there can be no doubt, they collected many others; both by their own efforts, and by the efforts of their followers. But how far they travelled, what nations they visited, or when and where they died, is exceedingly dubious and uncertain. The stories often told respecting their travels among the Gauls, the Britons, the Spaniards, the Germans, the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Russians, are too recent and unsubstantial to be received by an inquisitive lover of the truth. collected by P. J. Hartmann, de Rebus gestis Christianor. sub Apostolis, cap. vii. p. 107; and by J. A. Fabricius, Lux Evangelii toti orbi exoriens, cap. v. p. 83. &c. That [It is a very ancient and current report, confirmed by many witnesses, that all the apostles suffered public martyrdom, with the exception of St. John, who died a natural death at Ephesus. And this opinion is so firmly believed by many who would not be thought credulous, that to call it in question, is to run some hazard of being charged with slandering those holy men. Such as please, may believe the account; but let them not be offended, if I declare the martyrdom of most of the apostles to be less certain than they suppose. Peter, Paul, and James died violent deaths, I believe, on the testimony of the numerous ancient authors; but that the other apostles did so, I cannot feel so certain. As my first ground of doubt, a very ancient writer of the second century, Heracleon, a Valentinian indeed, but no contemptible man, cited by Clemens Alex. Strom. 1. iv. c. 9, denies that Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and others, confessed Christ before magistrates, and were put to death for so doing. He is urging, that the public confession of himself required by the Saviour, Matt. x. 32, may be made by a holy and Christian life, as well as by a public avowal before a persecuting magistrate; and he states as proof, Où γὰρ πάντες οἱ σωζόμενοι ὡμολόγησαν τὴν διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὡμολογίαν, καὶ ἐξῆλθον. Ἐξ ὧν Ματθαῖος, Φίλιππος, Θωμᾶς, Λευὶς, καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ, for not all that were saved, made that confession in words (before magistrates), and so died. Of this number was Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and many others. Clement, though he disapproves several things in the passage he quotes, leaves this statement to stand as it is; which is proof that he had nothing to allege against it. A Philip is expressly declared not to have suffered martyrdom, but to have died and been buried at Hierapolis; so says Polycrates, in his Epistle to Victor, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 24. Baronius, indeed, (Annals, A. D. 35, § 141,) and after him many others, maintain, that this was not Philip the apostle, but Philip, one of the seven deacons of Jerusalem. But Polycrates says expressly, that he was one of the twelve apostles.—A still stronger argument is, that all the writers of the three first centuries, and among them such as contended for the high dignity of the martyrs, in opposition to the Valentinians, viz. Tertullian, Clemens Alex., and Origen, never mention but three of the apostles as being martyrs; namely, Peter, Paul, and James the elder. See Tertullian, Scorpiace, cap. xv.-I am therefore led to believe, that the common reports respecting the sufferings of Christ's ambassadors were fabricated, after the days of Constantine. And two causes might lead to such reports. (1.) The extravagant estimation' in which martyrdom was held, made it seem necessary to rank the apostles among the martyrs. (2.) The ambiguity of the word uáprvp, martyr, which properly signifies a witness, in which sense Christ himself called his apostles μápTupes, (Acts i. 8, see also Acts ii. 32,) might lead the more ignorant to believe, and to amplify these fables. Mosheim, de Rebus Christ. ante C. M. p. 81-84 abridged considerably. Tr.] ["There is not one of the European nations that does not glory, in either an apostle, or some one of the seventy disciples, or at least in some early saint commissioned by an apostle, as having come among them and collected a Christian church. The Spaniards say, that the apostles Paul and James the elder, with many of the seventy disciples, and other assistants of the apostles, introduced the light of the gospel into their country. And a Spaniard great part of these fables came forward after the age of Charlemagne; when most of the Christian churches contended as would bring himself into trouble if he should confront this opinion. The French contend that Crescens, a disciple and companion of Paul, Dionysius the Athenian Areopagite, Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, &c. first brought their countrymen to profess Christ. Among the Italians there is scarcely a city which does not profess to have received the gospel, and its first minister from Paul or Peter. See P. Giannone, Histoire civile du royaume de Naples, tom. i. p. 74, 75. And, at this day, a man could not escape the charge of heresy, who should raise a question on this subject. See J. Lamy, Delicia