34<\/strong>. Dionysius the Areopagite<\/em> ] i.e. one of the members of the upper council of Athens. He must have been a man of position and influence, for no one could be a member of this council unless he had filled some high office of state, and was above 60 years of age. Tradition (Euseb. H. E<\/em>. iii. 4; iv. 23) says that this Dionysius was the first bishop of Athens, and that he was martyred. The works which long circulated among Christians as his compositions, and which even at the time of the Reformation occupied much of the thoughts and labours of such men as Dean Colet, are no doubt forgeries of a much later date than the days of this Dionysius.<\/p>\n Clave unto him – <\/B>Adhered to him firmly; embraced the Christian religion.<\/P> Dionysius – <\/B>Nothing more is certainly known of this man than is here stated.<\/P> The Areopagite – <\/B>Connected with the court of Areopagus, but in what way is not known. It is probable that he was one of the judges. The conversion of one man was worth the labor of Paul, and that conversion might have had an extensive influence on others.<\/P> In regard to this account of the visit of Paul to Athens probably the only one which he made to that splendid capital – we may remark:<\/P> (1) That he was indefatigable and constant in his great work.<\/P> (2) Christians, amidst the splendor and gaieties of such cities, should have their hearts deeply affected in view of the moral desolations of the people.<\/P> (3) They should be willing to do their duty, and to bear witness to the pure and simple gospel in the presence of the great and the noble.<\/P> (4) They should not consider it their main business to admire splendid temples, statues, and paintings – the works of art; but their main business should be to do good as they may have opportunity.<\/P> (5) A discourse, even in the midst of such wickedness and idolatry, may be calm and dignified; not an appeal merely to the passions, but to the understanding. Paul reasoned with the philosophers of Athens; he did not denounce them; he endeavored calmly to convince them, not harshly to censure them.<\/P> (6) The example of Paul is a good one for all Christians. In all places cities, towns, or country; amidst all people – philosophers, the rich, the poor; among friends and countrymen, or among strangers and foreigners, the great object should be to do good, to instruct mankind, to seek to elevate the human character, and to promote human happiness by diffusing the pare precepts of the gospel of Christ.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 34<\/span>. Certain men clave unto him<\/B><\/I>] Became affectionately united to him, and believed<\/I> the doctrines he had preached.<\/P> <\/P> Dionysius the Areopagite<\/B><\/I>] There can be no doubt that this man was one of the judges<\/I> of this great court<\/I>, but whether the president<\/I> or otherwise we cannot tell. Humanly speaking, his conversion must have been an acquisition of considerable importance to the Christian religion; for no person was a judge in the Areopagus who had not borne the office of archon<\/I>, or chief governor of the city; and none bore the office of judge in this court who was not of the highest reputation<\/I> among the people for his intelligence<\/I> and exemplary conduct<\/I>. In some of the popish writers we find a vast deal of groundless conjecture concerning Dionysius, who, they say, was first bishop of Athens, and raised to that dignity by Paul himself; that he was a martyr<\/I> for the truth; that Damaris was his wife<\/I>, c., c., concerning which the judicious Calmet says, Tout cela est de peu d’ autorite<\/I>. “All this has little foundation.”<\/P> <\/P> 1. IN addition to what has been said in the notes on this subject, I may add, the original word , from , I fear<\/I>, and , a demon<\/I>, signifies, “greatly addicted to the worship of the invisible powers” for, as the word signifies either a good<\/I> or evil<\/I> spirit, and , I<\/I> fear<\/I>, signifies not only to fear<\/I> in general, but also to pay<\/I> religious reverence<\/I>, the word must be here taken in its best<\/I> sense<\/I> and so undoubtedly St. Paul intended it should; and so, doubtless, his audience understood him; for it would have been very imprudent to have charged them with superstition<\/I>, which must have been extremely irritating<\/I>, in the very commencement of a discourse in which he was to defend himself, and prove the truth of the Christian religion. He stated a fact<\/I>, acknowledged by the best Greek writers; and he reasoned from that fact. The fact was that the Athenians were the most religious people in Greece, or, in other words, the most idolatrous: that there were in that city more altars, temples, sacrifices<\/I>, and religious services<\/I>, than in any other place. And independently of the authorities which may be quoted in support of this assertion, we may at once perceive the probability of it from the consideration that Athens was the grand university of Greece: that here philosophy and every thing relating to the worship of the gods was taught; and that religious services to the deities must be abundant. Look at our own universities of Oxford<\/I> and Cambridge<\/I>; here are more prayers<\/I>, more religious acts<\/I> and services<\/I>, than in any other places in the nation, and very properly so. These were founded to be seminaries of learning<\/I> and religion<\/I>; and their very statutes suppose religion<\/I> to be essential to learning<\/I>; and their founders were in general religious characters<\/I>, and endowed them for religious purposes<\/I>. These, therefore, are not superstitious services; for, as superstition<\/I> signifies “unnecessary fears or scruples in religion; observance of unnecessary and uncommanded rites or practices,” – JOHNSON, it cannot be said of those services which are founded on the positive command of God<\/I>, for the more effectual help to religious feelings, or as a preventive of immoral practices. I consider the Athenians, therefore, acting in conformity to their own laws<\/I> and religious institutions<\/I>; and Paul grants that they were much addicted to religious performances: this he pays as a compliment, and then takes occasion to show that their religion was defective: they had not a right object of devotion; they did not know the true God; the true God<\/I> was to them the unknown God<\/I>; and this<\/I> an altar in their own city acknowledged. He therefore began to declare that glorious Being to them whom they ignorantly worshipped. As they were greatly addicted to religious services, and acknowledged that there was a Being to them unknown<\/I>, and to whom they thought it necessary to erect an<\/I> altar<\/I>, they must, consistently with their character as a religious people, and with their own concession in the erection of this altar, hear quietly, patiently, and candidly, a discourse on that<\/I> God<\/I> whose being<\/I> they acknowledged, but whose nature<\/I> they did not know. Thus St. Paul, by acknowledging their religious disposition, and seizing the fact of the altar<\/I> being inscribed to the unknown God, assumed a right which not a philosopher, orator, or judge in the Areopagus could dispute, of bringing the whole subject of Christianity before them, as he was now brought to his trial, and put on his defense. The whole of this fine advantage, this grand stroke of rhetorical prudence, is lost from the whole account, by our translation, ye are in all things too superstitious<\/I>, thus causing the defendant to commence his discourse with a charge<\/I> which would have roused the indignation of the Greeks, and precluded the possibility of their hearing any thing he had to say in defense of his conduct.<\/P> <\/P> 2. That the original word, on the right interpretation of which I have laid so much stress, is taken in a good<\/I> sense, and signifies religious worship<\/I> and reverence<\/I>, I shall show by several proofs; some of which may be seen in Mr. Parkhurst<\/I>, under the word , which Suidas<\/I> explains by , reverence towards the Deity<\/I>. And Hesychius<\/I>, by , the<\/I> fear of God<\/I>. “In this good<\/I> sense it is often used by Diodorus Siculus. Herodotus says of Orpheus, he led men<\/I>, , to be religious; and exhorted them<\/I>, , to piety<\/I>; where it is manifest that must mean religion<\/I>, and not superstition<\/I>. But, what is more to the present purpose, the word is used by Josephus<\/I>, not only where a heathen calls the pagan religion , (Antiq. lib. xix. cap. 5. s. 3,) or where the Jewish religion is spoken of by this name, in several edicts that were made in its favour<\/I> by the Romans, (as in Antiq. lib. xiv. cap. 10, s. 13, 14, 16, 18, 19,) but also where the historian is expressing his own thoughts<\/I> in his own words<\/I>: thus, of King Manasseh, after his repentance and restoration, he says, () , he endeavoured to behave in the MOST<\/I> RELIGIOUS manner towards God<\/I>. Antiq. lib. x. cap. 3, s. 2. And, speaking of a riot that happened among the Jews on occasion of a Roman soldier’s burning the book of the law, he observes that the Jews were drawn together on this occasion, , by<\/I> their religion<\/I>, as if it had been by an engine<\/I>; .