Download the full version of the textbook now at textbookfull.

com

New Essays on Aristotle s Organon Routledge

Monographs in Classical Studies 1st Edition
António Pedro Mesquita

https://textbookfull.com/product/new-essays-on-
aristotle-s-organon-routledge-monographs-in-
classical-studies-1st-edition-antonio-pedro-
mesquita/

Explore and download more textbook at https://textbookfull.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

McTaggart s Paradox Routledge Studies in Contemporary

Philosophy 1st Edition Ingthorsson

https://textbookfull.com/product/mctaggart-s-paradox-routledge-
studies-in-contemporary-philosophy-1st-edition-ingthorsson/

textbookfull.com

Neo Aristotelian Perspectives on Formal Causation

Routledge Studies in Metaphysics 1st Edition Ludger
Jansen
https://textbookfull.com/product/neo-aristotelian-perspectives-on-
formal-causation-routledge-studies-in-metaphysics-1st-edition-ludger-
jansen/
textbookfull.com

Rights Bodies and Recognition New Essays on Fichte s

Foundations of Natural Right 1st Edition Rockmore

https://textbookfull.com/product/rights-bodies-and-recognition-new-
essays-on-fichte-s-foundations-of-natural-right-1st-edition-rockmore/

textbookfull.com

Passive macromodeling : theory and applications 1st

Edition Grivet-Talocia

https://textbookfull.com/product/passive-macromodeling-theory-and-
applications-1st-edition-grivet-talocia/

textbookfull.com
Public Affair The Private Investigation 2 1st Edition
Aidèe Jaimes

https://textbookfull.com/product/public-affair-the-private-
investigation-2-1st-edition-aidee-jaimes/

textbookfull.com

Religions Culture and Healthcare a Practical Handbook for

Use in Healthcare Environments Second Edition Susan
Hollins
https://textbookfull.com/product/religions-culture-and-healthcare-a-
practical-handbook-for-use-in-healthcare-environments-second-edition-
susan-hollins/
textbookfull.com

Cosmic Frontiers News

https://textbookfull.com/product/cosmic-frontiers-news/

textbookfull.com

Building Sustainable Communities: Civil Society Response

in South Asia Md. Nurul Momen

https://textbookfull.com/product/building-sustainable-communities-
civil-society-response-in-south-asia-md-nurul-momen/

textbookfull.com

Execution Giordano Bruno 6 1st Edition S. J. Parris

https://textbookfull.com/product/execution-giordano-bruno-6-1st-
edition-s-j-parris/

textbookfull.com
Psychology VCE UNITS 3 4 7th Edition John Grivas

https://textbookfull.com/product/psychology-vce-units-3-4-7th-edition-
john-grivas/

textbookfull.com
New Essays on Aristotle’s
Organon

This collection of new essays by an international group of scholars

closely examines the works of Aristotle’s Organon.
The Organon is the general title given to the collection of
Aristotle’s logical works: Categories, De Interpretatione, Prior
Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Topics, and Sophistical Refutations.
This extremely influential collection gave Aristotle the reputation of
being the founder of logic and has helped shape the development of
logic for over two millennia. The chapters in this volume cover topics
pertaining to each of the six works traditionally included in the
Organon as well as its manuscript tradition. In addition, a
comprehensive introduction by the editors discusses Aristotle and
logic, the composition and order of the Organon, and the
authenticity, title, and chronology of the treatises that make up
these works. As an appendix, the volume includes a new critical
edition of the Greek text of Book 8 of the Topics.
New Essays on Aristotle’s Organon offers a valuable insight into
this collection for students and scholars working on Aristotle, the
works of the Organon, or the philosophy of logic more broadly.

António Pedro Mesquita is Professor at the Department of

Philosophy and Member of the HPhil Research Group of the Centre
of Philosophy of the University of Lisbon.
Ricardo Santos is Associate Professor at the Department of
Philosophy and Member of the LanCog Research Group of the Centre
of Philosophy of the University of Lisbon.
Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies

Processions and the Construction of Communities in

Antiquity
History and Comparative Perspectives
Edited by Elena Muñiz-Grijalvo and Alberto del Campo Tejedor

Didactic Literature in the Roman World

Edited by T. H. M. Gellar-Goad and Christopher B. Polt

Atheism at the Agora

A History of Unbelief in Ancient Greek Polytheism
James C Ford

The Geographical Guide of Ptolemy of Alexandria

An Analysis
Duane W. Roller

Revelation and Material Religion in the Roman East

Essays in Honor of Steven J. Friesen
Edited by Nathan Leach, Daniel Charles Smith, and Tony Keddie

The Greeks in Iberia and their Mediterranean Context

Edited by Jens A. Krasilnikoff and Benedict Lowe

Making Time for Greek and Roman Literature

Edited by Kate Gilhuly and Jeffrey P. Ulrich
Nostalgias for Homer in Greek Literature of the Roman
Empire
Vincent Tomasso

New Essays on Aristotle’s Organon

Edited by António Pedro Mesquita and Ricardo Santos

For more information on this series, visit:

www.routledge.com/Routledge-Monographs-in-Classical-
Studies/book-series/RMCS
New Essays on Aristotle’s
Organon

Edited by António Pedro Mesquita and Ricardo

Santos
First published 2024
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa

business

© 2024 selection and editorial matter, António Pedro Mesquita and

Ricardo Santos; individual chapters, the contributors

The right of António Pedro Mesquita and Ricardo Santos to be

identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors
for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or

reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks

or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-367-63789-7 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-63791-0 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-12070-4 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003120704

Typeset in Times New Roman

by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents

List of Contributors
Abbreviations of Titles of Aristotle’s Works

An Introduction to Aristotle’s Organon

ANTÓNIO PEDRO MESQUITA AND RICARDO SANTOS

1 Aristotle’s Categories: Ontology Without Hylomorphism

MARCO ZINGANO

2 Are the Same Thoughts Shared by All People?

KATERINA IERODIAKONOU

3 De Interpretatione 3 on Isolated Verbs

FRANCESCO ADEMOLLO

4 Truth and Formal Validity in the Prior Analytics

PAOLO CRIVELLI

5 Aristotle on Negative Terms and Obversion

RICARDO SANTOS

6 Proof and Demonstration: The Meanings of δεικνύναι in

the Posterior Analytics
PIERRE-MARIE MOREL

7 Causal Explanation and Demonstration in Posterior

Analytics II 11
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
 PIERRE PELLEGRIN

8 Aristotle on Multiple Demonstration: A Reading of

Posterior Analytics II 17–8
DAVID BRONSTEIN AND BRENO ZUPPOLINI

9 Linguistic Theory and Dialectical Rules in the Topics

COLIN GUTHRIE KING

10 A Trouble-Maker for Translators: The Aristotelian Phrase

τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι
HERMANN WEIDEMANN

11 How Do Differentiae Fit into Aristotle’s System of

Predicables?
ANTÓNIO PEDRO MESQUITA

12 Misplaced Trust and Blind Reasoning: Aristotle on the

Fallacy of Equivocation
PAOLO FAIT

13 On the Fallacy of Accident in Aristotle’s Sophistical

Refutations
PAULO FERNANDO TADEU FERREIRA

14 “Those Searching for Gold Dig Up a Lot of Earth” – On

Contamination and Insertion in the Early Manuscript
Tradition of the Organon: The Case of the Topics and the
Sophistical Refutations
PIETER SJOERD HASPER

Appendix 1: Discussion of (Putative) Insertions in the Archetype

for the Topics and the Sophistical Refutations
Appendix 2: The Prior and Posterior Analytics
Appendix: A New Edition of the Eighth Book of Aristotle’s
Topics
PIETER SJOERD HASPER

Index of Passages
Index of Names
Index of Subjects
Contributors

Francesco Ademollo is Associate Professor of Ancient Philosophy

at the University of Florence and Visiting Professor at the Scuola
Normale Superiore in Pisa.

David Bronstein is Associate Professor and Senior Research Fellow

in the Institute for Ethics and Society at the University of Notre
Dame Australia.

Paolo Crivelli is Professor at the Department of Philosophy of the

University of Geneva.

Paolo Fait is the Anthony Quinton Fellow and a Tutor in Classical

Philosophy at New College, University of Oxford.

Paulo Fernando Tadeu Ferreira is Assistant Professor of Ancient

Philosophy at the Federal University of São Paulo.

Pieter Sjoerd Hasper is Associate Professor at the Department of

Philosophy, University of Hamburg.

Katerina Ierodiakonou is Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the

Department of the History and Philosophy of Science of the
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Associate
Professor at the Department of Philosophy of the University of
Geneva.
Colin Guthrie King is Associate Professor of Philosophy at
Providence College.

António Pedro Mesquita is Professor at the Department of

Philosophy and Member of the HPhil Research Group of the
Centre of Philosophy of the University of Lisbon.

Pierre-Marie Morel is Professor of Philosophy at the University of

Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.

Pierre Pellegrin is Emeritus Senior Researcher at the CNRS in

Paris.

Ricardo Santos is Associate Professor at the Department of

Philosophy and Member of the LanCog Research Group of the
Centre of Philosophy of the University of Lisbon.

Hermann Weidemann is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the

University of Münster.