eruditorum, tom. viii. Pref. and tom. xi. Preface. The Germans assert that Maternus, Valerianus, and many others were sent among them by the apostles; and that these legates of St. Peter, and of the other apostles, baptized respectable numbers of persons. The British think that St. Paul, (as they infer from Clemens Rom. first. Epistle to the Corinthians,) Simon Zelotes, Aristobulus, and especially Joseph of Arimathea, were the founders of their church. The Russians, Poles, and Prussians, honour St. Andrew as the founder of their churches. All this, and much more, passed for sober truth, so long as sacred and human learning lay buried in shades and darkness. But at this day, the most learned and wise admit, that most of these stories were fabricated after the age of Charlemagne, by men unlearned, or crafty and eager to secure distinction to their churches. See Aug. Calmet's Histoire de Lorraine, tom. i. p. xxvi. Le Beuf, Diss. sur l'histoire de France, tom. i. p. 192, &c. Jo. Launoi, Diss. qua locus Sulpitii Severi de primis Gallia martyribus, defenditur, Opp. tom. ii. pt. i. p. 184.- -I commend these writers; yet cannot agree with them in dating the commencement of this foolish zeal for the antiquity of their churches, after the days of Charlemagne. It began much earlier. See Gregory Turon. de Gloria martyrum, cap. xii. p. 735." Mosheim, de Reb. Christ. &c. p. 84-86. It must not be inferred from what Dr. Mosheim says of the foolish pretensions of the modern European nations to a high Christian antiquity, that we are to reject all that the ancient fathers relate, concerning the labours of the apostles after Christ's ascension. Dr. Mosheim was too judicious to do vehemently, about the antiquity of their respective origins, as ever did in former days the Arcadians, Egyptians, Greeks, and other nations. § 7. Many who were unwilling to adopt entirely the religion of Christ, were induced, nevertheless, by the fame of his deeds, and the sublime purity of his doctrines, to rank him among men of the highest excellence, and even among the gods; as appears from numerous documents. With great veneration, many kept figures of Christ and of his apostles in their houses." The emperor Tiberius has the credit of desiring to enrol Christ + among the gods of Rome, but to have been unable, because he was resisted by the senate. Although many, at the present day, think this improbable, there are, nevertheless, weighty reasons which lead no common men to a different opinion.2 have preached at Edessa, in the north of Syria. Of the companions of the apostles, Timothy, after accompanying Paul many years, is said to have been stationed at Ephesus, where he suffered martyrdom under Domitian or Nerva. Titus, another companion of Paul, is reported to have been stationed in Crete, where he died. Mark, or John surnamed Mark, attended Paul, and afterwards Peter, and probably preached the gospel in Egypt. Of Luke, little can be said, except that he accompanied Paul, and wrote his history, viz. the book of Acts, and a Gospel. Of Barnabas, nothing can be said worth relating, except what is learned from the New Testament. See J. A. Fabricius, Lux Evangelü, &c. ch. v. p. 95-115.-From this account, imperfect as it is, we may conclude that the apostles and their companions scarcely extended their labours beyond the boundaries of the present Turkish empire. Tr.] [The late Dr. Burton thought St. Paul's death referrible to some period between the years 64 and 66, inclusively, probably the year 66, the thirteenth of Nero. From his conversion to his death, thirty-five years seem to have elapsed. An Attempt to ascertain the Chronology of the Acts of the Apostles and of St. Paul's Epistles, Oxford, 1830, p. 104. Ed.] "Eusebius, Historia Eccles. 1. vii. c. 18. Irenæus, Hares. lib. i. c. 25, p. 105, edit. Massuet. illic veritatem illius divinitatis revelaverant, detulit ad senatum cum prærogativa suffragii sui. Senatus, quia non ipse probaverat, respuit. Cæsar in sententia mansit, comminatus periculum accusatoribus christianorum." (Tertull. Apol. c. 5.) In this passage Pearson would read, quia non in se probaverat, for quia non ipse probaverat, and interpret the sentence thus: the senate rejected the proposal, because Tiberius had not approved a similar proposal in his own case-had himself refused to be deified. Lardner contends that this must be the meaning, even if ipse is retained. But a sentence which precedes, Vetus erat decretum, ne qui Deus ab imperatore consecraretur, nisi a senatu probatus, shows that ipse refers to senatus: the senate refused, because it had not itself approved the proposal; and so the passage was translated in the Greek version used by Eusebius. In a subsequent passage, Tertullian states, that the account of those supernatural events which proved the divinity of Christ, was sent to Tiberius by Pilate, who was in his conscience a Christian, and adds an expression which implies that worldly considerations alone prevented Tiberius from believing in Christ." Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 110. Ed.] ["Of the favourable disposition of the Roman emperors towards Christianity, there is a noticeable testimony in the Apology of Melito Sardicensis, addressed to Marcus Antoninus, which is preserved by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 26. Melito here informs the emperor that his predecessors not only tolerated § 8. The causes must have been divine, which enabled men, -destitute of all human aid, poor, friendless, neither eloquent nor learned, fishermen, publicans, and moreover Jews, that is, persons odious to all other nations, in so short a time, to persuade a great part of mankind to abandon the religions of their fathers, and to embrace a new religion, which is opposed to the natural dispositions of men. Their very words in fact acted on the mind with a force that could scarcely be believed, and that could come only from above. To it were added prodigies and miracles, a prophetic declaration of things to come, the discovery of hidden counsels, loftiness of mind in the greatest emergencies, contempt for all the objects of ordinary ambition, a patient, cheerful endurance of sufferings worse than death, as well as of death itself, and finally, lives without a single spot. Among the things that men believe most firmly, no one is more unquestionable than that Jesus Christ's ambassadors had all these qualifications, and in abundance. Imagine these holy men without such endowments, and no probable reason can be given for the rapid propagation of Christianity by a band so small and feeble. Christianity among the other religions, but also honoured it : ἣν καὶ οἱ πρόγο νοι σοῦ πρὸς ταῖς ἄλλαις θρησκείαις éríμnoav, which sect your progenitors treated with equal respect as the other religions. He adds, that Nero and Domitian were the only emperors who allowed the counsels of certain adversaries to influence them to make Christianity a criminal thing. If what Melito here says of Nero be true, namely, that he was influenced by the counsels of malevolent persons, to persecute the Christians, then there may be some foundation for what John of Antioch says, in Excerptis Valesianis, p. 808, &c. that Nero was favourable to the Christians, and to Christ, in the beginning of his reign. - Tertullian, Apologet. c. v. p. 57, ed. Havercamp. speaks of Tiberius's desire to have Christ enrolled among the gods, as of a thing universally known. Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. ii. 2,) Orosius, (Chron. Pascal. vii. 4,) and others, afterwards repeat the story, relying chiefly on the authority of Tertullian. See Fr. Baldwin, Comment. ad Edicta Veterum Principum Romanorum de Christianis, p. 22, 23, and J. A. Fabricius, Lux Evangelii, &c. p. 221. But very learned men, in this age, have In § 9. To all this must be added the ability which these ambassadors of God possessed, of transferring the power of working miracles to their disciples. Many had, accordingly, no sooner been baptised, according to Christ's injunction, and consecrated to God by the imposition of hands and prayer, than they expressed at once their thoughts in foreign languages which they had never learned, foretold future events, healed the sick by pronouncing the name of Jesus, called even the dead back to life, and effected other things above human power. What, and how great must have individuals appeared, who could invest others with such faculties as these! § 10. Such as tax imagination for other causes of this sudden revolution among men, tell us dreams which will please none who know the world. Some conjecture that the kindness of Christians to the poor, induced a multitude of idle and vicious persons to embrace their faith. But it is forgotten here, that Christianity could not be professed without incurring an immediate risk of life; as also, that Christains did not suffer in their body the vicious, useless, and idle. Equally groundless is the representation of others, that the profligate and flagitious lives of the pagan priests caused many to turn Christians. The profligacy of their priests might, indeed, breed contempt of the ancient religions, but it would not infuse the love of a faith which put life, credit, and property to the hazard. The man must be beside himself who could reason thus: "The priests of the religion which I learnt from tender years lead wicked lives: I shall, therefore, go over to a body that people despise and the law condemns, although neither life nor fortune will any more be safe.5 though they create respect and reverence, rarely produce imitation, and never, if manifest disgrace and danger will follow that imitation. We know that virtue, and even the most perfect virtue, awakens entire disgust, when it requires men to forsake the institutions and sentiments of their ancestors, and to abandon their chosen enjoyments. This is confirmed by the example of those very apostles who are said to have converted the world by the purity of their characters; nay, by the example of the Lord of those apostles, who was the most perfect pattern of virtue. I can believe that the blameless lives of purity of morals, and integrity of life, the apostles induced individuals, among |