GENERAL TREATMENT OF THE CHRISTIANS A.D. 33-63.

The favours bestowed on the Jewish nation by the civil authorities during the latter portion of the reign of Tiberius, contributed materially to extend the boundaries of Christianity. The greatest enemies that the Christians had to encounter about this period of time, were none other than their unbelieving brethren the Jews. From this quarter the opposition was constant and determined, and it required more than ordinary courage to withstand it. But during a part of the reign of Caligula, the Jews found sufficient employment in defending their own religious rights against the attempted encroachments of the emperor. When his instructions to Petronius were made known, relative to the statue which he had commanded to be erected in the temple at Jerusalem, the Jews were driven to the very brink of despair. All other objects that had previously engaged their attention, dwindled into insignificance; even Christianity itself was lost sight of for a time in the general calamity, and its adherents were allowed to observe their religious practices without molestation, or, in the words of the sacred historian, the churches had rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria.'

6

Passing into the reign of Claudius, and overstepping the boundaries of Palestine, we find St. Paul and his companions readily admitted into the Jewish synagogues throughout all Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, even while the Christians of Judea were treated by their unbelieving brethren with the greatest contempt, cast out of the synagogues, and subjected to the fiercest persecutions. This fact sufficiently proves that Christians still continued to be regarded as a sect of the Jews in all countries excepting Judea, from which we may conclude, that the edict issued in the first year of Claudius favourable to Jews must have proved favourable to Christianity also. Indeed, 'Christians were not recognised by law as followers of a new religion till after the death of this emperor, nor was there any edict proclaimed against them.' In the reign of his successor, however, they began to be regarded as 'innovators and propagators of a new superstition,' and

though Nero at first appeared disposed to protect them, yet we find that they soon forfeited his favour, and became the marked victims of the tyrant's displeasure.

A.D. 64-66.-In the eleventh year of Nero's reign, which carries us one year beyond the period embraced by the Acts of the Apostles, the capital of the empire was destroyed by fire.

'Taking advantage of the universal hatred of Christianity, and of the popular calumnies and clamour against its advocates and confessors, Nero now succeeded in turning the eyes of the public from him for a time, by publishing an edict denouncing death on Christians, under the pretence that they had kindled the fire which had consumed the city; and he prescribed that they should suffer death under forms which should represent to all their crime in their punishment.' The only narrative deserving credit of this first great persecution of Christians by the Roman state, is the imperfect one left by Tacitus.

'Nero,' he observes, 'to suppress the prevailing rumour that he was the author of the conflagration, transferred the guilt upon supposed criminals, subjecting to most exquisite torments those people who for their enormous crimes were universally abhorred, and known to the vulgar by the name of Christians. The author of this name was Christ, who in the reign of Tiberius was executed under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea. The pestilent superstition was for a while suppressed, but it revived again, and spread, not only over Judea, where the evil was first broached, but reached Rome; whither from every quarter of the earth is constantly flowing whatever is hideous and abominable amongst men, and is there readily embraced and practised. First therefore were apprehended such as owned themselves to be of that sect; then by these was discovered an immense multitude, and all were convicted, not of the crime of burning Rome but of their hatred and enmity to mankind. Their death and tortures were aggravated with cruel derision and sport, for they were either covered with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by devouring dogs, or fastened to crosses, or wrapped up in combustible garments that, when the daylight failed, they might like torches serve to dispel the darkness of the night. For this tragical spectacle Nero lent his own gardens, and exhibited at the same time. the public diversions of the circus, sometimes driving a chariot in person, and sometimes standing as a spectator among the populace in the habit of a charioteer. Hence towards the miserable sufferers, however guilty and deserving the most exemplary punishment, compassion arose, seeing they were doomed to perish not with a view to the public good, but to gratify the cruelty of one man.'1

1 Tac. Ann. xv. 44.

"This sanguinary and barbarous attack on the Church of God began in the latter end of A.D. 64, and it is uncertain whether it terminated before the death of Nero A.D. 68, nor have we more certain information as to the extent of this calamity, for many imagine that the imperial edict was designed for the whole empire, while others would limit it to Italy, or even to Rome. If tradition may be relied on, both the great apostles Peter and Paul had visited the capital during the violence of this persecution, and fell victims to the rage of their enemies. It is probable that the sufferings of the Christians were of temporary duration, for Nero soon found himself in circumstances which doubtless withdrew his attention from them, and their enemies were subjected by him to such great and complicated distress, that they would feel little disposition to interfere in the affairs of a class of persons, who not only did them no injury, but were ever zealous to do them good by every means which they could employ.'1

J Davidson.

56

PART II.

'The Marcionites, Valentinians, and Severans, and some of the Manicheans rejected this book altogether, not from historical reasons, but because it militated against their opinions. Chrysostom informs us

that it was annually read in the churches, daily, between the festivals of Easter and Pentecost.' (Gardner.)

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

"The gospel of the Holy Spirit.' (Ecumenius.)

The Book of the Demonstration of the Resurrection.' (Chrysostom.)

St. Luke, the author of this book, is but little spoken of in Scripture. Indeed we are almost entirely indebted to himself for the little knowledge we possess of his history. He is not even mentioned in the gospels, though himself the author of that bearing his name. Judging, however, from the use which he makes of the personal pronoun, we conclude that he accompanied St. Paul in most of his travels. He first introduces himself to our notice in this indirect manner in Acts xvi. 11, where he says,Loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis; and from thence to Philippi,' &c. From this passage we infer, that St. Luke accompanied St. Paul on his first voyage to Macedonia. But on the departure of the latter, and certain of his companions from Philippi, our historian relates their progress in the third, and he does not resume the first person, until St. Paul, in the course of his third apostolic journey, is about to return from Greece through Macedonia to Jerusalem. How and where St. Luke spent this interval, can only be a matter of conjecture.1 From Acts xx. 5, 6, we learn that he now accompanied St.

-1 About the very time that St. Paul was compelled to leave Philippi in consequence of the ill-treatment and persecution to which he was subjected by his enemies, Macedonia was visited by a severe famine. Might not this have been the reason why St. Luke was now left behind at Philippi? Shortly afterwards during St. Paul's brief stay at Thessalonica, the Philippians, we are informed, sent once and again to the apostle's necessity (Phil. iv. 16). Who more likely to have stimulated the Philippians to this act of charity than St. Luke? Who more likely to have contributed liberally on these occasions than the beloved physician? And what more likely than that the matter should have been thus prearranged before the apostle's departure from Philippi?