James, St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude are chiefly hortatory upon the principles of Christian life, as works (St. James), practical duties (St. Peter), minatory (St. Jude), love (St. John). There is but little certainty as to the year in which either of these Epistles in the New Testament were written, except in the date of the Epistle to the Romans, but we know with certainty enough within what limits of the Apostolic age they must have been written. The approximate dates of the Epistles are as follows: 1 Thessalonians........................................................................................53 A.D. 2 Thessalonians......................................................................... ...........54 A.D. 1 Corinthians..... 2 Corinthians...........................................................................................57 A.D. These dates are, after all, but approximations, except in the case of the Epistle to the Romans, whose date is so nearly ascertained that it forms one of the points from which the other data of the Apostle's life may be fixed. The dates of St. John's Epistles are wholly conjectural. The other dates have an approximate and a very probable accuracy. II. But this title, Epistle, is used to designate that portion of Scripture (usually from the Epistles of the New Testament) which is read before the Gospel for each Sunday, holy, or fast-day in the Church's year. It is so called because it is very generally taken from the Epistles. This selection of sections of the Epistles for each Sunday, holy-day, saints' day, and fast-day must have, in principle at least, been an early custom. The Epistles and Gospels, arranged nearly as we now use them for the Sundays, are found in the book attributed to St. Jerome, the Comes (vide COMES). But there must have been an earlier use, though it probably varied in different Dioceses. Basil the Great (389 A.D.) comments on Matt. ii. 1-12 as the Gospel for the Feast of the Epiphany; Gregory Nozianzen on Acts ii. 1-13 as Epistle for WhitSunday. Ambrose refers to portions of Scripture selected for Christmas-day and Feast of the Epiphany and St. John's day, which are identical with our own. These show a concurrent usage before the year 400 A.D. If the Comes is St. Jerome's work and brought to us from Gaul, as seems likely, then our Epistles and Gospels now are of ancient British use and were found here by Augustine the Monk in 596 A.D. As the Epistle was taken usually from some portion of the Apostolic writing, the Liturgies called it "the Apostle." The Epistles and Gospels were chosen with very great care to illustrate, first, the two great divisions of the Christian year,the Sundays from Advent to Trinity-Sunday, and then the Sundays after Trinity; and, second, and more in detail, to fit in with the glorious recital of our LORD's redemptive acts from Advent to Pentecost. His acts are presented with an inspired fitness in the selections of the Gospels, and the Epistles are the practical comment upon the history or parable in the Gospel. The original idea of the harmony between the two Scriptures in the mind of the persons who arranged them is not in all cases very clear at first sight to us now. But a little study will often show that there does exist such a special fitness between the two. These Epistles are not always selected from the Apostolic writings; but some are taken from other books of the Bible, according to their fitness for the lesson to be given on the days for which they are appointed. The Epistles for these two Sundays are taken from other Scriptures: Whit-Sunday, Acts ii. 1; The Epistles on Fast-days from other Scriptures are: Ash-Wednesday, Joel ii. 12; Monday before Easter, Is. lxiii. 1; Tuesday, Is. 1. 5. The Epistles for Holy-days from other Scriptures are: Monday in Easter-week, Acts x. 34; Tuesday, Acts xiii. 26; Ascension-day, Acts i. 1; Monday in Whitsun-week, Acts x. 34; Tuesday, Acts viii. 14. The Epistles for Saints' days, taken from other Scriptures, are: St. Stephen, Acts vii. 55; Innocents, Rev. xiv. 1; Conversion of St. Paul, Acts ix. 1; Purification, Mal. iii. 1; St. Matthias, Acts i. 15; Annunciation, Is. vii. 10; St. Barnabas, Acts xi. 22; St. John Baptist, Is. xl. 1; St. Peter, Acts xii. 1; St. James, Acts xi. 27; St. Bartholomew, Acts v. 12; St. Michael and All-Angels', Rev. xii. 7; All-Saints', Rev. vii. 2. Also in the Ordinal for Deacons, Acts vi. 2 may be read in the Ordinal for Bishops; the alternate Epistle is from Acts xx. 17. The Puritans at the Savoy Conference objected to the heading as it then stood, "the Epistle, Acts," etc., for the Acts and the Prophets were not Epistolary Scriptures at all, and charged that it was a falsehood to say here beginneth the Epistle written in Acts or in other Scripture than an actual Epistle; so, to remove all objection, the heading in such places was changed to "For the Epistle," and the rubric in the Communion office was changed also to agree with this alteration. Epistoler. The Priest or Deacon who reads the Epistle. Where there are two clergymen present at a service, the one who reads the Epistle should stand on the south side of the Holy Table, while the Gospeler stands on the north side. An old custom was when there was but one clergyman officiating, that he should read the Epistle from the south side, and then cross to the north side to read the Gospel. Epoch. An era; a cycle of time, or a series of events having a closer interconnection and sequence than other events forming an era in history. These are variously described by