Search the history of over 505 billion pages on the Internet.
Open Library
Full text of "Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature"
See other formats
Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was prcscrvod for gcncrations on library shclvcs bcforc it was carcfully scannod by Google as part of a projcct
to make the world's books discoverablc onlinc.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to cxpirc and thc book to cntcr thc public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subjcct
to copyright or whose legał copyright term has expircd. Whcthcr a book is in thc public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, cultuie and knowledge that's often difficult to discovcr.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journcy from thc
publishcr to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commcrcial partics, including placing lechnical rcstrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use ofthefiles We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
person al, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrainfinm automated ąuerying Do not send automated querics of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machinę
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a laige amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributłonTht Goog^s "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming peopleabout thisproject and helping them lind
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legał Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legał. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can'l offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps rcaders
discoYcr the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the fuli icxi of this book on the web
at |http: //books. google .com/l
CYCLOP^DIA
OF
BIBLICAL,
THEOLOGICAL, AND ECCLESIASTICAL
LITERATURĘ.
PREFABED BY
THE REY.JOHN M*CLINTOCK, D.D.,
Ain>
JAMES STRONG, S.T.D.
VoL. YIII— PET-RE
NEW YORK:
HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS,
FBANKŁIN 8QUARB.
18 83.
48 5(
V
3 Rfs
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1879, by
HARPER & BROTHERS,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
PREFACE TO VOL. VIIL
This voluine bas been executed without any retrenchment or materiał modi-
fication in plan, althougb, for tbe sake of uniformity in tbis respect, its size
bas l>een considerably increased beyond tbo amoant proinised; for it is tbe pur-
pose of tbe editor to complete tbe alpbabet witbin tbe compass of ten vol-
omes. A Snpplement ^rill follow, containing tbe necrology and otber items
tbat bave accrued during tbe progress of tbe work. Gircumstances not likely
to recur baye reąnired a somewbat longer time tban usaal for tbe preparation
of the present Tolame; but tbis will cause no postponement in tbe eventual
completion of tbe work, as abont one balf of Yol. IX is already in type, and tbe
tenth Tolume raay tberefore be looked for in two years from tbe present issne.
Usefal, accarate, and fuli information, ratber tban noveIty or an affectation of
originality, bas constantly been tbe aim of tbe editor. It bas accordingly been
repeatedly avowed in tbe sereral prefaces that tbo present work is intended to
embrace tbe substance of all tbe best books of tbe kind bitberto produced. It
is beliered tbat notbing of value to American readers contained in any of tbem
irill be fonnd to bave been omitted. Tbis is cspecially true witb regard to two
of tbe latest, and in many respects most important, works — namely, Smitb's IHc"
Honory of the BibU and Herzog's JReal-Micyklopddie^ wbicb bave constantly been
consnlted in tbe preparation of tbe articles. At tbe same time, no 8erviie system
of copying from tbem or from any otber source of information bas been adopted.
In tbe extracts used, tbe babitual redundancies bave been eliminated, tbe occa-
alonal errors and extravagances bave been corrected, and tbe freąuent omissions
baye been snpplied ; in sbort, tbeir wbole form, bearing, and contents bave largely
been modified, and tbeir language and conclusions for tbe most part recast. So
numerous and extensive baye tbese cbanges usually been, even wbere one or tbe
otber of tbe great works named bas sabstantially been tbe basis of an article,
tbat in many cases notbing morę tban tbis generał acknowledgment ougbt, or
conld, be madę. Tlie present work contains at least twice as many distinct ar-
ticles as botb tbose dictionaries put togetber, and includes tbonsands of subjects
not mentioned in eitber of tbem. Many of tbese additional topics are of tbe
grayest importance and tbe bigbest interest in religious literaturę.
Occasional corrections baye kindly been fumisbed by readers of tbe CydopcBdia,
Notice of any errors or omissions will be thankfnlly receiyed, if sent eitber tbrongb
tbe publisbers or directly to tbe editor, Dr. Stbong, at Madison, New Jersey.
iv PREFACE TO VOL. VIIL
The following are the fuli names of the writers of wholly original articles iw%
this Yolume, exclu8ive of those by the editor, who has furnished nearly half tho
matter, and carefally revised the rest :
B. B, A«— Professor K. B. Anderson, AM^ Ph.D., of the Umreraity of WiBCouiio.
L. C— Professor Lyman Ck>LEMAN, D.D., of Lafayette College.
D. D.— The Bev. Danibł DeyinniC, Momsania, N. Y.
£. H. Gs^The late Profeasor £. H. Gillett, D.D., of the Uiiivenity of the City of New York.
D. Y. H^^The Rev. D. Y. Heibłeb, Mont Alto, Po.
G. F. H.— Professor G. F. Holmes, LLJ)., of the Uiuvenity of YirguiuL
K. H.— The Bev. K. Hutcheson, Washingtoo, Ia«
G. a J ^The Ber. G. C. Jones, Mansfield, Pa.
D: P. K.—Profe88or D. P. Kiddeb, D.D., of the Drew Theological Semioaiy.
J. P. L. — Professor J. P. Lacboix, Ph.D., of the Ohio Wedeyaii UnlTersity.
B. P.— ^The Bev. B. Pick, Ph.D., Rochester, N. Y.
S. H. P.— The Bev. S. H. Płatt, of the N. Y. Eaat Conferenee.
J. P.— The Bev. James Portek, D.D., Brooklya, N. Y.
A. J. S.— Płofessor A. J. SctncM, A.M., West Hoboken, N. J.
E. de S^^Tfae Right Ber. £. de Schwęinitz, D J>., editor of The Moranan^ Bethlehem, Vtu
J. H. S.^The Bev. J. BoyrAsoi Smith, D.D., Newark, N. J.
J. L. &— The Ber. J. L. Soot, Lexington, Ky.
J. C. S.— The Bev. J. C. Stockbridoe, D.D., Proridence^ R. I.
W. P. S^The Bev, W. P. Stbickland, D.D., New York city.
W. J. B. T.— The Bev. W. J. B. Taylor, D.D., Newark, N. J.
A. W.— Profesaor Albxander Winchell, LL.D., of the Syracuse UmreiBity;
T. D. W.— The Bev. T. D. Woolset, D.D., LL.D., New HaveD, Conn.
J. H. W.— Profeasor J. H. Wobman, A.M., Brooklyn, N. Y.
LIST OF WOOD-CUTS IN VOL YIE.
Jerome SoroDarola as SL Peter
Murtyr Page
Si. Peter Nolasco
Xftp of Petra
Tbe"Khai]łeh**łn Petra
TheTheatre at Petra
Bock-hewn Tempie at Petra
Interior of a Tomb at Petra
T«iib of PeŁrarch
Pew at Headlugton
Pew at Steeple Aaton
Phtladetphla io Aaia Minor
Com of Philip Y of Maoedon
C<4n of the Roman emperor Philip
Cofnof Herod PhUip
Cotn of Philippi
Plan of Philippi and ita Ylciuity. .
Phiłistioe StJp attacked by Egyp-
tiana
Pbilłsane Wagooa attacked by
SCTptiana
Vańa of Philiatine Ftiaoners
Map of the Coaat near Latro
CcHa of Tyre, Antlochoa IV.
Lid of PhflBolcIan Sarcophagns. . . .
Ph<cni€ian Tablet.
Pbcnldan iDecription
Antiąne Hepresentationa of the
Pbanix
Phylactery for the Ann
Phylactery for the Head
Pbytactcnr od the Arm.
Acóent Ęnptlao Doctors (or Bar-
bcn?)and Patlenta
Ca\Q of Jodca stnick ander Pon-
tituPilate.
SnltunrPUiAr in the Wltdemeea..
rUbu Id Sl Peter*8, Northampton .
SectirtMofPilłars
I>roidical PilUra
PilUr at Welford
Se« MW of PiUar
Plllar at Orton-on-the-Hlll
Pillar at Stofamber
Ancieot Egyptiau Wooden Pillow.
Andent l^ptian Toilet-piua
l^ne-PIne Cooe aud Nota
Plnoacle of Battle Cborch
Phinade of Peterborongh Catbe-
dral
Pionacle at Lincoln
PiooaWorker.
Andent l^tian Pipes.
Andent Ęgyptian Reed-pipes
The Orienta! ifai/t or Fluie, wlth
Caae
Modem Esyptian Płpes.
MoDk of the P!qnepnz Order
PiKtoa at Croirmarab
Piaeina at Warmington
Fiadna at Comnor
Ptsdna at Tackley
Ykw weetward fh>m the anmmit
of Monnt Plagab
MapofMonntPiej^b
Cuin of Andoch in Pialdia
E^ptian Pitchers
iAntIqae Bnst of Plato Page
80'Ancłent Egyptiana Playing at
32 Draughta and Jforo.
89| Andent Egyptlan Plongh
4o'Plonghof Aaia Minor
41 Plonghiug in Pateatine
41 1 Biriłiplace of Pollok.
48,The Pomegranate.
44 Pool of Hezekiah
49,Begalia of the Pope of Rume
49 The Pope Seated in the Pontiflcal
781 Chalr
86 Styraz ofieinale
86 Ordiiiary Poppie
89 Poppie at Kldlington
93 Porch at Biceater. Oifordahire
94 Porch at Oreat Addiugton
Tomb of Biahop Porietia, at Tnn-
103 brldge,Kent
Tempie of Yeata
lOS A Tartar Coarier.
106'Holy-water Pot
148Potent
las.Name of Pot-pherab, Pet-phre, or
1 6S I Pe t - re
16S Ancient EgypŁian Pottera
163. Modem BgypUan Pottera
tPIgnie of Powtal
164 Premonatrant Monk
175' Ancient Ęgyptian Dra wers and
176j Girdie
176 Ancient Ęgyptian Tanie
lAnclent Ęgyptian Tanie and Oir-
178! dle
Ancient Ęgyptian Prieatly Robę,
200 Ephod, and Girdie
900 Ancient JBgyptian Prieatly Breaat-
2101 plate
810 1 Ancient Ęgyptian Prieatly Mitrea.
810 Habit of a Koman Cathofic Prieat
211 Proceaaional Croas, and Part of ita
211 Stair
211 Triangnlar Maaical Inatrnment
211 from Hercnlanenm
213 Miacellaueooa Ancient Stringedln-
214 Btrnmenta
216 Pentadrachm of Ptolemy L
217;Octodracbm of Ptolemy II
lOctodrachm of Ptolemy III
21S,Tetradrachm of Ptolemy lY
218!Tetradrachm of Ptolemy Y
222 Tetradrachm of Ptolemy YI
922 Fac-aimile of the Pndena Inacrip-
922 tlon at Chicheater
Coin of Pnlcberia
223 Figurę of Pnlear
223t Pnipit at Fotheringay
224 Polpit at Beanlien, Hauta
The Feaat of Porim in a Modem
Synagogne.
Tyriau Kock-ahell— if«rex truncu-
lU8
281
931
231
281
Dog-whelk— Purpiira lapiUua. . . .
282;SpMlmen of the Codez Furpuretts.
233' Mnp of the Bay of Pateoll
2S6|Mole of Pnteoli
2391 Addax Antelope
VIII.— A
282 General Ylew of the Pyramlda
Page 829
280' Hieroglyph of Memphia 892
800 Plan of the Pyrnmida of Q!zeh. . . 628
300 Hieroglyph of Cheopa 828
300 Entrauce of the Great Pyrarold . . 823
369|Section of the Great Pyramid of
884! Gtaeh 824
899, Hieroglyph of Cheph ren 824
404' Hierogirph of MYceriuna 824
I Pyx, Aahmoleau Muaeom, Oxford 831
40D San d-gronse 832
416,CommonQaaii 833
416 Euormona SŁone in the Qnarry
416 nearBaalbek 886
417 Ancient Ęgyptian Oueen 838
418 PhoBniciau Coin witb Head of Aa-
Urte 839
430 Ancient Peraian with Bow aud
430 QaiTer 860
443 Aaayrlan Warrior with Qaiver. .. S80
44S Aaayrlan Chariot wlth Qiiiver 880
448 Ancient Ęgyptian Archer aud
OulYer 8Cf0
4fi0 QnTvera on Greek Scnlptores 860
461 Cuin of Philadelphia 864
462 Rnina of Rabbatb-Ammon 864
462 Amman, aa aeen from the South. 860
009 Modern Jewiah Rabbi, attlred fur
Prayer 867
070 The Stadiom at Epheana 678
071 Ancient Greek Uorre-race 874
Ancient Greek Chariol^race. 871
071 Ancient Greek Foot-rnce 874
Ancient Greek Torch-race on Foot 874
072 Ancient Greek Torch - race on
Uoraeback 870
072 Medal Commemoratiug an lath-
073 mian Yictory 870
082 Rachel*8 Tomb 876
Ramoth-gilead 902
612 The Origlnal Ranhe Haaa 927
RaTen 930
709 Ancient Egyptiana Reaping 943
A Recollet 907
709 The Red Sea and Jebel AtAkah,
762 nearSnez 962
763 Map of the Region between the
763 Nile and the Red Sea 960
763 Map of the Head oftheGulfofSaez 968
764 Map of the Bay of Snez 960
764AyQn MOaa 970
Redemptoriat 974
772 A Ttdropogon nehamanthui, 970
777 Portrait of Rehoboaro 1029
777 Hieroglyph of Rehoboam 1029
779 Ancient Portable Relionariea.... 1034
779 Modem Stationary Reliąuariea... 1034
Babylonlan Cylindera, with fig-
803 nrea of goda and atara 1037
Central Pavilłon of the Toileriea. 1038
814 Reredoa of Altar, Enatono 1047
814 Respond, Fotheringay, North
814 Honta 1049
819 Ressannt, Redcliffe Chorch, Bria-
819 tol 1060
821 Map of the Trlbe of Reaben 1060
V
C TC LOPtE D i a
OP
BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AM ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURĘ
PET.
Petach. See Pktiiach.
Petachia(B), Moses bex-Jacob, a learned rabbi
vbo flooriahed towarda the latter half of the 12tb cen-
tarr (Regensburg), Sa tbe aatbor of the C^h?h S^Sp,
also called n*<nni) S ::!|3D, in which he relates his
trards, madę between 1075 and 1090 throngh Poland,
Russia, Tartaiy, Syria, Mesopotamia, ancient Syria,
Percią, etc, and wherein he describes tbe manners and
BSiges of liis co-religionists. It -was first printed at
Ptagne (1595), and reprinted by Wagenseil, entitled
IUmrrarmm cum tertume Wagenieilu, in his Sex eseerci-
taikrnet wru arymnenti (Altorf, 1687 ; Zolldew, 1792).
It has been translated into Frencb, with notes, by £. Car-
moly, Toirr de Monde de Petuckia de RaiidKmne^ traduit
rm Praacou et aceompagni du terte et de* notes kistoriques,
^''Offraiiipui, et liUiraireM (Paris, 1831) ; into German
by D. OttensoBser, with a Hebrew comroentary (Fttrth,
1^); mto English by Dr. A. Benisch. See FUrst,
BlbL Jwi. Ul, 79 sq. ; Wolf, BihL Uebr, i, 888 ; iii, 956 ;
Basnage, HUtoire d't Jwife^ p. 655 (Taylor*s English
traasL); GriU, Gettk. der Juden, vi, 259, 424 ; Zunz,
Zvr GtedMte u. Literettur, p. 166 ; the same aathor in
Asber's editaon of Tadela*s Itinerary, vol. ii. No. 40,
43, 44, 47 ; Etheridge, Introd. to /febr. LU. p. 214 ; Da
CostM, /nad and the GentUesy p. 187. (B. P.)
Petftni, a sort of cakes used anciently in Athens in
making libations to the gods. They were stibstituted
for aoimal sacrifices bv the commaud of Cecrops.— Gard-
ner, Faitke o/ the World, ii, 642.
PetaTel, Alfred F., a Swiss Protestant clergy-
wan of notę, was born near the close of the last century.
He stodied at the nnirersity in Berlin, and was the
first redpient from that high school of the doctorate in
phłlofiopby. He was greatly instrumental in the es-
tablUhment of the Swiss Missionaiy Society, and snb-
ieqaently toolc no inconsideiable share in the doings
of the Erangelical Altiance. The principal work, how-
tres^ to which he devoted his best tirae, his talents, his
eoergies, and his whole heart, was to bring the Jewish
people into a morę intimate personal contact with the
Christiana, and it is especially in this respect that his
mflaence has extended beyond his little country. He
vas a zealoos member of the Uniyersal Israelitish Al-
itance and of the Eyangelical Alliance. He did not, at
firn^impresB one as a pastor, a missionary, an apostle, a
fiitiier dftiie Church,bnt raUier as one of those indirid-
ulsdescTibed in the book of Genesis, who walked with
iiod, who oommnned with hira, like a patriarch or a
■eer. He died at the age of eighty. The addresses
whicfa be delivered were collected under the title of
DUetmr$f$ om Edaeation. His Dcmghter of Zioń, his
i^^fter to tke SynoffOffue* of France, and many other
vńtingB, will always remain as imperishable records
of tbe zesl which animated him ibr the re-establish-
ment ofthe Jews as a people.
PatOYiiu, DiosTSius (also called Denis Pbtau),
one ofthe most celebrated of French scbolars, and in-
fluential in the councils of the Jesaits, to whose order
he belonged, was l)om at Orleans Aug. 21, 1588. His
father, who was a man of learning, secing strong parts
and a genius for letters in his son, took all possible
means to improve them to the ntmost. He used to
tell his son that he ought to qaalify himself so as to be
able to attacle and confound *Uhe giant ofthe AUo-
phylse;** meaning the redoubtable Joseph Scaliger,
whose abilities and learning were supposed to have
done such serrice to the Beformed. Yoang Petayius
seems to haye entered into his father*s views ; for he
studied yery intensely, and afterwards level1ed much
of his erudition against Scaliger. He joined the study
of mathematlcs with that of belles-lettres ; and then
applied himself to a course in philosophy, which he
began in the College of Orleans, and finished at
Paris. After this he maintained theses in Greelc
and in Latin, which he is said to haye understood as
well as his native language, the French. In ma-
torer years he had free access to the king*s librar}%
which he often yisited in order to consult Latin and
Greek manuscripts. Among other adyantages which
accompanied his literary pursaits was the friendship
of Isaac Casaubon, whom Henry lY called to Paris
in 1600. It was at his instigation that Petayius,
yoang as he was, undertook an edition of The Worka
nfSynesiuM ; that is, to correct the Greek from the man-
uscripts, to translate that part which yet remained to
be translated into Latin, and to write notes upon tbe
whole. He was bat nineteen when he was madę pro-
fessor of philosophy in the Uniyersity of Bourges ; and
spent the two following years in stadying the ancient
philosophers and mathematicians. In 1604, when Morel,
professor of Greek at Paris, published The Works of
Ckryaoetom, some part of Petavius*s ląbors on Synesius
was added to them. (From the title of this work we
leam that he then Latinized his name Pcetus, which he
afterwards changed into Peiaeius. His own edition of
The Works of Synesius did not appear till 1612.) He
entered the Society of the Jesuits in 1605, and did
great honor to it afterwards by his vast and profound
erudition. He l)ecame zealous for the Roman Catholic
Church; and there was no way of serying it morę
agreeable to his humor than by criticising and abus-
ing its adyersaries. Scaliger was the person he was
most bitter against; but he did not spare his friend
Casaubon wheneyer he came in his way. There is
no occasion to enter into detali about a man whose
whole life was spent in reading and writing boolLS,
and in performing the seyeral offices of his order.
The history of a learned man is the history of his
works; and by fiir the greater part of Petayius*s
writings were to support popish doctrines and disci-
pline. But it must be confessed that in order to per*
form his task well he madę himself a aniyersal scholar.
He died at Paris Dec. 11, 1652. In 1633 he published
an exoellent work entitled Rationale Tetnporumf it ia
PETElt
PETER
an abńdginent of nnireraal histoiy, from the earliest
tiroes down to 1632, digested in cbronological order,
and supported all the way by references to proper au-
tbońties. IŁ went through seTeral edidons; many
additions and improvenients have been madę to it, t>oth
by Petayioa himself, and by Perizonius and others
after hia death; and Łe Clerc published an abridg-
ment of it aa far down ae to 800, under the title of
Conqtendium Hutoria UnitenaUB^ in 1697 (12mo). Peta-
vins*8 chef-d'oenvre is his " Opm de Theologicia Dogma-
tibutj nunc primum septem Tolaminibas comproben-
sum, in meUorem ordinem redactum, aactoria ipsias
vita, ac libris ąnibnadam numąuam in hoc operę edttis
]ocupletatum, FrandBci Antonii ZacharisB ex eadem
Societate Jesu eztensium principnm Bibliothecae Pne-
fecti diflsertationibus, ac notis uberrimis illustratum'*
(Yen. 1757, 7 vo1b. fol.). It is fuli of choice erudition,
but unfortunately his death cut it short, and it lacks
completeness. Besides other seryicos, Petavius de-
serves to be acknowledged as the first tbeologian
who brought into proper relations history and dog-
matics. Muratori regards him as the restorer of dog-
matic theology. In the opinion of Gassendus {VU.
Pereachu) Petayius was the most consummate scholar
the Jesuits ever had ; and indeed we cannot suppose
him to have been inferior to the first scholars of an}'
order, while we conslder him waging war, as he did
Arequently with success, against Scaliger, Salmasius,
and other like chiefa in the republic of letters. His
judgment, as may easily be conceived, was inferior to
his leaming; and his controyersial writings are fuli
of that soumess and spleen which appears so manifest
in all the prints of his countenance. Bayle bas ob-
seryed that Petavius did the Socinians great service,
though unawares and against his intentions. The
Je8uit's ońginal design, in the second Yolume of his
Dogmaia Theologica^ was to represent ingennously the
doctrine of the first three centuries. Haying no par-
ticular system to defend, he did not carefully state the
opinions of the fatbcrs, but ouly gave a generał account
of Łhem. By Łhis meaus lie unawares led the public to
beliere tbat the fathers entertained falsc and absurd no-
tions conceming the mystery of the Three Persons;
and, against his intentions, fumbhed arguments and
authorities to the Antitrinitarians. When madę aware
of this, and being willing to prerent the evil conse-
quence8 which he had not foresefen, he wrote his Pref-
ace, in which he labored solely to assert the orthodoxy
of the fathers, and thus was forced to contradict what
he had advanced in tbe Dogmaia. (Comp. Buli, On
the Trinity.') Sce Werner, Geach, der apohget. wid
pnltm. Lit. vol. iv ; idem, Geach. der kathol. Theol.
(Munich, 1866); Dupin, NouveUe Bibliotheque dea Au-
łeura ecclia, s. y. ; Simon, Iliat. crU. dea principaur
Commentateura; Alzog, Kirchengesch. ii, 435 ; ChriaHan
Remembr. lv, 484. (J. H. W.)
Pe^tor {Ukrpocy a rock, for the Aram. KB*^!3), orig-
inally Simon (see below), the leader among the per-
sonal disciples of Christ, and afterwards the special
apostle to the Jews. We shall treat this important
character first in the lip^ht of definite information from
the New Testament and early Chnrch historians (using
in this portion largely the article in Smith's Diction-
ary), and relegate all disputed ąuestions to a subse-
quent head (discussing them chiefly as in Winer, ii,
234 sq.).
I. AuthenHe Hisiory. — l. HU Early Zi/c— The
Scriptnre notices on this point are few, but not onim-
portant, and enable us to form some estimate of the
circumstances under which the apo8tle's character was
formed, and how he was prepared for his great work.
Peter was the son of a man named Jonas (Matt. xyi,
17; John i, 43; zxi, 16), and was brought up in his fa-
ther*s occupation, a fisherman on the sea of Tiberias.
The occupation was of course an humble one, but not,
aa is often assumed, mean or seryile, or incompatible
with some degree of mental coltnre. His faroily wero
probably in easy circumstances (see bolow). He and
his brother Androw were partners of John and James,
the sons of Zebedce, who had hired seryants ; and from
rarioos indications in the sacred narrative.we are led
to the conclusion that theirsocial position brought
them into contact with men of edncation. In fact tbo
trade of fishermen, snpplying some of the important
cities on the coasts of that inland lakę, may have been
tolerably remunerative, while all the necessaries of life
were cheap and abundant in tbe singularly rich and
fertile district where the apostle resided. He did not
live, as a merę laboring man, in a hut by the sea-side,
but first at Bethsaida, and afterwards in a house at
Capemaum belonging to himself or his mother-in-law,
wbich must have been rather a large pńe, sińce he re-
ceived in it not only our Lord and his fellow-disciples,
but multitudes who were attracted by the miracles and
preacbing of Jesus. It is certain that when he left
all to follow Christ, he madę what he regarded, and
what seems to have been admitted by his Master, aa
being a considerable sacrifioe (Matt. xix, 27). The
habits of such a life were by no means nnfayorable to
the deyelopmeot of a yigorous, eamest, and practical
character, such as he displayed in after-years. The
labors, the privations, and the perils of an exi8tence
passed in great part upon the waters of that beautiful
but storroy lakę, the long and anxious watching through
the nights, were calculated to test and increase his
natural powers, his fortitude, energy, and perseyer-
ance. In the city ho must have been brought into
contact with men engaged in trafBc, with soldiers and
foreigners, and may have thus acquired somewhat of
the flexibility and geniality of temperament all but in-
dispensable to the attainment of such personal influ-
ence as he exerci8ed in after-life. It is not probahle
that he and his brother were wholly uneducated. The
Jews regarded instruction as a necessity, and legał en-
actments enforced the attendance of youths in scbools
maintained by the community. See Education. The
statement in Acts iv, 13, that "the council perceiyed
they (i. e. Peter and John) were unleamed and igno-
rant men,** is not incompatible with this assumption.
The translatton of the |>a8sage in the A. V. is rather
exaggerated, the word rendered ** unleamed" (i^ioirai)
being nearly eqniyalentto "laymen," i. e. men of or-
dinary education, as contrasted with those who were
specially trained in the scbools of the rabbins. A man
might be thoroughly conrersant with the Scriptures,
and yet be considered ignorant and unleamed by the
rabbins, among whom the opinion was already preya-
lent that *'the letter of Scripture was the merę shell,
an earthen yessel containing heayenly treasures, which
could only be discoyered by those who had l>een taught
to search for the hidden cabalistic meaning." Peter
and his kinsmen were probably taught to read the
Scriptures in childhood. The history of their country,
especially of the great events of early days, must haye
been familiar to them as attendants at the synagogue,
and their attention was there directed to those portions
of Holy Writ from which the Jews derived their an-
ticipations of the Messiah.
The language of the apostles was of course the form
of Aramaic spoken in Northem Palestine, a sort of
patoUy partly Hebrew, but morę nearly allied to the
Syriac. Hebrew, eyen in its debased form, was then
spoken only by men of leaming, the leaders of tho
Pharisees and Scribes. The men of Galilee were,
howeyer, noted for rough and inaccurate language,
and especially for yulgarities of pronunciation (Matt.
xxvi, 73). It is doubtful whether our apostle was ac-
quainted with Greek in early life. It is certain, how-
eyer, that there was morę intercnurse with foreigners
in Galilee than in any district of Palestine, and Greek
appears to haye been a common, if not the principal,
medium of commnnication. Within a few years aftcr
hifi cali Peter seems to have convcrsed fluently in Gret-k
PETER
PETER
with Comelios, at l«ast there is no intimation that an
iDterpreter was emplojed, while it is hi[chly iroprobable
that Comellas, a Roman aoldier, should have used the
Isngaage of Palestine. The style of both of Peter*8 epis-
des indicates a oonsiderable knowledge of Greek ; it is
pan and accurate, and in grammatical stracture equal
to that of PaoL That may, however, be accounted
for by the tact, for irhich there is yery ancient author^
itr. that Peter employed an interpreter in the compo-
ńtion of hia epiatles, if not in his ordinary intercourse
▼ith forei^ers. There are no traces of acąuaintance
irith Greek anthors, or of the inflaence of Greek lit-
eratnre npon his mind, snch as we find in Paul. nor
coold we expect it in a person of his station, even had
Greek been.his mother-tongae. It is on the whole
probable that be had some rudimental knowledge of
Greek in early life, wfaich may have aflerwards becn
estended when the need waa felt, buc not morę than
Yould enable him to disconrse intelligibly on practical
and derotional snbjects. That he was an afTectionate
hnsband, married in early life to a wife who accom-
panied him in hu apostolic joameys, are facts inferred
from Scriptnre, while very ancient traditions, recorded
by element of Alexandria (wbose connection with the
Chnrch foonded by Mark gives a pecniiar ralne to his
testimony), and by other early but less tmstworthy
writers^ inform as that ber name was Perpetua, that
sbe borę a danghter, and perhaps other chUdren, and
saffisred martyrdom. (See below.)
2, At a Disdple merdy. — It is nncertain at what age
Peter was called by oor Lord. The generał impression
of the fiithers ia that he waa an old man at the datę of
hisdeath, A.D. &I, but this need not imply that he was
mach older than our Lord. He waa probably between
thirty and forty years of age at the datę of his first cali,
A.D. 26. That cali waa preceded by a special prep-
aration. He and hia brother Andrew, together with
tfaeir partnerSy Jaroea and John, the sons of Zebedee,
weie disciples of John the Baptist (John i, 85). They
vere in attendance npon him when they were first
caUed to the aerrice of Christ. From the circum-
rtaoces of that cali, which are recorded with graphic
mioDteness by St. John, we leam some important facts
toaching their atate of mind and the personal character
of oar apostle. Two disciples, one named by the evan-
gelist Andrew, the other in all probability St. John
liimaelf, were standing with the Baptist at Bethany on
the Jordan, when he pointed out Jesus aa he walked,
aad said, Behold the Lamb of God! that is, the anti-
tjpe of the yictims wbose blood (as all tme Israelites,
and they mors distioctly nnder the teaching of John,
belkyed) prefignred the atonement for sin. The two
at once foUowed Jesus, and upon his invitation abode
▼ith him that day. Andrew then went to his brother
Simon, and said to him. We have found the Messias,
the Aoointed One, of wbom they had read in the proph-
ets. Simon went at once, and when Jesus loolced on
Um he said, "Thon art Simon the ton o/ Jona; thon
shalt be called Cepkcu.'* The change of nanie ia of
coerae deeply significant. As son of Jona (a name of
donbtfol meaning, according to Lampe equivalent to
Johtmm or John, i. e. ffrace ofthe Lord; according to
Lange, who has some striking but fanciful observa^
tions, signifying dove) he borę as a disciple the name
Simon, i.e. hearer ; bat as an apostle, one ofthe twelve
on wfaom the Charch was to be erected, he waa here-
after (cXi}^^ffj^) to be called Rock or Stone. It seems
a nataral impression that the words refer primarily to
the ofiginal character of Simon : that our Lord saw in
him a man firm, steadfast, not to be overthrown, though
aeTerely tried ; and such was generally the yiew taken
by the fiithers. Bat it is perhaps a deeper and truer in-
fercnce that Jesus thos descrtbes Simon, not as what
^ was, but aa what he would beoome under his influ-
ence—a man with predispositions and capabilities not
onfitted for the office be waa to hołd, bot one wbose
pcrmanence and stabili^ would depend upon nnion
with the living Rock. Thns we may expect to find
Simon, as the natural man, at once rough, stubbom,
and mutable, whereas Peter, idcntified with the Rock,
will remain firm and immorable to the end. (See
below.)
This first cali led to no immediate change in Petersa
extemal position. He and his fellow-disclples looked
hencefort^ upon our Lord as their teacher, but were
not commanded to follow him as regular disciples.
There were several grades of disciples among the Jews,
from the occasional hearer to the follower who gave up
all other pursutts in order to senre a master. At the
time a rccognition of his Person and office sufficed.
They roturned to Capemaum, where they pursued
their usnal business, waiting for a further intimation
of his will.
The second cali is recorded by the other three evan-
geltsŁs. It took place on the Sea of Galilee near Caper-
naum, where the four disciples, Peter and Andrew, James
and John, were fishing. A.D. 27. Peter and Andrew
were first called. Our Lord then entered Simon Petersa
boat, and addressed the multitude on the shore ; after
the conclusion of the discourse he wrought the mirade
by which he foreshadowed the success of the apoetles
in the new but analogoua occupation which was to be
theirs — that of fishers of men. The cali of James and
John followed. From that time the four were cerŁainly
enrolled formally among his disciples, and although as
yet invested with no offidal character, accompanied him
in his joumeys, those eapecially in the north of Palea-
tine.
Immediately after that cali our Lord went to the
house of Peter, where he wrought the miracle of heal-
ing on Peter's wife*8 mother, a miracle succeeded by
other manifestations of divine power which produced a
deep impression upon the people. Some time was passed
afterwards in attendance upon our Lord'8 public miuia-
trations in Galilee, Decapolis, Penea,and Judaea — though
at inŁervalB the disciples retumed to their own city,
and were witnesses of many miracles, of the cali of Levi,
and of their Master'8 recepUon of outcasts, whom they
in common with their zealous but prejudiced country-
men had despised and shunned. It was a period of
training, of mental and spiritual diacipline preparatory
to their admission to tbe higher office to which they
were destined. £ven then Peter receired some marks
of distinction. He was selected, together with the two
sons of Zebedee, to witness the rabing of Jarius's daugh-
ter.
The special designation of Peter and his eleven fel-
low-disciples took place some time afterwards, when they
were set apart as our Lord's immediate attendants, and
as his delegates to go forth wherever he might send
them, as apostles, announcers of his kingdom, gifted
with supematural po wers as credentials of their super-
natural mission (see Matt. x, 2-4; Mark iii, 13-19, the
most detailed account; Lukę yi, 18). They appear
Ihen first to bave formally received the name of Apos-
tles, and from that time Simon borę publicly, and as it
would seem all Out exclusivdy, the name Peter, which
had hitherto been used rather as a characteristic appd-
lation than as a proper namo".
From this time there can be no doubt that Peter held
the first place among the apostles, to whaterer canse bis
precedence is to be attributed. There was certainly
much in his character which marked him as a repre^
sentati ve man ; both in bis strength and in his weak-
ness, in his excellences and his defects ha exemplified
the changes which the natural man undergoes in the
gradual transformation into the spiritual man under the
personal influence of the Saviour. The precedence did
not depend upon priority of cali, or it would have de-
volved upon his brother Andrew, or that other disciple
who first followed Jesus. It seems scarcely probable
that it depended upon scniorit}', even supposing, which
is a merę conjecture, that he was older than his fellow-
disciples. The fipecial deflignation by Christ aloiie ao-
\ •
PETER
6
PETER
counts in a satiflfactoiy way for the facts that he is
named firet in every list of the apoatlea, is generally ad-
dressed by our Lord as their representatiye, and on the
most aolemn occasions speaks in their nave. Thus
when the first great secession took place in conseąuence
of the offence gircn by our Lord^n mystic discouree at
Capernaum (see John vi, 66-69), "Jesus said unto the
twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter an-
swered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast
the words of etemal life : and we be]ieve and are surę
that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."
llius again at Geesarea Philippi, soon after the return
of the twelve from their first missionary tour, Peter
(speaking as before in the name of the twelye, though,
as appears from our Lord*s words, with a peculiar dis-
tinctness of personal conviction) repeated that declara-
tton, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Uving God/*
The confirmation of our apostle in his special poeition
in the Church, his Identification with the rock on which
that Church is founded, the ratification of the powers
and duties attached to the apostolic office, and the prom-
ise of permanence to the Church, followed as a reward
of that oonfession. The early Church regarded Peter
generally, and most especially on this occasion, as the
representatiye of the apostolic body— a very distinct
theory from that which roakes him their head or goT-
emor in Christ^s stead. £ven in the time of Cyprian,
when connection with the bishop of Romę as Peter's
successor iór the fint time was held to be indispensable,
no powers of jurisdiction or supremacy were supposed
to be attached to the admitted precedency of rank.
Primus wter parea Peter held no distinct office, and
certainly nerer claimed any powers which did not be-
long eąually to all his fellow-apostles. (See below.)
This great triumph of Peter, howerer, brought other
points of bis character into strong relief. The distinc-
tion which he then received, and it may be his con-
Bciousness of ability, energy, zeal, and absolute devo-
tion to Chri8t*s person, seem to have developed a naiu-
ral tendency to rashness and forwardness bordering upon
presumption. On this occasion the exhibition of such
feelings brought upon him the strongest reproof ever
addressed to a disciple by our Lord. In his affection
and self-confidence Peter ventured to reject as impos-
sible the announcement of the sufferings and humilia-
tion which Jesus predicted ; and he heard thesharp words
— " Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto
me — for thou sayorest uot the things that be of God,
but those that be of men.'* That was Peter's first fali ;
a very ominous one: not a rock, but a stumbling-stone ;
not a defender, but an antagonist and deadly enemy of
the faith, when the spiritual should giye place to the
lower naturę in dealing with the thingtr of GocL It is
remarkable that on other occasions when P^ter signal-
ized his faith and deyotion he displayed at the time, or
immediately afterwards, a morę than nsual deficiency
in spiritual discemment and consistency. Thus a few
days after that fali he was selected together with John
and James to witness the transfiguration of Christ, but
the words which he then uttered proye that he was
coropletely bewildered, and unable at the time to com-
prehcnd the meautng of the transaction. Thus again,
when his zeal and courage promptcd him to leaye the
ship and walk on the watcr to go to Jesus (l^fatL xiv,
29), a sudden failure of faith withdrew the sustaining
power; he was abont to sink when he was at once re-
proycd and sayed by his Master. Such traits, which
occur not unfrequently, prepare us for his last great fali,
as well as for his conduct afler the resurrection, when
bis natural gifts were perfected and his deficiencies sup-
plied by " the power from on high." We find a mix-
ture of zeal and weakness in his conduct when called
upon to pay tribute-money for himself and his Lord,
but faith had the upper hand, and was rewarded by a
significant miracle (Matt. xyii, 24-27). The question
which about the same time Peter asked our Lord as to
the extent to which forgiveness of sins should be car-
ried, indicated a great advance in spirttoality from the
Jewish standpoint, while it showed how far as yet he
and his fellow-dtsciples were from understanding the
tnie principle of Christian 1ove (Matt xviii, 21). We
find a similar blending of oppoeite qualitie8 in the dec-
laration recorded by the synoptical eyangdists (Matt.
xix, 27; Mark x, 28; Lukę xyiii, 28), *'Lo, we have left
all and followed thee.** It certainly bespeaks a eon-
sciousness of sincerity, a spirit of self-deyotion and self-
sacrifice, though it oonyeys an impression of aomething
like ambition ; but in that instance the good andoubt-
edly predominated, as is showm by our Lord*8 answer.
He does not reproye Peter, who spoke, as nsoal, in the
name of the twelye, but takes the opportunity of ut-
tering the strongest prediction touching the futurę dig-
nity and paramount authority of the apo&tles, a predic-
tion recorded by Matthew only.
Towards the close of our Lord*s mintstry (A.D. 29)
Peter*s characteristics become especially prominent.
Together with his brother and the two sona of Zebedee
he listened to the last awful predictions and waminga
deliyered to the disciples in reference to the eecond ad-
yent (Matt. xxiy, 8 ; Mark xiii, 8, who alone mentions
these names; Lukę xxi, 7). At the last sapper Peter
seems to have been particularly eamest in the reqnest
that the traitor might be pointed out, expre8sing of
course a generał feeling, to which some inward con-
Bcionsness of infirmity may have added force. AAcr
the supper his words drew out the meaning of the sig-
nificant, almost sacramental act of our Lord in washing
his disciples* feet — an occasion on which we find the
same mixture of goodness and frailty, humility and
deep affection, with a certain taint of self-will, which
was at once hushed into submissiye reyerence bv the
yoice of Jesus. Then too it was that he madę those re-
peated protestations of unalterable fidelity, so eoon to be
falsified by his miserablc faU. That eyent is, however,
of such critical import in its bearings upon the charac-
ter and position of the apostle, that it cannot be dis-
missed without a careful, if not an exhaustive discus-
sion. Judas had left the guest-chambcr when Peter
put the question. Lord, whither goest thou ? words
which modem thcologians generally represent as sayor-
ing of idle curiosity or presumption, but in which the
early faihcrs (as Clir}'sostom and Aogustine) rccognised
the utterancc of love and deyotion. The answer was a
promise that Peter should follow his Master, but accom-
panied with an inttroation of prcsent unfitneaa in the
disciple. Then caroe the first protestation, which elicited
the sharp and stcm rebukc, and distinct prediction of
Peter's denial (John xiii, 86-88). From compariiig this
account with those of the other eyangelists (Matt. xx\'i,
88-85; Mark xiy, 29-81; Lukę xxii, 38, 84), it seems
eyident that with some diycrsity of cireumstances both
the protestation and waniing were thrice repeated.
The tempter was to sift all the disciples, our apostle^s
faith was to be preseryed from failing by the special in-
tercessiou of Christ, he being thus singled out either as
the representatiye of the whole body, or, as seems morę
probablc, becausc his character was one which had spe-
cial necd of supematural aid. Mark, as usual, records
two points which enhance the force of the waming and
the guilt of Peter, yiz. that the cock would crow twice,
and that after such waming he repeated his protesta-
tion with grcater yehemence. Chrj'sostom, who jmigcs
the apostle with faimess and candor, attributes this ve-
hemence to his great loye, and morę particularly to the
delight which he felt when assured that he was not the
traitor, yet not without a certain admixture of forwanl-
ness and ambition such as had prcyiously been shown
in the dispute for pre-cminence. The ficry trial soon
camc. After the agony of Geth8emane,whcn the three,
Peter, James, and John, were, as on former occasions, se-
lected to be with our Lord, the only witnesses of his
passion, where also all three had alike failed to prepare
themselycs by prayer and watching, the arrest of Jcsos
took place. Peter did not shrink from the danger. lu
PETER
PETER
the iame spirit which bad dictated his promiae be drew
bis flwoid, alone against the anoed Łhrong, and wounded
tbe sorant (róy iovXov, not a aeryaut) of the high-
pńot, probably the leader of the band. When thifl
bold but uoaathorized attempt at rescue was reproved,
he did Dot yet foisake bis Master, but foUowed him
frith John into the focus of danger, the houae of the high-
priest. There he aat in the outer haU. He must have
brał in a stale of utter confusion : bis faith, which from
fint to last was boand up with hope, his special charao-
teristic, was for the dme powerless against temptation.
The danger focind him nnarmed. Thrioe, each time
vŁth greater Tehemenoe, the last time with blaspbemous
asaeveratMMi, he denied his Master. The triumph of
Satan seemed oomplete. Yet it is evident that it was
an obscontion of faith, not an extinction. It needed
but a glance of his Lord*s eye to bring him to himself.
His repentanoe was instantaneous and eifectual. The
light in which he himself regarded his oonduct is elear-
\j sbown by the terma in which it is related by Mark,
who in aome sense may be regarded as his reporter.
The inferences are weighty as regards his personal
chsiacter, which represents morę oompletely perhaps
than any in the New Testament the weakness of the
JuŁwni and the atrength of the spiritual man — still
mon weighty as bcaiing upon his relations to the apos-
tulic body, and the daims resting upon the assumption
that be stood to them in the place of Christ.
On the mocning of the resnrrection we have proof
thai Peter, though humbled, was not crushed by his
falL He and John were the first to yisit the sepulchre ;
he vas the first who entered iL We are told by Lukę
(In words still uaed by the Eastem Church as the first
talotation on Easter Sunday) and by Paul that Christ
appeared to him first among the apostles — he who most
Dcćded the oomfort was the first who reoeived it, and
vitb it, as may be aseumed, an assurance of forgireness.
It is obsenrable, howerer, that on that occasion he is
calkd by his original name, Simon, not Peter ; the high-
«r designation was not restored until be had been pub-
Ikly reinstitoted, so to speak, by his Master. That re-
instiuition took place at the Sea of Galilee (John xxi),
an erent of the yery highest import We have there
indications of his b^ natural ąualities, practical good-
WDse, promptneas, and eneigy ; alower than John to
Rcogniae their Lord, Peter was the first to reach him :
he bnwght the net to land. The thrice-repeated ques-
tiua of Christ, referring donbtless to the three protesta-
tioos and denials, was tbrice met by answers fuU of
kre and faith, and utterly devoid of his hitherto charac-
teriadc failing, presamption, of which not a tracę is to
be dłjcerned in his later history. He then received the
fonnal oommisńon to feed Christ*s sheep; not certainly
as one endoed with excla8ive or paramonnt authority,
<« as distiognished ftom his fellow-disciples, wbose fali
bad been marked by far less aggravating curcumstances ;
rathcr as one who had forfeited his place, and oould not
marne it without such an anthorization. Then followed
Ihe prediction of his mart^nrdom, in which he was to find
the fuUUment of his reąiiest to be permitted to foUow
the Lord.
WiŁb tbis erent closes tbe first part of Peter*s history.
h was a period of tiansition, during which tbe fish-
«nnan of Galilee had been trained, first by tbe Baptist,
then by oar Lord, for the great work of his life. He
łttd learoed to know the person and appreciate the
offioes of Christ; while his own character had been
chaatencd and elevated by special priyileges and hu-
Diliatiooa, both reaching their climax in tbe last re-
e(>rded tnnsactions. Henceforth he with his colleagnes
were to establish and govem tbe Church founded by
tłteir Lord, without the snpport of his presence.
^ ApottoUeal Carter.— The first part of the Acts of
f^ Apostles is ooeupied by the reoord of transactions
» nesriy sil of which PMer stands forth as tbe recog-
nued letder of the apostles; it beiog, bowever, eąually
c^ that be neither ezercises nor daims any authority
apart from them, much less oyer them. In the first
chapter it b Peter who pointa out to tbe disciples (as
iix all his discourses and writings drawing his arguments
from prophecy) tbe neceseity of supplying the place of
Jttdas. He states the qualifications of an apostle, but
takes no special part in the election. Tbe candidates
are selected by the disciples, while tbe decision is leit
to the searcher of hearts. The extent and limits of
Peter's primacy might be inferred with tolerable ae-
curacy from tbis transaction alone. To have one
spokesman, or foreman, seems to accord with tbe spirit
of oider and humility which ruled the Church, while
the assumption of power or supremacy would be inoom-
patible with the expre88 command of Christ (see Matt.
xxiii, 10). In the second chapter again, Peter is the
most prominent person in the greatest event after tbe
resurrection, when on the day of Pentecost the Chiuch
was first inrested with the plentitude of gifts and pow-
ers. Then Peter, not speaking in his own name, but
with the eleven (see ver. 14), explained the meaning
of tbe miraculous gifts, and showed the fulfilment of
prophecies (accepted at that time by all Hebrews as
Messianic) both in tbe outpouring of the Holy Ghost
and in the resurrection and death of our Lord. Thu
discourse, which beara all the marks of Peter's individu-
ality, both of character and doctrinal yiews, ends with
an appeal of remarkable boldness. It is the model upon
which tbe apologetic discourses of the primitive Chris-
tians were generally constructed. The oonYersion and
baptlsm of three thousand per8ons,who continned stead-
fast in the apo6Łle'8 doctrine and fellowsbip, attested
the power of the Spirit which spake by Peter on that
occasion.
Tbe first roiracle after Pentecost was wrought by
P^ter (Acts iii) ; and John was joined with him in that,
as in most important acts of his ministry ; but it was
Peter who took the cripple by tbe band, and bade hiin
"in the name of Jesus of Nazareth rise up aiłd walk,"
and when the people ran together to Solomon's porcb,
where the apostles, following their Master's example,
wero wont to teach, Peter was the speaker : he convinoes
tbe people of their sin, wams them of their danger,
points out the fulfilment of prophecy, and the special
objects for which God sent his Son first to the children
of the old covenant. Tbis speech is at onoe strikingly
characteristic of Peter and a proof of the fundameutal
barmony between his teaching and the morę deyeloped
and systematic doctrines of Paul; differing in form, to
an extent utterly incompatible with the theory of Baur
and Schwegler touching the object of the writer of the
Acts ; identical in spirit, as issuing from the same source.
The boldness of tbe two apostles, of Peter morę espe-
cially as the spokesman, when "filled with the Holy
Ghost" he conftonted the fuli assembly headed by An-
nas and Caiapbas, produced a deep impression upon
thoee cruel and unscrupulous hypocrites: an impression
enhanced by the fact that tbe words came from com-
paratively ignorant and unleamed men. The words
spoken by both apostles, when commauded not to speak
at all nor teach in the name of Jesus, have ever sińce
been the watch words of martyrs (iv, 19, 20).
Tbis first miracle of healing was soon foUowed by the
first miracle of judgment Tbe first open and deliber-
ate sin against tbe Holy Ghost — a sin combining ambi-
tion, fraud, hypocrisy, and blasphemy — ^was visited by
death, sudden and awful as under the old dispensation.
Peter was the minister in that transaction. As he had
first opened the gate to penitenta (Acts ii, 87, 38), be
now dosed it to hypocrites. The act stands alone, with-
out a precedent or parallel in the Gospel; but Peter
acted simply as an instrument, not pronouncing the sen-
tenoe, but denouncing the sin, and that in tbe name of
bis fellow-apostles and of the Holy Ghost Penalties
similar in kind, tbough far difierent in degree, were in-
flicted or commanded on yarious occasions by Paul.
Peter appears, perhaps in conseąuence of that act, to
bave become the object of a reverence bordering, as it
PETER
8
PETER
woold Beem, on sapeiBtitioa (Acts r, 15), while the mi-
merous miracles of bealing wrought about the nme
tune, abowtng the trne chancter of the power dwelling
in the apostles, gare occaaon to the aeomid penecntion.
Peter then came in eontsct witb the nobleśt and most
interesting cbaracter among the Jewa, the leamed and
liberał tutor of Paul, Gamaliel, whoae caatton, gentle-
ness, and dispanionate candor stand oat in strong relief
oontrasted with his coUeagaes, bot make a (aint im-
pression compared with the ateadfast and ancompromis-
iog principlea of the apostlea, who, alter undergoing aa
illegal flcourging, went forth rejoidng that Łhey were
counted wortby- to sufler shame for the name of Jesus.
Peter is not specially naroed in oonnection with the ap-
pointment of deaoons, an important step in the organi-
zatton of the Church; but when the Gospel was first
preached bejond the predncts of Judea, he and John
were at onoe sent by the apostles to oonfirm the oon-
yerts at Samaria, a yeiy important statement at this
critical point, proying clearly his subordination to the
whole body, of which he was the most active and able
member.
Up to this time it roay be said that the apostles had
one great work, viz. to oonvince the Jews that Jesus
was the Messiah ; in that work Peter was the master
builder, the whole structure rested upon the doctrines
of which he was the principal teacher; hitherto no
words but his are specially reoorded by the writer of the
Acts. Henceforth he remains prominent, but not ex-
clustve]y prominent, among the propagators of the Gos-
peL At Samaria he and John establbhed the precedent
for the most important rite not eKpreesIy enjoined in
Holy Writ, viz. confirmation, which the Western Church
bas always held to belong exclasive]y to the functions
of bishope as successors to the ordinary powers of the
apostolate. Then also Peter was confronted with Simon
Magus, the first teacher of heresy. See Simon Bf agus.
As in the case of Ananias he had denounoed the first
sin against holiness, so in this case he first declared the
penalty due to the sin called after Simon'8 name. About
three years later (comp. Acts ix, 26 and Gal. i, 17, 18)
we have two aocounts of the first meeting of Peter and
Paul. In the Acts it is stated generally that Saul was
at first distnisted by the disciples, and receircd by the
apostles upon the recommendation of Bamabas. From
the Galatians we leam that Paul went to Jerusalem
especially to see Peter; that he abode with him fifteen
days, and that James was the oniy other apostle present
at the time. It is important to notę that this account,
which, whtle it establishes the independence of Paul,
marks the position of Peter as the most emincnt of the
apostles, rests not on the authority of the writer of the
Acte, but on that of Paul — as if it were intended to ob-
viate all poasible misconceptions tonching the mutual
relatłons of the apostles of the Hebrews and the Gentiles.
This inter\'iew was preccded by other eyents marking
Peter*s position — a generał apostolical tour of risitation
to the churches hitherto established {iiŁpxófitvop iia
iravTwVf Acts ix, 82), in the course of which two great
miracles were wrought on iEneas and Tabitha, and in
connection with which the most signal transaction after
the day of Pentecost is reoorded, the baptism of Come-
lius. A. D. 32. That was the crown and consumroation
of Petcr*8 ministry. Peter, who had first preached the
resurrection to the Jews, baptized the firet converts,
confirmed the first Samaritans, now, without the advicc
or co-operation of any of his colleagues, under direct
communication from hearen, first threw down the bar-
rier which separated proselytes of the gate from Israel-
ites, thus establishing principles which in their gradual
application and fuli development issued in the complcte
fusion of the Gentile and Ilebrew elements in the
Church. The narratiye of this cyent, which stands
alonc in minutę circiimstantiality of incidents and ac-
cumulation of supematural agency, is twice recorded by
Lukę. 'llie chief points to be noted are, first, the pe-
coliar fitness of Cornelius, both as a representatiye of
Roman foroe and nattonality, and as a deroot and liber-
ał wonhipper, to be a icciptent of soch piiyileges ; and,
seoondly. the state ef the apostle^s own mind. What-
eyer may haye been hia hopes or fears tooching tbe
heathen, the idea had oertainly not yei croased him that
they cotild beoome Chiistians without first becoming
JewSb As a loyal and beliering Hebrew, he could not
oontemplate the remoyal of Gentile disąualificaŁions
without a distinct assaranoe that tbe enactments of the
law which ooncemed them were abrogated by tbe diyine
Legislator. The yision ooold not therefore haye been
the product of a snbjectiye impression. It was^ strictly
speaking, objectiye, presented to his mind by an extemal
influence. Yet the will of the apostle was not controlled,
it was simply enlightened. The intimation in the state
of tnmoe did not at onoe oyeroome his reluctance. It
was not until his oonsciousness was fully restored, and
he had well oonsidered the meaning of the yision, that
he leamed that the distinction of deanness and unclean-
ness in outwaid tbings belonged to a temporary dispen-
sation. It was no raere acquiescenoe in a positiye cona-
mand, but the deyelopment of a spińt fuli of generoua
impiilses, which found ntteranoe in the woids spoken hy
Peter on that occasion — both in the presence of Corne-
lius, and afterwards at Jerusalem. His condnct gaye
great oflence to all his coantrymen (Acts zi, 2), aad
it needed all his authority, corroborated by a special
manifestation of the Holy Ghost, to indace his fellow-
apostles to recognise the propriety of this great act, in
which both he and they saw an eamest of the admis-
sion of Gentiles into the Charch on the single condition
of spiritnal repentance. The establishment of a Church,
in great part of Gentile origin, at Antioch, and the mia-
sion of Bamabas, between whose family and Peter
there were the bonds of near intimacy, set the seal
upon the work thus inangurated by Peter.
This transaction was foUowed, after an interral of
seyeral years, by the imprisonment of our apostle. A .D.
I 44. Herod Agrippa, having first tested the state of feel-
ing at Jerusalem by the execution of James, one of the
most eminent apostles, arrested Peter. The hatred
which at that time first showed itself as a popular feel-
ing may most probably be attributed chiefly to the
oflence giyen by Peter^s conduct towards Cornelius.
Hu miraculous deliyerance marks the close of this
second great period of his ministry. The special work
assigned to him was completed. He had fonnded the
Church, opened its gates to Jews and Gentiles, and
distinctly laid down the conditions of admission. From
that tune we haye no continnous history of Peter.
It is quite elear that he retained his rank as the
chief apostle, equally eo that he neither exercised nor
claimed any right to control their proceedings. At
Jerasalem the goyerament of the Church deyolyed
upon James the brother of our Lord. In other places
Peter seems to haye confined his ministrations to his
conntrymen — as apostle of the circumcision. He left
Jerasalem, but it is not said where he went. Certain-
ly not to Romę, where there are no traces of his pres-
ence before tbe last years of his life ; he probably re-
mained in Judtea, visiting and confirming the churches;
some old but not trastworthy traditions represent him
as preaching in Caesarea and other cities on the western
coast of Palestine ; three years later we find him once
morę at Jerusalem when the apostles and elders came
together to consider the ąuestion whether conyerts
should be circnmcised. Peter took the lead in that
discussion, and urged with remarkable cogency the
principles settled in the case of Comelins. Purifying
faith and saying grace (xy, 9 and 11) remoye all dis-
tinctions between belieyers. His arguments, adopted
and enforced by James, decided that ąuestion at once
and foreyer. It is, howeyer, to be remarked that on
that occasion he exerci8ed no one power which Roman-
ists hołd to be inalienably attached to the chair of Pe-
ter. He did not preside at the meeting; he neither
summoncd nor dismissed it ; he neither cołlected the
PETER
9
PETER
sdfnges nor prononnoed the decbion. It is a dis-
pated point whetber the meeting between Paul and
Peter of which we ba^e an acconnt in the Galatians
fil, 1-10) took place at this time. The great mąjor-
ity of critics believe tbat it did, but this h3rpothe8ia
haa serions difficultles. Lange {Dos apostolisckB Zot-
aiter^ ii, 378) fisea tbe datę about tbree years after
tbe coancil. Wieaeler bas a long excar8U8 to 8bow
that it most bare occnrred after Paiil*s second apos-
toUc .^Nimej. He gires some weigbtj raaaons, but
whollj fails in tbe attempt to acconnt for tbe presence
of BaJnabaa, a fatal objection to bb theory. (See
Ikr Brirfan dU GaiaUr, Excuntu, p. 579.) On the
other side are Tbeodoret, Pearson, Eicbbom, OUbansen,
Mejer, Neander, Howaon, Scbaff| etc. Tbe only point
of real importance was certainly determined before the
tpostitt separated, tbe work of conyerting tbe Gentiles
being benoeforth apecially intnuted to Paul and Bar-
nabfls, while tbe cłuarge of preacbing to tbe circnmcis-
ion vu aasigned to tbe elder apostles, and morę par-
ticnUrly to Peter (Gal. ii, 7-9). Tbis amngement can-
not, lioweTer, baTe been an ezclusiye one. Paul al-
wajs addreaaed binaself first to tbe Jews in eyery city ;
Peter and bis colleagoes nndoubtedly admltted and
«^^t to make conyerts among tbe Gentiles. It may
hare been in fali force only wben the old and new
apostles resided in tbe same city. Sacb at least was
tbe case at Antioch, wbere Peter went soon afterwards.
There tbe painfol collision took place between tbe two
apostles ; the moet remarkable, and, in its bearings
apoo controTersies at critical periods, one of the most
importaDt eTents in tbe btstofy of tbe Cburch. Peter
at first applied the principles wbicb be bad lately de-
fended, eanying witb bim tbe wbole apostoł ic body,
and on his arriTal at Antiocb ate with tbe Gentiles,
thu showtng tbat be beliered all ceremoniał distinc-
tions to be abolished by the Gospel^in tbat be went
(ar beyond tbe strict letter of tbe injnnctions issued by
Hk cDancO. That step was marked and condemned
bv oertain membera of tbe Chnrcb of Jemsalem sent
br James. It appeared to tbem one thing to recognise
G«atł]es as fellow-Christians, anotber to admit tbem
to lodal interconrse, whereby cererooniaT defilement
▼oald be contracted nnder the law to wbicb all the
apostles, Bamabas and Pani included, acknowledged
allegisnce. Peter, as tbe apostle of the circnmcision,
fearing to giTe offence to those wbo were bis special
cbarge, at once save np tbe point, snppressed or dis-
gfoźed his feelłngs,and separated bimself not from com-
manion, bat from sodal interconne witb tbe Gentiles.
Paal, as the apostle of the Gentiles, saw clearly the
coBseąaences likely to ensne, and could ill brook the
nósapplication of a rule offcen laid down in bis own
vnting3 concerning compliance witb the prejadices of
Muk brethren. Ho beld that Peter was InfHnging a
SKst principie, witbstood bim to tbe face, and, osing
the same arguments wbicb Peter bad nrged at tbe
^^fnnńl, pronoanced bis condnct to be indefensible.
'^ statement tbat Peter compelled the Gentiles to
Jsdaize prohably means, not that be enjoined circnm-
cisjon, bat that bia oondact, łf persevered in, wonld
bHve that effi^ct, rfnce tbey wonld naturally take any
*^P* whłch mi|^t remore tbe barriers to familiar in-
tercoorie witb tbe trst apostles of Christ. Peter was
^nmg, bat it was an error of jadgment: an act con-
t*^ to his own feelings and wisbes, in deference to
those wbom he looked apon aa representing the mind
of Ąe Charch ; that be was actuated by selfisbness,
^tjoaal pride, or any remains of snperstition, is nei-
^^r aaseiled nor implied in tbe strong censnre of Pani.
^or, mnch as we must ad mirę tbe eamestness and wis-
^ of Pkol, wbose elear and rigorous intellect was
>D tbii ease atimnlated by anziety for his own special
*^|^rge,tbe Gentile Charch, uhonld we orerlook Peter's
suigolar homiUty in snbmitting to poblic reproof from
^"« so noKh bis junior, or his magnanimity both in
*^<^P^g Paurs condosions (as we most infer that be
did from tbe absence of all tracę of continned resist*
ance) and in remaining on terms of brotherly com-
mnnion (as is testified by bis own written words) to
the end of his life (1 Pet. v, 10 ; 2 Pet. iii, 15, 16). See
Paul.
From this time nntil tbe datę of his Epistles we bsTe
nodistinct notices in Scriptnre of Peter*s abode or work.
The silence may be acconnted for by the fact that from
that time tbe great work of propagating the Gospel was
committed to the marvellous energies of Paul. Peter
was probably employed for tbe most part in building
np and completing tbe oi^anization of Christian com-
mnnities in Palestine and the adjoining districts. There
is, however, strong reason to beliere that he yisited Cor-
inth at an early period ; this seems to be implied in sev-
eral passages of PanPs first epistle to that Charch, and
it is a nataral inference from tbe statements of Clem-
ent of Romę {Firtt EpisUe to the CorinUkkm, c. 4). The
fact is positively asserted by Dionysins, bishop of Cor-
intb (A.D. 180 at the latest), a man of ezcellent jadg-
ment, wbo was not likely to be misinformed, nor to
make such an assertion lightly in an epistle addressed
to the bishop and Cburch of Romę. The reference to
collision between parties wbo claimed Peter, Apollos,
Paul, and eyen Christ for their chiefs, involves no op-
position between tbe apostles themselyes, such as the
fiibnlons Clementines and modem infidelity assume.
The name of Peter as fonnder, or joint founder, is not
associated with any local Cburch save those of Corinth,
Antioch, and Romę, by early ecclesiastical tradition.
Tbat of Alexandria may have been established by
Mark after Peter*s death. That Peter preached the
Gospel in the countries of Asia mentioned in his First
Eputle appears from Grigen^s own words (iuKrfpvKtvaŁ
ioiKtv) to be a merę conjecture (Origen, ap. Enseb. iii, 1,
adopted by Epiphanius, Bar. xxvii, and Jerome, CataL
cl), not in itself improbable, but of little weigbt in tbe
absence of all posiUre eridence, and of all personal rem-
iniscences in the Epistle itself. From that Epistle, bow-
CTer, it is to be inferred tbat towards the end of bis life
Peter either yisited or resided for some time at Baby-
lon, which at that time, and for some hundreds of years
afterwards, was a chief seat of Jewish culture. Tbis
of coorse depends upon the assnmption, wbicb on the
whole seems most probable, that the word Babylon is
not nsed as a mystic designation of Romę, but as a
proper name, and that not of an obscure city in Egypt,
but of tbe ancient capital of tbe East. There were
many inducements for such a cboice of abode. The
Jewish families formed there a separate commnnity;
tbey were ricb, prosperous, and had established settle-
ments in many districts of Asia Minor. Their lan-
guage, probably a mixture of Hebrew and Nabathn-
an, mast haye borne a near affinity to tbe Galilsean
dialect They were on far morę familiar terms with
their beathen neighbors than in other countries, while
their intercourae with Jadsea was carried on without
intermission. Christianity certainly madę considera-
ble progress at an earh' time in that and the adjoining
districts; the great Christian schools at Edessa and
Nisibis probably owed their origin to the influence of
Peter ; the generał tonę of the writers of that school is
what is now commoniy dcsignated as Petrine. It is
no nnreasonable supposition that the establishment of
Christianity in those districts may haye been specially
connected with the residence of Peter at Babylon. At
that time there must haye been some communicatlon
between the two great apostles, Peter and Paul, thus
stationed at the two extremities of tbe Christian world.
Mark, wbo was certainly employed about that time by
Paul, was with Peter wben he wrote the Epistle. Sil-
yanus, Paul'8 cbosen companion, was the bearer, prob-
ably the amanuensis of Peter*s EpisUe — not improbably
sent to Peter from Romę, and charged by him to deliyer
that epistle, written to snpport PauPs anthority, to tbe
churcbes fbnnded by tbat apostle on his return. See
Peter, Epistles of.
PETER
10
PETER
Moro important in its bearings upon laŁer contro-
Tereies is the ąnestion of Peter*8 connection witb Roine.
It may be considered as a settled point that he dld not
vbłt Romę before the last 3'ear of his life. Too much
stress may perhaps be laid on the fact that there is
no notice of Peter'8 labors or presence tn that city in
the Epistle to the Romans ; but that negative evidence
is not coanterbalanced by any statement of undoobted
antiquity. The datę giTen by Eusebias rests upon a
miscalculation, and ia irreooncilable with the notices of
Peter in the Acts of the Apostles. He giyes A. D. 42 in
the Chnmicon (i. e. in the Armenian text), and says that
Peter remained at Romę twent}- years. In this he is
followed by Jerome, Catal. c. 1 (who gires twenty-fiye
years), and by most Roman Catholic writers. Protes-
tant critics, with scaicely one exception, are unani-
mous upon this point, and Roman controTersialists are
far from being agreed in their attempts to remove the
difficulty. The most ingenious effort is that of Win-
dischmann (FtmficM Pelrmtt^ p. 112 sq.)* He assnmes
that Peter went to Romę immediately after his deliv-
eranoe from prison (Acts xii), i. e. A.D. 44, and left in
con8equence of the Claudian persecution between A.D.
49 and 51. (See below.)
The fact, howerer, of Petersa martyrdom at Romę
rests upon very different grounds. The evidence for
it is complete, while there b a total absence of any
contrary statement in the writings of the early fathers.
We haye in the flrst place the certainty of his martyr-
dom in our Lord^s own prediction (John xxi, 18, 19).
Clement of Romę, writing before the end of the first
century, speaks of it, but does not mention the pl<ŁC€^
that being of coorse well known to his readers. Igna^
tius, in the undoubtedly genuine Epistle to the Romans
(eh. iy), speaks of Peter in terms which imply a special
connection with their Church. Other early notices of
less weight coincide with this, as that of Papias (Euseb.
ii, 15), and the apocryphal Pnedieatio Petri^ quoted by
Cyprian. In the second century, Dionysius of Corinth,
in the Epistle to Soter, bishop of Romę (ap. Euseb. ff.
£. ii, 25), States, as a fact uniyersally known, and ac-
counting ibr the intimate relations between Corintli
and Romę, that Peter and Paul both taugbt in Italy,
and suffered martyrdom about the same time. Irenss-
us, who was connected with the apostle John, being a
disciple of Polycarp, a hearer of that apostle, and thor-
oughly conyersant with Roman matters, bears distinct
witness to Peter*s presence at Romę (^Adv. Hetr, iii, 1
and 3). It is incredible that he should haye been mis-
informed. In the next century there is the testimony
of Cains, the liberał and leamed Roman presbyter
(who speaks of Peter's tomb in the Yatican), that of
Origen, Tertullian, and of the antę- and post-Nicene
fathers, without a single exception. In short, the
churches most nearly connected with Romę, and those
least affected by its influence, which was as yet but in-
eonsiderable in the East, concur in the statement that
Peter was a Joint founder of that Church, and suffered
death in that city. What the early fathers do not as-
sert, and indeed implicitly deny, is that Peter was the
sole founder or resident head of that Church, or that
the See of Romę deriyed from him any claim to su-
premacy : at the utmost they place him on a footing of
eąnality with Paul. That fact is sufficient for all pur-
poses of fair controyersy. The denial of the state-
ments resting on such eyidence seems almost to in-
dicate an uneasy consctousness, truły remarkable in
those who belieye that they haye, and who in fact real-
ia* haye, irrefragable grounds for rejecting the preten-
sions of the papacy. Coteler has collected a large
number of passages from the early fathers, in which
the name of Paul precedes that of Peter (Pat» Apott, i,
414 ; see also Yalesius, Euf^eb. H. E. iii, 21). Fabricius
obsenres that this is the generał usage of the Greek
fathers. It is also to he remarked that when the fa>
thers of the 4th and 5th cen tui ie? — for instance, Chry-
eostom and Augustinc — ^use the words u 'AiróaTo\oCf or
Apotlolus, they mean Paul, not Peter->4i yery weightv
fact.
The time and manner of the apostle's martyrdom are
less certain. The early writers imply, or distiiictly state,
that he suffered at or about the same time (Dionysius,
Kard r6v avTÓv Kaipw) with Paul, and in the NerY>ni>
an persecution. All ag^ee that he was crucifled, a point
sufliciently determined by our Lord*s prophecy. Origen
(ap. Euseb. iii, 1), who could easily ascertaio the fact, and,
thongh fanciful in speculation, is not inaccurate in his-
torical matters, says that at his own reąuest be was cru-
cified Kard Kf^aKtfc ; probably meaning 5y tJke head,
and not, as generally understood, tcitk Ms head down-
ward$, (See l)elow.) This statement was generally
receiyed by Christian antiąuity; nor does it seem in-
consistent with the fenrent temperament and deep hn-
mility of the apostle to haye chosen such a death — one,
moreoyer, not unlikeły to haye been inflicted in mockery
by the Instruments of Nero*s wanton and ingenious cni-
elty. The legend found in St. Arabrose is intereating.
and may haye some foundation in fact. When the
persecution began, the Christiana at Romę, anxious to
preserye their great teacher, persuaded him to flee, a
course which they had scriptural warrant to recommend
and he to follow; but at the gate he met our Lord.
" Lord, whither goest thou?" asked the apostle. *' I go
to Romę," was the answer, ^ tliere onoe morę to be cru-
cified." Peter well understood the meaning of those
words, retumed at once and was crucifled. See Tille-
mont. Mim, i, 187, 555. He shows that the account of
Ambrose (which is not to be found in the Bened. edit.)
is contrary to the apocryphal legend. Łater writers
rather yałue it as reflecting upon Peter*s want of cour-
age or constancy. That Peter, like all good men. val-
ued his life and suffered reluctantły, may be infierred
from our Lord*s words (John xxi); but his iiigfat id
morę in harmony with the principles of a Christian
thau wilful expoeure to persecution. Origen refers to
the words then said to haye lieen spoken by our Lord,
but ąuotes an apocryphal work (jOn St, John, tom. ii).
Thus closes the apostle*s life. Some additional facts,
not perhaps unimportant, may be accepted on early tes-
timony. From Paul's words it may be inferred with
certainty that he did not giye up the ties of family life
when he forsook his temporal calling. His wife ac-
companied him in his wanderings. Clement of Alex-
andria, a wńter well informed in matters of ecclesiasti-
cal interest, and thoroughly trustworthy, says {Sfrom,
iii, p. 448) that ''Peter and PhUip had chiidron, and
that boih took alx>ut their wiyes, who acted as their co-
adjutors in ministeńng to women at their own homes;
by their roeans the doctrine of the Lord penetrated with-
out scandal into the priyacy of women*s apartmcnta^"
Peter*s wife is belieyed, on the same authońty, to have
suffered martyrdom, and to haye been supported in the
hour of trial by ber hu9band's exhortation. Some crit-
ics t)ełieye that she is referred to in the salutation at
the end of the First Epistle of Peter. The apostle is
said to haye employed interpreters. Basilides, an early
Gnostie, professed to haye deriyed his system from Glau-
cias. one of Łhese interpreters. This shows at least the
impression that the apostle did not understand Greek,
or did not speak it with fluenc}^ Of far morę impor-
tance is the statement that St. Mark wrote his Gospel
under the teaching of Peter, or that he embodied in
that Gospel the substanoe of our apostle's orał instruc-
tions. This statement rests upon such an amouut of
extemał eyidence, and is coiroborated by so many in-
temal indications, that they would scarcely be ques-
tioncd in the absence of a strong theologicał bias. (Pa-
pias and Ciem. AIex., referred to by Eusebius, //. E, ii,
15; Tertullian, c. Marc, iy, c. 6; Irenieus, iii, 1 ; iy, 9.
Petayius [on Epiphanius, p. 428] obsenres that Papias
deriyed his information from John the Presbyter. For
other passages, see Fabricius {BUbl, Gr. iii, 182]. The
slight discrepancy t)etween EuselŃus and Papias indi-
cates independent sources of information.) The fact
PETER
11
PETER
tf doobly impcwtantt in its bearing^ upon the Gospel,
lod upon tbe cbancter of our apoetle. Chrysostom,
wbo n foUowed by the most judicious commenraŁorai
seems fint Co bave drawn attention to the fact that in
lfjrk's Gospel erery defect in Petersa character and con-
dnct u broaght ont dearly, wtthout the slighest extcnu-
atiui, while many noble acta and pecaliar marka oi fa-
XIX are ńther omitted or atated with far less force than
br any other evangeli8t. Indicationa of Peter*8 influ-
fnce, even in Mark*8 style, much less pure than that of
Lukę, are tTKed by modem criticiam (Gieseler, qaoted
by I^TidsDo).
ILDuatuion of ParHeuUtr Pauił*, — \/o subjoin a
óottet esaminatiim of certain spccial ąueationa touched
npoa in tbe abore biatory.
1. p€ltr't Iłame, — His original appellation CfpKa*
Oiiy^c) occuTB in the foUowing passages: Johu i, 42;
1 Cor. i, 12; iii, 22; ix, .«; xt, 5; GaL ii, 0; i, 18; ii,
10, 14 (ibe last thiee according to the text of Lachmann
aod Tuchendorf). Cephas is the Chaldee word Ktypka^
KPS. itaelf a oomiption of or derivation from the He-
brew K^f 5)3, "a rock," a rare word, found only in
M xxx, 6 and Jer. It, 29. It roust hare been the
word ictually pionounced by onr Lord in Matt. xyi, 18,
md on aabseąnent oocaaions when the apostle was ad-
diessed by him or other Hebrews by his new name.
By it be was known to the Corinthian Christiana. In
tbe lodent Syriac rersion of the N. T. (Peshito), it is
mufofiDly foond where the Greek bas Uirpoc. When
ve coosider that onr Lord and the apostles spoke Chal-
dee, sod that therefore (as already remarked) the apos-
tle mittt always have been addressed as Cephas, it is
cerutnly remarkable that throoghoat the Gospels, no
Ics than ninety-aeven tiroes, with one exception only,
tbe name shoold be given in tbe Greek form, whicb
was of later tntroduction, and unintelligible to Hebrews,
tbough intelligible to the far wider Gentiie world among
wbicb the Goapeł was about to begin its conrae. Eren
in Mark, where nK»e Chaldee words and phrases are re-
taiocd than in all the other Gospels put together, this
u tbe caae. It is as if in onr English Bibles the name
vere imiformly giT-en, not Peter, bot Rock; and it sag-
gnu tbst the' meaning contained in tbe appellation is
of morę Tital importance, and intended to be morę care-
fally aeized at each recurrence, than we are apt to recol-
lecL Tbe oommencement of the change from the Chal-
dee name to its Gieek synonym is well marked in the
interehange of the two in GaL ii, 7, 8, 9 (Stanley, Apog-
toOc Age, p. 116). Tbe apostle in bis oompanionship
wttb Christ, and ap to the time of the Lord's asoension,
seems to hare borne the name of Simon ; at least be is
aiways ao called by Jesus himaelf (Matt. xvii, 25 ; Mark
xir, 37 ; Lnke xxii, 81 ; John xxi, 15), and apparently
tl» br the disciplea (Lnke xxiv, 84 ; Acts xv, 14). But
■fter tbe extenaton of the apostolic drcle and its rela-
tkins Toomp. Acta x, 5, 18), the apostle began to be known,
in order to distingnish him from others called Simon, as
HimM Peter ; the name of Peter, which had at first been
pren him as a apecial mark of esteem, being added, as
tbai of a father often was in other cases ; and, in the
fmtt of time, it seems that the latter name supersed-
cd tbe former. Henoe the evangel]stB cali the apostle
Peter ofiener than Simon Peter. As to the epistles of
PaoL he ts always called Cephas in 1 Cor., but in the
c^ber epiatka often Peter. As above suggested, the
•ppellation thna bestowed seems to have had reference
to the disdple indiTidnally and personally. Attaching
|iim«4f to Christ, he wonld partake of that blessed sptr-
uual inflneiioe whereby he wonld be enabled, in spite of
the radUationa of his naturally impuleire character, to
k<iU with perserering grasp the faith he now embraced.
He wonld become rooted and grounded in the trath,
and not be carried away to destriiction by the rarious
winda of ialse doctrine and the crafty asaaults of Satan.
Tbe name impoaed was continoally tn remuid him of
vhat be ooght to be as a foUuwer of Christ. Compare
Wieseler, Chronologie dee Apostolitcken ZeitoUere, p.
581.
2. Peter* Domeetic Circunutancee, — Of the family
and connections of our apostle we know but little. His
father is named in the Gospel history, and his mother^s
name seems to have been Joanna (see Coteler, A d Conet,
Apottol. ii, 68). It appears from Johu xxi that he did
not entirely give up his occupation aa a fisberman on
his entrance into the body of Chrisfs disciples. Lukę
iv, 88 and 1 Cor. ix, 5 seem to show that he was mar-
ried, and so the Church fathers often affirm (comp. Cb-
teler> ad Ciem. Reoogn. vii, 25 ; Grabę, A d SpieiL Patr,
§ i, p. 830). But the traditton of the name of his wife
varies between Concordia and Perpetoa (see Meyer, De
Petri ConjugiOf Yiteb. K84). It is said that she sulTered
martyrdom before Peter (Ciem, Alex. Stronty vii, p. 312).
Some alBrm that he leil cbildren {ibid. iii, p. 192 ; £useb.
iii, 30), among whom a daughter, Ptetronilla, is luimed
(comp. A eta Stmcł, 30 ; Mai, vii, 420 Bq.). Morę recent^
ly Ranch (Neues hit. Joum./, TheoL viii, 401) 8trives
to find a son of Peter mentioned in 1 Pet. v, 13, and
Neander {Pflcmz. ii, 520) foliowa him, supposing that
the "elected together with yon" (the word church in
the English ver8ion is not in the original) refers to
the wife of the apostle. The persona! appearance of
Peter at the time of his martyrdom is described in Ma-
lalflB Chronogr, x, p. 256, in an absurd passage, of which
the sense appears to be this : He was an old man, two
thirds of a century old; bald in front, knob-haired
(? KoySó^pi^, with gray hair and beard ; of elear com-
plexion, aomewhat pale, yrith dark eyes, a large beard,
long noee, joined eyebrows, upright in posturę ; intelli-
gent, impulsiye, and timid. Comp. the description in
Niceph. //. E. ii, 87, p. 165; and Faggini, De Bom. P.
Itin. Exerc, xx, p. 458 Bq.
8. Peter'* Prominence as an Aposfle* — From such pas-
sages as Matt. xvii, 1 ; Mark ix, 1 ; xiv, 88, there can be
no doubt that Peter was among the most beloved of
ChriBt'8 disciples ; and his eminence among the apostles
depended partly on the fact that he had been one of tbe
first of them, and partly on his own peculiar traits.
Sometimes he speakis in the name of the twelve (Matt,
xix, 27; Lukę xii, 41). Sometimes he answers when
question8 are addressed to them all (^latt xvt, 16 ; Mark
viii, 29) ; sometimes Jesus addresses him in the place
of all (Matt. xxvi. 40). But that he passed, out of the
circle of the apostles, as their representatiye, cannot be
certainly inferred from Matt. xvii, 24, even if it be sup-
posable in itaelf. This positton of Peter becomes morę
decided after the ascension of Jesus, and perhaps in con-
sequence of the saying in John xxi, 15 sq. Peter now
becomes the organ of the company of apostles (Acts ii,
15; ii, 14 sq.; iv, 8 8q.; v,27 sq.), his word is decisive
(Acts XV, 7 sq.), and he is named with ^ the other apos-
tles" (Acts ii, 37 ; v, 29. Comp. Chrysost on John, Horn,
lxxxviii, p. 525). The early Protestant polcmic divincs
should not havc blinded themselves to this obseiA-ation.
(See Baumgarten, Polem, iii, 370 sq.) The case is a
natural one, when we compare Peter*s character with
that of the other apostles, and contributes nothing at all
to fixing the primacy in him, after the view of the Ro-
man Church. It may even be granted that the cnstom
of looking upon Peter as the chief of the apostles was
the cause of his always having the first place in the
company of apostles in the Church traditions. The
old account that Peter alone of the apostles was bap-
tized by Jesus himself agrees well with this view.
(Comp. Coteler, Ad Herm. Past. iii, 16.)
As to the meaning of the passage Matt. xvi, 18,
there is much dispute. The accounts which have
been given of the precise import of this declaration
may be summed up under these heads : 1. That our
Lord spoke of himself, and not of Peter, as the rock
on which the Church was to be founded. This inter-
pretation expre88es a great trnth, but it is irreconcil-
able with the context, and coold scarcely have oo-
i curred to an unblassed reader, and certainly does not
PETER
12
PETER
give the primaiy and litend meaning of oar Łord'8
words. It bas been defcnded, howerer, by candid and
learned cńtics, as Glass and Dathe. 2. That our Lord
addresses Peter as the type or representatire of the
Church, in his capacity of chief disciple. This is Au-
gastine^s view, and it was widely adopted in the early
Church. It is hardly borne out by the context, and
seems to involve a false metaphor. The Church would
in that case be founded on itself in its type. 8. That
the rock was not the person of Peter, but his confession
of faith. This rests on much better authority, and is
supported by stronger arguments. Our Lord^s que8-
tion was put to the disciples generally. Although the
answer came through the nnouth of Peter, always ready
to be the spokesman, it did not the less express the be-
lief of the whole body. So in other passages (noted
below) the apostles generally, not Peter by himself,
are spoken of as foundations of the Church. Every
one will acknowledge that Christ, as before suggested,
is pre-eminently the Jirst foundation, the Bock, on
which every true disciple, on which Peter himself,
must be built. It was by his faith ful confession that
he showed he was upon the rock. He was then Peter
indeed, exhibiting that personal characteristic in the
view of which Christ had long before given him the
name. Such an interpretation may seem to accord
bcst with our Lord*s address, ** Thou art Peter** — the
firm maintainer of essential truth, a truth by the faith-
ful grasping of which men become Christ^s real disci-
ples, living Stones of his Church (John xvii, 8; Rom.
X, 9 ; 1 Cor. iii, 11). Thus it was not the personal
rock Peter, but the materiał rock of Gospel truth, tho
adherence to which was the test of discipleship. This
yiew, that it was Peter'8 confession on which Christ
would build his Church, hos been hcld by many able
expositor8. For iustance, Hilary says, " Super hanc
igitur confessionis petram ecclesiie ssdificatio est*' (Z>e
Trin. lib. vi, 86, Op. [Par. 1G93], col. 903 ; comp. lib. ii,
23, col. 800). See also Cyril of Alexandria (De Sancł.
Trin. dial. iv, Op. [Lut. 1638], tom. v, pars i, p. 607) ;
Chrj-sostom {In MaU. bom. liv, Op. [Par. 1718-38], vii,
548) ; and the writer under the name of Nyssen (Test.
de Adtewt. Dom. adv. Jud, in Greg. Nyssen. Op. [Par.
1638], ii, 162). Yet it seems to have been originally
suggested as an explanation, rather than an interpre-
tation, which it certainly is not in a literał sense. 4.
That Peter himself was the rock on which the Church
would be built, as the representative of the apostles,
as professing in their name the true faith, and as
intrusted specially with the duty of preaching it,
and thereby laying the foundation of the Church.
Many learned and candid Protestant divines have ac-
quiosced in this view (e. g. Pearson, Hammond, Ben-
gel, Rosenm&ller, Schleusner, Kuinól, Bloomfield,
etc). It is borne out by the facts that Peter on the
day of Pentecost, and during the whole period of the
establishment of the Church, was the chief agent in
all the work of the minlstry, in preaching, in admit-
ting both Jews and Gentiles, and laying down the
terms of commnnion. This view is whoUy incompat-
ible with the Roman theory, which makes him the
representative of Christ, not personally, but in yirtue
of an Office essential to the permanent existence and
authority of the Church. Passaglia, the latest and
ablest controver8ialłst, takes morę pains to refute this
than any other view ; but wholly witbout success : it
is elear that Peter did not retain, even admitting
that he did at first hołd, any primacy of rank after
completing his own special work ; that he neyer ex-
ercised any authority over or independently of the
other apostles; that he certainly did not transmit
whateyer position he ever held to any of his col-
leagues after his decease. At Jerusalem, eyen dur-
ing his residence there, the chief authority rested with
8t. James ; nor is there any tracę of a central power
or jorisdictlon for centuries after the foundation of the
Church. Tho same ai^uments, muUitit miUandis, ap-
ply to the keys. The promise was literally fnlfiUed
when Peter preached at Pentecost, admitted the first
conyerts to baptism, confirmed the Samaritans, and.
receiyed Comelius, the representatiye of the GentUes,
into the Church. Whatever priyileges may haye be-
longed to him personally died with him. The author-
ity reąuired for the permanent government of the
Church was believed by the fiithers to be deposited
in the episcopate, as representing the apostolic body,
and sncceeding to its claims. See Rock«
The passage is connected with another in the claims
of the papacy, namely, "Unto thee will I giye the keys
of the kingdom of heayen," etc. (Matt. xyi, 19). The
force of both these passafres is greatly impaired for the
purpose for which Catholics produce them, by the cir-
cumstance that whatever of power or authority tfaey
may be supposed to confer upon Peter must be re-
garded as shared by htm wilh the other apostles, inas-
much as to them also are ascribed in other passages
the same qualities and powers which are promised to
Peter in those under consideration. If by the former
of these passages we are to understand that the Church
is built upon Peter, the apostle Paul informs us that
it is not on him alone that it is built, but upon cUl the
apostles (Ephes. ii, 20) ; and in the book of Revelatlon
we are told that on the twelye foundations of the ICew
Jerusalem (the Christian Church) are inscribed '* the
names of the twehe apostles of iks Lamb'^ (^^ci, 14).
As for the declaration in the latter of these passages,
it was in all its essential parts repeated by our Lord
to the other disciples immediately before his passion,
as announcing a privllege which, as his aposUeu, they
were to possess in common (Matt. xviii, 18; John xx,
23). It b, moreoyer, uncertain in what sense our
Lord used the language in question. In hoth cases
his words are metapborical ; and nothing can be
morę unsafe than to build a theological dogma upon
language of which the meaning is not elear, and to
which, from the earliept ages, different interpretations
haye been affixed. Finally, eyen granting the cor-
rectness of the interpretation which Catholics pat
upon these yerscs, it will not bear out the conduslon
they would deduce from them, inasmuch as the judi-
ciał supremacy of Peter oyer the other apostles does
not necesearily follow from his possessing authority
over the Church. On the other side, it is certain that
there is no instance on record of the apo6tłe*s having
ever claimed or exercised this supposed power ; but,
on the contrary, he is mors than once represented
as snbmitting to an exercise of power upon the part of
others, as when, for instance, he went forth as a mes-
senger from the apostles assembłed in Jerusalem to
the Christians in Samaria (Acts yiii, 14), and when
he receiyed a rebuke from Paul, as already noticed.
This circumstance is so fatal, indeed, to the preten-
sions which have been urged in fayor of his suprem-
acy over the other apostles, that trom a yery earl^* age
attempts have been madę to set aside its force by the
hypothesis that it is not of Peter the apostle, but of
another person of the same name, that Paul speaks in
the passage referred to (Euseb. Hitt. Eccles. i, 13).
This hypothesis, however, is so plainly contradicted
by the words of Paul, who explicit1y ascribes aposŁle-
ship to the Peter of whom he writes, that it is aston-
ishing how it could haye been admitted even b^*- the
most blinded zealot (yers. 8, 9). While, however, it
is pretty weli established that Peter enjoyed no judi-
cial supremacy over the other apostles, it would, per-
haps, be going too far to affirm that no dignity or
primacy whatsoeyer was conceded to him on the part
of his brethren. His superiori^ in point of age, his
distinguished personal excellence, his reputation and
success as a teacher of Christianity, and the prominent
part which he had ever taken in his Master "s aflTairs,
both before his death and after his ascension, fnmi&hed
sufficient grounds for his being raised to a position
of respect and of morał influence in the Church and
PETER
13
PETER
among his brother apostles. To this 8oine counte-
oAttce 19 giyen by the ctrcumstanoes tbat he is called
" the fint" (irpMroi) by Matthew (x, 2), and thia ap-
pareotly not merely aa a namerical, but as an honora-
rr dUtinction ; that when tbe apostlea are mentioned
as a body, it ia fraąuently by the phraae " Peter and
tbe dereń/' or " Peter and tbe rest of the apoetles,"
or sometbing simtlar ; and that when Paul went up
to Jenualem by diTine reyelationf it was to Peter par-
ticolirly that the yisit was paid. These curcamstances,
taken in connection with the prevalent Toice of Chris-
tim antłqaity, would aeem to antborize the opinion
tbat Peter occupied some such poeition as tbat of irpo-
M^rwCfOr president in tbe apostolical college, but witb-
ciit sny power or anthority of a judicial kind over his
brotber apoatlea (Campbell, Ecdes. HUt. lect. v and
xii; Barrow, hM «irp., etc. ; Ejcbborn, EitUeii. iii, 599 ;
Hag, ItArod, p. 68Ó, FoTdick'8 tranśl. ; Home, Introd.
iT, 432; Lardner, Works, vol. iv, v, vi, ed. 1788 ; Cave,
Anśjtiiłaiet ApottóSca^ etc.)* See Primact.
4. Prter'» CkarocUr. — However difficult it might be
to present a cofnplete sketch of the apostle*s temper
of miód, tbere is no dispute as to some of tbe leading
featares ; derotion to his Master^s person (John xiii,
ti\ wbich even led him into extravagance (John xtii,
9X and an energetic disposition, wbich showed itself
somctiines as resolation, soraetimes as boldness (Matt.
zir, 29), and temper (John xviii, 10). His tempera-
ment was choleric, and he easily passed from one ez-
treme to anotber (John xiii, 8. For a parallel be-
tv<en Peter and John, see Chrysost. in Johan. hom.
Isrii, 522). But how coald such a man fali into a re-
peited denial of his Lord ? Thls will always remain a
difficolt peychological problem ; but it is not neoessary
(m this accoimt to refer to Satan's power (Olshausen,
B^. CmmaU. ii, 482 są.). When Jesus predicted to
Peter his coming fiill, the apostle may bave thonght
onlj of a formal inquiry ; and the arrest of Christ
drore from his mind all recollection of Cbrist^s wum-
ing words. The first denial was the hasty repulse of
a tnrableiome and curious ąnestion. Peter thought
it Dot worth while to conver8e with a girl at such a
moment, when all his thongbts were taken up with the
6ti« of his Master ; and his repulse would be the morę
Rsolnte, the morę he wished to avoid being driven by
the cnioiu and presaing crowd out of the viciuity of
the beIoved Savionr. The second and tbird ąuestions
compelled htm atill to deny, unless he would confess
or leaye the place ; but the neamcss of the Lord held
bbn fAst. Besidcs they are tbe ąuestions only of
curious senrants, and he ia in danger, if be acknowl-
edges his Lord, of becomtng himself tbe butt of ridi-
cole to the coars« multitude, and thns of failing in his
purpow. Thns again and again, with increasing hesi-
tatioo, he utters his denial. Now the cock-crowing
remindi him of his Ka8ter'8 wamtng, and now at length
he reflects that a denial, even before such noauthorized
ii>qoiries, is yet really a deniaL In tbis view some
think that Peter*s thoughta were continually on his
Master, and tbat possibly the fear of personal danger
bad no pait in inflnencinij; bis course. The exprcssion
f'iU vi Peter, often used, is in any case rather strong.
For rariotts views of tbis occurrence, see Lnther, on
Jois 3viii; Niemeyer, Charcikter^ i, &86 sq.; Ran, /Vw-
ffńta ad narraHon. Evang. cfe tmuma P. temeritate (£r-
langen, 1781) ; Paulus, Commeni, iii, 647 sq. ; Henne-
berfr. LeidetugetdL p. 159 sq. ; Miacellen etner Land'
fniigert (Glogan, 1799), p. 3 sq. ; Greiling, Leben Jesu,
P> 381 8q. ; Rudolph, in Winer's ZeiUchr. f. toissensch.
Thed. i, 109 sq. ; and Bellarmine, Oontrov. de Benit, ii,
16; Martin, Dwa. de Petri Denegatione (Monaster, 1885).
5. PaicTs DupiOe mik Peter.— With reference to the
occurrence mentioned in Gal. ii, 11, from which some
bare faifeired that Peter was not wholly free Arom tbe
<«TTiIe fear of men, we may remark that tbe case is
tltogether diffierent from the preceding, and bas much
to do with the apostle^s dogmatic conrictions. It is |
known that the admission of the heathen to the Church
was strange to Peter at first, and tbat be could only be
induced to preach to them by a miraculous yision
(Acts X, 10; xi, 4 są.). Then he was the first to bap-
tize heathen, and announcedin unmistakable language
that the yoke of the Mosaic law mnst not be placed
on the Gentile converts (Acts xv, 7 sq.). But it is
ąuite supposable tbat he was still anxioAs for Chris-
tianity to be first firmly rooted among the Jews, and
thus he seems after tbis occurrence to have tumed his
preaching exclusively to the Jews (comp. Gal. ii, 7),
bis first epistle also being intended only for Jewish
readers. The affair at Antioch (Gal. ii, 12) seems to
show that he still wavered somewhat in the conviction
expressed in Acts xv, 7 sq. ; t^ indeed, as appears to
be the case, it was later than the latter. For even if
Peter fonnd it necessary to respect the prejudices of
the party of James, still the necessity of firmness and
consistency cannot be denied ; although, on the other
band, we must not confound Peter^s position with that
of Paul. It is known (comp. Euseb. i, 12, 1) that in
tbe early Church many referred the entire statement
to anotber Cephas, one of the Beventy disciples, who
afterwards became bishop of Iconium, and nearly all
the Catholic interpreters adopt this expedient. See
Molkenbuhr, Quod Cepkag Gal. ii, 11 non sit Petrus
Ap. (Monaster, 1803). See against this view Deyling,
Obsenoatt. ii, 520 sq. On anotber view of the churcli
fathers, see Keander, Pflanz. i, 292, noto. It appears
from the fact that at Corinth a party of Jndaizing
Christians called themselves by his name, tliat Peter
was afterwards recognised as bead of this class, in dis-
tinction Arom the Pauline Christians.
6. As to the time ot Peter*s joumey to Romę, the
Church fathers do not ąuite agree. Eusebius says in
his Chroń, (i, 42) tbat Peter went to Romę in the
second year of Clandins Cresar, after founding the first
Church in Antioch ; and Jerome, in his version, adds
that he remained tbere twenty-five years, preaching
the Grospel, and acting as bishop of the city (comp. also
Jerome, Script. Eccl. p. 1). Yet tbis statement ap-
pears very doubtful, for three reasons: (1) Because,
although we leam firom Acts xii, 17 tbat Peter left
Jcrusalem for a time after tbe deatb of James the el-
der, yet he certainly cannot have left Palestine before
tbe events recorded in Acts xv. (2) Because the
mention of tbe origin of tbe Church in Antioch, con-
nected by tbe fathers with Peter*s joumey to Romę,
cannot easily be reconciled with Acts xi, 19 są. (3)
Because, if Peter bad been bishop in Romę when Paul
wrote his Epistle to the Romans, and afterwards when
he was prisoner in Romę, we shonld expect the former
to contain words of greeting to Peter, and tbe epistles
written from Romę similar messages from Peter ; tbe
morę as these epistles are veTy rich in such messages ;
but notbing of Uie kind appears. We may well doubt,
too, whetber, if Peter bad been bishop or even founder
of the Roman Church, PauPs principles and method (see
Rom. XV, 20, 23 są. ; xxviii, 2 ; 2 Cor. x, 16) would
bave allowed him to write this epistle to Romę at all.
Eusebius seems to have drawn his account from Clem-
ens Alexandrinus and Eusebius (Euseb. H. E. ii, 15),
the former of whom ąuoted from a remark of Justin
Martyr (Apol, ii, 69), wbich rests npon an accidental
error of language ; thb fatber referring to Simon the
Magician an inscription wbich belonged to the Sabine-
Romish deity Semo (Hng, Einleit. ii, 69 są. ; Credner,
Einleit. i, 529 są. Comp. Schulrich, De Simonie Af./a-
tis Roman. Misen. 1844). Kow Peter had once pub-
licly rebuked this Simon (Acts viii, 18 są.) ; this fact,
connected with the inscription, gave rise to the story
of Peter*8 residence in Romę nnder Claudius, in whose
relgn the inscription originated. After this detection
of the occasion wbich produced the record in Eusebius,
it is truły wonderful tbat Bertholdt {Einleit. v, 2685)
should defend tbe account, and found a critiod con-
jecture upon it. Further, the Armenian Chronicie of
PETER
14
PETER
Easebius refen this statement to tbe third ytar of
Caius CaliguU.
Bat Łhe accoant foand in Irenaeiu (ffar. iii, 1) dif-
fers materiallj from Ihat above noticed. He telb us
that Peter and Paul were in Romę, and there founded
a Cburch in company ; and Eusebios (ii, 25, in a qnota-
tion from Dionysius, bishop of Corintli) adda that they
snffered martyrdom together (Peter being crucified,
acoording to Origen, in Enseb. iii, 1 ; Nicepb. ii, 86).
Euaebioa in his Chronicie places their martyrdom, ac-
cording to hiB reciconing of twenty-five years for Pe-
ter*8 episcopacy, in the fourteenth year of Nero*8 reign,
which extended from tbe middle of October, A.D. 67,
to the same time in A.D. 68. This joint martyrdom
of Pani and Peter (without howe^er any spedal men-
tion of the manner of Peter*8 crttcifixion, comp. Nean-
der, Pfiofu. ii, 514) is also nientioned by Tertullian
(Prtueript, Heeret, dCi) and l^ctantlus (^Afort, Persec,
2; ItuiUut. Dw, !▼, 21). The grayes of boŁh apostles
were pointed out in Romę as earl}' as the close of the
second century (Euseb. ii, 25). Yet the whole story
rests ultimately on the testimon}' of Dionysius alone,
who must haye died al>out A.D. 176. (The passages
in Clemens Romanns, 1 to Cor. v, and Ignatius, to the
Eomans, v, settle nothing.) Thos, on the one Iiand, we
are not at liberty to reject all doubt as to tbe truth of
this acoount with Bertholdt (łoc et/.) as hypercritical,
or with Gieseler (Ch. Hist. i, 92 są. 8d ed.) as partisan
polemics ; nor, on the other, can we suppose it to haye
spmng from the interpretation of 1 Peter v, 18, where
at an early day BabyUm was undcrstood to stand for
Romę (Euseb. xv, 2 ; Nicoph. H. E. ii, 15. Comp.
Baur, p. 215). The genetic derelnpment of the w hole
story attempted by Baur (in the TUbingen ZeUtchriff,
/. Tkeol, 1881, iy, 162 8q. Comp. bis Pcaibu, p. 214
sq., 671 sq.) deseryes cloee attention. But compare
Neander, PJkmz. ii, 519 sq. ; and furtber against any
yisit to Bome by Peter, see M. Yelenus, X^. quo Pe-
tntm Romam non venute aueritur (1520); Yedelius,
De tempore utrwscue Episcopaiui Petri (Genera, 1624) ;
Spanheim, De Jicta proftctione Petri Ap, in vrbem
Bom, (Log. Bat 1679 ; also in his OpercL, ii, 381 są.) ;
also an anonymous writer in the BibUoth, fur theol.
Schrifihmde, toI. iy, No. 1 (extnict in the Leijtz. Lit.-
ZeU. 1808, No. 180) ; Mayerhoff, E^id. in d. Petrin. Schrlf-
ten, p. 78 są. ; Reiche, Erkldr, des Brieftt an d, Bómer,
i, 39 są. ; Yon Ammon, FortUld. iy, 322 sq. ; EUen-
dorf, Ist Petrus in Bom. u. Bischofd, Bdm. Kirche gewe-
senf (Darmstadt, 1841; tninslated in the Biblitttkeca
Scicra^ Jaly, 1858 ; Jan. 1859 ; answered by Binterim,
DOsaeldorf, 1842). On the other side of the ąaestion,
the older writings are enumerated by Fabricins, Lux
Eeong. p. 97 są. The usoal argumcnts of the Catho-
lics are giyen by Bellarmlne, Conlrot. de Bom. Poni'/.
lib. ii. But the chief work on that side is still that
of Cortesins, De Bomano itinere gestisgue prindp. Apos-
toł, lib. ii (Yenice, 1573; reyised by Constantinus,
Rom. 1770). Comp. esp. Foggini, iJe Bomano Petri
itmere, etc (Flor. 1741). On the same side in generał,
thoogh with many modifications, are the followin^
later writers : Mynster, Kkine theoL Sckri/ien, p. 141
są., who holds that Peter was in Romę twice. See
eontrOj Baur, Op. cU. p. 181 są. ; Herbst, in tbe Tubingir
Kaikol.4heol, dtartalschr. 1820, iv, 1, who pUces Pe-
ter in Romę at least during the liist years of Nero's
reign, thoogh but for a short timc. See, howerer, Baur,
Op. cU. p. 161 są. ; Olshausen, Studien u. KrU, 1838, p.
940 są., in answer to Baur; Stenglein, in the Tubinger
Ouartalschr. 1840, 2d and 3d parts, who malies Peter
to haye yisited Romę in the second year of Claudius ;
to have been driyen away by the welUknown edict of
that emperor ; and at length to have retumed under
Nero. Comp. also Haiden, De iiinere P. Bomano
(Prag. 1761), and Windiscbmann, yindicicB Petri
(Ratisb. 1836). It is not in the least necei^sary for
those who oppose the Romish Cburch, which makes
Peter first bishop of Bome (see Yan TU, De Petro
Roma martjfn non pontijice [Łng. Bat. 1710]), and
grounds on this the primacy of the pope (Matthaeucci,
Opus dogmoL adversMS Hetka-odoz [sic !], p. 212 są. ; Bel-
larmine, Conirov. de Bom. Ponti/. ii, 8, and eUewhere),
to be infiuenced in the ąuestion of Peter*s joumey hy
these yiewB, inasmuch as this primacy, when all the
historical eyidences claimed are allowed, remains, in
spito of ever}' effort to defend it, withont fonndatloo
(Bntschang, Uniersuch,der Vorzuge des Ap. P. [Hamb.
1788] ; Baumgarten, Polem, iii, 870 są. ; PauluF, in
Sopkromt. iii, 181 są.). The first intimation that
Peter had a share in founding the Roman Cburch,
and that he spent twenty-five years there as bishup,
appears in Eusebius (Ckron, ad second. ann. Cland.)
and Jerome (Script. Ecd. i) ; while Eusebius (J7. E.
iii, 2) tells ns that after the martyrdom of Peter and
Paul, Linus was madę the first bishop of the Cburch
of the Romans ; a most remarkable statement, if Peter
had been bishop before him (comp. iii. 4). Epiphaniua
(xxvii, 6) eyen calls Paul the bishop (jtińaKOTro^ of
Christianity in Romę.
7. Modę of Peter's Deatk. —The tradition of tbis
apostle^s being crucified with his head downwarda ia
probably to be relegated to the regions of the fabulou?.
Tertullian, who is tbe first to mention Peter^s cruci-
fixion, sa^^s simply {De Prasser, JJares. 86), **PeŁma
passioni DuminicsB ada^uatur;'* which would rather
lead to the conclusion that he was crucified in tbe
usual way, as our Lord was. The next witness is
Origen, whose words are, aVeffroXo9ri<rdi| Kara n^a-
Aiyc oi'riftf( aitrię dltutoac ira^tXv (ap. Euseb. //. E.
iii, 1) ; ond these are generally cited as iutimating the
pecnliarity traditionally ascribed to the modę of Petersa
crucifixion. But do the words really intimate this ?
AUowing that the yerb may mean '*wa8 crucified,**
can Kard KŁ^aXijc mean '* with the head downwards ? **
No instance, we belieye, can be adduced which would
justify such a translation. The combination rard
Kł^a\ric occurs both in classical and Biblical Greek
(see Plato, Bep. iii, 898 ; Plut. Apoph. de Scipione Jun.
18 ; Mark ziv, 8 ; 1 Cor. xi, 4), but in every case it
means " upon the head** (comp. Kard KÓpptjc waraKai,
Ludan, Gall. c. 80, and Kara KÓj^c vaiuVf Catapł, c.
12). According to analog}', therefore, Origen*s worda
should mean that the apostle was impaled, or fastencd
to the cross upon, i. e. by, the head. M^^hen Eusebias
bas to mention tbe crucifying of martyrs with the
head downwards, he says distinctly oi di dvd«raXiv
KOTUKapa vpoaij\utBivTtc {ii, E, viii, 8). It is proba-
bly to a misunderstanding of Origen*8 words that this
story is to be traced and it is curious to see how it
grows as it advanccs. First, we have Origen*8 vagae
and doubtful statement aboye ąuoted; then we have
Eusebiu8*s morę precise statement : Hirpoc Kard Ki^d-
\ric <rravpovrai (Dtm. Ev. iii, 116, c); and at length,
in the hands of Jerome, it expands into " Affixo8 cruci
martyrio coronatus est capite ad terram yerso et in
sublime pedibus e]evatis, asserens se indignum ąui sic
crucifigeretur nt Dominus suos** (fiaJtal, Script. Eccies.
i). See Crucify.
8. Spurious Writings attnbuted to Peter.— Some apoo-
r}'phal worka of yery early datę obtained cuireucy in
the Church as containing the substance of the apo8tle*s
teaching. The fragments whicli remain are not of much
importance, but they demand a brief notice. See Apoc-
RYPHA. .
(1.) The Preadtitłff (r^puy/ia) or Doctrine{StSaxri) of
Peter t probably idcntical with a work called the Preack-
ing of Paulj or of Paul and Peter y ąuoted by Lactantius,
may have containcil some traces of the apo8tle's teach-
ing, if, as Grabę, Ziegler, and others supposed, it was
published soon after his death. The passages, howevcr,
ąuoted by Clemeut of Alexandria are for the most part
whoUy uniike Peter*s modę of treating doctrinal or prac-
tical subjecta. Rufin us and Jerome allude to a work
which they cali " Judicium Petri ;** for which Cave ac-
counts by a happy conjecture, adopted by Nitzsch^
PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF) 16 PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF)
Hamboff, Renaa, and Scbliemann, that Rufinus foimd
tftpa for aiptr/fUŁf and read Kpifta. Kpiphaniiu also
Bian UipioioŁ IIćrpov aa a book amoog the Ebionitea
{Btms. zxz, 16). Ił U probably oniy a different naine
jbr the fioRgoing (Scbwęgkr, Nackn/potf, Zeitali, ii, 30).
Set G08PKŁ8, SpuBioua.
(2.) Anotber work, called tbe Retdation of Peter
(atoKohf^nc nirpoir), was beld in mocb estoem for
oeotnriei. le was commented on by Clement of Alex-
aadrii, qao(ed by Tbeodotus in tbe Edoga, named to-
f;etherwitb tbe Bevelacion of Jobn in tbe FragmeDt on
the Camn paUiabed by Muratoń (but witb tbe remark,
"Onam qaidam ex nostris legi in Źcdesia nolunt"), and
•odoidiDg to Sosomen {Hiti, Eodee, vii, 19) was read
ooce a year in aoioe cbnicbes of Palestine. It is said,
bat DOI on good authori^, to bave been presenred among
tbe Goptic Cbristians. Ensebius kwkeid on it as spuri-
ooSibatiioCofbereticalongiD. From tbe fragmenta and
couo» it tppean to bave oonsisted chiefly of dennncia-
ims against tbe Jewa» and predictions of the fali of
Jeruaalem, and to have been of a wild, fanatical charac-
ter. Tbe most complete acooont or tbis ciuioos worlf
H girea by LUcke in bis generał introductton to the
Berdation of John, p. 47. See Kkyelations, Spusi-
oi-s.
Tben are tiacea in ancient writers of a few oŁber
wTitiDgs attributed to tbe apostle Peter, but they seem
to hare wboUy perished (see Smith, Diet. o/Clasś, Biog.
iii, iSl 8q.). See Acts, Spurious.
Tbe kj^ends of the Clementiues are whoUy deroid
of birtocical wortb; but from those fictions, originating
vitb an obecnie and beretical sect, bare been derived
^MM of tbe most miachieTous specnlations of modem
ntioaalista, especially m regards the assumed antago-
cian between St. Pani and the earlier apostles. It is im-
piftaat to obaerre, however, that in nonę of these spu-
nam doeamenta, which belong undoabtedly to the fint
tvo centario, are tbere any indications that our apostle
^ns Rganicd as in any peeuliar sense connected with
the Chaich or ice of Romę, or that be exerci8ed or
daimed anj aothority orer the apostolic body of which
be ira» tbe reoogniaed leader or representatiye (Scblie-
maon, Die Ckmentmen wkit den terwandten Schryien,
1«14), See CLB3(B3rTUIB8.
•^^moflg other legenda which bare oome down to us
((^Keming Peter is that relating to his contention at
Korne witb Simon Magna. Tbis seems to have no better
Awodation tban a misunderstanding of an inscription on
^ pan of Jnstin Martyr {ApoL i, 26). See Simon
HI. IMerature. — ^In addition to the works copionsly
eiied above^ we may heze name the foUowing on tbis
^y^ penonally, reaenring for the foUowing artides
<^M^ OD his writinga spedally. Blunt, Leciwe* on Ikt
fluf. </Peler (Lond. 1833, 1860, 2 yols. 12mo) ; Thomp-
m^U/e-Wark 0/ Peter the Apaetle (ibid. 1870, 8ro);
^nen, Peter's Life and Lettere (ibid. 1878, 8vo) ; Morich,
iAa utd Lekre Petri (Braunach. 1873, 8vo). Among
tbe <dd moDogimphs we may name Mever, Nvm Chrietu*
Pttnm bapUzatent (Leipe. 1672); Walcb, De Chudo
a Petn jonoto (Jen. 1755) ; and on his denials of his
l<M«r, tboee cited by Yolbeding, Index Prograntmatum,
{<^; and in Haae, Leben Jesu^ p. 202; also the Jour.
^fSae, Ul July, 1862; on hia dispute with Paul, Yol-
'^^npiP.Só. SeeApofiTŁE.
PETER, Fucrr Efistlb of, the first of tbe seren
^ibolłc EpiaOes of the N. T. In the foUowing acoonnt
^ both epistks of Peter, we chiefly depcnd iipon the
tnick* m Kitto^s Cydopadia, with large additions firom
^"^ socircea. See Peter.
I* Gffoaaeneu amd Conomcś^.— Tbis epistle fonnd an
^7 place in the cmnon by nniversal consent, ranking
^«g Uie a/ioXa7ov/if i^a, or those genefaUy received.
Tbe other epistle, by calUng itaelf Uwipa, refere to it
M an eailjer docoBoent (2 PeU iii, 1). Polycarp, in his
E^le to tbe PhiUppianB,often nses it, quotiog manv
««^ ind some whole renes, as 1 Peter i, 18, 21, iji
chap. ii; iii, 9, in Chap. v; ii, 11, in chap. ri; iy, 7, in
chap. vi ; and ii, 21-24, in chap. viii, etc. It is to be ob-
ser^^ed, however, that in no case does tbis father refer
to Peter by name, but he simply cites the places as from
some document of acknowledged authority; so that
Eusebius notes it as characteristic of bis epistle that
Polycarp nsed those citations from the First Epistle of
Peter as fiaprypiai {Iłist, Ecclee, iv, 14). The same
bistorian relates of Papias that in his Koyiiav leypuiKwp
lĘiiyTioiii: be in a similar way used fiaprupiat from tbis
epistle (7/iff. Ecdee* iii, 89). Irenseus quotes it espress-
ly and by name, with the common formuła, " Et Petrus
alt** {Hmret. iv, 9, 2), citing 1 Pet. i, 8 ; using the same
quotation similarly introduced in ibid, v, 7, 2 ; and again,
** Et propter boc Petrus ait," citing 1 Pet. ii, 16 ; ibid,
iv, 16, d. Other quotations, withont mention of tbe
aposUe^s name, may be found, ibid. iii, 16, 9, and iv, 20,
2, etc Quotations abound in Clement of Alexandria,
beadedwith ó likrpoc \iyti or ^viv b liktpoc, These
occur both in his 8łromata and Padag,, and need not be
specified. Quotations are abundant also in Origen, cer-
tifying the authorship by the words jrapit rif UfTp«pi
and, according to Eusebius, he calls tbis epistle fiiav
ŁirŁOTo\rjv bfŁoXoyovfAevfiv (Euseb. Hiet, Eccles, vi, 25).
The quotations in Origen's works need not be dwelfc
upon. In the letter of the churcbes of Yienne and Ly-
ons, A.D. 177, tbere is distinct use madę of 1 PeL v, 6.
TheophUus of Antioch, A.D. 181, quote8 these terms of
1 Pet. iv, 8— a5(/i4raic f i^ufXoXarpciaic. TertuUian'8
testimony is quite as dbtinct. In the short tract JScor-
piace tbis epistle is quoted nine times, the preface in
one place being " Petrus quidem ad Ponticos" {Soorp, c
xii), quoting 1 Pet. ii, 20. Eusebius himself says of it,
nirpov . . . av<i>fioXóyi|rai (^Iłist, Eccles, iii, 25). It is
also found in the Peshito, which admitted only three of
the catbolic epistles. See Mayerhoff, Einkitung w die
Petrin, Schr^enf p. 139, etc
In the canon published by Muratori tbis epistle la not
fonnd. In thb fragment occurs the dause, "Apoca-
lypses etiam Johannis et Petri tantum recipimus."
Wieseler, laying stress on etioTn, would bring out tbis
meaniug— in addition to the epistles of Peter and Jobn,
we alao reoeive their Reyelations; or also of Peter we
receiye as much as of John, two epistles and an apoca-
lypse. But the interpretation is not admissible. Rath-
er with Bleek may the omission be ascribed to the frag-
mentary character of tbe document {Einleii, in dat N, T,
p. 643; Hilgenfeld, Der Cawm und die Kritik des N. T.
[ Halle, 1838 ], p. 43). Other modes of reading and ex-
plaining the obscure sentenoe have been proposed.
Hug alters the punctuation, " Apocalypsis etiam Johan-
nis. Et Petri tantum recipimus ;" certainly the Umtum
gives some plausibility to the emendation. Believing
that the barbarous Latin is but a yersion from the Greek,
be tbus restores the original, icai nirpot; iłóvov TtapaŁi'
XÓful^a, and tfaen asks fióvov to be changed into fiovriv
— an alteration which of course brings out tbe conclusion
wanted {Endtit, § 1 9). Guericke*8 elTort is not morę sat-
isfactory. Thiersch, witb morę violence, changes tantum
into tfiKim epistolamy and quam guidem in the foUowing
cUuse into alteram cuidem, This document, so imper-
fect in form and barbarous in style, is probably indeed a
translation from the Greek, and it can haye no authority
against decided and generał testimony (see the canon in
Routh's Religuia Sacr<rj i, 396, edited with notes from
FreindaUer's Commentatio [Lond. 1862]). Nor is it of
any importance whether the words of I^eontius imply
that this epistle was repudiated by Theodore of Mop-
suestia, and if the Paulicians rejected it, Petrus Siculus
gives tbe true reason — they were "pessime adcersus ittum
ajffott"— personal prejudice being impUed in their yery
name (Hist, Manich, p. 17).
The intemal evidence is equa11y complete. The au-
thor calls himself the apostle Peter (i, 1), and the whole
character of the epistle shows that it proceeds from a
writer who poeaessed great authority among those whom
he addresses. The writer describes himself as " an el-
PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF) 16 PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF)
dtt," and " a witnem of ChrisŁ*8 Bufferings*' (r, 1). The
vehemence and cnergy of the style are alŁogether appro-
priaŁe to the wannŁh and zeal of Peter'8 character, and
every succeeding critic, ¥rho haa entered into ita spińt,
bas felt impresaed with tbe tnith of tbe obaenration of
Erasmus, *' that thia epistle U foli of apoetolical dignity
and authority, and worthy of the prince of the apoatlea."*
In later limes the genuineness of the epistle has been
impugned, as by Cludius in bis Urantichten dei Chris-
tmthumSf p. 296 (Altona, 1808). He imagined the au-
thor to have been a Jewish Christian of Asia Minor, and
his generał objection was that tbe similarity in doctrine
and style to Paul was too great to wanmnt the belief of
independent authorsbip. His objcciluna were expofled
and answered by Augusti (in a program, Jena, 1808)
and by BertboldŁ {Einieit. voL vi, § 667). Eichbom,
bowever, took up the theory of Cludius so far as to
maintaiu that as to materiał Peter is the author, but
that Mark is the actual writer. De Wette also throws
out similar objections, hinting that the author roay
bave been a foUower of Faul who bad been brought
into close attendance upon Peter. The ąuestion has
been thoroughly diacussed by Hug, Ewald, Bertboldt,
Weiss, and other critics. The most striking resem-
blances are perhaps 1 Pet i, 8 with Eph. i, 8 ; ii, 18 with
Eph. vi, 5; iii, 1 with Eph. v, 22; and v, 5 with Eph.
V, 21 ; but allusions nearly as dlstinct are found to the
other Paulłne epistles (comp. especially 1 Pet ii, 13 with
1 Tim. ii, 2-4; 1 Pet i, 1 with Eph. i, 4-7 ; i, 14 with
Bom. xii, 2 ; ii, 1 with Col. iii, 8 and Rom. xij, 1 ; ii,
6-10 with Kom. ix, 82; ii, 13 with Rom. xiii, 1-4; ii, 16
with GaL v, IB ; iii, 9 with Rom. xii, 17 ; iv, 9 with
Phil. ii, 14; iv, 10 with Rom. xii, 6, etc; v, 1 with
Rom. viii, 18 ; v, 8 with 1 Thess. v, 6 ; v, 14 with 1 Cor.
xvi, 20). While, however, there is a similarity betwecn
the tbougbts and style of Peter and Paul, there is at the
same time a marked individuality, and there are also
many special characteristics in this first epistle.
First, as proof of its genuineness, there is a peculiar
and natural similarity between this epistle and the
speeches of Peter as given in the Acts of the Apostles.
Not to mention similarity in mould of doctrine and ar-
ray of facU, there is resemblance in style. Thus Acts
V, 30, X, 39, 1 Pet ii, 24, in the allusion to the cruci-
fixiou and the use of Ęv\oVf the tree or cross; Acts ii,
32, iii, 15, 1 Pet v, 1, in the peculiar use of ^aprt'c;
Acts iii, 18, X, 43, 1 Pet i, 10, in the special connection
of the old prophets with Christ and his work ; Acts x,
42, 1 Pet, iv, 5, in the striking phrase " judge quick and
dead;" Acts iii, 16, 1 Pet. i, 21, in the clauses t) nitrrtę
»/ 8ł avTov — rovc di aifrov tricrouc ; and in the modę
of quotation (Act« iv, 2 ; 1 Pet ii, 7). Certain favorite
terms occur also — avaaTpo^fjf and ayadoirouTy with its
cognates and opposites. There are over lifty words pe-
culiar to Peter in this brief document^ nearly all of them
componnds, as if in his profound anxiety to expre88 his
thoughts as be felt them, be bad emplo3'ed the first, and
to him at the moment the fittest terms which occurred.
He has such phrases as Ł\iric lutooj i, 8 ; trwEtdtifftę
^cov, ii, 19 ; 6<r^vtc StapoiaCi i, 13 ; ^i\tffM ayain^c, v,
14. The nouns dó^aty i, 11, and dpiraiy ii, 9, occur in
the pluraL He uses tic before a personal accusative no
less tban four times in the first chapter. The article is
often separated from ita noun, iii, 2, 3, 19 ; iv, 2, 5, 8, 12.
Peter has also a greater proneness tban Paul to repeti-
tion — to reproduce the same idea in somewhat similar
terms — as if be had felt it needless to search for a merę
change of words when a similar thought was waiting
for immediate uttcrance (comp. i, 6-9 with iv, 12, 13 ;
ii, 12 with iii, 16, iv, 4 ; iv, 7 with v, 8). There are
also in the epistle distinct and original thoughts — special
exbibitions of the great facts and truths of the Gospel
which the apostle looked at from his own point of view,
and applied as be deemed best to a practical purpose.
Thus the visit of Christ " to the spirits in prison" (iii,
19); the typical connection of the Deluge with baptism;
the desire of tbe old prophets to study and know the
times and the blessings of the Gospel— are not only Pe-
trine in form, but are solitary statements in Scripture.
Thus, too, the apostle brings out into peculiar relief re«
generation by tbe *' Word of God," the " royal pńest-
hood*' of believerB, and tbe ąualitiea of the futurę " in-
beritance,*" etc.
Again, in phrases and ideas which in the main are
similar to thoae of Paul, there is in Peter usoally aome
mark of difference. Where there might have been
sameneas, the result of imitation, there is only simi-
larity, the token of original thought For exainple,
Paul says (Rom. vi, 10, 11), Ci}v rt^Bttf ; Peter aays (ii,
24), Zw TO iucaioowy, The fonner writes (Rom. vi,
2), axodvrioKiiv r§ aftapri^ ; tbe latter (ii, 24\ ratę
aftapriatę arroyiptadai . Besides, as BrUckner renuurks,
the representation in these last clauses is different —
death to sin in the passage from Romans beinfr tbe re-
sult of union with the sufferings and death of Christ,
while in Peter it is the result of Cbrist's dolng away
sin (De Wette, Erkldrung, ed. BrUckner, p. 9). So, too,
the common contrast in Paul b aapfi and wvtvfia, but
ifi Peter irpwfia and V^x4i icXoy^ b coanectcd in
Paul with x^P*Cł o' it Btands absolutely ; but in Peter
it is joined to irpóyyaMrię ; govemment b with the firet
rot; Seov Biarayrj (Rom. xiii, 2) ; but with the accond it
is av^pi$f'Kivri Kriatę (ii, 13); the expre8sion with tbe
one b Kaivbc ap^pimroc (Eph. iv, 24) ; but with tbe
other 6 Kpwrbę dp^pwwoc (iii, 4); what ia called
d^opfiri in Gal. v, 13 b named iiriicaXi//i/ia in 1 Pet. ii,
16, etc. Now, not to insbt longer on thb aimilarity
with variance, it may be remarked that for many of
the terms eroployed by them, both apostles had a com-
mon source in the Septuagint The words found there
and already hallowed by religiona use were free to both
of them, and their acquaintance with the Sept. must
have tcnded to produce some resemblance in tbeir own
style. Among such terms are iyiwoia, dirwria, cf-
<nr\ayxvoc, Kara\a\ia, vrc/MXf(V, ^povptiv, X^f"ty*^v
(comp. Mayerhoff, Hittor.-KrU, EinUittmg ta d, Peiruu
Schńjien, p. 107 są.). That two apostles, in teaching
the same system of divine truth, sbould agree in many
of their representations, and even in their words, is not
to be wondered at, sińce the terminology must soon have
acquired a definite form, and certain expre88ions must
have become current througb constant usage. But in
cases where such similarity between Peter and Pani
occurs, there b ever a difference of view or of connec-
tion; and though both may refer to ideas so common
as are named by viraKO^, SóĘUf or Kkiipovoiiia, there ia
always something to show Peter^s independent use of
the tefms. One with hb *'bebved brother Paul** in
the generał view of the truth, be has something pecul-
iar to himself in the introduction and illustration of
it. The Petrine type is as distinct as the Pauline — it
bears its own unmistakable style and charecter. The
Galilean fbherman bas an indivlduality quite aa reco^-
nizable as the pupil of GamalieL
Once morę, to show how baseless b the objection
drawn from PeŁer's supposed dependence on Paul, it
may be added that similarity in some cases may be
traccd between Peter and John. In many respecta
Paul and John are utterly unlike, yet Peter occasion-
ally resembles both, though it is not surmised that he
was an imitator of the beloved disciple. Such acd-
dental resemblance to two styles of thought so unlike
in them8elves b surely proof of hb independencc of
both, for he stands midway, as it were, between the ob-
jectivity of Paid and the 8ubjectivity of John ; inclin-
ing sometimes to the one side and aometimes to the
other, and occasionally combining both peculiarities of
thought Thus one may compare 1 Pet i, 22 with I John
iii, 3 in the use of ayyiZft ; 1 Pet i, 23 with 1 John iiv
9 in the similar use of triropac and <nrfpfur, denotinft
the vital germ out of which regeneration sprin^j^; 1
Pet V, 2 with John x, 16 in the use of iroifi^v ; 1 Pet.
iii, 18 and 1 John iii, 7 in the application of the epithet
SiKcuoc to Christ; 1 Pet iii, 18, John i, 29, in calling
PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF) 17 PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF)
hiai aftvvc. Soch slmtlaritiefl onlj prove independent
luthorship^ In the reflcmbUnces to James, whicb are
sumeriaies adduced, the chief similańty consista in the
(i<ie of (.>ld-Tcst. ąuotationa. Thus compare 1 Pet. i, 6,
7 irith James i, 2, 3; i, 24 with James i, 10; ii, 1 with
JiDcs i. 21 ; ii, 5 with James iv, 6, 10 ; ir, 8 with James
r, 20; and v, 5 with James iv, 6. What, then, do these
niore freąnent lesemblances to Paul, and the fewer to
Juba and Jamea, piore? not, with De Wette, the de-
P?adeDce of Peter on Pani ; nor, with Weiss, the depend-
eoce of Paul on Peter {Der Petrin. Lekrbegriff^ p. 374) ;
ii3t that Peter, in teaching similar truths, occasionally
«aip]oy3 similar terma; while the surrounding illustra-
tiun u so rarious and significant that such similarity can
be called neither tamę reiteration nor unconscious rem-
ifU3C6i»». With much that is common in creed, there
\s morę that is distinctive in utterance, originating in
di&reoee of spiritiial temperament, or moukted by the
atUptatioa of tnith to the inner or outer condition of
the cburches for whom this epistle was designed.
()n the other hand, the harmony of such teaching
vith that of Paul is sufficientty obyious. Peter, indeed,
d^-ells morę frequently (han Paul upon the futurę man-
tfestation of Christ, upon which he bases nearly all his
exbortatioD8 to patience, self-control, and the discharge
of aU Christian duties. Yet there is not a shadow of
oppasłtion berę ; the topie is not neglected by Paul, nor
dt)e» Peter oroit the Panline argument from ChriBt's
enffeńngs; still what the Germans cali the eschato-
liipcal element predominates over all others. The
apostks mind is fuli of one thought, the reałization of
Medianie bopes. While Paul dwells with most eamest-
Dca opon jnsti6cation by our Lord*s death and merits,
arai ooncentrates his energies upon the ChrisŁian'8 pres-
ent struggles, Peter fixe8 bis eye constantly upon the
fatare cuming of Christ, the fulfilcient of prophecy, the
miirifesiation of the piomised kingdom. In this he is
tbe true repre8entative of Israel, moved by those feel-
m^ wbich were best calculated to enable him to do
hU work as the apostle of the circumcision. Of the
three Christian graces, hope is his special theme. He
dw«lU much on good works, but not so much because
hf 9ee» to them necessary results of faith, or the oom-
fdement <si faith, or outward manifestations of the spirit
of lorę, aspects most prominent in Paul, James, and
John. as because he holds them to be tests of the sound-
neM and stability of a faith which rests on the fact of
tbe resonection, and is directed to the futurę in the
dereloped form of hope.
