Lives of the Apostles of Jesus Christ

Transcriber’s Notes

The cover image was provided by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

Punctuation has been standardized.

Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for easier reading.

The text may show quotations within quotations, all set off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been changed to alternate quote marks for improved readability.

This book was written in a period when many words had not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated with a Transcriber’s Note.

The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image adequately.

Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the text or to provide additional information for the modern reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which they appear.

Painted by Raphael. Engᵈ by A. Daggett.

CHRIST’S CHARGE TO PETER.

Matthew XVI 18, 19

LIVES

OF

THE APOSTLES

OF

JESUS CHRIST.

NEW HAVEN: L. H. YOUNG.

1836.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1835,
By David Francis Bacon, Author,
in the office of the Clerk of the District Court of the District of Connecticut.

William Storer, Jr. Print
New-Haven, Ct

PREFACE.

The fair and just fulfilment of the promise made to the public, in the previous announcement of this work, would require that it should contain, simply, “a distinct, plain, historical narrative of the life of each of the apostles, illustrated by such aids as could be drawn from the works of various authors, of former ages, and of other countries, which hitherto, in the inaccessible forms of a dead or foreign tongue, have been too long covered from the eyes of thousands, who might be profited by their more open communication;——from these sources, as well as from the sacred record, to draw the materials of the narrative,——to throw occasionally the lights of historical, topographical, and scientific, as well as exegetical illustrations on the word of truth,——and from all, to learn how we may live, labor, and die, as did these first champions of Christ crucified.” A hope was also expressed by the author, that the facilities of his situation would enable him, by research among the long-hidden treasures of large and costly libraries, to bring forth, in direct illustration of this narrative, much of those treasures of scriptural knowledge, which, by their size and rarity, are beyond the reach and the means of a vast number of Biblical students, who would derive great advantage and pleasure from their perusal; and that even clergymen and students of theology, might find in this work many things, drawn from these valuable materials, that would make this a desirable book for them. Yet far from promising the combined results of all the labors of the learned on these subjects, the author then distinctly professed his main object to be, the collection and combination of such facts and illustrations as would make the work acceptable and interesting to readers of all classes,——to popular, as well as to learned readers; and he accordingly engaged to present all the contents of the book, clear and plain, even to those whose minds have not been accustomed to deep research in Biblical study.

With these objects constantly in view, the author has long been steadily and laboriously devoted to the preparation and composition of this book. In presenting this result of his labors, he is not conscious of having actually failed to comply with the general terms of his published engagement; yet the critical eyes of many among his readers will doubtless light upon parts of the work, which have been materially affected in their character by the very peculiar circumstances under which the labor has been undertaken and prosecuted; circumstances so very peculiar, that, in accordance with the universal custom of those who have completed such tasks, he is justified in referring to some important details of the history of the writing. The first summons to the task found him engrossed in pursuits as foreign to the investigations necessary for this work, as any department of knowledge that can be conceived; and though the study of critical and exegetical theology had, at a former period, been to him an object of regular attention, the invitation to this work seemed so uncongenial to his adopted pursuits, that he rejected it decidedly; nor was it until after repeated and urgent solicitations, that he consented to undertake it. But even then, so little aware was he of the inexhaustible richness of his noble subject, that he commenced his researches with oft-expressed doubts, whether it would admit of such ample disquisition as was hoped by the original proposer. How just those doubts were, may be best learned from the hurried and brief notice which many important points in this great theme have necessarily received within such narrow limits.

Begun under these unfavorable auspices, the work was an object of pursuit with him through a long period of time; nor did his investigations proceed far, before he was fully assured that it was vast, beyond his highest expectations; and from that time the difficulty has been, not to meet the expectation of a large book, but to bring these immense materials within this limited space. Growing thus in his hands, through months and years, his subject soon increased also in its interest to him, till in the progress of time and various other contemporaneous [♦]occupations, it rose from the character of a task to that of a delightful, a dignified, and dignifying pursuit; and he was soon disposed to look on it not as a labor, but as a recreation from avocations less congenial to his taste. It called him first from the study of a profession, sickening and disgusting in many of its particulars; and was his frequent resource for enjoyment in many a season of repose. His attention was often distracted from it, by calls to diverse and opposite pursuits; by turns to the public labors and responsibilities of an editor and an instructor,——but in the midst of these it was his solace and refreshment, till at last it wholly drew him away from everything besides itself, and became for months his sole, constant, absorbing and exhausting occupation. Too often, indeed, were the pursuits with which it was at first varied and interchanged, the occasion of disturbances and anxieties that did anything but fit him for the comfortable pursuit of his noble task; yet these evils themselves became the means of inspiring him with a higher and purer regard for it, because they drove him to this as an only consolation. As was most eloquently and beautifully said by the evangelical George Horne, at the conclusion of a similar task,——“And now, could the author flatter himself, that anyone would take half the pleasure in reading the work, which he hath taken in writing it, he would not fear the loss of his labor.” Well would it be, both for the writer and his work, if he could truly add in the melodious sentence which Horne subjoins, that “the employment detached him from the bustle and hurry of life, and the noise of folly;”——that “vanity and vexation flew away for a season,——care and disquietude came not nigh his dwelling.”

[♦] “occcupations” replaced with “occupations”

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,)