-De Bell. lib. ii. cap. 12, s. 2.” It would be easy to multiply examples of this use of the word; but the reader may refer, if necessary, to Wetstein, Pearce, and others.<\/P> <\/P> 3. That the Athenians were reputed, in this respect, a devout<\/I> people, the following quotations may prove. Pausanias<\/I>, in Attic. cap. xvii. p. 39, edit. Kuhn<\/I>., says that the Athenians were not<\/I> only more humane<\/I>, , but more devout<\/I> towards the gods<\/I>; and again he says, , , it appears plainly how much they<\/I> exceed others in the worship of the gods<\/I>; and, in cap. xxiv. p. 56, he says, , , , that the Athenians are abundantly more solicitous<\/I> about Divine matters than others<\/I>. And Josephus seals this testimony by the assertion, contr. Apion, ii. 10: ; Every body says that<\/I> the Athenians are the most religious people of all the Greeks<\/I>.-See Bp. Pearce<\/I>. From all these authorities it is palpable that St. Paul must have used the term in the sense for which I have contended.<\/P> <\/P> 4. In the preceding notes, I have taken for granted that Paul was brought to the Areopagus to be tried on the charge of setting<\/I> forth strange gods<\/I>. Bp. Warburton denies that he was brought before the Areopagus on any charge whatever; and that he was taken there that the judges might hear him explain his doctrine, and not to defend himself against a charge which he does not once notice in the whole of his discourse. But there is one circumstance that the bishop has not noticed, viz. that St. Paul was not permitted to finish his discourse, and therefore could not come to those particular parts of the charge<\/I> brought against him which the bishop thinks he must have taken up most pointedly, had he been accused, and brought there to make his defense. The truth is, we have little more than the apostle’s exordium<\/I>, as he was evidently interrupted in the prosecution of his defense. As to the supposition that he was brought by philosophers to the Areopagus, that they might the better hear him explain his doctrine, it appears to have little ground; for they might have heard him to as great advantage in any other place: nor does it appear that this court was ever used, except for the solemn purposes of justice. But the question, whether Paul was brought to the Areopagus that he might be tried by the judges of that court, Bishop Pearce answers with his usual judgment and discrimination. He observes:<\/P> 1. “We are told that one effect of his preaching was, that he converted Dionysius the Areopagite, Ac 17:34<\/span>; and this seems to show that he, who was a judge of that court, was present<\/I>, and, if so, probably other judges<\/I> were present also.<\/P> 2. If they who brought Paul to Areopagus wanted only to satisfy their curiosity, they had an opportunity of doing that in the market<\/I>, mentioned Ac 17:17<\/span>. Why then did they remove him to another place?<\/P> 3. When it is said that they brought Paul to Areopagus, it is said that they took him<\/I>, , or rather, they laid hold<\/I> on him<\/I>, as the Greek word is translated, Lu 23:26<\/span>; Lu 20:20<\/span>; Lu 20:26<\/span>, and as it ought to have been here, in Ac 21:30<\/span>; Ac 21:33<\/span>, and especially in this latter verse.<\/P> 4. It is observable that Paul, in his whole discourse at the Areopagus, did not make the least attempt to move the passions of his audience, as he did when speaking to Felix, Ac 24:25<\/span>, and to Agrippa, Ac 26:29<\/span>; but he used plain<\/I> and grave reasonings<\/I> to convince his hearers of the soundness of his doctrine.<\/P> <\/P> “Now, we are told by Quinctilian<\/I>, in Inst. Orat. ii. 16, that Athenis actor movere affectus vetabatur<\/I>: the actor was forbidden to endeavour to excite the passions. And again, in vi. 1, that Athenis affectus movere etiam per praeconem prohibebatur orator<\/I>: among the Athenians, the orator was prohibited by the public crier to move the passions of his auditory. And this is confirmed by Philostratus<\/I> in procem. lib. i. de Vit. Sophist.; and by Athenaeus<\/I>, in Deipnosoph. xiii. 6. If, therefore, it was strictly forbidden at Athens to move the affections of the courts of justice, especially in that of the Areopagus, we see a good reason why Paul made no attempt in that way; and, at the same time, we learn how improperly the painters have done all they could, when they represent Paul speaking at Athens, endeavouring both by his looks and gestures to raise those several passions in his hearers which their faces are meant to express.”<\/P> <\/P> I have only to add here, that, though St. Paul did not endeavour to excite any passions in his address at the Areopagus, yet each sect of the philosophers would feel themselves powerfully affected by every thing in his discourse which tended to show the emptiness or falsity of their doctrines; and, though he attempted to move no passions, yet, from these considerations, their passions would be strongly moved. And this is the idea which the inimitable Raphael took up in his celebrated cartoon on this subject, and which his best copier, Mr. Thomas Holloway, has not only engraved<\/I> to the life, but has also described in language only inferior to the cartoon itself; and, as it affords no mean comment on the preceding discourse, my readers will be pleased to find it here.<\/P> <\/P> By the cartoons of Raphael, we are to understand certain Scripture pieces painted by Raphael d’Urbino, and now preserved in the palace at Hampton court. They are allowed to be the chefs d’oeuvre in their kind. They have been often engraved, but never so as to give an adequate representation of the matchless originals, till Mr. Thomas Holloway, who has completely seized the spirit of the artist, undertook this most laborious work, in which he has been wholly engaged for several years; and in which he has, for some time past, associated with himself Messrs. Slann<\/I> and Webb<\/I>, two excellent artists, who had formerly been his own pupils. The cartoon to which I have referred has been some time finished, and delivered to the subscribers; and with it that elegant description, from which the following is a copious extract:-<\/P> <\/P> “The eye no sooner glances on this celebrated cartoon than it is immediately struck with the commanding attitude of the speaker, and the various emotions excited in his hearers.<\/P> <\/P> “The interest which the first appearance of St. Paul at Athens had occasioned, was not calculated to subside on a sudden; his doctrines were too new, and his zeal too ardent. From the multitude it ascended to the philosophers. The Epicureans and Stoics particularly assailed him. Antecedently to the scene described in the picture, among the various characters already encountered by the apostle, many undoubtedly, in their speculations upon Divine subjects, had often imagined a sublimer religion than that commonly acknowledged: such, therefore, would make it their business to hear him again. Others, to whom truth was of less value than the idle amusement of vain disquisition, felt no other motive than curiosity. By far the greater part, however, obstinately bigoted to their particular tenets, and abhorring innovation, regarded him as impious, or a mere babbler: these also wished to hear him again, but with no other than the insidious view, that, by a more regular and explicit profession of his doctrines, he might expose his own absurdities, or render himself obnoxious to the state. The drapery accords with the majesty of the figure; and the light is so managed, especially on the arms and hands, as greatly to assist the energy of the action.<\/P> <\/P> “The painter has proceeded, from the warmth of full conviction, through various gradations, to the extremes of malignant prejudice, and invincible bigotry.<\/P> <\/P> “In the foreground, on the right, is Dionysius<\/I>, who is recorded to have embraced the new religion. With the utmost fervour in his countenance, and with a kind of sympathetic action and unconscious eagerness, he advances a step nearer. His eye is fixed on the apostle: he longs to tell him his conversion, already perhaps preceded by conviction wrought in his mind by the reasonings of the sacred teacher on previous occasions, in the synagogue, and in the forum or marketplace. He appears not only touched with the doctrine he receives, but expresses an evident attachment to his instructer: he would become his host and protector.<\/P> <\/P> “This figure is altogether admirable. The gracefulness of the drapery and of the hair; the masculine beauty of the features; the perspective drawing of the arms; the life and sentiment of the hands, the right one especially, are inimitable.