PHILIP.

PHILIP.Inall the three gospel lists, this apostle is placed fifth in order, the variations in the arrangements of the preceding making no difference in his position. In the first chapter of Acts, however, a different arrangement is made of his name, as will be hereafter mentioned. The mere mention of his name on the list, is all the notice taken of him by either of the three first evangelists, and it is only in the gospel of John, that the slightest additional circumstance can be learned about him. From this authority it is ascertained that he was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter, and probably also the home or frequent visiting-place of the sons of Zebedee, by the younger of whom he is so particularly commemorated. Immediately after the narration of the introduction of Andrew, John and Peter, to Jesus, in the first chapter of this gospel, it is said that Jesus next proceeded from Bethabara into Galilee, and there finds Philip; but the particular place is not mentioned, though Bethsaida being immediately after mentioned as his home, very probably was the place of the meeting. Andrew and Peter, on their return home, had doubtless had no small talk among their acquaintances, about the wonderful person announced as the Messiah, to whom they had been introduced, and had thus satisfied themselves that he was really the divine character he was said to be. Philip too, must have heard of him in this way, before he saw him; so that when Jesus met him, he was prepared at once to receive the call which Jesus immediately gave him,——“Follow me.” From the circumstance that he was the first person who was summoned by Jesus, in this particular formula of invitation to the discipleship, some writers have, not without reason, claimed for Philip the name and honors of theProtoclete, or “first-called;” though Andrew has commonly been considered as best entitled to this dignity, from his being the first mentioned by name, as actually becoming acquainted with Jesus.Philip was so devoutly engaged, at once, in the cause of his new Master, that he, like Andrew, immediately sought out others to share the blessings of the discipleship; and soon after meeting one of his friends, Nathanael, he expressed the ardor of his faith in his new teacher, by the words in which he invited him to join in this honorable fellowship,——“We have found him of whom Moses, in the law, and all the prophets did write,——Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” The result of this application will be related in the life of the person most immediately concerned. After this, no notice whatever is taken of Philip except where incidental remarks made by him in the conversations of Jesus, are recorded by John. Thus, at the feeding of the five thousand, upon Jesus’s asking whether they had the means of procuring food for the multitude, Philip answered, that “two hundred pence would not buy enough for them, that every one might take a little,”——thus showing himself not at all prepared by his previous faith in Jesus, for the great miracle which was about to happen; though Jesus had asked the question, as John says, with the actual design of trying the extent of his confidence in him. He is afterwards mentioned in the last conversations of Jesus, as saying to him, “Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us,”——here too, betraying also a most unfortunate deficiency, both of faith and knowledge, and implying also a vain desire to gratify his eyes with still more miraculous displays of the divine power of his Master; though, even in this respect, he probably was no worse off than all the rest of the disciples, before the resurrection of Jesus.Protoclete.——Hammond claims this peculiar honor for Philip, with great zeal. (See his notes on Johni.43.)Of hisapostleshipnot one word is recorded in the New Testament, for he is no where mentioned in the Acts, except as being one of the apostles assembled in the upper chamber after the ascension; nor do the epistles contain the slightest allusion to him. Some of the most ancient authorities among the Fathers, however, are distinct in their mention of some circumstances of his later life; but all these accounts are involved in total discredit, by the fact that they make him identical with Philip the deacon, whose active and zealous labors in Samaria, and along the coast of Palestine, from Gaza, through Ashdod to Caesarea, his home, are minutely related in the Acts, and have been already alluded to, in that part of the life of Peter which is connected with these incidents. It has always been supposed, with much reason, inmodern times, that the offices of anapostleand adeaconwere so totally distinct and different, that they could never both be borne by one and the same person; but the Fathers, even the very ancient ones, seem to have had not the slightest idea of any such incompatibility; and therefore uniformly speak of Philip the apostle, as the same person with Philip, one of the seven deacons, who is mentioned by Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, as having lived at Caesarea, in Palestine, with his daughters, who were virgins and prophetesses. Testimony more distinct than this, can no where be found, among all the Fathers, on any point whatever; and very little that is more ancient. Yet how does it accord with the notions of those who revere these very Fathers as almost immaculate in truth, and in all intellectual, as well as moral excellence? What is the evidence of these boasted Fathers worth, on any point in controversy about apostolic church government, or doctrine, or criticism, if the modern notion of the incompatibility of the two offices of apostle and deacon is correct?The testimony of the Fathers on this point, is simply this. Eusebius (Church History,III.31,) quotes Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, who, in his letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, (written A. D. 195, or 196,) makes mention of Philip in theseexactwords: “Philip, who wasone of the twelveapostles, died in Hierapolis;” (in Phrygia;) “and so didtwo of his daughters, who had grown old in virginity. And another of his daughters, after having passed her life under the influence of the Holy Spirit, was buried at Ephesus.” This certainly is a most perfect identification of Philip the apostle with Philip the deacon; for it is this latter person who is particularly mentioned in Acts,xxi.8, 9, as “having four daughters who did prophesy.” He is there especially designated as “Philip the evangelist,one of the seven,” while Polycrates expressly declares, that this same person “wasone of the twelve.” Eusebius also, in the preceding chapter, quotes Clemens Alexandrinus as mentioning Philip among thoseapostleswho were married, becauseheis mentioned as having had daughters; and Clemens even adds that these were afterwards married, which directly contradicts the previous statement of Polycrates, that three of them died virgins, in old age. Yet Eusebius quotes all this stuff, with approbation.Papias, (A. D. 140,) bishop of Hierapolis, the very place of the death and burial of Philip, is represented by Eusebius as having been well acquainted with the daughters of Philip, mentioned in Acts, as the virgin prophetesses. Papias says that he himself “heard these ladies say that their father once raised a dead person to life, in their time.” But it deserves notice, that Papias, the very best authority on this subject, is no where quoted as calling this Philip “an apostle;” though Eusebius, on his own authority, gives this name to the Philip of whom Papias speaks. It is therefore reasonable to conclude, that this blunder, betraying such a want of familiarity with the New Testament history, originated after the time of Papias, whose intimate acquaintance with Philip’s family would have enabled him to say, at once, that this was thedeacon, and not theapostle; though it is not probable that he was any less deplorably ignorant of the scriptures than most of the Fathers were.Now what can be said of the testimony of the Fathers on points where they can not refer, either to their own personal observation, or to informants who have seen and heard what they testify? The only way in which they can be shielded from the reproach of a gross blunder and a disgraceful ignorance of the New Testament, is, that they were right in identifying these two Philips, and that modern theologians are wrong in making the distinction. On this dilemma I will not pretend to decide; for though so little reverence for the judgment and information of the Fathers has been shown in thisbook, there does seem to me to be some reason for hesitation on this point, where the Fathersoughtto have been as well informed as any body. They must have known surely, whether, according to the notions of those primitive ages of Christianity, there was any incompatibility between the apostleship and the deaconship! If their testimony is worth anything on such points, it ought to weigh so much on this, as to cause a doubt whether they are not right, and the moderns wrong. However, barely suggesting this query, without attempting a decision, as Luther says, “I will afford to other and higher spirits, occasion to reflect.”This is all the satisfaction that the brief records of the inspired or uninspired historians of Christianity can give the inquirer, on the life of this apostle;——so unequal were the labors of the first ministers of Christ, and their claims for notice. Philip, no doubt, served the purpose for which he was called, faithfully; but in these brief sketches, there are no traces of any genius of a high character, that could distinguish him above the thousands that are forgotten, but whose labors, like those of the minutest animals in a mole-hill, contribute an indispensable portion to the completion of the mass, in whose mighty structure all their individual efforts are swallowed up forever.And though the ancient Polycrates may have blundered grievously, in respect to the apostle’s personal identity, his hope of the glorious resurrection of those whom he supposed to have died in Asia will doubtless be equally well rewarded, if, to the amazement of the Fathers, theapostlePhilip should rise at last from the dust of Babylon, or the ashes of Jerusalem, while his namesake, the evangelist, shall burst from his tomb in Hierapolis. “For,” as Polycrates truly says, “in Asia, some great lights have gone down, which shall rise again on that day of the Lord’s approach, when he shall come from the heavens in glory, and shall raise up all his saints;——Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps at Hierapolis, with his venerable virgin daughters,——John, who lay in the bosom of the Lord, and who is laid at Ephesus,——Polycarp, at Smyrna,——Thraseas, at Eumenia,——Sagaris, at Laodicea,——Papirius and Melito, at Sardis——all await the visitation of the Lord from the heavens, in which he shall raise them from the dead.”

