brothers and sisters: but it is not usual in Greek, any more than in English, to distinguish between classes of male and female cousins: they are usually comprehended under the general description of σvyyeveîs. Luke i. 36. Again, if adeλpòs here means cousin, then unrnp may mean aunt, or grandmother, or indeed any other relation. Εκτορ, ἀτὰρ σύ μοι ἐσσὶ πατὴρ καὶ πότνια μήτηρ, ἠδὲ κασίγνητος, σὺ δὲ καὶ θαλερὸς παρακοίτης. Ζ. 429. So that, according to Ecclesiastical interpretation, the words of Matthew, xii. 50, αὐτός μου ἀδελφὸς καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν, ought to be rendered thus: "He is my cousin, and my cousin, and my grandmother." And in the following lines, ὁ δ ̓ εὐθὺς ᾖσ ̓ Εὐριπίδου ῥῆσίν τιν, ὡς ἐκίνει Ar. Nub. 1371, adeλpòs ought to be rendered cousin, and óμoμnτpíav ådeλon, cousin, having the same grandmother. 55. Ιάκωβος καὶ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Σίμων καὶ Ἰούδας] This is the reading of Tischendorf: the common reading, instead of 'Iwond, has 'Iwons, but 'Iwond has the authority of the best MSS., and is more probable of itself: Joseph the husband of Mary seems to have named his eldest son by her, after the name of his own father, James and his second son after his own name, Joseph. James and Jude, two of the sons here named of Mary, seem to be the authors of the Epistles which bear their respective names: but of her other sons Joseph and Simon, little or nothing else is said in N. T. But this James is identified by Paul as the brother of Our Lord, Gal. i. 19, Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου· in order to distinguish him from James, Zebedee's son, who was cousin and not adeλpòs to Jesus: and from James, Alphee's son, who was a stranger to him. And Jude, the son of Mary, identifies himself by the words of his own Epistle, v. 1, Ιούδας ἀδελφὸς Ιακώβου. In all which, there is no difficulty to the reader of Scripture: the only difficulty has arisen from the Holy Catholic Church mixing up her own abominable leaven with the pure word of God. 56. οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσί] The names of the sisters of Jesus are nowhere mentioned in N. T. But it may be inferred from the word nâσaι here used, that they were more than two in number. Thus Mary appears to have had four sons, and at least three daughters, by her husband Joseph: all which children appear to be now grown up; a remarkable confirmation of Luke i. 45. XIV. 6. γενεσίων δὲ γενομένων] This is the reading of some of the best MSS. The common reading is γενεσίων δὲ ἀγομένων, for which there does not appear to be much authority, but which is retained by Wordsworth, and to which there is no intrinsic objection. Another reading of MSS. is γενεσίοις δὲ γενομένοις, which is adopted by Tischendorf. Indeed γενεσίοις would be an excellent reading, if it were not followed by γενομένοις. So, Ηρώδης τοῖς γενεσίοις αὐτοῦ δεῖπνον ἐποίει. Mar. vi. 21, which is like the usage of the best Greek writers: e.g. Ar. Nub. 408. νὴ Δί ̓ ἔγωγ ̓ οὖν ἀτεχνῶς ἔπαθον τουτί ποτε Διασίοισιν. But it may be observed, that yevéoia does not mean here the Ωκεανόν τε θεῶν γένεσιν καὶ μητέρα Τηθύν. Ξ. 201. but yevén is said of birth simply, without reference to any father: e.g. τηλόθεν ἐξ ̓Αλύβης ὅθεν ἀργύρου ἐστι γενέθλη. Β. 857. Besides which, another reason is offered by Lobeck, Phryn. 104, namely, that the Greeks had a superstitious dread of using the word yevéoia with reference to the living. But when the antient superstition died away, the usage which had been founded upon it, died with it: and thus we find in Ν. Τ. γενέσια put for γενέθλια. The words of Josephus, which are inaccurately cited by Alford, but which are, ἑορτάζοντες τὴν γενέσιον ἡμέραν τοῦ παιδίου, Ant. xii. 4, 7, have no bearing upon the question: for γενέσιος ἡμέρα never meant, nor could mean, anything else than the birthday. See 15. ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης] This was the first evening : the feeding of the multitude took place between the two evenings. Exod. xii. 6, Levit. xxiii. 5, and below, v. 23. а 23. ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος κατ' ἰδίαν προσεύξασθαι] This is a remarkable testimony to the human nature of Jesus. Why did he pray? Luke, iii. 21, 22, has told us: he prayed for the Holy Spirit of God, which was given in answer to his prayer: Luke iv. 1, Joh. iii. 34. Jesus was JEHOVAH: but he became ἄνθρωπος and in order that he might be able συμπαθῆσαι ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν, Heb. iv. 15, he ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτὸν, Phil. ii. 7, i. e. disrobed himself of all the glorious attributes of JEHOVAH, and became the humblest of men. Ανέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος προσεύξασθαι· words which can have only one meaning, and which shew, that, unless the prayer was a mere counterfeit, Jesus required to be continually renewed by God's Holy Spirit : herein ἡμῖν ὑπολιμπάνων ὑπογραμμὸν, ἵνα ἐπακολουθήσωμεν τοῖς ἴχνεσιν αὐτοῦ. 1 Pet. ii. 21. 25. The common reading here is ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, and in v. 26, ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν. But Tischendorf reads in v. 25, ἦλθε πρὸς αὐτοὺς—περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν· and in v. 26, ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσ σης: and this reading, which has the authority of some of the best MSS., seems to be preferable to the other: for the expression ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν is due to the verb ἦλθεν or ἀπῆλθε, which comes before it. Jesus came down from the mountain ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, περιπατῶν πρὸς αὐτούς. But the disciples saw him ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης περιπατοῦντα. This is like Eupolis, cited Schol. Ar. Αν. 1297. Meineke ii. 511. Ὁ Συρακόσιος δ ̓ ἔοικεν ἥνικ ̓ ἂν λέγῃ, τοῖς κυνιδίοισι τοῖσιν ἐπὶ τῶν τειχίων· ἀναβὰς γὰρ ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμ ̓ ὑλακτεῖ περιτρέχων. So again we read in v. 28, ἐλθεῖν πρός σε ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα· and in ν. 29, καταβὰς περιεπάτησεν ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα. And so ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ Σωκράτους ἀφήλατο Ar. Nub. 147, i. e. leapt on to the head of Socrates. Otherwise is Mat. xxvi. 64. ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ· i. e. coming on the clouds, as on a chariot. 28. εἰ σὺ εἶ, κέλευσόν με πρός σε ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα] But what do these words mean ? Let us see. First, then, it appears that Peter was unwilling to trust to what might be an optical illusion, and therefore calls upon his Master to give a sign of his presence. Jesus evidently approved of this, and gave the sign for which Peter asked. But there was another reason why Jesus should comply with Peter's request. For the words of Peter are symbolical: κελευσόν με πρός σε ἐλθεῖν. Now Jesus bids all come to him : δεῦτε πρὸς ἐμὲ πάντες, Mat. xi. 28. καὶ τὸν ἐρχόμενον πρός με οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω ἔξω, Joh. vi. 37. Besides which, Peter offers to come ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα, which were now violently agitated: which was an additional reason why Jesus should invite him to come on : ὅτι διὰ πολλῶν θλίψεων δεῖ ἡμᾶς εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασι λείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Acts xiv. 22. The agitated waters are symbolical of the troubles of this life. e.g. οἷός σε χειμὼν καὶ κακῶν τρικυμία Adversis rerum immersabilis undis. Aesch. Pr. V. 1015. Horat. Ep. i. 2. 22. So Psalm xlii. 7, and lxxxviii. 7, and Jonah ii. 3. Accordingly, Jesus said, Come. Then Peter began to walk over the waves toward Jesus. So far, he had done all well. He was not wanting in zeal for his Master. He began to walk towards him but he could not reach him. 30. βλέπων δὲ τὸν ἄνεμον ἰσχυρὸν, ἐφοβήθη] His courage forsook him, when he saw the violence of the wind. Here was an ominous prefiguration of the subsequent history of Peter's life. The symbol is easy. The wind agitates the water, therefore symbolises the Spirit of trial and persecution. Mat. vii. 25, 27. Thus Peter shewed himself to be one of those who ev Kaιρ TELраσμоû ápίoravraι. Luke viii. 13. Mat. xiii. 21. But in the words of Matthew there are distinct notes of reference to other passages in Peter's life. He was frightened when he saw the wind loxupóv. So it was afterwards, when aλos Tis, one of whom history has not preserved the name, dioxupitero, saying, Surely he too was with him. Luke xxii. 59. Moreover ἄνεμος is a symbol of διδασκαλία· Ephes. iv. 14, ἵνα μηκέτι ὦμεν νήπιοι, κλυδωνιζόμενοι καὶ περιφερόμενοι παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας. These words exactly describe what Peter is said to have done upon another occasion, Gal. ii. 12: ὑπέστελλε καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτὸν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς. Peter was frightened by the ἄνεμος of those who came from James. See also James, i. 6. The walking on the water, needs no explanation: nothing is too hard for JEHOVAH: Gen. xviii. 