<\/P> <\/P> “Behind is Damaris<\/I>, mentioned with him as a fellow believer. This is the only female in the composition; but the painter has fully availed himself of the character, in assisting his principle of contrast; an excellence found in all the works of Raphael. Her discreet distance, her modest deportment, her pious and diffident eye, discovering a degree of awe, the decorum and arrangement of her train, all interest the mind in her favour.<\/P> <\/P> “Next to these, but at come distance, is a Stoic<\/I>. The first survey of this figure conveys the nature of his peculiar philosophy-dignity and austerity. Raphael has well understood what he meant in this instance to illustrate. His head is sunk in his breast; his arms are mechanically folded; his eyes, almost shut, glance towards the ground: he is absorbed in reflection. In spite of his stoicism, discomposure and perplexity invade his soul, mixed with a degree of haughty mortification.<\/P> <\/P> “Sir Joshua Reynolds has observed that ‘the same idea is continued through the whole figure, even to the drapery, which is so closely muffled about him that even his hands are not seen;’ and that, ‘by this happy correspondence between the expression of the countenance and the disposition of the parts, the figure appears to think from head to foot<\/I>.’<\/P> <\/P> “Behind the Stoic are two young men, well contrasted in expression: anger in the elder, and in the other, youthful pride, half abashed, are finely discriminated.<\/P> <\/P> “Beyond, in the same continued half circle with the Stoic, is perhaps exhibited the most astonishing contrast ever imagined; that of inexorable sternness<\/I>, and complete placidity<\/I>.<\/P> <\/P> “Of the two figures, the first is denominated a Cynic<\/I>, who, disappointed in his expectation of the ridiculous appearance which he conceived the apostle, when confronted, would make among them, abandons his mind to rage. His formidable forehead concentrates its whole expression: with a fixed frown and threatening eye, he surveys the object of his indignation. He alone would engage to confute him, or punish his temerity. His eager impatience and irritation are not discovered in his features only; he raises his heel from the ground, and leans with a firmer pressure on his crutch, which seems to bend beneath him.<\/P> <\/P> “Pass from him to the more polished Epicurean<\/I>. This figure exhibits perfect repose of body and mind: no passions agitate the one; no action discomposes the other. His hands, judiciously concealed beneath beautiful drapery, shows there can be no possible motion or employment for them. His feet seem to sleep upon the ground. His countenance, which is highly pleasing, and full of natural gentleness, expresses only a smile of pity at the fancied errors of the apostle, mingled with delight derived from his eloquence. He waits, with an inclined head, in passive and serene expectation. If a shrewd intelligence is discovered in his eyes, it is too gentle to disturb the general expression of tranquillity.<\/P> <\/P> “Behind are two other young men: the first discovers a degree of superciliousness with his vexation; his companion is more disgusted, and more morose.<\/P> <\/P> “These, and the two young figures previously described, are not introduced merely to fill up the group; they may be intended as pupils to the philosophers before them, though by some considered as young Romans, who have introduced themselves from ennui or curiosity.<\/P> <\/P> “Beyond is a character in whose mind the force of truth and eloquence appears to have produced conviction; but pride, vanity, or self-interest, impel him to dissemble. His finger, placed upon the upper lip, shows that he has imposed silence upon himself.<\/P> <\/P> “In the centre is seated a group from the academy. The skill of Raphael<\/I> in this instance is eminent. These figures are not only thrown into shade, to prevent their interference with the principal figure; but, from their posture, they contribute to its elevation, and at the same time vary the line of the standing group.<\/P> <\/P> “It seems as if the old philosopher in profile, on the left, had offered some observations on the apostle’s address; and that he was eagerly listening to the reply of his sage friend, in whose features we behold more of the spirit of mild philosophy. The action of his fingers denotes his habit of reasoning, and regularity of argument. The middle figure behind appears to be watching the effect which his remarks would produce.<\/P> <\/P> “The action of the young man, pointing to the apostle, characterizes the keen susceptibility and impetuosity of his age. His countenance expresses disgust, approaching to horror. The other young man turns his head round, as though complaining of unreasonable interruption. The drapery of both the front figures in this group is finely drawn: the opening action of the knees in the one is beautifully followed and described by the folds; in the other, the compression, in consequence of the bent attitude, is equally executed; the turn of the head gives grace and variety to the figure.<\/P> <\/P> “The head introduced beyond, and rather apart, is intended to break the two answering lines of the dark contour of the apostle’s drapery, and the building in the background.<\/P> <\/P> “In the group placed behind the apostle, the mind is astonished at the new character of composition. The finest light imaginable is thrown upon the sitting figure; and, as necessary, a mass of shade is cast upon the two others.<\/P> <\/P> “It is difficult to ascertain what or whom Raphael meant by that corpulent and haughty personage wearing the cap. His expression, however, is evident: malice and vexation are depicted in his countenance; his stride, and the action of his hand, are characteristic of his temperament.<\/P> <\/P> “The figure standing behind is supposed to be a magician<\/I>. His dark hair and beard, which seem to have been neglected, and the keen mysterious gaze of his eye, certainly exhibit a mind addicted to unusual studies. Under him, the only remaining figure is one who listens with malignant attention, as though intending to report every thing. He has the aspect of a spy. His eye is full of danger to the apostle; and he crouches below that he may not be disturbed by communication.<\/P> <\/P> “If this figure be considered with reference to Dionysius<\/I>, it may be remarked that Raphael<\/I> has not only contrasted his characters, but even the two ends of his picture. By this means the greatest possible force is given to the subject. At the first survey, the subordinate contrasts may escape the eye, but these greater oppositions must have their effect.<\/P> <\/P> “When, from this detailed display of the cartoon, the eye again glances over the whole subject, including the dignity of the architecture; the propriety of the statue of Mars, which faces his temple; the happy management of the landscape, with the two conversation figures; the result must be an acknowledgment that in this one effort of art is combined all that is great in drawing, in expression, and in composition.” Holloway’s<\/I> description of Raphael’s<\/I> Cartoon of Paul preaching at Athens.<\/P><\/p>\n Clave unto him, <\/B>in more than ordinary friendship; they were as glued to him; great was their love to the apostle, by whom their eyes were opened, nay, by whose ministry they were raised from the dead. <\/P> Dionysius the Areopagite; <\/B>one of that great council mentioned Act 17:19<\/span>, whose conversion might have a great influence on many. <\/P> Damaris; <\/B>who is thought to have been an honourable woman; such are mentioned Act 17:12<\/span>; or she might have been specially eminent for some grace or goodness she excelled in, and therefore hath a name upon record in the word of God. <\/P> <\/p>\n 34. Howbeit certain men clave untohim<\/B>Instead of mocking or politely waiving the subject, havinglistened eagerly, they joined themselves to the apostle for furtherinstruction; and so they “believed.” <\/P> Dionysius the Areopagite<\/B>amember of that august tribunal. Ancient tradition says he was placedby the apostle over the little flock at Athens. “Certainly thenumber of converts there and of men fit for office in the Church wasnot so great that there could be much choice” [OLSHAUSEN].<\/P> a woman named Damaris<\/B>notcertainly one of the apostle’s audience on the Areopagus, but won tothe faith either before or after. Nothing else is known of her. Ofany further labors of the apostle at Athens, and how long he stayed,we are not informed. Certainly he was not driven away. But “itis a serious and instructive fact that the mercantile populations ofThessalonica and Corinth received the message of God with greaterreadiness than the highly educated and polished Athenians. Twoletters to the Thessalonians, and two to the Corinthians, remain toattest the flourishing state of those churches. But we possess noletter written by Paul to the Athenians; and we do not read that hewas ever in Athens again” [HOWSON].