself afterwards rebuked them, referring both to this miracle of
feeding the five thousand, and to a subsequent similar one. However,
the various great actions of a similar character, thus repeated before
them, seem at last to have had a proper effect, since, on an occasion
not long after, they boldly and clearly made their profession of faith
in Jesus, as the Christ.

  “_A lonely place._”――The word _desert_, which is the adjective
  given in this passage, in the common English version, (Matthew
  xiv. 13, 15, Mark vi. 31, 32, 35, Luke ix. 10, 12,) does not
  convey to the reader, the true idea of the character of the
  place. The Greek word Ερημος (_eremos_) does not in the passages
  just quoted, mean “_desert_,” in our modern sense of that
  English word, which always conveys the idea of “desolation,”
  “wildness” and “barrenness,” as well as “solitude.” But the
  Greek word by no means implied these darker characteristics. The
  primary, uniform idea of the word is, “_lonely_,” “_solitary_,”
  and so little does it imply “barrenness,” that it is applied
  to lands, rich, fertile and pleasant, a connection, of course,
  perfectly inconsistent with our ideas of a _desert_ place.
  Schleusner gives the idea very fairly under Ερημια, (_eremia_,)
  a derivative of this word. “Notat locum aliquem vel tractum
  terrae, non tam _incultum_ et _horridum_, quam minus habitabilem,
  ――_solitudinem_,――locum vacuum quidem ab hominibus, _pascuis_
  tamen et _agris abundantem_, et _arboribus obsitum_.” “It means
  a place or tract of land, not so much uncultivated and wild, as
  it does one thinly inhabited,――a solitude, a place empty of men
  indeed, yet rich in pastures and fields, and planted with trees.”
  But after giving this very clear and satisfactory account of
  the derivative, he immediately after gives to the primitive
  itself, the primary meaning “_desertus, desolatus, vastus,
  devastatus_,” and refers to passages where the word is applied
  to ruined cities; but in every one of those passages, the
  true idea is that above given as the meaning, “stripped of
  inhabitants,” and not “desolated” or “laid waste.” Hedericus
  gives this as the first meaning, “_desertus, solus, solitarius,
  inhabitatus_.” Schneider also fully expresses it, in German,
  by “_einsam_,” (_lonely, solitary_,) in which he is followed by
  Passow, his improver, and by Donnegan, his English translator.
  Jones and Pickering, also give it thus. Bretschneider and Wahl,
  in their New Testament Lexicons, have given a just and proper
  classification of the meanings. The word “_desert_” came into
  our English translation, by the minute verbal adherence of the
  translators to the Vulgate or Latin version, where the word is
  expressed by “_desertum_” probably enough because _desertus_,
  in Latin, does not mean _desert_ in English, nor any thing like
  it, but simply “lonely,” “uninhabited;”――in short, it has the
  force of the English participle, “_deserted_,” and not of the
  adjective “_desert_,” which has probably acquired its modern
  meaning, and lost its old one, since our common translation was
  made; thus making one instance, among ten thousand others, of
  the imperfection of this ancient translation, which was, at best,
  but a servile English rendering of the Vulgate. Campbell, in his
  four gospels, has repeated this passage, without correcting the
  error, though Hammond, long before, in his just and beautiful
  paraphrase, (on Matthew xiv. 13,) had corrected it by the
  expression, “_a place not inhabited_.” Charles Thomson, in
  his version, has overlooked the error in Matthew xiv. 13, 15,
  but has corrected it in Mark vi. 31, &c., and in Luke ix. 10;
  expressing it by “_solitary_.” The remark of the apostles to
  Jesus, “This place is lonely,” does not require the idea of a
  barren or wild place; it was enough that it was far from any
  village, and had not inhabitants enough to furnish food for
  five thousand men; as in 2 Corinthians xi. 26, it is used in
  opposition to “city,” in the sense of “the country.”


                 HIS DECLARATION OF CHRIST’S DIVINITY.

Journeying on northward, Jesus came into the neighborhood of ♦Caesarea
Philippi, and while he was there in some solitary place, praying alone
with his select disciples, at the conclusion of his prayer, he asked
them, “Who do men say that I, the son of man, am?” And they answered
him, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist:” Herod, in particular,
we know, had this notion; “some, that thou art Elijah, and others
that thou art Jeremiah, or one of the prophets, that is risen again.”
So peculiar was his doctrine, and so far removed was he, both in
impressive eloquence and in original views, from the degeneracy and
servility of that age, that the universal sentiment was, that one of
the bold, pure “spirits of the fervent days of old,” had come back
to call Judah from foreign servitude, to the long remembered glories
of the reigns of David and Solomon. But his chosen ones, who had by
repeated instruction, as well as long acquaintance, better learned
their Master, though still far from appreciating his true character
and designs, had yet a higher and juster idea of him, than the
unenlightened multitudes who had been amazed by his deeds. To draw
from them the distinct acknowledgment of their belief in him, Jesus at
last plainly asked his disciples, “But who do ye say that I am?” Simon
Peter, in his usual character as spokesman, replied for the whole band,
“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus, recognizing in
this prompt answer, the fiery and devoted spirit that would follow the
great work of redemption through life, and at last to death, replied to
the zealous speaker in terms of marked and exalted honor, prophesying
at the same time the high part which he would act in spreading and
strengthening the kingdom of his Master: “Blessed art thou, Simon, son
of Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this unto thee, but my
Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art a ROCK,
and on this _rock_ I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom
of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in
heaven.” In such high terms was the chief apostle distinguished, and
thus did his Master peculiarly commission him above the rest, for the
high office, to which all the energies of his remaining life were to be
devoted.

    ♦ “Cesarea” replaced with “Caesarea”

  _Who do men say that I am._――The common English translation,
  here makes a gross grammatical blunder, putting the relative
  in the objective case,――“_Whom_ do men say,” &c. (Matthew xvi.
  13‒15.) It is evident that on inverting the order, putting the
  relative last instead of first, it will be in the nominative,
  ――“Men say that I am who?” making, in short, a nominative after
  the verb, though it here comes before it by the inversion which
  the relative requires. Here again the blunder may be traced to
  a heedless copying of the Vulgate. In Latin, as in Greek, the
  relative is given in the accusative, and very properly, because
  it is followed by the infinitive. “Quem dicunt homines esse
  Filium hominis?” which literally is, “Whom do men say the son of
  man to be?”――a very correct form of expression; but the blunder
  of our translators was, in preserving the accusative, while they
  changed the verb, from the infinitive to the finite form; for
  “_whom_” cannot be governed by “_say_.” Hammond has passed over
  the blunder; but Campbell, Thomson, and Webster, have corrected
  it.

  _Son of Man._――This expression has acquired a peculiarly exalted
  sense in our minds, in consequence of its repeated application
  to Jesus Christ, and its limitation to him, in the New Testament.
  But in those days it had no meaning by which it could be
  considered expressive of any peculiar characteristic of the
  Savior, being a mere general emphatic expression for the common
  word “man,” used in solemn address or poetical expressions. Both
  in the Old and New Testament it is many times applied to men
  in general, and to particular individuals, in such a way as
  to show that it was only an elegant periphrasis for the common
  term, without implying any peculiar importance in the person
  thus designated, or referring to any peculiar circumstance as
  justifying this appellative in that case. Any concordance will
  show how commonly the word occurred in this connection. The
  diligent Butterworth enumerates eighty-nine times in which this
  word is applied to Ezekiel, in whose book of prophecy it occurs
  oftener than in any other book in the Bible. It is also applied
  to Daniel, in the address of the angel to him, as to Ezekiel;
  and in consideration of the vastly more frequent occurrence
  of the expression in the writers after the captivity, and its
  exclusive use by them as a formula of solemn address, it has
  been commonly considered as having been brought into this usage
  among the Hebrews, from the dialects of Chaldea and Syria,
  where it was much more common. In Syriac, more particularly, the
  simple expression, “man,” is entirely banished from use by this
  solemn periphrasis,

    Illustration: (‡ Syriac word)

  (_bar-nosh_,) “SON OF MAN,” which every where takes the place
  of the original direct form. It should be noticed also, that in
  every place in the Old Testament where this expression (“son of
  man”) occurs, before Ezekiel, the former part of the sentence
  invariably contains the direct form of expression, (“man,”)
  and this periphrasis is given in the latter part of every such
  sentence, for the sake of a poetical repetition of the same idea
  in a slightly different form. Take, for instance, Psalm viii. 4,
  “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man,
  that thou visitest him?” And exactly so in every other passage
  anterior to Ezekiel, as Numbers xxiii. 19, Job xxv. 16, xxxv. 8,
  Isaiah li. 12, lvi. 2, and several other passages, to which any
  good concordance will direct the reader.

  The New Testament writers too, apply this expression in other
  ways than as a name of Jesus Christ. It is given as a mere
  periphrasis, entirely synonymous with “man,” in a general or
  abstract sense, without reference to any particular individual,
  in Mark iii. 28, (compare Matthew xii. 13, where the simple
  expression “men” is given,) Hebrews ii. 6, (a mere translation
  of Psalm viii. 4,) Ephesians iii. 5, Revelation i. 13, xiv. 14.
  In the peculiar emphatic limitation to which this note refers,
  it is applied by Jesus Christ to himself about eighty times in
  the gospels, but is never used by any other person in the New
  Testament, as a name of the Savior, except by Stephen, in Acts,
  vii. 56. It never occurs in this sense in the apostolic epistles.
  (Bretschneider.) For this use of the word, I should not think
  it necessary to seek any mystical or important reason, as so
  many have done, nor can I see that in its application to Jesus,
  it has any very direct reference to the circumstance of his
  having, though divine, put on a human nature, but simply a nobly
  modest and strikingly emphatic form of expression used by him,
  in speaking of his own exalted character and mighty plans, and
  partly to avoid the too frequent repetition of the personal
  pronoun. It is at once evident that this indirect form,
  in the third person, is both more dignified and modest in
  solemn address, than the use of the first person singular
  of the pronoun. Exactly similar to this are many forms of
  circumlocution with which we are familiar. The presiding
  officer of any great deliberative assembly, for instance, in
  announcing his own decision on points of order, by a similar
  periphrasis, says “The chair decides,” &c. In fashionable forms
  of intercourse, such instances are still more frequent. In many
  books, where the writer has occasion to speak of himself, he
  speaks in the third person, “the author,” &c.; as in an instance
  close at hand, in this book it will be noticed, that where it is
  necessary for me to allude to myself in the _text_ of the work,
  which, of course, is more elevated in its tone than the _notes_,
  I speak, according to standard forms of scriptorial propriety,
  in the third person, as “the author,” &c.; while here, in
  these small discussions, which break in on the more dignified
  narrative, I find it at once more convenient and proper, to use
  the more familiar and simple forms of ♦expression.

    ♦ “expresssion” replaced with “expression”

  This periphrasis (“_son of_”) is not peculiar to oriental
  languages, as every Greek scholar knows, who is familiar with
  Homer’s common expression υιες Αχαιων, (_uies Akhaion_,) “sons
  of Grecians,” instead of “Grecians” simply, which by a striking
  coincidence, occurs in Joel xiii. 6, in the same sense. Other
  instances might be needlessly ♦multiplied.

    ♦ “multipled” replaced with “multiplied”

  _Thou art a Rock_, &c.――This is the just translation of Peter’s
  name, and the force of the declaration is best understood by
  this rendering. As it stands in the original, it is “Thou art
  Πετρος, (_Petros_, ‘a rock,’) and on this Πετρα (_Petra_, ‘a
  rock’) I will build my church,”――a play on the words so palpable,
  that great injustice is done to its force by a common tame,
  unexplained translation. The variation of the words in the
  Greek, from the masculine to the feminine termination, makes
  no difference in the expression. In the Greek Testament, the
  feminine πετρα (_petra_) is the only form of the word used as
  the common noun for “rock,” but the masculine πετρος (_petros_)
  is used in the most finished classic writers of the ancient
  Greek, of the Ionic, Doric and Attic, as Homer, Herodotus,
  Pindar, Xenophon, and, in the later order of writers, Diodorus
  Siculus.

  H. Stephens gives the masculine form as the primitive, but
  Schneider derives it from the feminine.

After this distinct profession of faith in him, by his disciples,
through Peter, Jesus particularly and solemnly charged them all, that
they should not, then, assert their belief to others, lest they should
thereby be drawn into useless and unfortunate contests about their
Master, with those who entertained a very different opinion of him. For
Jesus knew that his disciples, shackled and possessed as they were with
their fantasies about the earthly reign of a Messiah, were not, as yet,
sufficiently prepared to preach this doctrine: and wisely foresaw that
the mass of the Jewish people would either put no faith at all in such
an announcement, or that the ill disposed and ambitious would abuse
it, to the purposes of effecting a political revolution, by raising
a rebellion against the Roman rulers of Palestine, and oversetting
foreign power. He had, it is true, already sent forth his twelve
apostles, to preach the coming of the kingdom, (Matthew x. 7,) but
that was only to the effect that the time of the Messiah’s reign was
nigh,――that the lives and hearts of all must be changed,――all which
the apostles might well preach, without pretending to announce who the
Messiah was.


              HIS AMBITIOUS HOPES AND THEIR HUMILIATION.

This avowal of Peter’s belief that Jesus was the Messiah, to which
the other apostles gave their assent, silent or loud, was so clear
and hearty, that Jesus plainly perceived their persuasion of his
divine authority to be so strong, that they might now bear a decisive
and open explanation of those things which he had hitherto rather
darkly and dimly hinted at, respecting his own death. He also at this
time, brought out the full truth the more clearly as to the miseries
which hung over him, and his expected death, with the view the
more effectually to overthrow those false notions which they had
preconceived of earthly happiness and triumph, to be expected in the
Messiah’s kingdom; and with the view, also, of preparing them for the
events which must shortly happen; lest, after they saw him nailed to
the cross, they should all at once lose their high hopes, and utterly
give him up. He knew too, that he had such influence with his disciples,
that if their minds were shocked, and their faith in him shaken, at
first, by such a painful disclosure, he could soon bring them back
to a proper confidence in him. Accordingly, from this time, he began
distinctly to set forth to them, how he must go to Jerusalem, and
suffer many things from the elders, and chief priests, and scribes,
and be killed, and be raised again the third day. There is much room
for reasonable doubt, as to the manner in which those who heard this
declaration of Christ, understood it at the time. As to the former
part of it, namely, that he would be ill-treated by the great men of
the Jewish nation, both by those ruling in the civil and religious
government, it was too plain for any one to put any but the right
meaning upon it. But the promise that he should, after this horrible
fate, rise again from the dead on the third day, did not, as it is
evident, by any means convey to them the meaning which all who read
it now, are able to find in it. Nothing can be more plain to a careful
reader of the gospels, than that his disciples and friends had not
the slightest expectation that he would ever appear to them after his
cruel death; and the mingled horror and dread with which the first news
of that event was received by them, shows them to have been utterly
unprepared for it. It required repeated positive demonstration, on
his part, to assure them that he was truly alive among them, in his
own form and character. The question then is――what meaning had they
all along given to the numerous declarations uttered by him to them,
apparently foretelling this, in the distinct terms, of which the above
passage is a specimen? Had they understood it as we do, and yet so
absolutely disbelieved it, that they put no faith in the event itself,
when it had so palpably occurred? And had they, for months and years,
followed over Palestine, through labors, and troubles, and dangers,
a man, who, as they supposed, was boldly endeavoring to saddle their
credulity with a burden too monstrous for even them to bear? They
must, from the nature of their connection with him, have put the most
unlimited confidence in him, and could not thus devotedly have given
themselves up to a man whom they believed or suspected to be constantly
uttering to them a falsehood so extravagant and improbable. They
must, then, have put some meaning on it, different from that which our
clearer light enables us to see in it; and that meaning, no doubt, they
honestly and firmly believed, until the progress of events showed them
the power of the prophecy in its wonderful and literal fulfilment. They
may have misunderstood it in his life time, in this way: the universal
character of the language of the children of Shem, seems to be a
remarkable proneness to figurative expressions, and the more abstract
the ideas which the speaker wishes to convey, the more strikingly
material are the figures he uses, and the more poetical the language in
which he conveys them. Teachers of morals and religion, most especially,
have, among those nations of the east, been always distinguished for
their highly figurative expressions, and none abound more richly in
them than the writers of the Old and New Testament. So peculiarly
effective, for his great purposes, did Jesus Christ, in particular,
find this variety of eloquence, that it is distinctly said of him, that
he seldom or never spoke to the people without a parable, which he was
often obliged to expound more in detail, to his chosen followers, when
apart with them. This style of esoteric and exoteric instruction, had
early taught his disciples to look into his most ordinary expressions
for a hidden meaning; and what can be more likely than that often, when
left to their own conjectures, they, for a time, at least, overleaped
the simple literal truth, into a fog of figurative interpretations, as
too many of their very modern successors have often done, to their own
and others’ misfortune. We certainly know that, in regard to those very
expressions about raising the dead, there was a very earnest inquiry
among the three chief apostles, some time after, as will be mentioned
in place, showing that it never seemed possible to them that their Lord,
mighty as he had showed himself, could ever mean to say to them, that,
when his bitter foes had crowned his life of toil and cares with a
bloody and cruel exit, he――even HE, could dare to promise them, that
he would break through that iron seal, which, when once set upon the
energies of man, neither goodness, nor valor, nor knowledge, nor love,
had ever loosened, but which, since the first dead yielded his breath,
not the mightiest prophet, nor the most inspired, could ever break
through for himself. The figure of death and resurrection, has often
been made a striking image of many moral changes;――of some one of which,
the hearers of Jesus probably first interpreted it. In connection with
what he had previously said, nothing could seem more natural to them,
than that he, by this peculiarly strong metaphor, wished to remind them
that, even after his death, by the envious and cruel hands of Jewish
magistrates, over but a few days, his name, the ever fresh influence
of his bright and holy example――the undying powers of his breathing and
burning words, should still live with them, and with them triumph after
the momentary struggles of the enemies of the truth.

The manner, also, in which Simon Peter received this communication,
shows that he could not have anticipated so glorious and dazzling
a result of such horrible evils: for, however literally he may have
taken the prophecy of Christ’s cruel death, he used all his powers
to dissuade his adored master from exposing himself to a fate so dark
and dreadful,――so sadly destructive of all the new-born hopes of his
chosen followers, and from which the conclusion of the prophecy seemed
to offer no clear or certain mode of escape. Never before, had Jesus
spoken in such plain and decided terms, about the prospect of his
own terrible death. Peter, whose heart had just been lifted up to the
skies with joy and hope, in the prospect of the glorious triumphs to
be achieved by his Lord through his means, and whose thoughts were even
then dwelling on the honors, the power, the fame, which were to accrue
to him for his share in the splendid work,――was shocked beyond measure,
at the strange and seemingly contradictory view of the results, now
taken by his great leader. With the confident familiarity to which
their mutual love and intimacy entitled him, in some measure, he laid
his hand expostulatingly upon him, and drew him partly aside, to urge
him privately to forget thoughts of despondency, so unworthy of the
great enterprise of Israel’s restoration, to which they had all so
manfully pledged themselves as his supporters. We may presume, that
he, in a tone of encouragement, endeavored to show him how impossible
it would be for the dignitaries of Jerusalem to withstand the tide of
popularity which had already set so strongly in favor of Jesus; that
so far from looking upon himself as in danger of a death so infamous,
from the Sanhedrim, he might, at the head of the hosts of his zealous
Galileans, march as a conqueror to Jerusalem, and thence give laws from
the throne of his father David, to all the wide territories of that
far-ruling king. Such dreams of earthly glory seemed to have filled
the soul of Peter at that time; and we cannot wonder, then, that every
ambitious feeling within him recoiled at the gloomy announcement, that
the idol of his hopes was to end his days of unrequited toil, by a
death so infamous as that of the cross. “Be it far from thee, Lord,”
“God forbid,” “Do not say so,” “Do not thus damp our courage and high
hopes,” “This must not happen to thee.”――Jesus, on hearing these words
of ill-timed rebuke, which showed how miserably his chief follower
had been infatuated and misled, by his foolish and carnal ambition,
turned away indignantly from the low and degraded motives, by which
Peter sought to bend him from his holy purposes. Not looking upon him,
but upon the other disciples, who had kept their feelings of regret
and disappointment to themselves, he, in the most energetic terms,
expressed his abhorrence of such notions, by his language to the
speaker. “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art a scandal to me; for thou
savorest not the things which be of God, but the things which be of men.
In these fervent aspirations after eminence, I recognize none of the
pure devotion to the good of man, which is the sure test of the love
of God; but the selfish desire for transient, paltry distinction, which
characterizes the vulgar ambition of common men, enduring no toil or
pain, but in the hope of a more than equal earthly reward speedily
accruing.” After this stern reply, which must have strongly impressed
them all with the nature of the mistake of which they had been guilty,
he addressed them still further, in continuation of the same design, of
correcting their false notion of the earthly advantages to be expected
by his companions in toil. He immediately gave them a most untempting
picture of the character and conduct of him, who could be accepted as a
fit fellow-worker with Jesus. “If any one wishes to come after me, let
him deny himself, and let him take up his cross, (as if we should say,
let him come with his halter around his neck, and with the gibbet on
his shoulder,) and follow me. For whosoever shall save his life for
my sake, shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake,
shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the _whole
world_, and lose his own soul? For the Son of Man shall come in the
glory of his Father, with his angels; and THEN, he shall _reward_
every man according to his works.” “I solemnly tell you, there are
some standing here who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son
of Man coming in his kingdom.”――“In vain would you, in pursuit of your
idle dreams of earthly glory, yield up all the powers of your soul, and
spend your life for an object so worthless. After all, what is there
in all the world, if you should have the whole at your disposal――what,
for the momentary enjoyment of which, you can calmly pay down your soul
as the price? Seek not, then, for rewards so unworthy of the energies
which I have recognized in you, and have devoted to far nobler purposes.
Higher honors will crown your toils and sufferings, in my service;
――nobler prizes are seen near, with the eye of faith. Speedily will
the frail monuments of this world’s wonders crumble, and the memory of
its greatnesses pass away; but over the ruins of kingdoms, the coming
of the MAN to whom you have joined yourselves is sure, and in that
triumphant advent, you shall find the imperishable requital of your
faithful and zealous works. And of the nature and aspect of the glories
which I now so dimly shadow in words, some of those who now hear me
shall soon be the living witnesses, as of a foretaste of rewards,
whose full enjoyment can be yours, only after the weariness and misery
of this poor life are all passed. Years of toil, dangers, pain, and
sorrow,――lives passed in contempt and disgrace,――deaths of ignominy,
of unpitied anguish, and lingering torture, must be your passage to the
joys of which I speak; while the earthly honors which you now covet,
shall for ages continue to be the prize of the base, the cruel, and the
foolish, from whom you vainly hope to snatch them.”


                         THE TRANSFIGURATION.

The mysterious promise thus made by Jesus, of a new and peculiar
exhibition of himself, to some of his chosen ones, he soon sought an
occasion of executing. About six or eight days after this remarkable
conversation, he took Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee, James and
John, and went with them up into a high mountain, apart by themselves.
As to the name and place of this mountain, a matter of some interest
certainly, there have been two opinions among those who have attempted
to illustrate the topography of the gospels. The phrase, “a high
mountain,” has instantly brought to the thoughts of most learned
readers, Mount Tabor, famous for several great events in Bible history,
which they have instantly adopted, without considering the place in
which the previous account had left Jesus, which was Caesarea Philippi;
hereafter described as in the farthest northern part of Galilee. Now,
Mount Tabor, however desirable in other particulars, as the scene of a
great event in the life of Jesus, was full seventy miles south of the
place where Jesus had the conversation with his disciples, which led to
the remarkable display which followed a few days after, on the mountain.
It is true, that the intervening period of a week, was sufficient
to enable him to travel this distance with ease; but the difficulty
is, to assign some possible necessity or occasion for such a journey.
Certainly, he needed not to have gone thus far to find a mountain,
for Caesarea Philippi itself stands by the base of Paneas, which is
a part of the great Syrian range of Antilibanus. This great mountain,
or mountain chain, rises directly behind the city, and parts of it are
so high above the peak of Tabor, or any other mountain in Palestine,
as to be covered with snow, even in that warm country. The original
readers of the gospel story, were dwellers in Palestine, and must have
been, for the most part, well acquainted with the character of the
places which were the scenes of the incidents, and could hardly have
been ignorant of the fact, that this splendid city, so famous as the
monument of royal vanity and munificence, was near the northern end of
Palestine, and of course, must have been known even by those who had
never seen it, nor heard it particularly described, to be very near
the great Syrian mountains; so near too, as to be very high elevated
above the cities of the southern country, since not far from the city
gushed out the most distant sources of the rapid Jordan. But another
difficulty, in respect to this journey of seventy miles to Tabor, is,
that while the gospels give no account of it, it is even contradicted
by Mark’s statement, that after departing from the mountain, he passed
through Galilee, and came to Capernaum, which is between Tabor and
Caesarea Philippi, twenty or thirty miles from the former, and forty
or fifty from the latter. Now, that Jesus Christ spared no exertion of
body or mind, in “going about doing good,” no one can doubt; but that
he would spend the strength devoted to useful purposes, in traveling
from one end of Galilee to the other, for no greater good than to
ascend a particular mountain, and then to travel thirty miles back on
the same route, is a most unnecessary tax upon our faith. But here,
close to Caesarea Philippi, was the mighty range of Antilibanus, known
in Hebrew poetry by the name of Hermon in this part; and _He_, whose
presence made all places holy, could not have chosen, among all the
mountains of Palestine, one which nature had better fitted to impress
the beholder who stood on the summit, with ideas of the vast and
sublime. Modern travelers assure us that, from the peaks behind the
city, the view of the lower mountains to the south,――of the plain
through which the young Jordan flows, soon spreading out into the broad
sheet of lake Houle, (Samachonitis lacus,) and of the country, almost
to lake Tiberias, is most magnificent. The precise peak which was the
scene of the event here related, it is impossible to conjecture. It may
have been any one of three which are prominent: either the castle hill,
or, farther off and much higher, Mount Bostra, once the site of a city,
or farther still, and highest of all, Merura Jubba, which is but a few
hours walk from the city. The general impression of the vulgar, however,
and of those who take the traditions of the vulgar and the ignorant,
without examination, has been, that Tabor was the scene of the event,
so that, at this day, it is known among the stupid Christians of
Palestine, by the name of the Mount of the Transfiguration. So idly
are these foolish local traditions received, that this falsehood, so
palpable on inspection, has been quietly handed down from traveler to
traveler, ever since the crusades, when hundreds of these and similar
localities, were hunted up so hastily, and by persons so ill-qualified
for the search, that more modern investigators may be pardoned for
treating with so little consideration the voice of _such_ antiquity,
when it is found opposed to a rational and consistent understanding
of the gospel story. When the question was first asked, “Where is the
mount of the transfiguration?” there were enough persons interested to
reply, “Mount Tabor.” No reason was probably asked for the decision,
and none was given; but as the scene was acted on a high mountain
in Galilee, and as Tabor answered perfectly to this very simple
description, and was moreover interesting on many other accounts, both
historical and natural, it was adopted for the transfiguration without
any discussion whatever, among those on the spot. Still, to learned and
diligent readers of the gospels, the ♦inconsistencies of such a belief
have been so obvious, that many great theologians have decided, for the
reasons here given, that the transfiguration must have taken place on
some part of Mount Paneas, as it was called by the Greeks and Romans,
known among the Jews, however, from the earliest times, by the far
older name of Mount HERMON. On the determination of this point, more
words have been expended than some may deem the matter to deserve; but
among the various objects of the modern historian of Bible times, none
is more important or interesting, ♠than that of settling the often
disputed topography of the sacred narrative; and as the ground here
taken differs so widely from the almost universally received opinion,
the minute reasons were loudly called for, in justification of the
author’s boldness. The ancient blunders here detected, and shown to be
based only upon a guess, is a very fair specimen of the way in which,
in the moral as in the natural sciences, “they all copy from one
another,” without taking pains to look into the truth of small matters.
And it seems to show, moreover, how, when men of patient and zealous
accuracy, have taken the greatest pains to expose and correct so
causeless an error, common readers and writers too, will carelessly
and lazily slip back into the old blunder, thus making the counsels of
the learned of no effect, and loving darkness rather than light, error
rather than exactness, because they are too shiftless to find a good
reason for what is laid down before them as truth. But so it is. It
is, and always has been, and always will be, so much easier for men to
swallow whole, or reject whole, the propositions made to them, that the
vast majority had much rather believe on other people’s testimony, than
go through the harassing and tiresome task, of looking up the proofs
for themselves. In this very instance, this important topographical
blunder was fully exposed and corrected a century and a half ago, by
Lightfoot, the greatest Hebrew scholar that ever lived; and we see how
much wiser the world is for his pains.

    ♦ “inconsistences” replaced with “inconsistencies”

    ♠ duplicate word “than” removed

  _Caesarea Philippi._――This city stood where all the common
  maps place it, in the farthest northern part of Palestine, just
  at the foot of the mountains, and near the fountain head of
  the Jordan. The name by which it is called in the gospels, is
  another instance, like Julias Bethsaida, of a compliment paid
  by the servile kings, of the divisions of Palestine, to their
  imperial masters, who had given, and who at any time could take
  away, crown and kingdom from them. The most ancient name by
  which this place is known to have been mentioned in the Hebrew
  scriptures, is _Lasha_, in Genesis x. 19, afterwards variously
  modified into _Leshem_, (Joshua xix. 47,) and _Laish_, (Judges
  xviii. 7: xiv. 29,) a name somewhat like the former in sound,
  though totally different in meaning, (לשם _leshem_, “a precious
  stone,” and ליש _laish_, “a lion,”) undoubtedly all three being
  from the same root, but variously modified in the changing
  pronunciations of different ages and tribes. In the earliest
  passage, (Genesis x. 19,) it is clearly described as on the
  farthest northern limit of the land of Canaan, and afterwards,
  being conquered long after most of the cities of that region, by
  the tribe of Dan, and receiving the name of this tribe, as an
  addition to its former one, it became proverbially known under
  the name of _Dan_, as the farthest northern point of the land of
  Israel, as Beersheba was the southern one. It did not, however,
  lose its early Canaanitish name till long after, for, in Isaiah
  x. 30, it is spoken of under the name of Laish, as the most
  distant part of Israel, to which the cry of the distressed could
  reach. It is also mentioned under its later name of Dan, in
  Genesis xiv. 14, and Deuteronomy xxxiv. 1, where it is given by
  the writer, or some copyist, in anticipation of the subsequent
  account of its acquiring this name after the conquest. Josephus
  also mentions it, under this name, in Antiquities book i.
  chapter 10, and book viii. chapter 8, section 4, in both which
  places he speaks of it as standing at one of the sources of
  the Jordan, from which circumstance, no doubt, the latter part
  of the river’s name is derived. After the overthrow of the
  Israelitish power in that region, it fell into the hands of new
  possessors, and under the Greeks and Romans, went by the name of
  Panias, (Josephus and Ptolemy,) or Paneas, (Josephus and Pliny,)
  which name, according to Ptolemy, it had under the Phoenicians.
  This name, supposed to have been taken from the Phoenician name
  of the mountain near, Josephus gives to it, in all the later
  periods of his history, until he speaks of the occasion on which
  it received a new change of name.

  Its commanding and remarkable position, on the extremity of
  Palestine, made it a frontier post of some importance; and it
  was therefore a desirable addition to the dominions of Herod the
  Great, who received it from his royal patron, Augustus Caesar,
  along with its adjacent region between Galilee and Trachonitis,
  after the death of Zenodorus, its former possessor. (Josephus
  Antiquities book xv. chapter 10, section 3.) Herod the Great,
  out of gratitude for this princely addition to his dominions,
  at a time when attempts were made to deprive him of his imperial
  master’s favor, raised near this city, a noble monument to
  Augustus. (Josephus as above quoted.) “He built a monument to
  him, of white marble, in the land of Zenodorus, near Panium.
  There is a beautiful cave in the mountain, and beneath it there
  is a chasm in the earth, rugged, and of immense depth, full
  of still water, and over it hangs a vast mountain; and under
  the cave rise the springs of the Jordan. This place, already
  very famous, he adorned with the temple which he consecrated to
  Caesar.” A lofty temple of white marble, on such a high spot,
  contrasted with the dark rocks of the mountain and cave around,
  must have been a splendid object in the distance, and a place of
  frequent resort.

  This city, along with the adjacent provinces, after the death
  of the first Herod, was given to his son Philip, made tetrarch
  of Iturea and Trachonitis. This prince, out of gratitude to
  the royal donor, at the same time when he rebuilt and repaired
  Bethsaida, as already mentioned, “also embellished Paneas, at
  the fountains of the Jordan, and gave it the name of Caesarea.”
  (Josephus Antiquities book xviii. chapter 2, section 1, also
  Jewish War, book ii. chapter 9, section 1,) and to distinguish
  it from other Caesareas, hereafter to be mentioned, it was
  called from the name of its royal builder, Caesarea Philippi,
  that is, “the Caesarea of Philip.” By this name it was most
  commonly known in the time of Christ; but it did not answer the
  end of perpetuating the name of its builder and his patron, for
  it shortly afterwards recovered its former name, Paneas, which,
  probably, never went wholly out of use. As late as the time
  of Pliny, (about A. D. 70,) Paneas was a part of the name of
  Caesarea. _Fons Paneas, qui cognomen dedit Caesareae_, “the
  fountain Paneas, which gave to Caesarea a surname.” (Pliny
  Natural History book v. chapter 15,) which shows, that at that
  time, the name Paneas was one, by which even foreign geographers
  recognized this city, in spite of the imperial dignity of its
  new title. Eusebius, (about A. D. 315,) speaks of “Caesarea
  Philippi, which the Phoenicians call Paneas, at the foot
  of mount Panium.” (Φιλιππου Καισαρεια ἡν Πανεαδα Θοινικες
  προσαγορευσι, &c. Church History book vii. chapter 17.) Jerome,
  (about A. D. 392,) never mentions the name Caesarea Philippi,
  as belonging to this city, except in commenting on Matthew
  xvi. 13, where he finds it necessary to explain this name, as
  an antiquated term, then out of use. _Caesaream Philippi, quae
  NUNC dicitur Paneas_, “Caesarea Philippi, which is _now_ called
  Paneas;” and in all the other places where he has occasion to
  mention the place, he gives it only the name of Paneas. Thus, in
  commenting on Amos viii. 14, he says, “Dan, on the boundary of
  the Jewish territory, where _now_ is Paneas.” And on Jeremiah
  iv. 15,――“The tribe Dan, near mount Lebanon, and the city which
  is _now_ called Paneas,” &c.――See also commentary on Daniel
  xiii. 16.

  After the death of Philip, this city, along with the rest of
  his dominions, was presented by Cains Caligula to Agrippa, who
  added still farther to the improvements made by Philip, more
  particularly ornamenting the Panium, or famous source of the
  Jordan, near the city, as Josephus testifies. (Jewish War, book
  iii. chapter 9, section 7.) “The natural beauty of the Panium,
  moreover, was still more highly adorned (προσεξησκηται) with
  royal magnificence, being embellished by the wealth of Agrippa.”
  This king also attempted to perpetuate the name of one of
  his imperial patrons, in connection with the city, calling it
  _Neronias_, in honor of one who is well enough known without
  this aid. (Josephus Antiquities book xx. chapter 8, section 3.)
  The perfectly transient character of this idle appellation, is
  abundantly shown from the preceding copious quotations.

  The city, now called Banias, (not _Belinas_, as Wahl erroneously
  says,) has been visited and examined in modern times by several
  travelers, of whom, none has described it more minutely than
  Burckhardt. His account of the mountains around the city,
  so finely illustrates my description of the scene of the
  transfiguration, that I extract largely from it here. In order
  to appreciate the description fully, it must be understood that
  _Heish_ is now the general Arabic name for the mountain chain,
  which was by ancient authors variously called Lebanon, Libanus,
  Anti-Libanus, Hermon, and Panium; for all these names have been
  given to the mountain-range, on whose slope Caesarea Philippi,
  or Paneas, stood.

  “The district of Banias is classic ground; it is the ancient
  _Caesarea Philippi_; the lake Houle, is the _Lacus Samachonitis_.
  Immediately after my arrival, I took a man of the village to
  shew me the way to the ruined castle of Banias, which bears
  East by South from it. It stands on the top of a mountain, which
  forms part of the mountain of Heish, at an hour and a quarter
  from Banias; it is now in complete ruins, but was once a very
  strong fortress. Its whole circumference is twenty-five minutes.
  It is surrounded by a wall ten feet thick, flanked with numerous
  round towers, built with equal blocks of stone, each about
  two feet square. The keep, or citadel, seems to have been on
  the highest summit, on the eastern side, where the walls are
  stronger than on the lower, or western side. The view from
  thence over the Houle and a part of its lake, the Djebel Safad,
  and the barren Heish, is magnificent. On the western side,
  within the precincts of the castle, are ruins of many private
  habitations. At both the western corners, runs a succession of
  dark, strongly built, low apartments, like cells, vaulted, and
  with small narrow loop holes, as if for musquetry. On this side
  also, is a well more than twenty feet square, walled in, with a
  vaulted roof at least twenty-five feet high; the well was, even
  in this dry season, full of water: there are three others in the
  castle. There are many apartments and recesses in the castle,
  which could only be exactly described by a plan of the whole
  building. It seems to have been erected during the period of
  the crusades, and must certainly have been a very strong hold
  to those who possessed it. I could discover no traces of a road
  or paved way leading up the mountain to it. In winter time,
  the shepherds of the Felahs of the Heish, who encamp upon the
  mountains, pass the night in the castle with their cattle.

  “Banias is situated at the foot of the Heish, in the plain,
  which in the immediate vicinity of Banias is not called Ard
  Houle, but Ard Banias. It contains about one hundred and fifty
  houses, inhabited mostly by Turks: there are also Greeks, Druses,
  and Enzairie. It belongs to Hasbeya, whose Emir nominates the
  Sheikh. On the north-east side of the village, is the source
  of the river of Banias, which empties itself into the Jordan
  at the distance of an hour and a half, in the plain below. Over
  the source is a perpendicular rock, in which several niches
  have been cut to receive statues. The largest niche is above a
  spacious cavern, under which the river rises. This niche is six
  feet broad and as much in depth, and has a smaller niche in the
  bottom of it. Immediately above it, in the perpendicular face of
  the rock, is another niche, adorned with pilasters, supporting a
  shell ornament.

  “Round the source of the river are a number of hewn stones.
  The stream flows on the north side of the village, where is
  a well built bridge, and some remains of the ancient town,
  the principal part of which seems, however, to have been on
  the opposite side of the river, where the ruins extend for a
  quarter of an hour from the bridge. No walls remain, but great
  quantities of stones and architectural fragments are scattered
  about.

  “I went to see the ruins of the ancient city of Bostra, of which
  the people spoke much. Bostra must not be confounded with Boszra,
  in the Haouran; both places are mentioned in the Books of Moses.
  The way to the ruins lies for an hour and a half in the road by
  which I came from Rasheyat-el-Fukhar, it then ascends for three
  quarters of an hour a steep mountain to the right, on the top
  of which is the city; it is divided into two parts, the largest
  being upon the very summit, the smaller at ten minutes walk
  lower down, and resembling a suburb to the upper part. Traces
  are still visible of a paved way that had connected the two
  divisions. There is scarcely any thing in the ruins worth notice;
  they consist of the foundations of private habitations, built
  of moderate sized square stones. The lower city is about twelve
  minutes walk in circumference; a part of the four walls of one
  building only remains entire; in the midst of the ruins was
  a well, at this time dried up. The circuit of the upper city
  may be about twenty minutes; in it are the remains of several
  buildings. In the highest part is a heap of wrought stones, of
  larger dimensions than the rest, which seem to indicate that
  some public building had once stood on the spot. There are
  several columns of one foot, and of one foot and a half in
  diameter. In two different places, a short column was standing
  in the centre of a round paved area of about ten feet in
  diameter. There is likewise a deep well, walled in, but now dry.

  “The country around these ruins is very capable of cultivation.
  Near the lower city are groups of olive trees.

  “I descended the mountain in the direction towards the source of
  the Jordan, and passed, at the foot of it, the miserable village
  of Kerwaya. Behind the mountain of Bostra is another, still
  higher, called Djebel Meroura Djoubba.” [Burckhardt’s Syria,
  pp. 37‒42.]

  From Conder’s Modern Traveler I also draw a sketch of other
  travelers’ observations on the place and the surrounding country.

  “BURCKHARDT, in coming from Damascus, pursued the more direct
  route taken by the caravans, which crosses the Jordan at Jacob’s
  Bridge. Captains Irby and Mangles left this road at Khan Sasa,
  and passed to the westward for Panias, thus striking between the
  road to Acre, and that by Raschia and Hasbeya. The first part
  of the road from Sasa, led through a fine plain, watered by a
  pretty, winding rivulet, with numerous tributary streams, and
  many old ruined mills. It then ascended over a very rugged and
  rocky soil, quite destitute of vegetation, having in some places
  traces of an ancient paved way, ‘probably the Roman road from
  Damascus to Caesarea Philippi.’ The higher part of Djebel Sheikh
  was seen on the right. The road became less stony, and the
  shrubs increased in number, size and beauty, as they descended
  into a rich little plain, at the immediate foot of the mountain.
  ‘From this plain,’ continues captain M., ‘we ascended, and,
  after passing a very small village, saw on our left, close to
  us, a very picturesque lake, apparently perfectly circular,
  of little more than a mile in circumference, surrounded on
  all sides by sloping hills, richly wooded. On quitting Phiala,
  at but a short distance from it, we crossed a stream which
  discharges into the larger one which we first saw: the latter
  we followed for a considerable distance; and then, mounting a
  hill to the south-west, had in view the great Saracenic castle,
  near Panias, the town of that name, and the plain of the Jordan,
  as far as the Lake Houle, with the mountains on the other
  side of the plain, forming altogether a fine _coup d’œil_. As
  we descended towards Panias, we found the country extremely
  beautiful. Great quantities of wild flowers, and a variety of
  shrubs, just budding, together with the richness of the verdure,
  grass, corn and beans, showed us, all at once, the beauties of
  spring, (February 24,) and conducted us into a climate quite
  different from Damascus. In the evening we entered Panias,
  crossing a causeway constructed over the rivulet, which flows
  from the foot of Djebel Sheikh. The river here rushes over great
  rocks in a very picturesque manner, its banks being covered with
  shrubs and the ruins of ancient walls.’

  “Panias, afterwards called Caesarea Philippi, has resumed its
  ancient name. The present town of Banias is small. Seetzen
  describes it as a little hamlet of about twenty miserable huts,
  inhabited by Mahomedans. The ‘Castle of Banias’ is situated
  on the summit of a lofty mountain: it was built, Seetzen says,
  without giving his authority, in the time of the caliphs.”
  [Modern Traveler Vol. I. pp. 353‒6.]

  The distance, in time, from Mount Tabor to Caesarea Philippi,
  may be conceived from the account given by Ebn Haukal, an
  Arabian geographer and traveler of the tenth century. He says
  “from Tibertheh (Tiberias, which is near Tabor) to _Sur_, (Tyre,)
  is one day’s journey; and from that to _Banias_, (Paneas,) is
  two day’s easy journey.” [Sir W. Ouseley’s translation of Ebn
  Haukal’s Geography, pp. 48, 49.]

This was an occasion on which Christ did not choose to display his
glories to the eyes of the ignorant and impertinent mobs that usually
thronged his path, drawn together as they were, by idle curiosity,
by selfish wishes for relief from various diseases, or by the
determination to profit by the mischief, which almost always results
from such a promiscuous assemblage. It may be fairly considered a moral
impossibility, for such disorderly and spontaneous assemblies to meet,
without more evils resulting, than can possibly be counterbalanced
by the good done to the assembly as a whole, whatever it may be to
individuals. So, at least, Jesus Christ seems always to have thought,
for he never encouraged such gatherings, and took every desirable
opportunity of getting rid of them, without injury to themselves, or of
withdrawing himself quietly from them, as the easiest way of dispersing
them; knowing how utterly hopeless must be the attempt to do any great
good among such a set of idlers, compared with what he might do by
private and special intercourse with individuals. It is worthy of
note, that Matthew and all whose calls are described, were about
their business. Thus, on an occasion already mentioned, when Jesus was
walking by the sea of Galilee, with the simple object of doing most
good, he did not seek among the multitude that was following him, for
the devoted laborers whom he might call to the great work of drawing
in men to the knowledge of the truth as revealed in him. No: he turned
from all the zealous loungers who had left their business, if they had
any, to drag about after the wonderful man who had attracted general
attention by his great and good deeds. He dispatched them as fast as
possible with a few words of instruction and exhortation; for though
he did not seek these undesirable occasions, yet he would have been
as much wanting in benevolence as in wisdom, if, when all the evils of
such a throng had occurred by the meeting, he had not hastened to offer
the speediest antidote to the mischief, and the best compensation for
the loss of time to the company, by giving them such words of counsel,
reproof, correction or encouragement, as, even when cast like bread
upon the waters, or seed by the way side, might yet perchance, or by
grace, “be found after many days,” returning to the hands of the giver,
in gratitude, by springing up and bearing some fruit to the praise and
glory of God. Having thus sent off the throng, he addressed himself
to the honest men whom he had found quietly following their daily
employments, and immediately performed with them there, and, as is
evident, mainly for their benefit, a most remarkable miracle; and when
they had been thus impressed with his power and wisdom, summoned them
to his aid in converting the world; sagely and truly judging, that
those who had been faithful in few things, would be the best rulers
over many things,――that they who had steadily and faithfully worked at
their proper business, had the best talent and disposition for laboring
in a cause which needed so much patient industry and steady application
in its devotees. These were the men whom he hoped to make by his
instructions, the successful founders of the Christian faith; and these
were the very men whom, out of thousands who longed for the honors
of his notice, he now chose as the objects of his special instruction
and commission, and called them apart to view the display of the most
wonderful mystery of his life.

Among these three favored ones, we see Peter included, and his name, as
usual, _first_ of all. By this it appears, that, however great his late
unfortunate misapprehension of the character and office of Christ, and
however he may have deserved the harsh rebuff with which his forward
but well meant remonstrance was met; still he was so far from having
lost his Master’s favor on this account, that he yet held the highest
place in the favor of Jesus, who had been moved by the exposure of
his favorite’s ignorance, only to new efforts to give him a just and
clear view of the important truths in which he was most deficient; for
after all, there was nothing _very_ surprising in Peter’s mistake. In
pursuance of this design, he took these three, Peter, James and John,
with him, up into the high mountain peaks of Hermon, from which their
eyes might glance far south over the land of Israel――the land of
their fathers for ages on ages, stretching away before them for a vast
distance, and fancy could easily extend the view. In this land, so holy
in the recollections of the past, so sad to the contemplation of the
present, were to begin their mighty labors. Here, too, bright and early,
one of the three was to end his; while his brother and friend were to
spread their common Master’s dominion over thousands and millions who
had never yet heard of that land, or its ancient faith. Jesus Christ
always sought the lonely tops of mountains, with a peculiar zest, in
his seasons of retirement, as well as for the most impressive displays
of his eloquence, or his miraculous power. The obvious reasons were the
advantages of perfect solitude and security against sudden intrusion;
――the free, pure air of the near heaven, and the broad light of the
immense prospect, were powerful means of lifting the soul to a state of
moral sublimity, equal to the impressions of physical grandeur, made by
the objects around. Their most holy historical associations, moreover,
were connected with the tops of high mountains, removed from which, the
most awful scenes of ancient miracle would, to the fancy of the dweller
of mountainous Palestine, have seemed stripped of their most imposing
aids. Sinai, Horeb, Moriah, Zion, Ebal, Gerizim and Tabor, were
the classic ground of Hebrew history, and to the fiery mind of the
imaginative Israelite, their high tops seemed to tower in a religious
♦sublimity, as striking and as lasting as their physical elevation.
From these lofty peaks, so much nearer to the dwelling place of God,
his soul took a higher flight than did ever the fancy of the Greek,
from the classic tops of Parnassus, Pelion, Ida, or the skyish head of
blue Olympus; and the three humble gazers, who now stood waiting there
with their divine Master, felt, no doubt, their devotion proportionally
exalted with their situation, by such associations. It was the
same spirit, that, throughout the ancient world, led the earliest
religionists to avail themselves of these physical advantages, as they
did in their mountain worship, and with a success just in proportion
as the purity and sincerity of their worship, and the high character of
its object, corresponded with the lofty grandeur of the place.

    ♦ “snblimity” replaced with “sublimity”

       “Not vainly did the early Persian make
        His altar the high places, and the peak
        Of earth-o’er-gazing mountains, there to seek
        The spirit, in whose honor shrines are weak,
        Upreared of human hands. Come and compare
        Columns and idol-dwellings, Goth or Greek,
        With nature’s realms of worship, earth and air;
        Nor fix on fond abodes to circumscribe thy prayer.”

In such a scene, and inspired by such sympathies, were the chosen three,
on this occasion. The bare details, as given in the three gospels, make
it evident that the scene took place in the night, as will be shown
in the course of the narrative; and this was in accordance also with
Christ’s usual custom of choosing the night, as the season of solitary
meditation and prayer. (Matthew xiv. 23.) Having reached the top, he
engaged himself and them in prayer. How solemn――how awful the scene!
The Savior of all, afar from the abodes of men, from the sound and
sight of human cares and sins, alone with his chosen three, on the vast
mountains, with the world as far beneath their eyes as its thoughts
were below their minds;――in the silence of the night, with the lights
of the city and villages faintly gleaming in the distance on the lower
hills and the plain,――with no sound near them but the murmuring of the
night wind about the rocks,――with the dark canopy of gathering clouds
above them,――Jesus prayed. His voice went up from this high altar of
earth’s wide temple to the throne of his Father, to whom he commended
in words of supplication, those who were to labor for him when his
earthly work should cease. We may well suppose that the substance
of his prayer was, that their thoughts, before so groveling, and now
so devotedly clinging to visions of earthly dominion and personal
aggrandizement, might “leave all meaner things, to low ambition and
the pride of kings,” and might rise, as on that high peak, from earth
towards heaven, to the just sense of the far higher efforts and honors
to which they were destined. With their thoughts and feelings thus
kindled with the holy associations of the hour, the place and the
person, their souls must have risen with his in that solemn and earnest
supplication, and their prayers for new devotion and exaltation of
spirit must have been almost equally ardent. Probably some hours were
passed in this employment, varied perhaps by the eloquent and pointed
instructions given by Jesus, to prepare these chiefs of the apostolic
band, for the full understanding of the nature of his mission and
theirs. How vastly important to their success in their labors, and to
their everlasting happiness, must these prayers and instructions have
been! The three hearers, we may presume, gave for a long time the most
devoted attention which a scene so impressive could awaken; but yet
they were men, and weary ones too, for they had come a considerable
distance up a very steep way, and it was now late at night,――no doubt
long past their bed-time. The exercise which their journey to the spot
had given them, was of a kind for which their previous habits of life
had quite unfitted them. They were all fishermen, and had dwelt all
their lives in the low flat country on the shores of lake Tiberias and
the valley of the Jordan, where they had nothing to do with climbing
hills. And though their constant habits of hard labor must have made
them stout men in their vocation, yet we all know that the muscles
called into action by the management of the boat and net, are very
different from those which support and advance a man in ascending
acclivities. Every one that has noticed the sturdy arms and slender
legs of most sailors, has had the practical proof, that a man may work
all his life at pulling the seine and drag-net, hauling the ropes of a
vessel, and tugging at the oar, without being thereby, in the slightest
degree, fitted for labors of a different character. The work of toiling
up a very high, steep mountain, then, was such as all their previous
habits of life had wholly unfitted them for, and their over-stretched
limbs and bodies must have been both sore and weary, so that when they
came to a resting place, they very naturally were disposed to repose,
and must have felt drowsy. In short, they fell asleep; and that too,
as it would appear, in the midst of the prayers and counsels of their
adorable Lord. And yet who, that considers all the reasons above given,
can wonder? for it is very possible for a man to feel the highest
interest in a subject offered to his consideration,――an interest, too,
which may for a long time enable a zealous mind to triumph over bodily
incapacity,――yet there is a point beyond which the most intense energy
of mind cannot drag the sinking body, when fatigue has drained its
strength, which nothing but sleep can renew. Men, when thus worn down,
will sleep in the midst of a storm, or on the eve of certain death.
In such a state were the bodies of the companions of Jesus, and thus
wearied, they slept long, in spite of the storm which is supposed by
many to have arisen, and to have been the immediate cause of some of
the striking appearances which followed. It is said by many standard
commentators, that the fairest account of such of the incidents as are
connected with natural objects, is, that a tremendous thunder-storm
came down upon the mountain while they were asleep, and that a loud
peal bursting from this, was the immediate cause of their awaking. All
the details that are given, certainly justify the supposition. They are
described as suddenly starting from their sleep, in such a manner as
would naturally follow only from a loud noise violently arousing the
slumbering senses. Awakened thus by a peal of thunder, the first sight
that struck their amazed eyes, was their Master, resplendent through
the darkness of night and storm, with a brilliant light, that so shone
upon him and covered him, as to change his whole aspect to a degree
of glory indescribable. To add to their amazement and dread, they saw
that he was not alone, but two mysterious and spiritual personages,
announced to them as Moses and Elijah, were now his companions, having
found means to join him, though high on the mighty rock, alone and in
darkness, so inaccessible to human approach. These two ancient servants
of God now appeared by his beloved Son, whose labors, and doctrines
and triumphs were so far to transcend theirs, and in the hearing of the
three apostles, uttered solemn words of prophecy about his approaching
death, and triumph over death. The two sons of Zebedee were so startled
as to be speechless, but the boldness and the talkativeness of Peter,
always so pre-eminent, enabled him, even here, to speak his deep awe
and reverence. Yet confused with half-awakened sleep, and stunned by
the bursting thunder, he spoke as a man thus suddenly awaked naturally
speaks, scarcely separating the thoughts of his dream, from the objects
that met his opening eye. He said “Lord, it is good for us to be here;
and if thou wilt, let us make three tabernacles, (or resting places;)
one for thee, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” These things he said
before his confused thoughts could fully arrange themselves into words
proper to express his feelings of awe, and he, half dreaming still,
hardly knew what he said. But as he uttered these words, the dark cloud
above them suddenly descended upon the mountain’s head, inwrapping and
overshadowing them, and amid the flash of lightnings and the roar of
thunders, given out in the concussion, they distinguished, in no human
voice, these awful words, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased; hear ye him.” Who can wonder that a phenomenon so tremendous,
both morally and physically, overwhelmed their senses, and, that
alarmed beyond measure, they fell again on their faces to the earth, so
astonished that they did not dare to rise or look up, until Jesus came
to them and reassured them with his friendly touch, saying “Arise and
be not afraid.” And lifting up their eyes, they saw no man any more,
save Jesus only with themselves. The whole object of their retirement
to this solitude being now accomplished, they prepared to return to
those whom they had left to wonder at their strange absence. It was
now probably about morning; the storm was passed,――the clouds had
vanished,――the thunder was hushed, and the cheerful sun now shone on
mountain and plain, illuminating their downward path towards the city,
and inspiring their hearts with the joyous emotions suited to their
enlarged views of their Lord’s kingdom, and their own duties. As they
went down, Jesus charged them to tell no man what things they had seen,
till he, the son of man, rose from the dead. And they kept it close,
and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.
But they questioned much with one another what the rising from the dead
should mean. So that it appears, that after all the repeated assurances
Jesus had given them of the certainty of this event, they had never put
any clear and definite meaning upon his words, and were still totally
in the dark as to their essential import. This proof of their continued
ignorance serves to confirm the view already taken of the way in which
they understood, or rather misunderstood, the previous warning of
the same event, in connection with his charge and rebuke of Peter.
In connection also with what they had seen on the mountain, and the
injunction of secrecy, another question arose, why they could not be
allowed to speak freely on the subject. “For if they had now distinctly
seen the prophet Elijah returned from the other world, as it appeared,
why could they not properly announce publicly, so important and
desirable an event? Else, why did the Jewish teachers say that Elijah
must first come before the Messiah? And why, then, should they not
freely offer their testimony of his presence with Jesus on this
occasion, as the most satisfactory proof of his Messiahship?” The
answer of Jesus very clearly informed them that they were not to
consider this vision as having any direct connection with the prophecy
respecting Elijah’s re-appearance, to precede and aid the true Messiah
in the establishment of the ancient Jewish dominion; but that all that
was intended in that prophecy had been fully brought to pass in the
coming of John the Baptist, who, in the spirit and power of Elijah,
had already run his bright but brief course as the Messiah’s precursor.
With such interesting conversation they continued their course in
returning towards the city. The way in which Luke here expresses
the circumstances of the time of their return, is the last and most
satisfactory proof to be offered of the fact, that their visit to the
mountain had been in the night. His words are, “And it came to pass
that on the next day, when they came down from the mountain, a large
multitude met them,” &c. This shows that they did not go and return
the same day, between sunrise and sunset; and the only reasonable
supposition left to agree with the other circumstances, is, that they
went at evening, and returned early in the morning of the next day.
After their descent, they found that the remaining disciples had been
making an unsuccessful attempt to relieve a lunatic person, who was
relieved, however, at a word, as soon as brought to Jesus himself. They
continued no very long time in this part of Galilee, after these events,
but journeyed slowly southwards, towards the part which Jesus had
formerly made his home. This journey was made by him with particular
care to avoid public notice, and it is particularly expressed by Mark
that he went on this homeward journey through by-ways or less public
roads than usual. For as he went, he renewed the sad warning, that
he was in constant danger of being given up into the hands of the
wicked men, who feeling reproved and annoyed by his life and doctrine,
earnestly desired his death; and that soon their malice would be
for a time successful, but that after they had done their worst, he
should at last triumph over them. Still this assurance, obvious as its
meaning may now seem to us, was not understood by them, and though they
puzzled themselves extremely about it, they evidently considered their
ignorance as of a somewhat justly blamable nature, for they dared not
ask for a new explanation. This passage still farther shows, how far
they must have been from rightly appreciating his first declaration on
this subject. Having followed the less direct routes, for these reasons,
he came, (doing much good on the journey, no doubt, in a quiet and
unnoticed way, as we know he always did,) to Capernaum, which he
still regarded as his home; and here again, as formerly, went directly
to the house of Simon Peter, which he is represented as entering on
his first arrival in the city, in such a way as to show that there was
his dwelling, and a welcome entertainment. Indeed we know of no other
friend whom he had in Capernaum, with whom he was on such terms of
intimacy, and we cannot suppose that he kept house by himself,――for
his relations had never yet removed from Nazareth.

  Of the scenes of the transfiguration, so great a variety of
  opinions have been entertained, that it would be impossible for
  me to discuss the various views within my narrow limits. The
  old speculations on the subject are very fully given in Poole’s
  Synopsis, and the modern ones by Kuinoel, who mentions a vast
  number of German writers, of whom few of us have ever seen even
  the names elsewhere.

  The view which I have taken is not peculiar to me, but is
  supported by many high authorities, and is in accordance with
  what seemed to me the simplest and fairest construction which
  could be put upon the facts, after a very full and minute
  consideration of the various circumstances, chronologically,
  topographically and grammatically. It should be noticed that
  my arrangement of the facts in reference to the time of day,
  is this. Jesus and the three disciples ascended the mountain
  in the evening, about sunset, remained there all night during
  a thunder-storm, and returned the next morning.


                          THE TRIBUTE MONEY.

On the occasion of his return and entrance into Peter’s house, a new
instance occurred both of his wisdom and his special regard for this
apostle. Some of those who went about legally authorized to collect
the tax due from all conforming Jews, to defray the expenses of the
temple-worship at Jerusalem, appear to have been waiting for Christ’s
return from this journey, to call on him for his share, if he were
willing to pay it as a good Jew. They seem to have had some doubts,
however, as to the manner in which so eminent a teacher would receive
a call to pay those taxes, from which he might perhaps deem himself
exempted by his religious rank, more especially as he had frequently
denounced, in the most unmeasured terms, all those concerned in the
administration of the religious affairs of the Jewish nation. As soon
as he had returned, therefore, they took the precaution to make the
inquiry of Peter, as the well-known intimate of Jesus, “Doth not your
Master pay tribute?” Peter, knowing well the steady, open reverence
which Jesus always manifested for all the established usages of his
country, readily and unhesitatingly answered “Yes.” And when he was
come into the house, and was upon the point of proposing the matter to
him, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “How thinkest thou, Simon? of whom
do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children,
or of the children of others?” Peter says, “From others’ children.”
Jesus says again to him, “Then are the children free.” That is: “If,
when the kings and rulers of the nations gather their taxes, for the
support of their royal state and authority, they pass over their own
children untaxed, as a thing of course, then I, the son of that God
who is the eternal king of Israel, am fairly exempt from the payment of
the sum due from other Jews, for the support of the ceremonials of my
Father’s temple in Jerusalem.” Still he did not choose to avail himself
of this honorable pretext, but went on to tell Simon, “Nevertheless,
lest we should give needless occasion for offense, we will pay what
they exact; and for this purpose, go thou to the sea, and take up the
fish that comes up first; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou
shalt find a piece of money; take that and give it them for me and
thee.”

  _Anticipated him._――This word I substitute in the place of
  “_prevented_” which is the expression used in our common English
  Bible, and which in the changes of modern usage has entirely
  lost the signification which it had when the translators
  applied it to this passage. The Greek word here is προεφθασεν,
  (_proephthasen_,) and literally means “forespake” or “spake
  before” him. This was the idea which the English translators
  wished to express by the word “_prevented_,” whose true original
  meaning is “anticipated,” or “was beforehand with him,” being
  in Latin compounded of the words _prae_, “before,” and _venio_,
  “come.” Among the numerous conveniences of Webster’s improved
  edition of the Bible, for popular use, is the fact that in this
  and similar passages he has altered the obsolete expression, and
  changed it for a modern one, which is just and faithful to the
  original idea. In this passage I find he has very properly given
  the word above suggested, without my knowledge of the
  coincidence.

  _Of the children of others._――This expression too is a variation
  from the common English translation, which here expresses itself
  so vaguely, that a common reader can get no just idea whatever
  of the passage, and is utterly unable to find the point of the
  allusion. The Greek word is αλλοτριων, (_allotrion_,) which is
  simply the genitive plural of an adjective, which means “of,
  or belonging to others,” and is secondarily applied also to
  “strangers, foreigners,” &c., as persons “belonging to other
  lands;” but the primary meaning is absolutely necessary to be
  given here, in order to do justice to the sense, since the idea
  is not that they take tribute money of foreigners rather than of
  their own subjects; but of their subjects rather than of their
  own children, who are to enjoy the benefit of the taxation.

  _A piece of money._――The term thus vaguely rendered, is in
  Greek στατηρ, (_stater_,) which was a coin of definite value,
  being worth among the Jews about four attic drachms, and exactly
  equivalent to their shekel, a little more than half a dollar of
  federal money. The tax here paid was the half-shekel tax, due
  from every Jew for the service of the temple, so that the “piece
  of money,” being one shekel, was just sufficient to pay for
  both Jesus and Peter. The word translated “the tribute money”
  (in verse 24) is equally definite in the Greek,――διδραχμον,
  (_didrachmon_,) equivalent to the Jewish _half_-shekel, and
  being itself worth half a _stater_. The stater, however, as a
  name for Attic and Byzantine _gold_ coins, was equivalent to
  twenty or thirty times the value of the shekel. (See Stephens’s
  Thesaurus, Donnegan’s, Jones’s and Pickering’s Lexicons.) On
  this passage see Hammond’s Annotations, which are here quite
  full on values. See too, Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraica on Matthew
  xvii. 25. Macknight’s Paraphrase, Poole and Kuinoel, for a very
  full account of the matter. Also my note on page 32.

  There have been two different accounts of this little
  circumstance among commentators, some considering the tribute
  money to have been a Roman tax, and others taking the ground
  which I do, that it was the Jewish tax for the expenses of the
  temple-worship. The reasons may be found at great length, in
  some of the authorities just quoted; and it may be remarked
  that the point of the allusion in Jesus’s question to Peter,
  is all lost on the supposition of a Roman tax; for how could
  Jesus claim exemption as a son of the Roman emperor, as he
  justly could from the Jewish tax for the service of the heavenly
  king, his Father? The correspondence of values too, with the
  half-shekel tax, is another reason for adopting that view; nor
  is there any objection to it, except the circumstance, that the
  time at which this tax is supposed to have been demanded, does
  not agree with that to which the collection of the temple-tax
  was limited. (Exodus xxx. 13, and Lightfoot on Matthew xvii. 24.)


                     THE QUESTION OF SUPERIORITY.

Soon after the last mentioned event, there arose a discussion among the
apostles, as to who should have the highest rank in the administration
of the government of the Messiah’s kingdom, when it should be finally
triumphantly established. The question shows how pitiably deficient
they still were, in a proper understanding of the nature of the cause
to which they were devoted; but the details of this circumstance may be
deferred to a more appropriate place, under the lives of the persons,
who, by their claims, afterwards originated a similar discussion, in
connection with which this may be most properly mentioned. However, it
cannot be amiss to remark here, that the very fact of such a discussion
having arisen, shows, that no one supposed that, from the peculiar
distinctions already conferred on Peter, he was entitled to the
assumption of anything like _power_ over the rest of the twelve, or
that anything else than a peculiar regard of Christ for him, and a
confidence in his zeal and ability to advance the great cause, was
expressed in his late honorable and affectionate declaration to him.
The occurrence of this discussion is also a high and satisfactory proof
of Peter’s modest and unassuming disposition; for had he maintained
among the apostles the authority and rank which his Master’s decided
preference might seem to warrant, these high pretensions of the sons of
Zebedee would not have been thus put forward against one so secure in
Christ’s favor by high talents, and long habits of close intimacy.


                  THE RULE OF BROTHERLY FORBEARANCE.

The next occasion on which the name of Peter is mentioned in the
gospels, is his asking Jesus, “how many times he should forgive an
offending brother? If the brother should repeat the offense _seven_
times, should he each time accord him the forgiveness asked?” This
question was suggested to Peter’s mind, by the rules which Christ had
just been giving his disciples, for the preservation of harmony, and
for the redress of mutual grievances among them. His charge to them on
this subject, injoined the repeated exercise of forbearance towards a
brother who had trespassed, and urged the surrender of every imagined
right of private redress, to the authority and sanction of the common
assembly of the apostles. The absolute necessity of some such rule,
for the very existence of the apostles’ union, was plain enough. They
were men, with all the passions and frailties of common, uneducated
men, and with all the peculiar, fervid energy, which characterizes
the physiology of the races of south-western Asia. From the constant
attrition of such materials, no doubt individually discordant in
temperament and constitution, how could it be hoped, that in the
common course of things, there would not arise frequent bursts of human
passion, to mar or hinder the divine work which brought them together?
With a most wise providence for these liabilities to disagreement,
Jesus had just arranged a principle of reference and quiet decision, in
all cases of dispute in which the bond of Christian fellowship would be
strained or broken. His charge to them, all and each, was this: “If thy
brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between
thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother;
but if he will not hear thee, take with thee on thy second call, one or
two more, that, according to the standard forms of the Mosaic law, by
the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And
if he shall refuse to hear them, tell it at last to the common assembly
of the apostles; and after they have given their decision in favor
of the justice of the complaint and demand, if he still maintain his
enmity and wrong against thee, thou art no longer held by the apostolic
pledge to treat him with brotherly regard; but having slighted all
friendly advice, and the common sentiment of the brethren, he has lost
the privilege of their fellowship, and must be to thee as one of the
low world around him――a heathen and an outcast Jew.” On this occasion,
also, he renewed to them all, the commission to bind and loose, which
he had before particularly delivered only to Peter. As he had, in
speaking of the treatment, made abundant requisitions for the exercise
of forbearance, without mentioning the proper limit to these acts of
forgiveness, Peter now put his question: “If my brother sin against me
seven times, and as often make the reparation which I may honestly ask,
shall I continue to forgive him?” That is, “Shall I not seem, by these
repeated acts of forbearance, at last to be offering him inducements
to offend against one so placable? And if these transgressions are
thus enormously multiplied, will it not be right that I should withhold
the kind consideration which is made of so little account?” The answer
of Jesus is, “I say to thee, not merely till seven times, but till
seventy times seven.” That is, “To your forbearance towards an erring
and returning Christian brother, there should be no limit but his own
obstinate adhesion to his error. In coming out from the world to follow
me, you have given up your natural rights to avenge, either legally or
personally, those injuries which pass the bounds of common forbearance.
The preservation of perfect harmony in the new community to which
you have joined yourself, is of so much importance to the triumphant
advancement of our cause, as to require justly all these sacrifices
of personal ill-will.” With his usual readiness in securing an abiding
remembrance of his great leading rules of action, Jesus, on this
occasion, concluded the subject with illustrating the principle,
by a beautiful parable or story; a mode of instruction, far more
impressive to the glowing imagination of the oriental, than of the
more calculating genius of colder races.

  This inquiry may have been suggested to Peter by a remark made
  by Christ, which is not given by Matthew as by Luke, (xvii. 4.)
  “If he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times
  turn again, &c. thou shalt forgive him.” So Maldorat suggests,
  but it is certainly very hard to bring these two accounts to
  a minute harmony, and I should much prefer to consider Luke as
  having given a general statement of Christ’s doctrine, without
  referring to the occasion or circumstances, while Matthew
  has given a more distinct account of the whole matter. The
  discrepancy between the two accounts has seemed so great, that
  the French harmonists, Newcome, LeClerc, Macknight, Thirlwall,
  and Bloomfield, consider them as referring to totally different
  occasions,――that in Matthew occurring in Capernaum, but that
  in Luke, after his journey to Jerusalem to the feast of the
  tabernacles. But the utter absence of all chronological order in
  the greater part of Luke’s gospel, is enough to make us suspect,
  that the event he alludes to may coincide with that of Matthew’s
  story, since the amount of the precept, and the general form of
  expression, is the same in both cases. This is the view taken by
  Rosenmueller, Kuinoel, Vater, Clarke, Paulus, and which seems to
  be further justified by the consideration, that the repetition
  of the precept must have been entirely unnecessary, after having
  been so clearly laid down, and so fully re-examined in answer to
  Peter’s inquiry, as given by Matthew.

  _Seven times._――This number was a general expression among
  the Hebrews for a frequent repetition, and was perfectly vague
  and indefinite as to the number of repetitions, as is shown
  in many instances in the Bible where it occurs. _Seventy times
  seven_, was another expression of the recurrences carried to
  a superlative number, and is also a standard Hebraism, (as in
  Genesis iv. 24.) See Poole, Lightfoot, Clarke, Scott, and other
  commentators, for Rabbinical illustrations of these phrases.

  _A heathen and an outcast._――This latter expression I have
  chosen, as giving best the full force of the name _publican_,
  which designated a class of men among the Jews, who were
  considered by all around them as having renounced national
  pride, honor and religion, for the base purpose of worldly gain;
  serving under the Roman government as tax-gatherers, that is,
  hiring the taxes of a district, which they took by paying the
  government a definite sum, calculating to make a rich profit
  on the bargain by systematic extortion and oppression. The
  name, therefore, was nearly synonymous with the modern word
  renegade,――one who, for base motives, has renounced the creed
  and customs of his fathers.


                       THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM.

The occurrence which occasioned this discussion, took place at
Capernaum, where Jesus seems to have resided with his apostles for
some time after his northern tour to Caesarea Philippi, giving them,
as opportunity suggested, a great number and variety of practical
instructions. At length he started with them, on his last journey
to Jerusalem, the only one which is recorded by the first three
evangelists, although John gives us accounts of three previous visits
to the Jewish capital. On this journey, while he was passing on to
Jerusalem, by a somewhat circuitous course, through that portion of
Judea which lies east of the Jordan, he had taken occasion to remark,
(in connection with the disappointment of the rich young man, who could
not give up his wealth for the sake of the gospel,) how hard it was for
those that had riches, and put their trust in them, to join heartily
in the promotion of the cause of Christ, or share in the honors of its
success. Peter, then, speaking for himself and the faithful few who
had followed Jesus thus far through many trials, to the risk and loss
of much worldly profit, reminded Jesus of what they had given up for
his sake. “Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee. What shall
we have therefore?” The solemn and generous assurance of Jesus, in
reply, was, that those who had followed him thus, should, in the final
establishment of his kingdom, when he should receive the glories of his
triumph, share in the highest gifts which he, conqueror of all, could
bestow. Then, those who had forsaken kindred and lands for his sake,
should find all these sacrifices made up to them, in the enjoyment of
rewards incalculably beyond those earthly comforts in value.

This conversation took place, just about as they were passing the
Jordan, into the western section of Judea, near the spot where Joshua
and the Israelitish host of old passed over to the conquest of Canaan.
A little before they reached Jericho, Jesus took a private opportunity
to renew to the twelve his oft repeated warning of the awful events,
now soon to happen after his entry into Jerusalem. “Behold, we go up
to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be betrayed to the chief priests
and to the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death. And they shall
deliver him to the heathen, to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify
him; and the third day, he shall rise again.” Yet, distinct as was
this declaration, and full as the prediction was in these shocking
particulars, Luke assures us, that “they understood none of these
things; and this saying was hid from them; neither knew they the things
which were spoken.” Now, we cannot easily suppose that they believed
that he, to whom they had so heartily and confidently devoted their
lives and fortunes, was trying their feelings by an unnecessary fiction,
so painful in its details. The only just supposition which we can make,
then, is that they explained all these predictions to themselves, in
a way best accordant with their own notions of the kingdom which the
Messiah was to found, and on the hope of whose success they had staked
all. The account of his betrayal, ill-treatment, and disgraceful death,
they could not literally interpret, as the real doom which awaited
their glorious and mighty Lord; it could only mean, to them, that for a
brief space, the foes of the Son of God were to gain a seeming triumph
over the hosts that were to march against Jerusalem, to seat him on
the throne of David. The traitorous heads of the Jewish faith, the
members of the great Sanhedrim, the hypocritical Pharisees, and the
lying, avaricious lawyers, would, through cowardice, selfishness, envy,
jealousy, or some other meanness, basely conspire to support their
compound tyranny, by attempting to crush the head of the new faith,
with the help of their Roman masters, whom they would summon to the aid
of their falling power. This unpatriotic and treacherous effort would
for a time seem to be perfectly successful, but only long enough for
the traitors to fill up the measure of their iniquities. Then, vain
would be the combined efforts of priest and soldier,――of Jewish and of
Roman power. Rising upon them, like life from the dead, the Son of God
should burst forth in the might of his Father,――he should be revealed
from heaven with ten thousand angels, and recalling his scattered
friends, who might have been for a moment borne down before the iron
hosts of Rome, he should sweep every foreign master, and every domestic
religious tyrant, from Israel’s heritage, setting up a throne, whose
sway should spread to the uttermost parts of the earth, displacing
even the deep-rooted hold of Roman power. What then, would be the fate
of the faithful Galileans, who, though few and feeble, had stood by
him through evil and good report, risking all on his success? When
the grinding tyranny of the old Sanhedrim had been overthrown, and
chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, lawyers, and all, displaced from
the administration, the chosen ones of his own early adoption, his
countrymen, and intimate companions for years, would be rewarded,
sitting on twelve thrones, judging the ransomed and victorious twelve
tribes of Israel. Could they doubt their Lord’s ability for this
glorious, this miraculous ♦achievement? Had they not seen him maintain
his claim for authority over the elements, over diseases, over the dark
agencies of the demoniac powers, and over the mighty bonds of death
itself? And could not the same power achieve the still less wonderful
victory over the opposition of these unworthy foes? It was natural,
then, that, with the long cherished hopes of these dazzling triumphs in
their minds, the twelve apostles, though so often and so fully warned
of approaching evils, should thus unsuspectingly persist in their
mistake, giving every terrible word of Jesus such a turn as would
best confirm their baseless hopes. Even Peter, already sternly rebuked
for his forward effort to exalt the ambition of Jesus, above even the
temporary disgrace which he seemed to foreordain for himself,――and so
favored with the private instructions and counsels of his master, thus
erred,――even James and John, also sharers in the high confidence and
favor of Jesus, though thus favored and taught, were immediately after
brought under his deserved censure for their presumptuous claims for
the ascendency, which so moved the wrath of the jealous apostles, who
were all alike involved in this monstrous and palpable misconception.
Nor yet can we justly wonder at the infatuation to which they were
thus blindly given up, knowing as we do, that, in countless instances,
similar error has been committed on similar subjects, by men similarly
influenced. What Biblical commentary, interpretation, introduction,
harmony, or criticism, from the earliest Christian or Rabbinic fathers,
to the theological schemer of the latest octavo, does not bear sad
witness on its pages, to the wonderful infatuation which can force upon
the plainest and clearest declaration, a version elaborately figurative
or painfully literal, just as may most comfortably cherish and confirm
a doctrine, or notion, or prejudice, which the writer would fain “add
to the things which are written in the book?” Can it be reasonably
hoped, then, that this untaught effort to draw out the historical truth
of the gospel, will be an exception to this harshly true judgment on
the good, the learned, and the critical of past ages?

    ♦ “achievment” replaced with “achievement”


                       THE ENTRY INTO THE CITY.

With these fruitless admonitions to his followers, Jesus passed on
through Jericho to Bethphage, on the verge of the holy city. Here, the
enthusiastic and triumphant rejoicings, which the presence of their
Master called forth, from the multitudes who were then swarming to
Jerusalem from all parts of Palestine, must have lifted up the hearts
of the apostles, with high assurance of the nearness of the honors for
which they had so long looked and waited. Their irrepressible joy and
exultation burst out in songs of triumph, as Jesus, after the manner of
the ancient judges of Israel, rode into the royal seat of his fathers.
And as he went down the descent of the Mount of Olives, to go into the
city, the whole train of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God,
with a loud voice, for all the mighty works that they had seen; saying,
“Blessed be the KING of Israel, that cometh in the name of the Lord!
Peace in heaven! Glory in the highest! Blessed be the kingdom of our
father David! Hosanna!” These acclamations were raised by the disciples,
and heartily joined in by the multitudes who knew his wonderful works,
and more especially those who were acquainted with the very recent
miracle of raising Lazarus. A great sensation of wonder was created
throughout the city, by such a burst of shouts from a multitude,
sweeping in a long, imposing train, with palm branches in their
hands, down the mountain, on which they could have been seen all over
Jerusalem. As he entered the gates, all the city was moved to say, “Who
is this?” And the rejoicing multitude said, “This is Jesus, the prophet
of Nazareth in Galilee.” What scorn did not this reply awaken in many
of the haughty aristocrats of Jerusalem, to learn that all this solemn
parade had been got up for no better purpose than merely to honor a
dweller of that outcast region of mongrels, Galilee! And of all places,
that this prophet, so called, should have come from Nazareth! A prophet
from Galilee, indeed! Was it from this half-heathen district, that the
favored inhabitants of the capital of Judaism were to receive a teacher
of religion? Were the strict faith, and the rigid observances of their
learned and devout, to be displaced by the presumptuous reformations
of a self-taught prophet, from such a country? Swelling with these
feelings, the Pharisees could not repress a remonstrance with Jesus,
against these noisy proceedings. But he, evidently affected with
pleasure at the honest tribute thus wrung out in spite of sectional
feeling, forcibly asserted the propriety and justice of this free
offering of praise. “I tell you, that if these should hold their peace,
the stones would immediately cry out.”

  _With palm-branches in their hands._――This tree, the emblem of
  joy and triumph in every part of the world where it is known,
  was the more readily adopted on this occasion, by those who
  thronged to swell the triumphal train of Jesus of Nazareth,
  because the palm grew along the way-side where they passed,
  and the whole mount was hardly less rich in this than in the
  far famed olive from which it drew its name. A proof of the
  abundance of the palm-trees on Olivet is found in the name
  of the village of Bethany, בית חיני, (_beth-hene_,) “_house of
  dates_,” which shows that the tree which bore this fruit must
  have been plentiful there. The people, as they passed on with
  Jesus from this village whence he started to enter the city,
  would therefore find this token of triumph hanging over their
  heads, and shading their path every where within reach, and
  the emotions of joy at their approach to the city of God in the
  company of this good and mighty prophet, prompted them at once
  to use the expressive emblems which hung so near at hand; and
  which were alike within the reach of those who journeyed with
  Jesus, and those who came forth from the city to meet and escort
  him in. The presence of these triumphal signs would, of course,
  remind them at once of the feast of the tabernacles, the day on
  which, in obedience to the Mosaic statute, all the dwellers of
  the city were accustomed to go forth to the mount, and bring
  home these branches with songs of joy. (Leviticus xxiii. 40,
  Nehemiah viii. 15, 16.) The remembrance of this festival at
  once recalled also the beautifully appropriate words of the
  noble national and religious hymn, which they always chanted in
  praise of the God of their fathers on that day, (see Kuinoel,
  Rosenmueller, Wolf, &c.) and which was so peculiarly applicable
  to him who now “came in the name of the Lord,” to honor and to
  bless his people. (Psalm cxviii. 26.)

  _The descent of the Mount of Olives._――To imagine this scene,
  with something of the force of reality, it must be remembered
  that the Mount of Olives, so often mentioned in the scenes of
  Christ’s life, rose on the eastern side of Jerusalem beyond the
  valley of the Kedron, whose little stream flowed between this
  mountain and Mount Moriah, on which the temple stood. Mount
  Olivet was much higher than any part of the city within the
  walls, and the most commanding and satisfactory view of the holy
  city which modern travelers and draughtsmen have been able to
  present to us in a picture, is that from the more than classic
  summit of this mountain. The great northern road passing through
  Jericho, approaches Jerusalem on its north-eastern side, and
  comes directly over the top of Olivet, and as it mounts the
  ridge, it brings the holy city in all its glory, directly on the
  traveler’s view.

  _Hosanna._――This also is an expression taken from the same
  festal hymn, (Psalm cxviii. 25,) הושיעה־נא (_hoshia-na_) a pure
  Hebrew expression, as Drusius shows, and not Syriac, (See
  Poole’s Synopsis on Matthew xxi. 9,) but corrupted in the vulgar
  pronunciation of this frequently repeated hymn, into Hosanna.
  The meaning of the Hebrew is “save him” or “be gracious to him,”
  that is in connection with the words which follow in the gospel
  story, “Be gracious, O Lord, to the son of David.” This is the
  same Hebrew phrase which, in the psalm above quoted, (verse 25,)
  is translated “Save now.” The whole expression was somewhat like
  the English “God save the king,” in its import.

  _Nazareth._――This city, in particular, had an odious name,
  for the general low character of its inhabitants. The passage
  in John i. 46, shows in what estimation this city and its
  inhabitants were held, by their own neighbors in Galilee; and
  the great scorn with which all Galileans were regarded by the
  Jews, must have redoubled their contempt of this poor village,
  so despised even by the despicable. The consequence was that the
  Nazarenes acquired so low a character, that the name became a
  sort of byword for what was mean and foolish. (See Kuinoel on
  Matthew ii. 23, John i. 46. Also Rosenmueller on the former
  passage and Bloomfield on the latter.)

  _Galilee._――In order to appreciate fully, the scorn and
  suspicion with which the Galileans were regarded by the citizens
  of Jerusalem, a complete view of their sectional peculiarities
  would be necessary. Such a view will hereafter be given in
  connection with a passage which more directly refers to those
  peculiarities, and more especially requires illustration and
  explanation.


                    THE BLIGHTING OF THE FIG-TREE.

Having thus, by his public and triumphant entrance into Jerusalem,
defied and provoked the spite of the higher orders, while he secured an
attentive hearing from the common people, when he should wish to teach
them,――Jesus retired at evening, for the sake of quiet and comfort,
to the house of his friends, Lazarus, Mary and Martha, at Bethany, in
the suburbs. The next morning, as he was on his way with his disciples,
coming back from this place to Jerusalem, hungry with the fatigues of
his long walk, he came to a fig-tree, near the path, hoping to find
fruit for his refreshment, as it seemed from a distance flourishing
with abundance of leaves, and was then near the season of bearing.
But when he came near, he found nothing but leaves on it, for it was
somewhat backward, and its time of producing figs was not yet. And
Jesus, seizing the opportunity of this disappointment to impress his
disciples with his power, personifying the tree, denounced destruction
against it. “May no man eat fruit of thee hereafter, forever.” And his
disciples heard it. They returned to Bethany, as usual, that evening,
to pass the night,――but as they passed, probably after dark, they took
no notice of the fig-tree. But the next morning, as they went back to
the city, they saw that it had dried up from the roots. Simon Peter,
always ready to notice the instances of his Master’s power, called
out in surprise to Jesus, to witness the effect of his malediction
upon its object. “Master, behold, the fig-tree which thou didst curse,
is withered away.” Jesus noticing their amazement at the apparent
effect of his words, in so small a matter, took occasion to turn
their attention to other and higher objects of faith, on which they
might exert their zeal in a spirit, not of withering denunciation and
destroying wrath, such as they had seen so tremendously efficient in
this case, but in the spirit of love and forgiveness, as well as of the
holy energy that could overthrow and overcome difficulties, not less
than to uproot Mount Olivet from its everlasting base and hurl it into
the sea.


                  THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SECTARIES.

The disciples steadily remained the diligent and constant attendants of
their heavenly teacher, in his long and frequent seasons of instruction
in the temple, where he boldly met the often renewed attacks of his
various adversaries, whether Herodians, scribes, Pharisees or Sadducees,
and in spite of their long-trained subtleties, beat them out and out,
with the very weapons at which they thought themselves so handy. The
display of genius, of taste, of learning, of ready and sarcastic wit,
and of heart-searching acuteness, was so amazing and super-human, that
these few days of open discussion established his divinely intellectual
superiority over all the elaborate science of his accomplished
opponents, and at the same time secured the fulfilment of his destiny,
by the spite and hatred which their repeated public defeats excited in
them. Imagine their rage. Exposed thus before the people, by whom they
had hitherto been regarded as the sole depositaries of learning, and
adored as the fountains of right, they saw all their honors and power,
to which they had devoted the intense study of their whole lives,
snatched coolly and easily from them, by a nameless, untaught pretender,
who was able to hold them up, baffled and disgraced, for the amusement
of the jeering multitude. Here was ground enough for hatred;――the
hatred of conceited and intolerant false learning, against the
discerning soul that had stripped and humbled it;――the hatred of
confident ambition against the heroic energy which had discomfited it,
and was doing much to free a long enslaved people from the yoke which
formal hypocrisy and empty parade had long laid on them. And again,
the intolerable thought that all this heavy disgrace had been brought
on the learned body of Judaism by a Galilean! a mere carpenter of
the lowest orders, who had come up to Jerusalem followed by a select
train of rude fishermen and outcast publicans;――and who, not being
able to command a single night’s lodging in the city, was in the
habit of boarding and lodging in a paltry suburb, on the charity of
some personal friends, from which place he quietly walked in for the
distance of two miles every morning, to triumph over the palace-lodged
heads of the Jewish faith. From such a man, thus humbly and even
pitiably circumstanced, such an invasion and overthrow could not
be endured; and his ruin was rendered doubly easy by his very
insignificance, which now constituted the chief disgrace of their
defeat. Never was cause more closely followed by its effect, than this
insulted dignity was by its cruel vengeance.


                  THE PROPHECY OF THE TEMPLE’S RUIN.

In preparing his disciples for the great events which were to take
place in a few years, and which were to have a great influence on their
labors, Jesus foretold to them the destruction of the temple. As he
was passing out through the mighty gates of the temple on some occasion
with his disciples, one of them, admiring the gorgeous beauty of the
architecture and the materials, with all the devotion of a Jew now
visiting it for the first time, said to him, “Master, see! what stones
and what buildings!” To him, Jesus replied with the awful prophecy,
most shocking to the national pride and religious associations of every
Israelite,――that ere long, upon that glorious pile should fall a ruin
so complete, that not one of those splendid stones should be left upon
another. These words must have made a strong impression of wonder on
all who heard them; but no farther details of the prophecy were given
to the disciples at large. Not long afterwards, however, as he sat
musingly by himself, in his favorite retirement, half-way up the Mount
of Olives, over against the temple, the four most loved and honored of
the twelve, Peter, James, John and Andrew, came to him, and asked him
privately, to tell them when these things should be, and by what omen
they should know the approach of the great and woful ruin. Sitting
there, they had a full view of the enormous pile which rose in immense
masses very near them, on the verge of mount Moriah, and was even
terraced up, from the side of the slope, presenting a vast wall, rising
from the depths of the deep ravine of Kedron, which separated the
temple from mount Olivet, where they were. It was morning when the
conversation took place, as we may fairly guess, for this spot lay
on the daily walk to Bethany, where he lodged;――the broad walls, high
towers, and pillars of the temple, were doubtless illuminated by the
full splendors of the morning sun of Palestine; for Olivet was directly
east of Jerusalem, and as they sat looking westward towards the temple,
with the sun behind them, the rays, leaving their faces in the shade,
would shine full and bright on all which crowned the highth beyond. It
was at such a time, as the Jewish historian assures us, that the temple
was seen in its fullest grandeur and sublimity; for the light, falling
on the vast roofs, which were sheeted and spiked with pure gold,
brightly polished, and upon the turrets and pinnacles which glittered
with the same precious metal, was reflected to the eye of the gazer
with an insupportable brilliancy, from the million bright surfaces and
shining points which covered it. Here, then, sat Jesus and his four
adoring chosen ones, with this splendid sight before them crowning
the mountain, now made doubly dazzling by contrast with the deep gloom
of the dark glen below, which separated them from it. There it was,
that, with all this brightness and glory and beauty before them, Jesus
solemnly foretold in detail the awful, total ruin which was to sweep
it all away, within the short lives of those who heard him. Well might
such words sink deep into their hearts,――words coming from lips whose
perfect and divine truth they could not doubt, though the things now
foretold must have gone wofully against all the dreams of glory, in
which they had made that sacred pile the scene of the future triumphs
of the faith and followers of Christ. This sublime prophecy, which need
not here be repeated or descanted upon, is given at great length by all
the first three evangelists, and is found in Matthew xxiv. Mark xiii.
and Luke xxi.

  _The view of the temple._――I can find no description by any
  writer, ancient or modern, which gives so clear an account of
  the original shape of Mount Moriah, and of the modifications
  it underwent to fit it to support the temple, as that given
  by Josephus. (Jewish War, book V. chapter v.) In speaking of
  the original founding of the temple by Solomon, (Antiquities
  book VIII. chapter iii. section 2,) he says, “The king laid the
  foundations of the temple in the very depths, (at the bottom
  of the descent,) using stones of a firm structure, and able to
  hold out against the attacks of time, so that growing into a
  union, as it were, with the ground, they might be the basis and
  support of the pile that was to be reared above, and through
  their strength below, easily bear the vast mass of the great
  superstructure, and the immense weight of ornament also; for
  the weight of those things which were contrived for beauty
  and magnificence was not less than that of the materials which
  contributed to the highth and lateral dimension.” In the full
  description which he afterwards gives in the place first quoted,
  of the later temple as perfected by Herod, which is the building
  to which the account in the text refers, he enters more fully
  into the mode of shaping the ground to the temple. “The temple
  was founded upon a steep hill, but in the first beginning of the
  structure there was scarcely flat ground enough on the top for
  the sanctuary and the altar, for it was abrupt and precipitous
  all around. And king Solomon, when he built the sanctuary,
  having _walled it out_ on the eastern side, (εκτειχισαντος, that
  is, ‘having built _out_ a wall on that side’ for a terrace,)
  then reared upon the terraced earth a colonnade; but on the
  other sides the sanctuary was _naked_,――(that is, the wall was
  unsupported and unornamented by colonnades as it was on the
  east.) But in the course of ages, the people all the while
  beating down the terraced earth with their footsteps, the hill
  thus growing flat, was made broader on the top; and having taken
  down the wall on the north, they gained considerable ground
  which was afterwards inclosed within the outer court of the
  temple. Finally, having walled the hill entirely around with
  three terraces, and having advanced the work far beyond any hope
  that could have been reasonably entertained at first, spending
  on it long ages, and all the sacred treasures accumulated from
  the offerings sent to God from the ends of the world, they
  reared around it, both the upper courts and the lower temple,
  walling the latter up, in the lowest part, from a depth of three
  hundred cubits, (450 feet,) and in some places more. And yet the
  whole depth of the foundations did not show itself, because they
  had greatly filled up the ravines, with a view to bring them
  to a level with the streets of the city. The stones of this
  work were of the size of forty cubits, (60 feet,) for the
  profusion of means and the lavish zeal of the people advanced
  the improvements of the temple beyond account; and a perfection
  far above all hope was thus attained by perseverance and time.

  “And well worthy of these foundations were the works which stood
  upon them. For all the colonnades were double, consisting of
  pillars twenty-five cubits (40 feet) in highth, each of a single
  stone of the whitest marble, and were roofed with fretwork
  of cedar. The natural beauty of these, their high polish and
  exquisite proportion, presented a most glorious show; but their
  surface was not marked by the superfluous embellishments of
  painting and carving. The colonnades were thirty cubits broad,
  (that is, forty-five feet from the front of the columns to the
  wall behind them;) while their whole circuit embraced a range
  of six _stadia_, (more than three-quarters of a mile!) including
  the castle of Antonia. And the whole _hypethrum_ (ὑπαιθρον,
  the floor of the courts or inclosures of the temple, which
  was exposed to the open air, there being no roof above it) was
  variegated by the stones of all colors with which it was laid,”
  (making a Mosaic pavement.) Section 1.

                   *       *       *       *       *

  “The outside of the temple too, lacked nothing that could strike
  or dazzle the mind and eye. For it was on all sides overlaid
  with _massy plates of gold_, so that _in the first light of
  the rising sun_, IT SHOT FORTH A MOST FIERY SPLENDOR, which
  turned away the eyes of those who compelled themselves (mid.
  βιαζομενους) to gaze on it, as from the rays of the sun itself.
  To strangers, moreover, who were coming towards it, it shone
  from afar like a complete mountain of snow: for where it was
  not covered with gold it was most dazzlingly white, and above
  on the roof it had golden spikes, sharpened to keep the birds
  from lighting on it. And some of the stones of the building
  were forty-five cubits long, five high, and six broad;”――(or
  sixty-seven _feet_ long, seven and a half high, and nine broad.)
  Section 6.

  “The Antonia was placed at the angle made by the meeting of two
  colonnades of the outer temple, the western and the northern. It
  was built upon a rock, fifty cubits high, and precipitous on all
  sides. It was the work of king Herod, in which, most of all, he
  showed himself a man of exalted conceptions.” Section 8.

                   *       *       *       *       *

  In speaking of Solomon’s foundation, he also says, (Antiquities
  book VIII. chapter iii. section 9,)

  “But he made the outside of the temple wonderful beyond account,
  both in description and to sight. For having piled up huge
  terraces, from which, on account of their immense depth, it was
  hardly possible to look down, and reared them to the highth of
  four hundred cubits, (six hundred feet!) he made them on the
  same level with the hill’s top on which the _shrine_ (ναος) was
  built, and thus the open floor of the _temple_ (ἱερον, or the
  outer court’s inclosure) was level with the _shrine_.”

                   *       *       *       *       *

  I have drawn thus largely from the rich descriptions of this
  noble and faithful describer of the old glories of the Holy
  Land, because this very literal translation gives the exact naked
  detail of the temple’s aspect, in language as gorgeous as the
  most high-wrought in which it could be presented in a mere fancy
  picture of the same scene; and because it will prove that my
  conception of its glory, as it appeared to Christ and the four
  disciples who “sat _over against_ it upon the Mount of Olives,”
  is not overdrawn, since it is thus supported by the blameless
  and invaluable testimony of him who saw all this splendor in its
  most splendid day, and afterwards in its unequaled beauty and
  with all its polished gold and marble, shining and sinking amid
  the flames, which swept it utterly away from his saddening eyes
  forever, to a ruin the most absolute and irretrievable that ever
  fell upon the works of man.

  This was the temple on which the sons of Jonah and Zebedee gazed,
  with the awful denunciation of its utter ruin falling from their
  Lord’s lips, and such was the desolation to which those terrible
  words devoted it. This full description of its location shows
  the manner in which its terraced foundations descended with
  their vast fronts, six hundred feet into the valley of Kedron,
  over which they looked. To give as clear an idea of the place
  where they sat, and its relations to the rest of the scene, I
  extract from Conder’s Modern Traveler the following description
  of Mount Olivet.

  “The Mount of Olives forms part of a ridge of limestone hills,
  extending to the north and the south-west. Pococke describes
  it as having four summits. On the lowest and most northerly of
  these, which, he tells us, is called _Sulman Tashy_, the stone
  of Solomon, there is a large domed sepulcher, and several other
  Mohammedan tombs. The ascent to this point, which is to the
  north-east of the city, he describes as very gradual, through
  pleasant corn-fields planted with olive-trees. The second summit
  is that which overlooks the city: the path to it rises from the
  ruined gardens of Gethsemane, which occupy part of the valley.
  About half way up the ascent is a ruined monastery, built,
  as the monks tell us, on the spot where the Savior wept over
  Jerusalem. From this point the spectator enjoys, perhaps, the
  best view of the Holy City. (Here Jesus sat, in our scene.)

  “The valley of Jehoshaphat, which lies between this mountain
  and the hills on which Jerusalem is built, is still used as a
  burial-place by the modern Jews, as it was by their ancestors.
  It is, generally speaking, a rocky flat, with a few patches
  of earth here and there, about half a mile in breadth from
  the Kedron to the foot of Mount Olivet, and nearly of the same
  length from Siloa to the garden of Gethsemane. The Jews have
  a tradition, evidently founded on taking literally the passage
  Joel iii. 12, that this narrow valley will be the scene of the
  final judgment. The prophet Jeremiah evidently refers to the
  same valley under the name of the valley of the Son of Hinnom,
  or the valley of Tophet, the situation being clearly marked as
  being by the entry of the _east_ gate. (Jeremiah xix. 2, 6.)
  Pococke places the valley of Hinnom to the south of Jerusalem,
  but thinks it might include part of that to the east. It formed
  part of the bounds between the tribes of Benjamin and Judah,
  (Joshua xv. 8. xviii. 16,) but the description is somewhat
  obscure.” [Modern Traveler Palestine, pp. 168, 172.]

  Illustration: MOUNT MORIAH.


                           THE LAST SUPPER.

Meanwhile the offended and provoked dignitaries of Judaism were fast
making arrangements to crush the daring innovator, who had done so
much to bring their learning and their power into contempt. Some of the
most fiery spirits among them, were for defying all risks, by seizing
the Nazarene openly, in the midst of his audacious denunciations
of the higher orders; and the attempt was made to execute this act
of arbitrary power; but the mere hirelings sent upon the errand,
were too much awed by the unequaled majesty of the man, and by the
strong attachment of the people to him, to be willing to execute their
commission. But there were old heads among them, that could contrive
safer and surer ways of meeting the evil. By them it was finally
determined to seize Jesus when alone or unattended by the throngs
which usually encompassed him,――to hurry him at once secretly through
the forms of law necessary for his commitment, and then to put him
immediately into the hands of the Roman governor, as a condemned rioter
and rebel, who would be obliged to order his execution in such a way
as that no popular excitement would rescue the victim from the grasp
of the soldiery. This was the plan which they were now arranging, and
which they were prepared to execute before the close of the passover,
if they could get intelligence of his motions. These fatal schemes of
hate could not have been unknown to Jesus; yet the knowledge of them
made no difference in his bold devotion to the cause for which he came
into the world. Anxious to improve the few fast fleeting hours that
remained before the time of his sufferings should come on, and desirous
to join as a Jew in this great national festival, by keeping it in form
with his disciples, he directed his two most confidential apostles,
Peter and John, to get ready the entertainment for them in the city, by
an arrangement made with a man already expecting to receive them. This
commission they faithfully executed, and Jesus accordingly ate with
his disciples the feast of the first day of the passover, in Jerusalem,
with those who sought his life so near him. After the supper was over,
he determined to use the brief remnant of time for the purpose of
uprooting that low feeling of jealous ambition which had already made
so much trouble among them, in their anxious discussions as to who
should be accounted the greatest, and should rank as the ruler of the
twelve. To impress the right view upon their minds most effectually, he
chose the oriental mode of a ceremony which should strike their senses,
and thus secure a regard and remembrance for his words which they
might fail in attaining if they were delivered in the simple manner of
trite and oft spoken oral truisms. He therefore rose after supper, and
leaving his place at the head of the table, he laid aside his upper
garments, which, though appropriate and becoming him as a teacher
in his hours of public instruction, or social communion, were yet
inconvenient in any active exertion which needed the free use of the
limbs. Being thus disrobed, he took the position and character of a
menial upon him, and girding himself with a towel, he poured water
into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet in it, wiping them
with his towel. He accordingly comes to Simon Peter, in the discharge
of his servile office; but Peter, whose ideas of the majesty and
ripening honors of his Master were shocked at this extraordinary
action, positively refused to be even the passive instrument of such an
indignity to one so great and good,――first inquiring “Lord, dost thou
wash my feet?” Jesus in answer said to him, “What I do, thou knowest
not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.” That is, “this apparently
degrading act has a hidden, useful meaning, at this moment beyond your
comprehension, but which you will learn in due time.” Peter, however,
notwithstanding this plain and decided expression of Christ’s wise
determination to go through this painful ceremony, for the instruction
of those who so unwillingly submitted to see him thus degraded,――still
led on by the fiery ardor of his own headlong genius,――manfully
persisted in his refusal, and expressed himself in the most positive
terms possible, saying to Jesus, “Thou shalt never wash my feet.” Jesus
answered, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” This solemn
remonstrance had the effect of checking Peter’s too forward reverence,
and in a tone of deeper submission to the wise will of his Master, he
yielded, replying however, “Lord, wash not my feet only, but also my
hands and my head.” Since so low an office was to be performed by one
so venerated, he would not have the favor of his blessed touch confined
to the baser limbs, but desired that the nobler parts of the body
should share in the holy ablution. But the high purpose of Jesus
could not accommodate itself to the whims of his zealous disciple;
for his very object was to take the humblest attitude before them,
by performing those personal offices which were usually committed to
slaves. He therefore told Peter, “He that is washed needs not save
to wash his feet, but is clean in every part;”――a very familiar and
expressive illustration, alluding to the circumstance that those who
have been to a bath and there washed themselves, will on their return
find themselves wholly clean, except such dust as may cling to their
feet as they have passed through the streets on their return. And any
one may feel the force of the beautiful figure, who has ever gone into
the water for the purposes of cleanliness and refreshment, on a warm
summer’s day in this country, and has found by experience that after
all possible ablution, on coming out and dressing himself, his wet
feet in contact with the ground have become loaded with dirt which
demands new diligence to remove it; and as all who have tried it know,
it requires many ingenious efforts to return with feet as clean as
they came to the washing; and in spite of all, after the return, an
inspection may forcibly illustrate the truth, that “he that is washed,
though he is clean in every part, yet needs to wash his feet.” Such
was the figure with which Jesus expressed to his simple-minded and
unlettered disciples, the important truth, that since they had been
already washed, (baptized by John or himself,) if that washing had been
effectual, they could need the repurification only of their feet――the
cleansing away of such of the world’s impure thoughts and feelings as
had clung to them in their journeyings through it. So, after he had
washed their feet, and had taken his garments and sat down again, he
said to them, “Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and
Lord; and ye say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master,
have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I
have given you this as an example, that ye should do as I have done to
you. Truly the servant is not greater than his lord, neither is he that
is sent greater than him that sent him. If ye know these things, happy
are ye if ye do them.”――A charge so clear and simple, and so full, that
it needs not a word of comment to show any reader the full force of
this touching ceremony.

Shortly after, in the same place and during the same meeting, Jesus
speaking to them of his near departure, affectionately and sadly said,
“Little children, but a little while longer am I with you. Ye shall
seek me; and as I said to the Jews, ‘whither I go, ye cannot come,’――so
now I say to you.” To this Simon Peter soon after replied by asking him,
“Lord whither goest thou?” Jesus answered him, “Whither I go thou canst
not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards.” Peter, perhaps
beginning to perceive the mournful meaning of this declaration, replied,
still urging, “Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my
life for thy sake.” Jesus answered, “Wilt thou lay down thy life for
my sake? I tell thee assuredly, the cock shall not crow till thou hast
denied me thrice.”――Soon after, at the same time and place, noticing
the confident assurance of this chief disciple, Jesus again warned him
of his danger and his coming fall. “Simon! Simon! behold, Satan has
desired to have you (_all_) that he may sift you as wheat; but I have
prayed for _thee_ (_especially_) that _thy_ faith fail not; and when
_thou_ art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Never before had higher
and more distinctive favor been conferred on this chief apostle, than
by this sad prophecy of danger, weakness and sin, on which he was to
fall, for a time, to his deep disgrace; but on him alone, when rescued
from ruin by his Master’s peculiar prayers, was to rest the task of
strengthening his brethren. But his Master’s kind warning was for
the present lost on his immovable self-esteem; he repeated his former
assurance of perfect devotion through every danger, “Lord, I am ready
to go with thee into prison and to death.” Where was affectionate
and heroic devotion ever more affectingly and determinedly expressed?
What heart of common man would not have leaped to meet such love and
fidelity? But He, with an eye still clear and piercing, in spite of
the tears with which affection might dim it, saw through the veil
that would have blinded the sharpest human judgment, and coldly met
these protestations of burning zeal with the chilling prediction again
uttered, “I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before
thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.” Then making a sudden
transition, to hint to them the nature of the dangers which would soon
try their souls, he suddenly reverted to their former security. “When
I sent you forth without purse, or scrip, or shoes, did ye need any
thing?” And they said “Nothing.” Then said he to them “But now, let
him that has a purse, take it, and likewise his scrip; and let him that
has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” They had hitherto, in their
wanderings, every where found friends to support and protect them; but
now the world was at war with them, and they must look to their own
resources both for supplying their wants and guarding their lives. His
disciples readily apprehending some need of personal defense, at once
bestirred themselves and mustered what arms they could on the spot, and
told him that they had two swords among them, and of these it appears
that one was in the hands of Peter. It was natural enough that among
the disciples these few arms were found, for they were all Galileans,
who, as Josephus tells us, were very pugnacious in their habits; and
even the followers of Christ, notwithstanding their peaceful calling,
had not entirely laid aside their former weapons of violence, which
were the more needed by them, as the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem
was made very dangerous by robbers, who lay in wait for the defenseless
traveler wherever the nature of the ground favored such an attack.
Of this character was that part of the road between Jerusalem and
Jericho, alluded to in the parable of the wounded traveler and the
good Samaritan,――a region so wild and rocky that it has always been
dangerous, for the same reasons, even to this day; of which a sad
instance occurred but a few years ago, in the case of an eminent
English traveler, who going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, fell among
thieves and was wounded near the same spot mentioned by Christ, in
spite of the defenses with which he was provided. It was in reference
to such dangers as these, that two of his disciples had provided
themselves with hostile weapons, and Peter may have been instigated
to carry his sword into such a peaceful feast, by the suspicion that
the danger from the chief priests, to which Christ had often alluded,
might more particularly threaten them while they were in the city
by themselves, without the safeguard of their numerous friends in
the multitude. The answer of Jesus to this report of their means of
resistance was not in a tone to excite them to the very zealous use of
them. He simply said, “It is enough,” a phrase which was meant to quiet
them, by expressing his little regard for such a defense as they were
able to offer to him, with this contemptible armament.

  Some have conjectured that this washing of feet (page 97) was
  a usual rite at the Paschal feast. So Scaliger, Beza, Baronius,
  Casaubon and other learned men have thought. (See Poole’s
  Synopsis, on John xiii. 5.) But Buxtorf has clearly shown the
  falsity of their reasons, and Lightfoot has also proved that it
  was a perfectly unusual thing, and that there is no passage in
  all the Rabbinical writings which refers to it as a custom. It
  is manifest indeed, to a common reader, that the whole peculiar
  force of this ablution, in this instance, consisted in its being
  an entirely unusual act; and all its beautiful aptness as an
  illustration of the meaning of Jesus,――that they should cease
  their ambitious strife for precedence,――is lost in making it
  anything else than a perfectly new and original ceremony, whose
  impressiveness mainly consisted in its singularity. Lightfoot
  also illustrates the design of Jesus still farther, by several
  interesting passages from the Talmudists, showing in what way
  the ablution would be regarded by his disciples, who like other
  Jews would look upon it as a most degraded action, never to
  be performed except by inferiors to superiors. These Talmudic
  authorities declare, that “Among the duties to be performed by
  the wife to her husband, this was one,――that she should wash
  his face, his hands and his feet.” (_Maimonides on the duties of
  women._) The same office was due from a son to his father,――from
  a slave to his master, as his references show; but he says he
  can find no precept that a disciple should perform such a duty
  to his teacher, unless it be included in this, “The teacher
  should be more honored by his scholar than a father.”

  He also shows that the feet were never washed separately, with
  any idea of legal purification,――though the Pharisees washed
  their hands separately with this view, and the priests washed
  their hands and feet both, as a form of purification, but
  never the feet alone. And he very justly remarks upon all this
  testimony, that “the farther this action of Christ recedes from
  common custom, the higher its fitness for their instruction,
  ――being performed not merely for an example but for a precept.”
  (Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraica in Gospel of John xiii. 5.)

  _Laid aside his garments._――The simple dress of the races of
  western Asia, is always distinguishable into two parts or sets
  of garments,――an inner, which covered more or less of the body,
  fitting it tightly, but not reaching far over the legs or arms,
  and consisted either of a single cloth folded around the loins,
  or a tunic fastened with a girdle; sometimes also a covering for
  the thighs was subjoined, making something like the rudiment of
  a pair of breeches. (See Jahn Archaeologia Biblica § 120.) These
  were the permanent parts of the dress, and were always required
  to be kept on the body, by the common rules of decency. But the
  second division of the garments, (“_superindumenta_,” Jahn,)
  thrown loosely over the inner ones, might be laid aside, on any
  occasion, when active exertion required the most unconstrained
  motion of the limbs. One of these was a simple oblong, broad
  piece of cloth, of various dimensions, but generally about
  three yards long, and two broad, which was wrapped around the
  body like a mantle, the two upper corners being drawn over the
  shoulders in front, and the rest hanging down the back, and
  falling around the front of the body, without any fastenings
  but the folding of the upper corners. This garment was called by
  the Hebrews שמלה or שלמה, (_simlah_ or _salmah_,) and sometimes
  בגד; (_begedh_;)――by the Greeks, ἱματιον. (_himation_.) Jahn
  Archaeologia Biblica. This is the garment which is always
  meant by this Greek word in the New Testament, when used in
  the singular number,――translated “cloak” in the common English
  version, as in the passage in the text above, where Jesus
  exhorts him that has no sword to sell his _cloak_ and buy one.
  When this Greek word occurs in the plural, (ἱματια, _himatia_,)
  it is translated “garments,” and it is noticeable that in most
  cases where it occurs, the sense actually requires that it
  should be understood only of the outer dress, to which I have
  referred it. As in Matthew xxi. 8, where it is said that the
  people spread their _garments_ in the way,――of course only their
  outer ones, which were loose and easily thrown off, without
  indecent exposure. So in Mark xi. 7, 8: Luke xix. 35. There is
  no need then, of supposing, as Origen does, that Jesus took off
  all his clothes, or was naked, in the modern sense of the term.
  A variety of other outer garments in common use both among the
  early and the later Jews, are described minutely by Jahn in his
  Archaeologia Biblica, § 122. I shall have occasion to describe
  some of these, in illustration of other passages.

  My exegesis on the passage “He that is washed, needs not,” &c.
  may strike some as rather bold in its illustration, yet if great
  authorities are necessary to support the view I have taken,
  I can refer at once to a legion of commentators, both ancient
  and modern, who all offer the same general explanation, though
  not exactly the same illustration. Poole’s Synopsis is rich in
  references to such. Among these, Vatablus remarks on the need
  of washing the feet of one already washed, “_scil. viae causa_.”
  Medonachus says of the feet, “quos calcata terra iterum inquinat.”
  Hammond says, “he that hath been initiated, and entered into
  Christ, &c. is _whole clean_, and hath no need to be so washed
  again, all over. All that is needful to him is the daily
  ministering of the word and grace of Christ, to cleanse and
  wash off the frailties, and imperfections, and lapses of our
  weak nature, those feet of the soul.” Grotius says, “Hoc tantum
  opus ei est, ut ab iis se purget quae ex occasione nascuntur.
  Similitudo sumpta ab his _qui a balneo nudis pedibus abeunt_.”
  Besides these and many others largely quoted by Poole, Lampius
  also (in commentary in Gospel of John) goes very fully into the
  same view, and quotes many others in illustration. Wolfius (in
  Cur. Philology) gives various illustrations, differing in no
  important particular, that I can see, from each other, nor from
  that of Kuinoel, who calls them “contortas expositiones,” but
  gives one which is the same in almost every part, but is more
  fully illustrated in detail, by reference to the usage of the
  ancients, of going to the bath before coming to a feast, which
  the disciples no doubt had done, and made themselves clean in
  all parts except their feet, which had become dirtied on the
  way from the bath. This is the same view which Wolf also quotes
  approvingly from Elsner. Wetstein is also on this point, as on
  all others, abundantly rich in illustrations from classic usage,
  to which he refers in a great number of quotations from Lucian,
  Herodotus, Plato, Terence and Plutarch.

  _Sift you as wheat._――The word σινιαζω (_siniazo_) refers to the
  process of _winnowing_ the wheat after threshing, rather than
  _sifting_ in the common application of the term, which is to
  the operation of separating the flour from the bran. In oriental
  agriculture the operation of winnowing is performed without any
  machinery, by simply taking up the threshed wheat in a large
  shovel, and shaking it in such a way that the grain may fall
  out into a place prepared on the ground, while the wind blows
  away the chaff. The whole operation is well described in the
  fragments appended to Taylor’s editions of Calmet’s dictionary,
  ( Hund. i. No. 48, in Vol. III.) and is there illustrated
  by a plate. The phrase then, was highly expressive of a
  thorough trial of character, or of utter ruin, by violent and
  overwhelming misfortune, and as such is often used in the Old
  Testament. As in Jeremiah xv. 7. “I will fan them with a fan,”
  &c. Also in li. 3. In Psalm cxxxix. 2. “Thou winnowest my path,”
  &c.; compare translation “Thou _compassest_ my path.” The same
  figure is effectively used by John the Baptist, in Matthew iii.
  12, and Luke iii. 17.

  _Galilean pugnacity._――Josephus, who was very familiar with the
  Galileans by his military service among them, thus characterizes
  them. “The Galileans are fighters even from infancy, and are
  every where numerous, nor are they capable of fear.” Jewish War,
  book III. chapter iii. section 2.

  _From Jerusalem to Jericho._――The English traveler here referred
  to, is Sir Frederic Henniker, who in the year 1820, met with
  this calamity, which he thus describes in his travels, pp.
  284‒289.

  “The route is over hills, rocky, barren and uninteresting; we
  arrived at a fountain, and here my two attendants paused to
  refresh themselves; the day was so hot that I was anxious to
  finish the journey, and hurried forwards. A ruined building
  situated on the summit of a hill was now within sight, and I
  urged my horse towards it; the janissary galloped by me, and
  making signs for me not to precede him, he rode into and round
  the building, and then motioned me to advance. We next came to
  a hill, through the very apex of which has been cut a passage,
  the rocks overhanging it on either side. Quaresmius, (book vi.
  chapter 2.) quoting Brocardus, 200 years past, mentions that
  there is a place horrible to the eye, and full of danger,
  called Abdomin, which signifies blood; where he, descending
  from Jerusalem to Jericho, fell among thieves. I was in the act
  of passing through this ditch, when a bullet whizzed by, close
  to my head; I saw no one, and had scarcely time to think, when
  another was fired some distance in advance. I could yet see no
  one,――the janissary was beneath the brow of the hill, in his
  descent; I looked back, but my servant was not yet within sight.
  I looked up, and within a few inches of my head were three
  muskets, and three men taking aim at me. Escape or resistance
  were alike impossible. I got off my horse. Eight men jumped down
  from the rocks, and commenced a scramble for me; I observed also
  a party running towards Nicholai. At this moment the janissary
  galloped in among us with his sword drawn.

                   *       *       *       *       *

  “A sudden panic seized the janissary; he cried on the name of
  the Prophet, and galloped away. As he passed, I caught at a rope
  hanging from his saddle. I had hoped to leap upon his horse, but
  found myself unable;――my feet were dreadfully lacerated by the
  honey-combed rocks――nature would support me no longer――I fell,
  but still clung to the rope. In this manner I was drawn some few
  yards, till, bleeding from my ancle to my shoulder, I resigned
  myself to my fate. As soon as I stood up, one of my pursuers
  took aim at me, but the other casually advancing between us,
  prevented his firing; he then ran up, and with his sword, aimed
  such a blow as would not have required a second; his companion
  prevented its full effect, so that it merely cut my ear in
  halves, and laid open one side of my face; they then stripped me
  naked.

                   *       *       *       *       *

  “It was now past mid-day, and burning hot; I bled profusely,
  ――and two vultures, whose business it is to consume corpses,
  were hovering over me. I should scarcely have had strength to
  resist, had they chosen to attack me. At length we arrived about
  3 P. M. at Jericho.――My servant was unable to lift me to the
  ground; the janissary was lighting his pipe, and the soldiers
  were making preparations to pursue the robbers; not one person
  would assist a half-dead Christian. After some minutes a few
  Arabs came up and placed me by the side of the horse-pond, just
  so that I could not dip my finger into the water. This pool is
  resorted to by every one in search of water, and that employment
  falls exclusively upon females;――they surrounded me, and seemed
  so earnest in their sorrow, that, notwithstanding their veils, I
  almost felt pleasure at my wound. One of them in particular held
  her pitcher to my lips, till she was sent away by the Chous;――I
  called her, she returned, and was sent away again; and the third
  time she was turned out of the yard. She wore a red veil, (the
  sign of not being married,) and therefore there was something
  unpardonable in _her_ attention to any man, especially to a
  Christian; she however returned with her mother, and brought me
  some milk. I believe that Mungo Park, on some dangerous occasion
  during his travels, received considerable assistance from the
  compassionate sex.”


                       THE SCENES OF GETHSEMANE.

After much more conversation and prayer with his disciples in the
supper-room, and having sung the hymn of praise which usually concluded
the passover feast among the Jews, Jesus went with them out west
of the city, over the brook Kedron, at the foot of the Olive mount,
where there was a garden, called Gethsemane, to which he had often
resorted with his disciples, it being retired as well as pleasant.
While they were on the way, a new occasion happened of showing Peter’s
self-confidence, which Jesus again rebuked with the prediction that
it would too soon fail him. He was telling them all, that events would
soon happen that would overthrow their present confidence in him, and
significantly quoted to them the appropriate passage in Zechariah xiii.
7. “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.” Peter,
glad of a new opportunity to assert his steadfast adherence to his
Master, again assured him that, though all should be offended, or lose
their confidence in him, yet would not he; but though alone, would
always maintain his present devotion to him. The third time did Jesus
reply in the circumstantial prediction of his near and certain fall.
“This day, even this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny
me thrice.” This repeated distrustful and reproachful denunciation,
became, at last, too much for Peter’s warm temper; and in a burst of
offended zeal, he declared the more vehemently, “If I should die with
thee, I will not deny thee in any wise.” To this solemn protestation
against the thought of defection, all the other apostles present gave
their word of hearty assent.

  Illustration:       VALLEY OF THE BROOK KEDRON
              BETWEEN JERUSALEM AND THE MOUNT OF OLIVES.
                            John xviii. 1.

They now reached the garden, and when they had entered it, Jesus spoke
to all the disciples present, except his three chosen ones, saying,
“Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.” He retired accordingly into
some recess of the garden, with Peter and the two sons of Zebedee,
James and John; and as soon as he was alone with them, begun to give
utterance to feelings of deep distress and depression of spirits.
Leaving them, with the express injunction to keep awake and wait for
him, he went for a short time still farther, and there, in secret
and awful woe, that wrung from his bowed head the dark sweat of
an unutterable agony, yet in submission to God, he prayed that the
horrible suffering and death to which he had been so sternly devoted,
might not light on him. Returning to the three appointed watchers, he
found them asleep! Even as amid the lonely majesty of Mount Hermon,
human weakness had borne down the willing spirit in spite of the
sublime character of the place and the persons before them; so here,
not the groans of that beloved suffering Lord, for whom they had just
expressed such deep regard, could keep their sleepy eyes open, when
they were thus exhausted with a long day’s agitating incidents, and
were rendered still more dull and stupid by the chilliness of the
evening air, as well as the lateness of the hour of the night; for it
was near ten o’clock. At this sad instance of the inability of their
minds to overcome the frailties of the body, after all their fine
protestations of love and zeal, he mildly and mournfully remonstrates
with Peter in particular, who had been so far before the rest in
expressing a peculiar interest in his Master. And he said to _Peter_,
“Simon! sleepest _thou_? What! could ye not watch with me one hour?
Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit indeed
is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Well might he question thus the
constancy of the fiery zeal which had so lately inspired Peter to
those expressions of violent attachment. What! could not all that
warm devotion, that high pride of purpose, sustain his spirit against
the effects of fatigue and cold on his body? But they had, we may
suppose, crept into some shelter from the cold night air, where they
unconsciously forgot themselves. After having half-roused them with
this fruitless appeal, he left them, and again passed through another
dreadful struggle between his human and divine nature. The same strong
entreaty,――the same mournful submission,――were expressed as before,
in that moment of solitary agony, till again he burst away from the
insupportable strife of soul, and came to see if yet sympathy in his
sorrows could keep his sleepy disciples awake. But no; the gentle
rousing he had before given them had hardly broken their slumbers. For
a few moments the voice of their Master, in tones deep and mournful
with sorrow, might have recalled them to some sense of shame for their
heedless stupidity; and for a short time their wounded pride moved them
to an effort of self-control. A few mutual expostulations in a sleepy
tone, would pass between them;――an effort at conversation perhaps,
about the incidents of the day, and the prospect of coming danger which
their Master seemed to hint;――some wonderings probably, as to what
could thus lead him apart to dark and lonely devotion;――very likely
too, some complaint about the cold;――a shiver――a sneeze,――then a
movement to a warmer attitude, and a wrapping closer in mantles;――then
the conversation languishing, replies coming slower and duller, the
attitude meanwhile declining from the perpendicular to the horizontal,
till at last the most wakeful waits in vain for an answer to one of his
drowsy remarks, and finds himself speaking to deaf ears; and finally
overcome with impatience at them and himself, he sinks down into his
former deep repose, with a half-murmured reproach to his companions
on his lips. In short, as every one knows who has passed through such
efforts, three sleepy men will hardly keep awake the better for each
other’s company; but so far from it, on the contrary, the force of
sympathy will increase the difficulty, and the very sound of drowsy
voices will serve to lull all the sooner into slumber. In the case of
the apostles too, who were mostly men accustomed to an active life, and
who were in the habit of going to bed as soon as it was night, whenever
their business allowed them to rest, all their modes of life served to
hasten the slumbers of men so little inured to self-control of any kind.
These lengthy reasons may serve to excite some considerate sympathy
for the weakness of the apostles, and may serve as an apology for their
repeated drowsiness on solemn occasions; for a first thought on the
subject might suggest to a common man, the irreverent notion, that
those who could slumber at the transfiguration of the Son of God on
Mount Hermon, and at his agony in Gethsemane, must be very sleepy
fellows. On this occasion these causes were sufficient to enchain their
senses, in spite of the repeated exhortations of Jesus, for on his
coming to them the second time, and saying in a warning voice, “Rise
and pray, lest ye enter into temptation; why sleep ye?” they wist not
what to answer him, for their eyes were very heavy, and they slept
for sorrow. Still again he retired about a stone’s throw from them,
as before, and there, prone on the ground, he renewed the strife with
his feelings. Alone and unsympathized with by his friends, did the
Redeemer of men endure the agonies of that hour, yet not wholly alone
nor unsupported; for as Luke assures us, there appeared to him an
angel from heaven, strengthening him. At last the long struggle ceased.
Distant voices coming over the glen through the stillness of the night,
and the glare of torches flashing from the waters of the Kedron through
the shades of the garden, gave him notice that those were near who
came to drag him to a shameful death. Yet the repugnance of nature with
which his late strife had been so dreadful, was now so overcome that he
shrank not from the ♦approaching death, but calmly walked to meet it.
Coming forward to his sleeping disciples, he said to them, “Sleep on
now and take your rest; behold, the time is at hand when the son of
man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Arise, let us be going.”
The rush of the armed bands of the temple guards followed his words,
and when the apostles sprung to their feet, their drowsiness was most
effectually driven off by the appalling sight of a crowd of fierce
men, filling the garden and surrounding them. As soon as the villainous
leaders of the throng could overcome the reverence which even the
lowest of their followers had for the majestic person of the Savior,
they brought them up to the charge, and a retainer of the high priest,
by name Malchus, with the forward officiousness of an insolent menial,
laid hold of Jesus. Now was the time for Galilean spunk to show itself.
The disciples around instantly asked, “Lord, shall we smite with the
sword?” But without waiting for an answer, Peter, though amazed by
this sudden and frightful attack, as soon as he saw the body of his
adored Master profaned by the rude hands of base hirelings, foremost in
action as in word, regardless of numbers, leaped on the assailants with
drawn sword, and with a movement too quick to be shunned, he gave the
foremost a blow, which, if the darkness had not prevented, might have
been fatal. As it was, there could not have been a more narrow escape,
for the sword lighting on the head of the priest’s zealous servant,
just grazed his temple and cut off his ear. But this display of courage
was after all, fruitless; for he was surrounded by a great body of
men, armed in the expectation of this very kind of resistance; and in
addition to this, the remonstrance of Jesus must have been sufficient
to damp the most fiery valor. He said to his zealous and fierce
defender, “Put up thy sword again into its sheath, for they that take
the sword shall perish by the sword. The cup which my Father hath given
me, shall I not drink? Thinkest thou that if I should now pray to my
Father, he would not instantly send me twelve legions of angels at a
word? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, which say that
it must be thus?” Having thus stopped the ineffectual and dangerous
opposition of his few followers, he quietly gave himself up to his
captors, interceding however for his poor, friendless and unprotected
disciples. “I am Jesus of Nazareth: if therefore you seek me, let these
go their way.” This he said as it were in reference to a literal and
corporeal fulfilment of the words which he had used in his last prayer
with his disciples,――“Of them whom thou gavest me I lost none.” The
disciples after receiving from Jesus such a special command to abstain
from resistance, and perceiving how utterly desperate was the condition
of affairs, without waiting the decision of the question, all forsaking
him, fled; and favored by darkness and their familiar knowledge of the
grounds, they all escaped in various directions.

    ♦ “ap-approaching” replaced with “approaching”

  _Gethsemane._――This place has already been alluded to in the
  description of Mount Olivet. [Note on p. 96.] From the same
  source I extract a further brief notice of the present aspect of
  this most holy ground. “Proceeding along the valley of Kedron,
  at the foot of Mount Olivet, is the garden of Gethsemane:
  an even plat of ground, not above fifty-seven yards square,
  where are shown some old olive trees, supposed to identify the
  spot to which our Lord was wont to repair. John xviii. 1, 2.”
  [Modern Traveler, Palestine, p. 156.] It is also remarked by
  Dr. Richardson, [p. 78 of the same work,] that “the gardens of
  Gethsemane are still in the sort of a ruined cultivation; the
  fences are broken down, and the olive trees decaying, as if the
  hand that dressed and fed them was withdrawn.”

  The etymology and meaning of the name Gethsemane, is given by
  Lightfoot, (Centuria Chorographica in Matthew, chapter 41.)
  The name is derived from the product of the tree which was
  so abundantly raised there, and which gave name also to the
  mountain. Gethsemane is compounded of גת, “a press,” and שמנא,
  “olive oil,”――“an oil-press;” because the oil was pressed out
  and manufactured on the spot where the olive was raised.

  _Ten o’clock._――This I conclude to have been about the time,
  because (in Matthew xxvi. 20) it is said that it was evening
  already, (that is, about 6 o’clock,) when Jesus sat down to
  supper with his disciples, and allowing time on the one hand for
  the events at the supper-table and on the walk, as well as those
  in the garden,――and on the other hand for those which took place
  before midnight, (cock crowing,) we must fix the time as I have
  above.

  _The glare of torches._――John (xviii. 3.) is the only evangelist
  who brings in this highly picturesque circumstance of the
  equipment of the band with the means of searching the dark
  shades and bowers of the garden.


                        HIS THREE-FOLD DENIAL.

Peter, however, had he not so soon forgot his zealous attachment to
Jesus, as to leave him in such hands, without farther knowledge of his
fate; but as soon as he was satisfied that the pursuit of the disciples
was given up, he, in company with John, followed the band of officers
at safe distance, and ascertained whither they were carrying the
captive. After they had seen the train proceed to the palace of the
high priest, they proceeded directly to the same place. Here John,
being known to the high priest, and having friends in the family, went
boldly in, feeling secure by his friendship in that quarter, against
any danger in consequence of his connection with Jesus. Being known to
the servant girl who kept the door, as a friend of the family, he got
in without difficulty, and had also influence enough to get leave to
introduce Peter, as a friend of his who had some curiosity to see what
was going on. Peter, who had stood without the door waiting for the
result of John’s maneuver, was now brought into the palace, and walked
boldly into the hall where the examination of Jesus was going on,
hoping to escape entirely unnoticed by keeping in the dimly lighted
parts of the hall, by which he would be secure, at the same time that
he would the better see what was going on near the lights. Standing
thus out of the way in the back part of the room, he might have
witnessed the whole without incurring the notice of anybody. But the
servants and others, who had been out over the damp valley of the
Kedron after Jesus, feeling chilled with the walk, (for the long nights
of that season are in Jerusalem frequently in strong contrast with the
warmth of mid-day,) made up a good fire of coal in the back part of the
hall, where they stood looking on. Peter himself being, too, no doubt
thoroughly chilled with his long exposure to the cold night air, very
naturally and unreflectingly came forward to the fire, where he sat
down and warmed himself among the servants and soldiers. The bright
light of the coals shining directly on his anxious face, those who
stood by, noticing a stranger taking such interest in the proceedings,
began to scrutinize him more narrowly. At last, the servant girl
who had let him in at the door, with the inquisitive curiosity so
peculiarly strong in her sex, knowing that he had come in with John
as his particular acquaintance, and concluding that he was like him
associated with Jesus, boldly said to him, “Thou also art one of this
man’s disciples.” But Peter, like a true Galilean, as ready to lie
as to fight, thinking only of the danger of the recognition, at once
denied him, forgetting the lately offensive prediction, in his sudden
alarm. He said before them all, “Woman, I am not!――I know him not;
neither do I understand what thou sayest.” This bold and downright
denial silenced the forward impertinence of the girl, and for a time
may have quieted the suspicions of those around. Peter, however,
startled by this sudden attack, all at once perceived the danger into
which he had unthinkingly thrust himself, and drawing back from his
prominent station before the fire, which had made him so unfortunately
conspicuous, went out into the porch of the building, notwithstanding
the cold night air, preferring the discomfort of the exposure, to the
danger of his late position. As he walked there in the open air, he
heard the note of the cock sounding clear, through the stillness of
midnight, announcing the beginning of the third watch. The sound had a
sad import to him, and must have recalled to his mind some thought of
his master’s warning; but before it could have made much impression,
it was instantly banished altogether from his mind, by a new alarm
from the inquisitiveness of some of the retainers of the palace, who,
seeing a stranger lurking in a covert manner about the building at
that time of night, very naturally felt suspicious enough of him to
examine his appearance narrowly. Among those who came about him, was
another of those pert damsels who seem to have been very numerous and
forward about the house of the head of the Jewish faith. She, after
a satisfactory inspection of the suspicious person, very promptly
informed those that were there also about him, “This fellow also was
with Jesus of Nazareth.” Peter’s patience being at last worn out with
the pertinacious annoyances of these spiteful lasses, not only flatly
contradicted the positive assertion of the girl, but backed his words
with an oath, which seems to have had the decisive effect of hushing
his female accusers entirely, and he considered himself to have turned
off suspicion for a time so effectually, that, after cooling himself
sufficiently in the porch, being distracted with anxiety about the
probable fate of his beloved Master, he at last ventured again into
the great hall of the palace, where the examination of Jesus was still
going on. Here he remained a deeply interested spectator and auditor
for about an hour, without being disturbed, when some of the bystanders
who were not so much interested in the affair before them as to be
prevented by it from looking about them, had their attention again
drawn to the stranger who had been an object of such suspicion. There
were probably more than one that recognized the active and zealous
follower of the Nazarene, as Peter had been in such constant attendance
on him throughout his whole stay in Jerusalem. But no one seems to have
cared to provoke an irascible Galilean by an accusation which he might
resent in the characteristic manner of his countrymen; till another
of the servants of the high priest, a relation of Malchus, whose ear
Peter had cut off, after looking well at him, and being provoked at the
impudence of such a vagabond in thrusting himself into the home of the
very man whom he had so shockingly mutilated and so nearly murdered,
determined to bring the offender to punishment, and speaking to his
fellow-servants, he indignantly and confidently affirmed, “This fellow
also was with him, for he is a Galilean.” And turning to Peter, whom
he had seen in Gethsemane, when engaged at the time of the capture
of Jesus, he imperiously asked him, “Did I not see thee in the garden
with him?” And others, joining in the charge, said decidedly to him,
“Surely thou art one of them also: for thy very speech, thy accent,
unquestionably, betrays thee to be a Galilean.” Peter began at last to
see that his situation was growing quite desperate, and finding that
his distress about his Lord had brought him within a chance of the
same fate, determined to extricate himself by as unscrupulously using
his tongue in his own defense as he had before used his sword for his
Master. Besides, he had already told two flat lies within about three
hours, and it was not for a Galilean in such a pass to hesitate about
one more, even though seconded by a perjury. For he then began to curse
and to swear, saying, “Man, I know not what thou sayest.――I know not
the man of whom ye speak.” And immediately, while he was yet speaking,
the cock crew the second time. At that moment, the Lord turned and
looked upon Peter, and at the same sound the conscience-stricken
disciple turning towards his Lord, met that glance. And what a look!
He who cannot imagine it for himself, cannot conceive it from the ideal
picture of another; but its effect was sufficiently dramatic to impress
the least picturesque imagination. As the Lord turned and looked
upon him, Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to
him, “Before the cock shall crow twice this night, thou shalt deny me
thrice.” And thinking thereon, he went out, and wept bitterly. Tears of
rebuked conceit,――of self-humbled pride, over fallen glory and sullied
honor,――flowed down his manly cheeks. Where was now the fiery spirit
once in word so ready to brave death, with all the low malice of base
foes, for the sake of Jesus? Where was that unshaken steadiness, that
dauntless energy that once won him from the lips of his Master, when
first his searching eye fell on him, the name of the ROCK,――that name
by which again he had been consecrated as the mighty foundation-ROCK of
the church of God? Was this the chief of the apostles?――the keeper of
the keys of the kingdom of heaven?――binding and loosing on earth what
should be bound or loosed in heaven? Where were the brave, high hopes
of earthly glory to be won under the warlike banners of his kingly
Master? Where was that Master and Lord? The hands of the rude were now
laid on him, in insult and abuse,――his glories broken and faded,――his
power vain for his own rescue from sufferings vastly greater than
those so often relieved by him in others,――his followers dispirited and
scattered,――disowning and casting out as evil the name they had so long
adored. The haughty lords of Judaism were now exulting in their cruel
victory, re-established in their dignity, and strengthened in their
tyranny by this long-wished triumph over their deadly foe. He wept for
bright hopes dimmed,――for crushed ambition,――but more than all, for
broken faith,――for trampled truth,――and for the three-fold and perjured
denial of his betrayed and forsaken Lord. Well might he weep――

                         “There’s bliss in tears,
                  When he who sheds them inly feels
                Some lingering stain of early years
                  Effaced by every drop that steals.
                The fruitless showers of worldly woe
                  Fall dark to earth and never rise;
                But tears that from repentance flow,
                  In bright exhalement reach the skies.”

  _The soldiers_, &c.――It has been supposed by some that this
  armed force was a part of the Roman garrison which was always
  kept in Castle Antonia, close by the temple; (see note on page
  95;) but there is nothing in the expressions of either of the
  evangelists which should lead us to think so; on the contrary,
  their statement most distinctly specifies, that those concerned
  in the arrest were from a totally different quarter. Matthew
  (xxvi. 47) describes them as “a great throng, with swords and
  staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.” The
  whole expression implies a sort of half-mob of low fellows,
  servants and followers of the members of the Sanhedrim,
  accompanying the ordinary temple-guard, which was a mere band of
  Levite peace-officers under the priests, whose business it was
  to keep order in the courts of the temple――a duty hardly more
  honorable than that of a sweeper or “doorkeeper in the house
  of the Lord,” from which office, indeed, it was probably not
  distinct. These watchmen and porters, for they were no better,
  were allowed by the Roman government of the city and kingdom,
  a kind of contemptuous favor in bearing swords to defend from
  profane intrusion their holy shrine, which Gentile soldiers
  could not approach as guards, without violating the sanctity of
  the place. Such a body as these men and their chance associates,
  are therefore well and properly described by Matthew, as a
  “throng with swords and clubs;” but what intelligent man would
  ever have thought of characterizing in this way, a regular
  detachment of the stately and well-armed legion which maintained
  the dignity and power of the Roman governor of Judea? Mark (xiv.
  43) uses precisely the same expression as Matthew, to describe
  them: Luke (xxii. 52) represents Jesus as speaking to “the chief
  priests and _captains of the temple_ and the elders, who had
  come against him, saying, ‘Have you come out as against a thief,
  with swords and clubs?’” John (xviii. 3) speaks of the band
  as made up in part of the servants of “the chief priests and
  Pharisees,” &c. So that the whole matter, unquestionably, was
  managed and executed entirely by the Jews; and the progress of
  the story shows that they did not call in the aid of the heathen
  secular power, until the last bloody act required a consummation
  which the ordinances of Rome forbade to the Jews, and then
  only did they summon the aid of the governor’s military force.
  Indeed, they were too careful in preserving their few peculiar
  secular privileges still left, to give up the smallest power of
  tyrannizing, permitted by their Roman lords.

  _The long nights in contrast with the heat of the day._――It
  should be remembered, that according to a just calculation,
  these events happened in the month of March, when the air
  of Palestine is uncomfortably cold. Conder, in his valuable
  topographical compilation, says, “during the months of May,
  June, July and August, the sky is for the most part cloudless;
  but during the night, the earth is moistened with a copious dew.
  Sultry days are not unfrequently succeeded by intensely cold
  nights. To these sudden vicissitudes, references are made in
  the Old Testament. Genesis xxxi. 40: Psalm cxxi. 6.” [Modern
  Traveler, Palestine, p. 14.]

  The cold season, (קור _Qor_,) immediately following the true
  winter, (חרפ _Hhoreph_,) took in the latter part of the Hebrew
  month Shebeth, the whole of Adar, and the former half of
  Nisan; that is in modern divisions of time,――from the beginning
  of February to the beginning of April, according to the
  _Calendarium Palestinae_, in the Critica Biblica, Vol. III:
  but according to Jahn, (Archaeologia Biblica § 21,) from the
  _middle_ of February to the _middle_ of April, the two estimates
  varying with the different views about the dates of the ancient
  Hebrew months.

  _Galilean, ready to lie as to fight._――This may strike some, as
  rather too harsh a sentence to pass upon the general character
  of a whole people, but I believe I am borne out in this seeming
  abuse, by the steady testimony of most authorities to which
  I can readily refer. Josephus, whom I have already quoted in
  witness of their pugnacity, (on page 102,) seems to have been
  so well pleased with this trait, and also with their “industry
  and activity,” which he so highly commends in them, as well as
  the richness of the natural resources of the country, all which
  characteristics, both of the people and the region, he made so
  highly available in their defense during the war with the Romans,
  that he does not think it worth while to criticise their morals,
  to which, indeed, the season of a bloody war gives a sort of
  license, that made such defects less prominent, being apparently
  rather characteristic of the times than the people. But there is
  great abundance of condemnatory testimony, which shows that the
  Galileans bore as bad a character among their neighbors, as my
  severest remark could imply. Numerous passages in the gospels
  and Acts show this so plainly, as to convey this general
  impression against them very decidedly. Kuinoel (on Matthew ii.
  23) speaks strongly of their proverbially low moral character.
  “_All_ the Galileans were so despised by the dwellers of
  Jerusalem and Judea, that when they wished to characterize a
  man as a low and outcast wretch, they called him a Galilean.” On
  other passages also, (as on John vii. 52, and Matthew iv. 17,)
  he repeats this intellectual and moral condemnation in similar
  terms. Beza and Grotius also, in commenting on these passages,
  speak of Galilee as “contempta regio.” Rosenmueller also, (on
  John vii. 52,) says “Nullus, aiunt, Galilaeus unquam a Deo
  donatus est spiritu prophetico: _gens est Deo despecta_.” That
  is, “It was a saying among them, that no Galilean was ever
  indued with a spirit of prophecy: they are a people _despised by
  God_.” I might quote at great length from many commentators to
  the same effect, but these will serve as a specimen. It should
  be remarked, however, that the Galileans, though they might be
  worse than most Jews in their general character, were not very
  peculiar in their neglect of truth; for from the time of Abraham,
  Isaac and Jacob, to the present moment, the Asiatic races,
  generally, have been infamous for falsehood, and there are many
  modern travelers who are ready to testify that an Oriental,
  generally, when asked an indifferent question, will tell a lie
  at a venture, unless he sees some special personal advantage
  likely to result to him from telling the truth.

  Yet in minute legal observances, the Galileans were, for the
  most part, much more rigid in interpreting and following the law
  of Moses, than the inhabitants of Judea, as is abundantly shown
  by Lightfoot in his numerous Talmudic quotations, (_Centuria
  Chorographica_ chapter 86,) where the comparison is, on many
  accounts, highly favorable to such of the Galileans as pretended
  to observe and follow the Jewish law at all.

  _Thy accent betrays thee._――Lightfoot is very rich in happy
  illustrations of this passage, (Centuria Chorographica chapter
  87.) He has drawn very largely here from the Talmudic writers,
  who are quite amusing in the instances which they give of the
  dialectic differences between the Galileans and the Judeans.
  Several of the puns which they give, would not be accounted dull
  even in modern times, and indeed, the Galilean brogue seems to
  have been as well marked, and to have given occasion for nearly
  as much wit as that of Ireland. The Galileans, thus marked by
  dialect as well as by manners, held about the same place in the
  estimation of the pure Judean race, as the modern Irish do among
  those of Saxon-English tongue and blood; and we cannot better
  conceive of the scorn excited in the refined Jews by the idea of
  a Galilean prophet with his simple disciples, than by imagining
  the sort of impression that would be made, by a raw Irishman
  attempting the foundation of a new sect in London or Boston,
  with a dozen rough and uneducated workmen for his preachers and
  main supporters.

  _The bright light of the fire shining on his face_, &c.――This
  incident is taken from Luke xxii. 56, where the expression
  in the common version is, “a certain maid saw him as he sat
  by the _fire_.” But in the original Greek this last word is
  φῶς, (_phos_,) which means “light,” and not “fire;” and it is
  translated here in this peculiar manner, because it evidently
  refers to the light of the _fire_, from its connection with the
  preceding verse, where it is said that “Peter sat down among
  them ‘before’ the _fire_ which they had kindled;” the word fire
  in this passage being in the Greek πυρ, (_pur_,) which is never
  translated otherwise. But the unusual translation of the word
  φῶς, by “fire” in the other verse, though it gives a just idea
  of Peter’s position, makes a common reader lose sight of the
  prominent reason of his detection, which was, that the “_light_
  of the fire” shone on his face.

  In speaking of Peter’s fall and its attendant circumstances,
  Lampius (in Gospel of John xviii. 17,) seems to be most
  especially scandalized by the _means_ through which Peter’s ruin
  was effected. “Sed ab _ancilla_ Cepham vinci, dedecus ejus auget.
  Quanta inconstantia! Qui in armatos ordines paulo ante irruperat
  nunc ad vocem levis mulierculae tremit. Si Adamo probrosum,
  quod a femina conjuge seductus erat, non minus Petro, quod ab
  ancilla.” That is, “But that Cephas should have been overcome by
  a _girl_, increases his disgrace. How great the change! He who,
  but a little before, had charged an armed host, now trembled at
  the voice of a silly woman. If it was a shame to Adam, that he
  had been seduced by his wife, it was no less so to Peter, that
  he was by a girl.”

  _The cock crew._――By this circumstance, the time of the denial
  in all its parts is well ascertained. The first cock-crowing
  after the first denial marked the hour of midnight, and the
  second cock-crowing announced the first dawn of day. As Lampius
  says, “Altera haec erat αλεκτροφῶνια, praenuncia lucis, non
  tantum in terra, sed et in corde Petri, tenebris spississimis
  obsepto, mox iterum oriturae.” “_This_ was the second
  cock-crowing, the herald of light, soon to rise again, not only
  on earth, but also in the heart of Peter, now overspread with
  the thickest darkness.”

  _And thinking thereon, he wept._――This expression is taken from
  Mark xiv. 72, and accords with our common translation, though
  very different from many others that have been proposed. The
  word thus variously rendered, is in the original Greek, επιβαλων,
  (_epibalon_,) and bears a great variety of definitions which can
  be determined only by its connections, in the passages where it
  occurs. Campbell says, “There are not many words in scripture
  which have undergone more interpretations than this term;”
  and truly the array of totally diverse renderings, each ably
  supported by many of the most learned Biblical scholars that
  ever lived, is truly appalling to the investigator. (1.) Those
  who support the common English translation are Kypke, Wetstein,
  Campbell and Bloomfield, and others quoted by the latter.
  ――(2.) Another translation which has been ably defended is,
  “_he began_ to weep.” This is the expression in the common
  German translation, (Martin Luther’s,) “ER HOB AN ZU WEINEN.”
  It is also the version of the Vulgate, (“Coepit flere,”) the
  Syriac, Gothic, Persian, and Armenian translations, as Kuinoel
  and Heinsius observe, who also maintain this rendering.
  ――(3.) Another is, “_He proceeded_ to weep,” (“Addens flevit.”)
  which is that of Grotius, LeClerc, Simon, Petavius and others.
  ――(4.) Another is, “_covering his head_, he wept.” This seems
  to have begun with Theophylact, who has been followed by a great
  number, among whom Salmasius, Wolf, Suicer, Macknight, and Krebs,
  are the most prominent.――(5.) Another is, “_rushing out_, he
  wept.” This is maintained by Beza, Rosenmueller, Schleusner,
  Bretschneider and Wahl.――(6.) Another is, “_Having looked at
  him_,” (Jesus,) “he wept.” This is the version of Hammond and
  Palairet.――“Who shall decide when” so many “doctors disagree?”
  I should feel safest in leaving the reader, as Parkhurst does,
  to “consider and judge” for himself; but in defense of my own
  rendering, I would simply observe, that the _common English
  version_ is that which is most in accordance with the rules
  of grammar, and is best supported by classic usage, while
  the second and third are justly objected to by Bloomfield and
  Campbell as ungrammatical, and unsupported by _truly_ parallel
  passages, notwithstanding the array of classical quotations
  by Bp. ♦Bloomfield and others; and the fourth and fifth equally
  deserve rejection for the very tame and cold expression which
  they make of it, the fourth also being ungrammatical like the
  second and third. The sixth definition also may be rejected
  on grammatical grounds, as well as for lack of authorities and
  classic usage to support such an elliptical translation.――For
  long and numerous discussions of all these points, see any or
  every one of the writers whose names I have cited in this note.

    ♦ “Blomfield” replaced with “Bloomfield”


                         CHRIST’S CRUCIFIXION.

From that moment we hear no more of the humbled apostle, till after the
fatal consummation of his Redeemer’s sufferings. Yet he must have been
a beholder of that awful scene. When the multitude of men and women
followed the cross-bearing Redeemer down the vale of Calvary, mourning
with tears and groans, Peter could not have sought to indulge in
solitary grief. And since the son of Zebedee stood by the cross during
the whole agony of Jesus, the other apostles probably had no more cause
of fear than John, and Peter also might have stood near, among the
crowd, without any danger of being further molested by those whom he
had offended, since they now looked on their triumph as too complete to
need any minor acts of vengeance, to consummate it over the fragments
of the broken Nazarene sect. Still, it was in _silent_ sorrow and
horror that he gazed on this sight of woe, and the deep despair which
now overwhelmed his bright dreams of glory was no longer uttered
in the violent expressions to which his loquacious genius prompted him.
He now had time and reason enough to apprehend the painfully literal
meaning of the oft-repeated predictions of Christ about these sad
events――predictions which once were so wildly unheeded or perversely
misconstrued as best suited the ambitious disciples’ hopes of power,
which was to be set up over all the civil, religious, and military
tyrants of Palestine, and of which they were to be the chief partakers.
These hopes all went out with the last breath of their crucified Lord,
and when they turned away from that scene of hopeless woe, after taking
a last look of the face that had so long been the source of light and
truth to them, now fixed and ghastly in the last struggle of a horrible
death, they must have felt that the delusive dream of years was now
broken, and that they were but forlorn and desperate outcasts in the
land which their proud thoughts once aspired to rule. What despairing
anguish must have been theirs, as climbing the hillside with sad and
slow steps, they looked back from its top down upon the cross, that
might still be seen in the dark valley, though dim with the shades of
falling night! Their Lord, their teacher, their guide, their friend,
――hung there between the heavens and the earth, among thieves, the
victim of triumphant tyranny; and they, owing their safety only to the
contemptuous forbearance of his murderers, must now, strangers in a
strange land, seek a home among those who scorned them.

  _The VALE of Calvary_.――This expression will no doubt excite
  vast surprise in the minds of many readers, who have all their
  lives heard and talked of _Mount_ Calvary, without once taking
  the pains to find out whether there ever was any such place.
  Such persons will, no doubt, find their amazement still farther
  increased, on learning that no _Mount_ Calvary is mentioned in
  any part of the Bible, nor in any ancient author.

  The whole account given of this name in the Bible, is in Luke
  xxiii. 33, where in the common translation it is said that
  Christ was crucified in “the place called Calvary.” In the
  parallel passages in the other gospels, the Hebrew name only is
  given, Golgotha, which means simply “a skull.” (Matthew xxvii.
  33: Mark xv. 22: John xix. 17.) This particular place does not
  seem to be named and designated in any part of the Old Testament,
  but a very clear idea of its general situation can be obtained,
  from the consideration of the fact, that there was a place
  beyond the walls of Jerusalem, where all the dead were buried,
  and whither all the carcasses of slain animals were carried and
  left to moulder. This was that part of the valley of the Kedron
  which was called the valley of Tophet, or the vale of the son
  of Hinnom. This is often alluded to as the place of dead bodies.
  (Jeremiah vii. 32, &c.) Besides, all reason and analogy utterly
  forbid the supposition, that dead carcasses would be piled up
  on a “mount” or hill, to rot and send their effluvia all over
  the city in every favorable wind; while on the other hand, a
  deep valley like that of Hinnom would be a most proper place for
  carrying such offensive matters. Josephus, in his description
  of the temple, very particularly notices the fact, that all the
  blood and filth which flowed from the numerous sacrifices, was
  conveyed by a subterraneous channel or drain to this very valley.


                           THE RESURRECTION.

With such feelings they returned to Jerusalem, where the eleven,
who were all Galileans, found places of abode with those of Christ’s
followers who were dwellers in the city. Here they passed the Sabbath
heavily and sorrowfully, no doubt, and their thoughts must now have
reverted to their former business, to which it now became each one
of them to return, since he who had called them from their avocations
could now no more send them forth on his errands of love. On the
day after the sabbath, while such thoughts and feelings must still
have distressed them, almost as soon as they had risen, some of them
received a sudden and surprising call from several of the alarmed women,
who having faithfully ministered to all the necessities of Jesus during
his life, had been preparing to do the last sad offices to his dead
body. The strange story brought by these was, that having gone early in
the morning to the sepulcher, in the vale of Calvary, with this great
object, they had been horror-struck to find the place in which the
body had been deposited on sabbath eve, now empty, notwithstanding the
double security of the enormous rock which had closed the mouth of the
cave, and the stout guard of Roman soldiers who were posted there by
request of the Jews, to prevent expected imposition. On hearing this
strange story, Peter and John, followed by Mary of Magdala, started
at once for the sepulcher. As they made all possible haste, the youth
of John enabled him to reach the place before his older companion;
but Peter arrived very soon after him, and, outdoing his companion now
in prompt and diligent examination, as he had before been outdone in
bodily speed, he immediately made a much more thorough search of the
spot, than John in his hurry and alarm had thought of. He had contented
himself with looking down into the sepulcher, and having distinctly
seen the linen clothes lying empty and alone, he went not in. But when
Simon Peter came following him, he went into the sepulcher and saw the
linen clothes lie; and the napkin that was about his head, not lying
with the other clothes, but folded up carefully in a place by itself.
Having thus made a thorough search, as this shows, into every nook and
corner, he satisfied himself perfectly that the body had in some way or
other been actually removed, and on his reporting this to his companion,
he also came down into the cave, and made a similar examination, with
the same result. The only conclusion to which these appearances brought
their minds, was that some person, probably with the design of further
insult and injury, had thus rifled the tomb, and dragged the naked
body from its funeral vestments. For, as yet, they understood not the
scripture, nor the words of Christ himself, that he must rise from the
dead. The two disciples, therefore, overwhelmed with new distress, went
away again to their own temporary home, to consult with the rest of the
disciples, leaving Mary behind them, lingering in tears about the tomb.

Some time after their return, but before they had been able to explain
these strange appearances, Mary followed them home, and as soon as
she found them, added to their amazement immensely, by a surprising
story of her actually having seen Jesus himself, alive, in bodily form,
who had conversed with her, and had distinctly charged her to tell
his disciples, and Peter especially, that he would go before them
into Galilee, where he would meet them. When she came and told them
this, they were mourning and weeping. But when they had heard that he
was alive, though the story was confirmed with such a minute detail
of attendant circumstances, and though assured by her that she had
personally seen him, they yet believed not. So dark were their minds
about even the possibility of his resurrection, that afterwards,
when two of their own number, who had gone about seven miles into the
country, to Emmaus, returned in great haste to Jerusalem, and told the
disciples that they too had seen Jesus, and had a long talk with him,
they would not believe even this additional proof, but supposed that
they, in their credulous expectation, had suffered themselves to be
imposed on by some one resembling Jesus in person, who chose to amuse
himself by making them believe so palpable a falsehood. Yet some of
them, even then, suffering their longing hopes to get the better of
their prudent scepticism, were beginning to express their conviction
of the fact, saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared unto
Simon.” Of this last-mentioned appearance, no farther particulars are
any where given, though it is barely mentioned in 1 Corinthians xv. 5.
and it is impossible to give any certain account of the circumstances.
While assembled at their evening meal, and thus discussing the various
strange stories brought to their ears in such quick succession, after
they had fastened the doors for security against interruption from the
Jews, all at once, without any previous notice, Jesus himself appeared
standing in the midst, and said, “Peace be unto you.” They seeing the
mysterious object of their conversation, so strangely and suddenly
present among them, while they were just discussing the possibility
of his existence, were much frightened, and in the alarm of the moment
supposed that they were beholding a disembodied spirit. But he soon
calmed their terrors, and changed their fear into firm and joyful
assurance, that he was indeed the same whom they had so long known,
and to prove that the body now before them was the same which they had
two days before seen fastened expiring to the cross, he showed them his
hands, his feet, and his side, with the very marks which the spear and
nails had made in them. And while they yet could not soberly believe
for joy, and stood wondering, he, to show them that his body still
performed the functions of life, and required the same support as
theirs, asked them for a share of the food on the table, and taking
some from their hands, he ate it before them. He then upbraided them
with their unbelief and stupidity in not believing those who had seen
him after he was risen from the dead. He recalled to their minds his
former repeated warnings of these very events, literally as they had
been brought to pass. He said to them, “These are the words which
I spake to you while I was yet with you, that all things must be
fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets,
and in the psalms, concerning me.” Then opened he their understandings,
that they might understand the scriptures. Then it was, that at last
burst upon them the light so long shut out; they knew their own past
blindness, and they saw in the clear distinctness of reality, all his
repeated predictions of his humiliation, suffering, death, resurrection,
and of their cowardice and desertion, brought before them in one glance,
and made perfectly consistent with each other and with the result.
So that, amid the rejoicings of new hope born from utter despair, at
the same time expired their vain and idle notion of earthly glory and
power under his reign. Their Master had passed through all this anguish
and disgrace, and come back to them from the grave; yet, though thus
vindicating his boundless power, he did not pretend to use the least
portion of it in avenging on his foes all the cruelties which he had
suffered from their hands. They could not hope, then, for a better fate,
surely, than his; they were to expect only similar labors, rewarded
with similar sufferings and death.


                       THE MEETING ON THE LAKE.

After this meeting with him, they saw him again repeatedly, but no
incident, relating particularly to the subject of this memoir, occurred
on either of these occasions, except at the scene on lake Tiberias, so
fully and graphically given by John, in the last chapter of his gospel.
It seems that at that time, the disciples had, in accordance with the
earliest command of Jesus after his resurrection, gone into Galilee to
meet him there. The particular spot where this incident took place was
probably near Capernaum and Bethsaida, among their old familiar haunts.
Peter at this time residing at his home in Capernaum, it would seem,
very naturally, while waiting for the visit which Christ had promised
them, sought to pass the time as pleasantly as possible in his old
business, from which he had once been called to draw men into the grasp
of the gospel. With him at this time, were Thomas, or Didymus, and
Nathanael, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples, whether of
the eleven or not, is not known. On his telling them that he was going
out a fishing, they, allured also by old habits and a desire to amuse
themselves in a useful way, declared that they also would go with him.
They went forth accordingly, and taking the fishing-boat, pushed off
in the evening as usual, the night being altogether the best time for
catching the fish, because the lake not then being constantly disturbed
by passing vessels, the fish are less disposed to keep themselves in
the depths of the waters, but feeling bolder in the stillness, rise
to the surface within reach of the watchful fisherman. But on this
occasion, from something peculiar in the state of the air or water,
the fish did not come within the range of the net; and that night they
caught nothing. Having given up the fruitless effort, they were towards
morning heavily working in towards the shore, and were about a hundred
yards from it, when they noticed some person who stood on the land;
but in the gray light of morning his person could not be distinguished.
This man called to them in a friendly voice, as soon as they came
within hailing distance, crying out in a free and familiar way, “Boys!
have you anything to eat?” To which they answered “No.” The unknown
friend then called to them in a confident tone, telling them to cast
the net on the right side of the ship, and they should find plenty.
They cast accordingly, and on closing and drawing the net, were not
able to pull it in, for the weight of the fishes taken in it. In a
moment flashed on the ready mind of John, the remembrance of the former
similar prodigy wrought at the word of Jesus near the same spot, and
he immediately recognized in the benevolent stranger, his Lord. Turning
to Simon, therefore, who had been too busy tugging at the net to
think of the meaning of the miracle, he said to him, “It is the Lord.”
Conviction burst on him with equal certainty as on his companion, and
giving way to his natural headlong promptitude in action, he leaped at
once into the water, after girding his great coat around him, and by
partly swimming and partly wading through the shallows, he soon reached
the shore, where his loved and long-expected Master was. At the same
time, with as little delay as possible, the rest of them, leaving their
large vessel probably on account of the shallows along that part of the
coast, came ashore in a little skiff, dragging the full net behind them.
In this they showed their considerate prudence, for had they all in
the first transport of impatience followed Peter, and left boat and net
together at that critical moment, the net would have loosened and the
fishes have escaped; thus making the kind miracle of no effect by their
carelessness. As soon as they were come to land they saw Jesus placed
composedly by a fire of coals which he had made, and on which he had
designed to cook for their common entertainment, some fish previously
caught, dished with some bread. Jesus without ceremony ordered them to
come and bring some of the fish they had just caught. Simon Peter now
mindful of his late heedless desertion of his comrades in the midst of
their worst labor, stepped forward zealously, and, unassisted, dragged
the heavy net out of the water; and though on opening it they found one
hundred and fifty-three large fishes in it, notwithstanding the weight,
the net was not broken. When they had obeyed his command, and supplied
the place of the fish already cooked on the fire by fresh ones from the
net, Jesus in a kind and hearty tone invited them to come and breakfast
with him on what he had prepared. The disciples, notwithstanding the
readiness with which they had come ashore to their Master, still seem
to have felt somewhat shy; not, however, because they had any solid
doubt as to his really being the person they had supposed him, for
no man durst say to him “who art thou?” knowing him to be the Lord.
Perhaps it was not yet full day-light, which may account for their
shyness and want of readiness in accepting his invitation. But Jesus,
in order fully to assure them, comes and takes bread, and puts it into
their hands, with a share of fish likewise to each. They now took hold
heartily, and without scruple sat down around the fire to breakfast
with him. So when they had done breakfast, as men are usually best
disposed to be social after eating, he on this occasion addressed
himself to Peter in words of reproof, warning and commission. He first
inquired of him, “Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me more than these?”
To this Peter readily replied, “Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love
thee.” Jesus then said to him, “Feed my lambs.” Peter had learned some
humility by his late fall from truth and courage. Before, he had boldly
professed a regard for Christ, altogether surpassing in extent and
permanency the affection which the other disciples felt for him, and
had, in the fullness of his self-sufficiency, declared that though
all the rest should forsake him, yet would he abide by him, and follow
him even to prison and to death. But now that high self-confidence
had received a sad fall, and the remembrance of his late disgraceful
conduct was too fresh in his mind to allow him any more to assume that
tone of presumption. He therefore modestly confined his expression of
attachment to the simple and humble reference to the all-knowing heart
of his Divine Master, to which he solemnly and affectingly appealed as
his faithful witness in this assertion of new and entire devotion to
him, whom he had once so weakly denied and deserted. No more high-toned
boastings――no more arrogant assertion of superior pretensions to
fidelity and firmness; but a humble, submissive, beseeching utterance
of devoted love, that sought no comparisons to enhance its merit,
but in lowly confidence appealed to the searcher of hearts as the
undeceivable testifier of his honesty and truth. Nor was his deep and
renewed affection, thus expressed, disregarded; but Jesus accepting
his purified self-sacrifice, at once in the same words both offered
him the consoling pledge of his restoration to grace, and again
charged him with the high commission, which, while it proved his Lord’s
confidence, gave him the means of showing to all mankind the sincerity
and permanency of his change of heart. From the words of the Messiah’s
reply, he learned that the solid proof of his deserved restoration
should be seen in his devotion to the work which that Messiah had begun;
that by guiding, guarding and feeding the young and tender of Christ’s
flock, when left again without their Master, he might set forth his new
love. Already had Jesus, before that sad trial of their souls, in his
parting, warning words to his near and dear ones, told them, “If ye
keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love. Ye are my friends if
ye do whatsoever I command you. By this shall all men know that ye are
my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” And here, in practical
comment on that former precept, did he give his restored apostle this
test of unchanged love. So harmoniously and beautifully does the sacred
record make precept answer and accord with precept. In the minute
detail of mere common incident, we may wander and stagger bewildered
among insignificant differences and difficulties; but the rule of
action, the guide of life, leads steadily and clearly through every
maze, uneffaced by the changes of order, time and place.

  “_Boys._”――The Greek word here (παιδια _paidia_) has a neuter
  termination, and is applicable to persons of both sexes, like
  the English word “_children_,” which is here given in the common
  version. But Jerome’s Latin translation (the Vulgate) gives
  “_pueri_,” “boys,” as the just meaning in this place, and I
  have preferred it, as more in accordance with our usual forms of
  familiar address in such cases, than the one given in the common
  English version.

  _Great coat._――This I consider as giving a better idea of the
  garment called in the Greek επενδυτην, (_ependuten_,) which
  is derived from a verb which means “putting on over another
  garment,” and is of course described with more justice to the
  original by the English “_great-coat_,” or “over-coat,” than by
  “_fisher’s_ coat,” as in the common translation. I suppose it
  was a rough outer dress designed as a protection against rain
  and spray, and which he put on in such a way, that he might wade
  in it without the inconvenience of its hanging about his legs.
  It must have been a sort of “_over all_,” that he had pulled off
  while at work, and _put on_ to wade in the water; for the verb
  διαζωννυμι (_diazonnumi_) has also that meaning as well as “gird
  about,” and his object in thus “putting on his over alls” may
  have been to keep himself dry, by covering both his legs and
  body from the water; for it may have come down over the legs
  like a sort of outside trowsers, and being tied tight, would
  make a very comfortable protection against cold water. See Poole
  and Kuinoel on this passage, John xxi. 7.

  Luther in his German translation has very queerly expressed
  this word, “GUERTETE ER DAS HEMDE UM SICH,” “he girt his _shirt_
  about him;” being led into this error probably, by taking the
  following sentence in too strong a sense, concluding that he
  was perfectly _naked_. But I have already alluded (note on page
  101) to the peculiar force of this word in the Bible, nor can
  it mean anything but that he was without his outer garments;
  and it implies no more indecent exposure than in the case of
  Christ, when laying aside his garments to wash his disciples’
  feet. Besides, I have shown that the etymology of επενδυτης
  (_ependutes_) will not allow any meaning to it, but that of an
  “_outer_ garment” _worn over_ other clothes.

  _A little skiff._――The Greek word here is πλοιαριον,
  (_ploiarion_,) and means “a _small_ boat,” and is the diminution
  of πλοιον, (_ploion_,) the word used in the third verse of the
  same chapter, as the name of the larger vessel in which they
  sailed, and which probably drew too much water to come close
  to the shore in this part of the lake, where it was probably
  shallow, so as to make it necessary for them to haul the net
  ashore with this little skiff, which seems to have been a sort
  of drag-boat to the larger vessel, kept for landing in such
  places.

  “_Come and BREAKFAST._”――This is certainly a vast improvement
  on the common English version, which here gives the word
  “_dine_.” For it must strike an ordinary reader as a very early
  _dinner_ at that time of the morning, (John xix. 4,) and what
  settles the question is, that the Greek word here is αριστησατε,
  (_aristesate_,) which primarily and almost always was applied
  only to the eating of the earliest meal, or breakfast, being
  derived from αριστον, “breakfast,” the first meal in the day,
  according to Homer and Xenophon.

Many other unrecorded words of wisdom and love must have been spoken at
this time, in the course of which Jesus again took occasion to put this
meaning and moving question, “Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me?” The
first answer of Peter had sufficiently shown, that he had no more of
that disposition to claim a merit superior to his fellow disciples, and
Jesus did not again urge upon him a comparison with them, but merely
renewed the inquiry in a simple, absolute form. Again Peter earnestly
expressed his love, with the same appeal to Christ’s own knowledge of
his heart for the testimony of his loyalty, “Yea, Lord, thou knowest
that I love thee.” He saith to him, “Feed my sheep.” If thou lovest
me, show that love, by supplying the place of my earthly care, to those
whom I love. Love and feed those for whom I have bled and died.――What
could be more simple and clear than this question? What more earnest
and honest than the answer? What more abiding than the impression made
by this charge? Yet did not the far-seeing Savior desist from trying
his disciple with these questions. Once more was it solemnly repeated,
“Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me?” Peter was grieved that he asked
him the third time, “lovest thou me?” He saw at last the reproachful
meaning of the inquiry. Three times had this same apostle, by his
false-hearted denial, renounced all love and interest in his Master,
and three times did that injured and forgiving Master call upon him
to pledge again his forfeited faith and affection. He thus pointed
out the past weakness of Peter, and showed the means of maintaining
and insuring future fidelity. Peter again still more movingly avowed
his honest attachment, half remonstrating at this repetition of the
question by one who must already know the heart of the answerer too
fully for words to inform him anew.――“Lord, thou knowest all things;
thou knowest that I love thee.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”
He now passed on to a new prediction of his future fortunes, in the
service to which he had in these words devoted him, making known to
him the earthly reward which his services would at last receive. “I
solemnly say to thee, when thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and
walkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt
stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee
whither thou wouldest not.” This he said, to signify to him by what
sort of death he should glorify God. That is, he in these words plainly
foretold to him that he should, through all his toils and dangers in
his Master’s service, survive to old age; and he also alludes to the
loss of free agency in his own movements; but the circumstances are so
darkly alluded to, that the particular mode of his death could never
be made to appear clearly from the prediction. The particular meaning
of the expressions of this prophecy, can of course be best shown in
connection with the circumstances of his death, as far as they are
known; and to that part of his history the explanations are deferred.

