236 THE GRANITE MONTHLY.
ment wherewith his body was enibah-ned." It was after this record that the body of the Apostle was removed to Constantinople by Constantine, in the year 337. and buried in the church which was built by him, and taken down some hun- dred years thereafter by Emperor Justinian, in order to its reparation, at which time the body of Andrew was found in a wooden coffin, and was again depos- ited in its proper place. There is another record concerning the relics of St. Andrew, which states that when the city of Constantinople was captured by the French, Cardinal Peter of Capua, brought the relics of St. Andrew from thence into Italy in 12 10, and deijositcd them in the Cathedral of Araalphi.
George Phranza, the last of the Byzantine historians, relates that when the Turks became masters of Constantinople, " Thomas the Despot," in going from Greece into Italy, carried with him the head of St. Andrew and presented it to Pope Pius II. in the year 146 1, vvho allotted to him a monastery for his dwelling with a competent revenue.
In the early ages the bones of the Saints were greatly venerated, especially those supposed to belong to an Apostle. In addition to the disposition already named, it is stated t!;at an arm bone of St. Andrew was given to St Gregory the Great, by Tiberius IL ; another was deposited at Notre Dame at Paris ; and oilier bonesdisiii! uted lo certain churches and monasteries at Bordeaux, Rheims, Brussels, Orleans, Muan, Aix, and other places, which consider themselves en- riched by their possession.
It is represented that at the time Constantinople was taken, and the relics of St. Andrew dispersed, a lively and intense enthusiasm for the Aposde was excited throughout ail Christendom. The inspired account of St. Andrew is confined to a few verses in the Gospels :( — Matthew 4 : 18 — -lo : 2 ; Mark i : 16—29—13 : ;i—^ : i8 ; Luke 5 : 2—6 : 14 ; John i : 35, 40, 44—6 : 8-9— 12 : 22 ; — Acts i : 13.) The apparent discrepancy (in John i : 40, 41, with Matthew 4:18 and Mark 1:16,) where Andrew and Peter appear to have been called together is easily reconciled. St. John relates the first introduction of the brothers to Jesus ; the other evangehsts their formal call to follow Him in his ministry. In the catalogue of the Apostles, Andrew appears in Matthew (10:2, Luke 6 : 14,) as second, next after his brother Peter ; but in Mark (3:18. Acts I : 13,) as fourth, following Peter, James and John, and in company with Philip, which is probably considered by some as his real place of dignity among the Apostles ; but St. Andrew, Scotland's illustrious patron — that grand and intrepid Apostle of the primitive church, stands pre-eminent as the " first born of the Apostolic quire." He had the distinguished honor of being the first disciple who came to Jesus — the first Christian believer — the first preacher of the Gospel under the new dispensation, and fully represented in himself the first complete embodiment of the Christian church in miniature.
Nicephorus pretends on the authority of Euodius, who was St. Peter's im- mediate successor in the See of Antioch for twenty-three years, and in whose time the disciples were first called Christians, " that of all the Apostles, Christ baptized none but Peter with his own hands ; that Peter baptized Andrew and the two sons of Zebedee, and they the rest of the Apostles." Baronius, how- ever, contends that the Epistle of Euodius was " altogether unknown to any of the ancients." There is a book bearing the title of "The Acts of Andrew " as well the " Gospel of St. Andrew," which by a decree of Pope Galasius, was declared ajDOcryphal ; and " The Acts of Andrew and Matthew," are also regarded as spurious. Cardinal M'Closky in a sermon on the " Immaculate Conception," December 7, 1877, refers to "the earliest liturgies of the church, in the liturgy of St. James and in that of St. Andrew."
Each of the Apostles had his mission. Continuing with the Saviour until the crucifixion, the world was so divided after the day of Pentecost, as to
�� �
