I. THE GALILEAN APOSTLES. (continued 11)

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.

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.

A few very brief notices are given of this apostle by John, who alone alludes to him, otherwise than by a bare mention on the list. It is mentioned in his gospel that Nathanael was of Cana, in Galilee, a town which stood about half-way between lake Gennesaret and the Mediterranean sea; but the circumstances of his call seem to show that he was then with Philip, probably at or near Bethsaida. Philip, after being summoned by Jesus to the discipleship, immediately sought to bring his friend Nathanael into an enjoyment of the honors of a personal intercourse with Jesus, and invited him to become a follower of the Messiah, foretold by Moses and the prophets, who had now appeared, as Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. On hearing of that mean place, as the home of the promised King of Israel, Nathanael, with great scorn, replied, in inquiry, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” To this sneering question, Philip answered by the simple proposition, “Come and see;”――wisely judging that no argument could answer his friend’s prejudice so well as an actual observation of the character and aspect of the Nazarene himself. Nathanael, accordingly, persuaded by the earnestness of his friend, came along with him, perhaps, partly to gratify him, but, no doubt, with his curiosity somewhat moved to know what could have thus brought Philip into this devout regard for a citizen of that dirty little town; and he therefore readily accompanied him to see what sort of prophet could come out of Nazareth.

The words with which Jesus greeted Nathanael, even before he had been personally introduced, or was prepared for any salutation, are the most exalted testimonial of his character that could be conceived, and show at once his very eminent qualifications for the high honors of the apostleship. When Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, he said, “Behold a true son of Israel, in whom is no guile!”――manifesting at once a confidential and intimate knowledge of his whole character, in thus pronouncing with such ready decision, this high and uncommon tribute of praise upon him, as soon as he appeared before him. Nathanael, quite surprised at this remarkable compliment from one whom he had never seen until that moment, and whom he supposed to be equally ignorant of him, replied with the inquiry, “Whence knowest thou me?” Jesus answered, “Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee.” The fig-trees of Palestine, presenting a wide, leafy cover, and a delightful shade, were often used in the warm season as places of retirement, either in company, for conversation, or in solitude, for meditation and prayer, as is shown in numerous passages of the Rabbinical writings; and it was, doubtless, in one of these occupations that Nathanael was engaged, removed, as he supposed, from all observation, at the time to which Jesus referred. But the eye that could pierce the stormy shades of night on the boisterous waves of Galilee, and that could search the hearts of all men, could also penetrate the thick, leafy veil of the fig-tree, and observe the most secret actions of this guileless Israelite, when he supposed the whole world to be shut out, and gave himself to the undisguised enjoyment of his thoughts, feelings, and actions, without restraint. Nathanael, struck with sudden but absolute conviction, at this amazing display of knowledge, gave up all his proud scruples against the despised Nazarene, and adoringly exclaimed, “Rabbi! thou art the Son of God,――thou art the King of Israel.” Jesus, recognizing with pleasure the ready faith of this pure-minded disciple, replied, “Because I said unto thee, ‘I saw thee under the fig-tree,’――believest thou? Thou shalt see yet greater things than these.” Then turning to Philip as well as to Nathanael, he says to them both, “I solemnly assure you, hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

