Full text of "Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature"

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 head is the only one to which 
Aristotle would haye assigned the name of phiknophy. 
He elsewhere distinguishes theory into physical, mathe- 
matical, and theological — the last correspoiuUng with 
philosophy proper {Afetapk. xi, 7). In one of his frag- 
roents, philosophical problems are declared to be of 
five kinds : political, dialectical, phi^cal, etbical, and 
rhetorical (Aristot ł'rag, 137, p. 108). This diyision 
exclude8 tbe greater part of phikMophy. The unccr- 
tainty and oonfusion which these aeyeral diyiśons are 
calctdated to produce may be accounted for and excused 
by the loose acceptation of the term physics in the So- 
cratic schools ; and by tbe fact that metaphysics, or phi- 
losophy, in Ahstotle^s e8tiroation,lay beyond thedomain 
of ph3'sics. Di yiding philosophy into metapbyucs, ph ^-s- 
ics, and ethics, we no w habitually exclude phj^sics, or 
natural philosophy, and set it i^iart as the rnUm of e±- 
act science. The other two are assigned to philosophy. 
But metaphysics and ethics may be united aa togethef 



PHILOSOPHY 



127 



PHILOSOPHY 



coBStitatiDg phUoBophy, or they may be kcpt disŁitict 
■ud yarioualy subdirided. Sir Williaaa Hamilton, who, 
u deference to the narrowneas of the Scotch school, at 
tinies alnuMŁ identifies psychologa with philosophy, 
fiMimeracca, by a stiained ooDsmictioo, five branches of 
\he kamer: iogiCy etbics, politica, KSthetics, and the- 
dogj (MetapIL Icct iii, p. 44). Remusat incidenUlly 
dńtribotes pbilosopby uiider the five heads of pąychol- 
ogT. iogic, Detapbyaica^ theodicy (or the pbilosopby of 
Rłipoo^theology), and morals (Fte tPAUlard, liv. ii, 
ck iii, ToL i, p. 361 Bq.). Annp^re, in his ingenious and 
iasUatic daasification of human luiowledge, by a sep- 
laple seiies of TioleDt dichotomies, mana&ciuree eigbty- 
km difiiinct departmenta of pbilooopbical inquiry. For 
tbt presmt purpoee, the nłf&iency or tbe inaufficiency, 
the ralidity or the inyalidity, of tbeee Tarioos divisioD8 
ttd sabdiTińoaa is unimportanL The histoiy of phi- 
lonpby indodefl them all, eitber as definite memben or 
as fobofdinaie parta. £ach may be treated separately, 
or lU may be embnoed in one treatment, or a dlitinct 
iJiacassion may be bestowed npon sereral of them com- 
iwied in one Tiew. Thua there may be a histOT}' of 
iBcotsl pbilosopby, and a histosy of etbics, like the sup- 
pieiiients of Dugald Stewart and Sir James Mackintosh 
to tbe £JKf€iop«Bdia BrUamńoa; or a history of logie, 
Uke Hr. BJakey^s rery leeUe treatiae on that subject; 
or a history of heretical opinkrna, like thoee ao common 
ia tbe earlier ages of the Christian Church ; or a generał 
^aśatj of philoeophy, like Brucken^s or Tennemann^s or 
Utberweg^fl. Tbia is.the modę in which the history of 
pbilosopby may be dirided. 

Tbe other pioceas of division legards primańly the 
ncctaaioa of pbiloeopbicai systems, or of philosophical 
Kboola^where the systems are identified with particular 
^cboidaL A rery loooe and generał distribuUon of tbia 
kioii 18 into ancient, mediieTal, and modem, each of 
•bich hsa often been handled separately, The distinc- 
tioo between tbeae diTisions is mainly the difference of 
lime. Tbey freqaently nm into each other. In many 
cliaiseteriatjcs, both of doctrine and method, tbey re- 
peat each otbń'. The scbolastic procedare is discem- 
>Ue in Plotinus and Joannes Damasoenus, while John 
^MMas £rigena approached morę nearly to the Neo- 
Platooiats than to the schoolmen. Occam and Gerson 
eibiUt many modem featares; and among the mod- 
*nH Łbere aie many wide differenoes, not only iq doc- 
tńne, but in cbaracter. Hence other divisions, morc 
f^ccise than are attainable by these indistinct chrono- 
^icai periods, hare latterly won morę favor. The ful- 
bwing may be offeted as au example of soch distribu- 
liłis: 

