Lives of the Apostles of Jesus Christ

John; the Son of Zebedee

His Character

This other son of Zebedee and of “thunder,” whenever any description of the apostles has been given, has been by most religious writers generally characterized as a mild, amiable person, and is thus figured in strong contrast with the bold and often bitter spirit of Peter. The circumstance that he is described as “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” has doubtless done much to cause the almost universal impression which has prevailed, as to the meekness of his disposition. But this is certainly without just reason; for there is no ground for supposing that any peculiar softness was essential to the formation of the character for which the Redeemer could feel a strong affection. On the contrary, the almost universal behavior of the apostolic band, seems to show that the natural characteristics which he marked as betraying in them the deeper qualities that would best fit them for his service, and qualify them as the sharers of his intimate instruction and affection, were more decidedly of the stern and fiery order, than of the meek and gentle. Nor is there any circumstance recorded of John, whether authentic or fabulous, that can justify the supposition that he was an exception to these general, natural characteristics of the apostles; but instances sufficiently numerous are given in the gospels, to make it clear, that he was not altogether the soft and gentle creature, that has been commonly presented as his true image.

It has been commonly supposed that he was the youngest of all the apostles; nor is there any reason to disbelieve an opinion harmonizing, as this does, with all that is recorded of him in the New Testament, as well as with the undivided voices of all tradition. That he was younger than James, may be reasonably concluded from the circumstance that he is always mentioned after him, though his importance in the history of the foundation of the Christian faith might seem to justify an inversion of this order; and in the life of James, it has already been represented as probable, that he too must have been quite young, being the son of a father who was still so much in the freshness of his vigor, as to endure the toils of a peculiarly laborious and dangerous business. On this point, also, the opinion even of tradition is entitled to some respect, on the ground taken by an author quoted in the life of Peter,——that though we consider tradition as a notorious liar, yet we may give some attention to its reports, because even a liar may sometimes speak the truth, where he has no object in deceiving us.

The youngest of the disciples.——All that can be said on this opinion is, that it is possible, and if the testimony of the Fathers were worth the slightest consideration on any historical question concerning the apostles, it might be called even probable; but no early writer alludes to his age at all, till Jerome, who very decidedly calls John, “the youngest of all the apostles.” Several later Fathers make the same assertion, but the voice of antiquity has already been shown to be worth very little, when it is not heard within three centuries of the events on which it offers its testimony. But at any rate the assertion of John’s juniority is not improbable.

A great deal of violent discussion has been lavished on the almost equally important question, whether John was ever married. The earliest established testimony on this point is that of Tertullian, who numbers John among those who had restrained themselves from matrimony for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Testimony as late as the third century, however, on an opinion which favored monastic views, is worth nothing. But on the strength of this, many Fathers have made great use of John, as an instance of celibacy, accordant with monastic principles. Epiphanius, Jerome and Augustin allude frequently to the circumstance, the latter Father in particular insisting that John was engaged to be married when he was called, but gave up the lady, to follow Jesus. Some ingenious modern theologians have even improved upon this so far as to maintain that the marriage of Cana in Galilee was that of John, but that he immediately left his wife after the miracle. (See Lampe, Prolegomena, I. i. 13, notes.)

HIS FAMILY AND BUSINESS.

The authentic history of the life of this apostle must also necessarily be very brief; most of the prominent incidents which concern him, having already been abundantly described in the preceding lives. But there are particulars which have not been so fully entered into, some of which concern this apostle exclusively, while in others he is mentioned only in conjunction with his brother and friends; and these may all, with great propriety, be more fully given in this life, since his eminence, his writings, and long protracted labors, make him a proper subject for a minute disquisition.

Being the son of Zebedee and Salome, as has already been mentioned in the life of his brother, he shared in the low fortunes and laborious life of a fisherman, on the lake of Gennesaret. This occupation indeed, did not necessarily imply the very lowest rank in society, as is evident from the fact that the Jews held no useful occupation to be beneath the dignity of a respectable person, or even a learned man. Still the nature of their business was such, as to render it improbable that they had adopted it with any other view than that of maintaining themselves by it, or of enlarging their property, though perhaps not of earning a support which they had no other means whatever of procuring. It has been said, that doubtless, there were many other inhabitants of the shores of the lake, who occasionally occupied themselves in fishing, and yet were by no means obliged to employ themselves constantly in that avocation. But the brief statement of circumstances in the gospels is enough to show that such an equipage of boats and nets, and such steady employment all night, were not indicative of anything else than a regular devotion of time to it, in the way of business. Yet that Zebedee was not a man in very low circumstances, as to property, is quite manifest from Mark’s statement, that when they were called, they left their father in the vessel, along with the “servants,” or workmen,——which implies that they carried on their fishing operations, on so extended a scale, as to have a number of men in their service, and probably had a vessel of considerable size, since it needed such a plurality of hands to manage it, and use the apparatus of the business to advantage; a circumstance in which their condition seems to have been somewhat superior to that of Peter and Andrew, of whom no such particulars are specified,——all accounts representing them as alone, in a small vessel, which they were able to manage of themselves. The possession of some family estate is also implied, in numerous incidental allusions in the gospels; as in the fact that their mother Salome was one of those women who followed Jesus and “ministered to him of their substance” or possessions. She is also specified among those women who brought precious spices for embalming the body of Jesus. John is also mentioned in his own gospel, as having a house of his own, in which he generously supported the mother of Jesus, as if he himself had been her son, throughout the remainder of her life; an act of friendly and pious kindness to which he would not have been competent, without the possession of some property in addition to the house.

HIS EDUCATION.

There is reason to suppose, that in accordance with the established principles of parental duty among the Jews, he had learned the rudiments of the knowledge of the Mosaic law; for a proverbial sentence of the religious teachers of the nation, ranked among the vilest of mankind, that Jew, who suffered a son to grow up without being educated in the first principles, at least, of his national religion. But that his knowledge, at the time when he first became a disciple of Jesus, extended beyond a barely respectable degree of information on religious matters, there is no ground for believing; and though there is nothing which directly contradicts the idea that he may have known the alphabet, or have made some trifling advances in literary knowledge,——yet the manner in which he, together with Peter, was spoken of by the proud members of the Sanhedrim, seems to imply that they did not pretend to any knowledge whatever of literature. And the terms in which both Jesus and his disciples are constantly alluded to by the learned scribes and Pharisees, seem to show that they were all considered as utterly destitute of literary education, though, by reason of that very ignorance, they were objects of the greatest wonder to all who saw their striking displays of a religious knowledge, utterly unaccountable by a reference to anything that was known of their means of arriving at such intellectual eminence. Indeed, there seems to have been a distinct design on the part of Christ, to select for his great purpose, men whose minds were wholly free from that pride of opinion and learned arrogance, almost inseparable from the constitutions of those who had been regularly trained in the subtleties of a slavish system of theology and law. He did not seek among the trained and drilled scholars of the formal routine of Jewish dogmatism, for the instruments of regenerating a people and a world,——but among the bold, active, and intelligent, yet uneducated Galileans, whose provincial peculiarities and rudeness, moreover, in a high degree incapacitated them from taking rank among the polished scholars of the Jewish capital. Thus was it, that on the followers of Christ, could never he put the stigma of mere theological disputants; and all the gifts of knowledge, and the graces of mental power, which they displayed under his divine teachings, were totally free from the slightest suspicion of any other than a miraculous origin. Some have, indeed, attempted to conjecture, from the alleged elegance of John’s style in his gospel and epistles, that he had early received a finished education, in some one of the provincial Jewish colleges; and have even gone so far as to suggest, that probably Jairus, “the ruler of the synagogue” in Capernaum, or more properly, “the head of the school of the law,” had been his instructor,——a guess of most remarkable profundity, but one that, besides lacking all sort of evidence or probability, is furthermore made totally unnecessary, by the indubitable fact, that no signs of any such perfection of style are noticeable in any of the writings of John, so as to require any elaborate hypothesis of this kind to explain them. The greatest probability is, that all his knowledge, both of Hebrew literature and the Greek language, was acquired after the beginning of his apostolic course.

HIS NAME.

The Jews were accustomed, like most of the ancient nations of the east, to confer upon their children significant names, which were made to refer to some circumstance connected with the person’s prospects, or the hopes of his parents respecting him. In their son’s name, probably Zebedee and Salome designed to express some idea auspicious of his progress and character in after life. The name “John,” is not only common in the New Testament, but also occurs in the Hebrew scriptures in the original form “Johanan,” which bears the happy signification of “the favor of Jehovah,” or, “favored by Jehovah.” They probably had this meaning in mind when they gave the name to him, and on that account preferred it to one of less hopeful religious character; but to suppose, as some commentators have, that in conferring it, they were indued with a prophetic spirit, which for the moment directed them to the choice of an appellation expressive of the high destiny of a chosen, favored herald of the grace of God, to Israel and to the Gentiles,——is a conjecture too absurdly wild to be entertained by a sober and discreet critic for a moment. Yet there are some, who, in the rage for finding a deep meaning in the simplest matters, interpret this simple, common name, as prophetically expressive of the beginning of the reign of grace, and of the abrogation of the formal law of Moses, first announced by John the Baptist, whose testimony was first fully recorded in the gospel of John the Apostle. Such idle speculations, however, serve no useful purpose, and only bring suspicion upon more rational investigations in the same department.

HIS CALL AND DISCIPLESHIP.

The first introduction of John to Jesus, appears to be distinctly, though modestly, described by himself, in the first chapter of his gospel, where he has evidently designated himself in the third person, as “the other disciple” of John the Baptist, who accompanied Andrew on his first visit to Jesus. After this introduction above narrated, he seems to have remained near the newly found Messiah for some days, being of course, included among those disciples who were present at the marriage in Cana. He appears to have returned, soon after, to his avocation on the lake, where he, for some time, appears to have followed the business in which he had been brought up, till the word of his already adopted Master came to summon him to the actual duties of the discipleship. On the journeys that followed this call, he was engaged in no act of importance, in which he was not also associated with those disciples, in whose lives these incidents have been already fully described. On one occasion however, a solitary instance is recorded by Luke, of a remark made by John, during a conversation which took place in Capernaum, after the return from the mission through Galilee, and not long before the great journey to Jerusalem. It seems to have been at the time when Jesus was inculcating a child-like simplicity, as an essential characteristic of his followers; and the remark of John is, both by Mark and Luke, prefaced with the words,——“and John answered and said,”——though no very clear connection can be traced between what he said and the preceding words of Jesus. The passage however is interesting, as showing that John was not always most discreet in his regard for the peculiar honors of his Master,——and in the case which he refers to, had in his restrictive zeal, quite gone beyond the rules of action, by which Jesus expected him to be guided. The remark of John on this occasion was,——“Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us.” This confession betrays a spirit still strongly under the influence of worldly feelings, manifesting a perfectly natural emotion of jealousy, at the thought of any intrusion, upon what he deemed the peculiar and exclusive privilege of himself and his eleven associates in the fellowship of Christ. The high commission of subduing the malign agencies of the demoniac powers, had been specially conferred on the elect twelve, when they first went forth on the apostolic errand. This divine power, John had supposed utterly above the reach of common men, and it was therefore with no small surprise, and moreover with some indignant jealousy, that he saw a nameless person, not enrolled in the sacred band, nor even pretending to follow in any part of their train, boldly and successfully using the name of Jesus Christ, as a charm to silence the powers of darkness, and to free the victims of their evil influences. This sort of feeling was not peculiar to John, but occurs wherever there arises a similar occasion to suggest it. It has been rife among the religious, as well as the worldly, in all ages; and not a month now passes when it is not openly manifested, marring by its low influences, the noblest schemes of Christian benevolence, as well as checking the advances of human ambition. So many there are who, though imbued in some degree with the high spirit of apostolic devotion, yet, when they have marked some great field of benevolence for their efforts, are apt to regard it as their own peculiar province, and are disposed to view any action in that department of exertion as an intrusion and an encroachment on their natural rights. This feeling is the worst characteristic of ultra-sectarianism,——a spirit which would “compass sea and land,” not merely “to gain one proselyte,” but also to hinder a religious rival from the attainment of a similar purpose,——a spirit which in its modes of manifestation, and in its results, is nearer to that of the demon it aspires to expel, than to that of Him in whose name it professes to work. But that such was not the spirit of Him who went about doing good, is seen in the mild, yet earnest reply with which he met the manifestation of this haughty and jealous exclusiveness in his beloved disciple. “Forbid him not; for there is no man who can do a miracle in my name, who will lightly speak evil of me. For he who is not against us is on our part.” And then referring to the previous train of his discourse, he went on to say,——“For he who shall give you a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ, I tell you, indeed, he shall not lose his reward.” So simple were the means of manifesting a true regard for Christ, and so moderate were the services which would constitute a claim to his remembrance, and to a participation in the rights of his ministry. If the act of kindness or of apostolic ministration had been done in his name, and had answered its good purpose, this was enough to show that he who performed it was such a friend as, so far from speaking evil of Jesus, would insure the best glory of his name, though he had not attached himself in manner and form to the train of regular disciples. Jesus Christ did not require a formal profession of regular discipleship, as essential to the right of doing good in his name, or to the surety of a high and pure reward. How many are there among his professed followers in these times, who are “able to receive this saying?” There are few indeed, who, hearing it on any authority but his, would not feel disposed to reject it, at once, as a grievous heresy. Yet such was, unquestionably, the spirit, the word, and the practice of Jesus. It was enough for him to know that the weight of human woe, which called him forth on his errand of mercy, was lightened; and that the spirit before darkened and bound down by the powers of evil, was now brought out into glorious light and freedom. Most earnestly did he declare this solemn principle of catholic communion; and most distinctly did he reiterate it in a varied form. The simplest act of kindness done to the commissioned of Christ, would, of itself, constitute a certain claim to his divine favor. But, on the other hand, the least wilful injury of one sent forth from him, would at once insure the ruin of the perpetrator.

Soon after this solemn inculcation of universal charity, Jesus began to prepare his disciples for their great journey to Jerusalem; and at last having completed his preliminary arrangements, he went on his way, sending forward messengers, (James and John, as it would seem,) to secure a comfortable stopping-place, at a Samaritan village which lay on his road. These select emissaries accordingly proceeded in the execution of their honorable commission, and entering the village, announced to the inhabitants the approach of the far-famed Galilean prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, who, being then on his way to attend the great annual feast in Jerusalem, would that night deign to honor their village with his divine presence;——all which appears to have been communicated by the two messengers, with a full sense of the importance of their commission, as well as of the dignity of him whose approach they announced. But the sturdy Samaritans had not yet forgotten the rigid principles of mutual exclusiveness, which had so long been maintained between them and the Jews, with all the combined bitterness of a national and a religious quarrel; and so they doggedly refused to open their doors in hospitality to one whose “face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.” At this manifestation of sectarian and sectional bitterness, the wrath of the messengers knew no bounds, and reporting their inhospitable and scornful rejection to Jesus, the two Boanerges, with a spirit quite literally accordant with their surname, inquired, “Lord! wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them as Elijah did?” The stern prophet of the days of Ahaziah, had called down fire from heaven to the destruction of two successive bands of the insolent myrmidons of the Samaritan king; and might not the wonder-doing Son of Man, with equal vindictiveness, commission his faithful followers to invoke the thunder on the inhospitable sectaries of the modern Samaritan race? But however this sort of summary justice might suit the wrathful piety of James and his “amiably gentle” brother, it was by Jesus deemed the offspring of a spirit too far from the forgiving benevolence of his gospel, to be passed by, unrebuked. He therefore turned reprovingly to these fierce “Sons of Thunder,” with the reply,——“Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” And thus silencing their forward, destructive zeal, he quietly turned aside from the inhospitable sectarians who had refused him admission, and found entertainment in another village, where the inhabitants were free from such notions of religious exclusiveness.

So idolatrous was the reference with which many of the Fathers and ancient theologians were accustomed to regard the apostles, that they would not allow that these chosen ones of Christ ever committed any sin whatever; at least, none after their calling to be disciples. Accordingly, the most ridiculous attempts have been made to justify or excuse the faults and errors of those apostles, who are mentioned in the New Testament as having committed any act contrary to the received standards of right. Among other circumstances, even Peter’s perjured denial of his Lord, has found stubborn defenders and apologists; and among the saintly commentators of both Papist and Protestant faiths, have been found some to stand up for the immaculate soundness of James and John, in this act of wicked and foolish zeal. Ambrose of Milan, in commenting on this passage, must needs maintain that their ferocity was in accordance with approved instances of a similar character in the Old Testament. “Nec discipuli peccant,” says he, “qui legem sequuntur;” and he then refers to the instance of extemporaneous vindictive justice in Phineas, as well as to that of Elijah, which was quoted by the sons of Zebedee themselves. He argues, that, since the apostles were indued with the same high privileges as the prophets, they were in this instance abundantly justified in appealing to such authority for similar acts of vengeance. He observes, moreover, that this presumption was still farther justified in them, by the name which they had received from Jesus; “being ‘sons of thunder,’ they might fairly suppose that fire would come down from heaven at their word.” But Lampe very properly remarks, that the prophets were clearly moved to these acts of wrathful justice, by the Holy Spirit, and thereby also, were justified in a vindictiveness, which might otherwise be pronounced cruel and bloody. The evidence of this spirit-guidance, those old prophets had, in the instantaneous fiery answer from heaven, to their denunciatory prayer; but on the other hand, in this case, the words of Jesus in reply to the Sons of Thunder, show that they were not actuated by a holy spirit, nor by the Holy Spirit, for he says to them, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of,”——which certainly implies that they were altogether mistaken in supposing that the spirit and power of Elijah rested on them, to authorize such wide-wasting and indiscriminate ruin of innocent and guilty,——women and children, as well as men, inhabiting the village; and he rebukes and condemns their conduct for the very reason that it was the result of an unholy and sinful spirit.

Yet, not only the Romish Ambrose, but also the Protestant Calvin, has, in his idolatrous reverence for the infallibility of the apostles, (an idolatry hardly less unchristian than the saint-worship against which he strove,) thought it necessary to condemn and rebuke Maldonado, as guilty of a detestable presumption, in declaring the sons of Zebedee to have been lifted up with a foolish arrogance. On the arguments by which Calvin justifies James and John, Lampe well remarks, that the great reformer uses a truly Jesuitical weapon, (propria vineta caedit Loyolita,) when he says that “they desired vengeance not for themselves, but for Christ; and were not led into error by any fault, but merely by ignorance of the spirit of the gospel and of Christ.” But was not this ignorance itself a sin, showing itself thus in the very face of all the oft-repeated admonitions of Jesus against this bloody spirit, even in his or any cause? and of all his inculcations of a universal rule of forbearance and forgiveness?

