Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

martyrdom, ann. Chr. 61; or as others, 64. Little certainty can be retrieved concerning the manner of his death. Dorotheus will have him to die at Sebastople, and to be buried there, near the Temple of the Sun. An ancient Martyrology reports him to have been seized by the Jews, and as a blasphemer to have been stoned, and then beheaded. But the Greek offices, seconded herein by several ancient breviaries, tell us that he was crucified; and that as Judas was hanged upon a tree, so Matthias suffered upon a cross. His body is said to have been kept a long time at Jerusalem, thence thought to have been translated by Helen, the mother of the great Constantine, to Rome, where some parts of it are shown with great veneration at this day. Though others, with as great eagerness, and probably as much truth, contend that his relics were brought to, and are still preserved at Triers in Germany, a controversy wherein I shall not concern myself. His memory is celebrated in the Greek church, August 9, as appears not only from their menologies, but from a novel constitution of Manuel Comnenus, appointing what holy days should be kept in the church; while the western churches kept February 24, sacred to his memory. Among many other apocryphal writings attributed to the apostles, there was a gospel published under his name, mentioned by Eusebius and the ancients, and condemned with the rest by Gelasius, bishop of Rome, as it had been rejected by others before him. Under his name also there were extant traditions, cited by Clemens of Alexandria, from whence, no question, it was that the Nicolaitans borrowed that saying of his, which they abused to vile and beastly purposes; as under the pretended patronage of his name and doctrines, the Marcionites and Valentinians defended some of their most absurd and impious opinions.*

ST. MARK

THE EVANGELIST.

ST. MARK, though carrying something of Roman in his name, probably assumed by him upon some great change or accident of his life, or, which was not unusual among the Jews, when visiting the European provinces of the Roman empire, taken up at his going for Italy and Rome, was doubtless

There are many circumstances respecting St. Matthias which the Christian inquirer naturally regards with considerable interest. The holiness of a man chosen to fill up the number in the company of the peculiarly elected apostles must have been great and singular; while the manner in which he was elected and consecrated, affords, in the first place, a valuable instance of the mode in which these founders of the Christian church proceeded in the earliest exercise of their episcopal functions, if we may so speak; and in the next, an instance of divine interference well worthy of attention, and of comparison with the annointing of St. Paul to the apostolic office by the Redeemer; now exercising on his throne in heaven the same care for the propagating of his religion, as he did while visible on earth.-ED.

[blocks in formation]

born of Jewish parents, originally descended of the tribe of Levi, and the line of the priesthood, and (if Nicephorus says true,) sister's son to Peter, though by others, against all reason, confounded with John, sirnamed Mark, the son_of Mary and Mark, sister's son to Barnabas. By the ancients he is generally thought to have been one of the seventy disciples; and Epiphanius expressly tells us, that he was one of those who taking exception at our Lord's discourse of "eating his flesh and drinking his blood, went back and walked no more with him;" but was seasonably reduced and reclaimed by Peter. But no foundation appears either for the one or for the other; nay, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who lived near those times, positively affirms that he was no hearer nor follower of our Saviour. He was converted by some of the apostles, and probably by St. Peter, who is said to have been his undertaker at his baptism, (if I understand Isidore aright,) for no other reason I suppose, but because he calls him his son. Indeed he was his constant attendant in his travels, supplying the place of an amanuensis and interpreter; for though the apostles were divinely inspired, and among other miraculous powers had the gift of languages conferred upon them, yet was the "interpretation o tongues" a gift more peculiar to some than others. This might probably be St. Mark's talent in expounding St. Peter's discourses, whether by word or writing, to those who understood not the language wherein they were delivered. He accompanied him in his apostolical progress, preached the gospel in Italy and at Rome, where, at the request of the Christians of those parts, he composed and wrote his gospel.

