and with the same authority; I send you to reveal the will of God for the salvation of men, and bestow on you both the gift of tongues, and the power of working miracles, that you may be able to preach the doctrine of salvation in every country, and to confirm it as divine, in opposition to all gainsayers. Perhaps, the number of twelve apostles was fixed upon rather than any other, to shew that God intended to gather the scattered remnant of the twelve tribes by their ministry. After their election, the twelve accompanied Jesus; constantly lived with him, on one common stock, as his family; and never departed from him, unless by his express appointment.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, have, each of them, given us a catalogue of the names of the apostles; and their exactness, in this particular, is greatly to be praised. For, as the apostleship clothed the person on whom it was conferred with the high authority of directing the religious faith of mankind, it was of no small importance to the world to know who they were, to whom this dignity belonged. [Mark iii. 16.] And Simon he surnamed Peter (Luke, Simon, whom he named Peter); And James the son of Zebedec, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them boanerges, which is, the sons of thunder: And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, (Matthew, Matthew the publican,) and Thomas, and James the son of Thaddeus, and Alpheus, (Luke, and Judas the brother of James. Matthew, Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus,) and Simon the Canaanite, (Luke, Simon called Zelotes,) and Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him.

In the catalogues given by Matthew and Luke, Simon and "Andrew, the sons of Jonah, are named first, not because they were greater in dignity than their brethren of the apostolical college, but because they had become Christ's disciples before them. With respect to Andrew, this is plain from John i. 40, 41. And as for Peter, he may have been the second disciple, notwithstanding it was another person who accompanied Andrew when he first conversed with Jesus. That person is supposed to have been John, the son of Zebedee, and the author of the gospel; because he is there spoken of in the manner that John usually speaks of himself. But, whoever he was, Peter may have been a disciple before him; because it by no means follows from Andrew being convinced, that his companion was convinced also. The foundation of his faith may have been laid at that meeting, though he did not acknowledge Christ's mission till afterwards. Now as some one of the disciples was to have the first place in the catalogue, the earliness of Peter's faith might be a reason of conferring that honour on him. But he takes place even of his brother Andrew, who was converted before him, perhaps, because decency required it, being, as is generally believed, the elder brother. In like manner, James, the son of Zebedee, being elder than John his brother, is mentioned before him, though it is probable that he was the younger disciple. Whatever was the reason of ranking the apostles in the catalogue, we are certain they are not ranged according to their dignity; for, had that been the case, the order of names would not have been different in the different evangelists; neither would the apostle Paul, in speaking of the pillars of the church, [Gal. ii. 9.] have mentioned James the Less before Peter.

Further, on supposition that the apostles are ranked in the catalogues according to their dignity, it will follow that John and Matthew, whose praise is in all the churches, on account of their writings, were inferior to apostles, who are scarce once named in the Gospel or Acts, except in the catalogues. Add to this, if Peter, was the chief apostle, how came it that James, the son of Alpheus, presided in the first council at Jerusalem? [Acts xv. 19.] as is plain from his summing up the debate, and wording the decree. Or, if Peter was the greatest in point of activity and courage, how came Herod to kill James the son of Zebedee before he laid hold on Peter, whom, indeed,

afterwards, he was going to have put to death? In short, if any of the apostles were greater than the rest, how came Jesus, when they disputed about superiority, to reprove them, and to declare they were all brethren, or equals? In the catalogue, Simon, the brother of Andrew, is distinguished from the other Simon by the surname of Peter, which had been conferred on him when he first became acquainted with Jesus at Jordan. The reason of the name, however, was not assigned till long after that, viz. when Simon declared his faith in Jesus, as Messiah; [Mat. xvi. 17, 18.] for it was then that Jesus told him he was called Cephas Peter, (which, by interpretation, is a rock,) on account of the fortitude wherewith he was to preach the gospel. Simon and Andrew were, originally, fishermen, and inhabitants of Bethsaida, a town situated on the north shore of the lake of Gennezareth. But, after Peter was married, he and his brother settled in Capernaum, perhaps, because his wife lived there. Before they became acquainted with Christ, they were disciples of the Baptist, who pointed him out to them as Messiah. Andrew has left no writings, for which reason we are at a loss to judge of his spirit and endowments; but Peter was the author of the two epistles which bear his name.

James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were also fishermen; they dwelt in Capernaum, and seem to have been rather in better circumstances than Peter and Andrew, for the gospels speak of their having hired servants to assist them in their business. John is thought to have been the youngest of all the apostles; yet he was old enough to have been the follower of the Baptist before he came to Christ. On this, or some ether occasion, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, obtained the surname of Boanerges, i. e. sons of thunder, perhaps, because of the vehemence and impetuosity of their tempers. Accordingly, their spirit shewed itself in the desire which they expressed. to have the Samaritans destroyed by fire from heaven, because they refused to lodge Jesus in his way to Jerusalem. It appeared, also, in their ambition to become the great officers of state in their Master's kingdom, which they supposed would be a secular one. Besides, John's writings shew that he was a man of a warm and affectionate turn of mind. The warmth of his temper gave him a singular fitness for friendship, in which he was not only amiable above all the disciples, but happy, as it rendered him the object of Christ's peculiar love; a love which will do him. honour to the end of the world. As for James, his being put to death by Herod is a proof that his zeal was uncommon, and that it moved him to be more active and bold than the rest in the work of the gospel. Had it been otherwise, he would not have become the object either of Herod's jealousy or resentment. Some, indeed, are of opinion, that the epithet, sons of thunder, was not expressive of the dispositions of the two brothers, but of the force and success with which they should preach the gospel. Yet, if that had been the reason of the surname, it was equally applicable to all the apostles.

Philip is said to have been a native of Bethsaida, the town of Peter and Andrew. He was originally a disciple of the Baptist; but he left him to follow Jesus, as soon as he became acquainted with him at Jordan. [John i. 44.]

Bartholomew is supposed to have been the disciple called Nathaniel, whose conversion is related John i. 45. And the supposition is probable, were it for no other reason but this, that all the other persons who became acquainted with Jesus at Jordan, when he was baptized, and who believed on him there, were chosen of the number of the apostles. If so, why should Nathaniel have been excluded? He was one of those who believed on Jesus then, and was a person of such probity, that he obtained from Jesus the high character of an Israelite indeed, in whom there was no guile. In every respect, therefore, he was equally worthy of the honour of the apostleship

with the rest. Accordingly, when Jesus shewed himself to the apostles at the sea of Tiberias, after his resurrection, Nathaniel is expressly mentioned, by John, among

them.

Farther, in the catalogue of the apostles given by Matthew, where the apostles are thought to be coupled in pairs as they were sent out to preach, Philip was joined with Bartholomew, which agrees very well with the supposition that Bartholomew was the same person with Nathaniel. For, from the history of Nathaniel's conversion, it appears, that Philip was his intimate acquaintance, and the person who first introduced him to Jesus. The difference of names is no objection to the supposition which Dr. Macknight contends for. Bartholomew signifies the son of Tolmai, so may have been a patronymic, and not this disciple's proper name. Or, without having recourse to this solution, why not Bartholomew have had two names as well as Matthew, who, throughout the whole of his gospel, does not sign himself by his other name Levi? After the death of Judas Iscariot, when the apostles met to choose ore in his place, Nathaniel was not proposed as a candidate for that office. This cannot he accounted for on any supposition, but that he enjoyed the diguity already. For that he was still alive, and continued to associate with the disciples, is evident from Jolm xx. 1. To conclude the antients seem to have thought Bartholomew the same with Nathaniel; for, from what John tells us of the latter, that he was of Cana, [John xxi. 2.] they assign the honour of Bartholemew's nativity to the same town, and add, that he was a person skilled in the law.

Matthew was a publican of Capernaum. He was otherwise named Levi, [Mark ii. 14.] and left a gainful employment for the sake of Christ. He wrote the gospel to which his name is prefixed, and was the son of one Alpheus, [Mark ii. 14.] of whom we know nothing but the name, excepting that he was a different person from Alpheus the father of James.

There is no mention made of Thomas before his conversion. However, it is conjectured, that, like the rest, he was of mean extraction. And because he is named among those who went a fishing, [John xxi. 2, 3.] it is supposed that he was a fisherman by occupation. He obtained the surname of Didymus, [John xi. 16.] probably, because he was a twin. This apostle made himself remarkable, by continuing longer than his brethren to doubt of Christ's resurrection.

In the college of apostles, besides James, the son of Zebedee, and brother of John, Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his master, and Simon surnamed Peter, we find James, the son of Alpheus, surnamed the less or younger, [Mark xv. 40.] to distinguish him from the other James, the son of Zebedee, who was elder than he; also Judas, or Lebbeus, surnamed Thaddeus, the brother of James the Less, and Simon, surnamed Zelotes. James the Less, Judas Thaddeus, and Simon Zelotes, were brothers, and sons of one Alpheus, or Cleophas, [John xix. 25, compared with Mat. xxvii. 56, and Mat. xiii. 55, and Mark iii. 18.] who was, likewise, a disciple, being one of the two to whom our Lord appeared on the road to Emmaus, after his resurrection. They are called Christ's brethren, [Mat. xiii. 55.] that is, his cousins, in which sense the word is used Lev. x. 4. It seems, their mother Mary [Mat. xxviii. 56, compared with Johu xix. 25.] was sister to Mary, our Lord's mother; for it was no unusual thing among the Jews to have more children than one of a family called by the same name. The three apostles, therefore, who go by the name of our Lord's brethren, were, really, his cousin-germans. James the Less, and Judas Thaddeus, wrote the epistles which bear their names. This James was a person of great authority among the apostles; for, in the council which met at Jerusalem to decide the dispute about

t

the necessity of circumcision, we find him, as president of the meeting, summing up the debate, and wording the decree.

Simon, the cousin of our Lord, and brother of James the Less, is called, by Mark, the Canaanite. But, from the above account of his relations, it is plain that the epithet does not express his descent, otherwise his brothers, James and Judas, ought to have been Canaanites likewise. Luke calls him Simon Zelotes, which seems to be the Greek translation of the Hebrew appellation given him by Mark; for, from zelotypus fuit, he was jealous, comes of the Chaldaic word zelotes, a zealot. Wherefore, the appellation of Canaanite given to Simon, by Mark, and Zelotes, the epithet which he he bears in Luke, are as perfectly the same as Cephas and Petros, Tabitha and Dorcas. The zealots were a particular sect or faction among the Jews, who, in later times, under colour of zeal for God, committed all the disorders imaginable. They pretended to imitate the zeal which Phinehas, Elijah, and the Maccabees, expressed, in the manner of punishing offenders; but they acted from blind fury, or from worse principles, without regard either to the laws of God, or to the dictates of reason. Some are of opinion, that Simon, the apostle, had formerly been one of this pestilential faction: but as there is no mention made of it till a little before the destruction of Jerusalem, we may rather suppose that the surname of Zelotes was given him on account of his uncommon zeal in matters of true piety and religion.

C

Judas, the traitor, was the son of one Simon. [John vi. 71. He had the surname of Iscariot given him, to distinguish him from Judas Thaddeus, our Lord's cousin. The literal meaning of Iscariot is a man of Cariot, or Kerioth, which was a town in the tribe of Judah. [Josh. xv. 25.] In all probability, therefore, this surname denotes the place of the traitor's nativity. Some pretend that, among the Jews, no person was surnamed by the place of this birth, but such as were illustrious on account of their station; and so would have us believe that Judas was a person of some distinction. They think his being intrusted with the bag, or stock-purse, preferably to all the rest, is a confirmation of this. But as the other apostles were men of mean condition, these arguments are too trivial to prove that Judas was distinguished from them in that particular.

Thus were the foundations of the church laid in twelve illiterate Galileans, who, being, at first, utterly ignorant of the nature and end of their office, and destitute of the qualifications necessary to discharge the duties of it, integrity excepted, were the most unlikely persons in the world to confound the wisdom of the wise, to baffle the power of the mighty, to overturn the many false religions which then flourished every where under the protection of civil government, and, in a word, to reform the universally corrupted manners of mankind. Had human prudence been to make choice of instruments for so grand an undertaking, doubtless, such as were remarkable for deep science, strong reasoning, and prevailing eloquence, would have been pitched upon; and these endowments, probably, would have been set off with the external advantages of wealth and power. But lo! the wisdom of God, infinitely superior to that of men, acted quite differently in this matter. For the treasure of the gospel was committed to earthen vessels, that the excellency of its power might, in all countries, be seen to be of God. Accordingly, the religion which these Galileans taught through. the world, without having at all applied themselves to letters, exhibited a far juster notion of the nature and perfections of God, and of the duty of man, than the Grecian and Roman philosophers were able to attain, though their lives were spent in contemplation and study. Hence, by its own intrinsic splendour, as well as by the external, glory of the miracles which accompanied it, this religion shewed itself to be altogether,

1

of divine original. Besides, it was attended with a success answerable to its dignity and truth. It was received every where, by the bulk of mankind, with the highest applause, as something they had hitherto been seeking in vain; while the maxims and precepts of the philosophers never spread themselves farther than the particular schools. It was, therefore, with the highest wisdom, that the foundations of the church were thus laid in the labours of a few weak, illiterate fishermen. For, with irresistible evidence, it demonstrated, that the immense fabric was, at first, raised, and is still sustained, not by the arm of flesh, but purely by the hand of Almighty God.

A