John is not mentioned again in the gospel history, until near the close of the Savior’s labors, when he was about to prepare his twelve chosen ones, for the great change which awaited their condition, by long and earnest instruction, and by prayer. In making the preliminary arrangements for this final meeting, John was sent along with Peter, to see that a place was provided for the entertainment. After this commission had been satisfactorily executed, they joined with Jesus and the rest of the twelve disciples in the Paschal feast, each taking a high place at the board, and John in particular reclining next to Jesus. As a testimony of the intimate affection between them, it is recorded by this apostle himself in his gospel, that during the feast he lay on Jesus’s breast,——a position which, though very awkward, and even impossible, in the modern style of conducting feasts in the sitting posture, was yet rendered both easy and natural, in the ancient mode, both Oriental and Roman, of reclining on couches around the table. Under these circumstances, those sharing the same part of the couch, whose feelings of affection led them most readily together,——such a position as that described by John, would occur very naturally and gracefully. It here, in connection with John’s own artless, but expressive sentence, mentioning himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved, presents to the least imaginative mind, a most beautifully striking picture of the state of feeling between the young disciple and his Lord,——showing how closely their spirits were drawn together, in an affection of the most sacred and interesting character, far surpassing the paternal and filial relation in the high and pure nature of the feeling, because wholly removed from the mere animalities and instincts that form and modify so much of all natural love. The regard between these two beings was by no means essentially dependent on any striking similarity of mind or feeling. John had very little of that mild and gentle temperament which so decidedly characterized the Redeemer;——he had none of that spirit of meekness and forgiveness which Jesus so often and earnestly inculcated; but a fierce, fiery, thundering zeal, arising from a temperament, ardent alike in anger and in love. Nor was such a character at all discordant with the generality of those for whom Jesus seemed to feel a decided preference. There is no one among the apostolic band, whether Galilean or Hellenistic, of whose characters any definite idea is given, that does not seem to be marked most decidedly by the fiercer and harsher traits. Yet like those of all children of nature, the same hearts seem to glow, upon occasion, as readily with affectionate as with wrathful feeling, both, in many instances, combining in their affection for Jesus. The whole gospel record, as far as the twelve disciples are concerned, is a most satisfactory comment on the characteristics ascribed by Josephus to the whole Galilean race,——“ardent and fierce.” And this was the very temperament which recommended them before all men in the world, for the great work of laying the deep foundations of the Christian faith, amid opposition, hatred, confusion, and blood. And among these wild, but ardent dispositions, did even the mild spirit of the Redeemer find much that was congenial to its frame, as well as its purposes; for in them, his searching eye recognized faculties which, turned from the base ends of worldly strife and low, brawling contest, might be exalted, by a mere modification, and not eradication, to the great works of divine benevolence. The same temperament that once led the ardent Galileans into selfish quarrels, under the regenerating influences of a holy spirit, might be trained to a high devoted self-sacrifice for the good of others; and the valor which once led them to disregard danger and death in spiteful enmity, could, after an assimilation to the spirit of Jesus, be made equally energetic in the dangerous labors of the cause of universal love. Such is most clearly the spirit of the Galilean disciples, as far as any character can be recognized in the brief, artless sketches, incidentally given of them in the New Testament history. Nor is there any good reason to mark John as an exception to these harsher attributes. The idea, now so very common, of his softness and amiability, seems to have grown almost entirely out of the circumstance, that he was “the disciple whom Jesus loved;” as if the high spirit of the Redeemer could feel no sympathy with such traits as bravery, fierce energy, or even aspiring ambition. Tempted originally by the great source of evil, yet without sin, he himself knew by what spiritual revolutions the impulses which once led only to evil, could be made the guides to truth and love, and could see, even in the worst manifestations of that fiery ardor, the disguised germ of a holy zeal, which, under his long, anxious, prayerful care and cultivation, would become a tree of life, bringing forth fruits of good for nations. Even in these low, depraved mortals, therefore, he could find much to love,——nor is the circumstance of his affectionate regard, in itself, any proof that John was deficient in the most striking characteristics of his countrymen; and that he was not so, there is proof positive and unquestionable in those details of his own and his brother’s conduct, already given.

At this Paschal feast, lying, as described, on the bosom of Jesus, he passed the parting hours in most intimate communion with his already doomed Lord. And so close was their proximity, and so peculiarly favored was he, by the confidential conversation of Jesus, that when all the disciples were moved with painful doubt and surprise at the mysterious annunciation that there was a traitor among them, Peter himself, trusting more to the opportunities of John than to his own, made a sign to him to put to his Master a question, to which he would be more likely to receive an answer than anybody else. The beloved disciple, therefore, looking up from the bosom of Jesus, into his face, with the confidence of familiar affection, asked him, “Who is it, Lord?” And to his eager inquiry, was vouchsafed at once a most unhesitating and satisfactory reply, marking out, in the most definite manner, the person intended by his former dark allusion.

After the scenes of Gethsemane, when the alarmed disciples fled from their captured Master, to avoid the same fate, John also shared in the race; but on becoming assured that no pursuit of the secondary members of the party was intended, he quietly walked back after the armed train, keeping, moreover, close to them, as appears by his arriving at the palace gate along with them, and entering with the rest. On his way, in the darkness, he fell in with his friend Peter, also anxiously following the train, to learn the fate of his Master. John now proved of great advantage to Peter; for, having some acquaintance with the high priest’s family, he might expect admission to the hall without difficulty. This incident is recorded only by John himself, in his gospel, where, in relating it, he refers to himself in the third person, as “another disciple,” according to his usual modest circumlocution. John, somehow or other, was well and favorably known to the high priest himself, for a very mysterious reason; but certainly the most unaccountable point in Bible history is this:——how could a faithful follower of the persecuted and hated Jesus, be thus familiar and friendly in the family of the most powerful and vindictive of the Jewish magnates? Nor can the difficulty be any way relieved, by supposing the expression, “another disciple” to refer to a person different from John; for all the disciples of Jesus would be equally unlikely persons for the intimacy of the Jewish high priest. Whatever might be the reason of this acquaintance, John was well-known throughout the family of the high priest, as a person high in favor and familiarity with that great dignitary; so that a single word from him to the portress, was sufficient to procure the admission of Peter also, who had stood without, not daring to enter as his brother apostle did, not having any warrant to do so on the ground of familiarity. Of the conduct of John during the trial of Jesus, or after it, no account whatever is given,——nor is he noticed in either of the gospels except his own, as present during any of these sad events; but by his story it appears, that, in the hour of darkness and horror, he stood by the cross of his beloved Lord, with those women who had been the constant servants of Jesus during life, and were now faithful, even through his death. Among these women was the mother of the Redeemer, who now stood in the most desolate agony, by the cross of her murdered son, without a home left in the world, or a person to whom she had a natural right to look for support. Just before the last agony, Jesus turned to the mournful group, and seeing his mother near the disciple whom he loved, he said, “Woman! behold thy son!” And then to John, “Behold thy mother!” The simple words were sufficient, without a gesture; for the nailed and motionless hands of Jesus could not point out to each, the person intended as the object of parental or filial regard. Nor was this commission, thus solemnly and affectingly given, neglected; for, as the same disciple himself assures us, “from that hour, he took her to his own house.” The highest token of affection and confidence that the Redeemer could confer, was this,——marking, as it did, a most pre-eminent regard, by committing to his charge a trust, that might with so much propriety have been committed to others of the twelve who were very nearly related to the mother of Jesus, being her own nephews, the sons of her sister. But so high was the confidence of Jesus in the sincerity of John’s affection, that he unhesitatingly committed to him this dearest earthly charge, trusting to his love for its keeping, rather than to the considerations of family, and of near relationship.

In the scenes of the resurrection, John is distinguished by the circumstance of his hurrying first, along with Peter, to the sepulcher, on hearing from the women the strange story of what had happened; and both hastening in the most intense anxiety to learn the nature of the occurrences which had so alarmed the women, the nimbleness of the youthful John soon carried him beyond Peter, and outstripping him in the anxious race, he came down to the sepulcher before him, and there stood, breathless, looking down into the place of the dead, in vain, for any trace of its late precious deposit. While he was thus glancing into the place, Peter came up, and with a much more considerate zeal, determined on a satisfactory search, and accordingly went down into the tomb himself, and narrowly searched all parts; and John, after his report, also then descended to assure himself that Peter had not been deceived by a too superficial examination of the inside. But having gone down into the tomb, and seen for himself the grave-clothes lying carefully rolled up, but no signs whatever of the body that had once occupied them, he also believed the report of the women, that the remains of Jesus had been stolen away in the night, probably by some ill-disposed persons, for an evil purpose, and perhaps to complete the bloody triumph of the Jews, by denying the body so honorable an interment as the wealthy Joseph had charitably given it. In distress and sorrowful doubt, therefore, he returned with Peter to his own house, without the slightest idea of the nature of the abstraction.

The next account of John is in that interesting scene, described in the last chapter of his own gospel, on the lake of Galilee, where Jesus met the seven disciples who went on the fishing excursion by night, as already detailed in the life of Simon Peter, who was the first to propose the thing, and who, in the scenes of the morning, acted the most conspicuous part. The only passage which immediately concerns John, is the concluding one, where the prophecy of Jesus is recorded respecting the future destiny of this beloved disciple. Peter, having heard his Master’s prophecy of the mode in which he should conclude his life, hoping to pry still farther into futurity, asked what would be the fate of John also. “Lord, what shall this man do?” which Jesus replied, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”——an answer evidently meant to check his curiosity, without gratifying it in the least; as John himself, remarking on the fact, that this saying originated an unfounded story, that Jesus had promised him that he should never die,——says that Jesus never specified any such thing, but merely said those few unsatisfactory words in reply to Peter. The words, “till I come,” referred simply to the time when Christ should come in judgment on Jerusalem, for that unquestionably was the “coming,” of which he had so often warned them, as an event for which they must be prepared; and it was partly from a misinterpretation of these words, by applying them to the final judgment, that the idle notion of John’s immortality arose. John probably surviving the other apostles many years, and living to a very great age, the second generation of Christians conceived the idea of interpreting this remark of Jesus as a prophecy that his beloved disciple should never die. And John, in his gospel, knowing that this erroneous opinion was prevalent, took pains to specify the exact words of Jesus, showing that they implied no direct prophecy whatever, nor in any way alluded to the possibility of his immortality. After the ascension, John is mentioned along with the rest who were in the upper room, and is otherwise particularized on several occasions, in the Acts of the Apostles. He was the companion of Peter in the temple, at the healing of the lame man, and was evidently considered by the chief apostle, a sharer in the honors of the miracle; nor were the Sanhedrim disposed to deem him otherwise than criminally responsible for the act, but doomed him, along with Peter, to the dungeon. He is also honorably distinguished by being deputed with Peter to visit the new church in Samaria, where he united with him in imparting the confirming seal of the spirit to the new converts,——and on the journey back to Jerusalem, preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.

From this time no mention whatever is made of John in the Acts of the Apostles; and the few remaining facts concerning him, which can be derived from the New Testament, are such only as occur incidentally in the epistolary writings of the apostles. Paul makes a single allusion to him, in his epistle to the Galatians, where, speaking of his reception by the apostles on his second visit to Jerusalem, he mentions James, Cephas and John, as “pillars” in the church, and says that they all gave him the right hand of fellowship. This little incidental allusion, though so brief, is worth recording, since it shows that John still resided in Jerusalem, and there still maintained his eminence and his usefulness, standing like a pillar, with Cephas and James, rising high above the many, and upholding the bright fabric of a pure faith. This is the only mention ever made of him in the epistles of Paul, nor do any of the remaining writings of the New Testament contain any notice whatever of John, except those which bear his own name. But as these must all be referred to a later period, they may be left unnoticed until some account has been given of the intervening portions of his long life. Here then the course of investigation must leave the sure path of scripture testimony, and lead on through the mazy windings of traditionary history, among the baseless records of the Fathers.

Pillars.——This was an expressive figurative appellation, taken no doubt, with direct allusion to the noble white columns of the porches of the temple, subserving in so high a degree the purposes both of use and ornament. The term implies with great force, an exalted excellence in these three main supporters of the first Christian church, and besides expressing the idea of those eminent virtues which belonged to them in common with other distinguished teachers of religion, it is thought by Lampe, that there is implied in this connection, something peculiarly appropriate to these apostles. Among the uses to which columns were applied by Egyptians, Jews, Greeks and Romans, was that of bearing inscriptions connected with public ordinances of state or religion, and of commemorating facts in science for the knowledge of other generations. To this use, allusion seems to be made in Proverbs ix. 1. “Wisdom has built her house,——she has engraved her seven pillars.” And in Revelation iii. 12, a still more unquestionable reference is made to the same circumstance. “Him that overcomes, will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from God,——and my own new name;”——a passage which Grotius illustrates by a reference to this very use of pillars for inscriptions. It is in connection with this idea, that Lampe considers the term as peculiarly expressive in its application to “James, Cephas and John,” since from them, in common with all the apostles, proceeded the oracles of Christian truth, and those principles of doctrine and practice, which were acknowledged as the rule of faith, by the churches of the new covenant. To these three, moreover, belonged some peculiar attributes of this character, since they distinguished themselves above the most of the twelve, by their written epistolary charges, as well as by the general pre-eminence accorded to them by common consent, leaving to them the utterance of those apostolic opinions, which went forth from Jerusalem as law for the Christian churches.

Lampe quotes on this point Vitringa, (Sacred Observations, I. iii. 7,) Suicer, (Church Thesaurus voc. στυλος,) and Gataker, (Cinnus, ii. 20.) He refers also to Jerome, commenting on Galatians ii. 9; who there alludes to the fact that John, one of the “pillars,” in his Revelation, introduces the Savior speaking as above quoted. (Revelation iii. 12.)

THE RESULTS OF TRADITION.

Probably there are few results of historical investigation, that will make a more decided impression of disappointment on the mind of a common reader, than the sentence, which a rigid examination compels the writer to pass, with almost uniform condemnatory severity, on all apostolic stories which are not sanctioned by the word of inspiration. There is a universal curiosity, natural, and not uncommendable, felt by all the believers and hearers of the faith which the apostles preached, to know something more about these noble first witnesses of the truth, than the bare broken and unconnected details which the gospel, and the apostolic acts can furnish. At this day, the most trifling circumstances connected with them,——their actions, their dwelling-places, their lives or their deaths, have a value vastly above what could ever have been appreciated by those of their own time, who acted, dwelt, lived, and died with them,——a value increasing through the course of ages, in a regular progression, rising as it removes from the objects to which it refers. But the very course of this progression implies a diminution of the means of obtaining the desired information, proportioned to the increase of the demand for it;——and along with this condition of things, the all-pervading and ever-active spirit of invention comes in, to quench, with deep draughts of delightful falsehood, the honest thirst for literal truth. The misfortune of this constitution of circumstances, being that the want is not felt till the means of supplying it are irrecoverably gone, puts the investigation of the minutiae of all antiquity, sacred or profane, upon a very uncertain ground, and requires the most critical test for every assertion, offered to satisfy a curiosity which, for the sake of the pleasure thus derived, feels interested in deceiving itself; for

“Doubtless the pleasure is as great

Of being cheated as to cheat.”

Even the spirit of deep curiosity which beguiles the historical inquirer into a love of the fabulous and unfounded tales of tradition, though specifically more elevated by its intellectual character, is yet generically the same with the spirit of superstitious credulity, that leads the miserable Papist to bow down with idolatrous worship before the ridiculous trash, called relics, which are presented to him by the consecrated impostors who minister to him in holy things; and the feeling of indignant horror with which he repulses the Protestant zeal, that would rob his spirit of the comfortable support afforded by the possession of an apostolical toe-nail, a lock of a saint’s hair, or by the sight of the Savior’s handkerchief, or of a drop of his blood,——is all perfectly kindred to that indignant regret with which even a reformed reader regards all these critical assaults upon agreeable historical delusions,——and to that stubborn attachment with which he often clings to antique falsehood. Yet the pure consolations of the truth, known by research and judgment, are so far above these baser enjoyments, that the exchange of fiction, for historical knowledge, though merely of a negative kind, becomes most desirable even to an uncritical mind.

The sweeping sentence of condemnation against all traditionary stories, may, however, be subjected to some decided exceptions in the case of John, who, living much longer than any other of the apostles, would thus be much more widely and lastingly known than they, to the Christians of the first and second generations after the immediate contemporaries of the twelve. On this account the stories about John come with much higher traditionary authority, than those which pretend to give accounts of any other apostle; and this view is still further confirmed by the character of most of the stories themselves; which are certainly much less absurd and vastly more probable in their appearance, than the great mass of apostolic traditions. Indeed, in respect to this apostle, may be said, what can not be said of any other, that some tolerably well-authorized, and a very few decidedly authentic, statements of his later life, may be derived from passages in the genuine writings of the early Fathers.

HIS JUDAICAL OBSERVANCES.

The first point in John’s history, on which the authentic testimony of the Fathers is offered to illustrate his life, after the Acts of the Apostles cease to mention him, is, that during the difficulties between the weak-minded, Judaizing Christians, and those of a freer spirit who advocated an open communion with those Gentile brethren that did not conform to the Mosaic ritual, he, with Peter, and more particularly with James, joined in recommending a compromise with the inveterate prejudices of the Jewish believers; and to the end of his life, though constantly brought in contact with Gentiles, he himself still continued, in all legal and ritual observances, a Jew. A striking and probable instance of this adherence to Judaism, is given in the circumstance, that he always kept the fourteenth day of March as holy time, in conformity with one of the most common of the religious usages in which he had been brought up; and the respect with which he regarded this observance is strongly expressed in the fact that he countenanced and encouraged it, also, in his disciples, some of whom preserving it throughout life as he did, brought down the notice of the occurrence to those days when the extinction of almost all the Judaical part of primitive Christianity made such a peculiarity very remarkable. This, though a small, is a highly valuable incident in the history of John, containing a proof of the strong affection which he always retained for the religion of his fathers,——a feeling which deserves the highest commendation, accompanied as it was, by a most catholic spirit towards those Gentile Christians who could not bear a yoke, which education and long habit alone made more tolerable to him.

With Peter and James.——The authority for this is Irenaeus, (A. D. 150–170,) who says, “Those apostles who were with James, permitted the Gentiles indeed to act freely, leaving us to the spirit of God. They themselves, too, knowing the same God, persevered in their ancient observances. * * * Thus the apostles whom the Lord made witnesses of his whole conduct and his whole teaching, (for every where are found standing together with him, Peter, James and John,) religiously devoted themselves to the observance of the law, which is by Moses, thus acknowledging both [the law and the spirit] to be from one and the same God.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies.)

Fourteenth day of March.——This refers to the practice of observing the feast of the resurrection of Christ, on the fourteenth day of March, corresponding with the passover of the Jews,——a custom long kept up in the eastern churches, instead of always keeping it on Sunday. The authority for the statement is found in two ancient writers; both of whom are quoted by Eusebius. (Church History, V. 24.) He first quotes Polycrates, (towards the end of the second century,) as writing to Victor, bishop of Rome, in defense of the adherence of the eastern churches to the practice of their fathers, in keeping the passover, or Easter, on the fourteenth day of the month, without regard to the day of the week on which it occurred, though the great majority of the Christian churches throughout the world, by common consent, always celebrated this resurrection feast on the Lord’s day, or Sunday. Polycrates, in defense of the oriental practice of his flock and friends, so accordant with early Jewish prejudices, quotes the example of the Apostle John, who, he says, died at Ephesus, where he (Polycrates) was bishop. He says, that John, as well as his brother-apostle, Philip, and Polycarp his disciple, “all observed Easter on the fourteenth day of the month, never varying from that day, at all.” Eusebius (ibid.) quotes also Irenaeus, writing to the same bishop Victor, against his attempt to force the eastern churches into the adoption of the practice of the Roman church, in celebrating Easter always on a Sunday, instead of uniformly on the fourteenth day of the month, so as to correspond with the Jewish passover. Irenaeus, in defense of the old eastern custom, tells of the practice of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of John. Polycarp, coming to Rome in the days of bishop Anicetus, (A. D. 151–160,) though earnestly exhorted by that bishop to renounce the eastern mode of celebrating Easter always on the fourteenth, like the Jewish passover, steadily refused to change; giving as a reason, the fact that John, the disciple of Jesus, and others of the apostles, whom he had intimately known, had always followed the eastern mode.

