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_.

  Illustration: 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,

    Illustration: (‡ Syriac word)

  (_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