Old Testament, as a "rule of faith," or canon. We have already treated of the origin of all the writings ultimately included in this list, with the single exception to be dealt with in the next chapter; and we have seen that most of them were simply intended to serve some special or temporary purpose.1 With regard to twenty of them, agreement was soon reached; but as to the rest great diversity of opinion long prevailed. Some received into their canon a letter bearing the name of Barnabas, and an epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, together with other products of the early Christian literature; others, on the contrary, rejected Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, if not all, at least some of these books. It was not till the fourth and fifth centuries that the matter was finally decided.

- or

But this lies far beyond our field. We have seen the Catholic Church wipe out both the dissensions and the disappointment of the primitive Christians, but greatly to the cost of faith and hope alike. How unlike is this Church to

the kingdom of God which Jesus came to found! And yet its spread, its triumph, and its supremacy are the objects for which all the religious forces of Christianity are henceforth claimed!

But with this melancholy result we are not forced to conclude. Another attempt was made to solve the difficulties and remove the dissensions of Christianity. There were some who would not yield to the sad and imperfect reality, and lose themselves in it, as the Church had done; but rather sought a refuge in higher flights of philosophy and greater moral elevation, whereby they were enabled still to preach an ideal that was exalted beyond the reach of all opposition and all disappointment. In the canon itself there was room found for the witness of faith concerning the Christ of "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

1 See pp. 573, 574, 580; chapters ix. p. 595, xii. p. 643, and pp. 22-33; see also chapter xiii. p. 666.

WH

CHAPTER XIII.

THE DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS LOVED.

GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.

HEN we look into the Fourth Gospel we soon observe that the last chapter did not originally belong to it, but was added later. At the close of the previous chapter the work itself has come to a beautiful and appropriate close, after which we expect nothing more.1 Nevertheless, when we examine this supplement carefully we find that it is not out of place, for it serves to throw light upon the meaning of the Gospel, or rather upon the person of " the disciple whom Jesus loved" on whose authority the Gospel is supposed to Let us hear what it says:

rest.

It was during the days when the Lord, having risen from the realm of shades, still appeared from time to time to his friends on earth. Peter, with Thomas, Nathanael of Cana, the two sons of Zebedee, and two others, had gone out to fish. The whole night long they had swept the Galilæan sea without taking any thing, when just at break of day they saw a stranger standing on the shore who asked them what success they had had. They told him none; and on this he confidentially urged them to cast the net on the right. They obeyed, and immediately found the net so full that they could not draw it up. Then the disciple whom Jesus loved knew that it was he, and told Peter; whereupon Peter threw his mantle round him, girded it close, flung himself into the water, and swam to the shore, which was about three hundred feet distant. The rest followed with the boat, dragging the net with the fish in it after them. On the shore they found a fire ready kindled, with some fish broiling on it, and some bread. Jesus told them to bring some of the fish they had taken; whereupon Peter dragged up the net upon the land, and, though there were a hundred and fifty-three great fishes in it, yet it was not torn. Then they ate together, Jesus acting as the host or head of the family; but they were all too much in awe to question him.

When the meal was over, Jesus turned to Peter and said, "Simon, son of Jona, dost thou love me more than these

1 See p. 690.

66

others do?" "Yes, Lord! thou thyself knowest that I love thee dearly," answered Peter. Pasture my lambs!" replied Jesus. After a time he repeated the question, Simon, son of Jona, lovest thou me?" and when Peter gave the same unhesitating answer he again laid on him that task of honor, Feed my sheep!" Yet again, the third time, he said to him, "Simon, son of Jona, dost thou love me dearly?" upon which the Apostle, tortured by the threefold question which referred so clearly to his own threefold denial, cried out,

66

Lord! since thou knowest all things, thou knowest this also, that I love thee dearly." Then Jesus answered, "Pasture my sheep!" and, telling Peter how he would be led as a captive in old age to the place of his execution, urged him to follow his Master to the very death. Now when Peter looked round he saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was also following. So he asked, " And what is he to do?" to which Jesus answered, "If I would have him abide till I come again, what is that to thee? Only see to it that thou follow me." Hence rose a belief among the Christians that this disciple would not die. But Jesus had not said this, nor meant it. Now this was the disciple who bore his witness in this Gospel, and we may rest upon it with perfect trust.

