Not long after this dignity had been conferred upon him, it was unexpectedly augmented by receiving from the same emperor, the tetrarchy of his uncle Herod Antipas. Herodias, the wife of Herod Antipas, who was tetrarch of Galilee and Peræa, and the sister of Agrippa, mortified and irritated that fortune had begun so brightly to shine upon her brother, that he was raised to the government of Judea, and had received the title of king, by which he was rendered superior to her husband, envied him his dignity, and persuaded Herod to go to Rome and solicit from the emperor the same distinction. But Caligula was so far from granting his request, that hearing he was in confederacy with one foreign power or more against the imperial government, he took away from him the tetrarchy of Galilee, and gave it to Agrippa: Herod was banished to Lyons, in France, whither his wife followed him. Josephus concludes his account of this event with this reflection, "This punishment did God inflict on Herodias for envying her brother, and on Herod for following the vain counsels of a woman." Jos. Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 8. The prosperity of Agrippa had not yet, however, reached its height. Being at Rome when Caius Caligula died, he interested himself greatly in the succession of Claudius to the throne, and materially contributed to that event. In consideration of this, Claudius confirmed to him all that his predecessor had bestowed, and gave him Judea, Samaria, and the southern parts of Idumea, in the utmost extent as possessed by his grandfather Herod the great. Thus he restored to him the right of consanguinity; but Abila, which had been Lysanias', together with the country in mount Libanus, he added as out of his own territories.

St. Luke says, that having "killed James, the brother of John, with the sword, because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also." This action recorded by the author of the "Acts," is not related

that we promised "to refer to Lysanias, whom Luke mentions in connection with Herod Antipas and Philip, in a subsequent paper." Of Lysanias being tetrarch of Abilene, there is no distinct account in any writer extant; but, from the allusion which

"was

by the Jewish historian, nor is the account of any similar deed by Agrippa; but from what he does relate of him it appears highly probable that he should have thus acted, and that he should have been instigated to act so by such a consideration as that attributed to him by the evangelist. Herod the great, his grandfather," he says, continually obliging foreign states and cities by large bounties, but did very few things to gratify the Jews. Whereas, Agrippa was of a mild and gentle disposition, and good to all men; he was beneficent to strangers, but especially kind to the Jews, his countrymen, and sympathized with them in all their troubles. For which reason he also lived much at Jerusalem, observed the Jewish institutions, practised the purity they require, and did not let a day pass without worshiping God according to the law." Antiq. 1. xix. c. 7. This

show of zeal for the institutions and customs of the Jews, and desire to oblige that people, very much confirm the account St Luke gives of his forwardness in persecuting the disciples of Jesus.

What the inspired historian adds concerning this person is very extrordinary, and Josephus concurs with him in it. "And he went down from Judea to Cæsarea, and there abode. And upon

a set day, Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration to them. And the people gave a shout, saying, "It is the voice of a God, and not of a man." Acts xii. 19, 21-23. Josephus' words are these:"Having now reigned three whole years over all Judea, he went to the city of Cæsarea, formerly called Straton's tower. Here he celebrated shows in honor of Cæsar, a festival having been appointed to be observed there at this time for his safety. On this occasion there was a vast resort of persons of rank and distinction from all parts of the country. On the second day of the shows, early in the morning, he came into the theatre, dressed in a robe of silver, of the most curious workmanship. The

Josephus here makes to the tetrarchy of Lysanias, as well as in one or two other places in connexion with the two Agrippas, it appears clear to ourselves that there must have been about this time some prince of this name who was tetrarch of Abilene.