This latter authority, fairly derived from a person who had been the intimate friend of John himself, may be pronounced entitled to the highest respect, and quite clearly establishes this little circumstance, which is valuable only as showing John’s pertinacious adherence to Jewish forms, to the end of his life.

Socrates, an ecclesiastical historian, (A. D. 439,) alludes to the circumstance, that those who observed Easter on the fourteenth, referred to the authority of the Apostle John, as received by tradition.

THE DEPARTURE FROM JERUSALEM.

Some vain attempts have been made to ascertain the time at which the apostle John left Jerusalem; but it becomes an honest investigator to confess, here, the absolute want of all testimony, and the total absence of such evidence as can afford reasonable ground even for conjecture. All that can be said, is, that there is no account of his having left the city before the Jewish war; and there is some reason, therefore, to suppose that he remained there till driven thence by the first great alarm occasioned by the unsuccessful attack from Cestius Gallus. This Roman general, in the beginning of the Jewish war, (A. D. 66,) advanced to Jerusalem, and began a siege, which, however, he soon raised, without any good reason; and suffering a fine opportunity of ending the war at once, thus to pass by, unimproved, he marched off, though in reality the inhabitants were then but poorly provided with means to resist him. His retreat, however, gave them a chance to prepare themselves very completely for the desperate struggle which, as they could see, was completely begun, and from which there could now be no retraction. This interval of repose, after such a terrible premonition, also gave opportunity to the Christians to withdraw from the city, on which, as they most plainly saw, the awful ruin foretold by their Lord, was now about to fall. Cestius ♦Gallus, taking his stand on the hills around the city, had planted the Roman eagle-standards on the highths of Zophim, on the north, where he fortified his camp, and thence pushed the assault against Bezetha, or the upper part of the city. These were signs which the apostles of Jesus, who had heard his prophecy of the city’s ruin, could not misunderstand. Here was now “the abomination of desolation, standing in the holy place where it ought not;” and as Matthew records the words of Jesus, this was one great sign of coming ruin. “When they should see Jerusalem encompassed with armies, they were to know that the desolation thereof was nigh;” for so Luke records the warning. “Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them who are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in other countries enter into it. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” The apostles, therefore, reading in all these signs the literal fulfilment of the prophetic warning of their Lord, gathered around them the flock of the faithful; and turning their faces to the mountains of the northwest, to seek refuge beyond the Jordan,——

——“Their backs they turned

On those proud towers, to swift destruction doomed.”

Nor were they alone; for as the Jewish historian, who was an eye-witness of the sad events of those times, records, “many of the respectable persons among the Jews, after the alarming attack of Cestius, left the city, like passengers from a sinking ship.” And this fruitless attack of the Romans, he considers to have been so arranged by a divine decree, to make the final ruin fall with the more certainty on the truly guilty.

♦ “Gallas” replaced with “Gallus” for consistency

THE REFUGE IN PELLA.

A tradition, entitled to more than usual respect, from its serious and reasonable air, commemorates the circumstance that the Christians, on leaving Jerusalem, took refuge in the city of Pella, which stood on a small western branch of the Jordan, about sixty miles north-west from Jerusalem, among the mountains of Gilead. The locality on some accounts is a probable one, for it is distant from Jerusalem and beyond Judea, as the Savior directed them to flee; and being also on the mountains, answers very well to the other particulars of his warning. But there are some reasons which would make it an undesirable place of refuge, for a very long time, to those who fled from scenes of war and commotion, for the sake of enjoying peace and safety. That part of Galilee which formed the adjacent territory on the north of Pella, a few months after, became the scene of a devastating war. The city of Gamala, not above twenty miles off, was besieged by Vespasian, the general of the Roman invading army, (afterwards emperor,) and was taken after a most obstinate and bloody contest, the effect of which must have been felt throughout the country around, making it any thing but a comfortable place of refuge, to those who sought peace. The presence of hostile armies in the region near, must have been a source of great trouble and distress to the inhabitants of Pella, so that those who fled from Jerusalem to that place, would, in less than a year, find that they had made no very agreeable exchange. These bloody commotions however, did not begin immediately, and it was not till nearly one year after the flight of the Christians from Jerusalem, that the war was brought into the neighborhood of Pella; for Josephus fixes the retreat of Cestius Gallus on the twelfth of November, in the twelfth year of Nero’s reign, (A. D. 66,) and the taking of Gamala, on the twenty-third of October, in the following year, after one month’s siege. There was then a period of several months, during which this region was quiet, and would therefore afford a temporary refuge to the fugitives from Jerusalem; but for a permanent home they would feel obliged to look not merely beyond Judea, but out of Palestine. Being in Pella, so near the borders of Arabia, which often afforded a refuge to the oppressed in its desert-girdled homes, the greater portion would naturally move off in that direction, and many too, probably extend their journey eastward into Mesopotamia, settling at last in Babylon, already becoming a new dwelling-place for both Jews and Christians, among whom, as has been recorded in a former part of this work, the Apostle Peter had made his home, where he probably remained for the rest of his life, and also died there. Respecting the movements of the Apostle John in this general flight, nothing certain can be affirmed; but all probability would, without any other evidence, suggest that he followed the course of the majority of those who were under his pastoral charge; and as their way led eastward, he would be disposed to take that route also. And here the floating fragments of ancient tradition may be cited, for what they are worth, in defense of a view which is also justified by natural probabilities.

THE JOURNEY EASTWARD.

The earliest testimony on this point does not appear, however, until near the close of the fourth century; when it arises in the form of a vague notion, that John had once preached to the Parthians, and that his first epistle was particularly addressed to them. From a few such remnants of history as this, it has been considered extremely probable, by some, that John passed many years, or even a great part of his life, in the regions east of the Euphrates, within the bounds of the great Parthian empire, where a vast number of his refugee countrymen had settled after the destruction of Jerusalem, enjoying peace and prosperity, partly forgetting their national calamities, in building themselves up almost into a new people, beyond the bounds of the Roman empire. These would afford to him an extensive and congenial field of labor; they were his countrymen, speaking his own language, and to them he was allied by the sympathies of a common misfortune and a common refuge. Abundant proof has already been offered, to show that in this region was the home of Peter, during the same period; and probabilities are strongly in favor of the supposition, that the other apostles followed him thither, making Babylon the new apostolic capital of the eastern churches, as Jerusalem had been the old one. From that city, as a center, the apostles would naturally extend their occasional labors into the countries eastward, as far as their Jewish brethren had spread their refugee settlements; for beyond the Roman limits, Christianity seems to have made no progress whatever among the Gentiles, in the time of the apostles; and if there had been no other difficulties, the great difference of language and manners, and the savage condition of most of the races around them, would have led them to confine their labors wholly to those of their own nation, who inhabited the country watered by the Euphrates and its branches; or still farther east, to lands where the Jews seem to have spread themselves to the banks of the Indus, and perhaps within the modern boundaries of India. Some wild traditionary accounts, of no great authority, even offer reports, that the Apostle John preached in India; and some of the Jesuit missionaries have supposed that they had detected such traditions among the tribes of that region, among whom they labored. All that can be said of these accounts is, that they accord with a reasonable supposition, which is made probable by other circumstances; but traditions of such a standing cannot be said to prove anything.

Parthia.——The earliest trace of this story is in the writings of Augustin, (A. D. 398,) who quotes the first epistle of John as “the epistle to the Parthians,” from which it appears that this was a common name for that epistle, in the times of Augustin. Athanasius is also quoted by Bede, as calling it by the same name. If he wrote to the Parthians in that familiar way, it would seem probable that he had been among them, and many writers have therefore adopted this view. Among these, the learned Mill (Prolegomena in New Testament § 150) expresses his opinion very fully, that John passed the greater part of his life among the Parthians, and the believers near them. Lampe (Prolegomena to a Johannine Theology, Lib. I. cap. iii. § 12, note) allows the probability of such a visit, but strives to fix its date long before the destruction of Jerusalem; yet offers no good reason for such a notion.

India.——The story of the Jesuit missionaries is given by Baronius, (Annals 44. § 30.) The story is, that letters from some of these missionaries, in 1555, give an account of their finding such a tradition, among an East Indian nation, called the Bassoras, who told them that the apostle John once preached the gospel in that region. No further particulars are given; but this is enough to enable us to judge of the value of a story, dating fifteen centuries from the event which it commemorates.

HIS RESIDENCE IN ASIA.

The great mass of ancient stories about this apostle, take no notice at all of his residence in the far eastern regions, on and beyond the Euphrates, but make mention of the countries inhabited by Greeks and Romans, as the scenes of the greater part of his long life, after the destruction of Jerusalem. The palpable reason of the character of these traditions, no doubt, is, that they all come from the very regions which they commemorate as the home of John; and the authors of the stories being interested only to secure for their own region the honor of an apostolic visit, cared nothing about the similar glory of countries far eastward, with which they had no connection whatever, and of which they knew nothing. That region which is most particularly pointed out as the great scene of John’s life and labors, is Asia, in the original, limited sense of the term, which includes only a small portion of the eastern border of the Aegean sea, as already described in the life of Peter. The most important place in this Little Asia, was Ephesus; and in this famous city the apostle John is said to have spent the latter part of his life, after the great dispersion from Palestine.

The motives of John’s visit to Ephesus, are variously given by different writers, both ancient and modern. All refer the primary impulse to the Holy Spirit, which was the constant and unerring guide of all the apostles in their movements abroad on the great mission of their Master. The divine presence of their Lord himself, too, was ever with them to support and encourage, in their most distant wanderings, even as he promised at parting,——“Lo! I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” But historical investigation may very properly proceed with the inquiry into the real occasion which led him, under that divine guidance, to this distant city, among a people who were mostly foreign to him in language, habits and feelings, even though many of them owned the faith of Christ, and reverenced the apostle of his word. It is said, but not proved, that a division of the great fields of labor was made by the apostles among themselves, about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem; and that, when Andrew took Scythia, and others their sections of duty, Asia was assigned to John, who passed the rest of his life there accordingly. This field had already, indeed, been gone over by Paul and his companions, and already at Ephesus itself had a church been gathered, which was now flourishing under the pastoral care of Timothy, who had been instructed and commissioned for this very field, by Paul himself. But these circumstances, so far from deterring the apostle John from presenting himself on a field of labor already so nobly entered, are supposed rather to have operated as incitements to draw him into a place where so solid a foundation had been laid for a complete fabric. As a center of missionary action, indeed, Ephesus certainly did possess many local advantages of a high order. The metropolis of all Asia Minor,——a noble emporium for the productions of that great section of the eastern continent, on whose farthest western shore it stood,——and a grand center for the traffic of the great Mediterranean sea, whose waters rolled from that haven over the mighty shores of three continents, bearing, wherever they flowed, the ships of Ephesus,——this port offered the most ready and desirable means of intercourse with all the commercial cities of the world, from Tyre, or Alexandria, or Sinope, to the pillars of Hercules, and gave the quickest and surest access to the gates of Rome itself. Its widely extended commerce, of course, drew around its gates a constant throng of people from many distant parts of the world, a few of whom, if imbued with the gospel, would thus become the missionaries of the word of truth to millions, where the name of Jesus was before unknown. And since, after the death of all the other apostles, John survived alone, so long, it was desirable for all the Christian churches in the world, that the only living minister of the word who had been instructed from the lips of Jesus himself, should reside in some such place, where he might so easily be visited by all, and whence his instructions might quickly go forth to all. His inspired counsels, and his wonder-working prayers, might be sought for all who needed them, and his apostolic ordinances might be heard and obeyed, almost at once, by the most distant churches. But the circumstance, which more especially might lead the wanderer from the ruined city and homes of his fathers, to Ephesus, was the great gathering of Jews at this spot, who of course thus presented to the Jewish apostle an ample field for exertions, for which his natural and acquired endowments best fitted him.

In the account given in the Acts of the Apostles of Paul’s visit to Ephesus, particular mention is made of a synagogue there, in which he preached and disputed daily, for a long period, with great effect. Yet Paul’s labors had by no means attained such complete success among the Jews there, as to make it unnecessary for another apostle to labor in the ministry of the circumcision, in that same place; for it is especially mentioned that Paul, after three months’ active exertion in setting forth the truth in the synagogues, was induced by the consideration of the peculiar difficulties which beset him, among these proud and stubborn adherents of the old Mosaic system, to withdraw himself from among them; and during the remainder of his two years’ stay, he devoted himself, for the most part, to the instruction of the willing Greeks, who opened the schools of philosophy for his teachings, with far more willingness than the Jews did their house of religious assembly. And it appears that the greater part of his converts were rather among the Greeks than the Jews; for in the great commotions that followed, the attack upon the preachers of Christianity was made entirely by a heathen mob, in which no Israelite seems to have had any hand whatever; so that Paul had evidently made but little impression, comparatively, on the latter class. Among the Jews then, there was still a wide field open for the labors of one, consecrated, more especially, for the ministry of the circumcision. The circumstances of the times, also, presented many advantages for a successful assault upon the religious prejudices of his countrymen. The great Center of Unity for the race of Israel throughout the world, had now fallen into an irretrievable oblivion, under the fire and sword of the invader. The glories of the ancient covenant seemed to have passed away forever; and in the high devotion of the Jew, a blank was now left, by the destruction of the only temple of his ancient faith, which nothing else on earth could fill. Henceforth he might be trained to look for a spiritual temple,——a city eternal in the heavens, whose lasting foundations were laid by no mortal hand, for the heathen to sweep away in unholy triumph; but whose builder and maker was God. Thus prepared, by the mournful consummation of their country’s utter ruin, for the reception of a pure faith, the condition of the disconsolate Jews must have appeared in the highest degree interesting to the solitary surviving apostle of Jesus; and he would naturally devote the remnant of his days to that portion of the world where he might make the deepest impression on them, and where his influence might spread widest to the scattered members of a people, then as now, eminently commercial.

Under these peculiarly interesting circumstances, the Apostle John is supposed to have arrived at Ephesus, where Timothy, still holding the episcopal chair in which he had been placed by the Apostle Paul, must have hailed with great delight the arrival of the venerable John, from whose instructions and counsels, he might hope to derive advantages so much the more welcome, since the sword of the heathen persecution had removed his original apostolic teacher from the world. John must have been, at the time of his journey to Ephesus, considerably advanced in life. His precise age, and the date of his arrival, are altogether unknown, nor are there any fixed points on which the most critical and ingenious historical investigation can base any certain conclusion whatever, as to these interesting matters. Various and widely different have been the conclusions on these points;——some fixing his journey to Ephesus in the reign of Claudius, long before the destruction of Jerusalem, and even before the council on the question of the circumcision. The true character of this tale can be best appreciated by a reference to another circumstance, which is gravely appended to it by its narrators;——which is, that he was accompanied on this tour by the Virgin Mary, and that she lived there with him for a long time. This journey too, is thus made to precede the journey of Paul to Ephesus, by many years, and yet no account whatever is given of the reasons of the profound silence observed in the Acts of the Apostles, on an event so important to the history of the propagation of the gospel, nor why John could have lived so long at Ephesus, and yet have effected so little, that when Paul came to the same place, the very name of Christ was new there. But such stories are not worth refuting, standing as they do, self-convicted falsehoods. Others however, are more reasonable, and date this journey in the year of the destruction of Jerusalem, supposing that Ephesus was the first place of refuge to which the apostle went. But this conjecture is totally destitute of all ancient authority, and is inconsistent with the very reasonable supposition adopted above,——that he, in the flight from Jerusalem, first journeyed eastward, following the general current of the fugitives, towards the Euphrates. Where there is such a total want of all data, any fixed decision is out of the question; but it is very reasonable to suppose that John’s final departure from the east did not take place till some years after this date; probably not until the reign of Domitian. (A. D. 81 or 82.) He had lived in Babylon therefore, till he had seen most of his brethren and friends pass away from his eyes. The venerable Peter had sunk into the grave, and had been followed by the rest of the apostolic band, until the youngest apostle, now grown old, found himself standing alone in the midst of a new generation, like one of the solitary columns of desolate Babylon, among the low dwelling places of its refugee inhabitants. But among the hourly crumbling heaps of that ruined city, and the fast-darkening regions of that half-savage dominion, there was each year less and less around him, on which his precious labor could be advantageously expended. Christianity never seizes readily on the energies of a broken or degenerating people, nor does it flourish where the influences of civilization are losing their hold. Its exalted and exalting genius rather takes the spirits that are already on the wing for an upward course, and rises with them, giving new energy to the ascending movement. It may exert its elevating influence too, on the yet wild spirit of the uncivilized, and give, in the new conceptions of a pure faith and a high destiny, the first impulse to the advance of man towards refinement, in knowledge, and art, and freedom; but its very existence among them is dependent on this forward and upward movement,——and the beginning of its mortal decay dates from the cessation of the developments of the intellectual and physical resources of the race on which it operates. Among the subjects of the Parthian empire, this downward movement was already fully decided; and they were fast losing those refinements of feeling and thought on which the new faith could best fasten its spiritual and inspiring influences; they therefore soon became but hopeless objects of missionary exertion, when compared with the active and enterprising inhabitants of the still improving regions of the west. “Westward” then, “the star” of Christianity as “of empire, took its way;” and the last of the apostles was but following, not leading, the march of his Lord’s advancing dominion, when he shook off the dust of the darkening eastern lands from his feet, forever; turning his aged face towards the setting sun, to find in his latter days, a new home and a foreign grave among the children of his brethren; and to rejoice his old eyes with the glorious sight of what God had done for the churches, among the flourishing cities of the west, that were still advancing under Grecian art and Roman sway.

Ephesus.——On the importance of this place, as an apostolic station, the Magdeburg Centuriators are eloquent; and such is the classic elegance of the Latin in which these moderns have expressed themselves, that the passage is worth giving entire, for the sake of those who can enjoy the beauty of the original. “Considera mirabile Dei consilium. Joannes in Ephesum ad littus maris Aegei collocatus est: ut inde, quasi e specula, retro suam Asiam videret, suaque fragrantia repleret: ante se vero Graeciam, totamque Europam haberet; ut inde, tanquam tuba Domini sonora, etiam ultra-marinos populos suis concionibus ac scriptis inclamaret et invitaret ad Christum; presertim, cum ibi fuerit admodum commodus portus, plurimique mercatores ac homines peregrini ea loca adierint.” The beauty of such a sentence is altogether beyond the force of English, and the elegant paronomasia which repeatedly occurs in it, increasing the power of the original expression to charm the ear and mind, is totally lost in a translation, but the meanings of the sentences may be given for the benefit of those readers to whom the Latin is not familiar.——“Regard the wonderful providence of God. John was stationed at Ephesus, on the shore of the Aegean sea; so that there, as in a mirror, he might behold his peculiar province, Asia, behind him, and might fill it with the incense of his prayers: before him too, he had Greece and all Europe; so that there, as with the far-sounding trumpet of the Lord, he might summon and invite to Christ, by his sermons and writings, even the nations beyond the sea, by the circumstance that there, was a most spacious haven, and that vast numbers of traders and travelers thronged to the place.”