I- Tbe comneocements of phi lofophy, cblefly amons the 
Orieatate, wilh wbam pbilosopby, mylhology, aud the* 
ology were Inseparably tntertwlned. 

n. Tbe pbfioeophy of the Oreeks, wbich comprehends of 
ctratK the pbtloflophy of the Romana, aa it was eaaeu- 
tUIlr Oreek from Cicero to Boethias. 

ul. The philoeophy of the Scboolmen, which In part over- 
'^'ips modem systems. To this the phllosopny of the 
Jcwi tiKi Saracens may be lołoed aa an appenaix, aiuce 
it liTords the transitiou to U from tbe Oreeka. 

1>. Tttt philoeophy of the EeDalxaance,or Transition Age, 
^ontinenciiig with Oemidtns Pletho and the Medlcean 
A<»dcrfly, and endłog with Pascal and Oassendf. 

^. Tbe philoeophy of Itodeni Timea— fhnn Francis Baeoak 
and Deacartes. 



£acb of tbeae peńoda bas many subdiyiaions, whicb 

l^n Yariooly oonstituted by different histońana, 

ud neecanrily vary with tbe Tariation of the aspects 

'"'^ which pbilosopby is contemplated by the seyeral 

c^iclen of iu fluctuations. 

^iCeroterb— Tbe fuUest repertory of works on the 
>^veial flchemes of pbilosopby, on its generał and special 
^ttton-, and on the history of the philoeophers them- 
^^^ and of particular doctrines, may be found in 
l-eberweg, Hiśkiry o/ Philoiopky, tranalated by George 
S. Moitis (N. Y. 1876, 2 vol». 8vo). Up to the datę of 
1^ ^«k the follest treatise on the subject was H. 
'^^'i GadUekte der PhUotopkie (Gotha, 1854, 12 
Yola. Bto), a oonrcnieni aummaiy ia Maurice*8 Morał 



and Mełapkjfrieai PhUatophy (Lond. 1850-^, and late^ 
4 Yola. 8vo), which gtyes a historical reriew of the 
whole subject, (G.F.H.) 

Philoeophy, Chald^ean. Sce Magi; Phiłoso- 
PHY. Hebrkw. 

Philoiophy, Grebk. It is not in acoordance with 
tbe scope of this Cydopadia to give a fuli accoimt of 
the various philosophical systems of the ancient Greeks. 
These are sufBciently discossed under the names of 
their respectire founders. Our pnrpose here is only to 
give 80 mach as will senre to show their reiations to 
Christianity. (In doing this, as well as in the follow- 
ing article on Uebrew Pbilosopby, we arail ouraelyes 
la^^y of the statements in Kitto s and Smith's Dio^ 
tionaries.) 

I. The Deuekpment of Greek PhUotophy^-The com- 
plete fitness of Greek pbilosopby to perform a propift- 
deutic Office for Christianity, as an ezhaustiye effort of 
reason to solye the great proUems of being, must be ap- 
parent after a detaUed stody of its progrcss and con- 
summation \ and eyen the simplest outliue of its history 
cannot filii to preserye the leading traits of the natnral 
(or eyen necessary) law by which its deyelopmeut was 
goyemed. 

