Chapter XXII: Part 22

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.”

PHILIP.

IN all the three gospel lists, this apostle is placed fifth in order, the variations in the arrangements of the preceding making no difference in his position. In the first chapter of Acts, however, a different arrangement is made of his name, as will be hereafter mentioned. The mere mention of his name on the list, is all the notice taken of him by either of the three first evangelists, and it is only in the gospel of John, that the slightest additional circumstance can be learned about him. From this authority it is ascertained that he was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter, and probably also the home or frequent visiting-place of the sons of Zebedee, by the younger of whom he is so particularly commemorated. Immediately after the narration of the introduction of Andrew, John and Peter, to Jesus, in the first chapter of this gospel, it is said that Jesus next proceeded from Bethabara into Galilee, and there finds Philip; but the particular place is not mentioned, though Bethsaida being immediately after mentioned as his home, very probably was the place of the meeting. Andrew and Peter, on their return home, had doubtless had no small talk among their acquaintances, about the wonderful person announced as the Messiah, to whom they had been introduced, and had thus satisfied themselves that he was really the divine character he was said to be. Philip too, must have heard of him in this way, before he saw him; so that when Jesus met him, he was prepared at once to receive the call which Jesus immediately gave him,――“Follow me.” From the circumstance that he was the first person who was summoned by Jesus, in this particular formula of invitation to the discipleship, some writers have, not without reason, claimed for Philip the name and honors of the PROTOCLETE, or “_first-called_;” though Andrew has commonly been considered as best entitled to this dignity, from his being the first mentioned by name, as actually becoming acquainted with Jesus. Philip was so devoutly engaged, at once, in the cause of his new Master, that he, like Andrew, immediately sought out others to share the blessings of the discipleship; and soon after meeting one of his friends, Nathanael, he expressed the ardor of his faith in his new teacher, by the words in which he invited him to join in this honorable fellowship,――“We have found him of whom Moses, in the law, and all the prophets did write,――Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” The result of this application will be related in the life of the person most immediately concerned. After this, no notice whatever is taken of Philip except where incidental remarks made by him in the conversations of Jesus, are recorded by John. Thus, at the feeding of the five thousand, upon Jesus’s asking whether they had the means of procuring food for the multitude, Philip answered, that “two hundred pence would not buy enough for them, that every one might take a little,”――thus showing himself not at all prepared by his previous faith in Jesus, for the great miracle which was about to happen; though Jesus had asked the question, as John says, with the actual design of trying the extent of his confidence in him. He is afterwards mentioned in the last conversations of Jesus, as saying to him, “Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us,”――here too, betraying also a most unfortunate deficiency, both of faith and knowledge, and implying also a vain desire to gratify his eyes with still more miraculous displays of the divine power of his Master; though, even in this respect, he probably was no worse off than all the rest of the disciples, before the resurrection of Jesus.

PROTOCLETE.――Hammond claims this peculiar honor for Philip, with
great zeal. (See his notes on John i. 43.)

Of his _apostleship_ not one word is recorded in the New Testament, for he is no where mentioned in the Acts, except as being one of the apostles assembled in the upper chamber after the ascension; nor do the epistles contain the slightest allusion to him. Some of the most ancient authorities among the Fathers, however, are distinct in their mention of some circumstances of his later life; but all these accounts are involved in total discredit, by the fact that they make him identical with Philip the deacon, whose active and zealous labors in Samaria, and along the coast of Palestine, from Gaza, through Ashdod to Caesarea, his home, are minutely related in the Acts, and have been already alluded to, in that part of the life of Peter which is connected with these incidents. It has always been supposed, with much reason, in modern times, that the offices of an _apostle_ and a _deacon_ were so totally distinct and different, that they could never both be borne by one and the same person; but the Fathers, even the very ancient ones, seem to have had not the slightest idea of any such incompatibility; and therefore uniformly speak of Philip the apostle, as the same person with Philip, one of the seven deacons, who is mentioned by Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, as having lived at Caesarea, in Palestine, with his daughters, who were virgins and prophetesses. Testimony more distinct than this, can no where be found, among all the Fathers, on any point whatever; and very little that is more ancient. Yet how does it accord with the notions of those who revere these very Fathers as almost immaculate in truth, and in all intellectual, as well as moral excellence? What is the evidence of these boasted Fathers worth, on any point in controversy about apostolic church government, or doctrine, or criticism, if the modern notion of the incompatibility of the two offices of apostle and deacon is correct?