But while Peter thus shows himself a genuine Israel-
ite. bis teaching, like that of Paul, is directly opposed
to Judaizing tendenciea. Ue belongs to the school, or,
to ipeak more correctly, is the leader of the school, which
at onoe rindicates the unity of the Law and the Gos-
pel, aod |;Hit8 the superiority of the lattcr on its true
bssis, that of spiritual deve]opment, All his practical
injuoctions are drawn from Christian, not Jewish prin-
ciplea, frono the precepts, example, life, death, resurrec-
tum, and futurę coming of Christ The apostle of the
drcnmcińon says not a word in this epistle of the per-
r«tutl obligation, the dignity, or even the bearings of
the Mosaic law. He is fuli of the Old Testament; his
ttyk and tbonghts are chai^ged with its imagery, but
he contemplatea and applies its teaching in the light
'^ the Gospel ; he regards the privilege8 and glory of
ihe ancient people of God entirely in their spiritual de-
v»'k>pment in tbe Church of Christ. Only one who
^1 bcen hroaght op aa a Jew could have had his spirit
^^ iropregnated with these thoiights; only one who
ł^^^t been thoroughly emancipated by the Spirit of
Cfariit could bare risen so oompletely above the preju-
dices of his age and country. This is a point of great
mportaaoe, showing bow utteriy opposed the teaching
^ ihe ońginal apokles, whom Peter certa inly repre-
^^ ^^M to that Judatstic narrownese which specula-
'tve rationalism has impated to all the early foltowers
of Christ, with tbe esoeption of PauL There are iu
VUL-B
fact more traces of what are called Judaizing view8,
more of syropathy with national bopes, not to say prej-
udices, in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians,
than in this work. In this we see the Jew who has
been bom again, and exchanged what Peter himself
calls the unbearable yoke of the law for the liberty
which is in Christ. At the same time it must be ad-
mitted that our apostle is far from tracing his principles
to their origin, and fVom drawing out their conseąuences
with the vigor, spiritual discemment, intenial sequence
of reasoning, and systematic completeness which are
characteristic of PauL A few great facts, broad solid
principles on which faith and hope may rest securely,
with a spirit of patience, confidence, and love, suffice for
his un8peculative mind. To him objective truth was
the main thing; 8ubjective struggles between the in-
tellect and spiritual consciousnesa, such as we find in
Paul, and the iutuitions of a spirit absorbed in contem-
plation like that of John, though not by any meana
alien to Peter, were in him wholly subordinated to the
practical tendencies of a ńmple and energetic charac-
ter. It has been ob8erved with truth that both in tonę
and in form the teaching of Peter bears a peculiarly
strong resemblance to that of our Lord, in discourses
beartng directly upon practical duties. The great va1ue
of the epistle to believer8 consists in this resemblance ;
they feel themselves in the hands of a safe guide, of
one who will help them to tracę the hand of their Mas-
ter in both dispensatious, and to confirm and expand
their faith.
But apart from the style and language of the epistle,
objections have been brought against it by Schwegler,
who alleges the want of special occasion for writing it,
and the consequent generality of the contents {Dtu
Nach-ap09toL Zeitalt. ii, 7). The reply is that the epistle
bears upon its front such a purpose as well suits the vo-
cation of an apostle. Nor is there in it, as we have
seen, that want of individuality which Schwegler next
alleges. It bears upon it the stamp of its author's fer-
vent spirit; nor does its nse of Old-Test. imagery and
allusions belie his functions as the apostle of the cir-
cumcbion (Wiesinger, Eml, p. 21). If there be the
want of close connection of thought, as Schwegler also
asserts, Łs not this want of logical seąuence and sym-
metry quite in keeping with the antecedents of him
who had been trained in no school of human leaming?
Nor is it any real difficulty to say that Peter in the
East could not have becoroe acquainted with the later
epistles of Paul. For in rarious ways Peter might
have known PauPs epistles; and granting that there ia
a resemblance to some of the earlier of ihem, there is
little or nonę to the latest of them. Schwegler holds
that the epistle alludes to the persecution under Nero,
during which Peter suffered, and that therefore his
writing it at Babylon is inconsistent with his martyr-
dom at the same period at Romę. The objection, how-
ever, takes for granted what is denied. It is a sufficient
reply to say that the persecution referred to was not, or
may not have been, the Neronian persecution, and that
the apostle was not put to death at the supposed period
of Nero*s reign. There is not in the epistle any dtrect
allusion to actual persecution ; the Arcokoyia (iii, 15) is
not a formal answer to a public accusation, for it is ta
be giren to every one asking it (Huther, Kritisch^ez"
egełisdtes Handbuch uber den 1. Briefdet Petrus^ Einleił,
p. 27). The epistle in all its leading features is in nni-
son with what it professes to be— an eamest and prac-
tical letter from one w bose heart was set on the well-
being of the cburches, one who may have read many
of Paul's letters and thanked God for them, and who,
in addressing the cburches himself, dothes his thoughts
łn language the readiest and most natural to him, with-
out any timid selection or refusal of words and phrasea
which others may have used before him.
II. Place and Time, — The place is indicated in r, 13, in
the clanse awal^ŁTai ifiac t) iv Bnfiv\wri awtkKŁicrfi,
Babylon is named as the place where the apostle was
PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF) * 1 8 PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF)
when he wrote the epbtle, as hc seiuls tbU salutation
frum it, on the part of a woman, as MayerhufT, Keander,
Alford, and others suppose ; or on the part of a Church,
aa is the opinion of tho majority. It is remarkable, how-
ever, that from early times Babylon bas bcre been taken
to signify Komę. Thts opinion is ascribed by Euscbius
on re{)ort to Papias and Clement of Alesandria {HUt,
Ecclea, ii, 15). Jerome and GScumenius also held it.
In latcr times it has been espoused by Grotius, Cave,
Lardner, Heng8tenberg,Windischmann,\Viesinger, Baur,
Thiersch, Schott {Der 1. Brief Pet. erklart, p. 846, Er-
langeu, 1861), and Hofmann {Schriflb. i, 201). But
why discover a mystical sense iu a name set down as
the, place of writing an epistle ? There is no morę rea-
son for doing this than for assigning a like signiHcance
to the geographical names in i, 1. How could his read-
ers discorer the Church at Korne to be meant by »/
fyuviK\iKTii in Babylon? And if Babylon do signify a
hostile spiritual power, as in the Apocalypse (xviii, 21),
then it is strange that Catholic critics as a body should
adopt stich a meaning here, and admit by implication
the ascription of this character to their spiritual me-
Łropolis. Dr. Brown, of Edinburgh, puts a somewhat
parallel case — ^ Our own city is sometimes called Athens
from its situation, and from its being a seat of leaniing ;
but it would not do to argue that a letter came from
Ediuburgh because it is dated from Athens" {Expo8i-
tory Diicottraet on Ut Petery i, 648).
Some, again, think that Babylon may mean a place
of that name in Eg>'pt. Of this opinion are Le Clerc,
Mili, Pearson, Pott, Burton, Greswell, and Hug. Strabo
(Geoff, xvii, 1, 80) calls it not a town, but a strong for-
tress built by refugees from Babylon, and a garrison for
one of the three legions guarding Eg>'pt. The opinion
that this smali encampment is the Babylon of our epis-
tle has certainly little plausibility. It is equal1y strange
to suppose it to be Ctesipbon or Seleucis ; and stranger
stłll to imagine that Babylon represents Jerusalero, as
is maintained by Cappellus, Spanheiro, Hardouin, and
Semler. The natural interpretation is to take Babylon
«s the name of the well-known city. We have indeed
no record of atiy missionary joumey of Peter into Chal-
diea, for but little of Peter's later life is given us in the
New Test. But we know that many Jews inhabited
Babylon — o^ yap 6\iyoŁ fŁVpiaifCf according to Josc-
pbus— and was not such a spot, to a great extent a
Jewish colony or settlement, likely to attract the apos-
tle of the circumcision ? Lardner*s principal argument,
that the terms of the injunction to loyal obedience (ii,
13, 14) imply that Peter was within the bounds of the
Koman empire, prove8 nothing; for as David8on re-
marks — ** The phrase * the king,' in a letter written by
a person in one country' to a person in another, may
mean the king either of the person writing, or of him
to whom the letter is written." Granting that the
Parthian empire had its own govemment, he is writing
to persons in other proyinces under Koman jurisdiction,
and he enjoins them to obey the empcror as supremę,
and the Tarious govemors sent by him for purposes of
local administration. Moreover. as has often been ob-
8er>'ed, the countńes of the persons addressed in the
epistle (i, 1) are enumeratcd in the order in which a
person writing from Babylon would naturally arrange
them, beginning with those lying nearest to him, and
passing in circuit to those in the west and the south,
at the greatest distance from him. The natural mean-
ing of the designation Babylon b held by Erasmus,
Calvin, Beza, Lightfoot, Wieseler, Mayerhoff, Bengel,
De Wette, Bleek, and perhaps the majority of modern
critics.
But if Peter wrote from Babylon on the Euphrates,
at what period was the epistle written? The epistle
itself contains no materials for fixing a precise datc. It
does not by its allusions clearly point to the Nerontan
persecution ; it rather speaks of evil and danger suffer-
ed now, but with morę in prospect. SufTering was en-
dured and was also impending, and yet those who lired
a quiet and blamełess life might cscape it, though
tainly trials fur righteousnes6* sake are implied and yirtti-
ally predicted. About the year 60 the dark elemcnts of
Nero's character began to develop themselres. and after
this epoch the epistle was written. The churches ad-
dressed in it were mostly planted by Paul, and it is
therefore thought by some that Paul mnst have been
dcceased ere Peter would find it his dutv to addrees
them. Paul was put to death about A.D. 64 ; but such
a datę would be too late for our epistle, as time would
not, on such a hypotbesis, be left for the apostle^s going^
to Romę, acconling to old tradition, and for his martyr-
dom in that city. It may be admitted that Peter
would not have intruded into Paulus sphere had Paul
been free to write to or labor in the proyinces specified.
Still it may be supposed that Paul may bave withdrawn
to some morę distant field of labor, or may haye been
suffering imprisonroent at Korne. Davidson places the
datę in 63 ; Alford between 63 and 67. If the Mark of
y, 13 be he of whom Paul speaks as being with him in
Romę (CoL iy, 10), then we know that he was pnrposing
an immediate joumey to Asia Minor; and we leani
from 2 Tim. iv, U that he had not retumed when this
last of PauPs epistJes was written. It is surely not im-
possible for him to haye gone in this inter\*al to Peter
at Babylon ; and as be must have personally known the
churches addressed by Peter, his salutation was natu-
rally included by the apostle. SUyanus, by whom
the epistle was sent — if the same with the Silyanus
mentioned in the greetings 1 Tbess. i, 1 ; 2 Thess. i, 1 —
seems to havc left Paul before the epistles to Corinth
were written. Ue may have in some way become con-
nected with Peter, and, as the Silas of the Acts, he was
acąuainŁed with many of the churches to whom this
epistle was sent. The terms "a faitbful brotber as 1
suppose" {the faithful brother as I reckon) do not iro-
ply any doubt of his character, but are only an addi-
tional recommcndation to one whose companionship
with Paul must haye been known in the proyinces
enumerated by Peter.
But Schwegler ascribes the epistle to a later period —
to the age of Trajan ; and of course denies its aix}stolic
autborship {Nach-apostoi. ZeUaltery ii, 22). The ari^n-
mcnts, howcyer, for so late a datę are yery inconclusiyc.
He first of all assumes that its language does not tali}'
with the facts of the Neronian persecution, and that the
tonę is unimpassioned — that Christiana were char^ed
with definite crime under Nero — that his persecution
did not extend beyond Komę— that it was tumult uani*,
and not, as this epistle supposes, conducted by rogular
pitKsesses, and that the generał condition of belieyers in
Asia Minor, as depicted in the epistle, suits the age of
Trajan better than that of Nero. The reply is obyious
— that the tranquillity of tonę in this epistle would be
remarkable under any persecution, fur it is that of calro,
heroic endurance, which trust s in an unseen arm, and
has hopes undimmed by death ; that the persecution of
Christians simply for the name which they borę was
not an irrational ferocit^' peculiar to Trajan'8 time; that
in the proyinces Christians were always exposed to pctp-
ular fury and irregular magisterial condemnation ; that
therc is no allu^ion to judicial trial in the epintle, for
the wurd dvokoyia does not imply it; and that the
suffcrings of Christians in Asia Minor as reitirred to or
predicted do not agree with the recorded facts in Pliny'8
letter, for according to it they were by a formal inyes-
tigation and sentence doomed to death (Huther, Kihldt,
p. 28). The perseculions referred to in this epistle aie
rather such as Christians bave always to encounter in
beathen countries from an ignorant mob easily stirrcd
to yiolence, and where the ciyil power, though inclincd
to toleration in theor^^ is yet swa^^ed by strong preju-
dices, and prone, from |K>sition and policy, to favor aud
protect tlie dominant superstition.
Supposing this epistle to haye been written at Baby-
lon, it is a probabic conjccture that SilVanus, by whom
it was transmitted to those churches, had joined Peter
PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF) 19 PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF)
tfcer a tour of risitation, either in pursnance of instruc-
tkms fcom Paul, then a priaoner at Korne, or in the ca-
pacicy of a minister of high autbority in the Church,
and that his accnont of the condition of the Christiana
m ihoae dtstricts detenained the apostle to write the
epiiiUe. From the absence of persunal aalutations, and
other indications, it may perhapa be ioferred that Peter
had not hithecto yiaited the churches; but it b certaiu
that be was thoroughly aoquaintcd both with their ex-
temal ctrcamstances and spiritual atate. It is elear
that Silvanus is not regarded by Peter aa one of his own
c(4djutors, but as one whose personal character be had
mffictent opportiinity of appreciating (v, 12). Such a
testimonial as the apostle giyes to the aoundneas of hia
fkith would of coun« have the greateat weight with
the Asiatic Christiana, to H'hom the epiatle appears to
hare beeo specially, though not exclusively addrcssed.
The aaaumption that Silvaniia was employedin the
compositłon of the epistle is not borne out by the ex-
prtssioD *^by Silvanus I have written unto you," such
words, according to ancicnt usage, applying rather to
the bearer than to the wńter or amanuensia. Still it is
hąhly probable that Silranus, considcring hia rank,
chanurter, and apecial connection with thoae churchea,
and with their great apostle and founder, would be eon-
sidted by Peter throaghout, and that they would to-
gether read the epistles of Paul, especially those ad-
dreaaed to the churches in those districta : thus, partly
with direct intention, partly it may be unconacioualy, a
Paulioe oolońng, amounting in paasages^to soniething
like a stodied imitation of Paulus repreaentations of
Christian tmth, may have been introdućed into the
epiatle. It has beeu obserred abore £aee Peter] that
tbere is good reason to suppose that Peter was in the
haUt of employing an interpreter; nor is there any-
thmg inconsistent with his poeition or character in the
nipfttfiition that Silranos, perhaps alao Mark, may have
a»isted him in giving expression to the thoughts sug-
gested to him by the Holy Spirit. We hare thua, at
aoy EBte, a not anaatisfactory solution of the difficulty
arl-ing from correspondences both of atyle and modes
of ihougbt in the writings of two apostles who differed
ao widely in gifts and acquirementa.
III. Perions for tthom the Epistle was inlended, —
U was addressed to the churches of Asia Minor, which
had for the most part been founded by Paul and hia
companiona. From aome espressions in the epistle
many hare thought that it was meant for Jewish Chris-
tiana. The words of the aalutation are — U\ŁKróic
TafUTte^ftotę otaoTFopac nuvrov, etc. — *'to the elect
^trangcrs of ibe dispersion," etc. Yiewed by themaelres
the words seem to refer to Jews— ^/acTiropa being often
cmpfeyed to designate Jews liring out of Palestine.
Thif opinion is held by many of the fathers, as Euae-
hiin, Jerome, and Theophylact, and by Eraaraua, Cal-
Tin, Beza, Grotiua, Bengel, Hug, and Pott. A roodtfica-
tkm of thia extreme yiew is maintained by Gerhard,
Wolf, Jachmann, and Weisa, yiz. that Jewish conrerts
wire chiefly regarded in the mass of Gentile belieyers.
The ar^menta of Weisa need not be repeated, and they
■R well met by Huther {EinleU. p. 21). But there are
niaoy things in the epiatle quite irreconcilable with the
Hea of iu being meant either solely or principally for
Jewt»h belieyers. He teUa his readers that " aufficient
*ts the past for them to haye wrought out the will of
the Gentilea — as indeed ye walked in lasciyiouaness,
vine-bibbing, reyellings, drinking-bouta, and forbidden
idobtries"— sins all of thcm, and the last particularly,
whieh speciaily characterized the heathen world. Sim-
fl«riy does he speak (i, 14) of " former lusts in your ig-
noraacef (id, 6), of Sarah, *< whose daughters ye haye
**<»we''— ty«v^3Tjr£ — they being not so by birth or
WoTjd. In ii, 9, 10, they are aaid to be " called out of
(JłAnesB," to haye been " in time past not a people, but
|M»w the people of God." The last woids, referring orig-
inaOy to Israel, had already been applied by Paul to
G<atik belieyers in Rom. ix, 25. The term otaoizopa
may be used in a spiritual sense, and such a use is war-
ranted by other clauses of the epistle — i, 17, " the time
of your wtjuurningf ii, 11, "strangers and pilgrims."
Peter, whose prepossessions had been so Jewish, and
whose soul moyed so much in the sphere of Jewish
ideas from his yery function as the apostle of the cir-
cumcision, instinctiyely employs national termę in that
new and enlarged spiritual meaning which, through
their connection with Christianity, they had come to
bear. Besides, the h Utoty of the origin of these churches
in Asia Minor shows that they were composed to a large
extent of Gentile belieyers. Many of them may have
been proselytes, though, as Wieseler has shown, it is
wrong in Michaelts, Credner, and Neudecker to apply
to such exclu8iycly the terms in the address of this epis-
tle. Nor is it at all a likely thing that Peter should
haye adected one portion of these churches and written
alone or mainly to them. The proyinces (i, 1) included
the churches in Galatia which are not named in Acts,
as Anc>Ta and Pessinus, and the other communities in
Iconium, Lystra, the Piaidian Antioch, Miletus, Colos-
sae, LAodicea, Philadelphia, Thyatłra, Ephesus, Sm yrna,
Pergamus, Troas, etc (Steiger, Einleif. sec. 6). ']'bat
the persons addressed in the epistle were Gentiles is the
yiew of Augustine, Luther,Wet8tein, Steiger, BrUckner,
MayerhoffyWiesinger, Neander, Reuss, Schaff, and Hu-
ther. Reuas (p. 183) takes wapoiKoi and wapnriSrifjfi
a8=D'^^3, Israelites by faith, not by ceremoniał obsery-
ance. See also Weiss, Der Petrinische Lehrhegrijf^ p,
28, n. 2.
IV. Desiffttf ConteniSf and Ckaraderistics, — The ob-
jects of the epistle, as deduced from its contents, ooin-
cide with the aboye assumptions. They were : 1. To
oomfort and strengthen jthe Christians in a season of
seyere triaU 2. To enforce the practical and spiritual
duties inyolved in their calling. 8. To wam them
against special temptations attached to their position.
4. To remoye all doubt as to the soundness and com-
pleteneaa of the religious system which they had already
receiyed. Such an attestation was especially ueeded
by the Hebrew Christians, who were wont to appeal
from PauFs authority to that of the elder apostles, and
abore all to that of Peter. The last, which is perhaps
the yery principal object, is kepŁ iu yiew throughout
the epistle, and is distinctly stated (y, 12).
These objects may come out morę clearly in a brief
analysis. The epistle begins with salutations and a
generał description of Christians (i, 1, 2), followed by a
statement of their present priyileges and futurę inherit-
ance (ver. 3-d) ; the bearings of that statement upon
their conduct under persecution (ver. 6-9) ; reference,
according to the apostle*s wont, to prophecies concem-
ing both the sufferings of Christ and the saU-ation of his
people (yer. 10-12); and exhortations based upon those
promises to eamestness, sobriety, hope, obedience, and
holiness, as results of knowleilge of redemptton, of atone-
ment by the blood of Jesus, and of the resurrection, and
as proofs of spiritual regeneration by the Word of God.
Pcculiar stress is laid upon the cardinal graces of faith,
hope, and brotherly loye, each connected with and rest-
ing upon the fundamental doctriiies of the Gospel (yer.
18-25). Abstinence from the spiritual sins most directly
opposed to those graces is then enforced (ii, 1) ; spirit-
ual growih is represented as dependent upon the nour-
ishment supplied by the same Word which was the in-
strument of regeneration (yer. 2, 8); and then, by a
change of metaphor, Christians are represented as a
spiritual house, collectiyely and individually as liying
Stones, and royal priests, elect, and brought out of dark-
ness into light (vcr. 4^10). This portion of the epistle
is singularly rich in thought and exprcssion, and bears
the peculiar impress of the apostle^s miud, in which Ju-
daism is spiritualized, and finds its fuli de%'elopment in
Christ. From this condition of Christians, and morę
directly from the fact that they are thus separated from
the world, pilgrims and snjoumers, Peter deduccs an en-
PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF) 20 PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF)
tire system of practical and rclatiye duties, self-control,
care of reputatton, especially fur the sake of Gcntiles;
submission to all constituted authorities; obltgations of
slares, arged with reroarkable eamestness, and foundcd
upon the example of Christ and his atoning death (ver.
11-25) ; and duties of wiyes and husbands (iii, 1-7).
Then generally all Christian graces are comroended,
those wbich pertain to Christian brotherhood, and thoee
which are especially needed in times of persecution,
gentleness, forbearance, and sabmission to injury (ver.
8-17) : all the precepts being base<l on imitation of
Christ, with wamings from the history of the deliige,
and with special reference to the baptismal covenant.
In the foUowing chapter (iv, 1, 2) the analogy between
the death of Christ and spiritual mortification, a topie
much dwelt upon by Paul, is urgcd with special refer-
ence to the sins committed by Christians before conver-
sion, and habitual to the Gentiles. The doctrine of a
futurę judgment is inculcated, both with reference to
their heatheu persecutors as a motive for endurance,
and to their own conduct as an incentive to sobriety,
watchfulness, feryent charity, liberality in all extemal
acts of kindness, and diligent discharge of all spiritual
duties, with a view to the glory of God through Jesus
Christ (ver. 8-11). This epistle appears at the first
draught to haye teraiinated here with the doxoIogy,
but the thought of the fiery trial to which the Chris-
tians were expo8ed stirs the apo8tle*s heart, and sug-
gests additional exhortations. Christians are taught to
rejoice in partaking of Christ's sufferings, being thereby
assured of sharing his glory, which even in this life
rests upon them, and is especially manifested in their
innocence and endurance of persecution : judgment
must come first to cleainse the house of God, then to
reach the disobedient: suffertng according to the will
of God, they may commit their souls to him in well-
doing as unto a faithful Creator. Faith and hope are
equally conspicuous in these exhortations. The apostle
then (y, 1-4) addresses the presbyters of the churches,
waniing them as one of their own body, as a witness
(fiaprvc) of Chrisfs sufferings, and partaker of futurę
glory, against negligence, coyetousness, and love of
power ; the younger members he exhorts to submission
and humility, and concludes this part with a waming
against their spiritual enemy, and a solemn and most
beautiful prayer to the Grod of all grace. Lastly, he
mentions Silyanus with special commendation, and
States very dlstinctly what we haye seen reason to be-
lieye was a principal object of the epistle, viz. that the
principles inculcated by their former teachers were
sound, the true grace of God, to which they are ex-
horted to adhere. A salutation frnm the Ćhiirch in
Babylon and from Mark, with a parting benediction,
closes the epistle.
A few characteristic features may be morę distinctly
looked at The churches addressed were in trials-—
such trials as the spirit of that age must necessarily
have brought upon them (iii, 17; iv, 12-19). Those
trials originated to some extent in their separation from
the heathen amusements and dissointeness in which
the}' had mingled prior to their conyersion (iy, 4, 5).
They are exhorted to bear suffering patiently, and ever
to remember the example, and endure in the spirit, of
the Suffering One — the Righteous One who had suf-
fered for them. While affliction would come upon them
in the present tiroe, they are ever encouraged to look
with joyous anticipation to the futurę. Peter indeed
might be called the apostle of hope. Doctrine and con-
solation alike assume this form. The " inheritance*' is
futurę, but its heirs are begottcn to a 'Miying hope" (i,
8, 4). Their tried faith is found unto glory " at the ap-
pearance of Jesus Christ" (i, 7). The "end" of their
faith is " salyation" (i, 9), and they are to " hope to the
end for the grace to be brought at the reyelation of Je-
sus Christ" (i, 13). Their ruling emotion is thereforc
'Uhe hope that is in them" (iii, 15); so much lying
over in reserve for them in the futurę, their timę herc
is oniy a " sojouming" (i, 17) ; they were mereH'
"strangers and pilgrims" (ii, 11); nay, ^the end of all
things is at hand" (iy, 7). Suffering was now, but joy
was to come when his " glory shall be reyealed" ( v, 1 ).
In Christ*s own experience as Prototype suffering lod to
glory (i, 11; iy, 13); the same connection the apostle
applies to himself, and to faithful roinisters (y, 1-4).
There are also allusions to Cbrist's words, or, rather, reni>
iniscences of them mingle with the apostle's thoaghts.
Comp. i, 4 with Matt. xxy, 34 ; i, 8 with John xx, 29 ;
i, 10 with Lukę x, 24 ; i, 13 with Lukę xii, 35 ; ii, 12
with Matt V, 16; iii, 18-15 with Matt y, 16, x, 28; v, C
with Matt xxxiii, 12, etc
There were apparently some tendencies in those
churches that reąuired reproof — some tcmptations
against which they needed to be wamcd, as *^ former
lusts," ^ fleshly lusts" (i, 14, 11) ; dark and enyioua feel-
ings (ii, I ; iii, 8, 9) ; loye of adomment on the part of
women (iii, 3); and ambition and worldliness on the
part of Christian teachers (y, 1-4). God^s gracious and
tender relationship to his people was a special feature
of the old coyenant, and Peter reproduces it under the
new in its closer and morę spiritual aspects (ii, 9, 10;
iy, 17; V, 2). The old economy is neither eulogtzed
nor disparaged, and no remark is madę on its abolition,
the reasons of it, or the good to the world springing out
of it The disturbing question of its relation to Gentile
belieyers is not eyen glanced at In the apostle's view
it had passed away by its development into another and
grander system, one with it in spirit, and at the same
time the realization of its oracles and typeś. His mind
is saturated with O.-T. imagery and allusions, but they
are frcely applied to the spiritual Israel, which, having
always exi8ted within the theocracy, had now burst the
national barriers, and was to be found in all the belicv-
ing communities, whateyer their lineage or country. To
him the Jewish economy was neither supplantetl by a
riyal faith nor snperąedcd by a sudden rcvolution ; Isracl
had ouly put off its ceremoniał, the badge of its imma-
turity and ser^ńtude, and now rejoiced in freedom and
predicted blessing. What was said of the typical Israel
may now be asscrted with deeper truth of the spiritual
Israel. But the change is neither argued from premises
laid down nor viudicated against Jews or Judaizers, and
the results of the new condition are not held up as mat-
tcr of formal congratulation ; they are onIy seized and
put forward as recognised grounds of joy, patience, and
hope. The Redcerocr stood out to Jewish hope as the
Messiah; so Peter rejoices in that appellation,'calling
him usually Jesus Christ, and often simply Christ (i, 1 1 ;
ii, 21; iii,'l6-18; iy, 1, 13, 14); and it is remarkablc
that in nearly all those places the simple name Christ
is used in connection with his sufferings, to the idea of
which the Jewish mind had been so hostile. The cen-
trę of the apostIe's theology is the Rcdeemer, the me-
dium of all spiritual blessing. The relation of his cx-
piatory work to sinners is described by Iwip (ii, 12; iii,
18) ; or it is said he borę our sins — róc afiapTiac dvi^-
vŁyKtv\ or died irfpt afjiapnwv. "The sprinkling of
blood" and the "Lamb without spot" were the fulfil-
ment of the old economy, and the grace and salration
now enjoyed were familiar to the prophets (i, 10).
Christ who suffered is now in glory, and b still keeping
and blessing his people.
In fine, the object, as told by the author (v, 12). is
cssentially twofold. " I haye written briefly, exhoning"
(irapaKa\ijjv) ; and the epistle is hortatorj^— not didnc-
tic or poleraical; "and testifying CiiripapTifpwr) that
this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand." The
true grace of God — dKr\^i]c xdpic — could not be doc-
trine imparted through the apostle's personal teaching.
Some of the fathers, indeed, affirm that Peter yisited
the proyinces specified in this epistle. Origen gtves it
as a probable conjecture; and Eusebius says that the
countries in which Peter preached the doctrine of Christ
appcar from his own writings, and may be seen from
this epistle. The assertion has thus no basia, 8ave in
PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF) 21 PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF)
the idea that Peter most hare preached in the churches
to wbich be a&at an epistle. Jerome repeats the state-
menu and £piphanioa^ aa his wout is, iiiteniufies it ; but
it hjks DO fouDdation. Na\% the apostle, by a change of
person, distingaUbes himself from "tbem that hare
preached the Gospel unŁo you*^ (i, 12). ' So that the
"tnie gnce** in wbich Łbose churches stood was the
fki^pel frhieb they had beard from others, and ettpe-
ciallr from Paul, by whom so many of them had been
fiAimied. The epistle, then, becomes a voucher for the
prnttineness of the Gospel preached in Asia Minor by
ihe aposile of Ł^e ancircumcision. Not that, as Schweg-
^r supposcs, it attempts co mediate between James and
Płol; for it prodaims the same truths, touching the
peculiar aspects ccmmon to the two, without any dilu-
tioa of Paul*8 distinctire forms, or any moditication of
l^ters as given in his orał addresses — both being in
tzmer barmony, and differing only in modę of presenta-
(km, caused by mental diyersity, or suggesteił by the
fieailiar circumstanc^ tendencies, or dangers of the
churches which werc warned or addressed.
V. Style, — The epistle is characteiized by its fenror.
The 8oul of the writer stamped its image on his thoughts
aod words — ó iravTaxov ^tpfióc is the eulogy of Chry-
sDstom. The epistle bears his Uving impress in his pro-
fottnd emotions, eameat conrictions, and zealous thor-
uoghnesa, He was never languid or half-hearted in
vbat he said ur did, though the old impulsiveness is
cbastened; and the fire wbich oftcn fiashed up so sud-
denlr is morę eqaable and tranquil in its glow. He is
Tivid withoDt Tehemencei and harries on without im-
petoosity or abruptness. The epistle is throughout
bort«tive, doctrine and quotation being introduccd as
forming the basis or warrant, or as showing the neces-
sitr and ralae of practical coausel or waming. There
U in it little that is local or temporary ; it is suited to
the Church of all lands and ages ; for believers are al-
WBT3 io the present time *<8trangers and sojoumers,"
witb their gazę fixed on the futurę, exposed to trial and
honie through by hope. The apostle infuses himself
into the epistle, portrays the emotions which swayed
•nd chceicd him, as he rereals his own experience,
which bad been shaped by his past and present fellow-
ibip with a sufferlng and glorified Lord. What he un-
foldsor describes never stands apart as a theme by itself
to be wrought out and argued ; nor is it lifted as if to a
loftr eminenoe that it may be admired from afar: but
•U is kept witbin familiar grasp, and inwrought into
tbe relations, duties, and dangers of everyday Christian
exi»teDce. The tmtbs brought forward are treated not
io tbemselres, but in their immediate bearing on duty,
trial, and hope; are handled quite in the way which
MK woold deacribe air and food in their essential con-
nection with life.
The language, though not rugged, is not without
embarraasroent. Ideas are often linked together by a
n^IatiTe pronoun. There is no formal development of
(bougbt, though the order b lucid and logicaL Some
word employed in the previous scntence so dwells in the
vriter'8 mind that it suggests the sentiment of the fol-
luwinc one. The logical formulas are wanting — ovv not
preceding an inference, but introducing a practical im-
P^ntive, and ort and yap not rendering a reaaon, but
prefacing a motive conveyed in some fact or quotation
fr^m Scriptnre. Thoughts are reintroduced, and in
tenns not dissimilar. What the apostle bas to say, he
mtttt say in words that come the soonest to an unprac-
ti<^ pen. In short, we may well supposc that he wrote
Qnd«r tbe preMure of the injunction long ago given to
binł--* When thou art converted, stre^igtben thy breth-
f^r and th'is divine mandate might be prefixed to the
^stle as its motto.
V. €ommaiiarie$. — The following are special excget-
^ belps on both epbtles : Didymus Alexandriiłus. In
% PttH (in BibL Max Pałr. v; and Galland. Śibł,
Pafr. x\) ; Bede. Expa$iUo (in Opp, v) ; Luther, A vgle-
J««9(lMEp.,Yitemb. 1523, 4to; witb2d Ep.,ibid. 1524,
4to and 8vo, and later ; also in Lat. and Germ. eds. of his
works; in £nglish, Lond. 1581, 4to) ; Bibliandcr, Com-
mentarii (Basil. 1536, 8vo) ; Laurence, Scholia (Amst.
1540 ; Geney. 1669, 4to) ; Foleng, Commentaria [includ.
James and 1 John] (Lugd. 1555, 8vo); Weller, Enar^
rałio (Leips. 1557, 8vo) ; Selnecker, CofHmentaria (Jcn«
1567, 8vo) ; Feuardeut, Commentarius (Par. 1600, 8vo) ;
Winckelmann, Commeniarius ((liess. 1608, 8vo) ; Tur-
nemann, Meditałiones (Frankf. 1625, 4to) ; Ames, Erpli-
catio (Amst. 1635, 1643, 8vo; in English, Lond. 1641,
8vo) ; Byfield, Sermoru [on i-iii] (Lond. 1637, fol.) ; Ger-
hard, CommentaHiu (ed. til. Jen. 1641, 4to, and later);
Nisbet, JLxposition (Edinb. 1658, 8vo); Goltz, yerkla'
ringe (Amst, 1689, 1690, 1721, 2 vol8.4to) ; Antonio, r«-
Haringe (Amst. 1693-7, 2 vols. 4to ; also in Germ., Brem.
1700, fol.) ; Anon, Unterauchung ( Amsterd. 1702, 8vo) ;
Lange, ExegtsiB (Halle, 1712, 4to, and later) ; Streso,
Medilatumes (Amst. 1717, 4to) ; Boyson, Erkldr, (Ualie,
1775, 8vo); Schirmer, Erkldr, (BresL and Lcips. 1778,.
4to); SemlcTy Paraphraais [includ. Jude] (Hal. 1783-4,
2 Yols. 8vo); Baumgilrtel, Anmerk. (Leips. 1788, 8vo);
Morus, PrtBlectiones [includ. James], ed. Douat (Leip^
1794, 8vo); Hottinger, Commentaria [includ. 1 Pet.]
(Leips. 1815, 8vo) ; Eisenschmid, Erldut. (Ronneb. 1824,
8vo) ; Mayerhoff, Einleitung (Hamb. 1835, 8vo) ; Win-
dischmann (Rom. Cath.), Yindicio! (Ratisb. 1836, 8vo);
Schlichthorst, Entwickelung (Stuttg. 1836 sq., 2 pts.
8vo) ; Demarest, Exposiłion (N. Y. 1851-65, 2 vols. 8vo) ;
Wiesinger, Erkldr, [includ. Jude] (Konigsb. 1856-62,
2 vols. 8vo) ; Besser, A ualeg, (2d ed. Halle, 1857, 12mo) ;
Schott, Erkldr, [includ. Jude] (Erlang. 1861-3, 2 vols.
8vo) ; LUlie, Lecturea (Lond. and New York, 1869, 8vo).
There are also articles on the authorship of the twu
epistles by Rauch, in Winer*s Krit, Joum, 1828, p. 385
8q.; by Seyler, in the Tkeol, JStud, u, Krit, 1832, p. 44
sq. ; by Bleek, t^. 1836, p. 1021 sq. ; by J.Q., in Kitto^s
Joum, ofSac, Lit., Jan. and Julv, 1861 ; by Baur. in the
Tkeol Jahrb. 1856, p. 193 sq.; 'by Weiss, ibid, 1865, p.
619 ; and 1865, p. 255. See Epistle.
The following are on the^rst epistle exclu8ively:
Hessels, Commeniarius (Lovan. 1568, 8\'o) ; Schotan,
Commentaritu (Franek. 1644, 4to) ; Rogers, Expońtion
(Lond. 1650, foL) ; Leighton, CommenŁary (Lond. 1693,
2 Yols. 8vo, and later); Van Alphen, Yerklar, (Utr.
1734, 4to); Klemm, Anacrisis (Tub. 1748, 4to); Wal-
ther, Erkldr, (Hanov. 1750, 4to) ; Moldenhauer, Erkldr,
Hamb. n. d. 8vo) ; Hensler, Commenłor (Sulzb. 1813,
8vo) ; Steiger, A usleg, (Berlin, 1832, 8vo ; in English,
Edinb. 1836, 2 yoIb. 8vo) ; Lecoultre, Prem, Ep, de P,
(Genev. 1839, 8vo) ; Brown, Discourses (2d ed. Edinb.
1849, 2 Yols. 8vo, ibid. 1866, 3 vols. 8vo, N. Y. 1850,
8vo) ; KohlbrUgge, Predigłen [on eh. ii and iii] (Leips.
1850, 8vo; in English, Lond. 1854, 8vo). See Com-
MENTARY.
PETER, Secomd Epistle of, follows immcdiately
the other, but it presents questions of far greater diffi-
culty than the former. See Ai4tilegomkna.
I. Canonicai A uthoriły, — The genuineness of this sec-
ond epistle has long been disputed, though its author
calls ikimself "Simon Peter," Sov\oc Kai dzróaroAoc,
" a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ."
1. Hislory ofOpinion, — It is bard to say whether the
alleged quotations from it by the fathers are really quo-
tations, or are only, on the one band, allusions to the
O. T., or, on the other, the employment of such phrases
as had grown into familiar Christian commonplaces.
Thus element of Romę, in his First Epistle to the Co-
rinthiaus (eh. vii), says of Noah, Uiipu^ iitrapoiaPy and
of those who obeyed hira, iató^aaPf language nol un-
like 2 Pet. ii, 5 ; but the words can scalrcely be called a
quotation. The allusion in the same epistle to Lot (eh.
xr) is of a similar naturę, and cannot warrant the alle-
gation of any proof from it. A third instance is usually
taken from eh. xxiii, in which Clement says, *' Miserable
are the double-minded," a seeming reminii»ccnce of Jas.
i, 5 ; but he adds, " We are grown old, and nonę of those
things hare happencd to us" {ytyijpÓKafAty Ktu ovŁkv
PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF) 22 PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF)
ijfiiu TovTiav (Wfipi/ifiKev)fti8 if in alliision to 2 PeL iii,
4. The appeal to Hermas is as doubtful ; in lib. i, Vis,
iii, 7, the words religuerunt viam teram have a slight
reaemblance to 2 Pet. ii, 15 ; in another place (I, iv, 3)
the clause qui effugistU aceculum koc ia not a citation
of diroif>vy6vTic rd fitaofiara rov Koofiouj 2 Pet. ii, 20.
Justin Martyr 8ayt^ '^ A day with the Lord is as a thou-
sand years" {^Dialog, cum Ti-yph, cap. 81 ; Opera, ii, 278,
ed. Otto, Jenie, 1843), but the clause may as well be
taken from Psa. xc, 4 aB from 2 Pet iii, 8. Siniilar
statements occur twice in Irensus, and have probably
a similar origin, as citations from the O. T. The cpistle
is not quoted by Tertullian, the Alexandrian Cicment,
nor Cyprian, who speaks only of one cpistle. A passage
in Hippolytus {De AntichristOj ii), in asserting of the
prophets that they did not speak " by their own power"
(iĘ iSiac dvvdfAtu)c), but uttered things which God
had rerealed, appears to be a paraphrasc of 2 Pet. i, 21.
Another statement madę by Theophilus (Ad Autoly-
cum, lib. ii, p. 87), in which he describes the prophets
as Trytyfiaro^pot wtufiaroc aylov, is not unlike 2
Pet. i, 20, ifiró iryiiffiaTOC ayiov ^(pófLtPOt. Theophilus
again describes the word shining as a lamp in a house
— f^aivuv toffiTŁp \vxvoc iv oiinjfAaTt ; but the figurę
is different from that in 2 Pet. i, 19, tac \vxvfi» ^acVovri
i V avxfJirjptp TÓtrtp — " as a light shining in a dark place."
element of Alexiindria comroented, we are told by £u-
sebius and Cassiodoriis, on all the canonical Scripturcs,
Kusebius specifying among them '* Judc and the other
Catholic epistles" — Kai rac \oiirdc Ka^óktKac iTnoTo-
\ac {flisł. Eccles, vi, 14). But a second statement of
Cassiodorus mentions exprc98ly the first epistle of Peter,
as if the second had becn excluded, and adds, " 1 and 2
John and James," thereby also -eKcluding Jude, which
Eusebius, however, had distinctly namcd {De Jnstiłut.
cap. viii). The testimony of Origen is no less liable to
doubt, for it seeros to vary. In the translation of Ru-
fmus, who certainly was not a literał versioni8t, we find
the epistle at least three times referred to, one of them
being the assertion, " Petrus enim duabus epistolarum
suarura personat tubis" (//om. ir, on Joshua). In Iłom,
iv on Leviticus, 2 Pet. i, 4 is quoted, and in Iłom, xiii
on Numbers, 2 Pet. ii, 16 is quoted. Somewhat in op-
position to this, Origen, in his extant works in Greek,
speaks of the first epistle aa tv ry ica^oAijry irr, ; nay,
as ąuoted by Eusebius {Hist, Eccles, vi, 25), he adds
that ^ Peter left one acknowledged epistle," adding —
fOTia Se Kai itwipay ' dftipi{3a\\tTai yap, This is not
a formal denial of its gcnuineness, but is tantamount to
it. Nor can the words of Firmilian be trusted in their
Latin version. Yet in his letter to Cyprian he seeros
to allude to 2 Peter, and the wamings in it against her-
etics (Cypriani Opera, p. 126, ed. Paris, 1836). In a
Latin translation of a commentary of Didymus on the
epistle it is c&Wed /alsata, non in canone, Now /alsare,
according to Du Fresn^ in his Glossar, med, et infim,
lAJłimtał., does not mean to intcrpolate, but to pro-
nounce spurious. Eusebius has placed this epistle
among the dvTŁKfyv^iva {Hist, EccUs. iii, 25), and
morę fully he declares, *'That callcd his second epistle
we have been told has not been received, ovk ivitd^t-
Tov ; but yet appearing to many to bo useful it has been
diligently studied with the other Scriptures." Jerome
says explicirly, "Scripsit duas epistolas . . . quarum
sccunda a plerisąue ejns esse negatur;" adding as the
reason, " propter styli cum priore dissonantiaro," and as-
cribing this difTerence to a changc of amanuensis, dicer-
sis inłerpretibfis (De Scripł, Eccles, cap. i, epist. cxx, ad
Hedib. cap. xi). Methodius of Tyre makes two distinct
allusions to a pcculiar portion of the epistle (iii, 6, 7,
12, 13), the conflagration and purification of the world
(Epiphan. ffai-es. lxiv, 31, tom. i, pars post. p. 298, ed.
Oehler, 1860). Westcott {On the Canon, p. 57) points
out a refcrence in the martyrdom of Ignatius, in which
(cap. ii) the fathcr is compared to "a divine lamp illu-
minating the hearts of the faithful by his cxposition of
the Holy Scriptures" (2 Pet. i, 19). *Thc cpistle U not
found in the Peshito, though the Philoxenian vcrvi< n
has it, and Ephrem Syrus accepted it. The canun of
Muratori has it not, and Theodore of Mopsuestia rejcet-
ed it. But it was received by Athanasius, Philastriiiś^,
CyriI, Rutinus, and Augustiue. -Gregory of Nazianzum,-
in his Carmen 33, refers to the 8even catholic epistles..
It was adopted by the CouncU of Laodicea, 867, and by
the CouncU of Carthage,d97. From that period till the
Reformation it was acknowledged by the Church. Xot
to refer to other ąuotations often given, it maj suffioe
to say that, though the epistle was doubied, it usually
had a place in the canon ; that the objectiona agains^t
it were not bistorical, but critical in naturę, aiul had
their origin apparęntly among the Alexandrian scIidI-
ars; and that in one case at least, that of Cosraas In-
dicopleustes, doctrinal prepossessions led to its rejcctiou.
Gregory, at the end of the 6th ccntur%', seems to allude
to others whose hostility to it had a similar origin, add-
ing, " Si cjusdem epistoła} verba pensare yoluissent, łon-
ge aliter sentire potuerant." (See OLshausen, Opuści-
ła, where the citations are given at length.) The old
doubts about the epistle were revived at the time of
the Reformation, and not a few modem critics question
or deny its genuincness. In earlier times strong dis-
belief was exprc88ed by Calvin, Erasmus, Grotius, and
Salmasius. Scaliger, Semler, Crcdner, De Wet te, Xe-
ander, and Mayerhoff deny its Petrine origin. I*ott,
Windischmann, Dahl, Gaussen, and Bonnet, on the oth-
er haud, make light of many objcctions to it. But the
proofs adduced on its behalf by Dietlein {Die 2. Kp,
Petri, 1851) are many of them unsatisfactory, the ro-
suit of a dextrous and unscnipulous ingenuity on behalf
of a foregone conclusion. Yet amid early doubts and
modem objections we are inclined to accept this cpistle,
and to agree with the yerdict of the early churches,
which were not without the means of ample inve8tiga-
tion, and to whom satisfactory credeutials must liave
been presented.
The objections, as Jerome remarks, were based on dif-
fercnce of style, and we admit that therc is ground for
suspicion on the point. Still no doubter or impuj^riKr
who placed the epistle among the aVriXcyó/ici'a givc3
any historical ground for his hostility. No one of old
is ever brought forward as having denied it in his own
name, or in the name of any early Church, to be Peter *&.
If the apostolic fathers do not quote it, it can only be
inferred either that it was not in universa] circulation,
or that they had no occasion to make any use of it. We
ob6crve that it Mas not likely to be quoted frequent1y;
it was addresscd to a portion of the Church not at that
time much in intercourse with the rest of Christendom :
the documents of the primitive Church are far too scau-
ty to give wcight to the argument (generally a qucs-
tionable one) from oroission. Tlieir silence would not
warrant the assertion that the epistle was not in the
canon during their period, and for half a centuiy af^er-
wards. The earliest impugners never speak of it as a
book recently admittcd into the canon, or admitted on
insufficient evidence or authority. One objection of this
naturę would have been palpable and dccisive. The si-
lence of the fathers is accounted for morę easily tban
its admission into the canon after the question as to its
genuineness had been raised. It is not conceivable that
it should havc been received without positive attceta-
tion from the churches to which it was first addresse<l.
We know that the autographs of apostolic writings were
presented with care. It may be added that there ap-
pears to be no probable motivc for a forgery. Neither
personal ambition nor ecclcsiastical pretcnsions are in
any way forwarded by the epistle. There is nothing
in it that an apostle might not have written, nothing
that comes into direct confiict with Peter*8 modcs of
thought, either as recorded in the Acts er as found in
the first epistle. No little circumstantial evidence ran
be adduced in its favor, and its early appearanee in ihe
canon is an element of proof which cauuot easily be
: turucd aside.
PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF) 23 PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF)
Tbe doobts ms to its genuincness appear to have orig-
inated wi(h the criticB of Alexandria, where. nevertheles8,
ib« episde itself was fonnally recoguised at a very ear-
Ir pmod. Thoee doubts, howerer, were not quite bo
stfong as they are now generally represented. The
three greateat nanieś of that school may be qiioted on
cither ńdc. On the one band there were eridently ex-
terna! credentiaU, without which it could never have
o)xaineil drculation ; on the other, strong subjcctire im-
prbssiaos, to which these cńtics attachetl scarcely less
vei{;ht than some modem inquirers. They rested en-
tin:U% ao far as can be ascertained, on the difierence of
style. The opinions of modem commentators may be
somined op under three heads. Many, as we have seen,
Rject the eptsUe alŁogether as spurious, supposing it to
have been directed against forms of Gnosticism preva-
leiit in tbe early part of the 2d oentury. A few consider
(hac the firet and last chapters w^ere written by Peter
or under his dictation, but that the second chapter was
interpolated. So far, however, is either of these views
fn>ai representing the generał results of the latest in-
Te«igatioa<i, that a majority of names, including ncarly
aU the writers of Germany opposed to Rationalisro, who
in puint of learaing and ability are at least upon a par
wiih tteir opponents, may be ąuoted in support of the
cenuineness and anthenticity of this epistle. The state-
ment that all critica of eminence and iropartiality eon-
cur in rejecting it is simply untrue, unless it be admit-
t«d that a belief in the reality of objective revelation is
bcompatible with critical impartiidity, that belief be-
ing tbe only common point between the numerous de-
feoders of the canonicity of this docuraent. If it were
a qaeAion now to be decided for the first time upon the
exiemal or intemal e^idences still accessible, it may be
■limitted that it would be far morę difficult to maintain
thU than any other document in the New Testament ;
bat the judgment of the early Church is not to be re-
Tersed without far stronger argttments than have t)eeu
aiMuced, more especially as the epistle is entirely free
frona objections which might be brought, with more
sbov of reason, against othero now all but imirersally
m>;iTed: it inculcates no new doctrine, bcars oh no
controrenies of post - apostolical origin, supports no
łuenrchical innorations, but is simple, eamest, devouf,
and eminoitly practical, fuli of the characteristic graces
oT tbe apcKtIe, whn, as we beliere, beąueathed this last
proof offaith and hope to the Church. Ołshausen'8 de-
Uberate oonclusion is — " 1. That our epistle, as far as we
can aacertain from history, was used by the Church, and
WIS generally read, along with the other catholic epis-
tles: 2. There were those who denied that Peter was
the aothor of this epi5tle, but they were influenced par-
ticularly by critical and, perhaps, by doctrinal reasons ;
3. That there were historicai considerations which led
them to aasail our epistle is not probable ; certainly it
caoDnt be demonstrated. Uittory^ then^ avails tcarcely
^kmg M ottrikrouńng the authoriiy of our epistle^*
Uateyr, ami A uthatL of Second Epistle of Peter, transl.
io Amer, BibL Bepos. July, 1836, p. 123-131).
1 Itttermd Eridence, — ^There are points of similarity
in itrle between it and tbe first epbtle. The salutation
in lxAh epistles is the a^me, and there are peculiar words
OMnmon to both, though fonnd also in other parta of
the N. T. Both epistles rcfer to ancient prophecy (1
I^trt.Ue; 2 Pet. i, 20, 21); both use dptrń as applitable
to UtNl (1 Pet. ii, 9 ; 2 Pet. i, 3), and both have d^ó^t-
9'i { 1 Pet. iii, 21 ; 2 Pet. i, 14), which occurs nowhere
*•« in the N. T. ; dvaarpo^ii is a favorite term (I Pet.
»« 15, 17, 18; ii, 12; ui,l,2,l&; 2 Pet. ii, 7-18 ; iii, 11);
^ Tcrb iiromvitv in 1 Pet. ii, 12; iii, 20, corresponds
to tbe ooan Iwótrrrjc (2 Pet. i, 16) ; the peculiar coUoca-
tnn itnnXoc koi dfiuffinc (1 Pet, i, 19) has an echo of
«««lf(2 P^u,13; iii, 14); jriirawrni aiiapriac (1 Pet,
>^> i) ia not unlike dKara7ravvTovc a/tapriact etc. (2
l^ct ti, 14). We bave also, as in the flrst epistle, the
itttenrentJon of aereral words between the article and
iti HibstanUre (2 Pet. i, 4 ; ii, 7 ; iii, 2). Tbe fjrequent
use of lv in a qualifying danse is common to both epis-
tles (2 Pet. i, 4; ii, 8; iii, 10). The jecurrence of sim-
ilar terms marks the second epistle, but it is not without
all parallel in the first. Thus 2 Pet i, 3, 4, dtdiaprifii'
vttc, itowpfirai; ii, 7, 8, niemoc, three times; ii, 12,
(p^opay, iwy ^op^ KaTa<pdapij<rovTai. So, too, in 1
Pet iii, 1, 2, dvaaTpo<^ric, dyaarpof^ri ; and ii, 17, niiii'
cart, Tiftdrtf etc Then too, as in the first epistle, there
are rescmblances to the speeches of Peter as giren in
the Acts. Comp. iifiipa Kvpiov (iii, 10) with Acts ii,
20 — the phrase occurring elsewhere only in 1 Thess. v.
24; \axovoiv (i, 1) with tAa^e (Acts i, 17) ; ivctfiiiav
(i, 6) with Acts iii, 12; and ii/oefinc (ii, 9) with Acts
X, 2-7 : Ko\al^ofiivovc (ib.) with Acts iv, 21 — an account
which Peter probably fumtshed. We haye likewise an
apparent characteristic^in the double genitires (2 Pet
iii, 2; Acts V, 32).
It is also to be bome in mind that the epistle asserts
itself to bave been written by tbe apostle Peter, and
distinctly identifies its writer with the author of the
first epistle — "This epistle now; a second, I write unto
you, in both which I stir up" — averriug also to some
extent identity of purpose. It is not anonymous, like
the epistle to the Uebrews, but definitely claims as its
author Peter the apostle. Nay, the writer afiirms that
he was an eyc-witness of the transfiguration, and heard
*'the Yoice from the excellent gloiy.** He uses, more-
over, two terms in speaking of that event which belong
to the account of it in the Gospels; comp. i, 13, (rjnjrcu-
fiaUf with his owti words cicripdc rpiic ; also in 15, «|o-
ioVf in reference to his owu death — the same word
being employed to denote Chrisfs death, n)v lĘoioy
aitroHf this being tbe theme of conrersation on the part
óf Moses and Elias (Lukę ix, 31). Ullmann supposes
the reference in the words ŁtKoioy Łi ijyovfAai dityŁipuy
(i, 13) to be to Mark's Gospel said to have been com-
posed on Petefs authority; but the allusion secms to
be to the paragraph immediately under his band. It
would have been a profane and daring iroposture for any
one to personate an apostle, and deliver to the churches
a letter in his name, with so marked a reference to one
of the most memorable circumstances and glories in the
apostle^s life. A forgery so glaring could make no pre-
tence to inspiration — to be a product of the Spirit of
Tnith. The inspiration of the epistle is thus bound up
with the que8tion of its authorship, so that if it is not
the work of Peter it must be rejected altogether from
the canon. The opiuion of critics of what is called the
liberał school, including all shades from LUcke to Baur,
has been decidedly unfayorable, and that opinion has
been adopted by some able writers in England. There
are, however, very strong reasons why this verdict sbould
be reoonsidered. No one gpround on which it rests is un-
asaaUable. The rejection of this book affects the au-
thority of the whole canon, which, in the opinion of one
of the keenest and least scrupulous critics (Reuss) of
modem Germany, is free from any other error. It is
not a que8tion as to the possible authorship of a work
like that of the Hebrews, which does not bear the writ-
er's name. The Church, which for more than fourteen
centuries has receired it, has either been imposed upon
by what must in that case be regarded as a satanic de-
vice, or derived from it spiritual instruction of the high-
est importance. If receired, it bears attestation to some
of the most important facts in our Lord^s bietory, casta
light upon the feelings of the apostolic body in relation
to the elder Church and to each other, and, while it
confirms many doctrines generally inculcated, is the
chief, if not the only, Youcher for eschatological yiews
touching the destraction of the framework of creation,
which from an early period hare been preraleut in the
Church.
3. Objeciioru, — There are serious difficulties, however,
in the way of its reception : and these are usually said
to be difTerence of style, difierence of doctrine, and the
marked correspondcnce of portions of the epistle with
that of Jude. Yet Gausseu makes the astounding state-
PETER (SECOND EPISTIJE OF) 24 PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF)
ment — " Tbe two epistles when carefiilly compared re-
Tcal morę poLnts of agreement than differencc," but he
bas not taken the troubie of notiug them (On the Canotif
p. 359). The employment of utę ia difTerent in the sec-
ond epistle from the firsL There, though it occurs
olherwifle, it U geoerally employed in comparisons, and
its frequency makes it a characteristic of the style ; but
it occurs much morę rarely in the second epistle, and
usually, though not always, with a different meaning
and purpose. The ose of d\Xd after a negaŁive clause
and introducing a positive one is common in the firet
epistle, and but rare in the second. There are many
HiraK \eyofLiva in the second epistle. 'The first and
second epistles ditTer also in the use of Kptoróc. In
the first epistle X. stands in the majority of instances
withont the artide and by itseif, eitber siroply I. X. or
X. I.; but in the second epistle it has usually some
predicate attached to it (i, 1, 2, 8; ii, 14-16). The
name ^łóc occurs nearly forty times in the first epistle,
but only seven times in the second. Again, KÓpioc is
applied to Christ only once in the first epistle (i, 3), but
in the second epistle it is a common adjunct to other
names of the Sariour. In the first epistle it means the
Father in all cases but one (ii, 3), but in the second
epistle it denotes the Son, in harmony with Peter's own
declaration (Acts ii, 36 ; x, 36). The epithet atarfipf so
often applied to Christ in the second epistle, is not found
in the first. The second coming of our Lord is also ex-
preased differently in the two epistles, a9roicaXi;if/fc, or
its verb, being used in the first epistle (i, 5, 7, 13 ; iv,
13; V, 1); or it is called to ri\oc irdwwp (v, 7); or
X[}6voi Ł9xctrot (i, 20). But in the second epistle it is
called ijfiipa Kpionac (ii, 9), irapovcia (iii, 4), rjfitpa
Kvpiou (iii, 10), rifikpa ^tov (iii, 12). These are cer-
tainly marked di^^ersities, and it isdiflicult to offer a sat-
isfactory explanation of them. It may, however, be re-
plied that with the sacred writers the divine names are
not used, as with us, without any prominent or distinc-
tive application. In the first epistle the Redeemer's
names are his common ones, the familiar ones in tbe
mouths of all belierers— for the writer brings into prom-
inence the oneness of believers with him in suffering and
glory ; with him still as Jesus wearing his human name
and his human naturę with all its sympathies; oras the
Christ who, as the Father'8 serrant, obeycd, suffered,
and was crowned, the Spirit that auointed him still be-
ing " the unction from the Holy One" to all his people.
In the second epistle the writer has in view persons
who are heretics, rebellious, dissolute, fąlse teachers;
and in warning them his roind naturally looks to the
authority and lordship of the Saviour, which it was so
awful to contemn and so vain to oppose. If the last
day be set in different colors in the two epistles, the
difference may be accounted for on the same principle ;
for to those suffering under trial it shines afar as the
hope that sustaina them, but to those who are peryerse
it presents itself as the time of reckoning which should
alarm them into believing submission.
The aspects under which the Gospel is represent^d in
thia second epistle differ from those in the first. The
writer lays stress on iiriypuotCf or yv&etc (i, 2, 3, 5, 8 ;
ii, 20, 11 ; iii, 18). In this epistle the Gospel is gener-
ally XpnTTov dvvafuc Kai icapowria (i, 16), oŁoc Tfjc
iiKaioiwytjc (ii, 21), ayia ivTo\fjf etc.; whereas the first
epistle throws into prominence ^X7ric, tTta-nipia, papTi"
Ofioc aifiaroc I. X., yóptC (i» 10) ó.\ri^iia (i, 22), \6yoc
(ii, 8), irioTię, etc The reason may be rentured that
the persons addrcssed in the second epistle were in
danger of being tempted into error; and that a definite
and progressiye knowledge of Chrbtianity was the safe-
guaid against those loose speculations which were float-
ing around them. On this acconnt, too, we have ad-
monition suggested and pointed by their perilous cir-
comstanccs, " to make their calling and election surę"
(i, 10 ; iii, 14) ; nay, the purpose of the epistle seems to
be given in iii, 17 : " Ye therefore, beloved, knowing
beforehand, take heed lest, being led away with the er-
ror of the lawless, ye fali away from your own steadfast-
ness ; but grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" The kiriyvftt<nc is the
grand theme of connsel and the real prophylactic pre-
seuted, for it embodies itself in that Sucaioffimi on the
possession of which so much depends, as is seen in the
allusions to Noah and Lot, and to the want of which ar«
traced in contrast the judgment of the flood and the fate
of Sodom, the selfish character of Balaam, and the dark
and deceitful ways and works of the false teachers.
There is also a characteristic difference in the modę
of quotation from the O. T. QuotaŁions are abundauŁ
in the first epistle, either formally introduced by hóri
yfypaiTTm (i, 16), or by Bióri fl-fptś^fc iv ry ypa^y (ii,
6), or are woven into the discourse withont any prefa-
torv statement, as if writer and readers were equallv
familiar with them (i, 24; ii, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 22, 24, 25;
iii, 9, 10, 11, 15). But in the second epistle quotationa
are unfrequent, though we have Psa. xc, 4 in iii, 8, and
Isa. lxv, 17 in iii, 13. Of a different kind are tbe allu-
sions to Noah and the flood, to Lot and Sodom, and to
Balaam. But we may still explain that the modes of
handling and applying tbe O. T. may differ according
to the purpose which any writer has in view. In a
longer and fuUer epistle there may be ąuotations at
length, but in a shorter one only apposite allusions to
facts and incidents. The objection would have been
stronger if in an epistle ascribing itself to Peter there
had been no use madę of the O. T. at all; but a tliird
of this epistle consists of references to the O. T. or to
wamings drawn from iL
The peculiar similarity of a large portion of this
epistle to that of Jude has often. been commeuted nn.
The second chapter and a portion of the third are so like
Jude that the resemblance cannot be accidental, for it is
found in words as well as in thoughts. It has been con-
jectured by some that both borrowed from a common
source. Bishop Sherlock supposed that this source was
some ancient Hebrew author who had portrayed the
false teachers, Jude having used the epistle of Peter as
well as this old authority {Uae and Inteni of Prophery,
Dissert. i, 200, Lond. 1725). Herder and Hassę, hold-
ing this theory, conjecture the document common to
both writers to be the Zendaresta. This opinion has
no foundation, and relieve8 us of no difficulty. Othcrs
imagine that Jude followed Peter, and several rcasons
have been alleged in favor of this opinion by Mili,
Michaelis, Storr, Dahl, Wordsworth, Thiersch, Heyden-
reich, Hengstenberg, and Gaussen. Their generał ar-
gument is that Peter predicts what Jude describes as
actually existing (Jude 18), and that Jude refers to
prophccies which are found only in Peter. But it is
really doubtful if both epistles refer to the same class of
errorists. Those deacribed by Peter are rather specu-
lators, though their immoral practices are also noted,
while those branded by Jude are specially marked as
libertines and scnsualists, whose life has per\'erted and
undermined their creed. Others again hołd that Peter
took from Jude; such is the view of Hug, Eichhom,
Credner, Neander, Mayerhoff, De Wette, Guericke, and
Bleek. One argument of no smali force is that the style
of Jude is the simpler and briefer, and Peter*s the morę
omate and amplified ; that Jude's is morę pointed and
Peter's morę indefinite ; and that some allusions in Peter
are so vague that they can be understood only by a com-
parison with Jude (comp. 2 Pet ii, 4 with Jude 6 ; 2 Pet.
ii, 1 1 with Jude 9). Thus Peter says, generally, " Angels
bring not railing accusations ;** Jude gives the special in-
stance, Michael and Satan. Peter speaks of the " angcls
that sinned ;" Jude says morę precisely, they *' kept not
their first estate, but left their own habi tation." Olshan-
seu and Augnsti in part think that the similarity may
be accounted for by a preyious correspondence between
the writers; that Jude may have described to Peter
the character and practices of the false teschers, and
that Peter, relying on the truthfulness of the statement,
madę his own use of it without hesitation when he liad
PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF) 25 PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF)
occaskin to refer to tbe same or a similar cUss of pcrni-
dutłs subverters of truth and purity. This hypothesb
is fecaicely probable, and it is morę likcly that l'eter had
read Łhe epistle of Jude, and reproduced ia his own
cpistle aod in his own way its distincŁive clauses, which
most have deeply impresśed hiro, but witb such diifer-
eoces «i the same time as show Łhat be was no merę
ODpyisL Is it uiwortby of an apostle to use another
nńting dirinely authorized, and can Peter's appropria-
tkta of 80 much of Jiide*s language be stigmatized, as by
Keuss, as ^ a palpable plagiarism ?" Thus Jude uses the
pbrsse ''doods witbout water,** but Peter " wells with-
<Mt water,'* this figuie being morę suited to his imme-
dute porpose. The innXadtc of Jude 12 was from rem-
iflucenoe of sound before Peter'8 mind, but it is changed
of porpose into wtkoi ; and Jude's phrase (V ratę aya-
Tatę viMMv becomes in the same connection in Peter iv
raic airaracc aurwp^ 2 Pet. ii, 17 shows a like similar-
itr aod differenoe compaied with Jude 13. The claim
of ffiji^iiiality thos iies on the side of Jude, while original
tbinking characterizes Peter^s use of Jude'8 teraer and
ałinuter dictioo. There is no ground fur Bertholdt^s
logjsestion to rej4ct the second chapter as spurious ; or
for UIlmann'8, to refer both second and third chapters
to a poet^apostolic period ; or for Lange to brand as spu-
Hons the whole of the second chapter witb the last two
renes of the fint chapter, and the first ten yerses of the
tbird— that is, from the first tovto 7rpwT0v ytvw<TKovTtc
to tbe otber; or for Bunsen to receive only the first
tvelve yerses and the conduding doxology (Bertholdt,
Kiideil. m d ^V. T, voL vi ; UUmann, Der zweite Brief
Prtri : Lange, ApottoL Zetialter, i, 152 ; and in Herzog's
EmyUop. s. v. ; Bunsen, lynatius roft A ntiochien^ p. 175).
Otber morę q>ecific objections against the epistle may
be briefly aHuded to. Aax>rding to Mayerholf {Einleit.
p. 1^), tbe writer in iii, 2 separates himself from the
af>(J6tks ; Bleek {EinleiL p. 576) and others supposing
that be intended to chanicterize himself as an apostle,
and baring before him the somewhat parallel ezpression
of Jude, be so far altered it, but in the alteration bas
failed to give lucid utterance to his purpose. The
pbnse, with the double genitire Kai rijc twv dtroaró-
Xmy vfuhf i vroX j|c- tov Kvpiov, naturally means, " and
tbe commandrnent of the Lord given by your apostles."
Tbe pronoun vfŁiiv is tbe best^sustained rcading, and
tbe English yersion does vioIenoe to the position of the
vordB. As Olshausen and Windischmann have shoMm,
tbe use of vftQv does not exclude Peter, even thongh it
be rmdered " the commandments of your apostles of the
Uni Jesus.'* In fact, it neither denies nor affirms his
•poitleship ; thougb if ii/iwy bad been employed, and
tbe phrase rendezed ''oar apostles," the or*nclusion
■j^timt its genuineneas wotdd certainly have some
veigbt. But this objection that the writer exclode8
bifflaeif from the apoetlea neutralizes another, to wit,
tbat tbe writer betrays too great anxiety to show him-
Klf as the apostle Peter. He oould not certainly do
botb in tbe same document witbout stultifying himself.
^>oa not the apoetle Paul when it serres his object use
poiotedly the first person singular, refer to himself, and
nwrt hit apostolic oifice as Peter does in i, 12, 13, 14,
1^? Tbe nse of the name Svfuwv in i, 1 can neither
teO for the genninenesa, as Dietlein sapposes, nor against
it, a* Uayerbofr argues. Tbe reference in iii, 1 to a
^^nner epistle is not for the purpose of identifying him-
sdf with the author of that epistle, but naturally comes
in a» a proof of his anxiety for his readers that they
sboold bear in memory the lessons olready imparted to
tbem.
It is said that the first epistle was addreased to a par-
tKoUr circle of churehes (1 Pet. i, 1), while the second
vas to Christiana in generał (2 Pet. i, 1), yet it assumed
Cuif 1) that Łhe readers were in both cases the same, the
confoaon being increased by the fact that in cb. i, IC
tbe writer speaks aa if he had been their peraonal in-
stmctor, whereas in iii, 15 he treats them as the disci-
pks of Pfeul, Bot we may well suppose that the fiist
epistle, directed to a large enough circle at first, must
soon have taken its place as a generał epistle. The in-
spired penraen knew well that, thougb there was a par-
ticular occasion fur their writing and special counsels to
be given, yet their teachings were to be for the guidanoe
of the w bole Church. Hence we sometimes find them
directing that their letters should be read beyond the
first community to which tbey came (CoL iv, 16; 1
Thess. V, 27). Peter might therefure properly write a
second time to Chństians witbout expre8a liroitation of
country, and still regard hb readers as tjiose whom he
had admonished before. It is not neccasary to sup-
pose that by his expre8sion in i, 16 he means personal
instruction : the reference was to what he had said in
his former letter. We roust consider too the circum-
stances under which he wrote at all. There was a spu-
rious kind of wisdom corrupting the Church (CoL ii, 8,
16-23). Jewish traditions bad their influence ; and sen-
sual indulgence was surę to follow. Paid, who had care-
fuliy watched the churehes he had planted, had been
long a prlsoner, and was thus withdrawn from active
superintendence of them. Yery fitting therefore it was
that Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, should write
as he did at first, to confirm the doctrine leamed of
Paul, and to inculcate the holy principlea and nnblem-
ished conduct which could alone fortify believers against
impending persecution. Yet he anticipates in the first
letter a further declension, and a greater necessity for
faithful resistance of error (1 Pet. iv, 1-4). Now we
know that tlie evil did increase ; and Paul in the pas-
torał epistlcs speaks of serious depravation of doctrine,
and morę opcn lawlessness of conduct (1 Tim. i, 19, 20;
iv, 1 ; 2 Tim. ii, 17, 18 ; iii, 1-7). The second epistle of
Peter was called for, then, to check the progpess of false
teacbing and of unbecoming conduct : it takes up the
matter at a point historically later than the first ; but it
handles the same topics, and so is a proper supplement
to it. Thus, ais Schott says (p. 162), " That which pre-
sented itself in the first epistle we see also in the second ;
the same uncertainty respecting the gospel - standing
of (lentile Christians, and the gospel-teacbing of Paul
(i, 1, 10, 12; iii, 2, 15, etc.) ; the same questiouings about
the revelation of Chriat, the resurrection of the body,
and the finał judgmeut (i, 4, etc, 11, 12, etc, 16, etc. ; ii,
U ; iii, 2, 8, etc, 10, etc, 18) ; the same tendency to relax
in tł)e work of Christian sanctification (i, 5-12, etc;
iii, 11, etc, 14, 17)." Otber noteworthy traces he be-
lieves he can detect of a relationship between the two.
Some of these are a debased stale of religious knowledge
grounded on Jewish writings alien from the true teacb-
ing of Scripture, and an affected spirituałity which fus-
tered sensual indulgence. £vidence that such evils ex-
isted at the time of writing may be found morę cłearly
in the second, morę faintly, but yet noticeably, in the
first epistle.
Three argaments have been adduced to prove that
the epistle must belong to post-apostolic times. 1. It is
alleged tbat the doubts about Christ's second coming,
referred to in iii, 3, 4, could not have arisen in apostolic
times, when the belief in it was so firm and glowing ; and
a period of some length must have elapscd ere it could
be said that the "fathers had fallen asleep." But the
scofifers referred to were probably Gnostics who never
belieyed that event, or at all events spirituałized the
truth of it away ; and after one generation had passed
they might use the language imputed to them ; or '' the
fathcrs" may denote the Jewish patriarchs, sińce whose
deccase uniforraity had characterized all the processes
and laws of naturę. The Gnoetic spiritualism which
treated the resurrection as past early troubled the
Church, and its disciples might cast ridicule on the
faith and hopes of others in the challenge which Peter
quotes. 2. It is said that the ałlusion to Paulus epiBtles
indicates a late datę, as it supposes them to be collectcd
in part at least, and calls them by the sacred naine of
ypa^ai (iii, 15, 16). But surciy it may he granted tbat
towards the close of Peter's life several cpistles of Paul
PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF) 26 PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF)
may have bcen brought together and placed in point
of authority on the same level as Łhe O. T. ; and that
other docunients alao — rtię \oiirdc ypa^ac — alrcady
occupied a similar place. Whatever OKCgesis be adopt-
eil, this is the generał result Tbe writings of Paul, so
well known to the readen of this epistle, are mentioned
not as a completed whole ; the pbrase iv TraoaiCt etc, is
not to be taken absolutely, but relatively, as if denoting
"in all his epistles which he writes." The "ihings"
rcfcrred to as discussed in these epistles (irfpi rourtap)
are not their generał contents, but the coming of our
Lord and the end of the wrorld, and in these discussions
" are some things hard to be understood.** The allw(ion
certainly presupposes a late age, and the writer, as he
informs us, was very near his death. The datę of Peter^s
death is not precisely known, and the conimon traditions
concerning it may therefore be modified. As Ałford
says, a later datę than the usual one may be assigned
to iU 8. Again, it is hcld, as by Neander, that the epi-
thet " holy mount," as applicd to the hill of transfigura-
tion, indicates a late period, for Zioń only was so desig-
natcd ; and MayerhofT affirms that the cpithet suits
Mount Zioń alone. But the scenę on which the glory
of Jesus had been so displayed might many years afler-
wards be well called "holy" by one who was an.eye-
witness, when he referred to it as a proof and symbol of
" the power and coming of the Lord Jesus.*'
Stlil, while a partial reply may be g^yen to objec-
tions based on difTerence of style and of docŁrinal rep-
Tosontation, it must in honesty be added that these dif-
ferences are not all of thcm wholly accounted for. The
style and matter, as a wholc, are so unliko the first
fpistle, that one has considerable difficulty in ascrib-
ing both epistlos to the same author. While tbere is
simiUrity in some words or phrases, the spirit, tone,^
and manner of the whole episŁle are widely direrse.
Minutę critlcisra may discoyer &iraĘ X«yó/iii/rr, and ar-
range them in proof parallel to similar usage in the
(irst epistle ; but such minutisB do nothide the generał
dissimilitude. It may be argticd, and the argument
is not withont weight, that a forgcr would havc imi-
tatcd the salient poculiarities of the first epistle. No
one of ordtnary critical dbcernment would have fniled
to attcmpt the reproduction of its characteristic feat-
ures of style and thought. But the absence of such
studied likeness is surely in favor of the genuinaneps.
It may be added also that, as there aro in the first
epistle statements so peculiar to it as to bo found no-
where else, tbe same specialty in what scems to be
undesi.zned coincidence marks the second epi.«t1e in
tho declurations of its third ehaptcr. It would have
been difficult in the second century to inipose on the
churches a second epistle forged in Peter's name, and
BO unlike in many pointa to his first. A direct imi-
tation of his style might have deceired some of the
churches by its obvious features of similitude, but tbe
case is widely difTerent when a writing so obriously
unlike the first epistle won its way into circulation
unchallenged in its origin and bistory, and was not
doubted save at length by scholars and mainly on crit-
ical grounds. Why dld not Orlgen and others tell us
of the time of ita first ap^^earance, and how and by
^hom it was placed in the canon? Possilily on such
pointa they wcre ignorant, or at leoj^t they knew notb-
ing that warranted suspicion. Still tho difTerence of
manner between the two epistles remains, and perhaps
one might account for it, as Jerom? has hinted and
Calvin has supposed, by the snp|>o5ition that Peter
dictated tbe epi:$tle in Aramaic, and that the ani:inu-
ensis was left to express the thoughts in his own forms
and pbrases. DifTerence of condition and purposc may
account for difference of topie, and the change of style
may be ascribed to the Greek copyist and translator.
If, moreoYcr, we admit that some time intervened be-
tween the composition of the two works ; that in writ-
ing the first the apostU^ was aideil by Silranus, and in
tbe second by anotlicr, perhaps Mark ; that the circum-
stances of the churches addresaed by him were consid-
^rably changed, and that the second was written id
greater hastę, not to speak of a possible decay of &cal-
ties, the differenc^s may be regarded as insufficient to
justiiy morę than hesitation in admitting ita genuin»-
ness. The anthenticity of the epistle has been main-
tained morę or less decidedly by Michaeli^, Nitzsche,
Flatt, Augnsti, Storr, Dahl, Hug, Heydenreicb, Lard-
ner, Wtndischmann, Guericke, Thiersch, Stier, Diet-
lein, Hofmann, Luthardt, Brtickner, and Olshansen.
Fellmoser and Dayidson incline to the same side.
Ttiese are great names; yet, though we agree with
their opinion, we cannot ventnre to say, with Bonnet,
that *' of all the books of the K. T. which bave been
controYerted at certain times, there is not one wbose
anthenticity is so certain as that of the second epistle
of Peter" {Hofw. Test,, Introd., ii, 701, Gen&ve, 1852).
II. T^me, Płace- Design^ and Pertons addresaed. —
When and where the epistle was written cannot be
dcfinitely known. The place was Romę in all proba-
bility ; for Peter, after coming to Róme, did not, so far
as we know, 1eave that city till his death. His death
is usually placed in G4, bnt it may hare been later,
and this epistle was written just before it. Ma3*erhoff
ascribes it to a Jewish Christian of Alexandria about
the middle of the second century. Hutber plaees it In
the last qnarter of the first century or the begtnning
of the second.
The persons for whom tho epistle is intended are
**those who have obtained like precions faith with
us ;" and iii, 1 identifies them with those addressed in
the first epistle. It is objccted that this epistle as-
serts that Peter had taught them in person — such not
being tbe case with those addressed in tbe first epistle.
But tbe phrase adduced — iyviit»pivafiiv hytiu (i, 16), *^ we
madę known unto you" — seems to refer not to orał di»-
course, but to yarions portions of tho first epistle in
which tbe coming and glory of Christ are dwelt on.
The object of the epistle is to wam against **false
teachers," ''bringing in damnable heresies," "deny-
ing tbe Lord that bought them," holding a peculiar
dsemonology — covetons, sensual, and imperious apos-
tates, the yictims and propagatora of Antinomian delu-
sion. Probalłh" they taught some early form of Gnos-
tic error, which, denying the Łord*s humanity and
atoning death, ridiculed his second advent in man*s
naturę, set aside the authority of law, and by this ef-
frontery justified itself in licentious impurity. The
false teachers were like the ** false prophets," perhaps
cluiming divine basis for their teachings, and tłierefore
the morę able to shake the faith of others, and sednce
them into perilous apostasy. Thus, in brief, as the
writer himself describes it (iii, 17), his object is, first,
waming, or to caution his readers against sednctton :
** Beware lest ye also, being led away with tbe error of
the wicked, fiill from j*our own steadfastneas" — rrpoyt'
yj'ii!MTK0VTic — **as ye know those things beforchand/'
that is, from his descriptive accounts ; and, secondly,
counsel, or to urge on them, as the best of all antidotes
to apostasy, to **grow in grace, and in the knowledge
of our Lord and Sarionr Jesus Christ." For this x^'P*C
and yyiHiTię would fortify them and make them invin-
cible against those assaults which so often succeeded
I with the unwary who fell in their heedlessness, the
graceless who trusted in their own strength, and the
I i^orant or half-inforroed, sc liable from their partiuł
' knowledge to be imposed upon by any system tliat
deałt in novel sp?culations, professed to unfold myf-
terie9, or give license and warrant for lawless practices.
', The supposition of Grotius, that it was written in the
, reign of Tr.ij in against tho Carpocratians, and by Sim-
. eon, l)i:^h«tp t)f Jorusalem, is withont any probability,
I as Bertholdt has morę than sufficiently shown. The
I arguments of Schwegler for its place <as Korne, its datę
the end of the second century, and its pnrpo^e as an
I effort to Gonciliate Petrine and Pauline theological dif-
{ ferences, are answered condoslYely by Hather.
PETER
27
PETER
III. The amienfs of tbe epistle seem qaite in accord-
anee wiih its asserted origin^- The castomary opening*
jalotation U foUowed by an enumeration of Christian
Uesangs and eshortatioii to Chrutian dutiea, vr\th
special reference to the maintenance of the troth
uh ich had already b«en comniiinicated to the Church
^l, 1-13). Refcning then to his approaching death,
tbe apośtle assigns as grounds of aFsarance for beliey-
er« his own pcrsonal testimony as an eye-witne«8 of the
tnnsfi,;iirationf and the snre word of prophecy, tbat is
the testimoDy of tbe Holy Ghost (14-21). The donger
of being misled by false prophets is dwelt opon with
gT«jit eamestness throughout the second chapter ; their
coretonsness and grosa sensaality, combined with pre-
teoces to spiritnalisni, in short all the permanent and
firndainental characteristics of Antinomianism, aro de-
ecribed; while tbe orerthrow of all opponents of Chris-
tian truth is predictcd (ii, 1-29) in connection with
prophecies toncbing the second advent of Christ, the
destroctioct of the world by fire, and the promise of
new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth right-
eoosnesa. After an ezhortatlon to attend to Paulus
teaching, in accordance with the less explicit admoni-
tioD in tbe prerioos epistle, and an emphatic waming,
the epistle cloees with the castomary ascription of glo-
rr to oar Lord and Sayionr Jesus Christ.
IV. CommeHtaria» — £xegetical helps on the whole
of ihb epistle ezclaaively are the following: Simson,
Commaitary (Lond. 1632, 4to); Adams, Commentaty
(ibid. 1633, foL) ; Smith, Commentwie* (ibid. 1690, 4to) ;
Dearhof, ErUaringe (.\mst. 1713, 4to); Nitzschc, V%n-
dkatio (Lip& 1785, 8vo) ; Flatt, Definsio .(Tub. 1806,
^ro); Dahl, De ai-^Łwic, etc. [includ. Jude] (Rost.
lł^)7, 4to); Richter, De Orit/ine^ etc. [includ. Jude]
{Vn. 1810, 8to) ; Ullmann, A uiUgung (Lips. 1822, 8vo) ;,
Ol«hausen, De Integ, et Authent. etc (Regiom. 1822-3,
4u>; in English in the BibL Repos. July and Oct. 1863) ;
Ficoc, Red^rehe$, etc. (Genev. 1829, 8to) ; Moutier, A u-
tkaiie, etc. [indud. Jude] (Strasb. 1829, 8vo); Delille,
Aułkei^ etc. (ibid. 1835, 8to) ; Magnus, id, (ibid. 1835,
9vo); Heydenreich, Aechtheit, etc (Herb. 1837, 8vo);
Auikmars, La ^d Ep, de P. (Gener. 1838, 8to) ; Dau-
mas, Iniroduetion criiiąue (Strasb. 1845, 8vo) ; Brown,
Di»a»ne» [on cb. i] (Edinb. 1856, 8vo) ; Smith, Lectttres
(liood. 1878, 8vo). See Peteb, First Epistle of.
Peter of Alcantara, St., was bom in the place
after which be is sumamed in 1499, studied at the uni-
rersity in Salamanca. and when 8ixteen years old be-
catne a Franciscan monk. In 1519 he became prior at
Badajoz, and in 1524 pńest. For sereral years he lived
in retirement, bat in 1538 he was madę general-superior
of his order in Estremadura. In 1555 he founded, with
tbe cooaent of pope Julins III, a separate reformed con-
greinukm, called the ObserraniitU (q. v.), and assisted
^ Theresa in her reforms of the Carmeiites. He died
in 1562, and was canonized in 1569. His work De ora-
tioHt et meditatitme was long and widely circnlałed. The
Ik iudni pace teu tranguiUUate is not genuine. Ac-
cording to the legend, Peter walked on the sca by faith.
In a pictore in the Munich gallery, he not only wąlks
bimscif, bat a lay brother goes with him, whom Peter
■rang to encourage by pointing to heaven. See Acta
SanctoTum, voL viiL
Peter of At.EXANDRiA (1), the first of that name
in tbe list of bishops, and noted for the part he took
>gainat the Meletian schism, was bom in the 3d cen-
tunr. He was plaoed over the see of Alexandria after
tbe fleath of Theonas, which occnrred ApriI 9, 300. Pe-
ter haci not oocupied the poettion quite three years when
tbe ^nectttjon commenoed by the emperor Diocletian,
UKi continued by his succcssors, broke out in 804. Peter
«&« obliged to hide himself, and fled from one place to
iiitHher, as we leara flrom a disoourse said to have becn
delireted by him in prison, in which he states that
be f«iutid shelter at different times in Mcsqpotamia, in
^^bcenieia, in Palestine, and in Tarious islands. Cave
conjecturcs thjit hc was imprisoncd dunng the reign of
Diocletian or Ma.\imian Galerius, but, if so, Peter must
have obtained his rdease before the schism in the
Egyptian churches. In 306 he assembled a council,
which passcd upon the misderoeanors of Meletius, bidh-
op of Lycopolis. This prelate, in publishing calum-
nies against Peter and his council, finally created a
schism in the Church of AIexandria, which lasted 150
years. Peter was obliged to seek his safety in flight.
In the ninth year of the persecution he was, suddenly
and contrary to all expectation, again arrested by order
of Maximin Daza, and, without any distinct charge be-
ing bronght against him, was beheaded Kor. 25, 8|1.
Eusebius speaks with the highest admiration of his pi-
ety and his attainments in sacred literaturę, and he ia
revered as a saint and martyr^mth in the Eastem and
Western churches. His memory is now cclebratcd by
the Latin and Greek churches on the 26th, except in
Russia, where the morę ancient computation, which
placcd it on the 25th, is still foUowed. Peter ^vrote
se%'eral works, of which there are very scarity remains :
(1.) Sertno de Pceniłentia : — (2.) Sermo in Sanctum Pas-
cha, These discourses are not extant in their original
form, but fifteen canons relating to the lapsi, or those
who in time of persecution had fallen away — fourteen
of them from the Sermo de Pctniteniia (X6yoc vtpl fit-
ravolac), the fifleenth from the SeiT/io in Sanctum
Pascha — are contained in all the Cawmum Coliectiones,
They were published in a Latin yersion in the Micro-
presbtfticon (Basie, 1550); in the Orthodoxographa of
Heroldus (ibid. 1555), and of Grynaeus (ibid. 1569); in
the first and second editions of De la Bigne*s BiUiotheca
Pafntm (Paris, 1575 and 1589), and in the Cologne edi-
tion (1618). They are given also in the Conciiia, It
is only in some MSS. and editions that the separate
source of the fifteenth canon is pointed out : — (3.) Liber
de Dicimtate s, Deitate, There is a citation from this
treatise in the Acta ConcUii Ephesini; it occurs in the
A ctio prima f and a part of it is again cited in the De-
fensio CgrUHy which is given in the seąuel of the A eta :
— (4.) Homilia de Adcentu Salratoris s, Christi, A
short citation from this occurs in the Latin yersion of
the work of Leontius of Byzantium, Contra Kestorianos
et Eutychianos, lib. i : — (5, 6.) Two fragments, one dc-
scnbed, Ex primo Sermone, de eo guod nec prccezistit
A nimOf nec cumpeccassei propterea in Corptts missa est,
the other as Ex Mystagogia guam/edś ad Ecclesiam
cum Martyrii Coronam suscepturus esseły are cited by
the emperor Justinian in his Epistoła ad Mennam
CPolitanum adcersus Origenem, given in the A(^a Con-
cUia CPoliŁcud II s, CEcmnenici -F (ConciliOy vol. v,
coL 652, ed. Labb^ ; voL iii, col. 256, 257, ed. Hardouin).
Another fragment of the same diacourse is contained in
the oompilation Leontii et Joannie Rerum Sacrarum
lib. It, published by Mai in the above-cited ColleciiOf
vii, 85 : — (7.) Epistoła S. Petri Episcopi ad Ecclesiam
A lexandrinamt noticing some irrcgular proceedings of
the schismatic Meletius. This letter, which is very
short, was published in a Latin yersion by Scipio MafTei
in the third yolume of his Obserrazione Letter arie (Ve-
rons, 1737-40, 6 yols. 12mo) : — (8.) Doctrina, A frag-
ment of this work is cited by Leontius and Joannes. and
was published by Mai (ibid. p. 96). The published
fragments of Peter's works, with few exception8, aro
givcn in the fuurth yolume of Galland*s Bibliotheca Pa-^
łrum, p. 91, etc. Sec Eusebius, Ilist. Eccles. yii, 32;
yiii, 13 ; ix, 6, cum notis Yalesii ; Athanasius, Apolog,
contra Arianos^ c. 59; Epiphanius, /. c; Conciiia^ 1. c;
Caye, llist. Litt. ad ann. 301 , i, 160 (Oxford ed. 1740-43) ;
TiUemont, Menwires, y, 436, etc; Fabricius, Biblioth,
Grasc. ix, 316, etc; Ccillicr, Hist, des Auteurs sacres et
ecclesiasticueSi ir, 17 8q.; Dupin, Bibliołhecue des Au-
teurs ecclis, ; Galland, Biblioth, Patimm, proleg. ad yol.
iy, c 6. — Smith, />tW. ofGr. and Rom, Biog, and Mythol,
iii, 219. Omp. Hoefer, Xouv. Biog. Generale^ xl, 138;
Domer, Christołogie^ i, 810; Hefele, Conciliengesch, i,
827 są. ; Schaff, Church Iliet, yoL I
IKTEIl
28
PETER
T9t§t or \tMXA%vut\ (2% anoŁhcY pcIrUrch of '
ihnt «<•<% wu \Mtru wsmt thc; U^Kintiin^ 'if the 4ib cen-
tury, duritifc th«f lift* of AihatiM»iuii, wbom b^ for msiiy
yMim «<'4'i;rn|mtiU^l, nharin^; łiU vari«Ue furtuncfl, «s
tircntiytiT <if tho ('łiurch at AlcKanilrU. Jle was deft-
if(iiau-<l łiy AŁhananiuii aii liU nucceMWir, atid uprm the
(tratti of that ci'lvłiratca (;tiurch father ĆA.D. 373; was
app<>ln(iul U) Łtio płaco, Ui the great MiUfactiun of the
ortli<Mlox amotif( the ticuplo, and with the approval of
ŁIki iici^hUiritiK biNhopt. The Ariana, howcver, who
hail, cithor frotn fear or revcreiicc, concedcd quict poa-
iM*Miioii to Athanaiiiu«» wcrc by no incans dUponed to
a(U{iiii*M'c hi tho appohitmctit of an orthodox succeMor;
and lVt<'r waii at oncf> deiKincd and impritoncd« Mak-
hiK tli" (*Ncnpfl, hp fied to KomCi wbcro he wa« kindly
nM't<lvtMl by pofM) Damaiiui I, lcaving hia Arian compet-
lutr, LiichiN, hi |)omoNiiion of tho ('hurch of Alexan-
drin. Ar«»r flv« yeam' alMCncc, Teter returned with
lt«ti4*rN from the po|)e conflrroinK his titlc to the soef and
n*KAhuMt p(mM*Niihm of the ctiiircb by favor of the peo-
ph% who do|)OMHl Luciim, and forced him to Hec to Con-
•iantliio|th>. lVter enjoyed tho hif^hest ostecm of his
ronieniporsririi, but surYiyeil his rcstoration ouly a
shorl (iiue, Ile died Kob. II, 3N1, and was succeeded
hy \\U broihcr Timoihy. VaU»niiis speaks of him as the
aitetlof of MAximus the (\vnir in his usurpation of the
sve of CotiMantinopU* in pUoe of St. (ireKory (Nazian-
Kon>, Itiii (iiis is searcely pndmlilc, siaoe (trpp»ry him-
aelf iMil()^i/.i'N liim. Thoodon*! am^ribea this act to Tim-
oihy. Of tlie writlnfit* of 1Vut, parts of two Ictters
hav(< been prt*Morvod to us by Thcodttrot and Facundus;
I ho ((ml iflyin^ an acinunU of the pcritotnitiona and acts
of viohMu*o peqH«trated by Uucius and che Arians; the |
act^md, A/hWoAi ml [''puc^tfum tt l^rrnAjffent* ałqut JHti'
n>M<M /)»Hi vt »•»! yitir in fjr*iiio f^tntłifHłon^ *, ad ł'4/»isco/)otf
iWsihyft t^iin^ nłOHf /iidcMiMfM yift titb WUruff /mftertito}^
iihh^rMtYumJUftutHt fjruU* miMu Sec Oillior, łłi$ł, ties
AnłfHr* «ti(*iV< rt ti>i'U*» viii» 4tU k\,\ Iloefer, Xour.
iiioit. r,Vł»^^i/r. xl, IłWj Smith, iHct. o/ (if\ and Horn,
iii**!h ami Mjfthtd. iii, 2^itK
P«t«r «u' Amikn!«, Se<» 1Vtkk tuk IIkumit,
Potor { ritnr) oK St. Ammii^ i^known aW as .Min-
.^H^'«V ł\,tmf%ttt!f\ a Kr\'noh tH\iosia5»iu\ was U>m in
UV2\ At l."lslv ^^Hmuo Ven»ivHin\ Art er hAvin); taken !
in ItUO tho i;arb ot the )4irxM'iMii l'an»elito!i umler the '
uam<> of /Vf i>r %it St^ Amh*^ he tau);ht philo:«ophy and
lh<H^U»j;> ; UvanH> a)H>ut UW7 ):\'nera) (iothńtor i4 his
tmicr. antl di«^i at Komo, in the exei\^iw of ihese dutics. ■
No\, ".**.», UłTl. AUhou4:h he left only »mie oiU*$ in '
l^wm^ x\( St» Vhtix\«sa, lailuT 0«!Mno de Yilliew claims
Ihai ho had s»» miK*h faoiUty in Ijiiin j^^iry ihat he
tfcas i>x^ivUst as a si>v«d lUptiste Mantouan. >Ve
ha\t* »M hiA \^«%ris //•>i"Vo o •>»»>»,« Fniftwm Ti*-
ł\łA>%łf,»'K«i «'i\J» ,^ .W.Mi.rr^(\ti^v)r»> ^K(»nH\ hk*»{i-U»7l,
t \\4^ t«4.^: this hiM%kr> is iho %vnlinuati\m of ihat
iu^Wt;sk«^n by Isih^^r l»idt«Tv *W M. J»v<4^ph, ^ho dł»M
in t«^»*i. ł# M.\ tt*,T ^:«.« ;,i N.H»'fciir ^i.y\M>s U»<vN
UN»».^^. /o I •* ,j*, KJfM% .j» .\ł r \ i^r ,Ai\. l«ł7\Svo\
Ho ha* tninv>)ai«\i \\\ts\ fV«oh tho T. i N-y « m *-»»•*/
vUvv5< J«\v\a»M the I ♦» ,:*» i\'y i\u.$x,^Kr .it «/<.<im^
i »iK ,\ '. »*•, «* ,\>*.\ ">f . siv.t I hi' ł# _^< w tslht^ l^ł>
|>v^io*Xtl,\ \ 7"*». '^ .1 ;*»»•*» »'imf *? » •• , . ii;»xi |t»\'>
|W,s\K.v*/ Vx a\rrMf 'iw** ,,V I - .•"•» ,•» »nj IvmU>s»
vvH i\.\x? ."^^^ ><łV lv \ '...:.rs .^ w . ł. i .r'^ » :».?,
ot « » * , ł •» , r, . » • Sm' » V»^, * ♦ i ^ »» • > •* •:< • •! I»
V ••» • ' •■*'•• ^ 'ł wv ł:.\ .• s* h. . t.* . » i»^
man em|Mre is the oontinuanoe of tbe Boman imperiom
(a view in very reoent times espoosed by Fr«eman łn his
Comparałive Poliiic$). Ali princes are subordtoate to
tbe emperor; tbe emperor is the subordinate of tbe pope,
who haa reoeiTed hu aotbority from God.
Peter of Astioch (1). See Pktkk Fuixoi.
Peter of Autioch (2), the thiid patriarch of that
name in tbe current tables of ibe occupants of that see,
which commenoe with the apostle Peter, was bom near
tbe beginning of tbe lltb century. Contemporary
with Michael Cenilarius, patriarch of Constanttnople,
and Leo of Achridia, he united with them in hostility
to the Latin Churcb. According to Cave. Peter bitterly
inyeighed against the lirea and doctrinea of the Latin
clergy, and especially against the addition of the word
fiUoąue to the creed ; wbile, according to Le Quien, he
preserved a morę impartial tonę, and sbowed ever\'-
where " a disposition arerse to schism." Peter obtaiued
the patriarchate in the year 1063, and in tbe aame year
he sent synodical letters to tbe patriarcha of Alexan-
dria, Jernsalem, and Constantinople, and to pope Leo
IX, signifying his accession. Cave statea that he sent
to the pope "a profession of his faith/* but it is probable
that he has appiied this term to tbe ^modtcal lettcr,
of which a I^tin rersion appeara among the letters of
Leo IX. Le Quicn, who had in his poasession the
Greek text of these synodical letters, complaius of the
great discrepancy between the Greek text and the
Latin yersion. Two letters of Peter appear in Greek,
with a Latin yersion, in the Monumenia Eecleńa GrtJtcfB
of Coteleriiis (ii, 1 12, 145). The first is entitled Epistoła
ad liomiitiatttn (Jradetiaemy and is an answer to Domin-
iciis Gradensis s. Yenetus, patriarch of Yenice or Aqui-
Icia, whose letter, in the collection of Gotelerius, pre-
.cedes that of Peter; the second is addresscd to Micbael
rorularius {Epistoła ad Afickaelem Cei'vkirium\ and
is prece<led by a letter of Michael to Peter, to which it
is the answer. A considerable part of this letter had
preyiously been published by Leo Allatius, in his J)€
CoHsmsH Krtiesiarum Oriemt. H Occidait, lib. iii, c. 12,
§ 4. There is extant in MSw at Yienna another letter
of Peter, Pftri Kjństoła ad Joannem Tranetuem in ApU"
/mi A/>Ma7>w)N, relating to the matters in dispute be-
tween the Kasteni and Western churchesL See Caye,
Nist, I.ilK ad ann. 1040, ii, 132; Oudin, Commmi. de
Scnptonb, H ifa'if>tis JlccUs. ii, 605; iAmbec, Comment.
de liihlititk^ Ctmtartra ; Le Quien, Oriens Ckri^itm. ii,
754 Smith, />iW. of Ciast, i^ioy. amd MytkoL iii, 221.
Peter ( AVr»Y^ of BAUsre (Lat. Pfinu de Pahna\
generał of the lXiminicans. was bom at Baome (county
of ikmn^unlo^ in the latter part of the 13th century.
Haying early embraceil the nile oTSł. Dominie, he was
sent in 1321 to I^ris. and there gaye public lessotu
U)tiM) the Linr titf Stmtrttces of Pierre Lombard. In
13W he was eltvi»M i::\>neRil of his ortler by a unanimiiy
of yt4t>!V. He di<>l in ł^ris Mairh 1. isik He wrote
i\%<i,\r in ^•.•/fc, r fr^tn^yn i. ««>ine o^pies of which are
prrA^netł a( Ri>W and ac TtMirs. an«l iwo Ijethrs A^/y-
t>V,^\'^ wl.ioh ha\>f iv4 be^n prioie^L See QuHif et
Koiisr\U aVWiv. .»:\iL Pt\r.iic, i, (>14.^Uoefer. .Ymtr. hi'^\
«M»f Mrt-, xU l:*s»
Peter v /V— y\ a"»x or Btvłii:c. wa« a French hi^ro-
risn, ti bi> duM in ih** l:?:h crr:^ry. It i* 5orpi*<ni th«
hr »a* **3i:vxi «»! Si. Martin *M" T^Hirsw He kfia ( % -
•»\-» '. >« > ;.!. tn,:;;:* m;:h łh*^ crta:iv« k^ the wori : a;.J
<\j.i> «x;h I ;.C F»v a;v»t:^i ti3>rt^ ii k» a oc«a:: i*i;..-a
fn-ca V ..^; jk rr.>ai Ss. Jcn-^w, IsKKot %>c St \ uk . tint-^-
»>rv *>c" Ivv:t^; ?.* nvvvm i;Tf»fSw fr.>«B Kry-»:» *:łav, St.
VV vv <^;v'. lL'«>r\>rT. ^-.-r^ pktssa,?f* fr.«B iti*^ »'». .-
*•. •, r«.i:;%Y ;•* S;, Ma-:. i »< T »-rs. U' i>-< alv»y »f
C.s-^Nr\» a:xi u* ;Se <\x r:* ,< A. w ane im4 «.:i. ut
ł. .»ro4* 1: ijBj nr^YT >-tc i».::w.>,-t\i «::re. Si «
•H.r^-^^i^r^ »v ;: aMx t^ ?.<hj».; : -. ;i3* .%" -^- .. ii! I>acyjfsae
w \ •; . «v,; V Sa '-^c y.a> rew .X t- •.-^V'i ::< i*s«
(•an «< «« «A .^ ^ A v>M>4'Łt» €H r«tik „mm^ autf uite
PETER
29
PETER
MSS^ one ftom the Imperial Library, two from the Vat-
iean. See Hisf. LiU. de la France^ xii, 80; xiii, 57;
Andre Salmoo, Aoficet sur łes Chronicues de Touraine,
— Hoefcr, \(mv, Biog. Generale, xl, 191.
Peter Bernardinus, an Italian reformer, the iu-
cimate companion of Saronarola, was a Florentine by
birth and of bumble desceut, He was attracted by the
uaching of the great Italian reformer, and afler the
e-Kecotion of Savonarola freqaent]y met his followers
i«creily, and eDcouraged them in steadfastneas to the
£uib. He finally became a leader among the Italian
refomied, aad aa siich forbade aU participation in the
Baeraoients of the Church of Romę, favored communistic
liA*, diligence in prayer, and simplicity in dreas. Pur-
sttetl by tbe Church and by the State, he fled with ali
hi^ laniily to the borne of count Picus de Mirandola,
bat on the way be was captured and, afber a hasty trial,
va» condemned to be bumed.
Peter op Blois {Petrus Blesensis), so called from
the place of his birth, a leamed ecclesiastical writer,
ftoyrijhed in the 12th century. He studied at Pari9,
Hoki^a, and Oxfurd, and there was so interested in
schoLutic piirsnits that he became a student of John of
Salisbury. In 1167 he was appointed the teacher and
secmary of young king William II of Sicily. Fear of
^waónation, prompted by jealousy of his auccess, madę
biin ieare luly, and he remained for a while in France.
In 1168 be was inirited to England by Henry II; was
Dtiroinated aichdeacon of Bath, and aAerwards became
chancellor of Canterbury and archdeaeon of London.
F(>r the spaoe of fourteen years he was one ol' the most
iuflaential men in Kngland, both as a politician and a
churchman. He died in 1200. He is said to have first
used the word transubstantiation. His letters are very
internting; tbey are admired for their elegance and
persfitcDiiy of language. Besides, Peter of Blois de-
sene» to be pointed out aa one of those ecclesiastics of
the Middle Ages who darcd to speak out against the
aboses in school, Church, and State. He oomplains
litterlj of the superficial ways of the clergy, who were
then the educatoi« of the world. He reproaches those
wh«) nMK>t ąuestions respecting time and 9pace, and the
naturę of unirersals (umversalia), before they had leamed
the dnoents of science. These charlaUns strove afker
liigh thinga, and neglectcd the doctrines of salration.
Peter of Blois*s writings have becn coUected under the
litle, Opertt onadn, nunc primum in Anglia ope codicum
mfjtptferiptorum ediłionumgue optimarum, edidit J. A.
GiK LL.D. (4 vols. 8vo). See Wright, Biog, Brit,
Lifitr. ii, 366 są. ; Dariinp, Cyclop. BiHiogr, vol. ii, p. v. ;
Baar. [iogmengesch, ; Hardwick, Ch, Iłisf, o/ the Middle
Asfs: Neander, Hisf, n/Christian Dotjmas. (J. H.W.)
Peter of Bruys {Pierre de Brois), a French eccle-
siartic of the 12th century, is noted as the represente-
tire of thoee anti-hierarchical tendencics which so gen-
endly prcrailed in Southern France. He was a priest,
tmt resigned his orders, preferring to become a leader
of tbe pcople against the corruptions of rhe Church,
sboot 1104. Peter of Clugny, whose pastorał epistles
to the bishopi of the south of France are the principal
«orce of Information conceming Peter of Bruys, re-
piroaches him with heretical opinions; and, aithough
the account of an enemy is always to be read with siis-
ptdon, tbe high and disinterested character of the abbot
of Cłtt^y gires roore than ordinary value to his narra-
tire. Tbe time of the compoeition of the preface to the
rtfotation (the body of which was of early datę) was
shortly after the death of De Bruys, which took place
about A.D. 1120. At this time, the author tells ua, the
beresy had becn flourishing for twenty years. Peter of
Bniys aeetns to hare rejected infant baptism, because
b<: feU that baptism witbout faith was of no avail, and
*ith Abełaid he rebaptized adults. He also rejected
•11 public dirine serrice, for God, he argued, " antę
share rei antę stabtilnm inrocatus** — is heard as well
in the ion aa in the chtnch. The crosses he would
b-irn, and not honor, for that is a reproach to the suffcr-
ings of the Sariour. Peter of Bruys even maintaincd
that the Supper was not iustituted by Christ as a rite
of peri^etual observation ; that he only once distributed
his body and bluod among his disciples. This ezpres-
sion is obacure: pcrhaps he meant to say that Christ
had observed this rite once for all. He also rejected
the mass and sacrifices for the dead. He found many
•
followers, known as the Petrahrusians (q. v.). Peter of
Bruys was bumed at St. GiUes on Still Friday, in 1124,
in the Arelatensia diocese, by a mob, in an emeute
caused by his preaching, and probably instigated by the
Roroish ecclesiastics. See Gieseler, Kirchengesch. roi.
ii, pŁ. ii, p. 536 ; Engelhardt, Dogmengtsch, vol. ii, ch. iii,
p. 51 8q. ; MUnschcr, Dogmengesch, (edit. by C<)hn), p.
209,210. (J.H.W.)
Peter of Cklus {Petrus Cellensis), a French prel-
ate of some notę, flourished in the second half of the
12th century. He was abbot at Moutier la Celle from
1150; in 1162 he filled a like office at St. Remis, near
Rheims; and in 1181 was roade bishop of Chartres.
He died in 1183. Peter of Cellie lea mystical inter-
pretations of the Scriptures, and letters to the popes
and bishops and many princes, who highly esteemed
him. He had reformator}' ideas, and did not łicaitato
to expre88 them. His worka have been collected and
published sereral times. One edition is by Sirmond
(Par. 1618; Ven. 1728),
Peter (Pierre) of Chartres, a French ecclesiastic
who flourished in the first half of the lOth centur>% died
about 1039. The authors of the Histoire Litteruire de
la France attribute to him several works. We men-
tion only Manuale Ecclesiasłiatmy Manuale de Mysie-
j-iis Ecclesicty and Speculum Ecdeaice, This last treat-
ise, which offcrs us curioiis details upon the origin or
meaning of liturgical usages, is unpublished ; but we
indicBte three manuscript copies in the Imperial Li-
brary of Saint -Victor, under the numbers 518, 724, 923.
Nuinber 923 bas one chapter morę than the other two.
Jean Garet, canon of Louvain, Gesner, Posserin, and
after them thc authors of the Histoire Littiraire, desig-
nate also among the works of our chancellor a Para-
pkrase o/the Psaltns, likewise unpublished. There is,
finally, in the library of Mont-Saint-Michel, Glossa in
Jobf secundum Petrum, cancellniium Camuiensem, See
Gesner, Bibl. Universalis, p. 669; Possevin, Apparatus,
ii, 246; łlist. Liłt. de la France, vii, 341.— lloefer, iYour.
Biog, Generale, xl, 184.
Peter Chrysolasus, an Italian prelate, was bom in
the latter part of the llth centurj'. He was raised to
the archbishopric of Milan in 11 io, having preyiously
held some less iroportant see. He M^as sent by pope
Paschal II on a mission to the eraperor Alexius I Com-
nenus, and engaged eagerly in the controrcrsy on the
procession of the Holy Spirit. His principal work is,
Ad Imperatorem Dominum A lexium Comnenum Oratio,
etc, designed to prove the procession of the Holy Spirit
from the Son as well as from the Father, published in
the Gr<rcia Orthodoxa of AUatius, i, 379, etc. (Rorae,
1652, 4io), and given in a I^tin yersion by Baronius,
Annal Eccles. ad ann. 1116, %^ol. viii, etc— Smith, 2)»W.
of Gr. and Rom. Biog. and Mythol. iii, 222.
Peter Chrysologus, St., an Italian prelate, was
bom at Imola, in the northem part of Italy, towards the
close of the 4th century. Ile was cducated by Come-
lius, a bishop, and rcceived ordination as deacon from
the same prelate. In 433 he was consecrated archbishop
of Kavenna by pope Sixtus lit, who knew all his merit.
He laborcd to reform sereral abnscs which had been
introduced into his diocese, and to extirpate the rem-
nants of pagan supcrstition. In A.D. 448 St. Germain
d*Auxerre having come to Ravenna, Peter received him
with marks of the most profound reneration. Shortly
afterwards the heresiarch Eutyches wrote to him córo-
plaining of the condcmnation passed on him by Flavi-
anus of ConstaiUinople, and Peter rcplied to him in
PETER
30
PETER
June, 449, cxpre9Słng his gricf to see that thc disputes
upon the mystery of the incarnatioii were not cikTciI.
He iHed Dcc. 2, 450. His zcal for the instniction of liis
flock is shown bv one hundred and 8eTentv-six Sermo-
neSf collected in 708 by Fclix, archbishop of RaYenna,
under the title, Divi Petri Chrysologi archiepUcopi Ra-
rermatist riri eruditiuimi atque sanciissimif insiffne et
perrełttstum opus Uomiliarum nunc prinium in lucern
editum (Par. 1544, 12mo), which have frequently been
reprinted. They appear in the serentb yolume of the
Lyons edition of the BiUiotheca Patrum (1677, foL) : —
Kpisłola Petri Rarennałis Episcopi ad Eułychem Alba-
tenu This letter was published by Gerard Yossius in
the original Greek, with a Latin yersion^at the end of
the works of Gregory Thaumaturgiis (3Iayence, 1604,
4to). It is reprinted in the ConciHa (vol. iv, col. 36, ed.
Labbe ; vol. ii, coL 21, ed. Hardouin). See Smith, Diet,
of Gr, and Rnm, Biog, and MythoL iii, 222 ; Hoefer,
Nouv, Bi9g, Generale, x], 138.
Peter Collivacinus (also called Morra), an ecclesi-
astical character of the 13th century, flourished as teach-
er of canonical law at Bologna ; was then secretary to
Innocent III, by whose order he collected the decretals
of that pope duriug the iirst eleven years of his reign,
and published them in 1210 by the help of the so-called
Compilaiio Romana of Bernhard of G>mpostella. This
coUection was approred by the University of Bologna,
and rcccired the name Compilatio tertio, (The so-
called Compilatio aecunda is younger, but contaius older
materiał. See Richter, Kirchenrechf, § 74.) Later, Pe-
ter was cardinal legate, and as such laborcd to restore
order to the Church of South France, in his day so
greatly broken up by the wara of the Albigenses (q. v.).
Peter the Deaoon (1) floarished near the begin-
ning of the 6th century. In the controrersy excited
by the monks whom ecciesiastical writers cali Scytka^j
who came from the diocese of Torni, on the south bank
of the Danube, Peter took a prominent part. Ue had
accompanied the delcgates sent to Romę by the monks,
and whilc in the Etemal City united \vith his colleagues
in addrcssing to Fulgentius, and the other African bish-
ops who were then in exile in Sardinia, a work entitled
I)e Incamatione et Gratia Domini nostri Jesu Christi
Liber, To this Fulgentiiis and his companions replied
in another trcatise on the same subject The work of
Peter, which is in Latin, was published in the Monu-
menta SS. Patrum Orthodoxographa of Grynsus (Basie,
1569), and has been reprinted in rarious editions of
the Bibliotheca Pati-um, It is in the ninth roluroe of
the Lyons edition of Galland (Ven. 1776. fol.). — Smith,
Diet, of Gr, and Rom, Biog. and Afythol, iii, 223.
Peter thk Deaoon (2), a leamed Benediotine of
Montc-Cassino, of a Roman patrician family, was bom
about the close of the llth century, in the reign of
Alcxius I Coronenus. In the Jus Gneco-Romanum of
Leunclavius (lib. vi, 395-397) are given Iłtferrogationes
quas solfit reverendi8simus Chart ulurius, Dominus Pe-
trus, idemgue Diaconua Majoris Ecclesia (sc of St, So-
phia at ConsUntinople), A.M. 6600 =A.D. 1092. We
Icam from this title whcn the aut hor live;I, and that he
held the oflices describe<l. He seems to have been ad-
mittcd iuto the Bcnedictine Order at the very early age
of fiftccn. In a controYersy of his convent with pope
Innocent II, he defendcd the roonastic intercsts to great
advantage before the cmperor Lothaire in 1 138, while he
was in South Italy. So well pleascd was the empentr
with Peter that he was madc chartularius and chaplain
of the Roman realm. Later he was intrusted by pope
A]exander with the management of the convent of
Monte-Cassino, whcre he died after the middle of the
12th century. Thc following of his wrirings are in-
8tructive for the contemporaneous histor}' of the Church.
De rita et obi/u Justorum Canobii Casinensit: — lAb.
illustrium rirontm Cańnensis A rchisierii : — Lib. de
locis sanctia: — and De Norissimis temponbus. Thcre
arCi or were, eztaut in MS. in thc king*s Ubrary at
Paris, Petrus Diaconus tt Philosopkus de Cydo et In-
dictione, and Petri Diaconi et Philosophi Tractatus de
Sole, Luna, et Sułeribus (Codd. CMXXIX, No. 7, and
MMMLXXX>'^, but whether this Petrus Diaconua Is
the canonist is not elear. — Smith, Diet, ofGr, and łfom.
Biog, and Afyłhol, iii, 223; Putthast, BibL Med, .fSri,
p. 490 ; Fabricius, Lib. Greeca, xi, 334 są. ; Cave, I/isf,
IMt, ii, 161.
Peter the Dominican. See Peter Marttr.
Peter (^Pierre) of Dresdek, a German refurmcr,
was bom at Dresden in the latter part of the 14th cen-
tury. Driyen from that city for having spread the doc-
trines of the Yaudois, Pierre sought refuge in Praguo,
where, in order to subsist, be opened a smali school for
children. Some time after he attracted to himself (»ne
of his friends called Jacobel, with whom he publisheii
his opiuions. Pierre inveighed especially against the
communion in one kind. "To his influence,** says (lil-
lett, "is to be attributed in large measure the origiii of
that discussion in respect to the communion of the cup
which almost revolutionized Bohemia, and brought
down upon it the energies of cmsading Christendom.**
He was evidently a man of superior talent, and one
who possessed great power over the minds of otbcrs.
At Prague, among tho thousanda congregated at iis
university, he had large opport unity for insinuating his
{)eculiar yiews. The very fact that he was instrumen-
tal in shaping the enlarged views of Jacobel suffices to
rescue his name and memory frum oblirion. Ile after-
wards united with the Hussites against the primacy of
the pope, %nd propagated their tdeas upon the naturo of
the Church. To.establish his doctrines he wrote serenl
works nuw completely forgotten. He died at Prague in
1440. See Eneas Sylvius, Bohem, eh. 5 ; Bonflnius, Iłisf.
Boh, ; Mor^ri, Diet, łJist, ; Jócher, A lig, Gelehrten-f^T, ;
Gillett, Buss and the Hussites, i, 38, 483, 519. (J. H. W,)
Peter of Edessa, a Syrian by birth, and a presby-
ter of the Church at Edessa, and an cminent preacher,
wrote Tractatus rariarum Causarum, treatises on rari-
ous subjects, and composed Psalms in metre like thoee
of Ephrem the Syrian. Trithemius ascribea to him
Commentarii in Psalmos, and says that he wrote in
Syriac. Ali his works have parished. — Smith, Diet. of
Gr, and Rom, Biog, and Mythoł, iii, 224.
Peter {St,) Exorci8ta and MARCELLINUS (It.
SS. Piętro e Afaroełlino), two Romish saints always rcp-
resented together, flourished during the last persecutions
under Diocletian, about the opening of the 4th century-.
Their religious convictions, openly avowed, brought
them to jail, and it so happeneid that even there they
were sorely tried. Their jailer, Artemius, had a daugh-
ter, Paulina, who was sick. Peter promiacd to restore
her (o health if Artemius would believe in God. Then
the jailer ridiculed him, saying, " If I put thee into the
deepest dungcon, and load thee with heavier chains, will
thy God then deliver thee ?". To this Peter replied t hat
it mattered little to God whether he believed or not., but
that Christ might be glorified he desired that it should
be done. And it was so; and in the night Peter and
Marcellinus, dressed in shiuing whitc garments. came to
^Vrteniius in his own chamber. Then he believed, and
was baprixed with all his family, and three hundred
others. AYhen they were to die, it was ordercd that the
executioner should take them to a forest three miles
from Romę, in order that the Christiana should not
know of their burial-place. So when they were come
to a solitary place, and the exccutioner "pointed it out
as the spot where they were to die, they themselves
cleared a space and dug their grave, and died encour-
aging each other. In the paintings of the churehes
they are represented in priestly haliits bearing palms.
They are commemoratcd by the Romish Church on
June 2.
Peter Fl'lix> (also called Cnapheus. i. c, the Fuller),
a patriarch of Antioch, was bora near the commeuce-
PETER
31
PETER
mcnt c^ the 5th centtiiy. He was abbot of a monasŁery
ac or DMT CoDstantinople, but yarioos accuaations (in-
duding hereąr) being madę against him, be fled to Au-
tiocb, accompanying Zeno, son-in-Iaw of thc emperor
Leo I, vho was seat thitber. Peter appean to have
beki thc doctnoe of the Monopbysites, the controrersy
oodoeniing which was at that time agttating tbe enttre
Ełstern Cburcb. On bis aiTi%'al at Antiocb, the patii-
anrhate of which city was beld by Martyńus, a support-
er of the Council of Chalcedon, be detennined to attempt
tbe usurpation of that oflSce, engaging Zeno and a num-
ber of those wbo favored the Monopbysite doctrine iu
the enterpriae. (jieat tomult and confusion ensued, one
eatise of whicb was that Peter added to the sacred hymn
colled the TriMogion the words ^ wbo wast cnicified for
Bi"— which OMistitated one of tbe tests of the Monopby-
sites— aod anathematized all wbo dtd not sanction the
alteratioo. Martyrius, unable to maintain order, went
to Constantinople, wbere be was kindly received by
Leo I, thn>ogh whose influence be boped to be able, on
bu retora to Antioch, to qaell tbe disturbance. Failing
Id this, and diagnated with his failure, be abdicated tbe
pairiarchate, whicb was immediately aasumed by Peter.
Leo. however, at the instigation of Gennadiua, patri-
ftrch of Constantinople, promptly expelled the intruder,
in whose place Julian waa elected, with generał ap-
proTiL Peter was banisbed to Upper Egypt, but, oon-
tńriog to eecape from bis exile, be retumed to Con-
BUntiuopIe and obtained refuge in a monastery, wbere
be remained antil the revolt of Basiliscus against Zeno,
hańng boond bimself by oath to abstain from exciting
fortber iioubles. Tbe revolt succeeding, and Zeno being
driven from Constantinople, Basiliscus exerted bimself
to gain the Honopbysitcś, and isaued an encyclical let-
ter to the Tarious prelates of the Cburcb, anatbematiz-
ing the decrees of tbe Synod of Chalcedon. Peter gave
fonsal assent to this letter, and was immediately re-
stored to tbe patriarchate of Antiocb (A.D. 476). Jul-
ian 8oon after died of grief, and Peter, resuming au-
tbority, restored the obnoxiou8 clause " wbo wast cru-
ńfied for ns ;** and by repeating bis anathemas excited
fresh lomolta, which resulted in plunder and murder.
Zeno, bowerer, reoovering the imperial power, a synod
vu anembled and Peter was deposed, chiefly through
the agencT of one of bis own partisans, John Codonatus,
wbooi be bad madę a bisbop. He was banisbed to
Fityusfrom whence be eacaped, and, going to £ucba!ta,
obtaiDe<l refuge in the cburcb of St. Theodore. After
a period of nine years, during whicb time numerous
changes bad been madę in tbe patriarchate, tbe Mon-
oph}-ńte8t agi^in in tbe ascendant, persuaded Zeno to
cciosent to the restoration of Peter upon bis signing tbe
emperor^s " Henoticon,"* or decree for tbe unity of the
Cburcb. This erent is placed by Theophanes in A.D.
4K). The Western Cburcb, which bad maintained its
allegiance to tbe Council of Chalcedon, assembled in
cmincil at Romę, and hurled its anathemas at Peter, but
to no parpoee. Prot«cted by Zeno and the strength of
liH party, he retained the patriarchate during the re-
mainder of bis life. Theophanes cbarges him with
rarioos o flenccs against eoclesiastical nile, and with
many acts of oppieasion after his restoration ; M-hich
cbar;;cs are, unfurtunately, corn>borated by tbe previ-
n:i4 chanuner of tbe man. One of the latest manifesta-
ńoiu of his ambitiun waa the attempt to add tbe island
^ <yprus to his patriarchate. He was succeeded by
l^alUdtitf), a preabyter of Selencia. His death is vari-
(wtly auted to bar e occurred in A.D. 488, 490, 491 . Sec
^ith, Dia, of Gr, and Rom, Biog, and AfythoL iii, 224.
Peter TfiE Hrrmit, an ecclesiastical character of
tbe I Uh oentory, is of %'ery little significance except as
tbe monks of the Cburcb of Roroe bav'e gi%'en him im-
portaoce by credtting bim with tbe movemcnt of the
Chri^ian Cborrb against tbe Saracens, known as the
Fir«t Cnisade, for which the credit is by most compe-
tent critics awarded to pope Urban It. Von Sybel, in
tiis (Jt^ekickU dts ertten KrtuzzMges (Dusseldorf, 1841),
examines tbe bistory of tbe first cmsaders, and in eon-
seąuence of a most searching review of all th«: records
pronounces Peter of Amiens an apocr}'pbal character,
and his reputed efforts for the first crusadc tbe inven-
tion of Greek legendaries of tbe 12tb cen tury. £ven
William of Tyre, wbo is tbe principal source of the bis-
tory of tbe Crusades of all tbe Middle-Age historians,
knows (in his Belli scuri historia about 1188) of Peter
of Amiens only that he b a persona contemptibtlis,\fhoae
fate was that of tbe otber crusaders. Tbe Jesuit CEl-
treman bas madę tbe life of Peter of Amiens the subject
of a sacred romance, whicb is often mistaken for bistory.
Tbe wbole scheme is intcnded to wrest thc honor of tbe
first Crusade from the papacy and to gire it to the
monks.
According to these que8tionable sources, Peter the
Hermit was a native of Amiens, wbere be was bom
about the middle of the 1-ltb century. He was edu-
cated first at Paris, and afterwards in Italy, and then
became a soldier. After senring in Flanders without
much distinction, he retired from tbe arroy, married,
and bad several cbildren ; but on the death of bis wife
he, became religious, and exbausted, without satisfying
the crarings of hb religious zeal, all tbe ordinary excite-
ments — the studies, the austerities and mortifications,
the fasts and prayers — of a devout life. Still yeaming
for morę powerful emotions, be retired into tbe solitude
of tbe Btrictest and seyerest doister. Not eren content
with this life of a recluse, be uUimately became a ber-
miL But even this failed to satisfy him, and he would
not rest conteuted with bimself until he bad projectcd
a pilgrimage to tbe Holy Land. For this be set out
about 1093. On bis visit to tbe £ast be saw with a
bleeding beart that the Holy Sepulchre was in tbe
bands of the infidel, and bebeld tbe oppressed condition
of tbe Christian residents or pilgrims under tbe Moslem
rule : ** bis blood turned to fire," and tbe hermit madę his
vow that with the help of God these tbings sbould
cease. In an inter\'iew with tbe patriarch Simeon he de-
clared that the natires of tbe West should take up arms
in the Christian cause. On hts return to the West he
spoke so earaestly on the subject tu pope Urban H that
tbe pontiff warmiy adopted his yicws, and, howerer
selfisb may bave bcen tbe promptings of bis zeal in tbe
cause — be fureseeing probably that, wbatever might be
the result to the warriors of the cross, his own power
would thenceforth rest on morę solid fouudations —
Urban eagerly bestowed his blessing on tbe fcnrent
entbusiast, and commissioncd him to preach through-
out tbe West an armed oonfederation of Cbristiaos for
tbe deliverance of the Holy City. Mean in figurę
and diminutive in stature, and gifted only with an el-
oquence that was as rude aa it was ready, his deficien-
cies were morę than madę up by tbe eamestness which
gave even to the glancc of his eye a force morc pow-
erful than speech. His entbusiasm lent him a power
whicb no external advantages of form could harc com-
manded. He was fiUed with a fire which would not
stay, and thc borrors which were buriit in upon his soul
were those M'bich would most surely stir the conscience
and rouse tbe wratb of his bearers. His dery appeals
carried crcrything beforc them. " He travcrscd Italy,"
writes the hiatofian of I^tin Cbristianity, " crossed the
Alps, from province to province, from city to city. He
rode on a mule, with a crucifix in his hand, his bead
and fcct barć: bis dress was a long robę, girt with a
cord, and a bermifs cloak of the coarsest stuff. He
preached in the pulpits, on the roads, in the market-
places. His eloquence was that which stirs the hcart
of the people, for it came from his own — brief, figura-
tive, fuli of bold apoetrophes ; it was miiigled with his
own tears, with his own groans; he beat his breast : the
contagion spread throughout bis audience. His preach-
ing appealed to ever}' passion — to ralor and sharoe, to
indignation and pity, to the pride of the warrior, to the
com passion of the man, the religion of the Christian, to
the lovc of the brcthren, to tbe batrcd of the unbclicrcr
PETER O
■ggravateil by hia iiuulcing lyranny, lo reTerann for
thc Kcdeemer and the Minu, lo Lhe ileaire of expijting
lin, lo the Lope or elernil life." The resulra an ircll
knewn as smang thoie morał nian-eli of «ilhii«asm
of whieh hislory prewnU ocauional eismples. Ali
France cspecially wu slirred rrom iu \txy deplIiBj
it the ti
:indlefl t.
U held st den
h Urb
imself n-
prewnt, and in nbich bu Felebraled harangi
but Ibe aignal for the outpouring, throogh all Western
Christciidom, of tbe unie chii-slrom emotions by wbich
France had lieen borne away unJer the rude eloquence
of the liennit. To undenitand thii lucceM, we miu
take inW accounC the paverty of the munea, ind thi
alluring prospect of a rc«idcnce in Eutem landa, thi
■s of wbicb w
ji głowi
■poatle of che boly wir. Tbouunda of c
■Inaya been reedy to foUcnr Che princes in thcir
ing espeditiona or political wan, and how mu
in a war which enlialed the highest »ympatbiet
™ bj- tl
a had
a bcbalf
«ived tt
miniatera of religion, ind wu reganled u the will of
Godl Fur the detaili ofthe expedi[ion
to the aniele Cri:saiiki(, oar sole presenl
with the peiBouiJ hislory of Peter. Of tbe enormoua
but undisciplined irniy which aaacmbled from all parta
of Euic^, one portion waa committed (o his conduet ;
theotber being under the command ofs fur morc skilful
leader, Walter (q. v.] tbe Fennilesa. Peter, moi
KDollcn
and his
Tude sandała, pisced bimself at tbe head of bi
On the raarch through llungar)- ibey becanie involved
in hostilitieswilhthe Hungariana, and luffereda screie
defeat aC Semlin, whence they proceeded with much dif-
Aculty to Conatantinoplc. Tbere the emperar Alenius,
filletl with dismay atthe want afdiscipUne which tbey
exhibited, was but t«o happy to give them sopplies for
the anny of the sulian Soliman, from whom they sof-
fered a terrible defeat. Peter accompanied lhe subae-
qiient expcdiIion undcr Godfrey; but wom out by the
delaya and diHiculIies nf the siege of Antioch, he was
about (o witbdraw from the eipedilion, and waa only
retaioed in it by lhe iniłuence ofthe other leadera, who
foresaw che worst reaulu from his depaiture. Accord-
ingly he had ■ sboie, altbough nol Diarked by any aig-
nal diacinction,in the aiegeandcaptnreof che Holy City
in 1099, and the closing incidentofhis biatoiyaa a cru-
■ader was ui address to the yictorions army delivered
on the tlount of Olives. He retamed lo Europę, and
founded a monastery ac Hiir, in thc diocese of Liege,
where be died, July 7, 1116. ' Tbe morcment which had
been inaugurated cantinued to agitate Europę for nearlr
t*o cenluiies, and iu generał ctfect upon tbe march of
civilizalion may well be pronounced incalculable. See
Hilman, Hitl. a/ IaiI. CkritUaitily, iv, 3S Bq. ; Cax, Tkt
Cnuada (N. Y. 1874, Iftmo), p. 2G h). ; <iibbon, Dedim
and Fali ofike Roman Empirt, cb. x][xiii.