The yarious attempts wbich baye been madę to dfr- 
riye Western philoeophy from Eastem sources baye 
signally failed. The extemal eyidence in fayor of this 
opinion is wholly insnfficient to esublish it (Ritter, 
Geach, d. PhiL i, 159, etc ; Thirlwall, Bist. of Gr, ii, 180; 
Zeller, Ge»ch, d. PhiL d Griechen, i, 18-34 ; Max Muller, 
On Lanffuoffe, 84 notę), and on intemal grounds it is 
most improbable. It is tme that in some degree the 
cbaracter of Greek apeculation may baye been influ- 
enced, at least in its earliest stages, by religious ideas 
which were originally intaroduced from tbe Eaat; but 
this indirect influence does not affect the real origiual^ 
ity of the great Greek teacbers. The spirit of pure 
philoeophy, distinct from theology, is wholly alien from 
Eastem tbought; and it was compaiatiyely late when 
eyen a Greek yentured to aeparate pbilosopby from re- 
ligion. But in Greece the separation, when it was once 
effected, remained essentially complete. The opinions 
of tbe ancient pbilosophen migbt or might not be out- 
waidly reooncilable with the popular faith ; but philos* 
ophy and faith were independent. The yery yalue of 
Greek teaching lies in the fact that it was, as far as is 
poBsible, a result of aimple reason, or, if faith aaserts its 
prerogative, the distinction is sharply marked. In thii 
we baye a reoord of tbe power and weakneas of the hu- 
man mind written at once on the g^ndest acale and in 
tbe fairest characters. 

Of the yarious classifications of the Greek schools 
which baye been propoeed, tbe simplest and truest seems 
to be that which diyides the history of philoaophy into 
three great periods, the first reaching to the sera of the 
Sophists, the next to the deatb of Aristotle, tbe third 
to the Christian sera. In the first period the world ob- 
jectiyely ia the great centrę of inąoiry; in the second, 
the ** ideas" of things, tnith, and being; in the third, 
tbe chief interest of philoeophy falls^back upon the 
proctical condoct of life. Successiye systems oyerlap 
each other, both in time and subjects of speculation, but 
broadly the se(|oence which bas been indicaled will 
bold good (Zeller, Die Philosophie der Grieehen, i, 111^ 
etc). After the Christian sara philosophy ceased to 
baye any tme yitality in Greece, but it madę fresh ef- 
forts to meet the changed conditiona of life at Alexan- 
dria and Romę. At Alexandria Platonism was yiyified 
by the spirit of Oriental roysticism, and afterwards of 
Christianity; at Romę Stoicism was united with the 
yigorous rirtues of actiye life. Each of these great 
diyi&ions must be pasaed in rapid reyiew. 

1. The pre-Socratic Schodu, — ^The first Greek philoa- 
ophy was little morę than an attempt to foUow out in 
thought the my thic cosmogonies of earlier poeta. Grad- 
nally the deptb and yariety of the pioblems induded in 



PHILOSOPHY 



128 



PHILOSOPHY 



the idea of a cosmogony became apparent, and, after 
each dew had been followed out, the period ended in the 
negaŁŁve teaching of the SophUts. The ąuestions of 
creation, of the imnoecUate relation of mind and matter, 
were pronounced iu fact, if not in word, insoluble, and 
speculation was Łumed iuto a new direcŁion. 

Wbat id the one permanent element which underlies 
Łhe changing forma of Łhings?— this wiu the primary 
inquiry to which the łonie school endeavorcd to flnd an 
answer. Thales (RC. cir. 625-610), foUowing, as it 
seems, the genealogy of Hesiod, pointed to moisture 
(water) as the one source and supporter of life. Anax- 
imenes (B.C. cir. 520-480) substituted air for water, as 
the morę subtle and aU-pervading element; butequally 
with Thales he neglected all oonsideration of the force 
which might bo supposed to modify the one primal sub- 
stance. At a much later datę (B!c. cir. 450) Diogenes 
of Apollonia, to meet this diflkulty, represented this el- 
ementary **air" as endowed with inteUigenoe (vórioic)y 
but even he makes no distinction between the materiał 
and the inteUigent. The atomie theory of Democritus 
(RC. cir. 460-857), which stands in dose connection 
with this form of łonie teaching, offered another and 
morę plausible solution. The motion of bis atoms in- 
clnded the action of force, but he wholly omitted to ac- 
cóunt for ita source. Meanwhile another modę of spcc- 
ulation had arisen in the same schooL In place of one 
definite element, Anaximander (B.C. 610-547) suggested 
the unlimited (ró dirtipop) as the adeąuate origin of 
all special exi9t«nces. Somewhat morę thau a century 
later Anaxagoras summed up the result of such a linę 
of speculation: *'A11 things were together; then mind 
(yovc) came and disposed them in order" (Diog. Laert. 
ii, 6). Thus we arc lefb face to face with an ultimate 
dualism. 