<\/P><\/p>\n Howbeit, certain men clave unto him, and believed<\/strong>,…. There were some who were ordained to eternal life, to whom the Gospel came in power, and they received the love of the truth, and their hearts and affections were knit unto the apostle; and they followed him, and kept to him, and privately conversed with him, and believed his doctrine, and in Jesus Christ, whom he preached unto them; to these the Gospel was the savour of life unto life, when to the scoffers and mockers it was the savour of death unto death: and this is the fruit and effect of the Gospel ministry, wherever it comes:<\/p>\n among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite<\/strong>; a judge in the court of Areopagus: how many judges that court consisted of, is not certain, nor whether there was one who was superior to the rest; if there was such an one, Dionysius seems to have been he, since he is called the Areopagite. The business of this court was not only to try causes of murder, which seems to have been the original business of it; but by these judges the rights of the city were preserved and defended, war was proclaimed, and all law suits adjusted and decided; and they made it their business to look after idle and slothful persons, and inquire how they lived f: they always heard and judged causes in the night, in the dark, because they would only know facts, and not persons, lest they should be influenced by their afflictions, and be led wrong g; they were very famous in other nations for their wisdom and skill, and for their gravity and strict justice. Dolabella, proconsul of Asia, having a woman brought before him for poisoning her husband and son, which she confessed, and gave reasons for doing it, referred the matter to a council, who refused to pass sentence; upon which he sent the case to Athens, to the Areopagites, as to judges “more grave” and “more experienced” h: and hence these words of Julian the emperor i,<\/p>\n “let an Areopagite be judge, and we will not be afraid of the judgment.”<\/p>\n This Dionysius the Areopagite is said, by another Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, a very ancient writer k, to be the first bishop of the Athenians, which is more likely than that he should be a bishop in France. It is reported of him, that being at Heliopolis in Egypt, along with Apollophanes, a philosopher, at the time of Christ’s sufferings, he should say concerning the unusual eclipse that then was, that “a God unknown, and clothed with flesh, suffered”, on whose account the whole world was darkened; or, as, others affirm, he said, “either the God of nature suffers, or the frame of the world will be dissolved”: it is also related of him that when he was converted by the apostle at Athens, he went to Clemens, bishop of Rome, and was sent by him with others into the west, to preach the Gospel; some of which went to Spain, and others to France, and that he steered his course to Paris, and there, with Rusticus and Eleutherius his “colleagues”, suffered martyrdom l. The books ascribed unto him concerning the divine names, and ecclesiastical hierarchy, are spurious things, stuffed with foolish, absurd, and impious notions, and seem to have been written in the “fifth” century.<\/p>\n And a woman named Damaris<\/strong>; some of the ancients, and also some modern writers, take this woman to be the wife of Dionysius; but had she been his wife, she would have been doubtless called so; however, by the particular mention of her name, she seems to have been a person of some note and figure: the name is a diminutive from , Damar, which signifies a wife.<\/p>\n And others with them<\/strong>; with these two, as the Arabic version renders it; that is, with Dionysius and Damaris. These laid the foundation of a Gospel church at Athens. Dionysius, as before observed, was the first bishop, or pastor of it; it is also said that Narcissus, one of the seventy disciples, was bishop of this place;<\/p>\n [See comments on Lu 10:1]<\/span>. In the “second” century Publius was bishop of the church at Athens, who suffered martyrdom for Christ in the time of Hadrian; and was succeeded by Quadratus m, who was famous for a writing he presented to the said emperor, in favour of the churches in common, and the success of it, about the year 128; at the same time, Aristides, a famous philosopher and Christian, flourished in the church at Athens, who wrote an apology for the Christian religion; and also Jovius, a presbyter and martyr, and a disciple of Dionysius; likewise Athenagoras, a man of great learning and piety, who wrote also an apology for the Christians, and a treatise concerning the resurrection of the dead, which are still extant; the former was written to the emperors Antoninus and Commodus: in the “third” century mention is made of the church at Athens; and Origen n speaks very honourably of it, as meek and quiet, and desirous of approving itself to God. In the “fourth” century it appears that there were Christians there, since Maximus the emperor stirred up wicked men to molest and distress them; and there was a Christian school there, in which Bazil and Gregory Nazianzen were brought up. In the “fifth” century there was a church in this place; and in the “sixth”, a Christian school, in which Boethius Patricius learned the liberal arts; and in the “seventh” century mention is made of a bishop of Athens, who was in the sixth council at Constantinople o: thus far this church state is to be traced.<\/p>\n f Alexander ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 13. & l. 4. c. 11. g Alexander ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 5. h A Gellii noctes Attica, l. 12. c. 7. i Orat. 2. p. 112. k Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 4. & l. 4. c. 23. l Magdeburg. Hist. Eccles. cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. p. 491. m Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 23. n Contra Cels. l. 3. p. 128. o Magdeburg. Hist. Eccles. cent. 2. c. 2. p. 4, 17. & c. 10. p. 151, 152, 153. cent. 3. c. 2. p. 3. cent. 4. c. 7. p. 287. & c. 10. p. 539. cent. 5. c. 2. p. 6. cent. 6. c. 7. p. 205. cent. 7. c. 2. p. 5.<\/p>\n Clave unto him and believed <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist passive of this strong word <\/SPAN><\/span>, to glue to, common in Acts (Acts 5:13<\/span>; Acts 8:29<\/span>; Acts 9:26<\/span>; Acts 10:28<\/span>) No sermon is a failure which leads a group of men (<\/SPAN><\/span>) to believe (ingressive aorist of <\/SPAN><\/span>) in Jesus Christ. Many so-called great or grand sermons reap no such harvest.<\/P> Dionysius the Areopagite <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). One of the judges of the Court of the Areopagus. That of itself was no small victory. He was one of this college of twelve judges who had helped to make Athens famous. Eusebius says that he became afterwards bishop of the Church at Athens and died a martyr.<\/P> A woman named Damaris <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). A woman by name Damaris. Not the wife of Dionysius as some have thought, but an aristocratic woman, not necessarily an educated courtezan as Furneaux holds. And there were “others” (<\/SPAN><\/span>) with them, a group strong enough to keep the fire burning in Athens. It is common to say that Paul in 1Co 2:1-5<\/span> alludes to his failure with philosophy in Athens when he failed to preach Christ crucified and he determined never to make that mistake again. On the other hand Paul determined to stick to the Cross of Christ in spite of the fact that the intellectual pride and superficial culture of Athens had prevented the largest success. As he faced Corinth with its veneer of culture and imitation of philosophy and sudden wealth he would go on with the same gospel of the Cross, the only gospel that Paul knew or preached. And it was a great thing to give the world a sermon like that preached in Athens. <\/P> <\/p>\n Clave. See on Luk 10:11<\/span>; Luk 14:15<\/span>; Act 5:13<\/span>. <\/P> The Areopagite. One of the judges of the court of Areopagus. Of this court Curtius remarks : “Here, instead of a single judge, a college of twelve men of proved integrity conducted the trial. If the accused had an equal number of votes for and against him, he was acquitted. The Court on the hill of Ares is one of the most ancient institutions of Athens, and none achieved for the city an earlier or more widely spread recognition. The Areopagitic penal code was adopted as a norm by all subsequent legislators” (” History of Greece, ” 1, 307). <\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Howbeit certain men,”<\/strong> (tines de andres) “But some responsible men,” certain, among them is named Dionysius, and others unnamed.