After this solemn prediction, he said to him, “Follow me.” This command
seems not to have any connection, as some have supposed, with the
preceding words of Jesus referring to his future destiny, but to be a
mere direction to follow him on his return from the lake, either back
to Capernaum, or to the mountain appointed for his meeting with the
great body of his disciples. From what comes after this in the context,
indeed, this would seem to be a fair construction; for it is perfectly
plain that as Christ said these words, he turned and walked away; and
that not only Peter followed at the direction of Christ, but also John
of his own accord,――and it is perfectly natural to suppose that the
greater part of the disciples would choose to walk after Jesus, when
they had met under such delightful and unexpected circumstances; only
leaving somebody to take care of the boats and fish. Peter following
his Lord as he was commanded, turned around to see who was next to him,
and seeing John, was instantly seized with a desire to know the future
fortunes of this apostle, who shared with him the highest confidence
of his Master, and was even before him in his personal affections. He
accordingly asked, “Lord, and what shall this man do?” or more properly,
“What shall become of this man?” But the answer of Jesus was not at
all calculated to satisfy his curiosity, though it seemed, in checking
his inquiries, to intimate darkly, that this young apostle would
outlive him, and be a witness of the events which had been predicted in
connection with the destruction of Jerusalem, and the second coming of
Christ in judgment on his foes of the Jewish nation. This interesting
scene here abruptly closes,――the Savior and his followers passing off
this spot to the places where he remained with them during the rest of
the few days of his appearance after his resurrection.

  _The mountain appointed for his meeting_, &c.――It would be
  hard to settle the locality of this mountain with so few data
  as we have, but a guess or two may be worth offering. Grotius
  concludes it to have been Mount Tabor, “where,” as he says,
  “Jesus formerly gave the three a taste of his majesty;” but
  I have fully shown, on much better authority, that Tabor was
  _not_ the mount of the transfiguration; nor can we value highly
  the fact, that “habet veteris famae auctoritatem,” for we have
  abundant reason to think that in such matters, “the authority of
  ancient tradition” is not worth much.

  There are better reasons, however, for believing Tabor to have
  been the mountain in Galilee, where Christ met his disciples.
  These are, the fact that it was near the lake where he seems to
  have been just before, and was in the direction of some of his
  former places of resort, and was near the homes of his disciples.
  None of the objections that I brought against its being the
  mount of the transfiguration, can bear against this supposition,
  but on similar grounds I now _agree_ with the common notion.

  Paulus suggests Mount Carmel, as a very convenient place for
  such a meeting of so many persons who wished to assemble unseen,
  it being full of caverns, in which they might assemble out of
  view; while Tabor is wholly open (GANZ OFFEN) and exposed to
  view; for it is evident that all the exhibitions of Christ to
  his disciples after his resurrection, were very secret. For this
  reason Rosenmueller remarks, that Jesus probably appointed some
  mountain which was lonely and destitute of inhabitants, for the
  meeting. But Tabor is, I should think, sufficiently retired for
  the privacy which was so desirable, and certainly is capable
  of accommodating a great number of persons on its top, so that
  they could not be seen from below. The objection to Carmel is,
  that it was a great distance off, on the sea coast, and should
  therefore be rejected for the same reasons which caused us to
  reject Tabor for the transfiguration.


                            THE ASCENSION.

The only one of his other interviews with them, to which we can follow
them, is the last, when he stood with them at Bethany, on the eastern
slope of Mount Olivet, about a mile from Jerusalem, where he passed
away from their eyes to the glory now consummated by the complete
events of his life and death. Being there with them, he commanded them
not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promised Comforter
from the Father, of which he had so often spoken to them. “For John
truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy
Ghost not many days hence.” Herein he expressed a beautiful figure,
powerfully impressive to them, though to most common perceptions
perhaps, not so obvious. In the beginning of those bright revelations
of the truth which had been made to that age, John, the herald and
precursor of a greater preacher, had made a bold, rough outset in
the great work of evangelization. The simple, striking truths which
he brought forward, were forcibly expressed in the ceremony which he
introduced as the sign of conversion; as the defilements of the body
were washed away in the water, so were the deeper pollutions of the
soul removed by the inward cleansing effected by the change which
followed the full knowledge and feeling of the truth. The gross and
tangible liquid which he made the sign of conversion, was also an
emblem of the rude and palpable character of the truths which he
preached; so too, the final token which the apostles of Jesus, when at
last perfectly taught and equipped, should receive as the consecrated
and regenerated leaders of the gospel host, was revealed in a form and
in a substance as uncontrollably and incalculably above the heavy water,
as their knowledge, and faith, and hope were greater than the dim
foreshadowing given by the baptist, of good things to come. Water is a
heavy fluid, capable of being seen, touched, tasted, weighed and poured;
it has all the grosser and more palpable properties of matter. But
the air is, even to us, and seemed more particularly to the ancients,
beyond the apprehension of most of the senses, by which the properties
of bodies are made known to man. We cannot see it, or at least are not
commonly conscious of its visibility; yet we feel its power to terrify,
and to comfort, and see the evidences of its might in the ruins of
many of the works of man and of nature, which oppose its movements. The
sources of its power too, seem to a common eye, to be within itself,
and when it rises in storms and whirlwind, its motions seem like the
capricious volitions of a sentient principle within it. But water,
whenever it moves, seems only the inanimate mass which other agents put
in motion. The awful dash of the cataract is but the continued fall of
a heavy body impelled by gravity, and even “when the myriad voices of
ocean roar,” the mighty cause of the storm is the unseen power of the
air, which shows its superiority in the scale of substances, by setting
in terrible and overwhelming motion the boundless deep, that, but
for this viewless and resistless agency, would forever rest, a level
plain, without a wrinkle on its face. To the hearers of Christ more
particularly, the air in its motions, was a most mysterious agency,――a
connecting link between powers material and visible, and those too
subtle for any thing but pure thought to lay hold of. “The wind blew
where it would, and they heard the sound thereof, but could not tell
whence it came or whither it went.” They might know that it blew from
the north toward the south, or from the east toward the west, or the
reverse of these; but the direction from which it came could not point
out to them the place where it first arose, in its unseen power, to
pass over the earth,――a source of ceaseless wonder, to the learned and
unlearned alike. This was the mighty and mysterious agency which Jesus
Christ now chose as a fit emblem to represent in language, to his
apostles, that power from on high so often promised. Yet clear as
was this image, and often as he had warned them of the nature of the
duties for which this power was to fit them,――in spite of all the deep
humiliation which their proud earthly hopes had lately suffered, there
were still in their hearts, deep-rooted longings after the restoration
of the ancient dominion of Israel, in which they once firmly expected
to share. So their question on hearing this charge and renewed promise
of power hitherto unknown, was, “Lord, wilt thou not at this time
restore the kingdom to Israel?” Would not this be a satisfactory
completion of that triumph just achieved over the grave, to which the
vain malice of his foes had sent him? Could his power to do it be now
be doubted? Why then, should he hesitate at what all so earnestly and
confidently hoped? But Jesus was not to be called down from heaven to
earth on such errands, nor detained from higher glories by such prayers.
He knew that this last foolish fancy of earthly dominion was to pass
away from their minds forever, as soon as they had seen the event for
which he had now assembled them. He merely said to them, “It is not for
you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has appointed,
according to his own judgment.” Jesus knew that, though the minds of
his disciples were not then sufficiently prepared to apprehend the
nature of his heavenly kingdom, yet they, after his departure, becoming
better instructed and illuminated by a clearer light of knowledge,
would of their own accord, lay aside that preconceived notion about his
earthly reign, and would then become fully impressed with those things
of which he had long before warned them, while they were still in the
enjoyment of his daily teachings. Being now about to bid them farewell,
――lest by entirely cutting off their present hope, he might for a
time overwhelm them,――he so moderated his answer, as not to extinguish
utterly all hope of the kingdom expected by them, nor yet give them
reason to think that such a dominion as they hoped for, was to be
established. He therefore, to their inquiries whether he would at that
time restore the ancient kingdom of Israel, replied that it was not
for them to know the times which the Father had reserved in his own
counsels, for the completion of that event. But he went on to inform
them of something which _was_ for them to know. “You shall receive
power, when the Holy Ghost shall have come upon you; and you shall be
witnesses of these things for me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea,
and in Samaria, and even to the farthest parts of the earth.” And when
he had spoken these things, he was taken away from them as they were
looking at him, for a cloud received him out of their sight. And while
they looked earnestly towards heaven, as he went up, behold, two men
stood by them in white apparel, and said, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand
ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus who is taken up from you
into heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen him go into
heaven.” They now understood that they had parted from their loved
Master forever, in earthly form; yet the consolations afforded by this
last promise of the attendant spirits, were neither few nor small. To
bring about that bright return, in whose glories they were to share,
was the great task to which they devoted their lives; and they went
back to Jerusalem, sorrowful indeed for the removal of their great
guide and friend, but not sorrowing as those who have no hope.

  _To Bethany._――This place was on the Mount of Olives, probably
  near its summit, and perhaps within sight of Jerusalem. See
  notes on pp. 90 and 95.

Here ceased their course of instruction under their Divine Master;
laying down their character as _Disciples_, they now took up the higher
dignity, responsibility and labors of _Apostles_. Here too ceases the
record of “PETER’S DISCIPLESHIP;”――no longer a _learner_ and _follower_
of any one on earth, he is exalted to the new duties and dangers of
the APOSTLESHIP, of which the still more interesting story here begins;
and he must henceforth bear the new character and title of “Peter the
_teacher_ and _leader_.”




                       II. PETER’S APOSTLESHIP;
                                  OR
                     PETER THE TEACHER AND LEADER.


                            THE PENTECOST.

After the ascension, all the apostles seem to have removed their
families and business from Galilee, and to have made Jerusalem their
permanent abode. From this time no more mention is made of any part of
Galilee as the home of Peter or his friends; and even the lake, with
its cities, so long hallowed by the presence and the deeds of the son
of man, was thenceforth entirely left to the low and vulgar pursuits
which the dwellers of that region had formerly followed upon it,
without disturbance from the preaching and the miracles of the Nazarene.
The apostles finding themselves in Jerusalem the object of odious, or
at best of contemptuous notice from the great body of the citizens,
being known as Galileans and as followers of the crucified Jesus,
therefore settled themselves in such a manner as would best secure
their comfortable and social subsistence. When they came back to the
city from Galilee, (having parted from their Master on the Olive mount,
about a mile off,) they went up into a chamber in a private house,
where all the eleven passed the whole time, together with their
wives, and the women who had followed Jesus, and with Mary, the
mother of Jesus, and his brethren. These all continued with one accord
in this place, with prayer and supplication, at the same time no
doubt comforting and instructing one another in those things, of
which a knowledge would be requisite or convenient for the successful
prosecution of their great enterprise, on which they were soon to
embark. In the course of these devout and studious pursuits, the
circumstances and number of those enrolled by Christ in the apostolic
band, became naturally a subject of consideration and discussion, and
they were particularly led to notice the gap made among them, by the
sad and disgraceful defection of Judas Iscariot. This deficiency the
Savior had not thought of sufficient importance to need to be filled
by a nomination made by him, during the brief period of his stay among
them after his resurrection, when far more weighty matters called
his attention. It was their wish however, to complete their number
as originally constituted by their Master, and in reference to the
immediate execution of this pious and wise purpose, Peter, as their
leader, forcibly and eloquently addressed them, when not less than one
hundred and twenty were assembled. The details of his speech, and the
conclusion of the business, are deferred to the account of the lives of
those persons who were the subjects of the transaction. In mentioning
it now, it is only worth while to notice, that Peter here stands most
distinctly and decidedly forward, as the director of the whole affair,
and such was his weight in the management of a matter so important,
that his words seem to have had the force of law; for without further
discussion, commending the decision to God in prayer, they adopted
the action suggested by him, and filled the vacancy with the person
apparently designated by God. In the faithful and steady confidence
that they were soon to receive, according to the promise of their risen
Lord, some new and remarkable gift from above, which was to be to them
at once the seal of their divine commission, and their most important
equipment for their new duties, the apostles waited in Jerusalem until
the great Jewish feast of the pentecost. This feast is so named from a
Greek word meaning “_fiftieth_,” because it always came on the fiftieth
day after the day of the passover feast. Jesus had finally disappeared
from his disciples about forty days after his resurrection,――that is
forty-two days after the great day of the passover, which will leave
just one week for the time which passed between the ascension and the
day of pentecost. These seven days the apostolic assembly had passed
in such pursuits as might form the best preparation for the great event
they were expecting. Assembled in their sacred chamber, they occupied
themselves in prayer and exhortation. At length the great feast
arrived, on which the Jews, according to the special command of Moses,
commemorated the day, on which of old God gave the law to their fathers,
on Mount Sinai, amid thunder and lightning. On this festal occasion,
great numbers of Jews who had settled in different remote parts of the
world, were in the habit of coming back to their father-land, and their
holy city, to renew their devotion in the one great temple of their
ancient faith, there to offer up the sacrifices of gratitude to their
fathers’ God, who had prospered them even in strange lands among the
heathen. The Jews were then, as now, a wandering, colonizing people
wherever they went, yet remained perfectly distinct in manners, dress
and religion, never mixing in marriage with the people among whom
they dwelt, but every where bringing up a true Israelitish race, to
worship the God of Abraham with a pure religion, uncontaminated by
the idolatries around them. There was hardly any part of the world,
where Roman conquest had planted its golden eagles, to which Jewish
mercantile enterprise did not also push its adventurous way, in the
steady pursuit of gainful traffic. The three grand divisions of the
world swarmed with these faithful followers of the true law of God, and
from the remotest regions, each year, gathered a fresh host of pilgrims,
who came from afar, many for the first time, to worship the God of
their fathers in their fathers’ land. Amid this fast gathering throng,
the feeble band of the apostles, unknown and unnoticed, were assembled
in their usual place of meeting, and employed in their usual devout
occupations. Not merely the twelve, but all the friends of Christ in
Jerusalem, to the number of one hundred and twenty, were here awaiting,
in prayer, the long promised Comforter from the Father. All of a sudden,
the sound of a mighty wind, rushing upon the building, roared around
them, and filled the apartments with its appalling noise, rousing them
from the religious quiet to which they had given themselves up. Nor
were their ears alone made sensible of the approach of some strange
event. In the midst of the gathering gloom which the wind-driven clouds
naturally spread over all, flashes of light were seen by them, and
lambent flames playing around, lighted at last upon them. At once
the anxious prayers with which they had awaited the coming of the
Comforter, were hushed: they needed no longer to urge the fulfilment
of their Master’s word; for in the awful rush of that mighty wind,
they recognized the voice they had so long expected, and in that solemn
sound, they knew the tone of the promised Spirit. The approach of
that feast-day must have raised their expectations of this promised
visitation to the highest pitch. They knew that this great national
festival was celebrated in commemoration of the giving of the old law
on Mount Sinai to their fathers, through Moses, and that no occasion
could be more appropriate or impressive for the full revelation of the
perfect law which the last restorer of Israel had come to teach and
proclaim. The ancient law had been given on Sinai, in storm and thunder
and fire; when therefore, they heard the roar of the mighty wind about
them, the firm conviction of the approach of their new revelation must
have possessed their minds at once. They saw too, the dazzling flash
of flame among them, and perceived, with awe, strange masses of light,
in the shape of tongues, settling with a tremulous motion on the head
of each of them. The tempest and the fire were the symbols of God’s
presence on Sinai of old, and from the same signs joined with these
new phenomena, they now learned that the aid of God was thus given to
equip them with the powers and energies needful for their success in
the wider publication of the doctrine of Christ. With these tokens of
a divine presence around them, their feelings and thoughts were raised
to the highest pitch of joy and exultation; and being conscious of a
new impulse working in them, they were seized with a sacred glow of
enthusiasm, so that they gave utterance to these new emotions in words
as new to them as their sensations, and spoke in different languages,
praising God for this glorious fulfilment of his promise, as this holy
influence inspired them.

  _An upper room._――The location of this chamber has been the
  subject of a vast quantity of learned discussion, a complete
  view of which would far exceed my limits. The great point mooted
  has been, whether this place was in a private house or in the
  temple. The passage in Luke xxiv. 53, where it is said that the
  apostles “were continually in the temple, praising and blessing
  God,” has led many to suppose that the same writer, in this
  continuation of the gospel story, must have had reference to
  some part of the temple, in speaking of the upper room as the
  place of their abode. In the Acts ii. 46, also, he has made
  a similar remark, which I can best explain when that part of
  the story is given. The learned Krebsius (Observationes in
  Novvm Testamentvm e Flavio Iosepho, pp. 162‒164) has given a
  fine argument, most elegantly elaborated with quotations from
  Josephus, in which he makes it apparently quite certain from
  the grammatical construction, and from the correspondence of
  terms with Josephus’s description of the temple, that this upper
  room must have been there. It is true, that Josephus mentions
  particularly a division of the inner temple, on the upper side
  of it, under the name of ὑπερῳον, (_hyperoon_,) which is the
  word used by Luke in this passage, but Krebsius in attempting
  to prove this to be a place in which the disciples might be
  constantly assembled, has made several errors in the plan of the
  later temple, which I have not time to point out, since there
  are other proofs of the impossibility of their meeting there,
  which will take up all the space I can bestow on the subject.
  Krebsius has furthermore overlooked entirely the following part
  of the text in Acts i. 13, where it is said, that when they
  returned to Jerusalem, “they went up into an upper room _where
  they had been staying_,” in Greek, οὑ ησαν καταμενοντες,
  (_hou esan katamenontes_,) commonly translated “they _abode_.”
  The true force of this use of the present participle with the
  verb of existence is _repeated_ action, as is frequently true
  of the imperfect of that verb in such combinations. Kuinoel
  justly gives it this force,――“_ubi commorari_ sive _convenire
  solebant_.” But the decisive proof against the notion that this
  room was in the temple, is this. In specifying the persons there
  assembled, it is said, (Acts i. 14,) that the disciples were
  assembled there with the _women_ of the company. Now it is most
  distinctly specified in all descriptions of the temple, that
  the women were always limited to one particular division of the
  temple, called the “women’s court.” Josephus is very particular
  in specifying this important fact in the arrangements of the
  temple. (Jewish War, V. 5. 2.) “A place on this part of the
  temple specially devoted to the religious use of the women,
  being entirely separated from the rest by a wall, it was
  necessary that there should be another entrance to this. * * *
  There were on the other sides of this place two gates, one on
  the north and one on the south, through which the court of the
  women was entered; for women were not allowed to enter through
  any others.” (Also V. 5, 6.) “But women, even when pure, were
  not allowed to pass within the limit before mentioned.” This
  makes it evident beyond all doubt, that women could never be
  allowed to assemble with men in this upper chamber within the
  forbidden precincts, to which indeed it was impossible for them
  to have access, entering the temple through two private doors,
  and using only one court, which was cut off by an impenetrable
  wall, from all communication with any other part of the sacred
  inclosure.

  This seems to me an argument abundantly sufficient to upset all
  that has ever been said in favor of the location of this upper
  apartment within the temple; and my only wonder is, that so many
  learned critics should have perplexed themselves and others with
  various notions about the matter, when this single fact is so
  perfectly conclusive.

  The _upper room_, then, must have been in some private house,
  belonging to some wealthy friend of Christ, who gladly received
  the apostles within his walls. Every Jewish house had in
  its upper story a large room of this sort, which served as
  a dining-room, (Mark xiv. 15: Luke xxii. 12,) a parlor, or
  an oratory for private or social worship. (See Bloomfield’s
  Annotations, Acts i. 13.) Some have very foolishly supposed this
  to have been the house of Simon the leper, (Matthew xxvi. 6,)
  but his house was in Bethany, and therefore by no means answers
  the description of their entering it after their return to
  Jerusalem from Bethany. Others, with more probability, the house
  of Nicodemus, the wealthy Pharisee; but the most reasonable
  supposition, perhaps, is that of Beza, who concludes this to
  have been the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, which
  we know to have been afterwards used as a place of religious
  assembly. (Acts xii. 12.) Others have also, with some reason,
  suggested that this was no doubt the same “upper room furnished,”
  in which Jesus had eaten the last supper with his disciples.
  These two last suppositions are not inconsistent with each other.

  _Tongues of fire._――This is a classic Hebrew expression for
  “a lambent flame,” and is the same used by Isaiah, (v. 24,)
  where the Hebrew is לשון אש (_leshon esh_,) “a tongue of fire;”
  ――commonly translated, simply “fire.” In that passage there
  seems to be a sort of poetical reference to the tongue, as an
  organ used in devouring food, (“as the tongue of fire devoureth
  the stubble,”) but there is abundant reason to believe that the
  expression was originally deduced from the natural similitude of
  a rising flame to a tongue, being pointed and flexible, as well
  as waving in its outlines, and playing about with a motion like
  that of licking, whence the Latin expression of “a _lambent_
  flame,”――from _lambo_, “lick.” Wetstein aptly observes, that
  a flame of fire, in the form of a divided tongue, was a sign
  of the gift of tongues, corresponding to the Latin expression
  _bilinguis_, and the Greek διγλωσος, (_diglossos_,) “two-tongued,”
  as applied to persons skilled in a plurality of languages. He
  also with his usual classic richness, gives a splendid series of
  quotations illustrative of this idea of a lambent flame denoting
  the presence of divine favor, or inspiration imparted to the
  person about whom the symbol appeared. Bloomfield copies these
  quotations, and also draws illustrations in point, from other
  sources.

  My own opinion of the _nature_ of this whole phenomenon is
  that of Michaelis, Rosenmueller, Paulus and Kuinoel,――that a
  tremendous tempest actually descended at the time, bringing down
  clouds highly charged with electricity, which was not discharged
  in the usual mode, by thunder and lightning, but quietly
  streamed from the air to the earth, and wherever it passed from
  the air upon any tolerable conductor, it made itself manifest
  in the darkness occasioned by the thick clouds, in the form
  of those pencils of rays, with which every one is familiar who
  has seen electrical experiments in a dark room; and which are
  well described by the expression, “cloven tongues of fire.”
  The temple itself being covered and spiked with gold, the best
  of all conductors, would quietly draw off a vast quantity of
  electricity, which, passing through the building, would thus
  manifest itself on those within the chambers of the temple, if
  we may suppose the apostles to have been there assembled. These
  appearances are very common in peculiar electrical conditions
  of the air, and there are many of my readers, no doubt, who have
  seen them. At sea, they are often seen at night on the ends of
  the masts and yards, and are well known to sailors by the name
  which the Portuguese give them, “corpos santos,”――“holy bodies,”
  ――connecting them with some popish superstitions. A reference
  to the large quotations given by Wetstein and Bloomfield, will
  show that this display at the pentecost is not the only occasion
  on which these electric phenomena were connected with spiritual
  mysteries. No one would have the slightest hesitation in
  explaining these passages in other credible historians, by this
  physical view; and I know no rule in logic or common sense,――no
  religious doctrine or theological principle, which compels me
  to explain two precisely similar phenomena of this character,
  in two totally different ways, because one of them is found
  in a heathen history, and the other in a sacred and inspired
  record. The vehicle thus chosen was not unworthy of making
  the peculiar manifestation of the presence of God, and of the
  outpouring of his spirit;――nor was it an unprecedented mode of
  his display. The awful thunder which shook old Sinai, and the
  lightnings which dazzled the eyes of the amazed Israelites,
  were real thunder and lightning, nor will an honest and reverent
  interpretation of the sacred text allow us to pronounce them
  acoustical and optical delusions. If they were real thunder
  and lightning, they were electrical discharges, and cannot be
  conceived of in any other way. Why should we hesitate at the
  notion that He who “holds the winds in the hollow of his hand,”
  and “makes a way for the lightning of thunder,” should use these
  same awful instruments as the symbols of his presence, to strike
  awe into the hearts of men, making the physical the token of
  the moral power; and accomplishing the deep prophetic meaning
  of the solemn words of the Psalmist, “He walks upon the wings of
  the wind――he makes the winds his messengers――the lightnings his
  ministers.” For this is the just translation of Psalm civ. 4.
  See Lowth, Clarke, Whitby, Calmet, Thomson, &c. But Jaspis,
  Bloomfield, Stuart, &c., support the common version.

  _Were all assembled_, &c.――It has been questioned whether
  this term, “_all_,” refers to the one hundred and twenty, or
  merely to the apostles, who are the persons mentioned in the
  preceding verse, (Acts i. 26, ii. 1,) and to whom it might
  be grammatically limited. There is nothing to hinder the
  supposition that all the brethren were present, and Chrysostom,
  Jerome, Augustine and other ancient fathers, confirm this view.
  The place in which they met, need not, of course, be the same
  where the events of the preceding chapter occurred, but was
  very likely some one of the thirty apartments, (οικοι, _oikoi_,
  Josephus, Antiquities, viii. 3. 2,) which surrounded the inner
  court of the temple, where the apostles might very properly
  assemble at the third hour, which was the hour of morning
  prayer, and which is shown in verse 15, to have been the time
  of this occurrence. Besides, it is hard to conceive of this vast
  concourse of persons (verse 41,) as occurring in any other place
  than the temple, in whose vast and thronged courts it might
  easily happen, for Josephus says “that the apartments around
  the courts opened into each other,” ησαν δια αλληλων, “and
  there were entrances to them on both sides, from the gate of
  the temple,” thus affording a ready access on any sudden noise
  attracting attention towards them.

  _Foreign Jews staying in Jerusalem._――The phrase “dwelling,”
  (Acts ii. 5,) in the Greek κατοικουντες, (_katoikountes_,) does
  not necessarily imply a fixed residence, as Wolf and others
  try to make it appear, but is used in the LXX. in the sense of
  temporary residence; and seems here to be applied to foreign
  Jews, who chose to remain there, from the passover to the
  pentecost, but whose _home_ was not in Jerusalem; for the
  context speaks of them as dwellers in Mesopotamia, &c. (verse 9.)
  A distinction is also made between two sorts of Jews among those
  who had come from Rome,――the Jews by birth and the proselytes,
  (verse 10,) showing that the Mosaic faith was flourishing, and
  making converts from the Gentiles there.


                            PETER’S SERMON.

This wonderful event took place in the chamber of the temple, which
they had used as a place of worship ever since their Lord’s departure.
As the whole temple was now constantly thronged with worshipers, who
were making their offerings on this great feast day, this room in which
the followers of Jesus were devoutly employed, must, as well as all the
others, have been visited by new comers: for the mere prior occupation
of the room by the disciples, could not entitle them to exclude from
a public place of that kind any person who might choose to enter. The
multitude of devotees who filled all parts of the temple, soon heard of
what was going on in this apartment, and came together to see and hear
for themselves. When the inquiring crowds reached the spot, they found
the followers of Christ breaking out in loud expressions of praise to
God, and of exhortation, each in such a language as best suited his
powers of expression, not confining themselves to the Hebrew, which in
all places of public worship, and especially in Jerusalem on the great
festivals, was the only language of devotion. Among the crowds that
thronged to the place of this strange occurrence, were Jews from many
distant regions, whose language or dialects were as widely various as
the national names which they bore. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites,
――those who dwelt in Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia,
Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt and Africa, and some even from distant
Rome, were all among those who heard the spirit-moving language of the
disciples. Some of the more scrupulous among these foreign Jews, were
probably, notwithstanding their amazement, somewhat offended at this
profanation of worship, in the public use of these heathen languages
for the purposes of devotion; and with a mixture of wonder and
displeasure they asked, “Are not all these men who are talking in these
various languages, Galileans? How then are they able to show such an
immense diversity of expression, so that all of us, even those from
the most distant countries, hear them in our various languages, setting
forth the praises of God?” And they were all surprised and perplexed,
and said one to another, “What will this come to?” But to some who
were present, the whole proceeding was so little impressive, and had
so little appearance of anything miraculous, that they were moved only
to expressions of contempt, and said, in a tone of ridicule, “These
men are drunk on sweet wine.” This seems to show that to them there
was no conclusive evidence of Divine agency in this speaking in various
languages; and they, no doubt, supposed that among these Galileans
were foreigners also from many other parts of the world, who, mingling
with Christ’s disciples, had joined in their devotions, and caught
their enthusiasm. Seeing this assembly thus made up, now occupied in
speaking violently and confusedly in these various languages, they at
once concluded that they were under the influence of some artificial
exhilarant, and supposed that during this great festal occasion
they had been betrayed into some unseasonable jollity, and were now
under the excitement of hard drinking. Such as took this cool view
of the matter, therefore, immediately explained the whole by charging
the excited speakers with drunkenness. But Peter, on hearing this
scandalous charge, rose up, as the leader and defender of these objects
of public notice, and repelled the contemptuous suggestion that he and
his companions had been abusing the occasion of rational religious
enjoyment, to the purposes of intemperate and riotous merriment.
Calling on all present for their attention, both foreign Jews and those
settled in Jerusalem, he told them that the violent emotions which had
excited their surprise could not be caused by wine, as it was then but
nine o’clock in the morning, and as they well knew, it was contrary to
all common habits of life to suppose that before that early hour, these
men could have been exposed to any such temptation. They knew that the
universal fashion of the devout Jews was to take no food whatever on
the great days of public worship, until after their return from morning
prayers in the temple. How then could these men, thus devoutly occupied
since rising, have found opportunity to indulge in intoxicating drinks?

Peter then proceeded to refer them for a more just explanation of this
strange occurrence, to the long recorded testimonies of the ancient
prophets, which most distinctly announced such powerful displays of
religious zeal and knowledge, as about to happen in those later days,
of which the present moment seemed the beginning. He quoted to them
a passage from Joel, which pointedly set forth these and many other
wonders with the distinctness of reality, and showed them how all these
striking words were connected with the fate of that Jesus whom they had
so lately sacrificed. He now, for the first time, publicly declared to
them, that this Jesus, whom they had vainly subjected to a disgraceful
death, had by the power of God been raised from the grave to a glorious
and immortal life. Of this fact he assured them that all the disciples
were the witnesses, having seen him with their own eyes after his
return to life. He now showed them in what manner the resurrection
of Jesus might be explained and illustrated by the words of David,
and how the psalm itself might be made to appear in a new light, by
interpreting it in accordance with these recent events. He concluded
this high-toned and forcible appeal to scripture and to fact, by
calling them imperatively to learn and believe. “Let all the house
of Israel know, then, that God has made this Jesus, whom you have
crucified, both Lord and Christ.” This declaration, thus solemnly
made and powerfully supported, in connection with the surprising
circumstances which had just occurred, had a most striking and
convincing effect on the hearers, and almost the whole multitude giving
way to their feelings of awe and compunction, being stung with the
remembrance of the share they had had in the murder of Jesus, cried out,
as with one voice, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter’s instant reply
was, “Change your mind, and be each one of you baptized to the name of
Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit.” That same divine influence, whose in-workings
had just been so wonderfully displayed before their eyes, was now
promised to them, as the seal of Christ’s acceptance of the offer of
themselves in the preliminary sign of baptism. To them and to their
children, upon whom, fifty days before, they had solemnly invoked the
curse of the murdered Redeemer’s blood, was this benignant promise of
pardoning love now made; and not only to them, but to all, however far
off in place or in feeling, whom their common Lord and God should call
to him. Inspired with the glorious prospect of success now opening
to him, and moved to new earnestness by their devout and alarmed
attention, Peter zealously went on, and spoke to them many other words,
of which the sacred historian has given us only the brief but powerful
concluding exhortation,――“Suffer yourselves to be saved from this
perverse generation,”――from those who had involved themselves and their
race in the evils resulting to them from their wicked rejection of
the truth offered by Jesus. The whole Jewish nation stood at that
time charged with the guilt of rejecting the Messiah; nor could any
individual be cleared from his share of responsibility for the crime,
except by coming out and distinctly professing his faith in Christ.


                        THE CHURCH’S INCREASE.

The success which followed Peter’s first effort in preaching the gospel
of his murdered and risen Lord, was most cheering. Those who heard him
on this occasion, gladly receiving his words, were baptized, and on
that same day converts to the number of three thousand were added to
the disciples. How must these glorious results, and all the events of
the day, have lifted up the hearts of the apostles, and moved them to
new and still bolder efforts in their great cause! They now knew and
felt the true force of their Master’s promise, that they should “be
indued with power from on high;” for what less than such power could
in one day have wrought such a change in the hearts of the haughty
Jews, as to make them submissive hearers of the followers of the lately
crucified Nazarene, and bring over such immense numbers of converts
to the new faith, as to swell the small and feeble band of disciples
to more than twenty times its former size? Nor did the impression made
on this multitude prove to be a mere transient excitement; for we are
assured that “they held steadily to the doctrine taught by the apostles,
and kept company with them in all their daily religious duties and
social enjoyments.” So permanent and complete was this change, as to
cause universal astonishment among those who had not been made the
subjects of it; and the number of those who heard the amazing story,
must have been so much the greater at that time, as there was then at
Jerusalem so large an assemblage of Jews from almost every part of the
civilized world. On this account, it seems to have been most wisely
ordered that this first public preaching of the Christian faith, and
this great manifestation of its power over the hearts of men, should
take place on this festal occasion, when its influence might at once
more widely and quickly spread than by any other human means. The
foreign Jews then at Jerusalem, being witnesses of these wonderful
things, would not fail, on their return home, to give the whole affair
a prominent place in their account of their pilgrimage, when they
recounted their various adventures and observations to their inquiring
friends. Among these visitors, too, were probably some who were
themselves on this occasion converted to the new faith, and each one of
these would be a sort of missionary, preaching Christ crucified to his
countrymen in his distant home, and telling them of a way to God, which
their fathers had not known. The many miracles wrought by the apostles,
as signs of their authority, served to swell the fame of the Christian
cause, and added new incidents to the fast-traveling and far-spreading
story, which, wherever it went, prepared the people to hear the
apostles with interest and respect, when, in obedience to their Lord’s
last charge, they should go forth to distant lands, preaching the
gospel.


                          PETER’S PROMINENCE.

This vast addition to the assembly of the disciples at Jerusalem, made
it necessary for the apostles to complete some farther arrangements, to
suit their enlarged circumstances; and at this period the first church
of Christ in the world seems to have so far perfected its organization
as to answer very nearly to the modern idea of a permanent religious
community. The church of Jerusalem was an individual worshiping
assembly, that at this time met daily for prayer and exhortation,
with twelve ministers who officiated as occasion needed, without
any order of service, as far as we know, except such as depended
on their individual weight of character, their natural abilities or
their knowledge of the doctrines of their Lord. Among these, the three
most favored by Christ’s private instructions would have a natural
pre-eminence, and above all, he who had been especially named as the
rock on which the church should be built, and as the keeper of the keys
of the kingdom, and had been solemnly and repeatedly commissioned as
the pastor and leader of the flock, would now maintain an undisputed
pre-eminence, unless he should by some actual misconduct prove himself
unworthy of the rank. Such a pre-eminence it is unquestionable that
Peter always did maintain among the apostles; and so decidedly too,
that on every occasion when any thing was to be said or done by
them as a body, Peter invariably stands out alone, as the undisputed
representative and head of the whole community. Indeed the whole
history of the apostles, after the ascension, gives but a single
instance in which the words of any one of the twelve besides Peter
are recorded, or where any one of them, except in that single case, is
named as having said any thing whatever. On every occasion of this sort,
the matters referred to were no more the concern of Peter than of any
other of the twelve, yet they all seem to have been perfectly satisfied
with quietly giving up the expression of their views to him. One
instance, indeed, occurs, in which some persons attempted to blame his
conduct when on a private mission, but even then his explanation of
his behavior hushed all complaint. Often, when he was publicly engaged
in the company of John, the most beloved of Jesus, and his faithful
witness, it would seem that if there was any assumption by Peter of
more than due importance, this distinguished son of Zebedee or his
equally honored brother would have taken such a share in speaking and
doing, as would have secured them an equal prominence. But no such low
jealousies ever appear to have arisen among the apostles; not one seems
to have had a thought about making himself an object of public notice,
but their common and unanimous care was to advance their great Master’s
cause, without reference to individual distinctions. Peter’s natural
force of character and high place in his Master’s confidence, justified
the ascendency which he on all public occasions claimed as his
indisputable right, in which the rest acquiesced without a murmur.


                       THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY.

In the constitution of the first church of Christ, there seems to
have been no other noticeable peculiarity, than the number of its
ministers, and even this in reality amounted to nothing; for the
decided pre-eminence and superior qualifications of Peter were such as,
in effect, to make him the sole pastor and preacher for a long time,
while the other apostles do not seem to have performed any duty much
higher than that of mere assistants to him, or exhorters, and perhaps
teachers. Still, not a day could pass when every one of them would not
be required to labor in some way for the gospel; and indeed the sacred
historian uniformly speaks of _them_ in the plural number, as laboring
together and alike in the common cause. Thus they went on quietly and
humbly laboring, with a pure zeal which was as indifferent to fame
and earthly honor, as to the acquisition or preservation of earthly
wealth. They are said to have held all things common, which is to be
understood, however, not as implying literally that the rich renounced
all individual right to what they owned, but that they stood ready to
provide for the needy to the full extent of their property, and in that
sense, all these pecuniary resources were made as _common_ as if they
were formally thrown into one public stock, out of which every man drew
as suited his own needs. To an ordinary reader, this passage, taken by
itself, might seem to convey fully the latter meaning; but a reference
to other passages, and to the whole history of the primitive Christians,
shows clearly, that a real and literal community of goods was totally
unknown to them, but that in the bold and free language of the age
and country, they are said to have “had all things in common,” just as
among us, a man may say to his friend, “My house is yours;――consider
every thing I have as your own property;” and yet no one would ever
construe this into a surrender of his individual rights of possession.
So the wealthy converts to the Christian faith sold their estates and
goods, as occasion required, for the sake of having ready money to
relieve the wants of those who had no means of support. Thus provided
for, the apostles steadily pursued their great work, passing the
greater part of every day in the temple; but taking their food at home,
they ate what was so freely and generously provided, with thankful and
unanxious hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people.
In these happy and useful employments they continued, every day finding
new sources of enjoyment and new encouragement, in the accession of
redeemed ones to their blessed community.

  _Taking their food at home._――This is my interpretation of
  κλωντες κατ’ οἶκον αρτον, (_klontes kat’ oikon arton_.) Acts ii.
  46, commonly translated “breaking bread from house to house,” a
  version which is still supported by many names of high authority;
  but the attendant circumstances here seem to justify this
  variation from them. A reference to the passage will show that
  the historian is speaking of their regular unanimous attendance
  in the temple, and says, “they attended every day with one
  accord in the temple,” that is, during the regular hours of
  daily worship, but as they would not suffer untimely devotion
  to interfere with their reasonable conveniences, he adds,
  “they broke bread,” (a Hebraistic form of expression for
  simply “taking food,”) “_at home_, and partook of their food
  in humility and thankfulness.” This seems to me, to require a
  sort of opposition in sense between ἱερον, (_hieron_,) “temple,”
  and οικος, (_oikos_,) “house” or “home,” for it seems as if
  the writer of the Acts wished in these few words, to give a
  complete account of the manner in which they occupied themselves,
  devoting all their time to public devotion in the temple except
  that, as was most seemly, they returned to their houses to take
  their ♦necessary food, which they did humbly and joyfully. But
  the _distributive_ force which some wish to put upon κατ’ οἶκον,
  by translating it “from house to house,” is one which does not
  seem to be required at all by any thing in the connection, and
  one which needs a vast deal of speculation and explanation to
  make it appear why they should go “from house to house,” about
  so simple a matter of fact as that of eating their victuals,
  which every man could certainly do to best advantage at one
  steady boarding-place. That the expression, κατ’ οἶκον, most
  commonly means “at home,” is abundantly proved by standard
  common Greek usage, as shown in the best Lexicons. But κατα,
  in connexion with a singular noun, has the _distributive_ force
  only when the noun itself is of such a character and connection
  in the sentence as to _require_ this meaning. Thus κατα μηνα,
  would hardly ever be suspected of any other meaning than
  “monthly,” or “every month,” or “from month to month;”――so κατα
  πολεις means “from city to city,” but the singular κατα πολιν,
  almost uniformly means “in a city,” without any distributive
  application, except where the other words in the sentence imply
  this idea. (Acts xv. 21: xx. 23.) But here the simple common
  meaning of the preposition κατα, when governing the accusative,
  (that is, the meaning of “at” or “in” a place,) is not merely
  allowed, but required by the other words in the connection, in
  order to give a meaning which requires no other explanation, and
  which corresponds to the word “temple” in the other clause; for
  the whole account seems to require an opposition in these words,
  as describing the two places where the disciples passed their
  time.

    ♦ “neeessary” replaced with “necessary”

  There are great names, however, opposed to this view, which seem
  enough to overpower almost any testimony that can be brought in
  defense of an interpretation which they reject. Among these are
  Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, Ernesti, and Bloomfield, whose very names
  will perhaps weigh more with many, than the hasty statement
  of the contrary view which I am able here to give. Yet I am
  not wholly without the support of high authorities; for De
  Dieu, Bengel, Heinrichs, Hammond, and Oecumenius, reject the
  _distributive_ sense here.


                       THE CURE OF THE CRIPPLE.

In the course of these regular religious observances, about the same
time or soon after the events just recorded, Peter and John went up to
the temple to pray, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the usual hour
for the second public prayers. As they went in at the outer gate of
the temple, which being made of polished Corinthian brass, was for its
splendor called the BEAUTIFUL, their attention was called to one of the
objects of pity which were so common on those great days of assembly,
about the common places of resort. A man, who, by universal testimony,
had been a cripple from his birth, was lying in a helpless attitude at
this public entrance, in order to excite the compassion of the crowds
who were constantly passing into the temple, and were in that place
so much under the influence of religious feeling as to be easily moved
by pity to exercise so prominent a religious duty as charity to the
distressed. This man seeing Peter and John passing in, asked aims of
them in his usual way. They both instantly turned their eyes towards
him, and looking earnestly on him, Peter said, “Look on us.” The
cripple, supposing from their manner that they were about to give
something to him, accordingly yielded them his interested attention.
Peter then said to him, “Silver and gold have I none, but I give thee
what I have; in the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, rise up and
walk.” As he said this, he took hold of the lame man and raised him;
and he at once was able to support himself erect. Leaping up in the
consciousness of strength, he stood and walked with them into the
temple, expressing thankfulness and joy as he went, both by motions
and words. The attention of the worshiping assembly in the great courts
of the temple was at once directed to this strange circumstance; for
all who had passed in at the gate, recognized this vivacious companion
of the two apostles, as the man who had all his life been a cripple,
without the power of voluntary locomotion, and they were utterly amazed
at his present altered condition and actions. As the recovered cripple,
leaning on Peter and John, still half doubting his new strength,
accompanied them on to the porch of Solomon, the whole multitude ran
after them thither, still in the greatest astonishment. All eyes were
at once turned to the two wonderful men who had caused this miraculous
change, and the astonishment which this deed had inspired must have
been mingled with awe and reverence. Here surely was an occasion to
test the honesty and sincerity of these followers of Christ, when they
saw the whole people thus unhesitatingly giving to them the divine
honor of this miraculous cure. What an opportunity for a calculating
ambition to secure power, favor, and renown! Yet, with all these
golden chances placed temptingly within their reach, they, so lately
longing for the honors of an earthly dominion, but now changed by the
inworkings of a purer spirit and a holier zeal, turned calmly and
firmly to the people, utterly disclaiming the honor and glory of the
deed, but rendering all the praise to their crucified Lord. Peter, ever
ready with eloquent words, immediately addressed the awe-struck throngs
who listened in silence to his inspired language, and distinctly
declared the merit of this action to belong not to him and his
companion, but to “that same Jesus, whom they, but a short time before,
had rejected and put to death as an impostor.” He then went on to
charge them boldly with the guilt of this murder, and summing up the
evidences and consequences of their crime, he called on them to repent,
and yield to this slain and risen Jesus the honors due to the Messiah.
It was his name which, through faith in his name, had made this
lame man strong, and restored him to all his bodily energies, in the
presence of them all. That name, too, would be equally powerful to save
them through faith, if they would turn to him, the prophet foretold
by Moses, by Samuel, and all the prophets that followed them, as the
restorer and leader of Israel, and through whom, as was promised to
Abraham, _all the families of the earth_ should be blest. But first
of all to them, the favored children of Abraham, did God send his
prophet-son, to bless them in turning away every one of them from their
iniquities.

  _The beautiful gate._――The learned Lightfoot has brought much
  deep research to bear on this point, as to the position of this
  gate and the true meaning of its name; yet he is obliged to
  announce the dubious result in the expressive words, “_In bivio
  hic stamus_,” (“_we here stand at a fork of the road_.”) The
  main difficulty consists in the ambiguous character of the word
  translated “beautiful,” in Greek, Ὡραιαν, (_horaian_,) which may
  have the sense of “splendid,” “beautiful,” or, in better keeping
  with its root, Ὡρα, (_hora_,) “time,” it may be made to mean
  the “gate of time.” Now, what favors the latter derivation and
  translation, is the fact that there actually was, as appears
  from the Rabbinical writings, a gate called Hhuldah, (חולדה)
  probably derived from חלד (_hheledh_) “age,” “time,” “life,”
  ――from the Arabic root خلد (_khaladh_) “endure,” “last,” so
  that it may mean “lasting or permanent.” There were two gates
  of this name distinguished by the terms _greater_ and _smaller_,
  both opening into the court of the Gentiles from the great
  _southern_ porch or colonnade, called the Royal colonnade.
  Through these, the common way from Jerusalem and from Zion led
  into the temple, and through these would be the natural entrance
  of the apostles into it. This great _royal porch_, also, where
  such vast numbers were passing, and which afforded a convenient
  shelter from the weather, would be a convenient place for a
  cripple to post himself in.

  There was, however, another gate, to which the epithet
  “_beautiful_” might with eminent justice be applied. This is
  thus described by Josephus. (Jewish War. book V. chapter 5,
  section 3.) “Of the gates, nine were overlaid with gold and
  silver,――* * * but there was one on the outside of the temple,
  made of Corinthian brass, which far outshone the plated and
  gilded ones.” This is the gate to which the passage is commonly
  supposed to refer, and which I have mentioned as the true one
  in the text, without feeling at all decided on the subject,
  however; for I certainly do think the testimony favors the gate
  Huldah, and the primary sense of the word Ὡραια seems to be best
  consulted by such a construction.

  _The porch of Solomon._――Στοα Σολομωνος, (_stoa Solomonos_.)
  This was the name commonly applied to the great eastern
  colonnade of the temple, which ran along on the top of the vast
  terrace which made the gigantic rampart of Mount Moriah, rising
  from the depth of six hundred feet out of the valley of the
  Kedron. (See note on page 94.) The Greek word, στοα, (_stoa_,)
  commonly translated “porch,” does not necessarily imply an
  entrance to a building, as is generally true of our modern
  _porches_, but was a general name for a “colonnade,” which is a
  much better expression for its meaning, and would always convey
  a correct notion of it; for its primary and universal idea is
  that of a row of columns running along the side of a building,
  and leaving a broad open space between them and the wall, often
  so wide as to make room for a vast assemblage of people beneath
  the ceiling of the architrave. That this was the case in this
  STOA, appears from Josephus’ description given in my note on
  page 95, section 1. The _stoa_ might be so placed as to be
  perfectly inaccessible from without, and thus lose all claim
  to the name of _porch_, with the idea of an entrance-way. This
  was exactly the situation and construction of Solomon’s _stoa_,
  which answers much better to our idea of a _gallery_, than of a
  porch. (See Donnegan, _sub voc._)

  It took the name of Solomon, from the fact that when the great
  temple of that magnificent king was burned and torn down by the
  Chaldeans, this eastern terrace, as originally constructed by
  him, was too vast, and too deeply based, to be easily made the
  subject of such a destroying visitation, and consequently was by
  necessity left a lasting monument of the strength and grandeur
  of the temple which had stood upon it. When the second temple
  was rebuilt, this vast terrace of course became again the great
  eastern foundation of the sacred pile, but received important
  additions to itself, being strengthened by higher and broader
  walls, and new accessions of mounded earth; while over its long
  trampled and profaned pavement, now beautified and renewed with
  splendid Mosaic, rose the mighty range of gigantic snow-white
  marble columns, which gave it the name and character of a STOA
  or _colonnade_, and filled the country for a vast distance with
  the glory of its pure brightness. (See note on page 95. See
  also Lightfoot, Disquisit. Chor. cap. vi. § 2.) Josephus further
  describes it, explaining the very name which Luke uses. “And
  this was a colonnade of the outer temple, standing over the
  verge of a deep valley, on walls four hundred cubits in highth,
  built of hewn stones perfectly white,――the length of each stone
  being twenty cubits, and the highth six. _It was the work of_
  SOLOMON, who first built the whole temple.” (Josephus,
  Antiquities, XX. viii. 7.)


                  THE FIRST SEIZURE OF THE APOSTLES.

While the apostles were thus occupied in speaking words of wisdom to
the attentive people, they were suddenly interrupted by the entrance of
the guards of the temple, who, under the command of their captain, came
up to the apostles, and seizing them in the midst of their discourse,
dragged them away to prison, where they were shut up, for examination
on the next day, before the civil and ecclesiastical court of the Jews.
This act of violence was committed by order of the priests who had the
care of the temple, more immediately instigated by the Sadducees, who
were present with the priests and guards when the arrest was made. The
reason why this sect, in general not active in persecuting Jesus and
his followers, were now provoked to this act of unusual hostility,
was, that the apostles were now preaching a doctrine directly opposed
to the main principles of Sadducism. The assertion that Jesus had
actually risen from the dead, so boldly made by the apostles, must,
if the people believed it, entirely overthrow their confidence in the
Sadducees, who absolutely denied the existence of a spirit, and the
possibility of a resurrection of the dead. It was now evening, and
the apostles being thus dragged away abruptly, in the midst of their
discourse, the people were obliged to disperse for the night, without
hearing all that the speakers had intended to say; yet even the
fragment of discourse which they had heard, was not without a mighty
effect. So convincing and moving were these few words of Peter, and
so satisfactory was the evidence of the miracle, that almost the whole
multitude of hearers and beholders seems to have come over in a mass
to the faith of Christ; for converts to the astonishing number of five
thousand are mentioned by the sacred historian, who all professed their
belief in Jesus, as the resurrection and the life, and the healing.

  _The guards of the temple_, &c.――This was the same set of men
  above described, as made up of the Levite porters and watchmen
  of the temple. See note on page 111. Also Lightfoot Horae
  Hebraica in Acts iv. 1.――Rosenmueller, ibid. and Kuinoel.
  But Hammond has made the mistake of supposing this to be a
  detachment of the Roman garrison.


                          THEIR FIRST TRIAL.

The next morning the high court of the Jewish nation, having the
absolute control of all religious matters, was called together to
decide upon the fate of the apostles, and probably also of the lame man
whom they had cured. This great court was the same whose members had,
by unwearied exertions, succeeded a few weeks before, in bringing about
the death of Jesus, and were therefore little disposed to show mercy
to any who were trying to perpetuate his name, or the innovations which
he had attempted against the high authority of the ecclesiastical
rulers of the nation. Of these, the principal were Annas and Caiaphas,
the high priests, with John and Alexander, and many others, who were
entitled to a place in the council, by relationship to the high priests.
Besides these, there were the rulers and elders of the people, and the
scribes, who had been so active in the condemnation of Jesus. These
all having arrayed themselves for judgment, the apostles and their poor
healed cripple were brought in before them, and sternly questioned,
by what power and by what name they had done the thing for which they
had been summoned before the court. They stood charged with having
arrogated to themselves the high character and office of teachers, and
what was worse, reformers, of the national religion,――of that religion
which had been, of old, received straight from God by the holy prophets,
and which the wisdom of long-following ages had secured in sanctity
and purity, by entrusting it to the watchful guardianship of the most
learned and venerable of a hereditary order of priests and scholars.
And who were they that now proposed to take into their hands the
religion given by Moses and the prophets, and to offer to the people a
new dispensation? Were they deep and critical scholars in the law, the
prophets, the history of the faith, or the stored wisdom of the ancient
teachers of the law? No; they were a set of rude, ill-taught men, who
had left their honest but low employments in their miserable province,
and had come down to Jerusalem with their Master, on the likely
enterprise of overturning the established order of things in church
and state, and erecting in its place an administration which should be
managed by the Nazarene and his company of Galileans. In this seditious
attempt their Master had been arrested and punished with death, and
they whose lives were spared by the mere clemency of their offended
lords, were now so little grateful for this mercy, and so little awed
by this example of justice, that they had been publicly haranguing the
people in the temple, and imposing on them with a show of miracles, all
with the view of raising again those disturbances which their Master
had before excited, but too successfully, by the same means, until his
death. In this light would the two apostles stand before their stern
and angry judges, as soon as they were recognized as the followers
of Jesus. And how did they maintain their ground before this awful
tribunal? Peter had, only a few weeks before, absolutely denied all
connection and acquaintance with Jesus, when questioned by the mere
menials in attendance on his Master’s trial. And on this solemn
occasion, tenfold more appalling, did that once false disciple find in
his present circumstances, consolations to raise him above his former
weakness? Peter was now changed; and he stood up boldly before his
overbearing foes, to meet their tyranny by a dauntless assertion of his
rights and of the truth of what he had preached. Freshly indued with a
courage from on high, and full of that divine influence so lately shed
abroad, he and his modest yet firm companion, replied to the haughty
inquiries of his judges, by naming as the source of their power, and
as their sanction in their work, the venerated name of their crucified
Master. “Princes of the people and elders of Israel, if we to-day are
called to account for this good deed which we have done to this poor
man, and are to say in whose name this man has been cured; be it known
to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus
Christ, the Nazarene, whom you crucified, and whom God raised from
the dead, this man now stands before you, made sound and strong. This
crucified Jesus is the stone which, though rejected by you builders,
has become the chief corner stone; and in no other name is there
salvation, (or healing;) for there is no other name given under heaven,
among men, by which any can be saved,” (or healed.) When the judges
saw the free-spoken manner of Peter and John, observing that they were
unlearned men, of the lower orders, they were surprised; and noticing
them more particularly, they recognized them as the immediate personal
followers of Jesus, remembering now that they had often seen them in
his company. This recognition made them the more desirous to put a stop
to their miracles and preaching. Yet there stood the man with them,
whom they had healed, and with this palpable evidence before their
eyes, how could the members of the Sanhedrim justify themselves to the
people, for any act of positive violence against these men? These high
dignitaries were a good deal perplexed, and sending the apostles out of
the court, they deliberated with one another, and inquired, “What can
we do with these men? For there is a general impression that they have
done a great miracle, among all who are now in Jerusalem, both citizens
and strangers, and we cannot disprove it. Still we cannot let these
things go on so, nor suffer this heresy to spread any further among the
people; and we will therefore charge them threateningly to use the name
of Jesus no more to the people.” Having come to this conclusion, they
summoned the prisoners once more into the court, and gave them a strict
command, never to teach any more nor utter a word in the name of Jesus.
But Peter and John, undismayed by the authority of their great judges,
boldly avowed their unshaken resolution to proceed as they had begun.
“We appeal to you, to say if it is right in the sight of God to obey
you rather than God. For we cannot but speak what we have seen and
heard?” The judges being able to bring these stubborn heretics to no
terms at all, after having threatened them still further, were obliged
to let them go unpunished, not being able to make out any plea against
them, that would make it safe to injure them, while the popular voice
was so loud in their favor, on account of the miracle. For the man
whom they had so suddenly healed, being more than forty years old, and
having been lame from his birth, no one could pretend to say that such
a lameness could be cured by any sudden impression made on his
imagination.

  _Salvation_, (_or healing_.)――The Greek word here in the
  original, Σωτηρια, (_Soteria_,) is entirely dubious in its
  meaning, conveying one or the other of these two ideas according
  to the sense of the connection; and here the general meaning of
  the passage is such, that either meaning is perfectly allowable,
  and equally appropriate to the context. This ambiguity in the
  substantive is caused by the same variety of meaning in the verb
  which is the root, Σαω, (_Sao_,) whose primary idea admits of
  its application either to the act of saving from ruin and death,
  or of relieving any bodily evil, that is, of healing. In this
  latter sense it is frequently used in the New Testament, as in
  Matthew ix. 21, 22. commonly translated “made whole.” Also, Mark
  v. 28, 33: vi. 56: x. 52. In Luke vii. 50, and in viii. 48, the
  same expression occurs, both passages being exactly alike in
  Greek; but the common translation has varied the interpretation
  in the two places, to suit the circumstances,――in the former,
  “_saved_ thee,” and in the latter, “_made_ thee _whole_.” In
  this passage also, Acts iv. 12, the word is exactly the same as
  that used in verse 9, where the common translation gives “made
  whole.” The close connection therefore between these two verses
  would seem to require the same meaning in the word thus used,
  and hence I should feel justified in preferring this rendering;
  but the general power of the verb makes it very probable that
  in this second use of it here, there was a sort of intentional
  equivoque in the writer and speaker, giving force to the
  expression, by the play on the meaning afforded by the present
  peculiar circumstances.


                          THEIR RENEWED ZEAL.

The apostles, as soon as they were released from this unjust
confinement, went directly to their own companions, and reported
all that the high priests and elders had said to them. And when the
disciples heard of the threats which these tyrannical hierarchs had
laid on their persecuted brethren, with one mind they raised a voice
to God in a prayer of unequalled beauty and power, in which they called
upon the Lord, as the God who had made heaven, and earth, and sea, and
all in them, to look down upon them, thus endangered by their devotion
to his cause, and to give them all boldness of speech in preaching his
word; and to vindicate their authority still further, by stretching out
his hand to heal, and by signs and miracles. No sooner had they uttered
their prayer than they received new assurance of the help of God, and
had new evidence of a divine influence. “The place where they were
assembled was shaken, and they were all filled again with the Holy
Spirit, and spake the word of God with renewed boldness.” This first
attack upon them, by their persecutors, so far from dispiriting or
disuniting them, gave them redoubled courage, and bound them together
still with the ties of a common danger and a common helper. “All those
who believed were of one heart and one soul,” and were so perfectly
devoted to each others’ good, that “none of them said that any of the
things which he possessed was his own, but held them as the common
support of all.” And in spite of the repeated denunciations of the
Sadducees and the Sanhedrim, the apostles, with great power and effect,
bore witness of the resurrection of their Lord; and the result of their
preaching was, that they were all in the highest favor with the people.
Neither was any one of them suffered to want any comfort or convenience
of life; for many that owned houses and lands at a distance, turned
them into ready money by selling them, and brought the money thus
obtained, to the apostles, with whom they deposited it in trust,
for distribution among the needy, according to their circumstances.
This was done more particularly by the foreign Jews, many of whom
were converted at the pentecost, when, being gathered from all parts,
they heard for the first time of the Messiah, from the mouths of his
apostles, and saw their words supported by such wonders. Among these
was a native of Cyprus, by name Joseph, a Levite, who so distinguished
himself by his labors of love among them, and gave such promise of
excellence as a teacher of the new faith which he had adopted, that the
apostles honored him with a new name, by which he was ever after known,
instead of his previous one. They called him Barnabas, which means
“the son of exhortation,” no doubt referring to those talents which
he afterwards displayed as an eminent and successful minister of the
gospel.

  _Raised a voice._――This is literal; and can mean nothing more
  than the common modern expression, “unite in prayer,” with
  which it is perfectly synonymous. The judicious Bloomfield
  (Annotations in Acts iv. 24,) observes, “We cannot rationally
  suppose that this prefatory address was (as some conjecture) not
  pronounced _extempore_, but a pre-composed form of prayer, since
  the words advert to circumstances not known until that very time;
  as, for instance, the threatenings of the Sanhedrim, (verse 29,)
  of which they had been but just then informed; and the words
  ἀκουσαντες ὁμοθυμαδον ῃραν φωνην will not allow us to imagine
  any interval between the report of Peter and John, and the
  prayer.” Kuinoel’s view is precisely the same.

  _Were in the highest favor with the people._――Very different
  from the common translation, “great grace was upon them all.”
  But the Greek word, Χαρις, (_Kharis_,) like the Latin _gratia_,
  (in the Vulgate,) means primarily “favor;” and the only question
  is, whether it refers to the favor of God or of man. Beza,
  Whitby, Doddridge, &c. prefer the former, but Kuinoel justly
  argues from a comparison of the parallel passages, (ii. 47,
  and iv. 34,) that it refers to their increasing influence on
  the attention and regard of the people, which was indeed the
  great object of all their preaching and miracles. Grotius,
  Rosenmueller, Bloomfield and others, also support this view.

  _Deposited in trust._――This is a free, but just version of
  ετιθουν παρα τους ποδας, (_etithoun para tous podas_,) Acts iv.
  35, literally and faithfully rendered in the common translation
  by “laid at the feet;” but this was an expression very common
  not only in Hebrew, but in Greek and Latin usage, for the
  idea of “deposit in trust;” as is shown by Rosenmueller’s apt
  quotations from Cicero, “ante pedes praetoris in foro expensum
  est auri pondo centum,” Defence of Flaccus, chapter 28; and from
  Heliodorus, παντα τα εαυτου τιθεναι παρα τους ποδας βασιλεως.
  But Kuinoel seems not to think of these, and quotes it as a mere
  Hebraism.

  _Barnabas, son of exhortation._――This is the translation of this
  name, which seems best authorized. A fuller account of it will
  be given in the life of Barnabas.


                         ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA.

The great praise and universal gratitude which followed Barnabas, for
this noble and self-denying act of pure generosity, was soon after the
occasion of a most shameful piece of imposition, ending in an awful
expression of divine vengeance. Led by the hope of cheaply winning the
same praise and honor which Barnabas had acquired by his simple-minded
liberality, a man named Ananias, with the knowledge and aid of his wife
Sapphira, having sold a piece of land, brought only a part of the price
to the apostles, and deposited it in the general charity-fund, alleging
at the same time, that this was the whole amount obtained for the land.
But Peter, having reason to believe that this was only a part of the
price, immediately questioned Ananias sternly on this point, charging
him directly with the crime of lying to God. He remarked to him that
the land was certainly his own, and no one could question his right to
do just as he pleased with that, or the money obtained for it; since
he was under no obligation to give it away to the poor of the church.
But since he had of his own accord attempted to get a reputation for
generosity, by a base and avaricious act of falsehood, he had incurred
the wrath of an insulted God. No sooner had Ananias heard this awful
denunciation, than, struck with the vengeance he had brought on himself,
he fell lifeless before them, and was carried out to the burial by the
attendants. His wife soon after coming in, not having heard of what had
happened, boldly maintained her husband’s assertion, and repeated the
lie most distinctly to Peter. He then declared his knowledge of her
guilt, and made known to her the fate of her husband, which she was
doomed to share. The words had hardly left his lips, when they were
confirmed by her instant death, and she was at once carried out and
laid with her husband. The effect of these shocking events on the minds
of the members of the church generally, was very salutary; exhibiting
to them the awful consequences of such deliberate and hardened sin.

  _Attendants._――The common English translation here gives the
  expression, “young men,” which is the primary meaning of the
  Greek νεανισκοι, (_neaniskoi_,) and is quite unobjectionable;
  but the connection here seems to justify and require its
  secondary use in application to “servants,” “attendants,” &c.
  This interpretation has the authority of the learned Mosheim,
  who considers the persons here mentioned, to have been regularly
  appointed officers, who performed the necessary duties about the
  assemblies of the disciples, and executed all the commands of
  the apostles. He says, “unless you suppose these _young men_ to
  have been of this sort, it is hard to understand why they alone
  instantly rose up and carried out the bodies of Ananias and his
  wife, and buried them. But if you suppose them to have been men
  discharging an official duty in the public assembly, you see a
  reason why, even without orders, they took that sad duty upon
  themselves. And that there were public servants of this sort in
  the first Christian church, no one certainly can doubt, who will
  imagine for himself either its circumstances or the form of the
  assemblies of that age. For instance, there were the places of
  meeting to be cleaned,――the seats and tables to be arranged,
  ――the sacred books to be brought and carried away,――the dishes
  to be set out and cleared off,――in short, there were many things
  to be done which absolutely required particular men.” (Mosheim,
  Commentary de rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum, p. 114, b.)
  This passage is quoted by Kuinoel, and is so clear in its
  representation of the circumstance, as to justify me in
  translating it entire.


                 THE INCREASING FAME OF THE APOSTLES.

The apostles, daily supported anew by fresh tokens of divine aid, went
on in their labors among the people, encouraged by their increasing
attention and favor. So deep was the impression of awe made by the
late occurrence, that none of the rest of the church dared to mingle
familiarly with the apostles, who now seemed to be indued with the
power of calling down the vengeance of God at will, and appeared to be
persons too high and awful for common men to be familiar with. Yet the
number of the church members, both men and women, continued to enlarge,
and the attendance of the people to increase, so that there was no
place which would accommodate the vast crowd of hearers and beholders,
except the great porch of Solomon, already described, where the
apostles daily met the church and the people, to teach and strengthen
them, and to work the cures which their Master had so often wrought.
So high was the reputation of the apostles, and so numerous were those
who came to solicit the favor of their healing power, for themselves or
friends, that all could not get access to them even in the vast court
of the temple which they occupied, insomuch that they brought the sick
into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, along the path
which the apostles were expected to pass, that at least the shadow
of Peter, passing by, might overshadow some of them. Nor was this
wonderful fame and admiration confined to Jerusalem; for as the news
was spread abroad by the pilgrims returning from the pentecost, there
came also a multitude out of the cities round about Jerusalem, bringing
sick folks and those who were affected by evil spirits, and they were
healed, every one.

  _Mingle familiarly with them._――Commonly translated, “join
  himself to them,” which conveys a totally erroneous idea, since
  all their efforts were given to this end, of making as many
  as possible “join themselves to them.” The context (verse 14,)
  shows that their numbers were largely increased by such
  additions. “Yet no one of the common members (οἱ λοιποι) dared
  mingle familiarly (κολλασθαι) with them; but the people held
  them in great reverence.” Acts v. 13.

  _Met the church and people._――This distinction may not seem very
  obvious in a common reading of the Acts, but in v. 11, it is
  very clearly drawn. “Great fear was upon the whole church _and_
  on all the hearers of these things.” And throughout the chapter,
  a nice discrimination is made between ὁ λαος, (_ho laos_,) “the
  people,” or “the congregation,” and ἡ εκκλησια, (_he ekklesia_,)
  “the church.” See Kuinoel in v. 13, 14.

  _The shadow of Peter._――This is one of a vast number of passages
  which show that high and perfectly commanding pre-eminence of
  this apostolic chief. The people evidently considered Peter
  as concentrating all the divine and miraculous power in his
  own person, and had no idea at all of obtaining benefit from
  anything that the minor apostles could do. In him, alone, they
  saw the manifestations of divine power and authority;――he spoke
  and preached and healed, and judged and doomed, while the rest
  had nothing to do but assent and aid. Peter, then, _was_ THE
  great pastor of the church, and it is every way desirable that
  over-zealous Protestants would find some better reason for
  opposing so palpable a fact, than simply that Papists support it.


                    THEIR SECOND SEIZURE AND TRIAL.

The triumphant progress of the new sect, however, was not unnoticed
by those who had already taken so decided a stand against it. The
Sadducees, who had so lately come out against them, were not yet
disposed to leave the apostles to enjoy their boldness with impunity.
The high priest Annas, who had always been the determined enemy of
Christ, belonging to the Sadducean sect, was easily led to employ all
his authority with his brethren, against the apostles. He at last,
provoked beyond endurance at their steady and unflinching contempt of
the repeated solemn injunction of the Sanhedrim, whose president and
agent he was, rose up in all his anger and power, and, backed by his
friends, seized the apostles and put them into the common jail, as
inveterate disturbers of the peace of the city, and of the religious
order of the temple. This commitment was intended to be merely
temporary, and was to last only until a convenient time could be found
for bringing them to trial, when the crowd of strangers should have
retired from the city to their homes, and the excitement attendant on
the preaching and miracles of the apostles should have subsided, so
that the ordinary course of law might go on safely, even against these
popular favorites, and they might be brought at last to the same fate
as their Master. After the achievment of this project, “a consummation
most devoutly to be wished” by every friend of the established order
of things, the sect which was now making such rapid advances would fall
powerless and lifeless, when its great heads were thus quietly lopped
off. This seems to have been their well-arranged plan,――but it was
destined to be spoiled in a way unlooked for; and this first step in it
was to be made the means of a new triumph to the persecuted subjects of
it. That very night, the prison doors were opened by a messenger of God,
by whom the apostles were brought out of their confinement, and told,
“Go, stand and speak in the temple, to the people, all the words of
this life.” According to this divine command, they went into the temple
and taught, early in the morning, probably before their luxurious
tyrants had left their lazy pillows. While the apostles were thus
coolly following their daily labors of mercy in the temple, the
high priest and his train called the council together, and the whole
senate of all the children of Israel, and having deliberately arrayed
themselves in the forms of law, they ordered the imprisoned heretics to
be brought forthwith into the awful presence of this grand council and
senate of the Jewish nation and faith. The officers, of course, as in
duty bound, went to execute the order, but soon returned to report the
important deficiency of the persons most needed to complete the solemn
preparation for the trial. Their report was simply, “The prison truly
we found shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without, before
the doors; but when we had opened, we found no man within.” Here was
a non-plus, indeed; all proceedings were brought to a stand at once;
and “when the high priest and the chief officer of the temple, and
the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them, whereunto
they would grow.” But these eminent dignitaries were not left long to
perplex their sage heads about the unworthy objects of their tender
solicitude; for some faithful sycophant, rejoicing in such a glorious
opportunity to serve the powers that were, came running to tell them,
“Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple,
and teaching the people.” This very simple but valuable piece
of information relieved the grave judges very happily from their
unfortunate quandary; and without further delay, a detachment of
officers was sent to bring these unaccountable runaways to account.
But as it appeared that the criminals were now in the midst of a vast
assemblage of their friends, who were too perfectly devoted to them to
suffer them to receive any violence, it was agreed to manage the thing
as quietly and easily as might be, and to coax them away if possible
to the tribunal. To insure the still and effectual performance of this
order, the captain of the temple himself went with the officers, and
quietly drew the apostles away, with their own consent, and without any
violence; for the minions of the law knew perfectly well that the least
show of injury towards these righteous men, would insure to those who
attempted it, broken heads and bones, from the justly provoked people,
whose deserved indignation would soon make the very stones to rise
in mutiny for the defence of their beloved teachers and benefactors.
The apostles themselves, however, showed no unwillingness whatever to
appear before their bitter persecutors again, and presented themselves
accordingly, with bold unflinching fronts, before the bar of the
Sanhedrim. When they were fairly set before the council, the high
priest, turning his lately perplexed face into “a look of austere
dignity,” asked them, “Did we not particularly charge you, that you
should not teach in his name? And now, indeed, in open contempt of
our authority, you have filled all Jerusalem with your doctrine, and
mean to bring this man’s blood upon us?” They, the high priest and his
supporters, had, at no small pains and trouble, effected the death of
Jesus, and had naturally hoped that there would be an end of him; but
here now were his disciples constantly using his name to the excitable
populace in their daily teachings, thus keeping alive the memory of
these painful incidents which it was so desirable to forget, and slowly
plotting the means of avenging upon the Sanhedrim the death of their
Master. To this sort of address, Peter and all the other apostles,
who now shared the fate of their two distinguished friends, replied,
even as had been said on the previous summons, “We ought to obey God
rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew
and hanged on a tree: him now has God uplifted to sit beside his own
right hand, to be a Prince and a Savior, to give to Israel a change
of heart and views, and remission of sins. And we are his witnesses of
these things, and what is far more, so also is the Holy Spirit, which
God has given to those who obey him, as the reward and the sign of
their obedience.” This bold and solemn speech, breathing nothing but
resistance against all hindrances, and steady persistance in their
course,――and denouncing, too, as murderers, the judges, while it
exalted their victim to honors the highest in the universe, was not at
all calculated to conciliate the friendly regard of the hearers of it,
but roused them to the most violent and deadly hate. Deeply wounded
and insulted as they were, they determined to try remonstrance no
longer; but in spite of the danger of popular ferment, to silence these
audacious bravers of their authority, in death. While they were on the
point of pronouncing this cruel decision, the proceedings were stayed
by Gamaliel, a man of vast learning and influence, an eminent Pharisee
of great popularity, and beyond all the men of that age, in knowledge
of the law of Moses and of Hebrew literature. This great man, rising
up in the midst of their wrathful resolutions, moved to suspend the
decision for a few minutes, and to withdraw the prisoners from the bar,
until the court could form their opinions by deliberating with more
freedom than they could in the presence of the subjects of the trial.
As soon as the apostles were put out of the court, Gamaliel addressed
them, prompted by a noble humanity, as well as by a deep knowledge
of human nature, and acting in accordance, also, with the general
principles of the Pharisees, who were very averse to cruelty and
bloodshed, and were generally disposed to punish even criminals in
the mildest ways. Possibly, too, he might have been affected by some
jealousy of the forwardness of the rival sect. His words were these:
“Men of Israel! take care what you do to these men. For you know that,
not long ago, rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody, and
gathered a gang about him, to the number of four hundred. But as soon
as the attention of our Roman masters was drawn to his outrageous
doings, they put him entirely down at once, killing him and breaking up
his band, by slaughter and banishment; so that without any trouble or
exertion on our part, all this sedition was brought to nought. And when,
after him, Judas the Galilean raised a great party about him, in the
days of the taxing, this rebellion against the government met with the
same inevitable fate, from the resistless soldiery of Rome; and all
this was done without any need of interference from us. And now, with
these remarkable instances in view, I warn you to let these men alone,
and leave them to determine their fate by their own future conduct.
For if, in all their active efforts of seeming benevolence, they have
been prompted by any base ambition to head a faction, which may raise
them to the supreme power in religious and political affairs, and by a
revengeful wish to punish those concerned in the death of their Master;
――if, in short, their plan or their work is a mere contrivance of men,
it will come to nought of itself, without your interference, as did the
two miserable riots which I have just mentioned. But if, inspired by a
holier principle of action, they are laboring with pure love of their
converts; if all these wonderful cures which you consider mere tricks
and impostures, shall prove to be true miracles, wrought by the hand
of God, and if their plan be of God,――you cannot overthrow it; and do
you look to it, sirs, that you do not find yourselves at last fighting
against God.” This noble and sensible speech, aided by the high rank
and great weight of character which belonged to the speaker, instantly
hushed all the lately outrageous proposals which had been made against
the prisoners. If there were any in the council who did not feel
satisfied with his reasoning, they were wise enough to acquiesce, with
at least the appearance of content. They knew too well, that Gamaliel,
supported by his unbounded popularity with the whole nation, and his
eminently exalted character for justice and virtue, was abundantly
able to put down every appearance of opposition, and set the apostles
free, in spite of high priest and Sadducees. Adopting his resolution,
therefore, they called in the apostles, and having vented their paltry
malice by beating them, and having exposed themselves to new contempt
by repeating their oft-despised command, that the apostles should not
speak in the name of Jesus, they let them go, being fully assured that
the first use the apostles would make of their freedom would be to
break this idle injunction. For they went out of the judgment-hall,
rejoicing that they were honored by suffering this shameful treatment
in their Master’s name. They now recalled to mind his early words of
encouragement, which he had given them in a wise determination to
prepare them for evils of which they had then so little notion. The
passage from the sermon on the mount was particularly appropriate to
their present circumstances. “Blessed are they who are persecuted for
righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are
ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of
evil against you falsely, for my name’s sake. Rejoice and be exceeding
glad; for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the
prophets who were before you.” Comforted by such words as these, they
returned to their labors as before, and daily, in the temple, and
moreover in private houses, ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus
Christ, in the very face of the express prohibition of their thwarted
persecutors.

  _Messenger._――This is a fair and literal interpretation of
  αγγελος, (_angelos_,) and one justifiable in every place where
  it occurs in the Bible. Wherever it is applied to a supernatural
  being sent from God, the connection will abundantly explain
  the term, without rendering it by a different word. Thus I have
  chosen to do, and to leave each reader to judge for himself,
  from the other attendant circumstances, of the character of the
  _messenger_. See Kuinoel in loc.

  _All the words of this life._――I here follow the common
  translation, though Kuinoel and most interpreters consider this
  as a _hypallage_, and transpose it into “all these words of
  life.” But it does not seem necessary to take such a liberty with
  the expression, since the common version conveys a clear idea.
  “The words of _this_ life” evidently can mean only the words of
  _that_ life which they had before preached, in accordance with
  their commission; that is, of life from the dead, as manifested
  in the resurrection of Jesus, which was in itself the pledge and
  promise of life and bliss eternal, to all who should hear and
  believe these “words.” This view is supported by Storr, and a
  similar one is advanced by Rosenmueller, in preference to any
  _hypallage_.

  _Change of heart._――I have in general given this translation
  of Μετανοειτε, (_Metanoeite_,) as more minutely faithful to
  the etymology of the word, and also accordant with popular
  religious forms of expression; though the common translation is
  unobjectionable.

  _Deeply wounded._――In the Greek, διεπριοντο, (dieprionto,) from
  διαπριω, “to saw through;” in the passive, of course, “to be
  sawn through,” or figuratively, “deeply wounded in the moral
  feelings.” This is the commonly translated, “cut to the heart,”
  which I have adopted, with such a variation of the words as will
  assimilate it most nearly to common modern forms of expression.
  But Kuinoel prefers the peculiar force of the middle voice,
  (where this word can be made, owing to the identity of the
  imperfect tenses of the two voices,) given by Hesychius, “to
  gnash the teeth,” doubtless taken from the similarity of sound
  between “sawing,” and “grating the teeth.” This sense being also
  highly appropriate here, to men in a rage, makes the passage
  perfectly ambiguous, and accordingly great authorities divide
  on the point. In such cases, it seems to me perfectly fair to
  consider the phrase as originally intended for an equivoque.
  Luke was Grecian enough, doubtless, to know the two meanings of
  this form, and must have been very careless if he did not think
  of it as he wrote it down; but either meaning is powerfully
  expressive of the idea here, and why should he reject or explain
  it? It is rather an advantage and a charm than otherwise, in
  a language, to possess this ambiguity, making occasionally a
  richly expressive play of meanings. It seems, however, more
  in accordance with Luke’s ordinary expressions, to prefer the
  passive sense, as in Acts vii. 54, ταις καρδιαις (“to their
  hearts”) is added, there, of course, requiring the passive.
  For similar forms of expression, see Luke ii. 35: Acts ii.
  37.――Consult Bretschneider in loc. In favor of the passive sense,
  see Bloomfield, Rosenmueller, Wolf, Hammond and Gataker. On the
  middle sense, Kuinoel, Beza and Wetstein.

  _Gamaliel._――I shall give a full account of this venerable sage,
  in the beginning of the life of Paul.

  _In the temple and in private houses._――Acts vi. 42. In the
  Greek, κατ’ οἶκον, (_kat’ oikon_,) the same expression as in
  ii. 46, alluded to in my note on pages 139, 140. Here too occurs
  precisely the same connection with ἐν τῳ ἱερῳ, (_en to hiero_,)
  with the same sense of opposition in place, there alluded to.
  The indefinite sense, then, rather than the _distributive_,
  is proper here as there, showing that they preached and
  taught not only in their great place of assembly, under the
  eastern colonnade of the temple, (v. 12,) but also in private
  houses, that is, at their home, or those of their friends.
  The expression “from house to house,” however, is much less
  objectionable _here_, because in this passage it can give only
  an _indefinite_ idea of place, without any particular idea of
  _rotation_; but in the other passage, in connection with “the
  taking of food,” it makes an erroneous impression of their mode
  of life, which the text is meant to describe.


                      THE APPOINTMENT OF DEACONS.

The successful progress of their labors had now gathered around them a
great church, numbering among its members a vast throng both of Hebrew
and of foreign Jews. The apostles being devoted wholly to their high
duties of prayer and preaching, were unable to superintend particularly
the daily distribution of the means of support to the needy, out of the
charity-fund which had been gathered from the generous contributions
of the wealthy members of the church. Among the foreign Jews who had
joined the fraternity of the disciples, were many of those who, by
education, language and manners, though not by race or religion, were
Greeks. These, with the proselytes, being fewer than those who adhered
to the genuine manners and language of Palestine, had comparatively
little weight in the administration of the affairs of the church, and
had no hand in the distribution to the church poor. Being a minority,
and being moreover looked on with invidious eyes by the genuine Hebrews,
as a sort of half renegades, they were overlooked and put back, in
the daily ministration to the needy, and to such a degree, that even
the helpless widows among them were absolutely suffering through this
neglect. The natural consequence was, that murmurs and open complaints
arose among them, at this shameful and unbrotherly partiality. As soon
as the report of the difficulty reached the ears of the twelve, they
immediately called a full church-meeting, and laid the matter before
it in these words. “It is not proper that we should leave the preaching
of the word of God, to wait on tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye
out among you seven reputable men, full of a holy spirit and of wisdom,
whom we may intrust with this business; while we continue to give
our time up wholly to prayer and the ministry of the word.” This wise
plan pleased all parties, and the church proceeded to elect the proper
persons for the charge. To soothe the feelings of the Hellenists, the
whole seven were chosen from their number, as the names (which are
all Greek) fully show. This makes it probable that there were already
persons appointed from among the Hebrews, who had administered these
charities from the beginning, and whose partial management of these
matters had given offense to those whom they slighted. The seven
Hellenists now chosen to this office, were Stephen, resplendent
in spiritual and intellectual endowments; Philip, also highly
distinguished afterwards by his successful preaching; Prochorus,
Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch; by
which last circumstance, (as well as by the case of Barnabas,) is shown
the fact that some Hellenist converts, from a distance, had settled
at Jerusalem, and permanently joined the followers of Christ. These
seven being formally elected by the church, were brought in before the
apostles, for approval and confirmation. And after they had prayed,
they laid their hands on them, in token of imparting to them the
blessing and the power of that divine influence which had inspired
its previous possessors to deeds so energetic and triumphant. The
efficiency of this prayer and benediction, in calling down divine grace
on the heads thus touched by the hands of the apostles, was afterwards
most remarkably demonstrated in the case of two of the seven, and in
the case of the first of them, almost immediately.

  _Greeks._――The original word here is not Ἑλληνες, (_Hellenes_,)
  but Ἑλληνιστοι, (_Hellenistoi_,) which means not _Grecians_,
  but _Grecizers_; that is, those who imitated Grecian language or
  customs.

  _Genuine Hebrews._――By these are meant those who used the Hebrew
  language still in their synagogues, as the only sacred tongue,
  and looked with much scorn on the Hellenists, that is, those
  foreign Jews, who, from birth or residence in other lands,
  had learned the Greek as their sole language in common life,
  and were thus obliged to use the Greek translation, in order
  to understand the scriptures. This matter will have a fuller
  discussion in another place. Lightfoot has brought a most
  amazing quantity of learned and valuable illustration of
  this difference, from Talmudic literature. (Horae Hebraica et
  Talmudicae in Acts vi. 1.)


                        CHRIST’S FIRST MARTYR.

Stephen, after thus being set apart for the service of the church,
though faithfully discharging the peculiar duties to which he was
called, did not confine his labors to the mere administration of the
public charities. The word of God had now so spread, under the ministry
of the apostles, that the number of the disciples in Jerusalem was
greatly enlarged, and that not merely from the lower and ignorant
orders; but a great number of the priests, who, in their daily service
in the temple, had been frequently unintentional hearers of the word
preached in its courts, now professed themselves the submissive friends
of the new faith. This remarkable increase excited public attention
more and more, and required redoubled exertions to meet the increasing
call for instruction. Stephen, therefore, immediately entered boldly
and heartily on this good work; and, inspired by a pure faith, and
the confidence of help from above, he wrought among the people such
miracles as had hitherto followed only the ministry of the apostles.
The bold actions of this new champion did not fail to excite the wrath
of the enemies of the cause of Christ; but as the late decision of
the Sanhedrim had been against any further immediate resort to violent
measures, his opponents confined themselves to the forms of verbal
debate for a while. As Stephen was one of those Jews who had adopted
the Greek language and habits, and probably directed his labors more
particularly to that class of persons, he soon became peculiarly
obnoxious to those Hellenist Jews who still held out against the
new doctrine. Of the numerous congregations of foreign Jews that
filled Jerusalem, five in particular are mentioned as distinguishing
themselves by this opposition,――that of the freed-men, or captive Jews
once slaves in Rome, and their descendants,――that of the Cyrenians,――of
the Alexandrians,――the Cilicians and the Asians. Some of the more
zealous in all these congregations came out to meet Stephen in debate,
with the polished points of Grecian logic which their acquaintance with
that language enabled them to use against him. But not all the combined
powers of sacred and profane literature availed any thing against their
learned and inspired opponent. Prepared beforehand, thoroughly, in all
sorts of wisdom, and borne on resistlessly, moreover, by that divine
influence whose movements they could see but could not understand, he
foiled them completely at all their own weapons, and exposed them, in
their low bigotry and stupidity, baffled and silenced by his single
voice. But among all the refinements and elegances with which their
classical knowledge had made them acquainted, they had failed to
learn that noblest effort of the rhetorical art, which is to know how
to bear a fair defeat in open debate, gracefully. These low-minded,
half-renegade bigots, burning with brutal rage for this defeat, which
their base behavior made more disgraceful, determined to find a means
of punishing him, which no logic nor rhetoric could resist. They found
men base enough for their vile purposes, and instructed them to testify
that they had heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and
against God. On the strength of this heinous charge, they made out to
rouse some of the people, as well as the elders and the scribes, to a
similar hostile feeling; and coming upon him with a throng of these,
they seized him and dragged him away to the Sanhedrim, to undergo the
form of a trial. They then brought forward their perjured witnesses,
who testified only in vague terms of abuse, “This man ceases not to
speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law. For we
have heard him say that this Jesus, the Nazarene, will destroy this
place, and will do away with the customs which Moses delivered to
us.” This was, after all, a kind of accusation which brought him more
particularly under the invidious notice of the Pharisees, whose leader
had lately so decidedly befriended the apostles; for that sect guarded
with the most jealous care all the minute details of their religion,
and were ever ready to punish, as a traitor to the national faith
and honor, any one who spoke slightingly, or even doubtingly, of the
perpetuity of the law of Moses, and its hallowed shrine. Perhaps there
was no one of all the sayings of Jesus himself, which had given deeper
offense than his remark about destroying the temple and re-building it
in three days, which his silly hearers took up seriously, and construed
into a serious, blasphemous insult of the chief glory of the Jewish
name, and bore it in mind so bitterly, as to throw it back on him, in
his last agonies on the cross. Such a saying, therefore, when laid to
the charge of Stephen, could not but rouse the worst feelings against
him, in the hearts of all his judges. But he, calm and undisturbed amid
the terrors of this trial, as he had been in the fury of the dispute,
bore such an aspect of composure, that all who sat in the council were
struck with his angelic look. The high priest, however, having heard
the accusation, solemnly called on the prisoner to say “whether these
things were so.” Stephen then, with a determination to meet the charge
by a complete exhibition of his views of the character and objects of
the Jewish faith, ran over the general history of its rise and progress,
and of the opinions which its founders and upholders had expressed
concerning the importance and the perpetuity of those types and forms,
and of the glorious temple which was their chief seat, when compared
with the revelation to be expected through the prophet promised to
them by God and foretold by Moses. Warming as he went on, he quoted
the poetical words of Isaiah, on the dwelling-place of the Almighty,
as not being confined to the narrow bounds of the building which was
to them an object of such idolatrous reverence, as the sole place of
Jehovah’s abode, but as being high in the heavens, whence his power and
love spread their boundless grasp over sea and land, and all nations
that dwelt beneath his throne. As the words of the prophet of the
fire-touched lips rolled from the voice of Stephen, they kindled his
soul into an ecstacy of holy wrath; and in open scorn of their mean
cruelty, he broke away from the plan of his discourse, bursting out
into burning expressions of reproach and denunciation, which carried
their rage away beyond all bounds of reason. Conscious of their
physical power to avenge the insult, the mob instantly rose up, and
hurried him away from the court, without regard to the forms of law;
and taking him without the city, they stoned him to death, while he
invoked on them, not the wrath, but the mercy of their common God. In
such prayers, gloriously crowning such labors and sufferings, he fell
asleep, commending his spirit to the hands of that Lord and Savior,
whom it was his exalted honor to follow, first of all, through the
bitter agonies of a bloody death.


                           THE PERSECUTION.

Among the nameless herd of Stephen’s murderers and disputants, there
was one only whose name has been preserved from the impenetrable
oblivion which hides their infamy. And that name now is brought to
the mind of every Christian reader, without one emotion of indignation
or contempt, for its connection with this bloody murder. That man is
now known to hundreds of millions, and has been for centuries known to
millions of millions, as the bright leader of the hosts of the ransomed,
and the faithful martyr who sealed with his blood the witness which
this proto-martyr bore beneath the messengers of death to which his
voice had doomed him. In the synagogue of the Cilicians, which was so
active in the attack on Stephen, was a young man, who was not behind
the oldest and the fiercest, in the steady, unrelenting hate which he
bore to this devouring heresy. He gave his voice amid the clamors of
the mob, to swell the cry for the death of the heretic; and when the
stout murderers hurled the deadly missiles on the martyr’s naked head,
it was he who took charge of the loose garments which they had thrown
off, that they might use their limbs with greater freedom. Neither the
sight of the saintly martyr, kneeling unresistingly to meet his bloody
death, nor the sound of his voice, rising in the broken tones of the
death-agony, in prayer for his murderers, could move the deep hate of
this young zealot, to the least relenting; but the whole scene only
led him to follow this example of merciless persecution, which he here
viewed with such deep delight. Abundant opportunities for the exercise
of this persecuting spirit soon occurred. In connection with the charge
against Stephen, which, however unfounded, brought him to this illegal
death, there was a general and systematic disturbance raised by the
same persons, against the church in Jerusalem, more particularly
directed, as it would seem, against the Hellenist members, who were
involved, by general suspicion, in the same crime for which Stephen,
their eminent brother, had suffered. Saul now distinguished himself
at once above all others, by the active share which he took in this
persecution. Raging against the faithful companions of the martyred
Stephen, he, with the most inquisitorial zeal, sought them out, even
in their own quiet dwellings, and violating the sanctity of home, he
dragged out the inmates to prison, visiting even on helpless women the
crime of believing as their consciences prompted, and without regard to
delicacy or decency, shutting them up in the public dungeons. As soon
as the storm began to burst on the new converts, those who were in any
special danger of attack very properly sought safety in flight from
the city, in accordance with the wise and merciful injunction laid upon
the apostles by their Lord, when he first sent them forth as sheep in
the midst of wolves,――“When they persecute you in one city, flee into
another.” The consequences of this dispersion, however, were such as to
turn the foolish rage of the persecutors to the solid advantage of the
cause of Christ, and to show in what a variety of ways God can cause
the wrath of man to praise him. For all those who were thus driven
out of their peaceful homes, became missionaries of the word of truth,
among the people of the various cities and countries through which they
were scattered. All those of whose wanderings we have any account, seem
to have journeyed northward and north-westward, probably all of them
foreign Jews, who naturally returned home when driven out of Jerusalem.
Some of these went, in this way, to the Phoenician coast, to Antioch,
and to Cyprus, all laboring to extend the knowledge of that truth for
which they were willing sufferers. But of all those who went forth
on this forced mission, none appear to have been more successful than
Philip, who stood next to the martyred Stephen on the list of the
seven Hellenist servants of the church, and who appears to have been
second not even to his great fellow-servant in ability and energy. His
home was in Caesarea, on the sea-coast; but he had higher objects than
merely to take refuge in his own domestic circle; for instead of thus
indulging his feelings of natural affection, he also turned his course
northward, and made his first sojourn in the city of Samaria, where
he immediately began to preach Christ to them, as the common Messiah,
so long desired by Samaritans as well as Jews. Here, the people being
ruled by no tyrannical sectaries, like the Pharisees and Sadducees,
and the various orders of ecclesiastical power in Jerusalem, were left
entirely to follow the impulse of their better feelings towards the
truth, without the fear of any inquisition into their movements. Under
these happy circumstances of religious freedom, they all with one
accord gave heed to the preaching of Philip, hearing and seeing the
wonderful works of kindness which he did. For foul spirits, which,
possessing many sufferers, had long wasted their bodies and deranged
their minds, now at the word of this preacher of Christ, came out
of many of them, crying with a loud voice in attestation of the
irresistible power which had overcome them. Many also that were
affected with palsies and that were lame, were healed in the same
miraculous manner; so that, in consequence of this removal of so many
bodily and spiritual evils, there was great joy in the city, at the
arrival of this messenger of mercy. But before the coming of Philip,
the people of Samaria had been the subjects of arts of a somewhat
different kind, from a man who could claim for his works none of the
holy character of disinterested humanity, which belonged to those of
the preacher of Christ. This was one Simon, a man who, by the use of
some magical tricks, had so imposed upon the simple-minded citizens,
that they were profoundly impressed with the notion, which he was
anxious to make them believe, namely, that he was a great man. To
him they all, both young and old, paid the deepest reverence, in
consequence of the triumphant ability displayed by him in the arts
of sorcery; and so low were their notions of the nature of miraculous
agency, that they concluded that the tricks which he played were tokens
of divine interposition in his favor, and universally allowed that
he was himself a personification of the mighty power of God. But when
Philip came among them, and exhibited the genuine workings of the holy
spirit of God, they immediately saw how much they had been mistaken in
their previous estimate of its operations, and changed their degraded
notions, for a more just appreciation of its character. On hearing the
word of truth so fully revealed and supported, they believed in the
new view which he gave them of the kingdom of God on earth, and in the
name of Jesus Christ; and were baptized, both men and women. Even Simon
himself, overwhelmed with the evidences of a higher power than any
that he knew, confessed the fallacy of his own tricks, and submissively
owned the power of God as manifested in the words and deeds of Philip,
with whom he now remained, a humble and wondering observer of the
miracles and signs wrought by him.


                         THE VISIT TO SAMARIA.

In the mean time, the apostles had remained at Jerusalem, apparently
not directly affected by the persecution against Stephen and his
friends, or at least not disturbed by it so as to be prevented from
remaining at their original post, in the discharge of duty. For, a
true regard for the instructions long ago given them by their Master,
would have required them to leave Jerusalem, if the opposition to
their preaching became so settled and extensive as to prevent them
from advancing the cause of Christ there, more rapidly than they
might in other places. The spirit with which they had been taught to
meet tyrannical opposition, was not one of idle bravado or useless
pertinacity, but of deliberate and calculating steadiness in their
plan, which knew when to prudently give way, as well as when to boldly
withstand. It is therefore fair to conclude, that the persecution here
referred to, was so limited as not to be directed against the apostles
themselves, nor to hinder their useful labors. If any of them had been
imprisoned during this persecution, certainly the rest would have been
blamable for not escaping; but the fact that they remained perfectly
free, appears from their leaving the city without delay, on the
occasion which now required their presence and assistance elsewhere.
For as soon as they heard of the preaching of Philip at Samaria, and of
the willingness with which the Samaritans had received and believed the
first communications of the word, they immediately sent to them Peter
and John, who, as the chief teachers of the doctrines of Christ, might
give the new converts a fuller preparation for their duties in their
calling, than could be expected from one so lately commissioned as the
zealous preacher who had first awakened them. These two great apostles,
having come down to Samaria, prayed for the believers there that they
might receive the Holy Spirit; for this heavenly gift had not yet been
imparted to them; the only sign of their acceptance into the new faith
having been their baptism by the hands of Philip, who does not seem to
have been empowered to indue others with the same divine spirit which
he had so abundantly received on himself. But the apostles laying their
hands on them, as they had before done with such powerful effect on
Stephen, Philip and their fellow-servants, now also inspired these
second fruits with the same divine energy, which was instantly made
manifest in them, by the usual signs. As soon as Simon saw the display
of the new powers, with which those were suddenly gifted who had been
made the subjects of this simple ceremony, he immediately concluded
that he had at last found out the means of acquiring those miraculous
powers at which he had been so deeply amazed, and which he thought
he could make vastly profitable to himself in his business, as a very
decided improvement upon his old tricks. Thinking only of the motive
which always moved _his_ mind to the bestowment of such favors, he
immediately took out the money he had gained by his impositions on
the people, and offered the apostles a handsome share of it, if they
would simply give him the valuable privilege of conferring this divine
agency on all upon whom he should lay his hands, in the same manner as
they. But his mercenary hopes were soon blasted by the indignant terms
in which Peter rejected his insulting proposal. “Thy money perish with
thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God could be bought
with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy
heart is not right in the sight of God. Change thy mind, therefore,
from this wickedness of thine, and ask God, if indeed there is any
possibility, that the iniquity of thy heart may be forgiven thee; for
I see that thou art still full of the bitterness of thy former poisons,
and bound fast in the chains of thy old iniquities.” Simon, hushed and
overawed in his impertinent offers by this stern rebuke, sunk into a
penitent tone again, and begged of them that they would pray for him,
that the doom to perish with his money, as declared by Peter, might
not fall on him. Of the depth and sincerity of his penitence, no good
testimony is left us; but his submissive conduct, at best, seems to
have been rather the result of a personal awe of the apostles, as his
superiors in supernatural powers, than prompted by any true regard
for their pure faith, or any just appreciation of their character and
motives. The apostles, however, waited no longer to enlighten the mind
of one so dark in his views of the divine agency; but after they had
borne witness to the truth of Philip’s words and doctrines by their own
preaching, they returned to Jerusalem, proclaiming the gospel in many
villages of the Samaritans, on the way. Philip also, having had his
labors thus triumphantly crowned by the ministrations of the apostles,
left Samaria, and turned his course southwards, towards Gaza, under
the impulse and guidance of a divine spirit. On this journey, occurred
his most interesting adventure with the lord high treasurer of the
Ethiopian queen, after which Philip was found at Ashdod, on the sea,
from which place, journeying northwards again, he went preaching
through all the towns on the coast, till he arrived at his home, at
Caesarea.

  Illustration: JAFFA――JOPPA.


                        THE BEGINNING OF PEACE.

Soon after the return of the apostles to Jerusalem, an event occurred,
which had a more mighty influence on the progress of the Christian
religion than any other that had occurred since the ascension of Jesus.
The members of the church who still withstood the storm of persecution
in the city, were struck with no small amazement by the sudden
appearance, before them, of Saul of Tarsus, the most bloody persecutor
of their Hellenist brethren, who, having exhausted the opportunities
for the gratification of his spite against them in Jerusalem, had
gone to Damascus, to seize such as there supposed themselves safe in
following the new faith. This man, yet stained, as it were, with the
blood of Stephen, now presented himself to them as a convert to the
gospel, prepared to join them as a brother. The whole affair seemed
to bear so decidedly the aspect of a palpable imposition, that they
altogether refused to have any thing to do with him, and suspected
the whole to be a deep-laid snare, on the part of this bloody foe of
the gospel, who now appeared to be seeking, by false professions, to
get into their confidence, that he might have the means of betraying
them to utter ruin. But Barnabas, who was better acquainted with Saul,
detailed to the church all the wonderful circumstances so fully, that
they no longer hesitated to receive him as a brother and fellow-laborer.
This remarkable conversion was of vast benefit to the cause of the
gospel, not only by bringing to its aid the services of a laborer so
competent, but also by removing from among its adversaries one who had
been a leader and a contriver of every plot of mischief. As soon as
he left the ranks of the foe, the vindictive persecution, which had
raged ever since the death of Stephen, ceased, as though it had lost
its great author and main support, by the defection of Saul of Tarsus.
Indeed, the last act of this persecution, which is recorded, was
directed against this very man, who had once been a leader in it, and
drove him out of the city which had been the scene of his cruelties.
Therefore, the churches had rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee,
and Samaria, strengthening and advancing in piety, and filled with
the impulses of the Holy Spirit. This opportunity of quiet seemed
peculiarly favorable for a minute survey of the condition of these
scattered churches, most of which had grown up without any direct
agency of the apostles, and therefore needed their attention at this
critical period.


                      THE SURVEY OF THE CHURCHES.

The most proper person for this responsible charge, was the great
leader of the apostolic band; and Peter, therefore, taking the task
readily upon himself, went through all the churches, to give them
the advantages of the minute personal ministry of a chief apostle,
who might organize them, and instruct the disciples in their peculiar
duties as members of a new religious community. On this tour of duty,
passing down from the interior towards the sea-coast, he came to Lydda,
about forty or fifty miles from Jerusalem, and about twelve from the
sea. Here there was a company of the faithful, whom he visited, to
instruct them anew, and to enlarge their numbers, by his preaching and
miracles. A particular case is recorded as having occurred here, which
displayed both the compassion of Peter and his divine power to heal and
strengthen. Among the friends of Christ whom he visited here, was an
invalid, whose name, Aeneas, shows him to have been a Hellenist. This
man had for the long period of eight years been deprived of the use of
his limbs, by a palsy, which, during that tedious interval, confined
him to his bed. Peter, on seeing him, said, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals
thee. Arise, and make thy bed for thyself.” The command to spread and
smooth the couch, which he now quitted in health, was given, that he
might show and feel, at once, how fully strength was restored to his
hands as well as his feet. This miracle soon became known, not only to
the citizens of Lydda, but also to the people inhabiting the extensive
and fertile plain of Sharon, which stretched to the northward of
Lydda, along the coast, from Joppa to Caesarea, bounded on the west
by the highlands of Samaria. The effect of this display of power and
benevolence, was such, on their minds, that, without exception, they
professed their faith in Christ.

  _Lydda._――This was a place of far more importance and fame,
  than would be supposed from the brief mention of its name in the
  apostolic narrative. It is often mentioned in the writings of
  the Rabbins, under the name of לוד (_Ludh_,) its original Hebrew
  name, and was long the seat of a great college of Jewish law
  and theology, which at this very period of Peter’s visit was
  in its most flourishing state. This appears from the fact that
  Rabbi Akiba, who raised the school to its greatest eminence,
  was contemporary with the great Rabban Gamaliel, who bears an
  important part in the events of the apostolic history. (The
  data of this chronological inference I find in Lightfoot.) It
  is easy to see, then, why so important a seat of Jewish theology
  should have been thought deserving of the particular notice
  and protracted stay of Peter, who labored with remarkable
  earnestness and effect here, inspired by the consciousness
  of the lasting and extensive good, that would result from an
  impression made on this fountain of religious knowledge. The
  members of the college, however, did not all, probably, profess
  themselves followers of Christ.

  It is also described as possessing some importance in addition
  to its literary privileges. Josephus (Antiquities XX. vi. 3.)
  mentions “Lydda” as “a village not inferior to a city in
  greatness.” Its importance was, no doubt, in a great measure
  derived from the remarkably rich agricultural district which
  surrounded it. This was the plain of Sharon, so celebrated in
  the Hebrew scriptures for its fruitful fields and rich pastures,
  ――its roses and its flocks. (Solomon’s Song ii. 1: Isaiah xxxiii.
  9: xxxv. 2: lxv. 10: 1 Chronicles xxvii. 29.) “All this country
  is described by Pococke as very rich soil, throwing up a great
  quantity of herbage; among which he specifies chardons, rue,
  fennel, and the striped thistle, ‘probably on this account
  called the holy thistle.’ A great variety of anemonies, he
  was told, grow in the neighborhood. ‘I saw likewise,’ he adds,
  ‘many tulips growing wild in the fields (in March;) and any
  one who considers how beautiful those flowers are to the eye,
  would be apt to conjecture that these are the lilies to which
  Solomon, in all his glory, was not to be compared.’”――[Modern
  Traveler, p. 57.] Its distance from Jerusalem is ascertained,
  by Lightfoot, to be one day’s journey, as it is stated with
  some circumlocution in the Mishna. It was destroyed, as Josephus
  relates, by Cestius Gallus, the Roman general, who marched his
  army through that region, in the beginning of the war, which
  ended in the destruction of Jerusalem. Under the peaceful times
  of the later Roman sway in Palestine, it was rebuilt, and called
  Diospolis. But like many other such instances, it has lost its
  temporary heathen name, and is now called by its old scripture
  appellation, _Ludd_. Travelers describe it as now a poor village,
  though the stones to be seen in the modern buildings show that
  it has been a place of great consequence.

  The New Testament name _Lydda_, (Λυδδα,) by which Josephus also
  mentions it, is only so much changed from the Hebrew _Ludh_,
  as was necessary to accommodate it to the regular forms and
  inflexions of the Greek language. Lightfoot well refutes the
  blunder of many modern geographers who make the two names refer
  to different places. This learned author is remarkably full in
  the description of this place, and is very rich in references
  to the numerous allusions which are made to it in the Talmudic
  writings. See his _Centuria Chorographica_, (Chapter 16,)
  prefixed to Horae Hebraica et Talmudicae in Matthew.

  _Aeneas._――This name is unquestionably Greek, which seems to
  show the man to have been a Hellenist; and that he was already
  a believer in Christ, would appear from the fact of Peter’s
  finding him among the brethren there.


                          THE VISIT TO JOPPA.

Hardly had this instance of divine favor occurred in Lydda, when a
new occasion for a similar effort presented itself, in the neighboring
seaport town of Joppa. A female disciple of the faith of Christ,
in that city, by name Tabitha, or in the Greek, Dorcas, (both names
meaning Gazelle,) had distinguished herself and honored her religious
profession, by the generous and charitable deeds which constantly
employed her hands. This lady, so respected by all, and so loved by the
poor, who gave witness to her goodness,――such an honor to the religious
community which she had joined,――seemed to have so nobly done her part
in life, that the order of Providence had apparently called her to rest
from these labors, in that sleep from which no piety nor usefulness can
save or recall their possessor. After a few days of illness, she died,
and was, after the usual funeral ablutions, laid in an upper chamber,
to await the burial. In the midst of the universal grief for this
sad loss, the members of the church at Joppa, knowing that Peter was
in Lydda, within a few hours’ journey, sent two messengers to him, to
beg his presence among them, as some consolation in their distress.
Peter, on hearing of this occasion for his presence, with great
readiness accompanied the messengers back, and on arriving at Joppa,
went straight to the house of mourning. He was immediately led into
the chamber, where he found a most affecting testimony to the nature of
the loss which the afflicted community had suffered. Around the dead,
stood the widows who, in their friendlessness, had been relieved by
the sympathy of Dorcas, now pouring their tears and uttering their
lamentations over her, and showing that even the garments which they
wore were the work of her industrious hand,――that hand which, once
so untiring in these labors of love, was now cold and motionless in
death. From that resistless doom, what mortal voice could ever recall
even one so amiable and useful? But, while they were sorrowing thus,
Peter ordered them all to leave him alone with the dead; and when all
witnesses were removed, he kneeled and prayed. The words of that prayer
are not recorded; and it is only by its successful efficiency that
we know it to have been that fervent effectual prayer of a righteous
man, which availeth much. It was such a prayer as, of old, the son
of Shaphat offered over the dead child of the Shunamite, when alone
with him; and its effect was not less mighty. Rising at length, and
turning towards the body, he said “Tabitha, arise!” Awaking from the
unbreathing sleep of death, as from a light slumber of an hour, she
opened her eyes, and when she saw the majestic man of God alone, and
herself robed for the tomb, she sat up and gazed in amazement. Peter,
then, giving her his hand, lifted her from the funeral couch, and
calling in the brethren and the widows; he presented her to their
astonished eyes, alive. Their overwhelming joy and wonder, we are left
to imagine. The story, when made known through the city, brought many
to acknowledge the truth of that religion whose minister could work
such wonders; and many believed in Christ. The field of labor which now
opened to Peter in this place, seemed so wide that he did not continue
his journey any further at that time, but took up his abode, for
several days, in Joppa, lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, whose
house stood by the sea, near the water.

  _Joppa_, now called _Jaffa_.――This was from very early times a
  place of great importance, from the circumstance of its being
  the nearest seaport to Jerusalem. It is mentioned in reference
  to this particular of its situation, in 2 Chronicles ii. 17,
  where it is specified (in Hebrew יפו _Japho_) as the port to which
  the cedar timber from Lebanon should be floated down in rafts,
  to be conveyed to Jerusalem for building the temple. It stood
  within the territories of the tribe of Dan, according to Joshua
  xix. 46, and lies about East-North-east from Jerusalem. Strabo,
  (xvi.) in describing it, refers to it as the scene of the
  ancient Grecian fable of Andromeda rescued from the sea-monster
  by Perseus. He describes its site as “quite elevated,――so much
  so, indeed, that it was a common saying that Jerusalem might
  be seen from the place; the inhabitants of which city use it
  as their seaport, in all their maritime intercourse.” Josephus
  mentions that it was added to the dominions of Herod the
  Great by Augustus. Its present appearance is thus described by
  travelers.

  “It is situated in latitude 32 degrees 2 minutes North, and
  longitude 34 degrees 53 minutes East, and is forty miles West
  of Jerusalem. Its situation, as the nearest port to the Holy
  City, has been the chief cause of its importance. As a station
  for vessels, according ♦to Dr. Clarke, its harbor is one of
  the worst in the Mediterranean. Ships generally anchor about a
  mile from the town, to avoid the shoals and rocks of the place.
  The badness of the harbor is mentioned, indeed, by Josephus.
  (Josephus, Antiquities, book xv. chapter 9.) * * * The road
  is protected by a castle built on a rock, and there are some
  storehouses and magazines on the sea-side. The coast is low,
  but little elevated above the level of the sea; but the town
  occupies an eminence, in the form of a sugar-loaf, with a
  citadel on the summit. The bottom of the hill is surrounded with
  a wall twelve or fourteen feet high, and two or three feet thick.
  * * * There are no antiquities in Jaffa: the place would seem to
  be too old to have any――to have outlived all that once rendered
  it interesting. The inhabitants are estimated at between four
  and five thousand souls, of whom the greater part are Turks
  and Arabs; the Christians are stated to be about six hundred,
  consisting of Roman Catholics, Greeks, Maronites, and Armenians.”
  [Modern Traveler, Palestine, pp. 41, 42.]

    ♦ “io” replaced with “to”

  _Dorcas._――This is the Greek translation of the old Hebrew צבי
  (_Tsebi_,) in the Aramaic dialect of that age, changed into תביתא
  (_Tabitha_,) in English, “_gazelle_,” a beautiful animal of the
  antelope kind, often mentioned in descriptions of the deserts
  of south-western Asia, in which it roams; and not unfrequently
  the subject of poetical allusion. The species to which it is
  commonly supposed to belong, is the _Antilopa Dorcas_ of Prof.
  Pallas, who named it on the supposition that it was identical
  with this animal, called by the Greeks, Δορκας, (_Dorkas_,) from
  Δερκο, (_Derko_,) “to look,” from the peculiar brightness of
  “its soft black eye.”


                       THE CALL TO THE HEATHEN.

The apostles had now, with great zeal and efficiency, preached the
gospel of Jesus Christ to the worshipers of the true God, beginning at
Jerusalem, and spreading the triumphs of his name to the bounds of the
land of Israel. But in all their devotion to their Master’s work, they
had never had a thought of breaking over the bounds of the faith of
their fathers, or of making their doctrine anything else than a mere
completion or accompaniment to the law of Moses; nor did they imagine
that they were ever to extend the blessings of the gospel to any who
did not bow down to all the tedious rituals of the ancient covenant.
The true power of their Lord’s parting command, “Go and teach _all
nations_,” they had never felt; and even now, their great chief
supposed that the change of heart and remission of sins, which he was
commissioned to preach, were for none but the devout adherents of the
Jewish faith. A new and signal call was needed, to bring the apostles
to a full sense of their enlarged duties; and it is among the highest
honors vouchsafed to Peter, that he was the person chosen to receive
this new view of the boundless field now opened for the battles and
triumphs of the cross. To him, as the head and representative of
the whole band of the apostles, was now spread out, in all its moral
vastness and its physical immensity, the coming dominion of that faith,
whose little seed he was now cherishing, with but a humble hope; but
whose stately trunk and giant branches were, from that small and low
beginning, to stretch, in a mighty growth, over lands, and worlds, to
him unknown. Thus far he had labored with a high and holy zeal, in a
cause whose vastness he had never appreciated,――every moment building
up, unwittingly, a name for himself, which should outlast all the
glories of the ancient covenant; and securing for his Master a dominion
which the religion of Moses could never have reached. He had never had
an idea, that he with his companions was founding and spreading a new
religion;――to purify the religion of the law and the prophets, and to
rescue it from the confusion and pollutions of warring sectaries, was
all that they had thought of; yet with this end in view, they had been
securing the attainment of one so far above and beyond, that a full
and sudden view of the consequences of their humble deeds, would have
appalled them. But though the mighty plan had never been whispered nor
dreamed of, on earth,――though it was too immense for its simple agents
to endure its full revelation at once,――its certain accomplishment
had been ordained in heaven, and its endless details were to be fully
learned only in its triumphant progress through uncounted ages. But,
limited as was the view which the apostles then had of the high destiny
of the cause to which they had devoted themselves, it was yet greatly
extended from the low-born notions with which they had first followed
the steps of their Master. They now no longer entertained the vagary
of a worldly triumph and a worldly reward; they had left that on the
mount where their Lord parted from them, and they were now prayerfully
laboring for the establishment of a pure spiritual kingdom in the
hearts of the righteous. To give them a just idea of the exalted
freedom to which the gospel brought its sons, and to open their hearts
to a Christian fellowship, as wide as the whole human family, God now
gave the apostolic leader an unquestionable call to tell to the world
the glad tidings of salvation, for all men, through a new and living
way, by change of heart and remission of sins. The incidents which led
to this revelation are thus detailed.

The peace and good order of Palestine were now secured by several
legions, whose different divisions, larger or smaller according to
circumstances, were quartered in all the strong or important places
in the country, to repress disorders, and enforce the authority of the
civil power, when necessary. Besides this ordinary peace-establishment
of the province, there was a cohort which took its name from the
circumstance that it had been levied in Italy,――a distinction, now so
rare, in consequence of the introduction of foreign mercenaries into
the imperial hosts, as to become the occasion of an honorable eminence,
which was signified by the title here given, showing that this division
of the Roman armies was made up of the sons of that soil which had
so long sent forth the conquerors of the world. Of all the variety
of service required of the different detachments of the army, in the
province which it guarded, by far the most honorable was that of being
stationed next the person of the governor of the province, to maintain
the military dignity of his vice-imperial court, and defend his
representative majesty. Caesarea, on the sea-shore, was now the seat
of the Roman government of Palestine; and here, in attendance on the
person of the governor, was this aforesaid Italian cohort, at the head
of a company in which, was a centurion named Cornelius. Though nothing
is given respecting his birth and family but this single name, a very
slight knowledge of Roman history and antiquities enables the historian
to decide, that he was descended from a noble race of patricians, which
had produced several of the most illustrious families of the imperial
city. Eminent by this high birth and military rank, he must have
been favored with an education worthy of his family and station. It
is therefore allowable to conclude, that he was an intelligent and
well-informed gentleman, whom years of foreign service, in the armies
of his country must have improved by the combined advantages of
a traveler and a disciplined warrior. Of his moral and religious
character such an account is given, as proves that his principles,
probably implanted in early life, had been of such firmness as to
withstand the numerous temptations of a soldier’s life, and to secure
him in a course of most uncommon rectitude in his duties towards God
and towards man. In the merciful exercise of his power over the people
whose safety and quiet he came to maintain, and, moreover, in the
generous use of his pecuniary advantages, he passed his blameless life;
and the high motive of this noble conduct, is discovered in the steady,
pure devotion, in which he employed many hours of daily retirement,
and in which he caused his whole family publicly to join, on proper
occasions. Thus is he briefly and strongly characterized by the sacred
historian: “devout, and fearing God with all his house; giving much
alms, and praying to God always.”

  _Noble race of patricians._――The _gens Cornelia_, or “Cornelian
  race,” was unequaled in Rome for the great number of noble
  families sprung from its stock. The Scipios, the Sullas, the
  Dolabellas, the Cinnas, the Lentuli, the Cethegi, the Cossi,
  and many other illustrious branches of this great race, are
  conspicuous in Roman history; and the Fasti Consulares, record
  more than sixty of the Cornelian race, who had borne the
  consular dignity previous to the apostolic era. This is always
  a _family_ name, and Ainsworth very grossly errs in calling it
  “the _praenomen_ of several Romans.” Every Roman name of the
  middle and later ages of the commonwealth, had at least three
  parts, which were the _praenomen_, marking the individual,――the
  _nomen_ marking the _gens_, (“race,” “stock,”) and the
  _cognomen_, marking the family or division of that great stock.
  Thus in the name “Publius Cornelius Scipio,” the _last_ word
  shows that the person belonged to the Scipio family, which by
  the _second_ word is seen to be of the great Cornelian stock,
  while the first shows that this member of the family was
  distinguished from his relations, by the name of Publius.
  (See Adams’s Roman Antiquities, on Names.) Wherever this name,
  Cornelius, occurs, if the whole appellation of the man is given,
  this comes in the middle, as the _nomen_, marking the race;
  as is the case with every one of those quoted by Ainsworth,
  in his blundering account of the word. See also Sallust, (The
  Catilinarian Conspiracy, 47, 55,) in defense of this peculiar
  limitation of the word to the _gens_. Not a single instance can
  be brought of its application to any person not of this noble
  patrician race, or of its use as a mere individual appellation.
  I am therefore authorized in concluding that this Cornelius
  mentioned in the Acts was related to this line of high nobility.
  It might, perhaps, be conjectured, that he had borrowed this
  name from that noble race, from having once been in the service
  of some one of its families, as was common in the case of
  freedmen, after they had received their liberty; but this
  supposition is not allowable; for he is expressly particularized
  as belonging to an _Italian_ division of the army, which fact
  excludes the idea of that foreign origin which would belong
  to a slave. The Jews having but one name for each man, seldom
  gave all of a Roman’s name, unless of a very eminent man, as
  Pontius Pilate, Sergius Paulus, and other official characters;
  but selecting any one of the three parts which might be most
  convenient, they made that the sole appellative, whether
  _praenomen_, _nomen_, or _cognomen_. As in Luke ii. 2: Acts
  xxiii. 24: xxv. 1: xxvii. 1: xxviii. 7, &c.

  Illustration:   JERUSALEM, FROM THE LATIN CONVENT.
                             Luke xxi. 24.

  _The Italian cohort._――The word Σπειρα (_Speira_) I translate
  “_cohort_,” rather than “_legion_,” as the older commentators
  did. Jerome translates it “_cohortem_,” and he must have known
  the exact technical force of the Greek word, and to what Latin
  military term it corresponded, from his living in the time when
  these terms must have been in frequent use. Those who prefer
  to translate it “legion,” are misled by the circumstance, that
  Tacitus and other writers on Roman affairs, mention a legion
  which had the distinctive appellation of “_the Italian Legion_;”
  while it has been supposed that these ancient authors make no
  mention of an Italian _cohort_. But the deeply learned Wetstein,
  with his usual vast classical research, has shown several such
  passages, in Arrian and others, in which mention _is_ made
  of an Italian cohort; and in Gruter’s inscriptions, quoted by
  Kuinoel, there is an account of “a volunteer cohort of _Italian_
  soldiers in Syria;” and Palestine was at this time included
  with Syria, under the presidency of Petronius. This inscription,
  too, justifies my remark as to the high character of those who
  served in this corps. “Cohors militum Italicorum _voluntaria_”
  seems to imply a body of soldiers of a higher character than the
  ordinary mercenary mass of the army, being probably made up of
  _volunteers_ from respectable families of Italy, who chose to
  enlarge their knowledge of the world by foreign military service,
  in this very honorable station of life-guard to the Roman
  governor, as Doddridge and others suppose this to have been.
  (See Doddridge on this passage; also C. G. Schwartz in Wolff,
  Cur. Philology in loc.) It is considered also as fairly proved
  that the “Italian _legion_” was not formed till a much later
  period; so that it is rendered in the highest degree probable
  and unquestionable, that this was a _cohort_, and, as Schwartz
  and Doddridge prove, not a mere ordinary cohort, making the
  tenth part of a common legion of 4200, but a distinct and
  independent corps, attached to no legion, and devoted to the
  exclusive honorable service above mentioned. (See Bloomfield,
  Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, &c.)

  _Devout._――Some have tried hard to make out that Cornelius was
  what they call “a proselyte of the gate;” that is, one who,
  though not circumcised, nor conforming to the rituals generally,
  yet was an observer of the _moral_ law. But Lardner very fully
  shows that there were not two sorts of proselytes; all who bore
  that name fully conforming to the Jewish rituals, but still
  called “strangers,” &c.; because, though admitted to all the
  religious privileges of the covenant, they were excluded from
  the civil and political privileges of Jews, and could not be
  freeholders. Cornelius must then have been a mere Gentile. (See
  Lardner in his life of Peter; also Kuinoel and Bloomfield.)

  _Caesarea._――This is another of those cities enlarged or rebuilt
  by the princes of the Herodian line, and honored with the
  names of the imperial family. This city stood on the sea-shore,
  about 30 miles north of Joppa; and (Modern Traveler) 62
  north-north-west from Jerusalem. (600 stadia Josephus.) It has
  been idly conjectured by the Rabbinical writers, that this was
  the same with Ekron, of the Old Testament, Zephaniah ii. 4;
  while the Arabic version gives it as Hazor, Joshua xi. 1,――both
  with about equal probability. The earliest name by which it
  can be certainly recognized, is Apollonia, which it bore when
  it passed from the Syro-Grecians to the Maccabean princes.
  Its common name, in the time of Herod the Great, was πυργος
  Στρατωνος, _turris Stratonis_, “Straton’s castle,” from the name
  of a Greek pirate who had built a strong hold here. Herod the
  Great made it the most splendid city in his dominions, and even
  in all the eastern part of the Roman empire; and in honor of
  Augustus Caesar, called it Caesarea Augusta. It was sometimes
  called Caesarea _Palestinae_, to distinguish it from Caesarea
  _Philippi_; for Palestine was then a name limited to the
  southern part of the coast of the Holy Land, and was bounded on
  the north by Phoenicia. This city was the capital of the whole
  Holy Land throughout the period of the later Herodian and Roman
  sway.

To this man was sent the first heavenly call, which ended in bringing
in the Gentiles to the knowledge of the truth revealed by Jesus. After
having fasted all day, he was employed in his regular devotions, at
the usual hour of prayer, (three o’clock in the afternoon,) when his
senses were overwhelmed by a vision, in which he had a distinct view
of a messenger of God, in shining garments, coming to him; and heard
him call him by his name, “Cornelius!” Looking at him as steadily as
he was able in his great alarm, Cornelius asked, “What is it, Lord?”
The heavenly visitant replied, in words of consolation and high praise,
“Thy prayers and thy alms have come up in remembrance before God. And
now send men to Joppa, and call for a man named Simon Peter, lodging
with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea-side. He, when he comes,
shall tell thee what it is right that thou shouldst do.” When the
surprising messenger had given this charge, he departed; and Cornelius,
without delay, went to fulfil the minute directions he had received.
He called two of his domestics, and a devout soldier of the detachment
then on duty near him, and having related to them all that he had just
seen and heard, he sent them to Joppa, to invite Peter according to the
order. The distance between the two places is about thirty-five miles,
and being too great to be easily traveled in one day, they journeyed
thither during a part of two days, starting immediately when they
received the command, though late in the afternoon. While they were
continuing their journey, the next day, and were now near to the city
of Joppa, Peter, without any idea of the important task to which he
was soon to be summoned, went up, as usual, to the Alijah, or place of
prayer, upon the house-top, at about twelve o’clock, mid-day. Having,
according to the usual custom of the Jews, fasted for many hours, for
the sake of keeping the mind clear from the effects of gross food on
the body, and at length becoming sensible that he had pushed himself to
the utmost limits of safe abstinence, he wished for food, and ordered
his dinner. While the servants were preparing it, he continued above,
in the place of prayer, where, enfeebled by fasting, and over-wrought
by mental effort, he fell into a state of spiritual excitement, in
which the mind is most susceptible of strong impressions of things
beyond the reach of sense. In this condition, there appeared to him
a singular vision, which subsequent events soon enabled him fully to
interpret. It seemed to him that a great sheet was let down from the
sky, to which it was fastened by the four corners, containing on its
vast surface all sorts of animals that were forbidden as food by the
Mosaic law. While the apostle gazed upon this vast variety of animals,
which education had taught him to consider unclean, there came a voice
to him, calling him by name, and commanding him to arise, kill, and
eat. All his prejudices and early religious impressions were roused
by such a proposal; and, resisting the invisible speaker as the agent
of temptation to him in his bodily exhaustion, he replied, in all the
pride of a scrupulous and unpolluted Jew, “By no means, Lord, because
I have never eaten anything improper or unclean.” The mysterious voice
again said, “What God hath cleansed, do not thou consider improper.”
This impressive scene having been twice repeated, the whole was
withdrawn back into heaven. This remarkable vision immediately called
out all the energies of Peter’s mind, in its explanation. But before
he had time to decide for himself what was meant by it, the messengers
of Caesarea had inquired out the house of Simon, and, coming to the
outside door, they called to learn whether Simon, who was surnamed
Peter, lodged there. And while the mind of Peter was still intently
occupied with the vision, he received an intimation from the unerring
spirit, that his presence was required elsewhere. “Behold! three men
are seeking thee, but rise up and go with them, without hesitation;
for I have sent them.” Thus urged and encouraged, Peter went directly
down to the men sent by Cornelius, and said, “Behold! I am he whom ye
seek. What is your object in coming here?” They at once unfolded their
errand. “Cornelius, a centurion, a just man, fearing God, and of good
repute among all the Jews, was instructed by a holy messenger, to send
for thee to his house, that he may hear something from thee.” Peter,
already instructed as to the proper reception of the invitation, asked
them in, and hospitably entertained them till the next day, improving
the delay, no doubt, by learning as many of the circumstances of the
case as they could give him. The news of this remarkable call was also
made known to the brethren of the church in Joppa, some of whom were so
highly interested in what they heard that evening, that they resolved
to accompany Peter the next day, with the messengers, to see and hear
for themselves the details of a business which promised to result so
fairly in the glory of Christ’s name, and the wide enlargement of his
kingdom. On the next day, the whole party set out together, and reached
Caesarea, the second day of their journey; and going straight to the
house of Cornelius, they found quite a large company there, awaiting
their arrival. For Cornelius, expecting them, had invited his relations
and his intimate friends, to hear the extraordinary communications
which had been promised him, from his visitor. The kindred here alluded
to were, perhaps, those of his wife, whom, according to a very common
usage, he may have married in the place where he was stationed; for it
is hardly probable that a Roman captain from Italy could have had any
of his own blood relations about him, unless, perhaps, some of them
might have enlisted with him, and now been serving with him on this
honorable post. His near friends, who completed the assembly, were
probably such of his brother officers as he knew to possess kindred
tastes with himself, and to take an interest in religious matters. Such
was the meeting that Peter found sitting in expectation of his coming;
and so high were the ideas which Cornelius had formed of the character
of his visitor, that, as soon as he met him on his entrance into the
house, he fell down at his feet, and paid him reverence as a superior
being;――an act of abasement towards the inhabitant of a conquered
country, most rare and remarkable in a Roman officer, and one to which
nothing but a notion of supernatural excellence could ever have brought
him, since this was a position assumed not even by those who approached
the emperor himself. Peter, however, had no desire to be made the
object of a reverence so nearly resembling idolatry. Raising up the
prostrate Roman, he said, “Stand up: for I myself am also a man.”
Entering into familiar discourse with him, he now advanced into the
house, and going with him to the great room, he there found a numerous
company. He addressed them in these words: “You know how unlawful it is
for a Jew to be familiar, or even to visit, with one of another nation;
but God has taught me to call no man vulgar or unclean. Wherefore, I
came at your summons, without hesitation. Now, then, I ask with what
design have you sent for me?” And Cornelius said, “Four days ago, I
was fasting till this hour; and at the ninth hour I was praying in my
house;” and so having gone on to narrate all the circumstances of his
vision, as given above, concluded in these words, “For this reason I
sent for thee, and thou hast done well in coming, for we are all here,
before God, to hear what has been imparted to thee, from God.” And
Peter began solemnly to speak, and said, “Of a truth, I perceive that
God is no respecter of persons; but that in every nation, he that
fears him and does what is right, is approved by him.” With this solemn
profession of a new view of this important principle of universal
religion, as a beginning, he went on to satisfy their high expectations,
by setting forth to them the sum and substance of the gospel doctrine,
of whose rise and progress they had already, by report, heard a vague
and partial account. The great and solemn truth which the Spirit had
summoned him to proclaim, was that Jesus Christ the crucified was
ordained by God the judge of both living and dead, and that through
him, as all the prophets testified, every one that believed should have
remission of sins. Of his resurrection from the dead, Peter declared
himself the witness, as well as of his labors of good will towards
man, when, anointed with the Spirit of God, he went about doing good.
Thus did Peter discourse, excited by the novel and divinely appointed
occasion, till the same divine influence that moved his heart and
tongue was poured out on his charmed hearers, and they forthwith
manifested the signs of change of heart and devout faith in Christ, as
the Son of God and the judge of the world; and made known the delight
of their new sensations, in words of miraculous power. At this display
of the equal and impartial grace of God, the Jewish church-members
from Joppa, who had accompanied Peter to Caesarea, were greatly amazed,
having never before imagined it possible for the influences of the
divine spirit to be imparted to any who had not devoutly conformed to
all the rituals of the holy law of old given by God to Moses, whose
high authority was attested amid the smoke and flame and thunder of
Sinai. And what change was this? In the face of this awful sanction,
these believing followers of Moses and Christ saw the outward signs
of the inward action of that Spirit which they had been accustomed
to acknowledge as divine, now moving with the same holy energy the
souls and voices of those born and bred among the heathen, without the
consecrating aid of one of those forms of purification, by which Moses
had ordained their preparation for the enjoyment of the blessings
of God’s holy covenant with his own peculiar people. Moved by that
same mysterious and holy influence, the Gentile warriors of Rome now
lifted up their voices in praise of the God of Israel and of Abraham,
――doubtless too, _their_ God and Father, though Abraham were ignorant
of them, and Israel acknowledged them not; since through his son Jesus
a new covenant had been sealed in blood, opening and securing the
blessings of that merciful and faithful promise to all nations. On
Jehovah they now called as their Father and Redeemer, whose name was
from everlasting,――known and worshiped long ere Abraham lived. Never
before had the great partition-wall between Jews and Gentiles been thus
broken down, nor had the noble and equal freedom of the new covenant
ever yet been so truly and fully made known. And who was he that had
thus boldly trampled on the legal usages of the ancient Mosaic covenant,
as consecrated by the reverence of ages, and had imparted the holy
signs of the Christian faith to men shut out from the mysteries
of the inner courts of the house of God? It was not a presumptuous
or unauthorized man, nor one thoughtless of the vastly important
consequences of the act. It was the constituted leader of the apostolic
band, who now, in direct execution of his solemn commission received
from his Master, and in the literal fulfilment of the prophetic charge
given therewith at the base of distant Hermon, opened the gates of the
kingdom of heaven to all nations. Bearing the keys of the kingdom of
God on earth, he now, in the set time of divine appointment, at the
call of his Master in heaven, so signally given to him both directly
and indirectly, unlocked the long-closed door, and with a voice of
heavenly charity, bade the waiting Gentiles enter. This was the mighty
commission with which Jesus had so prophetically honored this chief
disciple at CAESAREA _Philippi_, and here, at CAESAREA _Augusta_, was
achieved the glorious fulfilment of this before mysterious announcement;
――Simon Peter now, in the accomplishment of that divinely appointed
task, became the ROCK, on which the church of Christ was, through the
course of ages, reared; and in this act, the first stone of its broad
Gentile foundation was laid.

  _On duty about him._――This phrase is the just translation of the
  technical term προσκαρτερουντων, (_proskarterounton_,) according
  to Price, Kuinoel, Bloomfield, &c.

Of all the honors with which his apostolic career was marked, there is
none which equals this,――the revolutionizing of the whole gospel plan
as before understood and advanced by its devotees,――the enlargement of
its scope beyond the widest range of any merely Jewish charity,――and
the disenthralment of its subjects from the antique formality and
cumbrous ritual of the Jewish worship. And of all the events which the
apostolic history records, there is none which, in its far-reaching and
long-lasting effects, can match the opening of Christ’s kingdom to the
Gentiles. What would have been the rate of its advancement under the
management of those, who, like the apostles hitherto, looked on it
as a mere improvement and spiritualization of the old Mosaic form, to
which it was, in their view, only an appendage, and not a substitute?
Think of what chances there were of its extension under such views to
those far western lands where, ages ago, it reached with its benign
influences the old Teutonic hordes from whom we draw our race;――or of
what possibility there was of ever bringing under the intolerable yoke
of Jewish forms, the hundreds of millions who now, out of so many lands
and kindreds and tongues, bear the light yoke, and own the simpler
faith of Jesus, confessing him Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Yet hitherto, so far from seeing these things in their true light,
all the followers of Christ had, notwithstanding his broad and
open commission to them, steadily persisted in the notion, that the
observance of the regulations laid down by Moses for proselytes to
his faith, was equally essential for a full conversion to the faith of
Christ. And now too, it required a new and distinctly repeated summons
from above, to bring even the great chief of the apostles to the just
sense of the freedom of the gospel, and to the practical belief that
God was no respecter of persons. But the whole progress of the event,
with all its miraculous attestations, left so little doubt of the
nature of the change, that Peter, after the manifestation of a holy
spirit in the hearts and voices of the Gentile converts, triumphantly
appealed to the Jewish brethren who had accompanied him from Joppa, and
asked them, “Can any one forbid the water for the baptizing of these,
who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?” Taking the unanimous
suffrage of their silence to his challenge, as a full consent, he gave
directions that the believing Romans should be baptized in the name of
the Lord, as Jesus in his parting charge had constituted that ordinance
for the seal of redemption to every creature, in all the nations to
whom the gospel should be preached. Having thus formally enrolled
the first Gentile converts, as the free and complete partakers of the
blessings of the new covenant, he stayed among them several days, at
their request, strengthening their faith, and enlarging their knowledge
by his pastoral instruction; which he deemed a task of sufficient
importance to detain him, for a while, from his circuit among the new
converts, scattered about in other places throughout Palestine, and
from any immediate return to his friends and converts at Joppa, where
this call had found him.

Meanwhile, this mighty innovation on the established order of sacred
things could not be long unknown beyond the cities of Caesarea and
Joppa, but was soon announced by the varied voice of rumor to the
amazed apostles and brethren at Jerusalem. The impression made on
them by this vague report of their great leader’s proceedings, was
most decidedly unfavorable; and there seem to have been not a few who
regarded this unprecedented act of Peter as a downright abuse of the
dignity and authority with which the special commission of his Master
had invested him. Doubtless, in that little religious community, as in
every other association of men ever gathered, there were already many
human jealousies springing up like roots of bitterness, which needed
but such an occasion as this, to manifest themselves in decided censure
of the man, whose remarkable exaltation over them might seem like a
stigma on the capacities or merits of those to whom he was preferred.
Those in whose hearts such feelings had been rankling, now found
a great occasion for the display of their religious zeal, in this
bold movement of their constituted leader, who herein seemed to
have presumed on his distinction and priority, to act in a matter of
the very highest importance, without the slightest reference to the
feelings and opinions of those, who had been with him chosen for the
great work of spreading the gospel to all nations. And so much of free
opinion and expression was there among them, that this act of the chief
apostle called forth complaints both deep and loud, from his brethren,
against this open and unexplained violation of the holy ordinances
of that ancient law, which was still to them and him the seal and
sign of salvation. Peter, at length, after completing his apostolic
circuit among the churches, of which no farther account is given to
us, returned to Jerusalem to meet these murmurs with the bold and clear
declaration of the truth. As soon as he arrived, the grumblers burst
out on him with open complaints of his offensive violations of the
strict religious exclusiveness of demeanor, which became a son of
Israel professing the pure reformed faith of Jesus. The unhesitating
boldness with which this charge of a breach of order was made against
Peter by the sticklers for circumcision, is a valuable and interesting
proof, that all his authority and dignity among them, did not amount to
anything like a _supremacy_; and that whatever he might bind or loose
on earth for the high sanction of heaven, he could neither bind the
tongues and opinions, nor loose the consciences of these sturdy and
free-spoken brethren. Nor does Peter seem to have had the least idea
of claiming any exemption from their critical review of his actions;
but straightway addressed himself respectfully to them, in a faithful
detail of his conduct, and the reasons of it. He distinctly recounted
to them the clear and decided call which he considered himself to
have received from heaven, by which he was summoned as the spiritual
guide of the inquiring Gentiles. And after the honest recital of the
whole series of incidents, and of the crowning act of the whole, the
imparting to them the outward sign of inward washing from their sins,
he boldly appealed to the judgments of his accusers, to say whether,
in the face of such a sanction, they would have had him do otherwise.
“When the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning, then
remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said,” (when parting
from us, on the top of Olivet, to rise to the bosom of his father,
prophetically announcing a new and holy consecration and endowment for
our work,) “John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized
with the Holy Ghost.” This peculiar gift thus solemnly announced, we
had indeed received at the pentecost, and its outward signs we had
thereby learned infallibly by our own experience; and even so, at
Caesarea, I recognized in those Gentiles the same tokens by which I
knew the workings of divine grace in myself and you. “Forasmuch, then,
as God gave them the like gift as to us, who believed on the Lord
Jesus Christ, what was I, that I should withstand God?”――This clear and
unanswerable appeal silenced the clamors of the bold assertors of the
inviolability of Mosaic forms; and when they heard these things, they
held their peace, and, softened from their harsh spirit of rebuke, they,
in a noble feeling of truly Christian triumph, forgot all their late
exclusiveness, in a pure joy for the new and vast extension of the
dominion of Christ, secured by this act, whose important consequences
they were not slow in perceiving. They praised God for such a beginning
of mighty results, and laying aside, in this moment of exultation,
every feeling of narrow Jewish bigotry, they acknowledged that “to the
Gentiles also, God had granted repentance unto life.”


                            HEROD AGRIPPA.

At this time, the monarch of the Roman world was Caius Caesar, commonly
known by his surname, Caligula. Among the first acts of a reign,
whose outset was deservedly popular for its numerous manifestations of
prudence and benevolence, forming a strange contrast with subsequent
tyranny and folly, was the advancement of a tried and faithful friend,
to the regal honors and power which his birth entitled him to claim,
and from which the neglectful indifference at first, and afterwards the
revengeful spite of the preceding Caesar, Tiberius, had long excluded
him. This was Herod Agrippa, grandson of that great Herod, who, by
the force of his own exalted genius, and by the favor of the imperial
Augustus, rose from the place of a friendless foreign adventurer, to
the kingly sway of all Palestine. This extensive power he exercised
in a manner which was, on the whole, ultimately advantageous to
his subjects; but his whole reign, and the later years of it more
particularly, were marked by cruelties the most infamous, to which he
was led by almost insane fits of the most causeless jealousy. On none
of the subjects of his power, did this tyrannical fury fall with such
frequent and dreadful visitations, as on his own family; and it was
there, that, in his alternate fits of fury and remorse, he was made the
avenger of his own victims. Among these numerous domestic cruelties,
one of the earliest, and the most distressing, was the murder of the
amiable Mariamne, the daughter of the last remnants of the Asmonaean
line,――

                  “Herself the solitary scion left
                   Of a time-honored race,”

which Herod’s remorseless policy had exterminated. Her he made his wife,
and after a few years sacrificed her to some wild freak of jealousy,
only to reap long years of agonizing remorse for the hasty act, when
a cooler search had shown, too late, her stainless innocence. But a
passionate despot never yet learned wisdom by being made to feel the
recoil of his own folly; and in the course of later years this cruelty
was equalled, and almost outdone, by a similar act, committed by him
on those whom her memory should have saved, if anything could. The
innocent and unfortunate Mariamne left him two sons, then mere children,
whom the miserable, repentant tyrant, cherished and reared with an
affectionate care, which might almost have seemed a partial atonement
for the injuries of their murdered mother. After some years passed in
obtaining a foreign education at the imperial court of Rome, these two
sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, returned at their father’s summons,
to his court, where their noble qualities, their eloquence and manly
accomplishments, as well as the interest excited by their mother’s fate,
drew on them the favorable and admiring regard of the whole people. But
all that made them admirable and amiable to others, was as powerless
as the memory of their mother, to save them from the fury of the
suspicious tyrant. Those whose interests could be benefited by such a
course, soon found means to make them objects of jealousy and terror
to him, and ere long involved them in a groundless accusation of
conspiring against his dominion and life. The uneasiness excited in
Herod by their great popularity and their commanding talents, led
him to believe this charge; and the miserable old tyrant, driven
from fear to jealousy, and from jealousy to fury, at last crowned
his own wretchedness and their wrongs, by strangling them both, after
an imprisonment of so great a length as to take away from his crime
even the shadowy excuse of hastiness. This was one of the last acts
of a bloody life; but ere he died, returning tenderness towards the
unfortunate race of Mariamne, led him to spare and cherish the infant
children of Aristobulus, the younger of the two, who left three sons
and two daughters to the tender mercies of his cruel father. One of
these was the person who is concerned in the next event of Peter’s life,
and whose situation and conduct in reference to that affair, was such
as to justify this prolonged episode. He received in infancy the name
of Agrippa, out of compliment to Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, the favorite
and minister of Augustus Caesar, and the steady friend of the great
Herod. This name was exclusively borne by this son of Aristobulus in
childhood, nor was it ever displaced by any other, except by some of
the Jews, who, out of compliment to the restoration of the Herodian
line of kings, in place of the Roman sub-governors, gave him the name
of his royal grandfather, so that he is mentioned only by the name
of Herod in the story of the Acts of the Apostles; but the Romans and
Greeks seem to have known him only by his proper name of Agrippa. The
tardy repentance of his grandfather did not extend to any important
permanent provision for the children of Aristobulus; but on his death a
few years after, they were left with the great majority of the numerous
progeny of Herod, to the precarious fortunes of dependent princes. The
young Agrippa having married his own cousin, Cypros, the daughter of a
daughter of Herod and Mariamne, sailed to Rome, where he remained for
several years, a sort of beggar about the court of Tiberius Caesar,
through whose favor he hoped for an advancement to some one of the
thrones in Palestine, which seemed to be prizes for any of Herod’s
numerous descendents who could best secure the imperial favor, and
depress the possessors in the Caesar’s opinion. Passing at Rome and
elsewhere through a romantic variety of fortune, this adventurer was
at last lucky in securing to himself the most friendly regard of Caius
Caesar, then the expected successor of the reigning emperor. This
afterwards proved the basis of his fortunes, which for a while, however,
were darkened by the consequences of an imprudent remark made to Caius,
expressive of a wish for the death of Tiberias, which was reported
to the jealous tyrant by a listening slave, and finally caused the
speaker’s close imprisonment during the rest of the emperor’s life.
The death of Tiberius, followed by the accession of Caius Caesar to
the throne, raised Agrippa from his chains to freedom, and to the
most intimate favor of the new monarch. The tetrarchy of Iturea and
Trachonitis, then vacant by the death of Philip, was immediately
conferred on him; and soon after, Herod Antipas having been exiled, his
territories, Galilee and Peraea, were added to the former dominions of
Herod Agrippa, and with them was granted to him the title of _king_,
which had never yet been given to any of the descendents of Herod the
Great. In this state were the governments of these countries at the
time of the events last narrated; but Herod Agrippa, often visiting
Rome, left all Palestine in the hands of Publius Petronius, the
just and benevolent Roman president of Syria. In this state, affairs
remained during all the short reign of Caius Caligula Caesar, who,
after four years mostly characterized by folly, vice and cruelty, ended
his days by the daggers of assassins. But this great event proved no
check to the flourishing fortunes of his favorite, king Herod Agrippa;
who, in the course of the events which ended in placing Claudius on
the throne, so distinguished himself in the preliminary negociations
between the new emperor and the senate, sharing as he did the
confidence and regard of both parties, that he was justly considered by
all, as the most active means of effecting the comfortable settlement
of their difficulties; and he was therefore deemed well deserving
of the highest rewards. Accordingly, the first act of Claudius’s
government, like the first of Caligula’s, was the presentation of a
new kingdom to this favorite of fortune,――Judea being now added to
the other countries in his possession, and thus bringing all Palestine
into one noble kingdom, beneath his extensive sway. With a dominion
comprising all that the policy of his grandfather had been able to
attain during a long and active life, he now found himself, at the
age of fifty-one, one of the most extraordinary instances of romantic
fortune that had ever occurred; and anxious to enjoy something of the
solid pleasure of visiting and governing his great and flourishing
kingdom, he set sail from Rome, which had been so long to him the
scene of such varied fortune, such calamitous poverty and tedious
imprisonment,――and now proceeded as the proud king of Palestine, going
home in triumph to the throne of his ancestor, supported by the most
boundless pledges of imperial favor. The emperor Claudius, though
regretting exceedingly the departure of the tried friend whom he had
so much reason to love and cherish, yet would not detain him from
a happiness so noble and desirable, as that of arranging and ruling
his consolidated dominion. Even his departure, however, was made the
occasion of new marks of imperial favor; for Claudius gave him letters
by which all Roman governors were bound to acknowledge and support him
as the rightful sovereign of Palestine. He arrived in Palestine shortly
after, and just before the passover, made his appearance in Jerusalem,
where he was received with joy and hope by the expecting people, who
hailed with open hearts a king whose interests would be identified
with theirs, and with the glory of the Jewish name. His high and
royal race,――his own personal misfortunes and the unhappy fate of
his early-murdered father, as well as his descent from the lamented
Mariamne,――his well-known amiability of character, and his regard for
the holy Jewish faith, which he had shown by exerting and even risking
all his favor with Caligula to prevent, in co-operation with the
amiable Petronius, the profanation of the temple as proposed by the
erection of the emperor’s statue within it,――all served to throw a most
attractive interest around him, and to excite brilliant hopes, which
his first acts immediately more than justified. The temple, though now
so resplendent with the highest ♦achievements of art, and though so
vast in its foundations and dimensions, was still considered as having
some deficiencies, so great, that nothing but royal munificence could
supply them. The Jews therefore seized the fortunate occasion of the
accession of their new and amiable monarch to his throne, to obtain the
perfection of a work on which the hearts of the people were so much set,
and the completion of which would so highly advance the monarch in the
popular favor. The king at once benignantly heard their request, and
gladly availing himself of this opportunity to gratify his subjects,
and secure a regard from them which might some day be an advantage to
him, immediately ordered the great work to proceed at his expense. The
satisfaction of the people and the Sanhedrim was now at the highest
pitch; and, ♠emboldened by these displays of royal favor, some of the
sage plotters among them hoped to obtain from him a favorable hearing
on a matter which they deemed of still deeper importance to their
religion, and in which his support was equally indispensable. This
matter brings back the forsaken narrative to consideration.

    ♦ “achievments” replaced with “achievements”

    ♠ “emboldenened” replaced with “emboldened”

  _Herod Agrippa._――All the interesting details of this richly
  romantic life, are given in a most delightful style by Josephus.
  (Antiquities, XVIII. v. 3,‒viii. 9. and XIX. i‒ix.) The same
  is more concisely given by the same author in another place.
  (Jewish War, II. ix. 5,‒xi. 6.) The prominent events of
  Petronius’s administration, are also given in the former.


                  THE PEACEFUL PROGRESS OF THE FAITH.

The apostles, after the great events last narrated, gave themselves
with new zeal to the work which was now so vastly extended by the
opening of the wide field of the Gentiles. Others of the refugees from
the popular rage, at the time of Stephen’s murder, had gone even beyond
the boundaries of Palestine, bringing into the sphere of apostolic
operations a great number of interesting subjects, before unthought of.
Some of the bold, free workers, who had heard of the late changes in
the views of the apostles, respecting the characters of those for whom
the gospel was designed, now no longer limited their efforts of love
to the children of the stock of Abraham, but proclaimed the faith of
Jesus to those who had before never heard his name. The gospel was
thus carried into Syria and Cyprus, and thence rapidly spread into many
other countries, where Macedonian conquest and Hellenic colonization
had made the Greek the language of cities, courts, commerce, and, to
a great extent, of literature. The great city of Antioch soon became
a sort of metropolis of the numerous churches, which sprang up in that
region, beyond the immediate reach of Jerusalem, now the common home of
the apostles, and the center of the Christian, as of the Jewish faith.
Grecians as well as Jews, in this new march of the gospel, were made
sharers in its blessings; and the multiplication of converts among
them was so rapid as to give a new importance, at once, to this sort
of Christians. The communication of these events to the apostles at
Jerusalem, called for some systematic action on their part, to confirm
and complete the good work thus begun by the random and occasional
efforts of mere wandering fugitives from persecution. They accordingly
selected persons especially fitted for this field of labor, and
despatched them to Antioch, to fulfil the duties imposed on the
apostles in ♦reference to this new opening. The details of the
operations of these new laborers, will be given in their lives
hereafter.

    ♦ “refereuce” replaced with “reference”

In performing the various offices required in their domestic and
foreign fields of labor, now daily multiplying, Peter and his
associates had continued for several years steadily occupied, but
achieving no particular action that has received notice in the history
of their acts; so that the most of this part of their lives remains a
blank to the modern investigator. All that is known is, that between
the churches of Syria and Palestine there was established a frequent
friendly intercourse, more particularly between the metropolitan
churches of Jerusalem and Antioch. From the former went forth preachers
to instruct and confirm the new and untaught converts of the latter,
who had been so lately strangers to God’s covenant of promise with his
people; while from the thriving and benevolent disciples of Antioch
were sent back, in grateful recompense, the free offerings of such aid
as the prevalence of a general dearth made necessary for the support
of their poor and friendless brethren in Jerusalem; and the very men
who had been first sent to Antioch with the commission to build up and
strengthen that infant church, now returned to the mother church at
Jerusalem, with the generous relief which gratitude prompted these new
sons to render to the authors of their faith.


                           ROMAN TOLERANCE.

These events and the occasion of them occurred in the reign of Claudius
Caesar, as Luke particularly records,――thus marking the lapse of time
during the unregistered period of the apostolic acts; which is also
confirmed by the circumstances of Herod Agrippa’s reign, mentioned
immediately after, as occurring “about that time;” for, as has been
specified above, Herod Agrippa did not rule Judea till the reign of
Claudius. The crucifixion of Jesus occurred three years before the
death of Tiberius; and as the whole four years of the reign of Caligula
was passed over in this space, it could not have been less than
ten years after the crucifixion, when these events took place. This
calculation allows time for such an advance of the apostolic enterprise,
as would, under their devoted energy, make the sect most formidable
to those who regarded its success as likely to shake the security of
the established order of religious things, by impairing the popular
reverence for the regularly constituted heads of Judaism. Such had been
its progress, and such was the impression made by its advance. There
could no longer be any doubt as to the prospect of its final ascendency,
if it was quietly left to prosper under the steady and devoted labors
of its apostles, with all the advantages of the re-action which had
taken place from the former cruel persecution which they had suffered.
For several years the government of Palestine had been in such hands
that the Sanhedrim had few advantages for securing the aid of the
secular power, in consummating their exterminating plans against the
growing heresy. Not long after the time of Pilate, the government
of Judea had been committed by the emperor to Publius Petronius, the
president of Syria, a man who, on the valuable testimony of Josephus,
appears to have been of the most amiable and upright character,――wholly
devoted to the promotion of the real interests of the people whom he
ruled. On several occasions, he distinguished himself by his tenderness
towards the peculiarly delicate religious feelings of the Jews, and
once even risked and incurred the wrath of the vindictive Caligula,
by disobeying his commands to profane the temple at Jerusalem by the
erection of that emperor’s statue within its holy courts,――a violation
of the purity of the place which had been suggested to his tyrannical
caprice by the spiteful hint of Apion, of Alexandria. But though
Petronius, in this matter, showed a disposition to incur every hazard
to spare the national and devotional feelings of the Jews so awful
an infliction, there is nothing in his conduct which would lead us
to suppose that he would sacrifice justice to the gratification of
the persecuting malice of the Jews, any more than to the imperious
tyranny of Caligula. The fairest conclusion from the events of his
administration, is, that he regulated his behavior uniformly by his
own sense of justice, with hardly any reference to the wild impulses,
either of popular or imperial tyranny. A noble personification of
independent and invincible justice; but one not beyond the range of
the moral conceptions of a Roman, even under the corrupt and corrupting
rule of the Caesars;――for thus wrote the great moral poet of the
Augustan age, though breathing the enervating air of a servile court,
and living on the favor of a monarch who exacted from his courtiers a
reverence truly idolatrous:

                Justum et tenacem propositi virum,
                Non civium ardor prava jubentium,
                Non vultus instantis tyranni
                Mente quatit solida. * * *

The moral energy of the Roman character made the exemplifications of
this fair ideal not uncommon, even in these latter days of Roman glory.
There were some like Petronius, who gave life and reality to this
poetical conception of Horace,――“A man just and resolute, unshaken
from his firm purpose alike by the wild impulses of popular rage, and
by the frown of an overbearing tyrant.” And these were among the chief
blessings of the Roman sway, to those lands in which it ruled,――that
the great interests of the country were not subjected to the blind
movements of a perverse public opinion, changing with each year,
and frustrating every good which required a steady policy for its
accomplishment,――that the majority of the people were not allowed to
tyrannize over the minority, nor the minority over the majority;――and
that a mighty power amenable to neither, but whose interest and glory
would always coincide with the good of the whole, held over all a
dominion unchecked by the demands of popular caprice. But, alas! for
the imperfections of all human systems;――among the curses of that Roman
sway, must be numbered its liability to fall from the hands of the wise
and amiable, into those of the stupid and brutal; changes which but
too often occurred,――overturning, by the mismanagement of a moment,
the results of years of benevolent and prudent policy. And in this
very case, all the benefits of Petronius’s equitable and considerate
rule, were utterly neutralized and annihilated by the foolishness or
brutality of his successors, till the provoked irritability of the
nation at last broke out with a fierceness that for a time overcame the
securities even of Roman dominion, and was finally quieted only in the
utter ruin of the whole Jewish nation. But during the period of several
years following the exit of Pilate, its beneficial energy was felt in
the quiet tolerance of religious opinion, which he enforced on all,
and which was most highly advantageous to the progress of the doctrine
of Christ. To this circumstance may justly be referred that remarkable
repose enjoyed by the apostles and their followers from all the
interference with their labors by the Roman government. The death of
Jesus Christ himself, indeed, was the only act in which the civil power
had interfered at all! for the murder of Stephen was a mere freak of
mob-violence, a mere Lynch-law proceeding, which the Roman governor
would not have sanctioned, if it had been brought under his cognizance,
――being done as it was, so directly in the face of those principles
of religious tolerance which the policy of the empire enforced every
where, excepting cases in which sedition and rebellion against their
dominion was combined with religious zealotism, like the instances
of the Gaulanitish Judas, Theudas, and others. Even Jesus himself,
was thus accused by the Jews, and was condemned by Pilate for his
alleged endeavors to excite a revolt against Caesar, and opposing the
payment of the Roman taxes,――as is shown by the statement of all the
evangelists, and more particularly by Pilate’s inscription on the cross.
The persecution which followed the murder of Stephen was not carried
on under the sanction of the Roman government, nor yet was it against
their authority; for they permitted to the Sanhedrim the punishment of
most minor offences, so long as they did not go beyond imprisonment,
scourging, banishment, &c. But the punishment of death was entirely
reserved to the civil and military power; and if the Jewish magnates
had ever formally transgressed this limitation, they would have been
instantly punished for it, as a treasonable assumption of that supreme
power which their conquerors were determined to guard with the most
watchful jealousy. The Sanhedrim, being thus restricted in their means
of vengeance, were driven to the low expedient of stirring up the
lawless mob to the execution of these deeds of desperate violence,
which their religious rulers could wink at, and yet were prepared to
disown, when questioned by the Romans, as mere popular ferments, over
which they had no control whatever. So they managed with Stephen; for
his murder was no doubt preconcerted among the chief men, who caused
the formal preamble of a trial, with the design of provoking the mob,
in some way, to this act; in which scheme they were too much favored
by the fiery spirit of the martyr himself, who had not patience enough
with their bigotry, to conceal his abhorrence of it. Their subsequent
systematic and avowed acts of violence, it should be observed, were
all kept strictly within the well-defined limits of their penal
jurisdiction; for there is no evidence whatever that any of the
persecuted Hellenists ever suffered _death_ by the condemnation of
the Sanhedrim, or by the sentence of a Roman tribunal. The progress
of these events, however, showed that this irritating and harassing
system of whippings, imprisonments and banishments, had a tendency
rather to excite the energies of these devoted heretics, than to
check or crush their spirit of innovation and denunciation. Among
the numerous instances of malignant assault on the personal rights of
these sufferers, and the cruel violation of the delicacy due to the
weaker sex, there must have been, also, many occasions in which the
ever-varying feelings of the public would be moved to deep sympathy
with sufferers who bore, so steadily and heroically, punishments
manifestly disproportioned to the offense with which they were
charged,――a sympathy which might finally rise to a high and resistless
indignation against their remorseless oppressors. It is probable,
therefore, that this persecution was at last allayed by other causes
than the mere defection of its most zealous agent. The conviction must
have been forced on the minds of the persecutors, that this system,
with all its paltry and vexatious details, must be given up, or
exchanged for one whose operations should be so vast and sweeping in
its desolating vengeance, as to overawe and appal, rather than awaken
zeal in the objects of the punishment, or sympathy in the beholders.
The latter alternative, however, was too hopeless, under the steady,
benignant sway of Petronius, to be calculated upon, until a change
should take place which should give the country a ruler of less
independent and scrupulous character, and more disposed to sacrifice
his own moral sense to the attainment of favor with the most important
subjects of his government. Until that desirable end should be attained,
in the course of the frequent changes of the imperial succession, it
seemed best to let matters take their own course; and they accordingly
dropped all active proceedings, leaving the new sect to progress as it
might, with the impulse gained from the re-action consequent on this
late unfortunate excitement against it. But they still kept a watchful
eye on their proceedings, though with hands for a while powerless; and
treasured up accumulating vengeance through tedious years, for the day
when the progress of political changes should bring the secular power
beneath their influence, and make it subservient to their purpose of
dreadful retribution. That day had now fully come.


                     PETER’S THREATENED MARTYRDOM.

The long expected favorite and friend of the Jewish people, having been
thus hailed sovereign by their grateful voices, and having strengthened
his throne and influence by his opening acts of liberality and devotion
to the national faith, now entered upon a reign which presented only
the portents of a course most auspicious to his own fame and his
people’s good. Uniting in his person the claims of the Herodian and
Asmonaean lines,――with the blood of the heroic Maccabees in his veins,
――crowned by the imperial lord of the civilized world, whose boundless
power was pledged in his support, by the obligations of an intimate
personal friendship, and of a sincere gratitude for the attainment
of the throne of the Caesars through his prompt and steady exertions,
――received with universal joy and hope by all the dwellers of the
consolidated kingdoms of his dominion, which had been long thriving
under the mild and equitable administration of a prudent governor,
――there seemed nothing wanting to complete the happy auspices of a
glorious reign, under which the ancient honors of Israel should be more
than retrieved from the decline of ages. Yet what avails the bright
array of happily conspiring circumstances, to prince or people, against
the awful majesty of divine truth, or the pure, simple energy of human
devotion? Within the obscurer corners of his vast territories, creeping
for room under the outermost colonnades of that mighty temple whose
glories he had pledged himself to renew,――wandering like outcasts from
place to place,――seeking supporters only among the unintellectual mass
of the people,――were a set of men of whom he probably had not heard
until he entered his own dominions. They were now suggested to his
notice for the first time, by the decided voice of censure from the
devout and learned guardians of the purity of the law of God, who
invoked the aid of his sovran power, to check and utterly uproot this
heresy, which the unseasonable tolerance of Roman government had too
long shielded from the just visitations of judicial vengeance. Nor did
the royal Agrippa hesitate to gratify, in this slight and reasonable
matter, the express wishes of the reverend heads of the Jewish faith
and law. Ah! how little did he think, that in that trifling movement
was bound up the destiny of ages, and that its results would send his
name――though then so loved and honored――like Pharaoh’s, down to all
time, a theme of religious horror and holy hatred, to the unnumbered
millions of a thousand races, and lands then unknown;――an awful doom,
from which one act of benign protection, or of prudent kindness, to
that feeble band of hated, outcast innovators, might have retrieved
his fame, and canonized it in the faithful memory of the just, till
the glory of the old patriarchs and prophets should grow dim. But,
without one thought of consequences, a prophetic revelation of which
would so have appalled him, he unhesitatingly stretched out his arm
in vindictive cruelty over the church of Christ, for the gratification
of those whose praise was to him more than the favor of God. Singling
out first the person whom momentary circumstances might render most
prominent or obnoxious to censure, he at once doomed to a bloody death
the elder son of Zebedee, the second of the great apostolic THREE. No
sooner was this cruel sentence executed, than, with a most remarkable
steadiness in the execution of his bloody plan, he followed up this
action, so pleasing to the Jews, by another similar movement. Peter,
the active leader of the heretical host, ever foremost in braving
the authority of the constituted teachers of the law, and in exciting
commotion and dissatisfaction among the commonalty, was now seized
by a military force, too strong to fear any resistance from popular
movements, which had so much deterred the Sanhedrim. This occurred
during the week of the passover; and such was king Agrippa’s profound
regard for all things connected with his national religion, that he
would not violate the sanctity of this holy festival by the execution
of a criminal, however deserving of vengeance he might seem in that
instance. The fate of Peter being thus delayed, he was therefore
committed to prison, (probably in castle Antonia,) and to prevent all
possibility of his finding means to escape prepared ruin again, he was
confined to the charge of sixteen Roman soldiers, divided into four
sets, of four men each, who were to keep him under constant supervision
day and night, by taking turns, each set an equal time; and according
to the established principles of the Roman military discipline, with
the perfect understanding that if, on the conclusion of the passover,
the prisoner was not forthcoming, the guards should answer the failure
with their lives. These decided and careful arrangements being made,
the king, with his gratified friends in the Sanhedrim and among the
rabble, gave themselves up to the enjoyment of the great national
festival, with a peculiar zest, hightened by the near prospect of the
utter overthrow of the advancing heresy, by the sweeping blow that
robbed them of their two great leaders, and more especially of him who
had been so active in mischievous attempts to perpetuate the memory
of the original founder of the sect, and to frustrate the good effect
of his bloody execution, by giving out that the crucified Jesus still
lived, and would yet come in vengeance on his murderers. While such
triumphant reflections swelled the festal enjoyments of the powerful
foes of Christ, the unhappy company of his persecuted disciples passed
through this anniversary-week with the most mournful reminiscences and
anticipations. Ten years before, in unutterable agony and despair, they
had parted, as they then supposed forever, with their beloved Lord; and
now, after years of devotion to the work for which he had commissioned
them, they were called to renew the deep sorrows of that parting, in
the removal of those who had been foremost among them in the great work,
cheering them and leading them on through toil and peril, with a spirit
truly holy, and with a fearless energy, kindred with that of their
divine Lord. Of these two divinely appointed chiefs, one had already
poured out his blood beneath the executioner’s sword, and the other,
their great leader, the _Rock_ of the church, was now only waiting
the speedy close of the festal week, to crown his glorious course, and
his enemies’ cruel policy, by the same bloody doom; meanwhile held in
the safe keeping of an ever-watchful Roman guard, forbidding even the
wildest hope of escape. Yet why should they wholly despair? On that
passover, ten years before, how far more gloomy and hopeless the glance
they threw on the cross of their Lord! Yet from that doubly hopeless
darkness, what glorious light sprang up to them? And was the hand that
then broke through the bands of death and the gates of Hades, now so
shortened that it could not sever the vile chains of paltry tyranny
which confined this faithful apostle, nor open wide the guarded gates
of his castle prison? Surely there was still hope for faith which had
been taught such lessons of undoubting trust in God. Nor were they
thoughtless of the firm support and high consolations which their
experience afforded. In prayer intense and unceasing, they poured
out their souls in sympathetic grief and supplication, for the relief
of their great elder brother from his deadly peril; and in sorrowful
entreaty the whole church continued day and night, for the safety of
Peter.

  _Castle Antonia._――For Josephus’s account of the position and
  erection of this work, see my note on page 95, (section 8.)
  There has been much speculation about the place of the prison
  to which Peter was committed. The sacred text (Acts xii. 10,)
  makes it plain that it was without the city itself, since after
  leaving the prison it was still necessary to enter the city by
  “the iron gate.” Walch, Kuinoel and Bloomfield adopt the view
  that it was in one of the towers or castles that fortified the
  walls. Wolf and others object to the view that it was without
  the walls; because, as Wolf says, it was not customary to
  have public prisons outside of the cities, since the prisoners
  might in that case be sometimes rescued by a bold assault from
  some hardy band of comrades, &c. But this objection is worth
  nothing against castle Antonia, which, though it stood entirely
  separated from the rest of the city, was vastly strong, and by
  its position as well as fortification, impregnable to any common
  force;――a circumstance which would at once suggest and recommend
  it as a secure place for one who, like Peter, had escaped once
  from the common prison. There was always a Roman garrison in
  Antonia. (Josephus, Jewish War, V. v. 8.)

In the steady contemplation of the nearness of his bloody doom, the
great apostle remained throughout the passover, shut off from all the
consolations of fraternal sympathy, and awaiting the end of the few
hours which were still allotted by the religious scruples of his mighty
sovran. In his high and towering prison in Castle Antonia, parted
only by a deep, broad rift in the precipitous rocks, from the great
terraces of the temple itself, from whose thronged courts now rung the
thanksgiving songs of a rejoicing nation, he heard them, sending up
in thousands of voices the praise of their fathers’ God, who still
remembered Israel in mercy, renewing their ancient glories under the
bright and peaceful dominion of their new-crowned king. And with the
anthems of praise to God which sounded along the courts and porches
of the temple, were no doubt heard, too, the thanks of many a grateful
Hebrew for the goodness of the generous king, who had pledged his
royal word to complete the noble plan of that holy pile, as suited
the splendid conceptions of the founder. And this was the king whose
decree had doomed that lonely and desolate prisoner in the castle, to
a bloody and shameful death,――as a crowning offering at the close of
the great festival; and how few among that vast throng, before whose
eyes he was to yield his life, would repine at the sentence that dealt
exterminating vengeance on the obstinately heretical preacher of the
crucified Nazarene’s faith! Well might such dark visions of threatening
ruin appal a heart whose enthusiasm had caught its flame from the
unholy fires of worldly ambition, or devoted its energies to the low
purpose of human ascendency. And truly sad would have been the lonely
thoughts of this very apostle, if this doom had found him in the spirit
which first moved him to devote himself to the cause which now required
the sacrifice of life. But higher hopes and feelings had inspired his
devoted exertions for _ten years_, and higher far, the consolations
which now sustained him in his friendless desolation. This very fate,
he had long been accustomed to regard as the earthly meed of his labors;
and he had too often been threatened with it, to be overwhelmed by
its near prospect. Vain, then, were all solemn details of that awful
sentence, to strike terror into his fixed soul,――vain the dark sureties
of the high, steep rock, the massive, lofty walls, the iron gates, the
ever-watchful Roman guards, the fetters and manacles, to control or
check the

             “Eternal spirit of the chainless mind!――
              Brightest in dungeons, Liberty! thou art,
              For there thy habitation is the heart.”

