I. THE GALILEAN APOSTLES. (continued 9)

Here ends the tale of the fictitious Abdias Babylonius, of which this concluding abstract is another literal specimen, presenting its most effective part in the pathetic line, as the former does of its ludicrous portions. The story of Andrew is altogether the longest and best constructed, as well as the most interesting in the character of its incidents, of all contained in the book of the Pseudo-Abdias; and I have therefore been more liberal in extracts from this, because it would leave little occasion for any similar specimens under the lives of the rest of the apostles.

All this long story may, very possibly, have grown up from a beginning which was true; that is, there may have been another Andrew, who, in a later age of the early times of Christianity, may have gone over those regions as a missionary, and met with somewhat similar adventures; and who was afterwards confounded with the apostle Andrew. The Scotch, for some reason or other, formerly adopted Andrew as their national saint, and represent him on a cross of a peculiar shape, resembling the letter X, known in heraldry by the name of a saltier, and borne on the badges of the knights of the Scottish order of the Thistle, to this day. This idea of his cross, however, has originated since the beginning of the twelfth century, as I shall show by a passage from Bernardus.

The truly holy Bernard, (Abbot of Clairvaux, in France, A. D. 1112,) better worthy of the title of Saint than ninety-nine hundredths of all the canonized who lived before him, even from apostolic days,――has, among his splendid sermons, three most eloquent discourses, preached in his abbey church, on St. Andrew’s day, in which he alludes to the actions of this apostle, as recorded in the “Passion of St. Andrew,”――a book which he seems to quote as worthy of credit. In Latin of Ciceronian purity, he has given some noble specimens of a pulpit eloquence, rarely equalled in any modern language, and such as never blesses the ears of the hearers of these days. He begins his first discourse on this subject with saying, that in “celebrating the glorious triumphs of the blessed Andrew, they had that day been delighted with the words of grace, that proceeded out of his mouth;”――(doubtless in hearing the story of the crucifixion read from the fictitious book of the Passion of St. Andrew, which all supposed to be authentic.) “For there was no room for sorrow, where he himself was so intensely rejoiced. No one of us mourned for him in his sufferings, for no one dared to weep over him, while he was thus exulting. So that he might most appropriately say to us, what the cross-bearing Redeemer said to those who followed him with mourning,――‘Weep not for me; but weep for yourselves.’ And when the blessed Andrew himself was led to the cross, and the people, grieving for the unjust condemnation of the holy and just man, would have prevented his execution,――he, with the most urgent prayer, forbade them from depriving him of his crown of suffering. For ‘he desired indeed to be released, and to be with Christ,’――but on the cross; he desired to enter the kingdom,――but by the door. Even as he said to that loved form, ‘that by thee, he may receive me, who by thee has redeemed me.’ Therefore if we love him, we shall rejoice with him; not only because he was crowned, but because he was crucified.” (A bad, and unscriptural doctrine! for no apostle ever taught, or was taught, that it was worth while for any man to be crucified, when he could well help it.)

In his second sermon on the same subject, the animated Bernard remarks furthermore, in comment on the behavior of Andrew, when coming in sight of his cross,――“You have certainly heard how the blessed Andrew was stayed on the Lord, when he came to the place where the cross was made ready for him,――and how, by the spirit which he had received along with the other apostles, in the fiery tongues, he spoke truly fiery words. And so, seeing from afar the cross prepared, he did not turn pale, though mortal weakness might seem to demand it; his blood did not freeze,――his hair did not rise,――his voice did not cleave to his throat, (non stetere comae, aut vox faucibus haesit.) Out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth did speak; and the deep love which glowed in his heart, sent forth the words like burning sparks.” He then quotes the speech of Andrew to the cross, as above given, and proceeds: “I beseech you, brethren, say, is this a man who speaks thus? Is it not an angel, or some new creature? No: it is merely a ‘man of like passions with ourselves.’ For the very agony itself, in whose approach he thus rejoiced, proves him to have been ‘a man of passion.’ Whence, then, in man, this new exultation, and joy before unheard of? Whence, in man, a mind so spiritual,――a love so fervent,――a courage so strong? Far would it be from the apostle himself, to wish, that we should give the glory of such grace to him. It is the ‘perfect gift, coming down from the Father of Lights,’――from him, ‘who alone does wondrous things.’ It was, dearly beloved, plainly, ‘the spirit which helpeth our infirmities,’ by which was shed abroad in his heart, a love, strong as death,――yea, and stronger than death. Of which, O may we too be found partakers!”