Chrysostom speaks also of the importance of Ephesus as an apostolic station, alluding to it as a strong hold of heathen philosophy; but there is no reason to think that John ever distinguished himself by any assaults upon systems with which he was not, and could never have been sufficiently acquainted to enable him to attack them; for in order to meet an evil, it is necessary to understand it thoroughly. There is no hint of an acquaintance with philosophy in any part of his writings, nor does any historian speak of his making converts among them. Chrysostom’s words are,——“He fixed himself also in Asia, where anciently all the sects of Grecian philosophy cultivated their sciences. There he flashed out in the midst of the foe, clearing away their darkness, and storming the very citadel of demons. And with this design he went to this place, so well suited to one who would work such wonders.” (Homily 1, on John.)

The idea of John’s visit to Ephesus, where Timothy was already settled over the church as bishop, has made a great deal of trouble to those who stupidly confound the office of an apostle with that of a bishop, and are always degrading an apostle into a mere church-officer. Such blunderers of course, are put to a vast deal of pains to make out how Timothy could manage to keep possession of his bishopric, with the Apostle John in the same town with him; for they seem to think that a bishop, like the flag-officer on a naval station, can hold the command of the post not a moment after a senior officer appears in sight; but that then down comes the broad blue pennon to be sure, and never is hoisted again till the greater officer is off beyond the horizon. But no such idle arrangements of mere etiquette were ever suffered to mar the noble and useful simplicity of the primitive church government, in the least. The presence of an apostle in the same town with a bishop, could no more interfere with the regular function of the latter, than the presence of a diocesan bishop in any city of his diocese, excludes the rector of the church there, from his pastoral charge. The sacred duties of Timothy were those of the pastoral care of a single church,——a sort of charge that no apostle ever assumed out of Jerusalem; but John’s apostolic duties led him to exercise a general supervision over a great number of churches. All those in Little Asia would claim his care alike, and the most distant would look to him for counsel; while that in Ephesus, having been so well established by Paul, and being blessed by the pastoral care of Timothy, who had been instructed and commissioned for that very place and duty, by him, would really stand in very little need of any direct attention from John. Yet among his Jewish brethren he would still find much occasion for his missionary labor, even in that city; and this was the sort of duty which was most appropriate to his apostolic character; for the apostles were missionaries and not bishops.

Others pretend to say, however, that Timothy was dead when John arrived, and that John succeeded him in the bishopric,——a mere invention to get rid of the difficulty, and proved to be such by the assertion that the apostle was a bishop, and rendered suspicious also by the circumstance of Timothy being so young a man.

The fable of the Virgin Mary’s journey, in company with John, to Ephesus, has been very gravely supported by Baronius, (Annals, 44, § 29,) who makes it happen in the second year of the reign of Claudius, and quotes as his authority a groundless statement, drawn from a mis-translation of a synodical epistle from the council of Ephesus to the clergy at Constantinople, containing a spurious passage which alludes to this story, condemning the Nestorians as heretics, for rejecting the tale. There are, and have long been, however, a vast number of truly discreet and learned Romanists, who have scorned to receive such contemptible and useless inventions. Among these, the learned Antony Pagus, in his Historico-Chronological Review of Baronius, has utterly refuted the whole story, showing the spurious character of the passage quoted in its support. (Pagus, Critica Baronius Annals, 42. § 3.) Lampe quotes moreover, the Abbot Facditius, the Trevoltian collectors and Combefisius, as also refuting the fable. Among the Protestant critics, Rivetus and Basnage have discussed the same point.

Of the incidents of John’s life at Ephesus, no well authorized account whatever can be given. Yet on this part of apostolic history the Fathers are uncommonly rich in details, which are interesting, and some of which present no improbability on examination; but their worst character is, that they do not make their appearance until above one hundred years after the date of the incidents which they commemorate, and refer to no authority but loose and floating tradition. In respect to these, too, occurs exactly the same difficulty which has already been specified in connection with the traditionary history of Peter,——that the same early writers, who record as true these stories which are so probable and reasonable in their character, also present in the same grave manner other stories, which do bear, with them, on their very faces, the evidence of their utter falsehood, in their palpable and monstrous absurdity. Among the possible and probable incidents of John’s life, narrated by the Fathers, are a journey to Jerusalem, and one also to Rome,——but of these there is no certainty, nor any acceptable evidence. These long journeys, too, are wholly without any sufficient assigned object, which would induce so old a man to leave his quiet and useful residence at Ephesus, to travel hundreds and thousands of miles. The churches of both Rome and Jerusalem were under well organized governments, which were perfectly competent to the administration of their own affairs, without the presence of an apostle; or, if they needed his counsel in an emergency, he could communicate his opinions to them with great certainty, by message, and with far more quickness and ease, than by a journey to them. Such an occasion for a direct call on him, however, could but very rarely occur,——nor would so unimportant an event as the death of one bishop and the installation of another, ever induce him to take a journey to sanction a mere formality by his presence. His help certainly was not needed by any church out of his own little Asian circle, in the selection of proper persons to fill vacant offices of government or instruction. They knew best their own wants, and the abilities of their own members to exercise any official duty to which they might be called; while John, a perfect stranger to most of them, would feel neither disposed nor qualified for meddling with any part of the internal policy of other churches. But the principal condemnation of the statement of his journey to Rome is contained in the foolish story connected with it, by its earliest narrator,——that on his arrival there, he was, by order of the emperor Domitian, thrown into a vessel full of hot oil; but, so far from receiving the slightest injury from such a frying, he came out of this greasy place of torture, quite improved in every respect by the immersion; and, as the story goes, arose from it perfumed like an athleta anointed for the combat. There are very great variations, however, in the different narrations of this affair; some representing the event as having occurred in Ephesus, under the orders of the proconsul of Asia, and not in Rome, under the emperor, as the earlier form of the fable states. Among the statements which fix the scene of this miracle in Rome, too, there is a very important chronological difference,——some dating it under the emperor Nero, which would carry it back as early as the time of Peter’s fabled martyrdom, and implies a total contradiction of all established opinions on his prolonged residence in the east. In short, the whole story is so completely covered over with gross blunders and contradictions about times and places, that it can not receive any place among the details of serious and well-authorized history.

Thrown into a vessel of oil.——This greasy story has a tolerably respectable antiquity, going farther back with its authorities than any other fable in the Christian mythology, except Justin Martyr’s story about Simon Magus. The earliest authority for this is Tertullian, (A. D. 200,) who says that “at Rome, the Apostle John, having been immersed in hot oil, suffered no harm at all from it.” (De Praescriptionibus adversus Haereticos, c. 36.) “In oleum igneum immersus nihil passus est.” But for nearly two hundred years after, no one of the Fathers refers to this fable. Jerome (A. D. 397.) is the next of any certain date, and speaks of it in two passages. In the first (Against Jovinianus I. 14,) he quotes Tertullian as authority, but bunglingly says, that “he was thrown into the kettle by order of Nero,”——a most palpable error, not sanctioned by Tertullian. In the second passage, (Commentary on Matthew xx. 23,) he furthermore refers in general terms to “ecclesiastical histories, in which it was said that John, on account of his testimony concerning Christ, was thrown into a kettle of boiling oil, and came out thence like an athleta, to win the crown of Christ.” From these two sources, the other narrators of the story have drawn it. Of the modern critics and historians, besides the great herd of Papists, several Protestants are quoted by Lampe, as strenuously defending it; and several of the greatest, who do not absolutely receive it as true, yet do not presume to decide against it; as the Magdeburg Centuriators, (Century 1, lib. 2. c. 10,) who however declare it very doubtful indeed, “rem incertissimam;”——Ittig, Le Clerc and Mosheim taking the same ground. But Meisner, Cellarius, Dodwell, Spanheim, Heumann and others, overthrow it utterly, as a baseless fable. They argue against it first, from the bad character of its only ancient witness. Tertullian is well known as most miserably credulous, and fond of catching up these idle tales; and even the devoutly credulous Baronius condemns him in the most unmeasured terms for his greedy and undiscriminating love of falsehood. Secondly, they object the profound silence of all the Fathers of the second, third and fourth centuries, excepting him and Jerome; whereas, if such a remarkable incident were of any authority whatever, those numerous occasions on which they refer to the banishment of John to Patmos, which Tertullian connects so closely with this story, would suggest and require a notice of the causes and attendant circumstances of that banishment, as stated by him. How could those eloquent writers, who seem to dwell with so much delight on the noble trials and triumphs of the apostles, pass over this wonderful peril and miraculous deliverance? Why did Irenaeus, so studious in extolling the glory of John, forget to specify an incident implying at once such a courageous spirit of martyrdom in this apostle, and such a peculiar favor of God, in thus wonderfully preserving him? Hippolytus and Sulpitius Severus too, are silent; and more than all, Eusebius, so diligent in scraping together all that can heap up the martyr-glories of the apostles, and more particularly of John himself, is here utterly without a word on this interesting event. Origen, too, dwelling on the modes in which the two sons of Zebedee drank the cup of Jesus, as he prophesied, makes no use of this valuable illustration.

On the origin of this fable, Lampe mentions a very ingenious conjecture, that some such act of cruelty may have been meditated or threatened, but afterwards given up; and that thence the story became accidentally so perverted as to make what was merely designed, appear to have been partly put in execution.

In this decided condemnation of the venerable Tertullian, I am justified by the example of Lampe, whose reverence for the authority of the Fathers is much greater than that of most theologians of later days. He refers to him in these terms: “Tertullianus, cujus credulitas, in arripiendis futilibus narratiunculis alias non ignota est.”——“Whose credulity in catching up idle tales is well known in other instances.” Haenlein also calls him “der leichtglaubige Tertullian,”——“the credulous Tertullian.” (Haenlein’s Einleitung in Neuen Testamentes vol. III. p. 166.)

This miraculous event procured the highly-favored John, by this extreme unction, all the advantages with none of the disadvantages of martyrdom; for in consequence of this peril he has received among the Fathers the name of a “living martyr.” (ζοων μαρτυρ) Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Athanasius, Theophylact and others, quoted by Suicer, [sub voc. μαρτυρ,] apply this term to him. “He had the mind though not the fate of a martyr.” “Non defuit animus martyrio,” &c. [Jerome and Cyprian.] Through ignorance of the meaning of the word μαρτυρ, in this peculiar application to John, the learned Haenlein seems to me to have fallen into an error on the opinion of these Fathers about his mode of death. In speaking of the general testimony as to the quiet death of this apostle, Haenlein says: “But Chrysostom, only in one ambiguous passage, (Homily 63 in Matthew) and his follower Theophylact, number the Apostle John among the martyrs.” [Haenlein’s Einleitung in Neuen Testamentes vol. III. chap. vi. § 1, p. 168.] The fact is, that not only these two, but several other Fathers, use the term in application to John, and they all do it without any implication of an actual, fatal martyrdom; as may be seen by a reference to Suicer, sub voc.

So little reverence have the critical, even among the Romanists, for any of these old stories about John’s adventures, that the sagacious Abbot Facditius (quoted by Lampe) quite turns these matters into a jest. Coupling this story with the one about John’s chaste celibacy, (as supported by the monachists,) he says, in reference to the latter, that if John made out to preserve his chastity uncontaminated among such a people as the Jews were, in that most corrupt age, he should consider it a greater miracle than if John had come safe out of the kettle of boiling oil; but on the reverend Abbot’s sentiment, perhaps many will remark with Lampe,——“quod pronuntiatum tamen nimis audax est.”——“It is rather too bold to pronounce such an opinion.” Nevertheless, such a termination of life would be so much in accordance with the standard mode of dispatching an apostle, that they would never have taken him out of the oil-kettle, except for the necessity of sending him to Patmos, and dragging him on through multitudes of odd adventures yet to come. So we might then have had the satisfaction of winding up his story, in the literal and happy application of the words of a certain venerable poetical formula for the conclusion of a nursery tale, which here makes not only rhyme but reason,——

---

HIS BANISHMENT.

This fable of his journey to Rome is by all its propagators connected with the well-authorized incident of his banishment to Patmos. This event, given on the high evidence of the Revelation which bears his name, is by all the best and most ancient authorities, referred to the period of the reign of Domitian. The precise year is as much beyond any means of investigation, as most other exact dates in his and all the other apostles’ history. From the terms in which the ancient writers commemorate the event, it is known, with tolerable certainty, to have occurred towards the close of the reign of Domitian, though none of the early Fathers specify the year. The first who pretend to fix the date, refer it to the fourteenth year of that emperor, and the most critical among the moderns fix it as late; and some even in the fifteenth or last year of his reign; since that persecution of the Christians, during which John seems to have been banished, may be fairly presumed, from the known circumstances as recorded in history, to have been the last great series of tyrannical acts committed by this remarkably wicked monarch. It certainly appears, from distinct assertions in the credible records of ecclesiastical history, that there was a great persecution begun about this time by Domitian, against the Christians; but there is no reasonable doubt that the extent and vindictiveness of it has been very much overrated, in the rage among the later Fathers, for multiplying the sufferings of the early Christians far beyond the truth. The first Christian writers who allude to this persecution very particularly, specify its character as far less aggravated than that of Nero, of which they declare it to have been but a shadow,——and the persecutor himself but a mere fraction of Nero in cruelty. There is not a single authenticated instance of any person’s having suffered death in this persecution; all the creditable historians who describe it, most particularly demonstrate that the whole range of punishments inflicted on the subjects of it, was confined to banishment merely. Another reason for supposing that this attack on the Christians was very moderate in its character, is the important negative fact, that not one heathen historian makes the slightest mention of any trouble with the new sect, during that bloody reign; although such repeated, vivid accounts are given of the dreadful persecution waged by Nero, as related above, in the Life of Peter. It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that there were no great cruelties practised on them; but that many of them, who had become obnoxious to the tyrant and his minions, were quietly put out of the way, that they might occasion no more trouble,——being sent from Rome and some of the principal cities, into banishment, along with many others whose removal was considered desirable by the rulers of Rome or the provinces; so that the Christians, suffering with many others, and some of high rank and character, a punishment of no very cruel nature, were not distinguished by common narrators, from the general mass of the banished; but were noticed more particularly by the writers of their own order, who thus specified circumstances that otherwise would not have been made known. Among those driven out from Ephesus at this time, John was included, probably on no special accusation otherwise than that of being prominent as the last survivor of the original founders, among these members of the new faith, who by their pure lives were a constant reproach to the open vices of the proud heathen around them; and by their refusal to conform to idolatrous observances, exposed themselves to the charge of non-conformity to the established religion of the state,——an offence of the highest order even among the Romans, whose tolerance of new religions was at length limited by the requisition, that no doctrine whatever should be allowed to aim directly at the overthrow of the settled order of things. When, therefore, it began to be apprehended that the religion of Jesus would, in its progress, overcome the securities of the ancient worship of the Olympian gods, those who felt their interests immediately connected with the system of idolatry, in their alarmed zeal for its support, made use of the worst specimens of imperial tyranny to check the advancing evil.

PATMOS.

The place chosen for his banishment was a dreary desert island in the Aegean sea, called Patmos. It is situated among that cluster of islands, called the Sporades, about twenty miles from the Asian coast, and thirty or forty southwest of Ephesus. It is at this day known by the observation of travelers, to be a most remarkably desolate place, showing hardly anything but bare rocks, on which a few poor inhabitants make but a wretched subsistence. In this insulated desert the aged apostle was doomed to pass the lonely months, far away from the enjoyments of Christian communion and social intercourse, so dear to him, as the last earthly consolation of his life. Yet to him, his residence at Ephesus was but a place of exile. Far away were the scenes of his youth and the graves of his fathers. “The shore whereon he loved to dwell,”——the lake on whose waters he had so often sported or labored in the freshness of early years, were still the same as ever, and others now labored there, as he had done ere he was called to a higher work. But the homes of his childhood knew him no more forever, and rejoiced now in the light of the countenances of strangers, or lay in blackening desolation beneath the brand of a wasting invasion. The waters and the mountains were there still,——they are there now; but that which to him constituted all their reality was gone then, as utterly as now. The ardent friends, the dear brother, the faithful father, the fondly ambitious and loving mother,——who made up his little world of life, and joy, and hope,——where were they? All were gone; even his own former self was gone too, and the joys, the hopes, the thoughts, the views of those early days, were buried as deeply as the friends of his youth, and far more irrevocably than they. Cut off thus utterly from all that once excited the earthly and merely human emotions within him, the whole world was alike a desert or a home, according as he found in it communion with God, and work for his remaining energies, in the cause of Christ. Wherever he went, he bore about with him his resources of enjoyment,——his home was within himself; the friends of his youth and manhood were still before him in the ever fresh images of their glorious examples; the brother of his heart was near him always, and nearest now, when the persecutions of imperial tyranny seemed to draw him towards a sympathetic participation in the pains and the glories of that bloody death. The Lord of his life, the author of his hopes, the guide of his youth, the cherisher of his spirit, was over and around him ever, with the consolations of his promised presence,——“with him always, even to the end of the world.”

THE APOCALYPSE.

The Revelation of John the Divine opens with a moving and splendid view of these circumstances. Being, as it is recorded, in the isle that is called Patmos, for preaching the word of God, and for bearing witness of Jesus Christ, he was in his lonely banishment, one Lord’s day, sitting wrapped in a holy spiritual contemplation, when he heard behind him a great voice, as of a trumpet, which broke upon his startled ear with a most solemnly grand annunciation of the presence of one whose being was the source and end of all things. As the amazed apostle turned to see the person from whom came such portentous words, there met his eye a vision so dazzling, yet appalling in its beauty and splendor, amid the bare, dark rocks around, that he fell to the earth without life, and lay motionless until the heavenly being, whose awful glories had so overwhelmed him, recalled him to his most vivid energies, by the touch of his life-giving hand. In the lightning-splendors of that countenance, far outshining the glories of Sinai, reflected from the face of Moses, the trembling eye of the apostolic seer recognized the lineaments of one whom he had known in other days, and upon whose bosom he had hung in the warm affection of youth. Even the eye which now flashed such rays, he knew to be that which had once been turned on him in the aspect of familiar love; nor did its glance now bear a strange or forbidding expression. The trumpet-tones of the voice, which of old, on Hermon, roused him from the stupor into which he fell at the sight of the foretaste of these very glories, now recalled him to life in the same encouraging words, “Be not afraid.” The crucified and ascended Jesus, living, though once dead, now called on his beloved apostle to record the revelations which should soon burst upon his eyes and ears; that the churches that had lately been under his immediate attention, might learn the approach of events which most nearly concerned the advance of their faith. First, therefore, addressing an epistolary charge to each of the seven churches, he called them to a severe account for their various errors, and gave to each such consolations and promises as were suited to its peculiar circumstances. Then dropping these individualizing exhortations, he leaves all the details of the past, and the minutiae of the state of the seven churches, for a glance over the events of coming ages, and the revolutions of empires and of worlds. The full explanation of the scenes which follow, is altogether beyond the range of a mere apostolic historian, and would require such ability and learning in the writer,——such a length of time for their application to this matter, and such an expanse of paper for their full expression, as are altogether out of the question in this case. Some few points in this remarkable writing, however, fall within the proper notice of the apostle’s biographer, and some questions on the scope of the Apocalypse itself, as well as on the history of it, as a part of the sacred canon, will therefore be here discussed.

