on the road (A. xxiii. 31) between the old capital and the new, still com. memorated the name of the king's Idumæan father. We must not suppose hat the internal change in the minds of the people was proportional to the magnitude of these outward improvements. They suffered much, aud their hatred grew towards Rome and towards the Herods. A parallel might be drawn between the state of Judæa under Herod the Great, and that of Egypt under Mahomet Ali,1 where great works have been successfully accomplished, where the spread of ideas has been promoted, traffic made busy and prosperous, and communication with the civilised world wonderfully increased,—but where the mass of the people has continued tc be miserable and degraded.

After Herod's death, the same influences still continued to operate in Judæa. Archelaus persevered in his father's policy, though destitute of his father's energy. The same may be said of the other sons, Antipas and Philip, in their contiguous principalities. All the Herods were great builders, and eager partizans of the Roman emperors: and we are familiar in the Gospels with that Casarea (Cæsarea Philippi), which one of them built in the upper part of the valley of the Jordan, and named in honour of Augustus, and with that Tiberias on the banks of the lake of Genne sareth, which bore the name of his wicked successor. But while Antipas and Philip still retained their dominions under the protectorate of the emperor, Archelaus had been banished, and the weight of the Roman power had descended still more heavily on Judæa. It was placed under the direct jurisdiction of a governor, residing at Cæsarea by the Sea, and depending, as we have seen above, on the governor of Syria at Antioch And now we are made familiar with those features which might be adduced as characterising any other province of the same epoch,-the prætorium (Joh. xviii. 28),-the publicans (Luke iii. 12. xix. 2),-the tribute-money (Mat. xxii. 19),—soldiers and centurions recruited in Italy (Acts x. 1),* -Cæsar the only king (Joh. xix. 15)—and the ultimate appeal against the injustice of the governor (Acts xxv. 11). In this period the ministry, death, and resurrection of JESUS CHRIST took place, the first preaching of his Apostles, and the conversion of St. Paul. But once more a change came over the political fortunes of Judæa. Herod Agrippa was the friend of Caligula, as Herod the Great had been the friend of Augustus; and when Tiberius died, he received the grant of an independent principality

1 There are many points of resemblance between the character and fortunes of Herod and those of Mahomet Ali: the chief differences are those of the times. Herod secured his position by the influence of Augustus; Mahomet Ali secured his by the agreement of the European powers.

There is little doubt that this is the meaning of the "Italian Band." Most of the soldiers quartered in Syria were recruited in the province. See a full discussion of this subject in Biscoe's "History of the Acts confirmed," chap. ix. The "Augustan Band" (xxvii. 1) seems to have a different meaning. See Vol. II. chap. xxii.

In the north of Palestine. He was able to ingratiate haself with Claudius, the succeeding emperor. Judæa was added to his dominion which now embraced the whole circle of the territory ruled by his grand father. By this time St. Paul was actively pursuing his apostolic career. We need not, therefore, advance beyond this point, in a chapter which is only intended to be a general introduction to the Apostle's history.

2

Our desire has been to give a picture of the condition of the world a this particular epoch: and we have thought that no grouping would be sc successful as that which should consist of Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Nor is this an artificial or unnatural arrangement: for these three nations were the divisions of the civilised world. And in the view of a religious mind they were more than this. They were "the three peoples of God's election; two for things temporal, and one for things eternal. Yet even in the things eternal they were allowed to minister. Greek cultivation and Roman polity prepared men for Christianity." These three peoples stand in the closest relation to the whole human race. The Christian, when he imagines himself among those spectators who stood round the cross, and gazes in spirit upon that "superscription," which the Jewish scribe, the Greek proselyte, and the Roman soldier could read, each in his own tongue, feels that he is among those who are the representatives of all humanity. In the ages which precede the crucifixion, these three languages were like threads which guided us through the labyrinth of nistory. And they are still among the best guides of our thought, as we travel through the ages which succeed it. How great has been the honour of the Greek and Latin tongues! They followed the fortunes of a triumphant church. Instead of heathen languages, they gradually became Christian. As before they had been employed to express the best thoughts of unassisted humanity, so afterwards they became the exponents of Christian doctrine and the channels of Christian devotion. The words of Plato and Cicero fell from the lips and pen of Chrysostom and Augustine. And still those two languages are associated together in the work of Christian education, and made the instruments for training the minds

1 He obtained under Caligula, first, the tetrarchy of his uncle Philip, who died; and then that of his uncle Antipas, who followed his brother Archelaus into banishment. * Dr. Arnold, in the journal of his tour in 1840 (Life, ii. 413, 2d edit.). The passage continues thus:-"As Mahometanism can bear witness; for the East, when it abandoned Greece and Rome, could only reproduce Judaism. Mahometanism, six hundred years after Christ, proving that the Eastern man could bear nothing perfect, justified the wisdom of God in Judaism."

3 This is true in another, and perhaps a higher sense. The Roman, powerful but not happy-the Greek, distracted with the enquiries of an unsatisfying philosophy-the Jew, bound hand and foot with the chain of a ceremonial law, all are together round the cross. CHRIST is crucified in the midst of them-crucified for all. The "super scription of His accusation" speaks to all the same language of peace, pardon, and love.

of the young in the greatest nations of the earth. And how deep and pathetic is the interest which attaches to the Hebrew! Here the thread seems to be broken. "JESUS, King of the Jews," in Hebrew characters. It is like the last word of the Jewish Scriptures, the last warning of the chosen people. A cloud henceforth is upon the people and the language of Israel. "Blindness in part is happened unto Israel, till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." Once again Jesus, after His ascension, spake openly from Heaven "in the Hebrew tongue" (Acts xxvi. 14): but the words were addressed to that Apostle who was called to preach the Gospel to the philosophers of Greece, and in the emperor's palace at Rome.

ΕΝΘΑΔΕ ΚΕΙ

TAI BAYCTINA

سالحرورة

Here lies Faustina. In peace.1

1 A Christian tomb with the three languages, from Maitland's "Church in the Cata sombs," p. 77. The name is Latin, the inscription Greek, and the word Shalom or Peace" is in Hebrew.

CHAPTER II.

"Die Juden waren daselbst für die Heiden dasselbe, was Johannes der Täufer fut die Juden in ihrem Lande war."-(Wiltsch, Handbuch der Kirchlichen Geographie

JEWISH ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH.-SECTS AND PARTIES OF THE JEWS.-PHAR⚫ ISEES AND SADDUCEES.-ST. PAUL A PHARISEE.-HELLENISTS AND ARAMEANS. ST. PAUL'S FAMILY HELLENISTIC BUT NOT HELLENISING.---HIS INFANCY AT TARSUS. THE TRIBE OF BENJAMIN. HIS FATHER'S CITIZENSHIP. SCENERY OF THE PLACE.-HIS CHILDHOOD.-HE IS SENT ΤΟ JERUSALEM.-STATE OF JUDEA AND JERUSALEM.-RABBINICAL SCHOOLS.GAMALIEL.-MODE

OF TEACHING.-SYNAGOGUES. STUDENT-LIFE OF ST.

PAUL. HIS EARLY MANHOOD.-FIRST ASPECT OF THE CHURCH.-ST. STEPHEN. THE SANHEDRIN.-ST. STEPHEN THE FORERUNNER OF ST. PAUL. -HIS MARTYRDOM AND PRAYER.

CHRISTIANITY has been represented by some of the modern Jews as a mere school of Judaism. Instead of opposing it as a system antagonistic and subversive of the Mosaic religion, they speak of it as a phase or develop ment of that religion itself,-as simply one of the rich outgrowths from the fertile Jewish soil. They point out the causes which combined in the first century to produce this Christian development of Judaism. It has even been hinted that Christianity has done a good work in preparing the world for receiving the pure Mosaic principles which will, at length, be universal.1 We are not unwilling to accept some of these phrases as expressing a great and important truth. Christianity is a school of Judaism but it is the school which absorbs and interprets the teaching of all others. It is a development; but it is that development which was divinely foreknown and predetermined. It is the grain of which mere Judaism is now the worthless husk. It is the image of Truth in its full proportions; and the Jewish remnants are now as the shapeless fragments which remain of the block of marble when the statue is completed. When we look back at the Apostolic age, we see that growth proceeding which separated the husk from the grain. We see the image of Truth coming out in clear

1 Some of these works have furnished us with useful suggestions, and in some cases the very words have been adopted. There is much in such Jewish writings which no ordinary Christian can read without deep pain; but the pain is not so deep as when the same things are suggested, or borrowed, by those who call themselves Christians

xpressiveness, and the useless fragments falling off like scales, under the careful work of divinely-guided hands. If we are to realise the earliest appearance of the Church, such as it was when Paul first saw it, we must view it as arising in the midst of Judaism: and if we are to comprehend all the feelings and principles of this Apostle, we must consider first the Jewish preparation of his own younger days. To these two subjects the present chapter will be devoted.

1

We are very familiar with one division which ran through the Jewish nation in the first century. The Sadducees and Pharisees are frequently mentioned in the New Testament, and we are there informed of the tenets of these two prevailing parties. The belief in a future state may be said to have been an open question among the Jews, when our Lord appeared and "brought life and immortality to light." We find the Sadducees established im the highest office of the priesthood, and possessed of the greatest powers in the Sanhedrin: and yet they did not believe in any future state, nor in any spiritual existence independent of the body. The Sadducees said that there was no resurrection, neither Angel nor Spirit." They do not appear to have held doctrines which are commonly called licentious or immoral. On the contrary, they adhered strictly to the moral tenets of the Law, as opposed to its mere formal technicalities. They did not overload the Sacred Books with traditions, or encumber the duties of life with a multitude of minute observances. They were the disciples of reason without enthusiasm,-they made few proselytes,—their numbers were not great, and they were confined principally to the richer members of the nation." The Pharisees, on the other hand, were the enthusiasts of the later Judaism. They "compassed sea and land to make one proselyte." Their power and influence with the mass of the people was immense. The loss of the national independence of the Jews,-the gradual extinction of their political life, directly by the Romans, and indirectly by the family of Herod,-caused their feelings to rally round their Law and their Religion, as the only centre of unity which now remained to them. Those, therefore, who gave their energies to the interpretation and exposition of the Law, not curtailing any of the doctrines which were virtually contained in it, and which had been revealed with more or less clearness, but rather accumulating articles of faith, and multiplying the requirements of devotion: who themselves practiced a severe 1 Acts xxiii. 8. See Matt. xxii. 23-34.

• Josephus says of the Sadducees: Εἰς ὀλίγους τε ἄνδρας οὗτος ὁ λόγος ἀφίκετο, τοὺς μέντοι πρώτους τοῖς ἀξιώμασι. Πράσσεταί τε ἀπ' αὐτῶν οὐδὲν ὡς ἐιπεῖν· ὅποτε γὰρ ἐπ ἀρχὰς παρέλθοιεν, ἀκουσίως μὲν καὶ κατ ̓ ἀνάγκας, προσχωροῦσι δ ̓ οὖν οἷς ὁ Φαρισαῖος λέγει, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἄλλως ἀνεκτοὺς γένεσθαι τοῖς πλήθεσιν. Ant. xviii. 1, 4. And again : Τῶν μὲν Σαδδουκαίων τοὺς εὐπόρους μόνον πειθόντων, τὸ δὲ δημοτικὸν οὐχ ἑπόμενον αὐτοῖς ἐχόντων, τῶν δὲ Φαρισαίων τὸ πλῆθος σύμμαχον ἐχόντων, xiii. 10, 6. See the question asked, John vii. 48.