<\/p>\n 2) “Clave unto him, and believe<\/strong> (kollethentes auto episteusan) “Adhering to him (following his message, with honest, seeking hearts) believed,” when they heard the call of God to repentance and faith; they received Jesus Christ, were saved, and drew close to him, to learn more of the Jesus way, Joh 1:11-12<\/span>; Rom 10:9-13<\/span>; Luk 9:23<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “Among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite,”<\/strong> (en ois kai Dionysius ho Areopagites) “Among whom (were) both Dionysius, the Areopagite,” a member of that august tribunal, a judge in the court. Even unsaved heathen, idolatrous, intellectual judges may be saved, as this one was, at the preaching and astute reasoning of Paul, Isa 1:18<\/span>, Rom 1:14-16<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “And a woman named Damaris,”<\/strong> (kai gune onomati Damaris) “And a woman known by the name of Damaris,” meaning a “delicate woman,” about which nothing further is known. The weak and strong, the learned and unlearned, the rich and the poor, are all lost by nature and practice, and need salvation that is freely available to them, Joh 7:17<\/span>; Joh 6:37<\/span>; Rev 22:17<\/span>; Isa 53:5-6<\/span>, Rom 10:13<\/span>.<\/p>\n 5) “And others with them.”<\/strong> (kai heteroi sun autois) “And others in colleague with, in close harmony of faith with them,” others who had believed in Jesus Christ and clave to” Paul’s teachings of Jesus Christ. Ancient tradition says that Dionysius, the converted judge, became leader of the little flock (church) Paul left in Athens, though no scripture certifies it. However, since Paul taught glory was to be given to God in the church, by Christ Jesus, Eph 3:21<\/span>, it is reasonable, necessary inference that he did leave a church when he left there.<\/p>\n − <\/p>\n 34. Among whom was also Dionysius. Seeing that Luke doth name one man and one woman only, it appeareth that there was but a small number of those which believed at the first. For those other of whom he maketh mention remained indifferent; because they did neither wholly despise Paul’s doctrine, neither were they so thoroughly touched, that they joined themselves unto him that they might be his scholars. Luke maketh mention of Dionysius above the rest, because he was in no small authority among his citizens. Therefore, it is likely that Damaris was also a woman of some renown, [rank.] − <\/p>\n Furthermore, it is ridiculous in that the Papists [have] made of a judge an astrologer. But this is to be imputed partly to their ignorance, partly to their boldness, − (309) who, seeing they knew not what Areopagus or Mars’ Street meant, took to themselves liberty to feign whatsoever they would. And their rudeness is too gross, who ascribe the books of the heavenly and ecclesiastical hierarchy, and of the names of God, to this Dionysius. For the heavenly hierarchy is stuffed not only with many doltish and monkish trifles, but also with many absurd inventions, and wicked speculations. And the books of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy do themselves declare that they were made many years after, when as the purity of Christianity was corrupt with an huge heap of ceremonies. As for the book of the names of God, though it have in it some things which are not altogether to be despised, yet it doth rather breathe out subtilties than sound godliness. <\/p>\n (309) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Audaciae,” effrontery. <\/p>\n (34) Certain men clave unto him.<\/strong>The word implies practically both companionship and conversion. There was an attractive power in the Apostles character that drew men unto him.<\/p>\n Dionysius the Areopagite.<\/strong>As the constitution of the Court of the Areopagus required its members to have filled a high magisterial function, such as that of Archon, and to be above sixty, the convert must have been a man of some note. According to a tradition, ascribed by Eusebius (Hist.<\/em> iii. 4, iv. 23) to Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, he became Bishop of Athens. An elaborate treatise on the Hierarchy of Heaven, Cherubim, Seraphim, Thrones, Dominations, and the like, is extant under his name, but is obviously of much later date, probably of the fourth or fifth century. The legend of the Seven Champions of Christendom has transformed him into the St. Denys of France. A church dedicated to him stands on the Areopagus of modern Athens.<\/p>\n Damaris.<\/strong>Chrysostom says that she was the wife of Dionysius, but this is obviously only a conjecture.<\/p>\n And others with them.<\/strong>The contrast between this and the great multitude, the many at Thessalonica and Bera, is very significant. Not less striking is the absence of any reference to Athens in St. Pauls Epistles. Of all the cities which he visited, it was that with which he had least sympathy. All that can be said is that he may have included them among the saints which are in all Achaia (2Co. 1:1<\/span>) in his prayers and hopes. It would almost seem as if he felt that little was gained by entering into a discussion on the great questions of natural theology; and therefore he came to Corinth, determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified (1Co. 2:2<\/span>).<\/p>\n 34<\/strong>. <\/strong> Dionysius<\/strong> One eminent man, and one woman <\/strong> sufficiently notable to be named<\/strong>, with a few others nameless, who appear not to have been organized into a Church, were the converts of that day. Unreliable tradition, however, makes Dionysius a future bishop of Athens, and a volume of mythical theology, by some unknown writer, is falsely ascribed to his authorship.<\/p>\n Opposite as were the tempers and causes which produced the rejection of Jesus by the Jews and the Athenians, they were at bottom the same traditional prepossession. What the Temple, and Moses, and the Old Testament were to the Jew, that the Acropolis, the tutelar Athene, and philosophy, were to the Athenian a binder of his whole soul to the proud past, filling him with contempt for the innovator. Alike against the Temple and the Acropolis the apostle pronounced the divine protest, and left his irrevocable words of destruction upon both, to be fulfilled by time and Providence.<\/p>\n It was Athens, not Paul, that suffered that day the real defeat. She lost an honourable record in Christian history. She lost the honour of being the Fourth Great European Church. <\/em> Though repeatedly passed, she was, probably, never revisited by the apostle. She was addressed by no apostolic epistle, received no honourable New Testament mention. When we speak of the Greek Church, we think not so readily of Athens as of Antioch, of Corinth, of Constantinople, or even of St. Petersburg.<\/p>\n ‘But certain men clave to him, and believed, among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.’<\/p>\n The result of Paul’s activity in Athens was a number of believers, which included prominent people. ‘They clave to him’. That is, they firmly took their stand with him. Dionysisus the Areopagite was presumably a member of the council. Damaris may have been the wife of an important official, one of the ‘honourable women’. She may have been in the Areopagus with her husband (in a place like Athens provision might have been made for important women to hear proceedings), or she may have been a God-fearer who was present in the synagogue earlier. She may even have become a prominent prophetess. Or she may have been a well known courtesan of the marketplace whose conversion was seen as outstanding and who was now a living example of walking with Christ. There must have been some reason for her mention, for whichever way it was, she was clearly expected to be known to many of Luke’s readers.<\/p>\n It should be noted that this statement is intended to indicate success, not failure. Note the ‘certain men’, linked with Dionysius, which suggests important figures, in contrast with the ‘others with them’. Luke found many different ways in which to express such success, which often, if taken literally, suggested limited response. We have to read behind the lines. In Cyprus it was by the conversion of a pro-consul. In Philippi it was by the conversion of two households and possibly a slave girl. Here, in a small city, probably without an influential synagogue, a number of outstanding people were converted, along with a number of others. The nucleus of a church had been formed, as at Philippi.<\/p>\n Thus whether we see the visit to Athens as a success or a failure depends largely on how we read it and where we put our emphasis. Luke gives no hint of failure here that has not been given in success stories elsewhere. He was much too honest to suggest that the Areopagus were all converted, any more than he had earlier made the suggestion about the Sanhedrin. He certainly does not give the impression of huge numbers, but we would not expect that in a place like Athens where people were more likely to think about things for a while, and there were here no large gatherings.