Thus sublimely calm, sat Peter in his prison, waiting for death. Day
after day, all day long, the joyous feast went on beneath him:――the
offering, the prayer and the hymn varying the mighty course, from the
earliest morning supplication to the great evening sacrifice. Up rolled
the glorious symphony of the Levites’ thousand horns, and the choral
harmony of their chanting voices,――up rolled the clouds of precious
incense to the skiey throne of Israel’s God,――and with this music and
fragrance, up rolled the prayers of Israel’s worshiping children; but
though the glorious sound and odor fell delightfully on the senses of
the lonely captive, as they passed upwards by his high prison-tower,
no voice of mercy came from below, to cheer him in his desolation. But
from above, from the heaven to which all these prayer-bearing floods
of incense and harmony ascended, came down divine consolation and
miraculous delivery to this poor, despised prisoner, with a power and
a witness that not all the solemn pomp of the passover ceremony could
summon in reply to its costly offerings. The feeble band of sorrowing
Nazarenes, from their little chamber, were lifting unceasing voices
of supplication for their brother, in his desperate prospects, which
entered with his solitary prayer into the ears of the God of Hosts,
while the ostentatious worship of king Agrippa and his reverend
supporters, only brought back shame and woful ruin on their impious
supplications for the divine sanction to their bloody plans of
persecution. At last the solemn passover-rites of “the last great day
of the feast” were ended;――the sacrifice, the incense and the song,
rose no more from the sanctuary,――the fires on the altars went out,
the hum and the roar of worshiping voices was hushed, and the departing
throngs poured through the “ETERNAL” and the “BEAUTIFUL” gates, till at
last the courts and porches of the temple were empty through all their
vast extent, and hushed in a silence, deep as the ruinous oblivion to
which the voice of their God had doomed them shortly to pass; and all
was still, save where the footfall of the passing priest echoed along
the empty colonnades, as he hurried over the vast pavements into the
dormitories of the inner temple; or where the mighty gates thundered
awfully as they swung heavily together under the strong hands of the
weary Levites, and sent their long reverberations among the walls.
Even these closing sounds soon ceased also; the Levite watchmen took
their stand on the towers of the temple, and paced their nightly
rounds along the flat roofs, guarding with careful eyes their holy
shrine, lest the impious should, under cover of night, again profane
it, (as the Samaritans had secretly done a few years before.) And on
the neighboring castle of Antonia, the Roman garrison, too, had set
their nightly watch, and the iron warriors slumbered, each in his turn,
till the round of duty should summon him to relieve guard. Within the
_dungeon keep_ of the castle, was still safely held the weighty trust
that was to be answered for, on peril of life; and all arrangements
were made which so great a responsibility seemed to require. The
prisoner already somewhat notorious for making unaccountable escapes
from guarded dungeons, was secured with a particularity, quite
complimentary to his dexterity as a jail-breaker. The quaternion on
duty was divided into two portions; each half being so disposed and
posted as to effect the most complete supervision of which the place
was capable,――two men keeping watch outside of the well-bolted door
of the cell, and two within, who, not limited to the charge of merely
keeping their eyes on the prisoner, had him fastened to their bodies,
by a chain on each side. In this neighborly proximity to his rough
companions, Peter was in the habit of passing the night; but in the
day-time was freed from one of these chains, remaining attached to only
one soldier. (This arrangement was in accordance with the standard mode
of guarding important state-prisoners among the Romans.) Matters being
thus accommodated, and the watch being set for the next three hours,
Peter’s two _fast_ companions, finding him but indifferent company, no
doubt, notwithstanding his sociable position, soon grew quite dull in
the very tame employment of seeing that he did not run away with them;
for as to getting away _from_ them, the idea could have no place at
all in the supposition. These sturdy old veterans had probably, though
Gentiles, conformed so far to Judaical rituals as to share in the
comfortable festivities of this great religious occasion, and could
not have suffered any heathenish prejudices to prevent them from a
hearty participation in the joyous draughts of the wine, which as usual
did its part to enliven the hearts and countenances of all those who
passed the feast-day in Jerusalem. The passover coming so many months
after the vintage too, the fermentation of a long season must have
considerably energized “the pure juice of the grape,” so that its
exhilarant and narcotic powers could have been by no means feeble;
and if the change thus wrought by time and its own inherent powers,
at all corresponds to that which takes places in cider in this country
under the same circumstances, the latter power must have so far
predominated, as to leave them rather below than above the ordinary
standard of vivacity, and induce that sort of apathetic indifference
to consequences, which is far from appropriate in a soldier on duty
over an important trust. Be that as it may, Peter’s two room-mates soon
gave themselves quietly up to slumber. If any scruple arose in their
heavy heads as to the risk they ran in case of his escape, that was
soon soothed by the consideration of the vast number of impassable
securities upon the prisoner. They might well reason with themselves,
“If this sharp Galilean can manage to break his chains without waking
us, and burst open this stout door in spite of bars, without rousing
the sentinels who are posted against it on the outside, and make his
way unseen and unchecked through all the gates and guards of Castle
Antonia――why, let him. But there’s no use in our losing a night’s
rest by any uneasiness about such a chance.” So stretching themselves
out, they soon fell into a sound sleep, none the less pleasant for
their lying in such close quarters; for it is natural to imagine, that
in a chilly March night in Jerusalem, stowing three in a bed was no
uncomfortable arrangement. Circumstanced as he was, Peter had nothing
to do but conform to their example, for the nature of his attachment
to them was such, that he had no room for the indulgence of his own
fancies about his position; and he also lay down to repose. He slept.
The sickening and feverish confinement of his close dungeon had not
yet so broken his firm and vigorous frame, nor so drained its energies,
as to hinder the placid enjoyment of repose; nor did the certainty of
a cruel and shameful death, to which he was within a few hours to be
dragged, before the eyes of a scoffing rabble, move his high spirit
from its self-possession:――

                     “And still he slumbered
           While in ‘decree, his hours’ were numbered.”

He slept. And from that dark prison-bed what visions could beguile his
slumbering thoughts? Did fancy bear them back against the tide of time,
to the humble, peaceful home of his early days,――to the varied scenes
of the lake whereon he loved to dwell, and along whose changeful waters
he had learned so many lessons of immortal faith and untrembling hope
in his Lord? Amid the stormy roar of its dark waters, the voice of that
Lord once called him to tempt the raging deep with his steady foot, and
when his feeble faith, before untried, failed him in the terrors of the
effort, His supporting hand recalled him to strength and safety. And
had that lesson of faith and hope been so poorly learned, that in this
dark hour he could draw no consolation from such remembrances? No. He
could even now find that consolation, and he did. In the midst of this
“sea of troubles,” he felt the same mighty arm now upholding him, that
bore him above the waters, “when the blue wave rolled nightly on deep
Galilee.” Again he had stood by those waters, swelling brightly in
the fresh morning breeze, with his risen Lord beside him, and received
the solemn commission, oft-renewed, to feed the flock that was so soon
to lose the earthly presence of its great Shepherd. In the steady and
dauntless execution of that parting commission, he had in the course
of long years gone on in the face of death,――“feeding the lambs” of
Christ’s gathering, and calling vast numbers to the fold; and for the
faithful adherence to that command, he now sat waiting the fulfilment
of the doom that was to cut him down in the midst of life and in
the fullness of his vigor. Yet the nearness of this sad reward of
his labors, seemingly offering so dreadful an interpretation of
the mystical prophecy that accompanied that charge, moved him to no
desperation or distress, and still he calmly slept, with as little
agitation and dread as at the transfiguration, and at the agony of the
crucifixion eve; nor did that compunction for heedless inattention,
that then hung upon his slumbering senses, now disturb him in the
least. It is really worth noticing, in justice to Peter, that his
sleepiness, of which so many curious instances are presented in the
sacred narrative, was not of the criminally selfish kind that might
be supposed on a partial view. If he slept during his Master’s prayers
on Mount Hermon, and in Gethsemane, he slept too in his own condemned
cell; and if in his bodily infirmity he had forgotten to watch and pray
when death threatened his Lord, he was now equally indifferent to his
own impending destruction. He was, evidently, a man of independent and
regular habits. Brought up a hard-working man, he had all his life been
accustomed to repose whenever he was at leisure, if he needed it; and
now too, though the “heathen might rage, and the people imagine a vain
thing,――though the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers
took counsel together” against him, and doomed him to a cruel death,
――in spite of all these, Peter would sleep when he was sleepy. Not the
royal Agrippa could sleep sounder on his pavilioned couch of purple.
In the calm confidence of one steadily fixed in a high course, and
perfectly prepared for every and any result, the chained apostle gave
himself coolly to his natural rest, without borrowing any trouble from
the thought, that in the morning the bloody sword was to lay him in
“the sleep that knows no earthly waking.” So slept the Athenian sage,
on the eve of his martyrdom to the cause of clearly and boldly spoken
truth,――a sleep that so moved the wonder of his agonizing disciples,
at the power of a good conscience and a practical philosophy to sustain
the soul against the horrors of such distress; but a sleep not sounder
nor sweeter than that of the poor Galilean outcast, who, though not
knowing even the name of philosophy, had a consolation far higher, in
the faith that his martyred Lord had taught him in so many experimental
instructions. That faith, learned by the painful conviction of his own
weakness, and implanted in him by many a fall when over confident in
his own strength, was now his stay and comfort, so that he might say
to his soul, “Hope thou in God, for I shall yet praise him, who is the
help of my countenance and my God.” Nor did that hope prove groundless.
From him in whom he trusted, came a messenger of deliverance; and from
the depths of a danger the most appalling and threatening, he was soon
brought, to serve that helping-God through many faithful years, feeding
the flock till, in his old age, “another should gird him, and carry him
whither he would not.” He who had prayed for him in the revelation of
his peculiar glories on Mount Hermon, and had so highly consecrated him
to the great cause, had yet greater things for him to do; and to new
works of love and glory he now called him, from the castle-prison of
his royal persecutor.

  _Ten years._――This piece of chronology is thus settled. Jesus
  Christ, according to all common calculation, was crucified as
  early as the _twentieth_ year of the reign of Tiberius. Irenaeus
  maintains that it was in the _fifteenth_ of that reign. Eusebius
  and Epiphanius fix it in the _eighteenth_, or, according to
  Petavius’s explanation of their meaning, in the _seventeenth_
  of his actual reign. Tertullian, Julius Africanus, Jerome,
  and Augustin, put it in the _sixteenth_. Roger Bacon, Paulus
  Burgensis, and Tostatus, also support this date, on the ground
  of an astronomical calculation of the course of the moon, fixing
  the time when the passover must have occurred, so as to accord
  with the requirement of the Mosaic law, that it should be
  celebrated on a new moon. But Kepler has abundantly shown
  the fallacy of this calculation. Antony Pagus, also, though
  rejecting this astronomical basis, adheres to the opinion of
  Tertullian, Jerome, &c. Baronius fixes it in the _nineteenth_
  of Tiberius. Pearson, L. Cappel, Spanheim, and Witsius, with
  the majority of the moderns, in the _twentieth_ of Tiberius. So
  that the unanimous result of all these great authorities, places
  it as early as this last mentioned year. A full and highly
  satisfactory view of all these chronological points and opinions,
  is given by the deeply learned Antony Pagus, in his great
  “Critical Historico-Chronological Review of Baronii.” Saecul. I.
  Ann. Per. Gr.‒Rom. 5525. ¶ 3‒13.

  Now, from Josephus it is perfectly evident that Agrippa did not
  leave Rome until some time after the beginning of the reign of
  Claudius, and it is probable not before the close of the first
  year. Counting backwards through the four years of Caligula,
  this makes _five_ years after the death of Tiberius, and _eight_
  on the latest calculation from the death of Christ; while
  according to the higher and earlier authority, it amounts
  to _nine_, _ten_, _eleven_, or to _twelve_ years from the
  crucifixion to Agrippa’s arrival in Judea. And moreover, it
  is not probable that the persecution referred to occurred
  immediately on his arrival. Indeed, from the close way in which
  Luke connects Agrippa’s death with the preceding events, it
  would seem as if he would fix his “going down from Jerusalem
  to Caesarea,” and his death at the latter place, very soon
  after the escape of Peter. This of course being in the end of
  Claudius’s _third_ year, brings the events above, down to the
  _eleventh_ or _twelfth_ from the crucifixion, even according to
  the latest conjecture as to the date of that event. Probably,
  however, the connection of the two events was not as close as
  a common reading of the Acts would lead one to suppose.

  So also Lardner, in his Life of Peter, says, “The death of
  Herod Agrippa happened before the end of that year,” in which he
  escaped. (Lardner’s Works 4to. Vol. III. p. 402, bottom.)

  Natalis Alexander fixes Peter’s escape in the _second_ year
  of Claudius, and the _forty-fourth_ from Christ’s birth, which
  is, according to his computation, the _tenth_ from his death.
  (Church History, Saec. I. Cap. vi.)

  _A chain on each side._――That this was a common mode of
  fastening such prisoners among the Romans, appears from the
  authorities referred to by Wolf, (Cur. Philology in Acts xii. 6,)
  Kuinoel and Rosenmueller, (quoting from Walch,) and Bloomfield,
  all in loc.

  _Quaternion._――That is, a band of _four_. See Bloomfield in
  defense of my mode of disposing them about the prison,――also
  Rosenmueller, &c. Wolf quotes appositely from Polybius; but
  Kuinoel is richest of all in quotations and illustrations.
  (Acts xii. 4, 5.)


                           THE DELIVERANCE.

Peter was now quietly sleeping between his two guards, when his rest
was suddenly broken by a smart blow on the side, too energetically
given to be mistaken for an accidental knock from the elbow of one of
his heavy bed-fellows. Rousing his senses, and opening his eyes, he
was startled by a most remarkable light shining throughout his dungeon,
which his last waking glance had left in utter darkness. In this
unaccountable illumination, he saw standing before him and bending over
him, a form in which he could recognize only the divine messenger of
deliverance. The shock of such a surprise must have been overwhelming;
――to be waked from a sound sleep by an appearance so utterly unearthly,
might have struck horror into the stoutest heart; but Peter seems to
have suffered no such emotion to hinder his attendance to the heavenly
call. The apparition, before he could exercise thought enough to sit
up of himself, had raised him up from his bed, and that without the
slightest alarm to his still slumbering keepers,――for “immediately the
chains fell from his hands,”――a motion which by the rattling of the
falling irons should have aroused the sleepers if any sound could have
impressed their senses. The impulse of the now unmanacled captive might
have been to spring forth his dungeon without the slightest delay, but
his deliverer’s next command forbade any such unnecessary haste. His
first words were, “Gird thyself; and tie on thy sandals.” Before laying
himself down, he had, as usual, thrown off his outer garments and
loosened his girdle, so that his under dress need not so much confine
him in sleep as to prevent that perfect relaxation which is necessary
for comfortable repose. Just as now-a-days, a man in taking up such a
lodging as often falls to a traveler’s lot, will seldom do more than
pull off his coat and boots, as Peter did, and perhaps unbutton his
waist-band and suspenders, so that on a sudden alarm from his rest, the
first direction would very properly be, to “gird himself,” (button his
trowsers,) “and tie on his sandals,” (put on his shoes or boots.) The
next direction given to Peter, also, “Cast thy garment about thee,”
(put on thy coat,) would be equally appropriate. The meaning of all
this particularity and deliberation was, no doubt, that there was no
need whatever of hurry or slyness about the escape. It was not to be
considered a mere smart trick of jail-breaking, by which Peter was to
crawl out of his dungeon in such a hurry as to leave his coat and shoes
behind him, but a truly miraculous providence insuring his deliverance
with a completeness and certainty that allowed him to take every
thing that belonged to him. Having now perfectly accoutred himself
in his ordinary style, Peter immediately obeyed the next order of his
deliverer,――“Follow me.” Leaving his two bed-fellows and room-mates
sleeping hard, without the slightest idea of the evacuation of the
premises which was so deliberately going on, to their great detriment,
Peter now passed out through the open door, following the divine
messenger in a state of mind altogether indescribable, but still with
just sense enough to obey the directions which thus led him on to
blissful freedom. The whole scene bore so perfectly the character of
one of those enchanting dreams of liberty with which painful hope often
cheats the willing senses of the poor captive in slumber, that he might
well and wisely doubt the reality of an appearance so tempting, and
which his wishes would so readily suggest to his forgetful spirit. But
passing on with his conductor, he moved between the sentinels posted
at the doors, who were also equally unaware of the movement going on
so boldly under their noses, or rather _over_ them, for they, too, were
faster bound in slumber than their prisoner had been in his chains; and
he now stepped over their outstretched bodies as they lay before the
entrances. These soldiers, too, evidently looked upon their duty as a
sort of sinecure, rationally concluding that their two stout comrades
on the inside were rather more than a match for the fettered and
manacled captive, and that if he should be at all obstreperous, or even
uneasy, the noise would soon enough awake them from their nap. And thus
excessive precaution is very apt to overshoot itself, each part of the
arrangement relying too much on the security of all the rest. The two
passengers soon reached the great iron gate of the castle, through
which they must pass in order to enter the city. But all the seeming
difficulties of this passage vanished as soon as they approached it.
The gate swung its enormous mass of metal self-moving through the air,
and the half-entranced Peter went on beneath the vacant portal, and now
stood without the castle, once more a free man in the fresh, pure air.
The difficulties and dangers were not all over yet, however. During all
the great feast-days, when large assemblies of people were gathered at
Jerusalem from various quarters, to guard against the danger of riots
and insurrection in these motley throngs,――the armed Roman force on
duty, as Josephus relates, was doubled and tripled, occupying several
new posts around the temple, and, as the same historian particularly
mentions, on the approaches of castle Antonia, where its foundations
descended towards the terraces of the temple, and gave access to the
colonnades of the temple. On all these places the guard must have been
under arms during this passover, and even at night the sentries would
be stationed at all the important posts, as a reasonable security
against the numerous strangers of a dubious character, who now thronged
the city throughout. Yet all these peculiar precautions, which, at
this time, presented so many additional difficulties to the escaping
apostle, hindered him not in the least. Entering the city, he followed
the footsteps of his blessed guide, unchecked, till they had passed
on through the first street, when all at once, without sign or word
of farewell, the mysterious deliverer vanished, leaving Peter alone
in the silent city, but free and safe. Then flashed upon his mind
the conviction of the true character of the apparition. The departure
of his guide leaving him to seek his own way, his senses were, by
the necessity of this self-direction, recalled from the state of
stupefaction, in which he had mechanically followed on from the prison.
With the first burst of reflection, he broke out in the exclamation,
“Now I know of a truth, that the Lord has sent forth his messenger,
and has rescued me out of the hand of Herod, in spite of all the
expectation of the Jewish people.” Refreshed and encouraged by this
impression, he now used his thoroughly awakened senses to find his
exact situation, and after looking about him, he made his way through
the dark streets to a place where he knew he should find those whose
despairing hearts would be inexpressibly rejoiced by the news of his
deliverance. This was the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where
the disciples were accustomed to assemble. Going up to the gate-way,
he rapped on the door, and at once aroused those within; for in their
sleepless distress for the imprisoned apostle, several of the brethren
had given up all thoughts of sleep, and, as Peter had suspected, were
now watching in prayer within this house. The noise of a visitant at
this unseasonable hour of the night, immediately brought to the door
a lively damsel, named Rhoda; who, according to the Jewish custom of
employing females in this capacity, acted as portress of the mansion
of Mary. Prudently requiring some account of the person who made this
late call, before she opened the door of the persecuted Christians to
an unknown and perhaps an ill-disposed character, she was struck with
almost frantic joy at hearing the well-known voice of the much mourned
Peter, craving admittance. In the highth of her thoughtless gladness,
she ran off at once to make known the delightful fact to the disciples
in the house, without even seeming to think of the desirableness of
admitting the apostle, perhaps because she very naturally wanted to
tell such pleasant news first herself. Bursting into the room where
the disciples were at prayer for their lamented leader, whom they
supposed to be then fast bound for death in the dungeon of Antonia,
she communicated the joyful fact, that “Peter was before the gate.”
A declaration so extravagantly improbable, at once suggested the
idea of her having lost her wits through her affectionate sorrow for
the sufferings and anticipated death of the great apostle, and they
therefore replied, “Thou art crazy.” Rhoda, somewhat excited by such a
provoking expression of incredulity, loudly repeated her slighted piece
of good news, and so gravely maintained the truth of it, that some of
the more superstitious at last began to think there must be something
in it, and seriously suggested, that it must be a supernatural
messenger come to give them notice of his certain doom,――“It is his
guardian angel.” Peter, however, was all this while standing outside
during this grave debate about his real entity, and shivering with
the cold of a chilly March night, grew quite impatient at the girl’s
inconsiderate folly, and knocked away with might and main, making
a noise of most unspiritual character, till at last the disciples
determined to cut short the debate by an actual observation; so opening
the door to the shivering apostle, the light brought his material
existence to a certainty beyond all doubt. Their amazement and joy
was bursting forth with a vivacity which quite made up for their
previous incredulity; when the apostle, making a hushing sign with
his hand,――and with a reasonable fear, too, no doubt, that their
obstreperous congratulations might be heard in other houses around, so
as to alarm the neighbors and bring out some spiteful Jews, who would
procure his detection and recapture,――having obtained silence, went
on to give them a full account of his being brought out of prison by
the Lord, and after finishing his wonderful story, said to them, “Tell
these things to James and the brethren.” From this it would seem that
the apostles were all somewhere else, probably having found that a
temporary concealment was expedient for their safety, but were still
not far from the city. His own personal danger was of so imminent a
character, however, that Jerusalem could not be a safe place for him
during the search that would be immediately instituted after him by
his disappointed and enraged persecutors. It was quite worth while,
therefore, for him to use the remaining darkness of the night to
complete his escape; and without staying to enjoy their outflowing
sympathies, he bade them a hasty farewell, and, as the historian
briefly says, went to ANOTHER PLACE. Where this “other place” was,
he does not pretend to tell or know, and the only certain inference
to be drawn from the circumstance is, that it was beyond the reach
or knowledge of the mighty and far-ruling king, who had taken such
particular pains to secure Peter’s death. The probabilities as to the
real place of his retirement will, however, be given, as soon as the
sequel of events in Jerusalem has been narrated, as far as concerns the
discovery of his escape.

  _Bright light._――Some commentators have attempted to make
  out an explanation of this phenomenon, by referring the whole
  affair to the effects of a sudden flash and stroke of lightning,
  falling on the castle, and striking all the keepers senseless,
  ――_melting_ Peter’s chains, and illuminating the place, so that
  Peter, unhurt amid the general crash, saw this opportunity for
  escaping, and stepping over their prostrate bodies, made his way
  out of the prison, and was out of sight before they _came to_.
  The most important objection to this ingenious speculation is,
  that it directly contradicts every verse in Luke’s account of
  the escape, as well as the general spirit of the narrative.
  Another weighty reason is, that the whole series of natural
  causes and effects, proposed as a substitute for the simple
  meaning, is brought together in such forced and uncommon
  coincidences, as to require a much greater effort of faith
  and credulity for its belief, than the miraculous view, which
  it quite transcends in incredibility. The introduction of
  explanations of miracles by natural phenomena, is justifiable
  only so far as these may illustrate the _accompaniments_ of
  the event, by showing the mode in which those things which are
  actually mentioned as physical results, operated in producing
  the impressions described. Thus, when thunder and lightning are
  mentioned in connection with miraculous events, they are to be
  considered as _real_ electrical discharges, made to accompany
  and manifest the presence of God; and where lambent flames
  are described as appearing in a storm, they, like the _corpos
  santos_, are plainly also results of electrical discharges.
  So too, when mighty winds are mentioned, they are most
  honestly taken to be _real_ winds, and not deceptive sounds or
  impressions; and when a cloud is mentioned, it is but fair to
  consider it a real cloud, made up, like all other clouds, of
  vapor, and not a mere non-entity, or a delusion existing only
  in the minds of those who are mentioned as beholding it. But
  where nothing of this kind is spoken of, and where a distinct
  personal presence is plainly declared, the attempt to substitute
  a physical accident for such an apparition, is a direct attack
  on the _honesty_ of the statement. Such attempts, too, are
  devoid of the benefits of such illustrations as I have alluded
  to as desirable; they bring in a new set of difficulties with
  them, without removing any of those previously obstructing the
  interpretation of the facts. In this case, the only circumstance
  which could be reasonably made to agree with the idea of
  lightning, is the mention of the bright light; while throughout
  the whole account, the presence of a supernaturally mysterious
  _person_, acting and speaking, is perfectly unquestionable. The
  violation of all probability, shown in this forced explanation,
  will serve as a fair instance of the mode in which many modern
  German critics are in the habit of distorting the simple,
  manifest sense of the sacred writers, for the sake of dispensing
  with all supernatural occurrences. (See Kuinoel for an enlarged
  view and discussion of this opinion. Other views of the nature
  of the phenomenon are also given by him, and by Rosenmueller, on
  Acts xii. 7.)

Morning dawned at last upon the towers and temple-columns of the Holy
City. On the gold-sheeted roofs and snowy-pillared colonnades of the
house of God, the sunlight poured with a splendor hardly more glorious
than the insupportable brilliancy that was sent back from their
dazzling surfaces, streaming like a new morning upon the objects around,
whose nearer sides would otherwise have been left in shade by the
eastern rays. Castle Antonia shared in this general illumination, and
at the first blaze of sunrise, the order of Roman service announced
the moment for relieving guard. The bustle of the movement of the
new sentries towards their stands, must at last have reached the ears
of Peter’s forsaken companions. Their first waking thoughts would
of course be on their responsible charge, and they now became for
the first time aware of the important deficiency. In vain did their
heavy eyes, at first winking with sleepiness, but now wide open with
amazement, search the dim vacancy for their eloped bed-fellow. The most
inquisitive glance fell only on the blank space between them, scarcely
blanker than the forlorn visages of the poor keepers, who saw in
this disappearance the seal of their certain death, for having let
the prisoner escape. But they had not much time to consider their
misfortune, or condole upon it; for the change of sentries now brought
to the door the quaternion whose turn on duty came next. With a
miserable grace did the unhappy occupants of the cell show themselves
at the open door, with the empty chains and fetters dangling at their
sides, from which their late companion had so curiously slipped.
Most uncomfortable must have been the aspect of things to the two
sentinels who had been keeping their steady watch outside of the door,
and who shared equally with the inside keepers, in the undesirable
responsibilities of this accident. There stood their comrades with the
useless chains displayed in their original attachments; but, _amazing!_
what in the world had they done with the prisoner? The ludicrous
distress and commotion resulting from this unpleasant revelation, was
evidently well appreciated even by the sacred historian, whose brief
but pithy expression is not without a latent comic force. “There was
no small stir among the soldiers to know what was become of Peter.”
A general search into all the holes and corners of the dungeon, of
course, ensued; and the castle was no doubt ransacked from top to
bottom for the runaway, whose escape from its massive gates seemed
still impossible. But not even his cloak and sandals, which he had laid
beside him at the last change of guards,――not a shred, not a thread had
been left to hint at the mode of his abstraction. Yet this was so bad
a story for the ears of the royal Agrippa, that it would not do to give
up the search while any chance whatever remained. But all rummaging
was perfectly fruitless; and with sorrowful hearts, they now went
with their report to the vindictive king, to acknowledge that most
unpardonable crime in Roman soldiers,――to have slept on their posts,
so that a prisoner of state had escaped on the eve of execution.

  Baronius, (Church Annuals, 44, § 8,) speaking of Peter’s escape
  from his chains, favors us with a solemn statement of the
  important and interesting circumstance, deriving the proofs
  from Metaphrastes, (that prince of papistical liars, and grand
  source of Romish apostolical fables,) that these very chains
  of Peter are still preserved at Rome, among other venerable
  relics of equal authenticity; having been faithfully preserved,
  and at last found after the lapse of four hundred years. The
  veritable history of this miraculous preservation, as given by
  the inventive Metaphrastes, is, that the said chains happened
  to fall into the hands of one of Agrippa’s servants who was a
  believer in Christ, and so were handed down for four centuries,
  and at last brought to light. It is lamentable that the list
  of the various persons through whose hands they passed, is not
  given, though second in importance only to the authentic record
  of the papal succession. This impudent and paltry falsehood will
  serve as a fair specimen of a vast quantity of such stuff, which
  litters up the pages of even the sober ecclesiastical histories
  of many papistical writers. The only wonderful thing to me about
  this story is, that Cave has not given it a place in his Lives
  of the Apostles, which are made up with so great a portion of
  similar trash.

  Baronius, in connection with this passage, suggests the castle
  of Antonia as the most probable place of Peter’s confinement.
  “Juxta templum fortasse in ea munitissima turri quae dicebatur
  Antonia.” (Baronius, Church Annuals, C. 44, § 5.) A conjecture
  which certainly adds some weight to my own supposition to that
  effect; although I did not discover the coincidence in time to
  mention it in my note on page 194.

Meanwhile, with the early day, up rose the royal Agrippa from his
purple couch, to seize the first moment after the close of the passover
for the consummation of the doom of the wretched Galilean, who, by the
royal decree, must now yield the life already too many days spared, out
of delicate scruple about the inviolate purity of that holy week. Up
rose also the saintly princes of the Judaic law, coming forth in their
solemn trains and broad phylacteries, to grace this most religious
occasion with their reverend presence, out of respectful gratitude
to their great sovran for his considerate disposition to accord the
sanction of his absolute secular power to their religious sentence.
Expectation stood on tiptoe for the comfortable spectacle of the
streaming life-blood of this stubborn leader of the Nazarene heresy,
and nothing was wanting to the completion of the ceremony, but the
criminal himself. That “desideratum, so much to be desired,” was,
however, not so easily supplied; for the entrance of the delinquent
sentinels now presented the _non-est-inventus_ return to the solemn
summons for the body of their prisoner. Confusion thrice confounded
now fell on the faces that were just shining with anticipated triumph
over their hated foe, while secret, scornful joy illuminated the
countenances of the oppressed friends of Jesus. But on the devoted
minions of the baffled king, did his disappointed vengeance fall most
cruelly; in his paroxysm of vexation, and for an event wholly beyond
their control they now suffered an undeserved death; making so tragical
a catastrophe to a story otherwise decidedly comical, that the reader
can only comfort himself with the belief that they were a set of
insolent reprobates who had insulted the distresses of their frequent
victims, and would have rejoiced in the bloody execution of the apostle.

King Herod Agrippa, after this miserable failure in his attempt to
“please the Jews,” does not seem to have made a very long stay in
Jerusalem. Before his departure, however, to secure his own solid
glory and his kingdom’s safety, as well as the favor of his subjects,
he not only continued the repairs of the temple, but instituted such
improvements in the fortifications of the city, as, if ever completed,
would have made it utterly impregnable even to a Roman force; so
that the emperor’s jealousy soon compelled him to abandon this work;
and soon after he left Jerusalem, and went down to Caesarea Augusta,
on the sea-coast, long the seat of government of Palestine, and
a more agreeable place for the operations of a Gentile court and
administration, (for such Agrippa’s must have been from his Roman
residence,) than the punctilious religious capital of Judea. But he was
not allowed to remain much longer on the earth, to hinder the progress
of the truth, by acts of tyranny in subservience to the base purposes
of winning the favor of his more powerful subjects. The hand of God
was laid destroyingly on him, in the midst of what seemed the full
fruition of that popular adulation for which he had lived,――in which
he now died. Arrayed in a splendid and massy robe of polished silver,
he seated himself on the throne erected by his grandfather Herod,
in the great Herodian theater at Caesarea, early in the morning of
the day which was appointed for the celebration of the great festal
games, in honor of his royal patron, Claudius Caesar. On this occasion,
to crown his kingly triumph, the embassadors of the great commercial
Phoenician cities, Tyre and Sidon, appeared before him to receive
his condescending answer to their submissive requests for the
re-establishment of a friendly intercourse between his dominions and
theirs,――the agricultural products of the former being quite essential
to the thriving trade of the latter. Agrippa’s reply was now publicly
given to them, in which he graciously granted all their requests, in
such a tone of eloquent benignity, that the admiring assembly expressed
their approbation in shouts of praise, and at last some bold adulators
catching the idea from the rays of dazzling light which flashed from
the polished surfaces of his metallic robe, and threw a sort of glory
over and around him, cried out, in impious exclamation, “It is the
voice of a God, and not of a man.” So little taste had the foolish king,
that he did not check this pitiful outbreak of silly blasphemy; but
sat swallowing it all, in the most unmoved self-satisfaction. But in
the midst of this profane glory, he was called to an account for which
it ill prepared him. In the expressive though figurative language of
Luke,――“immediately the messenger of the Lord struck him, because he
gave not the glory to God.” The Jewish historian, too, in a similar
manner assigns the reason. “The king did not rebuke the flatterers,
nor refuse their impious adulation. Shortly after he was seized with
a pain in the belly, dreadfully violent from the beginning. Turning
to his friends he said, ‘Behold! I, your god, am now appointed to end
my life,――the decree of fate having at once falsified the voices that
but just now were uttering lies about me; and I, who have been called
immortal by you, am now carried off dying.’ While he uttered these
words he was tortured by the increasing violence of his pain, and was
accordingly carried back to his palace. After five days of intense
anguish, he died, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the
seventh of his reign; having reigned four years under Caius Caesar, and
three under Claudius.” Thus ended the days of the conscience-stricken
tyrant, while the glorious gospel cause which he had so vainly thought
to check and overthrow, now, in the words of Luke, “grew and was
multiplied;” the spiteful Jews having lost the right arm of their
persecuting authority, in the death of their king, and all Palestine
now passing again under the direct Roman rule, whose tolerant
principles became once more the great protection of the followers of
Jesus.

  _Agrippa’s death._――My combination of the two different accounts
  given by Luke and Josephus of this event, I believe accords
  with the best authorities; nor am I disposed, as Michaelis is,
  to reject Josephus’s statement as irreconcilable with that in
  the Acts, though deficient in some particulars, which are given
  in the latter, and though not rightly apprehending fully the
  motives and immediate occasions of many things which he mentions.
  In the same way, too, several minor circumstances are omitted in
  Luke, which can be brought in from Josephus so as to give a much
  more vivid idea of the whole event, than can be learned from the
  Acts alone. (See Michaelis’s introduction to the New Testament,
  ――on Luke. Also Wolf and Kuinoel.)


                       PETER’S PLACE OF REFUGE.

Luke, in mentioning the departure of Peter from Jerusalem after his
escape from prison by night, merely says, “And going out, he went
to _another place_.” The vague, uncertain manner in which this
circumstance is mentioned, seems to imply that the writer really knew
nothing about this “other place.” It was not a point essential to
the integrity of the narrative, though interesting to all the readers
of the history, since the most trifling particulars about the chief
apostle might well be supposed desirable to be known. But though if
it had been known, it would have been well worth recording, it was
too trifling a matter to deserve any investigation, if it had not been
mentioned to Luke by those from whom he received the accounts which he
gives of Peter; and since he is uniformly particular in mentioning even
these smaller details, when they fall in the way of his narrative, it
is but fair to conclude that in this instance he would have satisfied
the natural and reasonable curiosity of his readers, if he had had the
means of doing so. There could have been no motive when he wrote, for
concealing the fact, and he could have expressed the whole truth in as
few words as he has given to show his own ignorance of the point. From
the nature of the apostle’s motives in departing from Jerusalem, it
must have been at that time desirable to have his place of refuge known
to as few as possible; and the fact, at that time unknown, would, after
the motive for concealment had disappeared, be of too little interest
to be very carefully inquired after by those to whom it was not obvious.
In this way it happened, that this circumstance was never revealed to
Luke, who not being among the disciples at Jerusalem, would not be in
the way of readily hearing of it, and in writing the story would not
think it worth inquiring for. But one thing seems morally certain;
if Peter had taken refuge in any important place or well known city,
it must have been far more likely to have been afterwards a fact
sufficiently notorious to have come within the knowledge of his
historian; but as the most likely place for a secret retirement would
have been some obscure region, this would increase the chances of
its remaining subsequently unknown. This consideration is of some
importance in settling a few negative facts in relation to various
conjectures which have at different times been offered on the place
of Peter’s refuge.

Among these, the most idle and unfounded is, that on leaving Jerusalem
he went to Caesarea. What could have suggested this queer fancy to its
author, it is hard to say; but it certainly implies the most senseless
folly in Peter, when seeking a hiding place from the persecution of
king Herod Agrippa, to go directly to the capital of his dominions,
where he might be expected to reside for the greater part of the time,
and whither he actually did go, immediately after his disappointment
about this very apostle. It was jumping out of the frying-pan into the
fire, to go thus away from among numerous friends who might have found
a barely possible safety for him in Jerusalem, and to seek a refuge
in Caesarea where there were but very few friends of the apostles, and
where he would be in constant danger of discovery from the numerous
minions of the king, who thronged all parts of that royal city, and
from the great number of Greeks, Romans and Syrians, making up the
majority of the population, who hated the very sight of a Jew, and
would have taken vast pleasure in gratifying their spite, and at the
same time gaining high favor with the king by hunting out and giving up
to wrath an obscure heretic of that hated race. It would not have been
at all accordant with the serpent-wisdom enjoined on the apostle, to
have run his head thus into the lion’s mouth, by seeking a quiet and
safe dwelling-place beneath the very nose of his powerful persecutor.

Another conjecture vastly less absurd, but still not highly probable,
is, that Antioch was the “other place” to which Peter went from
Jerusalem; but an objection of great force against this, is that
already alluded to above, in reference to the ineligibility of a great
city as a place of concealment; and in this instance is superadded the
difficulty of his immediately making this long journey over the whole
extent of Agrippa’s dominions, northward, at such a time, when the
king’s officers would be every where put on the alert for him, more
particularly in the direction of his old home in Galilee, which would
be in the nearest way to Antioch. His most politic movement, therefore,
would be to take some shorter course out of Palestine. Moreover, in
this case, there is a particular reason why Luke would have mentioned
the name of Antioch if that had been the place. What the proof of this
reason is, can be best shown in his life; but the bare statement of the
fact may be sufficient for the present,――that he was himself a citizen
of that place, and could not have been ignorant or negligent of the
circumstance of this visit, if it had occurred.

It has been suggested by others that the expression, “to another
place,” does not imply a departure from Jerusalem, but is perfectly
reconcilable with the supposition that Peter remained concealed in some
safe and unknown part of the city. This view would very unobjectionably
accord with the vagueness of the passage,――since if merely another
part of Jerusalem was meant, no name could be expected to describe
it. But it would certainly seem like a presumptuous rashness in Peter,
to risk in so idle a manner the freedom which he owed to a miraculous
interposition; for the circumstance of such an interposition could not
be intended to justify him in dispensing with a single precaution which
would be proper and necessary after an escape in any other mode. Such
is not the course of divine dealings, whether miraculous or ordinary;
and in a religious as well as an economical view, the force and truth
of Poor Richard’s saying is undoubted,――“God helps them who help
themselves;” nor is his helping them any reason why they should cease
to help themselves. Peter’s natural impulse, as well as a considerate
prudence, then, would lead him to immediate exertions to keep the
freedom so wonderfully obtained, and such an impulse and such a
consideration would at once teach him that the city was no place
for him, at a time when the most desperately diligent search might
be expected. For as soon as his escape was discovered, Luke says,
that the king “sought most earnestly for him,” and in a search
thus characterized, inspired too by the most furious rage at the
disappointment, hardly a hole or corner of Jerusalem could have
been left unransacked; so that this preservation of the apostle from
pursuers so determined, would have required a continual series of
miracles, fully as wonderful as that which effected his deliverance
from castle Antonia. His most proper and reasonable course would then
have been directly eastward from Jerusalem,――a route which would give
him the shortest exit from the territories of Herod Agrippa, leading
him directly into Arabia, a region that was, in another great instance
hereafter mentioned, a place of comfortable and undisturbed refuge for
a person similarly circumstanced. A journey of fifty or sixty miles
through an unfrequented and lonely country, would put him entirely
beyond pursuit; and the character of the route would make it
exceedingly difficult to trace his flight, as the nature of the country
would facilitate his concealment, while its proximity to Jerusalem
would make his return after the removal of the danger by the death of
Agrippa, as easy as his flight thither in the first place.

  _At Jerusalem._――This notion I find nowhere but in Lardner, who
  approves it, quoting Lenfant. [Lardner, History of the Apostles
  and Evangelists, Life of Peter.]

Another series of papistical fables carries him on his supposed tour on
the coast, beyond Caesarea, and, uniting two theories, makes him visit
Antioch also; and finally extends his pilgrimage into the central and
northern parts of Asia Minor. This fabulous legend, though different
in its character from the preceding accounts, because it impudently
attempts to pass off a bald invention as an authentic history, while
those are only offered honestly as probable conjectures, yet may be
worthy of a place here, because it is necessary in giving a complete
view of all the stories which have been received, to present dishonest
inventions as well as justifiable speculations. The clearest fabulous
account given of his journey thither, is, that parting from Jerusalem
as above-mentioned, he directed his way westwards toward the sea-coast
of Palestine, first to Caesarea Stratonis, (or Augusta,) where he
constituted one of the presbyters who attended him from Jerusalem,
bishop of the church founded there by him on his visit;――that leaving
Caesarea he went northwards along the coast into Phoenicia, arriving
at the city of Sidon;――that there he performed many cures and also
appointed a bishop; next to Berytus, (now Beyroot,) in Syria, and there
also appointed a bishop. Going on through Syria, along the coast of
the Mediterranean, they bring him next, in his curiously detailed
track, to Biblys, then to the Phoenician Tripoli, to Orthosia, to
Antandros, to the island of Aradus, near the coast, to Balaenas, to
Panta, to Laodicea, and at last to Antioch,――planting churches in all
these hard-named towns on the way, and sowing bishops, as before, by
handfulls, as well as performing vast quantities of miracles. The story
of Peter’s journey goes on to say, that after leaving Antioch he went
into Cappadocia, and stayed some time in Tyana, a city of that province.
Proceeding westward thence, he came to Ancyra, in Galatia, where he
raised a dead person, baptized believers, and instituted a church, over
which he ordained a bishop. Thence northward, into Pontus, where he
visited the cities of Sinope and Amasea, on the coast of the Euxine
sea. Then turning eastward into Paphlagonia, stopped at Gangra and
Claudiopolis; next into Bithynia, to the cities of Nicomedia and Nicaea;
and thence returned directly to Antioch, whence he shortly afterwards
went to Jerusalem.

  This ingenious piece of apostolic romance is due to the same
  veracious Metaphrastes, above quoted. I have derived it from
  him through Caesar Baronius, who gives it in his Annales
  Ecclesiastici. (44, § 10, 11.) The great annalist approves and
  adopts it, however, only as far as it describes the journey
  of Peter to Antioch; and there he leaves the narrative of
  Metaphrastes, and instead of taking Peter on his long tour
  through Asia Minor and back to Jerusalem, as just described,
  carries him off upon a far different route, achieving the great
  journey westward, which accords with the view taken by the
  vast majority of the old ecclesiastical writers, and which is
  next given here. Metaphrastes also maintains this view, indeed,
  but supposes and invents all the events just narrated, as
  intermediate occurrences, between Peter’s escape and his great
  journey, and begins the account of this latter, after his return
  from his Asian circuit.

  To connect all this long pilgrimage with the story given in the
  sacred record, the sage Baronius makes the ingenious suggestion,
  that this was the occult reason why Agrippa was wroth with those
  of Tyre and Sidon; namely, that Peter had gone through their
  country when a fugitive from the royal vengeance, and had been
  favorably received by the Tyrians and Sidonians, who should
  have seized him as a runaway from justice, and sent him back to
  Agrippa. This acute guess, he thinks, will show a reason also
  for the otherwise unaccountable fact, that Luke should mention
  this quarrel between Agrippa and those cities, in connection
  with the events of Peter’s escape and Agrippa’s death. For the
  great cardinal does not seem to appreciate the circumstance
  of its close relation to the latter event, in presenting
  the occasion of the reconciliation between the king and the
  offending cities, on which the king made his speech to the
  people, and received the impious tribute of praise, which
  was followed by his death;――the whole constituting a relation
  sufficiently close between the two events, to justify the
  connection in Luke.


                       THE FIRST VISIT TO ROME.

But the view of this passage in Peter’s history, which was long adopted
universally by those who took the pains to ask about this “other place,”
mentioned by Luke, and the view which involves the most important
relations to other far greater questions, is, that ROME was the chief
apostle’s refuge from the Agrippine persecution, and that in the
imperial city he now laid the deep foundations of the church universal.
On this point some of the greatest champions of papistry have expended
vast labor, to establish a circumstance so convenient for the support
of the dogma of the divinely appointed supremacy of the Romish church,
since the belief of this early visit of Peter would afford a very
convenient basis for the very early apostolical foundation of the Roman
see. But though this notion of his refuge has received the support of
a vast number of great names from the very early periods of Christian
literature, and though for a long period this view was considered
indubitable, from the sanction of ancient authorities, there is not
one of the various conjectures offered which is so easily overthrown
on examination, from the manner in which it is connected with other
notions most palpably false and baseless. The old papistical notion
was, that Peter at this time visited Rome, founded the church there,
and presided over it, as bishop, _twenty-five_ years, but occasionally
visiting the east. As respects the minute details of this journey to
Rome, the papist historians are by no means agreed, few of them having
put any value upon the particulars of such an itinerary, until those
periods when such fables were sought after by common readers with
more avidity. But there is at least one hard-conscienced narrator, who
undertakes to go over all the steps of the apostle on the road to the
eternal city, and from his narrative are brought these circumstances.
The companions assigned him by this romance, on his journey, were the
evangelist Mark, Appollinaris, afterwards, as the story goes, appointed
by him bishop of Ravenna, in Italy; Martial, afterwards a missionary in
Gaul, and Rufus, bishop of Capua, in Italy. Pancratius, of Tauromenius,
and Marcian, of Syracuse, in Sicily, had been sent on by Peter to
that island, while he was yet staying at Antioch, but on his voyage he
landed there and made them his companions also. His great route is said
to have led him to Troy, on the northern part of the Asian coast of
the Aegean sea, whence they seem to have made him cross to the eastern
port of Corinth. At this great city of Greece, they bring him into
the company of Paul and Silas, who were sent thither, to be sure, on
a mission, but evidently at a different time, a circumstance which,
among many others, helps to show the bungling manner in which the
story is made up. From Corinth they carry him next to Syracuse, as
just mentioned. Thence to Neapolis, (Naples,) in Campania, where, as
the monkish legend says, this chief of the apostles celebrated with
his companions a mass, for the safe progress of his voyage to Italy.
Having now reached Italy, he is made the subject of a new fable for
the benefit of every city along the coast, and is accordingly said to
have touched at Liburnum, (_Livorno_, Leghorn,) being driven thither
by stress of weather, and thence to Pisa, near by, where he offered
up another mass for his preservation, as is still maintained in local
fables; but the general Romish legend does not so favor these places,
but brings the apostle, without any more marine delay or difficulty,
directly over land from Naples to Rome; and on this route again, one
lie suggesting another, a local superstition commemorates the veritable
circumstances, that he made this land-journey from Naples to Rome, on
foot; and on the way stopped at the house of a Galilean countryman of
his own, named Mark, in a town called Atina, of which the said Mark was
afterwards made bishop.

  Respecting these minute accounts of Peter’s stopping-places
  on this apocryphal journey, Baronius says, “Nobilia in iis
  remanserunt antiquitatis vestigia, sed traditiones potius
  quam scriptura firmata.” “There are in those places some noble
  remains of this ancient history, but rather traditions than well
  assured written accounts.” The part of the route from Antioch to
  Sicily he takes on the authority of the imaginative Metaphrastes;
  but the rest is made up from different local superstitions of
  a very modern date, not one of which can be traced farther back
  than the time when every fable of this sort had a high pecuniary
  value to the inventors, in bringing crowds of money-giving
  pilgrims to the spot which had been hallowed by the footsteps of
  the chief apostle. Even the devout Baronius, however, is obliged
  to confess at the end of this story, “Sed de rebus tam antiquis
  et incertis, quid potissimum affirmare debeamus, non satis
  constat.”――“But as to matters so ancient and uncertain, it
  is not sufficiently well established what opinion we may most
  safely pronounce.”

  As to the early part of the route, speaking of the account
  given by Metaphrastes of Peter’s having on his way through
  Troy ordained Cornelius, the centurion, bishop of that place,
  Baronius objects to the truth of this statement, the assertion
  that Cornelius had been previously ordained bishop of Caesarea,
  where he was converted. A very valuable refutation of one fable
  by another as utterly unfounded.

Respecting the _causes_ of this great journey of the apostle to the
capital of the world, the opinions even of papist writers are as
various as they are about the route honored by his passage. Some
suppose his motive to have been merely a desire for a refuge from the
persecution of Agrippa;――a most unlikely resort, however, for nothing
could be more easy than his detection in passing over such a route,
especially by sea, where every vessel could be so easily searched
at the command of Agrippa, whose influence extended far beyond his
own territory, supported as he was, by the unbounded possession of
the imperial Caesar’s favor, which would also make the seizure of
the fugitive within the great city itself, a very easy thing. Others,
however, do not consider this journey as connected in any way with his
flight from Agrippa, (for many suppose it to have been made after the
death of that king,) and find the motive for such an effort in the vast
importance of the field opened for his labors in the great capital of
the world, where were so many strong holds of error to be assaulted,
and from which an influence so wide and effectual might be exerted
through numerous channels of communication to all parts of the world.
Others have sought a reason of more definite and limited character,
and with vast pains have invented and compiled a fable of most absurdly
amusing character, to make an object for Peter’s labors in the distant
capital. The story which has the greatest number of supporters, is
one connected with Simon Magus, mentioned in the sacred record, in
the account of the labors of Philip in Samaria, and the visit of
Peter and John to that place. The fable begins with the assertion that
this magician had returned to his former tricks after his insincere
conformity to the Christian faith, and had devoted himself with new
energy to the easy work of popular deception, adding to his former evil
motives, that of deadly spite against the faith to which he appeared
so friendly, at the time when the sacred narrative speaks of him last.
In order to find a field sufficiently ample for his enlarged plans,
he went to Rome, and there, in the reign of Claudius Caesar, attained
a vast renown by his magical tricks, so that he was even esteemed a
god, and was even so pronounced by a solemn decree of the Roman senate,
confirmed by Claudius himself, who was perfectly carried away with
the delusion, which seems thus to have involved the highest and the
lowest alike. The fable proceeds to introduce Peter on the scene, by
the circumstance of his being called by a divine vision to go to Rome
and war against this great impostor, thus advancing in his impious
supremacy, who had already in Samaria been made to acknowledge the
miraculous efficacy of the apostolic word. Peter thus brought to Rome
by the hand of God, publicly preached abroad the doctrine of salvation,
and meeting the arch-magician himself, with the same divine weapons
whose efficacy he had before experienced, overcame him utterly,
and drove him in confusion and disgrace from the city. Nor were the
blessings that resulted to Rome from this visit of Peter, of a merely
spiritual kind. So specially favored with the divine presence and
blessing were all places where this great apostle happened to be, that
even their temporal interests shared in the advantages of the divine
influence that every where followed him. To this cause, therefore, are
gravely referred by papistical commentators, the remarkable success
which, according to heathen historians, attended the Roman arms in
different parts of the world during the second year of Claudius, to
which date this fabulous visit is unanimously referred by all who
pretend to believe in its occurrence.

  _Importance of the field of labor._――This is the view taken by
  Leo, (in sermon 1, in nat. apost. quoted by Baronius, Annales 44,
  § 26.) “When the twelve apostles, after receiving from the Holy
  Spirit the power of speaking _all_ languages,” (an assertion, by
  the way, no where found in the sacred record,) “had undertaken
  the labor of imbuing the world with the gospel, dividing its
  several portions among themselves; the most blessed Peter, the
  chief of the apostolic order was appointed to the capital of
  the Roman empire, so that the light of truth which was revealed
  for the salvation of all nations, might from the very head,
  diffuse itself with the more power through the whole body of
  the world. For, what country had not some citizens in this city?
  Or what nation anywhere, could be ignorant of anything which
  Rome had been taught? Here were philosophical dogmas to be put
  down――vanities of worldly wisdom to be weakened――idol-worship to
  be overthrown,”――&c. “To this city therefore, thou, most blessed
  apostle Peter! didst not fear to come, and (sharing thy glory
  with the apostle Paul, there occupied with the arrangement
  of other churches,) didst enter that forest of raging beasts,
  and didst pass upon that ocean of boisterous depths, with more
  firmness than when thou walkedst on the sea. Nor didst thou fear
  Rome, the mistress of the world, though thou didst once, in the
  house of Caiaphas, dread the servant maid of the priest. Not
  because the power of Claudius, or the cruelty of Nero, were less
  dreadful than the judgment of Pilate, or the rage of the Jews;
  but because the power of love now overcame the occasion of fear,
  since thy regard for the salvation of souls would not suffer
  thee to yield to terror. * * * The miraculous signs, gifts
  of grace, and trials of virtue, which had already been so
  multiplied to thee, now increased thy boldness. Already hadst
  thou taught those nations of the circumcision who believed.
  Already hadst thou filled Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia
  and Bithynia with the gospel; and now, without a doubt of the
  advance of the work, or of the certainty of thy own fate, thou
  didst plant the trophy of the cross of Christ upon the towers of
  Rome.” Arnobius is also quoted by Baronius to similar effect.

  _Simon Magus._――This fable has received a wonderfully wide
  circulation, and long maintained a place among the credible
  accounts of early Christian history, probably from the
  circumstance of its taking its origin from so early a source.
  Justin Martyr, who flourished from the year 140 and afterwards,
  in his apology for the Christian religion, addressed to the
  emperor Antoninus Pius, says, “Simon, a Samaritan, born in a
  village named _Gitthon_, in the time of Claudius Caesar, was
  received as a god in your imperial city of Rome, and honored
  with a statue, like other gods, on account of his magical powers
  there exhibited by the aid of demons; and this statue was set
  up in the river Tiber, between two bridges, and had this Latin
  inscription, SIMONI DEO SANCTO. Him too, all the Samaritans
  worship, and a few of other nations, acknowledging him as the
  highest god, (πρωτον θεον.) They also worship a certain Helena,
  who at that time followed him about,” &c. &c. &c. with more
  dirty trash besides, than I can find room for. And in another
  passage of the same work, he alludes to the same circumstances.
  “In your city, the mistress of the world, in the time of
  Claudius Caesar, Simon Magus struck the Roman senate and people
  with such admiration of himself, that he was ranked among the
  gods, and was honored with a statue.” _Irenaeus_, who flourished
  about the year 180, also gives this story with hardly any
  variation from Justin. Tertullian, about A. D. 200, repeats the
  same, with the addition of the circumstance, that not satisfied
  with the honors paid to himself, he caused the people to debase
  themselves still further, by paying divine honors to a woman
  called (by Tertullian) Larentina, who was exalted by them to
  a rank with the goddesses of the ancient mythology, though the
  good father gives her but a bad name. Eusebius, also, about A. D.
  320, refers to the testimonies of Justin and Irenaeus, and adds
  some strange particulars about a sect, existing in his time,
  the members of which were said to acknowledge this Simon as the
  author of their faith, whom they worshiped along with this woman
  Helena, falling prostrate before the pictures of both of them,
  with incense and sacrifices and libations to them, with other
  rites, unutterably and unwritably bad. (See Eusebius, Church
  History, II. 13.)

  In the three former writers, Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian,
  this absurd story stands by itself, and has no connection with
  the life of Peter; but Eusebius goes on to commemorate the
  circumstance, previously unrecorded, that Peter went to Rome for
  the express purpose of putting down this blasphemous wretch, as
  specified above, in the text of my narrative, from this author.
  (Eusebius, Church History, II. 14.)

  Now all this fine series of accounts, though seeming to bear
  such an overwhelming weight of testimony in favor of the truth
  and reality of Simon Magus’s visit to Rome, is proved to be
  originally based on an absolute falsehood; and the nature of
  this falsehood is thus exposed. In the year 1574, during the
  pontificate of Pope Gregory XIII., there was an excavation made
  for some indifferent purpose in Rome, on the very island in
  the Tiber, so particularly described by Justin, as lying in the
  center of the river between two bridges, each of which rested an
  abutment on it, and ran from it to the opposite shores. In the
  progress of this excavation, the workmen, as is very common in
  that vast city of buried ruins, turned up, among other remains
  of antiquity, the remnant of a statue with its pedestal, which
  had evidently once stood erect upon the spot. Upon the pedestal
  was an inscription most distinctly legible, in these words:
  SEMONI SANGO DEO FIDIO SACRUM――SEX POMPEIUS S. P. F. COL.
  MUSSIANUS――QUINQUENNALIS DECUR. BIDENTALIS――DONUM DEDIT. (This
  was in four lines, each line ending where the blank spaces are
  marked in the copy.) In order to understand this sentence, it
  must be known, that the Romans, among the innumerable objects
  of worship in their complicated religion, had a peculiar set of
  deities which they called SEMONES. A SEMO was a kind of inferior
  god, of an earthly character and office, so low as to unfit
  him for a place among the great gods of heaven, Jupiter, Juno,
  Apollo, &c., and was accordingly confined in his residence
  entirely to the earth; where the Semones received high honors
  and devout worship, and were commemorated in many places, both
  in city and country, by statues, before which the passer might
  pay his worship, if devoutly disposed. These statues were often
  of a votive character, erected by wealthy or distinguished
  persons for fancied aid, received from some one of these Semones,
  in some particular season of distress, or for general prosperity.
  This was evidently the object of the statue in question. Priapus,
  Hipporea, Vertumnus, and such minor gods were included under
  the general title of Semones; and among them was also ranked a
  Sabine divinity, named SANGUS or SANCUS, who is, by some writers,
  considered as corresponding in character to the Hercules of
  the Greeks. Sangus or Sancus is often alluded to in the Roman
  classics. Propertius (book 4) has a verse referring to him as
  a Sabine deity. “Sic Sancum Tatiae composuere Cures.” Ovid
  also, “Quaerebam Nonas Sanco fidio ne referrem.” As to this
  providentially recovered remnant of antiquity, therefore, there
  can be no doubt that it was a votive monument, erected by Sextus
  Pompey to Sangus the Semo, for some reason not very clearly
  expressed.

  Baronius tells also that he had seen a stone similarly inscribed.
  “SANGO SANCTO SEMON.――DEO FIDIO SACRUM――DECURIO SACERDOTUM
  BIDENTALIUM――RECIPERATIS VECTIGALIBUS.” That is, “Sacred to
  Sangus, the holy Semo, the god Fidius,――a decury (company
  of ten) of the priests of the Bidental sacrifices have raised
  this in gratitude for their recovered incomes.” Dionysius
  Halicarnassaeus is also quoted by Baronius as referring to the
  worship of the Semo, Sangus; and from him and various other
  ancient writers, it appears that vows and sacrifices were
  offered to this Sangus, for a safe journey and happy return from
  a distance.

  From a consideration of all the circumstances of this remarkable
  discovery, and from the palpable evidence afforded by the
  inherent absurdity of the story told by Justin Martyr and his
  copyists, the conclusion is justifiable and irresistible, that
  Justin himself, being a native of Syria, and having read the
  story of Simon Magus in the Acts, where it is recorded that he
  was profoundly reverenced by the Samaritans, and was silenced
  and rebuked by Peter when he visited that place,――with all
  this story fresh in his mind, (for he was but a new convert
  to Christianity,) came to Rome, and going through that city,
  an ignorant foreigner, without any knowledge of the religion,
  or superstitions, or deities, and with but an indifferent
  acquaintance with their language, came along this bridge over
  the Tiber to the island, where had been erected this votive
  statue to Semo Sangus; and looking at the inscription in the way
  that might be expected of one to whom the language and religion
  were strange, he was struck at once with the name Semon, as so
  much resembling the well-known eastern name Simon, and began
  speculating at once, about what person of that name could ever
  have come from the east to Rome, and there received the honors
  of a god. Justin’s want of familiarity with the language of the
  Romans, would prevent his obtaining any satisfactory information
  on the subject from the passers-by; and if he attempted to
  question them about it, he would be very apt to interpret their
  imperfect communications in such a way as suited the notion
  he had taken up. If he asked his Christian brethren about the
  matter, their very low character for general intelligence,
  the circumstance that those with whom he was most familiar,
  must have been of eastern origin, and as ignorant as he of the
  minute peculiarities of the Roman religion, and their common
  disposition to wilfully pervert the truth, and invent fables
  for the sake of a good story connected with their own faith,
  (of which we have evidences vastly numerous, and sadly powerful
  in the multitude of such legends that have come down from the
  Christians of those times,) would all conspire to help the
  invention and completion of the foolish and unfounded notion,
  that this statue here erected _Semoni Sanco Deo_, was the same
  as _Simoni Deo Sancto_, that is, “_to the holy god Simon_;”
  and as it was always necessary to the introduction of a new
  god among those at Rome, that the Senate should pass a solemn
  act and decree to that effect, which should be confirmed by
  the approbation of the emperor, it would at once occur to his
  own imaginative mind, or to the inventions of his fabricating
  informers, that Simon must of course have received such a decree
  from the senate and Caesar. This necessarily also implied vast
  renown, and extensive favor with all the Romans, which he must
  have acquired, to be sure, by his magical tricks, aided by
  the demoniac powers; and so all the foolish particulars of the
  story would be made out as fast as wanted. The paltry fable
  also appended to this by all the Fathers who give the former
  story, to the effect, that some woman closely connected with
  him, was worshiped along with him, variously named Helena,
  Selena and Larentina, has no doubt a similarly baseless origin;
  but is harder to trace to its beginnings, because it was not
  connected with an assertion, capable of direct ocular, as well
  as historical, refutation, as that about Simon’s statue most
  fortunately was. The second name, _Selena_, given by Irenaeus,
  is exactly the Greek word for the moon, which was often
  worshiped under its appropriate name; and this tale may have
  been caught up from some connection between such a ceremony and
  the worship of some of the Semones,――all the elegant details
  of her life and character being invented to suit the fancies
  of the reverend fathers. The story, that she had followed Simon
  to Rome from the Phoenician cities, Tyre and Sidon, suggests to
  my mind at this moment, that there may have been a connection
  between this and some old story of the importation of a piece of
  idolatry from that region, so famed for the worship of the

                             “_mooned_ Ashtaroth,
                  Heaven’s queen and mother both.”

  But this trash is not worth the time and paper I am spending
  upon it, since the main part of the story, concerning Simon
  Magus as having ever been seen or heard of in Rome, by senate,
  prince or people, in the days of Claudius, is shown, beyond
  all reasonable question, to be utterly false, and based on
  a stupid blunder of Justin Martyr, who did not know Latin
  enough to tell the difference between _sanco_ and _sancto_, nor
  between _Semoni_ and _Simoni_. And after all, this is but a fair
  specimen of Justin Martyr’s usual blundering way, of which his
  few pages present other instances for the inquiring reader to
  stumble over and bewilder himself upon. Take, for example, the
  gross confusion of names and dates which he makes in a passage
  which accidentally meets my eye, on a page near that from which
  the above extract is taken. In attempting to give an account
  of the way in which the Hebrew Bible was first translated into
  Greek, he says that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, sent to Herod, king
  of the Jews, for a copy of the Bible. But when or where does
  any history, sacred or profane, give any account whatever of any
  Ptolemy, king of Egypt, who was cotemporary with either of the
  Herods? The last of the Ptolemies was killed, while a boy, in
  the Egyptian war with Julius Caesar, before Herod had himself
  attained to manhood, or had the most distant thought of the
  throne of Palestine. The Ptolemy who is said to have procured
  the Greek translation of the Bible, however, lived about three
  hundred years before the first Herod. It is lamentable to think
  that such is the character of the earliest Christian father who
  has left works of any magnitude. Who can wonder that Apologies
  for the Christian religion, full of such gross blunders, should
  have failed to secure the belief, or move the attention of
  either of the Antonines, to whom they were addressed,――the
  Philosophic, or the Pious? And by a writer who pretended to
  tell the wisest of the Caesars, that in his imperial city, had
  been worshiped, from the days of Claudius, a miserable Samaritan
  impostor, who, an outcast from his own outcast land, had in Rome,
  by a solemn senatorial and imperial decree, been exalted to the
  highest god-ship, and that the evidence of this fact was found
  in a statue which that emperor well knew to be dedicated to
  the most ancient deities of Etruscan origin, worshiped there
  ever since the days of Numa Pompilius, but which this Syrian
  Christian had blunderingly supposed to commemorate a man who
  had never been heard of out of Samaria, except among Christians.
  And as for such _martyrs_, if there is any truth whatever in the
  story that his foolish head was cut off by the second Antonine,
  the only pity is, it was not done a little sooner, so as to have
  kept the Christian world from the long belief of all this folly
  about an invention so idle, and saved me the trouble of exposing
  it.

  The fullest account ever given of this fable and all its
  progress, is found in the Annales Ecclesiastici of Caesar
  Baronius, (A. C. 44. § 51‒59.) who, after furnishing the most
  ample references to sacred and profane authorities, which
  palpably demonstrate the falsity of the story, returns with all
  the solemn bigotry of a papist, to the solemn conviction that
  the fathers and the saints who tell the story, _must_ have had
  some very good reason for believing it.

  The other copyists of Justin hardly deserve any notice; but it
  is interesting and instructive to observe how, in the progress
  of fabulous invention, one lie is pinned on to the tail of
  another, to form a glorious chain of historical sequences, for
  some distant ecclesiastical annalist to hang his servile faith
  upon. Eusebius, for instance, enlarges the stories of Justin
  and Irenaeus, by an addition of his own,――that in his day there
  existed a sect which acknowledged this same Simon as God, and
  worshiped him and Helena or Selena, with some mysteriously
  wicked rites. Now all that his story amounts to, is, that in his
  time there was a sect called by a name resembling that of Simon,
  how nearly like it, no one knows; but that by his own account
  their worship was of a secret character, so that he could, of
  course, know nothing certainly. But this is enough for him to
  add, as a solemn confirmation of a story now known to have been
  founded in falsehood. From this beginning, Eusebius goes on
  to say that Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius,
  to war against this Simon Magus, who never went there; so that
  we know how much this whole tale is worth by looking into the
  circumstance which constitutes its essential foundation. The
  idea of Peter’s visit to Rome at that time, is no where given
  before Eusebius, except in some part of the Clementina, a long
  series of most unmitigated falsehoods, forged in the name of
  Clemens Romanus, without any certain date, but commonly supposed
  to have been made up of the continued contributions of several
  impudent liars, during different portions of the second, third
  and fourth centuries.

  Creuzer also, in his deep and extensive researches into the
  religions of antiquity, in giving a “view of some of the older
  Italian nations,” speaks of “Sancus Semo.” He quotes Augustin
  (De civitate Dei. XVIII. 19,) as authority for the opinion that
  he was an ancient king, deified. He also alludes to the passage
  in Ovid, (quoted above by Baronius,) where he is connected with
  Hercules, and alluded to under three titles, as Semo, Sancus and
  Fidius. (Ovid, Fasti, VI. 213, et seq.) But the learned Creuzer
  does not seem to have any correct notion of the character of
  the _Semones_, as a distinct order of inferior deities;――a fact
  perfectly certain as given above, for which abundant authority
  is found in Varro, (de Mystag.) as quoted by Fulgentius and
  Baronius. From Creuzer I also notice, in an accidental immediate
  connection with Semo Sancus, the fact that the worship of the
  moon (Luna) was also of Sabine origin; and being introduced
  along with that of Sancus, by Numa, may have had some relation
  to that Semo, and may have concurred in originating the notion
  of the fathers about the woman Selena or Helena, as worshiped
  along with Simon. He also just barely alludes to the fact that
  Justin and Irenaeus have confounded this Semo Sancus with Simon
  Magus. (See Creuzer’s Symbolik und Mythologie der alter Voelker,
  II. Theil. pp. 964‒965.)

The next conclusion authorized by those who support this fable is,
that Peter, after achieving this great work of vanquishing the impostor
Simon, proceeded to preach the gospel generally; yet not at first to
the hereditary citizens of imperial Rome, nor to any of the Gentiles,
but to his own countrymen the Jews, great numbers of whom then made
their permanent abode in the great city. These foreigners, at that time,
were limited in Rome to a peculiar section of the suburbs, and hardly
dwelt within the walls of the city itself;――an allotment corresponding
with similar limitations existing in some of the modern cities of
Europe, Asia, and northern Africa, and even in London, though there,
only in accordance with long usage, and with actual convenience, but
not with any existing law. The quarter of Rome in which the Jews dwelt
in the days of Claudius, was west of the central section of the city,
beyond the Tiber; and to this suburban portion, the story supposes
the residence and labors of Peter to have been at first confined. But
after a time, the fame of this mighty preacher of a new faith spread
beyond, from this despised foreign portion of the environs, across the
Tiber, over the seven hills themselves, and even into the halls of the
patrician lords of Rome. Such an extension of fame, indeed, seems quite
necessary to make these two parts of this likely story hang together at
all; for it is hard to see how a stranger, from a distant eastern land,
could thus appear suddenly among them, and overturn, with a defeat so
total and signal, the pretensions of one who had lately been exalted
by the opinions of an adoring people to the character of a god, and
had even received the solemn national sanction of this exaltation by
a formal decree of the senate of Rome, confirmed by the absolute voice
of the Caesar himself; and after such a victory, over such a person,
be left long unnoticed in an obscure suburb. In accordance, therefore,
with this reasonable notion, it is recorded in the continuation of
the story, that when Peter, preaching at Rome, grew famous among the
Gentiles, he was no longer allowed to occupy himself wholly among the
Jews, but was thereafter taken by Pudens, a senator who believed in
Christ, into his own house, on the Viminal Mount, one of the seven
hills, but near the Jewish suburb. In the neighborhood of this house,
as the legend relates, was afterwards erected a monument, called “the
Shepherd’s,”――a name which serves to identify this important locality
to the modern Romans to this day. Being thus established in these
lordly patrician quarters, the poor Galilean fisherman might well
have thought himself blessed, in such a pleasant change from the
uncomfortable lodgings with which the royal Agrippa had lately
accommodated him, and from which he had made so willing an exit.
But the legend does the faithful and devoted apostle the justice, to
represent him as by no means moved by these luxurious circumstances, to
the least forgetfulness of the high commission which was to be followed
through all sorts of self-denial,――no less that which drew him from
the soft and soul-relaxing enjoyments of a patrician palace, than
that which led him to renounce the simple, hard-earned profits of a
fisherman, on the changeful sea of Gennesaret, or to calmly meet the
threats, the stripes, the chains, and the condemned cell, with which
the enmity of the Jewish magistrates had steadily striven to quench
his fiery and energetic spirit. He is described as steadily laboring
in the cause of the gospel among the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and
with such success during the whole of the first year of his stay, that
in the beginning of the following year he is said by papist writers to
have solemnly and formally founded THE CHURCH OF ROME. This important
fictitious event is dated with the most exact particularity, on
the fifteenth of February, in the forty-third year of Christ, and
the third year of the reign of the emperor Claudius. The empty,
unmeaning pomposity of this announcement is a sufficient evidence of
its fictitious character. According to the story itself, here Peter
had been preaching nearly a whole year at Rome; and if preaching,
having a regular congregation, of course, and performing the usual
accompaniments of preaching, as baptism, &c. Now there is not in the
whole apostolic history the least account, nor the shadow of a hint, of
any such ceremony as the founding of a church, distinct from the mere
gathering of an assembly of believing listeners, who acknowledged their
faith in Jesus by profession and by the sacraments. The organization
of this religious assembly might indeed be made more perfect at one
time than at another; as for instance, a new church, which during an
apostle’s stay with it and preaching to it, had been abundantly well
governed by the simple guidance of his wise, fatherly care, would,
on his departure, need some more regular, permanent provision for its
government, lest among those who were all religious co-equals, there
should arise disputes which would require a regularly constituted
authority to allay them. The apostle might, therefore, in such advanced
requirements of the church, ordain elders, and so on; but such an
appendix could not, with the slightest regard to common sense or the
rules of honest interpretation of language, be said to constitute the
founding of a church. The very phrase of ordaining elders in a church,
palpably implies and requires the previous distinct, complete existence
of the church. In fact the entity of a church implies nothing more
than a regular assembly of believers, with an authorized ministry;
and if Peter had been preaching several months to the Jews of the
trans-Tiberine suburb, or to the Romans of the Viminal mount, there
must have been in one or both of those places, a _church_, to all
intents, purposes, definitions and etymologies of a church. So that for
him, almost a year after, to proceed to _found_ a church in Rome, was
the most idle work of supererogation in the world. And all the pompous
statements of papist writers about any such formality, and all the
quotations that might be brought out of the fathers in its support,
from Clement downwards, could not relieve the assertion of one particle
of its palpable, self-evident absurdity. But the fable proceeds in
the account of this important movement, dating the apostolic reign
of Peter from this very occasion, as above fixed, and running over
various imaginary acts of his, during the tedious seven years for which
the story ties him down to this one spot. Among many other unfounded
matters, is specified the assertion, that from this city during the
first year of his episcopate, he wrote his first epistle, which he
addressed to the believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and
Bithynia,――the countries which are enumerated as visited by him in
his fictitious tour. This opinion is grounded on the circumstance of
its being dated from Babylon, which several later fathers understood
as a term spiritually applied to Rome; but in the proper place this
notion will be fully discussed, and the true origin of the epistle
more satisfactorily given. Another important event in the history of
the scriptures,――the writing of the gospel of Mark,――is also commonly
connected with this part of Peter’s life, by the papist historians; but
this event, with an account of the nature of this supposed connection,
and the discussion of all points in this subject, can be better shown
in the life of that evangelist; and to that it is therefore deferred.
These matters and several others as little in place, seem to be
introduced into this part of Peter’s life, mainly for the sake of
giving him something particular to do, during his somewhat tedious
stay in Rome, where they make him remain seven years after his first
journey thither; and give him here the character, office and title of
_bishop_,――a piece of nomenclature perfectly unscriptural and absurd,
because no apostle, in the New Testament, is ever called a bishop;
but on the contrary, the office was evidently created to provide a
substitute for an apostle,――a person who might perform the pastoral
duties to the church, in the absence of its apostolic founder,
_overseeing_ and managing all its affairs in his stead, to report to
him at his visitations, or in reply to his epistolary charges. To call
an apostle a bishop, therefore, implies the absurdity of calling a
superior officer by the title of his inferior,――as to call a captain,
lieutenant, or a general-in-chief, colonel, or even as to call a
bishop, deacon. During the life-time of the apostles, “_bishop_” was
only a secondary title, and it was not till the death of all those
commissioned by Christ, that this became the supreme officer in all
churches. But the papists not appreciating any difficulty of this kind,
go on crowning one absurdity with another, which claims, however, the
additional merit of being amusing in its folly. This is the minute
particularization of the shape, stuff, accoutrements and so on, of the
chair in which bishop Peter sat at Rome in his episcopal character.
This identical wooden chair in which his apostolical body was seated
when he was exerting the functions of his bishopric, is still,
according to the same high papal authorities which maintain the fact of
his ever having been bishop, preserved in the Basilica of the Vatican,
at Rome, and is even now, on certain high occasions, brought out from
its holy storehouse to bless with its presence the eyes of the adoring
people. This chair is kept covered with a linen veil, among the various
similar treasures of the Vatican, and has been eminent for the vast
numbers of great miracles wrought by its presence. As a preliminary
step, however, to a real faith in the efficacy of this old piece of
furniture, it is necessary that those who hear the stories should
believe that Peter was ever at Rome, to sit in this or any other chair
there. It is observed, however, in connection with this lumbering
article, in the papist histories, that on taking possession of this
chair, as bishop of Rome, Peter resigned the bishopric of Antioch,
committing that see to the charge of Euodius, it having been the
original diocese of this chief apostle,――a story about as true, as that
any apostle was ever _bishop_ any where. The apostles were missionaries,
for the most part, preaching the word of God from place to place,
appointing bishops to govern and manage the churches in their absence,
and after their final departure, as their successors and substitutes;
but no apostle is, on any occasion whatever, called a bishop in any
part of the New Testament, or by any _early_ writer. The most important
objection, however, to all this absurd account of Peter, as bishop of
Rome, is the fact uniformly attested by those early fathers, who allude
to his having ever visited that city, that having founded the church
there, he appointed Linus the FIRST BISHOP,――a statement in exact
accordance with the view here given of the office of a bishop, and of
the mode in which the apostles constituted that office in the churches
founded and visited by them.

  _The date of the foundation._――All this is announced with the
  most elaborate solemnity, in all the older papist writers,
  because on this point of the foundation of the Roman church by
  Peter, they were long in the habit of basing the whole right
  and title of the bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, to the
  supremacy of the church universal. The great authorities, quoted
  by them in support of this exact account of the whole affair,
  with all its dates, even to the month and day, are the bulls
  of some of the popes, enforcing the celebration of that day
  throughout all the churches under the Romish see, and the forms
  of prayer in which this occasion is commemorated even to this
  day. Moreover, a particular form is quoted from some of the
  old rituals of the church, not now in use, in which the ancient
  mode of celebrating this event, in prayer and thanksgiving,
  is verbally given. “Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui ineffabili
  sacramento, apostolo tuo Petro principatum Romae urbis tribuisti,
  unde se evangelica veritas per tota mundi regna diffunderet:
  praesta quaesumus, ut quod in orbem terrarum ejus praedicatione
  manavit, universitas Christiana devotione sequatur.”――“Almighty,
  eternal God, who by an ineffable consecration, didst give to thy
  apostle Peter the dominion of the city of Rome, that thence the
  gospel truth might diffuse itself throughout all the kingdoms
  of the world: grant, we pray, that what has flowed into the
  whole circuit of the earth by his preaching, all Christendom
  may devoutly follow.”――A prayer so melodiously expressed, and
  in such beautiful Latin, that it is a great pity it should
  have been a mere trick, to spread and perpetuate a downright,
  baseless lie, which had no other object than the extension of
  the gloomy, soul-darkening tyranny of the papal sway. Other
  forms of prayer, for private occasions, are also mentioned by
  Baronius, as commemorating the foundation of the church of Rome
  by Peter; and all these, as well as the former, being fixed
  for the fifteenth of February, as above quoted. Those records
  of fables, also, the old Roman martyrologies, are cited for
  evidence. The later Latin fathers add their testimony, and even
  the devout Augustin (sermons 15, 16, de sanct, &c.) is quoted
  in support of it. Baronius gives all these evidences, (Annales,
  45, § 1,) and goes on to earn the cardinal’s hat, which finally
  rewarded his zealous efforts, by maintaining the unity and
  universality of this apostolic foundation, and the absolute
  supremacy consequently appertaining to the succession of Peter
  in the Roman see.

  _Peter’s chair._――This fable (page 225) is from Baronius, who
  wrote about 1580; but alas! modern accidental discoveries make
  dreadful havoc with papistical antiquities, and have done as
  much to correct the mistake in this matter, as in Justin’s
  blunder about Simon Magus. I had transcribed Baronius’s story
  into the text as above without knowing of the fact, till a
  glance at the investigations of the sagacious Bower gave me the
  information which I here extract from him.

  “They had, as they thought, till the year 1662, a pregnant proof,
  not only of St. Peter’s erecting their chair, but of his sitting
  in it himself; for till that year, the very chair, on which
  they believed, or would make others believe, he had sat, was
  shown and exposed to public adoration on the 18th of January,
  the festival of the said chair. But while it was cleaning, in
  order to be set up in some conspicuous place of the Vatican,
  the twelve labors of Hercules unluckily appeared engraved on it.
  ‘Our worship, however,’ says Giacomo Bartolini, who was present
  at this discovery, and relates it, ‘was not misplaced, since
  it was not to the wood we paid it, but to the prince of the
  apostles, St. Peter.’ An author of no mean character, unwilling
  to give up the holy chair, even after this discovery, as having
  a place and a peculiar solemnity among the other saints, has
  attempted to explain the labors of Hercules in a mystical
  sense, as emblems representing the future exploits of the popes.
  (Luchesini catedra restituita a S. Pietro.) But the ridiculous
  and distorted conceits of that writer are not worthy our notice,
  though by Clement X. they were judged not unworthy of a reward.”
  (Bower’s Lives of the Popes, Vol. I. p. 7, 4to. ed. 1749.)

The next noticeable thing that Peter is made to do at Rome, is the
sending out of his disciples from Rome to act as missionaries and
bishops in the various wide divisions of the Roman empire, westward
from the capital, which were yet wholly unoccupied by the preachers
of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In his supposed character of keeper of
the great flock of Christ, having now fully established the Roman see,
he turned his eyes to those distant regions, and considering their
religious wants and utter spiritual destitution, sent into them several
disciples whom he is supposed to have qualified for such labors by his
own minute personal instructions. Thus, as rays from the sun, and as
streams from the fountain, did the Christian faith go forth through
these from the see of Peter, and spread far and wide throughout the
world. So say the imaginative papist historians, whose fancy not
resting satisfied with merely naming the regions to which these new
missionaries were now sent, goes on with a catalogue of the persons,
and of the places where they became finally established in their
bishoprics. But it would be honoring such fables too much, to record
the long string of names which are in the papist annals, given to
designate the missionaries thus sent out, and the particular places to
which they were sent. It is enough to notice that the sum of the whole
story is, that preachers of the gospel were thus sent not only into the
western regions alluded to, but into many cities of Italy and Sicily.
In Gaul, Spain and Germany, many are said to have been certainly
established; and to extend the fable as far as possible, it is even
hinted that Britain received the gospel through the preaching of some
of these missionaries of Peter; but this distant circumstance is stated
rather as a conjecture, while the rest are minutely and seriously given,
in all the grave details of persons and places.

In various works of this character, Peter is said by the propagators
of this fable to have passed seven years at Rome, during all which
time he is not supposed to have gone beyond the bounds of the city.
The occasion of his departure at the end of this long period, as stated
by the fabulous records from which the whole story is drawn, was the
great edict of Claudius Caesar, banishing all Jews from Rome, among
whom Peter must of course have been included. This imperial sentence of
general banishment, is not only alluded to in the Acts of the Apostles,
but is particularly specified in the Roman and Jewish historians of
those times; from which its exact date is ascertained to have been
the _ninth_ year of the reign of Claudius, from which, as Peter is
supposed to have gone to Rome in the _second_ year of that reign,
the intervening time must have been, as above stated, _seven_ years.
The particulars of this general banishment, its motives and results,
will be better given in that part of this work where important points
in authentic true history are connected with the event. Under these
circumstances, however, the great first bishop of Rome is supposed to
have left this now consecrated capital of Christendom, and traveled
off eastward, along with the general throng of Jewish fugitives. Some
of the papist commentators on this story are nevertheless, so much
scandalized at the thought of Peter’s running away in this seemingly
undignified manner, (though this is in fact the part of the story
which is most consistent with the real truth, since no apostle was ever
taught to consider it beneath his dignity to get out of danger,) that
they therefore strive to make it appear that he still stayed in Rome,
in spite of the imperial edict, and boldly preached the gospel, without
reference to danger, until, soon after, it became necessary for him to
go to the east on important business. The majority, however, are agreed
that he did remove from Rome along with the rest of the Jews, though
while he remained there, he is supposed to have kept up the apostolic
dignity by preaching at all risks. His journey eastward is made out in
rather a circuitous manner, probably for no better reason than to make
their stories as long as possible; and therefore it is enough to say,
that he is carried by the continuation of the fable, from Rome first
into Africa, where he erected a church at Carthage, over which he
ordained Crescens, one of his Roman disciples, as bishop. Proceeding
next along the northern coast of the continent, he is brought
to Alexandria, where, of course, he founds a church, leaving the
evangelist Mark in it, as bishop; and passing up the Nile to Thebes,
constitutes Rufus there, in the same capacity. Thence the fabulous
chroniclers carry him at once to Jerusalem; and here ends this tedious
string of details, the story being now resumed from the clear and
honest record of the sacred historian, to the great refreshment of the
writer as well as the reader, after dealing so long in what is utterly
unalloyed falsehood.

  _Peter, bishop of Rome._――The great question of his having ever
  visited this city, has two separate and distinct parts, resting
  on totally different grounds, since they refer to two widely
  distant periods of time; but that part which refers to his
  early visit, being connected with this portion of the history,
  I proceed in this place to the full examination of _all_ the
  evidences, which have ever been brought in support of both
  divisions of this great subject in papal dogmatic history, from
  the supposed records of this event in the writings of the early
  Christian Fathers. On this head, instead of myself entering into
  a course of investigations among these writers, which my very
  slight acquaintance with their works would make exceedingly
  laborious to me, and probably very incomplete after all, I
  here avail myself of the learned and industrious research of my
  friend, the Rev. Dr. Murdock, widely and honorably known as the
  Translator and Annotator of Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History.
  Through his kindness, I am allowed the free use of a long
  series of instructive lectures, formerly delivered by him
  as a professor of Ecclesiastical History, which having been
  subsequently modified to suit a popular audience, will bring the
  whole of this learned matter, with the fullest details of the
  argument, in a form perfectly intelligible and acceptable to my
  readers.


                  THE TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS.

  In the latter part of the first century, Clement, bishop of
  Rome, (Epistle I. to Corinth, § 5,) speaks of Paul and Peter as
  persecuted, and dying as martyrs. But he does not say when, or
  where. In the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr speaks
  of Simon Magus, his magic and his deification, at Rome; but
  makes no mention of Peter’s going to Rome, to combat him. Nor
  does any other father, so far as I know, till after A. D. 300.
  About twenty years after Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, (bishop of
  Lyons,) wrote his five books against the heretics; in which he
  confutes them, by the testimony of those churches which were
  _said_ to have been founded immediately by the apostles. The
  following extract from him will fully illustrate that mode of
  reasoning, and also show us what Irenaeus knew of Peter’s being
  at Rome. He says: “The doctrine preached to all the world by the
  apostles, is now found in the church;――as all may see if they
  are willing to learn; and we are able to name the persons whom
  the apostles constituted the bishops of the churches, and their
  successors down to our times; who have never taught or known any
  such doctrine as the heretics advance. Now if the apostles had
  been acquainted with [certain] recondite mysteries, which they
  taught privately, and only to such as were the most perfect,
  they would certainly have taught them to those men to whom they
  committed the care of the churches; for they required them to
  be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom they made
  their successors and substitutes in office;――because, if they
  conducted aright, great advantage would result; but if they
  should go wrong, immense evils would ensue. But, as it would
  be tedious, in the present work, to enumerate the successions
  in all the churches, I will mention but one, viz. the greatest,
  most ancient, and well-known by all, _the church founded and
  established at Rome, by the two most glorious apostles, Peter
  and Paul_. The faith of this church was the result of apostolic
  teaching, and the same as was every where preached; and it has
  come down to us through a succession of bishops; and by this
  example we confound all those who, in any manner, either from
  selfish views and vain glory, or from blindness to truth and
  erroneous belief, hold forth false doctrine. For with this
  church, on account of its superior pre-eminence, every other
  church,――that is, the true believers every where,――must agree;
  because, in it has ever been preserved the doctrine derived
  immediately from the apostles, and which was every where
  propagated. The blessed apostles having founded and instructed
  this church, _committed the episcopacy of it to Linus_; who is
  mentioned by Paul in his epistle to Timothy. Anacletus succeeded
  Linus; and after him, the third bishop from the apostles, was
  Clement, who saw the apostles themselves, and conferred with
  them, while their preaching and instruction was still sounding
  in his ears.” Irenaeus then enumerates the succeeding bishops,
  down to Eleutherius, “who,” he says, “is now the twelfth bishop
  from the apostles.” In the preceding section, Irenaeus tells
  us that Matthew wrote his gospel “while Peter and Paul were
  preaching, and founding the church at Rome.”

  Here is full and explicit testimony, that Paul and Peter,
  unitedly, preached and founded the church at Rome; and that they
  constituted LINUS THE FIRST BISHOP there. The language _excludes
  both Peter and Paul_,――and excludes both equally, _from the
  episcopal chair at Rome_. “They committed the episcopacy to
  Linus;” who was the first bishop, as Clement was the third,
  and Eleutherius the twelfth. Contemporary with Irenaeus was
  Dionysius, bishop of Corinth. In reply to a monitory letter
  from the Romish church, of which Eusebius (Church History,
  II. 25,) has preserved an extract, Dionysius says: “By this your
  excellent admonition, you have united in one the planting, by
  Peter and Paul, of the Romans and Corinthians. For both of them
  coming to our Corinth, planted and instructed us;――and in like
  manner, going to Italy together,――after teaching there, they
  suffered martyrdom at the same time.” From this testimony we may
  learn how and when Peter went to Rome; as well as what relation
  he sustained to the church there. He and Paul came to Corinth
  together; and when they had regulated and instructed that church,
  they went on together to Italy, and did the same things at Rome
  as before at Corinth. Now this, if true, must have been after
  the captivity of Paul at Rome, mentioned in the book of Acts.
  For Paul never went directly from Corinth to Rome before that
  captivity, since he never was at Rome before he was carried
  there a prisoner, in the year A. D. 62. But, if released in the
  year 64, he might have visited Corinth afterwards, with Peter,
  and then have traveled with him to Rome. To the church of Rome,
  Peter and Paul sustained the same relation; and that was the
  same as they had sustained to the church of Corinth, viz. that
  of _apostolic teachers and founders_,――not that of ORDINARY
  BISHOPS. That is, Peter was no more the bishop of Rome than
  Paul was; and neither of them, any more the bishop of Rome than
  both were bishops of Corinth. Dionysius likewise, here affirms,
  that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom “at the same time;” and
  probably at Rome, where they last taught. That Rome was the
  place is proved by Caius, a Romish ecclesiastic, about A. D. 200,
  as quoted by Eusebius, (Church History, II. 25.) “I am able,”
  says he, “to show the trophies [the sepulchers] of the apostles.
  For if you will go to the Vatican, or along the Via Ostia, you
  will find the trophies of those who established this church.”

  The next father, Clement of Alexandria, (about A. D. 200,)
  reports it as tradition, that Mark wrote his gospel at Rome,
  while Peter was preaching there. (Eusebius, Church History,
  VI. 14.) In the forepart of the third century, lived Tertullian,
  a fervid and learned writer. He assailed the heretics with
  the same argument as Irenaeus did. “Run over,” says he, “the
  apostolic churches, in which the chairs of apostles still
  preside in their places, and in which the autographs of their
  epistles are still read. If you are near to Italy, you have Rome,
  a witness for us; and how blessed a church is that on which
  apostles poured out their whole doctrine, together with their
  blood! where Peter equaled our Lord in his mode of suffering;
  and where Paul was crowned, with the exit of John the Baptist.”
  (De praescriptione haereticorum c. 36.) In another work he says:
  “Let us see what the Romans hold forth; to whom Peter and Paul
  imparted the gospel sealed with their own blood.” (adversus
  Marcion, IV. c. 5.) Again he says: “Neither is there a disparity
  between those whom John baptized in the Jordan, and Peter in the
  Tiber.” (de Baptismo.) He moreover testifies that Peter suffered
  in the reign of Nero, (Scorpiac. c. 15,) and that this apostle
  ordained Clement bishop of Rome. (Praescriptione c. 32.) In the
  middle of the third century, Cyprian of Carthage, writing to
  the bishop of Rome, (Epistle 55, to Cornelius) calls the church
  of Rome “the principal church;” and that where “Peter’s chair”
  was;――and “whose faith was derived from apostolic preaching.”
  In the end of the third century or the beginning of the fourth,
  Lactantius (Divine Institutes, IV. c. 21,) speaks of “Peter
  and Paul” as having wrought miracles, and uttered predictions
  at Rome; and describes their prediction of the destruction
  of Jerusalem. And in his work on the Deaths of Persecutors,
  (chapter 2,) he says: “During the reign of Nero, Peter came to
  Rome; and having wrought several miracles by the power of God,
  which rested on him, he converted many to righteousness, and
  erected a faithful and abiding temple for God. This became known
  to Nero, who, learning that multitudes, not only at Rome but in
  all other places, were abandoning idolatry and embracing the new
  religion, and being hurried on to all sorts of cruelty by his
  brutal tyranny, set himself, the first of all, to destroy this
  religion, and to persecute the servants of God. So he ordered
  Peter to be crucified and Paul to be beheaded.” I have now
  detailed every important testimony which I could find in the
  genuine works of the fathers, in the three first centuries. The
  witnesses agree very well; and they relate nothing but what may
  be true. They make Peter and Paul to go from Corinth to Rome,
  in company, during the reign of Nero; and after preaching and
  strengthening the church at Rome, and ordaining Linus to be
  its first bishop,――both suffering martyrdom at Rome on the same
  day; Peter being crucified and Paul decapitated. There is no
  representation of Peter’s being any more bishop of Rome than
  Paul was;――and Irenaeus in particular, expressly makes Linus the
  first bishop, and to be ordained by the two apostles.

  We now come to Eusebius, who wrote about A. D. 325. He quotes
  most of the fathers above cited, but departs widely from them,
  in regard to the time, and the occasion, of Peter’s going to
  Rome. He says it was in the reign of Claudius;――and for the
  purpose of opposing Simon Magus, (as the Clementine novels
  represented the matter.) Yet he does not make Peter to be bishop
  of Rome. The subsequent writers of the fourth and following
  centuries, agree with Eusebius as to the time and the occasion
  of Peter’s going to Rome; and most of them make Peter to be the
  first bishop of Rome. According to them, Peter remained in Judea
  only about four years after the ascension; then he was bishop
  of Antioch seven years, and in the second year of Claudius,
  A. D. 43, removed his chair to Rome, where he was bishop for
  twenty-five years, or until his death, A. D. 68. And this is
  the account generally given by the papists, quite down to the
  present times.


           OBJECTIONS TO THE TRADITIONARY HISTORY OF PETER.

  1. So far as the later fathers contradict those of the three
  first centuries, they ought to be rejected; because, they could
  not have so good means of information. Oral tradition must, in
  three centuries, have become worthless, compared with what it
  was in the second and third centuries;――and written testimony,
  which could be relied on, they had none, except that of the
  early fathers. Besides, we have seen how these later fathers
  were led astray. They believed the fable of Simon Magus’s
  legerdemain at Rome, and his deification there. They read the
  Clementine fictions, and supposed them to be novels founded on
  facts. In their eulogies of Peter, they were fond of relating
  marvelous and affecting stories about him, and therefore too
  readily admitted fabulous traditions. And lastly, the bishops
  of Rome and their numerous adherents had a direct and an immense
  interest depending on this traditional history;――for by it alone,
  they made out their succession to the chair of Peter, and the
  legitimacy of their ghostly power.

  2. The later fathers invalidate their own testimony, by stating
  what is incredible, and what neither they nor their modern
  adherents can satisfactorily explain. They state that Linus
  succeeded Peter, for about twelve years; then followed Cletus
  or Anacletus, for about twelve years more; and then succeeded
  Clement. And yet they tell us, all the three were ordained
  by the hands of Peter. How could this be? Did Peter ordain
  three successive bishops, after he was dead?――or did he resign
  his office to these bishops, and retire to a private station,
  more than twenty-five years before his crucifixion? No, says
  Epiphanius, (Against Heresies, 27,) and after him most of the
  modern papists; (Nat. Alex. H. E. saecul. I. Diss. XIII. Burius,
  &c.) but Peter being often absent from Rome, and having a
  vast weight of cares, had assistant bishops; and Linus and
  Cletus were not the successors but the assistants of Peter. But
  Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, and all the authorized catalogues
  of popes, explicitly make Linus and Cletus to be successors to
  Peter. Besides, why did Peter need an assistant any more than
  the succeeding pontiffs? And what age since has ever witnessed
  an assistant pope at Rome? A more plausible solution (but which
  the papists cannot admit) is given by Rufinus. (Preface to
  Clementine Recognitions) “As I understand it,” says he, “Linus
  and Cletus were the bishops of Rome in Peter’s life-time; so
  that they performed the episcopal functions, and he, those of an
  apostle. And, in this way the whole may be true,” says Rufinus.
  Granted, if this were the only objection; and if it could be
  made out that Peter went to Rome full twenty-four years before
  his martyrdom. But supposing it true, how can the successors
  of Linus and Cletus, the bishops, be successors of Peter, the
  apostle.

  3. Peter removed his chair to Rome, (say the later fathers and
  most of the Catholics,) in the second year of Claudius, that is,
  A. D. 43; and he resided there twenty-four years, or till his
  death. But we have the best proof,――that of holy writ,――that
  Peter was resident at Jerusalem, as late as the year A. D. 44;
  when king Agrippa seized him there, and imprisoned him, with
  intent to kill him. (Acts xii. 3‒19.) And we have similar proof
  that he was still there in the year 51; when he deliberated
  and acted with the other apostles and brethren of Jerusalem, on
  the question of obliging Gentiles to observe the law of Moses.
  (Acts xv. 7, &c.; Galatians ii. 1‒9.) And, moreover, some time
  after this, as Paul tells us, (Galatians ii. 11‒14,) he came to
  Antioch, in Syria, and there dissembled about eating with the
  Gentiles. The common reply of the Catholics is, that Peter often
  made long journeys; and he might happen to be at Jerusalem, and
  at Antioch, at these times. But this solution is rejected by
  the more candid Romanists themselves, who agree with the early
  fathers, asserting that Peter first went to Rome in the reign of
  Nero. (See Pagi Critique of Baronius’s Annale, 43.)

  4. Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans in the year 59, as is
  supposed. And from this epistle it is almost certain, Peter was
  not then at Rome; and highly probable he had never been there.
  Throughout the epistle, Peter’s name is not even mentioned; nor
  is that of Linus or Cletus, his supposed assistants, who always,
  it is said, supplied his place when he was absent. Indeed,
  so far as can be gathered from Paul’s epistle, the Romish
  Christians appear not to have had, at that time nor previously,
  any bishop or any ecclesiastical head. The epistle is addressed
  “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints.”
  (Romans i. 7.) It exhorts them to obey magistrates;――but not to
  reverence and obey their spiritual rulers. (Romans xiii. 1, &c.)
  It inculcates on them all, the duty of living in harmony,――of
  being modest and humble,――of using their different gifts for
  the common good; (Romans xii. 3, &c.;) but gives no intimation
  that they were amenable to any ecclesiastical authorities. It
  gives them rules for conducting their disciplinary acts, as a
  popular body, (Romans xiv. 1, &c.,) but does not refer to any
  regulations given them by St. Peter and his assistants. It
  contains salutations to near thirty persons, male and female,
  whom Paul knew personally, or by hearsay, (chapter xvi.) but
  neither Peter, nor Linus, nor Cletus is of the number; nor is
  any one spoken of as bishop, or elder, or pastor, or as clothed
  with any ecclesiastical authority. Priscilla and Aquila, and
  several others whom he had known in Greece or Asia, are named;
  and seem to be the leading persons in the church. Indeed, it
  would seem that no apostle had, as yet, ever been at Rome. Paul
  says he had “had a great desire, for many years,” to visit them,
  and he intended to do so as soon as possible. (Romans xv. 23.)
  And he tells them why he longed to see them, that he might
  impart to them “some spiritual gifts;”――that is, some of those
  miraculous gifts, which none but apostles could confer. (Romans
  i. 11.) I may add, that Paul gives them a whole system of
  divinity in this epistle; and crowds more theology into it, than
  into any other he ever wrote;――as if he considered this church
  as needing fundamental instruction in the gospel, more than
  any other. Now, how could all this be, if Peter had been there
  fifteen years, with an assistant bishop to aid him; and had
  completely organized, and regulated, and instructed this central
  church of all Christendom? What Catholic bishop, at the present
  day, would dare to address the church of Rome without once
  naming his liege lord, the pope; and would give them a whole
  system of theology, and numerous rules and regulations for their
  private conduct and for their public discipline, without even
  an intimation that they had any spiritual guides and rulers, to
  whom they were accountable?

  5. Three years after this epistle was written, (that is, A. D.
  62,) Paul arrived at Rome, and was there detained a prisoner
  for two years, or until A. D. 64. Now let us see if we can find
  Peter there, at or during this period. When it was known at
  Rome that Paul was approaching the city, the Christians there
  went twenty miles to meet him, and escort him;――so eager were
  they to see an apostle of Jesus Christ. Three days after his
  arrival, “Paul called the chief of the Jews together,” to have
  conversation with them. They had heard nothing against him, and
  they were glad to see him,――for they wished to hear more about
  the Christian sect; “for,” said they, “as concerning this sect,
  we know that it is every where spoken against;” and “we desire
  to hear of thee what thou thinkest.” (Acts xxviii. 22.) They
  appointed him a day, when they all assembled for the purpose,
  and he addressed them “from morning till evening.” Now could
  Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, have been near twenty
  years bishop of Rome, and so full of business as to employ an
  assistant bishop, and yet the Jews there be so ignorant of
  Christianity, and so glad to meet with one who could satisfy
  their curiosity to learn something about it? Moreover, Paul
  now continued to preach the gospel in “his own hired house,” at
  Rome, for two years; (Acts xxviii. 30, 31;) and it would seem,
  was very successful. During this time he wrote his epistles to
  the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and perhaps,
  that to the Hebrews. In these epistles he often speaks of his
  success in making converts, and of the brethren who labored
  with him;――but he does not once even name Peter, or Linus, or
  Cletus,――or intimate, at all, that there was a cathedral church
  at Rome, with an apostle or any bishop at its head. He sends
  numerous salutations from individuals whom he names, and
  from little companies of Christians in their houses,――but no
  salutations from Peter, or from any bishop, or other officer
  of the church there. The Catholics tell us, Peter might happen
  to be absent during this period. What! absent two whole years!
  and his assistant bishop also? Very negligent shepherds!
  But where was the church all this time,――the enlightened
  Christian community, and the elders and deacons, who governed
  and instructed it, from Sabbath to Sabbath? Were all these, too,
  gone a journey? No: it is manifest Paul was now the only regular
  preacher of the gospel at Rome: and he was breaking up fallow
  ground, that had never before been cultivated, and sown, and
  made to bear fruit.

  [This closes the learned argument on the testimonies of the
  Fathers, extracted from Dr. Murdock’s manuscripts.]

  Lardner also gives a sort of abstract of the passages in the
  fathers, which refer to this subject, but not near so full,
  nor so just to the original passages, as that of Dr. Murdock,
  although he refers to a few authors not alluded to here, whose
  testimony, however, amounts to little or nothing. Lardner’s
  disposition to believe all these long-established Roman fables,
  seems very great, and, on these points, his critical accuracy
  appears to fail in maintaining its general character. However,
  in the simple passage from Clemens Romanus, referred to above,
  he is very full, not only translating the whole passage relating
  to Peter and Paul, but entering into a very elaborate discussion
  of the views taken of it; but after all he fails so utterly in
  rearing an historical argument on this slender basis, that I
  cannot feel called on to do anything more than barely refer the
  critical reader to the passage in his life of Peter, (VII.)

  Bower has given numerous quotations, too, from these sources,
  but nothing not contained in the abstract above, of which a
  great merit is, that it gives all the passages _in full_, in a
  faithful and highly expressive translation. (See Bower’s Lives
  of the Popes. “Peter.”)


               THE COUNCIL OF THE APOSTLES AT JERUSALEM.

The last circumstance of Peter’s life and actions, recorded in the
Acts of the Apostles, is one so deeply involved also in the conduct
of others of the holy band, that the history of the whole affair can
be best given in connection with their lives; more especially as the
immediate occasion of it arose under the labors of these other persons.
All the statement which is here necessary to introduce the part which
Peter took in the sayings and doings on this occasion, is simply as
follows. Paul and Barnabas, having returned to Antioch from their first
great mission from that city, throughout almost the whole circuit of
Asia Minor, were, soon after their arrival in that city, involved in
a vexatious dispute with a set of persons, who, having come down from
Jerusalem, had undertaken to give the Syrian Christians more careful
instructions in the minutiae of religious duty, than they had received
from those who had originally effected their conversion. These new
teachers being directly from that holy city, which, having been the
great scene of the instructions and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and
still being the seat of the apostolic college, was regarded by all,
as the true source of religious light, to Christians as well as Jews,
throughout the world, therefore made no small commotion in the church
of Antioch, when they began to inculcate, as essential to salvation, a
full conformity to all the minute ritual observances of the Mosaic law.
The church of Antioch, having been planted and taught by men of a more
catholic spirit, had gathered within itself a large number of heathen
from that Gentile city, who, led by their convictions of the truth and
spirituality of the Christian faith, had renounced entirely all the
idolatries in which they had been brought up, giving themselves, as
it would seem, with honest resolution, to a life of such moral purity,
as they considered alone essential to the maintenance of their new
religious character. Still, they had never supposed, that in renouncing
their idolatrous superstitions, they had bound themselves to throw off
also those customs of their country, which could have no connection
with moral purity of conduct, and had therefore still remained in
national peculiarities, Gentiles; though in creed, and religious
practice, Christians. In this course they had been encouraged by the
liberal and enlarged views of their religious instructors, who had
never once hinted at the necessity of imposing upon Gentile Christians
the burden of the Jewish law, which all the impressions of education
and previous habits of life would have made quite intolerable. The
wisdom of this enlightened spirit was seen in the great accessions of
Gentiles, who, being convinced of the necessity of a moral change, were
not met by any ceremonial impediments to the full adoption of a pure
religion. Paul and Barnabas were, therefore, not a little troubled
with this new difficulty, brought in by these Jewish teachers, who,
being fresh from the fountain of religious knowledge, claimed great
authority in reference to all delicate points of this nature. At last,
after long and violent disputes between these old-school and new-school
theologians, it was resolved to refer the whole matter to the
twelve apostles themselves, at Jerusalem, who might well be supposed
qualified to say what they considered to be the essential doctrines
and observances of Christianity. Paul and Barnabas, therefore, with
some of the rest engaged in the discussion, went up to Jerusalem as
a delegation, for this purpose, and presented the whole difficulty to
the consideration of the apostles. So little settled, after all, were
the views and feelings of these first preachers of Christianity about
the degree of freedom to be enjoyed by the numerous Gentile converts,
that all the Jewish prejudices of many of them burst out at once, and
high ground was taken against any dispensation in favor of Gentile
prejudices. After a long discussion, in full assembly of both apostles
and church-officers, Peter arose in the midst of the debate, taking the
superiority to which his peculiar commission and his long precedence
among them entitled him, and in a tone of dignified decision addressed
them. He reminded them, in the first place, of that unquestionable call
by which God had chosen him from among all the apostles, to proclaim
to the heathen the word of the gospel, and of that solemn sign by which
God had attested the completeness of their conversion, knowing, as
he did, the hearts of all his creatures. The signs of the Holy Spirit
having been imparted to the heathen converts with the same perfection
of regenerating influence that had been manifested in those of the
Jewish faith who had believed, it was manifestly challenging the
testimony of God himself, to try to put on them the irksome yoke of the
tedious Mosaic ritual, a yoke which not even the Jewish disciples, nor
their fathers before them, had been able to bear in all the appointed
strictness of its observances; and much less, then, could they expect
a burden so intolerable, to be supported by those to whom it had
none of the sanctions of national and educational prejudice, which
so much assisted its dominion over the feelings of the Jews. And all
the disciples, even those of Jewish race, must be perfectly satisfied
that their whole reliance for salvation should be, not on any legal
conformity, but on that common favor of their Lord, Jesus Christ, in
which the Gentile converts also trusted.

  _Challenge the testimony of God._――This is the substance of
  Kuinoel’s ideas of the force of this passage, (Acts xv. 10.)
  πειραζετε τον θεον, (_peirazete ton Theon_.) His words
  are, “Tentare Deum dicuntur, qui veritatem, omnipotentiam,
  omniscientiam, etc. Dei in dubium vocare, vel nova divinae
  potentiae ac voluntatis documenta desiderant, adeoque Deo
  obnituntur.”――“Those are said to tempt God who call in question
  God’s truth, omnipotence, omniscience, &c., or demand new
  evidences of the divine power or will, and thus strive against
  God.” He quotes Pott and Schleusner in support of this view of
  the passage. Rosenmueller and Bloomfield take the same view,
  as well as many others quoted by the latter and by Poole.
  Bloomfield is very full on the whole of Peter’s speech, and on
  all the discussion, with the occasions of it.

  _Chose me._――This passage has been the subject of much
  discussion, but I have given a free translation which disagrees
  with no one of the views of its _literal_ force. The fairest
  opinion of the matter is, that the expression εξελεξατο εν ημιν,
  is a Hebraism. (See Vorstius and others quoted by Bloomfield.)

This logically clear statement of whole difficulty, supported by the
decisive authority of the chief of the apostles, most effectually
hushed all discussion at once; and the whole assembly kept silence,
while Paul and Barnabas recounted the extent and success of their
labors. After they had finished, James, as the leader of the Mosaic
faction, arose and expressed his own perfect acquiescence in the
decision of Simon Peter, and proposed an arrangement for a dispensation
in favor of the Gentile converts, perfectly satisfactory to all.
This conclusion, establishing the correctness of the tolerant and
accommodating views of the chief apostle, ended the business in a
prudent manner, the details of which will be given in the lives of
those more immediately concerned in the results; and though so abrupt
a conclusion may be undesirable here, it will be only robbing Peter to
pay Paul.

  Illustration:           ANTIOCH, IN SYRIA.
                             Acts xi. 26.


                       PETER’S VISIT TO ANTIOCH.

The historian of the Acts of the Apostles, after the narration of the
preceding occurrence, makes no farther allusion to Peter; devoting
himself wholly to the account of the far more extensive labors of Paul
and his companions, so that for the remaining records of Peter’s life,
reference must be had to other sources. These sources, however, are but
few, and the results of investigations into them must be very brief.

From some passages in the first part of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians,
in which he gives an account of his previous intercourse with the
twelve apostles, having mentioned his own visit to Jerusalem and its
results, as just described above, he speaks of Peter as coming down to
Antioch, soon after, where his conduct, in some particulars, was such
as to meet the very decided reprehension of Paul. On his first arrival
in that Gentile city, Peter, in accordance with the liberal views
taught him by the revelation at Joppa and Caesarea, mingled, without
scruple, among all classes of believers in Christ, claiming their
hospitalities and all the pleasures of social intercourse, making
no distinction between those of Jewish and of heathen origin. But
in a short time, a company of persons came down from Jerusalem, sent
particularly by James, no doubt with a reference to some especial
observations on the behavior of the chief apostle, to see how it
accorded with the Jerusalem standard of demeanor towards those, whom,
by the Mosaic law, he must consider improper persons for the familiar
intercourse of a Jew. Peter, probably knowing that they were disposed
to notice his conduct critically on these matters of ceremonial
punctilio, prudently determined to quiet these censors by avoiding all
occasion for any collision with their prejudices. Before their arrival,
he had mingled freely with the Grecian and Syrian members of the
Christian community, eating with them, and conforming to their customs
as far as was convenient for unrestrained social intercourse. But he
now withdrew himself from their society, and kept himself much more
retired than when free from critical observation. The sharp-eyed Paul,
on noticing this sudden change in Peter’s habits, immediately attacked
him with his characteristic boldness, charging him with unworthy
dissimulation, in thus accommodating his behavior to the whims of these
sticklers for Judaical strictness of manners. The common supposition
has been, that Peter was here wholly in the wrong, and Paul wholly in
the right: a conclusion by no means justified by what is known of the
facts, and of the characters of the persons concerned. Peter was a much
older man than Paul, and much more disposed by his cooler blood, to
prudent and careful measures. His long personal intercourse with Jesus
himself, also gave him a great advantage over Paul, in judging of what
would be the conduct in such a case most conformable to the spirit of
his divine Master; nor was his behavior marked by anything discordant
with real honesty. The precept of Christ was, “Be _wise_ as serpents;”
and a mere desire to avoid offending an over-scrupulous brother in a
trifling matter, implied no more wariness than that divine maxim
inculcated, and was, moreover, in the spirit of what Paul himself
enjoined in very similar cases, in advising to avoid “offending a
brother by eating meat which had been offered in sacrifice to idols.”
There is no scriptural authority to favor the opinion that Peter
ever acknowledged he was wrong; for all that Paul says is――“I rebuked
him,”――but he does not say what effect it had on one who was an older
and wiser man than his reprover, and quite as likely to be guided by
the spirit of truth. It is probable, however, that Peter had something
to say for himself; since it is quite discordant with all common ideas,
to suppose that a great apostle would, in the face of those who looked
up to him as a source of eternal truth, act a part which implied an
unjustifiable practical falsehood. After all, the difference seems to
have been on a point of very trifling importance, connected merely with
the ceremonials of familiar intercourse, between individuals of nations
widely different in manners, habits, prejudices, and the whole tenor of
their feelings, as far as country, language and education, would affect
them; and a fair consideration of the whole difficulty, by modern
ethical standards, will do much to justify Peter in a course designed
to avoid unnecessary occasions of quarrel, until the slow operations
of time should have worn away all these national prejudices,――the rigid
sticklers quietly accommodating themselves to the neglect of ceremonies,
which experience would prove perfectly impracticable among those
professing the free faith of Christ.


                       HIS RESIDENCE IN BABYLON.

The first epistle of Peter contains at the close a general salutation
from the church in Babylon, to the Christians of Asia Minor, to whom it
was addressed. From this, the unquestioned inference is, that Peter was
in that city when he wrote. The only point mooted is, whether the place
meant by this name was Babylon on the Euphrates, or some other city
commonly designated by that name. The most irrational conjecture on the
subject, and yet the one which has found most supporters, is, that this
name is there used in a spiritual or metaphorical sense for Rome, whose
conquests, wide dominion, idolatries, and tyranny over the worshipers
of the true God, were considered as assimilating it to the ancient
capital of the eastern world. But, in reference to such an unparalleled
instance of useless allegory, in a sober message from one church
to a number of others, serving as a convenient date for a letter,
it should be remembered that at that time there were at least two
distinct, important places, bearing the name of Babylon,――so well known
throughout the east, that the simple mention of the name would at once
suggest to a common reader, one of these as the place seriously meant.
One of these was that which stood on the site of the ancient Chaldean
Babylon, a place of great resort to the Jews, finally becoming to them,
after the destruction of Jerusalem, a great city of refuge, and one of
the two great capitals of the Hebrew faith, sharing only with Tiberias
the honors of its literary and religious pre-eminence. Even before
that, however, as early as the time of Peter, it was a city of great
importance and interest in a religious point of view, offering a
most ample and desirable field for the labors of the chief apostle,
now advancing in years, and whose whole genius, feelings, religious
education and national peculiarities, qualified him as eminently for
this oriental scene of labor, as those of Paul fitted him for the
triumphant advancement of the Christian faith among the polished and
energetic races of the mighty west. Here, then, it seems reasonable and
pleasant to imagine, that in this glorious “clime of the east,”――away
from the bloody strife between tyranny and faction, that distracted and
desolated the once blessed land of Israel’s heritage, during the brief
delay of its awful doom,――among the scenes of that ancient captivity,
in which the mourning sons of Zion had drawn high consolation and
lasting support from the same word of prophecy, which the march of
time in its solemn fulfilments had since made the faithful history
of God’s believing people,――here the chief apostle calmly passed the
slow decline of his lengthened years. High associations of historical
and religious interest gave all around him a holy character. He sat
amid the ruins of empires, the scattered wrecks of ages,――still in
their dreary desolation attesting the surety of the word of God. From
the lonely waste, mounded with the dust of twenty-three centuries,
came the solemn witness of the truth of the Hebrew seers, who sung,
over the highest glories of that plain in its brightest days, the
long-foredoomed ruin that at last overswept it with such blighting
desolation. Here, mighty visions of the destiny of worlds, the rise and
fall of empire, rose on the view of Daniel and Ezekiel, whose prophetic
scope, on this vast stage of dominion, expanded far beyond the narrow
limits that bounded all the future in the eyes of the sublimest of
those prophets, whose whole ideas of what was great were taken from the
little world of Palestine. Like them, too, the apostolic chief lifted
his aged eyes above the paltry commotions and troubles of his own land
and times, and glanced far over all, to the scenes of distant ages,――to
the broad view of the spiritual consummation of events,――to the final
triumphs of a true and pure faith,――to the achievement of the world’s
destiny.

  _Babylon._――The great Sir John David Michaelis enters with
  the most satisfactory fullness into the discussion of this
  locality;――with more fullness, indeed, than my crowded limits
  will allow me to do justice to; so that I must refer my reader
  to his Introduction to the New Testament, (chapter xxvii. § 4,
  5,) where ample statements may be found by those who wish to
  satisfy themselves of the justice of my conclusion about the
  place from which this epistle was written. He very ably exposes
  the extraordinary absurdity of the opinion that this date was
  given in a mystical sense, at a time when the ancient Babylon,
  on the Euphrates, was still in existence, as well as a city on
  the Tigris, Seleucia, to which the name of modern Babylon was
  given. And he might have added, that there was still another of
  this name in Egypt, not far from the great Memphis, which has,
  by Pearson and others, been earnestly defended as the Babylon
  from which Peter wrote. Michaelis observes, that through some
  mistake it has been supposed, that the ancient Babylon, in the
  time of Peter, was no longer in being; and it is true that in
  comparison with its original splendor, it might be called, even
  in the first century, a desolated city; yet it was not wholly a
  heap of ruins, nor destitute of inhabitants. This appears from
  the account which Strabo, who lived in the time of Tiberius, has
  given of it. This great geographer compares Babylon to Seleucia,
  saying, “At present Babylon is not so great as Seleucia,” which
  was then the capital of the Parthian empire, and, according to
  Pliny, contained six hundred thousand inhabitants. The acute
  Michaelis humorously remarks, that “to conclude that Babylon,
  whence Peter dates his epistle, could not have been the ancient
  Babylon, because this city was in a state of decay, and thence
  to argue that Peter used the word mystically, to denote Rome,
  is about the same as if, on the receipt of a letter dated from
  Ghent or Antwerp, in which mention was made of a Christian
  community there, I concluded that because these cities are
  no longer what they were in the sixteenth century, the writer
  of the epistle meant a spiritual Ghent or Antwerp, and that
  the epistle was really written from Amsterdam.” And in the
  next section he gives a similar illustration of this amusing
  absurdity, equally apt and happy, drawn in the same manner
  from modern places about him, (for Goettingen was the residence
  of the immortal professor.) “The plain language of epistolary
  writing does not admit of figures of poetry; and though it would
  be very allowable in a poem, written in honor of Goettingen, to
  style it another Athens, yet if a professor of this university
  should, in a letter written from Goettingen, date it Athens, it
  would be a greater piece of pedantry than any learned man was
  ever yet guilty of. In like manner, though a figurative use of
  the word Babylon is not unsuitable to the animated and poetical
  language of the Apocalypse, yet in a plain and unadorned epistle,
  Peter would hardly have called the place whence he wrote, by
  any other appellation than that which literally and properly
  belonged to it.” (Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament,
  Marsh’s translation, chapter xxvii. § 4, 5.)

  The most zealous defender of this mere popish notion of a
  mystical Babylon, is, alas! a Protestant. The best argument ever
  made out in its defense, is that by Lardner, who in his account
  of Peter’s epistles, (History of the Apostles and Evangelists,
  chapter xix. § 3,) does his utmost to maintain the mystical
  sense, and may be well referred to as giving the best possible
  defense of this view. But the course of Lardner’s great work
  having led him, on all occasions, to make the most of the
  testimonies of the fathers, in connection with the establishment
  of the credibility of the gospel history, he seems to have been
  unable to shake off this reverence of every thing which came on
  authority as old as Augustin; and his critical judgment on the
  traditionary history of Christianity is therefore worth very
  little. Any one who wishes to see all his truly elaborate and
  learned arguments fairly met, may find this done by a mind
  of far greater originality, critical acuteness and biblical
  knowledge, (if not equal in acquaintance with the fathers,)
  and by a far sounder judgment, in Michaelis, as above quoted,
  who has put an end to all dispute on these points, by his
  presentation of the truth. So well settled is this ground now,
  that we find in the theology of Romish writers most satisfactory
  refutations of an error, so convenient for the support of
  Romish supremacy. The learned Hug (pronounced very nearly like
  “_Hookh_;” U sounded as in b_u_ll, and G strongly aspirated) may
  here be referred to for the latest defense of the common sense
  view. (Introduction vol. II. § 165.) In answer to the notion
  of an Egyptian Babylon, he gives us help not to be found in
  Michaelis, who makes no mention of this view. Lardner also
  quotes from Strabo what sufficiently shows, that this Babylon
  was no town of importance, but a mere military station for one
  of the three Roman legions which guarded Egypt.

  The only other place that could in any way be proposed as the
  Babylon of Peter, is Seleucia on the Tigris; but Michaelis has
  abundantly shown that though in poetical usage in that age, and
  in common usage afterwards, this city was called Babylon, yet
  in Peter’s time, grave prose statements would imply the ancient
  city and not this. He also quotes a highly illustrative passage
  from Josephus, in defense of his views; and which is of so much
  the more importance because Josephus was a historian who lived
  in the same age with Peter, and the passage itself relates to an
  event which took place thirty-six years before the Christian era;
  namely, “the delivery of Hyrcanus, the Jewish high priest, from
  imprisonment, with permission to reside in Babylon, where there
  was a considerable number of Jews.” (Josephus, Antiquities, XV.
  ii. 2.) Josephus adds, that “both the Jews in Babylon and all
  who dwelt in that country, respected Hyrcanus as high priest
  and king.” That this was the ancient Babylon and not Seleucia,
  appears from the fact, that wherever else he mentions the latter
  city, he calls it Seleucia.

  Wetstein’s supposition that Peter meant the province of Babylon,
  being suggested only by the belief that the ancient Babylon did
  not then exist, is, of course, rendered entirely unnecessary by
  the proof of its existence.

  Besides the great names mentioned above, as authorities for the
  view which I have taken, I may refer also to Beza, Lightfoot,
  Basnage, Beausobre, and even Cave, in spite of his love of
  Romish fables.

  To give a complete account of all the views of the passage
  referring to Babylon, (1 Peter v. 13,) I should also mention
  that of Pott, (on the cath. epist.,) mentioned by Hug. This is
  that by the phrase in the Greek, ἡ εν Βαβυλωνι συνεκλεκτη, is
  meant “the woman chosen with him in Babylon,” that is, Peter’s
  wife; as if he wished to say, “my wife, who is in Babylon,
  salutes you;” and Pott concludes that the apostle himself was
  somewhere else at the time. For the answer to this notion, I
  refer the critical to Hug. This same notion had been before
  advanced by Mill, Wall, and Heumann, and refuted by Lardner.
  (Supp. xix. 5.)


                          HIS FIRST EPISTLE.

Inspired by such associations and remembrances, and by the spirit of
simple truth and sincerity, Peter wrote his first epistle, which he
directed to his Jewish brethren in several sections of Asia Minor,
who had probably been brought under his ministry only in Jerusalem,
on their visits there in attendance on the great annual feasts, which
in all years, as in that of the Pentecost on which the Spirit was
outpoured, came up to the Holy city to worship; for there is no _proof_
whatever, that Peter ever visited those countries to which he sent
this letter. The character of the evidence offered, has been already
mentioned. These believers in Christ had, during their annual visits
to Jerusalem for many years, been in the habit of seeing there this
venerable apostolic chief, and of hearing from his lips the gospel
truth. But the changes of events having made it necessary for him to
depart from Jerusalem to the peaceful lands of the east, the annual
visitors of the Holy city from the west, no longer enjoyed the presence
and the spoken words of this greatest teacher. To console them for
this loss, and to supply that spiritual instruction which seemed most
needful to them in their immediate circumstances, he now wrote to them
this epistle; the main purport of which seems to be, to inspire them
with courage and consolation, under some weight of general suffering,
then endured by them or impending over them. Indeed, the whole scope
of the epistle bears most manifestly on this one particular point,――the
preparation of its readers, the Christian communities of Asia Minor,
for heavy sufferings. It is not, to be sure, without many moral
instructions, valuable in a mere general bearing, but all therein
given have a peculiar force in reference to the solemn preparation
for the endurance of calamities, soon to fall on them. The earnest
exhortations which it contains, urging them to maintain a pure
conscience, to refute the calumnies of time by innocence,――to show
respect for the magistracy,――to unite in so much the greater love and
fidelity,――with many others, are all evidently intended to provide
them with the virtues which would sustain them under the fearful doom
then threatening them. In the pursuance of the same great design, the
apostle calls their attention with peculiar earnestness to the bright
example of Jesus Christ, whose behavior in suffering was now held up to
them as a model and guide in their afflictions. With this noble pattern
in view, the apostle calls on them to go on in their blameless way, in
spite of all that affliction might throw in the path of duty.

  _No proof that he ever visited them._――The learned Hug, _truly_
  catholic (but not papistical) in his views of these points,
  though connected with the Roman church, has honestly taken
  his stand against the foolish inventions on which so much
  time has been spent above. He says, “Peter had not seen the
  Asiatic provinces; they were situated in the circuit of Paul’s
  department, who had traveled through them, instructed them,
  and even at a distance, and in prison, did not lose sight of
  them.” (As witness his epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians,
  and Colossians, all which are comprehended within the circle
  to which Peter wrote.) “He was acquainted with their mode of
  life, foibles, virtues and imperfections; their whole condition,
  and the manner in which they ought to be treated.” The learned
  writer, however, does not seem to have fully appreciated Peter’s
  numerous and continual opportunities for personal communications
  with these converts at Jerusalem. In the brief allusion made in
  Acts ii. 9, 10, to the foreign Jews visiting Jerusalem at the
  pentecost, three of the very countries to which Peter writes,
  “Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,” are commemorated with other
  neighboring regions, “Phrygia and Pamphylia.” Hug goes on,
  however, to trace several striking and interesting coincidences
  between this epistle and those of Paul to the Ephesians, to
  the Colossians and to Timothy, all which were directed to this
  region. (Hug’s introduction to New Testament, volume II. § 160.)
  He observes that “Peter is so far from denying his acquaintance
  with the epistles of Paul, that he even in express terms refers
  his readers to these compositions of his ‘beloved brother,’
  (2 Peter iii. 15.) and recommends them to them.” Hug, also,
  in the succeeding section, (§ 161,) points out some still more
  remarkable coincidences between this and the epistle of James,
  which, in several passages, are exactly uniform. As 1 Peter i.
  6, 7, and James i. 2:――1 Peter i. 24, and James i. 10:――1 Peter
  v. 5, 6, and James iv. 6‒10.

  _Asia._――It must be understood that there are three totally
  distinct applications of this name; and without a remembrance of
  the fact, the whole subject will be in an inextricable confusion.
  In modern geography, as is well known, it is applied to all that
  part of the eastern continent which is bounded west by Europe
  and Africa, and south by the Indian ocean. It is also applied
  sometimes under the limitation of “Minor,” or “Lesser,” to that
  part of Great Asia, which lies between the Mediterranean and the
  Black sea. But in this passage it is not used in either of these
  extended senses. It is confined to that very narrow section of
  the eastern coast of the Aegean sea, which stretches from the
  Caicus to the Meander, including but a few miles of territory
  inland, in which were the seven cities to which John wrote in
  the Apocalypse. The same tract also bore the name of Maeonia.
  Asia Minor, in the modern sense of the term, is also frequently
  alluded to in Acts, but no where else in the New Testament
  unless we adopt Griesbach’s reading of Romans xvi. 5, (Asia
  instead of Achaia.)

In the outset of his address, he greets them as “strangers” in all the
various lands throughout which they were “scattered,”――bearing every
where the stamp of a peculiar people, foreign in manners, principles
and in conduct, to the indigenous races of the regions in which they
had made their home, yet sharing, at the same time, the sorrows and
the glories of the doomed nation from which they drew their origin,――a
_chosen_, an “elect” order of people, prepared in the counsels of God
for a high and holy destiny, by the consecrating influence of a spirit
of truth. Pointing them to that hope of an unchanging, undefiled,
unfading heritage in the heavens, above the temporary sorrows of the
earth, he teaches them to find in that, the consolation needful in
their various trials. These trials, in various parts of his work, he
speaks of as inevitable and dreadful,――yet appointed by the decrees of
God himself as a fiery test, beginning its judgments, indeed, in his
own household, but ending in a vastly more awful doom on those who had
not the support and safety of obedience to his warning word of truth.
All these things are said by way of premonition, to put them on their
guard against the onset of approaching evil, lest they should think
it strange that a dispensation so cruel should visit them; when, in
reality, it was an occasion for joy, that they should thus be made,
in suffering, partakers of the glory of Christ, won in like manner. He
moreover warns them to keep a constant watch over their conduct, to be
prudent and careful, because “the accusing prosecutor” was constantly
prowling around them, seeking to attack some one of them with his
devouring accusations. Him they were to meet, with a solid adherence
to the faith, knowing as they did, that the responsibilities of their
religious profession were not confined within the narrow circle of
their own sectional limits, but were shared with their brethren in the
faith throughout almost the whole world.

From all these particulars the conclusion is inevitable, that there was
in the condition of the Christians to whom he wrote, a most remarkable
crisis just occurring,――one too of no limited or local character;
and that throughout Asia Minor and the whole empire, a trying time
of universal trouble was immediately beginning with all who owned the
faith of Jesus. The widely extended character of the evil, necessarily
implies its emanation from the supreme power of the empire, which,
bounded by no provincial limits, would sweep through the world in
desolating fury on the righteous sufferers; nor is there any event
recorded in the history of those ages, which could thus have affected
the Christian communities, except the first Christian persecution, in
which Nero, with wanton malice, set the example of cruel, unfounded
accusation, that soon spread throughout his whole empire, bringing
suffering and death to thousands of faithful believers.

  _Accusing prosecutor._――The view which Hug takes of the scope
  of the epistle, throws new light on the true meaning of this
  passage, and abundantly justifies this new translation, though
  none of the great New Testament lexicographers support it.
  The primary, simple senses of the words also, help to justify
  the usage, as well as their similar force in other passages.
  A reference to any lexicon will show that elsewhere, these
  words bear a meaning accordant with this version. The first noun
  never occurs in the New Testament except in a _legal_ sense. The
  Greek is Ὁ αντιδικος ὑμων διαβολος, (1 Peter v. 8,) in which the
  last word (_diabolos_) need not be construed as a substantive
  expression, but may be made an adjective, belonging to the
  second word, (_antidikos_.) The last word, under these
  circumstances, need not necessarily mean “the devil,” in
  any sense; but referring directly to the simple sense of its
  primitive, must be made to mean “calumniating,” “slanderous,”
  “accusing,”――and in connection with the technical, legal term,
  αντιδικος, (whose primary, etymological sense is uniformly a
  _legal_ one, “the plaintiff or prosecutor in a suit at law,”)
  can mean only “the calumniating (or accusing) prosecutor.” The
  common writers on the epistle, being utterly ignorant of its
  general scope, have failed to apprehend the true force of this
  expression; but the clear, critical judgment of Rosenmueller,
  (though he also was without the advantage of a knowledge of
  its history,) led him at once to see the greater justice of the
  view here given; and he accordingly adopts it, yet not with the
  definite, technical application of terms justly belonging to the
  passage. He refers vaguely to others who have taken this view,
  but does not give names.

  _The time_ when this epistle was written is very variously fixed
  by the different writers to whom I have above referred. Lardner
  dating it at Rome, concludes that the time was between A. D. 63
  and 65, because he thinks that Peter could not have arrived at
  Rome earlier. This inference depends entirely on what he does
  not prove,――the assertion that by Babylon, in the date, is meant
  Rome. The proofs of its being another place, which I have given
  above, will therefore require that it should have been written
  before that time, if Peter did then go to Rome. And Michaelis
  seems to ground upon this notion his belief, that it “was
  written either not long before, or not long after, the year 60.”
  But the nobly impartial Hug comes to our aid again, with the
  sentence, which, though bearing against a fiction most desirable
  for his church, he unhesitatingly passes on its date. From his
  admirable detail of the contents and design of the epistle, he
  makes it evident that it was written (from Babylon) some years
  after the time when Peter is commonly said to have gone to Rome,
  never to return. This is the opinion which I have necessarily
  adopted, after taking his view of the design of the epistle.

Another series of passages in this epistle refers to the remarkable
fact, that the Christians were at that time suffering under an
accusation that they were “evil-doers,” malefactors, criminals liable
to the vengeance of the law; and that this accusation was so general,
that the name, Christian, was already a term denoting a criminal
directly liable to this legal vengeance. This certainly was a state of
things hitherto totally unparalleled in the history of the followers
of Christ. In all the accounts previously given of the nature of the
attacks made on them by their enemies, it is made to appear that no
accusation whatever was sustained or even brought against them, in
reference to moral or legal offences; but they were always presented in
the light of mere religious dissenters and sectaries. At Corinth, the
independent and equitable Gallio dismissed them from the judgment-seat,
with the upright decision that they were chargeable with no crime
whatever. Felix and Festus, with king Agrippa II., also, alike esteemed
the whole procedure against Paul as a mere theological or religious
affair, relating to doctrines and not to moral actions. At Ephesus,
even one of the high officers of the city did not hesitate to declare,
in the face of a mob raging against Paul and his companions, that they
were innocent of all crime. And even as late as the seventh year of
Nero, the name of Christian had so little of an odious or criminal
character, that Agrippa II. did not disdain to declare himself almost
persuaded to assume the name and character. And the whole course of
their history abundantly shows, that so far from the idea of attacking
the Christian brotherhood in a mass, as guilty of legal offenses,
and making their very name nearly synonymous with criminal, no trace
whatever of such an attack appears, until three years after the last
mentioned date, when Nero charged the Christians, as a sect, with
his own atrocious crime, the dreadful devastation by fire of his own
capital; and on this ground, every where instituted a cruel persecution
against them. In connection with this procedure, the Christians are
first mentioned in Roman history, as a new and peculiar class of people,
called _Christiani_, from their founder, _Christus_; and in reference
to this matter, abusive charges are brought against them.

  _Evil doers._――These passages are in ii. 12, iii. 16, iv. 15,
  where the word in Greek is κακοποιοι, (_kakopoioi_,) which
  means a malefactor, as is shown in John xviii. 30, where the
  whole point of the remark consists in the fact, that the person
  spoken of was considered an actual violator of known law; so
  that the word is evidently limited throughout, to those who were
  _criminals in the eye of the law_.

  _The name Christian denoting a criminal._――This is manifest from
  iv. 16, where they are exhorted to suffer for this alone, and to
  give no occasion whatever for any other criminal accusation.

  Illustration: BETHLEHEM, AT NIGHT.

A third characteristic of the circumstances of those to whom this
epistle is addressed, is, that they were obliged to be constantly on
their guard against accusations, which would expose them to capital
punishment. They were objects of scorn and obloquy, and were to
expect to be dragged to trial as thieves, murderers, and as wretches
conspiring secretly against the public peace and safety; and to
all this they were liable in their character as Christians. The
apostle, therefore, in deep solicitude for the dreadful condition and
liabilities of his friends, warns those who, in spite of innocence, are
thus made to suffer, to consider all their afflictions as in accordance
with the wise will of God, and, in an upright course of conduct, to
commit the keeping of their souls to him, as a faithful guardian, who
would not allow the permanent injury of the souls which he had created.
Now, not even a conjecture can be made, much less, any historical proof
be brought, that beyond Palestine any person had ever yet been made to
suffer death on the score of religion, or of any stigma attaching to
that sect, before the time when Nero involved them in the cruel charge
just mentioned. The date of the first instances of such persecutions
was the eleventh year of the reign of Nero, under the consulships of
Caius Lecanius Bassus, and Marcus Licinius Crassus, according to the
Roman annals. The commencement of the burning of Rome, which was the
occasion of this first attack on the Christians, was in the last part
of the month of July; but the persecution did not begin immediately.
After various contrivances to avert the indignation of the people from
their imperial destroyer, the Christians were seized as a proper
expiatory sacrifice, the choice being favored by the general dislike
with which they were regarded. This attack being deferred for some
time after the burning, could not have occurred till late in that
year. The epistle cannot have been written before its occurrence, nor
indeed until some time afterwards; because a few months must be allowed
for the account of it to spread to the provinces of Asia, and it must
have been still later when the news of the difficulty could reach
the apostle, so as to enable him to appreciate the danger of those
Christians who were under the dominion of the Romans. It is evident,
then, that the epistle was not written in the same year in which the
burning occurred; but in the subsequent one, the twelfth of Nero’s
reign, and the sixty-fifth of the Christian era. By that time the
condition and prospects of the Christians throughout the empire were
such as to excite the deepest solicitude in the great apostle, who,
though himself residing in the great Parthian empire, removed from
all danger of injury from the Roman emperor, was by no means disposed
to forget the high claims the sufferers had on him for counsel and
consolation. This dreadful event was the most important which had ever
yet befallen the Christians, and there would certainly be just occasion
for surprise, if it had called forth no consolatory testimony from
the founders of the faith, and if no trace of it could be found in the
apostolic records.

  _Committing the keeping of their souls to God._――This view of
  the design of the epistle gives new force to this passage, (iv.
  19.)

  _First mentioned in Roman history._――This is by Tacitus, (Annals
  xv. 44,) who thus speaks of them:――“Nero condendae urbis novae
  et cognomento suo appellandae gloriam quaerere, et sic jussum
  incendium credebatur. Ergo abolendo rumori subdidit reos,
  et quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos,
  vulgus Christianos appellabat,” &c.――“It was believed that Nero,
  desirous of building the city anew, and of calling it by his
  surname, had thus caused its burning. To get rid of this general
  impression, therefore, he brought under this accusation, and
  visited with the most exquisite punishments, a set of persons,
  hateful for their crimes, commonly called Christians. The name
  was derived from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was
  seized and punished by Pontius Pilate, the procurator. The
  ruinous superstition, though checked for a while, broke out
  again, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but also in
  the city, (Rome.) Therefore those who professed it were first
  seized, and then, on their confession, a great number of others
  were convicted, not so much on the charge of the arson, as on
  account of the universal hatred which existed against them. And
  their deaths were made amusing exhibitions, as, being covered
  with the skins of wild beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs,
  or were nailed to crosses, or, being daubed with combustible
  stuff, were burned by way of light, in the darkness, after the
  close of day. Nero opened his own gardens for the show, and
  mingled with the lowest part of the throng, on the occasion.”
  (The description of the cruel manner in which they were burned,
  may serve as a forcible illustration of the meaning of “the
  fiery trial,” to which Peter alludes, iv. 12.) By Suetonius,
  also, they are briefly mentioned. (Nero, chapter 15.) “Afflicti
  suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae et
  _maleficae_.”――“The Christians, a sort of men of a new and
  pernicious (_evil doing_) superstition, were visited with
  punishments.”

  That this Neronian persecution was as extensive as is here
  made to appear, is proved by Lardner and Hug. The former in
  particular, gives several very interesting evidences, in his
  “Heathen testimonies,” especially the remarkable inscription
  referring to this persecution, found in Portugal. (Collection
  of Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, chapter iii.)

From the uniform tone in which the apostle alludes to the danger as
threatening only his readers, without the slightest allusion to the
circumstance of his being involved in the difficulty, is drawn another
important confirmation of the locality of the epistle. He uniformly
uses the second person when referring to trials, but if he himself had
then been so situated as to share in the calamity for which he strove
to prepare them, he would have been very apt to have expressed his own
feelings in view of the common evil. Paul, in those epistles which were
written under circumstances of personal distress, is very full of warm
expressions of the state of mind in which he met his trials; nor was
there in Peter any lack of the fervid energy that would burst forth in
similarly eloquent sympathy, on the like occasions. But from Babylon,
beyond the bounds of Roman sway, he looked on their sufferings only
with that pure sympathy which his regard for his brethren would excite;
and it is not to be wondered, then, that he uses the second person
merely, in speaking of their distresses. The bearer of this epistle to
the distressed Christians of Asia Minor, is named Silvanus, generally
supposed to be the same with Silvanus or Silas, mentioned in Paul’s
epistles, and in the Acts, as the companion of Paul in his journeys
through some of those provinces to which Peter now wrote. There is
great probability in this conjecture, nor is there anything that
contradicts it in the slightest degree; and it may therefore be
considered as true. Some other great object may at this time have
required his presence among them, or he may have been then passing on
his journey to rejoin Paul, thus executing this commission incidentally.

  This view of the scope and contents of this epistle is taken
  from Hug, who seems to have originated it. At least I can
  find nothing of it in any other author whom I have consulted.
  Michaelis, for instance, though evidently apprehending the
  general tendency of the epistle, and its design to prepare its
  readers for the coming of some dreadful calamity, was not led
  thereby to the just apprehension of the historical circumstances
  therewith connected. (Hug, II. §§ 162‒165.――Michaelis Vol. IV.
  chapter xxvii. §§ 1‒7.)


                          THE SECOND EPISTLE.

After writing the former epistle to the Christians of Asia Minor,
Peter probably continued to reside in Babylon, since no occurrence is
mentioned which could draw him away, in his old age, from the retired
but important field of labor to which he had previously confined
himself. Still exercising a paternal watchfulness, however, over
his distant disciples, his solicitude before long again excited
him to address them in reference to their spiritual difficulties
and necessities. The apprehensions expressed in the former epistle,
respecting their maintenance of a pure faith in their complicated
trials, had in the mean time proved well-grounded. During the
distracting calamities of Nero’s persecution, false teachers had
arisen, who had, by degrees, brought in pernicious heresies among them,
affecting the very foundations of the faith, and ending in the most
ruinous consequences to the belief and practice of some. This second
epistle he wrote, therefore, to stir up those who were still pure in
heart, to the remembrance of the true doctrines of Christianity, as
taught by the apostles; and to warn them against the heretical notions
that had so fatally spread among them. Of the errors complained of, the
most important seems to have been the denial of the judgment, which had
been prophesied so long. Solemnly re-assuring them of the certainty of
that awful series of events, he exhorted them to the steady maintenance
of such a holy conduct and godly life, as would fit them to meet the
great change which he so sublimely pictured, whenever and however
it should occur; and closed with a most solemn charge to beware lest
they also should be led away by the error of the wicked, so as to
fall from their former steadfast adherence to the truth. In the former
part of the epistle he alluded affectingly to the nearness of his own
end, as an especial reason for his urgency with those from whom he
was so soon to be parted. “I think it meet as long as I am in this
tabernacle, to stir you up to the remembrance of these things, knowing
as I do that the putting off of my tabernacle is very near, according
to what our Lord Jesus Christ made known to me.” This is an allusion
to the prophecy of his Master at the meeting on the lake, after
the resurrection, described in the last chapter of John’s gospel.
“Therefore,” writes the aged apostle, “I will be urgent that you, after
my departure, may always hold these things in your memory.” All which
seems to imply an anticipated death, of which he was reminded by the
course of natural decay, and by the remembrance of the parting prophecy
of his Master, and not by anything very imminently dangerous or
threatening in his external circumstances, at the time of writing. This
was the last important work of his adventurous and devoted life; and
his allusions to the solemn scenes of future judgment were therefore
most solemnly appropriate. Those to whom he wrote could expect to see
his face no more, and his whole epistle is in a strain accordant with
these circumstances, dwelling particularly on the awful realities of a
coming day of doom.

The first epistle of Peter has always been received as authentic, ever
since the apostolic writings were first collected, nor has there ever
been a single doubt expressed by any theologian, that it was what it
pretended to be; but in regard to the epistle just mentioned as his
second, and now commonly so received, there has been as much earnest
discussion as concerning any other book in the sacred canon, excepting,
perhaps, the epistle to the Hebrews and John’s Revelation. The weight
of historical testimony is certainly rather against its authenticity,
since all the early Fathers who explicitly mention it, speak of it
as a work of very doubtful character. In the first list of the sacred
writings that is recorded, this is not put among those generally
acknowledged as of divine authority, but among those whose truth
was disputed. Still, quotations from it are found in the writings of
the Fathers, in the first, second and third centuries, by whom it is
mentioned approvingly, although not specified as inspired or of divine
authority. But even as late as the end of the fourth century there
were still many who denied it to be Peter’s, on account of supposed
differences of style observable between this and the former epistle,
which was acknowledged to be his. The Syrian Christians continued to
reject it from their canon for some time after; for in the old Syriac
version, executed before A. D. 100, this alone, of all books supposed
to have been written before that translation that are now considered
a part of the New Testament, is not contained, though it was regarded
by many among them as a good book, and is quoted in the writings of
one of the Syrian Fathers, with respect. After this period, however,
these objections were soon forgotten, and from the fifth century
downwards, it has been universally adopted into the authentic
canon, and regarded with that reverence which its internal evidences
of truth and genuineness so amply justify. Indeed, it is on its
internal evidence, almost entirely, that its great defense must be
founded,――since the historical testimonies, (by common confession of
theologians,) will not afford that satisfaction to the investigator,
which is desirable on subjects of this nature; and though ancient usage
and its long-established possession of a place in the inspired code
may be called up in its support, still there will be occasion for the
aid of internal reasons, to maintain a positive decision as to its
authenticity. And this sort of evidence, an examination by the rigid
standards of modern critical theology proves abundantly sufficient
for the effort to which it is summoned; for though it has been said,
that since the ancients themselves were in doubt, the moderns cannot
expect to arrive at certainty, because it is impossible to get more
_historical_ information on the subject, in the nineteenth century,
than ecclesiastical writers had within reach in the third and fourth
centuries; still, when the question of the authenticity of the work
is to be decided by an examination of its contents, the means of
ascertaining the truth are by no means proportioned to the antiquity
of the criticism. In the early ages of Christianity, the science of
faithfully investigating truth hardly had an existence; and such has
been the progress of improvement in this department of knowledge, under
the labors of modern theologians, that the writers of the nineteenth
century may justly be considered as possessed of far more extensive and
certain means of settling the character of this epistle by _internal_
evidence, than were within the knowledge of those Christian fathers
who lived fourteen hundred years ago. The great objection against
the epistle in the fourth century, was an alleged dissimilarity of
style between this and the former epistle. Now, there can be no doubt
whatever that modern Biblical scholars have vastly greater means for
judging of a rhetorical question of this kind, than the Christian
fathers of the fourth century, of whom those who were Grecians were
really less scientifically acquainted with their own language, and no
more qualified for a comparison of this kind, than those who live in
an age when the principles of criticism are so much better understood.
With all these superior lights, the results of the most accurate modern
investigations have been decidedly favorable to the authenticity of
the second epistle ascribed to Peter, and the most rigid comparisons of
its style with that of the former, have brought out proofs triumphantly
satisfactory of its identity of origin with that,――proofs so much the
more unquestionable, as they are borrowed from coincidences which must
have been entirely natural and incidental, and not the result of any
deliberate collusion.

  This account of the second epistle is also taken from Hug and
  Michaelis, to whom, with Lardner, reference may be made for the
  details of all the arguments for and against its authenticity.

As to the place and time of writing this epistle, it seems quite
probable that it was written where the former one was, since there
is no account or hint whatever of any change in Peter’s external
circumstances; and that it was written some months after it, is
unquestionable, since its whole tenor requires such a period to have
intervened, as would allow the first to reach them and be read by them,
and also for the apostle to learn in the course of time the effects
ultimately produced by it, and to hear of the rise of new difficulties,
requiring new apostolical interference and counsel. The first seems
to have been directed mainly to those who were complete Jews, by birth
or by proselytism, as appears from the terms in which he repeatedly
addresses them in it; but the sort of errors complained of in this
epistle seem to have been so exclusively characteristic of Gentile
converts, that it must have been written more particularly with
reference to difficulties in that part of the religious communities of
those regions. He condemns and refutes certain heretics who rejected
some of the fundamental truths of the Mosaic law,――errors which no
well-trained Jew could ever be supposed to make, but which in motley
assemblages of different races, like the Christian churches, might
naturally enough arise among those Gentiles, who felt impatient at the
inferiority in which they seemed implicated by their ignorance of the
doctrines of the Jewish theology, in which their circumcised brethren
were so fully versed. It seems to have been more especially aimed at
the rising sect of the Gnostics, who are known to have been heretical
on some of the very points here alluded to. Its great similarity, in
some passages, to the epistle of Jude, will make it the subject of
allusion again in the life of that apostle.


                              HIS DEATH.

Henceforth the writings of the New Testament are entirely silent as to
the chief apostle. Not a hint is given of the few remaining actions of
his life, nor of the mode, place, or time of his death; and all these
concluding points have been left to be settled by conjecture, or by
tradition as baseless. The only passage which has been supposed to give
any hint of the manner of his death, is that in the last chapter of
John’s gospel. “Jesus says to him――‘I most solemnly tell thee, when
thou wast young, thou didst gird thyself and walk whither thou wouldst;
but when thou shalt be old, another shall gird thee, and carry thee
whither thou wouldst not.’ This he said, to make known by what sort
of death he should glorify God.” It has been commonly said that this
is a distinct and unquestionable prophecy that he should in his old
age be crucified,――the expression, “another shall gird thee and carry
thee whither thou wouldst not,” referring to his being bound to the
cross and borne away to execution, since this was the only sort of
death by which an apostle could be said, with much propriety or force,
to _glorify God_. And the long-established authority of tradition
coinciding with this view, or rather, suggesting it, no very minute
examination into the sense of the passage has ever been made. But the
words themselves are by no means decisive. Take a common reader, who
has never heard that Peter was crucified, and it would be hard for
him to make out such a circumstance from the bare prophecy as given
by John. Indeed, such unbiased impressions of the sense of the passage
will go far to justify the conclusion that the words imply nothing
but that Peter was destined to pass a long life in the service of his
Master,――that he should after having worn out his bodily and mental
energies in his devoted exertions, attain such an extreme decrepid old
age as to lose the power of voluntary motion, and die thus,――at least
without _necessarily_ implying any bloody martyrdom. Will it be said
that by such a quiet death he could not be considered as _glorifying_
God? The objection surely is founded in a misapprehension of the nature
of those demonstrations of devotion, by which the glory of God is
most effectually secured. There are other modes of martyrdom than the
dungeon, the sword, the axe, the flame, and the stone; and in all ages
since Peter, there have been thousands of martyrs who have, by lives
steadily and quietly devoted to the cause of truth, no less glorified
God, than those who were rapt to heaven in flame, in blood, and in
tortures inflicted by a malignant persecution. Was not God truly
glorified in the deaths of the aged Xavier, and Eliot, and Swartz, or
the bright, early exits of Brainerd, Mills, Martyn, Parsons, Fisk, and
hundreds whom the apostolic spirit of modern missions has sent forth
to labors as devoted, and to deaths as glorious to God, as those of
any who swell the deified lists of the ancient martyrologies? The
whole notion of a bloody martyrdom as an essential termination to the
life of a saint, grew out of a papistical superstition; nor need the
enlightened minds of those who can better appreciate the manner in
which God’s highest glory is secured by the lives and deaths of his
servants, seek any such superfluous aids to crown the mighty course of
the great apostolic chief, whose solid claims to the name and honors
of _Martyr_ rest on higher grounds than so insignificant an accident as
the manner of his death. All those writers who pretend to particularize
the mode of his departure, connect it also with the utterly impossible
fiction of his residence at Rome, on which enough has been already
said. Who will undertake to say, out of such a mass of matters, what is
truth and what is falsehood? And if the views above given, on the high
authority of the latest writers of even the Romish church, are of any
value for any purpose whatever, they are perfectly decisive against
the notion of Peter’s martyrdom at Rome, in the persecution under
Nero, since Peter was then in Babylon, far beyond the vengeance of the
Caesar; nor was he so foolish as ever after to have trusted himself
in the reach of a perfectly unnecessary danger. The command of Christ
was, “When you are persecuted in one city, flee into another,”――the
necessary and unquestionable inference from which, was, that when
out of the reach of persecution they should not wilfully go into it.
This is a simple principle of Christian action, with which papist
fable-mongers were totally unacquainted, and they thereby afford the
most satisfactory proof of the utter falsity of the actions and motives
which they ascribe to the apostles. One of these stories thus disproved
is connected with another adventure with that useful character,
Simon Magus, who, as the tale runs, after being first vanquished so
thoroughly by Peter in the reign of Claudius, returned to Rome, in the
reign of Nero, and made such progress again in his magical tricks, as
to rise into the highest favor with this emperor, as he had with the
former. This of course required a new effort from Peter, which ended in
the disgrace and death of the magician, who, attempting to fly through
the air in the presence of the emperor and people in the theater, was
by the prayer of Peter caused to fall from his aspiring course, to
the ground, by which he was so much injured as to die soon after. The
emperor being provoked at the loss of his favorite, turned all his
wrath against the apostle who had been directly instrumental in his
ruin, and imprisoned him with the design of executing him as soon as
might be convenient. While in these circumstances, or as others say,
before he was imprisoned, he was earnestly exhorted by the disciples
in Rome, to make his escape. He accordingly, though very desirous of
being killed, (a most abominably irreligious wish, by the way,) began
to move off, one dark night; but had hardly got beyond the walls of
the city,――indeed he was just passing out of the gate-way,――when, whom
should he meet but Jesus Christ himself, coming towards Rome. Peter
asked, with some reasonable surprise, “Lord! where are you going?”
Christ answered, “I am coming to Rome, to be crucified again.” Peter
at once took this as a hint that he ought to have stayed, and that
Christ meant to be crucified again in the crucifixion of his apostle.
He accordingly turned right about, and went back into the city, where,
having given to the wondering brethren an account of the reasons of his
return, he was immediately seized, and was crucified, to the glory of
God. Now it is a sufficient answer to this or any similar fable, to
judge the blasphemous inventor out of his own mouth, and out of the
instructions given by Christ himself to his servants, for their conduct,
in all cases where they were threatened with persecution, as above
quoted.

  _Referring to his being bound to the cross._――Tertullian seems
  to have first suggested this rather whimsical interpretation:
  ――“Tunc Petrus ab altero cingitur, quum cruci adstringitur.”
  (Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15.) There seems to be more rhyme than
  reason in the sentence, however.

  The rejection of this forced interpretation is by no means a
  new notion. The critical Tremellius long ago maintained that
  the verse had no reference whatever to a prophecy of Peter’s
  crucifixion, though he probably had no idea of denying that
  Peter did actually die by crucifixion. Among more modern
  commentators too, the prince of critics, Kuinoel, with whom
  are quoted Semler, Gurlitt and Schott, utterly deny that a
  fair construction of the original will allow any prophetical
  idea to be based on it. The critical testimony of these great
  commentators on the true and just force of the words, is of the
  very highest value; because all received the tale of Peter’s
  crucifixion as true, having never examined the authority of the
  tradition, and not one of them pretended to deny that he really
  was crucified. But in spite of this pre-conceived erroneous
  historical notion, their nice sense of what was grammatically
  and critically just, would not allow them to pervert the passage
  to the support of this long-established view; and they therefore
  pronounce it as merely expressive of the helplessness and
  imbecility of extreme old age, with which they make every
  word coincide. But Bloomfield, entirely carried away with the
  tide of antique authorities, is “surprised that so many recent
  commentators should deny that crucifixion is here alluded
  to, though they acknowledge that Peter suffered crucifixion.”
  Now this last circumstance might well occasion surprise,
  as it certainly did in me, when I found what mighty names
  had so disinterestedly supported the interpretation which I
  had with fear and trembling adopted, in obedience to my own
  long-established, unaided convictions; but my surprise was of
  a decidedly agreeable sort.

The inventors of fables go on to give us the minute particulars
of Peter’s death, and especially note the circumstance that he was
crucified with his head downwards and his feet uppermost, he himself
having desired that it might be done in that manner, because he thought
himself unworthy to be crucified as his Master was. This was a mode
sometimes adopted by the Romans, as an additional pain and ignominy.
But Peter must have been singularly accommodating to his persecutors,
to have suggested this improvement upon his tortures to his malignant
murderers; and must have manifested a spirit more accordant with that
of a savage defying his enemies to increase his agonies, than with that
of the mild, submissive Jesus. And such has been the evident absurdity
of the story, that many of the most ardent receivers of fables have
rejected this circumstance as improbable, more especially as it is
not found among the earliest stories of his crucifixion, but evidently
seems to have been appended among later improvements.


                          PETER’S MARTYRDOM.

  The only authority which can be esteemed worthy of consideration
  on this point, is that of Clemens Romanus, who, in the latter
  part of the first century, (about the year 70, or as others
  say, 96,) in his epistle to the Corinthians, uses these words
  respecting Peter:――“Peter, on account of unrighteous hatred,
  underwent not one, or two, but many labors, and _having thus
  borne his testimony_, departed to the place of glory, which was
  his due,”――(ὁυτως μαρτυρησας επορευθη εις τον οφειλομενον τοπον
  δοξης.) Now it is by no means certain that the prominent word
  (_marturesas_) necessarily means “bearing testimony by death,”
  or _martyrdom_ in the modern sense. The primary sense of this
  verb is merely “_to witness_,” in which simple meaning alone, it
  is used in the New Testament; nor can any passage in the sacred
  writings be shown, in which this verb means “to bear witness to
  any cause, _by death_.” This was a _technical_ sense, (if I may
  so name it,) which the word at last acquired among the Fathers,
  when they were speaking of those who bore witness to the truth
  of the gospel of Christ by their blood; and it was a meaning
  which at last nearly excluded all the true original senses
  of the verb, limiting it mainly to the notion of a death by
  persecution for the sake of Christ. Thence our English words,
  _martyr_ and _martyrdom_. But that Clement by this use of the
  word, in this connection, meant to convey the idea of Peter’s
  having been killed for the sake of Christ, is an opinion utterly
  incapable of proof, and moreover rendered improbable by the
  words joined to it in the passage. The sentence is, “Peter
  underwent many labors, and having thus borne witness” to the
  gospel truth, “went to the place of glory which he deserved.”
  Now the adverb “_thus_,” (ὁυτως,) seems to me most distinctly
  to show what was the nature of this testimony, and the manner
  also in which he bore it. It points out more plainly than any
  other words could, the fact that his testimony to the truth of
  the gospel was borne in the zealous labors of a devoted life,
  and _not_ by the agonies of a bloody death. There is not in
  the whole context, nor in all the writings of Clement, any hint
  whatever that Peter was _killed_ for the sake of the gospel; and
  we are therefore required by every sound rule of interpretation,
  to stick to the primary sense of the verb, in this passage.
  Lardner most decidedly mis-translates it in the text of his work,
  so that any common reader would be grossly deceived as to the
  expression in the original of Clement,――“Peter underwent many
  labors, _till at last_ being martyred, he went,” &c. The Greek
  word, ὁυτως, (_houtos_,) means always, “in this manner,” “thus,”
  “so,” and is not a mere expletive, like the English phrase, “and
  _so_,” which is a mere form of transition from one part of the
  narrative to the other.

  In the similar passage of Clemens which refers to _Paul_, there
  is something in the connection which may seem to favor the
  conclusion that he understood Paul to have been put to death
  by the Roman officers. His words are,――“and after having _borne
  his testimony_ before governors, he was _thus_ sent out of the
  world,” &c. Here the word “thus,” coming after the participle,
  may perhaps be considered, in view also of its other connections,
  as implying his removal from the world by a violent death, _in
  consequence of_ the testimony borne by him before the governors.
  This however, will bear some dispute, and will have a fuller
  discussion elsewhere.

  But in respect to the passage which refers to Peter, the burden
  of proof may fairly be said to lie on those who maintain the old
  opinion. Here the word is shown to have, in the New Testament,
  no such application to _death_ as it has since acquired; and
  the question is whether Clemens Romanus, a man himself of the
  apostolic age, who lived and perhaps wrote, before the canon was
  completed, had already learned to give a new meaning to a verb,
  before so simple and unlimited in its applications. No person
  can pretend to trace this meaning to within a century of the
  Clementine age, nor does Suicer refer to any one who knew of
  such use before Clement of Alexandria (See his Thesaurus; Μαρτυρ.
  ) Clement himself uses it in the same epistle (§ xvii.) in its
  unquestionable primary sense, speaking of Abraham as having
  received an honorable testimony,――(εμαρτυρηθη;) for who will say
  that Abraham was _martyred_, in the modern sense? The fact too
  that Clement nowhere else gives the least glimmer of a hint that
  Peter died any where but in his bed, fixes the position here
  taken, beyond all possibility of attack, except by its being
  shown that he uses this verb somewhere else, with the sense of
  _death_ unquestionably attached to it.

  There is no other _early_ writer who can be said to speak of
  the manner of Peter’s death, before Dionysius of Corinth, who
  says that “Peter and Paul having taught in Italy together, _bore
  their testimony_” (_by death_, if you please,) “about the same
  time.” An argument might here also be sustained on the word
  εμαρτυρησαν, (_emarturesan_,) but the evidence of Dionysius,
  mixed as it is with a demonstrated fable, is not worth a
  _verbal_ criticism. The same may be said of Tertullian and the
  rest of the later Fathers, as given in the note on pages 228‒233.

  An examination of the word Μαρτυρ, in Suicer’s Thesaurus
  Ecclesiasticus, will show the critical, that even in later times,
  this word did not necessarily imply “one who bore his testimony
  to the truth at the sacrifice of life.” Even Chrysostom, in
  whose time the peculiar limitation of the term might be supposed
  to be very well established, uses the word in such applications
  as to show that its original force was not wholly lost. By
  Athanasius too, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego are styled
  _martyrs_. Gregory Nazianzen also speaks of “living martyrs.”
  (ζωντες μαρτυρες.) Theophylact calls the apostle John a _martyr_,
  though he declares him to have passed through the hands of his
  persecutors unhurt, and to have died by the course of nature.
  Clemens Alexandrinus has similar uses of the term; and the
  Apostolical Constitutions, of doubtful date, but much later than
  the first century, also give it in such applications. Suicer
  distinctly specifies several classes of persons, not martyrs
  in the modern sense, to whom the Greek word is nevertheless
  applied in the writings of even the later Fathers; as “those
  who testified the truth of the gospel of Christ, at the peril
  of life merely, without the loss of it,”――“those who obeyed the
  requirements of the gospel, by restraining passion,” &c. In some
  of these instances however, it is palpable that the application
  of the word to such persons is secondary, and made in rather
  a poetical way, with a reference to the more common meaning
  of loss of life for the sake of Christ, since there is always
  implied a _testimony_ at the risk or loss of something; still
  the power of these instances to render doubtful the meaning
  of the term, is unquestionable. (See Suicer’s Thesaurus
  Ecclesiasticus, Μαρτυρ, III. 2, 5, 6.)

  Perhaps it is hardly worth while to dismiss these fables
  altogether, without first alluding to the rather ancient one,
  first given by Clemens Alexandrinus. (Stromata, 7. p. 736.) and
  copied verbatim by Eusebius, (Church History, III. 30.) Both the
  reverend Fathers however, introduce the story as a tradition,
  a mere _on dit_, prefacing it with the expressive phrase,
  “They say,” &c. (Φασι.) “The blessed Peter seeing his wife
  led to death, was pleased with the honor of her being thus
  called by God to return home, and thus addressed her in words
  of exhortation and consolation, calling her by name,――‘O woman!
  remember the Lord.’” The story comes up from the hands of
  tradition rather too late however, to be entitled to any credit
  whatever, being recorded by Clemens Alexandrinus, full 200 years
  after Christ. It was probably invented in the times when it was
  thought worth while to cherish the spirit of voluntary martyrdom,
  among even the female sex; for which purpose instances were
  sought out or invented respecting those of the apostolic days.
  That Peter had a wife is perfectly true; and it is also probable
  that she accompanied him about on his travels, as would appear
  from a passage in Paul’s writings; (1 Corinthians ix. 5;) but
  beyond this, nothing is known of her life or death. Similar
  fables might be endlessly multiplied from papistical sources;
  more especially from the Clementine novels, and the apostolical
  romances of Abdias Babylonius; but the object of the present
  work is true history, and it would require a whole volume like
  this to give all the details of Christian mythology.

  In justification of the certainty with which sentence is
  pronounced against the whole story of Peter’s ever having gone
  to Rome, it is only necessary to refer to the decisive argument
  on pages 228‒233, in which the whole array of ancient evidence
  on the point, is given by Dr. Murdock. If the support of great
  names is needed, those of Scaliger, Salmasius, Spanheim, and
  Bower, all mighty minds in criticism, are enough to justify
  the boldness of the opinion, that Peter never went west of the
  Hellespont, and probably never embarked on the Mediterranean.
  In conclusion of the whole refutation of this long-established
  error, the matter cannot be more fairly presented, than in the
  words with which the critical and learned Bower opens his Lives
  of the Popes:

  “To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat tradition as we
  do a notorious and known liar, to whom we give no credit unless
  what he says is confirmed to us by some person of undoubted
  veracity. If it is affirmed by him alone, we can at most
  but suspend our belief, not rejecting it as false, because
  a liar may sometimes speak truth; but we cannot, upon his
  bare authority, admit it as true. Now that St. Peter was at
  Rome, that he was bishop of Rome, we are told by tradition
  alone, which, at the same time tells us of so many strange
  circumstances attending his coming to that metropolis, his
  staying in it, his withdrawing from it, &c., that in the opinion
  of every unprejudiced man, the whole must savor strongly of
  romance. Thus we are told that St. Peter went to Rome chiefly
  to oppose Simon, the celebrated magician; that at their first
  interview, at which Nero himself was present, he flew up into
  the air, in the sight of the emperor and the whole city; but
  that the devil, who had thus raised him, struck with dread and
  terror at the name of Jesus, whom the apostle invoked, let him
  fall to the ground, by which fall he broke his legs. Should you
  question the truth of this tradition at Rome, they would show
  you the prints of St. Peter’s knees in the stone, on which he
  kneeled on this occasion, and another stone still dyed with the
  blood of the magician. (This account seems to have been borrowed
  from Suetonius, who speaks of a person that, in the public
  sports, undertook to fly, in the presence of the emperor Nero;
  but on his first attempt, fell to the ground; by which fall
  his blood sprung out with such violence that it reached the
  emperor’s canopy.)

  “The Romans, as we are told, highly incensed against him for
  thus maiming and bringing to disgrace one to whom they paid
  divine honors, vowed his destruction; whereupon the apostle
  thought it advisable to retire for a while from the city, and
  had already reached the gate, when to his great surprise, he
  met our Savior coming in, as he went out, who, upon St. Peter’s
  asking him where he was going, returned this answer: ‘_I am
  going to Rome, to be crucified anew_;’ which, as St. Peter
  understood it, was upbraiding him with his flight; whereupon he
  turned back, and was soon after seized by the provoked Romans,
  and, by an order from the emperor, crucified.”

Nor do the fables about Peter, by the inveterate papists, cease with
his death. In regard to the place of his tomb, a new story was needed,
and it is accordingly given with the usual particularity. It is said
that he was buried at Rome in the Vatican plain, in the district beyond
the Tiber, in which he was said to have first preached among the Jews,
and where stood the great circus of Nero, in which the apostle is said
to have been crucified. Over this bloody spot, a church was afterwards
raised, by Constantine the Great, who chose for its site part of the
ground that had been occupied by the circus, and the spaces where the
temples of Mars and Apollo had stood. The church, though of no great
architectural beauty, was a building of great magnitude, being three
hundred feet long, and more than one hundred and fifty feet wide.
This building stood nearly twelve hundred years, when becoming ruinous
in spite of all repairs, it was removed to give place to the present
cathedral church of St. PETER, now the most immense and magnificent
building in the world,――not too much praised in the graphic verse in
which the pilgrim-poet sets it beyond all comparison with the greatest
piles of ancient or modern art:

       “But lo! the dome! the vast and wondrous dome,
        To which Diana’s marvel was a cell;――
        Christ’s mighty shrine above his martyr’s tomb.――
        I have beheld the Ephesians’ miracle,
        Its columns strew the wilderness, and dwell
        The hyena and the jackall in their shade.
        I have beheld Sophia’s bright roofs swell
        Their glittering mass in the sun, and have surveyed
        Its sanctuary, while the usurping Moslem prayed.

