parison of Baptism to Noah's ark, but the Baptism of which he speaks is not the mere external rite, but the confession of a sincere heart.

It may be objected that nothing in this Epistle denotes the writer ever to have seen and listened to Jesus. But the objection assumes that in those days the business of an apostle was to play the part of an "evangelist," making much of the deeds and words of the living Jesus. It assumes that the practical morality taught by Jesus was more valuable than that of Paul and Peter. Rather, these apostles believed that they had to teach truths and hopes concerning the risen Jesus which he, while alive, did not teach, and that change of circumstances made change of moral exhortation suitable. The perfect virtue of Jesus himself could.not be attested by an apostle as though eye or ear were a competent judge; so transcendent a quality could only be inferred by the prophecies concerning Messiah.

The last words of this remarkably beautiful and edifying Epistle send a salutation from the Church in Babylon. No valid reason appears for doubting that he wrote from the historical city of Babylon. The tone of iv. 17 denotes that he saw the destruction of Jerusalem under Vespasian and Titus to impend. He may hav written A.D. 69. In iv. 12 his expectation of the fiery trial (to all Jewish Christians-for it is to these that he writes) attests that the fierce enmity of the Roman Government to Christians was no secret to him. Yet he perseveres in Paul's theory concerning governors (ii. 14) and is most earnest that Christian Jews shall giv no symptom of disloyalty. His modesty in addressing Elders as himself an Elder, and exhorting them not to be lords over God's heritage, is in very pleasing contrast to that of bishops in the following centuries. Whether Peter ever set foot in Italy, is historically quite doubtful.

No well attested fact denotes that he ever held or desired any supremacy in the Church, Jewish or Gentile. The four Gospels accuse him of having three times denied Christ with vehement oaths: but the lead which in Acts i. 15 is conceded to him ungrudgingly, makes this story as improbable as ar the details concerning the motivs of Judas.

The reasons for rejecting as spurious the second Epistle called Peter's, cannot here be fully treated. It is enough to say, that the second chapter is judged to be a mere importation of Jude's Epistle, and Jude writes, looking back to the apostles as an earlier generation: also the third chapter is written after much disappointment had been felt that Christ's second coming was delayed. The excuse for this, that "with the Lord a thousand years "ar as one day" is fatal to all truth, making God a wilful deceiver of men. Such doctrin is self-confuting.

CHAPTER XII.

DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND ITS EFFECT ON
CHRISTIANITY.

UNHAPPILY it was not the Romans alone who hated the Jews. No conquering empire has yet made itself beloved, except that of the Incas in Peru, who (according to Spanish accounts) conquered by that blessed Christian rule, which bids us show greatness by becoming servant of the weaker. To imperial kindness the barbarian heart pays grateful allegiance, as surely as do horses and dogs. But Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians, Macedonians and Romans, following the doctrin that

Might makes right, and, Woe to the conquered! were hated by those whom they trod down. It is not wonderful, that so too were the Jews during their short term of imperialism. The Hebrew annals frankly inform us how very far was their pious king David from gentleness towards Edom, Ammon and even Moab; how lighthanded also his plundering of Syrian towns. All this comes as it were naturally to one who has proved superior in war.

name.

The tale was repeated by the Jewish power after the marvellous Maccabean successes. These exalted the Jewish spirit everywhere and gave honor to the Jewish The successiv kings of Egypt looked on Jews with respect, and (in modern phraseology) admitted them to diplomatic equality. Maccabean princes ruled in Sheba. A million Jews dwelt in Alexandria with nativ autonomy under the Ptolemies. The Romans were glad to make the Jewish power their ally. The sacrosanct head of the Jews, already a Priest-King in fact, dealt with a very high hand towards foreigners, grudging municipal local freedom even to nativ towns, in order to centralize power in Jerusalem. Syrian towns, of which many were conquered, ar not likely to hav had much freedom left to them, though their language was that of Jerusalem. All that is reported of them implies, that at every time they felt themselves to be under a foreign yoke. Jewish dealing with Edomite towns was severer still; for after conquest, circumcision and the whole of the Mosaic ritual was violently imposed. Yet here it may seem that the violence was successful; for, as the descendants of Saxons who had been driven to baptism by the spear of Charlemagne, and Hungarians forcibly converted by St. Stephen, came to pride themselves on their Christianity, so (in two generations perhaps) were these Edomites proud of their Judaism,

and practically were incorporated into Israel. The fierce demolition of Samaria by the high-priest Hyrcanus was mentioned above. Jerusalem was not virtuous enough for her own successes and temporary power. When Rome came down in might on Syria, it may well be believed that from the evil reports of the Syrians, many of whom avowed disaffection to Jewish rule, the Romans quickly imbibed strong aversion to the Jewish character. Moreover, it is every way credible, that the Jews under their new regimen were more offensiv to their neighbours than under their former royalty. David, however acceptable his piety to the strict worshippers of Jehovah, and however unbridled his personal elation, was not king over a whole nation possessed by ceremonial zeal. His people were only too prone to adopt the superstitions of their neighbours, as indeed were many of the kings who succeeded him. But in the later period, when all the nation had become devoted to the law of Moses, and had seemed to experience that Jehovah indeed fought for them; then, to avoid religious arrogance was hardly possible. They had rejected marriage with Gentiles as a defilement and a breach of sacred law. To eat at a common table involved ceremonial uncleanness. On a smaller scale, like causes separate Turks from their Christian subjects, and Englishmen in India from nativs. To be conquered and governed by foreigners is a grievous sore; but to be insulted by the perpetual suggestion: "We domineer, because we ar pure, and you ar defiled," drops poison into the wound. It can scarcely be doubted, that the ordinary insolence of conquerors was inflamed by ecclesiastical pride. The Hebrew scriptures fanned the flame. Every Israelite remembered such texts as: "God shall subdue the nations under us, and the peoples "under our feet! Moab is my washpot; over Edom will "I cast my shoe," &c. Texts ar too numerous here to

quote; indeed that glorious (later) Isaiah abounds with ampler and varied chants of triumph. Earthly dominion, earthly wealth and splendor, earthly vassalage of Gentiles, ar announced in words unmistakable. It is childish to pretend that Jerusalem and Zion do not mean the cities so called, but mean miscellaneous saints who profess a different and higher religion than that of Isaiah. Most certainly no such idea could enter the Hebrew nation, even if a few eccentric Rabbis, with Paul, imagined it. But Christians, instead of confessing that these beautiful prophecies were patriotic error and an unhappy source of delusion, continue to insist that they ar divine, scold at the Jews for accepting their obvious and only sense, and twist the words to their own glory.*

The language of Jerusalem hardly differed from that of the Syrians we call both at that time Syriac. The Asmonean princes conquered much or all of Hollow Syria, the lofty plain between Libanus and AntiLibanus. Some towns were alternately conquered and lost. Many Syrian towns had Jewish residents in time of peace but probably all Syrian towns preferred Syrian to Jewish rule; and at least at first, preferred Roman masters to Jews. The city of Cæsarea approached the ancient Tyrian frontier. It had been built up into splendor by Herod the Great, and named in honor of Augustus Cæsar. It contained a temple adorned with statues in Greek style, which seemed to alienate it from Judæa. It had a Jewish synagogue; but the Syrian residents, under the patronage of Herod and his successors, may hav been more numerous than the Jews. In this city a fatal flame was first lighted (if we can

The amiable and learned Crévier says that the Jews, when they made insurrection against Trajan, had only to complain of "the heavy yoke laid 'upon them contrary in their opinion (!) to the express promises and predic"tions of the prophets."

66