On the day but one after this occurrence, as John records, Jesus was in Cana of Galilee, the residence of Nathanael, and was present at a wedding which took place there. From the circumstance that the mother of Jesus was there also, it would seem likely that it was the marriage of some of their family friends; otherwise the conjecture might seem allowable, that the presence of Jesus and his disciples on this occasion, was in some way connected with the introduction of Nathanael to Jesus; and that this new disciple may have been some way concerned in this interesting event. The manner in which the occurrence is announced,――it being next specified, that two days after the occurrences recorded in the end of the first chapter, Jesus was present at a marriage in Cana of Galilee,――would seem to imply very fairly, that Jesus had been in some other place immediately before; and it is probable therefore, that he accompanied Nathanael home from Bethsaida, or whatever place was the scene of his calling to the discipleship, along with Philip. The terms of the statement are not, however, absolutely incompatible with the idea of this first introduction of these two disciples to Jesus, in Cana itself, which may have been the part of Galilee into which Jesus is said to have gone forth, after leaving Bethabara; although, the reasons above given make it probable that Bethsaida was the scene. After this first incident, no mention whatever is made of Nathanael, either under his proper name, or his paternal appellation, except that when the twelve were sent forth in pairs, he was sent with his friend Philip, that those who had been summoned to the work together, might now go forth laboring together in this high commission. One solitary incident is also commemorated by John, in which this apostle was concerned, namely, the meeting on the lake of Gennesaret, after the resurrection, where his name is mentioned among those who went out on the fishing excursion with Peter. His friend Philip is not there mentioned, but may have been one of the “two disciples,” who are included without their names being given. From this trifling circumstance, some have concluded that Nathanael was a fisherman by trade, as well as the other four who are mentioned with him; and certainly the conjecture is reasonable, and not improbable, except from the circumstance, that his residence was at Cana, which is commonly understood to have been an inland town, and too far from the water, for any of its inhabitants to follow fishing as a business. Other idle conjectures about his occupation and rank might be multiplied from most anciently and venerably foolish authorities; but let the dust of ages sleep on the prosy guesses of the Gregories, of Chrysostom, Augustin, and their reverential copyists in modern times. There is too much need of room in this book, for the detail and discussion of truth, to allow paper to be wasted on baseless conjectures, or impudent falsehoods.

HIS APOSTLESHIP.

There is a dim relic of a story, of quite ancient date, that after the dispersion of the apostles, he went to Arabia, and preached there till his death. This is highly probable, because it is well known that many of the Jews, more particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem, settled along the eastern coasts of the Red sea, where they were continued for centuries. Nothing can be more reasonable then, than to suppose that after the wasting fury of invasion had desolated the city and the land of their fathers, many of the Christian Jews too, went forth to seek a new home in the peaceful regions of Arabia Felix; and that with them also went forth this true Israelite without guile, to devote the rest of his life to apostolic labors, in that distant country, where those of his wandering brethren, who had believed in Christ, would so much need the support and counsel of one of the divinely commissioned ministers of the gospel. Those Israelites too, who still continued unbelievers, would present objects of importance, in the view of the apostle. All the visible glories of the ancient covenant had departed; and in that distant land, with so little of the chilling influence of the dogmatical teachers of the law around them, they would be the more readily led to the just appreciation of a spiritual faith, and a simple creed.

All the testimony which antiquity affords on this point, is simply this:――Eusebius (Church History, V. 10,) says, in giving the life of Pantaenus of Alexandria, (who lived about A. D. 180,) that this enterprising Christian philosopher penetrated, in his researches and travels, as far as to the inhabitants of India. It has been shown by Tillemont, Asseman and Michaelis, that this term, in this connection, means Arabia Felix, one part of whose inhabitants were called Indians, by the Hebrews, the Syrians and the early ecclesiastical historians. Eusebius relates that Pantaenus there found the gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, and that the tradition among these people was, that Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, had formerly preached there, and left this gospel among them. This tradition being only a hundred years old when Pantaenus heard it, ranks among those of rather respectable character.

The tradition certainly appears authentic, and is a very interesting and valuable fragment of early Christian history, giving a trace of the progress of the gospel, which otherwise would never have been recognized,――besides the satisfaction of such a reasonable story about an apostle of whom the inspired narrative records so little, although he is represented in such an interesting light, by the account of his introduction to Jesus. Here he learned the meaning of the solemn prophecy with which Jesus crowned that noble profession of faith. Here he saw, no doubt, yet greater tokens of the power of Christ, than in the deep knowledge of hidden things then displayed. And here, resting at last from his labors, he departed to the full view of the glories there foretold,――to “see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

MATTHEW.

HIS RANK AND NAME.

In his own gospel, Matthew is not ranked immediately after the preceding apostle, but numbers himself eighth on the list, and after his associate, Thomas; but all the other lists agree in giving this apostle a place immediately after Nathanael. The testimony of others in regard to his rank has therefore been adopted, in preference to his own, which was evidently influenced by a too modest estimation of himself.