Peter tuk Loubard, See Lombard, Pcter.
Peter {Piem) op Haillezais, a French chronicler
of tbe lich cencury, wta, according to Etom Rivel, ■ man
ortalcnt,af merit,and Icaming. He embraced lhe mo-
naadc nile in the early pan of Che 1 1 th century, ind
Hourished under <:uderanne, ahb^ of Maillezais, in Bas-
Pnitou. We hava ui intereMing article of his upon the
hiscory of his time, panicularly tbal of the counta de
Poitiers and the abbe of Mailleuia. Father Labbć
has comprised it (Mallraenut Chrmaam) in the monu-
menta chat he collecCed for tbe histoty of Aquitaine.
Wbat concema the Iraiuloliim nf Saint Rhfnntr has
been detnched from it and piiblislied aeain bv Habilinn
and che BolUndists. See Hiil. IM. dt la fiancr, v, Gl>9.
— liocfcr, A'nur. Hioff. Giniralt, xl, IB7.
I PETER
of the Dominican order, ii gieacłr bcloTed tn tbe Rnm-
Uh fold, and in hia own order raiika neit to lhe foiind-
er hinuelf. He was bom at Yeroiia abont 1305. His
pircnCs were CatbarisCs, but Peter early bccame onho-
dox in seniiment, and nugbt his educition at the
concentiiil scbools of the Chureh. At the age oT
lirteen he united wilh the order by the persuasion of
Dominie. He soon became a public character by reason
of his piety and oracurical power. He Cumcd againnt
bis own secl,ind so sererely petaeculed the CaCharisis
ihal be waa univers«lly r^arded as intoleranC. Wben
the Inqiiiiiition needed an uncompromiaing bead, Peter
was madę its generał by approTil of pope Honoriua III.
His high-handcd diapińal of tbe lives and property of
people under htm madę bim a generał object of hatred.
Th-o Yeronian noblemen włiom he had accuwd, and
whose property was confiscated, resolved to be rei-enged
on bim. They hired asaassins, who wacched Chat they
might ktU bim in a fomc where they bnew he would
pass unaccompanied save by a ungle mank. Wben he
ippeared one of lhe mnrderera BCruck him down with
sn axe. Tbey then punued and kilłed fais attendant.
Whcn they relumed to Peter be was recifing tbe Ap<i»-
tłes' Creed, or, as othen say, was writing it on the
ground with his hlood, wben the assassini mmplcled
Iheir crueł work. This evenl ocourred on April 28, A.D.
1253. In the rarioos paintinga af Ihis saint he is rep-
resented in lhe habit of hia order, and beara the erucilix
and palm. Hia Toore peculisr altribote ia either the
■xe stnck in his head or a gash from which the blood
Ifickles. Kra Bartolomeo painted the head of his be-
loved Jerume Saronarola aa SL Peter Martyr. He ia
alsoknownasSf./Wjro/lrromi. (J.H.W.)
Jerome SłTonarola
Peter (.St.) Mahtvr (3), a Romiab ailnt of the
Ib centuiy, waa bom at Arona in 1465, and was prab-
abły educałed at thc nniveisiCy in Salamanca, where he
ight for many years wilh great anccesa. He had a
t in ttie wars againiC the Hoors, and in 1500 tonk
holy orderh As prioF oI Granada he waa freqnciiily
empłoyed in Tery important miasiona by quepn Isal>ełla
the Cathołic. Ilia trarcła in dijdomatic interetts he
deacribed in Dt bgattone Babj/lomca. He died in 1525.
"is Epiilota dt rtbut Hitpaaicit waa published at Al-
la in 1530, and aC AmaleRlam in tG70.
Peter, Mal'iiitil'h. See Petek the TKNEnADLE.
Peter Mo^ilas. See Mooiłas.
Peter {Si.) M.ir
n(1),,
Roman Cathulic ai
PETER
33
PETER
him al» th€ fomame of the Stammerer. He was or-
daiu€d descon by Dioscorus, successor of Cyril, who held
tbe patriarchate for seTen ycais (A-D. 444-451). Teter
w» the wady participator in the yiolencca of Dioscorus,
md eainesdy embraced hia cause whcn he was deposed
b? the OhuicU of Chalcedon, withdrawing from the
cńninunioD of the snccessor of Dioscorus, Proterius, who
sspported the cause of the council, and uniting in the
oppoótion raiaed by Tiroothy iElurus and others. Peter
wM ccmseąuently sentenced, apparently by Proterius, to
ecpoótioH aod cxconnrounication. Whether he was
banbhed, as well as Timothy jElunis, is not elear, but
be ttetDS to havc accompanied Timothy to Aiexandria,
a&i to havc been his chief sapporter when, afler the
deitb of the emperor Marcian, he retumed, and either
mardcred Proterius or cxcited the tumults that led to
bP death, A,D. 457. Timothy .^ums was iramediately
niscd to the patriarchate by his partisansjbut was short-
k ifter banished by the emperor Leo I, the Thracian,
«)m had succeeded Bf arcian. Peter also was obliged to
tte. Aoother Timothy, sumamed Salofaciolus, a sup-
pirier of the Couocil of Chalcedon, was appointed to
acceed Proterius in the patriarchate. When, in the fol-
kuring reign of Zeno, or rather during the short usurpa-
tit* of Basiliacus, Timothy jElurus was recalled from
esile (A.D. 475), and was sent from Constantinople to
Aksaiulria to re-occupy that sec, he was Joined by Pe-
ter ind his party, and with their support drove out his
ftiopetitor Salofaciolus, who took refuge in a monastery
at Cawpus. On the downfall of Basiliscus and the res-
Ułation of Zeno, Timothy iElurus was allowed, through
the einperor'8 compaańoii for his great age, to retain his
Kł; bat when on his death (A.D. 477) the Monophysite
błshope of Egypt, without waiting for the emp€ror's di-
Rction»,elected PeUr (who had preyiously obtained the
n&k of arehdeacon) as his snccessor, the emperor's in-
dignation was so far aroused that he determined to put
the new prelate to death. His anger, however, some-
what abated, and Peter was allowed to live, but was de-
|ffiv€d of the patriarchate, to which Timothy Salofaci-
olos was icstoied. On the death of Salofaciolus, which
ocimned soon after, John of Tabenna, sumamed Talaia,
nas appointed to suoceed him ; but he was very shortly
depc«d by order of Zeno, on some account not clearly
•scfitatońl, and Peter Mongus was unexpectedly re-
calW from Eachaita in Pontus, whither he had been
laoisbed, and was (A.D. 482) restored to his see. His
Twioniion appears to have been part of the policy of
Zeno to unitę, if possible, all parties; a policy which
Peter, whosc age and mtsfortunes appear to hare abated
the fimeneas of his party spirit, was ready to adopt. He
coftwąaently snbscribed the Henoticon of the emperor,
nd readmitted the Proterian party to communion on
ibcir doing the same. John of Tabenna had meanwhile
fled to Romę, whcre the pope, Simplicius, who, with the
We*tem Churoh, steadily supported the Council of
Cbaladon, embraced his cause, and wrote to the emper-
or in his behalf. FeUx II or III, who succeeded Sim-
plicius (A.D. 483), was equally zealous on the same side.
Peier had some diiBculty in maintaining his position.
In order to iecover the favor of hb Monophysite friends,
«hi)m his sobserrience to Zeno*s policy had alienated,
W aoathematized the Council of Chalcedon ; and then,
to arert the displeasure of Acacius of Constantinople
md of the court, to whose temporizing course Łhis de-
Osire Ftep was adrerse, he denied that he had done so.
Evacrio9 bas presenred the letter he wrote to Acacius
00 ihis occasion, which is the only writing of Peter now
tjJant. By thŁs tergiversation hc preser\'ed his see,
ttd was eńabled to brave the rcpcated anathcroas of
th« Wertem Church. When, however, to recover the
ittachment of the Monophysites, he again anathema-
te«d the Council of Chalcedon, and Euphemius, the
KvW riecled patriarch of Constantinople, forsaking the
poliey of bis pndeceasors, took part with the Western
Choich against him, his difficulties became morę seri-
<^«> What Ksolt this oorobinatioo against him might
VI1L-C
have produced cannot now be knoivn ; death remored
him from the scenę of strife A.D. 490, shortly before
the death of Zeno. He was succeeded in the see of
Alezandria by another Monophysite, Athanasius II.
See Cave, llisł. LUł. i, 456; Fabricius, BihL GrcBcOt xi,
336 ; Le Quien, Oriens ChrisłianuSf vol. ii, coL 416, etc. ;
Tillemont, 3f^motrf* EccUńagtiqiies,xo\. xvi. — Smith,
Diet. of Gr, and Rom, Biog, and Mythol iii, 225.
Peter {Pitrre), archbishop OP Narbonne, the son
of Ameli, was bom in the last half of the 12th century.
He was at first clerk of Saint^Nazaire of Beziers ; canon,
Chamberlain, grand arehdeacon of Narbonne; then clect-
ed archbishop in the month of March, 1226. The ex-
termination of the Albigenses having ended the war so
long prosecuted against these people, Petrr used all his
efforts to pacify his diocese. But ob8er\'ing the method
practiccd in his timc, he seized, according to that cus-
tom, all the goods which had belonged to the heretics,
madę all the inhabitants of Narbonne take oath to
massacre any one who should dare in the futurę to
separate himself from the Koman orthodoxy, and in or-
der to watch over, discoTcr, and point out all the dis-
senters, introduced in 1281 into the city of Narbonne
the St, Dominican friara. But the Albigenses were
conquered, not subducd. An occasion haying offercd
in 1234, the inhabitants rosę in insurrection, and drove
out their archbishop. Yainly he excomrounicated them.
In order to return to his metropolis, afler about a year's
exile, Peter was obliged to descend to conditions. The
insurgents imposed upon him, among others, that of ex-
pelling from their city the Brother Preachers, and un-
der his eyes, for greater safety, they invaded the conrent
of these "brothers and put Łbem (to flight. Peter dared
not recall them. Yet he was a prelate energetic in his
designs, courageous in his conduct, who had the tem-
perament of a roan of arms, and who oftener faced perils
than tumed his back upon them. In 1238 he madę a
campaign against the Moors with Jayroe I, king of Ara-
gon, and, according to the Chromgue of Albćric, he took
an active part in the battlcs fought under the walls of
Yalence. The following year he raised other troops,
and at their head went to drive from Carcassonne Ray-
mond de Tancarvel and some other lords in revolt
against the king of France. He was less furtunate in
his attempt against Aimeric ; the latter drove him from
Narbonne in 1242. FinaUy, in 1243, we see the arch-
bishop Peter making the siege of the cbateau of Mont-
segur, and Uking it from the heretics. This was the
last exploit of this belligerent preUte. He died at Nar-
bonne May 20, 1 245. See Gallia CkrittianOt vol. vi, col.
65; flUł. Litu de la France^ xviii, 331 ; Yaissette, Hist,
du LanguedoCf iii, 852 ; Alberic, Chronicon, ad ann. 1239 ;
Giilielmus de Podio, Hist. bellor. adcersus A Ibigenaet, c
39, 40 sq.— Hoefer, Now. Biog. GineraU^ xl, 195.
Peter of Nioomedia, an Eastem ecdesiastic, was
bom in the early part of the 7th century. He was one
of the prelates who, with certain deacons and monks, had
to elear themselves in the third Constantinopolitan, or
8ixth (Bcumcnical, council (A.D.680), from the suspicion
of holding the Monothelite heresy, by oath and solemn
written confessions of their belief in the orthodox doc-
trine of two wills in Christ. The confessions were of
considerable length, and all exactly alikc, and are given
in the original Greek with a considerable hiatus; but
completely in a Latin yersion in t\\eActa Concilii CPoli-
tani UI^ Actio x; or, according to one of the Latin ver-
sions of the A eta given by Hardouin, in A ctio ix. See
Concilia, vol. vi, coL 784, 842, ed. Labbe ; vol. iii, col.
1202, 1248, 1537, 1561, ed. Hardouin; Cave, Ilist. Lift. ad
ann. 680, i, 595.— Smith, IHct, ofGr. and Rom. Biog. and
Mythol. iii 226.
Peter {St.) Nolasco (Sp. San Pedro Nolasco), a
Romish saint, noted as the founder of " the Order of .
Our Lady of Mercy," flourished in the first half of the
13th century. He was the son of a noble of Languedoc,
and became a conyert of St. John dc Matha. He was
PETER a
much cuUJTiited, anil grcałly oleemed for his leaming
Biid applicitiun, uid wu mule > tiilor af the young
king JamcB of ArEgon. Au tbe needi of the cruirndera
Cłlled for help frota v«rioii» direclion*, Peter broiight
■bouC the Tumiation oT the order aboTC relerred U>. At
flntiCwu nii1iUiy,iiul consistetl of kniglitł ind genłle-
roen. The king himself wu pliced st ihc hesil, and his
■rmi Mrved u a dcYice or bidge. Soon, however, the
order becAme very popular, and esŁended itself on a]l
udea. Petei Kolaaco wu the luperipr, and spent his
lirę in eipcditions U> the provinces under the Moon,
from which he brought back hundreda of ledeemed
caplivea. In time tbe order changed ita chancler from
thal of a militarf to Lbat afa reli^iu inatitutjon, and
■a Buch escrted ■ wide infloenee. Peter hioiself, uhen
he waa old, wai takcu frotn bia cel) bj angels, ao the
legend gnea, and borne to and from Ihe altar, wbere he
roceived tbe boly EucbiriaL In the paintinga of the
saints he ia repreaented as old, with a wbite habit, and
the ihield of king Jamea on hia breaat. His death is
aaid to have (KcunedJan. Id, 1259. (J.II.W.)
ufTer of bi
ed; but
■bdicB
The last uffer
nly WM >i
e Ihe ^
it. Peter Nolasco (bj Claods de Hellau}.
Fatgi TliK P*TRiciAS (1) waa a Biitantinc bisto-
rian oftbe 6tb cenlury, He was bom at Tberaalonica,
in the prai-inee ot Macedonia, theu included in the pre-
teoture of IU}Ticnm. He aeltled at Conatantinople,
where he acąnired distioction as ■ rhetor or adrocate,
■ profeaaioD for which his euitivated mind, agreeable
addrras, and natura) powera of penuaaion were admira-
bly adapted. Theae ąualificaliona poinled him out to
Ihe diacemmentorihe empenii Jusliiiian I aa suited for
diplomatic life, and he waa lent by him (A.D. 534) an
ambaiiaador to Amalaauntba, regent oftbe kingdnm of
the Osimgotha, Before arriving in luly Peter leamed
the death of tbe yoong king Athalaric, Ihe marriage o(
Amalaninlha aiid Thcodolua, one of tbe principal cbiefi
of the Ojlrngoihs, their eultation to the throne of
Italy, and of theii lubseąuent difsenaions and the im-
pri»naMnt of Amalasuntha. I>eter Ihen received in~
Mractions (o rindicata the oiuse of the impriaoned
queen; but his arriral at Ravenna waa ipeedily fol-
lowrd by Ihe murder of Amalaauntba. Procopius
thais« Peter wiih inatigating Theodotus to commit
the murder, being aecretly commiaaioned to do *> by the
Jcakwiy of Theodora, Juslinians wife, who held out to
bim as an inducenient to comply with her deaiie ihe
bope of gmt adTancemenL \t'hether he wu an
•betlM' t« the dime or not. Feler, in confaimity lo
emperoT to Theodotus, Ihe latler was not disposei
lo accept ii. The king oftbe Oatrogotha eveii riolaie
Ihe law of nations by itnprisoning the Byzantine an
basaadoTs. Peter and bis colleague remainecl in cap
tirily umil Belisarius, by delaining aome Oatrogolhi
ambaasadorB, compelled Yitiges, who had aiicceede
Theodotus, to releaae him about Ihe end of A.D. 53)
On hia return Peter receired, aaProcopiui iiitinłBte»,b
Theodora's interest, and as a reward for hia participi
tion in procuring Ainalasun(ha's death, Ibe high ap
pointment of raagiiltr offidonim, but iucurred genen
odium by the part he had acted. He enerciaed his au
tboiity with the most unbridled rapaeity; for aJtbougI
he was, according lo Procopius, nalurally of ■ mild lem
per, and by no means inaolent, be waaat the Nune lim
the most diahonest of all maakind, eAit
riuroroc U oł'3/Min'iiii' ikwutTiai: Ser
eial yean anerwardi (about A.D. óaO
Peter, who relained hia post of magitlA
o^ciorum, and had in addilioii ■cqułie4
the digniiy of patrician, wa« aentby Jus
tinian to negotiale a peace with Cbnsnii^
I, king of Penńa. Sonie negotialimu
with pope YigiliuB (&52), and ■ new mit
non into Peraia (562), are the laat erenci
known ot the career of Peter the Palri'
cian. He died soon afierhia return fruń
Peraia, leaving one >an, who >ucce«di>l
him in his Office of migiMer offinomiii.
According to Suidaa, Peter compowd tał
worka, lliilaria and De Statn Bripubli-
ca. The Uiiloria began with AugustU!,
ar rather wilh the secood triuiDvtrale,
and coniinued lo ■ perioil a iittle lato
than Ihe time of ConaUntine the Gieat.
Conaiderable ponioni of it are preserted
111 Ihe Ercfrpta de I^^fgaiwnitHu, madę bj
order of the emperor Conatanline INjt-
phyrogenitut. The IKaliae Dr Sialu Rt-
ipublKa is losl. although Haj Ihinka ht
leeognises it in De Rtpubliai, from whicb
he bas deciphered and publlahed hni;
' paaaagea in his Scn/ttonon IWmiiH Auro
CoUtdio. Authcniic fragmenla ftom tbe
rfaHmu A ula Dgaailina of Constantine Porptayn^cni-
itus. Peter the Patrician haa giTen a niation of bit
negotialioni wilh Chosro^s, which ia quoled by Menan-
der. AU the lemaina of this historian are giien in tbe
Bonn ediijon of Ihe l>arpla da Ltgatiombat. Set
Fabriciua, fłUiofilrca Cnwo, Tl, 135 ; vii, 53S j Tiii.33:
Reiske, Prafatio, c ii, to the De Caremoaiit of Cun-
■lantine PorphTn^enitus; Niebnhr,i>i Huloricu gna-
ram Reliquia hoc YolamiM eon/aeMlia; in the Ezctij^a
de I-egal. ed. of Bonn ; Mai, De Frogatailit PoHiirit Pt-
Iri ilngiUri. in tbe Srripl. Yetemm A-oro CaUrr. ii. STl
tą.\ Amith, Diet. of dr. <udBoiii.Biog.fadilythuL\a,
226; Hoefer, Kuhc. Biog. Ginirate, xl, I8Ł
Fetei THK Patricia:! (!) waa ■ Greek aaint nho
lired early in the 9th cenlury. He had fought in ihc
batlle (A.D. 811) against [he Bolgarians in whieb ilic
emperor Xicephonis I was defeaied and slain. A life
nf Peter, laken from the Mmaa of the Ureeks, ia giren
in the original r.reek, with a Latin venuon, and a Ca-
moUanolui Pntnm by JoaDnes Piniua, in the Ada
SiBKtoram (July), i, 889, 290,
Fotar THK Pathicias (S\ a Greek, different Irom
the forer^ing. and belonging to a somewhat liler pe-
rioiL He inewnted to the emperor Leo VI SapiFiK.
who be^n to reiga AJ>. 8SG, a eopy of Theodurei'i
PETER
35
PETER
Cvrnlio GrmeaniM Ad/eetumum, to which he pTefixed
an Epiffr amm a, which is printed at length by Lam-
bedus iu hia Commeniaruu de BibUołh. CetsaracL,
Peter (_Pitrrt) op Poitiers, was a modern Latin
poet, who died after 1141. Ali ihat we learn of hin life
i» tbat, haviiig madę a profeasion of the nile of St
fienedict iu a monasteiy of Aquitainei he was chosen
by Peter Łbe Tenerable as secreCary, and accompanied
bimfintto Clugny,inlld4,thentoSpain inlHl. Hb
principal woHlb are poems in elegiac Terse, which, for
TOKt of the 12Łh centiny, lack neither fluency nor ele-
i;aiice. Yet Peter the Yenerable surpasees even the
limit of hyperbole when he compares these yerses with
\ht^e of Uorace and Yirgil. The poems of Peter of
Poitiers have bcen ooUected hy the editors of the BUh-
hutk. de CbntL We find in the same oollection, among
the lettera of Peter the Yenerablei three letters written
U> this abb^ by his aecretary. A fotirth letter from
Peter of Poitiers to Peter the Yenerable, pnblished by
Mait^ne in bis Ampligsima CoUetaio (ii, U), contains
thb curioos information, that Peter of Poitiers, being
in Spain, contribated some part to the translation of
tbe Koran demanded by the abbd of Clugny. See HUt,
Ikt. de la France, xii, 849.^Hoefer, Nout, Biog, Głne-
rate, xl, 187.
Peter Regulato CSL\ a medisral saint, appears
in the later Italian and Spanish paintings of the Fran-
óicans^ to wboee order he belonged. He is noted in
ccdesiattical annals for his ''sublime gift of prayer."
Ue died March 80, 1456.
Peter of Rkwoiub, also known as Pełnu CeUenns,
floarished in the fonrth qiiarter of the 12th century as
abbot of Sl Remigios, and allerwards as bishop of Char-
tres. He pubUshed his Opera- containing SermoneSf
Uher deptaulmsy Mo$€aci tabemacuU mjfstica et moraUs
erpatiiiOf De coMcieMtia, De ducipiina claustrali, Epis-
tolanm ŁAri iz (in BitL Max, Patr, xxiii, 636), Trać-
tatui de ducipiina daustrali (D'Achery, Spicil. i, 452),
EpittoŁaruM Ubri ix (SirmoncU Opera Karta, iii, 659).
Peter of Sebaste, an Eastem prelate, was bom at
C»«rea, in Cappadoda, before A.D. 849. He was the
Touogcet of the ten children of Basil and Emmelia, who
oambeted among their children those cminent fathers
of the Chinch, Basil the GreaŁ and Gregory of Nyssa.
Peler^s early education was conducted by his sister, St
Usoins, who, in the emphatic phrase of Gregory of
K>-iBa. "• was eyerything to him — father, teacher, at-
tf^ndant, and motber.** The quickne8S of the boy en-
sbled him readily to aoąaire anything to which hb at-
tention was directed ; but his education appears to have
been conducted on a rery narrow system, profane leam-
bg being disregarded. If, howeTer. his literary culture
vas thas narrowed, his morals were preserred pure ; and
if he fell Aort of his morę eminent brothers in rariety
of attaiomenta, he eąualled them in holiness of life.
The place of hia education appears to have been a nun-
Bery at Annest, or Annesa, on the rirer Iris, in Pontus,
etablisbed by his mother and sister; and with them, or
in the monaatery which his brother Basil had estab-
li^hed on the other side of the river, much of his life
vas paseed. In a season of scardty (A.D. 867, 868 ?),
mch was his benevolent exertion to proyide for the
<fe$tjtnte, that they flocked to him from all parts, and
jtave to the thinly peopled neighborhood in which he
Rśded the appearance of a popnions town. His moth-
crs death appears to have occorred about the tiroe of
BtatPs eleration to the bishopric of the Gappadocian
Cesarea, aboui A.D. 870; eoon after which, apparently,
Peter reoeiyed from BasU ordination to the ofBce of
pnubrter, probably of the Church of Onsarea ; for Basil
sppean to have employed hia brother as his oonfidential
agent in some afiairs. A passsge of Theodoret {H, E.
iv, 30) shows that he took an actire part in the stmggie
carried on dnring the reign of Yalens by the bishops of
the orthodox party against Arianism. It was probably
after the death both of Beail and Macrina, aboat the year
880, as Tillemont judges, that Peter was raised to the
bishopric of Sebaste (now Siwas),in the Lesser Armenia.
His eleration preceded the second generał council, that
of Constantinople, A.D. 380-881, in which he took part.
In what year he died is not known, but it was probably
after A.D. 891, and certainly before the death of his
brother, Gregory of Nyssa (who 8urvived till A.D. 894,
or later), for Gregory was present at Sebaste at the first
celebration of his brother^s memory, i. e. the annirersary
of his death, which oocurred in hot weather, and therc-
fore coold not have been in January or March, where
the martyrologies place it. The only extant writing of
Peter is a letter prefixed to the CorUra Euiumium Libri
of Gregory of Nyssa, and published with the works of
that father. It is entitled SancH Patris nastri Petri
Episcopi €dKUteni ad S, Gregorittm Nyttenam ntum
Epigtda, Peter does not appear to have been ambi-
tious of authorship, and probably felt the disqualification
arising from his restrict^ education. Some of the works
of his brother Gregory were, however, written at his de-
sire, such as the abore-mentioned treatises against Eu-
nomius and the ErpłicaUo Apotopetica in Hezaimeron.
The De Hominis Opifido is also addreseed to him by
Gregory, who, both in this treatise and in the Erplica-
tio in Hezaimeron, speaks of him in the highest terms.
See Greg. Nyssen. De Vita S. Macrina ; Basil, Mari-
timii Episcopit Epistoła^ cciii, ed. Bened.; TiUemont,
MetnoireSf ix, 572 ; Le Quien, Orient Christianug^ vol. i,
col. 424; Cave, HisL UiL ad ann. 870, i, 246.^Smith,
Diet, of Gr, and Rom, Biog, and MythoL iii, 227.
Peter {Pierre\prior ofSL John op Sens, was bom
in the latter part of the 1 Ith century. In 1 1 1 1 , Stephen,
proYost of the church of Sens, having resolred to restore
the ancient monastery of Saint-Jean, called to it some
regidar canons, and confided the goremment of this
house to onr Peter. The authors of the GaUia Chrit^
tiana gire the highest praise to the knowledge and pi-
ety of this pńor. He died after 1 144. We have seyeral
of his LeUers, published by Du Saussay in his AnnaUt
de rŹglite d'OrUanSj and by Severt, in his Chronigue
deś Archeveques de Lyon, Peter is, besides, considered
the author of seyeral letters of kings, princes, and bish-
ops, who had required, in delicate affairs, the aid of his
experienced pen. See GaUia Christ, xii, col. 195; Hitt.
LitL de la France, zii, 230.-'Hoefer, Nour, Biog, Ghti-
role, xl, 188.
Peter the Sicilian, an Italian prelate, was bom in
Sicily near the beginning of the 9th century. In order
to escape the persecution of the Saracens, who ruled in
Sicily, he went to Byzantium in 880, and there spent a
large part of his life. He gained the friendship of the
emperor Basil, and the princes Constantine and Leo, his
sons, who proyided him with ecclesiastical benefices.
He was sent by the emperor to Tabrica, in the district
or on the frontier of Melitene, near the Euphrates, to
negotiate an exchange of Christian prisoners, apparently
with the chiefs of the Paulicians, a purpose which, after
a residence of nine months, he effected. We have of his
works, Peiri Siculi, humiUimi A rgirorum Episcopi, FU"
mbris Oratio in B, Athanasium, Methones Epitcnpum,
U is giren in the Latin yersion of the Jesuit Franciscua
Blanditius, in the Acta Sanctorum of the BoUandists
(January), ii, 1125, etc : — Petri Skuli Historia de tana
et stoUda Mamchteorum Hteresi tanąikom A rchiepiscopo
Bulgarorum nuncupata, This account of the Paulicians
was translated into Latin, and published by MatthKus
Raderus (Ingoldstadt, 1604, 4to), and has been reprinted
iu yarious editions of the BibUotkeea Patrum,
There was another bishop of Argos of the name of
Peter, author of Eulogium Cosma et Damiana 88, An-
argyrorum in Asia s, Oratio in sanctos et ghriosot An-
argyros et Thaumaturgos Cosmum et Damianum, which
has neyer been printed. — Smith, Diet, of Gr, and Bom.
Bioff, and Myłhol, iii, 222 ; Hoefer, A*otiv. Biog, Głni^
role, xl, 188.
Peter thk Singer (Pierre le Chanteur'), a French
PETER
36
PETER-PENCE
theologUn, wm bon in Bennroiśi neir the b^pimiiig
of the 12tb oeottirjr. Tbe plaoe of his biith is strooglj
etmttoYtrttd, and eaUan anthois amttt that be wjks
bora m Fańs or Kheima. IŁ b piobftUe Łhat, edocsted
by tbe care of Heoiy of FoDoe, brotber of the king
LmuM Ic Jenne, and biahop of Beanraia in 1149, he f<d-
lowed bim to Kheima wben he was raised to that seat in
1162. Peter went aftcrwards to Pańs, wbere he taugbt
theology, and became grand chorister of the catbedral,
a dignity wbieb gained bim the soroame ander wbich
he was known (1184). Elected in 1191 bishopof Tour-
nayi he aaw his election broken for want of form, and
was in 1196 called to tbe episoopal seat of Pańs, bat
witbout being morę fortunate tbis time. Ue was sup-
pUnted by Eudes de SoUr. The pope cbarged him to
preach tbe cnisade in France ; but Peter, weakeiied by
disease, oonfided tbis care to Foulques, cure of Neuilly-
sur-Mame, bis disciple, and died in the garb of a monk
at LongiKmt, Sept. 22, 1197, wben be bad jost been
elected dean of Bheimik Of bis numerous writings a
single one bas been pubUsbed under the title of Yti-bum
abbreriatumf because it commences with these words
(Mons, 1639, 4to). See Ilist. Litł. xv, 283-303; Mal-
drac, Ńisł, deFAbb.de Longponi ; Dupin, A uteurs Ecdes.
du Treizieme SiecU. — łloefer, Nouv, Biog, Gin, xl, 192.
Peter the Stammerer. See Peter Monous.
Peter (50 of Tarentaise, a French prelate, was
born in 1 102 at Saint-Maurier de TEsile, dioceae of Yi-
enne. łle was one of the first monks of the abbey
founded in 1117 at BonneTaux by Gui de Bourgogne,
archbishop of Yienne. Tbe abbe Jean, his superior,
sent him in 1132 to found in Savoy the abbey of Tamie,
wbich he goveraed for ten years, at the eud of which
he was called, by the advice of St. Bernard, to the bish-
opric of Tarentaise, now Moutiers (1 142). Afler having
worked tbirteen years to repress grave disorders in tbis
diocese, Peter went in 1155 to oonceal himself in a mon-
astery of bis order in Germany, where he hoped to live
unknown ; but be was soon discovered, and constrained
to return to his Church. He employed himself fortu-
nately in extinguiflhing the war wbich bad arisen be-
twcen Hurobert III, oount of Savoy, and Alphonse Tail-
lefer, son of Alphonse Jourdain, count of Toulouse ; and,
although a yassal of the cmperor Frederick, he sustained
the part of pope Alexander III without quarrelling with
that prince. This pope broiight him to Italy, where he
acąuired great inHuence, and empluyed him to nego-
tiate peaco bctwcen the young Henry, crowncd king of
England, and king Henry his fathcr. Peter died May
8, 1174, at Bcllcvcaux, diocese of Bcsancon. The Church
Iłonors his mcmory May 8, Celestin III having canon-
Ized him in 1 191. Seo Fontenay, IIi»L de VEgli$e GaUic.
vol. ix ; Acta Sanctorum^ May ; Baillct, Vies dea ScńnU,
8 Mai ; I^nain, Uitt, de CUeaux^ ii, 83.— Hoefer, Nouv,
Biog. aetUraUj xl, 139.
Peter (Pierre) Tuuedode, a French chronicler, was
boni at Civray (Poitou) near tbe beginning of the llth
century. Liko so many other pricsts who engaged in
the flrat crusade, he departed in 1096 with Hugues dc
Lusignsn, lord of Civny ; his two brothers, Hervd and
Arnaud, cheyaliers (opiimi miiUes)^ took the cross at the
samo time with himself, and were both killed in the East.
Peter was prcsent at the siego of Nice, and folio wed
Bohcmond when the crusadcrs were dirided into threc
dtlTercnt bodles. Ho shared cqually the fatigues that
the Ituig siege of Antioch cost the Christians, and as-
sisted at the taking of Jerusalem. After that period
no morę mention is madę of him. He died at the close
of the yoar 1099. " The history of the first crusade
which ho has left," says Dom Kivet, " carrics with it
all the charactcristics of an suthentic, truć, and sincere
writing. He bad been prescnt at almost all that ho rc-
latoś, and scems to bavo written it upon the spot. . . .
Kaimond d'Agiles has mado use of it. There is found
so much conformity l)otwcen these two historians that
une can scarcely beliere that thev did not communi-
cate tbeir prodnelions io each odwr." Tbia namitive is
giren in a simple bat nide style ; it is divided into five
books (109&-1099}, and is entitkd Historia dt IJieroso-
Ufwatamo iimert; the most conect edition is that by Ihi-
chesne, in toL iv of the Historiau de France. See //t>/.
LitL de la Framee, vm, 629-^10. — Hoefer, Xoiiv. Bing,
Gememle, x], 187.
Peter the Yckerablb, alao called Manritius. a
medijeval character of notę, was boro in 1092 or 1094.
He was edncated at the Cisterdan abbey at Souci-
langea, and soon after the oompletion of his thenlogi-
cal training was madę |»ior of the conrent at Y^^Iay,
then at Domeine, and in 1122 abbot of Ougny. Pe>
tras Yenerabilis was more or less mixed with all the
important eodesiastical transactions of the 12th centur>\
He took in the schism of 1130 the side of pope Inno-
cent XI ; and especially played a great part in the dis>
cusńons between Bernard of CIairTaux and Abelard.
His works, written with more ease than talent, have not
yet been publisbed in a collected form. He died. at
Christmas, in 1157 (see BibL Patr. Detpont, voL xxii).
His pnblications are, Semumee (in Martynę et Durand.
Thesaur, Nor. 5, 1419): — Xucleus de sacrificio miMee
(Hittorpins, 1091) : — Libri ii adrertus nef ariom eedam
Saraeenorum (in Martyno et Durand, CoUectio, ix,
1120). His life was written by tbe monk Rudolph, his
disciple: Vita Pełri VenerahUi»^abbati$ CluniacetŁsis (ibid.
vi, 1187). See Hook, Eccles, Biog. viii, 59; Schriickh,
Kirchengetch, voL xxvii; Wilkins, Peter der JEArtkrir-
dige (Leipsic, 1857). (J. H. W.)
Peterffl, Charle?, a Hungarian Jesuit, was bom
towards the close of the 17Łh ccntur}'. He was dc-
scended from a noble family. Admitted among the
Jesuits in 1715, he taught belles-lettres at Tymau and
philosophy at Yienna. He died Aug. 10, 1746. He
mado himself known by a valuable coUection, Sacra
conciiia in rtgno Hungaria celebratOf ab cu 1016 usgue
ad a, 1715 (Yienna, 1742, fol.), in which a good method
and tbe varietv of research are to be admircd. See
Feller, Diet, Hist, — Hoefer, A'oiir. Biog, Generale^
xxxix, 691.
Peter-Ło^ Christian, a convert from Judaism,
flourished in the first half of the 18th century fur sev-
eral years as professor of Oriental languages at the Uni-
rersity of Upsala. He wrote, in the Swedish language,
Speculum religiofiit Judaica^ which, in fifty-eigbt chap-
ters, treats of the Jewish fe8tivals, ritcs, circumcision,
dogmas, resurrection, etc — FUrst, BibL Jud, iii, 80;
Wolf, Bibl. Bebr. iv, 960 ; Niedersac/isische Nachrichten
(Hamburg, 1731), p. 666 są.; and Leipziger Gelehiic
ZeiŁung (Leips. 1731), p. 884, where a fuli iudex to all
the chapters is given. (B. P.)
Peter-pence is the annual tribute of one penny
from every Koman Catbolic family, paid at Komę at a
festival of the apostle Peter. It is offered to the Koman
pontiffin reverence of the memory of St. Peter, of wbom
that bbhop is believed to be the successor. From an
early period the Roman see had been richly endowed;
and although its first endowments were chiefly local,
yet as early as the days of Gregory the Great large efr-
tates were beld by the Roman bishops in Campania, in
Calabria, and evcn in the island of Sicily. The first
idea, however, of an annual tribute appears to have
comc from England, and is by somc ascribed to Ina
(A.D. 721), king of the West Saxons, who went as a
pilgrim to Komę, and there founded a hospice for Anglo-
Saxon pilgrims, to be maintained by an annual contribu-
tion from England ; by others, to Offa and Ethelwulf,
at least in the sense of their having extended it to the
whole of the Saxon territory. But this seems very uo-
certain; and although the usage was certainly long an-
terior to the Norman conquest. Dr. Lingard is disposed
not to place it earlier than the time of Alfred. The
tribute consisted in the payment of a silver penny by
cver>- family possessing land or cattle of the yearly va]ue
of thirty pence, and was collected in the live weeks be-
PETER'S DAY
87
PETERS
tvfcn St. Peter^s and St. PauPs Day and Aug. 1. In
th€ time of king John, the total annnal payment was
£199 8«;, contńbutcd by the teTeral dioceses in propor-
tiun. an account of which will be found in Lingard'B
Hiitary o/ Enjfland^ ii, 830. The tax called Romescot,
vith tome variation, continued to be paid tiU the reign
i4 Henry YIII, when it was abolished. Pope Gregory
ni 5oaght to establtsb the Peter-pence for France; and
••(ber (Mtftial or transient tribntes are recorded from Den-
B ark, Sweden, Norway, and Poland. Tbia tribute, how-
ever, is qaice different from the payments madę annu-
alJr to Romę by tbe kingdoms wbich were held to be
(eodatory to the Roman see — as Naples, Aragon, Eng-
and imder the reign of John, and sereral other king-
diłou. at leaat for a time." — Chambers. The pope having
?uffered a oonsiderable diminution of his own revenue
»mce the reToIution of 1848, an effbrt has been madę in
.fieienl parts of Enrope to revive this practioe. In some
coantries it has been very socoessfuUy carried out, and
the prooeeds bare been among the chief of the resouroes
of Fius IX, as be has steadfastly refused to accept any
»pport from tbe new kingdom of Italy, sińce his tem-
punhties were merged in it See Thompson, Papai
Pwrr (N. Y. 1877, 12mo) ; Riddle, Ilist, ofthe Papacy;
Hefrie, CimcUiaigttch, voL y ; Rankę, HUU of the Pa-
pa(y in the l&A antd 17 th Centuria, i, 21, 87, 230 ; Inett,
CA. Hut. o/Engiaad (see Index).
Petersa (St.) Day (Jime 29) is a festiral obserred
in tbe Roman CatboUc Church. Its origin has been
tnced back to the 3d century. In 348 Prudentins men-
u<4u tbat the pope celebratcd the Holy Communion in
Uth St. Peter*s and St. PauFs churches at Romę on this
tcsUyal, which in tbe 6th century was observed at Con-
fiantiottple, and was kept, until the Reformation, asso-
ciateil with the name of St. Paul, whose conyersion was
Dut generally oommemorated on Jan. 25 nntil the 12th
centorr. Cathedra Sancd Petri is a coromcmoration
virtiuUy of SS. Peter and Paul, but its title is the Chair
of 6c Peter, wherein be first sat at Romę, Jan. 18. On
FbL 22 his chair at Antioch is commemorated.
Peten, Absalom, D.D., a Congregational minis-
ter, was boni at Wentworth, N. H., 2Sept. 19, 1793, and
«a^ educated at Dartmouth College, claas of 1816, and
f«ir tbe ministzy at Princeton Seminaiy, class of 1819.
He was the son of generał Absalom Peters, a descendant
••f WiUtam, of Boston, brother of the noted Hugh Peters.
Iq 19I9 be was madę a misaionary in Northern New York,
W in the foUowing year became pastor of the First
( barcb, Bennington, Vt, where he remained until Dec.
li. 1^'ió. After this he was sucoeaeiyely secretary of
tbe Home Miasionary Society until 1837, and editor of
the Home Jlistionary and Pastor^t Journal; and in
iKiK began to edit the American Biblicał RepotUory,
He was profesaor of pastorał theology and homiletics in
tbe Union Theological Seminary, New York, from 1842
to 18U, and pastor of the First Church, WilliamsŁown,
iŁanw, from 1814 to 1857. Ilere he originated and ed-
iuti tbe American EcUctic and tbe American Journal
^f EJncationy which was afterwards merged in tbat bf
1^. Henry Barnard. When past seventy he published
a nJamc of poema He died at New York May 18,
1*^. During his kmg life he was never ilL He is the
atttburof.4 Pita for l'olunŁary SocietieM: — Spfinkling
'if ufjy Afode of Baj^m, etc : — Smrnum agauut Horst'
•^oły (1822):— -Scwrrtrf Musie (1823) i-^CoUegef, Relig-
^^ InMtiMion$ (1851>— Drakę, I)icł, of Amer. Biog,
Peteia, Charles, a leamed English divine, was
^fn in Cornwall near the cloee ofthe 17th centur}-, and
*» educated at Exeter College, OxfoTd. Ou entering
into urders he obtained the living of Boconoc. In 1727
be was madę lector of St. Habyn, Cornwall, where he
(li*d, al a Tery adranoed age, in 1777. In his disserta-
t>«k on the book of Job be displayed a deep knowledge
<< Hefarew, and great power of argument against War-
borton. Tbe work, which is Taluable, is entitled A
criłioal Distertaiion on (he Book ofJoh, wherein the A c-
count ffiren ofthat Book hy the A uthor ofthe Dirine Le-
ffation of Motet demonttrated [Warburton] it particu-
UtrUf contideredf the Antiguity ofthe Book vMicat(dy
the great Text (artx, 25) erplained, and a futurę State
shown to have been the popular Betief ofthe ancienłJetes
(2d ed. corrected, Lond. 1757, 8vo): — An Appendix to
the criiical DittertatUm on the Book of Jo6, gicing a
further A ccounŁ of the Book of Eccletiattes ; to tchich
it added a Reply to tome Notet ofthe hte D — n ofB — /,
in hit new Edition of the Dititte Legation, voL u, pt. ii^
by the Author ofthe Criiical Dittertation (Lond. 1760).
There are aiso extant Sermont, published from bisMSŚ.
by his nephew, Jon. Peters, M.A., vicar of St. Oement^s,
near Truro, Cornwall (Lond. 1776, 8vo). (J. H. W.)
Petera, Hugh, an English dirinc, who came to
this country in the colonial days, and is noted both as a
preacher and politician, was bom at Fowey, Cornwall,
Eng., in 1599. He was educated at Trinity College,
Cambridge, where he graduatcd in 1622; then entercd
the ministry, and preached successfuUy at St. Sepul-
cbre'8, London, until he was silenced for nonconfoitnity,
and imprisoned. As soon as liberated he went to Rot-
terdam, and became pastor of tbe Independent Church
in that place. In 1635 he resigned and sailed for New
England, wbere he arriyed Oct. 6, and was installed
Dec 21, 1636, pastor of tbe FirBt Church, Salem, as suc-
cessor to Roger Williams, whose doctrines he disciaimed
and whose adherenta he excommunicated. He was
also actiye in civil and mcrcantile affairs, suggesting
coasting and foreign royages, and tbe plan of the flsh-
eries. In March, 1638, he was appointed by the Gen-
eral Court to assist in collecting and rerising the colo-
nial laws, and having been chosen to "represent the
sense of the colony upon the laws of excise and trade,'*
he sailed for England Aug. 3, 1641. He became in
1643 a preacher in the Parliamentary army, in which
capacity he was present at the siege of Lynn and the
capture of Bridgewater. For bis services he was largely
rewarded, and in 1653 was one of the oommittce of
legal reform appointed by Parliament. In 1658 he was
chaplain to tbe garrison at Dunkirk. Afler the Res-
toration Peters, being suspected of some complicity
with the death of the king, was committed to the Tow-
er, and indicted for high-treason Oct 18, 1660. He
was conyicted and executed Oct. 16, 1660. During his
impriaonment be wrote several letters of advice to his
daugbter, subscąuently (1717) published under the title
of A dying Father^t latt Legacy to an only Child, His
private character has been the subject of much discus-
sion both in England and America. He was charged
by his enemies with gross immorality, and the most
bitter epithets were applied to bim by bishops Bumet,
Kennet, and others ; but of late years he has been es-
timated morę favorably. He published also God't Do^
ingt and Marit Duty^ opened in a Sermon preached be-
fore the Houte of Commont, the Lord Mayor, and the
Attembly of Divinet (1646) : — Petert^t latt Report ofthe
Englith Wart, occationed by the Importunity ofa Friend
presting an Antwer to tome Oueriet (1646): — A Word
for the A rmy and Two Wordtfor the Kingdom, to Clear
the One and Cure the Other, forced in much Plainnett
and Brevity from their faithful Serrant, Hugh Petert
(1647) : — A Good Work for a Good Magittrate, or a
Short Cut to a Great Quiet (1651) i^Some Notet of a
Sermon preached on the 14/A of October, 1660, th the
Priton ofNewgate, afier hit Condemnation (1660). See
Sprague, A nnalt ofthe A mer. Pulpit, i, 70 ; Drakę, Diet,
of A mer. Biogr. s. v. ( J. H. W.)
Petera, Richard, D.D.,*a Protestant Episcopal
clergyman of colonial days, was bom at Lirerpool, Eng-
land, where he waa educated as a clergyman of the
Church of England, and came to Philadelphia in 1735.
His services were soon engagcd at Chri8t'8 Church, for
which he was licensed by the bishop of London. He
shortly resigned, and then hołd an importauŁ Church
PETERS
88
PETERSEN
agency I and also becaroe aecretary to a suocefsion of goy-
emon. In May, 1749, he became a member of tbe pro-
Tincial oouncil, but in 1762 be resigned all civil offioes and
was madę one of Łhe ininistere of tbe United Cbarcb ;
was afterwards cboaen tbeir rector, and in 1764 went to
Eugland to raoeive bis license in due form. On bis
retom be resamed his daties. He resigned in 1775, and
died July 10, 1776. He publisbed a Semum on Educa-
tion (1751). See Sprague, A nnalt of the A mer. Pulpit,
V, 88 ; Dorr, liiiU o/tke Christ, Church, voL i. (J. H. W.)
Peters, Samnel Andrew, D.D., LL.D., an ec-
centric Protestant Episcopal dergyman, was bom at
Hebron, Conn., Nov. 20, 1735, and passed A.B. in Yale,
1757, wben be went to England for ordination. He re-
tumed in 1759, and in 1762 took cbarge of tbe Cbtircb
at Hebron, wbere be continued for many years. Dur-
ing the Revolution, being a Tory, be retired first to
BMton, and soon sailed to England, as bis impradence
and loyalty to tbe Engltsb cause madę bim Tery ob-
noxious. Of course bis royal master rewarded his fidel-
ity by a pension and a grant of oonfiscated landa. In
1781 be publisbed a generał histoiy of Connecticut,
wbich bas been called ** tbe most unscnipulons and ma-
UciouB of lying narratives." Its narrations are inde-
pendent of time, place, and probability. In 1794 be
was cbosen bishop of Yermont, but he was never con-
secrated. Afler being stnick off the pension roli by
William Pitt, he returned home in 1805, and spent hb
years in useless petitions to Congress for lands granted
to Jonathan Carver, the Indian traveller. In 1817 he
jouraeyed westward, and in 1818 returned to New
York, wbere he lived in obscurity and porerty until his
death, April 19, 1826. He is the "Parson Peter"' of
Trumbuli'B M'FvigaL Peters publisbed, A General
Uistory of Connecticut, hy a Gentleman of the Prorince
(Lond. 1781) i—A Letłer on the PotsibUity of Ełemal
PunishmentSf etc (ibid. 1785) : — and The Hirtory ofJiev,
Ilugh Peters, etc (ibid. 1807). See Sprague, Annals of
the A mer. Pulpit, v, 191. (J. H. W.)
Petera, William, an English clergyman, who
ilourished in tbe latter part of the 18th century, dis-
tinguished bimself especially as a painter. He was a
man of wit, and possessed a lively imagination and great
conyersational powers, wbich madę bim a favorite.
Having a passion for painting, be practiced it first as
an amusemcnt, and, by associating much with tbe em-
inent artists of tbe time, be greatly improved bis man-
ner, and produced many beautiful works which were
greatly admired. He painted for the Shakespeare Gal-
ler}' scenes from tbat autbor^s dramatic works ; also sev-
eral pictures for Macklin'8 Gallery, as tbe ResurrectUm of
a Pious Family ; the Guardian Angels and the Spirit of
a Child; the Cheruhs, etc, all of wbich were very pop-
ular. He executed many fancy subjects from his own
imagination, which are pleasingly sentimentaL He
was much patronized by tbe nobility, and be sometimes
painted subjects not strictly in accordance with just
notions of propriety. His pictures are well compoeeil,
and his coloring rich and barmonions, with an admira-
ble impasto, in wbich he imitaled Reynolds. Many of
bis works were engraved by Bartolozzi, Thew, Simon,
Smith, Marcuard, and otbers. He is generally called
tbe Ker. W. Petersi Tbe duke of Rutland was bis
chief patron, and presented bim with a yaluable Uving.
Tbe bishop of Lincoln gave bim a prebendal stall in bis
catbedral. He died in 1814. See Spooner, Biog, Ilist,
ofthe Fine ArU,\\,e»i.
Peteraen, Joiiahn Wiuielm, a German writer
noted for his thcological studies, and bis beresies in
certain branches of Christian doctrine, was bora July 1,
1649, at OinabrUck, was educated at Lubeck in tbe pre-
paratory branche^ and studied tbeology at tbe univer-
sities of Giessen, Rostock, Leipsic, Wittenberg, and Jena.
He then lectured for a while at Giessen, preached at Lu-
beck, and finally accepted a profesaorsbip at the univer-
itty in Rostock. He had written a poem satirizing tbe
Jesuits; tbey in tara bad madę it so ancomfortable ftir
bim at Lubeck tbat he went to Rostock, bat also bera,
and at Hanover later, tbey foUowed him with tbeir op-
poeition and inrectires, and in 1678 be gladly accept-
ed tbe superintendency of tbe churcbes at Eutin. In
1688 he became superintendent at LUnebuig, but did
not remain long, aa differences sprang ap between him
and tbe pastora. In 1692 he was depooed, on tbe grouud
tbat be espoused cbiliastic ideaa. He now purchased a
farm near Zerbst, and died in retirement, Jan. 31, 1727.
His last years were spent in tbe advoca<rr of cbiliastico-
pietistic opinions, and be wrote much for tbat purpoee.
A list of all bis writings is giyen in his autobiograpby
(1717). This book is ralnable, as it indicates the
sources whenoe tbe pietism of Spener and Francke drew
its strength. We must not be understood, howevcr, to
say tbat Spener*s pietism depended on Petersen, but
simply tbat Petersen and Spener bad much in common,
and tbat tbe former, by his influence and acceptance
of pietistic yiews, strengtbened Spener^s banda. Peter-
sen seems to have misapprebended Spener, and to have
gone fartber than be Tbus, for examp]e, Petersen,
misunderstanding Spener's doctrine conceming " better
times to come" [see £schatoix>oy ; Spknkh], and the
realization of God*s kingdom on eartb, announced the
speedy approach of the millennial reign, and, for the
sake of accommodation, even adopted tbe finał resto-
ration tbeories of Origen (q. v.), with which be became
acquainted, as he tells us, in tbe writings of the Eugluh
fanatic Jane Leade (q. v.). His wife adopted these
views also, and became a propagator of this heresy aod
tbe notion of a universal apocatastasis. Bot tbe d<K-
trine, though it pleased many by limiting tbe eternity
of punishment, and some who bad almost straycd fmm
the Church beyond hope of regalning tbeir former boM
on Christ and his Church, yet met with almost unirer-
sal rejection, because it obliged its adrocates to ein-
brace a physical process of redemption, or at lea^^t one
which was not brought about by tbe Word of Chń^t,
A train of thought which was the germ of the Tfrmi-
nistic contjroversy of 1698-1710 might well lead farther.
It had been usual so to identify the day of grace with tbe
duration of earthly life as to aUow no hope berond it, and
also to regard the term of grace as nnexpircd while life
lasted. Though the original foundation of this opinion
was a serious yiew of tbe importance of earthly life, it wis
yet capable of being madę the basis of tbat lerity which
would delay repentance till the approach of death. To
put a stop to this notion. Bose, with wbom Recbenberg
(q. V.) agreed, upheld the tenet tbat there' is, even in
this life, a peremptory termination of grace. This can-
not depend upon so exteraal a matter as time, but upon
the inward maturity of tbe decision for or against Christ,
Grace is taken from those who bave repeatedly refused
it, and the justification formerly pronounced is with-
drawn. Sec, boweyer, tbe art Grace. To Petersen^s
adoption of a millennium and a nniversal restoration, he
added, thirdly, faith in tbe continuation of supematural
inspintion. He was led to this step by a* Miss Rosa-
munda Juliana Yon Arabui^, who professed, afler ber
serentb year, to see miraculous visions, especially dur-
ing prayer, and to experience extraordinary dirine rev-
elations. Petersen was acquainted with ber after 1691.
He boasts tbat his bouse bad been blcssed by ber prps-
ence as the bouse of Obed-Edom. He then busied
bimself with the matter, and composed a work in favor
of the lady, in which be songht to establlsb the dirine
character of ber rerelations against all doobt Be^idos.
Petersen and bis wife also daimed to be tbemselres fs-
Yored with sucb illuminations and reyelations, and thcy
not unfrequently entertained tbeir superstitious age with
extiaordinary experiences of a disorganized and iufatu-
ated bnin. But notwithstanding all bis peculiar riew^,
and his too ready credulity, Petersen must be pronounced
a noble and pious man. He wrote many bymns, some
of which are presenred in German collections to this day.
Dippel (q.v.) and Edelmann joined Peteraen, though they
PETERZANO
39
PETrrOT
diff«red from him moch on doctrinal pointa. See Hotb^s
Uagcnbach, CA. HuL 18f A cmd \9th Cent \, 159 8q. ; Ha-
genbach, HitL of Doctrinet, ii, 870 ; Dorner, HitL of
Frr4^agś Tkeologjf, ii, 154; Lebaubesehralnmg (1719).
(J.II.W.)
Peteisano (or Preterazzano), Simone, an Ital-
itn painter, was, according to Lomazzo, a pupil of Titian,
£Dd doorisbed ai Milan in 1591, wbero be esecuted sonie
YGfks fc^ the chnrchea, both in oil and fresco. Lanzi
sa^-s: **On his Piela in S. Fidela he inscńbed himself
'fitijuu DiKripolua;' and his doee imitation seems to
eoafinn tbe tnitb. He fMroduced 8everal worka in fresco,
particularly aereral bistories of St. Paul in S. Barnaba.
He tbere seems to bare aimed at uniting tbe expre8-
aoo. the foiesbortening, and tbe perspectiYe of tbe Mi-
lanese to tbe ricb coloring of Yenetian artists, noble
wofks if ibej were tboioughly correct, and if the autbor
had been as ezoellent in fresco as in oil painting."
Tbere ia a fine picture by Łbia master of tbe Aiaumption
«/ ike Firym in the Chiesa di Brera. See Spoouer,
Biog. HiaL ofthe Firn ilr/«, ii, 684.
Pethach Debarat O'?^^ I^^B) '^ ^^^ title of
aa esodlent Hebrew grammar written in rabbinic char-
icters by an anonymona Spanisb autbor, the firat edition
of Thich appeared at Naplea in 1492, and not, aa ia
graeraDy bdleTed, at Peaaro in 1507. Anotber edition,
with additions, appeared at Constantinople in 1515, and
tbe nme, with correctiona by Elias LeWta (q. v.), at
Teoice in 1M& Of the firat edition of tbia yaluable
gnmmar only two copiea, one at tbe Yatican Library,
tod ooe at Parma, are extant. Tbe Pethach Debaray
bas been edited with Ibn-£zra'a Moynaim (Yenice,
1M6), and together with Haja ben-Sherira*8 work on
dftama, ni13lbn '|1*^nB (Conatantinople, 1515, and
oAen) ; and, laatly, with Moees Kimchra (q. v.) gram-
ontical work, The Joumey om the Patht of KwywUdge^
mn ■'b-^aiS ^bno. See De Roasi, Dizionario eto-
rico de^ amtcri £hrei, p. 262 (Genn. transL by Ham-
^Tpa) ; Wolf, BibL Hebr. ii, 1412 sq. ; Steinscbneider,
BiUiop^iteheM Uandbuch, p. 8, No. 75 8q. (Berlin,
l»ó9). (RP.)
Petlialli'ah (Heb. Pethachyah', n;nnB,/r«Kf of
Jrkotah; Sept. ^fdita, Ezra x, 23; ^ttroiac^ Neb. ix,
&: ♦o^ota, xi, 24; ^t^iiac, 1 Chroń, xxiv, 16). Tbe
i<ame of thiee men.
L Tbe bead of the ntneteenth conrse in David'8 di-
Ti^ion of the priesta (1 Chroń, xxiv, 16). B.C. cir. 1020.
2. A Łerite, wbo pat away an idolatrona wife at tbe
iDjaDction of Ezra (Ezra x, 23), and joined in the hymn
of prśae and the corenant with Nehemiah (Neb. ix,
b), &Cdr.458.
3. A Hebcew, aon of Meshezabeel, of tbe tribe of Ju-
dah, wbo acted aa oounaeUur of Artaxerxe8 in matters
eoDceming tbe Jewa (Neb. xi, 24). B.a cir. 446.
Pe^thOT (Heb. Peihor% nino, opened; Sept *o-
3>ot'pa ; bat in Dent. xxiii, 6 Sept omita), the name of
a plaee in Meaopotamia, on the Euphrates, the native
coontry of Balaiam, to wbich Balak aent for him to
come and coiae larael (Numb. xxii, 5; Deut xxiii, 5).
It is suppoaed to bave been near Tipbaab, on the Eu-
phratea^ bot tbia ia altogetber uncertain. See Balaabi.
Tbe name occurs in the cuneiform inacriptiona (q. v.).
Petlm'0l (Heb. PethueV, ^^^*^0> ttamp or engrcm-
ńgo/God; bat aooording to otbers, L q. 7M^np, Me-
tkwŁ\ L e.yó£b ofGod; Sept Ba3ot;^X), tbe fatber of
(Im propbet Joel (Joel i, 1). KC antę 800.
PetUlianlsta, tboae wbo adbered to the party of
/^cfiUtoR, the Donatial biahop of Garthage, in bis oon-
tR>rersy with St Angoatine.
Petit, Samuel, a celebiated French acbolar, waa
bora at Ńtaniet in 1594. He studied at Geneva with
Ktcb aooeeaa that at the age of aevcnteen he waa ad-
ańtted to the aaaed minbtry. Soon afler be waa
niacd to thfe piofeBaorahip of theology, and of Greek
and Hebrew, in that city. He died in 1645. He waa
a man of yaat and profound erudition. He publiahed
Yarin Uctione$ m S, Scripturam (in the Criłici Sac,
voL viii). Ilia otber worka are, Afiseellaneorum libri
izc—Edogas Chronoloyica: — Diatribe de Jurę, Princi-
pum Edktitf etc,:— Diatribe de DisHdiomm Cautit,
Ęffectis et RemedOt.
Petit-Didier, Mattiiicw, a leamed French prd-
ate of notę, waa bom in Lorraine in 1659. He very
early in life entered the Order of the Benedictinea, and
later became abbot of Seuonea, and finally bishop of
Macra (in pariibuM infdelium), He died in 1728. He
ia tbe anthor of aeveral va]uable worka, among them,
Traii^ theologique sur Fautoriti et finfallibilUi da Papet
(Avign. 1726, am. 8vo). Tbia work, aaaerting the infal-
libility of the pope, haa been attacked by varioua writ-
era, Romaniat aa well aa Proteatant, eapecially by Len-
fant at tbe end of hia Hist, ofthe Council ofCoiułanee,
He alao publiahed aeveral critical, biatorical, and chro-
nological diseertations on the Scriptures (1689-1728).
Hia brotber, Jean Joseph, wbo was a Jesuit, flourished
from 1664 to 1756. See Darling, Cyclop, BibUogr, s. v. ;
Allibone, Did, of Brii, and A mer, A uth. s. v. (J. H. W.)
Petition, acconling to Dr. Watta, ta the fourth part
of prayer, and includea a desire of deliverance from evil,
and a reque8t of good thinga to be beatowed. On both
theae accounta petitiona are to be offered up to God, not
only for ourselvea, but for our fellow-creaturea alao.
Tbia part of prayer ia frequently called inierceseion.
See PRATER.
PetitOt, Jean, an eminent French painter in en-
amel, ia noted eapecially aa a Huguenot wbo apumed
all efforta for hia conver8ion, and, notwithatanding the
peraonal interceasion for hia recall to Romanism on the
part of king I^uia Xiy, died as he lived, a pioua Prot-
eatant PetitOt waa the aon of a aculpŁor and a^chitect,
and waa bom at Geneva in 1607. Being designed for
the trade of a jeweller, he waa placed under tbe direc-
tion of Bordier, and in tbu occupation waa engaged in
the preparation of enamela for the jewelry busineaa.
He waa ao aucceasful in the production of colora Łbat he
waa adviaed by Bordier to attempt portraita. They
oonjointly madę aeveral trials, and though they atill
wanted many colora wbich they knew nol how to pre-
pare for the fire, their attempta had great aucccaa. Affcer
aome time they went to Italy, where they conaulted the
most eminent chemiata, and madę conaidcrable progreaa
in their art, but it waa in England, whither they re-
moved afler a few yeara, that they perfected it In
London they became acquainted with Sir Theodore
Mayem, firat phyaician to Cbarlea I, and an intelligent
chemiat, wbo had by his experimenta diacovered tho
principal colora proper to be uaed in enamel, and the
means of vitrifying Łbem, so that they aurpassed the
boaated enameUing of Yenice and limogea. Petitot
waa introduoed by Mayem to the king, wbo retained
him in hia Bervice and gave him apartmenta in White-
halL He painted tbe portraita of Cbarlea and the royal
family several times, and copied many pictures, after
Yandyck, wbich are considered his fineat worka. That
painter greatly asaiated him by his advice, and the
king frequently went to see him paint On the death
of Cbarlea, Petitot retired to France with the exiled
family. He waa greatly noticed by Cbarlea II, wbo in-
troduced him to Louia Xiy. Louis appointed him hia
painter in enamel, and granted him a pension and apart-
menta in the Louvre. He painted the French king
many timea, and, among a vaat number of portraita,
thoae of the queen8 Annę of Austria and Maria Thereaa.
He alao occupied himaelf in making copiea from the
moat oelebrated picturea of Mignard and Lebrun. Pe-
titot, dreading the effecta of tbe revocation of tbe Edict
of Nantea, aolicited leave, but for a long time in vain,
to retum to Geneva. Finally the king, deterroined to
aave hia painter, employed Boasuet to endeavor to con-
vert bim to Romanism ; in thia effort, bowever, that elo-
PETITPIED
40
PETRA
qacnŁ prelate was whoUy unsucceasful. At length Louia
perraitŁed him to depart, aiid, leaving bis wife aiid chil-
dreo in Paris, Petitot proceeded to hb natire place, where
he was soon after joiued by bis family. Amved now
at eigbty years of age, be was sougbt by sucb numbers
of friends and admirers tbat be was furced to remove
from Geneva, and retire to Ye^ay, a smali town in tbe
canton of Yaud, wbere be continued to labor till 1691,
in wbicb year, wbile painting a portrait of bis wife, be
was suddenly attacked by apoplexy, of wbicb be died.—
EnglUh Cyclop, s. v. For bis works of art, see Spooner,
Biog, Uiat, ofthe Fine ilrto, s, v.
Fetlt-Fied, Nicolas (1), a Frencb canonist, was
bora In Paris Dec. 24, 1627. He was madę doctor of
tbe Sorbonne in 1658, and counscllor-clerk in tbe Cba-
telet in 1662. He was provided sbortly after witb tbe
curacy of Saint-Martial in Paris, united later to tbat of
Saint-Pierre-des-Arcis, and finally became under-cboris-
ter and canon of tbe metropolitan cb urcb. In 1678, bav-
ing wisbed, as dean of tbe coansellors, to preside in tbe
Cb&telet in tbe absenoe of tbe lieutenanta, be fuund a
violent opposition among tbe la3''-counsellor8, wbo pre-
tended tbat tbe dergy bad not tbe rigbt to preside and
to dicaniser, Upon tbe complaint of Petit-Pied, Marcb
17, 1682, tbe autborities interposed a decree wbicb
gaincd for bim tbe cause. Tbe rescarcbes wbicb be
was obliged to make for tbe pursuit of tbis affair fur-
nisbed bim tbe occasion for composing an excellent
Traiłe du droit et des prerogative$ det ecclesiastigues
daru radministrcUion de lajustice ieadiere (Paris, 1705,
4to). See Joum, des Sarantf 1705 ; Morćri, Diet, /list. ;
Descripł, ffisł, de rŹglise de Paris, — Hoefer, Nouv, Biog,
GśfUraUf xxxix, 719.
Petit-Pied, Nicolas (2), a Frencb tbeologtan,
nepbew of tbe preceding, was bom in Paris Aug. 4, 1665.
Afier baving fiubbed witb dtstinction bis ecclesiastical
studies, be was received doctor of tbe Sorbonne in 1692,
and bis reputation caosed bim to be cbosen in 1701 to
teacb tbe Holy Scriptures in tbat celebrated scbool.
Having signed, July 20, 1702, witb tbirty-nine otber
doctors, tbe famous Cos de consdence^ wbicb was eon-
demned at Romę Feb. 15, 1703, be would not retract,
and was therefore exiled to Beaune and deprived of
bis pulpit. He bastened to join in Holland bis friend
Que8ncl, and remained in tbat country mitil 1718, pro-
ducing eacb year, for tbe support of Jansenism, new
articles upon tbe formulary, upon respectful silcnce, and
upon otber analogous matters now forgotten. Tbe buli
Unigenitus found in bim a formidable adver8ary: be
fougbt it in pampblets, in roemoirs, and in morę ex-
tended works. On bis return to France, Petit-Picd
passed some time at Troyes, and afterwards went to
Paris, wbere, June 1 and 6, 1719, tbe faculty of tbeology
and tbe Sorbonne established bim again in bis rigbts as
doctor. On tbe 15tb of tbe same montb be was again
exiled, and on tbe 21st a lettre de cachet ordered tbe
cancelling of tbe conclusion of tbe faculty in bis favor.
Petit-Pied bad establisbed bis bome and a new kind of
Protestant Cburcb in tbe village of Asni^res, near Paris.
Thcre be madę a trial of tbe regulations and all tbe lit-
nrgy practiced by tbe Jansenists in Holland. Renown
publisbed astonisbing tbings of bim ; people bastened
tbere in crowds from tbe capital, and Asni^res soon be-
came auotber Cbarentou. Petit-Pied sbowed bimself
from tbat time a morę obstinate appellant. M. de Lor-
raine, bisbop of Bayeux, selected bim sbortly after for
bis tbeologian, but on tbe deatb of tbat prelate, June 9,
1728, be retired again to IlolUnd, wbenoe be returned
only in 1734. His zeal for Jansenism and tbe fertility
of his pen weie not inconsistent in tbis new exile ; but
from bis return to Paris be Icd a morę tranquil life, and
contented bimself witb composing several works to de-
fend tbe missal given to bis diocese by Bossuot, bisbop
of Troyes. Petit-Pied died in Paris Jan. 7, 1747. The
list of all bis works would be too long ; l^Ioreri mentions
eigbty-one. We quote of bis works, ICxamen theolo- \
gique de rinstrucłion pastorale apprcueie dans Vas»em>'
bUe du clerge . . . pour Facceptation de la bulle (Paris,
1713, 3 yols. 12mo) : — Examen desfaussetes sur h cuUe
Chinois atanceespar le P, Jourency (ibid. 1714, 12mo) :
— a.id Lettres touchant la matisre de rusure^par rap-
port aux contrats des rentes rachetables des deuz cCtes
(Lille, 1731, 4to). He also labored upon tbe work of
Legros, Dogma EccUsia circa usuram escpositum et rtn-
dicałum (Utrecht, 1731, 4to). Sarcastic in bis works,
Petit-Pied was of a mild, sociable cbaracter. See IHct.
kist. des A uteurs Eccles, v6L iii ; Journal de Dor sannę,
Calendrier ecclesiastique (ibid. 1757, 12mo); Nouv,eccUs,
passim ; Moreri, Diet, Ilist, — ^Hoefer, Nouv. Biog, Gene-
raUy xxxix, 719.
Petosiris (ntr6<rtptc)t an Egyptian priest and as-
trologer, wbo is gcnerally named along witb Kechepsoa,
an £g}'ptian king. Tbe two are sald to be tbe found-
ers óf astrology, and of tbe art of casting natiyities.
Suidas States tbat Petosiris wrote on tbe rigbt modę
of worahipping tbe gods, astiological maxims, «c ruv
i(pwv fii^kitop (wbicb are often refcrred to in con-
ncction witb astrology), and a work on tbe Egyptian
mysteries. But we may infer from a statement madę
by Yetius Yalens, of wbicb tbe substance is given by
Marsbam {Canon Chronicus [ed. Lips. 1676], p. 479),
tbat Suidas assigns to Petosiris wbat otbers attributed
partly to bim and partly to Necbepsos. For bis 'Opya-
vov 'A(rrpovoiJUK6vy or ^ij^oc o(\fjvtaKfij containing
astJological principles for predicting tbe event of dis-
eases, and for bis otber writings, Fabricius {BibL Grtec.
iv, 160) may be consulted. To tbe list given by him
may be added a translation into Latin by Becie of tbe
astrological letter of Petosiris to Necbepsos, entitled
De Divinatione Mortis et Yitce (Bed. Opera [ed. CoL
Agripp. 1612], ii, 233, 234). His name, as connccted
witb astrology, was in high repute early in Grecce, and
in Romę in ber degenerate days. Tbis we leam from
tbe praises bestowed on bim by Manetbo (v, 10), wbo,
indeed, in tbe prologue to tbe first and fiftb bcŃoks of
bis Apotelesmatica, professes only to expand in Greek
the prose rules of Petosiris and Necbepsos (" divini illi
viri atque omni admirationc digni"), and from tbe rcfer-
ences of Pliny {Hist, Not, i, 23 ; vii, 49). But the besŁ
proof is tbe fact tbat, like our own Lilly, Petosiris became
tbe common name for an astrologer, as we iind in Aris-
topbanes, quotcd by Athenseus (iii, 114, c) in tbe forty-
8ixtb epigram of Lucilius (Jacobs, AnihoL Grctc. iii,
38), whence we leara tbe quantity, and in Juvenał (vi,
580). Marsbam has a fuli dissertation on Necbepsos
and Petosiris in tbe work above quoted (p. 474-481).—
Smith, Diet, ofGr, and Rom, Biog, and Mgthoi, iii, 213.
Petra (in tbe earlier Greek writers Uirpa or i/ ITć-
rpoj but in the later at Uerpai) was tbe capital of tbe
Nabathiean Arabs in the land of Edom, and secms to
have given name to the kingdom and region of A rabia
Petrcea, As tbere is mention in tbe Old Testament of
a stronghold wbicb succe8sively belonged to tbe Amor-
ites (Judg. i, 36), tbe Edoroites (2 Kings xiv, 7), and
the Moabites (Isa. xvi, 1; comp. in Heb. cb. xlii, II),
and borę in Hebrew tbe name of 37^0, Sela, wbicb bas
tbe same meaning as Petra in Greek, viz. *'a rock,"
tbat circumstance has led to tbe conjecture tbat tbe
Petra of tbe Nabatbfleans bad been the Sela of Edom.
See Selah. Tbis latter name seems, however, to have
passed away wiib tbe Hebrew rule over Edom, for no
further tracę of it is to be found ; altbough it is still
called Sela by Isaiah (x>ń, 1). These are all tbe certain
notices of tbe place in Scripture. Arce is said by Jose-
pbus to have been a name of Petra {A ni, iv, 4, 7) ; but
probably we should rcad ^ApicrifŁ for *ApKri (yet see
A mer. Bib, Rep, for 1833, p. 536, notę). See Arkite.
1. Ilistory, — Tbe earliest notice of tbis plaoe under
tbe name Petra by the Greek writers is connected with
tbe fact tbat Antigonus, one of Alexander's successors,
Hent two expeditions against the Nabathseans in Petra
(Diod. Sic xix, 94-98). Tbe first of these, commanded
PETRA
41
PETRA
by Athenso!!, and the seoond by Demetńus, changed the
hahiis of the Nabatbaeans, who had bitherto been essen-
tially Domadic, and led them to engage in commerce.
Iii tbłśway, duńng tbe fuUowing centuries,they grew up
isto the kingdom of Arabia Petraea, occup>ing very
neiriy the same territory which was compńaed within the
dmits of ancient Edom. In tbe first eKpedition, Atbe-
IUDU5 took the city by surprise while tbe men were absent
it a ne ighbonng mart or fair, and carried offa large booty
cf silver and merchandise. But the Nabathsans ąuickly
pamied bim to the namber of 8000 men, and, falling
upoD hi« camp by night, destroyed the greater part of
his anny. Of tbe second expedition, nnder the eonu
m&nd of Demetrias, tbe Nabathieans had previous in-
klli^Dce; cnd prepared tberoselyes for an attack by
dhring their (locks into the deserts, and placing their
weaith ander tbe protection of a strong garrison in Pe-
tra : to whicb, according to Diodorus, there was but a
iingle approacb, and that madę by band. In this way
th€y aicoeeded in baffling the whole deeign of Deme-
trius. For pointa of hiatory not immediately connećted
«ith the city, aee Edomites ; N.\batii^ans. Strabo,
wńtini; of the Nabathaeans in tbe time of Augustus,
thus describes their capi tal: "The metropolia of the
Nabathcans is Petra, so called ; for it lies in a place in
otba respecta plain and level, but shut in by rocka
nmnd about, yet within having copious fonntains for
tbe supply of water and the irrigation of gardens. De-
yond the endosure the region is mostly a desert, espe-
ciilly towarda Jud«a^ {Geoc. xvi, p. 906). At this
time ihe town had become a pUce of transit for tbe pro-
ductioos of the East, and was much resorted to by for-
ei^ers (Diod. Sic. xix, 95 ; Strabo, /. c). Pliny morę
detinitcly describes Petra as situated in a valley less
thaa two miles (Roman) in amplitudę, surrounded by
inaccessible mountaina, with a stream flowing through
it {Hut, Xat. ri, 28). About the same period it is oflen
naraod by Joaephus as the capital of Arabia Petrsea
(H'ar, i, 6, 2; 13, 8; etc). Petra was situated in the
east^m part of Arabia Petnea, in the district called un-
der tbe Christian emperors of Ronie Pahestina Tertia
(Trf. Ropi. Itin, p. 74, ed. Wessel ; MaUla, Chrotiogr, xvi,
4Ó», ed. Bonn). According to the division of the an-
cient grographers, it lay in the northern dbtrict, Geba-
I^e; while the modem ones place it in the southem
pOTtioD, Eah-Sberah, tbe Mount Seir of the Bibie. Pe-
tra was sabdaed by A. Comelius Palma, a lieutenant of
TnJ&n (Dion Casa. lxviii, 14). Hadrian seems to bave
bestowed on it some adrantage, which led the inhabit-
tnts to gire his name to the city upon coins ; several
of rh^se are still extant (Mionnct, Med, A ntiguety v, 587 ;
£ckbe], Doctr, Num, ii, 503). It remained under the
Homan dpminion a considerable period, as we hcar of the
proTtoce of Arabia being enlarged by Septimius Seve-
nu, AD. 195 (ibid. lxxv, 1, 2 ; Eutrop. viii, 18). It must
bare been daring this period that those templca and
roausoleums were madę, the remains of which still arrest
the attention of tbe traveller ; for, though the predomi-
nant style of architecture is Egyptian, it is mixed with
florid and overloaded Roroan-Greek spccimens, which
are but slightly modified by the native artists. In the
4th century Petra is several tiroea mentioned by Euse-
bius and Jerome ; and in the Greek ecclesiastical Notitioe
of the 5th and 6th centuries it appears as the metropoli-
tan see of the third Palestine (Reland, Palctst, p. 215,
217) ; the last named of the bishops is Tbeodorus, who
was present at the Coimcil of Jerusalem in A.D. 536
{Oriens Christ, iii, 725). From that time not the slight-
est notice of Petra b to be found in any quarter; and as
no tracę of it as an inhabited site is to be met with in the
Arabian writers, the probability seems to be that it waa
destroyed in some unrecorded incursion of the desert
hordes, and was afterwarda lefl unpeopled. It is tnie
that Petra occurs in the writers of the sera of the Cru-
sades; but tbey applied this name to Kerak, and thus
introduced a confusion as to the tnie Petra which is not
even now eiitirely removed. It was not until the re-
ports couceniing the wonderful remains in Wady Musa
had been verLfied by Bnrckhardt that the latter travel-
ler first ventured to assume the identitv of the site with
that of the ancient capital of Arabia Petrsea. Ple ex-
presses this opinion in a letter dated at Cairo, Sept 12,
1812, published in 1819, in the preface to his TrareU in
Nubia ; but before its appearance the eminent geogra-
pher Carl Ritter had suggested the same conclusion on
the strength of Scetzen'8 intimations {Erdkunde, ii, 217).
Burckhardfs view was morę amply developed in his
Trarełs in Syria ^ p. 431, published in 1822, and received
the high sanction of his editor, Col. Leake, who pro-
duces in support of it all the arguments which have
sińce been relied upon, namely, the agreement of the
ancient descriptions with this site, and their iuapplica-
bility to Kerak ; the coincidence of the ancient specifi-
cations of the distanccs of Petra from the Elauitic gulf
and from the Dead Sea, which all point to Wady MiUsa,
and not to Kerak ; that Josephus, Eusebius, and Jerome
testify that the Mount Hor where Aaron dicd was in
the yicinity of Petra ; and that to this day the moun-
tain which tradition and circumstances point out as the
same still rears its lonely head above the vale of Wady
MClsa, while in all the district of Kerak there is not a
single mountain which could in itself be rcgarded as
Mount Hor ; and even if there were, its position would
be incompatible with the recorded joumeyings of the
Israelites (Leake's Preface to Burckhardt*s Tiiwels in
Syria f p. vii -ix; Robinson^s PalesłitiCf ii, 576-579,
653-659).
2. Deacription of the preterU Site, — The ruined city
lies in a narrow valley, surrounded by lofty and, for
the most part, perfectly precipitous mountains. Those
which form its southem limit are not so stcep as to be
impassable; and it is over these, or rather through
'>^' ■'^•. J- »'^b;'> ■ \t^^'
PĘTU A
O
Scalę offoet
loco sooo soro 4P00 sooo
■ ■ I MILE
ib wltl^Atia I Dl
)-r^S)M»łb^T««b.'^5i»f5^ '^^?r<r-r -.f^n- '■Jhr.'',
Batlabde
Hap of Petra. (From an origiual sunrey.)
PETRA
thcm, ilanfc u (brupt ind diScult nvinr, fhit
tnvMin trom iiiiui or Egypt uw*lly winil
thdr luborioiu wiy inltt the mtut o( magnifl-
C«nt dcłulation. The Ułcimt and mOR Inter-
tting enlrancc u on tbc eaitem ńde, through
tha d«p turroif gorge called fAc ^ił. U ia not
Miy to ileUrniiiic Ibo preciK limiu or tb« m-
cienc cily, though tbe precipitoiu tnountBini
by whieh iha lite i* eno ' — -
perfrct ilutinctn«« ths
whicł
ituril biiTien heri u
loflhcc
J hive eiłcnileil. Th«
ygivBl
or morę thiin a mile in lengtb, nratly fmai
north u» tauth, by ■ variab]e breadth uf ibouc
half ■ nile. Soveral >pun from Lhe aunound-
Ing mountiiiu oncroich upan thia Rrei; but,
wllh inconaiilsnble ricaptions, the wbolo i> flt
for building on. Tli« iidM o! tbe valli!v arc
willed up by perp«ndiculir
1 fM
hlhh
The narthem md loutbera b«mera
■o lolty nor ao ileep, and Ihcy bolh admit of
tha puaage af canwla. A gisat nianv imali
nanan ol aide ralleya oprn inio Iha pnncipal
ono, Ihua eniargiiig aa wcU as tar} mg almaat
łnflii[lvly lhe auUine. With oni; ona or two
eacaptlona, hawcrer, thay have no oullet. but
oamo lo a apecdy and ibrupt leminiatinn among
Iha ovc[h»nging cliflii, aa preei[rflouB aa lhe '
natura) bulwark that boundi lhe prtncipal tal ,
lay. including theae irrrgularilira, the vfbule
drcninri-rpiico of l*Blra may be fuur mdoe or
tnurc. The langtb of thIa irregulsr ornlino
thuiigh it RiveB no idea of the exlent of llie
area wiibiii ita embrare, ia pcrhapa tha bast
meaaure uf (ha oxtant oftha eitcaiationa.
Tlia valloyorWady Htlaa,vihirhleadato the
ruina, in a generał wcalarly itiroctuin, i< ab-mt
ona hiiiidteił and flfly feet broad at ila entrancr ^
■nd ia nhiit In by clifTi cfred aandslonc nhiLh
gmliially inci»aac from a hiif^bt of f-n\ or lhe
Hltv fpoC to tKo hnndnd or two hundrvtl and
orty fł-el. The yalley gradually eonirads rill at one
apirt it bccomea oniy twelve feet bnuuł, and ia aa ovcr-
lapiied by łba perpcndicnlar clifla that lhe Ijght of dav
la almoil eidiided. This is Iha rivine or Sik of Waily
UAsa, whivh ocieniła, wilh nuny windin;;!!, for a guod
Knglith mile. Thia valley conlaina ■ wonderful nectnp-
oliahawnin tlierwky¥nilla, The tomba, whieh adjoin
OT auroHHint oiic annther. exlnbit now a fnint wiih ai.t
lonk fohimnii. now with toar elendar pyramiila, and by
Iheir nktuR nf (imk, Knaian, and Orienlal archilocl-
ma nmind lhe aprctwur of the remaina fimnd in tha
valley tif Jehiuhaphat near Jeruulam. Tha enirance
of the nvino ia agianned by ■ buhl arch, peifaape a tri-
a, wilh dncly ai-ułptutcd nk-hea eriilantJy in-
^ and Bite, and atill exfaibtting ita drt-
irk, and all lhe freibnes and beauly of
ilB eoloring. Like all Iha other wondera of tbe place, ii
iiean-ed out oflhe tace uf the perpeiidicularcliff.whifh
bera ńaea abont IM feet high. Ii haa Iwo rowa of rix
eolumna orer one aDolhar (one of the lower one* hu
fillen), wilh autuea belween, aurmounled bj capilali
and a aculptured pediment, the Utler iłiridcd by a lilile
Tound lemple crowned with an um. The Araba imagine
ra(M«i
lI lor ai
Thia, liki
thiaeMn
to the fhanoha or to lhe Hat. i. c. r
lhe butl.
moftho vallev.in whi.'hii
wimlł tl
alfeau. In aucieut limn
have ■<«'
IMt-etl; and it appean to b)
ah>\v ii.
In whet wiiler |ii>ni<>na i-f
TalUy
re rity. il waa apanm
miiniirmd wilh Mw
are lA-mpprad wiih h
1 ihr u)i|vr |iuni<<ns ł>f ił
oCthe rarine, JuM wlirr
aeoiwd Tavinp-like bul I
brt is ^1 Svria. Thi9
■), whieh they
The inierinr does nol cormpond with Ibe magi
of the fatadr, beinR a pluń. lofty hall, wilh a >
■djoining aach of iu lbn« aidea. it waa ciibei
•uleum OT, mora pnibabij, a tempie.
From thia aput lUe elilTa on bolh aidea of tti
are pierced wilh numetooa escaTationa, Ibe c
nf whieh are usually amall, though lhe fronta are o«a-
aiiHially of aume aiia and ma^rniScence ; acarcelr iwo.
' however. are eicactly alika. Al^ a gentle curve lhe
rallrr expanib alill morę, and bera on ita leli aide liea
■toftberack. Ila diame-
haa Ihirty-lhree rowa of aeala, capatde of accommodat-
I in^ Ihrre thuumid apritatora. SiranReły enongh, it i)
(niit«lv HimiuiHled tń lomb*. One of tbe morę north-
rrly t<f'ih<-w U inscriW with Ibe name ofg. Pnafrciiu
Vlt>r\nitind7^ pr^4iaMv the povemor of Arabia lVlrva
iiniU-r llailrian or ^\niun>niB Pita. Anoihrr hu a
t;nvk iiiłcripiioo not m dtripbered. TtaTeller* an
t,gttvd ihal lbe«« e\ravati«iH. nała of Iha most alrik-
in;; uf whieh aie in lhe diff itirettly opposiie tba ihaa-
tra. w«« DHaily lomba, ibou^h aonw ibink Ihey maj
oiijiually han Mrrttt aa dwdlioca, Indetd eercral
of tlmi harc locuU niDk in Uie doot u if Tor borial-
plKO. A few wtn doubtkn lempl» for Ihe worahip
al Bul, but ■iilaequ«itl7 cannrtal ipła Christian
chnrclHł. Tlwy tKleod tli along tbe caatem cli&
The Tbeatra at Petn.
Procceding atill down tb« Umm, al aboat one hun-
Jicd ud Bhj pacea from Ihc Iheatie the clilb expand
npidlj. and sooD recede so far as lo give place to a
plłin atnot a mik gquai«, Buirounded by (^iille tmi-
KOteB, The brook, nhich now tum» again to ihe *«t,
Inmm thc middk of tbis pliin liii it reachea a ledge
uf suubtotie clifla, tfarough which it piercea, and ia Idm
in ibe loiida ot tbe Arabah. TbU Utlle pUiii wa> the
BU ctilit dty ttrPecra, and it ia still corercd irith hcaps
of bewD itoiH, Łncea of paved etreeta, and foundaliaDi
Tlif chief public buildinga occupied the banki oT the
rim and Łba high ^round, especially on Ihe Bouth, aa
ilirii mina (aSdently ahow. One aumptunus eiiiflo
imiini Kauding, though in in imperfect and diJipi
the nsMm aide of Ihe valley, and seema to have beei
• polaa rother thon i tempie. It U ealled Katr Faria,
tr FbaTaoh'B p«lace, and ia thirty^four pacxa aąuare.
Tbe willa ant neoilj' entjre, and on Ehe uatem aido
tbey IR itill annnountKi by a bandaame comiee.
fmL, which looka fmrarda the north, waa onum^
■iib anw of columna, faur of whicb ara aUnding.
o|)en piaiu behind the colonnode extcnded tbe i
Icngtti at the bulhling. In the rear of tliiB piozz
dm apartnimls. the principal of which ia entered under
1 DoUe arch, apparenlly lhirty-flve or fony feet high.
iicbittctuR, and ia the moie atriking aa being the oniy
pmper tdificc now atanding in Petro.
A linie eaat tif this, and in a rangę with aome of the
miBt tjHotiful excavationB in the mountain on the eaBt
tiite (f thc Talley, are the remaiiis of wbit appean lo
htTf bccu ODOther Łriumphal arch. Under it vere
Ibm paaaigea, and a number of pedeatala of coluinna,
n Weil 03 otber fragmento, woold leod to the belief that
■ taagnilWfnt colcainade was connected with it. In the
■me ridnity ore the abutinenta of a miaBiva bridge.
On an emineDCe aontb of tbii Ib a Bingle column
(o* miKly called Zab Far^n, L a. hoata virilia Phara.
mil) connccWd witb Che foundation walla nf a tempie,
'bote [allan lie łcattered aroand in broken frigmenU,
Koie of Uwm fiTe feet in diameter. Twelve of theae,
■Ibk pedecUla Btill rtnuin in their places, adomed
ritticr Bida of thlt aUtely edillca. Tbere were alBO
tHir celamna in front and aix in tbe rear of the tem-
iJf. Tbey are prostrate on the ground, and Dr. Olin
'nnled tfaiity-acTea iaaaałve fruata of which one of
Ui^ni vaa compcMed.
Sdn (artber aonth are other pilea of mina— colnmna
ud bmn atones— parta, do doabt, of important public
knhtiiigi. Tba laina CraTellet connted not less tban
tnrtfen dmilaT beapa of mina, haiinfc calumna and
^•«nienta of colnmna intermingled Kith błocka of
lima, is thii {urt of the aite of ancient Petta. Thry
indirate tbe great wealth and magnificence of tbis an-
°!Dl capiial, os well aa its uoparolleled calamitiea.
) PETRA
These samptnaus ediflcea occnpled what niay be called
the central parlB of Fetra. A larga aurface on tha
nortb side of tbe rlyer is coTered with Bubiitmctiona,
wbicb piobably belonged to pńrate habitolions. An
estanaiTe region atill fartber north retains no yesti)^
of tha bnildlngB wbich oncs covered it. Public wealth
wai l>viabed on palaces and templea, vhile tha banaea
of the cnmmon people wen aligbtly and fDeanly bnllt,
of auch materiala aa a few yean, or at most a few cen-
tnrica, wen aaSdent to diaaolre.
Tha acropolia ia tbonght to bave occnpied an Iso-
lated hill on the weet. Tbe whole aacent of the hilla
on tha Bouth, np wbicb the tuilaome passage-way out of
thia museum of wondera winda, ia elaborately plerced
with lombB, templea, or dwellings. At the north-west
eitremity of ths cliffaurroundingthe plain ia the iMr
or clcHster, tbe aecond most remarkable Bculptun of
the entire pUce, hewn likewise out of the face of the
rock. A nvine somewhat like the Sik, witb many
windings, leada to tbe baae, and the approach up to it
ia in pUces by a path fire or aix feet broad, cut with
Itnmense labra- in tbe precigiitoua rock. Its fasadę ia
larger tban tbitof the Rhainefaj but, as ia thatbuild-
ing (if Buch we may cali ii), the interior does not cor-
nBpond, being merely a largo 8>]nare chambcr, with a
receaa reaembling the niche for Ihe allar in Greek ec-
cleeiaatical orchitacture, and bearing evident eigns of
baTiag been cnuTerted from a heathen into i Christian
tempie. The cliffs on the nortb-cast łide of the baain,
which here e^itcnda up a conaiderable val1ey, are in
like manner cut into temples, tombe, or other archi-
teclural forms of great variely.
Laborde and Linant also thougbt that they traced
the ontline of a naumachia or theaCre for sea-flghto,
which would be Booded from cistema in which tbe
water of the torrentB in the wet seafon had been re-
aerred — a remarkable proof, if the hypothBsiB be cor-
rect, ot tbe copionsneaa ofthe wnter-Bupply, if properly
hoabanded, and a confinnation of what we are told of
the exDberant fertility of tbe region, and lig contrait
to the harren Arabah on its iramediate weet (Robinaon,
ii, 169), Stanley (Syr. and Pal. p. 95) leiTes little
doubt tbet Petra waa the aeatof a primeyal sanctnaiy,
wbich he lixes at the ipot now called the "Dcir" or
"Convent," and with which facl the choice ofthe site
of Aaron'B tomb may, he thinka, haTe been connected
(p. 96). Aa regards the qucstion of its idendly with
Kadesh, aee Kadesii; and, for tbe generał aubject,
aee Bitter, xiv, 69, 997 Eq.
many lonndationa, and camod a»ay many a chiselled
stono. and worn mnny a flnithed epccimen of BculpU
ure into nnsbapely nussee. The soft teiture of the
rock aecoDds the destructive agendea ofthe elementa.
EvDn the sccDinuhtiotu of TnbbUh which mark thc
■lU of all othCT deemyed citlea h»ve mottiy dbaji-
□ only b« determ
!T the aurfftca or
lingled -itl
pottary «c»tlered
UDd— tba uaivenBl, and, it would BCeni, in imperub-
■bU memoriał of popnloiu citiu that riiit no lungET.
Tbeła vcitige>, tbe axt«nC ot wbich Dr. Olia łook
great piina lo Cracs, cover an irea one tbLrd ta largo
Mthttt orCairo,flXc1iidingit«largBgardiin from tba
ettimste, and very lufflciont, he tbinks, to contain Iha
whole populatlon of Athena In ita pragperout dayi.
ThoattantionoftrayellerehiiB, iiowBYw, beencbief-
ly engaged by tb« above-aoted excavaticnn, which,
hBving mora auccoMfulIy resistcd the raragea of Cimc,
cODttitute at preaant the gnat and pecullor attraction
of the plncB. Theae excav«tioaa, wbelher formad for
tamplea, tomba, or the dw«111nga of liTing men, sur-
priie the yisitor by their incradJLie numlier and ex-
tont. They not only occupy the ftont of the entira
mountain by which the v»\ley ii enooinpiiaMd, but of
all aidei from thii anclosed area. They eaial, too, ia
Ipreat numbcra in the precipitouB rocka ivbLch ahoot
out from the princiiHil mountains into the aoutbarn,
and atill mor« into tha norlherD part of tha aite, and
they ara aaaa along all the approachaa to the place,
nhicti, In tbe days of itl proiperity, were perhapa tbe
Buburba of tbe overpeop1ed va11ey. Some of ibe moat
poculiar ate foand in tha va11ev above the aatranca of
tho Sik. Wero tbeao 0Tcnvation», inatead of follow-
ing all the ainuoeltica of the mounCain snd iti nnmFT-
0119 goTgaa, Tangad ia rogular order, they proijably
len^^h. They are oftan aeen riaing one abure anuther
Id the face of tha diff, and convenient atepa, nowmuch
worn, cut in the rock, Icad in all direcCiona tbrough
tha fiaiarea and along the aidca of the mountaina, to
the varloUł tomba that occupy theae tofty poaitlona.
Samo of tbem are appareatly not leaa than from two
bundrad to three or foui hundrad feet olnye the level
of the Talley. Caiiapicuaui ailuationa, vUlb1e from be-
rę łnnerally choaen ; but aomatimea the oppo-
isiderahla dcpth, bnt thej a
nea aud rubbiih, ao that i(
It, In theie plobeian tom
only a door of amall dimenakma, and i
to have beeu funuKl
onadoroed habit4tiur
va»t number of exca
chlteclural ornament
Ing t<
'ailed, a
tchem
the gai
of the multitudo, were preferrod. Tiia fiighta
of ileiJ.
all cut in the aolld rock, are almoat innumar-
»bl.,a
d they ascend to gnial heighti, aa well aa in
all dire
ctiona. Sometimca the coDDection with the
city li
interrapled, and one aen in a gorgc, or upon
the fac
of » diff, lifty or a bundred feet above him, a
longac
iea of ttepa rlaing from the edge of an inaccea-
aiLlo ,
otbcr agrnciea have worn tho aaiy aacent into a chan-
nel for
he naten,Bnd thna ioCcnupted łba communi-
catlon.
The
aituationa of thoie encavatinni ara not morę
etimei cut in Ibe face of the rock, nflittla depth
andof
-arioui aiiti and forma, of which it js difficull
cture the objeet, unleai tber had some connec-
tion wi
J) votive offerlDga and religiom rilea. By tar
alsned
aa placea for tho interment ot the deod : and
tbui CI
hibit ■ Tirlely In form and aiia, of interior ar-
cnt and (x(amal dacontioa^ adaplcd to the
ditfcran
t fortunea of tbeir occupanta, and confocmable
were m
aingle
hamhtr, ten, fifteaa. or tnenty feet Hiuan bv
•rclve in hei-ht, coiiUlniiiK a raue-o in the wail
Urgee
ough lo rawlTo one or a fcw dtpoails; aomc
■ra are aaTcrnl receaaea occupy-
oftheapartDient. Theae aeem
ór family tomba. Besidei thew
i of the bumble dead, ttaere ia a
ationa enriched witb rarioua ar-
. To theae uniąue and aumpto.
I ŁuCe of one of tbe most ancieat
racei of men with whom biatory bas madę aa acquaiat-
ad, Petra U indebled tur ita great aad peculiar atCrnc-
tiona. Thia omsmeiiUl arcbltccturo ii whoUy coniincd
(o the front, ubiło tha Interior la quite pluD and des-
tituCe of all decoraCion. Paaa the tbreahold, and noth-
ing ia aeen but perppadicular walls, Iieariag the marka
of tho cbiael, without raouldinga, columoa, or any spe-
ciea ot ornament. Diit tho eitariora of theae primitire
and even rude apartmenta enhibit aome of tba moat
beauCitul and impoaing reaulta of aacient taite and
akiU wbich hare remained to onr timea. Tbe front
of the mountain is wrought Into ficadea of aplendid
templea, rivalling In their aspect and aymmetry tbe
moat celebratcd monuments of Grecian art. Columni
, of rarioua orders, graceful pedimenta, hroad, rich en.
from I tablaturea, aud aometimea lUluari-, all bewn out of
I tbe aoltd rock, and atill forming part of tbe natire
I maaa, tcanaform the baae of tho mountain into a Tiat
' aplendid pile of architecturn, while tbe overhan(:ing
clilTe, towering aboTe In ahapas aa rugged and wild u
ing and cnrioaa of contraata. In moit inatincea it ia
impOMible to aaavn theae beautiful facadea lo any
parlicular atyle of architecture. Uany of tbe colunma
reaemble Iboae oF tbe Corinthlan order; but they dc-
viate BO far. both In tbeir forms and omamonU,'rmm
Ibis elegant oiodel, that
fart abore It, and not nnfłeąucntly naar tha ctiling,
at the hei^ht ot eight or ten f»l. Occaaionally, aa
aiMTe menlioned, ohiong pita or graTri ara annk jn
tho r«cci.<>i, or in the Ooor of the principal apartmcnt.
A Fe»
« Doric,
aaSered moat from the n
of tiine, and are pnibahly vary ancient.
fiut notbing contribotea ao mach to the aloKst mag-
ical aSiKt of aome of theae monnmenta as the rich and
Yarioua colora of tbe rock ont of irhich, or mora prop-
erly in whicb, they are fornied. The moantaJna tliat
encompiaa the rale of Petra are of londstono, of Khich
red ia the predominant hae. Thair snrtace ia a gnod
deal Lumcd aod faded by tba etements, and is ofa duli
lirick color. and moat ot tha aandatone formations in
this Ticinity, aa wcl! as a nomber of the escaTationa
of Petra, axliib<t nolhing ramarkable in their coloring
which does oot belong to the aama apedrs of rock
Ibronghout a conaiderable region of Arabia PetrwL
Many of tbem, hoirever, ara adoraed with such a pro-
fuaion ot the moat loYalj and brilliant colora aa it ia
ararcely posailJe to dearribe. Rad, porple, yellow,
aiara ot aky-blue, LIack and white, are aaen in tbe
luinie maaa diatinctty in ancceeain layen, nr blended
BO aa lo Itarm «very abide and boa of whkh tbey aro
PETRA
45
PETRARCH
cfpaUe— as brilliant and as soft a» they cver appear
in ikwers, or in the plumage of bird?, or in the skj
vben Ulumiiiated by the most glorious saoset. The
nd perpetoaDj shades into pale, or deep rosę or flesh
cokir, and again approaches the hue of the lilac or vio-
kt The white, wbich is often as pure as snów, is oc-
casłonallr jost dbshed witb blne or red. The blae is
nsaallT the pale azore of the elear sky or of the ocean,
tmt sometunes has the deep and peculior shado of the
eioods in soinnier irhen agitated by a tempest Yel-
kiT U an epitbet often applied to sand and sandstone.
Tbe jelloY of the rocks of Petra is as bright as that
cf caffron. It is morę easj to imagine than to describe
tbe effect of tali, graceful columns exhibiting these
exqDUite colors in tbeir snccession of regnlar horizon-
til stnta. They are displayed to still greater advan-
tage in the walls and ceilings of somą of the excava^
tiuD« where there is a slight dip in the strata.
See Irbj and Mangles, Trarela, cb. viii ; Robinson,
B^ Rfuarck ii, 512 sq. ; Laborde, Yoyage (Par. 1830-
STi), p, 55 sq. (this work is chiefly Talued for its en gra v-
tBg^); Baitlett, Fcrty Days in the Detert, p. 126 sq. ;
Roberfet, Sketcka (Lond. 1842-48), vol. iii ; Olin, Trem-
c&, ii, 1 sq. ; Palmer, Dewert ofthe Ext dtu, p. 366 8q. ;
Ril^way, Tke LortTs Land, p. 139 sq. ; Porter, in Mur-
nfi Hmdboot/or Smm and Pal. p. 81 sq. ; B&decker,
Ńladimi und Sjfriea, p. 304 sq. Seo louMiEA.
Petra, Yiceszo, an Itallan cardinal, wais bom at
Napie» Nor. 13, 1662. He occupicd at the court of
£tiaae sereral oonsiderable positions, and was created
canłioal in 1724, tben bishop of Preneste. He enjoyed
fjnt influence with popes Innocent XII aud Benedict
XIII, who often consiilted him upon grave afTairs. He
dicd at Romę March 24, 1747. He published J)e sacra
Ptmintiara Apostoiica (Romę, 1712, 4to), and Com-
ttntaria ad Congtitutionei Aposłołicas (Yen. 1729, 4
TTik fd.). See Nomim iUustri del Regno di Napolu —
HoeTcf, iVo«r. Biog. Generale, xxxix, 730.
Petraich (ItaL Petrarca), Francesco, one of the
Doet cekbnted of Italian writers of prose and poetry,
<le9enre8 a płace here because he was for many years a
dcTODt ind consistent ecclesiastic, and exerted a far-
roaehing influence on the classical cal turę of Italy in
tfe« l^er medicTal period known as the Renaissance
(q- O. Petruch was bora at Arezzo, in Tuscany, in
1^ Uis fiiŁher, a Florentine notary, had been exiled
t«o Tean before, in the same disturbance which drove
out tbe poet Dante ; and he soon left Italy for Avignon,
vhere tbe papai oourt thcn resided. The son was ed>
(>^ated in tbis French city washed by the Rhone, and
st MonipcUier, and then sent to stady law at Bologna.
Tbmigh Petrarch certainly lored the i£neid morę than
tbt Pandects, and copied ancient manuscripts morę will-
tazlj tban Uw papers, yet the subseąuent course of his
poblic life pn)ves that he did not neglect professional
ponuite, and that he prepared himself for being a use-
fui man ^ baainefl& Returning to Avignon soon after
bt became of age, he found himself in possession of a
nnall inheritance, and indulged for some years in an al-
teroation of dassical studies and political composition,
^ih nch gayety (sombre, perhaps, but not the morę
pure on that account) as the clerical court offered. In
the Teir 1327 he oonoeiTed an attachment to an Avig-
oooese lady, yonng bot already married. Some slight
f^iKuritj stiU hangs over his relation to this lady, but
it ii almost certain that she was no less a paragon of
yirtiK than of k>velines8. He met her on April 6, 1327,
ia the chnrch of SL Clara in Avignon, and at once and
f«>nr«r feU deeply in lorę with her. The lady was
^ oineteen, and had been married for two years to a
gtatkoaD of Aiignon, named Hugues de Sade. For
^ y«an Petrarch lired near her in the papai city, and
'''^oently met her at church, in society, at festivities,
^^ Ue lang her beauty and his love, under the name
of bi« « lann," in thoee sonnets whose mcUiflnoos eon-
^ots rariahed the ears of his cootemporarics, and have
not yet ceased to charm. The lady, wboerer she was,
knew how to keep Petrarch at a respectful distance, and
for uaing the only opportunity he had of arowing his
lorę in her presence she so seyerely reproyed him that
he nerer repeated the offence. About 1338 he retired for
two or three years to dwell in the beautiful ralley of
Yauduse, near Arignon. He himself said that his with-
drawal to the retreat which he immortalized was caueed
by no reason morę sentimental or poetic than his dls-
gust with the licentiousness of the papai court, and the
disappointment of the hopes of preferment which the
pope had held out to him. Long before this time Pe-
trarch*s talents and accomplishments had procured for
him not only distinguished patronage, but freąuent and
actire employment. A most brilliaiit honor awaited
him at Romę in 1841, where, on Easter-day, he was
crowned in the Capitol with the laurel-wreath of the
poet, The ceremonics which marked this coronation
were a grotesąoe medley of pagan and Christian reprc-
sentations. Petrarch was, howeyer, as ardent a scholai
as he was a poet; and throughout his whole life he was
occupied in the collection of Latin MSS., even copying
some with his own band. To obtain these, he tray-
elled freąucntly throughout France, Germany, Italy
and Spain. In 1353 Petrarch returned to Italy, and
soon became the trusted counsellor and diplomatic agent
of seyeral of his country*s rulers. He was sent on mis-
sions at home and abroad. He finally settled at Milan,
where he spent ten years, and liyed for a season also at
Parma, Mantua, Padua, Yerona, Yenice, and Romę.
Though he had neyer entered holy orders, he was re-
warded for his faithful seryices to the state by ecclesias-
tic benefioes in the iiorth of Italy. He might haye risen
to positions of great influence and rich returas if he had
chosen, but he preferred the ąuiet life of a recluse. In
1370 Petrarch remoyed to Arquk, a little yillage prettily
situated among the fTuganean hiUs, where he spent his
closing years in bard scholarly work, much annoyed by
yisitors, troublcd with epileptic flts, not oyer rich, but
serene in heart, and displaying in his life and corre-
spondence a rational and beautiful piety. He died July
18, 1374. Petrarch was not only far beyond his age iu
learning,but had risen aboye many of its prejudices and
superstitions. He despised astrology, and the cfaildish
medicine of his tinqes; but, on the other band, he had
no liking for the conceitcd scepticism of the mediteyal
sayans; and in his De sui ipsitts et mulłorum dliorum
Tgnoranlia he sharply attacked the irreligious specula-
tions of those who had acąuircd a sbullow, free-think-
ing habit from tbe study of the Arabico-Aristotelian
school of writers, such as Ayerroes. Petrarch'8 Latin
works wcre the first in modern times in which the lan-
guage was classically written. The principal are his
EpistolcB, consisting of lettcrs to his numcrous friends
aud acquaintance8, and which rank as the best of his
prose works : De Vitis Yirorum Iłlusirium :^De Reme-
dits vtriit«que Forfunae: — De Vita Solitaria: — Rerum
Memorandarum libri iv: — De Conłemptu Mundi, etc.
Besides his prose epistles, he wrote uumerous epistlcs in
Latin yerse, eclogues, and an epic poem called A/rica,
on the subjcct of the Sccond Punic War. It was this last
production which obtained for him the laurcl-wreath at
Romę. Petrarch, whose life was thus actiye, is immor-
tal in history by reason of morę claims than one. Ho
is placed as one of the most celebrated of poets in right
of his " Rime," that is, yerses in the modern Italian
tongue, of which he was one of the earliest cultiyators
and reiiners. Celebrating in these his yisionary loye,
he modelled the Italian sonnet, and gaye to it, and to
other forma of lyrical poetrj-, not only an admirable pol-
ish of diction and melody, but a delicacy of poetic feel-
ing which has hardly eyer been eąualled, and a play
of rich fancy which. if it often degencrates into false
wit, is as often delightfuUy and purely beautifuL But
though PetraTch's sonnets and canzoni and " triumphs"
could all be forgotten, he would still be honored as one
of the benefactors of European ciyilization. No one but
PETRAZZI (
Boccaccio abarea with him the glorr of hiTing been
Ihe chier reiŁorer of eUuieil kuning. Hi* greateM
merit kay in bii bBving iccalled aUcntion to the highei
and mare correct clatNcal autbon; in bi> hsTing been
an enthuiiutic and tuccenful agent in re*iviDg the
■tudy •>{ the Greek tongue, and iii bii haring b«n, in
his tnvelii and otherwiM,ui iiidefatigiblecoUectorand
preaerrer of aacient iDUiUMri{ita. Tu bi* care we owe
copiea of łeveral cla»ical norka which, but for him,
would, in all likelibood, have periibed. CoUectire edi-
tion* of hia wtiole worka bave beea repealed1v pab-
liihed (Dai]e,1496, l&M, and 1681 sq.). Hii lifc hae em-
played many wrilen, tmong wbom may be raentioned
Bdlutello, Reccadelli, Tomińni, De U Bailie, Da Sadea,
Tiraboschi, Italdelli, Ugo FokoIo, Campbell, and Geiger.
In July, 187J, a Petnrch fatival »aa beld at Padua,
and a atatue of the greal poet by Ceccon wai erecced.
The eulugy on thia occaaion was pronounced by Alcardi
in the aula magna of the univenity. See, beiidei Ihi
oomplete biogiaphiea, Longfellow, Potf4 and Potiry of
Europę ; GibUin, Dtcline and Fali oftke Ramam fmpirt.
eh. lxx; Preacotl, Mitcttlamn, p. 616; For. Q,u. Rtv.
July, 1843 ; ConKmp. Rn. Julv, 1874 ; Rerat Óet Dna
Mandei, July 15, 1874 1 Ueberweg, Hitt. ofPhiL ii, 7, 8,
4«2; Riuat Ckriliamt, 18^9, p. 143.
Tomb of Petrarcb.
Petrazsi, AaTULPO, a painter of Siena, waa b
He
idied ai
vely Ul
Yanni, Ehe younger Salimbcni,
acąuired diatinclion, and eiecuted many worka for Ihe
churchea snd public edificea of hu native city, aa well
aa for tbe prlvste coUecliona. He alao opencd an acad-
emy thcre, which waa much rrequented by the artiaU
of Siena, and honoted by the adendance of Ilorgognooe,
who Bloppett Kme tnoDtha with Petrazzi before he pro-
ceeded lo Romc. Lanii uyi thit Petrazzi iFenłcd to
e adhen
r of Van:
He frequently aims
iiiifreiiuenLly choM hia modeli from the achoDiróT Upper
Iliiy. Ilia Marriage Ftait at Caaa bringa Paul the
yrroneae strongly to our recoUcction. Felrazzi'a Cont-
n™i.iHn/S(.J(rOBif,BtlheAgo«tiniani.i«painledmuch
aflcrthe manner of CaraccL Petrazzi encelled in paint-
iiiRchildren.andhiapicturea are generalty adomed with
ch..iri of angela. Hia cabinel pictureł are ingeninuMy
i-omposed, and have a lively and pleaalng eOecl, Hia
picturea of the /'our JHuimj.at VuUe,a aeat nflbe iin-
hle fainily cirChigi,areadmiredfar the playfu Inna and
cIpganceoftbegcuupBflfCupidainlrDduced. Hediedin
1603. Sce Spooner, Biog. llil.o/lAi: FiMArli, ii, 685.
Petreiua (Lat, for Pnitri). Thkodorub, a leamed
Dulchman, waa bom ApriI 17, 1667, at Kempen (Over-
lasel). Atkerhaving been receiyedaamaater ofaruin
Cologne, bo eiilered theCanbuaian conrent of that city
(1587), and waa piior of Ualmen, in the biahopric cJ
Munster; in Ihia capacity he twice aseJMed at Ihe gen-
enl chipler of hia order, liia taate for itudy Icd him
8 PETRI '
to employ tbe łime left bini fiom the dutiea of bia pro-
feasion in compoaing ot tranalating diSerent works (ot
the defence of Ihe Catfaotic faith. He died at Colocne
April 20, IGID. We quale from him, Con/aiio Ore-
fforiana (Colugne, 1696 or IGOb, ISmo); iu Ibe (
■ for tbe
ullec-
tjon of pauagea extracted from Tertullian and St. Cyp-
rian (1603), from Leo the Grtat (1614), aud from Si.
Uemard (1607): — fitUiotAwa Citriunana (ibid. 1G09,
l^tao); Uuroti greatJy proSled from thia inprq>aiins bia
TiKatTum S. Carlatimni ord. (ibid. 1680, foL) :— Chrono-
logia, tan Romamoi-um pontijicun quam imperalontynj
hittorica{}\>\i. 16S6, 4to}:— Cafolt^iutanficorttił (ibid.
1629, 4to)i not Tciy esict. He tranalated into I.alin
two theolf^cil worki from father* Coaier and Jean Da-
rid, and he edited the Oprra omma of St. Bruno (ibid.
1610, S Tola. foL). See Niceron, ifimoirfi, \-nL sl ; Pa-
quat, tfinoira, vaL ii.— Boefei, fiour. Biog. Grnirale,
PetreolO, Anorha, a painter of Yenzone, who, ac-
cording Co Rinaldis, wan empkiyed in the calbedral of
hii native city about 1686, where he "deconted the
pańcia nf the organ with very beautiful hiitaries of S.
(Seronimo and S. EuMachio, łogether witb Ihe parable
of tbe wite and foolish virgins, lumunded witb fine ar-
cbitecture." See Spooner, Biog, Hitt, ofilie Fmt A rtt,
ii, 686.
Fstrl (Lat. fot Peafrt), Baitbelteii, a Bel^rian
Ibeologian, waa bom about lM7BtOp-Linter, nearTirie-
monU Afier having taught philaaapby fur len yean at
obllged 10 relire lo Douai (1580), where he waa pr')viil-
ed with a canonicate and a theological chair. A zcal-
ouB ThomiaC, be beąueathed alt hia wealth to the Do-
miiiicaos. He died at Douai t^eh. 26, 1630. His works
are mOBtly acholastic, with aome ecclesiastical hiatory
borrowed from Baroniua; the moat carefully written are
a commentary upon the Acis nf the Apoalles (Douai.
1622, 410), ainl tome Practplima logica (itód. 1635,
I2nia). He prepared a good ediiion of the Summa of
St. Tliomaa (ibid. 1614, fuL), and publiahed the com-
menUries of Kslius upon the epietles of St. Faul and St.
John (ibid. 1GH-1G16, 2 voU. fuL). See Foppeiu. BOL
Brigica; Paąuot, ilimoirtt, vaL viii Hoefei, A'Diir.
Biog. Geairalf, xliii, 767.
Patri, Laarent, one of the three principal Swei-
ish Refumiers. a brother of the fotlowing, was bom at
(Etebro in 1499. Atler h«ving followed at WiltenberR
Ihe teaching of Luther and Helancthon, on his return lo
Sweden be spread the principlea of Reform in that coun-
try. Appointed by Guatarua Va«a professor of the"lo<cy
in Ihe Unireraity of Upsala, of which he became reciilr
in 1627, he waa elevaled in 1531 to the archiepiacnpal
chair of that city. He tlien undertook, witb the aid of
hia brother Olaus and of Laurent Andreil, a Swediih
tranalalion of Ihe Bibie, based princiiMlly npoa Luther'!
ver«on, which waa printed in 164t ; it ia known undtr
the name of 6'Hf(nriu'ł Bibb, and it bas conlribulcd
greatly to ihe deyelopment of tbe Swediah langiiage.
Sent in 1534 aa ambaasador to tbe czar of RiiaaiB. he
beld, in Ihe presence of that prince, a cunferenc« upnn
religion wlih tbe patriarch ofthe Ruaaian Chutrh ; the
diacuaaion took place ia tireek ; but ihe interpreter eio.
plo}-ed by the czar lo Iranslale into Rusaian the words
nf the inlerlocutnra often did not undeistand the ab-
airact terma uaed by Petri, and theu lold what paaaed
through bla head, until one of the assistantą who un-
derslood Ruaaian and Greek, diacbeed tbe fraud by
buiata of taughter. Petri, during the rest of hia lifiF,
waa oocupied in conaolidating Lulheraniam in bis own
country, and in organiziiig ihe new Chnrcb, of which
he was one of Ihe principal fnundera. He waa rerj be-
neAcent. aud disliuguished himaelf adrantageooaly over
bla concilialoryapirit, which did not pre-
lim from addreaalng to Erie XIT, in 1567, a seTcra
he Bubject of tlie muriln of tbe Stuf«.
PETRI
47
PETROCORIUS
PeCri died in 1573. We bave of bis worka, VercB ae
jutUe raiioms fuare rtffnum Suecia Chnstiemo eaptwOf
DamiB oUm regi ae ejus karedibus nikil ddteai (Stock-
bolm, 1547, 4to) ^-PastOle sur le$ Ev€mgiU$ (ibid. 1555,
l&il, 8yo) : — Refutatio D. Beurei pertintns ad articulum
de dna Dommi (Upoak, 1563) i^Disciplme de VEglise
Snidoite (Stockbolm, 1571, 4to); a work wbicb, by a de-
cisbn of the Diet of 1572, obUined the force of law : —
Sermons sur la Passion (ibid. 1573, 8to): — 8everal
fttber Strmtmsj and liturgie, polemical, and dogmatical
worka. See Schinmeier, LfAensbesdireibung dar drei
SchctdisckeH Rtformatoren^ Andrea, Olaus und Laurent
Petri (Łttbeck, 1783, 4to); Hallman, Ltfoęmts htskrir
Jag ofttr OlaSs och Lars Petri; Biogrophisk-Lerikon;
Alaus, La Suede sous Gustate Wąsa (Paria, 1861).—
Hoefier, Kouv» Biog, GśnsnUe, xxxix, 755. Comp.
Tiftber, Bist. of iks Ref, p. 176 aq. ; Gieaeler, EccUs,
Bul iv, 276.
Petrl, OlattB-Fhase, a Swediab tbeologian, waa
bora at CErebro, in 1497 : the aon of a blackamitb, be
reccived his eariy education anong the Canneiitea of
bis natiTe town, together with bia brother Laurent,
with whom he attended the Untyeraity of Wittenberg,
wbere they embnced the doctrinea of Luther. On
tbeir retom to Sweden, in 1519, they began, after bar-
ing aa by a miracle eacaped from tbe executioner8 of
Christian II, to |Mropagate the ideaa of tbe Reformer.
Appointed in 1523 rector of the achool of Strengn^
OlaOs woo to hia opinions the archdeaoon Laurent An-
drea, and, through the mediation of the Utter, Guata-
tus Vaaa appointed Peter preacher at Stockbolm. In
bis termona and in direra oonferences he attacked the
oU religion with an increasing ardor. The firat among
aU Protestant eodeuaatica in Sweden, he waa publicly
manicd in 1525. After haying aasiated at the Diet of
Testerfta in 1527, wbere he had a diapute npon religion
with the profeaeor of Upeala, Pierre Galie, whom Gua-
uvw dedaied to baye been conąuered, be entered morę
aDd Doie into the faror of the king, wbo oonaulted him
npon Łhe most important aflaira, and finally appointed
bin hb chanoeUor. In 1589 Petri, tired of buaineaa,
«xchanged his duties for those of firBt paator of tbe cap-
tUL The ibllowing year he waa oondemned to death
for not haTing lerealed, in 1586, tbe conapiracy formed
agaioatthe life of the king by aome citizena of tbe Han-
seatłc riUages, one of whom had confeaaed to him. He
purcfaased hia pardon for a large aum. Three yeara
afktt tbe king reinatated him in hia oflSce of paator, and
be kepi it until hia death, which oocurred at Stockbolm
in 1563. He joined to qnite extenaire and raried leam-
ing gnat activity and a captiyating eloqnence, but he
KTcr spared bis adyeraary, and often degenerated into
•bose of a bold and raab character. He may be called
tbe Latber of Sweden, while bia brother Laurent, milder
and morę moderate, waa the Melanctbon. We bare of
P«tń'8 worka, in Swediab, treatiaea on Marriagt ofEc'
dfsiasties (Stockbolm, 1524, 1528, 4to) :— tbe Diference
^iheta (Ae EcangeHetU Faith and the Roman (ibid.
Id27, 1605, 4to) :— on the Duties of the Clerg^f ani the
Ijoify (ibid. 1528, 4to) : — on tbe Inconcenienoes of the
Momutie Life (ibid. 1528, 4to) : — PostUls on aU the
^twigtUttB (ibid. \b30) :—ItUroduction to Saered Scrip-
tftrt fibłd. 1538, 4to) : — aome Sermons^ Odes that are atill
Ktng in Sweden, and aereral otber tbeological wńtinga.
Petn baa left in manoacript aome Memoirs upon tbe
hiatofy of hia countiy, which remained unpubliahed
becatoe Guatama found them written with too much
indąiendence ; one copy of which, preaerved in the Royal
Libnry of Paria, baa been analyzed by Keralio in tbe
K^tkes d, Eartratts des ManuscriŁs, voL L— Hoefer, Kouv,
^iog, Gmirale, xxxix, 754. See alao tbe referencea
■nder the preceding article.
Petri, Pietio de*, an Italian painter, waa bom in
Igrania, a diatiict of Noyara, in 1671. He studied under
Carfo Maratti at Bome, and painted aome worka for the
ehoithea ia that metropolia. Łanzi aaya be fonred a
atyle of hia own by engrafting on that of Maratti a por-
tion of the manner of Cortona. He did not, howerer,
obtain the reputation which hia merita deaerred, on ac-
oount of hia infirm healtb and extreme modeaty. Hia
beat worka are a picture of The CrucifiriofL, in tbe church
of SS. Yincento e Anaataaio, and aome freacoa in the
tribune of S. Gemente. He waa called at Bome de*
Pietri, Orlandi calla him a Roman, othera a Spaniard ;
but Lanzi aaya be was a native of Premia. He died at
Bome in 1716, in the prime of life. There are a few
etchinga heretofore attributed to him, but^ Bartach givea
them to anotber artiat of tbe aame name. See Spooner,
Bioff. HisL ofthe Fine Arts, ii, 686.
Petrobmsiana. The aect of the Petrobruaiana,
or. aa they are commoniy but leaa correctiy called, Pe-
trobussians, waa tbe earlieat of tbe anti-aacerdotal com-
munitiea which tbe profound diacontent inapired by the
tyranny of Bome caUed into exi8tence at tbe beginning
of the 12th century. They were the followera of the
eloąuent Peter of Bruya, who about the year 1100 be-
gan to declaim againat the comiptions of the Church
and tbe vicea of tbe dergy. He continued tbe battlii
for twenty yeara moet aucceaafuUy, eapeciaUy in Lan-
guedoc and Prorence, and madę many conrerta to his
own opiniona. What theae really were it ia difficult to
atate here, aa there ia no record among hia frienda.
From Peter of Clugny, who replied to Peter of Bruya,
we gather that bis principal doctrinea — which, with
one exception (hia repugnance to tbe croaa), were morę
ably extended by hia morę powerful auccesaor, Henry
the Deacon — were, though aomewhat rationalistic, yet
upon the whole rather evangelical. At firat the preach-
ing of Peter aeema to have been confined to the inculca-
tion of a ayatem of generał morality ; but time and im-
punity 80 favored him that he attacked tbe aeeds of dog-
matic errora " per xx fere annos aata et aucta quiuque
pnecipue et venenata yirgulta." The capital chargea
npon which he ia arraigned are : (1) He rejected infant
baptiam, alleging that no miraculoua gifta were poasible
in that ceremony, wbicb he declared to be wholly void
when performed on the peraon of an irreaponsible infant,
(2) He denied that any apecial aanctity reaided in con-
aecrated buildinga; forbidding tbe erection of churchea,
and directing that auch churchea aa did exiat abould be
pulled down. (8) In particular be objected to the
worahip of the croaa, alleging tbat tbe accursed tree
ahould be held in horror by all Christiana aa the inaUru-
ment of the torturę and death of the Bedeemer. (4) He
denied all aort of real preaence in the Euchariat, Wheth-
er or not he retained the office of the commuuion aa a
memoriał rite ia not known. (5) He waa bitterly op-
poaed to prayera, oblationa, alma, and other good deeda
done on behalf of the dead. To theae five capital
teneta, which form the aubject of the Clugniac abbot*a
refutation, muat be added a totol probibition uf chant-
ing and all uae of aacred musie Puritanicnl as aome
of theae teneta aeem, Peter of Bruya waa no lover of
aaceticism. Hfe inculcated marriage, even of priests, as
a high religioua usage. The deleterioua effccts which
the Bomanists claim to have come from his teachings
are thua auromed up by Peter of Clugny : " The people
are rebaptized, churchea profaned, altara overtumed,
croases are bunied, meat eaten openly on tbe day of
tbe Lord'8 paaaion, prieats acourged, monka cast into
dungeons, and by tenor or torturę conatrained to marry."
Hia followera continued until the end of the 13th cen-
tury.— Blunt, lAct, of SectSj a. v. See Milman, Ilisi, of
Lat. Chrisfiamtyj v, 412 ; Hardwick, Ch, łJist, ofthe M.
A.; ^vXf Dogm/engesch,yo\.\\\ "Pipetf MomtmaUal The-
oL§ 140: Jortin, Eccies, Rev, iii, 323 ; Alzog, Kirchen-
ffesch, ii, 72 ; Hagenbach, Hist, of Doctr, (aee Index).
See Peter of Bauys.
Petrocorins, Pauunus, aometimea confonnded
with Paulinua of Nola (q. v.), was an Eaatem eccleai-
astic, and, according to hia own reporta, flourished in the
Western empire in the 5th century. He waa intimate
PETROJOHANNITES
48
PETTENGILL
with Perpetuas, who was bishop of Toun from A.D. 401
to 491, and whom be calls bis patron. It was at tbe
desire of Ferpetuus tbat be puŁ into yerse tbe life of
St. Martin of Toars ; and in an epistle addressed to tbat
prelate be humbly tells bim, with an amusing reference
to tbo bistory of Balaam, tbat, in giving bim oonAdence
to spcak, be bad repeated tbe miracle of opening tbe
moutb of tbe ass. Ile aflerwarda supplied, at tbe desire
of tbe bisbop, some yerses to be inscńbed on tbe walls
of tbe new cburcb wbicb Pcrpetuus finisbed aboot A.D.
473 (or, according to Oudin, A.D. 482), and to wbicb tbe
body of St Martin was transferred. He sent witb tbem
some Yerses, Dt YisUatione NepotuH tui, on occasion of
tbe cure, supposed to be miraculous, wbicb bis grand-
soD, and tbe young Udy to wbom be was married or be-
troŁbed, bad experienoed tbrougb tbe efficacy of a doc-
ument, apparently tbe account of tbe miraclea of St.
Martin, written by tbe band of tbe bisbop. We gatber
tbat tbis poem was written wben tbe autbor was old,
from tbe circamstance of bis baring a grandson of mar-
riageable age. Of tbe deatb of Paulinus we bave no
account Tbe works of Paulinus Petrocorius are. De
ViŁa S. Martini, a poem in bGxameter yersc, diyided
into six books. It bas not mucb poetical or otber merit
Tbe first tbree books are little else tban a ycrsified
abridgment of tbe De Beati Martini Vita Liber of Sul-
picius Sererus; and tbe fourtb and fiftb comprebend
tbe incidents mentioned in tbe Dialogi II et III de Yir-
tutibus Beati Martini of tbe same autbor. Tbe sixtb
book comprises a description of tbe miraclcs wbicb bad
beeu wrougbt at tbe tomb of St. Martin under tbe eyes
of Perpetuus, wbo bad sent au account of tbem to Pau-
linus : — De Yisilatione NepotuH sui, a description of tbe
miraculous cure of bis grandson ałready mentioned, also
written in bexamcter rerse : — De Oratiiibus (an inap-
propriate title, wbicb sbould ratber be Orantibus simply,
OT Ad Orantes), apparently a portion of tbe bexametGr
yerses designcd to be inscribed on tbe walls of tbe new
cburcb built by Perpetuus: — Peipeiuo Episcapo Epistoła.
