« PreviousContinue »
originally a marginal annotation, which some time or other crept into the text. As to St. Matthew, who did not intend to record, in its proper place, the appointment of the Twelve themselves, nor, consequently, the change of the name of any one of them, he introduces St. Peterf by a reference to both his names, from the first-and, except in the catalogue of the Apostles as such-to intimate that he really received the name of Peter first when he was first consecrated an Apostle-he speaks of him ever after, by no name but that of Peter.
St. John's allusion to this name at i. 43. of his Gospel, I have shewn elsewheres, was entirely prospective. Our Lord's address to Peter at that time contained a prophecy, which was designed to have both a literal, and a typical, fulfilment a literal, when the name of Peter was actually substituted for the name of Simon-and a typical, when, by the instrumentality, or personal agency, of Peter in particular, the foundation of the Christian church was laid among the Jews first, and afterwards among the Gentiles. Nor can the meaning of this address, before the time of the change, be better illustrated than by a comparison with another, which occurred after it. In St. John it is, Thou art Simon; Thou shalt be called Peter-in St. Matthew it is, Blessed art thou, Simon... Thou art Peterh
As to the imposition, at the same time, of a name on the two sons of Zebedee, viz. Boanerges, it is not a case in point; for being imposed alike on each, it could not be borne, as a personal denomination, by either. We may argue, therefore, as follows. Simon was not yet an Apostle, when he had not yet received the name of Peter: but he had not yet received the name of Peter until now-which is the first quarter of our Lord's second year; he was not yet an Apostle, therefore, until now. He had been a disciple, however, for at least a year. And what was true of Peter, we may take it for granted, was true, a fortiori, of the rest. All the Twelve, then, had been some time dis
f iv. 18.
Vol. ii. Diss. viii. 262.
h Matt. xvi. 17. 18.
ciples before they became Apostles. We do not, it is true, possess an express account of the call of any but these five, Peter and Andrew, James and John, and Matthew-and it is not improbable, as I have observed already elsewhere1, that our Lord himself actually called none but these five. For, unless it could be supposed he would himself call every one, who became his disciple, there is no difficulty in conceiving that some, who were subsequently appointed Apostles, might, nevertheless, originally have voluntarily become disciples, as well as that a vast number of others must, of their own accord, have become disciples, who yet never were appointed Apostles. Yet St. Peter's description of the qualifications, necessary to constitute a successor in the Apostleship to the vacant place of Judas, referred to under a former head, it is self-evident would be most properly applicable to those who had become, and continued to be, disciples, from the first.
How long after their original call, the ordination of these five, and of the rest, may have taken place, it is not possible absolutely to determine; but the period to which I have assigned it (assuming only that the consecration of the four chief of the Apostles, at least, fell out about the same time in this year, as their original call in the year before) agrees as well to the course of events, before and after the ordination, as any; and it derives this further support from the final end of the appointment itself, that it supposes the ordination of the Twelve-which must have taken place at some determinate time or other-to have taken place at that time in general, when the divine Providence, in the maturity of its own counsels, designed they should enter upon their Apostolical office itself-the time of the feast of Pentecost.
From this period that Peter assumes a kind of pre-eminence among the Twelve, as the Twelve assume among the disciples, and, next to Peter, Andrew, James, and John, is supported by too many facts to be disputed. We may in
i Dissertation x. supra.
k Vol. i. Diss. viii. 295.
fer, then, that the order in which the Apostles were called to our Lord, and consecrated-an order, which must have been determined by his own discretion-was deliberately intended, and was accordingly understood, to determine the order of precedence among them. Jesus called to him, from among the disciples, such as he would-and those whom he called, he made his Apostles. As by calling them all in general, out of the disciples in general, and by appointing them to a separate office and relation, he made them all so far distinct from the disciples as such-so by calling them one by one, in particular, and consecrating them one by one in particular, and, consequently, some of them before the rest, he seems to have conferred on some of them an honorary rank and precedence, above the restfor in the community of name and office, and of personal relation to himself, it is manifest there was no difference between them-they were, and they must have been, all equal. One thing is certain; in each of the catalogues the name of Peter stands first-and the name of Iscariot stands last; the one, confessedly chief, the other, confessedly the least deserving, among the whole body. The intermediate names are somewhat differently arranged in the different lists; but there is no variation between them which does not admit of being explained.
If we take the order of St. Matthew's catalogue, x. 2—4. and compare with it St. Mark's, iii. 16-19. and St. Luke's, vi. 14-16. or Acts i. 13. they will stand, in juxta-position, as follows:
10 Lebbæus, or 10 Lebbæus II Judas 'laκ- 11 Judas 'lakó
We perceive, then, that in St. Mark's catalogue Andrew is put after James and John; in St. Matthew's and in St. Luke's (as contained in the Gospel) he is put before them. But the order of St. Luke in the Acts agrees with this of St. Mark-whence we may infer that the order of the Apostles originally, (that is, in our Saviour's lifetime,) according to which Andrew might take precedence of James and John, was altered after the ascension, and when they were all to enter on their own ministry; and that St. Mark has given the order of the names, not as it was at first, but as it was ultimately designed to be, and as it afterwards became. Or, what is equally probable-since none of the Evangelists affirm their order, if we except the two extreme names of all, it was indifferent in what order the intermediate names might be recited. The four Apostles, who were either the first called as disciples, or, with the exception of Matthew, the only persons who were so called among the Apostles, stand, in every instance, at the head of the list--and the subsequent history of the church both in the Acts and in the Epistles, proves that these in particular, either all, or three of them, Peter, James, and John, were eminently pillars of the church.
Some stress has been laid on the circumstance that two of the Evangelists, St. Matthew and St. Luke, record the names in couplets-as if Jesus had called the disciples to him two and two together; or, at least, that he sent them out afterwards-when they were sent two and two together —in the couplets in question. This conjecture is not improbable: for Peter and Andrew, James and John, it is exceedingly likely would be so ordained, and so despatched upon their commission in particular, whether any of the rest
were so, or no.
But St. Mark observes no such method; and St. Luke observes it only in part; whence we may conclude that the circumstance in question was accidental, or not, at least, intentionally specified, with a view to any such construction.
The wisdom or expediency of suffering the Twelve to become at first, and for some time after to continue, merely disciples-in order to the trial of their faith in, and attachment to, Christ, if not to their personal conviction-before they were elevated to the rank of Apostles, must be obvious. Our Lord's knowledge of the human heart is, a priori, a sufficient voucher that, in making choice of these, he was choosing those, who, in point of every moral requisite, were the fittest to be selected for a new and peculiar relation to himself, and for the instruments by which, in the course of time, he designed to work in the propagation of his Gospel. As to natural or acquired abilities, without the divine assistance, the greatest must have been as inadequate to the end in view, as the least. Their subsequent history confirms the presumption. The only exception would seem to be in the original admission, and the ultimate apostasy, of Judas. But this was unquestionably necessary, and therefore, as naturally intended, for the fulfilment of prophecy. If it was requisite that Jesus should be at last betrayed by one of his own Apostles, it was also requisite that one of his own Apostles should have been, from the first, capable of becoming a traitor.
In the number of the Twelve, there is an evident reference to the number of the Tribes; and one Apostle seems to have been chosen for every Tribe, because, as the event demonstrated, both in the original publication of Christianity, and ever after, they were in a peculiar manner the Apostles of the Circumcision, and sent, like their Master, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. An extra, and, consequently, a thirteenth, Apostle, and though from among the Jews, yet from among the Jews of the Dispersion, was appointed in the fulness of time, and in the person of Saul, for the sake of the mission to the Gentiles. This adapta