In connection with this apostle, as in other instances, there is a serious question about his name and individual identity, arising from the different appellations under which he is mentioned in different parts of the sacred record. In his own gospel, he is referred to by no other name than his common one; but by Mark and Luke, the circumstances of his call are narrated, with the details almost precisely similar to those recorded of the same occurrence by himself, and yet the person thus called, (in the same form of words used in summoning the other apostles,) is named Levi, the son of Alpheus; though Mark and Luke record Matthew by his common name among the twelve, in the list of names. Some have thought that the circumstance of their mentioning Matthew in this manner, without referring at all to his identity with the person named Levi, proves that they too had no idea that the former name was applied to the same person as the latter, and on the contrary, were detailing the call of some other disciple,――perhaps Jude, who also is called by the similar name, Lebbeus, and is known to have been the son of Alpheus. This view is not improbable, and is so well supported by coinciding circumstances, as to throw great uncertainty over the whole matter; though not entirely to set aside the probabilities arising from the almost perfect similarity between Matthew’s call, as related by himself, and the call of Levi, the son of Alpheus, as given in the other gospels.

On the question of Matthew’s identity with Levi, Michaelis is full. (Introduction, III. iv. 1.) Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca, IV. vii. 2,) discusses the question quite at length, and his annotators give abundance of references to authors, in detail, in addition, to those mentioned by himself, in the text.

HIS CALL.

The circumstances of his call, as narrated by himself, are represented as occurring at or near Capernaum. “Jesus, passing out of the city, saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, and he said to him,――‘Follow me.’ And he arose, and followed him.” This account shows Matthew’s occupation, which is also known from the title of “the tax-gatherer,” annexed to his name, in his own list of the apostles. This was an occupation which, though unquestionably a source of great profit to those employed in it, and consequently as much sought after as such offices are in these days, and in this country, was always connected with a great deal of popular odium, from the relation in which they stood to the people, in this profitable business. The class of collectors to which Matthew belonged, in particular, being the mere toll-gatherers, sitting to collect the money, penny by penny, from the unwilling people, whose national pride was every moment wounded by the degrading foreign exactions of the Romans, suffered under a peculiar ignominy, and were supposed to have renounced all patriotism and honor, in stooping, for the base purposes of pecuniary gain, to act as instruments of such a galling form of servitude, and were therefore visited with a universal popular hatred and scorn. A class of men thus deprived of all character for honor and delicacy of feeling, would naturally grow hardened, beyond all sense of shame; and this added to the usual official impudence which characterizes all mean persons, holding a place which gives them the power to annoy others, the despised publicans would generally repay this spite, on every occasion, which could enable them to be vexatious to those who came in contact with them. Yet out of this hated class, Jesus did not disdain to take at least one,――perhaps more,――of those whom he chose for the express purpose of building up a pure faith, and of evangelizing the world. No doubt, before the occasion of this call, Matthew had been a frequent hearer of the words of truth which fell from the divinely eloquent lips of the Redeemer,――words that had not been without a purifying and exalting effect on the heart of the publican, though long so degraded by daily and hourly familiarity with meanness and vice. And so weaned was his soul from the love of the gainful pursuit to which he had been devoted, that at the first call from Jesus, he arose from the place of toll-gathering, and followed his summoner, to a duty for which his previous occupation had but poorly prepared him. With such satisfaction did he renounce his old vocation, for the discipleship of the Nazarene, that he made it a great occasion of rejoicing, and celebrated the day as a festival, calling in all his old friends as well as his new ones, to share in the hospitable entertainment which he spread for all who could join with him in the social circle. Nor did the holy Redeemer despise the rough and indiscriminate company to which the grateful joy of Matthew had invited him; but rejoicing in an opportunity to do good to a class of people so seldom brought under the means of grace, he unhesitatingly sat down to the entertainment with his disciples,――Savior and sinners, toll-gatherers and apostles, all thronging in one motley group, around the festive board. What a sight was this for the eyes of the proud Pharisees who were spitefully watching the conduct of the man who had lately taken upon himself the exalted character of a teacher, and a reformer of the law! Passing into the house with the throng who entered at the open doors of the hospitable Matthew,――they saw the much glorified prophet of Nazareth, sitting at the social table along with a parcel of low custom-house collectors, toll-gatherers, tide-waiters and cheats, one of whose honorable fraternity he had just adopted into the goodly fellowship of his disciples, and was now eating and drinking with these outcast villains, without repelling the familiar merriment even of the lowest of them. At this spectacle, so degrading to such a dignity as they considered most becoming in one who aspired to be a teacher of morals and religion, the scribes and Pharisees sneeringly asked the disciples of Jesus,――“Why eateth your Master with tax-gatherers and sinners?” Jesus, hearing the malicious inquiry, answered it in such a tone of irony as best suited its impertinence. “They that are whole, need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what this means,――‘I will have mercy, rather than sacrifice;’ for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