rays of the rising sun, reflected from so splendid a garb, gave him a majestic and awful appearance. In short, they began in several parts of the theatre flattering exclamations, which proved pernicious to him. They called him a god, and intreated him to be propitious to them, saying, "Hitherto we have respected you as a man; but now we acknowledge you to be more than mortal." The king neither reproved these persons, nor rejected the impious flattery. Soon after this, casting his eyes upward, he saw an owl sitting upon a certain cord over his head. He perceived it to be a messenger of evil to him, as it had been before of his prosperity, and he was struck with the deepest concern. Immediately after this he was seized with pains in his bowels, extremely violent at the very first. Then turning himself towards his friends, he spoke to them in this manner: I your god, am required to leave this world; fate instantly confuting these false applauses just bestowed upon me: I who have been called immortal, am hurried away to death. But God's appointment must be submitted to. Nor has our condition in this world been despicable; we have lived in the state which is accounted happy.' While he was speaking these words, he was oppressed with an increase of his pains. He was carried, therefore, with all haste to his palace. These pains in his bowels continually tormenting him, he expired in five days' time, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and of his reign the seventh." Antiq. lib. xix. c. 8. sect. 2.

Between this narration and that given by St. Luke, many points of agreement must present themselves to the mind of the reader. In respect to the place where, and the time when, this event happened, the magnificence of Herod's dress, the flattery of the Jews, they entirely accord. But there are two particulars, above all others, in which this harmony is remarkable. One of these is, the temper of mind with which Herod Agrippa received the flattery that was so wickedly bestowed. St. Luke says, "He gave not God the glory;" Josephus, "He neither reproved those persons, nor rejected the impious flattery." These words are deserving of the greater notice in Josephus, because he has at times represented this

239

66

In these circumstances, then, there is an observable harmony between the history which St. Luke has given, and that furnished by the author of the Jewish Antiquities. In one or two others, however, there is a discrepancy. Josephus says in his account of Agrippa's death, that, casting his eyes upward, he saw an owl sitting upon a certain cord over his head. He perceived it to be a messenger of evil to him as it had been before of his prosperity, and was struck with the deepest concern." Allusion is here made to something which the author had before related; the perching of such a bird upon a tree near this same Agrippa, when he was put into prison by order of Tiberius; and to a prognostication which a German astrologer is said to have delivered at that time concerning him. Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 7. Whether such a bird did or did not appear to Agrippa cannot now be determined; nor does it appear important that it should be. Josephus now and then throws a circumstance or two into his relations that give them a heathenish air, with the design, it is probable, of rendering his history more agreeable to the Greeks and Romans, for whom it

was principally intended. In our opinion he does so in the present instance. But it is evident from his account, that Herod was seized with a

very uncommon disorder, and that he had the most lively apprehensions of his approaching end.

St. Luke says, "Herod was eaten up of worms." This is not mentioned by Josephus; and his omission of it has been supposed by some to be an objection against the evangelist's account; but in our apprehension without any just reason. The distemper of which Herod Agrippa died, was, according to Josephus' own description of it, very similar to that of Herod, his grandfather, who, besides other disorders, was afflicted with violent pains in his bowels, and an ulcer which bred worms. Now it is not at all unlikely that Agrippa's case was, in this last respect also, very much the same as that of Herod the great. Certainly to represent this as a serious objection and press it, indicates a cavilling, captious disposition, rather than a simple, ardent desire, to discover and embrace the truth. Upon the whole, we believe that this passage which we have extracted out of Josephus will be allowed to be a remarkable attestation of the extraordinary event related by the sacred historian, Luke.

We have been occupied longer with

Herod Agrippa than we had expected to be; the observations, however, we trust, will not be deemed by our readers uninstructive and unimportant. If, in these incidental references, the representations which the evangelists make of certain men and things can be shown to agree with such representations made by profane writers living at the same time with the apostles, or subsequently, then the credibility of the former is established beyond a doubt; in respect to these accounts, at least, the faith of the christian is strengthened, and good service done to the cause of truth. And if their accuracy is demonstrated in these things, the truth of which is thus proved, we feel to have no doubt of their accuracy in those things which cannot be thus tested.

Our fourth, and concluding paper, which will appear in the next number of the Repository, will contain observations upon Agrippa, Bernice, and Drusilla, three children of Herod Agrippa, mentioned by the sacred historians; and upon Pilate, Felix, Festus, Sergius Paulus, and Gallio, heathen governors, to whom also they make some allusion.