2. By Peter he was sent into Egypt to plant Christianity in those parts, fixing his main residence at Alexandria, and the places thereabouts; where so great (says Eusebius) was the success of his ministry, that he converted multitudes both of men and women, not only to the embracing of the Christian religion, but to a more than ordinary strict profession of it, insomuch that Philo wrote a book of their peculiar rites and way of life; the only reason why St. Jerome reckons him among Indeed Philo the Jew the writers of the church. wrote a book, extant at this day, wherein he speaks of a sort of persons called Ocpanevrat, who in many parts of the world, but especially in a pleasant place near the Mareotick lake in Egypt, had formed themselves into religious societies; and gives a large account of their rites, customs, of life. He tells us of them, that when they first and strict, philosophical, and contemplative course enter upon this way, they renounce all secular interests and employments, and leaving their estates to their relations, retire into groves and gardens, and places devoted to solitude and contemplation; that they had their houses or colleges, not contiguous, that so being free from noise and tumult, they might the better minister to the designs of a contemplative life; nor yet removed at too great a distance, that they might maintain mutual society, and be conveniently capable of helping and assisting one another. In each of these houses there was an oratory, called Σεμνειον and Μοναστηριον, wherein they discharged the more secret and solemn rites of their religion; divided in the middle with a parti

drew themselves from public converse, and all affairs of civil life, which Christians never did, but when forced by violent persecutions; for ordinarily, as Justin Martyr, and Tertullian tell us, they promiscuously dwelt in towns and cities, ploughed their lands and followed their trades, eat and drank, and were clothed and habited like other men. So when he says, that besides the books of Moses and the prophets, they had the writings of the ancient authors of their sect and institution, this cannot be meant of Christians: for though Eusebius would understand it of the writings of the evangelists and apostles, yet besides that there were few of them published when Philo wrote this discourse, they were moreover of too late an edi

tion-wall three or four cubits high, the one apart-siderable standing, whereas Christians had but ment being for the men, and the other for the lately appeared in the world, and were later come women: here they publicly met every seventh into Egypt; partly because many parts of Philo's day, where being set according to their seniority, account do no way suit with the state and manand having composed themselves with great de-ners of Christians at that time; as that they withcency and reverence, the most aged person among them, and best skilled in the dogmata and principles of their institution, came forth into the midst, gravely and soberly discoursing what might make the deepest impression upon their minds; the rest attending with a profound silence, and only testifying their assent with the motion of their eyes or head. Their discourses were usually mystical and allegorical, seeking hidden senses under plain words; and of such an allegorical philosophy consisted the books of their religion, left them by their ancestors: the law they compared to an animal, the letter of it resembling the body, while the soul of it lay in those abstruse and recondite notions which the external veil and surface of the words concealed from vulgar under-tion to come under the character of ancient austanding. He tells us also that they took very little care of the body, perfecting their minds by precepts of wisdom and religion; the day they entirely spent in pious and divine meditation, in reading and expounding the law and the prophets, and the holy volumes of the ancient founders of their sect, and in singing hymns to the honor of their Maker; absolutely temperate and abstemious, neither eating nor drinking till night, the only time they thought fit to refresh and regard the body; some of them out of an insatiable de-rose up, the men in one company, the women in sire of growing in knowledge and virtue, fasting many days together. What diet they had was very plain and simple, sufficient only to provide against hunger and thirst; a little bread, salt, and water being their constant bill of fare: their clothes were as mean as their food, designed only as a present security against cold and nakedness. And this not only the case of men, but of pious and devout women, that lived (though separately) among them; that they religiously observed every seventh day, and especially the preparatory week to the great solemnity, which they kept with all expressions of a more severe abstinence and devotion. This and much more he has in that tract concerning them.

3. These excellent persons Eusebius peremptorily affirms to have been Christians, converted and brought under these admirable rules and institutions of life by St. Mark, at his coming hither, accommodating all passages to the manners and discipline of Christians; followed herein by Epiphanius, Jerome, and others of old, as by Baronius, and some others of later time: and this so far taken for granted, that many have hence fetched the rise of monasteries and religious orders among Christians. But whoever seriously and impartially considers Philo's account, will plainly find that he intends it of Jews and professors of the Mosaic religion, though whether Essenes, or of some other particular sect among them, I stand not to determine. That they were not Christians, is evident, besides that Philo gives not the least intimation of it, partly because it is improbable that Philo, being a Jew, should give so great a character and commendation of Christians, so hateful to the Jews at that time in all places of the world; partly in that Philo speaks of them as an institution of some con

thors. Not to say, that some of their rites and customs were such, as the Christians of those days were mere strangers to, not taken up by the Christian church till many years, and some of them not till some ages after. Nay some of them never used by any of the primitive Christians; such were their "religious dances" which they had at their festival solemnities, especially that great one which they held at the end of every seven weeks; when their entertainment being ended, they all