       “But thou, of temples old, or altars new,
        Standest alone, with nothing like to thee.
        Worthiest of God, the holy and the true!
        Since Zion’s desolation, when that He
        Forsook his former city, what could be
        Of earthly structures in his honor piled,
        Of a sublimer aspect?”――

Within the most holy place of this vast sanctuary,――beneath the very
center of that wonderful dome, which rises in such unequaled vastness
above it, redounding far more to the glory of the man who reared it,
than of the God whose altar it covers,――in the vaulted crypt which
lies below the pavement, is a shrine, before which a hundred lamps are
constantly burning, and over which the prayers of thousands are daily
rising. This is _called_ the tomb of the saint to whom the whole pile
is dedicated, and from whom the great high priest of that temple draws
his claim to the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power to bind
and loose, and the assurance of heaven’s sanction on his decrees. But
what a contrast is all this “pride, pomp and circumstance,” to the
bare purity of the faith and character of the simple man whose life
and conduct are recorded on these pages! If any thing whatever may be
drawn as a well-authorized conclusion from the details that have been
given of his actions and motives, it is that Simon Peter was a “plain,
blunt” man, laboring devotedly for the object to which he had been
called by Jesus, and with no other view whatever, than the advancement
of the kingdom of his Master,――the inculcation of a pure spiritual
faith, which should seek no support, nor the slightest aid, from the
circumstances which charm the eye and ear, and win the soul through the
mere delight impressed upon the senses, as the idolatrous priests who
now claim his name and ashes, maintain their dominion in the hearts of
millions of worse than pagan worshipers. His whole life and labors were
pointed at the very extirpation of forms and ceremonies,――the erection
of a pure, rational, spiritual dominion in the hearts of mankind, so
that the blessings of a glorious faith, which for two thousand years
before had been confined to the limits of a ceremonial system, might
now, disenthralled from all the bonds of sense, and exalted above
the details of tedious forms, of natural distinctions, and of antique
rituals,――spread over a field as wide as humanity. For this he lived
and toiled, and in the clear hope of a triumphant fulfilment of that
plan, he died. And if, from his forgotten, unknown grave, among the
ashes of the Chaldean Babylon, and from the holy rest which is for
the blessed, the now glorified apostle could be called to the renewal
of breathing, earthly life, and see the results of his energetic,
simple-minded devotion,――what wonder, what joy, what grief, what glory,
what shame, would not the revelation of these mighty changes move
within him! The simple, pure gospel which he had preached in humble,
faithful obedience to the divine command, without a thought of glory
or reward, now exalted in the idolatrous reverence of hundreds of
millions,――but where appreciated in its simplicity and truth? The cross
on which his Master was doomed to ignominy, now exalted as the sign of
salvation, and the seal of God’s love to the world!――(a spectacle as
strange to a Roman or Jewish eye, as to a modern would be the gallows,
similarly consecrated,) but who burning with that devotion which led
him of old to bear that shameful burden? His own humble name raised
to a place above the brightest of Roman, of Grecian, of Hebrew,
or Chaldean story! but made, alas! the supporter of a tyranny over
souls, far more grinding and remorseless than any which he labored to
overthrow. The fabled spot of his grave, housed in a temple to which
the noblest shrine of ancient heathenism “was but a cell!” but in which
are celebrated, under the sanction of his sainted name, the rites of an
idolatry, than which that of Rome, or Greece, or Egypt would seem more
spiritual,――and of tedious, unmeaning ceremonies, compared with which
the whole formalities of the Levitical ritual might be pronounced
simple and practical!

These would be the first sights that would meet the eye of the
disentombed apostle, if he should rise over the spot which claims the
honors of his martyr-tomb, and the consecration of his commission. How
mournfully would he turn from all the mighty honors of that idolatrous
worship,――from the deified glories of that sublimest of shrines that
ever rose over the earth! How earnestly would he long for the high
temple of one humble, pure heart, that knew and felt the simplicity
of the truth as it was in Jesus! How joyfully would he hail the
manifestations of that active evangelizing spirit that consecrated and
fitted him for his great missionary enterprise! His amazed and grieved
soul would doubtless here and there feel its new view rewarded, in the
sight of much that was accordant with the holy feeling that inspired
the apostolic band. All over Christendom, might he find scattered
the occasional lights of a purer devotion, and on many lands he would
see the truth pouring, in something of the clear splendor for which
he hoped and labored. But of the countless souls that owned Jesus as
Lord and Savior, millions on millions,――and vast numbers too, even in
the lands of a reformed faith,――would be found still clinging to the
vain support of forms, and names, and observances,――and but a few, a
precious few, who had learned what _that_ means――“I will have mercy
and not sacrifice”――works and not words,――deeds and not creeds,――high,
simple, active, energetic, enterprising devotion, and not cloistered
reverence,――chanceled worship,――or soul-wearying rituals. Would not
the apostle, sickened with the revelations of such a resurrection,
and more appalled than delighted, call on the power that brought him
up from the peaceful rest of the blessed, to give him again the calm
repose of those who die in the Lord, rather than the idolatrous honors
of such an apotheosis, or the strange sight of the results of such
an evangelization?――“Let me enter again the gates of Hades, but not
the portals of these temples of superstition. Let me lie down with
the souls of the humble, but not in the shrine of this heathenish
pile. Leave me once more to rest from my labors, with my works still
following; and call me not from this repose till the labors I left
on earth unachieved, have been better done. We did not follow these
cunningly-devised fables, when we made known to men the power and
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but the simple eye-witness story of
his majesty. We had a surer word of prophecy; and well would it have
been, if these had turned their wandering eyes to it, as to a light
shining in a dark place, and kept that steady beacon in view, through
the stormy gloom of ages, until the day dawn and the day-star arise in
their hearts. These are not the new heavens and the new earth, wherein
dwelleth righteousness, for which we looked, according to God’s promise.
Those must the faithful still look for, believing that Jehovah, with
whom a thousand years are as one day, is not slack concerning his
promise, but desires all to come to repentance, and will come himself
at last in the achievment of our labors. Then call me.”

What a life was this! Its early recorded events found him a poor
fisherman, in a rude, despised province, toiling day by day in a low,
laborious business,――living with hardly a hope above the beasts that
perish. By the side of that lake, one morning, walked a stranger, who,
with mild words but wondrous deeds, called the poor fisherman to leave
all, and follow him. Won by the commanding promise of the call, he
obeyed, and followed that new Master, with high hopes of earthly glory
for a while, which at last were darkened and crushed in the gradual
developments of a far deeper plan than his rude mind could at first
have appreciated. But still he followed him, through toils and sorrows,
through revelations and trials, at last to the sight of his bloody
cross; and followed him, still unchanged in heart, basely and almost
hopelessly wicked. The fairest trial of his virtue proved him after all,
lazy, bloody-minded, but cowardly,――lying, and utterly faithless in the
promise of new life from the grave. But a change came over him. He, so
lately a cowardly disowner of his Master’s name, now, with a courageous
martyr-spirit dared the wrath of the awful magnates of his nation, in
attesting his faith in Christ. Once a fierce, brawling, ear-cutting
Galilean,――henceforth he lived an unresisting subject of abuse, stripes,
bonds, imprisonment and threatened death. When was there ever such a
triumph of grace in the heart of man? The conversion of Paul himself
could not be compared with it, as a moral miracle. The apostle of
Tarsus was a refined, well-educated man, brought up in the great
college of the Jewish law, theology and literature, and not wholly
unacquainted with the Grecian writers. The power of a high spiritual
faith over such a mind, however steeled by prejudice, was not so
wonderful as its renovating, refining and elevating influence on the
rude fisherman of Bethsaida. Paul was a man of considerable natural
genius, and he shows it on every page of his writings; but in Peter
there are seen few evidences of a mind naturally exalted, and the
whole tenor of his words and actions seems to imply a character of
sound common sense, and great energy, but of perceptions and powers of
expression, great, not so much by inborn genius, as by the impulse of
a higher spirit within him, gradually bringing him to the possession
of new faculties,――intellectual as well as moral. This was the spirit
which raised him from the humble task of a fisherman, to that of
drawing men and nations within the compass of the gospel, and to a
glory which not all the gods of ancient superstition ever attained.

Most empty honors! Why hew down the marble mountains, and rear them
into walls as massive and as lasting? Why raise the solemn arches
and the lofty towers to overtop the everlasting hills with their
heavenward heads? Or lift the skiey dome into the middle heaven, almost
outswelling the blue vault itself? Why task the soul of art for new
creations to line the long-drawn aisles, and gem the fretted roof?
There is a glory that shall outlast all

         “The cloud-capped towers,――the gorgeous palaces,
          The solemn temples,――the great globe itself,――
          Yea all which it inherit;”

――a glory far beyond the brightest things of earth in its brightest day;
for “they that be wise shall shine as the firmament, and _they that
turn many to righteousness_ as the stars, for ever and ever.” Yet in
this the apostle rejoices not;――not that adoring millions lift his name
in prayers, and thanksgivings, and songs, and incense, from the noblest
piles of man’s creation, to the glory of a God,――not even that over
all the earth, in all ages, till the perpetual hills shall bow with
time,――till “eternity grows gray,” the pure in heart will yield him
the highest human honors of the faith, on which nations, continents
and worlds hang their hopes of salvation;――he “rejoices not that the
spirits” of angels or men “are subject to him,――but that HIS NAME IS
WRITTEN IN HEAVEN.”




                                ANDREW.


                        HIS AUTHENTIC HISTORY.

THE name of this apostle is here brought in directly after his eminent
brother, in accordance with the lists of the apostles given by Matthew
and Luke, in their gospels, where they seem to dispose them all in
pairs; and very naturally, in this case, prefer family affinity as a
principle of arrangement, putting together in this and the following
instances, those who were sons of the same father. The most eminent
son of Jonah, deservedly taking the highest place on all the lists,
his brother might very properly so far share in the honors of this
distinction, as to be mentioned along with him, without any necessary
implication of the possession of any of that moral and intellectual
superiority, on which Peter’s claim to the first place was grounded.
These seem, at least, to have been sufficient reasons for Matthew,
in arranging the apostles, and for Luke in his gospel; while in his
history of the Acts of the Apostles he followed a different plan,
putting Andrew fourth on the list, and giving the sons of Zebedee
a place before him, as Mark did also. The uniform manner in which
James and John are mentioned along with Peter on great occasions,
to the total neglect of Andrew, seems to imply that this apostle was
quite behind his brother in those excellences which fitted him for
the leading place in the great Christian enterprise; since it is most
reasonable to believe that, if he had possessed faculties of such a
high order, he would have been readily selected to enjoy with him the
peculiar privileges of a most intimate personal intercourse with Jesus,
and to share the high honors of his peculiar revelations of glory and
power.

The question of the relative age of the two sons of Jonah, has been
already settled in the beginning of the life of Peter; and in the same
part of the work have also been given all the particulars about their
family, rank, residence, and occupation, which are desirable for the
illustration of the lives and characters of both. So too, throughout
the whole of the sacred narrative, everything that could concern Andrew
has been abundantly expressed and commented on, in the life of Peter.
The occasions on which the name of this apostle is mentioned in the New
Testament, indeed, except in the bare enumeration of the twelve, are
only three,――his first introduction to Jesus,――his actual call,――and
the circumstance of his being present with his brother and the sons of
Zebedee, at the scene on the mount of Olives, when Christ foretold the
utter ruin of the temple. Of these three scenes, in the first only did
he perform such a part, as to receive any other than a bare mention
in the gospel history; nor even in that solitary circumstance does his
conduct seem to have been of much importance, except as leading his
brother to the knowledge of Jesus. From this circumstance, however, of
his being specified as the first of all the twelve who had a personal
acquaintance with Jesus, he has been honored by many writers with
the distinguishing title of “THE FIRST CALLED,” although others have
claimed the dignity of this appellation for another apostle, in whose
life the particular reasons for such a claim will be mentioned.

  THE FIRST CALLED.――In Greek πρωτοκλητος, (_protokletos_,) by
  which name he is called by Nicephorus Callistus, (Church History,
  II. 39,) and by several of the Greek Fathers, as quoted by
  Cangius, (Gloss. in voc.) Suicer, however, makes no reference
  whatever to this term.

From the minute narrative of the circumstances of the call, given
by John in the first chapter of his gospel, it appears, that Andrew,
excited by the fame of the great Baptizer, had left his home at
Bethsaida, and gone to Bethabara, (on the same side of the Jordan, but
farther south,) where the solemn and ardent appeals of the bold herald
of inspiration so far equalled the expectation awakened by rumor, that,
along with vast multitudes who seem to have made but an indifferent
progress in religious knowledge, though brought to the repentance and
confession of their sins, he was baptized in the Jordan, and was also
attached to the person of the great preacher in a peculiar manner, as
it would seem, aiming at a still more advanced state of indoctrination,
than ordinary converts could be expected to attain. While in this
diligent personal attendance on his new Master, he was one day standing
with him upon the banks of the Jordan, the great scene of the mystic
sacrament, listening to the incidental instructions which fell from
the lips of the holy man, in company with another disciple, his
countryman and friend. In the midst of the conversation, perhaps, while
discoursing upon the deep question then in agitation, about the advent
of the Messiah, suddenly the great preacher exclaimed, “Behold the Lamb
of God!” The two disciples at once turned their eyes towards the person
thus solemnly designated as the Messiah, and saw walking by them, a
stranger, whose demeanor was such as to mark him for the object of the
Baptizer’s apostrophe. With one accord, the two hearers at once left
the teacher, who had now referred them to a higher source of truth
and purity, and both followed together the footsteps of the wonderful
stranger, of whose real character they knew nothing, though their
curiosity must have been most highly excited, by the solemn mystery of
the words in which his greatness was announced. As they hurried after
him, the sound of their hasty feet fell on the ear of the retiring
stranger, who, turning towards his inquiring pursuers, mildly met
their curious glances with the question, “Whom seek ye?”――thus giving
them an opportunity to state their wishes for his acquaintance. They
eagerly answered by the question, implying their desire for a permanent
knowledge of him,――“Rabbi! (Master,) where dwellest thou?” He kindly
answered them with a polite invitation to accompany him to his lodgings;
for there is no reason to believe that they went with him to his
permanent home in Capernaum or Nazareth; since Jesus was probably then
staying at some place near the scene of the baptism. Being hospitably
and familiarly entertained by Jesus, as his intimate friends, it being
then four o’clock in the afternoon, they remained with him till the
next day, enjoying a direct personal intercourse, which gave them the
best opportunities for learning his character and his power to impart
to them the high instructions which they were prepared to expect, by
the solemn annunciation of the great Baptizer; and at the same time it
shows their own earnestness and zeal for acquiring a knowledge of the
Messiah, as well as his benignant familiarity in thus receiving them
immediately into such a domestication with him. After this protracted
interview with Jesus, Andrew seems to have attained the most perfect
conviction that his newly adopted teacher was all that he had been
declared to be; and in the eagerness of a warm fraternal affection, he
immediately sought his dear brother Simon, and exultingly announced to
him the great results of his yesterday’s introduction to the wonderful
man;――“We have found the Messiah!” Such a declaration, made with the
confidence of one who knew by personal experience, at once secured the
attention of the no less ardent Simon, and he accordingly gave himself
up to the guidance of the confident Andrew, who led him directly to
Jesus, anxious that his beloved brother should also share in the high
favor of the Messiah’s friendship and instruction. This is the most
remarkable recorded circumstance of Andrew’s life; and on his ready
adherence to Jesus, and the circumstance that he, first of all the
disciples, declared him to be the Messiah, may be founded a just claim
for a most honorable distinction of Andrew.

  _Bethabara._――Some of the later critics seem disposed to
  reject this now common reading, and to adopt in its place
  that of _Bethany_, which is supported by such a number of old
  manuscripts and versions, as to offer a strong defense against
  the word at present established. Both the Syriac versions, the
  Arabic, Aethiopic, the Vulgate, and the Saxon, give “_Bethany_;”
  and Origen, from whom the other reading seems to have arisen,
  confesses that the previously established word was _Bethany_,
  which he, with about as much sense of justice and propriety as
  could be expected from even the most judicious of the Fathers,
  rejected for the unauthorized Bethabara, on the simple ground
  that there is such a place on the Jordan, mentioned in Judges
  vii. 24,――while Bethany is elsewhere in the gospels described as
  close to Jerusalem, on the mount of Olives; the venerable Father
  never apprehending the probability of two different places
  bearing the same name, nor referring to the etymology of Bethany,
  which is בית אניה (_beth anyah_,) “the house (or place) of a boat,”
  equivalent to a “ferry.” (Origen on John, quoted by Wolf.)
  Chrysostom and Epiphanius are also quoted by Lampe, as defending
  this perversion on similar grounds. Heracleon, Nonnus and Beza
  are referred to in defense of _Bethany_; and among moderns, Mill,
  Simon and others, are quoted by Wolf on the same side. Campbell
  and Bloomfield also defend this view. Scultetus, Grotius and
  Casaubon, argue in favor of Bethabara. Lightfoot makes a long
  argument to prove that Bethany, the true reading, means not
  any village or particular spot of that name, but the province or
  tract, called ♦Batanea, lying beyond the Jordan, in the northern
  part of its course,――a conjecture hardly supported by the
  structure of the word, nor by the opinion of any other writer.
  This Bethany _beyond the Jordan_, seems to have been thus
  particularized as to position, in order to distinguish it from
  the place of the same name near Jerusalem. Its exact situation
  cannot now be ascertained; but it was commonly placed about
  fifteen or twenty miles south of Lake Gennesaret.

    ♦ “Batanaea” replaced with “Batanea”

  _Lamb of God._――This expression has been the subject of much
  discussion, and has been amply illustrated by the labors
  of learned commentators. Whether John the Baptizer expected
  Jesus to atone for the sins of the world, by death, has been
  a question ably argued by Kuinoel and Gabler _against_, and
  by Lampe, Wolf, and Bloomfield, _for_ the idea of an implied
  sacrifice and expiation. The latter writer in particular,
  is very full and candid: Wolf also gives a great number of
  references, and to these authors the critical must resort for
  the minutiae of a discussion, too heavy and protracted for this
  work. (See the above authors on John i. 29.)

After narrating the particulars of his call, in which he was merely
a companion of his brother, and after specifying the circumstance of
his being present at the prophecy of the temple’s destruction, the
New Testament history takes not the slightest notice of any action of
Andrew’s life; nor is he even mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles,
except in the mere list of their names in the first chapter. For
anything further, reference must be made to that most dubious of
historical materials, the tradition of the Fathers; and the most
reasonable opinion that can be pronounced upon all the rest of Andrew’s
life is, that _nothing whatever is known about it_. He probably
remained all his life in Palestine, quietly and humbly devoting himself
to the trials and labors of the apostolic life, without reference
to the production of any great admiration of his actions, or to the
perpetuation of his fame. Being older than Peter, he probably died
before him, and perhaps before the last great war of the Jews with the
Romans, ending in the destruction of Jerusalem, which compelled the
Christians to leave the city. He may, however, have gone eastward with
his brother, and passed the last years of his life in Babylon.


                         HIS FABULOUS HISTORY.

But such a simple conclusion to this apostle’s life would by no means
answer the purposes of the ancient writers on these matters; and
accordingly the inquirer into apostolic history is presented with a
long, long talk of Andrew’s journey into Europe, through Greece and
Thrace, where he is said to have founded many churches, undergone
many labors, and performed many miracles,――and at last to have been
crucified in a city of Greece. The brief, but decided condemnation of
all this imposition, however, is found in its absolute destitution of
proof, or of truly ancient authority. Not the most antique particular
of this tedious falsehood can be traced back to a date within two
hundred years of the time of the pretended journey; and the whole story
from beginning to end, was undoubtedly made up to answer the demands of
a credulous age, when, after the triumphant diffusion of Christianity
throughout the Roman empire, curiosity began to be greatly awakened
about the founders of the faith,――a curiosity too great to be satisfied
with the meager statements of the records of truth. Moreover, every
province of Christendom, following the example of the metropolis, soon
began to claim some one of the apostolic band, as having first preached
the gospel in its territories; and to substantiate these claims, it
was necessary to produce a record corresponding to the legend which at
first floated about only in the mouths of the inventors and propagators.
Accordingly, apocryphal gospels and histories were manufactured in vast
numbers, to meet this new demand, detailing long series of apostolic
labors and journeys, and commemorating martyrdoms in every civilized
country under heaven, from Britain to India. Among these, the Grecian
provinces must needs come in for their share of apostolic honor; and
Andrew was therefore given up to them, as a founder and martyr. The
numerous particulars of fictitious miracles and persecutions might be
amusing, but cannot deserve a place in this work, to the exclusion of
serious matters of fact. A cursory view of the fables, however, may be
allowed, even by these contracted limits.

The earliest story about Andrew is, that he was sent to Scythia
first, when the apostles divided the world into provinces of duty.
His route is said to have been through Greece, Epirus, and then
directly northward into Scythia. Another later writer however, makes
a different track for him, leading from Palestine into Asia Minor,
through Cappadocia, Galatia and Bithynia;――thence north through the
country of the cannibals and to the wild wastes of Scythia;――thence
south along the northern, western and southern shores of the Black sea,
to Byzantium, (now Constantinople,) and after some time, through Thrace,
southwestwards into Macedonia, Thessaly, and Achaia, in which last, his
life and labors are said to have ended. By the same author, he is also
in another passage said to have been driven from Byzantium by threats
of the persecution, and therefore to have crossed over the Black sea to
city of Argyropolis, on its southern coast, where he preached two years,
and constituted Stachys bishop of a church which he there founded; and
thence to Sinope in Paphlagonia. It is said by others that, on his
great northern journey, he went not only into Scythia but into Sogdiana,
(now Tartary,) and even to the Sacae, (near the borders of Thibet,) and
to India.

  The earliest mention made of the apostle Andrew, by any writer
  whatever, after the evangelists, is by Origen, (about A. D. 230
  or 240,) who speaks of him as having been sent to the Scythians.
  (Commentary on Genesis, 1. 3.) The passage is preserved only
  in the Latin translation of his writings, the original Greek of
  that part having been lost. The date of the original however,
  is too late to deserve any credit. A story making its first
  appearance nearly two centuries after the occurrence which it
  commemorates, with no reference to authorities, is but poor
  evidence. Eusebius (Church History, III. 1.) mentions barely
  the same circumstance as Origen, (A. D. 315.) Gregory Nazianzen
  (orat. in Ar.) is the first who says that Andrew went to Greece.
  (A. D. 370.) Chrysostom also (Homily on xii. apostles) mentions
  this. (A. D. 398.) Jerom (Script. Ecc.) quotes Sophronius, as
  saying that Andrew went also to the Sogdians and Sacans. (A. D.
  397.)

  Augustin (the faith against Manichaeanism) is the first who
  brings in very much from tradition, respecting Andrew; and his
  stories are so numerous and entertaining in their particulars,
  as to show that before his time, fiction had been most busily
  at work with the apostles;――but the details are all of such a
  character as not to deserve the slightest credit. The era of his
  writings moreover, is so late, (A. D. 395,) that he along with
  his contemporaries, Jerom and Chrysostom, may be condemned as
  receivers of late traditions, and corrupters of the purity of
  historical as well as sacred truth.

But the later writers go beyond these unsatisfactory generalities,
and enter into the most entertaining particulars, making out very
interesting and romantic stories. The monkish apostolical novelists,
of the fifth century and later, have given a great number of stories
about Andrew, inconsistent with the earlier accounts, with each other,
and with common sense. Indeed there is no great reason to think that
they were meant to be believed, but written very honestly as fictitious
compositions, to gratify the taste of the antique novel-readers. There
is therefore, really, no more obligation resting on the biographer of
the apostles to copy these fables, than on the historian of Scotland
to transcribe the details of the romances of Scott, Porter and others,
though a mere allusion to them might occasionally be proper. The most
serious and the least absurd of these fictions, is one which narrates
that, after having received the grace of the Holy Spirit by the gift
of fiery tongues, he was sent to the Gentiles with an allotted field of
duty. This was to go through Asia Minor, more especially the northern
parts, Cappadocia, Galatia and Bithynia. Having traversed these and
other countries as above stated, he settled in Achaia. Where, as in
the other provinces, during a stay of many years, he preached divine
discourses, and glorified the name of Christ by wonderful signs and
prodigies. At length he was seized by Aegeas, the Roman proconsul of
that province, and by him crucified, on the charge of having converted
to Christianity, Maximilla, the wife, and Stratocles, the brother of
the proconsul, so that they had learned to abhor that ruler’s
wickedness.

  This story is from Nicephorus Callistus, a monk of the early
  part of the fourteenth century. (See Lardner, Credibility of
  Gospel History chapter 165.) He wrote an ecclesiastical history
  of the period from the birth of Christ to the year 610, in which
  he has given a vast number of utterly fabulous stories, adopting
  all the fictions of earlier historians, and adding, as it would
  seem, some new ones. His ignorance and folly are so great,
  however, that he is not considered as any authority, even by
  the Papist writers; for on this very story of Andrew, even
  the credulous Baronius says, “Sed fide nutant haec, ob apertum
  mendacium de Zeuzippo tyranno,” &c. “These things are unworthy
  of credit, on account of the manifest lie about king Zeuzippus,
  because there was no king in Thrace at that time, the province
  being quietly ruled by a Roman president.” (Baronius, Annals, 44.
  § 31.) The story itself is in Nicephorus, Church History, II. 39.

One of the longest of these novels contains a series of incidents,
really drawn out with considerable interest, narrating mainly his
supposed adventures in Achaia, without many of the particulars of his
journey thither. It begins with simply announcing that, at the time
of the general dispersion of the apostles on their missionary tours,
Andrew began to preach in Achaia. but was soon after interrupted for
a time by an angelic call, to go a great distance, to a city called
Myrmidon, to help the apostle Matthew out of a scrape, that he had
fallen into of himself, but could not get out of without help. Where
in the world this place was, nobody can tell; for there is a great
clashing among the saintly authorities, whether it was in Scythia or
Ethiopia; and as the place is never mentioned by any body else, they
have the dispute all in their own hands. But since the story says
he went all the way by ship, from Achaia to the city, it would seem
most likely to have been in that part of Scythia which touched the
northeastern border of the Black sea. Having finished this business,
as will be elsewhere told, he went back towards Achaia, and resumed
the good works, but just begun, soon gathering around him a throng of
disciples. Walking out with them one day, he met a blind man, who made
the singular request that the apostle would _not_ restore him to sight,
though confessedly able, but simply give him some money, victuals and
clothes. The acute Andrew straightway smelt a devil, (and a mighty
silly one too,) in this queer speech, and declaring that these were not
the words of the blind man himself, but of a devil who had possessed
him, ordered the foolish demon to come out, and restored the man to
sight, supplying him also with clothes from the backs of his disciples.
The fame of this and other miracles spread far and fast, and the
consequence was that the apostle had as many calls as a rising quack
doctor. Every body that was in any sort of trouble or difficulty, came
to him as a thing of course, to get a miracle done to suit the case
exactly. A rich man who had lost a favorite slave, by death, had him
raised to life by Andrew. A young lad whose mother had wrongfully
accused him, before the proconsul, also called for help or advice;
――Andrew went into court and raised a terrible earthquake, with thunder
and lightning, whereby all present were knocked down to the ground,
and the wicked woman killed. The proconsul, as soon as he could get up,
became converted, with all who had shared in the tumble. The apostle
still increasing in business, soon had a call to Sinope, to see a whole
family who were in a very bad way,――the old gentleman, Cratinus by name,
being quite sick with a fever,――his wife afflicted with a dreadful
dropsy, and his son possessed with a devil. These were all healed, with
sundry charges about their secret sins, and some particulars as to the
mode of cure, not worth translating, since it reads better in Latin
than in English. He then went on through Asia to the city of Nicaea,
in Bithynia, where his arrival was hailed with a universal shout of joy
from the whole community, who were terribly pestered with seven naughty
devils, that had taken up their quarters among the tombs close to the
highway, where they sat with a large supply of grave-stones constantly
on hand, for no earthly purpose but to pelt decent people as they went
by, and doing it with such a vengeance that they had killed several
outright,――besides broken bones not counted. Andrew, after exacting
from the inhabitants a promise to become Christians if he cleared out
this nuisance, brought out the seven devils, in spite of themselves,
in the shape of dogs, before all the city; and after he had made them
a speech, (given in very bad Latin, in the story, as it stands,) the
whole seven gave a general yelp and ran off in the wilderness according
to Andrew’s direction. The inhabitants of course, were all baptized;
and Callistus was left bishop over them. Going on from Nicaea, Andrew
came next to Nicomedia, the capital, where he met a funeral procession
coming out of the city. Andrew immediately raised the dead person,――the
scene being evidently copied from that of the widow’s son raised
at Nain, considerably enlarged with new particulars. Going out from
Nicomedia, the apostle embarked on the Black sea, sailing to Byzantium.
On the passage there was occasion for a new miracle,――a great storm
arising, which was immediately stilled by the apostle. Going on from
Byzantium through Thrace, he came among a horde of savages, who made
a rush at him, with drawn swords. But Andrew _making the sign of the
cross_ at them, they all dropped their swords and fell flat. He then
passed over them, and went on through Thrace into Macedonia.

  This story is _literally_ translated from one of the
  “apostolical stories” of a monk of the middle ages, who passed
  them off as true histories, written by Abdias, said to have been
  one of the seventy disciples sent out by Jesus, (Luke x. 1,)
  and to have been afterwards ordained bishop of Babylon, (by
  Simon Zelotes and Jude.) It is an imposition so palpable however,
  in its absurdities, that it has always been condemned by the
  best authorities, both Protestant and Papist: as Melancthon,
  Bellarmin, Scultetus, Rivetus, the ♦Magdeburg centuriators,
  Baronius, Chemnitius, Tillemont, Vossius, and Bayle, whose
  opinions and censures are most of them fully given in the
  preface to the work itself, by Johann Albert Fabricius, (Codex
  apocrypha of the New Testament, part 2.)

    ♦ “Magdeburgh” replaced with “Magdeburg”

  Besides all these series of fictions on Andrew’s life, there are
  others, quoted as having been written in the same department.
  “The Passion of St. Andrew,” a quite late apocryphal story,
  professing to have been written by the elders and deacons of the
  churches of Achaia, was long extensively received by the Papists,
  as an authentic and valuable book, and is quoted by the eloquent
  and venerable Bernardus, with the most profound respect. It
  abounds in long, tedious speeches, as well as painfully absurd
  incidents. The “Menaei,” or Greek calendar of the saints, is
  also copious on this apostle, but is too modern to deserve any
  credit whatever. All the ancient fables and traditions were at
  last collected into a huge volume, by a Frenchman named Andrew
  de Saussay, who, in 1656, published at Paris, (in Latin,) a
  book, entitled “Andrew, brother of Simon Peter, or, Twelve
  Books on the Glory of Saint Andrew, the Apostle.” This book was
  afterwards abridged, or largely borrowed from, by John Florian
  Hammerschmid, in a treatise, (in Latin,) published at Prague, in
  1699,――entitled “The Apostolic Cross-bearer, or, St. Andrew, the
  Apostle, described and set forth, in his life, death, martyrdom,
  miracles and discourses.”――Baillet’s Lives of the Saints, (in
  French,) also contains a full account of the most remarkable
  details of these fables. (Baillet, Vies de Saints, Vol. I.
  February 9th.)

By following these droll stories through all their details, the life
of Andrew might easily be made longer than that of Peter; but the
character of this work would be much degraded from its true historical
dignity by such contents. The monkish novels and romances would
undoubtedly make a very amusing, and in some senses, an instructive
book; and a volume as large as this might be easily filled with these
tales. But this extract will serve very well as a specimen of their
general character. A single passage farther, may however be presented,
giving a somewhat interesting fictitious account of his crucifixion.

After innumerable works of wonder, Andrew had come at last to Patras,
a city in the northwestern part of Achaia, still known by that name,
standing on the gulf of Lepanto, famous in modern Greek history as
the scene of a desperate struggle with the Turks, during a long siege,
in the war of Grecian independence. In this city, as the fable states,
then resided the Roman proconsul of the province, whose name is
variously given by different story-tellers; by some, Aegeas,――by
others, Aegeates and Aegeatus, and by others, Egetes. The apostle was
soon called on to visit his family, by a female servant, who had been
converted by the preaching of one of Andrew’s disciples. She, coming
to Andrew, fell at his feet, clasping them, and besought him in the
name of the proconsul’s wife, Maximilla, her mistress, then very sick
with a fever, to come to her house, that she might hear from him the
gospel. The apostle went, therefore, and on entering the room found the
proconsul in such an agony of despair about the sickness of his beloved
wife, that he had at that moment drawn his sword to kill himself.
Andrew immediately cried out, “Proconsul! do thyself no harm; but put
up thy sword into its place, for the present. There will be a time for
you to exercise it upon us, soon.” The ruler, without perceiving the
point of the remark, gave way, in obedience to the word of the apostle.
He then, drawing nigh the bed of the invalid, after some discourse,
took hold of her hand, when she was immediately covered with a profuse
sweat, the symptoms being all relieved and the fever broken up. As
soon as the proconsul saw the wonderful change, he, in a spirit of
liberal remuneration, which deserves the gratitude of the whole medical
profession, ordered to be paid to the holy man the liberal fee of one
hundred pieces of silver; but not appreciating this liberality, Andrew
decidedly refused to receive any pay at all, not choosing to render
such medical services with the view of any compensation, and would not
so much as look at it,――exciting no small astonishment in the proconsul
by such extraordinary disinterestedness. The apostle then leaving the
palace, went on through the city, relieving the most miserable beggars
lying in the dirt, with the same good will which he had shown in the
family of the ruler. Passing on, he came to the water-side, and there
finding a poor, wretched, dirty sailor, lying on the ground, covered
with sores and vermin, cured him directly, lifted him up, and taking
him into the water, close by, gave him a good washing, which at the
same time served for both body and soul,――for the apostle at once
making it answer for a baptism, pronounced him pure in the name of the
Trinity. Soon after this occurrence, which gained him great fame, he
was called to relieve a boy belonging to Stratocles, the brother of
the proconsul, the apostle having been recommended to him as a curer of
diseases, by Maximilla and her maid. The devil having been, of course,
cast out of the boy, Stratocles believed, as did his brother’s wife,
who was so desirous of hearing the apostle preach, that at last she
took advantage of her husband’s absence in Macedonia, and had regular
religious meetings in her husband’s great hall of state, where he
held his courts,――quite an extraordinary liberty for any man’s wife
to take with his affairs, behind his back. It happened at last, that
the unsuspecting gentleman suddenly returned, when his wife had not
expected him, and would have immediately burst into the room, then
thronged with a great number of all sorts of people; but Andrew,
foreseeing what was about to happen, managed, by a queer kind of
miracle, to make it convenient for him to go somewhere else for a
while, until every one of the audience having been made invisible with
_the sign of the cross_, by Andrew, sneaked off unseen; so that the
deceived proconsul, when he came in, never suspected what tricks had
been played on him. Maximilla, being now prevented by her husband’s
return from having any more meetings in his house, afterwards resorted
to the apostle’s lodgings, where the Christians constantly met to hear
him,――and became at last so assiduous in her attendance by day and by
night, that her husband began to grow uneasy about her unseasonable
absences, because he had no sort of pleasure with her since she had
been so given up to her mysterious occupations, away from him almost
constantly. He accordingly began to investigate the difficulty, and
finding that it was the work of Andrew, who had been teaching the
lady a new religion, which wholly absorbed her in devotion, to the
exclusion of all enjoyment with her family, sent for him, and commanded
him to take his choice between renouncing his troublesome faith, and
crucifixion. But the apostle indignantly and intrepidly declared his
readiness to maintain the doctrine of Jesus Christ, through all peril,
and even to death, and then went on to give the sum and substance
of his creed. The unyielding proconsul however, put him in prison
immediately, where Andrew occupied himself all night in exhorting his
disciples to stand fast in the faith. Being brought the next day before
the proconsul’s tribunal, he renewed his refusal to sacrifice to idols,
and was therefore dragged away to the cross, after receiving twenty-one
lashes. The proconsul, enraged at his pertinacity, ordered him to be
bound to the cross, instead of being nailed in the usual way;――(a very
agreeable exchange, it would seem, for any one would rather have his
hands and feet tied with a cord to a cross, than be nailed to it;
and it is hard to see how this could operate to increase his torture,
otherwise than by keeping him there till he starved to death.) On
coming in sight of the cross, he burst out into an eloquent strain of
joy and exultation, while yet at some distance,――exclaiming as they
bore him along, “Hail! O cross! consecrated by the body of Christ, and
adorned with the pearls of his precious limbs! I come to thee confident
and rejoicing, and do thou receive, with exultation, the disciple of
him who once hung on thee, since I have long been thy lover and have
longed to embrace thee. Hail! O cross! that now art satisfied, though
long wearied with waiting for me. O good cross! that hast acquired
grace and beauty from the limbs of the Lord! long-desired and dearly
loved! sought without ceasing, and long foreseen with wishful mind!
take me from men and give me back to my Master, that by thee He may
receive me, who by thee has redeemed me.” After this personifying
address to the inanimate wood, he gave himself up to the executioners,
who stripped him, and bound his hands and feet as had been directed,
thus suspending him on the cross. Around the place of execution stood
a vast throng of sympathizing beholders, numbering not less than twenty
thousand persons, to whom the apostle, unmoved by the horrors which
so distressed them, now coolly addressed them in the words of life,
though himself on the verge of death. For two days and nights, in this
situation, in fasting and agony, he yet continued without a moment’s
cessation to exhort the multitude who were constantly thronging to
the strange sight; till at last, on the third day, the whole city,
moved beyond all control, by the miracle of energy and endurance,
rushed in one mass to the proconsul, and demanded the liberation of
the God-sustained apostle. The ferocious tyrant, overawed by the solemn
power of the demand, coming from such an excited multitude, at last
yielded; and to the great joy of the people, went out to the cross to
release the holy sufferer, at the sight of whose enraptured triumph
over pain and terror, the hard-hearted tyrant himself melted, and in
sorrow and penitence he drew near the cross to exercise his new-born
mercy. But Andrew, already on the eve of a martyr’s triumph, would
not bear to be snatched back from such glories so nearly attained; and
in earnest remonstrance cried out, praying, “O Lord Jesus Christ! do
not suffer thy servant, who for thy name’s sake hangs on the cross, to
be thus freed,――nor let me, O merciful God! when now clinging to thy
mysteries, be given up again to human conversations. But take thou me,
my Master! whom I have loved,――whom I have known,――whom I hold,――whom
I long to see,――in whom I am what I am. Let me die then, O Jesus,
good and merciful.” And having said these things for so long a
time,――praising God and rejoicing, he breathed out his soul, amid the
tears and groans of all the beholders.

  Here ends the tale of the fictitious Abdias Babylonius, of
  which this concluding abstract is another _literal_ specimen,
  presenting its most effective part in the pathetic line, as the
  former does of its ludicrous portions. The story of Andrew is
  altogether the longest and best constructed, as well as the most
  interesting in the character of its incidents, of all contained
  in the book of the Pseudo-Abdias; and I have therefore been more
  liberal in extracts from this, because it would leave little
  occasion for any similar specimens under the lives of the rest
  of the apostles.

  All this long story may, very possibly, have grown up from a
  beginning which was true; that is, there may have been another
  Andrew, who, in a later age of the early times of Christianity,
  may have gone over those regions as a missionary, and met with
  somewhat similar adventures; and who was afterwards confounded
  with the apostle Andrew. The Scotch, for some reason or other,
  formerly adopted Andrew as their national saint, and represent
  him on a cross of a peculiar shape, resembling the letter X,
  known in heraldry by the name of a _saltier_, and borne on the
  badges of the knights of the Scottish order of the Thistle, to
  this day. This idea of his cross, however, has originated since
  the beginning of the twelfth century, as I shall show by a
  passage from Bernardus.

  The truly holy Bernard, (Abbot of Clairvaux, in France, A. D.
  1112,) better worthy of the title of _Saint_ than ninety-nine
  hundredths of all the canonized who lived before him, even
  from apostolic days,――has, among his splendid sermons, three
  most eloquent discourses, preached in his abbey church, on St.
  Andrew’s day, in which he alludes to the actions of this apostle,
  as recorded in the “Passion of St. Andrew,”――a book which he
  seems to quote as worthy of credit. In Latin of Ciceronian
  purity, he has given some noble specimens of a pulpit eloquence,
  rarely equalled in any modern language, and such as never
  blesses the ears of the hearers of these days. He begins
  his first discourse on this subject with saying, that in
  “celebrating the glorious triumphs of the blessed Andrew,
  they had that day been delighted with the words of grace, that
  proceeded out of his mouth;”――(doubtless in hearing the story of
  the crucifixion read from the fictitious book of the Passion of
  St. Andrew, which all supposed to be authentic.) “For there was
  no room for sorrow, where he himself was so intensely rejoiced.
  No one of us mourned for him in his sufferings, for no one dared
  to weep over him, while he was thus exulting. So that he might
  most appropriately say to us, what the cross-bearing Redeemer
  said to those who followed him with mourning,――‘Weep not for me;
  but weep for yourselves.’ And when the blessed Andrew himself
  was led to the cross, and the people, grieving for the unjust
  condemnation of the holy and just man, would have prevented his
  execution,――he, with the most urgent prayer, forbade them from
  depriving him of his crown of suffering. For ‘he desired indeed
  to be released, and to be with Christ,’――but on the cross;
  he desired to enter the kingdom,――but by the door. Even as he
  said to that loved form, ‘that by thee, he may receive me, who
  by thee has redeemed me.’ Therefore if we love him, we shall
  rejoice with him; not only because he was crowned, but because
  he was crucified.” (A bad, and unscriptural doctrine! for no
  apostle ever taught, or was taught, that it was worth while for
  any man to be crucified, when he could well help it.)

  In his second sermon on the same subject, the animated Bernard
  remarks furthermore, in comment on the behavior of Andrew, when
  coming in sight of his cross,――“You have certainly heard how the
  blessed Andrew was stayed on the Lord, when he came to the place
  where the cross was made ready for him,――and how, by the spirit
  which he had received along with the other apostles, in the
  _fiery tongues_, he spoke truly fiery words. And so, seeing from
  afar the cross prepared, he did not turn pale, though mortal
  weakness might seem to demand it; his blood did not freeze,――his
  hair did not rise,――his voice did not cleave to his throat, (non
  stetere comae, aut vox faucibus haesit.) Out of the abundance of
  his heart, his mouth did speak; and the deep love which glowed
  in his heart, sent forth the words like burning sparks.” He
  then quotes the speech of Andrew to the cross, as above given,
  and proceeds: “I beseech you, brethren, say, is this a man who
  speaks thus? Is it not an angel, or some new creature? No: it
  is merely a ‘man of like passions with ourselves.’ For the very
  agony itself, in whose approach he thus rejoiced, proves him
  to have been ‘a man of passion.’ Whence, then, in man, this new
  exultation, and joy before unheard of? Whence, in man, a mind so
  spiritual,――a love so fervent,――a courage so strong? Far would
  it be from the apostle himself, to wish, that we should give the
  glory of such grace to him. It is the ‘perfect gift, coming down
  from the Father of Lights,’――from him, ‘who alone does wondrous
  things.’ It was, dearly beloved, plainly, ‘the spirit which
  helpeth our infirmities,’ by which was shed abroad in his heart,
  a love, strong as death,――yea, and stronger than death. Of which,
  O may we too be found partakers!”

  The preacher then goes on with the practical application of the
  view of these sufferings, and the spirit that sustained them,
  to the circumstances of his hearers. After some discourse to
  this effect, he exhorts them to seek this spirit. “Seek it then,
  dearest! seek it without ceasing,――seek it without doubting;――in
  all your works invoke the aid of this spirit. For we also,
  my brethren, with the blessed Andrew, must needs take up our
  cross,――yea, with that Savior-Lord whom he followed. For, in
  this he rejoiced,――in this he exulted;――because not only for him,
  but with him, he would seem to die, and be planted, so ‘that
  suffering with him, he might also reign with him.’ With whom,
  that we may also be crucified, let us hear more attentively
  with the ears of our hearts, the voice of him who says, ‘He who
  will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross,
  and follow me.’ As if he said, ‘Let him who desires me, despise
  himself: let him who would do my will, learn to break his own.’”

  Bernard then draws a minute parallel, more curious than
  admirable, between the cross and the trials of life,――likening
  the four difficulties in the way of holiness, to the four ends
  of the cross; bodily fear being the foot-piece; open assaults
  and temptations, the right arm-piece; secret sins and trials,
  the left hand-piece; and spiritual pride, the head-piece. Or, as
  he briefly recapitulates, the four virtues attached to the four
  horns of the cross, are these:――continence, patience, prudence,
  and humility. A truly forcible figure, and one not without its
  effect, doubtless, on the hearers. This arrangement of the cross,
  moreover, seems to prove, that in the time of Bernard, the idle
  story about Andrew’s cross being shaped like the letter X, was
  entirely unknown; for it is evident that the whole point of
  the allusion here consists in the hearers supposing that Andrew
  was crucified on a cross of the common shape,――upright, with a
  transverse bar and head-piece.

  In conclusion of all this fabulous detail, may be appropriately
  quoted the closing passage of the second discourse of Bernard,
  the spirit of which, though coming from a Papist, is not
  discordant with the noblest essential principles of truly
  catholic Christianity, seldom indeed, found so pure in the
  Romish church, as in this “Last of the Fathers,” as he has been
  justly styled. This, with all the passages above quoted, may be
  found by those who can enjoy the original, in his works. (Divi
  Bernardi Opera Omnia Joh. Picard. Antwerp, 1609, folio; columns
  322‒333.)

  So accordant are these words with the spirit which it becomes
  this work to inculcate, that I may well adopt them into the text,
  glad to hang a moral to the end of so much falsehood, though
  drawn from such a theme, that it seems like “gathering grapes of
  thorns, or figs of thistles.”

  Bernard has in this part of his discourse been completing
  all the details of his parallel between the cross and the
  Christian’s life, and in this conclusion, thus crowns the simile,
  by exhorting his saintly hearers to cling, each to his own cross,
  in spite of all temptation to renounce it; that is, to persevere
  in daily crucifying their sins, by a pure deportment through
  life.

Happy the soul that glories and triumphs on this cross, if it only
persevere, and do not let itself be cast down in its trials. Let every
one then, who is on this cross, like the blessed Andrew, pray his Lord
and Master, not to let him be taken down from it. For what is there
which the malign adversary will not dare? what will he not impiously
presume to try? For what he thought to do to the disciple by the hands
of Aegeas, the same he once thought to do to the Master by the scornful
tongues of the Jews. In each instance alike, however, driven by too
late experience of his folly, he departed, vanquished and confounded.
O may he in like manner depart from us, conquered by Him who triumphed
over him by Himself, and by His disciple. May He cause, that we also
may attain the same happy end, on the crosses which we have borne, each
one in his own peculiar trials, for the glory of His name, “who is God
over all, blessed forever.”




                           JAMES BOANERGES;
                          THE SON OF ZEBEDEE.


                        HIS RANK AND CHARACTER.

WHATEVER may have been the peculiar excellences of this apostle’s
character, as recognized by the searching eye of Him who knew the
hearts of all men, the early close of his high career has prevented
the full development of energies, that might, in the course of a
longer life, have been made as fruitful in works of wonder and praise,
as those of the other members of the elect TRIO, his friend and his
younger brother; and his later years, thus prolonged, might have left
similar recorded testimonies of his apostolic zeal. Much too, that
truly concerns his brief life, is swallowed up in the long narrative
of the eminent chief of the twelve, whose superiority was on all
occasions so distinctly marked by Jesus, that he never imparted to
this apostle any exalted favor in which Peter did not also share,
and in the record of which his name is not mentioned first. In the
first call,――in the raising of the daughter of Jairus to life,――at the
transfiguration,――and on the apostolic roll,――James is uniformly placed
after Peter; and such too, was the superior activity and talkative
disposition of Peter, that whenever and wherever there was anything
to be said, he was always the first to say it,――cutting off the sons
of Zebedee from the opportunity, if they had the disposition, to make
themselves more prominent. Yet the sons of Zebedee are not entirely
unnoticed in the apostolic history, and even the early-martyred James
may be said to have a character quite decidedly marked, in those
few passages in the sacred record, where facts concerning him are
commemorated. In the apostolic list given by Mark, it is moreover
mentioned, that he with his brother had received a name from Jesus
Christ, which being given to them by him, doubtless with a decided
reference to their characters, serves as a valuable means of
ascertaining their leading traits. The name of “BOANERGES,”――“sons
of thunder,” seems to imply a degree of decided boldness, and a fiery
energy, not exactly accordant with the usual opinions of the characters
of the sons of Zebedee; but it is an expression in the most perfect
harmony with the few details of the conduct of both, which are given
in the New Testament.

  BOANERGES.――This word is one, whose composition and derivation,
  (as is the case with many other New Testament proper names,)
  have caused great discussion and difference of opinion among
  the learned. It occurs only in Mark iii. 17, where it is
  incidentally mentioned in the list of the apostles, as a new
  name given to the sons of Zebedee by Jesus. Those who are
  curious, can find all the discussion in any critical commentator
  on the passage. Poole’s Synopsis, in one heavy folio column
  and half of another, gives a complete view of all the facts and
  speculations concerning this matter, up to his time; the amount
  of all which, seems to be, that, as the word now stands, it
  very nearly sets all etymologies at defiance,――whether Hebrew,
  Syriac, Chaldee or Arabic,――since it is impossible to say how
  the word should be resolved into two parts, one of which should
  mean “sons,” and the other “thunder;” so that it is well for
  us we have Mark’s explanation of the name, since without it,
  the critics would probably have never found either “son” or
  “thunder” in the word. As to the _reason_ of the name’s being
  appropriated to James and John, conjectures equally numerous
  and various may be found in the same learned work; but all
  equally unsatisfactory. Lampe also is very full on this point.
  (Prolegomena to a Johannine Theology cap. I. lib. ii. §§ 9‒15.


                         HIS FAMILY AND CALL.

Of the first introduction of this apostle to Jesus, it may be
reasonably conjectured, that he formed an acquaintance with him at
the same time with his brother John and the sons of Jonah, as already
commemorated in the former lives, from the brief record in the first
chapter of John’s gospel. After this, he and his brother, as well
as Peter and Andrew, returned quietly to their honest business of
fishing on the lake of Gennesaret, on whose shore, no doubt, was their
home,――perhaps too, in Bethsaida or Capernaum, as their intimacy and
fellowship with the sons of Jonah would seem to imply a vicinity of
residence; though their common occupation might bring them frequently
together in circumstances where friendly assistance was mutually needed;
and the idea of their residence in some other of the numerous villages
along the northern end of the lake, on either side, is not inconsistent
with any circumstance specified in their history. In their occupation
of fishing, they were accompanied by their father Zebedee, who it
seems, was not so far advanced in years as to be unable to aid his sons
in this very laborious and dangerous business; which makes it quite
apparent that James and John being the sons of so active a man, must
themselves have but just attained manhood, at the time when they are
first mentioned. Respecting the character of this brisk old gentleman,
unfortunately very few data indeed are preserved; and the vagueness of
the impression made by his name, though so often repeated in connection
with his sons, may be best conceived by reference to that deeply
enigmatical question, with which grave persons of mature age are
sometimes wont to puzzle the inquisitive minds of young aspirants after
Biblical knowledge, “Who was the father of Zebedee’s children?”――a
query which certainly implies a great deficiency of important facts, on
which the curious learner could found a definite idea of this somewhat
distinguished character. Indeed “the mother of Zebedee’s children”
seems to posses in the minds of most readers of the gospels a much
more prominent place than “the father of them;” for the simple occasion
on which she presents herself to notice, is of such a nature as to
show that she was the parent from whom the sons inherited at least one
prominent trait,――that of high, aspiring ambition, with which, in them
as well as in her, was joined a most decidedly comfortable degree of
self-esteem, that would not allow them to suspect that other people
could be at all behind them in appreciating those talents, which in
their own opinion, and their fond mother’s, showed that they were
“born to command.” Indeed it appears manifest, that there was much
more “thunder” in her composition, than in her husband’s, and it is but
fair to suppose, from the decided way in which she put herself forward
in the family affairs, on at least one important occasion, without
any pretension whatever on his part, to any right of interference or
decision, that she must have been in the habit of having her own way
in most matters;――a peculiar prominence in the domestic administration,
very naturally resulting from the ♦circumstance, that her husband’s
frequent long absences from home must have left the responsibilities
of the family often upon her alone, and he, like a prudent man, on his
return, may have valued domestic quiet above the maintenance of any
very decided supremacy. If the supposition may be adopted, however,
that Zebedee died soon after the call of his sons, the silence of
the sacred record respecting him is easily accounted for, and the
above conclusion as to his domestic management, may be considered
unnecessarily derogatory to his dignity of character.

    ♦ “cirstance” replaced with “circumstance”

Sprung from such parents, and brought up by them on the shores and
waters of Gennesaret, James had learned the humble business of his
father, and was quietly devoting himself to the labors of a fisherman,
probably never dreaming of an occasion that should ever call forth
his slumbering energies in “thunder,” or hold up before his awakened
ambition, the honors of a name that should outlast the wreck of
kingdoms, and of the brightest glories of that age. But on the morning,
when the sons of Jonah received the high call and commission to become
“fishers of men,” James and his brother too,――at the solemn command,
“Follow me,”――laid down their nets, and left the low labors and
amusements of the fishing, to their father, who toiled on with his
servants, while his sons went forth through Galilee, following him
who had called them to a far higher vocation. No acts whatever are
commemorated, as performed by them in this first pilgrimage; and it
was not until after their return from the north of Galilee, and the
beginning of their journey to Jerusalem, that the occasion arose, when
their striking family trait of ambition was most remarkably brought out.


                         HIS AMBITIOUS CLAIMS.

Their intellectual and moral qualities being of a comparatively high
order, had already attracted the very favorable attention of Jesus,
during the first journey though Galilee; and they had already, on
at least two occasions, received most distinguishing marks of his
regard,――they alone of all the twelve, sharing in the honor of being
present with Peter at the raising of the daughter of Jairus, and being
still more highly favored by the view of the solemn events of the night
of the transfiguration, amid the thunders of Hermon. On that occasion,
the terrors of the scene overcame even their aspiring souls; and when
the cloud burst over them, they both sunk to the earth, in speechless
dread, along with Peter, too, who had previously manifested so much
greater self-command than they, in daring to address in complaisant
words the awful forms before them; while they remained silent with
terror at a phenomenon for which their views of their Master’s
character had but poorly prepared them. From all these prostrating
terrors they had since, however, fully recovered, and were now
completely restored to their former confidence in themselves, and were
still rooted in their old views of the Messiah’s earthly glories,――in
this particular, however, only sharing the common error of the whole
twelve. In this state of mind, looking upon Jesus Christ only as an
ambitious man, of powerful mind, vast knowledge, divine consecration,
and miraculous gifts, which fitted him for the subversion of the Roman
dominion, and the erection of a kingdom of his own,――their thoughts
were all the while running on the division of the spoils and honors,
which would be the reward of the chief followers of the conqueror;
and in this state of mind, they were prepared to pervert all the
declarations of Jesus, so as to make them harmonize with their own
hopes and notions. While on this journey southward, to Jerusalem, after
they had passed into the eastern sections of Judea, beyond the Jordan,
Jesus was one day, in answer to an inquiry from Peter, promising his
disciples a high reward for the sacrifices they had made in his service;
and assuring them, that in return for houses or lands or relatives or
friends, left for his name’s sake, they should all receive a return,
a hundred-fold greater than the loss. Especially were their fancies
struck by a vivid picture, which he presented to their minds, of the
high rewards accruing to all the twelve, declaring that after the
completion of the change which he was working, and when he had taken
his own imperial throne, they should sit around him on twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Here was a prospect, enough
to satisfy the most aspiring ambition; but along with the hopes now
awakened, arose also some queries about the preference of places in
this throned triumph, which were not easily settled so as to satisfy
all at once. In the proposed arrangement, it was perfectly evident,
that of the whole circle of thrones, by far the most honorable
locations would be those immediately on the right and left of the
Messiah-king; and their low ambition set them at once contriving how
to get these pre-eminent places for themselves. Of all the apostolic
band, none could so fairly claim the right hand throne as Peter;
already pronounced the Rock on which the church should be founded,
and commissioned as the keeper of the keys of the kingdom. But Peter’s
devotion to his Master seems to have been of too pure a character, to
let him give any thought to the mere rewards of the victory, so long
as he could feel sure of the full return of that burning affection
to his Lord, with which his own ardent soul glowed; and he left it
to others to settle points of precedency and the division of rewards.
On no occasion throughout his whole life, is there recorded any
evidence of the slightest disposition to claim the mere honors of a
pre-eminence, though his superior force of character made the whole
band instinctively look to him for guidance, on all times of trouble
and danger, after the ascension. His modest, confiding, disinterested
affection for his Master, indeed, was the main ground of all the
high distinctions conferred on him so unsparingly by Jesus, who would
have been very slow to honor thus, one who was disposed to grow proud
or overbearing under the possession of these favors. But this very
character of modesty and uncalculating affection, gave occasion also
to the other disciples, to push themselves forward for a claim to those
peculiar exaltations, which his indifference to personal advancement
seemed to leave unoccupied, for the more ambitious to assume. In this
instance, particularly, James and John were so far moved with the
desire of the enviable distinction of this primacy, that they made
it a matter of family consultation, and accordingly brought the case
before their fondly ambitious mother, who instantly determined that
the great object should be achieved before any one else could secure
the chance for the place; and resolved to use her influence in favor
of her darling sons. On the first favorable opportunity she therefore
went with them to Jesus; and, as it would appear by the combination
of the accounts of Matthew and Mark, both she and they presented the
request at once and together,――James and John, however, prefacing the
declaration of their exact purpose by a general petition for unlimited
favor,――“Master, we would that thou shouldst do for us whatever we
desire?” To this modest petition, Jesus replied by asking, “What
would ye that I should grant?” They, with their mother, falling
down at his feet in fawning, selfish worship, then urged their grand
request:――“Grant,” said the ambitious SALOME, “that these my two sons
may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, when
thou reignest in thy glory.” Jesus, fully appreciating the miserable
state of selfish ignorance which inspired the hope and the question,
in order to show them their ignorance, and to make them express their
minds more fully, assured them that they knew not the meaning of their
own request, and asked them whether they were able to drink of the
cup that he should drink of, and be baptized with the baptism that he
should be baptized with? With unhesitating self-conceit, they answered,
“We are able.” But Jesus replied in such a tone as to check all further
solicitation of this kind from them, or from any other of his hearers.
“Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that
I am baptized with; but to sit on my right hand and on my left, is not
mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared by
my father.”――“The cup of sorrow, and suffering, and agony,――the baptism
of spirit, fire, and blood,――of these you shall all drink in a solemn
and mournful reality, which you are now far from conceiving; but
the high places of the kingdom which I come to found, are not to be
disposed of to those who think to forestall my personal favor; they
are for the blessed of my father, who, in the time appointed in his
own good pleasure, will give it to them, in the end of days.” The
disappointed family of Zebedee retired, quite confounded with the
rejection of their petition, and with the darkly told prophecy that
accompanied it, dooming them to some mysterious fate of which they
could form no idea whatever. The rest of the twelve, hearing of the
ambitious attempt of the sons of Zebedee to secure the supremacy,
by a secret movement, and by family influence, were moved with great
indignation against the intriguing aspirants, and expressed their
displeasure so decidedly, that Jesus called them around him, to improve
this manifestation of folly and passion, to their advantage; and said,
“You know that the nations are governed by princes and lords, and that
none exercise authority over them but the great ones of the land. Now
it shall not be so among you; but he who will be great among you, must
be your servant; and he who shall be your chief, shall be the slave of
all the rest. For even the Son of Man himself came not to make others
his slaves, but to be himself a slave to many, and even to sacrifice
his life in their service.”

  _Salome._――The reason for the supposition that this was really
  the name of the mother of James, consists in the comparison of
  two corresponding passages of Matthew and Mark. In Matthew xxvii.
  56, it is said that among the women present at the crucifixion,
  were “Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of Joses, and _the mother
  of Zebedee’s children_.” In the parallel passage, Mark xv. 40,
  they are mentioned as “Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of
  James and Joses, and _Salome_.” In Mark xvi. 1, _Salome_ is also
  mentioned among those who went to the sepulcher. This is not
  proof positive, but it is reasonable ground for the supposition,
  more especially as Matthew never mentions Salome by name, but
  repeatedly speaks of “the mother of Zebedee’s children.”

  If, as is probable then, Salome and the mother of Zebedee’s
  children were identical, it is also reasonable to suppose, as
  Lampe does, that Zebedee himself may have died soon after the
  time when the call of his sons took place. For Salome could
  hardly have left her husband and family, to go, as she did,
  with Jesus on his journeys, ministering to his necessities,――but
  if her husband was really dead, she would have but few ties
  to confine her at home, and would therefore very naturally be
  led, by her maternal affection, and anxiety for her sons, to
  accompany them in their wandering life. The supposition of
  Zebedee’s death is also justified by the circumstance, that John
  is spoken of in his own gospel, (John xix. 27,) as possessing
  a house of “his _own_,” which seems to imply the death of his
  father; since so young a man would hardly have acquired property,
  except by inheritance.

Thus he laid out before them all the indispensable qualities of the
man who aspired to the dangerous, painful and unenviable primacy among
them,――humility, meekness and laborious industry. But vain were all the
earnest teachings of his divine spirit. Schemes and hopes of worldly
eminence and imperial dominion, were too deeply rooted in their hearts,
to be displaced by this oft-repeated view of the labors and trials
of his service. Already, on a former occasion too, had he tried to
impress them with the true spirit of the apostleship. When on the way
to Capernaum, at the close of this journey through Galilee, they had
disputed among themselves on the question, which of them should be
the prime minister of their Messiah-king, when he had established
his heavenly reign in all the dominions of his father David. On their
meeting with him in the house at Capernaum, he brought up this point
of difference. Setting a little child before them, (probably one
of Peter’s children, as it was in his house,) and taking the little
innocent into his arms, he assured them that unless they should become
utterly changed in disposition and in hope, and become like that little
child in simplicity of character, they should have no share whatever,
in the glories of that kingdom, which was to them an object of so many
ambitious aspirations. But neither this charge nor the repetition of
it, could yet avail to work that necessary change in their feelings.
Still they all lived on in vain and selfish hope, scheming for personal
aggrandizement, till the progress of events bringing calamity and trial
upon them, had purified their hearts, and fully fitted them for the
duties of the great office to which they had so unthinkingly devoted
themselves. Then indeed, did the aspiring James receive, in a deeper
sense than he had ever dreamed of, the reward for which he now longed
and begged;――drinking first of the cup of agony, and baptized first in
blood, he ascended first to the place on the right hand of the Messiah
in his eternal kingdom. But years of toil and sorrow, seen and felt,
were his preparation for this glorious crown.

  James has also been made the subject of a long series of fables,
  though the early termination of his apostolic career would
  seem to leave no room whatever, for the insertion of any very
  great journeys and labors upon the authentic history. But the
  Spaniards, in the general rage for claiming some apostle as a
  national patron saint, long ago got up the most absurd fiction,
  that James, the son of Zebedee, during the period intervening
  between Christ’s ascension and his own execution at Jerusalem,
  actually performed a voyage over the whole length of the
  Mediterranean, into Spain, where he remained several years,
  preaching, founding churches, and performing miracles, and
  returned to Jerusalem in time for the occurrence of the
  concluding event, as recorded in the twelfth chapter of Acts.
  This story probably originated in the same manner as that
  suggested to account for the fables about Andrew; that is,――that
  some preacher of Christianity, of this name, in a later age,
  actually did travel into Spain, there preaching the gospel, and
  founding churches; and that his name being deservedly remembered,
  was, in the progress of the corruptions of the truth, confounded
  with that of the apostle James, son of Zebedee,――this James
  being selected rather than the son of Alpheus, because the
  latter had already been established by tradition, as the hero of
  a story quite inconsistent with any Spanish journey, and being
  also less dignified by the Savior’s notice. Be that as it may,
  Saint James (Santo Jago) is to this day esteemed the patron
  saint of Spain, and his tomb is shown in Compostella, in that
  kingdom; for they will have it, that, after his decapitation by
  Herod Agrippa, his body was brought all the way over the sea, to
  Spain, and there buried in the scene of his toils and miracles.
  A Spanish order of knighthood, that of St. Jago de Compostella,
  takes its name from this notion.

  The old romancer, Abdias Babylonius, who is so rich in stories
  about Andrew, has much to tell about James, and enters at great
  length into the details of his crucifixion; crowning the whole
  with the idle story, that when he was led to death, his accuser,
  Josiah, a Pharisee, suddenly repenting, begged his forgiveness
  and professed his faith in Christ,――for which he also was
  beheaded along with him, after being baptized by James in some
  water that was handed to him by the executioner, in a calabash.
  (Abdias Babylonius, History of the Apostolical Contest, IV. § 9.)

From the time of this event, there occurs no mention whatever of any
act of James, until the commemoration of the occasion of his exit; and
even this tragic circumstance is mentioned so briefly, that nothing can
be learned but the mere fact and manner of his death. On the occasion
fully described above, in the life of Peter, Herod Agrippa I. seized
this apostle, and at once put him to death by the executioner’s
sword. The particular grounds, on which this act of bloody cruelty was
justified by the tyrant and his friends, are wholly unknown. Probably
there was a pretence at a set accusation of some crime, which would
make the act appear less atrocious at the time, than appears from
Luke’s silence as to the grounds of the proceeding. The remarkable
prominence of James, however, was enough to offer a motive to the
popularity-seeking Agrippa, whose main object, being to “please the
Jews,” led him to seize those who had most displeased them, by laboring
for the advancement of the Nazarene heresy. And that this actually
was his governing principle in selecting his victims, is made further
apparent by the circumstance that Peter, the great chief of the band,
was next marked for destruction. Though no particular acts of James
are recorded as having made him prominently obnoxious to the Jews,
yet there is every reason to believe, that the exalted ardor and now
chastened ambition of this Son of Thunder, had made him often the bold
assaulter of sophistry and hypocrisy,――a heroism which at once sealed
his doom, and crowned him with the glory of THE APOSTOLIC PROTO-MARTYR.




                                 JOHN;
                          THE SON OF ZEBEDEE.


                            HIS CHARACTER.

THIS other son of Zebedee and of “thunder,” whenever any description
of the apostles has been given, has been by most religious writers
generally characterized as a mild, amiable person, and is thus figured
in strong contrast with the bold and often bitter spirit of Peter. The
circumstance that he is described as “the disciple whom Jesus loved,”
has doubtless done much to cause the almost universal impression which
has prevailed, as to the meekness of his disposition. But this is
certainly without just reason; for there is no ground for supposing
that any peculiar softness was essential to the formation of the
character for which the Redeemer could feel a strong affection. On the
contrary, the almost universal behavior of the apostolic band, seems to
show that the natural characteristics which he marked as betraying in
them the deeper qualities that would best fit them for his service, and
qualify them as the sharers of his intimate instruction and affection,
were more decidedly of the stern and fiery order, than of the meek
and gentle. Nor is there any circumstance recorded of John, whether
authentic or fabulous, that can justify the supposition that he was an
exception to these general, natural characteristics of the apostles;
but instances sufficiently numerous are given in the gospels, to make
it clear, that he was not altogether the soft and gentle creature, that
has been commonly presented as his true image.

It has been commonly supposed that he was the youngest of all the
apostles; nor is there any reason to disbelieve an opinion harmonizing,
as this does, with all that is recorded of him in the New Testament, as
well as with the undivided voices of all tradition. That he was younger
than James, may be reasonably concluded from the circumstance that he
is always mentioned after him, though his importance in the history
of the foundation of the Christian faith might seem to justify an
inversion of this order; and in the life of James, it has already been
represented as probable, that he too must have been quite young, being
the son of a father who was still so much in the freshness of his vigor,
as to endure the toils of a peculiarly laborious and dangerous business.
On this point, also, the opinion even of tradition is entitled to
some respect, on the ground taken by an author quoted in the life of
Peter,――that though we consider tradition as a notorious liar, yet
we may give some attention to its reports, because even a liar may
sometimes speak the truth, where he has no object in deceiving us.

  _The youngest of the disciples._――All that can be said on this
  opinion is, that it is possible, and if the testimony of the
  Fathers were worth the slightest consideration on any historical
  question concerning the apostles, it might be called even
  probable; but no early writer alludes to his age at all, till
  Jerome, who very decidedly calls John, “the youngest of all
  the apostles.” Several later Fathers make the same assertion,
  but the voice of antiquity has already been shown to be worth
  very little, when it is not heard within three centuries of the
  events on which it offers its testimony. But at any rate the
  assertion of John’s juniority is not improbable.

  A great deal of violent discussion has been lavished on the
  almost equally important question, whether John was ever married.
  The earliest established testimony on this point is that of
  Tertullian, who numbers John among those who had restrained
  themselves from matrimony for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
  Testimony as late as the third century, however, on an opinion
  which favored monastic views, is worth nothing. But on the
  strength of this, many Fathers have made great use of John, as
  an instance of celibacy, accordant with monastic principles.
  Epiphanius, Jerome and Augustin allude frequently to the
  circumstance, the latter Father in particular insisting that
  John was engaged to be married when he was called, but gave up
  the lady, to follow Jesus. Some ingenious modern theologians
  have even improved upon this so far as to maintain that the
  marriage of Cana in Galilee was that of John, but that he
  immediately left his wife after the miracle. (See Lampe,
  Prolegomena, I. i. 13, notes.)


                       HIS FAMILY AND BUSINESS.

The authentic history of the life of this apostle must also necessarily
be very brief; most of the prominent incidents which concern him,
having already been abundantly described in the preceding lives.
But there are particulars which have not been so fully entered into,
some of which concern this apostle exclusively, while in others he is
mentioned only in conjunction with his brother and friends; and these
may all, with great propriety, be more fully given in this life, since
his eminence, his writings, and long protracted labors, make him a
proper subject for a minute disquisition.

Being the son of Zebedee and Salome, as has already been mentioned in
the life of his brother, he shared in the low fortunes and laborious
life of a fisherman, on the lake of Gennesaret. This occupation indeed,
did not necessarily imply the very lowest rank in society, as is
evident from the fact that the Jews held no useful occupation to be
beneath the dignity of a respectable person, or even a learned man.
Still the nature of their business was such, as to render it improbable
that they had adopted it with any other view than that of maintaining
themselves by it, or of enlarging their property, though perhaps not of
earning a support which they had no other means whatever of procuring.
It has been said, that doubtless, there were many other inhabitants of
the shores of the lake, who occasionally occupied themselves in fishing,
and yet were by no means obliged to employ themselves constantly in
that avocation. But the brief statement of circumstances in the gospels
is enough to show that such an equipage of boats and nets, and such
steady employment all night, were not indicative of anything else than
a regular devotion of time to it, in the way of business. Yet that
Zebedee was not a man in very low circumstances, as to property, is
quite manifest from Mark’s statement, that when they were called,
they left their father in the vessel, along with the “servants,” or
workmen,――which implies that they carried on their fishing operations,
on so extended a scale, as to have a number of men in their service,
and probably had a vessel of considerable size, since it needed such a
plurality of hands to manage it, and use the apparatus of the business
to advantage; a circumstance in which their condition seems to have
been somewhat superior to that of Peter and Andrew, of whom no such
particulars are specified,――all accounts representing them as alone,
in a small vessel, which they were able to manage of themselves.
The possession of some family estate is also implied, in numerous
incidental allusions in the gospels; as in the fact that their mother
Salome was one of those women who followed Jesus and “ministered to him
of their substance” or possessions. She is also specified among those
women who brought precious spices for embalming the body of Jesus. John
is also mentioned in his own gospel, as having a house of his own, in
which he generously supported the mother of Jesus, as if he himself had
been her son, throughout the remainder of her life; an act of friendly
and pious kindness to which he would not have been competent, without
the possession of some property in addition to the house.


                            HIS EDUCATION.

There is reason to suppose, that in accordance with the established
principles of parental duty among the Jews, he had learned the
rudiments of the knowledge of the Mosaic law; for a proverbial sentence
of the religious teachers of the nation, ranked among the vilest of
mankind, that Jew, who suffered a son to grow up without being educated
in the first principles, at least, of his national religion. But that
his knowledge, at the time when he first became a disciple of Jesus,
extended beyond a barely respectable degree of information on religious
matters, there is no ground for believing; and though there is nothing
which directly contradicts the idea that he may have known the alphabet,
or have made some trifling advances in literary knowledge,――yet the
manner in which he, together with Peter, was spoken of by the proud
members of the Sanhedrim, seems to imply that they did not pretend to
any knowledge whatever of literature. And the terms in which both Jesus
and his disciples are constantly alluded to by the learned scribes
and Pharisees, seem to show that they were all considered as utterly
destitute of literary education, though, by reason of that very
ignorance, they were objects of the greatest wonder to all who saw
their striking displays of a religious knowledge, utterly unaccountable
by a reference to anything that was known of their means of arriving
at such intellectual eminence. Indeed, there seems to have been a
distinct design on the part of Christ, to select for his great purpose,
men whose minds were wholly free from that pride of opinion and learned
arrogance, almost inseparable from the constitutions of those who
had been regularly trained in the subtleties of a slavish system
of theology and law. He did not seek among the trained and drilled
scholars of the formal routine of Jewish dogmatism, for the instruments
of regenerating a people and a world,――but among the bold, active, and
intelligent, yet uneducated Galileans, whose provincial peculiarities
and rudeness, moreover, in a high degree incapacitated them from taking
rank among the polished scholars of the Jewish capital. Thus was it,
that on the followers of Christ, could never he put the stigma of mere
theological disputants; and all the gifts of knowledge, and the graces
of mental power, which they displayed under his divine teachings,
were totally free from the slightest suspicion of any other than a
miraculous origin. Some have, indeed, attempted to conjecture, from the
alleged elegance of John’s style in his gospel and epistles, that he
had early received a finished education, in some one of the provincial
Jewish colleges; and have even gone so far as to suggest, that probably
Jairus, “the ruler of the synagogue” in Capernaum, or more properly,
“the head of the school of the law,” had been his instructor,――a guess
of most remarkable profundity, but one that, besides lacking all sort
of evidence or probability, is furthermore made totally unnecessary,
by the indubitable fact, that no signs of any such perfection of
style are noticeable in any of the writings of John, so as to require
any elaborate hypothesis of this kind to explain them. The greatest
probability is, that all his knowledge, both of Hebrew literature and
the Greek language, was acquired after the beginning of his apostolic
course.


                               HIS NAME.

The Jews were accustomed, like most of the ancient nations of the east,
to confer upon their children significant names, which were made to
refer to some circumstance connected with the person’s prospects, or
the hopes of his parents respecting him. In their son’s name, probably
Zebedee and Salome designed to express some idea auspicious of his
progress and character in after life. The name “John,” is not only
common in the New Testament, but also occurs in the Hebrew scriptures
in the original form “Johanan,” which bears the happy signification
of “the favor of Jehovah,” or, “favored by Jehovah.” They probably
had this meaning in mind when they gave the name to him, and on that
account preferred it to one of less hopeful religious character; but
to suppose, as some commentators have, that in conferring it, they were
indued with a prophetic spirit, which for the moment directed them to
the choice of an appellation expressive of the high destiny of a chosen,
favored herald of the grace of God, to Israel and to the Gentiles,――is
a conjecture too absurdly wild to be entertained by a sober and
discreet critic for a moment. Yet there are some, who, in the rage for
finding a deep meaning in the simplest matters, interpret this simple,
common name, as prophetically expressive of the beginning of the reign
of grace, and of the abrogation of the formal law of Moses, first
announced by John the Baptist, whose testimony was first fully recorded
in the gospel of John the Apostle. Such idle speculations, however,
serve no useful purpose, and only bring suspicion upon more rational
investigations in the same department.


                      HIS CALL AND DISCIPLESHIP.

The first introduction of John to Jesus, appears to be distinctly,
though modestly, described by himself, in the first chapter of his
gospel, where he has evidently designated himself in the third person,
as “the other disciple” of John the Baptist, who accompanied Andrew
on his first visit to Jesus. After this introduction above narrated,
he seems to have remained near the newly found Messiah for some days,
being of course, included among those disciples who were present at
the marriage in Cana. He appears to have returned, soon after, to
his avocation on the lake, where he, for some time, appears to have
followed the business in which he had been brought up, till the word
of his already adopted Master came to summon him to the actual duties
of the discipleship. On the journeys that followed this call, he was
engaged in no act of importance, in which he was not also associated
with those disciples, in whose lives these incidents have been already
fully described. On one occasion however, a solitary instance is
recorded by Luke, of a remark made by John, during a conversation which
took place in Capernaum, after the return from the mission through
Galilee, and not long before the great journey to Jerusalem. It seems
to have been at the time when Jesus was inculcating a child-like
simplicity, as an essential characteristic of his followers; and
the remark of John is, both by Mark and Luke, prefaced with the
words,――“and John answered and said,”――though no very clear connection
can be traced between what he said and the preceding words of Jesus.
The passage however is interesting, as showing that John was not always
most discreet in his regard for the peculiar honors of his Master,――and
in the case which he refers to, had in his restrictive zeal, quite gone
beyond the rules of action, by which Jesus expected him to be guided.
The remark of John on this occasion was,――“Master, we saw one casting
out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not
with us.” This confession betrays a spirit still strongly under the
influence of worldly feelings, manifesting a perfectly natural emotion
of jealousy, at the thought of any intrusion, upon what he deemed the
peculiar and exclusive privilege of himself and his eleven associates
in the fellowship of Christ. The high commission of subduing the malign
agencies of the demoniac powers, had been specially conferred on the
elect twelve, when they first went forth on the apostolic errand. This
divine power, John had supposed utterly above the reach of common men,
and it was therefore with no small surprise, and moreover with some
indignant jealousy, that he saw a nameless person, not enrolled in the
sacred band, nor even pretending to follow in any part of their train,
boldly and successfully using the name of Jesus Christ, as a charm to
silence the powers of darkness, and to free the victims of their evil
influences. This sort of feeling was not peculiar to John, but occurs
wherever there arises a similar occasion to suggest it. It has been
rife among the religious, as well as the worldly, in all ages; and not
a month now passes when it is not openly manifested, marring by its low
influences, the noblest schemes of Christian benevolence, as well as
checking the advances of human ambition. So many there are who, though
imbued in some degree with the high spirit of apostolic devotion, yet,
when they have marked some great field of benevolence for their efforts,
are apt to regard it as their own peculiar province, and are disposed
to view any action in that department of exertion as an intrusion and
an encroachment on their natural rights. This feeling is the worst
characteristic of ultra-sectarianism,――a spirit which would “compass
sea and land,” not merely “to gain one proselyte,” but also to hinder
a religious rival from the attainment of a similar purpose,――a spirit
which in its modes of manifestation, and in its results, is nearer to
that of the demon it aspires to expel, than to that of Him in whose
name it professes to work. But that such was not the spirit of Him
who went about doing good, is seen in the mild, yet earnest reply
with which he met the manifestation of this haughty and jealous
exclusiveness in his beloved disciple. “Forbid him not; for there is
no man who can do a miracle in my name, who will lightly speak evil of
me. For he who is not against us is on our part.” And then referring
to the previous train of his discourse, he went on to say,――“For he who
shall give you a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ,
I tell you, indeed, he shall not lose his reward.” So simple were the
means of manifesting a true regard for Christ, and so moderate were the
services which would constitute a claim to his remembrance, and to a
participation in the rights of his ministry. If the act of kindness or
of apostolic ministration had been done in his name, and had answered
its good purpose, this was enough to show that he who performed it was
such a friend as, so far from speaking evil of Jesus, would insure the
best glory of his name, though he had not attached himself in manner
and form to the train of regular disciples. Jesus Christ did not
require a formal profession of regular discipleship, as essential to
the right of doing good in his name, or to the surety of a high and
pure reward. How many are there among his professed followers in these
times, who are “able to receive this saying?” There are few indeed, who,
hearing it on any authority but his, would not feel disposed to reject
it, at once, as a grievous heresy. Yet such was, unquestionably, the
spirit, the word, and the practice of Jesus. It was enough for him to
know that the weight of human woe, which called him forth on his errand
of mercy, was lightened; and that the spirit before darkened and bound
down by the powers of evil, was now brought out into glorious light
and freedom. Most earnestly did he declare this solemn principle of
catholic communion; and most distinctly did he reiterate it in a varied
form. The simplest act of kindness done to the commissioned of Christ,
would, of itself, constitute a certain claim to his divine favor. But,
on the other hand, the least wilful injury of one sent forth from him,
would at once insure the ruin of the perpetrator.

Soon after this solemn inculcation of universal charity, Jesus began
to prepare his disciples for their great journey to Jerusalem; and
at last having completed his preliminary arrangements, he went on his
way, sending forward messengers, (James and John, as it would seem,)
to secure a comfortable stopping-place, at a Samaritan village which
lay on his road. These select emissaries accordingly proceeded in the
execution of their honorable commission, and entering the village,
announced to the inhabitants the approach of the far-famed Galilean
prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, who, being then on his way to attend the
great annual feast in Jerusalem, would that night deign to honor their
village with his divine presence;――all which appears to have been
communicated by the two messengers, with a full sense of the importance
of their commission, as well as of the dignity of him whose approach
they announced. But the sturdy Samaritans had not yet forgotten the
rigid principles of mutual exclusiveness, which had so long been
maintained between them and the Jews, with all the combined bitterness
of a national and a religious quarrel; and so they doggedly refused
to open their doors in hospitality to one whose “face was as though
he would go to Jerusalem.” At this manifestation of sectarian and
sectional bitterness, the wrath of the messengers knew no bounds, and
reporting their inhospitable and scornful rejection to Jesus, the two
Boanerges, with a spirit quite literally accordant with their surname,
inquired, “Lord! wilt thou that we command fire to come down from
heaven, and consume them as Elijah did?” The stern prophet of the days
of Ahaziah, had called down fire from heaven to the destruction of
two successive bands of the insolent myrmidons of the Samaritan king;
and might not the wonder-doing Son of Man, with equal vindictiveness,
commission his faithful followers to invoke the thunder on the
inhospitable sectaries of the modern Samaritan race? But however this
sort of summary justice might suit the wrathful piety of James and
his “amiably gentle” brother, it was by Jesus deemed the offspring of
a spirit too far from the forgiving benevolence of his gospel, to be
passed by, unrebuked. He therefore turned reprovingly to these fierce
“Sons of Thunder,” with the reply,――“Ye know not what manner of spirit
ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but
to save them.” And thus silencing their forward, destructive zeal, he
quietly turned aside from the inhospitable sectarians who had refused
him admission, and found entertainment in another village, where the
inhabitants were free from such notions of religious exclusiveness.

  So idolatrous was the reference with which many of the Fathers
  and ancient theologians were accustomed to regard the apostles,
  that they would not allow that these chosen ones of Christ ever
  committed any sin whatever; at least, none after their calling
  to be disciples. Accordingly, the most ridiculous attempts have
  been made to justify or excuse the faults and errors of those
  apostles, who are mentioned in the New Testament as having
  committed any act contrary to the received standards of right.
  Among other circumstances, even Peter’s perjured denial of his
  Lord, has found stubborn defenders and apologists; and among
  the saintly commentators of both Papist and Protestant faiths,
  have been found some to stand up for the immaculate soundness of
  James and John, in this act of wicked and foolish zeal. Ambrose
  of Milan, in commenting on this passage, must needs maintain
  that their ferocity was in accordance with approved instances
  of a similar character in the Old Testament. “Nec discipuli
  peccant,” says he, “qui legem sequuntur;” and he then refers to
  the instance of extemporaneous vindictive justice in Phineas,
  as well as to that of Elijah, which was quoted by the sons of
  Zebedee themselves. He argues, that, since the apostles were
  indued with the same high privileges as the prophets, they
  were in this instance abundantly justified in appealing to such
  authority for similar acts of vengeance. He observes, moreover,
  that this presumption was still farther justified in them, by
  the name which they had received from Jesus; “being ‘sons of
  _thunder_,’ they might fairly suppose that fire would come down
  from heaven at their word.” But Lampe very properly remarks,
  that the prophets were clearly moved to these acts of wrathful
  justice, by the Holy Spirit, and thereby also, were justified in
  a vindictiveness, which might otherwise be pronounced cruel and
  bloody. The evidence of this spirit-guidance, those old prophets
  had, in the instantaneous fiery answer from heaven, to their
  denunciatory prayer; but on the other hand, in this case, the
  words of Jesus in reply to the Sons of Thunder, show that they
  were not actuated by _a_ holy spirit, nor by _the_ Holy Spirit,
  for he says to them, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are
  of,”――which certainly implies that they were altogether mistaken
  in supposing that the spirit and power of Elijah rested on
  them, to authorize such wide-wasting and indiscriminate ruin
  of innocent and guilty,――women and children, as well as men,
  inhabiting the village; and he rebukes and condemns their
  conduct for the very reason that it was the result of an
  _un_holy and sinful spirit.

  Yet, not only the Romish Ambrose, but also the Protestant
  Calvin, has, in his idolatrous reverence for the infallibility
  of the apostles, (an idolatry hardly less unchristian than the
  saint-worship against which _he_ strove,) thought it necessary
  to condemn and rebuke Maldonado, as guilty of a detestable
  presumption, in declaring the sons of Zebedee to have been
  lifted up with a foolish arrogance. On the arguments by which
  Calvin justifies James and John, Lampe well remarks, that the
  great reformer uses a truly Jesuitical weapon, (propria vineta
  caedit Loyolita,) when he says that “they desired vengeance
  not for themselves, but for Christ; and were not led into error
  by any _fault_, but merely by _ignorance_ of the spirit of the
  gospel and of Christ.” But was not this ignorance itself a sin,
  showing itself thus in the very face of all the oft-repeated
  admonitions of Jesus against this bloody spirit, even in _his_
  or _any_ cause? and of all his inculcations of a universal rule
  of forbearance and forgiveness?

John is not mentioned again in the gospel history, until near the
close of the Savior’s labors, when he was about to prepare his twelve
chosen ones, for the great change which awaited their condition, by
long and earnest instruction, and by prayer. In making the preliminary
arrangements for this final meeting, John was sent along with Peter,
to see that a place was provided for the entertainment. After this
commission had been satisfactorily executed, they joined with Jesus and
the rest of the twelve disciples in the Paschal feast, each taking a
high place at the board, and John in particular reclining next to Jesus.
As a testimony of the intimate affection between them, it is recorded
by this apostle himself in his gospel, that during the feast he lay
on Jesus’s breast,――a position which, though very awkward, and even
impossible, in the modern style of conducting feasts in the sitting
posture, was yet rendered both easy and natural, in the ancient mode,
both Oriental and Roman, of reclining on couches around the table.
Under these circumstances, those sharing the same part of the couch,
whose feelings of affection led them most readily together,――such a
position as that described by John, would occur very naturally and
gracefully. It here, in connection with John’s own artless, but
expressive sentence, mentioning himself as the disciple whom Jesus
loved, presents to the least imaginative mind, a most beautifully
striking picture of the state of feeling between the young disciple and
his Lord,――showing how closely their spirits were drawn together, in an
affection of the most sacred and interesting character, far surpassing
the paternal and filial relation in the high and pure nature of
the feeling, because wholly removed from the mere _animalities_ and
instincts that form and modify so much of all natural love. The regard
between these two beings was by no means essentially dependent on
any striking similarity of mind or feeling. John had very little of
that mild and gentle temperament which so decidedly characterized
the Redeemer;――he had none of that spirit of meekness and forgiveness
which Jesus so often and earnestly inculcated; but a fierce, fiery,
thundering zeal, arising from a temperament, ardent alike in anger and
in love. Nor was such a character at all discordant with the generality
of those for whom Jesus seemed to feel a decided preference. There is
no one among the apostolic band, whether Galilean or Hellenistic, of
whose characters any definite idea is given, that does not seem to
be marked most decidedly by the fiercer and harsher traits. Yet like
those of all children of nature, the same hearts seem to glow, upon
occasion, as readily with affectionate as with wrathful feeling, both,
in many instances, combining in their affection for Jesus. The whole
gospel record, as far as the twelve disciples are concerned, is a most
satisfactory comment on the characteristics ascribed by Josephus to
the whole Galilean race,――“ardent and fierce.” And this was the very
temperament which recommended them before all men in the world, for the
great work of laying the deep foundations of the Christian faith, amid
opposition, hatred, confusion, and blood. And among these wild, but
ardent dispositions, did even the mild spirit of the Redeemer find much
that was congenial to its frame, as well as its purposes; for in them,
his searching eye recognized faculties which, turned from the base ends
of worldly strife and low, brawling contest, might be exalted, by a
mere modification, and not eradication, to the great works of divine
benevolence. The same temperament that once led the ardent Galileans
into selfish quarrels, under the regenerating influences of a holy
spirit, might be trained to a high devoted self-sacrifice for the good
of others; and the valor which once led them to disregard danger and
death in spiteful enmity, could, after an assimilation to the spirit of
Jesus, be made equally energetic in the dangerous labors of the cause
of universal love. Such is most clearly the spirit of the Galilean
disciples, as far as any character can be recognized in the brief,
artless sketches, incidentally given of them in the New Testament
history. Nor is there any good reason to mark John as an exception
to these harsher attributes. The idea, now so very common, of his
softness and amiability, seems to have grown almost entirely out of the
circumstance, that he was “the disciple whom Jesus loved;” as if the
high spirit of the Redeemer could feel no sympathy with such traits as
bravery, fierce energy, or even aspiring ambition. Tempted originally
by the great source of evil, yet without sin, he himself knew by what
spiritual revolutions the impulses which once led only to evil, could
be made the guides to truth and love, and could see, even in the worst
manifestations of that fiery ardor, the disguised germ of a holy zeal,
which, under his long, anxious, prayerful care and cultivation, would
become a tree of life, bringing forth fruits of good for nations.
Even in these low, depraved mortals, therefore, he could find much to
love,――nor is the circumstance of his affectionate regard, in itself,
any proof that John was deficient in the most striking characteristics
of his countrymen; and that he was not so, there is proof positive and
unquestionable in those details of his own and his brother’s conduct,
already given.

At this Paschal feast, lying, as described, on the bosom of Jesus, he
passed the parting hours in most intimate communion with his already
doomed Lord. And so close was their proximity, and so peculiarly
favored was he, by the confidential conversation of Jesus, that when
all the disciples were moved with painful doubt and surprise at the
mysterious annunciation that there was a traitor among them, Peter
himself, trusting more to the opportunities of John than to his own,
made a sign to him to put to his Master a question, to which he would
be more likely to receive an answer than anybody else. The beloved
disciple, therefore, looking up from the bosom of Jesus, into his
face, with the confidence of familiar affection, asked him, “Who is
it, Lord?” And to his eager inquiry, was vouchsafed at once a most
unhesitating and satisfactory reply, marking out, in the most definite
manner, the person intended by his former dark allusion.

After the scenes of Gethsemane, when the alarmed disciples fled from
their captured Master, to avoid the same fate, John also shared in the
race; but on becoming assured that no pursuit of the secondary members
of the party was intended, he quietly walked back after the armed
train, keeping, moreover, close to them, as appears by his arriving
at the palace gate along with them, and entering with the rest. On his
way, in the darkness, he fell in with his friend Peter, also anxiously
following the train, to learn the fate of his Master. John now proved
of great advantage to Peter; for, having some acquaintance with the
high priest’s family, he might expect admission to the hall without
difficulty. This incident is recorded only by John himself, in his
gospel, where, in relating it, he refers to himself in the third person,
as “another disciple,” according to his usual modest circumlocution.
John, somehow or other, was well and favorably known to the high
priest himself, for a very mysterious reason; but certainly the most
unaccountable point in Bible history is this:――how could a faithful
follower of the persecuted and hated Jesus, be thus familiar and
friendly in the family of the most powerful and vindictive of the
Jewish magnates? Nor can the difficulty be any way relieved, by
supposing the expression, “another disciple” to refer to a person
different from John; for all the disciples of Jesus would be equally
unlikely persons for the intimacy of the Jewish high priest. Whatever
might be the reason of this acquaintance, John was well-known
throughout the family of the high priest, as a person high in favor
and familiarity with that great dignitary; so that a single word from
him to the portress, was sufficient to procure the admission of Peter
also, who had stood without, not daring to enter as his brother apostle
did, not having any warrant to do so on the ground of familiarity. Of
the conduct of John during the trial of Jesus, or after it, no account
whatever is given,――nor is he noticed in either of the gospels except
his own, as present during any of these sad events; but by his story
it appears, that, in the hour of darkness and horror, he stood by the
cross of his beloved Lord, with those women who had been the constant
servants of Jesus during life, and were now faithful, even through his
death. Among these women was the mother of the Redeemer, who now stood
in the most desolate agony, by the cross of her murdered son, without
a home left in the world, or a person to whom she had a natural right
to look for support. Just before the last agony, Jesus turned to
the mournful group, and seeing his mother near the disciple whom he
loved, he said, “Woman! behold thy son!” And then to John, “Behold thy
mother!” The simple words were sufficient, without a gesture; for the
nailed and motionless hands of Jesus could not point out to each, the
person intended as the object of parental or filial regard. Nor was
this commission, thus solemnly and affectingly given, neglected; for,
as the same disciple himself assures us, “from that hour, he took her
to his own house.” The highest token of affection and confidence that
the Redeemer could confer, was this,――marking, as it did, a most
pre-eminent regard, by committing to his charge a trust, that might
with so much propriety have been committed to others of the twelve who
were very nearly related to the mother of Jesus, being her own nephews,
the sons of her sister. But so high was the confidence of Jesus in
the sincerity of John’s affection, that he unhesitatingly committed to
him this dearest earthly charge, trusting to his love for its keeping,
rather than to the considerations of family, and of near relationship.

In the scenes of the resurrection, John is distinguished by the
circumstance of his hurrying first, along with Peter, to the sepulcher,
on hearing from the women the strange story of what had happened;
and both hastening in the most intense anxiety to learn the nature of
the occurrences which had so alarmed the women, the nimbleness of the
youthful John soon carried him beyond Peter, and outstripping him in
the anxious race, he came down to the sepulcher before him, and there
stood, breathless, looking down into the place of the dead, in vain,
for any trace of its late precious deposit. While he was thus glancing
into the place, Peter came up, and with a much more considerate zeal,
determined on a satisfactory search, and accordingly went down into
the tomb himself, and narrowly searched all parts; and John, after his
report, also then descended to assure himself that Peter had not been
deceived by a too superficial examination of the inside. But having
gone down into the tomb, and seen for himself the grave-clothes lying
carefully rolled up, but no signs whatever of the body that had once
occupied them, he also believed the report of the women, that the
remains of Jesus had been stolen away in the night, probably by some
ill-disposed persons, for an evil purpose, and perhaps to complete
the bloody triumph of the Jews, by denying the body so honorable an
interment as the wealthy Joseph had charitably given it. In distress
and sorrowful doubt, therefore, he returned with Peter to his own house,
without the slightest idea of the nature of the abstraction.

The next account of John is in that interesting scene, described in
the last chapter of his own gospel, on the lake of Galilee, where Jesus
met the seven disciples who went on the fishing excursion by night,
as already detailed in the life of Simon Peter, who was the first to
propose the thing, and who, in the scenes of the morning, acted the
most conspicuous part. The only passage which immediately concerns
John, is the concluding one, where the prophecy of Jesus is recorded
respecting the future destiny of this beloved disciple. Peter, having
heard his Master’s prophecy of the mode in which he should conclude
his life, hoping to pry still farther into futurity, asked what
would be the fate of John also. “Lord, what shall this man do?” which
Jesus replied, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that
to thee?”――an answer evidently meant to check his curiosity, without
gratifying it in the least; as John himself, remarking on the fact,
that this saying originated an unfounded story, that Jesus had promised
him that he should never die,――says that Jesus never specified any such
thing, but merely said those few unsatisfactory words in reply to Peter.
The words, “_till I come_,” referred simply to the time when Christ
should come in judgment on Jerusalem, for that unquestionably was the
“coming,” of which he had so often warned them, as an event for which
they must be prepared; and it was partly from a misinterpretation
of these words, by applying them to the final judgment, that the
idle notion of John’s immortality arose. John probably surviving the
other apostles many years, and living to a very great age, the second
generation of Christians conceived the idea of interpreting this remark
of Jesus as a prophecy that his beloved disciple should never die. And
John, in his gospel, knowing that this erroneous opinion was prevalent,
took pains to specify the exact words of Jesus, showing that they
implied no direct prophecy whatever, nor in any way alluded to the
possibility of his immortality. After the ascension, John is mentioned
along with the rest who were in the upper room, and is otherwise
particularized on several occasions, in the Acts of the Apostles. He
was the companion of Peter in the temple, at the healing of the lame
man, and was evidently considered by the chief apostle, a sharer in
the honors of the miracle; nor were the Sanhedrim disposed to deem
him otherwise than criminally responsible for the act, but doomed him,
along with Peter, to the dungeon. He is also honorably distinguished
by being deputed with Peter to visit the new church in Samaria, where
he united with him in imparting the confirming seal of the spirit to
the new converts,――and on the journey back to Jerusalem, preached the
gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.

From this time no mention whatever is made of John in the Acts of the
Apostles; and the few remaining facts concerning him, which can be
derived from the New Testament, are such only as occur incidentally in
the epistolary writings of the apostles. Paul makes a single allusion
to him, in his epistle to the Galatians, where, speaking of his
reception by the apostles on his second visit to Jerusalem, he mentions
James, Cephas and _John_, as “pillars” in the church, and says that
they all gave him the right hand of fellowship. This little incidental
allusion, though so brief, is worth recording, since it shows that John
still resided in Jerusalem, and there still maintained his eminence and
his usefulness, standing like a pillar, with Cephas and James, rising
high above the many, and upholding the bright fabric of a pure faith.
This is the only mention ever made of him in the epistles of Paul,
nor do any of the remaining writings of the New Testament contain
any notice whatever of John, except those which bear his own name.
But as these must all be referred to a later period, they may be left
unnoticed until some account has been given of the intervening portions
of his long life. Here then the course of investigation must leave the
sure path of scripture testimony, and lead on through the mazy windings
of traditionary history, among the baseless records of the Fathers.

  _Pillars._――This was an expressive figurative appellation, taken
  no doubt, with direct allusion to the noble white columns of
  the porches of the temple, subserving in so high a degree the
  purposes both of use and ornament. The term implies with great
  force, an exalted excellence in these three main supporters
  of the first Christian church, and besides expressing the idea
  of those eminent virtues which belonged to them in common with
  other distinguished teachers of religion, it is thought by Lampe,
  that there is implied in this connection, something peculiarly
  appropriate to these apostles. Among the uses to which columns
  were applied by Egyptians, Jews, Greeks and Romans, was that of
  bearing inscriptions connected with public ordinances of state
  or religion, and of commemorating facts in science for the
  knowledge of other generations. To this use, allusion seems to
  be made in Proverbs ix. 1. “Wisdom has built her house,――she
  has _engraved_ her seven pillars.” And in Revelation iii. 12,
  a still more unquestionable reference is made to the same
  circumstance. “Him that overcomes, will I make a _pillar_ in the
  temple of my God, and he shall go no more out; and I will write
  upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God,
  the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from God,――and
  my own new name;”――a passage which Grotius illustrates by a
  reference to this very use of pillars for inscriptions. It is
  in connection with this idea, that Lampe considers the term
  as peculiarly expressive in its application to “James, Cephas
  and John,” since from them, in common with all the apostles,
  proceeded the oracles of Christian truth, and those principles
  of doctrine and practice, which were acknowledged as the rule
  of faith, by the churches of the new covenant. To these three,
  moreover, belonged some peculiar attributes of this character,
  since they distinguished themselves above the most of the twelve,
  by their written epistolary charges, as well as by the general
  pre-eminence accorded to them by common consent, leaving to them
  the utterance of those apostolic opinions, which went forth from
  Jerusalem as law for the Christian churches.

  Lampe quotes on this point Vitringa, (Sacred Observations, I.
  iii. 7,) Suicer, (Church Thesaurus voc. στυλος,) and Gataker,
  (Cinnus, ii. 20.) He refers also to Jerome, commenting on
  Galatians ii. 9; who there alludes to the fact that John, one of
  the “pillars,” in his Revelation, introduces the Savior speaking
  as above quoted. (Revelation iii. 12.)


                       THE RESULTS OF TRADITION.

Probably there are few results of historical investigation, that will
make a more decided impression of disappointment on the mind of a
common reader, than the sentence, which a rigid examination compels
the writer to pass, with almost uniform condemnatory severity, on all
apostolic stories which are not sanctioned by the word of inspiration.
There is a universal curiosity, natural, and not uncommendable, felt
by all the believers and hearers of the faith which the apostles
preached, to know something more about these noble first witnesses
of the truth, than the bare broken and unconnected details which the
gospel, and the apostolic acts can furnish. At this day, the most
trifling circumstances connected with them,――their actions, their
dwelling-places, their lives or their deaths, have a value vastly above
what could ever have been appreciated by those of their own time, who
acted, dwelt, lived, and died with them,――a value increasing through
the course of ages, in a regular progression, rising as it removes from
the objects to which it refers. But the very course of this progression
implies a diminution of the means of obtaining the desired information,
proportioned to the increase of the demand for it;――and along with
this condition of things, the all-pervading and ever-active spirit
of invention comes in, to quench, with deep draughts of delightful
falsehood, the honest thirst for literal truth. The misfortune of this
constitution of circumstances, being that the want is not felt till the
means of supplying it are irrecoverably gone, puts the investigation of
the minutiae of all antiquity, sacred or profane, upon a very uncertain
ground, and requires the most critical test for every assertion,
offered to satisfy a curiosity which, for the sake of the pleasure
thus derived, feels interested in deceiving itself; for

                 “Doubtless the pleasure is as great
                  Of being cheated as to cheat.”

Even the spirit of deep curiosity which beguiles the historical
inquirer into a love of the fabulous and unfounded tales of tradition,
though specifically more elevated by its intellectual character, is yet
generically the same with the spirit of superstitious credulity, that
leads the miserable Papist to bow down with idolatrous worship before
the ridiculous trash, called relics, which are presented to him by
the consecrated impostors who minister to him in holy things; and the
feeling of indignant horror with which he repulses the Protestant zeal,
that would rob his spirit of the comfortable support afforded by the
possession of an apostolical toe-nail, a lock of a saint’s hair, or by
the sight of the Savior’s handkerchief, or of a drop of his blood,――is
all perfectly kindred to that indignant regret with which even a
reformed reader regards all these critical assaults upon agreeable
historical delusions,――and to that stubborn attachment with which he
often clings to antique falsehood. Yet the pure consolations of the
truth, known by research and judgment, are so far above these baser
enjoyments, that the exchange of fiction, for historical knowledge,
though merely of a negative kind, becomes most desirable even to an
uncritical mind.

The sweeping sentence of condemnation against all traditionary stories,
may, however, be subjected to some decided exceptions in the case
of John, who, living much longer than any other of the apostles,
would thus be much more widely and lastingly known than they, to the
Christians of the first and second generations after the immediate
contemporaries of the twelve. On this account the stories about John
come with much higher traditionary authority, than those which pretend
to give accounts of any other apostle; and this view is still further
confirmed by the character of most of the stories themselves; which are
certainly much less absurd and vastly more probable in their appearance,
than the great mass of apostolic traditions. Indeed, in respect to
this apostle, may be said, what can _not_ be said of any other, that
some tolerably well-authorized, and a very few decidedly authentic,
statements of his later life, may be derived from passages in the
_genuine_ writings of the early Fathers.


                       HIS JUDAICAL OBSERVANCES.

The first point in John’s history, on which the authentic testimony of
the Fathers is offered to illustrate his life, after the Acts of the
Apostles cease to mention him, is, that during the difficulties between
the weak-minded, Judaizing Christians, and those of a freer spirit who
advocated an open communion with those Gentile brethren that did not
conform to the Mosaic ritual, he, with Peter, and more particularly
with James, joined in recommending a compromise with the inveterate
prejudices of the Jewish believers; and to the end of his life, though
constantly brought in contact with Gentiles, he himself still continued,
in all legal and ritual observances, a Jew. A striking and probable
instance of this adherence to Judaism, is given in the circumstance,
that he always kept the fourteenth day of March as holy time, in
conformity with one of the most common of the religious usages in
which he had been brought up; and the respect with which he regarded
this observance is strongly expressed in the fact that he countenanced
and encouraged it, also, in his disciples, some of whom preserving it
throughout life as he did, brought down the notice of the occurrence
to those days when the extinction of almost all the Judaical part of
primitive Christianity made such a peculiarity very remarkable. This,
though a small, is a highly valuable incident in the history of John,
containing a proof of the strong affection which he always retained
for the religion of his fathers,――a feeling which deserves the highest
commendation, accompanied as it was, by a most catholic spirit towards
those Gentile Christians who could not bear a yoke, which education and
long habit alone made more tolerable to him.

  _With Peter and James._――The authority for this is Irenaeus,
  (A. D. 150‒170,) who says, “Those apostles who were with James,
  permitted the Gentiles indeed to act freely, leaving us to the
  _spirit_ of God. They themselves, too, knowing the same God,
  persevered in their ancient observances. * * * Thus the apostles
  whom the Lord made witnesses of his whole conduct and his whole
  teaching, (for every where are found standing together with him,
  Peter, James and JOHN,) religiously devoted themselves to the
  observance of the _law_, which is by Moses, thus acknowledging
  both [the law and the spirit] to be from one and the same God.”
  (Irenaeus, Against Heresies.)

  _Fourteenth day of March._――This refers to the practice of
  observing the feast of the resurrection of Christ, on the
  fourteenth day of March, corresponding with the passover of the
  Jews,――a custom long kept up in the eastern churches, instead
  of always keeping it on Sunday. The authority for the statement
  is found in two ancient writers; both of whom are quoted by
  Eusebius. (Church History, V. 24.) He first quotes Polycrates,
  (towards the end of the second century, ) as writing to Victor,
  bishop of Rome, in defense of the adherence of the eastern
  churches to the practice of their fathers, in keeping the
  passover, or Easter, on the fourteenth day of the month, without
  regard to the day of the week on which it occurred, though the
  great majority of the Christian churches throughout the world,
  by common consent, always celebrated this resurrection feast
  on the Lord’s day, or Sunday. Polycrates, in defense of the
  oriental practice of his flock and friends, so accordant with
  early Jewish prejudices, quotes the example of the Apostle John,
  who, he says, died at Ephesus, where he (Polycrates) was bishop.
  He says, that John, as well as his brother-apostle, Philip, and
  Polycarp his disciple, “all observed Easter on the fourteenth
  day of the month, never varying from that day, at all.” Eusebius
  (ibid.) quotes also Irenaeus, writing to the same bishop Victor,
  against his attempt to force the eastern churches into the
  adoption of the practice of the Roman church, in celebrating
  Easter always on a Sunday, instead of uniformly on the
  fourteenth day of the month, so as to correspond with the Jewish
  passover. Irenaeus, in defense of the old eastern custom, tells
  of the practice of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of
  John. Polycarp, coming to Rome in the days of bishop Anicetus,
  (A. D. 151‒160,) though earnestly exhorted by that bishop to
  renounce the eastern mode of celebrating Easter always on the
  fourteenth, like the Jewish passover, steadily refused to change;
  giving as a reason, the fact that John, the disciple of Jesus,
  and others of the apostles, whom he had intimately known, had
  always followed the eastern mode.

  This latter authority, fairly derived from a person who had been
  the intimate friend of John himself, may be pronounced entitled
  to the highest respect, and quite clearly establishes this
  little circumstance, which is valuable only as showing John’s
  pertinacious adherence to Jewish forms, to the end of his life.

  Socrates, an ecclesiastical historian, (A. D. 439,) alludes
  to the circumstance, that those who observed Easter on the
  fourteenth, referred to the authority of the Apostle John, as
  received by tradition.


                     THE DEPARTURE FROM JERUSALEM.

Some vain attempts have been made to ascertain the time at which the
apostle John left Jerusalem; but it becomes an honest investigator
to confess, here, the absolute want of all testimony, and the total
absence of such evidence as can afford reasonable ground even for
conjecture. All that can be said, is, that there is no account of his
having left the city before the Jewish war; and there is some reason,
therefore, to suppose that he remained there till driven thence by the
first great alarm occasioned by the unsuccessful attack from Cestius
Gallus. This Roman general, in the beginning of the Jewish war, (A. D.
66,) advanced to Jerusalem, and began a siege, which, however, he
soon raised, without any good reason; and suffering a fine opportunity
of ending the war at once, thus to pass by, unimproved, he marched
off, though in reality the inhabitants were then but poorly provided
with means to resist him. His retreat, however, gave them a chance to
prepare themselves very completely for the desperate struggle which,
as they could see, was completely begun, and from which there could
now be no retraction. This interval of repose, after such a terrible
premonition, also gave opportunity to the Christians to withdraw from
the city, on which, as they most plainly saw, the awful ruin foretold
by their Lord, was now about to fall. Cestius ♦Gallus, taking his stand
on the hills around the city, had planted the Roman eagle-standards on
the highths of Zophim, on the north, where he fortified his camp, and
thence pushed the assault against Bezetha, or the upper part of the
city. These were signs which the apostles of Jesus, who had heard his
prophecy of the city’s ruin, could not misunderstand. Here was now “the
abomination of desolation, standing in the holy place where it ought
not;” and as Matthew records the words of Jesus, this was one great
sign of coming ruin. “When they should see Jerusalem encompassed with
armies, they were to know that the desolation thereof was nigh;” for so
Luke records the warning. “Then let them which are in Judea flee to the
mountains; and let them who are in the midst of it depart out; and let
not them that are in other countries enter into it. For these are the
days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.”
The apostles, therefore, reading in all these signs the literal
fulfilment of the prophetic warning of their Lord, gathered around them
the flock of the faithful; and turning their faces to the mountains of
the northwest, to seek refuge beyond the Jordan,――

                    ――“Their backs they turned
        On those proud towers, to swift destruction doomed.”

Nor were they alone; for as the Jewish historian, who was an
eye-witness of the sad events of those times, records, “many of the
respectable persons among the Jews, after the alarming attack of
Cestius, left the city, like passengers from a sinking ship.” And this
fruitless attack of the Romans, he considers to have been so arranged
by a divine decree, to make the final ruin fall with the more certainty
on the truly guilty.

    ♦ “Gallas” replaced with “Gallus” for consistency

                         THE REFUGE IN PELLA.

A tradition, entitled to more than usual respect, from its serious and
reasonable air, commemorates the circumstance that the Christians, on
leaving Jerusalem, took refuge in the city of Pella, which stood on a
small western branch of the Jordan, about sixty miles north-west from
Jerusalem, among the mountains of Gilead. The locality on some accounts
is a probable one, for it is distant from Jerusalem and beyond Judea,
as the Savior directed them to flee; and being also on the mountains,
answers very well to the other particulars of his warning. But
there are some reasons which would make it an undesirable place of
refuge, for a very long time, to those who fled from scenes of war
and commotion, for the sake of enjoying peace and safety. That part
of Galilee which formed the adjacent territory on the north of Pella,
a few months after, became the scene of a devastating war. The city
of Gamala, not above twenty miles off, was besieged by Vespasian, the
general of the Roman invading army, (afterwards emperor,) and was taken
after a most obstinate and bloody contest, the effect of which must
have been felt throughout the country around, making it any thing but
a comfortable place of refuge, to those who sought peace. The presence
of hostile armies in the region near, must have been a source of great
trouble and distress to the inhabitants of Pella, so that those who
fled from Jerusalem to that place, would, in less than a year, find
that they had made no very agreeable exchange. These bloody commotions
however, did not begin immediately, and it was not till nearly one year
after the flight of the Christians from Jerusalem, that the war was
brought into the neighborhood of Pella; for Josephus fixes the retreat
of Cestius Gallus on the twelfth of November, in the twelfth year of
Nero’s reign, (A. D. 66,) and the taking of Gamala, on the twenty-third
of October, in the following year, after one month’s siege. There was
then a period of several months, during which this region was quiet,
and would therefore afford a temporary refuge to the fugitives from
Jerusalem; but for a permanent home they would feel obliged to look not
merely beyond Judea, but out of Palestine. Being in Pella, so near the
borders of Arabia, which often afforded a refuge to the oppressed in
its desert-girdled homes, the greater portion would naturally move off
in that direction, and many too, probably extend their journey eastward
into Mesopotamia, settling at last in Babylon, already becoming a new
dwelling-place for both Jews and Christians, among whom, as has been
recorded in a former part of this work, the Apostle Peter had made
his home, where he probably remained for the rest of his life, and
also died there. Respecting the movements of the Apostle John in this
general flight, nothing certain can be affirmed; but all probability
would, without any other evidence, suggest that he followed the course
of the majority of those who were under his pastoral charge; and as
their way led eastward, he would be disposed to take that route also.
And here the floating fragments of ancient tradition may be cited, for
what they are worth, in defense of a view which is also justified by
natural probabilities.

                         THE JOURNEY EASTWARD.

The earliest testimony on this point does not appear, however, until
near the close of the fourth century; when it arises in the form of a
vague notion, that John had once preached to the Parthians, and that
his first epistle was particularly addressed to them. From a few such
remnants of history as this, it has been considered extremely probable,
by some, that John passed many years, or even a great part of his
life, in the regions east of the Euphrates, within the bounds of the
great Parthian empire, where a vast number of his refugee countrymen
had settled after the destruction of Jerusalem, enjoying peace and
prosperity, partly forgetting their national calamities, in building
themselves up almost into a new people, beyond the bounds of the Roman
empire. These would afford to him an extensive and congenial field of
labor; they were his countrymen, speaking his own language, and to them
he was allied by the sympathies of a common misfortune and a common
refuge. Abundant proof has already been offered, to show that in this
region was the home of Peter, during the same period; and probabilities
are strongly in favor of the supposition, that the other apostles
followed him thither, making Babylon the new apostolic capital of the
eastern churches, as Jerusalem had been the old one. From that city, as
a center, the apostles would naturally extend their occasional labors
into the countries eastward, as far as their Jewish brethren had spread
their refugee settlements; for beyond the Roman limits, Christianity
seems to have made no progress whatever among the Gentiles, in the time
of the apostles; and if there had been no other difficulties, the great
difference of language and manners, and the savage condition of most
of the races around them, would have led them to confine their labors
wholly to those of their own nation, who inhabited the country watered
by the Euphrates and its branches; or still farther east, to lands
where the Jews seem to have spread themselves to the banks of the
Indus, and perhaps within the modern boundaries of India. Some wild
traditionary accounts, of no great authority, even offer reports, that
the Apostle John preached in India; and some of the Jesuit missionaries
have supposed that they had detected such traditions among the tribes
of that region, among whom they labored. All that can be said of these
accounts is, that they accord with a reasonable supposition, which is
made probable by other circumstances; but traditions of such a standing
cannot be said to _prove_ anything.

  _Parthia._――The earliest trace of this story is in the writings
  of Augustin, (A. D. 398,) who quotes the first epistle of
  John as “the epistle to the Parthians,” from which it appears
  that this was a common name for that epistle, in the times of
  Augustin. Athanasius is also quoted by Bede, as calling it by
  the same name. If he wrote to the Parthians in that familiar
  way, it would seem probable that he had been among them, and
  many writers have therefore adopted this view. Among these, the
  learned Mill (Prolegomena in New Testament § 150) expresses his
  opinion very fully, that John passed the greater part of his
  life among the Parthians, and the believers near them. Lampe
  (Prolegomena to a Johannine Theology, Lib. I. cap. iii. § 12,
  note) allows the probability of such a visit, but strives to fix
  its date long before the destruction of Jerusalem; yet offers no
  good reason for such a notion.

  _India._――The story of the Jesuit missionaries is given by
  Baronius, (Annals 44. § 30.) The story is, that letters from
  some of these missionaries, in 1555, give an account of their
  finding such a tradition, among an East Indian nation, called
  the Bassoras, who told them that the apostle John once preached
  the gospel in that region. No further particulars are given; but
  this is enough to enable us to judge of the value of a story,
  dating fifteen centuries from the event which it commemorates.


                        HIS RESIDENCE IN ASIA.

The great mass of ancient stories about this apostle, take no notice
at all of his residence in the far eastern regions, on and beyond the
Euphrates, but make mention of the countries inhabited by Greeks and
Romans, as the scenes of the greater part of his long life, after the
destruction of Jerusalem. The palpable reason of the character of these
traditions, no doubt, is, that they all come from the very regions
which they commemorate as the home of John; and the authors of the
stories being interested only to secure for their own region the
honor of an apostolic visit, cared nothing about the similar glory of
countries far eastward, with which they had no connection whatever,
and of which they knew nothing. That region which is most particularly
pointed out as the great scene of John’s life and labors, is ASIA, in
the original, limited sense of the term, which includes only a small
portion of the eastern border of the Aegean sea, as already described
in the life of Peter. The most important place in this _Little_ Asia,
was Ephesus; and in this famous city the apostle John is said to have
spent the latter part of his life, after the great dispersion from
Palestine.

The _motives_ of John’s visit to Ephesus, are variously given by
different writers, both ancient and modern. All refer the primary
impulse to the Holy Spirit, which was the constant and unerring guide
of all the apostles in their movements abroad on the great mission of
their Master. The divine presence of their Lord himself, too, was ever
with them to support and encourage, in their most distant wanderings,
even as he promised at parting,――“Lo! I am with you always, even to
the end of the world.” But historical investigation may very properly
proceed with the inquiry into the real _occasion_ which led him, under
that divine guidance, to this distant city, among a people who were
mostly foreign to him in language, habits and feelings, even though
many of them owned the faith of Christ, and reverenced the apostle
of his word. It is said, but not proved, that a division of the great
fields of labor was made by the apostles among themselves, about
the time of the destruction of Jerusalem; and that, when Andrew took
Scythia, and others their sections of duty, Asia was assigned to
John, who passed the rest of his life there accordingly. This field
had already, indeed, been gone over by Paul and his companions, and
already at Ephesus itself had a church been gathered, which was now
flourishing under the pastoral care of Timothy, who had been instructed
and commissioned for this very field, by Paul himself. But these
circumstances, so far from deterring the apostle John from presenting
himself on a field of labor already so nobly entered, are supposed
rather to have operated as incitements to draw him into a place where
so solid a foundation had been laid for a complete fabric. As a center
of missionary action, indeed, Ephesus certainly did possess many local
advantages of a high order. The metropolis of all Asia Minor,――a noble
emporium for the productions of that great section of the eastern
continent, on whose farthest western shore it stood,――and a grand
center for the traffic of the great Mediterranean sea, whose waters
rolled from that haven over the mighty shores of three continents,
bearing, wherever they flowed, the ships of Ephesus,――this port
offered the most ready and desirable means of intercourse with all the
commercial cities of the world, from Tyre, or Alexandria, or Sinope,
to the pillars of Hercules, and gave the quickest and surest access to
the gates of Rome itself. Its widely extended commerce, of course, drew
around its gates a constant throng of people from many distant parts of
the world, a few of whom, if imbued with the gospel, would thus become
the missionaries of the word of truth to millions, where the name of
Jesus was before unknown. And since, after the death of all the other
apostles, John survived alone, so long, it was desirable for all the
Christian churches in the world, that the only living minister of the
word who had been instructed from the lips of Jesus himself, should
reside in some such place, where he might so easily be visited by all,
and whence his instructions might quickly go forth to all. His inspired
counsels, and his wonder-working prayers, might be sought for all who
needed them, and his apostolic ordinances might be heard and obeyed,
almost at once, by the most distant churches. But the circumstance,
which more especially might lead the wanderer from the ruined city and
homes of his fathers, to Ephesus, was the great gathering of Jews at
this spot, who of course thus presented to the Jewish apostle an ample
field for exertions, for which his natural and acquired endowments best
fitted him.

In the account given in the Acts of the Apostles of Paul’s visit to
Ephesus, particular mention is made of a synagogue there, in which
he preached and disputed daily, for a long period, with great effect.
Yet Paul’s labors had by no means attained such complete success among
the Jews there, as to make it unnecessary for another apostle to labor
in the ministry of the circumcision, in that same place; for it is
especially mentioned that Paul, after three months’ active exertion
in setting forth the truth in the synagogues, was induced by the
consideration of the peculiar difficulties which beset him, among these
proud and stubborn adherents of the old Mosaic system, to withdraw
himself from among them; and during the remainder of his two years’
stay, he devoted himself, for the most part, to the instruction of the
willing Greeks, who opened the schools of philosophy for his teachings,
with far more willingness than the Jews did their house of religious
assembly. And it appears that the greater part of his converts were
rather among the Greeks than the Jews; for in the great commotions
that followed, the attack upon the preachers of Christianity was
made entirely by a _heathen_ mob, in which no Israelite seems to
have had any hand whatever; so that Paul had evidently made but
little impression, comparatively, on the latter class. Among the
Jews then, there was still a wide field open for the labors of one,
consecrated, more especially, for the ministry of the circumcision.
The circumstances of the times, also, presented many advantages for a
successful assault upon the religious prejudices of his countrymen. The
great Center of Unity for the race of Israel throughout the world, had
now fallen into an irretrievable oblivion, under the fire and sword of
the invader. The glories of the ancient covenant seemed to have passed
away forever; and in the high devotion of the Jew, a blank was now
left, by the destruction of the only temple of his ancient faith, which
nothing else on earth could fill. Henceforth he might be trained to
look for a spiritual temple,――a city eternal in the heavens, whose
lasting foundations were laid by no mortal hand, for the heathen to
sweep away in unholy triumph; but whose builder and maker was God. Thus
prepared, by the mournful consummation of their country’s utter ruin,
for the reception of a pure faith, the condition of the disconsolate
Jews must have appeared in the highest degree interesting to the
solitary surviving apostle of Jesus; and he would naturally devote the
remnant of his days to that portion of the world where he might make
the deepest impression on them, and where his influence might spread
widest to the scattered members of a people, then as now, eminently
commercial.

Under these peculiarly interesting circumstances, the Apostle John is
supposed to have arrived at Ephesus, where Timothy, still holding the
episcopal chair in which he had been placed by the Apostle Paul, must
have hailed with great delight the arrival of the venerable John, from
whose instructions and counsels, he might hope to derive advantages so
much the more welcome, since the sword of the heathen persecution had
removed his original apostolic teacher from the world. John must have
been, at the time of his journey to Ephesus, considerably advanced
in life. His precise age, and the date of his arrival, are altogether
unknown, nor are there any fixed points on which the most critical
and ingenious historical investigation can base any certain conclusion
whatever, as to these interesting matters. Various and widely different
have been the conclusions on these points;――some fixing his journey
to Ephesus in the reign of Claudius, long before the destruction
of Jerusalem, and even before the council on the question of the
circumcision. The true character of this tale can be best appreciated
by a reference to another circumstance, which is gravely appended
to it by its narrators;――which is, that he was accompanied on this
tour by the Virgin Mary, and that she lived there with him for a long
time. This journey too, is thus made to precede the journey of Paul
to Ephesus, by many years, and yet no account whatever is given of the
reasons of the profound silence observed in the Acts of the Apostles,
on an event so important to the history of the propagation of the
gospel, nor why John could have lived so long at Ephesus, and yet have
effected so little, that when Paul came to the same place, the very
name of Christ was new there. But such stories are not worth refuting,
standing as they do, self-convicted falsehoods. Others however, are
more reasonable, and date this journey in the year of the destruction
of Jerusalem, supposing that Ephesus was the first place of refuge
to which the apostle went. But this conjecture is totally destitute
of all ancient authority, and is inconsistent with the very reasonable
supposition adopted above,――that he, in the flight from Jerusalem,
first journeyed eastward, following the general current of the
fugitives, towards the Euphrates. Where there is such a total want of
all data, any fixed decision is out of the question; but it is very
reasonable to suppose that John’s final departure from the east did
not take place till some years after this date; probably not until the
reign of Domitian. (A. D. 81 or 82.) He had lived in Babylon therefore,
till he had seen most of his brethren and friends pass away from
his eyes. The venerable Peter had sunk into the grave, and had been
followed by the rest of the apostolic band, until the youngest apostle,
now grown old, found himself standing alone in the midst of a new
generation, like one of the solitary columns of desolate Babylon,
among the low dwelling places of its refugee inhabitants. But among
the hourly crumbling heaps of that ruined city, and the fast-darkening
regions of that half-savage dominion, there was each year less and
less around him, on which his precious labor could be advantageously
expended. Christianity never seizes readily on the energies of a broken
or degenerating people, nor does it flourish where the influences of
civilization are losing their hold. Its exalted and exalting genius
rather takes the spirits that are already on the wing for an upward
course, and rises with them, giving new energy to the ascending
movement. It may exert its elevating influence too, on the yet wild
spirit of the uncivilized, and give, in the new conceptions of a
pure faith and a high destiny, the first impulse to the advance of
man towards refinement, in knowledge, and art, and freedom; but its
very existence among them is dependent on this _forward_ and _upward_
movement,――and the beginning of its mortal decay dates from the
cessation of the developments of the intellectual and physical
resources of the race on which it operates. Among the subjects of the
Parthian empire, this downward movement was already fully decided; and
they were fast losing those refinements of feeling and thought on which
the new faith could best fasten its spiritual and inspiring influences;
they therefore soon became but hopeless objects of missionary exertion,
when compared with the active and enterprising inhabitants of the
still improving regions of the west. “Westward” then, “the star” of
Christianity as “of empire, took its way;” and the last of the apostles
was but following, not leading, the march of his Lord’s advancing
dominion, when he shook off the dust of the darkening eastern lands
from his feet, forever; turning his aged face towards the setting sun,
to find in his latter days, a new home and a foreign grave among the
children of his brethren; and to rejoice his old eyes with the glorious
sight of what God had done for the churches, among the flourishing
cities of the west, that were still advancing under Grecian art and
Roman sway.

  _Ephesus._――On the importance of this place, as an apostolic
  station, the Magdeburg Centuriators are eloquent; and such is
  the classic elegance of the Latin in which these moderns have
  expressed themselves, that the passage is worth giving entire,
  for the sake of those who can enjoy the beauty of the original.
  “Considera mirabile Dei consilium. Joannes in Ephesum ad littus
  maris Aegei collocatus est: ut inde, quasi e specula, retro
  suam Asiam videret, suaque fragrantia repleret: ante se vero
  Graeciam, totamque Europam haberet; ut inde, tanquam tuba Domini
  sonora, etiam ultra-marinos populos suis concionibus ac scriptis
  inclamaret et invitaret ad Christum; presertim, cum ibi fuerit
  admodum commodus portus, plurimique mercatores ac homines
  peregrini ea loca adierint.” The beauty of such a sentence
  is altogether beyond the force of English, and the elegant
  paronomasia which repeatedly occurs in it, increasing the power
  of the original expression to charm the ear and mind, is totally
  lost in a translation, but the meanings of the sentences may be
  given for the benefit of those readers to whom the Latin is not
  familiar.――“Regard the wonderful providence of God. John was
  stationed at Ephesus, on the shore of the Aegean sea; so that
  there, as in a mirror, he might behold his peculiar province,
  Asia, behind him, and might fill it with the incense of his
  prayers: before him too, he had Greece and all Europe; so that
  there, as with the far-sounding trumpet of the Lord, he might
  summon and invite to Christ, by his sermons and writings, even
  the nations beyond the sea, by the circumstance that there,
  was a most spacious haven, and that vast numbers of traders and
  travelers thronged to the place.”

  Chrysostom speaks also of the importance of Ephesus as an
  apostolic station, alluding to it as a strong hold of heathen
  philosophy; but there is no reason to think that John ever
  distinguished himself by any assaults upon systems with which
  he was not, and could never have been sufficiently acquainted
  to enable him to attack them; for in order to meet an evil, it
  is necessary to understand it thoroughly. There is no hint of
  an acquaintance with philosophy in any part of his writings,
  nor does any historian speak of his making converts among them.
  Chrysostom’s words are,――“He fixed himself also in Asia, where
  anciently all the sects of Grecian philosophy cultivated their
  sciences. There he flashed out in the midst of the foe, clearing
  away their darkness, and storming the very citadel of demons.
  And with this design he went to this place, so well suited to
  one who would work such wonders.” (Homily 1, on John.)

  The idea of John’s visit to Ephesus, where Timothy was already
  settled over the church as bishop, has made a great deal of
  trouble to those who stupidly confound the office of an apostle
  with that of a bishop, and are always degrading an apostle into
  a mere church-officer. Such blunderers of course, are put to
  a vast deal of pains to make out how Timothy could manage to
  keep possession of his bishopric, with the Apostle John in the
  same town with him; for they seem to think that a bishop, like
  the flag-officer on a naval station, can hold the command of the
  post not a moment after a senior officer appears in sight; but
  that then down comes the broad blue pennon to be sure, and never
  is hoisted again till the greater officer is off beyond the
  horizon. But no such idle arrangements of mere etiquette were
  ever suffered to mar the noble and useful simplicity of the
  primitive church government, in the least. The presence of an
  apostle in the same town with a bishop, could no more interfere
  with the regular function of the latter, than the presence of a
  diocesan bishop in any city of his diocese, excludes the rector
  of the church there, from his pastoral charge. The sacred duties
  of Timothy were those of the pastoral care of a single church,――a
  sort of charge that no apostle ever assumed out of Jerusalem;
  but John’s apostolic duties led him to exercise a general
  supervision over a great number of churches. All those in Little
  Asia would claim his care alike, and the most distant would look
  to him for counsel; while that in Ephesus, having been so well
  established by Paul, and being blessed by the pastoral care of
  Timothy, who had been instructed and commissioned for that very
  place and duty, by him, would really stand in very little need
  of any direct attention from John. Yet among his Jewish brethren
  he would still find much occasion for his missionary labor,
  even in that city; and this was the sort of duty which was most
  appropriate to his apostolic character; for the apostles were
  missionaries and not bishops.

  Others pretend to say, however, that Timothy was dead when John
  arrived, and that John succeeded him in the bishopric,――a mere
  invention to get rid of the difficulty, and proved to be such
  by the assertion that the apostle was a bishop, and rendered
  suspicious also by the circumstance of Timothy being so young
  a man.

  The fable of the Virgin Mary’s journey, in company with John, to
  Ephesus, has been very gravely supported by Baronius, (Annals,
  44, § 29,) who makes it happen in the second year of the reign
  of Claudius, and quotes as his authority a groundless statement,
  drawn from a mis-translation of a synodical epistle from the
  council of Ephesus to the clergy at Constantinople, containing
  a spurious passage which alludes to this story, condemning the
  Nestorians as heretics, for rejecting the tale. There are, and
  have long been, however, a vast number of truly discreet and
  learned Romanists, who have scorned to receive such contemptible
  and useless inventions. Among these, the learned Antony Pagus,
  in his Historico-Chronological Review of Baronius, has utterly
  refuted the whole story, showing the spurious character of
  the passage quoted in its support. (Pagus, Critica Baronius
  Annals, 42. § 3.) Lampe quotes moreover, the Abbot Facditius,
  the Trevoltian collectors and Combefisius, as also refuting the
  fable. Among the Protestant critics, Rivetus and Basnage have
  discussed the same point.

Of the incidents of John’s life at Ephesus, no well authorized account
whatever can be given. Yet on this part of apostolic history the
Fathers are uncommonly rich in details, which are interesting, and
some of which present no improbability on examination; but their worst
character is, that they do not make their appearance until above one
hundred years after the date of the incidents which they commemorate,
and refer to no authority but loose and floating tradition. In
respect to these, too, occurs exactly the same difficulty which has
already been specified in connection with the traditionary history of
Peter,――that the same early writers, who record as true these stories
which are so probable and reasonable in their character, also present
in the same grave manner other stories, which do bear, with them,
on their very faces, the evidence of their utter falsehood, in their
palpable and monstrous absurdity. Among the possible and probable
incidents of John’s life, narrated by the Fathers, are a journey to
Jerusalem, and one also to Rome,――but of these there is no certainty,
nor any acceptable evidence. These long journeys, too, are wholly
without any sufficient assigned object, which would induce so old a man
to leave his quiet and useful residence at Ephesus, to travel hundreds
and thousands of miles. The churches of both Rome and Jerusalem were
under well organized governments, which were perfectly competent to the
administration of their own affairs, without the presence of an apostle;
or, if they needed his counsel in an emergency, he could communicate
his opinions to them with great certainty, by message, and with far
more quickness and ease, than by a journey to them. Such an occasion
for a direct call on him, however, could but very rarely occur,――nor
would so unimportant an event as the death of one bishop and the
installation of another, ever induce him to take a journey to sanction
a mere formality by his presence. His help certainly was not needed
by any church out of his own little Asian circle, in the selection of
proper persons to fill vacant offices of government or instruction.
They knew best their own wants, and the abilities of their own members
to exercise any official duty to which they might be called; while
John, a perfect stranger to most of them, would feel neither disposed
nor qualified for meddling with any part of the internal policy of
other churches. But the principal condemnation of the statement of his
journey to Rome is contained in the foolish story connected with it,
by its earliest narrator,――that on his arrival there, he was, by order
of the emperor Domitian, thrown into a vessel full of hot oil; but,
so far from receiving the slightest injury from such a frying, he came
out of this greasy place of torture, quite improved in every respect
by the immersion; and, as the story goes, arose from it perfumed like
an _athleta_ anointed for the combat. There are very great variations,
however, in the different narrations of this affair; some representing
the event as having occurred in Ephesus, under the orders of the
proconsul of Asia, and not in Rome, under the emperor, as the earlier
form of the fable states. Among the statements which fix the scene of
this miracle in Rome, too, there is a very important chronological
difference,――some dating it under the emperor Nero, which would carry
it back as early as the time of Peter’s fabled martyrdom, and implies
a total contradiction of all established opinions on his prolonged
residence in the east. In short, the whole story is so completely
covered over with gross blunders and contradictions about times and
places, that it can not receive any place among the details of serious
and well-authorized history.

  _Thrown into a vessel of oil._――This greasy story has a
  tolerably respectable antiquity, going farther back with its
  authorities than any other fable in the Christian mythology,
  except Justin Martyr’s story about Simon Magus. The earliest
  authority for this is Tertullian, (A. D. 200,) who says that
  “at Rome, the Apostle John, having been immersed in hot oil,
  suffered no harm at all from it.” (De Praescriptionibus adversus
  Haereticos, c. 36.) “In oleum igneum immersus nihil passus est.”
  But for nearly two hundred years after, no one of the Fathers
  refers to this fable. Jerome (A. D. 397.) is the next of any
  certain date, and speaks of it in two passages. In the first
  (Against Jovinianus I. 14,) he quotes Tertullian as authority,
  but bunglingly says, that “he was thrown into the kettle by
  order of _Nero_,”――a most palpable error, not sanctioned by
  Tertullian. In the second passage, (Commentary on Matthew xx.
  23,) he furthermore refers in general terms to “ecclesiastical
  histories, in which it was said that John, on account of his
  testimony concerning Christ, was thrown into a kettle of boiling
  oil, and came out thence like an _athleta_, to win the crown
  of Christ.” From these two sources, the other narrators of
  the story have drawn it. Of the modern critics and historians,
  besides the great herd of Papists, several Protestants are
  quoted by Lampe, as strenuously defending it; and several of
  the greatest, who do not absolutely receive it as true, yet do
  not presume to decide against it; as the Magdeburg Centuriators,
  (Century 1, lib. 2. c. 10,) who however declare it very doubtful
  indeed, “_rem incertissimam_;”――Ittig, Le Clerc and Mosheim
  taking the same ground. But Meisner, Cellarius, Dodwell,
  Spanheim, Heumann and others, overthrow it utterly, as a
  baseless fable. They argue against it _first_, from the bad
  character of its only ancient witness. Tertullian is well known
  as most miserably credulous, and fond of catching up these idle
  tales; and even the devoutly credulous Baronius condemns him in
  the most unmeasured terms for his greedy and undiscriminating
  love of falsehood. _Secondly_, they object the profound silence
  of all the Fathers of the second, third and fourth centuries,
  excepting him and Jerome; whereas, if such a remarkable incident
  were of any authority whatever, those numerous occasions on
  which they refer to the banishment of John to Patmos, which
  Tertullian connects so closely with this story, would suggest
  and require a notice of the causes and attendant circumstances
  of that banishment, as stated by him. How could those eloquent
  writers, who seem to dwell with so much delight on the noble
  trials and triumphs of the apostles, pass over this wonderful
  peril and miraculous deliverance? Why did Irenaeus, so studious
  in extolling the glory of John, forget to specify an incident
  implying at once such a courageous spirit of martyrdom in this
  apostle, and such a peculiar favor of God, in thus wonderfully
  preserving him? Hippolytus and Sulpitius Severus too, are silent;
  and more than all, Eusebius, so diligent in scraping together
  all that can heap up the martyr-glories of the apostles, and
  more particularly of John himself, is here utterly without a
  word on this interesting event. Origen, too, dwelling on the
  modes in which the two sons of Zebedee drank the cup of Jesus,
  as he prophesied, makes no use of this valuable illustration.

  On the origin of this fable, Lampe mentions a very ingenious
  conjecture, that some such act of cruelty may have been
  meditated or threatened, but afterwards given up; and that
  thence the story became accidentally so perverted as to make
  what was merely designed, appear to have been partly put in
  execution.

  In this decided condemnation of the venerable Tertullian, I
  am justified by the example of Lampe, whose reverence for the
  authority of the Fathers is much greater than that of most
  theologians of later days. He refers to him in these terms:
  “TERTULLIANUS, cujus credulitas, in arripiendis futilibus
  narratiunculis alias non ignota est.”――“Whose credulity in
  catching up idle tales is well known in other instances.”
  Haenlein also calls him “der leichtglaubige Tertullian,”――“the
  credulous Tertullian.” (Haenlein’s Einleitung in Neuen
  Testamentes vol. III. p. 166.)

  This miraculous event procured the highly-favored John, by
  this _extreme unction_, all the advantages with none of the
  disadvantages of martyrdom; for in consequence of this peril he
  has received among the Fathers the name of a “living martyr.”
  (ζοων μαρτυρ) Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Athanasius,
  Theophylact and others, quoted by Suicer, [sub voc. μαρτυρ,]
  apply this term to him. “He had the _mind_ though not the _fate_
  of a martyr.” “Non defuit animus martyrio,” &c. [Jerome and
  Cyprian.] Through ignorance of the meaning of the word μαρτυρ,
  in this peculiar application to John, the learned Haenlein
  seems to me to have fallen into an error on the opinion of these
  Fathers about his mode of death. In speaking of the general
  testimony as to the quiet death of this apostle, Haenlein says:
  “But Chrysostom, only in one ambiguous passage, (Homily 63
  in Matthew) and his follower Theophylact, number the Apostle
  John among the martyrs.” [Haenlein’s Einleitung in Neuen
  Testamentes vol. III. chap. vi. § 1, p. 168.] The fact is, that
  not only these two, but several other Fathers, use the term in
  application to John, and they all do it without any implication
  of an actual, fatal martyrdom; as may be seen by a reference to
  Suicer, sub voc.

  So little reverence have the critical, even among the Romanists,
  for any of these old stories about John’s adventures, that the
  sagacious Abbot Facditius (quoted by Lampe) quite turns these
  matters into a jest. Coupling this story with the one about
  John’s chaste celibacy, (as supported by the monachists,) he
  says, in reference to the latter, that if John made out to
  preserve his chastity uncontaminated among such a people as the
  Jews were, in that most corrupt age, he should consider it a
  greater miracle than if John had come safe out of the kettle of
  boiling oil; but on the reverend Abbot’s sentiment, perhaps many
  will remark with Lampe,――“quod pronuntiatum tamen nimis audax
  est.”――“It is rather too bold to pronounce such an opinion.”
  Nevertheless, such a termination of life would be so much in
  accordance with the standard mode of dispatching an apostle,
  that they would never have taken him out of the oil-kettle,
  except for the necessity of sending him to Patmos, and dragging
  him on through multitudes of odd adventures yet to come. So we
  might then have had the satisfaction of winding up his story,
  in the _literal_ and happy application of the words of a certain
  venerable poetical formula for the conclusion of a nursery tale,
  which here makes not only rhyme but reason,――

                   *       *       *       *       *


                            HIS BANISHMENT.

This fable of his journey to Rome is by all its propagators connected
with the well-authorized incident of his banishment to Patmos. This
event, given on the high evidence of the Revelation which bears his
name, is by all the best and most ancient authorities, referred to the
period of the reign of Domitian. The precise year is as much beyond any
means of investigation, as most other exact dates in his and all the
other apostles’ history. From the terms in which the ancient writers
commemorate the event, it is known, with tolerable certainty, to have
occurred towards the close of the reign of Domitian, though none of the
early Fathers specify the year. The first who pretend to fix the date,
refer it to the fourteenth year of that emperor, and the most critical
among the moderns fix it as late; and some even in the fifteenth or
last year of his reign; since that persecution of the Christians,
during which John seems to have been banished, may be fairly presumed,
from the known circumstances as recorded in history, to have been
the last great series of tyrannical acts committed by this remarkably
wicked monarch. It certainly appears, from distinct assertions in the
credible records of ecclesiastical history, that there was a great
persecution begun about this time by Domitian, against the Christians;
but there is no reasonable doubt that the extent and vindictiveness of
it has been very much overrated, in the rage among the later Fathers,
for multiplying the sufferings of the early Christians far beyond the
truth. The first Christian writers who allude to this persecution very
particularly, specify its character as far less aggravated than that
of Nero, of which they declare it to have been but a shadow,――and the
persecutor himself but a mere _fraction_ of Nero in cruelty. There is
not a single authenticated instance of any person’s having suffered
death in this persecution; all the creditable historians who describe
it, most particularly demonstrate that the whole range of punishments
inflicted on the subjects of it, was confined to banishment merely.
Another reason for supposing that this attack on the Christians was
very moderate in its character, is the important negative fact, that
not one heathen historian makes the slightest mention of any trouble
with the new sect, during that bloody reign; although such repeated,
vivid accounts are given of the dreadful persecution waged by Nero,
as related above, in the Life of Peter. It is reasonable to suppose,
therefore, that there were no great cruelties practised on them; but
that many of them, who had become obnoxious to the tyrant and his
minions, were quietly put out of the way, that they might occasion
no more trouble,――being sent from Rome and some of the principal
cities, into banishment, along with many others whose removal was
considered desirable by the rulers of Rome or the provinces; so that
the Christians, suffering with many others, and some of high rank and
character, a punishment of no very cruel nature, were not distinguished
by common narrators, from the general mass of the banished; but were
noticed more particularly by the writers of their own order, who thus
specified circumstances that otherwise would not have been made known.
Among those driven out from Ephesus at this time, John was included,
probably on no special accusation otherwise than that of being
prominent as the last survivor of the original founders, among these
members of the new faith, who by their pure lives were a constant
reproach to the open vices of the proud heathen around them; and by
their refusal to conform to idolatrous observances, exposed themselves
to the charge of non-conformity to the established religion of the
state,――an offence of the highest order even among the Romans, whose
tolerance of new religions was at length limited by the requisition,
that no doctrine whatever should be allowed to aim directly at the
overthrow of the settled order of things. When, therefore, it began
to be apprehended that the religion of Jesus would, in its progress,
overcome the securities of the ancient worship of the Olympian gods,
those who felt their interests immediately connected with the system of
idolatry, in their alarmed zeal for its support, made use of the worst
specimens of imperial tyranny to check the advancing evil.


                                PATMOS.

The place chosen for his banishment was a dreary desert island in
the Aegean sea, called Patmos. It is situated among that cluster of
islands, called the Sporades, about twenty miles from the Asian coast,
and thirty or forty southwest of Ephesus. It is at this day known
by the observation of travelers, to be a most remarkably desolate
place, showing hardly anything but bare rocks, on which a few poor
inhabitants make but a wretched subsistence. In this insulated desert
the aged apostle was doomed to pass the lonely months, far away from
the enjoyments of Christian communion and social intercourse, so dear
to him, as the last earthly consolation of his life. Yet to him, his
residence at Ephesus was but a place of exile. Far away were the scenes
of his youth and the graves of his fathers. “The shore whereon he
loved to dwell,”――the lake on whose waters he had so often sported or
labored in the freshness of early years, were still the same as ever,
and others now labored there, as he had done ere he was called to a
higher work. But the homes of his childhood knew him no more forever,
and rejoiced now in the light of the countenances of strangers, or
lay in blackening desolation beneath the brand of a wasting invasion.
The waters and the mountains were there still,――they are there now;
but that which to him constituted all their reality was gone then,
as utterly as now. The ardent friends, the dear brother, the faithful
father, the fondly ambitious and loving mother,――who made up his little
world of life, and joy, and hope,――where were they? All were gone; even
his own former self was gone too, and the joys, the hopes, the thoughts,
the views of those early days, were buried as deeply as the friends
of his youth, and far more irrevocably than they. Cut off thus utterly
from all that once excited the earthly and merely human emotions within
him, the whole world was alike a desert or a home, according as he
found in it communion with God, and work for his remaining energies,
in the cause of Christ. Wherever he went, he bore about with him his
resources of enjoyment,――his home was within himself; the friends of
his youth and manhood were still before him in the ever fresh images of
their glorious examples; the brother of his heart was near him always,
and nearest now, when the persecutions of imperial tyranny seemed
to draw him towards a sympathetic participation in the pains and
the glories of that bloody death. The Lord of his life, the author
of his hopes, the guide of his youth, the cherisher of his spirit,
was over and around him ever, with the consolations of his promised
presence,――“with him always, even to the end of the world.”


                            THE APOCALYPSE.

The Revelation of John the Divine opens with a moving and splendid view
of these circumstances. Being, as it is recorded, in the isle that is
called Patmos, for preaching the word of God, and for bearing witness
of Jesus Christ, he was in his lonely banishment, one Lord’s day,
sitting wrapped in a holy spiritual contemplation, when he heard behind
him a great voice, as of a trumpet, which broke upon his startled ear
with a most solemnly grand annunciation of the presence of one whose
being was the source and end of all things. As the amazed apostle
turned to see the person from whom came such portentous words, there
met his eye a vision so dazzling, yet appalling in its beauty and
splendor, amid the bare, dark rocks around, that he fell to the earth
without life, and lay motionless until the heavenly being, whose awful
glories had so overwhelmed him, recalled him to his most vivid energies,
by the touch of his life-giving hand. In the lightning-splendors of
that countenance, far outshining the glories of Sinai, reflected from
the face of Moses, the trembling eye of the apostolic seer recognized
the lineaments of one whom he had known in other days, and upon whose
bosom he had hung in the warm affection of youth. Even the eye which
now flashed such rays, he knew to be that which had once been turned
on him in the aspect of familiar love; nor did its glance now bear a
strange or forbidding expression. The trumpet-tones of the voice, which
of old, on Hermon, roused him from the stupor into which he fell at
the sight of the foretaste of these very glories, now recalled him to
life in the same encouraging words, “Be not afraid.” The crucified
and ascended Jesus, living, though once dead, now called on his
beloved apostle to record the revelations which should soon burst
upon his eyes and ears; that the churches that had lately been under
his immediate attention, might learn the approach of events which
most nearly concerned the advance of their faith. First, therefore,
addressing an epistolary charge to each of the seven churches, he
called them to a severe account for their various errors, and gave
to each such consolations and promises as were suited to its peculiar
circumstances. Then dropping these individualizing exhortations, he
leaves all the details of the past, and the minutiae of the state
of the seven churches, for a glance over the events of coming ages,
and the revolutions of empires and of worlds. The full explanation of
the scenes which follow, is altogether beyond the range of a mere
apostolic historian, and would require such ability and learning
in the writer,――such a length of time for their application to this
matter, and such an expanse of paper for their full expression, as
are altogether out of the question in this case. Some few points in
this remarkable writing, however, fall within the proper notice of the
apostle’s biographer, and some questions on the scope of the Apocalypse
itself, as well as on the history of it, as a part of the sacred canon,
will therefore be here discussed.

The minute history of the apostolic writings,――the discussion of their
particular scope and tenor,――and the evidences of their inspiration
and authenticity,――are topics, which fall for the most part under a
distinct and independent department of Christian theology, the common
details of which are alone sufficient to fill many volumes; and are of
course altogether beyond the compass of a work, whose main object is
limited to a merely historical branch of religious knowledge. Still,
such inquiries into these deeper points, as truly concern the personal
history of the apostles, are proper subjects of attention, even here.
The life of no literary or scientific man is complete, which does
not give such an account of his writings as will show under what
circumstances,――with what design,――for what persons,――and at what
time, they were written. But a minute criticism of their style, or
illustrations of their meaning, or a detail of all the objections which
have been made to them, might fairly be pronounced improper intrusions
upon the course of the narrative. With the danger of such an extension
of these investigations, in view, this work here takes up those points
in the history of John’s writings, that seem to fall under the general
rule in making up a personal and literary biography.

In the case of this particular writing, moreover, the difficulties of
an enlarged discussion are so numerous and complicated, as to offer
an especial reason to the apostolic historian, for avoiding the almost
endless details of questions that have agitated the greatest minds in
Christendom, for the last four hundred years. And the decision of the
most learned and sagacious of modern critics, pronounces the Apocalypse
of John to be “the most difficult and doubtful book of the New
Testament.”

The points proper for inquiry in connection with a history of the
life of John, may be best arranged in the form of questions with their
answers severally following.


             I. DID THE APOSTLE JOHN WRITE THE APOCALYPSE?

  Many will doubtless feel disposed to question the propriety
  of thus bringing out, in a popular book, inquiries which have
  hitherto, by a sort of common consent, been confined to learned
  works, and wholly excluded from such as are intended to convey
  religious knowledge to ordinary readers. The principle has
  been sometimes distinctly specified and maintained, that some
  established truths in exegetical theology, must needs be always
  kept among the arcana of religious knowledge, for the eyes and
  ears of the learned few, to whom “it is given to know these
  mysteries;” “but that to them that are without,” they are ever
  to remain unknown. This principle is often acted on by the
  theologians of Germany and England, so that a distinct line
  seems to be drawn between an _exoteric_ and an _esoteric_
  doctrine,――a public and a private belief,――the latter being the
  literal truth, while the former is such a view of things, as
  suits the common religious prejudices of the mass of hearers and
  readers. But such is not the free spirit of true Protestantism;
  nor is any deceitful doctrine of “_accommodation_” accordant
  with the open, single-minded honesty of apostolic teachings.
  Taking from the persons who are the subjects of this history,
  something of their simple freedom of word and action, for the
  reader’s benefit, several questions will be boldly asked, and
  as boldly answered, on the authorship, the scope, and character
  of the Apocalypse. And first, on the present personal question
  in hand, a spirit of tolerant regard for opinions discordant
  with those of some readers, perhaps may be best learned, by
  observing into what uncertainties the minds of the greatest and
  most devout of theologians, and of the mighty founders of the
  Protestant faith, have been led on this very point.

  The great Michaelis (Introduction to the New Testament, vol. IV.
  c. xxxiii. § 1.) apologizes for his own doubts on the Apocalypse,
  justifying himself by the similar uncertainty of the immortal
  Luther; and the remarks of Michaelis upon the character of the
  persons to whom Luther thus boldly published his doubts, will be
  abundantly sufficient to justify the discussion of such darkly
  deep matters, to the readers of the Lives of the Apostles.

  Not only Martin Luther as here quoted by Michaelis, but the
  other great reformers of that age, John Calvin and Ulric Zwingle,
  boldly expressed their doubts on this book, which more modern
  speculators have made so miraculously accordant with anti-papal
  notions. Their learned cotemporary, Erasmus, also, and the
  critical Joseph Scaliger, with other great names of past ages,
  have contributed their doubts, to add a new mark of suspicion to
  the Apocalypse.

  “As it is not improbable that this cautious method of proceeding
  will give offense to some of my readers, I must plead in my
  behalf the example of Luther, who thought and acted precisely in
  the same manner. His sentiments on this subject are delivered,
  not in an occasional dissertation on the Apocalypse, but in the
  preface to his German translation of it, a translation designed
  _not merely_ for the learned, but for _the illiterate_, and even
  for _children_. In the preface prefixed to that edition, which
  was printed in 1522, he expressed himself in very strong terms.
  In this preface he says: ‘In this book of the Revelation of
  St. John, I leave it to every person to judge for himself: I
  will bind no man to my opinion; I say only what I feel. Not one
  thing only fails in this book; so that I hold it neither for
  apostolical, nor prophetical. First and chiefly, the apostles
  do not prophesy in visions, but in clear and plain words, as St.
  Peter, St. Paul, and Christ in the gospel do. It is moreover the
  apostle’s duty to speak of Christ and his actions in a simple
  way, not in figures and visions. Also no prophet of the Old
  Testament, much less of the New, has so treated throughout his
  whole book of nothing but visions: so that I put it almost in
  the same rank with the fourth book of Esdras, and _cannot any
  way find that it was dictated by the Holy Ghost_. Lastly, let
  every one think of it what his own spirit suggests. My spirit
  can make nothing out of this book; and I have reason enough not
  to esteem it highly, since Christ is not taught in it, which an
  apostle is above all things bound to do, as he says, (Acts i.)
  Ye are my witnesses. Therefore I abide by the books which teach
  Christ clearly and purely.’

  “But in that which he printed in 1534, he used milder and less
  decisive expressions. In the preface to this later edition,
  he divides prophecies into three classes, the third of which
  contains visions, without explanations of them; and of these
  he says: ‘As long as a prophecy remains unexplained and has
  no determinate interpretation, it is a hidden silent prophecy,
  and is destitute of the advantages which it ought to afford to
  Christians. This has hitherto happened to the Apocalypse: for
  though many have made the attempt, no one to the present day,
  has brought any thing certain out of it, but several have made
  incoherent stuff out of their own brain. On account of these
  uncertain interpretations, and hidden senses, we have hitherto
  left it to itself, especially since some of the ancient Fathers
  believed that it was not written by the apostle, as is related
  in Lib. III. Church History. In this uncertainty we, for our
  part, still let it remain: but do not prevent others from taking
  it to be the work of St. John the apostle, if they choose. And
  because I should be glad to see a certain interpretation of it,
  I will afford to other and higher spirits occasion to reflect.’

  “Still however, he declared he was not convinced that the
  Apocalypse was canonical, and recommended the interpretation of
  it to those who were more enlightened than himself. If Luther
  then, the author of our reformation, thought and acted in
  this manner, and the divines of the last two centuries still
  continued, without the charge of heresy, to print Luther’s
  preface to the Apocalypse, in the editions of the German Bible
  of which they had the superintendence, surely no one of the
  present age ought to censure a writer for the avowal of similar
  doubts. Should it be objected that what was excusable in Luther
  would be inexcusable in a modern divine, since more light has
  been thrown on the subject than there had been in the sixteenth
  century, I would ask in what this light consists. If it consists
  in newly discovered testimonies of the ancients, they are rather
  unfavorable to the cause; for the canon of the Syrian church,
  which was not known in Europe when Luther wrote, decides against
  it. On the other hand, if this light consists in a more clear
  and determinate explanation of the prophecies contained in the
  Apocalypse, which later commentators have been able to make out,
  by the aid of history, I would venture to appeal to a synod of
  the latest and most zealous interpreters of it, such as Vitringa,
  Lange, Oporin, Heumann, and Bengel, names which are free from
  all suspicion; and I have not the least doubt, that at every
  interpretation which I pronounced unsatisfactory, I should have
  at least three voices out of the five in my favor. At all events
  they would never be unanimous against me, in the places where I
  declared that I was unable to perceive the new light, which is
  supposed to have been thrown on the subject since the time of
  Luther.

  “I admit that Luther uses too harsh expressions, where he speaks
  of the epistle of St. James, though in a preface not designed
  for Christians of every denomination: but his opinion of the
  Apocalypse is delivered in terms of the utmost diffidence,
  which are well worthy of imitation. And this is so much the more
  laudable, as the Apocalypse is a book, which Luther’s opposition
  to the church of Rome must have rendered highly acceptable
  to him, unless he had thought impartially, and had refused to
  sacrifice his own doubts to polemical considerations.”

  To pretend to decide with certainty on a point, which Martin
  Luther boldly denied, and which John David Michaelis modestly
  doubted, implies neither superior knowledge of the truth, nor a
  more holy reverence for it; but rather marks a mere presumptuous
  self-confidence, and an ignorant bigotry, arising from the
  prejudices of education. Yet from the deep researches of the
  latter of these writers, and of other exegetical theologians
  since, much may be drawn to support the view taken in the
  text of this Life of John, which is accordant with the common
  notion of its authorship. The quotation just given, however,
  is valuable as inculcating the propriety of hesitation and
  moderation in pronouncing upon results.

  _The testimony of the Fathers_, on the authenticity of the
  Apocalypse as a work of John, the apostle, may be very briefly
  alluded to here. The full details of this important evidence
  may be found by the scholar in J. D. Michaelis’s Introduction to
  the New Testament (Vol. IV. c. xxxiii. § 2.) Hug’s Introduction
  to the New Testament (Vol. II. § 176.) Lardner’s Credibility of
  Gospel History (Supplement, chapter 22.) Fabricii Bibliotheca
  Graeca. (Harles’s 4to. edition with Keil’s, Kuinoel’s, Gurlitt’s,
  and Heyne’s notes, vol. IV. pp. 786‒795, corresponding to vol.
  III. pp. 146‒149, of the first edition.) Lampe, Prolegomena to
  a Johannine Theology.

  Justin Martyr (A. D. 140,) is the first who mentions this book.
  He says, “A man among us, named John, one of the apostles of
  Christ, has, in a revelation which was made to him, prophesied,”
  &c. Melito (A. D. 177.) is quoted by Eusebius and by Jerome, as
  having written a treatise on the Revelation. He was bishop of
  Sardis, one of the seven churches, and his testimony would be
  therefore highly valuable, if it were certain whether he wrote
  _for_ or _against_ the authenticity of the work. Probably he
  was _for_ it, since he calls it “the Apocalypse of John,” in
  the title of his treatise, and the silence of Eusebius about
  the opinion of Melito may fairly be construed as showing that
  he did not write _against_ it. Irenaeus, (A. D. 178,) who in
  his younger days was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple
  and personal friend of John, often quotes this book as “the
  Revelation of John, the disciple of the Lord.” And in another
  place, he says, “It was seen not long ago, almost in our own age,
  _at the end of the reign of Domitian_.” This is the most direct
  and valuable kind of testimony which the writings of the Fathers
  can furnish on any point in apostolic history; for Irenaeus here
  speaks from personal knowledge, and, as will be hereafter shown,
  throws great light on the darkest passage in the Apocalypse, by
  what he had heard from those persons who _had seen John himself,
  face to face_, and who heard these things from his own lips.
  Theophilus of Antioch, (A. D. 181,)――Clemens of Alexandria,
  (A. D. 194,――Tertullian of Carthage, (A. D. 200,)――Apollonius of
  Ephesus, (A. D. 211,)――Hippolytus of Italy, (A. D. 220,)――Origen
  of Alexandria and Caesarea, (A. D. 230,)――all received and
  quoted it as a work of John the apostle, and some testify very
  fully as to the character of the evidence of its authenticity,
  received from their predecessors and from the contemporaries of
  John.

  But from about the middle of the third century, it fell under
  great suspicion of being the production of some person different
  from the _apostle_ John. Having been quoted by Cerinthus and
  his disciples, (a set of Gnostical heretics, in the first
  century,) in support of their views, it was, by some of their
  opponents, pronounced to be a fabrication of Cerinthus himself.
  At this later period, however, it suffered a much more general
  condemnation; but though denied by some to be an _apostolic_
  work, it was still almost universally granted to be inspired.
  Dionysius of Alexandria, (A. D. 250,) in a book against the
  Millenarians, who rested their notions upon the millenial
  passages of this revelation, has endeavored to make the
  Apocalypse useless to them in support of their heresy. This
  he has done by referring to the authority of some of his
  predecessors, who rejected it on account of its maintaining
  Cerinthian doctrines. This objection however, has been ably
  refuted by modern writers, especially by Michaelis and Hug, both
  of whom, distinctly show that there are many passages in the
  Revelation, so perfectly opposite to the doctrines of Cerinthus,
  that he could never have written the book, although he may have
  been willing to quote from it such passages as accorded with his
  notions about a sensual millenium,――as he could in this way meet
  those, who did take the book for an inspired writing.

  Dionysius himself, however, does not pretend to adopt this view
  of the authorship of it, but rather thinks that it was the work
  of John the _presbyter_, who lived in Ephesus in the age of John
  the _apostle_, and had probably been confounded with him by the
  early Fathers. This John is certainly spoken of by Papias, (A. D.
  120,) who knew personally both him and the apostle; but Papias
  has left nothing on the Apocalypse, as the work of either of
  them. (The substance of the whole argument of Dionysius is very
  elaborately given and reviewed, by both Michaelis and Hug.)
  After this bold attack, the apostolic character of the work
  seems to have received much injury among most of the eastern
  Fathers, and was generally rejected by both the Syrian and Greek
  churches, having no place in their New Testament canon. Eusebius,
  (A. D. 315,) who gives the first list of the writings of the New
  Testament, that is known, divides all books which had ever been
  offered as apostolical, into three classes,――the _universally
  acknowledged_, (ὁμολογουμενα _homologoumena_,)――the _disputed_,
  (αντιλεγομενα _antilegomena_,)――and the _spurious_, (νοθα
  _notha_.) In the first class, he puts all now received into the
  New Testament, except the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistles
  of James and Jude, the second of Peter, the second and third
  of John, and the Revelation. These exceptions he puts into the
  second, or _disputed_ class, along with sundry writings now
  universally considered apocryphal. Eusebius says also, “It is
  likely that the Revelation was seen by John the presbyter, if
  not by John the apostle.”――Cyril of Jerusalem, (A. D. 348,) in
  his catalogue of the Scriptures, does not allow this a place.
  Epiphanius of Salamis, in Cyprus, (A. D. 368,) though himself
  receiving it as of apostolic origin, acknowledged that others
  in his time rejected it. The council of Laodicea, (A. D. 363,)
  sitting in the seat of one of the seven churches, did not give
  the Revelation a place among the sacred writings of the New
  Testament, though their list includes all others now received.
  Gregory, of Nazianzus, in Cappadocia, (A. D. 370,) gives
  a catalogue of the canonical scriptures, but excludes the
  Revelation. Amphilochius, of Iconium, in Lycaonia, (A. D. 370,)
  in mentioning the canonical scriptures, says, “The Revelation
  of John is approved by some; but many say it is spurious.”
  The scriptural canon of the Syrian churches rejects it, even
  as given by Ebed Jesu, in 1285; nor was it in the ancient
  Syriac version completed during the first century; but the
  reason for this may be, that the Revelation was not then
  promulgated.――Jerome of Rome, (A. D. 396,) receives it, as
  do all the Latin Fathers; but he says, “the Greek churches
  reject it.”――Chrysostom (A. D. 398,) never quotes it, and is not
  supposed to have received it. Augustin, of Africa, (A. D. 395,)
  receives it, but says that it was not received by all in
  his time. Theodoret, (A. D. 423,) of Syria, and all the
  ecclesiastics of that country, reject it also.

  The result of all this evidence is, as will be observed by
  glancing over the _dates_ of the Fathers quoted, that, until
  the year 250, no writer can be found who scrupled to receive the
  Apocalypse as the genuine work of John the _apostle_,――that the
  further back the Fathers are, the more explicit and satisfactory
  is their testimony in its favor,――and that the fullest of all,
  is that of Irenaeus, who had his information from Polycarp,
  the most intimate and beloved disciple of John himself. Now,
  where the evidence is not of the ordinary cumulative character,
  growing weighty, like a snowball, the farther it travels from
  its original starting-place, but as here, is strongest at the
  source,――it may justly be pronounced highly valuable, and an
  eminent exception to the usual character of such historical
  proofs, which, as has been plentifully shown already in this
  book, are too apt to come “but-end first,” as the investigator
  travels from the last to the first. It will be observed also,
  by a glance at the _places_ where these Fathers flourished, that
  all those who rejected the Apocalypse belonged to the EASTERN
  section of the churches, including both the Greeks and the
  Syrians, while the WESTERN churches, both the Europeans and
  Latino-Africans, adopted the Apocalypse as an apostolic writing.
  This is not so fortunate a concurrence as that of the _dates_,
  since the _easterns_ certainly had better means of investigating
  such a point than the _westerns_. A reason may be suggested
  for this, in the circumstance, that the Cerinthians and other
  heretics, who were the occasion of the first rejection of
  the Apocalypse, annoyed only the eastern churches, and thus
  originated the mischief only among them. Lampe, Michaelis and
  others, indeed, quote Caius of Rome, as a solitary exception
  to this geographical distribution of the difficulty, but Paulus
  and Hug have shown that the passage in Caius, to which they
  refer, has been misapprehended, as the scholar may see by a
  reference to Hug’s Introduction to the New Testament, vol. II.
  pp. 647‒650, [Wait’s translation,] pp. 593‒596, [original.]
  There is something in Jerome too, which implies that some of
  the Latins, _in his time_, were beginning to follow the Greek
  fashion of rejecting this book, but he scouts this new notion,
  and says he shall stick to the old standard canon.

  _The internal evidence_ is also so minutely protracted in its
  character, that only a bare allusion to it can be here permitted,
  and reference to higher and deeper sources of information, on
  such an exegetical point, may be made for the benefit of the
  scholar. Lampe, Wolf, Michaelis, Mill, Eichhorn and others,
  quoted by Fabricius, [Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. IV. p. 795, note
  46.] Hug and his English translator, Dr. Wait, are also full on
  this point.

  This evidence consists for the most part in a comparison of
  passages in this book with similar ones in the other writings of
  John, more especially his gospel. Wetstein, in particular, has
  brought together many such parallelisms, some of which are so
  striking in the peculiar expressions of John, and yet so merely
  accidental in their character, as to afford most satisfactory
  evidence to the nicest critics, of the identity of authorship.
  A table of these coincidences is given from Wetstein, by Wait,
  Hug’s translator, (p. 636, note.) Yet on this very point,――the
  style,――the most serious objection to the Apocalypse, as a work
  of the author of John’s gospel, has always been founded;――the
  rude, wild, thundering sublimity of the vision of Patmos,
  presenting such a striking contrast with the soft, love-teaching,
  and beseeching style of the gospel and the epistles of John.
  But such objectors have forgotten or overlooked the immense
  difference between the circumstances under which these works
  were suggested and composed. Their period, their scene, their
  subject, their object, were all widely removed from each other,
  and a thoughtful examination will show, that writings of such
  widely various scope and tendency could not well have less
  striking differences, than those observable between this and the
  other writings of John. In such a change of circumstances, the
  structure of sentences, the choice of words, and the figures
  of speech, could hardly be expected to show the slightest
  similarity between works, thus different in design, though by
  the same author. But in the minuter peculiarities of language,
  certain favorite expressions of the author,――particular
  associations of words, such as a forger could never hit upon
  in that uninventive age,――certain personal views and sentiments
  on trifling points, occasionally modifying the verbal forms of
  ideas――these and a multitude of other characteristics, making
  up that collection of abstractions which is called an author’s
  _style_,――all quite beyond the reach of an imitator, but
  presenting the most valuable and honest tests to the laborious
  critic,――constitute a series of proofs in this case, which
  none can fully appreciate but the investigators and students
  themselves.


           II. WITH WHAT DESIGN WAS THE APOCALYPSE WRITTEN?

There is no part of the Bible which has been the subject of so much
perversion, or on which the minds of the great mass of Christian
readers have been suffered to fall into such gross errors, as the
Apocalypse. This is the opinion of all the great exegetical theologians
of this age, who have examined the scope of the work most attentively;
and from the time of Martin Luther till this moment, the opinions of
the learned have for the most part been totally different from those
which have made up the popular sentiment,――none or few, caring to give
the world the benefit of the simple truth, which might be ill received
by those who loved darkness rather than light; and those who knew the
truth, have generally preferred to keep the quiet enjoyment of it to
themselves. This certainly is much to be regretted; for in consequence
of this culpable negligence of the duty of making religious knowledge
available for the good of the whole, this particular apostolic writing
has been the occasion of the most miserable and scandalous delusions
among the majority even of the more intelligent order of Bible
readers,――delusions, which, affecting no point whatever in creeds and
confessions of faith, those bulwarks of sects, have been suffered to
rage and spread their debasing error, without subjecting those who
thus indulged their foolish fancies, to the terrors of ecclesiastical
censure. The Revelation of John has, accordingly, for the last century
or two, been made a licensed subject for the indulgence of idle fancies,
and used as a grand storehouse for every “filthy dreamer” to draw
upon, for the scriptural prophetical supports of his particular
notions of “the signs of the times,” and for the warrant of his special
denunciations of divine wrath and coming ruin, against any system that
might happen to be particularly abominable in his religious eyes. Thus,
a most baseless delusion has been long suffered to pervade the minds
of common readers, respecting the general scope of the Apocalypse,
perverting the latter parts of it into a prophecy of the rise, triumph
and downfall of the Romish papal tyranny; while in respect to the
minor details, every schemer has been left to satisfy himself, as his
private fancy or sectarian zeal might direct him. Now, not only is all
this ranting trash directly opposed to the clear, natural and simple
explanations, given by those very persons among the earliest Christian
writers, who had John’s own private personal testimony as to his
real meaning, in the dark passages which have in modern times been
made the subject of such idle, fanciful interpretations; but they are
so palpably inconsistent both with the general scope and the minute
details of the writing itself, that even without the support of this
most incontrovertible evidence of the earliest Christian antiquity,
the falsehood of the idea of any anti-papal prophecy can be most
triumphantly and unanswerably settled; and this has been repeatedly
done, in every variety of manner, by the learned labors of all the
sagest of the _orthodox_ theologians of Germany, Holland, France and
England, for the last three hundred years. A most absurd notion seems
to be prevalent, that the idea of a rational historical interpretation
of the Apocalypse, is one of the wicked results of that most horrible
of abstract monsters, “_German neology_;” and the dreadful name of
Eichhorn is straightway referred to, as the source of this common
sense view. But Eichhorn and all those of the modern German schools
of theology, who have taken up this notion, so far from originating
the view or aspiring to claim it as their invention, were but quietly
following the standard authorities which had been steadily accumulating
on this point for sixteen hundred years; and instead of being the
result of _neo_logy or of anything _new_, it was as old as the time
of Irenaeus. The testimony of all the early writers on this point,
is uniform and explicit; and they all, without a solitary exception,
explain the great mass of the bold expressions in it, about coming
ruin on the enemies of the pure faith of Christ, as a distinct, direct
prophecy of the downfall of imperial ROME, as the great _heathen_
foe of the saints. There was among them no very minute account of
the manner in which the poetical details of the prophecy was to be
fulfilled; but the general meaning of the whole was considered to be
so marked, dated, and individualized, that to have denied this manifest
interpretation in their presence, must have seemed an absurdity not
less than to have denied the authentic history of past ages. Not all,
nor most of the Christian Fathers however, have noticed the design and
character of the Apocalypse, even among those of the western churches;
while the scepticism of the Greek and Syrian Fathers, after the third
century, about the authenticity of the work, has deprived the world of
the great advantage which their superior acquaintance with the original
language of the writing, with its peculiarly oriental style, allusions
and quotations, would have enabled them to afford in the faithful
interpretation of the predictions. From the very first, however, there
were difficulties among the different sects, about the allegorical and
literal interpretations of the expressions which referred to the final
triumph of the followers of Christ; some interpreting those passages
as describing an actual personal reign of Christ on earth, and a
real worldly triumph of his followers, during a _thousand years_,
all which was to happen shortly;――and from this notion of a Chiliasm,
or a Millennium, arose a peculiar sect of heretics, famous in early
ecclesiastical history, during the two first centuries, under the name
of _Chiliasts_ or ♦_Millenarians_,――the Greek or the Latin appellative
being used, according as the persons thus designated or those
designating them, were of eastern or western stock. Cerinthus and
his followers so far improved this worldly view of the subject, as to
inculcate the notion that the faithful, during that triumph, were to
be further rewarded, by the full fruition of all bodily and sensual
pleasures, and particularly that the whole thousand years were to be
passed in nuptial enjoyments. But these foolish vagaries soon passed
away, nor did they, even in the times when they prevailed, affect the
standard interpretation of the general historical relations of the
prophecy.

    ♦ “Millennarians” replaced with “Millenarians”

It was not until a late age of modern times, that any one pretended
to apply the denunciations of ruin, with which the Apocalypse abounds,
to any object but _heathen_, IMPERIAL Rome, or to the pagan system
generally, as personified or concentrated in the existence of that
city. During the middle ages, the Franciscans, an order of monks, fell
under the displeasure of the papal power; and being visited with the
censures of the head of the Romish church, retorted, by denouncing him
as an Anti-Christ, and directly set all their wits to work to annoy
him in various ways, by tongue and pen. In the course of this furious
controversy, some of them turned their attention to the prophecies
respecting Rome, which were found in the Apocalypse, then received
as an inspired book by all the adherents of the church of Rome; and
searching into the denunciations of ruin on the Babylon of the seven
hills, immediately saw by what a slight perversion of expressions, they
could apply all this dreadful language to their great foe. This they
did accordingly, with all the spite which had suggested it; and in
consequence of this beginning, the Apocalypse thenceforward became the
great storehouse of scriptural abuse of the Pope, to all who happened
to quarrel with him. This continued the fashion, down to the time
of the Reformation; but the bold Luther and his coadjutors, scorned
the thought of a scurrilous aid, drawn from such a source, and with
a noble honesty not only refused to adopt this construction, but even
did much to throw suspicion on the character of the book itself. Luther
however, had not the genius suited to minute historical and critical
observations; and his condemnation of it therefore, though showing
his own honest confidence in his mighty cause, to be too high to allow
him to use a dishonest aid, yet does not affect the results to which
a more deliberate examination has led those who were as honest as
he, and much better critics. This however, was the state in which
the early reformers left the interpretation of the Apocalypse. But
in later times, a set of spitefully zealous Protestants, headed by
Napier, Mede, and bishop Newton, took up the Revelation of John, as a
complete anticipative history of the triumphs, the cruelties and the
coming ruin of the Papal tyranny. These were followed by a servile
herd of commentators and sermonizers, who went on with all the
elaborate details of this interpretation, even to the precise meaning
of the teeth and tails of the prophetical locusts. These views were
occasionally varied by others tracing the whole history of the world in
these few chapters, and finding the conquests of the Huns, the Saracens,
the Turks, &c. all delineated with most amazing particularity.

But while these idle fancies were amusing the heads of men, who showed
more sense in other things, the great current of Biblical knowledge
had been flowing on very uniformly in the old course of rational
interpretation, and the genius of modern criticism had already been
doing much to perfect the explanation of passages on which the wisdom
of the Fathers had never pretended to throw light. Of all critics who
ever took up the Apocalypse in a rational way, none ever saw so clearly
its real force and application as HUGO GROTIUS; and to him belongs
the praise of having been the first of the moderns to apprehend and
expose the truth of this sublimest of apostolic records. This mighty
champion of Protestant evangelical theology, with that genius which was
so resplendent in all his illustrations of Divine things as well as of
human law, distinctly pointed out the _three_ grand divisions of the
prophetical plan of the work. “The visions as far as to the end of the
eleventh chapter, describe the affairs of the Jews; then, as far as to
the end of the twentieth chapter, the affairs of the Romans; and thence
to the end, the most flourishing state of the Christian church.” Later
theologians, following the great plan of explanation thus marked out,
have still farther perfected it, and penetrated still deeper into
the mysteries of the whole. They have shown that the two cities, Rome
and Jerusalem, whose fate constitutes the most considerable portions
of the Apocalypse, are mentioned only as the seats of two religions
whose fall is foretold; and that the third city, the New Jerusalem,
whose triumphant heavenly building is described in the end, after the
downfall of the former two, is the religion of Christ. Of these three
cities, the first is called Sodom; but it is easy to see that this name
of sin and ruin is only used to designate another devoted by the wrath
of God to a similar destruction. Indeed, the sacred writer himself
explains that this is only a metaphorical or spiritual use of the
term,――“which is _spiritually_ called Sodom and Egypt;”――and to set its
locality beyond all possibility of doubt, it is furthermore described
as the city “where also our Lord was crucified.” It is also called
the “Holy city,” and in it was the temple. Within, have been slain two
faithful witnesses of Jesus Christ; these are the two Jameses,――the
great apostolic proto-martyrs; James the son of Zebedee, killed by
Herod Agrippa, and James the brother of our Lord, the son of Alpheus,
killed by order of the high priest, in the reign of Nero, as described
in the lives of those apostles. The ruin of the city is therefore
sealed. The second described, is called Babylon; but that Chaldean city
had fallen to the dust of its plain, centuries before; and this city,
on the other hand, stood on _seven hills_, and it was, at the moment
when the apostle wrote, the seat of “the kingdom of the kingdoms of
the earth,” the capital of the nations of the world,――expressions which
distinctly mark it to be IMPERIAL ROME. The seven angels pour out the
seven vials of wrath on this Babylon, and the awful ruin of this mighty
city is completed.

To give repetition and variety to this grand view of the downfall of
these two dominant religions, and to present these grand objects of
the Apocalypse in new relations to futurity, which could not be fully
expressed under the original figures of the cities which were the
capital seats of each, they are each again presented under the poetical
image of a female, whose actions and features describe the fate of
these two systems, and their upholders. First, immediately after the
account of the city which is called Sodom, a female is described as
appearing in the heavens, in a most peculiar array of glory, clothed
in the sun’s rays, with the moon beneath her feet, and upon her head
a crown of _twelve_ stars. This woman, thus splendidly arrayed, and
exalted to the skies, represents the ancient covenant, crowned with
all the old and holy honors of the twelve tribes of Israel. A huge red
dragon (the image under which Daniel anciently represented idolatry)
rises in the heavens, sweeping away the third part of the stars, and
characterized by seven heads and ten horns, (thus identified with a
subsequent metaphor representing imperial Rome;)――he rages to devour
the offspring to which the woman is about to give existence. The child
is born destined to rule all nations with a rod of iron,――and is caught
up to the throne of God, while the mother flees from the rage of the
dragon into the wilderness, where she is to wander for ages, till
the time decreed by God for her return. Thus, when from the ancient
covenant had sprung forth the new revelation of truth in Jesus, it
was driven by the rage of heathenism from its seat of glory, to wander
in loneliness, unheeded save by God, till the far distant day of its
blissful re-union with its heavenly offspring, which is, under the
favor of God, advancing to a firm and lasting dominion over the nations.
Even in her retirement, she is followed by the persecutions of the
dragon, now cast down from higher glories; but his fury is lost,――she
is protected by the earth, (sheltered by the Parthian empire;) yet the
dragon still persecutes those of her children who believe in Christ,
and are yet within his power; (Jews and Christians persecuted in Rome,
by Nero and Domitian.)

Again, after the punishment and destruction of imperial Babylon have
been described, a second female appears, not in heaven, like the first,
but in an earthly wilderness, splendidly attired, but not with the
heavenly glories of the sun, moon and stars. Purple and scarlet robes
are her covering, marking an imperial honor; and gold, silver, and all
_earthly_ gems, adorn her,――showing only _worldly_ greatness. In her
hand is the golden cup of sins and abominations, and she is designated
beyond all possibility of mistake, by the words, “_Mystery, Babylon
the Great_.” This refers to the fact, that Rome had another name which
was kept a profound secret, known only to the priests, and on the
preservation of which religious “mystery,” the fortunes of the empire
were supposed to depend. The second name also identifies her with the
city before described as “Babylon.” She sits on a scarlet beast, with
seven heads and ten horns. The former are afterwards minutely explained,
by the apostle himself, in the same chapter, as the seven hills on
which she sits; they are also seven kings, that is, it would seem,
seven periods of empire, of which five are past, one now is, and one
brief one is yet to come, and the bloody beast itself――the religion
of heathenism――is another. The ten horns are the ten kings or sovrans
who never received any lasting dominion, but merely held the sway one
after another, a brief hour, with the beast, or spirit of heathenism.
These, in short, are the ten emperors of Rome before the days of the
Apocalypse;――Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho,
Vitellius, Vespasian and Titus. These had all reigned, each his hour,
giving his power to the support of heathenism, and thus warring against
the faith of the true believers. Still, though reigning over the
imperial city, they shall hate her, and make her desolate; strip her of
her costly attire, and burn her with fire. How well expressed here the
tyranny, of the worst of the Caesars, plundering the state, banishing
the citizens, and, in the case of Nero, “burning her with fire!”

Who can mistake the gorgeously awful picture? It is heathen, imperial
Rome, desolating and desolated, at that moment suffering under the
tyrannic sway of him whom the apostle cannot yet number with the gloomy
TEN, that have passed away to the tomb of ages gone. It is the mystic
Babylon, drunk with the blood of the faithful witnesses of Christ, and
triumphing in the agonies of his saints, “butchered to make a Roman
holiday!” No wonder that the amazement of the apostolic seer should
deepen into horror, and highten to indignation. Through her tyranny
his brethren had been slaughtered, or driven out from among men, like
beasts; and by that same tyranny he himself was now doomed to a lonely
exile from friends and apostolic duties, on that wild heap of barren
rocks. Well might he burst out in prophetic denunciation of her ruin,
and rejoice in the awful doom, which the angels of God sung over her;
and listen exultingly to the final wail over her distant fall, rolling
up from futurity, in the coming day of the Gothic and Hunnish ravagers,
when she should be “the desolator desolate, the victor overthrown.”

As there are three mystically named cities――Sodom, Babylon, and the
New Jerusalem; so there are three metaphoric females,――the star-crowned
woman in heaven, the bloody harlot on the beast in the wilderness, and
the bride, the Lamb’s wife. A peculiar fate befalls each of the three
pairs. The SPIRITUAL SODOM falls under a temporary ruin, trodden under
foot by the Gentiles, forty-two mystic months; and the star-crowned
daughter of Zion wanders desolate in the wilderness of the world, for
twelve hundred and sixty days, till the hand of her God shall restore
her to grace and glory. The GREAT BABYLON of the seven hills, falls
under a doom of far darker, and of irrevocable desolation,――like the
dashing roar of the sinking rock thrown into the sea, she is thrown
down, and shall be found no more at all. And such too, is the doom of
the fierce scarlet rider of the beast,――“Rejoice over her, O heaven!
and ye holy apostles and prophets! for God has avenged you on her.” But
beyond all this awful ruin appears a vision of contrasting, splendid
beauty.

         “The first _two_ acts already past,
          The _third_ shall close the drama with the day;――
          Time’s noblest offspring is the last.”

The shouts of vindictive triumph over the dreadful downfall of the
bloody city, now soften and sweeten into the songs of joy and praise,
while the NEW JERUSALEM, the church of God and Christ, comes down from
the heavens in a solemn, glorious mass of living splendor, to bless
the earth with its holy presence. In this last great scene, also,
there is a female, the third of the mystic series; not like her of
the twelve stars, now wandering like a _widow_ disconsolate, in the
wilderness;――not like her of the jeweled, scarlet and purple robes,
cast down from her lofty seat, like an abandoned _harlot_, now desolate
in ashes, from which her smoke rises up forever and ever;――but it
is one, all holy, happy, pure, coming down stainless from the throne
of God,――a _bride_, crowned with the glory of God, adorned for her
husband,――the One slain from the foundation of the world. He through
the opening heavens, too, has come forth before her, the Word of God,
the Faithful and the True,――known by his bloody vesture, stained, not
in the gore of slaughtered victims, but in the pure blood poured forth
by himself, for the world, from its foundation. Yet now he rode forth
on his white horse, as a warrior-king, dealing judgment upon the world
with the sword of wrath,――with the sceptre of iron. Behind him rode the
armies of heaven,――the hallowed hosts of the chosen of God,――like their
leader, on white horses, but not like him, in crimson vesture; their
garments are white and clean; by a miracle of purification, they are
washed and made white in blood. This mighty leader, with these bright
armies, now returns from the conquests to which he rode forth from
heaven so gloriously. The kings and the hosts of the earth have arrayed
themselves in vain against him;――the mighty imperial monster, in all
the vastness of his wide dominion,――the false prophets of heathenism,
combining their vile deceptions with his power, are vanquished, crushed
with all their miserable slaves, whose flesh now fills and fattens
the eagles, the vultures, and the ravens. The spirit of heathenism
is crushed; the dragon, the monster of idolatry, is chained, and
sunk into the bottomless pit,――yet not for ever. After a course of
ages,――a mystic thousand years,――he slowly rises, and winding with
serpent cunning among the nations, he deceives them again; till at
last, lifting his head over the world, he gathers each idolatrous
and barbarous host together, from the whole breadth of the earth,
encompassing and assaulting the camp of the saints; but while they
hope for the ruin of the faithful, fire comes down from God, and
devours them. The accusing deceiver,――the genius of idolatry and
superstition,――is at last seized and bound again; but not for a mere
temporary imprisonment. With the spirit of deception and imposture, he
is cast into a sea of fire, where both are held in unchanging torment,
day and night, forever. But one last, awful scene remains; and that
is one, that in sublimity, and vastness, and overwhelming horror, as
far outgoes the highest effort of any genius of human poetry, as the
boundless expanse of the sky excels the mightiest work of man. “A great
white throne is fixed, and One sits on it, from whose face heaven and
earth flee away, and no place is found for them.” “The dead, small
and great, stand before God; they are judged and doomed, as they rise
from the sea and from the land,――from Hades, and from every place of
death.” Over all, rises the new heaven and the new earth, to which
now comes down the city of God,――the church of Christ,――into which the
victorious, the redeemed, and the faithful enter. The Conqueror and
his armies march into the bridal city of the twelve jewelled gates,
on whose twelve foundation-stones are written the names of the mighty
founders, the twelve apostles of the slain one. The glories of that
last, heavenly, and truly eternal city, are told, and the mighty course
of prophecy ceases. The three great series of events are announced; the
endless triumphs of the faithful are achieved.


               III. WHAT IS THE STYLE OF THE APOCALYPSE?

This inquiry refers to the language, spirit and rhetorical structure
of the writing, to its rank as an effort of composition, and to its
peculiarities as expressive of the personal character and feelings of
its inspired writer. The previous inquiry has been answered in such
a way as to illustrate the points involved in the present one; and a
recapitulation of the simple results of that inquiry, will best present
the facts necessary for a satisfactory reply to some points of this.

First, the Apocalypse is a _prophecy_, in the common understanding of
the term; but is not limited, as in the ordinary sense of that word, to
a mere declaration of futurity; it embraces in its plan the events of
the past, and with a glance like that of the Eternal, sweeps over that
which has been and that which is to be, as though both were _now_; and
in its solemn course through ages, past, present, and future, it bears
the record of faithful _history_, as well as of glorious prophecy.

Second, the Apocalypse is _poetry_, in the highest and justest sense
of the word. All prophecy is poetry. The sublimity of such thoughts
can not be expressed in the plain unbroken detail of a prose narrative;
and even when the events of past history are combined in one harmonious
series with wide views of the future, they too rise from the dull
unpictured record of a mere narrator, and share in the elevation
of the mighty whole. The spirit of the writer, replete, not with
mere particulars, but with vivid images, seeks language that paints,
“thoughts that breathe, and words that burn;” and thus the writing
that flows forth is poetry,――the imaginative expression of deep, high
feeling――swelling where the occasion moves the writer, into the energy
of passion, whether dark or holy.

The character of the Apocalypse, as affected by the passionate feelings
of the writer, is also a point which has been illustrated by foregoing
historical statements of his situation and condition at the time of
the Revelation. He was the victim of an unjust and cruel sentence,
deprived of all the sweet earthly solaces of his advanced age, and left
on a desert rock,――useless to the cause of Christ and beyond even the
knowledge of its progress. The mournful sound of sweeping winds and
dashing waves, alone broke the dreary silence of his loneliness, and
awaking sensations only of a melancholy order, sent back his thoughts
into the sadder remembrances of the past, and called up also many of
the sterner emotions against those who had been the occasions of the
past and present calamities which grieved him. The very outset is in
such a tone as these circumstances would naturally inspire. A deep,
holy indignation breaks forth in the solemn annunciation of himself, as
their “brother and companion in tribulation.” Sadness is the prominent
sentiment expressed in all the addresses to the churches; and in the
prelude to the great Apocalypse, while the ceremonies of opening the
book which contains it are going on, the strong predominant emotion of
the writer is again betrayed in the vision of “the souls of them that
were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they bore;”
and the solemnly mournful cry which they send up to him for whom they
died, expresses the deep and bitter feeling of the writer towards the
murderers,――“How long, O Lord! holy and true! dost thou not judge and
avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” The apostle was
thinking of the martyrs of Jerusalem and Rome,――of those who fell under
the persecutions of the high priests, of Agrippa, and of Nero. And
when the seven seals are broken, and the true revelation, of which this
ceremony was only a poetical prelude, actually begins, the first great
view presents the bloody scenes of that once Holy city, which now, by
its cruelties against the cause which is to him as his life,――by the
remorseless murder of those who are near and dear to him,――has lost
all its ancient dominion over the affections and the hopes of the last
apostle and all the followers of Christ.

Again the mournful tragedies of earlier apostolic days pass before him.
Again he sees his noble brother bearing his bold witness of Jesus; and
with him that other apostle, who in works and fate as much resembled
the first, as in name. Their blood pouring out on the earth, rises to
heaven, but not sooner than their spirits,――whence their loud witness
calls down woful ruin on the blood-defiled city of the temple. And when
that ruin falls, no regret checks the exulting tone of the thanksgiving.
All that made those places holy and dear, is gone;――God dwells there no
more; “the temple of God is opened in heaven, and there is seen in his
temple the ark of his covenant,” and all heaven swells the jubilee over
the destruction of Jerusalem. And after this, when the apostle’s view
moved forward from the past to the future, and his eye rested on the
crimes and the destiny of heathen Rome, the bitter remembrance of her
cruelties towards his brethren, lifted his soul to high indignation,
and he burst forth on her in the inspired wrath of a Son of Thunder;――

               “Every burning word he spoke,
                Full of rage, and full of grief.

               “Rome shall perish; write that word
                In the blood that she has spilt.
                Rome shall perish,――fall abhorred,――
                Deep in ruin as in guilt.”

In respect to the _learning_ displayed in the Apocalypse, some most
remarkable facts are observable. Apart from the very copious matters
borrowed from the canonical writings of the Old Testament, from
Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and other prophets, from which, as any reader
can see, some of the most splendid imagery has been taken almost
verbatim,――it is undeniable, that John has drawn very largely from a
famous apocryphal Hebrew writing, called the BOOK OF ENOCH, which Jude
has also quoted in his epistle; and in his life it will be more fully
described. The vision of seven stars, explained to be angels,――of the
pair of balances in the hand of the horseman, after the opening of the
third seal,――the river and tree of life,――the souls under the altar,
crying for vengeance,――the angel measuring the city,――the thousand
years of peace and holiness,――are all found vividly expressed in that
ancient book, and had manifestly been made familiar to John by reading.
In other ancient apocryphal books, are noticed some other striking and
literal coincidences with the Apocalypse. The early Rabbinical writings
are also rich in such parallel passages. The name of the Conqueror,
“which no one knows but himself,”――the rainbow stretched around the
throne of God,――the fiery scepter,――the seven angels,――the sapphire
throne,――the cherubic four beasts, six-winged, and crying Holy, Holy,
Lord God of hosts,――the crowns of gold on the heads of the saints,
which they cast before the throne,――the book with seven seals,――the
souls under the altar,――the silence in heaven,――the Abaddon,――the child
caught up to God,――Satan, as the accuser of the saints, day and night
before God,――the angel of the waters,――the hail of great weight,――the
second death,――the new heaven and earth,――the twelve-gated city of
precious stones,――and Rome, under the name of “Great Babylon,”――are all
found in the old Jewish writings, in such distinctness as to make it
palpable that John was deeply learned in Hebrew literature, both sacred
and traditional.

Yet all these are but the forms of expression, not of thought. The
apostle used them, because long, constant familiarity with the writings
in which such imagery abounded, made these sentences the most natural
and ready vehicles of inspired emotions. The tame and often tedious
details of those old human inventions, had no influence in moulding
the grand conceptions of the glorious revelation. This had a deeper,
a higher, a holier source, in the spirit of eternal truth,――the mighty
suggestions of the time-over-sweeping spirit of prophecy,――the same
that moved the fiery lips of those denouncers of the ancient Babylon,
whose writings also had been deeply known to him by years of study,
and had furnished also a share of consecrated expressions. That spirit
he had caught during his long eastern residence in the very scene of
their prophecy and its awful fulfilment. If this notion of his dwelling
for a time with Peter in Babylon is well founded, as it has been
above narrated, it is at once suggested also, that in that Chaldean
city,――then the capital seat of all Hebrew learning, and for ages the
fount of light to the votaries of Judaism,――he had, during the years
of his stay, been led to the deep study and the vast knowledge of
that amazing range of Talmudical and Cabbalistical learning, which is
displayed in every part of the Apocalypse. But how different all these
resources in knowledge, from the mighty production that seemed to flow
from them! How far are even the sublimest conceptions of the ancient
prophets, in their unconnected bursts and fragments of inspiration,
from the harmonious plan, the comprehensive range, and the faultless
dramatic unity, or rather tri-unity, of this most perfect of historical
views, and of poetical conceptions!

  All these coincidences, with a vast number of other learned
  references, highly illustrative of the character of the
  Apocalypse, as enriched with Oriental imagery, may be found
  in Wait’s very copious notes on Hug’s Introduction.

  There are many things in this view of the Apocalypse which
  will occasion surprise to many readers, but to none who are
  familiar with the views of the standard orthodox writers on
  this department of Biblical literature. The view taken in the
  text of this work, corresponds in its grand outlines, to the
  high authorities there named; though in the minute details,
  it follows none exactly. Some interpretations of particular
  passages are found no where else; but these occasional
  peculiarities cannot affect the general character of the view;
  and it will certainly be found accordant with that universally
  received among the Biblical scholars of Germany and England,
  belonging to the Romish, the Lutheran, the Anglican, and
  Wesleyan churches. The authority most closely followed, is
  Dr. Hug, Roman Catholic professor of theology in an Austrian
  university, further explained by his translator, Dr. D. G. Wait,
  of the church of England, more distinguished in Biblical and
  oriental literature, probably, than any other of the numerous
  learned living divines of that church. These views are also
  found in the commentary of that splendid orientalist, Dr. Adam
  Clarke, a work which, fortunately for the world, is fast taking
  the place of the numerous lumbering, prosing quartos that have
  too long met the mind of the common Bible reader with mere
  masses of dogmatic theology, where he needs the help of simple,
  clear interpretation and illustration, which has been drawn by
  the truly learned, from a minute knowledge of the language and
  critical history of the sacred writings. This noble work, as
  far as I know, is the first which took the honest ground of the
  ancient interpretation of the Apocalypse, with common readers,
  and constitutes a noble monument to the praise of the good and
  learned man, who first threw light for such readers on the most
  sublime book in the sacred canon, and among all the writings
  ever penned by man,――a book which ignorant visionaries had too
  long been suffered to overcloud and perplex for those who need
  the guidance of the learned in the interpretation of the “many
  things hard to be understood” in the volume of truth. The first
  book of a popular character, ever issued from the American
  press, explaining the Apocalypse according to the standard
  mode, is a treatise on the Millennium, by the learned Professor
  Bush, of the New York University, in which he adopts the grand
  outlines of the plan above detailed, though I have not had the
  opportunity of ascertaining how it is, in the minor details.

  In reference to the tone assumed in some passages of the
  statement in the text, perhaps it may be thought that more
  freedom has been used in characterizing opposite views, than is
  accordant with the principles of “moderation and hesitation,”
  proposed in comment upon Luther and Michaelis. But where, in the
  denunciation of popular error, a reference to the motive of the
  inculcators of it would serve to expose most readily its nature,
  such a freedom of pen has been fearlessly adopted; and severity
  of language on these occasions is justified by the consideration
  of the character of the delusion which is to be overthrown.
  The statements too, which are the occasion and the support
  of these condemnations of vulgar notions, are drawn not from
  the mere conceptions of the writer of this book, but from the
  unanswerable authorities of the great standards of Biblical
  interpretation. The opportunity of research on this point has
  been too limited to allow anything like an enumeration of all
  the great names who support this view; but references enough
  have already been made, to show that an irresistible weight of
  orthodox sentiment has decided in favor of these views as above
  given.

  Some of the minute details, particularly those not authorized by
  learned men, who have already so nearly perfected the standard
  view, may fall under the censure of the critical, as fanciful,
  like those so freely condemned before; but they were written
  down because it seemed that there was, in those cases, a
  wonderfully minute correspondence between these passages and
  events in the life of John, not commonly noticed. The greater
  part of this view, however, may be found almost verbatim in
  Wait’s translation of Hug’s Introduction.

  The most satisfactory evidence of the meaning of the great
  mystery of the Apocalypse, is in the true interpretation of “the
  number of the beast,” the mystic 666. In the Greek and oriental
  languages, the letters are used to represent numbers, and thence
  arose in mystic writings a mode of representing a name by any
  number, which would be made up by adding together the numbers
  for which its letters stood; and so any number thus mystically
  given may be resolved into a name, by taking any word whose
  letters when added together will make up that sum. Now the word
  LATINUS, (Λατεινος,) meaning the Latin or Roman empire, (for the
  names are synonymous,) is made up of Greek letters representing
  the numbers whose sum is 666. Thus Λ-30, α-1, τ-300, ε-5, ι-10,
  ν-50, ο-70, ς-200――all which, added up, make just 666. What
  confirms this view is, that Irenaeus says, “John himself told
  those who saw him face to face, that this was what he meant
  by the number;” and Irenaeus assures us that he himself heard
  this from the personal acquaintances of John. (See Wait’s note.
  Translation of Hug’s Introduction II. 626‒629, note.)


                    HIS LAST RESIDENCE IN EPHESUS.

The date of John’s return from Patmos is capable of more exact proof
than any other point in the chronology of his later years. The death
of Domitian, who fell at last under the daggers of his own previous
friends, now driven to this measure by their danger from his murderous
tyranny, happened in the sixteenth of his own reign, (A. D. 96.) On
the happy ♦consummation of this desirable revolution, Cocceius Nerva,
who had himself suffered banishment under the suspicious tyranny
of Domitian, was now recalled from his exile, to the throne of the
Caesars; and mindful of his own late calamity, he commenced his just
and blameless reign by an auspicious act of clemency, restoring to
their country and home all who had been banished by the late emperor.
Among these, John was doubtless included; for the decree was so
comprehensive that he could hardly have been excluded from the benefit
of its provisions; and to give this view the strongest confirmation,
it is specified by the heathen historians of Rome, that this senatorial
decree of general recall did not except even those who had been found
guilty of religious offenses. Christian writers also, of a respectable
antiquity, state distinctly that the apostle John was recalled from
Patmos by this decree of Nerva. Some of the early ecclesiastical
historians, indeed, have pretended that this persecution against
the Christians was suspended by Domitian himself, on some occasion
of repentance; but critical examination and a comparison of higher
authorities, both sacred and profane, have disproved the notion.
The data above-mentioned, therefore, fix the return of John from
banishment, in the first year of Nerva, which, according to the most
approved chronology, corresponds with A. D. 96. This date is useful
also, in affording ground for a reasonable conjecture respecting the
comparative age of John. He could not have been near as old as Jesus
Christ, since the attainment of the age of ninety-six must imply an
extreme of infirmity necessarily accompanying it, unless a miracle
of most unparalleled character is supposed; and no one can venture to
require belief in a pretended miracle, of which no sacred record bears
testimony. If he was, on his return from Patmos, as well as during his
residence there, able to produce writings of such power and such clear
expression, as those which are generally attributed to these periods,
it seems reasonable to suppose that he was many years younger than
Jesus Christ. The common Christian era, also, fixing the birth of
Christ some years too late, this circumstance will require a still
larger subtraction from this number, for the age of John.

    ♦ “consummamation” replaced with “consummation”


                              HIS GOSPEL.

The united testimony of early writers who allude to this matter, is
that John wrote his gospel, long after the completion and circulation
of the writings of the three first evangelists. Some early testimony
on the subject dates from the end of the second century, and specifies
that John, observing that in the other gospels, those things were
copiously related which concern the humanity of Christ, wrote a
spiritual gospel, at the earnest solicitations of his friends and
disciples, to explain in more full detail, the divinity of Christ. This
account is certainly accordant with what is observable of the structure
and tendency of this gospel; but much earlier testimony than this,
distinctly declares that John’s design in writing, was to attack
certain heresies on the same point specified in the former statement.
The Nicolaitans and the followers of Cerinthus, in particular, who were
both Gnostical sects, are mentioned as having become obnoxious to the
purity of the truth, by inculcating notions which directly attacked
the true divinity and real Messiahship of Jesus. The earliest heresy
that is known to have arisen in the Christian churches, is that of
the Gnostics, who, though divided among themselves by some minor
distinctions, yet all agreed in certain grand errors, against which
this gospel appears to have been particularly directed. The great
system of mystical philosophy from which all these errors sprung,
did not derive its origin from Christianity, but existed in the
east long before the time of Christ; yet after the wide diffusion
of his doctrines, many who had been previously imbued with this
oriental mysticism, became converts to the new faith. But not rightly
apprehending the simplicity of the faith which they had partially
adopted, they soon began to contaminate its purity by the addition
of strange doctrines, drawn from their philosophy, which were totally
inconsistent with the great revelations made by Christ to his apostles.
The prime suggestion of the mischief, and one, alas! which has not at
this moment ceased to distract the churches of Christ, was a set of
speculations, introduced “to account for the _origin and existence
of evil in the world_,”――which seemed to them inconsistent with the
perfect work of an all-wise and benevolent being. Overleaping all
those minor grounds of dispute which are now occupying the attention
of modern controversialists, they attacked the very basis of religious
truth, and adopted the notion that the world was not created by the
supreme God himself, but by a being of inferior rank, called by them
the Demiurgus, whom they considered deficient in benevolence and in
wisdom, and as thus being the occasion of the evil so manifest in the
works of his hands. This Demiurgus they considered identical with the
God of the Jews, as revealed in the Old Testament. Between him and the
Supreme Deity, they placed an order of beings, to which they assigned
the names of the “Only-begotten,” “the Word,” “the Light,” “the
Life,” &c.; and among these superior beings, was Christ,――a distinct
existence from Jesus, whom they declared a mere man, the son of Mary;
but acquiring a divine character by being united at his baptism to
the Divinity, Christ, who departed from him at his death. Most of the
Gnostics utterly rejected the law of Moses; but Cerinthus is said to
have respected some parts of it.

  A full account of the prominent characteristics of the Gnostical
  system may be found in Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History,
  illustrated by valuable annotations in Dr. Murdock’s translation
  of that work. The scholar will also find an elaborate account of
  this, with other Oriental mysticisms, in Beausobre’s Histoire de
  Manichee et du Manicheisme. J. D. Michaelis, in his introduction
  to the New Testament, (vol. III. c. ii. § 5,) is also copious
  on these tenets, in his account of John’s gospel. He refers
  also to Walch’s History of Heretics. Hug’s Introduction also
  gives a very full account of the peculiarities of Cerinthus, as
  connected with the scope of this gospel. Introduction vol. II.
  §§ 49‒53, [of the original,] §§ 48‒52, [Wait’s translation.]

  In connection with John’s living at Ephesus, a story became
  afterwards current about his meeting him on one occasion and
  openly expressing a personal abhorrence of him. “Irenaeus
  [Against Heresies, III. c. 4. p. 140,] states from Polycarp,
  that John once going into a bath at Ephesus, discovered
  Cerinthus, the heretic, there; and leaping out of the bath he
  hastened away, saying he was afraid lest the building should
  fall on him, and crush him along with the heretic.” Conyers
  Middleton, in his Miscellaneous works, has attacked this story,
  in a treatise upon this express point. (This is in the edition
  of his works in four or five volumes, quarto; but I cannot
  quote the volume, because it is not now at hand.) Lardner also
  discusses it. (Vol. I. p. 325, vol. II. p. 555, 4to. edition.)

  There can be no better human authority on any subject
  connected with the life of John, than that of Irenaeus of Lyons,
  [A. D. 160,] who had in his youth lived in Asia, where he was
  personally acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple and intimate
  friend of John, the apostle. His words are, “John, the disciple
  of the Lord, wishing by the publication of his gospel to remove
  that error which had been sown among men, by Cerinthus, and
  much earlier, by those called Nicolaitans, who are a fragment
  of _science_, (or the _Gnosis_,) _falsely so called_;――and that
  he might both confound them, and convince them that there is
  but one God, who made all things by his word, and not, as they
  say, one who was the Creator, and another who was the Father
  of our Lord.” (Heresies, lib. III. c. xi.) In another passage
  he says,――“As John the disciple of the Lord confirms, saying,
  ‘But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the
  Son of God, and that believing, you may have eternal life in
  his name,’――guarding against these blasphemous notions, which
  _divide_ the Lord, as far as they can, by saying that he was
  made of two different substances.” (Heresies, lib. III. c. xvi.)
  Michaelis, in his Introduction on John, discusses this passage,
  and illustrates its true application.

It appears well established by respectable historical testimony,
that Cerinthus was contemporary with John at Ephesus, and that he had
already made alarming progress in the diffusion of these and other
peculiar errors, during the life of the apostle. John therefore, now
in the decline of life, on the verge of the grave, would wish to bear
his inspired testimony against the advancing heresy; and the occasion,
scope, and object of his gospel are very clearly illustrated by a
reference to these circumstances. The peculiar use of terms, more
particularly in the first part,――terms which have caused so much
perplexity and controversy among those who knew nothing about the
peculiar technical significations of these mystical phrases, as they
were limited by the philosophical application of them in the system
of the Gnostics,――is thus shown in a historical light, highly valuable
in preventing a mis-interpretation among common readers. This view of
the great design of John’s gospel, will be found to coincide exactly
with the results of a minute examination of almost all parts of it,
and gives new force to many passages, by revealing the particular error
at which they were aimed. The details of these coincidences cannot
be given here, but have been most satisfactorily traced out, at great
length, by the labors of the great modern exegetical theologians, who
have occupied volumes with the elucidation of these points. The whole
gospel indeed, is not so absorbed in the unity of this plan, as to
neglect occasions for supplying general historical deficiences in
the narratives of the preceding evangelists. An account is thus
given of two journeys to Jerusalem, of which no mention had ever been
made in former records, while hardly any notice whatever is taken of
the incidents of the wanderings in Galilee, which occupy so large a
portion of former narratives,――except so far as they are connected
with those instructions of Christ which accord with the great object
of this gospel. The scene of the great part of John’s narrative is
laid in Judea, more particularly in and about Jerusalem; and on the
parting instructions given by Christ to his disciples, just before
his crucifixion, he is very full; yet, even in those, he seizes hold
mainly of those things which fall most directly within the scope of
his work. But throughout the whole, the grand object is seen to be, the
presentation of Jesus as the Messiah, the son of the living, eternal
God, containing within himself the Life, the Light, the Only-begotten,
the Word, and all the personified excellences, to which the Gnostics
had, in their mystic idealism, given a separate existence. It thus
differs from all the former gospels, in the circumstance, that
its great object and its general character is not historical, but
dogmatical,――not universal in its direction and tendency, but aimed
at the establishment of particular doctrines, and the subversion of
particular errors.

Another class of sectaries, against whose errors John wrote in this
gospel, were the Sabians, or disciples of John the Baptist;――for some
of those who had followed him during his preaching, did not afterwards
turn to the greater Teacher and Prophet, whom he pointed out as the
one of whom he was the forerunner; and these disciples of the great
Baptizer, after his death, taking the pure doctrines which he taught,
as a basis, made up a peculiar religious system, by large additions
from the same Oriental mysteries from which the Gnostics had drawn
their remarkable principles. They acknowledged Jesus Christ as a
being of high order, and designate him in their religious books as the
“Disciple of LIFE;” while John the Baptist, himself somewhat inferior,
is called the “Apostle of LIGHT,”――and is said to have received his
peculiar glorified transfiguration, from a body of flesh to a body of
light, from Jesus at the time of his baptism in the Jordan; and yet is
represented as distinguished from the “Disciple of LIFE,” by possessing
this peculiar attribute of Light.

This mystical error is distinctly characterized in the first chapter of
this gospel, and is there met by the direct assertions, that in Jesus
Christ, the Word, and the God, was not only _life_, but that the LIFE
itself was the LIGHT of men;――and that John the Baptist “was _not_ the
LIGHT, but was only sent to bear witness of the LIGHT;” and again, with
all the tautological earnestness of an old man, the aged writer repeats
the assertion that “_this_ was the true Light, which enlightens every
man that comes into the world.” Against these same sectaries, the
greater part of the first chapter is directed distinctly, and the whole
tendency of the work throughout, is in a marked manner opposed to their
views. With them too, John had had a local connection, by his residence
in Ephesus, where, as it is distinctly specified in the Acts of the
Apostles, Paul had found the peculiar disciples of John the Baptist
long before, on his first visit to that city; and had successfully
preached to some of them, the religion of Christ, which before was a
strange and new thing to them. The whole tendency and scope of this
gospel, indeed, as directed against these two prominent classes of
heretics, both Gnostics and Sabians, are fully and distinctly summed up
in the conclusion of the twentieth chapter;――“These things are written,
that ye might believe that JESUS _is the_ CHRIST, the SON OF GOD, and
that in believing on him, ye might have LIFE through his name.”

As to the _place_ where this gospel was written, there is a very
decided difference of opinion among high authorities, both ancient and
modern,――some affirming it to have been composed in Patmos, during his
exile, and others in Ephesus, before or after his banishment. The best
authority, however, seems to decide in favor of Ephesus, as the place;
and this view seems to be most generally adopted in modern times.
Even those who suppose it to have been written in Patmos, however,
grant that it was first given to the Christian world in Ephesus,――the
weight of early authority being very decided on this latter point.
This distinction between the place of composition and the place
of publication, is certainly very reasonable on some accounts, and
is supported by ancient authorities of dubious date; but there are
important objections to the idea of the composition of both this and
the Apocalypse, in the same place, during about one year, which was
the period of his exile. There seem to be many things in the style of
the gospel which would show it to be a work written at a different
period, and under different circumstances from the Apocalypse; and
some Biblical critics, of high standing, have thought that the gospel
bore marks in its style, which characterized it as a production of a
much older man than the author of the energetic, and almost furious
denunciations of the Apocalypse, must have been. In this case, where
ancient authority is so little decisive, it is but fair to leave the
point to be determined by evidence thus connected with the date, and
drawn from the internal character of the composition itself,――a sort of
evidence, on which the latest moderns are far more capable of deciding
than the most ancient, and the sagest of the Fathers. The _date_
itself is of course inseparably connected with the determination of the
place, and like that, must be pronounced very uncertain. The greatest
probability about both these points is, that it was written at Ephesus,
_after_ his return from Patmos; for the idea of its being produced
_before_ his banishment, during his first residence in Asia, has long
ago been exploded; nor is there any late writer of authority on these
points, who pretends to support this unfounded notion.


                          HIS FIRST EPISTLE.

All that has been said on the character and the objects of the gospel,
may be exactly applied to this very similar production. So completely
does it resemble John’s gospel, in style, language, doctrines
and tendencies, that even a superficial reader might be ready to
pronounce, on a common examination, that they were written in the same
circumstances and with the same object. This has been the conclusion at
which the most learned critics have arrived, after a full investigation
of the peculiarities of both, throughout; and the standard opinion
now is, that they were both written at the same time and for the same
persons. Some reasons have been given by high critical authority, for
supposing that they were both written at Patmos, and sent together
to Ephesus,――the epistle serving as a preface, dedication, and
accompaniment of the gospel, to those for whom it was intended, and
commending the prominent points in it to their particular attention.
This beautiful and satisfactory view of the _object_ and _occasion_ of
the epistle, may certainly be adopted with great propriety and justice;
but in regard to the _places_ of its composition and direction, a
different view is much more probable, as well as more consistent with
the notion, already presented above, of the date and place of the
gospel. It is very reasonable to suppose that the epistle was written
some years after John’s return to Ephesus,――that it was intended,
(along with the gospel, for the churches of Asia generally, to whom
John hoped to make an apostolic pastoral visit, shortly,) to confirm
them in the faith, as he announces in the conclusion. There is not
a single circumstance in gospel or epistle, which should lead any
one to believe that they were directed to Ephesus in particular. On
the contrary, the total absence of anything like a personal or local
direction to the epistle, shows the justice of its common title, that
it is a “general epistle,” a circular, in short, to all the churches
under his special apostolic supervision,――for whose particular dangers,
errors and necessities, he had written the gospel just sent forth, and
to whom he now minutely commended that work, in the very opening words
of his letter, referring as palpably and undeniably to his gospel,
as any words can express. “Of that which ‘was from the _beginning_,
of the _Word_,’ which I have heard, which I have seen with my eyes,
which I have looked upon, which my hands have handled,――of the _Word_
of _Life_” &c.; particularizing with all the minute verbosity of old
age, his exact knowledge of the facts which he gives in his gospel,
assuring them thus of the accuracy of his descriptions. The question
concerns his reputation for fidelity as a historian; and it is easy
to see therefore, why he should labor thus to impress on his readers
his important personal advantages for knowing exactly all the facts
he treats of, and all the doctrines which he gives at such length in
the discourses of Christ. Again and again he says, “I write,” and “I
have written,” recapitulating the sum of the doctrines which he has
designed to inculcate; and he particularizes still farther that he
has written to all classes and ages, from the oldest to the youngest,
intending his gospel for the benefit of all. “I have written to you,
_fathers_,”――“unto you, _young men_,”――“unto you, _little children_,”
&c. What else can this imply, than a dedication of the work concerning
“the WORD,” to all stations and ages,――to the whole of the Christian
communities, to whom he commits and recommends his writings;――as
he writes “to the fathers――because they know him _who was from
the beginning_,”――in the same way “to the young men, because they
are constant, and the _Word of God_ dwells in them,” and “that the
doctrine they have received may remain unchangeable in them,” and
“on account of THOSE WHO WOULD SEDUCE THEM.” He recapitulates all the
leading doctrines of his gospel,――the Messiahship, and the Divinity
of Jesus,――his Unity, and identity with the divine abstractions of the
Gnostic theology. Here too, he inculcates and renewedly urges the great
feeling of Christian brotherly love, which so decidedly characterizes
the discourses of Jesus, as reported in his gospel. So perfect was
the connection of origin and design, between the gospel and this
accompanying letter, that they were anciently placed together, the
epistle immediately following the gospel; as is indubitably proved by
certain marks in ancient manuscripts.

  It was mentioned, in connection with a former part of John’s
  life, that this epistle is quoted by Augustin and others,
  under the title of the epistle to the Parthians. It seems
  very probable that this may have been also addressed to those
  churches in the east, about Babylon, which had certainly
  suffered much under the attacks of these same mystical heretics.
  It is explained, however, by some, that this was an accidental
  corruption in the copying of the Greek.――The _second_ epistle
  was quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, under the title of “the
  epistle to the _virgins_,” προς παρθενους, which, as some of
  the modern critics say, must have been accidentally changed
  to παρθους, by dropping some of the syllables, and afterwards
  transferred to the _first_ (!) as more appropriate;――a perfectly
  unauthorized conjecture, and directly in the face of all rules
  of criticism.


                    THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES.

These are both evidently private letters from John to two of his
intimate personal friends, of whose circumstances nothing whatever
being known, except what is therein contained, the notice of these
brief writings must necessarily be brief also. They are both honorably
referred to, as entertainers of the servants of Jesus Christ as they
travel from place to place, and seem to have been residents in some
of the Asian cities within John’s apostolic circuit, and probably
received him kindly and reverently into their houses on his tours of
duty; and them he was about to visit again shortly. The _second_
epistle is directed to a Christian female, who, being designated by
the very honorable title of “_lady_,” was evidently a person of rank;
and from the remark towards the conclusion, about the proper objects
of her hospitality, it is plain that she must have been also a person
of some property. Mention is made of her children as also objects
of warm affection to the aged apostle; and as no other member of
her family is noticed, it is reasonable to conclude that she was a
widow. The contents of this short letter are a mere transcript, almost
verbatim, of some important points in the first, inculcating Christian
love, and watchfulness against _deceivers_;――(no doubt the Gnostical
heretics,――the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans.) He apologizes for the
shortness of the letter, by saying that he hopes shortly to visit her;
and ends by communicating the affectionate greetings of her sister’s
children, then residents in Ephesus, or whatever city was then the home
of John. The _third_ epistle is directed to Gaius, (that is, Caius, a
Roman name,) whose hospitality is commemorated with great particularity
and gratitude in behalf of Christian strangers, probably preachers,
traveling in his region. Another person, named Diotrephes, (a Greek
by name, and probably one of the partizans of Cerinthus,) is mentioned
as maintaining a very different character, who, so far from receiving
the ministers of the gospel sent by the apostle, had even excluded
from Christian fellowship those who did exercise this hospitality to
the messengers of the apostle. John speaks threateningly of him, and
closes with the same apology for the shortness of the letter, as in the
former. There are several persons, named Gaius, or Caius, mentioned in
apostolic history; but there is no reason to suppose that any of them
was identified with this man.

  For these lucid views of the objects of all these epistles, I am
  mainly indebted to Hug’s Introduction, to whom belongs the merit
  of expressing them in this distinctness, though others before
  him have not been far from apprehending their simple force.
  Michaelis, for instance, is very satisfactory, and much more
  full on some points. In respect to the _place_ whence they were
  written, Hug appears to be wholly in the wrong, in referring
  them to Patmos, just before John’s return. Not the least glimmer
  of a reason appears, why all the writings of John should be
  huddled together in his exile. I can make nothing whatever of
  the learned commentator’s reason about the deficiency of “pen,
  ink and paper,” (mentioned in Epistle ii. 12, and iii. 13.) as
  showing that John must still have been in “that miserable place,”
  Patmos. The idea seems to require a great perversion of simple
  words, which do not seem to be capable of any other sense than
  that adopted in the above account.


                THE TRADITIONS OF HIS LIFE IN EPHESUS.

To this period of his life, are referred those stories of his miracles
and actions, with which the ancient fictitious apostolic narratives are
so crowded,――John being the subject of more ancient traditions than any
other apostle. Some of those are so respectable and reasonable in their
character, as to deserve a place here, although none of them are of
such antiquity as to deserve any confidence, on points where fiction
has often been so busy. The first which follows, is altogether the most
ancient of all apostolic stories, which are not in the New Testament;
and even if it is a work of fiction, it has such merits as a mere tale,
that it would be injustice to the readers of this book, not to give
them the whole story, from the most ancient and best authorized record.

It is related that John, after returning from banishment, was often
called to the neighboring churches to organize them, or to heal
divisions, and to ordain elders. On one occasion, after ordaining a
bishop, he committed to his particular care and instruction a fine
young man, whom he saw in the congregation, charging the bishop, before
the whole church, to be faithful to him. The bishop accordingly took
the young man into his house, watched over him, and instructed him,
and at length baptized him. After this, viewing the young man as a
confirmed Christian, the bishop relaxed his watchfulness, and allowed
the youth greater liberties. He soon got into bad company, in which
his talents made him conspicuous, and proceeding from one step to
another, he finally became the leader of a band of robbers. In this
state of things, John came to visit the church, and presently called
upon the bishop to bring forward his charge. The bishop replied that
he was dead,――dead to God;――and was now in the mountains, a captain
of banditti. John ordered a horse to be brought immediately to the
church door, and a guide to attend him; and mounting, he rode full
speed in search of the gang. He soon fell in with some of them, who
seized him, to be carried to their head quarters. John told them that
this was just what he wanted, for he came on purpose to see their
captain. As they drew near, the captain stood ready to receive them;
but on seeing John, he drew back, and began to make off. John pursued
with all the speed his aged limbs would permit, crying out, “My son,
why do you run from your own father, who is unarmed and aged? Pity
me, my son, and do not fear. There is yet hope of your life. I will
intercede for you; and, if necessary, will cheerfully suffer death
for you, as the Lord did for us. Stop,――believe what I say; Christ
hath sent me.” The young man stopped, looked on the ground, and then
throwing down his arms, came trembling, and with sobs and tears, begged
for pardon. The apostle assured him of the forgiveness of Christ; and
conducting him back to the church, there fasted and prayed with him,
and at length procured his absolution.

Another story, far less probable, is related in the ancient
martyrologies, and by the counterfeit Abdias. Craton, a philosopher, to
make a display of contempt for riches, had persuaded two wealthy young
men, his followers, to invest all their property in two very costly
pearls; and then, in the presence of a multitude, to break them, and
pound them to dust. John happening to pass by, at the close of the
transaction, censured this destruction of property, which might better
have been given in alms to the poor. Craton told him, if he thought so,
he might miraculously restore the dust to solid pearls again, and have
them for charitable purposes. The apostle gathered up the particles,
and holding them in his hand, prayed fervently, that they might become
solid pearls, and when the people said “Amen,” it took place. By this
miracle, Craton, and all his followers, were converted to Christianity;
and the two young men took back the pearls, sold them, and then
distributed the avails in charity. Influenced by this example, two
other young men of distinction, Atticus and Eugenius, sold their
estates, and distributed the avails among the poor. For a time, they
followed the apostle, and possessed the power of working miracles. But,
one day, being at Pergamus, and seeing some well-dressed young men,
glittering in their costly array, they began to regret that they had
sold all their property, and deprived themselves of the means of making
a figure in the world. John read in their countenances and behavior
the state of their minds; and after drawing from them an avowal of
their regret, he bid them bring him each a bundle of straight rods,
and a parcel of smooth stones from the sea shore. They did so,――and
the apostle, after converting the rods into gold, and the stones into
pearls, bid them take them, and sell them, and redeem their alienated
estates, if they chose. At the same time, he plainly warned them,
that the consequence would be the eternal loss of their souls. While
he continued his long and pungent discourse, a funeral procession
came along. John now prayed, and raised the dead man to life. The
resuscitated person began to describe the invisible world, and so
graphically painted to Atticus and Eugenius the greatness of their
loss, that they were melted into contrition. The apostle ordered them
to do penance thirty days,――till the golden rods should become wood,
and the pearls become stones. They did so, and were afterwards very
distinguished saints.

Another story, of about equal merit, is told by the same authority.
While John continued his successful ministry at Ephesus, the idolaters
there, in a tumult, dragged him to the temple of Diana, and insisted on
his sacrificing to the idol. He warned all to come out of the temple,
and then, by prayer, caused it to fall to the ground, and become a heap
of ruins. Then, addressing the pagans on the spot, he converted twelve
thousand of them in one day. But Aristodemus, the pagan high priest,
could not be convinced, till John had drunken poison without harm,
by which two malefactors were killed instantly, and also raised the
malefactors to life. This resuscitation he rendered the more convincing
to Aristodemus, by making him the instrument of it. The apostle pulled
off his tunic, and gave it to Aristodemus. “And what is this for?” said
the high priest. “To cure you of your infidelity,” was the reply. “But
how is your tunic to cure me of infidelity?” “Go,” said the apostle,
“and spread it upon the dead bodies, and say: ‘The apostle of our Lord
Jesus Christ hath sent me to resuscitate you, in his name, that all may
know, that life and death are the servants of Jesus Christ, my Lord.’”
By this miracle the high priest was fully convinced; and afterwards
convinced the proconsul. Both of them were baptized,――and persecution,
from that time, ceased. They also built the church dedicated to St.
John, at Ephesus.

  For this series of fables I am indebted again to the kindness
  of Dr. Murdock, in whose manuscript lectures they are so well
  translated from the original romances, as to make it unnecessary
  for me to repeat the labor of making a new version from the
  Latin. The sight of the results of abler efforts directly before
  me, offers a temptation to exonerate myself from a tedious and
  unsatisfactory effort, which is too great to be resisted, while
  researches into historical _truth_ have a much more urgent claim
  for time and exertion.

  The only one of all these fables that occurs in the writings of
  the Fathers, is the first, which may be pronounced a tolerably
  respectable and ancient story. It is narrated by Clemens
  Alexandrinus, (about A. D. 200.) The story is copied from
  Clemens Alexandrinus by Eusebius, from whom we receive it,
  the original work of Clemens being now lost. Chrysostom also
  gives an abridgement of the tale. (I. Paraenes ad Theodosius)
  Anastasius Sinaita, Simeon Metaphrastes, Nicephorus Callistus,
  the Pseudo-Abdias, and the whole herd of monkish liars, give
  the story almost verbatim from Clemens; for it is so full in
  his account as to need no embellishment to make it a good story.
  Indeed its completeness in all these interesting details, is
  one of the most suspicious circumstances about it; in short,
  it is almost too good a story to be true. Those who wish to
  see all the evidence for and against its authenticity, may find
  it thoroughly examined in Lampe’s Prolegomena to a Johannine
  Theology (I. v. 4‒10.) It is, on the whole, the best authorized
  of all the stories about the apostles, which are given by
  the Fathers, and may reasonably be considered to have been
  true in the essential parts, though the minute details of the
  conversations, &c., are probably embellishments worked in by
  Clemens Alexandrinus, or his informants.

  The rest of these stories are, most unquestionably, all
  unmitigated falsehoods; nor does any body pretend to find the
  slightest authority for a solitary particular of them. They
  are found no where but in the novels of the Pseudo-Abdias, and
  the martyrologies. (Abdiae Babyloniae episcopi et Apostolorum
  discipuli de Historia, lib. V., St. John.)


                              HIS DEATH.

Respecting the close of his life, _all antiquity_ is agreed that it was
not terminated by martyrdom, nor by any violent death whatever, but by
a calm and peaceful departure in the course of nature, at a very great
age. The precise number of years to which he attained can not be known,
because no writer who lived within five hundred years of his time has
pretended to specify his exact age. It is merely mentioned on very
respectable ancient authority, that he survived to the beginning of the
reign of Trajan. This noblest of the successors of Julius, began his
splendid reign in A. D. 98, according to the most approved chronology;
so that if John did not outlive even the first year of Trajan, his
death is brought very near the close of the first century; and from
what has been reasonably conjectured about his age, compared with that
of his Lord, it may be supposed that he attained upwards of eighty
years,――a supposition which agrees well enough with the statement of
some of the Fathers, that he died worn out with old age.

  Jerome has a great deal to say also, about the age of John at
  the time when he was called, arguing that he must have been a
  mere boy at the time, because tradition asserts that he lived
  till the reign of Trajan. Lampe very justly objects, however,
  that this proof amounts to nothing, if we accept another common
  tradition, that he lived to the age of 100 years; which, if we
  count back a century from the reign of Trajan, would require
  him to have attained mature age at the time of the call. Neither
  tradition however, is worth much. Our old friend Baronius, too,
  comes in to enlighten the investigation of John’s age, by what
  he considers indubitable evidence. He says that John was in his
  twenty-second year when he was called, and passing three years
  with Christ, must have been twenty-five years old at the time
  of the crucifixion; “_because_,” says the sagacious Baronius,
  “he was then initiated into the priesthood.” An assertion which
  Lampe with indignant surprise stigmatizes as showing “remarkable
  boldness,” (insignis audacia,) because it contains two very
  gross errors,――first in pretending that John was ever made a
  priest, (sacerdos,) and secondly in confounding the age required
  of the Levites with that of the priests when initiated. For
  Baronius’s argument resting wholly on the very strange and
  unfounded notion, that John was made a priest, is furthermore
  supported on the idea that the prescribed age for entering
  the priesthood was twenty-five years; but in reality, the age
  thus required was _thirty_ years, so that if the other part
  of this idle story was true, this would be enough to overthrow
  the conclusion. Lampe also alludes to the absurd idea of the
  painters, in representing John as a young man, even while
  writing his gospel; while in reality all writers agree that
  that work was written by him in his old age. This idea of
  his perpetual youth, once led into a blunder some foolish
  Benedictine monks, who found in Constantinople an antique
  agate intaglio, representing a young man with a cornucopia,
  and an eagle, and with a figure of victory placing a crown
  on his head. This struck their monkish fancies at once, as
  an unquestionable portrait of John, sent to their hands by a
  miraculous preservation. Examination however, has shown it to
  be a representation of the apotheosis of Germanicus.

But even here, the monkish inventors have found room for new fables;
and though the great weight of all ancient testimony deprives them
of the opportunity to enter into the horrible details of a bloody and
agonizing death, they can not refuse themselves the pleasure of some
tedious absurdities, about the manner of his death and burial, which
are barely worth a partial sketch, to show how determined the apostolic
novelists are to follow their heroes to the very last, with the glories
of a fancifully miraculous departure.

The circumstances of his death are described in the martyrologies, and
by Abdias, in this manner. He had a vision acquainting him with his
approaching exit, five days before it happened. On a Lord’s-day morning,
he went to the great church at Ephesus, bearing his name, and there
performed public worship as usual, at day-break. About the middle of
the forenoon, he ordered a deacon, and some grave diggers, with their
tools, to accompany him to the burying ground. He then set them to
digging his grave, while he, after ordering the multitude to depart,
spent the time in prayer. He once looked into the grave, and bid them
dig it deeper. When it was finished, he took off his outer garment,
and spread it in the grave. Then, standing over it, he made a speech
to those present, (which is not worth repeating,) then gave thanks to
God for the arrival of the time of his release,――and placing himself
in the grave, and wrapping himself up, he instantly expired. The grave
was filled up; and afterwards miracles took place at it, and a kind of
manna issued from it, which possessed great virtues.

There is no need, however, of such fables, to crown with the false
honors of a vain prodigy, the calmly glorious end of the “Last of the
Apostles.” It is enough for the Christian to know, that, with the long,
bright course of almost a century behind him, and with the mighty works
of his later years around him, John closed the solemn apostolic drama,
bearing with him in his late departure the last light of inspiration,
and the last personal “testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of
prophecy.” Blessed in his works thus following him, he died in the Lord,
and now rests from his labors on the breast of that loved friend, who
cherished so tenderly the youthful Son of Thunder;――on the bosom of his
Redeemer and his Lord,――

              “The bosom of his Father and his God.”




                                PHILIP.


IN all the three gospel lists, this apostle is placed fifth in
order, the variations in the arrangements of the preceding making no
difference in his position. In the first chapter of Acts, however,
a different arrangement is made of his name, as will be hereafter
mentioned. The mere mention of his name on the list, is all the notice
taken of him by either of the three first evangelists, and it is only
in the gospel of John, that the slightest additional circumstance can
be learned about him. From this authority it is ascertained that he
was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter, and probably also the
home or frequent visiting-place of the sons of Zebedee, by the younger
of whom he is so particularly commemorated. Immediately after the
narration of the introduction of Andrew, John and Peter, to Jesus, in
the first chapter of this gospel, it is said that Jesus next proceeded
from Bethabara into Galilee, and there finds Philip; but the particular
place is not mentioned, though Bethsaida being immediately after
mentioned as his home, very probably was the place of the meeting.
Andrew and Peter, on their return home, had doubtless had no small
talk among their acquaintances, about the wonderful person announced as
the Messiah, to whom they had been introduced, and had thus satisfied
themselves that he was really the divine character he was said to be.
Philip too, must have heard of him in this way, before he saw him; so
that when Jesus met him, he was prepared at once to receive the call
which Jesus immediately gave him,――“Follow me.” From the circumstance
that he was the first person who was summoned by Jesus, in this
particular formula of invitation to the discipleship, some writers
have, not without reason, claimed for Philip the name and honors of
the PROTOCLETE, or “_first-called_;” though Andrew has commonly been
considered as best entitled to this dignity, from his being the first
mentioned by name, as actually becoming acquainted with Jesus. Philip
was so devoutly engaged, at once, in the cause of his new Master,
that he, like Andrew, immediately sought out others to share the
blessings of the discipleship; and soon after meeting one of his
friends, Nathanael, he expressed the ardor of his faith in his new
teacher, by the words in which he invited him to join in this honorable
fellowship,――“We have found him of whom Moses, in the law, and all the
prophets did write,――Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” The result
of this application will be related in the life of the person most
immediately concerned. After this, no notice whatever is taken of
Philip except where incidental remarks made by him in the conversations
of Jesus, are recorded by John. Thus, at the feeding of the five
thousand, upon Jesus’s asking whether they had the means of procuring
food for the multitude, Philip answered, that “two hundred pence would
not buy enough for them, that every one might take a little,”――thus
showing himself not at all prepared by his previous faith in Jesus,
for the great miracle which was about to happen; though Jesus had
asked the question, as John says, with the actual design of trying the
extent of his confidence in him. He is afterwards mentioned in the last
conversations of Jesus, as saying to him, “Show us the Father, and it
sufficeth us,”――here too, betraying also a most unfortunate deficiency,
both of faith and knowledge, and implying also a vain desire to gratify
his eyes with still more miraculous displays of the divine power of his
Master; though, even in this respect, he probably was no worse off than
all the rest of the disciples, before the resurrection of Jesus.

  PROTOCLETE.――Hammond claims this peculiar honor for Philip, with
  great zeal. (See his notes on John i. 43.)

Of his _apostleship_ not one word is recorded in the New Testament,
for he is no where mentioned in the Acts, except as being one of the
apostles assembled in the upper chamber after the ascension; nor do
the epistles contain the slightest allusion to him. Some of the most
ancient authorities among the Fathers, however, are distinct in their
mention of some circumstances of his later life; but all these accounts
are involved in total discredit, by the fact that they make him
identical with Philip the deacon, whose active and zealous labors in
Samaria, and along the coast of Palestine, from Gaza, through Ashdod
to Caesarea, his home, are minutely related in the Acts, and have
been already alluded to, in that part of the life of Peter which is
connected with these incidents. It has always been supposed, with
much reason, in modern times, that the offices of an _apostle_ and a
_deacon_ were so totally distinct and different, that they could never
both be borne by one and the same person; but the Fathers, even the
very ancient ones, seem to have had not the slightest idea of any
such incompatibility; and therefore uniformly speak of Philip the
apostle, as the same person with Philip, one of the seven deacons,
who is mentioned by Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, as having lived
at Caesarea, in Palestine, with his daughters, who were virgins and
prophetesses. Testimony more distinct than this, can no where be found,
among all the Fathers, on any point whatever; and very little that
is more ancient. Yet how does it accord with the notions of those
who revere these very Fathers as almost immaculate in truth, and in
all intellectual, as well as moral excellence? What is the evidence
of these boasted Fathers worth, on any point in controversy about
apostolic church government, or doctrine, or criticism, if the modern
notion of the incompatibility of the two offices of apostle and deacon
is correct?

  The testimony of the Fathers on this point, is simply this.
  Eusebius (Church History, III. 31,) quotes Polycrates, bishop of
  Ephesus, who, in his letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, (written
  A. D. 195, or 196,) makes mention of Philip in these _exact_
  words: “Philip, who was _one of the twelve_ apostles, died in
  Hierapolis;” (in Phrygia;) “and so did _two of his daughters_,
  who had grown old in virginity. And another of his daughters,
  after having passed her life under the influence of the Holy
  Spirit, was buried at Ephesus.” This certainly is a most perfect
  identification of Philip the apostle with Philip the deacon; for
  it is this latter person who is particularly mentioned in Acts,
  xxi. 8, 9, as “having four daughters who did prophesy.” He is
  there especially designated as “Philip the evangelist, _one
  of the seven_,” while Polycrates expressly declares, that this
  same person “was _one of the twelve_.” Eusebius also, in the
  preceding chapter, quotes Clemens Alexandrinus as mentioning
  Philip among those _apostles_ who were married, because _he_
  is mentioned as having had daughters; and Clemens even adds
  that these were afterwards married, which directly contradicts
  the previous statement of Polycrates, that three of them died
  virgins, in old age. Yet Eusebius quotes all this stuff, with
  approbation.

  Papias, (A. D. 140,) bishop of Hierapolis, the very place of the
  death and burial of Philip, is represented by Eusebius as having
  been well acquainted with the daughters of Philip, mentioned in
  Acts, as the virgin prophetesses. Papias says that he himself
  “heard these ladies say that their father once raised a dead
  person to life, in their time.” But it deserves notice, that
  Papias, the very best authority on this subject, is no where
  quoted as calling this Philip “an apostle;” though Eusebius,
  on his own authority, gives this name to the Philip of whom
  Papias speaks. It is therefore reasonable to conclude, that
  this blunder, betraying such a want of familiarity with the
  New Testament history, originated after the time of Papias,
  whose intimate acquaintance with Philip’s family would have
  enabled him to say, at once, that this was the _deacon_, and not
  the _apostle_; though it is not probable that he was any less
  deplorably ignorant of the scriptures than most of the Fathers
  were.

  Now what can be said of the testimony of the Fathers on
  points where they can not refer, either to their own personal
  observation, or to informants who have seen and heard what they
  testify? The only way in which they can be shielded from the
  reproach of a gross blunder and a disgraceful ignorance of the
  New Testament, is, that they were right in identifying these
  two Philips, and that modern theologians are wrong in making
  the distinction. On this dilemma I will not pretend to decide;
  for though so little reverence for the judgment and information
  of the Fathers has been shown in this book, there does seem
  to me to be some reason for hesitation on this point, where
  the Fathers _ought_ to have been as well informed as any
  body. They must have known surely, whether, according to the
  notions of those primitive ages of Christianity, there was any
  incompatibility between the apostleship and the deaconship! If
  their testimony is worth anything on such points, it ought to
  weigh so much on this, as to cause a doubt whether they are not
  right, and the moderns wrong. However, barely suggesting this
  query, without attempting a decision, as Luther says, “I will
  afford to other and higher spirits, occasion to reflect.”

This is all the satisfaction that the brief records of the inspired
or uninspired historians of Christianity can give the inquirer, on
the life of this apostle;――so unequal were the labors of the first
ministers of Christ, and their claims for notice. Philip, no doubt,
served the purpose for which he was called, faithfully; but in these
brief sketches, there are no traces of any genius of a high character,
that could distinguish him above the thousands that are forgotten,
but whose labors, like those of the minutest animals in a mole-hill,
contribute an indispensable portion to the completion of the mass, in
whose mighty structure all their individual efforts are swallowed up
forever.

And though the ancient Polycrates may have blundered grievously, in
respect to the apostle’s personal identity, his hope of the glorious
resurrection of those whom he supposed to have died in Asia will
doubtless be equally well rewarded, if, to the amazement of the Fathers,
the _apostle_ Philip should rise at last from the dust of Babylon, or
the ashes of Jerusalem, while his namesake, the evangelist, shall burst
from his tomb in Hierapolis. “For,” as Polycrates truly says, “in Asia,
some great lights have gone down, which shall rise again on that day of
the Lord’s approach, when he shall come from the heavens in glory, and
shall raise up all his saints;――Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who
sleeps at Hierapolis, with his venerable virgin daughters,――John, who
lay in the bosom of the Lord, and who is laid at Ephesus,――Polycarp,
at Smyrna,――Thraseas, at Eumenia,――Sagaris, at Laodicea,――Papirius
and Melito, at Sardis――all await the visitation of the Lord from the
heavens, in which he shall raise them from the dead.”




                       NATHANAEL, BAR-THOLOMEW.


                          HIS NAME AND CALL.

IN respect to this apostle, there occurs a primary question about his
name, which is given so differently in different sacred authorities,
as to induce a strong suspicion that the two names refer to two totally
distinct persons. The reasons for applying the two words, Nathanael
and Bartholomew, to the same person, are the circumstances,――that none
of the three first evangelists mention any person named Nathanael, and
that John never mentions the name Bartholomew,――that Bartholomew and
Nathanael are each mentioned on these different authorities, among the
chosen disciples of Jesus,――that Bartholomew is mentioned by the three
first evangelists, on all the lists, directly after Philip, who is by
John represented as his intimate friend,――and that Bartholomew is not
an individual name, but a word showing parentage merely,――the first
syllable being often prefixed to Syriac names, for this purpose; and
_Bar_-Tholomew means the “son of Tholomew,” or “Tholomai;” just as
Bar-Jonah means the “son of Jonah;” nor was the former any more in
reality the personal, individual name of Nathanael, than the latter was
of Peter; but some circumstance may have occurred to make it, in this
instance, often take the place of the true individual name.

A few very brief notices are given of this apostle by John, who alone
alludes to him, otherwise than by a bare mention on the list. It
is mentioned in his gospel that Nathanael was of Cana, in Galilee,
a town which stood about half-way between lake Gennesaret and the
Mediterranean sea; but the circumstances of his call seem to show
that he was then with Philip, probably at or near Bethsaida. Philip,
after being summoned by Jesus to the discipleship, immediately sought
to bring his friend Nathanael into an enjoyment of the honors of a
personal intercourse with Jesus, and invited him to become a follower
of the Messiah, foretold by Moses and the prophets, who had now
appeared, as Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. On hearing of that
mean place, as the home of the promised King of Israel, Nathanael,
with great scorn, replied, in inquiry, “Can any good thing come out
of Nazareth?” To this sneering question, Philip answered by the simple
proposition, “Come and see;”――wisely judging that no argument could
answer his friend’s prejudice so well as an actual observation of the
character and aspect of the Nazarene himself. Nathanael, accordingly,
persuaded by the earnestness of his friend, came along with him,
perhaps, partly to gratify him, but, no doubt, with his curiosity
somewhat moved to know what could have thus brought Philip into this
devout regard for a citizen of that dirty little town; and he therefore
readily accompanied him to see what sort of prophet could come out of
Nazareth.

The words with which Jesus greeted Nathanael, even before he had been
personally introduced, or was prepared for any salutation, are the
most exalted testimonial of his character that could be conceived, and
show at once his very eminent qualifications for the high honors of the
apostleship. When Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, he said, “Behold
a true son of Israel, in whom is no guile!”――manifesting at once a
confidential and intimate knowledge of his whole character, in thus
pronouncing with such ready decision, this high and uncommon tribute
of praise upon him, as soon as he appeared before him. Nathanael,
quite surprised at this remarkable compliment from one whom he had
never seen until that moment, and whom he supposed to be equally
ignorant of him, replied with the inquiry, “Whence knowest thou me?”
Jesus answered, “Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the
fig-tree, I saw thee.” The fig-trees of Palestine, presenting a wide,
leafy cover, and a delightful shade, were often used in the warm season
as places of retirement, either in company, for conversation, or in
solitude, for meditation and prayer, as is shown in numerous passages
of the Rabbinical writings; and it was, doubtless, in one of these
occupations that Nathanael was engaged, removed, as he supposed, from
all observation, at the time to which Jesus referred. But the eye
that could pierce the stormy shades of night on the boisterous waves
of Galilee, and that could search the hearts of all men, could also
penetrate the thick, leafy veil of the fig-tree, and observe the most
secret actions of this guileless Israelite, when he supposed the whole
world to be shut out, and gave himself to the undisguised enjoyment
of his thoughts, feelings, and actions, without restraint. Nathanael,
struck with sudden but absolute conviction, at this amazing display of
knowledge, gave up all his proud scruples against the despised Nazarene,
and adoringly exclaimed, “Rabbi! thou art the Son of God,――thou art the
King of Israel.” Jesus, recognizing with pleasure the ready faith of
this pure-minded disciple, replied, “Because I said unto thee, ‘I saw
thee under the fig-tree,’――believest thou? Thou shalt see yet greater
things than these.” Then turning to Philip as well as to Nathanael,
he says to them both, “I solemnly assure you, hereafter ye shall see
heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the
Son of Man.”

On the day but one after this occurrence, as John records, Jesus
was in Cana of Galilee, the residence of Nathanael, and was present
at a wedding which took place there. From the circumstance that the
mother of Jesus was there also, it would seem likely that it was the
marriage of some of their family friends; otherwise the conjecture
might seem allowable, that the presence of Jesus and his disciples
on this occasion, was in some way connected with the introduction of
Nathanael to Jesus; and that this new disciple may have been some way
concerned in this interesting event. The manner in which the occurrence
is announced,――it being next specified, that two days after the
occurrences recorded in the end of the first chapter, Jesus was present
at a marriage in Cana of Galilee,――would seem to imply very fairly,
that Jesus had been in some other place immediately before; and it is
probable therefore, that he accompanied Nathanael home from Bethsaida,
or whatever place was the scene of his calling to the discipleship,
along with Philip. The terms of the statement are not, however,
absolutely incompatible with the idea of this first introduction of
these two disciples to Jesus, in Cana itself, which may have been the
part of Galilee into which Jesus is said to have gone forth, after
leaving Bethabara; although, the reasons above given make it probable
that Bethsaida was the scene. After this first incident, no mention
whatever is made of Nathanael, either under his proper name, or his
paternal appellation, except that when the twelve were sent forth in
pairs, he was sent with his friend Philip, that those who had been
summoned to the work together, might now go forth laboring together
in this high commission. One solitary incident is also commemorated by
John, in which this apostle was concerned, namely, the meeting on the
lake of Gennesaret, after the resurrection, where his name is mentioned
among those who went out on the fishing excursion with Peter. His
friend Philip is not there mentioned, but may have been one of the
“two disciples,” who are included without their names being given. From
this trifling circumstance, some have concluded that Nathanael was a
fisherman by trade, as well as the other four who are mentioned with
him; and certainly the conjecture is reasonable, and not improbable,
except from the circumstance, that his residence was at Cana, which
is commonly understood to have been an inland town, and too far
from the water, for any of its inhabitants to follow fishing as a
business. Other idle conjectures about his occupation and rank might
be multiplied from most anciently and venerably foolish authorities;
but let the dust of ages sleep on the prosy guesses of the Gregories,
of Chrysostom, Augustin, and their reverential copyists in modern
times. There is too much need of room in this book, for the detail
and discussion of truth, to allow paper to be wasted on baseless
conjectures, or impudent falsehoods.


                           HIS APOSTLESHIP.

There is a dim relic of a story, of quite ancient date, that after
the dispersion of the apostles, he went to Arabia, and preached there
till his death. This is highly probable, because it is well known that
many of the Jews, more particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem,
settled along the eastern coasts of the Red sea, where they were
continued for centuries. Nothing can be more reasonable then, than
to suppose that after the wasting fury of invasion had desolated the
city and the land of their fathers, many of the Christian Jews too,
went forth to seek a new home in the peaceful regions of Arabia Felix;
and that with them also went forth this true Israelite without guile,
to devote the rest of his life to apostolic labors, in that distant
country, where those of his wandering brethren, who had believed
in Christ, would so much need the support and counsel of one of the
divinely commissioned ministers of the gospel. Those Israelites too,
who still continued unbelievers, would present objects of importance,
in the view of the apostle. All the visible glories of the ancient
covenant had departed; and in that distant land, with so little of
the chilling influence of the dogmatical teachers of the law around
them, they would be the more readily led to the just appreciation of
a spiritual faith, and a simple creed.

  All the testimony which antiquity affords on this point, is
  simply this:――Eusebius (Church History, V. 10,) says, in giving
  the life of Pantaenus of Alexandria, (who lived about A. D. 180,)
  that this enterprising Christian philosopher penetrated, in his
  researches and travels, as far as to the inhabitants of India.
  It has been shown by Tillemont, Asseman and Michaelis, that this
  term, in this connection, means Arabia Felix, one part of whose
  inhabitants were called _Indians_, by the Hebrews, the Syrians
  and the early ecclesiastical historians. Eusebius relates that
  Pantaenus there found the gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, and that
  the tradition among these people was, that _Bartholomew_, one
  of the twelve apostles, had formerly preached there, and left
  this gospel among them. This tradition being only a hundred
  years old when Pantaenus heard it, ranks among those of _rather_
  respectable character.

The tradition certainly appears authentic, and is a very interesting
and valuable fragment of early Christian history, giving a trace of
the progress of the gospel, which otherwise would never have been
recognized,――besides the satisfaction of such a reasonable story about
an apostle of whom the inspired narrative records so little, although
he is represented in such an interesting light, by the account of
his introduction to Jesus. Here he learned the meaning of the solemn
prophecy with which Jesus crowned that noble profession of faith. Here
he saw, no doubt, yet greater tokens of the power of Christ, than in
the deep knowledge of hidden things then displayed. And here, resting
at last from his labors, he departed to the full view of the glories
there foretold,――to “see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending
and descending upon the Son of Man.”




                               MATTHEW.


                          HIS RANK AND NAME.

In his own gospel, Matthew is not ranked immediately after the
preceding apostle, but numbers himself eighth on the list, and after
his associate, Thomas; but all the other lists agree in giving this
apostle a place immediately after Nathanael. The testimony of others in
regard to his rank has therefore been adopted, in preference to his own,
which was evidently influenced by a too modest estimation of himself.

In connection with this apostle, as in other instances, there is a
serious question about his name and individual identity, arising from
the different appellations under which he is mentioned in different
parts of the sacred record. In his own gospel, he is referred to by no
other name than his common one; but by Mark and Luke, the circumstances
of his call are narrated, with the details almost precisely similar to
those recorded of the same occurrence by himself, and yet the person
thus called, (in the same form of words used in summoning the other
apostles,) is named Levi, the son of Alpheus; though Mark and Luke
record Matthew by his common name among the twelve, in the list of
names. Some have thought that the circumstance of their mentioning
Matthew in this manner, without referring at all to his identity with
the person named Levi, proves that they too had no idea that the former
name was applied to the same person as the latter, and on the contrary,
were detailing the call of some other disciple,――perhaps Jude, who also
is called by the similar name, Lebbeus, and is known to have been the
son of Alpheus. This view is not improbable, and is so well supported
by coinciding circumstances, as to throw great uncertainty over the
whole matter; though not entirely to set aside the probabilities
arising from the almost perfect similarity between Matthew’s call, as
related by himself, and the call of Levi, the son of Alpheus, as given
in the other gospels.

  On the question of Matthew’s identity with Levi, Michaelis is
  full. (Introduction, III. iv. 1.) Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca,
  IV. vii. 2,) discusses the question quite at length, and his
  annotators give abundance of references to authors, in detail,
  in addition, to those mentioned by himself, in the text.


                               HIS CALL.

The circumstances of his call, as narrated by himself, are represented
as occurring at or near Capernaum. “Jesus, passing out of the city,
saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, and he said
to him,――‘Follow me.’ And he arose, and followed him.” This account
shows Matthew’s occupation, which is also known from the title of “the
tax-gatherer,” annexed to his name, in his own list of the apostles.
This was an occupation which, though unquestionably a source of great
profit to those employed in it, and consequently as much sought after
as such offices are in these days, and in this country, was always
connected with a great deal of popular odium, from the relation in
which they stood to the people, in this profitable business. The class
of collectors to which Matthew belonged, in particular, being the mere
toll-gatherers, sitting to collect the money, penny by penny, from the
unwilling people, whose national pride was every moment wounded by the
degrading _foreign_ exactions of the Romans, suffered under a peculiar
ignominy, and were supposed to have renounced all patriotism and
honor, in stooping, for the base purposes of pecuniary gain, to act
as instruments of such a galling form of servitude, and were therefore
visited with a universal popular hatred and scorn. A class of men thus
deprived of all character for honor and delicacy of feeling, would
naturally grow hardened, beyond all sense of shame; and this added
to the usual official impudence which characterizes all mean persons,
holding a place which gives them the power to annoy others, the
despised publicans would generally repay this spite, on every occasion,
which could enable them to be vexatious to those who came in contact
with them. Yet out of this hated class, Jesus did not disdain to take
at least one,――perhaps more,――of those whom he chose for the express
purpose of building up a pure faith, and of evangelizing the world. No
doubt, before the occasion of this call, Matthew had been a frequent
hearer of the words of truth which fell from the divinely eloquent
lips of the Redeemer,――words that had not been without a purifying and
exalting effect on the heart of the publican, though long so degraded
by daily and hourly familiarity with meanness and vice. And so weaned
was his soul from the love of the gainful pursuit to which he had been
devoted, that at the first call from Jesus, he arose from the place
of toll-gathering, and followed his summoner, to a duty for which his
previous occupation had but poorly prepared him. With such satisfaction
did he renounce his old vocation, for the discipleship of the Nazarene,
that he made it a great occasion of rejoicing, and celebrated the day
as a festival, calling in all his old friends as well as his new ones,
to share in the hospitable entertainment which he spread for all who
could join with him in the social circle. Nor did the holy Redeemer
despise the rough and indiscriminate company to which the grateful
joy of Matthew had invited him; but rejoicing in an opportunity
to do good to a class of people so seldom brought under the means
of grace, he unhesitatingly sat down to the entertainment with his
disciples,――Savior and sinners, toll-gatherers and apostles, all
thronging in one motley group, around the festive board. What a sight
was this for the eyes of the proud Pharisees who were spitefully
watching the conduct of the man who had lately taken upon himself the
exalted character of a teacher, and a reformer of the law! Passing
into the house with the throng who entered at the open doors of the
hospitable Matthew,――they saw the much glorified prophet of Nazareth,
sitting at the social table along with a parcel of low custom-house
collectors, toll-gatherers, tide-waiters and cheats, one of whose
honorable fraternity he had just adopted into the goodly fellowship
of his disciples, and was now eating and drinking with these outcast
villains, without repelling the familiar merriment even of the lowest
of them. At this spectacle, so degrading to such a dignity as they
considered most becoming in one who aspired to be a teacher of morals
and religion, the scribes and Pharisees sneeringly asked the disciples
of Jesus,――“Why eateth your Master with tax-gatherers and sinners?”
Jesus, hearing the malicious inquiry, answered it in such a tone of
irony as best suited its impertinence. “They that are whole, need not
a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what this
means,――‘I will have mercy, rather than sacrifice;’ for I am not come
to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”


                              HIS GOSPEL.

After the history of his call, not one circumstance is related
respecting him, either in the gospels, the Acts or the epistles. In
his own gospel, he makes not the slightest allusion to anything either
said or done by himself; nor does his name anywhere occur except in the
apostolic lists. Even the Fathers are silent as to any other important
circumstances of his life, and it is only in the noble record which
he has left of the life of Christ, in the gospel which bears his name,
that any monument of his actions and character can now be found. Yet
this solitary remaining effort of his genius is of such importance in
the history of revealed religion, that hardly the most eminent of the
apostles is so often brought to mind, as the evangelist, whose clear,
simple, but impressive testimony to the words and deeds of his Lord,
now stands at the head of the sacred canon.

On the history of this portion of the Christian scriptures, the
testimony of the Fathers, from very early times, is very decided in
maintaining the fact, that it was written in the vernacular language
of Palestine. The very earliest testimony on this point, dating within
seventy-five years of the time of Matthew himself, expressly declares
that Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew language; and that each
one interpreted it for himself as he could. It is also said on somewhat
early authority, that he wrote his gospel when about to depart from
Palestine, that those whom he left behind him might have an authentic
record of the facts in the life of Christ. So that by these and a great
number of other testimonies, uniformly to the same effect, the point
seems well established that Matthew wrote in Hebrew; and that what is
now extant as his gospel, is only a translation into Greek, made in
some later age, by some person unknown.


           I. IN WHAT LANGUAGE DID MATTHEW WRITE HIS GOSPEL?

  In mentioning the Hebrew as the original language of the gospel
  of Matthew, it should be noticed, that the dialect spoken by the
  Jews of the time of Christ and his apostles, was by no means the
  language in which the Old Testament was written, and which is
  commonly meant by this name at present. The true ancient Hebrew
  had long before become a dead language, as truly so as it is now,
  and as much unknown to the mass of the people, as the Latin is
  in Italy, or the Anglo-Saxon in England. Yet the language was
  still called “the _Hebrew_,” as appears from several passages
  in the New Testament, where the Hebrew is spoken of as the
  vernacular language of the Jews of Palestine. It seems proper
  therefore, to designate the later Hebrew by the same name
  which is applied to it by those who spoke it, and this is
  still among modern writers the term used for it; but of late,
  some, especially Hug and his commentator, Wait, have introduced
  the name “Aramaic,” as a distinctive title of this dialect,
  deriving this term from _Aram_, the original name of Syria,
  and the regions around, in all which was spoken in the time of
  Christ, this or a similar dialect. This term however, is quite
  unnecessary; and I therefore prefer to use here the common
  name, as above limited, because it is the one used in the New
  Testament, and is the one in familiar use, not only with common
  readers, but, as far as I know, with the majority of Biblical
  critics.

  Though the evidence that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, is
  apparently of the most uniform, weighty and decisive character,
  there have been many among the learned, within the three last
  centuries, who have denied it, and have brought the best of
  their learning and ability to prove that the Greek gospel of
  Matthew, which is now in the New Testament, is the original
  production of his pen; and so skilfully has this modern view
  been maintained, that this has already been made one of the
  most doubtful questions in the history of the canon. In Germany
  more particularly, (but not entirely,) this notion has, during
  the last century, been strongly supported by many who do not
  like the idea, that we are in possession only of a translation
  of this most important record of sacred history, and that the
  original is now lost forever. Those who have more particularly
  distinguished themselves on this side of the controversy, are
  Maius, Schroeder, Masch and Hug, but the great majority of
  critics still support the old view.

  The earliest evidence for the _Hebrew_ original of Matthew’s
  gospel, is Papias of Hierapolis, (as early as A. D. 140,) not
  long after the times of the apostles, and acquainted with many
  who knew them personally. Eusebius (Church History, III. 39,)
  quotes the words of Papias, (of which the original is now lost,)
  which are exactly translated here:――“Matthew therefore wrote the
  divine words in the Hebrew language; and every one translated
  them as he could.” By which it appears that in the time of
  Papias there was no universally acknowledged translation of
  Matthew’s gospel; but that every one was still left to his own
  private discretion, in giving the meaning in Greek from the
  original Hebrew. The value of Papias’s testimony on any point
  connected with the history of the apostles, may be best learned
  from his own simple and honest account of his opportunities and
  efforts to inquire into their history; (as recorded by Eusebius
  in a former part of the same chapter.) “If any person who had
  ever been acquainted with the elders, came into my company, I
  inquired of them the words of the elders;――what Andrew and Peter
  said?――what Thomas, and James, and John, and Matthew, and the
  other disciples of the Lord used to say?”――All this shows an
  inquiring, zealous mind, faithful in particulars, and ready
  in improving opportunities for acquiring historical knowledge.
  Yet because in another part of the works of Eusebius, he is
  characterized as rather enthusiastic, and very weak in judgment,
  more particularly in respect to doctrines, some moderns have
  attempted to set aside his testimony, as worth nothing on this
  simple historical point, the decision of which, from the direct
  personal witness of those who had seen Matthew and read his
  original gospel, needed no more judgment than for a man to
  remember his own name. The argument offered to discredit Papias,
  is this:――“He believed in a bodily reign of the Messiah on the
  earth, during the whole period of the millennium, and for this
  and some similar errors, is pronounced by Eusebius, ‘a man
  of very weak judgment,’――(πανυ σμικρος τον νουν.) Therefore,
  he could not have known in what language Matthew wrote.”
  The objection certainly is worth something against a man
  who made such errors as Papias, in questions where any nice
  discrimination is necessary, but in a simple effort of a
  ready memory, he is as good a witness as though he had the
  discrimination of a modern skeptical critic. (In Michaelis’s
  Introduction to the New Testament, vol. III. c. iv. § 4, is a
  full discussion of Papias’s character and testimony, and the
  objections to them.)

  The second witness is Irenaeus, (A. D. 160,) who, however,
  coupling his testimony with a demonstrated falsehood, destroys
  the value which might be otherwise put upon a statement so
  ancient as his. His words are quoted by Eusebius, (Church
  History, V. 8.) “Matthew published among the Hebrews his gospel,
  written in _their own_ language, (τῃ ιδιᾳ αυτων διαλεκτῳ,) while
  Peter and Paul were preaching Christ at Rome, and laying the
  foundations of the church.” This latter circumstance is no great
  help to the story, after what has been proved on this point in
  the notes on Peter’s life; but the critics do not pretend to
  attack it on this ground. They urge against it, that as Irenaeus
  had a great regard for Papias, and took some facts on his word,
  he probably took this also from him, with no other authority,――a
  _guess_, which only wants proof, to make it a very tolerable
  argument. Let Irenaeus go for what he is worth; there are enough
  without him.

  The third witness is Pantaenus of Alexandria, already quoted
  in the note on Nathanael’s life, (p. 363,) as having found this
  Hebrew gospel still in use, in that language, among the Jews of
  Arabia-Felix, towards the end of the second century.

  The fourth witness is Origen, (A. D. 230,) whose words on
  this point are preserved only in a quotation made by Eusebius,
  (Church History, VI. 25,) who thus gives them from Origen’s
  commentary on Matthew. “As I have learned by tradition
  concerning the four gospels, which alone are received without
  dispute by the church of God under heaven: the first was written
  by Matthew, once a tax-gatherer, afterwards an apostle of Jesus
  Christ, who published it for the benefit of the Jewish converts,
  having composed it in the HEBREW language, &c.” The term,
  “_tradition_,” (παραδοσις,) here evidently means something more
  than floating, unauthorized information, coming merely by vague
  hearsay; for to this source only he refers all his knowledge
  of the fact, that “the gospel was written by Matthew;” so that,
  in fact, we have as good authority in this place, for believing
  that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, as we have that he wrote at all.
  The other circumstances specified, also show clearly, that he
  did not derive all his information on this point from Papias,
  as some have urged; because this account gives facts which that
  earlier Father did not mention,――as that it was written first,
  and that it was intended for the benefit of the Jewish converts.

  Later authorities, such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem,
  Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others, might be quoted
  in detail, to the same effect; but this general statement is
  sufficient for this place. The scholar of course, will refer to
  the works on critical theology for detailed abstracts of these,
  as well as the former writers. Michaelis is very full, both in
  extracts and discussions. Hug also gives a minute account of the
  evidence, with the view of refuting it.

  The testimony of Jerome [A. D. 395,] is however, so full
  and explicit, and so valuable from his character as a Hebrew
  scholar, that it may well be esteemed of higher importance
  to the question, than that of some earlier writers. His words
  are,――“Matthew composed his gospel in _Hebrew letters and words_,
  but it is not very well known who afterwards translated it.
  Moreover, the very Hebrew original itself is preserved even to
  this day, in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus,
  most industriously collected. I also had the opportunity of
  copying [describendi] this book by means of the Nazareans
  in Beroea, a city of Syria, who use this book.” [Jerome De
  scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. Vita Matthew.] Another passage
  from the same author is valuable testimony to the same
  purpose,――“Matthew wrote his gospel _in the Hebrew language_,
  principally for the sake of those Jews who believed in Jesus.”

  Now these testimonies, though coming from an authority so
  late, are of the highest value when his means of learning the
  truth are considered. By his own statement it appears that he
  _had actually seen and examined_ the original Hebrew gospel of
  Matthew, or what was considered to be such, as preserved in the
  valuable collections of ♦Pamphilus, at a place within the region
  for which it was first written. It has been urged that Jerome
  confounded the “gospel according to the Hebrews,” an apocryphal
  book, with the true original of Matthew. But this is disproved,
  from the circumstance that Jerome himself translated this
  apocryphal gospel from the Hebrew into Latin, while he says that
  the translator of Matthew was unknown.

    ♦ “Pamphilius” replaced with “Pamphilus”

  In addition to these authorities from the Fathers, may be
  quoted the statements appended to the ancient Syriac and Arabic
  versions, which distinctly declare that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
  This was also the opinion of all the learned Syrians.

  The great argument with which all this evidence is met, (besides
  discrediting the witnesses,) is that Matthew _ought_ to have
  written in Greek, and therefore _did_. (Matthaeus Graece
  scribere _debuit_. Schubert. Diss. § 24.) This sounds very
  strangely; that, without any direct ancient testimony to support
  the assertion, but a great number of distinct assertions against
  it from the very earliest Fathers, moderns should now pronounce
  themselves better judges of what Matthew _ought_ to do, than
  those who were so near to his time, and were so well acquainted
  with his design, and all the circumstances under which it was
  executed. Yet, strangely as it sounds, an argument of even this
  presumptuous aspect, demands the most respectful consideration,
  more especially from those who have had frequent occasion, on
  other points, to notice the very contemptible character of the
  “testimony of the Fathers.” It should be noticed however, that,
  in this case, the argument does not rest on a mere floating
  tradition, like many other mooted points in early Christian
  history, but in most of the witnesses, is referred to direct
  personal knowledge of the facts, and, in some cases, to actual
  inspection of the original.

  It is proper to notice the reasons for thinking that Matthew
  _ought_ to have written in Greek, which have influenced such
  minds as those of Erasmus, Beza, Ittig, Leusden, Spanheim,
  LeClerc, Semler, Hug and others, and which have had a decisive
  weight with such wonderfully deep Hebrew scholars, as Wagenseil,
  Lightfoot, John _Henry_ Michaelis, and Reland. The amount of
  the argument is, mainly, that the Greek was then so widely and
  commonly spoken even in Palestine, as to be the most desirable
  language for the evangelist to use in preserving for the benefit
  of his own countrymen, the record of the life of Christ. The
  particulars of the highly elaborate and learned arguments, on
  which this assertion has been rested, have filled volumes, nor
  can even an abstract be allowed here; but a simple reference
  to common facts will do something to show to common readers,
  the prominent objections to the notion of a Greek original. It
  is perfectly agreed that the Hebrew was the ordinary language
  spoken by Christ, in his teachings, and in all his usual
  intercourse with the people around him. That this language was
  that in which the Jews also commonly wrote and read at that
  time, as far as they were able to do either, in any language, is
  equally plain. In spite of all that Grecian and Roman conquests
  could do, the Jews were still a distinct and peculiar people;
  nor is there any reason whatever to suppose that they were
  any less so in language, than they were in dress, manners,
  and general character. He, therefore, who desired to write
  anything for the benefit of the Jews, as a nation, would insure
  it altogether the best attention from them, if it came in a
  form most accordant with their national feelings. They would
  naturally be the first persons whose salvation would be an
  object to the apostolic writers, as to the apostolic preachers,
  and the feelings of the writer himself, being in some degree
  influenced by love of his own countrymen, he would aim first
  at the direct spiritual benefit of those who were his kindred
  according to the flesh. Among all the historical writings of the
  New Testament, that there should be not one originally composed
  in the language of the people among whom the Savior arose, with
  whom he lived, talked and labored, and for whom he died, would
  be very strange. The fact that a gospel in the Hebrew language
  was considered absolutely indispensable for the benefit of
  the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, is rendered perfectly
  incontestable by the circumstance that those apocryphal gospels
  which were in common use among the heretical denominations of
  that region, were _all in Hebrew_; and the common argument, that
  the Hebrew gospel spoken of by the Fathers was translated into
  Hebrew from Matthew’s Greek, is itself an evidence that it was
  absolutely indispensable that the Jews should be addressed in
  writing, in that language alone. The objection, that the Hebrew
  original of Matthew was lost so soon, is easily answered by
  the fact, that the Jews were, in the course of the few first
  centuries, driven out of the land of their Fathers so completely,
  as to destroy the occasion for any such gospel in their language;
  for wherever they went, they soon made the dialect of the
  country in which they lived, their only medium of communication,
  written or spoken.

  Fabricius may be advantageously consulted by the scholar for
  a condensed view of the question of the original language of
  Matthew’s gospel, and his references to authorities, ancient and
  modern, are numerous and valuable, besides those appended by his
  editors.――The most complete argument ever made out in defense
  of a Greek original, is that by Hug, in his Introduction, whose
  history of the progress of Grecian influence and language in
  Syria and Palestine, is both interesting and valuable on its own
  account, though made the inefficient instrument of supporting an
  error. He is very ably met by his English translator, Wait, in
  the introduction to the first volume. A very strong defense of
  a Greek original of Matthew, is also found in a little quarto
  pamphlet, containing a thesis of a Goettingen student, on taking
  his degree in theology, in 1810. (Diss. Crit. Exeg. in serm.
  Matt. &c. Auct. Frid. Gul. Schubert.)


           II. WHAT WERE THE MATERIALS OF MATTHEW’S GOSPEL?

  This point has been made the subject of more discussion and
  speculation, within the last fifty years, among the critical
  and exegetical theologians of Europe, than any other subject
  connected with the New Testament. Those who wish to see the
  interesting details of the modes of explaining the coincidences
  between the three first evangelists, may find much on this
  subject in Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament, and
  especially in the translation by Bishop Marsh, who, in his notes
  on Vol. III. of Michaelis, has, after a very full discussion
  of all previous views of the origin of the gospels, gone on
  to build one of the most ingenious speculations on this point
  that was ever conceived on any subject, but which, in its very
  complicated structure, will present a most insuperable objection
  to its adoption by the vast majority of even his critical
  readers; and accordingly, though he has received universal
  praise for the great learning and ingenuity displayed in its
  formation, he has found few supporters,――perhaps none. His
  views are fully examined and fairly discussed, by the anonymous
  English translator of Dr. F. Schleiermacher’s Commentary on
  Luke, in an introductory history of all the German speculations
  on this subject with which he has prefaced that work. The
  historical sketch there given of the progress of opinion on the
  sources and materials of the three first gospels, is probably
  the most complete account of the whole matter that is accessible
  in English, and displays a very minute acquaintance with the
  German theologians. Hug is also very full on this subject,
  and also discusses the views of Marsh and Michaelis. Hug’s
  translator, Dr. Wait, has given, in an introduction to the
  first volume, a very interesting account of these critical
  controversies, and has large references to many German writers
  not referred to by his author. Bertholdt and Bolten, in
  particular, are amply quoted and disputed by Wait. Bloomfield
  also, in the prefaces to the first and second volumes of his
  critical Annotations on the New Testament, gives much on the
  subject that can hardly be found any where else by a mere
  English reader. Large references might be made to the works
  of the original German writers; but it would require a very
  protracted statement, and would be useless to nearly all
  readers, because those to whom these rare and deep treasures
  of sacred knowledge are accessible, are doubtless better able
  to give an account of them than I am. It may be worth while
  to mention, however, that of all those statements of the facts
  on this subject with which I am acquainted, none gives a more
  satisfactory view, than a little Latin monograph, in a quarto
  of eighty pages, written by H. W. Halfeld, (a Goettingen
  theological student, and a pupil of Eichhorn, for whose views
  he has a great partiality,) for the Royal premium. Its title
  is, “Commentatio de origine quatuor evangeliorum, et de eorum
  canonica auctoritate.” (Goettingen, 1796.) The Bibliotheca
  Graeca of Fabricius, (Harles’s edition with notes,) contains, in
  the chapters on the gospels, very rich references to the learned
  authors on these points. Lardner, in his History of the Apostles
  and Evangelists, takes a learned view of the question, “whether
  either of the three evangelists had seen the others’ writings.”
  This he gives after the lives of all four of the evangelists,
  and it may be referred to for a very full abstract of all the
  old opinions upon the question. Few of these points have any
  claim for a discussion in this book, but some things may very
  properly be alluded to, in the lives of the other evangelists,
  where a reference to their resemblances and common sources, will
  be essential to the completeness of the narrative.


            III. AT WHAT TIME DID MATTHEW WRITE HIS GOSPEL?

This is a question on which the records of antiquity afford no light,
that can be trusted; and it is therefore left to be settled entirely by
_internal_ evidence. There are indeed ancient stories, that he wrote it
nine years after the ascension,――that he wrote it fifteen years after
that event,――that he wrote it while Peter and Paul were preaching at
Rome,――or when he was about leaving Palestine, &c., all which are about
equally valuable. The results of the examinations of modern writers,
who have labored to ascertain the date, have been exceedingly various,
and only probabilities can be stated on this most interesting point
of gospel history. The most probable conjecture on this point is one
based on the character of certain passages in Christ’s prophecy of the
destruction of Jerusalem, which by their vividness in the evangelist’s
record, may be fairly presumed to have been written down when the
crisis in Jewish affairs was highest, and most interesting; and when
the perilous condition of the innocent Christians must have been
a matter of the deepest solicitude to the apostles,――so much as to
deserve a particular provision, by a written testimony of the impending
ruin. A reference made also to a certain historical fact in Christ’s
prophecy, which is known on the testimony of Josephus, the Jewish
historian, to have happened about this time, affords another important
ground for fixing the date. This is the murder of Zachariah, the son
of Barachiah, whom the Jews slew between the temple and the altar. He
relates that the ferocious banditti, who had possessed themselves of
the strong places of the city, tyrannized over the wretched inhabitants,
executing the most bloody murders daily, among them, and killing, upon
the most unfounded accusations, the noblest citizens. Among those thus
sacrificed by these bloody tyrants, Josephus very minutely narrates the
murder of Zachariah, the son of Baruch, or Baruchus, a man of one of
the first families, and of great wealth. His independence of character
and freedom of speech, denouncing the base tyranny under which the
city groaned, soon made him an object of mortal hatred, to the military
rulers; and his wealth also constituted an important incitement to his
destruction. He was therefore seized, and on the baseless charge of
plotting to betray the city into the hands of Vespasian and the Romans,
was brought to a trial before a tribunal constituted by themselves,
from the elders of the people, in the temple, which they had profaned
by making it their strong hold. The righteous Zachariah, knowing
that his doom was irrevocably sealed, determined not to lay aside his
freedom of speech, even in this desperate pass; and when brought by his
iniquitous accusers before the elders who constituted the tribunal, in
all the eloquent energy of despair, after refuting the idle accusations
against him, in few words, he turned upon his accusers in just
indignation, and burst out into the most bitter denunciations of their
wickedness and cruelty, mingling with these complaints, lamentations
over the desolate and miserable condition of his ruined country.
The ferocious Zealots, excited to madness by his dauntless spirit of
resistance, instantly drew their swords, and threateningly called out
to the judges to condemn him at once. But even the instruments of their
power, were too much moved by the heroic innocence of the prisoner, to
consent to this unjust doom; and, in spite of these threats, acquitted
him at once. The Zealots then burst out, at once, into fury against
the judges, and rushed upon them to punish their temerity, in declaring
themselves willing to die with him, rather than unjustly pronounce
sentence upon him. Two of the fiercest of the ruffians, seizing
Zachariah, slew him in _the middle of the temple_, insulting his last
agonies, and immediately hurled his warm corpse over the terrace of the
temple, into the depths of the valley below.

This was, most evidently, the horrible murder, to which Jesus referred
in his prophecy. Performed thus, just on the eve of the last, utter
ruin of the temple and the city, it is the only act that could be
characterized as the crowning iniquity of all the blood unrighteously
shed, from the earliest time downwards. It has sometimes been supposed
by those ignorant of this remarkable event, that the Zachariah here
referred to, was Zachariah, son of Jehoiada, who in the reign of Joash,
king of Judah, was stoned by the people, at the command of the king,
in the outer court of the temple. But there are several circumstances
connected with that event, which render it impossible to interpret
the words of Jesus as referring merely to that, although some of
the coincidences are truly amazing. That Zachariah was the son of
_Jehoiada_,――this was the son of _Baruch_ or _Barachiah_;――that
Zachariah was slain in the outer court,――this was slain “in the midst
of the temple,”――that is, “between the temple and the altar.” Besides,
Jesus evidently speaks of this Zachariah as a person yet to come.
“Behold, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and writers; and some of
them you _shall_ kill and crucify; and some of them you shall scourge
and persecute; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon
the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah,
the son of Barachiah, whom _ye slew_ between the temple and the altar.
All these things shall come upon this generation.” It is true that here,
the writer, in recording the prophecy, now referring to its fulfilment,
turns to the Jews, charging it upon them as a crime already past, when
he writes, though not at the time when the Savior spoke; and it is
therefore, by a bold change of tense, that he represents Jesus speaking
of a future event, as past. But the whole point of the discourse
plainly refers to future crimes, as well as to future punishment.
The multitude who heard him, indeed, no doubt considered him as
pointing, in this particular mention of names, only to a past event;
and notwithstanding the difference of minor circumstances, probably
interpreted his words as referring to the Zachariah mentioned in 2
Chronicles, who was stoned for his open rebukes of the sins of king
and people;――a conclusion moreover, justified by the previous words
of Jesus. He had just been denouncing upon them the sin of their
fathers, as the murderers of the prophets, whose tombs they were now
so ostentatiously building; and if this wonderful accomplishment of his
latter words had not taken place, it might reasonably be supposed, that
he spoke of these future crimes only to show that their conduct would
soon justify his imputation to them of their fathers’ guilt; that they
would, during that same generation, murder similar persons, sent to
them on similar divine errands, and thus become sharers in the crime
of their fathers, who slew Zachariah, the son of Jehoiada, in the
outer temple. But here now is the testimony of the impartial Josephus,
a Jew,――himself a contemporary learner of all these events, and an
eye-witness of some of them,――who, without any bias in favor of Christ,
but rather some prejudice against him,――in this case too, without the
knowledge of any such prophecy spoken or recorded,――gives a clear,
definite statement of the outrageous murder of Zachariah, the son of
Baruch or Barachiah, who, as he says, exactly, was “slain in the middle
of the temple,”――that is, half-way “between the temple-courts and the
altar.” He mentions it too, as the last bloody murder of a righteous
man, for proclaiming the guilt of the wicked people; and it therefore
very exactly corresponds to the idea of the crime, which was “to fill
up the measure of their iniquities.” This event, thus proved to be
the accomplishment of the prophecy of Jesus, and being shown moreover,
to have been expressed in this peculiar form, with a reference to
the recent occurrence of the murder alluded to,――is therefore a most
valuable means of ascertaining the date of this gospel. Josephus dates
the murder of Zachariah in the month of October, in the thirteenth
year of the reign of Nero, which corresponds to A. D. 66. The Apostle
Matthew then, must have written after this time; and it must be settled
by other passages, _how long after_, he recorded the prophecy.

  The passage containing the prophecy of ♦the death of Zachariah,
  is in Matthew xxiii. 35; and that of “the abomination of
  desolation,” is in xxiv. 15.

    ♦ remove duplicated word “the”

  This interesting event is recorded by Josephus; (History of
  Jewish War, IV. v. 4;) and is one of the numerous instances
  which show the vast benefit which the Christian student of the
  New Testament may derive from the interesting and exact accounts
  of this Jewish historian.

Another remarkable passage occurring in the prophecy of Jesus to his
disciples, respecting the ruin of the temple, recorded by Matthew
immediately after the discourse to the multitude, just given, affords
reasonable ground for ascertaining this point in the history of this
gospel. When Jesus was solemnly forewarning Peter, Andrew, James and
John, of the utter ruin of the temple and city, he mentioned to them,
at their request, certain signs, by which they might know the near
approach of the coming judgment upon their country, and might thus
escape the ruin to which the guilty were doomed. After many sad
predictions of personal suffering, which must befall them in his
service, he distinctly announced to them a particular event, by the
occurrence of which they might know that “the end was come,” and might
then, at the warning, flee from the danger to a place of safety. “When
ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by
Daniel the prophet, (_whoso READETH, let him understand_,) then let
them that are in Judea flee to the mountains.” This parenthetical
expression is evidently thrown in by Matthew, as a warning to his
_readers_, of an event which it behoved them to notice, as the token of
a danger which they must escape. The expression was entirely local and
occasional, in its character, and could never have been made a part of
the discourse by Jesus; but the writer himself, directing his thoughts
at that moment to the circumstances of the time, called the attention
of his Christian countrymen to the warning of Jesus, as something which
they must understand and act upon immediately. The inquiry then arises
as to the meaning of the expression used by Jesus in his prophecy. “The
abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, as standing
in the holy place,” unquestionably refers to the horrible violation of
the sanctity of the holy places of the temple, by the banditti, styling
themselves “_Zealots_ for their country,” who, taking possession of
the sanctuary, called in the savage Idumeans, a heathen people, who not
only profaned the temple, by their unholy presence, but defiled it with
various excesses, committing there a horrible massacre, and flooding
its pavements with blood. This was the abomination to which both
Daniel and Matthew referred, and which the latter had in mind when
he mentioned it to his brethren to whom he wrote, as the sign which
_they in reading should understand_, and upon the warning, flee to
the mountains. These horrible polluting excesses are the only events
recorded in the history of the times, which can with such certainty and
justice be pronounced the sad omens, to which Jesus and his evangelist
referred. They are known to have occurred just before the death of
Zachariah; and therefore also show this gospel to have been written
after the date above fixed for that event. That it must have been
written _before_ the last siege of Jerusalem, is furthermore manifest
from the fact, that, in order to have the effect of a _warning_, it
must have been sent to those in danger before the avenues of escape
from danger were closed up, as they certainly were after Titus had
fully encompassed Jerusalem with his armies, and after the ferocious
Jewish tyrants had made it certain death for any one to attempt to pass
from Jerusalem to the Roman camp. To have answered the purpose for
which it was intended, then, it must have been written at some period
between the murder of Zachariah, which was in the winter of the year 66,
and the march of Titus from Galilee to Jerusalem, before which place he
pitched his camp in the month of March, in A. D. 70. The precise point
of time in these three years it is impossible to fix; but it was, very
probably, within a short time after the commission of the bloody crimes
to which he refers; perhaps in the beginning of the year 67.

  This view of these passages and the circumstances to which they
  refer, with all the arguments which support the inferences drawn
  from them, may be found in Hug’s Introduction, (Vol. II. § 4.)
  He dates Matthew’s gospel much later than most writers do; it
  being commonly supposed to have been written in the year 41, or
  in the year 61. Michaelis makes an attempt to reconcile these
  conjectures, by supposing that it was written in Hebrew by
  Matthew, in A. D. 41, and translated in 61. But this is a mere
  guess, for which he does not pretend to assign a reason, and
  only says that he “can see no impropriety in supposing so.”
  (Introduction, III. iv. 1, 2.)

  Eichhorn suggests, that a reason for concluding that Matthew
  wrote his gospel a long time after the events which he relates,
  is implied in the expression used in chap. xxvii. 8, and xxviii.
  15. “It is so called, _to this day_,”――“It is commonly reported,
  _to this day_,”――are expressions which, to any reader, convey
  the idea of many years intervening between the incidents and
  the time of their narration. In xxvii. 15, also, the explanation
  which he gives of the custom of releasing a prisoner to the
  Jews on the feast-day, implies that the custom had been so
  long out of date, as to be probably forgotten by most of his
  readers, unless their memories were refreshed by this distinct
  explanation.


         IV. WITH WHAT SPECIAL DESIGN WAS THIS GOSPEL WRITTEN?

The circumstances of the times, as alluded to under the last inquiry,
afford much light on the immediate object which Matthew had in view, in
writing his gospel. It is true, that common readers of the Bible seldom
think of it as anything else than a mere complete revelation made to
all men, to lead them in the way of truth and salvation; and few are
prepared for an inquiry which shall take each portion of the scriptures
by itself, and follow it through all its individual history, to the
very source,――searching even into the immediate and temporary purpose
of the inspired writers. Indeed, very many never think or know, that
the historical portions of the New Testament were written with any
other design than to furnish to believers in Christ, through all ages,
in all countries, a complete and distinct narrative of the events of
the history of the foundation of their religion. But such a notion
is perfectly discordant, not only with the reasonable results of an
accurate examination of these writings, in all their parts, but with
the uniform and decided testimony of all the Fathers of the Christian
church, who may be safely taken as important and trusty witnesses of
the notions prevalent in their times, about the scope and original
design of the apostolic records. And though, as to the minute
particulars of the history of the sacred canon, their testimony is
worth little, yet on the general question, whether the apostles wrote
with only a universal reference, or also with some special design
connected with their own age and times,――the Fathers are as good
authority as any writers that ever lived could be, on the opinions
generally prevalent in their own day. In this particular case, however,
very little reference can be made to external historical evidence, on
the scope of Matthew’s gospel; because very few notices indeed, are
found, of its immediate object, among the works of the early writers.
But a view of the circumstances of the times, before referred to, will
illustrate many things connected with the plan of the work, and show
a peculiar force in many passages, that would otherwise be little
appreciated.

It appears on the unimpeachable testimony of the historians of those
very times, of Josephus, who was a Jew, and of Tacitus and Suetonius,
who were Romans, that both before and during the civil disturbances
that ended in the destruction of Jerusalem, there was a general
impression among the Jews, that their long-foretold Savior and national
restorer, the Messiah-king, would soon appear; and in the power of God,
lead them on to a certain triumph over the seemingly invincible hosts,
which even the boundless strength of Rome could send against them. In
the expectation of the establishment of his glorious dominion, under
which Israel should more than renew the honors and the power of David
and Solomon, they, without fear of the appalling consequences of their
temerity, entered upon the hopeless struggle for independence; and
according to the testimony of the above-mentioned historians, this
prevalent notion did much, not only to incite them to the contest,
but also to sustain their resolution under the awful calamities which
followed. The revolt thus fully begun, drew the whole nation together
into a perfect union of feeling and interest; all sharing in the
popular fanaticism, became Jews again, whereby the Christian faith must
have lost not a few of its professors.

In these circumstances, and while such notions were prevalent, Matthew
wrote his sketch of the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus; and
throughout the whole of his narrative makes constant references, where
the connection can suggest, to such passages in the ancient holy books
of the Hebrews, as were commonly supposed to describe the character and
destiny of the Messiah. Tracing out in all these lineaments of ancient
prophecy, the complete picture of the Restorer of Israel, he thus
proved, by a comparison with the actual life of Jesus of Nazareth, that
this was the person, whose course throughout, had been predicted by
the ancient prophets. In this way, he directly attacked the groundless
hopes, which the fanatical rebels had excited, showing, as he did, that
he for whom they looked as the Deliverer of Israel from bondage, had
already come, and devoted his life to the disenthralment and salvation
of his people from their sins. A distinct and satisfactory proof,
carried on through a chain of historical evidence to this effect,
would answer the purpose as fully as the written truth could do, of
overthrowing the baseless imposition with which the impudent Zealots
were beguiling the hopes of a credulous people, and leading them on,
willingly deceived, to their utter ruin. In this book, containing a
clear prediction of the destruction of the temple and Holy city, and
of the whole religious and civil organization of the Jewish nation,
many would find the revealed truth, making them wise in the way of
salvation, though, for a time, all efforts might seem in vain; for the
literal fulfilment of these solemn prophecies thus previously recorded,
afterwards ensuing, the truth of the doctrines of a spiritual faith
connected with these words of prediction, would be strongly impressed
on those whom the consummation of their country’s ruin should lead to
a consideration of the errors in which they had been long led astray.
These prophecies promised, too, that after all these schemes of worldly
triumph for the name and race of Israel, had sadly terminated in the
utter, irretrievable ruin of temple and city,――and when the cessation
of festivals, and the taking away of the daily sacrifice, had left the
Jew so few material and formal objects, to hang his faith and hopes
on,――the wandering ones should turn to the pure spiritual truths, which
would prove the best consolation in their hopeless condition, and own,
in vast numbers, the name and faith of him, whose sorrowful life and
sad death were but too mournful a type of the coming woes of those who
rejected him. Acknowledging the despised and crucified Nazarene as the
true prophet and the long-foretold Messiah-king of afflicted Judah, the
heart-broken, wandering sons of Israel, should join themselves to that
oft-preached heavenly kingdom of virtue and truth, whose only entrance
was through repentance and humility. Hence those numerous quotations
from the Prophets, and from the Psalms, which are so abundant in
Matthew, and by which, even a common reader is able to distinguish the
peculiar, definite object that this writer has in view:――to show to the
Jews, by a minute detail, and a frequent comparison, that the actions
of Jesus, even in the most trifling incidents, corresponded with those
passages of the ancient scriptures, which foreshadowed the Messiah. In
this particular, his gospel is clearly distinguished from the others,
which are for the most part deficient in this distinct unity of design;
and where they refer to the grand object of representing Jesus as the
Messiah,――the Son of God,――they do it in other modes, which show that
it was for more general purposes, and directed to the conversion of
Gentiles rather than Jews. This is the case with John, who plainly
makes this an essential object in his grand scheme; but he combines the
establishment of this great truth, with the more immediate occasions of
subverting error and checking the progress of heretical opinions that
aimed to detract from the divine prerogatives of Jesus. But John deals
very little in those pointed and apt references to the testimony of
the Hebrew scriptures, which so distinguish the writings of Matthew;
he evidently apprehends that those to whom he writes, will be less
affected by appeals of that kind, than by proofs drawn from his actions
and discourses, and by the testimony of the great, the good, and the
inspired, among those who saw and heard him. The work of Matthew was,
on the other hand, plainly designed to bring to the faith of Jesus,
those who were already fully and correctly instructed in all that
related to the divinely exalted character of the Messiah, and only
needed proof that the person proposed to them as the Redeemer thus
foretold, was in all particulars such as the unerring word of ancient
prophecy required. Besides this object of converting the unbelieving
Jews, its tendency was also manifestly to strengthen and preserve those
who were already professors of the faith of Jesus; and such, through
all ages, has been its mighty scope, enlightening the nations with the
clearest historical testimony ever borne to the whole life and actions
of Jesus Christ, and rejoicing the millions of the faithful with the
plainest record of the events that secured their salvation.

Beyond the history of this gospel, the Fathers have hardly given the
least account, either fanciful or real, of the succeeding life of
Matthew. A fragment of tradition, of no very ancient date, specifies
that he wrote his gospel when he was about to leave Palestine to go
to other lands; but neither the region nor the period is mentioned.
Probably, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, he followed
the eastward course of the Jewish Christians; but beyond this, even
conjecture is lost. But where all historical grounds fail, monkish
invention comes in with its tedious details of fabulous nonsense; and
in this case, as in others already alluded to, the writings of the
monks of the fourteenth century, produce long accounts of Matthew’s
labors in Ethiopia, where he is carried through a long series of fabled
miracles, to the usual crowning glory of martyrdom.

  _Ethiopia._――The earliest testimony on this point by any
  ecclesiastical history, is that of Socrates, (A. D. 425,) a
  Greek writer, who says only, that “when the apostles divided
  the heathen world, by lot, among themselves,――to Matthew was
  allotted Ethiopia.” This is commonly supposed to mean Nubia, or
  the country directly south of Egypt. The other Fathers of the
  fifth and following centuries, generally assign him the same
  country; but it is quite uncertain what region is designated
  by this name. Ethiopia was a name applied by the Greeks to
  such a variety of regions, that it is quite in vain to define
  the particular one meant, without more information about the
  locality.

But no such idle inventions can add anything to the interest which this
apostolic writer has secured for himself by his noble Christian record.
Not even an authentic history of miracles and martyrdom, could increase
his enduring greatness. The tax-gatherer of Galilee has left a monument,
on which cluster the combined honors of a literary and a holy fame,――a
monument which insures him a wider, more lasting, and far higher glory,
than the noblest ♦achievements of the Grecian or the Latin writers,
in his or any age could acquire for them. Not Herodotus nor Livy,――not
Demosthenes nor Cicero,――not Homer nor Virgil,――can find a reader
to whom the despised Matthew’s simple work is not familiar; nor did
the highest hope or the proudest conception of the brilliant Horace,
when exulting in the extent and durability of his fame, equal the
boundless and eternal range of Matthew’s honors. What would Horace
have said, if he had been told that among the most despised of these
superstitious and barbarian Jews, whom his own writings show to have
been proverbially scorned, would arise one, within thirty or forty
years, who, degraded by his avocation, even below his own countrymen’s
standard of respectability, would, by a simple record in humble prose,
in an uncultivated and soon-forgotten dialect, “complete a monument
more enduring than brass,――more lofty than the pyramids,――outlasting
all the storms of revolution and of disaster,――all the course of ages
and the flight of time?” Yet such was the result of the unpretending
effort of Matthew; and it is not the least among the miracles of the
religion whose foundation he commemorated and secured, that such a
wonder in fame should have been achieved by it.

    ♦ “achievments” replaced with “achievements”




                           THOMAS, DIDYMUS.


THE second name of this apostle is only the Greek translation of the
former, which is the Syriac and Hebrew word for a “twin-brother,” from
which, therefore, _one_ important circumstance may be safely inferred
about the _birth_ of Thomas, though unfortunately, beyond this,
antiquity bears no record whatever of his circumstances previous to his
admission into the apostolic fraternity.

Nor is the authentic history of the apostles, much more satisfactory in
respect to subsequent parts of Thomas’s history. A very few brief but
striking incidents, in which he was particularly engaged, are specified
by John alone, who seems to have been disposed to supply, by his gospel,
some characteristic account of several of the apostles, who had been
noticed only by name, in the writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Those
in particular who receive this peculiar notice from him, are Andrew,
Philip, Nathanael, Thomas, and John himself,――of all whom, as well
as of Peter, are thus learned some interesting matters, which, though
apparently so trivial, do much towards giving a distinct impression of
some of the leading traits in their characters. Among those facts thus
preserved respecting Thomas, however, there is not one which gives any
account of his parentage, rank in life, or previous occupation; nor
do any other authentic sources bring any more facts to view on these
points. The only conclusion presented even by conjecture, about his
early history, is, that he was a publican, like Matthew,――a notion
which is found in some of the Fathers,――grounded, no doubt, altogether
on the circumstance, that in all the gospel lists, he is paired with
Matthew, as though there were some close connection between them. This
is only a conjecture, and one with even a more insignificant basis
than most trifling speculations of this sort, and therefore deserving
no regard whatever. Of the three incidents commemorated by John,
two at least, are such as to present Thomas in a light by no means
advantageous to his character as a ready and zealous believer in Jesus;
but on both these occasions he is represented as expressing opinions
which prove him to have been very slow, not only in believing, but in
comprehending spiritual truths. The first incident is that mentioned
by John in his account of the death of Lazarus, where he describes the
effect produced on the disciples by the news of the decease of their
friend, and by the declaration made at the same time by Jesus, of his
intention to go into Judea again, in spite of all the mortal dangers
to which he was there exposed by the hatred of the Jews, who, enraged
at his open declarations of his divine character and origin, were
determined to punish with death, one who advanced claims which they
pronounced absolutely blasphemous. This mortal hatred they had so
openly expressed, that Jesus himself had thought it best to retire
awhile from that region, and to avoid exposing himself to the fatal
effects of such malice, until the other great duties of his earthly
mission had been executed, so as to enable him, at last, to proceed to
the bloody fulfilment of his mighty task, with the assurance that he
had finished the work which his Father gave him to do.

But in spite of the pressing remonstrances of his disciples, Jesus
expressed his firm resolution to go, in the face of all mortal dangers,
into Judea, there to complete the divine work which he had only begun.
Thomas, finding his Master determined to rush into the danger, which,
by once retreating from it for a time, he had acknowledged to be
imminent, resolved not to let him go on, alone; and turning to his
fellow-disciples, said, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”
The proposal, thus decidedly made, shows a noble resolution in Thomas,
to share all the fortunes of him to whom he had joined himself, and
presents his character in a far more favorable light than the other
passages in which his conduct is commemorated. While the rest were
fearfully expostulating on the peril of the journey, he boldly proposed
to his companions to follow unhesitatingly the footsteps of their
Master, whithersoever he might go,――thus evincing a spirit of far more
exalted devotion to the cause.

  The view here taken differs from the common interpretation of
  the passage, but it is the view which has seemed best supported
  by the whole tenor of the context, as may be decided by a
  reference to the passage in its place, (John xi. 16.) The
  evidence on both views can not be better presented than in
  Bloomfield’s note on this passage, which is here extracted
  entire.

  “Here again the commentators differ in opinion. Some, as Grotius,
  Poole, Hammond, Whitby, and others, apply the αὐτου to _Lazarus_,
  and take it as equivalent to ‘let us go and die together with
  him.’ But it is objected by Maldonati and Lampe, that Lazarus
  was _already_ dead; and die like him they could not, because
  a _violent_ death was the one in Thomas’s contemplation. But
  these arguments seem inconclusive. It may with more justice
  be objected that the sense seems scarcely natural. I prefer,
  with many ancient and modern interpreters, to refer the
  αὐτου to _Jesus_, ‘let us go and die with him.’ Maldonati
  and Doddridge regard the words as indicative of the most
  affectionate attachment to our Lord’s person. But this is
  going into the other extreme. It seems prudent to hold a middle
  course, with Calvin, Tarnovius, Lyser, Bucer, Lampe, and (as it
  should appear) Tittman. Thomas could not dismiss the idea of the
  imminent danger to which both Jesus and they would be exposed,
  by going into Judea; and, with characteristic bluntness, and
  some portion of ill humor, (though with substantial attachment
  to his Master’s person,) he exclaims: ‘Since our Master will
  expose himself to such imminent, and, as it seems, unnecessary
  danger, let us accompany him, if it be only to share his fate.’
  Thus there is no occasion, with Markland and Forster, apud
  Bowyer, to read the words interrogatively.” (Bloomfield’s
  Annotations, vol. III. p. 426, 427.)

In John’s minute account of the parting discourses of Christ at
the Last Supper, it is mentioned, that Jesus after speaking of his
departure, as very near, in order to comfort his disciples, told them,
he was going “to prepare a place for them, in his Father’s house, where
were many mansions.” Assuring them of his speedy return to bring them
to these mansions of rest, he said to them, “Whither I go ye know, and
the way ye know.” But so lost, for the time, were all these words of
instruction and counsel, that not one of his followers seems to have
rightly apprehended the force of this remark; and Thomas was probably
only expressing the general doubt, when he replied to Jesus, in much
perplexity at the language, “Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and
how can we know the way?” Jesus replied, “I am the way, the truth, and
the life: no man comes to the Father but by me.” But equally vain was
this new illustration of the truth. The remark which Philip next made,
begging that they might have their curiosity gratified by a sight of
the Father, shows how idly they were all still dreaming of a worldly,
tangible and visible kingdom, and how uniformly they perverted all
the plain declarations of Jesus, to a correspondence with their own
pre-conceived, deep-rooted notions. Nor was this miserable error
removed, till the descent of that Spirit of Truth, which their
long-suffering and ever watchful Lord invoked, to teach their still
darkened souls the things which they would not now see, and to bring
to their remembrance all which they now so little heeded.

The remaining incident respecting this apostle, which is recorded
by John, further illustrates the state of mind in which each new
revelation of the divine power and character of Jesus, found his
disciples. None of them expected his resurrection;――none would
really believe it, until they had seen him with their own eyes.
Thomas therefore showed no remarkable skepticism, when, hearing
from the others, that one evening, when he was not present, Jesus
had actually appeared alive among them, he declared his absolute
unbelief,――protesting, that far from suffering himself to be as lightly
deceived as they had been, he would give no credit to any evidence but
that of the most unquestionable character,――that of seeing and touching
those bloody marks which would characterize, beyond all possibility of
mistake, the crucified body of Jesus. “Except I shall see in his hands
the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails,
and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” After eight
days, the disciples were again assembled, and on this occasion Thomas
was with them. While they were sitting, as usual, with doors closed
for fear of the Jews, Jesus again, in the same sudden and mysterious
manner as before, appeared all at once in the midst, with his solemn
salutation, “Peace be with you!” Turning at once to the unbelieving
disciple, whose amazed eyes now for the first time fell on the body of
his risen Lord, he said to him, “Thomas! Put thy finger here, and see
my hands; and put thy hand here, and thrust it into my side; and be not
faithless, but believing.” The stubbornly skeptical disciple was melted
at the sight of these mournful tokens of his Redeemer’s dying agonies,
and in a burst of new exalted devotion, he exclaimed, “My Lord! and my
God!” The pierced hands and side showed beyond all question the body
of his “Lord;” and the spirit that could, of itself, from such a death,
return to perfect life, could be nothing else than “God.” The reply
of Jesus to this expression of faith and devotion, contained a deep
reproach to this slow-believing disciple, who would take no evidence
whatever of the accomplishment of his Master’s dying words, except the
sight of every tangible thing that could identify his person. “Thomas!
because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they, who
though not seeing, yet believe.”

  “_Put thy finger here._”――This phrase seems to express the
  graphic force of the original, much more justly than the common
  translation. The adverb of place, ὧδε, gives the idea of the
  _very place_ where the wounds had been made, and brings to the
  reader’s mind the attitude and gesture of Jesus, with great
  distinctness. The adverb “_here_,” refers to the print of the
  nails; and Jesus holds out his hand to Thomas, as he says these
  words, telling him to put his finger into the wound.

  _Not seeing, yet believe._――This is the form of expression best
  justified by the indefiniteness of the Greek _aorists_, whose
  very name implies this unlimitedness in respect to time. The
  limitation to the past, implied in the common translation, is by
  no means required by the original; but it is left so vague, that
  the action may be referred to the present and the future also.

Beyond this, the writings of the New Testament give not the
least account of Thomas; and his subsequent history can only be
uncertainly traced in the dim and dark stories of tradition, or in the
contradictory records of the Fathers. Different accounts state that
he preached the gospel in Parthia,――Media,――Persia,――Ethiopia,――and
at last, India. A great range of territories is thus spread out before
the investigator, but the traces of the apostle’s course and labors are
both few and doubtful. Those of the Fathers who mention his journeys
into these countries, give no particulars whatever of his labors; and
all that is now believed respecting these things, is derived from other,
and perhaps still more uncertain sources.

India is constantly asserted by the Fathers, from the beginning of the
third century, to have very early received the gospel, and this apostle
is named as the person through whom this evangelization was effected;
but this evidence alone would be entitled to very little consideration,
except from the circumstance, that from an early period, to this
day, there has existed in India, a large body of Christians, who give
themselves the name of “St. Thomas’s Christians,” of whose antiquity
proofs are found in the testimony, both of very ancient and very
modern travelers. They still retain many traditions of the person whom
they claim as their founder,――of his place of landing,――the towns he
visited,――the churches he planted,――his places of residence and his
retreats for private devotion,――the very spot of his martyrdom, and
his grave. A tradition, however, floating down unwritten for fifteen
centuries, can not be received as very good evidence; and the more
minute such stories are in particulars, the more suspicious they are
in their character for truth. But in respect to the substance of this,
it may well be said, that it is by no means improbable, and is in the
highest degree consistent with the views, already taken, in former
parts of this work, of the eastward course of the apostles after the
destruction of Jerusalem. The great body of them, taking refuge at
Babylon, within the limits of the great Parthian empire, the more
adventurous might follow the commercial routes still farther eastward,
to the mild and generally peaceful nations of distant India, whose
character for civilization and partial refinement was such as to
present many facilities for the introduction and wide diffusion of the
gospel among them. These views, in connection with the great amount of
respectable evidence from various other sources, make the whole outline
of the story of Thomas’s labors in India very possible, and even highly
probable.

  The earliest evidence among the Fathers that has ever been
  quoted on this point, is that of Pantaenus, of Alexandria, whose
  visit to what was then called India, has been mentioned above;
  (page 363;) but as has there been observed, the investigations
  of Michaelis and others, have made it probable that Arabia-Felix
  was the country there intended by that name. The first distinct
  mention made of any eastward movement of Thomas, that can be
  found, is by Origen, who is quoted by Eusebius, (Church History,
  III. 1,) as testifying, that when the apostles separated to go
  into all the world, and preach the gospel, Parthia was assigned
  to Thomas; and Origen is represented as appealing to the common
  tradition, for the proof of this particular fact. Jerome speaks
  of Thomas, as preaching the gospel in Media and Persia. In
  another passage he specifies India, as his field; and in this he
  is followed by most of the later writers,――Ambrose, Nicephorus,
  Baronius, Natalis, &c. Chrysostom (Oration on the 12 Apostles)
  says that Thomas preached the gospel in Ethiopia. As the
  geography of all these good Fathers seems to have been somewhat
  confused, all these accounts may be considered very consistent
  with each other. Media and Persia were both in the Parthian
  Empire; and all very distant countries, east and south, were, by
  the Greeks, vaguely denominated India and Ethiopia; just ♦as all
  the northern unknown regions were generally called Scythia.

    ♦ removed duplicate “as”

  Natalis Alexander (Church History, IV. p. 32,) sums up all
  these accounts by saying, that Thomas preached the gospel to the
  Parthians, Medes, Persians, Brachmans, Indians, and the other
  neighboring nations, subject to the empire of the Parthians. He
  quotes as his authorities, besides the above-mentioned Fathers,
  Sophronius, (A. D. 390,) Gregory Nazianzen, (A. D. 370,) Ambrose,
  (370,) Gaudentius, (A. D. 387.) The author of the imperfect
  work on Matthew, (A. D. 560,) says, that Thomas found in his
  travels, the three Magi, who adored the infant Jesus, and having
  baptized them, associated them with him, in his apostolic labors.
  Theodoret, (A. D. 423,) Gaudentius, Asterius, (A. D. 320,) and
  others, declare Thomas to have died by martyrdom. Sophronius
  (390,) testifies that Thomas died at Calamina, in India. This
  Calamina is now called Malipur, and in commemoration of a
  tradition, preserved, as we are told, on the spot, to this
  effect, the Portuguese, when they set up their dominion in India,
  gave it the name of the city of St. Thomas. The story reported
  by the Portuguese travelers and historians is, that there was a
  tradition current among the people of the place, that Thomas was
  there martyred, by being thrust through with a lance. (Natalis
  Alexander, Church History, vol. IV. pp. 32, 33.)

  A new weight of testimony has been added to all this, by the
  statements of Dr. Claudius Buchanan, who, in modern times, has
  traced out all these traditions on the spot referred to, and has
  given a very full account of the “Christians of St. Thomas,” in
  his “Christian researches in India.”

On this evidence, may be founded a rational belief, though not an
absolute certainty, that Thomas actually did preach the gospel in
distant eastern countries, and there met with such success as to leave
the lasting tokens of his labors, to preserve through a course of ages,
in united glory, his own name and that of his Master. In obedience
to His last earthly command, he went to teach “nations unknown to
Caesar,” proclaiming to them the message of divine love,――solitary, and
unsupported, save by the presence of Him, who had promised to “be with
him always, EVEN TO THE END OF THE WORLD.”




                          JAMES, THE LITTLE;
                          THE SON OF ALPHEUS.


                               HIS NAME.

IT will be observed, no doubt, by all readers, that the most important
inquiry suggested in the outset of the most of these apostolic
biographies, is about the name and personal identification of the
individual subject of each life. This difficulty is connected with
peculiarities of those ancient times and half-refined nations, that
may not, perhaps, be very readily appreciated by those who have
been accustomed only to the definite nomenclature of families and
individuals, which is universally adopted among civilized nations at
the present day. With all the refined nations of European race, the
last part of a person’s name marks his family, and is supposed to have
been borne by his father, and by his ancestors, from the time when
family names were first adopted. The former part of his name, with
equal definiteness, marks the individual; and generally remains fixed
from the time when he first received his name. Whenever any change
takes place in any part of his appellation, it is generally done in
such a formal and permanent mode, as never to make any occasion for
confusion in respect to the individual, among those concerned with him.
But no such decisive limitation of names to persons, prevailed among
even the most refined nations of the apostolic age. The name given to
a child at birth, indeed, was very uniformly retained through life;
but as to the other parts of his appellation, it was taken, according
to circumstances, chance or caprice, from the common name of his
father,――from some personal peculiarity,――from his business,――from
his general character,――or from some particular incident in his life.
The name thus acquired, to distinguish him ♦from others bearing his
former name, was used either in connection with that, or without; and
sometimes two or more such distinctive appellations belonged to the
same man, all or any of which were used together with the former, or
separate from it, without any definite rule of application. To those
acquainted with the individual so variously named, and contemporary
with him, no confusion was made by this multiplicity of words; and
when anything was recorded respecting him, it was done with the perfect
assurance, that all who then knew him, would find no difficulty in
respect to his personal identity, however he might he mentioned. But
in later ages, when the personal knowledge of all these individual
distinctions has been entirely lost, great difficulties necessarily
arise on these points,――difficulties which, after tasking historical
and philological criticism to the highest efforts, in order to settle
the facts, are, for the most part, left in absolute uncertainty.
Thus, in respect to the twelve apostles, it will be noticed, that this
confusion of names throws great doubt over many important questions.
Among some of them, too, these difficulties are partly owing to other
causes. Their names were originally given to them, in the peculiar
language of Palestine; and in the extension of their labors and fame,
to people of different languages, of a very opposite character, their
names were forced to undergo new distortions, by being variously
translated, or changed in termination; and many of the original Hebrew
sounds, in consequence of being altogether unpronounceable by Greeks
and Romans, were variously exchanged for softer and smoother ones,
which, in their dissimilar forms, would lose almost all perceptible
traces of identity with each other, or with the original word.

    ♦ replace word omitted from text “from”

These difficulties are in no case quite so prominent and serious as in
regard to the apostle who is the subject of this particular biography.
Bearing the same name with the elder son of Zebedee, he was of course
necessarily designated by some additional title, to distinguish him
from the other great apostle James. This title was not always the same,
nor was it uniform in its principle of selection. On all the apostolic
lists, he is designated by a reference to the name of his father, as is
the first James. As the person first mentioned by this name is called
James, the son of Zebedee, the second is called James, the son of
Alpheus; nor is there, in the enumeration of the apostles by Matthew,
Mark or Luke, any reference to another distinctive appellation of this
James. But in one passage of Mark’s account of the crucifixion, it
is mentioned, that among the women present, was Mary the mother of
James the _Little_, and of Joses. In what sense this word _little_ is
applied,――whether of age, size, or dignity,――it is utterly impossible
to ascertain at this day; for the original word is known to have been
applied to persons, in every one of these senses, even in the New
Testament. But, however this may be, a serious question arises, whether
this James the Little was actually the same person as the James, called,
on the apostolic lists, the son of Alpheus. In the corresponding
passage in John’s gospel, this same Mary is called Mary the wife of
_Clopas_; and by Matthew and Mark, the same James is mentioned as the
brother of Joses, Juda, and Simon. In the apostolic lists given by
Luke, both in his gospel, and in the Acts of the Apostles, Juda is also
called “the brother of James;” and in his brief general epistle, the
same apostle calls himself “the brother of James.” In the beginning
of the epistle to the Galatians, Paul, describing his own reception
at Jerusalem, calls him “James, the brother of our Lord;” and by
Matthew and Mark, he, with his brothers, Joses, Juda and Simon, is
also called the brother of Jesus. From all these seemingly opposite
and irreconcilable statements, arise three inquiries, which can, it
is believed, be so answered, as to attribute to the subject of this
article every one of the circumstances connected with _James_, in these
different stories.

  _James, the Little._――This adjective is here applied to him in
  the positive degree, because it is so in the original Greek,
  [Ιακωβος ὁ μικρος, Mark xv. 40,] and this expression too, is
  in accordance with English forms of expression. The comparative
  form, “James, the _Less_,” seems to have originated in the
  Latin Vulgate, “Jacobus Minor,” which may be well enough in that
  language; but in English, there is no reason why the original
  word should not be literally and faithfully expressed. The Greek
  original of Mark, calls him “James, the _Little_,” which implies
  simply, that he was a _little_ man; whether little in size, or
  age, or dignity, every one is left to guess for himself;――but
  it is more accordant with usage, in respect to such nicknames,
  in those times, to suppose that he was a short man, and was
  thus named to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, who
  was probably taller. The term thus applied by Mark, would be
  understood by all to whom he wrote, and implied no disparagement
  to his mental eminence. But the term applied, in the sense of
  a smaller dignity, is so slighting to the character of James,
  who to the last day of his life, maintained, according to both
  Christian and Jewish history, the most exalted fame for religion
  and intellectual worth,――that it must have struck all who heard
  it thus used, as a term altogether unjust to his true eminence.
  His weight of character in the councils of the apostles, soon
  after the ascension, and the manner in which he is alluded to in
  the accounts of his death, make it very improbable that he was
  _younger_ than the other James.

First: Was James the son of _Alpheus_ the same person as James the son
of _Clopas_? The main argument for the identification of these names,
rests upon the similarity of the consonants in the original Hebrew
word which represents them both, and which, according to the fancy of a
writer, might be represented in Greek, either by the letters of Alpheus
or of Clopas. This proof, of course, can be fully appreciated only by
those who are familiar with the power of the letters of the oriental
languages, and know the variety of modes in which they are frequently
given in the Greek, and other European languages. The convertibility of
certain harsh sounds of the dialects of southwestern Asia, into either
hard consonants, or smooth vowel utterances, is sufficiently well-known
to Biblical scholars, to make the change here supposed appear perfectly
probable and natural to them. It will be observed by common readers,
that all the consonants in the two words are exactly the same, except
that _Clopas_ has a hard C, or K, in the beginning, and that Alpheus
has the letter P aspirated by an H, following it. Now, both of these
differences can, by a reference to the original Hebrew word, be shown
to be only the results of the different modes of expressing the same
Hebrew letters; and the words thus expressed may, by the established
rules of etymology, be referred to the same oriental root. These two
names, then, _Alpheus_ and _Clopas_, may be safely assigned to the same
person; and Mary the wife of Clopas and the mother of James the Little,
and of Joses, was, no doubt, the mother of him who is called “James the
son of Alpheus.”

_Clopas and Alpheus._――It should be noticed, that in the common
translation of the New Testament, the former of these two words is
very unjustifiably expressed by Cleophas, whereas the original (John
xix. 25,) is simply Κλωπας. (_Clopas._) This is a totally different
name from _Cleopas_, (Luke xxiv. 18, Κλεοπας,) which is probably Greek
in its origin, and abridged from _Cleopater_, (Κλεοπατρος,) just as
Anti_pas_ from Anti_pater_, and many other similar instances, in which
the Hellenizing Jews abridged the terminations of Greek and Roman words,
to suit the genius of the Hebrew tongue. But _Clopas_, being very
differently spelt in the Greek, must be traced to another source; and
the circumstances which connect it with the name _Alpheus_, suggesting
that, like that, it might have a Hebrew origin, directs the inquirer to
the original form of that word. The Hebrew חלפא (HHALPHA) may be taken
as the word from which both are derived; each being such an expression
of the original, as the different writers might choose for its fair
representation. The first letter in the word, ח, (_hhaith_,) has in
Hebrew two entirely distinct sounds; one a strong guttural H, and
the other a deeply aspirated KH. These are represented in Arabic by
two different letters, but in Hebrew, a single character is used to
designate both; consequently the names which contain this letter, may
be represented in Greek and other languages, by two different letters,
according as they were pronounced; and where the original word which
contained it, was sounded differently, by different persons, under
different circumstances, varying its pronunciation with the times and
the fashion, even in the same word, it would be differently expressed
in Greek. Any person familiar with the peculiar changes made in those
Old Testament names which are quoted in the New, will easily apprehend
the possibility of such a variation in this. Thus, in Stephen’s speech,
(Acts vii.) Haran is called Charran; and other changes of the same
sort occur in the same chapter. The name Anna, (Luke ii. 36,) is the
same with Hannah, (1 Samuel i. 2,) which in the Hebrew has this same
strongly aspirated H, that begins the word in question,――and the same
too, which in Acts vii. 2, 4, is changed into the strong Greek _Ch_;
while all its harshness is lost, and the whole aspiration removed, in
_Anna_. These instances, taken out of many similar ones, may justify to
common readers, the seemingly great change of letters in the beginning
of Alpheus and Clopas. The other changes of vowels are of no account,
since in the oriental languages particularly, these are not fixed parts
of the word, but mere _modes_ of uttering the consonants, and vary
throughout the verbs and nouns, in almost every inflexion these parts
of speech undergo. These therefore, are not considered radical or
essential parts of the word, and are never taken into consideration
in tracing a word from one language to another,――the consonants being
the fixed parts on which etymology depends. The change also from the
aspirate _Ph_, to the smooth mute P, is also so very common in the
oriental languages, and even in the Greek, that it need not be regarded
in identifying the word.

  Taking into consideration then, the striking and perfect
  affinities of the two words, and adding to these the great body
  of presumptive proofs, drawn from the other circumstances that
  show or suggest the identity of persons,――and noticing moreover,
  the circumstance, that while Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of
  Alpheus, they never speak of Clopas,――and that John, who alone
  uses the name Clopas, never mentions Alpheus,――it seems very
  reasonable to adopt the conclusion, that the last evangelist
  means the same person as the former.

Second: Was James the son of Alpheus the same person as “James, the
brother of our Lord?” An affirmative answer to this question seems to
be required by the fact, that Mary the wife of Clopas is named as the
mother of James and Joses; and elsewhere, James and Joses, and Juda
and Simon, are called the brothers of Jesus. It should be understood
that the word “_brother_” is used in the scriptures often, to imply
a relationship much less close than that of the children of the same
father and mother. “Cousins” are called “brothers” in more cases than
one, and the oriental mode of maintaining family relationship closely
through several generations, made it very common to consider those
who were the _children of brothers_, as being themselves _brothers_;
and to those familiar with this extension of the term, it would not
necessarily imply anything more. In the case alluded to, all those to
whom the narratives and other statements containing the expression,
“James the brother of our Lord,” were first addressed, being well
acquainted with the precise nature of this relationship, would find
no difficulty whatever in such a use of words. The nature of his
relationship to Jesus seems to have been that of cousin, whether by the
father’s side or mother’s, is very doubtful. By John indeed, Mary the
wife of Clopas is called the _sister_ of the mother of Jesus; but it
will seem reasonable enough to suppose,――since two sisters, daughters
of the same parents, could hardly bear the same name,――that Mary the
mother of James, must have been only the sister-in-law of the mother of
Jesus, either the wife of her brother, or the sister of her husband; or,
in perfect conformity with this use of the term “sister,” she may have
been only a cousin or some such relation.

The third question which has been originated from these various
statements,――whether James, the brother of Jesus and the author of
the epistle, was an APOSTLE,――must, of course, be answered in the
affirmative, if the two former points have been correctly settled.

  All the opinions on these points are fully given and discussed
  by Michaelis, in his Introduction to the epistle of James. He
  states five different suppositions which have been advanced
  respecting the relationship borne to Jesus by those who are in
  the New Testament called his brothers. 1. That they were the
  sons of Joseph, by a former wife. 2. That they were the sons
  of Joseph, by Mary the mother of Jesus. 3. That they were the
  sons of Joseph by the widow of a brother, to whom he was obliged
  to raise up children according to the laws of Moses. 4. That
  this deceased brother of Joseph, to whom the laws required
  him to raise up issue, was Alpheus. 5. That they were brothers
  of Christ, not in the strict sense of the word, but in a more
  lax sense, namely, in that of cousin, or relation in general,
  agreeably to the usage of this word in the Hebrew language.
  (Genesis xiv. 16: xiii. 8: xxix. 12, 15: 2 Samuel xix. 13:
  Numbers viii. 26: xvi. 10: Nehemiah iii. 1.) This opinion which
  has been here adopted, was first advanced by Jerome, and has
  been very generally received since his time; though the first
  of the five was supported by the most ancient of the Fathers.
  Michaelis very clearly refutes all, except the first and the
  fifth, between which he does not decide; mentioning, however,
  that though he had been early taught to respect the latter, as
  the right one, he had since become more favorable to the first.

The earliest statement made concerning these relations of Jesus, is by
John, who, in giving an account of the visit made by Jesus to Jerusalem,
at the feast of the tabernacles, mentions, that the brethren of Jesus
did not believe in him, but, in a rather sneering tone, urged him to
go up to the feast, and display himself, that the disciples who had
formerly there followed him, might have an opportunity to confirm their
faith by the sight of some new miracle done by him. Speaking to him in
a very decidedly commanding tone, they said, “Depart hence, and go into
Judea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For
there is no man that does anything in secret, while he himself seeks to
be widely known; if thou do these things, show thyself to the world.”
The whole tenor of this speech shows a spirit certainly very far from
a just appreciation of the character of their divine brother; and the
base, sordid motives, which they impute to him as ruling principles of
action, were little less than insults to the pure, high spirit, which
lifted him so far above their comprehension. The reply which Jesus
made to their taunting address, contained a decided rebuke of their
presumption in thus attacking his motives. “My time is not yet come,
but yours is always ready. The world can not hate you, but me it hates,
because I testify of it that its works are evil. Go ye up to this
feast; but I am not going yet; for my time is not yet fully come.” They
might always go where mere inclination directed them, nor was there
any occasion to refer to any higher object. But a mighty scheme was
connected with his movements, to which he directed every action. In his
great work, he had already exposed himself to the hatred of the wicked,
and his movements were now checked by a regard to the proper time
for exposing himself to it; and when that time should come, he would
unhesitatingly meet the results.

By a passage in Mark’s gospel, it appears also, that at the first
beginning of the ministry of Jesus, his relations generally were so
little prepared for a full revelation of the character and destiny
of him with whom they had long lived so familiarly as a brother and
an intimate, that they viewed with the most disagreeable surprise and
astonishment, his remarkable proceedings, in going from place to place
with his disciples,――neglecting the business to which he had been
educated, and deserting his family friends,――preaching to vast throngs
of wondering people, and performing strange works of kindness to those
who seemed to have no sort of claim on his attention. Distressed at
these strange actions, they could form no conclusion about his conduct
that seemed so reasonable and charitable, as that he was beside himself,
and needed to be confined, to prevent him from doing mischief to
himself and others, by his seemingly extravagant and distracted conduct.
“And they came out to lay hold on him, for they said ‘He is beside
himself.’” With this very purpose, as it seems, his brothers and family
relations had come to urge and persuade him back to their home if
possible, and stood without, utterly unable to get near him, on account
of the throngs of hearers and beholders that had beset him. They were
therefore obliged to send him word, begging him to stop his discourse
and come out to them, because they wanted to see him. The request was
therefore passed along from mouth to mouth, in the crowd, till at last
those who sat next to Jesus communicated the message to him,――“Behold
thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with
thee.” Jesus fully apprehending the nature of the business on which
their ill-discerning regard had brought them thither, only suspended
the train of his discourse to make such a remark as would impress all
with the just idea of the value which he set upon earthly affections,
which were liable to operate as hindrances to him in the great work
to which he had been devoted; and to convince them how much higher and
stronger was the place in his affections held by those who had joined
themselves to him for life and for death, to promote the cause of God,
and to do with him the will of his Father in heaven,――in the striking
language of inquiry, he said, “Who is my mother or my brethren?” Then
looking with an expression of deep affection around, on those who sat
near him, he said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever
shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister and
mother.” It appears by this remark, as well as by another passage, that
he had not only brothers, but sisters, who lived at Nazareth at that
time, and were well known as his relations. No mention however is any
where made of his father; so that it would appear that Joseph was now
dead.

This remarkable faithlessness on the part of the brothers of Jesus,
may be thought to present an insuperable difficulty in the way of the
supposition that any of them could have been numbered with the apostles.
But great as seems to have been their error, it hardly exceeded many
that were made by his most select followers, even to the time of his
ascension. All the apostles may be considered to have been in a great
measure unbelievers, until the descent of the Holy Spirit,――for until
that time, on no occasion did one of them manifest a true faith in the
words of Jesus. Times almost without number, did he declare to them
that he should rise from the dead; but notwithstanding this assertion
was so often made to them in the most distinct and solemn manner, not
one of them put the slightest confidence in his words, or believed
that he would ever appear to them again after his crucifixion. Not
even the story of his resurrection, repeatedly and solemnly attested by
the women and others, could overcome their faithlessness; so that when
the risen Lord, whose words they had so little heeded, came into their
presence, moved with a just and holy anger, “he upbraided them with
their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not those
who had seen him after he was risen.” So that his brothers at this
early period, can not be considered any worse off than the rest of
those who knew and loved him best; and if any are disposed to oppose
the view that his brethren were apostles, by quoting the words of John,
that “neither did his brethren believe in him,” a triumphant retort may
be found in the fact, that NEITHER DID HIS APOSTLES BELIEVE IN HIM.

There were, however, other “brothers” of Jesus, besides those who were
apostles. By Matthew and Mark is also mentioned Joses, who is nowhere
mentioned as an apostle; and there may have been others still, whose
names are not given; for, in the account given, in the first chapter
of Acts, it is recorded that, besides all the eleven apostles, there
were also assembled in the upper room, Mary the mother of Jesus, and
his brethren. It is very likely, that Jesus may have had several other
cousins, who followed his fortunes, though they were not considered by
him, qualified to rank among his chosen apostles. But a very prominent
objection to the notion that they were the children of his mother,
with whom they are mentioned in such close connection,――is, that when
Jesus was on the cross, he commended her to the care of John, his
beloved disciple, as though she were destitute of any immediate natural
protector; and certainly, if she had at that time several sons living,
who were full-grown, she could not have needed to be intrusted thus to
the kindness of one who claimed no relationship whatever to her; but
would, of course, have been secure of a home, and a comfortable support,
so long as her sons could have worked for her. These also may have
been those brethren who did not believe in him, and who considered him
beside himself, though there seems no good reason to except any of
those who are mentioned by Matthew and Mark, as his brethren,――James,
Juda, Joses and Simon.

Beyond these allusions to him, in connection with others, the gospels
take no notice whatever of this apostle; and it is only in the Acts of
the Apostles, and some of the epistles of Paul, that he is mentioned
with any great distinctness. In all those passages in the apostolic
writings where he is referred to, he is presented as a person of high
standing and great importance, and his opinions are given in such a
manner as to convey the impression that they had great weight in the
regulation of the apostolic doings. This is particularly evident in
the only passage of the Acts of the Apostles where his words are given,
which is in the account of the consultation at Jerusalem about the
great question of communion between the circumcised and uncircumcised.
On this occasion, James is mentioned in such a way as to make it
evident that he was considered the most prominent among those who were
zealous for the preservation of the Mosaic forms, and to have been
by all such, regarded in the light of a leader, since his decision
seems to have been esteemed by them as a sort of law; and the perfect
acquiescence of even the most troublesome in the course which he
recommended, is a proof of his predominant influence. The tone and
style of the address itself, also imply that the speaker thought he had
good reason to believe that others were looking to him in particular,
for the decision which should regulate their opinions on this doubtful
question. After Simon Peter, as the great chief of the apostles, had
first expressed his opinion on the question under discussion, and had
referred to his own inspired divine revelations of the will of God in
respect to the Gentiles, Paul and Barnabas next gave a full account
of their operations, and of the signs and wonders with which God had
followed their labors.

After the full exposition made by Paul and Barnabas, of all their
conduct, James arose to make his reply in behalf of the close adherents
of Mosaic forms, and said, “Men and brethren! listen to me. Simeon
has set forth in what manner God did first condescend to take from
the heathen a people for his name. And with this, all the words of the
prophets harmonize, as it is written, ‘After these things I will turn
back, and will rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David; I will both
rebuild its ruins and erect it again, IN ORDER THAT THE REST OF MANKIND
may seek out the Lord, together with all the heathen who are called
by my name, saith the Lord who made all things.’ ‘Well known to God
are all his works from eternity.’ So I think that we ought not to make
trouble for those who have turned from the heathen, to God; but that
we should direct them to refrain from things that have been offered
unto idols, and from fornication, and from what has been strangled, and
from blood. For Moses has, from ancient generations, in these cities,
those who make him known,――his law being read every sabbath day.” This
opinion, formed and delivered in a truly Christian spirit of compromise,
seems to have had the effect of a permanent decision; and the great
leader of the rigid Judaizers, having thus renounced all opposition
to the adoption of the converted heathen into full and open Christian
communion, though without the seals of the Mosaic covenant,――all those
who had originated this vexatious question, ceased their attempts
to distract the harmony of the apostles; and the united opinions of
the great apostolic chief, who had first opened the gates of Christ’s
kingdom to the heathen, and of the eminent defender of Mosaic forms,
so silenced all discussion, that thenceforth these opinions, thus fully
expressed, became the common law of the Christian churches, throughout
the world, in all ages.

  This address of James (Acts xv. 13‒21.) may justly be pronounced
  the most obscure passage of all that can be found in the
  New Testament, of equal length,――almost every verse in it
  containing some point, which has been made the subject of some
  dispute. Schoettgen (quoted by Bloomfield,) thus analyzes this
  discourse:――“It consists of three parts;――the _Exordium_, (verse
  13,) in which the speaker uses a form of expression calculated
  to secure the good-will of his auditors;――the _Statement_,
  (verses 16‒18,) containing also a confirmation of it from the
  prophets, and the reason;――the _Proposition_, (verses 19‒20,)
  that the Gentiles are not to be compelled to Judaism, but are
  only to abstain from certain things particularly offensive to
  the spirit of the Mosaic institutions.”

  _Simeon._ (verse 14.) This peculiar form of Peter’s first name,
  has led some to suppose that he could not be the person meant,
  since he is mentioned in all other narratives by the name of
  Simon. Wolf imagines that Simon Zelotes must have been the
  person thus distinguished, though all the difficulties are
  the same in his case as in Peter’s. But Simeon (Συμεων) and
  Simon are the same name, the latter being only an abridged
  form, better suited to the inflections of the Greek than the
  former.――This preference of the full Hebrew form was doubtless
  meant to be characteristic of James, who seems to have been in
  general very zealous for ancient Jewish usages in all things.

  _Has condescended to take._ Common translation: “did visit them
  to take,” &c. This much clearer translation is justified by the
  meaning which Bretschneider has given to επισκεπτομαι, _benigne
  voluit_, &c., for which he quotes the Greek of the Alexandrian
  version.

  _Harmonize._ (verse 15.) The original (συμφωνοῦσιν) refers
  in the same manner as this word does to the primary idea of
  accordance in _sound_, (_symphony_,) and thence by a metonymy
  is applied to agreement in general. The passage of prophecy
  is quoted by James from Amos ix. 11, 12, and accords, in
  the construction which he puts upon it, much better with the
  Alexandrian Greek version, than with the original Hebrew or
  the common translations. The prophet (as Kuinoel observes) is
  describing the felicity of the golden age, and declares that
  the Jews will subdue their enemies and all nations, and that
  all will worship Jehovah. Now this, James _accomodates_ to the
  present purpose, and _applies_ to the propagation of the gospel
  among the Gentiles, and their reception into the Christian
  community. (See Rosenmueller, Acts, xv. 17, for a very full
  exegesis of this passage.)

  _Well known to God are all his works._ These words have been
  made the subject of a great deal of inquiry among commentators,
  who have found some difficulties in ascertaining their
  connection with the preceding part of the discourse. Various new
  and unauthorized renderings of the words have been proposed, but
  have been generally rejected. It seems to me that the force of
  the passage is considerably illustrated by throwing the whole
  emphasis of the sentence upon the word “_all_,”――“Known unto
  God are _all_ his works from the beginning of ages.” James is
  arguing on the equal and impartial grace of God, as extended not
  only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles;――not to one nation
  merely, but to _all_ his creatures. “Thus saith the Lord who
  makes (or does) _all_ things.” The original Hebrew of the
  prophecy indeed, does not contain this, but that is itself a
  circumstance which shows that James had a particular object in
  this ♦_accommodation_ of the words to this form and purpose.

    ♦ “accomodation” replaced with “accommodation”

  _So I think_, &c. (verse 19.) Hammond and others have attempted
  to find in the original of this verb (κρινω) a peculiar force,
  implying that James announced his decision with a kind of
  judicial emphasis, in the character of “Bishop of Jerusalem.”
  The groundlessness of this translation is shown by Bloomfield’s
  numerous references to classical authority for the simple
  meaning of “think.” The difficulties in the twentieth verse are
  so numerous and weighty, and have been made the subject of such
  protracted and minute discussions by all the great commentators,
  that it would be vain to attempt any account of them here.

The great eminence of James among the apostles is very fully shown
in several incidental allusions made to him in other passages of the
apostolic writings. Thus when Peter, after his miraculous release
from prison, came to the house of Mary the mother of John Mark,
he, at departing from the Christians there assembled, told them to
tell _James_ and the brethren; implying, of course, that James was
altogether the most prominent person among them, and might justly be
considered chief apostle in the absence of Peter; and that to him any
message intended for all, might be appropriately first addressed. In
the same way did the angel, at the resurrection of Jesus, distinguish
Peter among all the apostles, mentioning him alone by name, as the
individual person to whom the divine message was to be delivered.

But no where is his eminence among the apostles so strongly marked,
as in Paul’s account of his own visits to Jerusalem, and the incidents
connected with them. He there mentions “James, the brother of our
Lord,” in such terms as to show that he must have been one of the
apostles; thus adding a valuable confirmation to the testimony above
adduced in favor of this very point, that James, the brother of Jesus,
was an apostle. Paul’s words are, “Other of the apostles, (besides
Peter,) saw I none, except James, the Lord’s brother;” an expression
which all analogy requires to be construed into a clear assertion that
this James was an apostle. In speaking of his second visit, fourteen
years after, Paul also bears a noble testimony to the eminence of James,
and, what is remarkable, gives him the very first place among those
three whom he mentions by name. He says, “When James, Cephas, and
John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to
me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” This
very peculiar arrangement of these three great names, has seemed so
strange to the more stubborn Papists, that they can not believe that
the _Cephas_ here mentioned in the second place, is their great idol,
Peter; and many of them have maintained, in long arguments, that he
was not Peter,――a notion which might seem plausible at first glance,
from the circumstance, that throughout his whole narrative, Paul
has been speaking of Peter by the common Greek form of his surname,
while in this particular passage, he uses the original Hebrew word,
Cephas. But this verbal change is of no consequence whatever, except
as showing that in this connection there was something which suggested
a preference of the Hebrew name, while mentioning him along with the
two other great apostolic chiefs, James and John. And even this very
peculiar promotion of James to the first place, is easily explained
by a consideration of the subject in connection with which these
personages are mentioned. James was unquestionably the great leader of
the sticklers for Mosaic forms; and he is therefore the most important
person to be quoted in reference to Paul’s reception, while the
dissensions about circumcision were raging. Peter, on the other hand,
being himself the great champion of open Gentile communion, from his
having been himself the first of all men to bring them under the gospel,
was, of course, understood to be a favorer of Paul’s views, of the
noble catholic extension of Christianity; and his name was therefore of
really less importance in Paul’s statement, than the name of James, who
was everywhere known as the head of the circumcision party, and being
mentioned as having shown such respect to Paul, would make it evident
that the two Hellenist apostles were taken into favor by all parties,
and heartily commended to the great work of evangelizing the heathen.

The especially watchful zeal of James, for the preservation of Mosaic
forms, is very distinctly implied in another passage of the same
epistle. He had, in a nobly considerate spirit of compromise, agreed
that it was best to receive all the Gentile converts as Christian
brethren, though they conformed only very partially to the Mosaic
institutions. It was perfectly a matter of common sense, to every
reasonable man, that the progress of the gospel would be greatly
hindered, and almost brought to a stand, among the heathen, if a minute
adherence to all the corporeal observances of the Levitical code,
were required for Christian communion; and James, though profoundly
reverencing all the requirements of his national religion, was too wise
to think of imposing all these rituals upon those whose whole habits
would be at war with the observance of them, though in heart and in
life they might be fully fitted to appreciate and enjoy the blessings
of Christ’s spiritual covenant. He therefore distinctly expressed his
accordance with Peter, in these general principles of Christian policy,
yet, as subsequent events show, he was by no means disposed to go
to all lengths with the more zealous chief of the apostles, in his
readiness to renounce, in his own person, all the peculiarities of
Jewish habits; and seems to have still maintained the opinion, that
the original, pure Hebrew apostles, should live in the most scrupulous
observance of their religious exclusiveness, towards those whom the
Levitical law would pronounce unclean, and too much polluted with
various defilements, to be the familiar associates of a truly religious
Jew. This sentiment of James appears to have been well known to
Peter, who, conscious of the peculiar rigidity of his great apostolic
associate, on these points, wisely sought to avoid all occasions
of needlessly exciting complaints and dissensions among the chief
ministers of the word of truth. For this reason, as has already been
narrated in his life, when he was at Antioch, though during the first
part of his residence there, he had, without the slightest scruple,
gone familiarly and frequently into the company of the unbelieving
Gentiles, eating and drinking with them, without regard to any
liability to corporeal pollutions, that were against the rules of
Levitical purity,――yet when some persons came down from ♦Jerusalem,
from James, he entirely withdrew himself, all at once, within the
strict bounds of Mosaic observances. Perhaps these visitors from James
had been specially instructed by him to note the demeanor of Peter,
and to see whether, in his zeal for removing all obstruction out of the
way of the Gentile converts, he might not forget what was due to his
own character as a descendant of Abraham, and a disciple of him who
so faithfully fulfilled all the righteousness of the law. However this
might be, Peter’s actions plainly expressed some dread of offending
James, and those who came from him; else he certainly would not
have refrained, in this remarkable manner, from a course of conduct,
which he had before followed unhesitatingly, as though he had not the
slightest doubt of its perfect moral propriety; and the conclusion
is reasonable, that he now changed his demeanor, only from views of
expediency, and a regard to the jealous sensitiveness of his great
associate, on points of Levitical law.

    ♦ “Jerasalem” replaced with “Jerusalem”


                         HIS APOSTOLIC OFFICE.

From these and other passages, implying a great eminence of James in
the direction of the plans of evangelization, it is evident, that,
in the absence of Peter, he must have been the most important person
among the apostles at Jerusalem; and after the permanent removal
of the commissioned apostolic chief, to other and wider fields of
action, his rank, as principal person among all the ministers of
Christ in Jerusalem, must have been very decidedly established. From
this circumstance has originated the notion that he was “bishop of
Jerusalem;” and this is the title with which the later Fathers have
attempted to decorate him,――as if any honor whatever could be conferred
on an apostle, by giving him the title of a set of inferior ministers
appointed by the original commissioned preachers of Christ, to be
merely their substitutes in the instruction and management of those
numerous churches which could not be blessed by the presence of
an apostle, and to be their successors in the supreme earthly
administration of the affairs of the Christian community, when the
great founders had all been removed from their labors, to their rest.
How nearly the duties performed by James corresponded to the modern
episcopal function, it is utterly impossible to say, for the simple
reason that not the slightest record of his actions is left, to which
references can be made, on this interesting question. That he was the
most eminent of the apostles resident at Jerusalem, is quite clear;
and that by him, under these circumstances, were performed the great
proportion of the pastoral duties among the believers in that city,
may be most justly supposed; and his influence over Christian converts
would by no means be limited by the walls of the Holy city. In his
apostolic functions, he, of course, became known to all resorting to
that place; and his faithful and eminent ministry in the capital of the
Jewish religion would extend not only his fame, but the circle of his
personal acquaintances, throughout all parts of the world, from which
pilgrims came to the great annual festivals in Jerusalem. His immense
apostolic diocese, therefore, could not be very easily bounded, nor
was it defined with any exactness, to prevent it from running into the
limits of those divisions of the fields of duty, in which Peter, Paul,
John and others, had been more especially laboring. His influence among
the Jews in general, (whether believers in Christ or not,) would, from
various accounts, appear to have been greater than that of any other
apostle; and this, combined with the circumstances of his location,
would seem to entitle him very fairly to the rank and character of
the apostle of the “DISPERSION.” This was a term transferred from the
abstract to the concrete sense, and was applied in a collective meaning
to the great body of Jews in all parts of the world, through which they
were scattered by chance, choice, or necessity.

  _Bishop of Jerusalem._ The first application of this title to
  James, that appears on record, is in Eusebius, who quotes the
  still older authority of Clemens Alexandrinus. (Church History,
  II. 1.) The words of Eusebius are, “Then James, who was called
  the brother of our Lord, because he was the son of Joseph, and
  whom, on account of his eminent virtue, those of ancient times
  surnamed the Just, is said to have first held the chair of
  the bishopric of Jerusalem. Clemens, in the sixth book of his
  Institutes, distinctly confirms this. For he says that ‘after
  the Saviour’s ascension, although the Lord had given to Peter,
  James, and John, a rank before all the rest, yet they did not
  therefore contend among themselves for the first distinction,
  but chose James the Just, to be bishop of Jerusalem.’ And the
  same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, says these
  things of him, besides: ‘To James the Just, and John, and Peter,
  did the Lord, after the resurrection, grant the knowledge, [the
  _gnosis_, or knowledge of mysteries,] and these imparted it to
  the other disciples.’”

  In judging of the combined testimony of these two ancient
  writers, it should be observed that it is not by any means
  so ancient and direct as that of Polycrates, on the identity
  of Philip the apostle, and Philip the deacon, which these
  very Fathers quote with assent. Nor can their opinion be worth
  any more in this case than in the other. On no point, where a
  knowledge of the New Testament, and a sound judgment are the
  only guides, can the testimony of the Fathers be considered
  of any value whatever; for the most learned of them betray a
  disgraceful ignorance of the Bible in their writings; nor can
  the most acute of them compare, for sense and judgment, with
  the most ordinary of modern commentators. The whole course of
  Patristic theology affords abundant instances of the very low
  powers of these writers, for the discrimination of truth and
  falsehood. The science of historical criticism had no existence
  among them――nor indeed is there any reason why they should be
  considered persons of any historical authority, except so far
  as they can refer directly to the original sources, and to the
  persons immediately concerned in the events which they record.
  On all matters of less unexceptionable authority, where their
  testimony does not happen to contradict known truth or common
  sense, all that can be said in their favor, is, that the thing
  thus reported is not improbable; but all supplements to the
  accounts given in the New Testament, unless they refer directly
  to eye-witnesses, may be pronounced very suspicious and wholly
  uncertain. In this case, Eusebius’s opinion that James, the
  brother of our Lord was the son of Joseph, is worth no more
  than that of the latest commentator; because he had no more
  historical aids than the writers of these days. Nor is the story
  of Clemens, that James was bishop of Jerusalem, worth any more;
  because he does not refer to any historical evidence.


                             HIS EPISTLE.

Noticing some peculiar circumstances in the condition of his
countrymen, throughout this wide dispersion, the apostle addressed to
them a written exhortation, suited to their spiritual necessities. In
the opening, he announces himself simply by the title of “James, the
_servant_ of Jesus Christ,” not choosing to ground any claim for their
respect or obedience on the accidents of birth or relationship, but
on the mere character of one devoted to the cause of Christ for life
and for death,――and entitled, by the peculiar commission of his Lord,
to teach and direct his followers in his name. In consequence of this
omission of the circumstance of relationship, a query has been even
raised whether the author of this epistle could really be the same
person as the brother of Jesus. But a trifle of this kind can never
be allowed to have any weight in the decision of such a question. He
directs himself, in general terms, to all the objects of his extended
apostolic charge;――“to the twelve tribes that are in the _Dispersion_.”

A brief review of the contents of the epistle will furnish the best
means of ascertaining its scope and immediate object, and will also
afford just ground for tracing the connection, between the design of
the apostle and the remarkable events in the history of those times,
which are recorded by the other writers of that age. He first urges
them to persevere in faith, without wavering or sinking under all the
peculiar difficulties then pressing on them; and refers them to God
as the source of that wisdom which they need for their direction. From
him alone, all good proceeds; but no sin, nor temptations to sin. The
cause of that, lies in man himself: let him not then blasphemously
ascribe his evil dispositions nor the occasions of their development,
to God; but seeking wisdom and strength from above, let him resist
the tempter:――blessed is the man that thus endures and withstands
the trial. He next points out to them the utter worthlessness of all
the distinctions of rank and wealth among those professing the faith
of Jesus. Such base respect of persons on the score of accidental
worldly advantages, is denounced, as being foreign to the spirit of
Christianity. True religion requires something more than a profession
of faith; its substance and its signs are the energetic and constant
practice of virtuous actions, and it allows no dispensations or excuses
to any one. He next dwells especially on the high responsibilities
of those who assume the office of teaching. The tongue requires a
most watchful restraint, lest passion or haste pervert the advantages
of eminence and influence, into the base instruments of human wrath.
The true manifestations of religious knowledge and zeal, must be in a
spirit of gentleness, forbearance, and love,――not in the expressions of
hatred, nor in cursing. But of this pure, heavenly spirit, their late
conduct had shown them to be lamentably destitute. Strifes, tumults,
and bitter denunciations, had betrayed their un-Christian character.
They needed therefore, to humbly seek this meek spirit from God, and
not proudly to assume the prerogatives of judgment and condemnation,
which belonged to Him alone. His condemnation was indeed about to fall
on their country. With most peculiar ruin would it light on those now
reveling in their ill-gotten riches, and rejoicing in the vain hope of
a perpetual prosperity. But let the faithful persevere, cheered by the
memory of the bright examples of the suffering pious of other days, and
by the hope of the coming of their Lord, whose appearance in glory and
judgment, would soon crown their fervent prayers. Meanwhile, supported
by this assurance, let them continue in a virtuous course, watching
even their words, visiting the sick in charity and mercy, and all
exhorting and instructing each other in the right way.

The peculiar difficulties of the times here referred to, are――a state
of bloody intestine commotion, disturbing the peace of society, and
desolating the land with hatred, contention and murder;――a great
inequality of condition, in respect to property,――some amassing
vast wealth by extortion, and abusing the powers and privileges
thereby afforded, to the purposes of tyranny,――condemning and killing
the just;――a perversion of laws for the gratification of private
spite;――and everywhere a great occasion for good men to exercise
patience and faith, relying upon God alone, for the relief of the
community from its desperate calamities. But a prospect was already
presented of a consummation of these distracting troubles, in the
utter ruin of the wicked; a change in the condition of things was
about to occur, which would bring poverty and distress upon the haughty
oppressors, who had heaped treasure together only for _the last days_.
The brethren therefore, had but a little time to wait for _the coming
of the Lord_. Both of these two latter expressions point very clearly
at the destruction of Jerusalem,――for this is the uniform reference
which these terms had, in those days, among the Christians. Jesus
had promised his chosen disciples, that their generation should not
pass away, till all those awful calamities which he denounced on the
Jewish state, should be fulfilled; and for this event all his suffering
followers were now looking, as the seal of the truth of Christ’s word.
Searching in the history of the times, a few years previous to that
final desolation, it is found in the testimony of impartial writers,
that these were the too faithful details of the evils which then
raged in Palestine. “For, under Felix, and again under Portius Festus,
desperate patriots marched through the country, in whole bodies, and
forcibly tore away with them the inhabitants of open places, and if
they would not follow them, set fire to the villages, and enacted
bloody scenes. They even made their appearance in the capital and at
the feasts, where they mixed among the crowd of people, and committed
many secret assassinations with concealed weapons. As to that which
regards the external circumstances and the civil condition of the Jews
and Jewish Christians, they were far from being agreeable. The praetors,
under all manner of pretexts, made extortions, and abused their legal
authority for the sake of enriching themselves; a person was obliged
to purchase with money his liberation from their prisons, as well as
his safety and his rights; he might even purchase a license to commit
crimes. In this state, under these circumstances, and in this degree of
civil disorder, the author might probably have regarded his countrymen;
for, although he wrote to the whole world, yet his native land passed
more immediately before his eyes.”

  For the sources, and for the minuter proofs and illustrations of
  these views, see Hug’s Introduction, as translated by Wait, Vol.
  II. §§ 148‒159.

In the immediate consideration of all these present iniquities
and coming desolations, he wrote to prepare the believing Jews, in
Palestine more particularly, but also throughout the world, for the
overwhelming consummation of their nation’s destiny. Terrible as would
be this doom, to the wicked, and mournful as would be these national
desolations, to all, the righteous should find consolations in the
peaceful establishment of the spiritual kingdom of their Lord, over the
ruins of the dominion of his murderers,――of those who had “condemned
and killed the just One, though he did not resist them.” But in all
these awful signs, should the faithful see the forewarned coming of the
Son of Man; and as he himself told his chosen apostles, “then should
they lift up their heads; for their redemption drew nigh.”

Besides these external troubles, there were others of a different
character, arising and existing solely among those who professed the
religion of Christ. The instructions given by Paul, in reference to
the absolute necessity of faith, and the insufficiency of a mere formal
routine of religious duties, had been most grossly perverted into a
warrant for the all-sufficiency of a mere _belief_, as the means of
salvation;――an error by no means limited in its mischievous existence,
to the days of the apostles, but so comfortable to the minds of
mere religious formalists, in all ages of Christianity, that a new
revelation, like that here made by James, though directly repeated
through every century of the Christian era, would be equally vain, for
the prevention or the remedy of this never-dying heresy. All the words
of James on the subject of faith and works, are evidently aimed at the
refutation of those who had taken advantage of the opinions which Paul
had expressed, on the same subjects; but which were expressed with a
totally different reference, being stated not generally nor abstractly,
but in application to some particular dogmatic errors. James, after
distinctly condemning the “unlearned and unstable, who thus wrested to
their own destruction the things hard to be understood in the writings
of Paul,” next attacks certain persons who, without being authorized
or qualified, had assumed the station and responsibility of religious
teachers. Many persons taking up the office of instructors in this
manner, had caused great confusion, by using their hasty tongues, in
mere polemic and denunciatory discourse, condemning and cursing, in
unmeasured terms, those who differed from them in opinion. These he
rebukes, as thus “giving occasion for offense and error to all;” and
sets forth the character of that true wisdom which comes from above,
and which is peaceable, “sowing the fruit of righteousness in peace.”

  _Many teachers._ In order to understand this reference,
  it should be noticed that the word _masters_ in the common
  translation of chap. iii. verse 1, of this epistle, is not to
  be taken in the common modern sense, but in that of “religious
  teachers.” The original is not Κυριοι (_Kurioi_,) “Lords,”
  “Masters,”――but διδασκαλοι (_didaskaloi_,) “teachers.” The
  translators probably intended it only in the latter sense; for
  the word “Master” really has that meaning in such connections,
  in good authors of that age; and even at this day, in England,
  the same usage of the word is very common, though almost unknown
  in this country, except in technical phrases.


                              HIS DEATH.

The epistle was probably the last great act of his life. No record,
indeed, of any of his labors, except this living instance, exists
of his later years; but there is certain ground for supposing that
his residence in Jerusalem was characterized by a steady course of
apostolic labors, in the original sphere of action, to which the twelve
had first confined themselves for many years. When, by the special
calls of God, in providences and in revelations, one and another of the
apostles had been summoned to new and distant fields, east, west, north
and south, “preaching repentance and remission of sins, in his name,
among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,” and bearing witness of his
works, thence, “through Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part
of the earth,” there was still needed one, who, highly “indued with
power from on high,” might remain in that city to which all the sons of
Israel, throughout the world, looked as the fountain of religious light.
There too was the scene of the first great triumphs of the Christian
faith, as well as of the chief toils, the trials, and the death of the
great founder himself. All these circumstances rendered Jerusalem still
an important post to the apostles; and they therefore left on that
station the apostle, whose steady courage in the cause of Christ, and
blameless yet jealous conformity to the law of Moses, fitted him at
once for the bold maintenance of his Master’s commission, and for the
successful advancement of the gospel among the faithful believers of
the ancient covenant. Thus James continued at Jerusalem throughout
his life, being kept at this important station, perhaps on account
of his age, as well as for his fitness in other respects; as there is
some reason to think that he was older than those more active apostles
who assumed the foreign departments of the work. His great weight of
character, as evinced in the council of the apostles, and by the fear
which Peter showed of offending him, very naturally gives the idea
of a greater age than that of the other apostles; and this notion
is furthermore confirmed by the circumstance that the _brethren_ of
Jesus, among whom this apostle was certainly included, are mentioned as
assuming an authority over their divine relation, and claiming a right
to control and direct his motions, which could never have been assumed,
according to the established order of Jewish families, unless they had
been older than he. It is therefore a rational supposition, that James
was one of the oldest, perhaps the oldest, of the apostles; and at any
rate he appears to have been more advanced in life than any of those
who are characterized with sufficient distinctness to offer the means
of conjecture on this point.

From the high charge of this great central apostolic station, in which
he had, through a course of more than twenty-five years, accumulated
the ripe honors of a “righteous” name upon his hoary head, James was
now called to end a career, which so much resembled that of the ancient
prophets, by a death equally assimilated to the bloody fate to which
so many of them had been doomed by the subjects of their reproofs.
The fact and circumstances of his death are given on an authority so
blameless and disinterested as not to admit of dispute; nor is there
any thing in the narrative which can throw the slightest suspicion
upon it. The eminent Jewish historian, Josephus, himself a resident
in Jerusalem at that time, and an eye-witness of these events, and
acquainted by sight and fame, at least, with James, has given a clear
account of the execution of this apostle, which can best evince its own
merit by being given entire.

The account which Josephus has given, shows that the death of James,
must have happened during Paul’s imprisonment, and is delivered in the
following words:――“The emperor, being informed of the death of Festus,
sent Albinus to be prefect of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as
we said before, was made high priest, was haughty in his behavior, and
very ambitious. He was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who, as we
have also observed before, are above all other Jews severe in their
judicial sentences. This then being the temper of Ananus, he, thinking
he had a convenient opportunity, because Festus was dead, and Albinus
was not yet arrived, called a council, and brought before it James,
brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, with several others, where
they were accused of being transgressors of the law, and stoned to
death. But the most moderate men of the city, who were also the most
learned in the laws, were offended at this proceeding. They sent
therefore privately to the king, and entreated him to give orders to
Ananus to abstain from such conduct in future. And some went to meet
Albinus, who was coming from Alexandria, and represented to him, that
Ananus had no right to call a council without his permission. Albinus,
approving of what they said, wrote a very severe letter to Ananus,
threatening to punish him for what he had done. And king Agrippa took
away from him the priesthood, after he had possessed it three months,
and appointed in his stead Jesus, the son of Damnaeus.” From this
account of Josephus we learn, that James, notwithstanding he was a
Christian, was so far from being an object of hatred to the Jews, that
he was rather beloved and respected. At least his death excited very
different sensations from that of the first James; and the Sadducean
high priest, at whose instigation he suffered, was punished for his
offense by the loss of his office.

  This translation is taken from Marsh’s Michaelis, (Introduction,
  Vol. IV. pp. 287, 288.) The original is in the Jewish
  Antiquities of Josephus. (XX. ix. 1.)

This however, is not the statement which the early Christian writers
give of the death of James the Just; but from the oldest historian
of the church, is derived another narrative, so highly decorated with
minute particulars, that while it is made very much more interesting
than the concise and simple account given by Josephus, it is at the
same time rendered altogether suspicious by the very circumstance of
its interesting minuteness. Josephus had no temptation whatever to
pervert the statement. He gives it in terms strongly condemnatory of
the whole transaction; but the Christian writers, as they have shown
in other such instances, are too often disposed to sacrifice truth, for
the sake of making a story whose incidents harmonize best with their
notions of a desirable martyrdom. The story however, deserves a place
here, both for the sake of a fair comparison, and on account of its own
interesting character.

“James, the brother of our Lord, surnamed the Just, was holy from his
mother’s womb. He drank neither wine, nor strong drink; nor ate any
creature wherein was life. There never came a razor upon his beard;――he
anointed not himself with oil, neither did he use a bath. To him only
it was lawful to enter into the holy of holies. He wore no woolen, but
only linen garments; and entered the temple alone, where he was seen
upon his knees, supplicating for the forgiveness of the people, till
his knees became hard, and covered with a callus, like those of a camel.
On account of his eminent righteousness, he was called the Just, and
Oblias, which signifies ‘the people’s fortress.’ Then, after describing
the divisions among the people respecting Christianity, the account
states, that all the leading men among the Scribes and Pharisees,
came to James, and entreated him to stand up on the battlements of
the temple, and persuade the people assembled at the passover, to
have juster notions concerning Jesus; and that, when thus mounted
on the battlements, he cried with a loud voice, ‘Why do ye question
me about Jesus, the Son of Man? He even sits in heaven, at the right
hand of great power, and will come in the clouds of heaven.’ With this
declaration, many were satisfied, and cried ‘Hosanna to the Son of
David.’ But the unbelieving Scribes and Pharisees, mortified at what
they had done, produced a riot; for they consulted together, and then
cried out, ‘Oh! oh! even the Just one is himself deceived.’ They went
up, therefore, and cast down the Just, and said among themselves, ‘Let
us stone James the Just.’ And they began to stone him, for he did not
die with his fall; but turning, he kneeled, saying, ‘I entreat, O Lord
God the Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ And
while they were stoning him, one of the priests, of the sons of Rahab,
spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, ‘Cease; what do ye?
Justus prays for us.’ But a certain one among them, a fuller, took a
lever, such as he had used to squeeze garments, and smote Justus on the
head. Thus he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him in that place,
and his grave-stone yet remains near the temple.”

  This story is from Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, to whom
  alone we owe its preservation,――the works of the original author
  being all lost, except such fragments, accidentally quoted by
  other writers. The translation I have taken from the MS. of
  the Rev. Dr. Murdock, to whose research I am already so much
  indebted in similar instances.

  The comments of Michaelis on these two testimonies, may be
  appropriately subjoined. (Introduction, Vol. IV. pp. 288, 291.
  Marsh’s translation.)

“The account given by Hegesippus, contains an intermixture of truth and
fable; and in some material points contradicts the relation of Josephus,
to ♦which no objection can be made. It confirms however the assertion,
that James was in great repute among the Jews, even among those who did
not believe in Christ; and that they paid him much greater deference
than we might suppose they would have shown to a Christian bishop,
and a brother of Christ, whom they had crucified. Many parts of the
preceding account are undoubtedly fabulous, especially that part which
relates to the request of the Jews, that James would openly declare
from the battlements of the temple, that Jesus was not the Messiah.
Indeed, if this were true, it would not redound to his honor; for it
would imply that he had acted with duplicity, and not taken a decided
part in favor of Christianity, or the Jews could never have thought
of making such a request. But that a person, who was the head of the
church in Jerusalem, should have acted such a double part as to leave
it undecided what party he had embraced, and that too for thirty years
after the ascension, is in itself almost incredible. It is inconsistent
likewise with the relation of Josephus, and is virtually contradicted
both by Paul and by Luke, who always speak of him with the utmost
respect, and have no where given the smallest hint, that he concealed
the principal doctrines of the Christian religion.”

    ♦ “whieh” replaced with “which”

Thus gloriously ended the steady, bright career of “the second
apostolic martyr.” Honored, even by the despisers of the faith and
haters of the name of Christ, with the exalted title of “THE JUST,” he
added the solemn witness of his blood, to that of his divine brother
and Lord, and to that of his young apostolic brother, whose name and
fate were equally like his,――a testimony which sealed anew the truth
of his own record against the sins of the oppressors, published in his
last great earthly work:――“Ye have condemned and killed the JUST; yet
he doth not resist you.”




                            SIMON ZELOTES.


                               HIS NAME.

THE ever-recurring difficulty about the distinctive appellations of
the apostles, forms the most prominent point of inquiry in the life
of this person, otherwise so little known as to afford hardly a
single topic for the apostolic historian. The dispute here indeed
involves no question about personal identity, but merely refers to
the coincidence of signification between the two different words by
which he is designated in the apostolic lists, to distinguish him
from the illustrious chief of the twelve, who bore the same name with
him. Matthew and Mark in giving the names of the apostles,――the only
occasion on which they name him,――call him “Simon the Cananite;” but
Luke, in a similar notice, mentions him as “Simon Zelotes;” and the
question then arises, whether these two distinctive appellations have
not a common origin. In the vernacular language of Palestine, the word
from which _Cananite_ is derived, has a meaning identical with that of
the root of the Greek word _Zelotes_; and hence it is most rationally
concluded, that the latter is a translation of the former,――Luke, who
wrote entirely for Greeks, choosing to translate into their language a
term whose original force could be apprehended only by those acquainted
with the local circumstances with which it was connected. The name
_Zelotes_, which may be faithfully translated by its English derivative,
_Zealot_, has a meaning deeply involved in some of the most bloody
scenes in the history of the Jews, in the apostolic age. This name,
or rather its Hebrew original, was assumed by a set of ferocious
desperadoes, who, under the honorable pretense of a holy _zeal_ for
their country and religion, set all law at defiance, and constituting
themselves at once the judges and the executors of right, they went
through the land waging war against the Romans, and all who peacefully
submitted to that foreign sway. This sect, however, did not arise
by this name until many years after the death of Jesus, and there
is no good reason to suppose that Simon derived his surname from any
connection with the bloody Zealots who did their utmost to increase
the last agonies of their distracted country, but from a more holy
zeal displayed in a more righteous manner. It may have been simply
characteristic of his general conduct, or it may have referred to some
particular occasion in which he decidedly evinced this trait of zeal in
a righteous cause.

  _The Cananite._――In respect to this name, a most absurd and
  unjustifiable blunder has stood in all the common versions of it,
  which deserves notice. This is the representation of the word
  in the form, “_Canaanite_,” which is a gross perversion of the
  original. The Greek word is Κανανιτης, (_Kananites_,) a totally
  different word from that which is used both in the New Testament,
  and in the Alexandrian version of the Old, to express the Hebrew
  term for an inhabitant of Canaan. The name of the land of Canaan
  is always expressed by the aspirated form, Χανααν, which in
  the Latin and all modern versions is very properly expressed
  by “_Chanaan_.” In Matthew xv. 22, where the Canaanitish woman
  is spoken of, the original is Χαναναια, (_Chananaia_,) nor is
  there any passage in which the name of an inhabitant of Canaan
  is expressed by the form Κανανιτης, (_Cananites_,) with the
  smooth K, and the single A. Yet the Latin ecclesiastic writers,
  and even the usually accurate Natalis Alexander, express this
  apostle’s name as “Simon _Chananaeus_,” which is the word for
  “Canaanite.”

  The true force and derivation of the word is this. The name
  assumed in the language of Palestine by the ferocious sect above
  mentioned, was derived from the Hebrew primitive קנא (_Qana_
  or _Kana_,) and thence the name קנני (_Kanani_) was very fairly
  expressed, according to the forms and terminations of the
  Greek, by Κανανιτης, (_Kananites_.) The Hebrew root is a verb
  which means “to be _zealous_,” and the name derived from it of
  course means, “one who is _zealous_,” of which the just Greek
  translation is the word Ζηλωτης, (_Zelotes_,) the very name by
  which Luke represents it in this instance. (Luke vi. 15; Acts
  i. 13.) One of these names is, in short, a mere translation of
  the other,――nor is there any way of evading this construction,
  except by supposing that Luke was mistaken in supposing that
  Simon was called “the Zealot,” being deceived by the resemblance
  of the name “_Cananites_” to the Hebrew name of that sect. But
  no believer in the inspiration of the gospel can allow this
  supposition. Equally unfounded, and inconsistent with Luke’s
  translation, is the notion that the name Cananite is derived
  from Cana the village of Galilee, famous as the scene of
  Christ’s first miracle.

  The account given in the Life of Matthew shows the character of
  this sect, as it existed in the last days of the Jewish state.
  Josephus describes them very fully in his history of the Jewish
  War, (iv. 3.) Simon probably received this name, however, not
  from any connection with a sect which arose long after the death
  of Christ, but from something in his own character which showed
  a great _zeal_ for the cause which he had espoused.


                             HIS HISTORY.

No very direct statement as to his parentage is made in the New
Testament; but one or two incidental allusions to some circumstances
connected with it, afford ground for a reasonable conclusion on
this point. In the enumeration which Matthew and Mark give of the
four brothers of Jesus, in the discourse of the offended citizens
of Nazareth, Simon is mentioned along with James, Juda and Joses.
It is worthy of notice, also, that on all the apostolic lists, Simon
the apostle is mentioned between the brothers James and Juda; an
arrangement that can not be accounted for, except by supposing that
he was also the brother of James. The reason why Juda is distinctly
specified as the brother of James, while Simon is mentioned without
reference to any such relationship, is, doubtless, that the latter
was so well known by the appellation of the Zealot, that there was no
need of specifying his relations, to distinguish him from Simon Peter.
These two circumstances, incidentally mentioned, may be considered as
justifying the supposition, that Simon Zelotes was the same person as
Simon the brother of Jesus. In this manner, all the old writers have
understood the connection; and though such use is no authority, it is
worth mentioning that the monkish chroniclers always consider Simon
Zelotes as the brother of Juda; and they associate these two, as
wandering together in eastern countries, to preach the gospel in Persia
and Mesopotamia. Others carry him into much more improbable wanderings.
Egypt and Northern Africa, and even Britain, are mentioned as the
scenes of his apostolic labors, in the ingenious narratives of those
who undertook to supply almost every one of the nations of the eastern
continent with an apostolic patron saint. All this is very poor
consolation for the general dearth of facts in relation to this apostle;
and the searcher for historical truth will not be so well satisfied
with the tedious tales of monkish romance, as with the decided and
unquestionable assurance, that the whole history of this apostle, from
beginning to end, is perfectly unknown, and that not one action of his
life has been preserved from the darkness of an utterly impenetrable
oblivion.




                                 JUDA.


                               HIS NAME.

THE number of instances, among the men of the apostolic age, of two
persons bearing the same name, is very curious, and seems to show a
great poverty of appellatives among their parents. Among the twelve
there are two Simons, two Jameses, and two Judases; and including those
whose labors were any way connected with theirs, there are three Johns,
(the Baptist, the Apostle, and John Mark,) and two Philips, besides
other minor coincidences. The confusion which this repetition of names
causes among common readers, is truly undesirable; and it requires
attention for them to avoid error. In the case of this apostle, indeed,
the occasion of error is obviated for the most part, by a slight change
in the termination; his name being generally written Juda, (in modern
versions, Jude, ) while the wretched traitor who bears the same name,
preserves the common form terminating in S, which is also the form
in which Luke and John express this apostle’s name. A more serious
difficulty occurs, however, in a diversity noticed between the account
given by the two first evangelists, and the forms in which his name is
expressed in the writings of Luke and John, and in the introduction to
his own epistle. Matthew and Mark, in giving the names of the apostles,
mention in the tenth place, the name of Thaddeus, to whom the former
evangelist also gives the name of Lebbeus. They give him a place before
Simon Zelotes, and immediately after James, the son of Alpheus. Luke
gives the tenth place to Simon Zelotes, in both his lists, and after
him mentions “Judas, the brother of James”; and John speaks of “Judas,
(not Iscariot,”) among the chosen disciples. Juda, in his epistle
also, announces himself as “the brother of James.” From all these
circumstances it would seem to be very fairly inferred, that Judas,
or Juda, the brother of James, and Lebbeus or Thaddeus, were all only
different names of the same apostle. But this view is by no means
universally received, and some have been found bold enough to declare,
that these two sets of names referred to different persons, both of
whom were at different times numbered among the twelve apostles, and
were received or excluded from the list by Jesus, from some various
circumstances, now unknown;――or were perhaps considered such by
one evangelist or another, according to the notions and individual
preferences of each writer. But such a view is so opposed to the
established impressions of the uniform and fixed character of the
apostolic list, and of the consistency of different parts of the sacred
record, that it may very justly be rejected without the trouble of a
discussion.

Another inquiry still, concerning this apostle, is, whether he is
the same as that Judas who is mentioned along with James, Joses and
Simon, as the brother of Jesus. All the important points involved in
this question, have been already fully discussed in the life of James,
the Little; and if the conclusion of that argument is correct, the
irresistible consequence is, that the apostle Jude was also one of
these relatives of Jesus. The absurdity of the view of his being a
different person, can not be better exposed than by a simple statement
of its assertions. It requires the reader to believe that there was
a Judas, and a James, brothers and apostles; and another Judas and
another James, also brothers, and brothers of Jesus, but not apostles;
and that these are all mentioned in the New Testament without anything
like a satisfactory explanation of the reality and distinctness of
this remarkable duplicate of brotherhoods. Add to this, moreover, the
circumstance that Juda, the author of the epistle, specifies himself
as “the brother of James,” as though that were sufficient to prevent
his being confounded with any other Judas or Juda in this world;――a
specification totally useless, if there was another Judas, the brother
of another James, all eminent as Christian teachers.

There is still another question connected with his simple entity and
identity. Ancient traditions make mention of a Thaddeus, who first
preached the gospel in the interior of Syria; and the question is,
whether he is the same person as the apostle Juda, who is called
Thaddeus by Matthew and Mark. The great majority of ancient writers,
more especially the Syrians, consider the missionary Thaddeus not as
one of the twelve apostles, but as one of the seventy disciples, sent
out by Jesus in the same way as the select twelve. Another confirmation
of the view that he was a different person from the apostle Jude, is
found in the circumstance, that the epistle which bears the name of the
latter, was not for several centuries received by the Syrian churches,
though generally adopted throughout all Christendom, as an inspired
apostolic writing. But surely, if their national evangelizer had been
identical with the apostle Jude who wrote that epistle, they would have
been the first to acknowledge its authenticity and authority, and to
receive it into their scriptural canon.

So perfectly destitute are the gospel and apostolic history, of the
slightest account of this apostle’s life and actions, that his whole
biography may be considered completed in the mere settlement of his
name and identity. The only word that has been preserved as coming
from his lips, is recorded in John’s account of the parting discourses
of Jesus to his disciples, on the eve of his crucifixion. Jesus was
promising them that the love of God should be the sign and the reward
of him who faithfully kept his commandments,――“He that holds and keeps
my commandments, is the man that loves me; and he that loves me shall
be loved by my Father; and I will love him and manifest myself to
him.” These words constituted the occasion of the remark of Judas,
thus recorded by John. “Judas (not Iscariot) says to him, ‘Lord! how
is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us as thou dost not to the
world?’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘If a man love me, he will
keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him,
and make our abode with him.’” A natural inquiry, aptly and happily
suggested, and most clearly and satisfactorily answered, in the plain
but illustrative words of the divine teacher! Would that the honest
inquirer after the true, simple meaning of the words of God, might have
his painful researches through the wisdom of ages, as well rewarded as
did the favored hearers of Jesus! And would that the trying efforts of
critical thought might end in a result so brilliant and so cheering!


                             HIS EPISTLE.

The solitary monument and testimony of his apostolic labors, are found
in that brief, but strongly characterized and peculiar writing, which
bears his name, and forms the last portion, but one, of the modern
scriptural canon. Short as it is, and obscure too, by the numerous
references it contains, to local and temporary circumstances, there is
much expressed in this little portion of the apostolic writings, which
is highly interesting to the inquirer into the darker portions of the
earliest Christian history.

Several very remarkable circumstances in this epistle, have, from
the earliest ages of Christian theology, excited great inquiry among
writers, and in many cases have not only led commentators and critics
to pronounce the work very suspicious in its character, but even
absolutely to condemn it as unworthy of a place in the sacred canon.
One of these circumstances is, that the writer quotes apocryphal
books of a mystical and superstitious character, that have never been
received by Christians or Jews, as possessing any divine authority,
nor as entitled to any regard whatever in religious matters. At least
two distinct quotations from these confessedly fictitious writings,
are found in this brief epistle. The first is from the book of Enoch,
which has been preserved even to the present day, in the Ethiopic
translation; the original Hebrew having been irrecoverably lost. Some
of the highest authorities in orthodoxy and in learning have pronounced
the original to have been a very ancient writing;――a forgery, indeed,
since it professed to be the writing of Enoch himself,――but made up
in the earliest ages of Rabbinical literature, after the Old Testament
canon was completed, but before any portion of the New Testament was
written,――probably some years before the Christian era, though the
means of ascertaining its exact date are wanting. Another quotation,
equally remarkable, occurs in this epistle, without any mention being
made, however, of the exact source from which the passage has been
drawn; and the point is at present a subject of dispute,――as references
have been made by different authorities, ancient and modern, to
different apocryphal Jewish books, which contain similar passages. But
the most valuable authorities, both ancient and modern, decide it to
be a work now universally allowed to be apocryphal,――“the Ascension of
Moses,” which is directly quoted as authority on a subject altogether
removed from human knowledge, and on which no testimony could be of any
value, except it were derived directly and solely from the sources of
inspiration. The consequence of these references to these two doubtful
authorities, is, that many of the critical examiners of this epistle,
in all ages, have felt themselves justified in condemning it.

  Tertullian (A. D. 200) is the earliest writer who has distinctly
  quoted this epistle. He refers to it in connection with the
  quotation from the book of Enoch. “Hence it is that Enoch is
  quoted by the apostle Jude.” (De cultu feminarum, 3.) Clement
  of Alexandria also repeatedly quotes the epistle of Jude as an
  apostolic writing. Origen (A. D. 230,) very clearly expresses
  his opinion in favor of this epistle as the production of Jude,
  the brother of Jesus. In his commentary on Matthew xiii. 55,
  where James, Simon and Jude are mentioned, he says, “Jude wrote
  an epistle, of few lines indeed, but full of powerful words of
  heavenly grace, who, at the beginning says, ‘Jude, the servant
  of Jesus Christ, and the brother of James.’” Origen thought
  everything connected with this epistle, of such high authority,
  that he considered the apocryphal book of “the Ascension of
  Moses,” a work of authority, because it had been quoted by
  Jude, (verse 9.) He confesses however, that there were some who
  doubted the authenticity of the epistle of Jude; and that this
  was the fact, appears still more distinctly from the account
  of the apostolic writings, given by Eusebius, (A. D. 320,) who
  sets it down among the _disputed_ writings. The ancient Syriac
  version (executed before A. D. 100,) rejects this as well as
  the second of Peter, and the second and third of John. After the
  fourth century all these became universally established in the
  Greek and Latin churches. The great Michaelis however, utterly
  condemns it as probably a forgery. (Introduction, IV. xxix. 5.)

  The clearest statement of the character of this reference to
  the book of Enoch, is given by Hug’s translator, Dr. Wait.
  (Introduction. Vol. II. p. 618, note.)

  “This manifestly appears to have been the reason why Jude cited
  apocryphal works in his epistle, viz. for the sake of refuting
  their own assertions from those productions, which, like the
  rest of their nation, they most probably respected. For this
  purpose the book of Enoch was peculiarly calculated, since in
  the midst of all its _ineptiae_ and absurdities, this point,
  and the orders of the spiritual world, are strongly urged and
  discussed in it. It is irrelevant to the inquiry, how much of
  the present book existed at this time, for that it was framed by
  different writers, and at different periods, no critic can deny;
  yet that this was the leading character of the work, and that
  these were the prominent dogmata of those parts which were then
  in existence, we have every presumptive evidence. The Hebrew
  names of angels, &c., such as the Ophanim, plainly indicate
  it to have been a translation from some lost Jewish original,
  which was doubtless known both to Peter and to Jude; nor can
  the unprejudiced examiner of these epistles well hesitate to
  acknowledge Hug’s explanation of them to be the most correct and
  the most reasonable.”

The whole defense of the epistle against these imputations, may be
grounded upon the supposition, that the apostle was writing against a
peculiar class of heretics, who did acknowledge these apocryphal books
to be of divine authority, and to whom he might quote these with a view
to show, that even by their own standards of truth, their errors of
doctrine and life must be condemned. The sect of the Gnostics has been
already mentioned in the life of John, as being the first ever known
to have perverted the purity of Christian doctrine, by heresy. These
heretics certainly are not very fully described in those few passages
of this short epistle that are directed at the errors of doctrine; but
the character of those errors which Jude denounces, is accordant with
what is known of some of the prominent peculiarities of the Gnostics.
But whatever may have been the particular character of these heretics,
it is evident that they must, like the great majority of the Jews in
those days, have acknowledged the divine authority of these ancient
apocryphal writings; and the apostle was therefore right in making use
of quotations from these works, to refute their very remarkable errors.
The evils which he denounced, however, were not merely of a speculative
character; but he more especially condemns their gross immoralities,
as a scandal and an outrage on the purity of the Christian assemblies
with which they still associated. In all those passages where these
vices are referred to, it will be observed that both immoralities
and doctrinal errors are included in one common condemnation, which
shows that both were inseparably connected in the conduct of those
heretics whom the writer condemns. This circumstance also does much to
identify them with some of the Gnostical sects before alluded to,――more
especially with the Nicolaitans, as they are called by John in the
beginning of the Apocalypse, where he is addressing the church of
Pergamos. In respect to this very remarkable peculiarity of a vicious
and abominable life, combined with speculative errors, the ancient
Christian writers very fully describe the Nicolaitans; and their
accounts are so unanimous, and their accusations so definite, that
it is just and reasonable to consider this epistle as directed
particularly against them.

  _Nicolaitans._――An allusion has already been made to this sect
  in the life of John, but they deserve a distinct reference
  here also, as they are so distinctly mentioned in Jude’s
  epistle. The explanation of the name which in the former passage
  (page 343,) was crowded out by other matters prolonging that
  part of the work beyond its due limits, may here be given
  most satisfactorily, in the words of the learned Dr. Hug.
  (Introduction, Vol. II. note, § 182, original, § 174,
  translation.)

  “The arguments of those who decide them to have been the
  Nicolaitans, according to my opinion, are at present the
  following:――John in the Apocalypse describes the Nicolaitans
  nearly as the heretics are here represented to us, with the
  same comparison, and with the same vices; persons who exercise
  the arts of Balaam, who taught Balak to ensnare the children of
  Israel, and to induce them to partake of idolatrous sacrifices,
  and to fornicate, (Acts ii. 14: Jude 2: 2 Peter ii. 15.) Even
  בלעם according to its derivation, is equivalent to Νίκολαος. They
  also certainly denied the Lord’s creation and government of the
  world. Alterum quidem fabricatorem, alium autem Patrem Domini ...
  et eam conditionem, quae est secundum nos non a primo Deo factam,
  sed a Virtute aliqua valde deorsum subjecta. (Irenaeus L. iii.
  c. 11.) If now all corporeal and material existence has its
  origin from the Creator of the world, who is a very imperfect
  and gross spirit, it flows naturally from this notion, that
  they could not admit a corporeal resuscitation by the agency
  of the Supreme Being, or by the agency of Jesus, in a universal
  day of judgment. With respect to the spiritual world, they
  also actually taught such absurdities, that it must be said
  of them δοξας βλασφημοῦσι; for they supposed, Aeones quosdam
  turpitudinis natos; et complexus, et permixtiones execrabiles,
  et obscaenas. (Tertullianus in append. ad Lib. de praescript. c.
  46.) But, as to their excesses and abominable mode of life, the
  accounts of the ancients are so unanimous, and the accusations
  are so constituted, that the two apostolic epistles may have
  most pertinently referred to them.”

  The passage from Irenaeus relating to this sect, (quoted on
  page 343,) contains a remarkable Latin word, “vulsio,” not found
  in any other author, and not explained at all, in the common
  dictionaries. That miserable, unsatisfactory mass of words,
  Ainsworth’s Thesaurus, does not contain it, and I was left to
  infer the meaning from the theme, _vello_, and it was therefore
  translated “_fragment_,”――a meaning not inconsistent with its
  true sense. Since that was printed, a learned friend, to whom
  the difficulty was mentioned, on searching for the word in
  better dictionaries, found it in Gesner’s Thesaurus, distinctly
  quoted from the very passage, with a very satisfactory
  explanation of its exact meaning. Gesner’s account of it is as
  follows: “_Vulsio_, Irenaeus, iii. 11. Nicolaitae sunt vulsio
  ejus. i. e. _surculus inde enatus, et revulsus, stolo_, ἀπὀρρώξ.
  _Secta una ex altera velut pullulavit._” The meaning therefore
  is a “sucker,” “a shoot or scion, springing out of the root
  or side of the stock,” and the expression in this passage may
  therefore be translated, “The Nicolaitans are a slip or sprig of
  the old stock of the _Gnosis_.” And as Gesner happily explains
  it, “One sect, as it were, sprouted up from another.”

  The word “_scientia_” in this wretched Latin translation,
  is quoted along with the adjacent words from Paul’s second
  epistle to Timothy, (vi. 20.) where he is warning him against
  the delusions of the Gnostics, and speaks of “the dogmas of
  the GNOSIS,” (γνωσις,) translated “science,” but the word is
  evidently technical in this passage. Irenaeus no doubt quoted
  it in the Greek, but his ignorant translator, not perceiving
  the peculiar force of the word, translated it “scientia,” losing
  all the sense of the expression. The common translations of the
  Bible have done the same, in the passage in 2 Timothy vi. 20.

Another circumstance in this epistle which has attracted a critical
notice, and which has occasioned its condemnation by some, is the
remarkable coincidence both of sense and words between it and the
second chapter of the second epistle of Peter. There are probably
few diligent readers of the New Testament to whom this has not been
a subject of curious remark, as several verses in one, seem a mere
transcript of corresponding passages in the other. Various conjectures
have been made to account for this resemblance in matter and in
words,――some supposing Jude to have written first, and concluding
that Peter, writing to the same persons, made references in this
manner to the substance of what they had already learned from another
apostle,――and others supposing that Peter wrote first, and that Jude
followed, and amplified a portion of the epistle which had already
lightly touched in some parts only upon the particular errors which
the latter writer wished more especially to refute and condemn. This
coincidence is nevertheless no more a ground for rejecting one or
the other of the two writings, than the far more perfect parallelisms
between the gospels are a reason for concluding that only one of
them can be an authorized document. Both the apostles were evidently
denouncing the same errors and condemning the same vices, and nothing
was more natural than that this similarity of purpose should produce a
proportional similarity of language. Either of the above suppositions
is consistent with the character of the writings;――Peter may have
written first, and Jude may have taken a portion of that epistle as
furnishing hints for a more protracted view of these particular points;
or, on the supposition that Jude wrote first, Peter may have thought it
worth while only to refer generally, and not to dwell very particularly
on those points which his fellow-apostle had already so fully and
powerfully treated.

The particular churches to which this epistle was addressed, are
utterly unknown; nor do modern writers pretend to find any means of
detecting the places to which it was addressed in any peculiar passage,
except so far as the chief seats of the heretics, against whom he wrote,
are supposed to be known. Asia Minor, Syria and the East, were the
regions to which the Gnostical errors were mostly confined; and in the
former country more especially they were objects of attention, to the
ministers of truth, during the apostolic age and in succeeding times.
It was probably intended for the same persons to whom Peter wrote;
and what has been said on the direction of his two epistles, will
illustrate the immediate design of this also.

Its date is involved in the same uncertainty that covers all points
in its own history and that of its author; the prominent difficulty
being its great brevity, in consequence of which it offers but few
characteristics of any kind, for the decision of doubtful points;
and the life and works of Juda must therefore be set down among
those matters, in which the indifference of those who could once have
preserved historical truth for the eyes of posterity, has left even the
research of modern criticism, not one hook to hang a guess upon.




                            JUDAS ISCARIOT.


THIS name doubtless strikes the eye of the Christian reader, as almost
a stain to the fair page of apostolic history, and a dishonor to the
noble list of the holy, with whom the traitor was associated. But
he who knew the hearts of all men from the beginning, even before
their actions had developed and displayed their characters, chose
this man among those whom he first sent forth on the message of coming
grace; and all the gospel records bear the name of the traitor along
with those who were faithful even unto death; nor does it behove the
unconsecrated historian to affect, about the arrangement of this name,
a delicacy which the gospel writers did not manifest.

Of his birth, his home, his occupation, his call, and his previous
character, the sacred writers bear no testimony; and all which the
inventive genius of modern criticism has been able to present in
respect to any of these circumstances, is drawn from no more certain
source than the various proposed etymologies and significations of
his name. But the plausibility which is worn by each one of these
numerous derivations, is of itself a sufficient proof of the little
dependence which can be placed upon any conclusion so lightly founded.
The inquirer is therefore safest in following merely the reasonable
conjecture, that his previous character had been respectable, not
manifesting to the world at least, any baseness which would make him
an infamous associate. For though the Savior in selecting the chief
ministers of his gospel, did not take them from the wealthy, the
high-born, the refined, or the learned; and though he did not scruple
even to take those of a low and degraded occupation, his choice would
nevertheless entirely exclude those who were in any way marked by
previous character, as more immoral than the generality of the people
among whom they lived. In short, it is very reasonable to suppose;
that Judas Iscariot was a respectable man, probably with a character as
good as most of his neighbors had, though he may have been considered
by some of his acquaintance, as a close, sharp man in money matters;
for this is a character most unquestionably fixed on him in those few
and brief allusions which are made to him in the gospel narratives.
Whatever may have been the business to which he had been devoted during
his previous life, he had probably acquired a good reputation for
honesty, as well as for careful management of property; for he is on
two occasions distinctly specified as the treasurer and steward of the
little company or family of Jesus;――an office for which he would not
have been selected, unless he had maintained such a character as that
above imputed to him. Even after his admission into the fraternity,
he still betrayed his strong acquisitiveness, in a manner that will be
fully exhibited in the history of the occurrence in which it was most
remarkably developed.

  _Iscariot._――The present form of this word appears from the
  testimony of Beza, to be different from the original one, which,
  in his oldest copy of the New Testament, was given without the
  _I_ in the beginning, simply; Σκαρίωτης; (_Scariotes_;) and this
  is confirmed by the very ancient Syriac version, which expresses
  it by

  Illustration: (‡ Syriac word)

  (_Sekaryuta_.) Origen also, the oldest of the Christian
  commentators, (A. D. 230,) gives the word without the initial
  vowel, “_Scariot_.” It is most reasonable therefore to conclude
  that the name was originally _Scariot_, and that the _I_ was
  prefixed, for the sake of the easier pronunciation of the
  two initial consonants; for some languages are so smoothly
  constructed, that they do not allow even _S_ to precede a mute,
  without a vowel before. Just as the Turks, in taking up the
  names of Greek towns, change _Scopia_ into _Iscopia_, &c. The
  French too, change the Latin _Spiritus_ into _Esprit_, as do the
  Spaniards into _Espiritu_; and similar instances are numerous.

  The very learned Matthew Poole, in his Synopsis Criticorum,
  (Matthew x. 4,) gives a very full view of the various
  interpretations of this name. _Six_ distinct etymologies and
  significations of this word have been proposed, most of which
  appear so plausible, that it may seem hard to decide on their
  comparative probabilities. That which is best justified by
  the easy transition from the theme, and by the aptness of the
  signification to the circumstances of the person, is the _First_,
  proposed by an anonymous author, quoted in the Parallels of
  Junius, and adopted by Poole. This is the derivation from the
  Syriac

  Illustration: (‡ Syriac word)

  (_sekharyut_,) “_a bag_,” or “_purse_;” root cognate with the
  Hebrew סכר (_sakhar_.) No. 1, Gibbs’s Hebrew Lexicon, and סגר
  (_sagar_,) Syrian & Arabic _id._ The word thus derived must
  mean the “_bag-man_,” the “_purser_,” which is a most happy
  illustration of John’s account of the office of Judas, (xii. 6:
  xiii. 29.) It is, in short, a name descriptive of his peculiar
  duty in receiving the money of the common stock of Christ and
  his apostles, buying the necessary provisions, administering
  their common charities to the poor, and managing all their
  pecuniary affairs,――performing all the duties of that officer
  who in English is called a “steward.” Judas ISCARIOT, or rather
  “_Scariot_,” means therefore “Judas the STEWARD.”

  The _second_ derivation proposed is that of Junius, (_Parall._)
  who refers it to a sense descriptive of his fate. The Syriac,
  Hebrew, and Arabic root, סכר (_sakar_,) has in the first of these
  languages, the secondary signification of “_strangle_,” and the
  personal substantive derived from it, might therefore mean, “one
  who was strangled.” Lightfoot says that if this theme is to be
  adopted, he should prefer to trace the name to the word אשכרא
  which with the Rabbinical writers is used in reference to the
  same primitive, in the meaning of “strangulation.” But both
  these, even without regarding the great aptness of the first
  definition above given, may be condemned on their own demerits;
  because, they suppose either that this name was applied to him,
  only _after_ his death,――an exceedingly unnatural view,――or
  (what is vastly more absurd) that he was thus named during his
  life-time, by a _prophetical anticipation_, that he would die
  by the halter!!! It is not very uncommon, to be sure, for such
  charitable prophetic inferences to be drawn respecting the
  character and destiny of the graceless, and the point of some
  vulgar proverbs consists in this very allusion, but the utmost
  stretch of such predictions never goes to the degree of fixing
  upon the hopeful candidate for the gallows, a surname drawn from
  this comfortable anticipation of his destiny. Besides, it is
  hard to believe that a man wearing thus, as it were, a halter
  around his neck, would have been called by Jesus into the goodly
  fellowship of the apostles; for though neither rank, nor wealth,
  nor education, nor refinement were requisites for admission, yet
  a tolerable good moral character may be fairly presumed to have
  been an indispensable qualification.

  The _third_ derivation is of such a complicated and far-fetched
  character, that it bears its condemnation on its own face. It is
  that of the learned Tremellius, who attempts to analyze Iscariot
  into שכר (_seker_,) “wages,” “reward,” and נטה (_natah_,) “turn
  away,” alluding to the fact that for money he revolted from his
  Master. This, besides its other difficulties, supposes that the
  name was conferred after his death; whereas he must certainly
  have needed during his life, some appellative to distinguish him
  from Judas the brother of James.

  The _fourth_ is that of Grotius and Erasmus, who derive it from
  איש יששכר (_Ish Issachar_,) “a man of Issachar,”――supposing the
  name to designate his tribe, just as the same phrase occurs in
  Judges x. 1. But all these distinctions of origin from the ten
  tribes must have been utterly lost in the time of Christ; nor
  does any instance occur of a Jew of the apostolic age being
  named from his supposed tribe.

  The _fifth_ is the one suggested and adopted by Lightfoot. In
  the Talmudic Hebrew, the word סקורטיא (_sekurti_,)――also written
  with an initial א (_aleph_) and pronounced _Iscurti_,――has the
  meaning of “_leather_ apron;” and this great Hebraician proposes
  therefore, to translate the name, “Judas _with the leather
  apron_;” and suggests some aptness in such a personal appendage,
  because in such aprons they had pockets or bags in which money,
  &c. might be carried. The whole derivation, however, is forced
  and far-fetched,――doing great violence to the present form
  of the word, and is altogether unworthy of the genius of its
  inventor, who is usually very acute in etymologies.

  The _sixth_ is that of Beza, Piscator and Hammond, who make it
  איש־קריות (_Ish-Qerioth_ or _Kerioth_,) “a man of _Kerioth_,” a
  city of Judah. (Joshua xv. 25.) Beza says that a very ancient MS.
  of the Greek New Testament, in his possession, (above referred
  to,) in all the five passages in John, where Judas is mentioned,
  has this surname written απο Καριωτου. (_apo Cariotou_,)
  “Judas _of Kerioth_.” Lucas Brugensis observes, that this
  form of expression is used in Ezra ii. 22, 23, where the “men
  of Anathoth,” &c. are spoken of; but there is no parallelism
  whatever between the two cases; because in the passage quoted
  it is a mere general designation of the inhabitants of a
  place,――nor can any passage be shown in which it is thus
  appended to a man’s name, by way of surname. The peculiarity of
  Beza’s MS. is therefore undoubtedly an unauthorized perversion
  by some ancient copyist; for it is not found on any other
  ancient authority.

The motives which led such a man to join himself to the followers of
the self-denying Nazarene, of course could not have been of a very
high order; yet probably were about as praiseworthy as those of any
of the followers of Jesus. Not one of the chosen disciples of Jesus
is mentioned in the solemnly faithful narrative of the evangelists, as
inspired by a self-denying principle of action. Wherever an occasion
appeared on which their true motives and feelings could be displayed,
they all without exception, manifested the most sordid selfishness,
and seemed inspired by no idea whatever but that of worldly honors,
triumphs, and rewards to be won in his service! Peter, indeed, is not
very distinctly specified as betraying any remarkable regard for his
own individual interest, and on several occasions manifested, certainly
by starts, much of a true self-sacrificing devotion to his Master; yet
his great views in following Jesus were unquestionably of an ambitious
order, and his noblest conception was that of a worldly triumph of a
Messiah, in which the chosen ones were to have a share proportioned no
doubt to their exertions for its attainment. The two Boanerges betrayed
the most determined selfishness, in scheming for a lion’s share in
the spoils of victory; and the whole body of the disciples, on more
than one occasion, quarreled among themselves about the first places
in Christ’s kingdom. Judas therefore, was not greatly worse than
his fellow-disciples,――no matter how bad may have been his motives;
and probably at the beginning maintained a respectable stand among
them, unless occasion might have betrayed to them the fact, that he
was mean in money matters. But he, after espousing the fortunes of
Jesus, doubtless went on scheming for his own advancement, just as
the rest did for theirs, except that probably, when those of more
liberal conceptions were contriving great schemes for the attainment
of power, honor, fame, titles, and glory, both military and civil,
his penny-saving soul was reveling in golden dreams, and his thoughts
running delightedly over the prospects of vast gain to be reaped in
the confiscation of the property of the wealthy Pharisees and lawyers,
that would ensue immediately on the establishment of the empire of
the Nazarene and his Galileans. While the great James and his amiable
brother were quarreling with the rest of the fraternity about the
premierships,――the highest administration of spiritual and temporal
power,――the discreetly calculating Iscariot was doubtless expecting
the fair results of a regular course of promotion, from the office
of bag-carrier to the strolling company of Galileans, to the stately
honors and immense emoluments of lord high-treasurer of the new kingdom
of Israel; his advancement naturally taking place in the line in which
he had made his first beginning in the service of his Lord, he might
well expect that in those very particulars where he had shown himself
faithful in few things, he would be made ruler over many things, when
he should enter into the joy of his Lord,――sharing the honors and
profits of His exaltation, as he had borne his part in the toils and
anxieties of his humble fortunes. The careful management of his little
stewardship, “bearing the bag, and what was put therein,” and “buying
those things that were necessary” for all the wants of the brotherhood
of Jesus,――was a service of no small importance and merit, and
certainly would deserve a consideration at the hands of his Master.
Such a trust also, certainly implied a great confidence of Jesus in
his honesty and discretion in money matters, and shows not only the
blamelessness of his character in those particulars, but the peculiar
turn of his genius, in being selected, out of the whole twelve, for
this very responsible and somewhat troublesome function.

Yet the eyes of the Redeemer were by no means closed to the baser
inclinations of this much-trusted disciple. He knew (for what did he
not know?) how short was the step from the steady adherence to the
practice of a particular virtue, to the most scandalous breach of honor
in that same line of action,――how slight, and easy, and natural was
the perversion of a truly mean soul, or even one of respectable and
honorable purposes, from the honest pursuit of gain, to the absolute
disregard of every circumstance but personal advantage, and safety
from the punishment of crime,――a change insensibly resulting from the
total absorption of the soul in one solitary object and aim; for in all
such cases, the honesty is not the _purpose_; it is only an incidental
principle, occasionally called in to regulate the modes and means of
the grand acquisition;――but _gain_ is the great end and essence of
such a life, and the forgetfulness of every other motive, when occasion
suggests, is neither unnatural nor surprising. With all this and vastly
more knowledge, Jesus was well able to discriminate the different
states of mind in which the course of his discipleship found this
calculating follower. He doubtless traced from day to day, and from
week to week, and from month to month, as well as from year to year
of his weary pilgrimage, the changes of zeal, resolution and hope,
into distaste and despair, as the day of anticipated reward for these
sacrifices seemed farther and farther removed, by the progress of
events. The knowledge too, of the manner in which these depraved
propensities would at last develope themselves, is distinctly expressed
in the remark which he made in reply to Peter’s declaration of the
fidelity and devotion of himself and his fellow disciples, just
after the miracle of feeding the five thousand by the lake, when some
renounced the service of Christ, disgusted with the revelations which
he there made to them of the spiritual nature of his kingdom, and
its rewards, and of the difficult and disagreeable requisites for his
discipleship. Jesus seeing the sad defection of the worldly, turned
to the twelve and said, “Will ye also go away?” Simon Peter, with ever
ready zeal replied, “Lord! to whom shall we go but unto thee? For thou
only hast the words of eternal life.” Jesus answered them, “Have I
not chosen you twelve, and one of you is an _accuser_?” This reply,
as John in recording it remarks, alluded to Judas Iscariot, the son
of Simon; for he it was that was to betray him, though he was one of
the twelve. He well knew that on no ear would these revelations of the
pure spiritualism of his kingdom, and of the self-denying character of
his service, fall more disagreeably than on that of the money-loving
steward of the apostolic family, whose hopes would be most wofully
disappointed by the uncomfortable prospects of recompense, and whose
thoughts would be henceforth contriving the means of extricating
himself from all share in this hopeless enterprise. Still he did
not, like those mal-contents who were not numbered among the twelve,
openly renounce his discipleship, and return to the business which
he had left for the deceptive prospect of a profitable reward. He
found himself too deeply committed to do this with advantage, and he
therefore discontentedly continued to follow his great summoner, until
an opportunity should occur of leaving this undesirable service, with
a chance of some immediate profit in the exchange. Nor did he yet,
probably, despair entirely of some more hopeful scheme of revolution
than was now held up to view. He might occasionally have been led to
hope, that these gloomy announcements were but a trial of the constancy
of the chosen, and that all things would yet turn out as their high
expectations had planned. In the occasional remarks of Jesus, there was
also much, which an unspiritual and sordid hearer, might very naturally
construe into a more comfortable accomplishment of his views, and in
which such a one would think he found the distinct expression of the
real purposes of Jesus in reference to the reward of his disciples.
Such an instance, was the reply made to Peter when he reminded his
Master of the great pecuniary sacrifices which they had all made in
his service: “Lo! we have left all, and followed thee.” The assurances
contained in the reply of Jesus, that among other things, those who
had left houses and lands for his sake, should receive a hundred fold
more in the day of his triumph, must have favorably impressed the
baser-minded, with some idea of a real, solid return for the seemingly
unprofitable investment which they had made in his scheme. Or, on the
other hand, if the faith and hope of Iscariot in the word of Jesus were
already too far gone to be recalled to life by any cheering promises,
these sayings may have only served to increase his indifference, or
to deepen it into downright hatred, at what he would regard as a new
deceit, designed to keep up the sinking spirits of those, who had begun
to apprehend the desperate character of the enterprise in which they
had involved themselves. If his feelings had then reached this point
of desperation, the effect of this renewal of promises, which he might
construe into a support of his original views of the nature of the
rewards accruing to the followers of Christ, on the establishment
of his kingdom, would only excite and strengthen a deep rooted spite
against his once-adored Lord, and his malice, working in secret over
the disappointment, would at last be ready to rise on some convenient
occasion into active revenge.

  _An accuser._――This is the true primary force of διαβολος
  (_diabolos_) in this passage. (John vi. 70.) This word is never
  applied to any individual in the sense of “devil,” except to
  Satan himself; but wherever it occurs as a common substantive
  appellation, descriptive of character, pointedly refers to its
  primary signification of “accuser,” “calumniator,” “informer,”
  &c., the root of it being διαβαλλω, which means “to accuse,” “to
  calumniate;” and when applied to Satan, it still preserves this
  sense,――though it then has the force of a proper name; since שטן
  (_Satan_,) in Hebrew, means primarily “_accuser_” but acquires
  the force of a proper name, in its ordinary use. Grotius however,
  suggests that in this passage, the word truly corresponds to the
  Hebrew צר (_tsar_,) the word which is applied to Haman, (Esther
  vii. 6. viii. 1.) and has here the general force of “accuser,”
  “enemy,” &c. The context here (verse 71,) shows that John
  referred to this sense, and that Christ applied it to Judas
  prophetically,――thus showing his knowledge of the fact, that
  this apostle would “_accuse_” him, and “inform” against him,
  before the Sanhedrim. Not only Grotius, but Vatablus, Erasmus,
  Lucas Brugensis, and others, maintain this rendering.

This occasion, before long, presented itself. The successful labors
of Jesus, in Jerusalem, had raised up against him a combination of foes
of the most determined and dangerously hostile character. The great
dignitaries of the nation, uniting in one body all the legal, literary
and religions honors and influence of the Hebrew name, and strengthened
too by the weight of the vast wealth belonging to them and their
immediate supporters, as well as by the exaltation of high office and
ancient family, had at last resolved to use all this immense power, (if
less could not effect it,) for the ruin of the bold, eloquent man, who,
without one of all the privileges which were the sources and supports
of their power, had shaken their ancient dominion to its foundation
by his simple words, and almost overthrown all their power over the
people, whose eyes were now beginning to be opened to the mystery of
“how little wisdom it took, to govern them!” Self-preservation seemed
to require an instantaneous and energetic action against the bold
Reformer; and they were not the men to scruple about the means or
mode of satisfying both revenge and ambition by his destruction. This
state of feeling among the aristocracy could not have been unknown
to Iscariot. He had doubtless watched its gradual developments, from
day to day, during the displays in the temple; and as defeat followed
defeat in the strife of mind, he had abundant opportunity to see the
hostile feeling of the baffled and mortified Pharisees, Sadducees,
scribes and lawyers, mounting to the highest pitch of indignation, and
furnishing him with the long-desired occasion of making up for his own
disappointment in his great plans for the recompense of his sacrifices,
in the cause of Jesus. He saw that there was no chance whatever for
the triumphant establishment of that kingdom in whose honors he had
expected to share. All the opportunities and means for effecting
this result, Jesus was evidently determined to throw away, nor could
anything ever move him to such an effort as was desirable for the
gratification of the ambition of his disciples. The more splendid
and tempting the occasions for founding a temporal dominion, the more
resolutely did he seem to disappoint the golden hopes of his followers;
and, proceeding thus, was only exposing himself and them to danger,
without making any provision for their safety or escape. And where
was to be the reward of Iscariot’s long services in the management
of the stewardship of the apostolic fraternity? Had he not left his
business, to follow them about, laboring in their behalf, managing
their affairs, procuring the means of subsistence for them, and
exercising a responsibility which none else was so competent to assume?
And what recompense had he received? None, but the almost hopeless ruin
of his fortunes in a desperate cause. That such were the feelings and
reflections which his circumstances would naturally suggest, is very
evident. The signs of the alienation of his affections from Jesus,
are also seen in the little incident recorded by all the evangelists,
of the anointing of his feet by Mary. She, in deep gratitude to the
adored Lord who had restored to life her beloved brother, brought,
as the offering of her fervent love, the box of precious ointment of
spikenard, and poured it over his feet, anointing them, and wiping them
with her hair, so that the whole house was filled with the fragrance.
This beautiful instance of an ardent devotion, that would sacrifice
everything for its object, awakened no corresponding feeling in
the narrow soul of Iscariot; but seizing this occasion for the
manifestation of his inborn meanness, and his growing spite against his
Master, he indignantly exclaimed, (veiling his true motive, however,
under the appearance of charitable regard for the poor,) “To what
purpose is this waste? Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred
pence, and given to the poor?” So specious was this honorable pretense
for blaming what seemed the inconsiderate and extravagant devotion of
Mary, that others of the disciples joined in the indignant remonstrance
against this useless squandering of property, which might be converted
to the valuable purpose of ministering to the necessities of the poor,
many of whose hearts might have been gladdened by a well-regulated
expenditure of the price of this costly offering, which was now
irrecoverably lost. But honorable as may have been the motives of
those who joined with Iscariot in this protest, the apostle John most
distinctly insists that he was moved by a far baser consideration.
“This he said, NOT because he cared for the poor, but because he was a
thief, and kept the coffer, and carried what was cast into it.” This is
a most distinct exposition of a piece of villainy in the traitor, that
would have remained unknown, but for the record which John gives of
this transaction. It is here declared in plain terms, that Iscariot had
grossly betrayed the pecuniary trust which had been committed to him
on the score of his previous honesty, and had been guilty of downright
peculation,――converting to his own private purposes, the money which
had been deposited with him as the treasurer and steward of the whole
company of the disciples. He had probably made up his mind to this
rascally abuse of trust, on the ground that he was justified in thus
balancing what he had lost by his connection with Jesus; and supposed,
no doubt, that the ruin of all those whom he was thus cheating, would
be effectually secured before the act could be found out. What renders
this crime doubly abominable, is, that it was robbing the poor of
the generous contributions which, by the kindness of Jesus, had been
appropriated to their use, out of this little common stock; for it
seems that Iscariot was the minister of the common charities of the
brotherhood, as well as the provider of such things as were necessary
for their subsistence, and the steward of the common property. With
the pollution of this base crime upon his soul, before stirred up to
spite and disgust by disappointed ambition, he was now so dead to honor
and decency, that he was abundantly prepared for the commission of the
crowning act of villainy. The words in which Jesus rebuked his specious
concern for the economical administration of the money in charity, was
also in a tone that he might construe into a new ground of offense,
implying, as it did, that his zeal had some motive far removed from
a true affection for that Master, whose life was in hourly peril,
and might any moment be so sacrificed by his foes, that the honorable
forms of preparation for the burial might be denied; and being thus
already devoted to death, he might well accept this costly offering of
pure devotion, as the mournful unction for the grave. In these sadly
prophetic words, Judas may have found the immediate suggestion of his
act of sordid treachery; and incited, moreover, by the repulse which
his remonstrance had received, he seems to have gone directly about the
perpetration of the crime.

The nature and immediate object of this plot may not be perfectly
comprehended, without considering minutely the relations in which Jesus
stood to the Jewish Sanhedrim, and the means he had of resisting or
evading their efforts for the consummation of their schemes and hopes
against him. Jesus of Nazareth was, to the chief priests, scribes and
Pharisees, a dangerous foe. He had, during his visits to Jerusalem,
in his repeated encounters with them in the courts of the temple, and
all public places of assembly, struck at the very foundation of all
their authority and power over the people. The Jewish hierarchy was
supported by the sway of the Romans, indeed, but only because it was
in accordance with their universal policy of tolerance, to preserve
the previously established order of things, in all countries which they
conquered, so long as such a preservation was desired by the people;
but no longer than it was perfectly accordant with the feelings of the
majority. The Sanhedrim and their dependents therefore knew perfectly
well that their establishment could receive no support from the Roman
government, after they had lost their dominion over the affections of
the people; and were therefore very ready to perceive, that if they
were to be thus confounded and set at nought, in spite of learning
and dignity, by a poor Galilean, and even their gravest and most
puzzling attacks upon his wisdom and prudence, turned into an absolute
jest against them,――it was quite clear that the amused and delighted
multitude would soon cease to regard the authority and opinions of
their venerable religious and legal rulers, whose subtleties were
so easily foiled by one of the common, uneducated mass. But the very
circumstances which effected and constituted the evil, were also the
grand obstacles to the removal of it. Jesus was by these means seated
firmly in the love and reverence of the people,――and of the vast
numbers of strangers then in Jerusalem at the feast, there were very
many who would have their feelings strongly excited in his favor, by
the circumstance that they, as well as he, were Galileans, and would
therefore be very apt to make common cause with him in case of any
violent attack. All these obstacles required management; and after
having been very many times foiled in their attempts to seize him,
by the resolute determination of the thousands by whom he was always
encircled, to defend him, they found that they must contrive some way
to get hold of him when he was without the defenses of this admiring
host. This could be done, of course, only by following him to his
secret haunts, and coming quietly upon him before the multitude could
assemble to his aid. But his movements were altogether beyond their
notice. No armed band could follow him about, as he went from the city
to the country in his daily and nightly walks. They needed some spy who
could watch his private movements when unattended, save by the little
band of the twelve, and give notice of the favorable moment for a
seizure, when the time, the place, and the circumstances, would all
conspire to prevent a rescue. Thus taken, he might be safely lodged
in some of the impregnable fortresses of the temple and city, so as
to defy the momentary burst of popular rage, on finding that their
idol had been taken away. They knew too, the fickle character of
the commonalty, well enough to feel certain, that when the tide
of condemnation was once strongly set against the Nazarene, the
lip-worship of “Hosannas” could be easily turned, by a little
management, into the ferocious yell of deadly denunciation. The mass
of the people are always essentially the same in their modes of action.
Mobs were then managed by the same rules as now, and demagogues were
equally well versed in the tricks of their trade. Besides, when Jesus
had once been formally indicted and presented before the secular
tribunal of the Roman governor, as a rioter and seditious person, no
thought of a rescue from the military force could be thought of; and
however unwilling Pilate might be to minister to the wishes of the
Jews, in an act of unnecessary cruelty, he could not resist a call
thus solemnly made to him, in the character of preserver of the Roman
sway, though he would probably have rejected entirely any proposition
to seize Jesus by a military force, in open day, in the midst of the
multitude, so as to create a troublesome and bloody tumult, by such
an imprudent act. In the full consideration of all these difficulties,
the Jewish dignitaries were sitting in conclave, contriving means to
effect the settlement of their troubles, by the complete removal of
him who was unquestionably the cause of all. At once their anxious
deliberations were happily interrupted by the entrance of the trusted
steward of the company of Jesus, who changed all their doubts and
distant hopes into absolute certainty, by offering, for a reasonable
consideration, to give up Jesus into their hands, a prisoner, without
any disturbance or riot. How much delay and debate there was about
terms, it would be hard to say; but after all, the bargain made,
does not seem to have been greatly to the credit of the liberality
of the Sanhedrim, or the sharpness of Judas. Thirty of the largest
pieces of silver then coined, would make but a poor price for such
an extraordinary service, even making all allowance for a scarcity of
money in those times. And taking into account the wealth and rank of
those concerned, as well as the importance of the object, it is fair to
pronounce them a very mean set of fellows. But Judas especially seems
to forfeit almost all right to the character given him of acuteness in
money matters; and it is only by supposing him to be quite carried out
of his usual prudence, by his woful abandonment to crime, that so poor
a bargain can be made consistent with the otherwise reasonable view of
his character.

  _Thirty pieces of silver._――The value of these pieces is
  seemingly as vaguely expressed in the original as in the
  translation; but a reference to Hebrew usages throws some light
  on the question of definition. The common Hebrew coin thus
  expressed was the shekel,――equivalent to the Greek _didrachmon_,
  and worth about sixteen cents. In Hebrew the expression, thirty
  “shekels of silver,” was not always written out in full; but
  the name of the coin being omitted, the expression was always
  equally definite, because no other coin was ever left thus
  to be implied. Just so in English, the phrase, “a million of
  money,” is perfectly well understood here, to mean “a million of
  _dollars_;” while in England, the current coin of that country
  would make the expression mean so many _pounds_. In the same
  manner, to say, in this country, that any thing or any man is
  worth “thousands,” always conveys, with perfect definiteness,
  the idea of “dollars;” and in every other country the same
  expression would imply a particular coin. Thirty pieces of
  silver, each of which was worth sixteen cents, would amount
  only to four dollars and eighty cents, which are just one pound
  sterling. A small price for the great Jewish Sanhedrim to pay
  for the ruin of their most dangerous foe! Yet for this little
  sum, the Savior of the world was bought and sold!

Having thus settled this business, the cheaply-purchased traitor
returned to the unsuspecting fellowship of the apostles, mingling with
them, as he supposed, without the slightest suspicion on the part of
any one, respecting the horrible treachery which he had contrived for
the bloody ruin of his Lord. But there was an eye, whose power he had
never learned, though dwelling beneath its gaze for years,――an eye,
which saw the vainly hidden results of his treachery, even as for years
it had scanned the base motives which governed him. Yet no word of
reproach or denunciation broke forth from the lips of the betrayed One;
the progress of crime was suffered unresistedly to bear him onward to
the mournfully necessary fulfilment of his destiny. Judas meanwhile,
from day to day, waited and watched for the most desirable opportunity
of meeting his engagements with his priestly employers. The first day
of the feast of unleavened bread having arrived, Jesus sat down at
evening to eat the Paschal lamb with his twelve disciples, alone.
The whole twelve were there without one exception,――and among those
who reclined around the table, sharing in the social delights of the
entertainment which celebrated the beginning of the grand national
festival, was the dark-souled accuser also, like Satan among the sons
of God. Even here, amid the general joyous hilarity, his great scheme
of villainy formed the grand theme of his meditations,――and while the
rest were entering fully into the natural enjoyments of the occasion,
he was brooding over the best means of executing his plans. During the
supper, after the performance of the impressive ceremony of washing
their feet, Jesus made a sudden transition from the comments with which
he was illustrating it; and, in a tone of deep and sorrowful emotion,
suddenly exclaimed, “I solemnly assure you, that one of you will betray
me.” This surprising assertion, so emphatically made, excited the
most distressful sensations among the little assembly;――all enjoyment
was at an end; and grieved by the imputation, in which all seemed
included until the individual was pointed out, they each earnestly
inquired, “Lord, is it I?” As they sat thus looking in the most painful
doubt around their lately cheerful circle, the disciple who held
the place of honor and affection at the table, at the request of
Peter, whose position gave him less advantage for familiar and private
conversation,――plainly asked of Jesus, “Who is it, Lord?” Jesus, to
make his reply as deliberate and impressive as possible, said, “It is
he to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it.” The design of
all this circumlocution in pointing out the criminal, was, to mark the
enormity of the offense. “He that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up
his heel against me.” It was his familiar friend, his chosen companion,
enjoying with him at that moment the most intimate social pleasures of
the entertainment, and occupying one of the places nearest to him, at
the board. As he promised, after dipping the sop, he gave it to Judas
Iscariot, who, receiving it, was moved to no change in his dark purpose;
but with a new Satanic spirit, resolved immediately to execute his plan,
in spite of this open exposure, which, he might think, was meant to
shame him from his baseness. Jesus, with an eye still fixed on his most
secret inward movements, said to him, “What thou doest, do quickly.”
Judas, utterly lost to repentance and to shame, coolly obeyed the
direction, as if it had been an ordinary command, in the way of his
official duty, and went out at the words of Jesus. All this, however,
was perfectly without meaning, to the wondering disciples, who, not yet
recovered from their surprise at the very extraordinary announcement
which they had just heard of the expected treachery, could not suppose
that this quiet movement could have anything to do with the occurrence
which preceded it; but concluded that Judas was going about the
business necessary for the preparation of the next day’s festal
entertainment,――or that he was following the directions of Jesus about
the charity to be administered to the poor out of the funds in his
keeping, in accordance with the commendable Hebrew usage of remembering
the poor on great occasions of enjoyment,――a custom to which, perhaps,
the previous words of Judas, when he rebuked the waste of the ointment
by Mary, had some especial reference, since at that particular time,
money was actually needed for bestowment in alms to the poor. Judas,
after leaving the place where the declaration of Jesus had made him
an object of such suspicion and dislike, went, under the influence of
that evil spirit, to whose direction he was now abandoned, directly
to the chief priests, (who were anxiously waiting the fulfilment of
his promise,) and made known to them that the time was now come. The
band of watchmen and servants, with their swords and cudgels, were
accordingly mustered and put under the guidance of Judas, who, well
knowing the place to which Jesus would of course go from the feast,
conducted his band of low assistants across the brook Kedron, to the
garden of Gethsemane. On the way he arranged with them the sign by
which they should recognize, in spite of the darkness and confusion,
the person whose capture was the grand object of this expedition. “The
man whom I shall kiss is he: seize him.” Entering the garden, at length,
he led them straight to the spot which his intimate familiarity with
Jesus enabled him to know, as his favorite retreat. Going up to him
with the air of friendly confidence, he saluted him, as if rejoiced to
find him, even after this brief absence,――another instance of the very
close intimacy which had existed between the traitor and the betrayed.
Jesus submitted to this hollow show, without any attempt to repulse
the movement which marked him for destruction, only saying, in mild
but expressive reproach,――“Judas! Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a
kiss?” Without more delay he announced himself in plain terms, to those
who came to seize him; thus showing how little need there was of artful
contrivance in taking one who did not seek to escape. “If ye seek Jesus
of Nazareth, I am he.” The simple majesty with which these words were
uttered, was such as to overawe even the low officials; and it was not
till he himself had again distinctly reminded them of their object,
that they could execute their errand. So vain was the arrangement of
signals, which had been studiously made by the careful traitor.

No further mention is made of Iscariot after the scene of his treachery,
until the next morning, when Jesus had been condemned by the high
court of the Sanhedrim, and dragged away to undergo punishment from
the secular power. The sun of another day had risen on his crime; and
after a very brief interval, he now had time for cool meditation on
the nature and consequences of his act. Spite and avarice had both now
received their full gratification. The thirty pieces of silver were
his, and the Master whose instructions he had hated for their purity
and spirituality, because they had made known to him the vileness of
his own character and motives, was now in the hands of those who were
impelled, by the darkest passions, to secure his destruction. But after
all, now came the thought, and inquiry, ‘what had the pure and holy
Jesus done, to deserve this reward at his hands?’ He had called him
from the sordid pursuits of a common life, to the high task of aiding
in the regeneration of Israel. He had taught him, labored with him,
prayed for him, trusted him as a near and worthy friend, making him
the steward of all the earthly possessions of his apostolic family, and
the organ of his ministrations of charity to the poor. All this he had
done without the prospect of a reward, surely. And why? To make him an
instrument, not of the base purposes of a low ambition;――not to acquire
by this means the sordid and bloody honors of a conqueror,――but to
effect the moral and spiritual emancipation of a people, suffering
far less under the evils of a foreign sway, than under the debasing
dominion of folly and sin. And was this an occasion to arm against
him the darker feelings of his trusted and loved companions?――to turn
the instruments of his mercy into weapons of death? Ought the mere
disappointment of a worldly-minded spirit, that was ever clinging to
the love of material things, and that would not learn the solemn truth
of the spiritual character of the Messiah’s reign, now to cause it to
vent its regrets at its own errors, in a traitorous attack upon the
life of him who had called it to a purpose whose glories and rewards it
could not appreciate? These and other mournful thoughts would naturally
rise to the repentant traitor’s mind, in the awful revulsion of feeling
which that morning brought with it. But repentance is not atonement;
nor can any change of feeling in the mind of the sinner, after the
perpetration of the sinful act, avail anything for the removal or
expiation of the evil consequences of it. So vain and unprofitable,
both to the injurer and the injured, are the tears of remorse! And
herein lay the difference between the repentance of Judas and of Peter.
The sin of Peter affected no one but himself, and was criminal only
as the manifestation of a base, selfish spirit of deceit, that fell
from truth through a vain-glorious confidence,――and the effusion of
his gushing tears might prove the means of washing away the pollution
of such an offense from his soul. But the sin of Judas had wrought a
work of crime whose evil could not be affected by any tardy change of
feeling in him. Peter’s repentance came too late indeed, to exonerate
him from guilt; because all repentance is too late for such a purpose,
when it comes after the commission of the sin. The repentance of an
evil purpose, coming in time to prevent the execution of the act, is
indeed available for good; but both Peter and Judas came to the sense
of the heinousness of sin, only after its commission. Peter however,
had no evil to repair for others,――while Judas saw the bloody sequel
of his guilt, coming with most irrevocable certainty upon the blameless
One whom he had betrayed. Overwhelmed with vain regrets, he took the
now hateful, though once-desired price of his villainy, and seeking
the presence of his purchasers, held out to them the money, with
the useless confession of the guilt, which was too accordant with
their schemes and hopes, for them to think of redeeming him from its
consequences. The words of his confession were, “I have sinned, in
betraying innocent blood.” This late protestation was received by the
proud priests, with as much regard as might have been expected from
exulting tyranny, when in the enjoyment of the grand object of its
efforts. With a cold sneer they replied, “What is that to us? See thou
to that!” Maddened with the immovable and remorseless determination
of the haughty condemners of the just, he flung down the price of his
infamy and woe, upon the floor of the temple, and rushed out of their
presence, to seal his crimes and eternal misery by the act that put him
for ever beyond the power of redemption. Seeking a place removed from
the observation of men, he hurried out of the city, and contriving the
fatal means of death for himself, before the bloody doom of him whom
he betrayed had been fulfilled, the wretched man saved his eyes the
renewed horrors of the sight of the crucifixion, by closing them in the
sleep which earthly sights can not disturb. But even in the mode of his
death, new circumstances of horror occurred. Swinging himself into the
air, by falling from a highth, as the cord tightened around his neck,
checking his descent, the weight of his body produced the rupture of
his abdomen, and his bowels bursting through, made him, as he swung
stiffening and convulsed in the agonies of this doubly horrid death,
a disgusting and appalling spectacle,――a monument of the vengeance
of God on the traitor, and a shocking witness of his own remorse and
self-condemnation.

  A very striking difference is noticeable between the account
  given by Matthew of the death of Judas, and that given by
  Luke in the speech of Peter, Acts i. 18, 19. The various modes
  of reconciling these difficulties are found in the ordinary
  commentaries. In respect to a single expression in Acts i. 18,
  there is an ingenious conjecture offered by Granville Penn, in a
  very interesting and learned article in the first volume of the
  transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, which may very
  properly be mentioned here, on account of its originality and
  plausibility, and because it is found only in an expensive work,
  hardly ever seen in this country. Mr. Penn’s view is, that “the
  word ελακησε (_elakese_,) in Acts i. 18, is only an inflection
  of the Latin verb, _laqueo_, (to halter or strangle,) rendered
  insititious in the Hellenistic Greek, under the form λακεω.” He
  enters into a very elaborate argument, which can not be given
  here, but an extract may be transcribed, in order to enable
  the learned to apprehend the nature and force of his views.
  (Translated by R. S. Lit. Vol. I. P. 2, pp. 51, 52.)

  “Those who have been in the southern countries of Europe know,
  that the operation in question, as exercised on a criminal, is
  performed with a great length of cord, with which the criminal
  is _precipitated_ from a high beam, and is thus violently
  _laqueated_, or snared in a noose, _mid-way_――_medius_ or _in
  medio_; μεσος, and _medius_, referring to _place_ as well as
  to _person_; as, μεσος ὑμων ἑστηκεν. (John i. 26.) ‘Considit
  scopulo medius――――’ (Virgil, Georgics, iv. 436.) ‘―――― medius
  prorumpit in hostes.’ (Aeneid, x. 379.)

  “Erasmus distinctly perceived this sense in the words πρηνης
  γενομενος, although he did not discern it in the word ελακησε,
  which confirms it: ‘πρηνης Graecis dicitur, qui _vultu est in
  terram dejecto_: expressit autem _gestum et habitum_ LAQUEO
  PRAEFOCATI; alioquin, ex hoc sane loco non poterat intelligi,
  quod Judas _suspenderit se_,’ (in loc.) And so Augustine also
  had understood those words, as he shows in his _Recit. in Act.
  Apostol._ l. i. col. 474. ‘et collem sibi alligavit, et dejectus
  in faciem,’ &c. Hence one MS., cited by Sabatier, for πρηνης
  γενομενος, reads αποκρεμαμένος; and Jerom, in his new vulgate,
  has substituted _suspensus_ for the _pronus factus_ of the old
  Latin version, which our old English version of 1542 accordingly
  renders, _and when he was hanged_.

  “That which follows, and which evidently determined the vulgar
  interpretation of ελακησε――εξεχυνθη παντα τα σπλαγχνα αυτου,
  _all his bowels gushed out_――states a natural and probable
  effect produced, by the sudden interruption in the fall and
  violent capture in the noose, in a frame of great corpulency
  and distension, such as Christian antiquity has recorded that
  of the traitor to have been; so that a term to express rupture
  would have been altogether unnecessary, and it is therefore
  equally unnecessary to seek for it in the verb ελακησε. Had the
  historian intended to express disruption, we may justly presume
  that he would have said, as he had already said in his gospel,
  v. 6, διερρηγνυτο, or xxiii. 45, εσχισθη μεσος: it is difficult
  to conceive, that he would here have traveled into the language
  of ancient Greek poetry for a word to express a common idea,
  when he had common terms at hand and in practice; but he used
  the Roman _laqueo_, λακεω, to mark the infamy of the death.

  “(Πρησθεις επι τοσουτον την σαρκα, ὡστε μη δυνασθαι δειλθειν.
  Papias, from Routh's _Reliquiæ Sacræ_ tom. I. p. 9. and
  Oecumenius, thus rendered by Zegers, _Critici Sacri_, Acts i.
  18, _in tantum enim corpore inflatus est ut progredi non
  posset_. The tale transmitted by those writers of the first
  and tenth centuries, that Judas was crushed to death by a
  chariot proceeding rapidly, from which his unwieldiness rendered
  him unable to escape, merits no further attention, after the
  authenticated descriptions of the traitor’s death which we have
  here investigated, than to suggest a possibility that the place
  where the suicide was committed might have overhung a public
  way, and that the body falling by its weight might have been
  traversed, after death, by a passing chariot;――from whence might
  have arisen the tales transmitted successively by those writers;
  the first of whom, being an inhabitant of Asia Minor, and
  therefore far removed from the theater of Jerusalem, and being
  also (as Eusebius witnesses, iii. 39,) a man of a very weak
  mind――σφοδρα μκρος τον νουν――was liable to be deceived by false
  accounts.)

  “The words of St. Peter, in the Hellenistic version of St.
  Luke, will therefore import, _praeceps in ora fusus, laqueavit_
  (_i. e._ implicuit se laqueo) _medius_; (_i. e._ in medio,
  inter trabem et terram;) _et effusa sunt omnia viscera
  ejus_――_throwing himself headlong, he caught mid-way in
  the noose, and all his bowels gushed out_. And thus the two
  reporters of the suicide, from whose respective relations
  charges of disagreement, and even of contradiction, have been
  drawn in consequence of _mistaking an insititious Latin word
  for a genuine Greek word of corresponding elements_, are found,
  by tracing that insititious word to its true origin, to report
  identically the same fact; the one by a _single term_, the other
  by a _periphrasis_.”

Such was the end of the twelfth of Jesus Christ’s chosen ones.
To such an end was the intimate friend, the trusted steward, the
festal companion of the Savior, brought by the impulse of some not
very unnatural feelings, excited by occasion, into extraordinary
action. The universal and intense horror which the relation of his
crime now invariably awakens, is by no means favorable to a just
and fair appreciation of his sin and its motives, nor to such an
honest consideration of his course from rectitude to guilt, as is
most desirable for the application of the whole story to the moral
improvement of its readers. Originally not an infamous man, he was
numbered among the twelve as a person of _respectable_ character, and
long held among his fellow-disciples a responsible station, which is
itself a testimony of his unblemished reputation. He was sent forth
with them, as one of the heralds of salvation to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel. He shared with them the counsels, the instructions,
and the prayers of Jesus. If he was stupid in apprehending, and
unspiritual in conceiving the truths of the gospel, so were they. If
he was an unbeliever in the resurrection of Jesus, so were they; and
had he survived till the accomplishment of that prophecy, he could not
have been slower in receiving the evidence of the event, than they. As
it was, he died in his unbelief; while they lived to feel the glorious
removal of all their doubts, the purification of all their gross
conceptions, and the effusion of that spirit of truth, through which,
by the grace of God alone, they afterwards were what they were. Without
a merit, in _faith_, beyond Judas, they maintained their dim and
doubtful adherence to the truth, only by their nearer approximation to
_moral_ perfection; and by their nobler freedom from the pollution of
sordid and spiteful feeling. Through passion alone he fell, a victim,
not to a want of faith merely,――for therein, the rest could hardly
claim a superiority,――but to the radical deficiency of true _love_
for Jesus, of that “charity which never faileth,” but “endureth to the
end.” It was their simple, devoted affection, which, through all their
ignorance, their grossness of conception, and their faithlessness in
his word, made them still cling to his name and his grave, till the
full revelations of his resurrection and ascension had displaced their
doubts by the most glorious certainties, and given their faith an
eternal assurance. The great cause of the awful ruin of Judas Iscariot,
then, was the fact, that _he did not LOVE Jesus_. Herein was his grand
distinction from all the rest; for though their regard was mingled
with so much that was base, there was plainly, in all of them, a solid
foundation of true, deep affection. The most ambitious and skeptical
of them, gave the most unquestionable proofs of this. Peter, John,
both the Jameses, and others, are instances of the mode in which these
seemingly opposite feelings were combined. But Judas was without this
great refining and elevating principle, which so redeemed the most
sordid feelings of his fellows. It was not merely for the love of
money that he was led into this horrid crime. The love of four dollars
and eighty cents! Who can believe that this was the sole motive? It
was rather that _his_ sordidness and selfishness, and ambition, if
he had any, lacked this single, purifying emotion, which redeemed
their characters. Is there not, in this reflection, a moral which
each Christian reader can improve to his own use? For the lack of the
love of Jesus alone, Judas fell from his high estate, to an infamy as
immortal as their fame. Wherever, through all ages, the high heroic
energy of Peter, the ready faith of Andrew, the martyr-fire of James
Boanerges, the soul-absorbing love of John, the willing obedience
of Philip, the guileless purity of Nathanael, the recorded truth
of Matthew, the slow but deep devotion of Thomas, the blameless
righteousness of James the Just, the appellative zeal of Simon, and
the earnest warning eloquence of Jude, are all commemorated in honor
and bright renown,――the murderous, sordid spite of Iscariot, will
insure him an equally lasting proverbial shame. Truly, “THE SIN OF
JUDAS IS WRITTEN WITH A PEN OF IRON ON A TABLET OF MARBLE.”




                               MATTHIAS.


THE events which concern this person’s connection with the apostolic
company, are briefly these. Soon after the ascension of Jesus, the
eleven disciples being assembled in their “upper room,” with a large
company of believers, making in all, together, a meeting of one hundred
and twenty, Peter arose and presented to their consideration, the
propriety and importance of filling, in the apostolic college, the
vacancy caused by the sad defection of Judas Iscariot. Beginning with
what seems to be an apt allusion to the words of David concerning
Ahithophel,――(a quotation very naturally suggested by the striking
similarity between the fate of that ancient traitor, and that of the
base Iscariot,) he referred to the peculiarly horrid circumstances
of the death of this revolted apostle, and also applied to these
occurrences the words of the same Psalmist concerning those upon whom
he invoked the wrath of God, in words which might with remarkable
emphasis be made descriptive of the ruin of Judas. “Let his habitation
be desolate,” and “let another take his office.” Applying this last
quotation more particularly to the exigency of their circumstances, he
pronounced it to be in accordance with the will of God that they should
immediately proceed to select a person to “take the office” of Judas.
He declared it an essential requisite for this office, moreover, that
the person should be one of those who, though not numbered with the
select twelve, had been among the intimate companions of Jesus, and had
enjoyed the honors and privileges of a familiar discipleship, so that
they could always testify of his great miracles and divine instructions,
from their own personal knowledge as eye-witnesses of his actions, from
the beginning of his divine career at his baptism by John, to the time
of his ascension.

Agreeably to this counsel of the apostolic chief, the whole company of
the disciples selected two persons from those who had been witnesses
of the great actions of Christ, and nominated them to the apostles, as
equally well qualified for the vacant office. To decide the question
with perfect impartiality, it was resolved, in conformity with the
common ancient practice in such cases, to leave the point between these
two candidates to be settled by lot; and to give this mode of decision
a solemnity proportioned to the importance of the occasion, they first
invoked, in prayer, the aid of God in the appointment of a person
best qualified for his service. They then drew the lots of the two
candidates, and Matthias being thus selected, was thenceforth enrolled
with the eleven apostles.

Of his previous history nothing whatever is known, except that,
according to what is implied in the address of Peter, he must have
been, from the beginning of Christ’s career to his ascension, one of
his constant attendants and hearers. Some have conjectured that he
was one of the seventy, sent forth by Jesus as apostles, in the same
manner as the twelve had gone; and there is nothing unreasonable in the
supposition; but still it is a conjecture merely, without any fact to
support it. The New Testament is perfectly silent with respect to both
his previous and his subsequent life, and not a fact can be recorded
respecting him. Yet the productive imaginations of the martyrologists
of the Roman and Greek churches, have carried him through a protracted
series of adventures, during his alleged preaching of the gospel,
first in Judea, and then in Ethiopia. They also pretend that he was
martyred, though as to the precise mode there is some difference in
the stories,――some relating that he was crucified, and others, that he
was first stoned and then dispatched by a blow on the head with an axe.
But all these are condemned by the discreet writers even of the Romish
church, and the whole life of Matthias must be included among those
many mysteries which can never be in any way brought to light by the
most devoted and untiring researches of the Apostolic historian; and
this dim and unsatisfactory trace of his life may well conclude the
first grand division of a work, in which the reader will expect to
find so much curious detail of matters commonly unknown, but which
no research nor learning can furnish, for the prevention of his
disappointment.




                      II. THE HELLENIST APOSTLES.




                     SAUL, AFTERWARDS NAMED PAUL.


                             HIS COUNTRY.

ON the farthest north-eastern part of the Mediterranean sea, where
its waters are bounded by the great angle made by the meeting of the
Syrian coast with the Asian, there is a peculiarity in the course of
the mountain ranges, which deserves notice in a view of the countries
of that region, modifying as it does, all their most prominent
characteristics. The great chain of Taurus, which can be traced far
eastward in the branching ranges of Singara, Masius and Niphates,
running connectedly also into the distant peaks of mighty Ararat,
here sends off a spur to the shore of the Mediterranean, which
under the name of Mount Amanus meets its waters, just at their great
north-eastern angle in the ancient gulf of Issus, now called the gulf
of Scanderoon. Besides this connection with the mountain chains of
Mesopotamia and Armenia on the northeast, from the south the great
Syrian Lebanon, running very nearly parallel with the eastern shore
of the Mediterranean, at the Issic angle, joins this common center of
convergence, so insensibly losing its individual character in the Asian
ridge, that by many writers, Mount Amanus itself is considered only
a regular continuation of Lebanon. These, however, are as distinct as
any of the chains here uniting, and the true Libanic mountains cease
just at this grand natural division of Syria from the northern coast
of the Mediterranean. A characteristic of the Syrian mountains is
nevertheless prominent in the northern chain. They all take a general
course parallel with the coast and very near it, occasionally sending
out lateral ridges which mark the projections of the shore with high
promontories. Of these, however, there are much fewer on the southern
coast of Asia Minor; and the western ridge of Taurus, after parting
from the grand angle of convergence, runs exactly parallel to the
margin of the sea, in most parts about seven miles distant. The country
thus fenced off by Taurus, along the southern coast of Asia Minor, is
very distinctly characterized by these circumstances connected with
its orography, and is in a very peculiar manner bounded and inclosed
from the rest of the continent, by these natural features. The great
mountain barrier of Taurus, as above described, stretches along the
north, forming a mighty wall, which is at each end met at right angles
by a lateral ridge, of which the eastern is Amanus, descending within
a few rods of the water, while the western is the true termination of
Taurus in that direction,――the mountains here making a grand curve from
west to south, and stretching out into the sea, in a bold promontory,
which definitely marks the farthest western limit of the long, narrow
section, thus remarkably enclosed. This simple natural division, in
the apostolic age, contained two principal artificial sub-divisions. On
the west, was the province of Pamphylia, occupying about one fourth of
the coast;――and on the east, the rest of the territory constituted the
province of CILICIA, far-famed as the land of the birth of that great
apostle of the Gentiles, whose life is the theme of these pages.

CILICIA,――opening on the west into Pamphylia,――is elsewhere inclosed
in mountain barriers, impenetrable and impassable, except in two or
three points, which are the only places in which it is accessible
by land, though widely exposed, on the sea, by its long open coast.
Of these two adits, the most important, and the one through which
the vast proportion of its commercial intercourse with the world, by
land, has always been carried on, is the eastern, which is just at the
oft-mentioned great angle of the Mediterranean, where the mountains
descend almost to the waters of the gulf of Issus. Mount Amanus, coming
from the north-east, and stretching along the eastern boundary of
Cilicia an impassable barrier, here advances to the shore; but just
before its base reaches the water, it abruptly terminates, leaving
between the high rocks and the sea a narrow space, which is capable
of being completely commanded and defended from the mountains which
thus guard it; and forming the only land passage out of Cilicia to
the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, it was thence anciently called
“THE GATES OF SYRIA.” Through these “gates,” has always passed all the
traveling by land between Asia Minor and Palestine; and it is therefore
an important point in the most celebrated route in apostolic history.
The other main opening in the mountain walls of this region, is the
passage through the Taurus, made by the course of the Sarus, the
largest river of the province, which breaks through the northern ridge,
in a defile that is called “THE GATES OF CILICIA.”

The boundaries of Cilicia are then,――on the north, mountainous
Cappadocia, perfectly cut off by the impenetrable chain of Taurus,
except the narrow pass through “the gates of Cilicia;”――on the east,
equally well guarded by Mount Amanus, Northern Syria, the only land
passages being through the famed “Syrian gates,” and another defile
north of the coast, toward the Euphrates;――on the south, stretches
the long margin of the sea, which in the western two-thirds of the
coast takes the name of “the Cilician strait,” because it here flows
between the mainland and the great island of Cyprus, which lies off
the shore, always in sight, being less than thirty miles distant, the
eastern third of the coast being bounded by the waters of the gulf
of Issus;――and on the west Cilicia ends in the rough highlands of
Pamphylia. The territory itself is distinguished by natural features,
into two divisions,――Rocky Cilicia and “Level Cilicia,”――the former
occupying the western third, and the latter the eastern part,――each
district being abundantly well described by the term applied to it.
Within the latter, lay the opening scenes of the apostle’s life.

Thus peculiarly guarded, and shut off from the world, it might be
expected that this remarkable region would nourish, on the narrow
plains of its fertile shores, and the vast rough mountains of its
gigantic barriers, a race strongly marked in mental, as in physical
characteristics. In all parts of the world, the philosophical observer
may notice a relation borne by man to the soil on which he lives, and
to the air which he breathes,――hardly less striking than the dependence
of the inferior orders of created things, on the material objects which
surround them. Man is an animal, and his natural history displays as
many curious correspondences between his varying peculiarities and the
locality which he inhabits, as can be observed between the physical
constitution of inferior creatures, and the similar circumstances which
affect them. The inhabitants of a wild, broken region, which rises
into mighty inland mountains, or sends its cliffs and vallies into
a vast sea, are, in all ages and climes, characterized by a peculiar
energy and quickness of mind, which often marks them in history as
the prominent actors in events of the highest importance to mankind in
all the world. Even the dwellers of the cities of such regions, share
in that peculiar vivacity of their countrymen, which is especially
imbibed in the air of the mountains; and carry through all the world,
till new local influences have again subjected them, the original
characteristics of the land of their birth. The restless activity and
dauntless spirit of Saul, present a striking instance of this relation
of scenery to character. The ever-rolling waters of the tideless sea
on one side presenting a boundless view, and on the other the blue
mountains rearing a mighty barrier to the vision,――the thousand streams
thence rolling to the former,――the white sands of the long plains,
gemmed with the green of shaded fountains, as well as the active
movements of a busy population, all living under these same inspiring
influences,――would each have their effect on the soul of the young
Cilician as he grew up in the midst of these modifying circumstances.

Along these shores, from the earliest period of Hellenic
colonization, Grecian enterprise had planted its busy centers of
civilization. On each favorable site, where agriculture or commerce
could thrive, cities grew up in the midst of prosperous colonies, in
which wealth and power in their rapid advance brought in the lights
of science, art, literature, and all the refinements and elegances
which Grecian colonization made the invariable accompaniments of
its march,――adorning its solid triumphs with the graceful polish of
all that could exalt the enjoyment of prosperity. Issus, Mopsuestia,
Anchialus, Selinus and others, were among the early seats of Grecian
refinement; and the more modern efforts of the Syro-Macedonian sway,
had blessed Cilicia with the fruits of royal munificence, in such
cities as Cragic Antioch, Seleucia the Rocky, and Arsinoe; and in
still later times, the ever-active and wide-spreading beneficence of
Roman dominion, had still farther multiplied the peaceful triumphs
and trophies of civilization, by here raising or renewing cities, of
which Baiae, Germanicia and Pompeiopolis are only a specimen. But of
all these monuments of ancient or later refinement, there was none
of higher antiquity or fame than TARSUS, the city where was born this
illustrious apostle, whose life was so greatly instrumental in the
triumphs of Christianity.

TARSUS stands north of the point of a wide indentation of the coast of
Cilicia, forming a very open bay, into which, a few miles south, flow
the waters of the classic Cydnus, a narrow stream which runs a brief
course from the barrier of Taurus, directly southward to the sea. The
river’s mouth forms a spacious and convenient harbor, to which the
light vessels of ancient commerce all easily found safe and ready
access, though most of the floating piles in which the productions
of the world are now transported, might find such a harbor altogether
inaccessible to their heavier burden.

Ammianus Marcellinus, the elegant historian of the decline of the Roman
empire, speaks in high descriptive terms, both of the province, and
the city which makes it eminent in Christian history. In narrating
important events here performed during the times whose history he
records, he alludes to the character of the region in a preliminary
description. “After surmounting the peaks of Taurus, which towards
the east rise into higher elevation, Cilicia spreads out before the
observer, in far stretching areas,――a land, rich in all good things.
To its right (that is the west, as the observer looks south from
the summits of Taurus) is joined Isauria,――in equal degree verdant
with palms and many fruits, and intersected by the navigable river
Calycadnus. This, besides many towns, has two cities,――Seleucia, the
work of Seleucus Nicator of Syria, and Claudiopolis, a colony founded
by Claudius Caesar. Isauria however, once exceedingly powerful, has
formerly been desolated for a destructive rebellion, and therefore
shows but very few traces of its ancient splendor. But CILICIA, which
rejoices in the river Cydnus, is _ennobled_ by TARSUS, a splendid
city,――by Anazarbus, and by Mopsuestia, the dwelling-place of that
Mopsus, who accompanied the Argonauts. These two provinces (Isauria
or ‘Cilicia the Rocky,’ and Cilicia proper or ‘level’) being formerly
connected with hordes of plunderers in a piratical war, were subjugated
by the proconsul Servilius, and made tributary. And these regions,
placed, as it were, on a long tongue of land, are separated from the
eastern world by Mount Amanus.”

  This account by Ammianus Marcellinus is found in book XIV. of
  his history, (p. 19, edited by Vales.)

The native land of Saul was classic ground. Within the limits of
Cilicia, were laid the scenes of some of the most splendid passages
in early Grecian fable; and here too, were acted some of the grandest
events in authentic history, both Greek and Roman. The very city of
his birth, Tarsus, is said to have been founded by Perseus, the son of
Jupiter and Danae, famed for his exploit at another place on the shore
of this part of the Mediterranean. More authentic history however,
refers its earliest foundation to Sardanapalus, king of Assyria, who
built Tarsus and Anchialus in Cilicia, nine hundred years before Christ.
Its origin is by others ascribed to Triptolemus with an Argive colony,
who is represented on some medals as the founder. These two stories may
be made consistent with each other, on the supposition that the same
place was successively the scene of the civilizing influence of each
of these attributed founders. So too, may be taken, the legend which
Ammianus Marcellinus records and approves,――that it was founded by
Sandan, a wealthy and eminent person from Ethiopia, who at some early
period not specified, is said to have built Tarsus. It was however,
at the earliest period that is definitely mentioned, subject to the
Assyrian empire; and afterwards fell under the dominion of each of the
sovranties which succeeded it, passing into the hands of the Persian
and of Alexander, as each in turn assumed the lordship of the eastern
world. While under the Persian sway, it is commemorated by Xenophon
as having been honored by the presence of the younger Cyrus, when
on his march through Asia to wrest the empire from his brother. On
this occasion, he entered this region through the northern “gates of
Cilicia,” and passed out through the “gates of Syria,” a passage which
is, in connection with this event, very minutely described by the
elegant historian of that famous expedition.

  _Sardanapalus._――The fact of the foundation both of Tarsus and
  Anchialus by this splendid but unfortunately extravagant monarch,
  the last of his line, is commemorated by Arrian, who refers to
  the high authority of an inscription which records the event.

  “Anchialus is said to have been founded by the king of Assyria,
  Sardanapalus. The fortifications, in their magnitude and extent,
  still, in Arrian’s time, bore the character of greatness, which
  the Assyrians appear singularly to have affected in works of
  the kind. A monument, representing Sardanapalus, was found there,
  warranted by an inscription in Assyrian characters, of course
  in the old Assyrian language, which the Greeks, whether well
  or ill, interpreted thus: ‘Sardanapalus, son of Anacyndaraxes,
  in one day founded Anchialus and Tarsus. Eat, drink, play: all
  other human joys are not worth a fillip.’ Supposing this version
  nearly exact, (for Arrian says it was not quite so,) whether the
  purpose has not been to invite to civil order a people disposed
  to turbulence, rather than to recommend immoderate luxury,
  may perhaps reasonably be questioned. What, indeed, could be the
  object of a king of Assyria in founding such towns in a country
  so distant from his capital, and so divided from it by an
  immense extent of sandy desert and lofty mountains, and, still
  more, how the inhabitants could be at once in circumstances to
  abandon themselves to the intemperate joys which their prince
  has been supposed to have recommended, is not obvious; but
  it may deserve observation that, in that line of coast, the
  southern of Lesser Asia, ruins of cities, evidently of an
  age after Alexander, yet barely named in history, at this day
  astonish the adventurous traveler by their magnificence and
  elegance.” (Mitford’s Greece, Vol. IX. pp. 311, 312.)

Over the same route passed the conquering armies of the great Alexander.
At Issus, within the boundaries of Cilicia, he met, in their mightiest
array, the vast hosts of Darius, whom here vanquishing, he thus decided
the destiny of the world. Before this great battle, halting to repose
at Tarsus, he almost met his death, by imprudently bathing in the
classic Cydnus, whose waters were famed for their extreme coldness.
By a remarkable coincidence, the next conqueror of the world, Julius
Caesar, also rested at Tarsus for some days before his great triumphs
in Asia Minor. Cilicia had in the interval between these two visits
passed from the Macedonian to the Roman dominion, being made a Roman
province by Pompey, about sixty years before Christ, at the time when
all the kingdoms of Asia and Syria were subjugated. After this it
was visited by Cicero, at the time of his triumphs over the cities of
eastern Cilicia; and its classic stream is still farther celebrated
in immortal verse and prose, as the scene where Marcus Antony met
Cleopatra for the first time. It was the Cydnus, down which she sailed
in her splendid galley, to meet the conqueror, who for her afterwards
lost the empire of the world. During all the civil wars which desolated
the Roman empire through a long course of years in that age, Tarsus
steadily adhered to the house of Caesar, first to the great Julius and
afterwards to Augustus. So remarkable was its attachment and devotion
to the cause of Julius, that when the assassin Cassius marched through
Asia into Syria to secure the dominion of the eastern world, he
laid siege to Tarsus, and having taken it, laid it waste with the
most destructive vengeance for its adherence to the fortunes of
his murdered lord; and such were its sufferings under these and
subsequent calamities in the same cause, that when Augustus was at
last established in the undivided empire of the world, he felt himself
bound in honor and gratitude, to bestow on the faithful citizens of
Tarsus the most remarkable favors. The city, having at the request of
its inhabitants received the new name of _Julio_polis, as a testimony
of their devotion to the memory of their murdered patron, was lavishly
honored with almost every privilege which the imperial Augustus could
bestow on these most faithful adherents of his family. From the terms
in which his acts of generosity to them are recorded, it has been
inferred,――though not therein positively stated,――that he conferred on
it the rank and title of a Roman colony, or free city, which must have
given all its inhabitants the exalted privileges of _Roman citizens_.
This assertion has been disputed however, and forms one of the most
interesting topics in the life of the great apostle, involving the
inquiry as to the mode in which he obtained that inviolable privilege,
which, on more than one occasion, snatched him from the clutches of
tyrannical persecutors. Whether he held this privilege in common with
all the citizens of Tarsus, or inherited it as a peculiar honor of
his own family, is a question yet to be decided. But whatever may have
been the precise extent of the municipal favors enjoyed by Tarsus,
it is certain that it was an object of peculiar favor to the imperial
Caesars during a long succession of years, not only before but after
the apostle’s time, being crowned with repeated acts of munificence
by Augustus, Adrian, Caracalla and Heliogabalus, so that through many
centuries it was the most favored city in the eastern division of the
Roman empire.

  The history of Cilicia since the apostolic age, is briefly this:
  It remained attached to the eastern division of the Roman empire,
  until about A. D. 800, when it first fell under the Muhammedan
  sway, being made part of the dominion of the Califs by Haroun
  Al Rashid. In the thirteenth century it reverted to a Christian
  government, constituting a province of the Armenian kingdom of
  Leo. About A. D. 1400, it fell under the sway of Bajazet II.,
  Sultan of the Ottoman empire, and is at present included in that
  empire,――most of it in a single Turkish pashalic, under the name
  of Adana.

  _Roman citizens._――Witsius very fully discusses this point, as
  follows. (Witsius _on the Life of Paul_ § 1. ¶ V.)

  “It is remarkable that though he was of Tarsus, he should say
  that he was a ROMAN citizen, and that too by the right of
  _birth_: Acts xxii. 28. There has been some discussion whether
  he enjoyed that privilege in common with all the Tarsans, or
  whether it was peculiar to his family. Most interpreters firmly
  hold the former opinion. Beza remarks, ‘that he calls himself a
  Roman, not by country, but by right of citizenship; since Tarsus
  had the privileges of a Roman colony.’ He adds, ‘Mark Antony,
  the triumvir, presented the Tarsans with the rights of citizens
  of Rome.’ Others, without number, bear the same testimony.
  Baronius goes still farther,――contending that ‘Tarsus obtained
  from the Romans, the _municipal_ right,’ that is, the privileges
  of free-born citizens of Rome; understanding Paul’s expression
  in Acts xxi. 39, to mean that he was a _municeps_ of Tarsus,
  or a Tarsan with the freedom of the city of Rome. Now the
  _municipal_ towns, or free cities, had rights superior to those
  of mere colonies; for the _free-citizens_ were not only called
  Roman citizens as the _colonists_ were, but also, as Ulpian
  records, could share in all the honors and offices of Rome.
  Moreover, the _colonies_ had to live under the laws of the
  Romans, while the municipal towns were allowed to act according
  their own ancient laws, and country usages. To account for the
  distinction enjoyed by Tarsus, in being called a ‘_municipium_
  of Romans,’ the citizens are said to have merited that honor,
  for having in the civil wars attached themselves first to Julius
  Caesar, and afterwards to Octavius, in whose cause they suffered
  much. For so attached was this city to the side of Caesar, that,
  as Dion Cassius records, their asked to have their name changed
  from Tarsus to _Juliopolis_, in memory of Julius and in token of
  good will to Augustus; and for that reason they were presented
  with the rights of a colony or a _municipium_, and this general
  opinion is strengthened by the high testimony of Pliny and
  Appian. On the other hand Heinsius and Grotius strongly urge
  that these things have been too hastily asserted by the learned;
  for scarcely a passage can be found in the ancient writers,
  where Tarsus is called a colony, or even a _municipium_. ‘And
  how could it be a colony,’ asks Heinsius, ‘when writers on
  Roman law acknowledge but two in Cilicia? Ulpian (_Liber I.
  De censibus_) says of the Roman colonies in Asia Minor, “there
  is in Bithynia the colony of Apamea,――in Pontus, Sinope,――in
  Cilicia there are Selinus and Trajanopolis.” But why does he
  pass over Tarsus or Juliopolis, if that had place among them?’
  Baronius proves it to have been a _municipium_, only from the
  Latin version of Acts, where that word is used; though the term
  in the original Greek (πολιτης) means nothing more than the
  common word, citizen, (as it is rendered in the English version.)
  Pliny also calls Tarsus not a colony, nor a _municipium_,
  but a free city. (libera urbs.) Book V. chap xxvii. Appian
  in the first book of the civil wars, says that Antony granted
  to the Tarsans _freedom_, but says nothing of the rights of a
  _municipium_, or colony. Wherefore Grotius thinks that the only
  point established is, that some one of the ancestors of Paul, in
  the civil wars between Augustus Caesar, and Brutus and Cassius,
  and perhaps those between this Caesar and Antony, received the
  grant of the privileges of a Roman citizen. Whence he concludes
  that Paul must have been of an opulent family. These opinions of
  Grotius have received the approval of other eminent commentators.
  These notions however, must be rejected as unsatisfactory;
  because, though some writers have but slightly alluded to Tarsus
  as a _free city_, yet Dio Chrysostom, (_in Tarsica posteriore_,)
  has enlarged upon it in a tone of high declamation. ‘Yours,
  men of Tarsus, was the fortune to be first in this nation,――not
  only because you dwell in the greatest city of Cilicia, and one
  which was a metropolis from the beginning,――but also because the
  second Caesar was remarkably well-disposed and gracious towards
  you. For, the misfortunes which befell the city in his cause,
  deservedly secured to you his kind regard, and led him to make
  his benefits to you as conspicuous as the calamities brought
  upon you for his sake. Therefore did Augustus confer on you
  everything that a man could on friends and companions, with a
  view to outdo those who had shown him so great good-will,――your
  land, laws, honors, the right of the river and of the
  neighboring sea.’ On which words Heinsius observes in comment,
  that by _land_ is doubtless meant that he secured to them their
  own territory, free and undisturbed. By _laws_ are meant such
  as relate to the liberty usually granted to free towns. _Honor_
  plainly refers to the right of citizenship, as the most exalted
  he could offer. The point then seems to be established, if this
  interpretation holds good, and it is evidently a rational one.
  For when he had made up his mind to grant high favors to a city,
  in return for such great merits, why, when it was in his power,
  should Augustus fail to grant it the rights of Roman citizenship,
  which certainly had been often granted to other cities on much
  slighter grounds? It would be strange indeed, if among the
  exalted honors which Dio proclaims, that should not have been
  included. This appears to be the drift, not only of Dio’s
  remarks, but also of Paul’s, who offers no other proof of his
  being a Roman citizen, than that he was a Tarsan, and says
  nothing of it as a special immunity of his own family, although
  some such explanation would otherwise have been necessary to
  gain credit to his assertion. Whence it is concluded that it
  would be rash to pretend, contrary to all historical testimony,
  any peculiar merits of the ancestors of Paul, towards the Romans,
  which caused so great an honor to be conferred on a _Jewish_
  family.”

  But from all these ample and grandiloquent statements of Dio
  Chrysostom, it by no means follows that Tarsus had the privilege
  of Roman citizenship; and the conclusion of the learned Witsius
  seems highly illogical. The very fact, that while Dio was
  panegyrizing Tarsus in these high terms, and recounting all
  the favors which imperial beneficence had showered upon it, he
  yet did _not_ mention among these minutiae, the privilege of
  citizenship, is quite conclusive against this view; for he would
  not, when thus seeking for all the particulars of its eminence,
  have omitted the greatest honor and advantage which could be
  conferred on any city by a Roman emperor, nor have left it
  vaguely to be inferred. Besides, there are passages in the
  Acts of the Apostles which seem to be opposed to the view,
  that Tarsus was thus privileged. In Acts xxi. 39, Paul is
  represented as distinctly stating to the tribune, that he was
  “a _citizen_ of Tarsus;” yet in xxii. 24, 25, it is said, that
  the tribune was about proceeding, without scruple, to punish
  Paul with stripes, and was very much surprised indeed, to learn
  that he was a Roman citizen, and evidently had no idea that a
  citizen of Tarsus was, as a matter of course, endowed with Roman
  citizenship;――a fact, however, with which a high Roman officer
  must have been acquainted, for there were few cities thus
  privileged, and Tarsus was a very eminent city in a province
  adjoining Palestine, and not far from the capital of Judea. And
  the subsequent passages of chap. xxii. represent him as very
  slow indeed to believe it, after Paul’s distinct assertion.

  Hemsen is very clear and satisfactory on this point, and
  presents the argument in a fair light. See his note in his
  “Apostel Paulus” on pp. 1, 2. He refers also to a work not
  otherwise known here;――John Ortwin Westenberg’s “Dissert. de
  jurisp. Paul. Apost.” Kuinoel in Act. Apost. xvi. 37. discusses
  the question of citizenship.

  “It ought not to seem very strange, that the ancestors of
  Paul should have settled in Cilicia, rather than in the land
  of Israel. For although Cyrus gave the whole people of God
  an opportunity of returning to their own country, yet many
  from each tribe preferred the new country, in which they had
  been born and bred, to the old one, of which they had lost the
  remembrance. Hence an immense multitude of Jews might be found
  in almost all the dominions of the Persians, Greeks, Romans
  and Parthians; as alluded to in Acts ii. 9, 10. But there were
  also other occasions and causes for the dispersion of the Jews.
  Ptolemy, the Macedonian king of Egypt, having taken Jerusalem
  from the Syro-Macedonians, led away many from the hill-country
  of Judea, from Samaria and Mount Gerizim, into Egypt, where
  he made them settle; and after he had given them at Alexandria
  the rights of citizens in equal privilege with the Macedonians,
  not a few of the rest, of their own accord, moved into Egypt,
  allured partly by the richness of the land, and partly by
  the good will that Ptolemy had shown towards their nation.
  Afterwards, Antiochus the Great, the Macedonian king of Syria,
  about the thirtieth year of his reign, two hundred years before
  the Christian era, brought out two thousand Jewish families from
  Babylonia, whom he sent into Phrygia and Lydia with the most
  ample privileges, that they might hold to their duty the minds
  of the Greeks, who were then inclining to revolt from his sway.
  These were from Asia Minor, spread abroad over the surrounding
  countries, between the Mediterranean sea, the Euphrates and
  Mount Amanus, on the frontiers of Cilicia. Besides, others
  afterwards, to escape the cruelty of Antiochus Epiphanes, betook
  themselves to foreign lands, where, finding themselves well
  settled, they and their descendants remained. Moreover, many, as
  Philo testifies, for the sake of trade, or other advantages, of
  their own accord left the land of Israel for foreign countries:
  whence almost the whole world was filled with colonies of Jews,
  as we see in the directions of some of the general epistles,
  (James i. 1: 1 Peter i. 1.) Thus also Tarsus had its share
  of Jewish inhabitants, among whom were the family of Paul.”
  (Witsius in Vita Pauli, § 1. ¶ v.)

Nor were the solid honors of this great Asian city, limited to the
mere favors of imperial patronage. Founded, or early enlarged by the
colonial enterprise of the most refined people of ancient times, Tarsus,
from its first beginning, shared in the glories of Helleno-Asian
civilization, under which philosophy, art, taste, commerce, and
warlike power attained in these colonies a highth before unequalled,
while Greece, the mother country, was still far back in the march
of improvement. In the Asian colonies arose the first schools of
philosophy, and there is hardly a city on the eastern coast of the
Aegean, but is consecrated by some glorious association with the name
of some Father of Grecian science. Thales, Anaxagoras, Anaximander, and
many others of the earliest philosophers, all flourished in these Asian
colonies; and on the Mediterranean coast, within Cilicia itself, were
the home and schools of Aratus and the stoic Chrysippus. The city of
Tarsus is commemorated by Strabo as having in very early times attained
great eminence in philosophy and in all sorts of learning, so that “in
science and art it surpassed the fame even of Athens and Alexandria;
and the citizens of Tarsus themselves were distinguished for individual
excellence in these elevated pursuits. So great was the zeal of the
men of that place for philosophy, and for the rest of the circle of
sciences, that they excelled both Athens and Alexandria, and every
other place which can be mentioned, where there are schools and
lectures of philosophers.” Not borrowing the philosophic glory of their
city merely from the numbers of strangers who resorted thither to enjoy
the advantages of instruction there afforded, as is almost universally
the case in all the great seats of modern learning; but entering
themselves with zeal and enjoyment into their schools of science,
they made the name of TARSUS famous throughout the civilized world,
for the cultivation of knowledge and taste. Even to this day the
stranger pauses with admiration among the still splendid ruins of
this ancient city, and finds in her arches, columns and walls, and in
her chance-buried medals, the solid testimonies of her early glories
in art, taste and wealth. Well then might the great apostle recur
with patriotic pride to the glories of the city where he was born and
educated, challenging the regard of his military hearers for his native
place, by the sententious allusion to it, as “NO MEAN CITY.”

  “It appears on the testimony of Paul, (Acts xxi. 39,) that
  Tarsus was a city of no little note, and it is described by
  other writers as the most illustrious city of all Cilicia; so
  much so indeed, that the Tarsans traced their origin to Ionians
  and Argives, and a rank superior even to these;――referring their
  antiquity of origin not merely to heroes, but even to demi-gods.
  It was truly exalted, not only by its antiquity, situation,
  population and thriving trade, but by the nobler pursuits
  of science and literature, which so flourished there, that
  according to Strabo it was worthy to be ranked with Athens
  and Alexandria; and we know that Rome itself owed its most
  celebrated professors to Tarsus.” (Witsius. § 1, ¶ iv.)

  The testimony of Strabo is found in his Geography, book XIV.
  Cellarius (Geog. Ant.) is very full on the geography of Cilicia,
  and may be advantageously consulted. Conder’s Modern Traveler
  (Syria and Asia Minor 2.) gives a very full account of its
  ancient history, its present condition, and its topography.

  The present appearance of this ancient city must be a matter of
  great interest to the reader of apostolic history; and it can
  not be more clearly given than in the simple narrative of the
  enterprising Burckhardt, who wrote his journal on the very spot
  which he describes. (Life of Burckhardt, prefixed to his travels
  in Nubia, pp. xv. xvi.)

  “The road from our anchoring place to Tarsus crosses the
  above-mentioned plain in an easterly direction: we passed
  several small rivulets which empty themselves into the sea, and
  which, to judge from the size of their beds, swell in the rainy
  season to considerable torrents. We had rode about an hour, when
  I saw at half an hour’s distance to the north of our route, the
  ruins of a large castle, upon a hill of a regular shape in the
  plain; half an hour further towards Tarsus, at an equal distance
  from our road, upon a second tumulus, were ruins resembling
  the former; a third insulated hillock, close to which we passed
  midway of our route, was over-grown with grass, without any
  ruins or traces of them. I did not see in the whole plain any
  other elevations of ground but the three just mentioned. Not far
  from the first ruins, stands in the plain an insulated column.
  Large groups of trees show from afar the site of Tarsus. We
  passed a small river before we entered the town, larger than
  those we had met on the road. The western outer gate of the town,
  through which we entered, is of ancient structure; it is a fine
  arch, the interior vault of which is in perfect preservation:
  on the outside are some remains of a sculptured frieze. I did
  not see any inscriptions. To the right and left of this gateway
  are seen the ancient ruined walls of the city, which extended
  in this direction farther than the town at present does. From
  the outer gateway, it is about four hundred paces to the modern
  entrance of the city; the intermediate ground is filled up by
  a burying ground on one side of the road, and several gardens
  with some miserable huts on the other. * * * * The little I saw
  of Tarsus did not allow me to estimate its extent; the streets
  through which I passed were all built of wood, and badly; some
  well furnished bazars, and a large and handsome mosque in the
  vicinity of the Khan, make up the whole register of curiosities
  which I am able to relate of Tarsus. Upon several maps Tarsus
  is marked as a sea town: this is incorrect; the sea is above
  three miles distant from it. On our return home, we started in
  a south-west direction, and passed, after two hours and a half’s
  march, Casal, a large village, half a mile distant from the
  sea-shore, called the Port of Tarsus, because vessels freighted
  for Tarsus usually come to anchor in its neighborhood. From
  thence turning towards the west, we arrived at our ship at the
  end of two hours. The merchants of Tarsus trade principally with
  the Syrian coast and Cyprus: imperial ships arrive there from
  time to time, to load grain. The land trade is of very little
  consequence, as the caravans from Smyrna arrive very seldom.
  There is no land communication at all between Tarsus and Aleppo,
  which is at ten journeys (caravan traveling) distant from
  it. The road has been rendered unsafe, especially in later
  times, by the depredations of Kutshuk Ali, a savage rebel,
  who has established himself in the mountains to the north of
  Alexandretta. Tarsus is governed by an Aga, who I have reason to
  believe is almost independent. The French have an agent there,
  who is a rich Greek merchant.”

  A fine instance of the value of the testimony of the Fathers on
  points where knowledge of the Scriptures is involved, is found
  in the story by Jerome, who says that “Paul was born at Gischali,
  a city of Judea,” (in Galilee,) “and that while he was a child,
  his parents, in the time of the laying waste of their country
  by the Romans, removed to Tarsus, in Cilicia.” And yet this most
  learned of the Fathers, the translator of the whole Bible into
  Latin, did not know, it seems, that Paul himself most distinctly
  states in his speech to the Jewish mob, (Acts xxii. 3,) that
  he was “_born_ in Cilicia,” as the common translation has
  it;――in Greek, γεγενημενος εν Κιλικια,――words which so far
  from allowing any such assertion as Jerome makes, even imply
  that Paul, with Tristram Shandy-like particularity, would
  specify that he was “_begotten_ in Cilicia.” Jerome’s ridiculous
  blunder, Witsius, after exposing its inconsistency with Jewish
  history, indignantly condemns, as “a most shameful falsehood,”
  (_putidissima_ fabula,) which is as hard a name as has been
  applied to anything in this book.

  But if this blunder is so shameful in Jerome, what shall be said
  of the learned Fabricius, who (Bibliotheca Graeca, IV. p. 795,)
  copies this story from Jerome as authentic history, without a
  note of comment, and without being aware that it most positively
  contradicts the direct assertion of Paul? And this blunder
  too is passed over by all the great critical commentators of
  Fabricius, in Harles’s great edition. Keil, Kuinoel, Harles,
  Gurlitt, and others equally great, who revised all this, are
  involved in the discredit of the blunder. “Non omnes omnia.”


                         HIS GRECIAN LEARNING.

In this splendid seat of knowledge, Saul was born of purely Jewish
parents. “A Hebrew of the Hebrews,” he enjoyed from his earliest
infancy that minute religious instruction, which every Israelite was
in conscience bound to give his children; and with a minuteness and
attention so much the more careful, as a residence in a foreign land,
far away from the consecrated soil of Palestine and the Holy city of
his faith, might increase the liabilities of his children to forget
or neglect a religion of which they saw so few visible tokens around
them, to keep alive their devotion. Yet, though thus strictly educated
in the religion of his fathers, Saul was by no means cut off by this
circumstance from the enjoyment of many of the advantages in profaner
knowledge, afforded in such an eminent degree by Tarsus; but must,
almost without an effort, have daily imbibed into his ready and ever
active mind, much of the refining influence of Grecian philosophy.
There is no proof, indeed, that he ever formally entered the schools
of heathen science; such a supposition, is, perhaps, inconsistent with
the idea of his principles of rigid Judaism, and is rendered rather
improbable by the great want of Grecian elegance and accuracy in his
writings; which are so decidedly characterized by an unrhetorical style,
and by irregular logic, that they never could have been the production
of a scholar, in the most eminent philosophical institutions of Asia.
But a mere birth and residence in such a city, and the incidental but
constant familiarity with those so absorbed in these pursuits, as very
many of his fellow-citizens were, would have the unavoidable effect of
familiarizing him also with the great subjects of conversation, and the
grand objects of pursuit, so as ever after to prove an advantage to him
in his intercourse with the refined and educated among the Greeks and
Romans. The knowledge thus acquired, too, is ever found to be of the
most readily available kind, always suggesting itself upon occasions
when needed, according to the simple principle of association, and thus
more easily applied to ordinary use than that which is more regularly
attained, and is arranged in the mind only according to formal systems.
Thus was it, with most evident wisdom, ordained by God, that in this
great seat of heathen learning, that apostle should be born, who was to
be the first messenger of grace to the Grecian world, and whose words
of warning, even Rome should one day hear and believe.


                         HIS FAMILY AND BIRTH.

The parents of Saul were Jews, and his father at least, was of the
tribe of Benjamin. In some of those numerous emigrations from Judea
which took place either by compulsion or by the voluntary enterprise of
the people, at various times after the Assyrian conquest, the ancestors
of Saul had left their father-land, for the fertile plains of Cilicia,
where, under the patronizing government of some of the Syro-Macedonian
kings, they found a much more profitable home than in the comparatively
uncommercial land of Israel. On some one of these occasions, probably
during the emigration under Antiochus the Great, the ancestors of Saul
had settled in Tarsus, and during the period intervening between this
emigration and the birth of Saul, the family seems to have maintained
or acquired a very respectable rank, and some property. From the
distinct information which we have that Saul was a free-_born_ Roman
citizen, it is manifest that his parents must also have possessed that
right; for it has already been abundantly shown that it was not common
to the citizens of Tarsus, but must have been a peculiar privilege
of his family. After the subjugation of Cilicia, (sixty-two years
before Christ,) when the province passed from the Syrian to the Roman
sway, the family were in some way brought under the favorable notice
of the new lords of the eastern world, and were honored with the high
privilege of Roman citizenship, an honor which could not have been
imparted to any one low either in birth or wealth. The precise nature
of the service performed by them, that produced such a magnificent
reward, it is impossible to determine; but that this must have been the
reason, it is very natural to suppose. But whatever may have been the
extent of the favors enjoyed by the parents of Saul, from the kindness
of their heathen rulers, they were not thereby led to neglect the
institutions of their fathers,――but even in a strange land, observed
the Mosaic law with peculiar strictness; for Saul himself plainly
asserts that his father was a Pharisee, and therefore he must have been
bound by the rigid observances of that sect, to a blameless deportment,
as far as the Mosaic law required. Born of such parents, the destined
apostle at his birth was made the subject of the minute Mosaic rituals.
“Circumcised the eighth day,” he then received the name of _Saul_, a
name connected with some glorious and some mournful associations in the
ancient Jewish history, and probably suggested to the parents on this
occasion, by a reference to its signification, for Hebrew names were
often thus applied, expressing some circumstance connected with the
child; and in this name more particularly, some such meaning might be
expected, since, historically, it must have been a word of rather evil
omen. The original Hebrew means “_desired_,” “asked for,” and hence it
has been rather fancifully, but not unreasonably conjectured that he
was an oldest son, and particularly desired by his expecting parents,
who were, like the whole Jewish race, very earnest to have a son to
perpetuate their name,――a wish however, by no means peculiar to the
Israelites.

  The name Saul is in Hebrew, שאול the regular noun from the
  passive _Kal_ participle of שאל (_sha-al_ and _sha-el_) “ask
  for,” “beg,” “request;” and the name therefore means “asked for,”
  or “requested,” which affords ground for Neander’s curious
  conjecture, above given.

Of the _time_ of his birth nothing is definitely known, though it is
stated by some ancient authority of very doubtful character, that he
was born in the second year after Christ. All that can be said with
any probability, is, that he was born several years after Christ; for
at the time of the stoning of Stephen, (A. D. 34,) Saul was a “_young_
man.”


                              HIS TRADE.

There was an ancient Jewish proverb,――often quoted with great respect
in the Rabbinical writings,――“He that does not teach his son a trade,
trains him to steal.” In conformity with this respectable adage,
every Jewish boy, high or low, was invariably taught some mechanical
trade, as an essential part of his education, without any regard to
the wealth of his family, or to his prospect of an easy life, without
the necessity of labor. The consequence of this was, that even the
dignified teachers of the law generally conjoined the practice of some
mechanical business, with the refined studies to which they devoted
the most of their time, and the surnames of some of the most eminent
of the Rabbins are derived from the trades which they thus followed in
the intervals of study, for a livelihood or for mental relaxation. The
advantages of such a variation from intense mental labor to active and
steady bodily exercise, are too obvious, both as concerns the benefit
of the body and the mind, to need any elucidation; but it is a happy
coincidence, worth noticing, that, the better principles of what is now
called “MANUAL LABOR INSTRUCTION,” are herein fully carried out, and
sanctioned by the authority and example of some of the most illustrious
of those ancient Hebrew scholars, whose mighty labors in sacred lore,
are still a monument of the wisdom of a plan of education, which
combines bodily activity and exertion with the full development of
the powers of thought. The labors of such men still remain the wonder
of later days, and form in themselves, subjects for the excursive
and penetrating range of some of the greatest minds of modern times,
throwing more light on the minute signification and local application
of scripture, than all that has been done in any other field of
illustrative research.

  “In the education of their son, the parents of Saul thought it
  their duty according to the fashion of their nation, not only
  to train his mind in the higher pursuits of a liberal education,
  but also to accustom his hands to some useful trade. As we learn
  from Acts xviii. 3, ‘he was by trade a tent-maker,’ occupying
  the intervals of his study-hours with that kind of work. For it
  is well established that this was the usual habit of the most
  eminent Jewish scholars, who adopted it as much for the sake of
  avoiding sloth and idleness, as with a view to provide for their
  own support. The Jews used to sum up the duties of parents in a
  sort of proverb, that ‘they should circumcise their son, redeem
  him, (Leviticus chapter xxvii.) teach him the law and a _trade_,
  and look out a wife for him.’ And indeed the importance of
  some business of this kind was so much felt, that a saying is
  recorded of one of the most eminent of their Rabbins, that ‘he
  who neglects to teach his son a trade, does the same as to bring
  him up to be a thief.’ Hence it is that the wisest Hebrews held
  it an honor to take their surnames from their trades; as Rabbins
  Nahum and Meir, the _scriveners_ or book writers,” (a business
  corresponding to that of printers in these times,) “Rabbi
  Johanan the _shoemaker_, Rabbi Juda the _baker_, and Rabbi Jose
  the _currier_ or _tanner_. How trifling then is the sneer of
  some scoffers who have said that Paul was nothing but a stitcher
  of skins, and thence conclude that he was a man of the lowest
  class of the populace.” (Witsius § I. ¶ 12.)

The trade which the parents of Saul selected for their son, is
described in the sacred apostolic history as that of a “tent-maker.”
A reference to the local history of his native province throws
great light on this account. In the wild mountains of Cilicia, which
everywhere begin to rise from the plains, at a distance of seven or
eight miles from the coast, anciently ranged a peculiar species of
long-haired goats, so well known by name throughout the Grecian world,
for their rough and shaggy aspect, that the name of “Cilician goat”
became a proverbial expression, to signify a rough, ill-bred fellow,
and occurs in this sense in the classic writers. From the hair of these,
the Cilicians manufactured a thick, coarse cloth,――somewhat resembling
the similar product of the camel’s hair,――which, from the country
where the cloth was made, and where the raw material was produced, was
called _cilicium_ or _cilicia_, and under this name it is very often
mentioned, both by Grecian and Roman authors. The peculiar strength
and incorruptibility of this cloth was so well known, that it was
considered as one of the most desirable articles for several very
important purposes, both in war and navigation, being the best material
for the sails of vessels, as well as for military tents. But it was
principally used by the Nomadic Arabs of the neighboring deserts of
Syria, who, ranging from Amanus and the sea, to the Euphrates, and
beyond, found the tents manufactured from this stout cloth, so durable
and convenient, that they depended on the Cilicians to furnish them
with the material of their moveable homes; and over all the east,
the _cilicium_ was in great demand, for shepherd’s tents. A passage
from Pliny forms a splendid illustration of this interesting little
point. “The wandering tribes, (_Nomades_,) and the tribes who plunder
the Chaldeans, are bordered by Scenites, (_tent-dwellers_,) who are
themselves also wanderers, but take their name from their tents, which
they raise of _Cilician_ cloth, wherever inclination leads them.” This
was therefore an article of national industry among the Cilicians, and
afforded in its manufacture, profitable employment to a great number
of workmen, who were occupied, not in large establishments like the
great manufactories of modern European nations, but, according to the
invariable mode in eastern countries, each one by himself, or at most
with one or two companions. Saul, however, seems to have been occupied
only with the concluding part of the manufacture, which was the making
up of the cloth into the articles for which it was so well fitted
by its strength, closeness and durability. He was a maker of tents
of Cilician camlet, or goat’s-hair cloth,――a business which, in its
character and implements, more resembled that of a sail-maker than any
other common trade in this country. The details of the work must have
consisted in cutting the camlet of the shape required for each part
of the tent, and sewing it together into the large pieces, which were
then ready to be transported, and to form, when hung on tent-poles,
the habitations of the desert-wanderers.

  This illustration of Saul’s trade is from Hug’s Introduction,
  Vol. II. note on § 85, pp. 328, 329, original, § 80, pp. 335,
  336, translation. On the manufacture of this cloth, see Gloss.
  Basil, _sub voc._ Κιλικιος τραγος, &c. “Cilician goat,――a
  rough fellow;――for there are such goats in Cilicia; whence also,
  things made of their hair are called _cilicia_.” He quotes also
  Hesychius, Suidas, and Salmasius in Solinum, p. 347. As to the
  use of the cloths in war and navigation, he refers to Vegetius,
  De re milit. IV. 6, and Servius in Georgica III. 312.――The
  passage in Pliny, showing their use by the Nomadic tribes of
  Syria and Mesopotamia for _shepherd’s tents_, is in his Natural
  History, VI. 28. “Nomadas infestatoresque Chaldaeorum, Scenitae
  claudunt, et ipsi vagi, sed a tabernaculis cognominati quae
  ciliciis metantur, ubi libuit.” The reading of this passage
  which I have adopted is from the Leyden Hackian edition of
  Pliny, which differs slightly from that followed by Hug, as the
  critical will perceive. Hemsen quotes this note almost verbatim
  from Hug. (Hemsen’s “Apostel Paulus,” page 4.)

  The particular species or variety of goat, which is thus
  described as anciently inhabiting the mountains of Cilicia,
  can not now be distinctly ascertained, because no scientific
  traveler has ever made observations on the animals of that
  region, owing to the many difficulties in the way of any
  exploration of Asia Minor, under the barbarous Ottoman sway.
  Neither Griffith’s Cuvier nor Turton’s Linnaeus contains any
  reference to Cilicia, as inhabited by any species or variety
  of the genus _Capra_. The nearest approach to certainty, that
  can be made with so few data, is the reasonable conjecture
  that the Cilician goat was a variety of the species CAPRA
  _Aegagrus_, to which the common domestic goat belongs, and which
  includes several remarkable varieties,――at least six being well
  ascertained. There are few of my readers, probably, who are not
  familiar with the descriptions and pictures of the famous Angora
  goat, which is one of these varieties, and is well-known for
  its long, soft, silky hair, which is to this day used in the
  manufacture of a sort of camlet, in the place where it is found,
  which is Angora and the region around it, from the Halys to the
  Sangarius. This tract of country is in Asia Minor, only three
  or four hundred miles north of Cilicia, and therefore at once
  suggests the probability of the Cilician goat being something
  very much like the Angora goat. (See Modern Traveler, III. p.
  339.) On the other side of Cilicia also, in Syria, there is an
  equally remarkable variety of the goat, with similar long, silky
  hair, used for the same manufacture. Now Cilicia, being directly
  on the shortest route from Angora to Syria, and half-way between
  both, might very naturally be supposed to have another variety
  of the CAPRA _Aegagrus_, between the Angoran and the Syrian
  variety, and resembling both in the common characteristic of
  long shaggy or silky hair; and there can be no reasonable doubt
  that future scientific observation will show that the Cilician
  goat forms another well-marked variety of this widely diffused
  species, which, wherever it inhabits the mountains of the
  warm regions of Asia, always furnishes this beautiful product,
  of which we have another splendid and familiar specimen in
  the Tibet and Cashmere goats, whose fleeces are worth more
  than their weight in gold. The hair of the Syrian and Cilician
  goats, however, is of a much coarser character, producing a much
  coarser and stouter fibre for the cloth.

  On the subject of Paul’s trade, the learned and usually
  accurate Michaelis was led into a very great error, by taking
  up too hastily a conjecture founded on a misapprehension of the
  meaning given by Julius Pollux, in his Onomasticon, on the word
  σκηνοποιος (_skenopoios_,) which is the word used in Acts xiii.
  3, to designate the trade of Saul and Aquilas. Pollux mentions
  that in the language of the old Grecian comedy, σκηνοποιος was
  equivalent to μηχανοποιος, (_mechanopoios_,) which Michaelis
  very erroneously takes in the sense of “a maker of mechanical
  instruments,” and this he therefore maintains to have been
  the trade of Saul and Aquilas. But it is capable of the most
  satisfactory proof, that Julius Pollux used the words here
  merely in the technical sense of theatrical preparation,――the
  first meaning simply “a scene-maker,” and the second “a
  constructor of theatrical machinery,”――both terms, of course,
  naturally applied to the same artist. (Michaelis, Introduction,
  IV. xxiii. 2. pp. 183‒186. Marsh’s translation.――Hug, II. § 85,
  original; § 80, translation.)

  The Fathers also made similar blunders about the nature of
  Saul’s trade. They call him σκυτοτομος, (_skutotomos_,) “a
  skin-cutter,” as well as σκηνορραφος, “a tent-maker.” This
  was because they were entirely ignorant of the material used
  for the manufacture of tents; for, living themselves in the
  civilized regions of Greece, Italy, &c. they knew nothing of
  the habitations of the Nomadic tent-dwellers. Chrysostom in
  particular, calls him “one who worked in skins.”

  Fabricius gives some valuable illustrations of this point.
  (Bibliotheca Graeca, IV. p. 795, _bb._) He quotes Cotelerius,
  (ad. Apost. Const. II. 63,) Erasmus, &c. (ad Acts xviii. 3,)
  and Schurzfleisch, (in diss. de Paulo, &c.) who brings sundry
  passages from Dio Chrysostom and Libanius, to prove that there
  were many in Cilicia who worked in _leather_, as he says;
  in support of which he quotes Martial, (epigraph xiv. 114,)
  alluding to “_udones cilicii_,” or “_cilician cloaks_,” (used
  to keep off rain, as water-proof,)――not knowing that this word,
  _cilicium_, was the name of a very close and stout cloth, from
  the goat’s hair, equally valuable as a covering for a single
  person, and for the habitation of a whole family. In short,
  Martial’s passage shows that the Cilician camlet was used like
  the modern camlet,――for _cloaks_. Fabricius himself seems to
  make no account of this _leather_ notion of Schurzfleisch; for
  immediately after, he states (what I can not find on any other
  authority) that “even at this day, as late books of travels
  testify, variegated cloths are exported from Cilicia.” This is
  certainly true of Angora in Asia Minor, north-west of Cilicia,
  (Modern Traveler, III. p. 339,) and may be true of Cilicia
  itself. Fabricius notices 2 Corinthians v. 1: and xii. 9, as
  containing figures drawn from Saul’s trade.


                            HIS EDUCATION.

But this was not destined to be the most important occupation of
Saul’s life. Even his parents had nobler objects in view for him,
and evidently devoted him to this handicraft, only in conformity with
those ancient Jewish usages which had the force of law on every true
Israelite, whether rich or poor; and accordingly he was sent, while yet
in his youth, away from his home in Tarsus, to Jerusalem, the fountain
of religious and legal knowledge to all the race of Judah and Benjamin,
throughout the world. To what extent his general education had been
carried in Tarsus, is little known; but he had acquired that fluency
in the Greek, which is displayed in his writings, though contaminated
with many of the provincialisms of Cilicia, and more especially with
the barbarisms of Hebrew usage. Living in daily intercourse, both in
the way of business and friendship, with the active Grecians of that
thriving city, and led, no doubt, by his own intellectual character and
tastes, to the occasional cultivation of those classics which were the
delight of his Gentile acquaintances, he acquired a readiness and power
in the use of the Greek language, and a familiarity with the favorite
writers of the Asian Hellenes, that in the providence of God most
eminently fitted him for the sphere to which he was afterwards devoted,
and was the true ground of his wonderful acceptability to the highly
literary people among whom his greatest and most successful labors
were performed, and to whom all of his epistles, but two, were written.
All these writings show proofs of such an acquaintance with Greek, as
is here inferred from his opportunities in education. His well-known
quotations also from Menander and Epimenides, and more especially his
happy impromptu reference in his discourse at Athens, to the line
from his own fellow-Cilician, Aratus, are instances of a very great
familiarity with the classics, and are thrown out in such an unstudied,
off-hand way, as to imply a ready knowledge of these writers. But all
these were, no doubt, learned in the mere occasional manner already
alluded to in connection with the reputation and literary character of
Tarsus. He was devoted by all the considerations of ancestral pride and
religious zeal to the study of “a classic, the best the world has ever
seen,――the noblest that has ever honored and dignified the language of
mortals.”


                       HIS REMOVAL TO JERUSALEM.

Strabo, in speaking of the remarkable literary and philosophical zeal
of the refined inhabitants of Tarsus, says that “after having well laid
the foundations of literature and science in their own schools at home,
it was usual for them to resort to those in other places, in order
to zealously pursue the cultivation of their minds still further,”
by the varied modes and opportunities presented in different schools
throughout the Hellenic world,――a noble spirit of literary enterprise,
accordant with the practice of the most ancient philosophers, and like
the course also pursued by the modern German scholars, many of whom
go from one university to another, to enjoy the peculiar advantages
afforded by each in some particular department. It was therefore, only
in a noble emulation of the example of his heathen fellow-townsmen,
in the pursuit of profane knowledge, that Saul left the city of his
birth and his father’s house, to seek a deeper knowledge of the sacred
sources of Hebrew learning, in the capital of the faith. This removal
to so great a distance, for such a purpose, evidently implies the
possession of considerable wealth in the family of Saul; for a literary
sojourn of that kind, in a great city, could not but be attended with
very considerable expense as well as trouble.


                             HIS TEACHER.

Saul having been thus endowed with a liberal education at home, and
with the principles of the Jewish faith, as far as his age would
allow,――went up to Jerusalem to enjoy the instruction of Gamaliel.
There is every reason to believe that this was Gamaliel the elder,
grandson of Hillel, and son of Simeon, (probably the same, who, in
his old age, took the child Jesus in his arms,) and father of another
Simeon, in whose time the temple was destroyed; for the Rabbinical
writings give a minute account of him, as connected with all these
persons. This Gamaliel succeeded his ancestors in the rank which
was then esteemed the highest; this was the office of “head of the
college,” otherwise called “Prince of the Jewish senate.” Out of
respect to this most eminent Father of Hebrew learning, as it is
recorded, Onkelos, the renowned Chaldee paraphrast, burned at his
funeral, seventy pounds of incense, in honor to the high rank and
learning of the deceased. This eminent teacher was at first not
ill-disposed towards the apostles, who, he thought, ought to be left
to their own fate; being led to this moderate and reasonable course,
perhaps, by the circumstance that the Sadducees, whom he hated, were
most active in their persecution. The sound sense and humane wisdom
that mark his sagely eloquent opinion, so wonderful in that bloody time,
have justly secured him the admiration and respect of all Christian
readers of the record; and not without regret would they learn, that
the after doings of his life, unrecorded by the sacred historian, yet
on the testimony of others, bear witness against him as having changed
from this wise principle of action. If there is any ground for the
story which Maimonides tells, it would seem, that when Gamaliel saw the
new heretical sect multiplying in his own days, and drawing away the
Israelites from the Mosaic forms, he, together with the Senate, whose
President he was, gave his utmost endeavors to crush the followers
of Christ, and composed a form of prayer, by which God was besought
to exterminate these heretics; which was to be connected to the usual
forms of prayer in the Jewish liturgy. This story of Maimonides, if
it is adopted as true, on so slight grounds, may be reconciled with
the account given by Luke, in two ways. First, Gamaliel may have
thought that the apostles and their successors, although heretics,
were not to be put down by human force, or by the contrivances of
human ingenuity, but that the whole matter should be left to the
hidden providence of God, and that their extermination should be
obtained from God by prayers. Or, second,――to make a more simple and
rational supposition,――he may have been so struck by the boldness of
the apostles, and by the evidence of the miracle performed by them,
as to express a milder opinion on them at that particular moment; but
afterwards may have formed a harsher judgment, when, contrary to all
expectation, he saw the wonderful growth of Christianity, and heard
with wrath and uncontrollable indignation, the stern rebuke of Stephen.
But these loose relics of tradition, offered on such very suspicious
authority as that of a Jew of the ages when Christianity had become so
odious to Judaism by its triumphs, may without hesitation be rejected
as wholly inconsistent with the noble spirit of Gamaliel, as expressed
in the clear, impartial account of Luke; and both of the suppositions
here offered by others, to reconcile sacred truth with mere falsehood,
are thus rendered entirely unnecessary.

  _At the feet_ of this Gamaliel, then, was Saul brought up.
  (Acts xxii. 3.) It has been observed on this passage, by
  learned commentators, that this expression refers to the fashion
  followed by students, of sitting and lying down on the ground or
  on mats, at the feet of their teacher, who sat by himself on a
  higher place. And indeed so many are the traces of this fashion
  among the recorded labors of the Hebrews, that it does not seem
  possible to call it in question. The labors of Scaliger in his
  “Elenchus Trihaeresii,” have brought to light many illustrations
  of the point; besides which another is offered in a well-known
  passage from פרקי אבות PIRKE ABOTH, or “Fragments of the Fathers.”
  Speaking of the wise, it is said, “Make thyself dusty in
  the dust of their feet,”――הוי מתאבק בעפר רגליהם――meaning that the
  young student is to be a diligent hearer at the feet of the
  wise;――thus raising a truly “learned dust,” if the figure may be
  so minutely carried out. The same thing is farther illustrated
  by a passage which Buxtorf has given in his Lexicon of the
  Talmud, in the portion entitled ברכית (BERACHOTH,) מנעו בניכם מן ההגיון
  והושיבום בין ברכי תלמידי חכמים “Take away your sons from the study of the
  Bible, and make them sit between the knees of the disciples of
  the wise;” which is equivalent to a recommendation of oral, as
  superior to written instruction. The same principle, of varying
  the mode in which the mind receives knowledge, is recognized
  in modern systems of education, with a view to avoid the
  self-conceit and intolerant pride which solitary study is apt
  to engender, as well as because, from the living voice of the
  teacher, the young scholar learns in that practical, simple mode
  which is most valuable and efficient, as it is that, in which
  alone all his knowledge of the living and speaking world must be
  obtained. It should be observed, however, that Buxtorf seems to
  have understood this passage rather differently from Witsius,
  whose construction is followed in the translation given above.
  Buxtorf, following the ordinary meaning of הגיבן (HEG-YON,) seems
  to prefer the sense of “meditation.” He rejects the common
  translation――“study of the Bible,” as altogether irreligious.
  “In hoc sensu, praeceptum impium est.” He says that other Glosses
  of the passage give it the meaning of “boyish talk,” (_garritu
  puerorum_.) But this is a sense perfectly contradictory to all
  usage of the word, and was evidently invented only to avoid
  the seemingly irreligious character of the literal version.
  But why may not all difficulties be removed by a reference to
  the primary signification, which is “solitary meditation,” in
  opposition to “instruction by others?”

  We have in the gospel history itself, also, the instance of
  Mary. (Luke x. 39.) The passage in Mark iii. 32, “The multitude
  sat down around him,” farther illustrates this usage. There
  is an old Hebrew tradition, mentioned with great reverence by
  Maimonides, to this effect. “From the days of Moses down to
  Rabban Gamaliel, they always studied the law, standing; but
  after Rabban Gamaliel was dead, weakness descended on the world,
  and they studied the law, sitting.” (_Witsius._)


                         HIS JEWISH OPINIONS.

Jerusalem was the seat of what may be called the great Jewish
University. The Rabbins or teachers, united in themselves, not merely
the sources of Biblical and theological learning, but also the whole
system of instruction in that civil law, by which their nation were
still allowed to be governed, with only some slight exceptions as to
the right of punishment. There was no distinction, in short, between
the professions of divinity and law, the Rabbins being teachers of the
whole Mosaic system, and those who entered on a course of study under
them, aiming at the knowledge of both those departments of learning,
which, throughout the western nations, are now kept, for the most part,
entirely distinct. Saul was therefore a student both of theology and
law, and entered himself as a hearer of the lectures of one, who may,
in modern phrase, be styled the most eminent professor in the great
Hebrew university of Jerusalem. From him he learned the law and
the Jewish traditional doctrines, as illustrated and perfected by
the Fathers of the ♦Pharisaic order. His steady energy and resolute
activity were here all made available to the very complete attainment
of the mysteries of knowledge; and the success with which he prosecuted
his studies may be best appreciated by a minute examination of his
writings, which everywhere exhibit indubitable marks of a deep and
critical knowledge of all the details of Jewish theology and law. He
shows himself to have been deeply versed in all the standard modes of
explaining the Scriptures among the Hebrews,――by allegory,――typology,
accommodation and tradition. Yet though thus ardently drinking the
streams of Biblical knowledge from this great fountain-head, he seems
to have been very far from imbibing the mild and merciful spirit of
his great teacher, as it had been so eminently displayed in his sage
decision on the trial of the apostles. The acquisition of knowledge,
even under such an instructor, was, in Saul, attended with the somewhat
common evils to which a young mind rapidly advanced in dogmatical
learning, is naturally liable,――a bitter, denunciatory intolerance
of any opinions contrary to his own,――a spiteful feeling towards all
doctrinal opponents, and a disposition to punish speculative errors as
actual crimes. All these common faults were very remarkably developed
in Saul, by that uncommon harshness and fierceness by which he was so
strongly characterized; and his worst feelings broke out with all their
fury against the rising heretics, who, without any regular education,
were assuming the office of religious teachers, and were understood
to be seducing the people from their allegiance and due respect to
the qualified scholars of the law. The occasion on which these dark
religious passions first exhibited themselves in decided action against
the Christians, was the murder of Stephen, of which the details have
already been fully given in that part of the Life of Peter which is
connected with it. Of those who engaged in the previous disputes with
the proto-martyr, the members of the Cilician synagogue are mentioned
among others; and with these Saul would very naturally be numbered;
for, residing at a great distance from his native province, he would
with pleasure seek the company of those residents in Jerusalem who
were from Cilicia, and join with them in the study of the law and the
weekly worship of God. What part he took in these animated and angry
discussions, is not known; but his well-known power in argument affords
good reason for believing, that the eloquence and logical acuteness
which he afterwards displayed in the cause of Christ, were now made use
of, against the ablest defenders of that same cause. His fierce spirit,
no doubt, rose with the rest in that burst of indignation against the
martyr, who fearlessly stood up before the council, pouring out a flood
of invective against the unjust destroyers of the holy prophets of
God; and when they all rushed upon the preacher of righteousness, and
dragged him away from the tribunal to the place of execution, Saul also
was consenting to his death; and when the blood of the martyr was shed,
he stood by, approving the deed, and kept the clothes of them who slew
him.

    ♦ “Pharasaic” replaced with “Pharisaic”


                      HIS PERSECUTING CHARACTER.

The very active share which Saul took in this and the subsequent
cruelties of a similar nature, is in itself a decided though terrible
proof of that remarkable independence of character, which was so
distinctly displayed in the greatest events of his apostolic career.
Saul was no slave to the opinions of others; nor did he take up his
active persecuting course on the mere dictation of higher authority.
On the contrary, his whole behavior towards the followers of Jesus was
directly opposed to the policy so distinctly urged and so efficiently
maintained, in at least one instance, by his great teacher, Gamaliel,
whose precepts and example on this subject must have influenced his
bold young disciple, if any authority could have had such an effect
on him. From Gamaliel and his disciples, Saul must have received his
earliest impressions of the character of Christ and his doctrines; for
it is altogether probable that he did not reach Jerusalem until some
time after the ascension of Christ, and there is therefore no reason
to suppose that he himself had ever heard or seen him. Nevertheless,
brought up in the school of the greatest of the Pharisees, he would
receive from all his teachers and associates, an impression decidedly
unfavorable, of the Christian sect; though the uniform mildness of the
Pharisees, as to vindictive measures, would temper the principles of
action recommended in regard to the course of conduct to be adopted
towards them. The rapid advance of the new sect, however, soon brought
them more and more under the invidious notice of the Pharisees, who in
the life-time of Jesus had been the most determined opposers of him and
his doctrines; and the attention of Saul would therefore be constantly
directed to the preparation for contest with them.

Stephen’s murder seems to have unlocked all the persecuting spirit
of Saul. He immediately laid his hand to the work of persecuting the
friends of Jesus, with a fury that could not be allayed by a single act.
Nor was he satisfied with merely keeping a watchful eye on everything
that was openly done by them; but under authority from the Sanhedrim,
breaking into the retirement of their homes, to hunt them out for
destruction, he had them thrown into prison, and scourged in the
synagogues, and threatened even with death; by all which cruelties
he so overcame the spirit of many of them, that they were forced to
renounce the faith which they had adopted, and blaspheme the name of
Christ in public recantations. This furious persecution soon drove them
from Jerusalem in great numbers, to other cities. Samaria, as well as
the distant parts of Judea, are mentioned as their places of refuge,
and not a few fled beyond the bounds of Palestine into the cities of
Syria. But even these distant exiles were not, by their flight into
far countries, removed from the effects of the burning zeal of their
persecutor. Longing for an opportunity to give a still wider range to
his cruelties, he went to the great council, and begged of them such
a commission as would authorize him to pursue his vindictive measures
wherever the sanction of their name could support such actions. Among
the probable inducements to this selection of a foreign field for
his unrighteous work, may be reasonably placed, the circumstance that
Damascus was at this time under the government of Aretas, an Arabian
prince, into whose hands it fell for a short time, during which the
equitable principles of Roman tolerance no longer operated as a check
on the murderous spite of the Jews; for the new ruler, anxious to
secure his dominion by ingratiating himself with the subjects of
it, would not be disposed to neglect any opportunity for pleasing
so powerful and influential a portion of the population of Damascus
as the Jews were,――who lived there in such numbers, that in some
disturbances which arose a few years after, between them and the other
inhabitants, ten thousand Jews were slain unarmed, while in the public
baths, enjoying themselves after the fatigues of the day, without any
expectation of violence. So large a Jewish population would be secure
of the support of Aretas in any favorite measure. Saul, well knowing
these circumstances, must have been greatly influenced by this motive,
to seek a commission to labor in a field where the firm tolerance of
Roman sway was displaced by the baser rule of a petty prince, whose
weakness rendered him subservient to the tyrannical wishes of his
subjects. In Jerusalem the Roman government would not suffer anything
like a systematic destruction of its subjects, nor authorize the
taking of life by any religious tribunal, though it might pass over,
unpunished, a solitary act of mob violence, like the murder of Stephen.
It is perfectly incontestable therefore, that the persecution in
Jerusalem could not have extended to the repeated destruction of
life, and that passage in Paul’s discourse to Agrippa; which has been
supposed to prove a plurality of capital punishments, has accordingly
been construed in a more limited sense, by the ablest modern
commentators.

  Kuinoel on Acts xxv. 1, 10, maintains this fully, and quotes
  other authorities.

  “It seems to some a strange business, that Paul should have had
  the Christians whipped through the _synagogues_. Why, in a house
  consecrated to prayer and religion, were sentences of a criminal
  court passed, and the punishment executed on the criminal? This
  difficulty seemed so great, even to the learned and judicious
  Beza, that in the face of the testimony of all manuscripts, he
  would have us suspect the genuineness of the passage in Matthew
  x. 17, where Christ uses the same expression. Such a liberty as
  he would thus take with the sacred text, is of course against
  all modern rules of sacred criticism. For what should we do
  then with Matthew xxiii. 34, where the same passage occurs
  again? Grotius, to explain the difficulty, would have the word
  synagogues understood, not in the sense of houses of prayer, but
  of civil courts of justice; since such a meaning may be drawn
  from the etymology of the Greek word thus translated. (συναγωγη,
  a gathering together, or assembling for any purpose.) But that
  too is a forced construction, for no instance can be brought out
  of the New Testament, where the word is used in that sense, or
  any other than the common one. What then? We cannot be allowed
  to set up the speculations which we have contrived to agree with
  our own notions, against accounts given in so full and clear
  a manner. Suppose, for a moment, that we could find no traces
  of the custom of scourging in the synagogues, in other writers;
  ought that to be considered doubtful, which is thus stated by
  Christ and Paul, in the plainest terms, as a fact commonly and
  perfectly well known in their time? Nor is there any reason why
  scourging in the synagogues should seem so unaccountable to us,
  since it was a grade of discipline less than excommunication,
  and less disgraceful. For it is made to appear that some of
  the most eminent of the wise, when they broke the law, were
  thus punished,――not even excepting the head of the Senate, nor
  the high priest himself.” (Witsius, § 1, ¶ xix.‒xxi.) Witsius
  illustrates it still farther, by the stories which follow.

“But there are instances of flagellation in synagogues found in other
accounts. Grotius himself quotes from Epiphanius, that a certain Jew
who wished to revolt to Christianity, was whipped in the synagogue. The
story is to the following purport. ‘A man, named Joseph, a messenger of
the Jewish patriarch, went into Cilicia by order of the patriarch, to
collect the tithes and first-fruits from the Jews of that province; and
while on his tour of duty, lodged in a house near a Christian church.
Having, by means of this, become acquainted with the pastor, he
privately begs the loan of the book of the gospels, and reads it. But
the Jews, getting wind of this, were so enraged against him, that on a
sudden they made an assault on the house, and caught Joseph in the very
act of reading the gospels. Snatching the book out of his hands, they
knocked him down, and crying out against him with all sorts of abuse,
they led him away to the synagogue, where they whipped him with rods.’

“Very much like this is the more modern story which Uriel Acosta tells
of himself, in a little book, entitled ‘the Pattern of Human Life.’ The
thing took place in Amsterdam, about the year 1630. It seems this Uriel
Acosta was a Jew by birth, but being a sort of Epicurean philosopher,
had some rather heretical notions about most of the articles of the
Jewish creed; and on this charge, being called to account by the
rulers of the synagogue, stood on his trial. In the end of it, a
paper was read to him, in which it was specified that he must come
into the synagogue, clothed in a mourning garment, holding a black
wax-light in his hand, and should utter openly before the congregation
a certain form of words prescribed by them, in which the offenses he
had committed were magnified beyond measure. After this, that he should
be flogged with a cowskin or strap, publicly, in the synagogue, and
then should lay himself down flat on the threshhold of the synagogue,
that all might walk over him. How thoroughly this sentence was executed,
is best learned from his own amusing and candid story, which are given
in the very words, as literally as they can be translated. ‘I entered
the synagogue, which was full of men and women, (for they had crammed
in together to see the show,) and when it was time, I mounted the
wooden platform, which was placed in the midst of the synagogue for
convenience in preaching, and with a loud voice read the writing drawn
up by them, in which was a confession that I really deserved to die
a thousand times for what I had done; namely, for my breaches of the
sabbath, and for my abandonment of the faith, which I had broken so far
as even by my words to hinder others from embracing Judaism, &c. After
I had got through with the reading, I came down from the platform,
and the right reverend ruler of the synagogue drew near to me, and
whispered in my ear that I must turn aside to a certain corner of
the synagogue. Accordingly, I went to the corner, and the porter
told me to strip. I then stripped my body as low as my waist,――bound
a handkerchief about my head,――took off my shoes, and raised my
arms, holding fast with my hands to a sort of post. The porter of
the synagogue, or sexton, then came up, and with a bandage tied up
my hands to the post. When things had been thus arranged, the clerk
drew near, and taking the cowskin, struck my sides with thirty-nine
blows, according to the _tradition_; while in the mean time a psalm
was chanted. After this was over, the preacher approached, and absolved
me from excommunication; and thus was the gate of heaven opened to
me, which before was shut against me with the strongest bars, keeping
me entirely out. I next put on my clothes, went to the threshhold of
the synagogue and laid myself down on it, while the porter held up my
head. Then all who came down, stepped over me, boys as well as old men,
lifting up one foot and stepping over the lower part of my legs. When
the last had passed out, I got up, and being covered with dust by him
who helped me, went home.’ This story, though rather tediously minute
in its disgusting particulars, it was yet thought worth while to copy,
because this comparatively modern scene seemed to give, to the life,
the old fashion of ‘scourging in the synagogues.’”


                       HIS JOURNEY TO DAMASCUS.

Thus equipped with the high commission and letters of the supreme court
of the Jewish nation, Saul, breathing out threatenings and slaughter
against the disciples of the Lord, went on his way to Damascus,
where the sanction of his superiors would have the force of despotic
law, against the destined victims of his cruelty. The distance from
Jerusalem to this great Syrian city, can not be less than 250 or 300
miles, and the journey must therefore have occupied as many as ten
or twelve days, according to the usual rate of traveling in those
countries. On this long journey therefore, Saul had much season for
reflection. There were indeed several persons in his company, but
probably they were only persons of an inferior order, and merely the
attendants necessary for his safety and speed in traveling. Among these
therefore, he would not be likely to find any person with whom he could
maintain any sympathy which could enable them to hold much conversation
together, and he must therefore have been left through most of the time
to the solitary enjoyment of his own thoughts. In the midst of the
peculiar fatigues of an eastern journey, he must have had many seasons
of bodily exhaustion and consequent mental depression, when the fire
of his unholy and exterminating zeal would grow languid, and the
painful doubts which always come in at such dark seasons, to chill the
hopes of every great mind,――no matter what may be the character of the
enterprise,――must have had the occasional effect of exciting repentant
feelings in him. Why had he left the high and sacred pursuits of a
literary and religious life, in the refined capital of Judaism, to
endure the fatigues of a long journey over rugged mountains and sandy
deserts, through rivers and under a burning sun, to a distant city, in
a strange land, among those who were perfect strangers to him? It was
for the sole object of carrying misery and anguish among those whose
only crime was the belief of a doctrine which he hated, because it
warred against that solemn system of forms and traditions to which he
so zealously clung, with all the energy that early and inbred prejudice
could inspire. But in these seasons of weariness and depression, would
now occasionally arise some chilling doubt about the certain rectitude
of the stern course which he had been pursuing, in a heat that seldom
allowed him time for reflection on its possible character and tendency.
Might not that faith against which he was warring with such devotedness,
be true?――that faith which, amid blood and dying agonies, the martyr
Stephen had witnessed with his very last breath? At these times of
doubt and despondency would perhaps arise the remembrance of that
horrible scene, when he had set by, a calm spectator, drinking in with
delight the agonies of the martyr, and learning from the ferocity of
the murderers, new lessons of cruelty. to be put in practice against
others who should thus adhere to the faith of Christ. No doubt too, an
occasional shudder of gloom and remorse for such acts would creep over
him in the chill of evening, or in the heats of noon-day, and darken
all his schemes of active vengeance against the brethren. But still
he journeyed northward, and each hour brought him nearer the scene of
long-planned cruelty. On the last day of his wearisome journey, he at
length drew near the city, just at noon; and from the terms in which
his situation is described, it is not unreasonable to conclude that
he was just coming in sight of Damascus, when the event happened which
revolutionized his purposes, hopes, character, soul, and his whole
existence through eternity,――an event connected with the salvation of
millions that no man can yet number.

  Illustration: DAMASCUS.