Tbis lettcr was sent to Perpetuus witb tbe yerses De
YisUatione and De Orantibus, Tbe works of Paulinus
Petrocorius were first printed by Franciscus Juretus
(Par. 1585). After tbe first publication of tbe works
tbey were iuserted in seyeral coUections of tbe Cbris-
tian poets, and in some editions of tbe Bibiiotheca Po'
łrum, generally, boweyer, under tbe name of Paulinus
of Nola. In tbe Lyons edition of tbe Bibiiotheca Pa-
trum (1677, fol.), yi, 297, etc, 'tbey are ascribcd to tbeir
rigbt autbor. Tbey were again publisbed by Cbristi-
anus Daumius (Lcips. 1686, 8yo), witb ample notes of
Juretus, Bartbius, Gronoyius, and Daumius. To tbe
works of our Paulinus were subjoined in tbis edition
tbe Eucharislicon of Paulinus tbe Penitent, or Paulinus
of Pella, and tbe poem on Jonab and tbe Kineyitcs, as-
cribed to TertuUiau. See Ilisł, Litteraire de la France,
ii, 469, etc. ; Cave, Ilist, Liii. ad ann. 461 (Oxon. 1740-
1743, foL), i, 449; Fabricius, Biblioth. Med. et Inf, La-
tinitat. y, 206, ed. Mansi ; Tillemont, Memoires, xyi, 404 ;
Oudin, De Scriptoribus et Saiptis Eccles. voL i, coL 1288,
1289.— Smitb, Diet. o/Gr. and Rom. Biog. and Mjfthol
iii, 214.
Petro-Johannitea, a name giycn to tbe parti-
sans of Peter John Olivi (A.D. 1279-1297), a monk of
Bezi^res, tbe founder of tbe Fraticcili schism among
tbe Franciscans, and a disciple of tbe abboŁ Joacbim.
He fullowed in tbe stops of bis master, and wrote a
commentary on tbe Reyelation, containing interpreta-
tions of a similar cbaracter to tbe propbecies of Joa-
cbim. From \\\ą birtbplace be is called Peter ofSerig-
nan, and from bis monastery Petrus BUtrrensis. Wben
pope Nicbolas III issued a new interpretation of tbe
ride of St, Francis (A.D. 1279), with tbe yiew of sup-
prcssing tbe fanaticism wbicb was rising among tbe
*' Bpirituals"* of tbat order, a party was fornoed to rcsist
it under tbe leadership of Oliyi, and tbis party of Petro-
Jobannites, or strict Franciscans, became after bis ('eitb
tbe party out of wbicb tbe Fraticelli took tbeir rise.
Sec Wadding, Annal, Min, Fratr. ; Oudin, De Scnpłor.
EceL iii, 5»i i Baluze, J/wcetfan. i, 213.— Biunt, Z>ier. o/*
3&:tSf s. y.
PetronlUa, St., a Romisb saint, *s reputed to baye
been tbe daugbter of tbe apostle Peter, and to baye
been at Romę witb bim. As tbe presence of tbe apos-
tle bimself at tbe Etemal City is still ąuestioned, we
need bardly discuss tbe presence of bis daugbter in tbat
place. Sbe is reputed to baye become depriyed of tbe
use of ber limbs by sickness. One day wben some of
bis disciples sat at dinner witb tbe apostle, tbey asked
wby it was tbat wben be bealed otbers bis own child
remained belpless. Peter replied tbat it was good for
ber to be ill, but, tbat bis power migbt be sbown, he
commanded ber to rise and serye tbem. Tbis sbe did,
and wben tbe dinner was oyer lay down belpless as be-
fore. Years afler, wben sbe bad become perfected by
sufTering, sbe was madę well in answer to ber came&t
prayers. Now Petronilła was yery beautiful, and a
young noble, Yalerius Flaccus, desired to marry her.
Sbe was afraid to refuse bim, and promised tbat if hc
retumed iu tbree days be sbould tben carty her bome.
Sbe tben eamestly prayod to be deliyered from this
marriage, and wben tbe loyer came witb bis friends to
celebrate tbe marriage he found ber dead. Flaccus la-
mented sorely. Tbe attendant nobles borę her to her
graye, in wbicb tbey placed ber crowned witb roscsi.
Sbe is commemorated in tbe Roman Cburcb May 81.
PetronlUB, tbe name of two Romans somewbat in-
yolyed in Jewisb bistory.
1. Caius Pbtronius succeeded Aulius Gallus in tbe
goyernment of Egypt, and carried ou a war in B.C. 2*2
against tbe Etbiopians, wbo bad invaded Egypt under
tbeir queen Candace (q. y.). He was a friend of Herod,
an<l sent com to Judaea duńng a famine (Joscpbus, A nt.
xy, 9, 2).
2. PuBLius PETRONirs was sent by Caligula to S>Tia
as tbe successor of Yitellius (A.D. 40), in tbe capacity of
goyemor, witb orders to erect tbe emperor^s statuę in tbe
Tempie at Jerusalem ; but at tbe intercession of tbe Jcws
be was preyailed upon to disobey tbe imperial command,
and escaped punishment by tbe opportune deatb of tbe
emperor (Josepbus, A nt. xyiii, 9, 2 ; War, ii, 10).
PetroniuB {St.) of Bologna, a Roman Catbolic
preUte aainted for bis piety, flourished in tbe first half
of tbe 5tb century. He was a Roman by birtb, and de-
scended of a noble family. He early entered tbe ser-
yice of tbe Cburcb, and soon rosę to positions of influ-
ence and distinction. He finally biecame bisbop of
Bologna, and distinguisbed bimself by banisbing tbe
Arians from tbat city. He died A.D. 430. In the
paintings of tbe Romisb saints be is represented in
episcopal robes, witb mitrę and crosier. He bas a tbick
black beard in an ancient representation, but generally
is witbout it. His attribute is a model of Bologna,
wbicb be bolds in bis band. His pictures are oonfinctl
to Bologna; and tbere is in tbat city a beautiful cburcb
dedicated to bis memory. (J. H. W.)
Petrus. Sec Pkter.
Petroa Hispanus. See John XX.
PettODgill, Erastus, a minister of tbe Mctbodist
Episcopal Cburcb, was born in Newport, N. H., July 7,
1805; was conyerted in Orford in 1824, and was bap-
tized by Rey. Natban Howe and joined tbe Metbodi.«t
Episcopal Cburcb. He receiyed license to preach in
1835, and labored tbat year on tbe Betblebem charge
under tbe direction of tbe presiding elder. He joined
the New Hampsbire Conference in 1836, and was sta-
tioned at Bristol. His subseąucnt appointments were
as fuUows: in 1837, Androscoggin Mission; 1838, Strat-
ford; 1839, Betblebem; 1840-41, Lunenburgb,Vt,; 1842-
43, St. Jobnsbury; 1844-45, Barton; 1846, Newbury;
1847-48, Londońderry; 1849-60, Hartland ; 1851-52,
East Barnard; 1853-54, Norwich and Hartford; 1855,
Union Tillage; 1858,BeIlowsFalls; 1857-58, Hard wiek;
1859^^, Irasburgh; 1861, Corintb; 1£63-^, WUliams-
PETTIBONE
49
PETUllSSON
u>wn. 1«&M;6, Union YłllAge; 1867-68, Barnard. While
a>!unji^ faithfuliy and with great acceptance on this
Jast apfłointmcoŁ he was stricken with a fatal disease,
Msd afier weeka ot suffering, borne with great patience
md Christian fortitade, he died March 8, 1869, relying
apon Che divioe promise and tnisting solely to the mer-
ii5<.r Christ. See Mimiteso/Arm^Cw/ABlO. (J.H.W.)
Pettibone, Roswell, a Presbjterian minister, was
'•ni in Orwell, YL, Aug. 26, 1796. He had limited fa-
(^iiiies for an early education, entered Middlebury Col-
.'^ in 1817, graduated in 1820, uught in the academy
:bcre in 1821, studied diviuity with Dr. Hopkins, and
WIS licensed by the Addiaon County Asaociation in
l^ftt He commenced preaching in Hopkinton, St.
LaTfrnoe County, N. Y., in 1823, and was onlained
July ti^ 1824; berę he labored with great acceptability
ard ^MscesB till poor health induced him to seek a milder
riunate. and in September, 1830, ho went West, and
fteacbed at Ann Harijor, Mich., through the winter,
ind in the spring receiveil a unanimous cali to take
charge of the Church, bat ill-health prevented his do-
'ucz 90. During 1831 he was invited to the Church in
Rrans' Mills, Jefferson County, N. Y., which he Berved
with gnat fidelity and success until, in Noyember, 1837,
br vu called to Canton, St. Lawrence County, N. Y.,
uHi iostalled Feb. 14, 1838. Ilere he labored until
April 1, 1834, wben he became chaplatn of Clinton State
PrtsDD, where he died, Aug. 15, 1854. Mr. Pettibone
was pre-eminent in eyery relation and in the dlacharge
0f cvery duty ; in spirit and condnct a progressire con-
«mtif-e^ and strongly attached to the Calvinistic doc-
trijMs of grace; Tery actire in organizing different
beiie%'oIent societies and churches in his own and sister
o>antie^ See Wilson, Presb. Hi^. Almanac, 1864, p.
JK (J.L.S.)
Pettigre'«7, Charles, a prelate of the Protestant
Epijseopal Church, was bom about 1755, in Ireland,
wh^nce his father immigrated about 1770. The family
«aa of Scottiah origin, and poesessed those marked char-
acteriiaics of Scotch genius which have distinguished
''i mu\y of the PresbTterian brethren who haTe come
\*> thi» country from Scotland. In 1773 Pettigrew be-
ame a teacher at Edenton, but two years later he took
Mt onkiN and was onlained pastor of the Protestant
Kpi&copal Church at Loudon. In May, 1794, at a con-
vciitian beki at Tarborough, he was elected bishop. He
'M at Booaron, Lakc Scuppemong, where he settled in
1^4. Pettigrew took a leading part in founding the
Cnircrsity of Nurth Carolina. (J. U. W.)
Petto (or Fepto), Samuel, an English Noncon-
r'>rmbt dtńne, the dat« of whose birth is not known,
tV«Qmhed near the close of the 17th century. He was
««łacated for the Church Establishment at Catharine
Hall. Cambridge, and aflerwanls became rector of
SancToft, in Suflblk. When the Act of Uniformity was
^''Wd in 1662 he was ejected from his living as a Non-
<»nf[:>rmif(t. Af:erwards he became pastor in a Dissent-
irg Church at Sudbury, where he passed the remainder
<A bis life. He died probably about 1708, at an adranced
ag\ His work entitled Tke RertŁation Cnretled (1693)
dealt with Scripture pmphecies. The plan of the work
was to inąuire : 1. Wben many Scripture prophecies had
tbeir aocomplishmenL 2. What are now in process of
ftil/Ument. 3. What are still to be fulfilled. His other
worka were, Tke ZHJerence bełteeen the Old and (he New
("'irfHotd (the preface of this work was written by Dr.
Ow«i):_7'4< Voice of the Spirit:— In/ani Baptiam
■^fpoiitted bjf Ckriat: — Scripture Caiechism : — Narra-
fi^' o/łke WoHdtrful and Ertraordinary Fit» of Thnm.
łpntckfl mitr the fnjiitence of lVitehaąft,
Petty, Joii5, an eminent minister nf the Primitire
Metbodist Connection in England, was bom in 1807,
and died in 1868. His ability, piety, and dcYotedness
won fur him some of the most important and reaponsi-
Ue positions in the connection. For seven years he
was editor of the Primitire Kethodiat magazines, *' and
YIII^D
dłd good senrioe in sustaining the efficiency and useful-
ness of these periodicals throughout the connection.*
He was the author of seyeral works ha\ńng a large cir.
culation, of which the most important was The liistory
of the Primitire Methodisł ConMCtion^ a work performed
by reque8t of the Conference, and with great thorough-
ness and ability. During the last three years of his
life he was goycmor of Elmfield School, the principal
educational establishment among the Primitivc Meth-
odiats. In that poaition he was especially useful in
moulding the character and promoting the scholarship
of the students for the ministra*. As a Christian, Mr.
Petty aimed with strong faith and blessed success at
eminent peraonal holiness. As a scholar, " his learaing
was raried, accurate, profound, sanctified.'* As a preach-
er, he eyinced a deep insigbt into Christian life and
experience, and his style combincd elegant simplicity
with intenae eamestness. Among his last words were,
" O ! what boundleas stores of fulness tbere are in Jesus."
(G. C. J.)
Petursson, HALLcniiMun, a notcd psalroist, was
bom in Iceland in 1614. While Hallgrimur was yet a
boy, his father was appointed chorister at the cathedral
in Hole (the old northem episcopal residence in Iceland),
haring been called thither by bishop Gudbrand Thor-
lakason, who is known aa the flrat translator of the Bibie
into Icelandic, and as the real founder of Protem tantism
in Iceland. Hallgrimur got his elementary education
in the school at Hole; but for some unknown reason he
was expelled from this school, whercupon he, aided by
some of his friends, went abroad, first to Gluckstad, in
Sleswick, and later to Copenhagen. In Copenhagen he
worked for a blacksmith until Br\^njolf Sveinsson (af*
terwards bishop of Skalholt, in Iceland), about the year
1632, got him a place in the school of Our Yirgin. Herę
Hallgrimur madę rapid progrcss, and in 1GS6 we find
him Htudying the so-called " mastcr^s lesson." In the year
1627 Iceland was risited by Mohammedan piratcs from
Algeria, in the northern part of Africa, who at that time
extended their tyrannical nile of the sca from the shores
of the Mediterranean to the most western and northem
islands of the Atlantic. A number of Icelanders were
slain by them, while othcrs were carricd away as alayes.
By the interference of the Danish king, Christian lY,
Bome of the prisoners who had not already perished in
the land of the barbarians were ransomcd, and in 1636
thirty-eight Icelanders were brought from Algeria to
0)penhagen, where they had to remain a few months
until merchant-ships in the spring of 1G37 could take
them back to Iceland. While prisoners in Algeria they
had imbibcd yarious Alohammedan ideas, and hcnce it
was thought necessary during their stay in Copenha-
gen to instruct them in the principles of Christianity;
but^ not undcrstanding Danish, an Icelandic teacher had
to be found for them. Hallgrimur Petursson was se-
lected. Among those set free was a woman by name
(iudrid, who had formerly been the wife of an Icelander
in the Westmann Islcs. Hallgrimur fell in loye with this
woman so much that when the pcople were sent back
to Iceland in the spring, he leA the school and retumed
home with his beloyed. The ship which carried them
landed at Keflayik, in the southera part of Iceland, and
berę Hallgrimur remained through the summer, doing
the work of a common laborer for the Danes. Gudrid
got a place to work on the farm Njardyik, not far from
Keflayik, and here she gaye birth to a son, whose father
was Hallgrimur. Soon afterwards he married Gudrid,
and liyed for some time in the most abject poyerty in a
lonoly cottage at Sudemess, until the aboye-mcntioned
Br}'njolf Syeinsson, who mcan while had become bisihop
of Skalholt, persuaded him to enter the serrice of the
Church, ordained him for the ministry, and gaye him
the poor parish of Hyahiess, in Guldbringe Sysscl. He
entered the ministry in 1644, and remained in Hyalncss
until 1651, when he was remove<l to Saurl)fer, in Bor-
garfjord. At Saurbcer he found some relief from his
poyerty until Aug. 15, 1662, when the parsonage and all
PETZELIANS
50
PEW
it0 conŁcnts were consnmed by fiie. The people were
all 8aved, howerer, excepting an old stranger, who had
found his lodgings Łhere for the oight, Though Hall-
gńmur heretofore had suffered much abiue and ridicale,
he novr found that he alao had some friends, wbo asaisted
him in rebailding the parsonage and furnishing him
wiŁh the neceasariea of life. A few yean later (1665)
Hallgrimur fint noticed the symptoms of the disease
(leprosy) which finally laid him on his death-bed. He
performed his ministerial duties alone until 1667, whcn
hb Ulness madę it necessary to get an assistant. He
was compclled to resign his position in 1669, mo^ed to
a ncighbońng farm, Kalastad, wherc he remained two
years, and then moved to another farm dose by, Fer-
Btikla, where, amid constantly increasing suffcringa, he
at last found a wclcome death, OcU 27, 1674, not having
left his bed the last year of his life. He was burietl
near the entrance of the church at Saurbeer. In 1821 a
smali monument was raised on the spot beneath which
bis bones rest. By his wife, who died in 1679, be had
sereral children, but the most of them died very young.
We haye given this detailed account of this man*s life
because of the prominent position he holds in the relig-
ious history of Iceland. He was an eloquent preacher,
a thoroughiy classical writer, and one of the most gifted
psalmista that cver lired. His religious poems give
eyidence of a Christian courage that reminds one of the
martyrs during the first century after Christ. Hallgri-
mur Petursson^s works are the fullowing : (a) in prose —
1. Diarium ChrUHanum^ consisting of religious medita-
tions for every day in the week :— 2. A Christian' a So-
Uioąuy evety Moi-ning ani Ev€mng: — 8. A ColUcłion of
Pray€r$:—A. Coinmentaries on 9ome o/ the Songa in the
SagaSf etpeciully in Olaf Tryggeeson^s Saga. (6) In po-
etry — 1. PaaUerium PastionaUf fifty psalms on the suf-
ferings of Christ for singing at family devotions during
Lent, an unsurpassed masterpiece, whether we rcgard it
from a poetical or Christian standpoint. This work has
passed through twenty-seven large editions in Iceland,
and is found in every Icelander*s house. The funeral
psalm found in this collection, and beginning "Alit ein-
sog blomstrid eina," has found its wa}' into many of the
Continental languages, and the whole collection has
twice been translated into Latin : — 2. A poetical treat-
ment of the first and second books of Samuel, which he
left uufinished, but which was complet-ed by the minia-
ters Sigurd Gislesson and Jon Eyulfsson : — 3. Some epic-
romantic poeros (the so-called rimur), of which all ages
of Icelandic literaturę have fumished a large number:
— 4. Finally, we have from Hallgrimur Petursson a col-
lection of all his psalms and poems that are not found
in the above-named works, and of which the majority
were not published until long after his death. This
last collection is almost as great a favorite with the Ice-
landic people as the Psałierium Passionale. In it is
found a cycle of Bibie poems, momiiig and erening
hymns, and other songs, but the best portion of it is a
number of psalms, in which the poet has espressed his
thoughts upon death and eternity. Some of them were
composed on his death-bed. They bear testimony to
the fervent love of the Saviour wherein he lired and
died. His beautiful funeral hymn, which he closes by
grceting the angcl of death welcome, cheerful in the
consciousncss that his Saviour lires, has its heathcn
prototype in Ragnar Lodbrok*s dying words: "The
hours of life havc glided by ; I fali. but smiling shall I
die." In Petursaon's religious poetry the old heathen
courage is rcgcnerated into Christian life, and the pa-
gan coldness has yiclded to the genial warmth of a ce-
lestial faith. No man has csercised a greater infiuence
upon the Christian character of the Icelandic people
than Hallgrimur Petursson. — Jon BJamason, Iluslnblio-
thek, ii, 98-103. (R. tt A.)
Petzelians or PcBscheliaiui, a modem sect of
a politico-religious character, who derired their name
from a pricst of Brennan, called Petzel or Poeschel.
They held the natural and legał eąuality of aU haman
' beings, and maintained that they had a conttniuJ and
inalienable property in the earth and its natural produo |
tions. Their enemies charged them with offeriog hu-
man sacrifices, particularly on Good Friday. They ap-
pear to have adopted the poUtical principlea of the
Spenceans, and probably their infidelity. Congrega-
tions belonging to this sect are said to have exi»Łcti in
Upper Austria, but by the interfcrence of the public au*
thorities they have been dispersed. A simiUr sect
seems to have taken start and spread somcwhat in
Switzerland, who are charged with the like enormities.
See Gardner, Faitha ofthe Worldj ii, 651, 652.
Feucer, Kaspar, a German theologian of the Ref-
orraation period, was bom Jan. 6, 1525, at Bautzen, and
studied at the school in Goldberg and the Unireisity of
Wittenberg, where he was the table and house com-
panion ofthe Reformer Melancthon, who afterwards be-
came his father-in-law. Weil educated and remarkablv
talented, he became in 1545 a magister, in 1554 ordinary
profesoor of mathematica, in 1560 professor of medicine.
Some time after this he was introduced to the personal
attention of the elector Augustus of Saxony, who was so
pleased with Peucer that he put him in charge of the
Saxon high school. Peucer, greatly interested in the
theologicid oontrorersies of bis day, avowed Philippism
(q. V.), and used his influence for its propagation in
Saxony, and thus arrayed the strongly Lutheran elector
against him. Peucer was imprisoned from 1575 until
1586. He died Sept 25, 1602. He left a large number
of medical, mathematical, historical, theological, and
philological writings. See Henke, Kaspar Peucer ». yic
KreU (Marb. 1865) ; Calinich, Kampf u. UnŁergang des
Melanchthonismus in Kursachaen (Lei pa. 1866) ; also the
art Cbypto-Calvini8tic Controyersy.
Peul'thai (Heb. PeuUethay\ '^n^7B, mv tcages;
Sept. ^oXXa3(), son of Obed-edom, the last naroed of
eigbt (1 Chroń, xxvi, 5) ; he belonged to the £anitl3' of
Asaph of the tribe of Levi, and was one of the porters
ofthe tabernacle in the reign of David. B.C. cir. 1020.
Peutinger, Konrad, a German writer noted for
his antiąuarian labors, was bom at Augsburg in 14C5 ;
studied ui German and Italian unirersities, and was em-
ployed in his natiye city by the authorities of the place
and by the emperor as couiisellor. He was a many-
sidod, educated man, and is cclebrated not only as a writ-
er, but al.so as a humanist, and was greatly interested in
Luther when he first appeared against the Romanists.
See Hagen, Deutschłantts literarische Zustdnde im Zeit-
aUer der Reformation, vol. L (J. II. W.)
Pevemage, Akdri^, a Belgian writer, w^as bora
in 1541 at Courtray. At first musie teacher in the
collegiate church at Courtray, he abandoned this place
to settle in Antwerp, where he passed the last ten or
twelye years of his life in the capacity of simple mu-
sician of the cathedral. He established in his house
weekly concerts, and there was heard the most beauti-
ful musie of the composers then in repute. He died at
Antwerp July 30, 1589. We have of his works, Con-
tumes sacras (Antwerp, 1574-1591, 5 pts. 4to); some
masses, religious fragments, and a collection compilcil
from diffcrcnt auŁhors undcr the title of I/armonte c&-
lesłe (ibid. 1583, 1593, 4to). See Paquot, Memoin-s.—
Hoefer, Xouv. Biog, GeneraUj xxxix, 776.
Pe^7 (ancien tlypue ;01d Fr. puy ; Dutch,/»iijfe ; Lat.
podium, ^ anything on which to lean ;'* s*appuyer\ an
enclosed seat in churches. The old French word puie
meant a balcony, a gallery built on bulks or posts of
timber; and it has been unncccssarily suggested that
pew may only be a form of podium, a book-desk, or tlie
cratch used by monks before sitting was permitted. In
the early days ofthe Anglo-Saxon and some ofthe Nor-
man churches, a stone bench afforded the only sitting
accommodation for members or risitnrs. In the vcar
1319 the people are spoken of as sitting on the ground
or standing, At a later period the people introduced
fa:xl
ihrre-t^gcd UoaLi, and tb«v wcre placcfł in no or-
b liw cfaurch. Dirrctly inei the Normui conque«t
I umc in fuhion. Cburcb-«e*U vert in use in Eng-
lioM bcfore the Kerormition, u ia pmved by
uillei
c, the ca
e.b*for
■hirh 19 •■ «arij u the Deconted Period,
A.Ił. 1400, lod reoifdsłaoldMUaOapeBkorsucfaaeati
lrv ibe nune offwu. They weie originally pliin fixcd
ImitIks, iIl fadng eut, witb putitiona or wunacuting
dani Ibrea fwt higlL
Ol owiKT. It wu iD 1508 Ibat gilkrits *ere thoughc
of. A« earij' JU 1614 pcvR weie amaged to afford com-
lon by bnng baized ot ctubioned, irhile tlic sides ■round
■rn » bigb u to hide the occupuiU; probabl; under
Ibe inflneDce of Ehe PnńtUA, who, objecting to nrae
ptilł of thr Kirice which they w«re compelled ta atUnd,
•pnHioBi oTa pcw oTthii kind eiuiU in Castop Cbnrch,
KenL Up to ■ period ooiim time illeT the Rerormalion
ibF UTa of cbiuchei, wfaicb mre occnpied by the con-
Ei<Xłti«i. wen UHully BOed with Bxed seata, u they
ludbMB rnm the ]4cbcciilui7 daiiTiirard>,ittheleaBt:
tlww «u Tańed io height fiom ibout tiro Teet and a
Wf lo [hree feet, and wera partially łncloeed at Ihe
Halł iKxi (be pawagea, aometimea with what are ulled
bench-endi: łomMima tbew ime conaiderably abave
ibF waiiHcoŁing, and were termiTiitfil with carred flji-
uli 01 poppiea, but they are morę frequent]y nnged
PEW
with the reat of the wock, and were often atraight at
the top and flniahcd with the sanie capping-moulditig:
ffi end encloaurefl occupiod abouC tbe width o( ths
, and ehe remainder of Ibe apare was left eiitlrely
n. The paititiona KHnetimea reached down lo Ibe
r, ind aomi^Iims only to a Utlle below Ihe aeata:
they were uioally perfectly plain, but the wainacotiiiK
isuges WIS generally oniaD»enI«l »iih
^ry, amall buttreasea, elc; opposite to
back of cuch diTision or pew a board
was rreąuently died, conaiderably narrauer, iniended
(o support the arras wben kiieeling. Thla modę of
fitling the nawsofchunbeswaa cenainly veFy generał,
it ia clilGciiU to ascenain wben it waa Hrst intiodiiced,
great majorily of specimens that eiiit being of the
Perpendiculsr style. See SrAKnARD.
Englind pewa wero asaigned at first outy to the
palcuna ufchurchea. A canun madę at Kxeter, in 1287,
larrelling for a aeat in chiirch, and decteej
ihall claira a aeal as bis own ex(«pt noblemen
and Ihe patrona. Giadiully, howcrer, Ihe aystem of
BppropriatiiHi was eilended to otherinhalilanla oflbe
pariah, to the injury of tbe poor, and ihe multiplication
ofduiputca. TbelaworpewsinKnclandisbriedy Ibia:
Ali ohuTch-seals ar«^ at ihe diaposai ofthe biahop, and
may be asaigntd by bim eiiber (1) directly by facully
to the huldera of sny properly in tbe parish; oc (i)
through Ihe churchwardens, whose duty it is, as officcrs
under tbe bishop, (o " Mat the pariahionera according In
their degree." In Ihe furmer case the right dcsccnda
wilh the property, if Ihe facully can be shown, or jm-
memarial uccupaliou prored. tn the latter, the right
can at any time be recalled, and lapsea on the party
ceasiog lo be a reguUr occupant of ibe aeat. It ap-
pean that by cominnn law erery pariabioner bas a rigbt
to a aeat in tbe church, and the churchwardena are
bound to place each one aa beat they can. The prac-
tice of Ifiring pews, except under the churcli-building
ac(a,or apecial local acli crfParliainent.and,tnuch niore,
of irWii^ tbem, bas been dedared illegal, ticept for Ibe
thapcU of Ihe Dissenlers, who need the inoome oT the
pewB for Ihe payraent ofthe pastoHs lalaiy. In Scot-
land pens in the pariab churcbes are asaigned by
the beritora lo the parishionen, who have acoiid-
ingty Ihe prefersble claim od ihem ; but vhen not so
oocupied they are legally open to alL Aa la well
known, pews in dissenting churches are renled aa a
means of rererue lo suslain generał cbarges. In some
parts oT the United States pcHt in churches are a mat-
:e injur
fesled to abolish '
sliogether, and sutotiiute movable seata arailable by alt
indiscrirainately. Several patophlets have appeared nn
the subjecU Tbe Timti remarks Ihal in dealing wilh
tbia subject Ibe 6rst qu»Lian ia nut tbe lelting ot
pews, but the appropristion of seata. In most country
churciies the seats are morę or ]«a appropiiated, bat
tbe pews are aeldom rented. Wben we conaider the
raatler from Ihis point of view, docs it nut wem reanon-
able, aa a luattcr of merę oider and decency, Ibal Ihose
who regularly aitcnd a church ahould haye iheir appr(»-
priated places within it? If the cburcbea are tbrown
eompletely open, Ihcy are thrown open not only to Ibe
parish, but to tbe whole world. In one of the best
known of the London churches the incumbent lalely
complained from Ihe pulpit tbal hia pariabioiiers cauld
not obljiin seals in Ibe church irhicb had been Gspressly
huilt for them, aud he snnounced hia inienlinn ofalter-
ing the system. Another church, in Wells Street, wlijch
was especiatly buili for the aceoramodation of a puot
districl, and in which sil the aeats are frer, ia" usuqiod
every Sonday by an ostbelic congrcgation of well-
dreSBed people, who come to enjoy the ejicelleni per-
roimance of the chojr. Sucb a result would ilwaya
lakę place wbere tbe preacbcr waa popular or the ser-
PEYRERE
52
PEZRON
vice attracŁire. Again, the esUtiDg churches would
not hołd morę Łhan a ceruun number of penons, and
Łhcy are fllled aa it U. If inore were iiivit€d to come, it
would be only driving out Łhe rich to make way for the
\}(mTf and then we should want another national associa-
tion for preaching the (jospel to the rich, or, rather, we
ahould Hee the rich building proprietary chapels for
theinM>lves, in which the aeats would be appropnate<l
M U'fore. But doe« any one suppoae that the poor
would thuii force their way into the churchea, and di»-
IKMiMCM their prezent occupants ? Whcther the seata are
frec or not, the reitult would be much the same. Whcn
the (jucfltion of the appropriation of seata is decided.
that of (jcw rcnts is comparatively simple. If the rich
aro to have a ccrtain number of seata appropriated to
thcm, what can be morę natural and convenicnt than
that they should pay a certain sum in respect of them ?
In tho Koman Catholic churches on the Conti nent pews
aro soldom to be scen.
Tho readinff pue, flrst mentioned in the rubric of
1002, was the reader's stall in the chauccl. It had two
de8k8--ono on tho wcst for the Jloly Uible, and the
otiier for the l*raycr-book facing rnstwards, as in Hook-
er'N Church at Drayton Ikauchamp. In 1571 Griudel
callod it " the pulpit, whero praycrs are said.*' Calaray
applics the word to deitignate an o[)en-air pulpit.
Ocorgo Herbert madc his pulpit and reading pue of
cqual hoight, so as to be of cqual honor and estimation,
and agreo liko brcthrcn. 8ee Walcott, Sacred A rchaoL
s. v,\ (Uiambcrs, Cychp, s. v. ; Parker, Glosswy of Ar^
vh%tft*furf, s* V.
Pejrrdre, Ihaac, a Frcnch Protestant writer, was
bnrn At l)ordoaux in 1592. He fttted himself for mili-
t4iry and diplomatio scryice, and at one time served the
princc of CondiS whoro ho pleased by the singularity of
his humor. Pcyn^^ro Hnally tunied pious. Ile was at
tho time a Protestant. Ho claimod that it had been re-
Yoaled to him by St. Paul that Adam was not the flrst
man created, and ho undcrtook to prove his theory by
publiiihing in Holland, in 1C55, a book entitled Pnead-
(iNii/fP, #i(*r rxi»rriV<iho nuprr rersibuś 12, 13, 14, cajńtit xv
h)n»tołm /'<iif/i ad /?u»Mifio«, which work was consigned
tu tho tlarooM, and ho himself imprisonod at Bnissels.
lI|H)n recantaiion and the interfercnce of the princc of
('ahu1(( ho was rcloased, and went to Korne in 1655,
w horo 1)0 publiaheil the rcaaons for his reoantation, and
abJurtHl ralvinismand lVR>adamitism bcfore pope Alcx-
audcr VH. Ho was not beHe\f>d sincere by the pcople,
and dtmbtlojw public opinion was J ust, The pontifTen-
deaYoTtHi to dot«in him at Korne, but he tinally returned
t4> Pari^ and again entcrod tho aervtcc of the prince of
Tondó, acting aa his Ubrarian* He was not thought to
bo atiaohiHl to any |>articular Church, notwithstauding
(hal he had joinctl tho KomanistA. He, however, sub-
mittctl to rfHH>ive tho saorameni* 8ome time af^cr his
ivtun\ to l\iri* ho rptininl to tho '*8eminaire dea Yertua,"
wht»n> ho dioii iu lt»7tł. He wnuc, U^des the above-
moiitionisi artiolt\s works wjwn itreenland aud Ic«land ;
al^t ono upoi) the Uffforatum o/tkeJrtrs^ etc.
PeytOU, Yki.vkktx>x T^ • nunijitcr of the Methiv
di*i Kpi^v|al Chttrvh, wa^ltom in Staffoni Couniy. Ya.,
K'.»7: was i>m>n*rttHl in 1815; cutcnHt the Ualcimore
i\mtVniMuv iu 1818; and al\or tilUnjr j^^mo of tho nuvit
im}M'rtAnt Maiious iu (he CoufonMKV.duHt in llaltimait>
Ja»u l\ lS;il. Ho w^t a d«n^vu\t |>aisior, a faithtul min-
iMcr. aud a Yon* U5^«tul pwachor. Sx» Mishin o/ A ««.
<V-rr'>^>.<,ii» 118*
Bernard, a Wnusi liom^an B^MHHUotine, ¥ra$
K»m iu lKV^ at l|v^ Ho CArly cntorv\l (ho nn^ui^ton'
s>( MAk. Kor ^\ cral ywirs h*\ \» uh hi> bi\»(hor *lerv»nu\
v\»lU,\"<tHt ohrvMnoK*5k chjiTtcrs and ^Mhcr dvvuuHMU$ ot'
iho Mi>ivile .Vp^s iu AuMrta, lUv;inj. and Hhor |virt5
of iionMt'.\\, AłU-r hj|\ 1:^5: s^hoi A^nu* imn* tu Kni:u>\
^^^•fv hip łft» a5s>4xuti\ł \ii;h ^v«nt /lurc^Ni.^rt. bo n.^
(un^M to hi* %v;*\vri, ^hv^' *.ilTar> >«as %>\':j,h\1 u* ) U
CArc Ho du\i Marxh 1*7. i:vvv W o iu\o ol Uis nv»rks
Ada ei tita WUłmrgia rirguiu cum noti$ (Aiigsb. 1715,
4to) : — BiUiotheca Benedictmo-Afauriana, sat, de riłis
et scripŁu Patrum e congregatume S, Mauri (ibid. 1716,
8vo) : — Thesaunu anecdotorum norissimuMf seu yeterum
monutnentorum pracipue eecUńasticorum coliedio (1721-
1723, 5 YoU. foL): — BMiotheca asceiica antiguo-nora
(Ratisb. 1723-1740, 12 yóls. 8vo): — Ada S, Truptrti
marłyris (Yienna, 1781, 4to) :— some Notes a VA nonymłu
MeUicentis de scriptoribus ecdedasticis, publiaheil by Fa-
bricius; sereral arttcles in different collections, etc' 8i>e
Jikiherj AUffemeines Gelehrten-Lerikon ; Kropf, łiiblioth.
Mellicensis. — Hoefcr, M'ouv. Biog, Genirate^ xxxix, 780.
Fez, HieronymuSra leamed German Beneiiictine,
brother of the preceding, was boro at Ipe in 1685. After
having takcn the Benedictine habit in the monastcry
of Molk, he began, with his brother, the search fur uii-
published historical documents concealed in the archives
and libraries of Anstria and Bavaria. PUced later at
the head of the library of his oonrent, he passed the
last fifteen years of his life in the most profound retreat.
He died Oct 14, 1762. We have of his works, A eta S.
Colomanif Scotia regii (Krems, 1713, 4to) '.^-Scriptoret
rerum A ustriacarum PdeitSj cum notis et obserrafioniłws
(Leips. 1720-1725, 2 vola. fol.), followed by a third vol-
ume, published in 1745 at Ratisbon ; a yery precious col-
lection : — Historia S, I^opoldi^ A ustria marchiottisj id
nominis tr, ex diplomatibus adomata (Yienna, 1747, foL).
See Meusel, L^dkon; Schrockh, Lehen r. Pez (in tho
I^pziger Gelehrłe Zeiłuruf for 1762, p. 737). — Hoefer,
Nouv, Biog. Gśniraley xxxix, 789.
Fezel, Christoph, a German theologian, was bom
March 5, 1539, at Plauen; studied at Wittenberg; wajt
then thrce years cantor in his native place, and in 1 ó67
became court-preacher and professor of theology at Wit-
tenberg. An ardent advocate of Philippism (q. v.), he
was deposed afler the condemnation of Crypto-Calvińism
in 1574; in 1576 was sent out of the country; in 1577
went to Siegen, where he taught for a while, and rhen
became pastor at Herbom. In 1580 he was called to
Bremen as pastor, and in 1584 was madę professor of
theology at the newly founded Gymnasium iUustre. Iu
1589 he again aasumed the pastorale, and became also
superintendent, and as such contributed to the Mrength-
ening and dcrelopment of Lutheranism. He died Feb.
25, 1 604. Besides theological controrersial writi ngs, and
the so-called Wittenberg Catechism entitled Catechesis
continens erplicafionem decalogi, symboUj orafiottis domi^
j wc«F, dodnwB de pmtitentia et sacramentis (Wittenbenc,
1571). he wrote also Meliijicium Bi^oricum^ a much-
uaed handbook of history, and edited Melancthon*s let-
! tenj to Hanlenberg. (J. H. W.)
Pesron, Paul, a Roman Catholic monastic of much
celobrity, was bom at Hennebon, in Bretagoe, in K39.
He embraced the monastic life in the Cbtercian abliey
de l^riores in 1661 ; was appointeil master of the novices
aud sub-prior in 1672 ; sub-prior of the college of the
' Bemaidins at Paris in 1677 ; ricar-general of his oider in
1690. and obtained the abbey of Charmoye in 1697. He
, n\stgneil it finally to give himself entirely to his studiea,
and became a doctor of the Sorbonne. He died in 1706.
His mi^t important publication is LoMtigniti des trmps
rf!tahiif tt d^/i/fttdHf, crmłrr ies Jni/s et fes m>tireavr ckro-
uKw.yis/e* i^Amsl. 1687. 12moX in this work tbe autbor
matut«iu.«t the authority of the Septoagint chronology
aji^in.<t that of the Hobrew Bibie. Pezron s book was
oxtnomoly atimireil f^^r the ing^nuity and leaniing of it;
yet OTvato\1. as wa$ natural. no ^roall alarm among the
n^Hciou^. Maniaitay. a Benedictine. and Le Quien, a
IXmiiiucan. wn^o airaiin<i thi$ dow system, aod under-
ttH^k tho dofoiH"^ of the llobcvw iex(; Martiaoay with
i:Tvat ffoal and hoat. Lo t^.łit-n wiih morę jmlgment and
km^wKMi^ł*. IVxnMi jm-.I :i>ht>l fir/rtue dt ranticutł* des
V«^:v in h^l ^^4to'. m hioh, like ib« work itsdf, aboanded
iM;h curuHiT* a»M lt*an»ovl nw^farchoA. Lo Ooien repiied,
Ui( M*r:A:'«y br»«cbt (he aiEur into anolber coort;
jukI in U<<1, UkI the twŁ$ and pnnci{4es of Pewm
PFAFF
53
PFEFFERKORN
before IŁ de HarUi, archbishop of Paris. ITarlai com-
mimiGated the representation of Łhis adyersaiy to Pez-
mu wbOf finding no dUBculty in supporting an opinion
ciiiBiDon to all the fatben before Jerome, rendered the
^rosatioa of no effect. Other works of bis are, £s-
«n (Tm Commeniaire Litteral et Historigue sur les Pro-
pietei {l€S3, 12nio) : — UHittoire Eeangeligue Confirmee
par la J»daique et ia Romaine (1696. 2 yols. 12mo) : —
ttniqsił4 de la Sation et de la Langut de* CeUes (1703,
I:Inio. etc.). Sec Niceron, MemoireSy vol. i; Dicł, Hiet,
4ri A Miemre Ecdee, & v. ; Darling, Cydop, BMiogr. s. v. ;
Hnefer, Atfur. Bioff. Generale, & v.
Pfak ChziBtoph Mattb&tiB, D.D., a German
rmtnUDt tbeologian, son of Jobann Christopb Pfa£f
;q. vX was bom Dec. 25, 1686, at Stuttgard. At the
1^ uf thirteen be was admitted to the unirersity, and
tfter having fintsbed bis theological studies, be re-
cf ived the means from tbe duke of WUrtemberg, in
ITii^t. to go to otber unirersities to perfect bimself in
tbe knowkdge of the Oriental tongues. Ile risited
with this design sereral imirersities of Germany, Hol-
land, aod England. Upon bis return to Stuttgard in
1709, be was employed to accompaity tbe bereditary
pńnce Charte»-Alexandre to Italy, witb wbom be re-
mńntfl tbree years in Turin, occupied especially in cop-
jing front tbe libraries tbe unpublished fragments of
aneient eodesiastical autbors. He afterwards went witb
tbe prince to Holland, where be spent two years, and
lo I^ris, concinuing bis researcbes in the libraries, and
pl^ing bimself in connection with the most renowned
kam«d men. Appointed in 1716 profcssor of Łheology
u Tubtngeo, be became in 1720 dean of tbe faculty and
cfasTtceUor of tbe uniyersity ; be also received several
Lij^h ecclesiaatical pośtions, and became among otbers,
in I7*i7, abbć of Loch, wbicb gave bim the mt^-ee to the
dites uf Wtlrtemberg. In 1724 be was gratified with
ihe tltie of coont-palatiDC, and was elected in 1731 mem-
ber of the AcKlemy of Berlin. In 1756 be became chan-
celk« of the Uoiversity of Giessen, dean of tbe faculty
cf tłteoiogy, and generał superintendent of tbe churches.
Pu»cessiiDg exten8ive and varied knowledge, be care-
folly troided the bitter tonę of the theologians of bis
ODfif«»ion, and be eren madę, but without tbe least suc-
c(i». sereral attempts to unitę the Lutheran and Cal-
r)Ql«tic cburchea. Ue died at Giessen Noy. 19, 1760.
MafiT^ emdiiion was immense, and bis works so numer-
f)05 that tbey fili a wbole sbeet of the German bibliogra-
phj«& Among his numerous works and diwertations
ire roeotion. De genuim* Librorum Koń Testamenti lec-
ftfeibus (Amst. 1709, 8vo) : — Demonsłrałioru tolidee de
la tirui de la Rdigion Proteetante contrę la Religion
prtłfmhte Catholiqve (Tttb. 1713, 1719) :^De Etangeliis
nh Anagfatio imperatore non corruplis (TUbing. 1717,
4u>i : reprinted, witb sereral otber dissertations of PfafT,
>Q his Praddite Tubingenses (ibid. 1718, 4to) :^De lUur-
gwtittisttdUtUf offendie et librit eccleeiaeticis EccleńcR ort-
tMulis et oeńdentalis reteris et moderna (ibid. 1718,4to) :
—Ik originejvris ecclesiatłici terague ejut indole (ibid.
1719, 1720, 1756, Ato) i — Difsetiationes Anti-Baliana
trrt ribid. 1719, 1720, 4to): — InsiUutionet theologice dog-
9atirtf et móralis (ibid. 1719, 8yo; Frankf. 1721, 8vo);
one of the first theological works wiitten ui Germany in
wbich the rationallstic tendency ia recognised : — Intro-
^(tif m kirioriam tkeologUe litterariam (ibid. 1720, 8vo ;
iU(L 1724-1726, 3 rols. 4to) : — De variatiombu9 ecclesia-
rw9 rrotettantiumf adtereus Bouuetum (ibid. 1720, 4to) :
—fJemtmmelte Sckri/ien 90 zur Yerekuffung der proiesti'
rwien Kircken abzielen (Halle, 1723, 2 Yols. 4to) ; a col-
l^u^D of writingB tending to tbe reunion of tbe Protes-
tsot churches: — De tifulo poiiriarchee cecumenici(TVlbing.
173.\ 4to) : — De eccUeia tanffumem non eiiiente (ibid.
1740, 4to): — De tterconanietie medii ari (ibid. 1750,
^•i —De aureolit virgmum^dodorum et martyrum (ibid.
1753, 4to). As an editor, Pfaff publisbed Epitome In-
iHttaionm dkinarum Ladantii (Paris, 1712, 8vo), Hrst
oiition eomplete :^8, Irencei fratftnenia anecdota (La
lUre, 1715, 8ro); a publication foUowed by a dij>pute
witb Scip. Maffei, wbo bad cast some donbt upon the
authenticitv of these fragments : — Ecdesiee evangelica
libri eymboiici (Tubingen, 1730, 8ro). Finally, Pfaff di-
rccted the publication of tbe new German translation
of the Bibie, wbicb appeared at TUbuigen (1729, fol.), a
work on wbicb, in connection with otbers, be actirely
labored. Pfaff was a leamed man of tbe very first rank,
but of doubtful morał cbaracter. He is tbe real found-
er of the so-called coUegial system, wbicb regards tbe
Church as a coUegium: as a Corporation possessing cor-
porate rigbts, the Church can make ber own statutes
and laws, and can insist upon their observance. The
attitude of the state towards ber is but incidental, or
similar to tbe position it occupies with respect to any
otber association. Tbe magistratue polUicue does not
belong to ber; tbe Church consisting solely of teachcrs
and taught. It is only by transference, by yirtue of
silent or express compact, tbat tbe magistracy can re-
ceiye rigbts originally inherent in the Church. Results
were, howeyer, at first, and till after tbe commencement
of the 19th century, in fayor of the territorial system.
The Bibie known among tbe German Protcstants as
'* the Bibie of Tubingen'* was publisbed undcr Pfaff'8 di-
rection in one folio yolume in 1727. See Strieder, Het-
sische Gelehrtengesch, ; Ratblef, Geeck, jetzflebender Ge^
lehrten^ pt. i ; Schrockh, Unparteiische Kirchenfiesch. iv,
787 ; Sax, Ónomasticofi, yi, 138, 648 ; Bauer, Galleriej yol.
y; Dóring, Die Gelehrten Theologen Deutechlande, yol.
iii, s. y. ; Hiraching, Handbuch ; Meusel, Lerikon, s. y. —
Hoefer, Naw, Biog, Ginirale, xxxix, 794 ; comp. Hurst*B
Hagenbach, Ch, Jluit, ISth and 19th CettturieSt i, 1 10 sq.,
410 ; Ebrard, Kirchen- u. Dogmengesch, iy, 131. (J. H. W.)
Ffaf^ Jobann Christoph, a German Lutheran
tbeologian, was bom at PfuUingen in 1631, and was ed-
ucated at the uniyersity in Tubingen, where be after-
wards flourisbed as professor of tbeology. He was also
for a ttme pastor at St. Leonbard'8 Cburcb in Stuttgard.
He died in 1720. Ue was tbe autbor of about forty
works and eićegetical and dogmatical dissertations, but
nonę of them are of much yalue in our day. A list of
them may be found in Winer's TheoL Literatur, s. y.
See also Bockb, Gesch. der Unirersitat Tiibingeti; Le-
poin, Leben der Gelehrten, and Bibliotheca Breniensis
(1720). (J.H.W.)
Ffauser (Phauser), Johakn Sebastian, a Ger-
man Roman Catbolic divine, was boru at Constance in
1520. He came by recoromendatiun of tbe bishop of
Trent to Yienna as court-preacher of emperor Ferdi-
nand I, but was obliged to quit tbat place on account of
bis anti-Koman tendency. He was thereafter employed
as confessor and preacber by the emperor's son, Maxi-
milian, and all efforts to supplant bim bers were unsuc-
cessful until the Bohemian crown ąuestion arose, and it
became necessary for the court to haye the fayor of all
Ultramontane prelates. In 1560 Pfauser became pastor
at Lauingen. He died in 1569. To tbe last Maximil-
ian kept up a friendly correspondeuce with this good
man. (J.H.W.)
Pfefferkom, Johann (originally Joseph), a noted
Jewish conyert to Christianity, was bom in Mora via in
1469. He embraced Christianity, and was publidy bap-
tized at Cul(^ne witb his wife and cbildren in 1506,
when Łbirty-6ix years old. All tbe efforts of this man,
wbo, witb many faults, was certainly not wanting in
merit, were early directed to tbe oonyersion of his breth-
ren according to the flesb. Tbe means be first madę
use of were highly laudable ; for be treated them witb
gentleness, and eyen defended bis former co-religionists
against the calumny of their enemies. But fanatical
and misguided, his zeal afterwards was less well ad-
yised when be began to forbid and conderon the read-
ing of any Hebrew book exoepting tbe Old Testament.
Witb the aid of tbe Dominican monks, be preyailed on
the emperor Maximilian to adopt his yiews, and in 1509
an edict was publisbed wbicb enjoined tbat all writings
emanating from tbe Jews against the Christian religion
PFEFFERKORN
54
PFEIFFER
sboold be sappressed and condemned to the flames; tbia
edict was soon succeeded by anotber, July 6, 1510, en-
jolning tbe destniction of ereiy Hebrew book witb tbe
sole exception of tbe Old TestameDt Tbe esecutioo
of tbis edict was, bowerer, suspended nntil tbe opinioo
of the electoral arcbbisbop Uńel of Mayence bad been
obtained. By reasoo of tbis delay, ProŁ Jobn Reucblio,
wbose opinion in tbis matter was sougbt for, was en-
abled to publisb a yolumioocis treatise, in wbich be di-
rided tbe Jewisb works into seyen dilferent cUsses, and
aflerwards prored wbicb of tbese classes migbt be con-
sidered dangerous or injuńous to tbe Cbristian religion.
Among the books wbich be tbinks in part barmless and
in part useful, and even yaloable to tbeok>gy, and wbicb
be would in conseąuence preseire, were not only the
oommentaries of Rashi, tbe Kimcbis, Ibn-Ezia, Gerson-
idea, Nacbmanides, etc, but tbe Talmud and the cab-
alistic book Sobar (q. v.)« On tbe otber band, Reucb-
lin maintained that those only sbould be destroyed
wbich contained blaspbemies against Christ, such as
tbe Nizzacbon and Toledotb Jesbu. He furtber pointed
out the impossibiltty of suppressing books by an imperi-
al decree wbich were dispersed in all parts of the world,
and migbt easily be repńnted in otber places. Tbe
contest Boon grew warm between tbe adrersańes of tbe
books and their defendeis ; tbe former consisting of the
Dominicana and their partisans, and the latter of all
rooderate and enligbtened tbeologians. Tbe affair was
finally left by an appeal to pope Leo X. Hochstraaten,
an inquisitor, and a man fully qualified for that cruel
office, repaired to Romę, supported witb remonstrances
from seyeral princes to bias, witb money to bńbe, and
menaces to intimidate. He even threatened the pope
witb rejecting his authority and separating from the
Church, unless Rcuclilin, and tbe Jews wbom be defend-
ed, were condemned. But all bis efforts were in vain,
and be was obliged to return, mortified and disgraced.
The Yictory which his opponent bad gained esposed
him to tbe enmity of the monkisb party. But be in-
formed them '*he was persuaded that Martin Luther,
wbo then began to make a figurę in Germany, would
find them so much employment that they would permiŁ
him to end his da>'s in peace** (Yillers on the JRefor-
matiotif p. 107). Soon, indeed (by reaaon apparently
of the Reformation movement), an end was put to the
whole dispute. When and where Pfefferkom died is
dtfficult to say. Of his works, which obtained such
unenyiable notońety, we mention, Der Judeiupiegelf or
Speculum adkortatumia Judaica ad Ckrisium (NUrnb.
1507) : — Die Judenbeichtef or Libellus de Judaica con/es-
ńone sive Sahbate affiictioma cumjiguris (Colog. 1508) :
— D(U Osterbuckj or Narratio de ratione Pascha cele-
brandi inter Judaos recepta (Culog. and Augsb. 1509):
— Der JudenfeituJ, or Hostia Judaorum (ibid. 1509) : —
In Lob und Ehren dem Kaiser Marimilian^ or In laudem
et honorem iUfutrissimi imperatorit Maiimilianiy etc
(Colog. 1610) '.—Ein Brie/ an Geistłiche und WeltUche
in Betreffdes Kaiserlichen Mandats diejiidischen Schrif-
ten zu v€rtilgen : — Der Handspiegel, against Reuchlin
(Mayence, 1511): — Der Brandspiegel (ibid. 1513): —
Die Sturmfflocke, against Reuchlin (Cologne, 1514) : —
StreUbuchlein wider Reuchlin u, s. JOnger^ or Defen-
sio contra famosas et criminales obscurorum rerorum
epiatolaSj dedicated to tbe pope and the college of
cardinals (Cologne, 1516) : — Eine mitłeidige Chff ffegen
den ungldubigen Reuchlin (1521). (Where the Latin
title is giyen, tbe work was also translated into Latin.)
Corop. FUrst, BibL Jud. iii, 82; Wolf, BibL Ilebr. i, 985
sq. ; iii, 940 8q. ; iy, 956 sq. ; Meiners, Lebendteschreibung
der Mdnner aus den Zeiten der Wiederhersłellung der Wis-
senscha/ien (Zurich, 1795), i, 99 8q. ; Meyerholf, Reuch-
lin u. s, Zeit ; Erhard, Geschichte des Wiedercnf/blii-
hens der wissenschaj}l, BUdung^ voL ii ; Lamey, Reuchlin
u. *. Zeit ; Strauss, Ulrich r. Hutten, yoL i ; Griltz, Gesch.
d. Judeti, ix, 98, 101 sq., 103, 110 sq., 115 sq., 130 sq., 140,
142, 158 8q., 168 8q., 209, 211, 218, and Appendix, notę 2,
p. yii sq.; L. Geiger, Daa Studium der hebr, Sprache vi
Deittsdtland, p. 88 sq. (Bredao, 1870); Kalkar, Tsraef il
d. Kirduj p. 90 są. ; Basnage, Uistoire des JuifSy \\. 7;$0
(Taylor^s transL) ; H. Adams, Hisi. of the Jetcs, ii, 47
sq. (Boston, 1812) ; Da Costa, IsraH and the GenłiUs,
p. 461 sq.; Johannes Pfejferhom, in Geiger^s Z^schriji
Jur Wissenscha/l ac Leben (1869), p. 293-309; Akten-
studoe zur Conjicałion derfidischen Schri/ien in J^rant-
furt a. M, unter Kaiser MaximiŁittn durdt PfeJfeTkom^t
A ngeherei, in Frankel-Griitz^s Monatsschr. (July, 1875),
p. 289 8q. ; Weyden, Gesch. d. Juden in Koln am Rhein
(Cologne, 1867), p. 259 sq.; Palmer, Hist. oftke Jtvi*h
\ation (Lond. 1874), p. 288. (B. P.)
PfefTerkom, S. Sdichael M., a German tbeolo-
gian^ was bom in the year 1646 at Iffta, near £isenach,
and was tbe son of a minister. Having received his
preparatory cducation at Creutzburg and Gotha, he went
to Jena, where in 1666 be was created magister. From
Jena he went to Leipsic, and afler haying completed bis
studies, be was appointed professor at tbe Alt«nburg
gymnasium. Having occupied seyeral stations as an
educator, he was called in 1676 to the pastorate of Fńe-
mar, near Gotha. For fifty years be faithfully dis-
cbarged bis ministerial functiontL He died Marcb 3,
1732. Besides otber works, he is tbe author of some
yery fine hymns, which found their way into our bymn-
books, as " Was frag' ich nach der Welt und allen ihren
Scbfitzen" (Engl. transl. by Mills, " Can I tbis world e»-
teem," in Hymns from the German, p. 101). See Bruck-
ner, Kirchen- umd Schulenstaat im Herzogthum Gotha
(Gotha, 1760, 3 pts.), iv, 80-82 ; Koch, Gesch. Ł deutschen
Kirchenliedes, iy, 63 8q. (B P.)
Pfeiffer, Augustus, D.D., a leamed German Ln-
tberan diyine, noted as an Orientalist, was bom at Lau-
enburg Oct. 30, 1640, and was educatcd at Wittenberg.
In 1673 be entered tbe ministry, and thereafter beld
seyeral important pastorates. In 1681 be became arch-
deacon to the church of St. Thomas at Leipsic, in wbich
city be also beld a chair in theology at tbe uniyersity.
In 1689 be was madę superintendent of the cburches at
Lubeck, and died there Jan. 11, 1698. Pfeiffer was one
of the most skilful philologists of hb timc He is said
to haye known seyenty languages. His library was
ńch in Hebrew, Arabie, Coptic, Armenian, Persian, and
Chinese MSS., and he left many leamed writings. His
pbilologtcal works were all collected under tbe title C^ra
omnia philologica (Utrecht, 1704, 2 yols. 4to). H is otber
publications were, Theohgia Judaica atgue Mohammt-
dica (Lips. 1687, 12mo): — AntiguHates selectee, ab Ugo-
lino notis illustratte (in Ugolino, iy, 1173) : — Exercitatio
de Theraphim (ibid. xxiii, 549): — Diatribe de potn
Hebr, recognita (ibid. xxxi, 899; transL into Engl. by
D. A. Taylor, witb additions, in tbe BUd. Repos. vols.
yi-ix) : — Afanuductio nora etfacilis ad accentuationem,
eto. (Ugol. xxxi, 927) : — Specimen de monia łtbus Vff.
Test. (ibid. xxxii, 657) : — Specimen de roce vexata rj^O
(ibid. xxxii, 743) : — Specimen de PsalmisGraduum (ibid.
xxxii, 675). See Darling, Cgdop, Bibliog. s. v. ; Koter-
mund's Suppl. to Jocher, Gelehrten-LerUconf s. y. Pip-
ping ; JUemoricB theologorumf s. y. (J. H. W.)
Pfeiffer, Christoph, a German dirine, notcd as a
hymnologist, was bom at Oels in the year 1G89. For
two years be was assistant-preacher at Dirsdorf, włtcn
he was called, Marcb 28, 1719, by tbe duke H. Chr. von
Landskron to tbe pastorate at Dittmansdorf, near Fran-
kenstein, in the principality of Munsterburg. Haring
occupied this position for twenty-seyen years, he was
called to Stolz, where he spent the remainder of his life,
and died Dec 23, 1758. His picture in the church tliere
bas the motto, *^Mea Christus Portio," and the fol-
lowing epigraph : ^ Mors tua yita mea est, tuaąue, O
dulcissime Jesu, yulnera sunt animse Pharmaoi certa
meo)." Pfeiffer is the author of many hymns, seyersl
of which are found in our modem bymn-books. See
Wezel, Uymnop. (Herrnstadt, 1728), iv, 397 8q.; Koch,
I Gesch. d, deutschen Kirchenliedes, v, 74^ 8q, (Bi P.)
PFEIFFER
55
PH^DO
Pfeiffer, Madame Ida, a German lady, whose maid-
fn name was Reige, b iioted as a trareUer in the Kast,
icd aa a valiiable contnbutor to Palestinian topogra-
phr. She was bom in Yienna abouŁ Łbe year 1795.
From her veiv cbildbood she longed to see the world,
and erer read with delight books of trave]. In ber
girihood she trareUed to some extent with her parents,
and suhseąneiitlj with her hasband. After the death
«,f her hiiaband and the maturity of her sons she deter-
Bjioed to undertake a joomey to Palestine, that she
nsi^rbt hare the ineffable delight of treading those spots
vhtch OUT Sariour had balio wed by his presence. With
tbe accumakted wealtb of twenty years, she left Yienna
io March, 1842. Her jotimey included Constantinople,
Biut^^a, Beiriit, Jafia, Jerusalem, the 'river Jordan and
tbe Dead Sea, Nazaretb, Damascus, Balbec, the Liba-
co^ Alejcandńa, Cairo, and the Deacrt to the Red Sea ;
then back by Malta, Sicily, Naples, Romę, etc., to Yienna,
m berę she arrired in December of the same year. Upou
ber retom she pablished anonymously the diary she had
kepi duńng her trip, under the title of Reise emei- Wie-
^rin VI dtu Heiliffe Lani (Joumey of a Yienna Woman
in che Holy Land). In 1&15 Madame Pfeiffer risited
Sweden, Norway, and Iceland. In 1846 she madę her
fir«t Joomey roirnd the world. In 1851 she madę a sec-
and espeditioD, risiŁing the United States, and upon
ber return pablished an acoount of all her trarels. But
c^f ill her deacriptions those of the Holy Land are far
morę intcrestiog tban any of the others; owing doubt-
kss to haring been less hurried then than while making
ber trips ronnd the world. Throughout the w hole of
her ardnous jonmeys Madame Pfeiffer displayed great
cuoiage, perMrerance, and womanly tacL The merę
Cict of her baying aooomplished what no małe trayellcr
erer has done ia conclusire evidence that she was pos-
aesijed of great aidurance and fortitude. She died in
1H.>8.
Pfeil, CiiRisTOPii Carl Ludwig von, a descendant
of tn old knightly family, was bom Jan. 20, 1712, at
Griinsiadt, not far from Worms. When ten years of
age be was left an orphan, and his uncle, the Rev. Jus-
tus S. ron Pfeil, of Magdeburg, took him into his house.
Hfre be remained for aix years, when, at the age of six-
tcen, be entered the Unirersity of Halle for tbe study
of jurispmdence. In the year 1729 be went to Tubin-
em to continue there his studies, where be became a
faithful foUower of ChrisL In 1732, at the age of
tweoty, he was appointed secretary of legation of the
Wniiemberg govemment at Regensburg, and in 1737
be was appoiuted counsellor of law at Stuttgard. For
tbłrty years he held the bighest honors in WUrtemberg,
uDŁil, in the year 1763, he reraoved to Prussia, when
Fmierick the Great awaided to him new honors. Pfeil
di«d Febu 14, 1784. He was a very pioos man, and the
different stages of his life are best marked in hia poeti-
cal prodoctions and hymns, which number about 940.
Not all of his hymns hare found their way into hymn-
Uwka, eMpecially as most of them are influenced by
Zinz«idorf and Bengel, whose ideas are morę or less
tfprodaced in them. Thoee, however, which are found
in our bymn-books are really jewels of German bym-
Df'k)^y. A ooUection of his hymns has been publisbed
W the Rev. G. Knack, of Berlin (1850, 1853), under the
tulę Eramgd. Ilerzaugesange. Besides his hymns, Pfeil
^ft in MS. a rhymed translation of Job, Proyerbś, Ec-
ckisiu&tea, Song of Songs, the Lord'8 Prayer, the apos-
toiic epistks, etc See Teichmann's biography in the
{ff^oe to his CArisiL Uawuckatz (Stuttgard, 1852);
Merz, Dom Leben de* ehrisflichen Dickters und Minister s
€. C. U ton PfeU (ibid. 1863); Koch, GetchichU des
Jniseken Kirckenliedes, v, 176 są. (B. P.)
Pfenninger, Johasn Ck)2iRAD, a German theolo-
giao, was bom at Zurich, Switzerland, in 1747; studicil
iheokigr at the unirersity of his native place; in 177.'^
was madę dean of the Orphans* Church, and later war
•ppointed tbe aucceasor of bis friend Łarater (q. v.) ii.
the pastorale, and was also madę the dean of St Petersa
Church. He died in 1792. Pfenninger was a Yolumi-
nous writer and much involved in controyersy with the
Rationalists, who then so very generally abounded in
Germany. He was in close barmony with the theolog^
ical views of Lavater, and with him attempted to give-
to his period a secure Christian impress, so as to lift
Christiauity from its Oriental yestments, and place it-
upon the ground of uniycrsal humantty. While the
sceptics, and even Spalding among them, regarded
modern ChrisŁianity rather as a purely comprehensible
and abstract fact, and excluded every contribution of
the imagination, Larater and Pfenninger, like Klop-
stock (q. V.), thought it best to render aid by the West-
ern imagination. They madę Christiauity not oniy ac-
cessible to the modem undcrstanding, but to the modem
feeling. Most valuable of all of lYenninger*s publica-
tions are his Judische Brieje aus der Zeit Jesu v. Naza"
reth (1783-92), which have been freely used by Stier ia
bis Words of Jesus (transl. by Strong and Smith, N. Y.
3 yoI& 8vo). These Jewish letters fumish a sort of
Christian romance, in which the men and women of tbe
time of Jesus write letters to each other, j ust as senti-
mental men and women of the last century would have
written, and Christianity was thus modernized to make
it attractire and plain to tbe masses, and relieve it of
the Oriental garb it wears in the Bibie. (J. H. W.)
Pfiug, Juuus, a German theologian, noted in the
Reformation blstory of his country*s Church, was bora
at Merseburg near the opening of the 16th century. He
was the son of a nobleman, and a farorite of the em-
peror Charles Y, who sent him in 1541 as one of the col-
iocutors to the synod at Regensburg (q. v.), which re-
Bulted in the adoption of the Augsburg Interim (q. v.).
I*flug was selected by the emperor as president of the
approaching synod at Regensburg. About that time
tbe chapter of the cathedra! at Naumburg-Zeitz elected
him blshop, but he was unable to assumc his episcopal
dudes nntil after the battle at MUhlberg. In 1557 he
presided at the Synod of Worms, and died in 1564.
Pflug was a moderate Romanist, and though associated
with £ck, shared nonę of his extravagant and extreme
ideas. He earaestly desired peace, and though he may
here and there hare consented to measures rather equiv-
ocal and que8tionable, he probably sought only the peace
and union of the Church. See Rankę, //is/. ofthe Pa-
pacy, i, 117 sq.; Planck, Gesch, der protest. Theol, voL
vi; Alzog, Kirchengeach, ii, 309 sq. (J. H.W.)
Fha'atll-Mo'ab {^ifaó^ Maia/3 y. r. «^aXec Mcu-
a^(ic)f a Gnecized form (1 Esdr. v, 11) ofthe Heb. name
(Ezra ii, 6; Neh. vii, 11) Pahatii-Moab (q. v.).
Fhac'areth (^aKOpi!^ v. r. 4>axapć&), a corrapt
Gnecized form (1 Esdr. v, 34) of the Heb. name (Ezra
ii, 57 ; Neh. vii, 59) Pocuereth (q. v.).
Fliaedo(ii) of Elis, a noted ancient Grecian phi*
losopher, was a native of Elis, and of high birth. He
was taken prisoner in his youth, and passed into the
hands of an Athenian slave-dealer ; and being of oon-
siderable personal beauty was compelled to prostitute
himself. It was in the summer of B.C. 400 that Phsedo
was brought to Athens. A year would thus remain for
his acquaintance with Socrates, to whom he attached
himself. According to Diogenes Laertius he ran away
from his master to Socrates, and was ransomed by one
of the friends of the latter. Suidas says that he was
accidentally present at a conyersation with Socrates,
and besought him to effect bia liberation. Yarious ac-
counts mentioned Alcibiades, Cńto, or Cebes as the
person who ransomed him. Cebes is stated to have
been on terms of intimate friendship with Phaedo, and
to have instructed him in philosophy. Phaedo was
present at the death of Socrates, while he was still quite
a youth. From the mention of his long hair it would
neem that he was not eighteen years of age at the time,
as at that age it was cuMomary to cease wearing the
hair long (Becker, Charikles, ii, 882). That Ph»do was
rt c.
- 1--
iv.-,„„ ,/■/„,;, /./'^"r' "'"'T »•• i'"''ii«»""i lo'
1' ;'' • '•'* " "' "";"' -"•"• i'..«-.r.«,Mi„,, :,: r;,ć
..... i,M //,,.. m ,H,«, h I..S ^«, .,.*;„;; ,„yX
' r Ił- ' :*-^ b- »!t» n.r a» narr' mr ar la- ar- :' -r
** *— ' '^ 1 r j--.łr ŁjLii. **■':•• i». i;:* c t2*» rc-r-' :-,•; n
■' '^ ii:.:i^-Ł! .^^ c^ 'osnr-ai m cadarc t r-.t
-'•* ** '■''^■' ■•''•— ^ ti -_i4 ,ii^-:j:_ I~7«* jt^ft^w^Y " .-» ;he
iŁi lu «!iŁ » ?Q^ 1. » -itf Kim jci: l3Ł^ .:" 1.. ;U
'^ ' ■ -' -^-^ '''■" i- .^ — — - Tiif ir!n:_r» a c rt*"'* -■--••»
A - - -ji * ^: 1 ac :« &.<•• v^ ł- *j c^ w^i » -r«:hii c
_ « • « - -' H '. > .— I ^ / . ., j^ T .^ . X ^ i *n. ii: siid
^* 'i-ttŁ ^ Traf Vci*K m tb* r^-nb-
">^ -^ rb* *^t-o rai «:>;* ./ Ar&i«s . S. r^ul.^ Gf^^jr,
'^. -o-, r, r-. . rw--::x-i«T^ E oua łi>* ftvai Danus-
<v*. f£,irT-«TeE irm Kera^h. Ii is bov tbe rilk^
\m.xt^\ ł.v an ir.*cTi::i.<; • Bcr^khanic TrarrU. p. 117
•'f ; PoTt^, /iłj-. ,y#.-»,. ii. lii sij..._Vmi de Vekle« J/e-
Pfcasipbailia. Tbf lumebrwhicli tbei^/Aonj^
<'{. r. wzA sr,metim€-9 caikti in the aDcimt Cłittfch ; and
ir ar«f^ from cfłiinectin- our Sarinttr's minde of l^eding
five ihoitóand roen mith the first minde at Cana, as a
rnanifi^tation of divinc power to be celebrated on this
rlay. .S*<j Kitiaie, Christian A nti^Uies ; Siegel, ChriMl
AUnihum*r,
Phasopbania. See Phagithasia.
Phagor. See Peor.
Pbal^snr frather Phasitr\ (4»atffovp v.r.*<i«rm'\
« e<fnupt Ornecized form (1 Esdr. ix, 4-1) of tbe HtU
naroc (Kzra x, 22) Pasiiuk (q. v.).
Pbalama. See Phalkis.
Phaldarus [rather Phalditys] (*a\iaiOc\ a cor-
nipt <.m.k form (1 Esdr. ix, 44) of the Hcb. name (Nch.
VUI,4) PKI»AlAll(q.V.).
Phale'a» [rather PAalaus] <i^aXaioi:), an incorrect
PHALEC
57
l^HALLUS
nrsicisai (1 £adr. v, 29) of the Heb. name (Ezra ii, 44 ;
\ch. vii, 47) Padon (q. v.).
Plui'']ec (^oAfc), a Gnecized form (Lukę iii, 35) of
tlM name of the patriarch Pklgo (q. v.).
Phallicisin, or Phalllc Worahip. See Pual-
Pballu (Gen. xlri, 9). See Pallu.
Phallos (j^aWóc, membrum nirile), a representation
•>f the inale generatiye organ, as the symbol of the fer-
tility of naturę, was carried among the ancient Greeks
10 the procesńons of the />»emyWa, and men diaguised as
ntimeo^called ItkgpkaUoij foUowed immediately behind
ir. The phallus, which was called among the Romans
/rucutrm, was often used by Łhat people as an amulet
boog aroond the necks of cbildren to arert evil influ-
eacefl. The Saiyriea tigna of Pliny probably referred to
tb( phallos, and he aars that theae were placed in gardens
a»i QQ hearths (o protect against the fascinations of the
fnrioos. From PoUux, alao, we leam that smiths were
a^castoined to place figures of the phallus before their
^res for the same purpoae. This symbol, which dis-
ffojta os by ita indecency, conreyed to the ancient
beathens, as the Linga (q. v.) does to the modem Hin-
di\s, I profound and sacred meaning. Diodorus Siculus,
referring to the venexation in which the phallus was
heid aoioog the Greeks, tells us that by this they would
Hiinify their gratttude to God for the populousness of
their country. ** It was an object of common worship
thttias^hout the nature-religion of the East, and was
calJed by manifold names, such as LingOj Jotń, PoUear,
itc, Originally it had no other meaning thaii the alle-
p>rkal one of that mysterious union between the małe
and femate which throughout naturę seems to be the
<ołe oondition of the coutinuation of the existence of
auimatcd beings ; but at a later period, morę particular-
ly wben ancient Korne had become the hot-bed of all
iMtonl and unnatnral vices, its worship became an in-
t«j)erahie nuisance, and was put down by the senate on
accoofit of the morę than usual immorality to which it
eire ńse. Its origin has caused much speculation,
imt no certainty has been arrived at by investiga-
ior& The Phcenicians traced its iutroduction into their
voi»hip Ło Adonis, the Egyptians to Osiris, the I'hry-
giaiH to Attys, tbe Greeks to Dionysus. The common
myth oonceming it was the story of some god deprived
of bis powers of generation — an allusion to the sun,
which in autnmn loees its fructifying influence. The
frores^on in which it was carried about was called
Phallagogia, or Periphallia, and a certain hymn was
sum; on that occasion, called the ^aXAucói/ fAi\oc, Tbe
Imu^ra of the phallus, which generally consisted of red
Itather, aod was attached to an enormous pole, were the
lliaUophoroL Phalli were on thc^e occasions wom as
i-raamenu around tbe neck, or attached to the body.
.\rl^ode tracea the origin of comedy to the ribaldry
and tbe improvl<$ed jokes customary on these festivals.
Iltalli were often attacheti to statues, and of a pro<lig-
ic-os stze ; iometimes they were even mov§ble. At a
pTijcnnion of Ptolemy Philadelphus a phallus was car-
ńed about madę of gold, and one hnndred and t wen ty
janb loDg. Before the tempie of Yenus at Hierapolis
ihcre mocmI two phalli, one hundred and eighty feet
'j.:h, upon which a priest mounted annually, and re-
nńutd there in prayer for Beven days. Tbe phallus
va4 an attribnte of Pan, Priapus, and to a certain extent
«^'of flermca" (Chambers). The belieyers in the de-
^♦fcipoient theor>' of course have a way of their own in
'■'cuunting for the origin and progress of phallic wor-
-i>ip. They teach tliat it is the most ancient and uni-
^pful of tbe beliefs of the humaii race, and that it has
I-maikd among all known nations of antiquity, and
^ been banded down in both dead and living forms
to tbe pretent dar. They daim to see eridences of its
esiatence not only in Kgypt, Greece, and Komę, but
*^ in Sj-ria, Perńa, Asia Minor, Italy, Spain, Ger-
Buny, Fnmoe, Ireland, and Scandinayia, among the
mound-builders of Korth America, in Mexioo, Ontral
America, Peru, and Uayti, and in the ialands of the
Pacific (>ccan, and in Africa. They even see its traces
among the Jews, and iu the use of certain syrobols iu
Christianity. Thus, e. g., Westropp teaches : " Tłie or-
igin of the idea is coeval among primitive nations with
that of the family, and rests in part upon the natural
yeneration of the father as the generator, the priest, and
the ruler. Marriage derived much of its importance
from a veneration of the principles at the fouudation of
the phallic worship. Its ceremony was attended with
rites which marked their significance, and one of its
symbols, the wedding-ring, is employed at the present
day. Circumcision was in its inception a purely phaUic
ordinance. Although the O.-T. narratire relates Łhat
it was instituted as a covenant between Jehovałi and
Abraham, the rite had been practiced by the Egyptians
and Phceuicians long before the birth of the llebrew
patriarch. Serpent symbolism was associatcd with the
phallic emblems, but that there was an identity iu their
signification has not been clearly establisbed. The ser-
pent was used among most archaic nations as a symbol
of wiadom and health, and yet its meaning often includ-
ed the notion of life and an embodiment of the spirit.**
Mr. Wake, another essayist of the same scbool, treats
the Mosaic account of the fali of man as a phallic le-
gend, which was borrowed by the compiler of the Pen-
tat«uch from some foreign source, probably from the
mysteries of Mithra, a Persian deity. The tree of the
knowledge of good and evil he identifies with the fig-
tree, which was highly renerated by many primitive
peoples. Its leares, it will be remembered, were sewed
into nprons by Adam and Eve after their transgression.
The kerub which guarded the tree of life is interpreted
as a symbol of the Deity himself, in the form of the sa-
cied buli of antiquity— a form under which the hemb is
described by Ezekiel (eh. i and x). The story of the
Deluge is also regarded as a mytb, with decided cvi-
dences of a phallic character. In many of the incidcnts
interwoven into the history of the Hebrews, and in
many of their religious obscn,'ance8, Mr. Wake diacoy-
ers testimony of the influence of the phallic superstition,
Abraham was a Chakhean, and by tradition declared to
have been leamed in astronomy, and to have taught the
science to the Phoeniciaus. "He had higher notions of
the relatton of man to the Divine than his ancestors,**
says the writer, but there was no fundamental differ-
ence between his religious faith and that of his Syrian
neighbors. The Jewish patriarchs erccted pillars and
planted groYcs, both of which were customs connected
with phallic worship. Throughout tbe nile of the
judges, and especially after the establishment of the
monarchy, the łlebrews were given to derelictions from
the purer religion of their nation to the idolatrous prac-
tices of their neighbors, which involveil worship of phal-
lic statues and omphalic emblems in ** high places." Tbe
religion of Baal, openly denounced by the prophets, was
a sort of phallism, and was conducted with lewd and
abominable ceremonies, which the Jcws tno often im-
itated. Mr. Wake even holds that the basis of Chris-
tianity is morę purely phallic than that of any other
religion. " In the recognition of God as the unirersal
Father, the great Parent of mankind, there is a devel-
opment of the fundamental idea of phallism. In the
position assignetl to Mary as the motber of God ihe
pararoount principic of the primitive belief is again
predominant The nimbus, the aureole, the cross, the
fish, and even the spires of churches, are symbols re-
tained from the old phallic worship." The May-polo
festiral is cited as having a phallic origin, and, in the
beginning, a reference to some event connected with
the occurrences in the Garden of Eden. In fact, says
Dr. Wilder, also of this cłass of writcrs, " There is not a
fast or festival, proccnsion or sacramcnt, social custom or
religious symbol, existing at the present day which has
not been taken bodily from phallism, or from some suc-
cessivc system of paganism** (comp. A ncietU Symbol Wor-
PHALTI
58
PIIARAOH
$hip: Influence ofthe Phallic Idea in tke Reliffions of Anr
iiąuity^ by Westropp and Wake; wiih Introd., etc, by
Wilder [N. Y. 1871, 8vo]). These theorists lose siglit
altogetber of the piMsibility tbat in tbe retrogression to
which the nations citetl became subject they mtist nec-
essarily have manifested sensual tendencies of the very
naturę of phollicism, and tbat only iu their lowett estate
Buch worship was extensively indulged in. Ab«urd it
is to point to circumciaion as in any wii?e connected with
phallic worship. The Jew practiced it as a ńtc of ad-
Diission to the fold to distinguish hini, and also as a
sanitary precaution which pbysicians approye of in oiir
day. We do not wonder tbat sach ridiculous and ex-
travagant hypotheses lead to the proposition recently
madę by one of the same scbool of thinkers as thosc
quoted, tbat " there would also uow appear good ground
for belterlng tbat the ark ofthe covenant, held so sacred
by tbe Jews, contained nothing morę nor less than a
pballus, tbe ark bcing the type of the Argha or Yoni
(Linga worship) of India" (SeUon, in A nthropoL Society
of London, 1863-4, p. 327 są., r2th paper). (J. H. W.)
Fharti (Heb. /'aW, •^ąbs, my deliverance; Sept.
^a\ri)f tbe son of Laish of Gallim, to wbom Saul gave
•Michał in marriage afler his mad jealousy had driren
David fortb as an outlaw (1 Sam. xxy, 44). AC. cir.
1061. In 2 Sam. iii, 15 be is called PiiALTiEU Ewald
{Gesch. iii, 129) suggests tbat this forced marriage was
a piece of policy on the part of Saul to attacb Phalti to
bis boase. With the exccption of this brief mention
of his name, and the toucbing littlc episode in 2 Sam.
iii, 16, nothing morę is bcard of Phalti. Michał is there
restored to Dayid. " Her busband went with ber along
weeping bebind ber to Baburim," and there, in obe-
diencG to Abner*s abrupt command, " Go, return,'' be tums
and disappears from the sccnc.— Smith. See DAyin.
There was another person of tbe same Heb. name
(Numb. xm, 9, A. V. " Palti" [q. y.]).
Fhartiel (Heb. Paltiel\ bsc-^ąbs, deliterance of
God; Sept, *aArł/;X), Saufs son-in-law (2 Sam. iii,
15) ; elsewbere called Phalti (q. y.).
Phannias {^awiac)^ son of Samuel, " of tbe yil-
lagc of Aphtha," raised by lot to tbe Jewish bigh-priest-
hood by the faction of John during the final siege by
the Romans, A.D. 70. He was totally uufit for tbe po-
sition, and was compelled to go through its duties (Jo-
sephus, Wary ly, 3, 8). He doubtless perisbed in tbe
sack of the Tempie.
Phantasiasts is a name giyen to the Doceta:
(q. y.), and of the same import with tbat term.
Phantaelodocetas is a term used by Theophylact
in his commentary on tbe 4th chapter of John. See
Phantasiasts.
Phanton of Phlius, a Pythagorean philosopber,
one ofthe last of tbat scbool, was a disciple of Pbilolaus
and Eurytus, and probably in his old age contemporary
with Ari8toxenu8 the Peripatetic. B.C. 320.
Phanu^el (<^avot/^X, probably a Graecized form of
tbe same Heb. name with Pemtel^fnce of God)^ a de-
scendant of the tribe of Asber, and fathcr of the proph-
etcss Anna (Lukę ii, 36). B.C. cir. 80.
Phar^acim (4apaicć/i y. r. ^apaKti/ji^ a name men-
tioned in the Apocrypba (1 Esdr. y. 31) as tbat of a
Hebrew whose "sons" retumed among the seryants of
the Tempie from the captiyity with Zerubbabel ; but it
does not occur in tbe parallel Usts of Ezra and Nehe-
miah.
Pha'radh [yulgarly pron. PA<ir'o*] (Heb. ParoA',
hiP^IB, Sept., New Test., and Joscpbus ^apaw^ but sel-
dom in classical writers), the common title of the an-
cicnt kings of Egypt^ as Ptolemy of its later kings, and
Coesar of tbe emperors of Romę. (The following ac-
count is baseil upon tbat in Fairbaim'8 Diełionory, with
modifications and additions from otber sources.)
Tbe name is deriyed from the Egyptian word Piri,
or Phrty signifying tbe tun (Wilkinson, A nc, £ffypłians,
i, 43). This Identification, respecting which there can
be no doubt, is due to tbe duke of Northumberland and
generał Felix (Rawlinson's Herod, u, 293). It bas bcen
supposed tbat tbe original was tbe same as Łhe Coptic
OurOf '*tbe king," with tbe article, Pirimro, P-owo ;
but this word appears not to haye been written, judg-
ing from the eyidence of the Egyptian inscriptions and
writings, in tbe times to which tbe Scriptures rcfer.
The conjecture arose from tbe idea tbat Pliaraob must
signify, instead of mercly implying, *' king,*- a mistake
occasioned by a too implicit confidence in tbe exactnc9s
of ancicnt writers (Joseph. Ant, yiii, 6, 2; Euscb. ed.
Scal. p. 20, y, 1). Bunsen approyes of this deriyation
of Josephus {/LfftfpCs Place, i, 191, Lond. 1848), but Wil-
kinson in tbe passage aboye quoted sbows reasons for
rejecting it. Tbe name was probably giyen in the
earliest timcs to the Eg3'ptian kings as being tbe chief
on earth, as the sun was tbe chief among tbe heayenly
bodics, and aften\'ard8, when this luminary became the
object of idolatrons worship, as tbe representation or
incamation of their sun-god, Phra or Re (Wilkinson,
Anc, Effypł. iv, 267; Rosellini, i, 116; Treyor, EffypffP.
124-136). Regarding tbe sun at flrst as tbe greatest
of the diyine works and a main element in the prixluC'
tion of Egypt'5 maryellous feriility, they readily used
it as signińcant of their monarchs, to whose wLse lawa
in the infancy of their state Kgypt is supposed to be
greatly indebted for the permanence and prosperity of
her institutions. '* Son of tbe sun** was the title of
every Pharaoh, and the usual comparison madę by the
priestbood of their monarchs when retuniing from a
succe^ful war was tbat his power was exaltcd in the
world as the sun was in tbe beayens (Wilkinson, i, 400;
iy, 288). In the hieroglypbics tbe hawk was the ein-
blem of the king as Pharaoh (id. iii, 287), and it is per-
haps of con8equence to notę tbat in tbe representations
of, apparently, two different kings rułing contempora-
neoiisly oyer Upper and Lower Egj-pt, tbe haw^k occiro
only in connection with one of tbem (id. iii, 282).
Readers of Scripturc will remark tbat Płiaraoh oOen
stands simply like a proper name (Gen. xii, 15 ; xxxvii,
36 ; xl, 2 sq. ; xliy, 1 sq. ; and so generally throughout
the Pentateuch, and also in Cant. i, 9; Isa. xix, 11;
xxx, 2). " King of Egypt" is sometimcs subjoined to
it (1 Kings iii, 1 ; 2 Kings xyii, 7 ; xyiii, 21) ; and some-
times also the morę specific dcsignation, or real proper
name of the monarch is indicated, as Pharaoh Necho
(2 Kings xxiii, 33), Pharaoh Hophra (Jer. xliv, 30).
Josephus (^Ant. yiii, 6, 2) says tbat while eyery king of
Egypt from Menes to tbe time of Solomon took ibis
title, no king of Egypt used it afterwards, and affiriDS
tbe lat ter fact to be apparent from the sacred writings.
This, howeyer, is not quite correct. Seyeral Egyptian
kings were after tbe period in question called by for-
eignei'8 Pharaoh, sometimes simply, sometimes in con-
nection with a second name (2 Kings xyiii, 21 ; xxiii,
29) ; but the alteration from the time of Solomon which
undoubtedly took place is remarkable, and probably
pointa to an important change in the dynastie bisior)-
of Egypt,
Some writers suppose Pharaoh to haye been the name
giyen in the Bibie to the natwe kings of Egypt, There
were, howeyer, probably before Solomon's time several
introductions of foreign dynasties, and some of thero. if
we accept the usual perio<l ascribed to the nile of the
Shepherds, of long duration; yet Scripture giyes the
title to all alike before this period, and Josephus statcs
that all without exception assumed it. W^ilkinson 9up-
poscs that it was tbe title of such kings as had tbe solc
dircction of affairs while Egypt was an independent
State, and that the title of " melek," or king, markcd
such as ruled conjointly with otber kings of Egypt, or
who goyenied as yiccroys under a foreign niler, as was
tbe case after the Persian conquest (i, 148, 179). This
is yery probably a satisfactoiy explauation for the long
PHARAOH
59
PHARAOH
period down to Łhe reign of Solomon. Most likely
tfaroaghouŁ it *^ Pbanu>h" marka thc monarch who ruled
akme ia Egypt, or over its infeńor and tributar}' kiiigs
whcn tbefe were such. ThU may seem intimated in
the ipeech of one of them to Joseph : '* I am Pbaraob,
asd withouŁ thee shall no man lift up hU band or foot
in aU the land of EgypŁ" (Gen. xU, 44). Wilkinson'8
eifdaoation, however, scarcely accounta for the period
suLt»qiient to the Pharaoh who gaye his daughter to
Sulomon. Shishak, who seems to have succeeded bioi,
Taft evidently the supremę ruler of Kgypt. and not only
iodependent of fbreigners, but able to extend Egyptian
pbirer far be}'ond the limits of EgypL A change of
d)-iiaflty seems here to have cauaed the change of title,
and was probably morę or less connected with such
diiD^ in after periods. The Fenian monarcha finally,
sdmiiiistering the affairs of Egypt through tributary
Diiire kings, took the title of Pharaoh as iudicative of
(beir sorereignty (Treror, Effypff p. 831). With them
thi4 aneient name of royalty paased awaj' forerer.
The political poeition of the Pharaohs in Egypt ia of
fftat moment in understanding the history of that
eofiotiT. If it were the exclusive tiUe of the supremę
ruJer. it marka the generał unity of Egypt under a
an^e monarch. If it were given indifferently to every
kii)^ of Egypt at those times, which seem unąues-
tiooably to bare recurred, and may have been of long
dontion and early datę, when 8everal kings ruled over
rama dirisions of the country, the occurrence of the
title does not neceasarily mark the political unity of
the iand. According to the first view, for instance,
tbe Pharaoh of Abraham or Joseph would be the su-
pfeme nder of the whole of Egypt, with, it might hap-
pen, ranooa dynasties of aubordinate kingą under him ;
accurding to the latter, be might be only king of a por-
tioo of Egypt, with other dynasties of equal rank ruling
eoniempc«aneoaaly elaewhere. To us the former view
•f^pean the pceferable one for many reasons. The
unity of Egypt under a aingle supremę monarch is, we
tbiak^ onąneationably the view according to which the
^ptar» lead us to think that^net^rKra regarded that
cooDtry. Whatever may have been the intemal ad-
mini^ratioo of the goyemment, into which Scripture
does not enter at all, the generał yiew giyen ua of Egypt
ia the ffible ia that of a country united under one mon-
sRb. The earliest apparent reference to a different
sute of thioga oocura in 2 Kings yii, 6, where we read
of '^ kings of Egypt," apparentJy of equal authority.
l^^aiah (»edicts great tronblea arising probably from a
nmiiar diasolotion of any central authority (eh. xix, 3;
Wilkinsoo, Egypi* i, 178; Kawlinson's i/erodotusy i, 51,
Dote 4, and 391). All aneient history with which we
arę acąaaioted (Herodotna, Diodorus, and Manetho) as-
swne the pc^ticai unity of Eg>'pt. The titlea of the
I^banohs seem to eatabliah it. They are always called
ofl the moouments " Lorda of Upper and Lower Egypt*'
(^Ukinaon, ii, 73 ; 2d aer. i, 261). Thia unity of Egypt
from the earlieat times ia now generally acknowledged
(Hengstenberg, Egsfptf p. 84). The power and great-
D^ of Egypt from the remotest times point to such a
onity. Ita high ciyilization and peaceful intemal con-
ditioo are a aimilar indication. If diyided into aereral
independent kingdoma Egypt would haye exhibited the
>^ oondition which ail the petty atatea of antiquity
did. in which erery man waa of neoeasity a aoldier
(Home, EfsojfSf ii, xi). Whereaa in Egypt aoldiers
^vmed a dilfińent claaa from the reat of the community,
B^yer wora arma except in actnal aenrice, while priyate
citizens at no time carried offenaiye weapona (Wilkin-
Mm, i, 402). Indeed, it ia impoeaible to imagine any
^ntry leaa anited by geographical oonflguration for
<iivid«d role than Egypt from the Cataracta to the aea.
One level yaUey, only dirided east and weat by ita river,
^at in fconi the reat of the world by the libyan and
Anbian raonutaina and the Syrian deaerta, it muat of
necHHty form a aingle aUte.
Thii view of the political poaition of the Pharaohs ia
not inconsiatent with the theoiy, for which there is
yery atrong proof from Manetho and elaewhere, that for
long periods of Egyptian history there may haye been
aubordinate dynasties of kingą ruling throughout Egypt
There may also haye been, but probably for much short^
er periods, a total oyerthrow of the central power, or a
practical disregard of it even while acknowledging ita
nominał authority. There is a pasaage of Manetho pre-
seryed by Joseph ua which seems to pouit strongly to
the yiew that the aneient intemal constitution of Egypt
was its goyemment by subordiuato kings under a su-
premę ruler (Josephus, Coru Ap. i, 14). Such, he exT
pressly tells ua, was its state duriug the oppresaion of
the Shepherda : ^' Theae tyrannized over the kings of
Thebais and of the other parta of Egypt." The gen-
erał idea of aneient goyemment was that of a supremę
monarch oyer tributary kings ; and the great probability
is that the Shepherds followed this anałogy, and, merely
deposing the ruling Pharaoh, left the minor dynasties
undiaturbed. The Pharaohs are auppoaed to haye been
at all timea inyeated with the highest aacerdotal dig-
nity (Hengstenberg, Egypt, p. 85 ; Wilkinson, i, 245).
From the circumstance that in the earliest names en-
closed in oyałs the title priest precedes that of king,
and for other reasons, Wilkinson argues, as we think
inconclusiyely, that Egypt was originałly goyemed by
bierarchical and not regal power (i, 16). See Egypt.
1. Tht. Pharaoh of Abraham.— The first mention of
a Pharaoh in the Bibie is on the occasion of Abram^a
yisit to Egypt during a famine in Canaan (Gen. xii, 10).
Which of the aneient kingą of Egypt is to be wider-
stood by this Pharaoh it is perhaps impoesible to de-
termine with certainty. Wilkinson aupposes him to
haye been Apappus; Africanus calls him liametsem^
nes; and some haye taken him to be one of the Shep-
herd kings. We haye, in truth, no materiala in Scrip-
ture or elaewhere for fixing the name and place of this
king in the dynasties of Eg}'pt In regard to the datę
also of Abraham's intercourse with him there is great
uncertainty. But aa the inyestigation of the point
would iuyolre us in a discussion on the somewhat per-
plexed cbronology of the earlier parts of Old-T^t. his-
tory, and the still morę perpłexed chronology of aneient
Egypt-, we can here only touch upon it ; but see for the
refutation of extreme yiews on the part of thc Egyptol-
ogists, Heng8tenberg*s Egypt and the Books of Moses,
and Sir C. Liewis^s Astronomy ofihe Ancients, At the
time at which the patriarch went into Egypt, according
to Hales^a as well as Usher's chronology, it is generally
held that the country, or at least Lower Egypt, waa
ruled by the Shepherd kings, of whom the first and
moat powerful linę waa thc fifteenth dynasty, the un-
doubted territoriea of which would be first eutered by
one comtng from the eaat. Manetho relatea that Sala-
tis, the head of thia linę, eatabliahed at Ayaris, perhaps
the Zoan of the Bibie, on the eaatem frontier, what ap-
peara to haye been a great permanent camp, at which
he reaided for part of each year. See Zoan. It is
noticeable that Sarah aeems to haye been taken to
Pharaoh*s house immediately after the coming of Abra-
ham ; and if this were not so, yet, on account of his
flocks and herds, the patriarch could scarcely haye gone
beyond the part of the country which was always morę
or less occupied by nomad tribes. It is also poasible
that Pharaoh gaye Abraham camels, for we read that
Pharaoh ^* entreated Abram well for Sarah*8 sake : and
he had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and men-scryanta,
and maid-seryants, and she-asses, and camels" (Gen. xii,
16), where it appears that this property was the gifl of
Pharaoh, and the circumstance that the patriarch afler*
wards held an Eg^^ptian bondworoan, Iłagar, confirma
the inference. If so, the present of camels would argue
that this Pharaoh waa a Shepherd king, for no eyidence
haa been found in the aculptures, paintings, and inscrip-
tiona of Egypt that in the Pharaonic ages the camel
was used, or eyen known there, and this omission can
be best cxplaiued \xif 4he auppositiou that the animał
1 ■
PHARAOH
60
PHAUAOH
waB hateful to the £g3'ptian8 as of great ralue to their
enemies the Shepherda. On Łlie otlier hand, Abraham*8
posscasions, especially the camela, may have been pur-
chaaed by him from the nomad tńbes with the pruceeds
of Pharaoh's liberaltty, and the fact that Hagar was of
this Arab race hardly consists with hcr haying been
reduced to bondage while they were iii the ascendant.
Indeed. it apiiears that the Shepherd kings (q. v.) were
not on good terms with the Hebrews, aa their interests
were rivaL The datę at which Abraham Yisited Eg\'pŁ
(accordiug to the chronology which we hołd most prob-
able) was about B.C. 2081, which would not accord
with the time of Salatis, the head of the fifteenth dy-
nasty, B.C. 2006, according to our reckoning, but rather
with that of tiinothris of the second (Thinitic) dynasty,
and that of Othoijs of the 8ixth (Mcmphitic) dynasty,
as well as with that of Tancheres of the fiflh (Ele-
phantinitic) dynasty, but anterior to all the other dy-
nastie^i.
2. The Pharach of Jot^h, — Between the Pharaoh
of Abraham and the Pharaoh of Joseph there was an
interval of two hundred years. During this period
there may have been yarious changes of dynasty, art,
and reUgion in Egypt of which we derire no informa-
tion from Scripture ; while the notice of the former
king and of the state of the country in his time is so
brief that we cannot by comparison arrive at any eon-
clusion upon this point. Of the political position and
cłiaracter of the latt«r, and the condition of Egypt in
his time, Scripture gives us very important Informa-
tion from his intimate connection with Joseph and the
chosen people of God.
Wilkinson identifies this Pharaoh with Oiirteten /,
one of the kings of his 8ixteenth dynat^ty of Tanites,
whose reign he supposes to have exceeded forty-three
years {Egypt, i, 42, 43). Bunsen prefers . to identify
him with Osirte^m III^ of the seyenteenth dynasty of
Memphites, who is, according to him, the Sesostris of
classical writers (Trevor, Effypt^ p. 254). Osburn
tbinks him to have been Apophis {Utid. p. 216), as Eu-
aebius states, changing the datę so as to fit. Tho
identificAtion obyiously depends simply upon a com-
parison of the Hebrew and Egyptian chronologies.
Whether he was of one of the dynasties of the Shepherd
kings is a ąuestion on which authorities differ, accord-
ing to their views of the datę of the Shepherd rule, and
their intcrpretation of the scriptural account of this
king. Wilkinson is decidedly of opinion that he was
not a Shepherd king, an opinion with which Trerór
agrecs. Josephus says that he was a Shepherd. We
are decidedly of opinion fr«m the incidental nodces of
Scripture that he was not of a Shepherd dynasty. If
we are to accept Manetho'8 account, we must suppose
that thcse Shephcrds conquered the most of Egypt,
ruled with the greatest tyranny and cruelty over the
Egyptians, disregarded the old laws of the country,
and demolished its temples (Josephus, Ap. i, 14).
Their rule was not one of policy and conciliation, but
of brute force and terror, an idea stron gly corroboratcd
by the abomination in which the Bibie tells us all
shepherds were held in Egypt, and by the testimony
which the monuments bear to the detestation and
scom in which they were uniyersall)' hcld (Wiikin-
Eon, ii, 16; iy, 126). The Shepherds being such, it
seems to us quite inconsistent with the Biblical narra-
tiye to suppose that Joseph's Pharaoh was a Shepherd
king. Thus we find that the Egyptian prejudicc
against shepherds was carefuUy and jealously ret^pect-
ed by this king. The Israelites on coming into Egypt
were by him located in the border-land (Hengstcn-
hergf Kffypt^ p. 42) of Goshen, where they would Ferye
as a barrier against the shepherd- hating Egyptians
(Gen. xlyi, 34). We cannot suppose a Shepherd king
to act thus. He would not thus consult a natiye prej-
udicc hostile to hb own dynast}', while his own Shep-
herd gnrrisons occapied the ftrongholds of Egypt.
Again, Pharuoh^s court and household, so far as we
know thcm, wero composed of natiyo Egyptians.
Such was Potłphar, the captain of the king*s bod^'-
guard, probably tho most trnsted officer of Pharaoh
(Gen. xxxix, 1); while the chief butler and baker of
his court are the well-known officers of the native
court of the Pharaohs (Treyor, p. 256). llie officials
of Pharaoh's prime minister, Joseph, are also natire
Egyptians, whose feelings of caste towards foreignera
were carefuUy cousulted (Gen. xUii, 82 ; see Rawlin-
8on*8 fłerorlotus, bk. ii, c. 41, notę 9). In the mid^t of
uniyersal destitution, when all others were reduced to
serfdom, and the lands of Egypt f assed into the pos-
session of Pharaoh, the property of the nativc Egyp-
tian priests alone was religiously respected, and Uiey
received, without any return, an ample maintenance
from Pharaoh's stores for themselyes and their fam-
ilies (Gen. xlyii, 22). When Pharaoh sought to bc-
stow upon Joseph marks of the highest honor for his
preseryation of the oountr}^ one of these marks was
the bestowal on him in marriagc of Asenatb, the
daughter of Potipherah, priest of On or Heliopolis,
who is thus distinguished as one of the highest and
most honored personages in the land (Gen. xli, 45).
These considerations lead us to conclude that this
Pharaoh was a natiye Eg}'ptian, not a Shepherd king,
and that he ruled after the expuIsion of the Shepherd?,
or during their supremacy, while the memor^' of their
tyranny was still yiyid in the national mind. Raw-
linson {J/erod. Ik. ii, c. 108, notę 2) seems to tbink
that horses were unknown in Egypt till the time of
Amosis (B.C. 1510), and would tbus giye a Iow datę for
this monarch, in whose time horses were in use for
ordinary purposes as well as for war (Gen. xlyii, 17).
The testimony of Herodotus on which he comments
seems, howeyer, opposed to this yiew. According to
the chronology which we adopt, the period of Joseph 's
deliyerance from prison was B.C. 1883, which will fali,
according to our view of the Egyptian dynastie^, under
the reign of Aphobis, the fourth king of the firteenth
(Shepherd) dynasty. But as the Shepherd kings do
not scem to have been friendly to the Hebr sws, anil
for the othcr reasons enumerated aboye, we prcsume
that these foreigners were not at this time (if indeed
they eyer were) in possession of the whole of Kgypr.
We therefore incline to identify the Pharaoh in ques-
tion with one of the eighth(Memphitic) dynasty, whose
names are uurecorded, but who were contemporaneous
with the twclfth (Diospolitic) as well as with the
fifteenth (Shepherd) dynasty. There is one indica-
tion in Scripture which seems to attribute a yery con-
siderable antiquity to this period. In Joseph's tiir.e
the territory allocated to the Israelites was called
Goshen (Gen. xly, 10). In the time of Moses this
ancient name appears to haye been almost forgotten,
and to haye yielded to that of the land of Ramcsrs
(Gen. xlyii, 11).
The religion of Egypt during the reign of this Pha-
raoh appears to have been far less corrupt than it suh*
8equently presents itself in the time of Moses. llie
' Scriptures giye us seyeral indications of this; and
I these of no indistinct kind. Thus Joseph speaks to
his master^s wife as if she recognised the same God
that he did (Gen. xxxix, 9) . His language to the chief
butler and baker in the prison conyeys a similar idea
(xl, 8), as does his address to Pharaoh when called be-
fore him (xli, 16-32). Pharaoh inhis speech to his
seryants and to Joseph speaks of God precisely as
Joseph had done, and as if he recognised but one
God (xli, 38, 39). Joseph, without any fear of inju-
riotts consequences to himself, and as if it were no cx>
traordinary thing, allows the identity of his religion
with that of the sons of Jacob (xlii, 18). Jo8eph*s
steward, probabl}' a natiye £g}'ptian, eyidently rccog-
nises their God (xHii, 23). Ko doubt corruption had
now been introduced into the pure religion deriyed
from Noah. In the magicians and wise men (xli, 8)
of Egypt we eee probably a caste who had alroady
PHARAOH
61
PHARAOU
giT«o a snperstitioas coloring to religion, introdnced
Mir rites of wonhip, aod paved the way for a total de-
cknńon from thebm to grosa polytheism. But this
iatter condition does not appear to have been reacbed
ia tbe time of Joseph. Syrobolic worahip, if now, as
is nto$t Iłkely, in common use, had still to a very great
exteat left nndestroyed the notlon of one supremę God
rnJing OTer all the nations ; nor haye yre reason to
»a|>poM tbat Potipberah, the father-in-law of Joseph,
ud pńest of On, was an upholder of the idolatry of a
latcr time. The ann, now introdnced into £g3'ptian
vGrship, was bj bim in all likelihood explained as the
Bca and symbol of deity, bnt not as partaking of deity
its«lf. No donbt we see fh>m this the danger of any
łlnntion by m^n of the worship ordained by God, bot
at the same time the religion of Egypt may have beeii
cnoparatirdy trae and pure, thongh it had now intro-
daced tbat symbolism which qnickly degenerated into
tbe grosscst idolatry the world bas ever seen. Sym-
bolk worship was now probably regarded as a high
pitnf of religioas wisdom (Rom. i, 22) ; a short time
pnnred it to be ntter foll3\
Tbe goTemment of Pharaoh seems to have been of
aa abaolate knid (Gen. xli, 40-43; see Wilkinson, i,
ió). The snpposition tbat at this time Egypt was
e&venied by sereral independent dynasties seems in-
eonsistent with the language and condoct of Pharaoh
ia making by bis own merę will Joseph to be ruler
"oY^er all tbe land of Egypt,'* only inferlor to bimself
tbroagbont its whole extent. But this language is
eTtrłt^ntly tbat of courtly assnmption, and may very
nitamlly be applied only to tbat region over which he
raied. Tbe evidence is yer}' strong from the monn-
roents and other sources tbat even under the Shepherd
nile tliere were kings in otber parts of Egypt largely
if oot wboUy independent of them. The appointment
of oor^^ts decorated with royal titles is thought to
hsTe been characteristic of this dy nai^ty (Tteror, Egfff^^
p* 258). This Pharaoh*s personal character seems to
bsA e been that of a wise and prudent monarch, anxious
for the welLire of his people, and superior to popular
prejodłce against strangers. Wilkinson tbinks he
was pacific in his policy, and his condnct in receiving a
ble&iing from the aged Jacob shows a humility of mind
umI a re^pect for worth which contrasts very fayor-
ably with the condoct of other despotic kings. The
^itaation of his capital was near the land of Goshen
Gen. xl\', 10), and the ciyilization and flonrisbing
^wdition of Egypt dnring his reign were yery great
I Wilkinson, i, 43). Whether he were the same mon-
vch wbom we find rnling Egypt at the time of Jacob's
<J2ath, seyenteen ycars snbseąuently to his remoyal
toto Gosben, bas been diffcrently yiewed (Gen. 1, 4).
It has been thought by some that Joseph 's using the
itttereession of Pharaoh^s household to procnre a fayor
from the king indicates a less intimate acquaintance
than we shonld expect between him and that king who
rafed at the time of the famine. Bnt local customs,
Probably connected with the habits of Egyptian mourn-
iag, nay accoant for tbia.withont supposing a different
^ ( Hengstenberg, Egypt, p. 71).
3. Tkt Pharaoh ofth-. First PersectUion offke Ftrael'
*^<.— Tbe interral which elapsed between the Pharaoh
ot Jofepb*s time and the Pharaoh who commenced tbe
pei?ccntion of (srael is mnch affected l»y opinion as to
th« length of the sojonm in Egypt. See Chronol-
<^T. According to our yiew, the interyal between
iacob's remoyal into Egypt and the birth of Moses
^« a little oyer one hnndred and thirty-fiye years.
Tbe nnknown ąnantity is tbe period from the com-
BKBceoient of the perseeution to the birth of Moses.
It was tbe same Pharaoh that began to afflłct Tsrael
vbo reigned when Moses was bom (Acts vii, 20), and
^c penccntion mnst have continned a considerable
tóne preyiotts to allow for the eyents montioned in
fhe fint cfaapter of Exodui>. These included the build-
iag of two oonsidermble cities and other labor, for which
a period of sereral years seems to be reąnired. The
name and dynasty uf this king haye been diffcrentl}'
given (Jofir. nf Sac, Lit. [new ser.] i, 491). Wilkinson
cupposes bim to have been Amosis or Ames^ the tirst
of the eighteenth dynasty of Theban or Diospolitan
kings, and supports his yiew of the change of dynasty
at this time, and the accession of kings from the distant
proyince of Thebes, from the scriptural account of him
as*' a new king tbat knew not Joseph"(if 47, 76). Lord
Pmdhoe, in an able paper giyen by Wilkinson (i, 78),
argues that the new king was Rameses /, who was also,
according to him, the bead of a new dynasty, and as
snch ignorant of the history of Joseph, wbile it was
for Rameses II that the Israelites built the treasure
cities. According to the fhigment of Manetbo pre-
seryed by Theophilus, the new king was T*thfnons
(Bnnsen, Ęgjfpt, i, 655). He is yery commonly snp-
posed to haye been the king who cnished the power
of the Shepherds in Egypt. From a picture on the
walls of a yeiy intoresting tomb of Roshere, " super-
intendent of the great buildings" to king Thothmes
III, Treror {Egypt^ p. 72) tbinks it likely that it was
during his dynasty, the eighteenth, that tbe oppression
of Israel occnrred, and that most likely Amosis, the
first king, was the origpnator of it (p. 275). Josephus
(^AnU ii, 9, 3) conslders him to have been of a new
family called to tbe throne; but Hengstenberg {Egypt,
p. 252) argues tbat tbe appellation of " new king," in
the Bibie, which is yery often referred to in proof of a
change of dynasty, indicates only a disregird of the
seryices of Joseph, and a forgetfnlness of the old affec-
tion that used to be entertained in Eg}'pt and by its
kings for the great preseryer of their countr}'. Ac-
cording to Manetho^s stor}' of the Exodus — a story so
contradictory to historical truth as scarcely to be wor-
thy of mention — ^tbe Israelites left Egypt in the reign
of Meneptah, who was great-grandson of the first Ka-
raeses, and son and successor of the second. This king
is held by some Eg}'ptologists to haye reigned about
the time of the rabbinical date of the Exodus, włiich
is yirtually the same as that which has been supposed
to be obtainable from the genealogies. There is, how-
eycr, good reason to place these kings much later ; in
which case Rameses I would be the oppressor; bot
then the building of Rameses could not be placed in
his reign withont a disregard of Hebrew cbronolog}'.
But the argument that there is no earlier known king
Rameses loses much of its weight when we bear in
mind that one of the sons of Aahmes, head of the eight-
eenth dynasty, who reigned about two hundred years
before Rameses I, borę the Bame name, besides that
yery many names of kings of the Shepherd period, per-
haps of two whole dynasties, are nnknown. Against
this one fact, which is certainly not to be disregarded,
we must weigh the generał eyidence of the history,
which shows us a king apparently goveming a part
of Egypt, with subjects inferior to the Israelites, and
fearing a w^ar in the country. Like the Pharaoh of
the Exodus, he seems to haye dwelt in Lower Eg^pt^
probably at Ayarip. (When Moses went to see his
people, and siew the Egyptian, he does not seem to
have madę any joumey, and tbe buryin^ in sand
shows that the place was in a part of Egypt, like
Goshen, encompassed by sandy deserto.) Compare
this condition with the power of tbe kings of the Iatter
part of the eighteenth and of the nineteentb dynasties :
rulers of an empire, goveming a united country from
which tbe head of their linę had driven the Shepherds.
The yiew that this Pharaoh was of the beginning or
middle of the eighteenth dynasty seems at first sight
extremely probable, especially if it be supposed that
the Pharaołi of Joseph was a Shepherd king. The ex-
pulsion of the Shepherds at tbe commencement of this
dynasty would bare naturally caused an immediate or
graduiil oppression of the Israelites. But it must be
remembereil that what we have just said of the power
of some kings of this dynasty is almost as truo of their
PHARAOH
62
PHARAOH
predecesson. The silenee of Łhe historical monuments
is also to be weighed, wben we bear in mind how na-
merous Łhe gaps are,and that we might expect manj* of
tbe eyents of Łhe oppression to be recorded even if the
exodu8 were not noticed. If we aasign tbis Pharaoh to
the age before the eighteenth dynasty, which our view
of Ilebrew chronology would probably oblige ns to do,
we have still to determine whether he were a Shepherd
or an £g}'ptian. If a Shepherd, he must have been of
the 8ixteenth or the 8eventeenth dynasty ; and that
he was Eg}'ptianized does not afTord any argument
against this supposition, sinoe it appears that foreign
kings, who can only be aasigned to one of these two
lines, had Egyptian names. In corroboration of this
view we quote a reoiarkable paesage that does not
seem otherwise explicable: "My people went down
aforetime into Egypt to sojoum there ; and the Assyr-
łan oppreseed them without caose" (Isa. lii, 4) : which
Biay be compared with the allusions to the exodu8 in
a prediction of the same prophet respecting Assyria
(x, 24, 26). Our inference is strengthened by the dis-
cover}' that kings bearing a name almost certainly an
Egyptian translation of an Assyrian or Babylonian re*
gal title are among those apparently of the Shepherd
age in the Turin Pap}nrus (Lepsius, Kdnigabuchf Tafel
xviii, xix, 275, 285). According to our view of the
Hebrew chronology, the birth of Moses occurred B.C.
1788. The scheme of Egyptian chronology which we
haye adopted places the IJeginning of the sixteenth
(Shepherd) dynasty in B.C. 1755, and it would Łhere-
fore be under the reign of one of the first kings of this
dynasty, whose names are unknown, that Łhe persecuŁion
of the IsraellŁes began.
4. The Pharaoh of Moies't Eaile.-rlt is often snp-
posed that the Pharaoh who ruled Egjpt at Łhe birth
of Moses is the same Pharaoh who ruled it when Mo-
ses fled into Midian (Exod. ii, 15). There is notbing
in the narrative of Scripture to lead us to this condu-
sion, thongh it may possibly have been the case. The
probabilities, however, seeni to point the other way.
We have allowed about eight years of his reign to
have elapscd prior to the birth of Moses, who at the
period of flight was forty years of age (Acta yii, 23).
The monarch, thercfore, if the same, must have reigned
forty-eight years, which is an unusual length. (The
entiro 16th dynasŁy of Łhirty-two kings seems to have
lasted but 112 years.) The jealonsy also with which
Moses was regarded by this Pharaoh seems to indicate
that he did not stand towards him in the relation of
his grandfather by adoption. The view is further
confirmed by the intimation in Exod. iv, 19, which
seems to tell us that the Pharaoh who sought Moses's
life lived nearly to the time of his return into Egypt,
a period of forty years. If this were so, it is impossi-
ble for this king to have been the monarch who began
the persecuŁion of Israel. We prefer, Łherefore, to re-
gard him as different, and as probably chosen by adop-
tion, to continue tlie snccession of a childless family.
We would make the 3'^ear during his reign at the flight
of Moses to have been B.C. 1698, and his atŁempt upon
the life of the great lawgiver is the only event of his
reign recorded in Scripture.
5. The Pharaoh of the Eiode.^The Pharaoh in
whose reign the deliverance of the Israelites was
Bchieyed would appear to have succeeded to the throne
not very long before the return of Moses to Eg}'pt af-
ter his forty years* sojoum in Midian (Exod. iv, 19).
His relatlonship to his predecessor is not told us, but
he was probably of the same dynasty, and carried on
the traditional policy of a grinding oppression of the
Israelites. We do not read of anv effort of his to re-
duce the numbers of that nation : he seems rather to
have looked on their numbers as an additional source
of grandeur and power to Eg}'pt by an enforced sys-
tem of la bor. The name of this Pharaoh is very vari-
ously related. WUkinson supposes him to have been
Thothmes IIIj the fourth or fifth monarch, according
to him, of the eighteenth dynasty of Theban or Dios-
politan kings ; whtle Manetho, according tg Africanus,
makes him to have been A mo9, tbe first of that linę of
monarcha ; and lord Prudhoe wnuld have him to havc
been Pthahmen^ the last of that dynasty (Wilkinson,
Egtfpi, i, 81, 41, 81). Ptolemy, the priest of Mendis,
agrees in opinion with Manetho (Bunsen, Egypt^ i, 90).
Yarious reasons are giyen in the Journal of Sacrtd
Literaturę (new ser. i, 490) for supposing him to have
been SethoM II, Respecting the time of this king, we
can only be surę that he was reignfaig for about a 3'ear
or morę before the exodas, which we place B.C. 1658.
His acts show us a man at once impioos and super-
sŁiŁious, alŁemaŁely rebelling and snbmitting. At first
he seenus to haye thonght that his magicians could
work the same wonders as Moses and Aaron, yet even
then he begged that the frogs might be taken away,
and to the end he prayed that a plague might be re-
moved, promising a concession to the Israelites, and
as soon as he was respited failed to keep his word.
This is not strange in a character principally infln-
enced by fear, and history abonnds in parallels to Pha-
raoh. His yacillation only ended when he lost bis
army in the Red Sea, and the Israelites were finally
delivered out of his hand. Whether he himself was
drowned has been considered matter of uncertaintv, as
it is not 80 stated in the account of the exodu8. An-
oŁher passage, however, appears to affirm it (P5a.
cxxxvi, 15). It seems to be too great a latitude of
criticism either to argne that the expression in this
passage indicates Łhe oyerthrow, but not the death of
the king, especially as the Hebrew expres$ion " e^hook
off" or **threw in" is very literał, or that it is only
a strong Shemitic expre8sion. Besides, throughout
tbe preceding histor\' his end is foreshadowed, and is,
perhaps, positiyely foretold in £xod. ix, 15 ; though
this passage may be rendered, "For now I might bare
stretched out my hand, and might haye smitten thce
and thy people with pestilence; and thou wouldcst
have been cut offfrom the earth," as by Kaliach {Com-
mentary, ad loc), instead of as in the A. Y.
Althongh we haye already stated our reasons for
i abandoning the theory that places the exodus under
the nineteenth dynasty, it may be well to nottce sn
additional and conclnsive argument for rejecting as
unbistorical the tale |nrcserved by Manetho, which
makes Meneptah, the son of Rameses II, the Pharaoh
in whose reign the Israelites left Eprj-pt. This tale
was commonly current in Egypt, but it must be re-
marked that the hi^torian giyes it only on the author-
ity of tradition. M. Mariette's recent discoyeries have
I added to the evidence we already had on the subject,
In this story the secret of the snccess of the rebels was
that they had allotted to them by Anienophis, or
Meneptah, the city of Ayaris, formerly held by tho
Shepherds, but then in ruins. That the people to
whom this place was given were working in the qnar-
ries east of tbe Nile is enough of itself to throw a doubt
on Łhe narraŁive, for there appear to have been no qu&r-
I rics north of those opposite Memphis, from which Ara-
ris was distant nearly the whole length of the Delta ;
but when it is found that this yery king, as wcU a5 liis
father, adomed the great tempie of Ayaris, the story
is seen to be esscntially false. Yet it is not improha-
ble that some calamity occurred abouŁ this time, « ith
which the Eg3'ptian8 wilfully or ignorantly confounded
the exodu8 : if they did so ignorantly, there would be
an argument that this event took place during tbe
Shepherd period, which was probably in alter-Łimes
an obscure part of the annals of Egypt. The charac-
ter of this Pharaoh finds its parallel among the Assyr-
ians rather than the Egyptian s. The impiety of the
oppressor and that of Sennacherib are remarkably
similar, though Sennacherib seems to haye been morę
resolute in his resistance than Pharaoh. This resem-
blance is not to be over1ooked, especially as it seems
to indicate an idiosyncrasy of the Assyrians and kin-
PHARAOH
63
PHARAOH
dred nitioiu, for natioiiAl chanicter was morę marked
io antiąaity than it ia now tn most peoples, doubtless
becaose iaolation wu then genenl and is now special.
Tbus, the Egrptian monumenU show us a people
hi^hly reTenndng their god9, and eren those of other
n^tions, thc most powerful kingą appearing as suppli-
tnis in the representations of the temples and tombs.
In the Assjrian scnlptiires, on the contrary, the kings
are scen rather aa protected hy the gods than as wor-
ifaipptDg Łhem ; so that we nnderstand how in snch a
(mantry the fiunoos decree of Darins, which Daniel
dl^obered, coold be enacted. Again, the Egyptians
do not seem to haye snpposed that their enemies were
lupported by gods hostile to those of Egypt, whereas
tłie Assyrians considered their gods as morę powerful
tliaji those of the nations they snbdaed. This is im-
portaot in connection with the idea that at least one
of the Pharsohs of the oppression was an Assyrian.
The idolatry of Egrp^appears to haye airiyed at its
beight in the time of this monarch. We see evidences
of a great difierence between the religions system of
this period and of the time of Joseph*8 Phaimoh.
At hoth periods indeed we read of tJie '*magician
and vise men of Egypt," but it by no means follows
tbat becsoae the namea are the same the part dis-
ch&rged by them was identical in the two periods.
fittides, we read in the later period (Exod. yii, 11) of
ao order of men (sorcerers, C^BISS^) apparently un-
known in the earlier. These men supported their au-
tbońty sod doctrine by claims to miraculous power
iver. 11), whether we snppose Łhem to have executed
their feats merelj hy a skilful system of juggleiy
aod sleight of hand, or, as many think, by diabolical
aid. The anthority of the GÓd of Israel, acknowl-
ed^d by the earlier Pharaoh, is by this king scom-
MW renoanced, and a yast system of polytheism, em-
bracing the fiunons worship of sacred animals, is firmly
nUblUhed as the religion of Egypt (y, 2 ; zii, 12 ;
Tiii. tS). This was the sultable time chosen by God,
when a great monarch ruled oyer the greatest empire
of itj time, which had brooght to fuli deyelopment the
idulatiT by it widely propagated, to read a lesson to
tbe GcDtile world on the feebleness of idols as com*
psred to him.
fiefore speaking of the later Pbaraohs we may men-
tion a point of weight in reference to the identilication
of tbese earlier ones. The accounts of the campaigns
of tbe Pharaohs of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and
tteotieth dynasties haye not been found to contain
m reference to the Israelites. Hence it might be
i^opposed that in their days, or at least during the
i^Kater part of tbe time, the Israelites were not yet in
tbe Promised Land. There is, howeyer, an almost
tąoal silenoe as to the Canaanitish nations. The land
itaelf, Kantma or Kcmaan, is indeed menttoned as in-
^^A^\, ss well aa those of Kketa and A mar^ referring
t& the Hittites and Amorites; but the latter two mnst
bi^e been brancfaes of those nations seated in the yal-
K^ of the Orontes. A recently discoyered record of
^br^hmes III, pnblisbed by M. de Roogć in the Reoue
Afcheofoffi<pie (Noy. 1861, p. 844 fq.), contains many
tiB»^ of Canaanitish towns conquered by that king,
lot iMit one recognised as Israelitish. These Canaan-
itish names are, moreoyer, on the Israelitish borders,
Oli ia the heart of the country. It is interesting that
3 j^p^t battle is shown to haye been won by this king
u Megiddo. It seems probable that the Egyptians
<<ther abfltained from attacking the Israelites fh>m a
f^^nection of the calamities of the exodua, or that
ttiey were on fHendly terros. It ia yeiy remarkable
tbat the E^ptians were granted priyileges in the law
(Hent. zui'^ 7), and that Shishak, the fint king of
I^pt after the exodns whom we know to bave in-
^^d tbe Hebrew territories, was of foreign extrac-
tion, if not actnally a foreigner.
6. Piaraok, (ke FaUer-m-kw of Mertd.-rln tbe
genealogies of the tribe of Jndab, mention is madę of
the daughter of a Pharaoh married to an Israelite:
" Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered took"
(1 Chroń, iy, 18). That the name Pharaoh here protv
ably designates an Egyptian king we haye alieady
shown, and obseryed that the datę of Mered is doubt-
ful, although it is likely that be liyed before, or not
much after, the exodus. See Bithiah. It may be
added that the name, Miriam, of one of the family of
Mered (yer. 17), apparently his sister, or perhaps a
daughter by Bithiah, suggests that this part of the
genealogies may refer to about the time of the exodus.
This marriage may tend to aid us in determining the
age of the sojoum in Egypt. It is perhaps less probable
that an Egyptian Pharaoh would haye gtyen his daugh-
ter in marriage to an Israelite, than that a Shepherd
king would haye done so, before the oppression. But
Bithiah may haye been taken in war after the exodus,
by the surprise of a carayan, or in a foray. Others,
however, bring down this eyent to the times of or near
those of David. It was then the policy of the Pha-
raohs to ally themselyes with the great familles whose
power lay between Egrpt and Assyria, as we know
fh>m the intermarriages of Hadad and Solomon with
the Egyptian dynasty. The most interesting feature
connected with this transaction is the name, Bithiah
(daughter of Jehoyah), giyen to the daughter of Pha-
raoh. It exhibits the true faith of Israel as exerting
its influence abroad, and gaining proselytes eyen in
the royal house of idolatrous Egypt. See Merbd.
7. Pharaoh, the Protector of Hadad.—With the ex.
ception of the preceding Pharaoh, whose datę is doubt-
ful, there is a long sUence in Jewish history as to the
kings of Egypt. During the period of the judges, and
throughout die reigns of Saul and David, they had
apparently neither entered into alliance nor madę war
with the Israelites. If such an eyent had happened, it
is probable that some mention would have been madę
of it. It does not foUow from this that during this pe-
riod they had madę no wars nor effected any conquests
to the east of Egypt, for the seaboard of Canaan, which
Israel did not during this time occupy, seems to haye
been a usual passage for the £g}'ptian armies in their
eastem wars. But the silence of Scripture points to
the probabUity tbat for this long period Egypt did not
occupy the commanding position of the earlier or the
later Pharaohs. Intestine diyisions and dynastie quar-
rels may during a great portion of it haye retained the
Eg3rptians within their proper borders, satisfied if they
were not assailed by foreign nations. In the reign of
David we incidentally find notice of a Pharaoh who
receiyed with distinction Hadad the Edomite fleeing
from Joab, and gave him his sisŁcr-in-law for wife (1
Kiugs xi, 15-22). We find this Pliaraoh ruling from
about the twentieth year of Dayid's reign to its close,
i. e. from about B.C. 1033 to B.C. 1013. His reign per-
haps came to an end soon after Dayid*s death, as Sol-
oroon'8 fiither-in-law is thought to have been another
Pharaoh. His treatment of Hadad, a bitter enemy
of Dayid, and with strong reaaon bo, was certainly an
unfriendly act towards tbe latter, but it does not seem
to haye been attended by any ulterior consequences.
No war ensued between £<r}7>t and Israel, and Pha-
raoh madę no attempt to restore Uadad to the throne
of Edom. When this latter, npon David*s death,
Bought to return home, eyidently with the intention of
disturbing the reign of Solomon in its commencement^
Pharaoh was apparently opposed to his return, yery
probably from a disinclination to fayor any step which
might inyolye him in unpleasant relations with the
powerful kingdom of Israel, then at the height of its
greatness. l^bably in the first part of this account
the fugitiyes took refuge in an Eg^^ptian mining-9ta-
tion in the peninsula of Sinai, and so obtained guides
to conduct them into Egypt Tbere tbey were re-
ceiyed in accordance with the Egyptian policy, but
with the especial faror that seems to bave been shown
PHARAOH
04
PHARAOH
aboat this tirae towards tbe eastem neigbbórs of the
Pharaohs, which may reasonably be supposed to have
lod to the establisbment of tbe twenti^-second dynasty
of foreign extraction. For the Identification of tbis
Pharaoh we haye chronological indications, and the
name of his wife. Unfortonately, however, the his-
tory of Egypt at tbis time is extreniely obscure, neU
tber the monuments nor Manetho giving as elear in-
formation as to the kings. It appears that towards
the latter part of the twentieth dynasty the high-
priesŁs of Amen, the god of Thcbes, gained great pow-
er, and at last supplanted the Rameses family, at least
in Upper Egypt. At the same time a lino of Tanitic
kings, Manetho' s twenty-first dynasty, seems to hare
ruled in Lower Egypt. The feeble twentieth dynasty
was probably soon extinguished, but the priest-rulers
and the Tanites appear to have reigned contemporane-
oasly, until they were both succeeded by the Bubastites
of the twent^^-second dynasty, of wliom Sheshonk I, the
Shiskak of the Bibie, was the first. The monuments
have preserved -the names of seyeral of tbe high-
priests, perhaps all, and probably of some of the Ta-
nites ; but it is a question whether Manetho^s Tanitic
lino does not include some of the form er, and we haye
no means of testing the accuracy of its numbers. It
may be reasonably supposed that the Pharaoh or Pha-
raohs spoken of in the Bibie as ruling in the time of
Dayid and Solomon were Tanites, as Tanis was near-
est to the Israelitish territory. We haye thcrefore to
compare the chronological indications of Scripture
with the list of tbis dynasty. Shishak must bave be-
gun to reign in the twenty-fifth year of Solomon (B.C.
