the same choice between the world and himself, a choice on which depended the salvation or loss of their own souls. They must decide to suffer with him upon earth, if they would reign with him hereafter. For he would surely come in the glory of God and with the holy angels, to reward every man according to his works, and then he would be ashamed of those who were now ashamed of him. Nay! so certain was all this, and to them of such supreme moment, that some of them would in that day taste of eternal death; another of the allusions which we have already seen our Saviour make to the character of Judas." 80 § 15. Having thus received a foretaste of "the sufferings of Christ," the minds of the disciples were soon relieved by a glimpse of "the glory that should follow." Just a week after the above discourse, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John, the three disciples who were also to be the witnesses of his agony at Gethsemane, to behold a vision of his heavenly glory. The scene is traditionally identified with Mount Tabor, but this can not have been the place: all we can infer from the Gospel narrative is, that it was a high mountain near to Cæsarea Philippi. His first object was prayer; and as he prayed, his face and raiment were transfigured to the same glorious majesty and brilliant whiteness in which he appeared to John long afterward at Patmos. With him were seen in glory Moses and Elijah, the lawgiver and reformer of the Old Covenant; and their converse with him concerning “his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem" showed to the disciples the harmony of the Law and the Prophets with the Gospel in regarding Christ's sufferings as the prelude to his glory; and that that glory would be shared by his followers, was intimated by the glory in which Moses and Elijah themselves appeared. Nor was there wanting a sensible proof of the presence of God the Father; but instead of the “blackness, and darkness, and tempest," amid which God had revealed himself both to Moses and Elijah upon Mount Sinai, it was a bright cloud out of which a voice came, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." The disciples, who had given way, while the Master was praying, to a supernatural drowsiness like that which overcame them at Gethsemane, awoke just in time for Peter to express the fond desire to remain amid such bliss, when the voice was heard 79 Matt. xvi. 21-28; Mark viii. 31, ix. 1; Luke ix. 22-27. See Bp. Horsley's 4th Sermon. 80 Possibly one of the lower summits of Hermon itself. See Notes and Illustrations (C). from the cloud, the vision vanished, and they were left alone with Jesus. As they came down from the mountain, he charged them not to tell what they had seen, till after his resurrection; and he explained, in reply to their inquiries about the coming of Elijah before the Messiah, that Elijah had already come in the person of John the Baptist, and had been persecuted by those very scribes who had taught men to expect him, and so the Son of Man would also suffer.81 The three disciples descended with Jesus to the world beneath, in a double sense; for a most humiliating scene was enacting in their absence. The remaining Apostles had attempted to heal a frightful case of demoniacal possession; and their failure had subjected them to the scornful objections of the scribes, and the unbelief of the people. After rebuking that unbelief, and bringing the father of the sufferer, who had expressed it, to cry with tears, "Lord, I believe help thou my unbelief," Jesus cast out the furious demon; and then told his disciples, in private, the secret of their failure, because of their unbelief, and the unbounded power of faith: "This kind goeth not out, but by prayer and fasting." Once more, soon after this, Jesus foretold to the disciples his betrayal and death, and his resurrection the third day after; but they were unwilling to accept the plain meaning of his words, and afraid to ask him for an explanation.83 99 82 § 16. Jesus now returned with the Twelve, for the last time, to the shores of the Lake of Galilee.84 At Capernaum he released Peter by a miracle from his difficulty about the tributemoney, the “didrachm," which corresponds in value to the half-shekel, and seems therefore to have been the poll-tax of that amount, which was paid for the temple-service. The piece of money, a "stater," which Peter found in the fish's mouth, was equal to a shekel, and therefore the precise amount of the tax for his Master and himself. The exemption which Jesus claimed, though he waived it lest he should offend the Jews, may be regarded as an assertion of his divinity." 85 From the great lessons they had so lately received, the Apostles seem as yet to have derived only a vague idea that their Master's kingdom was at hand, and that they must not lose its advantages to themselves. The contest which arose among them for precedence gave an occasion for our Saviour's teach 81 Matt. xvii. 1-13; Mark ix. 2-13; Luke ix. 28-36. 84 Matt. Mark, ll. cc. 85 Matt. xvii. 24-27. See the Appendix to the Old Testament History, on Weights, Measures, and Money. 83 Matt. xvii. 22, 23; Mark ix. 30-32; Luke ix. 43-45. 82 Matt. xvii. 14-21; Mark ix. 1429; Luke ix. 37-43. ing, by the pattern of a little child whom he set in the midst of them, the great lessons of humility, brotherly love, forgiveness and forbearance; to which he added that of reverent regard for children, just because they hold out to us an example of the state of innocence from which we have fallen, and which must be regained, by repentance and conversion, before we can enter the kingdom of heaven. And thus the last lesson which our Lord taught in Galilee re-echoes the first with which he opened the Sermon on the Mount. Indeed, the whole discourse, which is reported most fully by St. Matthew, forms a most impressive climax to the teaching which was so begun. Christ's own example, in coming to seek and save the lost, is held forth as the great motive, to compassionate love and mutual forgiveness. The power of binding and loosing is now extended to all the Apostles; his presence is promised in all their assemblies; and his Father's answer to all their prayers. Once more the solemn warning is repeated, concerning resistance to sin, and decision between the Master and the world; and the note of future judgment, already struck in the Sermon on the Mount, concludes the whole; but for the gentle final words recorded by St. Mark:-"Have peace one with another." 9986 Immediately after this the first two Evangelists mention the final departure of Jesus from Galilee into that part of Peræa which belonged to the province of Judæa." But, in fact, the interval between the departure from Galilee, and the retirement into Peræa, is to be filled up by Christ's visit to the Feast of Tabernacles, and many other important incidents which are related by Luke and John. The narrative of these events belongs to the next chapter. 88 86 Matt. xviii.; Mark ix. 33-50; Luke ix. 46-50. 87 Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1. NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS. (A.) THE BRETHREN OF THE found living as at their home with the LORD. Virgin Mary, which seems unnatural if she were their aunt, their mother being, as we know, still alive; 3, the James of Luke vi. 15 is described as the son not of Clopas, but of Alphæus; 4, the "brethren of the Lord" (who are plainly James, Joses, Jude, and Simon) appear to be excluded from the Apostolic band by their declared unbelief in his Messiahship (John tinguished from the disciples by the Gospel-writers (Matt. xii. 48; Mark iii. 33; John ii. 12; Acts i. 14); 5, James and Jude are not designated as the Lord's brethren in the list of the Apostles; 6, Mary is designated as mother of James and Joses, whereas she would have been called mother of James and Jude, had James and Jude been Apostles, and Joses not an Apostle (Matt. xxvii. 46). THE difficult question as to who were "the brethren of the Lord" has given rise to much controversy. They are first mentioned in Matt. xiii. 55: "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and his sisters, are they not all with us?" The natural con- vii. 3-5), and by being formally disclusion would seem to be that Jesus had four brothers of the above names, as well as sisters. But by comparing Matt. xxvii. 56, and Mark xv. 40, with John xix. 25, we find that the Virgin Mary had a sister named like herself, Mary, who was the wife of Clopas, and who had two sons, James the Little, and Joses. By referring to Matt. xiii. 55, and Mark vi. 3, we find that a James and a Joses, with two other brethren called Jude and Simon, and at least three sisters, were living with the Virgin Mary at Nazareth. By referring to Luke vi. 16, and Acts i. 13, we find that there were two brethren named James and be given: Jude among the Apostles. It would Objection 1. "They are called certainly be natural to think that we brethren." But there can be no doubt had here but one family of four broth- that adeλpoí frequently signifies not ers and three or more sisters, the chil- "brothers," but cousins or other near dren of Clopas and Mary, nephews relations; and the translation of the and nieces of the Virgin Mary. There word by "brothers" in Matt. xiii. 55 are difficulties, however, in the way would produce very grave difficulties. of this conclusion. For, 1, the four For, first, it introduces two sets of four brethren in Matt. xiii. 55 are de- first cousins, bearing the same names scribed as the brothers (ådeλpoí) of of James, Joses, Jude and Simon, who Jesus, not as his cousins; 2, they are appear upon the stage without any These are the six chief objections which may be made to the hypothesis of there being but one family of brethren named James, Joses, Jude and Simon. The following answers may - thing to show which is the son of Clo- | upon as one family, and spoken of as pas, and which his cousin; and sec- brothers and sisters instead of cousins? ondly, it drives us to take our choice It is noticeable that St. Mary is nobetween three doubtful and improba- where called the mother of the four ble hypotheses as to the parentage of brothers. this second set of James, Joses, Jude, Objection 3.-"James the Apostle and Simon. There are three such is said to be the son of Alphæus, not hypotheses: (a.) The Eastern hy- of Clopas." But Alphæus and Clopas pothesis, that they were the children are the same name rendered into the of Joseph by a former wife. (b.) The Greek language in two different but Helvidian hypothesis, that James, ordinary and recognized ways, from Joses, Jude, Simon, and the three the Aramaic word. (Compare the two sisters, were children of Joseph and forms Clovis and Aloysius.) Mary. This hypothesis also creates Objection 4. Dean Alford contwo sets of cousins with the same siders John vii. 5, compared with vi. names, and it seems to be scarcely 67-70, to decide that none of the compatible with our Lord's recom- brothers of the Lord were of the nummending his mother to the care of St. ber of the Twelve. If this verse, as John at his own death; for if, as has he states, makes the "crowning diffibeen suggested, though with great im- culty" to the hypothesis of the idenprobability, her sons might at that tity of James the son of Alphæus, the time have been unbelievers, Jesus Apostle, with James the brother of would have known that that unbelief the Lord, the difficulties are not too was only to continue for a few days. formidable to be overcome. Many (c.) The Levirate hypothesis may be of the disciples having left Jesus, St. passed by. It was a mere attempt Peter bursts out in the name of the made in the eleventh century to rec- Twelve with a warm expression of oncile the Greek and Latin traditions faith and love; and after that-very by supposing that Joseph and Clopas likely (see Greswell's Harmony) full were brothers, and that Joseph raised six months afterward-the Evangelist up seed to his dead brother. states that "neither did His brethren believe on Him." Does it follow from hence that all his brethren disbelieved? Let us compare other passages in Scripture. St. Matthew and St. Mark state that the thieves railed Her own husband would ap- on our Lord upon the Cross. Are pear without doubt to have died at we therefore to disbelieve St. Luke, some time between A.D. 8 and A. D. 26. who says that one of the thieves was Nor have we any reason for believing penitent, and did not rail? (Luke Clopas to have been alive during our xxiii. 39, 40.) St. Luke and St. John Lord's ministry. What difficulty is say that the soldiers offered vinegar. there in supposing that the two wid- Are we to believe that all did so? or, owed sisters should have lived togeth-as St. Matthew and St. Mark tell us, er, the more so as one of them had that only one did it? (Luke xxiii. 36; but one son, and he was often taken John xix. 29; Mark xv. 36; Matt. from her by his ministerial duties? And would it not be most natural that two families of first cousins thus living together should be popularly looked Objection 2.-"The four brothers and their sisters are always found living and moving about with the Virgin Mary." If they were the children of Clopas, the Virgin Mary was their aunt. xxvii. 48.) St. Matthew tells us that "his disciples" had indignation, when Mary poured the ointment on the Lord's head. Are we to suppose this |