St. Chrysostom observes, οὐκ εἶπεν ἔλυσεν, ἀλλ ̓ ἔλαβε καὶ ἐβάστασεν· ὃ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν μᾶλλον εἰρῆσθαί μοι δοκεῖ τῷ προφήτη συμ φώνως Ἰωάννῃ τῷ λέγοντι· ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτ τιὰν τοῦ κόσμουν,) was certainly designed to point him out to them as the Messias; and so, it is clear, they understood itw; but, that it was also designed to intimate that they must thenceforward cease to be his disciples, and become the disciples of Jesus, does not so clearly appear. They followed him, indeed, in consequence of what John had said; but it was more out of curiosity than from any other motive; for, on his turning, and asking, What seek ye? it appears from their answer, that they wished merely to learn where he dwelt. He invited them to come and see; and they abode with him for the rest of that day; the mention of which circumstance, as such, distinctly implies that they continued with him at that time no longer than for that day; and the mention, at verse forty-fourth, of the day after proves equally that what happened, and is related, between*, happened that same day.

Now, neither as they became acquainted with Jesus at first, nor in the course of what subsequently passed between them, is any thing seen to have transpired, which can be construed into a call, from our Lord, to them. The peculiar manner in which he apostrophizes Simon in particular -Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas-seems, on the contrary, expressly intended as if to bar that construction: for, if these words conveyed a call of Simon, they conveyed also the name of Peter; but the name of Peter was neither given, nor assumed, until a year at least from this time, when Simon was ordained an Apostle. Simon, therefore, did not receive any call now. Hence, though these four disciples, or three of them, at least, might from this time forward have become believers in our Lord, as in the Messias, yet, that they would attach themselves to him does by no means follow; or if they did so, it would be of their own accord.

It is true, that on the following day Jesus addressed to Philip the words which, elsewhere, are used to convey a call, áxoλoúdes posy; but Philip was not one of the four; and, if he had been, it would have made no difference: for, the context plainly demonstrates that this was no call to become a disciple, but merely an invitation to return with the speaker into Galilee. Nor is it probable, that, whatever predisposition to believe in our Lord might have been raised in John's disciples by their Master's testimony, he himself would formally call any in general, before he had formally commenced his ministry in any sense-either in Judæa, or in Galilee-of which things he had yet done neither: nor that, when he had commenced his ministry, he would formally call any in particular, prior to the four principal disciples, Simon and Andrew, James and John. I much question whether he himself in person ever called any to become disciples, except these four, and St. Matthew; though he must, in person, have ordained all the Twelve to be Apostles. But these four, in particular, if he did not actually call until so long after, it must be evident he never could have called so long before.

Yet our Lord, it will be said, was attended by disciples from this time forward, in his journeyings to and fro, before both the Passover, John ii. 13. and the return into Galilee, iv. 2. 43. There is no proof, however, that these were disciples who had been called by him, or who had not attached themselves to him of their own accord, as some of them, doubtless, must have done to John also before him. Besides, the word μatŋrns is used in St. John, indiscriminately, for a simple believer in Jesus, as much as for one of his professed followers: so that the mere term itself would prove nothing on the point at issue; and yet I should be entirely disposed to allow that among those who are mentioned by this name, on the several occasions between John ii. 2. and v. 1. some may be included who afterwards became regular disciples, and even Apostles; provided they had yet received no call

y John i. 44.

iv. 1. vi. 66. vii. 3. viii. 31. ix. 27. 28. xviii. 19. xix. 38.

from our Lord in person, and were still held in attendance upon him solely by their own choice, and their own act. In this case, there might be occasions when they would not be about him, but engaged, on their own business, elsewhere: and, certain it is, that until he himself had formally entered on his own ministry, and they had, as formally, been called to attend upon him, they could not consider themselves, in any sense, bound to give up their ordinary occupations entirely, nor to be constantly in his society: they did not, as we shall see hereafter, consider themselves bound to do this, even after they had both received such a call, and made a circuit of Galilee, along with him; much less at any time before that.

St. Peter, in a passagea which has been recited elsewhere, defined the qualifications of the future Apostle, who was to succeed to the place of Judas, as the qualifications of one who should have companied with them, since the time for which the Lord Jesus, having begun from the baptism of John, to the day of his reception into heaven, went in, and went out, among them; where, by the baptism of John, I shewed was meant the ministry of John, and, by beginning from that baptism, beginning from the close of that ministry, and entering upon his own. The passage, then, virtually affirms that neither St. Peter, nor any of the rest, who were Apostles at that very time, had received their call, or begun to company regularly with Jesus, themselves, before the same period; whereby it is critically in unison with the testimony of the three first Gospels.

It is not improbable, that if Simon, Andrew, and John, were originally disciples of the Baptist, before they became acquainted with Jesus, they might continue so afterwards, until the time of their Master's imprisonment; and that it is from personal knowledge, or as one of the parties who had witnessed this last and most memorable of the testimonies of John to our Lord-in which too there is a clear reference to what had passed before—that St. John records

a Acts i. 21. 22.

b Vol. i. Diss. viii. 295.

i. 28-37.

the conversation, which stands in the third chapter of his Gospel, from verse the twenty-sixth to the end. After the imprisonment of the Baptist, these, among others of his followers, might have returned to their former homes, and to their usual occupations; in which case, when our Lord came from Nazareth to Capernaum, he might find them all there, a little before, or a little after, the feast of Pentecost.

Or, though this conjecture should not be admitted, still it must be acknowledged that they had attached themselves to him of their own accord, and, therefore, might leave him again for a time. Some disciples of our Lord certainly accompanied him as far as Sychard; it does not appear that any accompanied him thence; it is probable that he went alone to Canaf, and it seems indisputable that he must have gone alone to Nazareth, and afterwards to Capernaums. To suppose those disciples had been with him at the former place, whom he called immediately after at the latter, would be absurd in the extreme. It is possible, then, that, while our Saviour himself remained at Sycharh, the disciples, who all accompanied him thither, but who could have no inducement to remain, but every inducement not to remain, in a town of Samaria, continued their journey the same day, or the next, into Galilee; which, if they arrived at Mount Gerizim at six o'clock in the evening, and in the middle of summer, was very easy to have been done. It makes in favour of this supposition, that if they arrived at Gerizim on the evening of May 13. they arrived on the evening of a Thursday-and as Sychar, according to Relandi, was only twenty-one Roman miles distant even from Scythopolis, it would be manifestly possible for them to arrive in Galilee, long before the recurrence of the sabbath.

The feast of Pentecost was not like either of the other two great solemnities, a seven days' or an eight days' feast, but, as its name implies, a one day's feast. Three days were all that were necessary to travel from Capernaum to Jerusalem, or back again—and in the summer season, when 8 Luke iv. 16. 31.

d John iv. 8.

e iv. 43.

f iv. 46.

travelling might be equally convenient in the night, even less. Hence, though the four disciples in question, like the rest of the male, and grown up, Israelites, might have been in Jerusalem on the Sunday, and detained there all that day, yet by setting out the next morning, or even, at the expiration of the sabbath of Pentecostk, that same evening, they would be returned to Capernaum, and might be found pursuing their occupation as fishermen, on the lake, at any time on either Thursday or the Friday following. Though Pentecost was observed as a Sabbath, of which both the Law and Josephus supply proofs, οὐκ ἔστιν δὲ ἡμῖν οὔτε ἐν τοῖς Σάββασιν, οὔτε ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ (scil. τῇ Πεντηκοστῇ.) ódú1, yet the distance from Jerusalem to Capernaum was not more than sixty miles; which the common people of Galilee, who could not afford to be absent from home, and especially in the middle of summer, when the corn harvest was at its maturity, longer than they could help, by travelling thirty miles a day, might accomplish, if necessary, in two days; and by travelling five and twenty, would accomplish with ease in three. On this point, then, there can be no difficulty: and I shall conclude this digression, the length of which must be excused by the interest, and by the importance, of its subject, with one more observation merely, viz. on the delicacy of our Lord, in not having expressly called any of the disciples of the Baptist, so long as their Master was still upon the stage of his public ministry himself—and yet the apposite and well-timed coincidence of their being called by him now, when John, by his imprisonment, had been finally removed from view.

The teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum was followed by a miracle at the same time, and in the same place; both these facts being the first instances of their kind in the course of our Saviour's ministry, which are specified by any Gospel but the last. The history of the miraclem, in the two Evangelists who record it, is remarkably similar-down

k Lev. xxiii. 21. Numb. xxviii. 26. m Mark i. 23-28. Luke iv. 33-37.

1 Ant. Jud. xiii. viii. 4.