Marco Zingano is Professor of Philosophy at the University of São

Paulo.

Breno Zuppolini is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the Federal

University of São Paulo.
Abbreviations of Titles of
Aristotle’s Works

APo.
Posterior Analytics

APr.
Prior Analytics

Cael.
On the Heavens

Cat.
Categories

De
an. On the Soul

EE
Eudemian Ethics

EN
Nicomachean Ethics

GA
Generation of Animals

Int.
 De Interpretatione

Mem.
On Memory

Metaph.
Metaphysics

MM
Magna Moralia

PA
Parts of Animals

Ph.
Physics

Po.
Poetics

Rh.
Rhetoric

SE
Sophistical Refutations

SomnVig.
On Sleep

Top.
Topics
An Introduction to Aristotle’s
Organon
António Pedro Mesquita and Ricardo Santos
DOI: 10.4324/9781003120704-1

I. Aristotle’s Organon

1. Aristotle and Logic

Aristotle was the creator of logic in the West – so we are constantly

reminded. This trivial historical truth makes it all the more difficult to
accommodate a couple of facts about the way he deals with logic.
However, these facts are intrinsically linked to the peculiar status of
logic within Aristotle’s philosophy, at least as tradition came to
construe it.
To begin with, Aristotle has no general fixed name for logic.
Aristotle’s logical interests cover a wide range of topics, which
extend from (to cite just some of the main ones) conceptual analysis
(in the Categories) to semantics and theory of propositions (in the
De Interpretatione), formal logic, both assertoric and modal (in the
Prior Analytics), theory of science (in the Posterior Analytics),
dialectics or argumentation theory (in the Topics), and fallacy theory
(in the Sophistical Refutations). Aristotle’s corpus does not testify to
any common designation for this lot. He certainly did not use the
noun λογική in this sense. In all evidence, it was the Stoics who first
applied this designation to logic as a whole, in their own (also very
broad) interpretation of the concept.1 Aristotle did quite often use
the adjective λογικός and the adverb λογικῶς, but these words do
not mean “logical” or “logically” in the contexts where they occur;2
rather, they bear special senses there, even slightly deprecatory
ones, most commonly indicating that whatever they qualify must be
taken in a general, abstract, or merely verbal way.3 On occasion, one
may find him using the term ἀναλυτικός in relation to logical studies,
but it seems to have in these cases a more restricted sense, closer,
as a matter of fact, to our modern conception of logic than to the
broader collection of subjects encompassed by Aristotle’s logical
writings.4
So Aristotle created logic, and he may even have himself been
aware of this, if the final statement of the Sophistical Refutations,
where he claims, in the most vigorous terms, to have been
pioneering a line of research that was never pursued before, was
intended to cover the whole cycle of studies he develops in his
logical treatises.5 However, he could not have said it quite the way
we do – and surely not in so few words.
A second fact that thickens the mystery around the Aristotelian
status of logic is that Aristotle does not seem to have a place for it
within his general conception of knowledge either. With striking
consistency throughout the corpus, Aristotle says that all sciences
fall under three types only, being either theoretical, practical, or
productive.6 As far as we can guess from the somewhat scattered
remarks he makes in this regard, this threefold classification results
from a teleological conception of knowledge and, in particular, of the
different types of goals it can aim at. Roughly, the idea seems to be
that either knowledge is sought in view of knowledge itself,
irrespective of what may result from it (in which case it is theoretical
knowledge), or it is sought in view of something else, and that, if the
latter, either it is sought in order to inform and guide human action
(in which case it is practical knowledge) or it is sought in order to
produce some concrete object or effect, such as a house or a
healthy condition of the body (in which case it is productive
knowledge).7 Now, logic, as Aristotle views it, does not seem to fit
into this scheme, because, unlike the sciences that fall under the
classification, it quite simply lacks any specific goal, be it either the
production of something, human action, or knowledge itself: it is
structurally a means to achieve the goals sought by the other
sciences. To this extent, logic, although contributing somehow to
human knowledge, has no place in the threefold classification, on
account of its teleological nature. This perspective can be translated
into more technical terms by appealing to a basic principle of
Aristotle’s theory of science: each well-formed science studies one
genus – that is to say, it has as its object some delimited portion of
reality8 – and logic has none. Logic is, as it were, intrinsically general
– λογικός in one of the preferred senses that the word carries in
Aristotle’s idiolect.
This line of reasoning is obviously at the root of the notion that
logic is an instrument, an ὄργανον, of knowledge. In fact, if you
follow such line, you will eventually conclude that logic is not a
proper science or scientific field (a “part of philosophy”, as it came to
be technically called in Hellenistic times), but a mere tool for building
scientific knowledge in any domain (an “instrument of philosophy”, in
the same jargon).
Aristotle himself never fully develops this line of reasoning, nor
does he use the word ὄργανον to describe logic. He may or may not
have thought that logic was the instrument of philosophy, but, if he
did, he never put it in writing, as far as his extant works allow us to
ascertain. There are, however, a few passages in the Topics where a
suggestive vocabulary is used in this regard. In two of them,
Aristotle does not refer to logic or even dialectics as an instrument,
but he does speak of the instruments of dialectics, that is to say, the
tools by which the dialectician is able to build arguments for and
against a given thesis. The six final chapters of Book I are dedicated
to describing those tools, and the word ὄργανον occurs at the
beginning of the first one and at the end of the last one.9 A
reference, in the treatise’s final chapter, to the fact that discerning
the consequences of two opposite assumptions is “no mean
instrument” (οὐ μικρὸν ὄργανον), because “it then only remains to
make a right choice of one of them”, goes apparently in the same
direction.10
A fourth passage, where we do not find the word ὄργανον, but
something of its bouquet can be detected, is more complex. In this
passage, Aristotle describes dialectical problems as being concerned
either with choice and avoidance or with truth and knowledge, either
– he adds – on their own (ἢ αὐτὸ) or as “auxiliary to some other
such problem” (ἢ ὡς συνεργὸν πρός τι ἕτερον τῶν τοιούτων).11 The
text is difficult and uncertain, and so it admits of several
interpretations. In the most straightforward reading, Aristotle has in
mind two types of dialectical problems – let us call them “practical”
and “theoretical”, respectively – and considers that, in both cases,
such problems are sometimes concerned directly with these matters
– namely, with things to choose or avoid (like whether pleasure is to
be chosen or not) and things to know just for the sake of knowledge
(like whether the world is eternal or not) – and sometimes they are
only indirectly concerned with them, insofar as solving such
problems helps the former, “pure” practical and theoretical problems,
to be eventually solved as well. However, an influential line of
interpretation saw it otherwise. According to this interpretation,
Aristotle is considering here three types of dialectical problems,
namely, theoretical, practical, and logical (i.e. “auxiliary”) problems.
This is the reading adopted by Alexander of Aphrodisias.12 He adopts
it in connection with another text of the Topics, where Aristotle
states that there are roughly three kinds of premises and problems,
namely ethical, physical and “logical” (αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἠθικαὶ προτάσεις
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
εἰσίν, αἱ δὲ φυσικαί, αἱ δὲ λογικαί).13 In Alexander’s view, what
Aristotle is saying in the latter passage is essentially what he had
already said in the former.14
If Alexander were right, then Aristotle would have used the word
λογικός in the sense of “logical” after all, and he would have come
very close to acknowledging the instrumental nature of logic.15 But
is Alexander right? Not necessarily. In the first place, as we have
seen, the text allows for a different, more natural and direct reading.
Alexander’s alternative reading probably results from a kind of
unwitting contamination by the later passage in which Aristotle
distinguishes the three types of dialectical premises. But this
passage, in turn, also does not necessarily have the sense that
Alexander gives it. In fact, the word λογικαί used to discriminate one
of the three types of premises seems to retain here the usual
Aristotelian sense of “general”: “logical” premises are not those that
have a logical content, as opposed to a physical or ethical content,
but those that do not have any particular content at all, in the sense
that they can be indifferently applied to physical matters as well as
to ethical matters, and simply cut across scientific disciplines. The
example of λογική πρότασις given in the text (“whether the same
science studies contraries or not”) is a pretty eloquent illustration of
such general premise. That said, considering that in Aristotelian
terms logic is itself λογικός in this sense, one can perhaps find in this
text a remote ancestor of the Stoics’ use of the expression λογική to
designate logic – and of our own, for that matter.
One final word on this issue: whether or not Aristotle was
persuaded of the instrumental nature of logic, he was certainly very
much convinced of its propaedeutic character. In fact, he warns the
reader on occasion about the priority of the “analytics” over the
study of particular disciplines16 and seems to regard the former as
an essential part of the education of a cultivated person, let alone of
any philosopher.17 As we will see right away, this fact is not without
consequences for the history of logic, and more to the point for the
history of Aristotle’s logical treatises.

