Chapter 29 | Table
of Contents | Chapter 31
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
THE ASCENT: FROM THE RIVER JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF
THE NIGHT OF MIRACLES ON THE LAKE OF GENNESARET.
(St. Matthew 14:22-36; St. Mark 6:45-56; St. John 6:15-21)
THE last question of the Baptist, spoken in public, had been:
'Art Thou the Coming One, or look we for another?' It had, in part, been
answered, as the murmur had passed through the ranks: 'This One is truly the
Prophet, the Coming One!' So, then, they had no longer to wait, nor to look for
another! And this 'Prophet' was Israel's long expected Messiah. What this would
imply to the people, in the intensity and longing of the great hope which, for
centuries, nay, far beyond the time of Ezra, had swayed their hearts, it is
impossible fully to conceive. Here, then, was the Great Reality at last before
them. He, on Whose teaching they had hung entranced, was 'the Prophet,' nay,
more, 'the Coming One:' He Who was coming all those many centuries, and yet had
not come till now. Then, also, was He more than a Prophet - a King: Israel's
King, the King of the world. An irresistible impulse seized the people. They
would proclaim Him King, then and there; and as they knew, probably from
previous utterances, perhaps when similar movements had to be checked, that He
would resist, they would constrain Him to declare Himself, or at least to be
proclaimed by them. Can we wonder at this; or that thoughts of a Messianic
worldly kingdom should have filled, moved, and influenced to discipleship a
Judas; or that, with such a representative of their own thoughts among the
disciples, the rising waves of popular excitement should have swollen into the
'Jesus therefore, perceiving that they were about to come, and
to take Him by force, that they might make Him King,1
withdrew again into the mountain, Himself alone,' or, as it might be rendered,
though not quite in the modern usage of the expression, 'became an anchorite
again . . . Himself alone.'2
This is another of those sublime contrasts, which render it well-nigh
inconceivable to regard this history otherwise than as true and Divine. Yet
another is the manner in which He stilled the multitude, and the purpose for
which He became the lonely Anchorite on the mountain-top. He withdrew to pray;
and He stilled the people, and sent them, no doubt solemnised, to their homes,
by telling them that He withdrew to pray. And He did pray till far on, 'when
the (second) evening had come,'3
and the first stars shone out in the deep blue sky over the Lake of Galilee,
with the far lights twinkling and trembling on the other side. And yet another
sublime contrast - as He constrained the disciples to enter the ship, and that
ship, which bore those who had been sharers in the miracle, could not make way
against storm and waves, and was at last driven out of its course. And yet
another contrast - as He walked on the storm-tossed waves and subdued them. And
yet another, and another - for is not all this history one sublime contrast to
the seen and the thought of by men, but withal most true and Divine in the
sublimeness of these contrasts?
1. Note here the want of the article: ina
poihswsin auton basilea. We owe this notice to the Fourth Gospel, and it is in marked inconsistency with the theory of its late Ephesian authority.
2. St. John vi. 15.
3. St. Matt. xiv. 23.
For whom and for what He prayed, alone on that mountain, we
dare not, even in deepest reverence, inquire. Yet we think, in connection with
it, of the Passover, the Manna, the Wilderness, the Lost Sheep, the Holy
Supper, the Bread which is His Flesh, and the remnant in the Baskets to be
carried to those afar off, and then also of the attempt to make Him a King, in
all its spiritual unreality, ending in His View with the betrayal, the denial,
and the cry: 'We have no King but C�sar.' And as He prayed, the faithful stars
in the heavens shone out. But there on the Lake, where the bark which bore His
disciples made for the other shore, 'a great wind' 'contrary to them' was rising.
And still He was 'alone on the land,' but looking out into the evening after
them, as the ship was 'in the midst of the sea,' and they toiling and
'distressed in rowing.'
Thus far, to the utmost verge of their need, but not farther.
The Lake is altogether about forty furlongs or stadia (about six miles) wide,
and they had as yet reached little more than half the distance (twenty-five or
thirty furlongs). Already it was 'the fourth watch of the night.' There was
some difference of opinion among the Jews, whether the night should be divided
into three, or (as among the Romans) into four watches. The latter (which would
count the night at twelve instead of nine hours) was adopted by many.4
In any case it would be what might be termed the morning-watch,5
when the well-known Form seemed to be passing them, 'walking upon the sea.'