The preacher then goes on with the practical application of the view of these sufferings, and the spirit that sustained them, to the circumstances of his hearers. After some discourse to this effect, he exhorts them to seek this spirit. “Seek it then, dearest! seek it without ceasing,――seek it without doubting;――in all your works invoke the aid of this spirit. For we also, my brethren, with the blessed Andrew, must needs take up our cross,――yea, with that Savior-Lord whom he followed. For, in this he rejoiced,――in this he exulted;――because not only for him, but with him, he would seem to die, and be planted, so ‘that suffering with him, he might also reign with him.’ With whom, that we may also be crucified, let us hear more attentively with the ears of our hearts, the voice of him who says, ‘He who will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.’ As if he said, ‘Let him who desires me, despise himself: let him who would do my will, learn to break his own.’”

Bernard then draws a minute parallel, more curious than admirable, between the cross and the trials of life,――likening the four difficulties in the way of holiness, to the four ends of the cross; bodily fear being the foot-piece; open assaults and temptations, the right arm-piece; secret sins and trials, the left hand-piece; and spiritual pride, the head-piece. Or, as he briefly recapitulates, the four virtues attached to the four horns of the cross, are these:――continence, patience, prudence, and humility. A truly forcible figure, and one not without its effect, doubtless, on the hearers. This arrangement of the cross, moreover, seems to prove, that in the time of Bernard, the idle story about Andrew’s cross being shaped like the letter X, was entirely unknown; for it is evident that the whole point of the allusion here consists in the hearers supposing that Andrew was crucified on a cross of the common shape,――upright, with a transverse bar and head-piece.

In conclusion of all this fabulous detail, may be appropriately quoted the closing passage of the second discourse of Bernard, the spirit of which, though coming from a Papist, is not discordant with the noblest essential principles of truly catholic Christianity, seldom indeed, found so pure in the Romish church, as in this “Last of the Fathers,” as he has been justly styled. This, with all the passages above quoted, may be found by those who can enjoy the original, in his works. (Divi Bernardi Opera Omnia Joh. Picard. Antwerp, 1609, folio; columns 322‒333.)

So accordant are these words with the spirit which it becomes this work to inculcate, that I may well adopt them into the text, glad to hang a moral to the end of so much falsehood, though drawn from such a theme, that it seems like “gathering grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles.”

Bernard has in this part of his discourse been completing all the details of his parallel between the cross and the Christian’s life, and in this conclusion, thus crowns the simile, by exhorting his saintly hearers to cling, each to his own cross, in spite of all temptation to renounce it; that is, to persevere in daily crucifying their sins, by a pure deportment through life.

Happy the soul that glories and triumphs on this cross, if it only persevere, and do not let itself be cast down in its trials. Let every one then, who is on this cross, like the blessed Andrew, pray his Lord and Master, not to let him be taken down from it. For what is there which the malign adversary will not dare? what will he not impiously presume to try? For what he thought to do to the disciple by the hands of Aegeas, the same he once thought to do to the Master by the scornful tongues of the Jews. In each instance alike, however, driven by too late experience of his folly, he departed, vanquished and confounded. O may he in like manner depart from us, conquered by Him who triumphed over him by Himself, and by His disciple. May He cause, that we also may attain the same happy end, on the crosses which we have borne, each one in his own peculiar trials, for the glory of His name, “who is God over all, blessed forever.”

