THE LIVES OF THE APOSTLES.
The word APOSTLE has been adopted into all the languages of Christendom, from the Greek, in which the earliest records of the Christian history are given to us. In that language, the corresponding word is derived from a verb which means “send,” so that the simplest primary meaning of the derivative is “one sent;” and in all the uses of the word this meaning is kept in view. Of its ordinary meanings, the most frequent was that of “a person employed at a distance to execute the commands, or exercise the authority, of the supreme power,” in which sense it was appropriated as the title of an embassador, a messenger, or a naval commander; and it is used to designate all these officers in the classic Grecian writers. In reference to its general, and probably not to any technical meaning, it was applied by Jesus Christ to those of his followers whom he chose as the objects of his most careful instruction, and as the inheritors of his power; whom thus indued, he sent into all the world, to preach the gospel to every creature. The use of the term in connection with this high and holy commission, did not give it such a character of peculiar sanctity or dignity, as to limit its application among Christians of the early ages, to the chosen ministers of Christ’s own appointment; but it is applied even in the writings of the New Testament, as well as by the Grecian and Latin fathers of the churches, to other persons of inferior rank, that might be included under its primary meaning. It was also extended, in the peculiar sense in which Christ first applied it, from the twelve to other eminent and successful preachers of the gospel who were contemporary with them, and to some of their successors.
[It will be noticed that, throughout this book, the text is, on many pages, broken by matters thrown in at the ends of paragraphs, in smaller type. The design is, that these notes, thus running through the body of the work, shall contain all such particulars as would too much break the thread of the story if made a part of the common text, and yet are of the highest importance as illustrations, explanations, and proofs of passages in the history. In many places, there will be need of references to history, antiquities, topography, and various collateral helps, to make the story understood. All these things are here given in minute type, proportioned to the minuteness of the investigations therein followed. Being separated in this way, they need be no hindrance to those who do not wish to learn the reasons and proofs of things, since all such can pass them by at once, and keep the thread of the narrative, in the larger type, unbroken.
This first note being a mere exegesis of a single word, is the least attractive of all to a common reader; and some, perhaps, will object to it as needlessly protracted into minute investigations of points not directly important to the narrative; and the writer may have been led beyond the necessity of the case, by the circumstance of his previous occupations having drawn his attention particularly to close etymological and lexicographical research in the Greek language; but he is consoled by the belief that there will be some among his readers who can appreciate and enjoy these minutiæ.]
Apostle.——The most distant theme, to which this word can be traced in Greek, is the verb Στελλω, stello, which enters into the composition of Αποστελλω, apostello, from which apostle is directly derived.
As to the primary meaning of Στελλω, there appears to be some difference of opinion among lexicographers. All the common lexicons give to the meaning “send” the first place, as the original sense from which all the others are formed, by different applications of the term. But a little examination into the history of the word, in its uses by the earlier Greeks, seems to give reason for a different arrangement of the meanings.
In searching for the original force of a Greek word, the first reference must, of course, be to the father of Grecian song and story. In Homer, this word, στελλω, is found in such a variety of connections, as to give the most desirable opportunities for reaching its primary meaning. Yet in none of these passages does it stand in such a relation to other words, as to require the meaning of “send.” Only a single passage in Homer has ever been supposed to justify the translation of the word in this sense, and even that is translated with equal force and justice, and far more in analogy with the usages of Homer, by the meaning of “equip,” or “prepare,” which is the idea expressed by it in all other passages where it is used by that author. (See Damm, sub voc.) This is the meaning which the learned Valckenaer gives as the true primary signification of this word, from which, in the revolutions of later usage, the secondary meanings have been derived. In this opinion I have been led to acquiesce, by the historical investigation of the earlier uses of the term, and by the consideration of the natural transition from the primary meaning of “fix,” “equip,” or “fit out,” to that of “send,” and other secondary meanings, all which occur only in the later authors. Pindar limits it like Homer. Herodotus never uses the word in the sense of “send,” but confines it to the meaning of “equip,” “furnish,” “clothe.” Æschylus gives it the meaning of “go,” but not of “send.” Sophocles and Euripides also exclude this application of the term.
This brief allusion to these early authorities will be sufficient, without a prolonged investigation, to show that the meaning of “send” was not, historically, the first signification. But a still more rational ground for this opinion is found in the natural order of transition in sense, which would be followed in the later applications of the word. It is perfectly easy to see how, from this primary meaning of “fix,” or “equip,” when applied to a person, in reference to an expedition or any distant object, would insensibly originate the meaning of “send;” since, in most cases, to equip or fix out an expedition or a messenger, is to commission and send one. In this way, all the secondary meanings flow naturally from this common theme, but if the order should be inverted in respect to any one of them, the beautiful harmony of derivation would be lost at once. There is no other of the meanings of στελλω which can be thus taken as the natural source of all the rest, and shown to originate them in its various secondary applications. The meanings of “array,” “dress,” “adorn,” “take in,” &c., are all deducible from the original idea conveyed by στελλω, and are, like “send,” equally incapable of taking the rank of the primary meaning.
In tracing the minute and distant etymology of this word, it is worth noticing that the first element in στελλω is the sound st, which is at once recognized by oriental scholars as identical with the Sanscrit and Persian root st, bearing in those and in many combinations in the various languages of their stock, the idea of “fixity.” This idea is prominent in the primary meaning of στελλω given by Passow, who, in his Greek lexicon, (almost the only classical one that properly classifies and deduces the meanings of words,) gives the German word stellen as the original ground-meaning of the term before us. This is best expressed in English by “fix,” in all its vagueness of meaning, from which, in the progress of use, are deduced the various secondary senses in which στελλω is used, which here follow in order:
1. Equip, Fit out, Arrange, Prepare. In this sense it is applied to armaments, both to hosts and to individuals, and thus in reference to warlike preparations expresses nearly the idea of “Arm.” This is, it seems to me, the meaning of the word in the verse of Homer already alluded to. The passage is in the Iliad xii. 325, where Sarpedon is addressing Glaucus, and says, “If we could hope, my friend, after escaping this contest, to shun forever old age and death, I would neither myself fight among the foremost, nor prepare you for the glorious strife.” (Or as Heyne more freely renders it, hortarer, “urge,” or “incite.”) The inappropriateness of the meaning “send,” given in this place by Clark, (mitterem) and one of the scholiasts, (πεμποιμι) consists in the fact, that the hero speaking was himself to accompany or rather lead his friend into the deadly struggle, and of course could not be properly said to send him, if he went with him or before him. It was the partial consideration of this circumstance, no doubt, which led the same scholiast to offer as an additional probable meaning, that of “prepare,” “make ready,” (παρασκευαζοιμι,) as though he had some misgiving about the propriety of his first translation. For a full account of these renderings, see Heyne in loc. and Stephens’s Thesaurus sub voc. In the latter also, under the second paragraph of Στελλω, are given numerous other passages illustrating this usage, in passive and middle as well as active forms, both from Homer and later writers. In Passow’s Griechisch Wörterbuch, other useful references are given sub voc.; and in Damm is found the best account of its uses in Homer.
2. In the applications of the word in this first meaning, the idea of equipment or preparation was always immediately followed by that of future action, for the very notion of equipment or preparation implies some departure or undertaking immediately subsequent. In the transitive sense, when the subject of the verb is the instrument of preparing another person for the distant purpose, there immediately arises the signification of “send,” constituting the second branch of definition, which has been so unfortunately mistaken for the root, by all the common lexicographers. In the reflexive sense, when the subject prepares himself for the expected action, in the same manner originates, at once, the meaning “go,” which is found, therefore, the prominent secondary sense of the middle voice, and also of the active, when, as is frequent in Greek verbs, that voice assumes a reflexive force. The origin of these two definitions, apparently so incongruous with the rest and with each other, is thus made consistent and clear; and the identity of origin here shown, justifies the arrangement of them both together in this manner.
The tracing out of the other meanings of this word from the ground-meaning, would be abundantly interesting to many; but all that can be here allowed, is the discussion of precedence between the first two, here given. Those who desire to pursue the research, have most able guides in the great German lexicographers, whose materials have been useful in illustrating what is here given. For abundant references illustrating these various meanings, see H. Stephens’s Thesaurus, Scapula’s, Damm’s, Schneider’s, Passow’s, Donnegan’s, Porti’s, and Jones’s Lexicons.
The simple verb στελλω, thus superabundantly illustrated, among its numerous combinations with other words, is compounded with the preposition απο, (apo,) making the verb Αποστελλω, (apostello.) This preposition having the force of “away,” “from,” when united with a verb, generally adds to it the idea of motion off from some object. Thus αποστελλω acquires by this addition the sense of “away,” which however only gives precision and force to the meaning “send,” which belongs to the simple verb. By prefixing this preposition, the verb is always confined to the definition “send,” and the compound never bears any other of the definitions of στελλω but this. The simple verb without the prefix expresses the idea of “send” only in certain peculiar relations with other words, while the compound, limited and aided by the preposition, always implies action directed “away from” the agent to a distance, and thus conveys the primary idea of “send,” so invariably, that it is used in no passage in which this word will not express its meaning. From this compound verb thus defined, is directly formed the substantive which is the true object and end of this protracted research.
Αποστολος, (Apostolos) is derived from the preceding verb by changing the penult vowel Ε into Ο, and displacing the termination of the verb by that of the noun. The change of the penult vowel is described in the grammars as caused by its being derived from the perfect middle, which has this peculiarity in its penult. The noun preserves in all its uses the uniform sense of the verb from which it is derived, and in every instance maintains the primary idea of “a person or thing sent.” It was often used adjectively with a termination varying according to the gender of the substantive to which it referred. In this way it seems to have been used by Herodotus, who gives it the termination corresponding to the neuter, when the substantive to which it refers is in that gender. (See Porti Dictionarium Ionicum Græco Latinum.) Herodotus is the earliest author in whom I am able to discover the word, for Homer never uses the word at all, nor does any author, as far as I know, previous to the father of history. Though always preserving the primary idea of the word, he varies its meaning considerably, according as he applies it to a person or a thing. With the neuter termination αποστολον, (apostoloN,) referring to the substantive πλοιον, (ploion,) it means a “vessel sent” from place to place. In Plato, (Epistle 7,) it occurs in this connection with the substantive πλοιον expressed, which in Herodotus is only implied. For an exposition of this use of the term, see H. Stephens’s Thesaurus, (sub voc. αποστολος.) With the masculine termination, Herodotus, applying it to persons, uses it first in the sense of “messenger,” “embassador,” or “herald,” in Clio, 21, where relating that Halyattes, king of Lydia, sent a herald (κηρυξ,) to treat for a truce with the Milesians, he mentions his arrival under this synonymous term. “So the messenger (αποστολος, apostolos,) came to Miletus.” (Ὁ μεν δη αποστολος ες την Μιλητον ἦν.) In Terpsichore, 38, he uses the same term. “Aristagoras the Milesian went to Lacedæmon by ship, as embassador (or delegate) from the assembly of Ionic tyrants,” (Αποστολος εγινετο.) These two passages are the earliest Greek in which I can find this word, and it is worth noticing here, that the word in the masculine form was distinctly applied to persons, in the sense given as the primary one in the text of this book. But, still maintaining in its uses the general idea of “sent,” it was not confined, in the ever-changing usage of the flexible Greeks, to individual persons alone. In reference to its expression of the idea of “distant destination,” it was applied by later writers to naval expeditions, and in the speeches of Demosthenes, who frequently uses the word, it is entirely confined to the meaning of a “warlike expedition, fitted out and sent by sea to a distant contest.” (References to numerous passages in Demosthenes, where this term is used, may be found in Stephens’s Thesaurus, on the word.) From the fleet itself, the term was finally transferred to the naval commander sent out with it, so that in this connection it became equivalent to the modern title of “Admiral.”
Besides these political and military uses of the word, it also acquired in the later Greek a technical meaning as a legal term, and in the law-writers of the Byzantine school, it is equivalent to “letters of appeal” from the decision of a lower tribunal to a higher one. But this, as well as the two previous meanings, must be considered as mere technical and temporary usages, while the original sense of “messenger,” “herald,” “embassador,” remained in constant force long after the word had received the peculiar application which is the great object of this long investigation. Yet various as are these meanings, it should be noticed that all those which refer to persons, have this one common idea, that of “one sent to a distance to execute the commands of a higher power.” This sense is likewise preserved in that sacred meaning, which the previous inquiry has now somewhat prepared the reader as well as the writer to appreciate in its true force.
The earliest passage in the sacred records of Christianity, in which the word apostle is used, is the second verse of the tenth chapter of Matthew, where the distinct nomination of the twelve chief disciples is first mentioned. They are here called apostles, and as the term is used in connection with their being sent out on their first mission, it seems plain that the application of the name had a direct reference to this primary signification. The word, indeed, which Jesus uses in the sixteenth verse, (when he says ‘Behold! I SEND you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves,’) is αποστελλω, (apostello), and when in the fifth verse, Matthew, after enumerating and naming the apostles, says “These twelve Jesus sent forth,” the past tense of the same verb is used, (απεστειλεν, apesteilen.) Mark also, in his third chapter, relating the appointment and commissioning of the twelve, uses this verb, in verse 14. “And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might SEND them forth to preach,” (αποστελλη, apostellé.) Luke merely mentions the name apostle, in giving the list of the twelve, in chapter 6, verse 13; and in chapter 9, verse 2, gives the verb in the same way as Matthew. The term certainly is of rare occurrence in all the gospels; those persons who are thus designated being commonly mentioned under the general title of disciple or learner, (μαθητης,) and when it is necessary to separate them from the rest of Christ’s followers, they are designated from their number “the twelve.” John never uses it in this sense, nor does Mark in giving the list, though he does in vi. 30, and the only occasion on which it is applied to the twelve by Matthew, is that of their being sent forth on their brief experimental mission through the land of Israel, to announce the approach of the Messiah’s reign. The simple reason, for this remarkable exclusion of the term from common use in the gospel story, is that only on that one occasion just mentioned, did they assume the character of apostles, or persons sent forth by a superior. This circumstance shows a beautiful justness and accuracy in the use of words by the gospel writers, who in this matter, at least, seem to have fully apprehended the true etymological force of the noble language in which they wrote. The twelve, during the whole life of Jesus, were never sent forth to proclaim their Lord’s coming, except once; but until the Ascension, they were simple learners, or disciples, (μαθηται, mathetai,) and not apostles or messengers, who had so completely learned the will of God as to be qualified to teach it to others. But immediately after the final departure of Jesus, the sacred narrative gives them the title of apostles with much uniformity, because they had now, by their ascending Lord, been solemnly commissioned in his last words, and sent forth as messengers and embassadors to “all nations.” A common reader of the New Testament must notice that, in the Acts of the Apostles, this title is the most usual one given to the chosen twelve, though even there, an occasional use is made of the collective term taken from the idea of their number. It deserves notice, however, that Luke, the author of the Acts, even in his gospel, uses this name more frequently than any other of the evangelists; and his individual preference for this word may, perhaps, have had some influence in producing its very frequent use in the second part of his narrative, though the whole number of times when it is used in his gospel is only six, whereas in Acts it occurs twenty-seven times. So that on the whole it would seem clear, that the change from the common use of the term “DISCIPLE,” in the gospels, to that of “APOSTLE,” in the history of their acts after the ascension, was made in reference to the corresponding change in the character and duties of the persons thus named.
The lexicography of the word αποστολος, (apostolos,) I arrange as follows, after a full comparison and investigation of all the standard authorities.
The primary idea or ground-meaning which runs through all the secondary significations, and is distinctly recognizable in all their various applications, is as has already been remarked, that of “one sent forth,” referring either to persons or things, but more commonly to persons. These secondary meanings being all directly derived from the ground-stock, and not by a repetition of transformations in sense, it is hard to settle any order of precedence among them; which might be easily done if a distinct gradation could be traced, as in the definition of most words. I have chosen to follow what seems to be the historical order of application, as already traced, although several very high authorities give a different arrangement.
I. A messenger, herald, embassador; a person sent with a message. This is the use made of the term by Herodotus, above quoted, and being thus historically the earliest, as well as flowing naturally from the ground-meaning, may therefore justly hold the first place. And when other variable meanings had been lost in the revolutions of usage, this retained its place, being applied to many different persons whose offices included the idea of being sent abroad by commission from a higher power. Under this meaning is most justly included that peculiar Christian use of the word, which is the object of this investigation, and under this head therefore I rank all the New Testament usages of αποστολος. 1. It is used in the simple sense here given, with the first primary idea conveyed by the term. There is no Greek sentence extant which refers so forcibly to the ground-meaning as that in John’s gospel, xiii. 16; where the words in the common English translation are “he that is sent,” though in the original Greek the word is αποστολος, which might be more justly translated “messenger,” in order to make a difference in English corresponding to that in Greek, between αποστολος and πεμψας, (pempsas,) without giving the same word “send” for two different words in Greek. Still the common translation gives the true meaning of each word, though not so simply and gracefully just, as it might be if the difference of terms in the two members of the sentence was kept up in English. In this same general sense of “messenger,” or “any person sent,” it is used in 2 Corinthians viii. 23, (in common English translation “messenger,”) and in Philippians ii. 25, (common translation “messenger.”) 2. It is used to designate persons directly sent by God to men, and in this sense is frequently given to us in connection with “prophet,” as in Luke xi. 49; Ephesians iii. 5; Revelation xviii. 20. In this sense also it is applied to Jesus, in Hebrews iii. 1, 3. It is used as the title of several classes of persons, employed by Jesus in propagating the gospel. These are [1] the twelve chief disciples, commonly distinguished above all others but one, by this name. Matthew x. 2; Mark vi. 30; Luke vi. 13; ix. 10; xxii. 14; Acts i. 26; and in other places too numerous to be mentioned here, but to which a good concordance will direct any curious investigator. [2] Paul, as the great messenger of truth to the Gentiles, so called in many passages; and with him Barnabas is also distinctly included under this term, in Acts xiv. 4, 14; and xv. 33. (Griesbach however, has changed this last passage from the common reading. See his editions.) [3] Other persons, not of great eminence or fame; as Andronicus and Junius, Paul’s assistants, Romans xvi. 7; the companions of Titus in collecting the contributions of the churches, 2 Corinthians viii. 23; and perhaps also Epaphroditus, Philippians ii. 25. This seems to be as clear an arrangement of the New Testament lexicography of the term as can be given, on a comparison of high authorities. Those who can refer to Wahl, Bretschneider, Parkhurst and Schleusner, will find that I have not servilely followed either, but have adopted some things from all.
The extensions and variations of the New Testament usage of the word, among the Grecian and Latin Christian Fathers, were, 1, the application of it to the seventy disciples whose mission is narrated by Luke, x. 29. These are repeatedly called apostles. 2. The companions of Paul and others are frequently honored by this title. Timothy and Mark are called apostles, and many later ministers also, as may be seen by the authorities at the end of Cave’s Introduction to his Lives of the Apostles.
In application to persons, it is used by Athenian writers as a name for the commander of a naval expedition, (See Demosthenes as quoted by Stephens,) but this seems to have come by transferring to the man, the name of the expedition which he commanded, so that this cannot be derived from the definition which is here placed first. This term in the later Greek is also applied to the “bride-man,” or bridegroom’s friend, who on wedding festivals was sent to conduct the bride from her father’s house to her husband’s. (Phavorinus quoted by Witsius in Vita Pauli.) This however is a very unusual sense, which I can find on no other authority than that here given. None of the lexicons contain it.
II. The definition which occupies the first place in most of the arrangements of this word in the common Greek lexicons, is that of a “naval expedition,” “apparatus classium,” “fleet.” There appears, however, to be no good reason for this order, but there is historical argument, at least, as well as analogy, for putting those meanings which refer to persons, before those which refer to things. This meaning, as far as I can learn, seems to be confined to Demosthenes, and there is nothing to make us suppose that it is anterior in use to the simple permanent sense which is here given first. Hesychius gives us only the meaning of “the commander of a fleet,” which may indeed be derivable from this sense rather than the preceding personal uses, though it seems to me not impossible that the name was transferred from the commander to the object of his command, thus making the personal meanings prior to those of inanimate things. The adjective use of the word in Herodotus and Plato, however, makes it certain that in that way it was early applied to a single vessel, and the transition to its substantive use for a whole fleet is natural enough.
The legal use of it for “letters of appeal,” (literae dimissoriae,) of course comes under the head of the later usages in application to things, and is the last modification of meaning which the word underwent before the extinction of the ancient Greek language.
The corresponding Hebrew word, and that which was, no doubt, used by Christ in his discourse to his apostles, was שלוּח or שליח (sheluh, or shelih,) whose primary meaning, like that of the Greek word, is “one sent,” and is derived from the passive Kal, participle of the verb שלח meaning “he sent,” This word is often used in the Old Testament, and is usually translated in the Alexandrian Greek version, by the word αποστολος. A remarkable instance occurs in 1 Kings xiv. 6; where the prophet Ahijah, speaking to the wife of Jeroboam, says, אליך אנכי שלוח “to thee am I sent;” the Alexandrian version gives the noun αποστολος, so as to make it literally “to thee I am an apostle,” or “messenger,” or truly, in the just and primary sense of this Greek word, “to thee I am sent.” This passage is a valuable illustration of the use of the same Greek word in John xiii. 16; as above quoted.
The Hebrews had another word also, which they used in the sense of an apostle or messenger. This was מלאך (mal ak,) derived from a verb which means “send,” so that the primary meaning of this also is “one sent.” It was commonly appropriated to angels, but was sometimes a title of prophets and priests. (Haggai i. 19; Malachi ii. 7.) It was on the whole the more dignified term of the two, as the former was never applied to angels, but was restricted to men. The two terms are very fairly represented by the two Greek words αποστολος and αγγελος, in English “apostle” and “angel,” the latter, like its corresponding Hebrew term, being sometimes applied to the human servants of God, as in John’s address to the seven churches.
The scope of the term, as used in the title of this book, is limited to the twelve chosen disciples of Jesus Christ, and those few of their most eminent associates, who are designated by the same word in the writings of the early Christians. These persons fall under two natural divisions, which will be followed in the arrangement of their lives in this work. These are, first, the TWELVE, or Peter and his companions; and second, Paul and his companions, including also some to whom the name apostle is not given by the New Testament writers, but who were so intimate with this great preacher of Christ, and so eminent by their own labors, that they may be very properly ranked with him, in the history of the first preachers of Christianity.
The persons whose lives are given in this book are,
I. The Galilean apostles, namely,
Simon Peter, and Andrew his brother,
James, and John, the sons of Zebedee,
Philip, and Bartholomew,
Matthew, and Thomas,
James, the son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes,
Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, in whose place was afterwards chosen by the apostles, Matthias.
II. The Hellenist apostles, namely, Paul and Barnabas, with whom are included their companions, Mark and Luke, the evangelists.
These two classes of Apostles are distinguished from each other, mainly, by the circumstances of the appointment of each; the former being all directly appointed by Jesus himself, (excepting Matthias, who took the forfeited commission of Judas Iscariot,) while the latter were summoned to the duties of the apostleship after the ascension of Christ; so that they, however highly equipped for the labors of the office, had never enjoyed his personal instructions; and however well-assured of the divine summons to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, theirs was not a distinct personal and bodily commission, formally given to them, and repeatedly enforced and renewed, as it was to the chosen ones of Christ’s own appointment. These later apostles, too, with hardly one exception, were foreign Jews, born and brought up beyond the bounds of the land of Israel, while the twelve were all Galileans, whose homes were within the holy precincts of their fathers’ ancient heritage. Yet if the extent of their labors be regarded, the later commissioned must rank far above the twelve. Almost two thirds of the New Testament were written by Paul and his companions; and before one of those commissioned by Jesus to go into all the world on their great errand, had ever gone beyond the boundary of Palestine, Paul, accompanied either by Barnabas, Mark, Silas, or Luke, had gone over Syria and Asia, traversed the sea into Greece, Macedonia, and Illyria, bringing the knowledge of the word of truth to tens of thousands, who would never have heard of it, if they had been made to wait for its communication by the twelve. This he did through constant toils, dangers and sufferings, which as far transcended all which the Galilean Apostles had endured, as the mighty results of his labors did the immediate effects of theirs. And afterwards, while they were struggling with the paltry and vexatious, though not very dangerous tyranny of the Sanhedrim, within the walls of Jerusalem, Paul was uttering the solemn truths of his high commission before governors and a king, making them to tremble with doubt and awe at his words; and, at last, bearing, first of all, the name of Jesus to the capital of the world, he sounded the call of the gospel at the gates of Cæsar. The Galilean apostles were indued with no natural advantages for communicating freely with foreigners; their language, habits, customs and modes of instruction, were all hindrances in the way of a rapid and successful progress in such a labor, and they with great willingness gave up this vast field to the Hellenist preachers, while they occupied themselves, for the most part, with the still immense labor which their Lord had himself begun. For all the subtleties and mysticisms of their solemn foes, they were abundantly provided; the whole training, which they had received, under the personal instruction of their master, had fitted them mainly for this very warfare; and they had seen him, times without number, sweep away all these refuges of lies. But, with the polished and truly learned philosophers of Athens, or the majestic lords of Rome, they would have felt the want of that minute knowledge of the characters and manners of both Greeks and Romans, with which Paul was so familiar, by the circumstances of his birth and education, in a city highly favored by Roman laws and Grecian philosophy. Thus was it wisely ordained, for the complete foundation and rapid extension of the gospel cause, that for each great field of labor there should be a distinct set of men, each peculiarly well fitted for their own department of the mighty work. And by such divinely sagacious appointments, the certain and resistless advance of the faith of Christ was so secured, and so wonderfully extended beyond the deepest knowledge, and above the brightest hopes of its chief apostles, that at this distant day, in this distant land, far beyond the view even of the prophetic eye of that age, millions of a race unknown to them, place their names above all others, but one, on earth and in heaven; and to spread the knowledge of the minute details of their toils and triumphs, the laborious scholar should search the recorded learning of eighteen hundred years, and bring forth the fruits in the story of their lives.
With such limitations and expansions of the term, then, this book attempts to give the history of the lives of the apostles. Of some who are thus designated, little else than their names being known, they can have no claim for a large space on these pages; while to a few, whose actions determined the destiny of millions, and mainly effected the establishment of the Christian faith, the far greater part of the work will be given.
The MATERIALS of this work should be found in all that has been written on the subject of New Testament history, since the scriptural canon was completed. But “who is sufficient for these things?” A long life might find abundant employment in searching a thousand libraries, and compiling from a hundred thousand volumes, the facts and illustrations of this immense and noble subject; and then the best energies of another long life would be needed to bring the mighty masses into form, and give them in a narrative for the mind of the unlearned. What, then, is here attempted, as a substitute for this immensity? To give a clear distinct narrative of each apostle’s life, with such illustrations of the character of the era, and the scene in which the incidents occurred, and such explanations of the terms in which they are recorded, as may, consistently with the limits of this work, be drawn from the labors of the learned of ancient and modern times, which are within the writer’s reach. Various and numerous are the books that swell the list of faithful and honest references; many and weighty the volumes that have been turned over, in the long course of research; ancient and venerable the dust, which has been shaken into suffocating clouds about the searcher’s head, and have obscured his vision, as he dragged many a forgotten folio from the slumber of ages, to array the modern plunderer in the shreds and patches of antique lore. Histories, travels, geographies, maps, commentaries, criticisms, introductions, and lexicons, have been “daily and nightly turned in the hand;” and of this labor some fruit is offered on every page. But the unstained source of sacred history! the pure well-spring, at which the wearied searcher always refreshed himself, after unrequited toils, through dry masses of erudition, was the simple story of the Apostles and Evangelists, told by themselves. In this same simple story, indeed, were found the points on which the longest labor was required; yet these, at best only illustrated, not improved, by all the labors of the learned of various ages, were the materials of the work. These are the preparations of months and years; the execution must decide on their real value,——and that is yet to come.
A list of the various works which have furnished the materials for this book might be proper here; but in order to insure its completeness and accuracy, it is deferred to the end of the volume.
A view of the world, as it was at the when the apostles began the work of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, may be convenient to remind some readers, and necessary to inform others, in what way its political organization operated to aid or hinder the progress of the faith. The peculiarities of the government of the regions of civilization, were closely involved in the results of this religious revolution, and may be considered as having been, on the whole, most desirably disposed for the triumphant establishment of the dominion of Christ.
From the shores of the Atlantic to the banks of the Euphrates, the sway of the Roman Caesar was acknowledged, by the millions of Western and Southern Europe, Northern Africa and South-western Asia. The strong grasp of warlike power was a bond which held together in peace many nations, who, but for that constraint, would, as their previous and subsequent history shows, have been arrayed against each other, in contests, destructive alike of the happiness of the contending parties and the comfort of their neighbors. The mighty force of Roman genius had overcome the thousand barriers which nature and art had reared between the different nations of the three continents in which it ruled, and the passage from one end of that vast empire to the other, was without any hindrance to those who traveled on errands of peace. The bloody strife which once distracted the tribes of Gaul, Germany and Britain, had rendered those grand sections of Europe impassable, and shut up each paltry tribe within a narrow boundary, which could never be crossed but with fire and sword. The deadly and furious contests among the nations of South-western Asia and South-eastern Europe, had long discouraged the philosophical and commercial enterprise, once of old so rife and free among them, and offered a serious hindrance to the traveler, whether journeying for information or trade; thus greatly checking the spread of knowledge, and limiting each nation, in a great measure, to its own resources in science and art. The Roman conquest, burying in one wide tomb all the jealousies and strifes of aspiring national ambition, thus put an end at once to all these causes of separation; it brought long-divided nations into close union and acquaintance, and produced a more extensive and equal diffusion of knowledge, as well as greater facilities for commercial intercourse, than had ever been enjoyed before. The rapid result of the conquerors’ policy was the consolidation of the various nations of that vast empire into one people,——peaceful, prosperous, and for the most part protected in their personal and domestic rights. The savage was tamed, the wanderers were reclaimed from the forest, which fell before the march of civilization, or from the desert, which soon rejoiced and blossomed under the mighty beneficence of Roman power.
The fierce Gaul forsook his savage hut and dress together, robing himself in the graceful toga of the Roman citizen, or the light tunic of the colonial cultivator, and reared his solid and lofty dwelling in clustering cities or villages, whose deep laid foundations yet endure, in lasting testimony of the nature of Roman conquest and civilization. Under his Roman rulers and patrons, he raised piles of art, unequaled in grandeur, beauty and durability, by any similar works in the world. Aqueducts and theaters, still only in incipient ruin, proclaim, in their slow decay, the greatness of those who reared them, in a land so lately savage.
The Pont du gard, at Nismes, and the amphitheaters, temples, arches, gates, baths, bridges, and mausolea, which still adorn that city and Arles, Vienne, Rheims, Besancon, Autun and Metz, are the instances, to which I direct those whose knowledge of antiquity is not sufficient to suggest these splendid remains. Almost any well-written book of travels in France will give the striking details of their present condition. Malte-Brun also slightly alludes to them, and may be consulted by those who wish to learn more of the proofs of my assertion than this brief notice can give.
The warlike Numidian and the wild Mauritanian, under the same iron instruction, had long ago learned to robe their primitive half-nakedness in the decent garments of civilized man. Even the distant Getulian found the high range of Atlas no sure barrier, against the wave of triumphant arms and arts, which rolled resistlessly over him, and spent itself only on the pathless sands of wide Sahara. So far did that all-subduing genius spread its work, and so deeply did it make its marks, beyond the most distant and impervious boundary of modern civilization, that the latest march of discovery has found far older adventurers before it, even in the great desert; and within a dozen years, European travelers have brought to our knowledge walls and inscriptions, which, after mouldering unknown in the dry, lonely waste, for ages, at last met the astonished eyes of these gazers, with the still striking witness of Roman power.
The travels of Denham and Clapperton across the desert, from Tripoli to Bornou,——of Ritchie and Lyon, to Fezzan,——of Horneman and others, will abundantly illustrate this passage.
Egypt, already twice classic, and renowned through two mighty and distant series of ages, renewed her fading glories under new conquerors, no less worthy to possess and adorn the land of the Pharaohs, than were the Ptolemies. In that ancient home of art, the new conquerors achieved works, inferior indeed to the still lasting monuments of earlier greatness, but no less effectual in securing the ornament and defense of the land. With a warlike genius far surpassing the most triumphant energy of former rulers, the legionaries of Rome made the valley of the Nile, from its mouth to the eighth cataract, safe and wealthy. The desert wanderers, whose hordes had once overwhelmed the throne of the Pharaohs, and baffled the revenge of the Macedonian monarchs, were now crushed, curbed, or driven into the wilds; while the peaceful tiller of the ground, secure against their lawless attacks, brought his rich harvests to a fair and certain market, through the ports and million ships of the Mediterranean, to the gate of his noble conquerors, within the capital of the world.
The grinding tyranny of the cruel despots of Pontus, Armenia and Syria, had, one after another, been swept away before the republican hosts of Sylla, Lucullus and Pompey; and the remorseless, stupid selfishness that has always characterized oriental despotism, even to this day, had been followed by the mild and generous exercise of that almost omnipotent sway, which the condition of the people, in most cases, showed to have been administered, in the main, for the good of its subjects.
The case of Verres will perhaps rise to the minds of some of my readers, as opposed to this favorable view of Roman government; but the whole account of this and similar tyranny shows that such cases were looked on as most remarkable enormities, and they are recorded and noticed in such terms of abhorrence, as to justify us in quoting with peculiar force, the maxim, “Exceptio probat regulam.”
Towards the farthest eastern boundary of the empire, the Parthian, fighting as he fled, held out against the advance of the western conquerors, in a harassing and harassed independence. The mountains and forests of central Europe, and of North Britain, too, were still manfully defended by their savage owners; yet, when they at last met the iron hosts of Germanicus, Trajan, and Agricola, they, in their turn, fell under the last triumphs of the Roman eagle. But the peace and prosperity of the empire, and even of provinces near the scene, were not moved by these disturbances. And thus, in a longitudinal line of four thousand miles, and within a circuit of ten thousand, the energies of Roman genius had hushed all wars, and stilled the nations into a long, unbroken peace, which secured the universal good. So nearly true was the lyric description, given by Milton, of the universal peace which attended the coming of the Messiah:
“No war or battle sound,
Was heard the world around;
The idle spear and shield were high uphung;
The hooked chariot stood,
Unstained with hostile blood,
The trumpet spake not to the armed throng;
And kings sat still with awful eye,
As if they surely knew their sovran lord was by.”
The efforts of the conquerors did not cease with the mere military subjugation of a country, but were extended far beyond the extinction of the hostile force. The Roman soldier was not a mere fighter, nor were his labors, out of the conflict, confined to the erection of military works only. The stern discipline, which made his arms triumphant in the day of battle, had also taught him cheerfully to exchange those triumphant arms for the tools of peaceful labor, that he might insure the solid permanency of his conquests, by the perfection of such works as would make tranquillity desirable to the conquered, and soothe them to repose under a dominion which so effectually secured their good. Roads, that have made Roman ways proverbial, and which the perfection of modern art has never equaled in more than one or two instances, reached from the capital to the farthest bounds of the empire. Seas, long dangerous and almost impassable for the trader and enterprising voyager, were swept of every piratical vessel; and the most distant channels of the Aegean and Levant, where the corsair long ruled triumphant, both before and since, became as safe as the porches of the capitol. Regions, to which nature had furnished the indispensable gift of water, neither in abundance nor purity, were soon blessed with artificial rivers, flowing over mighty arches, that will crumble only with the pyramids. In the dry places of Africa and Asia, as well as in distant Gaul, mighty aqueducts and gushing fountains refreshed the feverish traveler, and gave reality to the poetical prophecy, that
“In the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.”
Roads.——I was at first disposed to make some few exceptions to this sweeping commendation of the excellence of Roman roads, by referring simply to my general impressions of the comparative perfection of these and modern works of the same character; but on revising the facts by an examination of authorities, I have been led to strike out the exceptions. Napoleon’s great road over the Simplon, the great northern road from London to Edinburgh, and some similar works in Austria, seemed, before comparison, in extent, durability, and in their triumphs over nature, to equal, if not surpass, the famed Roman WAYS; but a reference to the minute descriptions of these mighty works, sets the ancient far above the modern art. The Via Appia, “regina viarum,” (Papinius Statius in Surrentino Pollii,) stretching three hundred and seventy miles from Rome to the bounds of Italy, built of squared stone, as hard as flints, and brought from a great distance, so laid together that for miles they seemed but a single stone, and so solidly fixed, that at this day, the road is as entire in many places as when first made,——the Via Flaminia, built in the same solid manner,——the Via Aemilia, five hundred and twenty-seven miles long,——the Via Portuensis, with its enormous double cause-way,——the vaulted roads of Puzzuoli and Baiae, hewn half a league through the solid rock, and the thousand remains of similar and contemporaneous works in various parts of the world, where some are in use even to this day, as far better than any modern highway,——all these are enough to show the inquirer, that the commendation given to these works in the text, is not over-wrought nor unmerited. The minute details of the construction of these extraordinary works, with many other interesting particulars, may be much more fully learned in Rees’s Cyclopædia, Articles Way, Via, Road, Appian, &c.
Aqueducts.——The common authorities on this subject, refer to none of these mighty Roman works, except those around the city of Rome itself. Those of Nismes and Metz, in Gaul, and that of Segovia, in Spain, are sometimes mentioned; but the reader would be led to suppose, that other portions of the Roman empire were not blessed with these noble works. Rees’s Cyclopædia is very full on this head, in respect to the aqueducts of the great city itself, but conveys the impression that they were not known in many distant parts of the empire. Montfaucon gives no more satisfactory information on the subject. But a reference to books of travels or topography, which describe the remains of Roman art in its ancient provinces in Africa and Asia, will at once give a vivid impression of the extent and frequency of these works. Shaw’s travels in northern Africa, give accounts of aqueducts, cisterns, fountains, and reservoirs, along through all the ancient Roman dominions in that region. The Modern Traveler (by Conder) will give abundant accounts of the remains of these works, in this and various other countries alluded to in the text; and some of them, still so perfect, as to serve the common uses of the inhabitants to this day.
All these mighty influences, working for the peace and comfort of mankind, and so favorable to the spread of religious knowledge, had been further secured by the triumphant and firm establishment of the throne of the Caesars. Under the fitful sway of the capricious democracy of Rome, conquest had indeed steadily stretched east, west, north and south, alike over barbarian and Greek, through the wilderness and the city. A long line of illustrious consuls, such as Marcellus, the Scipios, Aemilius, Marius, Sylla, Lucullus and Pompey, had, during the last two centuries of the republic, added triumph to triumph, in bright succession, thronging the streets of the seven-hilled city with captive kings, and more than quadrupling her dominion. But while the corruption of conquest was fast preparing the dissipated people to make a willing exchange of their political privileges, for “bread and amusements;” the enlightened portion of the citizens were getting tired of the distracting and often bloody changes of popular favoritism, and were ready to receive as a welcome deliverer, any man who could give them a calm and rational despotism, in place of the remorseless and ferocious tyranny of a brutal mob. In this turn of the world’s destiny, there arose one, in all points equal to the task of sealing both justice and peace to the vanquished nations, by wringing from the hands of a haughty people, the same political power which they had caused so many to give up to their unsparing gripe. He was one who, while, to common eyes, he seemed devoting the flower of his youth and the strength of his manhood to idleness and debauchery, was learning such wisdom as could never have been learned in the lessons of the sage,——wisdom in the characters, the capabilities, the corruption and venality of his plebeian sovrans. And yet he was not one who scorned the lessons of the learned, nor turned away from the records of others’ knowledge. In the schools of Rhodes, he sat a patient student of the art and science of the orator, and searched deeply into the stored treasures of Grecian philosophy. Resplendent in arms as in arts, he devoted to swift and deserved destruction the pirates of the Aegean, while yet only a raw student; and with the same energy and rapidity, in Rome, attained the peaceful triumphs of the eloquence which had so long been his study. The flight of years passed over him, alike victorious in the factious strife of the capital, and in the deadly struggle with the Celtic savages of North-western Europe. Ruling long-conquered Spain in peace, and subjugating still barbarous Gaul, he showed the same ascendent genius which made the greatest minds of Rome his willing and despised tools, and crushed them when they at last dreamed of independence or resistance. In the art military, supreme and unconquered, whether met by the desperate savage of the forest or desert, or by the veteran legions of republican Rome,——in the arts of intrigue, more than a match for the subtlest deceivers of a jealous democracy,——as an orator, winning the hearts and turning the thoughts of those who were the hearers of Cicero,——as a writer, unmatched even in that Ciceronian age, for strength and flowing ease, though writing in a camp, amid the fatigues of a savage warfare,——in all the accomplishments that adorn and soften, and in all the manly exercises that ennoble and strengthen, alike complete,——in battle, in storm, on the ocean and on land, in the collected fury of the charge, and the sudden shock of the surprise, always dauntless and cool, showing a courage never shaken, though so often tried,——to his friends kind and generous,——to his vanquished foes, without exception, merciful and forgiving,——beloved by the former, respected by the latter, and adored by the people,——a scholar, an astronomer, a poet, a wit, a gallant, an orator, a statesman, a warrior, a governor, a monarch,——his vast and various attainments, so wonderful in that wonderful age, have secured to him, from the great of his own and all following ages, the undeniable name of THE MOST PERFECT CHARACTER OF ALL ANTIQUITY. Such a man was CAIUS JULIUS CAESAR. He saved the people from themselves; he freed them from their own tyranny, and ended forever, in Rome, the power of the populace to meddle with the disposal of the great interests of the consolidated nations of the empire. It was necessary that it should be so. The empire was too vast for an ignorant and stupid democracy to govern. The safety and comfort of the world required a better rule; and never was any man, in the course of Providence, more wonderfully prepared as the instrument of a mighty work, than was Julius Caesar, as the founder of a power which was to last till the fall of Rome. For the accomplishment of this wonderful purpose, every one of his countless excellences seems to have done something; and nothing less than he, could have thus achieved a task, which prepared the way for the advance of a power, that was to outlast his throne and the Eternal city. Under the controlling influence of his genius, the world was so calmed, subjugated and arranged, that the gates of all nations were opened for the peaceful entrance of the preachers of the gospel. So solidly did he lay the foundation of his dominion, that even his own murder, by the objects of his undeserved clemency, made not the slightest change in the fate of Rome; for the paltry intrigues and fights of a few years ended in placing the power, which Caesar had won, in the hands of his heir and namesake, whose most glorious triumphs were but straws on the mighty stream of events, which Julius had set in motion.
Caesar.——Those who are accustomed merely to the common cant of many would-be philanthropists, about the destruction of the liberties of Rome, and the bloody-minded atrocity of their destroyer, will doubtless feel shocked at the favorable view taken of his character, above. The truth is, there was no liberty in Rome for Caesar to destroy; the question of political freedom having been long before settled in the triumphant ascendency of faction, the only choice was between one tyrant and ten thousand. No one can question that Caesar was the fair choice of the great mass of the people. They were always on his side, in opposition to the aristocracy, who sought his ruin because they considered him dangerous to their privileges, and their liberty (to tyrannize;) and their fears were grounded on the very circumstance that the vast majority of the people were for him. This was the condition of parties until Caesar’s death, and long after, to the time of the final triumph of Octavius. Not one of Caesar’s friends among the people ever became his enemy, or considered him as having betrayed their affection by his assumptions of power. Those who murdered him, and plunged the world from a happy, universal peace, into the devastating horrors of a wide spread and protracted civil war, were not the patriotic avengers of an oppressed people; they were the jealous supporters of a haughty aristocracy, who saw their powers and dignity diminished, in being shared with vast numbers of the lower orders, added to the senate by Caesar, whose steady determination to humble them they saw in his refusal to pay them homage by rising, when the hereditary aristocracy of Rome took their seats in senate. It was to redeem the failing powers of their privileged order, that these aristocratic assassins murdered the man, whose mercy had triumphed over his prudence, in sparing the forfeited lives of these hereditary, dangerous foes of popular rights. Nor could they for a moment blind the people to the nature and object of their action; for as soon as the murder had been committed, the universal cry for justice, which rose at once from the whole mass of the people, indignant at the butchery of their friend, drove the gang of conspirators from Rome and from Italy, which they were never permitted again to enter. Those who thronged to the standards of the heir and friend of Caesar, were the hosts of democracy, who never rested till they had crushed and exterminated the miserable faction of aristocrats, who had hoped to triumph over the mass of the people, by the death of the people’s great friend. Now if the people of Rome chose to give up their whole power, and the disposal of their political affairs, into the hands of a great, a talented, a generous and heroic man, like Caesar, who had so effectually vindicated and secured their freedom against the claims of a domineering aristocracy, and if they afterwards remained so well satisfied with the use which he made of this power, as never to make the slightest effort, nor on any occasion to express the least wish, to resume it, I would like to know who had any business to hinder the sovran people from so doing, or what blame can in any way be laid to Caesar’s charge, for accepting, and for nobly and generously using the power so freely and heartily given up to him.
The protracted detail of his mental and physical greatness, given in the sketch of his character above, would need for its full defense and illustration, the mention of such numerous particulars, that I must be content with challenging any doubter, to a reference to the record of the actions of his life, and such a reference will abundantly confirm every particular of the description. The steady and unanimous decision of the learned and the truly great of different ages, since his time, is enough to show his solid claims to the highest praise here given. Passing over the glory so uniformly yielded to him by the learned and eloquent of ancient days, we have among moderns the disinterested opinions of such men as the immortal Lord Verulam, from whom came the sentence given above, pronouncing him “the most perfect character of all antiquity;” a sentiment which, probably, no man of minute historical knowledge ever read, without a hearty acquiescence. This opinion has been quoted with approbation by our own greatest statesman, Alexander Hamilton, than whom none knew better how to appreciate real greatness. Lord Byron (Note 47 on Canto IV. of Childe Harold,) also quotes this sentence approvingly, and in the same passage gives a most interesting view of Caesar’s versatile genius and varied accomplishments, entering more fully into some particulars than that here given. The sentence of the Roman historian, Suetonius, (Jure caesus existimetur,) seems to me to refer, not to the moral fitness or actual right of his murder, but to the common law or ancient usage of Rome, by which any person of great influence, who was considered powerful enough to be dangerous to the ascendency of the patrician rank, or to the established order of things in any way, might be killed by any self-constituted executioner, even though the person thus murdered on bare suspicion of a liability to become dangerous, should really be innocent of the charge of aspiring to supreme power. (“Melium jure caesum pronuntiavit, etiam si regni crimine insons fuerit.” Livy book iv. chapter 48.) The idea, that such an abominable outrage on the claim of an innocent man to his own life, could ever be seriously defended as morally right, is too palpably preposterous to bear a consideration. Such a principle of policy must have originated in a republicanism, somewhat similar to that which sanctions those exertions of democratic power, which have lately become famous under the name of Lynch law. It was a principle which in Rome enabled the patrician order to secure the destruction of any popular man of genius and intelligence, who, being able, might become willing to effect a revolution which would humble the power of the patrician aristocracy. The murder of the Gracchi, also, may be taken as a fair manifestation of the way in which the aristocracy were disposed to check the spirit of reform.
The work of Caesar, then, was twofold, like the tyranny which he was to subvert; and well did he achieve both objects of his mighty efforts. Having first brought down the pride and the power of an overbearing aristocracy, he next, by the force of the same dominant genius, wrested the ill-wielded dominion from the unsteady hands of the fickle democracy, making them willingly subservient to the great purpose of their own subjugation, and acquiescent in the generous sway of one, whom a sort of political instinct taught them to fix on, as the man destined to rule them.
Thus were the complicated and contradictory principles of Roman government exchanged for the simplicity of monarchical rule; an exchange most desirable for the peace and security of the subjects of the government. The empire was no longer shaken with the constant vacillations of supremacy from the aristocracy to the democracy, and from the democracy to the demagogues, alternately their tyrants and their slaves. The solitary tyranny of an emperor was occasionally found terrible in some of its details, but the worst of these could never outgo the republican cruelties of Marius and Sylla, and there was, at least, this one advantage on the side of those suffering under the monarchical tyranny, which would not be available in the case of the victims of mob-despotism. This was the ease with which a single stroke with a well-aimed dagger could remove the evil at once, and secure some chance of a change for the better, as was the case with Caligula, Nero, and Domitian; and though the advantages of the change were much more manifest in the two latter cases than in the former, yet, even in that, the relief experienced was worth the effort. But a whole tyrannical populace could not be so easily and summarily disposed of; and those who suffered by such despotism, could only wait till the horrible butcheries of civil strife, or the wasting carnage of foreign warfare, had used up the energies and the superfluous blood of the populace, and swept the flower of the democracy, by legions, to a wide and quiet grave. The remedy of the evil was therefore much slower, and more undesirable in its operation, in this case, than in the other; while the evil itself was actually more widely injurious. For, on the one hand, what imperial tyrant ever sacrificed so many victims in Rome, or produced such wide-wasting ruin, as either of those republican chiefs, Marius and Sylla? And on the other hand, when, in the most glorious and peaceful days of the aristocratic or democratic sway, did military glory, literature, science, art, commerce, and the whole common weal, so flourish and advance, as under the imperial Augustus, the sage Vespasian and the amiable Titus, the heroic Trajan, the polished Adrian, or the wise and philosophic Antonines? Never did Rome wear the aspect of a truly majestic city, till the imperial pride of her long line of Caesars had filled her with the temples, amphitheaters, circuses, aqueducts, baths, triumphal columns and arches, which to this day perpetuate the solid glory of the founders, and make her the wonder of the world, while not one surviving great work of art claims a republican for its author.
To such a glory did the Caesars raise her, and from such a splendor did she fade, as now.
“Such is the moral of all human tales;
’Tis but the same rehearsal of the past,——
First freedom, and then glory——when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption,——barbarism at last,
And history, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page.”
An allusion to such a man, in such a book as this, could not be justified, but on this satisfactory ground;——that the changes which he wrought in the Roman government, and the conquests by which he spread and secured the influence of Roman civilization, seem to have done more than any other political action could do, to effect the general diffusion, and the perpetuity of the Christian faith. A glance at these great events, in this light, will show to us the first imperial Caesar, as Christ’s most mighty precursor, unwittingly preparing the way for the advance of the Messiah,——a bloody and all-crushing warrior, opening the path for the equally resistless triumphs of the Prince of Peace. Even this striking characteristic, of cool and unscrupulous ambition, became a most glorious means for the production of this strange result. This same moral obtuseness, too, about the right of conquest, so heinous in the light of modern ethics, but so blameless, and even praise-worthy in the eyes of the good and great of Caesar’s days, shows us how low was the world’s standard of right before the coming of Christ; and yet this insensibility became, in the hands of the God who causes the wrath of man to praise him, a doubly powerful means of spreading that faith, whose essence is love to man.
Look over the world, then, as it was before the Roman conquest, and see the difficulties, both physical and moral, that would have attended the universal diffusion of a new and peaceful religious faith. Barbarous nations, all over the three continents, warring with each other, and with the failing outworks of civilization,——besotted tyranny, wearing out the energies of its subjects, by selfish and all-grasping folly,——sea and land swarming with marauders, and every wheel of science and commerce rolling backward or breaking down. Such was the seemingly resistless course of events, when the star of Roman fortune rose on the world, under whose influence, at once destructive and benign, the advancing hosts of barbarity were checked and overthrown, and their triumphs stayed for five hundred years; the elegance of Grecian refinement was transplanted from the unworthy land of its birth, to Italian soil, and the most ancient tracks of commerce, as well as many new ones, were made as safe as they are at this peaceful day. The mighty Caesar, last of all, casting down all thrones but his, and laying the deep basis of its lasting dominion in the solid good of millions, filled up the valleys, leveled the mountains, and smoothed the plains, for the march of that monarch, whose kingdom is without end.
The connection of such a political change with the success of the Christian enterprise, and with the perfect development and triumph of our peaceful faith, depends on the simple truth, that Christianity always flourishes best in the most highly civilized communities, and can never be so developed as to do full justice to its capabilities, in any state of society, short of the highest point of civilization. It never has been received, and held uncorrupt, by mere savages or wanderers; and it never can be. Thus and therefore it was, that wherever Roman conquest spread, and secured the lasting triumphs of civilization, thither Christianity followed, and flourished, as on a congenial soil, till at last not one land was left in the whole empire, where the eagle and the dove did not spread their wings in harmonious triumph. In all these lands, where Roman civilization prepared the way, Christian churches rose, and gathered within them the noble and the refined, as well as the humble and the poor. Spain, Gaul, Britain and Africa, as well as the ancient homes of knowledge, Egypt, Greece and Asia, are instances of this kind. And in every one of these, the reign of the true faith became coeval with civilization, yielding in some instances, it is true, on the advance of modern barbarism, but only when the Arabian prophet made them bow before his sword. Yet while within the pale of Roman conquest, Christianity supplanted polytheism, beyond that wide circle, heathenism remained long undisturbed, till the victorious march of the barbarian conquerors, over the empire of the Caesars, secured the extension of the gospel to them also;——the vanquished, in one sense, triumphing in turn over the victors, by making them the submissive subjects of Roman civilization, language, and religion;——so that, for the first five hundred years of the Christian era, the dominion of the Caesars was the most efficient earthly instrument for the extension of the faith. The persecution which the followers of the new faith occasionally suffered, were the results of aberrations from the general principles of tolerance, which characterized the religious policy of the empire; and after a few such acts of insane cruelty, the natural course of reaction brought the persecuted religion into fast increasing and finally universal favor.
If the religion, thus widely and lastingly diffused, was corrupted from the simplicity of the truth as it was in Jesus, this corruption is to be charged, not against the Romans, but against the unworthy successors of the apostles and ancient fathers, who sought to make the severe beauty of the naked truth more acceptable to the heathenish fancies of the people, by robing it in the borrowed finery of mythology. Yet, though thus humiliated in its triumph, the victory of Christianity over that complex and dazzling religion, was most complete. The faith to which Italians and Greeks had been devoted for ages,——which had drawn its first and noblest principles from the mysterious sources of the antique Etruscan, Egyptian and Phoenician, and had enriched its dark and boundless plan with all that the varied superstitions of every conquered people could furnish,——the faith which had rooted itself so deeply in the poetry, the patriotism, and the language of the Roman, and had so twined itself with every scene of his nation’s glory, from the days of Romulus,——now gave way before the simple word of the carpenter of Nazareth, and was so torn up and swept away from its strong holds, that the very places which through twenty generations its triumphs had hallowed, were now turned into shrines for the worship of the God of despised Judah. So utterly was the Olympian Jove unseated, and cast down from his long-dreaded throne, that his name passed away forever from the worship of mankind, and has never been recalled, but with contempt. He, and all his motley train of gods and goddesses, are remembered no more with reverence, but vanishing from even the knowledge of the mass of the people, are
“Gone glimmering through the dream of things that were,”——
“A school-boy’s tale.”
Every ancient device for the perpetuation of the long established faith, disappeared in the advancing light of the gospel. Temples, statues, oracles, festivals, and all the solemn paraphernalia of superstition, were swept to oblivion, or, changing their names only, were made the instruments of recommending the new faith to the eyes of the common people. But, however the pliant spirit of the degenerate successors of the early fathers might bend to the vulgar superstitions of the day, the establishment of the Christian religion, upon the ruins of Roman heathenism, was effected with a completeness that left not a name to live behind them, nor the vestige of a form, to keep alive in the minds of the people, the memory of the ancient religion. The words applied by our great poet to the time of Christ’s birth, have something more than poetical force, as a description of the absolute extermination of these superstitions, both public and domestic, on the final triumph of Christianity:
“The oracles are dumb;
No voice or hideous hum
Rolls through the arched roof in words deceiving.
Apollo from his shrine
Can no more divine,
With hollow shriek the steep of Delphos leaving.
No nightly trance or breathed spell,
Inspires the pale-eyed priest from the prophetic cell.”
“In consecrated earth
And on the holy hearth,
The Lars and Lemures moan with midnight plaint;
In urns and altars round,
A drear and dying sound,
Affrights the Flamens at their service quaint;
And the chill marble seems to sweat,
While each peculiar power foregoes his wonted seat.”
Thus were the mighty labors of human ambition made subservient to the still greater achievements of divine benevolence; thus did the unholy triumphs of the hosts of heathenism become, in the hands of the All-wise, the surest means of spreading the holy and peace-making truths of Christianity, to the ends of the earth,——otherwise unapproachable without a miracle. The dominion which thus grew upon and over the vast empire of Rome, though growing with her growth and strengthening with her strength, sunk not with her weakness, but, stretching abroad fresh branches, whose leaves were for the healing of nations then unknown, showed its divine origin by its immortality; while, alas! its human modifications betrayed themselves in its diminished grace and ill-preserved symmetry. Yet in spite of these, rather than by means of them, it rose still mightier above the ruins of the empire, under whose shadow it had grown, till, at last, supplanting Roman and Goth alike, it fixed its roots on the seven hills of the Eternal city; where, thenceforth, for hundreds of years, the head of Christendom, ruling with a power more absolute than her imperial sway, saw more than the Roman world beneath him. Even to this day, vast and countless “regions, Caesar never knew,” own him of Rome as “the center of unity;” and lands
“farther west
Than the Greek’s islands of the blest,”
and farther east than the long unpassed bounds of Roman conquest, turn, with an adoration and awe immeasurably greater than the most exalted of the apotheosized Caesars ever received, to him who claims the name of the successor of the poor fisherman of Galilee.
Such, and so vast, was the revolution, to the achievement of which, the lives and deeds of the apostles most essentially contributed,——a revolution which, even if looked on as the result of mere human effort, must appear the most wonderful ever effected by such humble human means, as these narratives will show to have been used. The character of the men first chosen by the founder of the faith, as the instruments of spreading the lasting conquests of his gospel,——their birth, their country, their provincial peculiarities,——all marked them as most unlikely persons to undertake the overthrow of the religious prejudices even of their own countrymen; and still less groundless must have been the hope that any of Jewish race, however well taught in the wisdom of the world, could so far overcome the universal feeling of dislike, with which this peculiar nation were regarded, as to bring the learned, the powerful and the great of Rome and Greece, and of Eastern lands, to own a low-born Galilean workman as their guide to truth,——the author of their hopes of life eternal. Yet went they forth even to this task, whose achievement was so far beyond the range of human hopes; and with a zeal as far above the inspiration of human ambition, they gave their energies and their lives to this desperate commission. Without a hope of an earthly triumph or an earthly reward,——without even a prospect of a peaceful death or an honored grave, while they lived, they spent their strength fearlessly for him who SENT them forth; and when they died, their last breath went out in triumph at the near prospect of their lasting gain.
In giving the lives of these men, many incidents will require notice, in which no individual apostle was concerned alone, but the whole company to which he belonged. In each class of the apostles, these incidents will be given under the head of the principal person in that class, whose life is placed before the rest. Thus, those matters in which all the twelve had a common interest, and in which no particular apostle is named, will find a place in the life of Peter, their great leader; and among the later apostles, the distinct pre-eminence of Paul will, of course, cause all matters of common interest to be absorbed in his life, while of his companions nothing farther need be recorded, than those things which immediately concern them.
I. THE GALILEAN APOSTLES.
SIMON CEPHAS,
COMMONLY CALLED SIMON PETER.
HIS APOSTOLIC RANK.
The order in which the names of the apostles are arranged in this book, can make little difference in the interest which their history will excite in the reader’s mind, nor can such an arrangement, of itself, do much to affect his opinion of their comparative merits; yet to their biographer, it becomes a matter of some importance, as well as interest, to show not only authority, but reason, for the order in which he ranks them.
Sufficient authority for placing Simon Cephas first, is found in the three lists of the apostles given respectively by Matthew, Mark and Luke, which, though differing as to their arrangement in some particulars, entirely agree in giving to this apostle the precedence of all. But it would by no means become the earnest and faithful searcher into sacred history, to rest satisfied with a bare reference to the unerring word, on a point of so much interest. So far from it, the strictest reverence for the sacred record both allows and urges the inquiry, as to what were the circumstances of Peter’s life and character, that led the three evangelists thus unanimously and decidedly to place him at the head of the sacred band, on all whom, in common, rested the commissioned power of doing the marvelous works of Jesus, and spreading his gospel in all the world. Was this preference the result of mere incidental circumstances, such as age, prior calling, &c.? Or, does it mark a pre-eminence of character or qualifications, entitling him to lead and rule the apostolic company in the name of Christ, as the commissioned chief of the faithful?
The reason of this preference, as far as connected with his character, will of course be best shown in the incidents of his life and conduct, as detailed in this narrative. But even here much may be brought forward to throw light on the ground of Peter’s rank, as first of the apostles. It is no more than fair to remark, however, that some points of this inquiry have been very deeply, and at the same time, very unnecessarily involved in the disputes between Protestants and Papists, respecting the original supremacy of the church of Rome, as supposed to have been founded or ruled by this chief apostle.
Of the many suppositions which might be made to account for Peter’s priority of station on the apostolic list, it may be enough to notice the following: That he was by birth the oldest of the twelve. This assertion, however boldly made by some, rests entirely on conjecture, as we have no certain information on this point, either from the New Testament or any ancient writer of indisputable credit. Those of the early Christian writers who allude to this matter, are quite contradictory in their statements, some supposing Peter to be the oldest of the apostles, and some supposing Andrew to be older than his brother;——a discrepancy that may well entitle us to conclude that they had no certain information about the matter. The weight of testimony, however, seems rather against the assertion that Peter was the oldest, inasmuch as the earliest writer who alludes at all to the subject, very decidedly pronounces Andrew to have been the older brother. Enough, then, is known, to prevent our relying on his seniority as the true ground of his precedence. Still this point must be considered as entirely doubtful; so doubtful that it cannot be considered as proof, in the argument.
The oldest Christian writer, who refers in any way to the comparative age of Peter, is Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, as early as A. D. 368. In his great work against heresies, (book ii. vol. 1, heresy 51,) in narrating the call of Andrew and Peter, he says, “The meeting (with Jesus) happened first to Andrew, Peter being less than him in age,” (μικροτερου οντος τω χρονῳ της ἡλικιας.) “But afterwards, when their complete forsaking of all earthly things is mentioned, Peter takes precedence, since God, who sees the turn of all characters, and knows who is fit for the highest places, chose Peter as the chief leader (αρχηγον) of his disciples.” This, certainly, is a very distinct assertion of Peter’s juniority, and is plainly meant to give the idea that Peter’s high rank among the apostles was due to a superiority of talent, which put him above those who were older.
In favor of the assertion that Peter was older than Andrew, the earliest authority that has ever been cited, is John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, about A. D. 400. This Father, in his homily on Matthew xvii. 27, (Homily 59,) says that Peter was a “first-born son,” (πρωτοτοκος.) In this passage, he is speaking of the tribute paid by Jesus and Peter for the expenses of the temple. He supposes that this tribute was the redemption-money due from the first-born sons of the Jews, for their exemption from the duties of the priesthood. But the account of this tax, in Numbers iii. 44–51, shows that this was a tax of five shekels apiece, while that spoken of by Matthew, is called the didrachmon, a Greek coin equivalent to a half-shekel. Now the half-shekel tax was that paid by every Jew above the age of twenty years, for the expenses of the temple service, as is fully described in Exodus xxx. 12–16; xxxviii. 26. Josephus also mentions this half-shekel tax, as due from every Jew, for the service of the temple. (See Hammond on Matthew xvii. 24.) Chrysostom is therefore wholly in the wrong, about the nature of the tax paid by Jesus and Peter; (verse 27, “give it for me and thee,”) and the reason which he gives for the payment, (namely, that they were both first-born sons,) being disproved, his belief of Peter’s seniority is shown to be based on an error, and therefore entitled to no credit whatever; more particularly, when opposed to the older authority of Epiphanius.
Lardner, in support of the opinion that Peter was the oldest, quotes also Cassian and Bede; but it is most manifest that a bare assertion of two writers, who lived, one of them 424, and the other 700 years after Christ,——an assertion unsupported by any proof whatever, cannot be received as evidence in the case. The most natural conjecture of any one who was accounting for the eminence of Peter, would be that he was older than the brother of whom he takes precedence so uniformly; and it is no more than just to conclude, therefore, that the ground of this notion was but a mere guess. But in the case of Epiphanius, besides the respect due to the early authority, it is important to observe, that he could have no motive for inventing the notion of Andrew’s seniority, since the uniform prominence of Peter would most naturally suggest the idea that he was the oldest. It is fair to conclude, then, that an opinion, so unlikely to be adopted without special proof, must have had the authority of uniform early tradition; for Epiphanius mentions it as if it were a universally admitted fact; nor does he seem to me to have invented the notion of Andrew’s seniority, to account for his being first known to Jesus, though he mentions these two circumstances in their natural connection. Yet Lampius, in his notes on John i. supposing that Epiphanius arranged the facts on the principle “post hoc, ergo, propter hoc,” has rejected this Father’s declaration of Andrew’s seniority, as a mere invention, to account for this apostle’s prior acquaintance with Jesus. The reader may judge between them.
Lardner, moreover, informs us that Jerome maintains the opinion, that Peter was preferred before the other apostles on account of his age. But a reference to the original passage, shows that the comparison was only between Peter and John, and not between Peter and the rest of the apostles. Speaking of Peter as the constituted head of the church, he says that was done to avoid dissensions, (ut schismatis tollatur occasio.) The question might then arise, why was not John chosen first, being so pure and free from connections that might interfere with apostolic duties? (Cur non Johannes electus est virgo? Aetati delatum est, quia Petrus senior erat; ne adhuc adolescens ac pene puer progressae aetatis hominibus praeferretur.) “It was out of regard to age, because Peter was older (than John;) nor could one who was yet immature, and little more than a boy, be preferred to a man of mature age.” The passage evidently does not touch the question of Peter’s being the oldest of all, nor does it contradict, in any way, the opinion that Andrew was older, as all which Jerome says is, merely, that Peter was older than John,——an opinion unquestionably accordant with the general voice of all ancient Christian tradition.
The character of Epiphanius, however, it must be acknowledged, is so low for judgment and accuracy, that his word is not of itself sufficient to establish any very doubtful fact, as certain. Yet in this case, there is no temptation to pervert facts on a point of so little interest or importance, and one on which no prejudice could govern his decision. We may therefore give him, in this matter, about all the credit due to his antiquity. Still, there is much more satisfactory proof of Peter’s not being the oldest apostle, founded on various circumstances of apostolic history, which will be referred to in their places.
Nor can priority of calling be offered as the reason of this apparent superiority; for the minute record given by the evangelist John, makes it undeniable that Andrew became acquainted with Jesus before Peter, and that the eminent disciple was afterwards first made known to Jesus, by means of his less highly honored brother.
The only reasonable supposition left, then, is, that there was an intentional preference of Simon Cephas, on the score of eminence for genius, zeal, knowledge, prudence, or some other quality which fitted him for taking the lead of the chief ministers of the Messiah. The word “first,” which accompanies his name in Matthew’s list, certainly appears, in the view of some, to have some force above the mere tautological expression of a fact so very self-evident from the collocation, as that he was first on the list. The Bible shows not an instance of a list begun in that way, with this emphatic word so vainly and unmeaningly applied. The analogies of expression in all languages, ancient and modern, would be very apt to lead a common reader to think that the numeral adjective thus prefixed, was meant to give the idea that Simon Peter was put first for some better reason than mere accident. Any person, in giving a list of twelve eminent men, all devoted to a common pursuit, and laboring in one great cause, whose progress he was attempting to record, would, in arranging them, if he disregarded the circumstances of seniority, &c., very naturally give them place according to their importance in reference to the great subject before him. If, as in the present case, three different persons should, in the course of such a work, make out such a list, an individual difference of opinion about a matter of mere personal preference, like this, might produce variations in the minor particulars; but where all three united in giving to one and the same person, the first and most honorable place, the ordinary presumption would unavoidably be, that the prior rank of the person thus distinguished, was considered, by them at least, at the time when they wrote, as decidedly and indisputably established. The determination of a point so trifling being without any influence on matters of faith and doctrine, each evangelist might, without detriment to the sanctity and authority of the record which he bears, be left to follow his own private opinion of the most proper principle of arrangement to be followed in enumerating the apostles. Thus, while it is noticeable that the whole twelve were disposed in six pairs by each of the evangelists, yet the order and succession of these is somewhat changed, by different circumstances directing the choice of each writer. Matthew modestly puts himself after Thomas, with whom he seems by all the gospel lists, to have some close connection; but Mark and Luke combine to give Matthew the precedence, and invert the order in which, through unobtrusiveness, he had, as it would seem, robbed true merit of its due superiority. And yet these points of precedence were so little looked to, that in the first chapter of Acts, Luke makes a new arrangement of these names, advancing Thomas to the precedency, not only of Matthew, but of Bartholomew, who, in all other places where their names are given, is mentioned before him. So also Matthew prefers to mention the brothers together, and gives Andrew a place immediately after Peter, although, in so many places after, he speaks of Peter, James and John together, as most highly distinguished by Christ, and favored by opportunities of beholding him and his works, on occasions when other eyes were shut out. Mark, on the contrary, gives these names with more strict reference to distinction of rank, and mentions the favored trio together, first of all, making the affinities of birth of less consequence than the share of favor enjoyed by each with the Messiah. Luke, in his gospel, follows Matthew’s arrangement of the brothers, but in the first chapter of Acts puts the three great apostles first, separating Andrew from his brother, and mentioning him after the sons of Zebedee. These changes of arrangement, while they show of how little vital importance the order of names was considered, yet, by the uniform preservation of Peter in the first rank, prove that the exalted pre-eminence of Peter was so universally known and acknowledged, that whatever difference of opinion writers might entertain respecting more obscure persons,——as to him, no inversion of order could be permitted.
How far Peter was by this pre-eminence endowed with any supremacy over the other apostles, may of course be best shown in those places of his history, which appear either to maintain or question this position.
That Simon Cephas, or Peter, then, was the first or chief of the apostles, appears from the uniform precedence with which his name is honored on all occasions in the Scriptures, where the order in which names are mentioned could be made to depend on rank,——by the universal testimony of the Fathers, and by the general impressions entertained on this point throughout the Christian world, in all ages since his time.
HIS BIRTH.
From two separate passages in the gospels, we learn that the name of the father of Simon Peter was Jonah, but beyond this we have no direct information as to his family. From the terms in which Peter is frequently mentioned along with the other apostles, we infer, however, that he must have been from the lowest order of society, which also appears from the business to which he devoted his life, before he received the summons that sent him forth to the world, on a far higher errand. Of such a humble family, he was born at Bethsaida, in Galilee, on or near the shore of the sea of Galilee, otherwise called lake Tiberias, or Gennesaret. Upon this lake he seems to have followed his laborious and dangerous livelihood, which very probably, in accordance with the hereditary succession of trades, common among the Jews, was the occupation of his father and ancestors before him. Of the time of his birth no certain information can be had, as those who were able to inform us, were not disposed to set so high a value upon ages and dates, as the writers and readers of later times. The most reasonable conjecture as to his age, is, that he was about the same age with Jesus Christ; which rests on the circumstances of his being married at the period when he was first called by Christ,——his being made the object of such high confidence and honor by his Master, and the eminent standing which he seems to have maintained, from the first, among the apostles. Still there is nothing in all these circumstances, that is irreconcilable with the supposition that he was younger than Christ; and if any reader prefers to suppose the period of his birth so much later, there is no important point in his history or character that will be affected by such a change of dates.
Bethsaida.——The name of this place occurs in several passages of gospel history, as connected with the scenes of the life of Jesus. (Matthew xi. 21; Mark vi. 45, viii. 22–26; Luke ix. 10, x. 13; John i. 45, xii. 21.) The name likewise occurs in the writings of Josephus, who describes Bethsaida, and mentions some circumstances of its history. The common impression among the New Testament commentators has been, that the Bethsaida which is so often mentioned in the gospels, was on the western shore of lake Gennesaret, near the other cities which were the scenes of important events in the life of Jesus. Yet Josephus distinctly implies that Bethsaida was situated on the eastern shore of the lake, as he says that it was built by Philip the tetrarch, in Lower Gaulonitis, (Jewish war, book ii. chapter 9, section 1,) which was on the eastern side of the Jordan and the lake, though not in Peraea, as Lightfoot rather hastily assumes; for Peraea, though by its derivation (from περαν, peran, “beyond,”) meaning simply “what was beyond” the river, yet was, in the geography of Palestine, applied to only that portion of the country east of Jordan, which extends from Moab on the south, northward, to Pella, on the Jabbok. (Josephus, Jewish war, book iii. chapter 3, section 3.) Another point in which the account given by Josephus differs from that in the gospels, is, that while Josephus places Bethsaida in Gaulonitis, John (xii. 21,) speaks of it distinctly as a city of Galilee, and Peter, as well as others born in Bethsaida, is called a Galilean. These two apparent disagreements have led many eminent writers to conclude that there were on and near the lake, two wholly different places bearing the name of Bethsaida. Schleusner, Bretschneider, Fischer, Pococke, Reland, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, and others, have maintained this opinion with many arguments. But Lightfoot, Cave, Calmet, Baillet, Macknight, Wells, and others, have decided that these differences can be perfectly reconciled, and all the circumstances related in the gospels, made to agree with Josephus’s account of the situation of Bethsaida.
TIBERIAS AND THE SEA OF GALILEE.
Mark i. 16. John vi. 1.
The first passage in which Josephus mentions this place, is in his Jewish Antiquities, book xviii. chapter 2, section 1. “And he, (Philip) having granted to the village of Bethsaida, near the lake of Gennesaret, the rank of a city, by increasing its population, and giving it importance in other ways, called it by the name of Julia, the daughter of Caesar,” (Augustus.) In his History of the Jewish War, book ii. chapter 9, section 1, he also alludes to it in a similar connection. Speaking, as in the former passage, of the cities built by Herod and Philip in their tetrarchies, he says, “The latter built Julias, in Lower Gaulanitis.” In the same history, book iii. chapter 9, section 7, describing the course of the Jordan, he alludes to this city. “Passing on (from lake Semechonitis,) one hundred and twenty furlongs farther, to the city Julias, it flows through the middle of lake Gennesar.” In this passage I translate the preposition μετα (meta,) by the English “to,” though Hudson expresses it in Latin by “post,” and Macknight by the English “behind.” Lightfoot very freely renders it “ante,” but with all these great authorities against me, I have the consolation of finding my translation supported by the antique English version of the quaint Thomas Lodge, who distinctly expresses the preposition in this passage by “unto.” This translation of the word is in strict accordance with the rule that this Greek preposition, when it comes before the accusative after a verb of motion, has the force of “to,” or “against.” (See Jones’s Lexicon, sub voc. μετα; also Hederici Lexicon.) But in reference to places, it never has the meaning of “behind,” given to it by Macknight, nor of “post,” in Latin, as in Hudson’s translation, still less of “ante,” as Lightfoot very queerly expresses it. The passage, then, simply means that the Jordan, after passing out of lake Semechonitis, flows one hundred and twenty furlongs to the city of Julias or Bethsaida, (not behind it, nor before it,) and there enters lake Gennesar, the whole expressing as clearly as may be, that Julias stood on the river just where it widens into the lake. That Julias stood on the Jordan, and not on the lake, though near it, is made further manifest, by a remark made by Josephus, in his memoirs of his own life. He, when holding a military command in the region around the lake, during the war against the Romans, on one occasion, sent against the enemy a detachment of soldiers, who “encamped near the river Jordan, about a furlong from Julias.” (Life of Josephus, section 72.)