The Eleatic school started from an opposite point of 
yiew. Thales saw moisture present in materiał things, 
and pronounced this to be their fundamental principle ; 
Xenophanes (B.C. cir. 550-530) *< looked up to the whole 
heav'en, and said that the One is God" (Arist. Met, i, 5, 
rb tv ilvai ^ij<n rbv ^e6v), ** Thales saw gods in all 
things ; Xenophanes saw all things in God'* (Thirlwall, 
Hisł, of Gr. ii, 136). That which w, according to Xen- 
ophanes, must be one, etemal, infinite, immovable, un- 
changeable. Parmenides of Elea (B.C. 500) substituted 
abstract " being" for " God" in the system of Xeno- 
phanes, and distinguiahed with precision the functions 
of sense and reason. Sense teaches us of *' the many," 
the faL^e (phcnomena) ; Reason of " the one," the true 
(the abaoltite). Zeno of Elea (RC. cir. 450) developed 
with logical ingenuity the contradictions involved in 
our perceptions of things (in the idea of motion^ for in- 
fttauce), and thus formally prepared the way fur scep- 
Łicism. If the One alone if, the phenomenal world is 
an illusion. The subltme aspiration of Xenophanes, 
when followed out legitimately to its conseąuences, end- 
ed in blank negation. 

The teaching of Heraclitus (B.C. 500) oflfers a com- 
plete contrast to that of the Eleatics, and stands far in 
adrance of the earlier łonie school, with which he is 
historically connected. So far from contrasting the 
existent and the phenomenal, he boldly identified being 
with change. « There ever was, and is, and shall be, 
anever-living fire, unceasingly kindłed and extingui»h€d 
in due measure" (aTrrófiivov fiirpa coe aTcooj^iwófi^ 
vov fitTpa, Ciem. Alex. Stroin, v, 14, § 105). Rest and 
continuance is death. That which is is the iustanUne- 
ous balance of contending powers (Diog. Laert. ix, 7, 
^ta Tiję ivavTiorpOTrrfc ripfŁwr^ai rd óiT«). Creation 
is the play of the Creator. Everywhere, as far as his 
opintons can be graspeil, Heraclitus makes noble "guesses 
at truth;" yet be leares "fate" {uftapfŁtytj) as the su- 
premę creator (Stob. KcL i, p. 59, ap. Kitter and PreUer, 
§ 42), The cycles of life and death nm on by its law. 
It may have been by a natural reaction that from these 
wider speculations he tumed his thoughts inwards. 
** I iuvestigatcd myself," he says, with conacious pride 



(Plutarch, adv, CoL 1118, c); and in this respect łi^* 
foiesbadows the teaching of Socrates, as Zeno did th&Ł 
of the Sophiata. 

The philosophy of Pythagoras (RC. cir. 540-510) is 
subordinate in intereat to his sociał and połitical the~ 
ories, though it sappłies a link in the conrse of specuła^ 
tk>n : otbers had labored to- tracę a nnity in the worlcł 
in the presence of one underlying element or in ttie 
idea of a whole ; be sought to combine the Beparat:«t 
harmony of parta with total unity. Numerical unit v-^ 
includes the finifce and the infinite; and in the rclatioiis 
of number there ia a perfect symmetry, aa all spring ou t: 
of the fundamental unit. Thus numbers seemed to 
Pythagoras to t)e not only " pattems'* of things (rta>m' 
óvTiav)i but causea of their being (r^c oiwiac), Ho^w^ 
he connected numbers with concrete being it is impos- 
sible to determine; but it may not be wholly fanciful 
to see in the doctrine of the transmigration of soułs tLrx 
attempt to tracę in the succesńTeforms of life an out- 
ward expre88ion of a harmonious ław in the morał as 
well as in the phyaicał world. (The remaina of tbe 
pre-Socratic philoeophere have bieen collected in a xery 
conrenient form by F. Mułłach in Didot'8 BibUoth, Gf\ 
Paris, 1860.) 