JAMES BOANERGES; THE SON OF ZEBEDEE.

HIS RANK AND CHARACTER.

Whatever may have been the peculiar excellences of this apostle’s character, as recognized by the searching eye of Him who knew the hearts of all men, the early close of his high career has prevented the full development of energies, that might, in the course of a longer life, have been made as fruitful in works of wonder and praise, as those of the other members of the elect TRIO, his friend and his younger brother; and his later years, thus prolonged, might have left similar recorded testimonies of his apostolic zeal. Much too, that truly concerns his brief life, is swallowed up in the long narrative of the eminent chief of the twelve, whose superiority was on all occasions so distinctly marked by Jesus, that he never imparted to this apostle any exalted favor in which Peter did not also share, and in the record of which his name is not mentioned first. In the first call,――in the raising of the daughter of Jairus to life,――at the transfiguration,――and on the apostolic roll,――James is uniformly placed after Peter; and such too, was the superior activity and talkative disposition of Peter, that whenever and wherever there was anything to be said, he was always the first to say it,――cutting off the sons of Zebedee from the opportunity, if they had the disposition, to make themselves more prominent. Yet the sons of Zebedee are not entirely unnoticed in the apostolic history, and even the early-martyred James may be said to have a character quite decidedly marked, in those few passages in the sacred record, where facts concerning him are commemorated. In the apostolic list given by Mark, it is moreover mentioned, that he with his brother had received a name from Jesus Christ, which being given to them by him, doubtless with a decided reference to their characters, serves as a valuable means of ascertaining their leading traits. The name of “Boanerges,”――“sons of thunder,” seems to imply a degree of decided boldness, and a fiery energy, not exactly accordant with the usual opinions of the characters of the sons of Zebedee; but it is an expression in the most perfect harmony with the few details of the conduct of both, which are given in the New Testament.

Boanerges.――This word is one, whose composition and derivation, (as is the case with many other New Testament proper names,) have caused great discussion and difference of opinion among the learned. It occurs only in Mark iii. 17, where it is incidentally mentioned in the list of the apostles, as a new name given to the sons of Zebedee by Jesus. Those who are curious, can find all the discussion in any critical commentator on the passage. Poole’s Synopsis, in one heavy folio column and half of another, gives a complete view of all the facts and speculations concerning this matter, up to his time; the amount of all which, seems to be, that, as the word now stands, it very nearly sets all etymologies at defiance,――whether Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee or Arabic,――since it is impossible to say how the word should be resolved into two parts, one of which should mean “sons,” and the other “thunder;” so that it is well for us we have Mark’s explanation of the name, since without it, the critics would probably have never found either “son” or “thunder” in the word. As to the reason of the name’s being appropriated to James and John, conjectures equally numerous and various may be found in the same learned work; but all equally unsatisfactory. Lampe also is very full on this point. (Prolegomena to a Johannine Theology cap. I. lib. ii. §§ 9‒15.

HIS FAMILY AND CALL.

Of the first introduction of this apostle to Jesus, it may be reasonably conjectured, that he formed an acquaintance with him at the same time with his brother John and the sons of Jonah, as already commemorated in the former lives, from the brief record in the first chapter of John’s gospel. After this, he and his brother, as well as Peter and Andrew, returned quietly to their honest business of fishing on the lake of Gennesaret, on whose shore, no doubt, was their home,――perhaps too, in Bethsaida or Capernaum, as their intimacy and fellowship with the sons of Jonah would seem to imply a vicinity of residence; though their common occupation might bring them frequently together in circumstances where friendly assistance was mutually needed; and the idea of their residence in some other of the numerous villages along the northern end of the lake, on either side, is not inconsistent with any circumstance specified in their history. In their occupation of fishing, they were accompanied by their father Zebedee, who it seems, was not so far advanced in years as to be unable to aid his sons in this very laborious and dangerous business; which makes it quite apparent that James and John being the sons of so active a man, must themselves have but just attained manhood, at the time when they are first mentioned. Respecting the character of this brisk old gentleman, unfortunately very few data indeed are preserved; and the vagueness of the impression made by his name, though so often repeated in connection with his sons, may be best conceived by reference to that deeply enigmatical question, with which grave persons of mature age are sometimes wont to puzzle the inquisitive minds of young aspirants after Biblical knowledge, “Who was the father of Zebedee’s children?”――a query which certainly implies a great deficiency of important facts, on which the curious learner could found a definite idea of this somewhat distinguished character. Indeed “the mother of Zebedee’s children” seems to posses in the minds of most readers of the gospels a much more prominent place than “the father of them;” for the simple occasion on which she presents herself to notice, is of such a nature as to show that she was the parent from whom the sons inherited at least one prominent trait,――that of high, aspiring ambition, with which, in them as well as in her, was joined a most decidedly comfortable degree of self-esteem, that would not allow them to suspect that other people could be at all behind them in appreciating those talents, which in their own opinion, and their fond mother’s, showed that they were “born to command.” Indeed it appears manifest, that there was much more “thunder” in her composition, than in her husband’s, and it is but fair to suppose, from the decided way in which she put herself forward in the family affairs, on at least one important occasion, without any pretension whatever on his part, to any right of interference or decision, that she must have been in the habit of having her own way in most matters;――a peculiar prominence in the domestic administration, very naturally resulting from the ♦circumstance, that her husband’s frequent long absences from home must have left the responsibilities of the family often upon her alone, and he, like a prudent man, on his return, may have valued domestic quiet above the maintenance of any very decided supremacy. If the supposition may be adopted, however, that Zebedee died soon after the call of his sons, the silence of the sacred record respecting him is easily accounted for, and the above conclusion as to his domestic management, may be considered unnecessarily derogatory to his dignity of character.

Sprung from such parents, and brought up by them on the shores and waters of Gennesaret, James had learned the humble business of his father, and was quietly devoting himself to the labors of a fisherman, probably never dreaming of an occasion that should ever call forth his slumbering energies in “thunder,” or hold up before his awakened ambition, the honors of a name that should outlast the wreck of kingdoms, and of the brightest glories of that age. But on the morning, when the sons of Jonah received the high call and commission to become “fishers of men,” James and his brother too,――at the solemn command, “Follow me,”――laid down their nets, and left the low labors and amusements of the fishing, to their father, who toiled on with his servants, while his sons went forth through Galilee, following him who had called them to a far higher vocation. No acts whatever are commemorated, as performed by them in this first pilgrimage; and it was not until after their return from the north of Galilee, and the beginning of their journey to Jerusalem, that the occasion arose, when their striking family trait of ambition was most remarkably brought out.

HIS AMBITIOUS CLAIMS.

Their intellectual and moral qualities being of a comparatively high order, had already attracted the very favorable attention of Jesus, during the first journey though Galilee; and they had already, on at least two occasions, received most distinguishing marks of his regard,――they alone of all the twelve, sharing in the honor of being present with Peter at the raising of the daughter of Jairus, and being still more highly favored by the view of the solemn events of the night of the transfiguration, amid the thunders of Hermon. On that occasion, the terrors of the scene overcame even their aspiring souls; and when the cloud burst over them, they both sunk to the earth, in speechless dread, along with Peter, too, who had previously manifested so much greater self-command than they, in daring to address in complaisant words the awful forms before them; while they remained silent with terror at a phenomenon for which their views of their Master’s character had but poorly prepared them. From all these prostrating terrors they had since, however, fully recovered, and were now completely restored to their former confidence in themselves, and were still rooted in their old views of the Messiah’s earthly glories,――in this particular, however, only sharing the common error of the whole twelve. In this state of mind, looking upon Jesus Christ only as an ambitious man, of powerful mind, vast knowledge, divine consecration, and miraculous gifts, which fitted him for the subversion of the Roman dominion, and the erection of a kingdom of his own,――their thoughts were all the while running on the division of the spoils and honors, which would be the reward of the chief followers of the conqueror; and in this state of mind, they were prepared to pervert all the declarations of Jesus, so as to make them harmonize with their own hopes and notions. While on this journey southward, to Jerusalem, after they had passed into the eastern sections of Judea, beyond the Jordan, Jesus was one day, in answer to an inquiry from Peter, promising his disciples a high reward for the sacrifices they had made in his service; and assuring them, that in return for houses or lands or relatives or friends, left for his name’s sake, they should all receive a return, a hundred-fold greater than the loss. Especially were their fancies struck by a vivid picture, which he presented to their minds, of the high rewards accruing to all the twelve, declaring that after the completion of the change which he was working, and when he had taken his own imperial throne, they should sit around him on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Here was a prospect, enough to satisfy the most aspiring ambition; but along with the hopes now awakened, arose also some queries about the preference of places in this throned triumph, which were not easily settled so as to satisfy all at once. In the proposed arrangement, it was perfectly evident, that of the whole circle of thrones, by far the most honorable locations would be those immediately on the right and left of the Messiah-king; and their low ambition set them at once contriving how to get these pre-eminent places for themselves. Of all the apostolic band, none could so fairly claim the right hand throne as Peter; already pronounced the Rock on which the church should be founded, and commissioned as the keeper of the keys of the kingdom. But Peter’s devotion to his Master seems to have been of too pure a character, to let him give any thought to the mere rewards of the victory, so long as he could feel sure of the full return of that burning affection to his Lord, with which his own ardent soul glowed; and he left it to others to settle points of precedency and the division of rewards. On no occasion throughout his whole life, is there recorded any evidence of the slightest disposition to claim the mere honors of a pre-eminence, though his superior force of character made the whole band instinctively look to him for guidance, on all times of trouble and danger, after the ascension. His modest, confiding, disinterested affection for his Master, indeed, was the main ground of all the high distinctions conferred on him so unsparingly by Jesus, who would have been very slow to honor thus, one who was disposed to grow proud or overbearing under the possession of these favors. But this very character of modesty and uncalculating affection, gave occasion also to the other disciples, to push themselves forward for a claim to those peculiar exaltations, which his indifference to personal advancement seemed to leave unoccupied, for the more ambitious to assume. In this instance, particularly, James and John were so far moved with the desire of the enviable distinction of this primacy, that they made it a matter of family consultation, and accordingly brought the case before their fondly ambitious mother, who instantly determined that the great object should be achieved before any one else could secure the chance for the place; and resolved to use her influence in favor of her darling sons. On the first favorable opportunity she therefore went with them to Jesus; and, as it would appear by the combination of the accounts of Matthew and Mark, both she and they presented the request at once and together,――James and John, however, prefacing the declaration of their exact purpose by a general petition for unlimited favor,――“Master, we would that thou shouldst do for us whatever we desire?” To this modest petition, Jesus replied by asking, “What would ye that I should grant?” They, with their mother, falling down at his feet in fawning, selfish worship, then urged their grand request:――“Grant,” said the ambitious Salome, “that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, when thou reignest in thy glory.” Jesus, fully appreciating the miserable state of selfish ignorance which inspired the hope and the question, in order to show them their ignorance, and to make them express their minds more fully, assured them that they knew not the meaning of their own request, and asked them whether they were able to drink of the cup that he should drink of, and be baptized with the baptism that he should be baptized with? With unhesitating self-conceit, they answered, “We are able.” But Jesus replied in such a tone as to check all further solicitation of this kind from them, or from any other of his hearers. “Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared by my father.”――“The cup of sorrow, and suffering, and agony,――the baptism of spirit, fire, and blood,――of these you shall all drink in a solemn and mournful reality, which you are now far from conceiving; but the high places of the kingdom which I come to found, are not to be disposed of to those who think to forestall my personal favor; they are for the blessed of my father, who, in the time appointed in his own good pleasure, will give it to them, in the end of days.” The disappointed family of Zebedee retired, quite confounded with the rejection of their petition, and with the darkly told prophecy that accompanied it, dooming them to some mysterious fate of which they could form no idea whatever. The rest of the twelve, hearing of the ambitious attempt of the sons of Zebedee to secure the supremacy, by a secret movement, and by family influence, were moved with great indignation against the intriguing aspirants, and expressed their displeasure so decidedly, that Jesus called them around him, to improve this manifestation of folly and passion, to their advantage; and said, “You know that the nations are governed by princes and lords, and that none exercise authority over them but the great ones of the land. Now it shall not be so among you; but he who will be great among you, must be your servant; and he who shall be your chief, shall be the slave of all the rest. For even the Son of Man himself came not to make others his slaves, but to be himself a slave to many, and even to sacrifice his life in their service.”

Salome.――The reason for the supposition that this was really the name of the mother of James, consists in the comparison of two corresponding passages of Matthew and Mark. In Matthew xxvii. 56, it is said that among the women present at the crucifixion, were “Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.” In the parallel passage, Mark xv. 40, they are mentioned as “Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James and Joses, and Salome.” In Mark xvi. 1, Salome is also mentioned among those who went to the sepulcher. This is not proof positive, but it is reasonable ground for the supposition, more especially as Matthew never mentions Salome by name, but repeatedly speaks of “the mother of Zebedee’s children.”

If, as is probable then, Salome and the mother of Zebedee’s children were identical, it is also reasonable to suppose, as Lampe does, that Zebedee himself may have died soon after the time when the call of his sons took place. For Salome could hardly have left her husband and family, to go, as she did, with Jesus on his journeys, ministering to his necessities,――but if her husband was really dead, she would have but few ties to confine her at home, and would therefore very naturally be led, by her maternal affection, and anxiety for her sons, to accompany them in their wandering life. The supposition of Zebedee’s death is also justified by the circumstance, that John is spoken of in his own gospel, (John xix. 27,) as possessing a house of “his own,” which seems to imply the death of his father; since so young a man would hardly have acquired property, except by inheritance.

Thus he laid out before them all the indispensable qualities of the man who aspired to the dangerous, painful and unenviable primacy among them,――humility, meekness and laborious industry. But vain were all the earnest teachings of his divine spirit. Schemes and hopes of worldly eminence and imperial dominion, were too deeply rooted in their hearts, to be displaced by this oft-repeated view of the labors and trials of his service. Already, on a former occasion too, had he tried to impress them with the true spirit of the apostleship. When on the way to Capernaum, at the close of this journey through Galilee, they had disputed among themselves on the question, which of them should be the prime minister of their Messiah-king, when he had established his heavenly reign in all the dominions of his father David. On their meeting with him in the house at Capernaum, he brought up this point of difference. Setting a little child before them, (probably one of Peter’s children, as it was in his house,) and taking the little innocent into his arms, he assured them that unless they should become utterly changed in disposition and in hope, and become like that little child in simplicity of character, they should have no share whatever, in the glories of that kingdom, which was to them an object of so many ambitious aspirations. But neither this charge nor the repetition of it, could yet avail to work that necessary change in their feelings. Still they all lived on in vain and selfish hope, scheming for personal aggrandizement, till the progress of events bringing calamity and trial upon them, had purified their hearts, and fully fitted them for the duties of the great office to which they had so unthinkingly devoted themselves. Then indeed, did the aspiring James receive, in a deeper sense than he had ever dreamed of, the reward for which he now longed and begged;――drinking first of the cup of agony, and baptized first in blood, he ascended first to the place on the right hand of the Messiah in his eternal kingdom. But years of toil and sorrow, seen and felt, were his preparation for this glorious crown.

James has also been made the subject of a long series of fables, though the early termination of his apostolic career would seem to leave no room whatever, for the insertion of any very great journeys and labors upon the authentic history. But the Spaniards, in the general rage for claiming some apostle as a national patron saint, long ago got up the most absurd fiction, that James, the son of Zebedee, during the period intervening between Christ’s ascension and his own execution at Jerusalem, actually performed a voyage over the whole length of the Mediterranean, into Spain, where he remained several years, preaching, founding churches, and performing miracles, and returned to Jerusalem in time for the occurrence of the concluding event, as recorded in the twelfth chapter of Acts. This story probably originated in the same manner as that suggested to account for the fables about Andrew; that is,――that some preacher of Christianity, of this name, in a later age, actually did travel into Spain, there preaching the gospel, and founding churches; and that his name being deservedly remembered, was, in the progress of the corruptions of the truth, confounded with that of the apostle James, son of Zebedee,――this James being selected rather than the son of Alpheus, because the latter had already been established by tradition, as the hero of a story quite inconsistent with any Spanish journey, and being also less dignified by the Savior’s notice. Be that as it may, Saint James (Santo Jago) is to this day esteemed the patron saint of Spain, and his tomb is shown in Compostella, in that kingdom; for they will have it, that, after his decapitation by Herod Agrippa, his body was brought all the way over the sea, to Spain, and there buried in the scene of his toils and miracles. A Spanish order of knighthood, that of St. Jago de Compostella, takes its name from this notion.

The old romancer, Abdias Babylonius, who is so rich in stories about Andrew, has much to tell about James, and enters at great length into the details of his crucifixion; crowning the whole with the idle story, that when he was led to death, his accuser, Josiah, a Pharisee, suddenly repenting, begged his forgiveness and professed his faith in Christ,――for which he also was beheaded along with him, after being baptized by James in some water that was handed to him by the executioner, in a calabash. (Abdias Babylonius, History of the Apostolical Contest, IV. § 9.)

From the time of this event, there occurs no mention whatever of any act of James, until the commemoration of the occasion of his exit; and even this tragic circumstance is mentioned so briefly, that nothing can be learned but the mere fact and manner of his death. On the occasion fully described above, in the life of Peter, Herod Agrippa I. seized this apostle, and at once put him to death by the executioner’s sword. The particular grounds, on which this act of bloody cruelty was justified by the tyrant and his friends, are wholly unknown. Probably there was a pretence at a set accusation of some crime, which would make the act appear less atrocious at the time, than appears from Luke’s silence as to the grounds of the proceeding. The remarkable prominence of James, however, was enough to offer a motive to the popularity-seeking Agrippa, whose main object, being to “please the Jews,” led him to seize those who had most displeased them, by laboring for the advancement of the Nazarene heresy. And that this actually was his governing principle in selecting his victims, is made further apparent by the circumstance that Peter, the great chief of the band, was next marked for destruction. Though no particular acts of James are recorded as having made him prominently obnoxious to the Jews, yet there is every reason to believe, that the exalted ardor and now chastened ambition of this Son of Thunder, had made him often the bold assaulter of sophistry and hypocrisy,――a heroism which at once sealed his doom, and crowned him with the glory of THE APOSTOLIC PROTO-MARTYR.

JOHN; THE SON OF ZEBEDEE.

HIS CHARACTER.

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

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

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

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

HIS FAMILY AND BUSINESS.

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

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

HIS EDUCATION.

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

HIS NAME.

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

HIS CALL AND DISCIPLESHIP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE RESULTS OF TRADITION.

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

“Doubtless the pleasure is as great

Of being cheated as to cheat.”

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

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

HIS JUDAICAL OBSERVANCES.

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

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

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

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

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

THE DEPARTURE FROM JERUSALEM.

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

――“Their backs they turned

On those proud towers, to swift destruction doomed.”

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

THE REFUGE IN PELLA.

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

THE JOURNEY EASTWARD.

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