<\/p>\n It is often pointed out that we hear nothing elsewhere of a church in Athens. But if we judged success on that basis we would assume failure at many places. It is in fact always assumed in Acts that where men have believed a church will be established in one way or another, and no first visit in Acts ever does record the establishment of a church. The actual establishing of churches is usually only referred to on a return visit, so as to explain the visit, and we know of no return visit to Athens. Paul was no doubt satisfied that the church at Athens, with prominent people in charge, could hold its own. There was certainly a flourishing church there in 2nd century AD and later (we know little about the mid 1st century AD apart from Acts), and it produced prominent members.<\/p>\n Some have suggested that Paul failed to gain the approval of the Areopagus and was therefore afterwards forbidden to speak. But that is purely surmise and assumes what is not proved, that the Areopagus could have prevented him from preaching. Two doubtful surmises do not make a strong case. More probably he simply recognised that a greater opportunity awaited in the much larger Corinth. (Like the Apostles he would surely have declared, ‘I cannot but speak the things that I have seen and heard’).<\/p>\n Act 17:34<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Dionysius the Areopagite,<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> As the court of Areopagus <\/em>consisted of those who had bornethe office of archon, <\/em>and such of the nobility as were eminent for their virtue and riches; as the most rigid manners were required of its members; and even their countenances, words, and actions, were required to be serious and grave, to a degree beyond what was expected from any other, even the most virtuous men, the acquisition of such a convert as Dionysius <\/em>must, under the blessingof God, have done singular service to the Christian cause, and shewn it in a respectable light. <\/p>\n Inferences.<\/em><\/strong>Nothing can be more striking than the conduct of St. Paul at Athens; more particularly if it be contrasted with the behaviour of the philosophers and wise men of the heathen world. He himself has asserted, that even those of them who knew God, did not glorify him as God. To prove the truth of this assertion, by an induction of particulars, would carry us beyond the limits of a work like this: but yet the point is too material to be passed over in silence. Let us then consider the case of one only; but of one, who among the good men in the heathen world was the best, and among the wise ones the wisest; I mean Socrates, the great philosopher of Athens. And were the wise men of antiquity to plead their cause in common, they could not put their defence into better hands. <\/p>\n We have an account of the speculative opinions of many of the wise men of Greece, preserved to us in authors of great credit; but of their practice and personal behaviour in life, little is said: which makes it hard to judge how far their own practice and conduct were influenced by their opinions, or how consistent they were in pursuing the consequences of their own doctrines. The case might have been the same with Socrates, had not a very particular circumstance put him under a necessity of explaining his conduct with respect to the religion of his country. St. Paul was in the same situation, as related in the chapter before us. He was accused in the same city of Athens of the same crimethat he was a setter forth of strange gods; <\/em>and before the same great court of Areopagites, he made his apology. We have then the greatest and the ablest among the wise men of Greece, and an apostle of Christ, in the same circumstances; we have heard the Philosopher’s <\/em>defence that he worshipped the gods of his country, and as his country worshipped them. Let us now take a view of the apostle’s <\/em>“Ye men of Athens, <\/em>&c.” Act 17:22-31<\/span>.a defence, which he closes with calling upon them, in the name of that great God whom he describes, to repent of their superstition and idolatry, which God would no longer bear, because he hath appointed a day, <\/em>&c. <\/p>\n Which now of these two was a preacher of true religion? Let those who value human reason at the highest rate, determine the point. The city of Athens soon grew sensible of the injury done to the best and wisest of their citizens, and of their own great mistake in putting Socrates to death. His accusers and his judges became infamous; and the people grew extravagant in doing honours to the memory of the innocent sufferer. They erected a statue, nay, a temple to his memory; and his name was had in honour and reverence. His doctrines upon the subjects of divinity and morality were introduced into the world, with all the advantage that the ablest and politest pens could give; and they became the study and entertainment of all the considerable men of Greece and Rome who lived after him. Let us consider, on the other side, what was the consequence of preaching the gospel. <\/em>St. Paul entertained the Athenians with no fine speculations; but he laid before them, in the plainest dress, the great and momentous truths of religion: he openly rebuked their idolatry, and condemned their superstition. The gospel was published in the same manner every where. The first preachers of it were enabled to support it by miracles, and most of them shed their blood in defence of its truth. <\/p>\n By these means they <\/em>came likewise to have credit and authority in the world: but in these two cases there was this great difference: the corrupt example of Socrates <\/em>was a dead weight upon the purity of his doctrine, <\/em>and tended to perpetuate superstition in the world. The authority and example of St. Paul and the other apostles went hand in hand, and, under the grace of God, united their force to root out idolatry. There was likewise this farther difference: The doctrine of Socrates could go only among the learned: the doctrines of the gospel were artless and plain, and suited to every man’s capacity. <\/p>\n For near 400 years the disciples of Socrates <\/em>had the world to themselves, to reform it, if they could. In all which time there is no evidence remaining, that the religion of the world was the better for their wisdom. But in much less time the gospel <\/em>prevailed in most parts of the known world: wherever it came, superstition and idolatry fled before it; and in little more than three centuries the Roman empire became visibly Christian, which completed the victory over the Heathen deities. And if we may judge by this comparison, between the wisest of men, and an apostle of Christ, the words of that apostle <\/em>will appear fully verified, where he declares that the world by wisdom knew not God, <\/em>and that by the foolishness of preaching God has provided salvation for them who believe. <\/em>1Co 1:21<\/span>. <\/p>\n If then it appears from history, and the experience of the world before us, that men for ages together lived in ignorance of the true God, and of true religion; and that reason <\/em>was not at all able to contend against inveterate errors and superstitions; let us not be so vain as to imagine that we <\/em>could have done more in the same circumstances than all or any who lived in the many ages of idolatry. If we consider to what height arts and sciences were carried in those days, and the politeness of Greece and Rome in all parts of learning, we shall have little reason to imagine that men have grown wiser in worldly wisdom, as the world has grown older. If we have more light in matters of religion, (and undoubtedly we have more,) it should lead us to consider to whom we are indebted for the happy change; and to give all the praise to him, to whom alone we are indebted for it. <\/p>\n If then the means made use of to introduce the gospel into the world, were such as were infinitely proper and necessary to subdue vice, and error, and prejudice; if the great truths of Christianity have been propagated from age to age by methods which from experience have been found effectual to the salvation of all that truly and perseveringly believe:if we discover these marks in the gospel, surely we see enough to convince us, that the gospel is the power of God, and the wisdom of God, unto salvation.<\/em> <\/p>\n REFLECTIONS.