HIS GOSPEL.

After the history of his call, not one circumstance is related respecting him, either in the gospels, the Acts or the epistles. In his own gospel, he makes not the slightest allusion to anything either said or done by himself; nor does his name anywhere occur except in the apostolic lists. Even the Fathers are silent as to any other important circumstances of his life, and it is only in the noble record which he has left of the life of Christ, in the gospel which bears his name, that any monument of his actions and character can now be found. Yet this solitary remaining effort of his genius is of such importance in the history of revealed religion, that hardly the most eminent of the apostles is so often brought to mind, as the evangelist, whose clear, simple, but impressive testimony to the words and deeds of his Lord, now stands at the head of the sacred canon.

On the history of this portion of the Christian scriptures, the testimony of the Fathers, from very early times, is very decided in maintaining the fact, that it was written in the vernacular language of Palestine. The very earliest testimony on this point, dating within seventy-five years of the time of Matthew himself, expressly declares that Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew language; and that each one interpreted it for himself as he could. It is also said on somewhat early authority, that he wrote his gospel when about to depart from Palestine, that those whom he left behind him might have an authentic record of the facts in the life of Christ. So that by these and a great number of other testimonies, uniformly to the same effect, the point seems well established that Matthew wrote in Hebrew; and that what is now extant as his gospel, is only a translation into Greek, made in some later age, by some person unknown.

I. In what language did Matthew write his Gospel?

In mentioning the Hebrew as the original language of the gospel of Matthew, it should be noticed, that the dialect spoken by the Jews of the time of Christ and his apostles, was by no means the language in which the Old Testament was written, and which is commonly meant by this name at present. The true ancient Hebrew had long before become a dead language, as truly so as it is now, and as much unknown to the mass of the people, as the Latin is in Italy, or the Anglo-Saxon in England. Yet the language was still called “the Hebrew,” as appears from several passages in the New Testament, where the Hebrew is spoken of as the vernacular language of the Jews of Palestine. It seems proper therefore, to designate the later Hebrew by the same name which is applied to it by those who spoke it, and this is still among modern writers the term used for it; but of late, some, especially Hug and his commentator, Wait, have introduced the name “Aramaic,” as a distinctive title of this dialect, deriving this term from Aram, the original name of Syria, and the regions around, in all which was spoken in the time of Christ, this or a similar dialect. This term however, is quite unnecessary; and I therefore prefer to use here the common name, as above limited, because it is the one used in the New Testament, and is the one in familiar use, not only with common readers, but, as far as I know, with the majority of Biblical critics.

Though the evidence that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, is apparently of the most uniform, weighty and decisive character, there have been many among the learned, within the three last centuries, who have denied it, and have brought the best of their learning and ability to prove that the Greek gospel of Matthew, which is now in the New Testament, is the original production of his pen; and so skilfully has this modern view been maintained, that this has already been made one of the most doubtful questions in the history of the canon. In Germany more particularly, (but not entirely,) this notion has, during the last century, been strongly supported by many who do not like the idea, that we are in possession only of a translation of this most important record of sacred history, and that the original is now lost forever. Those who have more particularly distinguished themselves on this side of the controversy, are Maius, Schroeder, Masch and Hug, but the great majority of critics still support the old view.