2. Logic as an Organon
If Aristotle never uses the word ὄργανον to describe logic, it was not
him either who attributed this title to the set of his logical works, in
particular the six that still fall under this designation today:
Categories, De Interpretatione, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics,
Topics, and Sophistical Refutations.18 As a matter of fact, it was not
even Aristotle who organised this set as such, just as he was not, in
general, responsible for proposing any kind of ordering and
succession of his works – although sometimes the incipit and/or the
explicit of some of them do give indications in this respect (it
remains to be seen, in each case, whether they were written by
him). The organisation of the treatises and, in the case of the logical
writings, their gathering into a collection entitled Organon, which
came to be placed at the beginning of his extant works, were tasks
accomplished by the later tradition.
Clearly, from a time that is difficult to determine with precision,
successors, followers, and commentators of Aristotle began to
increasingly value the idea of logic as an ὄργανον of knowledge and
to take it as a basic and core notion of the Aristotelian canon. The
motivation for this, as far as we can tell in retrospect, was
apparently threefold. First of all, no doubt, a genuinely conceptual
concern about how logic should be conceived and how it should be
related to philosophical knowledge as a whole. On the other hand, a
bibliographical interest in the organisation of the treatises that
Aristotle devoted to logical topics within the set of his known works.
Finally, a philosophical and didactic motivation, aimed at establishing
the most appropriate reading order for the whole of those works
and, within them, for that particular set. All these different lines of
thought were eventually connected: the idea that logic is an
instrument of philosophy has as a consequence that it must be
learned first (before learning anything that requires an instrument to
be done, one must learn how to handle that instrument), and,
therefore, that the books dealing with logic ought to come first in
the well-organised succession of the master’s works.19 And they all
surely arose from intellectual debates on these issues, very lively at
the time, between Peripatetics and adherents of other philosophical
schools, as well as amongst the Peripatetics themselves, which today
can only be guessed at.
One such debate, motivated by the first concern pointed out
earlier, seems historically indisputable: the polemic between Stoics
and Peripatetics on the true nature of logic, either as a part, among
others, of philosophy or as an instrument of philosophy.20 However,
the concept of ὄργανον applied to logic appears to have increased
its relevance especially in the framework of the bibliographic and
pedagogical motivations just mentioned.
It is likely that Andronicus of Rhodes already made use, at least
implicitly, of this concept in his (lost) book on the catalogue of
Aristotle’s works,21 if indeed he reserved the first section of scholarly
titles in this catalogue for the set of logical treatises he considered
authentic (the six referred to earlier, minus the De Interpretatione
and, perhaps, the last six chapters of the Categories, known
collectively as the Postpredicaments),22 and maybe even explicitly, in
view of the fact that, according to late Neoplatonic commentators,
he recommended that the student of Aristotle should begin his study
by them.23 Be that as it may, any of these facts would be enough to
attest that, at least starting from Andronicus, a certain Organon was
already constituted – a certain subset of Aristotle’s works grouping
together those that dealt with logic, in the Aristotelian sense, to
which some kind of pedagogical priority over the others was given.
Now, by advocating that the study of Aristotle should begin with the
logical treatises, Andronicus was most likely also entering into an
ongoing debate, or even initiating one. In fact, we know that other
authors, more or less at the same time, defended different
perspectives in this regard. This is the case of Boethus of Sidon,24
who advocated that the student should rather start with the physical
treatises, because, so Philoponus explains, physics “is more familiar
and well-known, and it is always necessary to start from things that
are clearer and well-known”25 – a distinctively Aristotelian remark,
which bears witness to the fact that antiquity knew of different, well-
informed positions on the starting point of philosophical studies
within Peripatetic circles. A little further on, Philoponus says that
others still advocated starting with ethics; he does not clarify who
though, and so does not allow one to ascertain whether these were
also Andronicus’ contemporaries.26 It is, however, likely that he had
in mind people within Platonic27 and/or Stoic circles.28 Among
Aristotle’s commentators, Aspasius, more than a century after
Andronicus, seems to share the latter point of view.29 The reasoning
he develops in his commentary appears to be somehow at the basis
of the thesis assumed by the Alexandrian commentators (which we
will shortly return to) according to which some kind of “character-
building” must be presupposed even before the student devotes
himself to the study of the logical “instrument”.
To sum up, Andronicus undoubtedly knew an Organon (if he did
not himself invent it),30 and he may even have assumed the concept
of and used the word ὄργανον to ground his defence of the
pedagogical priority of logic.31 It is nevertheless not credible that
Andronicus was the first to use such a concept in this context since
the doxographic section of Diogenes Laertius’ notice on Aristotle,
which is usually deemed to come from an early Hellenistic source
and therefore to predate him, expressly states that logic is an
instrument and not a part of philosophy.32
 Among the authors whose texts on this subject we know directly,
Alexander of Aphrodisias, in the second to third century AD, is the
first to expressly spell out this idea and to set forth the principle
according to which logic, by virtue of having the purpose of
contributing “to the discovery and construction of other things”,33
must be understood as an instrument of science.34 By the time of
the Alexandrian commentary, from the fifth century on, this thesis is
already perfectly assimilated and is simply assumed, regardless of
how each commentator presents and justifies it.35 With a twist
though, for Ammonius, the founder of this exegetical school,
considers logic to be both an instrument and a part of philosophy:
an instrument when considered formally and abstractly, a part when
applied to a particular content. This view, which became prevalent in
the later commentary within the school (and is also present in
Boethius),36 may have originally come from Proclus, who had been
Ammonius’ teacher in Athens.37 From the instrumental character of
logic, they too justify the priority given to it in the ordering of
Aristotle’s treatises and in the recommended succession for their
reading.38 However, they generally recognise the importance of
some preliminary moral education, for, as Simplicius puts it,
“instruments belong to the category of intermediary things, and it is
possible to use them either well or badly, as is illustrated by the
majority of Sophists and rhetoricians”;39 so, to avoid circularity, this
moral education should be of a pre-philosophical nature, “through
unwritten habituation and non-technical exhortations, which rectify
our characters by means both written and unwritten”.40
It is a particularly telling sign of the deep and long-lasting
influence exerted by the Aristotelian reception we have been
following that the medieval manuscripts all preserve the priority of
the Organon within the Aristotelian corpus, a habit that has lasted
since the invention of the printing press until our days.
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
come, even sin against the Holy Ghost (Mtt. xii. 24–37; Mk. iii. 22–
30; Lk. xi. 17–23).

In the afternoon or evening of the day on which these solemn

warnings were uttered, the Lord went down to the shores of the
Lake (Mtt. xiii. 1; Mk. iv. 1), followed by a great multitude from all
the towns round about. So numerous, indeed, were the crowds
which gathered around Him, that, for the sake of more conveniently
addressing them, He entered into one of the fishing-vessels, and
sitting there a little distance from the water’s edge, addressed them
in a series of parables 317 illustrative of the growth and extension of
His kingdom—the Sower (Mtt. xiii. 3–9; Mk. iv. 3–9; Lk. viii. 4–15);
the Wheat and the Tares (Mtt. xiii. 24–30); the Seed growing
secretly (Mk. iv. 26–29); the grain of Mustard-seed (Mtt. xiii. 31–33;
Mk. iv. 30–32; Lk. xiii. 18–21); the Hid Treasure (Mtt. xiii. 44); the
Merchant and the Pearl (Mtt. xiii. 45, 46); the Draw-net (Mtt. xiii.
47–50).

Later in the evening He requested of His disciples that they

would push across the lake towards the Eastern shore; on which,
they took Him as He was (Mk. iv. 36), i.e. without any preparations
for the voyage, and made for the opposite coast. Wearied with the
toils of that long and exhausting day He fell asleep on a cushion in
the stern, when suddenly from one of the deep clefts in the
surrounding hills a violent storm of wind 318 (Mk. iv. 37; Lk. viii. 23)
burst upon the surface of the lake, lashed it into waves (Mk. iv. 37),
which almost hid the little vessel (Mtt. viii. 24), and threatened to
sink it to the bottom. Terror-stricken at the sudden tempest, the
Apostles hastily awoke Him, and implored His aid, lest they should
perish, whereupon He arose, rebuked the wind and the surging
waters, and instantly there was a great calm (Mtt. viii. 26; Mk.
iv. 39), amidst which they reached next morning the other side,
deeply wondering at the power of their Master, which could reduce
even the winds and the sea to obedience to His word.
 In the country of the Gadarenes 319, where they now arrived, a
fearful spectacle awaited them. Amongst the tombs, which existed,
and can even now be traced in more than one of the ravines on the
Eastern side of the lake, dwelt two demoniacs. The more notable or
fiercer of the two was possessed of such extraordinary muscular
strength that all efforts to bind and restrain him had proved
ineffectual, and the chains and fetters, with which he had at times
been secured, had been broken and crushed, nor had any been able
to tame him (Mk. v. 4). Fleeing from the fellowship of his kind (Lk.
viii. 27), he had for a long time taken up his dwelling in the tombs,
and there in the paroxysms of his misery he often cried out and cut
himself with stones (Mk. v. 5), and so terrified all travellers, that
they dared not pass by that way (Mtt. viii. 28).

Such was the miserable being, who now in company with his
companion, without any garment to cover him (Lk. viii. 27), issued
from his lonely abode, and seeing the Saviour afar off (Mk. v. 6) ran
and fell down before Him crying out What have I to do with Thee,
Jesus, Thou Son of the most high God? I adjure Thee by God that
Thou torment me not (Mk. v. 7; Lk. viii. 28).

