Chapter XVII: Part 17

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.