The minute history of the apostolic writings,——the discussion of their particular scope and tenor,——and the evidences of their inspiration and authenticity,——are topics, which fall for the most part under a distinct and independent department of Christian theology, the common details of which are alone sufficient to fill many volumes; and are of course altogether beyond the compass of a work, whose main object is limited to a merely historical branch of religious knowledge. Still, such inquiries into these deeper points, as truly concern the personal history of the apostles, are proper subjects of attention, even here. The life of no literary or scientific man is complete, which does not give such an account of his writings as will show under what circumstances,——with what design,——for what persons,——and at what time, they were written. But a minute criticism of their style, or illustrations of their meaning, or a detail of all the objections which have been made to them, might fairly be pronounced improper intrusions upon the course of the narrative. With the danger of such an extension of these investigations, in view, this work here takes up those points in the history of John’s writings, that seem to fall under the general rule in making up a personal and literary biography.

In the case of this particular writing, moreover, the difficulties of an enlarged discussion are so numerous and complicated, as to offer an especial reason to the apostolic historian, for avoiding the almost endless details of questions that have agitated the greatest minds in Christendom, for the last four hundred years. And the decision of the most learned and sagacious of modern critics, pronounces the Apocalypse of John to be “the most difficult and doubtful book of the New Testament.”

The points proper for inquiry in connection with a history of the life of John, may be best arranged in the form of questions with their answers severally following.

I. Did the Apostle John write the Apocalypse?

Many will doubtless feel disposed to question the propriety of thus bringing out, in a popular book, inquiries which have hitherto, by a sort of common consent, been confined to learned works, and wholly excluded from such as are intended to convey religious knowledge to ordinary readers. The principle has been sometimes distinctly specified and maintained, that some established truths in exegetical theology, must needs be always kept among the arcana of religious knowledge, for the eyes and ears of the learned few, to whom “it is given to know these mysteries;” “but that to them that are without,” they are ever to remain unknown. This principle is often acted on by the theologians of Germany and England, so that a distinct line seems to be drawn between an exoteric and an esoteric doctrine,——a public and a private belief,——the latter being the literal truth, while the former is such a view of things, as suits the common religious prejudices of the mass of hearers and readers. But such is not the free spirit of true Protestantism; nor is any deceitful doctrine of “accommodation” accordant with the open, single-minded honesty of apostolic teachings. Taking from the persons who are the subjects of this history, something of their simple freedom of word and action, for the reader’s benefit, several questions will be boldly asked, and as boldly answered, on the authorship, the scope, and character of the Apocalypse. And first, on the present personal question in hand, a spirit of tolerant regard for opinions discordant with those of some readers, perhaps may be best learned, by observing into what uncertainties the minds of the greatest and most devout of theologians, and of the mighty founders of the Protestant faith, have been led on this very point.

The great Michaelis (Introduction to the New Testament, vol. IV. c. xxxiii. § 1.) apologizes for his own doubts on the Apocalypse, justifying himself by the similar uncertainty of the immortal Luther; and the remarks of Michaelis upon the character of the persons to whom Luther thus boldly published his doubts, will be abundantly sufficient to justify the discussion of such darkly deep matters, to the readers of the Lives of the Apostles.

Not only Martin Luther as here quoted by Michaelis, but the other great reformers of that age, John Calvin and Ulric Zwingle, boldly expressed their doubts on this book, which more modern speculators have made so miraculously accordant with anti-papal notions. Their learned cotemporary, Erasmus, also, and the critical Joseph Scaliger, with other great names of past ages, have contributed their doubts, to add a new mark of suspicion to the Apocalypse.

“As it is not improbable that this cautious method of proceeding will give offense to some of my readers, I must plead in my behalf the example of Luther, who thought and acted precisely in the same manner. His sentiments on this subject are delivered, not in an occasional dissertation on the Apocalypse, but in the preface to his German translation of it, a translation designed not merely for the learned, but for the illiterate, and even for children. In the preface prefixed to that edition, which was printed in 1522, he expressed himself in very strong terms. In this preface he says: ‘In this book of the Revelation of St. John, I leave it to every person to judge for himself: I will bind no man to my opinion; I say only what I feel. Not one thing only fails in this book; so that I hold it neither for apostolical, nor prophetical. First and chiefly, the apostles do not prophesy in visions, but in clear and plain words, as St. Peter, St. Paul, and Christ in the gospel do. It is moreover the apostle’s duty to speak of Christ and his actions in a simple way, not in figures and visions. Also no prophet of the Old Testament, much less of the New, has so treated throughout his whole book of nothing but visions: so that I put it almost in the same rank with the fourth book of Esdras, and cannot any way find that it was dictated by the Holy Ghost. Lastly, let every one think of it what his own spirit suggests. My spirit can make nothing out of this book; and I have reason enough not to esteem it highly, since Christ is not taught in it, which an apostle is above all things bound to do, as he says, (Acts i.) Ye are my witnesses. Therefore I abide by the books which teach Christ clearly and purely.’

“But in that which he printed in 1534, he used milder and less decisive expressions. In the preface to this later edition, he divides prophecies into three classes, the third of which contains visions, without explanations of them; and of these he says: ‘As long as a prophecy remains unexplained and has no determinate interpretation, it is a hidden silent prophecy, and is destitute of the advantages which it ought to afford to Christians. This has hitherto happened to the Apocalypse: for though many have made the attempt, no one to the present day, has brought any thing certain out of it, but several have made incoherent stuff out of their own brain. On account of these uncertain interpretations, and hidden senses, we have hitherto left it to itself, especially since some of the ancient Fathers believed that it was not written by the apostle, as is related in Lib. III. Church History. In this uncertainty we, for our part, still let it remain: but do not prevent others from taking it to be the work of St. John the apostle, if they choose. And because I should be glad to see a certain interpretation of it, I will afford to other and higher spirits occasion to reflect.’

“Still however, he declared he was not convinced that the Apocalypse was canonical, and recommended the interpretation of it to those who were more enlightened than himself. If Luther then, the author of our reformation, thought and acted in this manner, and the divines of the last two centuries still continued, without the charge of heresy, to print Luther’s preface to the Apocalypse, in the editions of the German Bible of which they had the superintendence, surely no one of the present age ought to censure a writer for the avowal of similar doubts. Should it be objected that what was excusable in Luther would be inexcusable in a modern divine, since more light has been thrown on the subject than there had been in the sixteenth century, I would ask in what this light consists. If it consists in newly discovered testimonies of the ancients, they are rather unfavorable to the cause; for the canon of the Syrian church, which was not known in Europe when Luther wrote, decides against it. On the other hand, if this light consists in a more clear and determinate explanation of the prophecies contained in the Apocalypse, which later commentators have been able to make out, by the aid of history, I would venture to appeal to a synod of the latest and most zealous interpreters of it, such as Vitringa, Lange, Oporin, Heumann, and Bengel, names which are free from all suspicion; and I have not the least doubt, that at every interpretation which I pronounced unsatisfactory, I should have at least three voices out of the five in my favor. At all events they would never be unanimous against me, in the places where I declared that I was unable to perceive the new light, which is supposed to have been thrown on the subject since the time of Luther.

“I admit that Luther uses too harsh expressions, where he speaks of the epistle of St. James, though in a preface not designed for Christians of every denomination: but his opinion of the Apocalypse is delivered in terms of the utmost diffidence, which are well worthy of imitation. And this is so much the more laudable, as the Apocalypse is a book, which Luther’s opposition to the church of Rome must have rendered highly acceptable to him, unless he had thought impartially, and had refused to sacrifice his own doubts to polemical considerations.”

To pretend to decide with certainty on a point, which Martin Luther boldly denied, and which John David Michaelis modestly doubted, implies neither superior knowledge of the truth, nor a more holy reverence for it; but rather marks a mere presumptuous self-confidence, and an ignorant bigotry, arising from the prejudices of education. Yet from the deep researches of the latter of these writers, and of other exegetical theologians since, much may be drawn to support the view taken in the text of this Life of John, which is accordant with the common notion of its authorship. The quotation just given, however, is valuable as inculcating the propriety of hesitation and moderation in pronouncing upon results.

The testimony of the Fathers, on the authenticity of the Apocalypse as a work of John, the apostle, may be very briefly alluded to here. The full details of this important evidence may be found by the scholar in J. D. Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament (Vol. IV. c. xxxiii. § 2.) Hug’s Introduction to the New Testament (Vol. II. § 176.) Lardner’s Credibility of Gospel History (Supplement, chapter 22.) Fabricii Bibliotheca Graeca. (Harles’s 4to. edition with Keil’s, Kuinoel’s, Gurlitt’s, and Heyne’s notes, vol. IV. pp. 786–795, corresponding to vol. III. pp. 146–149, of the first edition.) Lampe, Prolegomena to a Johannine Theology.

Justin Martyr (A. D. 140,) is the first who mentions this book. He says, “A man among us, named John, one of the apostles of Christ, has, in a revelation which was made to him, prophesied,” &c. Melito (A. D. 177.) is quoted by Eusebius and by Jerome, as having written a treatise on the Revelation. He was bishop of Sardis, one of the seven churches, and his testimony would be therefore highly valuable, if it were certain whether he wrote for or against the authenticity of the work. Probably he was for it, since he calls it “the Apocalypse of John,” in the title of his treatise, and the silence of Eusebius about the opinion of Melito may fairly be construed as showing that he did not write against it. Irenaeus, (A. D. 178,) who in his younger days was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple and personal friend of John, often quotes this book as “the Revelation of John, the disciple of the Lord.” And in another place, he says, “It was seen not long ago, almost in our own age, at the end of the reign of Domitian.” This is the most direct and valuable kind of testimony which the writings of the Fathers can furnish on any point in apostolic history; for Irenaeus here speaks from personal knowledge, and, as will be hereafter shown, throws great light on the darkest passage in the Apocalypse, by what he had heard from those persons who had seen John himself, face to face, and who heard these things from his own lips. Theophilus of Antioch, (A. D. 181,)——Clemens of Alexandria, (A. D. 194,——Tertullian of Carthage, (A. D. 200,)——Apollonius of Ephesus, (A. D. 211,)——Hippolytus of Italy, (A. D. 220,)——Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea, (A. D. 230,)——all received and quoted it as a work of John the apostle, and some testify very fully as to the character of the evidence of its authenticity, received from their predecessors and from the contemporaries of John.

But from about the middle of the third century, it fell under great suspicion of being the production of some person different from the apostle John. Having been quoted by Cerinthus and his disciples, (a set of Gnostical heretics, in the first century,) in support of their views, it was, by some of their opponents, pronounced to be a fabrication of Cerinthus himself. At this later period, however, it suffered a much more general condemnation; but though denied by some to be an apostolic work, it was still almost universally granted to be inspired. Dionysius of Alexandria, (A. D. 250,) in a book against the Millenarians, who rested their notions upon the millenial passages of this revelation, has endeavored to make the Apocalypse useless to them in support of their heresy. This he has done by referring to the authority of some of his predecessors, who rejected it on account of its maintaining Cerinthian doctrines. This objection however, has been ably refuted by modern writers, especially by Michaelis and Hug, both of whom, distinctly show that there are many passages in the Revelation, so perfectly opposite to the doctrines of Cerinthus, that he could never have written the book, although he may have been willing to quote from it such passages as accorded with his notions about a sensual millenium,——as he could in this way meet those, who did take the book for an inspired writing.

Dionysius himself, however, does not pretend to adopt this view of the authorship of it, but rather thinks that it was the work of John the presbyter, who lived in Ephesus in the age of John the apostle, and had probably been confounded with him by the early Fathers. This John is certainly spoken of by Papias, (A. D. 120,) who knew personally both him and the apostle; but Papias has left nothing on the Apocalypse, as the work of either of them. (The substance of the whole argument of Dionysius is very elaborately given and reviewed, by both Michaelis and Hug.) After this bold attack, the apostolic character of the work seems to have received much injury among most of the eastern Fathers, and was generally rejected by both the Syrian and Greek churches, having no place in their New Testament canon. Eusebius, (A. D. 315,) who gives the first list of the writings of the New Testament, that is known, divides all books which had ever been offered as apostolical, into three classes,——the universally acknowledged, (ὁμολογουμενα homologoumena,)——the disputed, (αντιλεγομενα antilegomena,)——and the spurious, (νοθα notha.) In the first class, he puts all now received into the New Testament, except the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistles of James and Jude, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, and the Revelation. These exceptions he puts into the second, or disputed class, along with sundry writings now universally considered apocryphal. Eusebius says also, “It is likely that the Revelation was seen by John the presbyter, if not by John the apostle.”——Cyril of Jerusalem, (A. D. 348,) in his catalogue of the Scriptures, does not allow this a place. Epiphanius of Salamis, in Cyprus, (A. D. 368,) though himself receiving it as of apostolic origin, acknowledged that others in his time rejected it. The council of Laodicea, (A. D. 363,) sitting in the seat of one of the seven churches, did not give the Revelation a place among the sacred writings of the New Testament, though their list includes all others now received. Gregory, of Nazianzus, in Cappadocia, (A. D. 370,) gives a catalogue of the canonical scriptures, but excludes the Revelation. Amphilochius, of Iconium, in Lycaonia, (A. D. 370,) in mentioning the canonical scriptures, says, “The Revelation of John is approved by some; but many say it is spurious.” The scriptural canon of the Syrian churches rejects it, even as given by Ebed Jesu, in 1285; nor was it in the ancient Syriac version completed during the first century; but the reason for this may be, that the Revelation was not then promulgated.——Jerome of Rome, (A. D. 396,) receives it, as do all the Latin Fathers; but he says, “the Greek churches reject it.”——Chrysostom (A. D. 398,) never quotes it, and is not supposed to have received it. Augustin, of Africa, (A. D. 395,) receives it, but says that it was not received by all in his time. Theodoret, (A. D. 423,) of Syria, and all the ecclesiastics of that country, reject it also.

The result of all this evidence is, as will be observed by glancing over the dates of the Fathers quoted, that, until the year 250, no writer can be found who scrupled to receive the Apocalypse as the genuine work of John the apostle,——that the further back the Fathers are, the more explicit and satisfactory is their testimony in its favor,——and that the fullest of all, is that of Irenaeus, who had his information from Polycarp, the most intimate and beloved disciple of John himself. Now, where the evidence is not of the ordinary cumulative character, growing weighty, like a snowball, the farther it travels from its original starting-place, but as here, is strongest at the source,——it may justly be pronounced highly valuable, and an eminent exception to the usual character of such historical proofs, which, as has been plentifully shown already in this book, are too apt to come “but-end first,” as the investigator travels from the last to the first. It will be observed also, by a glance at the places where these Fathers flourished, that all those who rejected the Apocalypse belonged to the EASTERN section of the churches, including both the Greeks and the Syrians, while the WESTERN churches, both the Europeans and Latino-Africans, adopted the Apocalypse as an apostolic writing. This is not so fortunate a concurrence as that of the dates, since the easterns certainly had better means of investigating such a point than the westerns. A reason may be suggested for this, in the circumstance, that the Cerinthians and other heretics, who were the occasion of the first rejection of the Apocalypse, annoyed only the eastern churches, and thus originated the mischief only among them. Lampe, Michaelis and others, indeed, quote Caius of Rome, as a solitary exception to this geographical distribution of the difficulty, but Paulus and Hug have shown that the passage in Caius, to which they refer, has been misapprehended, as the scholar may see by a reference to Hug’s Introduction to the New Testament, vol. II. pp. 647–650, [Wait’s translation,] pp. 593–596, [original.] There is something in Jerome too, which implies that some of the Latins, in his time, were beginning to follow the Greek fashion of rejecting this book, but he scouts this new notion, and says he shall stick to the old standard canon.

The internal evidence is also so minutely protracted in its character, that only a bare allusion to it can be here permitted, and reference to higher and deeper sources of information, on such an exegetical point, may be made for the benefit of the scholar. Lampe, Wolf, Michaelis, Mill, Eichhorn and others, quoted by Fabricius, [Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. IV. p. 795, note 46.] Hug and his English translator, Dr. Wait, are also full on this point.

This evidence consists for the most part in a comparison of passages in this book with similar ones in the other writings of John, more especially his gospel. Wetstein, in particular, has brought together many such parallelisms, some of which are so striking in the peculiar expressions of John, and yet so merely accidental in their character, as to afford most satisfactory evidence to the nicest critics, of the identity of authorship. A table of these coincidences is given from Wetstein, by Wait, Hug’s translator, (p. 636, note.) Yet on this very point,——the style,——the most serious objection to the Apocalypse, as a work of the author of John’s gospel, has always been founded;——the rude, wild, thundering sublimity of the vision of Patmos, presenting such a striking contrast with the soft, love-teaching, and beseeching style of the gospel and the epistles of John. But such objectors have forgotten or overlooked the immense difference between the circumstances under which these works were suggested and composed. Their period, their scene, their subject, their object, were all widely removed from each other, and a thoughtful examination will show, that writings of such widely various scope and tendency could not well have less striking differences, than those observable between this and the other writings of John. In such a change of circumstances, the structure of sentences, the choice of words, and the figures of speech, could hardly be expected to show the slightest similarity between works, thus different in design, though by the same author. But in the minuter peculiarities of language, certain favorite expressions of the author,——particular associations of words, such as a forger could never hit upon in that uninventive age,——certain personal views and sentiments on trifling points, occasionally modifying the verbal forms of ideas——these and a multitude of other characteristics, making up that collection of abstractions which is called an author’s style,——all quite beyond the reach of an imitator, but presenting the most valuable and honest tests to the laborious critic,——constitute a series of proofs in this case, which none can fully appreciate but the investigators and students themselves.