Resolved in His infinite mercy to rid him of the terrible spirit that
possessed him, the Great Physician enquired his name. Thereupon
he replied, My name is Legion, for we are many, comparing the cruel
and inexorable powers that mastered him to the “thick and serried
ranks of a Roman legion, that fearful instrument of oppression, that
sign of terror and fear to the conquered nations 320.”

Sensible that they were in the presence of the Lord of the spirit-
world, the demons possessing him besought the Holy One that He
would not drive them out of the country (Mk. v. 10), or send them
into the Abyss of Hell 321, the abode of the lost (Lk. viii. 31), but
suffer them to enter into a herd of swine (Mk. v. 12; Mtt. viii. 31),
which numbering nearly 2000 was feeding close at hand (Mk. v. 13).
The Saviour gave the required permission, and the whole herd
rushing wildly down the cliff 322 into the lake were choked and
destroyed.

Such a remarkable incident paralysed the keepers of the herd

with fear, and straightway flying to the city, they recounted all that
had occurred, as also the marvellous change, which had come over
the terrible demoniac. Their report brought out wellnigh all the
inhabitants (Mtt. viii. 34), and though in the man, probably a
fellow-citizen 323, who sat at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his
right mind (Mk. v. 15), they saw a proof of the superhuman power of
his Deliverer, they yet besought Him to depart from their
neighbourhood.

Thereupon the Saviour, taking them at their word, turned

towards the lake, and was in the act of stepping into the boat (Mk.
v. 18), when the healed man prayed that he might be allowed to
accompany Him. But this the Holy One did not see fit to concede,
and bade the man return to his friends, and recount to them what
great things the Lord had done to him. On which the other went his
way, proclaiming throughout the region of Decapolis 324 the story of
his wonderful deliverance, himself a witness and a standing
monument of the Saviour’s grace and power.

CHAPTER III.

MIRACLES AT CAPERNAUM—DEATH OF
THE BAPTIST.
A.D. 29.
I
MMEDIATELY after this miracle the Lord crossed over to the
western shore of the lake (Mk. v. 21), where a great multitude
was awaiting Him, and amongst them one of the prefects of the
synagogue, probably of Capernaum, whose name was Jairus. Falling
down before His feet, he earnestly besought Him to come to his
house, and lay His hands upon his little daughter, who was at the
point of death. Thereupon the ever compassionate Redeemer arose
and followed him, accompanied by His disciples, and a curious and
eager crowd.

Amongst the rest, who thus followed and pressed upon Him, was
a woman, that had laboured for upwards of twelve years under an
issue of blood, which all the efforts of many physicians had proved
powerless to asswage. Believing that, if she could but touch His
clothes, she would be made whole, she now came behind, and
touched the hem or blue fringe on the border of His garment. No
sooner had she done so, than she felt within herself that the long
wished-for cure had at length been accomplished. The fountain of
her blood was stanched, and she was healed. But she was not to
bear away the boon thus totally unobserved. Perceiving that power
had gone out of Him, and turning round amidst the crowd, the
Saviour enquired who had touched Him? The Apostles, with Peter at
their head, would have put the enquiry aside, but the Saviour
repeated it, and then the woman, trembling and alarmed, came and
fell down before Him, confessed all that she had done, and was
gladdened by the cheering words, Daughter, be of good cheer, thy
faith hath saved thee go in peace (Mk. v. 34; Lk. viii. 48).

Meanwhile, though the delay must have been a sore trial to

Jairus, “now when every moment was precious, when death was
shaking the last few sands in the hour-glass of his daughter’s
life 325,” he betrayed no signs of impatience at a boon so readily
bestowed upon another. But at this juncture his faith was still more
put to the proof. Messengers arrived informing him that the worst
was over, and that his daughter was already dead, and suggesting
that he should no further trouble the Master. Overhearing the
announcement (Mk. v. 36), the Holy One bade him not be afraid, but
only believe, and hastened towards his house. Entering it,
accompanied only by Peter, James, and John, and the father and
mother of the maiden, He advanced into the chamber of death,
where He found a number of hired mourners weeping and wailing
with all the boisterous and turbulent symbols of Oriental grief.
Putting them forth, while they laughed to scorn His announcement
that the damsel was not dead but only asleep, He went forward to
the bed, and said, Talitha Cumi, “Maid, arise.” Instantly His word was
obeyed. The spirit of the maiden came to her again, and she arose
straightway, and began to walk, while “at once to strengthen that
life which was come back to her, and to prove that she was indeed
no ghost, but had returned to the realities of a mortal existence, He
commanded to give her meat 326” (Mk. v. 43).

Soon afterwards, accompanied by His disciples, He left

Capernaum, and for the second time appeared on a Sabbath in the
synagogue of His own town of Nazareth (Mk. vi. 2; Mtt. xiii. 54). The
conduct of His hearers on this occasion did not betray the frantic
violence they exhibited during His previous visit. The miraculous
works wrought by His hands, of which they must have heard, could
not be gainsaid, and the wondrous wisdom with which He spake
filled them with astonishment (Mtt. xiii. 54; Mk. vi. 2). But again
their minds recurred to the thought of His lowly origin, to the fact
that He was the son of a carpenter, that his family connections were
well known to them, and living in their midst (Mk. vi. 3; Mtt. xiii. 55).
Stumbling at this rock of offence (Mtt. xiii. 57) they still refused to
believe in Him, and the Lord Himself marvelling at their unbelief (Mk.
vi. 6), confined His designs of mercy to laying His hands on a few
sick folk (Mk. vi. 5), who felt the influence of that Divine touch and
were healed.

On the morrow He and His disciples set out on another circuit

amongst the towns and villages of Galilee (Mtt. ix. 35–38; Mk. vi. 6),
preaching the glad tidings of the Kingdom, and healing the sick.
Great multitudes from that thickly-peopled district followed Him, and
deeply moved to see them scattered like sheep without a shepherd
(Mtt. ix. 36), He said to His disciples that the harvest truly was
plenteous, while the labourers were few, and calling the Apostles to
Him (Mtt. x. 1; Mk. vi. 7; Lk. ix. 1), formally bestowed on them
power over unclean spirits, and the ability to heal diseases, and sent
them forth two and two with instructions not to enter into any
heathen or Samaritan city (Mtt. x. 5), but to proclaim to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel the near approach of the Kingdom of
Heaven. Accordingly they went forth and preached in the various
towns and villages the message of repentance, casting out demons,
and healing the sick, and at the conclusion of this trial of their
powers, returned to their Master, probably at Capernaum (Mk. vi. 30;
Lk. ix. 10).

Meanwhile important events occurred in the gloomy prison,

where John the Baptist was confined. The anger he had excited in
the breast of Herodias by his outspoken denunciation of her sin,
never slumbered or slept. She constantly kept her eye upon him,
and would have put him out of the way without scruple, but Herod,
though there was little from which he would shrink, dared not lay
hands on one so venerated by the people, and whose exhortations
he himself was not above listening to and in some respects obeying
(Mk. vi. 20).

At length an opportunity for gratifying her revenge presented

itself, which she instantly embraced. Herod’s birthday 327 came
round, which, like a true Herod, conforming in this as in other things
to Roman customs, he kept probably at Machærus, with feasting and
revelry, surrounded by the petty chiefs and grandees of Galilee, the
lords of his court, and the officers of his camp (Mk. vi. 21). During
the feast the youthful Salome, the daughter of Herodias, entered the
banqueting hall, and danced before the riotous company. So
delighted were the guests, and especially Herod, with the brilliancy
of her movements, that in the delirium of his admiration, he
promised her anything, everything even to the half of his kingdom,
and ratified his word with the royal oath.
 The maiden departed, and consulted with her mother. Herodias
saw that at last her hour was come, that at length the long-desired
vengeance was within her grasp. No jewelled trinket, no royal
palace, or splendid robe should be the reward of her daughter’s feat;
Ask, said she, for John Baptist’s head in a charger (Mtt. xiv. 8; Mk.
vi. 24), i.e. on one of the dishes on which the fruits and viands of
the table had been served. Forthwith (Mk. vi. 25), as though not a
moment was to be lost, Salome returned, and named her price to
the assembled company.

Herod’s brow instantly fell. Even amidst the delirium of that

riotous hour he was exceeding sorry (Mk. vi. 26) for the brave
preacher, whose words he had so often listened to, and for whom he
entertained much reverence. But he had promised, and ratified the
promise with an oath. The captains and great lords, who had heard
him swear, sat round the festive board, and none in that riotous
company would say a word for the friendless prophet. So the word
was given, and an officer was bidden to seek out the Baptist’s
dungeon and bring the reward which the maiden claimed. He went,
and executed his command, and Salome bore the bleeding head to
her mother (Mk. vi. 28).

Before long the news of their master’s death became known to

the disciples of the Baptist, and having consigned his headless body
to the grave (Mtt. xiv. 12; Mk. vi. 29), they went and recounted all
that had occurred to the Saviour (Mtt. xiv. 12), whom they appear to
have found in or near Capernaum (Mtt. xiv. 13; Mk. vi. 30; Lk.
ix. 10). On receiving these sad tidings respecting His Forerunner, the
Lord left the place with His Apostles, who had just returned from
their tentative mission, and crossing the lake of Gennesaret (Mtt.
xiv. 13), sought the neighbourhood of Bethsaida-Julias 328 (Lk.
ix. 10).

Meanwhile the news of the Baptist’s death excited much

consternation amongst the Jews 329, who all regarded him as a
prophet (Mtt. xiv. 5), and Herod’s conscience allowed him little rest
after the cruel murder. Returning to Galilee 330, he received
intelligence, probably from those who had witnessed the mission of
the Twelve, of the wonderful works of the Prophet of Nazareth (Mtt.
xiv. 1; Mk. vi. 14; Lk. ix. 7). Perplexed at the appearance of a new
Teacher he enquired who this could be, and received different
answers. Some said He was the awful Elias, whose coming had been
so often predicted; others that He was a prophet, or as one of the
prophets (Mk. vi. 15). But the uneasy and superstitious king could
not be satisfied with these replies, and declared Him to be none
other than the Baptist risen from the dead (Mk. vi. 16), come back
to haunt his footsteps, and reproach him with his crimes. All that he
heard awakened in him a desire to see the new Teacher, and
destined he was to see Him, but not now (Lk. ix. 9).

PART V.

FROM THE DEATH OF

JOHN THE BAPTIST TO
THE VISIT OF THE
SAVIOUR TO JERUSALEM
 AT THE FEAST OF
TABERNACLES.

CHAPTER I.

THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND,

AND THE WALKING ON THE LAKE.
A.D. 29.

A
T this time the Passover, the second Passover, as seems most
probable, during the Saviour’s public ministry, drew nigh (Jn.
vi. 4), but on this occasion He does not appear to have gone
up to Jerusalem, where the determined hostility of the ruling powers
rendered any further activity dangerous, at least for the present.

It was probably, to commune in retirement with the Twelve, and

to afford them a season of comparative rest after their late labours,
that the Lord now sought the neighbourhood of Bethsaida-Julias
(Mk. vi. 31). But the numbers moving about the country in
consequence of the near approach of the great Festival, who came
on foot from all the towns round about to see and hear Him (Mtt.
xiv. 13; Mk. vi. 32; Lk. ix. 11), rendered the desired solitude
impossible. The sight, moreover, of these multitudes scattered as
sheep without a shepherd (Mk. vi. 34), again roused His deepest
compassion, and He not only taught them many things concerning
the Kingdom of God, and healed those amongst them that were
afflicted with various diseases (Mtt. xiv. 14), but was moved on this
occasion to minister still further to their temporal necessities.
 Accordingly at a somewhat early period, as it would seem, in the
afternoon 331, He enquired of the Apostle Philip where bread might
be bought to satisfy the hunger of the multitudes (Jn. vi. 5). Though
He Himself knew what He would do, He put this question to prove
the trust of the Apostle. But Philip, thinking of no other supplies save
such as natural means could procure, replied that two hundred
pence (or rather denarii) would not be sufficient to procure
sustenance for such a number (Jn. vi. 7). Having thus obtained from
his own mouth a confession of the inability of all human power to
satisfy the present need, the Holy One left “the difficulty and
perplexity to work in his mind and the minds of the Apostles 332,” and
thus prepare them for what He was about to do.

As the evening, however, drew on (Mtt. xiv. 15; Lk. ix. 12) the
disciples approached Him, and drawing His attention to the desert 333
character of the locality, proposed that He should send away the
multitudes, in order that they might seek refreshment in the
neighbouring towns and villages. To this He replied that they need
not depart (Mtt. xiv. 16), and bade them supply their needs, and
when, reiterating the assertion 334 of Philip, they declared how
impossible it was to do such a thing, He sent them to see what
supplies they had. Returning they informed Him that from a lad in
their company they had been enabled to procure five barley loaves
and two small fishes (Jn. vi. 9), and were thereupon bidden to
marshal the multitudes in companies 335 amid the green grass of the
rich plain around. This done, He took the loaves and the two fishes
and looking up to heaven He blessed, and brake, and gave of the
food to the Apostles, who in their turn distributed to the different
groups, till they did all eat and were filled. When the wondrous meal
was over, the Holy One, who, as the Lord of nature, ever “makes the
most prodigal bounty go hand in hand with the nicest and truest
economy,” bade the disciples gather up the fragments that remained,
that nothing might be lost, and though 5000 men besides women
and children (Mtt. xiv. 21) had eaten and been satisfied, yet they
took up twelve baskets full of fragments that still remained over and
above (Mtt. xiv. 20; Mk. vi. 43; Jn. vi. 13).
 The impression made upon the people by this miracle was
profound. It was the popular expectation that the Messiah would
repeat the miracles of Moses 336, and this “bread of wonder,” of
which they had partaken, vividly recalled to the minds of the
multitude their great Lawgiver, who had given their fathers manna in
the wilderness. They were convinced, therefore, that the Holy One
was none other than the Prophet, of whom Moses had spoken
(Deut. xviii. 15), and in this conviction would have taken Him by
force and made Him a king (Jn. vi. 14, 15).

To defeat this their intention, the Saviour bade His Apostles take
ship and cross over to Bethsaida 337 (Mk. vi. 45), on the other side of
the lake, while He dismissed the multitudes. Having done so, He
ascended to a point in the neighbouring mountain-range, and there
continued in solitary communion with His Heavenly Father till near
the fourth watch 338 of the night (Mtt. xiv. 23–25; Mk. vi. 46).

Meanwhile the Apostles had rowed about 25 or 30 furlongs 339

(Jn. vi. 19), when one of those sudden storms of wind to which the
lake is subject, rushed down from the western mountains, and
lashing the usually placid surface into waves (Mtt. xiv. 24) prevented
them making their way towards Capernaum, and exposed them to
imminent peril. At this moment, to add to their fears, they discerned
amidst the darkness (Mk. vi. 50) a Figure walking on the water and
approaching their vessel. Thinking it could be nothing but a
Phantom, they cried out in their terror, when a well-known Voice was
heard saying It is I, be not afraid. Thereupon the ardent, impetuous
Peter replied, Lord, if it be Thou, bid me come unto Thee on the
water. The rejoinder was Come; and so descending from the vessel
(Mtt. xiv. 29) amidst the darkness and howling wind the Apostle
made some little way towards his Lord. But soon the wind roared
(Mtt. xiv. 30) and the waters raged, and his heart failed him, and
beginning to sink he cried, Lord, save me. Thereupon Jesus
stretched forth His hand and caught him, and gently rebuking him
for his want of faith took him with Him into the ship, which amidst
the calm that now stilled the waves, quickly reached the harbour of
Capernaum, while the Apostles, amazed beyond measure (Mk.
vi. 51), worshipped Him, saying, Truly Thou art the Son of God (Mtt.
xiv. 33).
 CHAPTER II.

THE DISCOURSE IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF

CAPERNAUM.
A.D. 29.

T
HE fact of the Saviour’s presence on the western side of the
lake was soon spread abroad amongst the people (Mk.
vi. 54), and, as so often before, they brought their sick, who
experienced the effects of the healing word (Mtt. xiv. 36). Meanwhile
many of the five thousand, who on the previous evening had
witnessed the marvellous multiplication of the loaves, not finding the
Lord on the eastern side of the lake, had taken ship 340 and crossed
over to Capernaum seeking Him (Jn. vi. 24). Knowing that He had
not embarked with His disciples after the miracle, they wondered
how He had crossed over, and finding Him in the Synagogue of
Capernaum (Jn. vi. 59) eagerly questioned Him on the subject.

But, as in the case of Nicodemus, the Holy One was not pleased
to vouchsafe a direct answer to their question. He knew the
superficial character of their enthusiasm, and the merely temporal
objects that had brought them to Him; Verily, verily, I say unto you,
He replied, ye seek Me, not because ye saw the miracles, but
because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labour not for the
meat which perisheth, but for the meat which endureth unto
everlasting life, which the Son of Man shall give unto you, for Him
hath God the Father sealed. Apparently understanding the Bread He
spoke of in a literal sense, they replied by asking how they might
work the works of God, whereupon the Holy One declared that the
work acceptable to God was to believe on Him whom He had sent
(Jn. vi. 29). To this they rejoined, with their usual craving for miracle
after miracle, by asking for some sign to confirm their belief in Him,
and then proceeded to suggest “a sign from heaven” such as they
desired. The miracle of the preceding evening had convinced many
of them that the Speaker was indeed the Prophet that should come
into the world, and whose Advent had been predicted by Moses.
That Lawgiver had given them bread from heaven not once only, but
during a space of forty years; could He give them such a sign from
heaven?

In condescension to the associations they had themselves

recalled, the Saviour replied that Moses had not given them the
bread from heaven, but His Father was giving them the true Bread,
even Him who cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the
world (Jn. vi. 33). Still understanding Him to speak of some
miraculous life-sustaining food, the Jews begged that He would
evermore give them that Bread, whereupon, passing from indirect to
direct assertions, He replied in the ever-memorable words,

I am the Bread of Life;

and in language majestic in its very simplicity proceeded to vindicate

His Divine nature and His descent from heaven.