The testimony of the Fathers on this point, is simply this.
Eusebius (Church History, III. 31,) quotes Polycrates, bishop of
Ephesus, who, in his letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, (written
A. D. 195, or 196,) makes mention of Philip in these _exact_
words: “Philip, who was _one of the twelve_ apostles, died in
Hierapolis;” (in Phrygia;) “and so did _two of his daughters_,
who had grown old in virginity. And another of his daughters,
after having passed her life under the influence of the Holy
Spirit, was buried at Ephesus.” This certainly is a most perfect
identification of Philip the apostle with Philip the deacon; for
it is this latter person who is particularly mentioned in Acts,
xxi. 8, 9, as “having four daughters who did prophesy.” He is
there especially designated as “Philip the evangelist, _one
of the seven_,” while Polycrates expressly declares, that this
same person “was _one of the twelve_.” Eusebius also, in the
preceding chapter, quotes Clemens Alexandrinus as mentioning
Philip among those _apostles_ who were married, because _he_
is mentioned as having had daughters; and Clemens even adds
that these were afterwards married, which directly contradicts
the previous statement of Polycrates, that three of them died
virgins, in old age. Yet Eusebius quotes all this stuff, with
approbation.

Papias, (A. D. 140,) bishop of Hierapolis, the very place of the
death and burial of Philip, is represented by Eusebius as having
been well acquainted with the daughters of Philip, mentioned in
Acts, as the virgin prophetesses. Papias says that he himself
“heard these ladies say that their father once raised a dead
person to life, in their time.” But it deserves notice, that
Papias, the very best authority on this subject, is no where
quoted as calling this Philip “an apostle;” though Eusebius,
on his own authority, gives this name to the Philip of whom
Papias speaks. It is therefore reasonable to conclude, that
this blunder, betraying such a want of familiarity with the
New Testament history, originated after the time of Papias,
whose intimate acquaintance with Philip’s family would have
enabled him to say, at once, that this was the _deacon_, and not
the _apostle_; though it is not probable that he was any less
deplorably ignorant of the scriptures than most of the Fathers
were.

Now what can be said of the testimony of the Fathers on
points where they can not refer, either to their own personal
observation, or to informants who have seen and heard what they
testify? The only way in which they can be shielded from the
reproach of a gross blunder and a disgraceful ignorance of the
New Testament, is, that they were right in identifying these
two Philips, and that modern theologians are wrong in making
the distinction. On this dilemma I will not pretend to decide;
for though so little reverence for the judgment and information
of the Fathers has been shown in this book, there does seem
to me to be some reason for hesitation on this point, where
the Fathers _ought_ to have been as well informed as any
body. They must have known surely, whether, according to the
notions of those primitive ages of Christianity, there was any
incompatibility between the apostleship and the deaconship! If
their testimony is worth anything on such points, it ought to
weigh so much on this, as to cause a doubt whether they are not
right, and the moderns wrong. However, barely suggesting this
query, without attempting a decision, as Luther says, “I will
afford to other and higher spirits, occasion to reflect.”

This is all the satisfaction that the brief records of the inspired or uninspired historians of Christianity can give the inquirer, on the life of this apostle;――so unequal were the labors of the first ministers of Christ, and their claims for notice. Philip, no doubt, served the purpose for which he was called, faithfully; but in these brief sketches, there are no traces of any genius of a high character, that could distinguish him above the thousands that are forgotten, but whose labors, like those of the minutest animals in a mole-hill, contribute an indispensable portion to the completion of the mass, in whose mighty structure all their individual efforts are swallowed up forever.

And though the ancient Polycrates may have blundered grievously, in respect to the apostle’s personal identity, his hope of the glorious resurrection of those whom he supposed to have died in Asia will doubtless be equally well rewarded, if, to the amazement of the Fathers, the _apostle_ Philip should rise at last from the dust of Babylon, or the ashes of Jerusalem, while his namesake, the evangelist, shall burst from his tomb in Hierapolis. “For,” as Polycrates truly says, “in Asia, some great lights have gone down, which shall rise again on that day of the Lord’s approach, when he shall come from the heavens in glory, and shall raise up all his saints;――Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps at Hierapolis, with his venerable virgin daughters,――John, who lay in the bosom of the Lord, and who is laid at Ephesus,――Polycarp, at Smyrna,――Thraseas, at Eumenia,――Sagaris, at Laodicea,――Papirius and Melito, at Sardis――all await the visitation of the Lord from the heavens, in which he shall raise them from the dead.”

NATHANAEL, BAR-THOLOMEW.

HIS NAME AND CALL.

IN respect to this apostle, there occurs a primary question about his name, which is given so differently in different sacred authorities, as to induce a strong suspicion that the two names refer to two totally distinct persons. The reasons for applying the two words, Nathanael and Bartholomew, to the same person, are the circumstances,――that none of the three first evangelists mention any person named Nathanael, and that John never mentions the name Bartholomew,――that Bartholomew and Nathanael are each mentioned on these different authorities, among the chosen disciples of Jesus,――that Bartholomew is mentioned by the three first evangelists, on all the lists, directly after Philip, who is by John represented as his intimate friend,――and that Bartholomew is not an individual name, but a word showing parentage merely,――the first syllable being often prefixed to Syriac names, for this purpose; and _Bar_-Tholomew means the “son of Tholomew,” or “Tholomai;” just as Bar-Jonah means the “son of Jonah;” nor was the former any more in reality the personal, individual name of Nathanael, than the latter was of Peter; but some circumstance may have occurred to make it, in this instance, often take the place of the true individual name.