another, dancing with various measures and motions, each company singing divine hymns and songs, and having a præcentor going before them, now one singing, and anon another, till in the conclusion they joined in one common chorus, in imitation of the triumphant song sung by Moses and the Israelites after their deliverance at the Red Sea. To all which let me add, what a learned man has observed, that the Essenes (if Philo means them) were great physicians, (thence probably called Ocpanevrat, "healers;" though Phile, who is apt to turn all things into allegory, refers it only to their curing "the souls of men infected and over-run with difficult and desperate distempers, created by pleasures and extravagant appe tites, and a long train of other lusts and passions.") Josephus reporting of them that they accurately study the writings of the ancients, excerping thence whatever is conducive either to soul or body; and that for the curing of diseases, they diligently inquired into the virtues of roots and stones that were most proper to drive away distempers. An account no ways agreeing with the Christians of those times, who miraculously cured diseases without the arts of physic, or any other preparations, than calling the name of Christ over the afflicted person. Doubtless that which led Eusebius into the mistake, was the conformity that he observed between the Christian 'Acknrai, in and before his time, who entered upon a more strict and severe course of life, and these Therapeutæ described by Philo, an ordinary fancy being able to draw a fair parallel between them, and so it was but removing them some ages higher, and imagining them to have been converted and founded by St. Mark, and the work was done. Indeed it is not to be doubted, but that persons educated

under these excellent rules and methods of life, were more than ordinarily prepared for the reception of Christianity, (between which and their principles and rules of life, there was so great an affinity and agreement,) which must needs render our evangelist's success great in those parts, and open the way for men to come flocking over to the faith.

and that after their decease he composed his gospel out of those things which he had heard Peter preach. But whatever becomes of that, it is evident that Irenæus supposed (whose supposition certainly was not founded upon mere fancy and conjecture) that St. Mark for some considerable time survived the martyrdom of those two great apostles. A passage that so troubled Christopherson, (one of those who in these latter ages first translated Eusebius into Latin,) because crossing the accounts of their writers in this matter, that he chose rather to expunge the word, decease, and substitute another of a quite different sense, expressly contrary to the faith of all ancient copies, and to the most ancient version of Irenæus itself. But to return. St. Mark, as to his person, was of a middle size and stature, his nose long, his eyebrows turning back, his eyes graceful and amiable, his head bald, his beard prolix and gray, his gait quick, the constitution of his body strong and

4. St. Mark did not confine his preaching to Alexandria, and the oriental parts of Egypt, but removed westward to the parts of Libya, going through the countries of Marmarica, Pentapolis, and others thereabouts; where, though the people were both barbarous in their manners, and idolatrous in their worship, yet by his preaching and miracles he made way for the entertainment of the gospel; and left them not, till he had not only gained them to, but confirmed them in the profession of it. Returning to Alexandria he preached freely, and ordered and disposed the affairs of the church, and wisely provided for suc-healthful. cession by constituting governors and pastors of it. But the restless enemy of the souls of men would not long suffer him to be quiet. It was the time of Easter, at which season the great solemnities of Serapis happened to be celebrated, when the minds of the people being excited to a passionate vindication of the honor of their idol, broke in upon St. Mark, then engaged in the solemn celebration of divine worship, and binding his feet with cords, dragged him through the streets and the most craggy places to the Bucelus, a precipice near the sea, and for that night thrust him into prison, where his soul was, by a divine vision, erected and encouraged under the ruins of his shattered body. Early the next morning the tragedy began again; dragging him about in the same manner, till his flesh being raked off, and his blood run out, his spirits failed, and he expired. But their malice died not with him; Metaphrastes adds, that they burnt his body, whose bones and ashes the Christians there decently entombed, near the place | where he was wont to preach. His body, at least the remains of it, were afterwards, with great pomp, removed from Alexandria to Venice, where they are religiously honored, and he adopted as the tutelar saint and patron of that state, and one of the richest and stateliest churches erected to his memory that the church can boast of at this day. He suffered in the month Pharmuthi, on the 25th of April, though the certain year of his martyrdom is not precisely determined by the ancients. Kerstenius, out of the Arabic memoirs of his life, says it was in the fourteenth or last year of Claudius St. Jerome places it in the eighth of Nero. But extravagantly wide is Dorotheus's computation, who makes him to suffer in the time of Trajan, with as much truth as Nicephorus, on the other hand, affirms him to have come into Egypt in the reign of Tiberius. If in so great variety of opinions I may interpose my conjecture, I should reckon him to have suffered about the end of Nero's reign: for supposing him to have come with St. Peter to Rome about the fifth or sixth year of Nero, he might thence be despatched to Alexandria, and spend the residue of his life, and of that emperor's reign, in planting Christianity in those parts of the world. Sure I am that Irenæus reports St. Mark to have outlived Peter and Paul,

