Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

When

"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God," said our Saviour, "and Him only shalt thou serve '." St. John fell at the feet of the Angel to worship him, the act of adoration was immediately forbidden: "See thou do it not: I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: Worship God 2" Of St. Peter's conviction of the unlawfulness of creature-worship, we have evidence in his reproof of the misdirected homage of Cornelius: "Stand up, I myself also am a man 3."

[blocks in formation]

3

Rev. xix. 10.

3 Acts x. 26. Whether it were religious, or civil, homage, which Cornelius offered, is not a question which it is necessary, at present, to discuss. Whatever the nature of the ho.nage might have been, Peter's observation upon it is decisive, that man cannot be an object of worship.

APPENDIX.

CHAPTER I.

REMARKS ON SOME SEEMING DIFFERENCES IN THE GOSPEL RELATIONS OF THE PROPHECY OF ST. PETER'S DENIAL, AND OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING ITS FULFILMENT.

It has been objected, that the Prophecy of St. Peter's denial of Christ, and the circumstances of the completion of the Prophecy in that Apostle's fall, are related differently by the evangelical Historians. A little attention will serve to harmonize the seeming discrepancies in their accounts.

St. Matthew1 records the Prophecy in these words, "Verily, I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice."

'Matt. xxvi. 34.

2 A tradition of the Jews has been quoted, with a view to throw discredit on the prophecy and history of St. Peter's denial. It is said that there were no cocks in Jerusalem, for that a Canon of the Jewish Church forbad the keeping of these fowls within the walls of the city, to guard against the danger of their scratch

66

In St. Mark it is, " Verily, I say unto thee, That

ing up with their feet unclean animals, and so polluting things accounted holy. The tradition is recorded in a book of the Talmud. "Non alunt gallos Hierosolymis propter sacra, nec sacerdotes eos alunt per totam terram Israeliticam."-Bava Kama, cap. 7. Michaelis observes, "A contradiction between the Evangelists and the Talmud, a book replete with fables, composed long after the destruction of Jerusalem, and grounded on oral tradition, will hardly be admitted, as an argument against the authenticity of the Gospels. The distinction, which is made by many writers, between that which is related in the Talmud, as coming from the mouth of a Rabbi, who lived before the destruction of Jerusalem, and that which is there related, as coming from a later Rabbi, is totally ungrounded, since the question still remains to be determined, whether that ancient Rabbi had really asserted what was put to writing so long after the age in which he lived. It is therefore a poor objection, and unworthy of a reply, when, in order to invalidate the relation of Peter's denial of Christ, which is recorded by all the Evangelists, of whom two (St. Mark and St. John) lived a considerable time in Jerusalem, (and St. Mark wrote under the immediate inspection of Peter himself) it is contended that, according to the Bava Kama, cocks were not permitted in Jerusalem. This is to confute an historian, who relates an event which happened in the city where he lived, and in the circle of his own experience, by means of a tradition, heard a century after the city was destroyed. To this must be added, that what the Jews relate of certain privileges belonging to Jerusalem, is not only contradictory to Josephus, but manifestly false, as E. A. Schulze has fully shown, in a Dissertation that deserves to be read, De Fictis Hierosolymæ Privilegiis."-Introd. to the New Testament, vol. i. c. ii. § xii. Bishop Marsh's Translation. See Lightfoot's Hor. Heb. et

Talmud, in Matt. xxvi. 34.

Supposing that a law had existed, which prohibited the keeping of cocks in Jerusalem, it is suggested by Reland, in his oration De Galli cantu Hierosolymis audito, that, as the house of Caiaphas appears to have been situated at a short distance

[ocr errors]

this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice 1."

In St. Luke, "I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest Me 2."

In St. John, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied Me thrice 3."

1. St. Mark is singular in writing, "Before the cock crow twice 4." There is no real disagreement, however, between him and the other Evangelists,

only from the walls of the city, a cock might have crowed without the walls, and been heard by Peter. He adds, that Romans, dwelling in Jerusalem, ignorant or regardless of the institutions of the Jews, might have kept cocks, either for domestic use, or to be employed in augury, as the Gentiles drew omens from these birds.

1 Mark xiv. 30. In some MSS. of the best esteem, and in many ancient versions, the pronoun σù occurs, after ör-" Verily, I say unto thee, that thou (örɩ où) this day," &c. Peter had said, "Although all shall be offended, yet will not I”— ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ἐγώ. The words, or où, in answer, serve the more emphatically to expose the weakness of the Apostle's resolve. 2 Luke xxii. 34.

3

John xiii. 38. Archbishop Newcome points out some of our Lord's prophecies, as remarkable for precision in minute circumstances, and for proximity of event, whereas a false prophet would have spoken in general terms, and of remote events.— Observations on our Lord's Conduct. The prophecies of the fall of St. Peter have these peculiarities.

4 πρὶν ἢ δὶς αλέκτορα φωνῆσαι. As St. Mark alone has the word twice, so he alone relates that the cock crew after St. Peter's first denial.

in respect to the time, within which it was predicted that Peter would deny his Lord.

At the date of our Saviour's appearance, the night was divided into four parts, or watches, of three hours each, commencing at sun-set'. These divisions are distinctly mentioned in Mark xiii. 35. "Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the Master of the house cometh; at even-ỏέ; or at midnight—μEGOVUKTίov; or at the cock-crowing— ἀλεκτοροφωνίας ; or in the morning-πρωί.

At the season of the year when Peter denied his Lord, (near the time of the vernal equinox) the watch, called aλEKтopopwvía, comprehended the space of time between our twelve o'clock at night and three in the morning. The names of these divisions of the night were taken from the points of time at which they closed. The end of the third watch, ἀλεκτοροφωνία, was marked as the usual hour of the second crowing of the cock; and this (perhaps, as being considered the signal for men's approaching

The night had before been divided by the Jews into three parts, or watches. The first is mentioned in Lam. ii. 19. the middle watch in Judges vii. 19. and the morning watch in Exod. xiv. 24. "My mouth," says the Psalmist, "shall praise Thee with joyful lips, when I remember Thee upon my bed, and meditate on Thee in the night watches." lxiii. 5, 6. An additional watch had been introduced, before our Saviour's coming, among the Jews, who had adopted it from the Romans.

2 of the watches of the night, mention is made also in Matt. xiv. 25. xxiv. 43. Mark vi. 48. Luke xii. 38.

« EdellinenJatka »