discourse and the glorified martyr's form of Stephen and of other persecuted Christians must have made upon him, an impres sion, of which he immediately strove to rid himself by more violent persecution. But of such preparations just as little trace can be discovered in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul, as of thunder and lightning. Nor are they very probable in view of the energetic and resolute character of the Apostle, who, in his zeal for the law, was firmly persuaded that by the persecution of Christians he did God service and wrought out the salvation of his own soul, and who could only be converted suddenly, or not at all. Over such natures, the Spirit of God comes in earthquake, fire and storm, and not in still, soft whispers. The very suddenness of his transition from bigotted Judaism to the inspired faith of the Son of God reveals to us the peculiarity of his position as Apostle of the Gentiles and representative of the most free and evangelical conception of christianity. And yet, on the other hand, it is true, that his faith in the revelation of the Old Testament, the earnestness of his will, and his honest, though at the same time mistaken, struggle after the honor of God and after righteousness formed an excellent ground-work for the operation of divine grace. For had he not persecuted the christians from ignorance (as he himself says, Tim. i: 13), but out of wanton malignity, as a Nero, had he been a frivolous man of the world, as Caiaphas and Herod, or a hypocrite, as Judas, then would no appearance from the world of spirits have ever been able to convert him (comp. Luke xvi: 31).

But in what relation did Paul stand to the original circle of the Apostles? The fact, that he was called directly by Christ, without human intervention, and could bear testimony, as an eye-witness, to the resurrection of the Lord, as well as the glorious fruit of his labors, sets his apostolic dignity beyond all dispute. And yet on this account we must either pronounce the election of Matthias to fill the place of the traitor (Acts i: 15, sqq.), void, or let go the necessity and symbolical signification of the number twelve. The latter cannot well be done, since Christ has given it special prominence (Matt xix: 28, and Luke xxii: 30), and only twelve "Apostles of the Lamb" are mentioned in the Apocalypse (xxi: 14). Some suppose the number twelve refers only to the Apostles of the Jews, and that Paul, as the thirteenth, should be considered the independent Apostle of the heathen world. But this is not altogether satisfactory,

'As Olshausen particularly assumes, in vol. III, of his Commentary p. §,

because Paul, on the one hand, labored partly among the Jews, and Peter and John, on the other, at a later period, among the Gentiles also, and because even in that case Pal would be passed over with strange neglect in the passage just quoted. Moreover the twelve tribes of Israel are the type, not merely of a part, but of the whole christian church. Rather can we bring ourselves to see in the election of Matthias an act unauthorized, though well-meant. The following considerations seem to favor this supposition: 1. That the election took place before the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, hence, before the formal inspiration. of the Apostles; 2. That it was brought about by the suggestion of Peter and through human mediation without an express com. mand of Christ; 3. That the name of Matthias is never mentioned afterwards, whilst Paul, an instrument called directly by the Lord himself without the knowledge or concurrence of the disciples, has accomplished more than all the rest of the Apostles (2 Cor. xi: 23, 1 Cor. xv: 10).' Be it as it may, it must be admitted, that the whole manner of his call, his position and his ministry, have something in them extraordinary, that will not suffer them to be included in the mechanism of a fixed order." And hence he is ever regarded as the chief authority and representative of the free movements of the Spirit in the churches.

With respect to the chronology, among the different periods fixed upon for the conversion of Paul, which differ about a decennium (from a. 31, as Bengel, to a. 41, as Wurm supposes), that appears to us best, which places this event in the year 37, thus, seven years after the resurrection of Christ.'

sqq. A peculiar modification of this opinion Dr. Henry Thiersch takes occasion to bring forward in behalf of Irvingism, which confessedly teaches a revival of the apostolic office for the last times. "Paul is not the thirteenth of the first apostolate, but the first of the second apostolate, which, instituted for the heathen world and the church forming herself out of it, in those ages did not yet come fully into view" (Lectures on Catholicism and Protestantism, Vol. I, p. 309, vid. 2d ed.).