This last assertion gave great offence to His hearers; they called
to mind the earthly parentage of the Speaker (Jn. vi. 42), and
marvelled how He could claim a Divine origin. But, unmoved,
unruffled by their increasing discontent, whether “they would hear
or whether they would forbear,” He went on to repeat that He was
the Bread from heaven, that the Bread He would give was His flesh,
which He was about to give for the life of the world (Jn. vi. 47–51).

These mysterious words provoked still greater opposition on the

part of the Jews; they strove with one another, saying, How can this
man give us His flesh to eat? But their opposition and questionings
moved not His calm majesty. With the same formula of solemnity,
which He had already thrice used 341 (Jn. vi. 53), He resumed in
language still more emphatic His assertion, that unless they ate the
flesh of the Son of Man, and drank His blood, they could have no life
in them—that His Flesh was meat indeed, and His Blood drink
indeed—that whoso ate His Flesh and drank His Blood had eternal
life, and He would raise him up at the last day (Jn. vi. 53–58).

These solemn words, so entirely in keeping with the associations

of the Passover, now on the point of being 342 celebrated at
Jerusalem, exerted a great influence on those who heard them. The
Jews, as we have seen, were deeply offended. But many even of His
disciples regarded what they had heard as a hard saying (Jn. vi. 60),
and walked no more with Him (Jn. vi. 66). Turning to the Twelve, the
Saviour enquired whether they too were about to join the general
defection, whereupon Peter replied, in the name of the rest, that
there was no other Teacher to whom they could go, for He had the
words of eternal life, and they believed and were assured that He
was the Holy One 343 of God (Jn. vi. 69). This declaration of faithful
adherence their Omnipotent Master accepted, but with the sad
remark that even now there was a traitor in their midst (Jn. vi.
70, 71).

After this memorable day in the synagogue of Capernaum, the

Holy One appears to have continued a short time in the Plain of
Gennesaret, during which period the excitement caused by His first
landing was not diminished, His popularity was great in spite of the
mysteriousness of His doctrines, and His mighty power continued to
be marvellously displayed 344.

But soon His labours of love were interrupted. Having kept the
Feast at Jerusalem the Scribes and Pharisees returned (Mk. vii. 1),
and soon found matter for accusation against Him. In the social
gatherings of the Saviour and His Apostles they noticed that He did
not observe the strict and minute traditions of the elders, but ate
bread with unwashen hands (Mtt. xv. 2; Mk. vii. 5). In reply the Holy
One told them that by those commandments of men which they so
studiously observed they were making of none effect the
commandments of God, whom, in the words of the prophet Isaiah,
they honoured only with their lips, while their hearts were far from
Him (Isai. xxix. 13). The external defilement they were so careful to
avoid was, He declared in the hearing of the people (Mk. vii. 14),
nothing compared with the defilement of the heart, out of which
proceeded all manner of evil thoughts, which ripened into the worst
crimes—these truly defiled a man (Mtt. xv. 13–22).

The severity with which He thus, in the presence of the people,

rebuked the rulers of the nation for a hypocritical observance of vain
traditions, roused to a still greater height the animosity of the
Pharisaic faction (Mtt. xv. 12). Knowing that He could not now shew
Himself openly without being exposed to their machinations 345, the
Lord passed north-west through the mountains of upper Galilee, and
thence into the border-land of Tyre and Sidon (Mtt. xv. 21; Mk.
vii. 24). Here He entered into a house, and would have no man
know it (Mk. vii. 24). But the rest and seclusion He sought were not
to be found. A Syrophœnician 346 woman crossed the frontier (Mk.
vii. 25), and earnestly besought His aid in behalf of her daughter,
who was grievously afflicted with a demon. At first it seemed as
though she had come in vain. But in spite of silence (Mtt. xv. 23),
refusal (Mtt. xv. 24), and seeming reproach (Mtt. xv. 26), she
persevered in her petition, and at length, when the trial of her faith
was ended, she obtained that which she had sought so earnestly,
and with the encouraging assurance that though a descendant of
ancient idolaters, her faith was great (Mtt. xv. 28), and that her
daughter was made whole, returned to the place whence she came
forth.

After a short stay in this region, the Saviour proceeded

northwards, still nearer, as it would seem, to pagan Sidon 347, and
thence passing round the sources of the Jordan and in a south-
easterly circuit through Decapolis (Mk. vii. 31), to the further shore
of the sea of Gennesaret. In this region His merciful aid was
besought in behalf of a deaf and dumb 348 man (Mk. vii. 32), whom
He withdrew from the throng of bystanders (Mk. vii. 33), and after
using special outward signs 349 gradually restored to the full
possession of his faculties, charging the multitudes to preserve a
strict silence respecting the miracle (Mk. vii. 36). This injunction,
however, was not obeyed, for the spectators spread abroad the
news far and wide (Mk. vii. 36), and the effect was that many who
were lame, blind, dumb, maimed (Mtt. xv. 30), were brought to Him,
and experienced the beneficent results of the healing word.

CHAPTER III.

THE FOUR THOUSAND FED—THE

CONFESSION OF ST PETER.
A.D. 29.

T
HE effect of these miraculous cures on the inhabitants of the
half-pagan district of Decapolis was very great, and they
confessed that the God who had chosen Israel was indeed
above all gods 350 (Mtt. xv. 31). Before long, therefore, a great
multitude, amounting to upwards of four thousand besides women
and children (Mtt. xv. 38), were collected from the neighbouring
region, and continued with the Lord three days (Mtt. xv. 32),
beholding His works and listening to His words.

They had not, like the multitude earlier in the year, assembled for
the purpose of going up to Jerusalem to keep the Passover, and their
scanty provisions failing them, could only retire to their mountain-
homes through the passes by which they had followed the Lord 351.
The compassionate Redeemer had no wish that they should return
only to faint by the way (Mk. viii. 3), and enquired of the disciples
how many loaves they had with them. To this they replied, Seven,
and a few small fishes (Mtt. xv. 34), and were thereupon
commanded to make the men sit down 352, when their scanty supply
in the hands of Him, who was the true Bread from heaven, proved
sufficient for the hungry multitude: they did eat and were filled, and
took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets 353 full (Mtt.
xv. 37).

Having dismissed the recipients of His bounty, the Lord

immediately entered with His disciples into a ship 354, and crossed
over, according to St Matthew, into the coasts of Magdala 355
(xv. 39), according to St Mark, into the parts of Dalmanutha 356
(viii. 10), a village close by. Here, however, His stay was of no long
duration, for certain Pharisees, now for the first time combined with
the Sadducees, approached (Mtt. xvi. 1) with a demand that He
would shew them a sign from heaven. This request, already twice
preferred 357, and now urged in explicit terms, He, who knew the
hearts of those who claimed it, would not gratify. Sighing deeply in
His spirit (Mk. viii. 12), and grieved at their continued unbelief, He
denounced them as hypocrites, who could discern the face of the
sky, but not discern the signs of the times (Mtt. xvi. 3), and refusing
to give them any other sign than that of the prophet Jonah (Mtt.
xvi. 4), straightway entered the vessel, in which He had come (Mk.
viii. 13), and made for the other side.

Warning His disciples during the voyage against the leaven of the
Pharisees and the Sadducees (Mtt. xvi. 5–12; Mk. viii. 14–21), he
reached the eastern shore of the lake and the neighbourhood of
Bethsaida-Julias (Mk. viii. 22). Here a blind man was brought to Him,
with a petition that He would touch him. Taking him, like the deaf
and dumb man spoken of above, outside the village, the Lord
anointed his eyes with the moisture from His own mouth, and laying
His hands upon him enquired whether he saw aught? To this the
sufferer looking up replied that he saw men, as trees, walking (Mk.
viii. 24). Thereupon the Redeemer laid His hands again upon his
eyes, and his sight was completely restored.

From Bethsaida, accompanied by His Apostles, He now set out in

a northerly direction, and travelling along the eastern banks of the
Jordan and beyond the waters of Merom, reached the confines or
the villages (Mk. viii. 27) of Cæsarea Philippi 358. In this
neighbourhood, on one occasion, the Apostles found their Master
engaged in solitary prayer (Lk. ix. 18), a solemn and significant
action, the precursor of not a few important events 359, as now of a
deeply momentous revelation. For as they resumed their journey, He
addressed to them the formal enquiry, Whom do men say that I am?

This was not an ordinary question. He was speaking to those

who had now for some time been His constant companions, hearers
of His words, and spectators of the signs which accompanied them.
He seems to have wished to ascertain from their own lips the results
of those labours, which now, in one sense, were drawing to a close,
and thence to pass on to other and more painful truths, which He
had to communicate to them 360. To this enquiry, then, the Apostles
replied in words that reflected the various opinions then held
amongst the people; Some say John the Baptist, others Elias, others
Jeremias, or one of the prophets (Mtt. xvi. 14; Mk. viii. 28; Lk.
ix. 19). But, continued the Holy One, whom say ye that I am? To this
the Apostle Peter, speaking in the name of the rest, made the ever-
memorable reply, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mtt.
xvi. 16).