The earliest evidence for the Hebrew original of Matthew’s gospel, is Papias of Hierapolis, (as early as A. D. 140,) not long after the times of the apostles, and acquainted with many who knew them personally. Eusebius (Church History, III. 39,) quotes the words of Papias, (of which the original is now lost,) which are exactly translated here:――“Matthew therefore wrote the divine words in the Hebrew language; and every one translated them as he could.” By which it appears that in the time of Papias there was no universally acknowledged translation of Matthew’s gospel; but that every one was still left to his own private discretion, in giving the meaning in Greek from the original Hebrew. The value of Papias’s testimony on any point connected with the history of the apostles, may be best learned from his own simple and honest account of his opportunities and efforts to inquire into their history; (as recorded by Eusebius in a former part of the same chapter.) “If any person who had ever been acquainted with the elders, came into my company, I inquired of them the words of the elders;――what Andrew and Peter said?――what Thomas, and James, and John, and Matthew, and the other disciples of the Lord used to say?”――All this shows an inquiring, zealous mind, faithful in particulars, and ready in improving opportunities for acquiring historical knowledge. Yet because in another part of the works of Eusebius, he is characterized as rather enthusiastic, and very weak in judgment, more particularly in respect to doctrines, some moderns have attempted to set aside his testimony, as worth nothing on this simple historical point, the decision of which, from the direct personal witness of those who had seen Matthew and read his original gospel, needed no more judgment than for a man to remember his own name. The argument offered to discredit Papias, is this:――“He believed in a bodily reign of the Messiah on the earth, during the whole period of the millennium, and for this and some similar errors, is pronounced by Eusebius, ‘a man of very weak judgment,’――(πανυ σμικρος τον νουν.) Therefore, he could not have known in what language Matthew wrote.” The objection certainly is worth something against a man who made such errors as Papias, in questions where any nice discrimination is necessary, but in a simple effort of a ready memory, he is as good a witness as though he had the discrimination of a modern skeptical critic. (In Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament, vol. III. c. iv. § 4, is a full discussion of Papias’s character and testimony, and the objections to them.)

The second witness is Irenaeus, (A. D. 160,) who, however, coupling his testimony with a demonstrated falsehood, destroys the value which might be otherwise put upon a statement so ancient as his. His words are quoted by Eusebius, (Church History, V. 8.) “Matthew published among the Hebrews his gospel, written in their own language, (τῃ ιδιᾳ αυτων διαλεκτῳ,) while Peter and Paul were preaching Christ at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church.” This latter circumstance is no great help to the story, after what has been proved on this point in the notes on Peter’s life; but the critics do not pretend to attack it on this ground. They urge against it, that as Irenaeus had a great regard for Papias, and took some facts on his word, he probably took this also from him, with no other authority,――a guess, which only wants proof, to make it a very tolerable argument. Let Irenaeus go for what he is worth; there are enough without him.

The third witness is Pantaenus of Alexandria, already quoted in the note on Nathanael’s life, (p. 363,) as having found this Hebrew gospel still in use, in that language, among the Jews of Arabia-Felix, towards the end of the second century.

The fourth witness is Origen, (A. D. 230,) whose words on this point are preserved only in a quotation made by Eusebius, (Church History, VI. 25,) who thus gives them from Origen’s commentary on Matthew. “As I have learned by tradition concerning the four gospels, which alone are received without dispute by the church of God under heaven: the first was written by Matthew, once a tax-gatherer, afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for the benefit of the Jewish converts, having composed it in the Hebrew language, &c.” The term, “tradition,” (παραδοσις,) here evidently means something more than floating, unauthorized information, coming merely by vague hearsay; for to this source only he refers all his knowledge of the fact, that “the gospel was written by Matthew;” so that, in fact, we have as good authority in this place, for believing that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, as we have that he wrote at all. The other circumstances specified, also show clearly, that he did not derive all his information on this point from Papias, as some have urged; because this account gives facts which that earlier Father did not mention,――as that it was written first, and that it was intended for the benefit of the Jewish converts.

Later authorities, such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others, might be quoted in detail, to the same effect; but this general statement is sufficient for this place. The scholar of course, will refer to the works on critical theology for detailed abstracts of these, as well as the former writers. Michaelis is very full, both in extracts and discussions. Hug also gives a minute account of the evidence, with the view of refuting it.

The testimony of Jerome [A. D. 395,] is however, so full and explicit, and so valuable from his character as a Hebrew scholar, that it may well be esteemed of higher importance to the question, than that of some earlier writers. His words are,――“Matthew composed his gospel in Hebrew letters and words, but it is not very well known who afterwards translated it. Moreover, the very Hebrew original itself is preserved even to this day, in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus, most industriously collected. I also had the opportunity of copying [describendi] this book by means of the Nazareans in Beroea, a city of Syria, who use this book.” [Jerome De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. Vita Matthew.] Another passage from the same author is valuable testimony to the same purpose,――“Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew language, principally for the sake of those Jews who believed in Jesus.”

Now these testimonies, though coming from an authority so late, are of the highest value when his means of learning the truth are considered. By his own statement it appears that he had actually seen and examined the original Hebrew gospel of Matthew, or what was considered to be such, as preserved in the valuable collections of ♦Pamphilus, at a place within the region for which it was first written. It has been urged that Jerome confounded the “gospel according to the Hebrews,” an apocryphal book, with the true original of Matthew. But this is disproved, from the circumstance that Jerome himself translated this apocryphal gospel from the Hebrew into Latin, while he says that the translator of Matthew was unknown.

In addition to these authorities from the Fathers, may be quoted the statements appended to the ancient Syriac and Arabic versions, which distinctly declare that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. This was also the opinion of all the learned Syrians.

The great argument with which all this evidence is met, (besides discrediting the witnesses,) is that Matthew ought to have written in Greek, and therefore did. (Matthaeus Graece scribere debuit. Schubert. Diss. § 24.) This sounds very strangely; that, without any direct ancient testimony to support the assertion, but a great number of distinct assertions against it from the very earliest Fathers, moderns should now pronounce themselves better judges of what Matthew ought to do, than those who were so near to his time, and were so well acquainted with his design, and all the circumstances under which it was executed. Yet, strangely as it sounds, an argument of even this presumptuous aspect, demands the most respectful consideration, more especially from those who have had frequent occasion, on other points, to notice the very contemptible character of the “testimony of the Fathers.” It should be noticed however, that, in this case, the argument does not rest on a mere floating tradition, like many other mooted points in early Christian history, but in most of the witnesses, is referred to direct personal knowledge of the facts, and, in some cases, to actual inspection of the original.

It is proper to notice the reasons for thinking that Matthew ought to have written in Greek, which have influenced such minds as those of Erasmus, Beza, Ittig, Leusden, Spanheim, LeClerc, Semler, Hug and others, and which have had a decisive weight with such wonderfully deep Hebrew scholars, as Wagenseil, Lightfoot, John Henry Michaelis, and Reland. The amount of the argument is, mainly, that the Greek was then so widely and commonly spoken even in Palestine, as to be the most desirable language for the evangelist to use in preserving for the benefit of his own countrymen, the record of the life of Christ. The particulars of the highly elaborate and learned arguments, on which this assertion has been rested, have filled volumes, nor can even an abstract be allowed here; but a simple reference to common facts will do something to show to common readers, the prominent objections to the notion of a Greek original. It is perfectly agreed that the Hebrew was the ordinary language spoken by Christ, in his teachings, and in all his usual intercourse with the people around him. That this language was that in which the Jews also commonly wrote and read at that time, as far as they were able to do either, in any language, is equally plain. In spite of all that Grecian and Roman conquests could do, the Jews were still a distinct and peculiar people; nor is there any reason whatever to suppose that they were any less so in language, than they were in dress, manners, and general character. He, therefore, who desired to write anything for the benefit of the Jews, as a nation, would insure it altogether the best attention from them, if it came in a form most accordant with their national feelings. They would naturally be the first persons whose salvation would be an object to the apostolic writers, as to the apostolic preachers, and the feelings of the writer himself, being in some degree influenced by love of his own countrymen, he would aim first at the direct spiritual benefit of those who were his kindred according to the flesh. Among all the historical writings of the New Testament, that there should be not one originally composed in the language of the people among whom the Savior arose, with whom he lived, talked and labored, and for whom he died, would be very strange. The fact that a gospel in the Hebrew language was considered absolutely indispensable for the benefit of the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, is rendered perfectly incontestable by the circumstance that those apocryphal gospels which were in common use among the heretical denominations of that region, were all in Hebrew; and the common argument, that the Hebrew gospel spoken of by the Fathers was translated into Hebrew from Matthew’s Greek, is itself an evidence that it was absolutely indispensable that the Jews should be addressed in writing, in that language alone. The objection, that the Hebrew original of Matthew was lost so soon, is easily answered by the fact, that the Jews were, in the course of the few first centuries, driven out of the land of their Fathers so completely, as to destroy the occasion for any such gospel in their language; for wherever they went, they soon made the dialect of the country in which they lived, their only medium of communication, written or spoken.

Fabricius may be advantageously consulted by the scholar for a condensed view of the question of the original language of Matthew’s gospel, and his references to authorities, ancient and modern, are numerous and valuable, besides those appended by his editors.――The most complete argument ever made out in defense of a Greek original, is that by Hug, in his Introduction, whose history of the progress of Grecian influence and language in Syria and Palestine, is both interesting and valuable on its own account, though made the inefficient instrument of supporting an error. He is very ably met by his English translator, Wait, in the introduction to the first volume. A very strong defense of a Greek original of Matthew, is also found in a little quarto pamphlet, containing a thesis of a Goettingen student, on taking his degree in theology, in 1810. (Diss. Crit. Exeg. in serm. Matt. &c. Auct. Frid. Gul. Schubert.)

II. What were the Materials of Matthew’s Gospel?

This point has been made the subject of more discussion and speculation, within the last fifty years, among the critical and exegetical theologians of Europe, than any other subject connected with the New Testament. Those who wish to see the interesting details of the modes of explaining the coincidences between the three first evangelists, may find much on this subject in Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament, and especially in the translation by Bishop Marsh, who, in his notes on Vol. III. of Michaelis, has, after a very full discussion of all previous views of the origin of the gospels, gone on to build one of the most ingenious speculations on this point that was ever conceived on any subject, but which, in its very complicated structure, will present a most insuperable objection to its adoption by the vast majority of even his critical readers; and accordingly, though he has received universal praise for the great learning and ingenuity displayed in its formation, he has found few supporters,――perhaps none. His views are fully examined and fairly discussed, by the anonymous English translator of Dr. F. Schleiermacher’s Commentary on Luke, in an introductory history of all the German speculations on this subject with which he has prefaced that work. The historical sketch there given of the progress of opinion on the sources and materials of the three first gospels, is probably the most complete account of the whole matter that is accessible in English, and displays a very minute acquaintance with the German theologians. Hug is also very full on this subject, and also discusses the views of Marsh and Michaelis. Hug’s translator, Dr. Wait, has given, in an introduction to the first volume, a very interesting account of these critical controversies, and has large references to many German writers not referred to by his author. Bertholdt and Bolten, in particular, are amply quoted and disputed by Wait. Bloomfield also, in the prefaces to the first and second volumes of his critical Annotations on the New Testament, gives much on the subject that can hardly be found any where else by a mere English reader. Large references might be made to the works of the original German writers; but it would require a very protracted statement, and would be useless to nearly all readers, because those to whom these rare and deep treasures of sacred knowledge are accessible, are doubtless better able to give an account of them than I am. It may be worth while to mention, however, that of all those statements of the facts on this subject with which I am acquainted, none gives a more satisfactory view, than a little Latin monograph, in a quarto of eighty pages, written by H. W. Halfeld, (a Goettingen theological student, and a pupil of Eichhorn, for whose views he has a great partiality,) for the Royal premium. Its title is, “Commentatio de origine quatuor evangeliorum, et de eorum canonica auctoritate.” (Goettingen, 1796.) The Bibliotheca Graeca of Fabricius, (Harles’s edition with notes,) contains, in the chapters on the gospels, very rich references to the learned authors on these points. Lardner, in his History of the Apostles and Evangelists, takes a learned view of the question, “whether either of the three evangelists had seen the others’ writings.” This he gives after the lives of all four of the evangelists, and it may be referred to for a very full abstract of all the old opinions upon the question. Few of these points have any claim for a discussion in this book, but some things may very properly be alluded to, in the lives of the other evangelists, where a reference to their resemblances and common sources, will be essential to the completeness of the narrative.