HAVING traced the history of the subject under consideration down to the close of the third century, we may observe, that the views to which we have adverted continued to be entertained, without any modification, at least for flfty years. During the first quarter of the fourth century, Constantine the Great having ascended the imperial throne, became a professed christian, and, as may be supposed, the aspect of things quickly changed; heathenism, to a considerable extent, lost its power; but this seeming triumph

Will the reader have the kindness to correct the following typographical errors in the article which appeared last month,-page 301, line five on the second column, after "we wonder not," place a semi-colon. Page 304,

proved ultimately detrimental to the interests of vital religion. It cannot, however, be denied, that the Church, toward the close of the fourth century, contained men of distinguished abilies. It is sufficient to mention Cyril, of Jerusalem, Ephrem Syrus, Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Cassian. Though we may differ from these fathers on many essential points, it would evince extreme stupidity or prejudice not to allow that they possessed

second column, 8th line from the top, obliterate the verb "is" and read "The bread which the God Logos (theoslogos) declared," &c. In line 33, same column, for "Carcilius" read, “ Caecilius."

strong intellectual powers. In detailing, then, the history of opinions respecting the Eucharist, it is of importance that we ascertain the views which were entertained at this period. "What changes did the doctrine of the earlier christians undergo?" One fact, deserving peculiar attention, strikes the mind in glancing at the transactions of these days, namely, the gradual and insidious introduction of the dogmas of the Romish hierarchy. "The germ began in monkery, and in a multiplication of church offices and ceremonies." The sublime institutions of Christianity became regarded as unattractive, unless attended with worldly pomp and splendour. Not a few of the heathen ceremonies were incorporated into the ritual of the churches. The mysteries associated with heathenism, and the profound reverence entertained for them, gave birth to a desire for corresponding attractions in connection with the christian religion. Baptism and the Lord'ssupper opened a door of easy access to mysteries. In this process little more was required than the confirmation of the views stated in our last article. In the first there was the presence of the Holy Spirit, with his regenerating and sanctifying influence in the consecrated water. The sign of the cross, chrism with holy oil, sponsors, and a variety of other ceremonials," became a part of this ordinance and as to the supper, every effort was made to associate with it the "most mysterious qualities and influences. Nothing could be better adapted to this than to interpret the language of Christ This is my body, this is my blood,' in a kind of literal way. This would carry the matter even beyond the bounds of the heathen mysteries; it would fully satisfy the cravings of our nature for the mysterious and the awful."

66

Such sentiments silently incorporating themselves with human feelings during the progress of the fourth century, we cannot be astonished that the men to whom we have referred seem filled with

ecstacy and awe" when alluding to the Eucharist. A few examples will furnish the reader with a specimen of their general language, "Direct thy view,"

341

own body. If any were to commit_gold dust to thee, to be conveyed any where, wouldest thou not guard carefully against losing any particle thereof? How much more shouldest thou guard against the smallest crumb of that which is more precious than gold or rubies! Draw near to the cup, bowed down, and with a kind of worshipful reverence. If one drop of it should hang upon thy lips, moisten thine eyes and forehead therewith, and thus sanctify them."* Chrysostom having described with what reverence we are accustomed to approach earthly majesty, gives utterance to the following impassioned language: -"With how much more shuddering shouldest thou approach, when thou seest him (Christ) lying before thee! Say now to thyself, By means of this body, I am no more dust and ashes, no more a captive, but a freeman; through this I expect an eternal life in heaven, with all the blessings there reserved, and to obtain an inheritance with the angels, and intercourse with the Redeemer." Again he says, in the sequel, This entertainment is the nerve of the soul, the bond of the spirit, the foundation of confidence, hope, safety, light, and life. When we go away in possession of this, we find ourselves in possession of golden armour. Why should ¿I speak of the future? This mysterious transaction transforms the earth into heaven. All that the heaven holds of the precious, will I point out to thee on earth. In a royal palace, nothing is more precious than the person of the king. This thou canst now see on earth, yea, touch, eat; purify thself, then, in order to be made partaker" of such mysteries.‡ One more extract, from Cyril, of Alexandria, must conclude these examples. "Christ gives us a feast to day. Christ serves us. Christ, the friend of men, receives us. Awful is what is said; awful, what is done. The fatted calf is slain, the Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the

66

*Catech. xxiii. § 21, 22. Some intelligent friends have expressed their regret to the writer, that he did not, in his last article, furnish references to the authorities quoted. This was an inadvertence. In this article,

the fathers whose opinions are mentioned. + Hom. xxiv. in Ep. ad Cor. Opp. xi. Idem, p. 261.

2 P

world. The father is well pleased; the Son freely presents himself as an offering, not brought forward by the enemies of God, but by himself, to show that he freely took upon him the sorrows that render us happy. Divine presents are offered; the mysterious entertainment is prepared; the life-giving cup is mingled; the King invites to honors; the incar nate LOGOS exhorts us; he imparts his body as bread; he presents his lifegiving blood as wine. O, what an indescribable arrangement! What incomprehensible condescension! What unsearchable piety! The Creator gives himself to the creature, to be partaken of; the source of life voluntarily presents himself to mortals as food and drink."*

Whilst there is much in the general strain of this language which is reprehensible, we cannot but admire the deeptoned piety it exhibits. Ought it not to fill many with shame and confusion, who, though possessing clearer views of truth, approach the Lord's-table with comparative coldness and indifference!

In forming an estimate of the real sentiments entertained by these fathers, and their contemporaries, we must enter somewhat more minutely into the subject. At first sight, it would seem as if they unequivocally taught the doctrine of transubstantiation; but their writings evince that this was not the case. following remarks will at once show the truth of this assertion.

The

First. The fathers not unfrequently draw a comparison between the Eucharist and the ordinance of baptism, and place both in the same class of mysteries; but, in relation to baptism, they never maintain that the water becomes, when consecrated, the Holy Spirit, or that the holy oil undergoes any such change. They regarded this matter merely as standing on the following basis, namely, that the Holy Spirit communicated to those elements an extraordinary and supernatural energy. But this is quite a different thing from a change or transformation of the elements into the Holy Spirit.

Secondly. It is a favorite idea of the fathers in question, that the union of the LOGOS with the bread and wine is like his union with a human body. Now, in regard to this latter union, the ortho

* Homil. in Myst. Coen. Opp. v. p. 2, pp. 371, 372.

dox churches never hold that the two natures of Christ were so blended, that they become merely one nature. The person was one, but the natures two. Eutychius, an abbot of Constantinople, who flourished at this period, maintained the doctrine of one nature only in Christ; but Eutychius was assailed and opposed from all quarters. The union of the LOGOS, then, with the body of Jesus, did not change or transform the proper human nature of the body. If, now, the same fathers who attacked Eutychius, had maintained a real transubstantia tion of the elements in the supper into the body and blood of Christ, by the presence of the logos in them, then would they have put deadly arms into the hands of Eutychius, who might well say, "By your own concession, the Eucharistic elements are transformed, and are no more bread and wine when the LOGOS is present in them; consequently, when he assumes a human body, it no longer remains such, but is transformed into a higher nature." The fathers were in general too wary disputants to expose themselves in this way.

Thirdly. Some of the fathers are occasionally so explicit in regard to the point before us, that no doubt can remain respecting their meaning. Chrysostom, in his epistle to Cæsarius employs the following language, “As we call the bread, before the consecration, bread, but after consecration, it loses this name, and is called the body of the Lord, ALTHOUGH THE NATURE OF THE BREAD STILL REMAINS."* Theodoret, in writing against the monophysites, assents, "that the body of Christ retains its proper nature when united with the Godhead;" he adds, "as the bread and wine, after the consecration, lose nothing of their sensible substance."+

Gelasius, made bishop of Rome in A. D. 492, who lived a century later than most of the fathers we have quoted, when writing against the Eutychians and Nestorians, says in the most explicit manner, “Certainly the sacra

*Epis; ad Cæsar. in Canissii Thesauro I p. 235. We are aware that the genuineness of this epistle has been questioned. Muenscher, among others, has objected to it. (Dogm. Geschiehte, iv. p. 389). His reasons, however, are far from being conclusive.

+ Dial. Opp. iv., p. 125, Dial. 1, p. 25. Comp. Ephrem. Syr. in Phot. Biblioth. c. 229.