Chapter XXXVI: Part 36

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.’