different historians, as each groups historical facts or appreciates the boundaries of the different eras in the world's career. The word epoch is applied almost indifferently with the word era to the same general divisions, but more usually it is used with the date of the creation of the world, according to Archbishop Ussher, and in our Bibles on the margin, B.C. 4004, with the date of the deluge usually given as 2349 B.C. But these epochs are discussed in the article CHRONOLOGY. Erastianism. Erastus, a physician of Baden (1524-83 A.D.), who asserted the authority of secular legislation over the Church. It was a reaction from the opposite theory of Calvin. It was a favorite principle of the Independents against the Presbyterians, and seems to have been taken as a refuge from the natural claim of Divine authority set up by each dominant sect. It really destroys all true conception of the foundation and functions of the Church, making it a creature of the State, and reducing its work to one but little more important than that of doing a sort of moral police duty. Erastianism will always exist as a reaction against extravagant and bigoted conceptions of Divine authority in the Church; but especially, whenever any sect obtains a controlling power, it will be held by opponents. The Church of England, because of the aid it receives from the State to enforce its Canons, has become at times deeply tinged with Erastian notions, especially among the statesmen who give their aid or influence to her work. But it is not true to charge the Church as countenancing any such principle in any way. In this country, with the utter separation between Church and State, it would seem impossible that such ideas could become at all prevalent, yet the current view of those outside of the Church is practically an Erastian view. Eschatology. The Revelation concerning the Last Things, and the doctrines and conclusions drawn from it. These "Last Things" are Second Advent, Judgment, Death, Hell, Resurrection, Heaven, State of Souls in the future world, and the Millennium. Purgatory and other "fond things vainly invented" concerning the Last Things cannot be discussed here. To us as we are living in time, the eternal world around us, but beyond our spiritual grasp or comprehension, must be in the future. So however present in GoD's Presence all things are, yet the Judgment, Heaven, and our eternal Condition must be treated by us as of the "Last Things." Since Death is not only a physical act, but involves spirit ual acts and conditions, that must be the starting-point for us in considering the end of all things. What lies beyond? Revelation has really given us central facts and has added but few details. As these several facts can here be only enumerated, and will be discussed under their several titles more fully, it will be only necessary to give the definition of each here, and it is hardly needed to load the page with texts familiar to every Christian. I. The Place of Departed Spirits. The Greek translations of the Old Testament and the Evangelists call it by its heathen name Hades. It is unfortunately (now by the drift of language principally) translated Hell in King James's Version. Hades (A. V. grave) in the Old Testament is for the Hebrew Sheol. It is in the New Testament also called (1 Pet. iii. 19) a guard-house (prison A. V.). It is divided into two, (a) Abraham's bosom, or Paradise. (b) That side parted off by an impassable gulf,—the place of sorrow and torment, or Tartarus (2 Pet. ii. 4), the lowest abyss of pain and despair. II. The Second Advent. The revelation is clear and emphatic. It is the sole prophecy embodied in the Creed: "He shall come to judge the quick and the dead." III. The Millennium. So many commentators differ upon the place of the Millennium, whether before or after the Second Advent, that it is best to refer the discussion of it all to that title. IV. The Resurrection, involved in and consequent upon the Second Advent. V. Judgment. The immediate purpose of the Resurrection. VI. Heaven. The award to those who die in the LORD given at the Bar of Judgment. VII. Hell. The sentence passed upon the wicked at the same time. VIII. A further discussion which involves the last two topics, but must be noticed under a different title, is the States of Heaven and of Hell. Several minor topics, Angels of Judg ment, the physical, mental, and spiritual nature of the joys or pains in the future of the Soul after Judgment, the seat of Heaven or of Hell, are really speculative topics. But it is to be clearly noted that there is no final conciliar declaration by the Church defining what CHRIST has chosen to leave so indefinitely described. The Resur rection and the Life of the world to come, in the Creeds, is the nearest definition. She has chosen to declare upon this whole class of subjects, and upon these her words are clear and positive. Esdras. The Apocryphal books numbered 1 and 2 Books of Esdras. They were very generally rejected in the Primitive Church, though they were quoted by some with approval. Jerome, however, rejected them with decision. The absurdities, the contradictions, not only of the Canonical Scriptures, but of the facts as recorded in profane history, are such as to destroy their claim to any historical value. The first Book seems to be a rearrangement, according to the compiler's idea of the sequence of events, of the sacred history from the last two chapthers of 2 Chronicles to the close of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, whose contents he has altered and mistaken. Its facts may have