It should be remarked, moreover, that, at the same time when Philip enlarged Bethsaida, in this manner, and gave it the name of Julia, the daughter of Augustus Caesar, his brother Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, with a similar ambition to exalt his own glory, and secure the favor of the imperial family, rebuilt a city in his dominions, named Betharamphtha, to which he gave the name Julias also; but in honor, not of the daughter, but of the wife of Augustus, who bore the family name, Julia, which passed from her to her daughter. This multiplication of namesake towns, has only created new confusion for us; for the learned Lightfoot, in his Chorographic century on Matthew, has unfortunately taken this for the Julias which stood on the Jordan, at its entrance into the lake, and accordingly applies to Julias-Betharamphtha, the last two quotations from Josephus, given above, which I have applied to Julias-Bethsaida. But it would seem as if this most profound Biblical scholar was certainly in the wrong here; since Julias-Betharamphtha must have been built by Herod Antipas within his own dominions, that is, in Galilee proper, or Peraea proper, as already bounded; and Josephus expressly says that this Julias was in Peraea; yet Lightfoot, in his rude little wood-cut map, (Horae Hebraica et Talmudicae in Marci, Decas Chorographica chapter v.) has put this in Gaulanitis, far north of its true place, at the influx of the Jordan into the lake, (“ad ipsissimum influxum Jordanis in lacum Gennesariticum,”) and Julias-Bethsaida, also in Gaulanitis, some miles lower down, at the south-east corner of the lake, a position adopted by no other writer that I know of. This peculiarity in Lightfoot’s views, I have thus stated at length, that those who may refer to his Horae for more light, might not suppose a confusion in my statement, which does not exist; for since the Julias-Betharamphtha of Herod could not have been in Gaulanitis, but in Peraea, the Julias at the influx of the Jordan into the lake, must have been the Bethsaida embellished by Philip, tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, (Luke iii. 1,) which included Gaulanitis, Batanea, &c. east of Jordan and the lake, and north of Peraea proper. The substance of Josephus’s information on this point, is, therefore, that Bethsaida stood on the eastern side of the Jordan, just where it enters lake Gennesar, or Gennesaret, (otherwise called lake Tiberias and the sea of Galilee,)——that it stood in the province of Gaulanitis, within the dominions of Philip, son of Herod the Great, and tetrarch of all that portion of Palestine which lies north of Peraea, on the east of Jordan, and the lake, as well as of the region north of Galilee, his tetrarchy forming a sort of crescent,——that this prince, having enlarged and embellished Bethsaida, raised it from a village to the rank of a city, by the name of Julias, in honor of Julia, daughter of Augustus Caesar. This was done during the reign of Augustus, (Josephus, in Jewish Antiquities book i. chapter 2, section 1,) and of course long before Jesus Christ began his labors, though after his birth, because it was after the death of Herod the Great.
The question now is, whether the Bethsaida mentioned by the evangelists is by them so described as to be in any way inconsistent with the account given by Josephus, of the place to which he gives that name. The first difficulty which has presented itself to the critical commentators, on this point, is the fact, that the Bethsaida of the gospels is declared in them to have been a city of Galilee, (John xii. 21,) and those who were born and brought up in it are called Galileans, (Mark xiv. 70, Luke xxii. 59, Acts i. 7, ii. 7.) Yet Josephus expressly tells us, that Bethsaida was in Gaulanitis, which was not in Galilee, as he bounds it, but was beyond its eastern boundary, on the eastern side of the river and lake. (Jewish war, book xviii. chapter 2, section 1.) This is therefore considered by many, as a diversity between the two accounts, which must make it impossible to apply them both to the same place. But there is no necessity for such a conclusion. The different application of the term Galilee, in the two books, must be noticed, in order to avoid confusion. Josephus is very exact in the use of names of places and regions, defining geographical positions and boundaries with a particularity truly admirable. Thus, in mentioning the political divisions of Palestine, he gives the precise limits of each, and uses their names, not in the loose, popular way, but only in his own accurate sense. But the gospel writers are characterized by no such minute particularity, in the use of names, which they generally apply in the popular, rather than the exact sense. Thus, in this case, they use the term Galilee, in what seems to have been its common meaning in Judea, as a name for all the region north of Samaria and Peraea, on both sides of the Jordan, including, of course, Gaulanitis and all the dominions of Philip. The difference between them and Josephus, on this point, is very satisfactorily shown in another passage. In Acts v. 37, Gamaliel, speaking of several persons who had at different times disturbed the peace of the nation, mentions one Judas, the Galilean, as a famous rebel. Now this same person is very particularly described by Josephus, (Jewis Antiquities book xv. chapter 1, section 1,) in such a manner that there can be no doubt of his identity with the previous description. Yet Josephus calls him distinctly, Judas the Gaulanite, and only once Judas the Galilean; showing him to have been from the city of Gamala, in the country east of Jordan and the lake; so that the conclusion is unavoidable, that the term Galilee is used in a much wider sense in the New Testament than in Josephus, being applied indiscriminately to the region on both sides of the lake. The people of southern Palestine called the whole northern section Galilee, and all its inhabitants, Galileans, without attending to the nicer political and geographical distinctions; just as the inhabitants of the southern section of the United States, high and low, call every stranger a Yankee, who is from any part of the country north of Mason and Dixon’s line, though well-informed people perfectly well know, that the classic and not despicable name of Yankee belongs fairly and truly to the ingenious sons of New England alone, who have made their long-established sectional title so synonymous with acuteness and energy, that whenever an enterprising northerner pushes his way southward, he shares in the honors of this gentile appellative. Just in the same vague and careless way, did the Jews apply the name Galilean to all the energetic, active northerners, who made themselves known in Jerusalem, either by their presence or their fame; and thus both Judas of Gaulanitis, and those apostles who were from the eastern side of the river, were called Galileans, as well as those on the west, in Galilee proper. Besides, in the case of Bethsaida, which was immediately on the line between Galilee and Gaulanitis, it was still more natural to refer it to the larger section on the west, with many of whose cities it was closely connected.
Besides, that the Jews considered Galilee as extending beyond Jordan, is most undeniably clear from Isaiah ix. 1, where the prophet plainly speaks of “Galilee of the nations, as being by the side of the sea, beyond Jordan.” This was the ancient Jewish idea of the country designated by this name, and the idea of limiting it to the west of Jordan, was a mere late term introduced by the Romans, and apparently never used by the Jews of the gospel times, except when speaking of the political divisions of Palestine. The name Gaulanitis, which is the proper term for the province in which Bethsaida was, never occurs in the bible. Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, &c. give a different view, however, of “beyond Jordan,” on Matthew iv. 15.
But a still more important difficulty has been suggested, in reference to the identity of the place described by Josephus, with that mentioned in the gospels. This is, the fact that in the gospels it is spoken of in such a connection, as would seem to require its location on the western side. A common, but very idle argument, in favor of this supposition, is, that Bethsaida is mentioned frequently along with Capernaum and other cities of Galilee proper, in such immediate connection as to make it probable that it was on the same side of the river and lake with them. But places separated merely by a river, or at most by a narrow lake, whose greatest breadth was only five miles, could not be considered distant from each other, and would very naturally be spoken of as near neighbors. The most weighty argument, however, rests on a passage in Mark vi. 45, where it is said that Jesus constrained his disciples to “get into a vessel, to go before him to the other side unto Bethsaida,” after the five thousand had been fed. Now the parallel passage in John vi. 17, says that they, following this direction, “went over the sea towards Capernaum,” and that when they reached the shore, “they came into the land of Gennesaret,” both which are understood to be on the western side. But on the other hand, we are distinctly told, by Luke, (ix. 10,) that the five thousand were fed in “a desert place, belonging to (or near) the city which is called Bethsaida.” On connecting these two passages, therefore, (in John and Mark,) according to the common version, the disciples sailed from Bethsaida on one side, to Bethsaida on the other, a construction which has been actually adopted by those who maintain the existence of two cities of the same name on different sides of the lake. But what common reader is willing to believe, that in this passage Luke refers to a place totally different from the one meant in all other passages where the name occurs, and more particularly in the very next chapter, (x. 13,) where he speaks of the Bethsaida which had been frequented before by Jesus, without a word of explanation to show that it was a different place? But in the expression, “to go before him to the other side, TO Bethsaida,” the word “TO” may be shown, by a reference to the Greek, to convey an erroneous idea of the situation of the places. The preposition προς, (pros,) may have, not merely the sense of to, with the idea of motion towards a place, but in some passages even of Mark’s gospel, may be most justly translated “near,” or “before,” (as in ii. 2, “not even about” or “before” the door, and in xi. 4, “tied by” or before “the door.”) This is the meaning which seems to be justified by the collocation here, and the meaning in which I am happy to find myself supported by the acute and accurate Wahl, in his Clavis Novi Testamenti under προς, which he translates in this passage by the Latin juxta, prope ad; and the German bey, that is, “by,” “near to,” a meaning supported by the passage in Herodotus, to which he refers, as well as by those from Mark himself, which are given above, from Schleusner’s references under this word, (definition 7.) Scott, in order to reconcile the difficulties which he saw in the common version, has, in his marginal references, suggested the meaning of “over against,” a rendering, which undoubtedly expresses correctly the relations of objects in this place, and one, perhaps, not wholly inconsistent with Schleusner’s 7th definition, which is in Latin ante, or “before;” since what was before Bethsaida, as one looked from that place across the river, was certainly opposite to that city. I had thought of this meaning as a desirable one in this passage, but had rejected it, before I saw it in Scott, for the reason, that I could not find this exact meaning in any lexicon, nor was there any other passage in Greek, in which this could be distinctly recognized as the proper one. The propriety of the term, however, is also noticed, in the note on this passage in the great French Bible, with commentaries, harmonies, &c. (Sainte Bible en Latin et Francois avec des notes, &c. Vol. xiv. p. 263, note,) where it is expressed by “l’autre cote du lac, vis-a-vis Bethsaide: c. a. d. sur le bord occidental opposé a la ville Bethsaide que etait sur le bord oriental,” a meaning undoubtedly geographically correct, but not grammatically exact, and I therefore prefer to take “near,” as the sense which both reconciles the geographical difficulties, and accords with the established principles of lexicography.
After all, the sense “to” is not needed in this passage, to direct the action of the verb of motion (προαγειν, proagein, “go before,”) to its proper object, since that is previously done by the former preposition and substantive, εις το περαν, (eis to peran.) That is, when we read “Jesus constrained his disciples to go before him,” and the question arises in regard to the object towards which the action is directed, “Whither did he constrain them to go before him?” the answer is in the words immediately succeeding, εις το περαν, “to the other side,” and in these words the action is complete; but the mere general direction, “to the other side,” was too vague of itself, and required some limitation to avoid error; for the place to which they commonly directed their course westward, over the lake, was Capernaum, the home of Jesus, and thither they might on this occasion be naturally expected to go, as we should have concluded they did, if nothing farther was said; therefore, to fix the point of their destination, we are told, in answer to the query, “To what part of the western shore were they directed to go?” “To that part which was near or opposite to Bethsaida.” The objection which may arise, that a place on the western side could not be very near to Bethsaida on the east, is answered by the fact that this city was separated from the western shore, not by the whole breadth of the lake, but simply by the little stream of Jordan, here not more than twenty yards wide, so that a place on the opposite side might still be very near the city. And this is what shows the topographical justness of the term, “over against,” given by Scott, and the French commentator, since a place not directly across or opposite, but down the western shore, in a south-westerly direction, as Capernaum was, would not be very near Bethsaida, nor much less than five miles off. Thus is shown a beautiful mutual illustration of the literal and the liberal translations of the word.
Macknight ably answers another argument, which has been offered to defend the location of Bethsaida on the western shore, founded on John vi. 23. “There came other boats from Tiberias, nigh unto the place where they did eat bread,” as if Tiberias had been near the desert of Bethsaida, and consequently near Bethsaida itself. “But,” as Macknight remarks, “the original, rightly pointed, imports only, that boats from Tiberias came into some creek or bay, nigh unto the place where they did eat bread.” Besides, it should be remembered that the object of those who came in the boats, was to find Jesus, whom they expected to find “nigh the place where they ate bread,” as the context shows; so that these words refer to their destination, and not to the place from which they came. Tiberias was down the lake, at the south-western corner of it, and I know of no geographer who has put Bethsaida more than half way down, even on the western shore. The difference, therefore, between the distance to Bethsaida on the west and to Bethsaida on the east, could not be at most above a mile or two, a matter not to be appreciated in a voyage of sixteen miles, from Tiberias, which cannot be said to be near Bethsaida, in any position of the latter that has ever been thought of. This objection, of course, is not offered at all, by those who suppose two Bethsaidas mentioned in the gospels, and grant that the passage in Luke ix. 10, refers to the eastern one, where they suppose the place of eating bread to have been; but others, who have imagined only one Bethsaida, and that on the western side, have proposed this argument; and to such the reply is directed.
For all these reasons, topographical, historical and grammatical, the conclusion of the whole matter is——that there was but one Bethsaida, the same place being meant by that name in all passages in the gospels and in Josephus——that this place stood within the verge of Lower Gaulanitis, on the bank of the Jordan, just where it passes into the lake——that it was in the dominions of Philip the tetrarch, at the time when it is mentioned in the gospels, and afterwards was included in the kingdom of Agrippa——that its original Hebrew name, (from בית beth, “house,” and צדה, tsedah, “hunting, or fishing,” “a house of fishing,” no doubt so called from the common pursuit of its inhabitants,) was changed by Philip into Julias, by which name it was known to Greeks and Romans.
By this view, we avoid the undesirable notion, that there are two totally different places mentioned in two succeeding chapters of the same gospel, without a word of explanation to inform us of the difference, as is usual in cases of local synonyms in the New Testament; and that Josephus describes a place of this name, without the slightest hint of the remarkable fact, that there was another place of the same name, not half a mile off, directly across the Jordan, in full view of it.
The discussion of the point has been necessarily protracted to a somewhat tedious length; but if fewer words would have expressed the truth and the reasons for it, it should have been briefer; and probably there is no reader who has endeavored to satisfy himself on the position of Bethsaida, in his own biblical studies, that will not feel some gratitude for what light this note may give, on a point where all common aids and authorities are in such monstrous confusion.
For the various opinions and statements on this difficult point, see Schleusner’s, Bretschneider’s and Wahl’s Lexicons, Lightfoot’s Chorographic century and decade, Wetstein’s New Testament commentary on Matthew iv. 12, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, Fritzsche, Macknight, &c. On the passages where the name occurs, also the French Commentary above quoted,——more especially in Vol. III. Remarques sur le carte geographique section 7, p. 357. Paulus’s “commentar ueber das neue Testament,” 2d edition, Vol. II. pp. 336–342. Topographische Erlaeuterungen.
Lake Gennesaret.——This body of water, bearing in the gospels the various names of “the sea of Tiberias,” and “the sea of Galilee,” as well as “the lake of Gennesaret,” is formed like one or two other smaller ones north of it, by a widening of the Jordan, which flows in at the northern end, and passing through the middle, goes out at the southern end. On the western side, it was bounded by Galilee proper, and on the east was the lower division of that portion of Iturea, which was called Gaulanitis by the Greeks and Romans, from the ancient city of Golan, (Deuteronomy iv. 43; Joshua xx. 8, &c.) which stood within its limits. Pliny (book I. chapter 15,) well describes the situation and character of the lake. “Where the shape of the valley first allows it, the Jordan pours itself into a lake which is most commonly called Genesara, sixteen (Roman) miles long, and six broad. It is surrounded by pleasant towns; on the east, it has Julias (Bethsaida) and Hippus; on the south, Tarichea, by which name some call the lake also; on the west, Tiberias with its warm springs.” Josephus also gives a very clear and ample description. (Jewish War, book 3, chapter 9, section 7.) “Lake Gennesar takes its name from the country adjoining it. It is forty furlongs (about five or six miles) in width, and one hundred and forty (seventeen or eighteen miles) in length; yet the water is sweet, and very desirable to drink; for it has its fountain clear from swampy thickness, and is therefore quite pure, being bounded on all sides by a beach, and a sandy shore. It is moreover of a pleasant temperature to drink, being warmer than that of a river or a spring, on the one hand, but colder than that which stands always expanded over a lake. In coldness, indeed, it is not inferior to snow, when it has been exposed to the air all night, as is the custom with the people of that region. In it there are some kinds of fish, different both in appearance and taste from those in other places. The Jordan cuts through the middle of it.” He then gives a description of the course of the Jordan, ending with the remark quoted in the former note, that it enters the lake at the city of Julias. He then describes, in glowing terms, the richness and beauty of the country around, from which the lake takes its name,——a description too long to be given here; but the studious reader may find it in section eighth of the book and chapter above referred to. The Rabbinical writers too, often refer to the pre-eminent beauty and fertility of this delightful region, as is shown in several passages quoted by Lightfoot in his Centuria Chorographica, chapter 79. The derivation of the name there given from the Rabbins, is גני סרים, ginne sarim, “the gardens of the princes.” Thence the name genne-sar. They say it was within the lands of the tribe of Naphtali; it must therefore have been on the western side of the lake, which appears also from the fact that it was near Tiberias, as we are told on the same authority. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament under this name, but the Rabbins assure us that the place called Cinnereth, in Joshua xx. 35; Chinneroth in xi. 2, is the same; and this lake is mentioned in xiii. 27, under the name of “the sea of Chinnereth,”——“the sea of Chinneroth,” in xii. 3, &c.
The best description of the scenery, and present aspect of the lake, which I can find, is the following from Conder’s Modern Traveler, Vol. 1. (Palestine) a work made up with great care from the observations of a great number of intelligent travelers.
“The mountains on the east of Lake Tiberias, come close to its shore, and the country on that side has not a very agreeable aspect; on the west, it has the plain of Tiberias, the high ground of the plain of Hutin, or Hottein, the plain of Gennesaret, and the foot of those hills by which you ascend to the high mountain of Saphet. To the north and south it has a plain country, or valley. There is a current throughout the whole breadth of the lake, even to the shore; and the passage of the Jordan through it, is discernible by the smoothness of the surface in that part. Various travelers have given a very different account of its general aspect. According to Captain Mangles, the land about it has no striking features, and the scenery is altogether devoid of character. ‘It appeared,’ he says, ‘to particular disadvantage to us, after those beautiful lakes we had seen in Switzerland; but it becomes a very interesting object, when you consider the frequent allusions to it in the gospel narrative.’ Dr. Clarke, on the contrary, speaks of the uncommon grandeur of this memorable scenery. ‘The lake of Gennesaret,’ he says, ‘is surrounded by objects well calculated to highten the solemn impression,’ made by such recollections, and ‘affords one of the most striking prospects in the Holy Land. Speaking of it comparatively, it may be described as longer and finer than any of our Cumberland and Westmoreland lakes, although perhaps inferior to Loch Lomond. It does not possess the vastness of the Lake of Geneva, although it much resembles it in certain points of view. In picturesque beauty, it comes nearest to the Lake of Locarno, in Italy, although it is destitute of any thing similar to the islands by which that majestic piece of water is adorned. It is inferior in magnitude, and in the hight of its surrounding mountains, to the Lake Asphaltites.’ Mr. Buckingham may perhaps be considered as having given the most accurate account, and one which reconciles, in some degree, the different statements above cited, when, speaking of the lake as seen from Tel Hoom, he says, ‘that its appearance is grand, but that the barren aspect of the mountains on each side, and the total absence of wood, give a cast of dulness to the picture; this is increased to melancholy, by the dead calm of its waters, and the silence which reigns throughout its whole extent, where not a boat or vessel of any kind is to be found.’
“Among the pebbles on the shore, Dr. Clarke found pieces of a porous rock, resembling toad-stone, its cavities filled with zeolite. Native gold is said to have been found here formerly. ‘We noticed,’ he says, ‘an appearance of this kind; but, on account of its trivial nature, neglected to pay proper attention to it. The water was as clear as the purest crystal; sweet, cool, and most refreshing. Swimming to a considerable distance from the shore, we found it so limpid that we could discern the bottom covered with shining pebbles. Among these stones was a beautiful, but very diminutive, kind of shell; a nondescript species of Buccinum, which we have called Buccinum Galilæum. We amused ourselves by diving for specimens; and the very circumstance of discerning such small objects beneath the surface, may prove the high transparency of the water.’ The situation of the lake, lying as it were in a deep basin between the hills which enclose it on all sides, excepting only the narrow entrance and outlets of the Jordan, at either end, protects its waters from long-continued tempests. Its surface is in general as smooth as that of the Dead Sea; but the same local features render it occasionally subject to whirlwinds, squalls, and sudden gusts from the mountains, of short duration, especially when the strong current formed by the Jordan, is opposed by a wind of this description, from the south-east; sweeping from the mountains with the force of a hurricane, it may easily be conceived that a boisterous sea must be instantly raised, which the small vessels of the country would be unable to resist. A storm of this description is plainly denoted by the language of the evangelist, in recounting one of our Lord’s miracles. ‘There came down a storm of wind on the lake, and they were filled with water, and were in jeopardy.... Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water; and they ceased, and there was a calm.’ (Luke viii. 23, 24.)”
The question of Peter’s being the oldest son of his father has been already alluded to, and decided by the most ancient authority, in favor of the opinion, that he was younger than Andrew. There surely is nothing unparalleled or remarkable in the fact, that the younger brother should so transcend the elder in ability and eminence; since Scripture history furnishes us with similar instances in Jacob, Judah and Joseph, Moses, David, and many others throughout the history of the Jews, although that nation generally regarded the rights of primogeniture with high reverence and respect.
HIS INTRODUCTION TO JESUS.
The earliest passage in the life of Peter, of which any record can be found, is given in the first chapter of John’s Gospel. In this, it appears that Peter and Andrew were at Bethabara, a place on the eastern bank of the Jordan, more than twenty miles south of their home at Bethsaida, and that they had probably left their business for a time, and gone thither, for the sake of hearing and seeing John the Baptist, who was then preaching at that place, and baptizing the penitent in the Jordan. This great forerunner of the Messiah, had already, by his strange habits of life, by his fiery eloquence, by his violent and fearless zeal in denouncing the spirit of the times, attracted the attention of the people, of all classes, in various and distant parts of Palestine; and not merely of the vulgar and unenlightened portion of society, who are so much more susceptible to false impressions in such cases, but even of the well taught followers of the two great learned sects of the Jewish faith, whose members flocked to hear his bold and bitter condemnation of their precepts and practices. So widely had his fame spread, and so important were the results of his doctrine considered, that a deputation of priests and Levites was sent to him, from Jerusalem, (probably from the Sanhedrim, or grand civil and religious council,) to inquire into his character and pretensions. No doubt a particular interest was felt in this inquiry, from the fact that there was a general expectation abroad at that time, that the long-desired restorer of Israel was soon to appear; or, as expressed by Luke, there were many “who waited for the consolation of Israel,” and “who in Jerusalem looked for redemption.” Luke also expressly tells us, that the expectations of the multitude were strongly excited, and that all men mused in their hearts whether he were the Christ or not. In the midst of this general notion, so flattering, and so tempting to an ambitious man, John vindicates his honesty and sincerity, by distinctly declaring to the multitude, as well as to the deputation, that he was not the Christ, and claimed for himself only the comparatively humble name and honors of the preparer of the way for the true king of Israel. This distinct disavowal, accompanied by the solemn declaration, that the true Messiah stood at that moment among them, though unknown in his real character, must have aggravated public curiosity to the highest pitch, and caused the people to await, with the most intense anxiety, the nomination of this mysterious king, which John was expected to make. Need we wonder, then, at the alacrity and determination with which the two disciples of John, who heard this announcement, followed the footsteps of Jesus, with the object of finding the dwelling place of the Messiah, or at the deep reverence with which they accosted him, giving him at once the highest term of honor which a Jew could confer on the wise and good,——“Rabbi,” or master? Nor is it surprising that Andrew, after the first day’s conversation with Jesus, should instantly seek out his beloved and zealous brother, and tell him the joyful and exciting news, that they had found the Messiah. The mention of this fact was enough for Simon, and he suffered himself to be brought at once to Jesus. The salutation with which the Redeemer greeted the man who was to be the leader of his consecrated host, was strikingly prophetical and full of meaning. His first words were the annunciation of his individual and family name, (no miracle, but an allusion to the hidden meaning of his name,) and the application of a new one, by which he was afterwards to be distinguished from the many who bore his common name. All these names have a deeply curious and interesting meaning. Translating them all from their original Aramaic forms, the salutation will be, “Thou art a hearer, the son of divine grace——thou shalt be called a rock.” The first of these names (hearer) was a common title in use among the Jews, to distinguish those who had just offered themselves to the learned, as desiring wisdom in the law; and the second was applied to those who, having past the first probationary stage of instruction, were ranked as the approved and improving disciples of the law, under the hopeful title of the “sons of divine grace.” The third, which became afterwards the distinctive individual name of this apostle, was given, no doubt, in reference to the peculiar excellences of his natural genius, which seems to be thereby characterized as firm, unimpressible by difficulty, and affording fit materials for the foundation of a mighty and lasting superstructure.
The name Simon, שמונ was a common abridgment of Simeon, שמעונ which means a hearer, and was a term applied technically as here mentioned. (For proofs and illustrations, see Poole’s Synopsis and Lightfoot.) The technical meaning of the name Jonah, given in the text, is that given by Grotius and Drusius, but Lightfoot rejects this interpretation, because the name Jonah is not fairly derived from יוחנא (which is the name corresponding to John,) but is the same with that of the old prophet so named, and he is probably right in therefore rejecting this whimsical etymology and definition.
With this important event of the introduction of Simon to Jesus, and the application of his new and characteristic name, the life of Peter, as a follower of Christ, may be fairly said to have begun; and from this arises a simple division of the subject, into the two great natural portions of his life; first, in his state of pupilage and instruction under the prayerful, personal care of his devoted Master, during his earthly stay; and second, of his labors in the cause of his murdered and risen Lord, as his preacher and successor. These two portions of his life may be properly denominated his discipleship and his apostleship; or perhaps still better, Peter the learner, and Peter the teacher.
THE FORDS OF THE JORDAN.
I. PETER’S DISCIPLESHIP;
OR,
PETER THE LEARNER AND FOLLOWER.
After his first interview with Christ, Peter seems to have returned to his usual business, toiling for his support, without any idea whatever of the manner in which his destiny was connected with the wonderful being to whom he had been thus introduced. We may justly suppose, indeed, that being convinced by the testimony of John, his first religious teacher and his baptizer, and by personal conversation with Jesus, of his being the Messiah, that he afterwards often came to him, (as his home was near the Savior’s,) and heard him, and saw some of the miracles done by him. “We may take it for granted,” as Lardner does, “that they were present at the miracle at Cana of Galilee, it being expressly said that Jesus and his disciples were invited to the marriage solemnity in that place, as described in the second chapter of John’s gospel. It is also said in the same chapter, ‘this beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him;’ that is, were confirmed in the persuasion that he was the Messiah.” And among the disciples of Jesus, Simon and his brother were evidently numbered, from the time when they received their first introduction to him, and were admitted to the honors of an intimate acquaintance. The formal manner in which Jesus saluted Simon, seems to imply his adoption, or nomination at least, as a disciple, by referring to the remarkable coincidence of meaning between his name and the character of a hopeful learner in the school of divine knowledge. Still the two brothers had plainly received no appointment which produced any essential change in their general habits and plans of life, for they still followed their previous calling, quietly and unpretendingly, without seeming to suppose, that the new honors attained by them had in any way exempted them from the necessity of earning their daily bread by the sweat of their brow. To this they devoted themselves, laboring along the same sea of Galilee, whose waters and shores were the witnesses of so many remarkable scenes of the life of Christ. Yet their business was not of such a character as to prevent their enjoying occasional interviews with their divine master, whose residence by the lake, and walks along its shores, must have afforded frequent opportunities for cultivating or renewing an acquaintance with those engaged on its waters. There is nothing in the gospel story inconsistent with the belief, that Jesus met his disciples, who were thus occupied, on more occasions than one; and had it been the Bible plan to record all the most interesting details of his earthly life, many instructive accounts might, no doubt, have been given of the interviews enjoyed by him and his destined messengers of grace to the world. But the multiplication of such narratives, however interesting the idea of them may now seem, would have added no essential doctrine to our knowledge, even if they had been so multiplied as that, in the paradoxical language of John, the whole world could not contain them; and the necessary result of such an increased number of records, would have been a diminished valuation of each. As it is, the scripture historical canon secures our high regard and diligent attention, and its careful examination, by the very circumstance of its brevity, and the wide chasms of the narrative;——like the mysterious volumes of the Cumaean Sybil, the value of the few is no less than that of the many, the price of each increasing in proportion as the number of the whole diminishes. Thus in regard to this interesting interval of Peter’s life, we are left to the indulgence of reasonable conjecture, such as has been here mentioned.
The next direct account given in the Bible, of any event immediately concerning him, is found in all the first three gospels. It is thought by some, that his father Jonah was now dead; for there is no mention of him, as of Zebedee, when his two sons were called. This however is only a mere conjecture, and has no more certainty than that he had found it convenient to make his home elsewhere, or was now so old as to be prevented from sharing in this laborious and perilous occupation, or that he had always obtained his livelihood in some other way; though the last supposition is much less accordant with the well-known hereditary succession of trades, which was sanctioned by almost universal custom throughout their nation. However, it appears that if still alive, their connection with him was not such as to hinder them a moment in renouncing at once all their former engagements and responsibilities, at the summons of Christ. Jesus was at this time residing at Capernaum, which is said by Matthew to be by the sea-coast, better translated “shore of the lake;” for it is not on the coast of the Mediterranean, as our modern use of these terms would lead us to suppose, but on the shore of the small inland lake Tiberias, or sea of Galilee, as it was called by the Jews, who, with their limited notions of geography, did not draw the nice distinctions between large and small bodies of water, which the more extended knowledge of some other nations of antiquity taught them to make. Capernaum was but a few miles from Bethsaida, on the other side of the lake, and its nearness would often bring Jesus in his walks, by the places where these fishermen were occupied, in whichever of the two places they at that time resided. On one of these walks he seems to have given the final summons, which called the first four of the twelve from their humble labors to the high commission of converting the world.
Capernaum.——Though no one has ever supposed that there were two places bearing this name, yet about its locality, as about many other points of sacred topography, we find that “doctors disagree,” though in this case without any good reason; for the scriptural accounts, though so seldom minute on the situations of places, here give us all the particulars of its position, as fully as is desirable or possible. Matthew, (iv. 13,) tells us, that Capernaum was upon “the shore of the lake, on the boundaries of Zebulon and Naphtali.” A reference to the history of the division of territory among these tribes, (Joshua xix.) shows that their possessions did not reach the other side of the water, but were bounded on the east by Jordan and the lake, as is fully represented in all the maps of Palestine. Thus, it is made manifest, that Capernaum must have stood on the western shore of the lake, where the lands of Zebulon and Naphtali bordered on each other. Though this boundary line cannot be very accurately determined, we can still obtain such an approximation, as will enable us to fix the position of Capernaum on the northern end of the western side of the lake, where most of the maps agree in placing it; yet some have very strangely put it on the eastern side. The maps in the French bible, before quoted, have set it down at the mouth of the Jordan, in the exact place where Josephus has so particularly described Bethsaida as placed. Lightfoot has placed it on the west, but near the southern end; and all the common maps differ considerably as to its precise situation, of which indeed we can only give a vague conjecture, except that it must have been near the northern end. Conder (Modern Traveler, Palestine,) gives the following account of modern researches after its site, among the ruins of various cities near the lake.
“With regard to Chorazin, Pococke says, that he could find nothing like the name, except at a village called Gerasi, which is among the hills west of the village called Telhoue, in the plain of Gennesaret. Dr. Richardson, in passing through this plain, inquired of the natives whether they knew such a place as Capernaum? They immediately rejoined, ‘Cavernahum wa Chorasi, they are quite near, but in ruins.’ This evidence sufficiently fixes the proximity of Chorazin to Capernaum, in opposition to the opinion that it was on the east side of the lake; and it is probable that the Gerasi of Pococke is the same place, the orthography only being varied, as Dr. Richardson’s Chorasi.”
HIS CALL.
In giving the minute details, we find that Luke has varied widely from Matthew and Mark, in many particulars. Taking the accounts found in each gospel separately, we make out the following three distinct stories.
1. Matthew, in his fourth chapter, says that Jesus, after leaving Nazareth, came and dwelt at Capernaum, where he began the great work for which he came into the world,——preaching repentance and making known the near approach of the reign of heaven on earth. In pursuance of this great object, it would seem that he went forth from the city which he made his home, and walked by the sea of Galilee, not for the sake of merely refreshing his body with the fresh air of that broad water, when languid with the confinement and closeness of the town, but with the higher object of forwarding his vast enterprise. On this walk he saw two brothers, Simon and Andrew, casting their net, or rather seine, into the sea; for they were fishermen by trade, and not merely occupied in this as an occasional employment, by way of diversion in the intervals of higher business. Jesus directly addressed them in a tone of unqualified command, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” And they, without questioning his authority or his purpose, immediately left their business at its most interesting and exciting part, (just at the drawing of the net,) and followed him, as it here seems at once, through Galilee, on his pilgrimage of mercy and love. Matthew gives no other particulars whatever, connected with the call of these two brothers; and had we been left to obtain the whole gospel-history from him alone, we should have supposed that, before this, Peter had no acquaintance, of a personal character at least, with Jesus; and that the call was made merely in a private way, without the presence of any other than ordinary accidental witnesses. From Matthew we hear nothing further respecting Peter, until his name is mentioned in the apostolic list, in the tenth chapter, except the mention in chapter eighth, of the illness of his mother in-law at his house. But the other gospel-writers give us many interesting and important particulars in addition, which throw new light on the previous circumstances, the manner and the consequences of the call.
2. Mark, in his first chapter, makes it appear as if, immediately after the temptation of Christ, and before his entrance into Capernaum, he met and summoned the two pairs of brothers, of which call the immediate circumstances are given there, in words which are a very literal transcript of those of Matthew, with hardly the slightest addition. But the events which followed the summons are given in such a manner, as to convey an impression quite different from that made by Matthew’s brief and simple narrative. After the call, they, both Jesus and his four disciples, entered into Capernaum, of which place Mark has before made no mention; and going at once into the synagogue, Jesus preached, and confirmed the wonderful authority with which he spoke, before the face of the people, by the striking cure of a demoniac. From the synagogue he went to the house of Simon and Andrew, by which it appears that they already resided in Capernaum. Here a new occasion was given for the display of the power and benevolence of the Messiah, in the case of Simon’s mother-in-law, who, laboring under an attack of fever, was instantly entirely relieved, upon the word of Jesus. This event is given by Matthew in a totally different connection. Very early in the next morning, Jesus retired to a neighboring solitude, to enjoy himself in meditation apart from the busy scenes of the sabbath, in which the fame of his power had involved him the evening before. To this place, Simon and those with him, no doubt his brother and the sons of Zebedee merely, (already it would seem so well acquainted with their great master as to know his haunts,) followed him, to make known to him the earnest wish of the admiring people for his presence among them. Jesus then went out with them through the villages of Galilee, in the earnest performance of the work for which he came. It is not till this place, in the story of the leper healed, that the statements of Matthew and Mark again meet and coincide. Mark evidently makes significant additions to the narrative, and gives us a much more definite and decided notion of the situation and conduct of those concerned in this interesting transaction.
3. Luke has given us a view of the circumstances, very different, both in order and number, as well as character, from those of the former writers. His account of the first call of the disciples, seems to amount to this; giving the events in the order in which he places them in his fourth and fifth chapters. The first mention which is here made of Simon, is in the end of the fourth chapter, where his name is barely mentioned in connection with the account of the cure of his mother-in-law, which is brought in without any previous allusion to any disciple, but is placed in other respects, in the same connection as in Mark’s narrative. After a full account of this case, which is given with the more minuteness, probably from the circumstance that this writer was himself a physician, he goes on to relate the particulars of Simon’s call, in the beginning of the fourth chapter, as if it was a subsequent event. The general impression from the two preceding narratives, would naturally be, that Jesus went out on his walk by the shore of the lake, by himself, without any extraordinary attendance. But it now appears, that as he stood on the shore, he was beset by an eager multitude, begging to hear from him the word of God. On this, casting his eyes about for some convenient place to address them, he noticed two fishing vessels drawn up near him by the shore, and the owners disembarked from them, engaged in washing their nets. He then first spoke to Simon, after going on board of his boat, to beg him to push off again a little from the land, and his request being granted, he sat down, and from his seat in the boat, taught the multitude gathered on the shore. After the conclusion of his discourse, perhaps partly, or in some small measure, with the design of properly impressing his hearers by a miracle, with the idea of his authority to assume the high bearing which so characterized his instructions, and which excited so much astonishment among them, he urged Simon to push out still further into deep water, and to open his nets for a draught. Simon, evidently already so favorably impressed respecting his visitor, as to feel disposed to obey and gratify him, did according to the request, remarking, however, that as he had toiled all night without catching any thing, he opened his net again only out of respect to his Divine Master, and not because, after so many fruitless endeavors, so long continued, it was reasonable to hope for the least success. Upon drawing in the net, it was found to be filled with so vast a number of fishes, that having been used before its previous rents had been entirely mended, it broke with the unusual weight. They then made known the difficulty to their friends, the sons of Zebedee, who were in the other boat, and were obliged to share their burden between the two vessels, which were both so overloaded with the fishes as to be in danger of sinking. At this event, so unexpected and overwhelming, Simon was seized with mingled admiration and awe; and reverently besought Jesus to depart from a sinful man, so unworthy as he was to be a subject of benevolent attention from one so mighty and good. As might be expected, not only Peter, but also his companions,——the sons of Zebedee,——were struck with a miracle so peculiarly impressive to them, because it was an event connected with their daily business, and yet utterly out of the common course of things. But Jesus soothed their awe and terror into interest and attachment, by telling Simon that henceforth he should find far nobler employment in taking men.
4. John takes no notice whatever of this scene by the lake of Galilee, but gives us, what is not found in the first three gospels, an interesting account, already quoted, of the first introduction of Peter to Christ, not choosing to incumber his pages with a new repetition or variation of the story of his direct call.
The office of an apostolic historian becomes at once most arduous and most important, and the usefulness of his labors is most fully shown in such passages as this, where the task of weaving the various threads and scraps of sacred history in one even and uniform text, is one to which few readers, taking the parts detailed in the ordinary way, are competent, and which requires for its satisfactory achievement, more aids from the long accumulated labors of the learned of past ages, than are within the reach of any but a favored few. To pass back and forth from gospel to gospel, in the search after order and consistency,——to bring the lights of other history to clear up the obscurities, and show that which fills up the deficiencies of the gospel story,——to add the helps of ancient and modern travelers in tracing the topography of the Bible,——to find in lexicons, commentaries, criticisms and interpretations, the true and full force of every word of those passages in which an important fact is expressed,——these are a few of the writer’s duties in giving to common readers the results of the mental efforts of the theologians of this and past ages, whose humble copyist and translator he is. Often aiming, however, at an effort somewhat higher than that of giving the opinions and thoughts of others, he offers his own account and arrangement of the subject, in preference to those of the learned, as being free from such considerations as are involved in technicalities above the appreciation of ordinary readers, and as standing in a connected narrative form, while the information on these points, found in the works of eminent biblical scholars, is mostly in detached fragments, which, however complete to the student, require much explanation and illustration, to make them useful or interesting to the majority of readers. Thus in this case, having given the three different accounts above, he next proceeds to arrange them into such a narrative as will be consistent with each, and contain all the facts. In the discussion of particular points, reference can be properly made to the authority of others, where necessary to explain or support.
Taking up the apostolic history, then, where it is left by John, as referred to above, and taking the facts from each gospel in what seems to be its proper place and time; the three narratives are thus combined into one whole, with the addition of such circumstances as may be inferred by way of explanation, though not directly stated.
Leaving Nazareth, Jesus had come to Capernaum, at the northwestern end of the lake, and there made his home. About this time, perhaps on occasion of his marriage, Simon had left Bethsaida, the city of his birth, and now dwelt in Capernaum, probably on account of his wife being of that place, and he may have gone into the possession of a house, inherited by his marriage, which supposition would agree with the circumstance of the residence of his wife’s mother in her married daughter’s family, which would not be so easily explainable on the supposition that she had also sons to inherit their father’s property, and furnish a home to their mother. It has also been suggested, that he probably removed to Capernaum after his introduction to Christ, in order to enjoy his instructions more conveniently, being near him. This motive would no doubt have had some weight. Here the two brothers dwelt together in one house, which makes it almost certain that Andrew was unmarried, for the peculiarity of eastern manners would hardly have permitted the existence of two families, two husbands, two wives in the same domestic circle. Making this place the center of their business, they industriously devoted themselves to honest labor, extending their fishing operations over the lake, on which they toiled night and day. It seems that the house of Simon and Andrew was Jesus’s regular place of abode while in Capernaum, of which supposition the manifest proofs occur in the course of the narrative. Thus when Jesus came out of the synagogue, he went to Simon’s house,——remained there as at a home, during the day, and there received the visits of the immense throng of people who brought their sick friends to him; all which he would certainly have been disposed to do at his proper residence, rather than where he was a mere occasional [♦]visitor. He is also elsewhere mentioned, as going into Peter’s house in such a familiar and habitual kind of way, as to make the inference very obvious, that it was his home. On these terms of close domestic intimacy, did Jesus remain with these favored disciples for more than a year, during which time he continued to reside at Capernaum. He must have resided in some other house, however, on his first arrival in Capernaum, because, in the incident which is next given here, his conduct was evidently that of a person much less intimately acquainted with Simon than a fellow-lodger would be. The circumstances of the call evidently show, that Peter, although acquainted with Christ previously, in the way mentioned by John, had by no means become his intimate, daily companion. We learn from Luke, that Jesus, walking forth from Capernaum, along the lake, saw two boats standing by the lake, but the fishers having gone out of them, were engaged in putting their nets and other fishing tackle in order. As on his walk the populace had thronged about him, from curiosity and interest, and were annoying him with requests, he sought a partial refuge from their friendly attacks, on board of Simon’s boat, which was at hand, and begging him to push out a little from the land, he immediately made the boat his pulpit, in preaching to the throng on shore, sitting down and teaching the people out of the boat. When he had left off speaking, he said to Simon, “Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.” And Simon answered, “Master, we have toiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless, at thy word I will let down the net.” As soon as they did so, they took into the net a great multitude of fishes, and the net broke. They then beckoned to their partners, who were in the other vessel, that they should come and help them. And they came and filled both vessels, so that they began to sink. When Simon saw what was the result, he fell down at Jesus’s knees, saying, “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” For both he, and they that were with him, Andrew, James and John, were astonished at the draught of fishes they had taken. But Jesus said to Simon, “Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men;” and then gave both to him and his brother a distinct call, “Follow me——come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.” And as soon as they had brought their ships to land, they forsook their nets, ships and all, and followed him, not back into Capernaum, but over all Galilee, while he preached to wondering thousands the gospel of peace, and set forth to them his high claims to their attention and obedience, by healing all the diseased which his great fame induced them to bring in such multitudes. This was, after all, the true object of his calling his disciples to follow him in that manner. Can we suppose that he would come out of Capernaum, in the morning, and finding there his acquaintances about their honest business, would call on them, in that unaccountable manner, to follow him back into their home, to which they would of course, naturally enough, have gone of their own accord, without any divine call, for a simple act of necessity? It was evidently with a view to initiate them, at once, into the knowledge of the labors to which he had called them, and to give them an insight into the nature of the trials and difficulties which they must encounter in his service. In short, it was to enter them on their apprenticeship to the mysteries of their new and holy vocation. On this pilgrimage through Galilee, then, he must have been accompanied by his four newly chosen helpers, who thus were daily and hourly witnesses of his words and actions, as recorded by all the first three evangelists. (Matthew chapters iv.–viii. Mark, chapters i.–iii. &c. Luke, chapters v.–vi.)
[♦] “visiter” replaced with “visitor”
The accounts which Matthew and Mark give of this call, have seemed so strikingly different from that of Luke, that Calmet, Thoynard, Macknight, Hug, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Marsh, Paulus, (and perhaps some others,) have considered Luke’s story in v. 1–11, as referring to a totally distinct event. See Calmet’s, Thoynard’s, Macknight’s, Michaelis’s, and Vater’s harmonies, in loc. Also Eichhorn’s introduction, 1. § 58, V. II.,——Marsh’s dissertation on the origin of the three gospels, in table of coincident passages,——Paulus’s “Commentar weber das Neue Testament.” 1 Theil xxiii. Abschnitt; compare xix. Abschnitt,——Hug’s “Einleitung in das Neue Testament,” Vol. II. § 40. “Erste auswanderung, Lucas, iii.,” compare Mark.
These great authorities would do much to support any arrangement of gospel events, but the still larger number of equally high authorities on the other side, justifies my boldness in attempting to find a harmony, where these great men could see none. Lightfoot, Le Clerc, Arnauld, Newcome, with all his subsequent editors, and Thirlwall, in their harmonies, agree in making all three evangelists refer to the same event. Grotius, Hammond, Wetstein, Scott, Clarke, Kuinoel, and Rosenmueller, in their several commentaries in loco,——also Stackhouse in his history of the Bible, and Horne in his introduction, with many others, all take the view which I have presented in the text, and may be consulted by those who wish for reasons at greater length than my limits will allow.
“Peter and Andrew dwell together in one house.”——This appears from Mark i. 29, where it is said that, after the call of the brothers by Jesus, “they entered the house of Simon and Andrew.”
“Sat down and taught the people out of the ship,” verse 3. This was a convenient position, adopted by Jesus on another occasion also. Matthew xiii. 2. Mark iv. 1.
“Launch out.”——Luke v. 4. Επαναγαγε, (Epanagage,) the same word which occurs in verse 3, there translated in the common English version, “thrust out.” It was, probably, a regular nautical term for this backward movement, though in the classic Greek, Εξαναγειν, (exanagein,) was the form always used to express this idea, insomuch that it seems to have been the established technical term. Perhaps Luke may have intended this term originally, which might have been corrupted by some early copyist into this word, which is in no other place used with this meaning.——“Let down,” (Χαλασατε, khalasate, in the plural; the former verb singular.) More literally, “loosen,” which is the primary signification of the verb, and would be the proper one, since the operation of preparing the net to take the fish, consisted in loosening the ropes and other tackle, which, of course, were drawn tight, when the net was not in use, closing its mouth. “Master, we have toiled,” &c. verse 5. The word Επιστατα, (Epistata,) here translated Master, is remarkable, as never occurring in the Testament, except in this gospel. Grotius remarks, (in loc.) that doubtless Luke, (the most finished and correct Greek scholar of all the sacred writers,) considered this term as a more faithful translation of the Hebrew רבי, (Rabbi,) than the common expressions of the other evangelists, Κυριε, (Kurie, Lord,) and διδασκαλε, (didaskale, teacher.) It was a moderate, though dignified title, between these two in its character, rather lower than “Lord,” and rather higher than “Teacher.” It is used in the Alexandrian version, as the proper term for a “steward,” a “military commander,” &c. (See Grotius theol. op. Vol. II. p. 372; or Poole’s Synopsis on this passage.) “Toiled all night.” This was the best time for taking the fish, as is well known to those who follow fishing for a living.
On this journey, they saw some of his most remarkable miracles, such as the healing of the leper, the paralytic, the man with the withered hand, and others of which the details are not given. It was also during this time, that the sermon on the mount was delivered, which was particularly addressed to his disciples, and was plainly meant for their instruction, in the conduct proper in them as the founders of the gospel faith. Besides passing through many cities on the nearer side, he also crossed over the lake, and visited the rude people of those wild districts. The journey was, therefore, a very long one, and must have occupied several weeks. After he had sufficiently acquainted them with the nature of the duties to which he had consecrated them, and had abundantly impressed them with the high powers which he possessed, and of which they were to be the partakers, he came back to Capernaum, and there entered into the house of Simon, which he seems henceforth to have made his home while in that city. They found, that, during their absence, the mother-in-law of Simon had been taken ill, and was then suffering under the heat of a violent fever. Jesus at once, with a word, pronounced her cure, and immediately the fever left her so perfectly healed, that she arose from her sick bed, and proceeded to welcome their return, by her grateful efforts to make their home comfortable to them, after their tiresome pilgrimage.
“Immediately the fever left her.”——Matthew viii. 15: Mark i. 31: Luke iv. 39. It may seem quite idle to conjecture the specific character of this fever; but it seems to me a very justifiable guess, that it was a true intermittent, or fever and ague, arising from the marsh influences, which must have been very strong in such a place as Capernaum,——situated as it was, on the low margin of a large fresh water lake, and with all the morbific agencies of such an unhealthy site, increased by the heat of that climate. The immediate termination of the fever, under these circumstances, was an abundant evidence of the divine power of Christ’s word, over the evil agencies, which mar the health and happiness of mankind.
During some time after this, Peter does not seem to have left his home for any long period at once, until Christ’s long journeys to Judea and Jerusalem, but no doubt accompanied Jesus on all his excursions through Galilee, besides the first, of which the history has been here given. It would be hard, and exceedingly unsatisfactory, however, to attempt to draw out from the short, scattered incidents which fill the interesting records of the gospels, any very distinct, detailed narrative of these various journeys. The chronology and order of most of these events, is still left much in the dark, and most of the pains taken to bring out the truth to the light, have only raised the greater dust to blind the eyes of the eager investigator. To pretend to roll all these clouds away at once, and open to common eyes a clear view of facts, which have so long confused the minds of some of the wisest and best of almost every Christian age, and too often, alas! in turn, been confused by them,——such an effort, however well meant, could only win for its author the contempt of the learned, and the perplexed dissatisfaction of common readers. But one very simple, and comparatively easy task, is plainly before the writer, and to that he willingly devotes himself for the present. This task is, that of separating and disposing, in what may seem their natural order, with suitable illustration and explanation, those few facts contained in the gospels, relating distinctly to this apostle. These facts, accordingly, here follow.
HIS FIRST MISSION.
The next affair in which Peter is mentioned, by either evangelist, is the final enrolling of the twelve peculiar disciples, to whom Jesus gave the name of apostles. In their proper place have already been mentioned, both the meaning of this title and the rank of Peter on the list; and it need here only be remarked, that Peter went forth with the rest, on this their first and experimental mission. All the first three gospels contain this account; but Matthew enters most fully into the charge of Jesus, in giving them their first commission. In his tenth chapter, this charge is given with such particularity, that a mere reference of the reader to that place will be sufficient, without any need of explanation here. After these minute directions for their behavior, they departed, as Mark and Luke record, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, that men should repent. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. How far their journey extended, cannot be positively determined, but there is no probability that they went beyond the limits of Galilee. Divided as they were into couples, and each pair taking a different route, a large space must have been gone over in this mission, however brief the time can be supposed to have been. As to the exact time occupied, we are, indeed, as uncertain as in respect to the distance to which they traveled; but from the few incidents placed by Mark and Luke between their departure and return, it could hardly have been more than a few weeks, probably only a few days. The only affair mentioned by either evangelist, between their departure and return, is, the notice taken by Herod of the actions of Jesus, to whom his attention was drawn by his resemblance to John the Baptist. They then say, that the apostles, when they were returned, gathered themselves together to Jesus, and told him all things,——both what they had done and what they had taught. As this report was received by Jesus, without any comment that is recorded, it is fair to conclude, that their manner of preaching, and the success of their labors, had been such as to deserve his approbation. In this mission, there is nothing particularly commemorated with respect to Peter’s conduct; but no doubt the same fiery zeal which distinguished him afterwards, on so many occasions, made him foremost in this his earliest apostolic labor. His rank, as chief apostle, too, probably gave him some prominent part in the mission, and his field of operations must have been more important and extensive than that of the inferior apostles, and his success proportionably greater.
It is deserving of notice, that on this first mission, Jesus seems to have arranged the twelve in pairs, in which order he probably sent them forth, as he certainly did the seventy disciples, described in Luke x. 1. The object of this arrangement, was no doubt to secure them that mutual support which was so desirable for men, so unaccustomed to the high duties on which they were now dispatched.
Their destination, also, deserves attention. The direction of Jesus was, that they should avoid the way of the heathen, and the cities of the Samaritans, who were but little better, and should go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This expression was quoted, probably, from those numerous passages in the prophets, where this term is applied to the Israelites, as in Jeremiah l. 6, Isaiah liii. 6, Ezekiel xxxiv. 6, &c., and was used with peculiar force, in reference to the condition of those to whom Jesus sent his apostles. It seems to me, as if he, by this peculiar term, meant to limit them to the provinces of Galilee, where the state and character of the Jews was such as eminently to justify this melancholy appellative. The particulars of their condition will be elsewhere shown. They were expressly bounded on one side, from passing into the heathen territory, and on the other from entering the cities of the Samaritans, who dwelt between Galilee and Judea proper, so that a literal obedience of these instructions, would have confined them entirely to Galilee, their native land. Macknight also takes this view. The reasons of this limitation, are abundant and obvious. The peculiarly abandoned moral condition of that outcast section of Palestine,——the perfect familiarity which the apostles must have felt with the people of their own region, whose peculiarities of language and habits they themselves shared so perfectly as to be unfitted for a successful outset among the Jews of the south, without more experience out of Galilee,——the shortness of the time, which seems to have been taken up in this mission,——the circumstance that Jesus sent them to proclaim that “the kingdom of heaven was at hand,” that is, that the Messiah was approaching, which he did in order to arouse the attention of the people to himself, when he should go to them, (compare Luke x. 1,) thus making them his forerunners; and the fact, that the places to which he actually did go with them, on their return, were all in Galilee, (Matthew xi., xix. 1, Mark vi. 7, x. 1, Luke ix. 1–51,) all serve to show that this first mission of the apostles, was limited entirely to the Jewish population of Galilee. His promise to them also in Matthew x. 2, 3, “you shall not finish the cities of Israel, before the son of man come,” seems to me to mean simply, that there would be no occasion for them to extend their labors to the Gentile cities of Galilee, or to the Samaritans; because, before they could finish their specially allotted field of survey, he himself would be ready to follow them, and confirm their labors. This was mentioned to them in connection with the prediction of persecutions which they would meet, as an encouragement. For various other explanations of this last passage, see Poole’s Synopsis, Rosenmueller, Wetstein, Macknight, Le Sainte Bible avec notes, &c. in loc. But Kuinoel, who quotes on his side Beza, Bolten, and others, supports the view, which an unassisted consideration induced me to suggest.
“Anointed with oil.” Mark vi. 13. The same expression occurs in James v. 14, and needs explanation from its connection with a peculiar rite of the Romish church,——extreme unction, from which it differs, however, inasmuch as it was always a hopeful operation, intended to aid the patient, and secure his recovery, while the Romish ceremony is always performed in case of complete despair of life, only with a view to prepare the patient, by this mummery, for certain death. The operation mentioned as so successfully performed by the apostles, for the cure of diseases, was undoubtedly a simple remedial process, previously in long-established use among the Hebrews, as clearly appears by the numerous authorities quoted by Lightfoot, Wetstein, and Paulus, from Rabbinical Greek and Arabic sources; yet Beza and others, quoted in Poole’s Synopsis, as well as Rosenmueller, suggest some symbolical force in the ceremony, for which see those works in loc. See also Kuinoel, and Bloomfield who gives numerous references. See also Marlorat’s Bibliotheca expositionum, Stackhouse’s History of the Bible, Whitby, &c.
THE SCENES ON THE LAKE.
After receiving the report of his apostles’ labors, Jesus said to them, “Come ye yourselves apart into a retired place, and rest awhile:” for there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat. And he took them and went privately by ship aside, into a lonely place, near the city called Bethsaida. And the people saw him departing, and many knew him, and went on foot to the place, out of all the country, and outwent them, and came together to him as soon as he reached there. And he received them, and spoke unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing. It was on this occasion that he performed the miracle of feeding the multitude with five loaves and two fishes. So great was the impression made on their minds by this extraordinary act of benevolence and power, that he thought it best, in order to avoid the hindrance of his great task, by any popular commotion in his favor, to go away in such a manner as to be effectually beyond their reach for the time.——With this view he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and go before him to the other side of the lake, opposite to Bethsaida, where they then were; while he sent away the people. After sending the multitude away, he went up into a mountain, apart, to pray. And after night fall, the vessel was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land. Thence he saw them toiling with rowing, (for the wind was contrary to them, and the ship tossed in the waves:) and about three or four o’clock in the morning, he comes to them, walking on the sea, and appeared as if about to pass unconcernedly by them. But when they saw him walking upon the sea. they supposed it to have been a spirit, and they all cried out, “It is a spirit;” for they all saw him, and were alarmed; and immediately he spoke to them, and said “Be comforted; it is I; be not afraid.” And Peter, foremost in zeal on this occasion, as at almost all times, said to him, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come to thee upon the water.” And he said, “Come.” And when Peter had come down out of the vessel, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, “Lord, save me.” And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him; and said to him, “O thou of little faith! wherefore didst thou doubt?” And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased; and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered. And all they that were in the vessel came and worshiped him, saying, “Of a truth, thou art the Son of God.” This amazement and reverence was certainly very tardily acknowledged by them, after all the wonders they had seen wrought by him; but they considered not the miracle of the loaves, the most recent of all, which happened but a few hours before. For this thoughtlessness, in a matter so striking and weighty, Jesus himself afterwards rebuked them, referring both to this miracle of feeding the five thousand, and to a subsequent similar one. However, the various great actions of a similar character, thus repeated before them, seem at last to have had a proper effect, since, on an occasion not long after, they boldly and clearly made their profession of faith in Jesus, as the Christ.
“A lonely place.”——The word desert, which is the adjective given in this passage, in the common English version, (Matthew xiv. 13, 15, Mark vi. 31, 32, 35, Luke ix. 10, 12,) does not convey to the reader, the true idea of the character of the place. The Greek word Ερημος (eremos) does not in the passages just quoted, mean “desert,” in our modern sense of that English word, which always conveys the idea of “desolation,” “wildness” and “barrenness,” as well as “solitude.” But the Greek word by no means implied these darker characteristics. The primary, uniform idea of the word is, “lonely,” “solitary,” and so little does it imply “barrenness,” that it is applied to lands, rich, fertile and pleasant, a connection, of course, perfectly inconsistent with our ideas of a desert place. Schleusner gives the idea very fairly under Ερημια, (eremia,) a derivative of this word. “Notat locum aliquem vel tractum terrae, non tam incultum et horridum, quam minus habitabilem,——solitudinem,——locum vacuum quidem ab hominibus, pascuis tamen et agris abundantem, et arboribus obsitum.” “It means a place or tract of land, not so much uncultivated and wild, as it does one thinly inhabited,——a solitude, a place empty of men indeed, yet rich in pastures and fields, and planted with trees.” But after giving this very clear and satisfactory account of the derivative, he immediately after gives to the primitive itself, the primary meaning “desertus, desolatus, vastus, devastatus,” and refers to passages where the word is applied to ruined cities; but in every one of those passages, the true idea is that above given as the meaning, “stripped of inhabitants,” and not “desolated” or “laid waste.” Hedericus gives this as the first meaning, “desertus, solus, solitarius, inhabitatus.” Schneider also fully expresses it, in German, by “einsam,” (lonely, solitary,) in which he is followed by Passow, his improver, and by Donnegan, his English translator. Jones and Pickering, also give it thus. Bretschneider and Wahl, in their New Testament Lexicons, have given a just and proper classification of the meanings. The word “desert” came into our English translation, by the minute verbal adherence of the translators to the Vulgate or Latin version, where the word is expressed by “desertum” probably enough because desertus, in Latin, does not mean desert in English, nor any thing like it, but simply “lonely,” “uninhabited;”——in short, it has the force of the English participle, “deserted,” and not of the adjective “desert,” which has probably acquired its modern meaning, and lost its old one, since our common translation was made; thus making one instance, among ten thousand others, of the imperfection of this ancient translation, which was, at best, but a servile English rendering of the Vulgate. Campbell, in his four gospels, has repeated this passage, without correcting the error, though Hammond, long before, in his just and beautiful paraphrase, (on Matthew xiv. 13,) had corrected it by the expression, “a place not inhabited.” Charles Thomson, in his version, has overlooked the error in Matthew xiv. 13, 15, but has corrected it in Mark vi. 31, &c., and in Luke ix. 10; expressing it by “solitary.” The remark of the apostles to Jesus, “This place is lonely,” does not require the idea of a barren or wild place; it was enough that it was far from any village, and had not inhabitants enough to furnish food for five thousand men; as in 2 Corinthians xi. 26, it is used in opposition to “city,” in the sense of “the country.”
HIS DECLARATION OF CHRIST’S DIVINITY.
Journeying on northward, Jesus came into the neighborhood of [♦]Caesarea Philippi, and while he was there in some solitary place, praying alone with his select disciples, at the conclusion of his prayer, he asked them, “Who do men say that I, the son of man, am?” And they answered him, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist:” Herod, in particular, we know, had this notion; “some, that thou art Elijah, and others that thou art Jeremiah, or one of the prophets, that is risen again.” So peculiar was his doctrine, and so far removed was he, both in impressive eloquence and in original views, from the degeneracy and servility of that age, that the universal sentiment was, that one of the bold, pure “spirits of the fervent days of old,” had come back to call Judah from foreign servitude, to the long remembered glories of the reigns of David and Solomon. But his chosen ones, who had by repeated instruction, as well as long acquaintance, better learned their Master, though still far from appreciating his true character and designs, had yet a higher and juster idea of him, than the unenlightened multitudes who had been amazed by his deeds. To draw from them the distinct acknowledgment of their belief in him, Jesus at last plainly asked his disciples, “But who do ye say that I am?” Simon Peter, in his usual character as spokesman, replied for the whole band, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus, recognizing in this prompt answer, the fiery and devoted spirit that would follow the great work of redemption through life, and at last to death, replied to the zealous speaker in terms of marked and exalted honor, prophesying at the same time the high part which he would act in spreading and strengthening the kingdom of his Master: “Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art a ROCK, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” In such high terms was the chief apostle distinguished, and thus did his Master peculiarly commission him above the rest, for the high office, to which all the energies of his remaining life were to be devoted.
[♦] “Cesarea” replaced with “Caesarea”
Who do men say that I am.——The common English translation, here makes a gross grammatical blunder, putting the relative in the objective case,——“Whom do men say,” &c. (Matthew xvi. 13–15.) It is evident that on inverting the order, putting the relative last instead of first, it will be in the nominative,——“Men say that I am who?” making, in short, a nominative after the verb, though it here comes before it by the inversion which the relative requires. Here again the blunder may be traced to a heedless copying of the Vulgate. In Latin, as in Greek, the relative is given in the accusative, and very properly, because it is followed by the infinitive. “Quem dicunt homines esse Filium hominis?” which literally is, “Whom do men say the son of man to be?”——a very correct form of expression; but the blunder of our translators was, in preserving the accusative, while they changed the verb, from the infinitive to the finite form; for “whom” cannot be governed by “say.” Hammond has passed over the blunder; but Campbell, Thomson, and Webster, have corrected it.
Son of Man.——This expression has acquired a peculiarly exalted sense in our minds, in consequence of its repeated application to Jesus Christ, and its limitation to him, in the New Testament. But in those days it had no meaning by which it could be considered expressive of any peculiar characteristic of the Savior, being a mere general emphatic expression for the common word “man,” used in solemn address or poetical expressions. Both in the Old and New Testament it is many times applied to men in general, and to particular individuals, in such a way as to show that it was only an elegant periphrasis for the common term, without implying any peculiar importance in the person thus designated, or referring to any peculiar circumstance as justifying this appellative in that case. Any concordance will show how commonly the word occurred in this connection. The diligent Butterworth enumerates eighty-nine times in which this word is applied to Ezekiel, in whose book of prophecy it occurs oftener than in any other book in the Bible. It is also applied to Daniel, in the address of the angel to him, as to Ezekiel; and in consideration of the vastly more frequent occurrence of the expression in the writers after the captivity, and its exclusive use by them as a formula of solemn address, it has been commonly considered as having been brought into this usage among the Hebrews, from the dialects of Chaldea and Syria, where it was much more common. In Syriac, more particularly, the simple expression, “man,” is entirely banished from use by this solemn periphrasis,
(bar-nosh,) “SON OF MAN,” which every where takes the place of the original direct form. It should be noticed also, that in every place in the Old Testament where this expression (“son of man”) occurs, before Ezekiel, the former part of the sentence invariably contains the direct form of expression, (“man,”) and this periphrasis is given in the latter part of every such sentence, for the sake of a poetical repetition of the same idea in a slightly different form. Take, for instance, Psalm viii. 4, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?” And exactly so in every other passage anterior to Ezekiel, as Numbers xxiii. 19, Job xxv. 16, xxxv. 8, Isaiah li. 12, lvi. 2, and several other passages, to which any good concordance will direct the reader.
The New Testament writers too, apply this expression in other ways than as a name of Jesus Christ. It is given as a mere periphrasis, entirely synonymous with “man,” in a general or abstract sense, without reference to any particular individual, in Mark iii. 28, (compare Matthew xii. 13, where the simple expression “men” is given,) Hebrews ii. 6, (a mere translation of Psalm viii. 4,) Ephesians iii. 5, Revelation i. 13, xiv. 14. In the peculiar emphatic limitation to which this note refers, it is applied by Jesus Christ to himself about eighty times in the gospels, but is never used by any other person in the New Testament, as a name of the Savior, except by Stephen, in Acts, vii. 56. It never occurs in this sense in the apostolic epistles. (Bretschneider.) For this use of the word, I should not think it necessary to seek any mystical or important reason, as so many have done, nor can I see that in its application to Jesus, it has any very direct reference to the circumstance of his having, though divine, put on a human nature, but simply a nobly modest and strikingly emphatic form of expression used by him, in speaking of his own exalted character and mighty plans, and partly to avoid the too frequent repetition of the personal pronoun. It is at once evident that this indirect form, in the third person, is both more dignified and modest in solemn address, than the use of the first person singular of the pronoun. Exactly similar to this are many forms of circumlocution with which we are familiar. The presiding officer of any great deliberative assembly, for instance, in announcing his own decision on points of order, by a similar periphrasis, says “The chair decides,” &c. In fashionable forms of intercourse, such instances are still more frequent. In many books, where the writer has occasion to speak of himself, he speaks in the third person, “the author,” &c.; as in an instance close at hand, in this book it will be noticed, that where it is necessary for me to allude to myself in the text of the work, which, of course, is more elevated in its tone than the notes, I speak, according to standard forms of scriptorial propriety, in the third person, as “the author,” &c.; while here, in these small discussions, which break in on the more dignified narrative, I find it at once more convenient and proper, to use the more familiar and simple forms of [♦]expression.
[♦] “expresssion” replaced with “expression”
This periphrasis (“son of”) is not peculiar to oriental languages, as every Greek scholar knows, who is familiar with Homer’s common expression υιες Αχαιων, (uies Akhaion,) “sons of Grecians,” instead of “Grecians” simply, which by a striking coincidence, occurs in Joel xiii. 6, in the same sense. Other instances might be needlessly [♦]multiplied.
[♦] “multipled” replaced with “multiplied”
Thou art a Rock, &c.——This is the just translation of Peter’s name, and the force of the declaration is best understood by this rendering. As it stands in the original, it is “Thou art Πετρος, (Petros, ‘a rock,’) and on this Πετρα (Petra, ‘a rock’) I will build my church,”——a play on the words so palpable, that great injustice is done to its force by a common tame, unexplained translation. The variation of the words in the Greek, from the masculine to the feminine termination, makes no difference in the expression. In the Greek Testament, the feminine πετρα (petra) is the only form of the word used as the common noun for “rock,” but the masculine πετρος (petros) is used in the most finished classic writers of the ancient Greek, of the Ionic, Doric and Attic, as Homer, Herodotus, Pindar, Xenophon, and, in the later order of writers, Diodorus Siculus.
H. Stephens gives the masculine form as the primitive, but Schneider derives it from the feminine.
After this distinct profession of faith in him, by his disciples, through Peter, Jesus particularly and solemnly charged them all, that they should not, then, assert their belief to others, lest they should thereby be drawn into useless and unfortunate contests about their Master, with those who entertained a very different opinion of him. For Jesus knew that his disciples, shackled and possessed as they were with their fantasies about the earthly reign of a Messiah, were not, as yet, sufficiently prepared to preach this doctrine: and wisely foresaw that the mass of the Jewish people would either put no faith at all in such an announcement, or that the ill disposed and ambitious would abuse it, to the purposes of effecting a political revolution, by raising a rebellion against the Roman rulers of Palestine, and oversetting foreign power. He had, it is true, already sent forth his twelve apostles, to preach the coming of the kingdom, (Matthew x. 7,) but that was only to the effect that the time of the Messiah’s reign was nigh,——that the lives and hearts of all must be changed,——all which the apostles might well preach, without pretending to announce who the Messiah was.
HIS AMBITIOUS HOPES AND THEIR HUMILIATION.
This avowal of Peter’s belief that Jesus was the Messiah, to which the other apostles gave their assent, silent or loud, was so clear and hearty, that Jesus plainly perceived their persuasion of his divine authority to be so strong, that they might now bear a decisive and open explanation of those things which he had hitherto rather darkly and dimly hinted at, respecting his own death. He also at this time, brought out the full truth the more clearly as to the miseries which hung over him, and his expected death, with the view the more effectually to overthrow those false notions which they had preconceived of earthly happiness and triumph, to be expected in the Messiah’s kingdom; and with the view, also, of preparing them for the events which must shortly happen; lest, after they saw him nailed to the cross, they should all at once lose their high hopes, and utterly give him up. He knew too, that he had such influence with his disciples, that if their minds were shocked, and their faith in him shaken, at first, by such a painful disclosure, he could soon bring them back to a proper confidence in him. Accordingly, from this time, he began distinctly to set forth to them, how he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. There is much room for reasonable doubt, as to the manner in which those who heard this declaration of Christ, understood it at the time. As to the former part of it, namely, that he would be ill-treated by the great men of the Jewish nation, both by those ruling in the civil and religious government, it was too plain for any one to put any but the right meaning upon it. But the promise that he should, after this horrible fate, rise again from the dead on the third day, did not, as it is evident, by any means convey to them the meaning which all who read it now, are able to find in it. Nothing can be more plain to a careful reader of the gospels, than that his disciples and friends had not the slightest expectation that he would ever appear to them after his cruel death; and the mingled horror and dread with which the first news of that event was received by them, shows them to have been utterly unprepared for it. It required repeated positive demonstration, on his part, to assure them that he was truly alive among them, in his own form and character. The question then is——what meaning had they all along given to the numerous declarations uttered by him to them, apparently foretelling this, in the distinct terms, of which the above passage is a specimen? Had they understood it as we do, and yet so absolutely disbelieved it, that they put no faith in the event itself, when it had so palpably occurred? And had they, for months and years, followed over Palestine, through labors, and troubles, and dangers, a man, who, as they supposed, was boldly endeavoring to saddle their credulity with a burden too monstrous for even them to bear? They must, from the nature of their connection with him, have put the most unlimited confidence in him, and could not thus devotedly have given themselves up to a man whom they believed or suspected to be constantly uttering to them a falsehood so extravagant and improbable. They must, then, have put some meaning on it, different from that which our clearer light enables us to see in it; and that meaning, no doubt, they honestly and firmly believed, until the progress of events showed them the power of the prophecy in its wonderful and literal fulfilment. They may have misunderstood it in his life time, in this way: the universal character of the language of the children of Shem, seems to be a remarkable proneness to figurative expressions, and the more abstract the ideas which the speaker wishes to convey, the more strikingly material are the figures he uses, and the more poetical the language in which he conveys them. Teachers of morals and religion, most especially, have, among those nations of the east, been always distinguished for their highly figurative expressions, and none abound more richly in them than the writers of the Old and New Testament. So peculiarly effective, for his great purposes, did Jesus Christ, in particular, find this variety of eloquence, that it is distinctly said of him, that he seldom or never spoke to the people without a parable, which he was often obliged to expound more in detail, to his chosen followers, when apart with them. This style of esoteric and exoteric instruction, had early taught his disciples to look into his most ordinary expressions for a hidden meaning; and what can be more likely than that often, when left to their own conjectures, they, for a time, at least, overleaped the simple literal truth, into a fog of figurative interpretations, as too many of their very modern successors have often done, to their own and others’ misfortune. We certainly know that, in regard to those very expressions about raising the dead, there was a very earnest inquiry among the three chief apostles, some time after, as will be mentioned in place, showing that it never seemed possible to them that their Lord, mighty as he had showed himself, could ever mean to say to them, that, when his bitter foes had crowned his life of toil and cares with a bloody and cruel exit, he——even He, could dare to promise them, that he would break through that iron seal, which, when once set upon the energies of man, neither goodness, nor valor, nor knowledge, nor love, had ever loosened, but which, since the first dead yielded his breath, not the mightiest prophet, nor the most inspired, could ever break through for himself. The figure of death and resurrection, has often been made a striking image of many moral changes;——of some one of which, the hearers of Jesus probably first interpreted it. In connection with what he had previously said, nothing could seem more natural to them, than that he, by this peculiarly strong metaphor, wished to remind them that, even after his death, by the envious and cruel hands of Jewish magistrates, over but a few days, his name, the ever fresh influence of his bright and holy example——the undying powers of his breathing and burning words, should still live with them, and with them triumph after the momentary struggles of the enemies of the truth.
The manner, also, in which Simon Peter received this communication, shows that he could not have anticipated so glorious and dazzling a result of such horrible evils: for, however literally he may have taken the prophecy of Christ’s cruel death, he used all his powers to dissuade his adored master from exposing himself to a fate so dark and dreadful,——so sadly destructive of all the new-born hopes of his chosen followers, and from which the conclusion of the prophecy seemed to offer no clear or certain mode of escape. Never before, had Jesus spoken in such plain and decided terms, about the prospect of his own terrible death. Peter, whose heart had just been lifted up to the skies with joy and hope, in the prospect of the glorious triumphs to be achieved by his Lord through his means, and whose thoughts were even then dwelling on the honors, the power, the fame, which were to accrue to him for his share in the splendid work,——was shocked beyond measure, at the strange and seemingly contradictory view of the results, now taken by his great leader. With the confident familiarity to which their mutual love and intimacy entitled him, in some measure, he laid his hand expostulatingly upon him, and drew him partly aside, to urge him privately to forget thoughts of despondency, so unworthy of the great enterprise of Israel’s restoration, to which they had all so manfully pledged themselves as his supporters. We may presume, that he, in a tone of encouragement, endeavored to show him how impossible it would be for the dignitaries of Jerusalem to withstand the tide of popularity which had already set so strongly in favor of Jesus; that so far from looking upon himself as in danger of a death so infamous, from the Sanhedrim, he might, at the head of the hosts of his zealous Galileans, march as a conqueror to Jerusalem, and thence give laws from the throne of his father David, to all the wide territories of that far-ruling king. Such dreams of earthly glory seemed to have filled the soul of Peter at that time; and we cannot wonder, then, that every ambitious feeling within him recoiled at the gloomy announcement, that the idol of his hopes was to end his days of unrequited toil, by a death so infamous as that of the cross. “Be it far from thee, Lord,” “God forbid,” “Do not say so,” “Do not thus damp our courage and high hopes,” “This must not happen to thee.”——Jesus, on hearing these words of ill-timed rebuke, which showed how miserably his chief follower had been infatuated and misled, by his foolish and carnal ambition, turned away indignantly from the low and degraded motives, by which Peter sought to bend him from his holy purposes. Not looking upon him, but upon the other disciples, who had kept their feelings of regret and disappointment to themselves, he, in the most energetic terms, expressed his abhorrence of such notions, by his language to the speaker. “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art a scandal to me; for thou savorest not the things which be of God, but the things which be of men. In these fervent aspirations after eminence, I recognize none of the pure devotion to the good of man, which is the sure test of the love of God; but the selfish desire for transient, paltry distinction, which characterizes the vulgar ambition of common men, enduring no toil or pain, but in the hope of a more than equal earthly reward speedily accruing.” After this stern reply, which must have strongly impressed them all with the nature of the mistake of which they had been guilty, he addressed them still further, in continuation of the same design, of correcting their false notion of the earthly advantages to be expected by his companions in toil. He immediately gave them a most untempting picture of the character and conduct of him, who could be accepted as a fit fellow-worker with Jesus. “If any one wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and let him take up his cross, (as if we should say, let him come with his halter around his neck, and with the gibbet on his shoulder,) and follow me. For whosoever shall save his life for my sake, shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels; and THEN, he shall reward every man according to his works.” “I solemnly tell you, there are some standing here who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”——“In vain would you, in pursuit of your idle dreams of earthly glory, yield up all the powers of your soul, and spend your life for an object so worthless. After all, what is there in all the world, if you should have the whole at your disposal——what, for the momentary enjoyment of which, you can calmly pay down your soul as the price? Seek not, then, for rewards so unworthy of the energies which I have recognized in you, and have devoted to far nobler purposes. Higher honors will crown your toils and sufferings, in my service;——nobler prizes are seen near, with the eye of faith. Speedily will the frail monuments of this world’s wonders crumble, and the memory of its greatnesses pass away; but over the ruins of kingdoms, the coming of the Man to whom you have joined yourselves is sure, and in that triumphant advent, you shall find the imperishable requital of your faithful and zealous works. And of the nature and aspect of the glories which I now so dimly shadow in words, some of those who now hear me shall soon be the living witnesses, as of a foretaste of rewards, whose full enjoyment can be yours, only after the weariness and misery of this poor life are all passed. Years of toil, dangers, pain, and sorrow,——lives passed in contempt and disgrace,——deaths of ignominy, of unpitied anguish, and lingering torture, must be your passage to the joys of which I speak; while the earthly honors which you now covet, shall for ages continue to be the prize of the base, the cruel, and the foolish, from whom you vainly hope to snatch them.”