'If Judas, the traitor, did not possess the talents of a Paul, he was yet designed for great things, else Jesus would not have received him into the amber of the disciples. The greatness of his original destination may be inferred from his tragic end, just as the grandeur of a destroyed building may be gathered from its ruins. On this, compare my tract on the Sin against the Holy Ghost. 1841, p. 41 sqq.

According to the rigid hierarchical view, whether Romish or Puseyistic, the entire non-participation of the apostles, for example, in the ordination of Paul, after his conversion, (Acts ix: 17), and at the time he was sent to the heathen by the congregation of Antioch, (xiii: 3), cannot be satisfactovily explained.

•And these are our reasons :-). The statement of Paul, that, three years VOL. III.-NO. IL 18

after his conversion, he fled from Damascus before the ethnarch of king Aretas, 2 Cor. ii: "32, 33, leads to no fixed terms, because our knowledge of the time of this Aretas and of the history of Damascus is too uncertain. Only this much is dear, that the conversion of the apostle cannot be placed earlier, than a. 34, for Aretas could not well come into possession of the city before the death of Tiberius, a. 37, (on this, comp. Wieseler, 1 c. p. 167 175). 2. The conversion must have followed not long after the martyrdom of Stephen, which, on account of the tumultuary nature of the proceeding, is best referred to the period just succeeding the deposition of Pilate a. 36, or the beginning of the reign of Caligula (after 37), who in the first year behaved himself kindly toward his subjects, as Josephus expressly remarks, Antiq. XVIII, 8, 2. 3. A more settled starting-point is afforded by the second journey of Paul to Jerusalem (Acts xi: 29, 30), which could not have happened long before the year 45, because in this year the famine broke out in Palestine, which occasioned the sending of Paul and Barnabas with supplies. Between this and the first mentioned journey of Paul to Jerusalem, Acts ix: 26, about four or five years must intervene, since the apostle had spent, in the meanwhile, a whole year in Antioch (Acts xi: 26) and probably two or three years in Syria and in Tarsus (ix, 30, Gal. i, 21) and some time also in his travels. Now, if the first journey was made in the year 40, the year of the conversion is easily determined, because this took place, according to the statement in Gal. i, 18, three years before, hence in a. 37. But then again our confidence in this calculation is weakened by the fact that neither Luke nor Paul specifies the exact duration of his stay in Tarsus, and conjectures here differ, for whilst Anger, for example, allows two years, Schrader and Wieseler, on the other hand count only half a year. 4. The surest determination of the time seems to lead to the period referred to in Gal. ii: 1, where the apostle says, "fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem." If then, with the majority of interpreters, we begin to count from the conversion as the starting-point, and understand by the journey here mentioned, that to the convention of the apostles (Acts xv), which, according to a reckoning tolerably certain, happened in the year 50 or 51, we reach once more the year 37 as the latest limit for his conversion. But it must be confessed that this calculation can also be rendered doubtful, so long as chronology and exegesis differ so much as to whether we should date the fourteen years from the conversion, or from the first journey to Jerusalem, as well as to whether we should understand by the journey mentioned in Gal. ii, 1, the second (Acts xi, 30, xii, 25) or the third (xv), or the fourth (xviii, 21, 22,). Wieseler, for example, endeavors to prove that Paol, in Gal. ii, had in his eye his fourth journey to Jerusalem (Acts xviii, 22), and because he places this in the year 54, he obtains, after deducting fourteen years, in agreement with his other combinations, the year 40 as the year in which the apostle was converted. But then it is very difficult for us to admit, that Paul, in the Epistle to the Galatians, has passed over in complete silence the journey to the convention of the Apostles, when the point of dispute settled in Gal. ii, is so closely connected with it. This is the point in which we must decidedly dissent from the chronological system of this able divine, which we in other respects consider the best and most satisfactory, particularly as regards the life of St. Paul.

LIFE OF THE REV. DR. MAYER.