The first cycle of phrlosophy waa thns oompleted. 
All the great primary problems of thought had been 
stated, and typical answers rendered. The relation of 
spirit and matter was atill unsołved. Speculation is- 
sued in dualism (Anaxagoras), materialism (Democri- 
tus), or pantheism (Xenophanes). On one side reason 
was madę the sole criterion of truth (Parmenides) ; on 
the other, experience (Heraclitus). As yet there was 
no rest, and the Sophists prepared the way for a ne^r 
method. Whatever may be the morał esttmate wliich 
is forraed of the Sophists, there can be little doubt as to 
the importance of their teaching as preparatory to that 
of Socrates. All attempts to arrive at oertainty by a 
study of the world had failed : might it not seem, thcn, 
that truth is subjectire? *'Man is the measure of all 
things." Sensations are modified by the individual; 
and may not this hołd good uniyersally? The concłu- 
sion was applied to morals and politics with fearłeas 
skill. The bełief in absołute truth and right was wcll- 
nigh banished ; but meanwhile the Sophists were per- 
fecting the instrument which was to be tumed again»t 
them. Language, in their hands, acquired a preciaion 
unknown before, when words assumed the płace of 
things. Plato might ridicule the pedantry of Protag* 
oras, but Socrates reaped a rich harvest from it. 

2. The Socraiic Schools. — In the second period of 
Greek philosophy the scenę and subject were both 
changed. Athens became the centrę of speculations 
which had hitherto chiefly found a home among the 
morę mixed populations of the colonies. At the same 
time inquiry was tumed from the ootward world to the 
inward, from theories of the origin and relation of ihings 
to theories of our knowledge of them. A philosophy 
of ideas, using the term in its widest sense, succeeded a 
philosophy of naturę. In three gencrations Greek spec- 
ulation reached its greatest glory in the teaching of 
Socrates, Plato, and Ariatotle. When the sovereignty 
of Greece ceased, all higher philosophy ceased with it. 
In the hopeless tiuruoil of civil disturbances which fol- 
lowed, men*is thoughts were chiefly dirccted to ąuestions 
of personal duty. 

The famoos sentence in which Aristotle (Met. xiii, 4) 
characterizes the teaching of Socrates (RC^ 468-399) 
placcs his scientific positiun in the clearest light, There 
are two things, he aays, which we may rightly attńb- 
ute to Socrates, inductive reasoning and generał defłni- 
tion {rovc r iiraicriKtwę \óyovc rai ró opiZftf^oi kcl^ó- 
\ov\ By the first he endeavored to diacover the per- 
manent element which underlies the changing forms of 
appearances and the varieties of opinion: by the sec- 
ond he fixed the truth which he had thus gained. But, 
besides thij*, Socrates rendered another serrice to truth. 
He changed not only the roethoił, but ałao the sobject 



PHILOSOPHY 



129 



PHILOSOPHY 



of phOosophy (Cicero, Acai. Post, i, 4). Etbics occa- 
pled in his iavestigmtions the {Himaiy pUce wbich had 
biiberto been belit by physics. The gmtt jum of his 
bduction was to eatablisb tbe soyereignty of riitue; 
and, befute entering od other speculatious, he determioed 
to obey tbe Deiphian TDaxim and ''know himself" 
( PUtOf Phtgdr, IX 229). 1 1 was a neccssary conseąiience 
£'f a firsc effurt in this direction that Socrates regarded 
ill tbe results -which he deńved as like in kind. Kuowl- 
cii^ (fc7urr^fn}) was eqiiaUy abaolute and autborita- 
UTc, whether it referred to tbe laws of intieUectual oper- 
u»Aa or to ąnestions of morality. A condusion in 
gcoraetiy and a condusion on conduct were set forth as 
trae in the aame sense. Tbus vice was only anotber 
asme for ignorance (Xa>oph. Mcm, iii, 9, 4 ; Arist. Eth, 
lud. u 5). ETery one was supposed to bare within bim 
a tacttlty abaolntely leading to rigbt action, just as tbe 
miód neceasańly deddes rigbtly as to reUtions of space 
aisl namber, wtaen each step in tbe propoeition is dearly 
^tated. Socrates practically neglected tbe determina- 
lire power of the wilL His great glory was, however, 
cłearly oonnected with this fandaroental error in bis 
system. He affirmed tbe exiBtence of a univeiBal law 
I C)f rigbt and wrong. He counected pbtlosopby witb 
sction, both in detail and in generaL On tbe one side 
be upheld the sapremacy of conscience, on tbe other 
tbe wurking of Proyidence. Not tbe least fruitful cbar- 
scteristic of his teaching was wbat may be called its 
desultorineaa. He formed no complete system. He 
VTote nothin^. He attracted and impressed bis foUow- 
, en by his manyHuded naturę. He belped otbers to 
gire birth to thougbts, to use bis favorite image, but be 
was barren himself (1'lato, Theał, p. 150). As a result 
of tbis, the most conflicting opinions were roaintained 
by some of his profesaed foUowers, wbo carried out iso- 
Uted fragments of bis teaching to extreme condusions. 
tSome adopted his method (Euclides, B.C. cir. 400, the 
if^^inaiu), otbers his subject. Of tbe latter, one 
HKrtion, following out his proposition of tbe identity of 
%if-oe»mniand (lyKpartia) with rirtue, professed an ut- 
ter disregard of ererything materiał (Antisthenes, RC. 
cir. 366, tbe Cjytncf), wbile tbe other (Arutippus, B.C. 
ńr. 366, tbe Cyrenaics), inrerting tbe maxiai that rir- 
tue is neceasarily accompanied by pleasure, took imme- 
^le pleasure as the nile of action. 

Tbese ** minor Socratic scboob" were, bowerer, pre- 
nuture and imperfect devdopments. Tbe trutbs wbich 
lW distorted were embodied at a later time in.more 
reasonaUe forms. Plato alone (RC. 430-347), by the 
Wadth and nobleness of his teaching, was tbe tnie suc- 
ccsflor of Socrates; with fuUer detaU and greater dab- 
c^rateneas of parta, bis pbilosopby was as many-sided as 
that of his master. Tbus it is impossible to construct a 
con»9tent Platonie system, tbough many Platonie doc- 
trioes are sufficiently marked. Plato, indeed, possessed 
two commanding powers, wbich, though apparently in- 
compatible^ are in tbe bighest sense complementary : a 
oatchleas destructire dialectic, and a creative imagina- 
ti(»i. By tbe first he refuted the great fallacies of the 
Sopbiats on the uncertainty of knowledge and rigbt, 
<:arr>-ing out in tbis the attacks of Socrates; by tbe 
other he endearored to bridge orer tbe intenral between 
appearance and reality, and gain an approach to the 
ttemal. His famous doctrines of Ideas and RecoUection 
(Av(ifivt}(fic) are a solution by imagination of a logical 
ditBculty. Socrates had shown tbe exisŁence of generał 
ootions; Plato felt constrained to attribute to tbem a 
substantive esistence (Arist. Met. xiii, 4). A glorious 
riston gave completeness to bis view. The unembodied 
spirits were exhibited in immediate presence of tbe 
** ideas"* of things {Phtedr, p. 247) ; tbe law of tbeir em- 
bodiment was sensibly portrayed; and the morę or less 
vivid reroembranoe of supramundane realities in tbis 
Ufe was traoed to antecedent facta. AU men were tbus 
supposed to haTe been foce to face with truth : tbe ob- 
ject of teaching was to bring back Impressions latent 
bat tineflaced. 

vnr.-i 



Tbe '^ myths" of Plato, to one of tbe most famous of 
which reference bas j ust been madę, play a most impor- 
tant part in bis system. Tbey ans>ver in tbe pbilosopher 
to faith in tbe Christian, lu dealing witb immortality 
and judgment be leares tbe way of reason, and yentures, 
as be says, on a rude raft to brave the dangers of tbe 
ocean (Phadr. p.86, D ; (?on/.p.623, A). " The perU and 
tbe prize are noble and the hope is great" (Pheedr, p. 1 14, 
C, D). Such tales, be admits, may seem puertle and 
ridiculous; and if there were other surer and dearer 
means of gaining the desired end, tbe judgment woultl 
be just (Gorg, p. 527, A). Bat, as it is. tbus only can be 
connect tbe seen and the unseen. The mytbs, tben, 
mark tbe limit of his dialectics. Tbey are not merely 
a poetical picture of truth already gained, or a popular 
iUustration of his teaching. but real efforts to penetrate 
beyond tbe depths of argument. Tbey show that bis 
method was not commensurate witb bis instinctive de- 
sires; and point out in intelligible outlines tbe subjects 
on which man looks for rerelation. Such are tbe rela- 
tions of tbe homan mind to tnith {PhtBdr, p. 246-49) ; 
tbe pre-exLBtence and immortality of the soul (Meno^ p. 
81-3 ; Pktedr, p. 110-12 ; Tim, p. 4'l) ; the state of futurę 
retribution (Gorg, p. 528-25; Bep, p. 614-16); the rer- 
dutions of the world (PoUł. p. 269. Comp. also Sympos. 
p. 189-91, 203-5; Zeller, Phiłot, J, Griech, p. 361-63, 
wbo give8 the literaturę of tbe subject). 

Tbe great difference between Plato and Aristotle (RC. 
384-322) lies iu the use wbich Plato tbus madę of im- 
agination as tbe exponent of instinct, The dialectics 
of Plato is not inferior to that of Aristotle, and Aristotle 
exhibits traces of poetic power not unwortby of Plato; 
but Aristotle never allows imagination to influence his 
finał deciaion. He elaborated a perfect method, and 
he uaed it with perfect fairness. His ¥>Tittngs con- 
tain tbe bighest utterance of pure reason. Looking 
back on all tbe earlier efforts of pbilosophy, be pro- 
nounced a calm and finał judgment. For bim many of 
tbe condusions wbich others had maintaincd were val- 
uelcss, because be showcd tliat tbey rested on feeling, 
and not on argument. Tbis stem acverity of logie gives 
an indescribable pathos to tbose passages in wbicb be 
touches on the bighest hopes of men ; and perbaps there 
is no morę truły affecting chapter in andent literaturę 
tban that in which he states in a fcw uuimpassioned 
sentences the issue of his inąutr}* iiito tbe immortality 
of tbe soul. Part of it may be immortal, bnt that part 
is impersonal {De An, iii, 5). This was the sentence of 
reasoH} and be givcs expre»sion to it witbout a word of 
protest, and yet as one wbo knew the extent of the sao- 
rifice which it involved. Tbe condusion is, as it were, 
the epttaph of free speculation. Laws of obsenration 
and argument, rules of action, principles of govemment 
remain, but there is no bope beyond tbe grave. 

It foliowa neceasarily that tbe Platonie doctrine of 
ideas was emphatically rejected by Aristotle, wbo gave, 
however, tbe finał development to the original concep- 
tion of Socrates. With Socrates ^ ideas" (generał defi- 
nitions) were merę abstractions ; wiih Plato tbey had 
an absolute exi8tence ; with Aristotle they had no exi8t- 
ence separate from things in wbicb they were realized, 
though tbe form (ftop^^), wbicb answers to the Platonie 
idea, was beld to be the cssence of the tbing itsdf (comp. 
Zeller, Pkilos, d, Griech, i, 119, 120). 

There