Inall the three gospel lists, this apostle is placed fifth in order, the variations in the arrangements of the preceding making no difference in his position. In the first chapter of Acts, however, a different arrangement is made of his name, as will be hereafter mentioned. The mere mention of his name on the list, is all the notice taken of him by either of the three first evangelists, and it is only in the gospel of John, that the slightest additional circumstance can be learned about him. From this authority it is ascertained that he was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter, and probably also the home or frequent visiting-place of the sons of Zebedee, by the younger of whom he is so particularly commemorated. Immediately after the narration of the introduction of Andrew, John and Peter, to Jesus, in the first chapter of this gospel, it is said that Jesus next proceeded from Bethabara into Galilee, and there finds Philip; but the particular place is not mentioned, though Bethsaida being immediately after mentioned as his home, very probably was the place of the meeting. Andrew and Peter, on their return home, had doubtless had no small talk among their acquaintances, about the wonderful person announced as the Messiah, to whom they had been introduced, and had thus satisfied themselves that he was really the divine character he was said to be. Philip too, must have heard of him in this way, before he saw him; so that when Jesus met him, he was prepared at once to receive the call which Jesus immediately gave him,——“Follow me.” From the circumstance that he was the first person who was summoned by Jesus, in this particular formula of invitation to the discipleship, some writers have, not without reason, claimed for Philip the name and honors of theProtoclete, or “first-called;” though Andrew has commonly been considered as best entitled to this dignity, from his being the first mentioned by name, as actually becoming acquainted with Jesus.Philip was so devoutly engaged, at once, in the cause of his new Master, that he, like Andrew, immediately sought out others to share the blessings of the discipleship; and soon after meeting one of his friends, Nathanael, he expressed the ardor of his faith in his new teacher, by the words in which he invited him to join in this honorable fellowship,——“We have found him of whom Moses, in the law, and all the prophets did write,——Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” The result of this application will be related in the life of the person most immediately concerned. After this, no notice whatever is taken of Philip except where incidental remarks made by him in the conversations of Jesus, are recorded by John. Thus, at the feeding of the five thousand, upon Jesus’s asking whether they had the means of procuring food for the multitude, Philip answered, that “two hundred pence would not buy enough for them, that every one might take a little,”——thus showing himself not at all prepared by his previous faith in Jesus, for the great miracle which was about to happen; though Jesus had asked the question, as John says, with the actual design of trying the extent of his confidence in him. He is afterwards mentioned in the last conversations of Jesus, as saying to him, “Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us,”——here too, betraying also a most unfortunate deficiency, both of faith and knowledge, and implying also a vain desire to gratify his eyes with still more miraculous displays of the divine power of his Master; though, even in this respect, he probably was no worse off than all the rest of the disciples, before the resurrection of Jesus.

Protoclete.——Hammond claims this peculiar honor for Philip, with great zeal. (See his notes on Johni.43.)

Of hisapostleshipnot one word is recorded in the New Testament, for he is no where mentioned in the Acts, except as being one of the apostles assembled in the upper chamber after the ascension; nor do the epistles contain the slightest allusion to him. Some of the most ancient authorities among the Fathers, however, are distinct in their mention of some circumstances of his later life; but all these accounts are involved in total discredit, by the fact that they make him identical with Philip the deacon, whose active and zealous labors in Samaria, and along the coast of Palestine, from Gaza, through Ashdod to Caesarea, his home, are minutely related in the Acts, and have been already alluded to, in that part of the life of Peter which is connected with these incidents. It has always been supposed, with much reason, inmodern times, that the offices of anapostleand adeaconwere so totally distinct and different, that they could never both be borne by one and the same person; but the Fathers, even the very ancient ones, seem to have had not the slightest idea of any such incompatibility; and therefore uniformly speak of Philip the apostle, as the same person with Philip, one of the seven deacons, who is mentioned by Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, as having lived at Caesarea, in Palestine, with his daughters, who were virgins and prophetesses. Testimony more distinct than this, can no where be found, among all the Fathers, on any point whatever; and very little that is more ancient. Yet how does it accord with the notions of those who revere these very Fathers as almost immaculate in truth, and in all intellectual, as well as moral excellence? What is the evidence of these boasted Fathers worth, on any point in controversy about apostolic church government, or doctrine, or criticism, if the modern notion of the incompatibility of the two offices of apostle and deacon is correct?

The testimony of the Fathers on this point, is simply this. Eusebius (Church History,III.31,) quotes Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, who, in his letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, (written A. D. 195, or 196,) makes mention of Philip in theseexactwords: “Philip, who wasone of the twelveapostles, died in Hierapolis;” (in Phrygia;) “and so didtwo of his daughters, who had grown old in virginity. And another of his daughters, after having passed her life under the influence of the Holy Spirit, was buried at Ephesus.” This certainly is a most perfect identification of Philip the apostle with Philip the deacon; for it is this latter person who is particularly mentioned in Acts,xxi.8, 9, as “having four daughters who did prophesy.” He is there especially designated as “Philip the evangelist,one of the seven,” while Polycrates expressly declares, that this same person “wasone of the twelve.” Eusebius also, in the preceding chapter, quotes Clemens Alexandrinus as mentioning Philip among thoseapostleswho were married, becauseheis mentioned as having had daughters; and Clemens even adds that these were afterwards married, which directly contradicts the previous statement of Polycrates, that three of them died virgins, in old age. Yet Eusebius quotes all this stuff, with approbation.

Papias, (A. D. 140,) bishop of Hierapolis, the very place of the death and burial of Philip, is represented by Eusebius as having been well acquainted with the daughters of Philip, mentioned in Acts, as the virgin prophetesses. Papias says that he himself “heard these ladies say that their father once raised a dead person to life, in their time.” But it deserves notice, that Papias, the very best authority on this subject, is no where quoted as calling this Philip “an apostle;” though Eusebius, on his own authority, gives this name to the Philip of whom Papias speaks. It is therefore reasonable to conclude, that this blunder, betraying such a want of familiarity with the New Testament history, originated after the time of Papias, whose intimate acquaintance with Philip’s family would have enabled him to say, at once, that this was thedeacon, and not theapostle; though it is not probable that he was any less deplorably ignorant of the scriptures than most of the Fathers were.

Now what can be said of the testimony of the Fathers on points where they can not refer, either to their own personal observation, or to informants who have seen and heard what they testify? The only way in which they can be shielded from the reproach of a gross blunder and a disgraceful ignorance of the New Testament, is, that they were right in identifying these two Philips, and that modern theologians are wrong in making the distinction. On this dilemma I will not pretend to decide; for though so little reverence for the judgment and information of the Fathers has been shown in thisbook, there does seem to me to be some reason for hesitation on this point, where the Fathersoughtto have been as well informed as any body. They must have known surely, whether, according to the notions of those primitive ages of Christianity, there was any incompatibility between the apostleship and the deaconship! If their testimony is worth anything on such points, it ought to weigh so much on this, as to cause a doubt whether they are not right, and the moderns wrong. However, barely suggesting this query, without attempting a decision, as Luther says, “I will afford to other and higher spirits, occasion to reflect.”

This is all the satisfaction that the brief records of the inspired or uninspired historians of Christianity can give the inquirer, on the life of this apostle;——so unequal were the labors of the first ministers of Christ, and their claims for notice. Philip, no doubt, served the purpose for which he was called, faithfully; but in these brief sketches, there are no traces of any genius of a high character, that could distinguish him above the thousands that are forgotten, but whose labors, like those of the minutest animals in a mole-hill, contribute an indispensable portion to the completion of the mass, in whose mighty structure all their individual efforts are swallowed up forever.And though the ancient Polycrates may have blundered grievously, in respect to the apostle’s personal identity, his hope of the glorious resurrection of those whom he supposed to have died in Asia will doubtless be equally well rewarded, if, to the amazement of the Fathers, theapostlePhilip should rise at last from the dust of Babylon, or the ashes of Jerusalem, while his namesake, the evangelist, shall burst from his tomb in Hierapolis. “For,” as Polycrates truly says, “in Asia, some great lights have gone down, which shall rise again on that day of the Lord’s approach, when he shall come from the heavens in glory, and shall raise up all his saints;——Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps at Hierapolis, with his venerable virgin daughters,——John, who lay in the bosom of the Lord, and who is laid at Ephesus,——Polycarp, at Smyrna,——Thraseas, at Eumenia,——Sagaris, at Laodicea,——Papirius and Melito, at Sardis——all await the visitation of the Lord from the heavens, in which he shall raise them from the dead.”

And though the ancient Polycrates may have blundered grievously, in respect to the apostle’s personal identity, his hope of the glorious resurrection of those whom he supposed to have died in Asia will doubtless be equally well rewarded, if, to the amazement of the Fathers, theapostlePhilip should rise at last from the dust of Babylon, or the ashes of Jerusalem, while his namesake, the evangelist, shall burst from his tomb in Hierapolis. “For,” as Polycrates truly says, “in Asia, some great lights have gone down, which shall rise again on that day of the Lord’s approach, when he shall come from the heavens in glory, and shall raise up all his saints;——Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps at Hierapolis, with his venerable virgin daughters,——John, who lay in the bosom of the Lord, and who is laid at Ephesus,——Polycarp, at Smyrna,——Thraseas, at Eumenia,——Sagaris, at Laodicea,——Papirius and Melito, at Sardis——all await the visitation of the Lord from the heavens, in which he shall raise them from the dead.”

NATHANAEL, BAR-THOLOMEW.HIS NAME AND CALL.Inrespect to this apostle, there occurs a primary question about his name, which is given so differently in different sacred authorities, as to induce a strong suspicion that the two names refer to two totally distinct persons. The reasons for applying the two words, Nathanael and Bartholomew, to the same person, are the circumstances,——that none of the three first evangelists mention any person named Nathanael, and that John never mentions the name Bartholomew,——that Bartholomew and Nathanael are each mentioned on these different authorities, among the chosen disciples of Jesus,——that Bartholomew is mentioned by the three first evangelists, on all the lists, directly after Philip, who is by John represented as his intimate friend,——and that Bartholomew is not an individual name, but a word showing parentage merely,——the first syllable being often prefixed to Syriac names, for this purpose; andBar-Tholomew means the “son of Tholomew,” or “Tholomai;” just as Bar-Jonah means the “son of Jonah;” nor was the former any more in reality the personal, individual name of Nathanael, than the latter was of Peter; but some circumstance may have occurred to make it, in this instance, often take the place of the true individual name.A few very brief notices are given of this apostle by John, who alone alludes to him, otherwise than by a bare mention on the list. It is mentioned in his gospel that Nathanael was of Cana, in Galilee, a town which stood about half-way between lake Gennesaret and the Mediterranean sea; but the circumstances of his call seem to show that he was then with Philip, probably at or near Bethsaida. Philip, after being summoned by Jesus to the discipleship, immediately sought to bring his friend Nathanael into an enjoyment of the honors of a personal intercourse with Jesus, andinvited him to become a follower of the Messiah, foretold by Moses and the prophets, who had now appeared, as Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. On hearing of that mean place, as the home of the promised King of Israel, Nathanael, with great scorn, replied, in inquiry, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” To this sneering question, Philip answered by the simple proposition, “Come and see;”——wisely judging that no argument could answer his friend’s prejudice so well as an actual observation of the character and aspect of the Nazarene himself. Nathanael, accordingly, persuaded by the earnestness of his friend, came along with him, perhaps, partly to gratify him, but, no doubt, with his curiosity somewhat moved to know what could have thus brought Philip into this devout regard for a citizen of that dirty little town; and he therefore readily accompanied him to see what sort of prophet could come out of Nazareth.The words with which Jesus greeted Nathanael, even before he had been personally introduced, or was prepared for any salutation, are the most exalted testimonial of his character that could be conceived, and show at once his very eminent qualifications for the high honors of the apostleship. When Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, he said, “Behold a true son of Israel, in whom is no guile!”——manifesting at once a confidential and intimate knowledge of his whole character, in thus pronouncing with such ready decision, this high and uncommon tribute of praise upon him, as soon as he appeared before him. Nathanael, quite surprised at this remarkable compliment from one whom he had never seen until that moment, and whom he supposed to be equally ignorant of him, replied with the inquiry, “Whence knowest thou me?” Jesus answered, “Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee.” The fig-trees of Palestine, presenting a wide, leafy cover, and a delightful shade, were often used in the warm season as places of retirement, either in company, for conversation, or in solitude, for meditation and prayer, as is shown in numerous passages of the Rabbinical writings; and it was, doubtless, in one of these occupations that Nathanael was engaged, removed, as he supposed, from all observation, at the time to which Jesus referred. But the eye that could pierce the stormy shades of night on the boisterous waves of Galilee, and that could search the hearts of all men, could also penetrate the thick, leafy veil of the fig-tree, and observe the most secret actions of this guileless Israelite, when he supposed the wholeworld to be shut out, and gave himself to the undisguised enjoyment of his thoughts, feelings, and actions, without restraint. Nathanael, struck with sudden but absolute conviction, at this amazing display of knowledge, gave up all his proud scruples against the despised Nazarene, and adoringly exclaimed, “Rabbi! thou art the Son of God,——thou art the King of Israel.” Jesus, recognizing with pleasure the ready faith of this pure-minded disciple, replied, “Because I said unto thee, ‘I saw thee under the fig-tree,’——believest thou? Thou shalt see yet greater things than these.” Then turning to Philip as well as to Nathanael, he says to them both, “I solemnly assure you, hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”On the day but one after this occurrence, as John records, Jesus was in Cana of Galilee, the residence of Nathanael, and was present at a wedding which took place there. From the circumstance that the mother of Jesus was there also, it would seem likely that it was the marriage of some of their family friends; otherwise the conjecture might seem allowable, that the presence of Jesus and his disciples on this occasion, was in some way connected with the introduction of Nathanael to Jesus; and that this new disciple may have been some way concerned in this interesting event. The manner in which the occurrence is announced,——it being next specified, that two days after the occurrences recorded in the end of the first chapter, Jesus was present at a marriage in Cana of Galilee,——would seem to imply very fairly, that Jesus had been in some other place immediately before; and it is probable therefore, that he accompanied Nathanael home from Bethsaida, or whatever place was the scene of his calling to the discipleship, along with Philip. The terms of the statement are not, however, absolutely incompatible with the idea of this first introduction of these two disciples to Jesus, in Cana itself, which may have been the part of Galilee into which Jesus is said to have gone forth, after leaving Bethabara; although, the reasons above given make it probable that Bethsaida was the scene. After this first incident, no mention whatever is made of Nathanael, either under his proper name, or his paternal appellation, except that when the twelve were sent forth in pairs, he was sent with his friend Philip, that those who had been summoned to the work together, might now go forth laboring together in this high commission. One solitary incident is also commemorated by John,in which this apostle was concerned, namely, the meeting on the lake of Gennesaret, after the resurrection, where his name is mentioned among those who went out on the fishing excursion with Peter. His friend Philip is not there mentioned, but may have been one of the “two disciples,” who are included without their names being given. From this trifling circumstance, some have concluded that Nathanael was a fisherman by trade, as well as the other four who are mentioned with him; and certainly the conjecture is reasonable, and not improbable, except from the circumstance, that his residence was at Cana, which is commonly understood to have been an inland town, and too far from the water, for any of its inhabitants to follow fishing as a business. Other idle conjectures about his occupation and rank might be multiplied from most anciently and venerably foolish authorities; but let the dust of ages sleep on the prosy guesses of the Gregories, of Chrysostom, Augustin, and their reverential copyists in modern times. There is too much need of room in this book, for the detail and discussion of truth, to allow paper to be wasted on baseless conjectures, or impudent falsehoods.HIS APOSTLESHIP.There is a dim relic of a story, of quite ancient date, that after the dispersion of the apostles, he went to Arabia, and preached there till his death. This is highly probable, because it is well known that many of the Jews, more particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem, settled along the eastern coasts of the Red sea, where they were continued for centuries. Nothing can be more reasonable then, than to suppose that after the wasting fury of invasion had desolated the city and the land of their fathers, many of the Christian Jews too, went forth to seek a new home in the peaceful regions of Arabia Felix; and that with them also went forth this true Israelite without guile, to devote the rest of his life to apostolic labors, in that distant country, where those of his wandering brethren, who had believed in Christ, would so much need the support and counsel of one of the divinely commissioned ministers of the gospel. Those Israelites too, who still continued unbelievers, would present objects of importance, in the view of the apostle. All the visible glories of the ancient covenant had departed; and in that distant land, with so little of the chilling influence of the dogmatical teachers of the law around them, they would be the more readily led to the just appreciation of a spiritual faith, and a simple creed.All the testimony which antiquity affords on this point, is simply this:——Eusebius (Church History,V.10,) says, in giving the life of Pantaenus of Alexandria, (who lived about A. D. 180,) that this enterprising Christian philosopher penetrated, in his researches and travels, as far as to the inhabitants of India. It has been shown by Tillemont, Asseman and Michaelis, that this term, in this connection, means Arabia Felix, one part of whose inhabitants were calledIndians, by the Hebrews, the Syrians and the early ecclesiastical historians. Eusebius relates that Pantaenus there found the gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, and that the tradition among these people was, thatBartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, had formerly preached there, and left this gospel among them. This tradition being only a hundred years old when Pantaenus heard it, ranks among those ofratherrespectable character.The tradition certainly appears authentic, and is a very interesting and valuable fragment of early Christian history, giving a trace of the progress of the gospel, which otherwise would never have been recognized,——besides the satisfaction of such a reasonable story about an apostle of whom the inspired narrative records so little, although he is represented in such an interesting light, by the account of his introduction to Jesus. Here he learned the meaning of the solemn prophecy with which Jesus crowned that noble profession of faith. Here he saw, no doubt, yet greater tokens of the power of Christ, than in the deep knowledge of hidden things then displayed. And here, resting at last from his labors, he departed to the full view of the glories there foretold,——to “see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

HIS NAME AND CALL.Inrespect to this apostle, there occurs a primary question about his name, which is given so differently in different sacred authorities, as to induce a strong suspicion that the two names refer to two totally distinct persons. The reasons for applying the two words, Nathanael and Bartholomew, to the same person, are the circumstances,——that none of the three first evangelists mention any person named Nathanael, and that John never mentions the name Bartholomew,——that Bartholomew and Nathanael are each mentioned on these different authorities, among the chosen disciples of Jesus,——that Bartholomew is mentioned by the three first evangelists, on all the lists, directly after Philip, who is by John represented as his intimate friend,——and that Bartholomew is not an individual name, but a word showing parentage merely,——the first syllable being often prefixed to Syriac names, for this purpose; andBar-Tholomew means the “son of Tholomew,” or “Tholomai;” just as Bar-Jonah means the “son of Jonah;” nor was the former any more in reality the personal, individual name of Nathanael, than the latter was of Peter; but some circumstance may have occurred to make it, in this instance, often take the place of the true individual name.A few very brief notices are given of this apostle by John, who alone alludes to him, otherwise than by a bare mention on the list. It is mentioned in his gospel that Nathanael was of Cana, in Galilee, a town which stood about half-way between lake Gennesaret and the Mediterranean sea; but the circumstances of his call seem to show that he was then with Philip, probably at or near Bethsaida. Philip, after being summoned by Jesus to the discipleship, immediately sought to bring his friend Nathanael into an enjoyment of the honors of a personal intercourse with Jesus, andinvited him to become a follower of the Messiah, foretold by Moses and the prophets, who had now appeared, as Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. On hearing of that mean place, as the home of the promised King of Israel, Nathanael, with great scorn, replied, in inquiry, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” To this sneering question, Philip answered by the simple proposition, “Come and see;”——wisely judging that no argument could answer his friend’s prejudice so well as an actual observation of the character and aspect of the Nazarene himself. Nathanael, accordingly, persuaded by the earnestness of his friend, came along with him, perhaps, partly to gratify him, but, no doubt, with his curiosity somewhat moved to know what could have thus brought Philip into this devout regard for a citizen of that dirty little town; and he therefore readily accompanied him to see what sort of prophet could come out of Nazareth.The words with which Jesus greeted Nathanael, even before he had been personally introduced, or was prepared for any salutation, are the most exalted testimonial of his character that could be conceived, and show at once his very eminent qualifications for the high honors of the apostleship. When Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, he said, “Behold a true son of Israel, in whom is no guile!”——manifesting at once a confidential and intimate knowledge of his whole character, in thus pronouncing with such ready decision, this high and uncommon tribute of praise upon him, as soon as he appeared before him. Nathanael, quite surprised at this remarkable compliment from one whom he had never seen until that moment, and whom he supposed to be equally ignorant of him, replied with the inquiry, “Whence knowest thou me?” Jesus answered, “Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee.” The fig-trees of Palestine, presenting a wide, leafy cover, and a delightful shade, were often used in the warm season as places of retirement, either in company, for conversation, or in solitude, for meditation and prayer, as is shown in numerous passages of the Rabbinical writings; and it was, doubtless, in one of these occupations that Nathanael was engaged, removed, as he supposed, from all observation, at the time to which Jesus referred. But the eye that could pierce the stormy shades of night on the boisterous waves of Galilee, and that could search the hearts of all men, could also penetrate the thick, leafy veil of the fig-tree, and observe the most secret actions of this guileless Israelite, when he supposed the wholeworld to be shut out, and gave himself to the undisguised enjoyment of his thoughts, feelings, and actions, without restraint. Nathanael, struck with sudden but absolute conviction, at this amazing display of knowledge, gave up all his proud scruples against the despised Nazarene, and adoringly exclaimed, “Rabbi! thou art the Son of God,——thou art the King of Israel.” Jesus, recognizing with pleasure the ready faith of this pure-minded disciple, replied, “Because I said unto thee, ‘I saw thee under the fig-tree,’——believest thou? Thou shalt see yet greater things than these.” Then turning to Philip as well as to Nathanael, he says to them both, “I solemnly assure you, hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”On the day but one after this occurrence, as John records, Jesus was in Cana of Galilee, the residence of Nathanael, and was present at a wedding which took place there. From the circumstance that the mother of Jesus was there also, it would seem likely that it was the marriage of some of their family friends; otherwise the conjecture might seem allowable, that the presence of Jesus and his disciples on this occasion, was in some way connected with the introduction of Nathanael to Jesus; and that this new disciple may have been some way concerned in this interesting event. The manner in which the occurrence is announced,——it being next specified, that two days after the occurrences recorded in the end of the first chapter, Jesus was present at a marriage in Cana of Galilee,——would seem to imply very fairly, that Jesus had been in some other place immediately before; and it is probable therefore, that he accompanied Nathanael home from Bethsaida, or whatever place was the scene of his calling to the discipleship, along with Philip. The terms of the statement are not, however, absolutely incompatible with the idea of this first introduction of these two disciples to Jesus, in Cana itself, which may have been the part of Galilee into which Jesus is said to have gone forth, after leaving Bethabara; although, the reasons above given make it probable that Bethsaida was the scene. After this first incident, no mention whatever is made of Nathanael, either under his proper name, or his paternal appellation, except that when the twelve were sent forth in pairs, he was sent with his friend Philip, that those who had been summoned to the work together, might now go forth laboring together in this high commission. One solitary incident is also commemorated by John,in which this apostle was concerned, namely, the meeting on the lake of Gennesaret, after the resurrection, where his name is mentioned among those who went out on the fishing excursion with Peter. His friend Philip is not there mentioned, but may have been one of the “two disciples,” who are included without their names being given. From this trifling circumstance, some have concluded that Nathanael was a fisherman by trade, as well as the other four who are mentioned with him; and certainly the conjecture is reasonable, and not improbable, except from the circumstance, that his residence was at Cana, which is commonly understood to have been an inland town, and too far from the water, for any of its inhabitants to follow fishing as a business. Other idle conjectures about his occupation and rank might be multiplied from most anciently and venerably foolish authorities; but let the dust of ages sleep on the prosy guesses of the Gregories, of Chrysostom, Augustin, and their reverential copyists in modern times. There is too much need of room in this book, for the detail and discussion of truth, to allow paper to be wasted on baseless conjectures, or impudent falsehoods.HIS APOSTLESHIP.There is a dim relic of a story, of quite ancient date, that after the dispersion of the apostles, he went to Arabia, and preached there till his death. This is highly probable, because it is well known that many of the Jews, more particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem, settled along the eastern coasts of the Red sea, where they were continued for centuries. Nothing can be more reasonable then, than to suppose that after the wasting fury of invasion had desolated the city and the land of their fathers, many of the Christian Jews too, went forth to seek a new home in the peaceful regions of Arabia Felix; and that with them also went forth this true Israelite without guile, to devote the rest of his life to apostolic labors, in that distant country, where those of his wandering brethren, who had believed in Christ, would so much need the support and counsel of one of the divinely commissioned ministers of the gospel. Those Israelites too, who still continued unbelievers, would present objects of importance, in the view of the apostle. All the visible glories of the ancient covenant had departed; and in that distant land, with so little of the chilling influence of the dogmatical teachers of the law around them, they would be the more readily led to the just appreciation of a spiritual faith, and a simple creed.

HIS NAME AND CALL.

Inrespect to this apostle, there occurs a primary question about his name, which is given so differently in different sacred authorities, as to induce a strong suspicion that the two names refer to two totally distinct persons. The reasons for applying the two words, Nathanael and Bartholomew, to the same person, are the circumstances,——that none of the three first evangelists mention any person named Nathanael, and that John never mentions the name Bartholomew,——that Bartholomew and Nathanael are each mentioned on these different authorities, among the chosen disciples of Jesus,——that Bartholomew is mentioned by the three first evangelists, on all the lists, directly after Philip, who is by John represented as his intimate friend,——and that Bartholomew is not an individual name, but a word showing parentage merely,——the first syllable being often prefixed to Syriac names, for this purpose; andBar-Tholomew means the “son of Tholomew,” or “Tholomai;” just as Bar-Jonah means the “son of Jonah;” nor was the former any more in reality the personal, individual name of Nathanael, than the latter was of Peter; but some circumstance may have occurred to make it, in this instance, often take the place of the true individual name.

A few very brief notices are given of this apostle by John, who alone alludes to him, otherwise than by a bare mention on the list. It is mentioned in his gospel that Nathanael was of Cana, in Galilee, a town which stood about half-way between lake Gennesaret and the Mediterranean sea; but the circumstances of his call seem to show that he was then with Philip, probably at or near Bethsaida. Philip, after being summoned by Jesus to the discipleship, immediately sought to bring his friend Nathanael into an enjoyment of the honors of a personal intercourse with Jesus, andinvited him to become a follower of the Messiah, foretold by Moses and the prophets, who had now appeared, as Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. On hearing of that mean place, as the home of the promised King of Israel, Nathanael, with great scorn, replied, in inquiry, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” To this sneering question, Philip answered by the simple proposition, “Come and see;”——wisely judging that no argument could answer his friend’s prejudice so well as an actual observation of the character and aspect of the Nazarene himself. Nathanael, accordingly, persuaded by the earnestness of his friend, came along with him, perhaps, partly to gratify him, but, no doubt, with his curiosity somewhat moved to know what could have thus brought Philip into this devout regard for a citizen of that dirty little town; and he therefore readily accompanied him to see what sort of prophet could come out of Nazareth.

The words with which Jesus greeted Nathanael, even before he had been personally introduced, or was prepared for any salutation, are the most exalted testimonial of his character that could be conceived, and show at once his very eminent qualifications for the high honors of the apostleship. When Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, he said, “Behold a true son of Israel, in whom is no guile!”——manifesting at once a confidential and intimate knowledge of his whole character, in thus pronouncing with such ready decision, this high and uncommon tribute of praise upon him, as soon as he appeared before him. Nathanael, quite surprised at this remarkable compliment from one whom he had never seen until that moment, and whom he supposed to be equally ignorant of him, replied with the inquiry, “Whence knowest thou me?” Jesus answered, “Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee.” The fig-trees of Palestine, presenting a wide, leafy cover, and a delightful shade, were often used in the warm season as places of retirement, either in company, for conversation, or in solitude, for meditation and prayer, as is shown in numerous passages of the Rabbinical writings; and it was, doubtless, in one of these occupations that Nathanael was engaged, removed, as he supposed, from all observation, at the time to which Jesus referred. But the eye that could pierce the stormy shades of night on the boisterous waves of Galilee, and that could search the hearts of all men, could also penetrate the thick, leafy veil of the fig-tree, and observe the most secret actions of this guileless Israelite, when he supposed the wholeworld to be shut out, and gave himself to the undisguised enjoyment of his thoughts, feelings, and actions, without restraint. Nathanael, struck with sudden but absolute conviction, at this amazing display of knowledge, gave up all his proud scruples against the despised Nazarene, and adoringly exclaimed, “Rabbi! thou art the Son of God,——thou art the King of Israel.” Jesus, recognizing with pleasure the ready faith of this pure-minded disciple, replied, “Because I said unto thee, ‘I saw thee under the fig-tree,’——believest thou? Thou shalt see yet greater things than these.” Then turning to Philip as well as to Nathanael, he says to them both, “I solemnly assure you, hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

On the day but one after this occurrence, as John records, Jesus was in Cana of Galilee, the residence of Nathanael, and was present at a wedding which took place there. From the circumstance that the mother of Jesus was there also, it would seem likely that it was the marriage of some of their family friends; otherwise the conjecture might seem allowable, that the presence of Jesus and his disciples on this occasion, was in some way connected with the introduction of Nathanael to Jesus; and that this new disciple may have been some way concerned in this interesting event. The manner in which the occurrence is announced,——it being next specified, that two days after the occurrences recorded in the end of the first chapter, Jesus was present at a marriage in Cana of Galilee,——would seem to imply very fairly, that Jesus had been in some other place immediately before; and it is probable therefore, that he accompanied Nathanael home from Bethsaida, or whatever place was the scene of his calling to the discipleship, along with Philip. The terms of the statement are not, however, absolutely incompatible with the idea of this first introduction of these two disciples to Jesus, in Cana itself, which may have been the part of Galilee into which Jesus is said to have gone forth, after leaving Bethabara; although, the reasons above given make it probable that Bethsaida was the scene. After this first incident, no mention whatever is made of Nathanael, either under his proper name, or his paternal appellation, except that when the twelve were sent forth in pairs, he was sent with his friend Philip, that those who had been summoned to the work together, might now go forth laboring together in this high commission. One solitary incident is also commemorated by John,in which this apostle was concerned, namely, the meeting on the lake of Gennesaret, after the resurrection, where his name is mentioned among those who went out on the fishing excursion with Peter. His friend Philip is not there mentioned, but may have been one of the “two disciples,” who are included without their names being given. From this trifling circumstance, some have concluded that Nathanael was a fisherman by trade, as well as the other four who are mentioned with him; and certainly the conjecture is reasonable, and not improbable, except from the circumstance, that his residence was at Cana, which is commonly understood to have been an inland town, and too far from the water, for any of its inhabitants to follow fishing as a business. Other idle conjectures about his occupation and rank might be multiplied from most anciently and venerably foolish authorities; but let the dust of ages sleep on the prosy guesses of the Gregories, of Chrysostom, Augustin, and their reverential copyists in modern times. There is too much need of room in this book, for the detail and discussion of truth, to allow paper to be wasted on baseless conjectures, or impudent falsehoods.

HIS APOSTLESHIP.

There is a dim relic of a story, of quite ancient date, that after the dispersion of the apostles, he went to Arabia, and preached there till his death. This is highly probable, because it is well known that many of the Jews, more particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem, settled along the eastern coasts of the Red sea, where they were continued for centuries. Nothing can be more reasonable then, than to suppose that after the wasting fury of invasion had desolated the city and the land of their fathers, many of the Christian Jews too, went forth to seek a new home in the peaceful regions of Arabia Felix; and that with them also went forth this true Israelite without guile, to devote the rest of his life to apostolic labors, in that distant country, where those of his wandering brethren, who had believed in Christ, would so much need the support and counsel of one of the divinely commissioned ministers of the gospel. Those Israelites too, who still continued unbelievers, would present objects of importance, in the view of the apostle. All the visible glories of the ancient covenant had departed; and in that distant land, with so little of the chilling influence of the dogmatical teachers of the law around them, they would be the more readily led to the just appreciation of a spiritual faith, and a simple creed.

All the testimony which antiquity affords on this point, is simply this:——Eusebius (Church History,V.10,) says, in giving the life of Pantaenus of Alexandria, (who lived about A. D. 180,) that this enterprising Christian philosopher penetrated, in his researches and travels, as far as to the inhabitants of India. It has been shown by Tillemont, Asseman and Michaelis, that this term, in this connection, means Arabia Felix, one part of whose inhabitants were calledIndians, by the Hebrews, the Syrians and the early ecclesiastical historians. Eusebius relates that Pantaenus there found the gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, and that the tradition among these people was, thatBartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, had formerly preached there, and left this gospel among them. This tradition being only a hundred years old when Pantaenus heard it, ranks among those ofratherrespectable character.

The tradition certainly appears authentic, and is a very interesting and valuable fragment of early Christian history, giving a trace of the progress of the gospel, which otherwise would never have been recognized,——besides the satisfaction of such a reasonable story about an apostle of whom the inspired narrative records so little, although he is represented in such an interesting light, by the account of his introduction to Jesus. Here he learned the meaning of the solemn prophecy with which Jesus crowned that noble profession of faith. Here he saw, no doubt, yet greater tokens of the power of Christ, than in the deep knowledge of hidden things then displayed. And here, resting at last from his labors, he departed to the full view of the glories there foretold,——to “see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

Back to Index Next