§ 3. The first care of the apostles after our Saviour's ascension, was to make up their number to twelve, according to Christ's own precedent, by electing a holier person to the place of Judas, who had laid violent hands on himself. Therefore, the little company of Christ's servants at Jerusalem being assembled, two men highly conspicuous for piety and faith in Christ, Barnabas and Matthias, were proposed as the most worthy of that office. One of these, Matthias, either by lot, which is the general opinion, or by a majority of the suffrages of the persons present, was constituted the twelfth apostle.' § 4. As all these twelve ambassadors of Christ were plain, unlettered men, while the Christian community, though still in its infancy, needed a man who could attack and overcome both Jewish doctors and Gentile philosophers with weapons of their own; Jesus Christ himself, soon after the appointment of Matthias, by a voice from heaven, created a thirteenth apostle. This was Saul, who subsequently chose the name of Paul, and who had been a most virulent enemy of the Christians, but in whom a first-rate skill in Jewish learning was combined with a knowledge of the Grecian. To this truly admirable man, whether we consider his courage, his force of mind, or his patience and fortitude under difficulties, how much the Christian world is indebted, every body knows from the Acts of the Apostles and his own Epistles. § 5. The first of all the Christian churches founded by the apostles, was that of Jerusalem: after the form and model of which all the others of that age were constituted. That church, however, was governed immediately by the apostles; to whom were subject both the presbyters, and those who took care of the poor, or deacons. Though the people had not withdrawn themselves from the Jewish worship, yet they held their own separate meetings; in which they received instruction from the apostles and presbyters; poured forth united prayers; kept up, in the sacred supper, a remembrance of Jesus Christ, of his death, and of the salvation gotten by him; lastly, manifested their mutual love, partly by liberality to the poor, partly by those temperate repasts, which from their design were called love-feasts.3 primitive Christians, rather than of their Christian character and conduct in general. See his Comment. de Rebus Christ. &c. p. 113-116. If Mosheim's interpretation of that text is erroneous, as most interpreters think it is, this account of the mode of worship in the apostolic church, rests on a slender basis. Tr.-Mosheim's notion of primitive worship, founded upon this text, is, that it consisted of preaching, a collection for the poor, analogous to the offertory collections of later times, the administration of the Eucharist, and prayer. The principal difficulty in fixing this construction upon the words of St. Luke here, lies upon the second member in the series. The original word is Kowwvia, which our translators have rendered fellowship, and Among the virtues by which this first family of our Saviour's was distinguished, that which soonest struck attention was care for the needy and distressed. For the richer members liberally supplied what the necessities of their brethren required, and moreover with such a ready mind, that Luke writes of the goods of all as common to all.' These words, though commonly understood as implying community of possessions, have been so taken without sufficient inquiry, as is manifest both from St. Peter's words,' and other things. They mean only community of use.3 § 6. The ambassadors of Christ, leaving Jerusalem, travelled over a great part of the world; and in a short time collected numerous religious societies in various countries. Of churches founded by them, not a small number is mentioned in the sacred books, especially in the Acts of the apostles. Besides these, there can be no doubt, they collected many others; both by their own efforts, and by the efforts of their followers. But how far they travelled, what nations they visited, or when and where they died, is exceedingly dubious and uncertain. The stories often told respecting their travels among which Grotius takes to mean religious conference, but which is used, both in the New Testament and elsewhere, for an eleemosynary contribution. See Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. ix. 13; Heb. xiii. 16; and Suicer in voc. Kowvwvía. S.] 1 Acts ii. 44; iv. 32. Acts v. 4. [It is an ancient opinion, though not older than the fourth century, that in the church of Jerusalem there was such a community of goods, as existed among the ancient Essenes, and now among monks. But this opinion is destitute of any solid foundation; resting solely on the declaration of Luke, that they had all things common. See my Diss. de vera natura communionis bonorum in ecclesia Hierosolym., which is the first in the second volume of my Dissert. ad historiam eccl. pertinentes. Mosheim, de Rebus Christ. fc. p. 118.] The names of these churches are collected by P. J. Hartmann, de Rebus gestis Christianor. sub Apostolis, c. vii. p. 107; and by J. A. Fabricius, Lux Evang. &c. c. v. p. 83, &c. [It is a very ancient and current report, confirmed by many witnesses, that all the apostles suffered public martyrdom, with the exception of St. John, who died a natural death at Ephesus. And this opinion is so firmly believed by many who would not be thought credulous, that to call it in question, is to run some hazard of being charged with slandering those holy men. Such as please, may believe the account; but let them not be offended, if I declare the martyrdom of most of the apostles to be less certain than they suppose. That Peter, Paul, and James died violent deaths, I believe, on the testimony of the numerous ancient authors; but that the other apostles did so, I cannot feel so certain. As my first ground of doubt, a very ancient writer of the second century, Heracleon, a Valentinian, indeed, but no contemptible man, cited by Clemens Alex. Strom. 1. iv. c. 9, denies that Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and others, confessed Christ before magistrates, and were put to death for so doing. He is urging, that the public confession of himself required by the Saviour, Matt. x. 32, may be made by a holy and Christian life, as well as by a public avowal before a persecuting magistrate; and he states as proof, Οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ σωζόμενοι ὡμολόγησαν τὴν διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὡμολογίαν, καὶ ἐξῆλθον. Ἐξ ὧν Ματθαῖος, Φίλιππος, Θωμᾶς, Λευῒς, καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ, for not all that were saved, made that confession in words (before magistrates), and so died. Of this number was Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and many others. Clement, though he disapproves several things in the passage he quotes, leaves this statement to stand as it is; which is proof that he had nothing to allege against it. Philip is expressly declared not to have suffered martyrdom, but to have died and been buried at Hierapolis; so says Polycrates, in his Epistle to Victor, in Eusebius, H. E. v. 24. Baronius, indeed (Annals, A. D 35, § 141), and after him many others, maintain, that this was not Philip the Apostle, but Philip, one of the seven deacons of Jerusalem. But Polycrates says the Gauls, the Britons, the Spaniards, the Germans, the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Russians, are too recent and unsubstantial to be received by an inquisitive lover of the truth.' A expressly, that he was one of the twelve apostles. A still stronger argument is, that all the writers of the three first centuries, and among them such as contended for the high dignity of the martyrs, in opposition to the Valentinians, viz. Tertullian, Clemens Alex., and Origen, never mention but three of the apostles as being martyrs; namely, Peter, Paul, and James the elder. See Tertullian, Scorpiace, cap. xv.-I am therefore led to believe, that the common reports respecting the sufferings of Christ's ambassadors were fabricated, after the days of Constantine. And two causes might lead to such reports. (1.) The extravagant estimation in which martyrdom was held made it seem necessary to rank the apostles among the martyrs. (2.) The ambiguity of the word μáprup, martyr, which properly signifies a witness, in which sense Christ himself called his apostles μáprupes (Acts i. 8, see also Acts ii. 32), might lead the more ignorant to believe, and to amplify these fables. Mosheim de Rebus Christ. &c., pp. 81-84 abridged considerably. Tr.] 1 [There is not one of the European nations that does not glory, in either an apostle, or some one of the seventy disciples, or at least in some early saint commissioned by an apostle, as having come among them and collected a Christian church. The Spaniards say, that the apostles Paul and James the elder, with many of the seventy disciples, and other assistants of the apostles, introduced the light of the gospel into their country. And a Spaniard would bring himself into trouble if he should confront this opinion. The French contend that Crescens, a disciple and companion of Paul, Dionysius the Areopagite, Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, &c., first brought their countrymen to profess Christ. Among the Italians there is scarcely a city which does not profess to have received the gospel, and its first minister from Paul or Peter. See P. Giannone, Histoire civile du royaume de Naples, t. i. 74, 75. And at this day a man could not escape the charge of heresy, who should raise a question on this subject See J. Lamy, Deliciæ eruditorum, t. viii. Pref. and t. xi. Preface. The Germans assert that Maternus, Valerianus, and many others were sent among them by the apostles; and that these legates of St. Peter, and of the other apostles, baptized respectable numbers of persons. The British think that St. Paul (as they infer from Clemens Rom. first Epistle to the Corinthians), Simon Zelotes, Aristobulus, and especially Joseph of Arimathea, were the founders of their church. The Russians, Poles, and Prussians, honour St. Andrew as the founder of their churches. All this, and much more, passed for sober truth, so long as sacred and human learning lay buried in shades and darkness. But at this day, the most learned and wise admit, that most of these stories were fabricated after the age of Charlemagne, by men unlearned, or crafty and eager to secure distinction to their churches. See Aug. Calmet's Histoire de Lorraine, t. i. p. xxvi. Le Beuf, Diss. sur l'histoire de France, i. 192, &c. Jo. Launoi, Diss. qua locus Sulpitii Severi de primis Gallie martyribus, defenditur, Opp. t. ii. pt. i. p. 184. — I commend these writers; yet cannot agree with them in dating the commencement of this foolish zeal for the antiquity of their churches, after the days of Charlemagne. It began much earlier. See Gregory Turon. de Gloria martyrum, cap. xii. p. 735.' Mosheim, de Reb. Christ. &c. pp. 84 -86. It must not be inferred from what Mosheim says of the foolish pretensions of the modern European nations to a high Christian antiquity, that we are to reject all that the ancient fathers relate, concerning the labours of the apostles after Christ's ascension. Mosheim was too judicious to do this. He says, ubi supra, pp. 80, 81: As to what we are told respecting the transactions of the apostles, their travels, miracles, and death, if we except what is gathered from the New Test. and a few other ancient monuments, a large part is dubious and uncertain. Some things, however, have more credibility and verisimilitude than others. I would not reject all that is clearly attested by Origen, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Paulinus, Jerome, Socrates, and some more ancient writers quoted by Eusebius; but what is attested only by authors subsequent to these, or unknown, I would not readily believe, unless facts offer themselves to corroborate the testimony.' Following these judicious rules, we may believe that Peter, after preaching long in Judea, and other parts of Syria, probably visited Babylon, Asia Minor, and finally Rome, where he was crucified.-Paul's history is given in the Acts to about A.D. 64. He was probably released from captivity, visited Judea, Asia Minor, and Greece, and returning to Rome was there beheaded about A.D. 67 or 68. John remained many years in Judea, and afterwards removed to Ephesus, where he lived to a very advanced great part of these fables came forward after the age of Charles the Great; when most of the Christian churches contended as vehemently, about the antiquity of their respective origins, as ever did in former days the Arcadians, Egyptians, Greeks, and other nations. § 7. Many who were unwilling to adopt entirely the religion of Christ, were induced, nevertheless, by the fame of his deeds, and the sublime purity of his doctrines, to rank him among men of the highest excellence, and even among the gods; as appears from numerous documents. With great veneration, many kept figures of Christ and of his apostles in their houses. The Emperor Tiberius has the credit of desiring to enrol Christ among the gods of Rome, but to have been unable, because he was resisted by the senate. Although many, at the present day, think this improbable, there are, nevertheless, weighty reasons which lead no common men to a different opinion.3 age, dying about A. D. 100. He was banished to Patmos about A.D. 95, and was greatly revered. James the elder (brother of John) was put to death by Herod Agrippa about A. D. 44 (Acts xii. 1). James the younger, the son of Alphæus, spent his life in Judea, long presided over the church of Jerusalem, and there suffered martyrdom, a little before the destruction of Jerusalem. Andrew probably laboured on the shores of the Black Sea, near the modern Constantinople, and perhaps in Greece. Philip, either the apostle or the evangelist, is reported to have ended his days at Hierapolis, in Phrygia. Thomas seems to have travelled eastward, to Parthia, Media, Persia, and India. Bartholomew took, perhaps, a more southern course, and preached in Arabia. Matthew is also reported to have travelled east, in the modern Persia. Of Simon the Canaanite nothing to be relied on can be said. Thaddeus, Lebbeus, or Jude the brother of James, the author of an epistle, is reported to have preached at Edessa, in the north of Syria. Of the companions of the apostles, Timothy, after accompanying Paul many years, is said to have been stationed at Ephesus, where he suffered martyrdom under Domitian or Nerva. Titus, another companion of Paul, is reported to have been stationed in Crete, where he died. Mark, or John surnamed Mark, attended Paul, and afterwards Peter, and probably preached the gospel in Egypt. Of Luke, little can be said, except that he accompanied Paul, and wrote his history, viz. the book of Acts, and a Gospel. Of Barnabas, nothing can be said worth relating, except what is learned from the New Testament. See J. A. Fabricius, Lux Evangelii, &c. ch. v. pp. 95-115. Tr.] [The late Dr. Burton thought St. Paul's death referrible to some period between the years 64 and 66, inclusively, probably 66, the 13th of Nero. From his conversion to his death, 35 years seem to have elapsed. An Attempt to ascertain the Chronology of the Acts of the Apostles and of St. Paul's Epistles, Oxford, 1830, p. 104. S.] 1 Eusebius, H. E. vii. 18. Irenæus, Hæres. i. 25, p. 105, edit. Massuet. 2 [Tiberius ergo, cujus tempore nomen christianum in seculum introivit, annunciata sibi ex Syria Palestina, quæ illic veritatem illius divinitatis revelaverant, detulit ad senatum cum prærogativa suffragii sui. Senatus, quia non ipse probaverat, respuit. Cæsar in sententia mansit, comminatus periculum accusatoribus christianorum.' (Tertull. Apol. c. 5). In this passage Pearson would read, quia non in se probaverat, for quia non ipse probaverat, "and interpret the sentence thus: the senate rejected the proposal, because Tiberius had not approved a similar proposal in his own case -had himself refused to be deified. Lardner contends that this must be the meaning, even if ipse is retained. But a sentence which precedes, Vetus erat decretum, ne qui Deus ab imperatore consecraretur, nisi a senatu probatus, shows that ipse refers to senatus: the senate refused, because it had not itself approved the proposal; and so the passage was translated in the Greek version used by Eusebius. In a subsequent passage, Tertullian states, that the account of those supernatural events which proved the divinity of Christ, was sent to Tiberius by Pilate, who was in his conscience a Christian, and adds an expression which implies that worldly considerations alone prevented Tiberius from believing in Christ. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 110. S.] [Of the favourable disposition of the Roman emperors towards Christianity, there is a noticeable testimony in the Apology of Melito of Sardis addressed to Marcus § 8. The causes must have been divine, which enabled men destitute of all human aid, poor, friendless, neither eloquent, nor learned, fishermen, publicans, and moreover Jews, that is, persons odious to all other nations-in so short a time, to persuade a great part of mankind to abandon the religions of their fathers, and to embrace a new religion, which is opposed to the natural dispositions of men. Their very words in fact acted on the mind with a force that could scarcely be believed, and that could come only from above. To it were added prodigies and miracles, a prophetic declaration of things to come, the discovery of hidden counsels, loftiness of mind in the greatest emergencies, contempt for all the objects of ordinary ambition, a patient, cheerful endurance of sufferings worse than death, as well as of death itself, and finally, lives without a single spot. Among the things that men believe most firmly, no one is more unquestionable than that Jesus Christ's ambassadors had all these qualifications, and in abundance. Imagine these holy men without such endowments, and no probable reason can be given for the rapid propagation of Christianity by a band so small and feeble. $9. To all this must be added the ability which these ambassadors of God possessed, of transferring the power of working miracles to their disciples. Many had, accordingly, no sooner been baptized, according to Christ's injunction, and consecrated to God by the imposition of hands and prayer, than they expressed at once their thoughts in foreign languages which they had never learned, foretold future events, healed the sick by pronouncing the name of Jesus, called even the dead back to life, and effected other things above human Antoninus, which is preserved by Eusebius, H. E. iv. 26. Melito here informs the emperor that his predecessors not only tolerated Christianity among the other religions, but also honoured it: v kal oi πρόγονοι σοῦ πρὸς ταῖς ἄλλαις θρησκείαις Tíunoav, which sect your progenitors treated with equal respect as the other religions. He adds, that Nero and Domitian were the only emperors who allowed the counsels of certain adversaries to influence them to make Christianity a criminal thing. If what Melito here says of Nero be true, namely, that he was influenced by the counsels of malevolent persons, to persecute the Christians, then there may be some foundation for what John of Antioch says, in Excerptis Valesianis, p. 808, &c., that Nero was favourable to the Christians, and to Christ, in the beginning of his reign.Tertullian, Apologet. c. v. p. 57, ed. Havercamp., speaks of Tiberius's desire to have Christ enrolled among the gods, as of a thing universally known. Eusebius (H. E. ii. 2), Orosius (Chron. Pasch. vii. 4), and others, afterwards repeat the story, relying chiefly on the authority of Tertullian. See Fr. Baldwin, Comment, ad Edicta Veterum Principum Romanorum de Christianis, pp. 22, 23, and J. A. Fabricius, Lux Evangelii, &c. p. 221. But very learned men, in this age, have deemed this wholly incredible, and not at all compatible with the character of Tiberius, and with the state of the empire at that time. In what manner men, equally learned and ingenious, have repelled their arguments, may be seen in the Essay of Theod. Hasæus, De decreto Tiberii, quo Christum referre voluit in numerum deorum, Erfurt. 1715, 4to, and in the French letter of J. C. Iselius, on this subject, in the Bibliothèque Germanique, xxxii. 147; and xxxiii. 12.' —Mosheim, de Reb. Christ. §e. p. 92, &c. See also Altmann, Disquisitio historico-critica de Epistola Pilati ad Tiberium, &c. Bern, 1755, 8vo. In this Essay, Professor Altmann maintains, (1) That Pilate was actually informed of the resurrection by the guard. (2) That he did really send to Tiberius an account of the death and resurrection of Jesus, though not such an account as the one now extant. (3) That Tiberius actually proposed in the senate that Jesus should be honoured as a god. This subject is also examined by Dr. Lardner, Collection of Jewish and Heathen testimonies, iii. 599, &c. ed. Lond. 1815. 4to. Tr.] |