II. With what design was the Apocalypse written?

There is no part of the Bible which has been the subject of so much perversion, or on which the minds of the great mass of Christian readers have been suffered to fall into such gross errors, as the Apocalypse. This is the opinion of all the great exegetical theologians of this age, who have examined the scope of the work most attentively; and from the time of Martin Luther till this moment, the opinions of the learned have for the most part been totally different from those which have made up the popular sentiment,——none or few, caring to give the world the benefit of the simple truth, which might be ill received by those who loved darkness rather than light; and those who knew the truth, have generally preferred to keep the quiet enjoyment of it to themselves. This certainly is much to be regretted; for in consequence of this culpable negligence of the duty of making religious knowledge available for the good of the whole, this particular apostolic writing has been the occasion of the most miserable and scandalous delusions among the majority even of the more intelligent order of Bible readers,——delusions, which, affecting no point whatever in creeds and confessions of faith, those bulwarks of sects, have been suffered to rage and spread their debasing error, without subjecting those who thus indulged their foolish fancies, to the terrors of ecclesiastical censure. The Revelation of John has, accordingly, for the last century or two, been made a licensed subject for the indulgence of idle fancies, and used as a grand storehouse for every “filthy dreamer” to draw upon, for the scriptural prophetical supports of his particular notions of “the signs of the times,” and for the warrant of his special denunciations of divine wrath and coming ruin, against any system that might happen to be particularly abominable in his religious eyes. Thus, a most baseless delusion has been long suffered to pervade the minds of common readers, respecting the general scope of the Apocalypse, perverting the latter parts of it into a prophecy of the rise, triumph and downfall of the Romish papal tyranny; while in respect to the minor details, every schemer has been left to satisfy himself, as his private fancy or sectarian zeal might direct him. Now, not only is all this ranting trash directly opposed to the clear, natural and simple explanations, given by those very persons among the earliest Christian writers, who had John’s own private personal testimony as to his real meaning, in the dark passages which have in modern times been made the subject of such idle, fanciful interpretations; but they are so palpably inconsistent both with the general scope and the minute details of the writing itself, that even without the support of this most incontrovertible evidence of the earliest Christian antiquity, the falsehood of the idea of any anti-papal prophecy can be most triumphantly and unanswerably settled; and this has been repeatedly done, in every variety of manner, by the learned labors of all the sagest of the orthodox theologians of Germany, Holland, France and England, for the last three hundred years. A most absurd notion seems to be prevalent, that the idea of a rational historical interpretation of the Apocalypse, is one of the wicked results of that most horrible of abstract monsters, “German neology;” and the dreadful name of Eichhorn is straightway referred to, as the source of this common sense view. But Eichhorn and all those of the modern German schools of theology, who have taken up this notion, so far from originating the view or aspiring to claim it as their invention, were but quietly following the standard authorities which had been steadily accumulating on this point for sixteen hundred years; and instead of being the result of neology or of anything new, it was as old as the time of Irenaeus. The testimony of all the early writers on this point, is uniform and explicit; and they all, without a solitary exception, explain the great mass of the bold expressions in it, about coming ruin on the enemies of the pure faith of Christ, as a distinct, direct prophecy of the downfall of imperial Rome, as the great heathen foe of the saints. There was among them no very minute account of the manner in which the poetical details of the prophecy was to be fulfilled; but the general meaning of the whole was considered to be so marked, dated, and individualized, that to have denied this manifest interpretation in their presence, must have seemed an absurdity not less than to have denied the authentic history of past ages. Not all, nor most of the Christian Fathers however, have noticed the design and character of the Apocalypse, even among those of the western churches; while the scepticism of the Greek and Syrian Fathers, after the third century, about the authenticity of the work, has deprived the world of the great advantage which their superior acquaintance with the original language of the writing, with its peculiarly oriental style, allusions and quotations, would have enabled them to afford in the faithful interpretation of the predictions. From the very first, however, there were difficulties among the different sects, about the allegorical and literal interpretations of the expressions which referred to the final triumph of the followers of Christ; some interpreting those passages as describing an actual personal reign of Christ on earth, and a real worldly triumph of his followers, during a thousand years, all which was to happen shortly;——and from this notion of a Chiliasm, or a Millennium, arose a peculiar sect of heretics, famous in early ecclesiastical history, during the two first centuries, under the name of Chiliasts or ♦Millenarians,——the Greek or the Latin appellative being used, according as the persons thus designated or those designating them, were of eastern or western stock. Cerinthus and his followers so far improved this worldly view of the subject, as to inculcate the notion that the faithful, during that triumph, were to be further rewarded, by the full fruition of all bodily and sensual pleasures, and particularly that the whole thousand years were to be passed in nuptial enjoyments. But these foolish vagaries soon passed away, nor did they, even in the times when they prevailed, affect the standard interpretation of the general historical relations of the prophecy.

♦ “Millennarians” replaced with “Millenarians”

It was not until a late age of modern times, that any one pretended to apply the denunciations of ruin, with which the Apocalypse abounds, to any object but heathen, IMPERIAL Rome, or to the pagan system generally, as personified or concentrated in the existence of that city. During the middle ages, the Franciscans, an order of monks, fell under the displeasure of the papal power; and being visited with the censures of the head of the Romish church, retorted, by denouncing him as an Anti-Christ, and directly set all their wits to work to annoy him in various ways, by tongue and pen. In the course of this furious controversy, some of them turned their attention to the prophecies respecting Rome, which were found in the Apocalypse, then received as an inspired book by all the adherents of the church of Rome; and searching into the denunciations of ruin on the Babylon of the seven hills, immediately saw by what a slight perversion of expressions, they could apply all this dreadful language to their great foe. This they did accordingly, with all the spite which had suggested it; and in consequence of this beginning, the Apocalypse thenceforward became the great storehouse of scriptural abuse of the Pope, to all who happened to quarrel with him. This continued the fashion, down to the time of the Reformation; but the bold Luther and his coadjutors, scorned the thought of a scurrilous aid, drawn from such a source, and with a noble honesty not only refused to adopt this construction, but even did much to throw suspicion on the character of the book itself. Luther however, had not the genius suited to minute historical and critical observations; and his condemnation of it therefore, though showing his own honest confidence in his mighty cause, to be too high to allow him to use a dishonest aid, yet does not affect the results to which a more deliberate examination has led those who were as honest as he, and much better critics. This however, was the state in which the early reformers left the interpretation of the Apocalypse. But in later times, a set of spitefully zealous Protestants, headed by Napier, Mede, and bishop Newton, took up the Revelation of John, as a complete anticipative history of the triumphs, the cruelties and the coming ruin of the Papal tyranny. These were followed by a servile herd of commentators and sermonizers, who went on with all the elaborate details of this interpretation, even to the precise meaning of the teeth and tails of the prophetical locusts. These views were occasionally varied by others tracing the whole history of the world in these few chapters, and finding the conquests of the Huns, the Saracens, the Turks, &c. all delineated with most amazing particularity.

But while these idle fancies were amusing the heads of men, who showed more sense in other things, the great current of Biblical knowledge had been flowing on very uniformly in the old course of rational interpretation, and the genius of modern criticism had already been doing much to perfect the explanation of passages on which the wisdom of the Fathers had never pretended to throw light. Of all critics who ever took up the Apocalypse in a rational way, none ever saw so clearly its real force and application as Hugo Grotius; and to him belongs the praise of having been the first of the moderns to apprehend and expose the truth of this sublimest of apostolic records. This mighty champion of Protestant evangelical theology, with that genius which was so resplendent in all his illustrations of Divine things as well as of human law, distinctly pointed out the three grand divisions of the prophetical plan of the work. “The visions as far as to the end of the eleventh chapter, describe the affairs of the Jews; then, as far as to the end of the twentieth chapter, the affairs of the Romans; and thence to the end, the most flourishing state of the Christian church.” Later theologians, following the great plan of explanation thus marked out, have still farther perfected it, and penetrated still deeper into the mysteries of the whole. They have shown that the two cities, Rome and Jerusalem, whose fate constitutes the most considerable portions of the Apocalypse, are mentioned only as the seats of two religions whose fall is foretold; and that the third city, the New Jerusalem, whose triumphant heavenly building is described in the end, after the downfall of the former two, is the religion of Christ. Of these three cities, the first is called Sodom; but it is easy to see that this name of sin and ruin is only used to designate another devoted by the wrath of God to a similar destruction. Indeed, the sacred writer himself explains that this is only a metaphorical or spiritual use of the term,——“which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt;”——and to set its locality beyond all possibility of doubt, it is furthermore described as the city “where also our Lord was crucified.” It is also called the “Holy city,” and in it was the temple. Within, have been slain two faithful witnesses of Jesus Christ; these are the two Jameses,——the great apostolic proto-martyrs; James the son of Zebedee, killed by Herod Agrippa, and James the brother of our Lord, the son of Alpheus, killed by order of the high priest, in the reign of Nero, as described in the lives of those apostles. The ruin of the city is therefore sealed. The second described, is called Babylon; but that Chaldean city had fallen to the dust of its plain, centuries before; and this city, on the other hand, stood on seven hills, and it was, at the moment when the apostle wrote, the seat of “the kingdom of the kingdoms of the earth,” the capital of the nations of the world,——expressions which distinctly mark it to be imperial Rome. The seven angels pour out the seven vials of wrath on this Babylon, and the awful ruin of this mighty city is completed.

To give repetition and variety to this grand view of the downfall of these two dominant religions, and to present these grand objects of the Apocalypse in new relations to futurity, which could not be fully expressed under the original figures of the cities which were the capital seats of each, they are each again presented under the poetical image of a female, whose actions and features describe the fate of these two systems, and their upholders. First, immediately after the account of the city which is called Sodom, a female is described as appearing in the heavens, in a most peculiar array of glory, clothed in the sun’s rays, with the moon beneath her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. This woman, thus splendidly arrayed, and exalted to the skies, represents the ancient covenant, crowned with all the old and holy honors of the twelve tribes of Israel. A huge red dragon (the image under which Daniel anciently represented idolatry) rises in the heavens, sweeping away the third part of the stars, and characterized by seven heads and ten horns, (thus identified with a subsequent metaphor representing imperial Rome;)——he rages to devour the offspring to which the woman is about to give existence. The child is born destined to rule all nations with a rod of iron,——and is caught up to the throne of God, while the mother flees from the rage of the dragon into the wilderness, where she is to wander for ages, till the time decreed by God for her return. Thus, when from the ancient covenant had sprung forth the new revelation of truth in Jesus, it was driven by the rage of heathenism from its seat of glory, to wander in loneliness, unheeded save by God, till the far distant day of its blissful re-union with its heavenly offspring, which is, under the favor of God, advancing to a firm and lasting dominion over the nations. Even in her retirement, she is followed by the persecutions of the dragon, now cast down from higher glories; but his fury is lost,——she is protected by the earth, (sheltered by the Parthian empire;) yet the dragon still persecutes those of her children who believe in Christ, and are yet within his power; (Jews and Christians persecuted in Rome, by Nero and Domitian.)

Again, after the punishment and destruction of imperial Babylon have been described, a second female appears, not in heaven, like the first, but in an earthly wilderness, splendidly attired, but not with the heavenly glories of the sun, moon and stars. Purple and scarlet robes are her covering, marking an imperial honor; and gold, silver, and all earthly gems, adorn her,——showing only worldly greatness. In her hand is the golden cup of sins and abominations, and she is designated beyond all possibility of mistake, by the words, “Mystery, Babylon the Great.” This refers to the fact, that Rome had another name which was kept a profound secret, known only to the priests, and on the preservation of which religious “mystery,” the fortunes of the empire were supposed to depend. The second name also identifies her with the city before described as “Babylon.” She sits on a scarlet beast, with seven heads and ten horns. The former are afterwards minutely explained, by the apostle himself, in the same chapter, as the seven hills on which she sits; they are also seven kings, that is, it would seem, seven periods of empire, of which five are past, one now is, and one brief one is yet to come, and the bloody beast itself——the religion of heathenism——is another. The ten horns are the ten kings or sovrans who never received any lasting dominion, but merely held the sway one after another, a brief hour, with the beast, or spirit of heathenism. These, in short, are the ten emperors of Rome before the days of the Apocalypse;——Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian and Titus. These had all reigned, each his hour, giving his power to the support of heathenism, and thus warring against the faith of the true believers. Still, though reigning over the imperial city, they shall hate her, and make her desolate; strip her of her costly attire, and burn her with fire. How well expressed here the tyranny, of the worst of the Caesars, plundering the state, banishing the citizens, and, in the case of Nero, “burning her with fire!”

Who can mistake the gorgeously awful picture? It is heathen, imperial Rome, desolating and desolated, at that moment suffering under the tyrannic sway of him whom the apostle cannot yet number with the gloomy TEN, that have passed away to the tomb of ages gone. It is the mystic Babylon, drunk with the blood of the faithful witnesses of Christ, and triumphing in the agonies of his saints, “butchered to make a Roman holiday!” No wonder that the amazement of the apostolic seer should deepen into horror, and highten to indignation. Through her tyranny his brethren had been slaughtered, or driven out from among men, like beasts; and by that same tyranny he himself was now doomed to a lonely exile from friends and apostolic duties, on that wild heap of barren rocks. Well might he burst out in prophetic denunciation of her ruin, and rejoice in the awful doom, which the angels of God sung over her; and listen exultingly to the final wail over her distant fall, rolling up from futurity, in the coming day of the Gothic and Hunnish ravagers, when she should be “the desolator desolate, the victor overthrown.”

As there are three mystically named cities——Sodom, Babylon, and the New Jerusalem; so there are three metaphoric females,——the star-crowned woman in heaven, the bloody harlot on the beast in the wilderness, and the bride, the Lamb’s wife. A peculiar fate befalls each of the three pairs. The spiritual Sodom falls under a temporary ruin, trodden under foot by the Gentiles, forty-two mystic months; and the star-crowned daughter of Zion wanders desolate in the wilderness of the world, for twelve hundred and sixty days, till the hand of her God shall restore her to grace and glory. The great Babylon of the seven hills, falls under a doom of far darker, and of irrevocable desolation,——like the dashing roar of the sinking rock thrown into the sea, she is thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. And such too, is the doom of the fierce scarlet rider of the beast,——“Rejoice over her, O heaven! and ye holy apostles and prophets! for God has avenged you on her.” But beyond all this awful ruin appears a vision of contrasting, splendid beauty.

“The first two acts already past,

The third shall close the drama with the day;——

Time’s noblest offspring is the last.”

The shouts of vindictive triumph over the dreadful downfall of the bloody city, now soften and sweeten into the songs of joy and praise, while the New Jerusalem, the church of God and Christ, comes down from the heavens in a solemn, glorious mass of living splendor, to bless the earth with its holy presence. In this last great scene, also, there is a female, the third of the mystic series; not like her of the twelve stars, now wandering like a widow disconsolate, in the wilderness;——not like her of the jeweled, scarlet and purple robes, cast down from her lofty seat, like an abandoned harlot, now desolate in ashes, from which her smoke rises up forever and ever;——but it is one, all holy, happy, pure, coming down stainless from the throne of God,——a bride, crowned with the glory of God, adorned for her husband,——the One slain from the foundation of the world. He through the opening heavens, too, has come forth before her, the Word of God, the Faithful and the True,——known by his bloody vesture, stained, not in the gore of slaughtered victims, but in the pure blood poured forth by himself, for the world, from its foundation. Yet now he rode forth on his white horse, as a warrior-king, dealing judgment upon the world with the sword of wrath,——with the sceptre of iron. Behind him rode the armies of heaven,——the hallowed hosts of the chosen of God,——like their leader, on white horses, but not like him, in crimson vesture; their garments are white and clean; by a miracle of purification, they are washed and made white in blood. This mighty leader, with these bright armies, now returns from the conquests to which he rode forth from heaven so gloriously. The kings and the hosts of the earth have arrayed themselves in vain against him;——the mighty imperial monster, in all the vastness of his wide dominion,——the false prophets of heathenism, combining their vile deceptions with his power, are vanquished, crushed with all their miserable slaves, whose flesh now fills and fattens the eagles, the vultures, and the ravens. The spirit of heathenism is crushed; the dragon, the monster of idolatry, is chained, and sunk into the bottomless pit,——yet not for ever. After a course of ages,——a mystic thousand years,——he slowly rises, and winding with serpent cunning among the nations, he deceives them again; till at last, lifting his head over the world, he gathers each idolatrous and barbarous host together, from the whole breadth of the earth, encompassing and assaulting the camp of the saints; but while they hope for the ruin of the faithful, fire comes down from God, and devours them. The accusing deceiver,——the genius of idolatry and superstition,——is at last seized and bound again; but not for a mere temporary imprisonment. With the spirit of deception and imposture, he is cast into a sea of fire, where both are held in unchanging torment, day and night, forever. But one last, awful scene remains; and that is one, that in sublimity, and vastness, and overwhelming horror, as far outgoes the highest effort of any genius of human poetry, as the boundless expanse of the sky excels the mightiest work of man. “A great white throne is fixed, and One sits on it, from whose face heaven and earth flee away, and no place is found for them.” “The dead, small and great, stand before God; they are judged and doomed, as they rise from the sea and from the land,——from Hades, and from every place of death.” Over all, rises the new heaven and the new earth, to which now comes down the city of God,——the church of Christ,——into which the victorious, the redeemed, and the faithful enter. The Conqueror and his armies march into the bridal city of the twelve jewelled gates, on whose twelve foundation-stones are written the names of the mighty founders, the twelve apostles of the slain one. The glories of that last, heavenly, and truly eternal city, are told, and the mighty course of prophecy ceases. The three great series of events are announced; the endless triumphs of the faithful are achieved.

III. What is the style of the Apocalypse?

This inquiry refers to the language, spirit and rhetorical structure of the writing, to its rank as an effort of composition, and to its peculiarities as expressive of the personal character and feelings of its inspired writer. The previous inquiry has been answered in such a way as to illustrate the points involved in the present one; and a recapitulation of the simple results of that inquiry, will best present the facts necessary for a satisfactory reply to some points of this.

First, the Apocalypse is a prophecy, in the common understanding of the term; but is not limited, as in the ordinary sense of that word, to a mere declaration of futurity; it embraces in its plan the events of the past, and with a glance like that of the Eternal, sweeps over that which has been and that which is to be, as though both were now; and in its solemn course through ages, past, present, and future, it bears the record of faithful history, as well as of glorious prophecy.

Second, the Apocalypse is poetry, in the highest and justest sense of the word. All prophecy is poetry. The sublimity of such thoughts can not be expressed in the plain unbroken detail of a prose narrative; and even when the events of past history are combined in one harmonious series with wide views of the future, they too rise from the dull unpictured record of a mere narrator, and share in the elevation of the mighty whole. The spirit of the writer, replete, not with mere particulars, but with vivid images, seeks language that paints, “thoughts that breathe, and words that burn;” and thus the writing that flows forth is poetry,——the imaginative expression of deep, high feeling——swelling where the occasion moves the writer, into the energy of passion, whether dark or holy.

The character of the Apocalypse, as affected by the passionate feelings of the writer, is also a point which has been illustrated by foregoing historical statements of his situation and condition at the time of the Revelation. He was the victim of an unjust and cruel sentence, deprived of all the sweet earthly solaces of his advanced age, and left on a desert rock,——useless to the cause of Christ and beyond even the knowledge of its progress. The mournful sound of sweeping winds and dashing waves, alone broke the dreary silence of his loneliness, and awaking sensations only of a melancholy order, sent back his thoughts into the sadder remembrances of the past, and called up also many of the sterner emotions against those who had been the occasions of the past and present calamities which grieved him. The very outset is in such a tone as these circumstances would naturally inspire. A deep, holy indignation breaks forth in the solemn annunciation of himself, as their “brother and companion in tribulation.” Sadness is the prominent sentiment expressed in all the addresses to the churches; and in the prelude to the great Apocalypse, while the ceremonies of opening the book which contains it are going on, the strong predominant emotion of the writer is again betrayed in the vision of “the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they bore;” and the solemnly mournful cry which they send up to him for whom they died, expresses the deep and bitter feeling of the writer towards the murderers,——“How long, O Lord! holy and true! dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” The apostle was thinking of the martyrs of Jerusalem and Rome,——of those who fell under the persecutions of the high priests, of Agrippa, and of Nero. And when the seven seals are broken, and the true revelation, of which this ceremony was only a poetical prelude, actually begins, the first great view presents the bloody scenes of that once Holy city, which now, by its cruelties against the cause which is to him as his life,——by the remorseless murder of those who are near and dear to him,——has lost all its ancient dominion over the affections and the hopes of the last apostle and all the followers of Christ.

Again the mournful tragedies of earlier apostolic days pass before him. Again he sees his noble brother bearing his bold witness of Jesus; and with him that other apostle, who in works and fate as much resembled the first, as in name. Their blood pouring out on the earth, rises to heaven, but not sooner than their spirits,——whence their loud witness calls down woful ruin on the blood-defiled city of the temple. And when that ruin falls, no regret checks the exulting tone of the thanksgiving. All that made those places holy and dear, is gone;——God dwells there no more; “the temple of God is opened in heaven, and there is seen in his temple the ark of his covenant,” and all heaven swells the jubilee over the destruction of Jerusalem. And after this, when the apostle’s view moved forward from the past to the future, and his eye rested on the crimes and the destiny of heathen Rome, the bitter remembrance of her cruelties towards his brethren, lifted his soul to high indignation, and he burst forth on her in the inspired wrath of a Son of Thunder;——

“Every burning word he spoke,

Full of rage, and full of grief.

“Rome shall perish; write that word

In the blood that she has spilt.

Rome shall perish,——fall abhorred,——

Deep in ruin as in guilt.”

In respect to the learning displayed in the Apocalypse, some most remarkable facts are observable. Apart from the very copious matters borrowed from the canonical writings of the Old Testament, from Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and other prophets, from which, as any reader can see, some of the most splendid imagery has been taken almost verbatim,——it is undeniable, that John has drawn very largely from a famous apocryphal Hebrew writing, called the Book of Enoch, which Jude has also quoted in his epistle; and in his life it will be more fully described. The vision of seven stars, explained to be angels,——of the pair of balances in the hand of the horseman, after the opening of the third seal,——the river and tree of life,——the souls under the altar, crying for vengeance,——the angel measuring the city,——the thousand years of peace and holiness,——are all found vividly expressed in that ancient book, and had manifestly been made familiar to John by reading. In other ancient apocryphal books, are noticed some other striking and literal coincidences with the Apocalypse. The early Rabbinical writings are also rich in such parallel passages. The name of the Conqueror, “which no one knows but himself,”——the rainbow stretched around the throne of God,——the fiery scepter,——the seven angels,——the sapphire throne,——the cherubic four beasts, six-winged, and crying Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts,——the crowns of gold on the heads of the saints, which they cast before the throne,——the book with seven seals,——the souls under the altar,——the silence in heaven,——the Abaddon,——the child caught up to God,——Satan, as the accuser of the saints, day and night before God,——the angel of the waters,——the hail of great weight,——the second death,——the new heaven and earth,——the twelve-gated city of precious stones,——and Rome, under the name of “Great Babylon,”——are all found in the old Jewish writings, in such distinctness as to make it palpable that John was deeply learned in Hebrew literature, both sacred and traditional.

Yet all these are but the forms of expression, not of thought. The apostle used them, because long, constant familiarity with the writings in which such imagery abounded, made these sentences the most natural and ready vehicles of inspired emotions. The tame and often tedious details of those old human inventions, had no influence in moulding the grand conceptions of the glorious revelation. This had a deeper, a higher, a holier source, in the spirit of eternal truth,——the mighty suggestions of the time-over-sweeping spirit of prophecy,——the same that moved the fiery lips of those denouncers of the ancient Babylon, whose writings also had been deeply known to him by years of study, and had furnished also a share of consecrated expressions. That spirit he had caught during his long eastern residence in the very scene of their prophecy and its awful fulfilment. If this notion of his dwelling for a time with Peter in Babylon is well founded, as it has been above narrated, it is at once suggested also, that in that Chaldean city,——then the capital seat of all Hebrew learning, and for ages the fount of light to the votaries of Judaism,——he had, during the years of his stay, been led to the deep study and the vast knowledge of that amazing range of Talmudical and Cabbalistical learning, which is displayed in every part of the Apocalypse. But how different all these resources in knowledge, from the mighty production that seemed to flow from them! How far are even the sublimest conceptions of the ancient prophets, in their unconnected bursts and fragments of inspiration, from the harmonious plan, the comprehensive range, and the faultless dramatic unity, or rather tri-unity, of this most perfect of historical views, and of poetical conceptions!

All these coincidences, with a vast number of other learned references, highly illustrative of the character of the Apocalypse, as enriched with Oriental imagery, may be found in Wait’s very copious notes on Hug’s Introduction.

There are many things in this view of the Apocalypse which will occasion surprise to many readers, but to none who are familiar with the views of the standard orthodox writers on this department of Biblical literature. The view taken in the text of this work, corresponds in its grand outlines, to the high authorities there named; though in the minute details, it follows none exactly. Some interpretations of particular passages are found no where else; but these occasional peculiarities cannot affect the general character of the view; and it will certainly be found accordant with that universally received among the Biblical scholars of Germany and England, belonging to the Romish, the Lutheran, the Anglican, and Wesleyan churches. The authority most closely followed, is Dr. Hug, Roman Catholic professor of theology in an Austrian university, further explained by his translator, Dr. D. G. Wait, of the church of England, more distinguished in Biblical and oriental literature, probably, than any other of the numerous learned living divines of that church. These views are also found in the commentary of that splendid orientalist, Dr. Adam Clarke, a work which, fortunately for the world, is fast taking the place of the numerous lumbering, prosing quartos that have too long met the mind of the common Bible reader with mere masses of dogmatic theology, where he needs the help of simple, clear interpretation and illustration, which has been drawn by the truly learned, from a minute knowledge of the language and critical history of the sacred writings. This noble work, as far as I know, is the first which took the honest ground of the ancient interpretation of the Apocalypse, with common readers, and constitutes a noble monument to the praise of the good and learned man, who first threw light for such readers on the most sublime book in the sacred canon, and among all the writings ever penned by man,——a book which ignorant visionaries had too long been suffered to overcloud and perplex for those who need the guidance of the learned in the interpretation of the “many things hard to be understood” in the volume of truth. The first book of a popular character, ever issued from the American press, explaining the Apocalypse according to the standard mode, is a treatise on the Millennium, by the learned Professor Bush, of the New York University, in which he adopts the grand outlines of the plan above detailed, though I have not had the opportunity of ascertaining how it is, in the minor details.

In reference to the tone assumed in some passages of the statement in the text, perhaps it may be thought that more freedom has been used in characterizing opposite views, than is accordant with the principles of “moderation and hesitation,” proposed in comment upon Luther and Michaelis. But where, in the denunciation of popular error, a reference to the motive of the inculcators of it would serve to expose most readily its nature, such a freedom of pen has been fearlessly adopted; and severity of language on these occasions is justified by the consideration of the character of the delusion which is to be overthrown. The statements too, which are the occasion and the support of these condemnations of vulgar notions, are drawn not from the mere conceptions of the writer of this book, but from the unanswerable authorities of the great standards of Biblical interpretation. The opportunity of research on this point has been too limited to allow anything like an enumeration of all the great names who support this view; but references enough have already been made, to show that an irresistible weight of orthodox sentiment has decided in favor of these views as above given.

Some of the minute details, particularly those not authorized by learned men, who have already so nearly perfected the standard view, may fall under the censure of the critical, as fanciful, like those so freely condemned before; but they were written down because it seemed that there was, in those cases, a wonderfully minute correspondence between these passages and events in the life of John, not commonly noticed. The greater part of this view, however, may be found almost verbatim in Wait’s translation of Hug’s Introduction.

The most satisfactory evidence of the meaning of the great mystery of the Apocalypse, is in the true interpretation of “the number of the beast,” the mystic 666. In the Greek and oriental languages, the letters are used to represent numbers, and thence arose in mystic writings a mode of representing a name by any number, which would be made up by adding together the numbers for which its letters stood; and so any number thus mystically given may be resolved into a name, by taking any word whose letters when added together will make up that sum. Now the word Latinus, (Λατεινος,) meaning the Latin or Roman empire, (for the names are synonymous,) is made up of Greek letters representing the numbers whose sum is 666. Thus Λ-30, α-1, τ-300, ε-5, ι-10, ν-50, ο-70, ς-200——all which, added up, make just 666. What confirms this view is, that Irenaeus says, “John himself told those who saw him face to face, that this was what he meant by the number;” and Irenaeus assures us that he himself heard this from the personal acquaintances of John. (See Wait’s note. Translation of Hug’s Introduction II. 626–629, note.)

HIS LAST RESIDENCE IN EPHESUS.

The date of John’s return from Patmos is capable of more exact proof than any other point in the chronology of his later years. The death of Domitian, who fell at last under the daggers of his own previous friends, now driven to this measure by their danger from his murderous tyranny, happened in the sixteenth of his own reign, (A. D. 96.) On the happy ♦consummation of this desirable revolution, Cocceius Nerva, who had himself suffered banishment under the suspicious tyranny of Domitian, was now recalled from his exile, to the throne of the Caesars; and mindful of his own late calamity, he commenced his just and blameless reign by an auspicious act of clemency, restoring to their country and home all who had been banished by the late emperor. Among these, John was doubtless included; for the decree was so comprehensive that he could hardly have been excluded from the benefit of its provisions; and to give this view the strongest confirmation, it is specified by the heathen historians of Rome, that this senatorial decree of general recall did not except even those who had been found guilty of religious offenses. Christian writers also, of a respectable antiquity, state distinctly that the apostle John was recalled from Patmos by this decree of Nerva. Some of the early ecclesiastical historians, indeed, have pretended that this persecution against the Christians was suspended by Domitian himself, on some occasion of repentance; but critical examination and a comparison of higher authorities, both sacred and profane, have disproved the notion. The data above-mentioned, therefore, fix the return of John from banishment, in the first year of Nerva, which, according to the most approved chronology, corresponds with A. D. 96. This date is useful also, in affording ground for a reasonable conjecture respecting the comparative age of John. He could not have been near as old as Jesus Christ, since the attainment of the age of ninety-six must imply an extreme of infirmity necessarily accompanying it, unless a miracle of most unparalleled character is supposed; and no one can venture to require belief in a pretended miracle, of which no sacred record bears testimony. If he was, on his return from Patmos, as well as during his residence there, able to produce writings of such power and such clear expression, as those which are generally attributed to these periods, it seems reasonable to suppose that he was many years younger than Jesus Christ. The common Christian era, also, fixing the birth of Christ some years too late, this circumstance will require a still larger subtraction from this number, for the age of John.

♦ “consummamation” replaced with “consummation”

HIS GOSPEL.

The united testimony of early writers who allude to this matter, is that John wrote his gospel, long after the completion and circulation of the writings of the three first evangelists. Some early testimony on the subject dates from the end of the second century, and specifies that John, observing that in the other gospels, those things were copiously related which concern the humanity of Christ, wrote a spiritual gospel, at the earnest solicitations of his friends and disciples, to explain in more full detail, the divinity of Christ. This account is certainly accordant with what is observable of the structure and tendency of this gospel; but much earlier testimony than this, distinctly declares that John’s design in writing, was to attack certain heresies on the same point specified in the former statement. The Nicolaitans and the followers of Cerinthus, in particular, who were both Gnostical sects, are mentioned as having become obnoxious to the purity of the truth, by inculcating notions which directly attacked the true divinity and real Messiahship of Jesus. The earliest heresy that is known to have arisen in the Christian churches, is that of the Gnostics, who, though divided among themselves by some minor distinctions, yet all agreed in certain grand errors, against which this gospel appears to have been particularly directed. The great system of mystical philosophy from which all these errors sprung, did not derive its origin from Christianity, but existed in the east long before the time of Christ; yet after the wide diffusion of his doctrines, many who had been previously imbued with this oriental mysticism, became converts to the new faith. But not rightly apprehending the simplicity of the faith which they had partially adopted, they soon began to contaminate its purity by the addition of strange doctrines, drawn from their philosophy, which were totally inconsistent with the great revelations made by Christ to his apostles. The prime suggestion of the mischief, and one, alas! which has not at this moment ceased to distract the churches of Christ, was a set of speculations, introduced “to account for the origin and existence of evil in the world,”——which seemed to them inconsistent with the perfect work of an all-wise and benevolent being. Overleaping all those minor grounds of dispute which are now occupying the attention of modern controversialists, they attacked the very basis of religious truth, and adopted the notion that the world was not created by the supreme God himself, but by a being of inferior rank, called by them the Demiurgus, whom they considered deficient in benevolence and in wisdom, and as thus being the occasion of the evil so manifest in the works of his hands. This Demiurgus they considered identical with the God of the Jews, as revealed in the Old Testament. Between him and the Supreme Deity, they placed an order of beings, to which they assigned the names of the “Only-begotten,” “the Word,” “the Light,” “the Life,” &c.; and among these superior beings, was Christ,——a distinct existence from Jesus, whom they declared a mere man, the son of Mary; but acquiring a divine character by being united at his baptism to the Divinity, Christ, who departed from him at his death. Most of the Gnostics utterly rejected the law of Moses; but Cerinthus is said to have respected some parts of it.

A full account of the prominent characteristics of the Gnostical system may be found in Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, illustrated by valuable annotations in Dr. Murdock’s translation of that work. The scholar will also find an elaborate account of this, with other Oriental mysticisms, in Beausobre’s Histoire de Manichee et du Manicheisme. J. D. Michaelis, in his introduction to the New Testament, (vol. III. c. ii. § 5,) is also copious on these tenets, in his account of John’s gospel. He refers also to Walch’s History of Heretics. Hug’s Introduction also gives a very full account of the peculiarities of Cerinthus, as connected with the scope of this gospel. Introduction vol. II. §§ 49–53, [of the original,] §§ 48–52, [Wait’s translation.]

In connection with John’s living at Ephesus, a story became afterwards current about his meeting him on one occasion and openly expressing a personal abhorrence of him. “Irenaeus [Against Heresies, III. c. 4. p. 140,] states from Polycarp, that John once going into a bath at Ephesus, discovered Cerinthus, the heretic, there; and leaping out of the bath he hastened away, saying he was afraid lest the building should fall on him, and crush him along with the heretic.” Conyers Middleton, in his Miscellaneous works, has attacked this story, in a treatise upon this express point. (This is in the edition of his works in four or five volumes, quarto; but I cannot quote the volume, because it is not now at hand.) Lardner also discusses it. (Vol. I. p. 325, vol. II. p. 555, 4to. edition.)

There can be no better human authority on any subject connected with the life of John, than that of Irenaeus of Lyons, [A. D. 160,] who had in his youth lived in Asia, where he was personally acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple and intimate friend of John, the apostle. His words are, “John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing by the publication of his gospel to remove that error which had been sown among men, by Cerinthus, and much earlier, by those called Nicolaitans, who are a fragment of science, (or the Gnosis,) falsely so called;——and that he might both confound them, and convince them that there is but one God, who made all things by his word, and not, as they say, one who was the Creator, and another who was the Father of our Lord.” (Heresies, lib. III. c. xi.) In another passage he says,——“As John the disciple of the Lord confirms, saying, ‘But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing, you may have eternal life in his name,’——guarding against these blasphemous notions, which divide the Lord, as far as they can, by saying that he was made of two different substances.” (Heresies, lib. III. c. xvi.) Michaelis, in his Introduction on John, discusses this passage, and illustrates its true application.

It appears well established by respectable historical testimony, that Cerinthus was contemporary with John at Ephesus, and that he had already made alarming progress in the diffusion of these and other peculiar errors, during the life of the apostle. John therefore, now in the decline of life, on the verge of the grave, would wish to bear his inspired testimony against the advancing heresy; and the occasion, scope, and object of his gospel are very clearly illustrated by a reference to these circumstances. The peculiar use of terms, more particularly in the first part,——terms which have caused so much perplexity and controversy among those who knew nothing about the peculiar technical significations of these mystical phrases, as they were limited by the philosophical application of them in the system of the Gnostics,——is thus shown in a historical light, highly valuable in preventing a mis-interpretation among common readers. This view of the great design of John’s gospel, will be found to coincide exactly with the results of a minute examination of almost all parts of it, and gives new force to many passages, by revealing the particular error at which they were aimed. The details of these coincidences cannot be given here, but have been most satisfactorily traced out, at great length, by the labors of the great modern exegetical theologians, who have occupied volumes with the elucidation of these points. The whole gospel indeed, is not so absorbed in the unity of this plan, as to neglect occasions for supplying general historical deficiences in the narratives of the preceding evangelists. An account is thus given of two journeys to Jerusalem, of which no mention had ever been made in former records, while hardly any notice whatever is taken of the incidents of the wanderings in Galilee, which occupy so large a portion of former narratives,——except so far as they are connected with those instructions of Christ which accord with the great object of this gospel. The scene of the great part of John’s narrative is laid in Judea, more particularly in and about Jerusalem; and on the parting instructions given by Christ to his disciples, just before his crucifixion, he is very full; yet, even in those, he seizes hold mainly of those things which fall most directly within the scope of his work. But throughout the whole, the grand object is seen to be, the presentation of Jesus as the Messiah, the son of the living, eternal God, containing within himself the Life, the Light, the Only-begotten, the Word, and all the personified excellences, to which the Gnostics had, in their mystic idealism, given a separate existence. It thus differs from all the former gospels, in the circumstance, that its great object and its general character is not historical, but dogmatical,——not universal in its direction and tendency, but aimed at the establishment of particular doctrines, and the subversion of particular errors.

Another class of sectaries, against whose errors John wrote in this gospel, were the Sabians, or disciples of John the Baptist;——for some of those who had followed him during his preaching, did not afterwards turn to the greater Teacher and Prophet, whom he pointed out as the one of whom he was the forerunner; and these disciples of the great Baptizer, after his death, taking the pure doctrines which he taught, as a basis, made up a peculiar religious system, by large additions from the same Oriental mysteries from which the Gnostics had drawn their remarkable principles. They acknowledged Jesus Christ as a being of high order, and designate him in their religious books as the “Disciple of Life;” while John the Baptist, himself somewhat inferior, is called the “Apostle of Light,”——and is said to have received his peculiar glorified transfiguration, from a body of flesh to a body of light, from Jesus at the time of his baptism in the Jordan; and yet is represented as distinguished from the “Disciple of Life,” by possessing this peculiar attribute of Light.

This mystical error is distinctly characterized in the first chapter of this gospel, and is there met by the direct assertions, that in Jesus Christ, the Word, and the God, was not only life, but that the LIFE itself was the LIGHT of men;——and that John the Baptist “was not the Light, but was only sent to bear witness of the Light;” and again, with all the tautological earnestness of an old man, the aged writer repeats the assertion that “this was the true Light, which enlightens every man that comes into the world.” Against these same sectaries, the greater part of the first chapter is directed distinctly, and the whole tendency of the work throughout, is in a marked manner opposed to their views. With them too, John had had a local connection, by his residence in Ephesus, where, as it is distinctly specified in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul had found the peculiar disciples of John the Baptist long before, on his first visit to that city; and had successfully preached to some of them, the religion of Christ, which before was a strange and new thing to them. The whole tendency and scope of this gospel, indeed, as directed against these two prominent classes of heretics, both Gnostics and Sabians, are fully and distinctly summed up in the conclusion of the twentieth chapter;——“These things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that in believing on him, ye might have LIFE through his name.”

As to the place where this gospel was written, there is a very decided difference of opinion among high authorities, both ancient and modern,——some affirming it to have been composed in Patmos, during his exile, and others in Ephesus, before or after his banishment. The best authority, however, seems to decide in favor of Ephesus, as the place; and this view seems to be most generally adopted in modern times. Even those who suppose it to have been written in Patmos, however, grant that it was first given to the Christian world in Ephesus,——the weight of early authority being very decided on this latter point. This distinction between the place of composition and the place of publication, is certainly very reasonable on some accounts, and is supported by ancient authorities of dubious date; but there are important objections to the idea of the composition of both this and the Apocalypse, in the same place, during about one year, which was the period of his exile. There seem to be many things in the style of the gospel which would show it to be a work written at a different period, and under different circumstances from the Apocalypse; and some Biblical critics, of high standing, have thought that the gospel bore marks in its style, which characterized it as a production of a much older man than the author of the energetic, and almost furious denunciations of the Apocalypse, must have been. In this case, where ancient authority is so little decisive, it is but fair to leave the point to be determined by evidence thus connected with the date, and drawn from the internal character of the composition itself,——a sort of evidence, on which the latest moderns are far more capable of deciding than the most ancient, and the sagest of the Fathers. The date itself is of course inseparably connected with the determination of the place, and like that, must be pronounced very uncertain. The greatest probability about both these points is, that it was written at Ephesus, after his return from Patmos; for the idea of its being produced before his banishment, during his first residence in Asia, has long ago been exploded; nor is there any late writer of authority on these points, who pretends to support this unfounded notion.

HIS FIRST EPISTLE.

All that has been said on the character and the objects of the gospel, may be exactly applied to this very similar production. So completely does it resemble John’s gospel, in style, language, doctrines and tendencies, that even a superficial reader might be ready to pronounce, on a common examination, that they were written in the same circumstances and with the same object. This has been the conclusion at which the most learned critics have arrived, after a full investigation of the peculiarities of both, throughout; and the standard opinion now is, that they were both written at the same time and for the same persons. Some reasons have been given by high critical authority, for supposing that they were both written at Patmos, and sent together to Ephesus,——the epistle serving as a preface, dedication, and accompaniment of the gospel, to those for whom it was intended, and commending the prominent points in it to their particular attention. This beautiful and satisfactory view of the object and occasion of the epistle, may certainly be adopted with great propriety and justice; but in regard to the places of its composition and direction, a different view is much more probable, as well as more consistent with the notion, already presented above, of the date and place of the gospel. It is very reasonable to suppose that the epistle was written some years after John’s return to Ephesus,——that it was intended, (along with the gospel, for the churches of Asia generally, to whom John hoped to make an apostolic pastoral visit, shortly,) to confirm them in the faith, as he announces in the conclusion. There is not a single circumstance in gospel or epistle, which should lead any one to believe that they were directed to Ephesus in particular. On the contrary, the total absence of anything like a personal or local direction to the epistle, shows the justice of its common title, that it is a “general epistle,” a circular, in short, to all the churches under his special apostolic supervision,——for whose particular dangers, errors and necessities, he had written the gospel just sent forth, and to whom he now minutely commended that work, in the very opening words of his letter, referring as palpably and undeniably to his gospel, as any words can express. “Of that which ‘was from the beginning, of the Word,’ which I have heard, which I have seen with my eyes, which I have looked upon, which my hands have handled,——of the Word of Life” &c.; particularizing with all the minute verbosity of old age, his exact knowledge of the facts which he gives in his gospel, assuring them thus of the accuracy of his descriptions. The question concerns his reputation for fidelity as a historian; and it is easy to see therefore, why he should labor thus to impress on his readers his important personal advantages for knowing exactly all the facts he treats of, and all the doctrines which he gives at such length in the discourses of Christ. Again and again he says, “I write,” and “I have written,” recapitulating the sum of the doctrines which he has designed to inculcate; and he particularizes still farther that he has written to all classes and ages, from the oldest to the youngest, intending his gospel for the benefit of all. “I have written to you, fathers,”——“unto you, young men,”——“unto you, little children,” &c. What else can this imply, than a dedication of the work concerning “the WORD,” to all stations and ages,——to the whole of the Christian communities, to whom he commits and recommends his writings;——as he writes “to the fathers——because they know him who was from the beginning,”——in the same way “to the young men, because they are constant, and the Word of God dwells in them,” and “that the doctrine they have received may remain unchangeable in them,” and “on account of THOSE WHO WOULD SEDUCE THEM.” He recapitulates all the leading doctrines of his gospel,——the Messiahship, and the Divinity of Jesus,——his Unity, and identity with the divine abstractions of the Gnostic theology. Here too, he inculcates and renewedly urges the great feeling of Christian brotherly love, which so decidedly characterizes the discourses of Jesus, as reported in his gospel. So perfect was the connection of origin and design, between the gospel and this accompanying letter, that they were anciently placed together, the epistle immediately following the gospel; as is indubitably proved by certain marks in ancient manuscripts.

It was mentioned, in connection with a former part of John’s life, that this epistle is quoted by Augustin and others, under the title of the epistle to the Parthians. It seems very probable that this may have been also addressed to those churches in the east, about Babylon, which had certainly suffered much under the attacks of these same mystical heretics. It is explained, however, by some, that this was an accidental corruption in the copying of the Greek.——The second epistle was quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, under the title of “the epistle to the virgins,” προς παρθενους, which, as some of the modern critics say, must have been accidentally changed to παρθους, by dropping some of the syllables, and afterwards transferred to the first (!) as more appropriate;——a perfectly unauthorized conjecture, and directly in the face of all rules of criticism.

THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES.

These are both evidently private letters from John to two of his intimate personal friends, of whose circumstances nothing whatever being known, except what is therein contained, the notice of these brief writings must necessarily be brief also. They are both honorably referred to, as entertainers of the servants of Jesus Christ as they travel from place to place, and seem to have been residents in some of the Asian cities within John’s apostolic circuit, and probably received him kindly and reverently into their houses on his tours of duty; and them he was about to visit again shortly. The second epistle is directed to a Christian female, who, being designated by the very honorable title of “lady,” was evidently a person of rank; and from the remark towards the conclusion, about the proper objects of her hospitality, it is plain that she must have been also a person of some property. Mention is made of her children as also objects of warm affection to the aged apostle; and as no other member of her family is noticed, it is reasonable to conclude that she was a widow. The contents of this short letter are a mere transcript, almost verbatim, of some important points in the first, inculcating Christian love, and watchfulness against deceivers;——(no doubt the Gnostical heretics,——the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans.) He apologizes for the shortness of the letter, by saying that he hopes shortly to visit her; and ends by communicating the affectionate greetings of her sister’s children, then residents in Ephesus, or whatever city was then the home of John. The third epistle is directed to Gaius, (that is, Caius, a Roman name,) whose hospitality is commemorated with great particularity and gratitude in behalf of Christian strangers, probably preachers, traveling in his region. Another person, named Diotrephes, (a Greek by name, and probably one of the partizans of Cerinthus,) is mentioned as maintaining a very different character, who, so far from receiving the ministers of the gospel sent by the apostle, had even excluded from Christian fellowship those who did exercise this hospitality to the messengers of the apostle. John speaks threateningly of him, and closes with the same apology for the shortness of the letter, as in the former. There are several persons, named Gaius, or Caius, mentioned in apostolic history; but there is no reason to suppose that any of them was identified with this man.

For these lucid views of the objects of all these epistles, I am mainly indebted to Hug’s Introduction, to whom belongs the merit of expressing them in this distinctness, though others before him have not been far from apprehending their simple force. Michaelis, for instance, is very satisfactory, and much more full on some points. In respect to the place whence they were written, Hug appears to be wholly in the wrong, in referring them to Patmos, just before John’s return. Not the least glimmer of a reason appears, why all the writings of John should be huddled together in his exile. I can make nothing whatever of the learned commentator’s reason about the deficiency of “pen, ink and paper,” (mentioned in Epistle ii. 12, and iii. 13.) as showing that John must still have been in “that miserable place,” Patmos. The idea seems to require a great perversion of simple words, which do not seem to be capable of any other sense than that adopted in the above account.

THE TRADITIONS OF HIS LIFE IN EPHESUS.

To this period of his life, are referred those stories of his miracles and actions, with which the ancient fictitious apostolic narratives are so crowded,——John being the subject of more ancient traditions than any other apostle. Some of those are so respectable and reasonable in their character, as to deserve a place here, although none of them are of such antiquity as to deserve any confidence, on points where fiction has often been so busy. The first which follows, is altogether the most ancient of all apostolic stories, which are not in the New Testament; and even if it is a work of fiction, it has such merits as a mere tale, that it would be injustice to the readers of this book, not to give them the whole story, from the most ancient and best authorized record.

It is related that John, after returning from banishment, was often called to the neighboring churches to organize them, or to heal divisions, and to ordain elders. On one occasion, after ordaining a bishop, he committed to his particular care and instruction a fine young man, whom he saw in the congregation, charging the bishop, before the whole church, to be faithful to him. The bishop accordingly took the young man into his house, watched over him, and instructed him, and at length baptized him. After this, viewing the young man as a confirmed Christian, the bishop relaxed his watchfulness, and allowed the youth greater liberties. He soon got into bad company, in which his talents made him conspicuous, and proceeding from one step to another, he finally became the leader of a band of robbers. In this state of things, John came to visit the church, and presently called upon the bishop to bring forward his charge. The bishop replied that he was dead,——dead to God;——and was now in the mountains, a captain of banditti. John ordered a horse to be brought immediately to the church door, and a guide to attend him; and mounting, he rode full speed in search of the gang. He soon fell in with some of them, who seized him, to be carried to their head quarters. John told them that this was just what he wanted, for he came on purpose to see their captain. As they drew near, the captain stood ready to receive them; but on seeing John, he drew back, and began to make off. John pursued with all the speed his aged limbs would permit, crying out, “My son, why do you run from your own father, who is unarmed and aged? Pity me, my son, and do not fear. There is yet hope of your life. I will intercede for you; and, if necessary, will cheerfully suffer death for you, as the Lord did for us. Stop,——believe what I say; Christ hath sent me.” The young man stopped, looked on the ground, and then throwing down his arms, came trembling, and with sobs and tears, begged for pardon. The apostle assured him of the forgiveness of Christ; and conducting him back to the church, there fasted and prayed with him, and at length procured his absolution.

Another story, far less probable, is related in the ancient martyrologies, and by the counterfeit Abdias. Craton, a philosopher, to make a display of contempt for riches, had persuaded two wealthy young men, his followers, to invest all their property in two very costly pearls; and then, in the presence of a multitude, to break them, and pound them to dust. John happening to pass by, at the close of the transaction, censured this destruction of property, which might better have been given in alms to the poor. Craton told him, if he thought so, he might miraculously restore the dust to solid pearls again, and have them for charitable purposes. The apostle gathered up the particles, and holding them in his hand, prayed fervently, that they might become solid pearls, and when the people said “Amen,” it took place. By this miracle, Craton, and all his followers, were converted to Christianity; and the two young men took back the pearls, sold them, and then distributed the avails in charity. Influenced by this example, two other young men of distinction, Atticus and Eugenius, sold their estates, and distributed the avails among the poor. For a time, they followed the apostle, and possessed the power of working miracles. But, one day, being at Pergamus, and seeing some well-dressed young men, glittering in their costly array, they began to regret that they had sold all their property, and deprived themselves of the means of making a figure in the world. John read in their countenances and behavior the state of their minds; and after drawing from them an avowal of their regret, he bid them bring him each a bundle of straight rods, and a parcel of smooth stones from the sea shore. They did so,——and the apostle, after converting the rods into gold, and the stones into pearls, bid them take them, and sell them, and redeem their alienated estates, if they chose. At the same time, he plainly warned them, that the consequence would be the eternal loss of their souls. While he continued his long and pungent discourse, a funeral procession came along. John now prayed, and raised the dead man to life. The resuscitated person began to describe the invisible world, and so graphically painted to Atticus and Eugenius the greatness of their loss, that they were melted into contrition. The apostle ordered them to do penance thirty days,——till the golden rods should become wood, and the pearls become stones. They did so, and were afterwards very distinguished saints.

Another story, of about equal merit, is told by the same authority. While John continued his successful ministry at Ephesus, the idolaters there, in a tumult, dragged him to the temple of Diana, and insisted on his sacrificing to the idol. He warned all to come out of the temple, and then, by prayer, caused it to fall to the ground, and become a heap of ruins. Then, addressing the pagans on the spot, he converted twelve thousand of them in one day. But Aristodemus, the pagan high priest, could not be convinced, till John had drunken poison without harm, by which two malefactors were killed instantly, and also raised the malefactors to life. This resuscitation he rendered the more convincing to Aristodemus, by making him the instrument of it. The apostle pulled off his tunic, and gave it to Aristodemus. “And what is this for?” said the high priest. “To cure you of your infidelity,” was the reply. “But how is your tunic to cure me of infidelity?” “Go,” said the apostle, “and spread it upon the dead bodies, and say: ‘The apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ hath sent me to resuscitate you, in his name, that all may know, that life and death are the servants of Jesus Christ, my Lord.’” By this miracle the high priest was fully convinced; and afterwards convinced the proconsul. Both of them were baptized,——and persecution, from that time, ceased. They also built the church dedicated to St. John, at Ephesus.

For this series of fables I am indebted again to the kindness of Dr. Murdock, in whose manuscript lectures they are so well translated from the original romances, as to make it unnecessary for me to repeat the labor of making a new version from the Latin. The sight of the results of abler efforts directly before me, offers a temptation to exonerate myself from a tedious and unsatisfactory effort, which is too great to be resisted, while researches into historical truth have a much more urgent claim for time and exertion.

The only one of all these fables that occurs in the writings of the Fathers, is the first, which may be pronounced a tolerably respectable and ancient story. It is narrated by Clemens Alexandrinus, (about A. D. 200.) The story is copied from Clemens Alexandrinus by Eusebius, from whom we receive it, the original work of Clemens being now lost. Chrysostom also gives an abridgement of the tale. (I. Paraenes ad Theodosius) Anastasius Sinaita, Simeon Metaphrastes, Nicephorus Callistus, the Pseudo-Abdias, and the whole herd of monkish liars, give the story almost verbatim from Clemens; for it is so full in his account as to need no embellishment to make it a good story. Indeed its completeness in all these interesting details, is one of the most suspicious circumstances about it; in short, it is almost too good a story to be true. Those who wish to see all the evidence for and against its authenticity, may find it thoroughly examined in Lampe’s Prolegomena to a Johannine Theology (I. v. 4–10.) It is, on the whole, the best authorized of all the stories about the apostles, which are given by the Fathers, and may reasonably be considered to have been true in the essential parts, though the minute details of the conversations, &c., are probably embellishments worked in by Clemens Alexandrinus, or his informants.

The rest of these stories are, most unquestionably, all unmitigated falsehoods; nor does any body pretend to find the slightest authority for a solitary particular of them. They are found no where but in the novels of the Pseudo-Abdias, and the martyrologies. (Abdiae Babyloniae episcopi et Apostolorum discipuli de Historia, lib. V., St. John.)

HIS DEATH.

Respecting the close of his life, all antiquity is agreed that it was not terminated by martyrdom, nor by any violent death whatever, but by a calm and peaceful departure in the course of nature, at a very great age. The precise number of years to which he attained can not be known, because no writer who lived within five hundred years of his time has pretended to specify his exact age. It is merely mentioned on very respectable ancient authority, that he survived to the beginning of the reign of Trajan. This noblest of the successors of Julius, began his splendid reign in A. D. 98, according to the most approved chronology; so that if John did not outlive even the first year of Trajan, his death is brought very near the close of the first century; and from what has been reasonably conjectured about his age, compared with that of his Lord, it may be supposed that he attained upwards of eighty years,——a supposition which agrees well enough with the statement of some of the Fathers, that he died worn out with old age.

Jerome has a great deal to say also, about the age of John at the time when he was called, arguing that he must have been a mere boy at the time, because tradition asserts that he lived till the reign of Trajan. Lampe very justly objects, however, that this proof amounts to nothing, if we accept another common tradition, that he lived to the age of 100 years; which, if we count back a century from the reign of Trajan, would require him to have attained mature age at the time of the call. Neither tradition however, is worth much. Our old friend Baronius, too, comes in to enlighten the investigation of John’s age, by what he considers indubitable evidence. He says that John was in his twenty-second year when he was called, and passing three years with Christ, must have been twenty-five years old at the time of the crucifixion; “because,” says the sagacious Baronius, “he was then initiated into the priesthood.” An assertion which Lampe with indignant surprise stigmatizes as showing “remarkable boldness,” (insignis audacia,) because it contains two very gross errors,——first in pretending that John was ever made a priest, (sacerdos,) and secondly in confounding the age required of the Levites with that of the priests when initiated. For Baronius’s argument resting wholly on the very strange and unfounded notion, that John was made a priest, is furthermore supported on the idea that the prescribed age for entering the priesthood was twenty-five years; but in reality, the age thus required was thirty years, so that if the other part of this idle story was true, this would be enough to overthrow the conclusion. Lampe also alludes to the absurd idea of the painters, in representing John as a young man, even while writing his gospel; while in reality all writers agree that that work was written by him in his old age. This idea of his perpetual youth, once led into a blunder some foolish Benedictine monks, who found in Constantinople an antique agate intaglio, representing a young man with a cornucopia, and an eagle, and with a figure of victory placing a crown on his head. This struck their monkish fancies at once, as an unquestionable portrait of John, sent to their hands by a miraculous preservation. Examination however, has shown it to be a representation of the apotheosis of Germanicus.

But even here, the monkish inventors have found room for new fables; and though the great weight of all ancient testimony deprives them of the opportunity to enter into the horrible details of a bloody and agonizing death, they can not refuse themselves the pleasure of some tedious absurdities, about the manner of his death and burial, which are barely worth a partial sketch, to show how determined the apostolic novelists are to follow their heroes to the very last, with the glories of a fancifully miraculous departure.

The circumstances of his death are described in the martyrologies, and by Abdias, in this manner. He had a vision acquainting him with his approaching exit, five days before it happened. On a Lord’s-day morning, he went to the great church at Ephesus, bearing his name, and there performed public worship as usual, at day-break. About the middle of the forenoon, he ordered a deacon, and some grave diggers, with their tools, to accompany him to the burying ground. He then set them to digging his grave, while he, after ordering the multitude to depart, spent the time in prayer. He once looked into the grave, and bid them dig it deeper. When it was finished, he took off his outer garment, and spread it in the grave. Then, standing over it, he made a speech to those present, (which is not worth repeating,) then gave thanks to God for the arrival of the time of his release,——and placing himself in the grave, and wrapping himself up, he instantly expired. The grave was filled up; and afterwards miracles took place at it, and a kind of manna issued from it, which possessed great virtues.

There is no need, however, of such fables, to crown with the false honors of a vain prodigy, the calmly glorious end of the “Last of the Apostles.” It is enough for the Christian to know, that, with the long, bright course of almost a century behind him, and with the mighty works of his later years around him, John closed the solemn apostolic drama, bearing with him in his late departure the last light of inspiration, and the last personal “testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy.” Blessed in his works thus following him, he died in the Lord, and now rests from his labors on the breast of that loved friend, who cherished so tenderly the youthful Son of Thunder;——on the bosom of his Redeemer and his Lord,——

“The bosom of his Father and his God.”