989). The conąuest of Edom probably took place
some fifty years earlier. It may therefore be inferred
that Hadad fled to a king of Egypt wbo may haye
ruled at least twenty-iive years, probably ceasing to
goyem before Solomon married the daughter of a Pha-
raoh early in his reign ; for it seems unlikely that the
protector of Dayid*s enemy would haye giyen his
daughter to Solomon, unless be were a powerless king,
which it appears was not the case with Solomon's fa-
ther-in-law. Tbis would give a reign of twenty-fiye
years, or 25+a; separated from the close of the dynast}'
by a period of twenty-four or twenty-fiye years. Ac-
cording toAfricanus,the list of the twenty-first d3'nasty
is as foUows : Smendes, 26 years ; Psusennes, 46 ; Neph-
elcheres, 4 ; Amenothis, 9 ; Osochor, 6 ; Psinaches, 9 ;
Psusennes, 14 ; but Eusebius giyes the second king 41,
and the last 35 years, and his numbers make up the
sum of 130 years, which Africanus and he agree in as-
signing to the dynasty, althongh the true sum seems
to be 109 years. If we take the numbers of Eusebius,
Osochor would probably be the Pharaoh to whom Ha-
dad fled, and Psusennes II the father-in-law of Solo-
mon ; but the numbers of Africanus would substitute
Psusennes I, and probably Psinaches. We cannot,
howeyer, be surę that tbe reigns did not oyerlap, or
were not separated by interyals, and the numbers are
not to be considered trustwortiiy until tested by the
monuments. The royal names of the period haye
been searched in yain for any one resembling Tahpe-
nes. If the Egyptian equiyalent to the similar geo-
graphical name Tabpanhes, etc., were known, we
migbt haye some elew to that of tbis queen. See
Tahpaniies; Taufenes.
8. Pharaoh^ the Father-in-law nf Solomon, — In the
narratiye of the beginning of Solomon^s reign, after the
account of the deatlis of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei,
and the deprivation of Abiathar, we read : ** And the
kingdom was establlshcd in the hand of Solomon. And
Solomon madę aflinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt,
and took Pharaoh'8 daughter, and brought ber into the
city of David, until he had madę an end of building his
own housc, and the house of the Lord, and the wali of
Jerusalem round about" (1 Kings ii, 46; iii, 1). The
eyciits mentioned before the marriage bclong altogether
to the vcry commencement of Solomon'8 reign, exccpt-
ing the matter of Shimei, which, extending through
threc 3'ear8, is carried on to its completion. The roen-
tion that the queen was brought into the city of David
while Solomon'8 house, and the Tempie, and the city-
wall were building, shows that the marriage took place
not later than the eleyenth year of the king, when tlie
Tempie was finished, haying been comroenced in the
fourth year (vi, 1,87, 88). It is also eyident that this
alUance was before Solomon^s falling away into idolatry
(iii, 3), of which the Egyptian queen does not seem to
haye been one of the causes. From this chronological
indication it appears that the marriage must have taken
place between about twenty-four and eleyen years be-
fore Shisbak's accession. It must be recoUected that it
seems certain that Solomon'8 father-in-law was not the
Pharaoh wbo was reigning when Hadad left Eę>-pt,
Both Pharaohs, as already shown, cannot ret be identi-
fied in Manetho's list. See Pharaoh^s Daughter.
This Pharaoh led an expedition into Palestine, which
is thus incidentally mentioned, where the building of
Gezer by Solomon is recorded : " Pharaoh king of Eg;'pt
had gone up, and taken Gezer, and bumt it with tire,
and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and
given it [for] a present unto his daughter, Solomon's
wife" (ix, 16). This is a yery curious historical cir-
cumstance, for it shows that in the reign of Dayid or
Solomon, morę probably the latter, an Egyptian kini;^,
apparently on terms of friendship with the Israelitish
monarch, conducted an expeditiou into Palestine, and
besiegcd and captured a Canaanitish city. Tlils oc-
currcnce wams us against the supposition that similar
expeditions could not have occurred in earlier timca
without a war with the Israelites. Its incidental men-
tion also shows the danger of inferring, from the s^ilencc
of Scripture as to any such earlier expedition, that notb-
ing of the kind took place.
Tbis Pharaoh we suppose to haye reigned oyer all
Eg>'pt, but he does not appear to haye had any posscs-
sions in Asia. The kingdom of Israel, we are told,
stretched to the land of the Philistines and the border
of Egypt (I Kings iy, 21), so that Eg}-pt seems to have
been strictiy confined on tbe eastward by Phiłistia and
Canaan. His expedition to and capture of Gezer was
the capture of a city hitherto independent both of him
and Solomon, and oyer which he retained no authority
(1 Kings ix, 15, 16). The kingdom of Israel was at this
time of greater extent and power than that of Eg^^pt,
so that the alliance with Solomon would be courted by
Pharaoh, and seems to haye been productive of great
commercial adyantages both to Egypt and Israel (1
Kings X, 28, 29 ; 2 Chroń, i, 16, 17). It is the first direct
intercourse of which we are with ccrtainty iuformed be-
tween these two kingdoms sińce the time of the exodus.
It is most likely that Pharaoh's daughter, married to
Solomon in the opening of his reign, and when his zeal
for Jehoyah and hisworship was at its height,was her-
self a conyert to the faith of Solomon (1 Kings iii, 1-3).
He would scarcely at tbis period of bis life have mar-
ried an idolatress, and in the Bithiah of an nncertain
datę we haye already seen some eyidence of the influ-
ence of true religion on the royal house of Pharaoh.
Nor can we readily suppose that the Song of Solomon.
emblematic of the union of Christ and his Church, was
foundcd on any other than tbe marriage of Solomon
with a daughter of the true faith. To what extent this
good influence may have spread in tbe family of Płia-
raoh can be only matter of conjecture. If it had pre-
railed to any great extent it may haye partl}' led to
the change of dynasty which we haye reason to bclieve
took place in Egypt during the reign of Solomon. Any
tcndcncy towards truth, if it existed in the royal house,
was not Bhared by the priestbood or people of Eg>'pt,
^''ho were fimily weddcd to their debaaed system of
idolatr\'.
This Egyptian alliance is the first indication, how-
eyer, afier the days of Moses, of that leaning to Eg3rpt
which was dlstinctly forbiddcn in the law, and proilucod
PHARAOH
85
PHARAOH
tbe most disastrona conseąiieiioes in later tiniet. The
native kingą uf Egypfc and tbe £thio)iians rcadlly tup-
poitni tbe Helirewfs and were unwilling to make war
upoi} them,but tbey rendered them merę tributaries^and
upuiiird them to the enmity of the kings of Assyria. If
tbe Hel)fcvs did not incur a direct puuishment fur their
leming to Eg^ypt, ■till thU act miist have weakened their
trust 10 tbe divine faror, and paralyzcd their cfforts to
(kfend tbe country against the Assyrians and their party.
Tbe next kings of Egypt roentioned in the Bibie arc
Shishakj probably Zerah, and So. The first and sccond
of theae were of the twentv-second d>'iiastv, if the iden-
tiiication of Zerah with Uacrken be accepted, and the
thinl was dniibtleas one of the two Shebeks of tbe twen-
ty-fifth dynasty, wbich was of Ethiopians. Tbe twen-
ty-«cond dynasty was a line of kings of foreign ori-
pjL who retained foreign names, and it is noticeable
thst Zerab is called a Cushite in the Bibie (2 Chroń.
xir,9; comp. xviy 8). Shebek was probably alao a for-
tign nsme. The title *' Pharaoh" is probably not once
giren to these kings in the Bibie, because tbey were
Dot Egrptians, and did not bear Egyptian names. The
Shepberd kings, it must be reroarked, adopted Egyp-
tian names, and therefore some of the earliersoyereigns
olled Pharaohs in the Bibie may be conjectured to bave
been Shepherds notwithstanding that they bear tbis ti-
tle. SeeSHiSHAK; So; Zkrah.
9. Pkaraokj the OpponaU of Sennaeherib. — It is not
at all eertain that tbe name used for so many centuries
foit tbe sapreme ruler of Egypt was ever again correct-
\j osed iy iudfu> designate a particular king of Egypt.
The Pharsoh of wbom we read in the reign of H^zt-
kiih ss the riral of tbe Assyrian Sennaeherib (2 Kings
xviit, t\ ; laa. xxxvi, 9), is, iudeed, simply called Pha-
noh, bat tbis title is not given him by the sacred bis-
torian. bat by the Assyrian generał Rabsbakeb. Pha-
laob is irtill, indeed, used as the generic title of Egyp-
tian royalty (Isa. xix, 11), when no individiial king
i^ intróded, bat when particular kings are meant the
SeriptoFCs jotn to Pharaoh a second title, as Pharaoh-
Necbo, Pbaraob-Uophra. Tbis may have been Jose-
pba»5 rauon for his statement (^Anł» viii, 6, 2) that
after tbe iatber-in-law of Solomon no king of Egypt
11^ tbis name. The Jewisb historian was too well
acąoainted with Scripture not to have known of the
tiUe in connection with a second name, and be therefore
DMant probably that it was never again used by itself
aa the title of Egyptian royalty. The king of w^hom
ve are now speaking reigned in tbe fourteenth year of
Hezekisb, L e. about RC. 713, and was the contempo-
ran* of Tirbakah king of Ethiopia, and of Sennaeherib
king of Aasyria. This latter synchronism depends,
b<mever, on tbe correctness of the present Hebrew
test, whicb some suppose to bave been corruptcd, and
tbat it was Sai^on and not Sennacheńb who invaded
Jwbea in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah {Joum. of
Hocr. LU, Oct. 1858; Jan.' 1863). The coroparison of
Pbaiaoh in tbe above paasages to a brokcn reed is re-
■•iksble, as tbe common hien^lypbics for " king,'* re-
stńcted to Egyptian sorereigns, Sukien, strictly a title
of tbe ruler of IJpper Egypt, commence with a bent
fKd, wbich is an ideographic symbolical sign proper to
thU woid, and is sometimes used alone without any
pbooctic oomplement. This Pharaoh can only be the
^iof whom Herodotns mentions as the opponent of
^nacherih, and who may reaaonably be supposed to
be ibe ^<< of Manetho, the last king of bis twenty-third
dyiiasty. Urbakab, as an Ethiopian, whether then
niiiag in Egypt or not, is, like So, apparently not called
llutfauh. Śee Tirhakaii.
10. Pharaok'Nfcho. — He was king of Eg>*pt during
(be rńgns of Josiah, Jehoahaz, and Jehoiakim, kings
«jf Jodah (2 Kings xxiii, 29-34). We do not read of
bim io Scripture until the last year of Josiah*B reign,
^C.609. How long before this be may have been king
^ ^Sypt the Bibie givcs us no help in ascertaining.
UBKoUoiis him as still rcigning in the fourth year of
VIIL— E
king Jehoiakim, i. c. B.C. 606 (Jer. xl\'i, 2), and from 2
Kings xxiv, 7 it seems probable that be continued to
reign for a considcrable time after this. In the Bibie
his name is written Nekó, 133, and Nekóky 2133, and
in bieroglyphics Neku, This king was of tbe SaUić
twenty-sixth dynasty, of which Manetho makes bim
eitbcr tbe iifth ruler (Africanus) or the 8ixtb (Eusebi-
us). llerodotus calls him Nekćs, and assigus to him a
reign of Aixteeu years, which is confirmed by the mon-
iiments. Acconling to this historian, be was the son of
Psamroetichua I ; tbis the monuments do not corrobo-
rate. Dr. Brugsch says that be married NU-Akert,
Nitocris, daughter of Psammetichos I and qucen She-
ptintepet, M'ho appears, like ber rootber, to bnvc beei,|i
the heiress of an Egyptian royal linc,and supposes that
he was the son of Psammetichos by another wife (sec
J/uf. (TŹ^ypte, p. 252 ; comp. 248). If he married Nito-
criH, he mav have been called bv llerodotus bv mistake
tbe son of Psammetichus.
The father of Necho had already distinguished him-
self by the siegc and capture from the Ass}*rian8 of the
strong town of Ashdod, which had been taken from the
Egyptians in the reign of Sargon (Herod, ii, 157; Isa.
XX, 1). In the decline of the Assyrian empire Egypt
ventured once morę beyond ber eastem confines, and
indulged in the hope of univer8al domination. Nechp
in the commencement of hu reign prepared to carry out
to completion his fatber*s ambitious de8igns,and it was
in this cndeavor that be came into contact with the
kingdom of Judah, and so finds a place in Scripture
history. Claiming an oracie from tbe tnie God, he ad-
vance<l an Egyptian army against tbe town of Carche-
mish on the Kupbrates. then apparently under the do-
minion of the king of Assyria (2 Chroń, xxxv, 21 ; 2
Kings xxiii, 29). Tbere scems to be no doubt that
Necho*s clnim to this oracie was sincere, and that he real-
ly thought himself commissioned to go to war with Assy-
ria. How far this maj' indicate a true knowledge of God
on Necho*8 part it is difficiilt to determine. Yet it can
scarcely be understood as mure thaii a oonviction that the
war was predestined, for it ended in the destruction of
Necho's army and the curtailment of his empire. Jo-
siah, howercr, influenced perhaps by an alliance with
Assyria, or dreading the rising ambition of Egypt, di^-
puted the march of Pharaoh*8 army. In vain the lat-
ter, evidently most unwilling to come into coUision with
Josiah, entreated him not to oppose him, and pleaded
the oracie of him wbom he would appear, in common
with Josiah, to have recognised as the true God. At
Megiddo (now Lejjiin). a town not far from the coast-line
of Palestine, so frequently tbe passage of great armies in
the old wars of Asia, Josiah encountered tbe armies of
Egypt, and his death on tbis occasion formed tbe sub~
jcct of lamentations among his people long after it took
place. ' Without pausing upon his march, or retuming
back to attack Jerusalem, Pharaoh seems to have passed
on wirh all hasto to accomplish his original design of
capturing Carchemish, which commanded one of the
ordinary fords of the Euphrates, and thus of meeting
and conquering the king of Assyria in his own domin*
ions. In this great expedition hc was entirely success-
ful. He took Carchemish, and retained possession of
the oountries betwecn Egypt and the Euphrates until
the rising power of Babylon undcr the great Nebuchad-
nezzar met nnd overthrew the Eg^^^ptian army four
years afcerwards at Carchemish, and forced them back
into their own land. Iietuming from the Euphrates,
he treatcd Judiea as a conquer,ed country, and exerci8ed
over it the same absolute authority which the Babylo-
nians did imme<liat4jy after him. Sending for Jehoa-
haz to Kiblah in the land of llamath, on tbe Oronte8,a
favorite camping- ground for tbe great armies of that
period (Robinson, Bibl, Ret. iii, 545), he placed him there
in bonUs fur a time after a brief reign of three montbs.
This he seems to have done because he was not con-
sulted in tbe choice of a king. On bis farthcr march
PHARAOH
66
PHARAOH
homeward, Necho entered as a conąaeror into Jeriisa-
lem, placed the brother of Jehoahaz on tbe throne, and
put the land to tribute. He tben seema to have re-
tumed to Egypt, carrying with him the dethroned king
of Judah, who died in the land of hU captivlty. The
expedition of Necho, which Scńpture descńbea as hav-
ing been madę against the king of Assyria, Josephus
says was directed against the Mcdes and Babylonians,
who had at this time, according to him, captured Nin-
eyeh {Ant. x, 5; see Rawlin8on's Herod, i, 418. He-
rodotus mentions this battle, relating that Necho roade
war against the Syrians, and defeated them at Magdo-
lus, after which he took Cadytis, " a large city of Syria"
(ii, 159). Thcre can be no reasonable doubt that Mag-
dolus is Megiddo, and not the Egyptian town of that
name [see Miodol], but the Identification of Cadytis is
difficult. It has been conjectured to be Jerusalem, and
its name has been supposed to correspond to the ancieut
title, " the Holy," JllSJIlpn, but it is elsewhere men-
tioned by Herodotus as a great coast^town of Palestine
near Egypt (iii, 5), and it has therefore been supposed
to be Gaza. The difficulty that Gaza is not beyond
Megiddo would perhaps be rcmored if Herodotus be
thought to have confounded Megiddo with the £g}'p-
tian Magdolus, or we may understand the term ** coast"
here used in a wide sense. (See Sir Gardner Wilkin-
8on's notę to Herod, ii, 159, ed. Rawlinson.) It seems
possible that Cadytis Ib the Hittite city Ketesh, on the
Orontes, which was the chief stronghold in Syria of
those capturcd by the kings of the eighteenth and nine-
teenth dynasties. The (ireek hbtorian adds that Ne-
cho dedicated the dress he wore on theae occasions to
Apollo at the tempie of Branchidie (/. c).
The power of Egypt under Necho at this period of
his reign was very great From the composition of the
army which he led to Carchemish and left there in gar-
rison (Jer. xlvi, 9), we gather that Ethiopia and Libya
were at this time a part of his dominions. Eastward
of Egypt his power extended to the Great River, and
the Lydians, if not his subjects, were in strict league
with him. This was the period of the fali of Assyria,
and Eg>*pt for a time succeeded to its rule on the west
of the Euphrates (Wilkinson, i, 157). This was that
time of boasting in its military successes which Jere-
miah describes in eh. xlvi, and he takes occasion from it
to predict the approaching overthrow of Egypt. W hen
this land " rosę up like a flood, and he said, I will go
up, and will cover the earth," the prophet in plain words
spoke of approaching defeat in battle and utter humilia-
tion as a nation. The power of Necho to the east of
Egypt only lasted about four years. In the fourth
year of Jehoiakini, Nebuchadnezzar, having conquered
Nineveh, had Icisure to tnm his arms against Egypt.
At Carchemish, which Necho had wrested from the As-
syrians, the Bab^ionian army conquered that of EgĄ'pt.
Whether Necho was present at this contest does not
appear. Its issue was that he was driven out of Asia
and came into it no morę (2 Kings xxiv, 7). It would
seem to have been at a later period, however, that the
utter humiliation of Egypt described by Jeremiah took
place, though the battle of Carchemish was one of those
decisiye conflicts which chauged for a period the his-
tory of the world. The strength of Necho*s armies
seems not to have lain in the native Egypttans, but in
foreigners, whether subjects, allies, or mercenaries. They
were Ethiopians, libyaus, and Lydians who fought with
•Nebuchadnezzar. Wilkinson places the death of Necho
shortly before the captivity of Jehoiakim (i, 1C7). It
is not ocrtain, however, that Jehoiakim was carrieii
away captive by Nebuchadnezzar. The book of Kings
makes no mention of such an occurrence. Josephus
States that he was put to death at Jerusalem {A ni. x, 6,
3). The second b()ok of Chroniclea ouly says (xxxvi,
6) that he was put into fetters for the purpose of being
brought to Babylon. If Josephus^s account is true, this
puriKMe was not put into cxecution. Necho is famous
In history for other besides his roilitar>* expIoitsL The
celebrated canal of Suez, according tu Herodotus (ii,
158 ; see Wilkinson, i, 70), was completed by this kiug.
He is also stated by this historian to bave circuinnavi-
gated Africa, a performance the credibility of which is
disputed by him for the ver\' reason that makcs it to
modem readers all but certainly true (Herod, iv, 62;
see Wilkinson, i, 160; Sir C. Lewis, Astronotny ofthe
Ancients, p. 317). See Nkcho.
11. Pharuoh-Hopkra. — This is the last of the Pha-
raohs of whom mention is madę in the Bibie. He is
introduced to our notice in connection with the closini;
period ofthe Jewish monarchy, as attempting to wanl
off from God's people thejudgments brought upon them
for their sins at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer.
xxxvii, 7). He was on the throne of Egypt in the
uinth year of the reign of Zedekiah (2 Kings xxv, 1),
i. e. about B.C. 590, continued to reign when Jerusalem
had been taken by the Babylonians, B.C. 588, and was
to continue reigning until a signal destruction should
fali upon htm, and he was to sufler the loss of life at the
hand of his enemies (Jer. xliv, 30), a predicUon fulfiUed
about five years subseąuently in the invasion of Kgypt
by Nebuchadnezzar, about B.C. 582 (Josephus, A nt. x,
9, 7). He ascended the throne about B.C. 589, and
reigned for a period of nineteen years; but Eusebius,
according to Syncellus. makes his reign to have lasted
twenty-(1ve years (Bunsen, Egypt, i, 640).
This Pharaoh is generally considered to have been
the Apries or Vophre8 (in hiemglyphic Wak-[p^ra'
AaA) of whom an account is given in Herodotus and
Diodorus (Wilkinson, i, 168; Lewis, Asłronomy of the
Ancients, ji. 317). He was, according to the former
historian, tho son of Psammis, and tbe grandson of
Pharaoh-Necho, and cnjoyed a fortunate reign of twen-
ty-five years (ii, cl xi). Wilkinson (i, 179) is doublful
whether he is the same person as Psammetichus III.
Bunsen considers him to havc been the fourth king of
the twenty-sisth dynasty {Kgypl, i, 104). Of Pharaoh-
Necho we are told that after his defeat by Nebuchad-
nezzar he came forth out of Egypt no morę; but Pha-
raoh-Hophra had recovered strength sufficient to enable
him to meet the armies of Babvlon out of his own coon-
•
try. At the time we read of him in Scripture he was
in intimate alliance with Zedekiah, and it was doubt less
in great part owing to his reliance upon Egypt that the
infatuated king of Judah ventured to enter upon that
contest with Nebuchadnezzar which terminated in the
famous captivity of 8eventy years in Babylon. The
pride of this Pharaoh was excessive. Ezekiel (xxix,
3) comparcs him to a great dragon lying in the midst
of his rivcr8, and saying, **My river is minę own, and I
have madę it for royself," much aa his sncoessful antag-
onist Nebuchadnezzar gloried in the contemplation of
Babylon. Influenced by an opinion of Pharaoh^s power,
and stimulated in all likelihood by promises of aid, Zctl-
ekiah rebelled against the Babylonians, and drew on that
siege of Jerusalem which afler two years resulted iu its
capture (2 Kings xxv, 1-3). The narrative of this
event in Kings is very concise, but the fuller accounts
in Jeremiah bring before us a temporary suspension of
the siege caused by the advance of Pharaoh-Hophra
with an Egyptian army to relicve Zedekiah (Jer.
xxxvii, 5-12). It is quite plain from Jeremiah that
the siege was abandoned for a time and the Babylonian
army withdrawn from Jerusalem, so as to allow frec iu-
tercourae between the city and the surrounding coun-
try ; but whether the Chald^an army withdrew before
the advancing army of Egypt or advanced against it is
not agreed on. Josephus {A nt. x, 7, 8) expres8ly states
that Nebuchadnezzar on hearing of the marcli of tbe
Egjrptians broke up from before Jerusalem, met the
Eg>'ptians on their advance, conquered them in battle,
drove them out of Syria, and then retumed to the siege
of Jerusalem. Some, howerer, think that the Baby-^
lonians retreated from before the Egyptians, who on^
this occasion took Gaza, Sidon, and Tyre (Trevor,
PHARAOH
67
PPIARATHONI
Egptj pb 321). Łooking sitnply to the scriptural ac-
ootmt, the case appeon to atand thus: On heańiig of Łhe
rebeUioo of Zcdekiah, Nebuchadnezzar despatched a
isnc agiinst Jemsalem, but without aocompanying it
hła«łr. This foree was sufficient to ahut up Zedekiah
vitbio the city, but was oot abte to meet the £g>'ptłan
inBT in tbe field. This is the partial siege which is
spoken ofio Jer. zxxvu, 5-11, iu which nothing is said
<'( Netnichadnezzar^s preaence. On the approach of
Pbjuaoh-Hophra the Chaldcan anny, unequal to the
contlict, retired before him, and he advanoed unopposed.
Thii was probably in the eighth year of Zedekiah.
Tbat Pbaraoh came to Jerusalem we are not told.
Pn>łMbly on hearing of the raising of the siege he
judgcd it unnecesnry, and took the easier coast-line
toiraids Syria (Jer. xlrii, 1). Nebuchadnezzar, madę
awtre of the retreat of his anny, now advanced with
hU entiie fime (Jer. xxxix, 1), laid siege to Jerusalem
in the ninth year of Zedekiah, and took it in the eler-
oith jear. That the Egyptians and Babylonians met
on this occasion in battle is not stated in the Bibie.
We think it probable from Jer. xxxvii, 7, that on hear-
iog of Nebuchadnezzar^s approach with the entire army
of Babjton, the Egyptians retircd without a contest and
kft Jenisalem to its fate (see Kawlinson^s Herodotua, i,
4S). Pharaoh-Hophra continued to be king of Egypt
ift«f the orerthrow of Zedekiah (Jer. xliv, 80), and he
•Bd his land were the refuge of those Jewa who, con-
tnry to God's oommand to remain in their own land
aft«r the generał captivity, preferred a courae of their
own. Tbey expected peace beneath the shadow of
£sTpt, tmsting in the power of Pharaoh, who seems
till then to have enjoyed great prosperity. But in this
th«y were to be disappointed. Pharaoh was hiroself to
be deUvered "into the hands of those who sought hb
lifr," of which Herodotus gives an account (ii, 169) ;
at the Tery entry of Pharaob's palące in Taphanes the
Bibykrnisn Nebuchadnezzar was to set his throne and
spread his pavilion (Jer. xliii, 10) ^ and henceforth
EcTpt was to descend in the scalę of nations, and to
become the meanest among kingdoms. Herodotus re-
lates baw be atucked Sidon, and fought a battle at sea
with the king of Tyre, until at length an army which
he bad despatched to conąuer Cyrene was routed, and
the Egypdana, thinking he had purposely cauaed its
orerthrow to gala entire power, no doubt by substi-
totinj; mercenaiies for natiye troops, revolted, and set
up Amsas as king. Apries, only supported by the Ca-
ńan ind lonian mercenan&t, was routed in a pitched
battle. Herodotus rcmarka in narrating this, " It is
Maid that Apries believed that there was not a god who
oould cast him down from his erainence, so tirmly did
he think that he had estabiished hiraself in his king-
<1(HD." He was taken prisoner, and Amasis for a while
tnsted him with kindness, but when the Egyptians
hUmed him, ** he gave Apries over into the hands of his
fonner aabgects. to deal with as they chose. Then the
KgTptians ftwk him and strangled him" (Herod, ii, 161-
1^). Tbe Scripture passages, which entirely agree
vith the account Herodotus gives of the death of Apries,
make it not improbable that the inva8ion of Nebuchad-
nezzar was the cause of that disalTection of his subjects
which ended in the oyerthrow and death of this Pha-
noh. Tbe inva«on is not spoken of by any trustworthy
rn>6ne historian excepting Berosus (Córy, A nc. Frag,
*M eH. p. 37, 38), but the silence of Herodotus and others
caa no longer be a matter of surprise, as we now know
from the Assyrian records in cnneiform of conqucsts of
Ke}-pŁ eithcr unrecorded clsewbere or only mentioned
br iemnd-rate annalists^ See Hophra.
Pharaob-Hophra was sucoeeded by two independent
iDonarehą the tirst of whom, Amasis, had a very pros-
P<'«MM rogn*. batin the reign of his son, Psammetichus,
or Pkaameottua, aoeording to the Greeks, the Persian
iB^anon took place, wben Egypt was reduced to insig-
ińfieanoe,and the ancient Łitle of Pharaoh was tnnsferred
^nm the kiiigs of Egypt to their conqueror8 (Trevor,
Effifpł, p. 831 ; Wilkinson, E^ypt, i, 169-198). No śub-
seąuent Pharaoh is mentioned iu Scripture, but there
are predictions doubtless referring to the misfortunes of
later princes until the second Persian conquest, when the
prophecy ^ There shall be no morę a prince of the land
of Egypt" (Ezek. xxx, 13) was fulfilled. See Egypt.
Fharadh'B Daughter. Thrce Egyptian prin-
cesses, daughters of Pharaohs, are mentioned in the Bi-
bie. (Our account of them is taken from Smith's Diet.
ofłhe Bibie.)
1. The pre6erver of Moses, daughter of the Phanoh
who first oppressed the Israelites. She appears from
her conduct towards Moses to have been heiress to the
throne, sumething morę than ordinary adoption seem-
ing to be espreased in the passage in Hebrews respect-
ing the faith of Moses (xi, 23-26), and the designation
" Pharaoh'8 daughter" perhaps here indicating that she
was the only daughter. She probably lived for at least
forty years after sbe saved Moses, for it seems to be im-
plied in the above passage of Hebrews that she was liv-
ing when he fled to Midian. Artapanus, or Artabanus,
a historian of uncertain datę, who appears to have pre-
served traditions current among the Egyptian Jews,
calls this princess Merrhia, and her father, the oppressor,
Palmanothes, and relates that she was married to Che-
nephres, who ruled in the country above Memphis, for
that at thnt time there were many kings of E^pt, but
that this one, as it seems, became sovereign of tho
whole country {Frag. Iłisł. Grac. iii, 220 są.). Palma-
nothes may be supposed to be a corruption of Ameno-
phis, the equivalent of Amen-hept, the EgjTptian name
of four kingi of the eighteenth dynasty, and also, but
incorrectly, applied to one of the nineteenth, whose
Egyptian name, Meneptah, is wholly different from that
of the others. No one of these, however, ńad, as far as
we know, a daughter with a name resembling Merrhis,
nor is there any king with a name like Chenephres of
this time. These kings Amenophis, moreover, do not
belong to the period of contemporary dynasties. The
tradition is apparently of little value, excepdng as
showing that one ąuite different from that given by
Alanetho and others was anciently current See Pha-
raoh, 4.
2. Biłhiakj wife of Mered, an Israelite, daughter of a
Pharaoh of an uncertain age, probably about the time
of the exodus. See Bithiah ; Pharaoh, 6.
3. A wife of Solomon, most probably daughter of a
king of the twenty-first dynasty. She was married to
Solomon early in his reign, and apparently treated with
distinction. It has been supposed that the Song of Sol-
omon was written on the occasion of this marriage; and
the idea is, we think, sustained by sound criticism.
She was at first brought into the city of David (1 Kings
iii, 1), and afterwards a house was built for her (vii, 8;
ix, 24), because Solomon would not have her dwell in
the house of David, which had been rendered holy by
the ark having been there (2 Chroń, vii, 11). See Pha-
raoh, 8.
Fharaoh'B Wife. The wife of one Pharaoh, the
king who received H^dad the Edomite, is mentioned in
Scripture. She is called " ąueen," and her name, Tah-
penes, is gi ven. Her husband was most probably of the
twenty-first dynasty. See Pharaohł 7, Tahpenks.
Fharatho^ni (^apa^nwi v. i*. ^apa^tóp; Jose-
phus, ^afMiBuf , Peshito, Pherath ; Vulg. Phara), one
of the cities of Judiea fortified by Baochides during his
contests with Jonathan Maccabseus (1 Mace. ix, 50). In
both MSS. of the SepL the name is joined to the pre-
ceding— Thamnatha-Pharathon; but in Josephus, the
Syriac, and Yulgate, the two are separated. Ewald
(fietchickie^ iv, 873) adheres to the former. Pharathon
doubtless represents an ancient Pirathon, though hardly
that of the Judgcs, sińce that was in Mount Ephraim,
probably at Ferata, a few miles west of Nablua, too far
north to be included in Judiea properly so called.^
Smith.
PHARES
68
PHARISEE
Pha'rdB (<^apŁc)f a Gnecized form (Matt. i, 3 ; Lukę
•iii, 38) of tbe name of Pharkz (q. v.), tbe son of Judah.
Fha^rez, tbe name of two persons.
1. (Heb. Pe'reiZy "/"nO, a hreach, as explained Gen.
xxxviii, 29; Sept, and N. T. ^apic\ A.V. "Perez," 1
Obron, xxvii, 3; "Phares," Matt. i, 3; Lukę iii, 33; 1
Esdr. V, 5), twin son witb Zarab, or Zcrab, of Judab
by Tamar his daugbter-in-law. B.C. cir. 1890. Tbe
circumstances of bis birtb are detailcd in Gen. xxxviii.
Pbarez seems to bave kept tbe rigbt of primogeniture
over bis brotber, as, in tbe genealogical lists, his name
comes first. Tbe house also wbich be founded was far
morę numerous and illustrious than tbat of tbe Zar-
. hites. Its remarkable fertility is alluded to in Rutb iv,
12 : " Let thy house be like tbe house of Pliarcz, wbom
Tamar bare unto Judab." Of Pbarez*s personal hbtory
or cbaracter notbing is known. We can only speak of
him therefore as a deroarch, and exbibit his genealogi-
cal relations. At tbe time of tbe sojourn in tbe wilder-
ness "tbe families of tbe tribe of Judab were : of Shelab,
tbe family of tbe Shelanites, or Shilonites; of Pbarez,
the family of tbe Pharzites ; of Zerab, tbe family of tbe
Zarbitea. And tbe sons of Pbarez were, of Hezron, tbe
family of tbe Hezronites , of Hamul, tbe family of tbe
Hamulites" (Numb. xxvi, 20, 21). After the death,
therefore, of £r and Onan witbout cbildren, Pbarez oc-
cupied the rank of Judah's second son, and, moreover,
.from two of bis sons spraiig two new chief bouses, those
of the Hezronites and Hamulites. From Hezron^s sec-
ond son Kam, or Aram, sprang David and the kings of
Judah, and eventually Jesus Christ. See Gknkai/ksy
OF Jesus Christ. Tbe house of Caleb ^\7u also incor-
porated into tbe house of Hezron [see Caleb], and so
were reckoned among tbe descendants of Pbarez. An-
other linę of Pharez'8 descendants were reckoned as sons
of Manasseh by the second marriage of Hezron witb
tbe daughter o'f Machir (1 Chron. ii, 21, 22). In tbe
census of the house of Judab contained in 1 Chron. iv,
drawn up apparently in the reign of Hezekiah (iv, 41),
the bouses enumerated in ver. 1 are Pharpz, Hezron,
Carmi, Hur, and ShobaL Of thcse all but Carmi (who
was a Zarbite, Josh. vii, 1) were descendants of Pbarez.
Hence it is not unlikely tbat, as is suggested in the
margin of tbe A.y., *' Carmi" is an error for '^ Cbelubai."
Some of the sons of Shelab are mentioned separately at
ver. 21, 22. See PAHATH-MoAa In tbe reign of Da-
vid the house of Pbarez seems to have been eminently
distinguisbed. The chief of all the captains of the bost
for the first montb, Jashobeam, the son of Zabdiel (1
Chron. xxvii, 2, 3), so famous for his prowess (xi, 11),
and called " the chief among the captains" (ibid. and 2
Śam. xxiii, 8), was of tbe sons of Perez, or Pbarez. A
considerable number of the other mighty men seem
also, from tbeir patronymic or gentile names, to .have
been of the same house, those, namely, who are called
Betbiebemites, Paltites (1 Chron. ii, 33, 47), Tekoites,
Netopbathites, and Itbrites (ii, 53 ; •iv, 7). Zabad,
tbe son of Ablai, and Joab and his brotbers. Abisbai
and Asabel, we know were Pharzites (ii, 31, 86, 54; xi,
41). The royal house itself was the bead of the family.
We bave no means of assigning to tbeir re8pective fam-
ilies those members of the tribe of Judab who are inci-
dentally mcntiuned afler David'8 reign, as Adnab, the
chief captain of Judab in Jebosbapbafs reign, and Je-
hohanan and Amasiab, bis companions (2 Chron. xvii.
14-16); but tbat tbe family of Pbarez continued to
thrive and multiply we may conclude from the num-
bers who retumed from captivity. At Jentsałem alone
468 of the sons of Perez, witb Athaiab, or Uthai, at
tbeir bead, were dwelling in tbe days of Zerubbabel (1
Chron. ix, 4; Neh. xi, 4-6), Zerubbabel bimself of
course being of the family (1 Esdr. v, 5). Of the lists
of retumed capttves in £zra ii, Neb. vii, in Nehemiah'8
time, the following seem to have been of the sons of
-Pharez, judging as before from the names of tbeir an-
cestors, or tbe towns to which they belongcd : tbe cbil-
dren of Bani (Ezra ii, 10 ; comp. 1 Chron. ix, 4) ; of
Bigvai (ii, 14; comp. Ezra viii, 14); of Ater (ii, 16;
comp. 1 Chron. ii, 26, 54) ; of Jorab, or Hariph (ii, 18;
Neh. vii, 24 ; comp. 1 Chron. ii, 51) ; of Bethlebem and
Netophah (ii, 21, 22 ; comp. 1 Chron. ii, 54) ; of Kirjatb-
arim (ii, 25; comp. 1 Chron. ii, 50, 53); of Harim (ii,
32; comp. 1 Chron. iv, 8); and, judging from thcir po-
sition, many of the interroediatc oucs also (comp. al5o
tbe lists in Ezra x, 25-43; Neh. x, 14-27). Of the
builders of tbe wali named in Neb. iii the foUowins
were of tbe house of Pbarez : Zaccur, tbe son of Imri
(ver. 2, by comparison with 1 Chron. ix, 4, and Ezra
viii, 14, where we ougbt, with many MSS., to read
" Zaccur" for " Zabbud") ; Zadok, tbe son of Baana ( ver.
4, by comparison witb 2 Sam. xxiii, 29, where we iind
that Baanah was a Netophatbite, which agrecs with
Zadok's place here next to the Tekoites, sincc Beth-
lebem, Netophah, and Tekoa are oflen in cloee juxta-
poflition, comp. 1 Chron. ii, 54; iv, 4, 5; Ezra ii, 21, 22;
Neb. vii, 26, and the situation of the Netophat hites
close to Jerusalem, among the Benjamites, Neh. xii, 28,
29, oompared with tbe mixture of Benjamites w^ith
Pharzites and Zarhites in Neh. iii, 2-7) ; tbe Tekoites
(ver. 5 and 27, comp. with 1 Chron. ii, 24 ; iv, 5) ; Je-
boiada, the son of Paseab (ver. 6, comp. with 1 Chron.
iv, 12, where Paseah, a Cbelubite, is apparently de-
scended from Asbur, the father of Tekoa); Bephaiab,
the son of Hur (ver. 9, comp. with 1 Chron. ii, 20, 50;
iv, 4, 12, Betb-Raphab) ; Hanun (ver. 13 and 30), with
tbe inbabitants of Zanoab (comp. iitith 1 Chron. iv, 18) ;
perbaps Malchiah, the son of Kecbab (ver. 14. corap.
witb 1 Chron. ii, 55) ; Nehemiah, son of Azbuk, ruler
of Beth-zur (ver. 16, comp. with 1 Chron. ii, 45) ; and
perh. Baruch, son of Zabba, or Zaccai (ver. 20), if for
Zaccai we read Zaccur as the roention of " the oiker^ or
second, piece^'^ makes probable, as well as bis proximity
to Meremoth in this second piece, as Zaccur was to Me-
remoth in tbeir first pieces (ver. 2, 4). — Smith.
2. (Sept ^apkę v. r. 4»ópoc.) A Gnecized form (1
Esdr. viii, 30) for the Pakosh (q. v.) of tbe Heb. text
(Ezra viii, 8).
Pharl'ra (^npipa v. r. ^api^a), a corrupt form (I
Esdr. V, 33) of the name Pehida (q. v.) of the Heb.
text (Neh. vii, 57).
Fhar^isee, a designation (in tbe N. T. and Josc-
phus) of one oif the three sects or oRlers of Judaism in
tbe time of Christ, the other two being tbe Katem* and
tbe Sadduceeg, (The following account of them b based
upon that of Ginsburg, in Kitto*s CyclopadiOf with
moditications and additions.)
I. Name ofOte Sect, and its Siffnijication, — Tbe name
^apiaaloc—Pharuee is tbe Greek form of the Hcbrew
^^1*19 (pariukf passive participle of C^B, to separate,
plur. D*^)p!|^!3, Aramaic ''pi:;!|*1d),and properlv denotes
one who ia separatedy i. e. by special practices ; or, as the
dictionary called .4rMc* (s. v.) defines it, "one who aep-
arated bimself from Levitica] impurity and Levitically
impure food" (comp. also Talmud, Chagigahy 18 h; Sab-
bathf 13 a). Tbe derivation of it from U^fi, in the
sense of unfoldittg^ explaviing, and tbe assertion that the
followers of this sect were c&Wed Pkari8e€a=inierpreier9
o/ the BibUf in oontradistinction to the Sadduoces, who
adhered to the letter of the Scripturcs, as well as the
morę generally reccived notion that they were so called
becauae they separated fi-mn the rest ofthe people^ bc-
licving tbemselves to be morę holy, are at variance
with tbe most ancicnt and most trustwortl y authorities
upon this subjcct. Besides, to takc *w^"iB as meaning
interpreter is contrary to its grammaticol fonn, which,
if łranaiłicej ougbt to be CS^BIS. Of oourae the sepan-
tion from that which was Levitically impure neoessa-
rtly implied separation from those who were defiled by
I^vitically impure objects. It must be observed that
the name Phariaees is given to them in tbe Mishna
{Jebamotht iv, 6, etc.) by tbeir opponenta tbe Sadduceeś,
PHABISEE
69
PHARISEE
and that tfae names by which thęy were dcsignated
amcog tbemselres are 0*^7331^ tages, or, roore modestly
B^2n •^T^rbp, disciples oftke 9agt9, bat more gcn-
«»ily O^^^Sn, ośsociates. By Łhe term Phajisets,
a^r^lB, or ita equivaleiit Chaberimy ^'^'^an, i. e. asso-
dates, ta tberefore meant all thoae Jews who separated
themaelTes fcom erery kind of Levitical impurity, and
BDited togeth«r to keep the Mosaic laws of puńty. As
U was natiual that all tbe students of the law woiild, as
a matter of oourse, be the firat to join this association,
the appellation Chabery ^2n, member, aswciaie fOr Ć^"lBt
Pkarisee, became synonymous with itudenty diadple,
lincyer, tcrSbey while thoae who refused to unitę to keep
the laws were regarded as |^^Hil D9, country peopUf
ammon people, ilikeraies, irreligiotis,
II. TkeOnalificaHonsforMemUnhip ofthe Pharisaic
Astociatum, — The most essential conditions which were
eaacied from erery one who wished to become a Chaber
or member of the l^arisaic association weie two. £ach
<^iłdłdate was required to promise in the presenoe of
three members that — (t) He wotild set apart all the sa-
cnd tithe* on the produce of the land, and refrain from
eatioi; anytbing which hail not been tithed, or about
the tithing of which there was any doubt ; and (u) He
wottld acnipoloasly obserye the most essential laws of
puńty which so materially affected the eating of food
sod all fiuBily aflTairs.
To understand these laws, which may seem trivial
and azbitrary, as well aa to sec the extraordinary influ-
twx which they exercised upon the whole religious and
toeial life of the Jewish nation in all ita ramifications,
the foUowing facts must be borne in roind : The Mosaic
bw enjoins that besides the priestly heave • offeriug
(rrs^^lFl) cvery Israelite is annually to givc to the
Lerltes a tithe of all the produce (Numb. xviii, 21-24),
vhftch the Jewish canona cali tke firtt tiłke (^iC?C
y^X^); that a second tiŁhe ("^30 "ii??.^), as i't~is
tenned in the aaroe canons, is to be taken annually from
th« prodoce to Jenisalem, either in kind or specie, and
omsaincd by the owner in the metropolia in festive cel-
cbration (Deut. xii, 5-18), and that erery third year
this second tithe is to be given to the poor (Deut, xiv,
28, :29), whence it is denomiiutcd łhe poor tithe CllOTO
^:7} ia the ancient canon.<). Moreover, as each seventh
year was a Sabbatic ot fallow year, which yielded no
harrest^ it was fixed that in.the first, second, fourth,
sod fifth years of the septennial cycle ihe »econd tithe
is to be eaten by the owner iu Jenisalem, while in the
third and sixth years it is to be distributed among the
rwr, and be the poor tithe. When it is remembered
that tbcae tithal laws, which were originally enacted
for Pal^tioe, were in the po9t-exiUan period extended
to Egypt, Ammon, Moab, and to every land in which
tbe Jews had posseasiona, that they had more of a relig'
mu than dvii import, that the portion of produce re-
tenr«i as tithes was holyf that łhe eating ofholy thinga
^M a deadly ain, and that the non-separation of the
tithes lendered the whole produce unlawful, thus affect-
ing erery articie of food, the paramount importance of
the 6rst condition which the Pharisees, who were the
^^itsenrators of the divine law, exacted from the candi-
<Ute9 fur fellowship will readily be understood (comp.
Mishna, BeJkoroth, 30 b),
Of eąual importance, and eąually aifecting the whole
fibrie of social and religious life, are the Mosaic laws
vpon the streng^h of which the second condition was
ciscted. These lawą which so rigidly enforce the
cKhewing of uoclean food and defiling objects, even
*ithoat the amplificationa and expansion which ob-
tained in the oourse of time, extend to and affect almost
^vrf ictioii in pablic life and erery movemeiit in fam-
^y iatereotirae. Thus not only are numbers of animals
pcwedbed as food, bat tbeir reiy carcaasea are branded
as nnclean, and he who touches them is temporarily de-
filed, and poUutes every one and everytbing wherewith
he comes in contact (Lev. v, 2 ; xi). A man that has
an issue not only defiles ever}'thing upon which he lies,
sita, or which he touches, but his rery spittle is pollut-
ing (xr, 1-13). The same is the case with a man who
comes in contact with a corpse (Numb. xix, 14-22),
with a woroan in menstruum and childbirth (Lev. xii,
1-8; xr, 19-31), and with a husbaud after conjugal in-
tercourse (xv, 18). Individua]s thus defiled were for-
bidden to oome into the sanctuary (Numb. xix, 20), and
were risited with the 8evere punishment of excision if
they ate the flesh of peace-offering (Ler. vii, 20, 21).
Now the slightest reflection upon the workings of these
laws will show that thousauds upon thousands were
daily undean according to the Mosaic instituttons, that
these thousands of undean men and women legally de-
filed myriads of people and things by contact with rhem,
either wittingly or unwittingly, and that it therefore
became abeolutely necessary for those who were oon-
scientiously desirous of discharging their religious du*
ties in a state of legał purity to adupt such precaution-
ary measures as would predude the possibiłity of vio-
lating these lawSb Hence the Jewbh canons ordained
that sińce one does not know whether he has been de-
filed by contact with any undean person or thing, every
Chaber or member of tbe Pharisaic association is ^* to
wash his hands before eating his urdinary fo<Ki, second
tithes, or the heare-oflfering; to imraerse his whole
body before he eats the portions of holy sacrifices ; and
to bathe his whole body before touchtng the water ab-
solving from sin, even if it is only his hands which are
undean. If one immersed himself fur ordinarr food.
and designed it only for ordinary fuod, he could not cat
second tithes; if he immersed fur second tithes, and
meant it only for second tithes, he could not eat of the
heav^e-oflrering ; if he immersed for the lieave-offering,
and meant by it the heare-offering, he was not allowed
to eat the portions of the holy sacrifico ; if he immersed
for the holy sacrifice, and meant it for the holy sacri-
fice, he could not as yet touch the water absoking from
sin ; but he who immersed for the more important could
stuure in the less important" (Mishna, Chogigah^ ii, 5, 6).
This gave ńse to four degrees of purity, and to four
divisions in the Pharisaic assodations, so that erery
Chaber or member belonged to that rank whose pre-
scriptions of purity he practiced. Kach degree of purity
required a greater separation from the above-uam«l
Moeaic defilements. The impure subjects themselves
were termed the fathen of impurity, that which was
touched by them was designated łhej^rst genercUion oj"
impurity, what was touched by this again was called
the second generation of impurity, and so on. Now or-
dinary food, the first degree of holiness, became impure
when touched by the second generation; heave-offer-
ing, the second degree of boliness, became defiled when
touched by the third generation ; the fiesh of sacrifices,
the third degree of holiness, when coming in contact
with the fourth generation, and so on. These degrees
of purity had even to be separated from each other, aa
the lower degree was impure in respect to the higher
one. The same remoral, both from defilement without
and the difierent gradations within, was reąuired of
each member of the Pharisaic order corresponding to
the degree to which he belonged. Hence ''the gar-
ments of an y^Kil ZT,Am ha-Arełz ['man of earth,*
or a pubUcaUf a sumerj as he is termed in the N. T.,
who neglected to pay the tithes and obserre the laws
of Mosaic purity], defile the Pharisee [ i. e. him who
li red according to the first degree of purity], the gar-
ments of a Pharisee defile those who eat of the heave->
offering [i. e. the second degree], the garmenta of those
who eat the hearc-oifering defile those who eat the sa-
cred sacrifices [i. e. the third degree], and tbe garmenta
of those who eat the sacred sacrifices defile those who
touch the water absolring from sin [i. e. the fourth de-
PHARISEE
70
PHARISEE
gree]** (oomp^ Mishna, Chagigah, ii, 7, with Takarotk,
vił, 5).
The above-menŁioned Łwo conditions exacted from
candidates fur memberahip of the Pharisaic aasociation
are thus expre8sed in the Mishna : ^ He who Łakes upon
himself to be conscientious, tithes whatever he eats,
and whatever he sells, and whaŁever he buys, and doea
not become the guest of an Am ha-Arefz [i. e. a non-
Pharłaee] ; . . . and he who takes upon himself to be-
come a member of the Phariaaic association muBt nei-
ther sell to an Am ka-A retz moist or dry fruit, nor buy
of him moist fruit, nor become the guest of an A m ha-
AretZj nor receive him as guest, in his garments, into
his house" (Demai^ ii, 2, 3 ; comp. Matt 3cxiii, 23 ; Lukc
xvii, 12). It is in accordance with this regidation tbat
Christ enjoins that an offender is to be regarded "as a
heathen nian and publican" (Matt. xviii, 17), that the
apostle Paul oommands *'not to eat** with a sinner (1
Cor. V, 11), and it is for this reason that Christ was up-
braided by the Pharisees for asMciating and eating with
publicans and sinners (Matt ix, 9-11; xi, 19; Mark ii,
16; Lukę v, 30; vii, 84), with the neglecters of tithes
and the tranągressors of the laws of purity, which was
not only in violat3on of the then prevailing Pharisaic
and national law, but contrary to the Hosaic enact-
ments. But he came to teach that "not that which
goeth into the mouth [i. e. nntithed food or edibles
bandied by Levitically unclean persons] defileth a man,
but that which comcth out of the mouth, this defileth a
man" (Matt. xv, 11); and that it is not outward wash*
ing but inward purity which is acceptable. For this
reason **he sat down to meat with a Pharisee, and did
not first wash before dinner" (Lukę xi, 37-40) ; which,
as we have seen, was in contravention of the very flrst
degree of purity among the association. It must, how-
ever, be remarked that the Jcws were not peculiar in
their laws of punty and defilement. Other nations of
antiquity had similar statutes. Thus, among the an-
cient Indiana, one who had an issue was obliged to bathe
and pray to the sun {Manu, ii, 181); among the Hiera-
polytans in Syria every inmate of the house in which a
death took place was thirty days unclean, and could not
go to the tempie during that time (Lucian, Dt Syr, dea,
53); the Greeks, too, were defiled by contact with a
corpse, and could not resort to the tempie (Tbeophrast.
Charaet, 16 ; Eurip. Iphig, Taur, 367 ; Diog. Laer. viii,
83) ; both the Parsees and the Greeks regarded a woman
in childbirth as wiclean (Kleuker, Zend-A vesta, iii, 222,
223 ; Eurip. Iphig. Taur, 367) ; and " no Egyptian would
salute a Greek with a kias, nor use a Greek knife, spits,
caldrons, nor taste the meat of an ox which had been
cut by a Greek knife. They drank out of bronze ves-
sels, rinsing them perpetually. And if any one acci-
dentally touched a pig he would plunge into the Nile
wilhout stopping to undress" (Herodot. ii, 87, 41, 47).
III. Tke reneta and Practicea of the Pharisees.— To
State the doctrines and statutes of the Pharisees is to
give a history of orthodox Judaism ; sińce Pharisaism
was afler the return from the Babylouian captivity, and
is to the present day, the national faith of the orthodox
Jews, deveioping itaelf with and adapting itself to the
ever-Bhifting circumstances of the nation. See Rab-
BINI9M. Of the other two sccts, viz. tho Essenea and
the Sadducees, the former represented simply an inten-
sified form of Pharisaism [see Essenes], whilc the lat-
ter were a verv smali minoritv. See Sadduckes. The
Pharisees, as the erudite Geiger has conclu9ively shown,
were the democratic party, the true representative8 of
the people, who«e high vocation they endeavored to
develop by making them realtze, both in their prac-
tices and live8, that "God ha.s given to all alike the
kingdoro, priesthood, and holiness** (2 Mace ii, 17) ; in
oppoeition to the smali caste of the priestły aristocracy
of Sadducees, who set the highcst value upon their spir-
itaal Office, and who, by virtue of their hereditary
lights, tried to arrogate everything to themseU-es, and
mJanifested little sympathy with the people at large.
Hencc the Pharisaic enactments were such as to make
the people realize that they were a people ofprieats, a.
holy nation ; that by becoming a diligent student of Łbc
law, and by preparing one*s self for the office of a rabbi
or teacher, every such person, though not literally of
the priestły caste, may be a priest in spirit, and oocupy
quite as important and uaeful a pbsition as if be were
actually of the Aaronie order, and even arrange bia
modę of life according to the example of thofse who
minister in holy things. Thus the very name "tsn,
iratpia, which in olden times denotes a piieatfy frater^
nity (Hos. iv, 17 ; vi, 9), and was so used by the Jews
on the Maccabiean coins (C^IIH*^!! "^^H), was adopted
by the Pharisees for their lay association. Their social
meals were invested with a solemn character to resera-
ble the soctal meals of the priests, madę up from the
sacrifices in the Tempie. If the priests took care that
the sacrifices which they offered up, and portions of
which constituted their social meal, enpecially on the
Sabbath and festivals, should be clean and without
blemish, the Pharisees aiso took the utmost prccaution
that their meals should be frcc from the different de-
grees of defilement : they washed before partakin^
thereof, recited prayers before and after the repast, had
a cup of blessing, and offered incensc. It is only from
this point of view that some of the differences between
the Pharisees and the Sadducees can be explained ; as,
for instance, the ideał connecfion of places for Sabbatic
purposes, called 31*^'^^, mizturej adopted by the former
and rejected by the latter. In conseąuence of the rig«
orous laws about the obser\'ance of the Sabbath (Kxod.
xvi, 29; Jer. xvii, 21, with Neh. xiii, 15, etc), it was
enacted that no Israelite is to walk on the Sabbath be-
yond a certain distance, called a Sabbath-day's jouniey,
nor carry anything from one house to another. The
Sadducees, or priestły party, who celebrated their meals
on the Sabbath in different placcs, could go from one
place to another, and carry to and fro anything they
liked, because they regarded these meals as constituting
part of their priestły and sacrificial service, which set
aside the sanctity of the Sabbath. But the Pharisees,
who madę their Sabbatic repast resemble the priestły
social meals, had to encounter difficulties arising from
the rigorous Sabbatic laws. The distance which they
had sometimes to walk to join a company in the social
meal was morc than a Sabbath-day's journey ; the carry-
ing from one place to another of the things requisite for
the soleranities was contrary to* the enactments about
the sanctity of the day. Hencc they contrivcd the
ideał connection of places (Hl"!*^?), which was cffected
as ftillows : Before the Sabbath commenced (i. e. Friday
afternoon), an article of food was deposited by each
mcml)er in the court sełected for the social gathering.
so that it might thereby become the common place fur
ałl ; the streets were madę to form one large dwelling-
płacc with different gates, by means of beams laid across
on the tops of the houscs, and doors or gates put in ihe
front ; and meals were put in a house at the end of the
distance permitted to walk, in order to constitute it a
domicile, and thus another Sabbath-day's jouniey could
be undertaken from the first terminus. By this means
the Pharisees could evade the law, and, like the priests,
meet together in any place to celebrate their social
meals on the Sabbath, and carry anything that was
wanted for its sacred festivał, as tłiey had three common
meals on the Sabbath (miiro Clbc). On the Fri-
day eve the entrance of the Sabbath was greeted with
a cup of winę, or the cup of blessing, ovcr which every
member recited benedictions (01'^p), expressing the
holiness of the day as wełł as the holiness of Isracl,
whom God sanctified to himself and madę a people of
priests, a royal nation ; and thcn the sacred and social
meal was eaten. The second meal was eaten on noon
of the Sabbath, and the third bcgan with the setting
sun, and in the middlo of it the Sabbath departed-
PHABISEE
71
PHARISEE
When Itgfals wcre kindled a blessing wasagain pro-
Doonced over a cup of winę (nbian), and buniing in-
cmse was offered up to aocompaiiy the extt of thc holy
dir. which was regarded as a departing friend. The
paschai meal was the model for tbeee aocial and sacred
Rpast& But the light in which this veiy model sacri-
óct is to be riewed waa a point of disptite between the
pricsdy party oc thc Sadducees and the Phariaees. Be-
raośc Łhe paachal lamb formcil the social meal of the
laiiv, ihe priestly party roaintained that it is not to be
Kf^ikiA aa a aacrifice for the congregation, urging in
Bopport of their notion the fact that the lambs were not
ottmerically fixed like the other sacrifices in the Tem-
]k, but were regiilated aocording to the number of
laailies, and that they muat Iherefore be viewed aimply
isfunily aacrifices, to be eaten by the respectiye own-
rn. and muat oot aet aside the sanctity of the Sabbath,
L e. oqgbt not to be offered on the 14th of Nisan, if the
firn day of the Paasoyer falls on the Sabbath. Hillel,
h-ywtritf cfr the Phariaaic party whom he represented,
MKceeded in carrying their point, and in putting the
^lacKA bat prirateofferings of the Passo ver on an equal-
ity vith the Tempie aacrificesi and it was ordainc<], in op-
pń^iiiion to the prieatly party, that they are to set aside
iht sanctity of the Sabbath ; thus making the social
iamWy meal of the Uuty, which the Passo ver constitutccl,
» nćred as the fratemal meal of the priests, consisting
of ihe aacred sacrifices offered in the Tempie (Jerusalem |
Punckim, cap. vi ; BabyUm Pesachim, 66 a ; Geiger, Ju- '
£teh ZfiUchHft [Breslau, 1863], ii, 42 są.). Having
Ctrried this point, the Phariaees also gave to their meals
of the iwbbatb and other holy days a sacrificial charac-
ter after the model of the Pas8over.
Sn a people of prieats and kings, the Pharisees con-
aikred tfaemsclres the guardians of the divine law and
lh« ancestral customs, tmsting implicitly that he who
spkcted them to be his pecultar people would protect
and ebieki them and theirs from all outward dangers
vhirh threatcned the state. They were firmiy pene-
inicd by the conriction that as long as they were
faithful to their God no power on earth, howerer for-
mtiiable, would be perraitted sncce»ftilly to raylsh his
bok heritage. Hence they repudiated the tirae-senring
IK^ky of the aristocratic Sadducees, who maintained
that a man*a destiny was in his own hands, and that
boman ingenuity and state-cralt ought to be resorted to
in poUtical matters.
Pcacttcally, Josephua ropresents the Pharisees as lead-
iof a tempórate life, renouncing both exce8sive riches
acd immoderate pleasure, and striving above all to ac-
qaiR a knowledge of that law and to practice those
pr«cepts which wotild Ht them for the life to come {Ant,
sriii, 1, 3); the same may be seen from the following
derlaratioo of the Talmud: *'The morc flesh on the
body the morę worms [when it is dead], the morę riches
tbc more carea, tbe morę wires the morę witches, the
iDoK handmaids the more unchastity, the more man-
Krranuthe more robbery; but the more meditation in
tbe dirine law the better the life, the more schooling
the mofe knowledge, the more counsel the more intel«
figcaoe, tbe more benerolence the more satisfaction ; he
vbo acąoires a good naroe acqaires it for hiroself in
thb woiid, bat he who acąuires a knowledge of the di-
nne law acąuires for htmself life in the world to come"
<-16i4A,ii, 17). In aiding the people to realize their
bigh Tocation, and to prepare themselres for the king-
di<n of hearen by obcdience to the divine law, the
Phariaees endearored to facilitate that obedience by
putting a mtld interpretation upon some of the rigorous
^I<»»ic enactments, and to adapt them to eyer-changing
ciroimsttocea. Thna they explain the expression nbss,
crtrcoMt, in Ler. rii, 24, literally, and maintain that the
<tacate in the Teiae in ąuestioD cmly declares łhe jUih
of ao aoimal which was tom and died a natural death
to be defiling by contact, but not the skin, bones, etc ;
ttd ihat, except tbe haman ooipee and the dead bodies
of a few reptiles in which the skin and flesh are to a
certain extent ideutical, the skin and bones of all ani-
mals, whether clean and legally slaughtered for meat, or
unclean and dying accidcntally, do not defile, but may
be madę up into parchment, different utensils, eto. The
haughty and aristocratic Sadducees, on the other band,
who stood on their priestly dignity, and cared little for
the comforts of the people, took the term nbss in the
unnatural sense of an ardmal approaching the cotidiłion
of hecomtng a carca$»t L e. being so weak that it must
soon expire, and maintained that an animal in such a
condition may be slaughtered before it breathes its last;
that its flesh must then be considered as a carcass, and is
defiling, while the fat, skin, bones, etc, may be used for
diyers purposes (Jeitualem MegiUa^ i, 9 ; BabyUm Sab-
bath, 108 a). It reąuires but little reflection to perceive
how materially and divergently tbcse different riews
must haye affected the whole state of society, when it
b remembered that acoording to the Sadducees the
touching of aiiy book written upon the parchment madę
from the skin of an unclean animal, or contact with one
of the numerous utensils madę from the leather, bones,
veins, eto., of animals not Leyltically clean and not
legally slaughtered, imparted defilement. Again, the
Pharisees, with a due regard for the interests of the
people, and following the reąuirements of thc time, ex-
plained the right of retaUation^ "eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for band, foot for foot," etc (Exod. xxi, 23,
eto.), as iequiring pecuniary compensation, while the
Sadducees tiK>k it literally {Baba Kama, 83 6; 84 a, 5;
MegiUaih Taamłh, cap. iV, Tosephto). The same eon-
sideration for the spiritual and temporal well-being of
the people led the Pharisees to enact that in cases of
danger, when the prescribed prayers cannot be offered,
they are to offer a short prayer as follows: "Do thy
wili in heavcn above, and give peace of raind to those
who fear thee on earth, and what8oever pleaseth thee
do. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who hearest prayer!"
{Berakoth, 29 6). What a striking resemblance be-
tween this and some parts of the Lord*8 prayer ! It was
this humane and pious care for the interests of the peo-
ple that madę the Pharisees so popular and beloved, and
accounts for the remork of Joseph us that they had such
influence with the multitude that if they said anything
against a king or a high-priest they were at once be-
lieved {Ant, xiii, 10, 6).
On a few leading theological points the Pharisees
were decidedly pronomioed, and to these we particularly
cali attention, as they were largely influential under the
Christian economy.
a. In regard to a futurę state, Josephus presents the
idcas of the Pharisees in such a light to his Greek read-
ers that, whaterer interpretation his arabiguous lan-
guage might possibly admit, he obyiously would have
produced the impression on Greeks that the Pharisees
believed in the transmigration of souls. Thus his state-
ment respecting them is, "They say that every soul is
imperishable, but that the souls of good men only pass
over (or transmigrate) into another body— /x«rn/3aiV€iv
€ic kttpoy <Tw/4a— while the souls of bad men are chas-
tised bv etemal punishmcnt" ( War, ii, 8, 14 ; comp. iii, 8,
5 ; ^ n/. xviii, 1, 3 ; and Botteher, De Inferis, p. 519, 552).
There are two passages in the Gospels which might
countenance this idea : one in Matt. xiv, 2, where Herod
the tetrarch is represented as thinking that Jesus was
John the Baptist riaen from thc dead (though a differ-
ent color is given to Herod's though ts in the corre-
sponding passage. Lukę ix, 7-9) ; and another in John
ix, 2, where the question is put to Jesus whether the
blind man himself had sinned, or his parents, that he
was bom blind ? Notwithstanding these passages, how-
ever, there docs not appear to be sufficient reaaon for
doubting that the Pharisees beliered in a resurrection
of the dead very much in the same sense as the early
Christians. This ia ma»t in accordance with Paulus
statement to the chief priests and council (Acta xxiii,
^
PHARISEE
V2
PHARISEE
6) that be was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and
that he was caUc4 iu question for the hope and resur-
rection of the dcad — a statement which would have
been peculiarly dlsingenuous if the Pharisees had merely
beUeved iii the transmigration of souls; and it is like-
wise almost implied in Christ^s teaching, which does not
insUt on the doctńne of a futurę lifc as anything new,
but assumes it as already adopted by his hearcrs, ex-
ccpt by the Sadducees, although he condemns some un-
spiritual conceptions of its naturę as erroneous (Matt.
xxii, 30; Mark xii, 25; Lukę xx, 84-36). On this
head the Mishna is an illustration of the ideas in the
Gospels, as distingiushed from any merę transmigration
of souls ; and the peculiar phrase " the world to come,"
of which 6 aiwv o }pxófŁtvoc was undoubtedly only
the translation, frequently occurs in it (X3n Dbijtl^
A both, ii, 7 ; iv, 16 ; comp. Mark x, 80 ; Lukę xviii, 30).
This phrase of Christians, which is anterior to Chris-
tianity, but which does not occur in the O. T., though
fully justified by certain passages to be found in some
of its latcst books, is essentially different from Greek
conceptions on the same snbject; and generally, in con-
tradistinction to the purely temporal blessings of the
Mosaic legislation, the Christian ideas that this world
is a State uf proliation, and that every one afler death
will have to reuder a stricŁ account of his actions, were
expre8sed by Pharisees in language which it is impos-
sible to misunderstand : " This world may be likened to
a court-yard in comparison of the world to come; there-
fore prepare thyself in the antechamber that thou may-
est enter into the dining-room*^ {Abolk, ir. 16). **Kv-
erything is given to roan on security, and a net is
spread over every living creature; the shop is open,
and the merchant credits; the book is open, and the
band records; and whosoever chooses to borrow may
come and borrow : for the collcotors are oontinually go-
ing around daily, and obrain pa\nnent of roan, whether
with his consent or without it ; and the judgment is
true justice; and all are prepared for the fcast" (iii, 16).
"Those who are bom are doomed lo die, the dead to
live, and the quick to be judged ; to make us know,
understand, and be informed that he is God ; he is the
Former, Creator, Intelligent Being, Judge, Witness, and
suing party, and will judge thee hereafter. Blessed be
he ; for tn his presence there is no uurighteousness, fur-
getfulness, respect of persons, nor acceptance of a bribe ;
far ever}'thing is his. Know also that everĄ'thing is
done according to the account, and let not thinc evil
imagination persuade thee that the grave is a place of
refuge for thee : for against thy will wast thou formed.
and against thy will wast thou bom ; and against thy
will dost thou live, and against thy will wilt thou die ;
and against thy will must thou hereafter render an ac-
count, and receive judgment in the presence of the Su-
premę King of kśngs, the Holy God, blessed is he" (iv,
22). Still it must be borne in mind that the actions of
which such a strict account was to be rendered were
not merely those referred to by the spiritual prophets
Isaiah and Micah (Isa. i, 16, 17 ; Mic vi, 8). nor even
those enjoined in the Pentateuch, but included those
fabulously supposed to have been orally transmitted by
Moaes on Moimt Sinai, and the whole body of the tra-
ditions of the elders. They included, in fact, all those
ceremonia! "works," against the efficacy of which, in
the deliverance of the human soul, Paul so emphatically
protested. See Kksurrisction.
b, In reference to the opinions of the Pharisees con-
ceming tkefreedom ofthe will, a difficulty arises from
the very prominent posirion which they occupy in the
accounts of Josephus, whereas not bing vitaUy essential
to the peculiar doctrines of the Pharisees seems to de-
pend on those opinions, and some of his expre8sions are
Greek, rather than Hebrew. "There were three sects
of the Jews," he says, " which had different conceptions
respecting human affairs. of which one was called Phar-
isees, the second Sadducees, and the third Essenes. The
Pharisees eay that some things, and not all things, are
the work of fate ; but tliat some things are in our owii
power to be and not to be. But the Essenes dedaru
that fate mles all things^ and that nothing happens to
man cxcept by its decree. The Sadduce^ on the oŁher
liand, take away fate, holding that it is a thing of
naught, and that human alTairs do not depend apon it ;
but iu their estimate all things are iu the power of our-
selves, as being oursehcs the causes of our good Łhini^,
and roeeting with evils through our own inconsiderate-
ness" (^Ant xviii. I, 3; comp. War, ii, 8, 14). On lead-
ing this passage, and the otbers which bear on Łhc
same subject in Josephus^s works, the suspicion natu-
rally arises that he was biassed by a desire to make the
Grceks believe that, like the Grceks, the Jews had phil-
osophical sects aroong themselve8. At any ratę his
words do not represeut the opinions as they were really
held by the three religious parties. We may feel cer-
tain that the influence of faU was not the point on
which discussions respecting free-will turoed, thouj^h
there may have been differences as to the way in which
the interposition of God in human affairs was to be
rcgarded. Thus tbe ideas of the Esseues are likely
to have been exprcs8ed in language approaching the
words of Christ (Matt. x, 29, 30 ; vi, 25, 34), and it is
very difficult to believe tbat the Sadducees, who ac-
cepted the authority of the Pentateuch and other books
of the O. T., excluded God, in their conception, from alt
influence on human actions. On the whole, in reference
to this point, the opinion of Griitz {Ge»ckichte der Judem^
iii, 509) seems not improbable, that the real difierence
bctween the Pharisees and Sadducees was at first prac-
tical and political. He conjectures that the wealtby
and aristocratical Sadducees in their wars and negotia-
ttons with the Syrians entered into matters of polic>'
and calculations of pmdeuce, while the zealous Phari-
sees, disdaining worldly wisdom, laid straa on doing
what seemed right, and on leaving the event to God ;
and that this Ie<l to differences in formal theories antl
metaphysical statements. The precise naturę of those
differences we do not certainly know, as no writing of a
Sadducce on the subject bas been preserved by the Jews.
and on matters of this kind it is unsafe to trust unre-
ser^*edly the statements of an adyersary.
c. In reference to the spirit oi protelytiam among the
Pharisees, there is indisputable authority for the state-
ment that it prcvailcd to a very grcat extent at the
time of Christ (Matt. xxiii, 15) ; and attention is now
called to it on account of its probable importanoe in
having paved the way for the early diffusion of Chris-
tianity. The district of Palestine, which was long in
proportion to its breadth, and which yct» from Dan to
Beersheba, was only 160 Koman miles, or not ąuitc 148
Knglish miles long, and which is reprcsentcd as having
been civilizcii, wcalthy, and populous 1000 years beforc
Christ, would under any circumstances have been too
: smali to continue maintaining the whole growing popu-
' lation of its children. fiut, through kidnapping (Joel
' iii, 6), through leading into captivity by military in-
cursions and victorious enemies (2 Kings xvii, 6; xviii,
11 ; xxiv, 15; Amos i, 6, 9), through tiigbt (Jer. xliii,
4-7), through commerce (Josephus, Anf, xx, 2, 3), and
probably through ordinary emigration, Jews at the tirac
of Christ had become scattered over the fairest portions
of the civilized world. On the dav of Pcntecost, that
great festival on which the Jews suppose Moses to harc
brought the perfect law down from heaven {Ffsticut
Prayersfor Peniecost, p. 6), Jews are said to have been
assembled wilh one acconl in one place in Jerusalem,
"from every region itnder heaven." Admitting that
this was an Oriental hyperbole (comp. John xxi, 2ó},
there must havc been some foundation for it in fact;
and the enumeration ofthe vanous countries from which
Jews are said to have been present give9 a vivid idea
of the widely-spread existence of Jewish communitic!!.
Now it is not unlikely, though it cannot be prored from
Josephus {Ant, xx, 2, 3), that misuons and oiganijed
PHARISEE
73
PHARISEE
■Ctonpts to produoe oonrcrsioiM, although unknówn to
tinek philo9opbeni» extsted among the Phańseea (De
Weite, Exeg^ueke$ Jlandbuck, Matt. xxiii, Id). Hut,
ac toy nUf the theu exiMLng repilations or customs of
firn^^ogoes aflforded facUities which do not exist itow
dtlier in srnagogucs or Christian cburches fur present-
inc new riewa to a oongregation ( Acts xvii, 2 ; Lukę
iv. 16). Under siich auspices the proselytiaing spirit
of tfae Phaiiaees ineritably stimulated a thirst for in-
qiiinr, and acctistomecl the Jews to theological contro-
T«nie& Thns there exi8ted precedents and favoring
orcnoutanoea for efforu to make proselytes, when the
i;raie»t of all miańcmaries, a Jew by race, a Pharisee by
ediKatioa, a Greek by hingaage, and a Koman citizen
bj birth, preaching the restirrection of Jesus to those
vbo fiir the most part already believed in the resurrec-
ticjo of the ilcad, oonfrontcd the elaboratu ritual-system
ff the written and orał law by a pure spiritual rcligion ;
tfld thus obtained the co-operation of many Jcws them-
»lTes in breaking down erery barrier between Jew,
Phtrisee, Greek, and Roman, and in endearoring to
onite all mankind bv the brotherhood of a common
Christianity. See Pboselytr.
IV. Ortyin, iJerelopmenff Claues, and generał Char-
dtirr o/tke Phariteeś^ — The name does not occur either
in the O. T. or in the ApocT3'pha ; but it is usually con-
sidered that the Pharisces were casentially the same
«i(h tbc Aańdaeans (t e. cAan(/im ~godly men, saints)
mentioned in 1 Mace. ii, 42; vii, 13-17 ; and in 2 Mace
itT, fi. Those who admit the exbtence of Maccabiean
Piilau find allusion to the Assidaans in Psa. ]xxix, 2;
xcrii, 10: cxxxii, 9, 16; cxUx, 9, where chatidim is
tnnlated '^saants'* in the A. V. (see FUrst, łłandttdrfer-
ittek, i, 4*iO 6). After the return from the llabylonian
captirity the priesthood formed the centrę of the new
itiigioos life, aod the pious in larael who were anxłou8
to practice the commandments of the Lord naturally
aitaclied theroselvc8 to the dirinely - appointed and
tilD^-hol1ored tribe of Levi. Besides the kceping pure
from tntermarriage with hcathcn, great and vital im-
poruoce was attached to the setting aside of the soil
and Tempie taxes (Neh. x, 33, 36, etc. ; Ecclufl. vii, 31 ;
xtr, 20; Tobit i, 6; v, 13; Judith xi, 18; 1 Mace. iii,
49'>. to the due obeervance of the Sabbath (Neh. x, 31 ;
liii, 19), the three pilgrim fe8tival8. viz. the Pas8over
r^Chroo. xxx; xxxv: Ezra vi, 19-22), Pentecost (To-
bii ii, 1), and Tabemacles (Neh. viii, 14), as well as the
Sabbatic year (Neh. x, 31 ; 1 Mace. vt, 49, 53), aiid to the
thNioeooe from undean food. He who allied himaelf
to the national party with the solemn rc8olvc to keep
ttraae anceatral Uiws divinely given to the nation was
ralled " one who had separated himself unto them from
tbe impority of the country people** (Ezra vi, 21), or
'one wtio had sepanted himself for the law of the Lord
fmm the country people" (ix. 1 ; x, 11 ; Neh. ix, 2; x,
9fh Hence the phrase y^ ^7"^?' ''separated frum,'*
obtained doring this period a parły signification. This
Rsme became the standing appellation for those who
had tbin separated themselves for the 8ervice of God,
ted continued to be the consenrators of their ancestral
religion. as may be seen from tbe taunt of the anti-
Bational party, who wamed them to juin the Greek
party, teliing them in tbe days of the Maccabees that
" Since we have separated from them (l\utpiabiifAiv av
ffiTwy, Łhe translation of ^^23) many evils have come
opon os'* (1 Mace. i, 11). Those who yieldcd to the
temptation, and, relinqubhing the national party, joined
the autinational portion, were denominatcd (H^^rn)
fbi nńnd (Eara ix, I ), or CX^t) '^ mirłure (Seh, xiii,
')• Hence the period before Alcimus was afkcrwards
K|7vded as tbe MW-Mtcfirre (d^c^m), while his own
VM boked opon as ike miiiurt (JLirifii^, 2 Maco. xiv, 3,
^). Afteiwarda, when the priestly party, or the Sad-
<kKeea, who were at fint the centrę of the national
■oTcment, assuroed a hanghty position, stood upon
t^wir saoenioCal dignity, cared Uttie for the real spirit-
ual and temponl wants of the people, but only sought
their own aggrandizement and preservation, allying
themselves fur this purpose with forergn nations, and
espousing antinatioiial sentiments, the real national
portion of the people unitcd themselve8 raore firmly
than ever, independently of the priests, to keep the law,
and to practice their ancestral customs; and it is this
party whom the opposite scction callcd by the Aramaic
name *p^!ł"^d=^^ap«raioi, instead of its original He-
brew equivalent D^b^23, the teparaied (Ezra vi, 21 ; ix,
1; x,ll: Neh. ix, 2;* X, 28).
In the time of queen A)exandra (q. v.) the Pharisees
attained almost supremę power. By the appearance of
piety and thorongh knowledge of the law, which they
well knew how to affecŁ (so as evcn to pass for prophets,
Josephus, Ant. xvii, 2, 4), the Pharisees at an early day
secured the popular favor (Josephus, ArU, xiii, 10, 5;
xiii, 16, 6; xviii, 1,8; War^ i, 6, 2; comp. Lukę xi, 43),
and that of the women (Josephus, Ant, xvii, 2, 4, where,
however, only the wives of king Herod are spoken of ;
but comp. Lightfoot, Hor, Hebr, p. 230 sq.), and thereby
acquired considenble political influence, which became
very manifest even during the history of the Jewish
dynasty (Jo6ephu^ Ant, xiii, 10, 6; xiii, 16, 2; War^ i,
6, 2). This inflnence became greatly increased by the
extension of the Pharisees over the whole land (Lukę v,
17), and the majority which they composed in the San-
hedrim (comp. Acts v, 34 ; xxiii, 6 sq.). In political
conHtcts they generally followed deraocratic principles,
and sometimes carricd them to an extreme, trusting to
their combined influence for success. (Their number
reacheil morę than six thousand under the Herods, J(h
sephus, Afit, xvii, 2, 4.) Many of them miist have suf-
fered dcath for political agitation (Josephus, Ant, xvii,
2, 4). In the time of Christ they were divi(lcd doctri-
nally into S3vcrel schools, amnng whiuh those of Hillel
and Shammai were most notcd, the formcr being morę
moderate, the latter morę strict, in their ob6ervanccs.
Of the history of the Pharisces after the resurrectinn of
Christ and the foundation of the Christian Church littlc
need be saicL Their opposition to the Gospel continued
as cagcr as before, and, though they are seldom men-
tioned by name in the Acts of the Apostles, that opposi-
tion is freąuently brought before us when ** the councir*
is spoken of (Acts iv, 15 ; v, 27 ; vi, 12; xxii, 30; comp.
xxiii, 6). That " council" is the Sanhedrim, and of the
seventy-two doctors of which it was composed, Łhe morę
influcntial partappears to have consisted of Pharisees.
We see then the same spirit of enmity to Christian truth
manifested by it as had been displayed during the life
of the Redeemer; and the history of Paul before his con-
ver8ion is only a moru roarked ilhistrarion than ordinary
of the manner in which the whole body would have
" persecuted the Church of God and wasted it." It is
not to be imagined that this enmity would abate as the
infant Church grcw stronger. Ever}'thing that we
know of human naturę and religious bigt)try leads to
the opposite conclusion ; and in the terrible fanaticism
with which, when Titus b?si(>gcd Jeriisalem. the Jewish
people rushed upon their fate, in the unflinching zeal
which they displayeii, in the dc8|)erate efTorts which
thev madę to avert the destruction which was ^'the
wrath come upon them to the uttermost," and in the
awful frenzy with which they sacrificed them8e1ves amid
their falling palaces and burning Tempie, it is impossi-
ble not to recognise the lastconvulsive outburstof Phar-
isaic heroism and despair.
With the definitions and explanations of snch an ex-
ten8ive and gorgeous ritual as that of the Mosaic law,
with the application and adaptation thereof to all the
vici88itudes of the coramonwealŁh, with the diflTerent
degrees of holiness and uncleanncss altached to the per-
formance or neglcct of each prcccpt and rite, with the
diver8e dispositions and idiosyiicrasies of the multitude
about the respective merita of outward observances and
a corresponding inward feeling, ihe Pharisces would
PHARISEĘ
U
PHARISEE
have been supcrhaman if Łhey had eacaped the ex-
tFRYftgances which in the courae of time have morę or
leas devel<)pecl tbemselres in the eetablished religions
haaed tipon a morę spiritual códe and a less form al rit-
ua]. Thus the enactment that " the tlesli of qtiadru-
pods must not be qooked or in any way mixed with
milk for food," deduced froro injunctions iii Exod. xxiii,
19; xxxiv, 2(5; Deut. xiv, 21 ; or the enactment about
" the compulsory recitation of the Shema twice a day,**
i. e. the declaration about the unity of the Deity (DeuL
vi, 4-9), at a stated time; or the discussion on *'the
lighting ofcandles on the eve of the Sabbath,** which is
the duty of every Jew ; or " the interdict to eat an egg
which had been laid on any feast^nlay, whether such
day was or was not the day after the Sabbatli,*^ has its
parallel in other and later systems. The Christian
Church, without any basis for it in the N. T., has at
times employed a casuistry which may fairly compete
with that of the Fharisees, who had to deline an in-
flpired codę of minutę rites and ceremonies. From Pe-
ter Lombard to Gabriel Biel the que8tion was warmly
discossed among all the Christian casuists, What is to
be done with a mouse which has eaten of the conae-
crated wafer? The Established Church of England has
deduced from the words "Let all things be done dc-
cently and according to onler** (1 Cor. xv, 40) the petty
regulation that ''no man shall cover his head in the
church or chapel in the time of divtne 8ervice, CKcept
he have somc infirmity, in which caae let him wear a
nightcap or coif" {Conititutiont and Ccmoru Ecdesiasti-
cal, xviii) ; has enacted that " no minister, when he cel-
ebrateth the communion, shall wittingly administer the
same to any but to such as knecl, under pain of suspen-
ston" (t&u/. xxvii) ; that " upon Wednesdays and Fridays
weekly, though they be not holy-days, the minister, at
the accustonied hours of 8er\'ice, shall resort to the
church or chapel, and, waruing being given to the peo-
ple by toUitig of a beli, shall say the litany prescribed
in the Book of Common Prayer: whereunio we wish
etery householder dtcelling tciłhin half a mile of the
dkurcA to come or Mend one at the. leasł ofhU houaehold
fit to join with the minister in prayers** (xv) ; and that
** no ecclesiastical person shall wear any coif or wrought
nightcap, but oniy plain nightcaps of black silk, satin,
or velvet; . . . in privaŁe houses and in their studies
the said persons ecclesiastical may use any comely and
scholar-like apparel, provided that it be not cut or
pinkt ; and that in public they go not in their doublet
and hose, without coats or casaocks ; and ihat they wear
not any light-colored stockings*' (lxxiv). This, how-
ever, only shows the tendency of all ritualism to degrade
the human intellect by minutę reąuisitions. That the
multitudinous and detailed rites and ceremonies imposed
by the Mosaic law, and amplified by the requirements
of time, should have given rise among many Phar-
isees to formalism, outward reltgiousness, self-compla-
cency, oatentation, superstition, and hypocrisy, was to
be expected, judging from the generał tendency of gor-
geous ritualism in morę modem days. A leanied Jew
charges against them rather the holiness of works than
hvpocritical holiness (" Werkheiligkeit, nicht Schetn-
heiligkeit," Herzfeld, Geschichte des VoUee» Israei, iii,
359). At any ratę they must be regarded as having
been sorae of the most intense formaliati whom the
world has evcr seen ; and, looking at the average stand-
ard of exccllence among manktnd, it is nearly certain
that men whose Iives were sytent in the ceremoniał ob-
scrvances of the Mishna would cherish feelings of self-
complacency and spiritual pride not justiiicd by intrinsic
mornl excellence. The supercilious conterapt towarda
the poor publican,and towards the tender penitential love
that batbcd Christ's feet with tears, would be the natu-
ral result of such a system of life. We are therefore
not surpnscd that our Saviour saw these pernicious
features in the ranks of Pharisaism, and that he found
occas^on to cxpo8e and to reprove most unsparingly
their exteniali8m (Matt. xxiii, 27 ; Lukę vii, 89) and
hypocrisy (Matt xxiit, 18). Bat to oonclude from thii
that all the Pharisees were either self-righteoos and su-
perstitious, or a set of hypocrites, is as unjust as it
would be to brand every section in modem churchet
with the infirmities and extravagance8 of which indi-
vidual mcmbers are guilty, and which are either de-
nounced by tłieir own morę enlightened and spiritually-
minded brethreu, or expo8ed by the opposing sectiońs.
The language which the Pharisees themseWes em-
ployed to dcnounce the proud, the formalists, the self-
righteous, and the hypocritcs in their own sect, is, ta
say the least, quite as strong as that which our 8av-
iour used. In confirmation of this, we need only give
the poignant Talmudic claasification of the Pharisees.
" There are aeven kinds of Pharisees," says the Talmud :
« 1. The Shechemite Pharuee ("^aro OT^ft), who sim-
ply keeps the law for what he can profit thercby, just
as Shechcm submitted to the rite of circumcision that
he might thereby obtain Dinah, the daughter of Jacob
(Gen. xxxiv, 19) ; 2. The TunMing Pharisee (Oro
"^BpS), who, in order to appear humble before men,
always hangs down his head, and scaroely lifts up hii
feet when he walka, so Uiat he constantly tumbłes;
8. The BUeding Pharuee ("^KT-^p ©int), who, in
order not to look at a woman, walks about with his
eyes closed, and hence injures his head freąuently,
80 that he has bleeding wounds; 4. The Moriar
Pharitee (X^311^ t91"^B), who wears a cap in the
form of a mortar to cover his ey&s that he may not see
any impurities and indecencies; 5. The What-am^I-f/et-
to^o Pharisee ("^Pa^n ms nrnx Ollfi), who, not
knowing much about the law, as soon as he has done
one thing, asks, * What is my duty now ? and I will do it'
(comp. Mark x, 17-22); 6. The Pharitee from Fear
(nM"*!*^^ SIIB), who keeps the law because he is afraid
of a futurę judgment; and 7. The Pharitee from Lorę
(nanX72 119*1*^0), who obeys the Ix>rd because he lova
him with all his hcart" (Babylon Soła^ 22 b ; comp. Jt-
ruealeni Berachoth^ cap. ix). It must also be admitted
that it was among the Pharisees the glorioua ideas weie
developed about the Messiah, the kingdom of hearen.
the immortality of the soul, the world to come, etc. It
was the Pharisees who, to some ex tent at least, trainc-d
such men as the immortal Hillel, " the just and dcvout
Simeon, who waited for the consolation of Isracl," and
who, taking np the infant Saviour into his amns, ofiered
up thanks to (iod (Lukę ii, 25-35) ; Zacharias. ^ who
was righteous before God'* (i, 6) ; Gamalicl, the teach-
er of Saul of Tarsus; Paul, the great apostlc of the
Gentiles, etc Our Saviour himself occupie<l Phariaaic
ground, and used the arguments of the Pharisees in
vindication of his conduct and doctrines. Thus, when
Jesus was charged by the Pharisees with allowing bis
disciples to break the Sabbath by plucking ears of com
in the field on this holy day, he quoted the very maxim
of the Pharisees that " the Sabbath is roade for man,
and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark ii, 27 ; comp.
Joma, 85 b) ; aud his proof is deduced according to the
Pharisaic exegetical mle denominated 21119 ri"^T^ anal-
ogy, When David was hungry, he ate of the priestly
bread, and also gave some to thosc who were with him.
Accorilingly one who is hungry may satisfy his hunger
with that which is otherwlse only allowed to the pricst^
Now the pricsts perform all manner of work on the
Sabbath without incurring the guilt of transgresaion ;
why, then, should one who is hungry not be allowed to
do the same? (Matt. xii, 1-7). We only add that the
apostle Paul, who must have known all the denuncia-
tions of Christ against the Pharisees, never uttered a
disrespectful word against this sect, but, on the contra-
ry, madc it a matter of boast that he belonged to them
(Acta xxiii, 6; xxvi, 5; Phil. iii, 5). Yet candor most
acknowledge that great morał derelictions in prectice
often coexist with much that is beautiful in tbeory;
PHARISEE
7ff
PHABISEE
aad tlie uncontradicted rebakes of our Saviour against
tbe Fbariaees of his Łime proTe au eoormous depraviŁy
<n tłMir piit. He denoanced Łhem in the bitterest lan-
2jagi ; and in the aweepiDg charges of hypocńsy which
be maie agaiost them as a elan, be migbt even, at fint
siębL seem to bare departed from that epirit of meek-
nea, of geoŁleDess in judging othen, and of abstincnce
ftm the imptttation of improper motirca, which is one
4 tbe most cbaracteristie and original cbarma of his
^YD preceptflL See MatL xv, 7, 8; xxiii, 5, 13-15, 23;
Mirk rii, 6 ; Lnke xi, 42-44 ; and oomp. Matt. vii, 1-5 ;
xi. 29: xii, 19, 20; Loke vi, 28, 37-42. Indeed, it is
diioilt to aroid the ooncluaion that his repeated de-
Boocitrions of the Pbaiisees mainly eKasperated them
icco takiog measuras f<Mr caosing his deatb ; so that in
one aeiue be maj be said to have shed his blood, and to
hrt Uid down his llfe in protesting against their prac-
titt lad spińt. (See especially venes 53 and 54 in the
Ilth cbapter of Lukę, which foUow imroediately iipon
tbe namtioD of wbat he said while dining with a Phar-
m.) Ueiłce to ondentand the Phariaees is, by con-
tn^ an ud towards understanding tbe spirit of uuoor-
nipt4d Cbristiaiiaty. This divergence is so wide and
fuD-JuMiital that we shall best apprebend the genius of
P^ritftum bv developu]g the contrast somewbat in de>
i^ i.^ Dcliusch, Jesus und UUUl [Erlangen, 1866]).
(1.) In relation to the O.-T. dispensation, it was tbe
,Saviiuiri incat effort to unfold the principles which
^i Ułjj at tbe bottom of that dispensation, and, carry-
isjT ibem out to their legitimate conclusions, to "fulfil
tbe law" (irXi}p«^ac, Matt. v, 17, to **fulfil," not, as too
ofteii sappoaed to mean, to " confinn"). But, in con-
itiA t4» thia, the Phariaees taught such a 8ervile ad-
Lrrnioe to tbe letter of tbe law, that its rcmarkable
charter as a pointing forward to something bigher
tlua iu letter was completely orerlooked, and that its
B»ral precepts, intended to elevate men, and to Icad
tbem on to tbe thougbt of a rooral stage morę glorioas
than that at which they then stood, were madę rather
the iustroments of oontnusting and debasing their ideas
'•f m<iralit Y. Thus, strictly adhering to the letter, ^ Thou
s^iaii not kill,*'ibey regarded anger and all hasty passion
>s Miimate (llatt. v, 21, 22). Adhering with equal
^^ioeaa to the worda ^ Thoa shalt not córami t adul-
tfrv;'all impore thoughta and deeds which fell sbort
•itfaU were ooasidered by them to be allowable (MatL
f . 27. 2t^). And, once morę, acqiiie8cing in the letter,
' Wh«soever shall pat away bis wife, let him give ber
ticuerof dirorcement," they so interpreted the precept
t^. if only a letter of divorcement were gtven, a wife
Bight be put away for any cause however trifling
MaiL V, 31, 32). Thus, tbe whole spirit of the O.-T.
<ii^«Daaiion was miaunderstood by them. They did
»>t s«e that it was adapted to a particular stage in the
^>ry of man ; that its merit consisted, not in being
IKrrieet, bat in being better than wbat woiUd have
fxiiied witboot it; and that it contained in itself the
{bU;e that it most one day yield, as a system, to the
:*ill erotution of thoee principles at which it aimed, and
to which, from time to time, it gave expression. When
>£Ojniin^l3r He came, whose great effurt it was to break
tbfbagh the letter, in order that be might set free the
^•irit, which the circnmstances of men had rendered it
^^^^"oiy to eocLose and confine for a season, their
Ił;
^tn« were steeled from the first against him, and they
^tai^ked him as a blasphemer against the God of Israel
lad bis law.
<1) While it was the aim of Jesus to cali men to the
|>vof(iQdiuelf as the sopreme guide of life, the Phar-
■K^ł tnaltipUed minutę precepts and distinctions to
^ach u extcnt, npon tbe pretence of maintaining it in-
^^ that the whole life of the Israelite was hemmed in
ftłi bardeoed on ereiy siile by instructions so numer-
'<L^ a&d trifling that tbe law was almost, if not whol-
l • l«t ńght ol These " traditions," as they were
all«d, had long been g^adually acctimulating. Their
^Ąw. may io tbe first instance have been a good one.
The law had been given under circnmstances very dif<-
ferent from tbose in which the Jcwish people found
themseWes morę and roore plaoed as the Christian era
approached. The relations of life had been far simpler;
the influence exerted over Israel by neighboring nations
less refined; while the national authorides, except in
times when the worship of the tnie God was altogether
thrown aside, had united in keeping all admixture of
foreign elements at a distance. That was no longer
poasible \ and it became almost necessary therefore to
explain the application of the law to the changed and
ever-changing condition of tbe people (comp. Dóllinger,
Chistentkum und Judetakum^ p. 750). Commenting
upon the law therefore was unavoidabIe: and many of
tbe comments given were no doubt really what they
were dcsigned to be, ** a fence to the law." But these
"fenoes" too soon asmimed, as indeed it was natural
that they should, an importance superior to that of tbe
law itself, while at the same time they were continually
increasing in nurober, till at last a complete system of
casuistry was formed, in which the most minutę inci-
deuts of life were embraced, and which rendered the
very conception of broad and generał principles of duty
an impossibility. Of the triiling character of these
regulations innumerablo instances are to be found in
the Misbna, but, as it is not quite elear that tbe Tal-
mudical was tbe same as the Pharisaic theology, we
omit these, and remind our readers only of some of
tbose mentioned in the N. T. Such, then, were their
washings bcfore they would eat bread, and tbe special
minuteness with which the forms of this wasbing were
prescribed ; their batbing when they retumed from the.
market , their washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels,
and couchcs (Mark vii, 2-4) ; such were their faatings
not only at tbe seasons which the law prescribed, but
twice in the week (Lukę xviii} 12) — on Tbursday, when,
according to their tradition, Moses had ascended Mount
Sinai, and on Monday, when he had come down from it
(Eiacnmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, i, 311); such were
their titbingis not only of the property which the law
]>rovided should be titbed, but even of the most insig-
nificant herbs — mint and anise and cummin (Matt.
xxiii, 23; comp. Lukę xvtii, 12); and such, iinally,
were tbose minutę and vexatiou8 exten8ions of the law
of the Sabbath, which must have converted God*s gra-
cious ordinance of the Sabbath*s rest into a burden and
a pain (Matt. xii, 1-18, Mark iii, 1>6; Lukę xiii, 10-17,
etc).
(3.) It was a leading aim of the Redeemer to teach
men that tnie piety consisted not in forms, but in sub-
Stańce ^ not in outward obserrances, but in an inward
spirit ; not in smali details, but in great rulea of life.
The whole system of Pharisaic piet}' led to exactly op-
posite conclusions. Under its influence " the weightier
matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith," were
undervalued and neglected (Matt. xxiii, 23 ; Lukę xi,
42) , the idea of religion as that n-hich should have its
seat in the heart disappeared (Lukę xi, 88-41); the most
sacred obligations were ev&ded (Mark vii, U) ; vain and
trifling ąuestions took the place of aerious inquiry into
the great principles of duty (Matt. xtx, 3, etc.) ; and even
the most solemn truths were handled as merę matters
of curious speculation or meana to entrap an adver8ary
(Matt xxii, 85, etc. , Lukę xvii, 20, etc).
(4.) The lowliness of piety was, according to the
teaching of Jesus, an inseparable concomitant of its re-
iJity, but tbe Pharisees aought matnly to attract the
attention and to e.\cite the adroiration of men. They
gave alms in the most ostentatious manner ; they ofteu
prayed standing at the comers of the street^; they dis-
flgured their faces when they fasted (Matt. vi, 2, 6, 16).
To draw attention to their religious zeal they madę
broad their phylacteries and enlarged the borders of
their garments (Matt. xxtii, 5). Blind to the true
glory of miniatering to others rather tban being roinis-
tered to, they sought their glory in obtaintng the chief
seats in tbe synagogues, tbe lin»t places at the tabks to
PHARMACY
16
PHARPAR
which they were invłted, greetings of honor in the mar-
keta, and the title of Rabbi, Rabbi (Afatt. xxiii, 6 ; Lukę
xiv, 7). Indccd, the whole spirit of their religion waA
giiinmed up, not in confession of sin ami huroility, bat in
a proud self-righteousness at variance with any true
couception of raau*8 relation either to God or his feli<}w-
creatures— '* God, I thank thee that I am not as other
men are, extortioner8, unjust, adulterers, or even as this
pablican" (Lukę xviii, U).
(5.) It was a natural consequGnce of all this, that
wiŁh such view8 of the principles and spirit of religion
its practical graces shoald be overthrown, and it was so.
Christ incuicated compassion for the degraded, helpful-
ness to the fńendless, libcrality to the poor, holiness of
heart, unirersal love, a mind open to the truth. The
Pharisees regarded the degraded dasaes of society as
classes to be shunned, not to be won ovcr lo the right
(Lukę vii, 89; xv, 2; xviii, 11), and frowned from
them such as the Redeemer would fain have gath^red
within his fold (John vii, 49). Instead of having com-
passion on the fńendless, theymade them a prey (Matt.
xxiii, IS). With all their pretences to piety, they were
in reality avaricioas, sensual, and dissolute (Matt. xxin,
25; John viii, 7). They looked with oontempt upon
every nation but their own (Lukę x, 29). Finally, in-
stead of endeavoring to fulfil the great end of the dis-
pensation whose truths they professed to teach, and
thus bringing men to the Hope of Israel, they devoted
their enei^ies to making convert8 to their own narrow
Yiews, who, with all the zeal of proeelytes, were roore
exclusive and morę bitterly opposed to the truth than
they were themselYes (Matt. xxii, 15).
In view of these facts, while acknowledging much
that was just and commendable in their doctńnes (Matt.
xxiii, 2, 3), we are ct>mpelled to acąuiesce in that gen-
erał judgment which b^s madę the name of " Pliarisee"
a proverb of ecclesiastical reproach — a character too
often reproduced under Christianity it^elf.
y. Literaturę. — Besides the Mishna, the Talmud, and
the Midrashim, which embody the sentiments of the
Pharisees, we refer to Brucker, Hist Crit. Philosophiir,
ii, 744-759 ; Milman, Hist, of the Jeu?9, ii* 71 ; Ewald,
Getckichte des Voikes Israel, iv, 415-419; Biedermann,
Pharisaer vnd Saddueder (Zur. 1854) ; Wellhausen, Die
Pharitder und die Sadducaer (Greifsw. 1874) ; and the
Jahrhuiiderł des Heils, p. 5, etc, of Gfrorer, who bas in-
sisted strongly on the importance of the Mishna, and
has madc great usc of the Talmud generally. Gross-
mann has endeavored to present a harmony of the Jew-
i8h-Alexandrine doctrines with those of the Palestine
Pharisees iu his work, De Pharis. Jttd. Alexand. (Hal.
1846), ii, 4 ; but it is very improbable that the Phari-
sees of Palestine agreed with the Jewish philosophers
of Alexandria in their principles, when the latter were
adhercnts of Plato, and diligcnt students of Homer and
Hesiod (Grossmann, I)e Phiiof. Sadduc. iii, 8). Sec also
the following works by modem leamed Jews: Herz-
feld, Getckichte des Volkes Jsrael (Nordhausen, 1857), ii,
258, etc; Jost, Geschichfe des Judenthums vnd seiner
Secten (Leipsic 1857), i, 197, etc ; GrUtz, Geschichte der
Juden (2d ed. ibid. 1863), iii, 72, etc, 454, etc; and,
above all, Geiger, Urschri/l und Uebersetzungen der Bi-
bel (Breslau, 1857), p. 103, etc. ; also in the Zeitschri/i
der deutschen morgenldndischen Geselischaft (Leipsic,
1862), xvi, 714, etc; and in his Judische Zeitschrifljur
Wissenschąfl und I^ben (Breslau, 1868), ii, 11, etc; and
reprinted separately (Breslau, 1863). See Seci's, Jkw-
I8H.
Fharmacy, a name applied to the art4 of the magi-
cian and enchanter in the early ages of the Christian
Church. The Council of AncjTa forbado pharmacy,
that is, the magical art of inventing and preparing
medicaments to do mischief ; and appointed five years'
penance for any one that receives a magician into his
house for that purpose. BasiFa canons condemn soch
arts under the same character of pharmacy and witch-
craft, and aseigns thirty years' penance to them. Ter-
tuUian plainly asserts that never did a magician or en-
chanter escape unpunished in the Church. Those who
practiced the magical art were soroetiroes termed^Aar-
maci, and their magical potions/iAannacice. See Gard-
ner, Faiihs oftke World, ii, 654.
Fha'ro8h (Ezra viii, 3). See Parosh.
Płiar'par (Heh, Parpar', *1D'1B,«ł-(/?; Sept*a|»-
^óp V. r. ^ap^apa, 'A^ap^d ; Vulg. Pharpar), one of
the two rivcrs of Damascus mentioned in the well-
known exclamation of Naaman, *'Are not Abana and
Phar|>ar, rivers of Damascns, better than all the waten
of Israel ?" (2 Kings v, 12). The name does not occur
elsewhere in Scripture, nor is it found iu ancient claf«ic
authors. Eusebius and Jcrome merelv state that it is a
river of Damascus (Onomasf. ?. v. Farfar). Pliny eays
that ''Damascus was a place fertilized by the ńver
Chrysorrhoas, which is drawn ofT into its meadows and
eagerly imbibed" (v, 16) ; and Strabo says of this river
that "it commences from the city and territory of Da-
mascus, and is al most entirely drained by watcrcourscs;
for it supplies with water a large tract of countr}'" Cxvi,
755). But nonę of these writers speak of any second
river. Yarious opinions have been entertained regard-
ing the Pharpar. Benjamin of Tudela states that, while
the Abana runs through the city, the Pharpar nins be-
tween the gardens and the orchards in the out^kirts
(^Early Trarelsy Bohn, p. 90). He evidently refers to
the two branches of the same river. The river Barada
takes its rise in the upland plaiii of Zebd&ny, at the
base of the loftiest peak of Anti-Lebanon. Its principal
Rource is a fountain called Ain Barada. It cuts through
the central chain in a snblime gorgc, and flows in a
deep wild glen down the eastem declivities. Its vol-
ume is morę thnn doiiblcd by a large fountain called
Fljeh, which gushes from a cave in the side of the glen.
The river leave8 the mountains and cuters the greiii
plain of Damascus about three miles west of tbc city.
The main stroam flows though the city; but no fewer
than seven large canals are taken from it at diiferent
elevationR to irrigate the surrounding orchards and gar-
dens. The lurgest of these is called Xtihr Taura, " the
river Taura," and is probably that which Benjamin of
Tudela identified with the Pliarpar (/. r.). The Arabie
verBion of the Bibie rcads T<wra for Pharpar in i
Kings V, 12 ; but the words of Naaman manifestly iio-
ply the existence of two distinct riyers. Sonie hare
siipposed that because the Barada has two great fuun-
tains, Naaman alludcd to these ; and Dr. Wilbon would
identify the Barada with the Pharpar, and Ain Fljeh
with the Abana (Lands of the Bibie, ii, 371, 373); but
in reply we say that Naaman speaks of two ''dyers,**
and not " fountains." See Abana.
A short distancc south of the citv of Damascus flows
the river i4trfy/. It has two principal sources — one high
up on tbc eastem side of Hermon, just bcneath the cen'
trał peak ; the other in a wild glen a few miles south-
ward, near the romantic village of Beit Jann. The
streams unitę near Sasa, and the river flows eastward
in a deep rocky channel, and falls into a lakę, or rather
large marsh, called Bahret Hijtlneh, aUint four miles
south of the lakę into which the Barada falls. Although
the Awaj is eight miles distant fmm the cit}', yet it
fiovn across the whole plain of Damascus; and large
ancient canals drawn from it irrigate the fields and gar-
dens almost up to the walls. The total length oftbe
Awaj is nearly forty miles; and in volumc it is alout
one fourth that of the Barada. The Barada and Awaj
are the only river8 of any importance in the district of
Damascus ; and there can be little doubt that Łlie for-
mer is the Abana, and the latter the Pharpar. The
identity of the Awaj and Pharpar was suggested by
Munro in 1888 (Summer Bamble, ii, 54), and conflrmed
by Dr. Robinson {Bibiiofheca Sacra, May, 1849, p. 371);
but its sources, course, and the lakę into which it falK
were first explored bv Dr. Porter in the year 1852 («Wt"
Jan. 1854, and April,*1854, p. 829). Hethen beard, for
PHARR
77
PHASIRON
the fint tine, the name Barbar apniied to a glen on
ibe ei$t side uf Uermon, which senda a ttnaall tiibutaiy
to th« Awaj ; and it aeema highly probable that we
htve io thu nuoe a relic of the ancieut Pbarpar. The
Anbic iiiay be regarded as equivalent to the Hebrew
i<<ee ftre Years m Ikutuucus, i, 299; Bibłiołk, Sac, 1. c
p. b\\ Tbe mountain region round the sources uf the
ń\tT vas oonipted in a remote age by the warlike Ma-
KhaUiit«9 (1 Chroń, xix, 6, 7; Josh. xU, 5). Subse-
qtinitly it furmed part of the tetrarchy of Abilene (Lukę
iii. 1: Jogephm, Ant, xix, 5, 1). Farther down, the
riifr Pharpar divided the terriUiry of Damascus from
hann (q. r.). The whole diatrict through which the
nver flows is now called Wady el-Ajaro, " the ralley of
\i> PersiaDa;** the scencry is barć and mountainous, but
Sitae parts of it are extremely fertile, and it contains
cpirsnb of fifty rillages, with a population of 18,000
fiub (aee Jour. of Sac. Lit. 1853 ; Kitter, Pal, und Syr,
tr. lo:i sq.).— Kttto. See Damascus.
The tnidition of the Jews of Daraascus, as reported
i'j ^hwan {Palesł. p. 54, aiso p. 20, 27), is curiously
nbrcrsire of our ordinary ideas regarding these streama.
Toer cali the river Fijeh (that is, the Barada) the Phar-
[ifr, aod gire the name Amana or Karmion (an old Tal-
ORHlic name) u> a stream which Schwarz describea as
raniiiiłg from a fountain called el^Barady^ a mile and a
łttif from Beth Djana (Beit Jenn), in a north-east di-
rprtii^u to Damascuft (see also the reference to the Nu-
Uiui ęeognipher by Gescniua, Tkesaur. p. 1132 a). —
:»utb.
Pharr, Walter Ssiikey, a Presbyterian minister,
van born in Cabarras County, N. C, April 28, 1790. He
vi<« filocated at Hampden Sidney College, Prince Ed-
uard C«M Va. ; studied theology under the care of Moses
H^sf. D.D.; was licensed by Haiiover Presbytery, and
«bined by Concord Presbytery Nov. 18^,1820. His
^rit charge was Waxhaw Church, S. C, and he subse-
q.KntIypreacheil for Prospect, Kama, and Mail ml Creek
thojches in North Carolina, all within the buunds of
Ctwora ł*re»bvtenr. He died Dec. 27, 186G. Mr.
ritarr was a soiincl theologian, a plain and successful
{macher and pastor, much beloved and confided in by
all w bo kiMw him. See Wilson, Prrsfr. Hitt, A Imanac,
l«7,p.4jO. (J.L.S.)
Phar^zite (Heb. with the art, hap-Parfsi\ •':S'7Dn ;
^*\it a ^aotoi V. r. ^apic\ the patronymic of a faraily
iiiłon<; tbe He1)rews (Numb. xxvi, 20), the descendants
i'fPhare2(q.v.).
PhaaaSlis (^a4yai|XiV, Josephas^ ^ao7i\ic, Ptole-
ny y, 16, 7; PkaaełU, Pliny, xiii, 4, 19; xxi, 6, 11), a
ciiy in the plain of the Jordan, builŁ by Herod the Great
in h<Nior of his brotber Phasaelus (Joseph us. Ant, xvi, 5,
2; x^ii, 8, 1 ; xvxii, 3, 2 ; War, ii, 9, 1). It is now Tell
A<at7, a amall hill with ruins at its base. The site is
inSal>iied by a few people who cultivate Łhcir gardens.
Th«se are irrigated by a brook, the fountain of which
i^ an bour morę to the west, hiddcn as it were under the
hi|;h clifiri below Daumeh, and under the shade of a dcnse
joiigie (8ee Robinson, liesearchesy ii, 305). Brocardus
M|l Mar. Samedo CSecr, Fidel, Cruc, III, xiv, 3) identify
thia liuł« ^ream, now called Ain Fusail, with the brook
<Vrilh (we ReUnd, Palasł, p. 9ó3; Bachiene, HeU.
f^*^. U i, 126-130).— Van de Yelde, Memoir, p. 339.
PbaM'ah [some Pha'$€aJi'\ (Keh. vii, 51). See
PhaBO'Ufl (^<r(n|Xic), a town on the coast of Asia
Miijor, OD tbe confines of Lycia and Pamphylia, and
<*»«qaeiitly ascribed by the ancient writers sometimes
^ one and sometimes to the other. It was one of the
i<»m to which the Romans wrote commanding all
Jrriah exi)cs who had taken refuge there to be given
Bp to Simoo tbe hi|ch>priest (1 Mace xv, 23). Its
cwnmeroe was conaiderable in the 6th century KC, for
» the rńgn of Amasis it was one of a nnmber of Greek
t<^vitt which carried on trade somewhat in the mamier
of the Hanseatic confederacy in the Middle Ages. They
had a common tempie, the Hellenium, at Naucratis, in
Egypt, and nominated TrfioaTÓTai for the regulation of
commercial ąuestions and the decision of disputes arising
out of contracts, like the preud'honunes of the Middle
Ages, who presided over the courts ofpiepoudre {pieds
poudreSf pedlers) at the different staples. In later times
Phaselis was distinguished as a resort of the Pamphyliau
and Cilician piratcs. Its port was a conveuient one to
make, for the lofly mountain of Solyma (now Takhtalu),
which backed it at a distancc of oniy five miles, is nearly
eight thousand feet in height, and constitutes an admi-
rabie landmark for a great distance. Phaselis itself
stood on a rock of fifty or one hundred feet elevation
above the sea, and was joined to the mainland by a Iow
isthmus, in the midiUe of which was a lakę, now a pes-
tiferous marsh. On the eastem side of this were a closed
port and a roadstead, and on the western a largcr artifi-
cial harbor, formed by a mole run out into the sea. The
remains of this may stiU be traced to a considerable ex-
tent below the surface of the water. The masonry of
the pier which protected the smali eastern i)ort is nearly
perfect. In this sheltered positiou the pirates oould lie
safely while they sold their booty, and also refit, the
whole region having been anciently so thickly covered
with wood as to give the name of Pityu^a to the town.
For a time the Phaselites confined their relations with
the Pamphylians to the purposes just mentioned; but
they subsequently joined the piratical league, and suf-
fered in conseąuence the loss of their independence and
their town lands in the war which was waged by the
Roman consul Publius Servilius Isauricus in the years
I1.C. 77-75. But at the outset the Romans had to a
great extent fostered the pirates, by the demand which
sprang up for domestic slaves upon the change of man-
ners brought about by the spoliaiion of Carthage and
Corinth. It is sald that at this time many thousand
slaves were passed through Delos — which was the mart
between Asia and Europę — in a single day; and the
proverb grew up there, *E/iiropf, KaTaic\ivaov' i}it\QV'
Tcdyra nt irparai. But when the Cilicians had acquired
such power and andacity as to sweep the seas as far as
the Italian coast, and interrupt the supplies of oom, it
became time to interfere, and the expedition of Serviliu8
oommenced the work which was ańerwards completed
by Pompey the Great (see Smith, Dicł, of Clau, Geog,
•8. V.).
It is in the intenral between the growth of the Cili-
cian piracy and the Servilian expedition that the inci-
dents related in the First Book of Maccabeos occurred.
After naming Ptolemy, Demetrius (king of Syria), At-
talus (king of Pergamus), Ariarathes (of Pontus), and
Arsaces (of Parthia) as recipients of these mis8ives, the
author adds that the consul also v/rote: tic irńaac róc
Xwpnc Kat Sfl/ii^a/iy (Grotius conjectures Aa/ii//aic^,
and one MS. bas MŁ<ravi<ray) Kai Xvap7idTatc koi lic
A^Aoy rai tic MvvSov Kai iic 2un;u;v«r Kai łic rrjy Ka-
piap Kai tfc Xafiov Kai tic rtjy nap^v\iap Kai tic ri)v
\vKiav Kai tic 'AkiKapyaaTÓy, Kai łIc 'PuSov Kai n'c
^aari\ioa Kai tic Kia Kai tic 'Sicriu Kai Łic''Apadov Kai
tic rópTvt*av Kai Kvi£oVj Kai Kifirpoy Kai Kvpfivfiv
(1 Mace. xv, 23). It will be observed that all the places
named, with the exception of Cyprus and Cyrene, lie on
the highway of marinę trafBc between Syria and Italy.
The Jewish slaves, whethcr kidnapped by their own
countrymen (Exod. xxi, 16), or obtained by raids (2
Kings V, 2), appear in early times to have beeń trans-
mitted to the west coast of Asia Minor bj' this route
(see Ezek. xxvii, 13 ; Joel iii, 6).
The exLStence of the mountain Solyma, and a town
of the same name, in the imroediate neighborhood of
Phaselis, renders it probable that the descendants of
some of these Israelites formed a population of some
importance in the time of Strabo (Herod, ii, 178; Strah.
xiv, c. 8; Livy, xxxvii, 23; Mela, i, 14; see Beaufort,
Karamania, p. 53-56). — Smith.
Phas^iron {^aatpwy; Vulg. Phateran v. r. Pasi-
PHASSARON
78
PHERECYDES
ron), the name of the head of an Arab tribe, " tbe cbil-
dren of Phasiron" (1 Mace. iic, 66). defeated by Jona-
Łban, but of whom nothing morę is known. — Smitb.
Phas^saron (^a<r<rap6v, v. r. 4fa<r<rovpoc and ^dff-
eopoc; Vulg. Phasurius\ a Gnecized form (1 £adr. v,
25) of tbe Ueb. name Pashur (q. v.).
Phe^bd. Sce Phcebe.
Fhelan, William, D.D., a somewbat noted Irisb
divine of tbe Protestant establiubment, was bom at
Clnnmel in 1789, and waa educated at Trinity College,
Dublin, wbere be was admitted sizar in 1806. In 1814
be was madc second master of tbe endowed scbool of
Derry ; in 1817 be was elected fellow of bis ooUege, and
in 1819 Donellan lecturer. In 1824 be became rector
of Killyman, Armagb, and in 1825 of Ardtrea. He died
in 1830. His Jiemains were publisbed, witb a biograpb-
ical memoir, by tbe bishop of Liroerick (2d ed. Lond.
1832, 2 Yols. 8vo). See Darling, Cydop, BUdijogr, s. v.
FheleŁ - See Betu-phrlkt.
Fhelipeanz, Jean, a French tbeologtan, was bom
at Angiers in tbe 17tb century. He studied in Paris,
and tbere took bis degrees in tbeology even to tbe doc-
torsbip. Bossuet, baving bcard bim dispute in tbe Sor-
bonne, formed so farorable an opinion of bim tbat be
placed bim in tbe position of preceptor to bis nepbew,
tbe abbi^ Bossuet, tbe futurę bisbop of Troyes. Botb
were in Romę in 1G97, wben tbe affair of Quietism was
agitated ; Łbey foUowed it witb singular ardor, and witb
a kind of passion tbe expre8sion of wbicb Bossuet was
morę tban once obliged to moderate. Pbelipeaux wrote,
June 24, 1698, *' No bctter and morę persuasiye piece of
news can be sent us tban tbat of tbe disgrace of the rei-
atives and friends of M. de Carabray." His pupil sbowed
no less animosity. '^ He is a wild beast," said be. Nor.
25, in speaking of Fenelon — " be is a wild beast, tbat roust
be pursued until be is oyertbrown and unable to do any
barm.*' Pbelipeaux, entirely occupied witb tbis affair,
wrote numerous memoirs, and besieged tbe court of
Romę witb solicitations, at tbe same time carrying on a
secrct correspondence witb M. de Noailles, arcbbisbop
of Paris. On bis retum to France (1699) be became
canon, official, and grand-vicar of Meaux. He died at
Meaux July 3, 1708. After bis deatb was publisbed
tbe Relation de Vorigine du progi-es et de la condamna-
Hon du Ouiitiame repandu en France, avec plusieura an-
ecdotes curieuses (s. 1 1732-1733, 2 pt. 12mo). Ali tbat
is said in it against tbe manners of Madame Guyon is
corroborated by no proof, and was refutedin 1733 by (be
abbć of La Bletterie. Ab for Fdnelon, one cannot doubt
tbat tbe design of the autbor was to injure bis reputa-
tion ; "bis work," says De Bausset, ^ rereals tbe most
marked partiality and tbe most odious ragę.** Besides,
it was suppre&sed by a decrec of tbe counciL See
Moreri, Grand Diet. Hist, ; De Bausset, Hitt. de Fene-
lon ; Barbier, Dkt, des A nonymes, 2d edit., No. 16,089, —
Hoefer, Nouv, Biog, Generale, xxxix, 821.
Phelonium (^cXóvfov), a cloak, wbicb in the
Greek Cburcb corresponds to the chasuble in tbe Latin
Church. Tbis ecclesiastical yestment is wom bv tbe
priests, and tbat wom by the patriarch is cmbellished
witb triangles and crosses. Tbis is supposcd to havc
been tbe sort of garment wbicb Paul left at Troas, and
bis anxiety for its restoration is to be attributed, we arc
told, to its sanctity as an ecclesiastical robę. See Gard-
ner, FaiUkt ofthe World, ii, 654.
Phelps, Elizabeth Stuart, an American lady,
noted as the autbor of a number of morał and religious
story-books, was bom at Andorer, Mass., in 1815. Sbe
was the daughter of Dr. Moses Stuart, the celebrated
professor of O.-T. exegesis at the Andover dirinity
scbool, and wife of Dr. Austcn Phelps. Sbe died at
Boston Nov. 30, 1852. We bave not space here for a
list of ber writings, but those interested will find it in
Allibone, Diet, ofBrit, and A mer. A uthors, s. v.
Phelps, Joseph T., a minister of tbo Metbodist
Episcopal Cfaorcb, was bom in Annę Arandel Coont^
Md., Sept 21, 1818; was converted at sixteen, and ii
1840 became a member of tbe Baltimore Coiiferenc^
and for eigbteen years trarellcd in Maryland, Vir^ ni a
and Pennsylvania. His last appointment in tbe BalLl
morę Conference was Harper's Ferr^*. In 1858 he t<M»]
a supemumerary relation, and moved to Obio. At tłj <
ensuing Conference be was, at bis own request, locate<1
In 1860-61 be was employed by the presiding elder oi
Clarksfield Circuit, and in 1863 be was admitted int ^
tbe Nortb Ohio Conference, and trarelled tbe followiii^
circuits: Sullivan, one year; Republic, two years; Pei-<
kins, two years; and Centerton, one year. His last «|><
pointment was Republic. ** He was a man of generał
intelligence, of goodly presence, and unassuming man^
ners. He was a very good and acceptable preacher. a
tme Christian gentleman, and success attended bis iniii^
isterial labors." He died near Republic, Seneca County,
Ohio, April 23, 1870. See General Minutes fifthe A un.,
Conferencet.
PhelpB, ServlB W., a minister of tbe Methodi»t
Episcopal Cburcb, was bom in 1846. After completirt^
bis studies at Lowville Academy, where be was eon-
yerted, be joined the New York Conference in 1868. I le
was first appointed to New Bremen, and tben to Bame»'s
Corncrs, wbere, under bis ministrations, roore tban Hfly
persons were added to tbe Church. His bealtb suddenly
failed bim, and at tbe Conference of 1870 be was cotn-
pelled to take » supemumerary relation. He died in
Martinsburgh, N. Y., Feb. 28, 1871. Phelps was natu-
rally kind and beneyolent, and possessed many excel-
lent qualities as a minister. He had bigh opinions of
tbe ministerial office, and aimed to exemplify them in
his entire life and influence. See Minutes o/ the A im,
Conference*.
Phelps, Thomas, a Wesleyan preacher and mis-
sionar}', was bom at Rudford, Gloucestersbire, England,
in 1817. He was of bnmble parentage, and did not en-
joy morc tban the usual adyantages of a common-scbocd
educatłon. In 1849 be was selected as a laborer in the
Jamaica mission. He promptly aocepted tbe work, and
thougb morę or less disabled by seyere attacks of tropn
ical fever, be yet continued faitbful in tbe dischai^e of
bis duties. He died peacefuUy at Port Morant, Aug. 13,
1852. ^ Pbelps'8 amiable disposition, and his habits of
industry and punctuality, secured for bim the loye and
esteem of the brethren witb whom be was associatetf,
and bis brief ministry was not witbout fmit. His pulpit
labors were acceptable; and bis diligent attention to
other pastorał duties obtained for bim tbe loye of tbe
peoplc among whom be was stationed." Sce Wesityan
Magazine (Sept 1853), p. 869.
Phel7peaux, Georges-Louis, a French prelate,
was born in 1729 in the cb&teau d'Herbaut, diocese of
Orleans. He entered boly orders, became comraenda-
tory abbe of the royal abbey of Tbouronel, and was ap-
pointed in 1757 arcbbisbop of Bourgcs, and in 1770
cbancellor of tbe Order of the Holy Ghost. Ile distin-
guished himself as much by the actiyity of bis pastorał
zeal as by his inexbaustible bencficence. He founded
seyeral coUeges in tbe principal cities of bis diocese, in-
stituted bureaus of charity, and succeeded in considcr-
ably diminishing mcndicity. See Blin de Sainmorc,
Eloge Hitt. de. G.-L. Phelt/penuz (1778, 8vo) ; Faucher,
Oraison Funibre de G.-L. Phelypeaux. — Hoefer, Nonr,
Biog. Generale, xxxix, 824.
Pheiii'c6 [some Phe^nicel : a. (Acts xxvii, 12). Sce
Ph<enix. 5. (Acts xi, 19 ; xv, 3). See Phcenicia.
Pheni^cia. See Phcenicia.
Phenolion. See PiiiENOLiuM.
Phenomenon. See Ph^esombkok.
Phereo^des (^tpiMiję), an ancient Greek phi-
losopber, was a natiye of tbe island of Syros, one ofthe
Cydades, and flourished in the 6tb century B.C He
is said by Diogeoes Laertiua to bavc been a riyal of
PHERESITE
10
PHILADELPHIA
Ihakif and to hftve learned his wisdom from the sacred
boofc^ of the Phoenicuins, or from the £gyptian8 and
CbaJdcaiuL He is also reputed to have beeu a disińple
of Pittaotty and to hare tAught Pythagoraa. He wrote
I cotmof^y an a kind of proae much reaembling poe-
tiT. nnder the titie 'Eirra/ii/^^Ct the meaning of which
b ifcobtfaL In a. manner rather poetic than philosophic,
be eodearored in this work to show the ońgin of all
thin^ from three etemal principles: Timej or Kronos;
F/srth, aa the formleM and pas8ive maaa ; and JEtherf
•r Zaoy as the foniuidve principle. He taught the
4«triiie of the esistcnce of the human soul after death ;
but it is onoerUin whether he held the doctrine of the
tmuaugimtion of aonla, afterwards promulgated by his
dtadple I^thagoni& Of his work only fragments are
citant, which hare been coUected and elucidated by
Suirtz (Geia, 1796; 2d ed. Leips. 1824).— Chamberś.
iSec Smith, IHet. of Gr. and Rom, Biog, and MyłhoL
i.r.: Botler, Iłist, of Anc, PhiL vol. ii; Ciidworth, In-
teU. Syttem oftke Uniterte (see Index in voL iii).
Pher^eflite (1 Esdr. viii, 69) or Pher'ezite (Ju-
dith V, 19; 2 Esdr. i, 21), different roodes of rendering
(ł^aioi-) the name Perizitb (q. t.)»
PhiUa {^ta\n\ Lakę, a smali body of watei de-
Knbed by Josephus, and believed by him to supply the
founLain at Banias (War, iii, 10, 7). It is the present
Biihft er-Rdm, east of Banias ; first exaroined by Irby
ind Mangles (1818, TrateU, p. 287); identified bv
ThoiDMn {BSbUotk. Sacra, iii, 189-192). See also Rit-
tłr. Erdhndf, xv, 154 sq., 174 są. ; Wibon, Lands ofthe
BAU, ii, 180; Lynch, Offickd Report, p. 110; Robinson,
buer biU. Re*, p. 399 Van de Velde, Memoir, p. 340.
PhibionitSB ia a iocal name of the Gnostics (q. v.),
*nl is probably a oomiption of Phrebiomta, which was
acąatied from Yalentinus, the founder of the sect, who
va» a natłve of Phrebonitis, on the coast of Bgypt (see
Epipbaniua, Hmres. xxvi, 3 ; xxxł, 2).
Phi^chol (Heh. Pikoi% ^3*^0, of doubtful meaning
[iec bekm] ; Sept, ^txi^\ v. r. ^łkóX ; Joscphus ^/ran
W\ the proper, or, morę probably, the titular name of
tbe coinmander of the troopa of Abiroelech, the Philis-
tine king of Gerar in the patriarchal period. See Abim-
ELccH. If the Abimelech of the time of Isaac was
tbc eoQ of the Abimelech of the time of Abraham, we
mar conclude that the Phichol who attouded on the
s<cond Abimelech (Gen. xxi, 22) was the successor of
ibe ooe who was present with the first at the intorview
»ith Abraham (Gen. xxvi, 26). Josephus mentions
bim on tbe seooud occasion only. On the other hand
tbe SfpL introducea Ahuzzath, Abimelech's other com-
pttion, 00 the firat also. By Gesenius the name is
intttd as Hebrew, and as meaning the " mouth of alL"
By Fum (£/«&. LeJT, s. v.) it is derived from a root bso,
to be ttronff. But Hitzig (Philisfder, § 57) refeni itto
ibe Saoacrit piuAula, a iamarisk, pointing out that
AbrabaiD had planted a tamari^k in Beersheba, and
comparing the name with EUh, Berosus, Tappuach,
*od other names of persona and places signifying differ-
ent kintU of iiecs; and with the name ^iyaXoc, a vil-
|>ge of Ptlesune (Joaephus, Ant, xii, 4, 2), and ♦lyaAin
»Q <iieece. Surk {GazcL, etc p. 96) moie cautiously
««łJs nch speculations. The natural conclusion from
»beK merę conjecturea is that Phichol is a Philistine
^*w, the derivation and meaning of which are lost to
«»».-Siniib.
Pbiladerphia [strictly PkiŁade^i'a] (<tfi\a^f\-
♦»'o, ^roikerUf torf), one of the seven cities of Asia Mi-
"^ to which the admonitions in the ApocaIvp6e were
■Aiwwd (Rev. i, 11; ii, 7). The town sinod abmit
twoity^łre mtlca south-east from Sardis, in N. lat 82^
. ! Ł kmg. 283 30', in the plain of Hermus, about
■wway betwecn the river of that name and the termi-
J!JJ>^ of Mount Tmolaa It was the second in Lvdia
J™JttBy. V. 2; Pliny, Hist. SaL v, 80), and was built
hr King Attaliu Phtladelphus, from whom it took its
name. In B.C 183 the place passed, with the dominion
in which it lay, to the Romana. The soil was ex-
tremely favorable to the growth of vinea, celebrated by
Yirgil {Georg, ii, 98) for the soundness of the winę they
produced ; and in all probability Philadelphia was built
by Attalus as a mart for the great wine-producing re-
gion, extending for 500 stadia in length by 400 in
breadth. Its coins have on them the head of Bacchus
or a female Bacchant. Strabo compares the soil with
that in the neighborhood of Catana, in Sicily ; and mod-
em travellers describe the appearance of the country as
resembling a billowy sea of disintegrated lava, with here
and there vast trap-dikes protruding. The original
population of Philadelphia seems to have been Macedo-
nian, and the national character to have been retained
even in the time of Pilny. There was, howevcr, as ap-
pears from Rev. iii, 9, a s.vnagogne of Hellen izing Jews
there, as well as a Christian Church — a circumstance to
be expectod when we recoUect that Antiochus the Great
introduced into Phrygia 2000 families of Jews, remov-
ing them from Babylon and Mesopotanua, for the pur-
pose of counteracting the seditious temper of the Phryg-
ians ; and that he gave them lands and provisions, and
exempted them from taxes (Josephus, Ani. xii, 3, 4).
The locality continued to be subject to constant earth-
ąuakea, which in the time of Strabo (xiii, 628) rendcred
even the town-walls of Philadelphia unsafe ; but its in-
habitants held pertinaciously to the spot, perhaps from
the profit which naturally accrued to them from their
city being the staple of the great wine-district. But
the expense of reparation was constant, and hence per^
haps the poverty of the members of the Christian
Church (jt^da ... on fUKpdu ixuc dvvafitv, Rev. iii,
8), who no doubt were a portion of the urban popula-
tion, and heavily taxed for public purposes, as well as
subject to privato loas by the destruction of their own
property. Philadelphia was not of sufficicnt importance
in the Roman times to have law-courts of its own, but
belonged to a juriadiction of which Sardis was the cen-
trę. It continued to be a place of importance and of
strength down to the Byzantine age ; and of all the
towns in Asia Minor it withstood the Turks the longest.
It was taken by Bajazet I in A.D. 1892. Furious at the
resistance which he had met with, Bajazet put to death
the defenders of the city, and many of the inhabitants
besides (see G. Pachym. p. 290 ; Mich. Duc. p. 70 ; Chal-
cond. p. 83).
Philadelphia still exist8 as a Turkish town, under
the name of AUah-thehr, "city of God," i. e. High-
town. The region around is highly volcanic, and, geo-
logically speaking, belongs to the district of Phr}'gia
CJatacecanmene, on the western edge of which it lies.
The situation of Philadelphia is highly pictnresque, es-
pecially when viewed from the nortb-east, for it is prin-
cipally built on four or five hiłls, exfremely regular in
figurę, and having the appearance of truncated pyra-
mida. At the back of theae, which are all of nearly the
same height, rise the lofty ridges of Tmolus; and
though the country around is barren and desolate, the
city itself is wanting neither in wood nor verdure. The
climato of Philadelphia is pleasant and healthy. It is
elevated 952 feet above the level of the sea, and is open
to the 8alutarv breezea from the Catacecaumene — a
wild desert tract of highly volcanic country extending
as far to the east as Peltse. This district is even yet fa-
mous for the growth of the vine, which delights in a
light sandy soil; and, though incapable of extonsive
cultivation, has a fcw fertile oases. Close to Philadel-
phia the soil is rich, and fruits as well as corn are abuu-
dant. Tbe Cogarooa abounds in fresh-water turtle,
which are couńdcred dclicacies, and highly prized ac-
cordingly. The rcvenue8 of the city depend on its
coni, cotton, and tobacco. The cotton grows in smali
pods about the size of a medlar, and not unlike it in
form. The town itself, although spacious, is miserably
built and kcpt, the dwellings being remarkably mean,
and the streets cxcecdingly tilthy. Across the summita
PHILADELPHIANS
PIULANTHROPY
PhlliddpbLi.
oftlie liill bcliind Ihc lown and tlic anu
ttftra Iheai ruta the liiirii-wall, Birenglhc
lar Mid H]uaT« liontini, md ruroiiiig also
■nd Inng (|uadnucle in Ihc pUiii belnw. The ancieiil
Włlli ara iiaitly nunding and piilly in ruina; but it i>
nmy lo trnce Ihe circuit which they once cncloMd, and
wilhin which aie lo be fumid innuraerablc rragmenta or
pillara and olher remaiiH ot intiąuilj. The misŃona-
rira Fiak and rarsuna, in 1822, were infunoed by tbe
(ireck biahnp IhaC Ihe lown conuined 300D houaea, of
whicli he anaigncd 'ióO to the Urreku, and tbo nu la
Ihe Tucka. Un the aame lulhorily it is atawd ihat
Ihero are Iive chiircliea iii the town, bcaidea tweiity
ottaera which wcre Inn nid ot too amall fur uac. Kix
minarela, iiidicatinit ao many moaqu», nce >cen in Ihc
>Ft moMiuca i) bclLcYcil by Ihe na-
'e Chń
Embled the priinilive Chrii
n the cl
a idarcBsr
[>illan ai
oftiic ligurea nr uiiits. One aniiiary pillar of high a
llquily haa uTten becii nnticcd aa reminrling behoLdf
of Ihe remarkilile wunta in ihc A|>Dcalvpiic mrssige
Ihc PhiUdclphia Church: "I]im tbal'overcomelh w
I make a pillar in the lemplc of mv Cod; and be shall
eo no mora out" (Kcv. iii, 12). H U belicved tha
Chrialiui inhabilanis of Philailclphia arc on ih
crcase. The cily i» the aciL uf ■ (;tcek biahop, aii
lattincumlientuf Ihe aec did much lo apread among hii
cle^y a deairc fur theidotlicai learnin);; but educ
ia in a vcry Iciw stale, and Mr. Anindell ainlea that Ihe
rhililrcn liid Lecu alloweil to tear up tome uieieiil
IM uf llie Uuapcla. See Smith, Sipt. KrHftianiiit .
|<. 138; Arumlell, Stren Clmr^n; Itichter, WiiiljUhi--
Im, p. ói3i iSciiubert, HorgnJmi, i, 3iJ-35T: ilu-
liomiry lUraU, IbUl, p. 353) 1839, p. 210-212; Chaud-
kr. Trarrlt. p. itlO.
It haa been suppnaed by aome that PhiUdelpliia oc-
eupied the aite nf anolher lown iiamed Callalcbua, of
rrhirh Hciodnlua a|waka, in hia aecount of Xeix«'i
■nareh; bui the pnŃiion and fcrtilitr nf that aimt do
itcl correfpond. At ihe tamę limę ihe retbiui kiiio. in
hia two daya' inarcli rmm Cyilnn to Saidus niiui harc
pa«MKl rrry n»r the tiic of ihe futurę Tliilaiielphia
(Slrabn, xii. e. K; llerul. iti, 31). .Sec Asia Minou.
PhUadalpblBU*. nr "Ikt riil,M,*i.iH .\.»^>r^,~
ii the nanie uf a acci wliich wu fouiidnl in 1>XH. and
daimed la have for ila ubjcct " the adianccmcnt of pi-
ęły and dirine philoaophy."
It originated with Jane
Leade (ą. v.) and John roni-
ące (q. V.). Anotber of I be
fhiiadelphtana waa the l«m-
ed phyiicianFranciaLee.whn
ediicd Ihe "Theoaopbical
Tranaactiuna" of the aocic-
iMrr waa Dr. Lot Fiaher, wlm
caitsed all Ihe wotks of Jaw
lie inuiHlateil iiilo Dutcli. A
fourthpiincipalcoodjulnrwaa
TAf SahUtiK iffRrtl, and i^
acime worka on ItiUical aub-
Tikc Philadelphian Ha-
CDiiiributed larKely to
tbe Bprrwl of that myulical
piety Hiii>:ii ia in cnnspicuoiia
in tlic norka of the goud and
leamed William Ljw, aiul
which aflecled in no amall
degree Ihe early elagea of
Hethodi^m. Mra. Leide heraelf, howeier, mmbiiml
much faiuiticiam with her pietiam, profeBung (like Shc-
denboi^ in a laler gcneralion) (o hołd inlenourae wiih
apiriłs. Tliia fanalielam imparled itself lo many mcm-
faera of the Pliilodelptiiiii Sociei}', and imagiuary appa-
rilions of good aiid evil angeli became tor a time a
feature of theirreligiona"'
a( Ihe 01
r, making Ihe contemplative life the basa of rcliginua
knowicdge and piaclice. A imali wnik entitlcd Thr.
Principia af Iht PhibidelpHaiu, publiahed in lISitT,
givce a curioua eipońlion liriheirmyMiciMn. See Kb-
rard, Kii-chrit- a. i>ngmniffacA.iv, 103 : Hoaheim, EteUt.
Iliil. vol. iii; Mnk. Rn. April. IRGo, p. SOo; Itlfren.
ZeitvJi.fśr kin. TkfoL 18G5, ii, 171 ; Amp: Presb. litr.
Jan. IttUG, p. 191. CJ.H.W.)
Phllaletłiea, or lotrrt oftrath, u iheir nam* im-
many, abnut 1847, and who wisbed to ignorc Chri*-
tianily ilb^clher.and tn uae only Ihe generał forma of
piety. See KatioNAUSTS.
Pbilanthiopy (f(Xa>^puiri'a.B term compouoded
of f iXac. lutinjj, and aripuirnę, bion), ^gniSca Ikt lart
of maakiad. It ditfera from benevulence only in thL*—
that bcnrvu1enre cKlends lo every beini; tlinl bia lilć
aiid aensr. and ia nr course ausccpiible of pain aiidplea»-
ure; wbcrcaa philanthropy caniiot enmprebenil amre
tlian Ihe humaii race. Ii diffem fium friendahiii, aa ibia
affection aulMiala only l)elwccn a few individual», while
philanlhmpy comprchcnda the whole human fjiecief.
It in a calm arntiment, nhieh pcrhapa bardlr ci-ci riwa
to Ihe warmihuf aBeclioii.andcenaiuly notlothebeal
Chmlian pbilanlhropy is iinivcraally admilled lo be
Miperinr In that nfany oibcrcthicil or religioua aratcn;
■nd if we iiii|iiirc what are Ihe cauMS of thii auiienui
prominence gircn to active bcnevolence in Ihe Chrialiaii
acbeme of clhica, we rbati lind, na in olher instancn.
that tbe peculiar cliancter nf the ethical fruit drpenda
on the roui of rrligion liy which ilie plant ia uotiriihed.
and tbe Ibeologicai aoil in nhirli it waa ]>lanted. For
aurely it requiTea very lillle Ihouglit to perceire llial
ihe nint ofall that aurpaiaing lorc of Ihe humsn bmih-
erbood lica in Ihc trcli-known opeuing w<ird« nf Ihc
moM calbulic nf praycr*—" Our >'ather. whiih an hi
heavei>r the laiiprl alM nf ain aa a cuutiimac>', and a
IcailK tn a morę nggTCWve philaiiihrnpy, wiih Ibe vi«it
of acliieyiiiK deliyerance froiu Ihat curae; bul, abore
■I], Ihe iloctrinc of tlie immonalilr nf Ihc aoul, ind Ibe
terrible cunaei|ueiice) nececaarily ini'olFed iu tbe idea
PHILARCHES
81
PHILAKET
rf m etenul banishment from tbe sanshine of the di-
m* pTRieoce, bas created an amount of Bocial benero-
kaee aod miasionaiy zeal irbicb under any less potent
ftuDoliB wonld hare been impossible. The miseńes of
tbe morę negiected and outcast part of humanity pre-
mnt ta entireiy different aspect to tbe calm Epicnrean
sad to the zealous Christian. To tbe Christian the soul
i>rtbe mcanest sarage and of the most degraded crimi-
Bil ]s still an immortal souL Christian ethics reąaires
63 to loTe our enemies witbout betraying our rights,
md this will become morę and morę practicable in the
di-gree that intemational recognition becomes morę
^«}iDOD, and a large Christian philanthropy morę dif-
Id tbe history of edacation philanthropy bas ac-
ąsired a speeial meaning. The influence exercised by
Uniineau was not less great on education than on poli-
'ie% tnd was as visible in tbe pedagogues of Germany
isd SwitzerUnd as in tbe men of the French Kevolu-
ittm, ft is to tbe brilliant and one-sided advocacy, by
the latbor of Emile, of a retuni to naturę in aocial life
tftl in tbe trainiog of tbe young, that Basedow owed
b'< Rorel and enthusiastic educationalism, which he put
to tbe piactical test in tbe institution which was opened
mkr bis auq>aces at Drasaa in 1774, and which was
uIJed PkikaUAropma. Other establbhroents of the
siioe kind were founded in different parts of Germany,
but ihe odIt one wbich still survires is Salzmann'8 Insti-
uat u Scbnepfeothal, near Gotha, opened in 1784. These
I-hilaothropina ane of interest to us because tbey sought
tiie religious and morał training of the young on an en-
tiiely ońginal plan. Until the days of these Pbilan-
tbn^it«ts the Ćborch bad had the sole educational
cafe of the rising generation, but these came forward to
asuiDe thia respoiisibility, and to treat the cbild in a
pcołlisr and alu^ther novel manner. Tbe religious
frnror was to be developed like love for any given
^tudy. and, instcad of iniluencing tbe beart. religion be-
cime an intellectual acquisition. As philanthropism
a^T^ed DO less witb tbe absolutism of Russia than with
th« iibirrry of Switzerland, so, in tbe generał private de-
votkiiuit esercises, notbing should be done which would
wt U approred of by every worshipper of God, whether
be were a Christian, Jew, Mobamraedan, or a deisU
'^In tbe tempie of tbe Father of all, crowds of dissenting
filW^tizens will worsbip as brethren, and afterwards
they will, with tbe same fratemal disposition, go, one
to bear the holy mass, tbe other to pray with real
'Jf^ibrwi, *Our Falber,' the third to pray with real
bmbren, * Father of us.' While the former education
tiirl Yiewed tbe minds of cbildren as Yessels into which
i cenain amount uf knowledge and faitb was to be
uifused, whether it was easy or difficult, philanthro-
H^tD ńewed tbese yeseels as tbe chief thing, and the
iioomi of knowledge as only secondary. In other
*onl9. knowledge was regarded merely as a means of
training tbe buman mind; and tbe aim was the nat-
«wl development of all man*8 powers and faculties**
(Kahni*, Ifist, of Germ. Prot. p. 47). See the Quart,
^r, Jan. Ig75, art. vi ; Blackie, niaU of Europ, MoraU,
P. 236, 263; Wuttke, Ckrutitm Ethics (see Index in vol.
"i). (J.ILW.)
Philar^chia. This word occnrs as a proper name
w tbe A. Y. at 2 Mace viii, 32, wbere it U really the
J^ne of an officc, pkyłarck (ó ^vXapx»7C=ó <pv\apxoCj
"ibe cummander of the cavalry"). The Greek tcxt
J**^ to be decisive as to tbe true rendering; but the
Utin Yetsion («et Philarcben qui cum Timotbeo erat
■ • . ) migbt essily give rise to tbe error, which is vcry
««0€ely Bupported by Grimm, ad loc.— Smith.
Philaiet of Moscow, a modem Russian prelate
M mach ttlebritY, was bom of pious parentage at
Mouma in 1782. His lay name was VanlJ Drosdotc.
n« receired his education in tbe Tbeological Seminary
^ M08C0W. He oommenced bis public career bs tutor
« tbe Git^ and Utin languages. His oratorical gifts
V11L-F
being soon obseryed, he was appointed preacher in 1806
at the Sergian monastery of Troizka, and after having
remoTed to St. Petersburg, entered tbe monastic life,
in order to open to bimself the higher avennes of the
Church, which only the wbite clergy can enter. In
1810 be was translated to the Academy of Alexander
Newskj as bacbelor of tbeological science ; in 1811 he was
madę archimandrite, and in 1812 became rector of tbe
St. Petersburg Tbeological Academy. In 1817 he was
raised to tbe bishopric, and was appointed successiyely
bisbop of Twer, laroslaw, and Moacow. In the episco-
pal see of Moscow, to which he was appointed in 1821,
be remained until his death, Nov. 19, 180*7. As the sen-
ior Russian prelate, the eminent orator and professor,
the theologian justly renowned in the Christian world,
the strict supporter of the Church, and the true states-
man, Philaref, from his tenderest youtb until the last
day of bis prolonged life, was animated by a buming
and constant love for Russia. In the fuliilment of the
roission which fell to his lot, be elevated himself by bis
spirit above the time, and did not allow himself to be
captiyated by any narrowness of roind. All that knew
bim know likewise that in the height of his iutelligence
be considered the relative importanoe of all the mani-
festations in the Christian world, whether within or
witbout tbe ortbodox Church. He would not permit
the appellation of heretics to such of the Christian dis-
senters as bad come into exi8tence sińce the oecumeni-
cal councils, and conseąuently bad not been condemned
by them.' He was exempt from fanaticism in bis ad-
ministrations, and yet he knew the limits and measures
of that which stood below. His inexhaustible intellect,
sound counsels, and thorougb acquaintance with the re-
ligious and social life of tbe people madę bim the friend
of the crowned beads of Russia; and he was by them
selected as confidential adviser in all important ques-
tions conceraing the good of the empire. Alexander
I eyen told bim who was to be tbe successor to bis
throne bcfore tbe futurę emperor knew of it In the
late Crimean war his words and sacńdcing example re-
vived a patriotic feeiing throughout tbe land ; and to
bim is ascribcd tbe manifesto wbich led to the abolisb-
ment of the anti-Christiaii serfdom. For over twenty-
five years be was not.present at the Holy Synod, yet all
important documents conceming spiritual affairs were
submitted to bim ; and bb vivid words called out svm-
pathy witb tbe poor oo-religionists in tbe island of
Crete. In 1813 Pbilaret receired a decoration from the
emperor Alexander I for his oratory. Sermons, lect-
ures, etc., of bis have been pńnted in large numbers
and translated into foreign languages. The synodial
pńnting establishment at Moscow alone printed 360 of
his compositions to the number of 2,000,223 oopies.
Metropolitan Pbilaret was really one of tbe greatest
scholars of his Church. Almost all the now living
communicants of the orthodox Russo -Greek Church
have leamed its doctrines from the Catechism arranged
by him. His greatest work is his Hutory ofthe Rut-
ńan Churchf of which a German translation was brought
out in 1872. Tbia history was really the first work of
importance in Russian ecclesiastical annals. It was
publisbed from 1850 to 1859, and, by order of the Holy
Synod, was introduced into the ecclesiastical seminaries
(institutions ranking between the ecclesiastical schools
and ecclesiastical academies). Within ten years four
editions were publbbed. The author dirides the his-
tory of the Russian Church into five periods: the first
closes with the inroads of the Mongolians in 1237 ; the
second embraces the time of the subjcction of Russia bj'
the Mongolians, 1238 to 1409; the third extends to the
establishment of a patriarchate, 1587; tbe fourth to the
abolition of the patriarchate in 1719; the fifth com-
prises the adrainistration of the Church of the Holy
Synod. (The value of the German translation is con-
siderably enhanced by an appendix coutaining Phila-
reŁ's treatise on the Litur^y ofthe Oi-u^it^l Greek Church
and the Catechism ofthe Orthodoz Christian Doctrine.)
PHILARET
82
PHILEMON
Philaret published, besides this bistory of the Knssian
Church, the following worka : A Systeni oj' Christian
Doctrines (2 rola.):— .4 Work on the Saints o/Bussia:
— Cyril and Methodiut^ the Apoftles o/ the Slavi: — The
Liiurgy ofthe Russian Church hefore the fnvasion o/ the
Mongoliom: — A Work on the Church Fathers (3 rola.,
and an extract from it as a text-book) : — A Commen^
tary to the Epistle to the Galatians: — An Outłine ofthe
Theological Literaturę of BusHa (2 vols.) i—Sermons^
ITomilieSj and A ddresses (4 vol8.)» of whicb a detailed ac-
count is given by Otto in his Rusnan Literaturę, Of his
personal appearance and kindness of heart dean Stanicy
makes mention in his East, Ch. l^ectures^ p. 525. As a
preacher, the dean descńbes Philaret as one of the first
of the present Church of Russia, ^* whose striking man-
ner renders his sermons impressiye eyen to those who
cannot follow the language." See Meth. Qu, Ree, July,
1873, p. 498 8q. ; Union Rev, March, 1869 ; Appletoii's
A nnuai Cyclop, 1867, art. Moscow ; Theohgisches Litera-
turblatt (Bonn, 1873, Jan. and ApriI); Zion^s Herald
(Boston), April 2, 1868; Otto, Russian Literaturę^ p.
824 są. ; 0Lxon, Free Russia, p. 29 8q. (J. H. W.)
Philaret, Theodorus Romanoff, third patriarch
of Kassia, a near relatiye by his mother of the last czar
of the blood of Rurik, was bom in the 16th century.
Thb relationship cAused him, in 1599, to be niade a
monk by Boris Godoanof. Eleyated in 1605 to the
episcopal chair of Rostof by Dmitri, he was in 1610 sent
on an erabassy to Poland, where he was retained, against
the law of nations, a prisoner for nine years. On his re-
turn to Bfoscow, In 1619, he found his son czar, who ap*
pointed him, June 24^ of this year, patriarch, and shared
with him his soyereignty, so that all the ukases were
giyen in their narae, and in all solemnities each had a
throne, one as high as the other. This interfereuce of
the patriarch in political affairs was fatal to Russia.
Michael Romanoff had been called to the throne on the
expre88 condition of reigning with the ooncurrence of
the chamber of the boyards and of the states-general,
which, from 1613 to 1619, had oome to be regarded as
a legislacire assembly. Philaret exiled the most dis-
tinguished boyards, and reduced the states-general to a
merely consultatire relation. Into spiritual affairs he
carried the same retrograde spiriL Without caring for
the advice of Oriental patriarchs, he ordained, in 1620,
that eyery member of a Christian confession who should
embrace the Russian religion must be baptized again, a
regulation which is still in foroe. He died at Moscow
Oct. 1, 1633. His pastorał epistles haye been collected
in the A ncienne Bibłiothecue Ruste, yoL xyi. See Chro-
mque de Nikon ; Iliat, ofthe Patriarch PhiUirete (in Rus-
sian) (Moscow, 1802, 8yo) ; Satiehtchef et Soloyief, HiS"
tory of Russia ; Eugene, Diet, Hist. s. y. ; Philarete,
archb. of Kharkof, Hist, de PEglise Russe ; Dolgoroukow,
La Yerite sur la Russie^ ch. vL— Hoefer, Nouv. Biog,
Generale, xxxix, 838.
Phllaster (Philastrius), a noted hieresiologist of
the ancient Latin Church, flourished in the łirst quar-
ter of the 4th century. He was probably a natiyc of
Italy, and came on the stage of theological actiyity
when the Arian controrersy was waxing hot, and hc
was soon intercsted in it as a most ardent urt)iodox
presbyter seeking the conyersion of strayed sheep of
the flock. He trayclled far and near, seeking evcry-
where the conyersion of the Arians, both high and Iow.
Thus, e. g., he went to Milan to conviuce bishop Auxen-
tius of the error of his ways. He was so well liked by
the clergy that he was finally elected bishop of Brescia
(Brixia), and as such took part in the Council of Aqui-
leia in 361. He died July 18, 387. Pbilastcr^s great-
est work is his Liber de hcsresibus (in 156 cliapters) (ed-
ited by Fabricius, Hnmb. 1728; by GalUnd, Bibliothe-
cOf yii, 475-521; and by CEbler in yoL i of his Corpus
hareseoloff. p. 5-185). There is an affinity of Philas-
ter with Epiphanius, but it is usually accounted for on
the grouud of the dependence of the furmer on the lat-
ter. This seems to haye been the opinion of Au^tjstine
{Epistoła 222 ad QuodvuUdeum). But Lipsiiis derive8
both from a common older souroe,yiz. the work of Hip-
polyttts against thirty-two heresies, and expUins the
silence of Epiphanius (who mentiona Hippolytus only
once) by the unscrupulousness of the authorship or the
age, which had no hesitation in decking itself with bor-
rowed plumes. Philaster was yery liberał with the
name of heresy, extending it to 156 systema, 28 before
Christ, and 128 after. He includes peculiar opinion s
on all sorts of subjects: "Haeresis de stellis oo^lo af-
fixis, hseresis de peccato Cain, hieresis de Psalteńi iu-
equaUtate, hieresb de animalibus quatuor in prophetis,
hseresis de Scptuaginta interpretibus, hseresis de Iklel-
chisedech sacerdote, hasresis de uxoribu8 et coneubinis
Salomonis !" Philaster*s writings first appeared in print
at Basie in 1528, edited by Sichardus; they were re-
printed in 1539 at Basie, and at other placea. In 1G77
they were inserted in the BibUotheca Patrum Maximaj
y. 701 sq. But the best edition is by Fabricius (Hamh.
1721), with a VUa Philastri, See Schrockh, Kirchea-
gesch, ix, 363-382; Schaff, Ch, Hist. iii, 931 są.; Alzog,
Patrologie, ^Q&, (J.H.W.)
PhilSaa of TniTMiTiic, an Eastem prelate, floiir-
ished in the 3d century as bishop of Thumitse, in Kgypt.
He was of noble family, and in his native place fllled the
highest offices, and was distinguished for his piety and
leaming. On accoant of his faith, he was persecuted
at AIexandria, and died as a martyr about 307 or 311.
He lef^ a work in praise of martyrdom. See Fabricius,
BibL Graca^ vii, 306; Mohler, Patrologie^ i, 678 sq.;
Routh, Rei. Sac iii, 381 8q.
Phile^mon (^cX^/ia)v, aJjTectionate), a Christian to
whom Paul addressed his epistle in behalf of Onesimus.
A.D. 57. He was a natiye probably of CoIossk!, or at
all cycnts liyed in that city when the apostle wrote to
him ; first, because Onesimus was a Colossian (Gol. iv,
9); and, secondly, because Archippus was a Coloss^ian
(yer. 17), whom Paul associates with Philemon at the
beginning of his letter (Philem. 1, 2), Wieseler {Chro-
nologie, p. 452) argucs, indeed. from Col. iy, 17, that Ar-
chippus was a Laodicean ; but the ctsrare in that pas-
sagę on which the point tunis refers eyidently to the
Colossians (of whom Archippus was one therefore), and
not to the Church atLaodicea sfioken of in the previous
yerse, as Wieseler inadycrtently supposcs. Theodoret
(JProam, in Epist. ad PhiL) States the ancient opinion in
saying that Philemon was a citizen of Colossie, and that
his house was pointed out there as late as the 5th cen-
tury. The legendary history supplies nothing on which
we can rely. It is related that Philemon became bishop
of Colossie (Constit, A post, vii, 46), and died as a martyr
under Nero. From the title of " fcllow-workman" (aw--
tpyóc) given him in the first yerse, some (Michaclis,
Einleit. ii, 1274) make him a deacon, but without pnjof.
But, according to Pseudo-Dorotheus, he had been bishop
in Gaza (see Witsius, Miscel, Leidens. p. 193 są.). Tho
Apphia mentioned in the epistle was nearly oonnectcd
with Philemon, but whcther or not she was his wife
there are no means of dctennining (comp. esp. Hof-
mann, Introd, in Episł, ad Colos, p. 52 sq.; Bertholdt,
EiłUeit, vi. 3631 8q.). It is apparent from the letter to
him that Philemon was a man of property and infiuence,
sińce he is represented as the head of a numoroits
household, and as exercising an expensiye liberaliry to-
wards his friends and the poor in generał. He was in-
debted to the apostle Paul as the medium of his per-
sonal partidpation in the Gospel. All interpretera agree
in assigning that significance lo 9tavTCv fioi Trpooofti-
\hc in Philem. 19. It is not certain under what cir-
cumstances they became known to each other. If Paul
yisitcd Colossie when he passed through Phr^-gia on his
second missionary joumey (Acta xvi, 6), it was un-
doubtedly there, and at that time, that Philemon hcard
the Gospel and attached himself to the Christian party.
On the contrar}"-, if Paul neyer yisited that city in per
PHILEkON, EPISTLE TO 88 PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO
no, as many eńtics infer from CoL ii, 1, then the beat
\Kv ia Łhct be was conveited dnńng PauFe protracted
itar at Ephesua (Acta xix, 10), A.D. 51-54. That city
v» tbe religious aud oommercial capital of Western
Asta Mioor. The apostle labored there with auch auc-
cfss that "all tbey wbo dwelt in Asia heard tbe woni
(if th« Loid Jesas.** Phrj^gia was a neigbboring prov-
iaee,tod among the strangera who lepaired to fipheaua,
lad bad an opporŁunity to hear tbe preacbing of Paul,
BMT hare been the Coloasian Philemon. It is evident
t\aŁ on becoming a disdple, be gave no comraon proof
c^f ihe sincerity and power of bis faitb. Uls cbaiacter,
13 shadoved forth in tbe epistle to him, is one of tbe
Btbfest whicb tbe aacred record makea known to ua.
He was foli of iaith and good worka, was doctle, confid-
iag, gntefa], was forgiving, aympatfaUing, obaritable,
aod a man wbo on a ąnesdon of simple jusUce needed
islj a hint of hia daty to prompt him to go even be-
Tond it {vTip o \iyv irouieiic), Any one wbo atudies
tbe episde wiU perceive tbat it ascribes to bim tbeae
Tińed qiialŁtiea ; it bestows on bim a measure of oom-
BKodatifHŁ which forma a atrtking oontrasŁ witb tbe or-
iliaanr reaerye of the aacred writera. It was througb
icch belłCTers that the primitive Christ ianity evinced
iu dirioe origin, and apread ao rapidly among the na-
U3DŃ— Smith : Winer. See Paul.
PHILEMON, Epistlr to. Thia is tbe sborteat and
(with the exception of Uebrews) the last of PauPa let-
teis as ananged in most editions of the N. T. (In the
fciloving treatment of it we rely chiefly apon the state-
BłesU in Kitto*s and Smith's Dictionaries,')
I AitUutrdup. — ^Tbat tbis epistle was written by the
q«8tle Faul is the constant tradition of the ancient
Cborch. It 18 espreasly cited as such by Origin
{UmiL 19 m Jtrtm, i, 185, ed. Huet.) ; it is referred to
as soch by Tertullian (iVbr. Marc, v, 21); and both
Einebias \BiML Ecdea, iii, 25) and Jerome {Procem, m
EfhodPkiUm. iv, 442) attest its uniyersal reoeption as
»ch in the Christian worlii Tbe latter, indeed, in-
furnu 03 that some in his day deemed it unworthy of
a piaoe in the canon, in conaeąuence of its being oocu-
pKd with aubjects which, in their estimation, it did not
|>*coffle an apostk to write aboat, aave aa a merę priyate
iodiTidual; but tbis be, at the same time, ahowa to be a
aetake, and repodiates tbe legitimacy of such a stand-
sni for eatimating tbe genuineness or anthority of any
bc«k. That tbis epistle sbould not have been qaoted
^ KTeral of the fathers wbo bave quoted largely from
ibe otber Pauline eptatlea (e. g. Iremeos, Clement of Al-
(undria, and Cyprian), may be accounted for partly by
tbe brerity of the epiatle, and partl}' by their not hay-
in« oocaaion to refer to the aubjecta of which it treats.
We Deed not oige the espressions in Ignatius, cited as
tTidence of that apoatolic father^s knowledge and use
fif tbe epistle; thoagh it is difficult to regard tbe simi-
^(j between them and tbe Unguage in v, 20 as alto-
l^tber accidental (aee Kircbhofer, Otteiktuammlung, p.
^'^J' Tbe Canon of Muratori, which comea to ua from
^^ id centuiy (Credner, Getchichte des Kanont, p. 66),
coDineratea thia as one of PauFa epistles. Tertullian says
'W Mardon admitted it into his ooUection. Sinope, in
P(«tos, tbe birtbplace of Marcion, was not far from Co-
^J^st where Philemon Iived, and the letter would find
Its way to the neigbboring churches at an early period.
" is 80 well attested historicaliy, that, as De Wette says
(^'(•Znfinij^ ina Xeue Tesiameni), its genuineness on that
groaudisbcyonddoubt.
Nor does the epistle itself ofTer anything to conflict
^th tbu deciaion. It ia impossible to conceiye of a
J]^poAti(m morę atrongly marked witbin the aame
hoiits by tboae nnstudied assonancea of thought, aenti-
^^ nd ejcpression, which indicate an author'8 band,
^ tbis ahort epistle as compared witb PauFs otber
If*^^^'*c<ioiHi Paley bas adduced the undesigned coin-
^^*^*ogta between tbis epistle and that to the Colosaians
^b gitat ibrce, as eyincing the autbenticity of both
[Hirrm Poafiw, c. 14) ; and Eichbom bas ingenioualy
ahown how a person attempting, with the Epiatle to tbe
Colosaians before him, to forge auch an epistle as tbis in
the name of Paul, would have been naturally led to a
yery different arrangement of the bistońcal circum'*
sŁances and peraona from what we find in the epistle
which is extant {Ewieit, vu N, T, iii, 302).
Baur {Paulus, p. 475) would diyest tbe epistle of its
historical character, and make it tbe peraonified illus-
tration from some later writer of the idea that Chris-
tianity uuites and ęqualize8 in a bigher aense tbose
whom outward circumstanoes baye separated. He does
not impugn tbe extemal eyidence. But, not to leave
his theory wbolly unsupported, be snggests aome lin-
guistic objections to Paiłl*s authorship of tbe letter,
which must be pronounoed imfonnded and friyolous.
He finds, for example, certain words in the epistle
which are alleged to be not Pauline; but, to jostify tbat
assertion, be must deny the genuineness of such otber
letters of Paul as bappen to coutain these words. He
admits that the apostle could haye said av\ayxviŁ
twioe, but thinks it snspicious that be sbould say it
three times. A few terms be adduoes which are not
osed elsewbere in the epistles; but to argue from these
that tbey disproye the apostolic origin of the epistle
is to assume the absurd principle that a writer, after
haying produced two or three compositions, must for
the futurę confine bimaelf to an unyarying circle of
worda, whateyer may be the subject he discusaes, or
whateyer the interyal of time between his different
writings. The arbitrary and purely subjectiye charac-
ter of such criticiama can haye no weigbt against the
yaried teatimony admitted as decisiye by Christian
acbolars for ao many ages, upon which tbe canonical
authority of the Epistle to Philemon is founded. Tbey
are worth repeating only as illustrating Baur*8 own re-
mark that modem criticism in asaailing tbis particular
book runa a g^eater risk of expo«ing itself to the impu-
tation of an excea8iye distrust, a morbid sensibility to
doubt and denial, tban in ąueationing tbe claima of any
otber epistle ascribed to PauL See Paui«
II. Penon A ddressed,^ The epistle is inscribed to
Philemon; and with him are joined Apphia (probably
his wife), Archippus (his son or brother), and tbe Cburch
which is in their house, though tbroughout the epistle
it ia Philemon alone who is addressed. Philemon was a
personal friend and apparently a conyert of the apostle
(yer. 13, 19) ; one who had exerted bimself for tbe cause
of tbe Gospel and the oomfort of tbose who had em-
braoed it (yer. 2-7). His residence was probably at Co-
losssB (comp. CoL iy, 9, 17); but whetber he held any
Office in the Cburch there remains uncertain. In tbe
Apottolical Constitutiona (yii, 46) he is said to haye
been ordained bishop of the Cburch, but tbis is not sus-
tained by any otber testimony, and is expreeely denied
by tbe author of the commentary on St, Paul*s epistles
ascribed to Hilary. See Philemon.
Wieseler is of opinion that Philemon was a Laodi-
cean ; and that tbis epistle is tbat mentioned (Col. iv,
16) as sent by the apostle to the Cburch in Laodicea.
His ground for tbis is that the epistle is addressed to
Archippus as well as Philemon, and he assumes that
Archippus was bishop of the Cburch at Laodicea ; partly
on tbe authority of Theodoret, wbo says he resided at
Laodicea; partly on tbat of the Apostolicul Corutitutiona
(vii, 46), which aay he was bishop of the Cburch there;
and partly on tbe connection in which the reference to
bim in CoL iv, 17 stands witb tbe reference to tbe Cburch
at Laodicea, and the injunction giyen to the Colossians
to conyey a roessage to him conceming fidelity to his
office, which it is argued would haye been sent to bim-
self had he been at Cołossse. But tbe autborities cited
haye no weigbt in a matter of tbis sort ; nor can the
merę juxtapo8ition of tbe reference to Archippus with
the reference to the Cburch at Laodicea proye anything
as to the residence of tbe former ; and as for the injunc*
tion to counsel Archippus, it is roore likely tbat it wotdd
be giyen by the apostle in a letter to the Cburch to
PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO 84 PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO
which he belonged thtn to anothcr Church. On the
oŁher hand, suppoeing Philemon to have becn at Laodi-
cea, it is not credible Łhat the apostle would have re-
que8ted the Colossians to send to Laodicea for a letter
addressed eo excla8ively to him penonalh^ and relating
to matters in which they had no immediate interest,
withotiŁ at least giying Philemon some hint that he
intended the letter to be 8o used. The letter to the
Church at Laodicea was doubtleas one of morę generał
character and interest tban this. See Laodiceams,
Epistlk to.
III. Timeand Płace o/Writwff.—Thia isgenerally held
to be one of the letters (the others are Epheiiianft, Colos-
sians, Philippians, and Hebrews) which the apostle wrote
duriiig his first captivity at Rorne. The arguments which
show that he wrote the Epistle to the Colossians in łhał
city and at thai period involye the same conclusion in
regard to this; for it is eyident from CoL iv, 7, 9, as
coropared with the contents of this epistle, that Paul
wrote the two letters at the same time, and forwarded
them to their destination by the hands of Tychicos and
Onesimus, who accompanied each other to Co1o(»8B. A
few modem critics, as Schulz, Schott, Bottger, Meyer,
maintain that this letter and the others assigned usually
to the iirst Roman captiyity were written during the
two years that Paul was imprisoned at Oesarea (Acts
xxiii, 35; xxiv, 27). fiut this opinion, though sup-
ported by some plausible arguments, can be demonstra-
ted with reasonable certainty to be incorrect. See Co-
lossians, Efistlb to thb.
The time when Paul wrote may be iixed with much
precision. The apostle at the close of the letter ex-
presses a hope of his speedy liberation. He speaks in
iike roanner of his approaching deliverance in his Epis-
tle to the Philippians (ii, 23, 24), which was written
during the same imprisonment. Presuming, therefore,
that he had good reasons for sucb an expectation, and
that he was not disappointed in the result, we may eon-
dudę that this letter was written by him early in the
year A.D. 58.
IV. Design and Effect, — Our knowledge respecting
the occasion and object of the letter we must derive frum
declarations or inferences fumished by the letter itself.
For the relation of Philemon and Onesimus to each
other, the reader will see the articles on those names.
Paul, so intimately connected with the master and the
seryant, was anxious naturally to effect a reoonciliation
between them. Ile wished also (waiving the ai/^cov,
the matter of duty or right) to give Philemon an oppor-
tunity of manifesting his Christian love in the treatment
of Onesimus, and his regard, at the same time, for the
personal convenience and wishes, not to say official au-
thority, of his spiritual teacher and guide. Paul used
his influence with Onesimus (a^ćirc/it/^a, in ver. 12) to
induce him to return to Colossce, and place himself again
at the disposal of his master. Whether Onesimus as-
sented merely to the proposal of the apostle, or had a
desire at the same time to rerisit his former home, the
epistle does not enable us to determine. On his depart-
ure Paul put tnto his band this letter as eyidence that
Onesimus was a tnie and approred disciple of Christ,
and entitled as such to be received, not as a senrant, but
above a seryant, as a brother in the faith, as the reprc-
Bentative and eąual in that respect of the apostle him-
self, and worthy of the same consideration and love. It
is instructive to obsenre how entirely Paul identifios
himself with Onesimus, and pleads his cause as if it
were his own. He intercedes for htm as his own child,
promises reparation if he had done any wrong, demands
for him not oniy a remission of all penalties, but the re-
ception of sympathy, affection, Christian brotherhood ;
and, while he solicits these favors for another, consents
to receive them with the same gratitude and sense of
obligation as if they were bestowed on himself. See
Onesimus.
The result of the appeal cannot be doubted. It may
be assumed from the character of Philemon that the
apoRtle's intcrcession for Onesimus was not unar^ailin^.
There can be no doubt that, agreeably to the expresa
instructions of the letter, the*past was forgiyen ; the
master and the 8er\'ant were reoonciled to each other;
and if the liberty which Onesimus had asserted in a
spirit of independence was not conceded as a boon or
right, it was enjoyed at all events under a form of ser-
vitude which benceforth was such in name only. So
much must be regarded as certaiii ; or it foUows that the
apostle was mistaken in his opinion of Philemon*8 char-
acter, and his efforts for the welfare of Onesimus were
frustrated. Chrysostom declares, in his impassioncd
style, that Philemon must have been less than a maii,
must have been alike destitute of sensibility and reason
(ttoioc Xi3oc, iroioy ^piov)j not to be moved by the
arguments and spirit of such a letter to fulfil every wish
and intimation of the apostle. Surely no fitting response
to his pleadings for Oneelmus could involve less than a
cessation of everything oppressive and harsh in his ci vii
conditiou, as far as it depended on Philemon to mitigate
or neutralize the erils of a legalized system of bonda^e,
as well as a cessation of eyeiything yiolatire of hia
rights as a Christian. How much farther than this an
impartial explanation of the epistle obliges us or author-
izes us to go has not yet been settled by any yery gen-
erał oonsent of interpreters. Many of the best cricics
construe ccrtain expTossions (ró ayadóv in rer. 14, and
vvrip d Aeyctf in yer. 21) as conreying a distinct expec-
tation on the part of Patd that Philemon would liberate
Onesimn& Nearly all agree that he could hardly harc
failed to confer on him that fayor, even if it was not rc-
quested in so many words, after such an appeal to his
sentiments of humanity and justi(%. Tbus it waF, as
Dr. Wordsworth remarks (St. PauPs Epistksj p. 328),
*'by Christianizing the master that the Gospel enfran>
chised the slaye. It did not legislate about merę nam es
and forms, but it went to the root of the evil, it spoko to
the heart of man. When the heart of the master was
filled with divine grace, and was warmed with the loyc
of Christ, the rest would soon follow. The lips would
speak kind words, the hands would do liberał things..
Every Onesimus would be treated by erery Philemon
as a beloyed brother in Christ." See Slayery.
V. Contents. — The epistle commences with the apos-
tle*s usual salutation to those to whom he wrote ; after
which he affectionately alludes to the good reputation
which Philemon, as a Christian, enjoyed, and to the jny
which the knowledge of this afforded him (rer. 1-7).
He then gently and gracefully introduces the main sub-
ject of bis epistle by a reference to the spiritual oblip:a-
tions under which Philemon lay to him, and on che
ground of which he might utter as a command what be
preferred urging as a request. Onesimus is then intro-
duced ; the change of mind and character he had expe-
rienced is stated ; his offence in deserting his master is
not palliated; his increased worth and usefulneas are
dwelt upon, and his former master is entreated fo re-
ceive him back, not only without severity, but with the
feeling due from one Christian to another (ver. 8-16).
The apostle then delicatcly refers to the matter of córa-
pensation for any loss which Philemon might have sus-
tained, either throngh the dishonesty of Onesimus or
simply through the want of his ser%'ice; and though he
reminds his friend that he might justly hołd the lattcr
his debtor for a much larger amount (secing he owed to
the apostle his own self), he pledges himself, under his
own band, to make good that loss (ver. 17-19). The
epistle concludes with some additional expressions of
friendly solicitude ; a request that Philemon would pre-
parę the apostle a lodging, as he trusted soon to visit
him ; and the salutations of the apostle and some of
the Christians by whom he was surrounded at the time
(ver. 20-25).
VI. Character, — The Epistle to Philemon has one pe-
ctiliar feature — its (estheticnł character it may be termed
— which distinguishes it from all the other cpistles, and
demands a special notice at our hands. It has bccu de-
PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO 85
PHILIP
^eTvtdiy admired as a model of delictcy and skill in the
•kpartmeot of oompoaitioa to which it belonga. The
rriter had peculiar diffictilties to oyercome. He was
:!» cooDioii friend of the parties at variaiice. He must
ci4)dliate a man who sapposed that he had good reason
'O be oflbided. He must commend the oifender, and
m Deicher denj nor a^grarate the impuŁed fault. He
9o«t saMit the new ideas of Christian eąuality in the
fke din trystem which hardly reoognised the homanity
i f tb« enaiared. He coold have plaoed the question on
tl:- ground of his own penonal rights, and yet must
«aiTe thcm in order to secure an act of spontaneous
LjtdaesB. His sucress must be a triumph of love, and
j 4}ang be demanded for the sake of the jusUce which
eaokl bare ciaimed ererything; He limits hia reąuest
'^.'1 (jo^Tenesa of the alleged wrong, and a restoration
r> £ivor and the enjoyment of futurę 8}'mpathy and af-
f-fticiu and yet would so guard his words as to leave
»fi Ibr all the generoeity which benevolence might
^nape t^wards one whoae conditaon admitted of so
csch aOeriation. Thcse are oontrarieties not easy to
Itmoaiu ; but Patii, it is confessed, has shown a degree
^/^dMeoial and a tact in dealing with them which, in
bfinę tątul to the occasion, could hardly be greater.
Thi3 Imer, says Eichhom, is a Toucher for the apostle^s
Bitanity. poUteneas, and knowledge of the world. His
^Tocscy of OnesiiDus is of the most insinuating and
pfnanire cbaracter, and yet without the slightest per-
rmaa or ooocealment of any fact. The crrors of Ones-
iom are admitted, as was nccessary, lest the just indig-
eatica of his master against him should be roused anew ;
\4A they are alluded to in the most admirable manner :
:be good side of Onesimus is brought to view, but in
■Bcb 1 way as to facilitate the friendly recept ion of him
^y his master, as a oonseąuence of Christianity, to which
^ bid. during hia absenoe, bcen conTerted ; and his fut-
'Ji Meltty is Toucbed for by the noble principles of Chris-
'jaaiif to which he had bcen conrerted. The apostle
■^^flreM Philemon on the soflest side : who would wil-
fiłllT Rfa« to an aged, a suffering, and an unjustly im-
prianed friend a request? And such was he who thus
pi«»ded for OnesimuM. The person recommended is a
CbiiAiin, a dear friend of the apostIe*s, and one who
^ persooally serred him : if Philemon will receive
kim kimlly, it will alTord the apostle a proof of his love,
a»l jield him joy. What need, then, for long urgency ?
Tbe spoetle ia certain that Philemon will, of his own
&xT«d, do eyen morę than he is asked. Morę cogently
nd morę conrteonaly no man could plead {KinUU, int
X r. iii, 300).
Tb«Te is a letter extant of (he yonnger Pliny (Epist,
i^.i\) which he wrote to a friend whose senrant had
■S^^cned him. in which he intercedea for the fugitive,
«bo vas anxioiia to return to his master, but drćaded
>be effects of hia anger. Thus the occasion of the cor-
^^^"ondenot waa Mmilar to that betwecn the apostle and
hiileaion. It has occurred to scholara to compare this
»l<tiatcd ktter with that of Paul in^ behalf of One»-
w; and aa the resolt they hesitate'not to say that,
not ofoly in the spirit of Christian love, of which Pliny
w ignorant, but in dignity of thought, argument, pa-
t^. beaaty of style, eloquence, the cummunication of
tŁ« apcKtle is raatly superior to that of the polLshed Ro-
■Mwńter.
VIŁ Cammteniarieś. — The following are the special
'le^ical helpa on this epistle: Jerome, CommnUarii
<-Q Opp, rii, 741); also Pseudo-Hicron. id. (ibid. xi);
<łi7Nostom, ffomilia (in Opp. xi, 838; aiao ed. Kaphe-
^^ in the Uttcr^s A tmoiatumes, ii) ; Alcuin, Explanatio
'i^ Opp, 1^ ii); Calvin, Commentarius (in Opp,; also in
tadi^h, by Pringle, in the lattefs Commenł. on Tim, ;
«5«1 by Edwarda, in the Bib. Rfpot, 1836) ; Brentz, Com-
^nrU (in Opp. vii); Pamelius, CommetUariołus (Ka-
'«oi Msari, Opp. v) ; Major, Knarratio (Vitemb. 1565,
""•>: Danrós Commentaritts (Genev. 1579, 8vo); Hv-
T7i«s. Commrmtarius [indiid. Tim. and TiL] (Tigur.
^-1 M.) ; Fcuardent (R. C), Commenłarius (Paris,
1588, 8vo); Rollock, Commentariuś (Genev. 1602, 8vo) ;
AtteraoU, CommerUary (Lond. 1612, 1633, fol.); Genti-
lis, Commentariuś (Norib. 1618, 4to); Dykę, Krpońtum
(Lond. 1618, 4to; also in Dutch, in hia Werckey Arost.
1670, p. 798); Rapiue (R. C), Exposiłion [French]
(Par. 1632, 8vo); Jones, CommenŁary [includ. Heb.]
(Lond. 1635, fol.) ; Himrael, Commentariuś (Jen. 1641,
4to); Yincent (R. C), Krplicatio (Par. 1647, 8vo) ; Cru-
I cius, Yerklaaring (Harlem, 1649, 8vo) ; Habert (R. C),
I Ejrposifio [includ. Tim, and TiL] (Par. 1656, 8vo) ;
Franckenstein, Ohsewationes (Hal. 1657, 4to; Ltps. 1665,
12mo); Taylor, ComiiMi/aWiM (Lond. 1659, fol.) ; Hum-
t mel, Krplanatio (Tigur. 1670, foL) ; Fecht, Erpositio
I (Rost, 1696, 4to) ; Schmid, Paraphrasis (Hamb. 1704,
4to, and later); Smalridge, Sermon (in SermonSj Oxf.
1724, foL); Layater, Predigt. (St. Gall, 1785 sq., 2 vols.
8vo) ; Klotzsch, De occasioney etc (Yiteb. 1792, 4to) ; Nie-
meyer, Program. (Hal. 1802, 4to) ; Wildschut, I)e dio
tione, etc. (Tr. ad Rh. 1809, 8vo); Buckminster, Sermon
(in SermonSf Bost. 1815) ; Hagenbach, Interprełatio
(Basil. 1829, 4to) ; Parry, Exposiłion (Lond. 1834, 12mo);
Rothe, Inierpretatio (Brem. 1844, 8vo) ; Koch, Commm-
tar (ZUr. 1846, 8vo) ; Ktlhne, A usl^ng (Leipa. 1856,
8vo) ; EUlcott, Commentarjf (Lond. 1857, 8vo) ; Hackett,
Retised Translation (Amer. Bibie Union, 1860, 12mo) ;
Bleek, Yorlesungen [includ. Ephes. and Coloss.] (BerL
1865, 8vo); Lightfoot, Notes [includ. Coloss.] (Lond.
1875, 8vo). See Epistle.
Phile^tua (^iXł}roc, belored)^ an apostatę Chris-
tian, possibly a disciple of Hymenieus, with whom he is
associated iu 2 Tim. ii, 17, and who is named without
him in an earlier epistle (1 Tim. i, 20). A.D. 58-64.
Waterland {fmportance ofthe Doctrine ofthe Uoly Triw
ity^ eh. Ir, in his Works, iii, 459) condenses in a few
lines the substance of many dissertations which have
been written conceniing their opiniuns, and the sen-
tence which was inflicted upon at least one of them. .
" They appear to have been persona who believed the
Scriptures of the O. T., but misinterpreted them, alle-
gorizing away the doctrine of the resurrection, and re-
8olving it all into figurę and metaphor. The delivering
over unto Satan seems to have been a form of excom-
munication dedaring the person reduced to the state of
a heathen ; and in the apostolical age it was accompa-
nied with supematural or miraculous effects upon the
bodies of the persons so delivered." Walch is of opin-
ion that they were of Jewish origin ; Hammond con-
nects them with the Gnostics ; Yitńnga (with less prob-
ability) with the Sadducees. They understood the res-
urrection to signify the knowledge and profession of
the Christian religion, or regeneration and conrersion,
according to Walch, whose dissertation. De Hymenteo
et PhiktOy in hU MisceUanea Sacra, 1744, p. 81-121,
seems to exhaust the subject. Among writers who
preceded him may be named Yitringa, Observ. Sacr.
iv, 9, p. 922-930; Buddieus, Ecclesia Apostoiica,v, 297-
305. See also, on the heresy, Burton, Bampton I^ctures,
and dean £Uicott's notes on the pastorał epistles; and
Potter on Church Goremment, eh. v, with reference to
the sentence. The names of Philetus and Hymenieus
occur separately among those of Csesar*8 househojd
whose relics have been found in the Columbaria at
Romę.— Smith. See Hymen^us.
Phil'ip (^^AcTTiroc, lover of horses), the name of
several men mentioncd in the Apocrypha and Josephus.
Those named in the N.T. will be uoriced separately below.
1. The father of Alexander the Great (1 Mace i, 1 ;
vi, 2), king of Macedonia, B.C. 359-336. See Alexan-
DEił {the Great).
2. A Phrygian, left by Antiochus Epiphanes as gov-
emor at Jerusalem (RC. cir. 170), where he bi>haved
uirh great cruelty (2 Mace. v, 22), buniing the fugitive
Jews in caves (vi, 11), and taking the earlicst measures
to check the growing power of Judas Maccabieus (viii,
H). He is commonly (but it would seem iucorrectly)
identified with.
PHILIP 8
3. The fMter-brothet (airTpofat, in, 29} of Antio-
chiu Epiphane*, wham the king upon bi« deMh-bed
■ppoint«d re^nt of Svtia and guinIUn of hiaMit Anti-
ochia V, to the eKcIiuion of Lymm (ŁC. 164 ; 1 Macr.
vi, 14, 16, 55). He letuiiKd »ilh llie rayil lurcei from
Pereia (v<, 66) to iHonie the govemineDt, and occnpied
Alltioeh. But Lyiim, who wu al the tirae besieging
" thi Sanctuary" at JeruMlem, hautily madę terma with
Jiidas, and marched against him. LyBiu ttonned An-
lioch, and, according to Josephai (Ant. xii, 9, 7), put
Philip to death. In i tlacc. Thilip ia eaid to have fled
to P[4>l. PhilDmcbir on the death of Anliochua {i Mace.
ix, 29), though Ibe book woUins traceg of tbe other
aeeount <xiii, 23). See Antioch[I9 (Epiphaati).
4. Philip V, king of Macedonia, RC 220-179. Hia
wide anil aucceasful endeavo™ to alnngthen and eniarge
the Maccdonian dominion hmnght hiiD into coiifltet
wiih the Komana wben they were engaged in the cric-
ical war iiilh Carthage, Deaulloiy warfare followed hy
hoilow peace laated till the victory of Zama left the
Komana free for morę vigoroua measurea. Meanwhile
Philip had Consolidated his power, though he hait de-
gencrated into au unacnipuloua tjranL The flrat cam^
pai):^ of the Romana on the declaration of war (KC
200) vere not alteiided by any deciaive retnlt, but the
anival of Flamininua {B.C. 198) changed the aapect of
albira. Hiilip was driren from his commanding poM-
■he next year he lont the fatal batlle of Cynosctpbale,
and HB> obligcd to accede to the lenna dictated by bil
conąuerors. Tht
power, and waa
In I Mace viii. 5 the defeat of Philip "ia coupled with
that of Peneuł aa one of the nobleat (riumi^ of the
Uomana, — Smith.
PHILIP THE APOSTLE
ind defeated [hem. In 347 Philip wa* again or
irith hia gon of the aamename aa bimself, anil ili
ilghip waa continued to the following yeair, vi-łi
Philip celehntted with great aplendor the tbousaiid
annivenary of the building of Home. An imiripi:
number of wild beaita wen bnmght forlh aiid alau^
tered in the amphiiheatre andci^cu^ In the i>rxt yc;
!oaaul>hip of .f^milianua and Aquiliiius. a i
voltbr
claimed emperor a
lie legiom
named Carrilius Kfarini
killed Bbonly after. I>>i
ite of Ibeae prorincea, eent i hi I li
, but Deciui had no i»onvr arTi \-i
at his poBt than the aoldieia proclaimed bim cmpt^rt
Philip niarched againat Decius, learing his fjni
Komc. Thet«DanniesnietnearVen)na,where Phil
WBB defealed and killed, as aome say by hia orni ( itii>[
On the news rcachiiig Romę, the pnetorians killed Ij
son alao, and Decius waa acknowledged emperor iii '2i
Eutnipiua sules that both Płiilips, father and son, wei
numbered among the goda. It ia donbcful whethi
Philip wai really a Christian, hut i( seema rertaiii. i
■tated by Easehius and Dionyaius of AlenandriB, Ihi
under his reign the Christiana enjoyed fuli toleralioi
and were allowed to preach publidy. tiregoiy of Nysa
States tbatdaringlhal period all the inhabiunts of Ncc
Oeaarea,inPontHs,emhncedChri(tianity,overthrewth
idola, and caised templ« to the God of the Chri^ttani
It appears that Philip during his fire yeara' reie" P''^'
emedwith mildneasand juBtice,aad wal genenlly popu
lar. — Engtitk VycU>p,».y.
PbiUp (M. Jui.ius Pnii.iPFirB), eoiperoi of Romę,
anative of Bualra, in Tiachonitia, according to aomeau-
thoritica, after aert-ing with distinctioa in the Roman
armiea, was promuted by the lalei Gordiau to the com-
mand of the imperial guarda after the death of Mi-
aitheus, A.D. 243. In the fuUooing year be accompa-
nied (iordian in his expedition into Peiaia, where he
contrired to excite a mutiny amung the eoldieis by
complaining that the empcTor was loo young to lead an
■rmy in such a difficult undeitaking. The muCineers
obtiged Gordlan to acknowledge Philip aa hia coUeague;
and in a abort time Philip, wiahing to leign alime,
cauaed Uordian to be murdered. In a letter to the
senate hc ascribed the death of Gordian to illneaa, and
the aenate acknowledged bim as emperor. Having
maile peace with the Petsians, he led (he anny back
into Syria, and anived st Antioch for Ihe Eaater solem-
nities. EuaebiuB, who with other Chriatian writers
maintaina that Pbilip was a Christian, atates as ■ re-
port that he went vith hia wife to atl«nd the Christian
worahip at Antioch, but that Babila, biahop oT that city,
refnsed to penniC bim lo enter t>e church, as being
guilty of munier, npon which Philip acknowledgcd his
guilt, and placed himself in the ranks nf the penitenta.
This circumatance ia alao atated by John Chrj'»ostom.
Frum Anliorh Philip came to Rgme, and Ihe fnllowing
yeu, 345, asaumed the consalahip with T. ¥. Titianus,
BDd marchcd against the Caipl, who had uivaded Moe-
1. Aulkailii: //irto^y.— The Gospels coniain cnmpara-
tively scanty notices of this diaciple. A.D. 2&-28. He
ia mentioned aa being of Bethaaida, Ihe dly of Atldrew
and Peter (John i, 44), and apparenily wai among llie
GalilffSn peasants of that distrtct who flockcd to brar
the preaching of the Bapttat. The manner in wbirh
John speaks nf him, the icpotition by bim of the aelf-
same words with which Anrirew had broughl to Peter
the good newa that the Chriat had at last appeared, all
indicale a previou3 friendship with Ihe aoiu of JiMiah
and of Zebedee, and a conaequent participation in lhń(
Messianic hopea. 1'he cloae union of the twa in John
vi and xii suggeets that he may bave owed lo Andrew
the flrst lidings that the hnpe had beon fulGlIeil. The
aUtement that Jesus /ound him (John i, 43) implira a
previouB aeeking. To him Srat in the whole drcle uf
the disciplea netę epokcn the words so fuli of meaning,
"Folbjw me" (iWi). Philip was thus the fourth ofibe
apostles who aitachcd tliemse1ves to the person of Je-
sus— of those who " lelt all and followed him.' Asaoon
aa he bas leamed to know his Mast«r, he is eager to
communicate hia discovery to another who had alao
shared the aame expecUtiona. He speaka to Nalhsn-
ael, prohahly on his arTival in Cana (see Joba xxi, i;
comp. Ewald, Ofiek. v, 251), aa if they had not wi-
dom comaiuned togethcr of the inlimationa of ■ belf)
time, of a divine kingdom, which they Ibund in their
sacreil bnoks. We may well believc that be, like l>i>
friend, waa an "Israelile indeed in whom there nas w
guile." In tbe liats of tbe twelre apostles in tbe si-
PHILIP THE APOSTLE
87
PHILIP THE AI^OSTLE
Enptk Goipels, his name ib as unifoimly at the head of
ibe seoond gioup of four as the name of Peter is at that
<-f tbe firat (Silatt. x, 3; Mark iii, 18; Lukę vi, 14); and
ihi {acta Roonled b}' John give the reason of this pri-
sńtr. In thoee lists again we find his name unifunnly
eoipfed vith that of Bartholomew, and this has led to
tfae hjpotbeais that the latter is identical with the Na-
tbioael of John I, 45, the one being the personal name,
thf otber, Uke Baijonah or Bartiroanis, a patronymic.
Dooahison {Jcukar, p. 9) looka on the two as brothera,
bot ihe preciae mention of rby idtov ddt\^v in v, 41,
u J its ooaision berę, is, as Alford remarks (on Matt. x,
3 . sicainst thia hypothesis.
I^ilip apparently was among the first company of
di^pies who were with the Lord at the commencement
d his ministry, at the marriage of Cana, on his first
appearance as a propbet in Jenisalem (John ii). When
Joim was cast into prison, and the work of declaring
tbe glad tidings of the kingdom required a new com-
psoT of preacbera, we may belieye that be, like his
flnapankms and friends, recaved a new cali to a morę
«io«tant diadpleship (Matt. iv, 18-22). When the
Twelre were ^lecially set apart to Łheir office, he was
ftombered among them. The first three Gospels tell as
bjŁhhłg morę of him individually. John, with his
dianeceristic fialoess of personal reminiscences, records
a (ew signłficant ntterances. The eamest, simple-hearted
£uth vhich abowed itself in his first conyersion, reqaired,
it voałd aeem, an edocation ; one stage of this may be
traoed, acoordang to Clement of Alexandria (^Sirom, iii,
i^U in ^e history of Matt. yiii, 21. That Church fa-
ther asanmea that Philip was the disciple who urged
tlte plea, "Snffer me first to go and bury my father,"
aad who was reminded of a higher duty by the com-
BMsd, ** Ijtt tbe dead bury their dead ; follow thou me."
When the Galilaan crowds had halted on their way to
Jenisaleffl to hear tbe preachtng of Jesus (John vi, 5-9),
»3A were faint with bunger, it was to Philip that the
H^ttstum was put, *'Whence shall we buy bread that
tb€$e may eat?" "And this he said,'* John adds, *< to
|m:ive him, for he himself knew what he would do."
The answer, " Two handred pennyworth of bread is not
safficient for them that every one may take a little,"
sbov$ bow little be was prepared for the work of divine
power that foUowed. It is notioeable that here, as in
John i, he appears in dose connection with Andrew.
Bengel and others suppose that this was because the
c)^v^ of proriding food had been committed to Philip,
whik Chrysoetom and Theodore of Mopsuestia rather
lappose it was because this apostle was weak in faitb.
Anotber incident is brought before us in John xii,
^it Among the pilgrims who had oome to keep the
Paasorer at Jenisalem were some Gentile proselytes
(HcUenes) who had heard of Jesus, and desired to see
l^ira. The Greek name of Philip may have attracted
tlKm. The zealoos love which he had shown in tbe
c«e of Nathanael may have madę him prompt to ofTer
biouelf as their guide. But it is characteriatic of him
<^t he does not take them at once to tbe preaence of
^Kaster. ** Philip cometh and telletb Andrew, and
•sain Andrew and Philip tell Jesus." The friend and
felłow-townanian to wbom probably be owed his own
utirodttction to Jesus of Kazareth is to introduoe these
etnngeis also.
Tbere is a connection not difficnlt to be traced be-
tveeD this facŁ and that which foUows on the last re-
<^Rrace of Philip*s name in tbe history of the Grospels.
1^ doiie to aee Jesos gave oocańon to the utterance
o( Worda in which the Lord spoke morę distinctly than
^'CT of the presenoe of bis Father with him, in the voice
from bearen which manifested tbe Father^s will (ver.
^)< The words appear to have sunk into the beart of
tt least one of tbe disciples, and he brooded over them.
1^ itroog crarings of a paasionate but unenlightened
Uth led him to feel that one thing was yet wanting.
^^ heard their Lord speak of his Father and their
Pttber. He was going to his Father^s house. They
were to follow him there. But wby should they not
have even now a yision of the diyine glory ? It was
part of the childlike simplicity of his naturę that no
resenre should binder the expie8sion of the craving,
" Lortl, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us" (xiv, 8).
And the answer to that desire belonged also specially
to him. He had all along been eager to lead others to
gee Jesus. He had been with him, looking on him from
the very commencement of his ministry, and yet he had
not known him. He had thought of the glory of the
Father as consisting ui something else than the Truth,
Rigbteousness, Love that he had witnessed in the Son.
" Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou
not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath
seen the Father ; and bow sayest thou, then. Show us tbe
Father ?" (John xiv, 9). No other fact connected with
the name of Philip is recorded in the Gospels. Tbe
close relation in which we have seen him standing to
the sons of Zebedee and Nathanael might lead us to
think of him as one of the two unnamed disciples in the
list of fishermen on the Sea of Tiberias wbo meet us in
John xxi. He is among the company of disciples at
Jenisalem after the ascension (Acts i, 13) and on the
day of Pentecost.
2. Traditionary Notiees, — Bestdes tbe above all ia
uncertain and apociyphal. Philip is mentioned by Clem-
ent of Alexandria as baring had a wife and cbildren,
and as baving sanctioned the marriage of his daughters
instead of binding them to vows of chastity (Słrom, iii,
52 ; Euseb. H, E. iii, 80) ; and he is included in tbe list
of those who had borne witness of Chóst in their liyes,
but had not died what was commonly looked on as a
martyr'8 deatb {Stronu iv, 78). There is notbing im-
probable in the statement that be preached the Gospel
in Phrygia (Theodoret, in Psa, cxvi ; Niceph. //. E, ii,
86). Polycrates (in Euseb. H, E. iii, 31), bisbop of
Ephesus, speaks of him as having fallen asleep in the
Phrygian Hierapolis, as having had two daughters who
had grown old unmarried, and a third, with special gifta
of inspiration (iy^Ayi^ llvŁVfiaTi voXiTtvaafikinf)j who
had died at Ephesus. There seems, howeyer, in this
mention of the daughters of Philip, to be some confu-
sion between tbe apostle and the eyangelist, Eusebius
in the same chapter quotes a passage from Caius, in
which the four daughters of Philip, prophetesses, are
mentioned as liying with their father at Hierapolis, and
as buried there with him, and bimself connects this fact
with Acts xxi, 8, as if they referred to one and the same
person. Polycrates in like manner refers to him in the
Easter Gontroyersy, as an antbority for the Quartodeci-
man practice (Euseb. U. E, v, 24). It is noticeable that
even Augustine {Semu 266) speaks with some uncer-
tainty as to the distinctness of the two Philips.
Epiphanius (xxvi, 18) mentions a Gospel of Philip
as in use among the Gnostics. See Gospels, Spuri-
ous. The apocryphal **Acła PhiUppi^ are utterly wild
and fantastic, and if there is any grain of truth in them,
it is probably the bare fact that the apostle or the evan-
gelist labored in Phrygia, and died at Hierapolis. He
arriyes in that city with his sister Mariamne and bis
friend Bartholomew. The wife of the proconsul is eon-
verted. The people are drawn away from the worship
of a great serpent The priests and the proconsnl seize
on tbe apostles and put them to the torturę. John
suddenly appears with words of counsel and enconrage-
ment Philip, in spite of the waming of tbe Apostle of
Love reminding him that he should return good for
evil, curses the city, and the earth opens and swallows
it upk Then his Lord appears and reproves him for his
yindictiye anger, and those who had desoeuded to the
abysB are raised out of it again. The tortures which
Philip had suffered end in his deatb, but, as a punish-
ment for his offence, he is to remain for forty days ex-
cluded from Paradise. After his deatb a vine springs
up on the spot where his blond had fallen, and the juice
of the grapes is used for the Eucharistic cup (Tischen-
dorf, Ada Apoctypka, p. 75^4), Tbe book which eon-
PHILIP
88
PHILIP
tama Łhb nirratire w appuently oniy Łhe Uut chapter
of a larger bistoiy, and it fixes the joarney and the
deatb as after Łbe eigbth year of Trajan. It is uncer-
taiD wbether Łbe ot ber apocrypbal fragment professing
to give an aooount of his labon in Greece is part of tbe
same work, bat it is at least eąually legeodary. He ar-
fires io Athens clotbed, Uke tbe otber apostles, as Christ
bad commanded, in an outer doak and a linen tunic
Three bandred pbilosopben dispute witb bim. Tbey
find tbem8e1vcs baffled, and send for asństance to Ana-
nias, tbe bigb-priest at Jerusalem. He puts on bis
pontifical robes, and goes to Atbens at the bead of five
bnndred warriors. Tbey attempŁ to seize on tbe apo»-
tle, and are all smitten witb blindness. Tbe hearens
open ; tbe form of tbe Son of Man appears, and all tbe
idols of Atbens fali to tbe ground ; and so on througb
a succession of manrels, ending witb bis remaining two
years in tbe city, establisbing a Church there, and thcn
going to preach the Gospel in Partbia {ibid. p. 95-104).
Anotber tradition represents Scythia as the scenę of
his labors (Abdias, Hist. Apott. in Fabricius, Cod. Apoc
y, T, i, 739), and throws tbe guilt of his deatb upon
tbe Ebionites {Acta Sanctorunu, May 1). — Smith.
In pictorial art Philip is represented as a man of
middle age, scanty beard, and benevolent face. His
attribute is a cross wbich yaries in form — sometimes a
smali cross in his band ; again, a high cross in tbe form
of a T, or a staff witb a smali cross at the top. It bas
three significations : it may represent tbe power of the
cross wbich be held before tbe dragon ; or his roartyr-
dom ; or bis mission as preacher of the cross of Christ.
He is the patron-saint of Brabant and Luxembourg.
His anniyersaiy is May 1.
Phirip THE EvAN«Erj8T {^i\ixvoc O Łuayytki-
OTqc)f one of the original seren deacons in the Christian
Church. A.D.29. Thetirstmentionoftbisnameoccurs
in the account of the dispute between tbe Hebrew and
Hellenistic disciples in Acts vi He was one of tbe seyen
appointed to soperintend the daily distribution of food
and alms, and so to remove all suspicion of partiality.
Tbe fact that all the seven names are Greek, makes it
at least very probable that tbey were chosen as belong-
ing to the Hellenistic section of tbe Church, represent-
atiyes of the class wbich bad appeared before the apos-
tles in the attitude of complaint. The naroe of Philip
BUnds next to that of Stephen ; and tbis, together witb
the fact that these are tbe only two names (unless Nic-
olas be an exception ; comp. Nicolas) of wbich we
hear again, tends to the conclusion that he was among
the most prominent of those so cbosen« He was, at any
ratę, weU reported of as " fuli of tbe Holy Ghost, and
wisdom," and bad so won the affections of the great
body of belierers as to be among the objects of their
free election, possibly (assuming the votes of the con-
gregation to have been taken for the different candi-
dates) gaining all but tbe bighest number of suffrages,
Wbether the office to wbich be was thus appointed
gave bim tbe position and the title of a deacon of the
Church, or was special and extraordinary in its charac-
ter, must remain uncertain (Goulbum, ^4 c/« ofthe Dea-
cons, Lond. 1866). See Dbaoox.
The afler-history of Philip warrants the belief, in any
case, that his office was not aimply that of tbe later Di-
aoonate. It is no great presumption to tbink of him as
contributing bardly less than Stephen to the great in-
crease of disciples wbich followed on tbis fresb organ i-
zation, as shańng in that wider, morę expan8ive teach*
ing wbich shows itself for the first time in the oration
of the protomartyr,and in wbich he was the forerunner
of Paul. We sbould expect the man who had been his
companion and fellow-worker to go on witb the work
wbich be had left unfinished, and to break tbrough the
barriers of a simply national Judaism. So according-
ly we find bim in tbe next stage of his bistory. The
persecution of wbich Saul was the leader must have
Btopped the " daily ministrations" of the Church. The
teachers who bad been most prominent were compelled
to take to flight^ and Philip was among them. Tbe
ceasation of one form of activity, bowerer, only tlirew
him forward into anotber. It is noticeable that tbe city
of Samaria is tbe first scenę of his activity (Acts viii>.
He is tbe precursor of Paul in his work, as Stephen bad
been in his teaching. It falls to his lot, rather tban to
that of an apostle, tu take that first step in tbe victory
over Jewbb prejudice and the expaii«on of tbe Church,
according to its Lord*s command. As a preparat ion for
that work there may bave been tbe Messianic )K>|>es
wbich were cherisbed by tbe Samaritaus no less than
by tbe Jews (John iv, 25), tbe reoollection of the two
days wbich had witnessed the presence there of Christ
and bis disciples (ver. 40), even perbaps tbe cravin^
for spińtual powers wbich bad been roused by the
strauge influence of Simon tbe Sorcerer. The sccne
wbich brings the two into contact witb each other, in
wbich tbe magiciau bas to acknowledge a power ovcr
naturę greater than bis own, is interesting ratbcr as Lkv
longing to the life of the beresiarch than to that of the
erangelist. See Simon Magus. It suggcsts tbe in-
ąuir}' wbether we can tracę tbrough the dibtortioiis and
perversions of the ** bero of the romance of beresy/^ the
influence of that pbase of Christian trutb wbich was
likely to be prescnted by tbe preaching of the Helle-
nistic evangelist.
Tbis step is fullowed by anotber. He is directed l>y
an angel of the Lord to take the road that ied dowu
from Jerusalem to Gaza on tbe way to Egypt. See
Gaza. A chariot passes by in which there is a man of
anotber race, wbose coraplexion or w bose drcss sbowcd
him to be a nati ve of Ethiopia. From tbe time of Peani>
meticbus there bad been a Large body of Jews settled in
that region, and the eunuch or Chamberlain at tbe coiirt
of Candace might easily have oome acrom them and
their sacred books, might bave embraced their faitb,
and become by circumcision a prosclyte of rigbteousnesa.
He had been on a pilgriroage to Jerusalem. He may
have beard there of the new aect. Tbe bistory* that
fnllows is interesting as one of the few records in the
N. T. of the process of individual conrersion, and one
wbich we may believe Lukę obtained, during his resi-
denoe at Ciesarea, from the evangelist hiroself. The
devout proselyte reciting tbe prophecy which be does
not understand — the evangelist-preacher running at fuli
speed till he overtakes the chariot — the abrupt question
— the simple-hearted answer — tbe unfolding, from tbe
starting-point of tbe prophecy, of the glad tidings of
Jesus — the craving for the means of adroisaion to tbe
blessing of fellowsbip witb tbe new society— the simple
baptism in the first stream or spring— the instantaneous,
abrupt departure of the missionary-preacher, as of one
carried away by a divine iropulse — these help us to rep-
resent to our8elves much of the life and work of that
remote past On the hypothesis which bas just beeu
suggested, we may tbink of it as being tbe incident to
which tbe mind of Philip hiraself recurred witb most
satisfaction. A brief sentence tells us that he continued
his work as a preacher at Azotus (Ashdod), and among
the other cities which had formerly belonged to tbe Phi-
listines, and, foUowing the coast^line, came to Caesarca.
Herę for a long period we lose sight of bim. He may
have been there when the new convert Saul passed
througb on his way to Tarsus (Acts ix, 30). He msy
have contributed by his labon to the eager desire to be
guided farther into the Tnith which Ied to the conver-
sion of Cornelius. We can bardly tbink of him as piv-
ing up all at once the roissionary habits of his life. C»-
sarea, however, appears to have been the centrę of his
activity. The last glimpse of him in the N. T. is in the
account of PauPs jouniey to Jerusalem. It is to his
house, as to one well known to them, that Paul and
his companions tum for shcltcr. He is still known as
" one of the Seren." His work bas gained for him ihe
yet higher tiile of Eyaugeltst. See Evangelist. He
bas four daughters, who possess the gift of propheiic
utterance, and who apparently give them8elves lo tbQ
PHILIP 8
fołK^lfłcbing inMtid of enlering onthe lirc nrhome
(ui. f, 9). He u Yiaited by (he pro|ih«t9 aiid eldcn
•i irKStitHL At wch I place łs CKuiea the wurk
6! 9Kh ■ maD iDuat have hdpeillo bridgc otertlie cyct-
•iltiiiiii; gip wbich ibreilenełl lo wpirate the Je»i»b
mi iht lieniile cburcheh One wlio bid preached
ITiria 10 ihe bateil Samarlun, ihe swarthy African, ihe
^'!|.L<M I^UUliiie, Ihe men of all nitriuiit vfbo paH«a
ibmu^h Ihe seaport or Paleatiiie, mighc wtLI wetcume
ilu tiTiral uf ibe agwMte ol Ihe Ueiitiles. A.I). ba.
Tbt tnijiticnu iu nhich the evaLigeli«I ami (lie apmi-
UfTicbc Inre the umename are morę orlesscoiifuuiided
bitf bwn girm umler Philip the Apostle. Acoird-
it: 10 iDDlbf [, rrlating morę dislinctly to him, he dieil
U^orTia[leii(.-icTfa£atic(.JuneG). The house iii
ibirb be and his daughtera had liv«I was pointed aut
i> innllm in Ihe limę of Jerome {Epil. Paula, % S).
(umil. Ewald, Gacikitr, vi, 175,208-214; Baunigir-
M. ApMtb/atUcitr, g 13, 160— Smith. 1'he >a'er
mi:iBim(^i:fa Sunff. June 6).
FUl'ip Hkbod (*iXnrrat 'HripiiliK), a son uf Her-
bich-fineL He was the Ant huiband of Uerodias,
•bo wt9 tiken from him bv bis brolber Herud Aniipas
'Utu. lir, 3; Mark, vi, 17; Lakę iii, 19). A.U. antę
ii Hiving beeo dianherilcd by his falher, Philip ap-
\nn ID lure lived a priva(« Ufe. He is called Iłtrod
bvjMtphu9(.4BŁxvii, 1, 2; 4,2; Zr iii, 5, 1; War,i,
a.i: inj). SceHuioD.
Philip THE TCTRARCH (♦rtllTITOC U Tirpapxilt),
itioicb of Bataniea, T^achoniti^ and Auranitis [Uke
iu. II: ih« |i>ii latler appear to have bcen regarded by
Uttuifictuded in Iturca. Philip was tbe son ofHer-
"litłCreat by bis wife Clenpatra, and own broihet of
Hfim] Aniipis ; at hit deatb his letrarchy was anneied
ti Stiia, From biin Ihe city CiEiiareB Philippi took its
uwlJ«ephiu,^iif.xrii,l,3; xi,4i xviii,4,6: irur,
" ii, 6, S). PhiUp ruled from B.C 4 to A.D, 84.
WorJa (see Indejt).— Smith, Did. of Gr. and Ann.
Philip Of Hoscon-.
tury. Of his early bisiory
He held sevrrat of the n
([oveninient, and waa flnall
the Tenibl
prelate of much dis-
halfoflhe I6th cen- .
)w scarcely anylhing.
iportani ecdesiaatical
wia 10 Ihe saliefaction of both clergy and
and waa flnally, during the raign of Ivan
marte ptimate of ihe Ruiso-Greeli Church.
tiecause of ihe persona] cruellies in nhich the cur in-
dulged, and for hit honesly of purpose anti fnnliness of
declariliDn, Philip suffered martyidom. "It ii a true
glory of the Riusian Cburch, and an example lo Ihe
hierarchy of all churchcs, that its one martyred prelale
should liBve luflered, not for aiiy high eccieaiaatical pte-
teniions, but in the eimple canse of Jnitice and mercy.
' Silence,' he «id, as he rebulied Ihe czar, ■ laya sin upon
the Boul, and bringa dealh to ihe whole people. ... I
ara a alranger and a pilgrim upon eaith, a> all my fa-
Ihera were, and / om rtiidy W lufftr/or lit Imlh. Where
would roy faith be if I kept ailence? . . . Herę we ara
olTering up the bloodlesa aacriilcc to the Lord; while
behind the allar Sowa the inuocent blood of Christian
men.' As be was dragged away from tlie cathedral, bia
one word was 'Pray.' As he receired hi> eiecutionet
in the narrow celi of his priaon in Ihe convent of Lner,
he only aaid, 'Perform thv miswon.'" S«e Stanley,
IIUl. n/lht Eatltm CAunIi, p. 437. (J. H. W.)
Philip (SI.) or Nebi, See Neiii, Filippo,
FhlUp OF Oi-LS. Suidas (a v. «iXóoo^ai') has thU
remarkaliLe paasage: "- — > a philosopher who divided
Ihe /-<s». (ł De Lrsibu/) of Plato into twelre books (for
he ia aaid lo have added the thirtceiilh himielf), and
waa a hearer of Socrates and of Plato himself; devoting
himself lo Ihe coiitemplaiion of the hcavena (9xoXncTac
roTe ^iirtiupoii). He lived in the daya of Pbiiipof Slac-
' " Suiilas ihen gives a long list of worka written
le of the author
it Ibe head of
"^li- n Florę™*. He waa not the founder of the
n*r. baTing joined it llfteen yean afier its establiah-
»«l, bul be is Uieir principal aaint. See Seryiti.
PUUp or C.SSAREA ii a pseudo-name of one The-
tpiiilai ii(DaaiH,who flouriahed in the second halfot
^ ii ciDlury, and kept the aecount of Ihc eouncil held
if H» diy alUt wbich he is named in A.U. 196. See
Philip or GnomłA, a Christian wrilcr of the !d
'"""TT, Aaoriłhed as bishop of Ibe Church at Gortrna,
'1 IJ™, and waa apoiten of in Iha higheit lermi by
"iwriiiu of Coiinth in a letler to the Church at Gor-
'."» and the oiher churchea in Crete (apud Euaeb.
"«. t>rla. iv, 83), as haring inapired Lis /lock wiih
"Mir ojoraiie, apparently during the persecolions of
™v AoreliiB. Philip wrole a book against Mar-
^"/l- r.), Khich was bighly eateemeil by ihe aniienls,
wiiiiuwkiłt; Trithrmiusapeiksofit aaextant id bis
°•^ W bil eiactneaa aa to whether booka were in ex-
Wnrt w Ml i, not great, He also sUies thal Philip
"I"' '•'' Dirtrtot kpwlala and Yarii Traefntm, but
'T" •" «* meniioned bv the ancienls. See Eiiaebiua,
''«. f>i*Łiv, j|,S8, 35; Jerome, Oe lirit llluUr. c
': TrilbeoMas, ile Scriplor. EecUi.<:. 19; Cave, //uf.
'""'"" 72 (ed.Oifurd, 1740-1743}, i, 71; Lanbier, |
ly Philip. His
Suidaa la imperfeel, and ihat ibe ni
the numerous works which be mentions haa lieen lust
from the commencement of the passage. It appeira,
howcver, from the extract occiipyjng its proper place ia
the Lexicon according to its preacnt beading, thal Ihc
defect exiated In the aource from which Suidaa bor-
rowed. Kuster, the editot of Suiilus (no', in hc), afier
long iuvesligalion, waa enabled la aupply the omissiun
by comparinfc a passage in Diogenes Laerlius (iii. 37),
and to identify "the philosopher" of Suidas with Pbilip
of Ihe Locrian lown of Opus, near tbe cliannel wbich
separatea KuUia from tbe mainland. Tlie passage in
Loertiiis is as follows: " Some sav that Płiilip Ihe Opiin-
tian iranacribed bia (PUlo-s) wirk. Złe I^ibtii, whith
was writlcn inwax(i.e. on wooden lableta cavered with
a coat of wax). They »ay also tbat the ■Em^J/iic (Ihe
Ihirteenlh book of the fle ZłjtŁus) is his," i. e. Pbilip'a.
The Epinomi, wheiher writlen by Pbilip or by Plato,
is uaually included among tbe works of tbe latler. Di-
ogenes LaertiuB elsewhere (iii, 4C) enumerates Pbilip
among Ibediaciplea of Plato. Sec Fabricius, hibl. Grac
iii, 104.— Smith, Wrf. "/ er. oBif fiom, Yitoj. e. V.
Philip TiiE FnESBYTER, an Kaalern ecciesiaslic of
Ihe 5th centnry, waa, according to Gennadius (Ue Vitit
lOuHr. c G2),' a diaciple of Jerome, and died in Ihe
reign of Marcian and Avitus over the Easlem and
Western empires reapeclively, i. e. A.D. 456. Philip
wrole, 1. ComtufBlariut m Jobum ; 'i. fomiiiam Epit.
lala, at which Gennadius, who had read Ihem, speaks
highiy. These £purDlis have perished ; bot a Conmn-
lariiu m Jabam addressed to Ncciarins has becn lereral
times printed, aometimes separalely iinder Ihe nanie of
Philip (Basie. 1527. Iwo ediL fol. and 4io), and aome-
times under the name and among the worka of the Ven-
emble Beile and of Jerome. YalliTsi and the Bcnedicline
editon of Jerome give the Comtnmlariui in their edi-
iona of that fatbcr (v, G78, etc, cd. IfenedicL ; vol. xi,
PHILIP
90
PHILIP
coL 665, etc, cd. Yallarsi), but not as hia. The Prohgus
or Protfatio ad Nectarium are omitted, and the text
diflferd very widely from that giren in the Cologne edi-
tion of Bede (1612, foL iv, 447, etc), in which the wurk
is given as Bede's, without any intimation of its doubt-
fal autborship. Cave, Oudtn, and Yallarsi agree in as-
cribing the work to Philip, thougb Yallarsi is not so
decided in his opinion as the other two. See Gen-
nadius, L c. ; Cave, Ilist, Litł. ad ann. 440, i, 434 ; Oudin,
De Scriptor, Ecde*. voL i, col. 1165; Yallarsi, Ojtera
Ilieron, vol. iii, col. 825, etc; vol. xi, coL 565, 566; Fa-
bricius, Biblioth, Med, et Infitn, Latin. v, 295, ed. MansL
— Smith, Diet. of Gr, and Rom, Biog. iii, 290. .
Philip OF SiDE (ó £(^fri7c, or ó XiŁkTf\Ci or u arro
^iSric)j a Christian writer of the first half of the 5th
century, was bom probably in the lattcr part of the 4th
century. He was a native of Side, in Pamphylia, and
according to his own account in the fragment published
by Dodwell (see below), when Rhodon, w bo succeeded
Didymus in charge of the catechetical school of Al-
ejuindria, transferred that school to Side, Philip be*
came one of his pupils. If we suppose Didymus to have
retained the chai^e of the school till his death, A.D.
896, at the advanced age of eighty-six, the removal of
the school cannot have taken place long before the close
of the century, and we may infer that Philip*s birth
could scaroely have been earlier than A.D. 380. He
was a kinsman of Troilus of Side, the rhetorician, who
was tutor to Socrates the ecclesiastical historian, and
was indeed so eminent that Philip regarded his relation-
ship to him as a subject of exuItation (Socrates, Bisł.
Eccies, vii, 27). Having entered the Church, he was
ordained deacon, and had much intercourse with Chr>'-
sostom ; in the titles of some MSS. he is styled his Syn-
cellua, or personal attendant, which makes it probahle
that he was, from the early part of his ecclesiastical
career, connected with the Church at O)nstantinople.
Liberatus {Breviar, c 7) says he was ordained deacon
by Chrysostom ; but Socrates, when speaking of his in-
timacy with that eminent roan, does not say he was or-
dained by him. Philip devot6d himself to literary pur-
suits, and collected a large library. He cu1tivated the
Asiatic or diffuse style of composition, and became a
voluminous writer. At what period of his life his
diflerent works were produced is not knowii. His Ec-
clesiastical History was, as we shall see, written after
his disappolntment in obtaining the patriarchate ; but
as his being a candidate for that high office scems to
imply some previous celebrity, it maj' be inferred that
his work or works in reply to the cmperor Julian*s at-
tacks on Christianity were written at an earlier period.
On the death of Atticus, patriarch of (}onstantinople,
A.D. 425, Philip, then a presbyter, apparently of the
great Church of Constantinople, and Proclus, another
presbyter, were proposed, each by his own partisans, as
candidates for the vacant see ; but the whole people were
bent upon the election of Sisinnius, also a presbyter,
though not of O)nstantinople, but of a Church in Ehea,
one of the suburbs (Socrates, IJist. Eccłe*, vii, 26). The
statement of Socrates as to the unanimity of the popular
wish leads to the inferenoe that the supportcrs of Philip
and Proclus were among the clergy. Sisinnius was the
successful candidate ; and Philip, mortified at his defeat,
madę in his Ecclesiastical History such 8evere strictures
on the election of his morę fortunate rival that Socrates
could not vcnture to transcribe his remarks ; and bas ex-
pre^ed his strong disapproval of bis headstrong temper.
On the death of Sisinnius (A.D. 428) the supporters of
Philip were again desirous of his appointment, but the
emperor, to prevent disturbances, determined that no
ecclesiastic of Constantinople should succeed to the va-
cancy; and the ill-fated faeresiarch Nestorius, from An-
tioch, was conseąuently chosen. After the deposition
of Nestorius at the (jouncil of Ephesua (A.D. iS\\
Philip was a third time candidate for the patriarchate,
but was again unsuccessful. Nothing is known of him
after this. It has been conjectured that he was dead
before the next racancy in the patriarchate, A.D. 434,
when his old competitor Proclus was chosen. Certainly
there is no notice that Philip was again a candidate ;
but the prompt decision of the emperor Tbeodosius in
Proclus*8 favor prevented all competition, so that no in-
ference can be drawn from Philip^s quie9cence.
Philip wrote. Multa rolumma conti-a ImpercUcretn
Julianum Apostatom (Liberatus, Breriar, c 7; comp.
Socrat. łf. K, vii, 27). It is not elear from the expres-
sion of Liberatus, which we have given as the title,
whether Philip wrote many works, or, as is morc likely,
one work in many parts, in reply to Julian : — ^laropia
XpiaTiaviKi]f Historia Christiana. The work was very
large, consisting of thirty-six Bł/3Xoi or Bip\ia, LU>ri,
each 8ubdivided into twenty-four ró/iot or Aóyoi, i. e.
sections. This voluminous work seems to have com-
prehended both sacred and ecclesiastical history*, b^in-
ning from the creation, and coming down to Philip'6
own day, as appears by his record of the election of
Sisinnius, already noticed. It appears to have been
iinished not very long after that event. Theophanes
places its completion in AM, 6922, Alex. »ra = A.D. 430 ;
which, according to him, was the year before the death
of Sisinnius. That the work was oompieted before the
death of Sisinnius is probable from the apparent silenoe
of Philip as to his subsequent disappointments in ob-
taining the patriarchate ; but as Sisinnius, according to
a morę exact chronology, died A.D. 428, we may eon-
clude that the work was fiuished in or before that year,
and, consequently, that the datę assigned by Theophanes
is rather too late. The style was verbo8e and weań-
some, neither polished nor agreeable; and the mattcr
such as to display ostentatiously the knowledge of the
writer rather than to conduce to the improvement of
the reader. It was, in fact, crammed with matter of
every kind, relevant and irrelevant : questions of geona-
ctry, astronomy, arithmetic, and musie ; descriptions of
islands, mountains, and trees, rendered it cumbersomc
and uureadable. Chronological arrangement was disre-
gardcd. The work is lost, with the exception of three
fragments. One of these, De Sokola Catecheticce Alex'
andi-inas Successioney on the succession of teachers in tbe
catechetical school of Alexandria, was published from
a MS. in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, by DodweU,
with his Disseł-taiiones in Irenaum (Oxf. 1689, 8vo), and
has been repeatedly reprinted. It is given in the ninth
volume of tbe BMiotkeca Patrum of Galland, p. 401.
Another fragment in the same MS., De ConsłafUino Max^
imianOf et Licinio A ugustisy was prepared for publication
by Crusius, but has never, we believe, been actually pub-
lished. The third fragment, Td yivófŁtva iv Utpaih
fAtra^t) XpiaTiavtatv 'ISXXi/vufV re Kai 'lovBaiwfy Acta
Disputationis de ChristOj in Perside^ itUer Ckristianos,
GetUiles, et Judceos hahitny is (or was) in the Imperial
Library at Yienna. Philip was present at the disputa-
tion. See Socrates, //. E, vii, 26, 27, 29, 85 ; Liberatus,
/. c. ; Phot. BibL cod. 85; Theophan. Chronog. p. 75, eii,
Paris; p. 60, ed. Yenice ; i, 135, ed. Bonn ; TiUemont, //u/.
des Empereursy vi, 130 ; Cave, Ilist, Liit, ad ann. 418, i,
395; Oudin, De Scriptor. Eccles. voL i, col. 997; Fa-
bricius, Bibl. Grac. vi, 739, 747, 749; vii, 418; x, 691 ;
Galland, Biblioth, Patrum, vol. ix, ProL c 11 ; Lambe-
cius, CitmmesUar. de BiUioth. Casaraa^ lib. s. vol. v. col.
289 ; voL vi, pars ii, col. 406, ed. Kollar. — Smith, Did.
of Gr. and Rom. Biog, s. v.
Philip TUK SoLiTARY, a Greek monk, flourishc<l in
Lhe time of the emperor Alexius I. Omnenus. Kothing
further seems to be known than what ma}' be gleancd
from the titles and introductions of bis extant works.
He wrote, AtÓTrrjoa, Dioptra^ a. Amussis Fidei et Yitie
Christiana j written in the kind of measure called " ver-
sus politici," and in the form of a dialogue between the
sou) and the body. It is addressed to another monk,
Callinicus, and begins with these two lines:
'o XP^^ov ^**^ irtir\i;pttTat ' «fc\^c tov eapniom.
PHILIP
91
PHILIP
TKe vork, in its complete sUte. conftisted of five books ;
bot most of the MS& are matUated or otherwise defec-
tire, ind want the fint book. Some of them have been
iflteipolated bj a later band. Michael Psellus, not the
older wiiter ^ that name, who died about A.D. 1078,
bat one of later datę, wrote a preface and notes to the
Dioptra of Philip. A Latin prose translation of the
Ditpira by the Joait Jacobos Poutanus, with notes by
aoutber Jesuit, Jaoobus Gretserus, was published (In*
p^stadt, 1604, 4to) ; bnt it was rnade from a mutilated
oiipy. ami oonsisted of only four books, and these, as the
tTBnsiiator admits in his Prafatio ad Lectorem, interpo-
lated and transpoeed ad libitum. Philip wrote also, T^
tara irywfŁa vi^ Kai itpiX KwvaravTivtft TTfpi Trpto-
^tac mti ^paaraaiac airaAoyoc, Epistoła Apologettca
ai CongtamtmHm FiHam Spiritualem et Sacerdotem, de
Diferetdia inter Intercestionem et A uxtiiitm Sancłorum :
— yemu PaUHci, in the beginning of which he states
with great exactness the tiroe of his finishing the Di-
cptroy 12th May, A3I. 6603, era Constantinop. in the
third indiction. in the tenth year of the Innar cycle=
AJ). 1095, not 1105, as has been incorrectly stated.
Cave bas, without suffident authority, ascribeci to onr
Fhilip two other works, which are indeed giren in a
Vienoa MS. (Codex 213, apad Lambec.) as Appendices
tx> tbe Dioptra, One of these works {Appendiz secun-
da\'On oifK t^er/t to yofUKoy ira<rxa 6 Kpiaroc iv r<^
Ihtw^^ <IXAd ró aXi|3łvóv, Demonstratio gvod ChriMut
w Sarra data non łegale $ed rerum comederit Paicha^
may hare been written by Philip. Its argiiments are
<lnired from Scriptnre and Epiphanius. The other
wgrk, oonsistiDg of five chapters, De Fide et Casremoniu
Armemorum, JacohUarum, Chatzitzai'iorum et Borna'
nonm seu Francorum, was published, with a Latin ver-
sioo, bat without an author*8 name, in the Atutarium
AontjR of Combefis (Par. 1648, vo]. ii, col. 261, etc),
but was, on the authority of MSS., assigned by Combe-
fis, in a notę, to Demetrins of Cyzicus, to whom it ap-
p«ara rightly to belong (corop. Cave, Hitt, Litt, Disser-
UŁio I, p. 6 ; Fabricius, BiU. Grcsc xi, 414). The Chat-
zitiarii CKarZtrZapiot) were a sect who paid religious
bomage to the image of the cross, but employed no
t-tber iioages in their worship. The work of Demetrius
•ppcon under tbe name of Philip in the fourteenth
(p^athoiDoas) Tolume of the BibHołkeca Patrum of Gal-
lud ; but tbe editors, in their Prolegomena to the yol-
ume. c 15, obeerre that theT knew not on what author-
tty GaUand had assigned it to Philip. Among the
pieces giren aa Appendices to the Dioptra j are some
rencs in praise of the work and its author, by one Con-
stantine, perhapa the person addressed in No. 2, and by
Be^oa, or Yestus, a grammarian, £rfxoi Kvpiou Kwv-
9TavTiv9V Kai fUorou TOv ypafifiarucoiff Vernts Do-
min Constantini et Yetti Gremmatici. See Lambecius,
Commeniar. de BwbUofh, Casartraj lib. s. vo]. v. col. 76-
97, and 141, codd. 213, 214, 215, and 282, ed. KoUar ; Care,
Hitf, Litt. ad ann. 1095, ii, 163; Oudin, De Scriptor,
£rci€$, YoL ii, coL 851.— -Smith, Diet. of Gr, and Rom.
Biog. u ▼.
Philip or THE (>Io8T Holy) Trikity, a famous
Bi«ionanr to Persia and the Indies, was bom nt Avig-
um in 16(3, and died in 1671.
Pbilip, John, D.D., a missionary to Africa, was bom
>t Kiikcaldy, Fifeshire, Scotland, April 14, 1775. His
^her,wbo was teacher of an Engltsh school, gare him
bis ekmentary education ; and his mother, who is de-
*ńbtd as " a woman of eamest and devoted piety," en-
dfaTored, with all the powerfnl insinnating influence of
■Ditemal penoaaion, to imbue his infant mind with the
£nr of (jod and a rererence for his Word. Circumstances
<^ccanooed his removal while yet a boy to reside in the
iMNue of an nncle at Leven ; and there his character
npiillr devebped itself in the leading features of inrel>
kttual and morał individuality that distinguished him
(hroofch life. In his nineteenth year he removed to
Duinlec, where, haring completed his term of appren-
ticcship to a linen-manufactnrer, he relinąuished that
trade for the office of clerk in a factory, au office which,
without regard to salary, he preferred, from the greater
opportunities it aiforded him for mental improvement.
The Congregatłonal minister with whose Church he
connected himself conceiyed a strong attacbment for
him, and through his influence Philip was introduced
to the theological college at Hoxton. After haring
completed the regular term of three years* stndy, he
was licensed as a preacber and ordained in 1804. In
the course of Proridence he was led to vbit Aberdeen,
where his pulpit ministrations proved so useful that he
received an invitation, which he accepted, to undertake
the pastorał charge of a Congregational Church recently
formed in that town. His heart had for many years
been strongly set on the missionary work, when the
London Missionary Society proposed to him to under-
take the superintendence of their numerous mi^ons in
South Africa. The proposal, though at first strenuously
opposed by his attached corgregation, to whom he had
then ministered for fourteen years, was at length ac-
cepted by both as the will of God, and in 1820 Dr.
Philip sailed for Africa. He thero assumed charge of
the Church in Union Chapel, Cape Town, and for thirty
years besides held the office of superintendent of the
society*s missions. By his labors in this field he is
principally known. But besides these direct evangeli-
cal labors, Dr. Philip madę most perserering and success-
ful efforts on behalf of the down-trodden tribes of South
Africa. By his intercourse with the natiyes he obtained
eridence of the disastrous effSects of the prevailiiig sys-
tem, and ere long the strong arm of British power was
stretched out for the defence of those who had so long
been the wbite man's prey. These labors gained for
him the title of ^ Liberator of Africa." Dr. Philip died
in 1850, as became a missionary, amid the people to
whose spiritual and temporal welfare the energies of
his life had been deroted. He published a work en-
titled Researches in Africa^ which was received with
great interest by the English goverament. See Jamie-
son*8 Cyclop. ofRelig, Biog, s. v.
Philip, Robert, D.D.,an English dissenting divine,
was bora in 1791, and was educated at Owen College,
Manchester, and after ordination preached to seyeral In-
dependent congregations, until at last he was called to
the pastorate of Maberley Chapel, London, where he
died in 1858. He wrote, Christian Erperience, Guide to
the Perplexed: — Communion rcith Godj Guide to the De-
rotumal: — Eternity Realized^ Guide to the Thoughtful:
-~The God of Glory, Guide to the Doubiing :—0n Pieas-
ing Godf Guide to the Conscientious : — R&lemption^ or the
New Song in fleaven, Rev. Albert Bames wrote an in-
troduction to these six works, and they were published
under the title of Devoiional Guides (N. Y. 1867, 2 vols.
12mo). Dr. Philip also published, Sacramental Erpe-
rience, a Guide to Communicants (new ed. Lond. 1844,
]8mo): — The Marys, or Beauty of Female HoUness
(1840, roy. 18rao): — The Marthas, or Yarieties of Fe-
male Pieły (1840, sm. 18mo) : — The Lydias, or Derelop-
ment of Fetnale Character (1841, roy. 18mo): — The
Hannahsy or Matemal Influence on Sons (1841, 12mo).
These were published coUectirely as the " Lady'8 Closet
Library" (4 vols. 18roo) : — Manly Piety in its Principles
(1887, \8mo) :—Maniy Piety in its Realiscations (1837,
18mo), were published in 1 vol. 12mo, under the title
of the **YoungMan's Closet Library:" — The Comforter^
or the Love ofthe Spirit (Lond. 1836, 18mo) i—The Eter-
nalf or the A iłributes of Jehotah, etc, (1846, fcp. 8vo) : —
The Elijah of South Afica (1852, fcp. Syo):— Life,
Times, etc, of John Buuyan (1838, 12mo) : — Bunyan^s
Pilgrim^s Progress (Lond. 1843, roy. ]8mo) :—/,(/« and
Times ofthe Rev. Samuel Whiłffleld (1838, 8vo): —
Life and Opiniom of the Rev. William Milne (1839,
post 8vo) : — Life and Times of the Rev. John Camp-
bell (hond. 1841, 8vo) : — fnłrodnctory Essay to the Prac-
tiral Works ofthe Ret. Richard BaxUr (1838, 4 rols.).
(J.H.W.)
PHILIPOFTSCHINS
92
PHILIPPI
Philipoftschina or Fbiliponians. Sec Phi-
LirPINS.
Pliilip'pi (*iXXnnroi, plur. ofPkUip), a cclebrated
city of Macedonia, yisited by the apostle Paul, and the
seat of Łbe earltest Christian Church formally establisbed
in Europę. The double miracle wrought there, and the
fact that " to the saints in Philippi" the great apostle
of the Gentiles addressed one of his epistlcs, must ever
make this city holy ground. (The foUowing account
of it is based upon that of Dr. Porter in Kitto'8 Cyclo-
poBdia, with large additions from othcr sources.)
1. ApostoUc Associatioru, — St. Paul, when, on his first
visit to Macedonia in company with Silas, he embarked
at Troas, madę a straigbt run to Samotbrace, and from
thence to NeapoUs, which he reached on the seoond day
(Acta xvi, U). The Philippi of PauFs day was situated
in a plain, on the banks of a deep and rapid stream called
Gangites (now Angista). The ancient walls fullowed the
course of the stream for soroe distance ; and in thb sec-
tion of the wali tbe site of a gate is seen, with the ruins
of a bridge nearly opposite. In the narrative of PauFs
visit it is said : " On the Sabbath tce went out ofthe gate
by the ńoer {txń^ofŁtv Tifę 7rv\ric irapd irorafŁÓp),
where a meeting for prayer was accustomed to be"
(ver. 13). It was doubtless by this gate they went
out, and by the side of this river the prayer- meeting
was held. As Philippi was a military colony, it is prob-
able Miat the Jews bad no synagogue, and were not
permitted to hołd thetr worship within the walls. Be-
hind the city, on the north-east, rosę lofty mountains ;
but on the opposite side a va8t and rich plain stretched
out, rcaching on the south-west to the sea, and on the
north-west far away among the ranges of Macedonia.
On the south-east a rocky ridgc, sorae 6ixtcen hundred
fcet in height, separated the plain from the bay and
town of Neapolis. Over it ran a paved road connecting
Philippi with Neapolis. Though the distance between
the two was nine miles, yet Neapolis was to Philippi
wbat the Pineus was to Athens ; and hence Paul is said,
when journeying from Greece to Syria, to have " sailed
away from Philippi;" that is, from Neapolis, its port
(xx, 6).
Philippi was in the province of Macedonia, while
Neapolis was in Thrace. Paul, on his flrst journey,
lauded at the latter, and proceeded across the mountain-
road to the former, which Lukę calls " the first city of
the diyision of Macedonia" (jrputrti rijc pipiSoc rrlę
yLaKt6oviac iróAif, Acts xvi, 12). The word Trptórri
does not, as represented in the A. V., signify "chief."
Thessalonica was the chief city of all Macedonia, and
Amphipolis of that diviaion (jŁipic) of it in which Phi-
lippi was situated (see Wieseler, Chroń, des Apoat, Zeii,
p. 37). UpuiTTi simply means that Philippi was the
** first" city of Macedonia to which Paul came (Alford, ad
loc; Conybeare and Howson, Life of St, Paulj i, 311,
notę). In descending the mountain-patfa towards Phi-
lippi the apostle had before him a vast and beautiful
panorama. The whole plain, with its green meadows,
and clumps of trees, and wide reaches of marsh, and
winding streams, lay at his feet ; and awa}*^ beyond it
the dark ridgcs of Macedonia.
The missionary visit of Paul and Silas to Philippi
was succcssfuL They found an eagcr audience iu the
few Jews and proselytes who frequented the prayer-
place on the banks of the Gangites. Lydia, a trader
from Thyatira, was the first convert. Her whole house
foUowed her example. It was when going and retum-
ing from Lydia*s house that " the damscl possessed with
a spirit of divination" met the apostles. Paul cast out
the spirit, and then those who had madę a trade of the
poor girls misfurtune rosę against them, and took them
before the magistrates, who, with all the hastę and rough-
ness of martial law, ordered them to be scourged and
thrown into prison. £ven this gross act of injusticc
redoundcd in the cnd to the glory of God ; for the jailer
and his whole house were converted, and the very mag-
istrates were compelled to make a public apolog^' to the
apostles, and to set them at Itberty, Łhus declańng their
innocence. Tbe scenę in the prison of Philippi was one
of the most cheeriiig, as it was one of the most remark-
able iocidents in the history ofthe apostolic Church.
Paul yisited Philippi twice morę, once immediately
after the disturbances which arosc at Ephesua out of tliu
jealousy ofthe manufacturers of 6ilver shrinea for Arte-
mis. By this time the hoatile relation in which the
Christian doctriue necessarily stood to all purely cere-
moniał religions was perfectly manifest; and where ver
its teachers appeared, popular tumults were to be ex-
pected, and the jealousy of the Koman authońties, who
dreaded civil disorder above ererything else, to be
feared. It seems not uniikely that the second risit of
the apostle to Philippi was madę specially with the
view of counteracting this particular danger. He a|)-
pears to have remained in the city and surrounding
country a considerable time (Acts xx, i, 2).
When Paul passed through Philippi a third time he
does not appear to have madę any considerable star
there (ver. 6). He and his companion are aomewhat
loosely spoken of as sailing from Philippi; but this is
because in the common apprehension of travellerB the
city and its port were regarded as one. Whoerer em-
barked at the Pirsus might in the same way be said to
set out on a yoyage from Athens. On this occasion
the yoyage to Troas took the apostle five days, the ves-
sel being probably obliged to coast in order to avoid the
contrary wind, until coming off the headland of Sarpe-
don, whence she would be able to stand acrosa to Troas
with an £. or E.N.E. breeze, which at that time uf year
(after Easter) might be looked for.
The Christian community at Philippi distinguished
itself in liberality. On the apostIe*s first yisit he was
hospitably entertained by Lydia, and when he after-
wards went to Thessalonica, where his reception appears
to have been of a very mixed character, the Philippiaiis
sent him supplies moro than once, and were the only
Christian community that did so (Phil. iv, 16). They
also contributed readtly to the collection madę for tbe
relief of the poor at Jerusalem, which Paul couveyed
to them at his last visit (2 Cor. viii, 1-6). It would
seem as if they sent further supplies to the apostle after
his arrival at Romę. The necessity for theae appears to
have been urgent, and some delay to have taken place
in coUecting the requisite funds; so that Epaphroditus,
who carried them, risked his life in the endearor to
make up for lost time {ji'txpi ^avarov Ąyyiatu irapa-
i3ov\tu(yaptvoc ry i^vxC» '**'''' ^^a-Kytifmtry to vp^v
v(rTfpripa riję TTpoc pi Aftrowjoyiaf, Phil. ii, 30). The
delay, howcver, seems to have somewhat sttmg the
apostle at the time, who fancied his beloved flock had
forgotten him (see iv, 10-17). Epaphroditus fell ill
with fevcr from his efforts, and nearly died. On recov-
ering he became homesick, and wandering in mind
{uBripovCtv) from the weakness which is the seqiiel of
fever; and Paul. although intending soon to send Tim-
othy to the PhiUppian Church, thought it desirable to
let Epaphroditus go without delay to them, who had
already heard of his sickness, and carry with him tbe
letter which is included in the canon— one which was
written after the apostle's imprisonment at Romę had
lasted a considerable time. Some domestic troubles
connecteil with religion had already broken out in the
community. Euodias and Syntycbe, who appear to be
husband and wife, are exhorted to agree with one an-
other in the matter of their common faith ; and the for-
mer is implored to extend his sympathy to certain fe-
males (obyiously familiar both to Paul and to him) who
did good service to the apostle in his trials at Pbilippii
and who in some way or other appear to be the ooca^^io"
of the disagreement l)etween the pair. Possibly a claim
on the part of these females to superior insight in spir-
itual matters may have caused some irritation ; for the
apostle immediately goes on to remind his readers that
the peace of (ilod is something superior to the highest
inteliigence (J)jctptxov9a jrapra vovv).
PHILIPPI
03
PHILIPPI
It voti]d seem, as Alford sara, that Ihc cruel treat-
sfflt of tbe apoatl€ at Philippi had corobioed with the
Hurm of bis penonal fenror of affection to knit up a
hiąń of morę than oniinary love between him and the
Pbilippian Cburcb. They alonc, of all churches, sent
Mibadies to re]ieve his temporal necessities*' (Phi], iv,
10. la. 18; 2 Cor. xi, 9; 1 Thess. ii, 2; Alford, Greek
Test, ProL iii, 29). The apostle felt Iheir kindness;
ud doring his imprisonment at Komę wrote to them
'.bat epistle which is still in oar canon. This epistle
bdjcates that at that time some of the Christians there
Trfe in the custody of the military authoriries as sedi-
iros persona, through some proceedings or other con-
c^iied with their faith (t>/it v ixopio^ ri) itirip Xpt<rrof",
M it6n>v TO iic avTov irt(rrtvHV aWd Kai to virip at^
n>f rarjffiy* t6v airrby dyuiva ixovTtc o\ov tiófTt iv
itiii tai vvv ÓKoiftTŁ iv iftoit Phil. i, 29). The reports
ofibe prorincial magistrates to Romę would of coursc
dć^cnbe Paal'8 fint vińt to Philippi as the origin of the
tP-aUes there ; and if this were belieyed, it would be
pt together with the charge against him by the Jews
atJłniaalem which induced him to appeal to Oesar, and
vith tbe disturbances at Ephesus and elsewhere ; and
tbe g«nend concluaion at which the govemment would
tnrire might not improbably be that he was a danger-
c«s penon and sbould be got rid of. This will explain
tb< stTong exhortation of the first eighteen Tcrses uf
cfaipier ii, and the peculiar way in which it winds up.
Tlip Pbilippian Chrbtians, who are at the same time
^ifmn}; for their profession, are exhorted in the most
eamest manner, not to firmness (as one might have ex-
pmed), but to moderation, to abstinence from all prov-
(•cation aiid ostentation of their own sentiments (jttjSiy
cara ipt^iiav ftijU KivoBoĘiaVj ver. 3), to humility, and
("tiŃderatioii for tbe interests of othei«. They are to
kćfaiere tbeir salyaUon with fear and trerobling, and
^b(«t ątiarrelling and dlsputing, in onier to escape all
llaise— from sticb cbai^^es, that is, as the Roman colo-
3i^ would bring against them. If with all this pru-
*3eiffe sod temperance in the profession of their faith,
tbtir religion is still madę a penal offence, the apostle is
«ti] content to take the consequence — to precede them
in oartyrdom for it — to be tbe libation ponred out upon
tti«&i tbe Tictima (cc Kai tnrMoftai im ry di;<ric( Kai
^irrorpyię Hic flri<yr«wc v/iwv, x°^P*^ *^"* frvyxaipiii
tamv v^iy, yer. 17). Of course the Jewish formalists
in Pł^iiłrppi were the partics most likely to misreprcsent
thke conduet of the new conyerts ; and henoe (afler a di-
^T^asion cm the subject of Epaphroditus) the apostle re-
vtru to cautions against them, such precisely as he had
?r&n befure — consequeotly by word of mouth : " Beware
*>f tboie dogs" — (for they will not be children at the ta-
Ue. bat eat the crumbs nndemeath) — " thoee doers (and
^ doers too) of the law — those flesh-manglers (for
^'^'^Biciied I won^Ł cali them, we being the tnie circum-
fwon, etc") (iii, 2, 3). Some of these enemies Paul
t*ynd ftt Borne, who " told the story of Christ insincerely"
(cnn}^nXav ovx dyvwc, i, 17) in the hope of incrcasing
thf Pcr^rity of his imprisonment by exciting the jealousy
'-f tbe court. These he opposes to such as "preached
Christ** (ici9pv(av) loyally, and consolce himself with
tbe reflection that, at all erents, the »tory circulated,
^baterer the motires of those who circulated it. See
^«fcb,^rta Pauli Philtpperuia (Jen. 1726); Todd, The
Cbnrch at PkUippi (Lond. 1864). Sce Puilippiaks,
^ AnatfU Hittory, — Strabo tells ns that the old name
'>f Philippi was Kremdes (vii, 331); and Appian adds
^"^ it was so called from the number of 'Mittle fountains"
(cpi7i^c<c) aroond the site. He also says that it had
w<»ther name, Datua ; but that Philip of Macedon, har-
ioj; taken it from the Thraciana, madę it a frontier for-
^, and gare it his own name {De BeU. Civ, iv, 105).
I^biiip^g city Btood upon a hill, probably that seen a little
to the Houth of the present ruina, which may have al-
**y^ fonoed the citadel, but was in alt pn>babi]ity in its
ińgin a factoiy of tbe Pbcenicians, who were the first
that worked the gold-mines in the mountains here, as
in the neighboring Thasos. Appian says that those
were in a hill (Xó^oc) not far from Philippi, that the
bill was sacred to Dionysus, and that the mines went
by the name of ** the aanctuary" (^tu d<n;\a). But he
shows himself quite ignorant of the locality, to the ex-
tent of believing the plain of Philippi to be open to the
river Strymon, whereas the massive wali of Pangieus is
really interpoaed between them. In all probability the
" hill of Dionysus" and the ** sanctuary" are the tempie
of Dionysus high up the mountains among the Satre,
who presenred their independence against all invaders
down to the time of Herodotus at least. It is morę
likely that the gold-mines coveted by Philip were the
same as those at Scapte Hyie, which was certainly in
this immediate neighborhood. Before the great expe-
dition of Xerxes, the Thasians had a number of settle-
ments on the main, and this among the number, which
produced them eighty talents a year as rent to the state.
In the year B.C. 468 they ceded their possessions on the
continent to the Athenians; but the colonists, 10,000 in
number, who had settled on the Strymon and pushed
their encroachments eastward as far as this point-, were
cnished by a simultaneous effort of the Thracian tribes
(Thucydides, i, 100; iv, 102 ; Herodotus, ix, 75; Pauaa-
nias, i, 29, 4). From that time until the rise of the
Macedonian power, the mines seem to have remaine<l
in the hands of native chiefs ; but when the affairs of
Southern Greece became thoroughly embroiled by the
policy of Philip, the Thasians madę an atteropt to re-
possess themselves of this valuable territory, and sent a
colony to the site, then going by the name of " the
Springs" (Kpłyvi^ii). Philip, however, aware of the
importance of the position, expelled them and founded
Philippi, the last of all his creations. Tbe mines at
that time, as was not wonderftd under the circumstances,
had become almost insignificant in their produce; but
their new owner contrived to extract morę than a
thousand talents a year from them, with which he
minted the gold coinage called by his name. The
proximity of the gold-mines was of course the origin of
so large a city as Philippi, but the plain in which it lies
is one of extraordinary fertility. The position too was
on the main road from Romę to Asia, the Yia Egnatia,
which from Thessalonica to Coustantinople followed the
same course as the existing post-mad. The usual course
was to take ship at Brundisium and land at Dyrrachiuro,
from whence a route led across Epirus to Thessalonica.
Ignatius was carried to Italy by this route, when sent to
Romę to be cast to wild beasts. See Strabo, FragmmU
lib. vii; Thucj-d, i, 100; iv, 102; Herod, ix, 75; Diod.
Sic. xvi, 3 8q.; Appian, BdL Civ, iv, 101 8q.; Pausan.
i, 28, 4.
The famous battle of Philippi, in which the Roman
republic was overthrown, was fought on this plain in
the year B.C. 42 (Dio. Cass. xlvi; Appian, /. c). In
honor, and as a memoriał of his great victory, Augustus
madę Philippi a Roman " colony," and its coins bear the
legend Coionia Augusta Jul, Phiiippefuis (Conybeare
and Howson, i, 312). The emperor appears to have
founded the new ąuarter in the plain along the banks
of the Gangites. As a colony {Ko\wvia, Acts xvi, 12)
it enjoyed peculiar priviieges. Its inhabitants were
Coin of Philippi.
Of»Mrtt : ne»Ą rt Aumatna, witłi th« lc««nd '* Cm. Anfr. P. M. Tr. P." fi. c.
Cnaar Auirnttot. Pontifw MiuIdim, TrtbnnItU PotMtml. Rmitm : Fli^
iiret r>f Jslios Cwbku aad Atunutu, wIUi tli* legend "Col. Aag. [Jnl.l
Phllłp."
PHILIPPI
94
PHILIPPI
Boman cidzens, mofit of them being tbe familia and
descendanU of veŁeran soldiera, who had origiiially set-
Łled iu the place to giiard the city and prorince. They
were gorenied by their own magistrates, called Duam-
viri or Praetors (in Greek tnpaniyoi ; ver. 20), wbo ex-
ercised a kind of military auŁhority, and were indepen-
dent of tbe provincial govemor.
8. Present ^ite.— Pbilippi (now called by the Turks
Felibejik) is out off from the interior by a steep linę of
bills, anciently called Synibolum, connected towards the
N.E. with the western extremity of Hiemus, and to-
wards the S.\V., less continuously, with the eastem ex-
tremity of PangsBus. Between the foot of Symbolum
and the site of Philippi two Tuikish cemeteries are
passed, the grarestones of wbich are all derived from
the ruins of the ancient city, and in the immediate
neighborhood of the one first reached is the modem
Turkish village BerekełlL This is the nearest yillage
to the ancient ruins. Near tbe second cemeterv are
some ruins on a sligbt eminence, and also a khan, kept
by a Greek family. Herę is a large monamental błock
of marble, twelve feet high and seven feet 8quare, ap-
parently the pedestal of a statuę, as on the top a hole
exist8 wbich was obviousIy intended for its reception.
This hole b pointed out by local tradition as the crib
out of wbich Alexander's horse, Buoephalus, was accus-
tomed to eat bis oats. On two sides of the błock is a
mutilated Latin inscription, in wbich the names of Caius
Yibius and Comeltus Quartus may be deciphered. A
Btream employed in turning a mili bursts out from a
sedgy pool in the neighborhood, and probably finds its
way to the marsby ground mentioned as existing in the
S.W. portion of the plain. After about twenty min-
utcs' ride from tbe khan, over ground thickly strewed
with fragments of marble columns, and slabs that have
been employed in building, a river-bed sixŁy-six feet
wide is crossed, through wbich the stream rusbes with
gre&t force, and imraediately on the other side the walls
of the ancient Philippi may be traced. Their direction
is adjusted to the course of the stream; and at only
three hundred and fifty feet from its margin there ap-
pears a gap in their circuit, indicating the former exist-
euce of a gate. This is, no doubt, as above seen, the
gate out of wbich tbe apostle and his companion passed
to the " prayer-meeting-' on tbe banks of a river, where
they madę the acquaintance of Lydia, the Thyatiran
seller of purple. The locality, just outside the walls,
and with a plentiful supply of water for their animalS)
is exactly tbe one whicb would be appropriated as
market for itinerant traders, " quoruro cophinus fcenun
que 8upellex," as will appear from the parallel case <
the Egerian fountain near Romę, of whoee desecrat io
Juvenal complains (Sat. iii, 13). Lydia had aii estat
lisbment in Philippi for the reception of tbe dyed procht
whicb were imported from Thyatira and the nei^hŁ>o]
ing towns of Asia, and were dispersed by means of pack
animals among the mountain dans of the lisem us aii
Pangsus, the agents being doubtless in many instancc
her own coreligionista. High up in Uaemus lay ih
tribe of tbe Satne, where was the oracie of Dionysus-
not tbe rustic deity of the Attic yinedressers, but tli
prophet-god of the Thracians (u OpyĘi fidvTŁC, Kurif
Hecub, 1267). The ''damsel with the spirit of di vi
nation** (iraiShKff (^ot;<ra wtiffia vvduva) may pr«>b
ably be regarded as one of the hierodules of this estab
liahment, bired by Philippian citizens, and frequentin|
the country -market to practice her art upon the vii-
logers who brought produce for the consumption of th<
town. The fierce character of tbe mountaineers woulti
render it imprudent to admit them within tbe walls ot
the city ; just as in some of the towns of North Africu
the Kabyles are not allowed to enter, but bave a market
allotted to them outside tbe walls for the sale of the
pruduce they bńng. Over sucb an assemblage only a
Bummary jurisdiction can be exercised ; and hence the
proprietora of the slaye, when they oonsidered them-
selyes injured, and hurried Paul and Silas into the
town, to the agora — the ciyic market where the ma^i»>
trates idpxovTfc) sat — were at once tumed oyer to the
military authorities {orpaTtfyoi), and these, naturally
assuming that a stranger freąuenting tbe extra-muriil
market m ust be a Thracian mountaineer or an itineraiit
trader, proceeded to inflict upon tbe ostensibie cause of
a riot (tbe merita of wbich they would not attempt to
understand) tbe usual treatment in sucb casca. The
idea of the apostle possessing the Roman franchise, and
con8equently an exemption from corporal outrage, ncver
oocurred to the rough soldier who ordered him to be
scourged; and the whole transaction seems to have
passed so rai^idly that be had no time to plead bis citi-
zenship, of whicb the military authorities fint heard
the next day. But the illegal treatment (v^ptc) obvi-
ously madę a deep impressiou on the mind of its yictim,
as is eyident not only from his refusal to take his dis-
charge from prison the next moming (Acts xvi, 37), but
from a paasage in the Epistle to tbe Churcb at Thessa-
Plan of Philippi and its Yicinity.
PHILIPPIAN
95 PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
koica (1 Thew. ii, 2), in which he reminds them of the
arcauatMDcea under which he first preached the Gospel
to Łbem (rpovaBóvTtc Kai vPpi<r^ivrtCy Ktt^utę oiSan,
iv ^iAi>iro«^). Subsequently at Jenualem, under par-
allel circumstanoes of tumulti he wams the officer (to
tbe great surprise of the Utter) of his priyilege (Acta
xxii, óó).
Philippi is now an nninhabited ruin. The remains
are vay exten8ive, but preaent no stńking feature ex-
cepi two gateways, which are considered to belong to
Łhe time of Claadiua. The foundations of a thcatre can
be tnced ; aiso the walla, gates, some tombs, and nu-
meious bniken columna and heapa of nibbUh. Tbe ru-
tns of prirate dwellings are Yisible on every part of the
ate ; aod at one place is a monnd coTered with columns
and broken frsgments of white marble, where a paUce,
tempie, or perbapa a forum once stood. Inscriptions
boch in the Łatin and Greek languages, but morę gen-
erallj in the former, are found. See Ciarkę, TravtUy
TuL iii ; Leake, Northern Greece, vóL iii ; Cousineiy,
Vffaffe dans la Maced, ; and especially Hacket, Joumey
t9 Phiiippi in the Bibie Union Ouarterly, August, 1860;
Smith, IHcL of Class, Geoff, a. y. ; Lewin, St. Paul, i,
206 aq. See Macedoioa.
Philip^piaji (^iXtinr^<noc), the patrial title of an
inbabitant iA Puiuppi (Phil. iv, 15).
PHIUPPIAKS* Epistle to the, the 8ixth in order
of tbe Paaline letters in tbe N. T. (The foUowing ar-
Łide is chieflj based upon Łhat in Smith'8 DicHonary
oftke BibU.^
I. The canonical authoriiyf Pauline authorshipy and
uUegritjf of thia epistle were unanimously acknowledged
up to the end of the 18th century. Marcion (A.D. 140),
in the eailiest known eanon, held common ground with
the Cbuich touching the authority of this epistle (Ter-
tuUian, Adv. Marcion, iy, 5; v, 20) : it appears in the
MuraŁorian Fragment (Bouth, Beliguia Sacra, i, 395) ;
among the ** acknowledged" books in Eusebius {ff. E,
iii. 25) : in tbe Ibta of the Council of Laodicea, A.D.
365, and the Synod of Hippo, 393; and in all subse-
quent lista, as well as in the Peshitn and later rersions.
Ki-en contemporary CTidence may be claimed for it.
Pbilippian Christiana who had contributed to the col-
k-ctiuDS for Paul's anpport at Romę, who had been eye
aod ear witneases of the return of Epaphroditus and Łhe
fint reading of Paul*s epistle, may have been still alive
at Phiiippi when Polycarp wrote (A.D. 107) his letter
Ło them, in which (eh. ii, iii) he refeia to Paulus epistle
a« a weU-known dlstinction belonging to the Pbilippian
CliuTrh. It is quoted as PauFs by seyeral of the early
Cburch fathers (Irenieus, iv, 18, § 4; Ciem. Alex. Pce-
4ag. i, 6, § 52, and elsewhere : Tertullian, A dv. Mar, v,
^\ £M Res, Cam, eh. xxiii). A quotation from it (PhiL
ii, 6) Ls found in t he Epistle of the Churches of Lyons
and Yienne, A.D. 177 (Eusebius, //. E, t, 2). The tes-
timonies of later writers are innumerable. See Canon.
U is only in very recent times that any doubt has
been snggested aa to the genui neness of thia epistle.