<\/strong>1st, As the style of this and the following chapter changes from we <\/em>to they,<\/em> it has been conjectured that St. Luke staid at Philippi till St. Paul returned thither, ch. Act 20:5-6<\/span>. His farther travels are here recorded. <\/p>\n 1. He, with his companions, Silas and Timothy, passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia; whether he preached in either of these places, is not said; his route was directed probably under a divine impulse to Thessalonica. Not discouraged by his ill usage at Philippi, he was bold in his God, to speak the gospel unto them also, 1Th 2:2<\/span> and, as his manner was, having found there a synagogue of Jews, he went in unto them, to make them the first tender of the gospel word. Three sabbath-days successively he reasoned with them out of the scriptures; <\/em>and as they admitted the sacred authority of Moses and the prophets, he appealed to their writings in proof of the doctrines which he advanced, opening <\/em>their scope and intention; and <\/em>particularly by the texts which related to the Messiah, alledging <\/em>from them, that Christ, <\/em>far from being that temporal king and earthly conqueror which they expected, must needs have suffered, <\/em>in order to obtain spiritual and eternal redemption for his faithful saints, and <\/em>must have risen again from the dead, <\/em>in proof of his having completed the great work of atonement which he had undertaken; evidently proving from the scriptures, that these things must be accomplished in the Messiah; and that this Jesus whom I preach unto you, is Christ, <\/em>in whom all the prophesies concerning the Messiah were fulfilled, and in no other; and that therefore this must be he that should come, nor must they look for another. <\/p>\n 2. His preaching was powerful and convincing, and the Spirit of truth set it home to the consciences of many of his hearers. Some of them, <\/em>who were Jews, believed, and <\/em>made immediate profession of the truth which they had embraced; they consorted with Paul and Silas, <\/em>as casting in their lot with them, and ready to share their weal and woe; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. <\/em>Thus the foundations were laid of a most flourishing church; multitudes of Gentiles, as well as proselytes, being converted by the great apostle’s labours, 1Th 1:9<\/span>. <\/p>\n 3. No where could they find rest from the malice of their inveterate enemies. The Jews which believed not, moved with envy <\/em>at the success of St. Paul’s preaching, and the respect paid to him by the Gentiles, as well as by many of their own synagogue, took unto them certain lewd fellows, of the baser sort, and gathered a company, <\/em>a profligate mob, the scum of the earth; and <\/em>by these they set all the city on an uproar, <\/em>raising a riot against the preachers of the gospel; and assaulted the house of Jason, <\/em>where St. Paul and his companions lodged; and sought to bring them out to the people, <\/em>that they might expose them to the exasperated populace. And when they found them not, <\/em>they having prudently withdrawn for their security, they drew Jason, and certain brethren <\/em>who were at his house, unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down, are come hither also, <\/em>spreading their pestilential errors, to the destruction of all peace and good neighbourhood, and sowing the seeds of discord and sedition to the ruin of the state; whom<\/em> <\/p>\n Jason hath received <\/em>into his house, countenanced, and abetted. And these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, <\/em>and evidently shew their disaffection and disloyalty to his government, saying, that there is another king, one Jesus, <\/em>who is universal Lord of all, <\/em>to whom every knee must bow, in opposition to Caesar our only Lord and emperor. And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things, <\/em>lest some rebellion was really in meditation, or lest the jealous emperor Claudius should entertain suspicions of their negligence, however innocent they knew the apostles to be, and however satisfied they were of the injustice of the accusation. Note; <\/em>(1.) They who are the enemies and disturbers of the people of God, are usually the vilest of mankind, abandoned profligates, lost to all sense of justice and virtue. (2.) If men offend, the magistrates are to judge; but to make the rabble judges and executioners, is to place madness on the seat of justice. (3.) It has been a common accusation, that the gospel turns the world upside down, and creates all disturbances; but they who bring the charge, will not see that they themselves are the troublers, and that their own passions and perverseness occasion the very evils of which they complain. (4.) The kingdom of Jesus is far from interfering with the civil government; nay, it is one essential part of it to be submissive to the powers that are; so malicious is the accusation of those who would insinuate its dangerous tendency to the peace of kingdoms. <\/p>\n 4. The magistrates, on inquiry, finding no ground for the accusation, discharged Jason and his friends, on security taken for their appearance, if required. And thus ended this threatening affair, through the moderation of the rulers, without any farther ill consequence. 2. These Jews of Berea were more noble than those in Thessalonica, <\/em>free from prejudices, more candid inquirers after truth, of more enlarged sentiments, and ready to give a fair hearing to those who differed from them in opinion; and therefore they received the word with all readiness of mind, <\/em>embracing it most cheerfully, as soon as they were convinced of the truth; and, <\/em>not taking the matter upon trust, they searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so; <\/em>comparing diligently St. Paul’s preaching with the scriptures to which he appealed, and examining carefully the passages which he explained, that they might comprehend their genuine meaning. Note; <\/em>(1.) The doctrines of the gospel fear no scrutiny; we wish for nothing more, than that our hearers would seriously examine whether these things be so. (2.) Searching the scriptures should be our daily business and delight; and their minds will be filled with noble and exalted sentiments and principles, who follow in simplicity these sacred oracles. <\/p>\n 3. Great was the effect of St. Paul’s preaching, on minds so disposed to examine candidly into what they heard. Many <\/em>of the Jews believed: also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.<\/em> <\/p>\n 4. The inveterate malice of the Jews will not suffer the apostle to rest in peace in any place. Hearing of the success of the word of God at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people, <\/em>using every calumny to incense the mob against them. <\/p>\n 5. The brethren at Berea, knowing that against St. Paul the malice of the Jews was principally levelled, sent him away, to go as it were to the sea, <\/em>to prevent farther search. But Silas and Timotheus abode still <\/em>at Berea, to confirm the disciples, and carry on the work of God. <\/p>\n 6. St. Paul, with those who accompanied him, took the road to Athens, where was the most renowned university of Greece; and, when the brethren returned, he sent orders to Silas and Timothy to follow him speedily. 2. The philosophers, with whom this seat of Grecian literature abounded, could not silently pass by, unnoticed, this zealous disputant; and therefore some of the Stoics and Epicureans, their two most famed sects, though in opinions utterly opposite, united their forces against him. Some of them with great contempt said, What will this babbler say? <\/em>prating at this strange rate? Others, with indignation at his attempt to introduce what they thought new deities, said, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods, <\/em>or foreign demons, because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.<\/em> <\/p>\n 3. In order to hear at large what he had to say for himself, they brought him to Areopagus, a hill dedicated to Mars, where the supreme court of the judges sat, who determined all matters, civil or religious; and, a number of philosophers being assembled, they said, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. <\/em>Among all the volumes which crowded their libraries, the writings of Moses and the prophets, probably, were unknown to them: and since their professed research was after truth, they desired to hear a full account of the doctrine which he maintained and inculcated. And, in this matter, curiosity seems to have prompted them more than any real desire of being informed; it being the character of the Athenians in general, that they, and the strangers who resorted thither, spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing. Note; <\/em>It is a miserable abuse of precious time, thus to spend it in gaping after news and novelty; and, instead of real wisdom, can only produce superficial talkativeness. <\/p>\n 4thly, Never was discourse more admirably suited to the auditory, than this of St. Paul’s. Having now to do, not with Jews who admitted revelation, but with idolatrous philosophers, who, amid their innumerable deities, were without God in the world, the apostle sets himself to lead them to the knowledge of him, whom they ignorantly worshipped. 2. He informs them, that he had particularly observed on one of their altars this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD, which, though a confession of their ignorance, intimated a desire to know and worship him; and many have thought that this altar was dedicated to the God of Israel, whose name Jehovah, <\/em>the Jews never pronounced. <\/p>\n 3. He tells them that this God whom they ignorantly worshipped, him declared he unto them; not as a setter forth of strange <\/em>gods, to add to their number other deities, nor of new <\/em>gods; but to bring them to the knowledge of him, who was the only living and true God, and to direct them how he was acceptably to be served; whom they with blind devotion adored, though unknown. So prudently and persuasively does he introduce and urge the glorious truths he had to deliver, even from the idolatry which he condemned. <\/p>\n 4. He describes the God that he preached, as the great Creator, Governor, and Lord of all; the author of life and being to every creature, and who filleth heaven and earth with his presence. He made the world, and all things therein, <\/em>which sprung not from a fortuitous concourse of atoms, nor subsisted from eternity, as the different sects of philosophers taught, but was the work of the Almighty, and spoken into being at his word; who, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, <\/em>the author and owner of all, dwelleth not in temples made with hands, <\/em>nor can his immensity be circumscribed by these narrow bounds: neither is worshipped, <\/em>or served with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, <\/em>images, shrines, temples, or offerings, to increase his felicity; who is in himself infinitely blessed and glorious, and incapable of receiving any addition to his self-sufficient happiness; seeing <\/em>all that the creature possesses, comes from him; for he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; <\/em>their being, with all the supports and comforts of it, they receive from him, but can add nothing to him: and hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth, <\/em>who are originally descended from the same pair, which should stain the pride of pedigree, and teach us to love as brethren; and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation, <\/em>has ordained the regular seasons of the year, (see Gen 1:14<\/span>.-viii. 22.) and has fixed the limits of the habitations of the different nations of the earth. See the Annotations. And in all the dispensations of his providence, the end that he proposes is, that they should seek the Lord, <\/em>engaged by all the kindness and bounties of his providential hand, if haply, <\/em>amid the darkness, blindness, and ignorance of their fallen minds, they might feel after him, and find him, <\/em>groping as the blind, through the creatures, and rising from the consideration of the visible objects around them, to the knowledge of his eternal power and Godhead: though he be not far from every one of us, <\/em>filling heaven and earth with his presence, and exerting in every place his perpetual agency; for in him we live, and move, and have our being; <\/em>brought into being by his power, supported by his providence, and preserved by his care; as certain also of your own poets have said, <\/em>particularly Aratus, For we are also his offspring. Note; <\/em>(1.) He who gave us our being, has a full right to dispose of us according to the good pleasure of his will: to murmur at our lot, is to rebel against his providence. (2.) We can never be thankful enough for that blessed book of God, which teaches more substantial wisdom in one page, yea, in one line, than is contained in all the volumes of poets and philosophers. <\/p>\n 5. As the consequence of the doctrine which he advanced, he infers the absurdity of idolatry, and exhorts them to turn unto the living God. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, <\/em>created by him, and in his image, we ought not <\/em>to put so gross an affront upon him, as to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone graven by art or man’s device, <\/em>however rich the materials, or exquisite the workmanship. And the times of this ignorance God winked at, <\/em>with wondrous patience and long-suffering bearing with these abominations; but now, <\/em>in the superabundant riches of his grace, overlooking all that is past, he is pleased to make a revelation of himself and his designs to the world in general; and commandeth all men every where to repent, <\/em>engaging them thereunto by the most encouraging promises of pardon and acceptance through a Redeemer, and warning them by all the awful judgments which will descend on the heads of those who persist in their impenitence and idolatry; Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
He had talked so freely of the heathen deities, and the ridiculous stories told of them, that he fell under a suspicion of despising the gods of his country, and of teaching the youth of Athens to despise their altars and their worship. Upon this accusation, he is summoned before the great court of the Areopagites, and happily the apology he made for himself is preserved to us by two of the ablest of his scholars, and the best writers of antiquity, Plato and Xenophon; and from both their accounts it appears, that Socrates maintained and asserted before his judges, that he worshipped the gods of his country, and that he sacrificed in private and in public upon the allowed altars, and according to the rites and customs of the city. After this public confession, so authentically reported by two so able hands, there can be no doubt of his case. He was an idolater, and had not, by his great knowledge and ability in reasoning, delivered himself from the practice of the superstition of his country. We see how far the wisdom of the world <\/em>could go; let us now observe what the foolishness of preaching <\/em>could do in the very same case. <\/p>\n
The manner in which Socrates died, was one of the calmest and the bravest in the world, and excludes all pretence to say that he dissembled his opinion and practice before his judges out of any fear or meanness of spiritvices, with which he was never taxed.
Consider we then,Was it possible for any man, upon the authority of Socrates, <\/em>to open his mouth against the idolatry of the heathen world, or to make use of his name for that purpose, who had so solemnly, in the face of his country, and before the greatest judicature of Greece, borne testimony to the gods of his country, and the worship paid them? <\/p>\n
It is also well worth observing, that from the death of Socrates to the birth of Christ, were about 400 years; a time sufficient to make the experiment, how far the wisdom of Socrates, attended with all the advantages before mentioned, could go in reforming the world. And what was the effect of all this? Can we name the place <\/em>where religion was reformed? Can we name the man <\/em>who was so far reformed, as to renounce the superstition of his country? None such are to be found: and how should there? since the greater the credit and reputation of Socrates, the more strongly did they draw men to imitate his example, and to worship as their country worshipped. <\/p>\n
2nd, Though, to avoid the present storm, St. Paul and his companions judged it most prudent to fly from Thessalonica, the Lord had work for them to do elsewhere.
1. The brethren sent them away by night unto Berea, <\/em>to conceal them from the fury of their persecutors; and no sooner were they arrived, than they took the first opportunity of going into the synagogue of the Jews, to preach the gospel to them, evil-entreated as they had so lately been by them at Philippi and Thessalonica. True charity is never weary of well-doing, nor tired out with repeated provocations. <\/p>\n
3rdly, While St. Paul waited at Athens for the arrival of his fellow-labourers, we are told,
1. With what grief and indignation he beheld the idolatry of the inhabitants, and what zeal burned in his bosom on seeing their abominations. Unable, therefore, to restrain himself any longer, he entered the synagogue; beginning, as usual, with the Jews and devout proselytes, disputing mildly with them, and answering all their objections against that Messiah whom he preached unto them: and not resting there, he daily talked with those whom he met in the places of public concourse, remonstrating against their absurd idolatry, and seeking to turn them from those stocks and stones which they worshipped, to the service of the living God. Note; <\/em>When we have Christ’s cause at heart, we shall be ready to speak a word for him in all companies, and have his interests constantly uppermost. <\/p>\n
1. In the midst of a numerous audience of senators, philosophers, and others, who desired to hear what he had to say, he begins with a general remark, which he had made during his abode among them; Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious, <\/em>more addicted to the worship of gods, or demons, than other people; which he mentions, not perhaps with a view immediately to upbraid them with it as their crime, but to engage their attention to his discourse, as persons of more than ordinary professed devotion. <\/p>\n