There can, at least, be no question that such was the impression, not only of
one or another, but that all saw Him. Nor yet can there be here question of any
natural explanation. Once more the truth of the event must be either absolutely
admitted, or absolutely rejected.6
The difficulties of the latter hypothesis, which truly cuts the knot, would be
very formidable. Not only would the origination of this narrative, as given by
two of the Synoptists and by St. John, be utterly unaccountable - neither
meeting Jewish expectancy, nor yet supposed Old Testament precedent - but, if
legend it be, it seems purposeless and irrational. Moreover, there is this
noticeable about it, as about so many of the records of the miraculous in the
New Testament, that the writers by no means disguise from themselves or their
readers the obvious difficulties involved. In the present instance they tell
us, that they regarded His Form moving on the water as 'a spirit,' and cried
out for fear; and again, that the impression produced by the whole scene, even
on them that had witnessed the miracle of the previous evening, was one of
overwhelming astonishment. This walking on the water, then, was even to them
within the domain of the truly miraculous, and it affected their minds equally,
perhaps even more than ours, from the fact that in their view so much, which to
us seems miraculous, lay within the sphere of what might be expected in the
course of such a history.
4. Ber. 3 b.
5. Probably from 3 to about 6 a.m.
6. Even the beautiful allegory into which Keim would resolve it - that the Church in her need knows not, whether her Saviour may not come in the last watch of the night - entirely surrenders the whole narrative. And why should three Evangelists have invented such a story, in order to teach or rather disguise a doctrine, which is otherwise so clearly expressed throughout the whole New Testament, as to form one of its primary principles? Volkmar
(Marcus, p. 372) regards this whole history as an allegory of St. Paul's
activity among the Gentiles! Strange in that case, that it was omitted in the Gospel by St. Luke. But the whole of that section of Volkmar's book (beginning at p. 327) contains an extra-ordinary congeries, of baseless hypotheses, of which it were difficult to say, whether the language is more painfully irreverent or the outcome more extravagant.
On the other hand, this miracle stands not isolated, but forms
one of a series of similar manifestations. It is closely connected both with
what had passed on the previous evening, and what was to follow; it is told
with a minuteness of detail, and with such marked absence of any attempt at
gloss, adornment, apology, or self-glorification, as to give the narrative
(considered simply as such) the stamp of truth; while, lastly, it contains much
that lifts the story from the merely miraculous into the domain of the sublime
and deeply spiritual. As regards what may be termed its credibility, this at
least may again be stated, that this and similar instances of 'dominion over
the creature,' are not beyond the range of what God had originally assigned to
man, when He made him a little lower than the angels, and crowned him with
glory and honour, made him to have dominion over the works of His Hands, and
all things were put under his feet.7
Indeed, this 'dominion over the sea' seems to exhibit the Divinely human rather
than the humanly Divine aspect of His Person,8
if such distinction may be lawfully made. Of the physical possibility of such a
miracle - not to speak of the contradiction in terms which this implies - no
explanation can be attempted, if it were only on the ground that we are utterly
ignorant of the conditions under which it took place.
7. Ps. viii. 5, 6; comp. Hebr. ii. 6-9.
8. On the other hand, the miraculous feeding of the multitude seems to exhibit rather the humanly-Divine aspect of His Person.
This much, however, deserves special notice, that there is one
marked point of difference between the account of this miracle and what will be
found a general characteristic in legendary narratives. In the latter, the
miraculous, however extraordinary, is the expected; it creates no surprise, and
it is never mistaken for something that might have occurred in the ordinary
course of events. For, it is characteristic of the mythical that the miraculous
is not only introduced in the most realistic manner, but forms the essential
element in the conception of things. This is the very raison d'�tre of
the myth or legend, when it attaches itself to the real and historically true.
Now the opposite is the case in the present narrative. Had it been mythical or
legendary, we should have expected that the disciples would have been described
as immediately recognising the Master as He walked on the sea, and worshipping
Him. Instead of this, they 'are troubled' and 'afraid.' 'They supposed it was
(this in accordance with popular Jewish notions), and 'cried out for fear.'
Even afterwards, when they had received Him into the ship, 'they were sore
amazed in themselves,' and 'understood not,' while those in the ship (in
contradistinction to the disciples), burst forth into an act of worship. This
much then is evident, that the disciples expected not the miraculous; that they
were unprepared for it; that they had explained it on what to them seemed
natural grounds; and that, even when convinced of its reality, the impression
of wonder, which it made, was of the deepest. And this also follows is a
corollary, that, when they recorded it, it was not in ignorance that they were
writing that which sounded strangest, and which would affect those who should
read it with even much greater wonderment - we had almost written, unbelief -
than those who themselves had witnessed it.
9. Literally, a phantasma. This word is only used in this narrative (St. Matt. xiv. 26 and St. Mark vi. 49.)
Nor let it be forgotten, that what had just been remarked about
this narrative holds equally true in regard to other miracles recorded in the
New Testament. Thus, even so fundamental an article of the faith as the
resurrection of Christ is described as having come upon the disciples
themselves as a surprise - not only wholly unexpected, but so incredible, that
it required repeated and indisputable evidence to command their acknowledgment.
And nothing can be more plain, than that St. Paul himself was not only aware of
the general resistance which the announcement of such an event would raise,10
but that he felt to the full the difficulties of what he so firmly believed,11
and made the foundation of all his preaching.12
Indeed, the elaborate exposition of the historical grounds, on which he had
arrived at the conviction of reality,13
affords an insight into the mental difficulties which it must at first have
presented to him. And a similar inference may be drawn from the reference of
St. Peter to the difficulties connected with the Biblical predictions about the
end of the world.1415
10. Acts xxvi. 8.
11. 1 Cor. xv. 12-19.
12. Acts xvii. 31, 32.
13. 1 Cor. xv. 1-8.
14. 2 Pet. iii. 4.
15. The authenticity of the Second Epistle of St. Peter is here taken for granted, but the drift of the argument would be the same, to whatever authorship it be ascribed.
It is not necessary to pursue this subject further. Its bearing
on the miracle of Christ's walking on the Sea of Galilee will be sufficiently
manifest. Yet other confirmatory evidence may be gathered from a closer study
of the details of the narrative. When Jesus 'constrained the disciples to enter
into the boat, and to go before Him unto the other side,'16
they must have thought, that His purpose was to join them by land, since there
was no other boat there, save that in which they crossed the Lake.17
And possibly such had been his intention, till He saw their difficulty, if not
danger, from the contrary wind.18
This must have determined Him to come to their help. And so this miracle also
was not a mere display of power, but, being caused by their need, had a moral
object. And when it is asked, how from the mountain-height by the Lake He could
have seen at night where the ship was labouring so far on the Lake,19
it must surely have been forgotten that the scene is laid quite shortly before
the Passover (the 15th of Nisan), when, of course, the moon would shine on an
unclouded sky, all the more brightly on a windy spring-night, and light up the
waters far across.
16. St. Matt. xiv. 22.
17. St. John vi. 22.
18. Weiss (Matthaus-Evang. p. 372) sees a gross contradiction between what seems implied as to His original purpose and His walking on the sea, and hence rejects the narrative. Such are the assumptions of negative criticism. But it seems forgotten that, according to St. Matt. xiv. 24, the journey seems at first to have been fairly prosperous.
19. Weiss (u. s.) certainly argues on the impossibility of His having seen the boat so far out on the Lake.
We can almost picture to ourselves the weird scene. The Christ
is on that hill-top in solitary converse with His Father - praying after that
miraculous breaking of bread: fully realising all that it implied to Him of
self-surrender, of suffering, and of giving Himself as the Food of the World,
and all that it implied to us of blessing and nourishment; praying also - with
that scene fresh on His mind, of their seeking to make Him, even by force,
their King - that the carnal might become spiritual reality (as in symbol it
would be with the Breaking of Bread). Then, as He rises from His knees, knowing
that, alas, it could not and would not be so to the many, He looks out over the
Lake after that little company, which embodied and represented all there yet
was of His Church, all that would really feed on the Bread from Heaven, and own
Him their true King. Without presumption, we may venture to say, that there
must have been indescribable sorrow and longing in His Heart, as His gaze was
bent across the track which the little boat would follow. As we view it, it
seems all symbolical: the night, the moonlight, the little boat, the contrary
wind, and then also the lonely Saviour after prayer looking across to where the
boatmen vainly labour to gain the other shore. As in the clear moonlight just
that piece of water stands out, almost like burnished silver, with all else in
shadows around, the sail-less mast is now rocking to and fro, without moving
forward. They are in difficulty, in danger: and the Saviour cannot pursue His
journey on foot by land; He must come to their help, though it be across the
water. It is needful, and therefore it shall be upon the water; and so
the storm and unsuccessful toil shall not prevent their reaching the shore, but
shall also be to them for teaching concerning Him and His great power, and
concerning His great deliverance; such teaching as, in another aspect of it,
had been given them in symbol in the miraculous supply of food, with all that
it implied (and not to them only, but to us also) of precious comfort and
assurance, and as will for ever keep the Church from being overwhelmed by fear
in the stormy night on the Lake of Galilee, when the labour of our oars cannot
make way for us.
And they also who were in the boat must have been agitated by
peculiar feelings. Against their will they had been 'constrained' by the Lord
to embark and quit the scene; just as the multitude, under the influence of the
great miracle, were surrounding their Master, with violent insistence to
proclaim him the Messianic King of Israel. Not only a Judas Iscariot, but all
of them, must have been under the strongest excitement: first of the great
miracle, and then of the popular movement. It was the crisis in the history of
the Messiah and of His Kingdom. Can we wonder, that, when the Lord in very
mercy bade them quit a scene which could only have misled them, they were
reluctant, nay, that it almost needed violence of His part? And yet - the more
we consider it - was it not most truly needful for them, that they should
leave? But, on the other hand, in this respect also, does there seem a 'need
be' for His walking upon the sea, that they might learn not only His Almighty
Power, and (symbolically) that He ruled the rising waves; but that, in their
disappointment at His not being a King, they might learn that He was a
King - only in a far higher, truer sense than the excited multitude would have
Thus we can imagine the feelings with which they had pushed the
boat from the shore, and then eagerly looked back to descry what passed there.
But soon the shadows of night were enwrapping all objects at a distance, and
only the bright moon overhead shone on the track behind and before. And now the
breeze from the other side of the Lake, of which they may have been unaware
when they embarked on the eastern shore, had freshened into violent, contrary
wind. All energies must have been engaged to keep the boat's head towards the
shore.20 Even so
it seemed as if they could make no progress, when all at once, in the track
that lay behind them, a Figure appeared. As it passed onwards over the water,
seemingly upborne by the waves as they rose, not disappearing as they fell, but
carried on as they rolled, the silvery moon laid upon the trembling waters the
shadows of that Form as it moved, long and dark, on their track. St. John uses
which shows us in the pale light, those in the boat, intently, fixedly,
fearfully, gazing at the Apparition as It neared still closer and closer. We
must remember their previous excitement, as also the presence, and, no doubt,
the superstitious suggestions of the boatman, when we think how they cried out
for fear, and deemed It an Apparition. And 'He would have passed by them,'22
as He so often does in our case - bringing them, indeed, deliverance, pointing
and smoothing their way, but not giving them His known Presence, if they had
not cried out. But their fear, which made them almost hesitate to receive Him
into the boat,23
even though the outcome of error and superstition, brought His ready sympathy
and comfort, in language which has so often, and in all ages, converted foolish
fears of misapprehension into gladsome, thankful assurance: 'It is I, be not
20. According to St. Matt. xiv. 24, they seem only to have encountered the full force of the wind when they were about the middle of the Lake. We imagine that soon after they embarked there may have been a fresh breeze from the other side of the Lake, which by and by rose into a violent contrary wind.
21. St. John, in distinction to the Synoptists, here uses the expression qewrein (St. John vi. 19), which in
the Gospels has the distinctive meaning of fixed, earnest, and intent gaze, mostly outward, but sometimes also inward, in the sense of earnest and attentive consideration. The use of this word as distinguished from merely seeing, is so important for the better understanding of the New Testament, that every reader should mark it. We accordingly append a list of the passages in the Gospels where this word is used: St. Matt. xxvii. 55; xxviii. 1; St. Mark iii. 11; v. 15, 38; xii. 41; xv. 40, 47; xvi. 4; St. Luke x. 18; xiv. 29; xxi. 6; xxiii. 35, 48; xxiv. 37, 39; St. John ii. 23; iv. 19; vi. 2 (Lachm. and Treg.),
19, 40, 62; vii. 3; viii. 51; ix. 8; x. 12; xii. 19, 45; xiv. 17, 19; xvi. 10, 16, 17, 19; xvii. 24; xx. 6, 12, 14. It will thus be seen, that the expression is more frequently used by St. John than in the other Gospels, and it is there also that its distinctive meaning is of greatest importance.
22. St. Mark vi. 48.
23. This seems to me implied in the expression, St. John vi. 21: 'Then they were willing to take Him into the ship.' Some negative critics have gone so far as to see in this graphic hint a contradiction to the statements of the Synoptists. (See L�cke, Comment. �. d.
Evang. Joh. ii. pp. 120-122.).
And they were no longer afraid, though truly His walking upon
the waters might seem more awesome than any 'apparition.' The storm in their
hearts, like that on the Lake, was commanded by His Presence. We must still
bear in mind their former excitement, now greatly intensified by what they had
just witnessed, in order to understand the request of Peter: 'Lord, if it be
Thou, bid me come to Thee on the water.' They are the words of a man, whom the
excitement of the moment has carried beyond all reflection. And yet this
combination of doubt ('if it be Thou'), with presumption ('bid me come on the
water'), is peculiarly characteristic of Peter. He is the Apostle of Hope - and
hope is a combination of doubt and presumption, but also their transformation.
With reverence be it said, Christ could not have left the request ungranted,
even though it was the outcome of yet unreconciled and untransformed doubt and
presumption. He would not have done so, or doubt would have remained doubt
untransformed; and He could not have done so, without also correcting it, or
presumption would have remained presumption untransformed, which is only upward
growth, without deeper rooting in inward spiritual experience. And so He bade
him come upon the water,24
to transform his doubt, but left him, unassured from without, to his own
feelings as he saw the wind,25
to transform his presumption; while by stretching out His Hand to save him from
sinking, and by the words of correction which He spake, He did actually so
point to their transformation in that hope, of which St. Peter is the special
representative, and the preacher in the Church.
24. As to the physical possibility of it, we have to refer to our former remarks.
25. The word 'boisterous' must be struck out as an interpolated gloss.
And presently, as they two came into the boat,26
the wind ceased, and immediately the ship was at the land. But 'they that were
in the boat' - apparently in contradistinction to the disciples,27
though the latter must have stood around in sympathetic reverence - 'worshipped
Him, saying, Of a truth Thou art the Son of God.' The first full public
confession this of the fact, and made not by the disciples, but by others. With
the disciples it would have meant something far deeper. But as from the lips of
these men it seems, like the echo of what had passed between them on that
memorable passage across the Lake. They also must have mingled in the
conversation, as the boat had pushed off from the shore on the previous
evening, when they spake of the miracle of the feeding, and then of the popular
attempt to proclaim Him Messianic King, of which they knew not yet the final
issue, since they had been 'constrained to get into the boat,' while the Master
remained behind. They would speak of all that He was and had done, and how the
very devils had proclaimed Him to be the 'Son of God,' on that other shore,
close by where the miracle of feeding had taken place. Perhaps, having been
somewhat driven out of their course, they may have passed close to the very
spot, and, as they pointed to it recalled the incident. And this designation of
'Son of God,' with the worship which followed, would come much more readily,
because with much more superficial meaning, to the boatmen than to the
disciples. But in them, also, the thought was striking deep root; and
presently, by the Mount of Transfiguration, would it be spoken in the name of
all by Peter, not as demon- nor as man-taught, but as taught of Christ's Father
Who is in Heaven.
26. I cannot see (with Meyer) any variation in the narrative in St. John vi. 21. The expression, 'they were willing to take him into the ship,' certainly does not imply that, after, the incident of Peter's failure, He did not actually enter the boat.
27. Weiss (p. 373) assures us that this view is 'impossible;' but on no better ground than that no others than ten disciples are mentioned in St. Matt. xiv. 22, as if it had been necessary to mention the embarkation of the boatmen.
Yet another question suggests itself. The events of the night
are not recorded by St. Luke - perhaps because they did not come within his
general view-plan of that Life; perhaps from reverence, because neither he, nor
his teacher St. Paul, were within that inner circle, with which the events of
that night were connected rather in the way of reproof than otherwise. At any
rate, even negative criticism cannot legitimately draw any adverse inference
from it, in view of its record not only by two of the Synoptists, but in the
Fourth Gospel. St. Mark also does not mention the incident concerning St.
Peter; and this we can readily understand from his connection with that
Apostle. Of the two eyewitnesses, St. John and St. Matthew, the former also is
silent on that incident. On any view of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, it
could not have been from ignorance, either of its occurrence, or else of its
record by St. Matthew. Was it among those 'many other things which Jesus did,'
which were not written by him, since their complete chronicle would have
rendered a Gospel-sketch impossible? Or did it lie outside that special
conception of his Gospel, which as regards its details, determined the
insertion or else the omission of certain incidents? Or was there some reason
for this omission connected with the special relation of John to Peter? And,
lastly, why was St. Matthew in this instance more detailed than the others, and
alone told it with such circumstantiality? Was it that it had made such deep
impression on his own mind; had he somehow any personal connection with it; or
did he feel, as if this bidding of Peter to come to Christ out of the ship and
on the water had some close inner analogy with his own call to leave the
custom-house and follow Christ? Such, and other suggestions which may arise can
only be put in the form of questions. Their answer awaits the morning and the
THE END OF THE FIRST
EXPLANATORY NOTES AND
CORRECTIONS FOR THE FIRST VOLUME
Page 7, note 1: i.e. the mind of the one was settled
like men, that of the others unsettled as women.
Page 12, note 2: 'Diety' = 'Shekhinah.'
Page 35, note 3: See Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. p. 323, note
Page 97, note 1. This, of course, is and inference from
the whole history and relation there indicated.
Page 174, note 1a, line 7, read: 'Hath He said, and shall He not do it?' being the quotation from Numb. xxiii. 19, which is intended as an answer to the pretension. The rendering of the passage by the learned Dr. Schwab is untenable.
Page 268, note 3: the quotation
is taken from the unmutilated and sublime citation as given in R. Martini Pugio
Fidei, ed. Carpzov. p. 782. Page 271(k). This is the view of Beer, Leben Abr.
Page 292: for 'temptations' read
'temptation.' The ten temptations of Abraham are referred to in Ab. P. 3, and
enumerated in Ab. de R. N. 33 and Pirque de R. El. 26. Page 312h . Of course,
this is the expression of a later Rabbi, but it refers to Pharisaic
Page 358c. So Lightfoot infers
from the passage; but as the Rabbi who speaks is etymologising and almost
punning, the inference should perhaps not be pressed.
Page 384, note 1: In Vayy. R. 30,
the expression refers to the different condition of Israel after the time
described in Hos. iii. 4, or in that of Hezekiah, or at the deliverance of
Mordecai. In Bemid. R. 11, the expression is connected with their ingathering
of proselytes in fulfilment of Gen. xii. 2.
Page 387, lines 17 and 18. On
this subject, however, other opinions are also entertained. Comp. Sukk. 5 a.
Page 443, as to priest guilty of
open sin, the details, which I refrained from giving, are mentioned in Duschak,
Jud. Kultus, p. 270.
Page 444, note 3. This, of
course, in regard to an unlearned priest. See discussion in Duschak, u.s. p.
Page 447(c). Ber. 6 b.
Probably this was to many the only ground for reward, since the discourse was
the Pirqa, or on the Halakah. Ib.(e) Taan. 16 a: though the remark refers to
the leader of the devotions on fast-days, it is also applied to the preacher by
Duschak, p. 285.
Page 505, note 3, see correction
of p. 174, note (u.s.).
Page 514, note 2: in Taan. 20 a
the story of the miracle is cold which gave him the name Nicodemus.
Page 536(g). I refer to the
thanksgiving of Nechunyah. See also the prayer put into the mouth of Moses,
Ber. 32 a. And although such prayers as Ber. 16 b, 17 a,
are sublime, they are, in my view, not to be compared with that of Christ in
its fulness and breadth.
Page 539(c). sanh. 100 b is, of course, not
verbatim worded. This would be in the second sentence: 'Possibly on the morrow
he will not be, and have been found caring for a world which is not his.'
Page 557b, read in text: the common formula at funerals
in Palestine was, 'Weep with him,' &c.
Page 597, note, line 9 from bottom: for 'our' 'their'
and for 'us' read 'them.'
Page 620, line 4 from bottom, 'The dress of the wife,'
&c., read 'The clothing,' the meaning being that in the alternative between
saving the life of the ignorant and clothing the wife of the learned (if she
had no clothes), the latter is of more importance.
622, margin, delete the second' in .
29 | Table
of Contents | Chapter