Srbrader (^Dtr Ap. Paulus, v, 233) first insinuated that
the pasaage iii, l-iv, 9 ia an interpolation ; but be ad-
duce» no reason for this but the purely f^ratuitous one
ihat the connection between ii, 30 and iv, 10 is disturbed
tr this interrening section, and that by the exci8ion of
thi:« the epistle becomes *' morę rounded off, and morę a
seiłaiue occasional letter^ — ^as if any sound critic would
reject a paasage from an ancient author because in his
opioiun tbe author^s compoaiŁion would be improved
tbereby ! Baur goea farther than this, and would re-
j«ct the whole epistle as a Gnoatic composition of a
later age (Paulus, p. 458 są.). But when he comes to
ptiini out '* the Gnostic ideaa and expressions" by which
tbe epistle ia marked, they will be found to exist only
in his own imagination, and can only by a perverse in«
genuity be foroed uprni the words of the apostle. Th*tis,
in tbe statement that Christ iv fiop^ ^(ov virapx*»*v
ovx aprayfiotf iiyiiaaTo ró dyai loa 3»y (ii, 6, 6),
Baur finda an allosion to the Gnostic sBon Sophia, in
which "exi8ted the outgoing desire with all power to
penetrate into the essenoe of the supremę Father." But
not only is this to give the apo8tle*s words a meaning
which they do not bear (for however we translate a/o-
wayfidy ityi\aaTo, it evidently expresse8 an act in the
past, not an aim for the futurę), but it is manifest that the
entire drift of the passage ia not to set forth any specu-
latiye doctrine, but to adduce a morał inference. This
is 80 manifest that even Baur himself admits it, and by
so doing oYertums his own position ; for it is only on
the suppoaition that what the apostle refers to is afacł,
and not a merę speculative fancy, that any morał con-
clusion can be drawn from it. Eąually futile is tbe at-
tempt to find Dooetism in the use of the term fiop^ —
a term used by the apostle in referenoe to the divine
naturę— or of the terma o/ioiutfta, 9xn^a, and lipi^^'-
vai, all of which occur elsewhere in PauFs writings, and
are here used to denote simply that Jesus Christ pre-
sented himself to the Tiew of men actually as one of
themselves (LUnemann, Pauli ad Phil. Ep. conL Bau"
rium de/ensa, Gott. 1847 ; BrUckner, Ep. ad Phil, Paulo
audori tindicata conL Baur, Lips. 1848). Baur was
followed by Schwegler (1846), who argued from the
phraseology of the epistle and other intemal marks that
it is the work not of Paul, but of some Gnostic forger in
the 2d century. He too bas been answered by LUnemann
(1^7), Bruckner (1848), and Besch (1850). £ven if hia
inference were a fair consequence from Baur's premises,
it would still be neutralized by the strong evidence in
favor of Pauline authorship, which Paley {Horas PaU'
ItnaSf eh. vii) has drawn from the epistle as it stands.
The arguments of the Tubingen school are briefiy stated
in Reuss {Gesch, d,N.T,^ 130-133), and at greater length
in Wiesinger*s Commentary, Most persons who read
them will be disposed to coneur in the opinion of dean
Alford (iV. T, iii, 27, ed. 1856), who regards them as an
instance of the insanity of hypercriticism. The ca-
nonical authority and the authorship of the epistle may
be considered as unshaken.
A question has been raised as to whether the extant
Epistle to tbe PhiUppians is the only one addreased by
Paul to that Churcb. What bas given rise to this
ąuestion is the expre8sion used by the apostle (iii, 1),
rd aifrd ypa^tw vfuv, ic.r.X., where the writing of the
satne thiiigs to them is supposed to refer to tbe identity
of what he is now writing with what he had wńtten in
a previous letter. It has also been supposed that Poly-
carp knew of morę than one epistle addiessed by the
apostle to the Philippians, from his using the plural (oc
a«rwv vfiiv «ypa^(v i'iriOToXdc) in referenoe to what he
had written to them. To this, however, much weight
cannot be attached, for there can be no doubt that the
Greeks used trr 1070X01 for a single letter, as the Lat«
ins used Utercs (see a multitude of examples in Ste-
phans*8 Thesaurus, s. v.). That Polycarp knew of only
one epistle of Paul to the Philippians has been supposed
by some to be proved by the passage in the llth chap-
ter of his letter, preser>'ed in tbe Latin version, where
he sajTS, " Ego autem nihil tale sensi in vóbis vel au-
divi, in quibus laboravit beatus Pauhis qui estis in prin-
cipio epistolsB ejus," etc. But, as Meyer points out,
"episŁolie" here is not the genitive singular, but the
nominative plural ; and the meaning is not " who are
in the beginuing of his epistle," which is hardly sense,
but (with allusion to 2 Cor. iii, 1) ^ who are ui the be-
ginning [i. e. from the beginning of his preacbing the
Gospel among you — a common use of iv dp^y, which
was the expre88ion probably used by Polycarp] his
epistle." It is going too far, however, to say that this
passage has no bearing on this question ; for if Meyer*8
construction be correct, it shows that Polycarp did use
iiri<rTo\ai for a single epistle. Meyer, indeed, trans-
lates " who are his episUes ;" but if the allusion is to 2
Cor. iii, 1, we roust translate in tbe singular, the whole
Cburch collectively being the epistle, and not each
member an epistle. But though the testimony of Poły-
PHELIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 96 PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO TIIE
carp for a pUiralily of episŁles may be set aside, it is lem
easy to set asidc the testimony of the extant epistle it-
self in the passage cited. To refer rd avra to the pre-
ceding x'^^P^'^^ ^^ mjpiift seems somewhat difficult, for
nowhcre preYiously in this epistle bas the apostle ex-
pressly cnjoined on his readers xaipuv lv Kvpią»f and one
dues not see what on this hypothesis is the propriety of
such expTessions as ÓKPijpw and d(T^a\(c ; and to lay the
stress on the ypćapur, as Wieseler pro[K)«es {Chronolo-
gie, des Ap. Zeit. p. 458), so as to make the apostle refer
to some rerbiil message preriously sent to the Philip-
pians, the substance of which he was now about to put
into writinffj seems no less so; for not only does the
epistle contain no allusion to any orał message, but in
this case the writer would have said Kai ypa^uv, A
large number of critics follow Pelagius in the explana-
tion, "eadera repetere qua prasens dirtram;" but it
may be doubted if so importJint a clause may be legiti-
mately draggcd in to complete the apostle*s meauing,
without any authority froro the context. Hence many
have concluded that the apostle alludes to some written
communication previously sent by him to the Philip-
pians (so Hahnlein, Flatt, Meyer, Bleek, Schenkel, etc.).
But, besides the lack of all evidence of such lost epistles
in generał, the assuraption here must be pronounced in
a high degree donbtful and precarious. Hence we con-
clude that tó. aura refers to the ;^af|0(iv, which is the
pervading thought of the epistle (i, 4, 18; ii, 17, etc),
and which seems to have been the morę dwclt upon as
the actual circumstances of the case might yery natu-
rally have suggcsted the contrary feeling (hence ÓKinfi-
p6v). See Ellicott, ad loc» Ewald {Sendachreiben des
Ap. Paulus, p. 431) is of opinion that Paul sent several
epistles to the Philippians; and he refers to the tcxts
ii, 12 and iii, 18 as partly proving this. But some ad-
ditional confirmation or explanation of this conjecture
is requisite before it cau be admitted aa either probable
or necessary.
»
There is a break in the sense at the end of the second
chapter of the epistle, w^hich evcr}'^ careful reader must
have observed. It is indeed quite natural that an epis-
tle written amid exciting circumstances, personal dan-
gers, and yarious distractions should bear in one place
at least a mark of interniption. Le Moyne (1685)
thought it WAS anciently divided into two parts. Hein-
richs (1810), followed by Paulus (1817), has conjectured
from this abrupt recommencement that the two parts
are two distinct epistles, of which the first^ together
with the conclusion of the epistle (iv, 21-23), was in-
tended for public use in the Church, and the second ex-
clusively for the apostlc's special friends in Philippi. It is
not easy to see what sufficient foundation exists for this
theory, or what illustration of the meaning of the epistle
could be deriyed from iL It has met with a distinct
reply from Krause (1811 and 1818) ; and the integrity of
the epistle has not been ąucstioned by recent critics.
II. Time and Place of Writing. — Tlie constant tradi-
tion that this epistle was written at Komę by Paul in
his captiyity was impugned (irst by Ocder (1732), who,
disregarding the fact that the apostle was in prison (i,
7, 13, 14) when he wrote, imagined that he was at Cor-
inth (see Wolfs Cura Philologicce, iv, 168, 270); and
then by Paulus (1799), Schulz (1829), Bottgcr (1837),
and Killict (1841), in whosc opinion the epistle was
written during the apostlc's conlinement at Csesarea
(Acts xxiy, 23). But the references to the "palące"
(pTStoriuro, i, 13), and to "C«sar's household" (iy, 22),
seem to point to Itome rather than to Ctesarea; and
there is no reason whatever for supposing that the apos-
tle felt in Ceesarea that extreme uncertainty of life con-
nectcd with the approaching deciuon of his cause which
he must have felt towards the end of his captiyity at
Komę, and which he expresse6 in this epistle (i, 19, 20;
ii, 17; iii, 10); and, furtlier, the dissemination of the
Gospel described in i'hil. i, 12-18 is not even łiinted at
in Luke's account of the Oesarean captirity, but is de-
scribcd by him as taking place at Korne (comp. Acts x\iv,
28 with xxyiit, 30, 31). Evcn Reoas (Gesch, d. A". T.
1860), who assigns to Ciesarea three of Paulus epistl<»s
which are generally considered to have been written at
Komę, is decided in his conyiction that the Epistle to
the Philippians was written at Romę.
Aasuming then that the epistle was written at Romę
during the imprisonment mentioned in the last chapter
of the Acts, it may be shown from a single fact that it
could not have been written long before the end of the
two years. The distress of the Philippians on account
of Epaphroditus'8 sickness was known at Korne Mrben
the epistle was written ; this implies four joumeys, sep-
arated by some indefinite interyals, to or from Philippi
and Korne, between the commencement of PauPs cap-
tiyity and the writing of the epistle. The Philippians
were informed of his imprisonment, and sent Epaphro-
ditus; they were informed of their messengcr^s sickness,
and sent their message of condolence. Further, the ab-
sence of Luke'8 name from the salutations to a Church
where he was well known implies that he was absent
from Komę when the epistle was written : so does Paul*s
declaration (ii, 20) that no one who remained with him
felt an equal interest with Timothy in the welfarc of the
Philippians. By comparing the menóon of Lukę in Col.
iy, 14 and Philem. 24 with the abrupt conclusion of his
narratiye in the Acta, we are led to the inferenoe that
he lefl Komę after those two epistles were written and
before the end of the two years' captiyity. Lastly, it is
obyious from Phil. i, 20 that Paul, when he wrote, felt
hb position to be yer}' critical, and we know that it be-
came morę precarious as the two years drew to a close.
Assuming that PauFs acquittal and release took place
in 58, we may datę the Epistle to the Philippians carly
in that year.
III. Personal Circumstances ofthe Writer at the Time,
— 1. PauVs amnection wUh PhUippi was of a peculiar
character, which gaye rise to the writing of this epistle.
That city, important as a mart for the produce of the
neighboring gold-mines, and as a Roman stron^hold
to check the rude Thracian monntaineers, was distin-
guished as the scenę ofthe great battle fatal to Brutus
and Cassius, B.C. 42. Morę than ninety yeara after-
wards Paul entered its waUs, acoompanied by Silas,
who had been with him sińce he started from Antioch,
and by Timothy and Lukę, whom he afteni«'ards at-
tached to himself ; the former at Derbe, tlie latter quite
recently at Troas. It may well be imagined that the
patience of the zealous apostle had been tried by his
mysterious repulse, first from Asia, then from Bithynia
and Mysia, and that his expectations had been stirred
up by the yision which hastened his departure with his
ncw-found associate. Lukę, from Troas. A swift pas-
sage brought him to the European shore at NeapK>lia,
whence he took the road, about ten miles long, acrotiis
the mountain ridge called Symbolum to Philippi (Acti§
XTi, 12). There, at a greater distance from Jerusalem
than any apostle had yet penetrated, the long-restraincd
energy of Paul was again emplo3^ed in laying the foun-
dation of a Christian Church. Seeking lirst the lost
shcep of the house of Israel, he went on a Sabbath-day
with the few Jews who resided in Philippi to their
smali Proseucha on the bank of the riyer Gang-ites.
The missionaries sat down and spoke to the assembled
women. One of them, Lydia, not bom of the seed of
Abraham, but a proselyte, whose name and occu|>ation,
as well as her birth, connect her with Asia, gave hced
unto Paul, and she and her household were baptized,
perhaps on the same Sabbath-day. Her house b^^me
the residence of the missionaries. Many days they re-
sorted to the Proseucha, and the result of their short
sojoum in Philippi was the conyersion of many peraons
(xyi, 40), including at last their jailer and his house>
hołd. Philippi was endeared to Paul, not only by the
hospitality of Lydia, the deep sympathy ofthe conyerts,
and the remarkable miracle which set a scal on his
preaching, but also by the successful exercisc of his
missionary actirity after a long suspensę, and by the
PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 97 PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
happy ODoacąnences of his andannted endarance of ig-
iMicDiBłe» which remaioed in hU memon*' (Phil. i, 80)
after a long inter\''al. Leaving Timothy and Lukę to
vatch over tbe infant Church, Paul and Silas went to
Tbessalonica (1 Tbeaa. ii, 2), whither they were followed
tn- tbe akna of the Philippians (Phil. iv, 16), and thence
EUłthwania. TimotbT, baving probably carried out sim-
ikr directions to tboee wbich were given to Titns (i, d)
m Crete, soon rejoined Paul. We know not wbether
Lakę remained at Pbilippi. Tbe next six yeara of bis
life ire a blank in our reoords. At tbe end of tbat pe-
Dod be is found agaiii (Acta xx, G) at Pbilippi.
Afier tbe lapee of fire years, spent cbiefly at Corinth
aod Epbesus, Paul, escaping from tbe incensed worebip-
pen q{ tbe £pbe6ian Diana, passed tbrougb Macedonia,
AJ). 54, on his way to Greece, accompanied by the
Ephcśans Tychicus and Tropbimus, and probably vi»-
łted Pbilippi for tbe second time, and was tbere joined
by Timothy. His beloTed Philippians, free, it seems,
from ibe coatroTenies wbich agitated otber Christian
rboithes, becmme still dearer to Paul on account of the
idace wbicb tbey aJforded him when, emerging from a
season of dejection (2 Cor. vii, 5), oppreesed by weak
bodily bealcb, and anxious for the steadfastness of the
cfaoichcs wbicb be bad planted in Asia and Achaia, be
wi9te at Pbilippi his second Epistlc to the Corintbians.
Oo retoming from Greece, unable to take ship tbere
eo acoount of the Jewisb plots against bis life, be went
tfaiough Macedonia, seeking a favorable port for em-
barkiag. After parting from bis companions (Acts xx,
4 L be again found a refuge among his faithful Philippi-
ms, wbere be spent soroe daya at Easter, A.D. 55, with
Lukę, w bo accompanied him when be sailed from Ne-
Finally, in bis Roman captivity (A.D. 57), their
care of him revived again. Tbey sent Epapbroditus,
beanog their alms for the apostle^s support, and ready
also to tender bis personal service (Phil. ii, 25). He
i^yed some time at Romę, and while employed as the
organ of communication Iwtween the impńsoned apos-
tk and the Cbristians, and inąuirers in and about Romę,
be fell dangeroosly ilL When be was sufficiently recov-
CRd, Pani sent him back to the Philippians, to whom
be was veiy dear, and with him our epistle. See Pui-
UPPL
2. Tke tUtte oftkt Church at Romę should be oonsid-
oed before entering on tbe stody of the Epistle to tbe
Philippiana. Soroetbing is to tle learned of its condi-
tioD about A.D. 55 from the Epistle to the Romans,
aod morę about A.D. 58 from Acts xxviii. Possibly the
(jospd was planted tbere by some w bo tbemselves re-
cetred the seed on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii, 10).
The convert8 were drawn cbiefly from GentUe proselytes
to Jodaism, partly also from Jews who were such by birtb,
with poflsibly a few converts direcŁ from heathenism.
In A.D. 55 tbia Church was already eminent for its
laith and obedience: it was expo6ed to the machina-
tiGu of schismatical teacbers ; and it included two con-
flicting parties, the one iusisting morę or less on obsen'-
isg the Jewisb law in addition to faith in Christ as
neeeeaaiT to 8alvation, the otber repudiating outward
obaerances even to the extent of depńving their weak
ti^ethren of soch as io them might be really edifying.
We eannot gather from the Acts wbether the whole
(.'burch of Borne bad then accepted the teaching of
t*anl as conreyed in his epistle to them. But it is cer-
tain that wben be bad been two years in Romę, his
oni teaching was partly rejected by a party wbich per-
bsps may lMve been connected with tbe former of tbose
•borę mentioned. PauFs presence in Romę, the free-
<^Bi of apeech allowed to him, and the personal freedom
of kia fellow^^borers were tbe roeans of infusing fresh
niaaionafy activity into tbe Church (Phil. i, 12-14).
U was in tbe work of Christ tbat Epapbroditus was
voni ont (ii, 30). Measages and letters passed between
tbe apostle and dtstant churches; and doubtless church-
<s neai to Romę, and botb members of the Church and
VIII.-G
inąuirers into the new faith at Romę addressed them-
8elve8 to the apostle, and to those who were knowu to
be in constant personal communication with him. Thus
in his bondage be was a cause of the advaucement of
the Gospel. From his prison, as from a centrę, light
streamed into Cie8ar's houaehold and far beyond (iv, 22 ;
i, 12-19). Sek Romk.
IV. Ejfect ofthe Episłie,—We have no account of the
reception of this epistle by the Philippians. Knceptl
doubtful traditions that Erastus was their flrst bishop, '
and that he with Lydia and Parmenas was roartyred in '
tbeir city, nothing is recorded of them for the next forty-
nine yeara. But about A.D. 107 Pbilippi was visited
by Ignatius, who was conducted through Neapolis and
Pbilippi, and across Macedonia, on his way to martyr-
dom at Romę. His visit was speedily followed by tbe
anival of a letter from Polj^carp of Sroynia, which ac-
companied, in oompliance with a characteristic reque8t
of the warm-bearted Philippians, a copy of all the let-
ters of Ignatius that were in tbe possession of the
Church of Smyma. It is iuteresting to coropare the
Philippians of A.D. 58, as drawn by Paul, with their
successors in A.D. 107 as drawn by the disciple of John.
Steadfastness in the faith, and a joyful sympathy with
sufferers for Christ's sake, scem to bave distinguished
Łbem at botb peńods (Phil. i, 5, and Polyc. łSp. i). The
character of tbeir religion was tbe same throughout,
practical and emotional rather than 8peculative : in botb
epistles tbere are many practical suggestions, much in-
terchange of fecling, and an absence of doctrinal discus-
sion. The Old Testament is scarcely, if at all, quoted ;
as if tbe Philippian Christiana bad been gathered for
the most part directly from tbe beathen. At cach pe-
riod false teacbers were seeking, apparently in vain, an
en t rance into the Philippian Church, flrst Judaizing
Christians, seemingly putting out of sight the resurrec-
tion and the judgmeut which afterwards the Gnosticiz-
ing Christians openly denied (Phil. iii, and Polyc. vi,
vii). At botb periods the same tendency to petty in-
temal quarrels seems to prevail (Phil. i, 27 ; ii, 14 ; iv, 2 ;
and Polyc ii, iv, v, xii). The student of ecclesiastioal
bistory will obaerve the faintly marked organization of
bisbops,deacons,and feroale coadjutors to which Paul rc-
fers (Phil. i, 1 ; iv, 3), developed afterwards into broad-
ly distinguished priests, deacons, widows, and virginB
(Polyc iv, V, vi). Though the Macedonian churches
in generał were poor, at least as compared with com-
mercial Corinth (2 Cor. viii, 2), yet tbeir gold-mines
probably exempted the Philippians from the common
lot of their neighbors, and at first enabled them to be
conspicuously liberał in alms-giving,and afterwards laid
them open to strong wamuigs againat the love of money
(Phil. iv, 15 ; 2 Cor. viii, 3 ; and Polyc. iv, vi, xi).
Now though we eannot tracę the imraediate efTect of
Paurs epistle on the Philippians, yet no one can doubt
tbat it contributed to form the character of their Church,
as it was in the time of Polycarp. It is evident from
Polycarp*8 epistle that the Church, by the grace of God
and the guidance of the apostle, had passed through those
trials of which Paul warued it, and had not gone back
from the high degree of Christian attainroents which
it reached under Paul'8 orał and written teaching (Polyc.
i, iii, ix, xi). If it had raade no great advance in knowl-
edge, still unaound teacbers were kept at a distance from
its members. Their sympathy with martyra and con-
fessors glowed with as warm a flame as ever, wbether
it was claimed by Ignatius or by Paul. Tbey maintained
their ground with meek firmness among the beathen,
and still held forth the light of an exempla7y though
not a perfect Christian life.
V. Scope and Content» ofihe Epistle.— Va.uVs aim in
writing is plainly this: while acknowledging the alms
of the Philippians and the personal services of their
messenger, to give them some Information respecting
his own condition, and some advice respecting theirs.
Perhaps the intensity of his feelings and tbe distraction
of bis prison prevented the following out bis plan with
PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 98 PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
andeviating closeness. For the prepantioiiB for the de-
partare of Epaphroditus, and tbe thought tbat be would
Boon Brrive among the warm-hearted Philippians, filled
Paul with recoUecŁions of them, and revived hia old
feelings towards thoee fellow-heire of his hope of glory
wbo were so deep in bU bearŁ (i, 7) and so often in bb
prayers (i, 4).
Fuli of gratitude for Łhis work of friendly remem-
brance and regard, Paul addresaed to the Churcb in
Philippi tbis epistle, in wbicb, besides expreMing bis
tbanks for tbeir kindneaa, be pours out a flood of elo-
quence and patbetic exborŁation, auggested partly by bis
own circumstances, and partly by what be bad leamed
of tbeir state as a Churcb. Tbat state appears to bave
been on tbe wbole very prosperous, as tbere is much
commendation of tbe Philippians in tbe epistle, and no
ccnsure is exprefl8ed in any part of it eitber of the
Churcb as a wbole, or of any indi vidiud8 connected witb
it. At tbe same tinie tbe apoittle deemed it necessary
to put them on tbeir gnard against tbe evil iufluences
to wbich they were expofled from Judaizing teachers
and false professora of Cbristianity. These cautions be
interposes between the exbortation8 suggested by his
own state, and by tbe news be bad receired conceming
the PhilippianSf witb which his epistle commences and
with wbich it closes. We may thus divide the epistle
into three parts. In the first of these (i, ii), after tbe
usual salutation and an outpouring of warm-hearted af-
fection towards the Philippian Churcb (i, 1-11), tbe
apostle refers to his own condition as a prisoner at
Korne ; and, lest they sbould be cast down at the thought
of the unmerited indignities be bad been called upon to
Buffer, be assures them tbat these bad tunied out ratbcr
to tbe furtherance of tbat great cauae on wbich his beart
was set, and for which be was willing to Iive and labor,
though, as respected his personal feelings, be would rath-
er depart and be with Christ, which be deemed to be
"far better" (12-24). He rhcn passes by an easy tran-
aition to a hortatory address to the Philippians, calling
upon them to maintain steadfastly tbeir pmfession, to
culŁivate humanity and brotbcrly Iove; to work out
tbeir own salvation with fear and trcmbling, and coii-
cluding by an appeal to tbeir rcgard for his reputation
as an apostle, which conld not but be affected by tbeir
conduct, and a reference to his reason for sending to them
Epapbroditus instead of Timothy, as be bad origtnally
designed (i, 25; ii, 30). In part second he strenuously
cautions them, as already obserred, against Judaizing
teachers, whom be stigroatizes as "dogs** (in reference,
probably, to tbeir impudent, snarling, and quarrelsome
babits), " eril-workers," and " the concision ;" by which
latter term he means to intimate, as Theopbylact re-
roarks (ad loc.), tbat the circumcision in which the Jews
80 much gloried bad now ceased to possess any spiritual
signiticanoe, and was tberefore no better than a usclcss
mutilation of the person. On this theme he enlarges,
making reference to his own standing as a Jew, and in-
timating thar, if under the Christian dispensatiun Jew-
isb descent aud Jewish priyileges were to go for any-
thing, no one could bave stronger clairos on this grouiid
than be; butat the same time declaring tbat however
he bad once valued these, be now counted them " all
but loss for the excellency of the knowlcdge of Christ"
(iii, 1-12), A reference to his own sanctiHcd ambitinii
to adrance in the service of Christ leads him to exhort
the Philippians to a similar spirit ; from this be passes
to caution them against unneccssary contcntion, and
against thoso who walk disonlerly, ćoncluding by re-
roinding them of the glorious hopcs which, as Chris-
tian^ they enterUined (vor. 13-21). In the third part
we have a series of admonitinns to individual members
of the Churcb at Philippi (iv, l-3\ followed by some
generał exbortations to cbeerfulncss moderation, prayer,
and good conduct (ver. 4-9) ; after which come a series
of allusions to the apostle^s circumstances and feelings,
his tbanks to the Philippians for tbeir seasonable aid, and
his coDcluding benedictions and salutations (ver. 10-23).
YI. Ckaraderutie Feałures oftke Epittle, — Strangeljr
fuli of joy and thanksgiving amid adreraty, like th/^
apostle*8 midnigbt hymn from the deptb of his Philip-
pian dungeon, this epistle went forth from his priaon a.t.
Korne. In most other epistles be writes with a 0ii»'
tained effbrt to instnict, or with aorrow, or witb indię—
nation ; he is striying to snpply imperfect, or to correcr
erroneous teaching, to pnt down scandaloua impurity,
or to beal sehism in the Churcb which be addreseea.
But in this epistle, though he knew tbe Philippians
intimately, and was not blind to the faults and tenden^
cies to fault of some of them, yet he mentions no evi 1
80 characteristic of the wbole Churcb as to cali for gen—
eral oensnre on his part or amendment on theirs. Of all
bis epistles to churches, nonę bas so Itttle of an official
character as thia. He withholds bis title of " apostle'"
in the inscription. We lose sight of his high authority,
and of the subordinate position of the worshippers by the
river-side ; and we are admitted to see tbe free action of
a heart glowing with inspired Christian love, and to
hear tbe utterance of the highest friendship addressed
to equal friends conscious of a connection which is not
earthly and temporal, but in Christ, for eternity. Who
tbat bears in mind the condition of Paul in his Roman
prison can read unmored of bis oontinual prayers for
his distant friends, bis constant sense of tbeir feUowship
witb him, his joyful remembrance of tbeir past Chris-
tian course, his confidence in tbeir futurę, his tender
yeaming after them all in Christ, his eagemess to com-
rounicate to them hu own circumstances and feelinga,
his carefulness to prepare them to repel any evil froai
within or from without wbich might dim the bright-
neas of tbeir spiritual graces? Love, at once tender and
watchful — tbat love wbich " is of Grod" — is tbe key-uote
of this epistle ; and in this epistle only we hear no un-
dertone of any difierent feeling. Just enough, and no
morę, is sbown of his own barassing trials to let us aee
how deep in his beart was the spring of tbat feeling,
and how he was refresbed by its sweet and Boothing
tlow.
VII. Commentarie», — ^The following are tbe exegetical
liclps specially on this entire epistle ; a fcw of the most
important are indicated by an asterisk (♦) prefixed : Vic-
torinus, /n Ep. ad Ph. (in Mai, Script Vei. III, i, 51 ;
Pseudo-Hieronymus, Commenfarii (in Opp, [iSie/>/>o*.],
xi, 1011); Chrysostom, //omt7uv (Gr. et Lat. in Opp.iH.,
208; also in Erasmi Opp,y\\\y 819; in Engl. [including
other epistles] in Lib, of Fathers, xiv, Oxf. 1843, 8vo) ;
Zwingli, A nnotałiones (Tigur. 1531, 4to ; also in Opp, iv,
6(y4); Hoffmann, Comnw>fifr?n{i«(Basil. 1541, 8vo); Brenz,
Explicatio (Frano. 1548, 8vo; also in Opp, vii); Cal-
vin, Commentarii (in Opp. often ; scparatcly in £ngl. by
l^ckct, Lond. 1584, fol.; by Jobnston [includ. Col.],
Edinb, 1842, 12mo: by Pringle [includ. Col. and Theaa.],
Edinb. 1851, 8vo); Major, Knarratio [includ. CoL and
Thesa.] (Vitemb. 1554, 1561, 8vo); Ridley, Erpontion
(in Richmond's Fatkent^ ii) ; Weller, Conmtfnfarius [in-
clud. Thess.] (Norib. 1561, 8vo) ; Sall»ont, Cnmmentarii
[includ. other epistles] (Antw. 1561, 8vo; also in Opp.
Col. Agr. 1568, ful.) ; Musciilus, Cfmfnfntarius [includ.
Col., Thess,, and 1 Tim.] (Basil. 1565, 1578, 1595, fol.) ;
Aretius, Commenfai^ii [includ. C<il. an<l Thess.] (Mórg.
1580, 8vo); 01evian, Nołas [includ. Col.] (Gen. 1580,
8vo); Steuart (Koman Cath.), ComtwmtmiuM (Ingolst.
1595, 4 to); Zancbius. CommenłtnHus [includ. Ci>l. and
Thess.] (Neost. 1595, fol.; also in Opp. vi); Weinrich,
Erplicatio (Lips. 1615,4to) ; Airay, Lfcłuifs (I^nd. 1618,
4to) ; Battus, Commenłarius (Kost. 1627, 4to); Yelasąucz
( Rom. Cath.), roTOmr»/«nt (Lugd. 1628-32; Antw. 1637,
1651; Ven. 1646, 2 vols. fol.); Schotan, CommenłaHa
(Franeck. 1637, 4to); Crell, CommenUtrius (in Opp. i,
501) ; Meelfuhr, CommmłafiortfS (Altorf, 1641,4to) ; Coc^
ccius, Commfnfarius (iu Opp. v); I)aill<^, Erponiion (2d
c<!. Gen. 1659-60. 2 vola. 8vo; in English by Sherroan,
Lond. 1841, 8vo) ; Schcid, Disputatutnes (Argent. 1668,
4to) ; Breithaupt, .Ąninutdrersiows (Hol. 1693, 1703,4ro) ;
Hazevoet, Yerklaanng (Jjcyd. 1718, 4to) ; Van Til, Yer-
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
99
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
([indud. Bom.] Harlem, 1721, 4to ; in Lat. [in-
dud. 1 Cor., Eph., and Col.] Amst. 1726, 4to) ; Buaching,
Introdudio (HaL 1746, 4to) ; Storr, Disa. eieffetica (TUb.
1783, 4co ; aljw in Opusc. i, 301-67) ; Am £nde, A rmoła-'
tiomes (fasc i, ii, Torg. 1789 -92 ; Yitób. 1798-1803, 8vo) ;
Paulus, £>e tempore, etc (Jen. 1799, 4to) ; Lang, Bearb^.
(Nuremb. and Alt. 1800, 8vo) ; Krause, A n diversis hom,
»cript^ etc. (Regiom. 1811, 4Ło ; also in Opusc. p. 1-22) ;
Hoog, Z>e Philip, conditione (U B. 1825, 8vo); *Rhein.
wald, Commentar (Beri. 1827, 8vo) ; Acaster, Lecturts
(Lond. 1827, 8vo) ; Rettig, Quastitmes (Giess. 1831, 8vo) ;
Swliiiiz, J). CkrittL Gemeine zu Phil. (Zur. 1833, 8vo) ;
EaisŁburn, LecŁure$ (N. Y. 1833, 8vo) ; Passayant, A usU-
gunff (Basie, 1834, 8vo) ; Baynes, Commentary (Lond.
1834, 12mo); Matthies, ErJddr. (Greifsw. 1835, 8vo);
•Steiger, Ex^»e [indud. Col.] (Par. 1837, 8vo) ; *Van
Hengely Commeniarius (L. B. 1838, 8vo); Holemann,
Commemtarii (Lipa. 1839, 8vo) ; Anon., Erkldr. (Hanov.
1839, «vo) ; Neal, Discourses (Lond. 1841, 8vo) ; Rillłet,
Cowtmentaire (Gen. and Par. 1841, 8vo) ; Hall, Eiposi-
tiom (Lond. 1843, 8vo) ; Neander, ErUtul. (Beri. 1849, 8vo;
in £ngL by Mrs. Conant, N. Y. 1851, 12mo) ; Robertson,
Leetwreś (Lond. 1849, 12mo); B. Crusias, Commentar
(Jen. 1849, 8vo) ; Kdhler, A ttslegung (Kieł, 1855, 8vo) ;
Toller, Diseourte* (Lond. 1855, 12mo) ; ^Weiss, A usU-
gftng (BerL 1858, 8vo) ; ♦ElHcott, Commenłary [indad.
Cul. «nd Fhilem.] (Lond. 1858, 8vo) ; Jatho, Erklar.
(HUdesb. 1858, 8vo); *£adie, Commeniary (Lond. 1858,
1861, 8v-o); Shulte, Commeniary (Lond. 1861, 8vo) ;
Schenkel, Eriaut. [indud. Eph. and Gol.] (Leipz. 1862,
8vo); Newland, Catena (Lond. 1862, 8vo); Yaughan,
Ijfc*UTtM (2d ed. Lond. 1864, 8vo); Todd, Expońtion
(Lond. 1864, 8vo5 ; ♦Lightfoot, Commeniary (Lond. 1868,
1870, 8vo) ; Jobnstone, Ledures (Lond. 1875, 8vo). See
EnSTLfE.
Pbilippine lalands, sitnated in 5^ 30'-19o 42'
N. lat., and 117^ 14'-126° 4' E. long., in the great In-
dian Archipelago, to tbe north of Bonieo and Celebes,
are morę than twelve hnndred in number, and have
an mrea of about 150,000 square roiles. Tbe popula-
tion is over 6,000,000, three fourths of wbom are sub-
jeet to Spain. The remainder are gorerned, according
to Łbeir oirn laws and customs, by independent naŁive
piincea. Lozon, in the north, bas an area of 51,300
aquare mileii, and Mindanao, or Magindanao, in the
soatb, fuUy 25,00(h The islands lying between Luzon
and Mindanao are called the Bisayas, the largest of
which are : Samar, area 13,020 aquare miles ; Mindoro,
12,600; Panay, 11,340; Leyte, 10,080; Negros, 6300;
Hasbat«, 4200; and Zebu, 2352. There are upwards of
a thouaand lesaer islands of which little b known. To
tbe aoutb-west of the Bisayas lies the long, narrow itil-
and of Paragoa or Palawan, formed of a roountain-chain
witb Iow coast-Hnes, cuŁ with numerous streams, and
exceedingly fertile. The foiests abound in ebony, log-
wood, gum-tree9, and bambooa. To the north of Luzon
Ile tbe Batancn, Bashee, and Babuyan islands, the first
two groups having about 8000 inhabitants, the last un-
peopled. Tbe Sooloo Islands form a long chain from
Mindanao to Bonieo, having the same mountainous and
Yolcanic structure as the Pbilippine Islands, and all are
probably fngments of a submerged continent Many
actire yolcanoes are scattered through the islands;
May on, iji Luzon, and Buhayan, in Mindanao, often
cauaing great deva»tation. The mountaiu-chains run
north and south, and never attain a greater deration
tban 7000 feeL The islands have many rirers, the
coasta are indented witb deep bays, and there are many
lakes in the interior. £arthquakes are frequent and
destnictiTe. The soil is extreroely fertile, except where
e^ctensire marshes occur. In Mindanao are numerous
lakes, which expand during tbe rainy season into ii\-
land seas. Rain roay be expected from May to Decem-
ber, and from Jiine to November the land is Hooded.
Yicdent hurricanes are experieDced in the north of Lu-
zon aad w«at ooufc of Mindanaa Especially during the
duoBges of the monsoona, storms of wind, rain, thunder
and lightning prevail. The weather is very fine, and
heat moderaie, from December to May, when the tem-
peraturę rapidly rises and becomes oppressire, except
for a short time after a fali of rain. The fertility of the
soil and the humid atmosphere prodace a richuess of veg-
etation which is nowhere surpaissed. Blossoms and fruit
hang together on the trees, and the cultivated iields
yield a constant succession of crops. Immense forests
spread over the Pbilippine Islands, dotbing the moun-
tains to their summits; ebony, iron-wood, cedar, sapan-
wood, gum-trees, etc, being laced together and gar-
landed by the bush-rope or palasan, which attains a
leugth of 8everal hnndred feet. The variety of fruit-
trees is great, including the orange, citron, bread-fruit,
mango, cocoa-nut, guava, tamarind, rose-apple, etc;
other important producta of the yegetable kingdom be-
ing the banana, plantain, pine-apple, sugar-cane, oot-
ton, tobacco, indigo, coffee, cocoa, cinnamon, vanilla,
cassia, the areca-nut, ginger, pepper, etc, with rioe,
wheat, maize, and various other cereals. Gold is found
in river-beds and detrital deposits, being used, in the form
of dust, as the medium of exchange in Mindanao. Iron
is plentiful, and fine coal-beds, from one to four feet
thick, bave been found. Copper bas long been worked
in Luzon. There are also limestone, a fine variegated
marble, sulphur in unlimited quantity, quicksilTer, rer-
milion, and saltpetre — the sulphur being found both
natire and in combination with copper, arsenie, and
iron. Except the wild-cat, beasŁs of prey are unknown.
There are oxen, buffaloea, sheep, goats, swine, harts,
sąuirrels, and a great rariety of monkeys. The jun-
gles swarm with lizards, snakes, and other reptiles; the
river8 and lakes with crocodiles. Huge spiders, taran-
tulas, wbite ants, mo8quitoes, and loćusts are plaguca
which form a set-off to the beautiful fireflies, the brill-
iant queen-beerle {Elaier noctilucus), the melody of
myriads of birds, the turtle-doves, phcasants, birds-of-
paradise, and many lovely species of paroquet8, with
which the forests are alive. ^ Hires of wild beea hang
from the branches, and alongside of thero are tbe nests
of bumming-birds dangling in tbe wind." The cayems
along the shores are frequented by the swaUow, whoee
edible nest is esteemed by tbe ChineM a ricb delicacy.
Some of them are also tenanted by multitudes of bata
of immense size. Buffaloes are used for tiUage and
dranght ; a smali borse for riding. Fowla are plentiful,
and incrcdible numbers of ducks are aitifidally batched.
Fish is in great abundance and variety. Motber-of-
pearl, coral, ambcr, and tortoise-shell are important ar-
ticles of commerce. The principal exports are sugar,
tobacco, cigars, indigo, Manilla hemp, ooffee, rice, dye-
woods, hides, gold-dust, and bee8wax.
Naiiv€ Popuiation, — The Tagals and Bisayans are tbe
most numerous native raoes. They dwcU in the cities
and cultivated lowlands; 2,500,000 being converta to
Roman Catholicism, and a considerable number, espe-
cially of the Bisayans, Mohammedau. The mountain
districts are.inhabited by a negro race, who, in featnres,
stature, and 8avage modę of living, closely resemble the
Alfoors of the interior of Papua, and are probably the
aborigines driven back before the inroads of the Ma-
lays. A few of the negroes are Christian, but they are
chiefly idolaters, or without any manifest form of relig-
ion, and roaming about in familics, without fixed dwell-
ing. The Mestizos form an inłłuential part of the pop-
uiation ; by their activity engrossing tbe greatest share
of the trade. These are mostly of Cbinese fathers and
native mothers.
The leading mercantile housea aie English and Amec-
ican. British and American mercbants enjoy the lar-
gest share of the business, the exports to Great Britain
being upwards of £1,500,000 sterling yearly, and the
imports thence nearly of the same value. There are
seveu British bouses established at Manilla, and one at
Iloilo, in the populous and productive island of Panay,
which is the centrę of an increasing trade. The total
exports and imports of the Phiiippine Islanda bave a
PHILIPPINS
100
PHILIPPS
value of aboat £6,000,000 yearly. The Chineae cxeTci8e
variouB trades and callings, remaining only for a time,
and neyer bringing their wive8 with them. The prin-
cipal lauguages are the Tagalese and Btsayan. Kice,
sweet potatoes, flsh, flesh, and fruits fonn the food of
the Tagals and Bisayans, who usually drink only water,
though sometimes indulging in cocoa-wine. Tobacco
is nsed by all. They are gen tle, hospitable, fond of
dancing and cock-fighting. Education is far behind;
it is similar to what it was in Kurope during the Middle
Ages. It is entirely under the control of the Komish
priesthood, who are goremed by an archbłshop (of Ma-
nilla), and the bishops of New Segovia, Nueva Caceres,
and Zebu. Keligious processions are the pride of the
people, and are formed with great paradę, thousands of
persons carrying wax-candle8, etc.
The Sooloo lalands hare a population of 150,000 ; are
goyemed by a sułtan, whose capital is Sung, in 6^ 1'
N. lat., and 120^ 55' 51" £. long., who also rules over
the greatest part of Paragoa, the northem comer only
being subject to Spain. Luzon has a population of
2,500,000, one fifth part being Independent; the Bisaya
Islands, 2,000,000, of whoro three fourths are under
Spanish rule. The population of Panay amounts to
750,000, and that of Zebu to 150,000. Of the numbers
in Mindanao nothing is known ; the distńcts of Zambo-
anga, Misamis, and Caragan, with 100,000 inhabitants,
being all that is subject to Spain. The greater part of
the bland is under the sułtan of Mindanao, resident at
Selanga, in 7° 9' N. lat., and 124^ 38' E. long., who,
with his feudatory chiefs, can bring together an army
of 100,000 men. He is on fńendly terms with the Span-
iards. Besides Manilla, thcre are very many large and
important cities, especially in Luzon, Panay, and Zebu.
The great centres of trade are Manilla, in Luzon, and
Iloilo, in Panay. The Philippine Islands were discoy-
ered in 1521 by Magellan, who, after yisiting Mindanao,
sailed to Zebu, where, taking part with the king in a
war, he was wounded, and died at Mactan April 2G,
1521. Some years later the Spanish court sent an ex-
pedition under Yillabos, who narocd the islands in honor
of the prince of Asturias, afterwards Philip II. For
some time the chief Spanish settleroent was on Zebu ;
but in 1581 Manilla was built, and has sińce continued
to be the seat of goyemment. — Chambers. Sce Sem-
per, Die PhUippinen u, ihre Bewohner (Wiłrzb. 1869) ;
and his Reisen im A rchipel der PhUippinen (Leips. 1867-
73, 8 yols. 8vo) ; Earl, PapucaUf eh. yii ; A cademy^ Aug.
15, 1873, p. 811.
PhilipplnB, a smali Russian sect, so called from the
founder, Philip Pustoswiftt, under whose leadership they
emigrated from Kussia to Liyonia near the beginning
of the 18th oentury, are a branch of the Baskolniks
(q. V.). They cali themsclyes Starmcerski, or " Old-
Faith Men," because they cHng with the utmost tenacity
to the old senrice-books, the old yersion of the Bibie,
and the old hymn and prayer books of the Russo-Greek
Churcb, in the exact form in which those books stood
before the reyision which they underwent at the hands
of the patriarch Nikon (q. y.) near the middle of the 17th
century. There are two dasses of the Raskolniks — one
which reoognises popes (or priests) ; the other, which
adrotts no priest or other clerical functionar\'. The
Philippins are of the latter class; and they not only
themaeh-cs refuse all priestly ministrations, but they re-
gard all such ministrations— baptism, marriage, sacra-
ments— as inyalid ; and they rebaptize all who join their
sect from other Russian comrounities. All their own
ministcrialoffices are discharged by the Starik, or parish
elder, who for the time takes the title of pope. and is re-
quired to obserye celibacy. But the preaching is per-
mitted to any one who feels himsolf "called bj' the
Spirit" to underUke it. Among the Philippins the spirit
of fanaticism at times has run to the wildest exces8es.
They refuse oatbs, and decline to en ter militar}' 8er\'ice;
and it was on this account and like incompatibilities
that they were forced to emigrate, under the leadership
of Philip Pnatoawiftt, « the saint of the Descrt" Tbcy
are now settled partly in Polish Lithuania, partia iti
East Pnissia, where they haye seyeral smali settlements
with churchea of their own rite. They are rep»ort<ed to
be a peaceable and orderly race. Their principal ptzrstii t
is agriculture; and their thńfty and industrious łiabits
haye secured for them the good-will of the land-propri-
etors as well as of the goyemment.
They are sometimes called BrUeurs^ or TueurSy from
their tendency to suicide, which they consider meTit€>~
rious, and which the\' aceordingly court, sometimes bur>'-
I ing tbemselyes aliye, sometimes stanring theii3selveA
I to death. Accusations of laxity of morals have bccii
brought against them, of renouncing marriage, and liv-
ing in spiritual brotherhood and sisterhood, the truth of
which has neyer been clearly established ; for when the
empress Annę (A.D. 1730-1740) sent commissioncrs to
inquire into the state of their monasteriea, they shut
tbemselyes up, and bumed tbemselyes aliye within their
own walls, raiher than giye any eyidence on the subjecŁ..
See Platon, Greek Church (see Indcx). (J. H. W.)
Philipplsta is the name of that sect or party among
the Luthcrans who were the foUowers of Philip Melanc-
thon. Uc had strenuously opposed the Ubiquist^ yrho
arose in his time ; and the dispute growing still hotter
after his death, the Uniyersity of Wittenberg, who C8-
poused Melancthon*s opinion, were called by the Fla-
cians, who attacked it, Philippiśłs, They M-ere atrongest
in that uniyersity, the opposite party controlling the
Uniyersity of Jena. The Philippists were in the eiid
accused of being Calyinists at heart. and were much
persecuted by the ultra-Lutheran party. See the differ-
ent works on the Refomiaiion (q. y.), and the long Łresa-
tise in Herzog, Real-Enafldopadie^ xi, 537-546. See also
Adiaphobistic Controyersy ; Mblancthon.
Philipps, Dirk, one of the most eminent oo>1abor-
ers of Simon Menno (q. y.), was bom in 1504 at Len-
warden, the capital of Friesland, of Romish parentage.
Ile was carefuUy and piously reared, and had unusual
educatioiial facilities in his time. When the Anabap-
tists came to Friesland, Philipps, who was then a de-
yoted Roman ist, soon became interested in the new
doctrines ; and after his brother Ubbo, a common mo-
chanic, had embraced the modem teachings and 4)eoome
a prcacher, Dirk also found pleasure in them ; forsook
the Church of Romę, and was rebaptized. As a preacher
of the new doctrines he was stationed at Appingadam
(Groningen), and contented himself in thatposition until
the Anabaptists adyocated the extreme socialistic yiews.
About the year 1534 or 1535 thesc two brothers caroe
out boldly against the Munster ideas of the Anabaptists,
and thus prcpared the way for the reyolntion which
Menno shortly after effected. Afler 1536 the brothers
Philipps disappear, and are but little heard of. At
the conference of the different Anabaptists held at Buck-
holt, in Westphalia, they do not seem to haye been pres-
cnt. In 1543 we find them at Emden. After that we
only meet Dirk now and then, but always in clofnest inti-
macy with Menno. Ubbo (inally separated from both
Dirk and Menno, and took a conciliaŁory position be-
tween the Protestants and Romanists. But Dirk re-
mained tnie to Menno, and eyer after is warmly com-
mended by the great Dutch Reforroer and founder of tbe
Quakcr8 of Holland. After the death of Simon Menno,
Dirk was morę or less inyolyed, and that unhappily, in
the controyersies which agitated the Dutch Anabaptists.
In 1568 he was at Dantzic, but was so mnch sought afler
at home that the sixty-four-years-old man consented to
return to Emden. He died there in 1568 or 1570. His
many pamphletcering publications haye been coUected
in his Etichiridion, or " Hand-book," among which thens
is an Apology or Defence ofthe AnabaptisU; a treatise
on Christian Marriage, etc It is the uniyersal testi-
mony of Protestants and Roroanbts that Dirk Philipps
was a yeiy leamed man, well yersed in the classicd
languages, and a pulpit orator of the yery highest order.
pHnjpps
101
PHILISTIA
3ee GcBty Amfimg ar. Fortgattg der Streiiigkeitm unier \
4tm Taafyenmtem; Blaup. Ten Cate, GetdL der Ta^f-
jiti^mtin. See ako Mkosostites, and the Uterature
tbcf«io appended. (J. H.W.)
Pldlipps, fJbbo. See Pbiupps, Dirk.
y i>flij Hi«ałl n. MosES, a noted Uebraist, was bom
ICbt 9. 1775, in Sandenleben, a smali town on the Wip-
f^rl and ma deatined for a rabbinate by his parents,
• bo began to iottiat^ him into Hebrew when he was
icaicdy foar yean of age. In 1787 he was sent to a
rabbtnic school nt Halberatadt, where he was iiistnicted
in tbe Talmud and other branches of rabbinic litera-
He Łheu went to Brunswick, where he deroted
rore.
bmadf to tbe study of the sciences generslly, and in
f-ATticalar Hebrew philology, aoqniring a most classical
and ehaiming style in Hebrew oomposition. In 1799,
wbcn onhr foar- and -twenty, he was appointed master
t4 tbe nóited Jewiah school at I>e8sati, where the cel-
^•fatcd histofian Jost and tho philosopher Mendels-
sohn, were educated. Herę Philippsohn prosecuted morę
zealoody than erer the study of Hebrew and the Hebrew
Scriptores, and determined to continue, with the aid of
his three colleagues, the great Bibie work commenced
by Mendelsaohn (q. r.), selecting the minor prophets for
tb«ir conjoint labor. Philippsohn undertook to trans-
Ute and expoimd Hosea and Joel, being the two most
difficalt books of the twelve minor prophets; his col-
kaj^M Wolf tbe transladon and exposition of Obadiah,
Mtcah, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah ; his colleague Sol-
ucDun undertook Haggai and Zechariah ; while Neuman
Budertook Amoe, Nahum, and Malachi ; Jonah having
ilmdy been published by Lowe (q. v.) ; and the whole
wm» pablished under the title n*)in3 nn3S, a Pure
OjŹ?rmffj at Desaau, iu 1805. Three years later Philipp-
Mihn published a Hebrew Grammar and Chrestomathy,
entitied nS'*^ '^XA 5*1113, Friend o/Students (Dessau,
ld08 ; 2d improTed ed. ibid. 1823) ; and a Ilebrrto Cwnr
mentary on the Book of Damd, with a translation by
W<4f (ibid. 1808). He also wrote essays on various
iabjccts connected with Hebrew literaturę in the He-
bff^w periodical called DD2(^n, The Gatherer, and died
April 20, 1814. Sec Steinschneider, Catcdogus Libr.
Jithr. ta BibUotheca Bodleiana, col. 2099, and tbe inter-
esttng biographical sketch by Dr. Ph. Philippson, in his
BiogropkUcke Skizzen (Leips. 1864) ; Jost, G€9ch, der
Jntten, ». f. SeJtten (see Index in voL iii). — Kitto, Cyclop.
BA, Lii, a. T.
Philips, Ecl'ward, M.A., an English dirine, was
bom near the middle of the 16th century. He was en-
tered a student in Broadgatc'8 Hall, now Pembroke Col-
k^;^, in 1574 ; became preacher at St. Sayiour^s, South-
wark, London, and died about 1603. He was a Calrinist,
and eateemed " a person zealous of the truth of Uod,
eame»t in his calling, faithful in hu» message, powerful
in his speech, careful of his flock, peaceable and blame-
leM in his Ilfe, and comfortable and constant in his
deatb." His published sermons are entitied, Certaine
GudŁy and Leamed Sermom, Prtacked by that worthy
Serc€ad of Chriet in St, Sariour^Sf in Southteark ; and
wtre tahtn by the pen ofH, Yeleerion, ofGraye Inn, Gen-
tknum (Land. 1607, 4to)^— Darling, Cydup. BiUiog. s. v.
Philips, Thomas, a Roman Catholic divine, was
bora ori'mte»tant parcntage at Ickford, in Bockingham-
shire; recetred hia edncation at St Omer^s, and there
became a sealoas Romanist. He entered into ordem,
and became a Jesnit, but qułtted that aociety, and ob-
taincd a prebend in tbe coUegiate chuch of Tongres,
with a dispenaation to reside in En^f^and. He was the
anthor of Tke Stmdy of Saertd Literatwre Stated and
Conńdered (Lond. 1758, 8vo) ; and The Life of Cardinal
Pole (Ox£ 1764-67, 2 rola.). He died at li^^e in 1774.
Philips was a man of eminfiit piety, and a writer of
eonsideiable ability.
Philip's (8t.) Asm JAJfEs*8 (^/.) Day, a fcstiral
in a ae uiu r y of tbe apostles Philip and James
the Less, on the Ist of May. In the Greek Church the-
festiyal of St, Philip is kept on the 14th of November.
Philis^tia (Heb. Pek'iheth, n^bo, signif. doubt-
ful [see below] ; Sept. dXXo^vXoi), the land of the Phi-
listines, as it is usually styled in prose (Gen. xxi, 82,
33; £xod. xui, 17; 1 Sam. xxvii, 1, 7; xxix, 11; 1
Kings ir, 21 ; 2 Kings viii, 2, 3). lliis term is ren-
dered in our verBion sometimes ** Palestina," as in £xod.
xv, 14, and Isa. xiv, 29, 31 ; and " Palestine** in Jocl iii,
4; but "Philistia" in I^sa. lx, 8; lxxxvii, 4; and cviii,
9; and *' Philistines** in Psa. lxxxiii, 7. "Palestine'*
originally meant nothing but the district inhabited by
the *' Philistines,** who are called by Josephus IlaAai-
4n-7voi, " Paliestines" (i4itt v, 1, 8). In fact the two
words are the same, and the difTerence in their present
form is but the result of gradual corruption. The form
Philistia does not occur anywhere in the Sept. or Vul-
gate. In Exod. xv, 14 this word {PeUsheth) is usod
along with Canaan, and as distinet from it ; in Joel iii,
4 its " coasts" are referred to (for it was a littoral terri-
tory), and are coupled with Tyro and Sidon as having
sold into slavery tbe children of Judah and Jerusalcm,
and carried off Bilver and gold from the Tempie ; and
in Isa. xiv, 29-81 it is told not to congratulate itself on
the death of Ahaz, who had smitten it, In Psa. lx, 8 ;
lxxxiii, 7; lxxxvii, 4; cviii, 9, it is classed aroong
countries hostile to Israel. The word thcrefore uni-
fbrmly in Scripture denotes the territory of the Philis-
tines — though it came at length to signify in common
speech the cntire oountry^the Holy Land. Philistia
is probably tbe country vaguely referred to by Herodo-
tus as £i;pff| naXaitfriVa — for he describes it as lying
on the sea-coast (vii, 89). The name is specially at-
tached to Southern Syria by Strabo (xvi), Pomp. Mela
(i, 11), and Pliny (//«/. Nat, v, 12). The broader sig-
nification of the term arose by degrees. Josephus ap-
paiently uses it in both meanings (^Ant. i, 6, 2, 4; viii,
10, 3). Philo says of Palestinc, »/ róri irpofjfiyoptmro
\avavaiiav^ and Jerome says, '< Terra Judiea ąuas nunc
appelktur Paliestina" (see Reland, PaUut, chap. i, vii,
viii). In the Talmud and the Arabie it likewise de-
notes the whole land of the Jews. See Palkstinb.
The name itself has given rise to various conjectures.
Hitzig identilies the Philistines with nfXa<ryoi, and
snpposes the word, afler the Sanscńt Vahkthat to de-
note the white raccs, as opposed to the Phoenician or
dusky races (ree Kenrick, Phctn, p. 60, 52). Redslob
makes it a transposition of the name of their country,
nbe^, Shephekih, the Iow country (A.V. **valley" or
" plain"). Knubel, Gesenius, Movers, and Roth take it
from the root ^^9, **to emigrate**—of which *A\\6^V'
\oi is supposed to be a translation. FUrst substantially
agrees with this etymology, from the same Heb. root,
in the sense of breaking through^ L e. "wandering."
Stark regards this (ireek term as opposed to 6fAÓ^v\oc,
"of the same race" (Gazoj p 67); and Von Lengerke
looks upon it as a playful transposition of ^vXi(rruifi,
'AX\ó^v\oł seems, in later Greek, to denote a foreign
race living in a country among its natives. Thus Po-
lybius gives the name to the forces of Hannibal located
in Gaul and Italy (iii, 61). The Sept has in this way
given it to a race that lived in a country which God
had cofiferred in promise on the Hebrew people. Tho
same name is for a like reason given to the population
of Galilee (1 Mace. V, 15).
Philistia propcr was a long and somewhat broad strip
of land lying on the sea-coast, west of the hills of
Ephraim and Judah, and stretching generally from
Egypt to Ph<enicia. Tbe northera portion of this ter-
ritory, from Joppa neariy as far u Ashkelon, was allotted
to Dan ; and the southem portion, from Afihkelon to the
wildemess of Tlh, and extending east to Bc^rnheba,
was assigned to Judah. In short, it compnJWKl the
soothern coast and plain of Canaan, along the MHiter-
ranean, hence call«d " tbe sea of the Philłstines** (KxmU
xziii, 81), from Kkron to the border of Egypt; tbough
PHILISTm
102
PHILISTINE
flt certain times the PhilUtines*had aiso in possession
lorge portions of the interior (Psa. lx, 7; lxxxvii, 4;
CYiii, 10; 1 Sam. xxxi, 8; 1 King8zv,27; Psa. lxxxiii,
7). The land of the Philistines partakes of the geuenil
desolation oommon to it with Judea and other neigh-
boring states. According to Yolney, except the imme-
diate enyirons of a few rillages, the whole country is a
desert abandoned to the Bedawln Arabs, who feed their
flocka on it (Zcph. ii, 4-7). See Phiustime.
Philis^tltn (Gen. x, 14). See Philistinr.
Philis^tine (Heb. Pelishti', "^ncbD, gentile from
n'2Jbp, Phiiistia ; SepŁ. aKK6^v\oc, but sometimes ^tj'
\tOTtiifŁ for the plur., which is the usual form ; A« Y.
once " Philisttm," Gen. x, 14 ; Joeephus, naXai'(rrcvoc,
ArU, V, 1, 18), a race of aboriginal Canaanites inhabiting
the land of Phiiistia (q. v.). (The foUowing article is
mainly based upon that in Smith's Diet, ofthe BiUe,)
I. ICarfy Hittofy, — 1. The origin of the Philistines is
nowhere expressly stated in the Bibie; but sińce the
prophets describe them as *' the Philistines from Caphtor"
(Amos ix, 7), and ** the remnant ofthe maritime district
of Caphtor" (Jer. xlvii, 4), it is primd Jacie probable
that they were the *'Caphtorims which came out of
Caphtor^' ivho expelled the Avim from their territory
and occupied it in their place (Deut. ii, 23), and that
theae again were the Caphtorim mentioned in the Mo-
aaic genealogical table among the descendanta of Miz-
raim (Gen. x, 14). But in establishing tbis conclusion
certain difficulties present themselyes : in the first place,
it is observable that in Greń. x, 14 the Philistines are
connected with the Casluhim rather than the Caphto-
rim. It has generally been aasnmed that the text has
suffered a transposition, and that the parenthetical
clause *^out of whom came Philistim** onght to foUow
the words '*and Caphtorim." Thia explanation is,
however, inadroissible ; for (1) Łhere is no extcmal evi-
dence whatever of any variation in the text, either hcre
or in the parallel passage in 1 Chroń, i, 12; and (2) if
the transposition were effected, the desired sense would
not be gained ; for the words rendered in the A. V. "out
of whom" (0^'ą *^'l|X) really mean "whence," and de-
note a locol roovement rather than a genealogical dc-
scent, so that, as applied to the Caphtorim, they would
merely indicate a sojoum of the Philistines in their
land, and not the identit}' of the two races. The clause
seems to have an appropriate meaning in its present po-
sition: it looks like an interpolation into the origtnal
document with the view of explaining when and where
the name Philistine was first applied to the people
whose proper appellation was Caphtorim. It is an ety-
mological as well as a historical memorandum ; for it is
based on the meaning of the name Philistine (from the
root lśbD=the JEthio^ic falasOf "to migrate;" a term
which is said to be still current in Abyssinia [Knobel,
Yóikert. p. 281], and which on the Egyptian monu-
ments ąppears under the form of PuJost [Brugsch,
HiiL dŹgypt, p. 187]), viŁ "emigrant," and is designed
to aooount for the application of that name. But a sec-
ond and morę serious difiiculty arisea out of the lan-
guage of the Philiatines; for while the Caphtorim were
Hamitic, the Philistine language is held to have been
Shemitic. (HiUig, in his Utyeschichte d, PkiL^ how-
ever, maintains that the language is Indo-European,
with a view to prove the Philistines to be Pelasgi, He
is, we believe, singuUr in his view.) It has hence been
inferred that the Philistines were in reality a Shemitic
race, and that they derived the title of Caphtorim sim-
ply from a residence in Caphtor (Ewald, i, 331 ; Mover8,
Phdniz, iii, 258), and it has been noticed in confirmation
of this that their land is terraed Canaan (Zeph. ii, 6).
But this seems to be inconsistent with the express a»-
sertion of the Bibie that they were Caphtorim (Deut. ii,
23), and not simply that they came from Caphtor; and
the term Canaan is applied to their country, not ethno-
■''jcically but etyroologically, to describe the trading
habita of the Philistines. The dlfficolty arising out of
the que8tion of language has been met by asaaroing
either that the Caphtorim adopted the language of the
oonquered Avim (a not unusual circumstance where the
conąuered form the bulk of the population), or thnt
they diverged from the Hamitic stock at a period when
the di8Łinctive features of Hamitism and Shemitism
were yet in embryo. (See below.) A third objection
to their Egyptian origin is raised from the application
of the term " uncircumcised" to them (i Sam. xvii, 2G ;
2 Sam. i, 20), whereas the Egyptians were circumcised
(Herod, ii, 36). But this objection is answered by Jer.
ix, 25, 26, where the same term is in some sense applied
to the Egyptians, however it may be reconciled with
the statement of Herodotua. See Caphtor.
There b additional evidence to the above that the
Philistines belonged to the Shemitic fam iły. The
names of their cities and their proper names are of She-
mitic origin. In their intercourse with the Israelites
there are many intimations that the two used a com-
mon language. How is this, if they were immigrants
in Palestine ? This difficulty is removed by supposing
that originally they were in Palestine, being a part of
the great Shemitic family, went westward, under prcss-
ure from the wave of population which came down
from the higher country to the sea-coast, but after-
wards returned eastward, back from Crete to Palestine;
80 that in Amos ix, 7 it is to be understood that God
brought them up to Palestine, as he brought the Israel-
ites out of Eg>'pt — back to their home. This view the
passage undoubtedly admits ; but we cannot agree with
Movers in holding that it gives direct evidenoe in its
favor, though his generał position is probably correct,
that the Philistines ńrst ąuitted the mainland for the
neigbburing islands of the Mediterranean sea, and then,
after a time, returned to their original home (Movers,
p. 19. 29, 35). Greek writers, however, give evidenc6
of a wide diffusion of the Shemitic race over the ialands
ofthe Mediterranean. Thucydides says (i, 8) that most
of the islands were inhabited bv Carians aud Phceni-
cians. Of Crete, Herodotus (i, 178) declares that bar-
barians had, before Minos, formed the population of the
island. There is evidenoe w Homer to the same effect
{Od, ix, 174; comp. Strabo, p. 475). Many proofa oflTer
them8elves that, before the spread of the Hellenes, these
ialands were inhabited by Shemitic races. The wor-
ship ot»ervcd in them at this time shows a Shemitic
origin. The Shcmitics gave place to the Hellenics— a
change which dates from the time of Minos, who drove
them out of the islands, giving the dominion to his son.
The expclled i^opulatiou settled on the Asiatic coast.
This evidence, derived from heathen sources, gives a
representation which agrees with the scriptural account
of the origin, the westcrly wandering, and eastward
return of the Philistines. But chronology creatcs a dif-
ficulty. Minos probably livcd about the year B.C. 1300.
According to the O. T. the Philistines were found in
Palestine at an carlier period. In Gen. xx, 2; xxvi, 1,
we find a Philistine king of Gerar. But this king (and
others) may havc been so termed, not bccause he w^as
of Philistine blood, but because he dwelt in the land
which was aflem-ards called Phiiistia. There are othcr
considerations which seem to show that Philistines did
not occupy this country in the days of Abraham (con-
sult Bertheau, p. 196). It is, however, certain that the
Philistines exi8ted in Palestine in the time of ^loses 9A
a brave and warlike people (Exod. xiii, 17) — a fact
which places them on the Asiatic continent long before
Minos. This difficulty does not appear considerablc to
us. There may have been a return eastwards before
the time of Minos, as well as one in his time; or he
may have merely put the finishing stroke to a return
commenced, from some cause or other — war, over-popu-
lation, etc. — at a much earlier period. The informa-
tion found in the Bibie is easily understood on the
ahowing that in the earliest ages tribea of the Shemitic
race spread themselve8 over the West, and, beooming
PHILISTINE
103
PHILLSTINE
iahabiUnits of the islands, gaye themselyes to nariga-
Uan. To these tńbes tbe Philistines appear to have
belonged, who, for what leaaon we know uot, left Crete,
and aettled on the coast of Palestine.
± The Dext ąnestion therefore tbat ariaes relates to
tke earfy moremaUs of the Philistinea. It has been
TOT geoeraUjr assomed of late yean that Capbtor rep-
resents Crete, and that the Philistines migrated from
thit ialand, either directly or through Eg^^pt, into Pal-
estine. This h]rpoŁhesis presuppoeea the Śhemitic or-
igin of tbe PhiUstines; for we belieye tbat tbere are no
traces of łlamitic settlementa in Crete, and consequently
tbe BibUcal statement that Caphtońm was descended
from Mirraim fonns an a priori objection to tbe view.
Moreoirer, the name Caphtor can only be identified with
the Egyptian Coptoa. But the Cretan origin of the
Philistines has been deduced, not so much from the
mme Capbtor, as from tbat of the Cherethites. This
Dtme in its Hebrew form C^H^S) bears a close resem-
bbnce to Crete, and is rendered Cretans in the Sept
A farther link between the two terms has apparently
been discovered in the term "^nS, karif wbich b appUed
to tbe royal guard (2 Kinga
xi, 4, 19), and whicb aounda
like Carians. Tbe latter of
these arguments assumea that
the Cherethites of David's
gaard were identical with the
ChcTethites of the Philistine
plain, whicb appears in tbe
highest degrce improbable.
See Cheretuite. With re-
gard to tbe former argnment,
the merę coincidence of tbe
Dames cannot pass for mach
without some oorroborative
lestimony. The Bibie fur-
nishes Done, for the name oc-
cun but thrice (1 Saro. zxx,
H; Ezek. xxv, 16; Zeph. ii,
5), and apparently applies to
the occupants of the sontbem
distńct; the testimony of the
Sept is iniralidated by tbe fact
that it is based npon the merę sound of the word (see
Zeph. ii, 6, where her6th is also rendered Crete) ; and,
l*^ly, we hare to account for the introduction of tbe
dasHcal name of the island side by side with the He*
l^rew term Capbtor. A certain amoimt of testimony is
wdeed addnoed in favor of a oonnection between Crete
■fld Philistia ; but, with tbe exception of tbe vague ru-
ttor, recorded bat not adopted by Tacitus {Hist. v, 8),
the eridenoe is confined to tbe town of Gaza, and e^en
io this cBse is not wholly satisfactory. The town, ac>
oording to Stephanns Byzantiniis (s. v. raZa)y was
^cnned Minoa, as baring been founded by Minos, and
this tradition may be traced back to, and was pcrhaps
founded on, an inscription on the coins of tbat city, eon-
taining tbe letters MEINO ; but these coins are of no
higher datę tban tbe Ist centuiy KC, and belong to a
period when Gaza had attained a decided Greek char-
acter (Josephns, War, ii, 6, 3). Again, tbe worship of
the god Mama, and its identity with the Cretan Jore,
are freąuently mentioned by early writers (Morers,
Phdniz, i, 662); but the name is Phoenician, being the
Tnarcm, ^* lord," of 1 Cor. xyi, 22, and it seems morę prob-
able tbat Gaza and Crete derived the worship from a
common source, Phceuicia. Without therefore asserting
that migrations may not have taken place from Crete
to Philistia, we hołd that the evidence adduced to prove
that they did is not altogether sufficient. What is re-
markable, and as if two distinct and unallied peoples
borę the same appellation, on a tablet of Kameses III at
Medinet Habd is scnlptnred a naval victory over the
Sbarutana, perhaps the Cherethites of Crete ; while an-
other nation of the same name, perhaps the Cherethites
of tbe mainland, form a portion of tbe Egyptian army.
We find also the name Pulusata in close connection with
this Sharutana. See Cubte.
Philistine Shlp attacked by Egyptians.
On the otber band, it has been hcld by Ewald (i, 380)
and others that the Cherethites and Peletbites (2 Sam«
XX, 23) were Cherethites and Philistines. The objec-
tions to this yiew are: (1) that it is highly improbable
that David would select his officers from the hereditary
foes of bis country, particularly so immediately afler be
bad enforced tbeir submission ; (2) tbat tbere appears
no reason why an undue proroinence should have been
given to the Cherethites by placing that name first, and
altering PhiUstines into Peletbites, so as to produce a
paronomasia ; (3) that tbe names subseąuently applied
to the same body (2 Kings xi, 19) are appellatiyes; and
Philistlce Wngons nttacked by Egyptians^ ^ '- '•
PHILISTINE
104
PHILISTINE
(4) that the t«rms admit of a probable explanAtion from
Uebrew roots. See Peletiiite.
8. A still morę important point to be decided in con-
nection with the early hUtory of the Philistines ia the
time wken they settled in the land ofCanaan. If we were
to restrict ouraelres to the statements of the Bibie, we
should conclude that this took place before the time of
Abraham ; for they are noticed in his day as a pastorał
tribe in the neighborhood of Gerar (Gen. xxi, 32, 34;
xxvi, 1, 8) ; and this poaition accords well with the
statement in Deut. ii, 23 that the Arim dwelt in Ha-
zerim, i. e. in nomad encampments; for Gerar lay in the
Boath country, which was just adapted to such a lifc.
At the time of the exodu8 they were still in the same
neighborhood, but grown sufficiently powerful to inspire
the Israelites with fear (£xod. xiii, 17 ; xv, 14). When
the Israelites arrived, the}' were in fuli possession of the
Shephelah from the " river of Egjrpt" (el-Arish) in the
south to Ekron in the north (Josh. xv, 4, 47), and had
formed a confederacy of five powerful cities — Gaza, Ash-
dod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron (Josh. xiłi, 3). At what
period these cities were originally founded we know not,
but there are good grounds for believing that they were
of Canaanitish origin, and had previously been occupied
by the Avim. The naroe Gath is certainly Canaanitish ;
BO most probably are Gaza, Ashdod, and Ekron. Ash-
kelon is doubtful ; and the terminations both of this and
Ekron roay be Philistine. Gaza is mentioned as early
as in Gen. x, 19 as a city of the Canaanites; and this as
well as Ashdod and Ekron was in Joshua*s time the
asylum of the Canaanitish Anakim (Josh. jti, 22). The
interval that elapsed between Abraham and the exodus
seems suflScient to allow for the alteration that took
place in the position of the Philistines, and their trans-
formation from a pastorał tribe to a settled and powerful
nation. But such a view has not met with aoceptance
among modern critics, partly because it leaves the mi-
grations of the Philistines whoUy unconnected with any
known hi»torical event, and partly because it does not
serve to explain the great increase of their power in the
time of the Judges. To meet these two requiremeuts
a double migration on the part of the Philistines, or of
the two branches of that nation, has been suggested.
Knobel, for instance, regards the Philistines proper as a
branch of the same stock as that to which the Hyksos
belonged, and he discoyers the name Philistine in the
opprobrious name Philiłion or Phiłiłis, bestowed on the
Shepherd kings (Herod, ii, 128) ; their first entrance into
Canaan from the Casluhim would thus be subsequent
to the patriarchal age, and coinddent >(ith the expul-
sion of the Hyksos. The Cherethites he identifies with
the Caphtorim who displaced the Avim ; and these he
regards as Cretans, who did not enter Canaan before the
period of the Judges. The former part of his theory is
inconsist«nt with the notices of the Philistines in the
book of Genesis; these, therefore, he regards as additions
of a Uter datę ( Yólkert, p. 218 są.). The view adopted
by Movers is, that the Philistines were carried west-
ward from Palestine into Lower Egypt by the stream
of the Hyksos movement at a period subsequent to Abra-
ham ; from Egypt they passed to Crete, and returned
to Palestine in the early period of the Judges {Phóniz,
iii, 258). This is inconsistent with the notices in Joshua.
JCwald, in the second edition of his Geschichte, propounds
the hypothesis of a double immigration from Crete, the
first of which took place in the ante-patriarchal period,
as a consequence cither of the Canaanitish settlement
or of the Hyksos roovement, the second in the time of
the Judges {Gesch, i, 329-331). We cannot regard the
above views in any other light than as spoculations,built
up on very slight data, and unsatisfactory, inasmuch as
they fail to reooncile the statements of Scripture. For
they all imply (1) that the notioe of the Caphtorim in
Gen. X, 14 applies to an entirely distinct tribe from the
Philistines, as Ewald (i, 831, notę) himself allows ; (2)
that either the notices in Gen. xx, xxvi, or those in
'Josh. XV, 45-47, or perchance both, are iuterpolations ;
and (8) that the notice in Deut ii, 23, wbicb oertainly
bears marks of high antiquity, belongs to a latc datę,
and refers solely to the Cherethites. But, beyond these
inconsistencies, there are two pointa which appear to
militate against the theory of the second immigration
in the time of the Judges: (1) that the national title of
the nation always remained Philistine, wbercas, acoord-
ing to these theories, it was the Cretan or Cheretbite
element which led to the great devGlopment of power iu
the time of the Judges; and (2) that it rcmains to be
shown why a seafaring race like the Cretans, coming
direct from Caphtor in their ships (as Knobel, p. 224, un-
derstands " Caphtorim from Caphtor" to imply), would
seek to occupy the quarters of a nomad race lłvin^ in
encampments, in the wildemess region of the south.
We hesitate, therefore, to endorse any of the proffered ex-
planations, and, while we allow that the Biblical state-
ments are remarkable for their fragmentary and paren-
thetical naturę, we are not prepared to fili up the (^ps.
If those statements cannot be received as they stand, it
is qucstionablc whether any amount of criticism Avill
supply the connecting links. One point can, we think.
be satisfactorily shown, viz. that the hypothesia of a
second immigration is not needed in order to account
for the growth of the Philistine power. Their ceo-
graphical position and their relations to neighborinj^
nations will account for it. Between the times of Abra- *
ham and Joshua the Philistines had changed their quar-
ters, and had advanced northwards into the Shephelah
or plain of Philistia. l'his plain has been in all ages
remarkable for the extreme richn»M of its soil ; its fields
of standing corn, its vineyard8 and oHve-yards, are in-
cidentally mentioned in Scripture (Judg. xv, 5) ; and in
time of farainc the land of the Philistines was the hope
of Palestine (2 Kings viii, 2). We should, however, fail
to form a just idea of its capacities from the scanty no-
tices in the Bibie. The crops which it yielded were
alone sufficient to insure national wealth. It was alsr>
adapted to the growth of military power; for while the
plain itself permitted the use of war-chariots, which
were the chief arm of offence, the occasional elevations
which rise out of it ofTered secure sites for towns and
Btrongholds. It was, moreover, a commercial country;
from its position it must have been at all times the great
thoroughfare between Phcenicia and Syria in the north,
and Eg}*pt and Arabia in the south. Ashdod and Gaza
were the keys of Egypt, and commanded the transit
trade ; and the stores of frankinoense and myrrh which
AIexander captured in the latter place prove it to have
been a depot of Arabian produce (Plutarch, Alex, cap.
25). We have evidence in the Bibie that the Philis-
tines traded in slaves with Edom and Southern Arabia
( Amos 1, 6 ; Joel iii, 3, 5), and their commercial cliaracter
is indicated by the application of the name Canaan to
their land (Zeph. H, 5). They probably possessed a
navy ; for they had ports attached to Gaza and Ashke-
lon ; the Sept speaks of their ships in its venion of Isa.
xi, 14, and they are reprcsented as attacking the Egyp-
tians out of ships. The Philiotines had at an earlr
period attained proficiency iu the arts of peace; they
were skilful as smiths (1 Sam. xiii, 20), as armorers
(xvił, 5, 6), and as builders, if we may judge from the
prolonged sieges which Beveral of their towns sustained.
Their images and the golden mice and emerods (vi, 11)
imply an acquaintance with the founder^s and goUł-
smiiirs arts. Their wealth was abundant (Judg. xTi,
5, 18), and they appear iu all respects to have been a
prosperous people.
4. Subsecuent Kitension, — Possessed of such elements
of power, the Philistines had attained in the time of the
Judges an important position among Eastem nations.
Their hlstory is, indeed, almost a blank ; yet the few
particulars preserved to us are suggestive. About EC.
1209 we find them engaged in suocessful war with the
Sidonians, the effect of which was so serious to the Uu»
ter power that it involved the transferenoe of the cspital
of PboBnicia to a morę secure position on the island of
PHILISTINE
105
PHILISTINE
Trre (Jnstan. xTiii, d). About the same period, or a
little after, they were engaged in a naval war with Ra-
neses III of Egypt, in oonjunction with other Medifcer-
noeaa nations; in these wars the^ were ansuooesBful
(Br^gsch, Hist, iTEgypiej p. 185, 187), but the notice of
it»m proTes their importance, and we cannot therefore
be surpraed that they were able to extend their author-
UT orer the ŁsnieUtea, devoid aa these were of intemal
onioo, and haraseed by extemal foes. With regard to
their tactics and tbe objects that they had in view in
their tttacks on the Israelites, we may form a fair idea
from the Bcattered notices in the books of Judges and
SaiDoeL The warfare was of a gueriUa character, and
raoasted of a series of rctidi into the eneroy'8 countn*.
Sotoetimes these estended only jost over the border,
wiih the Tiew of plnndering the threshing-floors of the
agricoluinl produce (1 Sam. xxiii, 1) ; but roore gen-
eiily they penetrated into the heart of the country
tod seized a oommanding position on the edge of the
Jordan yalley, whence they could secure themselres
agiinst a oombination of the tran»- and ci»-Jordanic
divifflona of the Israelites, or prevent a return of the
iiigitirea who had hurńed acroes the river on the alarm
of Uwir approach. Thus at one time we find them
crosstng the central district of Benjamin and postiug
theiinel?es on Michmash (xiii, 16), at another time
ftiUowing the coast-road to the plain of Esdraelon
and reaching the edge of the Jordan yalley by Jezreel
(xzix, 11). From sach poats as their headquarter8
Uwy sent out detached banda to plunder the sur-
roondtng eountry (xiit, 17), and, having obtained all
they could, they estabUshed some military mark p'^2C3,
A.V. "garrison," but perhape meaning only a column,
13 in Gen. xix, 26) as a token of their supremacy
(1 Sam. X, 5; xiii, 3), and retreated to their own
CDoniry. This s^^stem of incursions kept the Israelites
io a State of pcrpetual disąuietude : all commerce was
HBpendedjfrom the insecurity of the roads (Judg. v, 6) ;
ud at the appioach of the foe the people eitber betook
themselves to the natural hiding-places of the country,
w ded across the Jordan (1 Sam. xiii, 6, 7). By degrees
the ascendency became complete, and a virtual disar-
mamcnt of the population was effected by the sup-
preoion of the smiths (xiii, 19). The profits of the Phi-
lititlnes were not confined to the goods and chattels they
c«TieU off with them. They seized the persona of the
Israelites and sold them for slares; the earliest notice
of thb occurs in 1 Sam. xiv, 21, where, according to the
probably correct reading (D'^*125, and not D'^'115) fol-
Wed by tbe SepL, we find that there were numerous
alATes in the camp at Michmash : at a Uiter period the
prophets inveigh against them for their traffic in human
Aeah (Joel iii, 6 ; Amos i, 6) : at a still later period we
hear that **the merchanta of the country" foUowed the
>nDy of Goigiaa into Judaea for the purpoae of buying
the chiltlren of Israel for slayes (1 Mace iii, 41), and
that these merchanta were Philistinea is a fair inference
fiom the 8ub8equent notice that Nicanor sold the cap-
tive Jews to the "cities upon the sea-coast*' (2 Mace.
^ii>t H). There can be little doubt, too, that tribute
*as exacted from the Israelites, but the notices of it are
confioed to pasaages of ąnestionable authority, such as
the rendering of 1 Sam. xiii, 21 in the Sept,, which
Hcads of Phtiiatine Prisooers. (Prom tho Egyptlan
Monnmenta.)
representa the Philistinea as making a charge of three
shekels a tool for sharpening them ; and again the ex-
pression " Metheg-ammah" in 2 Sam, viii, 1, which ia
rendered in the Yulg. frenum tributif and by Symma-
chus tĄv iĘovffiav tov ^pov (the tnie text may have
been MTOtl, instead of HSlKn). In each of the pas-
aages ąuoted the yersions presuppose a text which
yields a better sense than the existing one.
II. Coimection ofthe Philistines with IsraełUUk Hit^
tory, — Herę we recur to the Biblical narnitive.
1. Under Joshua and the Judges,— The territory of
the Philistines, having been once occupied by the Ca-
naanites, formed a portion of the Promised Land, and
was assigned to the tri be of Judah (Josh. xv, 2, 12,'45-
47). No part, however, of it was conquered in the
lifetime of Joshua (xiii, 2), and even afler his denth no
permanent conqne8t was effected (Judg. iii, 3), though,
on the authority of a somewhat doubtful passagc, we
are informed that the three cities of Gaza, Ashkelon,
and Ekron were taken (Judg. i, 18). The Philistines,
at all event8, soon recoyered these, and commenced an
aggre8sive policy against the Israelites, by which they
gnined a complete ascendency over them. We are un-
able to say at what intenrals their incursions took place,
as nothing is recorded of them in the early period of
the Judges. But they must have been frequent, inas-
much as the national spirit of the Israelites was so en-
tirely broken that they even reprobated any attempt at
deliveranoe (xv, 12). Individual heroes were raised
up from time to time whose achievements roight well
kindle patriotism, such ns Shamgar the son of Anath
(iii, 81), and stlU morc Samson (xiii-xvi); but neither
of these men succeeded in permanently throwing off
the yoke. Of the former only a single daring feat ia
recorded, the effect of which appears, from Judg. v, 6, 7,
to have been very 8hortlived. The true eeries of de*
liverances commenced with the latter, of whom it was
predicted that " he shall begin to deliver'' (xiiL 6), and
were carried on by Samuel, Saul, and David. A brlef
notice occurs in Judg. x, 7 of invasion8 by the Philistinea
and Ammonites, followed by particulars which apply
exclusively to the latter people. It bas hence been
supposed that the brief reference to the Philistines is in
anticipation of Saroson'8 history.
The hi8torv of Samson fumishes us with some idea
of the relations which existed between the two nations.
As a *' borderer" of the tribe of Dan, he was thrown into
frequent contact with the Philistines, whose suprcmacy
was 80 established that no bar appears to have been placed
to free intercoursc with their country. His early life
was spent on the vergc ofthe Shephelah between Zorah
and Eshtaol, but when his actions had aroused the ac-
tive hostility of the Philistines he withdrew into the
central district, and found a secure post on the rock of
Etam, to the south-west of Bethlehem. Thither the
Philistines followed him without opposition from the
inhabitanta. His achicvements belong to his pcrsonal
history : it is elear that they were the isolated acts of
an individual, and altogethcr unconnected with any na-
tional raovement ; for the revenge ofthe Philistines was
throughout directed against Samson personally. Under
Eli there was.an organlzed but unsuccessful resistance
to the encroachments of the Philistines, who had pene-
trated into the central district and were met at Aphek
(1 Sam. iv, 1). The production of the ark on this occa-
sion demonstrates the greatness of the emergency, and
its lo68 marked the lowest depth of Israers dcgradation.
The next action took place under Samucrs leader-
ship, and the tide of success turned in Israels favor : the
Philistinea had again penetrated into the mountainous
country near Jeruaalem ; at Mizpeh they met the cowed
host of the Israelites, who, encouraged by the signs of
divine favor, and availing themsclve8 of the panic pro-
duced by a thunderstorm, infłicted on them a total de-
feat. For the first time the Israelites erccted their pillar
or $tele at Eben-ezer as the token of victory. The re-
»v<t
r
m «
:^y—:L
«"«..—.
€
* #*^.i*Ł*—— ■ ;■.
• ---:r
i ^ ••
—
—5 ri.. -jif . ^ -_
a ^
'
V
-i« 1 *••;»• -: !«- ^
,a-..-
' t^^^
»'-£. «« X 1.^ .:n«
► '■-.-
M<
* .' "
j
•• * ",— • p'^^* '
-• j'-*
.•^ •
-s-
•»-• *-*r »"r' •
* «
* #
V
• ^ '^*- a
»-^ «
^ł".-
^
^ "HIŁ *. - ?
t i
•^ ar
>«..
i-.r ^' • • — £ ••
S ti*
.te
■
■^j'^ wef .^s^' ••
-.«• •- ^
. - - »
' » . • • » .T. r" i_ ^
•* " - -• * -5* r --»f5^ .• . — * :f*iC-''<«' .::j w -■ _— , — r,
■• ' .♦ • • -r- . ■ • ••«-.« « J. i-=a»t^ *» _. . -a. ••,
•"•" •• •» V' -»ł »-;j' - *• .^ . -"-łŁ " w_--' : i» • ■■ *"~' «"■
•■ • # ».- . ' - -4 ' *t t: ^" • ^•^Ił. "Ł. "S. ♦*• .""_:•
" ' -» *r •..*.*»'' . -••.._'- - — ';.:^» -j»7-
-'' *- »- *^ ^- »•* ».■»'•«*:. —^ >^._. ^ i zz. "
*-' -• ^ j, ^ • rf -— . !• ''*•. J-^^f ł ♦• "^T»'> V — . *■•
• '"•- ' ■ • -•■••.'■». - .4". ..TLiat- •■ „ 1 •« •! Ł L.- --!•-
''••'• ' .f '. ^ ^, : *- -- ^* f .JC ^ w .^ j »-* ^.«- .. r^-r.-!
' -•* ' ' : , i\ .. <►, r-^r. .'.'** -t». rr**- •: i.»
""■'■• * '-^ ■ '^ ^ ^ ^ ■' ^ ^^ _ -j^.. ^ ^.^ ,1- :,^
- ^ ' ♦*» #^ «i^ ( ł «r.' ••- » -.-łT" ii.<t .1^ «-^e 3^ ?*^^**«iiif -xaa« ii* ;'"i«'
» * * ,f^^ •-••. .^ ii;.--!-.* .*.-•-: ^ 1 it *n« MHai it^ . r-::— a^ «.J miit itjrr tL:es ii-riim^^ oa
* »*** •^- # r*B w #«■ ;..-' .1 .^ *■ .' -u r»fT:ir.-r "ii- ^ijtn - 'irr.rt. ti- ♦ .it» .Maetirjwi -iii-aar'a.4 w^re
»* *. * *4' ' » 9^^ /•»»»#• *•*'...- 'if* -. a.*u --:.ił^ ii'i ♦• '»n'.» it ir i"C *» t* łr-r^u. >r tŹKjr al-
• * • ' ' ^ ' « >^ ^ «-. . n ^ V ..> t « u#fu iiłir- j«v-t ae ?":. .^ iir- i» r^c a« u*, ir ••.•.r«th«r, cncz>->
#... . t .* *•. • ^-r '^ ^ « ''i-s^.i'^! wi .»i* w^.rani a -njcii;!.:^ me n :•• u- :lt^ r!fc.iiic u' i? m :isf : Lain of
m •' •* '.^ »ł» ,» f ,^« .> ..^ ;-ł'-^ y .fif 1 izifi i <rr.n "-itfn ji a 'r- r-*.".-! -cm^^g b "la*! w-.r» "'f Nailab
-^ • . ^ '^•^'T \f f* y. (.^.uf^ »iR. j( ł»- Bill 'TLai- _ i -!.:* f i". ^"^-1 - -^uro^ BManwhile
*■ ■ '^ • f f «* • ,, ,t.'f ,*r 1 ^— ' *>• tp j» ir .'-»•: 'ł' lai: i-c - ii* ":rł:m ■;. 3. r :: j? ?»;♦:• r.tr-L a» an ocmirence
" ' '" ''*'♦.. .«» • .'."^ f \t' t -#1 j i., .♦*._', . 1 1; narc-Ł f*' ii-MuriUic » ■^n-.'»^**w 'J*ic "s^me of ihe
•• '' - • ^. * » »»y^/'^ »r /.* At£ -n, te- . "wu-r* r*i ._?*-::•** iriłnric "ZP^^srac** i «.' ir.o- i^-ii. 1 1 ». But
n^ *. ,H ^0- »>...' ' . y .. t: u •*< łł "•ł:.^ r u» vrt»^ • ■! .t ** • .-"•.# a ▼■» if :i-ł'f : unci c . ta tfc< netip™ of
^«r .*-. r «^ ".^ \ . «..; -r r.ir>« »;,•• •■»'r*ł.:«. *fu'T : .-» «» U < - li nm ''ił-T ar !»ic^t liłfłiawiT-* by inradin|j
•• 9r. *». > /w.' tK /-..I.- •/ »r k- i; r: ^ I-'. . -*iLXA -i .- r. la*.— j a vi -»J«! ArŁiiOiS. «nd sacking
^ /...'. ■ '». ,.- . ; ,» *^ *» •' - .^ ^.^^ c: - o- • '.•* r '- Ł. r.uui-- ^tx, :-, :r» Pu* isicrtaMaj weak-
' ' •' '*' •• i " . , I .^ •! ^T ^' r^^n-inra n* Złł*ł .f "it^ J--»->a si laarrfiT ac»Ler :b*! a;:ai'k< of Ha-
• '" ** • ' -' '•* n* ..» * n»i>' a -i ..-..if»r„vr a*»i j^-i " -i*? r»i--T«»rT .t •^Ach. w-.v:!i liad be*n cap-
t /
/ -f / / / » / ^, i *^ '■. *-^-.^if-4M w Mor. ar al^ *T*r,"* :t w** i:s :h«»ir Łac»ł* ir the tin» of Uzzuih,
./,•' *^ *,»,., 9*T^. u\s..t*..y fa.-/^a.-,ł* r« wr^, .ii*łrjr->i i Orc xxTi. «»• ami probablj de-
• * , .» ^* » ., //, «y^>r ip*r* •'.A^.*' »,f'.».-r,t ti» a Kr -ei it : f.r i: ś« a: ij^-^łii by AiBitt as an cxafDpłe of
/,/./ ^., -»»■/.. .'.V. . .y (,, .; V, '^ R.'.^ ov^T trut :.-.,=#► T*-:;:*ar.if Aa>» ru i , and iben di^ppean
»r //. / ^.A ... ■ ^ i' ., ,•..>< a:vT/."A/i i#, o^jr.t«T- fr-.ai hw. rr. Trziah at tb* aame tiin« disroantled
•^ , /A ..* », , */■,/»., a '^^ ',». '1^ (.#T«ria rif Jarr>^h Ja-E-.ia .m ti« Durth«nt part of the plain, and
' ' / ' ' / f ,. *' /f* i^ ^*t%ip'\ IM/, tr.^ va;^y of .V«h*i.*.!. ani fonh^r em-t^ ft>ft* in diffwent parta of
I'/ ^ .u *t,, , w *• '/rJ'f .•»,*«». ar^l«-t*ti f«»^l#^f/,r. the oar.trr to ictimiiate tb« inhabitants (2 Chion.
w*. ; */, #/ ,».,/> /I (•^f a* far a4 IVf».>^r,*^ri M Chr^. xxvt. »} . The pn^h*>n« of J.iel and \vam prove tbat
" '' <'•"••*•"•'» A/ r' /f » r,< *ri ar f !>/; f</nn^ *f jth. r h»-vr inea«ur» wtre proroketi by the a$:;:nT8$ions of tbc
H , 'nf **/», ^^/i.4./^, n.ff, łi/r-al t<i//:«-Mi, in x\w. ńr^ Pł.iii*:Jnc-». mho appear to hare fonnc^i leagaea both
' .♦' ' . /• .ft„j tt^,t $f(,)t'/*M, If, t\$*', łł-roTid punKiinc with thc Kd*»mitc§ and Phcenicians. and had reduced
' '. tfr,'o t ,i t,n uuu\ f \,'^i tjntt*'. Ut (,B7Af (2 .Sam, v, many of the .lew« to slarery ( Joel iii, 4-6 ; Amoa i, 6-
</ // M Uff,,, ti/, H U,,, AJfłfir «-v#rn ył-arn aft#T 10>' How far the means adopted by Uzziah wore ef-
<•!' '{'*'•** M \U\,Uhuu, Oav'Ml, w ho ha^l nÓw con*r*li- fectual we are not inforroed; bat we have reaaon to
'U'/ I I,. - \,', »tę ,tiit,j\,,,\\ u, „t trti tUt-tr own •łriil, and »upfMide tbat the Philidiinea were kcpt in subjcction un-
tn',„ i,„iu •^.M, „^ ,,, |,M,/li »M MU /I r;hfon. xviii, 1;, and til the time of Ahaz, when. relying npon thc difficulties
M.'M /«///,fr|,„y |y, ,„„ ,„,, r|,r«.Ufion of thi- oWiire ex- produced br thc Svrian invasio'ns.theyattacked the bor-
l>t>. ,-m • M'M,/j/ nutiuHW iri ;^ h;,m. viii, I) *'hc tr»ok der-citiea in the Śhephelah, and ** the aouth*' of Judah
n.# Hfiu\,ti'\U- Mit of tl.i' liAfid of (h<- 1'hiliilinft*" (Her- (2 Chroń, xviii, 18).
fhoM^ i ',.„„„, ,rtt I < hrrii,.,, or rarrordiiiK fo anotherj | Krom thia time the noticca of the Philistines are
•Im. ti,',U tU0< Irn/lh' ut iIm* ftutrn\HA\n out of the hand , Inrpely involved in the roovement« of the great powers
of Hi.. riiih^hiM*' (i,t'^'u'm% 'n*'»nur, p. 113;- mcan- wjrrounding Palestine. Imiah^s declarations (xiv, 29-
IM// IM nihir I MM- ihnt itM-ir am'.iMl«'n<y wan uttcrly 32) throw light upon these 8ub8equent event»: from
l'ł'«l'*M, 'IIm« )MdM«d w/l* łho ra«.; for the minor en- them we learn that the Assyrians, whom Ahax §um-
j(M|/MMinU IM \H\u{'n Uiv\hm |iroliai)ly nil tmik place moned to his aid, proved themselyea to be the "cock-
Hiłliiii tlic lionli-m of l'hllMii«( (łob, which in «ivcn aa atrice that ebould come out of the aerpenfs (Judahs)
PHILISTINE
107
PHILISTINE
ract* hy raraging the Philistine plaiiL A few tcais
Uirf th« Plitliścincs, in conjnnction with the Syńans
lod Asyńaaa {" the advenarie8 of Rezin*^), and per-
bps ts the sabject-ftUieB of the latter, canied on a Be-
rinof stŁacka on the kingdom of Israel (Isa. ix, 11, 12).
HeKkuh'8 reign inaugurated a new policy, in wbich
tbe PhiiistiDes were deeply iuterested : that monarch
f<nD«d an alliance with the Egyptians, as a counter-
(>49e to tbe Aflsyrians, and the posseasion of Philistia
^jicMEK bencefocth the tuming-point of the struggle
'ietceen the two great empirea of the East. Hezekiah,
m th€ eadj part of his reign, re-established his anthor-
itr ora tbe whole of it, " even unto Gaza^ (2 Kings
xT:ti, 8). This morement waa evident]y connected
with bis rebellion against the king of Assyria, and was
loukftaken in conjunction with the Egyptians; for we
^ the Utter people shortly after in possession of the
ćv« Pbiiistine cities, to which alone are we able to refer
tbe pffediction in Isa. xix, 18, when coupled with the
f*et that both Gaza and Ashkelon are termed Egyptian
<ui£ś in tbe annals of Sargon (Bunsen, Egypty iv, 603).
Ibe Assyriana under Tartan, the generał of Sargon,
■Bidc an expedition against Egypt, and took Ashdod,
» ike key of that country (Isa. xx, 1, 4, 5). Under
^oacberib Philistia was again the scenę of important
(■pentioos: in his first campaign against Eg^^pt Ash-
i^ion was taken and its dependencies were plundered ;
ishdod, Ekron, and Gaza submttted, and received as a
tward a portion of Hezekiah's territory (Rawlinson,
\l*Ti)d, i, 477) : in his second campaign (on the view
(tut the two were differcnt) other towns on the vcrge
of the plain, such ba Libnah and Lachish, were also
likcn i^l Kings XTiii, 14; xix, 8). The Assyrian su-
rfcmary, thoagh sbaken by the failure of this latter
tipedition, was restored by Esar-haddon, who c]aims to
We ronquered Egypt (Rawlinson, i, 481) ; and it seems
pniUbłe that the Aasyrians retained tbeir hołd on Ash-
*»ł umil its capture, after a long siege, by the Egyptian
SMiatth Psammetichus (Herod, ii, 167), tbe efToct of
vhtch was to reduce the population of that important
P^ to a merę *' remnant" (Jer. xxv, 20). It was about
this time, and possibly while Psammetichus was en-
P^ in the siege of Ashdod, that Philistia was trav-
ei«d by a vast ^ythian hordę on tbeir way to Egypt :
ibey were, bowerer, diverted from tbeir purpose by the
tiog, and retraced tbeir steps, płundeńng on tbeir re-
J^^t the rich tempie of Venns at Ashkelon (Herod, i,
Ifi-a Tbe description of Zephaniah (ii, 4-7), who was
coottraporary with this event, may weU apply to this
terrible scourge, thoagh morę generally referred to a
Cbaldcan inrasion. llie Egyptian ascendency was not
asyet re-establisbed, for we find tbe next king, Necho,
Cpmp^Ued to besiege Gaza (if the Cadytis of Herodotus,
ii. 159) on his return from the battle of Megiddo. After
tbe death of Necho, the contest was renewed between
^ ^ptians and the Chnldseans under Nebuchadnez>
^r and the result was speciall}' disastrous to the Phi-
listioes: Gaza was again taken by the former, and the
po^olation of the whole plain was reduced to a merę
l^remnanf* by the invading armiea (Jer. xlvii> Tbe
""U hatred** that the Philistines borę to the Jews was
*^ibit€d in acU of hoetility at the time of the Baby-
Łmian captirity (Ezek. xxv, 15-17) ; but on tbe return
^^^^m aomewhat abated, for sumę of the Jews married
^ilustioe wofoen, to the great scandal of tbeir rulers
(^'*h.xiii,2a,24).
3. Pott-fjiiian //i9t(ny.^Fnm thb time the history
7 ^Histia is absorfocd in the stniggles of the neighbor-
'lu; kin^^doma. In KC 332, Alexander the Great trav-
^ it on his way to Egypti and captured Gaza, then
l^id by ths Peniaoa aoder Betis, after a two monŁh's
T^ 'n 312 the armiea of Demetrios Polioroetes and
Ptolemy foogbt in tbe neighborbood of Gaza. In 198
^koehuł the Great, in his war against Ptolemy Epiph-
^ inraded Philistia and took Gaza. In 166 the
(iłiltttifltt joioed the Svrian anny under Gorgiaa in its
*^^ oa Jttdn (1 Kaóc. iii, 41). In 148 the adherenta
of the rival kings Demetrins II and Alexander Balas,
under Apollonius and Jonathan rcspectively, contended
in the Philistine plain: Jonathan took Ashdod, tri-
umpbantly entered Ashkelon, and Teceived Ekron as
his reward (1 Mace x, 69-89). A few years later Jon-
athan again descended into the plain in the interests
of Antiochus VI, and captured Gaza (1 Mace. xi. 60-62).
No further notice of the country occurs until tbe capture
of Gaza in 97 by the Jewish king Alexander Jannsus,
in his contest with Lathyrus (Joseph. ^4 n/. xiii, 13,8;
War, i, 4, 2). In 63 Pompey annexcd Philistia to the
province of Syria {Ant, xiv, 4, 4), with the cxceptioQ
of Gaza, which was assigncil to Herod (xv, 7, 3), to-
gether with Jamnia, Ashdod, and Ashkelon, as appears
from xvii, 11, 5. The last three fell to Salome after
Herod's death, but Gaza was re-aimexed to Sjria (xvii,
11, 4, 5). The latest notices of the Philistines as a na-
tion, under tbeir title of a\Xu^t/Xoi, occur in 1 Mace. -
iii-v. The extcn8ion of the name from the district oc-
cupied by them to the whole country, under the familiar
form of Palkstine, bas already beeu noticed under that
head.
III. Usapes, etc. — With regard to the institutions of
the Philistines our Information is vcry scanty. Tbeir
roilitary tactics have been noticed abovc. Tbe country
in which they settled is remarkably productive (2 Kings
viti, 2). Thomson exclaim8 on cntering it, ^' Beautiful
but monotonous — wheat, wheat, a ver}' ocean of wheat"
{Land and Book, ii, 32 sq.). The countr}-, be adds,
greatly resembles some of the prairies in Western Amer-
ica. *'l8aac sowed in that land, and rcccived in the
same year a hundredfuld" (Gen. xxvi, 12). Not only
was agriculture most remunerative,but Philistia was the
highway for caravan8 between Egypt and the north,and
commerce must have added to its wcaltb. Harbors were
attached to Gaza and Ashkelon, and a lucrative naviga-
tion may have been carried on. The greatness of the
cities was mainly owing to commerce, for the coast of
Palestine was in the earliest ages exclusively in posses-
sion of the traffic which was carried on between Europę
and Asia. Besidcs a great transit trade, they had inter-
nal sourcca of wealth, beiug given to agriculture (Judg.
XV, 5). In the time of Saul they were evidently supe-
rior in the arts of life to the Israelites ; for we read (1
Sam. xiii, 20) that the latter were indebted to the former
for tbe utensils of ordinary life.
The five chief cities had, as earlv as the davs of Josh-
ua, constituted themselves into a confederacy, restricted,
however, in all probability, to roatters of ofifence and de-
fence. Each was under the govemracnt of a prince
whose ofBcial title was sereny "("iD (Josh. xiii, 3 ; Judg.
iii, 3, etc), and occasionally tdr, "^b (1 Sam. xviii, 30;
xxix, 6). Gaza may be regarded as having cxercised
a hegemony over the others, for in the list of the towns
it is mentioned the first (Josh. xiii, 8 ; Araos i, 7, 8), ex-
cept where there is an especial ground for giving prom-
inence to anotber, as in the case of Ashdod (1 Sam. vi,
17). Ekron always stands last, while Ashdod, Ashkelon,
and Gath interchange places. Each town possesacd its
owu tcrritor}-, as instanced in the case of Gath (1 Chroń.
xviii, 1), Ashdod (1 Sam. v, 6), and others, and each poe-
sessed its dependent towns or " daughters" (Josh. xv,45-
47; 1 Chroń, xviii, !•; 2 Sam. i, 20; Ezek. xvi, 27, 57),
and ita villages (Josh. L c). In later timcs Gaza had a
senate of five hundred (Joseph. A nt, xiii, 13, 3).
Tbe Philistines appear to have been deeply imbued
with superstition : they carried their idols with them
on tbeir campaigns (2 Sam. v, 21), and procbiimed their
victorie8 in their presence (1 Sam. xxxi, 9). They also
carried aboat their persons charms of some kind that
had been presented bcfore the idols (2 Mace. xii, 40).
The gods whoro they chiefly worshipped were Dagon,
who possessed temples both at Gaza (Judg. xvi, 23) and
at A»hdod (1 Sam. v, 3-5 ; 1 Chroń. x. 10 ; 1 Mace. x, 83);
Ashtoreth, whose tempie at Ashkelon was far-famed (1
Sam. xxxi, 10; lierod. i, 105) ; Baal-zebub, whose fane
PHILLIPPS
108
PHILLIPS
at Ekron was ooiuulted by Ahaziah (2 Kings i, 2-^) ; and
Derceto, who was honorcd at Ashkelon (Diod. Sic. ii, 4),
thoagh unnoticed in the Bibie Priests and divinen
(1 Sam. vi, 2) were attacbed to the yańous seata of
wonbip; and the Philbtine magicians were in repute
(Isa. ii, 6).
The special aathontics for the history of the Philis-
tines are Stark, Gaza und die phUiatditche Kusłe (Jena,
1852); Knobel, YólkeHaftl der Genesis (Gieas. 1850);
Moyers, Phdtdzien (Bonn, 1841); Iliuig, Urgesch, und
Mythologie der Phiiitider (Leips. 1845) ; and Kneucker,
in Schenkers Bihel-Lex, s. v. Philist&er. See alao Jour,
Sac, Lit, July, 1852, p. 323 8q.; Jau. 1856, p. 299 8q.;
Frisch, De Origine, diis et terra Palastinorum (Tubing.
1696) ; Wolf, Apparatiu Philistctorum heUicorum (Yiteb.
1711) ; Hannecker, Die PkUisiSer (Eichstildt, 1872).
Philllpps, Georoe, a Congregational minister, was
bom at Rondham, in the oouniy of Norfolk, England,
ncar the opening of the 17th centun'. Haring gircn
early indications of a remarkably yigorous mind, a
strong love of knowledge, and a deep sense of religion,
he was sent to the University of Cambridge, where he
received his education, and distinguished himself as a
scholar. Theology was his favorite study ; and, while
yet a young man, he had roade himself familiar with the
most celebrated of the fathers of the Christian Church.
Not long after his ordination he began to entcrtain scru-
pies with regard to ccrtain reąuircments of the Estab-
lished Church. This dissatisfaction bccaroe so strong
that at last he determined to emigrate to this country
with a company of Puritans, among whom was John
Winthrop. He arrired at Salem in 1630. Having
fouuded with a number of others the settlement of Wa-
tertown, Mass., Phillipps became the first pastor of the
Church, and as such he continued his labors till ncar
the time of his death, which occurred July 1, 1644.
Phillipps posscssed no smali dcgree of intellectual acu-
men, and was an able controyersial writer. He was a
man of great independence of roind, and adhered with
unyielding teuacity to his conscientious conrictions.
He seems to hare been in advance of nearly all his eon-
temporaries in regard to the principles of strict Congre-
gationalism ; insomuch that his views were, for a time,
regardcd as novel and extreme. His miuistry was
markcd by great diligence and fcrvor, and attended
with rich blcssings. His publications are, Repijf to the
Confutation ofsome Grounds of Infant Baptism; aa aUo
Concermng the Form of a Church, put forth against me
bg one Thomas Lamb (Lond. 1645, 4to). See Mather,
3/^a^a/ta, iii, 82-84, 162; Winthrop, Jouma/; Sprague,
AnnaU ofthe Amer, Pulpit, i, 15-17. (J. H. W.)
Phillips, James, D.D., an eminent Presbyterian
divine, was bom at Newendon, E8sex County, England,
April 22, 1792. His father was a minister of the Estab-
lished Church of England, and attached to the Evan-
gelical party in that Church. His early education was
aoquired mostly while he was engaged in private study
and teaching in the 8ervice of the English nary. His
tastes and habits seem to hare been tixed early, and to
tbe impressions which he there receiycd, and the scenes
he witnessed at the great mili tar}' and naval stations,
may be traced many of his later habits and interests.
He came to America in 1818, and engaged in the busi-
ness of teaching at Harlem, N. Y., where he soon had a
flourishing school. There were at that time in New
York and the neighborhood a number of American and
British roathematicians who had organized a mathe-
matical club, of which he became a membcr. To the
mathematical jouraals published at that time he was a
regular contributor, or at least to two of them— the Math-
ematical Repository and Nash's Diary, In 1826 he was
elected to the yacant mathematical chair in the Uniyer-
sity of North Carolina, and entered upon the duties of
his professorship in July ofthe same year. In this posi-
tion he continued to labor for forty-one years, deyoting
himself with unremitting care and attention to his du-
ties. Tho amoiroŁ of work he went through with
amazing. He projecteil a complete course of naathe—
matical works, and published in 1828 a work on conio
sections, which was afterwards adopted as a text-boolc
in Columbia College, New York. He prepared alao trea—
tises on algebra, geometry, trigonometiy, differential and
integral calculus, and natural philosophy, besides mak^
ing for his own use translations of many of the FreDch
mathematicians— which works, howeyer, be neyer madę
any attempt to publish. He also joined the other mem-
bers of the faculty in contributing his quota to the
Harbingei', a newspaper published at Chapel Hill, iu
1832, under the direction of Dr. CaldwelL Up to the
time of his coming to North Carolina, and for iDaii3r
years after, he seems to haye deyoted himself exclu~
sively to scientific studies. Although he had been fur
years a oonsistent member of the Church, yet now he
began to experience a change, which he regarded as tbe
tme beginning of his Christian life. Henceforth he
ceaaed to be the merę teacher of science ; he added to
his other duties the diligent study of theology and un-
wearied actiyity in all Christian duties, and in Septem-
ber, 1833, was lioensed by the Presbytery of Orange, at
New Hoi)e, and in April, 1835, was ordained to the fuli
work of the ministi^'. He was neyer installed as pastor,
but he preached as a supply for some time at Pittsboro*,
and afterwards, for the greater part of his ministerial
life, at New Hope Church. He was in the fuli discharge
of his Professional duties when he died suddenly March
14, 1 867. Dr. Phillips was a man of remarkable literary,
theological, and professional attainments. He was an
inexorable mathematician, but well and thoroughly read
in all departments. Many books in his library had
this simple comment, "PerlegL" His chief religious
reading was among the old Nonconformist divines; his
fayorite anthors were the old English dassics ; the book
that was oflenest in his hand was the Bibie. He was a
great preacher ; his serroons were complete structures ;
there was nothing oratorical about him — it was the pure
" weight of metal." As a man he was oncompromising-
ly conscientious, remarkably modest, free from all arro-
gance and presumption, and yet most genial as a ooro-
panion and friend. See Wilson, Pred), Hist, A Imanac,
1868, p. 849. (J.L.&)
Phillips, John, LL.D., an American philanthropist
of some notc, was boro in Andoyer, Mass., Dec 27, 171D;
was educateil at Haryard College (class of 1735) ; and
haying preached for some time, at length engaged in
mercantile pursuits, and was for seyeral years a member
of the Council of New Hampshire. In 1778 he and his
brother, Samuel Phillips, of Andoyer, founded and liber-
ally endowed the acadcmy in that town, which was in-
corporated in 1780. In 1789 he further gaye to this
institution $20,000. The academy called Phillips Ex-
eter Acadcmy, of which he was the sole founder, was
incorporatcd in 1781, with a fund which was eyentually
increased to $134,000. He endowed a professorship in
Dartmouth College, and he oontributed liberally to
Princeton College. He died in April, 1795, bequeath-
ing to his academy two tliirds of all his estate, and one
third of the residue to the seminary at Andoyer, par-
ticularly for the benefit of pious youth.
Phillips, Morgan, aometimes called Phillip Mor-
gan, a Roman Catholic diyine, was bom probably during
the latter part of the 1 5th century. He receiyed his
education at Oxford, graduating in the class of 1537.
He was madę principaJ of St. Mary's Hall in 1546, and
was one ofthe founders ofthe English College at Douay,
where he died in 1570. His powers as a disputant were
so great that he was ealled ^ Morgan the Sophister," and
he was one of the three selccted to dispute with Peter
Martyr on the Eucharist, and published on that occasion
Dispniatio de Sacramento Eucharisties in Umr. Oxon,
habita contra D, Peter Martyr, 13 Mai, 1549. He alao
published A Treatise shotoing the Regiment of Women is
coiformable to the Law ofGod and Naturę (Liege, 1571,
PHILLIPS
109
PHILLIPS
8ro), wrilten tn answer to John Enox'8 work, The First
BkuŁ o/tke Tntmpety etc. See Wood, Atken, Oxon,;
Dodd, Ck. ffist. ToL iii; AUibone, Dkł. of Brii. and
Amr,AtUk.S.Y.
Pbillipa, Richard, an English Wesleyan preach-
er, iras boro in 1777. In early life he was brought to
CLrut throttgh Methodist influence, and, feeling called
of God to the work of the ministry, entered the itinerant
TSDka in 19(H, and continued in the active labors of the
miiiiśtrj antil 1844, when debility constrained him to
aceept in aaństant, and to preach only occasionally.
"Keaeed with a good understanding and a retentire
meinofy, patient and prudeot, enjoying the life of God
m bii sool, and warmly attachcd to the doctrines and
diściplioe of Methodiam, he preached those doctrines
and administered that discipline to the profit of the
Weaieyui body." See Wesieifan Magaiine, 1846, p. 916.
Phillipa, Samuel (1), a Congregational minbter,
iras boni Feb. 17, 1690 (O. S.), at Salem, Maas. He
endnated at Harvard College in 1708, and was ordained,
(kL 17f 1711, pastor of the South Parish, Andover,
vbere he remained until his death, June 5, 1771. Sam-
t»l Phillips was a devoted orthodox preachcr, and not
C'n]y refiiaed to be atTected by the heretical tendencies
of his times, but combated all Arian influences, and be-
came a most decided opponent of the Unitarians. " As
a prescber, he was faighly respectable, was zealous, and
fDdeavofed not only to indoctrinate his people in senti-
ments which he deemed correct and important, but to
iead them to the practice of all Christian duties." He
poblished, Eleyg upon the Death ąf Nicholas Noyes and
trrtryf Cuncen (1718) : — A Word in Season, or Duty
f'j'a Pfnple to takt the Oath of AUegiance to a Glorioui
';«/(17'i7):— Jrfrtos to a CkUd (1729) :—The Hisiory
f'f fkt Satiour (1738) :—The Orthodox Christian^ or a
CkUd iteU Instructed (1738) i—A Minister^g Address to
hit People (1739) :—A Sermon on Lidng Water to be
^/or AiHng (1760) i— A Sermon on the Sitmer^s Jie-
jv*il (o Come to Christ (1753) :— -.4 Sermon on the Ne-
^^^S o/Gods Drawing in Order to Meris Corning unfo
Ckriii (1753): — SeasondbU Adrice to ą Neighhor^ in a
Ifialogue (1761) : — Address to Young People, in a Dia-
h^i (1763); and sereral occasional sermous. See
^'ue,i4wKi&, i, 273.
Phillips, Saznnel (2), LL.D., an American philan-
thn>fńst,noted for bis sernice to the state, deseryes a place
^ for the interest which he took in educational mat-
^^n. Ue was bom at Andover m 1751, and gradnated
tt Harraid College in 1771. He was a member of the
^'incial Congress in 1775, and of the Hoase of Bepre-
^taiiTea till the year 1780, when he assisted in framing
the coittUtution of Massachusetts. On its adoption ho
*u elected a member of the Senate, and was its presi-
<^Dt froffl 1785 to 1802. Being appointed justice of the
<^«vt of Coramon Pteas for Es8ex in 1781, he held his
^pe till 1797, when his declining healŁh induced his
|^>irnation. He was oommisnoner of the state in
Vharp'a inaurrection, and in 1801 was chosen lieuten-
«oi-goTemor. He died Feb. 10, 1802. Although so
JT^^ly hooored with public eminence, he remained a
wiWul Mn of the Church of Christ, and was not only
"^lar in bis own obserrances, but ministered fre-
<}Qently to thos^ unable to go to chuch. He appeared
** t» continually govemed by love to the Supremę
^ngi and by the deńre of imitating his benerolence
^ (|oing good. PhilUps's deep Tiews of erangelical
wctrine and dutr, of buman depravity and mediatorial
^'^tformed his heart to humility, condescension, and
'^"Młon*, and led him continually to depend on the
P** of God throagh the atonement of his Son. He
*•» one of the projectors of the academy at Andover,
*Bd was much concemed in estaUishing that, as well
J* J^* Mademy at Ezeter, which were fonnded by his
^her and ancie. To these institntions he was a dis-
*^<>gqi»bed benefactor. He was aiso a founder of the
^^ńcan Academr of Arts and Sciences of Boston. At
his death he left to the town of Andorer $5000, the in-
come to be applied to the cause of education. After his
death his widów, Phcebe Phillips, and his son, John Phil-
lips, of Andoyer, evinced the same attachment to the in-
terests of learoing and religion, by uniting with Samuel
Abbor^ and three others of a most liberał and benevolent
spirit, in founding the theological seminary at Andoyer,
which was opened in September, 1808. See Allen, Diet,
of A mer. Biog, s. v. ; Brown, ReL Cgclop. s. v. ; Drakę,
Diet^ o/ A mer, Biog. s. v.
Phillips, Thomaa, an English Roman Catholic
priest^ was bom in Buckinghamshirc in 1708. He re-
ceived his education at St. Oroer*s College, and became
a most zealous worker in the Church. He obtained a
prebend in the coUegiate church of Tongres, and resided
for many years in the family of the earl of Shrews-
bury. Towards the end of bis life he retired to the
English college at liege, where he died in 1 774. He pub-
liithed, The Studg ofSacred Liter atv ref uUg Stated and
Considered (Lond. 1756, 8vo ; 2d ed. 1758 ; 8d ed. 1765) :—
Philemon (1761, 8vo). This autobiographical pamphlet
was privately printed, and suppressed: — The Bisiory of
the Life ofReginald PoU (Oxford, 1764-1767, 2 pts. m 1
vol. 4to ; Lond. 1767, 2 yoIs. 8vo). Thiswork elicited six
answers, by Kichard Lillard,T. Kidley, T.Keve, £..Stone,
K Pye, and J. Jones (see Chalmers, Biog. IHct. xxvi,
460-461), and Phillips responded in an appendix to the
lAfe (1767, 4to) ; see also end of his 3d ed. of Siudy of
Sacred Literaturę: — Reasonsfor the Repeal ofthe Law
against the Papists: — Translation inMetre ofthe Hymn
Lauda Sion Sahatorem: — Censura Commentariorum
Comelii a Lapide, in Latin, on a single sheet. He also
addressed some poetry to his sistcr Elizabeth, abbess of
the Benedictine nuns at Ghcnt. See Cole*8 MS. A then,
in the British Museum ; Kuropean Magazine, for Sep-
tember, 1796; Allibonc, Diet. ofBrit. and A mer. Auth,
s.v.
Phillips, William (1), a Christian philanthroput,
was bom in Boston April 10, 1750. Owing to feeble
health, he was prevented fmm recciving many education-
al adrantages. He entered npon mcrcantile pursuits with
his father, from w bom he receivcd a large fortunę at his
death. In 1772 he madc a profession of religion ; in
1794 he was madę a deacon of Old South Church, Bos-
ton, where he officiated until his death, May 26, 1817.
He was highly respected by the community at large.
and was influential in all the affairs of State and Church.
He was at one time the lieutenant-govemor of his na-
Łive state. He was also actively engaged in philan-
thropic labors, and was at his death presidcnt ofthe
Massachusetts Bibie Society. His charitics were very
extcnsive, and during a scriesof years amounted to from
$8000 to $11,000. He bcqueathed $15,000 to Phillips
Academy; $10,000 to the theological institution at
Andover; to the Society for Propagating the Gospel
among the Indians, the Massachusetts Bibie Society,
the Foreign Mission Board, the Congregational Society,
the Educational Society, and the Massachusetts General
Hospital, each $5000 ; to the Medical Dispen8ar>' $3000 ;
to the Feroale Asylum, and the Asylum for Boys, cach
$2000. See Allen, Did. ofA mer. Biog. s. v.
Phillips, 'William (2), a minister of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, was bom in Jeseamine County,
Ky., May 7, 1797. £ven as a youth he exhibited tal-
ents of a superior order. He received a careful and pious
training, but he did not as a young man make any out-
ward profession of religion; and af^er entering political
life, and while engaged for several years as & successful
teacher, he became eren less considerate of his higher
and immortal interests, and sought refuge from the
accusations of conscience in the dark and cheerless
regions of infidelity. His earl}' impressions of relig-
ious truth were, however, strong and abiding, and he
was finally converted, and deeply impresscd with the
idea that he was called of God tn en ter the Christian
ministry. Dec. 27, 1828, he was licenscd as a local
1.»=
EHIŁa
-Łeiiłu.: • ....-r-r..-*_ \^ «^ ^-. .-.^, ,
J/nr. a3i< -..- *Ai «*, j*- i ^
«tii»«r ij .14- A SI'*?-! (r-j«i«s x .-—- #
u? «-*-.-• la u. ^r--;, r t-!»r;» ł ._^^^
Situ. VI . 1 ^-i^ii,*,! ---- V -H.:.-Tli *. «:^';
**'•*" it" '''':' — '> * u^ai :. ł ...i v. .utt-i ...
z '"i- -i I"
*' V »
.o-
l»ź^ H* r-iiaiar*»i ar ii„n
^-^-=^ ^*--: rnmrił-**.t t ^u,^ ^^j^p., -„„-^ ^
ApnL lv-. wv <rii^r^i «ci ->ia^: i«^..r „ .-^
buUding and cn^ir.d in W^I >cr^r. ^l Ki
I. _'*••- ji w
thc oonier-stone of th^ butMi <c . c F.-Ji Ar-^iu.., le*-
Twelfth MrMM, was UiJ in j.v •' ^ w~_-:r annran. m.i
•oon after «>mplet*si I>r. Pł^:^ w« ^y- .^,..-.t
pMtor for a peri^^ł of ne*riv Kłtr t ..ai* -.^ .^^^^ „.- - ^
ly engai^ed in thc ui^char;:* fi \x< - '^*r*-^ - ." .^
until abaut four wo«łs bef.*^ Li* d<:Ł:ii. « . ..., ^.,! " .
March 20, l?<da. l>r. n.L:,:is w., a =a^ % o^ x- ni ^'
simphcity of chandr: a 8..kcx1 ai.i a:«. tr-^n^r »/
tne GtMpel, who^w aim in tbr f,_:;i «»c -• ., ., -; ^,
theWordofUfeinaUiispuntr.a:.— .3-rl»\, '"
-ittJ
r oarraceK
i>^ 'liThiinnm -TSHBfli«'i »^
.•» T*"*TI w L .iTniiC. JŁ
- r •Ł-rrmrr. »nu iaii wen j "wsvf tEt ^
•♦e f • K Jer, a."-. .i»— V.
r— ;: a** if-T jua. c* 'J t* Untish
.-- -t .'V -. -ł. - -?(* £-iśdak ''friap^ -^t-;
lownh nt
irM 1 -rmA lir ^
la ipTiY «4iire iiicn
r.f tsc 4 Dr. PfiiII|*M
^- .*^
jt •»'. 2. ^y
if
aolemnity u|Kni the heari:f
!.'ii» in^TM! nine 'if ii» bircii »
s i»
f *:.
i.»xrtrfc. r:-» v t*
moderator of dir liewral Ass»iv.i.;v « :.. t, c«
burgh in 1)BJ, ami for maiiv vr*r»j«<.v,.w tt. ^.
he WM tbe prosidiiig olBwr of il«. iv«ru irf ł ...^ -
M19SI01IS. He was al»> prt,id«,t „f ,1„; lv„rd ■/ } ' '
Ii<atioii; atrustee of Priii«i«i, UAWc^ ,„d -m-tli^.^
a director of the Saiłon." Niur ll„U.r.«,d „^.n. ".:-:^
we, 18()6, p. IW) ; CoBjrfj. Q«„r. H>..;i, ,.. i^ ,j. l ^
Phll(l)iłott8. IlEsnT, D.D„ a., Eii.:Ii.h rr^u-, ./
mach not«,wa« the son of a r<-»|H-tiaMe boi^l-U^.;, <i
Gloucester, and was bom in ih.t citv i„ 1777. u :U
agę of artee., hc was elected to a ^U.Ur^hip « o ,-a^
Chnst. CoU,.go,Oxf„„l..„d havi„K lak.ullle d.^^a
RA. g,,„e, the chancellor". prire for a., Kn^^li.h e^y
n 1 .ao. He was electcd in the followi„fc y-ar to a '< i-
lowship a S Ugdalen College, which he vi,a„-d ,^ hi^
mamage in im with JIIm .Surt«e^ a „j.-ce of th. W
lojd chancellor Kldou. In im he^a^Tc . Uin t,!
Dr Barrington, bishop of Durhara, an.l i,. ,)..t ^^.^Uy
distuigui»hed hitnself by a conlrover.v whi.h he .„a,„V.
Uined .p.n.t the leamed Koman Catholic hi-torian «f
publ.cat.on of «,me pamphleU, vimlict!„g the ^..al,-
lishcd clergy ... the North from thc att^ks of lo,Z
M ? .." "^ "' «"«"'ver.y as the «pp,„„...t „f m"
hc puhl.. hed h.» cclebrated /w/,r «. Colholic kJJ.
p,,l,on .d.lr,wd to Mr. Canning. ««„ ,f,,r whi,hX
was promole. , i„ xm) u, thc deanery of (;h«,T whi ^
lu^ .•xch...g.,| In „ou,lH.r. IHiH..f„r thc l,i,h„pri„'„f Kx.
»t< . A« a .n«n.l«.r of thc łlo.,«. „f U^.u, hil,h.„, n.ill-
|K. . pr.,v..d the realou, champlo,. of Tory principl,.,,
(■hirid. letniKiralltlrs llill, Ihn Pcmr-law llill, iht K.-
rl<..U.il,.Bl CoinnilMion, tho National ICilucalion llill
Tri** 'ha-T^- :.L
r'"i»' . iJi? z
iŁił'. -^i^t IŁ* •riiiiiirak
/. --- — r'i •'
a*t o,: .^»I'. ^ . ▼^»«a i* ▼as
i JLifriamina -•! r^iis -np«nr « 'aiixrx!«.
:t' -:if3iL::ur riusr can^e ausainet A;;u cl.