The object for which the question had been put was now partly
achieved. By the mouth of one of their number the Apostles had
expressed the conclusion, to which they had come after so long
enjoying the society of their Master, that He was no other than the
Messiah, the Son of God. This their testimony He accepted;
acknowledged the truth of the Apostle’s confession; declared that it
had not been revealed to him by flesh and blood, but by His Father
in heaven; and bestowed upon him the promise of peculiar dignity in
the Church He was about to establish (Mtt. xvi. 18, 19).

But now, having, as three Evangelists distinctly tell us (Mtt.

xvi. 20; Mk. viii. 30; Lk. ix. 21), charged them strictly not to divulge
the fact of His Messiahship to the world at large, He began to reveal
to them strange and mournful tidings respecting Himself. The Son of
Man, He declared, must go up to Jerusalem, and there suffer many
things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be put to
death, and after three days rise again. This was the first
announcement, clear, distinct, peremptory of what lay before Him
(Mk. viii. 32), revealing not only that He should suffer, but the
agents in His sufferings, the form they would take, the place where
He would undergo them, and their issue, a mysterious resurrection
after three days. To the Apostles the announcement sounded utterly
strange and inconceivable. The selfsame Peter, who, a moment
before, had witnessed so noble and outspoken a confession to his
Lord’s Divinity, was utterly unable even to endure the thought of His
suffering. That be far from Thee, Lord, was his indignant reply. But
with a solemn rebuke the Holy One checked his untimely
expostulations, which savoured of the weakness of flesh and blood,
not of holy obedience to a heavenly Father’s will. Nay more, as if to
seal the words He had uttered in the presence of many witnesses,
He called to Him some of the people that were standing near (Mk.
viii. 34), and in their hearing, as well as that of the Apostles, bade
any who would come after Him, take up his Cross and follow Him,
for through the gate of suffering lay the road to Glory, not only for
Himself, but for all His followers (Mtt. xvi. 24; Mk. viii. 34; Lk. ix. 23).
 CHAPTER IV.

THE TRANSFIGURATION—THE LUNATIC

CHILD.
A.D. 29.

A
FTER the announcement we have just considered, the
teaching of the Lord as addressed to His disciples assumed a
new character. The mysterious close of His life had been
already 361 more than once hinted at in figures or parables, but now
He began gradually, as they were able to bear it, to speak clearly
and openly of His death and rejection by the Jews. So far from
establishing any earthly kingdom such as they expected, in which
they might occupy distinguished places, He proceeded from this time
to intimate in precise and distinct language how very different was
the end that really awaited Him.

To the Apostles, who indulged to the close in dreams of a reign

like that of earthly kings, these intimations of their Master sounded
strange and unaccountable. To cheer, therefore, their wounded
spirits, to enable them in some measure to comprehend the
supernatural character of His kingdom, the Holy One was pleased to
assure them that there were some standing there, who should not
taste of death till they had seen, in spite of the sad announcement
He had just made, the Son of Man coming in His kingdom (Mtt.
xvi. 28; comp. Mk. ix. 1; Lk. ix. 27).

Accordingly six days afterwards, with three of the most privileged

of their number, who had already in the chamber of Jairus witnessed
their Master’s power over death 362, He retired to one of the
numerous mountain-ranges in the neighbourhood, not improbably
one of the summits of Hermon 363. From St Luke’s intimation that
one object of His own withdrawal was that He might engage in
solitary prayer (Lk. ix. 28), and that the three Apostles were wearied
and oppressed by sleep (Lk. ix. 32), we infer that evening was the
time of this retirement of the Holy One, the close, it may be, of a
long day spent in going about doing good. While, then, they slept
and He continued engaged in prayer, a marvellous change came
over His person (Lk. ix. 29). His raiment suddenly became shining,
exceeding white as snow, the fashion also of His countenance was
altered, and shone like the sun (Mtt. xvii. 2; Mk. ix. 3; Lk. ix. 29).

Roused at length by the supernatural brightness around them,

the Chosen Three awoke 364, and shaking off their slumbers,
perceived not only the mysterious change that had come over their
Master, but also that He was no longer alone! He was accompanied
by two men, in whom they were enabled to recognize no others
than the great pillars and representatives of the Old Testament
dispensation, Moses and Elias. Nor did they only see their
transfigured Lord attended by these strange visitants from the world
of spirits, but they were privileged to overhear the subject of their
mutual converse. They spake of, or described 365, the decease He
was about to accomplish at Jerusalem (Lk. ix. 31).

Upon the ardent, impulsive Peter it was the scene itself, and not
the topic of mysterious converse he overheard, that made the most
impression. To him it seemed as though the kingdom of heaven was
indeed “revealed in power.” In the excitement of the moment he
would have made three tabernacles, one for his Lord, one for Moses,
and one for Elias, in order that from thence the laws of the kingdom
might be promulgated, and all men might recognise the true
Messiah attended by the Pillars of the old Economy. But it was not to
be. While he was yet speaking there came a cloud overshadowing
them, and out of it there came a Voice, saying, This is My Beloved
Son, hear ye Him. And then all was over. While the Apostles lay
panic-stricken on their faces, their Master once more joined them,
and bade them rise and not be afraid, and, as they descended from
the Mount, He charged them to reveal to no man what they had
seen, till (again the mysterious words recurred) He should have risen
from the dead (Mtt. xvii. 9; Mk. ix. 9).

Rejoining the rest of their fellow-Apostles, the Chosen Three

found them surrounded by a great crowd, amongst which were
certain of the Lord’s old adversaries, the Scribes, not unwilling
witnesses of a defeat which His disciples had sustained. During their
Master’s absence a man had besought their aid in behalf of his son,
who was possessed with an evil spirit of peculiar malignity. But he
had besought their aid in vain. The Nine had been unable to expel
the demon, and the Scribes, making the most of their discomfiture,
were eagerly disputing with them (Mk. ix. 14), and doubtless
“arguing from the impotence of the servants to the impotence of the
Master 366,” when He suddenly appeared, bearing, it would seem, on
His face and person traces of the celestial glory of the past night.
Greatly amazed (Mk. ix. 15) at His appearance, the multitude no
sooner saw Him, than they ran to Him and saluted Him (Mk. ix. 15),
and as He was asking of the Scribes the reason of their dispute with
His disciples, the father drew near, related what had occurred, and
the terrible condition of his only son (Lk. ix. 38). Possessed he had
been for a long time with a dumb spirit (Mk. ix. 17), but at times it
seized him with such violence, that he foamed and gnashed with his
teeth (Mk. ix. 18), or was driven with almost irresistible impulse into
the water and into the fire (Mtt. xvii. 15).

With a sad rebuke of the faithlessness of the generation in which

He lived, the Lord commanded the boy to be brought into His
presence. He was brought, but no sooner did he see the Saviour
(Mk. ix. 20), than he was seized with one of those sudden
paroxysms, which the father had described, and falling on the
ground, he wallowed foaming at the mouth (Mk. ix. 20). On
beholding the miserable sufferer, the Lord enquired of his father how
long he had been in this case. To this the other replied that it dated
from his childhood (Mk. ix. 21), and described the terrible nature of
the fits which came upon him, ending with a touching request, that
if He could do anything, He would have compassion on him, and
help him. All things are possible, said the Holy One, to him that
believeth. Lord, I believe, replied the agonized father, help Thou
mine unbelief (Mk. ix. 23, 24), and his faith, though but a little
spark, was rewarded. Addressing the demon in words of solemn and
conscious authority the Holy One commanded him to leave the child
and enter him no more (Mk. ix. 25), and the foul spirit, unable to
resist the word of power, uttering a piercing cry and rending the
sufferer with one last convulsive paroxysm (Mk. ix. 26), left him lying
on the ground, to all appearance dead. But his merciful Healer took
him by the hand, and, invigorated by that touch, he rose up, and
was restored to his rejoicing father (Lk. ix. 42).

CHAPTER V.

THE COIN IN THE FISH’S MOUTH—TOUR

THROUGH SAMARIA.
A.D. 29.

A
FTER the incidents just related, the Redeemer appears to have
again turned His steps southward through the northern parts
of Galilee and in the direction of Capernaum (Mtt. xvii. 22;
Mk. ix. 30). This journey He wished should be as private as possible
(Mk. ix. 30), undisturbed by the presence of the large crowds that
usually gathered about Him. For now that He had so plainly and
unreservedly spoken to His Apostles of His approaching death and
resurrection, He desired that these His words should sink deep into
their ears (Lk. ix. 44), and that they should be more fully instructed
respecting their reality and certainty. Once more, therefore, He
began to tell them of His coming rejection by the rulers of the
nation, of His death, and resurrection. But His words took no root in
the minds of His hearers. His “thoughts were not their thoughts,” nor
His “ways their ways;” they could not understand that whereof He
spake, or how One, whom they believed to be the Messiah, could be
called upon to suffer, and were afraid to ask Him personally what He
meant (Mk. ix. 32; Lk. ix. 45).

