of prayer for external phenomena, such as Rain and Disease; and the Christian Church to this day upholds the doctrin.

CHAPTER XI.

CLOSE OF THE APOSTOLIC ERA.

WHEN Paul and James had been removed, the chief pillars of the Church may be recounted as Apollos, John son of Zebedee, and Simon called Peter.

Apollos was a Jew of Alexandria, who had received. superior literary culture, suggestiv of Greek rhetoric. He may hav been baptized by John himself, whose disciple he regarded himself to be; and we find in the Acts of the Apostles that by reason of the close likeness of John's disciples to those of Jesus, Apollos and others passed as Christian. They were easily converted to Paul's gospel; and before long Apollos must hav become very eminent as a Christian teacher among the Gentiles, with some originality in his doctrin. For Paul (in 1st Epistle to Corinth) represents different Christians as saying, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Peter. It was cleverly conjectured by Martin Luther, that Apollos is the author of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, which cannot be Paul's, as the Greek style at once proves; though the Anglican translation (even the Recent Version) most improperly advertises it as Paul's. The Greek is far superior to that of Paul, the eloquence more polished and delicate, less fervid. The argumentation is less harsh and abrupt, though it has the fanciful subtlety to be expected from any Christian Rabbi. To no one can the Epistle be so plausibly ascribed as to

Apollos. After the death of Paul, Timotheus (Paul's younger friend) might reasonably attach himself to Apollos.

The chief novelty in this Epistle consists in representing Jesus as High-Priest of the Church, and Intercessor with God. Thus he becomes at once Priest and Victim, offering himself without spot to God. He rests his doctrin on the 110th Psalm, "Thou art a Priest for ever, after "the Order of Melchisedek." To many of us it is clear that that Psalm was composed by a priest, seer, or musician in honor of some Jewish king, possibly of David himself. Melchisedek was a king and priest. To say that David was a king after the Order of Melchisedek, was a poetical form of ascribing to him a right of sacrifice; and we know that David did sacrifice at the altar of Araunah the Jebusite. But in this Epistle the Psalm is assumed to be a glorification of Messiah (as probably Paul esteemed it) whence further a discussion concerning the priest-king Melchisedek. The writer's power of making much out of little is quite equal to Paul's, but perhaps this is only Rabbinical. Melchisedek in Genesis is brought-in abruptly, and nothing is said concerning his parentage, nor his birth and death. Out of these omissions, the writer grandiloquently raises a mighty fabric, calling him "Without father, without "mother, without descent, having neither beginning of "days nor end of life, but being made like unto the Son "of God, abideth a priest continually." On such a swollen bladder he would build a solid religion! What better illustration could we need of a "Castle in the Air" than this? His rhetoric culminates in his register of Faith, after giving a most unsatisfactory definition (if definition is intended), "Faith is the substance of things "hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Then follows a long list of ancient worthies, among whom so

many deserve sympathy and veneration, that to protest against special names is painful. Still, it is necessary to point at one monstrous assumption, contrary to the whole tenor of Hebrew literature, that the patriarchs looked forward to a better country, that is, a heavenly;" besides his fantasy that Moses in Egypt "endured the "reproach of Christ."

In the exaltation of Christ, as God's agent in creation, and therefor his first-begotten, also as the "off-shining " (or reflection?) of God's glory, he agrees with Paul; yet steps beyond him in saying that Jesus is the same Yesterday, To-day and For Ever, which adds to him one more attribute of Godhead, Immutability. Yet he calls "God the Judge of all," while with Paul God Judges men by Jesus. His moral exhortations ar worthy of Paul. The "blood of sprinkling" is his phrase, seemingly by allusion to the process for saving the first-born in Egypt from the destroying angel. This blood (he says) is "to cleanse the conscience from dead works to serve the "living God;" rhetorically elegant, morally very obscure. He informs us that "Christ through the Eternal Spirit "offered himself without spot to God,"--a new glorification of his ghastly death.

Apparently, with or without Paul, the cross was destined to a poetical glorification. Christians in the retrospect could not bear to think of their Lord's death as simply a cruel murder, as it is regarded in the opening of the "Acts." They felt bound to find out some divine purpose in it, some reason for saying that he had not "died in vain." This writer, who is still fuller than Paul of Hebrew sacerdotalism Rabbinically Christianized, signalizes the following curious analogy. "The bodies "of those beasts were burned without the camp; wherefor "Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his "own blood, suffered without the gate." How deplorable

a use of a fine intellect! Sanitary reasons obviously dictated where the bodies of the beasts should be burned; therefor (forsooth!) Jesus was crucified outside the gate. Want of good sense is too manifest. He also teaches us that in or "by the blood of the everlasting covenant" God raised Jesus from the dead, xiii. 20; quite a new covenant (it seems) here revealed, between God and Christ. But why in the blood? because covenants were confirmed among men by killing something! ix. 18. On this word covenant (Ann) he sadly blunders. In Greek it means also Last Will or Testament. He has (unawares to himself) in ix. 15-20 drawn up an argument in which this word vacillates between these two very diverse senses: whence hopeless nonsense is detected by an attempt at translation.

But on the whole we cannot wonder that this Epistle attained high honor and loyal acceptance with the Christian Church. Being in many respects like Paul and worthy of Paul, it was supposed to be Paul's. The date cannot be fixed. It has no historical allusion, either to the persecution by Nero or to the coming troubles of Jerusalem. If written in Paul's life, in alluding to Timothy one might expect allusion to Paul. This is not decisiv, yet may seem to turn the scale in favor of believing that it was written after Paul's death.

Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome is dated A.D. 64. It was a very critical time for the Church, which hitherto, both in Palestine and among the Gentiles, had striven to avoid all offence to the Roman authorities. The belief that the Lord from heaven would quickly supersede all earthly rule, made it easier to them, than to the mass of the Jews, to endure Roman supremacy; nay, to many Roman rule may hav seemed more tolerable than the power of Sadducees. To converted Gentiles an idolatrous power in Italy was no

worse, than if it had been in Alexandria or Babylon, Antioch or Sardis. Paul, as a Roman citizen, had lent all his influence to inculcate loyal submission to Rome: Peter, still later, followed in his track. But events were too stormy and overpowering. The temperament and judgment of the Church concerning Roman rule was changed violently, inevitably,--by cruelty which could not hav been pre-imagined.

This change is first indicated to us in the book which has for title "The Apocalypse (or Revelation) of Jesus "Christ." The author's name is given as John. He writes, as if with authority, to the Seven Churches of Asia. Internal evidence proves that the book was penned not long after the death of Nero, and before the destruction of Jerusalem. All Christian antiquity ascribes to John the son of Zebedee a long life. During his life it was hardly possible for any one to write as personating him. The Greek is the worst of all in the New Testament, and is that of a Hebrew. Absolutely nothing in the book exists to throw doubt on its being the genuine work of the son of Zebedee; and Justin Martyr, the earliest Christian writer who names it, ascribes it distinctly to the Apostle John. This apostle was one of the three who according to Paul, were accounted Pillars of the Church. Of any superiority in Peter, Paul was evidently quite ignorant. That must hav been a later fancy, equally that John was peculiarly beloved.

Innocent Englishmen seldom ar able to imagin what Roman "persecution" meant. We know that Romish legend is apt to exaggerate, and a vague distrust is often felt, when the horrors of old days ar alluded to. It therefor is not amiss to go into some detail as to the intense hardheartedness of Roman rule, which is often trumpeted as mild and tolerant, sagacious and civilizing.