5. His gospel, the only book he left behind him, was, as before we observed, written at the entreaty of the converts at Rome, who not content to have heard Peter preach, pressed St. Mark, his disciple, that he would commit to writing an historical account of what he had delivered to them; which he performed with no less faithfulness than brevity, all which St. Peter perused, ratified with his authority, and commanded to be publicly read in their religious assemblies. And though, as we noted but now, Irenæus seems to intimate that it was written after St. Peter's death; yet all that can be inferred hence will be, what in itself is a matter of no great moment and importance, that the ancients were not agreed in assigning the exact time when the several gospels were published to the world. If we will give way to the conjectures of a learned man, the difficulty will soon cease: he tells us, that the μsra Tutwv sodov in Irenæus, should be rendered not "after their death," but "after their departure," viz. from Rome. And though this be not the common usage of the word, yet might it have been admitted, had there been any authority of the ancients to prove that St. Peter was twice at Rome. Therefore, not relying upon this, he flies to an ancient copy, where the words are read μera tutu ekdooiv, "after the publication" of St. Matthew's gospel, whereof Irenæus had spoken in the words before. But he should have done well to have named his ancient copy, no such having been hitherto mentioned by any other writer. And therefore, it leaves a suspicion that he had no better authority than the boldness of Christopherson, who, indeed, thrusts such a conjecture into the margin of his book, and accordingly so renders it in his translation, with what design we observed before. But to return. It was frequently styled St. Peter's gospel, not so much because dictated by him to St. Mark, as because he principally composed it out of that account which St. Peter usually delivered in his discourses to the people. Which probably is the reason of what Chrysostom cbserves, that in his style and manner of expression he delights to imitate St. Peter, representing much in a few words. Though he commonly reduces the story of our Saviour's acts into a narrower compass than St. Matthew, yet want there not passages which he

relates more largely than he. The last chapter tants, by the pens of some of the greatest orators of his gospel, at least part of it, was (as Jerome of their times: and yet, above all these, renowned informs us) wanting in all ancient Greek copies, for this one peculiar honor, that here it was that rejected upon pretence of some disagreement with the disciples were first called Christians. It was the other gospels, though, as he there shows, they an university, replenished with schools of learning, are fairly consistent with each other. His great wherein were professors of all arts and sciences. impartiality in his relations appears from hence, So that being born in the very lap of the muses, that he is so far from concealing the shameful he could not well miss of an ingenious and liberal lapse and denial of Peter, his dear tutor and mas-education, his natural parts meeting with the adter, that he sets it down with some particular cir-vantages of great improvements. Nay, we are cumstances and aggravations, which the other told, that he studied not only at Antioch, but in evangelists take no notice of. Some dispute has all the schools both of Greece and Egypt, whereby been made in what language it was written, he became accomplished in all parts of learning whether in Greek or Latin: that which seems to and human sciences. Being thus furnished out give most countenance to the Latin original, is the with skill in all the preparatory institutions of phinote that we find at the end of the Syriac version losophy, he more particularly applied himself to of this gospel, where it is said that Mark preached the study of physic, for which the Grecian acadeand declared his holy gospel at Rome, in the Ro-mies were most famous; though they that hence man, or the Latin tongue. An evidence that with infer the quality of his birth and fortunes, forget me would almost carry the force of a demonstra- to consider, that this noble art was in those times tion, were I assured that this note is of equal value generally managed by persons of no better rank and authority with that ancient version, generally than servants: upon which account a learned supposed to come very few centuries short of the man conceives St. Luke, though a Syrian by birth, apostolic age. But we know how usual it is for to have been a servant at Rome, where he somesuch additions to be made by some later hand; times practised physic; and whence being manuand what credit is to be given to the subscriptions mitted, he returned into his own country, and proat the end of St. Paul's epistles, we have showed bably continued his profession all his life; it being elsewhere. Besides, that it is not here said that so fairly consistent with, and in many cases so he wrote, but that he preached his gospel at Rome subservient to the ministry of the gospel, and the in that language. The advocates of the Romish care of souls. Besides his abilities in physic, he church plead, that it is very congruous and suita- is said to have been very skilful in painting, and ble, that it should at first be consigned to writing there are no less than three or four several pieces in that language, being principally designed for still in being, pretended to have been drawn with the use of the Christians at Rome. An objection his own hand; a tradition which Gretser the Jethat will easily vanish, when we consider that as suit sets himself with a great deal of pains, and the convert Jews there understood very little to very little perpose, to defend; though his Latin, so there were very few Romans that un-authors, either in respect of credit or antiquity, derstood not Greek, it being (as appears from the writers of that age) the genteel and fashionable language of those times. Nor can any good reason be assigned, why it should be more inconvenient for St. Mark to write his gospel in Greek for the use of the Romans, than that St. Paul should, in the same language, write his epistle to that church. The original Greek copy, written with St. Mark's own hand, is said to be extant at Venice at this day; written (as they tell us) by him at Aquileia, and thence, after many hundreds of years, translated to Venice, where it is still preserved, though the letters so worn out with length of time, that they are not capable of being read. A story which as I cannot absolutely disprove, so I am not very forward to believe, and that for more reasons than I think worth while to insist on in this place.