!3i vji:i :«>'i]i9n]; *u nay •tue buntics »
^ : tff, ŁŁT^ . H< wa» pnhaftiy jiMfuc sbcty 3
m: : If *:. V v» icn at«.ac RC :i^K aml W3»
\<*nsrf »-.:;: al. ibc ^;«.rtaBC •r^nte -jf rae T
=yc^ H#- v«c: jciir :«>KiiacB tbe ztnipiof I
'*.t af»*T tM* »■'^:rc » kat>«m wtih c
m*''^***'^:!*. Pi.^> had a broch«r
afi.r4 *Ą ^.-^yremnyfit at ASeaaniiruiL
Lł •.^LA!r.u^, wh»> i* «a7<<K«««i to be cłw
ti-r^ei in Aiś ir. «> a* a maa ~ot' che kiuiUciŁ *if tke kerb-
r n**«.~ 1 hal P^.l^o wa» a menber -łf
faT^i^r i« arwNeriM ty Jctwf^lii^ • Ja^. x«ni.^ lu
hy Ku^ł'iu«. Jerrffne, aoil o<ber!w aod hś» uw vTiriPT»
ifs<rinctiv t€*^ifv that »uch v«« ilie £acc Hicce r» ai^
rpa^fi 10 bciif ve thai be bek«ie^ t« cbe jecc •€ tbe
i'hahM-1-A. I'hiio iras eniinenc for hł» fearnic^ ani <^
f{u<^fK-e. To tbe attaininefir» noaily g«iawit b^* Jevs
<if lii» *4yr\n\ orinditi<Hi (EoM-biua. Prmf^ l>VHb.'riiuI3»
he adiif-<l an exteniqre knowledge oTthe la«ck pbilMO'
\,\\\\ efficcially tbe Platonie fur tbe acąoisitaaa oŻ vfakb
tłie in<i»t fai-orable opportiinides woaki occsr ia Aies-
anciria, at that time the Tery iiietmf<»lU of tlie
world and the bonie of rerired Hellenian. He 1
! repretiented by Scaliger and Cadwortb as igauła at of
I Jcwiiih literaturę and cnstoma, but Fabridos amł llai>-
' goy have clearly shown that socb a riew is cntirrly
Kroiindless. The Mipposition of his ignonuKC of He-
brew must have arisen from Ibe faet that the J0WS «f
brew must have arisen from tbe fact that tbe Jews «^
AIexandria at that tiroe were ao Httle aoąnaiotcd wUh
Łhe original of the Old-TesL Scriptures that tbey had to
lie supplied with the Sept. and other Greek reisioi&
Hut even Geiger, who aays that PhUo had but a scbool-
boy knowlcdge of the Hebrew Unguage, coocedes that
whcn the transUtion of the Bibie was undeitaken for
tho Alexandrian Jews, <Uhey had not yet becn alto-
gcther estranged from the UĆbrew langnage ;" bot that
PHILO
111
PHILO
'tbey were no loDger so much at home and reraed in it
that they couJd ha^e fully mastered the Book which
«u to offer them the bread and water of life ; it was
il» Grecian langiiag« that must bring it home to them"
(> 146; comp. aiao p. 148). Aa abeurd as ia this
clisrge of Philo^s ignorance of Uebrew is the charge
that Philo^a Greek is nnclasaical, and this because he
wia a Jew. Aa well might we say of the Jewish literati
cf Gennany that their style is Jewiah - German, and
Dot the porę tongue of Lessing and Genrinus. Philo*s
Greek was of course not that of Plato, nor the pure At-
Uc (^ Demosthenesb No one at Alexandria wrote so
poRłj, bat Philo WTOte as did his contemporaries, and
as WTOte the best of them. In his treatise De Con-
^f^suj xiVf Philo refere himself to his own attainments
to gnnimar, philoaophy, geometry, musie, and poetry ;
tod bis accompltsbed character was thus gracefully at-
t^ed by his wife, who, when once asked why she
tioae ofall her 8ex did not wear any golden omaments,
Kplied : " The virtue of a hosband is a sufficient oma-
cent for his wife** {FragmaUM^ ed. Richter, vi, 236).
Tbe circumatance that Philo was contemporary with
New-Test. eyents, coapled with his high intelligence
■od iDieiest ia sacred leaming, as well as with the fact
that be once yisited Jemsalem ** to offer up prayers and
■crifices in the Tempie" (although only one such visit
» referred to by him [Richter'8 ed. of Fragmewta, Vi,
^], hu piety and devotion probably led to occasional
Kpetiuons of this pilgrimage, which were less likely to
be mentioned because of his modesty and resenre in per-
tooal matters), led anciept writers to connect Philo in-
timately with Christianity. Photius {Bibl, Cod. 15)
inikes him a friend of the apostle Peter ; as do also £u-
»bias (//«/. EccUs. ii, 17), Jerome {CataL Scriptor, Ec-
eU*.\ aod Suidas. Photius goes 8o far as to say that
Fbik> was admitted into the Christian Church, from
which he afterwards felL But while we have no direct
loeana of testing the truth of such sŁatements, they cer-
taiulT do not bear the evidence on their face. A man
«>f such decided characteristics as Philo could no morę
l»ve remained ąniet after conyerńon than did Saul of
Tiisns,snd, because we have no utterances from him as
a Christian, we have reason to reject the story as fabo-
^ from finst to last. Besides, Philo's own extant writ-
ings do not gi^e the slightest reference to any such im-
poftant step, and this fact tells cven morę strongly, if
pMttbIe, sgainst the report.
iii* Theologtf and PhUMophy. — In the article Neo
Płatosish (q. v.) it has been shown that this eclectic
fthllosophy, tboagh it deyeloped in the 8d century after
Cbrist, ia not only to be regarded in its origin as co-
^>1 with Christianity, but must acknowledge as its
ttth«T and fonoder Philo the Jew (ace Kingsley, Aler-
<»*w mtd her Schoołt, p. 79). Alexandria, from its
▼ery foundation by Alexander the Great in B.C. 332,
^ looght to cstablish Greek civilization within its
bordcra, and to prodnce an intellect that might be the
'^^■l of Atbens in her proudest day. Mind was the
•*!*«t of Greek power, and for that the great conqueror
JJ^łM work in this AJfrican city, which he designed to
c ^ point of union of two, or, rather, of thrce worlds.
*^ ^^ }^^ plsce, named after himself, Europę, Asia,
^ Africa were to meet and to hołd commnnion. Un-
*' the Ptolemies this desire was strengthened still
"•^^^ *nd yet the outcome of all the Ptolemaean appli-
J^waa of little or no acoount if we except the great
^lion of MSS. and art treasures. The wisest men,
^^^ K«thered from the most leamed centres of the
*W, faiJed to produce anything that was really worth
P**^«^«»g. InphysicstheydidUttle. In art nothing.
w ttttaphyttcs less than nothing. Says Kingsley, " You
^ not Sttppote that the philoeophers whom the Ptol-
j^® ^Uected (as they would any other marketable
**) ^y Uberal offers of pay and patronage, were such
^^ ^ oW Seven Sages of Greece, or as Socrates,
T^JJN »nd Aristotle. In these three last indeed, Greek
^Snt reached not merely its greatestheight, but the
edge of a precipice, down which it rolled headlong aftef
their decease. . . . When the Romans destroyed Greece,
God was just and mercifuL The eagles were gathered
together only because the carrion needed to be removed
from the face of Go<rs earth. And at the time of which
I now speak the signs of approaching death were fear-
fuUy apparcnt. Hapless and hopeless enough were the
clique of men out of whom the first two Ptolemies hoped
to form a school of philosophy ; men certainly clerer
enough, and amusing withal, who might give the kings
of Egypt many a shrewd lesson in kingcraft and the
crafts of this world, and the art of profiting by the fully
of fooh and the selfishness of the selfish ; or who might
amuse them, in default of fighting-cocks, by puns and
repartees, and battles of logie ; ' how one thing cannot
be predicated of another,* or * how the wise man is not
only to overcome every misfortune, but not cven to feel
it,' and other such weighty ąuestions, which in those
days hid that deep unbelief in any truth whatsoever
which was spreading fast over the minds of men . . .
during those frightful centuńes which immediately pre- '
ceded the Christian aera, when was fast approaching
that dark chaos of unbelief and unrighteousness which
Saul of Tarsus so analyzes and describes in the first
chapter of his Epistle to the Romans; when the old
light was lost, the old faiths extinct, the old reverence
for the laws of family and national Ufo destroyed, yea,
even the natuial instincts themselves perverted; that
chaos whose darkness Juvenal and Petronius and Taci-
tus have proved in their fearful pages not to have been
exaggerated by the morę compassionate though morę
righteouB Jew" (p. 65-63).
Fortunately for the Macedonians, another Eastem
nation had closely intermingled with them, and from
this mixture of two races came that superior product
which gavc to Alexandrian though t not only a new im-
pulse, but a superior life. When Hellenism was trans-
ferred to Alexandria, the Grecian spirit, as we have seen,
was in an exhausted and faded condition. But together
with Hellenism had come Judaism also. True, the lat-
ter was not sought for and imported at the bidding of
the mighty conqueror of three worlds, but he had suf-
fered the Jews to find a home in Alexandria, and thus
Judaism found its establishment then and there. The
Ptolemies also pursued the same conciliatory policy;
and Judaism gained strength and developed so much at
Alexandria that it became a centrę of Jewish thougbt
and leaming for 8everal centuries, and its rabbins were
called '* the light of Israel."
Now it is to be expected that whenever two spiritual
powers meet, such as Hellenism and Judaism, such as
Grecian culture and Jewish religion — ^when two such
spiritual world-reforming powers come into coniiict with
each other — that coniiict must neccssarily rcsult in new
formations; something new will always grow out of it,
be it by their antagonism or by their spiritual interpen-
etration ; new creations will be evolved, eithcr bearing
the character of both, or pre-eminently that of one of
them, yet impregnated, in a certain measure, by that of
the other. The coniiict bctween Hellenism and Juda-
ism was principally a spintual struggle, and its result a
radical change in the thougbt and belief of both Jew
and Macedonian, which led to the formation of what
came to be known as Neo^Platonism, a philosophy of
syncretism, whose elements are partly Oriental (Alex-
andrian-Jewish in particular) and partly Hellenie; but
whose form is strictly Hellenie, and whose peculiarity
of doctrine is that it is distinguished from Plato*s own
by tYi^principU ofrevtlation contained in the new phi-
losophy.
The great representative of this syncretism, which
also reappeared afterwards in manifold shapes in Gnos-
ticism, is our spin ted and prolific theologian, Philo of
Alexandria. He held to the divine character of the
Old Test., had rery strict views of inspiration, and
thougbt that the Mosaic law and tbe Tempie worship
were destined to be perpetual. He ascribed to the Jews
PHILO
112
PHILO
a miBsion for dl nations, boasted of their oosmopoHtisfm,
and called them priests and prophets, who offered sac-
rifice ftid invoked the blessing of God for all man-
kind. With him the expounding of the books of the
Old Test. is synonymous with the philoaophy of his na-
tion ; but in his own expo8ition he allcgorically iotro-
duces into those documents philosophical ideas, partly
derived from the natural intenial deyelopment of Jew-
ish noŁions, and partly obtained from Hellenie philoao-
phy, and thus the theology of Philo has been aptly
called a blending of Platonism and Judaism.
The allegorical method of interpreting the sacred
Scripturefl, which had long prevailed among the morę
cultivatGd of the Alexandrian Jews, was adopted by
Philo without restriction. His principle that the proph-
ets were only involuntar>' Instruments of the Spirit
which spoke through them was favorable to the freest
use of this modę of exege8is. Ile pronounced those
who would merely tolerate a literał interpretation of the
Scriptures as Iow, unworthy, and superstidous ; and
while he was thus led astray frequently to the intit>duc-
tion of foreign heathcn elements into the storę of divine
reveUtion, and to the refusal of all elements which, like
the anthropomorphisms for instance, seemed offensive
to the culture of the time, Philo, like Origen (q. v.)
in later times, far from rejecting the literał sense in
erery case, oftcn, especially in the case of historical
events in the Old TesL, assumed both this and the alle-
gorical sense as equally tnie. But Philo, besides this,
regarded as higher that conception of Scripture which
penctrated beneath the sbell of the letter to what he
thought to be the kemel of philosophical truth ; beneath
the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic representations
of God, to that idealistic view of God which, in fact, di-
yests him in the end of all concrete attribntes. In this
way, in spite of his opposition to Hellenie mysteries,
Philo set up a radical distinction of initiated and un-
initiated, a modę of interpretation which leads yery
easily to the contempt of the letter, and thus to an un-
historical, abstractly spiritualistic tendency. See In-
terpretation. As a devoted, believing Jew, Philo
accepted Judaism as a truth requiring no proof. But
in him, as probably in others of the Alexandro-Jewish
school of philosophers before him, the desire was awak-
ened to blend the Jewish inheritance with the newlv
acqułred Grecian knowledge ; to heighten the truths of
Judaism by the addition of Hellenie culture ; to recon-
cile boŁh treasures with each other, so that each should
make the lustre of the other shine the morę clearly and
brightly. Dircctly antagonistic as they were to each
other, a compromise must needs be effected between
them. Judaism is the fruit of self-evidence, iimer cx-
perience of a vivid conviction, for which no proof is
required. HcUenism, on the contrary, procecded from
investigation, from human research, starting from the
physical, to reach, by combination and analysis, the
higher idea. These are two processes not only diverging
in their progress, but £ven in their whole conception, and
these two dircctiy antagonistic views clash^ against
each other. But there was also in Hellenism a tendency
which, although grown from the Grecian spirit, never-
theless endeavored to conceive, by a certain prophetic
iltght of poesy, the higher, thence to descend to the
lower, and thus to make the former descend into lower
degrees. IŁ desired likewise directly to conceive the
divine, the ideał, by intuition, by higher perception.
With such a buld fiight Plato conccired the everlast-
ing Good, the everlasting Beautiful, whenoe indiyidual
ideals evulye themselyes, which as archetypes — we are
not told whether they haye a distinct existence, or must
be regarded aa merę fictions of the spirit — are expr68sed
in real objects, pcrfect in themselyes, while the seyeral
yisiblc objects represent them in a Itmited degree. This
was a system which especiall}' suited the philosophizing
Jews ; it afforded them a bridge between the purely spir-
itual and the physical objects. How does tiie Uighest
Spirit, the etcmally Perfect One, enter into the fiuite
world? He createa ideals from himself, says Plato. He
introspects himself, and thus perfection is produced ; bnC
this perfection impresses itself upou morę sabordinate
existenceB, and thus it descends from immediate causea
to intermediate causes,until the real objects spring into
existence, and creation becomes manifest to us; God,
the etemal existence, the etemally perfect, is tbe
highest cause, but the etemally Pure One does not ini-
mediately come into contact with the impure — oiily by
means of manifold emanations and concatenatioos, tłic
earthly grows into existence. Such yiews afforded tbe
philosophic Jews a happy means of preserying the the-
ory of the infallibility and inconceiyableness of God, and
yet of accepting the different figuratiye expre8sioiis eon-
ceming God in the Bibie, because they could refer to the
subordinate beings. Hellenism of that time, stiff and
sober as it was, was unfit to conceiye naiye, poetical im-
ageries, and to admit poetical expre88ion without fcsar-
ing that thereby the subltmity of thought might be vio-
lated. The latter was tenaciously adhered to, and when-
eyer it expre8sed entities too dircctly, it had to yield to
forced interpretations. To such also the Bibie waa fre-
quently subjected. Narratiyes and commands were
forcibly driyen from their natural simplicity into aiti-
ficial philosophemes, in the belief that their yalue wotdd
thus be enhanoed. The figuratiye expre8aons and
eyents in connection with God were referred to such
subordinate spirits as had eyolycd themselyes from
God. In the writings of Philo that intermediate agency
is comprised in the Jj>gos,
As with Plato and the elder Greeks, so with Philo,
theology was the ultimate object of all metaphysical
science. But there aruse a puzzle in the muid of tbe
Jewish philosophcr, as in reality it had already ariaen
in the minds of Socrates and Plato. How could he rec-
oncile the idea of that absolute and etemal one Being,
that Zeus, Father of gods and men, self-perfect, self-
contained, without change or motion, in whom, as a
Jew, he belieyed eyen morę firmly than the Platonists,
with the Dsmon of Socrates, the diyine tcacher whom
both Plato and Solomon confessed? Or how, again,
could he reconcile the idea of him .with the creatiye and
proyidential energy, working in space and time, work-
ing in matter, and apparently affected and Umited, if
not baffled, by the imperfection of the matter which be
moulded? Philo offered a solution in that idea of a
Logos, or Word of God, diyinity articulate, speaking
and acting in time and space, and therefore by sacces>
siye acts, and so doing in time and space the will of
the timeiess and spaceless Father, the abysmal and
etemal Being, of whom he was the perfect likeness.
In calling this person the Logos, and making him the
source of all humau reason, and knowledge of eternal
laws, he only translated from Hebrew into Greek the
name which he found in his sacred books, '* The Word
of God." Of God himself, Philo teaches that he is in-
corporeal, inyisible, and cognizable only through the rea-
son ; that he is the most uniyersal of beings, the Being
to whom alone being, as such, tnily pertains; that he
is morę excellent than yirtuc, than science, or eyen
than the good per ae and the beautiful per łe. He is
one and simple, imperishable and etemal; his existence
is absolute and separate from the world; the world is
his work. Thus while Philo contends that God is to be
worshipped as a personal being, he yet conceiyes him
at the same time as the most generał of existenocs : to
yiyiKwraróy i<mv 6 ^ióc {Legia Alleg, ii). God is
the only truły existent being, rb vv (/>« Somn, i, C55,
ed. Mang.). But Philo, similarly to the Neo-PIatonists
of a later epoch, adyanoes upon the Platonie doctrine by
representing God as exalted not only aboye all human
knowledge and ytrtue — as Plato had done — but as aboye
the idea of the Good — Kpiimay n ii ^perijf Kai Kpen-
Tiitv ii ŁirurrfjfAfi, Kai jcpcfmny 17 ai/rb Tdya^bv koi
avTb rb koKóp (/>« Mundi Officio, i, 2, ed. Mang.)—
with which Plato identifies him— and by teaching that
we do not arriye at the abeolute by scientific donon-
PHILO
113
PHILO
.<tzatioa (kóytau droBti^i), but by an intennediate mb-
)«ctire cerUinty {irapyiic. De post Caim^ 48, p. 258,
dL Mang.). Still a oertain kind of knowledge of God,
vbłch, bowerer, is oniy secoud in rank, resulta from
cbe a^thctic and teleoI(^cal view of the world^ as
fwnde«i aa the Socratic priaciple that '* no work of skill
isakes itaelf^ (pi^iv Thtv rtyyucSiy lpyiav dnawofŁari-
Urtu). God is one and simple : 6 dtóc fwvoc Łtrri koi
lv^ ov 9vyKptfui, fwnę airA^ . . . TiroKrat ovv 6
h<^ cara ró ?y roi Trfv fŁoydSa, fiSWop ii Kai if fio-
»0C Kard Thv tva ^i6v {Legi» AUeg, ii, i, 66 8q. ed.
Hang.)* God ta tbe only free natura (fi fiótni ^y^fpa
fńnc. De SonoL ii), fuli of bimself and sufficient to
bimself (avr6 icmrod ir\^ptc Kai knrrtf tKav6v, De
Svm, MmtaL i, 582) ; ererytbing finite ia involved in
Bcemit}-. God is not in oontact with matter; if he
Tere be woold be defiled. He who holds the world it-
9flf to be God the Lord bas falien into error and sacri-
kc!t, In his easence God is incomprehensible ; we can
oqIv know that he i^, not what he is. AU names which
ire intended to expre88 the separate attńbutes of God
we spfHtypriate only in a figuratiye sense, sińce God is
in tnitb an unąoalified and pure being. ŃotwiŁhstand-
ing tbe panthetstically sounding neuters wbicb Plato
•pplies to Godf Pbilo ascńbee to bim the purest blessed-
ne»: " He is withont grief or fear, not subject to evils,
nD}ielding, painless, never weańed, fiUed with unmixed
happtnesB** {De Cherubim, i, 154). God is every where
by his power (rdc Swafutę avTOV iid yiję Kai ^daroc,
óipoc Tl Kai ovpavov T&vac), but in no place with his
eaeence, sińce space and place wera lirst given to tbe
m^erial worid by him {De Linguarum Conf. i, 425).
Speaking figuratirely, Philo descrtbes God as enthroned
oa the oulermost border of the heavens, in an extra-
mondane place {rónoc furoKÓafuoc), as in a sacred cit-
v^\ {Gene$. 28, 15 ; X>e VH. Mot. ii, 164, etc.). God is
ihe place of the world, for it is he that contains and en-
eiimpasBes all things {De Sommis^ i). In creating the
v«>ritł, God empk>3'ed as instruments incorporeal poten-
cies or ideaa, sińce he could not come in contact with
pullating matter (^ iKtitn/ic [rĄc oitriac'] frayr iyiv-
yftntif o ^cóc, ohK t^itrófuyoc auróc * oit ydp rfv ^ifuc
aTttfoic Kai TrffupfAttnic v\ric ^vtiv tóv tifŁOva Kai
IŁOKaptoy' dXXd ratę d<ru/AdroŁC Łwdiiiaiv, wv iTVfŁov
wofia al iiiai Kartkfifieraro irpbc rb yivoc ItKaaroy ttip
ttoiUmwnrap Xe^iv fŁOp^riVf De SaerificantibuSf ii,
%1). These potenctes snrround €rod as ministering
H^ritis just as a monarch is surronnded by the members
of hi« cuort. The highest of the divine potencies, tbe
crestiTe (iroiip-ur^X bears also, acoording to Philo, iń
Seńpture tbe name of God (dfuc) ; the second or ruling
(ji^«itXijc^) potency is called tbe Lord {Kupioc) {De
Ida M<m», ii, 150, et aL). These are followed by the
Kireweing poten<7, tbe law-giving, and many others.
They are aU conoeived by Philo, not only in tbe naturę
of dirine ąnalities, but aiso as re]atively independent,
penonal beings, who can appear to men, and who have
&vwed some of them with their most intimate inter-
oomse {De Vita Abrah, ii, 17 8q.).
From all that bas been said of the Philonic doetrine
of the fjOffOBj it is clearly appareut that Philo reoognised
it as the highest of all tbe divine forces ; and yet many
of his doeriptions of it were in no eseential like tbose
of the apofltle John, but rather belonged to Jewish ideas
vhich be foond already existing. The distinction of a
concealed God and a reTelation of him was connected
wiih the Old-TesL idea of theophany. But by tracing
haek all theophanies to the one principle of revelation
V^ng at their basis, and by nuiking it their objecrive,
the idea of tbe Logos was attained. The apocr)'pbal
biwk of 7M Witdom ofSoiomim had already interposed
■n*^ between God and the world as the reflection of
tbe etemal Ugbt; the fountain of all knowledge, virtue,
sndftkiO; the moulder of all things; the medium of all
Ut« Old-Tcst. rerelations (eh. vii.x). ThU idea Philo
•ko ceoceired, bot he modified it according as tbe Pla-
Uiok influence was morę or less strongly felt. Savs
VIIL-H
Neander, '^In proportion as be occupicd the stand-
point whi<^ diveated the Divine Being of human qual-
ities, or that which favored anthropomorphism, the
ideał or the symbolical, might not the \6yoc appear as
a power of God or as a hypostatic being?" Philo de-
scribes the \6yoc, therefore, as the first-borh before all
exi8tence,-the trptaróyoyoc vibc tov ^foD, as the per-
fect reflection of God, as the dpxayyiKoc among the
angels, as the original power of tbe divine powers. Al-
luding to the vof}r6v frapdinyfŁa of Plato, he describes
him as tbe world-oonstructing reason ; he compares the
world to the Zwov of Plato, and the Kóyoc to the soul of
the world; he calls him God*8 yicegerent in the world
{^'rrapxoc) ; he gives him the office of mediator between
God and the uniyerse, sińce the connection of phenom-
ena with God is effected through the reason revealed in
the world. Hence he is the high-priest of the world,
the adyocate (ff'apaKXi|roc) for the defects of men with
(xod, and generally the reyealer of the diyine naturę to
the uniyerse. The Logos is the archetype of the rea-
son, which is formed not after the Absolute bimself, the
'Oi/, but after tbe Logos. He, as the reyelation of the
Abeoluto in the reason, is tbe image of God, after which
man, according to Genesis, was created. In this con-
nection he calls the Logos the ideał man ; and alłuding
to a Jewish mystical idea, the original man. In the
Logos is tbe unity of the coUected reyelations of the
Diyine Being which is indiyidualized in man. In gen-
erał, eyerything is traced back to the distinction be-
tween the Diyine Being as he is in bimself and his rey-
elation in the Logos, or tbe iivai and the Myctr^at.
The reyelation of God in creation — in all positiye reye-
lation — in the communication of separate ideas by pe-
culiar dogmas — all tbis forms part of the knowledge of
the reyealed God in the phenomenal world, and of the
8}'mbolical knowledge from the standpoint of tbe vŁoi
Tov \óyov, oyer which the standpoint of tbe v\oi tou
'Ovroc is raised. But this Logos by Philo is only d
sort of intermediate being between Gody who is in his
naturę hidden, simple. without attńbutes, and the etemal,
shapeless, chaotic matter (the Platonie i;X}}). It is the
reflediony the flrst-bom Son of God; the second God;
the sum of tbe ideas, which ara the original types of all
exi8tence ; the ideał world itself {KÓaftoc voi|róc) ; tbe
medium through which tbe actual, sensible world (icó<r-
fioc aitr^TÓc)- is created and upheld; the interpreter
and reyealer of God; the arehangel, who destroyed
Sodom and Gomorrab, spoke to Jacob and to Moses in
the buming bush, and led tbe peoplc of Israel through
the wiłdemess; the high-priest {dpxiipivc), and adyo-
cate (iraf>aicXfjroc)> who pleads the cause of sinful hu-
manity before God, and procures for it the pardon of its
guilt. We aee an apparent afiinity of this yiew with
the cbrtstology of St. Paul and St. John, and thus it
probabły came to exert no smali influence with the
early Church fathers in the eyolution of their doetrine
of the Logos. But at the same time we roust not oyer-
łook the yery essential difference. Fbilo'8 doetrine
would not itself suggest the appłication of the idea of
the Logos to any historicał appearance whateyer; for
the reyelation of the Logos refers not excłu8iyely to any
single fact, but to eyer}*thing relating to the reyelation
of God in nature and histor}'. If, according to John's
Gospel, the appearance of the Logos is the highest and
only medium of communication with God, then commun-
ion with the Logos in Philo*s sense can only be a subor-
dinate standpoint ; for not eyen the highest man immedi-
ately apprehends the Absolute. Yet out of this reltgious
idealism a preparation and a medium might be formed
for Christian realism, when whst was berę taken in a
merely ideał sense showed itself as realized in human-
■
ity. Christianity refers the Logos to the perfect rey-
elation of God in human nature, to the one reyelation
in Christ ; and subetitiites fur the immediate apprehen-
sioii of the Absolute the hisrorically fuunde<l eommunion
with <iod reyealed in Christ. The symbolical meaning
of l*biłu's Paracleto was eleyated by thę reference to the
PHILO
114
PHILO
histońcal ChriBt as the only high-priest. Thus the
Alexandrian ideas fonned a bńdge to Chriatianity. But
we cannot regard the doctrine of a union of the Logos
witfa hamanity, in all the fonns nnder which it ap-
peared, as a reflecŁion in the firet plaoe of Chństianity,
but must doubtless presuppose a tendency of tbis kind
before the Christian sera. A yearning of the spirit goes
before great e^ents — an uncouscious longing for that
which is to come. Thls must especially have been the
case in that greatest revolution which the religious de-
velopment of humanity experienoed. It was preceded
by an unconscious feeling of a reyelation of the spirittial
world to humanity — a longing which hastened to meet
the new Communications from God. It was not difficult
for those who regarded the Logos as the medium of
revelation, by which God madę bimself cognizable to
pioua souls, and, on the other band, who beld the Mes-
siah to be the highest of God'8 messengerS) to suppoee a
particular oonnection between him and the Logos. But,
after all, this Jewish idea of the Logos is quite ecUpsed
by the Christian idea of the Messiah : with the Jews it is
simply the hope of their miraculous restoration from all
parts of the world to Pal^tine, through the agency of a
superhuman appearance (ó^c) ; and even this super-
natural phenomenon bas no legitimate place in Pfailo'8
system; it means nothing. But again, his dualistic
and idealistic view of the world abaolutely exclude8 an
incarnation, which is the central truth of Chństianity
(corop. Domer, Perton of Chriał). His Christ, if he
needed any. could havc been at best but a gnostie, do-
oetistic, fantastic Christ; his redemption, but ideał and
intellectuaL He attained only an artificial harmony
between God and the world, between Judaism and hea-
thenism; which hovered, like a "spectral illuttion," an
** eraneacent fata morgana,*^ on the horizon of dawning
Chństianity. Says Schaff, **It is a que8tion not yet
entirely settled whether Philo's Logos was a personal
hypostasis or merely a peraonification, a dtvine attń-
butę. While Gfrorer, Groasmann, Dfthne, LUcke, Ritter,
and Semisch maintain the former view, Domer (£W-
wicklungsffesckickte der Lehre von der Peraon CAristi, 2d
ed. i, 23 są.) haa latterly attempted to re-establish the
other. To me, Philo himself seems to yibrate between
the two views ; and this obscuńty accounts for the dif-
ference among so distinguished scholars on this point"
{Hist, of the Apoatdic Church, p. 180). The etemal
atonement, which Philo imaginód already madę and
ettmally being madę by his ideał Logos, could be effected
only by a creative act of the condesoending love of
God ; and it is a remarkable instance of divine wisdom
in history that this redeeming act was really perforroed
about the same time that the greatest Jewish philoso-
pher and theologian of his age was dreaming of and an-
nouncing to the world a ghostlilte shadow of it.
Of his other philosophic speculations we have space
only to refer to some of his ethical yiewa. With him
knowledge and virtue are gifts of God, to be obt«ined
only by self-abnegation on the part of man. A life of
oontemplation b superior to one of practical, political
oocupation. In other words, the business of man is to
foUow and imiute God {De Caritate, ii. 404, et pass.).
The soul must stńve to become the dwelling-place of
Go«i, his holy tempie, and ao to become stroug, whereas
it was befure weak, and wiae, whereas before it was
fooliah {De Somn, i, 23). The highest bleasedness is to
abide in God {irrpac ^b^aifioyiac ró acXtv(tfC icat apjn-
w«c iv ftóvtft frrfjyai). The vańous minor sciencea
serye as a preparatory training for the knowledge of
God. Of the philosophtcal diaciplines, logie and phys-
ics are of little worth. The highest step in philosophy
is the intuition of God, to which the aage attaina
through divine illumination when, completely renounc-
ing htmaelf and Ieavin.(c behind his finite aelf-consctous-
ness, he resig^s himseif unresistingly to the divine in-
fluence.
It remains for ua to notice the uae that haa been madę
of Philo^d wńtings within the domain of New-Teat, in- I
terpretation. There are spme Christian esegettsŁs wlio
in their rationaliatic tendency have gone so far as to
account for the character and style of aome of the Neir*
Test. Scńptures by referńng their origin to Philo's writ>
ings. (We here quote largely from Kitto^s BibUcaJ Cy^
etopaditi.) Mr. Griufield. in hb HeUenutic Greek 7V«/<i>
menł, and the accompanying ScholiOf haa derived many
of his notes from the works of Philo; iń the appUca^
tion, however, of such illustrations, it must be borne in
mind that Philo's style was hardly a naturał one ; it ia
very elaborate, and a^oids Alexandrian provincialisiziay
and on that account often faUs to elucidate the simple
diction of the New Test., even where there u similańty
in the subject-roatter (comp. Carpzovii Exer, Sacr, iu
Ep, ad Hebr, p. 140). But recent critics of the ration-
alistic school are not content with finding in Philo such
iliustration of the New Test. as might be expectcd to
oocur in a contemporary, and in some respects kiudred.
Greek writer; they go so far as to assert that some of
the prominent doctrines of the sacred writers are little
else than accommodations from the opinions of Philo,
mediate or immediate. Thus Groasmann {Qu<Btt. Philatu
sub iniL) does not scruple to say that Christianit3- ia
the product of the allegońes of the Jewish synagogue
and of Philo. Other writers, morę roeasured in their
terms, tracę isolated truths to a like source. For in-
stance, the well-disposed Eraesti (/n«ftVuf««), and after
him LUcke, who says, '' It b impoasible to mbtake aa
to the immediate hbtorical connection of John^s doc-
trine of the Logos with the Alexandrian in its morę
perfect form, as it occurs iu Philo." Similarly, Strauss,
De Wette, and others; while others again apply the
like criticism to St. Paul. Among these we must es-
pecUlly notice Gfrorer, whose work, Philo vt»d die ju-
diaeh-alezandrinische Theologie, bas been roade acce&-
sible to Englbh readers, in an abridged form. by Prof.
Jowett, in hb disaertation St, Paul andPhUo^ contained
in his coromentary on St, PauFs Epp, i, 363-417. No
criticism, however, is to be tolerated by the belierer in
Kevelation which does not start from the principle that
the characteristic truths of Chrbtianity are 8eIf-evolveil,
i. e. (to use Domer's words) " have not emerged from
without Chrbtbnity. but wholly from within it " {Per-
eon of Christ [Clark], vol. i, lutroduction, p. 45). In-
stead of making Philo, in any sense, a fountain-head of
Christian doctrine, it would be morę correct to regard
him as the unconscious source of antichristian opinion
— ynconsciousy we say, for with all his knowledge and
skill in style, Philo possessed not those energetic ąual-
ilies which characterize founders of scboob of opinion.
To say nothing of Philo*s influence upon the theoso-
phizing fathers of the Church, Clement of Alexandria
and Origen, who borrowed largely from their Jewbh
predecessor and fellow-citizen, some of the salient her-
esies of the early centuries bad almost their spring in
the PhUonian writings (for the aflSnity of the opposite
opinions of Arias and Sabellius to certain opinions of
Philo, see Mosheim'8 Notes on Cudworth cited below) ;
while that pagan philosophy, the Neo-Platonism of
Alexandria, which derived much of its streogth and ob-
tained its nltimate defeat from the Christianity which
it both aped and hated. is roainly traceable to our Philo.
For a pi»pular but sufiicienrly exact statement of (1)
Philo^B relation to Neo-Platonisra, and (2) of the antag-
onisra of tłib Neo-Platonism to Chrbtianity, the reader
is referred to Lewea*s łiist. of PkUosophy, p. 260-278.
Although we cannot therefore allow that the inspired
Yolume of the Christian religion owes in its origin any-
thing to Philo, we do not deny to hb writings a certain
utility in the interpretation of the New Test. See Phi-
losophy, G REEK. Bcsides the ex planation of words and
phrases above referred to (a servioe which is the morę
yaliuible because of Philo'8 profound acąuaintanoe with
the Septtugint version, in which the writers of the New
Test. show themselyes to have been well yersed also),
the works of Philo sometimes contribute interesting
elucidatioti of scriptural facts and stateroeots. We msy
PHILO
115
PHILO
iBstiDoe hii delioeatidn of Łhe character of Pontins
Pflate {De />$«/. euŁ Cauim, xzzriu, Richter, vi, 134;
fiohn, \r, 164). Tbis welł-dnwB Bketch of sueh « noan,
from th€ iDMterly hand of a contempoiary, throws eon-
adcraUe light on roore than one point, such aa the
rdations of Herod and Pilate, wbicb are but light ly
toncbed in tbe Goepds (oomp. Hale^a Analytu, iii,.216-
318). As a ieonid inatance, may we not re^anl the re-
natrkable paauge of St. Paul as receiving light from
Phik/s riew of tbe twofold creation, first of the heaveuly
iwpainoc) or ideał man, and tben of the earthly {yiiiyoc)
Bun? (Comp. 1 Cor. xv, 46, 47, with Philo, De A Uegor,
L^ i, 12, 13 [Richter, i, 68 : Bohn, i, 60], and Dt Mundi
Opijlc, p. 46 [Richter, i, 43; Bohn, i, 39] ; and see Stanley
« CorwikianSf i, 331.) But then such illustration is
ntber an esample of how Philo is currected by Sl
Pud, than of how Sl Paul borrowed from Philo. Re-
specting the allegorłcal method of interpreting the Old
TesŁ, of which tbe apostle Ia alleged to have derived
tbe idea from our author, it should be remembered that
Sc Paul, gulded by the DiHne Spirit, who had indited
tbe ancient Scripturea, was directed to apply Old-Test.
{KtA to New^Test. doctrinea, as correlative portions of
one great scheme of providential dispensatioo ; whereas
Pbilo^a adaptations of the same facta were only the prod-
uct of an arbitraży and extremely fanciful imagination ;
so that in the caae of the former we have an authorita-
tire and aurę method of inteq>reting ancient eventa
witbout ever impairing their hisŁorical and original
trath,whereaa the latter affords us nothing besidcs the
coDJectures of a mind of great vivacity indeed, but often
capńcions and inconsiatent, which always poatpones the
troth of history to its allegorical sense, and oftentimes
whoUy reducea ic to a simple myth. Readers of Philo
tre well aware of the extravagance and weakness of
many of his allegoriea ; of these some are inoflensiye^ no
(krtjbt, and some others are even neat and interesting,
but nooe carry with them the simple dignity and ex-
pressireness of the allegorical types of the New Test.
•St. Paul and Philo, it is well known, have both treated
the history of Hagar and Sarah allegoricallv (comp.
GaL ir, 22-51 with PhUo, De Cowp-esw, p. 1-5 [Rich-
ter, tii, 71>76 ; Bohn, ii, 157-162]; and see Ughtfoot,
i>«f. to Gal p. 189-191 ; and Uowson^s Hagar and
-^ raiia, p. 20, 36, 37^; but although we have here one
of the bttt specimens of Philo's favorite method, how
infinitely does it fali short of St. Paulus ! To say noth-
ing of authority, it fails in terseness and point, and all
the features of proper allegory. The reader will at once
perceive thb who examines both.
Literaturę, — For an aocount of Philo*s philosophical
and iheological system in generał, the reader is rcferred
to Mosheim's notes on Cudworth, p. 640-649 [transl. by
Htrrison, ii, 320-333], where Philo's influence on Pa>
(^ic dtvinity and early heresy, especially the Sabel-
Uin, is clearlT trmced; to Ritter, Iłisf. of Phil. [transL
by Morriaon], iv, 407-478; and to Dćillinger, The Gen-
^mdlkeJew [tninsL by Damell], ii, 398-408 ; Nean-
der, Ilia, of Ckrisf. Dogma$, xi, 185 8q.; id. Ck, Hisł.
^^ H).; Ueberweg. Hut, ofPhiloa, i, 222 sq. ; Schaff,
^w'. ofiAe ApoB/. Ck, p. 176 sq.; Tennemann, flisL of
f^^iL p. 170 8q. ; Fabricius, Dis. de Pkitomamo PhUonis
(l«ips. 1698, 4to) ; id. SyUoffe Distertał. (Hamb. 1738,
^to); Suhł, AUempt at a Systematic StatemetU of the
l^rmet of Philo of Alexan(Ha, in the AUffem. BibL
^fr JiUtL Literatur of fiichhon), tom. ir« faac. v ; Schrei-
ter. Jdeas of Phiio respeding the ImmortaUtg of the
^«tt^ lAc Returredion, md Futurę JRetribuiion, in the
^^alfctm of Ketl and Tzebimer, voL i, sec. 2; see also
\<>l- iii, see. 2; Scheffcr, OtmątioneM, pt i, ii, 1829^31;
broaBmann, Oueutiomu PhUomouan, pt.i, De theohgia
Gidlom foMfUM et audoritate (1829); Gfrorer, Philo
^^Akzambiniscke Theotophie {1981, 1835, 2 vols.) ;
'^^p^f GetddchtUcke DanłeUung der Jiidiech-aleaan-
^^'^^iseken ReUgio»sphilotophie (1831), pt. i; id. in the
^wŁ StMdien uud Kritiken, 1888, p. 984 ; Bucher, Phi-
iMiKAe ^«<Ji0i (1848) ; Crenzer, KritHc der Schriften
det Juden PhUon, in TheoL Słudifn tmd Kritiktu, Janu-
ary, 1832. Philo'8 opinions abouŁ the divine Logo$ bave
b^n warmly discussed. The ancienta, as we have seen,
were fond of identifying them with Christian doctrine ;
Mangey, in the middle of the last century,accompanied
his splendid edition of Philo*s worka (2 vols. fol.) with
a dissertation, in which he madę our author attribute,
in the Christian sense, a distinct personality to the
Logos; bishop BuU had stated a similar opinion {Def
Fid, Nic. [transl. by the Rev. Peter Holmes for the
Anglo. Cath. Lib.], i, 31-88) ; and, morę recently, Bry-
ant {Sentiments of PhUo Jud, conceming the \óyoc) ;
and, very lately, Pye Smith (Messiah, i, 573-^0).
B«it the conckisions of these writers, however leamedly
asserted, have been abundantly refuted in many worka;
the chief of which are Carpzovii Disput. de \6ytft Phi-
hm»t non Johannit, adyersus Mangey (1 749) ; Caesar Mor-
gan'8 Inrestigation ofthe Trinitg of Plato tmd of Philo
Jud. ; Burton'8 Bampton Lectures, notę 93, p. 550-560 ;
and Domer'8 Person of Christ [Ciarkę], i, 22-41. (See
also the able articles of professors H. K Smith and Moses
Stuart, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Ti, 156-185, and vii,
696-732.) An interesting review of Philo^s writinga
and their relation to Judaism, from the Jewish point of
view, occurs in Jo8t's Geschichte des Judenthums, i, 879-
393 (the chapter ia designated Die Gnosis im Juden-
thume) ; Griltz, Gesch, der, Juden, iii, 298 8q. ; Schultz,
Die judische RdigionsphiloMphie in Gelzer s Prot. J/o-
natsilatt, voL xxiv, No. 4 (Oct. 1864) ; Clemens, Die
Therapeuien (Konigsb. 1809) ; Georgius, Ueber die neu-
esten Gegensatze in Auffassung der Alacandrin. Reli-
gionsphilosophie in Illgen's Zeitschr. f, hist, TheoL
(1839), Nos. 3 and 4 ; Keferstein, Philo's Lehre r. d. Mit-
telwesen (Leips. 1846) ; Wolff, Die PhiUmische Philoso-
phie (ibid. 1849; 2d'ed. Got hen b. 1858) ; Frankcl, Zur
Ethik des Philo, in Monatschrifl f, Gesch, u, Wissensch,
d, Judenthums, Jul}', 1867; Delaney, Philon d^AUian-
drie (Paris, 1867).
We ought not to cl<Me this artide without noticing
the oki opinion which madę Philo the author of the
beautiful Booh ofWisdom in the Apocr)'pha. This
opinion, which was at one time yery prevalenf, has not
stood its ground before recent critical examination.
For the literaturę of the question we can only refer our
readers to Prof. C. L. W. Grimm^s Das Buch der WeiS'
heił, Einleitung, sec. 6, where the authorities on both
sides are given. Com. h Lapidc, in Librum Sapieniue,
also discusses PbUo's claims to the distinguished honor
which tradition had conferred on him, but decides against
him [new edition by Vive8, viii, 264].
Besides Mangey*s edition of Philo, above referred
to, we mention Tuniebus's edition (Paris, 1552, fol.),
emended by Hoeschelius (Colon. Allobrog. 1613 ; Paris,
1640; Francof. 1691) ; Pfeiffer^s edition, incomplete (£r-
langen, 1785-92, 5 vois. 8vo), and the convenient edition
by Richter (Leips. 1828-30, 8 vol8. 12mo). This hist
contains not only a reprint of Mangey, in the first six
volume8, but two supplementary Yolumes of Phikts
writings, di8covcred by Angelo Mai in a Florentine MS.,
and by Bapt. Aucher in an Arroenian yersion, and transr
lated by him into Latin. What an edition of Philo
ought to be to deser\'e the approbation of the critical
student has been pointed out by different German
theologians, most recently by Creuzer, in TheoL Stu-
dien u. Kritiken, 1832, p. 1-43. A popular and cheap
edition was publisbed at Leipsic (1851-53) ; also Phi-
Umea, ed. Tiachcndorf (Leips. 1868). A fuUer account
of these editions, with a list of the yarious yersions of
Philo's writings, which have been madę from time to
time into Latin, Hebrew, German, French, iŁalian, Span-
ish, and EngUsh, is contained in FUrst^s BiU, Jud.
FUrst adds a catalogue of all the leading works in which
Philo and his writings have been treated. To his list
of versions we must here add the useful one publisbed
by Mr. Bohn, in four vols. of his £ccL Librarg, by Mr.
Yongc.
For a complete, and withal succinct examination c'
PHILO
116
PHILO
the entire field of Pltilo^s opinions, we refer to Henog^H
Real-Encyldop, xi, 578-603. Shorter and morę acceasi-
ble, but ineWtably imperfect, notices occur in Sinłth'8
Diet, of Gr. and Rom, Biog. and MythoL iii, 809 8q. ;
SchaflTs Apostolic Church [Ciarkę], p. 211-214 ; Home'8
JtUroduction [by Eyre], p. 277, 278; [by Dayidaon],
p. 863-365; Daridaon^s Uermeneutict [Ciarkę, 1843], p.
63-65 ; Fairbaim'6 Hermeneuł, Man, p. 47. A temper-
ate reyiew of Jowett'8 Dittertatum on PhUo and SL
Paul may be found, written by Dr. J. K Lightfoot. in
the Journal of PhUology, iii, 119-121; and for sound
view8 respecŁing Pbilo'8 doctrine of the Xóyoc, as bear-
ing upon tbe writings of the New Test, see Ńeander'8
Planiing of the Christian Church [IV>ł1n], ii, 18-15;
\Ve8tcott'8 fntrodttction, p. 138-143, and Tholack'8 Sł,
John [Ciarkę], p. 62-67. The interest of Jews in the
writing8 of their philosophic countryman is curiously
exhibited in the Hebrew version of certain of tbem.
Theae are enumerated by FUrst, BUU, Judaica^ ii, 90. Aa.
de' Rosst, one of the tran8lator8, has revived Philo'8 syn-
onym Jedidiah, by which be was anciently designated
in Rabbinical literatare (8ee Bartolocci, lU sup,, and
Stein8chneider'B Bodl, CaiaL s. v. Philon). (J. H. W.)
Fhilo Carpathius (from Carpathus, an island
north-east of Crete), or, rather, Carpasics (from Car>
pasia, a town in the north of Cyprus), an Eastem eo
ćlesiastic, flourished about the opening of the 5th cen>
tury. His birthplace is unknown, but he derived this
cognomen from his having becn ordained bishop of
Carpasia by Epiphanius, the well-known bishop of Con-
stantia. According to the statements of Joannes and Po-
lybtus, bishop of Khinoscuri, in their life of Epiphanius
(Vita Epiphan, eh. xlix), Philo, at that time a deacon,
was sent, along with some others, by the sister of the
emperors Arcadius and Honorius, to bring Epiphanius
to Korne, that through his prayers and the laying on of
hands she might be saved from a dangerons disease
under which she was laboring. Pleased with Philo,
Epiphanius not only ordained him bishop of Carpasia,
but gave him charge of his own diocese duKng his ab-
sence. This was about the bcginning of the 5th cen-
tur}' (Cave, llist, Litł. p. 240, cd. Genev.). Philo Car-
pasius is principally known from his commentary on
the Canticles, which he treats allegorically. A Latin
translation, or, rather, paraphrase of this commentary,
with ill-assorted interpolations from the commentary
of Gregorius I, by SaluUtus, was published (Paris, 1537,
and reprinted in the Biblioth. Pat. Lugdun. vol. v).
Fragments of Philo'8 commentary are inserted iu that
on the Canticles, which is falsely ascribed to Eusebius,
edited by Meursius (Lugd. BaUv. 1617). In these he
is simply namcd Philo, without the sumame. Bandu-
rius, a Benedictine monk, promised in 1705 a genuine
edition, which he never fultilled. An cdition, however,
was published from a Yatican MS. in 1750, under the
name of Epiphanius, and edited by Fogginius. The
most important edition, howevcr, is that of (jiiacomellus
(Romę, 1772), from two MSS. This has the original
Greek, a Latin translation, with notes, and is accom-
panied by the entire Greek text of the Canticles, prin-
cipally from the Alexandrian^ recension. Tbb is re-
printed in Galland,A'. JBtW.P/». ix,713 : Ernesti (^Xtueste
Theolog. BilU, vol. iii, pt. vi), in a review of this edition,
of which he thinks highly, is of opinion that the com-
mentary, as we now have it, is but an abridgment of
the original. Besidcs this commentar>', Philo wrote on
variou8 parts both of the Old and New Test., fragments
of which are containcd in the various Cutena, See
Suidas, 8. V. ; Cave, /. c. ; Fabricius, Bibl, Grac, vii, 398,
611 ; viii, 645; x, 479.— Smith, Diet, of Gr. and Rom,
Biog, 8. V. Comp. Herzog, Real-Encyklopddif^ 8. v.
Philo TUK DlALKCTICIAX. ScC PhIIjO THE Me-
GARIAN.
Philo OF Larissa, an academic philosopher of
Athens, fiourtshe<l in the century prcceding the Chris-
tian Ria. He quitted the Greek capital on the success
of the army of Mithridates, and went to Rom<% where
he had Cicero for a disciple. He gained renowu by hla
seryices to philoeophic science. He funiished a morę
complete and systematic diyision of tbe different branches
of philosophy, and was morę methodic in his terms. lie
is also oflen spoken of as the founder of the third acad-
emy. See Tennemann, Manuał of Hist, ofPhUosophy ;
Ueberweg, Hist, of Philosophy (see Index in roL ii).
Philo THE MeO ARIAN, Of DlALECTICIAN, W8S a dis-
ciple of Diodorus Cronus, and a friend of Zeno, thoiit^h
older than tłie latter, if the reading in Diogenes Laor-
tius (vii, 16) is correct. In his Menerenus he men-
tioiied the <ive daughters of his teacher (Ciem. Alex.
Strom, iv, 528, ed. Potter), and disputed with him re-
spccting the idea of the possible, and the criteria of tbe
truth of hypothetical propoeitions. With reference to
the first point, Philo approximated to Aristotle, as be
recognised that not only what is, or will be, is posaible
(as Diodorus maintained), but also what is in itself eon-
formable to the particular purpose of the object in ąties-
tion, as of chafT to bum {jcard i/ziA^y \Łyóp(yov imnj-
dtiuTTiTa; Alex. Aphrod. Naf, QuaL i, 14; comp. on
the whole que8tion Harris, in Upton'8 Arriani LAb-
seiiat, Kpict, ii, 19, ap. Schweighifuser, ii, 513, etc).
Diodorus had allowed the validity of hĄiiothetical prop-
oaitions only when the antecedent clause could nrver
lead to an untrue conclusion, whercas Philo regarded
those only as false which with a correct antecedent had
an incorrect conclusion (Sext. Empir. Adv, Afath, viii,
113, etc; //ypo/yp. ii, 110; comp. Cicero, ^cacf. ii, 47; /><•
FatOf 6). Both accordingly had songht for criteria for
correct seąuence in the members of hypothetical propo-
sitions, and each of them in a manner correspondin^ to
what he maintained respecting the idea of the possible.
Chrysippus attacked the assumption of each of them.
The Philo who is spoken of as an Athenian and a
disciple of Pyrrhon, though ridiculed by Timon as a
sophist, can hardly be different from Philo the dialecti-
cian (Diog. Laert. ix, 67, 69). Jerome (Jor, 1) spcaks
of Philo the dialectician and the author of the 3fenrxf-
nus as the instructor of Cameades, in contradictton to
chronology, perha|)s in order to indicate the sccptical
direction of his doctńncs. — Smith, Diet, of Class, Biog,
8. V.
Philo TUK MoNK. An aacctit treattsc, bearing the
name of Philo Monachus, whom Cave {Hist, JMt, p. 176)
deems to be much latcr than the other ecclesiastical
writers of the same name, is pre8er\''ed in the library of
Yienna (Cod. Theol. 325, No. 15). It is entitled Contra
Pulchritudintm Peminamm, — Smith, Diet, of Class^
Biog, 8. V.
Philo THE Pythagorban. Clemens A1exandrinn8
(Strom, i, 305) and Sozomen (i, 12) mention Philo ó
nv^ayóptioc. It is probable from their language that
they both mean by the person so designated Philo Jc-
DiiEUS. Jonsius {ibid, iii, c iv, p. 17) is strougly of
opinion that Philo the elder and this Philo mentioned
by Clemens are the same. Fabńcius, who once held
this opinion, was ied to change his view8 (BibL i, 862),
and tacitly assumes (iv, 738) that Sozomen indicated
Philo Judieus by this epithet. — Smith, Diet, of Class,
Biog, 8. V,
Philo the Rhrtorician and PinijOsopiiKR. Cavc,
Giacomellus, and Ernesti are of opinion that this is no
other than Philo Carpathius (q. v.). His lera agrees wilh
this, for the philosopher is quoted by Athanasius Sinaita,
who flourished about A.D. 561. SVe ueed not be star-
tled at tbe term philosopher as applied to an eoclesiastic
Thia was not uncommon. Michael PseUus was termed
the prince of philosophers, and Nicetas was sumamed,
in tbe same way as Philo, pr/r<tip Kat ^\6<ro^oc. Be-
sides, Polybius, in the life of Epiphanius, exprefBly
calls Philo of Carpathia K\ripiKÓv ano fsrirópwVf which
TiUemont and others erroneouslv understand to mean a
roan who has changed from the profession of the law to
that of the Church. Cave shows that the fórirwp beki
PHILO
117
PHILOLOGY
an offiee in tbe Charch itaelf, somewhat analogous to our
prafcsKMuhip of ecclenasttcal hutoiy. Our only k nowi-
no of Philo^ onder Łhis Damę, whether it be Philo Car-
paihiiis OT not, U from aD inediled work of Anastasius
binaita, preaenred in the library of Yienna and tbe Bod-
letan. Gljcas {A imaŁ |>. 283, etc.\ it is true, quote8 as
if fitMD Philo, but be bas only borrowed vcr6a/tm, and
uitbout ackiioMrledgnient, from Anastasius. Tbe work
of Aoastasiua referred to is entitled by Cave Demon-
itratio Hisłoriea de Magna et Angelica tummi Sacerdo-
tit Dufmiaie. Pbik)'s work tberein ąuoted is styled a
i.harch histoiy, but, if we may judge from tbe only
■fiecimen of it we have, we need hanily regret its Iom.
\i oon&ists of a tale regarding a monk, that, being ex-
nKoamanicated by bis bisbop, and baving afterwards
suficted martyrdom, be was brought in his coffin to tbe
charch, but could not rest till tbe bisbop, wamed in a
Uream, haii formally abaolred bim. See Cave, nUt»
Litt. p. 176 (ed. Geneya, 1720); Fabricius, BiU, Gnec.
vii, 420. — Smith, Diet. ofClass, Biog, s. v.
Pbilo SicfioR. Joeepbus (Apion, i, 23), wben enu-
merating tbe beatben writers wbo had treated of Jew-
bJi bistor>', mentions together Demetrtus Phalereus.
PkHo, and Eupolemon. Philo be calla the elder (ó
vpHf^ąmpoc\ probably to distinguish bim from Philo
Jodsus^ and he cannot mean Herennius Philo, wbo
lirrd afier his time. demens Ale^andrinus {Stromat.
i U€) alao couples together the names of Pbilo the
eidcT and Demetrius, stating that their lists of Jewish
kiił»s diiiered. llenoe Yoasius thinks that both authors
refer lo the same person (^De HUt. Grac. p. 486, ed.
Westermann). In this Jonaius agrees with bim, while
be notices the error of Josephus, in giying Demetrius
the somame of Phalereus {De Script. /list, PhiL iii, 4,
p. 17). As Huetius {Demomtrat. Erangel. p. 62) was
of opinion that the apocryphal Book of Wisdom was
«ńuen by this Philo, he was necessitated to consider
bim as a HeUenistic Jew, wbo, unskiUed in the origi-
nal Hebrew, had it translated, and then expanded it, in
Unguai^e pecaliar to his cUus (ibid. p. 62, 246, etc).
Fabricioa thinks that tbe Philo roentioned by Josephus
mar have been a Gentile, and that a Pbilo different
from either Philo J udania or senior was the autbor of
the Book of Wisdom. Eusebius (Prap. Erangel. ix,
^). 24) ąootes fi/teen obscure hexameters from Philo,
vitbout giving hint of wbo he is, and merely citing
them aa from Alexander Polybistor. These eridently
form pait of a history of the Jews in verse, and were
vritten either by a Jew, in the character of a beatben,
a» Fabricius hinta is poasible, or by a beatben acąuaint-
fd with tbe Jewish Scriptures. Tbis is, in all proba-
Ulity, tbe work referred to by Joeepbus and Clemens
Alexaodrinu& Of oourse the autbor must have Uved
btfbre tbe time of Alexander Polybistor, wbo came to
Roroe EC 83. It is doubtful whether he is tbe same
aa the geographer of tbe same name. — Smitb, Diet. of
Clau. Biog. s. v.
Philo OF Takscs, a deacon. He was a coropanion
of Ignatius of Antioch, and accompanied the martyr
from the East to Romę, A.D. 107. He is twice men-
tioned in tbe epiatles of Ignatius {Ad Pkiladelph. c xi ;
Ad SmynMOSj.e. xiti). He is supposed to bare writ-
ten, along with Rbeus Agathopus, tbe Marlyrium Ig-
acfii, for which see Ionatius. See Cave, Hiat, Liit, p. 28
(ed. Genera, 1720).— Smith, Diet. o/Clau. Biog. s. v.
Pbilolaos, a Py tbagorean philosopber, was bom at
Crotona, or Tarentum, towards the cloae of the 6th cen-
tary B^C Aresaą a probable diadple of Pythagoras,
was his master; so that we reoeire tbe Pythagorean
<łoctrine from Philolani, only as it appeared to the tbird
geoentioo, and an aocount of it is therefore morę prop-
<Tly m place in a generał examination of the pbilosopby
^ Pythagoras (q. v.). It haa been repeated once and
^ain that Philolaus divined the true theory of tbe
nńrene, and was the yirtual predecessor of Copemicus.
Nothiog can be more falae. In hia acheme indeed, not
the carth, but Jirey is placcd in the centrę of the uni.
yerse ; tbat fire, howeyer, is not tbe ^tm, whicb, on the
contrary, be makes reyolye around the central vvp,
The scheme, in so far as it can be understood, is alto-
getber fantastic, based on no obseryation or comparison
of phenomena, but on yague and now unintelligible
metaphysical considerations. Tbe only predecessor of
Copemicus in antiqnity was Aristarcfaus of Samos,
w bose remarkable conjectures appeared first in tbe
editio princeps of Arcbimedes — publisbed afker Coper-
nicus wrote. Of Pbilolaus's three works, written iu tbe
Doric dialect, only fragments now remain. Sec Bockb,
Leben, neUt den Bruehstucken teiner Werke (Beri. 1819) ;
Smith, Diet. of Gr. and Rom. Biog, and jtfgthoi. s. v.;
Ueberweg, Bist. of Philos. (see Index in vol. ii) ; But-
ler, Biti. o/A ncieni Philos. yol ii. (J. H. W.)
FhilorogUS {^tXó\oyocyfond o/ talk) f one of ihc
Christians at Romę to whom Paul sent his salutations
(Rom. xyi, 15). A.D. 55. Origen conjectures that be
was the head of a Christian household whicb included
the other persons named with bim. Dorotheus makes
bim one of the seyenty disciples, and alleges that he
was placed by the apostle Andrew as bisbop of Sinopc,
in Pontus (see Epiphanins, Mon. p. 68, ed. Dresscl).
Pseudo-Hippolytus {De LXX Apostolis) substantially
repeats the same improbable tradition. His name is
found in the ColumbaKum "of the freedmen of Livia
Augusta" at Romę; which shows that therc was a Phi-
lologus connected with the imperial household at the
time when it included many Julias. The name Fbi-
lologus was a common one at Romę (Lewin, Life and
Epistles ofSt. Paul, ii, 71).
Philology, CoMPARATiYE. Tbe importance which
this subject bas assumcd in modem science as a key to
the history of national origin justifies its admissiou and
brief discussion berę, with special rcference to tbe two
Biblical tongues.
The ethnographical table contained in the tenth
chapter of Genesis bas derived no little corroboration
and iUustratłon from the researches of modem philol-
ogy. It bas tbus been clearly establisbed tbat all the
languages whicb baye fumisbcd a polished literaturę
are reducible to two great families, corresponding, with
a few sporadic yariations, to tbe lineage of the two oldcr
sons of Noah respectiyely, namely, Shem and Japheth.
The former of these, which is in fact usually designated
as the ShemitiCf is cmphatically Oriental, and embraces
tbe Hebrew and Arabie, with their cognates, the Samar-
itan, tbe eastem and westem Arama^an, or Cbaldee and
Syriac, and the Ethiopic The latter, which is conycn-
iently styled the Jndo- Germanie group, includes tbe
Sanscrit, with its sister the Zend, and their offshoots,
the Glreek, the Latin, tbe Gallic, the Saxon — in a word,
the stock of the Occidental or European languages. The
analogies and coincidences subsisting between the mero-
bers of the Sbemitic family baye been pretty fully ex-
hibitcd by Castell, Gesenius, and FUrst in their lexiconB,
and by Ewald and Nordheimer in their grammars;
while the relationsbip existing among tbe Indo-Gcr-
manic group bas been extenBiyely traced by Bopp in
his Comparatire Grammar, by Pott in his Etymolo"
gische ForsckungHi, and by Beufey in his Wvrztl'LeX'
icon. Other pbilologists, among whom De Sacy, Bour-
nouf, Max MuUcr, and Reiuin may be especially mcn-
tioned, baye somewbat extended the rangę of these
comparisons, and occasional rescmblances baye been
pointed out in particular forms between the Sbemitic
and Indo>Germanic branches ; but no s>*stematic colla-
tion of these latter coincidences, so far as we are aware,
has been instituted, unlesa we accept such fanciful at-
tempta as those of Parkhurst, wbo deriyes most of the
Greek primitiyes from Hebrew roots! Yct notwith-
standing the confusion at Babel and many a later lin-
guistic misadyenture, the common Noachian parentage
ought to be capable of yindication by some distinct traces,
at leaat of analogy if not of identity, in early forms of '
PHILOLOGY
116
PHILOLOGY
0t>eech cxUting among both these great branches of
the biunan faniily as rcpreaented by tbeir written rec-
onis. We propose in this articlc bńeily to exbibit a
few of tbese resemblancea whicb bave presented Łbem-
selyes in our own iavesŁtgatioitB as arguing a coromon
origin, altbough a remote one, between the Shemitk
and the Indo-Germanic tongues; the most of them are
certainly too sŁriking to have been aocidental. Lest we
should yenture beyond our own or our readen' depth,
and make our pages brisŁle with an unneceasary display
of foreign characters, we shall confine our illustrations to
the Hebrew, on the one band, and to the Greek, Latin.
French, German, and English, on the other, as safficieiii
reprcsentative8 of the two lingual famtlies whicb we
are comparing.
I. Identity of Rooła, — The foUowing is a table, com-
piled from notes madę in the course of our own reading,
of such Uebrew roots as recnr among the European dia-
lects so strikingly similar in form and signification as to
leave in most cases little doubt of tbeir original identity.
We have carefully excluded all tbose that betray eri-
dences of later or arti6cial introduction from one lan-
guage to the other, such as commcrcial, mechanical, or
scientific terms, merę technicals, obviou8 onomatopoet>
ics, names of animals, plants, minerals, official Łitles, etc,
and we have sekcted words representing families as far
divergent as possible, rather than tbose exhibiting the
most striking resemblance. It will be interesting to
ob8erve bow a root bas sometimes slipped out of one or
morę of the oognate dialects, in the linę of descent, and
reappears in anotber reprcsentative; a few only are found
in all the columns. In some of tbem again the sigpiifi-
cation or form bas become disguised in one or anotber
of the affiliated languages, but beoomes elear again in a
later representatiye. We have restored the digamma
wherever it waa necessary in order to bring out the re-
lationship in the Greek roots. Tbose marked with an
asterisk are Chaldee. A few out of their proper oolumn
are iucluded in brackcts.
HC«Bnr. 0BBSK.
HEuncw.
SM
T
t T
* r
- T
rx
P-3«
U3M
- r
I V V
- T
T T
-a
dxa
- r
Kia
e^a
OBCCK.
ŁATI?r.
rRCMrn.
OKEMAN.
KKOŁnil.
/«a«f
ilYas
• • • ■
• • • •
• • • ■
aveo
• • • •
• • • •
■ ■ « •
to MM«m
bało
plaiUer
[bnwl]
wafl
to pammd
• • « •
bODC
Baiigel
beak
togatJter
•
UftipM
• • ■ •
• • • •
• • ■ •
• • • •
lomtl
FiKkm
volvo
• • • ■
walzen
Wheel
namgki
non
ne
uein
no, nn-
au
ille
11
er
• • • •
e-o
Je
ich
I
ango
angoisse
enge
finger
to«»/
rótf<K
• • • «
• • • •
• • • •
■ ■ • ■
to ter M^
• • • •
• • • ■
« » • •
storę
tolrwwl
li>Xoti*u
• • » •
■ ■ • •
• • • •
« • • •
tkttarUk
• • • «
% • • •
Erde
earth
toPMrw
upcio/icu
Yara
• • • ■
• • » •
• « • •
to«aiM
ad
k
■ • « ■
itt
tktm
ta
ta
da
thoa
im
• • • •
• • • •
bel
by
toitig
wcipw
foro
perper
b<»hren
borę
toKtNA
• • « •
• • • •
?bo0e
■ • • •
togo
vado
renir
waten
wend
totrtad
iroToc
pes
patte
Pfjid
path
pudeo
• • « •
• • • •
baab
ł?a
n-^a
- T
- T
tna
nba
cba
Da
lya
ana
nia
totrum
m mommd
/9ovvóf
toAMMMMM
to tmj^f
tocnMl*
to Ml
to Htm
tkęhoMk
a eup
Kt^akii
t»kt»
mUd
to*net9m
x6ftrov
« ht
? Kkt.pat
to tio
to ha amoiśA
XaAKi>f
to/M
to aeulpturo
aloo
to łom
7oaw
toterapo
XupaTTM
fAc tAnat
7ap7apiCM
0*^a toenuk
yia
toci«w
KCIpM
łtoplmok
rija-jdtfWttCM
I.At».
fldes
moiis
Toro
bacno
far
paro
• • ■ •
precor
purns
cnrobo
capat
caedo
h«dus
purtus
1 glarea
cateiia
łjeUł
gl •n)iit»
łfcalpo
cum
ceva
« • • ■
rado
gattar
• ■ • •
?ciireo
■iia
a«n
- T
- r
PP7
\
-n
xsin
-1
nat
-r
-f
nat
ort
-T
PPJ
rt-)t
TT
to owtep
to moli
TłjKM
to bo ułofU
iafuim
toermok
6ukvt»
totUb
totrtmd
tho
ff
o
toio
lo!
rno
uio
łamd
< Kai
' Te
Te
totłaff
lAio
TÓ
tabotl
C*-
to fwmko
vtim
to nting
9u\iK
lotlimk
Ta77Óff
to/Ł«n
to f hor
OaKKOt
to^mc
cittiptt
ca
rapi
sarrfo
tabeo
domo
hic
is
flo
en
ve
qae
(is) te
?Balix
fol
mont
parer
bane
prier
por
gibbeiix
chapean
coateaa
• • • •
cour
Cglelch]
sccirbnt
gratter
goulet
ćcraser
Rripper
? crever
ócurer
dompter
• • • ■
dagiie
rat
oa
et
I
Bubne
frageu
• ■ • •
Giebel
Haapt
Bchneiden
• • • •
Gltter
• • • •
gatten
knhl
Knh
Schorf
kratzeu
Gargcl
Gr!es
scheeren
Oriff
ruffen
scbeaern
damm
• • • •
?Delch
treten
• • • •
Je-
werden
• • • •
nod .
■ ■ • •
• • • ■
der
»iedea
Bagam
sero
? saillir
ticome ;Schaum
sac seihen
!
a-spenserjstreiMa
faith
monnt
browse
pakę
bar-ley
pare
bar
pray
pare
gaff
goblct
cnt
kid
yard
rgmvel
• • * •
callow
ag-gloiTH
erate
»ca1p
• • • •
cow
scarvy
grate
gnlp
groftta
score
cmp
rub
aatnr
durab
• • • •
Mig
thresh
he
it
waa
nnd
Uuo
the
i^eethe
? t<h2ike
rsally
tang
skim
»ack
aaw
PHILOCOGT
119
PHILOLOGY
I
LATOI.
32n
Ibatno
* * • wapa
łotwie
I»I4
T »
r?n te
tefeał
{ttM
XaAń**
tttmctśk
ren *»'r'
- r «ICaVTM
to
tn
isn
p«r
* • • •
[-59]
Vi8
? viTO
Hppas
ccBlam
lana
glaber
jfemions
fmel
• • • •
scabo *
f flcies
qacro
Sin
tą trtwM *
KpuAatś
pin "ł^
i-*n
r^n
toyjow
lek
k Ml t tekn/ea<
;rj (••«£]
dtrVTi
te«»rire/«
Ti<ipa
-33
■na
-»
"* foiia
te^riM
>pP«TM
fiotttt
UJhm
T
^^
iii
-ł
m
*
•'a
■nu
t»hritigf»rtl
UwmU
vAaw
Fot
areo
scribo
[hisŁI]
[dlve]
lando
etipes
trado
• • • •
voIo
bofl
• • • •
video
• • • •
Tinom
?calleo
[? lewd j
• • • •
nlolo
redeo
heres
• V • •
Mt
cadm
f siccus
qiil
tilliis
raracB.
ABsatAir.
XXeŁMII.
battre
[abate]
pat
cuble
Kabel
cable
pair
Paar
peer
rcaelUir
• • • •
?coil
b&to
betzen
łiaste
• • • •
• • • •
gazę
• * • •
• • • «
vigor
• ■ • •
• • • •
? 8ave
gliseer
acblupfen
gllb
?creax
hohl
bole
Cliwe]
loa
looee
glace
glftnzen
sleek
• ■ • • .
« ■ • •
f groom
a-moIUr
mild
mellow
« • • •
• • • •
• • • «
Bcbaben
• ■ • •
ecrape
bacber
backen
banh
ttc-qaeiir
[que8tioti]
query
« • • •
« • • •
• • ■ •
• « • «
« • • •
cradle
• • • •
• • • ■
creak
ćtó
Herd
ardeuŁ
graver
graben
8cratcb
• ■ • •
boacb
hash
[dabbie]
taafen
dlp
toar
[tani]
tier
• • • •
SŁofls
tOBS
tftamper
tnppen
step
• « • •
a • « •
tbrasŁ
« • • •
tftreifen
strip
Yoaloir
wollen
wUl
• • • •
• • p •
• • • •
wallen
• ■ • ■
well
Toir
weiaaen
wit
■ • • •
gebea
if
viu
Weln
vine
• • • •
• • • •
coold
• • • •
Leate
lad
« * « «
• • • •
walk
burler
bcnien
ycU
a8-<eoir.
eetisen
sit
beritcr
fHerr
heir
łt^no
• • • •
foose
est
iat
fa
t • « •
• • • «
?caddj
?6tehe
• • ■ •
• • • •
qae
wie
how
MOl
alle
wbolo
1 HKKKBIi
OKKCK.
ŁATIII.
rBKUCB.
GnMAlTp
nrs
tohmg
• • • •
p • • •
• ■ • •
....
•
Kii/Ainś
'•?
KWIM
. fÓW
ciuifes
? canif
kneipen
nip
733
genn
genoa
Knle
knee
- T
cauens
cola
knlcken
coign
loAmhfę
rrt>idj
? copala
coaple
Koppcl
coaple
:iC?
tobow
KcifiirrM
cayas
caverne
kippcn
cnp
-ICS
t9Aid4
• ■ • ■
? c<ravrir
• • •«
?cover
ni3
T T
todig
• • • •
carrcr
• • • •
qnarrj
- t
to proeMm
Kpii^tt
croclo
• • ■ •
kreischen
sbriek
■113
- T
toltup
^Kaipm
curro
char
karren
carry
- T
cndo
p • p k
• • • «
• • • •
T T
to/aiHi
lasas
luDgair
• • • ■
lag
mb
Xcvici>c
lnx
p • • •
leacbten
ligbt
-j^b
to mn/f*
lateo
[r claodo]
• • • •
lid
sA
todtrU*
lado
^-lader
• • p •
il-losion
- T
tomtoek
ftKam
• ■ • •
• • • •
lachen
laagh
aji
iodtwur
glotio
gloaton
• p p p
glut
lamiiaa
lampę
• « p •
lamp
PE>
to/«p
Aei'x«
Ugario
laogoe
leckea
lick
liB>
(A«tofi^«
f 7\a<r9a
• • • •
• • ■ •
PPPP
p • • •
T «•
• AttiMfrMf
?magiiu8
• • • •
?]iIeDge
?much
lomMwr*
meta
meaore
meesen
meta
5?!^.
IOM«tt
roingo
[? mack]
[? maca»]
?meek
:3ti73
[maliny]
moveo
moaroir
[mato]
mow
pT2
lo/rcr
• • • •
moqaer
PPPP
mock
n!i«
to dii
fioprót
mora
mort
Mord
marder
i ' '
to etap
macto
• p • •
• • • «
smack
nn^
towip*
e-mango
« p p p
• p ■ t
p p • •
» »
uwo^H^wat
•
wAo/
Tir;
qai8?
qair
werj
wbyf
5<bl3
JfiaXa
( ir\olo¥
mnltas
mille
vlel
mile
- T
pi aa
plouYoir
TOU
flow
XaXaM
lallo
[loll]
lallen
InU
r^?
toht tmootk
fiaXaKÓs
mnlceo
r mAler
Mllch
melt
nss
toottat
nameras
• • • #
T »
Vf/UM
• p • p
^0^
f0IIIU
/ui7Wpit
mlsceo
mixer
mischen
mingle
T T
lo^liul
• p • t
mit
meet
nxTa
tomuk
moaso
• ■ • •
• p p •
matter
PB?
toM«A
? filKpÓV
maceó
maigre
mager
mcagre
- T
ta A« 6f tt«r
[mcero]
amaroB
morne
marrlscb
moom
bó«
• • • •
• • • »
• p • •
• • • «
rśias
totautA
9
• • • •
• • • •
• p • •
• a • •
- T
fiaoam
b23
fowiTk
• • • •
• • • •
faal
fool
~T
0avAor
ana
ago
agir
• • « •
act
-T
ri7Co/xa<
•
nW
lowandtr
noto
• • • •
• • • p
nod
nji3
to rut
vaiw
« • • •
• • p •
• p p ■
p « • •
r!!a
(0 re«/
• • • p
a p p V
Dłcken
l>flM
• p » ■
iZ33
<« nłiac
tali
tolerer
[«>?]
tali
*iDa
tohtep
taeri
« < • •
• • • •
a 9 a a
-T
TflpfrW
"9.5
fo mift
neco
naire
• • • •
an-noy
■^a
CII'Mp
• ■ • «
• p • t
( ....
• • 1 •
PHILOLOGY
120
PHILbLOGY
osnK.
*>G3
!i53
to fali
Utftll
KÓVTM
td palpitat*
rpitó
T S
bis
V T
T T
- t
■ •
mo
• roeł
irtr*p
u7airdM
raoMtMf
toooMr
KaXvirTM
to taił
fimkot
aeelłmr
toarrcmg*
? 4pt^
uTfiór
to 6« bMMśfml
toatriko
to/siut
wariip
to A« torp«rf
tOWQ9«r
[flckle]
• htmn
miot
M^9
T T
nriD
- »
Pn*
- »
T T
iVi?
"31?
•ip
"?J?
J^pifywfit
toreni
tolt9r«^
[friiige]
to pomado
to^ou
werawwfit
toMop • •
towóteh
OKiKTOfiat
tAo ooie4
KoX(w
to kill
Kreivio
littlt
CTev6t
ligit
ic«Xqv
tOfOt
eełd
KpvOt
toeall
tnpum
towuot
Kupim
aMor»
itipat
ŁATm.
nmcn*
aCBHAy. I SltOŁOB.
fallo
[chop]
donum
terreo
f 8eqaor
raper
?alo
clepo
rimul
moles
• • • •
fectas
• • • •
flgo
plger
YlŁricos
• • • •
Ybnfo
vagti8
r balia
• • • •
piUgUlB
porto
pan
fero
pario
frico
• • • •
[fray]
fldea
pateo
cachio-
Dor
scando
epecio
cało
[klll]
tcDdo
celer
• • • •
crnor
?ga]Tio
• • • ■
conm
fallolr
conper
donner
trembler
fullea
? Buchen
Uber
? nd-oles-
ceuce
bbel
foli
cnff
ea-dow
tremble
Bight
• • • •
OTcr
• • • •
ad-nlt
en.eemble sammt { ;«^^«„
Imułl
Nackea neck
Relbe
• • • ■
rang
[packi
• • • •
paUre
• • • •
? boaffer
radller
[f pulee]
Łrlefeu
tropfen
Atbem
« • • ■
pocbea
• 9 m t
Fttttcr
row
? roof
drip
drop
« ■ ■ •
?fair
peck
• • • •
feed
fMg
?puff
? puffea
Bcbwankeowag
fboll
pall
part
ferille
ftnit
? froiseer
francbir
foŁ
^.pandre
[^Bti]
[T?]
ac-«ndrer
gagner
Ichor
crler
• • « •
corne
Farre
[brlttle]
fłihrcn
Borde
brecheu
l^ank
[? naa]
? apreiten
gackela
• • • •
spfihen
« • • »
qnfileu
diinn
gSbrea
krftheu
• • • •
Horn
party
bnrdcn
bura
wreck
r borat
free
faith
? »pan
glggle
rcllmb
spy
cali
qaell
thin
ex-ce1
ffalu
gore
ery
• • • •
comer
■YSBBW. aBBSK.
I
i^nw.
I
r T
tai
T
cni
- T
pn
T r
r r
- »
- T
V V
mm ••
nad
- »
no
• •
rhrrś
m
npd
T
DÓ
- T
V i*
nro
- T
nfib
T T
T T
■ • ^
- i
to«M
fopam
tohtmn^frf
toMMTfl
to«ł<iifc«
? rpifitś
to*mf4f
ipoit^ofiat
łoeomttttd
toAmrt
ioakomt
tomtmd
paftrot
toMt
veras
rcgo
dormio
tomot
to p*»t
[»u&p]
Itaotn
« rod
(TKriB rpov
fttra
tohrook
tktbrtMt
»nOM
ratpot
tofńU
to ploet
to drink
[vuccati]
to A« wtw
to strip
ov\am
tktro
rhfiOK
? ońfia
tkf nn
• łoali
to atłcf r
xrp
a gat«
^tpa
tkt lip
(HlpJ
tojudj/e
tim
tokanc
rKiiu
a dragom
tc<Vm
inmpid
r riTBlłi
ramoB
• • • ■
[recve]
• • • «
coD-«alo
garder
ragę
donnir
[strive]
ecipio
eeptem
toi
riwTio
to md
reipot
taama
[akull]
f pooo
eto
sago
• • • •
Yello
tom
• • • •
mitto
Bol
deus
blrsntas
« • • •
eapor
• « • ■
eex
loUo
tcnaia
tjmpn-
nuoi
itero
? ćcope
conaeil
iept
tótoa
ticaille
Boch
epolier
mettre
boIgU
deot
[hair]
• ■ • •
ab-aorber
• • • •
slx
• • • •
teiiir
OKBMAir.
«"•■-"■-
wehrea
wary
reckeo
reach
ŁrComen
drenm
reiben
rab
taper
Btreben
? raffl«
• • • •
ram
* • ■ •
raut
Reef
raft
? Bcbopfen
ecoop
• • • «
conntel
Bcbnaaben
snair
eauer
Bonr
Scbaft
Bhaft
BiebcD
6cveu
r Schiefer
f »hirer
ZItzea
teat
Stier
ateer
Scbale
Shell
rtbnu
rdo
Btebeo
atand
Baagen
6oak
■ • • ■
r»km
Feli
peel
dano
iheu
• ■ • ■
ecbmełs-
een
• • • •
smite
Sunne
samroer
Zahn
deiit
Scbauer
frhaggy
Thar
dour
Bcblappen
łap
Schoppe
• • • •
secbs
eix
[^''J?]
[*.iąs]
debnen
tcuder
• • • •
rrooi
aapren
tabor
zehren
tear
This list ia snfBciently oopiooa, after deducting thoM
ezamples which further reaearcb may show to be merely
fortuitoiis, to prove a morę than accidental agreement in
words of frequeDt use. Many of the roots are eridenf 1y
related to each otber, and moet of them are found In ser-
eral klndred forma. Among theae the selection bas hcre
been madę not so much for the purpoae of exhitMting the
most palpable similarity as to include the greatest rari-
ety of dłstinct etymons in each linę of deaoent We have
not room to express the numeroua oognatea and derira-
tiyes of each, to tracę the connection of their meanings
with the common or generic import, nor to notę the ra-
rious orthographical changes that tbey have undei^gone.
If the reader will take the trouble to inresUgate these
points at his leisure, as he may readily do with the help of
PHILOLOGY
121
PHILOLOGY
irood l«xicoi» of the respectire langnagn, he will soon
satyy himself how widdy theie radices have ramitied
ind tiow intimately they ara connected. A comparisou
wi(b tbeir Anbic and Sanacrit parallela would still fur-
ther rerify the foregoing resulta.
II. MoMmfUabic HootB. — ^IŁ is well settled thaŁ the so-
nlkd mak radicals in Hebrew rerbs, technicalły de-
D^miiuted Pe-Alepb, Pe-Nun, Pe-Yod, Lamed-He, etc.,
whii-h drop away in the coune of inflection, were nut in
mlity ortginaUy triliteral at aU, but that theae lettere
«ere ooly added in thoae fonna in which they appear
f^jr ib« sake of uniformity with regular rerba. But
tbcse eoiMtitote in the aggregate a very large part, we
ipftffhcnd a decided majoiity, of ali the verba moat fre-
^moUt employcd in the language. Beńdes theee, thera
19 nochcr very laige claas of roota of kiodred or anal-
orpns signification with each other, and having two
ndicah in oommon. Ali theae, as Geaenius bas ingen-
kadr ifaown in bis Zerteon, are likewise to be regarded
» Mwntially identical, the idea dinging in the two
knen poaseaRd by them in common. llias we haye
młottd neaiiy the ot ber moiety of Hebrew rerba, and
tbeae it mnat be renaemberad are the groand or stock
cf the eotire rocabnlaryf to bUiterala. The preaumption
19 Dot an unwanantable one that aU the roota might
(tTmologtcally be aimilarly retrenched. The few quad-
ńbtnab that oocar are unceremonioualy treated in thia
nffiwr, being regarded aa formed from oniinary roota
bfT młoplication or interpolation.
Now it i» a remarkable ootncidence that the ultimate
tbeme of the primitive Greek verb bas been ascertained,
ID like manner, by modem philologista to be a monosyl-
kble, conuating of two oonsonanta rocalized, in precise
omformity witb tfae Hebrew system of vowei pointa,
b? a ńngle mutable YoweL Thus the basis of such
piotncted forma eren aa \av^avw^ ftav^avkt^ iiia9Xbi^
betomcs Xad, pta^. iax- Indeed, Noah Webster has
i{)plłcd the same principle to all the roots of English
Yords; and in hia Dictionary (we speak of the quarto
(dition, originally pabliabed at New Haren in two vol-
niDe») he has indicated tbem as '* dąsa Dg, No. 28/* etc.,
althottgh he aeema never to hare published the key or
fiiC of ihis daasification.
UL Primithe Tetue§^ — In nothing perhaps does the
disparity between the Greek and the Hebrew verb strikc
the student at fiest more obvioudy than the multiplicity
and Yaricty of ten8ep>form8 in the former, compared with
tbe Dcagre and vague array of tenses in the latter. A
fiłtle forther exainination, howevcr,show8 that by means
of ihe Tarioos so-called amjyffotum* (Niphal, Hiphil, etc.)
^ Hebrews managed to extend their paradigra to pret-
ty oonsiderable dinienaiona. Here the Heb. Pid and
other dageahed conjogationa eridently correspond with
the rtduplkaikm of the Greek perfcct and pluperfect
t<fiMa, while the prefixed syllable of Hiphil, etc, af-
'^Mdt a elew to the deyice of the simple augment in
Grtek. These, however, are Gomparatively uniropor-
tant,althoagh interesting analogiem
Jhc root of the Hebrew rerb is found in ita least dis>
piised form in the prteier KaL The futuro is but a
B»dt6cation of tbta, aa is eapecially erident from the
^•ółitj with wbicb it reaomes the preterit import with
"rar eoDYersiTe." The past ia naturally the first and
>Bo<t freąoeot tenae in nae, becaiiae it is histońcal. In
*U thcse reapecta the prnter anawera to the Greek tecond
oorut. The angment of thia tenae waa a secondary or
oibaeąaeot inrention, and, accordinglr, Homer habitud-
W dłflcgaidi it. The ** Attic reduplication" (for exam-
P|^ Tyoroy) had a still laier origin. The second aorist
prea the root in ita aimpleat if not pureat form. It is
fuiiher rcmaikable that nom btti primkire rtrU kart
^ 'oM^, md no Grteh 9erb§ art prńmiwe but ikose wkick
^^^kStU a momotgUahie root aa found in the stem of the
*coDd aocist We inyite the attention of scholara es-
P*^ir to thcse laat ennnciated prindplesw They show
ibat thia teoae waa originally the groond-form of the
Ttiht
No tense in Greek exhibita greater modifieations of
the root than the present, This argues that the tense
itsdf was of comparatively late datę. Accordingly the
derivattve verbs most usnially hare it, although defect^
ive in many other paits ; and the rariety of forms under
which it appears occasions most of the ao-called inregu-
larities set down in tables of Greek yerbs. Now the
Hebrew has properly no prescnt tense. Present time
can only be ezpressed by means of the participle, with
the sub6tantive verb (regularly understood) like our
" periphrastic prescnt*" (" I am doing," etc). Tnie to
the analogy which we have indicated, the junior mero-
bers of the Hebraistic family, especially the Chaldee and
Syriac, have oonstructed a present tense out of the par-
tidple by annexing the intlectire terminations appro-
priate to the different numbers and persons. This proc-
ess illustrates the formation of
IV. Verb Infiedions.— In Greek, as in Hebrew, the
peraonal endings are obviou8ly but fragments of the
peraonal j^rofMWfw, appended to the vtrbal root or tense-
stem. This is so generally recogntsed to be the fact
with respect to both these languagei^ that we need dwell
upon it only for the porpose of explttining, by its means,
some of the pecnliarities of the Gre«k yerbs in -/ir. Thia
termination, which reappears in Ihe optatiye of other
yerbs, waa doubtless the original and proper sign of the
first person, rather than the ending in -w. The forraer
is the basis of the obltque cases of the pronoun of the
first person, /if, me ; as the latter is the laat, but non-
radical, syllable of the nominatire, iyw. I, It is in
keeping with this that the yerbs in -/it are some of the
oldest in the language, for example, the substantiye
yerb, c/fii. The passiye terminal -lAm is doubOess but
a modification of the same. Now the principle or fact
to which we wish to cali particular attention in thia
conuećtion is this: Every primitive *'pure" rerb in Greek
is a rerb in -ftt. By this rule the student may always
know them, as there are no others, exeept the few fac-
titious yerbe in "Ufiij and yery rare exceptions like ^łw,
riutf iriv(a, which are attributable to disguises of the
tnie root. Let it now be further noted, in confirmation
of what we haye stated aboye conceming the Greek
primal tense, that reriu in -fii kave gubttantialfy tke same
injleetion as the second aorist^ and tkey karę only tkose
tenses teith tekick tkese infiedions are compatAle* Nei ther
of these last-named principles, it is tnie, is carried out
with exactness, for the aorists passiye of other yerbs
seem to haye usurped these active terminations; but
we are persuaded they are in generał the real elew to
the defectiyenesB and peculiar inflection of the furms in
-fit. We therefore look upon the yerbs in ąuestion as
interesting links in the descent from the older Hebrew
t>-pe.
y. Dedensional Endings. — In the absence of any real
declensions whateyer in the Hebrew, or any proper
cases — unless the "construct state" be entitled to be
regarded as a genitive— there is little ground of com-
parison with the copious senes of modificafions of the
Greek noun and adjectiye. Yet Webster has noted the
resemblance of the plural C*^ and Chaldee "^^ to the Eng-
lish oxen (archaic housm, etc). The v " ephelcustic"
has its analogue in the *'paragogic" *|, and is strikingly
generalized in the " nunnation" of the Arabie.
VI. Vowel Changes. — To the leamer the Hebrew lan-
guage seems yery complicatetl in this respect ; but the
whole process of yocalization is wronght out under the
followiug simple law : that " without the tonę, a Icng
yowel cannot stand in a closed syllable, nor a short
yowel in an open syllable." From this results practi-
cally the altematiye of a hng rotcel or an additional eon"
sonant (or dagesh forte) in eyery unacccnted syllable.
In the Greek the following fundament al principle pre-
yails: that a lottg rowel (or diphthong) indirates the
omissUm of a eonsonanłt except where it reprcsents two
short yowels; and this latter is tantamount to the other,
for there ia one letter less. Thus the systems of sylla-*
PHILOMETOR
122
PHILOPONUS
bication in both langiiages essentially coincidc in this :
that lef^h in the vowtl ia eguicaletU to another cofiaonant.
We might take room to exemplłfy these rules, but the
modem scholar wUl readily see thcir truth. In nonę
of the laŁer cognate languages is thia pńnciple regarded
with much untformityf although from the naturę of the
yocal organs themselyea, it foliowa, even in so arbitrary
a tongue (or rather so kistoricalA spelUng) as the Kng-
lish, that a vowel is naturally long when it ends the
syllable, and short when a consonant closes the sound.
But in the Greek and Hebrew the Utw we have pro-
pounded is consistently carried ont in a complete system
of euphonic changes which lie at the very threshold of
cither language.
Accordingly, in exactne88 of phonetie representation
these two languages have no riviil, not even in the Ger-
man, Italian, or Spanish. Thoogh the original sounds
are now somewhat unoertain, yet it is evident (unless we
take the degenerate modem Greek, and the discrepant
modern Rabbinical pronunciations as pcrfect guides) that
each letter and vowel in both had its own peculiar pow-
er. The two alpbabets, we know, were identical in or-
igin ; for if we distrost the story of the importation of
the Phoenician chamcters by Cadmns into Greece, we
have but to compare the names, order, and forms of the
written signs (reyersing them, as the two languages
were read in opposite directions), in order to satisfy
ourselyes that they are essentially the same. Even the
unappreciable K has its equivalent in the spiritus lems
(as the 9 may be yisually representcd by the spiritus
asper), and the old digamma ifav) reappears in the
consonantal V Perhaps the reoson why v initial al-
ways has the rough breathing is owing to its affinity
to both theae last named. 3ee Alpiiabkt.
We trust we have said enough to illustrate our propo-
sition that these two lingual families, and especially
their two chiefly interesting representatiyes — which,
widely variant as they are in age, culture, flexibility,
and geniuB, yet by a remarkable Proridenoe have been
brought together in the only reyclation written fur man
— have no ordinary or casnal points of resemblance. We
would be glad to see the subject cxŁended by some com-
petent band, especially by a comparison of the yener-
able and rich Sanscrit and Arabie Sec Siiemitic Lak-
GUAGES.
Fhilome^tor (4fXo/i^rwp, mother-loring), the snr-
name of Ptolcmieus VI of Egypt (2 Mace. iy, 21). See
Ptolemy.
Philon. See Piiilo.
Philopatiis ia the name of a dialogue found among
the wńtings of Lucian (q. y.). It is ąuoted in Church
history as a contribution to the heathen satires against
Christiauity. It is a friyolous deńsion of the character
and doctrines of the Christiana in the form of a dialogue
between Critias, a profeased heathen, and Triephon, an
Epicurean, personating a Christian. U represents the
Christians as disaffected to the goyemment, dangerous
to civil aocicty, and delighting in public calamities. It
calls St. Paul a half-bald, long-nosod Galilaean, who trav-
elled through the air to the third heayen (2 Cor. xii,
1-4). It combats the Church doctrine of the Trinity,
and of the procession of the Spirit from the Fathcr,
though not by argument, but only by ridicule. Not
its intrinsic yalue, but its historie references, make it a
yaluable productton. The authenticity of the work has
been called in question by Gessner, iii his />« atałe et
auctore dialog Lucianń, qiti Phiióp, inscribitur (Jen.
1714 ; Leips. 1730 ; Gotting. 1741 ; et in tom. ix, ed. Bip.),
who ascribes to it a post-Nicsean age. Of like opinion
are Neander {Church llist. ii, 90) and Tzschimer {FaU
des I/eidenihunUf p. 312). Niebuhr {Kłeine hisior, v.
phiiolog. Schriften, ii, 73) dates it from the reign of
Nicephorus Phocas (963-969), but this datę is geneial-
ly regarded as too recent. Compare Bemhaitly, Beri,
1832, ii, 131 ; Ehrmann, in Stein^s JStudien dtr
erangel GeistliekheU WUrtember^, 1889, p.47; Schmid,
De Philopatride Lucianeo dialogo nora disserU (Leips.
1830) : Wetzlar, De atate, nita scriptisque Luciani So'
mas (Marb. 1884) ; Schaff, Ch. HisU ii, 79. (J. H. W.)
Fhiloponists, a sect of Tritheists in the 6th cen-
tury, named aft er a famoiis Alexandrian gram marian.
Naturę and hypostasis, be affirmed, were identical, unity
not being somethiug real, but only a gcueric term, ac-
cording to the Aristotelian logie. See Pkiloponus.
Pllilop6nilB, JoANNES Cltaaw^c 6 (frcXuirovoc),
or JoANSCES Gramucaticus (a ^p€^Łf^anKÓ^), an Alcx-
andrian theologian and philosopher of great renown, but
which he little deseryed on account of his extreme dul-
ness and want of good-sense, was called ^iXóirovoc be-
cause he was one of the most UUwrious and studious men
of his age, Ue lived in the 7th ceutury of our iera;
one of his writinga, Physieaf is dated May 10, 617.
He calls himself yf>afifŁaTtK6cf undoubtedly because be
taught grammar in his natiye town, Alexandria, and
would in earlier times haye been called rhetor. He was
a disciple of the philosopher Ammoniua. Although
his celebrity is morę based upou the number of his
yaried productions and the estimation in which they
were held by his contemporaries than upon the in-
trinsic yalue of thoae worka, he is yet so strangely
oonnected with one of the most important eyents of his
time (though only through subsequcnt tradition) that his
name is surę to be handed down to futurę generations.
We refer to the capturc of AIexandria by Arom tn A.D.
039, and the pretended oonflagration of the famous Al-
exandrian librar\'. It is in the iirst instance said that
Philoponus adopted the Mohammedan religion on the
city being taken by Amra, whenoe he may justly be
called the last of the pure Alexandrian grammarians.
Upon this, so the story goes, he requcsted Amm to grant
him the possession of the celebrated library of Alesan-
dria. Haying informed the absent caliph Omar of the
phUosopber*s wishes, Amra receiyed for answer that if
the books were in conformity with the Koran, they were
useless, and if they did not agree with it, they were to
be condemned, and ougbt in both cases to be destroyed.
Thus the library was bumed. But we dow know that
this story is most likely only an iuyentiou of Abul-
faraj, the great Arabie writer of the 18th ccntun', wbo
was, howeyer, a Christian, and who, at any ratę, wss
the iirst that eyer mentioned such a thing as the buin-
ing of the Alexandrian library. We coD8cqucntly dis-
rous the raatter, referring the reader to the 5Ut chapter
of Gibbon*s Dedine and Fali, It is extremely doubtful
that Philoponus became a Mohammedan. His farorite
authors were Plato and Aristotle, whenoe his tendency
to heresy ; and he was one of the first and principal pro-
moters of the sect of the Tritheists, which was con-
demned by the Council of Constantinople of 681. Stsrt^
ing with Monophysite principles, takiug ^vatc in a con-
crete instead of an abstract sense, and identifying it
with itrróeraffiCt Philoponus distinguisbed in God three
indiriduals, and so became inyolyed in Tritheism. This
yiew he songht to justify by the Aristotelian cat^ries
of gmus, speciesy and indinduunu His foUowers were
called Philoponiaci and Tritheistae. Philoponus, it may
be remarked, was not the first promulgator of this error ;
but (as appears from Assem. BibL Orient, ii, 327 ; comp.
Hefele, ii, 655) the Monophysite John Aacusuages, wbo
ascribed to Christ only one naturę, but to each penon
in the Godhead a separate naturę, and on this account
was banished by the emperor and excommnnicated by
the patriaroh of Constantinople. The time of the death
of Philoponus is not known. The Ibllowing is a Ust of
his works: Twy iic Ttfp Miavckmc K09fŁoyoviav ItffYT
TuaUr \óyoi C* Cammentarii in Mosaicam Co«mo^uit»,
lib. yiii, dedicated to Sergius, patriarch of Constanti-
nople, who held that see from 610 to 639^ and perhaps
641. Edit. Gnece et Latine by Balthasar Corderio^
(Yienna, 1630, 4to). The editor was deficieot in scbol-
arship, and Lambecius promised a better cdition, wbicb,
PHILOPONUS
123
PHILOSOPHISTS
hmrerer, nerer sppeaied. Photits (Biblioik. cod. 75)
eompsTes the Cosmogema with its author, and forma no
gw)d opini<Mi of either : — DUpuiałio de PoMckale, ** ad
cikem Coamogcmiae,'* by tbe aame editor : — Kard IIpó-
tkw wtpi aiStain§roc KÓafuty \vtr&c, XÓ70( 117, Adnertua
Frocii de JEłerfaUttfe MumH A rgumenia X VIII Solu"
tianes^ commonly called De j£temUate Mundi, The end
L« mucilated. SdiŁ. : tbe text by Yictor Tńiicavellu8
i,Veniee,la39, foL) ; Latin venion8|by Joannes Mabotius
•Lrijiłs, 1507, foL), and by CaBpanis Maicellua (Yenice.
ló.i], iv\.) : — De quimque Dialei^ Grmem Lingua Liber*
EdłC Gneoe, together with the writings of some otber
immmariams and the TkeaauruM of yaiiniia Camertes
( Venice, 1476, foL ; 1504, fol. ; ad calcem Lexici Gneoo-
Lańat, Yenice, ld24, foL ; another, ibid. 1524, foL ; Basie,
lóSi, foL ; Paria, 1621, foL) :^:Zwaytrfii t&v irpoc dtd-
fopov <nifUiiriav Bta^ópatę rovovfuviiw Xć£c«av, CtMec-
tk lomn guee pro dmerea Mignificatume A ccentum di-
rrram arripiunt, in alphabetical order. It has often
been published mt the end of Greek dictionariea. The
wW separate edition Ib by Erasmus Schmid (Wittcnb.
161Ó, 8vo), under tbe title of CgrilU, velj vi cUti ro/un/,
Jomud Pkiloponi Opv»culum utUiseimum de DiJJtrentiis
Konm GraoonrMt, quod Tonum, SpirUum, GemiSj etc,
to which is added the editor^s Diuertatio de Pronund-
cźiow Grmea A ntigua. Schmid appcnded to the dic-
tknaiy of Philoponus aboot five timcs aa much of his
ovn, but he separated his additiona from the text : —
ComaemiarU m A ritłoteUm, viz. (1) In A nalytica Pri-
ora. Edit, : the text, Yenice, 1536, foL ; Latin rersions,
br Galielmus Dorotheas (A^enice, 1541, foL), Lucillus
PhilalŁheus (ibid. 1M4, 1649, 1558, 1555, fol.), Alexander
Jastinianus (ibid. 1560, fol.). (2) In A nahfHca Posteriora,
Edir. : Yenice, 1504, fol., together with Anonymi Gneci
Ctioimentarii on the same work (ibid. 1534, fol.), revised
tnd with aiłditions, together with Eostratii, episcopi
Nicsani (who U^ed about 1117) Comme»tlarH on the
lame work. A Greek edition of 1534 is said to exi8t.
Latin renions by Andreaa Grateolus (Venice, 1542, foL ;
Paris, 1543, foL) and by Martianna Rota (Yenice, 1559,
V^ foL). (3) In cuatuor priores Lihrae Physicorum,
£(lit. : the text, cum Pnefatione Yictoria Truicavelli ad
Ct?parum Contarenum (}ardina]em (Yenice, 1535, foL) ;
Latin rersion, by Galielmus Dorotheua (ibid. 1539 and
1641, foL); a better one by Baptista Kasarius (ibid.
1S5K, 1Ó69, 1581, fol.). PhUoponus apeaka of his JScholia
to the sixth book, wbence we may infer that he com-
OMnted upon tbe laat four books also. (4) In Librum
wiiam Mettoruta, The text ad calcem Olympiodori
/» Mfteora (Yenice, 1551, foL) ; Latine, by Joannes Bap-
tistua Camotiua (ibid. 1551, 1567, foL). (5) In Libroe
111 de Amma, Edit. Gnece, cum Trincavelli Epistoła
id Kicolaom Badolphum ciardinalem (Yenice, 1553,
foL); Latine, by Gentianus Henretus (Lyona, 1544,
1^ ; Yenice, 1564, 1568) and bv Mattheus k Bove (\'cn-
»», 1644, 1581), all in folio. (6) In Libroe V De Gene-
^itme et Interim, Gnece, cum Pnefatione Aaalani
(Venice, 1627, foL), together with Alexander Aphrodi-
•eas's Meteorologia. (7) In lAbroe V De Generatione
^mnalium^ probably by Philoponua. EdiU Gnece cum
^tri Coicymi Epistoła Gneca ad Andream Matthieom
A^uńrnn (Yenice, 1526, foL): Latine, by the same,
ibid. eodem anno. Black letter. (8) In Libroe XIV
^**aphf»ieorunu Latine by Franciacaa Patricius (Fer-
rari, 1583, foL). Tbe text was never published. Phi-
^iwotts wTOte many other worka, some of which are lost,
•o«l othera bare nerer been putdiabed. Fabricius gives
*» ''Indes Scriptorum in Philop. De Mundi i£temitate
''^'^^jBoratonim,'" and an **Index Scriptorum in unirersis
r bUopooi ad Ariatotelem Gommentariis memoratoniro,"
^ of great length. 8ee Fabriciua, BibL Grac x, 689,
^; Care, HiH, LUL voL L--Smith, DicL of Ciosa. Biog^
^Phh a. T. See Schaff, Ckureh Uiatoryt iii, 674, 767 ;
Hilgeofeid, Patrietik, p. 288; Ueberweg, nia/ary of
Piiioiopky, i, 255, 259, 347-9, 402; Aizog, Kirehen-
9ttci«Alr, i, 318; Sdlltngfleet, Worka, voL i ; Gieseler,
MetiaatiaU HiaUnf (we Indez); Hagenb^ch, Hiatory
ofDodrinea; Cudworth, InteUectual Syatem ofihe Um»
verae (see Index).
Philosarcse (Gr. ^iut, to love, and <rńp^jjlesh)j a
term of reproach used by the Origenists in reference to
the orthoilox as believers in the resurrection of tho
body.
Philosopher {fpt\6<T0^0i:). Of the Greek sects of
philosophers exi8ting in the time of the apostles, the
Stoics and Epicureans are mentioned in Acts xvii, 18,
some of whom diaputed with Paul at Athena. In CoL
ii, 8 a waming is given againat philoaophy itself, as a
departure from the knowledge of Christ; and it has
been noticed that Paul, who had been a Pharisee, acted
in this reapect in harmony with the aect in which he
had been educated (Groaaroann, De Pharisaismo Ju-
daeor, Alex. i, 8). At leaat the rabbina aęt tbe divine
law above all human wisdom ; yet they do not appear
to have given the name of philosophy to tbeir expoai-
tiona of tbe law (aee Joaephua, Ap, ii, 4; 1 Mace. i and
v). Paul ia apeaking in the poaaage alluded to of the-
oaophic apeculations, which had found an entranco
among Chriatiaus (v, 16 8q.), and on which Khein-
wald {De pseudo doctor, Coloa, Bonn, 1834), Ncander
{Gesch. d, PJłanz, i, 438 8q.), and others have madę in*
yestigatioua (aee, in brief, De Wette, Br, a, d. Kolos, p.
1 8q.). It is plain from PauUs letters that he denied all
worth to human wisdom and phUosophy in compariaon
with that etemal 8alvation which ia only to be obtained
tbrough the divine revelation in the (lospel; but it is
not nccessary to auppose that he was a deapiaer of aober
philosophic investigation, either on the ground of his
phariaaic training or of his apoatolic principles. For
monographs, see Yolbeding, Index Programmatum, p.
89 8q. See Philosophy.
PhilOBOphists, a name given to a clasa of Frcnch
writers who entered into a combination to overtum the
religion of Jeana, and eradicate from the human heart
every religioua aentiment. The man morę particularly
to whom this idea first occurred was Yoltaire, who, be-
ing weary (as he said himself ) of hearing people repeat
that twe)ve men were snffident to establish Christianity,
reflolved to prove that one might be aufficient to over-
tum it Fuli of thia project, he swore, before the year
1730, to dedicate his life to its accompliahment ; and
for aome time he flattered himself that he should enjoy
alone the glory of deatroying the Chrietian religion.
He found, however, that aaaociatea would be neceaaary ;
and, from the numerous tribe of hia admirera and diaci-
plea, he choae D'Alembert and Diderot aa the most proper
persona to co-operate with him in hia dcaigns. But
Yoluire waa not aatisfied with their aid alone. He
contrived to embark in the same cauae Frederick II,
king of l>ruaaia. This royal adept was one of the most
sealous of YoUaire*s coadjutors, till he discorered that
the philosophiata were waging war with the throne as
well as with the altar. This, indeed, was not originally
Yoltaire'8 intention. He was yain; he loved to be ca-
ressed by the great; and, in one word, he was from
natnral diaposition an aristocraf^ and an admirer of roy-
alty. But when he fonnd that almost eyery 90vereign
but Frederick diaapproved of his impioua projecta be-
cauae they perceived the issue, he determined to op-
pose all the goremments on earth rather than forfcit
the glory, with which he had flattered himself, of van-
quiahing Christ and his apoetles in the field of contro-
yersy. He now set himself, with D*Alembert and Dide-
rot, to excite univeraal diacontent irith the eatabliahed
order of thinga. For thia purpoae they formcd aecret
aocietiea, aaaumed new namcs, and employed an enig-
roatical language. Thua Frederick waa called Lve;
D'Alembert, jPro/r//7wrrt/r, and aometimea Bertrand; Yol-
taire, Ratmi ; and Di(len>t, Platon^ or its anagram, Ton-
pla ; whilc the generał term for the conapiratora was
Cacoucc, In their secrct meetings they professcd to
celebrate the mysteriea of Mgłhra ; and their great ob-
jecty aa they. profesaed tu one another; waa to oonfound
PHILOSOPHISTS
124
PHILOSOPHY
the wretch, meaning Jesos Christ Hcnce their secret
watchword was Ea-asez CInfdtnej "Crush the Wretch."
If we look into soroe of the books expresftly written for
generał ctrculation, we shall there tind the foUowing
doctrines ; some of them standiug alone in all their na-
ked horrors, others surrounded by sophistry and mere-
Łricious oraaments, to entice the mind into their net
before it perceives their naturę : " The Unireraal Cause,
that God of the philosophers, of the Jews, and of the
Christians, is but a chimera and a phantom. The phe-
nomena of naturę only prove the esistence of God to a
few prepossessed men : so far from hespeaking a God,
they are but the necessary effects of matter prodigiously
dirersified. It is morę reasonable to admit^ with Manes,
a twofold God, than the God of Christianity. We
cannot know whether a God really exi8ts, or whether
there is the smallest difference between good and evil,
or vice and rirtue. Nothing can be morę absurd than
to belieye the soul a spiritual being. The iromortality
of the Boul, 80 far from stimulating man to the practice
of yirtue, is nothing but a barbarous, despcrate, fatal
tenet, and contrary to all legi^lation. All ideas of jus-
tice and injustice, of yirtue and vice, of glor}' and in-
famy, are purely arbitrar>', and dependent on custom.
Conscience and remorse are nothing but the foresight
of those physical penalties to which crimes expose us.
The man who is above the law can commit witbout re-
morse the duihonest act that may serye his purpose.
The fear of God, so far from being the beginning of
wisdom, should be the beginning of folly. The com-
mand to love one'8 parents is morę the work of cduca-
tion than of naturę. Modesty is only an invcntion of
refined yoluptuousneas. The law which condemns mar-
ried people to Uye together becomes barbarous and cruel
on the day they cease to loye one another.** These
extracts from the secret correspondenoe and the public
writings of these men will sufiice to show us the naturę
and tendency of the dreadful system they had formed.
Ulie philosophists werc diligently employed in attempt-
ing to propagate their sentiroenta Their grand En-
cychpadia was converted into an engine to serve thls
purpose. See EacYCLOPiEDiSTS. Yoltaire proposed to
establish a colony of philosophists at Cleves, who, pro-
tected by the king of Prussia, might publisli their opin-
ions witbout drcad or danger; and Frederick was dis-
posed to take them under his protection, till fae discoyercd
that their opinions were anarchical as wcU as impious,
wheu he threw them off, and even wrote against them.
They contrived, however, to engage the ministers of
the court of France in their fayor, by pretending to
have nothing in view but the enlargement of science,
in works which spoke, indeed, respectfuUy of revelation,
while eyeiy discoyery which they brought forward was
meant to undermine its yery foundation. W hen the
throne was to be attacked, and even when barefaced
atheism was to be promulgated, a uumber of impious
and licentious pamphlets were dispersed (for soroe time
nonę knew how) from a secret society formed at the
Hotel d*Uolbacb, at Paris, of which Yoltaire was elected
bonorary and perpetual president. To conceal their
design, which was the diffusioa of their infidel aenti-
ments, they called themselyes Encydopedists. See Hol-
BAcii. The books, however, that werc issued from this
club were calculated to Impair and overtum religion,
morals, and govcmment; and these, indeed, sprcading
over all Euroi)e, imperceptibly took possession of public
opinion. As soon as the sale was suiBcient to pay i*e
expeu8e8, inferior editions were printed and given away,
or sold at a very Iow price ; circulating libraries of them
were formed, and reading societies instituted. While
they constantly disowned these productions before the
world, they contrived to give them a false celebrity
tbrough their oonfidential agents and correspondents,
who were not themselyes alwayn trusted with the entire
secreu By degrees they got possession of most of the
reviews and periodical publications ; establiahcd a gen-
erał intercourse, by means of hawkers and pedlers, with
the distant proyinces, and instituted an oflioe to sopply
all scbools with teachers; and thus did they aoquire ua-
prccedentcd dominion over eyery species of literaturę,
over the minds of all ranks of people, and over the
education of youth, witbout giving any alarm to the
world. The lover8 of wit and polite literaturę were
caught by Yoltaire ; the men of science were per\'erte(l,
and children corrupted in the first rudiments of leaminf?,
by D'Alembert and Diderot; stronger appetites were
fed by the secret club of baron Uolbach ; the imagtna^
tions of the higher orders were set dangerously atloat
by Montesąuieu ; and the multitude of all ranks were
surprised, confounded, and hurried away by Rousseau.
Thus was the public mind in France completely oot-
rupted, and this, no doubt, greatly accelerated those
dreadful events which afterwards tnuispired iu that
countn*. — Henderson^s Buck, s. v.
Fhilosophoumena. See Hippolytus.
Fbilosophy is the highest department of human
speculation, the most abstract knowledge of which the
human mind b capable.
Importance ofthe Subjecł. — ^The character of the in-
yestigations with which philosophy is concenied, and
still morę the superabundance during the last century
of what has professed itself to be philosophy, render it
exce8sively difficult either to define this branch of in-
qiiir}% or to determine what may be legitimately incluil-
ed under the wide designation. Sir William Hamilton
devoted seveu lectures of his course of metaphysics to
the discussion of this single topie. The yagueuess of
the term, the instability and indistinctness of the boun-
daries of this department of knowledge, and the dissen-
sions in rcgard to all its details, have Icd many quick
and ingenious minds to repudiate the study altogethrr,
and to deny to it any valid existence. Neverthelcss it
is necessary to rccognise its reality, in spite of the un-
certainty of its naturę, of the confasion thus produced,
and of the pretensions sheltered under its bonorable
name. It was a profound and keen reply, which was
said to have been madę by Aristotle to the assailauts
and abncgat^rs of philosophy, that " whether we ought
to philosophize or ought not to philosophize, we are cora-
pelled to philosophize" (eirc ^iXo(ro^r(oi/ ^o<ro^if-
TBOu, (ire fit) ^iXovo^tłov ^o<ro^rfiOv, irayrwę ^i
^nXoirofrirtoVt Davłd. Prolegom, PkiLf ap. Scfiol. A ri^
tot, p. 13, ed. Acad. Berol.), for philosophy is requircd to
demonstrate the inanity and nugatoriness of philoso-
phy : " But the roother of demonstrations is philosophy.**
The same deep sonsc of the irrccusable obligation is
manifest ed by Plotinus, when, in a rarc access of hu-
mor, he utters the paradoxicał declaration that all
things, rational and irrational — animals, plantji, and
cven minerals, air and water too — alike yeani for thco-
retłcal perfection (or the philosophical completion of
their naturę, Eimeiid, iii, yiii, 1) ; and that naturę, albcit
devoid of imagination and reason, has its philosophy
within itself, and achieyes whateyer it effects by the-
ory, or the philosophy which it docs not itself possess.
''There is reason in roasting eggs," and philosophy iu
all things, if we can only get at it :
" the mennest flower that blows can clve
Tboaghts thiit do often lie too deep for Leara."
Philosophy is, like death, one of the few things that we
can by no means ayoid, whether we welcome or rcject
it ; whether we regard the irresistible tendencies of our
inteUectual constitution to specnlatiye inquiry, or the
latent regiilarity, order, and law controlling all things
that fali under our notice, when they deyelop them-
selyes in accordance with their intrinsic naturę (see Sir
W. Hamilton, Metaphyńcs, lect iv, p. 46 ; Ueberweg,
//«/. nf Philosophy ^ yoL i, § 1, p. 6).
There is no longer reason to dread the rarity of phi-
losophy ; there has been no occasion for such alarm for
morę than two thousand years; the terror has been
produced by the redundance of what claims this name.
There are philosophers of all sorts, who deal with all
PHILOSOPHY
125
PHILOSOPHY
Tsńfties of sobjecŁs. There is mental, morał, political,
eroooisical, and oatunil philosophy; there is tbe phi-
kophy of religiofi, the pfailosophy of enthosiasin, and
ih« philosophy of inaanity ; the philosophy of logie, the
philfoeopby of rbetoric, the philosophy of langnage,
ud tbe phtkMophy of grammar; there is tbe philoso-
phy of bistory, the pbłloeophy of law, the philosophy
^tbe indiłcttre scieuoea; there is the philosophy of
ccAnr\ the philosophy of musie, the philosophy of
ins, tbe philoaophy of manners, the philosophy of
nwktry, the philosophy of butlding, etc. AU imag-
baUe topics rereai an aptitude for philosophic treat-
Dfflt, and {NTetend to fumish a basis for some special
1'biliyAphy. It would oocasion no surprise to encounter
I phiIu«opby of jack-straws, and oŁher infantile amuse-
tamiK There must be some legitimacy, however slight,
iii i\te9e numerous pretensions, some sem blance of truth
m sucb esfty assomption, or such professions would not
cjodntie to be repeated and tolerated. l*here must be
<r>nie ciMnmoo element, some cord of similttude, uniting
tncHber under one category these multitudinous forms
<if inąairr, and the unnumbered inąniries which are left
ununcd.
Smpe ofłke Term. — The word phHosophi; 6rst appears
b) the Father of Htstory. It is applied by Cnssus to
N««, in his tnivels in scarcb of knowledge and in-
( kation, and is iised as almoat equivalent to theory^
vbich in ihe context means scarcely anything morę
ttun sigbt-seeing or observation (Herodot, i, 80). It
Kxt ip()ears in Thucydides. Pericles speaks of the
Atbenuns as ** philosophizing without effeminacy,"
^tićf« tlie term seems to denote the acqut8ition of iu-
i^raiatioa and culture (Thuc. ii, 40). The origination
of tbe woni is ascribed to Pythagoras in a familiar an-
eolrite, which reports that, being asked by Leon, the
chief of Phliua," Włiat were philoeophen?" he replied,
vitb a bappy alluaion to the concourse at the Olympic
^'•ainc-9. tbat " they were those who diligently obser\'ed
the naturę of thinga,** calling themselyes ^* students, or
Wrers of wtsdom," and occupied with *' the contemplation
uuł kiłowledge of Łh tngs" (Cicero, Tuk, Qu, r, 8, 9). He
^ suppoacd to haye thus repudiated the designation of
"*i» nuin,*'or "sopbister," previously in vogue, and to
hare modestly proposed in its stead the appellatiou of
** i^hiloeopber,'" a lover of wisdom. The authenlicity of
tW aneodobe has bcen grarely ąuestioned ; and the des-
ięnaiion, alleged to have been rejerted in this manner,
ctiiiinoed in babitnal use, with no inridious sense, and
*9s applied to Sncratei« and the chiefs of the Socratic
**«»U (ftrote, łlisf, o/Greece^ pL ii, vol. viii, eh. lxvii,
r^3;iO). To the mimeiDiis {yassages cited by Grotę may
Ihj aiidcd Androtlon, />. 89 ; Phan. £retriuB, Fr, 21 ; and
^yn«ii /)w,apud Dion Chryso8tora,ii,329,ed. Teubner).
Ibe ceimumi of the Sophiscs by Plato and Aristotle, the
(haracter of the Socratic teacbing, and the almost ex-
^vely tnqut»iiive and indeterminate complexion of
the PUtoiiie speculation, appear to have giyen currency
io tbe designation of philosophy, as a morę mmlest and
'^icooclusiTe appellative than " sophia,^* or wisdom.
Ori^nally,then, philosophy imported only the loving
r«i«iitor knowledge, without any impUcaiion of actual
uuimnent; bat it aoon aoąuired a morę poeitive and
<^ułct acoepution. In the Republic Plato defines phi-
|o»pby as ''the ctrcuit, or beating about of the soul in
^t« ascending piogreas towards real exisrence ;'* and de-
<=^ tbose to be philoeophers ** who embrace the really
tti^flłt," and << who are able to apprehend the etemal
*^ unchcnging." In the Eui&ydenuu he goes farther,
'^ descńbes philosophy as ** the acquisitłon of true
Itnowledge." In the definitions ascribed to Plato, which,
|h<mgb not bis, may presenre the tradition of his teach-
"iCi it ii only ""the desire of the khowledge of etemal
^^i^ences." Xcnophon rarely employs the term, but
'Ppli<n '"ftopbia" to tbe Socńtic knowledge. In one
I'^''^^ wheie he uses it it stgnifies the knowledge and
P^ice of tbe doties of life {Mem, ir, 2, p. 23).
^ grait step towaida tbe defiuite restriction of the
meaning of philosophy was madę by the Plafonie writ-
ings, though the name continued, and has always eon-
tinued, to be emplóyed with great latitude. Aristotle,
who gavc a sharp, scientific character to nearly erer}*-
thing which he toubhed, first eonfined the term to spe-
cial significations, and gave to it a limited and, in some
cases, a purely technical meaning. He calls philosophy
" the knowledge of truth ;" and he endeavored to dis-
cover a ** first philosophy," or body of principles com-
mon to all departroents of speculative inquiry, and deal-
ing solely with the primary elementa and afTections of
being (Afet. i, 1, p. 993; Phys. i, 9, p. 5; SimpUcii
SchoL p. 845). This first philosophy, or " knowledge
of the philoBopber," corresponds to metaphysics in its
strieter sense— a division of 8peculative science receiv-
ing its name from the remains of Aristotle, and, in great
measure. constituted by his labors. It ia the science of
being as being (ró iv ly óy, Afet, vi, 1, p. 1026; xi, 8,
p. 1060 ; ir, p. 1061). Thus, with the Peripatetics, phi-
losophy included all science, but^especially thcoretical
science, and was peculiarly attachcd to mctaphysical
science. With this accords the definition of Cicero,
which is eyidently derived from Peripatetie sources
{De Off, ii, 2, 5).
This historical deduction is not nnnecessary. Manv
words grow in meaning with the growth of civilization.
Many gradually lose with the adrancement of knowl-
edge their original vague amplitudę, and acquire a defi-
nite and precise significance. The real import of either
clasB of words can be ascertained only by tracing their
deyeloproent through their successive changes. The
history of the term philosophy enables us to undcrstand
the still subsisting racillation in its employment, and to
detect the coromon principle which runs through nil its
variotis and apparently incongruous applications. It
brings ua, at the same time, to the recognition of the
modę and measure of its most rigorous employment.
Philosophy is the eamest inrestigation of the princi-
ples of knowledge, and most appropriately of the first
lirinciples, or principles of abstract being. It is not
science, bot search (Kant, Program, 1765-66; Sir Will-
iam Hamilton, Metaph, lect. i, ii i ; Discumontt p. 787). It
is di8tinctively zełetiCj or inquisitive, rathcr than dog-
roatic. Its chief ralue consists in the zeal, perspicacity,
simplicity, and unselfishness of the persereńng desire for
the highcst truth, not in its attainment ; for the highest
truth is, in its naturę, unattainable by the finite intelli-
gence of man. It has not, or ought not to have, the
pretension or confident assurance of knowledge, though
this claim has frequently been roade (rf ^iKoooipia yyw-
trię Itrri trarriay rwi/ wruty. David. Inferpr, x. Categ,
Sckoł, A riśłof. p. 29, ed. Acad. DcroL). It is only a sys-
tematie craring and continuous cffurt to reach the high-
cst knowledge.
" For man lorea knowledpe, and the heams of truth
Morę welcnme toueh his onderstanding^s c}'e
Than all the blandUhmeuis of soniid his eur,
Thau all of taste his tungue** (Akeuside).
Philosophy was ealled by the schoolmen "the science
of scienccs;'* and wherever the recondite principles of
knowledge are sought, there is philosophy, in a faint
and rudimentar}*, or in a elear and instructive form.
Henoe it admits of being predicated of invcstigations
far remote from those higher exerci8es of abstract con-
templation to which it is most properly applied.
What is man ? What are his faculties and powers?
Whenee is he? Whither is he going ? How shall he
guide himseif ? What is this vast and raried univer8e
around him ? How did it arise ? How is it ordcred
and sustained ? What is man's relation to it, and to
the great Power behind the veil, manifested by its won-
drous morements and changes? What is the naturę
of this power? What are man*s duties to it, to him-
seif, and to his fellow-men ? What knowledge of these
things can he acąuire? What are his destinies. and his
aids for their achievement? These qucBtions, and ques-
Uona liko thcsc, constitute the proyiucc of philosophy
PHILOSOPIIY
126
PHILOSOPHY
proper. They presedt tbemselyes dimly iSt disŁinctly to
every reflecting mind; and they will not be gainsaid.
Our intellectu^ constitution compels us to think of
Łhem ; and to think of them, however weakly and spaa-
modically, is the beginning of philoBophy. They all
adrait of partial solution — of an answer at least, which
stimtilfltes further inve8tigation. Nonę of them can re-
oeive a fuli and complete reply from the huroan reason —
they stretch beyond its compass. AU of them, in every
age, have met with eome responae, either in the poetic
and bcwildering fancies of the prevalent mythology, or
in the wild guesses of popolar credulity; either in the
aphońsms of the prudent^ or in the concliiaons of those
who have seduloualy devoted themselyes to the unrav-
elltng of these enigroaa. This latter clam have been
the philosophcra of eecb generation, from the com-
mcncement of rational inquiry to the current day, as
they will continue to be till the closing of the great roli
of time ; for of phik>8ophy there is no end.
This constant disappointment and continual renewal
of effbrt are strange phenomena, and have oflen proved
utterly disheartening. Henoe haa proceeded the objec-
tion 80 freąuently uiged that philosophy is ever in
restless and fretful acti%'ity, but does not advanoe. The
allegation of an entire failure of progress is unjust ; but
the same ąuestions constantly reappear with changed
aspects, and the same solutions are oflfered under altered
forms. But the change in the aspects and the altera-
tion in the forms are themselyes an adranoement. The
true source of encouragement is, however, to be derived
less from the progress which can never pass the boun-
dariea imposed by the same old ąuestions than from
the knowledge that the pursuit is morę than the im-
practicable attainment — the race morę importaąt than
the arrival at the goal could be — at least in this finite
life,with our finite powers. Fmm this habitual disap-
pointment, and the apparent failures which bring the
disappointment, have arisen, too, this variety of solu-
tions which have been proposed for the numerous rid-
dles that philosophy propounds to mau. Yarro eua-
merated two bundred and eightj^-eight poesible sects,
apparcntly on the t>asis of ethics alone (Augusta De Civ,
J)ti, xix, 1) ; and the number of distingutshable scbemes
of philosoph}', to say nothing of diversitłes of opinion
in regard to details, is oountlesSb Yeteacb of these bas
contributed something to our knowledge : in the morę
precise statement of the problems to be 8olved, in the
clcarer determination of their conditions, in the refuta-
tion of former errors, in the ezposure of prerious mis-
apprehensions, in preaenting the inąuiries under new
and brighter lights, or in adding to our positive Infor-
mation in regard to these dark and difficult subjects.
The gratitude which Aristotle espresses, in a remark-
able passage (3feL i), towards his predeccssors, who
had gone astray, or who had failed to see the truth, is
due to all philosophical inąuirers. They have contrib-
uted something towards the result, howerer incomplct^
that result may remain (rat ydp ouroi (rvytf5aXovTO
n* Tff%f yóp Hiy irpofimaiaay rffi&v; and see Alexaii-
der AphrodiSL SckoL ArittoK ad loc. tf ydp rwv Kara-
^(fi\flfŁiykiv SoK^ dropia tvpiTuekitrfpovc tfftac riic
akri^Etac jrapatnceoani).
nistoiy o/ the Subfect.— The hopelesaneas of satisfac-
triry attainment, with the ineritable persisteucy ot the
search, and the gradual approximation, or appearance
of approximation, to a goal which is never reached, but
is ever receding, eventuate in changes, expansions,
flttctuations, and revolutioos in opinion, which are re-
corded and appreciated in the history of philosophy.
This history chronides the origins and original phases
of philosophical inąuiry. its mutations, progresses, and
recessiona, and the causes of them ; it notes the intro-
duction of new doctrines, new methods of procedurę^
new modes of exposition ; the dissensions and contro ver-
sies which spring up and minister to new developraents ;
the reduction of kindred views to a coherent body, and
tbe Goustitution of aects and schools; the fortuues of
such schools, tbe derelopment or penrerrion of the
eral successiye or contemporaneous schemes of specu la*
tion in the bosom of tbe schools themselves, either iii
conseąuence of their own intemal acti%'ity, or of the
necessities suggested or enfurced by extemal attaek.
In this manner, and from these motires of chau^e,
philosophy exhibits unceasiog actłvity and frequeiiŁ
novelty of fonn, notwithstanding the substantial idciw
tity of the ąuestions debated, and the sameness of rhe
ground sunreyed. In these ricisatudes of opinion
there is, howevcr, an element which ought ne%*er to be
oyerlooked, and which gives an immediate and urj^ent
interest to all the Tariations. The philosophy of
an age or sect is largely influenced by recent cxperi-
enoes, and by the present demands of the society or circle
to which it is addressed ; and, in tum, it exercises a in<^t
potent influence in determining the views of the rising
and succeeding generations, not only within the raiij^e
of theoretical inąuiry, but also in goyemment., social
organization, manners, habits of thought, arts, and in
eyen'thing which ooncems the daily life of the people.
The conditicm of Athenian politics and morals directly
engendered the Socratic inąuiries and the Socratic
schools. The personal degradation and seryility of the
Romans under the empire proyoked the reyiyal and
ardent adyocacy of stoicism. The repugnance to Islam-
ism, and the dialectical needs of Christendom, |cave
birth to mediceyal scholastidsm. The antagonism which
issued in the English oommonwealth fumished the hot«
bed in which germinated the philosophy of Uobbea.
Locke and the encyclopsadists were the prophets and
guides of the French rerolutionary spirit ; and tbe ma-
terialism of the current years bas receiyed form as well
as yitality from the predominance and achievemeiits of
the physical sciences, and the enormous fascinations of
materiał interests and gnititications. Thus the alter-
nations of philosophy explain and are explained by tlic
concurrent modifications of society.
The history of philosophy admits of two distinct
principles of diyision, both of which are simultaneousły
employed. It may be diyided either with reference (o
its special subject-matter, as a part of the generał do-
main of philosophy, or with reference to its chronoloc-
ical successions. Each of these distńbutions of course
permits further subdiyision.
Plato practically, though not expressly, diyided phi-
losophy into dialectics, physics, and ethics, induding
theology and much of metaphysics, along with natural
philosophy, under the bead of physics* See Platonic
Philosophy. The diyision of Aristotle is indistinct
and apparently yariable. But he did not complete his
system. H is metaphysics, which corresponds nearly with
his first philosophy, or with philosophy in its strictest
sense, was an incomplete coUection of unfinished papers,
gathered and arranged after his death. Science, or
knowledge, he distributes between practioe, produciion,
and theory (Afetapk, yi, 1, Fraff, 187, p. 94, etU Didot).
Uebcrweg mistakes this for a formal diyision of phi-
losophy, but the thinl hea