125

ST. BATHOLOMEW.

THAT St. Bartholomew was one of the twelve apostles the evangelical history is most express and clear, though it seems to take no further notice of him than the bare mention of his name. Which doubtless gave the first occasion to many, both anciently and of later time, not without reason to suppose, that he lies concealed under some other name, and that this can be no other than Nathanael, one of the first disciples that came to Christ. Accordingly we may observe, that as St. John never mentions Bartholomew in the number of the apostles, so the other evangelists never take notice of Nathanael, probably because the same person under two several names; and as in John, Philip and Nathanael are joined together in their coming to Christ, so in the rest of the evangelists, Philip and Bartholomew are constantly put together, without the least variation; for no other reason, I conceive, than because they were jointly called to the discipleship, so they are jointly referred in the apostolic catalogue; as afterwards we find them joint-companions in the writings of the church. But that

which renders the thing most specious and probable is, that we find Nathanael particularly reckoned up with the other apostles to whom our Lord appeared at the sea of Tiberias after his resurrection; where there were together Simon Peter, and Thomas, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the two sons of Zebedee,' and two other of his disciples, who probably were Andrew and Philip. That by disciples is here meant apostles is evident, partly from the names of those that are reckoned up, partly because it is said, that this was the third time that Jesus appeared to his disciples,' it being plain that the two foregoing appearances were made to none but the apostles.

2

2. Had he been no more than an ordinary disciple, I think no tolerable reason can be given why, in filling up the vacancy made by the death of Judas, he, being so eminently qualified for the place, should not have been propounded as well as either Barsabas or Matthias, but that he was one of the twelve already. Nor, indeed, is it reasonable to suppose that Bartholomew should be his proper name, any more than Barjona the proper name of Peter, importing no more than his relative capacity, either as a son or a scholar. As a son it notes no more than his being in the son of Thol

mai,' a name not uncommon amongst the Jews, it being customary among them for the son thus to derive his name; so Barjona, Bartimæus, the son of Timæus, &c., and to be usually called rather by this relative than his own proper name: thus Joseph was called Barsabas; thus Barnabas constantly so styled, though his right name was Joses.

1 John, xxi. 1, 2.

2 Ibid. v. 14.

Or else it may relate to him as a disciple of some particular sect and institution among the Jews; it being a custom for scholars, out of a great reverence for their masters, or first institutors of that way, to adopt their names, as Ben-ezra, Ben-uziel, &c. And this will be much more evident if the observation which one makes be true,' (which yet I will not contend for,) that as several sects in the Jewish church denominated themselves from some famous person of that nation, the Essenes from Enosh, the Sadducees from Sadoc, so there were others that called themselves Tholmæans, from Tholmai, scholar to Heber, the ancient master of the Hebrews, who was of the race or institution of the Enakim, who flourished in Debir and Hebron, with whom Abraham was confederate, that is, joined himself to their society. And of this order and institution, he tells us, Nathanael seems to have been, hence called Bartholomew, the son or scholar of the Tholomæans; hence said to be 'an Israelite indeed,' that is, one of the ancient race of the schools and societies of Israel. This, if so, would give us an account of his skill and ability in the Jewish law, wherein he is generally supposed to have been a doctor or teacher. But whichsoever of these two accounts of his denomination shall find most favour with the reader, either of them will serve my purpose, and reconcile the difference that seems to be between St. John and the other evangelists about his name; the one styling him by his proper name, the other by his relative and paternal title. To all this, if necessary, I might add the consent of learn

1 Bolduc. de Eccles. post Leg. c. 7. p. 45; vid de Eccl. ante Leg. lib. ii. c 8.

ed men, who have given in their suffrages in this matter, that it is but the same person under several names.1 But hints of this may suffice. These arguments, I confess, are not so forcible and convictive as to command assent; but with all their circumstances considered, are sufficient to incline and sway any man's belief. The great and indeed only reason brought against it, is what St. Augustine objected of old, that it is not probable that our Lord would choose Nathanael, a doctor of the law, to be one of his apostles, as designing to confound the wisdom of the world by the preaching of the idiot and the unlearned. But this is no reason to him that considers, that this objection equally lies against St. Philip, for whose skill in the law and prophets there is as much evidence, in the history of the gospel, as for Nathanael's; and much more strongly against St. Paul, than whom (besides his abilities in all human learning) there were few greater masters in the Jewish law.

3. This difficulty being cleared, we proceed to a more particular account of our apostle. By some he is thought to have been a Syrian, of a noble extract, and to have derived his pedigree from the Ptolomies of Egypt, upon no other ground, I believe, than the mere analogy and sound of the name. is plain that he, as the rest of the apostles, was a Galilean; and of Nathanael we know it is particularly said, that he was of Cana in Galilee. The Scripture takes no notice of his trade or way of

It

1 Rupert. Tuit. Comm. in Joan. 1; Jansen. Concord. c. 17; Onuphr. in Fast. Salmer. Tract. 18, tom. iv.; Montac. Orig. Sacr. Part 2, p. 18; Dr. H. Annot in Joh. 1, aliique.

2 Tract. VII. in Joan. Col. 68, tom. ix. et in Psalm, lxv. Col. 671, tom. viii.

life, though some circumstances might seem to intimate that he was a fisherman, which Theodoret affirms of the apostles in general, and another particularly reports of our apostle. At his first coming to Christ (supposing him still the same with Nathanael) he was conducted by Philip, who told him that now they had found the long-looked for Messiah, so oft foretold by Moses and the prophets, 'Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph :" and when he objected, that the Messiah could not be born at Nazareth, Philip bids him come and satisfy himself. At his first approach our Lord entertains him with this honourable character, that he was an Israelite indeed, a man of true simplicity and integrity; as indeed his simplicity particularly appears in this, that when told of Jesus he did not object against the meanness of his original, the low condition of his parents, the narrowness of their fortunes, but only against the place of his birth, which could not be Nazareth; the prophets having peremptorily foretold, that the Messiah should be born at Bethlehem. By this, therefore, he appeared to be a true Israelite; one that 'waited for redemption in Israel;' which from the date of the Scripture predictions, he was assured did now draw nigh. Surprised he was at our Lord's salutation, wondering how he should. know him so well at first sight, whose face he had never seen before. But he was answered, that he had seen him while he was yet under the fig-tree, before Philip called him. Convinced with this instance of our Lord's divinity, he presently made his confession, that now he was sure that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Son of God, whom

VOL. II.

1 John i. 45.

K