Descending from the north-eastern slope of Hermon, over whose mighty
range his last day’s journey had conducted him, Saul came along the
course of the Abana, to the last hill which overlooks the distant city.
Here Damascus bursts upon the traveler’s view, in the midst of a mighty
plain, embosomed in gardens, and orchards, and groves, which, with
the long-known and still bright streams of Abana and Pharphar, and the
golden flood of the Chrysorrhoas, give the spot the name of “one of the
four paradises.” So lovely and charming is the sight which this fair
city has in all ages presented to the traveler’s view, that the Turks
relate that their prophet, coming near Damascus, took his station on
the mountain Salehiyeh, on the west of the hill-girt plain in which
the city stands; and as he thence viewed the glorious and beautiful
spot, encompassed with gardens for thirty miles, and thickly set
with domes and steeples, over which the eye glances as far as it can
reach,――considering the ravishing beauty of the place, he would not
tempt his frailty by entering into it, but instantly turned away with
this reflection: that there was but one paradise designed for man,
and for his part, he was resolved not to take his, in this world. And
though there is not the slightest foundation for such a story, because
the prophet never came near to Damascus, nor had an opportunity of
entering into it, yet the conspiring testimony of modern travelers
justifies the fable, in the impression it conveys of the surpassing
loveliness of the view from this very spot,――called the Arch of Victory,
from an unfinished mass of stonework which here crowns the mountain’s
top. This spot has been marked by a worthless tradition, as the scene
of Saul’s conversion; and the locality is made barely probable, by the
much better authority of the circumstance, that it accords with the
sacred narrative, in being on the road from Jerusalem, and “nigh unto
the city.”

  “Damascus is a very ancient city, which the oldest records
  and traditions show by their accordant testimony to have been
  founded by Uz, the son of Aram, and grandson of Shem. It was
  the capital or mother city of that Syria which is distinguished
  by the name of Aram Dammesek or Damascene Syria, lying between
  Libanus and Anti-Libanus. The city stands at the base of Mount
  Hermon, from which descend the famous streams of Abana and
  Pharphar; the latter washing the walls of the city, while the
  former cuts it through the middle. It was a very populous,
  delightful, and wealthy place; but as in the course of its
  existence it had suffered a variety of fortune, so it had often
  changed masters. To pass over its earlier history, we will
  only observe, that before the Christian era, on the defeat
  of Tigranes, the Armenian monarch, it was yielded to the
  Romans, being taken by the armies of Pompey. In the time of
  Paul, as we are told in ♦2 Corinthians xi. 32, it was held
  under the (temporary) sway of Aretas, a king of the Arabians,
  father-in-law of Herod the tetrarch. It had then a large Jewish
  population, as we may gather from the fact, that in the reign of
  Nero, 10, 000 of that nation were slaughtered, unarmed, and in
  the public baths by the Damascenes, as Josephus records in his
  history of the Jewish War, II. Book, chapter 25. Among the Jews
  of Damascus, also, were a considerable number of Christians, and
  it was raging for the destruction of these, that Saul, furnished
  with the letters and commission of the Jewish high priest, now
  flew like a hawk upon the doves.” (Witsius, § 2, ¶ 1.)

    ♦ “2” omitted in the original text.

The sacred narrative gives no particulars of the other circumstances
connected with this remarkable event, in either of the three statements
presented in different parts of the book of Acts. All that is
commemorated, is that at mid-day, as Saul with his company drew near to
Damascus, he saw a light exceeding the sun in brightness, which flashed
upon them from heaven, and struck them all to the earth. And while they
were all fallen to the ground, Saul alone heard a voice speaking to
him in the Hebrew tongue, and saying, “Saul! Saul! Why persecutest thou
me? It is hard for thee to kick against thorns.” To this, Saul asked in
reply, “Who art thou, Lord?” The answer was, “I am Jesus the Nazarene,
whom thou persecutest.” Saul, trembling and astonished, replied, “Lord,
what wilt thou that I should do?” And the voice said, “Rise and stand
upon thy feet, and go into the city; there thou shalt be told what to
do, since for this purpose I have appeared to thee, to make use of thee
as a minister and a witness, both of what thou hast seen and of what
I will cause thee to see,――choosing thee out of the people, and of the
heathen nations to whom I now SEND thee,――to open their eyes,――to turn
them from darkness to light, and from the dominion of Satan unto God,
that they may receive remission of sins, and an inheritance among them
that are sanctified, by faith in me.”

  These words are given thus fully only in Saul’s own account
  of his conversion, in his address to king Agrippa. (Acts xxvi.
  14‒18.) The original Greek of verse 17, is most remarkably and
  expressively significant, containing, beyond all doubt, the
  formal commission of Saul as the “APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES.” The
  first word in that verse is translated in the common English
  version, “delivering;” whereas, the original, Εξαιρουμενος,
  means also “taking out,” “choosing;” and is clearly shown by
  Bretschneider, sub voc. in numerous references to the usages of
  the LXX., and by Kuinoel, in loc., to bear this latter meaning
  here. Rosenmueller and others however, have been led, by the
  circumstance that Hesychius gives the meaning of “rescue,” to
  prefer that. Rosenmueller’s remark, that the context demands
  this meaning, is however certainly unauthorized; for, on this
  same ground, Kuinoel bases the firmest support of the meaning
  of “choice.” The meaning of “rescue” was indeed the only one
  formerly received, but the lights of modern exegesis have
  added new distinctness and aptness to the passage, by the
  meaning adopted above. Beza, Piscator, Pagninus, Arias Montanus,
  Castalio, &c., as well as the oriental versions, are all quoted
  by Poole in defense of the common rendering, nor does he seem to
  know of the sense now received. But Saul was truly chosen, both
  “out of the people” of Israel, (because he was a Jew by birth
  and religion,) “and out of the heathen,” (because he was born
  and brought up among the Grecians, and therefore was taken
  out from among them, as a minister of grace to them,) and the
  whole passage is thus shown to be most beautifully just to the
  circumstances which so eminently fitted him for his Gentile
  apostleship. The Greek verb used in the conclusion of the
  passage, is the consecrating word, αποστελλω, (_apostello_,)
  and makes up the formula of his _apostolic_ commission, which is
  there given in language worthy of the vast and eternal scope of
  the sense,――words fit to be spoken from heaven, in thunder, amid
  the flash of lightnings, that called the bloody-minded, bitter,
  maddened persecutor, to the peaceful, devoted, unshrinking
  testimony of the cause, against the friends of which he before
  breathed only threatenings and slaughter.

  Illustration: Εξαιρουμενος σε εκ τοῦ λαοῦ και τῶν ἐθνῶν, εις
                οὑς νῦν σε ΑΠΟΣΤΕΛΛΩ.

All this took place while the whole company of travelers were lying
prostrate on the ground, stunned and almost senseless. Of all those
present, however, Saul only heard these solemn words of warning,
command, and prophecy, thus sent from heaven in thunder; for he himself
afterwards, in narrating these awful events before the Jewish multitude,
expressly declares “the men that were with me, saw the light, indeed,
and were afraid; but they _heard NOT the voice_ of him who spoke to
me.” And though in the previous statement given by Luke, in the regular
course of the narrative, it is said that “the men who journeyed with
Saul were speechless,――hearing a _voice_, but seeing no man;” yet
the two statements are clearly reconciled by the consideration of the
different meanings of the word translated “_voice_” in both passages,
but which the accompanying expressions sufficiently limit in the latter
case only to the articulate sounds of a human voice, while in the
former it is left in such terms as to mean merely a “sound,” as of
thunder, or any thing else which can be supposed to agree best with the
other circumstances. To them, therefore, it seemed only surprising, not
miraculous; for they are not mentioned as being impressed, otherwise
than by fear and amazement, while Saul, who alone heard the words,
was moved thereby to a complete conversion. The whole circumstances,
therefore, allow and require, in accordance with other similar passages,
that the material phenomena which were made the instruments of this
miraculous conversion, were, as they are described, _first_ a flash of
lightning, which struck the company to the earth, giving all a severe
shock, but affecting Saul most of all, and, _second_, a peal of thunder,
heard by all as such, except Saul, who distinguished in those awful,
repeated sounds, the words of a heavenly voice, with which he held
distinct converse, while his wondering companions thought him only
muttering incoherently to himself, between the peals of thunder;――just
as in the passage related by John, when Jesus called to God, “Father!
glorify thy name;” and then there came a voice from heaven, saying, “I
both have glorified it and will glorify it;” yet the people who then
stood by, said, “It _thundered_,”――having no idea of the expressive
utterance which was so distinctly heard by Jesus and his disciples.
There is no account, indeed, in either case, of any thunder storm
accompanying the events; but there is nothing in the incidents to
forbid it; and the nature of the effects upon the company who heard and
saw, can be reconciled only with the supposition of a burst of actual
thunder and lightning, which God made the organ of his awful voice,
speaking to Saul in words that called him from a course of sin and
cruelty, to be a minister of grace, mercy and peace, to all whose
destroying persecutor he had before been. The sequel of the effects,
too, are such as would naturally follow these material agencies. The
men who were least stunned, rose to their feet soon after the first
shock; and when the awful scene was over, they bestirred themselves to
lift up Saul, who was now found, not only speechless, but blind,――the
eyes being so dazzled by such excess of light, that the nerve loses all
its power, generally, forever. Saul being now raised from the ground,
was led, helpless and thunder-struck, by his distressed attendants,
into the city, which he had hoped to make the scene of his cruel
persecutions, but which he now entered, more surely bound, than could
have been the most wretched of his destined captives.

  Kuinoel and Bloomfield will furnish the inquiring reader with
  the amusing details of the hypotheses, by which some of the
  moderns have attempted to explain away the whole of Saul’s
  conversion, into a mere remarkable succession of natural
  occurrences, without any miracle at all.


                         HIS STAY IN DAMASCUS.

Thus did the commissioned persecutor enter the ancient capital of Aram.
But as they led him along the flowery ways into this Syrian paradise,
how vain were its splendors, its beauties and its historic glories,
to the eyes which had so long strained over the far horizon, to catch
the first gleam of its white towers and rosy gardens, beyond the
mountain-walls. In vain did Damascus invite the admiring gaze of the
passing traveler, to those _damask_ roses embowering and hedging his
path, which take their name in modern times, from the gardens where
they first bloomed under the hand of man. In vain did their fragrance
woo his nobler sense to perceive their beauty of form and hue; in vain
did the long line of palaces and towers and temples, still bright in
the venerable splendor of the ancient Aramaic kings, rise in majesty
before him. The eyes that had so often dwelt on these historical
monuments, in the distant and brilliant fancies of studious youth,
were now closed to the not less brilliant splendors of the reality;
and through the ancient arches of those mighty gates, and along the
crowded streets, amid the noise of bustling thousands, the commissioned
minister of wrath now moved distressed, darkened, speechless and
horror-struck,――marked, like the first murderer, (of whose crime that
spot was the fabled scene,) by the hand of God. The hand of God was
indeed on him, not in wrath, but in mercy, sealing his abused bodily
vision for a short space, until his mental eyes, purified from the
scales of prejudice and unholy zeal, should have become fitted for
the perception of objects, whose beauty and glory should be the theme
of his thoughts and words, through all his later days, and of his
discourse to millions for whom his heart now felt no love, but for
whose salvation he was destined to freely spend and offer up his life.
Passing along the crowded ways of the great city, under the guidance
of his attendants, he was at last led into the street, which for its
regularity was called the “STRAIGHT WAY,” and there was lodged in
the house of a person named Judas,――remaining for three days in utter
darkness, without the presence of a single friend, and without the
glimmer of a hope that he should ever again see the light of day.
Disconsolate and desolate, he passed the whole of this period in
fasting, without one earthly object or call, to distract his attention
from the solemn themes of his heavenly vision. He had all this long
interval for reflection on the strange reversion of destiny pointed out
by this indisputable decree, which summoned him from works of cruelty
and destruction, to deeds of charity, kindness and devotion to those
whose ruin he had lately sought with his whole heart. At the close
of this season of lonely but blessed meditation, a new revelation of
the commanding presence of the Deity was made to a humble and devout
Christian of Damascus, named Ananias, known even among the Jews as a
man of blameless character. To him, in a vision, the Lord appeared, and
calling him by name, directed him most minutely to the house where Saul
was lodging, and gave him the miraculous commission of restoring to
sight that same Saul, now deprived of this sense by the visitation of
God, but expecting its restoration by the hands of Ananias himself, who
though yet unknown to him in the body, had been distinctly seen in a
vision by the blind sufferer, as his healer, in the name of that Jesus
who had met him in the way and smote him with this blindness, dazzling
him with the excess of his unveiled heavenly glories. Ananias, yet
appalled by the startling view of the bright messenger, and doubting
the nature of the vision which summoned him to a duty so strangely
inconsistent with the dreadful fame and character of the person named
as the subject of his miraculous ministrations, hesitated to promise
obedience, and parleyed with his summoner. “Lord! I have heard by many,
of this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; and
here, he has commission from the chief priests to bind all that call
on thy name.” The merciful Lord, not resenting the rational doubts
of his devout but alarmed servant, replied in words of considerate
explanation, renewing his charge, with assurances of the safe and
hopeful accomplishment of his appointed task. “Go thy way: for he is a
chosen instrument of mercy for me, to bear my name before nations and
kings, and the children of Israel: for I will show him how great things
he must suffer for the sake of my name.” Ananias, no longer doubting,
now went his way as directed, and finding Saul, clearly addressed him
in terms of confidence and even of affection, recognizing him, on the
testimony of the vision, as already a friend of those companions of
Jesus, whom he had lately persecuted. He put his hands on him, in the
usual form of invoking a blessing on any one, and said, “Brother Saul!
the Lord Jesus, who appeared to thee in the way, as thou camest, has
sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with a
holy spirit.” And immediately there fell from the eyes of the blinded
persecutor, something like scales, and he saw now, in bodily, real
presence, him who had already been in form revealed to his spirit, in
a vision. At the same moment, fell from his inward sense, the obscuring
film of prejudice and bigotry. Renewed in mental vision, he saw with
the clear eye of confiding faith and eternal hope, that Jesus, who
in the full revelation of his vindictive majesty having dazzled and
blinded him in his murderous career, now appeared to his purified sense,
in the tempered rays and mild effulgence of redeeming grace. Changed
too, in the whole frame of his mind, he felt no more the promptings
of that dark spirit of cruelty, but, filled with a holy spirit, before
unknown to him, he began a new existence, replete with the energies of
a divine influence. No longer fasting in token of distress, he now ate,
by way of thanksgiving for his joyful restoration, and was strengthened
thereby for the great task which he had undertaken. He was now admitted
to the fellowship of the disciples of Jesus, and remained many days
among them as a brother, mingling in the most friendly intercourse with
those very persons, against whom he came to wage exterminating ruin.
Nor did he confine his actions in his new character to the privacies of
Christian intercourse. Going immediately into the synagogues, he there
publicly proclaimed his belief in Jesus Christ, and boldly maintained
him to be the Son of God. Great was the amazement of all who heard him.
The fame of Saul of Tarsus, as a ferocious and determined persecutor of
all who professed the faith of Jesus, had already pervaded Palestine,
and spread into Syria; and what did this strange display now mean? They
saw him, whom they had thus known by his dreadful reputation as a hater
and exterminator of the Nazarene doctrine, now preaching it in the
schools of the Jewish law and the houses of worship for the adherents
of Mosaic forms, and with great power persuading others to a similar
renunciation of all opposition to the name of Jesus; and they said, “Is
not this he who destroyed them that called on this name in Jerusalem,
and came hither, with the very purpose of taking them bound, to the
Sanhedrim, for punishment?” But Saul, each day advancing in the
knowledge and faith of the Christian doctrine, soon grew too strong in
argument for the most skilful of the defenders of the Jewish faith; and
utterly confounded them with his proofs that Jesus was the very Messiah.
This triumphant course he followed for a long time; until, at last,
the stubborn Jews, provoked to the highest degree by the defeats which
they had suffered from this powerful disputant, lately their most
zealous defender, took counsel to put him to death, as a renegade from
the faith, of which he had been the trusted professor, as well as the
commissioned minister of its vengeance on the heretics whose cause he
had now espoused, and was defending, to the great injury and discredit
of the Judaical order. In contriving the means of executing this scheme,
they received the support and assistance of the government of the
city,――Damascus being then held, not by the Romans, but by Aretas, a
petty king of northern Arabia. The governor appointed by Aretas did not
scruple to aid the Jews in their murderous project; but even himself,
with a detachment of the city garrison, kept watch at the gates, to
kill Saul at his first outgoing. But all their wicked plots were set
at nought by a very simple contrivance. The Christian friends of Saul,
hearing of the danger, determined to remove him from it at once; and
accordingly, one night, put the destined apostle of the Gentiles in
a basket; and through the window of some one of their houses, which
adjoined the barriers of the city, they let him down outside of the
wall, while the spiteful Jews, with the complaisant governor and his
detachment of the city guard, were to no purpose watching the gates
with unceasing resolution, to wreak their vengeance on this dangerous
convert.

  Michaelis alludes to the difficulties which have arisen about
  the possession of Damascus by Aretas, and concludes as follows:

  “The force of these objections has been considerably weakened,
  in a dissertation published in 1755, ‘De ethnarcha Aretae Arabum
  regis Paulo insidiante,’ by J. G. Heyne, who has shown it to be
  highly probable, first, that Aretas, against whom the Romans,
  not long before the death of Tiberius, made a declaration of war,
  which they neglected to put in execution, took the opportunity
  of seizing Damascus, which had once belonged to his ancestors;
  an event omitted in Josephus, as forming no part of the Jewish
  history, and by the Roman historians as being a matter not
  flattering in itself, and belonging only to a distant province.
  Secondly, that Aretas was by religion a Jew,――a circumstance
  the more credible, when we reflect that Judaism had been widely
  propagated in that country, and that even kings in Arabia Felix
  had recognized the law of Moses. * * * And hence we may explain
  the reason why the Jews were permitted to exercise, in Damascus,
  persecutions still severer than those in Jerusalem, where the
  violence of their zeal was awed by the moderation of the Roman
  policy. Of this we find an example in the ninth chapter of the
  Acts, where Paul is sent by the high priest to Damascus, to
  exercise against the Christians, cruelties which the return of
  the Roman governor had checked in Judea. These accounts agree
  likewise with what is related in Josephus, that the number of
  Jews in Damascus amounted to ten thousand, and that almost all
  the women, even those whose husbands were heathens, were of the
  Jewish religion.” (Michaelis, Introduction, Vol. IV. Part I. c.
  ii. § 12.)


                       HIS RESIDENCE IN ARABIA.

On his escape from this murderous plot, Saul, having now received from
God, who called him by his grace, the revelation of his Son, that he
might preach him among the heathen, immediately resolved not to confer
with any mortal, on the subject of his task, and therefore refrained
from going up to Jerusalem, to visit those who were apostles before
him. Turning his course southeastward, he found refuge from the rage of
the Damascan Jews, in the solitudes of the eastern deserts, where, free
alike from the persecutions and the corruptions of the city, he sought
in meditation and lonely study, that diligent preparation which was
necessary for the high ministry to which God had so remarkably called
him. A long time was spent by him in this wise and profitable seclusion;
but the exact period cannot be ascertained. It is only probable that
more than a year was thus occupied; during which he was not a mere
hermit, indeed, but at any rate, was a resident in a region destitute
of most objects which would be apt to draw off his attention from study.
That part of Arabia in which he took refuge, was not a mere desert, nor
a wilderness, yet had very few towns, and those only of a small size,
with hardly any inhabitants of such a character as to be attractive
companions to Saul. After some time, changes having taken place in
the government of Damascus, he was enabled to return thither with
safety, the Jews being now checked in their persecuting cruelty by the
re-establishment of the Roman dominion over that part of Syria. He did
not remain there long; but having again displayed himself as a bold
assertor of the faith of Jesus, he next set his face towards Jerusalem,
on his return, to make known in the halls of those who had sent him
forth to deeds of blood, that their commission had been reversed by
the Father of all spirits, who had now not only summoned, but fully
equipped, their destined minister of wrath, to be “a chosen instrument
of mercy” to nations who had never yet heard of Israel’s God.

  The different accounts given of these events, in Acts ix. 19‒25,
  and in Galatians i. 15‒24, as well as 2 Corinthians xi. 32‒33,
  have been united in very opposite ways by different commentators,
  and form the most perplexing passages in the life of Saul. The
  journey into Arabia, of which he speaks in Galatians i. 17, is
  supposed by most writers, to have been made during the time when
  Luke mentions him as occupied in and about Damascus; and it is
  said that he went thence into Arabia _immediately_ after his
  conversion, before he had preached anywhere; and such writers
  maintain that the word “_straightway_,” or “_immediately_,”
  in Acts ix. 20, (ευθεως,) really means, that it was not until
  a long time after his conversion that he preached in the
  synagogues!! Into this remarkable opinion they have been led
  by the fact, that Saul himself says, (Galatians i. 16,) that
  when he was called by God to the apostleship, “immediately he
  conferred not with flesh and blood, nor went up to Jerusalem,
  but went into Arabia.” All this however, is evidently specified
  by him only in reference to the point that he did not derive
  his title to the apostleship from “those that were apostles
  before him,” nor from any human authority; and full justice is
  therefore done to his words, by applying them only to the fact,
  that he went to Arabia before he went to Jerusalem, without
  supposing them to mean that he left Damascus _immediately_ after
  his baptism by Ananias. All the historical writers however, seem
  to take this latter view. Witsius, Cappel, Pearson, Lardner,
  Murdock, Hemsen, &c. place his journey to Arabia between his
  baptism and the time of his escape, and suppose that when he
  fled from Damascus, he went directly to Jerusalem. In the
  different arrangement which I make of these events, however, I
  find myself supported by most of the great exegetical writers,
  as Wolf, Kuinoel, and Bloomfield; and I can not better support
  this view than in the words of the latter.

  Acts ix. 19. “ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ Σαῦλος. Paul (Galatians ♦i. 17,)
  relates that he, after his conversion, did not proceed to
  Jerusalem, but repaired to Arabia, and from thence returned to
  Damascus. Hence, according to the opinion of Pearson, in his
  Annales Paulini, p. 2. the words ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ Σαῦλος are to
  be separated from the preceding passage, and constitute a new
  story, in which is related what happened at Damascus after Saul’s
  return from Arabia. But the words ἱκαναὶ ἡμέραι may and ought
  to be referred to the whole time of Paul’s abode at Damascus,
  before he went into Arabia; and thus with the ἱκαναὶ ἡμέραι be
  numbered the ἡμέραι τινὲς mentioned at verse 19: for the sense
  of the words is this: ‘Saul, when he spent some days with the
  Damascene Christians, immediately taught in the synagogues. Now
  Luke entirely passes by Paul’s journey into Arabia. (Kuinoel.)
  Doddridge imagines that his going into Arabia, (to which, as
  he observes, Damascus now belonged,) was only making excursions
  from that city into the neighboring parts of the country, and
  perhaps taking a large circuit about it, which might be his
  employment between the time in which he began to preach in
  Damascus, and his quitting it after having been conquered by the
  Romans under Pompey.’ But in view of this subject I cannot agree
  with him. The country in the _neighborhood of Damascus_ is not
  properly _Arabia_.”

    ♦ “1, 17” replaced with “i. 17”

  22‒24. “ὡς δὲ ἐπληροῦντο――ἀνελεῖν αὐτόν. In 2 Corinthians xi.
  32, we read that the Ethnarch of Aretas, king of Arabia, had
  placed a guard at the gates of Damascus, to seize Paul. Now it
  appears that Syria Damascene was, at the end of the Mithridatic
  war, reduced by Pompey to the Roman yoke. It has therefore been
  inquired how it could happen that Aretas should then have the
  government, and appoint an Ethnarch. That Aretas had, on account
  of the repudiation of his daughter by Herod Antipas, commenced
  hostilities against that monarch, and in the last year of
  Tiberius (A. D. 37,) had completely defeated his army, we learn
  from Josephus Antiquities, 18, 5, 1. seqq. Herod had, we find,
  signified this by letter to Tiberius, who, indignant at this
  audacity, (Josephus L. c.) gave orders to Vitellius, prefect
  of Syria, to declare war against Aretas, and take him alive,
  or send him his head. Vitellius made preparations for the war,
  but on receiving a message acquainting him with the death of
  Tiberius, he dismissed his troops into winter quarters. And
  thus Aretas was delivered from the danger. At the time, however,
  that Vitellius drew off his forces, Aretas invaded Syria, seized
  Damascus, and continued to occupy it, in spite of Tiberius’s
  stupid successor, Caligula. This is the opinion of most
  commentators, and among others, Wolf, Michaelis, and Eichhorn.
  But I have already shewn in the Prolegomena § de chronologia
  lib. 2, 3, that Aretas did not finally subdue Damascus until
  Vitellius had already departed from the province.” (Kuinoel.)
  (Bloomfield’s Annotations, Vol. IV. pp. 322‒324.)


                       HIS RETURN TO JERUSALEM.

Arriving in the city, whence only three years before he had set out, in
a frame of mind so different from that in which he returned, and with
a purpose so opposite to his present views and plans,――he immediately,
with all the confidence of Christian faith, and ardent love for those
to whom his religious sympathies now so closely fastened him, assayed
to mingle in a familiar and friendly manner with the apostolic company,
and offered himself to their Christian fellowship as a devout believer
in Jesus. But they, already having too well known him in his previous
character as the persecutor of their brethren, the aider and abettor in
the murder of the heroic and innocent Stephen, and the greatest enemy
of the faithful,――very decidedly repulsed his advances, as only a new
trick to involve them in difficulties, that would make them liable to
punishment which their prudence had before enabled them to escape. They
therefore altogether refused to receive Saul; for “they were all afraid
of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.” In this disagreeable
condition,――cast out as a hypocrite, by the apostles of that faith,
for which he had sacrificed all earthly prospects,――he was fortunately
found by Barnabas, who being, like Saul, a Hellenist Jew, naturally
felt some especial sympathy with one whose country was within a few
miles of his own; and by this circumstance, being induced to notice
the professed convert, soon recognized in him, the indubitable signs
of a regenerated and sanctified spirit, and therefore brought him to
the chief apostles, Peter, and James, the Lord’s brother; for with
these alone did Saul commune, at this visit, as he himself distinctly
testifies. Still avoiding the company of the great mass of the apostles
and disciples, he confined himself almost wholly to the acquaintance
of Peter, with whom he abode in close familiarity for fifteen days.
In order to reconcile the narrative of Luke in the Acts, with the
account given by Saul himself, in the first chapter of the epistle
to the Galatians, it must be understood that the “_apostles_”
spoken of by the former are only the two above-mentioned, and it was
with these only that he “went in and out at Jerusalem,”――the other
apostles being probably absent on some missionary duties among the new
churches throughout Judea and Palestine. Imitating the spirit of the
proto-martyr, whose death he had himself been instrumental in effecting,
“he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against
the Hellenists,” doubtless the very same persons among whom he himself
had formerly been enrolled as an unshrinking opposer of that faith
which he was now advocating. By them he was received with all that
vindictive hate which might have been expected; and he was at once
denounced as a vile renegade from the cause which in his best days he
had maintained as the only right one. To show most satisfactorily that,
though he might change, they had not done so, they directly resolved
to punish the bold disowner of the faith of his fathers, and would soon
have crowned him with the fate of Stephen, had not the disciples heard
of the danger which threatened the life of their new brother, and
provided for his escape by means not less efficient than those before
used in his behalf, at Damascus. Before the plans for his destruction
could be completed, they privately withdrew him from Jerusalem, and
had him safely conducted down to Caesarea, on the coast, whence, with
little delay, he was shipped for some of the northern parts of Syria,
from which he found his way to Tarsus,――whether by land or sea, is
unknown.


                         HIS VISIT TO TARSUS.

This return to his native city was probably the first visit which
he had made to it, since the day when he departed from his father’s
house, to go to Jerusalem as a student of Jewish theology. It must
therefore have been the occasion of many interesting reflections and
reminiscences. What changes had the events of that interval wrought in
him,――in his faith, his hopes, his views, his purposes for life and for
death! The objects which were then to him as idols,――the aims and ends
of his being,――had now no place in his reverence or his affection; but
in their stead was now placed a name and a theme, of which he could
hardly have heard before he first left Tarsus,――and a cause whose
triumph would be the overthrow of all those traditions of the Fathers,
of which he had been taught to be so exceeding zealous. To this new
cause he now devoted himself, and probably at this time labored “in
the regions of Cilicia,” until a new apostolic summons called him to a
distant field. He was yet “personally unknown to the churches of Judea,
which were in Christ; and they had only heard, that he who persecuted
them in times past, now preached the faith which once he destroyed;
they therefore glorified God on his account.” The very beginnings
of his apostolic duties were therefore in a foreign field, and not
within the original premises of the lost sheep of the house of Israel,
where indeed he was not even known but by fame, except to a few in
Jerusalem. In this he showed the great scope and direction of his
future labors,――among the Gentiles, not among the Jews; leaving the
latter to the sole care of the original apostles, while he turned to
a vast field for which they were in no way fitted, by nature, or by
apostolic education, nor were destined in the great scheme of salvation.


                   HIS APOSTOLIC LABORS IN ANTIOCH.

During this retirement of Saul to his native home, the first great
call of the Gentiles had been made through the summons of Simon Peter
to Cornelius. There was manifest wisdom in this arrangement of events.
Though the original apostles were plainly never intended, by providence,
to labor to any great extent in the Gentile field, yet it was most
manifestly proper that the first opening of this new field should be
made by those directly and personally commissioned by Jesus himself,
and who, from having enjoyed his bodily presence for so long a time,
would be considered best qualified to judge of the propriety of
a movement so novel and unprecedented in its character. The great
apostolic chief was therefore made the first minister of grace to
the Gentiles; and the violent opposition with which this innovation
on Judaical sanctity was received by the more bigoted, could of course
be much more efficiently met, and disarmed, by the apostle specially
commissioned as the keeper of the keys of the heavenly kingdom,
than by one who had been but lately a persecutor of the faithful,
and who, by his birth and partial education in a Grecian city, had
acquired such a familiarity with Gentile usages, as to be reasonably
liable to suspicion, in regard to an innovation which so remarkably
favored them. This great movement having been thus made by the
highest Christian authority on earth,――and the controversy immediately
resulting having been thus decided,――the way was now fully open for the
complete extension of the gospel to the heathen, and Saul was therefore
immediately called, in providence, from his retirement, to take up the
work of evangelizing Syria, which had already been partially begun at
Antioch, by some of the Hellenistic refugees from the persecution at
the time of Stephen’s martyrdom. The apostles at Jerusalem, hearing of
the success which attended these incidental efforts, dispatched their
trusty brother Barnabas, to confirm the good work, under the direct
commission of apostolic authority. He, having come to Antioch, rejoiced
his heart with the sight of the success which had crowned the work
of those who, in the midst of the personal distress of a malignant
persecution, that had driven them from Jerusalem, had there sown a seed
that was already bringing forth glorious fruits. Perceiving the immense
importance of the field there opened, he immediately felt the want of
some person of different qualifications from the original apostles,
and one whose education and habits would fit him not only to labor
among the professors of the Jewish faith, but also to communicate
the doctrines of Christ to the Grecians. In this crisis he bethought
himself of the wonderful young convert with whom he had become
acquainted, under such remarkable circumstances, a few years before,
in Jerusalem,――whose daring zeal and masterly learning had been so
signally manifested among the Hellenists, with whom he had formerly
been associated as an equally active persecutor. Inspired both by
considerations of personal regard, and by wise convictions of the
peculiar fitness of this zealous disciple for the field now opened in
Syria, Barnabas immediately left his apostolic charge at Antioch, and
went over to Tarsus, to invite Saul to this great labor. The journey
was but a short one, the distance by water being not more than one
hundred miles, and by land, around through the “Syrian gates,” about
one hundred and fifty. He therefore soon arrived at Saul’s home, and
found him ready and willing to undertake the proposed apostolic duty.
They immediately returned together to Antioch, and earnestly devoted
themselves to their interesting labors.

  “_Antioch_, the metropolis of Syria, was built, according to
  some authors, by Antiochus Epiphanes; others affirm, by Seleucus
  Nicanor, the first king of Syria after Alexander the Great, in
  memory of his father Antiochus, and was the ‘royal seat of the
  kings of Syria.’ For power and dignity, Strabo, (lib. xvi. p.
  517,) says it was not much inferior to Seleucia, or Alexandria.
  Josephus, (lib. iii. cap. 3,) says, it was the third great city
  of all that belonged to the Roman provinces. It was frequently
  called Antiochia Epidaphne, from its neighborhood to Daphne,
  a village where the temple of Daphne stood, to distinguish it
  from other fourteen of the same name mentioned by Stephanus
  de Urbibus, and by Eustathius in Dionysius p. 170; or as
  Appianus (in Syriacis,) and others, sixteen cities in Syria,
  and elsewhere, which bore that name. It was celebrated among the
  Jews for ‘Jus civitatis,’ which Seleucus Nicanor had given them
  in that city with the Grecians and Macedonians, and which, says
  Josephus, they still retain, Antiquities, lib. xii. cap. 13;
  and for the wars of the Maccabeans with those kings. Among
  Christians, for being the place where they first received that
  name, and where Saul and Barnabas began their apostolic labors
  together. In the flourishing times of the Roman empire, it was
  the ordinary residence of the prefect or governor of the eastern
  provinces, and also honored with the residence of many of the
  Roman emperors, especially of Verus and Valens, who spent here
  the greatest part of their time. It lay on both sides of the
  river Orontes, about twelve miles from the Mediterranean sea.”
  (Wells’s Geography New Testament――Whitby’s Table.) (J. M.
  Williams’s Notes on Pearson’s _Annales Paulinae_.)

Having arrived at Antioch, Saul gave himself, with Barnabas, zealously
to the work for which he had been summoned, and labored among the
people to good purpose, assembling the church and imparting to all that
would hear, the knowledge of the Christian doctrine. Under these active
exertions the professors of the faith of Jesus became so numerous and
so generally known in Antioch, that the heathen inhabitants found it
convenient to designate them by a distinct appellation, which they
derived from the great founder and object of their religion,――calling
them _Christians_, because the heathen inhabitants of Syria were not
acquainted with the terms, “Nazarene” and “Galilean,” which had been
applied to the followers of Christ by the Jews, partly from the places
where they first appeared, and partly in opprobium for their low
provincial origin.

  The name now first created by the Syrians to distinguish the
  sect, is remarkable, because being derived from a Greek word,
  _Christos_, it has a Latin adjective termination, Christ_ianus_,
  and is therefore incontestably shown to have been applied by
  the Roman inhabitants of Antioch; for no Grecian would ever
  have been guilty of such a barbarism, in the derivation of one
  word from another in his own language. The proper Greek form of
  the derivation would have been _Christicos_, or _Christenos_,
  and the substantive would have been, not Christianity, but
  _Christicism_, or _Christenism_,――a word so awkward in sound,
  however, that it is very well for all Christendom, that the
  Roman barbarism took the place of the pure Greek termination.
  And since the Latin form of the first derivative has prevailed,
  and Christi_an_ thus been made the name of “a believer
  in Christ,” it is evident to any classical scholar, that
  Christian_ity_ is the only proper form of the substantive
  secondarily derived. For though the appending of a Latin
  termination upon a Greek word, as in the case of Christ_ianus_,
  was unquestionably a blunder and a barbarism in the first place,
  it yet can not compare, for absurdity, with the notion of
  deriving from this Latin form, the substantive Christian_ismus_,
  with a Greek termination foolishly pinned to a Latin one,――a
  folly of which the French are nevertheless guilty. The error,
  of course, can not now be corrected in that language; but those
  who stupidly copy the barbarism from them, and try to introduce
  the monstrous word, ChristianISM, into English, deserve the
  reprobation of every man of taste.

  “Before this they were called ‘disciples,’ as in this
  place――‘believers,’ Acts v. 14――‘men of the church,’ Acts
  xii. 1――‘men of the way,’ Acts ix. 2――‘the saints,’ Acts ix.
  13――‘those that called on the name of Christ,’ verse 14――and
  by their enemies, Nazarenes and Galileans, and ‘men of the
  sect;’――but now, by the conversion of so many heathens, both in
  Caesarea and Antioch, the believing Jews and Gentiles being made
  all one church, this new name was given them, as more expressive
  of their common relation to their Master, Christ. Whitby
  slightly alludes to the prophecy, Isaiah lxv.” (J. M. Williams’s
  Notes on Pearson.)

While Saul was thus effectually laboring in Antioch, there came down to
that city, from Jerusalem, certain persons, indued with the spirit of
prophecy, among whom was one, named Agabus, who, under the influence of
inspiration, made known that there would be a great famine throughout
the world;――a prediction which was verified by the actual occurrence of
this calamity in the days of Claudius Caesar, during whose reign,――as
appears on the impartial testimony of the historians of those times,
both Roman and Jewish,――the Roman empire suffered at different periods
in all its parts, from the capital to Jerusalem,――and at this latter
city, more especially, in the sixth year of Claudius, (A. D. 46,)
as is testified by Josephus, who narrates very particularly some
circumstances connected with the prevalence of this famine in Jerusalem.
The disciples at Antioch, availing themselves of this information,
determined to send relief to their brethren in Judea, before the famine
should come on; and having contributed, each one according to his
ability, they made Barnabas and Saul the messengers of their charity,
who were accordingly dispatched to Jerusalem, on this noble errand.
They remained in Jerusalem through the period of Agrippa’s attack upon
the apostles by murdering James, and imprisoning Peter; but they do
not seem to have been any way immediately concerned in these events;
and when Peter had escaped, they returned to Antioch. How long they
remained here, is not recorded; but the date of subsequent events seems
to imply that it was a space of some years, during which they labored
at Antioch in company with several other eminent prophets and teachers,
of whom are mentioned Simeon, who had the Roman surname of Niger,
Lucius, the Cyrenian, and Manaen, a foster-brother of Herod the
tetrarch. During their common ministrations, at a season of fasting,
they received a direction from the spirit of truth which guided them,
to set apart Saul and Barnabas for the special work to which the Lord
had called them. This work was of course understood to be that for
which Saul in particular, had, at his conversion, been so remarkably
commissioned,――“to open the eyes of the GENTILES,――to turn them from
darkness to light, and from the dominion of Satan to God.” His brethren
in the ministry therefore, understanding at once the nature and object
of the summons, now specially consecrated both him and Barnabas for
their missionary work; and after fasting and praying, they invoked on
them the blessing of God, in the usual oriental form of laying their
hands on them, and then bade them farewell.

  “That this famine was felt chiefly in Judea may be conjectured
  with great reason from the nature of the context, for we find
  that the disciples are resolving to send relief to the elders
  in Judea; consequently they must have understood that those in
  Judea would suffer more than themselves. Josephus declared that
  this famine raged so much there, πολλῶν ὑπό ἐνδείας ἀναλωμάτων
  φθειρομένων, ‘so that many perished for want of victuals.’”

  “‘Throughout the whole world,’ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην, is first to
  be understood, orbis terrarum habitabilis: Demosthenes in Corona,
  Æschines contra Ctesiphon Scapula. Then the Roman and other
  empires were styled οικουμένη, ‘the world.’ Thus Isaiah xiv.
  17, 26, the counsel of God against the empire of Babylon, is
  called his counsel, ἐπὶ τὴν ὅλην οἰκουμένην, ‘against all the
  earth.’――(Elsley, Whitby.) Accordingly Eusebius says of this
  famine, that it oppressed almost the whole _empire_. And as for
  the truth of the prophecy, this dearth is recorded by historians
  most averse to our religion, viz., by Suetonius in the life
  of Claudius, chapter 18, who informs us that it happened ‘ob
  assiduas sterilitates;’ and Dion Cassius History lib. lx. p.
  146, that it was λιμὸς ἰσχυρὸς, ‘a very great famine.’ Whitby’s
  Annotations, Doddridge enumerates nine famines in various years,
  and parts of the empire, in the reign of Claudius; but the first
  was the most severe, and affected particularly Judea, and is
  that here meant.” (J. M. Williams’s notes on Pearson.)


                     HIS FIRST APOSTOLIC MISSION.

Going from Antioch directly eastward to the sea, they came to Seleucia,
the nearest port, only twelve miles from Antioch, and there embarked
for the island of Cyprus, the eastern end of which is not more than
eighty miles from the coast of Syria. The circumstance that more
particularly directed them first to this island, was probably that
it was the native home of Barnabas, and with this region therefore he
would feel so much acquainted as to know its peculiar wants, and the
facilities which it afforded for the advancement of the Christian cause;
and he would also know where he might look for the most favorable
reception. Landing at Salamis, on the south-eastern part of the island,
they first preached in the synagogues of the Jews, who were very
numerous in Cyprus, and constituted so large a part of the population
of the island, that some years afterwards they attempted to get
complete possession of it, and were put down only by the massacre of
many thousands. Directing their efforts first to these wandering sheep
of the house of Israel, the apostles everywhere preached the gospel in
the synagogues, never forsaking the Jews for the Gentiles, until they
had been driven away by insult and injury, that thus the ruin of their
nation might lie, not upon the apostles, but upon them only, for their
rejection of the repeated offers of salvation. Here, it would seem,
they were joined by John Mark, the nephew of Barnabas, who was probably
staying upon the island at that time, and who now accompanied them
as an assistant in their apostolic ministry. Traversing the whole
island from east to west, they came to Paphos, a splendid city near the
western end, famed for the magnificent temple and lascivious worship
of the Paphian Venus, a deity to whom all Cyprus was consecrated; and
from it she derived one of her numerous appellatives, _Cypris_ being a
name under which she was frequently worshipped; and the females of the
island generally, were so completely devoted to her service, not merely
in temple-worship, but in life and manners, that throughout the world,
the name _Cyprian woman_, even to this day, is but a polite expression
for one abandoned to wantonness and pleasure. The worship of this
lascivious goddess, the apostles now came to exterminate, and to plant
in its stead the dominion of a faith, whose essence is purity of heart
and action. At this place, preaching the gospel with openness, they
soon attracted such general notice, that the report of their remarkable
character soon reached the ears of the proconsul of Cyprus, then
resident in Paphos. This great Roman governor, by name Sergius Paulus,
was a man of intelligence and probity, and hearing of the apostles,
soon summoned them to his presence, that he might have the satisfaction
of hearing from them, in his own hall, a full exposition of the
doctrine which they called the word of God. This they did with such
energy and efficiency, that they won his attention and regard; and he
was about to profess his faith in Jesus, when a new obstacle to the
success of the gospel was presented in the conduct of one of those
present at the discourse. This was an impostor, called Elymas,――a name
which seems to be a Greek form of the Oriental “_Alim_” meaning “a
magician,”――who had, by his tricks, gained a great renown throughout
that region, and was received into high favor by the proconsul himself,
with whom he was then staying. The rogue, apprehending the nature of
the doctrines taught by the apostles to be no way agreeable to the
schemes of self-advancement which he was so successfully pursuing, was
not a little alarmed when he saw that they were taking hold of the mind
of the proconsul, and therefore undertook to resist the preaching of
the apostles; and attempted to argue the noble convert into a contempt
of these new teachers. At this, Saul, (now first called Paul,) fixing
his eyes on the miserable impostor, in a burst of inspired indignation,
denounced on him an awful punishment for his resistance of the truth.
“O, full of all guile and all tricks! son of the devil! enemy of all
honesty! wilt thou not stop perverting the ways of the Lord? And now,
lo! the hand of the Lord is on thee, and thou shalt be blind, not
seeing the sun for a time.” And immediately there fell on him a mist
and a darkness; and turning around, he sought some persons to lead him
by the hand. At the sight of this manifest and appalling miracle, thus
following the denunciation of the apostle, the proconsul was so struck,
that he no longer delayed for a moment his profession of faith in the
religion whose power was thus attested, but believed in the doctrine of
Jesus, as communicated by his apostles.

  “_Seleucia_ was a little north-west of Antioch, upon the
  Mediterranean sea, named from its founder, Seleucus.――_Cyprus_,
  so called from the flower of the Cypress-trees growing
  there.――Pliny, lib. xii. cap. 24.――Eustathius. In Dionysius p.
  110. It was an island, having on the east the Syrian, on the
  west the Pamphylian, on the south the Phoenician, on the north
  the Cilician sea. It was celebrated among the heathens for its
  fertility as being sufficiently provided with all things within
  itself. Strabo, lib. xiv. 468, 469. It was very infamous for
  the worship of Venus, who had thence her name Κύπρις. It was
  memorable among the Jews as being an island in which they so
  much abounded; and among Christians for being the place where
  Joses, called Barnabas, had the land he sold, Acts iv. 36; and
  where Mnason, an old disciple, lived; Acts xxi. 16.――(Whitby’s
  Table.) Salamis was once a famous city of Cyprus, opposite to
  Seleucia, on the Syrian coast.――(Wells.) It was in the eastern
  part of Cyprus. It was famous among the Greek writers for the
  story of the Dragon killed by Chycreas, their king; and for the
  death of Anaxarchus, whom Nicocreon, the tyrant of that island,
  pounded to death with iron pestles.”――(Bochart, Canaan, lib. i.
  c. 2――Laert, lib. ix. p. 579.) Williams’s Pearson.

  _Proconsul._――The Greek title Ανθυπατος, was applied only
  to those governors of provinces who were invested with
  _proconsular_ dignity. ‘And on the supposition that Cyprus was
  not a province of this description, it has been inferred that
  the title given to Sergius Paulus in this place, was a title
  that did not properly belong to him. A passage has indeed been
  quoted from Dion Cassius, (History of Rome, lib. liv. p. 523,
  edited by Hanoviae, 1690,) who, speaking of the governors of
  Cyprus and some other Roman provinces, applies to them the same
  title which is applied to Sergius Paulus. But, as Dion Cassius
  is speaking of several Roman provinces at the same time, one
  of which was certainly governed by a proconsul, it has been
  supposed, that for the sake of brevity, he used one term for all
  of them, whether it applied to all of them or not. That Cyprus,
  however, ought to be excluded, and that the title which he
  employed, as well as St. Luke, really _did_ belong to the Roman
  governors of Cyprus, appears from the inscription on a coin
  belonging to Cyprus itself. It belonged to the people of that
  island as appears from the word ΚΥΠΡΙΩΝ on the reverse: and,
  though not struck while Sergius Paulus himself was governor,
  it was struck, as appears from the inscription on the reverse,
  in the time of Proclus, who was next to Sergius Paulus in the
  government of Cyprus. And, on this coin the same title ΑΝΘΥΠΑΤΟΣ,
  is given to Proclus, which St. Luke gives Sergius Paulus.’
  (Bishop Marsh’s Lecture part v. pp. 85, 86.) That Cyprus was a
  proconsulate, is also evident ♦from an ancient inscription of
  Caligula’s reign, in which Aquius Scaura is called the proconsul
  of Cyprus. (Gruteri Corpus Inscriptionem, tom. i. part ii. p,
  cccix. No. 3, edited by Graevii Amsterdam, 1707.) Horne’s Introd.

    ♦ “lrom” replaced with “from”


                          HIS CHANGE OF NAME.

In connection with this first miracle of the apostle of Tarsus, it
is mentioned by the historian of the Acts of the Apostles, that Saul
thenceforth bore the name of Paul, and the reader is thence fairly
led to suppose, that the name was taken from that of Sergius Paul,
who is the most important personage concerned in the event; and being
the first eminent man who is specified as having been converted by
the apostle, seems therefore to deserve, in this case, the honor of
conferring a new name on the wonder-working Saul. This coincidence
between the name and the occasion, may be justly esteemed sufficient
ground for assuming this as the true origin of the name by which the
apostle was ever after designated,――which he applies to himself in his
writings, and by which he is always mentioned throughout the Christian
world, in all ages. With the name of “Saul of Tarsus,” there were
too many evil associations already inseparably connected, in the
minds of all the Jewish inhabitants of the east, and the troublesome
character of those prevalent impressions having been perhaps
particularly obvious to the apostle, during his first missionary tour,
he seized this honorable occasion, to exchange it for one that had no
such evil associations; and he was therefore afterwards known only by
the name of PAUL.

Embarking at Paphos, the apostles, after doubling cape Acamas, the most
western point of the island, sailed northwestward, towards the northern
coast of Asia Minor,――and after a voyage of about two hundred miles,
reached Perga, a city in Pamphylia. This place was not a sea-port, but
stood on the west bank of the river Cestrus, about eight miles from the
sea. It was there built by the Attalian kings of south-western Asia,
and was by them made the most splendid city of Pamphylia. Near the
town, and on a rising ground, was a very famous temple of Diana, to
which every year resorted a grand religious assembly, to celebrate
the worship of this great Asian goddess. In such a strong hold
of heathenism, the apostles must have found much occasion for the
preaching of the gospel; but the historian of their Acts gives no
account of anything here said or done by them, and only mentions that
at this place their companion, John Mark, gave up his ministration with
them, and returned to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas then went on without
him, to the north, and proceeded, without any material delay, directly
through Pamphylia, and over the ranges of Taurus, through Pisidia, into
Phrygia Katakekaumene, where they made some stay at the city of Antioch,
which was distinguished from the great capital of Syria bearing the
same royal name, by being called “Antioch of Pisidia,” because, though
really within the boundaries of Phrygia, it was often numbered among
the cities of the province next south, near whose borders it stood,
and was therefore associated with the towns of Pisidia by those who
lived south and east of them. At this place the apostles probably
arrived towards the last of the week, and reposing here on the
sabbath, they went into the Jewish synagogue, along with the usual
worshiping assembly, and took their seats quietly among the rest.
After the regular service of the day (consisting of the reading of
select portions of the law and the prophets) was over, the minister
of the synagogue, according to custom, gave an invitation to the
apostles to preach to the people, if they felt disposed to do so. It
should be noticed, that in the Jewish synagogues, there was no regular
person appointed to preach, the _minister_ being only a sort of reader,
who conducted the devotions of the meeting, and chanted the lessons
from the Scriptures, as arranged for each sabbath. When these regular
duties were over, the custom was to invite a discourse from any person
disposed or qualified to address the people,――the whole being always
thus conducted somewhat on the plan of a modern “conference meeting.”
On this day, the minister, noticing two grave and intelligent-looking
persons among the worshipers, joining devoutly in the service of God,
and perceiving them to be of a higher order than most of the assembly,
or perhaps having received a previous hint of the fact that they
were well-qualified religious teachers, who had valuable doctrines to
communicate to the people,――sent word to them, “Brethren! if you have
any word of exhortation for the people, say on.” Paul then,――as usual,
taking the precedence of Barnabas in speaking, on account of his own
superior endowments as an orator,――addressed the meeting, beginning
with the usual form of words, accompanied with a graceful gesticulation,
beseeching their favor. “Men of Israel! and you that fear God! give
your attention.” The two different classes of persons included in
this formula, are evidently, first, those who were Jews by birth
and education, and second, those devout Gentiles who reverenced the
God of Israel and conformed to the law of Moses, worshiping with the
Jews on the sabbath. Paul, in his sermon, which was of considerable
length, began in the usual form of an apostolic discourse to the
Jews, by recurring to the early Hebrew history, and running over the
great leading events and persons mentioned in their sacred writings,
that might be considered as preparing the way for the Messiah. Then,
proceeding to the narration of the most important points in the history
of the new dispensation, he applied all the quoted predictions of
the inspired men of old, to the man Christ Jesus, whom they now
preached. The substance of his discourse was, that in Jesus Christ were
fully accomplished those splendid prophecies contained in the Psalms,
concerning the future glories of the line of David; and more especially
that by his attested resurrection he had fulfilled the words spoken
by the Psalmist, of the triumphs of the “Holy One” over the grave
and corruption. Paul thus concluded,――“Be it known to you therefore,
brethren, that through this man is preached to you forgiveness of sins;
and every one that believes in him is justified from all things, from
which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. Beware therefore,
lest that come upon you which is spoken by the prophets,――‘See! you
despisers! and wonder and be amazed; for I will do a work in your days,
which you shall not believe, even if one should tell it to you.’” These
denunciatory concluding words are from the prophet Habakkuk, where he
is foretelling to the Israelites of his day, the devastating invasion
of the Chaldeans; and the apostle in quoting them, aimed to impress
his hearers with the certainty of similar evils to fall upon their
nation,――evils so tremendous, that they might naturally disbelieve the
warning, if it should give them the awful particulars of the coming
ruin, but whose solemn truth they would, nevertheless, too soon learn
in its actual accomplishment. These words being directed in a rather
bitter tone of warning to the Jews in particular, that portion of the
audience do not appear to have been much pleased with his address; but
while the most of them were retiring from the synagogue, the Gentiles
declared their high satisfaction with the discourse, and expressed
an earnest desire that it might be repeated to them on the next
sabbath,――a request with which ministers in these modern times are very
rarely complimented by their congregations. After the meeting broke
up, many of the audience were so loth to part with preachers of this
extraordinary character, that they followed the apostles to their
lodgings. These were mostly the religious proselytes from the heathen
who worshiped with the Jews in the synagogue, but some even of the
Jews were so well satisfied with what they had heard, that they also
accompanied the throng that followed the apostles. Paul and Barnabas
did not suffer this occasion to pass unimproved; but as they went along,
discoursed to the company, exhorting them to stand fast in the grace
of God. They continued in the city through the week, and meanwhile the
fame of their doctrines and their eloquence extended so fast and so
far, that when on the next sabbath they went to the synagogue to preach
according to promise, almost the whole city came pouring in, along with
them, to hear the word of God. But when the Jews, who had already been
considerably displeased by the manner in which they had been addressed
the last sabbath, saw the multitudes which were thronging to hear these
new interlopers, they were filled with envy, and when Paul renewed
his discourse, they openly disputed him,――denied his conclusions, and
abused him, and his doctrine. Paul and Barnabas, justly indignant at
this exhibition of meanness, that thus set itself against the progress
of the truth among the Gentiles, from whom the Jews, not content with
rejecting the gospel themselves, would also exclude the light of the
word,――boldly declared to them――“It was necessary that the word of God
should be first spoken to you; but since you have cast it off, and thus
evince yourselves unworthy of everlasting life,――behold, we turn to the
heathen. For thus did God command us, ‘I have set thee for a light to
the _heathen_, that thou mightest be for their salvation, even to the
uttermost part of the earth.’” And the heathen hearing this, rejoiced,
and glorified the word of the Lord, and many of them believed, to their
everlasting salvation. And the word of God was spread throughout that
whole country; but the opposition of the Jews increasing in proportion
to the progress of the faith of Christ, a great disturbance was raised
against the apostles among the aristocracy of the city, who favored
the Jews, and more especially among the women of high family, who were
proselytes; and the result of the commotion was, that the apostles
were driven out of the city. Paul and Barnabas, in conformity to the
original injunction of Jesus to the twelve, shook off the dust of their
feet, as an expressive testimony against them,――and turning eastward,
came to another city, named Iconium, in Lycaonia, the most eastern
province of Phrygia.

  Lycaonia is a province of Asia Minor, accounted the southern
  part of Cappadocia, having Isauria on the west, Armenia Minor
  on the east, and Cilicia on the south. Its chief cities are
  all mentioned in this chapter xiv. _viz._, Iconium, Lystra, and
  Derbe. They spake _in the Lycaonian tongue_, verse 10, which is
  generally understood to have been a corrupt Greek, intermingled
  with many Syriac words.――Horne’s Introduction.

Iconium was the capital of Lycaonia, and is mentioned by the Grecian
and Roman writers, before and after the apostolic times, as a place
of some importance; but nothing definite is known of its size and
character. It appears, at any rate, from the apostolic record, that
this flourishing city was one of the numerous centers of the Jewish
population, that filled so much of Asia Minor; and here, according
to their custom, the apostles made their first communication of the
gospel, in the Jewish synagogue. Entering this place of worship, they
spoke with such effect, that a great number both of Greeks and Jews
were thoroughly convinced of the truth of the Christian doctrine, and
professed their faith in Jesus. But, as usual, there was in Iconium
a great residue of bigoted adherents to the Mosaic faith, who could
appreciate neither the true scope of the ancient dispensation, nor the
perfection of gospel truth; and a set of these fellows undertook to
make trouble for the apostles, in the same way that it had been done
at the Pisidian Antioch. Not having power or influence enough among
themselves to effect any great mischief, they were obliged to resort
to the expedient of exciting the ill-will of the Gentile inhabitants
and rulers of the city, against the objects of their mischievous
designs,――and in this instance were successful, inasmuch as “they made
their minds disaffected against the brethren.” But in spite of all
this opposition, thus powerfully manifested, “long time they abode
there, speaking boldly in the Lord,” who did not fail to give them the
ever-promised support of his presence, but “gave testimony to the word
of his grace, and caused signs and miracles to be done by their hands.”
The immediate effect of this bold maintenance of the truth was, that
they soon made a strong impression on the feelings of the mass of the
people, and created among them a disposition to defend the preachers
of the word of heavenly grace, against the malice of their haters. The
consequence of course was, that the whole city was directly divided
into two great parties, one for and the other against the apostles. On
one hand the supporters of the Jewish faction were bent upon driving
out the innovators from the city, and on the other, the numerous
audiences, who had been interested in the preaching of Paul and
Barnabas, were perfectly determined to stand by the apostles at
all hazards, and the whole city seems to have been on the eve of a
regular battle about this difference. But it did not suit the apostles’
scheme to make use of such means for their own advancement or defence;
and hearing that a grand crisis in affairs was approaching, in the
opposition of the Jewish faction, they took the resolution of evading
the difficulty, by withdrawing themselves quietly from the scene of
commotion, in which there was but very little prospect of being useful,
just then. The whole gang of their opponents, both Gentiles and Jews,
rulers and commonalty, having turned out for the express purpose of
executing popular vengeance on these odious agitators, by abusing and
pelting them, the apostles, on getting notice of the scheme, moved off,
before the mob could lay hands on them, and soon got beyond their reach,
in other cities.

These fugitives from popular vengeance, after having so narrowly
escaped being sacrificed to public opinion, turned their course
southward, and stopped next on their adventurous route at the city of
Lystra, also within Lycaonia, where they preached the gospel, and not
only in the city and its immediate vicinity, but also throughout the
whole surrounding region, and in the neighboring towns. In the progress
of their labors in Lystra, they one day were preaching in the presence
of a man who had been lame from his birth, being in exactly the same
predicament with the cripple who was the subject of the first miracle
of Peter and John, in the temple. This unfortunate auditor of Paul and
Barnabas believed the word of truth which they preached; and as he sat
among the rest, being noticed by the former apostle, was recognized as
a true believer. Looking earnestly on him, Paul, without questioning
him at all as to his faith, said to him at once, in a loud voice, “Rise,
and stand on thy feet.” Instantly the man sprang up, and walked. When
the people saw this amazing and palpable miracle, they cried out, in
their Lycaonian dialect, “The gods are come down to us in the likeness
of men.” Struck with this notion, they immediately sought to designate
the individual deities who had thus honored the city of Lystra with
their presence; and at once recognized in the stately form, and solemn,
silent majesty of Barnabas, the awful front of JUPITER, the Father
of all the gods; and as for the lively, mercurial person attending
upon him, and acting, on all occasions, as the spokesman, with such
vivid, burning eloquence,――who could he be but the attendant and
agent of Jupiter, HERMES, the god of eloquence and of travelers? Full
of this conceit, and anxious to testify their devout sense of this
condescension, the citizens bustled about, and with no small parade
brought out a solemn sacrificial procession, with oxen and garlands,
headed by the priests of Jupiter, and were proceeding to offer a
sacrifice in solemn form to the divine personages who had thus veiled
their dignity in human shape, when the apostles, horror-struck at this
degrading exhibition of the idolatrous spirit against which they were
warring, and without a single sensation of pride or gratitude for this
great compliment done them, ran in among the people, rending their
clothes in the significant and fantastic gesture of true Orientals,
and cried out with great earnestness, “Sirs! what do you mean? We also
are men of like constitutions with yourselves, and we preach to you
with the express intent that you should turn from these follies to
the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea, and all that is in
them.――He, indeed, in times past, left all nations to walk in their
own ways. Yet he left himself not wholly without witness of his being
and goodness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and
fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” With
these words of splendid eloquence and magnificent conception bursting
from their lips in the inspiration of the moment,――the apostles,
with no small ado, stopped the idolatrous folly of the Lystrans, who
probably felt and looked very silly, when the mistake into which they
had been drawn by a mere mob-cry, was shown to them. Indignant, not
so much at themselves, who alone were truly blamable for the error, as
against the persons who were the nobly innocent occasions of it,――they
were in a state of feeling to overbalance this piece of extravagance
by another,――much more wicked, because it was not mere nonsense, but
downright cruelty. When, therefore, certain spiteful Jews came to
Lystra from Antioch and Iconium, from which places they had been
hunting, like hounds, on the track of the apostles, and told their
abusive lies to the people about the character of these two strange
travelers, the foolish Lystrans were easily persuaded to crown their
absurdity by falling upon Paul, who seemed to be the person most active
in the business. Having seized him, before he could slip out of their
hands, as he usually did from his persecutors, they pelted him with
such effect that he fell down as if dead; and they, with no small
alacrity, dragged him out of the city as a mere carcase. But the mob
had hardly dispersed, when he rose up, to the great wonder of the
brethren who stood mourning about him, and went back with them into
the city. The whole of this interesting series of events is a firm
testimony to the honesty of the apostolic narrative, exhibiting,
as it does, so fairly, the most natural, and at the same time, the
most contemptible tendencies of the human character. Never was there
given such a beautiful illustration of the value and moral force of
public opinion! unless, perhaps, in the very similar case of Jesus, in
Jerusalem:――“Hosanna,” to-day, and “Crucify him,” to-morrow. One moment,
exalting the apostles to the name and honors of the highest of all the
gods; the next, pelting them through the streets, and kicking them out
of the city as a nuisance. The Bible is everywhere found to be just so
bitterly true to human nature, and the whole world cannot furnish a
story in which the character and moral value of popular movements are
better exhibited than in the adventures of the apostles, as recorded by
Luke.

  Acts xiv. 12. “It has been inquired why the Lystrans suspected
  that Paul and Barnabas were Mercury and Jupiter? To this it may
  be answered, 1st. that the ancients supposed the gods especially
  visited those cities which were sacred to them. Now from
  verse 13, it appears that _Jupiter_ was worshiped among these
  people; and that Mercury too was, there is no reason to doubt,
  considering how general his worship would be in so commercial a
  tract of Maritime Asia. (Gughling de Paulo Mercurio, p. 9, and
  Walch Spic. Antiquities, Lystra, p. 9.) How then was it that the
  priest of Mercury did not also appear? This would induce one
  rather to suppose that there was no temple to Mercury at Lystra.
  Probably the worship of that god was confined to the _sea-coast_;
  whereas Lystra was in the interior and mountainous country. 2. It
  appears from mythological history, that Jupiter was thought to
  generally descend on earth accompanied by _Mercury_. See Plautus,
  Amphitryon, 1, 1, 1. Ovid, Metamorphoses, 8, 626, and Fasti,
  5, 495. 3. It was a very common story, and no doubt, familiar
  to the Lystrans, that Jupiter and Mercury formerly traversed
  Phrygia together, and were received by Philemon and Baucis.
  (See Ovid, Metamorphoses, 8, 611, Gelpke in Symbol. ad Interp.
  Acts xiv. 12.) Mr. Harrington has yet more appositely observed,
  (in his _Works_, p. 330,) that this persuasion might gain
  the more easily on the minds of the Lycaonians, on account of
  the well-known fable of Jupiter and Mercury, who were said to
  have descended from heaven in human shape, and to have been
  entertained by Lycaon, from whom the Lycaonians received their
  name.

  “But it has been further inquired why they took Barnabas for
  Jupiter, and Paul for Mercury. Chrysostom observes, (and after
  him Mr. Fleming, Christology Vol. II. p. 226,) that the heathens
  represented Jupiter as an old but vigorous man, of a noble and
  majestic aspect, and a large robust make, which therefore he
  supposes might be the form of Barnabas; whereas Mercury appeared
  young, little, and nimble, as Paul might probably do, since
  he was yet in his youth. A more probable reason, however, and
  indeed the true one, (as given by Luke,) is, that Paul was so
  named, _because he was the leading speaker_. Now it was well
  known that Mercury was the god of eloquence. So Horace, Carmen
  Saeculare, 1, 10, 1. Mercuri facunde nepos Atlantis Qui feros
  cultus hominum recentum Voce formasti cantus. Ovid, Fasti,
  5, 688. Macrobius, Saturnalia, 8, 8. Hence he is called by
  Jamblichus, de Mysteriis, θεὸς ὁ των λόγων ἡγεμὼν, a passage
  exactly the counterpart to the present one, which we may render,
  ‘for he had led the discourse.’” (Bloomfield’s Annotations, New
  Testament, Vol. IV. c. xiv. § 12.)

  “They called Paul Mercury, because he was the chief speaker,”
  verse 12. Mercury was the god of eloquence. Justin Martyr says
  Paul is λόγος ἑρμηνευτικὸς καὶ πάντων διδάσκαλος, _the word;
  that is, the interpreter and teacher of all men_. Apology ii. p.
  67. Philo informs us that Mercury is called Hermes, ὡς Ἑρμηνέα
  καὶ προφήτην τῶν θειων, _as being the interpreter and prophet of
  divine things_, apud Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica, Lib. iii.
  c. 2. He is called by Porphyry παραστατικὸς, _the exhibitor or
  representor of reason and eloquence_. Seneca says he was called
  Mercury, _quia ratio penes illum est_. De Beneficiis, Lib. iv.
  cap. 7.――Calmet, Whitby, Stackhouse.

All this pelting and outcry, however, made not the slightest impression
on Paul and Barnabas, nor had the effect of deterring them from the
work, which they had so unpropitiously carried on. Knowing, as they did,
how popular violence always exhausts itself in its frenzy, they without
hesitation immediately returned by the same route over which they had
been just driven by such a succession of popular outrages. The day
after Paul had been stoned and stunned by the people of Lystra, he left
that city with Barnabas, and both directed their course eastward to
Derbe, where they preached the gospel and taught many. Then turning
directly back, they came again to Lystra, then to Iconium, and then
to Antioch, in all of which cities they had just been so shamefully
treated. In each of these places, they sought to strengthen the faith
of the disciples, earnestly exhorting them to continue in the Christian
course, and warning them that they must expect to attain the blessings
of the heavenly kingdom, only through much trial and suffering. On
this return journey they now formally constituted regular worshiping
assemblies of Christians in all the places from which they had before
been so tumultuously driven as to be prevented from perfecting their
good work,――ordaining elders in every church thus constituted, and
solemnly, with fasting and prayer, commending them to the Lord on whom
they believed. Still keeping the same route on which they had come,
they now turned southward into Pamphylia, and came again to Perga. From
this place, they went down to Attalia, a great city south of Perga,
on the coast of Pamphylia, founded by Attalus Philadelphus, king of
Pergamus. At this port, they embarked for the coast of Syria, and soon
arrived at Antioch, from which they had been commended to the favor of
God, on this adventurous journey. On their arrival, the whole church
was gathered to hear the story of their doings and sufferings, and to
this eager assembly, the apostles then recounted all that happened to
them in the providence of God, their labors, their trials, dangers,
and hair-breadth escapes, and the crowning successes in which all these
providences had resulted; and more especially did they set forth in
what a signal manner, during this journey, the door of Christ’s kingdom
had been opened to the Gentiles, after the rejection of the truth
by the unbelieving Jews; and thus happily ended PAUL’S FIRST GREAT
APOSTOLIC MISSION.

  Bishop Pearson here allots three years for these journeys of the
  apostles, viz. 45, 46, and 47, and something more. But Calmet,
  Tillemont, Dr. Lardner, Bishop Tomline, and Dr. Hales, allow two
  years for this purpose, viz. 45 and 46; which period corresponds
  with our Bible chronology. (Williams on Pearson.)


                   THE DISPUTES ON THE CIRCUMCISION.

The great apostle of the Gentiles now made Antioch his home, and
resided there for many years, during which the church grew prosperously.
But at last some persons came down from Jerusalem, to observe the
progress which the new Gentile converts were making in the faith; and
found, to their great horror, that all were going on their Christian
course, in utter disregard of the ancient ordinances of the holy Mosaic
covenant, neglecting altogether even that grand seal of salvation,
which had been enjoined on Abraham and all the faithful who should
share in the blessings of the promise made to him; they therefore took
these backsliders and loose converts, to task, for their irregularities
in this matter, and said to them, “Unless you be circumcised ♦according
to the Mosaic usage, you can not be saved.” This denunciation of
eternal ruin on the Gentile non-conformists, of course made a great
commotion among the Antiochians, who had been so hopefully progressing
in the pure, spiritual faith of Christ,――and were not prepared by
any of the instructions which they had received from their apostolic
teachers, for any such stiff subjection to tedious rituals. Nor were
Paul and Barnabas slow in resisting this vile imposition upon those who
were just rejoicing in the glorious light and freedom of the gospel;
and they at once therefore, resolutely opposed the attempts of the
bigoted Judaizers to bring them under the servitude of the yoke which
not even the Jews themselves were able to bear. After much wrangling on
this knotty point, it was determined to make a united reference of the
whole question to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, and that Paul
and Barnabas should be the messengers of the Antiochian church, in this
consultation. They accordingly set out, escorted beyond the city by
the church; and passing first directly southward, along the Phoenician
coast, they next turned inland through Samaria, everywhere visiting
the churches on the route, and making known to them the joyful story
of the conversions among the Gentiles of Asia Minor, which was news
to the Christians of Palestine, and caused great congratulations among
them, at these unexpected triumphs of their common faith. Arriving at
Jerusalem, they there, for the first time, gave to the twelve apostles,
a detailed account of their long Asian mission; and then brought
forward the grand question under debate. As soon as this point was
presented, all the obstinate Jewish prejudices of that portion of
the church who were of the order of the Pharisees, were instantly
aroused,――and with great earnestness they insisted “that it was
necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of
Moses.” This first meeting however, adjourned without coming to any
conclusion; and the apostles and elders were called together again to
consider upon the matter. As soon as they were assembled they all fell
to disputing with great violence, and, of course, with no decisive or
profitable result; but at last the great apostolic chief rising up,
ended the debate with a very clear statement of the results of his own
personal experience of the divine guidance in this matter, and with
brief but decisive eloquence hushed their clamors, that they might give
Barnabas and Paul a chance to declare in what manner God had sanctioned
their similar course. The two apostles of the Gentiles then narrated
what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the heathen by them.
Such was the decisive effect of their exposition of these matters of
fact, that all debate was checked at once; and James himself, the great
leader of the Judaical order, rose to express his perfect acquiescence
in the decision of the apostolic chief and the Hellenists. His opinion
was, that only so much conformity to the Mosaic institutions should be
required of the Gentile converts, as they might without inconvenience
submit to, out of respect to the old covenant, and such observances as
were necessary for the moral purity of a professing Christian of any
nation. The whole assembly concurred; and it was resolved to dispatch
two select persons out of their own company, to accompany Paul and
Barnabas to Antioch, and thus by their special commission, enforce the
decision of the apostolic and presbyterial council. The decision of the
council was therefore committed to writing, in a letter which bore high
testimony to the zeal and courage of Barnabas and Paul, as “men who had
hazarded their lives for the sake of the gospel,”――and it was announced
as the inspired decision of the apostles, elders and brethren, that the
Gentile converts should not be troubled with any greater burden than
these necessary things:――“That you abstain from things offered to idols,
and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication;” and
if they should only keep themselves from these, they would do well.
Jude and Silas were the envoys commissioned with the charge of this
epistle, and accordingly accompanied Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch.

    ♦ “acccording” replaced with “according”

  “Those who maintained this position were Jews, of the sect of
  the Pharisees, Acts, xv. 5, converted to Christianity, but still
  too zealous for the observance of the law; and their coming
  immediately from Judea might make it rather believed, that the
  necessity of circumcision, in order to salvation, was a tenet
  of the apostles. The Jews themselves indeed were of different
  opinions in this matter, even as to the admission of a man into
  _their_ religion. For some of them would allow those of other
  nations who owned the true God, and practised moral duties,
  to live quietly among them, and even without circumcision, to
  be admitted into their religion; whilst others were decidedly
  opposed to any such thing. Thus Josephus tells us that when
  Izates, the son of Helen, queen of Adiabene, embraced the Jews’
  religion, Ananias, who converted him, declared that he might
  do it without circumcision; but Eleazer, another eminent Jew,
  maintained, that it was a great impiety in such circumstances,
  to remain uncircumcised; and this difference of opinion
  continued among the Jewish Christian converts, some allowing
  Gentiles to become converts to Christianity, without submitting
  to circumcision and the Jewish law: whilst others contended
  that without circumcision, and the observance of the law,
  their profession of the Christian faith would not save them.”
  (_Stackhouse_ from Whitby and Beausobre.)

  “It is very evident, that this is the same journey to which
  the apostle alludes in Galatians ii. First, from the agreement
  of the history here and the apostle’s relation in the epistle,
  as that ‘he communicated to them the gospel, which he preached
  among the Gentiles,’ Galatians ii. 2. which he now did, Acts
  xv. 4. That circumcision was not then judged necessary to the
  Gentiles, verse 3, as we find, Acts xv. 24, ‘that, when they saw
  the gospel of uncircumcision was committed to him, they gave to
  him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship,’ Galatians ii. 9,
  as they did here, sending their very decree with one consent to
  the Gentiles, ‘_by the hands of Paul and Barnabas_,’ Acts xv. 22,
  25, who were received by the ‘_whole church_,’ verse 4. and
  styled _beloved_,’ verse 25.

  “Secondly, it appears unlikely that the apostle, writing this
  epistle about nine years after this council, should make no
  mention of a thing so advantageous to a cause he is pleading
  here, and so proper to confute the pretenses of the adversaries
  he disputes against. And,

  “Thirdly, James, Peter, and John, being all the apostles now
  present at the council, the mention of their consent to his
  doctrine and practice was all that was necessary to his purpose
  to be mentioned concerning that council, It is no objection to
  this opinion, that we find no mention, in Acts xv. of Titus’s
  being with him; for he is not mentioned in the whole of the Acts,
  during which interval the journey must have happened.” (Whitby.)

  “_The Council of Jerusalem_ was assembled in the fourteenth year
  after St. Paul’s conversion. For the apostle adverts to this
  same journey, and determinately specifies the time in Galatians
  ii. 1, 2. Grotius is of opinion that four years should be here
  written instead of fourteen; who, nevertheless, allows, that the
  one mentioned in Galatians, is this journey to the Council. But
  the reason is evident why the apostle should date these years
  from the epoch of his conversion, from the scope of the first
  and second chapters. He styles himself an apostle, not of men,
  neither by man, chap. i. 1: he declared that his gospel was not
  according to men, and that he neither received nor learned it
  from men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, verses 11, 12.
  And this he proves to the Galatians by his conversion, which
  was not unknown to them. He begins with his strict profession of
  the Jewish religion, according to the tenets of the Pharisees,
  which ended in a most violent persecution of the Christians.
  Then he goes on to show how God revealed his Son to him, and
  that immediately he conferred not with flesh and blood, he
  neither held communion with any man, neither did he go up to
  Jerusalem to them that were apostles before him, by whom he
  could have been taught more fully the mind of God, ‘but went
  into Arabia,’ where he received the gospel by revelation; and
  he returned to Damascus, and preached the word of God to the
  confounding of the Jews: ‘Then after three years he went up to
  Jerusalem to see Peter.’ From all this it appears evident, that
  the epoch of these _three years_ should commence at the time of
  his conversion. The same is to be said of the other epoch of the
  _fourteen years_. ‘Then, after fourteen years, I went up again
  to Jerusalem,’ chap. ii. 1, because the scope of both is the
  same,――and they both date from the same period of time. The word
  επειτα does not connect this sentence with that of the three
  years, as if the beginning of these should be dated from the
  close of those, because there is another επειτα which comes
  between these two texts, viz. in verse 21, of chap. i. where
  he begins to relate his travels in Syria and Cilicia, but does
  not specify the period of time he remained in those regions;
  therefore no chronological connexion can have been intended by
  him. The apostle still following up his design, says επειτα and
  παλιν, but neither does επειτα refer to his stay in Syria and
  Cilicia,――nor παλιν to his second coming to Jerusalem: for he
  had been with a second collection to Jerusalem, then suffering
  from famine, accompanied by Barnabas, but not by Titus; and
  because he then saw none of the apostles, he omitted mentioning
  that journey, considering it quite foreign to his present
  purpose.” (Pearson, Annales, 49.)


                      PAUL’S QUARREL WITH PETER.

The whole company of envoys, both Barnabas and Paul, the original
messengers of the Syrian church, and Jude and Silas, the deputies
of the apostolic college, presented the complete results of the
Jerusalem consultation before a fall meeting of the whole congregation
of believers at Antioch, and read the epistle of the council to them.
The sage and happy exhortations which it contained were not only
respectfully but joyfully received; and in addition to the comfort
of these, _the first written words of Christian inspiration_, the two
envoys, Jude and Silas, also discoursed to the church, commenting at
more length on the apostolic message of which they were the bearers,
and confirmed their hearers in the faith. After remaining there for
some time, Jude bade them farewell, and returned to his apostolic
associates; but Silas was so much pleased with the opportunities thus
afforded him of doing good among the Gentiles, of whom he himself
also was one, as his name shows,――that he stayed in Antioch after the
departure of Jude, and labored along with Paul and Barnabas, teaching
and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. This is
commonly understood to be the time of Paul’s dissension with Peter, as
mentioned in the epistle to the Galatians. The circumstances of this
disagreeable occurrence have already been narrated and commented on,
in the Life of Peter,――nor need anything additional be presented here
in relation to Paul, except the observation, that his dispute with
the chief apostle, and his harsh censure of his conduct, are very much
in accordance with the impressions of his character, given in other
passages of his life. He was evidently a man of violent and hasty
passions; and is uniformly represented, both by his historian and by
himself, as exceedingly bitter and harsh in his denunciations of all
who differed from him on practical or speculative points, both before
and after his calling to the apostleship; and this trait is manifested
on such a variety of occasions, as to be very justly considered an
inseparable peculiarity of his natural disposition and temperament.
Doubtless there are many to whom it seems very strange, that the
Apostle Paul should ever be spoken of as having been actually and truly
angry, or ever having made an error in his conduct after his conversion;
but there are instances enough to show that it was not a mere modest
injustice to himself for him to tell the Lystran idolaters that he was
a man of like passions with them,――but a plain matter of fact, made
evident not only by his own noble and frank confession, but by many
unfortunate instances throughout his recorded life. Yet there are a
great many Protestants, who have been in the habit of making such a
kind of idol or demi-god out of Paul, that they are as little prepared
as the Lystrans to appreciate the human imperfections of his character;
and if Paul himself could at this moment be made fully sensible of the
dumb idolatrous reverence with which many of his modern and enlightened
adorers regard him, he would be very apt to burst out in the same
earnest and grieved tone, in which he checked the similar folly of
the Lystrans,――“Sirs! why do ye these things? I also am a man of like
passions with yourselves.”――“The spirit of divine truth which actuated
me, and guided me in the way of light, by which I led others to
life eternal, still did not make me anything more than a man,――a man
in moral as in bodily weakness, nor exempt from liabilities to the
accidents of passion, any more than to the pains of mortal disease. The
Spirit that guided my pen in the record of eternal truth, and my tongue
in the preaching of the word of salvation, did not exalt me above the
errors, the failings and distresses of mortality; and I was still all
my lifetime subject to the bondage of sin, groaning under that body
of death, and longing for the day when I should pass away from the
frailties and distresses of earth, to that state of being which alone
is wholly sinless and pure.”

  “From the opposition to St. Peter, which they suppose to be
  before the Council at Jerusalem, some would have it, that this
  Epistle to the Galatians was written before that Council; as
  if what was done before the Council could not be mentioned in a
  letter written after the Council. They also contend, that this
  journey, mentioned here by St. Paul, was not that wherein he
  and Barnabas went up to that Council to Jerusalem, but that
  mentioned Acts xi. 30; but this with as little ground as the
  former. The strongest reason they bring, is, that if this
  journey had been to the Council, and this letter after that
  Council, St. Paul would not certainly have omitted to have
  mentioned to the Galatians that decree. To which it is answered,
  1. The mention of it was superfluous; for they had it already,
  see Acts xvi. 4. 2. The mention of it was impertinent to the
  design of St. Paul’s narrative here. For it is plain, that his
  aim, in what he relates here of himself, and his past actions,
  is to shew, that having received the gospel from Christ by
  immediate revelation, he had all along preached that, and
  nothing but that, everywhere; so that he could not be supposed
  to have preached circumcision, or by his carriage, to have shewn
  any subjection to the law; all the whole narrative following
  being to make good what he says, ♦chap. i. 11, ‘that the gospel
  which he preached was not accommodated to the humoring of men;
  nor did he seek to please the Jews (who were the men here meant)
  in what he taught.’ Taking this to be his aim, we shall find the
  whole account he gives of himself, from that verse 11 of chap.
  i., to the end of the second chapter, to be very ♠clear and
  easy, and very proper to invalidate the report of his preaching
  circumcision.” (Locke’s Paraphrase.)

    ♦ “ehap.” replaced with “chap.”

    ♠ “ctear” replaced with “clear”

  “I conceive that this happened at the time here stated, because
  Paul intimates in Galatians ii. 11, that he was in Antioch when
  Peter came there; and Peter had never been to Antioch before
  Paul was in that city after the Council of Jerusalem; and
  besides the dissension between Paul and Barnabas, who was the
  intimate friend of Peter, appears to have originated here.”
  Pearson’s Annales Paul. (A. D. 50.)

  A fine exhibition of a quibbling, wire-drawn argument, may be
  found in Baronius, (Annales, 51,) who is here put to his wits’
  end to reconcile the blunt, “round, unvarnished tale,” in Paul’s
  own account, (in Galatians ii. 11‒14,) with the papistical
  absurdity of the moral infallibility of the apostles. He lays
  out an argument of five heavy folio pages to prove that, though
  Paul quarreled thus with Peter, yet neither of them was in the
  slightest degree to blame, &c. But the folly of explaining away
  the Scriptures in this manner, is not confined wholly to the
  bigoted, hireling historian of papal Rome; some of the boldest
  of protestants have, in the same manner, attempted to reconcile
  the statement of Paul with the vulgar notions of apostolic
  infallibility. Witsius (Vita Pauli, iv. 12,) expends a paragraph
  to show that neither of them was to blame; but following the
  usual course of anti-papist writers, he represents the great
  protestant idol, Paul, in altogether the most advantageous
  light, according to the perfectly proverbial peculiarity of
  the opponents of the church of Rome, who, in their apostolic
  distinctions, uniformly “rob Peter to pay Paul.”


                     PAUL’S QUARREL WITH BARNABAS.

The church of Antioch having thus made great advances under these very
abundant and extraordinary instructions, the apostles began to turn
their eyes again to a foreign field, and longed for a renewal of those
adventurous labors from which they had now had so long a repose. Paul
therefore proposed to Barnabas that they should go over their old
ground again:――“Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city,
where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.” To
this frank and reasonable proposition, Barnabas readily agreed, and as
it was desirable that they should have an assistant with them on this
journey, he proposed that his nephew Mark should accompany them in this
capacity as he had done on their former voyage. But Paul, remembering
the manner in which he had forsaken them just as they were entering
upon the arduous missionary fields of Asia Minor, refused to try again
one who had once failed to do them the desired service, at a time
when he was most needed. Yet Barnabas, being led, no doubt by his near
relationship to the delinquent evangelist, to overlook this single
deficiency, and perhaps, having good reason to think that he had now
made up his mind to stick to them through thick and thin, through
good and bad fortune, was disposed to give him another trial in the
apostolic service, and therefore strongly urged Paul to accept of him
as their common assistant in this new tour for which he was well fitted
by his knowledge of the routes. Paul, however, no doubt irritated
against Mark, for the wavering spirit already manifested by him at
Perga, utterly refused to have anything to do with him after such a
display of character, and wished to take some other person who had
been tried in the good work with more satisfactory results as to his
resolution and ability. Barnabas of course, was not at all pleased to
have his sister’s son treated so slightingly, and refused to have any
substitute whatever, insisting that Mark _should_ go, while Paul was
equally resolved that he should _not_. The conclusion of the whole
matter was, that these two great apostles, the authorized messengers
of God to the Gentiles, quarreled downright; and after a great deal
of furious contention, they parted entirely from one another; and so
bitter seems to have been the division between them that they are not
known to have ever after been associated in apostolic labors, although
they had been the most intimate friends and fellow-travelers for many
years, standing by one another through evil and good report, through
trials, perils, distresses and almost to death. A most lamentable
exhibition of human ♦weakness marring the harmonious progress of the
great scheme of evangelization! Yet it must be esteemed one of the
most valuable facts relating to the apostles, that are recorded in
the honest, simple, clear, and truly impartial narrative of Luke;
because it reminds the Christian reader of a circumstance, that he
might otherwise forget, in an undue reverence for the character of
the apostles,――and that is, the circumstance that these consecrated
ministers of the word of truth were, really and practically, in spite
of their holiness, “men of like passions with ourselves,” and even in
the arrangement of their apostolic duties, were liable to be governed
by the impulses of human passion, which on a few occasions like this,
acting in opposite directions in different persons at the same time,
brought them into open collisions and disputes,――which, if men of
their pure martyr-spirit, mostly too, under the guidance of a divine
influence, could not avoid, nor could satisfactorily settle, neither
may the unconsecrated historian of a later age presume to decide. Who
was right and who was wrong in this difficulty, it is impossible to
say; and each reader may judge for himself. It may be remarked, however,
that Paul was no more likely to be right than Barnabas; he was a
younger man, as it would appear from the circumstance that he is named
after him in the apostolic epistle;――he was no more an apostle than
Barnabas was; for both are thus named by Luke in his account of their
first journey, and both were expressly called by a distinct revelation
from the Holy Spirit to undertake the apostleship of the Gentiles
together. Paul also is known to have quarreled with other persons, and
especially with Peter himself, and that too without very just cause;
and although Barnabas may have been influenced to partiality by his
relationship to Mark, yet much also may be justly chargeable to Paul’s
natural violence and bitterness of temper, which often led him into
hasty acts, of which he afterwards repented, as he certainly did in
this very case, after some time; for he repeatedly mentions Mark in his
epistles in terms of regard, and what is most in point, declares him to
be “profitable to him in the ministry.”

    ♦ “weaknes” replaced with “weakness”

  Witsius remarks, (Vita Pauli, iv. 16,) that the ancient
  Christian writers ascribe the greatest part of the blame of this
  quarrel to Barnabas, whom they consider as having been unduly
  influenced by natural affection for his kindred according to the
  flesh. “But”, as Witsius rather too cautiously remarks, “it may
  well be doubted whether Paul’s natural violence of temper did
  not carry him somewhat beyond the bounds of right. The Greeks
  have not unwisely remarked――Ὁ Παυλος ἐζητει το δικαιον, ὁ
  Βαρναβας το Πιλανθροπον ‘Paul demanded what was just――Barnabas,
  what was charitable.’ It might have been well enough if Barnabas
  had yielded to the zeal of Paul; but it would not have been bad
  if Paul had persuaded himself to allow something to the feelings
  of that most mild and amiable man. Meanwhile, it deserves notice,
  that God so ordered this, that it turned out as much for the
  individual benefit of Mark, as for the general benefit of the
  church. For the kind partiality of Barnabas was of advantage
  to Mark, in preventing him from being utterly cast off from
  apostolic companionship, and forsaken as unworthy; while to the
  church, this separation was useful, since it was the means of
  confirming the faith of more of the churches in the same time.”
  (Witsius.)

  “From hence we may learn, not only that these great lights in
  the Christian church were men of the like passions with us,
  but that God, upon this occasion, did most eminently illustrate
  the wisdom of his providence, by rendering the frailties of two
  such eminent servants instrumental to the benefit of his church,
  since both of them thenceforward employed their extraordinary
  industry and zeal singly and apart, which till then had been
  united, and confined to the same place.” (Stanhope on the
  Epistles and Gospels, vol. 4.)


                     HIS SECOND APOSTOLIC MISSION.

After this unhappy dispute, the two great apostles of the Gentiles
separated; and while Barnabas, accompanied by his favorite nephew,
pursued the former route to Cyprus, his native island, Paul took a
different direction, by land, north and west. In selecting a companion
for a journey which he had considered as urgently requiring such
blameless rectitude and firmness of resolution, he had set his heart
upon Silas, the efficient Hellenist deputy from Jerusalem, whose
character had been fully tested and developed during his stay in
Antioch, where he had been so active in the exercise of those talents,
as a preacher, which had gained for him the title of “prophet” before
his departure from Jerusalem. Paul, during his apostolic association
with him, had laid the foundation of a very intimate friendship; and
being thus attached to him by motives of affection and respect, he
now selected him as the companion of his missionary toils. Bidding the
church of Antioch farewell, and being commended by them to the favor
of God, he departed,――not by water, but through the cities of Syria, by
land,――whence turning westward, he passed through the Syrian gates into
Cilicia; in all these places strengthening the churches already planted,
by making large additions to them from the Gentiles around them.
Journeying northwest from Cilicia, he came by the Cilician gates of
Taurus, to his old scenes of labor and suffering, in Lycaonia, at Derbe
and Lystra, where he proceeded in the task of renewing and completing
the good work which he had himself begun on his former tour with
Barnabas; with whom he might now doubtless have effected vastly more
good, and whose absence must have been deeply regretted by those who
owed their hopes of salvation to the united prayers and labors of him
and Paul. Among those who had been converted here by the apostles on
their first mission, was a half-bred Jew, by name Timotheus, his father
having been a Greek who married Eunice, a Jewess, and had maintained a
high character among his countrymen in that region, both in Lystra and
Iconium. Under the early and careful instructions of his pious mother,
who had herself received a superior religious education under her own
mother Lois, Timothy had acquired a most uncommon familiarity with
the Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation; and
that he had learned them and appreciated their meaning in a much more
spiritual and exalted sense than most Jews, appears from the fact, that
notwithstanding his early regard for the law as well as the prophets,
he had never complied with the Mosaic rite of circumcision,――perhaps
because his father may have been prejudiced against the infliction of
such a sign upon his child. Paul becoming acquainted with Timothy,
and seeing in the young man the germ of those talents which were
afterwards so eminent in the gospel cause, determined to train him to
be an assistant and associate with him in the apostolic ministry,――and
in order to make him so far conform to all the rites of the ancient
covenant, as would fit him for an acceptable ministry among the Jews as
well as the Gentiles, he had him circumcised; and he was induced still
farther to this step of conformity, by the consideration of the effect
it would have on the Jews in that immediate neighborhood, who were
already very suspicious that Paul was in reality aiming at the utter
overthrow and extinction of all the Mosaic usages, and was secretly
doing all that he could to bring them into contempt and disuse. Having
made this sacrifice to the prejudices of his countrymen, he now
considered Timothy as completely fitted for usefulness in the apostolic
ministry, and henceforth made him his constant companion for years.


                         HIS WESTWARD JOURNEY.

With this accession to his company, Paul proceeded through the cities
of that region which he had before visited, and communicated to them
the decrees passed by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, for the
regulation of the deportment of professing Christians, in regard to
the observance of Mosaic usages. They all, moreover, labored for the
extension of the churches already founded, and thus caused them to be
built up, so that they received fresh additions daily. Nor did Paul
limit his apostolic labors to the mere confirmation of the work begun
on his tour with Barnabas; but after traversing all his old fields
of exertion, he extended his journey far north of his former route,
through all Phrygia, and Galatia, a province which had never before
been blessed with the presence of a Christian missionary,――and after
laboring in his high vocation there, he was disposed to move west,
to the Ionian or true Asian shore of the Aegean, but was checked by
a direction which he could not resist; and passing northward of the
true Asian cities, he came out of Phrygia into Mysia, the province
that occupies the northwestern corner of all Asia Minor, bounded
north by the Propontis and Hellespont, and west by the northern
part of the Aegean,――the true Asia lying south of it, within the
geographical division commonly named Lydia. Having entered Mysia, they
were expecting to turn northeast into Bithynia, when again their own
preferences and counsels were overruled by the same mysterious impulse
as before, and they therefore continued their westward journey to the
shore of the Hellespont and Aegean, arriving within the classic region
of the Troad, at the modern city of Alexandria Troas, some miles south
of that most glorious of all the scenes of Grecian poetical antiquity,
where, thirteen hundred years before, “TROY WAS.” Here they rested for
a brief space, and while they were undecided as to the course which
they ought next to pursue, Paul had a remarkable vision, which gave a
summons too distinct to be mistaken or doubted, to a field in which the
most noble triumphs of the cross were destined to be won under his own
personal ministration, and where through thousands of years the name of
Christ should consecrate and re-exalt the land, over all whose hills,
mountains, streams, valleys, and seas, then as now, clustered the
rich associations of the most splendid antiquity that is marked in the
records of the past, with the beautiful and the excellent in poetry,
art, taste, literature, philosophy and moral exaltation. In the night,
as Paul was slumbering at his stopping-place, in the Troad, there
appeared to him a vision of a Macedonian, who seemed to cry out
beseechingly to him――“Come over into Macedonia, and help us!” This
voice of earnest prayer for the help of Christ, rolling over the wide
Aegean, was enough to move the ardent spirit of Paul, and on waking he
therefore summoned his companions to attend him in his voyage to this
new field. He had been joined here by a new companion, as appears from
the fact, that the historian of the Acts of the apostles now begins
to speak in the first person, of the apostolic company, and it thence
appears that besides Silas and Timotheus, Paul was now attended by
Luke. Setting sail from Troas, as soon as they could get ready for this
unexpected extension of their travels, the whole four were wafted by
a fresh south-eastern breeze from the Asian coast, first to the large
island of Samothrace; and on the second day, they came to Neapolis, a
town on the coast of Macedonia, which is the seaport of the great city
of Philippi.


                       HIS MISSION IN MACEDONIA.

They without delay proceeded to Philippi, the chief city of that part
of Macedonia, taking its name from that sage monarch who laid the
foundation of the Macedonian dominion over the Grecian world, and gave
this city its importance and splendor, re-building it, and granting
it the honors of his peculiar favor. Under the Roman conquest it had
lost no part of its ancient importance, but had been endowed by Julius
Caesar, in a special decree, with the high privileges of a Roman
colony, and was in the apostolic age one of the greatest cities in that
part of Europe. Here Paul and his companions staid for several days;
and seeking on the sabbath, for some place where they could, in that
heathen land, observe the worship, and celebrate the praises of the
God of their fathers, they wandered forth from the great pagan city,
and sat down, away from the unholy din of mirth and business, in a
retired place on the banks of the little stream which ran by the town,
being made up of numerous springs that rise at the foot of the hills
north of it,――which gave it the name of CRENIDES, or “the city of
_springs_;”――the common name of the town before its conquest by Philip.
In such places, by the side of streams and other waters, the Jews were
always accustomed to construct their places for social worship; and
here, in this quiet place, a few Jewish residents of the city resorted
for prayer, remembering the God of their fathers, though so far from
his sanctuary. Those who thus kept up the worship of God in this place,
are mentioned as being women only; for it may always be observed that
it is among the softer sex that religion takes its deepest root, and
among them a regard to its observances is always found, long after
the indifference generated by a change of circumstances, or by the
engrossing cares of business, has turned away the devotions of men.
So was it in Philippi; while the sons of Judah had grown indifferent
to those observances of their religion, which were inconvenient,
by interfering with the daily arrangements of business intercourse
with their heathen fellow-citizens, the daughters of Zion came still
regularly together, to the place where prayer was wont to be made.
Here the apostolic company met them, and preached to them the new word
of grace, now revealed for all the scattered race of Israel, far and
near,――and not for them only, but also for the Gentiles. Among these
gentle auditors of the word of grace, now first proclaimed in Greece,
was a Jewess, named Lydia, who had emigrated from Thyatira, in Lydian
Asia, and now carried on in Philippi, a trade in the purple dye, for
which the region from which she came was so famous, even from the time
of Homer. While listening to the words of Paul, her heart was opened
to the comprehension of the truth of the gospel, and she professed
her faith in Jesus. Having been baptized with all her household, she
was so moved with regard for those who had thus taught her the way of
salvation, that she earnestly invited them to make her house their home.
Complying with her benevolent and hospitable invitation, Paul, Silas,
Timothy and Luke, took up their abode in her house, and remained there
throughout their whole stay in Philippi.

Such was the beginning of the propagation of the gospel in
Greece,――such was the foundation of the first church ever planted east
of the Hellespont; and thus did Europe first receive the doctrines of
that faith, which now holds in all that mighty division of the world, a
triumphant seat, and constitutes the universal religion of the nations
that hold within themselves the sources of art, learning,――all the
refinements of civilization,――and of the dominion of half the globe.
Four pilgrims entered the city of Philippi, unknown, friendless, and
scorned for their foreign, half-barbarian aspect. Strolling about from
day to day, to find the means of executing their strange errand, they
at last found a few Jewish women, sitting in a little retired place,
on the banks of a nameless stream. To them they made known the message
of salvation;――one of the women with her household believed the gospel,
and professed the faith of Jesus;――and from this beginning did those
glorious results advance, which in their progress have changed the
face of Europe, revolutionized the course of empires, and modified the
destiny of the world!

An incident soon occurred, however, which brought them into more public
notice, though not in a very desirable manner. As they went out to
the usual place of prayer on the bank of the stream, they at last were
noticed by a poor bedeviled crazy girl, who, being deprived of reason,
had been made a source of profit to a set of mercenary villains, who
taking advantage of the common superstition of their countrymen about
the supernatural endowments of such unfortunate persons, pretended
that she was a Pythoness, indued by the Pythian Apollo with the spirit
of prophecy; for not only at Delphi, on his famous tripod, but also
throughout Greece, he was believed to inspire certain females to utter
his oracles, concerning future events. The owners and managers of this
poor girl therefore made a trade of her supposed soothsaying faculty,
and found it a very profitable business, through the folly of the wise
Greeks of Philippi. This poor girl had her crazy fancy struck by the
appearance of the apostolic company, as they passed along the streets
to their place of prayer, and following them, perceived, under the
impulse of the strange influence that possessed her, the real character
of Paul and his companions; and cried out after them, “These men are
the servants of the most high God, who show us the way of salvation.”
This she did daily for a long time, till at last, Paul, annoyed by this
kind of proclamation thus made at his heels, turned about, and by a
single command subdued the demoniac influence that possessed her, and
restored her to the freedom of sense and thought. Of course she was
now no longer the submissive instrument of the will of her mercenary
managers, and it was with no small vexation that they found all chance
of these easy gains was forever gone. In their rage against the authors
of what they deemed their calamity, they caught Paul and Silas, as the
foremost of the apostolic company, and dragging them into the forum
or courthouse, where the magistrates were in session, they presented
their prisoners as a downright nuisance: “These men, who are Jews, do
exceedingly trouble our city; and teach customs which are not lawful
for us to adopt nor observe, if we are to maintain the privileges of
Roman citizens.” What the latter part of the accusation referred to,
in particular, it is not easy to say, and probably there was no very
definite specification made by the accusers; for the general prejudice
against the Jews was such, that the mob raised a clamor against them
at once; and the magistrates seeing in the apostles only some nameless
foreign vagabonds, who having come into the city without any reasonable
object in view were disturbing the peace of the inhabitants, had
no hesitation whatever in ordering them to be punished in the most
ignominious manner, and without any question or defense, conforming
to the dictation of that universally divine and immaculate source of
justice,――the voice of the people,――instantly had them stripped and
flogged at the discretion of their persecutors. After having thus
shamefully abused them, they did not dismiss them, but cast them into
prison, and set their feet in the stocks.

  “_Philippi_ was a city of Macedonia, of moderate extent, and not
  far from the borders of Thrace. It was formerly called Crenides,
  from its ♦numerous springs, from which arises a small stream,
  mentioned Acts xvi. 13, though it is commonly omitted in the
  maps. The name of Philippi it received from Philip, father of
  Alexander, who enlarged it, and fortified it as a barrier town
  against the Thracians. Julius Caesar sent hither a Roman colony,
  as appears from the following inscription on a medal of this
  city, COL. IUL. AUG. PHIL. quoted in Vaillant Num. æn. imp.
  T. I. p. 160, and from Spon Misc. p. 173. See also Pliny, L. IV.
  c. ii. and the authors in Wolfii Curae, πρωτη της μεριδος της
  Μακεδονιας πολις, ‘the first city of that district of Macedonia:’
  but in what sense the word πρωτη, or ‘first,’ is here to
  be taken, admits of some doubt. Paulus Æmilius had divided
  Macedonia into four districts, and that in which Philippi was
  situated, was called πρωτη, or the first district. But of this
  district, Philippi does not appear to be entitled, in any sense,
  to the name of πρωτη πολις. For if πρωτη be taken in the sense
  of ‘first in respect to place,’ this title belonged rather to
  Neapolis, which was the frontier town of Macedonia, towards
  Thrace, as appears from Acts xvii. 1. And, if taken in the sense
  of ‘first in respect to rank,’ it belonged rather to Amphipolis,
  which was the capital of this district of Macedonia, as appears
  from the following passage Livii History Lib. XLV. 29. Capita
  regionum, ubi concilia fierent, primae regionis Amphipolin,
  secundae Thessalonicen, &c. But the difficulty is not so great
  as it appears to be. For, though Amphipolis was made the capital
  of the first district of ♠Macedonia in the time of Paulus
  Æmilius, and therefore entitled to the name of πρωτη, it is not
  impossible that in a subsequent age, the preference was given
  to Philippi. Or even if Amphipolis still continued to be the
  capital of the district, or the seat of the Roman provincial
  government, yet the title πρωτη may have been claimed by the
  city of Philippi, though it were not the very first in point of
  rank. We meet with many instances of this kind, on the medals
  of the Greek cities, on which we find that more than one city
  of the same province, assumed the title of πρωτη. St. Luke,
  therefore, who spent a long time at Philippi, and was well
  acquainted with the customs of the place, gave this city the
  title which it claimed, and which, according to the custom of
  the Greek cities, was inscribed probably on its coins. Hence
  it appears that the proposal made by Pierce to alter πρωτη
  της μεριδος to πρωτη μεριδος, is unnecessary.” (Michaelis’s
  Introduction, Vol. IV. pp. 152‒154. Marsh’s translation.)

    ♦ “numerons” replaced with “numerous”

    ♠ “Macodonia” replaced with “Macedonia”

  “‘_Where prayer was wont to be made._’ xvi. 13. This proseuchae
  signifies an oratory, a place appointed for prayer; in heathen
  countries, they were erected in sequestered retreats, commonly
  on the banks of rivers (as here) or on the sea-shore. Josephus
  has preserved the decree of the city of Halicarnassus,
  permitting the Jews to erect oratories, part of which is in the
  following terms:――‘We ordain that the Jews, who are willing,
  both men and women, do observe the Sabbaths and perform sacred
  rites according to the Jewish law, and _build proseuchae by
  the seaside, according to the custom of their country_; and if
  any man, whether magistrate or private person, give them any
  hinderance or disturbance, he shall pay a fine to the city.’
  (Josephus, Antiquities, lib. xiv, cap. 10.) (Al. 24.)

  “Many commentators, viz. Grotius, Drs. Whitby, Doddridge, and
  Lardner, agree with Josephus, Philo, and Juvenal, that these
  places of worship were synonymous with synagogues. But Calmet,
  Prideaux, and Hammond, contend that they were _nearly_ the same,
  yet there was a _real_ difference between them; the synagogues
  were within the cities, while the proseuchae were without,
  in retired spots, particularly in heathen countries, by the
  river-side, with galleries or the shades of trees for their only
  shelter. Prideaux considers them to be of greater antiquity than
  the synagogues, and that they were formed by the Jews in open
  courts, that those who lived at a distance from Jerusalem might
  offer their private worship as in the open courts of the Temple
  or Tabernacle. In the synagogues, Prideaux observes, _public_
  worship was performed, and in the proseuchae _private_ prayer
  was used to be made. It is highly probable that these proseuchae
  were the same which are called in the Old Testament ‘high
  places.’ (Hammond on Luke vi. 12, and Acts xvi. 13‒16. Calmet’s
  Dictionary voce proseucha. Prideaux’s Connec, part i. book iv.
  sub anno 444. vol. I. pp. 387‒390. edition 1720.) (Horne’s
  Introduction.)

  “‘And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the
  city of Thyatira.’ verse 14. It is a remarkable fact, that among
  the ruins of Thyatira, there is an inscription extant with the
  words ΟΙ ΒΑΦΕΙΣ, _the dyers_. Wheler’s Journey into Greece, vol.
  iii. p. 233. Spon, Miscellanea Eruditae Antiquitates, p. 113;
  from whence we learn that the art and trade of dyeing purple
  were carried on in that city.” (Horne’s Introduction.)

Here was fine business for the apostle and his companion! “_Come over
into Macedonia and help us!_” Such were the words of deep agonizing
entreaty, in which the beseeching Macedonian had, in the night-vision,
summoned the great apostle of the Gentiles to this new field of
evangelizing labor. Taking that summons for a divine command, he had
obeyed it――had crossed the wide Aegean, and sought in this great city
of Macedonia, the occasions and the means of “helping” the idolatrous
citizens to a knowledge of the truth as it was in Jesus. Week after
week they had been inoffensively toiling in the faithful effort to
answer this Macedonian cry for help; and what was the result and the
reward of all these exertions? For no crime whatever, and for no reason
except that they had rescued a gentle and unfortunate spirit from a
most degrading thraldom to demoniac agencies, and to men more vile
and wicked than demons, they had been mobbed,――abused by a parcel
of mercenary scoundrels,――stripped naked in the forum, and whipped
there like thieves,――and at last thrown into the common jail among
felons, with every additional injury that could be inflicted by their
determined persecutors, being fettered so that they could not repose
their sore and exhausted bodies. Was not here enough to try the
patience of even an apostle? What man would not have burst out in
furious vexation against the beguiling vision which had led them away
into a foreign land, among those who were disposed to repay their
assiduous “help,” by such treatment? Thus might Paul and Silas have
expressed their vexation, if they had indeed been misled by a mere
human enthusiasm; but they knew Him in whom they had trusted, and were
well assured that He would not deceive them. So far from giving way to
despondency and silence, they uplifted their voices in _praise_! Yes,
_praise_ to the God and Father of Jesus Christ, that he had accounted
them worthy to suffer thus for the glory of his name. “At midnight
Paul and Silas prayed and sang praises to God, and the prisoners heard
them.” In the dreary darkness,――inclosed between massive walls, and
bound in weighty fetters, their spirits rose in prayer,――doubtless
for those persecutors whom they came over to “help,” and not for
themselves,――since their souls were already so surely stayed on God.
To him they raised their voices in praise, for their own peace and joy
in believing. Not yielding like those inspired by the mere impulses of
human ambition or wild enthusiasm,――they passed the dreary night, _not_

           “In silence or in fear.――
            They shook the depths of the prison gloom,
            With their hymns of lofty cheer.――
            Amid the storm they sang,”

for He whom they thus invoked did not leave them in their heroic
endurance, without a most convincing testimony that their prayers and
their songs had come up in remembrance before him. In the midst of
their joyous celebration of this persecution, while their wondering
fellow-prisoners, waked from their sleep by this very unparalleled
noise, were listening in amazement to this manifestation of the manner
of spirit with which their new companions were disposed to meet their
distresses,――a mighty earthquake shook the city, and heaved the whole
prison-walls on their foundations, so that all the firmly barred doors
were burst open, and, what was more remarkable, all the chains fell
from the prisoners. The jailer waking up amidst this horrible crash,
and seeing all the prison-doors open, supposed that the prisoners had
all escaped; and knowing how utterly certain would be his ruin if his
charge should thus be broken,――in a fit of vexation and despair, he
drew his sword, and would have instantly killed himself, had not Paul,
seeing through the darkness the frenzied actions of the wretched man,
called out to him in a loud voice, clear and distinct amid the dreadful
din, “Do thyself no harm, for we are all here.”

Hearing these consolatory words, the jailer called for a light, and
sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
saying,――“Sirs! What must I do to be saved?” They replied――“Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, with all thy
house.” The jailer of course spoke of being saved merely from present
danger,――and appalled by the shock of the earthquake, concluded at
once that it had some connection with the prayers and songs of the
two Jewish prisoners, whom he knew to have been unjustly punished
and imprisoned. He supposed therefore, that from those who were the
occasion of the awful occurrence, he might best learn the means of
escaping its destructive consequences. But his alarmed inquiries were
made instrumental in teaching him the way of escape from a peril of far
greater magnitude, threatening his spirit with the eternal ruin that
would fall at last on all the sinful opposers of the truth. The two
imprisoned preachers then proclaimed to him the word of the Lord, and
not only to him, but to all that were in his house. No sooner had the
jailer thus learned, by their eloquent words, the real character and
objects of his prisoners, than he immediately determined to make them
all the atonement in his power, for the shameful treatment which they
had received from his fellow-citizens. He took them that same hour
of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized with all his
house. Of course he could no longer suffer those who were the authors
of his hopes of salvation, to lie any longer among felons; and he
immediately brought them out of the jail into his own house, and gave
them food, making it a sort of festal ♦occasion for himself and his
whole family, who were all rejoicing with him in the knowledge of
the gospel. When it was day the magistrates sent the officers of
justice with a verbal order for the release of the two prisoners, of
whose abominable usage they were now quite ashamed, after a night’s
reflection, without the clamors of a mob to incite them; and perhaps
also their repentance may have been promoted by the great earthquake
during the night, for which the Greeks and Romans would, as usual,
seek some moral occasion, looking on it of course, as a prodigy,
expressive of the anger of the gods, who might be supposed perhaps,
to be indignant at the flagrant injustice committed against these two
friendless strangers. But however satisfactory this atonement might
seem to the magistrates, Paul was by no means disposed to let them off
so quietly, after using him and Silas in this outrageous manner, in
absolute defiance of all forms of law and justice. To this permission
thus given him to sneak off quietly, he therefore returned the
indignant answer――“They have openly beaten us uncondemned, though we
are Roman citizens, and they have cast us into prison; and now do they
thrust us out so slily? No, indeed; but let them come themselves and
fetch us out.” This was alarming news indeed, to the magistrates. Here
they were found guilty of having violated “the sacred privilege of
Roman citizenship!”――a privilege which always shielded its possessor
from irregular tyranny, and required, throughout the Roman world, that
he should never be subjected to punishment without the most open and
formal investigation of the charge; a privilege too, whose violation
would bring down on them the most remorseless vengeance of the imperial
fountain of Roman power. So nothing would do, but they must submit to
the uncomfortable necessity of bringing down their magisterial dignity,
to the low business of visiting their poor, abused prisoners in the
jail, and humbly apologizing for their own cruelty.

    ♦ “accasion” replaced with “occasion”

The magistrates of the great city of Philippi therefore came to the
prison, and brought out their abused victims, respectfully requesting
them to depart out of the city. The two prisoners accordingly consented
to retire quietly from the city, without making any more trouble for
their persecutors. Going first to the house of their kind hostess,
Lydia, they saw the brethren who had believed the gospel there, during
their apostolic ministrations, and having exhorted them, bade them
farewell, and in company with their two companions, Timothy and Luke,
left the city.

Turning southwestwards towards Greece proper, and keeping near the
coast, they came next to Amphipolis, a Macedonian city on the river
Strymon, near where it flows into the Strymonic gulf; but making
no stay that is mentioned, they continued their journey in the same
direction to Apollonia, an inland town on the river Chabrius, in the
peninsula of Chalcidice; whence turning northwest they came next to
Thessalonica, a large city at the head of the great Thermaic gulf.
In this place was a synagogue of the Jews,――the first that they had
found in their European travels; for in this thriving commercial place
the Jews were, and always have been, in such large numbers, that they
were abundantly able to keep their own house of worship and religious
instruction, and had independence enough, as well as regard for the
institutions of their fathers, to attend in large numbers weekly at
this sanctuary. So zealous and successful indeed had they been in their
devotion to their religion, that they had drawn into a profession of
the faith of the God of Israel, a vast number of Greeks who attended
worship with them; for such was the superior purity of the religion
of the Jews, which regarded the one only living God, who was to be
worshiped not in the debasing forms of statues, but in spirit and truth,
that almost every place throughout the regions of Grecian civilization,
in which the Jews had planted their little commercial settlements,
and reared the houses of religious instruction, showed abundance
of such instances as this, in which the bright intellectual spirit
of the Greek readily appreciated the exalted character and the holy
truth of the faith owned by the sons of Israel, and felt at once
how far more suited to the conceptions of Hellenic genius was such
a religion, than the degrading polytheism which the philosophy and
poetry of a thousand years had striven in vain to redeem from its
inherent absurdities. Among these intelligent but mixed congregations,
Paul and his companions entered, and taking advantage of the freedom of
religious discourse allowed to all by the order of a Jewish synagogue,
they on three successive sabbaths reasoned with them out of the
scriptures, on that great and all-absorbing point in the original
apostolic theology,――that the Christ, the Messiah, so generally
understood to be distinctly foretold in the Hebrew scriptures, was
always described as destined to undergo great sufferings during his
earthly career, and after a death of shame, was to rise from the
grave;――and at last concluded with the crowning doctrine――“This Jesus,
whom I preach to you, is this Christ.”

This glorious annunciation of a new and spiritual dispensation, was
at once well received by a vast majority of the hearers――but more
especially by the Greeks, whose conceptions of the religion which they
had espoused, were far more rational and exalted than even the notions
of the original Israelites, whose common ideas of a Redeemer being
connected and mixed up, as their whole faith was, so much with what
was merely national and patriotic in their feelings, had led them
to disregard the necessarily spiritual nature of the new revelation
expected, and had caused them almost universally to image the Messiah
as a mere Jewish conqueror, who was to aim mainly at the restoration
of the ancient dominion of long-humbled Judah. Therefore, while the
Greeks readily and joyfully accepted this glorious completion of the
faith whose beginnings they had learned under the old covenant,――the
Jews for the most part scornfully rejected the revelation which
presented to them as their Messiah, “a man of sorrows,”――a Galilean,――a
Nazarene,――one without pomp or power; the grand achievment of whose
earthly career was that most ignominious death on the cross. No: this
was not the Messiah for whom they looked and longed, as the glorious
restorer of Israel, and the bloody conqueror of the Gentiles; and it
was therefore with the greatest indignation that they saw the great
majority of those converts from heathenism, whom they had made with
so much pains, now wholly carried away with the humbling doctrines
of these new teachers. Thus “moved with _envy_,” the unbelieving Jews
resorted to their usual expedient of stirring up a mob; and accordingly,
certain low fellows of the baser sort among them, gathered a gang, and
set the whole city on an uproar,――an effect which might seem surprising,
from a cause apparently so trifling and inadequate, did not every
month’s observation on similar occurrences, among people that call
themselves the most enlightened and free on the globe, suffice to show
every reader, that to “set a whole city in an uproar,” is the easiest
thing in the world, and one more often done by “certain lewd fellows
of the baser sort,” about the merest trifle, than in any other way.
And here then again, is another of those fac-simile exhibitions of
true human nature, with which the honest and self-evident story of Luke
abounds; and in this particular instance what makes him so beautifully
graphical and natural in his description of this manifestation of
public opinion, is the fact that he himself was a spectator of the
whole proceedings at Thessalonica,――and therefore gives an eye-witness
story. The mob being thus gathered, immediately made a desperate
assault on the house of Jason, where Paul and Silas were known to lodge,
and sought to drag them out to the people. (One would think that this
was a mere prophetic account of perfectly similar occurrences, that
pass every month under the noses of modern Europeans.) Paul and Silas,
however, had been wise enough to make off at the first alarm, and had
found some place of concealment, beyond the reach of the mob. Provoked
at not obtaining the prime object of the attack, the rascals then
seized Jason and other Christians whom they found there, and dragged
them before the magistrates, crying――“These that have turned the world
upside down, have come hither also,――whom Jason has entertained; and
they all do contrary to the statutes of Caesar, saying that there is
another king,――one Jesus.” This communication of the mode in which
the great mundane inversion had been effected by these four travelers
and their new converts, excited no small commotion among all the
inhabitants; for it amounted to a distinct charge of a treasonable
conspiracy against the Roman government, and could not fail to bring
down the most disagreeable consequences on the city, if it was made
known, even though it should amount to nothing. However, the whole
proceedings against Jason and his friends were conducted with a
moderation truly commendable, and far above any mob-action in these
enlightened times; for without any personal injury, they simply
satisfied themselves with taking security of Jason and his companions,
that they should keep the peace, and attempt nothing treasonable, and
then quietly let them go. Who would expect any modern European mob to
release their victims in this moderate and reasonable way?

  “_Amphipolis_ is a city of Macedonia, on the confines of Thrace,
  called so, as Thucydides informs us, (lib. iv. p. 321,) because
  the rivers encompassed it. Suidas and others place it in Thracia,
  giving it the name of the Nine Ways. It had the name likewise of
  Chrysopolis.” (Wells, Whitby.)

  “_Apollonia_, a city of Macedonia, lying between Amphipolis and
  Thessalonica. Geographers affirm that there were fourteen cities,
  and two islands of that name. Stephanus reckons twenty-five.”
  (Whitby.)

  _Thessalonica_, a large and populous city and sea-port of
  Macedonia, the capital of the four districts into which the
  Romans divided that country, after its conquest by Paulus
  Æmilius. It was situated on the Thermian Bay, and was anciently
  called Thermae; but, being rebuilt by Philip, the father of
  Alexander, after his victory over the Thessalians, it then
  received the name of Thessalonica.

  “At the time of writing the Epistle to the Thessalonians,
  Thessalonica was the residence of the Proconsul who governed the
  province of Macedonia, and of the Quaestor who had the charge
  of the imperial revenues. Besides being the seat of government,
  this port carried on an extensive commerce, which caused a great
  influx of strangers from all quarters; so that Thessalonica
  was remarkable for the number, wealth, and learning of its
  inhabitants. The Jews were extremely numerous here. The modern
  name of this place is Salonichi; it is the chief port of modern
  Greece, and has a population of sixty thousand persons, twelve
  thousand of whom are Jews. According to Dr. Clarke, this
  place is the same now as it was then; a set of turbulent Jews
  constituted a very considerable part of its population; and when
  St. Paul came here from Philippi to preach the gospel to the
  Thessalonians, the Jews were numerous enough to ‘set all the
  city in an uproar.’” (Williams.)

After this specimen of popular excitement, it was too manifest that
nothing could be done just then at Thessalonica by the apostolic
ministers of Christ, and that very night therefore the brethren sent
off Paul and Silas in the darkness, to Beroea, a city also in Macedonia,
about fifty miles from Thessalonica, exactly west, being on the same
parallel of latitude, standing on the south bank of the river Astroeus.
Arriving there, they went into the synagogue of the Jews, who were
here for the most part of a much better character than the mean Jews of
the great trading city of Thessalonica, and being more independent and
spiritual in their religious notions, were also much better prepared
to appreciate the spiritual doctrines preached by Paul and Silas.
They listened respectfully to the new preachers, and when the usual
references were made to the standard passages in the Old Testament,
universally supposed to describe the Messiah, they diligently examined
the passages for themselves, and studied out their correspondence with
the events in the life of Jesus, which were mentioned by his preachers
as perfectly parallel with these distinct prophecies. The natural
result of this nobly candid and rational examination of this great
question was, that many of these fair-minded and considerate Jews of
Beroea professed their perfect conviction that Jesus was the Christ,
and had by the actions of his life fully answered and completed the
prophetic types of the Messiah. Here, too, as in Thessalonica, the
Greek proselytes to Judaism readily and heartily accepted the doctrines
of Jesus. But the gospel messengers were not long allowed the enjoyment
of this fine field of apostolic enterprise; for their spiteful foes
in Thessalonica, hearing how things were going on in Beroea, took
the pains and trouble to journey all the way to that place, for the
express purpose of hunting out the preachers of Jesus by a new mob:
and in this they were so successful, that the brethren, according to
the established rules of Christian expediency, immediately sent away
Paul to the south, because he seemed to be the grand object of the
persecution; but Silas and Timothy being less obnoxious, still remained
in Beroea.

  “_Beroea_ was a city of Macedonia; a great and populous city.
  Lucian de Asino, p. 639. D.” (Whitby.) It was situated to the
  west of Thessalonica, and not “_south_,” as Wells absurdly says,
  “almost directly on the way to Athens.”


                         HIS VISIT TO ATHENS.

Paul, thus obeying the command given by Jesus in his first charge to
the original twelve, went on under the guidance of his Beroean brethren,
according to his own request, by sea, to Athens, where he parted from
them, giving them charge to tell Silas and Timothy to come on after
him, as soon as their commission in Macedonia would allow. He then
went about Athens, occupying the interval while he waited for them,
in observations upon that most glorious of all earthly seats of art
and taste. As he wandered on, an unheeded stranger, among the still
splendid and beautiful, though then half-decaying works, which the
combined devotion, pride and patriotism of the ancient Athenians
had raised to their gods, their country, and its heroes,――in the
beautifully picturesque yet simple expression of the apostolic
historian, “Paul saw the city wholly given to idolatry.” How many
splendid associations does it call up before the mental eye of the
classical scholar who reads it? As the apostle wandered along among
these thousand works of art, still so hallowed in the fond regard
of the scholar, the antiquarian, the man of taste, the poet, and the
patriot, his spirit was moved within him, when he every where saw how
the whole city was given to idolatry. Not a spot but had its altar;
every grove was consecrated to its peculiar nymphs, its Dryads and
its Fauns; every stream and fountain had the votive marble for its
own bright Naiad;――along the plain rose the splendid colonnades of the
yet mighty temples of Jupiter, and all the Olympian gods; and above
all, on the high Acropolis, the noble PARTHENON rose over the glorious
city, proclaiming to the eye of the distant traveler, the honors of
the virgin goddess of wisdom, of taste and philosophic virtue, whose
name crowned the city, of which she, was throughout all the reign of
Polytheism, the guardian deity.

These splendid but mournful testimonies of the misplaced energies of
that inborn spirit of devotion, which, all over the world in all times,
moves the heart of man to the worship of that Eternal power of whose
existence he is ever conscious, touched the spirit of Paul with other
emotions than those of delight and admiration. The eye of the citizen
of classical and splendid Tarsus, was not indeed blind to the beauties
of these works of art, whose fame was spread throughout the civilized
world, and with whose historic and poetic glories his eye and ear
had long been made familiar; but over them all was cast a moral and
spiritual gloom which darkened all these high and rich remembrances,
otherwise so bright. Under the impulse of such feelings, he immediately
sought occasion to make an attack on this dominant spirit of idolatry.
He accordingly, in his usual theater of exertion,――the Jewish
synagogue,――freely made known the new revelation of the truth in Jesus,
both to the Jews, and to those Gentiles who reverenced the God of
Israel, and listened to religious instruction in the Jewish house of
worship. With such effect did he proclaim the truth, and with such
fervid, striking oratory, that the Athenians, always admirers and
cultivators of eloquence, soon had their attention very generally drawn
to the foreign teacher, who was publishing these very extraordinary
doctrines, in a style of eloquence so peculiar and irregular. The
consequence was, that his audiences were soon extended beyond the
regular attendants on the Jewish synagogue worship, and many of the
philosophic sages of the Athenian schools sat listening to the apostle
of Jesus. They soon undertook to encounter him in argument; and Paul
now resorting to that most classic ground, the Athenian forum, or
_Agora_, was not slow to meet them. On the spot where Socrates once
led the minds of his admiring hearers to the noble conceptions of moral
truth, Paul now stood uttering to unaccustomed ears, the far more noble
conceptions of a divine truth, that as far outwent the moral philosophy
of “Athena’s wisest son,” as did the life, and death, and triumphs of
the crucified Son of Man, the course and fate of the hemlock-drinker.
Greatly surprised were his philosophical hearers, at these very
remarkable doctrines, before unheard of in Greece, and various were
the opinions and comments of the puzzled sages. Some of those of
the Epicurean and Stoic schools, more particularly, had their pride
and scorn quite moved at the seeming presumption of this fluent
speaker, who without diffidence or doubt uttered his strange doctrines,
though characterized by a style full of irregularities, and a dialect
remarkably distinguished by barbarous provincialisms, and scornfully
asked, “What does this rattling fellow mean?” Others, observing that
he claimed such divine honors for Jesus, the founder of his faith,
remarked, that “he seemed to be a preacher of foreign deities.” At last,
determined to have their difficulties resolved by the very highest
authority, they took him before the very ancient and venerable court
of the Areopagus, which was the supreme council in all matters that
concerned religion. Here they invited him to make a full communication
of the distinctive articles of his new faith, because they felt
an honest desire to have the particulars of a subject never before
introduced to their notice; and a vast concourse stood by to hear that
grand object of life to the news-hunting Athenians,――“A NEW THING.”

  “With regard to the application of _babbler_, Eustathius
  gives two senses of the word σπερμολόγος. 1. The Attics called
  those σπερμολόγοι who conversed in the market, and places of
  merchandise. (In Odys. B. ad finem.) And Paul was disputing with
  those he met in the market-place. 2. It is used of those who,
  from some false opinions, boasted unreasonably of their learning.
  (Idem.) Œcumenius says, a little bird that gathered up the seeds
  scattered in the market-place, was called σπερμολόγος; in this
  etymology, Suidas, Phavorinus, the scholiast upon Aristophanes
  de Avibus, p. 569, and almost all grammarians agree. (Cave’s
  Lives of the Apostles.) (Whitby’s Annotations.)

  “18. σπερμολόγος. This word is properly used of those little
  insignificant birds which support a precarious existence
  by picking up seeds scattered by the sower, or left above
  ground after the soil has been harrowed. See Maximus of Tyre,
  Dissertations, 13, p. 133., Harpocrates, Aristophanes Av. 232.,
  and the Scholiast, and Plutarch, T. 5, 50, edited by _Reiske_.
  It was metaphorically applied also to paupers who prowled about
  the market place, and lived by picking up any thing which might
  be dropped by buyers and sellers; and likewise to persons who
  gleaned in the corn fields. See Eustathius on Homer’s Odyssey
  ε 241. Hence it was at length applied to all persons of mean
  condition, who, as we say, “live on their wits.” Thus it is
  explained by Harpocrates εὐτελὴς, _mean_ and _contemptible_.
  And so Philo 1021 c. χρησάμενος――δούλῳ σπερμολόγῳ περιτρίμματι.”
  (Bloomfield’s Annotations, Acts xvii. 18.)

  “The _Areopagus_ was a place in Athens, where the senate usually
  assembled and took its name (as some think) from Ἄρης which is
  the same as Mars, the god of war, who was the first person tried
  here, for having killed Apollo’s son. Others think that, because
  ἄρης sometimes signifies _fighting_, murder, or violence of any
  kind, and that παγὸς is properly a _rock_, or rising hill, it
  therefore seems to denote a court situated upon an eminence,
  (as the Areopagus was,) where causes of murder, &c. were tried.
  This court at present is out of the city, but in former times
  it stood almost in the middle of it. Its foundations, which are
  still standing, are built with square stones of prodigious size,
  in the form of a semi-circle, and support a terrace or platform,
  of about a hundred and forty paces, which was the court where
  this senate was held. In the midst of it, there was a tribunal
  cut in a rock, and all about were seats also of stone, where the
  senate heard causes in the open air, without any covering, and
  (as some say) in the night time, that they might not be moved to
  compassion at the sight of any criminal that was brought before
  them. This judicature was held in such high esteem for its
  uprightness, that when the Roman proconsuls ruled there, it was
  a very common thing for them to refer difficult causes to the
  judgment of the Areopagites. After the loss of their liberty,
  however, the authority of the senate declined, so that in
  the apostles’ times, the Areopagus was not so much a court
  of judicature as a common rendezvous, where all curious and
  inquisitive persons, who spent their time in nothing else, but
  either in hearing or telling some new thing, were accustomed
  to meet, Acts xvii. 21. Notwithstanding, they appeared still
  to have retained the privilege of canonizing all gods that
  were allowed public worship; and therefore St. Paul was brought
  before them as an assertor and preacher of a Deity, whom they
  had not yet admitted among them. It does not appear that he was
  brought before them as a criminal, but merely as a man who had
  a new worship to propose to a people religious above all others,
  but who took care that no strange worship should be received on
  a footing of a _tolerated religion_, till it had the approbation
  of a court appointed to judge such matters. The address of the
  court to St. Paul, ‘May we know what this doctrine is whereof
  thou speakest?’ implies rather a request to a teacher, than an
  interrogatory to a criminal; and accordingly his reply has not
  the least air of _an apology_, suiting a person accused, but is
  one continued information of important truths, such as it became
  a teacher or benefactor, rather than a person arraigned for
  crime, to give. He was therefore neither acquitted nor condemned,
  and dismissed as a man _coram non judice_. We are indeed told,
  that when they heard of ‘the resurrection of the dead,’ some
  mocked, and others said, ‘We will hear thee again of this
  matter,’ putting off the audience to an indefinite time; so
  that nothing was left him but to depart.” (Calmet’s Commentary.
  Beausobre’s and Hammond’s Annotations, and Warburton’s Divine
  Legation.)

  Illustration:      THE AREOPAGUS, OR MARS HILL;
                  WITH THE TEMPLE OF THESEUS, ATHENS.
                            Acts xvii. 22.

  “That Athens _was_ wholly enslaved to idolatry, has been
  abundantly proved by our philological illustrators, especially
  the indefatigable Wetstein, from Pausanias Attic. 1, 24: Strabo
  10. p. 472, c: Lucian, t. 1. Prometheus p. 180: Livy 45, 27.
  So also Pausanias in Attic. c. 18, 24. (cited by Pearce and
  Doddridge,) who tells us, that Athens had more images than
  all the rest of Greece; and Petronius Satyricon c. 17, who
  humorously says, ‘It was easier to find a god than a man
  there.’” (Bloomfield Annotations.)

  “καὶ ἐν τῆ ἀγορᾶ. Of the _market-places_ at Athens, of which
  there were many, the most celebrated were the Old and the New
  Forum. The former was in the Ceramicus, a very ample space, part
  within, and part without the city. See Meursius, dissertatione
  de Ceramico Gemino, § 46. and Potter’s Archaeology 1, 8. p. 30.
  The latter was outside of the Ceramicus, in a place called
  Eretria. See Meursius, Ath. Attic. l. 1. c. 6. And this seems
  to be the one here meant. For no forum, except the Ceramicus and
  the Eretriacum, was called, absolutely, ἄγορα, but had a name
  to denote _which_ was meant, as Areopagiticum, Hippodamium,
  Piraeum, &c. In process of time, and at the period when Paul
  was at Athens, the forum was transferred from the Ceramicus into
  the Eretria; a change which, indeed, had been introduced in the
  time of Augustus; and that this was the most frequented part of
  the city, we learn from Strabo 10. p. 447. Besides, the Eretriac
  forum was situated before the στοὰ, or portico, in which the
  Stoics, of whom mention is just after made, used to hold their
  public discourses. It was moreover called κύκλος, from its round
  form.”

  “Ἄρειον πάγον, _Mars’ Hill_. Πάγος signifies properly a _high
  situation_. _This_ was a hill opposite to that of the citadel
  on the west; as we learn from Herodias 8, 52. [See the passages
  produced supra, to which I add Livy 26, 44. Tumulum quem
  Mercurii vocant. Editor.] It was so called, either because it
  had been consecrated to Mars (as the Campus Martius at Rome,)
  or because (as ♦Pausanias relates, Att. C. 28,) Mars, when he
  had slain Halyrrothius, son of Neptune, was the first who there
  pleaded a capital cause, which took place before the twelve gods.
  The judges used to sit by night, and _sub dio_; and whatever
  was done was kept _very secret_. [whence the proverb Ἀρεοπαγίτου
  σιωπηλότερος, to which may be compared ours, ‘_as grave as a
  Judge_.’ Editor.] They gave their judgment, not _viva voce_, but
  in writing. Nor were any admitted into the number of Areopagists
  but persons of noble birth, of unspotted morality, and eminent
  for justice and equity. See more in Meursius de Areopago.”
  (Kuinoel.) (Bloomfield Annotations.)

    ♦ “Pausanius” replaced with “Pausanias”

Paul taking his stand there, in that splendid scene, uttered in a bold
tone and in his noblest style, the great truths which he was divinely
consecrated to reveal. Never yet had Athens, in her most glorious state,
heard a discourse which, for solemn beauty and lofty eloquence, could
equal this brief declaration of the providence of God in the religion
of his creatures. Never did the world see an orator in a sublimer scene,
or in one that could awaken higher emotions in those who heard, or him
who spoke. He stood on the hill of Mars, with Athens beneath and around
him, and the mighty Acropolis rising with its “tiara of proud towers,”
walls and temples, on the west,――bounding and crowning the view in
that direction;――to the north-east lay the forum, the late scene
of his discussions, and beyond lay the philosophic Academia, around
and through which rolled the flowery Cephisus. Before him sat the
most august and ancient court in the Grecian world, waiting for
the revelation of his solemn commission respecting the new deities
which he was expected to propose as an addition to their polytheistic
list;――around him were the sages of the Athenian schools, listening
in grave but curious attention, for the new things which the eastern
stranger had brought to their ears. The apostle raised his eyes to all
the monuments of Athenian devotion which met the view on every side.
Before him on the high Acropolis was the mighty temple of the Athenian
Minerva; on the plain beyond was the splendid shrine of the Olympian
Jove; on his right was the temple of Theseus, the deified ancient king
of Attica, who laid the first foundation of her glories; and near were
the new piles which the later Grecian adulation had consecrated to the
worship of her foreign conquerors――to the deified Caesars. Beginning
in that tone of dignified politeness, which always characterized his
address towards the great ones of earth, he won their hearts and their
attention by a courteously complimentary allusion to the devout though
misguided zeal, whose solid tokens everywhere surrounded him. “Ye men
of Athens! I see in all places that you are VERY RELIGIOUS. For passing
along and gazing at the shrines of your devotion, I found an altar on
which was written,――‘TO THE UNKNOWN GOD;’――Him therefore, whom, not
knowing, you worship, I preach to you.” The rest of this splendid,
though brief discourse, need not be repeated, because it is given with
tolerable fidelity in the common English translation; but it deserves
notice how readily and completely, on all occasions, Paul accommodated
himself to the circumstances of his hearers. His style on this occasion
is remarkably protracted and rounded in its periods, highly cumulative
in structure, and harmonious in its almost rhythmical flow;――the whole
bearing the character which was best suited to the fancy and fashion of
the Athenians,――though still very decidedly marked by the peculiarities
of his eastern origin. Here too, he gave them a favorable impression of
his knowledge of the Grecian classics, by his apt and happy quotation
from Aratus, the philosophical poet of his native province, Cilicia.
“For we also are his offspring.”

      _Very religious._――This is unquestionably the just meaning of
  xvii. 22. See Bloomfield and all the standard commentators. “Too
  superstitions” is insulting.

  “‘TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.’ (xvii. 23.)――It is very evident from the
  testimony of Laertius, that the Athenians had altars in their
  public places, inscribed to unknown gods or demons. He informs
  us, that when Athens was visited with a great plague, the
  inhabitants invited Epimenides the philosopher, to lustrate
  their city. The method adopted by him was to carry several
  sheep to the Areopagus; whence they were left to wander as
  they pleased, under the observation of persons sent to attend
  them. As each sheep lay down, it was sacrificed on the spot to
  the _propitious god_; (In vita Epimenides lib. xi.) and as the
  Athenians were ignorant of what god was propitious, they erected
  an altar with this inscription, ♦ΘΕΟΙΣ ΑΣΙΑΣ, ΚΑΙ ΕΥΡΩΠΗΣ, ΚΑΙ
  ΛΙΒΗΥΣ, ΘΕΩ ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΞΕΝΩ:――_To the gods of Asia, Europe, and
  Africa, to the strange and unknown god_.

    ♦ “AΙΒΗΥΣ” replaced with “ΛΙΒΗΥΣ” and
      “KΛI” replaced with “ΚΑΙ”

  “On the architrave of a Doric portico at Athens, which was
  standing when that city was visited about sixty years since,
  by Dr. Chandler and Mr. Stuart, is a Greek inscription to the
  following purport:――‘The people’ [of Athens have erected this
  fabric] ‘with the donations to Minerva Archegetia,’ [or the
  conductress,] ‘by the god Caius Julius Caesar and his son the
  god Augustus, when Nicias was Archon.’ Over the middle of the
  pediment was a statue of Lucius Caesar, with this inscription:
  ――‘The people’ [honor] ‘Lucius Caesar, the son of the Emperor
  Augustus Caesar, the son of the god.’ There was also a statue
  to Julia, the daughter to Augustus, and the mother of Lucius,
  thus inscribed:――‘The Senate of the Areopagus, and the Senate of
  the Six Hundred’ [dedicate this statue to] ‘the goddess Julia,
  Augusta, Provident.’ These public memorials supply an additional
  proof of the correctness of Paul’s observations on the Athenians,
  that they were too much addicted to the adoption of objects for
  worship and devotion.” (Hammond’s Annotations of Cave’s Lives of
  the Apostles, Horne’s Introduction.)

As he concluded however, with the solemn declaration of the great
foundation-truth of Christianity,――that God had raised Jesus from
the dead,――there was a very general burst of contempt from the more
scornful portion of his audience, at the idea of anything so utterly
against all human probability. Of the immortality of the soul, the
divinest of their own philosophers had reasoned,――and it was by most of
the Athenian sects, considered on the whole, tolerably well established;
but the notion of the actual revivification of the perished body,――the
recall of the scattered dust and ashes, to the same breathing, moving,
acting, thinking form, which for ages had ceased to be,――all amounted
to a degree of improbable absurdity,――that not the wildest Grecian
speculator had ever dreamed of. So the proud Epicureans and Stoics
turned sneeringly away from the barbarian stranger who had come so far
to try their credulity with such a tale; and thus they for ever lost
the opportunity to learn from this new-opened fountain of truth, a
wisdom that the long researches of all the Athenian schools had never
reached and could never reach, without the light of this truly divine
eastern source, which they now so thoughtlessly scorned. But there
were some, more considerate, among the hearers of the apostle, who
had learned that it is the most decided characteristic of a true
philosopher, to reject nothing at first sight or hearing, though it
may happen to be contrary to his own personal experience and learning;
and these, weighing the matter with respectful doubt, told Paul――“We
will hear thee again about this.” Without any further attempt to unfold
the truth at that time, Paul departed from the Areopagus, and no more
uplifted his voice on the high places of Athens, in testimony of that
solemn revelation of the Son of Man from the dead,――the conviction
of whose truth, in spite of all philosophic sneers, was destined
to oversweep the whole of that world which they knew, and a new one
beyond it, and to exalt the name of that despised wanderer to a fame
compared with which that of Socrates should be small. Paul was however
afterwards visited by several of those who heard him before the
Areopagus; and after a free, conversational discussion of the whole
subject, and a more familiar exhibition of the evidences of his
remarkable assertions, professed their satisfaction with the arguments,
and believed. Among these, even one of the judges of the august
Areopagus owned himself a disciple of Jesus. Besides him is mentioned
a woman named Damaris; and others not specified, are said to have
believed.

  “‘_Dionysius the Areopagite._’ Acts xvii. 34.――Dionysius is
  said to have been bred at Athens in all the arts and sciences:
  at the age of twenty-five he went into Egypt to learn astronomy.
  At the time of our Savior’s death he was at Heliopolis, where,
  observing the darkness that attended the passion, he cried
  out thus:――‘That certainly, at that time, either God himself
  suffered, or was much concerned for somebody that did.’
  Returning to Athens he became one of the senators of the
  Areopagus; he was converted by St. Paul, and by him appointed
  bishop of Athens. Having labored and suffered much for the holy
  cause, he became a martyr to the faith, being burnt to death
  at Athens, in the 93d year of Christ.” (Cave’s Lives of the
  Apostles. Stanhope on Epistles and Gospels. Calmet’s Dictionary.)

  From the grave manner in which this story is told, the reader
  would naturally suppose that these great writers had some
  authority for these incidents; but in reality, everything that
  concerns Dionysius the Areopagite, is utterly unknown; and not
  one of these impudent inventions can be traced back further than
  the sixth century.

After this tolerably hopeful beginning of the gospel in Athens, Paul
left that city, and went southwestward to Corinth, then the most
splendid and flourishing city of all Greece, and the capital of the
Roman province of Achaia. It was famous, beyond all the cities of the
world, for its luxury and refinement,――and the name of “Corinthian” had,
long before the time of Paul, gone forth as a proverbial expression for
what was splendid in art, brilliant in invention, and elegant in vice.

Here first arose that sumptuous order of architecture that still
perpetuates the proverbial elegance of the splendid city of its birth,
and the gorgeously beautiful style of the rich Corinthian column,
“waving its wanton wreath,”――may be taken as an aptly expressive emblem
of the general moral and internal, as well as external characteristics
of this last home of true Grecian art. Here longest tarried the taste,
art and refinement, which so eminently marked the first glories of
Greece, and when the triumphs of that ancient excellence were beginning
to grow dim in its brighter early seats in Attica and in Ionian Asia,
they flashed out with a most dazzling beauty in the splendid city of
the Isthmus,――but alas!――in a splendor that was indeed only a passing
flash,――a last brilliant gleam from this glorious spot, before the lamp
of Hellenic glory in art, went out forever. In the day of the apostle’s
visit however, it was in its most “high and palmy state,”――the queen of
the Grecian world. It was glorious too, in the dearest recollections of
the patriotic history of Greece; for here was the center of that last
brilliant Achaian confederacy, which was cherished by the noble spirits
of Aratus and Philopoemen; and here too was made the last stand against
the all-crushing advance of the legions of Rome: and when it fell at
last before that resistless conquering movement,――“great was the fall
of it.” The burning of Corinth by Mummius, (B. C. 144, the year of the
fall of Carthage,) is infamous above all the most barbarous acts of
Roman conquest, for its melancholy destruction of the works of ancient
art, with which it then abounded. But from the ashes of this mournful
ruin, it rose soon after, under the splendid patronage of Roman
dominion, to a new splendor, that equalled, or perhaps outwent the
glories of its former perfection, which had been ripening from the day
when, as recorded by old Homer, in the freshness of its early power, it
sent forth its noble armaments to the siege of Troy, or set afloat the
earliest warlike navy in the world, or was made, through a long course
of centuries, the center of the most brilliant of Grecian festivals,
in the celebration of the Isthmian games before its walls. The Roman
conquerors, as if anxious to make to this ancient seat of Grecian
splendor, a full atonement for the barbarous ruin with which they had
overwhelmed it, now showered on it all the honors and favors in their
power. It was rebuilt as a Roman colony,――endowed by the munificence
of senates, consuls, and emperors, and made the capital of the Roman
province of Achaia, until the dismemberment of the empire. Shining in
its gaudy fetters, it became what it has been described to be in the
apostolic age, and was then beyond all doubt the greatest Grecian city
in Europe, if not in the world. Athens was then mouldering in more than
incipient decay――“the ghost of its former self;” for even Cicero, long
before this, describes it as presenting everywhere spectacles of the
most lamentable ruin and decline; but Corinth was in the highth of
its glory,――its luxury,――its vice,――its heathen wickedness,――and may
therefore be justly esteemed the most important scene of labor into
which apostolic enterprise had ever yet made its way, and to have been
well worthy of the attention which it ever after received from him,
to the very last of his life, being made the occasion and object of a
larger and a more splendid portion of his epistolary labors, than all
with which he ever favored any other place in the world; nor can this
protracted notice of its condition and character be justly blamed for
its intrusion on this hurried narrative.

  “_Corinth._――There is scarcely any one of the seats of ancient
  magnificence and luxury, that calls up more vivid and powerful
  associations, than are awakened by the name of this once opulent
  and powerful city. Corinth, ‘the prow and stern of Greece,’
  the emporium of its commerce, the key and bulwark of the
  Peloponnesus, was proverbial for its wealth as early as the
  time of Homer. Its situation was so advantageous for the
  inexperienced navigation of early times, that it became of
  necessity the center of trade. The first naval battle on record
  was fought between Corinth and its colony Corcyra, about 657
  B. C. ‘Syracuse, the ornament of Sicily, Corcyra, some time
  sovran of the seas, Ambracia in Epirus, and several other cities
  more or less flourishing, owe their origin to Corinth.’ (Travels
  of ♦Anacharsis, vol. III. c. 37.) Thucydides states, that the
  Corinthian ship-builders first produced galleys with three
  benches of oars. The circumnavigation of the peninsula was
  tedious and uncertain to a proverb; while at the Isthmus, not
  only their cargoes, but, if requisite, the smaller vessels might
  be transported from sea to sea. By its port of Cenchreae, it
  received the rich merchandise of Asia, and by that of Lechaeum,
  it maintained intercourse with Italy and Sicily. The Isthmian
  Games, by the concourse of people which they attracted at their
  celebration, contributed not a little to its immense opulence;
  and the prodigality of its merchants rendered the place so
  expensive, that it became a saying, ‘It is not for every one
  to go to Corinth.’ Even after its barbarous destruction by
  the Romans, it must have been an extremely magnificent city.
  Pausanias mentions in and near the city, a theater, an odeum,
  a stadium, and sixteen temples. That of Venus possessed above a
  thousand female slaves. ‘The women of Corinth are distinguished
  by their beauty; the men by their love of gain and pleasure.
  They ruin their health by convivial debauches, and love with
  them is only licentious passion. Venus is their principal
  deity.... The Corinthians, who performed such illustrious acts
  of valor in the Persian war, becoming enervated by pleasure,
  sunk under the yoke of the Argives; were obliged alternately
  to solicit the protection of the Lacedaemonians, the Athenians,
  and the Thebans; and are at length reduced to be only the
  wealthiest, the most effeminate, and the weakest state in
  Greece.’” (Anacharsis.) (Modern Traveler, pp. 160, 161.)

    ♦ “Anarchasis” replaced with “Anacharsis”

The Hebrew stranger, entering without despondency, this new scene of
labor, passed on unnoticed, and looking about for those with whom he
might be bold to communicate, on the score of national and religious
sympathies, he found among those who like himself were strangers, a
Jew, by name Aquilas, who with his wife Priscilla had lately arrived
from Italy, whence they had just been driven by a vexatious decree of
Claudius Caesar, which, on some groundless accusation, ordered all the
Jews to depart from Rome. Aquilas, though lately a resident in Italy,
was originally from Pontus in the northern part of Asia Minor, not very
far from Paul’s native province; and this proximity of origin joined
to another circumstance arising out of it, drew the strangers together,
in this foreign city. In Pontus even at this day is carried on that
same famous manufacture of camlet articles for which Cilicia was also
distinguished and proverbial, and it is therefore perfectly reasonable
to suppose that in that age also, this business was common in the same
region, because the variety of goat which produces the material, has
always been confined within those limits. Being of the same trade, then,
and both of them friendless strangers, seeking employment and support,
Paul and Aquilas fell into one another’s company and acquaintance,
and getting work at the same time, they seem to have set up a kind of
partnership in their trade, living together, and working in the same
way, from day to day. This, of course, gave constant opportunity for
the freest communication on all subjects of conversation; and Aquila
would not be long in finding out the great object, which had led Paul
away from his country and friends, to a place where his necessities
drove him to the laborious exercise of an occupation, which a person
of his rank and character could not originally have acquired with
any intention of gaining his livelihood thereby. That this was the
sole motive of his present application to his tedious business, is
abundantly testified in the epistles, which he afterwards wrote to this
same place; for he expressly says, that he “was chargeable to no man,”
but “labored with his own hands.” Yet the diligent pursuit of this
laborious avocation, did not prevent him from appearing on the sabbath,
in the synagogue, as a teacher of divine things; nor would the noble
principles of Jewish education permit any man to despise the stranger
on account of his necessitous and apparently humble circumstances.
His weekly ministry was therefore pursued without hindrance, and with
success; for “he persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Among those who
received the most eminent advantage from his apostolic labors, was his
fellow-workman Aquilas, who with his wife Priscilla, here imbibed such
a portion of Christian knowledge, as ever after made both him and her,
highly useful as teachers of the new faith, to which they were at this
time converted. It would seem, however, that Paul did not, during the
first part of his ministrations, very openly and energetically proclaim
the grand doctrine of the faith; for it was not till after the arrival
of Silas and Timothy from Macedonia, that he “pressed on in the word,
and testified to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.” As had usually
been the case, whenever he had proclaimed this solemn truth to his own
countrymen, he was met by the Corinthian Jews, for the most part, with
a most determined and scornful opposition; so that renouncing their
fellowship in the expressive gesture of an Oriental,――shaking his
raiment,――he declared――“Your blood be on your own heads:――I am clean.
Henceforth, I will go to the Gentiles.” Leaving their company, he then
went into the house of a religious friend, close to the synagogue,
and there took up his abode. But not all the Jews were involved in
the condemnation of this rejection. On the contrary, one of the most
eminent men among them, Crispus, either then or formerly the ruling
elder of the synagogue, professed the faith of Jesus, notwithstanding
its unpopularity. Along with him his whole family were baptized,
and many other Corinthians received the word in the same manner. In
addition to these nobly encouraging results of his devoted labors, his
ardor in the cause of Jesus received a new impulse from a remarkable
dream, in which the Lord appeared to him, uttering these words of
high consolation,――“Fear not, but speak, and hold not thy peace; for
I am with thee, and no one shall hurt thee. I have many people in this
city.” Under the combined influence of both natural and supernatural
encouragements, he therefore remained zealously laboring in Corinth,
and made that city his residence, as Luke very particularly records,
for a year and six months.

  “xviii. 5. συνείχετο τῳ λόγω, &c. The common reading is πνεύματι.
  Now since συννέχεσθαι, among other significations, denotes
  _angi_, _maerore corripi_, (see Luke ♦xii. 50, and the note on
  Matthew ♦iv. 24,) many Commentators, as Hammond, Mill, and Wolf,
  explain, “angebatur Paulus animo, dum docebat Judaeos, Jesum
  esse Messiam;” viz. “since he could produce no effect among
  them.” And they compare verse 6. But this interpretation is at
  variance with the context.

    ♦ “12” replaced with “xii” and
      “4” replaced with “iv” for consistency

  “Now this verb also signifies to _incite_, _urge_; as in
  2 Corinthians v. 14. Hence Beza, Pricaeus, and others,
  explain: ‘intus et apud se aestuebat prae zeli ardore;’ which
  interpretation I should admit, if there were not reason to
  suppose, from the authority of MSS. and Versions, that the true
  reading, (though the more difficult one,) is λύγῳ, of which the
  best interpretation, and that most suitable to the context, is
  the one found in the Vulgate ‘instabat verbo.’ For συνέχεσθαι
  denotes also to be _held, occupied by_ anything; as in Sappho 17,
  20. Herodotus 1, 17, 22. Aelian, Varia Historia, 14, 22. This
  ♦signification of the word being admitted, the sense will be:
  ‘When they had approached whom Paul (who knew that _combined_
  strength is most efficacious) had expected as his assistants in
  promulgating the Christian doctrine, and of whom, in so large
  and populous a city there was need, _then_ he _applied himself
  closely_ to the work of teaching.’ Kuinoel. (Bloomfield’s
  Annotations, p. 593.)

    ♦ “significaiion” replaced with “signification”


                  HIS EPISTLES WRITTEN FROM CORINTH.

The period of his residence in this city is made highly interesting
and important in the history of the sacred canon, by the circumstance
that here he wrote some of the first of those epistles to his various
missionary charges, which constitute the most controverted and the most
doctrinal portion of the New Testament. In treating of these writings,
in the course of the narrative of his life, the very contracted limits
now left to his biographer, will make it necessary to be much more
brief in his literary history, than in that of those other apostles,
whose writings have claimed and received so full a statement, under
their respective lives. Nor is there so much occasion for the labors
of the apostolic historian on this part of the history of the apostolic
works, as on those already so fully treated; for while the history of
the writings of Peter, John, Matthew, James and Jude, has so seldom
been presented to the eyes of common readers, the writings of Paul,
which have always been the great storehouse of Protestant dogmatism,
have been discussed and amplified in their history, scope, character,
and style, more fully than all the rest of the Bible, for common
readers; but in the great majority of instances, proving such a comment
on the sadly prophetical words of Peter on these very writings, that
the apostolic historian may well and wisely dread to immerse himself
in such a sea of difficulties as presents itself to view; and he
therefore cautiously avoids any intermeddling with discussions which
will possibly involve him in the condemnation pronounced by the great
apostolic chief, on those “unlearned and unstable,” who even in his
time had begun to “wrest to their own destruction, the things hard
to be understood in the epistles of his beloved brother Paul;” a
sentence which seems to have been wholly overlooked by the great
herd of dogmatizing commentators, who, very often, without either the
“learning” or the “stability,” which Peter thought requisite for the
safe interpretation of the Pauline epistles, have rushed on to the
task of vulgarizing these noble and honest writings, to suit the base
purposes of some popular system of mystical words and complex doctrines.
If then, the “unlearned and unstable” have been thus distinctly warned
by the highest apostolic authority, against meddling with these obscure
and peculiar writings; and since the whole history of didactic theology
is so full of melancholy comments on the undesignedly prophetical force
of Peter’s denunciation,――it is no more than prudent to decline the
slightest interference with a subject, which has been on such authority
declared to require the possession of so high a degree of learning and
stability, for its safe and just treatment. The few things which may
be safely stated, will merely concern the place, time and immediate
occasion of the writing of each of these epistles.

In the first place, as to the _order_ in which these works of Paul are
arranged in the common New Testament canon, it should be observed that
it has reference neither to date, subject, nor anything whatever in
their character or object, except the very arbitrary circumstance of
the _rank_ and _importance_ of the places and persons that were the
original objects of their composition. The epistle to the Romans is
always placed first, because the imperial city to which it was directed
was beyond all question the greatest in the world. The epistles to
the Corinthians are next, because that city was the nearest in rank
and importance to Rome, of all those which were the objects of Paul’s
epistolary attentions. The epistle to the Galatians is next, because
it was directed to a great province, inferior indeed in importance,
to the two great cities before mentioned, but vastly above any of the
other places to which Paul wrote. The epistle to the Ephesians comes
next, because Ephesus ranked far above any of the cities which follow.
Philippi was _supposed_, by those who arranged the canon, greater than
Colosse and Thessalonica, because it was thought to have been a capital
city. Thus all those epistles which are addressed to whole churches,
are placed first; and those which are addressed to individuals in the
same manner, form a class by themselves; that to Timothy being placed
first of these, because he was the most eminent of all the apostle’s
assistants,――Titus being inferior to him in dignity, and Philemon,
a person of no account at all, except from the bare circumstance,
that he was accidentally the subject of Paul’s notice. The epistle to
the Hebrews is last of all, because it is altogether peculiar in its
character, addressed neither to churches, nor to an individual, but
to a whole nation, being published and circulated for their general
benefit. The circumstance also that it was long denied a place in the
canon, and considered as a spurious writing, improperly attributed to
Paul, probably caused it to be put last of all his writings, when in
the course of time, it was at length allowed a place in the canon.


                  FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

That epistle which the great majority of all modern critics consider
as the earliest of all those writings of Paul that are now preserved,
is the first to the Thessalonians. It is directed to them from Paul,
Silvanus, (or Silas,) and Timothy, which shows that it was written
after Paul had been joined by these two brethren, which was not until
some time after his arrival in Corinth. It appears by the second and
third chapters, that the apostle, having been hindered by some evil
agency of the wicked, from visiting Thessalonica, as he had earnestly
desired to do, had been obliged to content himself with sending Timothy
to the brethren there, to comfort them in their faith, and to inquire
whether they yet stood fast in their first honorable profession; for he
declares himself to have been anxious to know whether by some means the
tempter might not have tempted them, and his labor have thus been in
vain. But he now informs them how he has lately been greatly comforted
by the good news brought from them by Timothy, who had assured the
apostle of their faith and love, and that they had great remembrance
of him always, desiring much to see him, as he them. Making known
to them the great joy which these tidings had caused in him, he now
affectionately re-assures them of his high and constant regard for
them, and of his continued remembrance of them in his prayers. He then
proceeds briefly to exhort them to a perseverance in the Christian
course, in which they had made so fair an outset, urging upon them more
especially, those virtues which were peculiarly rare among those with
whom they were daily brought in contact,――purity of life, rigid honesty
in business transactions, a charitable regard for the feelings of
others, a quiet, peaceable, inoffensive deportment, and other minuter
counsels, according to the peculiar circumstances of different persons
among them. The greater portion of this brief letter, indeed, is taken
up with these plain, practical matters, with no reference to any deep
doctrinal subjects, the whole being thus evidently well-suited to the
condition of believers who had but just begun the Christian course,
and had been in no way prepared to appreciate any learned discussion
of those obscure points which in later periods were the subject of so
much controversy among some of Paul’s converts. Their dangers hitherto
had also been mainly in the moral rather than in the doctrinal way,
and the only error of mere belief, to which he makes reference, is one
which has always been the occasion of a great deal of harmless folly
among the ignorant and the weak minded in the Christian churches, from
the apostolic age to this day. The evil however, was considered by
the apostle of so much importance, that he thought it worth while
to briefly expose its folly to the Thessalonians, and he accordingly
discourses to them of the day of judgment, assuring them that those
who might happen to be alive at the moment of Christ’s coming, would
derive no peculiar advantage from that circumstance, because those
who had died in Christ should rise first, and the survivors be then
caught up to meet the Lord in the air. But as for “the times and the
seasons,”――those endless themes for the discursive nonsense of the
visionary, even to the present day and hour,――he assures them that
there was no need at all that he should write to them, because they
already well knew that the day of the Lord should come as a thief in
the night, according to the words of Jesus himself. The only practical
benefit which they could expect to derive then, from this part of
their faith, was the conviction of the necessity of constantly bearing
in mind the shortness and uncertainty of their earthly stay, and the
importance of watchfulness and sobriety. After several sententious
moral exhortations, he concludes with affectionate salutations, and
with an earnest, solemn charge, that the letter should be read to all
the brethren of the church.

It will be observed, that at the conclusion of the epistle is a
statement that it was written from _Athens_,――an assertion perfectly
absurd, and rendered evidently so by the statements contained in the
epistle itself, as above shown. All the similar statements appended to
his other epistles are equally unauthorized, and most of them equally
false;――being written by some exceedingly foolish copyists, who
were too stupid to understand the words which they transcribed. Yet
these idle falsehoods are gravely given in all copies of the English
translation, and are thus continually sent abroad to mislead common
readers, many of whom, seeing them thus attached to the apostolic
writings, suppose them to be also of inspired authority, and are
deceived accordingly. And they probably will continue to be thus copied,
in spite of their palpable and mischievous falsehood, until such a
revolution in the moral sense of common people takes place, that they
shall esteem a new negative truth more valuable and interesting, than
an old, groundless blunder.

For some time after the writing of the first epistle to the
Thessalonians, with these triumphs and other encouragements, Paul and
his faithful helpers appear to have gone on steadily in their apostolic
labors, with no special obstacle or difficulty, that is commemorated in
the sacred record. But at last their old difficulties began to manifest
themselves in the gradually awakened enmity of the Jews, who, though
at his first distinct public ministrations they had expressed a decided
and scornful opposition to the doctrine of a crucified Savior, yet
suffered the new teachers to go on, without opposing them any farther
than by scornful verbal hostility, blasphemy and abuse. But when they
saw the despised heresy making such rapid advances, notwithstanding
the contempt with which it was visited, they immediately determined
to let it no longer take advantage of their inefficiency in resisting
its progress. Of course, deprived themselves, of all political power,
they had not the means of meeting the evil by physical violence, and
they well knew that any attempt on their part to raise an illegal
commotion against the strangers, would only bring down on the exciters
of the disturbance, the whole vengeance of their Roman rulers, who
were unsparing in their vengeance on those that undertook to defy the
forms of their laws, for the sake of persecution, or any private ends;
and least of all would a class of people so peculiar and so disliked
as the Jews, be allowed to take any such treasonable steps, without
insuring them a most dreadful punishment. These circumstances therefore
compelled them to proceed, as usual, under the forms of law; and
their first step against Paul therefore, was to apprehend him, and
take him, as a violator of religious order, before the highest Roman
tribunal,――that of the proconsul.

The proconsul of Achaia, holding his supreme seat of justice in Corinth,
the capital of that Roman province, was Lucius Junius GALLIO, a man
well known to the readers of one of the classic Latin writers of that
age,――Seneca,――as one of the most remarkable exemplifications of those
noble virtues which were the great theme of this philosopher’s pen.
Out of many beautiful illustrations which may be drawn from Roman
and Jewish writers, to explain and amplify the honest and faithful
apostolic history of Luke, there is none more striking and gratifying
than the aid here drawn from this fine philosophical classic, on the
character of the noble proconsul, who by his upright, wise, and clement
decision, against the mean persecutors of Paul,――and by his indignant
refusal to pervert and degrade his vice-regal power to the base ends of
private abuse, has acquired the grateful regard and admiring respect of
all Christian readers of apostolic history. The name of Lucius Junius
Gallio, by which he is known to Roman writers as well as in apostolic
history, was not his original family designation, and therefore gives
the reader no idea of his interesting relationship to one of the finest
moralists of the whole period of the Roman empire. His original family
name was Marcus Annaeus Novatus Seneca,――which appellation he exchanged
for his later one, on being adopted by Lucius Junius Gallio, a noble
Roman, who being destitute of children, adopted, according to a very
common custom of the imperial city, one of a family that had already
given promise of a fine reward to those who should take its offspring
as theirs. The famous philosopher before mentioned,――Lucius Annaeus
Seneca,――was his own brother; both of them being the sons of Marcus
Annaeus Seneca, a distinguished orator and rhetorician of the Augustan
age. A strong and truly fraternal affection always continued to hold
the two brothers together, even after they had been separated in
name by the adoption of the older into the family of Gallio; and the
philosopher often commemorates his noble brother, in terms of high
respect; and dedicated to him one of the most perfect of those moral
treatises which have immortalized the name of Seneca.

The philosopher Seneca, after having been for many years banished
from Rome by Claudius, was at length recalled by that emperor in the
ninth year of his reign, corresponding to A. D. 49. He was immediately
made a senator, and was still further honored by being intrusted with
the education of Domitius, the son of Agrippina, afterwards adopted by
Claudius as heir to the throne, to which he succeeded on the emperor’s
death, under the name of NERO, by which he has now become so infamous
wherever the Roman name is known. Being thus elevated to authority
and great influence with the emperor, Seneca made use of his power, to
procure for his brother Gallio such official honors as his talents and
character justly claimed. In the eleventh year of Claudius he was made
consul, as is recorded in the Fasti Consulares; and was soon after sent
into Greece, as proconsul of Achaia. Arriving at Corinth in the year
53, he was immediately addressed by the Jewish citizens of that place
in behalf of their plot against Paul; for they naturally supposed that
this would be the best time for the attempt to bend the new governor
to their purposes, when he was just commencing his administration, and
would be anxious to please the subjects of his power by his opening
acts. But Gallio had no disposition to acquire popularity with any
class of citizens, by any such abuse of power, and by his conduct on
this occasion very fairly justifies the high character given him by his
brother Seneca. When the Jews came dragging Paul before the proconsular
tribunal, with the accusation――“This fellow persuades men to worship
God in a manner contrary to the ritual,”――before Paul could open his
mouth in reply, Gallio carelessly answered――“If it were a matter of
crime or misdemeanor, ye Jews! it would be reasonable that I should
bear with you; but if it be a question of words and names, and of
your ritual, look ye to it; for I do not wish to be a judge of those
things.” With this contemptuous reply, he cleared the court of them.
The Jews thus found their fine scheme of abusing Paul under the
sanction of the Roman tribunal, perfectly frustrated; nor was their
calamity confined to this disappointment; for all the Greeks who were
present at the trial,――indignant at the scandalous character of the
proceeding,――took Sosthenes, the ruling elder of the synagogue, who
had probably been most active in the persecution of Paul, as he was
the regular legal chief of the Jews, and gave him a sound threshing in
the court, before he could obey the orders of the Proconsul, and move
off from the tribunal. Gallio was so far from being displeased at this
very irregular and improper outbreak of public feeling, that he took
no notice of the action whatever, though it was a shameful violation
of the dignity of his tribunal; and it may therefore be reasonably
concluded that he was very much provoked against the Jews, and was
disposed to sympathize with Paul; otherwise he would have been apt to
have punished the outrage of the Greeks upon Sosthenes.

  “The name of this proconsul was Marcus Annaeus Novatus, but
  being adopted by Lucius Junius Gallio, he took the name of his
  adopted father; he was brother to the famous Seneca, tutor to
  Nero. That philosopher dedicated to Gallio his book, ‘De Vita
  Beata.’ The Roman historians concur in giving him the character
  of a sweet disposition, an enemy to all vice, and particularly a
  hater of flattery. He was twice made proconsul of Achaia, first
  by Claudius, and afterwards by Nero. As he was the sharer of his
  brother’s prosperity, so he was of his misfortunes, when he fell
  under Nero’s displeasure, and was at length put to death by the
  tyrant, as well as his brother.” (Calmet’s Commentary. Poole’s
  Annotations. Williams on Pearson.)

  “In Acts xviii. 12‒16, we find Paul is brought before Gallio by
  the Jews, but this proconsul refused to judge any such matters,
  as not coming within his jurisdiction. The character for justice,
  impartiality, prudence, and mildness of disposition, which this
  passage gives to Gallio, is confirmed by Seneca, his brother, in
  these words:――Solebam tibi dicere, Gallionem fratrem meum (quem
  nemo non parum amat, etiam qui amare plus non potest,) alia
  vitia non nosse, hoc etiam, (i. e. adulationem,) odisse.――Nemo
  enim mortalium uni tam dulcis est, quam hic omnibus. Hoc quoque
  loco blanditiis tuis restitit, ut exclamares invenisse te
  inexpugnabilem virum adversus insidias, quas nemo non in sinum
  recipit. (Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Natural Questions, lib. iv.
  in preface, op. tom. iv. p. 267, edited by Bipont.) In our
  translation Gallio is styled the _deputy_, but the real Greek
  word is Ανθυπατευοντος, _proconsul_. The accuracy of Luke
  in this instance is very remarkable. In the partition of
  the provinces of the Roman empire, Macedonia and Achaia were
  assigned to the people and Senate of Rome. In the reign of
  Tiberius they were, at their own request, made over to the
  emperor. In the reign of Claudius, (A. U. C. 797. A. D. 44,)
  they were again restored to the Senate, after which time
  proconsuls were sent into this country. Nero afterwards made the
  Achaians a free people. The Senate therefore lost this province
  again. However, that they might not be sufferers, the emperor
  gave them the island of Sardinia, in the room of it. Vespasian
  made Achaia a province again. There is likewise a peculiar
  propriety in the name of the province of which Gallio was
  proconsul. The country subject to him was all Greece; but the
  proper name of the province among the Romans was Achaia, as
  appears from various passages of the Roman historians, and
  especially from the testimony of Pausanias. Καλουσι δε ουχ’
  Ἑλλαδος, αλλα’ ♦Αχαιας ἡγεμονα οἱ Ῥωμαιοι διοτι εχειρωσαντο
  Ἑλληνας δε Αχαιων, τοτε του Ἑλληνικου προεστηκοτων. (Pausanias
  Description of Greece. lib. vii. p. 563. Lardner’s Works, 4to.
  vol. I. p. 19.)

    ♦ “Ααχιων” replaced with “Αχαιων”

  “The words Γαλλίωνος δε ἀνθυπατεύοντος ought to be rendered,
  with Heumann, Walch, Antiquities, Corinth, p. 35., and Reichard,
  (as indeed is required by the context,) ‘when Gallio had been
  made Proconsul,’ or ‘on Gallio’s entering on the Proconsulship.’
  (Kuinoel.) In the same sense it was also taken by Beza and
  Piscator; and this appears to be the true one. The Jews, it
  seems, waited for the arrival of a new Proconsul to make their
  request, as thinking that they should then be less likely
  to meet with a refusal.” (Bloomfield’s Annotations, Vol. IV.
  p. 600.)