LEWIS MAYER was born at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on the 26th of March, 1783. His father was GEORGE L. MAYER, of that place, a gentleman of liberal education. He was one of several children by a second marriage. His brother, Colonel GEORGE MAYER, is the only one still living, and is one of the oldest and most respectable merchants in Lancaster.

MR. MAYER's early education was received at Lancaster, the place of his birth, partly under the direction of his father. He applied himself very closely to his studies in general, but gave particular attention to the study of the German language and some eminent German authors. After receiving a respectable German and English education at Lancaster, he determined to leave the place of his birth, and locate in Fredericktown, Maryland. In this place, he engaged for a short time in a secular calling; but having a taste much better suited to books than business, he did not succeed to any considerable extent. His mind was chiefly occupied with reading and study, and it was thus engaged when he was awakened under the preaching of the pious and excellent WAGNER, then pastor of the Reformed Church at Frederick. His convictions of sin were unusually deep and pungent. He clearly saw his lost and helpless condition as a sinner, and felt himself exposed to the awful wrath of God. He was completely overwhelmed with a sense of sin, and could find no peace, day nor night. The season through which he passed before he could exercise faith and hope in the Redeem er as his Redeemer, was indeed one of fearful darkness. He stood, at times, on the very borders of despair, and almost gave himself up as lost. But having been once brought out of darkness into the sweet light of the gospel, and having been led by the Spirit to hope and trust in Christ as his Saviour, he soon became a firmly established Christian, and found his chief delight in looking to the Redeemer, and in being engaged in his service. He has often spoken to the writer and others, with great pleasure and interest, of the kind and valuable services rendered him by father WAGNER, in his deep spiritual conflicts, and in preparing him for the high and holy work of the Chris tian ministry.

Not long after his conversion, MR. MAYER's mind was impressed with the idea that he was called of God to preach the Gospel, but some considerable time elapsed before he became

fully satisfied that God had indeed called him to the ministry of reconciliation. And this assurance of a divine call to the Christian ministry was not obtained without another painful struggle.. He had conflict after conflict, and it was only after great deliberation and much earnest prayer, that his mind rested in a calm and full persuasion that he was called of God to be an ambassador for Christ.

Possessing a high order of native talent, and a mind already accustomed to deep thought and earnest inquiry, he made easy and rapid progress in all his classical and theological studies; and, having completed the prescribed course of study, he was licensed, in 1807, (being then in his twenty-fourth year,) by the Reformed Synod, which met that year at New Holland, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, to preach the gospel. His classical studies were mainly pursued under the direction of the principal of Fredericktown College, and his preparation for the ministry was made under the tuition of the Rev. Mr. WAGNER, Reformed pastor at Frederick; and of this learned and excellent father, who has long since rested from his labors, he always spoke in terins of very high regard and sincere affection. How, or where, Mr. MAYER spent the first year after his licensure, is not exactly known; but it is believed that he was employed in preaching occasionally at Frederick, and some other places in the vicinity.

In 1808, he accepted a call from the Shepherdstown charge, which at that time was composed of the Shepherdstown, Martinsburg, and Smithfield congregations. In this wide and interesting field, he labored, with great acceptance and success, for more than twelve years. Deeply imbued with the spirit of his Master, he went about doing good. His pulpit ministrations, catechetical instructions, and pastoral visitations were all highly acceptable to the people of his charge, and were greatly blessed of God, to the conversion and edification of many souls. He was respected and beloved by all who knew him, and it was mainly through his agency that a new life was brought into that part of the Reformed Church, which to this day is diffusing itself, like holy leaven, more and more. The few members of

that charge still living, and who enjoyed the privilege of sitting under his ministry, often speak of him with much affection, and delight in relating the wonderful things which God did through him in the midst of them. He received calls elsewhere, and to prominent points, but he declined them all.

When, in 1810, Mr. WAGNER, in consequence of impaired and declining health, resigned the Frederick charge and remov