14. But the whole narrative affords a remarkable illustration of what Jesus says in another place: èàv ἔχητε πίστιν—οὐδὲν ἀδυνατήσει ὑμῖν. Mat. xvii. 20. Here Peter shewed himself ¿λуóniσтov, and therefore what had been perfectly easy, became impossible: Tŷ yàp tíotei éotýkaтe 2 Cor. i. 24. But besides the natural and obvious meaning of the events which are related in this chapter, they have a further symbolical meaning which is of the highest interest. For, First, with regard to the feeding of the five thousand, it may be observed that it took place between the two evenings: a circumstance which is distinctly mentioned by Matthew, but by him alone; compare vs. 15, and 23. The narrative of Mark, c. vi, is consistent with Matthew, but is not equally precise in its language. This might be expected; Matthew was an eye-witness of the whole transaction: Mark related what he had heard. Now between the two evenings was the time for killing the Paschal Lamb; Exod. xii. 6, Levit. xxiii. 5. Thus the feeding of the five thousand appears to symbolise the last Passover. Jesus died between the two evenings: i.e. soon after three o'clock P.M. Mat. xxvii. 46, 50. And although five thousand and more were fed out of five loaves and two fishes, and every one ate as much as he liked, still there was a large surplus: which seems to mean that the righteousness of Jesus Christ is more : than enough, and much more than enough, for all those who will partake of the benefit of his Atonement. There is no limit to the wealth of JEHOVAH. In fact, the surplus food after feeding the five thousand, was greater than the original quantity. The stores of JEHOVAH not only are not exhausted, but actually seem to increase by subtraction from them. And there is a mysterious meaning in the descriptions of the fragments that remained over, in this, and in the following miracle, c. xv. 33. After the feeding of the five thousand, the surplus food filled twelve kopivovs, or panniers this circumstance is mentioned, and the same word Kópos is used, by all four Evangelists. But after the feeding of the four thousand, Mat. xv, Mar. viii, the surplus food is said to have filled seven σrvpidas, or baskets. Matthew and Mark are careful to mention this circumstance, and to use the same word, σTuρidas the other Evangelists do not mention the feeding of the four thousand. It is impossible to suppose that a verbal distinction, so accurately observed by independent writers, was accidental or unmeaning. How then are we to interpret it? And here we must observe that both kópios and σnupìs are old Greek words: e.g. καὶ τοὺς κοφίνους ἅπαντας ἐμπίπλη πτερῶν· Ar. Av. 1310. But at the time when the Gospels were written, the kópos seems to have been a part of the furniture of the mendicant Jew: Judaeis quorum cophinus foenumque supellex. Juvenal, iii. 14. cophino foenoque relicto, Arcanam Judaea tremens mendicat in aurem. Id. vi. 542. Besides which, the kópos carries with it an allusion to the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt. Ps. lxxx. 7. ai xeîpes avτoû ev Tô kopivų ėdoúλevorav and Sidonius, cited by Ruperti in Juv. iii. 14: "Ordinis res est, ut Aegyptius Pharao incedat cum diademate, Israelita cum cophino." Then it must be observed that the five thousand were fed first, the four thousand afterwards: thereby symbolising the Word of God, which was to be preached to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile: Acts xiii. 46, Rom. i. 16. Thus the twelve kópio that remained over at the first feeding, appear to be reserved for the dwdeкápuλov of the house of Israel: Acts xxvi. 7. The word kópios is not elsewhere used in N. T. except with reference to the feeding of the five thousand. On the other hand, the seven σrupides, which remained over at the second feeding, appear to be reserved for the Gentiles; who are afterwards mentioned as consisting of seven ekkλnoia, Apoc. i. 4. The word σnupis is used by Matthew and Mark with reference to |