  “‘_Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the
  synagogues._’ verse 17. In the 8th verse we read that Crispus
  was the chief ruler of the synagogue in Corinth. And from this
  we may suppose that there were more than one synagogue in that
  city, or that there might be more than one ruler in the same
  synagogue; or that Crispus, after his conversion to Christianity,
  might have been succeeded by Sosthenes; but then we are at a
  loss to know who the people are that thus beat and misused him;
  the Greek printed copies tell us that they were the Gentiles;
  and those that read the text imagine, that when they perceived
  the neglect and disregard wherewith the proconsul received the
  Jews, they, to insult them more, fell upon the ruler of their
  synagogue, whether out of hatred to them, or friendship to St.
  Paul, it makes no matter. But others think, that Sosthenes,
  however head of the synagogue, was nevertheless the friend of
  St. Paul, and that the other Jews, seeing themselves slighted
  by Gallio, might vent their malice upon him; for they suppose
  that this was the same Sosthenes, whose name St. Paul, in the
  beginning of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, written about
  three years after this time, joins with his own. This opinion,
  however, was not universally received, since, in the time of
  Eusebius, it was thought the Sosthenes mentioned in the epistle
  was one of the seventy disciples, and, consequently, could not
  be the chief of the synagogue at Corinth, twenty years after
  the death of Jesus Christ.” (Beausobre’s Annotations. Calmet’s
  Commentary and Dictionary.)

  “‘xviii. 17. ἐπιλαβόμενοι δὲ πάντες οἱ Ἕλληνες There is here
  some variation of reading, and no little question raised as
  to the true one; which consequently leaves the interpretation
  unsettled. Two ancient MSS. and versions omit οἱ Ἕλληνες, and
  others read οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. As to the latter reading, it cannot be
  tolerated; for why should _the Jews_ have beaten him? Neither
  is it likely that they would have taken such a liberty before
  so solemn a tribunal. The words οἱ Ἕλληνες are thought by
  many critics, as Grotius, Mill, Pierce, Bengel, and Kuinoel,
  to be derived from the margin, like the last. Now those were
  _Gentiles_ (say they) who beat Sosthenes; and hence some one
  wrote οἱ Ἕλληνες. As to the reason for the beating, it was to
  make the Jews go away the faster; and to this they were actuated
  partly by their hatred towards the Jews, and partly by a desire
  to please the Procurator.’ But this appears to be pressing
  too much on the word ἀπήλασεν, which has by no means any such
  meaning. Besides, it is strange that the words Ἕλληνες should
  have crept into nearly all the MSS; even into so many _early_
  ones. And, supposing Ἕλληνες to be removed, what sense is to be
  given to παντες? None (I think) satisfactory, or agreeable to
  the style of the New Testament. It must therefore be retained:
  and then the sense of πάντες will be as follows: ‘all the Greeks,
  both Gentiles and Christians:’ which is so evident, that I am
  surprised the commentators should not have seen it. Some explain
  it of the Gentiles, and others of the Gentile Christians. _Both_
  indeed had reason to take umbrage at the intolerance and bitter
  animosity of the Jews. It is not likely that any should have
  joined in the beating, merely to please the Proconsul, who
  was not a man to be gratified by such a procedure. So that the
  gnomes brought forward by Grotius on the base _assentatio_ of
  courtiers, are not here applicable.

  “By ἔτυπτον is merely to be understood _beating_, or _thumping
  him with their fists_, as he passed along. Anything _more_ than
  that, we cannot suppose they would have ventured upon, or the
  Proconsul have tolerated.”

  “By τούτων, (verse 17,) we may, I think, understand both the
  accusation brought forward, and the cuffs which followed; to
  neither of which the Proconsul paid much attention; and this
  from disgust at the litigious conduct of the Jews; as also from
  the custom, mentioned by Pricaeus, of the Roman governors, to
  pass by any conduct which did not directly tend to degrade the
  dignity of the Roman name, or weaken its influence, in order
  that the yoke might be as easy as possible to the provincials.”
  (Bloomfield’s Annotations, Vol. IV. pp. 603‒605.)

  Illustration:           CORINTH――CENCHREA.
                    Romans xvi. 1.  Acts xviii. 18.

His character having been thus vindicated, and his safety thus assured
him by the supreme civil authority, Paul resided for a long time in
Corinth, steadily pursuing his apostolic work, without any direct
hindrance or molestation from the Jews. There is no reason to suppose
that he confined all his labor entirely to the city; on the contrary,
it is quite certain, that the numerous smaller gospel fields throughout
the adjacent country, must have attracted his attention, and it appears,
from the commencement of his second epistle to the Corinthians, that
many throughout all Achaia had received the gospel, and had been
numbered among the saints. Corinth, however, remained the great center
of his operations in Greece, and from this place he soon after directed
another epistle to one of his apostolic charges in Macedonia,――the
church of Thessalonica. Since his former epistle had been received
by them, there had arisen a new occasion for his anxious attention
to their spiritual condition, and in his second letter he alludes
distinctly to the fact that there had been misrepresentations of his
opinion, and seems to imply that a letter had been forged in his name,
and presented to them, as containing a new and more complete account
of the exact time of the expected coming of Christ, to which he had
only vaguely alluded in the first. In the second chapter of his second
epistle, he renews his warning against these delusions about the
coming of Christ, alluding to the fact, that they had been deceived
and disturbed by misstatements on this subject, and had been led into
error, both by those who pretended to be _inspired_, and by those who
attempted to show by _prediction_, that the coming of Christ was at
hand, and also by _the forged epistle_ pretending to contain Paul’s own
more decisive opinions on the subject. He exhorts them to “let no man
deceive them by any of these means.” He warns them moreover, against
any that exalt themselves against the doctrines which he had taught
them, and denounces all false and presumptuous teachers in very bitter
terms. After various warnings against these and all disorderly persons
among them, he refers to his own behavior while with them, as an
example for them to follow, and reminds them how blamelessly and
honestly he behaved himself. He did not presume on his apostolic office,
to be an idler, or to eat any man’s bread for naught, but steadily
worked with his own hands, lest he should be chargeable to any one of
them; and this he did, not because his apostolic office did not empower
him to live without manual labor, and to depend on those to whom he
preached for his means of subsistence, but because he wished to make
himself, and his fellow-laborers, Silas and Timothy, examples for
their behavior after he was gone. Yet it seemed that, notwithstanding
the pains he had taken to inculcate an honest and industrious course,
several persons among them had assumed the office of teaching and
reproving, and had considered themselves thereby excused from doing
anything for their own support. In the conclusion, he refers them
distinctly to his own signature and salutation, which authenticate
every epistle which he writes, and without which, no letter was to be
esteemed genuine. This he specifies, no doubt, for the sake of putting
them on their guard against the repetition of any such deception as had
been lately practised on them in his name.


                     HIS VOYAGE BACK TO THE EAST.

Soon after Paul had written his second epistle to the Thessalonians, he
left Corinth, in the spring of A. D. 56, as it is commonly calculated,
and after bidding the brethren farewell, journeyed back to Asia, from
whose shores he had now been absent not less than three years. On
his return journey, he was accompanied by his two acquaintances and
fellow-laborers, Aquilas and Priscilla, who were now his most intimate
friends, and henceforth were always esteemed among the important aids
of the apostolic enterprise. Journeying eastward across the isthmus,
they came to Cenchreae, the eastern port of Corinth, and at the head
of the great Saronic gulf, about seven miles from the city itself.
At this place Paul discharged himself of the obligation of a vow,
which he had made some time before, in conformity with a common Jewish
custom of thus giving force to their own sense of gratitude for the
accomplishment of any desired object. He had vowed to let his hair grow
until some unknown end was attained, and now, having seen the prayers
which sanctioned that vow granted, he cut off his hair in token of the
joyful completion of the enterprise on which he had thus solemnly and
formally invoked the blessing of heaven. The actual purpose of this
vow is not recorded,――but when the occasion on which he thus exonerated
himself is considered, it seems most reasonable to suppose that now,
embarking from the shores of Europe, after he had there passed so many
years of very peculiar labor and trials, he was thus celebrating the
prosperous and happy achievment of his first great western mission, and
that this vow had been made for his safe return, when he first sailed
from the eastern coast of the Aegean, at Alexandria Troas.

He sailed from Cenchreae to Ephesus, a great city of Ionic Asia,
which had never been the scene of his apostolic labors, though he had
traversed much of the country around it; for it will be remembered,
that on his last journey through Asia Minor, when he had passed
over Galatia and Phrygia, he was about to enter Asia Proper, but
was hindered by a special impulse of the Spirit, which sent him in
a different direction. But having thus achieved his great western
enterprise, there was now no longer any more important commission
to prevent him from gratifying his eyes with a sight of this very
interesting region, and making here an experimental effort to diffuse
the knowledge of the gospel through the numerous, wealthy, refined and
populous cities of this, the most flourishing and civilized country in
the world. He did not intend, however, to make anything more than a
mere call at Ephesus; for the great object of his voyage from Europe
was to return to Jerusalem and Syria, and give to his brethren, a full
statement of all the interesting particulars of his long and remarkable
mission in Macedonia and Greece. But he took occasion to vary this
eastern route, so as to effect as much good as possible by the way;
and therefore embarked first for Ephesus, where he landed with Aquilas
and Priscilla, whom he left there, while he continued on his journey,
southeastwards. He stopped with them however, a few days, with a view
to open this new field of labor with them; and going into the synagogue,
discoursed with the Jews. He was so well received by his hearers,
that he was earnestly besought to prolong his stay among them; but he
excused himself for his refusal of their kind invitation, by stating
the great object which he had in view in leaving Europe at that
particular time:――“I must by all means keep this coming feast at
Jerusalem; but I will return to you,――God willing.” And bidding them
farewell, he sailed away from Ephesus to Caesarea, on the coast of
Palestine, where he landed. Thence he went up to Jerusalem, to salute
the church. In this part of the history of Paul, Luke seems to be
exceedingly brief; perhaps because he was not then with him, and had
never received from him any account of this journey. There is therefore
no way of ascertaining what was the particular motive or design of
this visit. It would appear, however, from the very hurried manner in
which the visit was noticed, that it was exceedingly brief, and his
departure thence may, as Calvin conjectures, have been hastened by the
circumstance, that possibly the business on which he went thither did
not succeed according to his wishes. At any rate, there seems to have
been something very mysterious about the whole matter, else there would
not have been this very studied concealment of the motives and details
of a journey, which he announced to the brethren of the church at
Ephesus, as _absolutely necessary_ for him to perform. This also may
have been concealed for the same reason, which has been conjectured to
have caused the visit to be so short, as would seem from the manner in
which it is noticed. From Jerusalem he went down to Antioch, by what
route is not specified,――but probably by way of Caesarea and the sea.

  “xviii. 22. _Caesarea._ A town on the sea-coast. [See the
  note on p. 173.] Ἀναβὰς, ‘and having gone up.’ Whither? Some
  commentators, as Camerarius, De Dieu, Wolf, Calov., Heumann,
  Doddridge, Thaleman, Beck, and Kuinoel, refer it to _Caesarea_.
  But this requires the confirmation of examples. And we must
  _take for granted_ that the city was built high above the port,
  (which is not likely,) or that the _church_ was so situated;
  which would be extremely frigid. Neither is it certain
  that there _was_ a church. Besides, how can the expression
  καταβαίνω be proper, as used of traveling from a seaport-town,
  like Caesarea, to Antioch? I therefore prefer the mode
  of interpretation adopted by some ancient and many modern
  commentators, as Beza, Grotius, Mor., Rosenmueller, Reichard,
  Schott, Heinrichs, and others, who supply εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα. This
  may indeed seem somewhat harsh; yet it must be remembered that
  not a few things are so in the New Testament; and ἀναβαίνω
  is there often used absolutely of going up to Jerusalem, and
  καταβαίνω of going from thence. Nor is this unexampled in the
  classical writers. Xenophon uses the word in the very same
  sense, of those going from Greece to the capital of Persia. See
  Anabasis 1, 1, 2. Hist. 2, 1. 9, 10. Anabasis 1, 4, 12. Hist. 4,
  1, 2. 1, 5, 1. 1, 4, 2. and many other passages referred to by
  Sturz in his Lexicon Xenophon in voce. Besides, as the words εἰς
  Ἱεροσόλυμα have just preceded, it is not very harsh to repeat
  them. Kuinoel, indeed, and some others, treat those words as not
  genuine; but their opinion rests on mere suspicion, unsupported
  by any proof.” (Bloomfield Annotations. Vol. IV. p. 607.)

From the very brief and general manner in which the incidents of this
visit of Paul to the eastern continent are commemorated, the apostolic
historian is left to gather nothing but the most naked circumstances,
of the route pursued, and from the results, it is but fair to conclude
that nothing of consequence happened to the apostle, as his duties
consisted merely in a review and completion of the work he had gone
over before. Luke evidently did not accompany Paul in this Asian
journey, and he therefore only states the general direction of the
apostle’s course, without a single particular. He says that Paul, after
making ♦some stay in Antioch,――where, no doubt he greatly comforted the
hearts of the brethren, by the glad tidings of the triumphs of Christ
in Europe,――went in regular order over the regions of Galatia, and
Phrygia, everywhere confirming the disciples. Beyond this, no incident
whatever is preserved; yet here great amplification of the sacred
record might be made, from the amusing narrative of that venerable
monkish story-teller, who assumes the name of Abdias Babylonius. But
from the specimens of his narrative already given, in the lives of
Andrew and John, the reader will easily apprehend that they contain
nothing which deserves to be intruded into the midst of the honest,
authentic statements, of the original and genuine apostolic history;
and all these with many other similar inventions are wholly dismissed
from the life of Paul, of whose actions such ample records have
been left in the writings of himself and his companions, that it
is altogether more necessary for the biographer to condense into a
modernized form, with proper illustrations, the materials presented
on the authority of inspiration, than to prolong the narrative with
tedious inventions. In this part of the apostolic history, all that
Luke records is, that Paul, after the before-mentioned survey of the
inland countries of Asia Minor, came down to the western shore, and
visited Ephesus, according to the promise which ♠he had made them
at his farewell, a few months before. Since that hasty visit made
in passing, some events important to the gospel cause had happened
among them. An Alexandrine Jew named Apollos, a man of great Biblical
learning, (as many of the Jews of his native city were,) and indued
also with eloquence,――came to Ephesus, and there soon distinguished
himself as a religious teacher. Of the doctrines of Jesus Christ and
his apostles, indeed, he had never heard; but he had somewhere been
made acquainted with the peculiar reforming principles of his great
forerunner, John the Baptist, and had been baptized, probably by
some one of his disciples. With great fervor and power, he discoursed
learnedly of the things of the Lord, in the synagogue at Ephesus,
and of course, was brought under the notice of Aquilas and Priscilla,
whom Paul had left to occupy that important field, while he was making
his southeastern tour. They took pains to draw Apollos into their
acquaintance, and found him, like every truly learned man, very ready
to learn, even from those who were his inferiors in most departments
of sacred knowledge. From them he heard with great interest and
satisfaction, the peculiar and striking truths revealed in Jesus,
and at once professing his faith in this new revelation, went forth
again among the Jews, replenished with a higher learning and a diviner
spirit. After teaching for some time in Ephesus, he was disposed to
try his new powers in some other field; and proposing to journey into
Achaia, his two Christian friends gave him letters of introduction
and recommendation to the brethren of the church in Corinth. While
he was there laboring with great efficiency in the gospel cause, Paul
returning from his great apostolic survey of the inland and upper
regions of Asia Minor, came to Ephesus. Entering on this work of
perfecting and uniting the results of the various irregular efforts
made by the different persons, who had before labored there, he found,
among those who professed to hold the doctrines of a new revelation,
about a dozen men, who knew very little of the great doctrines which
Paul had been in the habit of preaching. One of his first questions
to them, of course, was whether they had yet received that usual
convincing sign of the Christian faith,――the Holy Spirit. To which they
answered in some surprise, that they had not yet heard that there was
any Holy Spirit;――thus evidently showing that they knew nothing about
any such sign or its effects. Paul, in his turn considerably surprised,
at this remarkable ignorance of a matter of such high importance, was
naturally led to ask what kind of initiation they had received into
the new dispensation; and learning from them, that they had only been
baptized according to the baptism of John,――instantly assured them
of the incompleteness of that revelation of the truth. “John truly
baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people that they
must believe on him that should come after him,――that is on Christ
Jesus.” Hearing this, they consented to receive from the apostle of
Jesus, the renewal of the sign of faith, which they had formerly known
as the token of that partial revelation made by John; and they were
therefore baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,――a form of words
which of course had never been pronounced over them before. Paul, then
laying his hands on them, invoked the influence of the Holy Spirit,
which was then immediately manifested, by the usual miraculous gifts
which accompanied its effusion.

    ♦ removed duplicate word “some”

    ♠ removed duplicate word “he”

  “xviii. 24. _Apollos._ A name contracted from _Apollonius_,
  (which is read in the Cod. Cant.) as Epaphras from Epaphroditus,
  and Artemas from Artemonius. Of this Apollonius, mention is also
  made in 1 Corinthians i. 12. iii. 5 seq. where Paul speaks of
  the labor he underwent in the instruction of the Corinthians.
  (1 Corinthians iv. 6. xvi. 12.) Γένει, _by birth_, i. e. country;
  as in 18, 2. The Jews of Alexandria were eminent for Biblical
  knowledge. That most celebrated city of Egypt abounded with men
  of learning, both Jews and Gentiles.” Kuinoel. (Bloomfield’s
  Annotations, Vol. IV. p. 608.)

  “The _Baptism of John_ is put, by synecdoche, for the _whole of
  John’s ordinances_. See the note on Matthew xxi. 25. (Kuinoel.)
  It is generally supposed that he had been baptized by John
  himself: but this must have been twenty years before; and it is
  not probable that during that time he should have acquired no
  knowledge of Christianity. It should rather seem that he had
  been baptized by one of John’s disciples; and perhaps not very
  long before the time here spoken of.” (Bloomfield’s Annotations,
  Vol. IV. p. 610.)

  “With respect to the _letters_ here mentioned, they were written
  for the purpose of encouraging Apollos, and recommending him
  to the brethren. This ancient ecclesiastical custom of writing
  letters of recommendation, (which seems to have originated in
  the necessary caution to be observed in times of persecution,
  and arose out of the interrupted and tardy intercourse which,
  owing to their great distance from each other, subsisted
  between the Christians,) has been well illustrated by a tract
  of Ferrarius de Epistolis Ecclesiasticis, referred to by Wolf.”
  (Bloomfield. Vol. IV. p. 611.)

  “Ephesus was the metropolis of proconsular Asia. It was situated
  at the mouth of the river Cayster, on the shore of the Aegean
  sea, in that part anciently called Ionia, (but now Natolir,)
  and was particularly celebrated for the temple of Diana, which
  had been erected at the common expense of the inhabitants of
  Asia Proper, and was reputed one of the seven wonders of the
  world. In the time of Paul, this city abounded with orators and
  philosophers; and its inhabitants, in their gentile state, were
  celebrated for their idolatry and skill in magic, as well as
  for their luxury and lasciviousness. Ephesus is now under the
  dominion of the Turks, and is in a state of almost total ruin,
  being reduced to fifteen poor cottages, (not erected exactly
  on its original site,) and its once flourishing church is now
  diminished to _three_ illiterate Greeks. (Revelation ii. 6.)
  In the time of the Romans, Ephesus was the metropolis of Asia.
  The temple of Diana is said to have been four hundred and
  twenty-five feet long, two hundred and twenty broad, and to have
  been supported by one hundred and twenty-seven pillars of marble,
  seventy feet high, whereof twenty-seven were most beautifully
  wrought, and all the rest polished. One Ctesiphon, a famous
  architect, planned it, and with so much art and curiosity, that
  it took two hundred years to finish it. It was set on fire seven
  times; once on the very same day that Socrates was poisoned,
  four hundred years before Christ.” (Horne’s Introduction.
  Whitby’s Table. Wells’s Geography. Williams on Pearson.)

After this successful effort to confirm and complete the conversions
already effected, Paul went about his apostolic labors in the usual
way,――going into the synagogue, and speaking boldly, disputing the
antiquated sophistry of the Jews, and urging upon all, the doctrines of
the new revelation. In this department of labor, he continued for the
space of three months; but at the end of that time, he found that many
obstacles were thrown in the way of the truth by the stubborn adherents
of the established forms of old Judaism, who would not allow that the
lowly Jesus was the Messiah for whom their nation had so long looked
as the restorer of Israel. Leaving the hardened and obstinate Jews, he
therefore, according to his old custom in such cases of the rejection
of the gospel by them, withdrew from their society, and thenceforth
went with those who had believed among the more candid Greeks, who,
with a truly enlightened and philosophical spirit, held their minds
open to the reception of new truths, even though they might not happen
to accord with those which were sanctioned to them by the prejudices of
education. After leaving the synagogue, his new place of preaching and
religious instruction was the school of one Tyrannus,――doubtless one of
those philosophical institutions with which every Grecian city abounded.
This continued his field of exertion for two years, during which his
fame became very widely established,――all the inhabitants of Ionic
and Aeolic Asia, having heard of the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews
and Greeks. Among the causes and effects of this general notoriety,
was the circumstance, that many miraculous cures were wrought by
the hands of Paul; and many began even to attach a divine regard to
his person;――handkerchiefs being brought to the sick from his body,
which, on application to those afflicted, either with bodily or mental
diseases, produced a perfect cure. This matter becoming generally known
and talked of, throughout Ephesus, became the occasion of a ludicrous
accident, which occurred to some persons who entertained the mistaken
notion, that this faculty of curing diseases was transferable, and
might be exercised by anybody that had enterprise enough to take the
business in hand, and say over the form of words that seemed to be so
efficacious in the mouth of Paul. A set of conjurers of Jewish origin,
the seven sons of Sceva, who went about professedly following the trade
of casting out devils, straightway caught up this new improvement on
their old tricks, (for so they esteemed the divinely miraculous power
of the apostle,) and soon found an opportunity to experiment with
this, which they considered a valuable addition to their old stock
of impositions. So, calling over the miserable possessed subject of
their foolish experiment, they said――“We exorcise you by Jesus, whom
Paul preaches.” But the devil was not slow to perceive the difference
between this second-hand, plagiaristic mode of operation, and
the commanding tone of divine authority with which the demoniacal
possessions were treated by the apostle of Jesus. He therefore quite
turned their borrowed mummery into a jest, and cried out through the
mouth of the possessed man,――“Jesus I know, and Paul I know:――but who
are ye?” Under the impulse of the frolicsome, mischievous spirit, the
man upon whom they were playing their conjuring tricks, jumped up at
once, and fell upon these rash doctors with all his might, and with all
the energy of a truly crazy demoniac, beat the whole seven, tore their
clothes off from them, and threshed them to such effect, that they were
glad to stop their mummery, and make off as fast as possible, but did
not escape till they were naked and wounded. The affair of course, was
soon very generally talked of, and the story made an impression, on
the whole, decidedly favorable to the true source of that miraculous
agency, which, when foolishly tampered with, had produced such
appalling results. Many, among both Jews and Greeks, were thereby led
to repentance and faith, and more particularly those who had been in
the way of practising these arts of imposition. A very general alarm
prevailed among all the conjurers, and many came and confessed the
mean tricks by which they had hitherto maintained their reputation as
controllers of the powers of the invisible world. Many who had also,
at great expense of time and money, acquired the arts of imposition,
brought the costly books in which were contained all the mysterious
details of their magical mummery, and burned them publicly, without
regard to their immense estimated pecuniary value, which was not less
than nine thousand dollars. In short, the results of this apparently
trifling occurrence, followed up by the zealous preaching of Paul,
effected a vast amount of good, so that the word of God mightily grew
and prevailed.

   Illustration:  EPHESUS.――RUINS OF THE TEMPLE OF DIANA.
                   Ephesians i. 1.  Revelation ii. 1, 7.

  “In Acts xx. 31, the apostle says, that for the space of three
  years he preached at Ephesus. Grotius and Whitby hold that these
  three years are to be reckoned from his first coming to Ephesus,
  xviii. 19; that he does not specify his being in any other
  city; and that when it is said here, ‘So that all Asia heard the
  word,’ xix. 40, it arose from the concourse that, on a religious
  account, continually assembled in that city. The Jews also, from
  different parts of Asia, were induced by commerce, or obliged
  by the courts of judicature, to frequent it. Other commentators
  contend that, as only two years, with three months in the
  synagogue, are here mentioned, the remaining three-quarters of
  a year were partly engaged in a progress through the neighboring
  provinces. (Elsley, from Lightfoot and Doddridge.)

  “While he was at Ephesus, ‘God wrought special miracles by the
  hands of Paul; so that from his body were brought unto the sick,
  handkerchiefs or aprons,’ &c. &c. Acts ♦xix. 11, 12. Σιμικίνθιον,
  _aprons_, is slightly changed from the Latin _semicinctum_,
  which workmen put before them when employed at their occupations,
  to keep their clothes from soiling. The difference which
  Theophylact and Oecumenius make between these and σουδάρια, is,
  that the latter are applied to the head, as a cap or veil, and
  the former to the hands as a handkerchief. ‘They carry them,’
  says Oecumenius, ‘in their hands, to wipe off moisture from
  their face, as tears,’” &c. &c. (Calmet’s Commentary.)

    ♦ removed spurious “v.”

  “‘And they counted the price of them, [the books,] and found
  it to be fifty thousand pieces of silver,’ verse 19――αργυριον
  is used generally in the Old Testament, LXX. for the shekel,
  in value about 2s. 6d., or the total 6250l. as Numbers vii. 85.
  Deuteronomy xxii. 19. 2 Kings xv. 20. _Grotius._ If it means the
  drachma, as more frequently used by the Greeks at 9d. each, the
  sum will be 1875l.” [$9000.] Doddridge. Elsley’s Annotations.
  (Williams on Pearson, pp. 53‒55.)


                     THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

There is hardly one of the writings of Paul, about the date of which
there has been so much discussion, or so many opinions as this; but
the results of all the elaborate investigations and argumentations of
the learned, still leave this interesting chronological point in such
doubt, that this must be pronounced about the most uncertain in date,
of all the Pauline epistles. It may however, without any inconsistency
with the historical narrative of the Acts, or with any passages in the
other epistles, be safely referred to the period of this residence in
Ephesus, probably to the later part of it. The epistle itself contains
no reference whatever, direct or indirect, to the place in which he
was occupied at the time of writing, and only bare probabilities can
therefore be stated on it,――nor can any decisive objection be made to
any one of six opinions which have been strongly urged. Some pronounce
it very decidedly to have been the first of all the epistles written by
Paul, and maintain that he wrote it soon after his first visit to them,
at some time during the interval between Paul’s departure from Galatia,
and his departure from Thessalonica. Others date it at the time of
his imprisonment in Rome, according to the common subscription of
the epistle. Against this last may, however, perhaps be urged his
reproof to the Galatians, that they “were _so soon_ removed from him
that called them to the grace of Christ,”――an expression nevertheless,
too vague to form any certain basis for a chronological conclusion.
The great majority of critics refer it to the period of his stay in
Ephesus,――a view which entirely accords with the idea, that it must
have been written soon after Paul had preached to them; for on his last
journey to Ephesus, he had passed through Galatia, as already narrated,
confirming the churches. Some time had, no doubt, intervened since
his preaching to them, sufficient at least to allow many heresies and
difficulties to arise among them, and to pervert them from the purity
of the truth, as taught to them by him. Certain false teachers had been
among them since his departure, inculcating on all believers in Christ,
the absolute necessity of a minute and rigid observance of Mosaic
forms, for their salvation. They also directly attacked the apostolical
character and authority of Paul,――declaring his opinion to be of
no weight whatever, and to be opposed to that of the true original
apostles of Jesus. These, Paul meets with great force in the very
beginning of the epistle, entering at once into a particular account
of the mode of his first entering the apostleship,――showing that it was
not derived from the other apostles, but from the special commission
of Christ himself, miraculously given. He also shows that he had, on
this very question of Judaical rituals, conferred with the apostles
at Jerusalem, and had received the sanction of their approbation in
that course of open communion which he had before followed, on his own
inspired authority, and had ever since maintained, in the face of what
he deemed inconsistencies in the conduct of Peter. He then attacks the
Galatians themselves, in very violent terms, for their perversion of
that glorious freedom into which he had brought the Christian doctrine,
and fills up the greater part of the epistle with reproofs of these
errors.

His argument against the doctrines of the servile Judaizers is made
up in his favorite mode of demonstration, by simile and metaphor,
representing the Christian system under the form of the offspring of
Abraham, and afterwards images the freedom of the true believers in
Jesus, in the exalted privilege of the descendants of Sara, while those
enslaved to forms are presented as analogous in their condition to the
children of Hagar. He earnestly exhorts them, therefore, to stand fast
in the freedom to which Christ has exalted them, and most emphatically
condemns all observance of circumcision. Thus pointing out to them,
the purely spiritual nature of that covenant, of which they were now
the favored subjects, he urges them to a truly spiritual course of
life, bidding them aim at the attainment of a perfect moral character,
and makes the conclusion of the epistle eminently practical in its
direction. He speaks of this epistle as being a testimony of the very
particular interest which he feels in their spiritual prosperity,
because, (what appears contrary to his practice,) he has written it
with his own hand. To the very last, he is very bitter against those
who are aiming to bring them back to the observance of circumcision,
and denounces those as actuated only by a base desire to avoid that
persecution which they might expect from the Jews, if they should
reject the Mosaic ritual. Referring to the cross of Christ as his
only glory, he movingly alludes to the marks of his conformity to that
standard, bearing as he does in his own body, the scars of the wounds
received from the scourges of his Philippian persecutors. He closes
without any mention of personal salutations, and throughout the whole
makes none of those specifications of names, with which most of his
other epistles abound. In the opening salutation, he merely includes
with himself those “brethren that are with him,” which seems to imply
that they knew who those brethren were, in some other way,――perhaps,
because he had but lately been among them with those same persons as
his assistants in the ministry.

  On this very doubtful point, I have taken the views adopted by
  Witsius, Louis Cappel, Pearson, Wall, Hug and Hemsen. The notion
  that it was written at Rome is supported by Theodoret, Lightfoot,
  and Paley,――of course making it a late epistle. On the contrary,
  Michaelis makes it the earliest of all, and dates it in the year
  49, at some place on Paul’s route from Troas to Thessalonica.
  Marcion and Tertullian also supposed it to be one of the
  earliest epistles. Benson thinks it was written during Paul’s
  first residence in Corinth. Lenfant and Beausobre, followed by
  Lardner, conjecture it to have been written either at Corinth or
  at Ephesus, during his first visit, either in A. D. 52, or 53.
  Fabricius and Mill date it A. D. 58, at some place on Paul’s
  route to Jerusalem. Chrysostom and Theophylact, date it before
  the epistle to the Romans. Grotius thinks it was written
  about the same time. From all which, the reader will see the
  justice of my conclusion, that nothing at all is known with any
  certainty about the matter.


                           THE EPHESIAN MOB.

Paul having now been a resident in Ephesus for nearly three years,
and having seen such glorious results of his labors, soon began to
think of revisiting some of his former fields of missionary exertion,
more especially those Grecian cities of Europe which had been such
eventful scenes to him, but a few years previous. He designed to
go over Macedonia and Achaia, and then to visit Jerusalem; and when
communicating these plans to his friends at Ephesus, he remarked
to them in conclusion――“And after that, I must also visit Rome.”
He therefore sent before him into Macedonia, as the heralds of his
approach, his former assistant, Timothy, and another helper not before
mentioned, Erastus, who is afterwards mentioned as the treasurer of
the city of Corinth. But Paul himself still waited in Asia for a short
time, until some other preliminaries should be arranged for his removal.
During this incidental delay arose the most terrible commotion that had
ever yet been excited against him, and one which very nearly cost him
his life.

It should be noticed that the conversion of so large a number of the
heathen, through the preaching of Paul, had struck directly at the
foundation of a very thriving business carried on in Ephesus, and
connected with the continued prevalence and general popularity of that
idolatrous worship, for which the city was so famous. Ephesus, as is
well known, was the chief seat of the peculiar worship of that great
Asian deity, who is now known, throughout all the world, where the
apostolic history is read, by the name of “DIANA OF THE EPHESIANS.” It
is perfectly certain, however, that this deity had no real connection,
either in character or in name, with that Roman goddess of the chase
and of chastity, to whom the name Diana properly belongs. The true
classic goddess Diana was a virgin, according to common stories,
considered as the sister of Apollo, and was worshiped as the beautiful
and youthful goddess of the chase, and of that virgin purity of
which she was supposed to be an instance, though some stories present
an exception to this part of her character. Upon her head, in most
representations of her, was pictured a crescent, which was commonly
supposed to show, that she was also the goddess of the moon; but a far
more sagacious and rational supposition refers the first origin of this
sign to a deeper meaning. But when the mythologies of different nations
began to be compared and united, she was identified with the goddess
of the moon, and with that Asian goddess who bore among the Greeks the
name of ARTEMIS, which is in fact the name given by Luke, as the title
of the great goddess of the Ephesians. This ARTEMIS, however, was a
deity as diverse in form, character and attributes, from the classic
Diana, as from any goddess in all the systems of ancient mythology;
and they never need have been confounded, but for the perverse folly of
those who were bent, in spite of all reason, to find in the divinities
of the eastern polytheism, the perfect synonyms to the objects of
western idolatry. The Asian and Ephesian goddess Artemis, had nothing
whatever to do with hunting nor with chastity. She was not represented
as young, nor beautiful, nor nimble, nor as the sister of Apollo,
but as a vast gigantic monster, with a crown of towers, with lions
crouching upon her shoulders, and a great array of pictured or
sculptured eagles and tigers over her whole figure; and her figure was
also strangely marked by a multitude of breasts in front. Under this
monstrous figure, which evidently was no invention of the tasteful
Greeks, but had originated in the debasing and grotesque idolatry of
the orientals, Artemis of the Ephesians was worshiped as the goddess
of the earth, of fertility, of cities, and as the universal principle
of life and wealth. She was known among the Syrians by the name of
Ashtaroth, and was among the early objects of Hebrew idolatry. When
the Romans, in their all-absorbing tolerance of idolatry, began to
introduce into Italy the worship of the eastern deities, this goddess
was also added there, but not under the name of Diana. The classic
scholar is familiar with the allusions to this deity, worshiped under
the name of Cybele, Tellus and other such, and in all the later poets
of Rome, she is a familiar object, as “the tower-crowned Cybele.”
This was the goddess worshiped in many of the Grecian cities of Asia
Minor, which, at their first colonization, had adopted this aboriginal
goddess of those fertile regions, of whose fertility, civilization,
agricultural and commercial wealth, she seemed the fit and appropriate
personification. But in none of these Asian cities was she worshiped
with such peculiar honors and glories as in Ephesus, the greatest city
of Asia Minor. Here was worshiped a much cherished image of her, which
was said to have fallen from heaven, called from that circumstance the
DIOPETOS; which here was kept in that most splendid temple, which is
even now proverbial as having been one of the wonders of the ancient
world. Being thus the most famous seat of her worship, Ephesus also
became the center of a great manufacture and trade in certain curious
little images or shrines, representing this goddess, which were in
great request, wherever her worship was regarded, being considered as
the genuine and legitimate representatives, as well as representations
of the Ephesian deity.

This explanation will account for the circumstances related by Luke, as
ensuing in Ephesus, on the success of Paul’s labors among the heathen,
to whose conversion his exertions had been wholly devoted during the
two last years of his stay in Ephesus. In converting the Ephesians from
heathenism, he was guilty of no ordinary crime. He directly attacked
a great source of profit to a large number of artizans in the city,
who derived their whole support from the manufacture of those little
objects of idolatry, which, of course, became of no value to those who
believed Paul’s doctrine,――that “those were no gods which were made
with hands.” This new doctrine therefore, attracted very invidious
notice from those who thus found their dearest interests very
immediately and unfortunately affected, by the progress made by its
preacher in turning away the hearts of Ephesians from their ancient
reverence for the shrines of Artemis; and they therefore listened with
great readiness to Demetrius, one of their number, when he proposed
to remedy the difficulty. He showed them in a very clear, though brief
address, that “the craft was in danger,”――that warning cry which so
often bestirs the bigoted in defence of the object of their regard;
and after hearing his artful address, they all, full of wrath, with
one accord raised a great outcry, in the usual form of commendation
of the established idolatry of their city,――“Great is Artemis of the
Ephesians!” This noise being heard by others, and of course attracting
attention, every one who distinguished the words, by a sort of
patriotic impulse, was driven to join in the cry, and presently the
whole city was in an uproar;――a most desirable condition of things,
of course, for those who wished to derive advantage from a popular
commotion. All bawling this senseless cry, with about as much idea of
the occasion of the disturbance as could be expected from such a mob,
the huddling multitudes learning the general fact, that the grand
object of the tumult was to do some mischief to the Christians, and
looking about for some proper person to be made the subject of public
opinion, fell upon Gaius and Aristarchus of Macedonia, two traveling
companions of Paul, who happened to be in the way, and dragged them to
the theater, whither the whole mob rushed at once, as to a desirable
scene for any act of confusion and folly which they might choose to
commit. Paul, with a lion-like spirit, caring naught for the mob,
proposed to go in and make a speech to them, but his friends, with far
more prudence and cool sense than he,――knowing that an assembly of the
people, roaring some popular outcry, is no more a subject of reason
than so many raging wild beasts,――prevented him from going into the
theater, where he would no doubt have been torn to pieces, before he
could have opened his mouth. Some of the great magistrates of Asia, too,
who were friendly to him, hearing of his rash intentions, sent to him
a very urgent request, that he would not venture himself among the mob.
Meanwhile the outcry continued,――the theater being crowded full,――and
the whole city constantly pouring out to see what was the matter, and
every soul joining in the religious and patriotic shout, “Great is
Artemis of the Ephesians!” And so they went on, every one, of course,
according to the universal and everlasting practice on such occasions,
making all the noise he could, but not one, except the rascally
silversmiths, knowing what upon earth they were all bawling there for.
Still this ignorance of the object of the assembly kept nobody still;
but all, with undiminished fervor, kept plying their lungs to swell the
general roar. As it is described in the very graphic and picturesque
language of Luke,――“Some cried one thing, and some, another; for the
whole assembly was confused;――and the more knew not wherefore they were
come together,”――which last circumstance is a very common difficulty
in such assemblies, in all ages. At last, searching for some other
persons as proper subjects to exercise their religious zeal upon, they
looked about upon the Jews, who were always a suspected class among
the heathen, and seized one Alexander, who seems to have been one of
the Christian converts, for the Jews thrust him forward as a kind of
scapegoat for themselves. Alexander made the usual signs soliciting
their attention to his words; but as soon as the people understood
that he was a Jew, they all drowned his voice with the general cry,
“Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” and this they kept up steadily
for two whole hours, as it were with one voice. Matters having come
to this pass, the recorder of the city came forward, and having
hushed the people,――who had some reverence for the lawful authorities,
that fortunately were not responsible to them,――and made them a very
sensible speech, reminding them that since no one doubted the reverence
of the Ephesians for the goddess Artemis, and for the DIOPETOS, there
surely was no occasion for all this disturbance to demonstrate a fact
that every body knew. He told them that the men against whom they
were raising this disturbance had neither robbed their temples nor
blasphemed the goddess; so that if Demetrius and his fellow-craft had
anything justly against these men, as having injured their business,
they had their proper remedy at law. He hinted to them also that they
were all liable to be called to account for this manifest breach of
Roman law, and this defiance of the majesty of the Roman government;――a
hint which brought most of them to their senses; for all who had
anything to lose, dreaded the thought of giving occasion to the awfully
remorseless government of the province, to fine them, as they certainly
would be glad to do on any valid excuse. They all dispersed, therefore,
with no more words.

  “‘_Silver shrines_,’ verse 24. The heathens used to carry the
  images of their gods in procession from one city to another.
  This was done in a chariot which was solemnly consecrated for
  that employment, and by the Romans styled _Thensa_, that is,
  _the chariot of their gods_. But besides this, it was placed in
  a box or shrine, called _Ferculum_. Accordingly, when the Romans
  conferred divine honors on their great men, alive or dead, they
  had the _Circen games_, and in them the _Thensa_ and _Ferculum_,
  the _chariot_ and the _shrine_, bestowed on them; as it is
  related of Julius Caesar. This Ferculum among the Romans did
  not differ much from the Graecian Ναὸς, _a little chapel_,
  representing the form of a temple, with an image in it, which,
  being set upon an altar, or any other solemn place, having the
  doors opened, the image was seen by the spectators either in
  a standing or sitting posture. An old anonymous scholiast upon
  Aristotle’s Rhetoric, lib. i. c. 15, has these words: Ναοποιοὶ
  οἱ τοὺς ναοὺς ποιοῦσι, ἤτοι εἱκονοστάσια, τινα μικρὰ ξύλινα ἅ
  πωλοῦσι, observing the ναοι here to be εικονοστάσια, _chaplets_,
  with images in them, of wood, or metal, (as here of _silver_,)
  which they made and sold, as in verse 25, they are supposed
  to do. Athenaeus speaks of the καδισκος, ‘which,’ says he ‘is a
  vessel wherein they place their images of Jupiter.’ The learned
  Casaubon states, that ‘these images were put in cases, which
  were made like chapels. (Deipnos. lib. ii. p. 500.) So St.
  Chrysostom likens them to ‘little cases, or shrines.’ Dion says
  of the Roman ensign, that it was a little temple, and in it a
  golden eagle, (Ρωμαικ, lib. 40.) And in another place: ‘There
  was a little chapel of Juno, set upon a table.’ Ρωμαικ, lib. 39.
  This is the meaning of the tabernacle of Moloch, Acts vii. 43,
  where by the σκηνη, _tabernacle_, is meant the chaplet, a shrine
  of that false god. The same was also the סכות דנות _the tabernacle
  of Benoth_, or _Venus_.” Hammond’s Annotations. [Williams on
  Pearson, p. 55.]

  _Robbers of temples._――Think of the miserable absurdity of the
  common English translation in this passage, (Acts xix. 37,)
  where the original ἱεροσυλοι is expressed by “robbers of
  _churches_!” Now who ever thought of applying the English word
  “_church_,” to anything whatever but a “_Christian_ assembly,”
  or “_Christian_ place of assembly?” Why then is this phrase put
  in the mouth of a heathen officer addressing a heathen assembly
  about persons charged with violating the sanctity of _heathen_
  places of worship? Such a building as a church, (εκκλησια,
  _ecclesia_) devoted to the worship of the true God, was not
  known till more than a century after this time; and the Greek
  word ἱερον, (_hieron_, ) which enters into the composition of
  the word in the sacred text, thus mistranslated, was _never_
  applied to a _Christian_ place of worship.


                   FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.

Paul’s residence in Ephesus is distinguished in his literary history,
as the period in which he wrote that most eloquent and animated of his
epistles,――“the first to the Corinthians.” It was written towards the
close of his stay in Asia, about the time of the passover; according
to established calculations, therefore, in the spring of the year of
Christ 57. The more immediate occasion of his writing to the Corinthian
Christians, was a letter which he had received from them, by the hands
of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus. Paul had previously written
to them an epistle, (now lost,) in which he gave them some directions
about their deportment, which they did not fully understand, and
of which they desired an explanation in their letter. Many of these
questions, which this epistle of the Corinthians contained, are
given by Paul, in connection with his own answers to them; and from
this source it is learned that they concerned several points of
expediency and propriety about matrimony. These are answered by
Paul, very distinctly and fully; but much of his epistle is taken
up with instructions and reproofs on many points not referred to
in their inquiries. The Corinthian church was made up of two very
opposite constituent parts, so unlike in their character, as to render
exceedingly complicated the difficulties of bringing all under one
system of faith and practice; and the apostolic founder was, at one
time, obliged to combat heathen licentiousness, and at another, Jewish
bigotry and formalism. The church also, having been too soon left
without the presence of a fully competent head, had been very loosely
filled up with a great variety of improper persons,――some hypocrites,
and some profligates,――a difficulty not altogether peculiar to the
Corinthian church, nor to those of the apostolic age. But there were
certainly some very extraordinary irregularities in the conduct of
their members, some of whom were in the habit of getting absolutely
drunk at the sacramental table; and others were guilty of great sins
in respect to general purity of life. Another peculiar difficulty,
which had arisen in the church of Corinth, during Paul’s absence,
was the formation of sects and parties, each claiming some one of the
great Christian teachers as its head; some of them claiming Paul as
their only apostolic authority; some again preferring the doctrines of
Apollos, who had been laboring among them while Paul was in Ephesus;
and others again, referred to Peter as the true apostolic chief, while
they wholly denied to Paul any authority whatever, as an apostle.
There had, indeed, arisen a separate party, strongly opposed to Paul,
headed by a prominent person, who had done a great deal to pervert the
truth, and to lessen the character of Paul in various ways, which are
alluded to by Paul in many passages of his epistle, in a very indignant
tone. Other difficulties are described by him, and various excesses
are reproved, as a scandal to the Christian character; such as an
incestuous marriage among their members,――lawsuits before heathen
magistrates,――dissolute conformity to the licentious worship of the
Corinthian goddess, whose temple was so infamous for its scandalous
rites and thousand priestesses. Some of the Corinthian Christians had
been in the habit of visiting this and other heathen temples, and of
participating in the scenes of feasting, riot and debauchery, which
were carried on there as a part of the regular forms of idolatrous
worship.

The public worship of the Corinthian church had been disturbed also
by various irregularities which Paul reprehends;――the abuse of the
gift of tongues, and the affectation of an unusual dress in preaching,
both by men and women. In the conclusion of his epistle he expatiates
too, at great length, on the doctrine of the resurrection of the body,
vehemently arguing against some Corinthian heretics, who had denied
any but a spiritual existence beyond the grave. This argument may
justly be pronounced the best specimen of Paul’s very peculiar
style, reasoning as he does, with a kind of passion, and interrupting
the regular series of logical demonstrations, by fiery bursts of
enthusiasm, personal appeals, poetical quotations, illustrative
similes, violent denunciations of error, and striking references to
his own circumstances. All these nevertheless, point very directly
and connectedly at the great object of the argument, and the whole
train of reasoning swells and mounts, towards the conclusion, in a
manner most remarkably effective, constituting one of the most sublime
argumentative passages ever written. He then closes the epistle with
some directions about the mode of collecting the contributions for the
brethren in Jerusalem. He promises to visit them, and make a long stay
among them, when he goes on his journey through Macedonia,――a route
which, he assures them, he had now determined to take, as mentioned by
Luke, in his account of the preliminary mission of Timothy and Erastus,
before the time of the mob at Ephesus; but should not leave Ephesus
until after Pentecost, because a great and effectual door was there
opened to him, and there were many opposers. He speaks of Timothy as
being then on the mission before mentioned, and exhorts them not to
despise this young brother, if he should visit them, as they might
expect. After several other personal references, he signs his ♦own name
with a general salutation; and from the terms, in which he expresses
this particular mark already alluded to in the second epistle to the
Thessalonians, it is very reasonable to conclude, that he was not
his own penman in any of these epistles, but used an amanuensis,
authenticating the whole by his signature, with his own hand,
only at the end; and this opinion of his method of carrying on his
correspondence, is now commonly, perhaps universally, adopted by the
learned.

    ♦ “ownn,ame” replaced with “own name”

  “Chapter xvi. 10, 11. ‘Now, if Timotheus come, see that he may
  be with you without fear; for he worketh the work of the Lord,
  as I also do: let no man therefore despise him, but conduct him
  forth in peace, that he may come unto me, for I look for him
  with the brethren.’

  “From the passage considered in the preceding number, it appears
  that Timothy was sent to Corinth, either with the epistle, or
  before it: ‘for this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus.’
  From the passage now quoted, we infer that Timothy was not sent
  _with_ the epistle; for had he been the bearer of the letter, or
  accompanied it, would St. Paul in that letter have said, ‘_if_
  Timothy come?’ Nor is the sequel consistent with the supposition
  of his carrying the letter; for if Timothy was with the apostle
  when he wrote the letter, could he say, as he does, ‘I look for
  him with the brethren?’ I conclude, therefore, that Timothy had
  left St. Paul to proceed upon his journey before the letter was
  written. Further, the passage before us seems to imply, that
  Timothy was not expected by St. Paul to arrive at Corinth, till
  after they had received the letter. He gives them directions in
  the letter how to treat him when he should arrive: ‘if he come,’
  act towards him so and so. Lastly, the whole form of expression
  is more naturally applicable to the supposition of Timothy’s
  coming to Corinth, not directly from St. Paul, but from some
  other quarter; and that his instructions had been, when he
  should reach Corinth, to return. Now, how stands this matter
  in the history? Turn to the nineteenth chapter and twenty-first
  verse of the Acts, and you will find that Timothy did not,
  when sent from Ephesus, where he left St. Paul, and where the
  present epistle was written, proceed by a straight course to
  Corinth, but that he went round through Macedonia. This clears
  up everything; for, although Timothy was sent forth upon his
  journey before the letter was written, yet he might not reach
  Corinth till after the letter arrived there; and he would come
  to Corinth, when he did come, not directly from St. Paul, at
  Ephesus, but from some part of Macedonia. Here therefore is
  a circumstantial and critical agreement, and unquestionably
  without design; for neither of the two passages in the epistle
  mentions Timothy’s journey into Macedonia at all, though nothing
  but a circuit of that kind can explain and reconcile the
  expressions which the writer uses.” (Paley’s Horae Paulinae,
  1 Corinthians No. IV.)

  “Chapter v. 7, 8. ‘For even Christ, our passover, is sacrificed
  for us; therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven,
  neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the
  unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.’

  “Dr. Benson tells us, that from this passage, compared with
  chapter xvi. 8, it has been conjectured that this epistle was
  written about the time of the Jewish passover; and to me the
  conjecture appears to be very well founded. The passage to which
  Dr. Benson refers us, is this: ‘I will tarry at Ephesus until
  Pentecost.’ With this passage he ought to have joined another
  in the same context: ‘And it may be that I will abide, yea,
  and winter with you:’ for, from the two passages laid together,
  it follows that the epistle was written before Pentecost, yet
  after winter; which necessarily determines the date to the part
  of the year, within which the passover falls. It was written
  before Pentecost, because he says, ‘I will tarry at Ephesus
  until Pentecost.’ It was written after winter, because he tells
  them, ‘It may be that I may abide, yea, and winter with you.’
  The winter which the apostle purposed to pass at Corinth, was
  undoubtedly the winter next ensuing to the date of the epistle;
  yet it was a winter subsequent to the ensuing Pentecost, because
  he did not intend to set forwards upon his journey till after
  the feast. The words, ‘let us keep the feast, not with old
  leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but
  with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth,’ look very
  much like words suggested by the season; at least they have,
  upon that supposition, a force and significancy which do not
  belong to them upon any other; and it is not a little remarkable,
  that the hints casually dropped in the epistle, concerning
  particular parts of the year, should coincide with this
  supposition.” (Paley’s Horae Paulinae. 1 Corinthians. No. XII.)


                       SECOND VOYAGE TO EUROPE.

After the disturbances connected with the mob raised by Demetrius
had wholly ceased, and public attention was no longer directed to the
motions of the preachers of the Christian doctrine, Paul determined
to execute the plan, which he had for some time contemplated, of
going over his European fields of labor again, according to his
universal and established custom of revisiting and confirming his
work, within a moderately brief period after first opening the ground
for evangelization. Assembling the disciples about him, he bade them
farewell, and turning northward, came to Troas, whence, six or seven
years before, he had set out on his first voyage to Macedonia. The
plan of his journey, as he first arranged it, had been to sail from
the shores of Asia Minor directly for Corinth. He had resolved however,
not to go to that city, until the very disagreeable difficulties which
had there arisen in the church, had been entirely removed, according
to the directions given in the epistle which he had written to them
from Ephesus; because he did not desire, after an absence of years,
to visit them in such circumstances, when his Corinthian converts were
divided among themselves, and against him,――and when his first duties
would necessarily be those of a rigid censor. He therefore waited at
Troas, with great impatience, for a message from them, announcing the
settlement of all difficulties. This he expected to receive through
Titus, a person now first mentioned in the apostle’s history. Waiting
with great impatience for this beloved brother, he found no rest in
his spirit, and though a door was evidently opened by the Lord for the
preaching of the gospel in Troas, he had no spirit for the good work
there; and desiring to be as near the great object of his anxieties
as possible, he accordingly took leave of the brethren at Troas,
and crossed the Aegean into Macedonia, by his former route. Here
he remained in great distress of mind, until his soul was at last
comforted by the long expected arrival of Titus. Luke only says, that
he went over those parts and gave them much exhortation. But though his
route is not given, his apostolic labors are known to have extended to
the borders of Illyricum. At this time also, he made another important
contribution to the list of the apostolic writings.


                THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.

There is no part of the New Testament canon, about the date of which
all authorities are so well agreed, as on the place and time, at which
Paul wrote his second epistle to the Corinthians. All authorities,
ancient and modern, decide that it was written during the second visit
of Paul to Macedonia; although as to the exact year in which this took
place, they are not entirely unanimous. The passages in the epistle
itself, which refer to Macedonia as the region in which the apostle
then was, are so numerous indeed, that there can be no evasion of their
evidence. A great topic of interest with him, at the time of writing
this epistle, was the collecting of the contributions proposed for
the relief of the Christian brethren in Jerusalem; and upon this he
enlarges much, informing the Corinthians of the great progress he
was making in Macedonia in this benevolent undertaking, and what high
hopes he had entertained and expressed to the Macedonians, of the zeal
and ability of those in Achaia, about the contributions. This matter
had been noticed and arranged by him, in his former epistle to them,
as already noticed, and he now proposed to send forward Titus and
another person, (who is commonly supposed to be Luke,) to take charge
of these funds, thus collected. He speaks of coming also himself,
after a little time, and makes some allusions to the difficulties which
had constituted the subject of the great part of his former epistle.
Of their amendment in the particulars then so severely censured, he
had received a full account through Titus, when that beloved brother
came on from Corinth, to join Paul in Macedonia. Paul assures the
Corinthians of the very great joy caused in him, by the good news
of their moral and spiritual improvement, and renews his ardent
protestations of deep affection for them. The incestuous person, whom
they had excommunicated, in conformity with the denunciatory directions
given in the former epistle, he now forgives; and as the offender has
since appeared to be truly penitent, he now urges his restoration to
the consolations of Christian fellowship, lest he should be swallowed
up with too much sorrow. He defends his apostolic character for
prudence and decision, against those who considered his change of
plans about coming directly from Ephesus to Corinth, as an exhibition
of lightness and unsettled purpose. His real object in this delay and
change of purpose, as he tells them, was, that they might have time
to profit by the reproofs contained in his former epistle, so that by
the removal of the evils of which he so bitterly complained, he might
finally be enabled to come to them, not in sorrow, nor in heaviness
for their sins, but in joy for their reformation. This fervent hope
had been fulfilled by the coming of Titus to Macedonia, for whom he
had waited in vain, with so much anxiety at Troas, as the expected
messenger of these tidings of their spiritual condition; and he was now
therefore prepared to pass on to them from Macedonia, to which region
he tells them he had gone from Troas, instead of to Corinth, because
he had been disappointed about meeting Titus on the eastern side of
the Aegean. With the exception of these things, the epistle is taken up
with a very ample and eloquent exhibition of his true powers and office
as an apostle; and in the course of this argument, so necessary for
the re-establishment of his authority among those who had lately been
disposed to contemn it, he makes many very interesting allusions to his
own personal history. The date of the epistle is commonly supposed, and
with good reason, to be A. D. 58, the fifth of Nero’s reign, and one
year after the preceding epistle.

  Illustration: MILETUS. Acts xx. 15‒17.

  “Chapter ii. 12, 13. ‘When I came to Troas to preach Christ’s
  gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord, I had no rest
  in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother; but taking
  my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.’

  “To establish a conformity between this passage and the history,
  nothing more is necessary to be presumed, than that St. Paul
  proceeded from Ephesus to Macedonia, upon the same course by
  which he came back from Macedonia to Ephesus, or rather to
  Miletus in the neighborhood of Ephesus; in other words, that,
  in his journey to the peninsula of Greece, he went and returned
  the same way. St. Paul is now in Macedonia, where he had lately
  arrived from Ephesus. Our quotation imports that in his journey
  he had stopped at Troas. Of this, the history says nothing,
  leaving us only the short account, ‘that Paul departed from
  Ephesus, for to go into Macedonia.’ But the history says, that
  in his _return_ from Macedonia to Ephesus, ‘Paul sailed from
  Philippi to _Troas_; and that, when the disciples came together
  on the first day of the week, to break bread, Paul preached
  unto them all night; that from Troas he went by land to Assos;
  from Assos, taking ship and coasting along the front of Asia
  Minor, he came by Mitylene to Miletus.’ Which account proves,
  first, that Troas lay in the way by which St. Paul passed
  between Ephesus and Macedonia; secondly, that he had disciples
  there. In one journey between these two places, the epistle, and
  in another journey between the same places, the history makes
  him stop at this city. Of the first journey he is made to say,
  ‘that a door was in that city opened unto him of the Lord;’ in
  the second, we find disciples there collected around him, and
  the apostle exercising his ministry, with, what was even in him,
  more than ordinary zeal and labor. The epistle, therefore, is
  in this instance confirmed, if not by the terms, at least by
  the probability of the history; a species of confirmation by
  no means to be despised, because, as far as it reaches, it is
  evidently uncontrived.

  “Grotius, I know, refers the arrival at Troas, to which the
  epistle alludes, to a different period, but I think very
  improbably; for nothing appears to me more certain, than that
  the meeting with Titus, which St. Paul expected at Troas,
  was the same meeting which took place in Macedonia, viz. upon
  Titus’s coming out of Greece. In the quotation before us, he
  tells the Corinthians, ‘When I came to Troas, I had no rest in
  my spirit, because I found not Titus, my brother; but, taking my
  leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.’ Then in the
  seventh chapter he writes, ‘When we were come into Macedonia,
  our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side;
  without were fightings, within were fears; nevertheless, God,
  that comforteth them that are cast down, comforted us by the
  coming of Titus.’ These two passages plainly relate to the
  same journey of Titus, in meeting with whom St. Paul had been
  disappointed at Troas, and rejoiced in Macedonia. And amongst
  other reasons which fix the former passage to the coming of
  Titus out of Greece, is the consideration, that it was nothing
  to the Corinthians that St. Paul did not meet with Titus at
  Troas, were it not that he was to bring intelligence from
  Corinth. The mention of the disappointment in this place, upon
  any other supposition, is irrelative.” (Paley’s Horae Paulinae.
  2 Corinthians No. VIII.)


                      SECOND JOURNEY TO CORINTH.

Among his companions in Macedonia, was Timothy, his ever zealous
and affectionate assistant in the apostolic ministry, who had been
sent thither before him to prepare the way, and had been laboring in
that region ever since, as plainly appears from the fact, that he is
joined with Paul in the opening address of the second epistle to the
Corinthians,――a circumstance in itself sufficient to overthrow a very
common supposition of the critics,――that Timothy returned to Asia; that
Paul at that time “left him in Ephesus,” and at this time wrote his
first epistle to Timothy from Macedonia. It is also most probable that
Timothy was the personal companion of Paul, not only during the whole
period of his second ministration in Macedonia, but also accompanied
him from that province to Corinth; because Timothy is distinctly
mentioned by Luke, among those who went with Paul from Macedonia to
Asia, after his brief second residence in that city. No particulars
whatever are given by Luke of the labors of Paul in Corinth. From his
epistles, however, it is learned that he was at this time occupied in
part, in receiving the contributions made throughout Achaia for the
church of Jerusalem, to which city he was now preparing to go. The
difficulties, of which so much mention had been made in his epistles,
were now entirely removed, and his work there doubtless went on without
any of that opposition which had arisen after his first departure.
There is however, one very important fact in his literary history,
which took place in Corinth, during his residence there.


                      THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

From the very earliest period of apostolic labor, after the ascension,
there appear to have been in Rome, some Jews who professed the faith
of Jesus. Among the visitors in Jerusalem at the Pentecost, when the
Holy Spirit first descended, were some from Rome, who sharing in the
gifts of that remarkable effusion, and returning to their home in the
imperial city, would there in themselves constitute the rudiment of
a Christian church. It is perfectly certain that they had never been
blessed in their own city with the personal presence of an apostle and
all their associated action as a Christian church, must therefore have
been entirely the result of a voluntary organization, suggested by the
natural desire to keep up and to spread the doctrines which they had
first received in Jerusalem, under such remarkable circumstances. Yet
the members of the church would not be merely those who were converted
at the Pentecost; for there was a constant influx of Jews from all
parts of the world to Rome, and among these there would naturally be
some who had participated in the light of the gospel, now so widely
diffused throughout the eastern section of the world. There is moreover
distinct information of certain persons of high qualifications,
as Christian teachers, who had at Rome labored in the cause of the
gospel, and had no doubt been among the most efficient means of that
advancement of the Roman church, which seems to be implied in the
communication now first made to them by Paul. Aquilas and Priscilla,
who had been the intimate friends of Paul at Corinth, and who had been
already so active and distinguished as laborers in the gospel cause,
both in that city and in Ephesus, had returned to Rome on the death
of Claudius, when that emperor’s foolish decree of banishment, against
the Jews, expired along with its author, in the year of Christ, 54.
These, on re-establishing their residence in Rome, made their own
house a place of assembly for a part of the Christians in the capital,
――probably for such as resided in their own immediate neighborhood,
while others sought different places, according as suited their
convenience in this particular. Many other persons are mentioned by
Paul at the close of this epistle, as having been active in the work of
the gospel at Rome;――among whom Andronicus and Junias are particularly
noticed with respect, as having highly distinguished themselves in
apostolic labors. From all these evangelizing efforts, the church
of Rome attained great importance, and was now in great need of the
counsels and presence of an apostle, to confirm it, and impart to its
members spiritual gifts. It had long been an object of attention and
interest to Paul, and he had already expressed a determination to visit
the imperial city, in the remarks which he made to the brethren at
Ephesus, when he was making arrangements to go into Macedonia and
Achaia. The way was afterwards opened for this visit, by a very
peculiar providence, which he does not seem to have then anticipated;
but while residing in Corinth, his attention being very particularly
called to their spiritual condition, he could not wait till he should
have an opportunity to see them personally, to counsel them; but wrote
to them this very copious and elaborate epistle, which seems to have
been the subject of more comment among dogmatic theologians, than
almost any other portion of his writings, on account of its being
supposed to furnish different polemic writers with the most important
arguments for the peculiar dogmas of one or another, according to the
fancy of each. It undoubtedly is the most doctrinal and didactic of
all Paul’s epistles, alluding very little to local circumstances, which
are the theme of so large a part of most of his writings, but attacking
directly certain general errors entertained by the Jews, on the
subject of justification, predestination, election, and many peculiar
privileges which they attributed to themselves as the descendants of
Abraham.

This epistle, like most of the rest, was written by an amanuensis, who
is herein particularly named, as Tertius,――a word of Roman origin; but
beyond this nothing else is known of him. It was carried to Rome by
Phebe, an active female member of the church at Cenchreae, the port of
Corinth, who happened to be journeying to Rome for some other purposes,
and is earnestly recommended by Paul to the friendly regard of the
church there.


                            RETURN TO ASIA.

After passing three months in Corinth, he took his departure from that
city, on his pre-determined voyage to the east, the direction of which
was somewhat changed by the information that the Jews of the place
where he then was, were plotting some mischief against him, which he
thought best to avoid by taking a different route from that before
planned, which was a direct voyage to Syria. To escape the danger
prepared for him by them, at his expected place of embarkation, he
first turned northward by land, through Macedonia to Philippi, and
thence sailed by the now familiar track over the Aegean to Troas.
On this journey, he was accompanied by quite a retinue of apostolic
assistants,――not only his faithful disciple and companion Timothy, but
also Sosipater of Beroea, Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica,
Gaius, or Caius of Derbe, and Luke also, who now carries on the
apostolic narrative in the first person, thus showing that he was
himself a sharer in the adventures which he narrates. Besides these
immediate companions, two brethren from Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus,
took the direct route from Corinth to Troas, at which place they waited
for the rest of the apostolic company, who took the circuitous route
through Macedonia. The date of the departure of Paul is very exactly
fixed by his companion Luke, who states that they left Philippi at
the time of the passover, which was in the middle of March; and other
circumstances have enabled modern critics to fix the occurrence in
the year of Christ 59. After a five days’ voyage, arriving at Troas
on Saturday, they made a stay of seven days in that place; and on the
first day of the week, the Christians of that place having assembled
for the communion usual on the Lord’s day, Paul preached to them:
and as it was the last day of his stay, he grew very earnest in his
discourse and protracted it very late, speaking two whole hours to the
company, who were met in the great upper hall, where, in all Jewish
houses, these festal entertainments and social meetings were always
held. It was, of course, the evening, when the assembly met, for this
was the usual time for a social party, and there were many lights in
the room, which, with the number of people, must have made the air very
warm, and had the not very surprising effect of causing drowsiness,
in at least one of Paul’s hearers, a young man named ♦Eutychus, whose
interest in what was said, could not keep his attention alive against
the pressure of drowsiness. He fell asleep; and the occurrence must
appear so very natural, (more particularly to any one, who has ever
been so unfortunate as to be sleepy at an evening meeting, and knows
what a painful sensation it is, though the drowsiness is wholly beyond
the control of the reason,) that it can hardly be thought worth while
to take pains, as some venerable commentators do, to suppose that the
devil was very specially concerned in producing the sleep of Eutychus,
and that the consequences which ensued, were an exhibition of divine
wrath against the sleepy youth, for slumbering under the preaching
of Paul. If the supposition holds equally good in all similar cases,
the devil must be very busy on warm Sunday afternoons; and many a
comfortable nap would be disturbed by unpleasant dreams, if the dozer
could be made to think that his drowsiness was the particular work of
the great adversary of souls, or that he was liable to suffer any such
accident as Eutychus did, who, falling into a deeper sleep, and losing
all muscular control and consciousness, sunk down from his seat, and
slipping over the side of the gallery, in the third loft, fell into the
court below, where he was taken up lifeless. But Paul hearing of the
accident, stopped his discourse, and going down to the young man, fell
on him and embraced him, saying, “Trouble not yourselves, for the life
is in him.” And his words were verified by the result; for they soon
brought him up alive, and were not a little comforted. Paul, certain of
his recovery, did not suffer the accident to mar the enjoyment of the
social farewell meeting; but going up and breaking bread with them all,
talked with them a long time, passing the whole night in this pleasant
way, and did not leave them till day-break, when he started to go by
land over to Assos, about twenty-four miles south-east of Troas, on the
Adramyttian gulf, which sets up between the north side of the island
of Lesbos and the mainland. His companions, coming around by water,
through the mouth of the gulf, took Paul on board at Assos, according
to his plan; and then instead of turning back, and sailing out into the
open sea, around the outside of Lesbos, ran up the gulf to the eastern
end of the north coast of the island, where there is an other outlet to
the gulf between the eastern shore of Lesbos and the continent. Sailing
southward through this passage, after a course of between thirty and
forty miles, they came to Mitylene, on the southeastern side of the
island. Thence passing out of the strait, they sailed southwestwards,
coming between Chios and the main-land, and arrived the next day at
Trogyllium, at the southwest corner of Samos. Then turning their course
towards the continent, they came in one day to Miletus, near the mouth
of the ♠Meander, about forty miles south of Ephesus.

    ♦ “Entychus” replaced with “Eutychus”

    ♠ “Maeander” replaced with “Meander”

Landing here, and desiring much to see some of his Ephesian brethren
before his departure to Jerusalem, he sent to the elders of the church
in that city, and on their arrival poured out his whole soul to them
in a parting address, which for pathetic earnestness and touching
beauty, is certainly, beyond any doubt, the most splendid passage
that all the records of ancient eloquence can furnish. No force can
be added to it by a new version, nor can any recapitulation of its
substance do justice to its beauty. At the close, took place a most
affecting farewell. In the simple and forcible description of Luke,
(who was himself present at the moving scene, seeing and hearing all
he narrates,)――“When Paul had thus spoken, he kneeled down and prayed
with them all.” The subjects of this prayer were the guardians of that
little flock which he, amid perils and death, had gathered from the
heathen waste of Ionic Asia, to the fold of Christ. When he left it
last, the raging wolves of persecution and wrath,――the wild beasts of
Ephesus,――were howling death and destruction to the devoted believers
of Christ, and they were still environed with temptations and dangers,
that threatened to overwhelm these feeble ones, left thus early without
the fostering care of their apostolic shepherd. Passing on his way to
the great scene of his coming trials, he could not venture among them
to give them his parting counsels, and could now only intrust to their
constituted guardians, this dear charge, with renewed exhortations to
them to be faithful, as in the presence of their God, to those objects
of his labors, his cares, his prayers, and his daily tears. Amid the
sorrows of that long farewell, arose on the prophetic vision of the
apostle some gloomy foreshadowings of future woes to fall on that
Ephesian charge, and this deepened the melancholy feeling of his heart
almost to agony. This no doubt was the burden of his last prayer, when
with their elders, and for them, he kneeled down on the shore and sent
up in earnest petition to God, that voice which they were doomed to
hear no more forever.

Such passages as this in the life and words of Paul, constitute a noble
addition to the reader’s idea of his character. They show how nobly
were intermingled in the varied frame of his spirit, the affectionate,
the soft, and the winning traits, with the high, the stern, and the
bitter feelings that so often were called out by the unparalleled
trials of his situation. They show ♦that he truly felt and acted out,
to the life, that divine principle of Christian love which inspired
the most eloquent effort of his pen;――and that he trusted not to the
wonder-working powers that moved his lips, as with the eloquence of men
and angels,――not to the martyr-spirit, that, sacrificing all earthly
substance, devoted itself to the raging flames of persecution, in the
cause of God,――not to the genius whose discursive glance searched all
the mysteries of human and divine knowledge,――but to that pure, exalted
and exalting spirit of ardent love for those for whom he lived like his
Savior, and for whom he was ready to die like him, also. This was the
inspiration of his words, his writings, and his actions,――the motive
and spirit of his devotion,――the energy of his being. Wherever he went
and whatever he did,――in spite of the frequent passionate outbreaks of
his rougher nature, this honest, fervent, animated spirit of charity,
――glowing not to inflame, but to melt,――softened the austerities of his
character, and kindled in all who truly knew him, a deep and lasting
affection for him, like that which was so strikingly manifested on this
occasion. Who can wonder that to a man thus constituted, the lingering
Ephesians still clung with such enthusiastic attachment? In the fervid
action of that oriental clime, they fell on his neck and kissed him,
sorrowing most of all for the words which he said,――that they should
see his face no more. Still loth to take their last look at one so
loved, they accompanied him to the ship, which bore him away from them,
to perils, sufferings and chains.

    ♦ duplicate word “that” removed

  “_Assos_ was a sea-port town, situated on the south-west part
  of the province of Troas, and over against the island Lesbos.
  By land it is much nearer Troas than by sea, because of a
  promontory that runs a great way into the sea, and must be
  doubled to come to Assos, which was perhaps the reason that
  the apostle chose rather to walk it.” (Wells’s Geography and
  Calmet’s Commentary.)

  Illustration: MYTELENE. Acts xx. 14.

  “_Mitylene_, (chapter xx. verse 14,) was one of the principal
  cities in the island of Lesbos, situated on a peninsula with a
  commodious haven on each side; the whole island was also called
  by that name, as well as Pentapolis, from the five cities in it,
  viz. Issa or Antissa, Pyrrhe, Eressos, Arisba, and Mitylene. It
  is at present called Metelin. The island is one of the largest
  in the Archipelago, and was renowned for the many eminent
  persons it produced; such as Sappho, the inventress of Sapphic
  verses,――Alcaeus, a famous lyric poet,――Pittacus, one of the
  seven wise men of Greece,――Theophrastus, the noble physician and
  philosopher,――and Arion, the celebrated musician. It is now in
  the possession of the Turks. As mentioned by St. Luke, it may
  be understood either the island or the city itself.” (Wells’s
  Geography and Whitby’s Table.)

  “_Chios_, (verse 15,) was an island in the Archipelago, next
  to Lesbos, both as to situation and size. It lies over against
  Smyrna, and is not above four leagues distant from the Asiatic
  continent. Horace and Martial celebrate it for the wine and figs
  that it produced. It is now renowned for producing the best
  mastic in the world.

  “Sir Paul Ricaut, in his ‘Present State of the Greek Church,’
  tells us, that there is no place in the Turkish dominions where
  Christians enjoy more freedom in their religion and estates
  than in this island, to which they are entitled by an ancient
  capitulation made with Sultan Mahomet II.” (Wells’s Geography.)

  “_Samos_, (verse 15,) was another island of the Archipelago,
  lying south-east of Chios, and about five miles from the Asiatic
  continent. It was famous among heathen writers for the worship
  of Juno; for one of the Sibyls called Sibylla Samiana; for
  Pherecydes, who foretold an earthquake that happened there, by
  drinking of the waters; and more especially for the birth of
  Pythagoras. It was formerly a free commonwealth; at present, the
  Turks have reduced it to a mean and depopulated condition; so
  that ever since the year 1676, no Turk has ventured to live on
  it on account of its being frequented by pirates, who carry all
  whom they take into captivity.” (Wells’s Geography and Whitby’s
  Table.)

  “_Trogyllium_, (verse 15,) is a promontory at the foot of Mount
  Mycale, opposite to, and five miles from Samos: there was also a
  town there of the same name, mentioned by Pliny, Lib. v, c. 29.
  p. 295.” (Whitby’s Table.)

  “_Miletus_, (verse 15,) a sea-port town on the continent of Asia
  Minor, and in the province of Caria, memorable for being the
  birth-place of Thales, one of the seven wise men of Greece, and
  father of the Ionic philosophy; of Anaximander, his scholar;
  Timotheus, the musician; and Anaximenes, the philosopher. It
  is called now, by the Turks, Melas; and not far distant from it
  is the true Meander.” (Whitby’s Table and Wells’s Geography.)
  [Williams on Pearson. pp. 66, 67.]

Tearing himself thus from the embraces of his Ephesian brethren, Paul
sailed off to the southward, hurrying on to Jerusalem, in order to
reach there if possible, before the Pentecost. After leaving Miletus,
the apostolic company made a straight course to Coos, and then rounding
the great northwestern angle of Asia Minor, turned eastwardly to
Rhodes, and passing probably through the strait, between that island
and the continent, landed at Patara, a town on the coast of Lycia,
which was the destination of their first vessel. They therefore at
this place engaged a passage in a vessel bound to Tyre, and holding
on southeastward, came next in sight of Cyprus, which they passed,
leaving it on the left, and then steering straight for the Syrian coast,
landed at Tyre, where their vessel was to unlade; so that they were
detained here for a whole week, which they passed in the company of
some Christian brethren who constituted a church there. These Tyrian
disciples hearing of Paul’s plan to visit Jerusalem, and knowing the
dangers to which he would there be exposed by the deadly hate of the
Jews, were very urgent with him against his journey; but he still
resolutely held on his course, as soon as a passage could be procured,
and bade them farewell, with prayer on the shore, to which the brethren
accompanied him with their women and children. Standing off from the
shore, they then sailed on south, to Ptolemais, where they spent a
day with the Christians in that place, and then re-embarking, and
passing round the promontory of Carmel, reached Caesarea, where their
sea-voyage terminated. Here they passed several days in the house of
Philip the evangelist, one of the seven deacons, who had four daughters
that were prophetesses. While they were resting themselves in this
truly religious family, from the fatigues of their long voyage, they
were visited by Agabus, a prophet from Jerusalem,――the same who had
formerly visited Antioch when Paul was there, and who had then foretold
the coming famine, which threatened all the world. This remarkable man
predicted to Paul the misfortunes which awaited him in Jerusalem. In
the solemnly impressive dramatic action of the ancient prophets, he
took Paul’s girdle, and binding his own hands with it, said――“Thus
says the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem, bind the man
that owns this girdle, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles.’” On
hearing this melancholy announcement, all the companions of Paul and
the Christians of Caesarea, united in beseeching Paul to give up his
purpose of visiting Jerusalem. But he, resolute against all entreaty,
declared himself ready not only to be bound, but to die in Jerusalem
for the Lord Jesus. And when they found that he would not be persuaded,
they all ceased to harass him with their supplications, and resigned
him to Providence, saying,――“The will of the Lord be done.” They then
all took carriages, and rode up to Jerusalem, accompanied by some
brethren from Caesarea, and by Mnason, an old believer, formerly of
Cyprus, but now of Jerusalem, who had engaged them as his guests in
that city.

  “_Coos_, (chapter xxi. verse 1,) an island in the Aegean or
  Icarian sea, near Mnydos and Cnidus, which had a city of the
  same name, from which Hippocrates, the celebrated physician, and
  Apelles, the famous painter, were called Coi. Here was a large
  temple of Aesculapius, and another of Juno. It abounded in
  rich wines, and is very often mentioned by the classic poets.”
  (Whitby’s Alphabetic Table.)

  Witsius very absurdly defines the situation of this island
  by saying that it is “_near Crete_.”――“Coos, quae maris
  Mediterranei insula est _prope Cretam_.” It is in the Aegean sea
  properly, and _not_ in the Mediterranean; and can not be less
  than one hundred and twenty miles from Crete, much farther
  off from it than is Rhodes,――the next island in Paul’s route,
  and there are many islands between Coos and Crete, so that the
  statement gives no just idea of the situation of the island. It
  would be as proper to say that Barbadoes is _near Cuba_, or the
  isle of Man _near France_.

  “_Rhodes_, (verse 1,) an island, supposed to have taken its name
  απο των Ροδων from the many roses which were known to grow there.
  It lies south of the province of Caria, and it is accounted next
  to Cyprus and Lesbos, for its dignity among the Asiatic islands.
  It was remarkable among the ancients for the expertness of
  its inhabitants in navigation; for a college, in which the
  students were eminent for eloquence and mathematics; and for the
  clearness of its air, insomuch that there was not a day in which
  the sun did not shine upon it; and more especially celebrated
  for its prodigious statue of brass, consecrated especially to
  the sun, and called his Colossus. This statue was seventy cubits
  high, and every finger as large as an ordinary sized man, and
  as it stood astride over the mouth of the harbor, ships passed
  under its legs.” (Whitby’s Table and Wells’s Geography.)
  [Williams on Pearson, pp. 67, 68.]


                       LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.

Paul was now received in Jerusalem by the brethren with great joy, and
going, on the day after his arrival, to see James, now the principal
apostle resident in the Holy city, communicated to him and all the
elders a full account of all his various labors. Having heard his very
interesting communications, they were moved with gratitude to God for
this triumph of his grace; but knowing as they did, with what rumors
against Paul these events had been connected by common fame, they
desired to arrange his introduction to the temple in such a manner,
as would most effectually silence these prejudicial stories. The plan
proposed by them was, that he should, in the company of four Jews of
the Christian faith, who had a vow on them, go through with all the
usual forms of purification prescribed under such circumstances for a
Jew, on returning from the daily impurities to which he was exposed by
a residence among the Gentiles, to a participation in the holy services
of solemn worship in the temple. The apostles and elders, however, in
recommending this course, declared to him, that they believed that the
Gentiles ought not to be bound to the performance of the Jewish rituals,
but should be exempt from all restrictions, except such as had formerly
been decided on, by the council of Jerusalem. Paul, always devout
and exact in the observance of the institutions of his national
religion, followed their advice accordingly, and went on quietly and
unpretendingly in the regular performance of the prescribed ceremonies,
waiting for the termination of the seven days of purification, when the
offering should be made for himself, and one for each of his companions,
after which, they were all to be admitted of course, to the full honors
of Mosaic purity, and the religious privileges of conforming Jews.
But these ritual observances were not destined to save him from the
calamities to which the hatred of his enemies had devoted him. Near
the close of the seven days allotted by the Mosaic ritual for the
purification of a regenerated Israelite, some of the Asian Jews, who
had known Paul in his missionary journeys through their own country,
and who had come to Jerusalem, to attend the festival, seeing their
old enemy in the midst of the temple, against whose worship they had
understood him to have been preaching to the Gentiles,――instantly
raised a great outcry, and fell upon him, dragging him along, and
shouting to the multitude around, “Men of Israel! help! This is the man,
that every where teaches all men against the people, and the law, and
this place; and he has furthermore, brought Greeks into the temple, and
has polluted this holy place.” It seems they had seen Trophimus, one of
his Gentile companions from Ephesus, with him in the city, and imagined
also that Paul had brought him into the temple, within the sanctuary,
whose entrance was expressly forbidden to all Gentiles, who were never
allowed to pass beyond the outermost court. The sanctuary or court
of the Jews could not be crossed by an uncircumcised Gentile, and
the transgression of the holy limit was punished with death. Within
this holy court, the scene now described took place; and as the whole
sanctuary was then crowded with Jews, who had come from all parts
of the world to attend the festival in Jerusalem, the outcry raised
against Paul immediately drew thronging thousands around him. Hearing
the complaint that he was a renegade Jew, who, in other countries, had
used his utmost endeavors to throw contempt on his own nation, and to
bring their holy worship into disrepute, and yet had now the impudence
to show himself in the sanctuary, which he had thus blasphemed,――and
had, moreover, even profaned it by introducing into the sacred
precincts one of those Gentiles for whose company he had forsaken
the fellowship of Israel,――they all joined in the rush upon him, and
dragged him out of the temple, the gates of which were immediately shut
by the Levites on duty, lest in the riot that was expected to ensue,
the consecrated pavement should be polluted with the blood of the
renegade. Not only those in the temple, but also all those in the city,
were called out by the disturbance, and came running together to join
in the mob against the profaner of the sanctuary, and Paul now seemed
in a fair way to win the bloody crown of martyrdom.

The great noise made by the swarming multitudes who were gathering
around Paul, soon reached the ears of the Roman garrison in castle
Antonia, and the soldiers instantly hastened to tell the commanding
officer, that “the whole city was in an uproar.” The tribune, Claudius
Lysias, probably thinking of a rebellion against the Romans, instantly
ordered a detachment of several companies under arms, and hurried
down with them, in a few moments, to the scene of the riot. The mob
meanwhile were ♦diligently occupied in beating Paul; but as soon as
the military force made their way among the crowd, the rioters left off
beating him, and fell back. The tribune coming near, and seeing Paul
alone in the midst, who seemed to be the object and occasion of all the
disturbance, without hesitation seized him, and putting him in chains,
took him out of the throng. He then demanded what all this riot meant.
To his inquiry, the whole mob replied with various accounts; some
cried one thing and some another; and the tribune finding it utterly
impossible to learn from the rioters who he was or what he had done,
ordered him to be taken up to the castle. Castle Antonia stood at the
northwestern angle of the temple, close by one of the great entrances
to it, near which the riot seems to have taken place. To this, Paul
was now taken, and was borne by the surrounding soldiers, to keep off
the multitude, who were raging for his blood, like hungry wolves after
the prey snatched from their jaws,――and they all pressed after him,
shouting, “kill him!” In this way Paul was carried up the stairs which
led to the high entrance of the castle, which of course the soldiers
would not allow the multitude to mount; and when he had reached the
top of the stairs, he was therefore perfectly protected from their
violence, though perfectly well situated for speaking to them so as to
be distinctly seen and heard. As they were taking him up the stairs, he
begged the attention of the tribune, saying, “May I speak to thee?” The
tribune hearing this, in some surprise asked, “Canst thou speak Greek?
Art thou not that Egyptian that raised a sedition some time ago, and
led away into the wilderness a band of four thousand cut-throats?” This
alarming revolt had been but lately put down with great trouble, and
was therefore fresh in the mind of Lysias, who had been concerned in
quelling it, along with the whole Roman force in Palestine,――and from
some of the outcries of the mob, he now took up the notion that Paul
was the very ringleader of that revolt, and had now just returned from
his place of refuge to make new trouble, and had been detected by the
multitude in the temple. Paul answered the foolish accusation of the
tribune, by saying, “I am a Jewish citizen of Tarsus, in Cilicia, which
is no mean city; and I beg of thee, to let me speak to the people.” The
tribune, quite glad to have his unpleasant suspicions removed, as an
atonement for the unjust accusation immediately granted the permission
as requested, and Paul therefore turned to the raging multitude, waving
his hand in the usual gesture for requesting silence. The people,
curious to hear his account of himself, listened accordingly, and
he therefore uplifted his voice in a respectful request for their
attention to his plea in his own behalf. “Men! Brethren! and Fathers!
Hear ye my defence which I make to you!”

    ♦ “dilgently” replaced with “diligently”

Those words were spoken in the vernacular language of Palestine, the
true Hebraistic dialect of Jerusalem, and the multitude were thereby
immediately undeceived about his character, for they had been as much
mistaken about him, as the tribune was, though their mistake was of a
very opposite character; for they supposed him to be entirely Greek in
his habits and language, if not in his origin; and the vast concourse
was therefore hushed in profound silence, to hear his address made
in the true Jewish language. Before this strange audience, Paul then
stood up boldly, to declare his character, his views, and his apostolic
commission. On the top of the lofty rampart of Castle Antonia,――with
the dark iron forms of the Roman soldiery around him, guarding the
staircase from top to bottom, against the raging mob,――and with the
enormous mass of the congregated thousands of Jerusalem, and of the
strangers who had come up to the festival, all straining their fierce
eyes in wrath and hate upon him, as a convicted renegade,――one feeble,
slender man, now stood, the object of the most painful attention to
all,――yet, less moved with passion and anxiety than any one present.
Thus stationed, he began, and gave to the curious multitude an
interesting account of the incidents connected with that great change
in his feelings and belief, which was the occasion of the present
difficulty. After giving them a complete statement of these particulars,
he was narrating the circumstance of a revelation made to him in the
temple, while in a devotional trance there, on his first return to
Jerusalem, after his conversion. In repeating the solemn commission
there confirmed to him by the voice of God, he repeated the crowning
sentence, with which the Lord removed his doubts about engaging in the
work of preaching the gospel, when his hands were yet, as it were, red
with the blood of the martyred faithful,――“And he said to me, ‘Go: for
I will send thee far hence, unto the GENTILES.’” But when the listening
multitude heard this clear declaration of his having considered himself
authorized to communicate to the Gentiles those holy things which had
been especially consigned by God to his peculiar people,――they took it
as a clear confession of the charge of having desecrated and degraded
his national religion, and all interrupted him with the ferocious cry,
“Take him away from the earth! for such a fellow does not deserve to
live.” The tribune, finding that this discussion was not likely to
answer any good purpose, instantly put a stop to it, by dragging him
into the castle, and gave directions that he should be examined by
scourging, that they might make him confess truly who he was, and what
he had done to make the people cry out so against him,――a very foolish
way, it would seem, to find out the truth about an unknown and abused
person, to flog him until he should tell a story that would please
them. While the guard were binding him with thongs, before they laid
on the scourge, Paul spoke to the centurion, who was superintending
the operation, and said in a sententiously inquiring way, “Is it
lawful for you to scourge a Roman citizen without legal condemnation?”
This question put a stop to all proceedings at once. The centurion
immediately dropped the thongs, and ran to the tribune, saying, “Take
heed what thou doest, for this man is a Roman citizen.” The tribune
then came to Paul, in much trepidation, and with great solemnity
said――“Tell me truly, art thou a Roman citizen?” Paul distinctly
declared, “Yes.”

Desirous to learn the mode in which the prisoner had obtained this most
sacred and unimpeachable privilege, the tribune remarked of himself,
that _he_ had obtained this right by the payment of a large sum of
money,――perhaps doubting whether a man of Paul’s poor aspect could
have ever been able to buy it; to which Paul boldly replied――“But I
was BORN free.” This clear declaration satisfied the tribune that he
had involved himself in a very serious difficulty, by committing this
illegal violence on a person thus entitled to all the privileges of a
subject of law. All the subordinate agents also, were fully aware of
the nature of the mistake, and all immediately let him alone. Lysias
now kept Paul with great care in the castle, as a place of safety
from his Jewish persecutors; and the next day, in order to have a full
investigation of his character and the charges against him, he took him
before the Sanhedrim, for examination. Paul there opened his defence
in a very appropriate and self-vindicating style. “Men! Brethren! and
Fathers! I have heretofore lived before God with a good conscience.”
At these words, Ananias the high priest, provoked by Paul’s seeming
assurance in thus vindicating himself, when under the accusation of the
heads of the Jewish religion, commanded those that stood next to Paul
to slap him on the mouth. Paul, indignant at the high-handed tyranny
of this outrageous attack on him, answered in honest wrath――“God shall
smite thee, thou whited wall! For dost thou command me to be smitten
contrary to the law, when thou sittest as a judge over me?” The other
by-standers, enraged at his boldness, asked him, “Revilest thou God’s
high priest?” To which Paul, not having known the fact that Ananias
then held that office, which he had so disgraced by his infamous
conduct, replied――“I knew not, brethren, that he was the high priest;
for it is written, thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy
people.” Then, perceiving the mixed character of the council, he
determined to avail himself of the mutual hatred of the two great
sects, for his defense, by making his own persecution a kind of party
question; and therefore called out to them――“I am a Pharisee, the
son of a Pharisee. Of the hope of the resurrection of the dead, I am
called in question.” These words had the expected effect. Instantly,
all the violent party feeling between these two sects broke out in full
force, and the whole council was divided and confused,――the scribes who
belonged to the Pharisaic order, arising, and declaring, “We find no
occasion of evil in this man. But if a spirit or an angel has spoken
to him, let us not fight against God.” This last remark, of course,
was throwing down the gauntlet at the opposite sect; for the Sadducees,
denying absolutely the existence of either angel or spirit, could of
course believe no part of Paul’s story about his vision and spiritual
summons. They all therefore broke out against the Pharisees, who being
thus involved, took Paul’s side very determinedly, and the party strife
grew so hot that Paul was like to be torn in pieces between them. The
tribune, seeing the pass to which matters had come, then ordered out
the castle-guard, and took him by force, bringing him back to his
former place of safety.

  “The reason why St. Paul chose to speak in the Hebrew tongue,
  may be accounted for thus. There were at this time two sorts
  of Jews, some called by Chrysostom οἱ βαθεις Ἑβραιοι, _profound
  Hebrews_, who used no other language but the Hebrew, and would
  not admit the Greek Bible into their assemblies, but only the
  Hebrew, with the Jerusalem Targum and Paraphrase. The other
  sort spoke Greek, and used that translation of the scriptures;
  these were called Hellenists. This was a cause of great
  dissension among these two parties, even after they had embraced
  Christianity, (Acts vi. 1.) Of this latter sort was St. Paul,
  because he always made use of the Greek translation of the
  Bible in his writings, so that in this respect he might not be
  acceptable to the other party. Those of them who were converted
  to Christianity, were much prejudiced against him, (Acts xxi.
  21,) which is given as a reason for his concealing his name
  in his Epistle to the Hebrews. And as for those who were not
  converted, they could not so much as endure him: and this is the
  reason which Chrysostom gives, why he preached to the Hellenists
  only. Acts ix. 28. Therefore, that he might avert the great
  displeasure which the Jews had conceived against him, he
  accosted them in their favorite language, and by his compliance
  in this respect, they were so far pacified as to give him
  audience.” (Hammond’s Annotations.) [Williams’s Pearson, p. 70.]

  “Scourging was a method of examination used by Romans and other
  nations, to force such as were supposed guilty to confess what
  they had done, what were their motives, and who were accessory
  to the fact. Thus Tacitus tells us of Herennius Gallus, that he
  received several stripes, that it might be known for what price,
  and with what confederates, he had betrayed the Roman army.
  It is to be observed, however, that the Romans were punished
  in this wise, not by whips and scourges, but with rods only;
  and therefore it is that Cicero, in his oration pro Rabirio,
  speaking against Labienus, tells his audience that the Porcian
  law permitted a Roman to be whipped with rods, but he, like a
  good and merciful man, (speaking ironically,) had done it with
  scourges; and still further, neither by whips nor rods could
  a citizen of Rome be punished, until he were first adjudged to
  lose his privilege, to be uncitizened, and to be declared an
  enemy to the commonwealth, then he might be scourged or put to
  death. Cicero Oratio in Verres, says, ‘It is a foul fault for
  any praetor, &c. to bind a citizen of Rome; a piacular offense
  to scourge him; a kind of parricide to kill him: what shall I
  call the crucifying of such an one?’” (Williams’s notes on
  Pearson, pp. 70, 71.)

  “Ananias, the son of Nebedaeus, was high priest at the time
  that Helena, queen of Adiabene, supplied the Jews with corn
  from Egypt, (Josephus Antiquities, lib. xx. c. 5. § 2,) during
  the famine which took place in the fourth year of Claudius,
  mentioned in the eleventh chapter of the Acts. St. Paul,
  therefore, who took a journey to Jerusalem at that period, (Acts
  xv.) could not have been ignorant of the elevation of Ananias
  to that dignity. Soon after the holding of the first council,
  as it is called, at Jerusalem, Ananias was dispossessed of his
  office, in consequence of certain acts of violence between the
  Samaritans and the Jews, and sent prisoner to Rome, (Josephus,
  Antiquities, lib. xx. c. 6. § 2,) whence he was afterwards
  released and returned to Jerusalem. Now from that period he
  could not be called high priest, in the proper sense of the word,
  though Josephus (Antiquities, lib. xx. c. 9. § 2, and Jewish
  War lib. ii. c. 17. § 9,) has sometimes given him the title
  of αρχιερευς, taken in the more extensive meaning of a priest,
  who had a seat and voice in the Sanhedrim; αρχιερεις in the
  plural number is frequently used in the New Testament, when
  allusion is made to the Sanhedrim;) and Jonathan, though we
  are not acquainted with the circumstances of his elevation, had
  been raised, in the mean time, to the supreme dignity in the
  Jewish church. Between the death of Jonathan, who was murdered
  (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews lib. xx. c. 8. § 5,) by order
  of Felix, and the high priesthood of Ismael, who was invested
  with that office by Agrippa, (Josephus Antiquities lib. xx.
  c. 8. § 3,) elapsed an interval in which this dignity continued
  vacant. Now it happened precisely in this interval, that St.
  Paul was apprehended at Jerusalem; and, the Sanhedrim being
  destitute of a president, he undertook of his own authority the
  discharge of that office, which he executed with the greatest
  tyranny. (Josephus Antiquities lib. xx. c. 9. § 2.) It is
  possible therefore that St. Paul, who had been only a few days
  at Jerusalem, might be ignorant that Ananias, who had been
  dispossessed of the priesthood, had taken upon himself a trust
  to which he was not entitled. He might therefore very naturally
  exclaim, ‘I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest!’
  Admitting him on the other hand to have been acquainted with the
  fact, the expression must be considered as an indirect reproof,
  and a tacit refusal to recognize usurped authority.” (Michaelis,
  Vol. I. pp. 51, 56.)

  “The prediction of St. Paul, verse 3, ‘God shall smite thee,
  thou whited wall,’ was, according to Josephus, fulfilled in
  a short time. For when, in the government of Florus, his son
  Eleazar set himself at the head of a party of mutineers, who,
  having made themselves masters of the temple, would permit
  no sacrifices to be offered for the emperor; and being joined
  by a company of assassins, compelled persons of the best
  quality to fly for their safety and hide themselves in sinks
  and vaults;――Ananias and his brother Hezekias, were both drawn
  out of one of these places, and murdered, (Josephus Jewish War
  lib. ii. c. 17, 18,) though Dr. Lightfoot will have it that he
  perished at the siege of Jerusalem!” (Whitby’s Annotations.)
  [Williams on Pearson.]

During that night, the soul of Paul was comforted by a heavenly
vision, in which the Lord exhorted him to maintain the same high
spirit,――assuring him that as he had testified of him in Jerusalem,
even so he should bear witness in Rome. His dangers in Jerusalem,
however, were not yet over. The furious Jews, now cut off from all
possibility of doing any violence to Paul, under the sanction of legal
forms, determined to set all moderation aside, and forty of the most
desperate bound themselves by a solemn oath, neither to eat nor drink,
till they had slain Paul. In the arrangement of the mode in which their
abominable vow should be performed, it was settled between them and the
high-priest, that a request should be sent to the tribune to bring down
Paul before the council once more, as if for the sake of putting some
additional inquiries to him for their final and perfect satisfaction;
and then, that these desperadoes should station themselves, where they
could make a rush upon Paul, just as he was entering the council-hall,
and kill him before the guard could bestir themselves in his defense,
or seize the murderers; and even if some of them should be caught and
punished, it never need be known, that the high priest was accessory to
the assassination. But while they were arranging this hopeful piece of
wickedness, they did not manage it so snugly as was necessary for the
success of the plot; for it somehow or other got to the ears of Paul’s
nephew,――a young man no where else mentioned in the New Testament,
and of whose character and situation, nothing whatever is known. He,
hearing of the plot, came instantly to his uncle, who sent him to
communicate the tidings to the tribune. Lysias, on receiving this
account of the utterly desperate character of the opposition to Paul,
determined not to risk his prisoner’s life any longer in Jerusalem,
even when guarded by the powerful defenses of castle Antonia. He
dismissed the young man with the strongest injunctions, to observe
the most profound secrecy, as to the fact of his having made this
communication to him; and immediately made preparations to send off
Paul, that very night, to Caesarea, designing to have him left there
with the governor of the province, as a prisoner of state, and thus
to rid himself of all responsibility about this very difficult and
perilous business. He ordered two centurions to draw out a detachment,
of such very remarkable strength, as shows the excess of his fears
for Paul. Two hundred heavy-armed soldiers, seventy horsemen, and
two hundred lancers, were detached as a guard for Paul, and were
all mounted for speed, to take him beyond the reach of the Jerusalem
desperadoes, that very night. He gave to that portion of the detachment
that was designed to go all the way to Caesarea, a letter to be
delivered to Felix the governor, giving a fair and faithful account of
all the circumstances connected with Paul’s imprisonment and perils in
Jerusalem.


                          RETURN TO CAESAREA.

The strong mounted detachment, numbering four hundred and seventy
full-armed Roman warriors, accordingly set out that night at nine
o’clock, and moving silently off from the castle, which stood near one
of the western gates of the city, passed out of Jerusalem unnoticed in
the darkness, and galloped away to the north-west. After forty miles
of hard riding, they reached Antipatris before day, and as all danger
of pursuit from the Jerusalem assassins was out of the question there,
the mounted infantry and the lancers returned to Jerusalem, leaving
Paul however, the very respectable military attendance of the seventy
horse-guards. With these, he journeyed to Caesarea, only about
twenty-five miles off, where he was presented by the commander of the
detachment to Felix, the Roman governor, who always resided in Caesarea,
the capital of his province. The governor, on reading the letter and
learning that Paul was of Cilicia, deferred giving his case a full
hearing, until his accusers had also come; and committed him for safe
keeping in the interval, to an apartment in the great palace, built by
Herod the Great, the royal founder of Caesarea.

After a delay of five days, the high priest and the elders came down to
Caesarea, to prosecute their charges against Paul before the governor.
They brought with them, as their advocate, a speech-maker named
Tertullus, whose name shows him to have been of Roman connections or
education, and who, on account of his acquaintance with the Latin forms
of oratory and law, was no doubt selected by Ananias and his coadjutors,
as a person better qualified than themselves to maintain their cause
with effect, before the governor. Tertullus accordingly opened the case,
and when Paul had been confronted with his accusers, began with a very
tedious string of formal compliments to Felix, and then set forth a
complaint against Paul in very bitter and abusive terms, stating his
offense to be, the attempt to profane the temple, for which the Jews
would have convicted and punished him, if Lysias had not violently
hindered, and put them to the trouble of bringing the whole business
before the governor, though a matter exclusively concerning their
religious law. To all his assertions the Jews testified.

This presentation of the accusation being made, Paul was then called
on for his defense, which he thereupon delivered in a tone highly
respectful to the governor, and maintained that he had been guilty of
none of the troublesome and riotous conduct of which he was accused:
but quietly, without any effort to make a commotion among the people
anywhere, had come into the city on a visit, after many years absence,
to bring alms and offerings; and that when he was seized by the Asian
Jews in the temple, he was going blamelessly through the established
ceremonies of purification. He complained also, that his original
accusers, the Asian Jews, were not confronted with him, and challenged
his present prosecutors to bring any evidence against him. Felix,
after this hearing of the case, on the pretence of needing Lysias as
a witness on the facts, deferred his decision, and left both accusers
and accused to the enjoyment of the delays and “glorious uncertainties
of the law.” Meanwhile he committed Paul to the charge of a centurion,
with directions that he should be allowed all reasonable liberty, and
should not be in any particular restricted from the freest intercourse
with his friends. The imprisonment of Paul at Caesarea was merely
nominal; and he must have passed his time both pleasantly and
profitably, with the members of the church at Caesarea, with whom he
had formerly been acquainted, especially with Philip and his family.
Besides these, he was also favored with the company of several of his
assistants, who had been the companions of his toils in Europe and Asia;
and through them he could hold the freest correspondence with any of
the numerous churches of his apostolic charge throughout the world. He
resided here for two whole years at least, of Felix’s administration;
and during that time, was more than once sent for by the governor, to
hold conversations with him on the great objects of his life, in some
of which he expressed himself so forcibly on righteousness, temperance
and judgment to come, that the wicked governor,――at that moment sitting
in the presence of the apostle with an adulterous paramour,――trembled
at the view presented by Paul of the consequences of those sins for
which Felix was so infamous. But his repentant tremors soon passed
off, and he merely dismissed the apostle with the vague promise, that
at some more convenient season he would send for him. He did indeed,
often send for him after this; but the motive of these renewals of
intercourse seems to have been of the basest order, for it is stated
by the sacred historian, that his real object was to induce Paul to
offer him a bribe, which he supposed could be easily raised by the
contributions of his devoted friends. But the hope was vain. It was no
part of Paul’s plan of action to hasten the decision of his movements
by such means, and the consequence was, that Felix found so little
occasion to befriend him, that when he went out of the office which he
had uniformly disgraced by tyranny, rapine, and murder, he thought it,
on the whole, worth while to gratify the late subjects of his hateful
sway, by leaving Paul still a prisoner.

  “This Drusilla was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa.
  (Josephus lib. xix. c. 9. in.) Josephus gives the following
  account of her marriage with Felix:――‘Agrippa, having received
  this present from Caesar, (viz. Claudius,) gave his sister
  Drusilla in marriage to the Azizus, king of the Emesenes, when
  he had consented to be circumcised. For Epiphanes, the son of
  king Antiochus, had broken the contract with her, by refusing
  to embrace the Jewish customs, although he had promised her
  father he would. But this marriage of Drusilla with Azizus was
  dissolved in a short time, after this manner. When Felix was
  procurator of Judaea, having had a sight of her, he was mightily
  taken with her; and indeed she was the most beautiful of her
  sex. He therefore sent to her Simon, a Jew of Cyprus, who was
  one of his friends, and pretended to magic, by whom he persuaded
  her to leave her husband, and marry him; promising to make her
  perfectly happy, if she did not disdain him. It was far from
  being a sufficient reason; but to avoid the envy of her sister
  Bernice, who was continually doing her ill offices, because
  of her beauty, she was induced to transgress the laws of her
  country, and marry Felix.’” (Lardner’s Credibility, 4to. Vol. I.
  p. 16, 17, edition, London, 1815.) [Williams on Pearson, p. 78.]

  Illustration: SYRACUSE. Acts xxviii. 12.

The successor of Felix in the government of Palestine, was Porcius
Festus, a man whose administration is by no means characterized in
the history of those times by a reputation for justice or prudence;
yet in the case of Paul, his conduct seems to have been much more
accordant with right and reason, than was that of the truly infamous
Felix. Visiting the religious capital of the Jews soon after his first
entrance into the province, he was there earnestly petitioned by the
ever-spiteful foes of Paul, to cause this prisoner to be brought up
to Jerusalem for trial, intending when Paul should enter the city,
to execute their old plan of assassination, which had been formerly
frustrated by the benevolent prudence and energy of Claudius Lysias.
But Festus, perhaps having received some notification of this plot,
from the friends of Paul, utterly refused to bring the prisoner to
Jerusalem, but required the presence of the accusers in the proper seat
of the supreme provincial administration of justice at Caesarea. After
a ten days’ stay in Jerusalem, he returned to the civil capital, and
with a commendable activity in his judicial proceedings, on the very
next day after his arrival in Caesarea, summoned Paul and his accusers
before him. The Jews of course, told their old story, and brought out
against Paul many grievous complaints, which they could not prove.
His only reply to all this accusation without testimony was――“Neither
against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor yet against
Caesar, have I offended in any particular.” But Festus having been in
some way influenced to favor the designs of the Jews, urged Paul to go
up to Jerusalem, there to be tried by the supreme religious court of
his own nation. Paul replied by a bold and distinct assertion of his
rights, as a Roman citizen, before the tribunal of his liege lord and
sovran: “I stand before Caesar’s judgment-seat, where I ought to be
judged. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
If I am guilty of anything that deserves death, I refuse not to die;
but if I have done none of these things of which they accuse me, no
man can deliver me into their hands. I APPEAL TO CAESAR.” This solemn
concluding formula put him at once far beyond the reach of all inferior
tyranny; henceforth no governor in the world could direct the fate of
the appellant Roman citizen, throwing before himself the adamantine
aegis of Roman law. Festus himself, though evidently displeased at
this turn of events, could not resist the course of law; but after a
conference with this council, replied to Paul――“Dost thou appeal to
Caesar? To Caesar shalt thou go.”

While Paul was still detained at Caesarea, after this final reference
of his case to the highest judicial authority in the world, Festus was
visited at Caesarea, by Herod Agrippa II. king of Iturea, Trachonitis,
Abilene, and other northern regions of Palestine, the son of that
Herod Agrippa whose character and actions were connected with the
incidents of Peter’s life. He, passing through Judea with his sister
Bernice, stopped at Caesarea, to pay their compliments to the new
Roman governor. During their stay there, Festus, with a view to find
rational entertainment for his royal guests, bethought himself of
Paul’s case, as one that would be likely to interest them, connected as
the prisoner’s fate seemed to be, with the religious and legal matters
of that peculiar people to whom Agrippa himself belonged, and in the
minutiae of whose law and theology he had been so well instructed, that
his opinion on the case would be well worth having, to one as little
acquainted with these matters as the heathen governor himself was.
Festus therefore gave a very full account of the whole case to Agrippa,
in terms that sufficiently well exhibited the perplexities in which
he was involved, and in expressions which are strikingly and almost
amusingly characteristic,――complaining as he does of the very abstruse
and perplexing nature of the accusations brought by the Jews, as being
“certain questions of their own religion, and of one Jesus, whom Paul
affirmed to be alive.” Agrippa was so much interested in the case that
he expressed a wish to hear the man in person; and Festus accordingly
arranged that he should the next day be gratified with the hearing.

  “‘_King Agrippa and Bernice._’ Acts. xxv. 13. This Agrippa
  was the son of Herod Agrippa; St. Luke calls him king, which
  Josephus also does very often. (Antiquities lib. xx. c. viii.
  § 6, et passim.) But St. Luke does not suppose him to be king
  of Judaea, for all the judicial proceedings of that country
  relating to St. Paul, are transacted before Felix, and Festus
  his successor; besides, he says, that ‘Agrippa came to Caesarea
  to salute Festus,’ to compliment him on his arrival, &c. verse 1.
  When his father died, Claudius would have immediately put him in
  possession of his father’s dominions, but he was advised not to
  do so, on account of the son’s youth, then only seventeen; the
  emperor, therefore, ‘appointed Cuspius Fadus praefect of Judea
  and the whole kingdom, (Josephus Antiquities lib. xix. c. 9, ad
  fin.) who was succeeded by Tiberius, Alexander, Cumanus, Felix,
  and Festus, though these did not possess the province in the
  same extent that Fadus did.’ (Antiquities xx. Jewish War lib.
  ii.)

  “Agrippa had, notwithstanding, at this time, considerable
  territories. ‘Herod, brother of king Agrippa the Great, died
  in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius. Claudius then gave
  his government to the young Agrippa.’ (Josephus Antiquities
  xx. p. 887.) This is the Agrippa mentioned in this twenty-fifth
  chapter. ‘The twelfth year of his reign being completed,
  Claudius gave to Agrippa the tetrarchy of Philip and Batanea,
  adding also Trachonitis with Abila. This had been the tetrarchy
  of Lysanias. But he took away from him Chalcis, after he had
  governed it four years.’ (Josephus Antiquities xx. p. 890,
  v. 25, &c.) ‘After this, he sent Felix, the brother of Pallas,
  to be procurator of Judea, Galilee, Samaria, and Peraea; and
  promoted Agrippa from Chalcis to a greater kingdom, giving
  him the tetrarchy which had been Philip’s. (This is Batanea,
  and Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis;) and he added, moreover, the
  kingdom of Lysanias, and the province that had been Varus’s.’
  (Josephus War of the Jews lib. ii. c. 12. fin.) ‘Nero, in the
  first year of his reign, gave Agrippa a certain part of Galilee,
  ordering Tiberias and Tarichaea to be subject to him. He gave
  him also Julias, a city of Peraea, and fourteen towns in the
  neighborhood of it.’ (Antiquities xx. c. 7. § 4.) St. Luke
  is therefore fully justified in styling this Agrippa king at
  this time.” (Lardner’s Credibility, 4to. Vol. I. pp. 17, 18.)
  [Williams’s Pearson, p. 81, 82.]

On the next day, preparations were made for this audience, with a
solemnity of display most honorable to the subject of it. The great
hall of the palace was arrayed in grand order for the occasion, and, in
due time, king Agrippa, with his royal sister, and the Roman governor,
entered it with great pomp, followed by a train composed of all the
great military and civil dignitaries of the vice-imperial court of
Palestine. Before all this stately array, the apostolic prisoner
was now set, and a solemn annunciation was made by Festus, of the
circumstances of the prisoner’s previous accusation, trial, and appeal;
all which were now summarily recapitulated in public, for the sake of
form, although they had before been communicated in private, to Agrippa.
The king, as the highest authority present, having graciously invited
Paul to speak for himself, the apostle stretched forth his hand and
began, in that respectful style of elaborately elegant compliment,
which characterizes the exordiums of so many of his addresses to
the great. After having, with most admirable skill, conciliated the
attention and kind regard of the king, by expressing his happiness
in being called to speak in his own defense before one so learned in
Hebrew law, he went on; and in a speech which is well known for its
noble eloquence, so resplendent, even through the disguise of a quaint
translation, presented not merely his own case, but the claims of that
revelation, for proclaiming which he was now a prisoner. So admirably
did he conduct his whole plea, both for himself and the cause of Christ,
that in spite of the sneer of Festus, Agrippa paid him the very highest
compliment in his power, and pronounced him to be utterly guiltless
of the charges. No part of this plea and its attendant discussions,
needs to be recapitulated; but a single characteristic of Paul, which
is most strikingly evinced, deserves especial notice. This is his
profound regard for all the established forms of polite address. He is
not satisfied with a mere respectful behavior towards his judges, but
even distinguishes himself by a minute observance of all the customary
phrases of politeness; nor does he suffer his courtly manner to be
disturbed, even by the abrupt remark of Festus, accusing him of frenzy.
In his reply, he styles his accuser “Most noble;” and yet every reader
of Jewish history knows, and Paul knew, that this Festus, to whom he
gave this honorable title, was one of the very wicked men of those
wicked times. The instance shows then, that those who, from religious
scruples, refuse to give the titles of established respect to those who
are elevated in station, and reject all forms of genteel address, on
the same ground, have certainly constructed their system of practical
religion on a model wholly different from that by which the apostle’s
demeanor was guided; and the whole impression made on a common reader,
by Luke’s clear statement of Paul’s behavior before the most dignified
and splendid audience that he ever addressed, must be, that he was
complete in all the forms and observances of polite intercourse; and
he must be considered, both according to the high standard of his
refined and dignified hearers, and also by the universal standard of
the refined of all ages,――not only a finished, eloquent orator, but
a person of polished manners, delicate tact, ready compliment, and
graceful, courtly address:――in short, A PERFECT GENTLEMAN.


                            VOYAGE TO ROME.

As Paul, however, had previously appealed to Caesar, his case was
already removed from any inferior jurisdiction, and his hearing before
Agrippa was intended only to gratify the king himself, and to cause
the particulars of his complicated case to be more fully drawn out
before his royal hearer, who was so accomplished in Hebrew law, that
his opinion was very naturally desired by Festus; for, as the governor
himself confessed, the technicalities and abstruse points involved in
the charge, were altogether beyond the comprehension of a Roman judge,
with a mere heathen education. The object, therefore, of obtaining
a full statement of particulars, to be presented to his most august
majesty, the emperor, being completely accomplished by this hearing of
Paul before Agrippa,――there was now nothing to delay the reference of
the case to Nero; and Paul was therefore consigned, along with other
prisoners of state, to the care of a Roman officer, Julius, a centurion
of the Augustan cohort. Taking passage at Caesarea, in an Adramyttian
vessel, Julius sailed with his important charge from the shores of
Palestine, late in the year 60. Following the usual cautious course of
all ancient navigators,――along the shores, and from island to island,
venturing across the open sea only with the fairest winds,――the vessel
which bore the apostle on his first voyage to Italy, coasted along by
Syria and Asia Minor. Of those Christian associates who accompanied
Paul, none are known except Timothy, Luke, his graphically accurate
historian, and Aristarchus of Thessalonica, the apostle’s long-known
companion in travel. These, of course, were a source of great enjoyment
to Paul on this tedious voyage, surrounded, as he was, otherwise, by
strangers and heathen, by most of whom he must have been regarded in
the light of a mere criminal, held in bonds for trial. He was, however,
very fortunate in the character of the centurion to whose keeping
he was entrusted, as is shown in more than one incident related by
Luke. After one day’s sail, the vessel touching at Sidon, Julius here
politely gave Paul permission to visit his Christian friends in that
place,――thus conferring a great favor, both on the apostle and on the
church of Sidon. Leaving this place, their course was next along the
coast of Syria, and then eastwards, along the southern shore of Asia
Minor, keeping in the Cilician strait between that province and the
great island of Cyprus, on account of the violence of the southwesters.
Coasting along by Pamphylia and Lycia, they next touched at Myra, a
city in the latter province, where they were obliged to take passage
in another vessel, bound from Alexandria to Italy. In this vessel, they
also kept close to the coast, their course being still retarded by head
winds, until they reached Cnidus, the farthest southeastern point of
Asia Minor, and thence stretched across the Carpathian sea, to Crete,
approaching it first at Cape Salmone, the most eastern point at the
island, and then passing on to a place called “the Fair Haven,” near
Lasea, probably one of the hundred cities of Crete, but mentioned in no
other ancient writer. At this place, Paul, whose experience in former
voyages was already considerable, having been twice ship-wrecked, had
sagacity enough to see that any further navigation that season would
be dangerous; for it was now the beginning of October, and the most
dreadful tempests might be reasonably expected on the wintry sea,
before they could reach the Italian coast. He warned the centurion
accordingly, of the peril to which all their lives were exposed; but
the owner and commander of the vessel, anxious to find a better place
for wintering than this, persuaded Julius to risk the passage to the
south side of the island, when they might find, in the port of Phoenix,
a more convenient winter harbor. So, after the south wind had nearly
died away, they attempted to take advantage of this apparent lull, and
work their way, close to the shore along the south side of Crete; but
presently they were caught by a tremendous Levanter, which carried
them with great velocity away to the west, to the island of Clauda,
which lies south of the west end of Crete. Here the danger of the
ship’s breaking in pieces was so great, that having with much ado
overhauled their boat, they undergirded the ship with cables, to keep
it together,――a measure not unknown in modern navigation. Finding that
they were in much danger of grounding among the quicksands on the coast
of the island, they were glad to stand out to sea; and taking in all
sail, scudded under bare poles for fourteen days, during a great part
of which time, they saw neither sun, moon nor stars, the whole sky
being constantly overcast with clouds, so that they knew nothing of
their position. The wind of course carried them directly west, over
what was then called the sea of Adria,――not what is now called the
_Adriatic_ gulf, but that part of the Mediterranean, which lies between
Greece, Italy and Africa. In their desperation, the passengers threw
over their own baggage, to lighten the ship; and they began to lose all
hope of being saved from shipwreck. Paul, however, encouraged them by
the narration of a dream, in which God had revealed to him that every
one of them should escape; and they still kept their hopes alive to
the fourteenth night, when the sailors, thinking that the long western
course must have brought them near Sicily, or the main-land of Italy,
which lay not far out of this direction, began to heave the lead, that
they might avoid the shore; and at the first sounding, found but twenty
fathoms, and at the next fifteen. Of course, the peril of grounding was
imminent, and they therefore cast anchor, and waited for day. Knowing
that they were now near some shore, the sailors determined to provide
for their own safety, and accordingly undertook to let down the
boat, to make their escape, and leave the passengers to provide for
themselves. But Paul represented to the centurion the certainty of
their destruction, if the ship should be left without any seamen to
manage it; and the soldiers of the prisoners’ guard, determined not
to be thus deserted, though they should all sink together, cut off the
ropes by which the boat was held, and let it fell off. All being thus
inevitably committed to one doom, Paul exhorted them to take food, and
thus strengthen themselves for the effort to reach the shore. They did
so accordingly, and then, as a last resort, flung out the wheat with
which the ship was loaded, and at day-break, when land appeared, seeing
a small creek, they made an effort to run the ship into it, weighing
anchor and hoisting the mainsail; but knowing nothing of the ground,
soon struck, and the overstrained ship was immediately broken by the
waves, the bows being fast in the sandbank, while the stern was heaved
by every surge. The soldiers, thinking first of their weighty charge,
for whose escape they were to answer with their lives, advised to kill
them all, lest they should swim ashore. But the more humane centurion
forbade it, and gave directions that every man should provide for his
own safety. They did so; and those that could not swim, clinging to the
fragments of the wreck, the whole two hundred and seventy-six who were
in the vessel, got safe to land.

  “‘When sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was already
  past.’ verse 9. There is no question but that this is the great
  fast of expiation, Leviticus xvi. 29, the description of which
  we have in Isaiah lviii. under the name of a sabbath, verse 13.
  The precise time of this sabbatic fast is on the tenth day of
  the seventh month, _Tizri_, which falls on the same time very
  nearly with our September, the first day of Tizri on the seventh
  of that, and so the 10th of Tizri on the 16th of September, that
  is, thirteen days before our Michaelmas. This being premised,
  the apostle’s reasoning becomes clear; for it is precisely the
  same as though he should have said, _because it was past the
  twentieth_ (the day Scaliger sets for the solemnization of the
  fast,) _of September_; it being observed by all sailors, that
  for some weeks before and after Michaelmas, there are on the sea
  sudden and frequent storms, (probably the equinoctial,) which
  have in modern times received the name of Michaelmas flaws,
  and must of course make sailing dangerous. Hesiod himself tells
  us, that at the going down of Pleiades, which was at the end of
  autumn, navigation was hazardous.” (Williams.)

  “_Undergirding the ship._’ verse 17. We learn from various
  passages in the Greek and Roman writers, that the ancients
  had recourse to this expedient, in order to save the ship from
  imminent danger; and this method has been used in modern times.
  The process of undergirding a ship is thus performed:――a stout
  cable is slipped under the vessel at the prow, which can be
  conducted to any part of the ship’s keel, and then fasten the
  two ends on the deck, to keep the planks from starting. An
  instance of this kind is mentioned in ‘Lord Anson’s Voyage round
  the World.’ Speaking of a Spanish man-of-war in a storm, the
  writer says, ‘They were obliged to throw overboard all their
  upper-deck guns, and _take six turns of the cable round the ship,
  to prevent her opening_.’ (p. 24, 4to. edition.) Bp. Pearce and
  Dr. Clarke, on Acts xxvii. 17. Two instances of undergirding the
  ship are noticed in the ‘Chevalier de Johnstone’s Memoirs of the
  Rebellion in 1745‒6, London, 1822, 8vo. pp. 421, 454.”
  (Williams’s notes on Pearson, p. 85.)

They now found that they had struck on the island of Melita, (now
Malta,) which lies just south of Sicily, in the direct track in which
the eastern gale must have blown them. The uncivilized inhabitants of
this desolate spot received the shipwrecked voyagers with the kindest
attention, and very considerately kindled a fire, to warm and dry them,
after their long soaking in cold water. The dripping apostle took hold
with the rest to make the fire blaze up, and gathered a bundle of dry
sticks, for the purpose; but with them he unconsciously gathered a
viper, which was sheltering itself among them from the cold, and roused
by the heat of the fire, now crept out upon his hand. He, of course,
as any other man would, gave a jerk, and shook it off, as soon as he
saw it,――a very natural occurrence; but the superstitious barbarians
thought this a perfect miracle, as they had before foolishly considered
it a token of divine wrath; and having looked on him as an object of
horror, and a wicked criminal, they now, with equal sense, adored him
as a God.

Another incident of more truly miraculous character, occurred to Paul
soon after, in the part of the island on which they were wrecked, which
had the effect of gaining him a much more solid fame. The father of
Publius, the Roman officer who governed the island, as the deputy of
the praetor of Sicily, was at that time very sick of the dysentery;
and Paul, going to see him, laid his hands on him and prayed,――thus
effecting a complete recovery. This being known, other diseased persons
were presented as the subjects of Paul’s miraculous powers, and the
same cures following his words, he with his associates soon became the
objects of a far more rational reverence than had been excited by the
deliverance from the viper. The reverence too, was extended beyond mere
empty honor. The shipwrecked apostolic company having lost all their
baggage and provisions, were abundantly provided with everything that
they needed, by the grateful contributions of the islanders;――and when,
after a stay of three months, Paul and his companions departed, they
were loaded with things necessary for the voyage.

  Illustration: PUTEOLI. Acts xxviii. 13, 14.

Sailing, on the return of spring, in another Alexandrine vessel, of
the same very common name borne by that in which they were shipwrecked,
they came next to Syracuse, on the east side of the island of Sicily,
and after a stay of three days, turned through the Sicilian strait
to Rhegium, on the main-land directly opposite the island. There Paul
first saw the soil of Italy, but did not leave the vessel for his land
journey, till they came, with a fresh south wind, to Puteoli, a port
in the bay of Naples. Here they found Christians, who invited them to
rest among them for a week; after which they journeyed along the coast,
on the noble road of Pozzuoli and Baiae, for about a hundred miles, to
Appius’s Forum, a village about eighteen miles from Rome. At this place,
they were met by a number of brethren from the church of Rome; and
having journeyed along the Appian way, to the Three Taverns,――a little
stopping place a few miles from the city,――they were received by still
another deputation of Roman Christians, come out to greet the great
apostle, whose name had long been known among them, and whose counsels
and revelations they had already enjoyed by his writings. This noble
testimony of the esteem in which they held him, was a most joyful
assurance to Paul, that, even on this foreign shore, a stranger and
a prisoner, he had many near and dear friends; and his noble spirit,
before probably depressed and melancholy, in the dark prospect of his
approach to the awful seat of that remorseless imperial power that was
to decide his doom, now rose to feelings of exultation and gratitude.
Entering the vast imperial city, the prisoners were remanded by the
centurion to the custody of Burrhus, the noble and influential praefect
of the praetorian guard, who was, _ex-officio_, the keeper of all
prisoners of state, brought from the provinces to Rome. Burrhus however,
was as kind and accommodating to Paul as Julius had been, and allowed
him to live by himself in a private house, with only a soldier as an
attendant guard.

After three days, Paul invited to his lodgings the chief men of the
Jewish faith, in Rome, and made known to them the circumstances under
which he had been sent thither, and his present relations to the heads
of their religion in Jerusalem. In reply, they merely stated that they
had received no formal communications respecting him, from Jerusalem,
nor had those of their brethren who had arrived from Judea spoken
ill of him. They expressed also a great desire to hear from him the
peculiar doctrine, for entertaining which he had been thus denounced,
of which they professed to know nothing, but that there was a universal
prejudice against it. A day was accordingly appointed for a full
conference on these very important subjects,――and at the set time, Paul,
with no small willingness, discoursed at great length on his views of
the accomplishment of all the ancient prophecies respecting the Messiah,
in the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. His hearers were very
much divided in opinion about these points, after his discourse was
over,――some believing and some disbelieving. Leaving them to meditate
on what he had said, Paul dismissed them with a warning quotation
from Isaiah, against their prejudices, and sternly reminded them, that
though they did reject the truth, the waiting Gentiles were prepared
to embrace it, and should receive the word of God immediately. They
then left him, and made his words a subject of much discussion among
themselves; but the results are unrecorded. Paul having hired a house
in Rome, made that city the scene of his active labors for two whole
years, receiving all that called to inquire into religious truth, and
proclaiming the doctrines of Christianity with the most unhesitating
boldness and freedom; and no man in Rome could molest him in making
known his belief to as many as chose to hear him; for it was not till
many years after, that the Christians were denounced and persecuted by
Nero.


                    HIS EPISTLES WRITTEN FROM ROME.

With these facts the noble narrative of Luke ceases entirely, and
henceforth no means are left of ascertaining the events of Paul’s life,
except in those incidental allusions which his subsequent writings
make to his circumstances. Those epistles which are certainly known
and universally agreed to have been written from Rome during this
imprisonment, are those to the Philippians, the Ephesians, the
Colossians, and to Philemon. There are passages in all these which
imply that he was then near the close of his imprisonment, for he
speaks with great confidence of being able to visit them shortly, and
very particularly requests preparation to be made for his accommodation
on his arrival.

There is good reason to think that the epistles to the Ephesians,
to the Colossians, and to Philemon, were written about the same time
and were sent together. This appears from the fact, that Tychicus
is spoken of in both the two former, as sent by the apostle, to make
known to them all his circumstances more fully, and is also implied as
the bearer of both, while Onesimus, the bearer of the latter, is also
mentioned in the epistle to the Colossians as accompanying Tychicus.


                     THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

The most important question which has been raised concerning this
epistle, regards the point, whether it was truly directed and sent
by Paul, to the church in Ephesus, as the common reading distinctly
specifies. Many eminent modern critics have maintained that it was
originally sent to the church in Laodicea, and that the word Ephesus,
in the direction and in the first verse, is a change made in later
times, by those who felt interested to claim for this city the honor
of an apostolic epistle. Others incline to the opinion, that it was
directed to no particular church, but was sent as a circular to several
churches in Asia Minor, among which were those of Ephesus and Laodicea,
and that several copies were sent at the same time, each copy being
differently directed. They suppose that when the epistles of Paul
were first collected, that copy which was sent to Ephesus was the one
adopted for this, and that the original manuscript being soon lost, all
written trace of its original general direction disappeared also.

The prominent reason for this remarkable supposition, unsupported as
it is by the authority of any ancient manuscript, is that Paul writes
apparently with no local reference whatever to the circumstances of the
Ephesians, among whom he had lived for three years, although his other
epistles to places which he had visited are so full of personal and
local matters; and that he speaks on the contrary as though he knew
little of them except by hearsay. A reference to the particular details
of the reasoning by which this opinion is supported, would altogether
transcend the proper limits of this work; since even a summary of them
fills a great many pages of those critical and exegetical works, to
which these discussions properly belong; and all which can be stated
here is the general result, that a great weight of authority favors the
view that this was probably a circular epistle; but the whole argument
in favor of either notion, rests on so slight a foundation, that it is
not worth while to disturb the common impression for it.

The epistle certainly does not seem to dwell on any local difficulties,
but enlarges eloquently upon general topics, showing the holy
watchfulness of the apostle over the faith of his readers. He appears,
nevertheless, to emphasize with remarkable force, the doctrines
that Christ alone was the source and means of salvation, “the chief
corner-stone,” and that in him all are united, both Jews and Gentiles,
in one holy temple. There is something in many such passages, with
which the epistle abounds, that seems peculiarly well fitted to the
circumstances of mixed communities, made up of Jews and Gentiles,
and as if the apostle wished to prevent the former from creating any
distinctions in the church, in their own favor. Many passages in this
epistle also, are very pointedly opposed to those heresies, which
about that period were beginning to rise up in those regions, and were
afterwards famous under the name of the Gnosis,――the first distinct
sect that is known to have perverted the purity of Christian truth.
Paul here aims with remarkable energy, to prove that salvation was
to be attributed to Christ alone, and not to the intervention of any
other superior beings, by whatever names they are called, whether
principalities, or powers, or might or dominion, both in this world and
the world to come,――in heavenly places as well as earthly. The apostle
also is very full in the moral and practical part,――urging with great
particularity the observance of those virtues which are the essentials
of the Christian character, and specifying to each particular age, sex,
rank and condition, its own peculiar duties.


                    THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

In the first verse of the second chapter, the apostle expresses a
peculiar anxiety for the spiritual safety of those Christians who
have not seen his face in the flesh, among whom he appears to number
the Colossians and Laodiceans. It seems quite evident that he had
never been at Colosse; for though he traversed Phrygia, on two several
occasions before this time, he is not said to have visited either
Colosse or Laodicea;――but his route is so described, as to make it
almost impossible for him to have taken either city directly in his
way. This circumstance may account for the fact of his distinguishing
in this manner a single city like Colosse, of no great size or
importance; because as it appears from the general tenor of the epistle,
certain peculiar errors had arisen among them, which were probably
more dangerously rife, from the circumstance of their never having been
blessed by the personal presence and labors of an apostle. The errors
which he particularly attacks, seem to be those of the Judaizers, who
were constantly insisting on the necessity of Mosaical observances,
such as circumcision, sabbaths, abstinence from unclean meats, and
other things of the same sort. He cautions them particularly against
certain false doctrines, also referred to under the names of philosophy,
vain deceit, the traditions of men, &c. which are commonly thought
to refer to the errors of the Essenes, a Jewish sect characterised
by Josephus in terms somewhat similar, and who are supposed to have
introduced their ascetic and mystical doctrines into the Christian
church, and to have formed one of the sources of the great system of
Gnosticism, as afterwards perfected. The moral part of this epistle
bears a very striking similarity, even in words, to the conclusion of
that to the Ephesians,――a resemblance probably attributable in part,
to the circumstance, that they were written about the same time. The
circumstance that he has mentioned to the Colossians an epistle to be
sent for by them from Laodicea, has given rise to a forged production,
purporting to be this very epistle from Paul to the Laodiceans; but
it is manifestly a mere brief rhapsody, collected from Paul’s other
epistles, and has never for a moment imposed upon the critical. It has
been supposed that the true epistle meant by Paul, is another, now lost,
written by Paul to Laodicea; and the supposition is not unreasonable.


                       THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

This was merely a private letter from Paul to a person otherwise not
known, but appearing, from the terms in which he is herein mentioned,
to have been at some time or other associated with Paul in the gospel
work; since he styles him “fellow-laborer.” He appears to have been a
man of some property and generosity, because he had a house spacious
enough to hold a worshiping assembly, who were freely accommodated by
him; and he is likewise mentioned as hospitably entertaining traveling
Christians. The possession of some wealth is also implied in the
circumstance which is the occasion of this epistle. Like almost all
Christians of that age who were able to do so, he owned at least one
slave, by name Onesimus, who had run away from him to Rome, and there
falling under the notice of Paul, was made the subject of his personal
attentions, and was at last converted by him to the Christian faith.
Paul now sends him back to his old master, with this letter, in which
he narrates the circumstances connected with the flight and conversion
of Onesimus, and then with great earnestness, yet with mildness,
entreats Philemon to receive him now, not as a slave, but as a
brother,――to forgive him his offenses, and restore him to favor. Paul
himself offers to become personally responsible for all pecuniary loss
experienced by Philemon in consequence of the absence of his servant in
Rome, where he had been ministering to Paul; and the apostle gives ♦his
own note of hand for any reasonable amount which Philemon may choose to
claim. Throughout the whole, he speaks in great confidence of the ready
compliance of Philemon with these requests, and evidently considers him
a most intimate friend, loving and beloved. He also speaks with great
confidence of his own speedy release from his bonds, and begs Philemon
to prepare him a lodging; for he trusts that through his prayers, he
shall shortly be given to him.

   ♦ duplicate word “his” removed


                    THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

That this was written after the others that were sent from Rome by Paul
during this imprisonment, is proved by several circumstances. Luke was
certainly with him when he wrote to the Colossians and to Philemon; but
no mention whatever is made of him in the epistle to the Philippians,
who would, nevertheless, feel as much interest in him as in Timothy or
any companion of Paul; because he had resided in Philippi many years,
and must have had many acquaintances there, who would expect some
account of him, and some salutation from him. Paul, moreover, says,
that he trusts to send Timothy shortly to them, because he has no
man with him who is like minded, or who will care for their state;――a
remark which, if Luke had been with him, he could not have made with
any justice to that faithful and diligent associate, who was himself a
personal acquaintance of the Philippians. There were some circumstances
connected with the situation of Paul, as referred to in this epistle,
which seem to imply a different date from those epistles just mentioned.
His condition seems improved in many respects, although before not
uncomfortable, and his expectations of release still more confident,
though before so strong. He speaks also of a new and remarkable field
in which his preaching had been successful, and that is, the palace
of the imperial Caesar himself, among whose household attendants were
many now numbered among the saints who sent salutations to Philippi.
The terms in which he mentions his approaching release, are still more
remarkable than those in the former epistles. He says――“Having this
_confidence_, I _know_ that I shall abide and continue with you all,”
&c. “that your rejoicing may be more abundant, by my coming to you
again.” “I trust in the Lord that I shall myself also come shortly.”

The immediate occasion of this epistle was the return of Epaphroditus,
the _apostle_ or messenger of the Philippian church, by whom Paul
now wrote this, as a grateful acknowledgment of their generosity in
contributing to his support that money, of which Epaphroditus was the
bearer. In the epistle, he also took occasion, after giving them an
account of his life in Rome, to warn them against the errors of the
Judaizers, whose doctrines were the occasion of so much difficulty in
the Christian churches.


                      THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

The release which Paul so confidently anticipated, probably happened
shortly after the writing of the last epistle, and at this time,
just before leaving Italy for another field of labor, it is commonly
believed that he wrote his epistle to the Hebrews. Of the particular
place, the time, the immediate object, and the persons who were the
receivers of this epistle, nothing is with any certainty known; and
the whole range of statements in standard works of exegetical and
critical theology, on this writing, is the most appalling mass of
vague speculations, unfounded conclusions and contradictory assertions,
that presents itself to the historian of the apostolic works in any
direction; and in respect to all these points, referring the critical
to any or all of the thousand and one views, given in the learned
and elaborate introductions and commentaries, which alone can with
any justice so much as open the subject, the author excuses himself
entirely from any discussion of this endless question, in the words
used on one of these points, by one of the most learned, acute,
ingenious and cautious critics of modern times. “Any thing further
on this subject I am unable to determine, and candidly confess my
ignorance as to the place where the epistle to the Hebrews was written.
Nor do I envy any man who pretends to know more on this subject, unless
he has discovered sources of intelligence, which have hitherto remained
unknown. It is better to leave a question in a state of uncertainty,
than, without foundation, to adopt an opinion which may lead to
material errors.”


                          VOYAGE TO THE EAST.

On leaving Italy after this release, he seems to have directed
his course eastward; but nothing whatever is known of his motions,
except that from the epistle of Titus it is learned that he journeyed
to Miletus, to Ephesus, to Troas, to Macedonia, to Crete and to
Epirus,――and last of all, probably, to Rome. His first movements on
his release were, doubtless, in conformity with his previous designs,
as expressed in his epistles. He probably went first to Asia, visiting
Ephesus, Miletus, Colosse, &c. On this voyage he might have left
Titus in Crete, (as specified in his letter to that minister,) and
on embarking for Macedonia, left Timothy at Ephesus, (as mentioned in
the first epistle to him.) After visiting Philippi and other places in
Macedonia, where he wrote to Timothy, he seems to have crossed over the
country to the shore of the Ionian sea, to Nicopolis, whence he wrote
to Titus, to come from Crete, and join him there. These two epistles,
being of a merely personal character, containing instructions for the
exercise of the apostolic functions of ordination, &c. in the absence
of Paul, can not need any particular historical notice, being so simple
in their object that they sufficiently explain themselves. Respecting
that to Timothy, however, it may be specified that some of its peculiar
expressions seem to be aimed at the rising heresy of the Jewish and
Oriental mystics, who were then infecting the eastern churches with the
first beginnings of that heresy which, under the name of the GNOSIS, or
_science_, (falsely so called,) soon after corrupted with its dogmas,
a vast number in Asia Minor, Greece and Syria. The style and tenor of
both of the epistles are so different from all Paul’s other writings,
as to make it very evident that they were written at a different time,
and under very different circumstances from the rest.


                            RETURN TO ROME.

The only real evidence of this movement of Paul is found in the tenor
of certain passages in the second epistle to Timothy, which seem to
show that it was written during the author’s imprisonment in Rome, but
which cannot be connected with his former confinement there. In the
former epistles written from Rome, Timothy was with Paul;――but this
of course implies that he was absent. In them, Demas is declared to be
with Paul;――in this he is mentioned as having forsaken him, and gone to
Thessalonica. In the first epistle to Timothy, Mark was also with Paul,
and joined in saluting the Colossians; in this, Timothy is instructed
to bring him to Paul, because he is profitable to him in the ministry.
In the fourth chapter, Paul says that “Erastus abode at Corinth;”――an
expression which implies that Erastus abode in Corinth when Paul left
it. But Paul took no journey from Corinth before his first imprisonment;
for when he left that place for the last time before his journey to
Jerusalem,――when he was seized and sent to Rome,――he was accompanied by
Timothy; and there could therefore be no need of informing him of that
fact. In the same passage of this epistle he also says, that he had
left Trophimus sick at Miletus; but when Paul passed through Miletus,
on that journey to Jerusalem, Trophimus certainly was not left behind
at Miletus, but accompanied him to Jerusalem; for he was seen there
with him by the Asian Jews. These two passages therefore, refer to a
journey taken subsequent to Paul’s first imprisonment,――and the epistle
which refers to them, and purports in other passages to have been
written during an imprisonment in Rome, shows that he returned thither
after his first imprisonment.

The most striking passage in this epistle also refers with great
distinctness to his expectation of being very speedily removed from
apostolic labors to an eternal apostolic reward. “I am now ready to
be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought
the good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith:
henceforth, there is laid up for me a crown of life, which the Lord,
the righteous judge, shall give me at that day.” All these expressions
are utterly at variance with those hopes of release and of the speedy
renewal of his labors in an eastern field; and show very plainly that
all the tasks to which he once looked forward were now completed, and
that he could hope for no deliverance, but that which should call him
from chains and toils to an eternal crown.


                              HIS DEATH.

The circumstance of his being again in Rome a prisoner, after having
been once set free by the mandate of the emperor himself, after a
full hearing, must at once require a reference to a state of things,
in which Paul’s religious profession and evangelizing labors, before
esteemed so blameless that no man in Rome forbade him to preach the
gospel there,――had now, by a mighty revolution in opinions, become
a crime, since for these, he was now held in bondage, without the
possibility of escape from the threatened death. Such a change actually
did occur in the latter part of the reign of Nero, when, as already
related in the history of Peter’s first epistle, the whole power of the
imperial government was turned against the Christians, as a sect, and
they were convicted on that accusation alone, as deserving of death.
The date of this revolution in the condition of the Christians, is
fixed by Roman history in the sixty-fourth year of Christ; and the
time when Paul was cast into chains the second time, must therefore be
referred to this year. His actual death evidently did not take place at
once, but was deferred long enough to allow of his writing to Timothy,
and for him to make some arrangements therein, for a short continuance
of his labors. The date which is commonly fixed as the time of his
execution, is in the year of Christ 65; but in truth, nothing whatever
is known about it, nor can even a probability be confidently affirmed
on the subject. Being a Roman citizen, he could not die by a mode so
infamous as that of the cross, but was beheaded, as a more honorable
exit; and with this view, the testimony of most of the early Fathers,
who particularize his death, distinctly accords.

  Of the various fictions which the monkish story-tellers have
  invented to gratify the curiosity which Christian readers
  feel about other particulars of the apostle’s character, the
  following is an amusing specimen. “Paul, if we may believe
  Nicephorus, was of a low and small stature, somewhat stooping;
  his complexion fair; his countenance grave; his head small; his
  eyes sparkling; his nose high and bending; and his hair thick
  and dark, but mixed with gray. His constitution was weak, and
  often subject to distempers; but his mind was strong, and endued
  with a solid judgment, quick invention, and prompt memory,
  which were all improved by art, and the advantages of a liberal
  education. Besides the epistles which are owned to be genuine,
  several other writings are falsely ascribed to him: as an
  epistle to the Laodiceans, a third to the Thessalonians, a third
  to the Corinthians, a second to the Ephesians, his letter to
  Seneca, his Acts, his Revelation, his voyage to Thecla, and his
  Sermons.” (Cave’s Lives of the Apostles.)

But the honors and saintship of Paul are recorded, not in the vague
and misty traces of bloody martyr-death, but in the far more glorious
achievements of a heroic life. In these, are contained the essence
of his greatness; to these, all the Gentile world owes its salvation;
and on these, the modern historian, following the model of the sacred
writers, dwells with far more minuteness and particularity, than on a
dull mass of uncertain tradition.




                           JOSEPH BARNABAS.


OF this apostle, so few circumstances are known, that are not
inseparably connected with the life of Paul, in which they have been
already recorded, that only a very brief space can be occupied with the
events of his distinct life. The first passage in which he is mentioned,
is that in the fourth chapter of Acts, where he is specified as having
distinguished himself among those who sold their lands, for the sake
of appropriating the avails to the support of the Christian community.
Introduced to the notice of the reader under these most honorable
circumstances, he is there described as of the tribe of Levi, and yet a
resident in the island of Cyprus, where he seems to have held the land
which he sacrificed to the purposes of religious charity. This island
was for a long time, before and after that period, inhabited by great
numbers of wealthy Jews, and there was hardly any part of the world,
where they were so powerful and so favored, as in Cyprus; so that even
the sacred order of the Levites might well find inducements to leave
that consecrated soil to which they were more especially attached
by the peculiar ordinances of the Mosaic institutions, and seek on
this beautiful and fertile island, a new home, and a new seat for the
faith of their fathers. The occasion on which Joseph (for that was his
original name) left Cyprus to visit Jerusalem, is not known; nor can
it even be determined whether he was ever himself a personal hearer of
Jesus. He may very possibly have been one of the foreign Jews present
at the Pentecost, and may there have been first converted to the
Christian faith. On his distinguishing himself among his new brethren,
both by good words and generous deeds, he was honored by the apostles
with the name of Barnabas, which is interpreted in Greek by words that
may mean either “son of _consolation_,” or “son of _exhortation_.”
The former sense, of course, would aptly refer to his generosity in
comforting the poor apostolic community, by his pecuniary contributions,
as just before mentioned; and this has induced many to prefer that
meaning; but the majority of critical translators and commentators
have been led, on a careful investigation both of the original Hebrew
word and of the Greek translation of it, to prefer the meaning of
“son of _exhortation_” or “_instruction_,” a meaning which certainly
well accords with the subsequent distinction attained by him in his
apostolic labors. Both senses may, however, have been referred to, with
an intentional equivoque.

  “Acts, chapter iv. verse 37. ὑπάρχοντος αὐτῳ ἀγροῦ He could not
  have sold that which was his paternal inheritance as a Levite;
  but this might perhaps be some legacy, or purchase of land in
  Judea, to which he might have a title till the next jubilee, or
  perhaps some land in Cyprus. (Doddridge.) That it was lawful for
  the Levites to _buy_ land, we learn from the example of Jeremiah
  himself, who was of the tribe of Levi. See Jeremiah xxxii. 17.
  It is observed by Bp. Pearce, that those commentators who
  contend that this land must have belonged to his wife, because,
  according to the law mentioned in Numbers xviii. 20, 23 and 24,
  _a Levite could have no inheritance in Israel_, seem to have
  mistaken the sense of that law, ‘which,’ says he, ‘means only
  that the Levites, as a tribe, were not to have a share in the
  division of Canaan among the other tribes. This did not hinder
  any Levite from possessing lands in Judea, either by purchase or
  by gift, as well as in right of his wife. Josephus was a Levite,
  and a priest too; and yet in his Life, chapter 76, he speaks of
  _lands which he had lying about Jerusalem_, and in exchange of
  which, Vespasian gave him others, for his greater benefit and
  advantage. After all, I see no reason why we may not suppose
  that this land, which Barnabas had and sold, was not land in
  Judea; and if so, the words of the law, “no inheritance in
  Israel,” did not, however understood, affect their case. His
  land might have been in his own country, Cyprus, an island
  of no great distance from Judea; and he might have sold it at
  Jerusalem to some purchaser there; perhaps to one of his own
  countrymen.’” (Bloomfield’s Annotations, Vol. IV. pp. 147, 148.)

In all the other passages of the New Testament in which he is
mentioned, he is associated with Paul, and every recorded act of his
life has been already given in the life of his great associate. His
first acquaintance with him on his return to Jerusalem after his
conversion,――his mission to Antioch and labors there in conjunction
with Paul, when he had brought him from Tarsus,――their visit to
Jerusalem,――their return to Antioch,――their first great mission through
Asia Minor――their visit to Jerusalem at the council, and their joint
report,――their second return to Antioch,――their proposed association
in a new mission,――their quarrel and separation,――have all been fully
detailed; nor is there any authentic source from which any facts can
be derived, as to the subsequent incidents of his life. All that is
related of him in the Acts, is, that after his separation from Paul, he
sailed to Cyprus; nor is any mention made, in any of the epistles, of
his subsequent life. The time and place of his death are also unknown.




                              JOHN MARK.


OF the family and birth of this eminent apostolic associate, it is
recorded in the New Testament, that his mother was named Mary, and had
a house in Jerusalem, which was a regular place of religious assembly,
for the Christians in that city; for Peter on his deliverance from
prison, went directly thither, as though sure of finding there some
of the brethren; and he actually did find a number of them assembled
for prayer. Of the other connections of Mark, the interesting fact is
recorded, that Mary, his mother, was the sister of Barnabas; and he was
therefore by the maternal line, at least, of Levite descent. From the
mode in which Mary is mentioned, it would seem that her husband was
dead at that time; but nothing else can be inferred about the father of
Mark. The first event in which he is distinctly mentioned as concerned,
is the return of Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem to Antioch, after
Peter’s escape. These two apostles, on this occasion, are said to have
“taken with them, John whose surname was Mark;” and he is afterwards
mentioned under either of these names, or both together. The former was
his original appellation; but being exceedingly common among the Jews,
and being, moreover, borne by one of the apostles, it required another
distinctive word to be joined with it. It is remarkable that a Roman,
heathen appellation, was chosen for this purpose;――_Marcus_, which is
the true form in the original, being a name of purely Latin origin,
and one of the commonest praenomens among the Romans. It might have
been the name of some person connected with the Roman government in
Jerusalem, who had distinguished himself as a friend or patron of the
family: but the conjecture is hardly worth offering.

After returning with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, he was next called
to accompany them as an assistant in their apostolic voyage through
Cyprus and Asia Minor; but on their coming to Perga, in Pamphylia,
he suddenly left them and returned to Jerusalem;――a change of purpose
which was considered, by Paul at least, as resulting from a want of
resolution, steadiness, or courage, and was the occasion of a very
serious difficulty; for Mark having returned to Antioch afterwards, was
taken by Barnabas, as a proper associate on the proposed mission over
the former fields of labor; but Paul utterly rejected him, because he
had already, on the same route, once deserted them, when they needed
his services, and he therefore refused to go in his company again. This
difference was the occasion of that unhappy contention, the incidents
of which have already been particularly detailed in the Life of Paul.
Mark however, being resolutely supported by his uncle, accompanied him
to Cyprus; but of his next movement, as little is known as in respect
to Barnabas. The next occasion on which his name is mentioned, is by
Paul, in his epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, as being then
with him in Rome; from which it appears, the great apostle had now
for a long time been reconciled to him, and esteemed him as a valuable
associate in the ministry. He is not mentioned in the epistle to the
Philippians, which therefore makes it probable that he had then gone to
the east. In the second epistle to Timothy, Paul requests that Mark may
be sent to him, because he is profitable to him for the ministry; which
is a most abundant testimony to his merits, and to the re-establishment
of Paul’s confidence in his zeal, resolution, and ability. Whether
he was actually sent to Rome as requested, does not appear;――but he
is afterwards distinctly mentioned by Peter, in that epistle which he
wrote from Babylon, as being then with him. The title of “son,” which
Peter gives him, seems to imply a very near and familiar intimacy
between them; and is probably connected with the circumstance of his
being made the subject of the chief apostle’s particular religious
instructions in his youth, in consequence of the frequent meetings
of the brethren at the house of his mother, Mary. This passage is
sufficient evidence that after Mark had finally left Rome, he journeyed
eastward and joined Peter, his venerable first instructor, who, as has
already been abundantly shown in his Life, was at this time in Babylon,
whence, in the year 65, he wrote his first epistle.

  “It is thought by Benson that Mark departed because his
  presence was required by the apostles for converting the Jews of
  Palestine. But why then should Paul have expressed indignation
  at his departure? The same objection will apply to the
  conjecture of others, that he departed on account of ill-health.
  The most probable opinion is that of Grotius, Wetstein, Bengel,
  Heumann, and others, that Mark was, _at that time_, somewhat
  averse to labors and dangers; this, indeed, is clear from the
  words, καὶ μὴ συνελθόντα αὐτοῖς εἰς τό ἔργον. Thus ἀφίστημι
  is used of _defection_ in Luke viii. 13. 1 Timothy iv. 1. It
  should seem that Mark had now repented of his inconstancy; (and,
  as Bengel thinks, new ardor had been infused into him by the
  decree of the Synod at Jerusalem, and the free admission of
  the Gentiles;) and hence his kind-hearted and obliging relation
  Barnabas wished to take him as a companion of their present
  journey. But Paul, who had ‘no respect of persons,’ Galatians
  ii. 11, and thought that disposition rather than relationship
  should be consulted, distrusted the constancy of Mark, and
  was therefore unwilling to take him. This severity of Paul,
  however, rendered much service both to Mark and to the cause of
  Christianity. For Mark profited by the well-meant admonition,
  and was, for the future, more zealous and courageous; and the
  gospel, being preached in different places at the same time, was
  the more widely propagated. Nor were the bands of amity between
  Paul and Barnabas permanently separated by this disagreement.
  See 1 Corinthians ix. 6. Nay, Paul afterwards received Mark
  into his friendship. See Colossians iv. 10. 2 Timothy iv. 11.
  Philemon 23.” Kuinoel. (Bloomfield’s Annotations, Vol. IV. p.
  504, 505.)


                              HIS GOSPEL.

The circumstance which makes this apostle more especially eminent, and
makes him an object of interest to the Christian reader, is, that he
is the author of an important portion of the historical sacred canon.
Respecting the gospel of Mark, the testimony of some very early and
valuable accounts given by the Fathers, is, that he wrote under the
general direction and superintendence of his spiritual father, Peter;
and from this early and uniform tradition, he accordingly bears the
name of “Peter’s interpreter.” The very common story is also, that
it was written in _Rome_, but this is not asserted on any early or
trustworthy authority, and must be condemned, along with all those
statements which pretend that the chief apostle ever was in Italy.
Others affirm also, that it was published by him in Alexandria; but
this story comes on too late authority to be highly esteemed. Taking
as true, the very reasonable statement of the early Fathers, that
when he wrote, he had the advantage of the personal assistance or
superintendence of Peter, it is very fair to conclude, that Babylon
was the place in which it was written, and that its date was about the
same with that of the epistle of Peter, in which Mark is mentioned as
being with him. Peter was then old; and Mark himself, doubtless too
young to have been an intelligent hearer of Jesus, would feel the great
importance of having a correct and well-authorized record prepared,
to which the second generation of Christians might look for the sure
testimonies of those divine words, whose spoken accounts were then
floating in the parting breath of the few and venerable apostles, and
in the memories of their favored hearers. As long as the apostles lived
and preached, there was little or no need of a written gospel. All
believers in Christ had been led to that faith by the living words of
his inspired hearers and personal disciples. But when these were gone,
other means would be wanted for the perpetuation of the authenticated
truth; and to afford these means to the greatest possible number,
and to those most especially in want of such a record, from the
fact that they had never seen nor heard either Jesus or his personal
disciples,――Mark chose the Greek as the proper language in which to
make this communication to the world.

His gospel is so much like that of Matthew, containing hardly a single
passage which is not given by that writer, that it has been very
confidently believed by many theologians who suppose an early date to
Matthew’s gospel, that Mark had that gospel before him when he wrote,
and merely epitomized it. The verbal coincidences between the two
gospels, in their present state, are so numerous and striking, that
it has been considered impossible to account for them on any other
supposition than this. But these and other questions have filled
volumes, and have exercised the skill of critics for ages; nor can any
justice be done them by a hasty abstract. It seems sufficient, however,
to answer all queries about these verbal coincidences, without meddling
with the question of prior date, by a reference to the fact that,
during the whole period, intervening between the death of Christ, and
the writing of the gospels, the apostles and first preachers had been
proclaiming, week after week, and day after day, an oral or spoken
gospel, in which they were constantly repeating before each other, and
before different hearers, the narrative of the words and actions of
Jesus. These accounts by this constant routine of repetition, would
unavoidably assume a regular established form, which would at last
be the standard account of the acts and words of the Savior. These,
Mark, of course, adopted when he wrote, and the other evangelists doing
the same, the coincidences mentioned would naturally result; and as
different apostles, though speaking under the influence of inspiration,
would yet make numerous slight variations in words, and in the minor
circumstances expressed or suppressed, the different writers following
one account or the other, would make the trifling variations also
noticeable. The only peculiarity that can be noticed in Mark, is,
that he very uniformly suppresses all those splendid testimonies
to the merits and honors of Peter, with which the others abound,――a
circumstance at once easily traceable to the fact that Peter himself
was the immediate director of the work, and with that noble modesty,
which always distinguished the great apostolic chief, would naturally
avoid any allusion to matters which so highly exalted his own merits.
Otherwise, the narrative of Mark can be characterized only as a plain
statement of the incidents in the public life of Jesus, with very few
of his discourses, and none of his words at so great length as in the
other gospels; from which it is evident, that an account of his acts
rather than his sermons,――of his doings rather than his sayings, is
what he designed to give.

  “Among all the quotations hitherto made from the writings of
  the most ancient Fathers, we find no mention made of Mark’s
  having published his gospel at Alexandria. This report, however,
  prevailed in the fourth century, as appears from what is related
  by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome. It is first mentioned by
  Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. ii. cap. 16. It
  appears from the word φασιν, that Eusebius mentions this only as
  a report; and what is immediately added in the same place, that
  the persons, whose severity of life and manners is described
  by Philo, were the converts which Mark made at Alexandria, is
  evidently false. Epiphanius, in his fifty-first Heresy, ch. vi.
  gives some account of it. According to his statement, Mark
  wrote his gospel in Rome, while Peter was teaching the Christian
  religion in that city; and after he had written it, he was sent
  by Peter into Egypt. A similar account is given by Jerome in
  his ‘Treatise on Illustrious Men,’ ch. viii. Lastly, the Coptic
  Christians of the present age consider Mark as the founder and
  first bishop of their church; and their Patriarch styles himself,
  ‘Unworthy servant of Jesus Christ, called by the grace of God,
  and by his gracious will appointed to his service, and to the
  see of the holy evangelist Mark.’ The Copts pretend likewise,
  that Mark was murdered by a band of robbers, near the lake
  Menzale; but if this account be true, he was hardly buried
  at Alexandria, and his tomb in that city must be one of the
  forgeries of early superstition.” (Michaelis, Vol. III. pp.
  207‒209.)

  That it is not wholly new to rank Mark among the _apostles_,
  is shown by the usages of the Fathers, who, in the application
  of terms, are authority, as far as they show the opinions
  prevalent in their times. Eusebius says, “that in the eighth
  year of Nero, Anianus, the first bishop of Alexandria after Mark,
  the _apostle_ and ♦evangelist, took upon him the care of that
  church.” Πρωτος μετα Μαρκον τον αποστολον και ευαγγελιστην, της
  εν Αλεξανδρειᾳ παροίκιας, Ανιανος την λειτουργιαν διαδεχεται.
  Church History, I. 2. cap. 24. (Lardner’s Credibility of Gospel
  History, Vol. III. p. 176.)

    ♦ “avangelist” replaced with “evangelist”

Of the later movements of Mark, nothing is known with certainty.
Being evidently younger than most of the original apostles, it is not
unreasonable to suppose that he long survived them; but his field of
labor is unknown. The common tradition among the Fathers, after the
third century, is, that he went to Alexandria, and there founding a
church, became bishop of it till his death;――but the statement is mixed
up with so much that is palpably false, that it is not entitled to any
credit.




                                 LUKE.


  VERY little direct mention is made of this valuable contributor
  to the sacred canon, in any part of the New Testament; and those
  notices which seem to refer to him, are so vague, that they have
  been denied to have any connection with the evangelist. The name
  which is given in the title of his gospel is, in the original
  form, _Lucas_, a name undoubtedly of Latin origin, but shown
  by its final syllable to be a Hebrew-Greek corruption and
  abridgment of some pure Roman word; for it was customary for
  the New Testament writers to make these changes, to accord with
  their own forms of utterance. Lucas, therefore, is an abridgment
  of some one of two or three Roman words, either Lucius, Lucilius
  or Lucanus; and as the writers of that age were accustomed
  to write either the full or abridged form of any such name,
  indifferently, it seems allowable to recognize the Lucius
  mentioned in Acts and in the Epistle to the Romans, as the same
  person with the evangelist. From the manner in which this Lucius
  is mentioned in the last chapter of the Epistle to the Romans,
  it would seem that he was related to Paul by blood or marriage,
  since the apostle mentions him along with Jason and Sosipater,
  as his “kinsman.” In the beginning of the thirteenth chapter of
  Acts, Lucius is called “the Cyrenian,” whence his country may
  be inferred to have been the province of northern Africa, called
  Cyrene, long and early the seat of Grecian refinement, art,
  eloquence and philosophy, and immortalized by having given
  name to one of the sects of Grecian philosophers,――the Cyrenaic
  school, founded by Aristippus. Whether he was a Jew by birth,
  or a heathen, is not known, and has been much disputed. His
  birth and education in that seat of Grecian literature, may be
  reasonably considered as having contributed to that peculiar
  elegance of his language and style, which distinguishes him as
  the most correct of all the writers of the New Testament.

  His relationship to Paul, (if it may be believed on so slight
  grounds,) was probably a reason for his accompanying him as he
  did through so large a portion of his travels and labors. He
  first speaks of himself as a companion of Paul, at the beginning
  of his first voyage to Europe, at Troas; and accompanies him
  to Philippi, where he seems to have parted from him, since, in
  describing the movements of the apostolic company, he no longer
  uses the pronoun “_we_.” He probably staid in or near Philippi
  several years, for he resumes the word, in describing Paul’s
  voyage from Philippi to Jerusalem. He was his companion as
  far as Caesarea, where he probably staid during Paul’s visit
  to Jerusalem; remained with him perhaps during his two years’
  imprisonment in Caesarea, and was certainly his companion on
  his voyage to Rome. He remained with him there till a short time
  before his release; and is mentioned no more till Paul, in his
  last writing, the second epistle to Timothy, says, “Luke alone
  is with me.” Beyond this, not the slightest trace remains of
  his history. Nothing additional is known of him, except that he
  was a physician; for he is mentioned by Paul, in his Epistle to
  the Colossians, as “Luke, the beloved physician.” The miserable
  fiction of some of the papistical romances, that Luke was also a
  painter, and took portraits of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, &c.
  is almost too shamelessly impudent to be ever mentioned; yet the
  venerable Cave, the only writer who has heretofore given in full
  the Lives of the Apostles, refers to it, without daring to deny
  its truth!

  (That Luke was also regarded by the Fathers as an _apostle_, is
  shown by the fact that, in the Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius,
  it is said, ‘that the gospel of Luke was dictated by the apostle
  Paul, and written and published by the blessed _apostle_ and
  physician, Luke.’)


                             HIS WRITINGS.

  But a far more valuable testimony of the character of Luke is
  found in those noble works which bear his name in the inspired
  canon. His _gospel_ is characterized by remarkable distinctness
  of expression and clearness of conception, which, with that
  correctness of language by which it is distinguished above
  all the other books of the New Testament, conspire to make
  it the most easy to be understood of all the writings of the
  New Testament; and it has been the subject of less comment and
  criticism than any other of the sacred books. From the language
  which he uses in his preface, about those who had undertaken
  similar works before him, it would seem that though several
  unauthorized accounts of the life and discourses of Jesus were
  published before him, yet neither of the other gospels were
  known by him to have been written. He promises, by means of a
  thorough investigation of all facts to the sources, to give a
  more complete statement than had ever before been given to those
  for whom he wrote. Of the _time_ when he wrote it, therefore, it
  seems fair to conclude, that it was before the other two; but a
  vast number of writers have thought differently, and many other
  explanations of his words have been offered. Of his immediate
  sources of information,――the place where he wrote, and the
  particular person to whom he addresses it, nothing is known with
  sufficient certainty to be worth recording.

  Of the _Acts of the Apostles_, nothing need be said in respect
  to the contents and object, so clear and distinct is this
  beautiful piece of biography, in all particulars. Its date may
  be fixed with exactness at the end of the second year of Paul’s
  first imprisonment, which, according to common calculations, is
  A. D. 63. It may well become the modern apostolic historian, in
  closing with the mention of this writing his own prolonged yet
  hurried work, to acknowledge the excellence, the purity, and
  the richness of the source from which he has thus drawn so large
  a portion of the materials of the greatest of these Lives. Yet
  what can he add to the bright testimonies accumulated through
  long ages, to the honor and praise of this most noble of
  historic records? The learned of eighteen centuries have spent
  the best energies of noble minds, and long studious lives, in
  comment and in illustration of its clear, honest truth, and
  its graphic beauty; the humble, inquiring Christian reader, in
  every age too, has found, and in every age will find, in this,
  the only safe and faithful outline of the great events of the
  apostolic history. The most perfect and permanent impression,
  which a long course of laborious investigation and composition
  has left on the author’s mind, of the task which he now lays
  down, exhausted yet not disgusted, is, that beyond the apostolic
  history of Luke, nothing can be known with certainty of the
  great persons of whose acts he treats, except the disconnected
  and floating circumstances which may be gleaned by implication
  from the epistles; and so marked is the transition from the
  pure honesty of the sacred record, to the grossness of patristic
  fiction, that the truth is, even to a common eye, abundantly
  well characterized by its own excellence. On the passages of
  such a narrative, the lights of ♦criticism, of Biblical learning,
  and of contemporary history, may often be needed, to make
  the sometimes unconnected parts appear in their true historic
  relations. The writer who draws therefrom, too, the facts for
  a connected biography, may, in the amplifications of a modern
  style, perhaps more to the surprise than the admiration of his
  readers, quite protract the bare simplicity of the original
  record, “in many a winding bout of linked” wordiness, “long
  drawn out,”――but the modernizing extension and illustration,
  though it may bring small matters more prominently to the notice
  and perception of the reader, can never supply the place of the
  original,――to improve which, comment and illustration are alike
  vain. When will human learning and labor perfect the exposition
  and the illustration of the apostolic history? Its comments
  are written in the eternal hope of uncounted millions;――its
  illustrations can be fully read only in the destiny of ages.
  This record was the noble task of “the beloved physician;” in
  his own melodious language――“To give knowledge to the people, of
  salvation by remission of sins through the tender mercy of our
  God, whereby the day-spring from on high hath visited us,――to
  give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of
  death,――to guide OUR feet in the way of peace!”

    ♦ “critiicism” replaced with “criticism”




                               ♦ERRATA.

    ♦ All errata noted in this list has been corrected in the
      foregoing text.


  Page 7, line 32, for ‘Griechisch_e_’ read ‘Griechisch.’

  Page 9, line 7, for ‘verse 7,’ read ‘verse 2.’

  Page 10, line 22, for ‘15’, read ‘25.’

  Page ♦14, line 38, for ‘Indus,’ read ‘Euphrates.’

    ♦ “11” replaced with “14”

  Page 18, line 36, for ‘P_e_rtuensis,’ read ‘P_o_rtuensis.’

  Page 25, line 36, for ‘dreams,’ read ‘dream.’

  Page 38, line 33, for ‘not,’ read ‘only once.’

  Page 45, line 17, delete ‘the number of’.

  Page 65, line 23, for ‘after,’ read ‘over;’
           line 37 for ‘was,’ read ‘were. ’

  Page 67, line 39, for ‘avert,’ read ’snatch.’

  Page 78, line 2, for ‘ha_v_e,’ read ‘ha_s_;’
           line 26, for ‘account_s_,’ read ‘account.’

  Page 107, line 26, before ‘not,’ read ‘he.’

  Page 110, line 22, for ‘an hour,’ read ‘three hours.’

  Page 140, line 28, for ‘pr_o_position,’ read ‘pr_e_position.’

  Page 220, line 44, for ‘Or that,’ read ‘And by.’

  Page 224, line 20, after ‘sake,’ insert ‘of.’

  Page 225, line 25, for ‘of any,’ read ‘by any.’

  Page 242, line 28, for ‘Aeg_i_an,’ read ‘Aeg_e_an.’

  Page 249, line 34, for ‘as early as A. D. 200,’ read
              ‘before A. D. 100;’
            line 35, after ‘books,’ read
              ‘supposed to have been written before that translation.’

  Page 262, line 15, for ‘inherit_s_,’ read ‘inherit.’

  Page 288, line 25, for ‘second,’ read ‘third.’

  Page 312, line 27, for ‘or,’ read ‘and.’

  Page 508, transpose ‘Lois,’ in line 31, with ‘Eunice,’ in line 35.

  Page 522, line 24, for ‘Nereid,’ read ‘Naiad.’

  Page 45, line 9, before ‘baptizer,’ insert ‘his.’

  Page 10, line 61, in the second Hebrew word, the final letter
              should be not ה but ח.

  The statement on page 339, respecting the exposition of the
  Apocalypse by Clarke, appears, on a more careful investigation,
  to represent his views rather too decidedly as favoring the
  ancient interpretation. His own notes are such as unquestionably
  support that interpretation; but he has so far conformed to
  popular prejudice, as to admit on his pages some very elaborate
  anti-papal explanations from an anonymous writer, (J. E. C.)
  which, however, he is very far from adopting as his own. The
  uniform expression made by his own clear and learned notes, must
  be decidedly favorable to the ancient interpretation, and the
  value of his noble work is vastly enhanced by this circumstance.

  The view on pages 355 and 361, of the locality of Philip’s and
  Nathanael’s conversion, is undoubtedly erroneous. I overlooked
  the form of the expression――“The next day, Jesus would go forth
  into Galilee, and findeth Philip,” &c. This shows that he was
  still at Bethabara when he called both Philip and Nathanael.


                              MATERIALS.

  In the narrative of the lives of the twelve, the author has been
  driven entirely to the labor of new research and composition,
  because the task of composing complete biographies of these
  personages had never before been undertaken on so large a scale.
  Cave’s Lives of the Apostles, the only work that has ever gone
  over that ground, is much more limited in object and extent
  than the task here undertaken, and afforded no aid whatever
  to the author of this work, in those biographies. Both the
  text and the notes of that part of the work are entirely new;
  nothing whatever, except a few acknowledged quotations, of
  those biographies, having ever appeared before on this subject.
  A list of the works which were resorted to in the prosecution
  of this new work, would fill many pages, and would answer no
  useful purpose, after the numerous references made to each
  source in connection with the passage which was thence derived.
  It is sufficient in justice to himself to say that all those
  references were made by the author himself; nor in one instance
  that can now be recollected, did he quote second-hand without
  acknowledging the intermediate source. In the second part of
  the work, the labor was in a field less completely occupied by
  previous labor. But throughout that part of the work also, the
  whole text of the narrative is original; and all the fruits of
  others’ research are, with hardly one exception, credited in
  the notes, both to the original, and to the medium through which
  they were derived. In this portion of the work, much labor has
  been saved, by making use of the very full illustrations given
  in the works of those who had preceded the author on the life of
  Paul, whose biography has frequently received the attention and
  labor of the learned.

  The following have been most useful in this part of the work.
  “Hermanni Witsii Meletemata Leidensia, Part 1. Vita Pauli
  Apostoli.” 4to. Leidiae, 1703.――“Der Apostel Paulus. Von J. T.
  Hemsen.” 8vo. Goettingen, 1830.――“Pearson’s Annals of Paul,
  translated, with notes, by Jackson Muspratt Williams.” 12mo.
  Cambridge, 1827.――Much valuable matter contained in the two
  first, however, was excluded by want of room.