had some basis as isolated occurrences, but the book is worthless historically. The second Book of Esdras is quite as valueless historically, though it is a record of Jewish dreams and anticipations at the period of its composition. The precise date is not known, but it lies about 25 B.C. and 110 A.D. It is influenced in its numerous interpolations, and, if it be by different writers, in later editions by the Christian Scriptures. (An excellent account of these two books is to be found in Smith's Bible Dictionary) as the religion of the State established by law, is to us quite as unnatural. Yet it was inherited from the Jewish Church, and in it was involved the popular idea of orthodoxy. In fact, the Church and State, both in New England and in the other colonies, was a constitutional fact, and the final severance of the State from religious affairs was effected, e.g., in Massachusetts in the early decades of this century. The perverted idea that the State created the Church only shows how little attention is paid to history. Esther. The Queen of Ahasuerus,-a very remarkable character. Noble, lovely, deeply devout, obedient even in the king's harem to the traditions of her race, she was probably not raised to the rank of the Queens of Persia, but was chief among the royal concubines, whose state was within that of a real marriage, who yet had no political rank. Her patriotism and wisdom were of the greatest use to her people in their dire need. Her grace and loveliness and exquisite charms are told in such simple language, that we see how holily she bore her honors in the midst of a licentious court. She is to be judged by the ideas and manners of her age and surroundings, and under this test she is one of the fairest characters in Holy Scripture. Espousals. The Betrothal. There is a distinction between Marriage and Espousals. Espousals were binding indeed, but preceded the Marriage ceremony often for years. The ancient Canon Law recognized this and acted upon it. But its basis was to be found in the Old Testament (e.g., Jeremiah ii. 2; Hosea ii. 19, 20), where it is used typically of GOD binding His Church to Himself, and in the New Testament, where St. Paul tells the Corinthians that as a bridesman he has espoused them to CHRIST (2 Cor. xi. 2). There are only passing references to the espousals or betrothal, in the Law, as a fact, e.g., "a betrothed damsel.' But Eleazar, Abraham's steward, betrothed Rebecca for Isaac with formal presents, jewelry, and raiment (Gen. xxiv.). Theographa (which see). The simple, straightforms of betrothal are only dwelt upon by the prophets, and then in a very slight and allusive manner, most fully, however, in Ezek. xvi. 10-13; compare Rev. xxi. 2. Established Church. The idea of the "Established Church" is misunderstood very often. It is not that any government ever imagined the absurdity that it could establish the Church, but that religion being necessary to the well-being of the State, the Church was recognized, protected, and allied to the State by law. Its officers received political recognition, and part of the revenues of the State went to its support. Its canons and discipline were enforced by civil enactments, and in time the State had great influence in the affairs of the Church. This joining of Church and State began in the time of Constantine (320-350 A.D.). The alliance was not at all at variance with the notions then current. It was inherited from the protection pagan religions received by becoming State religions, and in their ideas of religion it was an indifferent matter whether they worshiped Jupiter, or Serapis, or Astarte. These notions being current, to divorce Church and State would have seemed to them an unnatural proceeding. That this alliance should ever have been formed, and that the Church ever should be recognized Book of Esther.-Its author is not known, but may have been Mordecai, the Queen's uncle. The minute details given, both historical, social, and personal, make this conjecture quite probable. The book of Esther was brought from Babylon and placed in the Canon by Ezra, and put afterwards under the (later) arrangement of the Hagi forward flow of the narrative is strongly marked, while the strangeness of the inci dents and the picture of the manners of the sensual despot, the audacity and superstition of Haman, the passive, proud bearing of the Jew, are all fully borne out by what is well authenticated of that time. That Ahasuerus is the Xerxes of the Grecian war is quite clear, and gives to this book almost the appearance of touching upon profane history. In another way, too, this coincidence of time has a curious relation to its contents. The name of God does not occur in it, though fasting, prayer, and weeping attest the devoutness of the Jews in their danger. But we have a book placed in the inspired Canon which does not draw aside the veil, as is done in so many other books, and does not show us the presiding care and watchful Providence, but leaves that to be surely inferred from the events of the history itself. In this respect it is to be most highly valued. The translation of Esther in the Septuagint is interpolated, and contains some items which were very likely traditional. Latter Chapters of (Apocrypha).-These chapters contain a supposed dream of Mordecai, in which Esther is likened to a little fountain which became a river, an account of the conspiracy against the king, and Mordecai's revelation of it, the king's letters to destroy the Jews, and the prayers of Mordecai and Esther to the God of Israel. There is also a description of Esther's intercession with the king, and of the king's mercy to her people. Mordecai's pedigree is also given. These apocryphal additions may have arisen in part on account of the desire of the Jews "to dwell upon the events of the Babylonish captivity, and especially upon the Divine interpositions in their behalf." Traditions would be rife. The most popular, or most historical, or those by the most eminent authors, or the most ancient stories, and those which fed the love of national greatness, might obtain special authority. The deliverance of the Jews by Mordecai and Esther would be a favorite subject. The chapters in the Apocrypha are not found in the Hebrew or Chaldee. They were written in Greek, translated into Latin, and were a "part of the Italic, or old Latin version in use before the time of Jerome." They are thought by Horne to be "evidently the production of an Hellenistic Jew." Authorities: Archdeacon Hervey, in Wm. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Horne's Introduction. REV. S. F. HOTCHKIN. Eternity. In a strict sense, and as it relates to GOD, eternity has neither beginning nor end. As regards human beings, it has a beginning but no end. "One day is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 St. Pet. iii. 8). As Estius "expresses it, all eternity is one day." (Liddon's Bampton Lectures on our LORD'S Divinity, p. 301, note.) Ages are lost in eternity. No human being can grasp the idea fully, because he measures things by comparing them with the finite things about him. Addison (Spectator, No. 590) calls eternity a line which has neither beginning nor end. The present time he says has been wisely compared to an isthmus in the midst of an ocean. He allows the division into an eternity past and an eternity to come. While this is not strictly scientific, it is convenient, and desirable as a help in grasping the subject. The incessant anticipation of the human mind has been adduced as a proof that it is fitted for future endless existence. Cato calls it, "This longing after immortality." Time, like a constantly flowing stream, ever rolls on, but it empties into the ocean of eternity. Eternity is constantly spoken of as future, but we are already in it. Aubrey de Vere (The Subjective Difficulties in Religion) uses this illustration. Eternity is not a prolongation of time, but a vaster sphere clasping a smaller one, and reaching with its penetrating influences to beings at once inclosed within both. Still time, as but a piece of eternity, so to speak, is transient. Thucydides may speak of a possession for eternity, and Keats of the "joy forever" that springs from "a thing of beauty," but nothing earthly can abide, and outward adorning must perish, as the earth itself, which hastens on to destruction. In striving to catch an idea of eternity by means of time, astronomy comes to our aid. The thought of heavenly bodies which have kept their appointed courses for thousands of years, while men and nations have vanished from the earth like forest leaves, is a step towards the knowledge of that infinite duration which none can perfectly search out. The idea of Huygenius, that there may be stars whose light has not reached us since creation, is one of the vastest that may be imagined. When it is considered that time is measured by the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, and yet that the period during which they have revolved in space since the creation is as nothing in comparison with an eternity past, the subject assumes a majestic and overpowering aspect. A spectacle of the starry heavens belittles man in his own estimation, as David expresses it in the eighth Psalm: "When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained; what is man, that Thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that Thou visitest him?" But he fails not to add, "For Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor." When the Blessed SAVIOUR declares that the very hairs of our head are numbered, GoD's peculiar care is evident over apparent creatures of a day, who are, however, only waiting on the threshold of eternity. As character can never change in a future state of existence, the "ornament of a meek and quiet spirit," which may be attained in this life, will beautify the next; the charity, which never faileth hereafter, is to be learned and practiced here. In the eternal loss of earthly things by death are foreshadowed the irrecoverable losses met with during life by reason of wastefulness, forfeiture, dishonor, robbery, or defective title. When men daily see the fearful effect of improper actions on this present life, what can be said of the supreme folly and utter madness of those who treat the passing hour as if it were given them merely for pleasure, or sin, and even crime, careless as to the conditions of a future state commensurate with the existence of GOD, in which they are to continue to be the same persons essentially as they have been on earth? For evermore!" (Rev. i. 18.) "Words easily uttered, but in comprehension vaster than human thought can grasp, till man, entering upon eternity, shall rise to faculties fitted for the scene! 'For evermore'; for an existence to which the age of the earth, of the starry heavens, of the whole vast universe is less than a morning dream; for a life which, after the reiteration of millions of centuries, shall begin the endless race with the freshness of infancy, and all the eagerness that welcomes enjoyments ever new. The blight of all our earthly pleasures is decay; our suns have scarcely risen when they set; we have but just persuaded ourselves that we are happy when the happiness is vanished. Pining after something that will endure, we are not to be forever disappointed; born for eternity, eternity shall surely be ours. But, oh-horrible thought!—if all this tendency to the eternal, this longing for everlasting mansions, be to any of us but the prophetic twilight, the forecast shadow of unending darkness! oh! agony insufferable, if the eternal life of CHRIST-the Christian's warrant of justification, of sanctity, of happiness-be but the guarantee of a death as everlasting as His everlasting life; if the prolongation of His divine existence be but the seal and surety of that never-dying death which, by a dread union of opposites, seems described as protracting dissolution itself into immortality!" (Archer Butler's Sermons, First Series, Sermon x.) When Christianity, with its "life and immortality," presented itself to the notice of Edwin, the Saxon King of the North of England, he held a consultation about it, and a nobleman remarked that he had seen a swallow flying through the king's house, entering one door and passing out of another, while the king sat at supper in the hall, and the fire was burning on the hearth, and a tempest of rain or snow raging without. The bird felt the temporary warmth, and escaped. Such he declared was the life of man without Christianity, buried in darkness as to what preceded or followed it. Hence he advised a consideration of the new doctrine. On the dark future Christianity sheds its light. While it tells of coming years more numerous than the sands on the sea-shore, it declares that they may all be happy if time is spent in preparation for eternity. See Buck's Theological Dictionary, and Illustrations of the Catechism of the P. E. Church, by an English clergyman, revised by Rev. W. W. Spear, D.D., and Addison's Essay in The Spectator, No. 565. REV. S. F. HOTCHKIN. Ethics, Christian. In order to get a distinct idea of Christian Ethics we must consider it in relation to "the Law." In St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, he contrasts "the Law" very sharply with the Gospel, or with the grace which came by JESUS CHRIST (Rom. iii. to v.). There can be no doubt but that St. Paul in this discussion had in view chiefly the Jewish Law. But the Law of the Jews, the laws or religions of all other nations, and the Law of nature as indicated in Natural Theology and in Moral Philosophy were viewed in common, so that what St. Paul says of the one is applicable with certain modifications and with greater force to all the others. Moral Philosophy tries to find from a study of man's nature the circumstances under which he lives, the ideal of perfection at which he ought to aim, and the laws and rules of life and duty for men. It appeals to the ideal as a motive, and often doing what it can to excite and cultivate the best motives, it leaves the result to depend on will force, upon the power or the weakness, as it may happen to be, of each one's own will, his power of self-control and of personal exertion. Its rule is justice,-a law of equality or of rights. It has no idea of forbearance, of pardon, of mercy, or of help from above. Its tendency is therefore to produce rather a sternness of character than the more amiable disposition and that softness of character at which Christianity aims. It tends to puff one up with pride, self-reliance, in view of what he has attained or done for himself, rather than make him humble and self-denying, in view of what has been done for him. All heathen religions were alike in this very important respect; their ideal of life was not very high; and although they taught and inculcated some form of worship to the gods in which they believed, they did not ascribe to their gods the very highest excellence of character; nor did they teach their devotees to look to their gods for spiritual help. The heathens prayed to their gods and worshiped them with sacrifices, but the help they sought was deliverance from some present evil or some future impending calamity of a temporal or purely physical and bodily nature. For purity of heart, and inward strength to resist temptation and to do right, they relied on themselves, so far as they had any thought or care for such things. They did not expect nor seek for any help from the gods in which they believed, or from their religion, in this direction. Hence their religion can hardly be regarded as a help to their morality, or to their efforts at moral purity and moral excellence. And in many cases its influence was quite the reverse. Their religion often led and even compelled them to acts which the very instincts of their nature abhorred, and it familiarized their minds with such vices by ascribing them to their gods. The Jewish religion, while it was unmeasurably superior to all the others in most respects, was much like them in the one that we have chiefly in view now. It was a religion of law and not of grace. It did indeed inculcate the idea of GOD's moral excellence, not only His power, but His purity, His goodness, and His righteousness and justice in all things. This idea exerted a most powerful influence for good on the Jewish mind. It was a help upward and not a debasing influence, tending downward, as did all the heathen religions. And, too, the Jewish system of sacrifices was intended as a help and served that end. It inculcated the idea of sin as constituting personal ill desert on the part of the offender, and that all our unhappiness and misfortunes in this world come either directly from our own |