This appendix is a symbolical presentation of certain passages of old Church history, according to the conception of the past and future entertained by the writer. To construct the picture he makes free use of a scene which he found described in Luke. The first and fruitless attempts of the fishermen represent the preaching of the gospel to the Jews. The counsel of the Glorified One to adopt another method refers to the preaching to the heathen. So far our author agrees with Luke; but when he emphatically asserts, in opposition to him, that the net was not broken, he means to insist upon the unity and all-embracing communion of the faithful in the Catholic Church. The number of the fishes must refer in some way either to this Church itself or else to the different kinds or races of men to be taken into it. In the conversation with Peter, which follows, we find the disgraced disciple not only restored to his former rank and honor, but appointed chief shepherd of the flock till he glorifies God by a martyr's death. But what is intended by the beloved and trusted disciple "remaining," to which the whole scene is so obviously meant to lead up? And who is this disciple?

1 Compare p. 420.

2 See pp. 128, 129.

To begin with, the whole story, including the final saying of Jesus, is of course invented; and the author introduces a supposed misunderstanding of the saying for the express purpose of indicating that the words must really be taken in a spiritual sense. But curiously enough, by pretending that this misunderstanding existed, he really gave it currency. After 200 A.D. it was generally supposed that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" was John, after whom accordingly the Fourth Gospel was named; and the tradition arose that he had never died! Thus, in the works of Augustine (400 A.D.) and later writers, we hear that John, after living in Ephesus to a very old age, feeling that his time was drawing near, lay down while alive in his grave, - where the ground still gently heaves in response to his breathing, and where he awaits the return of his Lord and friend. We may well doubt, however, whether John is really meant at all by the "disciple whom Jesus loved." At any rate the true historical John - that narrow and violent Apostle, one of the two sons of thunder," one of the three "pillars" of the community of Jerusa lem1 cannot be intended. We should be more inclined to think of Paul, were it not for the total absence of any reference to the circumstances of his life, and of any citations from his letters either in the "witness" itself borne by the disciple whom Jesus loved, or in the references made to his person. No doubt we have really to do with an ideal disciple: if with John, then with a John so changed, enlightened, and purified as to be no longer recognizable; in short, with such a disciple as Jesus never had in his lifetime, — one who lived in the closest communion with him, divined his thoughts, profited to the utmost by his intercourse with him; one who thereby earned his unqualified confidence and approval, and now comes forward to bear witness to what he had seen in Jesus and what he had received from him. Now when we are told that this disciple is to remain" while Peter is to pass away, the meaning is that the latter, whose supremacy over the apostolic communities is not disputed, who is readily acknowledged as the highest guide of the Church, is only to retain his authority during his life; whereas the disciple who read into the soul of Jesus will retain his influence till the perfecting of the kingdom of God. Or again, since the name of Peter, as well as that of the other disciple, stands for a principle, we may take the saying

2

1 See pp. 548, 583, 181, 192.

2 John xiii. 23, xix. 26, xviii. 15, xx. 2, 3, 8.

of Jesus to mean that the Church of Peter, the Catholic Church, as it began to establish itself towards the middle of the second century, had an indisputable right of existence, but yet only for a time. It must ultimately be superseded by a better state of things, which should endure, by a purer insight on the part of the community, by such an attitude of mind as is indicated in the Fourth Gospel, which must “abide" to the end of the ages. Thus Christianity might completely escape from the conflict of parties, not by concession and compromise, but by rising above both parties alike to a purer insight into the truth; might receive the fullest compensation for the disappointed expectation, not by covering it up and forgetting it, but by securing the actual experience of the Lord's presence in that of the Holy Spirit. Testimony to a faith with such contents and of such purport as this would retain its power unweakened and unabated till the perfect order of things should come.

Let us now take into our hands this testimony of the disciple whom Jesus loved. It is the Fourth Gospel.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. By the Word all things were formed, and every thing was made what it is. To mankind

It was the higher life and the light of truth; but the sinful world rejected It." We cannot fail to be struck by the exalted style of this introduction; but do we understand its meaning?

We must return to a consideration of the Alexandrian philosophy. The central conception of this philosophy hinges upon the contrast between two worlds, a higher and a lower : the former an invisible and imperishable world of the spirit, or of veritably existing ideal types; the latter the visible and perishable world of matter in which we live, an imperfect copy or impression of the other. The higher world was an immediate emanation from the Deity, his perfect revelation, his living type or image, and at the same time the mediator between him and our lower world. For God himself was conceived of as too exalted to stand in any immediate relations with imperfect or material things such as man and the universe; far less could any human representations or expressions be worthily applied to Him. So these philosophers took up and elaborated the poetical personification of Wisdom which they found in the book of Job, in the Proverbs, and in 2 See pp. 649, 650.

1 John i. 1-5.

See vol. ii. pp. 315, 316, 466, 568.

3