On their arrival at Capernaum, the collection of the half-shekel 367

due from every male Israelite, who had attained the age of 20 years,
for the service of the sanctuary at Jerusalem, was going on.
Approaching the Apostle Peter, the collectors enquired whether his
Master did not pay this sum (Mtt. xvii. 24), to which he replied in the
affirmative. Shortly afterwards on reaching the house where they
were about to lodge (Mtt. xvii. 25), the Lord, aware of the incident,
enquired of the Apostle whether earthly monarchs levied custom and
tribute 368 of their own children or of strangers. Of strangers, was the
instant reply. Then, said the Holy One, alluding to His own relation to
His heavenly Father, are the children free, and He as the Son of God
was exempt from a payment which went to the support of His
Father’s house. Lest, however, it should be said that He and His
Apostles despised the Temple, and so men should be offended, He
bade him go down to the lake, cast in a hook, and take the first fish
that came up, assuring him that, when he had opened its mouth, he
would find sufficient 369 to pay both for the Apostle and his Master
(Mtt. xvii. 27).

In spite of His repeated intimations respecting His own coming

sufferings, the thoughts of the Apostles were still running on the
high places they believed in store for them in their Master’s
kingdom, and the late selection of three of their number to behold
the glory of His transfiguration, added to the prominence of Simon in
the miraculous payment of the tribute-money, excited their jealousy
and carnal aspirations. While their Master was contemplating the
cross, their imaginations were apportioning crowns, and the question
which was the greatest amongst them excited much discussion (Mk.
iv. 33; Lk. ix. 46, 47). Knowing their thoughts He replied to their
question respecting the disputed point (Mtt. xviii. 1) by a touching
symbolical action. Taking a little child in His arms (Mk. ix. 36) He
placed him in their midst, and solemnly (Mk. ix. 35) declared that
unless they laid aside all their thoughts of dignity and place and
power, and became like little children (Mtt. xviii. 3), they could not
hope to enter into His Kingdom at all; for in that Kingdom he was
greatest who could humble himself like the little child before them,
and whoso received even one such little child in His Name, received
Him.

These last words reminded the Apostle John of a fault which he

now confessed. On one occasion he and the rest of the Apostles had
seen a man trying to cast out demons by pronouncing over the
possessed the name of Jesus (Comp. Acts xix. 13), and they had
forbidden him, on the ground that he was not one of their Master’s
avowed followers (Mk. ix. 38; Lk. ix. 49). On being informed of this,
the Holy One gently rebuked the spirit which had prompted the
Apostle thus to act. No man, He declared, who could work a miracle
in His name, could lightly speak evil of Him; he that was not against
them was for them; and even a cup of cold water given to a disciple
in His name should not lose its reward (Mk. ix. 41). Having thus
urged upon them the duty of child-like humility, He proceeded to
enforce that of avoiding offences (Mtt. xviii. 10), and of cultivating a
spirit of love towards their Lord’s little ones. Then by the Parable of
the Lost Sheep He taught them the joy that pervaded heaven at the
repentance of a single sinner (Mtt. xviii. 10, &c.; Lk. xv. 3–7), and by
that of the Debtor who owed ten thousand talents (Mtt. xviii. 23–
35), how they were bound to forgive every one his brother their
trespasses.

While the Apostles were being thus gradually trained for the
reception of other ideas than those of earthly glory, in respect to the
establishment of their Master’s Kingdom, the season for the
celebration of the feast of Tabernacles drew near (Jn. vii. 2). The
harvest being over, and the grapes trodden in the winepress,
numerous caravans of Jewish pilgrims would be gathering together
to go up to the Holy City and keep the Feast. At this juncture, then,
the Lord’s brethren 370 (Jn. vii. 3) who, though they did not believe in
His Divinity (Jn. vii. 5), were yet not above cherishing feelings of
pride and exultation at the mighty works which He wrought 371, bade
Him leave Galilee, and display proofs of His wonder-working power,
no longer in obscure northern towns, but in the streets of Jerusalem
itself (Jn. viii. 3–6).

Though He intended to keep the feast, the Redeemer could not

go up to it for such a manifestation of Himself to the world as they
desired (Jn. vii. 4). His Hour, the Hour for a very different exaltation,
was not yet come (Jn. vii. 6), nor for the present could He take part
in festal solemnities. They accordingly went their way to Jerusalem,
and on their departure, amidst no open, avowed procession of a
mere wonder-worker, but privately and unobtrusively as became a
lowly Redeemer (Jn. vii. 10), accompanied by His Apostles, He set
His face to go up to the Holy City (Lk. ix. 51).

Instead of taking the longer and more frequented route through

Peræa, for the sake, probably, of greater seclusion, the Saviour
chose that through Samaria (Lk. ix. 52), and sent messengers before
Him to prepare for His coming. Entering a certain village of the
Samaritans, the Apostles sought to do as He had bidden them. But
the churlish inhabitants, perceiving the reason why He was passing
through their land, usually so studiously avoided, refused to receive
Him 372 (Lk. ix. 53). Indignant at this rebuff, the impetuous “Sons of
Thunder,” James and John, would have had their Master act in the
spirit of Elijah 373, and call down fire from heaven on the inhospitable
and churlish villagers. But the Holy One rebuked their intemperate
zeal, and the forgetfulness they evinced of the true spirit that
became them as His followers, and sought shelter in another village
(Lk. ix. 56).
 PART VI.

FROM THE FEAST OF

TABERNACLES TO THE
TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO
JERUSALEM.

CHAPTER I.

THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES—

HOSTILITY OF THE SANHEDRIN.
A.D. 29.

M
EANWHILE the excitement at Jerusalem respecting the
Saviour was very great. The Festivals of Passover and
Pentecost had alike passed away, and He had not assumed
publicly the title or functions of the Messiah. The question whether
He would present Himself at the Feast of Tabernacles was eagerly
discussed (Jn. vii. 11), and many were the opinions advanced
concerning Him; some affirming Him to be a good man; others, a
deceiver of the people; while fear of the ruling powers in the city
prevented any open declaration in His favour (Jn. vii. 12).

When, however, the Feast had reached its midst, He suddenly

appeared in the Temple, and began to teach openly in its crowded
courts. Such a step at a time when the Sanhedrin had pronounced
Him guilty of a capital offence 374, when they were even seeking to
kill Him (Jn. vii. 25), excited the greatest astonishment. That One,
who had been brought up at the feet of none of the recognised and
celebrated teachers (Jn. vii. 15), should venture thus openly to
instruct the people, should claim for His doctrines a mysterious and
exalted origin (Jn. vii. 16, 17), should justify His violation of the
Sabbath by His works of mercy (Jn. vii. 21),—this, added to the
hesitation and inactivity of the ruling powers 375, caused much
perplexity. While, therefore, some could not recognise His claims to
be regarded as the Messiah with His well-known Galilæan origin, and
the uncertainty which was popularly ascribed to the quarter whence
the Messiah was to come (Jn. vii. 27), many could not resist the
impression His wondrous works made upon their minds, and refused
to believe that the long-expected Deliverer would perform any
greater miracles than those they now witnessed (Jn. vii. 31).

These murmurs of the multitude at length reached the ears of

the Sanhedrin, and they resolved to take steps for securing His
person (Jn. vii. 32). For this purpose they sent their officers to seize
Him on the first favourable opportunity. But their hostility, though
now clearly avowed, did not stay the Lord from continuing His
teaching; He knew He was to be but a little while longer with the
multitude, who listened to Him gladly, before He returned to Him
that had sent Him, and now for the first time publicly, though darkly,
hinted at His speedy removal (Jn. vii. 33–36), and on the last, the
great day of the Feast (Jn. vii. 37), taking up His parable from the
water brought in a golden vessel from the Pool of Siloam and poured
before the Brazen Altar 376, preached with peculiar appropriateness
on the living waters of the Spirit, which should flow forth when He
was glorified (Jn. vii. 39).

This boldness, added to the solemnity of His words, exerted a

still greater influence on the multitudes. Some declared He must be
the Prophet (Jn. vii. 40); others that He was the Messiah (Jn.
vii. 41); others would have thought so too had He not risen out of
Galilee instead of Bethlehem of Judæa, as Prophecy had indicated
(Jn. vii. 42; Mic. v. 2), while a fourth, but clearly a smaller party,
wished to apprehend Him, but dared not from fear of the people.

Accordingly the Sanhedrin met a second time, and the officers

they had deputed to effect His apprehension appeared before them
(Jn. vii. 45), and in reply to the enquiry why they had not brought
Him, declared it was impossible—never man spake like Him—and
they felt powerless to carry out their instructions. Such an avowal
was received with undisguised contempt (Jn. vii. 47, 48), but the
Sanhedrin found that the influence of the mysterious Teacher had
penetrated within their own council. While they were, apparently,
proceeding to discuss some plan for His condemnation, Nicodemus
interposed with the enquiry whether the Law did not demand an
open examination of a man’s claims before they pronounced
judgment? This candid and generous suggestion drew down upon
the speaker the uttermost derision. He was asked whether he too
was from Galilee, and bidden to search and see whether any prophet
had risen out of that despised and half-heathen region 377? (Jn.
vii. 52).

On the following day the Pharisees, finding open hostility

ineffectual, made a crafty and insidious effort to undermine the
growing popularity of the Saviour 378. When He returned from the
Mount of Olives (Jn. viii. 1), and reappeared in the Temple
surrounded by the multitude, they brought to Him a woman who
had been taken in the act of adultery, and placing her in the midst
requested His decision respecting her. The Law of Moses certainly
denounced death as the penalty of her crime (Lev. xx. 10), but,