THE TRANSFIGURATION.
The mysterious promise thus made by Jesus, of a new and peculiar exhibition of himself, to some of his chosen ones, he soon sought an occasion of executing. About six or eight days after this remarkable conversation, he took Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, and went with them up into a high mountain, apart by themselves. As to the name and place of this mountain, a matter of some interest certainly, there have been two opinions among those who have attempted to illustrate the topography of the gospels. The phrase, “a high mountain,” has instantly brought to the thoughts of most learned readers, Mount Tabor, famous for several great events in Bible history, which they have instantly adopted, without considering the place in which the previous account had left Jesus, which was Caesarea Philippi; hereafter described as in the farthest northern part of Galilee. Now, Mount Tabor, however desirable in other particulars, as the scene of a great event in the life of Jesus, was full seventy miles south of the place where Jesus had the conversation with his disciples, which led to the remarkable display which followed a few days after, on the mountain. It is true, that the intervening period of a week, was sufficient to enable him to travel this distance with ease; but the difficulty is, to assign some possible necessity or occasion for such a journey. Certainly, he needed not to have gone thus far to find a mountain, for Caesarea Philippi itself stands by the base of Paneas, which is a part of the great Syrian range of Antilibanus. This great mountain, or mountain chain, rises directly behind the city, and parts of it are so high above the peak of Tabor, or any other mountain in Palestine, as to be covered with snow, even in that warm country. The original readers of the gospel story, were dwellers in Palestine, and must have been, for the most part, well acquainted with the character of the places which were the scenes of the incidents, and could hardly have been ignorant of the fact, that this splendid city, so famous as the monument of royal vanity and munificence, was near the northern end of Palestine, and of course, must have been known even by those who had never seen it, nor heard it particularly described, to be very near the great Syrian mountains; so near too, as to be very high elevated above the cities of the southern country, since not far from the city gushed out the most distant sources of the rapid Jordan. But another difficulty, in respect to this journey of seventy miles to Tabor, is, that while the gospels give no account of it, it is even contradicted by Mark’s statement, that after departing from the mountain, he passed through Galilee, and came to Capernaum, which is between Tabor and Caesarea Philippi, twenty or thirty miles from the former, and forty or fifty from the latter. Now, that Jesus Christ spared no exertion of body or mind, in “going about doing good,” no one can doubt; but that he would spend the strength devoted to useful purposes, in traveling from one end of Galilee to the other, for no greater good than to ascend a particular mountain, and then to travel thirty miles back on the same route, is a most unnecessary tax upon our faith. But here, close to Caesarea Philippi, was the mighty range of Antilibanus, known in Hebrew poetry by the name of Hermon in this part; and He, whose presence made all places holy, could not have chosen, among all the mountains of Palestine, one which nature had better fitted to impress the beholder who stood on the summit, with ideas of the vast and sublime. Modern travelers assure us that, from the peaks behind the city, the view of the lower mountains to the south,——of the plain through which the young Jordan flows, soon spreading out into the broad sheet of lake Houle, (Samachonitis lacus,) and of the country, almost to lake Tiberias, is most magnificent. The precise peak which was the scene of the event here related, it is impossible to conjecture. It may have been any one of three which are prominent: either the castle hill, or, farther off and much higher, Mount Bostra, once the site of a city, or farther still, and highest of all, Merura Jubba, which is but a few hours walk from the city. The general impression of the vulgar, however, and of those who take the traditions of the vulgar and the ignorant, without examination, has been, that Tabor was the scene of the event, so that, at this day, it is known among the stupid Christians of Palestine, by the name of the Mount of the Transfiguration. So idly are these foolish local traditions received, that this falsehood, so palpable on inspection, has been quietly handed down from traveler to traveler, ever since the crusades, when hundreds of these and similar localities, were hunted up so hastily, and by persons so ill-qualified for the search, that more modern investigators may be pardoned for treating with so little consideration the voice of such antiquity, when it is found opposed to a rational and consistent understanding of the gospel story. When the question was first asked, “Where is the mount of the transfiguration?” there were enough persons interested to reply, “Mount Tabor.” No reason was probably asked for the decision, and none was given; but as the scene was acted on a high mountain in Galilee, and as Tabor answered perfectly to this very simple description, and was moreover interesting on many other accounts, both historical and natural, it was adopted for the transfiguration without any discussion whatever, among those on the spot. Still, to learned and diligent readers of the gospels, the [♦]inconsistencies of such a belief have been so obvious, that many great theologians have decided, for the reasons here given, that the transfiguration must have taken place on some part of Mount Paneas, as it was called by the Greeks and Romans, known among the Jews, however, from the earliest times, by the far older name of Mount Hermon. On the determination of this point, more words have been expended than some may deem the matter to deserve; but among the various objects of the modern historian of Bible times, none is more important or interesting, [♠]than that of settling the often disputed topography of the sacred narrative; and as the ground here taken differs so widely from the almost universally received opinion, the minute reasons were loudly called for, in justification of the author’s boldness. The ancient blunders here detected, and shown to be based only upon a guess, is a very fair specimen of the way in which, in the moral as in the natural sciences, “they all copy from one another,” without taking pains to look into the truth of small matters. And it seems to show, moreover, how, when men of patient and zealous accuracy, have taken the greatest pains to expose and correct so causeless an error, common readers and writers too, will carelessly and lazily slip back into the old blunder, thus making the counsels of the learned of no effect, and loving darkness rather than light, error rather than exactness, because they are too shiftless to find a good reason for what is laid down before them as truth. But so it is. It is, and always has been, and always will be, so much easier for men to swallow whole, or reject whole, the propositions made to them, that the vast majority had much rather believe on other people’s testimony, than go through the harassing and tiresome task, of looking up the proofs for themselves. In this very instance, this important topographical blunder was fully exposed and corrected a century and a half ago, by Lightfoot, the greatest Hebrew scholar that ever lived; and we see how much wiser the world is for his pains.
[♦] “inconsistences” replaced with “inconsistencies”
[♠] duplicate word “than” removed
Caesarea Philippi.——This city stood where all the common maps place it, in the farthest northern part of Palestine, just at the foot of the mountains, and near the fountain head of the Jordan. The name by which it is called in the gospels, is another instance, like Julias Bethsaida, of a compliment paid by the servile kings, of the divisions of Palestine, to their imperial masters, who had given, and who at any time could take away, crown and kingdom from them. The most ancient name by which this place is known to have been mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures, is Lasha, in Genesis x. 19, afterwards variously modified into Leshem, (Joshua xix. 47,) and Laish, (Judges xviii. 7: xiv. 29,) a name somewhat like the former in sound, though totally different in meaning, (לשם leshem, “a precious stone,” and ליש laish, “a lion,”) undoubtedly all three being from the same root, but variously modified in the changing pronunciations of different ages and tribes. In the earliest passage, (Genesis x. 19,) it is clearly described as on the farthest northern limit of the land of Canaan, and afterwards, being conquered long after most of the cities of that region, by the tribe of Dan, and receiving the name of this tribe, as an addition to its former one, it became proverbially known under the name of Dan, as the farthest northern point of the land of Israel, as Beersheba was the southern one. It did not, however, lose its early Canaanitish name till long after, for, in Isaiah x. 30, it is spoken of under the name of Laish, as the most distant part of Israel, to which the cry of the distressed could reach. It is also mentioned under its later name of Dan, in Genesis xiv. 14, and Deuteronomy xxxiv. 1, where it is given by the writer, or some copyist, in anticipation of the subsequent account of its acquiring this name after the conquest. Josephus also mentions it, under this name, in Antiquities book i. chapter 10, and book viii. chapter 8, section 4, in both which places he speaks of it as standing at one of the sources of the Jordan, from which circumstance, no doubt, the latter part of the river’s name is derived. After the overthrow of the Israelitish power in that region, it fell into the hands of new possessors, and under the Greeks and Romans, went by the name of Panias, (Josephus and Ptolemy,) or Paneas, (Josephus and Pliny,) which name, according to Ptolemy, it had under the Phoenicians. This name, supposed to have been taken from the Phoenician name of the mountain near, Josephus gives to it, in all the later periods of his history, until he speaks of the occasion on which it received a new change of name.
Its commanding and remarkable position, on the extremity of Palestine, made it a frontier post of some importance; and it was therefore a desirable addition to the dominions of Herod the Great, who received it from his royal patron, Augustus Caesar, along with its adjacent region between Galilee and Trachonitis, after the death of Zenodorus, its former possessor. (Josephus Antiquities book xv. chapter 10, section 3.) Herod the Great, out of gratitude for this princely addition to his dominions, at a time when attempts were made to deprive him of his imperial master’s favor, raised near this city, a noble monument to Augustus. (Josephus as above quoted.) “He built a monument to him, of white marble, in the land of Zenodorus, near Panium. There is a beautiful cave in the mountain, and beneath it there is a chasm in the earth, rugged, and of immense depth, full of still water, and over it hangs a vast mountain; and under the cave rise the springs of the Jordan. This place, already very famous, he adorned with the temple which he consecrated to Caesar.” A lofty temple of white marble, on such a high spot, contrasted with the dark rocks of the mountain and cave around, must have been a splendid object in the distance, and a place of frequent resort.
This city, along with the adjacent provinces, after the death of the first Herod, was given to his son Philip, made tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis. This prince, out of gratitude to the royal donor, at the same time when he rebuilt and repaired Bethsaida, as already mentioned, “also embellished Paneas, at the fountains of the Jordan, and gave it the name of Caesarea.” (Josephus Antiquities book xviii. chapter 2, section 1, also Jewish War, book ii. chapter 9, section 1,) and to distinguish it from other Caesareas, hereafter to be mentioned, it was called from the name of its royal builder, Caesarea Philippi, that is, “the Caesarea of Philip.” By this name it was most commonly known in the time of Christ; but it did not answer the end of perpetuating the name of its builder and his patron, for it shortly afterwards recovered its former name, Paneas, which, probably, never went wholly out of use. As late as the time of Pliny, (about A. D. 70,) Paneas was a part of the name of Caesarea. Fons Paneas, qui cognomen dedit Caesareae, “the fountain Paneas, which gave to Caesarea a surname.” (Pliny Natural History book v. chapter 15,) which shows, that at that time, the name Paneas was one, by which even foreign geographers recognized this city, in spite of the imperial dignity of its new title. Eusebius, (about A. D. 315,) speaks of “Caesarea Philippi, which the Phoenicians call Paneas, at the foot of mount Panium.” (Φιλιππου Καισαρεια ἡν Πανεαδα Θοινικες προσαγορευσι, &c. Church History book vii. chapter 17.) Jerome, (about A. D. 392,) never mentions the name Caesarea Philippi, as belonging to this city, except in commenting on Matthew xvi. 13, where he finds it necessary to explain this name, as an antiquated term, then out of use. Caesaream Philippi, quae NUNC dicitur Paneas, “Caesarea Philippi, which is now called Paneas;” and in all the other places where he has occasion to mention the place, he gives it only the name of Paneas. Thus, in commenting on Amos viii. 14, he says, “Dan, on the boundary of the Jewish territory, where now is Paneas.” And on Jeremiah iv. 15,——“The tribe Dan, near mount Lebanon, and the city which is now called Paneas,” &c.——See also commentary on Daniel xiii. 16.
After the death of Philip, this city, along with the rest of his dominions, was presented by Cains Caligula to Agrippa, who added still farther to the improvements made by Philip, more particularly ornamenting the Panium, or famous source of the Jordan, near the city, as Josephus testifies. (Jewish War, book iii. chapter 9, section 7.) “The natural beauty of the Panium, moreover, was still more highly adorned (προσεξησκηται) with royal magnificence, being embellished by the wealth of Agrippa.” This king also attempted to perpetuate the name of one of his imperial patrons, in connection with the city, calling it Neronias, in honor of one who is well enough known without this aid. (Josephus Antiquities book xx. chapter 8, section 3.) The perfectly transient character of this idle appellation, is abundantly shown from the preceding copious quotations.
The city, now called Banias, (not Belinas, as Wahl erroneously says,) has been visited and examined in modern times by several travelers, of whom, none has described it more minutely than Burckhardt. His account of the mountains around the city, so finely illustrates my description of the scene of the transfiguration, that I extract largely from it here. In order to appreciate the description fully, it must be understood that Heish is now the general Arabic name for the mountain chain, which was by ancient authors variously called Lebanon, Libanus, Anti-Libanus, Hermon, and Panium; for all these names have been given to the mountain-range, on whose slope Caesarea Philippi, or Paneas, stood.
“The district of Banias is classic ground; it is the ancient Caesarea Philippi; the lake Houle, is the Lacus Samachonitis. Immediately after my arrival, I took a man of the village to shew me the way to the ruined castle of Banias, which bears East by South from it. It stands on the top of a mountain, which forms part of the mountain of Heish, at an hour and a quarter from Banias; it is now in complete ruins, but was once a very strong fortress. Its whole circumference is twenty-five minutes. It is surrounded by a wall ten feet thick, flanked with numerous round towers, built with equal blocks of stone, each about two feet square. The keep, or citadel, seems to have been on the highest summit, on the eastern side, where the walls are stronger than on the lower, or western side. The view from thence over the Houle and a part of its lake, the Djebel Safad, and the barren Heish, is magnificent. On the western side, within the precincts of the castle, are ruins of many private habitations. At both the western corners, runs a succession of dark, strongly built, low apartments, like cells, vaulted, and with small narrow loop holes, as if for musquetry. On this side also, is a well more than twenty feet square, walled in, with a vaulted roof at least twenty-five feet high; the well was, even in this dry season, full of water: there are three others in the castle. There are many apartments and recesses in the castle, which could only be exactly described by a plan of the whole building. It seems to have been erected during the period of the crusades, and must certainly have been a very strong hold to those who possessed it. I could discover no traces of a road or paved way leading up the mountain to it. In winter time, the shepherds of the Felahs of the Heish, who encamp upon the mountains, pass the night in the castle with their cattle.
“Banias is situated at the foot of the Heish, in the plain, which in the immediate vicinity of Banias is not called Ard Houle, but Ard Banias. It contains about one hundred and fifty houses, inhabited mostly by Turks: there are also Greeks, Druses, and Enzairie. It belongs to Hasbeya, whose Emir nominates the Sheikh. On the north-east side of the village, is the source of the river of Banias, which empties itself into the Jordan at the distance of an hour and a half, in the plain below. Over the source is a perpendicular rock, in which several niches have been cut to receive statues. The largest niche is above a spacious cavern, under which the river rises. This niche is six feet broad and as much in depth, and has a smaller niche in the bottom of it. Immediately above it, in the perpendicular face of the rock, is another niche, adorned with pilasters, supporting a shell ornament.
“Round the source of the river are a number of hewn stones. The stream flows on the north side of the village, where is a well built bridge, and some remains of the ancient town, the principal part of which seems, however, to have been on the opposite side of the river, where the ruins extend for a quarter of an hour from the bridge. No walls remain, but great quantities of stones and architectural fragments are scattered about.
“I went to see the ruins of the ancient city of Bostra, of which the people spoke much. Bostra must not be confounded with Boszra, in the Haouran; both places are mentioned in the Books of Moses. The way to the ruins lies for an hour and a half in the road by which I came from Rasheyat-el-Fukhar, it then ascends for three quarters of an hour a steep mountain to the right, on the top of which is the city; it is divided into two parts, the largest being upon the very summit, the smaller at ten minutes walk lower down, and resembling a suburb to the upper part. Traces are still visible of a paved way that had connected the two divisions. There is scarcely any thing in the ruins worth notice; they consist of the foundations of private habitations, built of moderate sized square stones. The lower city is about twelve minutes walk in circumference; a part of the four walls of one building only remains entire; in the midst of the ruins was a well, at this time dried up. The circuit of the upper city may be about twenty minutes; in it are the remains of several buildings. In the highest part is a heap of wrought stones, of larger dimensions than the rest, which seem to indicate that some public building had once stood on the spot. There are several columns of one foot, and of one foot and a half in diameter. In two different places, a short column was standing in the centre of a round paved area of about ten feet in diameter. There is likewise a deep well, walled in, but now dry.
“The country around these ruins is very capable of cultivation. Near the lower city are groups of olive trees.
“I descended the mountain in the direction towards the source of the Jordan, and passed, at the foot of it, the miserable village of Kerwaya. Behind the mountain of Bostra is another, still higher, called Djebel Meroura Djoubba.” [Burckhardt’s Syria, pp. 37–42.]
From Conder’s Modern Traveler I also draw a sketch of other travelers’ observations on the place and the surrounding country.
“Burckhardt, in coming from Damascus, pursued the more direct route taken by the caravans, which crosses the Jordan at Jacob’s Bridge. Captains Irby and Mangles left this road at Khan Sasa, and passed to the westward for Panias, thus striking between the road to Acre, and that by Raschia and Hasbeya. The first part of the road from Sasa, led through a fine plain, watered by a pretty, winding rivulet, with numerous tributary streams, and many old ruined mills. It then ascended over a very rugged and rocky soil, quite destitute of vegetation, having in some places traces of an ancient paved way, ‘probably the Roman road from Damascus to Caesarea Philippi.’ The higher part of Djebel Sheikh was seen on the right. The road became less stony, and the shrubs increased in number, size and beauty, as they descended into a rich little plain, at the immediate foot of the mountain. ‘From this plain,’ continues captain M., ‘we ascended, and, after passing a very small village, saw on our left, close to us, a very picturesque lake, apparently perfectly circular, of little more than a mile in circumference, surrounded on all sides by sloping hills, richly wooded. On quitting Phiala, at but a short distance from it, we crossed a stream which discharges into the larger one which we first saw: the latter we followed for a considerable distance; and then, mounting a hill to the south-west, had in view the great Saracenic castle, near Panias, the town of that name, and the plain of the Jordan, as far as the Lake Houle, with the mountains on the other side of the plain, forming altogether a fine coup d’œil. As we descended towards Panias, we found the country extremely beautiful. Great quantities of wild flowers, and a variety of shrubs, just budding, together with the richness of the verdure, grass, corn and beans, showed us, all at once, the beauties of spring, (February 24,) and conducted us into a climate quite different from Damascus. In the evening we entered Panias, crossing a causeway constructed over the rivulet, which flows from the foot of Djebel Sheikh. The river here rushes over great rocks in a very picturesque manner, its banks being covered with shrubs and the ruins of ancient walls.’
“Panias, afterwards called Caesarea Philippi, has resumed its ancient name. The present town of Banias is small. Seetzen describes it as a little hamlet of about twenty miserable huts, inhabited by Mahomedans. The ‘Castle of Banias’ is situated on the summit of a lofty mountain: it was built, Seetzen says, without giving his authority, in the time of the caliphs.” [Modern Traveler Vol. I. pp. 353–6.]
The distance, in time, from Mount Tabor to Caesarea Philippi, may be conceived from the account given by Ebn Haukal, an Arabian geographer and traveler of the tenth century. He says “from Tibertheh (Tiberias, which is near Tabor) to Sur, (Tyre,) is one day’s journey; and from that to Banias, (Paneas,) is two day’s easy journey.” [Sir W. Ouseley’s translation of Ebn Haukal’s Geography, pp. 48, 49.]
This was an occasion on which Christ did not choose to display his glories to the eyes of the ignorant and impertinent mobs that usually thronged his path, drawn together as they were, by idle curiosity, by selfish wishes for relief from various diseases, or by the determination to profit by the mischief, which almost always results from such a promiscuous assemblage. It may be fairly considered a moral impossibility, for such disorderly and spontaneous assemblies to meet, without more evils resulting, than can possibly be counterbalanced by the good done to the assembly as a whole, whatever it may be to individuals. So, at least, Jesus Christ seems always to have thought, for he never encouraged such gatherings, and took every desirable opportunity of getting rid of them, without injury to themselves, or of withdrawing himself quietly from them, as the easiest way of dispersing them; knowing how utterly hopeless must be the attempt to do any great good among such a set of idlers, compared with what he might do by private and special intercourse with individuals. It is worthy of note, that Matthew and all whose calls are described, were about their business. Thus, on an occasion already mentioned, when Jesus was walking by the sea of Galilee, with the simple object of doing most good, he did not seek among the multitude that was following him, for the devoted laborers whom he might call to the great work of drawing in men to the knowledge of the truth as revealed in him. No: he turned from all the zealous loungers who had left their business, if they had any, to drag about after the wonderful man who had attracted general attention by his great and good deeds. He dispatched them as fast as possible with a few words of instruction and exhortation; for though he did not seek these undesirable occasions, yet he would have been as much wanting in benevolence as in wisdom, if, when all the evils of such a throng had occurred by the meeting, he had not hastened to offer the speediest antidote to the mischief, and the best compensation for the loss of time to the company, by giving them such words of counsel, reproof, correction or encouragement, as, even when cast like bread upon the waters, or seed by the way side, might yet perchance, or by grace, “be found after many days,” returning to the hands of the giver, in gratitude, by springing up and bearing some fruit to the praise and glory of God. Having thus sent off the throng, he addressed himself to the honest men whom he had found quietly following their daily employments, and immediately performed with them there, and, as is evident, mainly for their benefit, a most remarkable miracle; and when they had been thus impressed with his power and wisdom, summoned them to his aid in converting the world; sagely and truly judging, that those who had been faithful in few things, would be the best rulers over many things,——that they who had steadily and faithfully worked at their proper business, had the best talent and disposition for laboring in a cause which needed so much patient industry and steady application in its devotees. These were the men whom he hoped to make by his instructions, the successful founders of the Christian faith; and these were the very men whom, out of thousands who longed for the honors of his notice, he now chose as the objects of his special instruction and commission, and called them apart to view the display of the most wonderful mystery of his life.
Among these three favored ones, we see Peter included, and his name, as usual, first of all. By this it appears, that, however great his late unfortunate misapprehension of the character and office of Christ, and however he may have deserved the harsh rebuff with which his forward but well meant remonstrance was met; still he was so far from having lost his Master’s favor on this account, that he yet held the highest place in the favor of Jesus, who had been moved by the exposure of his favorite’s ignorance, only to new efforts to give him a just and clear view of the important truths in which he was most deficient; for after all, there was nothing very surprising in Peter’s mistake. In pursuance of this design, he took these three, Peter, James and John, with him, up into the high mountain peaks of Hermon, from which their eyes might glance far south over the land of Israel——the land of their fathers for ages on ages, stretching away before them for a vast distance, and fancy could easily extend the view. In this land, so holy in the recollections of the past, so sad to the contemplation of the present, were to begin their mighty labors. Here, too, bright and early, one of the three was to end his; while his brother and friend were to spread their common Master’s dominion over thousands and millions who had never yet heard of that land, or its ancient faith. Jesus Christ always sought the lonely tops of mountains, with a peculiar zest, in his seasons of retirement, as well as for the most impressive displays of his eloquence, or his miraculous power. The obvious reasons were the advantages of perfect solitude and security against sudden intrusion;——the free, pure air of the near heaven, and the broad light of the immense prospect, were powerful means of lifting the soul to a state of moral sublimity, equal to the impressions of physical grandeur, made by the objects around. Their most holy historical associations, moreover, were connected with the tops of high mountains, removed from which, the most awful scenes of ancient miracle would, to the fancy of the dweller of mountainous Palestine, have seemed stripped of their most imposing aids. Sinai, Horeb, Moriah, Zion, Ebal, Gerizim and Tabor, were the classic ground of Hebrew history, and to the fiery mind of the imaginative Israelite, their high tops seemed to tower in a religious [♦]sublimity, as striking and as lasting as their physical elevation. From these lofty peaks, so much nearer to the dwelling place of God, his soul took a higher flight than did ever the fancy of the Greek, from the classic tops of Parnassus, Pelion, Ida, or the skyish head of blue Olympus; and the three humble gazers, who now stood waiting there with their divine Master, felt, no doubt, their devotion proportionally exalted with their situation, by such associations. It was the same spirit, that, throughout the ancient world, led the earliest religionists to avail themselves of these physical advantages, as they did in their mountain worship, and with a success just in proportion as the purity and sincerity of their worship, and the high character of its object, corresponded with the lofty grandeur of the place.
[♦] “snblimity” replaced with “sublimity”
“Not vainly did the early Persian make
His altar the high places, and the peak
Of earth-o’er-gazing mountains, there to seek
The spirit, in whose honor shrines are weak,
Upreared of human hands. Come and compare
Columns and idol-dwellings, Goth or Greek,
With nature’s realms of worship, earth and air;
Nor fix on fond abodes to circumscribe thy prayer.”
In such a scene, and inspired by such sympathies, were the chosen three, on this occasion. The bare details, as given in the three gospels, make it evident that the scene took place in the night, as will be shown in the course of the narrative; and this was in accordance also with Christ’s usual custom of choosing the night, as the season of solitary meditation and prayer. (Matthew xiv. 23.) Having reached the top, he engaged himself and them in prayer. How solemn——how awful the scene! The Savior of all, afar from the abodes of men, from the sound and sight of human cares and sins, alone with his chosen three, on the vast mountains, with the world as far beneath their eyes as its thoughts were below their minds;——in the silence of the night, with the lights of the city and villages faintly gleaming in the distance on the lower hills and the plain,——with no sound near them but the murmuring of the night wind about the rocks,——with the dark canopy of gathering clouds above them,——Jesus prayed. His voice went up from this high altar of earth’s wide temple to the throne of his Father, to whom he commended in words of supplication, those who were to labor for him when his earthly work should cease. We may well suppose that the substance of his prayer was, that their thoughts, before so groveling, and now so devotedly clinging to visions of earthly dominion and personal aggrandizement, might “leave all meaner things, to low ambition and the pride of kings,” and might rise, as on that high peak, from earth towards heaven, to the just sense of the far higher efforts and honors to which they were destined. With their thoughts and feelings thus kindled with the holy associations of the hour, the place and the person, their souls must have risen with his in that solemn and earnest supplication, and their prayers for new devotion and exaltation of spirit must have been almost equally ardent. Probably some hours were passed in this employment, varied perhaps by the eloquent and pointed instructions given by Jesus, to prepare these chiefs of the apostolic band, for the full understanding of the nature of his mission and theirs. How vastly important to their success in their labors, and to their everlasting happiness, must these prayers and instructions have been! The three hearers, we may presume, gave for a long time the most devoted attention which a scene so impressive could awaken; but yet they were men, and weary ones too, for they had come a considerable distance up a very steep way, and it was now late at night,——no doubt long past their bed-time. The exercise which their journey to the spot had given them, was of a kind for which their previous habits of life had quite unfitted them. They were all fishermen, and had dwelt all their lives in the low flat country on the shores of lake Tiberias and the valley of the Jordan, where they had nothing to do with climbing hills. And though their constant habits of hard labor must have made them stout men in their vocation, yet we all know that the muscles called into action by the management of the boat and net, are very different from those which support and advance a man in ascending acclivities. Every one that has noticed the sturdy arms and slender legs of most sailors, has had the practical proof, that a man may work all his life at pulling the seine and drag-net, hauling the ropes of a vessel, and tugging at the oar, without being thereby, in the slightest degree, fitted for labors of a different character. The work of toiling up a very high, steep mountain, then, was such as all their previous habits of life had wholly unfitted them for, and their over-stretched limbs and bodies must have been both sore and weary, so that when they came to a resting place, they very naturally were disposed to repose, and must have felt drowsy. In short, they fell asleep; and that too, as it would appear, in the midst of the prayers and counsels of their adorable Lord. And yet who, that considers all the reasons above given, can wonder? for it is very possible for a man to feel the highest interest in a subject offered to his consideration,——an interest, too, which may for a long time enable a zealous mind to triumph over bodily incapacity,——yet there is a point beyond which the most intense energy of mind cannot drag the sinking body, when fatigue has drained its strength, which nothing but sleep can renew. Men, when thus worn down, will sleep in the midst of a storm, or on the eve of certain death. In such a state were the bodies of the companions of Jesus, and thus wearied, they slept long, in spite of the storm which is supposed by many to have arisen, and to have been the immediate cause of some of the striking appearances which followed. It is said by many standard commentators, that the fairest account of such of the incidents as are connected with natural objects, is, that a tremendous thunder-storm came down upon the mountain while they were asleep, and that a loud peal bursting from this, was the immediate cause of their awaking. All the details that are given, certainly justify the supposition. They are described as suddenly starting from their sleep, in such a manner as would naturally follow only from a loud noise violently arousing the slumbering senses. Awakened thus by a peal of thunder, the first sight that struck their amazed eyes, was their Master, resplendent through the darkness of night and storm, with a brilliant light, that so shone upon him and covered him, as to change his whole aspect to a degree of glory indescribable. To add to their amazement and dread, they saw that he was not alone, but two mysterious and spiritual personages, announced to them as Moses and Elijah, were now his companions, having found means to join him, though high on the mighty rock, alone and in darkness, so inaccessible to human approach. These two ancient servants of God now appeared by his beloved Son, whose labors, and doctrines and triumphs were so far to transcend theirs, and in the hearing of the three apostles, uttered solemn words of prophecy about his approaching death, and triumph over death. The two sons of Zebedee were so startled as to be speechless, but the boldness and the talkativeness of Peter, always so pre-eminent, enabled him, even here, to speak his deep awe and reverence. Yet confused with half-awakened sleep, and stunned by the bursting thunder, he spoke as a man thus suddenly awaked naturally speaks, scarcely separating the thoughts of his dream, from the objects that met his opening eye. He said “Lord, it is good for us to be here; and if thou wilt, let us make three tabernacles, (or resting places;) one for thee, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” These things he said before his confused thoughts could fully arrange themselves into words proper to express his feelings of awe, and he, half dreaming still, hardly knew what he said. But as he uttered these words, the dark cloud above them suddenly descended upon the mountain’s head, inwrapping and overshadowing them, and amid the flash of lightnings and the roar of thunders, given out in the concussion, they distinguished, in no human voice, these awful words, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” Who can wonder that a phenomenon so tremendous, both morally and physically, overwhelmed their senses, and, that alarmed beyond measure, they fell again on their faces to the earth, so astonished that they did not dare to rise or look up, until Jesus came to them and reassured them with his friendly touch, saying “Arise and be not afraid.” And lifting up their eyes, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves. The whole object of their retirement to this solitude being now accomplished, they prepared to return to those whom they had left to wonder at their strange absence. It was now probably about morning; the storm was passed,——the clouds had vanished,——the thunder was hushed, and the cheerful sun now shone on mountain and plain, illuminating their downward path towards the city, and inspiring their hearts with the joyous emotions suited to their enlarged views of their Lord’s kingdom, and their own duties. As they went down, Jesus charged them to tell no man what things they had seen, till he, the son of man, rose from the dead. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen. But they questioned much with one another what the rising from the dead should mean. So that it appears, that after all the repeated assurances Jesus had given them of the certainty of this event, they had never put any clear and definite meaning upon his words, and were still totally in the dark as to their essential import. This proof of their continued ignorance serves to confirm the view already taken of the way in which they understood, or rather misunderstood, the previous warning of the same event, in connection with his charge and rebuke of Peter. In connection also with what they had seen on the mountain, and the injunction of secrecy, another question arose, why they could not be allowed to speak freely on the subject. “For if they had now distinctly seen the prophet Elijah returned from the other world, as it appeared, why could they not properly announce publicly, so important and desirable an event? Else, why did the Jewish teachers say that Elijah must first come before the Messiah? And why, then, should they not freely offer their testimony of his presence with Jesus on this occasion, as the most satisfactory proof of his Messiahship?” The answer of Jesus very clearly informed them that they were not to consider this vision as having any direct connection with the prophecy respecting Elijah’s re-appearance, to precede and aid the true Messiah in the establishment of the ancient Jewish dominion; but that all that was intended in that prophecy had been fully brought to pass in the coming of John the Baptist, who, in the spirit and power of Elijah, had already run his bright but brief course as the Messiah’s precursor. With such interesting conversation they continued their course in returning towards the city. The way in which Luke here expresses the circumstances of the time of their return, is the last and most satisfactory proof to be offered of the fact, that their visit to the mountain had been in the night. His words are, “And it came to pass that on the next day, when they came down from the mountain, a large multitude met them,” &c. This shows that they did not go and return the same day, between sunrise and sunset; and the only reasonable supposition left to agree with the other circumstances, is, that they went at evening, and returned early in the morning of the next day. After their descent, they found that the remaining disciples had been making an unsuccessful attempt to relieve a lunatic person, who was relieved, however, at a word, as soon as brought to Jesus himself. They continued no very long time in this part of Galilee, after these events, but journeyed slowly southwards, towards the part which Jesus had formerly made his home. This journey was made by him with particular care to avoid public notice, and it is particularly expressed by Mark that he went on this homeward journey through by-ways or less public roads than usual. For as he went, he renewed the sad warning, that he was in constant danger of being given up into the hands of the wicked men, who feeling reproved and annoyed by his life and doctrine, earnestly desired his death; and that soon their malice would be for a time successful, but that after they had done their worst, he should at last triumph over them. Still this assurance, obvious as its meaning may now seem to us, was not understood by them, and though they puzzled themselves extremely about it, they evidently considered their ignorance as of a somewhat justly blamable nature, for they dared not ask for a new explanation. This passage still farther shows, how far they must have been from rightly appreciating his first declaration on this subject. Having followed the less direct routes, for these reasons, he came, (doing much good on the journey, no doubt, in a quiet and unnoticed way, as we know he always did,) to Capernaum, which he still regarded as his home; and here again, as formerly, went directly to the house of Simon Peter, which he is represented as entering on his first arrival in the city, in such a way as to show that there was his dwelling, and a welcome entertainment. Indeed we know of no other friend whom he had in Capernaum, with whom he was on such terms of intimacy, and we cannot suppose that he kept house by himself,——for his relations had never yet removed from Nazareth.
Of the scenes of the transfiguration, so great a variety of opinions have been entertained, that it would be impossible for me to discuss the various views within my narrow limits. The old speculations on the subject are very fully given in Poole’s Synopsis, and the modern ones by Kuinoel, who mentions a vast number of German writers, of whom few of us have ever seen even the names elsewhere.
The view which I have taken is not peculiar to me, but is supported by many high authorities, and is in accordance with what seemed to me the simplest and fairest construction which could be put upon the facts, after a very full and minute consideration of the various circumstances, chronologically, topographically and grammatically. It should be noticed that my arrangement of the facts in reference to the time of day, is this. Jesus and the three disciples ascended the mountain in the evening, about sunset, remained there all night during a thunder-storm, and returned the next morning.
THE TRIBUTE MONEY.
On the occasion of his return and entrance into Peter’s house, a new instance occurred both of his wisdom and his special regard for this apostle. Some of those who went about legally authorized to collect the tax due from all conforming Jews, to defray the expenses of the temple-worship at Jerusalem, appear to have been waiting for Christ’s return from this journey, to call on him for his share, if he were willing to pay it as a good Jew. They seem to have had some doubts, however, as to the manner in which so eminent a teacher would receive a call to pay those taxes, from which he might perhaps deem himself exempted by his religious rank, more especially as he had frequently denounced, in the most unmeasured terms, all those concerned in the administration of the religious affairs of the Jewish nation. As soon as he had returned, therefore, they took the precaution to make the inquiry of Peter, as the well-known intimate of Jesus, “Doth not your Master pay tribute?” Peter, knowing well the steady, open reverence which Jesus always manifested for all the established usages of his country, readily and unhesitatingly answered “Yes.” And when he was come into the house, and was upon the point of proposing the matter to him, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “How thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of the children of others?” Peter says, “From others’ children.” Jesus says again to him, “Then are the children free.” That is: “If, when the kings and rulers of the nations gather their taxes, for the support of their royal state and authority, they pass over their own children untaxed, as a thing of course, then I, the son of that God who is the eternal king of Israel, am fairly exempt from the payment of the sum due from other Jews, for the support of the ceremonials of my Father’s temple in Jerusalem.” Still he did not choose to avail himself of this honorable pretext, but went on to tell Simon, “Nevertheless, lest we should give needless occasion for offense, we will pay what they exact; and for this purpose, go thou to the sea, and take up the fish that comes up first; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money; take that and give it them for me and thee.”
Anticipated him.——This word I substitute in the place of “prevented” which is the expression used in our common English Bible, and which in the changes of modern usage has entirely lost the signification which it had when the translators applied it to this passage. The Greek word here is προεφθασεν, (proephthasen,) and literally means “forespake” or “spake before” him. This was the idea which the English translators wished to express by the word “prevented,” whose true original meaning is “anticipated,” or “was beforehand with him,” being in Latin compounded of the words prae, “before,” and venio, “come.” Among the numerous conveniences of Webster’s improved edition of the Bible, for popular use, is the fact that in this and similar passages he has altered the obsolete expression, and changed it for a modern one, which is just and faithful to the original idea. In this passage I find he has very properly given the word above suggested, without my knowledge of the coincidence.
Of the children of others.——This expression too is a variation from the common English translation, which here expresses itself so vaguely, that a common reader can get no just idea whatever of the passage, and is utterly unable to find the point of the allusion. The Greek word is αλλοτριων, (allotrion,) which is simply the genitive plural of an adjective, which means “of, or belonging to others,” and is secondarily applied also to “strangers, foreigners,” &c., as persons “belonging to other lands;” but the primary meaning is absolutely necessary to be given here, in order to do justice to the sense, since the idea is not that they take tribute money of foreigners rather than of their own subjects; but of their subjects rather than of their own children, who are to enjoy the benefit of the taxation.
A piece of money.——The term thus vaguely rendered, is in Greek στατηρ, (stater,) which was a coin of definite value, being worth among the Jews about four attic drachms, and exactly equivalent to their shekel, a little more than half a dollar of federal money. The tax here paid was the half-shekel tax, due from every Jew for the service of the temple, so that the “piece of money,” being one shekel, was just sufficient to pay for both Jesus and Peter. The word translated “the tribute money” (in verse 24) is equally definite in the Greek,——διδραχμον, (didrachmon,) equivalent to the Jewish half-shekel, and being itself worth half a stater. The stater, however, as a name for Attic and Byzantine gold coins, was equivalent to twenty or thirty times the value of the shekel. (See Stephens’s Thesaurus, Donnegan’s, Jones’s and Pickering’s Lexicons.) On this passage see Hammond’s Annotations, which are here quite full on values. See too, Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraica on Matthew xvii. 25. Macknight’s Paraphrase, Poole and Kuinoel, for a very full account of the matter. Also my note on page 32.
There have been two different accounts of this little circumstance among commentators, some considering the tribute money to have been a Roman tax, and others taking the ground which I do, that it was the Jewish tax for the expenses of the temple-worship. The reasons may be found at great length, in some of the authorities just quoted; and it may be remarked that the point of the allusion in Jesus’s question to Peter, is all lost on the supposition of a Roman tax; for how could Jesus claim exemption as a son of the Roman emperor, as he justly could from the Jewish tax for the service of the heavenly king, his Father? The correspondence of values too, with the half-shekel tax, is another reason for adopting that view; nor is there any objection to it, except the circumstance, that the time at which this tax is supposed to have been demanded, does not agree with that to which the collection of the temple-tax was limited. (Exodus xxx. 13, and Lightfoot on Matthew xvii. 24.)
THE QUESTION OF SUPERIORITY.
Soon after the last mentioned event, there arose a discussion among the apostles, as to who should have the highest rank in the administration of the government of the Messiah’s kingdom, when it should be finally triumphantly established. The question shows how pitiably deficient they still were, in a proper understanding of the nature of the cause to which they were devoted; but the details of this circumstance may be deferred to a more appropriate place, under the lives of the persons, who, by their claims, afterwards originated a similar discussion, in connection with which this may be most properly mentioned. However, it cannot be amiss to remark here, that the very fact of such a discussion having arisen, shows, that no one supposed that, from the peculiar distinctions already conferred on Peter, he was entitled to the assumption of anything like power over the rest of the twelve, or that anything else than a peculiar regard of Christ for him, and a confidence in his zeal and ability to advance the great cause, was expressed in his late honorable and affectionate declaration to him. The occurrence of this discussion is also a high and satisfactory proof of Peter’s modest and unassuming disposition; for had he maintained among the apostles the authority and rank which his Master’s decided preference might seem to warrant, these high pretensions of the sons of Zebedee would not have been thus put forward against one so secure in Christ’s favor by high talents, and long habits of close intimacy.
THE RULE OF BROTHERLY FORBEARANCE.
The next occasion on which the name of Peter is mentioned in the gospels, is his asking Jesus, “how many times he should forgive an offending brother? If the brother should repeat the offense seven times, should he each time accord him the forgiveness asked?” This question was suggested to Peter’s mind, by the rules which Christ had just been giving his disciples, for the preservation of harmony, and for the redress of mutual grievances among them. His charge to them on this subject, injoined the repeated exercise of forbearance towards a brother who had trespassed, and urged the surrender of every imagined right of private redress, to the authority and sanction of the common assembly of the apostles. The absolute necessity of some such rule, for the very existence of the apostles’ union, was plain enough. They were men, with all the passions and frailties of common, uneducated men, and with all the peculiar, fervid energy, which characterizes the physiology of the races of south-western Asia. From the constant attrition of such materials, no doubt individually discordant in temperament and constitution, how could it be hoped, that in the common course of things, there would not arise frequent bursts of human passion, to mar or hinder the divine work which brought them together? With a most wise providence for these liabilities to disagreement, Jesus had just arranged a principle of reference and quiet decision, in all cases of dispute in which the bond of Christian fellowship would be strained or broken. His charge to them, all and each, was this: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother; but if he will not hear thee, take with thee on thy second call, one or two more, that, according to the standard forms of the Mosaic law, by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall refuse to hear them, tell it at last to the common assembly of the apostles; and after they have given their decision in favor of the justice of the complaint and demand, if he still maintain his enmity and wrong against thee, thou art no longer held by the apostolic pledge to treat him with brotherly regard; but having slighted all friendly advice, and the common sentiment of the brethren, he has lost the privilege of their fellowship, and must be to thee as one of the low world around him——a heathen and an outcast Jew.” On this occasion, also, he renewed to them all, the commission to bind and loose, which he had before particularly delivered only to Peter. As he had, in speaking of the treatment, made abundant requisitions for the exercise of forbearance, without mentioning the proper limit to these acts of forgiveness, Peter now put his question: “If my brother sin against me seven times, and as often make the reparation which I may honestly ask, shall I continue to forgive him?” That is, “Shall I not seem, by these repeated acts of forbearance, at last to be offering him inducements to offend against one so placable? And if these transgressions are thus enormously multiplied, will it not be right that I should withhold the kind consideration which is made of so little account?” The answer of Jesus is, “I say to thee, not merely till seven times, but till seventy times seven.” That is, “To your forbearance towards an erring and returning Christian brother, there should be no limit but his own obstinate adhesion to his error. In coming out from the world to follow me, you have given up your natural rights to avenge, either legally or personally, those injuries which pass the bounds of common forbearance. The preservation of perfect harmony in the new community to which you have joined yourself, is of so much importance to the triumphant advancement of our cause, as to require justly all these sacrifices of personal ill-will.” With his usual readiness in securing an abiding remembrance of his great leading rules of action, Jesus, on this occasion, concluded the subject with illustrating the principle, by a beautiful parable or story; a mode of instruction, far more impressive to the glowing imagination of the oriental, than of the more calculating genius of colder races.
This inquiry may have been suggested to Peter by a remark made by Christ, which is not given by Matthew as by Luke, (xvii. 4.) “If he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times turn again, &c. thou shalt forgive him.” So Maldorat suggests, but it is certainly very hard to bring these two accounts to a minute harmony, and I should much prefer to consider Luke as having given a general statement of Christ’s doctrine, without referring to the occasion or circumstances, while Matthew has given a more distinct account of the whole matter. The discrepancy between the two accounts has seemed so great, that the French harmonists, Newcome, LeClerc, Macknight, Thirlwall, and Bloomfield, consider them as referring to totally different occasions,——that in Matthew occurring in Capernaum, but that in Luke, after his journey to Jerusalem to the feast of the tabernacles. But the utter absence of all chronological order in the greater part of Luke’s gospel, is enough to make us suspect, that the event he alludes to may coincide with that of Matthew’s story, since the amount of the precept, and the general form of expression, is the same in both cases. This is the view taken by Rosenmueller, Kuinoel, Vater, Clarke, Paulus, and which seems to be further justified by the consideration, that the repetition of the precept must have been entirely unnecessary, after having been so clearly laid down, and so fully re-examined in answer to Peter’s inquiry, as given by Matthew.
Seven times.——This number was a general expression among the Hebrews for a frequent repetition, and was perfectly vague and indefinite as to the number of repetitions, as is shown in many instances in the Bible where it occurs. Seventy times seven, was another expression of the recurrences carried to a superlative number, and is also a standard Hebraism, (as in Genesis iv. 24.) See Poole, Lightfoot, Clarke, Scott, and other commentators, for Rabbinical illustrations of these phrases.
A heathen and an outcast.——This latter expression I have chosen, as giving best the full force of the name publican, which designated a class of men among the Jews, who were considered by all around them as having renounced national pride, honor and religion, for the base purpose of worldly gain; serving under the Roman government as tax-gatherers, that is, hiring the taxes of a district, which they took by paying the government a definite sum, calculating to make a rich profit on the bargain by systematic extortion and oppression. The name, therefore, was nearly synonymous with the modern word renegade,——one who, for base motives, has renounced the creed and customs of his fathers.
THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM.
The occurrence which occasioned this discussion, took place at Capernaum, where Jesus seems to have resided with his apostles for some time after his northern tour to Caesarea Philippi, giving them, as opportunity suggested, a great number and variety of practical instructions. At length he started with them, on his last journey to Jerusalem, the only one which is recorded by the first three evangelists, although John gives us accounts of three previous visits to the Jewish capital. On this journey, while he was passing on to Jerusalem, by a somewhat circuitous course, through that portion of Judea which lies east of the Jordan, he had taken occasion to remark, (in connection with the disappointment of the rich young man, who could not give up his wealth for the sake of the gospel,) how hard it was for those that had riches, and put their trust in them, to join heartily in the promotion of the cause of Christ, or share in the honors of its success. Peter, then, speaking for himself and the faithful few who had followed Jesus thus far through many trials, to the risk and loss of much worldly profit, reminded Jesus of what they had given up for his sake. “Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee. What shall we have therefore?” The solemn and generous assurance of Jesus, in reply, was, that those who had followed him thus, should, in the final establishment of his kingdom, when he should receive the glories of his triumph, share in the highest gifts which he, conqueror of all, could bestow. Then, those who had forsaken kindred and lands for his sake, should find all these sacrifices made up to them, in the enjoyment of rewards incalculably beyond those earthly comforts in value.
This conversation took place, just about as they were passing the Jordan, into the western section of Judea, near the spot where Joshua and the Israelitish host of old passed over to the conquest of Canaan. A little before they reached Jericho, Jesus took a private opportunity to renew to the twelve his oft repeated warning of the awful events, now soon to happen after his entry into Jerusalem. “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death. And they shall deliver him to the heathen, to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him; and the third day, he shall rise again.” Yet, distinct as was this declaration, and full as the prediction was in these shocking particulars, Luke assures us, that “they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them; neither knew they the things which were spoken.” Now, we cannot easily suppose that they believed that he, to whom they had so heartily and confidently devoted their lives and fortunes, was trying their feelings by an unnecessary fiction, so painful in its details. The only just supposition which we can make, then, is that they explained all these predictions to themselves, in a way best accordant with their own notions of the kingdom which the Messiah was to found, and on the hope of whose success they had staked all. The account of his betrayal, ill-treatment, and disgraceful death, they could not literally interpret, as the real doom which awaited their glorious and mighty Lord; it could only mean, to them, that for a brief space, the foes of the Son of God were to gain a seeming triumph over the hosts that were to march against Jerusalem, to seat him on the throne of David. The traitorous heads of the Jewish faith, the members of the great Sanhedrim, the hypocritical Pharisees, and the lying, avaricious lawyers, would, through cowardice, selfishness, envy, jealousy, or some other meanness, basely conspire to support their compound tyranny, by attempting to crush the head of the new faith, with the help of their Roman masters, whom they would summon to the aid of their falling power. This unpatriotic and treacherous effort would for a time seem to be perfectly successful, but only long enough for the traitors to fill up the measure of their iniquities. Then, vain would be the combined efforts of priest and soldier,——of Jewish and of Roman power. Rising upon them, like life from the dead, the Son of God should burst forth in the might of his Father,——he should be revealed from heaven with ten thousand angels, and recalling his scattered friends, who might have been for a moment borne down before the iron hosts of Rome, he should sweep every foreign master, and every domestic religious tyrant, from Israel’s heritage, setting up a throne, whose sway should spread to the uttermost parts of the earth, displacing even the deep-rooted hold of Roman power. What then, would be the fate of the faithful Galileans, who, though few and feeble, had stood by him through evil and good report, risking all on his success? When the grinding tyranny of the old Sanhedrim had been overthrown, and chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, lawyers, and all, displaced from the administration, the chosen ones of his own early adoption, his countrymen, and intimate companions for years, would be rewarded, sitting on twelve thrones, judging the ransomed and victorious twelve tribes of Israel. Could they doubt their Lord’s ability for this glorious, this miraculous [♦]achievement? Had they not seen him maintain his claim for authority over the elements, over diseases, over the dark agencies of the demoniac powers, and over the mighty bonds of death itself? And could not the same power achieve the still less wonderful victory over the opposition of these unworthy foes? It was natural, then, that, with the long cherished hopes of these dazzling triumphs in their minds, the twelve apostles, though so often and so fully warned of approaching evils, should thus unsuspectingly persist in their mistake, giving every terrible word of Jesus such a turn as would best confirm their baseless hopes. Even Peter, already sternly rebuked for his forward effort to exalt the ambition of Jesus, above even the temporary disgrace which he seemed to foreordain for himself,——and so favored with the private instructions and counsels of his master, thus erred,——even James and John, also sharers in the high confidence and favor of Jesus, though thus favored and taught, were immediately after brought under his deserved censure for their presumptuous claims for the ascendency, which so moved the wrath of the jealous apostles, who were all alike involved in this monstrous and palpable misconception. Nor yet can we justly wonder at the infatuation to which they were thus blindly given up, knowing as we do, that, in countless instances, similar error has been committed on similar subjects, by men similarly influenced. What Biblical commentary, interpretation, introduction, harmony, or criticism, from the earliest Christian or Rabbinic fathers, to the theological schemer of the latest octavo, does not bear sad witness on its pages, to the wonderful infatuation which can force upon the plainest and clearest declaration, a version elaborately figurative or painfully literal, just as may most comfortably cherish and confirm a doctrine, or notion, or prejudice, which the writer would fain “add to the things which are written in the book?” Can it be reasonably hoped, then, that this untaught effort to draw out the historical truth of the gospel, will be an exception to this harshly true judgment on the good, the learned, and the critical of past ages?
[♦] “achievment” replaced with “achievement”
THE ENTRY INTO THE CITY.
With these fruitless admonitions to his followers, Jesus passed on through Jericho to Bethphage, on the verge of the holy city. Here, the enthusiastic and triumphant rejoicings, which the presence of their Master called forth, from the multitudes who were then swarming to Jerusalem from all parts of Palestine, must have lifted up the hearts of the apostles, with high assurance of the nearness of the honors for which they had so long looked and waited. Their irrepressible joy and exultation burst out in songs of triumph, as Jesus, after the manner of the ancient judges of Israel, rode into the royal seat of his fathers. And as he went down the descent of the Mount of Olives, to go into the city, the whole train of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God, with a loud voice, for all the mighty works that they had seen; saying, “Blessed be the King of Israel, that cometh in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven! Glory in the highest! Blessed be the kingdom of our father David! Hosanna!” These acclamations were raised by the disciples, and heartily joined in by the multitudes who knew his wonderful works, and more especially those who were acquainted with the very recent miracle of raising Lazarus. A great sensation of wonder was created throughout the city, by such a burst of shouts from a multitude, sweeping in a long, imposing train, with palm branches in their hands, down the mountain, on which they could have been seen all over Jerusalem. As he entered the gates, all the city was moved to say, “Who is this?” And the rejoicing multitude said, “This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth in Galilee.” What scorn did not this reply awaken in many of the haughty aristocrats of Jerusalem, to learn that all this solemn parade had been got up for no better purpose than merely to honor a dweller of that outcast region of mongrels, Galilee! And of all places, that this prophet, so called, should have come from Nazareth! A prophet from Galilee, indeed! Was it from this half-heathen district, that the favored inhabitants of the capital of Judaism were to receive a teacher of religion? Were the strict faith, and the rigid observances of their learned and devout, to be displaced by the presumptuous reformations of a self-taught prophet, from such a country? Swelling with these feelings, the Pharisees could not repress a remonstrance with Jesus, against these noisy proceedings. But he, evidently affected with pleasure at the honest tribute thus wrung out in spite of sectional feeling, forcibly asserted the propriety and justice of this free offering of praise. “I tell you, that if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.”
With palm-branches in their hands.——This tree, the emblem of joy and triumph in every part of the world where it is known, was the more readily adopted on this occasion, by those who thronged to swell the triumphal train of Jesus of Nazareth, because the palm grew along the way-side where they passed, and the whole mount was hardly less rich in this than in the far famed olive from which it drew its name. A proof of the abundance of the palm-trees on Olivet is found in the name of the village of Bethany, בית חיני, (beth-hene,) “house of dates,” which shows that the tree which bore this fruit must have been plentiful there. The people, as they passed on with Jesus from this village whence he started to enter the city, would therefore find this token of triumph hanging over their heads, and shading their path every where within reach, and the emotions of joy at their approach to the city of God in the company of this good and mighty prophet, prompted them at once to use the expressive emblems which hung so near at hand; and which were alike within the reach of those who journeyed with Jesus, and those who came forth from the city to meet and escort him in. The presence of these triumphal signs would, of course, remind them at once of the feast of the tabernacles, the day on which, in obedience to the Mosaic statute, all the dwellers of the city were accustomed to go forth to the mount, and bring home these branches with songs of joy. (Leviticus xxiii. 40, Nehemiah viii. 15, 16.) The remembrance of this festival at once recalled also the beautifully appropriate words of the noble national and religious hymn, which they always chanted in praise of the God of their fathers on that day, (see Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, Wolf, &c.) and which was so peculiarly applicable to him who now “came in the name of the Lord,” to honor and to bless his people. (Psalm cxviii. 26.)
The descent of the Mount of Olives.——To imagine this scene, with something of the force of reality, it must be remembered that the Mount of Olives, so often mentioned in the scenes of Christ’s life, rose on the eastern side of Jerusalem beyond the valley of the Kedron, whose little stream flowed between this mountain and Mount Moriah, on which the temple stood. Mount Olivet was much higher than any part of the city within the walls, and the most commanding and satisfactory view of the holy city which modern travelers and draughtsmen have been able to present to us in a picture, is that from the more than classic summit of this mountain. The great northern road passing through Jericho, approaches Jerusalem on its north-eastern side, and comes directly over the top of Olivet, and as it mounts the ridge, it brings the holy city in all its glory, directly on the traveler’s view.
Hosanna.——This also is an expression taken from the same festal hymn, (Psalm cxviii. 25,) הושיעה־נא (hoshia-na) a pure Hebrew expression, as Drusius shows, and not Syriac, (See Poole’s Synopsis on Matthew xxi. 9,) but corrupted in the vulgar pronunciation of this frequently repeated hymn, into Hosanna. The meaning of the Hebrew is “save him” or “be gracious to him,” that is in connection with the words which follow in the gospel story, “Be gracious, O Lord, to the son of David.” This is the same Hebrew phrase which, in the psalm above quoted, (verse 25,) is translated “Save now.” The whole expression was somewhat like the English “God save the king,” in its import.
Nazareth.——This city, in particular, had an odious name, for the general low character of its inhabitants. The passage in John i. 46, shows in what estimation this city and its inhabitants were held, by their own neighbors in Galilee; and the great scorn with which all Galileans were regarded by the Jews, must have redoubled their contempt of this poor village, so despised even by the despicable. The consequence was that the Nazarenes acquired so low a character, that the name became a sort of byword for what was mean and foolish. (See Kuinoel on Matthew ii. 23, John i. 46. Also Rosenmueller on the former passage and Bloomfield on the latter.)
Galilee.——In order to appreciate fully, the scorn and suspicion with which the Galileans were regarded by the citizens of Jerusalem, a complete view of their sectional peculiarities would be necessary. Such a view will hereafter be given in connection with a passage which more directly refers to those peculiarities, and more especially requires illustration and explanation.
THE BLIGHTING OF THE FIG-TREE.
Having thus, by his public and triumphant entrance into Jerusalem, defied and provoked the spite of the higher orders, while he secured an attentive hearing from the common people, when he should wish to teach them,——Jesus retired at evening, for the sake of quiet and comfort, to the house of his friends, Lazarus, Mary and Martha, at Bethany, in the suburbs. The next morning, as he was on his way with his disciples, coming back from this place to Jerusalem, hungry with the fatigues of his long walk, he came to a fig-tree, near the path, hoping to find fruit for his refreshment, as it seemed from a distance flourishing with abundance of leaves, and was then near the season of bearing. But when he came near, he found nothing but leaves on it, for it was somewhat backward, and its time of producing figs was not yet. And Jesus, seizing the opportunity of this disappointment to impress his disciples with his power, personifying the tree, denounced destruction against it. “May no man eat fruit of thee hereafter, forever.” And his disciples heard it. They returned to Bethany, as usual, that evening, to pass the night,——but as they passed, probably after dark, they took no notice of the fig-tree. But the next morning, as they went back to the city, they saw that it had dried up from the roots. Simon Peter, always ready to notice the instances of his Master’s power, called out in surprise to Jesus, to witness the effect of his malediction upon its object. “Master, behold, the fig-tree which thou didst curse, is withered away.” Jesus noticing their amazement at the apparent effect of his words, in so small a matter, took occasion to turn their attention to other and higher objects of faith, on which they might exert their zeal in a spirit, not of withering denunciation and destroying wrath, such as they had seen so tremendously efficient in this case, but in the spirit of love and forgiveness, as well as of the holy energy that could overthrow and overcome difficulties, not less than to uproot Mount Olivet from its everlasting base and hurl it into the sea.
THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SECTARIES.
The disciples steadily remained the diligent and constant attendants of their heavenly teacher, in his long and frequent seasons of instruction in the temple, where he boldly met the often renewed attacks of his various adversaries, whether Herodians, scribes, Pharisees or Sadducees, and in spite of their long-trained subtleties, beat them out and out, with the very weapons at which they thought themselves so handy. The display of genius, of taste, of learning, of ready and sarcastic wit, and of heart-searching acuteness, was so amazing and super-human, that these few days of open discussion established his divinely intellectual superiority over all the elaborate science of his accomplished opponents, and at the same time secured the fulfilment of his destiny, by the spite and hatred which their repeated public defeats excited in them. Imagine their rage. Exposed thus before the people, by whom they had hitherto been regarded as the sole depositaries of learning, and adored as the fountains of right, they saw all their honors and power, to which they had devoted the intense study of their whole lives, snatched coolly and easily from them, by a nameless, untaught pretender, who was able to hold them up, baffled and disgraced, for the amusement of the jeering multitude. Here was ground enough for hatred;——the hatred of conceited and intolerant false learning, against the discerning soul that had stripped and humbled it;——the hatred of confident ambition against the heroic energy which had discomfited it, and was doing much to free a long enslaved people from the yoke which formal hypocrisy and empty parade had long laid on them. And again, the intolerable thought that all this heavy disgrace had been brought on the learned body of Judaism by a Galilean! a mere carpenter of the lowest orders, who had come up to Jerusalem followed by a select train of rude fishermen and outcast publicans;——and who, not being able to command a single night’s lodging in the city, was in the habit of boarding and lodging in a paltry suburb, on the charity of some personal friends, from which place he quietly walked in for the distance of two miles every morning, to triumph over the palace-lodged heads of the Jewish faith. From such a man, thus humbly and even pitiably circumstanced, such an invasion and overthrow could not be endured; and his ruin was rendered doubly easy by his very insignificance, which now constituted the chief disgrace of their defeat. Never was cause more closely followed by its effect, than this insulted dignity was by its cruel vengeance.
THE PROPHECY OF THE TEMPLE’S RUIN.
In preparing his disciples for the great events which were to take place in a few years, and which were to have a great influence on their labors, Jesus foretold to them the destruction of the temple. As he was passing out through the mighty gates of the temple on some occasion with his disciples, one of them, admiring the gorgeous beauty of the architecture and the materials, with all the devotion of a Jew now visiting it for the first time, said to him, “Master, see! what stones and what buildings!” To him, Jesus replied with the awful prophecy, most shocking to the national pride and religious associations of every Israelite,——that ere long, upon that glorious pile should fall a ruin so complete, that not one of those splendid stones should be left upon another. These words must have made a strong impression of wonder on all who heard them; but no farther details of the prophecy were given to the disciples at large. Not long afterwards, however, as he sat musingly by himself, in his favorite retirement, half-way up the Mount of Olives, over against the temple, the four most loved and honored of the twelve, Peter, James, John and Andrew, came to him, and asked him privately, to tell them when these things should be, and by what omen they should know the approach of the great and woful ruin. Sitting there, they had a full view of the enormous pile which rose in immense masses very near them, on the verge of mount Moriah, and was even terraced up, from the side of the slope, presenting a vast wall, rising from the depths of the deep ravine of Kedron, which separated the temple from mount Olivet, where they were. It was morning when the conversation took place, as we may fairly guess, for this spot lay on the daily walk to Bethany, where he lodged;——the broad walls, high towers, and pillars of the temple, were doubtless illuminated by the full splendors of the morning sun of Palestine; for Olivet was directly east of Jerusalem, and as they sat looking westward towards the temple, with the sun behind them, the rays, leaving their faces in the shade, would shine full and bright on all which crowned the highth beyond. It was at such a time, as the Jewish historian assures us, that the temple was seen in its fullest grandeur and sublimity; for the light, falling on the vast roofs, which were sheeted and spiked with pure gold, brightly polished, and upon the turrets and pinnacles which glittered with the same precious metal, was reflected to the eye of the gazer with an insupportable brilliancy, from the million bright surfaces and shining points which covered it. Here, then, sat Jesus and his four adoring chosen ones, with this splendid sight before them crowning the mountain, now made doubly dazzling by contrast with the deep gloom of the dark glen below, which separated them from it. There it was, that, with all this brightness and glory and beauty before them, Jesus solemnly foretold in detail the awful, total ruin which was to sweep it all away, within the short lives of those who heard him. Well might such words sink deep into their hearts,——words coming from lips whose perfect and divine truth they could not doubt, though the things now foretold must have gone wofully against all the dreams of glory, in which they had made that sacred pile the scene of the future triumphs of the faith and followers of Christ. This sublime prophecy, which need not here be repeated or descanted upon, is given at great length by all the first three evangelists, and is found in Matthew xxiv. Mark xiii. and Luke xxi.
The view of the temple.——I can find no description by any writer, ancient or modern, which gives so clear an account of the original shape of Mount Moriah, and of the modifications it underwent to fit it to support the temple, as that given by Josephus. (Jewish War, book V. chapter v.) In speaking of the original founding of the temple by Solomon, (Antiquities book VIII. chapter iii. section 2,) he says, “The king laid the foundations of the temple in the very depths, (at the bottom of the descent,) using stones of a firm structure, and able to hold out against the attacks of time, so that growing into a union, as it were, with the ground, they might be the basis and support of the pile that was to be reared above, and through their strength below, easily bear the vast mass of the great superstructure, and the immense weight of ornament also; for the weight of those things which were contrived for beauty and magnificence was not less than that of the materials which contributed to the highth and lateral dimension.” In the full description which he afterwards gives in the place first quoted, of the later temple as perfected by Herod, which is the building to which the account in the text refers, he enters more fully into the mode of shaping the ground to the temple. “The temple was founded upon a steep hill, but in the first beginning of the structure there was scarcely flat ground enough on the top for the sanctuary and the altar, for it was abrupt and precipitous all around. And king Solomon, when he built the sanctuary, having walled it out on the eastern side, (εκτειχισαντος, that is, ‘having built out a wall on that side’ for a terrace,) then reared upon the terraced earth a colonnade; but on the other sides the sanctuary was naked,——(that is, the wall was unsupported and unornamented by colonnades as it was on the east.) But in the course of ages, the people all the while beating down the terraced earth with their footsteps, the hill thus growing flat, was made broader on the top; and having taken down the wall on the north, they gained considerable ground which was afterwards inclosed within the outer court of the temple. Finally, having walled the hill entirely around with three terraces, and having advanced the work far beyond any hope that could have been reasonably entertained at first, spending on it long ages, and all the sacred treasures accumulated from the offerings sent to God from the ends of the world, they reared around it, both the upper courts and the lower temple, walling the latter up, in the lowest part, from a depth of three hundred cubits, (450 feet,) and in some places more. And yet the whole depth of the foundations did not show itself, because they had greatly filled up the ravines, with a view to bring them to a level with the streets of the city. The stones of this work were of the size of forty cubits, (60 feet,) for the profusion of means and the lavish zeal of the people advanced the improvements of the temple beyond account; and a perfection far above all hope was thus attained by perseverance and time.
“And well worthy of these foundations were the works which stood upon them. For all the colonnades were double, consisting of pillars twenty-five cubits (40 feet) in highth, each of a single stone of the whitest marble, and were roofed with fretwork of cedar. The natural beauty of these, their high polish and exquisite proportion, presented a most glorious show; but their surface was not marked by the superfluous embellishments of painting and carving. The colonnades were thirty cubits broad, (that is, forty-five feet from the front of the columns to the wall behind them;) while their whole circuit embraced a range of six stadia, (more than three-quarters of a mile!) including the castle of Antonia. And the whole hypethrum (ὑπαιθρον, the floor of the courts or inclosures of the temple, which was exposed to the open air, there being no roof above it) was variegated by the stones of all colors with which it was laid,” (making a Mosaic pavement.) Section 1.
“The outside of the temple too, lacked nothing that could strike or dazzle the mind and eye. For it was on all sides overlaid with massy plates of gold, so that in the first light of the rising sun, IT SHOT FORTH A MOST FIERY SPLENDOR, which turned away the eyes of those who compelled themselves (mid. βιαζομενους) to gaze on it, as from the rays of the sun itself. To strangers, moreover, who were coming towards it, it shone from afar like a complete mountain of snow: for where it was not covered with gold it was most dazzlingly white, and above on the roof it had golden spikes, sharpened to keep the birds from lighting on it. And some of the stones of the building were forty-five cubits long, five high, and six broad;”——(or sixty-seven feet long, seven and a half high, and nine broad.) Section 6.
“The Antonia was placed at the angle made by the meeting of two colonnades of the outer temple, the western and the northern. It was built upon a rock, fifty cubits high, and precipitous on all sides. It was the work of king Herod, in which, most of all, he showed himself a man of exalted conceptions.” Section 8.
In speaking of Solomon’s foundation, he also says, (Antiquities book VIII. chapter iii. section 9,)
“But he made the outside of the temple wonderful beyond account, both in description and to sight. For having piled up huge terraces, from which, on account of their immense depth, it was hardly possible to look down, and reared them to the highth of four hundred cubits, (six hundred feet!) he made them on the same level with the hill’s top on which the shrine (ναος) was built, and thus the open floor of the temple (ἱερον, or the outer court’s inclosure) was level with the shrine.”
I have drawn thus largely from the rich descriptions of this noble and faithful describer of the old glories of the Holy Land, because this very literal translation gives the exact naked detail of the temple’s aspect, in language as gorgeous as the most high-wrought in which it could be presented in a mere fancy picture of the same scene; and because it will prove that my conception of its glory, as it appeared to Christ and the four disciples who “sat over against it upon the Mount of Olives,” is not overdrawn, since it is thus supported by the blameless and invaluable testimony of him who saw all this splendor in its most splendid day, and afterwards in its unequaled beauty and with all its polished gold and marble, shining and sinking amid the flames, which swept it utterly away from his saddening eyes forever, to a ruin the most absolute and irretrievable that ever fell upon the works of man.
This was the temple on which the sons of Jonah and Zebedee gazed, with the awful denunciation of its utter ruin falling from their Lord’s lips, and such was the desolation to which those terrible words devoted it. This full description of its location shows the manner in which its terraced foundations descended with their vast fronts, six hundred feet into the valley of Kedron, over which they looked. To give as clear an idea of the place where they sat, and its relations to the rest of the scene, I extract from Conder’s Modern Traveler the following description of Mount Olivet.
“The Mount of Olives forms part of a ridge of limestone hills, extending to the north and the south-west. Pococke describes it as having four summits. On the lowest and most northerly of these, which, he tells us, is called Sulman Tashy, the stone of Solomon, there is a large domed sepulcher, and several other Mohammedan tombs. The ascent to this point, which is to the north-east of the city, he describes as very gradual, through pleasant corn-fields planted with olive-trees. The second summit is that which overlooks the city: the path to it rises from the ruined gardens of Gethsemane, which occupy part of the valley. About half way up the ascent is a ruined monastery, built, as the monks tell us, on the spot where the Savior wept over Jerusalem. From this point the spectator enjoys, perhaps, the best view of the Holy City. (Here Jesus sat, in our scene.)
“The valley of Jehoshaphat, which lies between this mountain and the hills on which Jerusalem is built, is still used as a burial-place by the modern Jews, as it was by their ancestors. It is, generally speaking, a rocky flat, with a few patches of earth here and there, about half a mile in breadth from the Kedron to the foot of Mount Olivet, and nearly of the same length from Siloa to the garden of Gethsemane. The Jews have a tradition, evidently founded on taking literally the passage Joel iii. 12, that this narrow valley will be the scene of the final judgment. The prophet Jeremiah evidently refers to the same valley under the name of the valley of the Son of Hinnom, or the valley of Tophet, the situation being clearly marked as being by the entry of the east gate. (Jeremiah xix. 2, 6.) Pococke places the valley of Hinnom to the south of Jerusalem, but thinks it might include part of that to the east. It formed part of the bounds between the tribes of Benjamin and Judah, (Joshua xv. 8. xviii. 16,) but the description is somewhat obscure.” [Modern Traveler Palestine, pp. 168, 172.]
MOUNT MORIAH.
THE LAST SUPPER.
Meanwhile the offended and provoked dignitaries of Judaism were fast making arrangements to crush the daring innovator, who had done so much to bring their learning and their power into contempt. Some of the most fiery spirits among them, were for defying all risks, by seizing the Nazarene openly, in the midst of his audacious denunciations of the higher orders; and the attempt was made to execute this act of arbitrary power; but the mere hirelings sent upon the errand, were too much awed by the unequaled majesty of the man, and by the strong attachment of the people to him, to be willing to execute their commission. But there were old heads among them, that could contrive safer and surer ways of meeting the evil. By them it was finally determined to seize Jesus when alone or unattended by the throngs which usually encompassed him,——to hurry him at once secretly through the forms of law necessary for his commitment, and then to put him immediately into the hands of the Roman governor, as a condemned rioter and rebel, who would be obliged to order his execution in such a way as that no popular excitement would rescue the victim from the grasp of the soldiery. This was the plan which they were now arranging, and which they were prepared to execute before the close of the passover, if they could get intelligence of his motions. These fatal schemes of hate could not have been unknown to Jesus; yet the knowledge of them made no difference in his bold devotion to the cause for which he came into the world. Anxious to improve the few fast fleeting hours that remained before the time of his sufferings should come on, and desirous to join as a Jew in this great national festival, by keeping it in form with his disciples, he directed his two most confidential apostles, Peter and John, to get ready the entertainment for them in the city, by an arrangement made with a man already expecting to receive them. This commission they faithfully executed, and Jesus accordingly ate with his disciples the feast of the first day of the passover, in Jerusalem, with those who sought his life so near him. After the supper was over, he determined to use the brief remnant of time for the purpose of uprooting that low feeling of jealous ambition which had already made so much trouble among them, in their anxious discussions as to who should be accounted the greatest, and should rank as the ruler of the twelve. To impress the right view upon their minds most effectually, he chose the oriental mode of a ceremony which should strike their senses, and thus secure a regard and remembrance for his words which they might fail in attaining if they were delivered in the simple manner of trite and oft spoken oral truisms. He therefore rose after supper, and leaving his place at the head of the table, he laid aside his upper garments, which, though appropriate and becoming him as a teacher in his hours of public instruction, or social communion, were yet inconvenient in any active exertion which needed the free use of the limbs. Being thus disrobed, he took the position and character of a menial upon him, and girding himself with a towel, he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet in it, wiping them with his towel. He accordingly comes to Simon Peter, in the discharge of his servile office; but Peter, whose ideas of the majesty and ripening honors of his Master were shocked at this extraordinary action, positively refused to be even the passive instrument of such an indignity to one so great and good,——first inquiring “Lord, dost thou wash my feet?” Jesus in answer said to him, “What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.” That is, “this apparently degrading act has a hidden, useful meaning, at this moment beyond your comprehension, but which you will learn in due time.” Peter, however, notwithstanding this plain and decided expression of Christ’s wise determination to go through this painful ceremony, for the instruction of those who so unwillingly submitted to see him thus degraded,——still led on by the fiery ardor of his own headlong genius,——manfully persisted in his refusal, and expressed himself in the most positive terms possible, saying to Jesus, “Thou shalt never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” This solemn remonstrance had the effect of checking Peter’s too forward reverence, and in a tone of deeper submission to the wise will of his Master, he yielded, replying however, “Lord, wash not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.” Since so low an office was to be performed by one so venerated, he would not have the favor of his blessed touch confined to the baser limbs, but desired that the nobler parts of the body should share in the holy ablution. But the high purpose of Jesus could not accommodate itself to the whims of his zealous disciple; for his very object was to take the humblest attitude before them, by performing those personal offices which were usually committed to slaves. He therefore told Peter, “He that is washed needs not save to wash his feet, but is clean in every part;”——a very familiar and expressive illustration, alluding to the circumstance that those who have been to a bath and there washed themselves, will on their return find themselves wholly clean, except such dust as may cling to their feet as they have passed through the streets on their return. And any one may feel the force of the beautiful figure, who has ever gone into the water for the purposes of cleanliness and refreshment, on a warm summer’s day in this country, and has found by experience that after all possible ablution, on coming out and dressing himself, his wet feet in contact with the ground have become loaded with dirt which demands new diligence to remove it; and as all who have tried it know, it requires many ingenious efforts to return with feet as clean as they came to the washing; and in spite of all, after the return, an inspection may forcibly illustrate the truth, that “he that is washed, though he is clean in every part, yet needs to wash his feet.” Such was the figure with which Jesus expressed to his simple-minded and unlettered disciples, the important truth, that since they had been already washed, (baptized by John or himself,) if that washing had been effectual, they could need the repurification only of their feet——the cleansing away of such of the world’s impure thoughts and feelings as had clung to them in their journeyings through it. So, after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments and sat down again, he said to them, “Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord; and ye say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you this as an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Truly the servant is not greater than his lord, neither is he that is sent greater than him that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.”——A charge so clear and simple, and so full, that it needs not a word of comment to show any reader the full force of this touching ceremony.
Shortly after, in the same place and during the same meeting, Jesus speaking to them of his near departure, affectionately and sadly said, “Little children, but a little while longer am I with you. Ye shall seek me; and as I said to the Jews, ‘whither I go, ye cannot come,’——so now I say to you.” To this Simon Peter soon after replied by asking him, “Lord whither goest thou?” Jesus answered him, “Whither I go thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards.” Peter, perhaps beginning to perceive the mournful meaning of this declaration, replied, still urging, “Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.” Jesus answered, “Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? I tell thee assuredly, the cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice.”——Soon after, at the same time and place, noticing the confident assurance of this chief disciple, Jesus again warned him of his danger and his coming fall. “Simon! Simon! behold, Satan has desired to have you (all) that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee (especially) that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Never before had higher and more distinctive favor been conferred on this chief apostle, than by this sad prophecy of danger, weakness and sin, on which he was to fall, for a time, to his deep disgrace; but on him alone, when rescued from ruin by his Master’s peculiar prayers, was to rest the task of strengthening his brethren. But his Master’s kind warning was for the present lost on his immovable self-esteem; he repeated his former assurance of perfect devotion through every danger, “Lord, I am ready to go with thee into prison and to death.” Where was affectionate and heroic devotion ever more affectingly and determinedly expressed? What heart of common man would not have leaped to meet such love and fidelity? But He, with an eye still clear and piercing, in spite of the tears with which affection might dim it, saw through the veil that would have blinded the sharpest human judgment, and coldly met these protestations of burning zeal with the chilling prediction again uttered, “I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.” Then making a sudden transition, to hint to them the nature of the dangers which would soon try their souls, he suddenly reverted to their former security. “When I sent you forth without purse, or scrip, or shoes, did ye need any thing?” And they said “Nothing.” Then said he to them “But now, let him that has a purse, take it, and likewise his scrip; and let him that has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” They had hitherto, in their wanderings, every where found friends to support and protect them; but now the world was at war with them, and they must look to their own resources both for supplying their wants and guarding their lives. His disciples readily apprehending some need of personal defense, at once bestirred themselves and mustered what arms they could on the spot, and told him that they had two swords among them, and of these it appears that one was in the hands of Peter. It was natural enough that among the disciples these few arms were found, for they were all Galileans, who, as Josephus tells us, were very pugnacious in their habits; and even the followers of Christ, notwithstanding their peaceful calling, had not entirely laid aside their former weapons of violence, which were the more needed by them, as the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem was made very dangerous by robbers, who lay in wait for the defenseless traveler wherever the nature of the ground favored such an attack. Of this character was that part of the road between Jerusalem and Jericho, alluded to in the parable of the wounded traveler and the good Samaritan,——a region so wild and rocky that it has always been dangerous, for the same reasons, even to this day; of which a sad instance occurred but a few years ago, in the case of an eminent English traveler, who going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, fell among thieves and was wounded near the same spot mentioned by Christ, in spite of the defenses with which he was provided. It was in reference to such dangers as these, that two of his disciples had provided themselves with hostile weapons, and Peter may have been instigated to carry his sword into such a peaceful feast, by the suspicion that the danger from the chief priests, to which Christ had often alluded, might more particularly threaten them while they were in the city by themselves, without the safeguard of their numerous friends in the multitude. The answer of Jesus to this report of their means of resistance was not in a tone to excite them to the very zealous use of them. He simply said, “It is enough,” a phrase which was meant to quiet them, by expressing his little regard for such a defense as they were able to offer to him, with this contemptible armament.
Some have conjectured that this washing of feet (page [97]) was a usual rite at the Paschal feast. So Scaliger, Beza, Baronius, Casaubon and other learned men have thought. (See Poole’s Synopsis, on John xiii. 5.) But Buxtorf has clearly shown the falsity of their reasons, and Lightfoot has also proved that it was a perfectly unusual thing, and that there is no passage in all the Rabbinical writings which refers to it as a custom. It is manifest indeed, to a common reader, that the whole peculiar force of this ablution, in this instance, consisted in its being an entirely unusual act; and all its beautiful aptness as an illustration of the meaning of Jesus,——that they should cease their ambitious strife for precedence,——is lost in making it anything else than a perfectly new and original ceremony, whose impressiveness mainly consisted in its singularity. Lightfoot also illustrates the design of Jesus still farther, by several interesting passages from the Talmudists, showing in what way the ablution would be regarded by his disciples, who like other Jews would look upon it as a most degraded action, never to be performed except by inferiors to superiors. These Talmudic authorities declare, that “Among the duties to be performed by the wife to her husband, this was one,——that she should wash his face, his hands and his feet.” (Maimonides on the duties of women.) The same office was due from a son to his father,——from a slave to his master, as his references show; but he says he can find no precept that a disciple should perform such a duty to his teacher, unless it be included in this, “The teacher should be more honored by his scholar than a father.”
He also shows that the feet were never washed separately, with any idea of legal purification,——though the Pharisees washed their hands separately with this view, and the priests washed their hands and feet both, as a form of purification, but never the feet alone. And he very justly remarks upon all this testimony, that “the farther this action of Christ recedes from common custom, the higher its fitness for their instruction,——being performed not merely for an example but for a precept.” (Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraica in Gospel of John xiii. 5.)
Laid aside his garments.——The simple dress of the races of western Asia, is always distinguishable into two parts or sets of garments,——an inner, which covered more or less of the body, fitting it tightly, but not reaching far over the legs or arms, and consisted either of a single cloth folded around the loins, or a tunic fastened with a girdle; sometimes also a covering for the thighs was subjoined, making something like the rudiment of a pair of breeches. (See Jahn Archaeologia Biblica § 120.) These were the permanent parts of the dress, and were always required to be kept on the body, by the common rules of decency. But the second division of the garments, (“superindumenta,” Jahn,) thrown loosely over the inner ones, might be laid aside, on any occasion, when active exertion required the most unconstrained motion of the limbs. One of these was a simple oblong, broad piece of cloth, of various dimensions, but generally about three yards long, and two broad, which was wrapped around the body like a mantle, the two upper corners being drawn over the shoulders in front, and the rest hanging down the back, and falling around the front of the body, without any fastenings but the folding of the upper corners. This garment was called by the Hebrews שמלה or שלמה, (simlah or salmah,) and sometimes בגד; (begedh;)——by the Greeks, ἱματιον. (himation.) Jahn Archaeologia Biblica. This is the garment which is always meant by this Greek word in the New Testament, when used in the singular number,——translated “cloak” in the common English version, as in the passage in the text above, where Jesus exhorts him that has no sword to sell his cloak and buy one. When this Greek word occurs in the plural, (ἱματια, himatia,) it is translated “garments,” and it is noticeable that in most cases where it occurs, the sense actually requires that it should be understood only of the outer dress, to which I have referred it. As in Matthew xxi. 8, where it is said that the people spread their garments in the way,——of course only their outer ones, which were loose and easily thrown off, without indecent exposure. So in Mark xi. 7, 8: Luke xix. 35. There is no need then, of supposing, as Origen does, that Jesus took off all his clothes, or was naked, in the modern sense of the term. A variety of other outer garments in common use both among the early and the later Jews, are described minutely by Jahn in his Archaeologia Biblica, § 122. I shall have occasion to describe some of these, in illustration of other passages.
My exegesis on the passage “He that is washed, needs not,” &c. may strike some as rather bold in its illustration, yet if great authorities are necessary to support the view I have taken, I can refer at once to a legion of commentators, both ancient and modern, who all offer the same general explanation, though not exactly the same illustration. Poole’s Synopsis is rich in references to such. Among these, Vatablus remarks on the need of washing the feet of one already washed, “scil. viae causa.” Medonachus says of the feet, “quos calcata terra iterum inquinat.” Hammond says, “he that hath been initiated, and entered into Christ, &c. is whole clean, and hath no need to be so washed again, all over. All that is needful to him is the daily ministering of the word and grace of Christ, to cleanse and wash off the frailties, and imperfections, and lapses of our weak nature, those feet of the soul.” Grotius says, “Hoc tantum opus ei est, ut ab iis se purget quae ex occasione nascuntur. Similitudo sumpta ab his qui a balneo nudis pedibus abeunt.” Besides these and many others largely quoted by Poole, Lampius also (in commentary in Gospel of John) goes very fully into the same view, and quotes many others in illustration. Wolfius (in Cur. Philology) gives various illustrations, differing in no important particular, that I can see, from each other, nor from that of Kuinoel, who calls them “contortas expositiones,” but gives one which is the same in almost every part, but is more fully illustrated in detail, by reference to the usage of the ancients, of going to the bath before coming to a feast, which the disciples no doubt had done, and made themselves clean in all parts except their feet, which had become dirtied on the way from the bath. This is the same view which Wolf also quotes approvingly from Elsner. Wetstein is also on this point, as on all others, abundantly rich in illustrations from classic usage, to which he refers in a great number of quotations from Lucian, Herodotus, Plato, Terence and Plutarch.
Sift you as wheat.——The word σινιαζω (siniazo) refers to the process of winnowing the wheat after threshing, rather than sifting in the common application of the term, which is to the operation of separating the flour from the bran. In oriental agriculture the operation of winnowing is performed without any machinery, by simply taking up the threshed wheat in a large shovel, and shaking it in such a way that the grain may fall out into a place prepared on the ground, while the wind blows away the chaff. The whole operation is well described in the fragments appended to Taylor’s editions of Calmet’s dictionary, (Hund. i. No. 48, in Vol. III.) and is there illustrated by a plate. The phrase then, was highly expressive of a thorough trial of character, or of utter ruin, by violent and overwhelming misfortune, and as such is often used in the Old Testament. As in Jeremiah xv. 7. “I will fan them with a fan,” &c. Also in li. 3. In Psalm cxxxix. 2. “Thou winnowest my path,” &c.; compare translation “Thou compassest my path.” The same figure is effectively used by John the Baptist, in Matthew iii. 12, and Luke iii. 17.
Galilean pugnacity.——Josephus, who was very familiar with the Galileans by his military service among them, thus characterizes them. “The Galileans are fighters even from infancy, and are every where numerous, nor are they capable of fear.” Jewish War, book III. chapter iii. section 2.
From Jerusalem to Jericho.——The English traveler here referred to, is Sir Frederic Henniker, who in the year 1820, met with this calamity, which he thus describes in his travels, pp. 284–289.
“The route is over hills, rocky, barren and uninteresting; we arrived at a fountain, and here my two attendants paused to refresh themselves; the day was so hot that I was anxious to finish the journey, and hurried forwards. A ruined building situated on the summit of a hill was now within sight, and I urged my horse towards it; the janissary galloped by me, and making signs for me not to precede him, he rode into and round the building, and then motioned me to advance. We next came to a hill, through the very apex of which has been cut a passage, the rocks overhanging it on either side. Quaresmius, (book vi. chapter 2.) quoting Brocardus, 200 years past, mentions that there is a place horrible to the eye, and full of danger, called Abdomin, which signifies blood; where he, descending from Jerusalem to Jericho, fell among thieves. I was in the act of passing through this ditch, when a bullet whizzed by, close to my head; I saw no one, and had scarcely time to think, when another was fired some distance in advance. I could yet see no one,——the janissary was beneath the brow of the hill, in his descent; I looked back, but my servant was not yet within sight. I looked up, and within a few inches of my head were three muskets, and three men taking aim at me. Escape or resistance were alike impossible. I got off my horse. Eight men jumped down from the rocks, and commenced a scramble for me; I observed also a party running towards Nicholai. At this moment the janissary galloped in among us with his sword drawn.
“A sudden panic seized the janissary; he cried on the name of the Prophet, and galloped away. As he passed, I caught at a rope hanging from his saddle. I had hoped to leap upon his horse, but found myself unable;——my feet were dreadfully lacerated by the honey-combed rocks——nature would support me no longer——I fell, but still clung to the rope. In this manner I was drawn some few yards, till, bleeding from my ancle to my shoulder, I resigned myself to my fate. As soon as I stood up, one of my pursuers took aim at me, but the other casually advancing between us, prevented his firing; he then ran up, and with his sword, aimed such a blow as would not have required a second; his companion prevented its full effect, so that it merely cut my ear in halves, and laid open one side of my face; they then stripped me naked.
“It was now past mid-day, and burning hot; I bled profusely,——and two vultures, whose business it is to consume corpses, were hovering over me. I should scarcely have had strength to resist, had they chosen to attack me. At length we arrived about 3 P. M. at Jericho.——My servant was unable to lift me to the ground; the janissary was lighting his pipe, and the soldiers were making preparations to pursue the robbers; not one person would assist a half-dead Christian. After some minutes a few Arabs came up and placed me by the side of the horse-pond, just so that I could not dip my finger into the water. This pool is resorted to by every one in search of water, and that employment falls exclusively upon females;——they surrounded me, and seemed so earnest in their sorrow, that, notwithstanding their veils, I almost felt pleasure at my wound. One of them in particular held her pitcher to my lips, till she was sent away by the Chous;——I called her, she returned, and was sent away again; and the third time she was turned out of the yard. She wore a red veil, (the sign of not being married,) and therefore there was something unpardonable in her attention to any man, especially to a Christian; she however returned with her mother, and brought me some milk. I believe that Mungo Park, on some dangerous occasion during his travels, received considerable assistance from the compassionate sex.”
THE SCENES OF GETHSEMANE.
After much more conversation and prayer with his disciples in the supper-room, and having sung the hymn of praise which usually concluded the passover feast among the Jews, Jesus went with them out west of the city, over the brook Kedron, at the foot of the Olive mount, where there was a garden, called Gethsemane, to which he had often resorted with his disciples, it being retired as well as pleasant. While they were on the way, a new occasion happened of showing Peter’s self-confidence, which Jesus again rebuked with the prediction that it would too soon fail him. He was telling them all, that events would soon happen that would overthrow their present confidence in him, and significantly quoted to them the appropriate passage in Zechariah xiii. 7. “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.” Peter, glad of a new opportunity to assert his steadfast adherence to his Master, again assured him that, though all should be offended, or lose their confidence in him, yet would not he; but though alone, would always maintain his present devotion to him. The third time did Jesus reply in the circumstantial prediction of his near and certain fall. “This day, even this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.” This repeated distrustful and reproachful denunciation, became, at last, too much for Peter’s warm temper; and in a burst of offended zeal, he declared the more vehemently, “If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise.” To this solemn protestation against the thought of defection, all the other apostles present gave their word of hearty assent.
VALLEY OF THE BROOK KEDRON
between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives.
John xviii. 1.
They now reached the garden, and when they had entered it, Jesus spoke to all the disciples present, except his three chosen ones, saying, “Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.” He retired accordingly into some recess of the garden, with Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, James and John; and as soon as he was alone with them, begun to give utterance to feelings of deep distress and depression of spirits. Leaving them, with the express injunction to keep awake and wait for him, he went for a short time still farther, and there, in secret and awful woe, that wrung from his bowed head the dark sweat of an unutterable agony, yet in submission to God, he prayed that the horrible suffering and death to which he had been so sternly devoted, might not light on him. Returning to the three appointed watchers, he found them asleep! Even as amid the lonely majesty of Mount Hermon, human weakness had borne down the willing spirit in spite of the sublime character of the place and the persons before them; so here, not the groans of that beloved suffering Lord, for whom they had just expressed such deep regard, could keep their sleepy eyes open, when they were thus exhausted with a long day’s agitating incidents, and were rendered still more dull and stupid by the chilliness of the evening air, as well as the lateness of the hour of the night; for it was near ten o’clock. At this sad instance of the inability of their minds to overcome the frailties of the body, after all their fine protestations of love and zeal, he mildly and mournfully remonstrates with Peter in particular, who had been so far before the rest in expressing a peculiar interest in his Master. And he said to Peter, “Simon! sleepest thou? What! could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Well might he question thus the constancy of the fiery zeal which had so lately inspired Peter to those expressions of violent attachment. What! could not all that warm devotion, that high pride of purpose, sustain his spirit against the effects of fatigue and cold on his body? But they had, we may suppose, crept into some shelter from the cold night air, where they unconsciously forgot themselves. After having half-roused them with this fruitless appeal, he left them, and again passed through another dreadful struggle between his human and divine nature. The same strong entreaty,——the same mournful submission,——were expressed as before, in that moment of solitary agony, till again he burst away from the insupportable strife of soul, and came to see if yet sympathy in his sorrows could keep his sleepy disciples awake. But no; the gentle rousing he had before given them had hardly broken their slumbers. For a few moments the voice of their Master, in tones deep and mournful with sorrow, might have recalled them to some sense of shame for their heedless stupidity; and for a short time their wounded pride moved them to an effort of self-control. A few mutual expostulations in a sleepy tone, would pass between them;——an effort at conversation perhaps, about the incidents of the day, and the prospect of coming danger which their Master seemed to hint;——some wonderings probably, as to what could thus lead him apart to dark and lonely devotion;——very likely too, some complaint about the cold;——a shiver——a sneeze,——then a movement to a warmer attitude, and a wrapping closer in mantles;——then the conversation languishing, replies coming slower and duller, the attitude meanwhile declining from the perpendicular to the horizontal, till at last the most wakeful waits in vain for an answer to one of his drowsy remarks, and finds himself speaking to deaf ears; and finally overcome with impatience at them and himself, he sinks down into his former deep repose, with a half-murmured reproach to his companions on his lips. In short, as every one knows who has passed through such efforts, three sleepy men will hardly keep awake the better for each other’s company; but so far from it, on the contrary, the force of sympathy will increase the difficulty, and the very sound of drowsy voices will serve to lull all the sooner into slumber. In the case of the apostles too, who were mostly men accustomed to an active life, and who were in the habit of going to bed as soon as it was night, whenever their business allowed them to rest, all their modes of life served to hasten the slumbers of men so little inured to self-control of any kind. These lengthy reasons may serve to excite some considerate sympathy for the weakness of the apostles, and may serve as an apology for their repeated drowsiness on solemn occasions; for a first thought on the subject might suggest to a common man, the irreverent notion, that those who could slumber at the transfiguration of the Son of God on Mount Hermon, and at his agony in Gethsemane, must be very sleepy fellows. On this occasion these causes were sufficient to enchain their senses, in spite of the repeated exhortations of Jesus, for on his coming to them the second time, and saying in a warning voice, “Rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation; why sleep ye?” they wist not what to answer him, for their eyes were very heavy, and they slept for sorrow. Still again he retired about a stone’s throw from them, as before, and there, prone on the ground, he renewed the strife with his feelings. Alone and unsympathized with by his friends, did the Redeemer of men endure the agonies of that hour, yet not wholly alone nor unsupported; for as Luke assures us, there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. At last the long struggle ceased. Distant voices coming over the glen through the stillness of the night, and the glare of torches flashing from the waters of the Kedron through the shades of the garden, gave him notice that those were near who came to drag him to a shameful death. Yet the repugnance of nature with which his late strife had been so dreadful, was now so overcome that he shrank not from the [♦]approaching death, but calmly walked to meet it. Coming forward to his sleeping disciples, he said to them, “Sleep on now and take your rest; behold, the time is at hand when the son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Arise, let us be going.” The rush of the armed bands of the temple guards followed his words, and when the apostles sprung to their feet, their drowsiness was most effectually driven off by the appalling sight of a crowd of fierce men, filling the garden and surrounding them. As soon as the villainous leaders of the throng could overcome the reverence which even the lowest of their followers had for the majestic person of the Savior, they brought them up to the charge, and a retainer of the high priest, by name Malchus, with the forward officiousness of an insolent menial, laid hold of Jesus. Now was the time for Galilean spunk to show itself. The disciples around instantly asked, “Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” But without waiting for an answer, Peter, though amazed by this sudden and frightful attack, as soon as he saw the body of his adored Master profaned by the rude hands of base hirelings, foremost in action as in word, regardless of numbers, leaped on the assailants with drawn sword, and with a movement too quick to be shunned, he gave the foremost a blow, which, if the darkness had not prevented, might have been fatal. As it was, there could not have been a more narrow escape, for the sword lighting on the head of the priest’s zealous servant, just grazed his temple and cut off his ear. But this display of courage was after all, fruitless; for he was surrounded by a great body of men, armed in the expectation of this very kind of resistance; and in addition to this, the remonstrance of Jesus must have been sufficient to damp the most fiery valor. He said to his zealous and fierce defender, “Put up thy sword again into its sheath, for they that take the sword shall perish by the sword. The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink? Thinkest thou that if I should now pray to my Father, he would not instantly send me twelve legions of angels at a word? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must be thus?” Having thus stopped the ineffectual and dangerous opposition of his few followers, he quietly gave himself up to his captors, interceding however for his poor, friendless and unprotected disciples. “I am Jesus of Nazareth: if therefore you seek me, let these go their way.” This he said as it were in reference to a literal and corporeal fulfilment of the words which he had used in his last prayer with his disciples,——“Of them whom thou gavest me I lost none.” The disciples after receiving from Jesus such a special command to abstain from resistance, and perceiving how utterly desperate was the condition of affairs, without waiting the decision of the question, all forsaking him, fled; and favored by darkness and their familiar knowledge of the grounds, they all escaped in various directions.
[♦] “ap-approaching” replaced with “approaching”
Gethsemane.——This place has already been alluded to in the description of Mount Olivet. [Note on p. [96].] From the same source I extract a further brief notice of the present aspect of this most holy ground. “Proceeding along the valley of Kedron, at the foot of Mount Olivet, is the garden of Gethsemane: an even plat of ground, not above fifty-seven yards square, where are shown some old olive trees, supposed to identify the spot to which our Lord was wont to repair. John xviii. 1, 2.” [Modern Traveler, Palestine, p. 156.] It is also remarked by Dr. Richardson, [p. 78 of the same work,] that “the gardens of Gethsemane are still in the sort of a ruined cultivation; the fences are broken down, and the olive trees decaying, as if the hand that dressed and fed them was withdrawn.”
The etymology and meaning of the name Gethsemane, is given by Lightfoot, (Centuria Chorographica in Matthew, chapter 41.) The name is derived from the product of the tree which was so abundantly raised there, and which gave name also to the mountain. Gethsemane is compounded of גת, “a press,” and שמנא, “olive oil,”——“an oil-press;” because the oil was pressed out and manufactured on the spot where the olive was raised.
Ten o’clock.——This I conclude to have been about the time, because (in Matthew xxvi. 20) it is said that it was evening already, (that is, about 6 o’clock,) when Jesus sat down to supper with his disciples, and allowing time on the one hand for the events at the supper-table and on the walk, as well as those in the garden,——and on the other hand for those which took place before midnight, (cock crowing,) we must fix the time as I have above.
The glare of torches.——John (xviii. 3.) is the only evangelist who brings in this highly picturesque circumstance of the equipment of the band with the means of searching the dark shades and bowers of the garden.
HIS THREE-FOLD DENIAL.
Peter, however, had he not so soon forgot his zealous attachment to Jesus, as to leave him in such hands, without farther knowledge of his fate; but as soon as he was satisfied that the pursuit of the disciples was given up, he, in company with John, followed the band of officers at safe distance, and ascertained whither they were carrying the captive. After they had seen the train proceed to the palace of the high priest, they proceeded directly to the same place. Here John, being known to the high priest, and having friends in the family, went boldly in, feeling secure by his friendship in that quarter, against any danger in consequence of his connection with Jesus. Being known to the servant girl who kept the door, as a friend of the family, he got in without difficulty, and had also influence enough to get leave to introduce Peter, as a friend of his who had some curiosity to see what was going on. Peter, who had stood without the door waiting for the result of John’s maneuver, was now brought into the palace, and walked boldly into the hall where the examination of Jesus was going on, hoping to escape entirely unnoticed by keeping in the dimly lighted parts of the hall, by which he would be secure, at the same time that he would the better see what was going on near the lights. Standing thus out of the way in the back part of the room, he might have witnessed the whole without incurring the notice of anybody. But the servants and others, who had been out over the damp valley of the Kedron after Jesus, feeling chilled with the walk, (for the long nights of that season are in Jerusalem frequently in strong contrast with the warmth of mid-day,) made up a good fire of coal in the back part of the hall, where they stood looking on. Peter himself being, too, no doubt thoroughly chilled with his long exposure to the cold night air, very naturally and unreflectingly came forward to the fire, where he sat down and warmed himself among the servants and soldiers. The bright light of the coals shining directly on his anxious face, those who stood by, noticing a stranger taking such interest in the proceedings, began to scrutinize him more narrowly. At last, the servant girl who had let him in at the door, with the inquisitive curiosity so peculiarly strong in her sex, knowing that he had come in with John as his particular acquaintance, and concluding that he was like him associated with Jesus, boldly said to him, “Thou also art one of this man’s disciples.” But Peter, like a true Galilean, as ready to lie as to fight, thinking only of the danger of the recognition, at once denied him, forgetting the lately offensive prediction, in his sudden alarm. He said before them all, “Woman, I am not!——I know him not; neither do I understand what thou sayest.” This bold and downright denial silenced the forward impertinence of the girl, and for a time may have quieted the suspicions of those around. Peter, however, startled by this sudden attack, all at once perceived the danger into which he had unthinkingly thrust himself, and drawing back from his prominent station before the fire, which had made him so unfortunately conspicuous, went out into the porch of the building, notwithstanding the cold night air, preferring the discomfort of the exposure, to the danger of his late position. As he walked there in the open air, he heard the note of the cock sounding clear, through the stillness of midnight, announcing the beginning of the third watch. The sound had a sad import to him, and must have recalled to his mind some thought of his master’s warning; but before it could have made much impression, it was instantly banished altogether from his mind, by a new alarm from the inquisitiveness of some of the retainers of the palace, who, seeing a stranger lurking in a covert manner about the building at that time of night, very naturally felt suspicious enough of him to examine his appearance narrowly. Among those who came about him, was another of those pert damsels who seem to have been very numerous and forward about the house of the head of the Jewish faith. She, after a satisfactory inspection of the suspicious person, very promptly informed those that were there also about him, “This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.” Peter’s patience being at last worn out with the pertinacious annoyances of these spiteful lasses, not only flatly contradicted the positive assertion of the girl, but backed his words with an oath, which seems to have had the decisive effect of hushing his female accusers entirely, and he considered himself to have turned off suspicion for a time so effectually, that, after cooling himself sufficiently in the porch, being distracted with anxiety about the probable fate of his beloved Master, he at last ventured again into the great hall of the palace, where the examination of Jesus was still going on. Here he remained a deeply interested spectator and auditor for about an hour, without being disturbed, when some of the bystanders who were not so much interested in the affair before them as to be prevented by it from looking about them, had their attention again drawn to the stranger who had been an object of such suspicion. There were probably more than one that recognized the active and zealous follower of the Nazarene, as Peter had been in such constant attendance on him throughout his whole stay in Jerusalem. But no one seems to have cared to provoke an irascible Galilean by an accusation which he might resent in the characteristic manner of his countrymen; till another of the servants of the high priest, a relation of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off, after looking well at him, and being provoked at the impudence of such a vagabond in thrusting himself into the home of the very man whom he had so shockingly mutilated and so nearly murdered, determined to bring the offender to punishment, and speaking to his fellow-servants, he indignantly and confidently affirmed, “This fellow also was with him, for he is a Galilean.” And turning to Peter, whom he had seen in Gethsemane, when engaged at the time of the capture of Jesus, he imperiously asked him, “Did I not see thee in the garden with him?” And others, joining in the charge, said decidedly to him, “Surely thou art one of them also: for thy very speech, thy accent, unquestionably, betrays thee to be a Galilean.” Peter began at last to see that his situation was growing quite desperate, and finding that his distress about his Lord had brought him within a chance of the same fate, determined to extricate himself by as unscrupulously using his tongue in his own defense as he had before used his sword for his Master. Besides, he had already told two flat lies within about three hours, and it was not for a Galilean in such a pass to hesitate about one more, even though seconded by a perjury. For he then began to curse and to swear, saying, “Man, I know not what thou sayest.——I know not the man of whom ye speak.” And immediately, while he was yet speaking, the cock crew the second time. At that moment, the Lord turned and looked upon Peter, and at the same sound the conscience-stricken disciple turning towards his Lord, met that glance. And what a look! He who cannot imagine it for himself, cannot conceive it from the ideal picture of another; but its effect was sufficiently dramatic to impress the least picturesque imagination. As the Lord turned and looked upon him, Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the cock shall crow twice this night, thou shalt deny me thrice.” And thinking thereon, he went out, and wept bitterly. Tears of rebuked conceit,——of self-humbled pride, over fallen glory and sullied honor,——flowed down his manly cheeks. Where was now the fiery spirit once in word so ready to brave death, with all the low malice of base foes, for the sake of Jesus? Where was that unshaken steadiness, that dauntless energy that once won him from the lips of his Master, when first his searching eye fell on him, the name of the ROCK,——that name by which again he had been consecrated as the mighty foundation-ROCK of the church of God? Was this the chief of the apostles?——the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven?——binding and loosing on earth what should be bound or loosed in heaven? Where were the brave, high hopes of earthly glory to be won under the warlike banners of his kingly Master? Where was that Master and Lord? The hands of the rude were now laid on him, in insult and abuse,——his glories broken and faded,——his power vain for his own rescue from sufferings vastly greater than those so often relieved by him in others,——his followers dispirited and scattered,——disowning and casting out as evil the name they had so long adored. The haughty lords of Judaism were now exulting in their cruel victory, re-established in their dignity, and strengthened in their tyranny by this long-wished triumph over their deadly foe. He wept for bright hopes dimmed,——for crushed ambition,——but more than all, for broken faith,——for trampled truth,——and for the three-fold and perjured denial of his betrayed and forsaken Lord. Well might he weep——
“There’s bliss in tears,
When he who sheds them inly feels
Some lingering stain of early years
Effaced by every drop that steals.
The fruitless showers of worldly woe
Fall dark to earth and never rise;
But tears that from repentance flow,
In bright exhalement reach the skies.”
The soldiers, &c.——It has been supposed by some that this armed force was a part of the Roman garrison which was always kept in Castle Antonia, close by the temple; (see note on page [95];) but there is nothing in the expressions of either of the evangelists which should lead us to think so; on the contrary, their statement most distinctly specifies, that those concerned in the arrest were from a totally different quarter. Matthew (xxvi. 47) describes them as “a great throng, with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.” The whole expression implies a sort of half-mob of low fellows, servants and followers of the members of the Sanhedrim, accompanying the ordinary temple-guard, which was a mere band of Levite peace-officers under the priests, whose business it was to keep order in the courts of the temple——a duty hardly more honorable than that of a sweeper or “doorkeeper in the house of the Lord,” from which office, indeed, it was probably not distinct. These watchmen and porters, for they were no better, were allowed by the Roman government of the city and kingdom, a kind of contemptuous favor in bearing swords to defend from profane intrusion their holy shrine, which Gentile soldiers could not approach as guards, without violating the sanctity of the place. Such a body as these men and their chance associates, are therefore well and properly described by Matthew, as a “throng with swords and clubs;” but what intelligent man would ever have thought of characterizing in this way, a regular detachment of the stately and well-armed legion which maintained the dignity and power of the Roman governor of Judea? Mark (xiv. 43) uses precisely the same expression as Matthew, to describe them: Luke (xxii. 52) represents Jesus as speaking to “the chief priests and captains of the temple and the elders, who had come against him, saying, ‘Have you come out as against a thief, with swords and clubs?’” John (xviii. 3) speaks of the band as made up in part of the servants of “the chief priests and Pharisees,” &c. So that the whole matter, unquestionably, was managed and executed entirely by the Jews; and the progress of the story shows that they did not call in the aid of the heathen secular power, until the last bloody act required a consummation which the ordinances of Rome forbade to the Jews, and then only did they summon the aid of the governor’s military force. Indeed, they were too careful in preserving their few peculiar secular privileges still left, to give up the smallest power of tyrannizing, permitted by their Roman lords.
The long nights in contrast with the heat of the day.——It should be remembered, that according to a just calculation, these events happened in the month of March, when the air of Palestine is uncomfortably cold. Conder, in his valuable topographical compilation, says, “during the months of May, June, July and August, the sky is for the most part cloudless; but during the night, the earth is moistened with a copious dew. Sultry days are not unfrequently succeeded by intensely cold nights. To these sudden vicissitudes, references are made in the Old Testament. Genesis xxxi. 40: Psalm cxxi. 6.” [Modern Traveler, Palestine, p. 14.]
The cold season, (קור Qor,) immediately following the true winter, (חרפ Hhoreph,) took in the latter part of the Hebrew month Shebeth, the whole of Adar, and the former half of Nisan; that is in modern divisions of time,——from the beginning of February to the beginning of April, according to the Calendarium Palestinae, in the Critica Biblica, Vol. III: but according to Jahn, (Archaeologia Biblica § 21,) from the middle of February to the middle of April, the two estimates varying with the different views about the dates of the ancient Hebrew months.
Galilean, ready to lie as to fight.——This may strike some, as rather too harsh a sentence to pass upon the general character of a whole people, but I believe I am borne out in this seeming abuse, by the steady testimony of most authorities to which I can readily refer. Josephus, whom I have already quoted in witness of their pugnacity, (on page [102],) seems to have been so well pleased with this trait, and also with their “industry and activity,” which he so highly commends in them, as well as the richness of the natural resources of the country, all which characteristics, both of the people and the region, he made so highly available in their defense during the war with the Romans, that he does not think it worth while to criticise their morals, to which, indeed, the season of a bloody war gives a sort of license, that made such defects less prominent, being apparently rather characteristic of the times than the people. But there is great abundance of condemnatory testimony, which shows that the Galileans bore as bad a character among their neighbors, as my severest remark could imply. Numerous passages in the gospels and Acts show this so plainly, as to convey this general impression against them very decidedly. Kuinoel (on Matthew ii. 23) speaks strongly of their proverbially low moral character. “All the Galileans were so despised by the dwellers of Jerusalem and Judea, that when they wished to characterize a man as a low and outcast wretch, they called him a Galilean.” On other passages also, (as on John vii. 52, and Matthew iv. 17,) he repeats this intellectual and moral condemnation in similar terms. Beza and Grotius also, in commenting on these passages, speak of Galilee as “contempta regio.” Rosenmueller also, (on John vii. 52,) says “Nullus, aiunt, Galilaeus unquam a Deo donatus est spiritu prophetico: gens est Deo despecta.” That is, “It was a saying among them, that no Galilean was ever indued with a spirit of prophecy: they are a people despised by God.” I might quote at great length from many commentators to the same effect, but these will serve as a specimen. It should be remarked, however, that the Galileans, though they might be worse than most Jews in their general character, were not very peculiar in their neglect of truth; for from the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to the present moment, the Asiatic races, generally, have been infamous for falsehood, and there are many modern travelers who are ready to testify that an Oriental, generally, when asked an indifferent question, will tell a lie at a venture, unless he sees some special personal advantage likely to result to him from telling the truth.
Yet in minute legal observances, the Galileans were, for the most part, much more rigid in interpreting and following the law of Moses, than the inhabitants of Judea, as is abundantly shown by Lightfoot in his numerous Talmudic quotations, (Centuria Chorographica chapter 86,) where the comparison is, on many accounts, highly favorable to such of the Galileans as pretended to observe and follow the Jewish law at all.
Thy accent betrays thee.——Lightfoot is very rich in happy illustrations of this passage, (Centuria Chorographica chapter 87.) He has drawn very largely here from the Talmudic writers, who are quite amusing in the instances which they give of the dialectic differences between the Galileans and the Judeans. Several of the puns which they give, would not be accounted dull even in modern times, and indeed, the Galilean brogue seems to have been as well marked, and to have given occasion for nearly as much wit as that of Ireland. The Galileans, thus marked by dialect as well as by manners, held about the same place in the estimation of the pure Judean race, as the modern Irish do among those of Saxon-English tongue and blood; and we cannot better conceive of the scorn excited in the refined Jews by the idea of a Galilean prophet with his simple disciples, than by imagining the sort of impression that would be made, by a raw Irishman attempting the foundation of a new sect in London or Boston, with a dozen rough and uneducated workmen for his preachers and main supporters.
The bright light of the fire shining on his face, &c.——This incident is taken from Luke xxii. 56, where the expression in the common version is, “a certain maid saw him as he sat by the fire.” But in the original Greek this last word is φῶς, (phos,) which means “light,” and not “fire;” and it is translated here in this peculiar manner, because it evidently refers to the light of the fire, from its connection with the preceding verse, where it is said that “Peter sat down among them ‘before’ the fire which they had kindled;” the word fire in this passage being in the Greek πυρ, (pur,) which is never translated otherwise. But the unusual translation of the word φῶς, by “fire” in the other verse, though it gives a just idea of Peter’s position, makes a common reader lose sight of the prominent reason of his detection, which was, that the “light of the fire” shone on his face.
In speaking of Peter’s fall and its attendant circumstances, Lampius (in Gospel of John xviii. 17,) seems to be most especially scandalized by the means through which Peter’s ruin was effected. “Sed ab ancilla Cepham vinci, dedecus ejus auget. Quanta inconstantia! Qui in armatos ordines paulo ante irruperat nunc ad vocem levis mulierculae tremit. Si Adamo probrosum, quod a femina conjuge seductus erat, non minus Petro, quod ab ancilla.” That is, “But that Cephas should have been overcome by a girl, increases his disgrace. How great the change! He who, but a little before, had charged an armed host, now trembled at the voice of a silly woman. If it was a shame to Adam, that he had been seduced by his wife, it was no less so to Peter, that he was by a girl.”
The cock crew.——By this circumstance, the time of the denial in all its parts is well ascertained. The first cock-crowing after the first denial marked the hour of midnight, and the second cock-crowing announced the first dawn of day. As Lampius says, “Altera haec erat αλεκτροφῶνια, praenuncia lucis, non tantum in terra, sed et in corde Petri, tenebris spississimis obsepto, mox iterum oriturae.” “This was the second cock-crowing, the herald of light, soon to rise again, not only on earth, but also in the heart of Peter, now overspread with the thickest darkness.”
And thinking thereon, he wept.——This expression is taken from Mark xiv. 72, and accords with our common translation, though very different from many others that have been proposed. The word thus variously rendered, is in the original Greek, επιβαλων, (epibalon,) and bears a great variety of definitions which can be determined only by its connections, in the passages where it occurs. Campbell says, “There are not many words in scripture which have undergone more interpretations than this term;” and truly the array of totally diverse renderings, each ably supported by many of the most learned Biblical scholars that ever lived, is truly appalling to the investigator. (1.) Those who support the common English translation are Kypke, Wetstein, Campbell and Bloomfield, and others quoted by the latter.——(2.) Another translation which has been ably defended is, “he began to weep.” This is the expression in the common German translation, (Martin Luther’s,) “ER HOB AN ZU WEINEN.” It is also the version of the Vulgate, (“Coepit flere,”) the Syriac, Gothic, Persian, and Armenian translations, as Kuinoel and Heinsius observe, who also maintain this rendering.——(3.) Another is, “He proceeded to weep,” (“Addens flevit.”) which is that of Grotius, LeClerc, Simon, Petavius and others.——(4.) Another is, “covering his head, he wept.” This seems to have begun with Theophylact, who has been followed by a great number, among whom Salmasius, Wolf, Suicer, Macknight, and Krebs, are the most prominent.——(5.) Another is, “rushing out, he wept.” This is maintained by Beza, Rosenmueller, Schleusner, Bretschneider and Wahl.——(6.) Another is, “Having looked at him,” (Jesus,) “he wept.” This is the version of Hammond and Palairet.——“Who shall decide when” so many “doctors disagree?” I should feel safest in leaving the reader, as Parkhurst does, to “consider and judge” for himself; but in defense of my own rendering, I would simply observe, that the common English version is that which is most in accordance with the rules of grammar, and is best supported by classic usage, while the second and third are justly objected to by Bloomfield and Campbell as ungrammatical, and unsupported by truly parallel passages, notwithstanding the array of classical quotations by Bp. [♦]Bloomfield and others; and the fourth and fifth equally deserve rejection for the very tame and cold expression which they make of it, the fourth also being ungrammatical like the second and third. The sixth definition also may be rejected on grammatical grounds, as well as for lack of authorities and classic usage to support such an elliptical translation.——For long and numerous discussions of all these points, see any or every one of the writers whose names I have cited in this note.
[♦] “Blomfield” replaced with “Bloomfield”
CHRIST’S CRUCIFIXION.
From that moment we hear no more of the humbled apostle, till after the fatal consummation of his Redeemer’s sufferings. Yet he must have been a beholder of that awful scene. When the multitude of men and women followed the cross-bearing Redeemer down the vale of Calvary, mourning with tears and groans, Peter could not have sought to indulge in solitary grief. And since the son of Zebedee stood by the cross during the whole agony of Jesus, the other apostles probably had no more cause of fear than John, and Peter also might have stood near, among the crowd, without any danger of being further molested by those whom he had offended, since they now looked on their triumph as too complete to need any minor acts of vengeance, to consummate it over the fragments of the broken Nazarene sect. Still, it was in silent sorrow and horror that he gazed on this sight of woe, and the deep despair which now overwhelmed his bright dreams of glory was no longer uttered in the violent expressions to which his loquacious genius prompted him. He now had time and reason enough to apprehend the painfully literal meaning of the oft-repeated predictions of Christ about these sad events——predictions which once were so wildly unheeded or perversely misconstrued as best suited the ambitious disciples’ hopes of power, which was to be set up over all the civil, religious, and military tyrants of Palestine, and of which they were to be the chief partakers. These hopes all went out with the last breath of their crucified Lord, and when they turned away from that scene of hopeless woe, after taking a last look of the face that had so long been the source of light and truth to them, now fixed and ghastly in the last struggle of a horrible death, they must have felt that the delusive dream of years was now broken, and that they were but forlorn and desperate outcasts in the land which their proud thoughts once aspired to rule. What despairing anguish must have been theirs, as climbing the hillside with sad and slow steps, they looked back from its top down upon the cross, that might still be seen in the dark valley, though dim with the shades of falling night! Their Lord, their teacher, their guide, their friend,——hung there between the heavens and the earth, among thieves, the victim of triumphant tyranny; and they, owing their safety only to the contemptuous forbearance of his murderers, must now, strangers in a strange land, seek a home among those who scorned them.
The VALE of Calvary.——This expression will no doubt excite vast surprise in the minds of many readers, who have all their lives heard and talked of Mount Calvary, without once taking the pains to find out whether there ever was any such place. Such persons will, no doubt, find their amazement still farther increased, on learning that no Mount Calvary is mentioned in any part of the Bible, nor in any ancient author.
The whole account given of this name in the Bible, is in Luke xxiii. 33, where in the common translation it is said that Christ was crucified in “the place called Calvary.” In the parallel passages in the other gospels, the Hebrew name only is given, Golgotha, which means simply “a skull.” (Matthew xxvii. 33: Mark xv. 22: John xix. 17.) This particular place does not seem to be named and designated in any part of the Old Testament, but a very clear idea of its general situation can be obtained, from the consideration of the fact, that there was a place beyond the walls of Jerusalem, where all the dead were buried, and whither all the carcasses of slain animals were carried and left to moulder. This was that part of the valley of the Kedron which was called the valley of Tophet, or the vale of the son of Hinnom. This is often alluded to as the place of dead bodies. (Jeremiah vii. 32, &c.) Besides, all reason and analogy utterly forbid the supposition, that dead carcasses would be piled up on a “mount” or hill, to rot and send their effluvia all over the city in every favorable wind; while on the other hand, a deep valley like that of Hinnom would be a most proper place for carrying such offensive matters. Josephus, in his description of the temple, very particularly notices the fact, that all the blood and filth which flowed from the numerous sacrifices, was conveyed by a subterraneous channel or drain to this very valley.
THE RESURRECTION.
With such feelings they returned to Jerusalem, where the eleven, who were all Galileans, found places of abode with those of Christ’s followers who were dwellers in the city. Here they passed the Sabbath heavily and sorrowfully, no doubt, and their thoughts must now have reverted to their former business, to which it now became each one of them to return, since he who had called them from their avocations could now no more send them forth on his errands of love. On the day after the sabbath, while such thoughts and feelings must still have distressed them, almost as soon as they had risen, some of them received a sudden and surprising call from several of the alarmed women, who having faithfully ministered to all the necessities of Jesus during his life, had been preparing to do the last sad offices to his dead body. The strange story brought by these was, that having gone early in the morning to the sepulcher, in the vale of Calvary, with this great object, they had been horror-struck to find the place in which the body had been deposited on sabbath eve, now empty, notwithstanding the double security of the enormous rock which had closed the mouth of the cave, and the stout guard of Roman soldiers who were posted there by request of the Jews, to prevent expected imposition. On hearing this strange story, Peter and John, followed by Mary of Magdala, started at once for the sepulcher. As they made all possible haste, the youth of John enabled him to reach the place before his older companion; but Peter arrived very soon after him, and, outdoing his companion now in prompt and diligent examination, as he had before been outdone in bodily speed, he immediately made a much more thorough search of the spot, than John in his hurry and alarm had thought of. He had contented himself with looking down into the sepulcher, and having distinctly seen the linen clothes lying empty and alone, he went not in. But when Simon Peter came following him, he went into the sepulcher and saw the linen clothes lie; and the napkin that was about his head, not lying with the other clothes, but folded up carefully in a place by itself. Having thus made a thorough search, as this shows, into every nook and corner, he satisfied himself perfectly that the body had in some way or other been actually removed, and on his reporting this to his companion, he also came down into the cave, and made a similar examination, with the same result. The only conclusion to which these appearances brought their minds, was that some person, probably with the design of further insult and injury, had thus rifled the tomb, and dragged the naked body from its funeral vestments. For, as yet, they understood not the scripture, nor the words of Christ himself, that he must rise from the dead. The two disciples, therefore, overwhelmed with new distress, went away again to their own temporary home, to consult with the rest of the disciples, leaving Mary behind them, lingering in tears about the tomb.
Some time after their return, but before they had been able to explain these strange appearances, Mary followed them home, and as soon as she found them, added to their amazement immensely, by a surprising story of her actually having seen Jesus himself, alive, in bodily form, who had conversed with her, and had distinctly charged her to tell his disciples, and Peter especially, that he would go before them into Galilee, where he would meet them. When she came and told them this, they were mourning and weeping. But when they had heard that he was alive, though the story was confirmed with such a minute detail of attendant circumstances, and though assured by her that she had personally seen him, they yet believed not. So dark were their minds about even the possibility of his resurrection, that afterwards, when two of their own number, who had gone about seven miles into the country, to Emmaus, returned in great haste to Jerusalem, and told the disciples that they too had seen Jesus, and had a long talk with him, they would not believe even this additional proof, but supposed that they, in their credulous expectation, had suffered themselves to be imposed on by some one resembling Jesus in person, who chose to amuse himself by making them believe so palpable a falsehood. Yet some of them, even then, suffering their longing hopes to get the better of their prudent scepticism, were beginning to express their conviction of the fact, saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared unto Simon.” Of this last-mentioned appearance, no farther particulars are any where given, though it is barely mentioned in 1 Corinthians xv. 5. and it is impossible to give any certain account of the circumstances. While assembled at their evening meal, and thus discussing the various strange stories brought to their ears in such quick succession, after they had fastened the doors for security against interruption from the Jews, all at once, without any previous notice, Jesus himself appeared standing in the midst, and said, “Peace be unto you.” They seeing the mysterious object of their conversation, so strangely and suddenly present among them, while they were just discussing the possibility of his existence, were much frightened, and in the alarm of the moment supposed that they were beholding a disembodied spirit. But he soon calmed their terrors, and changed their fear into firm and joyful assurance, that he was indeed the same whom they had so long known, and to prove that the body now before them was the same which they had two days before seen fastened expiring to the cross, he showed them his hands, his feet, and his side, with the very marks which the spear and nails had made in them. And while they yet could not soberly believe for joy, and stood wondering, he, to show them that his body still performed the functions of life, and required the same support as theirs, asked them for a share of the food on the table, and taking some from their hands, he ate it before them. He then upbraided them with their unbelief and stupidity in not believing those who had seen him after he was risen from the dead. He recalled to their minds his former repeated warnings of these very events, literally as they had been brought to pass. He said to them, “These are the words which I spake to you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” Then opened he their understandings, that they might understand the scriptures. Then it was, that at last burst upon them the light so long shut out; they knew their own past blindness, and they saw in the clear distinctness of reality, all his repeated predictions of his humiliation, suffering, death, resurrection, and of their cowardice and desertion, brought before them in one glance, and made perfectly consistent with each other and with the result. So that, amid the rejoicings of new hope born from utter despair, at the same time expired their vain and idle notion of earthly glory and power under his reign. Their Master had passed through all this anguish and disgrace, and come back to them from the grave; yet, though thus vindicating his boundless power, he did not pretend to use the least portion of it in avenging on his foes all the cruelties which he had suffered from their hands. They could not hope, then, for a better fate, surely, than his; they were to expect only similar labors, rewarded with similar sufferings and death.
THE MEETING ON THE LAKE.
After this meeting with him, they saw him again repeatedly, but no incident, relating particularly to the subject of this memoir, occurred on either of these occasions, except at the scene on lake Tiberias, so fully and graphically given by John, in the last chapter of his gospel. It seems that at that time, the disciples had, in accordance with the earliest command of Jesus after his resurrection, gone into Galilee to meet him there. The particular spot where this incident took place was probably near Capernaum and Bethsaida, among their old familiar haunts. Peter at this time residing at his home in Capernaum, it would seem, very naturally, while waiting for the visit which Christ had promised them, sought to pass the time as pleasantly as possible in his old business, from which he had once been called to draw men into the grasp of the gospel. With him at this time, were Thomas, or Didymus, and Nathanael, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples, whether of the eleven or not, is not known. On his telling them that he was going out a fishing, they, allured also by old habits and a desire to amuse themselves in a useful way, declared that they also would go with him. They went forth accordingly, and taking the fishing-boat, pushed off in the evening as usual, the night being altogether the best time for catching the fish, because the lake not then being constantly disturbed by passing vessels, the fish are less disposed to keep themselves in the depths of the waters, but feeling bolder in the stillness, rise to the surface within reach of the watchful fisherman. But on this occasion, from something peculiar in the state of the air or water, the fish did not come within the range of the net; and that night they caught nothing. Having given up the fruitless effort, they were towards morning heavily working in towards the shore, and were about a hundred yards from it, when they noticed some person who stood on the land; but in the gray light of morning his person could not be distinguished. This man called to them in a friendly voice, as soon as they came within hailing distance, crying out in a free and familiar way, “Boys! have you anything to eat?” To which they answered “No.” The unknown friend then called to them in a confident tone, telling them to cast the net on the right side of the ship, and they should find plenty. They cast accordingly, and on closing and drawing the net, were not able to pull it in, for the weight of the fishes taken in it. In a moment flashed on the ready mind of John, the remembrance of the former similar prodigy wrought at the word of Jesus near the same spot, and he immediately recognized in the benevolent stranger, his Lord. Turning to Simon, therefore, who had been too busy tugging at the net to think of the meaning of the miracle, he said to him, “It is the Lord.” Conviction burst on him with equal certainty as on his companion, and giving way to his natural headlong promptitude in action, he leaped at once into the water, after girding his great coat around him, and by partly swimming and partly wading through the shallows, he soon reached the shore, where his loved and long-expected Master was. At the same time, with as little delay as possible, the rest of them, leaving their large vessel probably on account of the shallows along that part of the coast, came ashore in a little skiff, dragging the full net behind them. In this they showed their considerate prudence, for had they all in the first transport of impatience followed Peter, and left boat and net together at that critical moment, the net would have loosened and the fishes have escaped; thus making the kind miracle of no effect by their carelessness. As soon as they were come to land they saw Jesus placed composedly by a fire of coals which he had made, and on which he had designed to cook for their common entertainment, some fish previously caught, dished with some bread. Jesus without ceremony ordered them to come and bring some of the fish they had just caught. Simon Peter now mindful of his late heedless desertion of his comrades in the midst of their worst labor, stepped forward zealously, and, unassisted, dragged the heavy net out of the water; and though on opening it they found one hundred and fifty-three large fishes in it, notwithstanding the weight, the net was not broken. When they had obeyed his command, and supplied the place of the fish already cooked on the fire by fresh ones from the net, Jesus in a kind and hearty tone invited them to come and breakfast with him on what he had prepared. The disciples, notwithstanding the readiness with which they had come ashore to their Master, still seem to have felt somewhat shy; not, however, because they had any solid doubt as to his really being the person they had supposed him, for no man durst say to him “who art thou?” knowing him to be the Lord. Perhaps it was not yet full day-light, which may account for their shyness and want of readiness in accepting his invitation. But Jesus, in order fully to assure them, comes and takes bread, and puts it into their hands, with a share of fish likewise to each. They now took hold heartily, and without scruple sat down around the fire to breakfast with him. So when they had done breakfast, as men are usually best disposed to be social after eating, he on this occasion addressed himself to Peter in words of reproof, warning and commission. He first inquired of him, “Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me more than these?” To this Peter readily replied, “Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.” Jesus then said to him, “Feed my lambs.” Peter had learned some humility by his late fall from truth and courage. Before, he had boldly professed a regard for Christ, altogether surpassing in extent and permanency the affection which the other disciples felt for him, and had, in the fullness of his self-sufficiency, declared that though all the rest should forsake him, yet would he abide by him, and follow him even to prison and to death. But now that high self-confidence had received a sad fall, and the remembrance of his late disgraceful conduct was too fresh in his mind to allow him any more to assume that tone of presumption. He therefore modestly confined his expression of attachment to the simple and humble reference to the all-knowing heart of his Divine Master, to which he solemnly and affectingly appealed as his faithful witness in this assertion of new and entire devotion to him, whom he had once so weakly denied and deserted. No more high-toned boastings——no more arrogant assertion of superior pretensions to fidelity and firmness; but a humble, submissive, beseeching utterance of devoted love, that sought no comparisons to enhance its merit, but in lowly confidence appealed to the searcher of hearts as the undeceivable testifier of his honesty and truth. Nor was his deep and renewed affection, thus expressed, disregarded; but Jesus accepting his purified self-sacrifice, at once in the same words both offered him the consoling pledge of his restoration to grace, and again charged him with the high commission, which, while it proved his Lord’s confidence, gave him the means of showing to all mankind the sincerity and permanency of his change of heart. From the words of the Messiah’s reply, he learned that the solid proof of his deserved restoration should be seen in his devotion to the work which that Messiah had begun; that by guiding, guarding and feeding the young and tender of Christ’s flock, when left again without their Master, he might set forth his new love. Already had Jesus, before that sad trial of their souls, in his parting, warning words to his near and dear ones, told them, “If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love. Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” And here, in practical comment on that former precept, did he give his restored apostle this test of unchanged love. So harmoniously and beautifully does the sacred record make precept answer and accord with precept. In the minute detail of mere common incident, we may wander and stagger bewildered among insignificant differences and difficulties; but the rule of action, the guide of life, leads steadily and clearly through every maze, uneffaced by the changes of order, time and place.
“Boys.”——The Greek word here (παιδια paidia) has a neuter termination, and is applicable to persons of both sexes, like the English word “children,” which is here given in the common version. But Jerome’s Latin translation (the Vulgate) gives “pueri,” “boys,” as the just meaning in this place, and I have preferred it, as more in accordance with our usual forms of familiar address in such cases, than the one given in the common English version.
Great coat.——This I consider as giving a better idea of the garment called in the Greek επενδυτην, (ependuten,) which is derived from a verb which means “putting on over another garment,” and is of course described with more justice to the original by the English “great-coat,” or “over-coat,” than by “fisher’s coat,” as in the common translation. I suppose it was a rough outer dress designed as a protection against rain and spray, and which he put on in such a way, that he might wade in it without the inconvenience of its hanging about his legs. It must have been a sort of “over all,” that he had pulled off while at work, and put on to wade in the water; for the verb διαζωννυμι (diazonnumi) has also that meaning as well as “gird about,” and his object in thus “putting on his over alls” may have been to keep himself dry, by covering both his legs and body from the water; for it may have come down over the legs like a sort of outside trowsers, and being tied tight, would make a very comfortable protection against cold water. See Poole and Kuinoel on this passage, John xxi. 7.
Luther in his German translation has very queerly expressed this word, “GUERTETE ER DAS HEMDE UM SICH,” “he girt his shirt about him;” being led into this error probably, by taking the following sentence in too strong a sense, concluding that he was perfectly naked. But I have already alluded (note on page [101]) to the peculiar force of this word in the Bible, nor can it mean anything but that he was without his outer garments; and it implies no more indecent exposure than in the case of Christ, when laying aside his garments to wash his disciples’ feet. Besides, I have shown that the etymology of επενδυτης (ependutes) will not allow any meaning to it, but that of an “outer garment” worn over other clothes.
A little skiff.——The Greek word here is πλοιαριον, (ploiarion,) and means “a small boat,” and is the diminution of πλοιον, (ploion,) the word used in the third verse of the same chapter, as the name of the larger vessel in which they sailed, and which probably drew too much water to come close to the shore in this part of the lake, where it was probably shallow, so as to make it necessary for them to haul the net ashore with this little skiff, which seems to have been a sort of drag-boat to the larger vessel, kept for landing in such places.
“Come and BREAKFAST.”——This is certainly a vast improvement on the common English version, which here gives the word “dine.” For it must strike an ordinary reader as a very early dinner at that time of the morning, (John xix. 4,) and what settles the question is, that the Greek word here is αριστησατε, (aristesate,) which primarily and almost always was applied only to the eating of the earliest meal, or breakfast, being derived from αριστον, “breakfast,” the first meal in the day, according to Homer and Xenophon.
Many other unrecorded words of wisdom and love must have been spoken at this time, in the course of which Jesus again took occasion to put this meaning and moving question, “Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me?” The first answer of Peter had sufficiently shown, that he had no more of that disposition to claim a merit superior to his fellow disciples, and Jesus did not again urge upon him a comparison with them, but merely renewed the inquiry in a simple, absolute form. Again Peter earnestly expressed his love, with the same appeal to Christ’s own knowledge of his heart for the testimony of his loyalty, “Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.” He saith to him, “Feed my sheep.” If thou lovest me, show that love, by supplying the place of my earthly care, to those whom I love. Love and feed those for whom I have bled and died.——What could be more simple and clear than this question? What more earnest and honest than the answer? What more abiding than the impression made by this charge? Yet did not the far-seeing Savior desist from trying his disciple with these questions. Once more was it solemnly repeated, “Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me?” Peter was grieved that he asked him the third time, “lovest thou me?” He saw at last the reproachful meaning of the inquiry. Three times had this same apostle, by his false-hearted denial, renounced all love and interest in his Master, and three times did that injured and forgiving Master call upon him to pledge again his forfeited faith and affection. He thus pointed out the past weakness of Peter, and showed the means of maintaining and insuring future fidelity. Peter again still more movingly avowed his honest attachment, half remonstrating at this repetition of the question by one who must already know the heart of the answerer too fully for words to inform him anew.——“Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.” He now passed on to a new prediction of his future fortunes, in the service to which he had in these words devoted him, making known to him the earthly reward which his services would at last receive. “I solemnly say to thee, when thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.” This he said, to signify to him by what sort of death he should glorify God. That is, he in these words plainly foretold to him that he should, through all his toils and dangers in his Master’s service, survive to old age; and he also alludes to the loss of free agency in his own movements; but the circumstances are so darkly alluded to, that the particular mode of his death could never be made to appear clearly from the prediction. The particular meaning of the expressions of this prophecy, can of course be best shown in connection with the circumstances of his death, as far as they are known; and to that part of his history the explanations are deferred.
After this solemn prediction, he said to him, “Follow me.” This command seems not to have any connection, as some have supposed, with the preceding words of Jesus referring to his future destiny, but to be a mere direction to follow him on his return from the lake, either back to Capernaum, or to the mountain appointed for his meeting with the great body of his disciples. From what comes after this in the context, indeed, this would seem to be a fair construction; for it is perfectly plain that as Christ said these words, he turned and walked away; and that not only Peter followed at the direction of Christ, but also John of his own accord,——and it is perfectly natural to suppose that the greater part of the disciples would choose to walk after Jesus, when they had met under such delightful and unexpected circumstances; only leaving somebody to take care of the boats and fish. Peter following his Lord as he was commanded, turned around to see who was next to him, and seeing John, was instantly seized with a desire to know the future fortunes of this apostle, who shared with him the highest confidence of his Master, and was even before him in his personal affections. He accordingly asked, “Lord, and what shall this man do?” or more properly, “What shall become of this man?” But the answer of Jesus was not at all calculated to satisfy his curiosity, though it seemed, in checking his inquiries, to intimate darkly, that this young apostle would outlive him, and be a witness of the events which had been predicted in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem, and the second coming of Christ in judgment on his foes of the Jewish nation. This interesting scene here abruptly closes,——the Savior and his followers passing off this spot to the places where he remained with them during the rest of the few days of his appearance after his resurrection.
The mountain appointed for his meeting, &c.——It would be hard to settle the locality of this mountain with so few data as we have, but a guess or two may be worth offering. Grotius concludes it to have been Mount Tabor, “where,” as he says, “Jesus formerly gave the three a taste of his majesty;” but I have fully shown, on much better authority, that Tabor was not the mount of the transfiguration; nor can we value highly the fact, that “habet veteris famae auctoritatem,” for we have abundant reason to think that in such matters, “the authority of ancient tradition” is not worth much.
There are better reasons, however, for believing Tabor to have been the mountain in Galilee, where Christ met his disciples. These are, the fact that it was near the lake where he seems to have been just before, and was in the direction of some of his former places of resort, and was near the homes of his disciples. None of the objections that I brought against its being the mount of the transfiguration, can bear against this supposition, but on similar grounds I now agree with the common notion.
Paulus suggests Mount Carmel, as a very convenient place for such a meeting of so many persons who wished to assemble unseen, it being full of caverns, in which they might assemble out of view; while Tabor is wholly open (GANZ OFFEN) and exposed to view; for it is evident that all the exhibitions of Christ to his disciples after his resurrection, were very secret. For this reason Rosenmueller remarks, that Jesus probably appointed some mountain which was lonely and destitute of inhabitants, for the meeting. But Tabor is, I should think, sufficiently retired for the privacy which was so desirable, and certainly is capable of accommodating a great number of persons on its top, so that they could not be seen from below. The objection to Carmel is, that it was a great distance off, on the sea coast, and should therefore be rejected for the same reasons which caused us to reject Tabor for the transfiguration.
THE ASCENSION.
The only one of his other interviews with them, to which we can follow them, is the last, when he stood with them at Bethany, on the eastern slope of Mount Olivet, about a mile from Jerusalem, where he passed away from their eyes to the glory now consummated by the complete events of his life and death. Being there with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promised Comforter from the Father, of which he had so often spoken to them. “For John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” Herein he expressed a beautiful figure, powerfully impressive to them, though to most common perceptions perhaps, not so obvious. In the beginning of those bright revelations of the truth which had been made to that age, John, the herald and precursor of a greater preacher, had made a bold, rough outset in the great work of evangelization. The simple, striking truths which he brought forward, were forcibly expressed in the ceremony which he introduced as the sign of conversion; as the defilements of the body were washed away in the water, so were the deeper pollutions of the soul removed by the inward cleansing effected by the change which followed the full knowledge and feeling of the truth. The gross and tangible liquid which he made the sign of conversion, was also an emblem of the rude and palpable character of the truths which he preached; so too, the final token which the apostles of Jesus, when at last perfectly taught and equipped, should receive as the consecrated and regenerated leaders of the gospel host, was revealed in a form and in a substance as uncontrollably and incalculably above the heavy water, as their knowledge, and faith, and hope were greater than the dim foreshadowing given by the baptist, of good things to come. Water is a heavy fluid, capable of being seen, touched, tasted, weighed and poured; it has all the grosser and more palpable properties of matter. But the air is, even to us, and seemed more particularly to the ancients, beyond the apprehension of most of the senses, by which the properties of bodies are made known to man. We cannot see it, or at least are not commonly conscious of its visibility; yet we feel its power to terrify, and to comfort, and see the evidences of its might in the ruins of many of the works of man and of nature, which oppose its movements. The sources of its power too, seem to a common eye, to be within itself, and when it rises in storms and whirlwind, its motions seem like the capricious volitions of a sentient principle within it. But water, whenever it moves, seems only the inanimate mass which other agents put in motion. The awful dash of the cataract is but the continued fall of a heavy body impelled by gravity, and even “when the myriad voices of ocean roar,” the mighty cause of the storm is the unseen power of the air, which shows its superiority in the scale of substances, by setting in terrible and overwhelming motion the boundless deep, that, but for this viewless and resistless agency, would forever rest, a level plain, without a wrinkle on its face. To the hearers of Christ more particularly, the air in its motions, was a most mysterious agency,——a connecting link between powers material and visible, and those too subtle for any thing but pure thought to lay hold of. “The wind blew where it would, and they heard the sound thereof, but could not tell whence it came or whither it went.” They might know that it blew from the north toward the south, or from the east toward the west, or the reverse of these; but the direction from which it came could not point out to them the place where it first arose, in its unseen power, to pass over the earth,——a source of ceaseless wonder, to the learned and unlearned alike. This was the mighty and mysterious agency which Jesus Christ now chose as a fit emblem to represent in language, to his apostles, that power from on high so often promised. Yet clear as was this image, and often as he had warned them of the nature of the duties for which this power was to fit them,——in spite of all the deep humiliation which their proud earthly hopes had lately suffered, there were still in their hearts, deep-rooted longings after the restoration of the ancient dominion of Israel, in which they once firmly expected to share. So their question on hearing this charge and renewed promise of power hitherto unknown, was, “Lord, wilt thou not at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” Would not this be a satisfactory completion of that triumph just achieved over the grave, to which the vain malice of his foes had sent him? Could his power to do it be now be doubted? Why then, should he hesitate at what all so earnestly and confidently hoped? But Jesus was not to be called down from heaven to earth on such errands, nor detained from higher glories by such prayers. He knew that this last foolish fancy of earthly dominion was to pass away from their minds forever, as soon as they had seen the event for which he had now assembled them. He merely said to them, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has appointed, according to his own judgment.” Jesus knew that, though the minds of his disciples were not then sufficiently prepared to apprehend the nature of his heavenly kingdom, yet they, after his departure, becoming better instructed and illuminated by a clearer light of knowledge, would of their own accord, lay aside that preconceived notion about his earthly reign, and would then become fully impressed with those things of which he had long before warned them, while they were still in the enjoyment of his daily teachings. Being now about to bid them farewell,——lest by entirely cutting off their present hope, he might for a time overwhelm them,——he so moderated his answer, as not to extinguish utterly all hope of the kingdom expected by them, nor yet give them reason to think that such a dominion as they hoped for, was to be established. He therefore, to their inquiries whether he would at that time restore the ancient kingdom of Israel, replied that it was not for them to know the times which the Father had reserved in his own counsels, for the completion of that event. But he went on to inform them of something which was for them to know. “You shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost shall have come upon you; and you shall be witnesses of these things for me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and even to the farthest parts of the earth.” And when he had spoken these things, he was taken away from them as they were looking at him, for a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked earnestly towards heaven, as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, and said, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen him go into heaven.” They now understood that they had parted from their loved Master forever, in earthly form; yet the consolations afforded by this last promise of the attendant spirits, were neither few nor small. To bring about that bright return, in whose glories they were to share, was the great task to which they devoted their lives; and they went back to Jerusalem, sorrowful indeed for the removal of their great guide and friend, but not sorrowing as those who have no hope.
To Bethany.——This place was on the Mount of Olives, probably near its summit, and perhaps within sight of Jerusalem. See notes on pp. [90] and [95].
Here ceased their course of instruction under their Divine Master; laying down their character as Disciples, they now took up the higher dignity, responsibility and labors of Apostles. Here too ceases the record of “Peter’s discipleship;”——no longer a learner and follower of any one on earth, he is exalted to the new duties and dangers of the Apostleship, of which the still more interesting story here begins; and he must henceforth bear the new character and title of “Peter the teacher and leader.”
II. PETER’S APOSTLESHIP;
OR
PETER THE TEACHER AND LEADER.
THE PENTECOST.
After the ascension, all the apostles seem to have removed their families and business from Galilee, and to have made Jerusalem their permanent abode. From this time no more mention is made of any part of Galilee as the home of Peter or his friends; and even the lake, with its cities, so long hallowed by the presence and the deeds of the son of man, was thenceforth entirely left to the low and vulgar pursuits which the dwellers of that region had formerly followed upon it, without disturbance from the preaching and the miracles of the Nazarene. The apostles finding themselves in Jerusalem the object of odious, or at best of contemptuous notice from the great body of the citizens, being known as Galileans and as followers of the crucified Jesus, therefore settled themselves in such a manner as would best secure their comfortable and social subsistence. When they came back to the city from Galilee, (having parted from their Master on the Olive mount, about a mile off,) they went up into a chamber in a private house, where all the eleven passed the whole time, together with their wives, and the women who had followed Jesus, and with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and his brethren. These all continued with one accord in this place, with prayer and supplication, at the same time no doubt comforting and instructing one another in those things, of which a knowledge would be requisite or convenient for the successful prosecution of their great enterprise, on which they were soon to embark. In the course of these devout and studious pursuits, the circumstances and number of those enrolled by Christ in the apostolic band, became naturally a subject of consideration and discussion, and they were particularly led to notice the gap made among them, by the sad and disgraceful defection of Judas Iscariot. This deficiency the Savior had not thought of sufficient importance to need to be filled by a nomination made by him, during the brief period of his stay among them after his resurrection, when far more weighty matters called his attention. It was their wish however, to complete their number as originally constituted by their Master, and in reference to the immediate execution of this pious and wise purpose, Peter, as their leader, forcibly and eloquently addressed them, when not less than one hundred and twenty were assembled. The details of his speech, and the conclusion of the business, are deferred to the account of the lives of those persons who were the subjects of the transaction. In mentioning it now, it is only worth while to notice, that Peter here stands most distinctly and decidedly forward, as the director of the whole affair, and such was his weight in the management of a matter so important, that his words seem to have had the force of law; for without further discussion, commending the decision to God in prayer, they adopted the action suggested by him, and filled the vacancy with the person apparently designated by God. In the faithful and steady confidence that they were soon to receive, according to the promise of their risen Lord, some new and remarkable gift from above, which was to be to them at once the seal of their divine commission, and their most important equipment for their new duties, the apostles waited in Jerusalem until the great Jewish feast of the pentecost. This feast is so named from a Greek word meaning “fiftieth,” because it always came on the fiftieth day after the day of the passover feast. Jesus had finally disappeared from his disciples about forty days after his resurrection,——that is forty-two days after the great day of the passover, which will leave just one week for the time which passed between the ascension and the day of pentecost. These seven days the apostolic assembly had passed in such pursuits as might form the best preparation for the great event they were expecting. Assembled in their sacred chamber, they occupied themselves in prayer and exhortation. At length the great feast arrived, on which the Jews, according to the special command of Moses, commemorated the day, on which of old God gave the law to their fathers, on Mount Sinai, amid thunder and lightning. On this festal occasion, great numbers of Jews who had settled in different remote parts of the world, were in the habit of coming back to their father-land, and their holy city, to renew their devotion in the one great temple of their ancient faith, there to offer up the sacrifices of gratitude to their fathers’ God, who had prospered them even in strange lands among the heathen. The Jews were then, as now, a wandering, colonizing people wherever they went, yet remained perfectly distinct in manners, dress and religion, never mixing in marriage with the people among whom they dwelt, but every where bringing up a true Israelitish race, to worship the God of Abraham with a pure religion, uncontaminated by the idolatries around them. There was hardly any part of the world, where Roman conquest had planted its golden eagles, to which Jewish mercantile enterprise did not also push its adventurous way, in the steady pursuit of gainful traffic. The three grand divisions of the world swarmed with these faithful followers of the true law of God, and from the remotest regions, each year, gathered a fresh host of pilgrims, who came from afar, many for the first time, to worship the God of their fathers in their fathers’ land. Amid this fast gathering throng, the feeble band of the apostles, unknown and unnoticed, were assembled in their usual place of meeting, and employed in their usual devout occupations. Not merely the twelve, but all the friends of Christ in Jerusalem, to the number of one hundred and twenty, were here awaiting, in prayer, the long promised Comforter from the Father. All of a sudden, the sound of a mighty wind, rushing upon the building, roared around them, and filled the apartments with its appalling noise, rousing them from the religious quiet to which they had given themselves up. Nor were their ears alone made sensible of the approach of some strange event. In the midst of the gathering gloom which the wind-driven clouds naturally spread over all, flashes of light were seen by them, and lambent flames playing around, lighted at last upon them. At once the anxious prayers with which they had awaited the coming of the Comforter, were hushed: they needed no longer to urge the fulfilment of their Master’s word; for in the awful rush of that mighty wind, they recognized the voice they had so long expected, and in that solemn sound, they knew the tone of the promised Spirit. The approach of that feast-day must have raised their expectations of this promised visitation to the highest pitch. They knew that this great national festival was celebrated in commemoration of the giving of the old law on Mount Sinai to their fathers, through Moses, and that no occasion could be more appropriate or impressive for the full revelation of the perfect law which the last restorer of Israel had come to teach and proclaim. The ancient law had been given on Sinai, in storm and thunder and fire; when therefore, they heard the roar of the mighty wind about them, the firm conviction of the approach of their new revelation must have possessed their minds at once. They saw too, the dazzling flash of flame among them, and perceived, with awe, strange masses of light, in the shape of tongues, settling with a tremulous motion on the head of each of them. The tempest and the fire were the symbols of God’s presence on Sinai of old, and from the same signs joined with these new phenomena, they now learned that the aid of God was thus given to equip them with the powers and energies needful for their success in the wider publication of the doctrine of Christ. With these tokens of a divine presence around them, their feelings and thoughts were raised to the highest pitch of joy and exultation; and being conscious of a new impulse working in them, they were seized with a sacred glow of enthusiasm, so that they gave utterance to these new emotions in words as new to them as their sensations, and spoke in different languages, praising God for this glorious fulfilment of his promise, as this holy influence inspired them.
An upper room.——The location of this chamber has been the subject of a vast quantity of learned discussion, a complete view of which would far exceed my limits. The great point mooted has been, whether this place was in a private house or in the temple. The passage in Luke xxiv. 53, where it is said that the apostles “were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God,” has led many to suppose that the same writer, in this continuation of the gospel story, must have had reference to some part of the temple, in speaking of the upper room as the place of their abode. In the Acts ii. 46, also, he has made a similar remark, which I can best explain when that part of the story is given. The learned Krebsius (Observationes in Novvm Testamentvm e Flavio Iosepho, pp. 162–164) has given a fine argument, most elegantly elaborated with quotations from Josephus, in which he makes it apparently quite certain from the grammatical construction, and from the correspondence of terms with Josephus’s description of the temple, that this upper room must have been there. It is true, that Josephus mentions particularly a division of the inner temple, on the upper side of it, under the name of ὑπερῳον, (hyperoon,) which is the word used by Luke in this passage, but Krebsius in attempting to prove this to be a place in which the disciples might be constantly assembled, has made several errors in the plan of the later temple, which I have not time to point out, since there are other proofs of the impossibility of their meeting there, which will take up all the space I can bestow on the subject. Krebsius has furthermore overlooked entirely the following part of the text in Acts i. 13, where it is said, that when they returned to Jerusalem, “they went up into an upper room where they had been staying,” in Greek, οὑ ησαν καταμενοντες, (hou esan katamenontes,) commonly translated “they abode.” The true force of this use of the present participle with the verb of existence is repeated action, as is frequently true of the imperfect of that verb in such combinations. Kuinoel justly gives it this force,——“ubi commorari sive convenire solebant.” But the decisive proof against the notion that this room was in the temple, is this. In specifying the persons there assembled, it is said, (Acts i. 14,) that the disciples were assembled there with the women of the company. Now it is most distinctly specified in all descriptions of the temple, that the women were always limited to one particular division of the temple, called the “women’s court.” Josephus is very particular in specifying this important fact in the arrangements of the temple. (Jewish War, V. 5. 2.) “A place on this part of the temple specially devoted to the religious use of the women, being entirely separated from the rest by a wall, it was necessary that there should be another entrance to this. * * * There were on the other sides of this place two gates, one on the north and one on the south, through which the court of the women was entered; for women were not allowed to enter through any others.” (Also V. 5, 6.) “But women, even when pure, were not allowed to pass within the limit before mentioned.” This makes it evident beyond all doubt, that women could never be allowed to assemble with men in this upper chamber within the forbidden precincts, to which indeed it was impossible for them to have access, entering the temple through two private doors, and using only one court, which was cut off by an impenetrable wall, from all communication with any other part of the sacred inclosure.
This seems to me an argument abundantly sufficient to upset all that has ever been said in favor of the location of this upper apartment within the temple; and my only wonder is, that so many learned critics should have perplexed themselves and others with various notions about the matter, when this single fact is so perfectly conclusive.
The upper room, then, must have been in some private house, belonging to some wealthy friend of Christ, who gladly received the apostles within his walls. Every Jewish house had in its upper story a large room of this sort, which served as a dining-room, (Mark xiv. 15: Luke xxii. 12,) a parlor, or an oratory for private or social worship. (See Bloomfield’s Annotations, Acts i. 13.) Some have very foolishly supposed this to have been the house of Simon the leper, (Matthew xxvi. 6,) but his house was in Bethany, and therefore by no means answers the description of their entering it after their return to Jerusalem from Bethany. Others, with more probability, the house of Nicodemus, the wealthy Pharisee; but the most reasonable supposition, perhaps, is that of Beza, who concludes this to have been the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, which we know to have been afterwards used as a place of religious assembly. (Acts xii. 12.) Others have also, with some reason, suggested that this was no doubt the same “upper room furnished,” in which Jesus had eaten the last supper with his disciples. These two last suppositions are not inconsistent with each other.
Tongues of fire.——This is a classic Hebrew expression for “a lambent flame,” and is the same used by Isaiah, (v. 24,) where the Hebrew is לשון אש (leshon esh,) “a tongue of fire;”——commonly translated, simply “fire.” In that passage there seems to be a sort of poetical reference to the tongue, as an organ used in devouring food, (“as the tongue of fire devoureth the stubble,”) but there is abundant reason to believe that the expression was originally deduced from the natural similitude of a rising flame to a tongue, being pointed and flexible, as well as waving in its outlines, and playing about with a motion like that of licking, whence the Latin expression of “a lambent flame,”——from lambo, “lick.” Wetstein aptly observes, that a flame of fire, in the form of a divided tongue, was a sign of the gift of tongues, corresponding to the Latin expression bilinguis, and the Greek διγλωσος, (diglossos,) “two-tongued,” as applied to persons skilled in a plurality of languages. He also with his usual classic richness, gives a splendid series of quotations illustrative of this idea of a lambent flame denoting the presence of divine favor, or inspiration imparted to the person about whom the symbol appeared. Bloomfield copies these quotations, and also draws illustrations in point, from other sources.
My own opinion of the nature of this whole phenomenon is that of Michaelis, Rosenmueller, Paulus and Kuinoel,——that a tremendous tempest actually descended at the time, bringing down clouds highly charged with electricity, which was not discharged in the usual mode, by thunder and lightning, but quietly streamed from the air to the earth, and wherever it passed from the air upon any tolerable conductor, it made itself manifest in the darkness occasioned by the thick clouds, in the form of those pencils of rays, with which every one is familiar who has seen electrical experiments in a dark room; and which are well described by the expression, “cloven tongues of fire.” The temple itself being covered and spiked with gold, the best of all conductors, would quietly draw off a vast quantity of electricity, which, passing through the building, would thus manifest itself on those within the chambers of the temple, if we may suppose the apostles to have been there assembled. These appearances are very common in peculiar electrical conditions of the air, and there are many of my readers, no doubt, who have seen them. At sea, they are often seen at night on the ends of the masts and yards, and are well known to sailors by the name which the Portuguese give them, “corpos santos,”——“holy bodies,”——connecting them with some popish superstitions. A reference to the large quotations given by Wetstein and Bloomfield, will show that this display at the pentecost is not the only occasion on which these electric phenomena were connected with spiritual mysteries. No one would have the slightest hesitation in explaining these passages in other credible historians, by this physical view; and I know no rule in logic or common sense,——no religious doctrine or theological principle, which compels me to explain two precisely similar phenomena of this character, in two totally different ways, because one of them is found in a heathen history, and the other in a sacred and inspired record. The vehicle thus chosen was not unworthy of making the peculiar manifestation of the presence of God, and of the outpouring of his spirit;——nor was it an unprecedented mode of his display. The awful thunder which shook old Sinai, and the lightnings which dazzled the eyes of the amazed Israelites, were real thunder and lightning, nor will an honest and reverent interpretation of the sacred text allow us to pronounce them acoustical and optical delusions. If they were real thunder and lightning, they were electrical discharges, and cannot be conceived of in any other way. Why should we hesitate at the notion that He who “holds the winds in the hollow of his hand,” and “makes a way for the lightning of thunder,” should use these same awful instruments as the symbols of his presence, to strike awe into the hearts of men, making the physical the token of the moral power; and accomplishing the deep prophetic meaning of the solemn words of the Psalmist, “He walks upon the wings of the wind——he makes the winds his messengers——the lightnings his ministers.” For this is the just translation of Psalm civ. 4. See Lowth, Clarke, Whitby, Calmet, Thomson, &c. But Jaspis, Bloomfield, Stuart, &c., support the common version.
Were all assembled, &c.——It has been questioned whether this term, “all,” refers to the one hundred and twenty, or merely to the apostles, who are the persons mentioned in the preceding verse, (Acts i. 26, ii. 1,) and to whom it might be grammatically limited. There is nothing to hinder the supposition that all the brethren were present, and Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine and other ancient fathers, confirm this view. The place in which they met, need not, of course, be the same where the events of the preceding chapter occurred, but was very likely some one of the thirty apartments, (οικοι, oikoi, Josephus, Antiquities, viii. 3. 2,) which surrounded the inner court of the temple, where the apostles might very properly assemble at the third hour, which was the hour of morning prayer, and which is shown in verse 15, to have been the time of this occurrence. Besides, it is hard to conceive of this vast concourse of persons (verse 41,) as occurring in any other place than the temple, in whose vast and thronged courts it might easily happen, for Josephus says “that the apartments around the courts opened into each other,” ησαν δια αλληλων, “and there were entrances to them on both sides, from the gate of the temple,” thus affording a ready access on any sudden noise attracting attention towards them.
Foreign Jews staying in Jerusalem.——The phrase “dwelling,” (Acts ii. 5,) in the Greek κατοικουντες, (katoikountes,) does not necessarily imply a fixed residence, as Wolf and others try to make it appear, but is used in the LXX. in the sense of temporary residence; and seems here to be applied to foreign Jews, who chose to remain there, from the passover to the pentecost, but whose home was not in Jerusalem; for the context speaks of them as dwellers in Mesopotamia, &c. (verse 9.) A distinction is also made between two sorts of Jews among those who had come from Rome,——the Jews by birth and the proselytes, (verse 10,) showing that the Mosaic faith was flourishing, and making converts from the Gentiles there.
PETER’S SERMON.
This wonderful event took place in the chamber of the temple, which they had used as a place of worship ever since their Lord’s departure. As the whole temple was now constantly thronged with worshipers, who were making their offerings on this great feast day, this room in which the followers of Jesus were devoutly employed, must, as well as all the others, have been visited by new comers: for the mere prior occupation of the room by the disciples, could not entitle them to exclude from a public place of that kind any person who might choose to enter. The multitude of devotees who filled all parts of the temple, soon heard of what was going on in this apartment, and came together to see and hear for themselves. When the inquiring crowds reached the spot, they found the followers of Christ breaking out in loud expressions of praise to God, and of exhortation, each in such a language as best suited his powers of expression, not confining themselves to the Hebrew, which in all places of public worship, and especially in Jerusalem on the great festivals, was the only language of devotion. Among the crowds that thronged to the place of this strange occurrence, were Jews from many distant regions, whose language or dialects were as widely various as the national names which they bore. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites,——those who dwelt in Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt and Africa, and some even from distant Rome, were all among those who heard the spirit-moving language of the disciples. Some of the more scrupulous among these foreign Jews, were probably, notwithstanding their amazement, somewhat offended at this profanation of worship, in the public use of these heathen languages for the purposes of devotion; and with a mixture of wonder and displeasure they asked, “Are not all these men who are talking in these various languages, Galileans? How then are they able to show such an immense diversity of expression, so that all of us, even those from the most distant countries, hear them in our various languages, setting forth the praises of God?” And they were all surprised and perplexed, and said one to another, “What will this come to?” But to some who were present, the whole proceeding was so little impressive, and had so little appearance of anything miraculous, that they were moved only to expressions of contempt, and said, in a tone of ridicule, “These men are drunk on sweet wine.” This seems to show that to them there was no conclusive evidence of Divine agency in this speaking in various languages; and they, no doubt, supposed that among these Galileans were foreigners also from many other parts of the world, who, mingling with Christ’s disciples, had joined in their devotions, and caught their enthusiasm. Seeing this assembly thus made up, now occupied in speaking violently and confusedly in these various languages, they at once concluded that they were under the influence of some artificial exhilarant, and supposed that during this great festal occasion they had been betrayed into some unseasonable jollity, and were now under the excitement of hard drinking. Such as took this cool view of the matter, therefore, immediately explained the whole by charging the excited speakers with drunkenness. But Peter, on hearing this scandalous charge, rose up, as the leader and defender of these objects of public notice, and repelled the contemptuous suggestion that he and his companions had been abusing the occasion of rational religious enjoyment, to the purposes of intemperate and riotous merriment. Calling on all present for their attention, both foreign Jews and those settled in Jerusalem, he told them that the violent emotions which had excited their surprise could not be caused by wine, as it was then but nine o’clock in the morning, and as they well knew, it was contrary to all common habits of life to suppose that before that early hour, these men could have been exposed to any such temptation. They knew that the universal fashion of the devout Jews was to take no food whatever on the great days of public worship, until after their return from morning prayers in the temple. How then could these men, thus devoutly occupied since rising, have found opportunity to indulge in intoxicating drinks?
Peter then proceeded to refer them for a more just explanation of this strange occurrence, to the long recorded testimonies of the ancient prophets, which most distinctly announced such powerful displays of religious zeal and knowledge, as about to happen in those later days, of which the present moment seemed the beginning. He quoted to them a passage from Joel, which pointedly set forth these and many other wonders with the distinctness of reality, and showed them how all these striking words were connected with the fate of that Jesus whom they had so lately sacrificed. He now, for the first time, publicly declared to them, that this Jesus, whom they had vainly subjected to a disgraceful death, had by the power of God been raised from the grave to a glorious and immortal life. Of this fact he assured them that all the disciples were the witnesses, having seen him with their own eyes after his return to life. He now showed them in what manner the resurrection of Jesus might be explained and illustrated by the words of David, and how the psalm itself might be made to appear in a new light, by interpreting it in accordance with these recent events. He concluded this high-toned and forcible appeal to scripture and to fact, by calling them imperatively to learn and believe. “Let all the house of Israel know, then, that God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” This declaration, thus solemnly made and powerfully supported, in connection with the surprising circumstances which had just occurred, had a most striking and convincing effect on the hearers, and almost the whole multitude giving way to their feelings of awe and compunction, being stung with the remembrance of the share they had had in the murder of Jesus, cried out, as with one voice, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter’s instant reply was, “Change your mind, and be each one of you baptized to the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” That same divine influence, whose in-workings had just been so wonderfully displayed before their eyes, was now promised to them, as the seal of Christ’s acceptance of the offer of themselves in the preliminary sign of baptism. To them and to their children, upon whom, fifty days before, they had solemnly invoked the curse of the murdered Redeemer’s blood, was this benignant promise of pardoning love now made; and not only to them, but to all, however far off in place or in feeling, whom their common Lord and God should call to him. Inspired with the glorious prospect of success now opening to him, and moved to new earnestness by their devout and alarmed attention, Peter zealously went on, and spoke to them many other words, of which the sacred historian has given us only the brief but powerful concluding exhortation,——“Suffer yourselves to be saved from this perverse generation,”——from those who had involved themselves and their race in the evils resulting to them from their wicked rejection of the truth offered by Jesus. The whole Jewish nation stood at that time charged with the guilt of rejecting the Messiah; nor could any individual be cleared from his share of responsibility for the crime, except by coming out and distinctly professing his faith in Christ.
THE CHURCH’S INCREASE.
The success which followed Peter’s first effort in preaching the gospel of his murdered and risen Lord, was most cheering. Those who heard him on this occasion, gladly receiving his words, were baptized, and on that same day converts to the number of three thousand were added to the disciples. How must these glorious results, and all the events of the day, have lifted up the hearts of the apostles, and moved them to new and still bolder efforts in their great cause! They now knew and felt the true force of their Master’s promise, that they should “be indued with power from on high;” for what less than such power could in one day have wrought such a change in the hearts of the haughty Jews, as to make them submissive hearers of the followers of the lately crucified Nazarene, and bring over such immense numbers of converts to the new faith, as to swell the small and feeble band of disciples to more than twenty times its former size? Nor did the impression made on this multitude prove to be a mere transient excitement; for we are assured that “they held steadily to the doctrine taught by the apostles, and kept company with them in all their daily religious duties and social enjoyments.” So permanent and complete was this change, as to cause universal astonishment among those who had not been made the subjects of it; and the number of those who heard the amazing story, must have been so much the greater at that time, as there was then at Jerusalem so large an assemblage of Jews from almost every part of the civilized world. On this account, it seems to have been most wisely ordered that this first public preaching of the Christian faith, and this great manifestation of its power over the hearts of men, should take place on this festal occasion, when its influence might at once more widely and quickly spread than by any other human means. The foreign Jews then at Jerusalem, being witnesses of these wonderful things, would not fail, on their return home, to give the whole affair a prominent place in their account of their pilgrimage, when they recounted their various adventures and observations to their inquiring friends. Among these visitors, too, were probably some who were themselves on this occasion converted to the new faith, and each one of these would be a sort of missionary, preaching Christ crucified to his countrymen in his distant home, and telling them of a way to God, which their fathers had not known. The many miracles wrought by the apostles, as signs of their authority, served to swell the fame of the Christian cause, and added new incidents to the fast-traveling and far-spreading story, which, wherever it went, prepared the people to hear the apostles with interest and respect, when, in obedience to their Lord’s last charge, they should go forth to distant lands, preaching the gospel.
PETER’S PROMINENCE.
This vast addition to the assembly of the disciples at Jerusalem, made it necessary for the apostles to complete some farther arrangements, to suit their enlarged circumstances; and at this period the first church of Christ in the world seems to have so far perfected its organization as to answer very nearly to the modern idea of a permanent religious community. The church of Jerusalem was an individual worshiping assembly, that at this time met daily for prayer and exhortation, with twelve ministers who officiated as occasion needed, without any order of service, as far as we know, except such as depended on their individual weight of character, their natural abilities or their knowledge of the doctrines of their Lord. Among these, the three most favored by Christ’s private instructions would have a natural pre-eminence, and above all, he who had been especially named as the rock on which the church should be built, and as the keeper of the keys of the kingdom, and had been solemnly and repeatedly commissioned as the pastor and leader of the flock, would now maintain an undisputed pre-eminence, unless he should by some actual misconduct prove himself unworthy of the rank. Such a pre-eminence it is unquestionable that Peter always did maintain among the apostles; and so decidedly too, that on every occasion when any thing was to be said or done by them as a body, Peter invariably stands out alone, as the undisputed representative and head of the whole community. Indeed the whole history of the apostles, after the ascension, gives but a single instance in which the words of any one of the twelve besides Peter are recorded, or where any one of them, except in that single case, is named as having said any thing whatever. On every occasion of this sort, the matters referred to were no more the concern of Peter than of any other of the twelve, yet they all seem to have been perfectly satisfied with quietly giving up the expression of their views to him. One instance, indeed, occurs, in which some persons attempted to blame his conduct when on a private mission, but even then his explanation of his behavior hushed all complaint. Often, when he was publicly engaged in the company of John, the most beloved of Jesus, and his faithful witness, it would seem that if there was any assumption by Peter of more than due importance, this distinguished son of Zebedee or his equally honored brother would have taken such a share in speaking and doing, as would have secured them an equal prominence. But no such low jealousies ever appear to have arisen among the apostles; not one seems to have had a thought about making himself an object of public notice, but their common and unanimous care was to advance their great Master’s cause, without reference to individual distinctions. Peter’s natural force of character and high place in his Master’s confidence, justified the ascendency which he on all public occasions claimed as his indisputable right, in which the rest acquiesced without a murmur.
THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY.
In the constitution of the first church of Christ, there seems to have been no other noticeable peculiarity, than the number of its ministers, and even this in reality amounted to nothing; for the decided pre-eminence and superior qualifications of Peter were such as, in effect, to make him the sole pastor and preacher for a long time, while the other apostles do not seem to have performed any duty much higher than that of mere assistants to him, or exhorters, and perhaps teachers. Still, not a day could pass when every one of them would not be required to labor in some way for the gospel; and indeed the sacred historian uniformly speaks of them in the plural number, as laboring together and alike in the common cause. Thus they went on quietly and humbly laboring, with a pure zeal which was as indifferent to fame and earthly honor, as to the acquisition or preservation of earthly wealth. They are said to have held all things common, which is to be understood, however, not as implying literally that the rich renounced all individual right to what they owned, but that they stood ready to provide for the needy to the full extent of their property, and in that sense, all these pecuniary resources were made as common as if they were formally thrown into one public stock, out of which every man drew as suited his own needs. To an ordinary reader, this passage, taken by itself, might seem to convey fully the latter meaning; but a reference to other passages, and to the whole history of the primitive Christians, shows clearly, that a real and literal community of goods was totally unknown to them, but that in the bold and free language of the age and country, they are said to have “had all things in common,” just as among us, a man may say to his friend, “My house is yours;——consider every thing I have as your own property;” and yet no one would ever construe this into a surrender of his individual rights of possession. So the wealthy converts to the Christian faith sold their estates and goods, as occasion required, for the sake of having ready money to relieve the wants of those who had no means of support. Thus provided for, the apostles steadily pursued their great work, passing the greater part of every day in the temple; but taking their food at home, they ate what was so freely and generously provided, with thankful and unanxious hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. In these happy and useful employments they continued, every day finding new sources of enjoyment and new encouragement, in the accession of redeemed ones to their blessed community.
Taking their food at home.——This is my interpretation of κλωντες κατ’ οἶκον αρτον, (klontes kat’ oikon arton.) Acts ii. 46, commonly translated “breaking bread from house to house,” a version which is still supported by many names of high authority; but the attendant circumstances here seem to justify this variation from them. A reference to the passage will show that the historian is speaking of their regular unanimous attendance in the temple, and says, “they attended every day with one accord in the temple,” that is, during the regular hours of daily worship, but as they would not suffer untimely devotion to interfere with their reasonable conveniences, he adds, “they broke bread,” (a Hebraistic form of expression for simply “taking food,”) “at home, and partook of their food in humility and thankfulness.” This seems to me, to require a sort of opposition in sense between ἱερον, (hieron,) “temple,” and οικος, (oikos,) “house” or “home,” for it seems as if the writer of the Acts wished in these few words, to give a complete account of the manner in which they occupied themselves, devoting all their time to public devotion in the temple except that, as was most seemly, they returned to their houses to take their [♦]necessary food, which they did humbly and joyfully. But the distributive force which some wish to put upon κατ’ οἶκον, by translating it “from house to house,” is one which does not seem to be required at all by any thing in the connection, and one which needs a vast deal of speculation and explanation to make it appear why they should go “from house to house,” about so simple a matter of fact as that of eating their victuals, which every man could certainly do to best advantage at one steady boarding-place. That the expression, κατ’ οἶκον, most commonly means “at home,” is abundantly proved by standard common Greek usage, as shown in the best Lexicons. But κατα, in connexion with a singular noun, has the distributive force only when the noun itself is of such a character and connection in the sentence as to require this meaning. Thus κατα μηνα, would hardly ever be suspected of any other meaning than “monthly,” or “every month,” or “from month to month;”——so κατα πολεις means “from city to city,” but the singular κατα πολιν, almost uniformly means “in a city,” without any distributive application, except where the other words in the sentence imply this idea. (Acts xv. 21: xx. 23.) But here the simple common meaning of the preposition κατα, when governing the accusative, (that is, the meaning of “at” or “in” a place,) is not merely allowed, but required by the other words in the connection, in order to give a meaning which requires no other explanation, and which corresponds to the word “temple” in the other clause; for the whole account seems to require an opposition in these words, as describing the two places where the disciples passed their time.
[♦] “neeessary” replaced with “necessary”
There are great names, however, opposed to this view, which seem enough to overpower almost any testimony that can be brought in defense of an interpretation which they reject. Among these are Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, Ernesti, and Bloomfield, whose very names will perhaps weigh more with many, than the hasty statement of the contrary view which I am able here to give. Yet I am not wholly without the support of high authorities; for De Dieu, Bengel, Heinrichs, Hammond, and Oecumenius, reject the distributive sense here.
THE CURE OF THE CRIPPLE.
In the course of these regular religious observances, about the same time or soon after the events just recorded, Peter and John went up to the temple to pray, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the usual hour for the second public prayers. As they went in at the outer gate of the temple, which being made of polished Corinthian brass, was for its splendor called the Beautiful, their attention was called to one of the objects of pity which were so common on those great days of assembly, about the common places of resort. A man, who, by universal testimony, had been a cripple from his birth, was lying in a helpless attitude at this public entrance, in order to excite the compassion of the crowds who were constantly passing into the temple, and were in that place so much under the influence of religious feeling as to be easily moved by pity to exercise so prominent a religious duty as charity to the distressed. This man seeing Peter and John passing in, asked aims of them in his usual way. They both instantly turned their eyes towards him, and looking earnestly on him, Peter said, “Look on us.” The cripple, supposing from their manner that they were about to give something to him, accordingly yielded them his interested attention. Peter then said to him, “Silver and gold have I none, but I give thee what I have; in the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, rise up and walk.” As he said this, he took hold of the lame man and raised him; and he at once was able to support himself erect. Leaping up in the consciousness of strength, he stood and walked with them into the temple, expressing thankfulness and joy as he went, both by motions and words. The attention of the worshiping assembly in the great courts of the temple was at once directed to this strange circumstance; for all who had passed in at the gate, recognized this vivacious companion of the two apostles, as the man who had all his life been a cripple, without the power of voluntary locomotion, and they were utterly amazed at his present altered condition and actions. As the recovered cripple, leaning on Peter and John, still half doubting his new strength, accompanied them on to the porch of Solomon, the whole multitude ran after them thither, still in the greatest astonishment. All eyes were at once turned to the two wonderful men who had caused this miraculous change, and the astonishment which this deed had inspired must have been mingled with awe and reverence. Here surely was an occasion to test the honesty and sincerity of these followers of Christ, when they saw the whole people thus unhesitatingly giving to them the divine honor of this miraculous cure. What an opportunity for a calculating ambition to secure power, favor, and renown! Yet, with all these golden chances placed temptingly within their reach, they, so lately longing for the honors of an earthly dominion, but now changed by the inworkings of a purer spirit and a holier zeal, turned calmly and firmly to the people, utterly disclaiming the honor and glory of the deed, but rendering all the praise to their crucified Lord. Peter, ever ready with eloquent words, immediately addressed the awe-struck throngs who listened in silence to his inspired language, and distinctly declared the merit of this action to belong not to him and his companion, but to “that same Jesus, whom they, but a short time before, had rejected and put to death as an impostor.” He then went on to charge them boldly with the guilt of this murder, and summing up the evidences and consequences of their crime, he called on them to repent, and yield to this slain and risen Jesus the honors due to the Messiah. It was his name which, through faith in his name, had made this lame man strong, and restored him to all his bodily energies, in the presence of them all. That name, too, would be equally powerful to save them through faith, if they would turn to him, the prophet foretold by Moses, by Samuel, and all the prophets that followed them, as the restorer and leader of Israel, and through whom, as was promised to Abraham, all the families of the earth should be blest. But first of all to them, the favored children of Abraham, did God send his prophet-son, to bless them in turning away every one of them from their iniquities.
The beautiful gate.——The learned Lightfoot has brought much deep research to bear on this point, as to the position of this gate and the true meaning of its name; yet he is obliged to announce the dubious result in the expressive words, “In bivio hic stamus,” (“we here stand at a fork of the road.”) The main difficulty consists in the ambiguous character of the word translated “beautiful,” in Greek, Ὡραιαν, (horaian,) which may have the sense of “splendid,” “beautiful,” or, in better keeping with its root, Ὡρα, (hora,) “time,” it may be made to mean the “gate of time.” Now, what favors the latter derivation and translation, is the fact that there actually was, as appears from the Rabbinical writings, a gate called Hhuldah, (חולדה) probably derived from חלד (hheledh) “age,” “time,” “life,”——from the Arabic root خلد (khaladh) “endure,” “last,” so that it may mean “lasting or permanent.” There were two gates of this name distinguished by the terms greater and smaller, both opening into the court of the Gentiles from the great southern porch or colonnade, called the Royal colonnade. Through these, the common way from Jerusalem and from Zion led into the temple, and through these would be the natural entrance of the apostles into it. This great royal porch, also, where such vast numbers were passing, and which afforded a convenient shelter from the weather, would be a convenient place for a cripple to post himself in.
There was, however, another gate, to which the epithet “beautiful” might with eminent justice be applied. This is thus described by Josephus. (Jewish War. book V. chapter 5, section 3.) “Of the gates, nine were overlaid with gold and silver,——* * * but there was one on the outside of the temple, made of Corinthian brass, which far outshone the plated and gilded ones.” This is the gate to which the passage is commonly supposed to refer, and which I have mentioned as the true one in the text, without feeling at all decided on the subject, however; for I certainly do think the testimony favors the gate Huldah, and the primary sense of the word Ὡραια seems to be best consulted by such a construction.
The porch of Solomon.——Στοα Σολομωνος, (stoa Solomonos.) This was the name commonly applied to the great eastern colonnade of the temple, which ran along on the top of the vast terrace which made the gigantic rampart of Mount Moriah, rising from the depth of six hundred feet out of the valley of the Kedron. (See note on page [94].) The Greek word, στοα, (stoa,) commonly translated “porch,” does not necessarily imply an entrance to a building, as is generally true of our modern porches, but was a general name for a “colonnade,” which is a much better expression for its meaning, and would always convey a correct notion of it; for its primary and universal idea is that of a row of columns running along the side of a building, and leaving a broad open space between them and the wall, often so wide as to make room for a vast assemblage of people beneath the ceiling of the architrave. That this was the case in this STOA, appears from Josephus’ description given in my note on page [95], section 1. The stoa might be so placed as to be perfectly inaccessible from without, and thus lose all claim to the name of porch, with the idea of an entrance-way. This was exactly the situation and construction of Solomon’s stoa, which answers much better to our idea of a gallery, than of a porch. (See Donnegan, sub voc.)
It took the name of Solomon, from the fact that when the great temple of that magnificent king was burned and torn down by the Chaldeans, this eastern terrace, as originally constructed by him, was too vast, and too deeply based, to be easily made the subject of such a destroying visitation, and consequently was by necessity left a lasting monument of the strength and grandeur of the temple which had stood upon it. When the second temple was rebuilt, this vast terrace of course became again the great eastern foundation of the sacred pile, but received important additions to itself, being strengthened by higher and broader walls, and new accessions of mounded earth; while over its long trampled and profaned pavement, now beautified and renewed with splendid Mosaic, rose the mighty range of gigantic snow-white marble columns, which gave it the name and character of a STOA or colonnade, and filled the country for a vast distance with the glory of its pure brightness. (See note on page [95]. See also Lightfoot, Disquisit. Chor. cap. vi. § 2.) Josephus further describes it, explaining the very name which Luke uses. “And this was a colonnade of the outer temple, standing over the verge of a deep valley, on walls four hundred cubits in highth, built of hewn stones perfectly white,——the length of each stone being twenty cubits, and the highth six. It was the work of Solomon, who first built the whole temple.” (Josephus, Antiquities, XX. viii. 7.)
THE FIRST SEIZURE OF THE APOSTLES.
While the apostles were thus occupied in speaking words of wisdom to the attentive people, they were suddenly interrupted by the entrance of the guards of the temple, who, under the command of their captain, came up to the apostles, and seizing them in the midst of their discourse, dragged them away to prison, where they were shut up, for examination on the next day, before the civil and ecclesiastical court of the Jews. This act of violence was committed by order of the priests who had the care of the temple, more immediately instigated by the Sadducees, who were present with the priests and guards when the arrest was made. The reason why this sect, in general not active in persecuting Jesus and his followers, were now provoked to this act of unusual hostility, was, that the apostles were now preaching a doctrine directly opposed to the main principles of Sadducism. The assertion that Jesus had actually risen from the dead, so boldly made by the apostles, must, if the people believed it, entirely overthrow their confidence in the Sadducees, who absolutely denied the existence of a spirit, and the possibility of a resurrection of the dead. It was now evening, and the apostles being thus dragged away abruptly, in the midst of their discourse, the people were obliged to disperse for the night, without hearing all that the speakers had intended to say; yet even the fragment of discourse which they had heard, was not without a mighty effect. So convincing and moving were these few words of Peter, and so satisfactory was the evidence of the miracle, that almost the whole multitude of hearers and beholders seems to have come over in a mass to the faith of Christ; for converts to the astonishing number of five thousand are mentioned by the sacred historian, who all professed their belief in Jesus, as the resurrection and the life, and the healing.
The guards of the temple, &c.——This was the same set of men above described, as made up of the Levite porters and watchmen of the temple. See note on page [111]. Also Lightfoot Horae Hebraica in Acts iv. 1.——Rosenmueller, ibid. and Kuinoel. But Hammond has made the mistake of supposing this to be a detachment of the Roman garrison.
THEIR FIRST TRIAL.
The next morning the high court of the Jewish nation, having the absolute control of all religious matters, was called together to decide upon the fate of the apostles, and probably also of the lame man whom they had cured. This great court was the same whose members had, by unwearied exertions, succeeded a few weeks before, in bringing about the death of Jesus, and were therefore little disposed to show mercy to any who were trying to perpetuate his name, or the innovations which he had attempted against the high authority of the ecclesiastical rulers of the nation. Of these, the principal were Annas and Caiaphas, the high priests, with John and Alexander, and many others, who were entitled to a place in the council, by relationship to the high priests. Besides these, there were the rulers and elders of the people, and the scribes, who had been so active in the condemnation of Jesus. These all having arrayed themselves for judgment, the apostles and their poor healed cripple were brought in before them, and sternly questioned, by what power and by what name they had done the thing for which they had been summoned before the court. They stood charged with having arrogated to themselves the high character and office of teachers, and what was worse, reformers, of the national religion,——of that religion which had been, of old, received straight from God by the holy prophets, and which the wisdom of long-following ages had secured in sanctity and purity, by entrusting it to the watchful guardianship of the most learned and venerable of a hereditary order of priests and scholars. And who were they that now proposed to take into their hands the religion given by Moses and the prophets, and to offer to the people a new dispensation? Were they deep and critical scholars in the law, the prophets, the history of the faith, or the stored wisdom of the ancient teachers of the law? No; they were a set of rude, ill-taught men, who had left their honest but low employments in their miserable province, and had come down to Jerusalem with their Master, on the likely enterprise of overturning the established order of things in church and state, and erecting in its place an administration which should be managed by the Nazarene and his company of Galileans. In this seditious attempt their Master had been arrested and punished with death, and they whose lives were spared by the mere clemency of their offended lords, were now so little grateful for this mercy, and so little awed by this example of justice, that they had been publicly haranguing the people in the temple, and imposing on them with a show of miracles, all with the view of raising again those disturbances which their Master had before excited, but too successfully, by the same means, until his death. In this light would the two apostles stand before their stern and angry judges, as soon as they were recognized as the followers of Jesus. And how did they maintain their ground before this awful tribunal? Peter had, only a few weeks before, absolutely denied all connection and acquaintance with Jesus, when questioned by the mere menials in attendance on his Master’s trial. And on this solemn occasion, tenfold more appalling, did that once false disciple find in his present circumstances, consolations to raise him above his former weakness? Peter was now changed; and he stood up boldly before his overbearing foes, to meet their tyranny by a dauntless assertion of his rights and of the truth of what he had preached. Freshly indued with a courage from on high, and full of that divine influence so lately shed abroad, he and his modest yet firm companion, replied to the haughty inquiries of his judges, by naming as the source of their power, and as their sanction in their work, the venerated name of their crucified Master. “Princes of the people and elders of Israel, if we to-day are called to account for this good deed which we have done to this poor man, and are to say in whose name this man has been cured; be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, whom you crucified, and whom God raised from the dead, this man now stands before you, made sound and strong. This crucified Jesus is the stone which, though rejected by you builders, has become the chief corner stone; and in no other name is there salvation, (or healing;) for there is no other name given under heaven, among men, by which any can be saved,” (or healed.) When the judges saw the free-spoken manner of Peter and John, observing that they were unlearned men, of the lower orders, they were surprised; and noticing them more particularly, they recognized them as the immediate personal followers of Jesus, remembering now that they had often seen them in his company. This recognition made them the more desirous to put a stop to their miracles and preaching. Yet there stood the man with them, whom they had healed, and with this palpable evidence before their eyes, how could the members of the Sanhedrim justify themselves to the people, for any act of positive violence against these men? These high dignitaries were a good deal perplexed, and sending the apostles out of the court, they deliberated with one another, and inquired, “What can we do with these men? For there is a general impression that they have done a great miracle, among all who are now in Jerusalem, both citizens and strangers, and we cannot disprove it. Still we cannot let these things go on so, nor suffer this heresy to spread any further among the people; and we will therefore charge them threateningly to use the name of Jesus no more to the people.” Having come to this conclusion, they summoned the prisoners once more into the court, and gave them a strict command, never to teach any more nor utter a word in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John, undismayed by the authority of their great judges, boldly avowed their unshaken resolution to proceed as they had begun. “We appeal to you, to say if it is right in the sight of God to obey you rather than God. For we cannot but speak what we have seen and heard?” The judges being able to bring these stubborn heretics to no terms at all, after having threatened them still further, were obliged to let them go unpunished, not being able to make out any plea against them, that would make it safe to injure them, while the popular voice was so loud in their favor, on account of the miracle. For the man whom they had so suddenly healed, being more than forty years old, and having been lame from his birth, no one could pretend to say that such a lameness could be cured by any sudden impression made on his imagination.
Salvation, (or healing.)——The Greek word here in the original, Σωτηρια, (Soteria,) is entirely dubious in its meaning, conveying one or the other of these two ideas according to the sense of the connection; and here the general meaning of the passage is such, that either meaning is perfectly allowable, and equally appropriate to the context. This ambiguity in the substantive is caused by the same variety of meaning in the verb which is the root, Σαω, (Sao,) whose primary idea admits of its application either to the act of saving from ruin and death, or of relieving any bodily evil, that is, of healing. In this latter sense it is frequently used in the New Testament, as in Matthew ix. 21, 22. commonly translated “made whole.” Also, Mark v. 28, 33: vi. 56: x. 52. In Luke vii. 50, and in viii. 48, the same expression occurs, both passages being exactly alike in Greek; but the common translation has varied the interpretation in the two places, to suit the circumstances,——in the former, “saved thee,” and in the latter, “made thee whole.” In this passage also, Acts iv. 12, the word is exactly the same as that used in verse 9, where the common translation gives “made whole.” The close connection therefore between these two verses would seem to require the same meaning in the word thus used, and hence I should feel justified in preferring this rendering; but the general power of the verb makes it very probable that in this second use of it here, there was a sort of intentional equivoque in the writer and speaker, giving force to the expression, by the play on the meaning afforded by the present peculiar circumstances.
THEIR RENEWED ZEAL.
The apostles, as soon as they were released from this unjust confinement, went directly to their own companions, and reported all that the high priests and elders had said to them. And when the disciples heard of the threats which these tyrannical hierarchs had laid on their persecuted brethren, with one mind they raised a voice to God in a prayer of unequalled beauty and power, in which they called upon the Lord, as the God who had made heaven, and earth, and sea, and all in them, to look down upon them, thus endangered by their devotion to his cause, and to give them all boldness of speech in preaching his word; and to vindicate their authority still further, by stretching out his hand to heal, and by signs and miracles. No sooner had they uttered their prayer than they received new assurance of the help of God, and had new evidence of a divine influence. “The place where they were assembled was shaken, and they were all filled again with the Holy Spirit, and spake the word of God with renewed boldness.” This first attack upon them, by their persecutors, so far from dispiriting or disuniting them, gave them redoubled courage, and bound them together still with the ties of a common danger and a common helper. “All those who believed were of one heart and one soul,” and were so perfectly devoted to each others’ good, that “none of them said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but held them as the common support of all.” And in spite of the repeated denunciations of the Sadducees and the Sanhedrim, the apostles, with great power and effect, bore witness of the resurrection of their Lord; and the result of their preaching was, that they were all in the highest favor with the people. Neither was any one of them suffered to want any comfort or convenience of life; for many that owned houses and lands at a distance, turned them into ready money by selling them, and brought the money thus obtained, to the apostles, with whom they deposited it in trust, for distribution among the needy, according to their circumstances. This was done more particularly by the foreign Jews, many of whom were converted at the pentecost, when, being gathered from all parts, they heard for the first time of the Messiah, from the mouths of his apostles, and saw their words supported by such wonders. Among these was a native of Cyprus, by name Joseph, a Levite, who so distinguished himself by his labors of love among them, and gave such promise of excellence as a teacher of the new faith which he had adopted, that the apostles honored him with a new name, by which he was ever after known, instead of his previous one. They called him Barnabas, which means “the son of exhortation,” no doubt referring to those talents which he afterwards displayed as an eminent and successful minister of the gospel.
Raised a voice.——This is literal; and can mean nothing more than the common modern expression, “unite in prayer,” with which it is perfectly synonymous. The judicious Bloomfield (Annotations in Acts iv. 24,) observes, “We cannot rationally suppose that this prefatory address was (as some conjecture) not pronounced extempore, but a pre-composed form of prayer, since the words advert to circumstances not known until that very time; as, for instance, the threatenings of the Sanhedrim, (verse 29,) of which they had been but just then informed; and the words ἀκουσαντες ὁμοθυμαδον ῃραν φωνην will not allow us to imagine any interval between the report of Peter and John, and the prayer.” Kuinoel’s view is precisely the same.
Were in the highest favor with the people.——Very different from the common translation, “great grace was upon them all.” But the Greek word, Χαρις, (Kharis,) like the Latin gratia, (in the Vulgate,) means primarily “favor;” and the only question is, whether it refers to the favor of God or of man. Beza, Whitby, Doddridge, &c. prefer the former, but Kuinoel justly argues from a comparison of the parallel passages, (ii. 47, and iv. 34,) that it refers to their increasing influence on the attention and regard of the people, which was indeed the great object of all their preaching and miracles. Grotius, Rosenmueller, Bloomfield and others, also support this view.
Deposited in trust.——This is a free, but just version of ετιθουν παρα τους ποδας, (etithoun para tous podas,) Acts iv. 35, literally and faithfully rendered in the common translation by “laid at the feet;” but this was an expression very common not only in Hebrew, but in Greek and Latin usage, for the idea of “deposit in trust;” as is shown by Rosenmueller’s apt quotations from Cicero, “ante pedes praetoris in foro expensum est auri pondo centum,” Defence of Flaccus, chapter 28; and from Heliodorus, παντα τα εαυτου τιθεναι παρα τους ποδας βασιλεως. But Kuinoel seems not to think of these, and quotes it as a mere Hebraism.
Barnabas, son of exhortation.——This is the translation of this name, which seems best authorized. A fuller account of it will be given in the life of Barnabas.
ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA.
The great praise and universal gratitude which followed Barnabas, for this noble and self-denying act of pure generosity, was soon after the occasion of a most shameful piece of imposition, ending in an awful expression of divine vengeance. Led by the hope of cheaply winning the same praise and honor which Barnabas had acquired by his simple-minded liberality, a man named Ananias, with the knowledge and aid of his wife Sapphira, having sold a piece of land, brought only a part of the price to the apostles, and deposited it in the general charity-fund, alleging at the same time, that this was the whole amount obtained for the land. But Peter, having reason to believe that this was only a part of the price, immediately questioned Ananias sternly on this point, charging him directly with the crime of lying to God. He remarked to him that the land was certainly his own, and no one could question his right to do just as he pleased with that, or the money obtained for it; since he was under no obligation to give it away to the poor of the church. But since he had of his own accord attempted to get a reputation for generosity, by a base and avaricious act of falsehood, he had incurred the wrath of an insulted God. No sooner had Ananias heard this awful denunciation, than, struck with the vengeance he had brought on himself, he fell lifeless before them, and was carried out to the burial by the attendants. His wife soon after coming in, not having heard of what had happened, boldly maintained her husband’s assertion, and repeated the lie most distinctly to Peter. He then declared his knowledge of her guilt, and made known to her the fate of her husband, which she was doomed to share. The words had hardly left his lips, when they were confirmed by her instant death, and she was at once carried out and laid with her husband. The effect of these shocking events on the minds of the members of the church generally, was very salutary; exhibiting to them the awful consequences of such deliberate and hardened sin.
Attendants.——The common English translation here gives the expression, “young men,” which is the primary meaning of the Greek νεανισκοι, (neaniskoi,) and is quite unobjectionable; but the connection here seems to justify and require its secondary use in application to “servants,” “attendants,” &c. This interpretation has the authority of the learned Mosheim, who considers the persons here mentioned, to have been regularly appointed officers, who performed the necessary duties about the assemblies of the disciples, and executed all the commands of the apostles. He says, “unless you suppose these young men to have been of this sort, it is hard to understand why they alone instantly rose up and carried out the bodies of Ananias and his wife, and buried them. But if you suppose them to have been men discharging an official duty in the public assembly, you see a reason why, even without orders, they took that sad duty upon themselves. And that there were public servants of this sort in the first Christian church, no one certainly can doubt, who will imagine for himself either its circumstances or the form of the assemblies of that age. For instance, there were the places of meeting to be cleaned,——the seats and tables to be arranged,——the sacred books to be brought and carried away,——the dishes to be set out and cleared off,——in short, there were many things to be done which absolutely required particular men.” (Mosheim, Commentary de rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum, p. 114, b.) This passage is quoted by Kuinoel, and is so clear in its representation of the circumstance, as to justify me in translating it entire.
THE INCREASING FAME OF THE APOSTLES.
The apostles, daily supported anew by fresh tokens of divine aid, went on in their labors among the people, encouraged by their increasing attention and favor. So deep was the impression of awe made by the late occurrence, that none of the rest of the church dared to mingle familiarly with the apostles, who now seemed to be indued with the power of calling down the vengeance of God at will, and appeared to be persons too high and awful for common men to be familiar with. Yet the number of the church members, both men and women, continued to enlarge, and the attendance of the people to increase, so that there was no place which would accommodate the vast crowd of hearers and beholders, except the great porch of Solomon, already described, where the apostles daily met the church and the people, to teach and strengthen them, and to work the cures which their Master had so often wrought. So high was the reputation of the apostles, and so numerous were those who came to solicit the favor of their healing power, for themselves or friends, that all could not get access to them even in the vast court of the temple which they occupied, insomuch that they brought the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, along the path which the apostles were expected to pass, that at least the shadow of Peter, passing by, might overshadow some of them. Nor was this wonderful fame and admiration confined to Jerusalem; for as the news was spread abroad by the pilgrims returning from the pentecost, there came also a multitude out of the cities round about Jerusalem, bringing sick folks and those who were affected by evil spirits, and they were healed, every one.
Mingle familiarly with them.——Commonly translated, “join himself to them,” which conveys a totally erroneous idea, since all their efforts were given to this end, of making as many as possible “join themselves to them.” The context (verse 14,) shows that their numbers were largely increased by such additions. “Yet no one of the common members (οἱ λοιποι) dared mingle familiarly (κολλασθαι) with them; but the people held them in great reverence.” Acts v. 13.
Met the church and people.——This distinction may not seem very obvious in a common reading of the Acts, but in v. 11, it is very clearly drawn. “Great fear was upon the whole church and on all the hearers of these things.” And throughout the chapter, a nice discrimination is made between ὁ λαος, (ho laos,) “the people,” or “the congregation,” and ἡ εκκλησια, (he ekklesia,) “the church.” See Kuinoel in v. 13, 14.
The shadow of Peter.——This is one of a vast number of passages which show that high and perfectly commanding pre-eminence of this apostolic chief. The people evidently considered Peter as concentrating all the divine and miraculous power in his own person, and had no idea at all of obtaining benefit from anything that the minor apostles could do. In him, alone, they saw the manifestations of divine power and authority;——he spoke and preached and healed, and judged and doomed, while the rest had nothing to do but assent and aid. Peter, then, was THE great pastor of the church, and it is every way desirable that over-zealous Protestants would find some better reason for opposing so palpable a fact, than simply that Papists support it.
THEIR SECOND SEIZURE AND TRIAL.
The triumphant progress of the new sect, however, was not unnoticed by those who had already taken so decided a stand against it. The Sadducees, who had so lately come out against them, were not yet disposed to leave the apostles to enjoy their boldness with impunity. The high priest Annas, who had always been the determined enemy of Christ, belonging to the Sadducean sect, was easily led to employ all his authority with his brethren, against the apostles. He at last, provoked beyond endurance at their steady and unflinching contempt of the repeated solemn injunction of the Sanhedrim, whose president and agent he was, rose up in all his anger and power, and, backed by his friends, seized the apostles and put them into the common jail, as inveterate disturbers of the peace of the city, and of the religious order of the temple. This commitment was intended to be merely temporary, and was to last only until a convenient time could be found for bringing them to trial, when the crowd of strangers should have retired from the city to their homes, and the excitement attendant on the preaching and miracles of the apostles should have subsided, so that the ordinary course of law might go on safely, even against these popular favorites, and they might be brought at last to the same fate as their Master. After the achievment of this project, “a consummation most devoutly to be wished” by every friend of the established order of things, the sect which was now making such rapid advances would fall powerless and lifeless, when its great heads were thus quietly lopped off. This seems to have been their well-arranged plan,——but it was destined to be spoiled in a way unlooked for; and this first step in it was to be made the means of a new triumph to the persecuted subjects of it. That very night, the prison doors were opened by a messenger of God, by whom the apostles were brought out of their confinement, and told, “Go, stand and speak in the temple, to the people, all the words of this life.” According to this divine command, they went into the temple and taught, early in the morning, probably before their luxurious tyrants had left their lazy pillows. While the apostles were thus coolly following their daily labors of mercy in the temple, the high priest and his train called the council together, and the whole senate of all the children of Israel, and having deliberately arrayed themselves in the forms of law, they ordered the imprisoned heretics to be brought forthwith into the awful presence of this grand council and senate of the Jewish nation and faith. The officers, of course, as in duty bound, went to execute the order, but soon returned to report the important deficiency of the persons most needed to complete the solemn preparation for the trial. Their report was simply, “The prison truly we found shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without, before the doors; but when we had opened, we found no man within.” Here was a non-plus, indeed; all proceedings were brought to a stand at once; and “when the high priest and the chief officer of the temple, and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them, whereunto they would grow.” But these eminent dignitaries were not left long to perplex their sage heads about the unworthy objects of their tender solicitude; for some faithful sycophant, rejoicing in such a glorious opportunity to serve the powers that were, came running to tell them, “Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.” This very simple but valuable piece of information relieved the grave judges very happily from their unfortunate quandary; and without further delay, a detachment of officers was sent to bring these unaccountable runaways to account. But as it appeared that the criminals were now in the midst of a vast assemblage of their friends, who were too perfectly devoted to them to suffer them to receive any violence, it was agreed to manage the thing as quietly and easily as might be, and to coax them away if possible to the tribunal. To insure the still and effectual performance of this order, the captain of the temple himself went with the officers, and quietly drew the apostles away, with their own consent, and without any violence; for the minions of the law knew perfectly well that the least show of injury towards these righteous men, would insure to those who attempted it, broken heads and bones, from the justly provoked people, whose deserved indignation would soon make the very stones to rise in mutiny for the defence of their beloved teachers and benefactors. The apostles themselves, however, showed no unwillingness whatever to appear before their bitter persecutors again, and presented themselves accordingly, with bold unflinching fronts, before the bar of the Sanhedrim. When they were fairly set before the council, the high priest, turning his lately perplexed face into “a look of austere dignity,” asked them, “Did we not particularly charge you, that you should not teach in his name? And now, indeed, in open contempt of our authority, you have filled all Jerusalem with your doctrine, and mean to bring this man’s blood upon us?” They, the high priest and his supporters, had, at no small pains and trouble, effected the death of Jesus, and had naturally hoped that there would be an end of him; but here now were his disciples constantly using his name to the excitable populace in their daily teachings, thus keeping alive the memory of these painful incidents which it was so desirable to forget, and slowly plotting the means of avenging upon the Sanhedrim the death of their Master. To this sort of address, Peter and all the other apostles, who now shared the fate of their two distinguished friends, replied, even as had been said on the previous summons, “We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree: him now has God uplifted to sit beside his own right hand, to be a Prince and a Savior, to give to Israel a change of heart and views, and remission of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things, and what is far more, so also is the Holy Spirit, which God has given to those who obey him, as the reward and the sign of their obedience.” This bold and solemn speech, breathing nothing but resistance against all hindrances, and steady persistance in their course,——and denouncing, too, as murderers, the judges, while it exalted their victim to honors the highest in the universe, was not at all calculated to conciliate the friendly regard of the hearers of it, but roused them to the most violent and deadly hate. Deeply wounded and insulted as they were, they determined to try remonstrance no longer; but in spite of the danger of popular ferment, to silence these audacious bravers of their authority, in death. While they were on the point of pronouncing this cruel decision, the proceedings were stayed by Gamaliel, a man of vast learning and influence, an eminent Pharisee of great popularity, and beyond all the men of that age, in knowledge of the law of Moses and of Hebrew literature. This great man, rising up in the midst of their wrathful resolutions, moved to suspend the decision for a few minutes, and to withdraw the prisoners from the bar, until the court could form their opinions by deliberating with more freedom than they could in the presence of the subjects of the trial. As soon as the apostles were put out of the court, Gamaliel addressed them, prompted by a noble humanity, as well as by a deep knowledge of human nature, and acting in accordance, also, with the general principles of the Pharisees, who were very averse to cruelty and bloodshed, and were generally disposed to punish even criminals in the mildest ways. Possibly, too, he might have been affected by some jealousy of the forwardness of the rival sect. His words were these: “Men of Israel! take care what you do to these men. For you know that, not long ago, rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody, and gathered a gang about him, to the number of four hundred. But as soon as the attention of our Roman masters was drawn to his outrageous doings, they put him entirely down at once, killing him and breaking up his band, by slaughter and banishment; so that without any trouble or exertion on our part, all this sedition was brought to nought. And when, after him, Judas the Galilean raised a great party about him, in the days of the taxing, this rebellion against the government met with the same inevitable fate, from the resistless soldiery of Rome; and all this was done without any need of interference from us. And now, with these remarkable instances in view, I warn you to let these men alone, and leave them to determine their fate by their own future conduct. For if, in all their active efforts of seeming benevolence, they have been prompted by any base ambition to head a faction, which may raise them to the supreme power in religious and political affairs, and by a revengeful wish to punish those concerned in the death of their Master;——if, in short, their plan or their work is a mere contrivance of men, it will come to nought of itself, without your interference, as did the two miserable riots which I have just mentioned. But if, inspired by a holier principle of action, they are laboring with pure love of their converts; if all these wonderful cures which you consider mere tricks and impostures, shall prove to be true miracles, wrought by the hand of God, and if their plan be of God,——you cannot overthrow it; and do you look to it, sirs, that you do not find yourselves at last fighting against God.” This noble and sensible speech, aided by the high rank and great weight of character which belonged to the speaker, instantly hushed all the lately outrageous proposals which had been made against the prisoners. If there were any in the council who did not feel satisfied with his reasoning, they were wise enough to acquiesce, with at least the appearance of content. They knew too well, that Gamaliel, supported by his unbounded popularity with the whole nation, and his eminently exalted character for justice and virtue, was abundantly able to put down every appearance of opposition, and set the apostles free, in spite of high priest and Sadducees. Adopting his resolution, therefore, they called in the apostles, and having vented their paltry malice by beating them, and having exposed themselves to new contempt by repeating their oft-despised command, that the apostles should not speak in the name of Jesus, they let them go, being fully assured that the first use the apostles would make of their freedom would be to break this idle injunction. For they went out of the judgment-hall, rejoicing that they were honored by suffering this shameful treatment in their Master’s name. They now recalled to mind his early words of encouragement, which he had given them in a wise determination to prepare them for evils of which they had then so little notion. The passage from the sermon on the mount was particularly appropriate to their present circumstances. “Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my name’s sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you.” Comforted by such words as these, they returned to their labors as before, and daily, in the temple, and moreover in private houses, ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus Christ, in the very face of the express prohibition of their thwarted persecutors.
Messenger.——This is a fair and literal interpretation of αγγελος, (angelos,) and one justifiable in every place where it occurs in the Bible. Wherever it is applied to a supernatural being sent from God, the connection will abundantly explain the term, without rendering it by a different word. Thus I have chosen to do, and to leave each reader to judge for himself, from the other attendant circumstances, of the character of the messenger. See Kuinoel in loc.
All the words of this life.——I here follow the common translation, though Kuinoel and most interpreters consider this as a hypallage, and transpose it into “all these words of life.” But it does not seem necessary to take such a liberty with the expression, since the common version conveys a clear idea. “The words of this life” evidently can mean only the words of that life which they had before preached, in accordance with their commission; that is, of life from the dead, as manifested in the resurrection of Jesus, which was in itself the pledge and promise of life and bliss eternal, to all who should hear and believe these “words.” This view is supported by Storr, and a similar one is advanced by Rosenmueller, in preference to any hypallage.
Change of heart.——I have in general given this translation of Μετανοειτε, (Metanoeite,) as more minutely faithful to the etymology of the word, and also accordant with popular religious forms of expression; though the common translation is unobjectionable.
Deeply wounded.——In the Greek, διεπριοντο, (dieprionto,) from διαπριω, “to saw through;” in the passive, of course, “to be sawn through,” or figuratively, “deeply wounded in the moral feelings.” This is the commonly translated, “cut to the heart,” which I have adopted, with such a variation of the words as will assimilate it most nearly to common modern forms of expression. But Kuinoel prefers the peculiar force of the middle voice, (where this word can be made, owing to the identity of the imperfect tenses of the two voices,) given by Hesychius, “to gnash the teeth,” doubtless taken from the similarity of sound between “sawing,” and “grating the teeth.” This sense being also highly appropriate here, to men in a rage, makes the passage perfectly ambiguous, and accordingly great authorities divide on the point. In such cases, it seems to me perfectly fair to consider the phrase as originally intended for an equivoque. Luke was Grecian enough, doubtless, to know the two meanings of this form, and must have been very careless if he did not think of it as he wrote it down; but either meaning is powerfully expressive of the idea here, and why should he reject or explain it? It is rather an advantage and a charm than otherwise, in a language, to possess this ambiguity, making occasionally a richly expressive play of meanings. It seems, however, more in accordance with Luke’s ordinary expressions, to prefer the passive sense, as in Acts vii. 54, ταις καρδιαις (“to their hearts”) is added, there, of course, requiring the passive. For similar forms of expression, see Luke ii. 35: Acts ii. 37.——Consult Bretschneider in loc. In favor of the passive sense, see Bloomfield, Rosenmueller, Wolf, Hammond and Gataker. On the middle sense, Kuinoel, Beza and Wetstein.
Gamaliel.——I shall give a full account of this venerable sage, in the beginning of the life of Paul.
In the temple and in private houses.——Acts vi. 42. In the Greek, κατ’ οἶκον, (kat’ oikon,) the same expression as in ii. 46, alluded to in my note on pages [139], [140]. Here too occurs precisely the same connection with ἐν τῳ ἱερῳ, (en to hiero,) with the same sense of opposition in place, there alluded to. The indefinite sense, then, rather than the distributive, is proper here as there, showing that they preached and taught not only in their great place of assembly, under the eastern colonnade of the temple, (v. 12,) but also in private houses, that is, at their home, or those of their friends. The expression “from house to house,” however, is much less objectionable here, because in this passage it can give only an indefinite idea of place, without any particular idea of rotation; but in the other passage, in connection with “the taking of food,” it makes an erroneous impression of their mode of life, which the text is meant to describe.
THE APPOINTMENT OF DEACONS.
The successful progress of their labors had now gathered around them a great church, numbering among its members a vast throng both of Hebrew and of foreign Jews. The apostles being devoted wholly to their high duties of prayer and preaching, were unable to superintend particularly the daily distribution of the means of support to the needy, out of the charity-fund which had been gathered from the generous contributions of the wealthy members of the church. Among the foreign Jews who had joined the fraternity of the disciples, were many of those who, by education, language and manners, though not by race or religion, were Greeks. These, with the proselytes, being fewer than those who adhered to the genuine manners and language of Palestine, had comparatively little weight in the administration of the affairs of the church, and had no hand in the distribution to the church poor. Being a minority, and being moreover looked on with invidious eyes by the genuine Hebrews, as a sort of half renegades, they were overlooked and put back, in the daily ministration to the needy, and to such a degree, that even the helpless widows among them were absolutely suffering through this neglect. The natural consequence was, that murmurs and open complaints arose among them, at this shameful and unbrotherly partiality. As soon as the report of the difficulty reached the ears of the twelve, they immediately called a full church-meeting, and laid the matter before it in these words. “It is not proper that we should leave the preaching of the word of God, to wait on tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven reputable men, full of a holy spirit and of wisdom, whom we may intrust with this business; while we continue to give our time up wholly to prayer and the ministry of the word.” This wise plan pleased all parties, and the church proceeded to elect the proper persons for the charge. To soothe the feelings of the Hellenists, the whole seven were chosen from their number, as the names (which are all Greek) fully show. This makes it probable that there were already persons appointed from among the Hebrews, who had administered these charities from the beginning, and whose partial management of these matters had given offense to those whom they slighted. The seven Hellenists now chosen to this office, were Stephen, resplendent in spiritual and intellectual endowments; Philip, also highly distinguished afterwards by his successful preaching; Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch; by which last circumstance, (as well as by the case of Barnabas,) is shown the fact that some Hellenist converts, from a distance, had settled at Jerusalem, and permanently joined the followers of Christ. These seven being formally elected by the church, were brought in before the apostles, for approval and confirmation. And after they had prayed, they laid their hands on them, in token of imparting to them the blessing and the power of that divine influence which had inspired its previous possessors to deeds so energetic and triumphant. The efficiency of this prayer and benediction, in calling down divine grace on the heads thus touched by the hands of the apostles, was afterwards most remarkably demonstrated in the case of two of the seven, and in the case of the first of them, almost immediately.
Greeks.——The original word here is not Ἑλληνες, (Hellenes,) but Ἑλληνιστοι, (Hellenistoi,) which means not Grecians, but Grecizers; that is, those who imitated Grecian language or customs.
Genuine Hebrews.——By these are meant those who used the Hebrew language still in their synagogues, as the only sacred tongue, and looked with much scorn on the Hellenists, that is, those foreign Jews, who, from birth or residence in other lands, had learned the Greek as their sole language in common life, and were thus obliged to use the Greek translation, in order to understand the scriptures. This matter will have a fuller discussion in another place. Lightfoot has brought a most amazing quantity of learned and valuable illustration of this difference, from Talmudic literature. (Horae Hebraica et Talmudicae in Acts vi. 1.)
CHRIST’S FIRST MARTYR.
Stephen, after thus being set apart for the service of the church, though faithfully discharging the peculiar duties to which he was called, did not confine his labors to the mere administration of the public charities. The word of God had now so spread, under the ministry of the apostles, that the number of the disciples in Jerusalem was greatly enlarged, and that not merely from the lower and ignorant orders; but a great number of the priests, who, in their daily service in the temple, had been frequently unintentional hearers of the word preached in its courts, now professed themselves the submissive friends of the new faith. This remarkable increase excited public attention more and more, and required redoubled exertions to meet the increasing call for instruction. Stephen, therefore, immediately entered boldly and heartily on this good work; and, inspired by a pure faith, and the confidence of help from above, he wrought among the people such miracles as had hitherto followed only the ministry of the apostles. The bold actions of this new champion did not fail to excite the wrath of the enemies of the cause of Christ; but as the late decision of the Sanhedrim had been against any further immediate resort to violent measures, his opponents confined themselves to the forms of verbal debate for a while. As Stephen was one of those Jews who had adopted the Greek language and habits, and probably directed his labors more particularly to that class of persons, he soon became peculiarly obnoxious to those Hellenist Jews who still held out against the new doctrine. Of the numerous congregations of foreign Jews that filled Jerusalem, five in particular are mentioned as distinguishing themselves by this opposition,——that of the freed-men, or captive Jews once slaves in Rome, and their descendants,——that of the Cyrenians,——of the Alexandrians,——the Cilicians and the Asians. Some of the more zealous in all these congregations came out to meet Stephen in debate, with the polished points of Grecian logic which their acquaintance with that language enabled them to use against him. But not all the combined powers of sacred and profane literature availed any thing against their learned and inspired opponent. Prepared beforehand, thoroughly, in all sorts of wisdom, and borne on resistlessly, moreover, by that divine influence whose movements they could see but could not understand, he foiled them completely at all their own weapons, and exposed them, in their low bigotry and stupidity, baffled and silenced by his single voice. But among all the refinements and elegances with which their classical knowledge had made them acquainted, they had failed to learn that noblest effort of the rhetorical art, which is to know how to bear a fair defeat in open debate, gracefully. These low-minded, half-renegade bigots, burning with brutal rage for this defeat, which their base behavior made more disgraceful, determined to find a means of punishing him, which no logic nor rhetoric could resist. They found men base enough for their vile purposes, and instructed them to testify that they had heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God. On the strength of this heinous charge, they made out to rouse some of the people, as well as the elders and the scribes, to a similar hostile feeling; and coming upon him with a throng of these, they seized him and dragged him away to the Sanhedrim, to undergo the form of a trial. They then brought forward their perjured witnesses, who testified only in vague terms of abuse, “This man ceases not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus, the Nazarene, will destroy this place, and will do away with the customs which Moses delivered to us.” This was, after all, a kind of accusation which brought him more particularly under the invidious notice of the Pharisees, whose leader had lately so decidedly befriended the apostles; for that sect guarded with the most jealous care all the minute details of their religion, and were ever ready to punish, as a traitor to the national faith and honor, any one who spoke slightingly, or even doubtingly, of the perpetuity of the law of Moses, and its hallowed shrine. Perhaps there was no one of all the sayings of Jesus himself, which had given deeper offense than his remark about destroying the temple and re-building it in three days, which his silly hearers took up seriously, and construed into a serious, blasphemous insult of the chief glory of the Jewish name, and bore it in mind so bitterly, as to throw it back on him, in his last agonies on the cross. Such a saying, therefore, when laid to the charge of Stephen, could not but rouse the worst feelings against him, in the hearts of all his judges. But he, calm and undisturbed amid the terrors of this trial, as he had been in the fury of the dispute, bore such an aspect of composure, that all who sat in the council were struck with his angelic look. The high priest, however, having heard the accusation, solemnly called on the prisoner to say “whether these things were so.” Stephen then, with a determination to meet the charge by a complete exhibition of his views of the character and objects of the Jewish faith, ran over the general history of its rise and progress, and of the opinions which its founders and upholders had expressed concerning the importance and the perpetuity of those types and forms, and of the glorious temple which was their chief seat, when compared with the revelation to be expected through the prophet promised to them by God and foretold by Moses. Warming as he went on, he quoted the poetical words of Isaiah, on the dwelling-place of the Almighty, as not being confined to the narrow bounds of the building which was to them an object of such idolatrous reverence, as the sole place of Jehovah’s abode, but as being high in the heavens, whence his power and love spread their boundless grasp over sea and land, and all nations that dwelt beneath his throne. As the words of the prophet of the fire-touched lips rolled from the voice of Stephen, they kindled his soul into an ecstacy of holy wrath; and in open scorn of their mean cruelty, he broke away from the plan of his discourse, bursting out into burning expressions of reproach and denunciation, which carried their rage away beyond all bounds of reason. Conscious of their physical power to avenge the insult, the mob instantly rose up, and hurried him away from the court, without regard to the forms of law; and taking him without the city, they stoned him to death, while he invoked on them, not the wrath, but the mercy of their common God. In such prayers, gloriously crowning such labors and sufferings, he fell asleep, commending his spirit to the hands of that Lord and Savior, whom it was his exalted honor to follow, first of all, through the bitter agonies of a bloody death.
THE PERSECUTION.
Among the nameless herd of Stephen’s murderers and disputants, there was one only whose name has been preserved from the impenetrable oblivion which hides their infamy. And that name now is brought to the mind of every Christian reader, without one emotion of indignation or contempt, for its connection with this bloody murder. That man is now known to hundreds of millions, and has been for centuries known to millions of millions, as the bright leader of the hosts of the ransomed, and the faithful martyr who sealed with his blood the witness which this proto-martyr bore beneath the messengers of death to which his voice had doomed him. In the synagogue of the Cilicians, which was so active in the attack on Stephen, was a young man, who was not behind the oldest and the fiercest, in the steady, unrelenting hate which he bore to this devouring heresy. He gave his voice amid the clamors of the mob, to swell the cry for the death of the heretic; and when the stout murderers hurled the deadly missiles on the martyr’s naked head, it was he who took charge of the loose garments which they had thrown off, that they might use their limbs with greater freedom. Neither the sight of the saintly martyr, kneeling unresistingly to meet his bloody death, nor the sound of his voice, rising in the broken tones of the death-agony, in prayer for his murderers, could move the deep hate of this young zealot, to the least relenting; but the whole scene only led him to follow this example of merciless persecution, which he here viewed with such deep delight. Abundant opportunities for the exercise of this persecuting spirit soon occurred. In connection with the charge against Stephen, which, however unfounded, brought him to this illegal death, there was a general and systematic disturbance raised by the same persons, against the church in Jerusalem, more particularly directed, as it would seem, against the Hellenist members, who were involved, by general suspicion, in the same crime for which Stephen, their eminent brother, had suffered. Saul now distinguished himself at once above all others, by the active share which he took in this persecution. Raging against the faithful companions of the martyred Stephen, he, with the most inquisitorial zeal, sought them out, even in their own quiet dwellings, and violating the sanctity of home, he dragged out the inmates to prison, visiting even on helpless women the crime of believing as their consciences prompted, and without regard to delicacy or decency, shutting them up in the public dungeons. As soon as the storm began to burst on the new converts, those who were in any special danger of attack very properly sought safety in flight from the city, in accordance with the wise and merciful injunction laid upon the apostles by their Lord, when he first sent them forth as sheep in the midst of wolves,——“When they persecute you in one city, flee into another.” The consequences of this dispersion, however, were such as to turn the foolish rage of the persecutors to the solid advantage of the cause of Christ, and to show in what a variety of ways God can cause the wrath of man to praise him. For all those who were thus driven out of their peaceful homes, became missionaries of the word of truth, among the people of the various cities and countries through which they were scattered. All those of whose wanderings we have any account, seem to have journeyed northward and north-westward, probably all of them foreign Jews, who naturally returned home when driven out of Jerusalem. Some of these went, in this way, to the Phoenician coast, to Antioch, and to Cyprus, all laboring to extend the knowledge of that truth for which they were willing sufferers. But of all those who went forth on this forced mission, none appear to have been more successful than Philip, who stood next to the martyred Stephen on the list of the seven Hellenist servants of the church, and who appears to have been second not even to his great fellow-servant in ability and energy. His home was in Caesarea, on the sea-coast; but he had higher objects than merely to take refuge in his own domestic circle; for instead of thus indulging his feelings of natural affection, he also turned his course northward, and made his first sojourn in the city of Samaria, where he immediately began to preach Christ to them, as the common Messiah, so long desired by Samaritans as well as Jews. Here, the people being ruled by no tyrannical sectaries, like the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the various orders of ecclesiastical power in Jerusalem, were left entirely to follow the impulse of their better feelings towards the truth, without the fear of any inquisition into their movements. Under these happy circumstances of religious freedom, they all with one accord gave heed to the preaching of Philip, hearing and seeing the wonderful works of kindness which he did. For foul spirits, which, possessing many sufferers, had long wasted their bodies and deranged their minds, now at the word of this preacher of Christ, came out of many of them, crying with a loud voice in attestation of the irresistible power which had overcome them. Many also that were affected with palsies and that were lame, were healed in the same miraculous manner; so that, in consequence of this removal of so many bodily and spiritual evils, there was great joy in the city, at the arrival of this messenger of mercy. But before the coming of Philip, the people of Samaria had been the subjects of arts of a somewhat different kind, from a man who could claim for his works none of the holy character of disinterested humanity, which belonged to those of the preacher of Christ. This was one Simon, a man who, by the use of some magical tricks, had so imposed upon the simple-minded citizens, that they were profoundly impressed with the notion, which he was anxious to make them believe, namely, that he was a great man. To him they all, both young and old, paid the deepest reverence, in consequence of the triumphant ability displayed by him in the arts of sorcery; and so low were their notions of the nature of miraculous agency, that they concluded that the tricks which he played were tokens of divine interposition in his favor, and universally allowed that he was himself a personification of the mighty power of God. But when Philip came among them, and exhibited the genuine workings of the holy spirit of God, they immediately saw how much they had been mistaken in their previous estimate of its operations, and changed their degraded notions, for a more just appreciation of its character. On hearing the word of truth so fully revealed and supported, they believed in the new view which he gave them of the kingdom of God on earth, and in the name of Jesus Christ; and were baptized, both men and women. Even Simon himself, overwhelmed with the evidences of a higher power than any that he knew, confessed the fallacy of his own tricks, and submissively owned the power of God as manifested in the words and deeds of Philip, with whom he now remained, a humble and wondering observer of the miracles and signs wrought by him.
THE VISIT TO SAMARIA.
In the mean time, the apostles had remained at Jerusalem, apparently not directly affected by the persecution against Stephen and his friends, or at least not disturbed by it so as to be prevented from remaining at their original post, in the discharge of duty. For, a true regard for the instructions long ago given them by their Master, would have required them to leave Jerusalem, if the opposition to their preaching became so settled and extensive as to prevent them from advancing the cause of Christ there, more rapidly than they might in other places. The spirit with which they had been taught to meet tyrannical opposition, was not one of idle bravado or useless pertinacity, but of deliberate and calculating steadiness in their plan, which knew when to prudently give way, as well as when to boldly withstand. It is therefore fair to conclude, that the persecution here referred to, was so limited as not to be directed against the apostles themselves, nor to hinder their useful labors. If any of them had been imprisoned during this persecution, certainly the rest would have been blamable for not escaping; but the fact that they remained perfectly free, appears from their leaving the city without delay, on the occasion which now required their presence and assistance elsewhere. For as soon as they heard of the preaching of Philip at Samaria, and of the willingness with which the Samaritans had received and believed the first communications of the word, they immediately sent to them Peter and John, who, as the chief teachers of the doctrines of Christ, might give the new converts a fuller preparation for their duties in their calling, than could be expected from one so lately commissioned as the zealous preacher who had first awakened them. These two great apostles, having come down to Samaria, prayed for the believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for this heavenly gift had not yet been imparted to them; the only sign of their acceptance into the new faith having been their baptism by the hands of Philip, who does not seem to have been empowered to indue others with the same divine spirit which he had so abundantly received on himself. But the apostles laying their hands on them, as they had before done with such powerful effect on Stephen, Philip and their fellow-servants, now also inspired these second fruits with the same divine energy, which was instantly made manifest in them, by the usual signs. As soon as Simon saw the display of the new powers, with which those were suddenly gifted who had been made the subjects of this simple ceremony, he immediately concluded that he had at last found out the means of acquiring those miraculous powers at which he had been so deeply amazed, and which he thought he could make vastly profitable to himself in his business, as a very decided improvement upon his old tricks. Thinking only of the motive which always moved his mind to the bestowment of such favors, he immediately took out the money he had gained by his impositions on the people, and offered the apostles a handsome share of it, if they would simply give him the valuable privilege of conferring this divine agency on all upon whom he should lay his hands, in the same manner as they. But his mercenary hopes were soon blasted by the indignant terms in which Peter rejected his insulting proposal. “Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God could be bought with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Change thy mind, therefore, from this wickedness of thine, and ask God, if indeed there is any possibility, that the iniquity of thy heart may be forgiven thee; for I see that thou art still full of the bitterness of thy former poisons, and bound fast in the chains of thy old iniquities.” Simon, hushed and overawed in his impertinent offers by this stern rebuke, sunk into a penitent tone again, and begged of them that they would pray for him, that the doom to perish with his money, as declared by Peter, might not fall on him. Of the depth and sincerity of his penitence, no good testimony is left us; but his submissive conduct, at best, seems to have been rather the result of a personal awe of the apostles, as his superiors in supernatural powers, than prompted by any true regard for their pure faith, or any just appreciation of their character and motives. The apostles, however, waited no longer to enlighten the mind of one so dark in his views of the divine agency; but after they had borne witness to the truth of Philip’s words and doctrines by their own preaching, they returned to Jerusalem, proclaiming the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans, on the way. Philip also, having had his labors thus triumphantly crowned by the ministrations of the apostles, left Samaria, and turned his course southwards, towards Gaza, under the impulse and guidance of a divine spirit. On this journey, occurred his most interesting adventure with the lord high treasurer of the Ethiopian queen, after which Philip was found at Ashdod, on the sea, from which place, journeying northwards again, he went preaching through all the towns on the coast, till he arrived at his home, at Caesarea.
JAFFA——JOPPA.
THE BEGINNING OF PEACE.
Soon after the return of the apostles to Jerusalem, an event occurred, which had a more mighty influence on the progress of the Christian religion than any other that had occurred since the ascension of Jesus. The members of the church who still withstood the storm of persecution in the city, were struck with no small amazement by the sudden appearance, before them, of Saul of Tarsus, the most bloody persecutor of their Hellenist brethren, who, having exhausted the opportunities for the gratification of his spite against them in Jerusalem, had gone to Damascus, to seize such as there supposed themselves safe in following the new faith. This man, yet stained, as it were, with the blood of Stephen, now presented himself to them as a convert to the gospel, prepared to join them as a brother. The whole affair seemed to bear so decidedly the aspect of a palpable imposition, that they altogether refused to have any thing to do with him, and suspected the whole to be a deep-laid snare, on the part of this bloody foe of the gospel, who now appeared to be seeking, by false professions, to get into their confidence, that he might have the means of betraying them to utter ruin. But Barnabas, who was better acquainted with Saul, detailed to the church all the wonderful circumstances so fully, that they no longer hesitated to receive him as a brother and fellow-laborer. This remarkable conversion was of vast benefit to the cause of the gospel, not only by bringing to its aid the services of a laborer so competent, but also by removing from among its adversaries one who had been a leader and a contriver of every plot of mischief. As soon as he left the ranks of the foe, the vindictive persecution, which had raged ever since the death of Stephen, ceased, as though it had lost its great author and main support, by the defection of Saul of Tarsus. Indeed, the last act of this persecution, which is recorded, was directed against this very man, who had once been a leader in it, and drove him out of the city which had been the scene of his cruelties. Therefore, the churches had rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, strengthening and advancing in piety, and filled with the impulses of the Holy Spirit. This opportunity of quiet seemed peculiarly favorable for a minute survey of the condition of these scattered churches, most of which had grown up without any direct agency of the apostles, and therefore needed their attention at this critical period.
THE SURVEY OF THE CHURCHES.
The most proper person for this responsible charge, was the great leader of the apostolic band; and Peter, therefore, taking the task readily upon himself, went through all the churches, to give them the advantages of the minute personal ministry of a chief apostle, who might organize them, and instruct the disciples in their peculiar duties as members of a new religious community. On this tour of duty, passing down from the interior towards the sea-coast, he came to Lydda, about forty or fifty miles from Jerusalem, and about twelve from the sea. Here there was a company of the faithful, whom he visited, to instruct them anew, and to enlarge their numbers, by his preaching and miracles. A particular case is recorded as having occurred here, which displayed both the compassion of Peter and his divine power to heal and strengthen. Among the friends of Christ whom he visited here, was an invalid, whose name, Aeneas, shows him to have been a Hellenist. This man had for the long period of eight years been deprived of the use of his limbs, by a palsy, which, during that tedious interval, confined him to his bed. Peter, on seeing him, said, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals thee. Arise, and make thy bed for thyself.” The command to spread and smooth the couch, which he now quitted in health, was given, that he might show and feel, at once, how fully strength was restored to his hands as well as his feet. This miracle soon became known, not only to the citizens of Lydda, but also to the people inhabiting the extensive and fertile plain of Sharon, which stretched to the northward of Lydda, along the coast, from Joppa to Caesarea, bounded on the west by the highlands of Samaria. The effect of this display of power and benevolence, was such, on their minds, that, without exception, they professed their faith in Christ.
Lydda.——This was a place of far more importance and fame, than would be supposed from the brief mention of its name in the apostolic narrative. It is often mentioned in the writings of the Rabbins, under the name of לוד (Ludh,) its original Hebrew name, and was long the seat of a great college of Jewish law and theology, which at this very period of Peter’s visit was in its most flourishing state. This appears from the fact that Rabbi Akiba, who raised the school to its greatest eminence, was contemporary with the great Rabban Gamaliel, who bears an important part in the events of the apostolic history. (The data of this chronological inference I find in Lightfoot.) It is easy to see, then, why so important a seat of Jewish theology should have been thought deserving of the particular notice and protracted stay of Peter, who labored with remarkable earnestness and effect here, inspired by the consciousness of the lasting and extensive good, that would result from an impression made on this fountain of religious knowledge. The members of the college, however, did not all, probably, profess themselves followers of Christ.
It is also described as possessing some importance in addition to its literary privileges. Josephus (Antiquities XX. vi. 3.) mentions “Lydda” as “a village not inferior to a city in greatness.” Its importance was, no doubt, in a great measure derived from the remarkably rich agricultural district which surrounded it. This was the plain of Sharon, so celebrated in the Hebrew scriptures for its fruitful fields and rich pastures,——its roses and its flocks. (Solomon’s Song ii. 1: Isaiah xxxiii. 9: xxxv. 2: lxv. 10: 1 Chronicles xxvii. 29.) “All this country is described by Pococke as very rich soil, throwing up a great quantity of herbage; among which he specifies chardons, rue, fennel, and the striped thistle, ‘probably on this account called the holy thistle.’ A great variety of anemonies, he was told, grow in the neighborhood. ‘I saw likewise,’ he adds, ‘many tulips growing wild in the fields (in March;) and any one who considers how beautiful those flowers are to the eye, would be apt to conjecture that these are the lilies to which Solomon, in all his glory, was not to be compared.’”——[Modern Traveler, p. 57.] Its distance from Jerusalem is ascertained, by Lightfoot, to be one day’s journey, as it is stated with some circumlocution in the Mishna. It was destroyed, as Josephus relates, by Cestius Gallus, the Roman general, who marched his army through that region, in the beginning of the war, which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem. Under the peaceful times of the later Roman sway in Palestine, it was rebuilt, and called Diospolis. But like many other such instances, it has lost its temporary heathen name, and is now called by its old scripture appellation, Ludd. Travelers describe it as now a poor village, though the stones to be seen in the modern buildings show that it has been a place of great consequence.
The New Testament name Lydda, (Λυδδα,) by which Josephus also mentions it, is only so much changed from the Hebrew Ludh, as was necessary to accommodate it to the regular forms and inflexions of the Greek language. Lightfoot well refutes the blunder of many modern geographers who make the two names refer to different places. This learned author is remarkably full in the description of this place, and is very rich in references to the numerous allusions which are made to it in the Talmudic writings. See his Centuria Chorographica, (Chapter 16,) prefixed to Horae Hebraica et Talmudicae in Matthew.
Aeneas.——This name is unquestionably Greek, which seems to show the man to have been a Hellenist; and that he was already a believer in Christ, would appear from the fact of Peter’s finding him among the brethren there.
THE VISIT TO JOPPA.
Hardly had this instance of divine favor occurred in Lydda, when a new occasion for a similar effort presented itself, in the neighboring seaport town of Joppa. A female disciple of the faith of Christ, in that city, by name Tabitha, or in the Greek, Dorcas, (both names meaning Gazelle,) had distinguished herself and honored her religious profession, by the generous and charitable deeds which constantly employed her hands. This lady, so respected by all, and so loved by the poor, who gave witness to her goodness,——such an honor to the religious community which she had joined,——seemed to have so nobly done her part in life, that the order of Providence had apparently called her to rest from these labors, in that sleep from which no piety nor usefulness can save or recall their possessor. After a few days of illness, she died, and was, after the usual funeral ablutions, laid in an upper chamber, to await the burial. In the midst of the universal grief for this sad loss, the members of the church at Joppa, knowing that Peter was in Lydda, within a few hours’ journey, sent two messengers to him, to beg his presence among them, as some consolation in their distress. Peter, on hearing of this occasion for his presence, with great readiness accompanied the messengers back, and on arriving at Joppa, went straight to the house of mourning. He was immediately led into the chamber, where he found a most affecting testimony to the nature of the loss which the afflicted community had suffered. Around the dead, stood the widows who, in their friendlessness, had been relieved by the sympathy of Dorcas, now pouring their tears and uttering their lamentations over her, and showing that even the garments which they wore were the work of her industrious hand,——that hand which, once so untiring in these labors of love, was now cold and motionless in death. From that resistless doom, what mortal voice could ever recall even one so amiable and useful? But, while they were sorrowing thus, Peter ordered them all to leave him alone with the dead; and when all witnesses were removed, he kneeled and prayed. The words of that prayer are not recorded; and it is only by its successful efficiency that we know it to have been that fervent effectual prayer of a righteous man, which availeth much. It was such a prayer as, of old, the son of Shaphat offered over the dead child of the Shunamite, when alone with him; and its effect was not less mighty. Rising at length, and turning towards the body, he said “Tabitha, arise!” Awaking from the unbreathing sleep of death, as from a light slumber of an hour, she opened her eyes, and when she saw the majestic man of God alone, and herself robed for the tomb, she sat up and gazed in amazement. Peter, then, giving her his hand, lifted her from the funeral couch, and calling in the brethren and the widows; he presented her to their astonished eyes, alive. Their overwhelming joy and wonder, we are left to imagine. The story, when made known through the city, brought many to acknowledge the truth of that religion whose minister could work such wonders; and many believed in Christ. The field of labor which now opened to Peter in this place, seemed so wide that he did not continue his journey any further at that time, but took up his abode, for several days, in Joppa, lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, whose house stood by the sea, near the water.
Joppa, now called Jaffa.——This was from very early times a place of great importance, from the circumstance of its being the nearest seaport to Jerusalem. It is mentioned in reference to this particular of its situation, in 2 Chronicles ii. 17, where it is specified (in Hebrew יפו Japho) as the port to which the cedar timber from Lebanon should be floated down in rafts, to be conveyed to Jerusalem for building the temple. It stood within the territories of the tribe of Dan, according to Joshua xix. 46, and lies about East-North-east from Jerusalem. Strabo, (xvi.) in describing it, refers to it as the scene of the ancient Grecian fable of Andromeda rescued from the sea-monster by Perseus. He describes its site as “quite elevated,——so much so, indeed, that it was a common saying that Jerusalem might be seen from the place; the inhabitants of which city use it as their seaport, in all their maritime intercourse.” Josephus mentions that it was added to the dominions of Herod the Great by Augustus. Its present appearance is thus described by travelers.
“It is situated in latitude 32 degrees 2 minutes North, and longitude 34 degrees 53 minutes East, and is forty miles West of Jerusalem. Its situation, as the nearest port to the Holy City, has been the chief cause of its importance. As a station for vessels, according [♦]to Dr. Clarke, its harbor is one of the worst in the Mediterranean. Ships generally anchor about a mile from the town, to avoid the shoals and rocks of the place. The badness of the harbor is mentioned, indeed, by Josephus. (Josephus, Antiquities, book xv. chapter 9.) * * * The road is protected by a castle built on a rock, and there are some storehouses and magazines on the sea-side. The coast is low, but little elevated above the level of the sea; but the town occupies an eminence, in the form of a sugar-loaf, with a citadel on the summit. The bottom of the hill is surrounded with a wall twelve or fourteen feet high, and two or three feet thick. * * * There are no antiquities in Jaffa: the place would seem to be too old to have any——to have outlived all that once rendered it interesting. The inhabitants are estimated at between four and five thousand souls, of whom the greater part are Turks and Arabs; the Christians are stated to be about six hundred, consisting of Roman Catholics, Greeks, Maronites, and Armenians.” [Modern Traveler, Palestine, pp. 41, 42.]
[♦] “io” replaced with “to”
Dorcas.——This is the Greek translation of the old Hebrew צבי (Tsebi,) in the Aramaic dialect of that age, changed into תביתא (Tabitha,) in English, “gazelle,” a beautiful animal of the antelope kind, often mentioned in descriptions of the deserts of south-western Asia, in which it roams; and not unfrequently the subject of poetical allusion. The species to which it is commonly supposed to belong, is the Antilopa Dorcas of Prof. Pallas, who named it on the supposition that it was identical with this animal, called by the Greeks, Δορκας, (Dorkas,) from Δερκο, (Derko,) “to look,” from the peculiar brightness of “its soft black eye.”
THE CALL TO THE HEATHEN.
The apostles had now, with great zeal and efficiency, preached the gospel of Jesus Christ to the worshipers of the true God, beginning at Jerusalem, and spreading the triumphs of his name to the bounds of the land of Israel. But in all their devotion to their Master’s work, they had never had a thought of breaking over the bounds of the faith of their fathers, or of making their doctrine anything else than a mere completion or accompaniment to the law of Moses; nor did they imagine that they were ever to extend the blessings of the gospel to any who did not bow down to all the tedious rituals of the ancient covenant. The true power of their Lord’s parting command, “Go and teach all nations,” they had never felt; and even now, their great chief supposed that the change of heart and remission of sins, which he was commissioned to preach, were for none but the devout adherents of the Jewish faith. A new and signal call was needed, to bring the apostles to a full sense of their enlarged duties; and it is among the highest honors vouchsafed to Peter, that he was the person chosen to receive this new view of the boundless field now opened for the battles and triumphs of the cross. To him, as the head and representative of the whole band of the apostles, was now spread out, in all its moral vastness and its physical immensity, the coming dominion of that faith, whose little seed he was now cherishing, with but a humble hope; but whose stately trunk and giant branches were, from that small and low beginning, to stretch, in a mighty growth, over lands, and worlds, to him unknown. Thus far he had labored with a high and holy zeal, in a cause whose vastness he had never appreciated,——every moment building up, unwittingly, a name for himself, which should outlast all the glories of the ancient covenant; and securing for his Master a dominion which the religion of Moses could never have reached. He had never had an idea, that he with his companions was founding and spreading a new religion;——to purify the religion of the law and the prophets, and to rescue it from the confusion and pollutions of warring sectaries, was all that they had thought of; yet with this end in view, they had been securing the attainment of one so far above and beyond, that a full and sudden view of the consequences of their humble deeds, would have appalled them. But though the mighty plan had never been whispered nor dreamed of, on earth,——though it was too immense for its simple agents to endure its full revelation at once,——its certain accomplishment had been ordained in heaven, and its endless details were to be fully learned only in its triumphant progress through uncounted ages. But, limited as was the view which the apostles then had of the high destiny of the cause to which they had devoted themselves, it was yet greatly extended from the low-born notions with which they had first followed the steps of their Master. They now no longer entertained the vagary of a worldly triumph and a worldly reward; they had left that on the mount where their Lord parted from them, and they were now prayerfully laboring for the establishment of a pure spiritual kingdom in the hearts of the righteous. To give them a just idea of the exalted freedom to which the gospel brought its sons, and to open their hearts to a Christian fellowship, as wide as the whole human family, God now gave the apostolic leader an unquestionable call to tell to the world the glad tidings of salvation, for all men, through a new and living way, by change of heart and remission of sins. The incidents which led to this revelation are thus detailed.
The peace and good order of Palestine were now secured by several legions, whose different divisions, larger or smaller according to circumstances, were quartered in all the strong or important places in the country, to repress disorders, and enforce the authority of the civil power, when necessary. Besides this ordinary peace-establishment of the province, there was a cohort which took its name from the circumstance that it had been levied in Italy,——a distinction, now so rare, in consequence of the introduction of foreign mercenaries into the imperial hosts, as to become the occasion of an honorable eminence, which was signified by the title here given, showing that this division of the Roman armies was made up of the sons of that soil which had so long sent forth the conquerors of the world. Of all the variety of service required of the different detachments of the army, in the province which it guarded, by far the most honorable was that of being stationed next the person of the governor of the province, to maintain the military dignity of his vice-imperial court, and defend his representative majesty. Caesarea, on the sea-shore, was now the seat of the Roman government of Palestine; and here, in attendance on the person of the governor, was this aforesaid Italian cohort, at the head of a company in which, was a centurion named Cornelius. Though nothing is given respecting his birth and family but this single name, a very slight knowledge of Roman history and antiquities enables the historian to decide, that he was descended from a noble race of patricians, which had produced several of the most illustrious families of the imperial city. Eminent by this high birth and military rank, he must have been favored with an education worthy of his family and station. It is therefore allowable to conclude, that he was an intelligent and well-informed gentleman, whom years of foreign service, in the armies of his country must have improved by the combined advantages of a traveler and a disciplined warrior. Of his moral and religious character such an account is given, as proves that his principles, probably implanted in early life, had been of such firmness as to withstand the numerous temptations of a soldier’s life, and to secure him in a course of most uncommon rectitude in his duties towards God and towards man. In the merciful exercise of his power over the people whose safety and quiet he came to maintain, and, moreover, in the generous use of his pecuniary advantages, he passed his blameless life; and the high motive of this noble conduct, is discovered in the steady, pure devotion, in which he employed many hours of daily retirement, and in which he caused his whole family publicly to join, on proper occasions. Thus is he briefly and strongly characterized by the sacred historian: “devout, and fearing God with all his house; giving much alms, and praying to God always.”
Noble race of patricians.——The gens Cornelia, or “Cornelian race,” was unequaled in Rome for the great number of noble families sprung from its stock. The Scipios, the Sullas, the Dolabellas, the Cinnas, the Lentuli, the Cethegi, the Cossi, and many other illustrious branches of this great race, are conspicuous in Roman history; and the Fasti Consulares, record more than sixty of the Cornelian race, who had borne the consular dignity previous to the apostolic era. This is always a family name, and Ainsworth very grossly errs in calling it “the praenomen of several Romans.” Every Roman name of the middle and later ages of the commonwealth, had at least three parts, which were the praenomen, marking the individual,——the nomen marking the gens, (“race,” “stock,”) and the cognomen, marking the family or division of that great stock. Thus in the name “Publius Cornelius Scipio,” the last word shows that the person belonged to the Scipio family, which by the second word is seen to be of the great Cornelian stock, while the first shows that this member of the family was distinguished from his relations, by the name of Publius. (See Adams’s Roman Antiquities, on Names.) Wherever this name, Cornelius, occurs, if the whole appellation of the man is given, this comes in the middle, as the nomen, marking the race; as is the case with every one of those quoted by Ainsworth, in his blundering account of the word. See also Sallust, (The Catilinarian Conspiracy, 47, 55,) in defense of this peculiar limitation of the word to the gens. Not a single instance can be brought of its application to any person not of this noble patrician race, or of its use as a mere individual appellation. I am therefore authorized in concluding that this Cornelius mentioned in the Acts was related to this line of high nobility. It might, perhaps, be conjectured, that he had borrowed this name from that noble race, from having once been in the service of some one of its families, as was common in the case of freedmen, after they had received their liberty; but this supposition is not allowable; for he is expressly particularized as belonging to an Italian division of the army, which fact excludes the idea of that foreign origin which would belong to a slave. The Jews having but one name for each man, seldom gave all of a Roman’s name, unless of a very eminent man, as Pontius Pilate, Sergius Paulus, and other official characters; but selecting any one of the three parts which might be most convenient, they made that the sole appellative, whether praenomen, nomen, or cognomen. As in Luke ii. 2: Acts xxiii. 24: xxv. 1: xxvii. 1: xxviii. 7, &c.
JERUSALEM,
from the Latin Convent.
Luke xxi. 24.
The Italian cohort.——The word Σπειρα (Speira) I translate “cohort,” rather than “legion,” as the older commentators did. Jerome translates it “cohortem,” and he must have known the exact technical force of the Greek word, and to what Latin military term it corresponded, from his living in the time when these terms must have been in frequent use. Those who prefer to translate it “legion,” are misled by the circumstance, that Tacitus and other writers on Roman affairs, mention a legion which had the distinctive appellation of “the Italian Legion;” while it has been supposed that these ancient authors make no mention of an Italian cohort. But the deeply learned Wetstein, with his usual vast classical research, has shown several such passages, in Arrian and others, in which mention is made of an Italian cohort; and in Gruter’s inscriptions, quoted by Kuinoel, there is an account of “a volunteer cohort of Italian soldiers in Syria;” and Palestine was at this time included with Syria, under the presidency of Petronius. This inscription, too, justifies my remark as to the high character of those who served in this corps. “Cohors militum Italicorum voluntaria” seems to imply a body of soldiers of a higher character than the ordinary mercenary mass of the army, being probably made up of volunteers from respectable families of Italy, who chose to enlarge their knowledge of the world by foreign military service, in this very honorable station of life-guard to the Roman governor, as Doddridge and others suppose this to have been. (See Doddridge on this passage; also C. G. Schwartz in Wolff, Cur. Philology in loc.) It is considered also as fairly proved that the “Italian legion” was not formed till a much later period; so that it is rendered in the highest degree probable and unquestionable, that this was a cohort, and, as Schwartz and Doddridge prove, not a mere ordinary cohort, making the tenth part of a common legion of 4200, but a distinct and independent corps, attached to no legion, and devoted to the exclusive honorable service above mentioned. (See Bloomfield, Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, &c.)
Devout.——Some have tried hard to make out that Cornelius was what they call “a proselyte of the gate;” that is, one who, though not circumcised, nor conforming to the rituals generally, yet was an observer of the moral law. But Lardner very fully shows that there were not two sorts of proselytes; all who bore that name fully conforming to the Jewish rituals, but still called “strangers,” &c.; because, though admitted to all the religious privileges of the covenant, they were excluded from the civil and political privileges of Jews, and could not be freeholders. Cornelius must then have been a mere Gentile. (See Lardner in his life of Peter; also Kuinoel and Bloomfield.)
Caesarea.——This is another of those cities enlarged or rebuilt by the princes of the Herodian line, and honored with the names of the imperial family. This city stood on the sea-shore, about 30 miles north of Joppa; and (Modern Traveler) 62 north-north-west from Jerusalem. (600 stadia Josephus.) It has been idly conjectured by the Rabbinical writers, that this was the same with Ekron, of the Old Testament, Zephaniah ii. 4; while the Arabic version gives it as Hazor, Joshua xi. 1,——both with about equal probability. The earliest name by which it can be certainly recognized, is Apollonia, which it bore when it passed from the Syro-Grecians to the Maccabean princes. Its common name, in the time of Herod the Great, was πυργος Στρατωνος, turris Stratonis, “Straton’s castle,” from the name of a Greek pirate who had built a strong hold here. Herod the Great made it the most splendid city in his dominions, and even in all the eastern part of the Roman empire; and in honor of Augustus Caesar, called it Caesarea Augusta. It was sometimes called Caesarea Palestinae, to distinguish it from Caesarea Philippi; for Palestine was then a name limited to the southern part of the coast of the Holy Land, and was bounded on the north by Phoenicia. This city was the capital of the whole Holy Land throughout the period of the later Herodian and Roman sway.
To this man was sent the first heavenly call, which ended in bringing in the Gentiles to the knowledge of the truth revealed by Jesus. After having fasted all day, he was employed in his regular devotions, at the usual hour of prayer, (three o’clock in the afternoon,) when his senses were overwhelmed by a vision, in which he had a distinct view of a messenger of God, in shining garments, coming to him; and heard him call him by his name, “Cornelius!” Looking at him as steadily as he was able in his great alarm, Cornelius asked, “What is it, Lord?” The heavenly visitant replied, in words of consolation and high praise, “Thy prayers and thy alms have come up in remembrance before God. And now send men to Joppa, and call for a man named Simon Peter, lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea-side. He, when he comes, shall tell thee what it is right that thou shouldst do.” When the surprising messenger had given this charge, he departed; and Cornelius, without delay, went to fulfil the minute directions he had received. He called two of his domestics, and a devout soldier of the detachment then on duty near him, and having related to them all that he had just seen and heard, he sent them to Joppa, to invite Peter according to the order. The distance between the two places is about thirty-five miles, and being too great to be easily traveled in one day, they journeyed thither during a part of two days, starting immediately when they received the command, though late in the afternoon. While they were continuing their journey, the next day, and were now near to the city of Joppa, Peter, without any idea of the important task to which he was soon to be summoned, went up, as usual, to the Alijah, or place of prayer, upon the house-top, at about twelve o’clock, mid-day. Having, according to the usual custom of the Jews, fasted for many hours, for the sake of keeping the mind clear from the effects of gross food on the body, and at length becoming sensible that he had pushed himself to the utmost limits of safe abstinence, he wished for food, and ordered his dinner. While the servants were preparing it, he continued above, in the place of prayer, where, enfeebled by fasting, and over-wrought by mental effort, he fell into a state of spiritual excitement, in which the mind is most susceptible of strong impressions of things beyond the reach of sense. In this condition, there appeared to him a singular vision, which subsequent events soon enabled him fully to interpret. It seemed to him that a great sheet was let down from the sky, to which it was fastened by the four corners, containing on its vast surface all sorts of animals that were forbidden as food by the Mosaic law. While the apostle gazed upon this vast variety of animals, which education had taught him to consider unclean, there came a voice to him, calling him by name, and commanding him to arise, kill, and eat. All his prejudices and early religious impressions were roused by such a proposal; and, resisting the invisible speaker as the agent of temptation to him in his bodily exhaustion, he replied, in all the pride of a scrupulous and unpolluted Jew, “By no means, Lord, because I have never eaten anything improper or unclean.” The mysterious voice again said, “What God hath cleansed, do not thou consider improper.” This impressive scene having been twice repeated, the whole was withdrawn back into heaven. This remarkable vision immediately called out all the energies of Peter’s mind, in its explanation. But before he had time to decide for himself what was meant by it, the messengers of Caesarea had inquired out the house of Simon, and, coming to the outside door, they called to learn whether Simon, who was surnamed Peter, lodged there. And while the mind of Peter was still intently occupied with the vision, he received an intimation from the unerring spirit, that his presence was required elsewhere. “Behold! three men are seeking thee, but rise up and go with them, without hesitation; for I have sent them.” Thus urged and encouraged, Peter went directly down to the men sent by Cornelius, and said, “Behold! I am he whom ye seek. What is your object in coming here?” They at once unfolded their errand. “Cornelius, a centurion, a just man, fearing God, and of good repute among all the Jews, was instructed by a holy messenger, to send for thee to his house, that he may hear something from thee.” Peter, already instructed as to the proper reception of the invitation, asked them in, and hospitably entertained them till the next day, improving the delay, no doubt, by learning as many of the circumstances of the case as they could give him. The news of this remarkable call was also made known to the brethren of the church in Joppa, some of whom were so highly interested in what they heard that evening, that they resolved to accompany Peter the next day, with the messengers, to see and hear for themselves the details of a business which promised to result so fairly in the glory of Christ’s name, and the wide enlargement of his kingdom. On the next day, the whole party set out together, and reached Caesarea, the second day of their journey; and going straight to the house of Cornelius, they found quite a large company there, awaiting their arrival. For Cornelius, expecting them, had invited his relations and his intimate friends, to hear the extraordinary communications which had been promised him, from his visitor. The kindred here alluded to were, perhaps, those of his wife, whom, according to a very common usage, he may have married in the place where he was stationed; for it is hardly probable that a Roman captain from Italy could have had any of his own blood relations about him, unless, perhaps, some of them might have enlisted with him, and now been serving with him on this honorable post. His near friends, who completed the assembly, were probably such of his brother officers as he knew to possess kindred tastes with himself, and to take an interest in religious matters. Such was the meeting that Peter found sitting in expectation of his coming; and so high were the ideas which Cornelius had formed of the character of his visitor, that, as soon as he met him on his entrance into the house, he fell down at his feet, and paid him reverence as a superior being;——an act of abasement towards the inhabitant of a conquered country, most rare and remarkable in a Roman officer, and one to which nothing but a notion of supernatural excellence could ever have brought him, since this was a position assumed not even by those who approached the emperor himself. Peter, however, had no desire to be made the object of a reverence so nearly resembling idolatry. Raising up the prostrate Roman, he said, “Stand up: for I myself am also a man.” Entering into familiar discourse with him, he now advanced into the house, and going with him to the great room, he there found a numerous company. He addressed them in these words: “You know how unlawful it is for a Jew to be familiar, or even to visit, with one of another nation; but God has taught me to call no man vulgar or unclean. Wherefore, I came at your summons, without hesitation. Now, then, I ask with what design have you sent for me?” And Cornelius said, “Four days ago, I was fasting till this hour; and at the ninth hour I was praying in my house;” and so having gone on to narrate all the circumstances of his vision, as given above, concluded in these words, “For this reason I sent for thee, and thou hast done well in coming, for we are all here, before God, to hear what has been imparted to thee, from God.” And Peter began solemnly to speak, and said, “Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but that in every nation, he that fears him and does what is right, is approved by him.” With this solemn profession of a new view of this important principle of universal religion, as a beginning, he went on to satisfy their high expectations, by setting forth to them the sum and substance of the gospel doctrine, of whose rise and progress they had already, by report, heard a vague and partial account. The great and solemn truth which the Spirit had summoned him to proclaim, was that Jesus Christ the crucified was ordained by God the judge of both living and dead, and that through him, as all the prophets testified, every one that believed should have remission of sins. Of his resurrection from the dead, Peter declared himself the witness, as well as of his labors of good will towards man, when, anointed with the Spirit of God, he went about doing good. Thus did Peter discourse, excited by the novel and divinely appointed occasion, till the same divine influence that moved his heart and tongue was poured out on his charmed hearers, and they forthwith manifested the signs of change of heart and devout faith in Christ, as the Son of God and the judge of the world; and made known the delight of their new sensations, in words of miraculous power. At this display of the equal and impartial grace of God, the Jewish church-members from Joppa, who had accompanied Peter to Caesarea, were greatly amazed, having never before imagined it possible for the influences of the divine spirit to be imparted to any who had not devoutly conformed to all the rituals of the holy law of old given by God to Moses, whose high authority was attested amid the smoke and flame and thunder of Sinai. And what change was this? In the face of this awful sanction, these believing followers of Moses and Christ saw the outward signs of the inward action of that Spirit which they had been accustomed to acknowledge as divine, now moving with the same holy energy the souls and voices of those born and bred among the heathen, without the consecrating aid of one of those forms of purification, by which Moses had ordained their preparation for the enjoyment of the blessings of God’s holy covenant with his own peculiar people. Moved by that same mysterious and holy influence, the Gentile warriors of Rome now lifted up their voices in praise of the God of Israel and of Abraham,——doubtless too, their God and Father, though Abraham were ignorant of them, and Israel acknowledged them not; since through his son Jesus a new covenant had been sealed in blood, opening and securing the blessings of that merciful and faithful promise to all nations. On Jehovah they now called as their Father and Redeemer, whose name was from everlasting,——known and worshiped long ere Abraham lived. Never before had the great partition-wall between Jews and Gentiles been thus broken down, nor had the noble and equal freedom of the new covenant ever yet been so truly and fully made known. And who was he that had thus boldly trampled on the legal usages of the ancient Mosaic covenant, as consecrated by the reverence of ages, and had imparted the holy signs of the Christian faith to men shut out from the mysteries of the inner courts of the house of God? It was not a presumptuous or unauthorized man, nor one thoughtless of the vastly important consequences of the act. It was the constituted leader of the apostolic band, who now, in direct execution of his solemn commission received from his Master, and in the literal fulfilment of the prophetic charge given therewith at the base of distant Hermon, opened the gates of the kingdom of heaven to all nations. Bearing the keys of the kingdom of God on earth, he now, in the set time of divine appointment, at the call of his Master in heaven, so signally given to him both directly and indirectly, unlocked the long-closed door, and with a voice of heavenly charity, bade the waiting Gentiles enter. This was the mighty commission with which Jesus had so prophetically honored this chief disciple at Caesarea Philippi, and here, at Caesarea Augusta, was achieved the glorious fulfilment of this before mysterious announcement;——Simon Peter now, in the accomplishment of that divinely appointed task, became the Rock, on which the church of Christ was, through the course of ages, reared; and in this act, the first stone of its broad Gentile foundation was laid.
On duty about him.——This phrase is the just translation of the technical term προσκαρτερουντων, (proskarterounton,) according to Price, Kuinoel, Bloomfield, &c.
Of all the honors with which his apostolic career was marked, there is none which equals this,——the revolutionizing of the whole gospel plan as before understood and advanced by its devotees,——the enlargement of its scope beyond the widest range of any merely Jewish charity,——and the disenthralment of its subjects from the antique formality and cumbrous ritual of the Jewish worship. And of all the events which the apostolic history records, there is none which, in its far-reaching and long-lasting effects, can match the opening of Christ’s kingdom to the Gentiles. What would have been the rate of its advancement under the management of those, who, like the apostles hitherto, looked on it as a mere improvement and spiritualization of the old Mosaic form, to which it was, in their view, only an appendage, and not a substitute? Think of what chances there were of its extension under such views to those far western lands where, ages ago, it reached with its benign influences the old Teutonic hordes from whom we draw our race;——or of what possibility there was of ever bringing under the intolerable yoke of Jewish forms, the hundreds of millions who now, out of so many lands and kindreds and tongues, bear the light yoke, and own the simpler faith of Jesus, confessing him Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Yet hitherto, so far from seeing these things in their true light, all the followers of Christ had, notwithstanding his broad and open commission to them, steadily persisted in the notion, that the observance of the regulations laid down by Moses for proselytes to his faith, was equally essential for a full conversion to the faith of Christ. And now too, it required a new and distinctly repeated summons from above, to bring even the great chief of the apostles to the just sense of the freedom of the gospel, and to the practical belief that God was no respecter of persons. But the whole progress of the event, with all its miraculous attestations, left so little doubt of the nature of the change, that Peter, after the manifestation of a holy spirit in the hearts and voices of the Gentile converts, triumphantly appealed to the Jewish brethren who had accompanied him from Joppa, and asked them, “Can any one forbid the water for the baptizing of these, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?” Taking the unanimous suffrage of their silence to his challenge, as a full consent, he gave directions that the believing Romans should be baptized in the name of the Lord, as Jesus in his parting charge had constituted that ordinance for the seal of redemption to every creature, in all the nations to whom the gospel should be preached. Having thus formally enrolled the first Gentile converts, as the free and complete partakers of the blessings of the new covenant, he stayed among them several days, at their request, strengthening their faith, and enlarging their knowledge by his pastoral instruction; which he deemed a task of sufficient importance to detain him, for a while, from his circuit among the new converts, scattered about in other places throughout Palestine, and from any immediate return to his friends and converts at Joppa, where this call had found him.
Meanwhile, this mighty innovation on the established order of sacred things could not be long unknown beyond the cities of Caesarea and Joppa, but was soon announced by the varied voice of rumor to the amazed apostles and brethren at Jerusalem. The impression made on them by this vague report of their great leader’s proceedings, was most decidedly unfavorable; and there seem to have been not a few who regarded this unprecedented act of Peter as a downright abuse of the dignity and authority with which the special commission of his Master had invested him. Doubtless, in that little religious community, as in every other association of men ever gathered, there were already many human jealousies springing up like roots of bitterness, which needed but such an occasion as this, to manifest themselves in decided censure of the man, whose remarkable exaltation over them might seem like a stigma on the capacities or merits of those to whom he was preferred. Those in whose hearts such feelings had been rankling, now found a great occasion for the display of their religious zeal, in this bold movement of their constituted leader, who herein seemed to have presumed on his distinction and priority, to act in a matter of the very highest importance, without the slightest reference to the feelings and opinions of those, who had been with him chosen for the great work of spreading the gospel to all nations. And so much of free opinion and expression was there among them, that this act of the chief apostle called forth complaints both deep and loud, from his brethren, against this open and unexplained violation of the holy ordinances of that ancient law, which was still to them and him the seal and sign of salvation. Peter, at length, after completing his apostolic circuit among the churches, of which no farther account is given to us, returned to Jerusalem to meet these murmurs with the bold and clear declaration of the truth. As soon as he arrived, the grumblers burst out on him with open complaints of his offensive violations of the strict religious exclusiveness of demeanor, which became a son of Israel professing the pure reformed faith of Jesus. The unhesitating boldness with which this charge of a breach of order was made against Peter by the sticklers for circumcision, is a valuable and interesting proof, that all his authority and dignity among them, did not amount to anything like a supremacy; and that whatever he might bind or loose on earth for the high sanction of heaven, he could neither bind the tongues and opinions, nor loose the consciences of these sturdy and free-spoken brethren. Nor does Peter seem to have had the least idea of claiming any exemption from their critical review of his actions; but straightway addressed himself respectfully to them, in a faithful detail of his conduct, and the reasons of it. He distinctly recounted to them the clear and decided call which he considered himself to have received from heaven, by which he was summoned as the spiritual guide of the inquiring Gentiles. And after the honest recital of the whole series of incidents, and of the crowning act of the whole, the imparting to them the outward sign of inward washing from their sins, he boldly appealed to the judgments of his accusers, to say whether, in the face of such a sanction, they would have had him do otherwise. “When the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning, then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said,” (when parting from us, on the top of Olivet, to rise to the bosom of his father, prophetically announcing a new and holy consecration and endowment for our work,) “John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” This peculiar gift thus solemnly announced, we had indeed received at the pentecost, and its outward signs we had thereby learned infallibly by our own experience; and even so, at Caesarea, I recognized in those Gentiles the same tokens by which I knew the workings of divine grace in myself and you. “Forasmuch, then, as God gave them the like gift as to us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I should withstand God?”——This clear and unanswerable appeal silenced the clamors of the bold assertors of the inviolability of Mosaic forms; and when they heard these things, they held their peace, and, softened from their harsh spirit of rebuke, they, in a noble feeling of truly Christian triumph, forgot all their late exclusiveness, in a pure joy for the new and vast extension of the dominion of Christ, secured by this act, whose important consequences they were not slow in perceiving. They praised God for such a beginning of mighty results, and laying aside, in this moment of exultation, every feeling of narrow Jewish bigotry, they acknowledged that “to the Gentiles also, God had granted repentance unto life.”
HEROD AGRIPPA.
At this time, the monarch of the Roman world was Caius Caesar, commonly known by his surname, Caligula. Among the first acts of a reign, whose outset was deservedly popular for its numerous manifestations of prudence and benevolence, forming a strange contrast with subsequent tyranny and folly, was the advancement of a tried and faithful friend, to the regal honors and power which his birth entitled him to claim, and from which the neglectful indifference at first, and afterwards the revengeful spite of the preceding Caesar, Tiberius, had long excluded him. This was Herod Agrippa, grandson of that great Herod, who, by the force of his own exalted genius, and by the favor of the imperial Augustus, rose from the place of a friendless foreign adventurer, to the kingly sway of all Palestine. This extensive power he exercised in a manner which was, on the whole, ultimately advantageous to his subjects; but his whole reign, and the later years of it more particularly, were marked by cruelties the most infamous, to which he was led by almost insane fits of the most causeless jealousy. On none of the subjects of his power, did this tyrannical fury fall with such frequent and dreadful visitations, as on his own family; and it was there, that, in his alternate fits of fury and remorse, he was made the avenger of his own victims. Among these numerous domestic cruelties, one of the earliest, and the most distressing, was the murder of the amiable Mariamne, the daughter of the last remnants of the Asmonaean line,——
“Herself the solitary scion left
Of a time-honored race,”
which Herod’s remorseless policy had exterminated. Her he made his wife, and after a few years sacrificed her to some wild freak of jealousy, only to reap long years of agonizing remorse for the hasty act, when a cooler search had shown, too late, her stainless innocence. But a passionate despot never yet learned wisdom by being made to feel the recoil of his own folly; and in the course of later years this cruelty was equalled, and almost outdone, by a similar act, committed by him on those whom her memory should have saved, if anything could. The innocent and unfortunate Mariamne left him two sons, then mere children, whom the miserable, repentant tyrant, cherished and reared with an affectionate care, which might almost have seemed a partial atonement for the injuries of their murdered mother. After some years passed in obtaining a foreign education at the imperial court of Rome, these two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, returned at their father’s summons, to his court, where their noble qualities, their eloquence and manly accomplishments, as well as the interest excited by their mother’s fate, drew on them the favorable and admiring regard of the whole people. But all that made them admirable and amiable to others, was as powerless as the memory of their mother, to save them from the fury of the suspicious tyrant. Those whose interests could be benefited by such a course, soon found means to make them objects of jealousy and terror to him, and ere long involved them in a groundless accusation of conspiring against his dominion and life. The uneasiness excited in Herod by their great popularity and their commanding talents, led him to believe this charge; and the miserable old tyrant, driven from fear to jealousy, and from jealousy to fury, at last crowned his own wretchedness and their wrongs, by strangling them both, after an imprisonment of so great a length as to take away from his crime even the shadowy excuse of hastiness. This was one of the last acts of a bloody life; but ere he died, returning tenderness towards the unfortunate race of Mariamne, led him to spare and cherish the infant children of Aristobulus, the younger of the two, who left three sons and two daughters to the tender mercies of his cruel father. One of these was the person who is concerned in the next event of Peter’s life, and whose situation and conduct in reference to that affair, was such as to justify this prolonged episode. He received in infancy the name of Agrippa, out of compliment to Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, the favorite and minister of Augustus Caesar, and the steady friend of the great Herod. This name was exclusively borne by this son of Aristobulus in childhood, nor was it ever displaced by any other, except by some of the Jews, who, out of compliment to the restoration of the Herodian line of kings, in place of the Roman sub-governors, gave him the name of his royal grandfather, so that he is mentioned only by the name of Herod in the story of the Acts of the Apostles; but the Romans and Greeks seem to have known him only by his proper name of Agrippa. The tardy repentance of his grandfather did not extend to any important permanent provision for the children of Aristobulus; but on his death a few years after, they were left with the great majority of the numerous progeny of Herod, to the precarious fortunes of dependent princes. The young Agrippa having married his own cousin, Cypros, the daughter of a daughter of Herod and Mariamne, sailed to Rome, where he remained for several years, a sort of beggar about the court of Tiberius Caesar, through whose favor he hoped for an advancement to some one of the thrones in Palestine, which seemed to be prizes for any of Herod’s numerous descendents who could best secure the imperial favor, and depress the possessors in the Caesar’s opinion. Passing at Rome and elsewhere through a romantic variety of fortune, this adventurer was at last lucky in securing to himself the most friendly regard of Caius Caesar, then the expected successor of the reigning emperor. This afterwards proved the basis of his fortunes, which for a while, however, were darkened by the consequences of an imprudent remark made to Caius, expressive of a wish for the death of Tiberias, which was reported to the jealous tyrant by a listening slave, and finally caused the speaker’s close imprisonment during the rest of the emperor’s life. The death of Tiberius, followed by the accession of Caius Caesar to the throne, raised Agrippa from his chains to freedom, and to the most intimate favor of the new monarch. The tetrarchy of Iturea and Trachonitis, then vacant by the death of Philip, was immediately conferred on him; and soon after, Herod Antipas having been exiled, his territories, Galilee and Peraea, were added to the former dominions of Herod Agrippa, and with them was granted to him the title of king, which had never yet been given to any of the descendents of Herod the Great. In this state were the governments of these countries at the time of the events last narrated; but Herod Agrippa, often visiting Rome, left all Palestine in the hands of Publius Petronius, the just and benevolent Roman president of Syria. In this state, affairs remained during all the short reign of Caius Caligula Caesar, who, after four years mostly characterized by folly, vice and cruelty, ended his days by the daggers of assassins. But this great event proved no check to the flourishing fortunes of his favorite, king Herod Agrippa; who, in the course of the events which ended in placing Claudius on the throne, so distinguished himself in the preliminary negociations between the new emperor and the senate, sharing as he did the confidence and regard of both parties, that he was justly considered by all, as the most active means of effecting the comfortable settlement of their difficulties; and he was therefore deemed well deserving of the highest rewards. Accordingly, the first act of Claudius’s government, like the first of Caligula’s, was the presentation of a new kingdom to this favorite of fortune,——Judea being now added to the other countries in his possession, and thus bringing all Palestine into one noble kingdom, beneath his extensive sway. With a dominion comprising all that the policy of his grandfather had been able to attain during a long and active life, he now found himself, at the age of fifty-one, one of the most extraordinary instances of romantic fortune that had ever occurred; and anxious to enjoy something of the solid pleasure of visiting and governing his great and flourishing kingdom, he set sail from Rome, which had been so long to him the scene of such varied fortune, such calamitous poverty and tedious imprisonment,——and now proceeded as the proud king of Palestine, going home in triumph to the throne of his ancestor, supported by the most boundless pledges of imperial favor. The emperor Claudius, though regretting exceedingly the departure of the tried friend whom he had so much reason to love and cherish, yet would not detain him from a happiness so noble and desirable, as that of arranging and ruling his consolidated dominion. Even his departure, however, was made the occasion of new marks of imperial favor; for Claudius gave him letters by which all Roman governors were bound to acknowledge and support him as the rightful sovereign of Palestine. He arrived in Palestine shortly after, and just before the passover, made his appearance in Jerusalem, where he was received with joy and hope by the expecting people, who hailed with open hearts a king whose interests would be identified with theirs, and with the glory of the Jewish name. His high and royal race,——his own personal misfortunes and the unhappy fate of his early-murdered father, as well as his descent from the lamented Mariamne,——his well-known amiability of character, and his regard for the holy Jewish faith, which he had shown by exerting and even risking all his favor with Caligula to prevent, in co-operation with the amiable Petronius, the profanation of the temple as proposed by the erection of the emperor’s statue within it,——all served to throw a most attractive interest around him, and to excite brilliant hopes, which his first acts immediately more than justified. The temple, though now so resplendent with the highest [♦]achievements of art, and though so vast in its foundations and dimensions, was still considered as having some deficiencies, so great, that nothing but royal munificence could supply them. The Jews therefore seized the fortunate occasion of the accession of their new and amiable monarch to his throne, to obtain the perfection of a work on which the hearts of the people were so much set, and the completion of which would so highly advance the monarch in the popular favor. The king at once benignantly heard their request, and gladly availing himself of this opportunity to gratify his subjects, and secure a regard from them which might some day be an advantage to him, immediately ordered the great work to proceed at his expense. The satisfaction of the people and the Sanhedrim was now at the highest pitch; and, [♠]emboldened by these displays of royal favor, some of the sage plotters among them hoped to obtain from him a favorable hearing on a matter which they deemed of still deeper importance to their religion, and in which his support was equally indispensable. This matter brings back the forsaken narrative to consideration.
[♦] “achievments” replaced with “achievements”
[♠] “emboldenened” replaced with “emboldened”
Herod Agrippa.——All the interesting details of this richly romantic life, are given in a most delightful style by Josephus. (Antiquities, XVIII. v. 3,–viii. 9. and XIX. i–ix.) The same is more concisely given by the same author in another place. (Jewish War, II. ix. 5,–xi. 6.) The prominent events of Petronius’s administration, are also given in the former.
THE PEACEFUL PROGRESS OF THE FAITH.
The apostles, after the great events last narrated, gave themselves with new zeal to the work which was now so vastly extended by the opening of the wide field of the Gentiles. Others of the refugees from the popular rage, at the time of Stephen’s murder, had gone even beyond the boundaries of Palestine, bringing into the sphere of apostolic operations a great number of interesting subjects, before unthought of. Some of the bold, free workers, who had heard of the late changes in the views of the apostles, respecting the characters of those for whom the gospel was designed, now no longer limited their efforts of love to the children of the stock of Abraham, but proclaimed the faith of Jesus to those who had before never heard his name. The gospel was thus carried into Syria and Cyprus, and thence rapidly spread into many other countries, where Macedonian conquest and Hellenic colonization had made the Greek the language of cities, courts, commerce, and, to a great extent, of literature. The great city of Antioch soon became a sort of metropolis of the numerous churches, which sprang up in that region, beyond the immediate reach of Jerusalem, now the common home of the apostles, and the center of the Christian, as of the Jewish faith. Grecians as well as Jews, in this new march of the gospel, were made sharers in its blessings; and the multiplication of converts among them was so rapid as to give a new importance, at once, to this sort of Christians. The communication of these events to the apostles at Jerusalem, called for some systematic action on their part, to confirm and complete the good work thus begun by the random and occasional efforts of mere wandering fugitives from persecution. They accordingly selected persons especially fitted for this field of labor, and despatched them to Antioch, to fulfil the duties imposed on the apostles in [♦]reference to this new opening. The details of the operations of these new laborers, will be given in their lives hereafter.
[♦] “refereuce” replaced with “reference”
In performing the various offices required in their domestic and foreign fields of labor, now daily multiplying, Peter and his associates had continued for several years steadily occupied, but achieving no particular action that has received notice in the history of their acts; so that the most of this part of their lives remains a blank to the modern investigator. All that is known is, that between the churches of Syria and Palestine there was established a frequent friendly intercourse, more particularly between the metropolitan churches of Jerusalem and Antioch. From the former went forth preachers to instruct and confirm the new and untaught converts of the latter, who had been so lately strangers to God’s covenant of promise with his people; while from the thriving and benevolent disciples of Antioch were sent back, in grateful recompense, the free offerings of such aid as the prevalence of a general dearth made necessary for the support of their poor and friendless brethren in Jerusalem; and the very men who had been first sent to Antioch with the commission to build up and strengthen that infant church, now returned to the mother church at Jerusalem, with the generous relief which gratitude prompted these new sons to render to the authors of their faith.
ROMAN TOLERANCE.
These events and the occasion of them occurred in the reign of Claudius Caesar, as Luke particularly records,——thus marking the lapse of time during the unregistered period of the apostolic acts; which is also confirmed by the circumstances of Herod Agrippa’s reign, mentioned immediately after, as occurring “about that time;” for, as has been specified above, Herod Agrippa did not rule Judea till the reign of Claudius. The crucifixion of Jesus occurred three years before the death of Tiberius; and as the whole four years of the reign of Caligula was passed over in this space, it could not have been less than ten years after the crucifixion, when these events took place. This calculation allows time for such an advance of the apostolic enterprise, as would, under their devoted energy, make the sect most formidable to those who regarded its success as likely to shake the security of the established order of religious things, by impairing the popular reverence for the regularly constituted heads of Judaism. Such had been its progress, and such was the impression made by its advance. There could no longer be any doubt as to the prospect of its final ascendency, if it was quietly left to prosper under the steady and devoted labors of its apostles, with all the advantages of the re-action which had taken place from the former cruel persecution which they had suffered. For several years the government of Palestine had been in such hands that the Sanhedrim had few advantages for securing the aid of the secular power, in consummating their exterminating plans against the growing heresy. Not long after the time of Pilate, the government of Judea had been committed by the emperor to Publius Petronius, the president of Syria, a man who, on the valuable testimony of Josephus, appears to have been of the most amiable and upright character,——wholly devoted to the promotion of the real interests of the people whom he ruled. On several occasions, he distinguished himself by his tenderness towards the peculiarly delicate religious feelings of the Jews, and once even risked and incurred the wrath of the vindictive Caligula, by disobeying his commands to profane the temple at Jerusalem by the erection of that emperor’s statue within its holy courts,——a violation of the purity of the place which had been suggested to his tyrannical caprice by the spiteful hint of Apion, of Alexandria. But though Petronius, in this matter, showed a disposition to incur every hazard to spare the national and devotional feelings of the Jews so awful an infliction, there is nothing in his conduct which would lead us to suppose that he would sacrifice justice to the gratification of the persecuting malice of the Jews, any more than to the imperious tyranny of Caligula. The fairest conclusion from the events of his administration, is, that he regulated his behavior uniformly by his own sense of justice, with hardly any reference to the wild impulses, either of popular or imperial tyranny. A noble personification of independent and invincible justice; but one not beyond the range of the moral conceptions of a Roman, even under the corrupt and corrupting rule of the Caesars;——for thus wrote the great moral poet of the Augustan age, though breathing the enervating air of a servile court, and living on the favor of a monarch who exacted from his courtiers a reverence truly idolatrous:
Justum et tenacem propositi virum,
Non civium ardor prava jubentium,
Non vultus instantis tyranni
Mente quatit solida. * * *
The moral energy of the Roman character made the exemplifications of this fair ideal not uncommon, even in these latter days of Roman glory. There were some like Petronius, who gave life and reality to this poetical conception of Horace,——“A man just and resolute, unshaken from his firm purpose alike by the wild impulses of popular rage, and by the frown of an overbearing tyrant.” And these were among the chief blessings of the Roman sway, to those lands in which it ruled,——that the great interests of the country were not subjected to the blind movements of a perverse public opinion, changing with each year, and frustrating every good which required a steady policy for its accomplishment,——that the majority of the people were not allowed to tyrannize over the minority, nor the minority over the majority;——and that a mighty power amenable to neither, but whose interest and glory would always coincide with the good of the whole, held over all a dominion unchecked by the demands of popular caprice. But, alas! for the imperfections of all human systems;——among the curses of that Roman sway, must be numbered its liability to fall from the hands of the wise and amiable, into those of the stupid and brutal; changes which but too often occurred,——overturning, by the mismanagement of a moment, the results of years of benevolent and prudent policy. And in this very case, all the benefits of Petronius’s equitable and considerate rule, were utterly neutralized and annihilated by the foolishness or brutality of his successors, till the provoked irritability of the nation at last broke out with a fierceness that for a time overcame the securities even of Roman dominion, and was finally quieted only in the utter ruin of the whole Jewish nation. But during the period of several years following the exit of Pilate, its beneficial energy was felt in the quiet tolerance of religious opinion, which he enforced on all, and which was most highly advantageous to the progress of the doctrine of Christ. To this circumstance may justly be referred that remarkable repose enjoyed by the apostles and their followers from all the interference with their labors by the Roman government. The death of Jesus Christ himself, indeed, was the only act in which the civil power had interfered at all! for the murder of Stephen was a mere freak of mob-violence, a mere Lynch-law proceeding, which the Roman governor would not have sanctioned, if it had been brought under his cognizance,——being done as it was, so directly in the face of those principles of religious tolerance which the policy of the empire enforced every where, excepting cases in which sedition and rebellion against their dominion was combined with religious zealotism, like the instances of the Gaulanitish Judas, Theudas, and others. Even Jesus himself, was thus accused by the Jews, and was condemned by Pilate for his alleged endeavors to excite a revolt against Caesar, and opposing the payment of the Roman taxes,——as is shown by the statement of all the evangelists, and more particularly by Pilate’s inscription on the cross. The persecution which followed the murder of Stephen was not carried on under the sanction of the Roman government, nor yet was it against their authority; for they permitted to the Sanhedrim the punishment of most minor offences, so long as they did not go beyond imprisonment, scourging, banishment, &c. But the punishment of death was entirely reserved to the civil and military power; and if the Jewish magnates had ever formally transgressed this limitation, they would have been instantly punished for it, as a treasonable assumption of that supreme power which their conquerors were determined to guard with the most watchful jealousy. The Sanhedrim, being thus restricted in their means of vengeance, were driven to the low expedient of stirring up the lawless mob to the execution of these deeds of desperate violence, which their religious rulers could wink at, and yet were prepared to disown, when questioned by the Romans, as mere popular ferments, over which they had no control whatever. So they managed with Stephen; for his murder was no doubt preconcerted among the chief men, who caused the formal preamble of a trial, with the design of provoking the mob, in some way, to this act; in which scheme they were too much favored by the fiery spirit of the martyr himself, who had not patience enough with their bigotry, to conceal his abhorrence of it. Their subsequent systematic and avowed acts of violence, it should be observed, were all kept strictly within the well-defined limits of their penal jurisdiction; for there is no evidence whatever that any of the persecuted Hellenists ever suffered death by the condemnation of the Sanhedrim, or by the sentence of a Roman tribunal. The progress of these events, however, showed that this irritating and harassing system of whippings, imprisonments and banishments, had a tendency rather to excite the energies of these devoted heretics, than to check or crush their spirit of innovation and denunciation. Among the numerous instances of malignant assault on the personal rights of these sufferers, and the cruel violation of the delicacy due to the weaker sex, there must have been, also, many occasions in which the ever-varying feelings of the public would be moved to deep sympathy with sufferers who bore, so steadily and heroically, punishments manifestly disproportioned to the offense with which they were charged,——a sympathy which might finally rise to a high and resistless indignation against their remorseless oppressors. It is probable, therefore, that this persecution was at last allayed by other causes than the mere defection of its most zealous agent. The conviction must have been forced on the minds of the persecutors, that this system, with all its paltry and vexatious details, must be given up, or exchanged for one whose operations should be so vast and sweeping in its desolating vengeance, as to overawe and appal, rather than awaken zeal in the objects of the punishment, or sympathy in the beholders. The latter alternative, however, was too hopeless, under the steady, benignant sway of Petronius, to be calculated upon, until a change should take place which should give the country a ruler of less independent and scrupulous character, and more disposed to sacrifice his own moral sense to the attainment of favor with the most important subjects of his government. Until that desirable end should be attained, in the course of the frequent changes of the imperial succession, it seemed best to let matters take their own course; and they accordingly dropped all active proceedings, leaving the new sect to progress as it might, with the impulse gained from the re-action consequent on this late unfortunate excitement against it. But they still kept a watchful eye on their proceedings, though with hands for a while powerless; and treasured up accumulating vengeance through tedious years, for the day when the progress of political changes should bring the secular power beneath their influence, and make it subservient to their purpose of dreadful retribution. That day had now fully come.
PETER’S THREATENED MARTYRDOM.
The long expected favorite and friend of the Jewish people, having been thus hailed sovereign by their grateful voices, and having strengthened his throne and influence by his opening acts of liberality and devotion to the national faith, now entered upon a reign which presented only the portents of a course most auspicious to his own fame and his people’s good. Uniting in his person the claims of the Herodian and Asmonaean lines,——with the blood of the heroic Maccabees in his veins,——crowned by the imperial lord of the civilized world, whose boundless power was pledged in his support, by the obligations of an intimate personal friendship, and of a sincere gratitude for the attainment of the throne of the Caesars through his prompt and steady exertions,——received with universal joy and hope by all the dwellers of the consolidated kingdoms of his dominion, which had been long thriving under the mild and equitable administration of a prudent governor,——there seemed nothing wanting to complete the happy auspices of a glorious reign, under which the ancient honors of Israel should be more than retrieved from the decline of ages. Yet what avails the bright array of happily conspiring circumstances, to prince or people, against the awful majesty of divine truth, or the pure, simple energy of human devotion? Within the obscurer corners of his vast territories, creeping for room under the outermost colonnades of that mighty temple whose glories he had pledged himself to renew,——wandering like outcasts from place to place,——seeking supporters only among the unintellectual mass of the people,——were a set of men of whom he probably had not heard until he entered his own dominions. They were now suggested to his notice for the first time, by the decided voice of censure from the devout and learned guardians of the purity of the law of God, who invoked the aid of his sovran power, to check and utterly uproot this heresy, which the unseasonable tolerance of Roman government had too long shielded from the just visitations of judicial vengeance. Nor did the royal Agrippa hesitate to gratify, in this slight and reasonable matter, the express wishes of the reverend heads of the Jewish faith and law. Ah! how little did he think, that in that trifling movement was bound up the destiny of ages, and that its results would send his name——though then so loved and honored——like Pharaoh’s, down to all time, a theme of religious horror and holy hatred, to the unnumbered millions of a thousand races, and lands then unknown;——an awful doom, from which one act of benign protection, or of prudent kindness, to that feeble band of hated, outcast innovators, might have retrieved his fame, and canonized it in the faithful memory of the just, till the glory of the old patriarchs and prophets should grow dim. But, without one thought of consequences, a prophetic revelation of which would so have appalled him, he unhesitatingly stretched out his arm in vindictive cruelty over the church of Christ, for the gratification of those whose praise was to him more than the favor of God. Singling out first the person whom momentary circumstances might render most prominent or obnoxious to censure, he at once doomed to a bloody death the elder son of Zebedee, the second of the great apostolic THREE. No sooner was this cruel sentence executed, than, with a most remarkable steadiness in the execution of his bloody plan, he followed up this action, so pleasing to the Jews, by another similar movement. Peter, the active leader of the heretical host, ever foremost in braving the authority of the constituted teachers of the law, and in exciting commotion and dissatisfaction among the commonalty, was now seized by a military force, too strong to fear any resistance from popular movements, which had so much deterred the Sanhedrim. This occurred during the week of the passover; and such was king Agrippa’s profound regard for all things connected with his national religion, that he would not violate the sanctity of this holy festival by the execution of a criminal, however deserving of vengeance he might seem in that instance. The fate of Peter being thus delayed, he was therefore committed to prison, (probably in castle Antonia,) and to prevent all possibility of his finding means to escape prepared ruin again, he was confined to the charge of sixteen Roman soldiers, divided into four sets, of four men each, who were to keep him under constant supervision day and night, by taking turns, each set an equal time; and according to the established principles of the Roman military discipline, with the perfect understanding that if, on the conclusion of the passover, the prisoner was not forthcoming, the guards should answer the failure with their lives. These decided and careful arrangements being made, the king, with his gratified friends in the Sanhedrim and among the rabble, gave themselves up to the enjoyment of the great national festival, with a peculiar zest, hightened by the near prospect of the utter overthrow of the advancing heresy, by the sweeping blow that robbed them of their two great leaders, and more especially of him who had been so active in mischievous attempts to perpetuate the memory of the original founder of the sect, and to frustrate the good effect of his bloody execution, by giving out that the crucified Jesus still lived, and would yet come in vengeance on his murderers. While such triumphant reflections swelled the festal enjoyments of the powerful foes of Christ, the unhappy company of his persecuted disciples passed through this anniversary-week with the most mournful reminiscences and anticipations. Ten years before, in unutterable agony and despair, they had parted, as they then supposed forever, with their beloved Lord; and now, after years of devotion to the work for which he had commissioned them, they were called to renew the deep sorrows of that parting, in the removal of those who had been foremost among them in the great work, cheering them and leading them on through toil and peril, with a spirit truly holy, and with a fearless energy, kindred with that of their divine Lord. Of these two divinely appointed chiefs, one had already poured out his blood beneath the executioner’s sword, and the other, their great leader, the Rock of the church, was now only waiting the speedy close of the festal week, to crown his glorious course, and his enemies’ cruel policy, by the same bloody doom; meanwhile held in the safe keeping of an ever-watchful Roman guard, forbidding even the wildest hope of escape. Yet why should they wholly despair? On that passover, ten years before, how far more gloomy and hopeless the glance they threw on the cross of their Lord! Yet from that doubly hopeless darkness, what glorious light sprang up to them? And was the hand that then broke through the bands of death and the gates of Hades, now so shortened that it could not sever the vile chains of paltry tyranny which confined this faithful apostle, nor open wide the guarded gates of his castle prison? Surely there was still hope for faith which had been taught such lessons of undoubting trust in God. Nor were they thoughtless of the firm support and high consolations which their experience afforded. In prayer intense and unceasing, they poured out their souls in sympathetic grief and supplication, for the relief of their great elder brother from his deadly peril; and in sorrowful entreaty the whole church continued day and night, for the safety of Peter.
Castle Antonia.——For Josephus’s account of the position and erection of this work, see my note on page [95], (section 8.) There has been much speculation about the place of the prison to which Peter was committed. The sacred text (Acts xii. 10,) makes it plain that it was without the city itself, since after leaving the prison it was still necessary to enter the city by “the iron gate.” Walch, Kuinoel and Bloomfield adopt the view that it was in one of the towers or castles that fortified the walls. Wolf and others object to the view that it was without the walls; because, as Wolf says, it was not customary to have public prisons outside of the cities, since the prisoners might in that case be sometimes rescued by a bold assault from some hardy band of comrades, &c. But this objection is worth nothing against castle Antonia, which, though it stood entirely separated from the rest of the city, was vastly strong, and by its position as well as fortification, impregnable to any common force;——a circumstance which would at once suggest and recommend it as a secure place for one who, like Peter, had escaped once from the common prison. There was always a Roman garrison in Antonia. (Josephus, Jewish War, V. v. 8.)
In the steady contemplation of the nearness of his bloody doom, the great apostle remained throughout the passover, shut off from all the consolations of fraternal sympathy, and awaiting the end of the few hours which were still allotted by the religious scruples of his mighty sovran. In his high and towering prison in Castle Antonia, parted only by a deep, broad rift in the precipitous rocks, from the great terraces of the temple itself, from whose thronged courts now rung the thanksgiving songs of a rejoicing nation, he heard them, sending up in thousands of voices the praise of their fathers’ God, who still remembered Israel in mercy, renewing their ancient glories under the bright and peaceful dominion of their new-crowned king. And with the anthems of praise to God which sounded along the courts and porches of the temple, were no doubt heard, too, the thanks of many a grateful Hebrew for the goodness of the generous king, who had pledged his royal word to complete the noble plan of that holy pile, as suited the splendid conceptions of the founder. And this was the king whose decree had doomed that lonely and desolate prisoner in the castle, to a bloody and shameful death,——as a crowning offering at the close of the great festival; and how few among that vast throng, before whose eyes he was to yield his life, would repine at the sentence that dealt exterminating vengeance on the obstinately heretical preacher of the crucified Nazarene’s faith! Well might such dark visions of threatening ruin appal a heart whose enthusiasm had caught its flame from the unholy fires of worldly ambition, or devoted its energies to the low purpose of human ascendency. And truly sad would have been the lonely thoughts of this very apostle, if this doom had found him in the spirit which first moved him to devote himself to the cause which now required the sacrifice of life. But higher hopes and feelings had inspired his devoted exertions for ten years, and higher far, the consolations which now sustained him in his friendless desolation. This very fate, he had long been accustomed to regard as the earthly meed of his labors; and he had too often been threatened with it, to be overwhelmed by its near prospect. Vain, then, were all solemn details of that awful sentence, to strike terror into his fixed soul,——vain the dark sureties of the high, steep rock, the massive, lofty walls, the iron gates, the ever-watchful Roman guards, the fetters and manacles, to control or check the
“Eternal spirit of the chainless mind!——
Brightest in dungeons, Liberty! thou art,
For there thy habitation is the heart.”
Thus sublimely calm, sat Peter in his prison, waiting for death. Day after day, all day long, the joyous feast went on beneath him:——the offering, the prayer and the hymn varying the mighty course, from the earliest morning supplication to the great evening sacrifice. Up rolled the glorious symphony of the Levites’ thousand horns, and the choral harmony of their chanting voices,——up rolled the clouds of precious incense to the skiey throne of Israel’s God,——and with this music and fragrance, up rolled the prayers of Israel’s worshiping children; but though the glorious sound and odor fell delightfully on the senses of the lonely captive, as they passed upwards by his high prison-tower, no voice of mercy came from below, to cheer him in his desolation. But from above, from the heaven to which all these prayer-bearing floods of incense and harmony ascended, came down divine consolation and miraculous delivery to this poor, despised prisoner, with a power and a witness that not all the solemn pomp of the passover ceremony could summon in reply to its costly offerings. The feeble band of sorrowing Nazarenes, from their little chamber, were lifting unceasing voices of supplication for their brother, in his desperate prospects, which entered with his solitary prayer into the ears of the God of Hosts, while the ostentatious worship of king Agrippa and his reverend supporters, only brought back shame and woful ruin on their impious supplications for the divine sanction to their bloody plans of persecution. At last the solemn passover-rites of “the last great day of the feast” were ended;——the sacrifice, the incense and the song, rose no more from the sanctuary,——the fires on the altars went out, the hum and the roar of worshiping voices was hushed, and the departing throngs poured through the “ETERNAL” and the “BEAUTIFUL” gates, till at last the courts and porches of the temple were empty through all their vast extent, and hushed in a silence, deep as the ruinous oblivion to which the voice of their God had doomed them shortly to pass; and all was still, save where the footfall of the passing priest echoed along the empty colonnades, as he hurried over the vast pavements into the dormitories of the inner temple; or where the mighty gates thundered awfully as they swung heavily together under the strong hands of the weary Levites, and sent their long reverberations among the walls. Even these closing sounds soon ceased also; the Levite watchmen took their stand on the towers of the temple, and paced their nightly rounds along the flat roofs, guarding with careful eyes their holy shrine, lest the impious should, under cover of night, again profane it, (as the Samaritans had secretly done a few years before.) And on the neighboring castle of Antonia, the Roman garrison, too, had set their nightly watch, and the iron warriors slumbered, each in his turn, till the round of duty should summon him to relieve guard. Within the dungeon keep of the castle, was still safely held the weighty trust that was to be answered for, on peril of life; and all arrangements were made which so great a responsibility seemed to require. The prisoner already somewhat notorious for making unaccountable escapes from guarded dungeons, was secured with a particularity, quite complimentary to his dexterity as a jail-breaker. The quaternion on duty was divided into two portions; each half being so disposed and posted as to effect the most complete supervision of which the place was capable,——two men keeping watch outside of the well-bolted door of the cell, and two within, who, not limited to the charge of merely keeping their eyes on the prisoner, had him fastened to their bodies, by a chain on each side. In this neighborly proximity to his rough companions, Peter was in the habit of passing the night; but in the day-time was freed from one of these chains, remaining attached to only one soldier. (This arrangement was in accordance with the standard mode of guarding important state-prisoners among the Romans.) Matters being thus accommodated, and the watch being set for the next three hours, Peter’s two fast companions, finding him but indifferent company, no doubt, notwithstanding his sociable position, soon grew quite dull in the very tame employment of seeing that he did not run away with them; for as to getting away from them, the idea could have no place at all in the supposition. These sturdy old veterans had probably, though Gentiles, conformed so far to Judaical rituals as to share in the comfortable festivities of this great religious occasion, and could not have suffered any heathenish prejudices to prevent them from a hearty participation in the joyous draughts of the wine, which as usual did its part to enliven the hearts and countenances of all those who passed the feast-day in Jerusalem. The passover coming so many months after the vintage too, the fermentation of a long season must have considerably energized “the pure juice of the grape,” so that its exhilarant and narcotic powers could have been by no means feeble; and if the change thus wrought by time and its own inherent powers, at all corresponds to that which takes places in cider in this country under the same circumstances, the latter power must have so far predominated, as to leave them rather below than above the ordinary standard of vivacity, and induce that sort of apathetic indifference to consequences, which is far from appropriate in a soldier on duty over an important trust. Be that as it may, Peter’s two room-mates soon gave themselves quietly up to slumber. If any scruple arose in their heavy heads as to the risk they ran in case of his escape, that was soon soothed by the consideration of the vast number of impassable securities upon the prisoner. They might well reason with themselves, “If this sharp Galilean can manage to break his chains without waking us, and burst open this stout door in spite of bars, without rousing the sentinels who are posted against it on the outside, and make his way unseen and unchecked through all the gates and guards of Castle Antonia——why, let him. But there’s no use in our losing a night’s rest by any uneasiness about such a chance.” So stretching themselves out, they soon fell into a sound sleep, none the less pleasant for their lying in such close quarters; for it is natural to imagine, that in a chilly March night in Jerusalem, stowing three in a bed was no uncomfortable arrangement. Circumstanced as he was, Peter had nothing to do but conform to their example, for the nature of his attachment to them was such, that he had no room for the indulgence of his own fancies about his position; and he also lay down to repose. He slept. The sickening and feverish confinement of his close dungeon had not yet so broken his firm and vigorous frame, nor so drained its energies, as to hinder the placid enjoyment of repose; nor did the certainty of a cruel and shameful death, to which he was within a few hours to be dragged, before the eyes of a scoffing rabble, move his high spirit from its self-possession:——
“And still he slumbered
While in ‘decree, his hours’ were numbered.”
He slept. And from that dark prison-bed what visions could beguile his slumbering thoughts? Did fancy bear them back against the tide of time, to the humble, peaceful home of his early days,——to the varied scenes of the lake whereon he loved to dwell, and along whose changeful waters he had learned so many lessons of immortal faith and untrembling hope in his Lord? Amid the stormy roar of its dark waters, the voice of that Lord once called him to tempt the raging deep with his steady foot, and when his feeble faith, before untried, failed him in the terrors of the effort, His supporting hand recalled him to strength and safety. And had that lesson of faith and hope been so poorly learned, that in this dark hour he could draw no consolation from such remembrances? No. He could even now find that consolation, and he did. In the midst of this “sea of troubles,” he felt the same mighty arm now upholding him, that bore him above the waters, “when the blue wave rolled nightly on deep Galilee.” Again he had stood by those waters, swelling brightly in the fresh morning breeze, with his risen Lord beside him, and received the solemn commission, oft-renewed, to feed the flock that was so soon to lose the earthly presence of its great Shepherd. In the steady and dauntless execution of that parting commission, he had in the course of long years gone on in the face of death,——“feeding the lambs” of Christ’s gathering, and calling vast numbers to the fold; and for the faithful adherence to that command, he now sat waiting the fulfilment of the doom that was to cut him down in the midst of life and in the fullness of his vigor. Yet the nearness of this sad reward of his labors, seemingly offering so dreadful an interpretation of the mystical prophecy that accompanied that charge, moved him to no desperation or distress, and still he calmly slept, with as little agitation and dread as at the transfiguration, and at the agony of the crucifixion eve; nor did that compunction for heedless inattention, that then hung upon his slumbering senses, now disturb him in the least. It is really worth noticing, in justice to Peter, that his sleepiness, of which so many curious instances are presented in the sacred narrative, was not of the criminally selfish kind that might be supposed on a partial view. If he slept during his Master’s prayers on Mount Hermon, and in Gethsemane, he slept too in his own condemned cell; and if in his bodily infirmity he had forgotten to watch and pray when death threatened his Lord, he was now equally indifferent to his own impending destruction. He was, evidently, a man of independent and regular habits. Brought up a hard-working man, he had all his life been accustomed to repose whenever he was at leisure, if he needed it; and now too, though the “heathen might rage, and the people imagine a vain thing,——though the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers took counsel together” against him, and doomed him to a cruel death,——in spite of all these, Peter would sleep when he was sleepy. Not the royal Agrippa could sleep sounder on his pavilioned couch of purple. In the calm confidence of one steadily fixed in a high course, and perfectly prepared for every and any result, the chained apostle gave himself coolly to his natural rest, without borrowing any trouble from the thought, that in the morning the bloody sword was to lay him in “the sleep that knows no earthly waking.” So slept the Athenian sage, on the eve of his martyrdom to the cause of clearly and boldly spoken truth,——a sleep that so moved the wonder of his agonizing disciples, at the power of a good conscience and a practical philosophy to sustain the soul against the horrors of such distress; but a sleep not sounder nor sweeter than that of the poor Galilean outcast, who, though not knowing even the name of philosophy, had a consolation far higher, in the faith that his martyred Lord had taught him in so many experimental instructions. That faith, learned by the painful conviction of his own weakness, and implanted in him by many a fall when over confident in his own strength, was now his stay and comfort, so that he might say to his soul, “Hope thou in God, for I shall yet praise him, who is the help of my countenance and my God.” Nor did that hope prove groundless. From him in whom he trusted, came a messenger of deliverance; and from the depths of a danger the most appalling and threatening, he was soon brought, to serve that helping-God through many faithful years, feeding the flock till, in his old age, “another should gird him, and carry him whither he would not.” He who had prayed for him in the revelation of his peculiar glories on Mount Hermon, and had so highly consecrated him to the great cause, had yet greater things for him to do; and to new works of love and glory he now called him, from the castle-prison of his royal persecutor.
Ten years.——This piece of chronology is thus settled. Jesus Christ, according to all common calculation, was crucified as early as the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius. Irenaeus maintains that it was in the fifteenth of that reign. Eusebius and Epiphanius fix it in the eighteenth, or, according to Petavius’s explanation of their meaning, in the seventeenth of his actual reign. Tertullian, Julius Africanus, Jerome, and Augustin, put it in the sixteenth. Roger Bacon, Paulus Burgensis, and Tostatus, also support this date, on the ground of an astronomical calculation of the course of the moon, fixing the time when the passover must have occurred, so as to accord with the requirement of the Mosaic law, that it should be celebrated on a new moon. But Kepler has abundantly shown the fallacy of this calculation. Antony Pagus, also, though rejecting this astronomical basis, adheres to the opinion of Tertullian, Jerome, &c. Baronius fixes it in the nineteenth of Tiberius. Pearson, L. Cappel, Spanheim, and Witsius, with the majority of the moderns, in the twentieth of Tiberius. So that the unanimous result of all these great authorities, places it as early as this last mentioned year. A full and highly satisfactory view of all these chronological points and opinions, is given by the deeply learned Antony Pagus, in his great “Critical Historico-Chronological Review of Baronii.” Saecul. I. Ann. Per. Gr.–Rom. 5525. ¶ 3–13.
Now, from Josephus it is perfectly evident that Agrippa did not leave Rome until some time after the beginning of the reign of Claudius, and it is probable not before the close of the first year. Counting backwards through the four years of Caligula, this makes five years after the death of Tiberius, and eight on the latest calculation from the death of Christ; while according to the higher and earlier authority, it amounts to nine, ten, eleven, or to twelve years from the crucifixion to Agrippa’s arrival in Judea. And moreover, it is not probable that the persecution referred to occurred immediately on his arrival. Indeed, from the close way in which Luke connects Agrippa’s death with the preceding events, it would seem as if he would fix his “going down from Jerusalem to Caesarea,” and his death at the latter place, very soon after the escape of Peter. This of course being in the end of Claudius’s third year, brings the events above, down to the eleventh or twelfth from the crucifixion, even according to the latest conjecture as to the date of that event. Probably, however, the connection of the two events was not as close as a common reading of the Acts would lead one to suppose.
So also Lardner, in his Life of Peter, says, “The death of Herod Agrippa happened before the end of that year,” in which he escaped. (Lardner’s Works 4to. Vol. III. p. 402, bottom.)
Natalis Alexander fixes Peter’s escape in the second year of Claudius, and the forty-fourth from Christ’s birth, which is, according to his computation, the tenth from his death. (Church History, Saec. I. Cap. vi.)
A chain on each side.——That this was a common mode of fastening such prisoners among the Romans, appears from the authorities referred to by Wolf, (Cur. Philology in Acts xii. 6,) Kuinoel and Rosenmueller, (quoting from Walch,) and Bloomfield, all in loc.
Quaternion.——That is, a band of four. See Bloomfield in defense of my mode of disposing them about the prison,——also Rosenmueller, &c. Wolf quotes appositely from Polybius; but Kuinoel is richest of all in quotations and illustrations. (Acts xii. 4, 5.)
THE DELIVERANCE.
Peter was now quietly sleeping between his two guards, when his rest was suddenly broken by a smart blow on the side, too energetically given to be mistaken for an accidental knock from the elbow of one of his heavy bed-fellows. Rousing his senses, and opening his eyes, he was startled by a most remarkable light shining throughout his dungeon, which his last waking glance had left in utter darkness. In this unaccountable illumination, he saw standing before him and bending over him, a form in which he could recognize only the divine messenger of deliverance. The shock of such a surprise must have been overwhelming;——to be waked from a sound sleep by an appearance so utterly unearthly, might have struck horror into the stoutest heart; but Peter seems to have suffered no such emotion to hinder his attendance to the heavenly call. The apparition, before he could exercise thought enough to sit up of himself, had raised him up from his bed, and that without the slightest alarm to his still slumbering keepers,——for “immediately the chains fell from his hands,”——a motion which by the rattling of the falling irons should have aroused the sleepers if any sound could have impressed their senses. The impulse of the now unmanacled captive might have been to spring forth his dungeon without the slightest delay, but his deliverer’s next command forbade any such unnecessary haste. His first words were, “Gird thyself; and tie on thy sandals.” Before laying himself down, he had, as usual, thrown off his outer garments and loosened his girdle, so that his under dress need not so much confine him in sleep as to prevent that perfect relaxation which is necessary for comfortable repose. Just as now-a-days, a man in taking up such a lodging as often falls to a traveler’s lot, will seldom do more than pull off his coat and boots, as Peter did, and perhaps unbutton his waist-band and suspenders, so that on a sudden alarm from his rest, the first direction would very properly be, to “gird himself,” (button his trowsers,) “and tie on his sandals,” (put on his shoes or boots.) The next direction given to Peter, also, “Cast thy garment about thee,” (put on thy coat,) would be equally appropriate. The meaning of all this particularity and deliberation was, no doubt, that there was no need whatever of hurry or slyness about the escape. It was not to be considered a mere smart trick of jail-breaking, by which Peter was to crawl out of his dungeon in such a hurry as to leave his coat and shoes behind him, but a truly miraculous providence insuring his deliverance with a completeness and certainty that allowed him to take every thing that belonged to him. Having now perfectly accoutred himself in his ordinary style, Peter immediately obeyed the next order of his deliverer,——“Follow me.” Leaving his two bed-fellows and room-mates sleeping hard, without the slightest idea of the evacuation of the premises which was so deliberately going on, to their great detriment, Peter now passed out through the open door, following the divine messenger in a state of mind altogether indescribable, but still with just sense enough to obey the directions which thus led him on to blissful freedom. The whole scene bore so perfectly the character of one of those enchanting dreams of liberty with which painful hope often cheats the willing senses of the poor captive in slumber, that he might well and wisely doubt the reality of an appearance so tempting, and which his wishes would so readily suggest to his forgetful spirit. But passing on with his conductor, he moved between the sentinels posted at the doors, who were also equally unaware of the movement going on so boldly under their noses, or rather over them, for they, too, were faster bound in slumber than their prisoner had been in his chains; and he now stepped over their outstretched bodies as they lay before the entrances. These soldiers, too, evidently looked upon their duty as a sort of sinecure, rationally concluding that their two stout comrades on the inside were rather more than a match for the fettered and manacled captive, and that if he should be at all obstreperous, or even uneasy, the noise would soon enough awake them from their nap. And thus excessive precaution is very apt to overshoot itself, each part of the arrangement relying too much on the security of all the rest. The two passengers soon reached the great iron gate of the castle, through which they must pass in order to enter the city. But all the seeming difficulties of this passage vanished as soon as they approached it. The gate swung its enormous mass of metal self-moving through the air, and the half-entranced Peter went on beneath the vacant portal, and now stood without the castle, once more a free man in the fresh, pure air. The difficulties and dangers were not all over yet, however. During all the great feast-days, when large assemblies of people were gathered at Jerusalem from various quarters, to guard against the danger of riots and insurrection in these motley throngs,——the armed Roman force on duty, as Josephus relates, was doubled and tripled, occupying several new posts around the temple, and, as the same historian particularly mentions, on the approaches of castle Antonia, where its foundations descended towards the terraces of the temple, and gave access to the colonnades of the temple. On all these places the guard must have been under arms during this passover, and even at night the sentries would be stationed at all the important posts, as a reasonable security against the numerous strangers of a dubious character, who now thronged the city throughout. Yet all these peculiar precautions, which, at this time, presented so many additional difficulties to the escaping apostle, hindered him not in the least. Entering the city, he followed the footsteps of his blessed guide, unchecked, till they had passed on through the first street, when all at once, without sign or word of farewell, the mysterious deliverer vanished, leaving Peter alone in the silent city, but free and safe. Then flashed upon his mind the conviction of the true character of the apparition. The departure of his guide leaving him to seek his own way, his senses were, by the necessity of this self-direction, recalled from the state of stupefaction, in which he had mechanically followed on from the prison. With the first burst of reflection, he broke out in the exclamation, “Now I know of a truth, that the Lord has sent forth his messenger, and has rescued me out of the hand of Herod, in spite of all the expectation of the Jewish people.” Refreshed and encouraged by this impression, he now used his thoroughly awakened senses to find his exact situation, and after looking about him, he made his way through the dark streets to a place where he knew he should find those whose despairing hearts would be inexpressibly rejoiced by the news of his deliverance. This was the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where the disciples were accustomed to assemble. Going up to the gate-way, he rapped on the door, and at once aroused those within; for in their sleepless distress for the imprisoned apostle, several of the brethren had given up all thoughts of sleep, and, as Peter had suspected, were now watching in prayer within this house. The noise of a visitant at this unseasonable hour of the night, immediately brought to the door a lively damsel, named Rhoda; who, according to the Jewish custom of employing females in this capacity, acted as portress of the mansion of Mary. Prudently requiring some account of the person who made this late call, before she opened the door of the persecuted Christians to an unknown and perhaps an ill-disposed character, she was struck with almost frantic joy at hearing the well-known voice of the much mourned Peter, craving admittance. In the highth of her thoughtless gladness, she ran off at once to make known the delightful fact to the disciples in the house, without even seeming to think of the desirableness of admitting the apostle, perhaps because she very naturally wanted to tell such pleasant news first herself. Bursting into the room where the disciples were at prayer for their lamented leader, whom they supposed to be then fast bound for death in the dungeon of Antonia, she communicated the joyful fact, that “Peter was before the gate.” A declaration so extravagantly improbable, at once suggested the idea of her having lost her wits through her affectionate sorrow for the sufferings and anticipated death of the great apostle, and they therefore replied, “Thou art crazy.” Rhoda, somewhat excited by such a provoking expression of incredulity, loudly repeated her slighted piece of good news, and so gravely maintained the truth of it, that some of the more superstitious at last began to think there must be something in it, and seriously suggested, that it must be a supernatural messenger come to give them notice of his certain doom,——“It is his guardian angel.” Peter, however, was all this while standing outside during this grave debate about his real entity, and shivering with the cold of a chilly March night, grew quite impatient at the girl’s inconsiderate folly, and knocked away with might and main, making a noise of most unspiritual character, till at last the disciples determined to cut short the debate by an actual observation; so opening the door to the shivering apostle, the light brought his material existence to a certainty beyond all doubt. Their amazement and joy was bursting forth with a vivacity which quite made up for their previous incredulity; when the apostle, making a hushing sign with his hand,——and with a reasonable fear, too, no doubt, that their obstreperous congratulations might be heard in other houses around, so as to alarm the neighbors and bring out some spiteful Jews, who would procure his detection and recapture,——having obtained silence, went on to give them a full account of his being brought out of prison by the Lord, and after finishing his wonderful story, said to them, “Tell these things to James and the brethren.” From this it would seem that the apostles were all somewhere else, probably having found that a temporary concealment was expedient for their safety, but were still not far from the city. His own personal danger was of so imminent a character, however, that Jerusalem could not be a safe place for him during the search that would be immediately instituted after him by his disappointed and enraged persecutors. It was quite worth while, therefore, for him to use the remaining darkness of the night to complete his escape; and without staying to enjoy their outflowing sympathies, he bade them a hasty farewell, and, as the historian briefly says, went to ANOTHER PLACE. Where this “other place” was, he does not pretend to tell or know, and the only certain inference to be drawn from the circumstance is, that it was beyond the reach or knowledge of the mighty and far-ruling king, who had taken such particular pains to secure Peter’s death. The probabilities as to the real place of his retirement will, however, be given, as soon as the sequel of events in Jerusalem has been narrated, as far as concerns the discovery of his escape.
Bright light.——Some commentators have attempted to make out an explanation of this phenomenon, by referring the whole affair to the effects of a sudden flash and stroke of lightning, falling on the castle, and striking all the keepers senseless,——melting Peter’s chains, and illuminating the place, so that Peter, unhurt amid the general crash, saw this opportunity for escaping, and stepping over their prostrate bodies, made his way out of the prison, and was out of sight before they came to. The most important objection to this ingenious speculation is, that it directly contradicts every verse in Luke’s account of the escape, as well as the general spirit of the narrative. Another weighty reason is, that the whole series of natural causes and effects, proposed as a substitute for the simple meaning, is brought together in such forced and uncommon coincidences, as to require a much greater effort of faith and credulity for its belief, than the miraculous view, which it quite transcends in incredibility. The introduction of explanations of miracles by natural phenomena, is justifiable only so far as these may illustrate the accompaniments of the event, by showing the mode in which those things which are actually mentioned as physical results, operated in producing the impressions described. Thus, when thunder and lightning are mentioned in connection with miraculous events, they are to be considered as real electrical discharges, made to accompany and manifest the presence of God; and where lambent flames are described as appearing in a storm, they, like the corpos santos, are plainly also results of electrical discharges. So too, when mighty winds are mentioned, they are most honestly taken to be real winds, and not deceptive sounds or impressions; and when a cloud is mentioned, it is but fair to consider it a real cloud, made up, like all other clouds, of vapor, and not a mere non-entity, or a delusion existing only in the minds of those who are mentioned as beholding it. But where nothing of this kind is spoken of, and where a distinct personal presence is plainly declared, the attempt to substitute a physical accident for such an apparition, is a direct attack on the honesty of the statement. Such attempts, too, are devoid of the benefits of such illustrations as I have alluded to as desirable; they bring in a new set of difficulties with them, without removing any of those previously obstructing the interpretation of the facts. In this case, the only circumstance which could be reasonably made to agree with the idea of lightning, is the mention of the bright light; while throughout the whole account, the presence of a supernaturally mysterious person, acting and speaking, is perfectly unquestionable. The violation of all probability, shown in this forced explanation, will serve as a fair instance of the mode in which many modern German critics are in the habit of distorting the simple, manifest sense of the sacred writers, for the sake of dispensing with all supernatural occurrences. (See Kuinoel for an enlarged view and discussion of this opinion. Other views of the nature of the phenomenon are also given by him, and by Rosenmueller, on Acts xii. 7.)
Morning dawned at last upon the towers and temple-columns of the Holy City. On the gold-sheeted roofs and snowy-pillared colonnades of the house of God, the sunlight poured with a splendor hardly more glorious than the insupportable brilliancy that was sent back from their dazzling surfaces, streaming like a new morning upon the objects around, whose nearer sides would otherwise have been left in shade by the eastern rays. Castle Antonia shared in this general illumination, and at the first blaze of sunrise, the order of Roman service announced the moment for relieving guard. The bustle of the movement of the new sentries towards their stands, must at last have reached the ears of Peter’s forsaken companions. Their first waking thoughts would of course be on their responsible charge, and they now became for the first time aware of the important deficiency. In vain did their heavy eyes, at first winking with sleepiness, but now wide open with amazement, search the dim vacancy for their eloped bed-fellow. The most inquisitive glance fell only on the blank space between them, scarcely blanker than the forlorn visages of the poor keepers, who saw in this disappearance the seal of their certain death, for having let the prisoner escape. But they had not much time to consider their misfortune, or condole upon it; for the change of sentries now brought to the door the quaternion whose turn on duty came next. With a miserable grace did the unhappy occupants of the cell show themselves at the open door, with the empty chains and fetters dangling at their sides, from which their late companion had so curiously slipped. Most uncomfortable must have been the aspect of things to the two sentinels who had been keeping their steady watch outside of the door, and who shared equally with the inside keepers, in the undesirable responsibilities of this accident. There stood their comrades with the useless chains displayed in their original attachments; but, amazing! what in the world had they done with the prisoner? The ludicrous distress and commotion resulting from this unpleasant revelation, was evidently well appreciated even by the sacred historian, whose brief but pithy expression is not without a latent comic force. “There was no small stir among the soldiers to know what was become of Peter.” A general search into all the holes and corners of the dungeon, of course, ensued; and the castle was no doubt ransacked from top to bottom for the runaway, whose escape from its massive gates seemed still impossible. But not even his cloak and sandals, which he had laid beside him at the last change of guards,——not a shred, not a thread had been left to hint at the mode of his abstraction. Yet this was so bad a story for the ears of the royal Agrippa, that it would not do to give up the search while any chance whatever remained. But all rummaging was perfectly fruitless; and with sorrowful hearts, they now went with their report to the vindictive king, to acknowledge that most unpardonable crime in Roman soldiers,——to have slept on their posts, so that a prisoner of state had escaped on the eve of execution.
Baronius, (Church Annuals, 44, § 8,) speaking of Peter’s escape from his chains, favors us with a solemn statement of the important and interesting circumstance, deriving the proofs from Metaphrastes, (that prince of papistical liars, and grand source of Romish apostolical fables,) that these very chains of Peter are still preserved at Rome, among other venerable relics of equal authenticity; having been faithfully preserved, and at last found after the lapse of four hundred years. The veritable history of this miraculous preservation, as given by the inventive Metaphrastes, is, that the said chains happened to fall into the hands of one of Agrippa’s servants who was a believer in Christ, and so were handed down for four centuries, and at last brought to light. It is lamentable that the list of the various persons through whose hands they passed, is not given, though second in importance only to the authentic record of the papal succession. This impudent and paltry falsehood will serve as a fair specimen of a vast quantity of such stuff, which litters up the pages of even the sober ecclesiastical histories of many papistical writers. The only wonderful thing to me about this story is, that Cave has not given it a place in his Lives of the Apostles, which are made up with so great a portion of similar trash.
Baronius, in connection with this passage, suggests the castle of Antonia as the most probable place of Peter’s confinement. “Juxta templum fortasse in ea munitissima turri quae dicebatur Antonia.” (Baronius, Church Annuals, C. 44, § 5.) A conjecture which certainly adds some weight to my own supposition to that effect; although I did not discover the coincidence in time to mention it in my note on page [194.]
Meanwhile, with the early day, up rose the royal Agrippa from his purple couch, to seize the first moment after the close of the passover for the consummation of the doom of the wretched Galilean, who, by the royal decree, must now yield the life already too many days spared, out of delicate scruple about the inviolate purity of that holy week. Up rose also the saintly princes of the Judaic law, coming forth in their solemn trains and broad phylacteries, to grace this most religious occasion with their reverend presence, out of respectful gratitude to their great sovran for his considerate disposition to accord the sanction of his absolute secular power to their religious sentence. Expectation stood on tiptoe for the comfortable spectacle of the streaming life-blood of this stubborn leader of the Nazarene heresy, and nothing was wanting to the completion of the ceremony, but the criminal himself. That “desideratum, so much to be desired,” was, however, not so easily supplied; for the entrance of the delinquent sentinels now presented the non-est-inventus return to the solemn summons for the body of their prisoner. Confusion thrice confounded now fell on the faces that were just shining with anticipated triumph over their hated foe, while secret, scornful joy illuminated the countenances of the oppressed friends of Jesus. But on the devoted minions of the baffled king, did his disappointed vengeance fall most cruelly; in his paroxysm of vexation, and for an event wholly beyond their control they now suffered an undeserved death; making so tragical a catastrophe to a story otherwise decidedly comical, that the reader can only comfort himself with the belief that they were a set of insolent reprobates who had insulted the distresses of their frequent victims, and would have rejoiced in the bloody execution of the apostle.
King Herod Agrippa, after this miserable failure in his attempt to “please the Jews,” does not seem to have made a very long stay in Jerusalem. Before his departure, however, to secure his own solid glory and his kingdom’s safety, as well as the favor of his subjects, he not only continued the repairs of the temple, but instituted such improvements in the fortifications of the city, as, if ever completed, would have made it utterly impregnable even to a Roman force; so that the emperor’s jealousy soon compelled him to abandon this work; and soon after he left Jerusalem, and went down to Caesarea Augusta, on the sea-coast, long the seat of government of Palestine, and a more agreeable place for the operations of a Gentile court and administration, (for such Agrippa’s must have been from his Roman residence,) than the punctilious religious capital of Judea. But he was not allowed to remain much longer on the earth, to hinder the progress of the truth, by acts of tyranny in subservience to the base purposes of winning the favor of his more powerful subjects. The hand of God was laid destroyingly on him, in the midst of what seemed the full fruition of that popular adulation for which he had lived,——in which he now died. Arrayed in a splendid and massy robe of polished silver, he seated himself on the throne erected by his grandfather Herod, in the great Herodian theater at Caesarea, early in the morning of the day which was appointed for the celebration of the great festal games, in honor of his royal patron, Claudius Caesar. On this occasion, to crown his kingly triumph, the embassadors of the great commercial Phoenician cities, Tyre and Sidon, appeared before him to receive his condescending answer to their submissive requests for the re-establishment of a friendly intercourse between his dominions and theirs,——the agricultural products of the former being quite essential to the thriving trade of the latter. Agrippa’s reply was now publicly given to them, in which he graciously granted all their requests, in such a tone of eloquent benignity, that the admiring assembly expressed their approbation in shouts of praise, and at last some bold adulators catching the idea from the rays of dazzling light which flashed from the polished surfaces of his metallic robe, and threw a sort of glory over and around him, cried out, in impious exclamation, “It is the voice of a God, and not of a man.” So little taste had the foolish king, that he did not check this pitiful outbreak of silly blasphemy; but sat swallowing it all, in the most unmoved self-satisfaction. But in the midst of this profane glory, he was called to an account for which it ill prepared him. In the expressive though figurative language of Luke,——“immediately the messenger of the Lord struck him, because he gave not the glory to God.” The Jewish historian, too, in a similar manner assigns the reason. “The king did not rebuke the flatterers, nor refuse their impious adulation. Shortly after he was seized with a pain in the belly, dreadfully violent from the beginning. Turning to his friends he said, ‘Behold! I, your god, am now appointed to end my life,——the decree of fate having at once falsified the voices that but just now were uttering lies about me; and I, who have been called immortal by you, am now carried off dying.’ While he uttered these words he was tortured by the increasing violence of his pain, and was accordingly carried back to his palace. After five days of intense anguish, he died, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh of his reign; having reigned four years under Caius Caesar, and three under Claudius.” Thus ended the days of the conscience-stricken tyrant, while the glorious gospel cause which he had so vainly thought to check and overthrow, now, in the words of Luke, “grew and was multiplied;” the spiteful Jews having lost the right arm of their persecuting authority, in the death of their king, and all Palestine now passing again under the direct Roman rule, whose tolerant principles became once more the great protection of the followers of Jesus.
Agrippa’s death.——My combination of the two different accounts given by Luke and Josephus of this event, I believe accords with the best authorities; nor am I disposed, as Michaelis is, to reject Josephus’s statement as irreconcilable with that in the Acts, though deficient in some particulars, which are given in the latter, and though not rightly apprehending fully the motives and immediate occasions of many things which he mentions. In the same way, too, several minor circumstances are omitted in Luke, which can be brought in from Josephus so as to give a much more vivid idea of the whole event, than can be learned from the Acts alone. (See Michaelis’s introduction to the New Testament,——on Luke. Also Wolf and Kuinoel.)
PETER’S PLACE OF REFUGE.
Luke, in mentioning the departure of Peter from Jerusalem after his escape from prison by night, merely says, “And going out, he went to another place.” The vague, uncertain manner in which this circumstance is mentioned, seems to imply that the writer really knew nothing about this “other place.” It was not a point essential to the integrity of the narrative, though interesting to all the readers of the history, since the most trifling particulars about the chief apostle might well be supposed desirable to be known. But though if it had been known, it would have been well worth recording, it was too trifling a matter to deserve any investigation, if it had not been mentioned to Luke by those from whom he received the accounts which he gives of Peter; and since he is uniformly particular in mentioning even these smaller details, when they fall in the way of his narrative, it is but fair to conclude that in this instance he would have satisfied the natural and reasonable curiosity of his readers, if he had had the means of doing so. There could have been no motive when he wrote, for concealing the fact, and he could have expressed the whole truth in as few words as he has given to show his own ignorance of the point. From the nature of the apostle’s motives in departing from Jerusalem, it must have been at that time desirable to have his place of refuge known to as few as possible; and the fact, at that time unknown, would, after the motive for concealment had disappeared, be of too little interest to be very carefully inquired after by those to whom it was not obvious. In this way it happened, that this circumstance was never revealed to Luke, who not being among the disciples at Jerusalem, would not be in the way of readily hearing of it, and in writing the story would not think it worth inquiring for. But one thing seems morally certain; if Peter had taken refuge in any important place or well known city, it must have been far more likely to have been afterwards a fact sufficiently notorious to have come within the knowledge of his historian; but as the most likely place for a secret retirement would have been some obscure region, this would increase the chances of its remaining subsequently unknown. This consideration is of some importance in settling a few negative facts in relation to various conjectures which have at different times been offered on the place of Peter’s refuge.
Among these, the most idle and unfounded is, that on leaving Jerusalem he went to Caesarea. What could have suggested this queer fancy to its author, it is hard to say; but it certainly implies the most senseless folly in Peter, when seeking a hiding place from the persecution of king Herod Agrippa, to go directly to the capital of his dominions, where he might be expected to reside for the greater part of the time, and whither he actually did go, immediately after his disappointment about this very apostle. It was jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire, to go thus away from among numerous friends who might have found a barely possible safety for him in Jerusalem, and to seek a refuge in Caesarea where there were but very few friends of the apostles, and where he would be in constant danger of discovery from the numerous minions of the king, who thronged all parts of that royal city, and from the great number of Greeks, Romans and Syrians, making up the majority of the population, who hated the very sight of a Jew, and would have taken vast pleasure in gratifying their spite, and at the same time gaining high favor with the king by hunting out and giving up to wrath an obscure heretic of that hated race. It would not have been at all accordant with the serpent-wisdom enjoined on the apostle, to have run his head thus into the lion’s mouth, by seeking a quiet and safe dwelling-place beneath the very nose of his powerful persecutor.
Another conjecture vastly less absurd, but still not highly probable, is, that Antioch was the “other place” to which Peter went from Jerusalem; but an objection of great force against this, is that already alluded to above, in reference to the ineligibility of a great city as a place of concealment; and in this instance is superadded the difficulty of his immediately making this long journey over the whole extent of Agrippa’s dominions, northward, at such a time, when the king’s officers would be every where put on the alert for him, more particularly in the direction of his old home in Galilee, which would be in the nearest way to Antioch. His most politic movement, therefore, would be to take some shorter course out of Palestine. Moreover, in this case, there is a particular reason why Luke would have mentioned the name of Antioch if that had been the place. What the proof of this reason is, can be best shown in his life; but the bare statement of the fact may be sufficient for the present,——that he was himself a citizen of that place, and could not have been ignorant or negligent of the circumstance of this visit, if it had occurred.
It has been suggested by others that the expression, “to another place,” does not imply a departure from Jerusalem, but is perfectly reconcilable with the supposition that Peter remained concealed in some safe and unknown part of the city. This view would very unobjectionably accord with the vagueness of the passage,——since if merely another part of Jerusalem was meant, no name could be expected to describe it. But it would certainly seem like a presumptuous rashness in Peter, to risk in so idle a manner the freedom which he owed to a miraculous interposition; for the circumstance of such an interposition could not be intended to justify him in dispensing with a single precaution which would be proper and necessary after an escape in any other mode. Such is not the course of divine dealings, whether miraculous or ordinary; and in a religious as well as an economical view, the force and truth of Poor Richard’s saying is undoubted,——“God helps them who help themselves;” nor is his helping them any reason why they should cease to help themselves. Peter’s natural impulse, as well as a considerate prudence, then, would lead him to immediate exertions to keep the freedom so wonderfully obtained, and such an impulse and such a consideration would at once teach him that the city was no place for him, at a time when the most desperately diligent search might be expected. For as soon as his escape was discovered, Luke says, that the king “sought most earnestly for him,” and in a search thus characterized, inspired too by the most furious rage at the disappointment, hardly a hole or corner of Jerusalem could have been left unransacked; so that this preservation of the apostle from pursuers so determined, would have required a continual series of miracles, fully as wonderful as that which effected his deliverance from castle Antonia. His most proper and reasonable course would then have been directly eastward from Jerusalem,——a route which would give him the shortest exit from the territories of Herod Agrippa, leading him directly into Arabia, a region that was, in another great instance hereafter mentioned, a place of comfortable and undisturbed refuge for a person similarly circumstanced. A journey of fifty or sixty miles through an unfrequented and lonely country, would put him entirely beyond pursuit; and the character of the route would make it exceedingly difficult to trace his flight, as the nature of the country would facilitate his concealment, while its proximity to Jerusalem would make his return after the removal of the danger by the death of Agrippa, as easy as his flight thither in the first place.
At Jerusalem.——This notion I find nowhere but in Lardner, who approves it, quoting Lenfant. [Lardner, History of the Apostles and Evangelists, Life of Peter.]
Another series of papistical fables carries him on his supposed tour on the coast, beyond Caesarea, and, uniting two theories, makes him visit Antioch also; and finally extends his pilgrimage into the central and northern parts of Asia Minor. This fabulous legend, though different in its character from the preceding accounts, because it impudently attempts to pass off a bald invention as an authentic history, while those are only offered honestly as probable conjectures, yet may be worthy of a place here, because it is necessary in giving a complete view of all the stories which have been received, to present dishonest inventions as well as justifiable speculations. The clearest fabulous account given of his journey thither, is, that parting from Jerusalem as above-mentioned, he directed his way westwards toward the sea-coast of Palestine, first to Caesarea Stratonis, (or Augusta,) where he constituted one of the presbyters who attended him from Jerusalem, bishop of the church founded there by him on his visit;——that leaving Caesarea he went northwards along the coast into Phoenicia, arriving at the city of Sidon;——that there he performed many cures and also appointed a bishop; next to Berytus, (now Beyroot,) in Syria, and there also appointed a bishop. Going on through Syria, along the coast of the Mediterranean, they bring him next, in his curiously detailed track, to Biblys, then to the Phoenician Tripoli, to Orthosia, to Antandros, to the island of Aradus, near the coast, to Balaenas, to Panta, to Laodicea, and at last to Antioch,——planting churches in all these hard-named towns on the way, and sowing bishops, as before, by handfulls, as well as performing vast quantities of miracles. The story of Peter’s journey goes on to say, that after leaving Antioch he went into Cappadocia, and stayed some time in Tyana, a city of that province. Proceeding westward thence, he came to Ancyra, in Galatia, where he raised a dead person, baptized believers, and instituted a church, over which he ordained a bishop. Thence northward, into Pontus, where he visited the cities of Sinope and Amasea, on the coast of the Euxine sea. Then turning eastward into Paphlagonia, stopped at Gangra and Claudiopolis; next into Bithynia, to the cities of Nicomedia and Nicaea; and thence returned directly to Antioch, whence he shortly afterwards went to Jerusalem.
This ingenious piece of apostolic romance is due to the same veracious Metaphrastes, above quoted. I have derived it from him through Caesar Baronius, who gives it in his Annales Ecclesiastici. (44, § 10, 11.) The great annalist approves and adopts it, however, only as far as it describes the journey of Peter to Antioch; and there he leaves the narrative of Metaphrastes, and instead of taking Peter on his long tour through Asia Minor and back to Jerusalem, as just described, carries him off upon a far different route, achieving the great journey westward, which accords with the view taken by the vast majority of the old ecclesiastical writers, and which is next given here. Metaphrastes also maintains this view, indeed, but supposes and invents all the events just narrated, as intermediate occurrences, between Peter’s escape and his great journey, and begins the account of this latter, after his return from his Asian circuit.
To connect all this long pilgrimage with the story given in the sacred record, the sage Baronius makes the ingenious suggestion, that this was the occult reason why Agrippa was wroth with those of Tyre and Sidon; namely, that Peter had gone through their country when a fugitive from the royal vengeance, and had been favorably received by the Tyrians and Sidonians, who should have seized him as a runaway from justice, and sent him back to Agrippa. This acute guess, he thinks, will show a reason also for the otherwise unaccountable fact, that Luke should mention this quarrel between Agrippa and those cities, in connection with the events of Peter’s escape and Agrippa’s death. For the great cardinal does not seem to appreciate the circumstance of its close relation to the latter event, in presenting the occasion of the reconciliation between the king and the offending cities, on which the king made his speech to the people, and received the impious tribute of praise, which was followed by his death;——the whole constituting a relation sufficiently close between the two events, to justify the connection in Luke.
THE FIRST VISIT TO ROME.
But the view of this passage in Peter’s history, which was long adopted universally by those who took the pains to ask about this “other place,” mentioned by Luke, and the view which involves the most important relations to other far greater questions, is, that Rome was the chief apostle’s refuge from the Agrippine persecution, and that in the imperial city he now laid the deep foundations of the church universal. On this point some of the greatest champions of papistry have expended vast labor, to establish a circumstance so convenient for the support of the dogma of the divinely appointed supremacy of the Romish church, since the belief of this early visit of Peter would afford a very convenient basis for the very early apostolical foundation of the Roman see. But though this notion of his refuge has received the support of a vast number of great names from the very early periods of Christian literature, and though for a long period this view was considered indubitable, from the sanction of ancient authorities, there is not one of the various conjectures offered which is so easily overthrown on examination, from the manner in which it is connected with other notions most palpably false and baseless. The old papistical notion was, that Peter at this time visited Rome, founded the church there, and presided over it, as bishop, twenty-five years, but occasionally visiting the east. As respects the minute details of this journey to Rome, the papist historians are by no means agreed, few of them having put any value upon the particulars of such an itinerary, until those periods when such fables were sought after by common readers with more avidity. But there is at least one hard-conscienced narrator, who undertakes to go over all the steps of the apostle on the road to the eternal city, and from his narrative are brought these circumstances. The companions assigned him by this romance, on his journey, were the evangelist Mark, Appollinaris, afterwards, as the story goes, appointed by him bishop of Ravenna, in Italy; Martial, afterwards a missionary in Gaul, and Rufus, bishop of Capua, in Italy. Pancratius, of Tauromenius, and Marcian, of Syracuse, in Sicily, had been sent on by Peter to that island, while he was yet staying at Antioch, but on his voyage he landed there and made them his companions also. His great route is said to have led him to Troy, on the northern part of the Asian coast of the Aegean sea, whence they seem to have made him cross to the eastern port of Corinth. At this great city of Greece, they bring him into the company of Paul and Silas, who were sent thither, to be sure, on a mission, but evidently at a different time, a circumstance which, among many others, helps to show the bungling manner in which the story is made up. From Corinth they carry him next to Syracuse, as just mentioned. Thence to Neapolis, (Naples,) in Campania, where, as the monkish legend says, this chief of the apostles celebrated with his companions a mass, for the safe progress of his voyage to Italy. Having now reached Italy, he is made the subject of a new fable for the benefit of every city along the coast, and is accordingly said to have touched at Liburnum, (Livorno, Leghorn,) being driven thither by stress of weather, and thence to Pisa, near by, where he offered up another mass for his preservation, as is still maintained in local fables; but the general Romish legend does not so favor these places, but brings the apostle, without any more marine delay or difficulty, directly over land from Naples to Rome; and on this route again, one lie suggesting another, a local superstition commemorates the veritable circumstances, that he made this land-journey from Naples to Rome, on foot; and on the way stopped at the house of a Galilean countryman of his own, named Mark, in a town called Atina, of which the said Mark was afterwards made bishop.
Respecting these minute accounts of Peter’s stopping-places on this apocryphal journey, Baronius says, “Nobilia in iis remanserunt antiquitatis vestigia, sed traditiones potius quam scriptura firmata.” “There are in those places some noble remains of this ancient history, but rather traditions than well assured written accounts.” The part of the route from Antioch to Sicily he takes on the authority of the imaginative Metaphrastes; but the rest is made up from different local superstitions of a very modern date, not one of which can be traced farther back than the time when every fable of this sort had a high pecuniary value to the inventors, in bringing crowds of money-giving pilgrims to the spot which had been hallowed by the footsteps of the chief apostle. Even the devout Baronius, however, is obliged to confess at the end of this story, “Sed de rebus tam antiquis et incertis, quid potissimum affirmare debeamus, non satis constat.”——“But as to matters so ancient and uncertain, it is not sufficiently well established what opinion we may most safely pronounce.”
As to the early part of the route, speaking of the account given by Metaphrastes of Peter’s having on his way through Troy ordained Cornelius, the centurion, bishop of that place, Baronius objects to the truth of this statement, the assertion that Cornelius had been previously ordained bishop of Caesarea, where he was converted. A very valuable refutation of one fable by another as utterly unfounded.
Respecting the causes of this great journey of the apostle to the capital of the world, the opinions even of papist writers are as various as they are about the route honored by his passage. Some suppose his motive to have been merely a desire for a refuge from the persecution of Agrippa;——a most unlikely resort, however, for nothing could be more easy than his detection in passing over such a route, especially by sea, where every vessel could be so easily searched at the command of Agrippa, whose influence extended far beyond his own territory, supported as he was, by the unbounded possession of the imperial Caesar’s favor, which would also make the seizure of the fugitive within the great city itself, a very easy thing. Others, however, do not consider this journey as connected in any way with his flight from Agrippa, (for many suppose it to have been made after the death of that king,) and find the motive for such an effort in the vast importance of the field opened for his labors in the great capital of the world, where were so many strong holds of error to be assaulted, and from which an influence so wide and effectual might be exerted through numerous channels of communication to all parts of the world. Others have sought a reason of more definite and limited character, and with vast pains have invented and compiled a fable of most absurdly amusing character, to make an object for Peter’s labors in the distant capital. The story which has the greatest number of supporters, is one connected with Simon Magus, mentioned in the sacred record, in the account of the labors of Philip in Samaria, and the visit of Peter and John to that place. The fable begins with the assertion that this magician had returned to his former tricks after his insincere conformity to the Christian faith, and had devoted himself with new energy to the easy work of popular deception, adding to his former evil motives, that of deadly spite against the faith to which he appeared so friendly, at the time when the sacred narrative speaks of him last. In order to find a field sufficiently ample for his enlarged plans, he went to Rome, and there, in the reign of Claudius Caesar, attained a vast renown by his magical tricks, so that he was even esteemed a god, and was even so pronounced by a solemn decree of the Roman senate, confirmed by Claudius himself, who was perfectly carried away with the delusion, which seems thus to have involved the highest and the lowest alike. The fable proceeds to introduce Peter on the scene, by the circumstance of his being called by a divine vision to go to Rome and war against this great impostor, thus advancing in his impious supremacy, who had already in Samaria been made to acknowledge the miraculous efficacy of the apostolic word. Peter thus brought to Rome by the hand of God, publicly preached abroad the doctrine of salvation, and meeting the arch-magician himself, with the same divine weapons whose efficacy he had before experienced, overcame him utterly, and drove him in confusion and disgrace from the city. Nor were the blessings that resulted to Rome from this visit of Peter, of a merely spiritual kind. So specially favored with the divine presence and blessing were all places where this great apostle happened to be, that even their temporal interests shared in the advantages of the divine influence that every where followed him. To this cause, therefore, are gravely referred by papistical commentators, the remarkable success which, according to heathen historians, attended the Roman arms in different parts of the world during the second year of Claudius, to which date this fabulous visit is unanimously referred by all who pretend to believe in its occurrence.
Importance of the field of labor.——This is the view taken by Leo, (in sermon 1, in nat. apost. quoted by Baronius, Annales 44, § 26.) “When the twelve apostles, after receiving from the Holy Spirit the power of speaking all languages,” (an assertion, by the way, no where found in the sacred record,) “had undertaken the labor of imbuing the world with the gospel, dividing its several portions among themselves; the most blessed Peter, the chief of the apostolic order was appointed to the capital of the Roman empire, so that the light of truth which was revealed for the salvation of all nations, might from the very head, diffuse itself with the more power through the whole body of the world. For, what country had not some citizens in this city? Or what nation anywhere, could be ignorant of anything which Rome had been taught? Here were philosophical dogmas to be put down——vanities of worldly wisdom to be weakened——idol-worship to be overthrown,”——&c. “To this city therefore, thou, most blessed apostle Peter! didst not fear to come, and (sharing thy glory with the apostle Paul, there occupied with the arrangement of other churches,) didst enter that forest of raging beasts, and didst pass upon that ocean of boisterous depths, with more firmness than when thou walkedst on the sea. Nor didst thou fear Rome, the mistress of the world, though thou didst once, in the house of Caiaphas, dread the servant maid of the priest. Not because the power of Claudius, or the cruelty of Nero, were less dreadful than the judgment of Pilate, or the rage of the Jews; but because the power of love now overcame the occasion of fear, since thy regard for the salvation of souls would not suffer thee to yield to terror. * * * The miraculous signs, gifts of grace, and trials of virtue, which had already been so multiplied to thee, now increased thy boldness. Already hadst thou taught those nations of the circumcision who believed. Already hadst thou filled Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia with the gospel; and now, without a doubt of the advance of the work, or of the certainty of thy own fate, thou didst plant the trophy of the cross of Christ upon the towers of Rome.” Arnobius is also quoted by Baronius to similar effect.
Simon Magus.——This fable has received a wonderfully wide circulation, and long maintained a place among the credible accounts of early Christian history, probably from the circumstance of its taking its origin from so early a source. Justin Martyr, who flourished from the year 140 and afterwards, in his apology for the Christian religion, addressed to the emperor Antoninus Pius, says, “Simon, a Samaritan, born in a village named Gitthon, in the time of Claudius Caesar, was received as a god in your imperial city of Rome, and honored with a statue, like other gods, on account of his magical powers there exhibited by the aid of demons; and this statue was set up in the river Tiber, between two bridges, and had this Latin inscription, Simoni deo sancto. Him too, all the Samaritans worship, and a few of other nations, acknowledging him as the highest god, (πρωτον θεον.) They also worship a certain Helena, who at that time followed him about,” &c. &c. &c. with more dirty trash besides, than I can find room for. And in another passage of the same work, he alludes to the same circumstances. “In your city, the mistress of the world, in the time of Claudius Caesar, Simon Magus struck the Roman senate and people with such admiration of himself, that he was ranked among the gods, and was honored with a statue.” Irenaeus, who flourished about the year 180, also gives this story with hardly any variation from Justin. Tertullian, about A. D. 200, repeats the same, with the addition of the circumstance, that not satisfied with the honors paid to himself, he caused the people to debase themselves still further, by paying divine honors to a woman called (by Tertullian) Larentina, who was exalted by them to a rank with the goddesses of the ancient mythology, though the good father gives her but a bad name. Eusebius, also, about A. D. 320, refers to the testimonies of Justin and Irenaeus, and adds some strange particulars about a sect, existing in his time, the members of which were said to acknowledge this Simon as the author of their faith, whom they worshiped along with this woman Helena, falling prostrate before the pictures of both of them, with incense and sacrifices and libations to them, with other rites, unutterably and unwritably bad. (See Eusebius, Church History, II. 13.)
In the three former writers, Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian, this absurd story stands by itself, and has no connection with the life of Peter; but Eusebius goes on to commemorate the circumstance, previously unrecorded, that Peter went to Rome for the express purpose of putting down this blasphemous wretch, as specified above, in the text of my narrative, from this author. (Eusebius, Church History, II. 14.)
Now all this fine series of accounts, though seeming to bear such an overwhelming weight of testimony in favor of the truth and reality of Simon Magus’s visit to Rome, is proved to be originally based on an absolute falsehood; and the nature of this falsehood is thus exposed. In the year 1574, during the pontificate of Pope Gregory XIII., there was an excavation made for some indifferent purpose in Rome, on the very island in the Tiber, so particularly described by Justin, as lying in the center of the river between two bridges, each of which rested an abutment on it, and ran from it to the opposite shores. In the progress of this excavation, the workmen, as is very common in that vast city of buried ruins, turned up, among other remains of antiquity, the remnant of a statue with its pedestal, which had evidently once stood erect upon the spot. Upon the pedestal was an inscription most distinctly legible, in these words: Semoni sango deo fidio sacrum——Sex Pompeius s. p. f. col. mussianus——quinquennalis decur. bidentalis——donum dedit. (This was in four lines, each line ending where the blank spaces are marked in the copy.) In order to understand this sentence, it must be known, that the Romans, among the innumerable objects of worship in their complicated religion, had a peculiar set of deities which they called Semones. A Semo was a kind of inferior god, of an earthly character and office, so low as to unfit him for a place among the great gods of heaven, Jupiter, Juno, Apollo, &c., and was accordingly confined in his residence entirely to the earth; where the Semones received high honors and devout worship, and were commemorated in many places, both in city and country, by statues, before which the passer might pay his worship, if devoutly disposed. These statues were often of a votive character, erected by wealthy or distinguished persons for fancied aid, received from some one of these Semones, in some particular season of distress, or for general prosperity. This was evidently the object of the statue in question. Priapus, Hipporea, Vertumnus, and such minor gods were included under the general title of Semones; and among them was also ranked a Sabine divinity, named Sangus or Sancus, who is, by some writers, considered as corresponding in character to the Hercules of the Greeks. Sangus or Sancus is often alluded to in the Roman classics. Propertius (book 4) has a verse referring to him as a Sabine deity. “Sic Sancum Tatiae composuere Cures.” Ovid also, “Quaerebam Nonas Sanco fidio ne referrem.” As to this providentially recovered remnant of antiquity, therefore, there can be no doubt that it was a votive monument, erected by Sextus Pompey to Sangus the Semo, for some reason not very clearly expressed.
Baronius tells also that he had seen a stone similarly inscribed. “SANGO SANCTO SEMON.——DEO FIDIO SACRUM——DECURIO SACERDOTUM BIDENTALIUM——RECIPERATIS VECTIGALIBUS.” That is, “Sacred to Sangus, the holy Semo, the god Fidius,——a decury (company of ten) of the priests of the Bidental sacrifices have raised this in gratitude for their recovered incomes.” Dionysius Halicarnassaeus is also quoted by Baronius as referring to the worship of the Semo, Sangus; and from him and various other ancient writers, it appears that vows and sacrifices were offered to this Sangus, for a safe journey and happy return from a distance.
From a consideration of all the circumstances of this remarkable discovery, and from the palpable evidence afforded by the inherent absurdity of the story told by Justin Martyr and his copyists, the conclusion is justifiable and irresistible, that Justin himself, being a native of Syria, and having read the story of Simon Magus in the Acts, where it is recorded that he was profoundly reverenced by the Samaritans, and was silenced and rebuked by Peter when he visited that place,——with all this story fresh in his mind, (for he was but a new convert to Christianity,) came to Rome, and going through that city, an ignorant foreigner, without any knowledge of the religion, or superstitions, or deities, and with but an indifferent acquaintance with their language, came along this bridge over the Tiber to the island, where had been erected this votive statue to Semo Sangus; and looking at the inscription in the way that might be expected of one to whom the language and religion were strange, he was struck at once with the name Semon, as so much resembling the well-known eastern name Simon, and began speculating at once, about what person of that name could ever have come from the east to Rome, and there received the honors of a god. Justin’s want of familiarity with the language of the Romans, would prevent his obtaining any satisfactory information on the subject from the passers-by; and if he attempted to question them about it, he would be very apt to interpret their imperfect communications in such a way as suited the notion he had taken up. If he asked his Christian brethren about the matter, their very low character for general intelligence, the circumstance that those with whom he was most familiar, must have been of eastern origin, and as ignorant as he of the minute peculiarities of the Roman religion, and their common disposition to wilfully pervert the truth, and invent fables for the sake of a good story connected with their own faith, (of which we have evidences vastly numerous, and sadly powerful in the multitude of such legends that have come down from the Christians of those times,) would all conspire to help the invention and completion of the foolish and unfounded notion, that this statue here erected Semoni Sanco Deo, was the same as Simoni Deo Sancto, that is, “to the holy god Simon;” and as it was always necessary to the introduction of a new god among those at Rome, that the Senate should pass a solemn act and decree to that effect, which should be confirmed by the approbation of the emperor, it would at once occur to his own imaginative mind, or to the inventions of his fabricating informers, that Simon must of course have received such a decree from the senate and Caesar. This necessarily also implied vast renown, and extensive favor with all the Romans, which he must have acquired, to be sure, by his magical tricks, aided by the demoniac powers; and so all the foolish particulars of the story would be made out as fast as wanted. The paltry fable also appended to this by all the Fathers who give the former story, to the effect, that some woman closely connected with him, was worshiped along with him, variously named Helena, Selena and Larentina, has no doubt a similarly baseless origin; but is harder to trace to its beginnings, because it was not connected with an assertion, capable of direct ocular, as well as historical, refutation, as that about Simon’s statue most fortunately was. The second name, Selena, given by Irenaeus, is exactly the Greek word for the moon, which was often worshiped under its appropriate name; and this tale may have been caught up from some connection between such a ceremony and the worship of some of the Semones,——all the elegant details of her life and character being invented to suit the fancies of the reverend fathers. The story, that she had followed Simon to Rome from the Phoenician cities, Tyre and Sidon, suggests to my mind at this moment, that there may have been a connection between this and some old story of the importation of a piece of idolatry from that region, so famed for the worship of the
“mooned Ashtaroth,
Heaven’s queen and mother both.”
But this trash is not worth the time and paper I am spending upon it, since the main part of the story, concerning Simon Magus as having ever been seen or heard of in Rome, by senate, prince or people, in the days of Claudius, is shown, beyond all reasonable question, to be utterly false, and based on a stupid blunder of Justin Martyr, who did not know Latin enough to tell the difference between sanco and sancto, nor between Semoni and Simoni. And after all, this is but a fair specimen of Justin Martyr’s usual blundering way, of which his few pages present other instances for the inquiring reader to stumble over and bewilder himself upon. Take, for example, the gross confusion of names and dates which he makes in a passage which accidentally meets my eye, on a page near that from which the above extract is taken. In attempting to give an account of the way in which the Hebrew Bible was first translated into Greek, he says that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, sent to Herod, king of the Jews, for a copy of the Bible. But when or where does any history, sacred or profane, give any account whatever of any Ptolemy, king of Egypt, who was cotemporary with either of the Herods? The last of the Ptolemies was killed, while a boy, in the Egyptian war with Julius Caesar, before Herod had himself attained to manhood, or had the most distant thought of the throne of Palestine. The Ptolemy who is said to have procured the Greek translation of the Bible, however, lived about three hundred years before the first Herod. It is lamentable to think that such is the character of the earliest Christian father who has left works of any magnitude. Who can wonder that Apologies for the Christian religion, full of such gross blunders, should have failed to secure the belief, or move the attention of either of the Antonines, to whom they were addressed,——the Philosophic, or the Pious? And by a writer who pretended to tell the wisest of the Caesars, that in his imperial city, had been worshiped, from the days of Claudius, a miserable Samaritan impostor, who, an outcast from his own outcast land, had in Rome, by a solemn senatorial and imperial decree, been exalted to the highest god-ship, and that the evidence of this fact was found in a statue which that emperor well knew to be dedicated to the most ancient deities of Etruscan origin, worshiped there ever since the days of Numa Pompilius, but which this Syrian Christian had blunderingly supposed to commemorate a man who had never been heard of out of Samaria, except among Christians. And as for such martyrs, if there is any truth whatever in the story that his foolish head was cut off by the second Antonine, the only pity is, it was not done a little sooner, so as to have kept the Christian world from the long belief of all this folly about an invention so idle, and saved me the trouble of exposing it.
The fullest account ever given of this fable and all its progress, is found in the Annales Ecclesiastici of Caesar Baronius, (A. C. 44. § 51–59.) who, after furnishing the most ample references to sacred and profane authorities, which palpably demonstrate the falsity of the story, returns with all the solemn bigotry of a papist, to the solemn conviction that the fathers and the saints who tell the story, must have had some very good reason for believing it.
The other copyists of Justin hardly deserve any notice; but it is interesting and instructive to observe how, in the progress of fabulous invention, one lie is pinned on to the tail of another, to form a glorious chain of historical sequences, for some distant ecclesiastical annalist to hang his servile faith upon. Eusebius, for instance, enlarges the stories of Justin and Irenaeus, by an addition of his own,——that in his day there existed a sect which acknowledged this same Simon as God, and worshiped him and Helena or Selena, with some mysteriously wicked rites. Now all that his story amounts to, is, that in his time there was a sect called by a name resembling that of Simon, how nearly like it, no one knows; but that by his own account their worship was of a secret character, so that he could, of course, know nothing certainly. But this is enough for him to add, as a solemn confirmation of a story now known to have been founded in falsehood. From this beginning, Eusebius goes on to say that Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius, to war against this Simon Magus, who never went there; so that we know how much this whole tale is worth by looking into the circumstance which constitutes its essential foundation. The idea of Peter’s visit to Rome at that time, is no where given before Eusebius, except in some part of the Clementina, a long series of most unmitigated falsehoods, forged in the name of Clemens Romanus, without any certain date, but commonly supposed to have been made up of the continued contributions of several impudent liars, during different portions of the second, third and fourth centuries.
Creuzer also, in his deep and extensive researches into the religions of antiquity, in giving a “view of some of the older Italian nations,” speaks of “Sancus Semo.” He quotes Augustin (De civitate Dei. XVIII. 19,) as authority for the opinion that he was an ancient king, deified. He also alludes to the passage in Ovid, (quoted above by Baronius,) where he is connected with Hercules, and alluded to under three titles, as Semo, Sancus and Fidius. (Ovid, Fasti, VI. 213, et seq.) But the learned Creuzer does not seem to have any correct notion of the character of the Semones, as a distinct order of inferior deities;——a fact perfectly certain as given above, for which abundant authority is found in Varro, (de Mystag.) as quoted by Fulgentius and Baronius. From Creuzer I also notice, in an accidental immediate connection with Semo Sancus, the fact that the worship of the moon (Luna) was also of Sabine origin; and being introduced along with that of Sancus, by Numa, may have had some relation to that Semo, and may have concurred in originating the notion of the fathers about the woman Selena or Helena, as worshiped along with Simon. He also just barely alludes to the fact that Justin and Irenaeus have confounded this Semo Sancus with Simon Magus. (See Creuzer’s Symbolik und Mythologie der alter Voelker, II. Theil. pp. 964–965.)
The next conclusion authorized by those who support this fable is, that Peter, after achieving this great work of vanquishing the impostor Simon, proceeded to preach the gospel generally; yet not at first to the hereditary citizens of imperial Rome, nor to any of the Gentiles, but to his own countrymen the Jews, great numbers of whom then made their permanent abode in the great city. These foreigners, at that time, were limited in Rome to a peculiar section of the suburbs, and hardly dwelt within the walls of the city itself;——an allotment corresponding with similar limitations existing in some of the modern cities of Europe, Asia, and northern Africa, and even in London, though there, only in accordance with long usage, and with actual convenience, but not with any existing law. The quarter of Rome in which the Jews dwelt in the days of Claudius, was west of the central section of the city, beyond the Tiber; and to this suburban portion, the story supposes the residence and labors of Peter to have been at first confined. But after a time, the fame of this mighty preacher of a new faith spread beyond, from this despised foreign portion of the environs, across the Tiber, over the seven hills themselves, and even into the halls of the patrician lords of Rome. Such an extension of fame, indeed, seems quite necessary to make these two parts of this likely story hang together at all; for it is hard to see how a stranger, from a distant eastern land, could thus appear suddenly among them, and overturn, with a defeat so total and signal, the pretensions of one who had lately been exalted by the opinions of an adoring people to the character of a god, and had even received the solemn national sanction of this exaltation by a formal decree of the senate of Rome, confirmed by the absolute voice of the Caesar himself; and after such a victory, over such a person, be left long unnoticed in an obscure suburb. In accordance, therefore, with this reasonable notion, it is recorded in the continuation of the story, that when Peter, preaching at Rome, grew famous among the Gentiles, he was no longer allowed to occupy himself wholly among the Jews, but was thereafter taken by Pudens, a senator who believed in Christ, into his own house, on the Viminal Mount, one of the seven hills, but near the Jewish suburb. In the neighborhood of this house, as the legend relates, was afterwards erected a monument, called “the Shepherd’s,”——a name which serves to identify this important locality to the modern Romans to this day. Being thus established in these lordly patrician quarters, the poor Galilean fisherman might well have thought himself blessed, in such a pleasant change from the uncomfortable lodgings with which the royal Agrippa had lately accommodated him, and from which he had made so willing an exit. But the legend does the faithful and devoted apostle the justice, to represent him as by no means moved by these luxurious circumstances, to the least forgetfulness of the high commission which was to be followed through all sorts of self-denial,——no less that which drew him from the soft and soul-relaxing enjoyments of a patrician palace, than that which led him to renounce the simple, hard-earned profits of a fisherman, on the changeful sea of Gennesaret, or to calmly meet the threats, the stripes, the chains, and the condemned cell, with which the enmity of the Jewish magistrates had steadily striven to quench his fiery and energetic spirit. He is described as steadily laboring in the cause of the gospel among the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and with such success during the whole of the first year of his stay, that in the beginning of the following year he is said by papist writers to have solemnly and formally founded the church of Rome. This important fictitious event is dated with the most exact particularity, on the fifteenth of February, in the forty-third year of Christ, and the third year of the reign of the emperor Claudius. The empty, unmeaning pomposity of this announcement is a sufficient evidence of its fictitious character. According to the story itself, here Peter had been preaching nearly a whole year at Rome; and if preaching, having a regular congregation, of course, and performing the usual accompaniments of preaching, as baptism, &c. Now there is not in the whole apostolic history the least account, nor the shadow of a hint, of any such ceremony as the founding of a church, distinct from the mere gathering of an assembly of believing listeners, who acknowledged their faith in Jesus by profession and by the sacraments. The organization of this religious assembly might indeed be made more perfect at one time than at another; as for instance, a new church, which during an apostle’s stay with it and preaching to it, had been abundantly well governed by the simple guidance of his wise, fatherly care, would, on his departure, need some more regular, permanent provision for its government, lest among those who were all religious co-equals, there should arise disputes which would require a regularly constituted authority to allay them. The apostle might, therefore, in such advanced requirements of the church, ordain elders, and so on; but such an appendix could not, with the slightest regard to common sense or the rules of honest interpretation of language, be said to constitute the founding of a church. The very phrase of ordaining elders in a church, palpably implies and requires the previous distinct, complete existence of the church. In fact the entity of a church implies nothing more than a regular assembly of believers, with an authorized ministry; and if Peter had been preaching several months to the Jews of the trans-Tiberine suburb, or to the Romans of the Viminal mount, there must have been in one or both of those places, a church, to all intents, purposes, definitions and etymologies of a church. So that for him, almost a year after, to proceed to found a church in Rome, was the most idle work of supererogation in the world. And all the pompous statements of papist writers about any such formality, and all the quotations that might be brought out of the fathers in its support, from Clement downwards, could not relieve the assertion of one particle of its palpable, self-evident absurdity. But the fable proceeds in the account of this important movement, dating the apostolic reign of Peter from this very occasion, as above fixed, and running over various imaginary acts of his, during the tedious seven years for which the story ties him down to this one spot. Among many other unfounded matters, is specified the assertion, that from this city during the first year of his episcopate, he wrote his first epistle, which he addressed to the believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,——the countries which are enumerated as visited by him in his fictitious tour. This opinion is grounded on the circumstance of its being dated from Babylon, which several later fathers understood as a term spiritually applied to Rome; but in the proper place this notion will be fully discussed, and the true origin of the epistle more satisfactorily given. Another important event in the history of the scriptures,——the writing of the gospel of Mark,——is also commonly connected with this part of Peter’s life, by the papist historians; but this event, with an account of the nature of this supposed connection, and the discussion of all points in this subject, can be better shown in the life of that evangelist; and to that it is therefore deferred. These matters and several others as little in place, seem to be introduced into this part of Peter’s life, mainly for the sake of giving him something particular to do, during his somewhat tedious stay in Rome, where they make him remain seven years after his first journey thither; and give him here the character, office and title of bishop,——a piece of nomenclature perfectly unscriptural and absurd, because no apostle, in the New Testament, is ever called a bishop; but on the contrary, the office was evidently created to provide a substitute for an apostle,——a person who might perform the pastoral duties to the church, in the absence of its apostolic founder, overseeing and managing all its affairs in his stead, to report to him at his visitations, or in reply to his epistolary charges. To call an apostle a bishop, therefore, implies the absurdity of calling a superior officer by the title of his inferior,——as to call a captain, lieutenant, or a general-in-chief, colonel, or even as to call a bishop, deacon. During the life-time of the apostles, “bishop” was only a secondary title, and it was not till the death of all those commissioned by Christ, that this became the supreme officer in all churches. But the papists not appreciating any difficulty of this kind, go on crowning one absurdity with another, which claims, however, the additional merit of being amusing in its folly. This is the minute particularization of the shape, stuff, accoutrements and so on, of the chair in which bishop Peter sat at Rome in his episcopal character. This identical wooden chair in which his apostolical body was seated when he was exerting the functions of his bishopric, is still, according to the same high papal authorities which maintain the fact of his ever having been bishop, preserved in the Basilica of the Vatican, at Rome, and is even now, on certain high occasions, brought out from its holy storehouse to bless with its presence the eyes of the adoring people. This chair is kept covered with a linen veil, among the various similar treasures of the Vatican, and has been eminent for the vast numbers of great miracles wrought by its presence. As a preliminary step, however, to a real faith in the efficacy of this old piece of furniture, it is necessary that those who hear the stories should believe that Peter was ever at Rome, to sit in this or any other chair there. It is observed, however, in connection with this lumbering article, in the papist histories, that on taking possession of this chair, as bishop of Rome, Peter resigned the bishopric of Antioch, committing that see to the charge of Euodius, it having been the original diocese of this chief apostle,——a story about as true, as that any apostle was ever bishop any where. The apostles were missionaries, for the most part, preaching the word of God from place to place, appointing bishops to govern and manage the churches in their absence, and after their final departure, as their successors and substitutes; but no apostle is, on any occasion whatever, called a bishop in any part of the New Testament, or by any early writer. The most important objection, however, to all this absurd account of Peter, as bishop of Rome, is the fact uniformly attested by those early fathers, who allude to his having ever visited that city, that having founded the church there, he appointed Linus the FIRST BISHOP,——a statement in exact accordance with the view here given of the office of a bishop, and of the mode in which the apostles constituted that office in the churches founded and visited by them.
The date of the foundation.——All this is announced with the most elaborate solemnity, in all the older papist writers, because on this point of the foundation of the Roman church by Peter, they were long in the habit of basing the whole right and title of the bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, to the supremacy of the church universal. The great authorities, quoted by them in support of this exact account of the whole affair, with all its dates, even to the month and day, are the bulls of some of the popes, enforcing the celebration of that day throughout all the churches under the Romish see, and the forms of prayer in which this occasion is commemorated even to this day. Moreover, a particular form is quoted from some of the old rituals of the church, not now in use, in which the ancient mode of celebrating this event, in prayer and thanksgiving, is verbally given. “Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui ineffabili sacramento, apostolo tuo Petro principatum Romae urbis tribuisti, unde se evangelica veritas per tota mundi regna diffunderet: praesta quaesumus, ut quod in orbem terrarum ejus praedicatione manavit, universitas Christiana devotione sequatur.”——“Almighty, eternal God, who by an ineffable consecration, didst give to thy apostle Peter the dominion of the city of Rome, that thence the gospel truth might diffuse itself throughout all the kingdoms of the world: grant, we pray, that what has flowed into the whole circuit of the earth by his preaching, all Christendom may devoutly follow.”——A prayer so melodiously expressed, and in such beautiful Latin, that it is a great pity it should have been a mere trick, to spread and perpetuate a downright, baseless lie, which had no other object than the extension of the gloomy, soul-darkening tyranny of the papal sway. Other forms of prayer, for private occasions, are also mentioned by Baronius, as commemorating the foundation of the church of Rome by Peter; and all these, as well as the former, being fixed for the fifteenth of February, as above quoted. Those records of fables, also, the old Roman martyrologies, are cited for evidence. The later Latin fathers add their testimony, and even the devout Augustin (sermons 15, 16, de sanct, &c.) is quoted in support of it. Baronius gives all these evidences, (Annales, 45, § 1,) and goes on to earn the cardinal’s hat, which finally rewarded his zealous efforts, by maintaining the unity and universality of this apostolic foundation, and the absolute supremacy consequently appertaining to the succession of Peter in the Roman see.
Peter’s chair.——This fable (page 225) is from Baronius, who wrote about 1580; but alas! modern accidental discoveries make dreadful havoc with papistical antiquities, and have done as much to correct the mistake in this matter, as in Justin’s blunder about Simon Magus. I had transcribed Baronius’s story into the text as above without knowing of the fact, till a glance at the investigations of the sagacious Bower gave me the information which I here extract from him.
“They had, as they thought, till the year 1662, a pregnant proof, not only of St. Peter’s erecting their chair, but of his sitting in it himself; for till that year, the very chair, on which they believed, or would make others believe, he had sat, was shown and exposed to public adoration on the 18th of January, the festival of the said chair. But while it was cleaning, in order to be set up in some conspicuous place of the Vatican, the twelve labors of Hercules unluckily appeared engraved on it. ‘Our worship, however,’ says Giacomo Bartolini, who was present at this discovery, and relates it, ‘was not misplaced, since it was not to the wood we paid it, but to the prince of the apostles, St. Peter.’ An author of no mean character, unwilling to give up the holy chair, even after this discovery, as having a place and a peculiar solemnity among the other saints, has attempted to explain the labors of Hercules in a mystical sense, as emblems representing the future exploits of the popes. (Luchesini catedra restituita a S. Pietro.) But the ridiculous and distorted conceits of that writer are not worthy our notice, though by Clement X. they were judged not unworthy of a reward.” (Bower’s Lives of the Popes, Vol. I. p. 7, 4to. ed. 1749.)
The next noticeable thing that Peter is made to do at Rome, is the sending out of his disciples from Rome to act as missionaries and bishops in the various wide divisions of the Roman empire, westward from the capital, which were yet wholly unoccupied by the preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In his supposed character of keeper of the great flock of Christ, having now fully established the Roman see, he turned his eyes to those distant regions, and considering their religious wants and utter spiritual destitution, sent into them several disciples whom he is supposed to have qualified for such labors by his own minute personal instructions. Thus, as rays from the sun, and as streams from the fountain, did the Christian faith go forth through these from the see of Peter, and spread far and wide throughout the world. So say the imaginative papist historians, whose fancy not resting satisfied with merely naming the regions to which these new missionaries were now sent, goes on with a catalogue of the persons, and of the places where they became finally established in their bishoprics. But it would be honoring such fables too much, to record the long string of names which are in the papist annals, given to designate the missionaries thus sent out, and the particular places to which they were sent. It is enough to notice that the sum of the whole story is, that preachers of the gospel were thus sent not only into the western regions alluded to, but into many cities of Italy and Sicily. In Gaul, Spain and Germany, many are said to have been certainly established; and to extend the fable as far as possible, it is even hinted that Britain received the gospel through the preaching of some of these missionaries of Peter; but this distant circumstance is stated rather as a conjecture, while the rest are minutely and seriously given, in all the grave details of persons and places.
In various works of this character, Peter is said by the propagators of this fable to have passed seven years at Rome, during all which time he is not supposed to have gone beyond the bounds of the city. The occasion of his departure at the end of this long period, as stated by the fabulous records from which the whole story is drawn, was the great edict of Claudius Caesar, banishing all Jews from Rome, among whom Peter must of course have been included. This imperial sentence of general banishment, is not only alluded to in the Acts of the Apostles, but is particularly specified in the Roman and Jewish historians of those times; from which its exact date is ascertained to have been the ninth year of the reign of Claudius, from which, as Peter is supposed to have gone to Rome in the second year of that reign, the intervening time must have been, as above stated, seven years. The particulars of this general banishment, its motives and results, will be better given in that part of this work where important points in authentic true history are connected with the event. Under these circumstances, however, the great first bishop of Rome is supposed to have left this now consecrated capital of Christendom, and traveled off eastward, along with the general throng of Jewish fugitives. Some of the papist commentators on this story are nevertheless, so much scandalized at the thought of Peter’s running away in this seemingly undignified manner, (though this is in fact the part of the story which is most consistent with the real truth, since no apostle was ever taught to consider it beneath his dignity to get out of danger,) that they therefore strive to make it appear that he still stayed in Rome, in spite of the imperial edict, and boldly preached the gospel, without reference to danger, until, soon after, it became necessary for him to go to the east on important business. The majority, however, are agreed that he did remove from Rome along with the rest of the Jews, though while he remained there, he is supposed to have kept up the apostolic dignity by preaching at all risks. His journey eastward is made out in rather a circuitous manner, probably for no better reason than to make their stories as long as possible; and therefore it is enough to say, that he is carried by the continuation of the fable, from Rome first into Africa, where he erected a church at Carthage, over which he ordained Crescens, one of his Roman disciples, as bishop. Proceeding next along the northern coast of the continent, he is brought to Alexandria, where, of course, he founds a church, leaving the evangelist Mark in it, as bishop; and passing up the Nile to Thebes, constitutes Rufus there, in the same capacity. Thence the fabulous chroniclers carry him at once to Jerusalem; and here ends this tedious string of details, the story being now resumed from the clear and honest record of the sacred historian, to the great refreshment of the writer as well as the reader, after dealing so long in what is utterly unalloyed falsehood.
Peter, bishop of Rome.——The great question of his having ever visited this city, has two separate and distinct parts, resting on totally different grounds, since they refer to two widely distant periods of time; but that part which refers to his early visit, being connected with this portion of the history, I proceed in this place to the full examination of all the evidences, which have ever been brought in support of both divisions of this great subject in papal dogmatic history, from the supposed records of this event in the writings of the early Christian Fathers. On this head, instead of myself entering into a course of investigations among these writers, which my very slight acquaintance with their works would make exceedingly laborious to me, and probably very incomplete after all, I here avail myself of the learned and industrious research of my friend, the Rev. Dr. Murdock, widely and honorably known as the Translator and Annotator of Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History. Through his kindness, I am allowed the free use of a long series of instructive lectures, formerly delivered by him as a professor of Ecclesiastical History, which having been subsequently modified to suit a popular audience, will bring the whole of this learned matter, with the fullest details of the argument, in a form perfectly intelligible and acceptable to my readers.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS.
In the latter part of the first century, Clement, bishop of Rome, (Epistle I. to Corinth, § 5,) speaks of Paul and Peter as persecuted, and dying as martyrs. But he does not say when, or where. In the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr speaks of Simon Magus, his magic and his deification, at Rome; but makes no mention of Peter’s going to Rome, to combat him. Nor does any other father, so far as I know, till after A. D. 300. About twenty years after Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, (bishop of Lyons,) wrote his five books against the heretics; in which he confutes them, by the testimony of those churches which were said to have been founded immediately by the apostles. The following extract from him will fully illustrate that mode of reasoning, and also show us what Irenaeus knew of Peter’s being at Rome. He says: “The doctrine preached to all the world by the apostles, is now found in the church;——as all may see if they are willing to learn; and we are able to name the persons whom the apostles constituted the bishops of the churches, and their successors down to our times; who have never taught or known any such doctrine as the heretics advance. Now if the apostles had been acquainted with [certain] recondite mysteries, which they taught privately, and only to such as were the most perfect, they would certainly have taught them to those men to whom they committed the care of the churches; for they required them to be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom they made their successors and substitutes in office;——because, if they conducted aright, great advantage would result; but if they should go wrong, immense evils would ensue. But, as it would be tedious, in the present work, to enumerate the successions in all the churches, I will mention but one, viz. the greatest, most ancient, and well-known by all, the church founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul. The faith of this church was the result of apostolic teaching, and the same as was every where preached; and it has come down to us through a succession of bishops; and by this example we confound all those who, in any manner, either from selfish views and vain glory, or from blindness to truth and erroneous belief, hold forth false doctrine. For with this church, on account of its superior pre-eminence, every other church,——that is, the true believers every where,——must agree; because, in it has ever been preserved the doctrine derived immediately from the apostles, and which was every where propagated. The blessed apostles having founded and instructed this church, committed the episcopacy of it to Linus; who is mentioned by Paul in his epistle to Timothy. Anacletus succeeded Linus; and after him, the third bishop from the apostles, was Clement, who saw the apostles themselves, and conferred with them, while their preaching and instruction was still sounding in his ears.” Irenaeus then enumerates the succeeding bishops, down to Eleutherius, “who,” he says, “is now the twelfth bishop from the apostles.” In the preceding section, Irenaeus tells us that Matthew wrote his gospel “while Peter and Paul were preaching, and founding the church at Rome.”
Here is full and explicit testimony, that Paul and Peter, unitedly, preached and founded the church at Rome; and that they constituted Linus the first bishop there. The language excludes both Peter and Paul,——and excludes both equally, from the episcopal chair at Rome. “They committed the episcopacy to Linus;” who was the first bishop, as Clement was the third, and Eleutherius the twelfth. Contemporary with Irenaeus was Dionysius, bishop of Corinth. In reply to a monitory letter from the Romish church, of which Eusebius (Church History, II. 25,) has preserved an extract, Dionysius says: “By this your excellent admonition, you have united in one the planting, by Peter and Paul, of the Romans and Corinthians. For both of them coming to our Corinth, planted and instructed us;——and in like manner, going to Italy together,——after teaching there, they suffered martyrdom at the same time.” From this testimony we may learn how and when Peter went to Rome; as well as what relation he sustained to the church there. He and Paul came to Corinth together; and when they had regulated and instructed that church, they went on together to Italy, and did the same things at Rome as before at Corinth. Now this, if true, must have been after the captivity of Paul at Rome, mentioned in the book of Acts. For Paul never went directly from Corinth to Rome before that captivity, since he never was at Rome before he was carried there a prisoner, in the year A. D. 62. But, if released in the year 64, he might have visited Corinth afterwards, with Peter, and then have traveled with him to Rome. To the church of Rome, Peter and Paul sustained the same relation; and that was the same as they had sustained to the church of Corinth, viz. that of apostolic teachers and founders,——not that of ORDINARY BISHOPS. That is, Peter was no more the bishop of Rome than Paul was; and neither of them, any more the bishop of Rome than both were bishops of Corinth. Dionysius likewise, here affirms, that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom “at the same time;” and probably at Rome, where they last taught. That Rome was the place is proved by Caius, a Romish ecclesiastic, about A. D. 200, as quoted by Eusebius, (Church History, II. 25.) “I am able,” says he, “to show the trophies [the sepulchers] of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican, or along the Via Ostia, you will find the trophies of those who established this church.”
The next father, Clement of Alexandria, (about A. D. 200,) reports it as tradition, that Mark wrote his gospel at Rome, while Peter was preaching there. (Eusebius, Church History, VI. 14.) In the forepart of the third century, lived Tertullian, a fervid and learned writer. He assailed the heretics with the same argument as Irenaeus did. “Run over,” says he, “the apostolic churches, in which the chairs of apostles still preside in their places, and in which the autographs of their epistles are still read. If you are near to Italy, you have Rome, a witness for us; and how blessed a church is that on which apostles poured out their whole doctrine, together with their blood! where Peter equaled our Lord in his mode of suffering; and where Paul was crowned, with the exit of John the Baptist.” (De praescriptione haereticorum c. 36.) In another work he says: “Let us see what the Romans hold forth; to whom Peter and Paul imparted the gospel sealed with their own blood.” (adversus Marcion, IV. c. 5.) Again he says: “Neither is there a disparity between those whom John baptized in the Jordan, and Peter in the Tiber.” (de Baptismo.) He moreover testifies that Peter suffered in the reign of Nero, (Scorpiac. c. 15,) and that this apostle ordained Clement bishop of Rome. (Praescriptione c. 32.) In the middle of the third century, Cyprian of Carthage, writing to the bishop of Rome, (Epistle 55, to Cornelius) calls the church of Rome “the principal church;” and that where “Peter’s chair” was;——and “whose faith was derived from apostolic preaching.” In the end of the third century or the beginning of the fourth, Lactantius (Divine Institutes, IV. c. 21,) speaks of “Peter and Paul” as having wrought miracles, and uttered predictions at Rome; and describes their prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem. And in his work on the Deaths of Persecutors, (chapter 2,) he says: “During the reign of Nero, Peter came to Rome; and having wrought several miracles by the power of God, which rested on him, he converted many to righteousness, and erected a faithful and abiding temple for God. This became known to Nero, who, learning that multitudes, not only at Rome but in all other places, were abandoning idolatry and embracing the new religion, and being hurried on to all sorts of cruelty by his brutal tyranny, set himself, the first of all, to destroy this religion, and to persecute the servants of God. So he ordered Peter to be crucified and Paul to be beheaded.” I have now detailed every important testimony which I could find in the genuine works of the fathers, in the three first centuries. The witnesses agree very well; and they relate nothing but what may be true. They make Peter and Paul to go from Corinth to Rome, in company, during the reign of Nero; and after preaching and strengthening the church at Rome, and ordaining Linus to be its first bishop,——both suffering martyrdom at Rome on the same day; Peter being crucified and Paul decapitated. There is no representation of Peter’s being any more bishop of Rome than Paul was;——and Irenaeus in particular, expressly makes Linus the first bishop, and to be ordained by the two apostles.
We now come to Eusebius, who wrote about A. D. 325. He quotes most of the fathers above cited, but departs widely from them, in regard to the time, and the occasion, of Peter’s going to Rome. He says it was in the reign of Claudius;——and for the purpose of opposing Simon Magus, (as the Clementine novels represented the matter.) Yet he does not make Peter to be bishop of Rome. The subsequent writers of the fourth and following centuries, agree with Eusebius as to the time and the occasion of Peter’s going to Rome; and most of them make Peter to be the first bishop of Rome. According to them, Peter remained in Judea only about four years after the ascension; then he was bishop of Antioch seven years, and in the second year of Claudius, A. D. 43, removed his chair to Rome, where he was bishop for twenty-five years, or until his death, A. D. 68. And this is the account generally given by the papists, quite down to the present times.
OBJECTIONS TO THE TRADITIONARY HISTORY OF PETER.
1. So far as the later fathers contradict those of the three first centuries, they ought to be rejected; because, they could not have so good means of information. Oral tradition must, in three centuries, have become worthless, compared with what it was in the second and third centuries;——and written testimony, which could be relied on, they had none, except that of the early fathers. Besides, we have seen how these later fathers were led astray. They believed the fable of Simon Magus’s legerdemain at Rome, and his deification there. They read the Clementine fictions, and supposed them to be novels founded on facts. In their eulogies of Peter, they were fond of relating marvelous and affecting stories about him, and therefore too readily admitted fabulous traditions. And lastly, the bishops of Rome and their numerous adherents had a direct and an immense interest depending on this traditional history;——for by it alone, they made out their succession to the chair of Peter, and the legitimacy of their ghostly power.
2. The later fathers invalidate their own testimony, by stating what is incredible, and what neither they nor their modern adherents can satisfactorily explain. They state that Linus succeeded Peter, for about twelve years; then followed Cletus or Anacletus, for about twelve years more; and then succeeded Clement. And yet they tell us, all the three were ordained by the hands of Peter. How could this be? Did Peter ordain three successive bishops, after he was dead?——or did he resign his office to these bishops, and retire to a private station, more than twenty-five years before his crucifixion? No, says Epiphanius, (Against Heresies, 27,) and after him most of the modern papists; (Nat. Alex. H. E. saecul. I. Diss. XIII. Burius, &c.) but Peter being often absent from Rome, and having a vast weight of cares, had assistant bishops; and Linus and Cletus were not the successors but the assistants of Peter. But Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, and all the authorized catalogues of popes, explicitly make Linus and Cletus to be successors to Peter. Besides, why did Peter need an assistant any more than the succeeding pontiffs? And what age since has ever witnessed an assistant pope at Rome? A more plausible solution (but which the papists cannot admit) is given by Rufinus. (Preface to Clementine Recognitions) “As I understand it,” says he, “Linus and Cletus were the bishops of Rome in Peter’s life-time; so that they performed the episcopal functions, and he, those of an apostle. And, in this way the whole may be true,” says Rufinus. Granted, if this were the only objection; and if it could be made out that Peter went to Rome full twenty-four years before his martyrdom. But supposing it true, how can the successors of Linus and Cletus, the bishops, be successors of Peter, the apostle.
3. Peter removed his chair to Rome, (say the later fathers and most of the Catholics,) in the second year of Claudius, that is, A. D. 43; and he resided there twenty-four years, or till his death. But we have the best proof,——that of holy writ,——that Peter was resident at Jerusalem, as late as the year A. D. 44; when king Agrippa seized him there, and imprisoned him, with intent to kill him. (Acts xii. 3–19.) And we have similar proof that he was still there in the year 51; when he deliberated and acted with the other apostles and brethren of Jerusalem, on the question of obliging Gentiles to observe the law of Moses. (Acts xv. 7, &c.; Galatians ii. 1–9.) And, moreover, some time after this, as Paul tells us, (Galatians ii. 11–14,) he came to Antioch, in Syria, and there dissembled about eating with the Gentiles. The common reply of the Catholics is, that Peter often made long journeys; and he might happen to be at Jerusalem, and at Antioch, at these times. But this solution is rejected by the more candid Romanists themselves, who agree with the early fathers, asserting that Peter first went to Rome in the reign of Nero. (See Pagi Critique of Baronius’s Annale, 43.)
4. Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans in the year 59, as is supposed. And from this epistle it is almost certain, Peter was not then at Rome; and highly probable he had never been there. Throughout the epistle, Peter’s name is not even mentioned; nor is that of Linus or Cletus, his supposed assistants, who always, it is said, supplied his place when he was absent. Indeed, so far as can be gathered from Paul’s epistle, the Romish Christians appear not to have had, at that time nor previously, any bishop or any ecclesiastical head. The epistle is addressed “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints.” (Romans i. 7.) It exhorts them to obey magistrates;——but not to reverence and obey their spiritual rulers. (Romans xiii. 1, &c.) It inculcates on them all, the duty of living in harmony,——of being modest and humble,——of using their different gifts for the common good; (Romans xii. 3, &c.;) but gives no intimation that they were amenable to any ecclesiastical authorities. It gives them rules for conducting their disciplinary acts, as a popular body, (Romans xiv. 1, &c.,) but does not refer to any regulations given them by St. Peter and his assistants. It contains salutations to near thirty persons, male and female, whom Paul knew personally, or by hearsay, (chapter xvi.) but neither Peter, nor Linus, nor Cletus is of the number; nor is any one spoken of as bishop, or elder, or pastor, or as clothed with any ecclesiastical authority. Priscilla and Aquila, and several others whom he had known in Greece or Asia, are named; and seem to be the leading persons in the church. Indeed, it would seem that no apostle had, as yet, ever been at Rome. Paul says he had “had a great desire, for many years,” to visit them, and he intended to do so as soon as possible. (Romans xv. 23.) And he tells them why he longed to see them, that he might impart to them “some spiritual gifts;”——that is, some of those miraculous gifts, which none but apostles could confer. (Romans i. 11.) I may add, that Paul gives them a whole system of divinity in this epistle; and crowds more theology into it, than into any other he ever wrote;——as if he considered this church as needing fundamental instruction in the gospel, more than any other. Now, how could all this be, if Peter had been there fifteen years, with an assistant bishop to aid him; and had completely organized, and regulated, and instructed this central church of all Christendom? What Catholic bishop, at the present day, would dare to address the church of Rome without once naming his liege lord, the pope; and would give them a whole system of theology, and numerous rules and regulations for their private conduct and for their public discipline, without even an intimation that they had any spiritual guides and rulers, to whom they were accountable?
5. Three years after this epistle was written, (that is, A. D. 62,) Paul arrived at Rome, and was there detained a prisoner for two years, or until A. D. 64. Now let us see if we can find Peter there, at or during this period. When it was known at Rome that Paul was approaching the city, the Christians there went twenty miles to meet him, and escort him;——so eager were they to see an apostle of Jesus Christ. Three days after his arrival, “Paul called the chief of the Jews together,” to have conversation with them. They had heard nothing against him, and they were glad to see him,——for they wished to hear more about the Christian sect; “for,” said they, “as concerning this sect, we know that it is every where spoken against;” and “we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest.” (Acts xxviii. 22.) They appointed him a day, when they all assembled for the purpose, and he addressed them “from morning till evening.” Now could Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, have been near twenty years bishop of Rome, and so full of business as to employ an assistant bishop, and yet the Jews there be so ignorant of Christianity, and so glad to meet with one who could satisfy their curiosity to learn something about it? Moreover, Paul now continued to preach the gospel in “his own hired house,” at Rome, for two years; (Acts xxviii. 30, 31;) and it would seem, was very successful. During this time he wrote his epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and perhaps, that to the Hebrews. In these epistles he often speaks of his success in making converts, and of the brethren who labored with him;——but he does not once even name Peter, or Linus, or Cletus,——or intimate, at all, that there was a cathedral church at Rome, with an apostle or any bishop at its head. He sends numerous salutations from individuals whom he names, and from little companies of Christians in their houses,——but no salutations from Peter, or from any bishop, or other officer of the church there. The Catholics tell us, Peter might happen to be absent during this period. What! absent two whole years! and his assistant bishop also? Very negligent shepherds! But where was the church all this time,——the enlightened Christian community, and the elders and deacons, who governed and instructed it, from Sabbath to Sabbath? Were all these, too, gone a journey? No: it is manifest Paul was now the only regular preacher of the gospel at Rome: and he was breaking up fallow ground, that had never before been cultivated, and sown, and made to bear fruit.
[This closes the learned argument on the testimonies of the Fathers, extracted from Dr. Murdock’s manuscripts.]
Lardner also gives a sort of abstract of the passages in the fathers, which refer to this subject, but not near so full, nor so just to the original passages, as that of Dr. Murdock, although he refers to a few authors not alluded to here, whose testimony, however, amounts to little or nothing. Lardner’s disposition to believe all these long-established Roman fables, seems very great, and, on these points, his critical accuracy appears to fail in maintaining its general character. However, in the simple passage from Clemens Romanus, referred to above, he is very full, not only translating the whole passage relating to Peter and Paul, but entering into a very elaborate discussion of the views taken of it; but after all he fails so utterly in rearing an historical argument on this slender basis, that I cannot feel called on to do anything more than barely refer the critical reader to the passage in his life of Peter, (VII.)
Bower has given numerous quotations, too, from these sources, but nothing not contained in the abstract above, of which a great merit is, that it gives all the passages in full, in a faithful and highly expressive translation. (See Bower’s Lives of the Popes. “Peter.”)
THE COUNCIL OF THE APOSTLES AT JERUSALEM.
The last circumstance of Peter’s life and actions, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, is one so deeply involved also in the conduct of others of the holy band, that the history of the whole affair can be best given in connection with their lives; more especially as the immediate occasion of it arose under the labors of these other persons. All the statement which is here necessary to introduce the part which Peter took in the sayings and doings on this occasion, is simply as follows. Paul and Barnabas, having returned to Antioch from their first great mission from that city, throughout almost the whole circuit of Asia Minor, were, soon after their arrival in that city, involved in a vexatious dispute with a set of persons, who, having come down from Jerusalem, had undertaken to give the Syrian Christians more careful instructions in the minutiae of religious duty, than they had received from those who had originally effected their conversion. These new teachers being directly from that holy city, which, having been the great scene of the instructions and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and still being the seat of the apostolic college, was regarded by all, as the true source of religious light, to Christians as well as Jews, throughout the world, therefore made no small commotion in the church of Antioch, when they began to inculcate, as essential to salvation, a full conformity to all the minute ritual observances of the Mosaic law. The church of Antioch, having been planted and taught by men of a more catholic spirit, had gathered within itself a large number of heathen from that Gentile city, who, led by their convictions of the truth and spirituality of the Christian faith, had renounced entirely all the idolatries in which they had been brought up, giving themselves, as it would seem, with honest resolution, to a life of such moral purity, as they considered alone essential to the maintenance of their new religious character. Still, they had never supposed, that in renouncing their idolatrous superstitions, they had bound themselves to throw off also those customs of their country, which could have no connection with moral purity of conduct, and had therefore still remained in national peculiarities, Gentiles; though in creed, and religious practice, Christians. In this course they had been encouraged by the liberal and enlarged views of their religious instructors, who had never once hinted at the necessity of imposing upon Gentile Christians the burden of the Jewish law, which all the impressions of education and previous habits of life would have made quite intolerable. The wisdom of this enlightened spirit was seen in the great accessions of Gentiles, who, being convinced of the necessity of a moral change, were not met by any ceremonial impediments to the full adoption of a pure religion. Paul and Barnabas were, therefore, not a little troubled with this new difficulty, brought in by these Jewish teachers, who, being fresh from the fountain of religious knowledge, claimed great authority in reference to all delicate points of this nature. At last, after long and violent disputes between these old-school and new-school theologians, it was resolved to refer the whole matter to the twelve apostles themselves, at Jerusalem, who might well be supposed qualified to say what they considered to be the essential doctrines and observances of Christianity. Paul and Barnabas, therefore, with some of the rest engaged in the discussion, went up to Jerusalem as a delegation, for this purpose, and presented the whole difficulty to the consideration of the apostles. So little settled, after all, were the views and feelings of these first preachers of Christianity about the degree of freedom to be enjoyed by the numerous Gentile converts, that all the Jewish prejudices of many of them burst out at once, and high ground was taken against any dispensation in favor of Gentile prejudices. After a long discussion, in full assembly of both apostles and church-officers, Peter arose in the midst of the debate, taking the superiority to which his peculiar commission and his long precedence among them entitled him, and in a tone of dignified decision addressed them. He reminded them, in the first place, of that unquestionable call by which God had chosen him from among all the apostles, to proclaim to the heathen the word of the gospel, and of that solemn sign by which God had attested the completeness of their conversion, knowing, as he did, the hearts of all his creatures. The signs of the Holy Spirit having been imparted to the heathen converts with the same perfection of regenerating influence that had been manifested in those of the Jewish faith who had believed, it was manifestly challenging the testimony of God himself, to try to put on them the irksome yoke of the tedious Mosaic ritual, a yoke which not even the Jewish disciples, nor their fathers before them, had been able to bear in all the appointed strictness of its observances; and much less, then, could they expect a burden so intolerable, to be supported by those to whom it had none of the sanctions of national and educational prejudice, which so much assisted its dominion over the feelings of the Jews. And all the disciples, even those of Jewish race, must be perfectly satisfied that their whole reliance for salvation should be, not on any legal conformity, but on that common favor of their Lord, Jesus Christ, in which the Gentile converts also trusted.
Challenge the testimony of God.——This is the substance of Kuinoel’s ideas of the force of this passage, (Acts xv. 10.) πειραζετε τον θεον, (peirazete ton Theon.) His words are, “Tentare Deum dicuntur, qui veritatem, omnipotentiam, omniscientiam, etc. Dei in dubium vocare, vel nova divinae potentiae ac voluntatis documenta desiderant, adeoque Deo obnituntur.”——“Those are said to tempt God who call in question God’s truth, omnipotence, omniscience, &c., or demand new evidences of the divine power or will, and thus strive against God.” He quotes Pott and Schleusner in support of this view of the passage. Rosenmueller and Bloomfield take the same view, as well as many others quoted by the latter and by Poole. Bloomfield is very full on the whole of Peter’s speech, and on all the discussion, with the occasions of it.
Chose me.——This passage has been the subject of much discussion, but I have given a free translation which disagrees with no one of the views of its literal force. The fairest opinion of the matter is, that the expression εξελεξατο εν ημιν, is a Hebraism. (See Vorstius and others quoted by Bloomfield.)
This logically clear statement of whole difficulty, supported by the decisive authority of the chief of the apostles, most effectually hushed all discussion at once; and the whole assembly kept silence, while Paul and Barnabas recounted the extent and success of their labors. After they had finished, James, as the leader of the Mosaic faction, arose and expressed his own perfect acquiescence in the decision of Simon Peter, and proposed an arrangement for a dispensation in favor of the Gentile converts, perfectly satisfactory to all. This conclusion, establishing the correctness of the tolerant and accommodating views of the chief apostle, ended the business in a prudent manner, the details of which will be given in the lives of those more immediately concerned in the results; and though so abrupt a conclusion may be undesirable here, it will be only robbing Peter to pay Paul.
ANTIOCH, IN SYRIA. Acts xi. 26.
PETER’S VISIT TO ANTIOCH.
The historian of the Acts of the Apostles, after the narration of the preceding occurrence, makes no farther allusion to Peter; devoting himself wholly to the account of the far more extensive labors of Paul and his companions, so that for the remaining records of Peter’s life, reference must be had to other sources. These sources, however, are but few, and the results of investigations into them must be very brief.
From some passages in the first part of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, in which he gives an account of his previous intercourse with the twelve apostles, having mentioned his own visit to Jerusalem and its results, as just described above, he speaks of Peter as coming down to Antioch, soon after, where his conduct, in some particulars, was such as to meet the very decided reprehension of Paul. On his first arrival in that Gentile city, Peter, in accordance with the liberal views taught him by the revelation at Joppa and Caesarea, mingled, without scruple, among all classes of believers in Christ, claiming their hospitalities and all the pleasures of social intercourse, making no distinction between those of Jewish and of heathen origin. But in a short time, a company of persons came down from Jerusalem, sent particularly by James, no doubt with a reference to some especial observations on the behavior of the chief apostle, to see how it accorded with the Jerusalem standard of demeanor towards those, whom, by the Mosaic law, he must consider improper persons for the familiar intercourse of a Jew. Peter, probably knowing that they were disposed to notice his conduct critically on these matters of ceremonial punctilio, prudently determined to quiet these censors by avoiding all occasion for any collision with their prejudices. Before their arrival, he had mingled freely with the Grecian and Syrian members of the Christian community, eating with them, and conforming to their customs as far as was convenient for unrestrained social intercourse. But he now withdrew himself from their society, and kept himself much more retired than when free from critical observation. The sharp-eyed Paul, on noticing this sudden change in Peter’s habits, immediately attacked him with his characteristic boldness, charging him with unworthy dissimulation, in thus accommodating his behavior to the whims of these sticklers for Judaical strictness of manners. The common supposition has been, that Peter was here wholly in the wrong, and Paul wholly in the right: a conclusion by no means justified by what is known of the facts, and of the characters of the persons concerned. Peter was a much older man than Paul, and much more disposed by his cooler blood, to prudent and careful measures. His long personal intercourse with Jesus himself, also gave him a great advantage over Paul, in judging of what would be the conduct in such a case most conformable to the spirit of his divine Master; nor was his behavior marked by anything discordant with real honesty. The precept of Christ was, “Be wise as serpents;” and a mere desire to avoid offending an over-scrupulous brother in a trifling matter, implied no more wariness than that divine maxim inculcated, and was, moreover, in the spirit of what Paul himself enjoined in very similar cases, in advising to avoid “offending a brother by eating meat which had been offered in sacrifice to idols.” There is no scriptural authority to favor the opinion that Peter ever acknowledged he was wrong; for all that Paul says is——“I rebuked him,”——but he does not say what effect it had on one who was an older and wiser man than his reprover, and quite as likely to be guided by the spirit of truth. It is probable, however, that Peter had something to say for himself; since it is quite discordant with all common ideas, to suppose that a great apostle would, in the face of those who looked up to him as a source of eternal truth, act a part which implied an unjustifiable practical falsehood. After all, the difference seems to have been on a point of very trifling importance, connected merely with the ceremonials of familiar intercourse, between individuals of nations widely different in manners, habits, prejudices, and the whole tenor of their feelings, as far as country, language and education, would affect them; and a fair consideration of the whole difficulty, by modern ethical standards, will do much to justify Peter in a course designed to avoid unnecessary occasions of quarrel, until the slow operations of time should have worn away all these national prejudices,——the rigid sticklers quietly accommodating themselves to the neglect of ceremonies, which experience would prove perfectly impracticable among those professing the free faith of Christ.
HIS RESIDENCE IN BABYLON.
The first epistle of Peter contains at the close a general salutation from the church in Babylon, to the Christians of Asia Minor, to whom it was addressed. From this, the unquestioned inference is, that Peter was in that city when he wrote. The only point mooted is, whether the place meant by this name was Babylon on the Euphrates, or some other city commonly designated by that name. The most irrational conjecture on the subject, and yet the one which has found most supporters, is, that this name is there used in a spiritual or metaphorical sense for Rome, whose conquests, wide dominion, idolatries, and tyranny over the worshipers of the true God, were considered as assimilating it to the ancient capital of the eastern world. But, in reference to such an unparalleled instance of useless allegory, in a sober message from one church to a number of others, serving as a convenient date for a letter, it should be remembered that at that time there were at least two distinct, important places, bearing the name of Babylon,——so well known throughout the east, that the simple mention of the name would at once suggest to a common reader, one of these as the place seriously meant. One of these was that which stood on the site of the ancient Chaldean Babylon, a place of great resort to the Jews, finally becoming to them, after the destruction of Jerusalem, a great city of refuge, and one of the two great capitals of the Hebrew faith, sharing only with Tiberias the honors of its literary and religious pre-eminence. Even before that, however, as early as the time of Peter, it was a city of great importance and interest in a religious point of view, offering a most ample and desirable field for the labors of the chief apostle, now advancing in years, and whose whole genius, feelings, religious education and national peculiarities, qualified him as eminently for this oriental scene of labor, as those of Paul fitted him for the triumphant advancement of the Christian faith among the polished and energetic races of the mighty west. Here, then, it seems reasonable and pleasant to imagine, that in this glorious “clime of the east,”——away from the bloody strife between tyranny and faction, that distracted and desolated the once blessed land of Israel’s heritage, during the brief delay of its awful doom,——among the scenes of that ancient captivity, in which the mourning sons of Zion had drawn high consolation and lasting support from the same word of prophecy, which the march of time in its solemn fulfilments had since made the faithful history of God’s believing people,——here the chief apostle calmly passed the slow decline of his lengthened years. High associations of historical and religious interest gave all around him a holy character. He sat amid the ruins of empires, the scattered wrecks of ages,——still in their dreary desolation attesting the surety of the word of God. From the lonely waste, mounded with the dust of twenty-three centuries, came the solemn witness of the truth of the Hebrew seers, who sung, over the highest glories of that plain in its brightest days, the long-foredoomed ruin that at last overswept it with such blighting desolation. Here, mighty visions of the destiny of worlds, the rise and fall of empire, rose on the view of Daniel and Ezekiel, whose prophetic scope, on this vast stage of dominion, expanded far beyond the narrow limits that bounded all the future in the eyes of the sublimest of those prophets, whose whole ideas of what was great were taken from the little world of Palestine. Like them, too, the apostolic chief lifted his aged eyes above the paltry commotions and troubles of his own land and times, and glanced far over all, to the scenes of distant ages,——to the broad view of the spiritual consummation of events,——to the final triumphs of a true and pure faith,——to the achievement of the world’s destiny.
Babylon.——The great Sir John David Michaelis enters with the most satisfactory fullness into the discussion of this locality;——with more fullness, indeed, than my crowded limits will allow me to do justice to; so that I must refer my reader to his Introduction to the New Testament, (chapter xxvii. § 4, 5,) where ample statements may be found by those who wish to satisfy themselves of the justice of my conclusion about the place from which this epistle was written. He very ably exposes the extraordinary absurdity of the opinion that this date was given in a mystical sense, at a time when the ancient Babylon, on the Euphrates, was still in existence, as well as a city on the Tigris, Seleucia, to which the name of modern Babylon was given. And he might have added, that there was still another of this name in Egypt, not far from the great Memphis, which has, by Pearson and others, been earnestly defended as the Babylon from which Peter wrote. Michaelis observes, that through some mistake it has been supposed, that the ancient Babylon, in the time of Peter, was no longer in being; and it is true that in comparison with its original splendor, it might be called, even in the first century, a desolated city; yet it was not wholly a heap of ruins, nor destitute of inhabitants. This appears from the account which Strabo, who lived in the time of Tiberius, has given of it. This great geographer compares Babylon to Seleucia, saying, “At present Babylon is not so great as Seleucia,” which was then the capital of the Parthian empire, and, according to Pliny, contained six hundred thousand inhabitants. The acute Michaelis humorously remarks, that “to conclude that Babylon, whence Peter dates his epistle, could not have been the ancient Babylon, because this city was in a state of decay, and thence to argue that Peter used the word mystically, to denote Rome, is about the same as if, on the receipt of a letter dated from Ghent or Antwerp, in which mention was made of a Christian community there, I concluded that because these cities are no longer what they were in the sixteenth century, the writer of the epistle meant a spiritual Ghent or Antwerp, and that the epistle was really written from Amsterdam.” And in the next section he gives a similar illustration of this amusing absurdity, equally apt and happy, drawn in the same manner from modern places about him, (for Goettingen was the residence of the immortal professor.) “The plain language of epistolary writing does not admit of figures of poetry; and though it would be very allowable in a poem, written in honor of Goettingen, to style it another Athens, yet if a professor of this university should, in a letter written from Goettingen, date it Athens, it would be a greater piece of pedantry than any learned man was ever yet guilty of. In like manner, though a figurative use of the word Babylon is not unsuitable to the animated and poetical language of the Apocalypse, yet in a plain and unadorned epistle, Peter would hardly have called the place whence he wrote, by any other appellation than that which literally and properly belonged to it.” (Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, Marsh’s translation, chapter xxvii. § 4, 5.)
The most zealous defender of this mere popish notion of a mystical Babylon, is, alas! a Protestant. The best argument ever made out in its defense, is that by Lardner, who in his account of Peter’s epistles, (History of the Apostles and Evangelists, chapter xix. § 3,) does his utmost to maintain the mystical sense, and may be well referred to as giving the best possible defense of this view. But the course of Lardner’s great work having led him, on all occasions, to make the most of the testimonies of the fathers, in connection with the establishment of the credibility of the gospel history, he seems to have been unable to shake off this reverence of every thing which came on authority as old as Augustin; and his critical judgment on the traditionary history of Christianity is therefore worth very little. Any one who wishes to see all his truly elaborate and learned arguments fairly met, may find this done by a mind of far greater originality, critical acuteness and biblical knowledge, (if not equal in acquaintance with the fathers,) and by a far sounder judgment, in Michaelis, as above quoted, who has put an end to all dispute on these points, by his presentation of the truth. So well settled is this ground now, that we find in the theology of Romish writers most satisfactory refutations of an error, so convenient for the support of Romish supremacy. The learned Hug (pronounced very nearly like “Hookh;” U sounded as in bull, and G strongly aspirated) may here be referred to for the latest defense of the common sense view. (Introduction vol. II. § 165.) In answer to the notion of an Egyptian Babylon, he gives us help not to be found in Michaelis, who makes no mention of this view. Lardner also quotes from Strabo what sufficiently shows, that this Babylon was no town of importance, but a mere military station for one of the three Roman legions which guarded Egypt.
The only other place that could in any way be proposed as the Babylon of Peter, is Seleucia on the Tigris; but Michaelis has abundantly shown that though in poetical usage in that age, and in common usage afterwards, this city was called Babylon, yet in Peter’s time, grave prose statements would imply the ancient city and not this. He also quotes a highly illustrative passage from Josephus, in defense of his views; and which is of so much the more importance because Josephus was a historian who lived in the same age with Peter, and the passage itself relates to an event which took place thirty-six years before the Christian era; namely, “the delivery of Hyrcanus, the Jewish high priest, from imprisonment, with permission to reside in Babylon, where there was a considerable number of Jews.” (Josephus, Antiquities, XV. ii. 2.) Josephus adds, that “both the Jews in Babylon and all who dwelt in that country, respected Hyrcanus as high priest and king.” That this was the ancient Babylon and not Seleucia, appears from the fact, that wherever else he mentions the latter city, he calls it Seleucia.
Wetstein’s supposition that Peter meant the province of Babylon, being suggested only by the belief that the ancient Babylon did not then exist, is, of course, rendered entirely unnecessary by the proof of its existence.
Besides the great names mentioned above, as authorities for the view which I have taken, I may refer also to Beza, Lightfoot, Basnage, Beausobre, and even Cave, in spite of his love of Romish fables.
To give a complete account of all the views of the passage referring to Babylon, (1 Peter v. 13,) I should also mention that of Pott, (on the cath. epist.,) mentioned by Hug. This is that by the phrase in the Greek, ἡ εν Βαβυλωνι συνεκλεκτη, is meant “the woman chosen with him in Babylon,” that is, Peter’s wife; as if he wished to say, “my wife, who is in Babylon, salutes you;” and Pott concludes that the apostle himself was somewhere else at the time. For the answer to this notion, I refer the critical to Hug. This same notion had been before advanced by Mill, Wall, and Heumann, and refuted by Lardner. (Supp. xix. 5.)
HIS FIRST EPISTLE.
Inspired by such associations and remembrances, and by the spirit of simple truth and sincerity, Peter wrote his first epistle, which he directed to his Jewish brethren in several sections of Asia Minor, who had probably been brought under his ministry only in Jerusalem, on their visits there in attendance on the great annual feasts, which in all years, as in that of the Pentecost on which the Spirit was outpoured, came up to the Holy city to worship; for there is no proof whatever, that Peter ever visited those countries to which he sent this letter. The character of the evidence offered, has been already mentioned. These believers in Christ had, during their annual visits to Jerusalem for many years, been in the habit of seeing there this venerable apostolic chief, and of hearing from his lips the gospel truth. But the changes of events having made it necessary for him to depart from Jerusalem to the peaceful lands of the east, the annual visitors of the Holy city from the west, no longer enjoyed the presence and the spoken words of this greatest teacher. To console them for this loss, and to supply that spiritual instruction which seemed most needful to them in their immediate circumstances, he now wrote to them this epistle; the main purport of which seems to be, to inspire them with courage and consolation, under some weight of general suffering, then endured by them or impending over them. Indeed, the whole scope of the epistle bears most manifestly on this one particular point,——the preparation of its readers, the Christian communities of Asia Minor, for heavy sufferings. It is not, to be sure, without many moral instructions, valuable in a mere general bearing, but all therein given have a peculiar force in reference to the solemn preparation for the endurance of calamities, soon to fall on them. The earnest exhortations which it contains, urging them to maintain a pure conscience, to refute the calumnies of time by innocence,——to show respect for the magistracy,——to unite in so much the greater love and fidelity,——with many others, are all evidently intended to provide them with the virtues which would sustain them under the fearful doom then threatening them. In the pursuance of the same great design, the apostle calls their attention with peculiar earnestness to the bright example of Jesus Christ, whose behavior in suffering was now held up to them as a model and guide in their afflictions. With this noble pattern in view, the apostle calls on them to go on in their blameless way, in spite of all that affliction might throw in the path of duty.
No proof that he ever visited them.——The learned Hug, truly catholic (but not papistical) in his views of these points, though connected with the Roman church, has honestly taken his stand against the foolish inventions on which so much time has been spent above. He says, “Peter had not seen the Asiatic provinces; they were situated in the circuit of Paul’s department, who had traveled through them, instructed them, and even at a distance, and in prison, did not lose sight of them.” (As witness his epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians, all which are comprehended within the circle to which Peter wrote.) “He was acquainted with their mode of life, foibles, virtues and imperfections; their whole condition, and the manner in which they ought to be treated.” The learned writer, however, does not seem to have fully appreciated Peter’s numerous and continual opportunities for personal communications with these converts at Jerusalem. In the brief allusion made in Acts ii. 9, 10, to the foreign Jews visiting Jerusalem at the pentecost, three of the very countries to which Peter writes, “Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,” are commemorated with other neighboring regions, “Phrygia and Pamphylia.” Hug goes on, however, to trace several striking and interesting coincidences between this epistle and those of Paul to the Ephesians, to the Colossians and to Timothy, all which were directed to this region. (Hug’s introduction to New Testament, volume II. § 160.) He observes that “Peter is so far from denying his acquaintance with the epistles of Paul, that he even in express terms refers his readers to these compositions of his ‘beloved brother,’ (2 Peter iii. 15.) and recommends them to them.” Hug, also, in the succeeding section, (§ 161,) points out some still more remarkable coincidences between this and the epistle of James, which, in several passages, are exactly uniform. As 1 Peter i. 6, 7, and James i. 2:——1 Peter i. 24, and James i. 10:——1 Peter v. 5, 6, and James iv. 6–10.
Asia.——It must be understood that there are three totally distinct applications of this name; and without a remembrance of the fact, the whole subject will be in an inextricable confusion. In modern geography, as is well known, it is applied to all that part of the eastern continent which is bounded west by Europe and Africa, and south by the Indian ocean. It is also applied sometimes under the limitation of “Minor,” or “Lesser,” to that part of Great Asia, which lies between the Mediterranean and the Black sea. But in this passage it is not used in either of these extended senses. It is confined to that very narrow section of the eastern coast of the Aegean sea, which stretches from the Caicus to the Meander, including but a few miles of territory inland, in which were the seven cities to which John wrote in the Apocalypse. The same tract also bore the name of Maeonia. Asia Minor, in the modern sense of the term, is also frequently alluded to in Acts, but no where else in the New Testament unless we adopt Griesbach’s reading of Romans xvi. 5, (Asia instead of Achaia.)
In the outset of his address, he greets them as “strangers” in all the various lands throughout which they were “scattered,”——bearing every where the stamp of a peculiar people, foreign in manners, principles and in conduct, to the indigenous races of the regions in which they had made their home, yet sharing, at the same time, the sorrows and the glories of the doomed nation from which they drew their origin,——a chosen, an “elect” order of people, prepared in the counsels of God for a high and holy destiny, by the consecrating influence of a spirit of truth. Pointing them to that hope of an unchanging, undefiled, unfading heritage in the heavens, above the temporary sorrows of the earth, he teaches them to find in that, the consolation needful in their various trials. These trials, in various parts of his work, he speaks of as inevitable and dreadful,——yet appointed by the decrees of God himself as a fiery test, beginning its judgments, indeed, in his own household, but ending in a vastly more awful doom on those who had not the support and safety of obedience to his warning word of truth. All these things are said by way of premonition, to put them on their guard against the onset of approaching evil, lest they should think it strange that a dispensation so cruel should visit them; when, in reality, it was an occasion for joy, that they should thus be made, in suffering, partakers of the glory of Christ, won in like manner. He moreover warns them to keep a constant watch over their conduct, to be prudent and careful, because “the accusing prosecutor” was constantly prowling around them, seeking to attack some one of them with his devouring accusations. Him they were to meet, with a solid adherence to the faith, knowing as they did, that the responsibilities of their religious profession were not confined within the narrow circle of their own sectional limits, but were shared with their brethren in the faith throughout almost the whole world.
From all these particulars the conclusion is inevitable, that there was in the condition of the Christians to whom he wrote, a most remarkable crisis just occurring,——one too of no limited or local character; and that throughout Asia Minor and the whole empire, a trying time of universal trouble was immediately beginning with all who owned the faith of Jesus. The widely extended character of the evil, necessarily implies its emanation from the supreme power of the empire, which, bounded by no provincial limits, would sweep through the world in desolating fury on the righteous sufferers; nor is there any event recorded in the history of those ages, which could thus have affected the Christian communities, except the first Christian persecution, in which Nero, with wanton malice, set the example of cruel, unfounded accusation, that soon spread throughout his whole empire, bringing suffering and death to thousands of faithful believers.
Accusing prosecutor.——The view which Hug takes of the scope of the epistle, throws new light on the true meaning of this passage, and abundantly justifies this new translation, though none of the great New Testament lexicographers support it. The primary, simple senses of the words also, help to justify the usage, as well as their similar force in other passages. A reference to any lexicon will show that elsewhere, these words bear a meaning accordant with this version. The first noun never occurs in the New Testament except in a legal sense. The Greek is Ὁ αντιδικος ὑμων διαβολος, (1 Peter v. 8,) in which the last word (diabolos) need not be construed as a substantive expression, but may be made an adjective, belonging to the second word, (antidikos.) The last word, under these circumstances, need not necessarily mean “the devil,” in any sense; but referring directly to the simple sense of its primitive, must be made to mean “calumniating,” “slanderous,” “accusing,”——and in connection with the technical, legal term, αντιδικος, (whose primary, etymological sense is uniformly a legal one, “the plaintiff or prosecutor in a suit at law,”) can mean only “the calumniating (or accusing) prosecutor.” The common writers on the epistle, being utterly ignorant of its general scope, have failed to apprehend the true force of this expression; but the clear, critical judgment of Rosenmueller, (though he also was without the advantage of a knowledge of its history,) led him at once to see the greater justice of the view here given; and he accordingly adopts it, yet not with the definite, technical application of terms justly belonging to the passage. He refers vaguely to others who have taken this view, but does not give names.
The time when this epistle was written is very variously fixed by the different writers to whom I have above referred. Lardner dating it at Rome, concludes that the time was between A. D. 63 and 65, because he thinks that Peter could not have arrived at Rome earlier. This inference depends entirely on what he does not prove,——the assertion that by Babylon, in the date, is meant Rome. The proofs of its being another place, which I have given above, will therefore require that it should have been written before that time, if Peter did then go to Rome. And Michaelis seems to ground upon this notion his belief, that it “was written either not long before, or not long after, the year 60.” But the nobly impartial Hug comes to our aid again, with the sentence, which, though bearing against a fiction most desirable for his church, he unhesitatingly passes on its date. From his admirable detail of the contents and design of the epistle, he makes it evident that it was written (from Babylon) some years after the time when Peter is commonly said to have gone to Rome, never to return. This is the opinion which I have necessarily adopted, after taking his view of the design of the epistle.
Another series of passages in this epistle refers to the remarkable fact, that the Christians were at that time suffering under an accusation that they were “evil-doers,” malefactors, criminals liable to the vengeance of the law; and that this accusation was so general, that the name, Christian, was already a term denoting a criminal directly liable to this legal vengeance. This certainly was a state of things hitherto totally unparalleled in the history of the followers of Christ. In all the accounts previously given of the nature of the attacks made on them by their enemies, it is made to appear that no accusation whatever was sustained or even brought against them, in reference to moral or legal offences; but they were always presented in the light of mere religious dissenters and sectaries. At Corinth, the independent and equitable Gallio dismissed them from the judgment-seat, with the upright decision that they were chargeable with no crime whatever. Felix and Festus, with king Agrippa II., also, alike esteemed the whole procedure against Paul as a mere theological or religious affair, relating to doctrines and not to moral actions. At Ephesus, even one of the high officers of the city did not hesitate to declare, in the face of a mob raging against Paul and his companions, that they were innocent of all crime. And even as late as the seventh year of Nero, the name of Christian had so little of an odious or criminal character, that Agrippa II. did not disdain to declare himself almost persuaded to assume the name and character. And the whole course of their history abundantly shows, that so far from the idea of attacking the Christian brotherhood in a mass, as guilty of legal offenses, and making their very name nearly synonymous with criminal, no trace whatever of such an attack appears, until three years after the last mentioned date, when Nero charged the Christians, as a sect, with his own atrocious crime, the dreadful devastation by fire of his own capital; and on this ground, every where instituted a cruel persecution against them. In connection with this procedure, the Christians are first mentioned in Roman history, as a new and peculiar class of people, called Christiani, from their founder, Christus; and in reference to this matter, abusive charges are brought against them.
Evil doers.——These passages are in ii. 12, iii. 16, iv. 15, where the word in Greek is κακοποιοι, (kakopoioi,) which means a malefactor, as is shown in John xviii. 30, where the whole point of the remark consists in the fact, that the person spoken of was considered an actual violator of known law; so that the word is evidently limited throughout, to those who were criminals in the eye of the law.
The name Christian denoting a criminal.——This is manifest from iv. 16, where they are exhorted to suffer for this alone, and to give no occasion whatever for any other criminal accusation.
BETHLEHEM, AT NIGHT.
A third characteristic of the circumstances of those to whom this epistle is addressed, is, that they were obliged to be constantly on their guard against accusations, which would expose them to capital punishment. They were objects of scorn and obloquy, and were to expect to be dragged to trial as thieves, murderers, and as wretches conspiring secretly against the public peace and safety; and to all this they were liable in their character as Christians. The apostle, therefore, in deep solicitude for the dreadful condition and liabilities of his friends, warns those who, in spite of innocence, are thus made to suffer, to consider all their afflictions as in accordance with the wise will of God, and, in an upright course of conduct, to commit the keeping of their souls to him, as a faithful guardian, who would not allow the permanent injury of the souls which he had created. Now, not even a conjecture can be made, much less, any historical proof be brought, that beyond Palestine any person had ever yet been made to suffer death on the score of religion, or of any stigma attaching to that sect, before the time when Nero involved them in the cruel charge just mentioned. The date of the first instances of such persecutions was the eleventh year of the reign of Nero, under the consulships of Caius Lecanius Bassus, and Marcus Licinius Crassus, according to the Roman annals. The commencement of the burning of Rome, which was the occasion of this first attack on the Christians, was in the last part of the month of July; but the persecution did not begin immediately. After various contrivances to avert the indignation of the people from their imperial destroyer, the Christians were seized as a proper expiatory sacrifice, the choice being favored by the general dislike with which they were regarded. This attack being deferred for some time after the burning, could not have occurred till late in that year. The epistle cannot have been written before its occurrence, nor indeed until some time afterwards; because a few months must be allowed for the account of it to spread to the provinces of Asia, and it must have been still later when the news of the difficulty could reach the apostle, so as to enable him to appreciate the danger of those Christians who were under the dominion of the Romans. It is evident, then, that the epistle was not written in the same year in which the burning occurred; but in the subsequent one, the twelfth of Nero’s reign, and the sixty-fifth of the Christian era. By that time the condition and prospects of the Christians throughout the empire were such as to excite the deepest solicitude in the great apostle, who, though himself residing in the great Parthian empire, removed from all danger of injury from the Roman emperor, was by no means disposed to forget the high claims the sufferers had on him for counsel and consolation. This dreadful event was the most important which had ever yet befallen the Christians, and there would certainly be just occasion for surprise, if it had called forth no consolatory testimony from the founders of the faith, and if no trace of it could be found in the apostolic records.
Committing the keeping of their souls to God.——This view of the design of the epistle gives new force to this passage, (iv. 19.)
First mentioned in Roman history.——This is by Tacitus, (Annals xv. 44,) who thus speaks of them:——“Nero condendae urbis novae et cognomento suo appellandae gloriam quaerere, et sic jussum incendium credebatur. Ergo abolendo rumori subdidit reos, et quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat,” &c.——“It was believed that Nero, desirous of building the city anew, and of calling it by his surname, had thus caused its burning. To get rid of this general impression, therefore, he brought under this accusation, and visited with the most exquisite punishments, a set of persons, hateful for their crimes, commonly called Christians. The name was derived from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was seized and punished by Pontius Pilate, the procurator. The ruinous superstition, though checked for a while, broke out again, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but also in the city, (Rome.) Therefore those who professed it were first seized, and then, on their confession, a great number of others were convicted, not so much on the charge of the arson, as on account of the universal hatred which existed against them. And their deaths were made amusing exhibitions, as, being covered with the skins of wild beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or were nailed to crosses, or, being daubed with combustible stuff, were burned by way of light, in the darkness, after the close of day. Nero opened his own gardens for the show, and mingled with the lowest part of the throng, on the occasion.” (The description of the cruel manner in which they were burned, may serve as a forcible illustration of the meaning of “the fiery trial,” to which Peter alludes, iv. 12.) By Suetonius, also, they are briefly mentioned. (Nero, chapter 15.) “Afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae et maleficae.”——“The Christians, a sort of men of a new and pernicious (evil doing) superstition, were visited with punishments.”
That this Neronian persecution was as extensive as is here made to appear, is proved by Lardner and Hug. The former in particular, gives several very interesting evidences, in his “Heathen testimonies,” especially the remarkable inscription referring to this persecution, found in Portugal. (Collection of Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, chapter iii.)
From the uniform tone in which the apostle alludes to the danger as threatening only his readers, without the slightest allusion to the circumstance of his being involved in the difficulty, is drawn another important confirmation of the locality of the epistle. He uniformly uses the second person when referring to trials, but if he himself had then been so situated as to share in the calamity for which he strove to prepare them, he would have been very apt to have expressed his own feelings in view of the common evil. Paul, in those epistles which were written under circumstances of personal distress, is very full of warm expressions of the state of mind in which he met his trials; nor was there in Peter any lack of the fervid energy that would burst forth in similarly eloquent sympathy, on the like occasions. But from Babylon, beyond the bounds of Roman sway, he looked on their sufferings only with that pure sympathy which his regard for his brethren would excite; and it is not to be wondered, then, that he uses the second person merely, in speaking of their distresses. The bearer of this epistle to the distressed Christians of Asia Minor, is named Silvanus, generally supposed to be the same with Silvanus or Silas, mentioned in Paul’s epistles, and in the Acts, as the companion of Paul in his journeys through some of those provinces to which Peter now wrote. There is great probability in this conjecture, nor is there anything that contradicts it in the slightest degree; and it may therefore be considered as true. Some other great object may at this time have required his presence among them, or he may have been then passing on his journey to rejoin Paul, thus executing this commission incidentally.
This view of the scope and contents of this epistle is taken from Hug, who seems to have originated it. At least I can find nothing of it in any other author whom I have consulted. Michaelis, for instance, though evidently apprehending the general tendency of the epistle, and its design to prepare its readers for the coming of some dreadful calamity, was not led thereby to the just apprehension of the historical circumstances therewith connected. (Hug, II. §§ 162–165.——Michaelis Vol. IV. chapter xxvii. §§ 1–7.)
THE SECOND EPISTLE.
After writing the former epistle to the Christians of Asia Minor, Peter probably continued to reside in Babylon, since no occurrence is mentioned which could draw him away, in his old age, from the retired but important field of labor to which he had previously confined himself. Still exercising a paternal watchfulness, however, over his distant disciples, his solicitude before long again excited him to address them in reference to their spiritual difficulties and necessities. The apprehensions expressed in the former epistle, respecting their maintenance of a pure faith in their complicated trials, had in the mean time proved well-grounded. During the distracting calamities of Nero’s persecution, false teachers had arisen, who had, by degrees, brought in pernicious heresies among them, affecting the very foundations of the faith, and ending in the most ruinous consequences to the belief and practice of some. This second epistle he wrote, therefore, to stir up those who were still pure in heart, to the remembrance of the true doctrines of Christianity, as taught by the apostles; and to warn them against the heretical notions that had so fatally spread among them. Of the errors complained of, the most important seems to have been the denial of the judgment, which had been prophesied so long. Solemnly re-assuring them of the certainty of that awful series of events, he exhorted them to the steady maintenance of such a holy conduct and godly life, as would fit them to meet the great change which he so sublimely pictured, whenever and however it should occur; and closed with a most solemn charge to beware lest they also should be led away by the error of the wicked, so as to fall from their former steadfast adherence to the truth. In the former part of the epistle he alluded affectingly to the nearness of his own end, as an especial reason for his urgency with those from whom he was so soon to be parted. “I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up to the remembrance of these things, knowing as I do that the putting off of my tabernacle is very near, according to what our Lord Jesus Christ made known to me.” This is an allusion to the prophecy of his Master at the meeting on the lake, after the resurrection, described in the last chapter of John’s gospel. “Therefore,” writes the aged apostle, “I will be urgent that you, after my departure, may always hold these things in your memory.” All which seems to imply an anticipated death, of which he was reminded by the course of natural decay, and by the remembrance of the parting prophecy of his Master, and not by anything very imminently dangerous or threatening in his external circumstances, at the time of writing. This was the last important work of his adventurous and devoted life; and his allusions to the solemn scenes of future judgment were therefore most solemnly appropriate. Those to whom he wrote could expect to see his face no more, and his whole epistle is in a strain accordant with these circumstances, dwelling particularly on the awful realities of a coming day of doom.
The first epistle of Peter has always been received as authentic, ever since the apostolic writings were first collected, nor has there ever been a single doubt expressed by any theologian, that it was what it pretended to be; but in regard to the epistle just mentioned as his second, and now commonly so received, there has been as much earnest discussion as concerning any other book in the sacred canon, excepting, perhaps, the epistle to the Hebrews and John’s Revelation. The weight of historical testimony is certainly rather against its authenticity, since all the early Fathers who explicitly mention it, speak of it as a work of very doubtful character. In the first list of the sacred writings that is recorded, this is not put among those generally acknowledged as of divine authority, but among those whose truth was disputed. Still, quotations from it are found in the writings of the Fathers, in the first, second and third centuries, by whom it is mentioned approvingly, although not specified as inspired or of divine authority. But even as late as the end of the fourth century there were still many who denied it to be Peter’s, on account of supposed differences of style observable between this and the former epistle, which was acknowledged to be his. The Syrian Christians continued to reject it from their canon for some time after; for in the old Syriac version, executed before A. D. 100, this alone, of all books supposed to have been written before that translation that are now considered a part of the New Testament, is not contained, though it was regarded by many among them as a good book, and is quoted in the writings of one of the Syrian Fathers, with respect. After this period, however, these objections were soon forgotten, and from the fifth century downwards, it has been universally adopted into the authentic canon, and regarded with that reverence which its internal evidences of truth and genuineness so amply justify. Indeed, it is on its internal evidence, almost entirely, that its great defense must be founded,——since the historical testimonies, (by common confession of theologians,) will not afford that satisfaction to the investigator, which is desirable on subjects of this nature; and though ancient usage and its long-established possession of a place in the inspired code may be called up in its support, still there will be occasion for the aid of internal reasons, to maintain a positive decision as to its authenticity. And this sort of evidence, an examination by the rigid standards of modern critical theology proves abundantly sufficient for the effort to which it is summoned; for though it has been said, that since the ancients themselves were in doubt, the moderns cannot expect to arrive at certainty, because it is impossible to get more historical information on the subject, in the nineteenth century, than ecclesiastical writers had within reach in the third and fourth centuries; still, when the question of the authenticity of the work is to be decided by an examination of its contents, the means of ascertaining the truth are by no means proportioned to the antiquity of the criticism. In the early ages of Christianity, the science of faithfully investigating truth hardly had an existence; and such has been the progress of improvement in this department of knowledge, under the labors of modern theologians, that the writers of the nineteenth century may justly be considered as possessed of far more extensive and certain means of settling the character of this epistle by internal evidence, than were within the knowledge of those Christian fathers who lived fourteen hundred years ago. The great objection against the epistle in the fourth century, was an alleged dissimilarity of style between this and the former epistle. Now, there can be no doubt whatever that modern Biblical scholars have vastly greater means for judging of a rhetorical question of this kind, than the Christian fathers of the fourth century, of whom those who were Grecians were really less scientifically acquainted with their own language, and no more qualified for a comparison of this kind, than those who live in an age when the principles of criticism are so much better understood. With all these superior lights, the results of the most accurate modern investigations have been decidedly favorable to the authenticity of the second epistle ascribed to Peter, and the most rigid comparisons of its style with that of the former, have brought out proofs triumphantly satisfactory of its identity of origin with that,——proofs so much the more unquestionable, as they are borrowed from coincidences which must have been entirely natural and incidental, and not the result of any deliberate collusion.
This account of the second epistle is also taken from Hug and Michaelis, to whom, with Lardner, reference may be made for the details of all the arguments for and against its authenticity.
As to the place and time of writing this epistle, it seems quite probable that it was written where the former one was, since there is no account or hint whatever of any change in Peter’s external circumstances; and that it was written some months after it, is unquestionable, since its whole tenor requires such a period to have intervened, as would allow the first to reach them and be read by them, and also for the apostle to learn in the course of time the effects ultimately produced by it, and to hear of the rise of new difficulties, requiring new apostolical interference and counsel. The first seems to have been directed mainly to those who were complete Jews, by birth or by proselytism, as appears from the terms in which he repeatedly addresses them in it; but the sort of errors complained of in this epistle seem to have been so exclusively characteristic of Gentile converts, that it must have been written more particularly with reference to difficulties in that part of the religious communities of those regions. He condemns and refutes certain heretics who rejected some of the fundamental truths of the Mosaic law,——errors which no well-trained Jew could ever be supposed to make, but which in motley assemblages of different races, like the Christian churches, might naturally enough arise among those Gentiles, who felt impatient at the inferiority in which they seemed implicated by their ignorance of the doctrines of the Jewish theology, in which their circumcised brethren were so fully versed. It seems to have been more especially aimed at the rising sect of the Gnostics, who are known to have been heretical on some of the very points here alluded to. Its great similarity, in some passages, to the epistle of Jude, will make it the subject of allusion again in the life of that apostle.
HIS DEATH.
Henceforth the writings of the New Testament are entirely silent as to the chief apostle. Not a hint is given of the few remaining actions of his life, nor of the mode, place, or time of his death; and all these concluding points have been left to be settled by conjecture, or by tradition as baseless. The only passage which has been supposed to give any hint of the manner of his death, is that in the last chapter of John’s gospel. “Jesus says to him——‘I most solemnly tell thee, when thou wast young, thou didst gird thyself and walk whither thou wouldst; but when thou shalt be old, another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldst not.’ This he said, to make known by what sort of death he should glorify God.” It has been commonly said that this is a distinct and unquestionable prophecy that he should in his old age be crucified,——the expression, “another shall gird thee and carry thee whither thou wouldst not,” referring to his being bound to the cross and borne away to execution, since this was the only sort of death by which an apostle could be said, with much propriety or force, to glorify God. And the long-established authority of tradition coinciding with this view, or rather, suggesting it, no very minute examination into the sense of the passage has ever been made. But the words themselves are by no means decisive. Take a common reader, who has never heard that Peter was crucified, and it would be hard for him to make out such a circumstance from the bare prophecy as given by John. Indeed, such unbiased impressions of the sense of the passage will go far to justify the conclusion that the words imply nothing but that Peter was destined to pass a long life in the service of his Master,——that he should after having worn out his bodily and mental energies in his devoted exertions, attain such an extreme decrepid old age as to lose the power of voluntary motion, and die thus,——at least without necessarily implying any bloody martyrdom. Will it be said that by such a quiet death he could not be considered as glorifying God? The objection surely is founded in a misapprehension of the nature of those demonstrations of devotion, by which the glory of God is most effectually secured. There are other modes of martyrdom than the dungeon, the sword, the axe, the flame, and the stone; and in all ages since Peter, there have been thousands of martyrs who have, by lives steadily and quietly devoted to the cause of truth, no less glorified God, than those who were rapt to heaven in flame, in blood, and in tortures inflicted by a malignant persecution. Was not God truly glorified in the deaths of the aged Xavier, and Eliot, and Swartz, or the bright, early exits of Brainerd, Mills, Martyn, Parsons, Fisk, and hundreds whom the apostolic spirit of modern missions has sent forth to labors as devoted, and to deaths as glorious to God, as those of any who swell the deified lists of the ancient martyrologies? The whole notion of a bloody martyrdom as an essential termination to the life of a saint, grew out of a papistical superstition; nor need the enlightened minds of those who can better appreciate the manner in which God’s highest glory is secured by the lives and deaths of his servants, seek any such superfluous aids to crown the mighty course of the great apostolic chief, whose solid claims to the name and honors of Martyr rest on higher grounds than so insignificant an accident as the manner of his death. All those writers who pretend to particularize the mode of his departure, connect it also with the utterly impossible fiction of his residence at Rome, on which enough has been already said. Who will undertake to say, out of such a mass of matters, what is truth and what is falsehood? And if the views above given, on the high authority of the latest writers of even the Romish church, are of any value for any purpose whatever, they are perfectly decisive against the notion of Peter’s martyrdom at Rome, in the persecution under Nero, since Peter was then in Babylon, far beyond the vengeance of the Caesar; nor was he so foolish as ever after to have trusted himself in the reach of a perfectly unnecessary danger. The command of Christ was, “When you are persecuted in one city, flee into another,”——the necessary and unquestionable inference from which, was, that when out of the reach of persecution they should not wilfully go into it. This is a simple principle of Christian action, with which papist fable-mongers were totally unacquainted, and they thereby afford the most satisfactory proof of the utter falsity of the actions and motives which they ascribe to the apostles. One of these stories thus disproved is connected with another adventure with that useful character, Simon Magus, who, as the tale runs, after being first vanquished so thoroughly by Peter in the reign of Claudius, returned to Rome, in the reign of Nero, and made such progress again in his magical tricks, as to rise into the highest favor with this emperor, as he had with the former. This of course required a new effort from Peter, which ended in the disgrace and death of the magician, who, attempting to fly through the air in the presence of the emperor and people in the theater, was by the prayer of Peter caused to fall from his aspiring course, to the ground, by which he was so much injured as to die soon after. The emperor being provoked at the loss of his favorite, turned all his wrath against the apostle who had been directly instrumental in his ruin, and imprisoned him with the design of executing him as soon as might be convenient. While in these circumstances, or as others say, before he was imprisoned, he was earnestly exhorted by the disciples in Rome, to make his escape. He accordingly, though very desirous of being killed, (a most abominably irreligious wish, by the way,) began to move off, one dark night; but had hardly got beyond the walls of the city,——indeed he was just passing out of the gate-way,——when, whom should he meet but Jesus Christ himself, coming towards Rome. Peter asked, with some reasonable surprise, “Lord! where are you going?” Christ answered, “I am coming to Rome, to be crucified again.” Peter at once took this as a hint that he ought to have stayed, and that Christ meant to be crucified again in the crucifixion of his apostle. He accordingly turned right about, and went back into the city, where, having given to the wondering brethren an account of the reasons of his return, he was immediately seized, and was crucified, to the glory of God. Now it is a sufficient answer to this or any similar fable, to judge the blasphemous inventor out of his own mouth, and out of the instructions given by Christ himself to his servants, for their conduct, in all cases where they were threatened with persecution, as above quoted.
Referring to his being bound to the cross.——Tertullian seems to have first suggested this rather whimsical interpretation:——“Tunc Petrus ab altero cingitur, quum cruci adstringitur.” (Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15.) There seems to be more rhyme than reason in the sentence, however.
The rejection of this forced interpretation is by no means a new notion. The critical Tremellius long ago maintained that the verse had no reference whatever to a prophecy of Peter’s crucifixion, though he probably had no idea of denying that Peter did actually die by crucifixion. Among more modern commentators too, the prince of critics, Kuinoel, with whom are quoted Semler, Gurlitt and Schott, utterly deny that a fair construction of the original will allow any prophetical idea to be based on it. The critical testimony of these great commentators on the true and just force of the words, is of the very highest value; because all received the tale of Peter’s crucifixion as true, having never examined the authority of the tradition, and not one of them pretended to deny that he really was crucified. But in spite of this pre-conceived erroneous historical notion, their nice sense of what was grammatically and critically just, would not allow them to pervert the passage to the support of this long-established view; and they therefore pronounce it as merely expressive of the helplessness and imbecility of extreme old age, with which they make every word coincide. But Bloomfield, entirely carried away with the tide of antique authorities, is “surprised that so many recent commentators should deny that crucifixion is here alluded to, though they acknowledge that Peter suffered crucifixion.” Now this last circumstance might well occasion surprise, as it certainly did in me, when I found what mighty names had so disinterestedly supported the interpretation which I had with fear and trembling adopted, in obedience to my own long-established, unaided convictions; but my surprise was of a decidedly agreeable sort.
The inventors of fables go on to give us the minute particulars of Peter’s death, and especially note the circumstance that he was crucified with his head downwards and his feet uppermost, he himself having desired that it might be done in that manner, because he thought himself unworthy to be crucified as his Master was. This was a mode sometimes adopted by the Romans, as an additional pain and ignominy. But Peter must have been singularly accommodating to his persecutors, to have suggested this improvement upon his tortures to his malignant murderers; and must have manifested a spirit more accordant with that of a savage defying his enemies to increase his agonies, than with that of the mild, submissive Jesus. And such has been the evident absurdity of the story, that many of the most ardent receivers of fables have rejected this circumstance as improbable, more especially as it is not found among the earliest stories of his crucifixion, but evidently seems to have been appended among later improvements.
PETER’S MARTYRDOM.
The only authority which can be esteemed worthy of consideration on this point, is that of Clemens Romanus, who, in the latter part of the first century, (about the year 70, or as others say, 96,) in his epistle to the Corinthians, uses these words respecting Peter:——“Peter, on account of unrighteous hatred, underwent not one, or two, but many labors, and having thus borne his testimony, departed to the place of glory, which was his due,”——(ὁυτως μαρτυρησας επορευθη εις τον οφειλομενον τοπον δοξης.) Now it is by no means certain that the prominent word (marturesas) necessarily means “bearing testimony by death,” or martyrdom in the modern sense. The primary sense of this verb is merely “to witness,” in which simple meaning alone, it is used in the New Testament; nor can any passage in the sacred writings be shown, in which this verb means “to bear witness to any cause, by death.” This was a technical sense, (if I may so name it,) which the word at last acquired among the Fathers, when they were speaking of those who bore witness to the truth of the gospel of Christ by their blood; and it was a meaning which at last nearly excluded all the true original senses of the verb, limiting it mainly to the notion of a death by persecution for the sake of Christ. Thence our English words, martyr and martyrdom. But that Clement by this use of the word, in this connection, meant to convey the idea of Peter’s having been killed for the sake of Christ, is an opinion utterly incapable of proof, and moreover rendered improbable by the words joined to it in the passage. The sentence is, “Peter underwent many labors, and having thus borne witness” to the gospel truth, “went to the place of glory which he deserved.” Now the adverb “thus,” (ὁυτως,) seems to me most distinctly to show what was the nature of this testimony, and the manner also in which he bore it. It points out more plainly than any other words could, the fact that his testimony to the truth of the gospel was borne in the zealous labors of a devoted life, and not by the agonies of a bloody death. There is not in the whole context, nor in all the writings of Clement, any hint whatever that Peter was killed for the sake of the gospel; and we are therefore required by every sound rule of interpretation, to stick to the primary sense of the verb, in this passage. Lardner most decidedly mis-translates it in the text of his work, so that any common reader would be grossly deceived as to the expression in the original of Clement,——“Peter underwent many labors, till at last being martyred, he went,” &c. The Greek word, ὁυτως, (houtos,) means always, “in this manner,” “thus,” “so,” and is not a mere expletive, like the English phrase, “and so,” which is a mere form of transition from one part of the narrative to the other.
In the similar passage of Clemens which refers to Paul, there is something in the connection which may seem to favor the conclusion that he understood Paul to have been put to death by the Roman officers. His words are,——“and after having borne his testimony before governors, he was thus sent out of the world,” &c. Here the word “thus,” coming after the participle, may perhaps be considered, in view also of its other connections, as implying his removal from the world by a violent death, in consequence of the testimony borne by him before the governors. This however, will bear some dispute, and will have a fuller discussion elsewhere.
But in respect to the passage which refers to Peter, the burden of proof may fairly be said to lie on those who maintain the old opinion. Here the word is shown to have, in the New Testament, no such application to death as it has since acquired; and the question is whether Clemens Romanus, a man himself of the apostolic age, who lived and perhaps wrote, before the canon was completed, had already learned to give a new meaning to a verb, before so simple and unlimited in its applications. No person can pretend to trace this meaning to within a century of the Clementine age, nor does Suicer refer to any one who knew of such use before Clement of Alexandria (See his Thesaurus; Μαρτυρ.) Clement himself uses it in the same epistle (§ xvii.) in its unquestionable primary sense, speaking of Abraham as having received an honorable testimony,——(εμαρτυρηθη;) for who will say that Abraham was martyred, in the modern sense? The fact too that Clement nowhere else gives the least glimmer of a hint that Peter died any where but in his bed, fixes the position here taken, beyond all possibility of attack, except by its being shown that he uses this verb somewhere else, with the sense of death unquestionably attached to it.
There is no other early writer who can be said to speak of the manner of Peter’s death, before Dionysius of Corinth, who says that “Peter and Paul having taught in Italy together, bore their testimony” (by death, if you please,) “about the same time.” An argument might here also be sustained on the word εμαρτυρησαν, (emarturesan,) but the evidence of Dionysius, mixed as it is with a demonstrated fable, is not worth a verbal criticism. The same may be said of Tertullian and the rest of the later Fathers, as given in the note on pages 228–233.
An examination of the word Μαρτυρ, in Suicer’s Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, will show the critical, that even in later times, this word did not necessarily imply “one who bore his testimony to the truth at the sacrifice of life.” Even Chrysostom, in whose time the peculiar limitation of the term might be supposed to be very well established, uses the word in such applications as to show that its original force was not wholly lost. By Athanasius too, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego are styled martyrs. Gregory Nazianzen also speaks of “living martyrs.” (ζωντες μαρτυρες.) Theophylact calls the apostle John a martyr, though he declares him to have passed through the hands of his persecutors unhurt, and to have died by the course of nature. Clemens Alexandrinus has similar uses of the term; and the Apostolical Constitutions, of doubtful date, but much later than the first century, also give it in such applications. Suicer distinctly specifies several classes of persons, not martyrs in the modern sense, to whom the Greek word is nevertheless applied in the writings of even the later Fathers; as “those who testified the truth of the gospel of Christ, at the peril of life merely, without the loss of it,”——“those who obeyed the requirements of the gospel, by restraining passion,” &c. In some of these instances however, it is palpable that the application of the word to such persons is secondary, and made in rather a poetical way, with a reference to the more common meaning of loss of life for the sake of Christ, since there is always implied a testimony at the risk or loss of something; still the power of these instances to render doubtful the meaning of the term, is unquestionable. (See Suicer’s Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, Μαρτυρ, III. 2, 5, 6.)
Perhaps it is hardly worth while to dismiss these fables altogether, without first alluding to the rather ancient one, first given by Clemens Alexandrinus. (Stromata, 7. p. 736.) and copied verbatim by Eusebius, (Church History, III. 30.) Both the reverend Fathers however, introduce the story as a tradition, a mere on dit, prefacing it with the expressive phrase, “They say,” &c. (Φασι.) “The blessed Peter seeing his wife led to death, was pleased with the honor of her being thus called by God to return home, and thus addressed her in words of exhortation and consolation, calling her by name,——‘O woman! remember the Lord.’” The story comes up from the hands of tradition rather too late however, to be entitled to any credit whatever, being recorded by Clemens Alexandrinus, full 200 years after Christ. It was probably invented in the times when it was thought worth while to cherish the spirit of voluntary martyrdom, among even the female sex; for which purpose instances were sought out or invented respecting those of the apostolic days. That Peter had a wife is perfectly true; and it is also probable that she accompanied him about on his travels, as would appear from a passage in Paul’s writings; (1 Corinthians ix. 5;) but beyond this, nothing is known of her life or death. Similar fables might be endlessly multiplied from papistical sources; more especially from the Clementine novels, and the apostolical romances of Abdias Babylonius; but the object of the present work is true history, and it would require a whole volume like this to give all the details of Christian mythology.
In justification of the certainty with which sentence is pronounced against the whole story of Peter’s ever having gone to Rome, it is only necessary to refer to the decisive argument on pages 228–233, in which the whole array of ancient evidence on the point, is given by Dr. Murdock. If the support of great names is needed, those of Scaliger, Salmasius, Spanheim, and Bower, all mighty minds in criticism, are enough to justify the boldness of the opinion, that Peter never went west of the Hellespont, and probably never embarked on the Mediterranean. In conclusion of the whole refutation of this long-established error, the matter cannot be more fairly presented, than in the words with which the critical and learned Bower opens his Lives of the Popes:
“To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat tradition as we do a notorious and known liar, to whom we give no credit unless what he says is confirmed to us by some person of undoubted veracity. If it is affirmed by him alone, we can at most but suspend our belief, not rejecting it as false, because a liar may sometimes speak truth; but we cannot, upon his bare authority, admit it as true. Now that St. Peter was at Rome, that he was bishop of Rome, we are told by tradition alone, which, at the same time tells us of so many strange circumstances attending his coming to that metropolis, his staying in it, his withdrawing from it, &c., that in the opinion of every unprejudiced man, the whole must savor strongly of romance. Thus we are told that St. Peter went to Rome chiefly to oppose Simon, the celebrated magician; that at their first interview, at which Nero himself was present, he flew up into the air, in the sight of the emperor and the whole city; but that the devil, who had thus raised him, struck with dread and terror at the name of Jesus, whom the apostle invoked, let him fall to the ground, by which fall he broke his legs. Should you question the truth of this tradition at Rome, they would show you the prints of St. Peter’s knees in the stone, on which he kneeled on this occasion, and another stone still dyed with the blood of the magician. (This account seems to have been borrowed from Suetonius, who speaks of a person that, in the public sports, undertook to fly, in the presence of the emperor Nero; but on his first attempt, fell to the ground; by which fall his blood sprung out with such violence that it reached the emperor’s canopy.)
“The Romans, as we are told, highly incensed against him for thus maiming and bringing to disgrace one to whom they paid divine honors, vowed his destruction; whereupon the apostle thought it advisable to retire for a while from the city, and had already reached the gate, when to his great surprise, he met our Savior coming in, as he went out, who, upon St. Peter’s asking him where he was going, returned this answer: ‘I am going to Rome, to be crucified anew;’ which, as St. Peter understood it, was upbraiding him with his flight; whereupon he turned back, and was soon after seized by the provoked Romans, and, by an order from the emperor, crucified.”
Nor do the fables about Peter, by the inveterate papists, cease with his death. In regard to the place of his tomb, a new story was needed, and it is accordingly given with the usual particularity. It is said that he was buried at Rome in the Vatican plain, in the district beyond the Tiber, in which he was said to have first preached among the Jews, and where stood the great circus of Nero, in which the apostle is said to have been crucified. Over this bloody spot, a church was afterwards raised, by Constantine the Great, who chose for its site part of the ground that had been occupied by the circus, and the spaces where the temples of Mars and Apollo had stood. The church, though of no great architectural beauty, was a building of great magnitude, being three hundred feet long, and more than one hundred and fifty feet wide. This building stood nearly twelve hundred years, when becoming ruinous in spite of all repairs, it was removed to give place to the present cathedral church of St. Peter, now the most immense and magnificent building in the world,——not too much praised in the graphic verse in which the pilgrim-poet sets it beyond all comparison with the greatest piles of ancient or modern art:
“But lo! the dome! the vast and wondrous dome,
To which Diana’s marvel was a cell;——
Christ’s mighty shrine above his martyr’s tomb.——
I have beheld the Ephesians’ miracle,
Its columns strew the wilderness, and dwell
The hyena and the jackall in their shade.
I have beheld Sophia’s bright roofs swell
Their glittering mass in the sun, and have surveyed
Its sanctuary, while the usurping Moslem prayed.
“But thou, of temples old, or altars new,
Standest alone, with nothing like to thee.
Worthiest of God, the holy and the true!
Since Zion’s desolation, when that He
Forsook his former city, what could be
Of earthly structures in his honor piled,
Of a sublimer aspect?”——
Within the most holy place of this vast sanctuary,——beneath the very center of that wonderful dome, which rises in such unequaled vastness above it, redounding far more to the glory of the man who reared it, than of the God whose altar it covers,——in the vaulted crypt which lies below the pavement, is a shrine, before which a hundred lamps are constantly burning, and over which the prayers of thousands are daily rising. This is called the tomb of the saint to whom the whole pile is dedicated, and from whom the great high priest of that temple draws his claim to the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power to bind and loose, and the assurance of heaven’s sanction on his decrees. But what a contrast is all this “pride, pomp and circumstance,” to the bare purity of the faith and character of the simple man whose life and conduct are recorded on these pages! If any thing whatever may be drawn as a well-authorized conclusion from the details that have been given of his actions and motives, it is that Simon Peter was a “plain, blunt” man, laboring devotedly for the object to which he had been called by Jesus, and with no other view whatever, than the advancement of the kingdom of his Master,——the inculcation of a pure spiritual faith, which should seek no support, nor the slightest aid, from the circumstances which charm the eye and ear, and win the soul through the mere delight impressed upon the senses, as the idolatrous priests who now claim his name and ashes, maintain their dominion in the hearts of millions of worse than pagan worshipers. His whole life and labors were pointed at the very extirpation of forms and ceremonies,——the erection of a pure, rational, spiritual dominion in the hearts of mankind, so that the blessings of a glorious faith, which for two thousand years before had been confined to the limits of a ceremonial system, might now, disenthralled from all the bonds of sense, and exalted above the details of tedious forms, of natural distinctions, and of antique rituals,——spread over a field as wide as humanity. For this he lived and toiled, and in the clear hope of a triumphant fulfilment of that plan, he died. And if, from his forgotten, unknown grave, among the ashes of the Chaldean Babylon, and from the holy rest which is for the blessed, the now glorified apostle could be called to the renewal of breathing, earthly life, and see the results of his energetic, simple-minded devotion,——what wonder, what joy, what grief, what glory, what shame, would not the revelation of these mighty changes move within him! The simple, pure gospel which he had preached in humble, faithful obedience to the divine command, without a thought of glory or reward, now exalted in the idolatrous reverence of hundreds of millions,——but where appreciated in its simplicity and truth? The cross on which his Master was doomed to ignominy, now exalted as the sign of salvation, and the seal of God’s love to the world!——(a spectacle as strange to a Roman or Jewish eye, as to a modern would be the gallows, similarly consecrated,) but who burning with that devotion which led him of old to bear that shameful burden? His own humble name raised to a place above the brightest of Roman, of Grecian, of Hebrew, or Chaldean story! but made, alas! the supporter of a tyranny over souls, far more grinding and remorseless than any which he labored to overthrow. The fabled spot of his grave, housed in a temple to which the noblest shrine of ancient heathenism “was but a cell!” but in which are celebrated, under the sanction of his sainted name, the rites of an idolatry, than which that of Rome, or Greece, or Egypt would seem more spiritual,——and of tedious, unmeaning ceremonies, compared with which the whole formalities of the Levitical ritual might be pronounced simple and practical!
These would be the first sights that would meet the eye of the disentombed apostle, if he should rise over the spot which claims the honors of his martyr-tomb, and the consecration of his commission. How mournfully would he turn from all the mighty honors of that idolatrous worship,——from the deified glories of that sublimest of shrines that ever rose over the earth! How earnestly would he long for the high temple of one humble, pure heart, that knew and felt the simplicity of the truth as it was in Jesus! How joyfully would he hail the manifestations of that active evangelizing spirit that consecrated and fitted him for his great missionary enterprise! His amazed and grieved soul would doubtless here and there feel its new view rewarded, in the sight of much that was accordant with the holy feeling that inspired the apostolic band. All over Christendom, might he find scattered the occasional lights of a purer devotion, and on many lands he would see the truth pouring, in something of the clear splendor for which he hoped and labored. But of the countless souls that owned Jesus as Lord and Savior, millions on millions,——and vast numbers too, even in the lands of a reformed faith,——would be found still clinging to the vain support of forms, and names, and observances,——and but a few, a precious few, who had learned what that means——“I will have mercy and not sacrifice”——works and not words,——deeds and not creeds,——high, simple, active, energetic, enterprising devotion, and not cloistered reverence,——chanceled worship,——or soul-wearying rituals. Would not the apostle, sickened with the revelations of such a resurrection, and more appalled than delighted, call on the power that brought him up from the peaceful rest of the blessed, to give him again the calm repose of those who die in the Lord, rather than the idolatrous honors of such an apotheosis, or the strange sight of the results of such an evangelization?——“Let me enter again the gates of Hades, but not the portals of these temples of superstition. Let me lie down with the souls of the humble, but not in the shrine of this heathenish pile. Leave me once more to rest from my labors, with my works still following; and call me not from this repose till the labors I left on earth unachieved, have been better done. We did not follow these cunningly-devised fables, when we made known to men the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but the simple eye-witness story of his majesty. We had a surer word of prophecy; and well would it have been, if these had turned their wandering eyes to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, and kept that steady beacon in view, through the stormy gloom of ages, until the day dawn and the day-star arise in their hearts. These are not the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, for which we looked, according to God’s promise. Those must the faithful still look for, believing that Jehovah, with whom a thousand years are as one day, is not slack concerning his promise, but desires all to come to repentance, and will come himself at last in the achievment of our labors. Then call me.”
What a life was this! Its early recorded events found him a poor fisherman, in a rude, despised province, toiling day by day in a low, laborious business,——living with hardly a hope above the beasts that perish. By the side of that lake, one morning, walked a stranger, who, with mild words but wondrous deeds, called the poor fisherman to leave all, and follow him. Won by the commanding promise of the call, he obeyed, and followed that new Master, with high hopes of earthly glory for a while, which at last were darkened and crushed in the gradual developments of a far deeper plan than his rude mind could at first have appreciated. But still he followed him, through toils and sorrows, through revelations and trials, at last to the sight of his bloody cross; and followed him, still unchanged in heart, basely and almost hopelessly wicked. The fairest trial of his virtue proved him after all, lazy, bloody-minded, but cowardly,——lying, and utterly faithless in the promise of new life from the grave. But a change came over him. He, so lately a cowardly disowner of his Master’s name, now, with a courageous martyr-spirit dared the wrath of the awful magnates of his nation, in attesting his faith in Christ. Once a fierce, brawling, ear-cutting Galilean,——henceforth he lived an unresisting subject of abuse, stripes, bonds, imprisonment and threatened death. When was there ever such a triumph of grace in the heart of man? The conversion of Paul himself could not be compared with it, as a moral miracle. The apostle of Tarsus was a refined, well-educated man, brought up in the great college of the Jewish law, theology and literature, and not wholly unacquainted with the Grecian writers. The power of a high spiritual faith over such a mind, however steeled by prejudice, was not so wonderful as its renovating, refining and elevating influence on the rude fisherman of Bethsaida. Paul was a man of considerable natural genius, and he shows it on every page of his writings; but in Peter there are seen few evidences of a mind naturally exalted, and the whole tenor of his words and actions seems to imply a character of sound common sense, and great energy, but of perceptions and powers of expression, great, not so much by inborn genius, as by the impulse of a higher spirit within him, gradually bringing him to the possession of new faculties,——intellectual as well as moral. This was the spirit which raised him from the humble task of a fisherman, to that of drawing men and nations within the compass of the gospel, and to a glory which not all the gods of ancient superstition ever attained.
Most empty honors! Why hew down the marble mountains, and rear them into walls as massive and as lasting? Why raise the solemn arches and the lofty towers to overtop the everlasting hills with their heavenward heads? Or lift the skiey dome into the middle heaven, almost outswelling the blue vault itself? Why task the soul of art for new creations to line the long-drawn aisles, and gem the fretted roof? There is a glory that shall outlast all
“The cloud-capped towers,——the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples,——the great globe itself,——
Yea all which it inherit;”
——a glory far beyond the brightest things of earth in its brightest day; for “they that be wise shall shine as the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars, for ever and ever.” Yet in this the apostle rejoices not;——not that adoring millions lift his name in prayers, and thanksgivings, and songs, and incense, from the noblest piles of man’s creation, to the glory of a God,——not even that over all the earth, in all ages, till the perpetual hills shall bow with time,——till “eternity grows gray,” the pure in heart will yield him the highest human honors of the faith, on which nations, continents and worlds hang their hopes of salvation;——he “rejoices not that the spirits” of angels or men “are subject to him,——but that HIS NAME IS WRITTEN IN HEAVEN.”