ST. LUKE

THE EVANGELIST.

ST. LUKE was born at Antioch, the metropolis of Syria, a city celebrated for its extraordinary blessings and eminence, the pleasantness of its situation, the fertility of its soil, the riches of its traffic, the wisdom of its senate, the learning of its professors, the civility and politeness of its inhabi

deserve very little esteem and value. Of more authority with me would be an ancient inscription found in a vault near the church of St. Mary, in Via Lata, at Rome, supposed to have been the place where St. Paul dwelt, wherein mention is made of a picture of the blessed virgin, UNA EX VII. AB LUCA DEPICTIS, "being one of the seven painted by St. Luke."

2. He was a Jewish proselyte; Antioch abounding with men of that nation, who had here their synagogues and schools of education; so that we need not, with Theophylact, send him to Jerusalem to be instructed in the study of the law. As for that opinion of Epiphanius and others, that he was one of the seventy disciples, one of those that deserted our Lord for the unwelcome discourse he made to them, but recalled afterward by St. Paul, I behold it as a story of the same coin and stamp with that of St. Mark's leaving Christ upon the same occasion, and being reduced by Peter, and that the one was made to answer the other; as upon no better ground it is said, that he was one of those two disciples that were going to Emmaus. For besides the silence of Scripture in the case, he himself plainly confesses, that he was not from the beginning an "eye-witness and minister of the word." Most probable it is, that he was converted by St. Paul during his abode at Antioch; when, as the apostles of catchers of fish were become fishers of men, so he of a physician of the body became a physician of the soul. This Nicephorus will have to have

been done at Thebes, the chief city of Boeotia, about forty miles from Athens, though it appears not to me by any credible author that ever St. Paul was there. He became ever after his inseparable companion and fellow-laborer in the ministry of the gospel, especially after his going into Macedonia; from which time, in recording the history of St. Paul's travels, he always speaks of himself in his own person.* He followed him in all his dangers, was with him at his several arraignments at Jerusalem, accompanied him in his desperate voyage to Rome, where he still attend-reason conclude it the proper name of a particular ed on him to serve his necessities, and supply those ministerial offices which the apostle's confinement would not suffer him to undergo, and especially in carrying messages to those churches where he had planted Christianity. This infinitely endeared him to St. Paul, who owned him for his fellow-laborer, called him "the beloved physician," and "the brother whose praise is in the gospel, throughout all the churches;" which the ancients, and especially Ignatius, apply to our evangelists.

3. Probable it is that he did not wholly leave St. Paul till he had finished his course, and crowned all with martyrdom; though there are that tell us, that he left St. Paul at Rome, and returned back into the east, travelled into Egypt and the parts of Libya, preached the gospel, wrought miracles, converted multitudes, constituted guides and ministers of religion, yea, that he himself took upon him the episcopal charge of the city of Thebais. Epiphanius gives upon this account, that he first preached in Dalmatia, and Galatia (he reads it in radia, in Gaul, or France, and peremptorily affirms, that they are all mistaken that say it was Galatia where Cresens preached, though some think that himself in the mean while is under the most confident mistake,) then in Italy and Macedonia; where he spared no pains, declined no dangers, that he might faithfully discharge the trust committed to him. The ancients are not very well agreed, either about the time or manner of his death; some affirming him to die in Egypt, others in Greece, the Roman martyrology, in Bithynia, Dorotheus, at Ephesus; some make him die a natural, others a violent death. Indeed neither Eusebius nor St. Jerome take any notice of it; but Nazianzen, Paulinus, bishop of Nola, and several others, expressly assert his martyrdom; whereof Nicephorus give this particular account, that coming into Greece he successfully preached, and baptized many converts into the Christian faith, till a party of infidels, making head against him, drew him to execution; and in want of a cross whereon to despatch him presently, hanged him upon an olive-tree, in the eightieth (the eighty-fourth says St. Jerome) year of his age. Kirstenius, from an ancient Arabic writer, makes him to have suffered martyrdom at Rome, which he thinks might probably be after St. Paul's first imprisonment there, and departure thence; when St. Luke being left behind as his deputy to supply his place, was shortly after put to death; the reason (says he) why he no longer continued his history of the apostles' acts, which surely he would have done, had he lived any

Acts xvi. 10.

considerable time after St. Paul's departure.
His body afterwards, by the command of Con-
stantine, or his son Constantius, was solemnly re-
moved to Constantinople, and buried in the great
church built to the memory of the apostles.
4. Two books he wrote for the use of the
church, his gospel, and the history of the apostles'
acts, both dedicated to Theophilus, which many
of the ancients suppose to be but a feigned name,
denoting no more than a lover of God, a title com-
mon to every Christian; while others with better
person, especially since the style of most excellent
is attributed to him, the usual title and form of ad-
dress in those times to princes and great men.
Theophylact styles him "a man of consular dig-
nity, and probably a prince;" the author of the
Recognitions makes him a nobleman of Antioch,
converted by St. Peter, and who, upon his conver-
sion, gave his house to the church for the place of
their public and solemn meetings. We may pro-
bably suppose him to have been some magistrate,
whom St. Luke had converted and baptized, to
whom he now dedicated these books, not only
as a testimony of honorable respect, but as a
means of giving him further certainty and assu-
rance of those things wherein he had been in-
structed by him. For his gospel, St. Jerome sup-
poses it to have been written in Achaia, during
his travels with St. Paul in those parts, whose
help he is generally said to have made use of in
the composing of it, and that this the apostle pri-
marily intends when he so often speaks of his
gospel. But whatever assistance St. Paul might
contribute towards it, we are sure the evangelist
himself tells us, that he derived his intelligence
in these matters from those, "who from the be-
ginning had been eye-witnesses and ministers of
the word." Nor does it in the least detract from
the authority of his relations, that he himself was
not present at the doing of them; for if we con-
sider who they were from whom he derived his
accounts of things, habuit utique authenticam pa-
raturam, as Tertullian speaks, he had a stock both
of credit and intelligence sufficiently authentic to
proceed upon, delivering nothing in his whole his-
tory but what he had immediately received from
persons present at, and concerned in the things
which he has left upon record. The occasion o
his writing it is thought to have been partly to
prevent those false and fabulous relations which
even then began to be obtruded upon the world,
partly to supply what seemed wanting in those two
evangelists that wrote before him, and the addi-
tions or larger explications of things are particu-
larly enumerated by Irenæus. He mainly insists
upon what relates to Christ's priestly office, and
though recording other parts of the evangelical
story, yet it ever is with a peculiar respect to his
priesthood. Upon which account the ancients in
accommodating the four symbolical representments
in the prophet's vision to the four evangelists, as-
signed the ox or calf to St. Luke.

5. His history of the apostolical acts was written no doubt at Rome, at the end of St. Paul's two years' imprisonment there, with which he concludes his story; it contains the actions, and sometimes the sufferings of some principal apostles, especially St. Paul; for, besides that his ac

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »