Chapter I: Part 1

LIVES OF THE APOSTLES
OF JESUS CHRIST

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in │
│ printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for │
│ easier reading. │
│ │
│ The text may show quotations within quotations, all set │
│ off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been │
│ changed to alternate quote marks for improved readability. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has │
│ been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there │
│ is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image │
│ adequately. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the │
│ text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Illustration:
Painted by Raphael. Engᵈ by A. Daggett.
CHRIST’S CHARGE TO PETER.
Matthew XVI 18, 19

LIVES
OF
THE APOSTLES
OF
JESUS CHRIST.

NEW HAVEN: L. H. YOUNG.

1836.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1835,
By DAVID FRANCIS BACON, Author,
in the office of the Clerk of the District Court
of the District of Connecticut.

WILLIAM STORER, JR. Print
New-Haven, Ct

PREFACE.

THE fair and just fulfilment of the promise made to the public, in the previous announcement of this work, would require that it should contain, simply, “a distinct, plain, historical narrative of the life of each of the apostles, illustrated by such aids as could be drawn from the works of various authors, of former ages, and of other countries, which hitherto, in the inaccessible forms of a dead or foreign tongue, have been too long covered from the eyes of thousands, who might be profited by their more open communication;――from these sources, as well as from the sacred record, to draw the materials of the narrative,――to throw occasionally the lights of historical, topographical, and scientific, as well as exegetical illustrations on the word of truth,――and from all, to learn how we may live, labor, and die, as did these first champions of Christ crucified.” A hope was also expressed by the author, that the facilities of his situation would enable him, by research among the long-hidden treasures of large and costly libraries, to bring forth, in direct illustration of this narrative, much of those treasures of scriptural knowledge, which, by their size and rarity, are beyond the reach and the means of a vast number of Biblical students, who would derive great advantage and pleasure from their perusal; and that even clergymen and students of theology, might find in this work many things, drawn from these valuable materials, that would make this a desirable book for them. Yet far from promising the combined results of _all_ the labors of the learned on these subjects, the author then distinctly professed his main object to be, the collection and combination of such facts and illustrations as would make the work acceptable and interesting to readers of _all classes_,――to _popular_, as well as to learned readers; and he accordingly engaged to present all the contents of the book, clear and plain, even to those whose minds have not been accustomed to deep research in Biblical study.

With these objects constantly in view, the author has long been steadily and laboriously devoted to the preparation and composition of this book. In presenting this result of his labors, he is not conscious of having actually failed to comply with the general terms of his published engagement; yet the critical eyes of many among his readers will doubtless light upon parts of the work, which have been materially affected in their character by the very peculiar circumstances under which the labor has been undertaken and prosecuted; circumstances so _very_ peculiar, that, in accordance with the universal custom of those who have completed such tasks, he is justified in referring to some important details of the history of the writing. The first summons to the task found him engrossed in pursuits as foreign to the investigations necessary for this work, as any department of knowledge that can be conceived; and though the study of critical and exegetical theology had, at a former period, been to him an object of regular attention, the invitation to this work seemed so uncongenial to his adopted pursuits, that he rejected it decidedly; nor was it until after repeated and urgent solicitations, that he consented to undertake it. But even then, so little aware was he of the inexhaustible richness of his noble subject, that he commenced his researches with oft-expressed doubts, whether it would admit of such ample disquisition as was hoped by the original proposer. How just those doubts were, may be best learned from the hurried and brief notice which many important points in this great theme have necessarily received within such narrow limits.

Begun under these unfavorable auspices, the work was an object of pursuit with him through a long period of time; nor did his investigations proceed far, before he was fully assured that it was vast, beyond his highest expectations; and from that time the difficulty has been, not to meet the expectation of a large book, but to bring these immense materials within this limited space. Growing thus in his hands, through months and years, his subject soon increased also in its interest to him, till in the progress of time and various other contemporaneous ♦occupations, it rose from the character of a task to that of a delightful, a dignified, and dignifying pursuit; and he was soon disposed to look on it not as a labor, but as a recreation from avocations less congenial to his taste. It called him first from the study of a profession, sickening and disgusting in many of its particulars; and was his frequent resource for enjoyment in many a season of repose. His attention was often distracted from it, by calls to diverse and opposite pursuits; by turns to the public labors and responsibilities of an editor and an instructor,――but in the midst of these it was his solace and refreshment, till at last it wholly drew him away from everything besides itself, and became for months his sole, constant, absorbing and exhausting occupation. Too often, indeed, were the pursuits with which it was at first varied and interchanged, the occasion of disturbances and anxieties that did anything but fit him for the comfortable pursuit of his noble task; yet these evils themselves became the means of inspiring him with a higher and purer regard for it, because they drove him to this as an only consolation. As was most eloquently and beautifully said by the evangelical George Horne, at the conclusion of a similar task,――“And now, could the author flatter himself, that anyone would take half the pleasure in reading the work, which he hath taken in writing it, he would not fear the loss of his labor.” Well would it be, both for the writer and his work, if he could truly add in the melodious sentence which Horne subjoins, that “the employment detached him from the bustle and hurry of life, and the noise of folly;”――that “vanity and vexation flew away for a season, ――care and disquietude came not nigh his dwelling.”

♦ “occcupations” replaced with “occupations”

THE LIVES OF THE APOSTLES.

THE word APOSTLE has been adopted into all the languages of Christendom, from the Greek, in which the earliest records of the Christian history are given to us. In that language, the corresponding word is derived from a verb which means “send,” so that the simplest primary meaning of the derivative is “_one sent_;” and in all the uses of the word this meaning is kept in view. Of its ordinary meanings, the most frequent was that of “a person employed at a distance to execute the commands, or exercise the authority, of the supreme power,” in which sense it was appropriated as the title of an embassador, a messenger, or a naval commander; and it is used to designate all these officers in the classic Grecian writers. In reference to its general, and probably not to any technical meaning, it was applied by Jesus Christ to those of his followers whom he chose as the objects of his most careful instruction, and as the inheritors of his power; whom thus indued, he _sent_ into all the world, to preach the gospel to every creature. The use of the term in connection with this high and holy commission, did not give it such a character of peculiar sanctity or dignity, as to limit its application among Christians of the early ages, to the chosen ministers of Christ’s own appointment; but it is applied even in the writings of the New Testament, as well as by the Grecian and Latin fathers of the churches, to other persons of inferior rank, that might be included under its primary meaning. It was also extended, in the peculiar sense in which Christ first applied it, from the twelve to other eminent and successful preachers of the gospel who were contemporary with them, and to some of their successors.

[It will be noticed that, throughout this book, the text is,
on many pages, broken by matters thrown in at the ends of
paragraphs, in smaller type. The design is, that these notes,
thus running through the body of the work, shall contain all
such particulars as would too much break the thread of the
story if made a part of the common text, and yet are of the
highest importance as illustrations, explanations, and proofs
of passages in the history. In many places, there will be need
of references to history, antiquities, topography, and various
collateral helps, to make the story understood. All these things
are here given in minute type, proportioned to the minuteness of
the investigations therein followed. Being separated in this way,
they need be no hindrance to those who do not wish to learn the
reasons and proofs of things, since all such can pass them by at
once, and keep the thread of the narrative, in the larger type,
unbroken.

This first note being a mere exegesis of a single word, is
the least attractive of all to a common reader; and some,
perhaps, will object to it as needlessly protracted into minute
investigations of points not directly important to the narrative;
and the writer may have been led beyond the necessity of the
case, by the circumstance of his previous occupations having
drawn his attention particularly to close etymological and
lexicographical research in the Greek language; but he is
consoled by the belief that there will be some among his readers
who can appreciate and enjoy these minutiæ.]

_Apostle._――The most distant theme, to which this word can be
traced in Greek, is the verb Στελλω, _stello_, which enters into
the composition of Αποστελλω, _apostello_, from which _apostle_
is directly derived.

As to the primary meaning of Στελλω, there appears to be some
difference of opinion among lexicographers. All the common
lexicons give to the meaning “_send_” the first place, as
the original sense from which all the others are formed, by
different applications of the term. But a little examination
into the history of the word, in its uses by the earlier Greeks,
seems to give reason for a different arrangement of the meanings.

In searching for the original force of a Greek word, the first
reference must, of course, be to the father of Grecian song and
story. In HOMER, this word, στελλω, is found in such a variety
of connections, as to give the most desirable opportunities for
reaching its primary meaning. Yet in none of these passages does
it stand in such a relation to other words, as to _require_ the
meaning of “_send_.” Only a single passage in Homer has ever
been supposed to justify the translation of the word in this
sense, and even that is translated with equal force and justice,
and far more in analogy with the usages of Homer, by the meaning
of “_equip_,” or “_prepare_,” which is the idea expressed by it
in all other passages where it is used by that author. (See Damm,
sub voc.) This is the meaning which the learned Valckenaer gives
as the true primary signification of this word, from which, in
the revolutions of later usage, the secondary meanings have been
derived. In this opinion I have been led to acquiesce, by the
historical investigation of the earlier uses of the term, and
by the consideration of the natural transition from the primary
meaning of “_fix_,” “_equip_,” or “_fit out_,” to that of
“_send_,” and other secondary meanings, all which occur only in
the later authors. Pindar limits it like Homer. Herodotus never
uses the word in the sense of “_send_,” but confines it to the
meaning of “_equip_,” “_furnish_,” “_clothe_.” Æschylus gives it
the meaning of “_go_,” but not of “_send_.” Sophocles and
Euripides also exclude this application of the term.

This brief allusion to these early authorities will be
sufficient, without a prolonged investigation, to show that
the meaning of “_send_” was not, historically, the first
signification. But a still more rational ground for this opinion
is found in the natural order of transition in sense, which
would be followed in the later applications of the word. It is
perfectly easy to see how, from this primary meaning of “_fix_,”
or “_equip_,” when applied to a person, in reference to an
expedition or any distant object, would insensibly originate the
meaning of “_send_;” since, in most cases, to equip or fix out
an expedition or a messenger, is to commission and send one. In
this way, all the secondary meanings flow naturally from this
common theme, but if the order should be inverted in respect to
any one of them, the beautiful harmony of derivation would be
lost at once. There is no other of the meanings of στελλω which
can be thus taken as the natural source of all the rest, and
shown to originate them in its various secondary applications.
The meanings of “array,” “dress,” “adorn,” “take in,” &c., are
all deducible from the original idea conveyed by στελλω, and are,
like “_send_,” equally incapable of taking the rank of the
primary meaning.

In tracing the minute and distant etymology of this word,
it is worth noticing that the first element in στελλω is the
sound _st_, which is at once recognized by oriental scholars as
identical with the Sanscrit and Persian root _st_, bearing in
those and in many combinations in the various languages of their
stock, the idea of “_fixity_.” This idea is prominent in the
primary meaning of στελλω given by Passow, who, in his Greek
lexicon, (almost the only classical one that properly classifies
and deduces the meanings of words,) gives the German word
_stellen_ as the original ground-meaning of the term before us.
This is best expressed in English by “fix,” in all its vagueness
of meaning, from which, in the progress of use, are deduced the
various secondary senses in which στελλω is used, which here
follow in order:

1. Equip, Fit out, Arrange, Prepare. In this sense it is applied
to armaments, both to hosts and to individuals, and thus in
reference to warlike preparations expresses nearly the idea of
“Arm.” This is, it seems to me, the meaning of the word in the
verse of Homer already alluded to. The passage is in the Iliad
xii. 325, where Sarpedon is addressing Glaucus, and says, “If
we could hope, my friend, after escaping this contest, to shun
forever old age and death, I would neither myself fight among
the foremost, nor _prepare_ you for the glorious strife.” (Or as
Heyne more freely renders it, _hortarer_, “urge,” or “incite.”)
The inappropriateness of the meaning “send,” given in this place
by Clark, (_mitterem_) and one of the scholiasts, (πεμποιμι)
consists in the fact, that the hero speaking was himself to
accompany or rather lead his friend into the deadly struggle,
and of course could not be properly said to _send_ him, if he
went with him or before him. It was the partial consideration
of this circumstance, no doubt, which led the same scholiast
to offer as an additional probable meaning, that of “prepare,”
“make ready,” (παρασκευαζοιμι,) as though he had some misgiving
about the propriety of his first translation. For a full account
of these renderings, see Heyne in loc. and Stephens’s Thesaurus
sub voc. In the latter also, under the second paragraph of
Στελλω, are given numerous other passages illustrating this
usage, in passive and middle as well as active forms, both from
Homer and later writers. In Passow’s Griechisch Wörterbuch,
other useful references are given sub voc.; and in Damm is found
the best account of its uses in Homer.

2. In the applications of the word in this first meaning, the
idea of equipment or preparation was always immediately followed
by that of future action, for the very notion of equipment or
preparation implies some departure or undertaking immediately
subsequent. In the transitive sense, when the subject of the
verb is the instrument of preparing _another_ person for the
distant purpose, there immediately arises the signification
of “_send_,” constituting the second branch of definition,
which has been so unfortunately mistaken for the root, by all
the common lexicographers. In the reflexive sense, when the
subject prepares _himself_ for the expected action, in the same
manner originates, at once, the meaning “_go_,” which is found,
therefore, the prominent secondary sense of the middle voice,
and also of the active, when, as is frequent in Greek verbs,
that voice assumes a reflexive force. The origin of these two
definitions, apparently so incongruous with the rest and with
each other, is thus made consistent and clear; and the identity
of origin here shown, justifies the arrangement of them both
together in this manner.

The tracing out of the other meanings of this word from the
ground-meaning, would be abundantly interesting to many; but
all that can be here allowed, is the discussion of precedence
between the first two, here given. Those who desire to pursue
the research, have most able guides in the great German
lexicographers, whose materials have been useful in illustrating
what is here given. For abundant references illustrating these
various meanings, see H. Stephens’s Thesaurus, Scapula’s, Damm’s,
Schneider’s, Passow’s, Donnegan’s, Porti’s, and Jones’s Lexicons.

The simple verb στελλω, thus superabundantly illustrated,
among its numerous combinations with other words, is compounded
with the preposition απο, (_apo_,) making the verb Αποστελλω,
(_apostello_.) This preposition having the force of “away,”
“from,” when united with a verb, generally adds to it the idea
of motion off from some object. Thus αποστελλω acquires by this
addition the sense of “away,” which however only gives precision
and force to the meaning “send,” which belongs to the simple
verb. By prefixing this preposition, the verb is always confined
to the definition “send,” and the compound never bears any other
of the definitions of στελλω but this. The simple verb without
the prefix expresses the idea of “send” only in certain peculiar
relations with other words, while the compound, limited and
aided by the preposition, always implies action directed “away
from” the agent to a distance, and thus conveys the primary idea
of “send,” so invariably, that it is used in no passage in which
this word will not express its meaning. From this compound verb
thus defined, is directly formed the substantive which is the
true object and end of this protracted research.

Αποστολος, (_Apostolos_) is derived from the preceding verb
by changing the penult vowel Ε into Ο, and displacing the
termination of the verb by that of the noun. The change of the
penult vowel is described in the grammars as caused by its being
derived from the perfect middle, which has this peculiarity in
its penult. The noun preserves in all its uses the uniform sense
of the verb from which it is derived, and in every instance
maintains the primary idea of “a person or thing _sent_.” It
was often used adjectively with a termination varying according
to the gender of the substantive to which it referred. In this
way it seems to have been used by Herodotus, who gives it the
termination corresponding to the neuter, when the substantive
to which it refers is in that gender. (See Porti Dictionarium
Ionicum Græco Latinum.) Herodotus is the earliest author in whom
I am able to discover the word, for Homer never uses the word
at all, nor does any author, as far as I know, previous to the
father of history. Though always preserving the primary idea of
the word, he varies its meaning considerably, according as he
applies it to a person or a thing. With the neuter termination
αποστολον, (_apostolo_N,) referring to the substantive πλοιον,
(_ploion_,) it means a “vessel _sent_” from place to place.
In Plato, (Epistle 7,) it occurs in this connection with the
substantive πλοιον expressed, which in Herodotus is only implied.
For an exposition of this use of the term, see H. Stephens’s
Thesaurus, (sub voc. αποστολος.) With the masculine termination,
Herodotus, applying it to persons, uses it first in the sense
of “messenger,” “embassador,” or “herald,” in Clio, 21, where
relating that Halyattes, king of Lydia, sent a herald (κηρυξ,)
to treat for a truce with the Milesians, he mentions his arrival
under this synonymous term. “So the messenger (αποστολος,
_apostolos_,) came to Miletus.” (Ὁ μεν δη αποστολος ες την
Μιλητον ἦν.) In Terpsichore, 38, he uses the same term.
“Aristagoras the Milesian went to Lacedæmon by ship, as
_embassador_ (or delegate) from the assembly of Ionic tyrants,”
(Αποστολος εγινετο.) These two passages are the earliest Greek
in which I can find this word, and it is worth noticing here,
that the word in the masculine form was distinctly applied to
persons, in the sense given as the primary one in the text of
this book. But, still maintaining in its uses the general idea
of “sent,” it was not confined, in the ever-changing usage of
the flexible Greeks, to individual persons alone. In reference
to its expression of the idea of “distant destination,” it
was applied by later writers to naval expeditions, and in the
speeches of Demosthenes, who frequently uses the word, it is
entirely confined to the meaning of a “warlike expedition,
_fitted out_ and _sent_ by sea to a distant contest.”
(References to numerous passages in Demosthenes, where this term
is used, may be found in Stephens’s Thesaurus, on the word.)
From the fleet itself, the term was finally transferred to the
naval commander _sent out_ with it, so that in this connection
it became equivalent to the modern title of “Admiral.”

Besides these political and military uses of the word, it also
acquired in the later Greek a technical meaning as a _legal_
term, and in the law-writers of the Byzantine school, it is
equivalent to “_letters of appeal_” from the decision of a lower
tribunal to a higher one. But this, as well as the two previous
meanings, must be considered as mere technical and temporary
usages, while the original sense of “messenger,” “herald,”
“embassador,” remained in constant force long after the word
had received the peculiar application which is the great object
of this long investigation. Yet various as are these meanings,
it should be noticed that all those which refer to persons,
have this one common idea, that of “one sent to a distance to
execute the commands of a higher power.” This sense is likewise
preserved in that sacred meaning, which the previous inquiry
has now somewhat prepared the reader as well as the writer to
appreciate in its true force.

The earliest passage in the sacred records of Christianity,
in which the word apostle is used, is the second verse of the
tenth chapter of Matthew, where the distinct nomination of the
twelve chief disciples is first mentioned. They are here called
apostles, and as the term is used in connection with their
being _sent out_ on their first mission, it seems plain that
the application of the name had a direct reference to this
primary signification. The word, indeed, which Jesus uses in the
sixteenth verse, (when he says ‘Behold! I SEND _you forth_ as
sheep in the midst of wolves,’) is αποστελλω, (_apostello_), and
when in the fifth verse, Matthew, after enumerating and naming
the apostles, says “These twelve Jesus _sent forth_,” the past
tense of the same verb is used, (απεστειλεν, _apesteilen_.)
Mark also, in his third chapter, relating the appointment and
commissioning of the twelve, uses this verb, in verse 14. “And
he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he
might SEND _them forth_ to preach,” (αποστελλη, _apostellé_.)
Luke merely mentions the name apostle, in giving the list of the
twelve, in chapter 6, verse 13; and in chapter 9, verse 2, gives
the verb in the same way as Matthew. The term certainly is of
rare occurrence in all the gospels; those persons who are thus
designated being commonly mentioned under the general title of
_disciple_ or learner, (μαθητης,) and when it is necessary to
separate them from the rest of Christ’s followers, they are
designated from their number “the twelve.” John never uses
it in this sense, nor does Mark in giving the list, though he
does in vi. 30, and the only occasion on which it is applied to
the twelve by Matthew, is that of their being _sent forth_ on
their brief experimental mission through the land of Israel, to
announce the approach of the Messiah’s reign. The simple reason,
for this remarkable exclusion of the term from common use in the
gospel story, is that only on that one occasion just mentioned,
did they assume the character of _apostles_, or persons _sent
forth_ by a superior. This circumstance shows a beautiful
justness and accuracy in the use of words by the gospel writers,
who in this matter, at least, seem to have fully apprehended
the true etymological force of the noble language in which they
wrote. The twelve, during the whole life of Jesus, were never
_sent forth_ to proclaim their Lord’s coming, except once; but
until the Ascension, they were simple _learners_, or disciples,
(μαθηται, _mathetai_,) and not apostles or messengers, who had
so completely learned the will of God as to be qualified to
teach it to others. But immediately after the final departure
of Jesus, the sacred narrative gives them the title of apostles
with much uniformity, because they had now, by their ascending
Lord, been solemnly commissioned in his last words, and _sent
forth_ as messengers and embassadors to “all nations.” A common
reader of the New Testament must notice that, in the Acts of the
Apostles, this title is the most usual one given to the chosen
twelve, though even there, an occasional use is made of the
collective term taken from the idea of their number. It deserves
notice, however, that Luke, the author of the Acts, even in his
gospel, uses this name more frequently than any other of the
evangelists; and his individual preference for this word may,
perhaps, have had some influence in producing its very frequent
use in the second part of his narrative, though the whole number
of times when it is used in his gospel is only six, whereas in
Acts it occurs twenty-seven times. So that on the whole it would
seem clear, that the change from the common use of the term
“DISCIPLE,” in the gospels, to that of “APOSTLE,” in the history
of their acts after the ascension, was made in reference to the
corresponding change in the character and duties of the persons
thus named.

The lexicography of the word αποστολος, (_apostolos_,) I arrange
as follows, after a full comparison and investigation of all the
standard authorities.

The primary idea or ground-meaning which runs through all the
secondary significations, and is distinctly recognizable in all
their various applications, is as has already been remarked,
that of “one sent forth,” referring either to persons or things,
but more commonly to persons. These secondary meanings being all
directly derived from the ground-stock, and not by a repetition
of transformations in sense, it is hard to settle any order of
precedence among them; which might be easily done if a distinct
gradation could be traced, as in the definition of most words.
I have chosen to follow what seems to be the historical order
of application, as already traced, although several very high
authorities give a different arrangement.

I. _A messenger, herald, embassador_; a _person_ sent with a
message. This is the use made of the term by Herodotus, above
quoted, and being thus historically the earliest, as well as
flowing naturally from the ground-meaning, may therefore justly
hold the first place. And when other variable meanings had been
lost in the revolutions of usage, this retained its place, being
applied to many different persons whose offices included the
idea of being sent abroad by commission from a higher power.
Under this meaning is most justly included that peculiar
Christian use of the word, which is the object of this
investigation, and under this head therefore I rank all the New
Testament usages of αποστολος. 1. It is used in the simple sense
here given, with the first primary idea conveyed by the term.
There is no Greek sentence extant which refers so forcibly to
the ground-meaning as that in John’s gospel, xiii. 16; where the
words in the common English translation are “_he that is sent_,”
though in the original Greek the word is αποστολος, which might
be more justly translated “messenger,” in order to make a
difference in English corresponding to that in Greek, between
αποστολος and πεμψας, (_pempsas_,) without giving the same word
“_send_” for two different words in Greek. Still the common
translation gives the true meaning of each word, though not so
simply and gracefully just, as it might be if the difference of
terms in the two members of the sentence was kept up in English.
In this same general sense of “messenger,” or “any person
sent,” it is used in 2 Corinthians viii. 23, (in common English
translation “messenger,”) and in Philippians ii. 25, (common
translation “messenger.”) 2. It is used to designate persons
directly sent by God to men, and in this sense is frequently
given to us in connection with “_prophet_,” as in Luke xi. 49;
Ephesians iii. 5; Revelation xviii. 20. In this sense also it is
applied to Jesus, in Hebrews iii. 1, 3. It is used as the title
of several classes of persons, employed by Jesus in propagating
the gospel. These are [1] the twelve chief disciples, commonly
distinguished above all others but one, by this name. Matthew
x. 2; Mark vi. 30; Luke vi. 13; ix. 10; xxii. 14; Acts i. 26;
and in other places too numerous to be mentioned here, but to
which a good concordance will direct any curious investigator.
[2] Paul, as the great messenger of truth to the Gentiles,
so called in many passages; and with him Barnabas is also
distinctly included under this term, in Acts xiv. 4, 14; and
xv. 33. (Griesbach however, has changed this last passage from
the common reading. See his editions.) [3] Other persons, not
of great eminence or fame; as Andronicus and Junius, Paul’s
assistants, Romans xvi. 7; the companions of Titus in collecting
the contributions of the churches, 2 Corinthians viii. 23; and
perhaps also Epaphroditus, Philippians ii. 25. This seems to be
as clear an arrangement of the New Testament lexicography of the
term as can be given, on a comparison of high authorities. Those
who can refer to Wahl, Bretschneider, Parkhurst and Schleusner,
will find that I have not servilely followed either, but have
adopted some things from all.

The extensions and variations of the New Testament usage of the
word, among the Grecian and Latin Christian Fathers, were, 1,
the application of it to the seventy disciples whose mission is
narrated by Luke, x. 29. These are repeatedly called apostles.
2. The companions of Paul and others are frequently honored by
this title. Timothy and Mark are called apostles, and many later
ministers also, as may be seen by the authorities at the end of
Cave’s Introduction to his Lives of the Apostles.

In application to persons, it is used by Athenian writers as a
name for the commander of a naval expedition, (See Demosthenes
as quoted by Stephens,) but this seems to have come by
transferring to the man, the name of the expedition which he
commanded, so that this cannot be derived from the definition
which is here placed first. This term in the later Greek is
also applied to the “_bride-man_,” or bridegroom’s friend, who
on wedding festivals was sent to conduct the bride from her
father’s house to her husband’s. (_Phavorinus_ quoted by Witsius
in Vita Pauli.) This however is a very unusual sense, which I
can find on no other authority than that here given. None of the
lexicons contain it.

II. The definition which occupies the first place in most of
the arrangements of this word in the common Greek lexicons, is
that of a “naval expedition,” “_apparatus classium_,” “fleet.”
There appears, however, to be no good reason for this order,
but there is historical argument, at least, as well as analogy,
for putting those meanings which refer to _persons_, before
those which refer to _things_. This meaning, as far as I can
learn, seems to be confined to Demosthenes, and there is nothing
to make us suppose that it is anterior in use to the simple
permanent sense which is here given first. Hesychius gives
us only the meaning of “the commander of a fleet,” which may
indeed be derivable from this sense rather than the preceding
_personal_ uses, though it seems to me not impossible that the
name was transferred from the commander to the object of his
command, thus making the personal meanings prior to those of
inanimate things. The adjective use of the word in Herodotus
and Plato, however, makes it certain that in that way it was
early applied to a single vessel, and the transition to its
substantive use for a whole fleet is natural enough.

The legal use of it for “letters of appeal,” (_literae
dimissoriae_,) of course comes under the head of the later
usages in application to _things_, and is the last modification
of meaning which the word underwent before the extinction of the
ancient Greek language.

The corresponding Hebrew word, and that which was, no doubt,
used by Christ in his discourse to his apostles, was שלוּח or שליח
(_sheluh_, or _shelih_,) whose primary meaning, like that of the
Greek word, is “_one sent_,” and is derived from the passive Kal,
participle of the verb שלח meaning “he sent,” This word is often
used in the Old Testament, and is usually translated in the
Alexandrian Greek version, by the word αποστολος. A remarkable
instance occurs in 1 Kings xiv. 6; where the prophet Ahijah,
speaking to the wife of Jeroboam, says, אליך אנכי שלוח “to thee am I
sent;” the Alexandrian version gives the noun αποστολος, so as
to make it literally “to thee I am an _apostle_,” or “messenger,”
or truly, in the just and primary sense of this Greek word,
“to thee I am _sent_.” This passage is a valuable illustration
of the use of the same Greek word in John xiii. 16; as above
quoted.

The Hebrews had another word also, which they used in the sense
of an apostle or messenger. This was מלאך (_mal ak_,) derived
from a verb which means “_send_,” so that the primary meaning of
this also is “one sent.” It was commonly appropriated to angels,
but was sometimes a title of prophets and priests. (Haggai i. 19;
Malachi ii. 7.) It was on the whole the more dignified term
of the two, as the former was never applied to angels, but was
restricted to men. The two terms are very fairly represented by
the two Greek words αποστολος and αγγελος, in English “apostle”
and “angel,” the latter, like its corresponding Hebrew term,
being sometimes applied to the human servants of God, as in
John’s address to the seven churches.

The scope of the term, as used in the title of this book, is limited to the twelve chosen disciples of Jesus Christ, and those few of their most eminent associates, who are designated by the same word in the writings of the early Christians. These persons fall under two natural divisions, which will be followed in the arrangement of their lives in this work. These are, first, the TWELVE, or Peter and his companions; and second, Paul and his companions, including also some to whom the name apostle is not given by the New Testament writers, but who were so intimate with this great preacher of Christ, and so eminent by their own labors, that they may be very properly ranked with him, in the history of the first preachers of Christianity.

The persons whose lives are given in this book are,

I. The Galilean apostles, namely,

SIMON PETER, and ANDREW his brother,

JAMES, and JOHN, the sons of Zebedee,

PHILIP, and BARTHOLOMEW,

MATTHEW, and THOMAS,

JAMES, the son of Alpheus, and SIMON ZELOTES,

JUDE, the brother of James, and JUDAS ISCARIOT, in whose
place was afterwards chosen by the apostles, MATTHIAS.

II. The Hellenist apostles, namely, PAUL and BARNABAS, with whom are included their companions, MARK and LUKE, the evangelists.

These two classes of Apostles are distinguished from each other, mainly, by the circumstances of the appointment of each; the former being all directly appointed by Jesus himself, (excepting Matthias, who took the forfeited commission of Judas Iscariot,) while the latter were summoned to the duties of the apostleship after the ascension of Christ; so that they, however highly equipped for the labors of the office, had never enjoyed his personal instructions; and however well-assured of the divine summons to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, theirs was not a distinct personal and bodily commission, formally given to them, and repeatedly enforced and renewed, as it was to the chosen ones of Christ’s own appointment. These later apostles, too, with hardly one exception, were foreign Jews, born and brought up beyond the bounds of the land of Israel, while the twelve were all Galileans, whose homes were within the holy precincts of their fathers’ ancient heritage. Yet if the extent of their labors be regarded, the later commissioned must rank far above the twelve. Almost two thirds of the New Testament were written by Paul and his companions; and before one of those commissioned by Jesus to go into all the world on their great errand, had ever gone beyond the boundary of Palestine, Paul, accompanied either by Barnabas, Mark, Silas, or Luke, had gone over Syria and Asia, traversed the sea into Greece, Macedonia, and Illyria, bringing the knowledge of the word of truth to tens of thousands, who would never have heard of it, if they had been made to wait for its communication by the twelve. This he did through constant toils, dangers and sufferings, which as far transcended all which the Galilean Apostles had endured, as the mighty results of his labors did the immediate effects of theirs. And afterwards, while they were struggling with the paltry and vexatious, though not very dangerous tyranny of the Sanhedrim, within the walls of Jerusalem, Paul was uttering the solemn truths of his high commission before governors and a king, making them to tremble with doubt and awe at his words; and, at last, bearing, first of all, the name of Jesus to the capital of the world, he sounded the call of the gospel at the gates of Cæsar. The Galilean apostles were indued with no natural advantages for communicating freely with foreigners; their language, habits, customs and modes of instruction, were all hindrances in the way of a rapid and successful progress in such a labor, and they with great willingness gave up this vast field to the Hellenist preachers, while they occupied themselves, for the most part, with the still immense labor which their Lord had himself begun. For all the subtleties and mysticisms of their solemn foes, they were abundantly provided; the whole training, which they had received, under the personal instruction of their master, had fitted them mainly for this very warfare; and they had seen him, times without number, sweep away all these refuges of lies. But, with the polished and truly learned philosophers of Athens, or the majestic lords of Rome, they would have felt the want of that minute knowledge of the characters and manners of both Greeks and Romans, with which Paul was so familiar, by the circumstances of his birth and education, in a city highly favored by Roman laws and Grecian philosophy. Thus was it wisely ordained, for the complete foundation and rapid extension of the gospel cause, that for each great field of labor there should be a distinct set of men, each peculiarly well fitted for their own department of the mighty work. And by such divinely sagacious appointments, the certain and resistless advance of the faith of Christ was so secured, and so wonderfully extended beyond the deepest knowledge, and above the brightest hopes of its chief apostles, that at this distant day, in this distant land, far beyond the view even of the prophetic eye of that age, millions of a race unknown to them, place their names above all others, but one, on earth and in heaven; and to spread the knowledge of the minute details of their toils and triumphs, the laborious scholar should search the recorded learning of eighteen hundred years, and bring forth the fruits in the story of their lives.

With such limitations and expansions of the term, then, this book attempts to give the history of the lives of the apostles. Of some who are thus designated, little else than their names being known, they can have no claim for a large space on these pages; while to a few, whose actions determined the destiny of millions, and mainly effected the establishment of the Christian faith, the far greater part of the work will be given.

The MATERIALS of this work should be found in all that has been written on the subject of New Testament history, since the scriptural canon was completed. But “who is sufficient for these things?” A long life might find abundant employment in searching a thousand libraries, and compiling from a hundred thousand volumes, the facts and illustrations of this immense and noble subject; and then the best energies of another long life would be needed to bring the mighty masses into form, and give them in a narrative for the mind of the unlearned. What, then, is here attempted, as a substitute for this immensity? To give a clear distinct narrative of each apostle’s life, with such illustrations of the character of the era, and the scene in which the incidents occurred, and such explanations of the terms in which they are recorded, as may, consistently with the limits of this work, be drawn from the labors of the learned of ancient and modern times, which are within the writer’s reach. Various and numerous are the books that swell the list of faithful and honest references; many and weighty the volumes that have been turned over, in the long course of research; ancient and venerable the dust, which has been shaken into suffocating clouds about the searcher’s head, and have obscured his vision, as he dragged many a forgotten folio from the slumber of ages, to array the modern plunderer in the shreds and patches of antique lore. Histories, travels, geographies, maps, commentaries, criticisms, introductions, and lexicons, have been “daily and nightly turned in the hand;” and of this labor some fruit is offered on every page. But the unstained source of sacred history! the pure well-spring, at which the wearied searcher always refreshed himself, after unrequited toils, through dry masses of erudition, was the simple story of the Apostles and Evangelists, told by themselves. In this same simple story, indeed, were found the points on which the longest labor was required; yet these, at best only illustrated, not improved, by all the labors of the learned of various ages, were the _materials_ of the work. These are the preparations of months and years; the execution must decide on their real value,――and that is yet to come.

A list of the various works which have furnished the materials
for this book might be proper here; but in order to insure its
completeness and accuracy, it is deferred to the end of the
volume.

A VIEW OF THE WORLD, _as it was at the when the apostles began the work of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ_, may be convenient to remind some readers, and necessary to inform others, in what way its political organization operated to aid or hinder the progress of the faith. The peculiarities of the government of the regions of civilization, were closely involved in the results of this religious revolution, and may be considered as having been, on the whole, most desirably disposed for the triumphant establishment of the dominion of Christ.

From the shores of the Atlantic to the banks of the Euphrates, the sway of the Roman Caesar was acknowledged, by the millions of Western and Southern Europe, Northern Africa and South-western Asia. The strong grasp of warlike power was a bond which held together in peace many nations, who, but for that constraint, would, as their previous and subsequent history shows, have been arrayed against each other, in contests, destructive alike of the happiness of the contending parties and the comfort of their neighbors. The mighty force of Roman genius had overcome the thousand barriers which nature and art had reared between the different nations of the three continents in which it ruled, and the passage from one end of that vast empire to the other, was without any hindrance to those who traveled on errands of peace. The bloody strife which once distracted the tribes of Gaul, Germany and Britain, had rendered those grand sections of Europe impassable, and shut up each paltry tribe within a narrow boundary, which could never be crossed but with fire and sword. The deadly and furious contests among the nations of South-western Asia and South-eastern Europe, had long discouraged the philosophical and commercial enterprise, once of old so rife and free among them, and offered a serious hindrance to the traveler, whether journeying for information or trade; thus greatly checking the spread of knowledge, and limiting each nation, in a great measure, to its own resources in science and art. The Roman conquest, burying in one wide tomb all the jealousies and strifes of aspiring national ambition, thus put an end at once to all these causes of separation; it brought long-divided nations into close union and acquaintance, and produced a more extensive and equal diffusion of knowledge, as well as greater facilities for commercial intercourse, than had ever been enjoyed before. The rapid result of the conquerors’ policy was the consolidation of the various nations of that vast empire into one people,――peaceful, prosperous, and for the most part protected in their personal and domestic rights. The savage was tamed, the wanderers were reclaimed from the forest, which fell before the march of civilization, or from the desert, which soon rejoiced and blossomed under the mighty beneficence of Roman power.

The fierce Gaul forsook his savage hut and dress together, robing himself in the graceful toga of the Roman citizen, or the light tunic of the colonial cultivator, and reared his solid and lofty dwelling in clustering cities or villages, whose deep laid foundations yet endure, in lasting testimony of the nature of Roman conquest and civilization. Under his Roman rulers and patrons, he raised piles of art, unequaled in grandeur, beauty and durability, by any similar works in the world. Aqueducts and theaters, still only in incipient ruin, proclaim, in their slow decay, the greatness of those who reared them, in a land so lately savage.

The Pont du gard, at Nismes, and the amphitheaters, temples,
arches, gates, baths, bridges, and mausolea, which still adorn
that city and Arles, Vienne, Rheims, Besancon, Autun and Metz,
are the instances, to which I direct those whose knowledge of
antiquity is not sufficient to suggest these splendid remains.
Almost any well-written book of travels in France will give the
striking details of their present condition. Malte-Brun also
slightly alludes to them, and may be consulted by those who
wish to learn more of the proofs of my assertion than this brief
notice can give.

The warlike Numidian and the wild Mauritanian, under the same iron instruction, had long ago learned to robe their primitive half-nakedness in the decent garments of civilized man. Even the distant Getulian found the high range of Atlas no sure barrier, against the wave of triumphant arms and arts, which rolled resistlessly over him, and spent itself only on the pathless sands of wide Sahara. So far did that all-subduing genius spread its work, and so deeply did it make its marks, beyond the most distant and impervious boundary of modern civilization, that the latest march of discovery has found far older adventurers before it, even in the great desert; and within a dozen years, European travelers have brought to our knowledge walls and inscriptions, which, after mouldering unknown in the dry, lonely waste, for ages, at last met the astonished eyes of these gazers, with the still striking witness of Roman power.

The travels of Denham and Clapperton across the desert, from
Tripoli to Bornou,――of Ritchie and Lyon, to Fezzan,――of Horneman
and others, will abundantly illustrate this passage.

Egypt, already twice classic, and renowned through two mighty and distant series of ages, renewed her fading glories under new conquerors, no less worthy to possess and adorn the land of the Pharaohs, than were the Ptolemies. In that ancient home of art, the new conquerors achieved works, inferior indeed to the still lasting monuments of earlier greatness, but no less effectual in securing the ornament and defense of the land. With a warlike genius far surpassing the most triumphant energy of former rulers, the legionaries of Rome made the valley of the Nile, from its mouth to the eighth cataract, safe and wealthy. The desert wanderers, whose hordes had once overwhelmed the throne of the Pharaohs, and baffled the revenge of the Macedonian monarchs, were now crushed, curbed, or driven into the wilds; while the peaceful tiller of the ground, secure against their lawless attacks, brought his rich harvests to a fair and certain market, through the ports and million ships of the Mediterranean, to the gate of his noble conquerors, within the capital of the world.

The grinding tyranny of the cruel despots of Pontus, Armenia and Syria, had, one after another, been swept away before the republican hosts of Sylla, Lucullus and Pompey; and the remorseless, stupid selfishness that has always characterized oriental despotism, even to this day, had been followed by the mild and generous exercise of that almost omnipotent sway, which the condition of the people, in most cases, showed to have been administered, in the main, for the good of its subjects.

The case of Verres will perhaps rise to the minds of some of my
readers, as opposed to this favorable view of Roman government;
but the whole account of this and similar tyranny shows that
such cases were looked on as most remarkable enormities, and
they are recorded and noticed in such terms of abhorrence, as to
justify us in quoting with peculiar force, the maxim, “Exceptio
probat regulam.”

Towards the farthest eastern boundary of the empire, the Parthian, fighting as he fled, held out against the advance of the western conquerors, in a harassing and harassed independence. The mountains and forests of central Europe, and of North Britain, too, were still manfully defended by their savage owners; yet, when they at last met the iron hosts of Germanicus, Trajan, and Agricola, they, in their turn, fell under the last triumphs of the Roman eagle. But the peace and prosperity of the empire, and even of provinces near the scene, were not moved by these disturbances. And thus, in a longitudinal line of four thousand miles, and within a circuit of ten thousand, the energies of Roman genius had hushed all wars, and stilled the nations into a long, unbroken peace, which secured the universal good. So nearly true was the lyric description, given by Milton, of the universal peace which attended the coming of the Messiah: