softened it. We read that on one occasion John showed a spirit incompatible with the spirit of the Christian: he himself states, "Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us." Here was developed the spirit of the most exclusive sectarianism; "He does not take our form, he does not wear our name, or pronounce our Shibboleth, or conform to our ecclesiastical régime; we cannot excuse his doing the greatest good, because he does not do it in our way." This is the spirit of a bigot, and the very air and odour of the inquisitor. Yet such a spirit was in John: grace extirpated it, but originally it was there. But this last was not the only occasion on which John exhibited a spirit equally unchristian. It was he who said, "Wilt thou that we command fire from heaven to consume them, as Elias did?" Here was a budding Hildebrand in the college of the apostles. Popery is not a thing peculiar to Trent or to the Tiber; it is no exotic, it is indigenous to human. nature. The corrupt heart is its congenial soil. It is not a stock that needs to be nurtured with care, and that will perish if left alone; it is a weed, that grows and flourishes spontaneously in human nature; and human nature, on which we sometimes hear so eloquent panegyrics, if left to itself, would develop all the sectarianism of the first incident I have shown, and break out into the proscription and the angry persecution indicated in the second. We conclude, therefore, that while there may be much that was excellent and beautiful in the constitutional character of John, he was indebted rather to grace than to nature for all by which he is characterized and most remembered in the Christian church. Nor did John himself ever fail to recollect the passion he had shown, and the rashness with which he had spoken; for it is he who thus writes, and writes from the depths of his own experience, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; but if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

One feature we find peculiar to the character of John-one which he assumes for himself, and a very beautiful one it is"the disciple whom Jesus loved." He calls himself by this name throughout the Gospel; and in this he exhibits a trait very diffe

rent from either of those to which I have just alluded. He does not say, "the disciple that loved the Lord," for there might have been there an assumption of distinction or merit, and superiority to the rest; but he says, "the disciple whom Jesus loved," thus showing that it was the grace of Jesus, not the merit of John, that was prominent in his holy and enlightened mind. But his character makes it evident, that whoever is loved of God, and feels that it is so, is just the man that will love God most ardently and enthusiastically in return. John showed this; he seems to have felt most deeply the love that Christ bore to him, and he seems to have responded most heartily in love to Jesus in return-a love alike human and divine; for we find him lingering near the cross to the very last, and, by the appointment of Jesus, taking charge of a mother who felt all the bitterness of one who had lost her nearest and her dearest son. Throughout all the writings of John, he gives evidence of his intense love, and adoration, and study of Jesus. His Gospel abounds with proofs of watching most minutely every trait and feature, and drinking in every word, of Jesus. We are told that he was the disciple who learned upon Jesus' bosom; and he seems to have been the disciple that drank deepest into the spirit, and unveiled the greatest portion of the inner experience of his Lord, in the precious Gospel of which he is the author. Nor can we fail to notice this in the marked contrast observable between his Gospel and those of the other evangelists. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we have all the miracles of Jesus recorded; in the Gospel of John we have fewer of the miracles, and vastly more of the discourses and the prayers of Jesus. The three first evangelists seem, if I may so speak, to have been dazzled by the splendour of the presence of omnipotent power; the last evangelist seems to have been riveted by the manifestation of disinterested love, and by the beauty, the condescension, the wisdom, and other heavenly graces, of which Jesus was the embodiment. The first seems to have recorded that which struck their senses with the greatest awe; the last seems to have recorded that which touched his heart with the most responsive love. John was one of the three special friends that Jesus seems to have been most frequently with. It appears that Jesus had,

if I may use the word—and use it with the profoundest reverence -his private friendship, for he was the human as truly as the divine. Certainly it appears upon the face of the narrative, that John and James and Peter were specially selected by Jesus to be his more immediate friends-to whom he showed more love, but for whom he did not suffer more. One of them is called "the disciple whom Jesus loved;" and the three are seen in more private and personal intercourse with the Lord, and they appear prominent in almost every great event in the history of the Saviour. These three-Peter, James, and John-are seen upon the mount of transfiguration, where they obtained a view and insight into the heavenly state, which Christ graciously vouchsafed to them alone, to be an earnest or prelibation of that glory for which they were candidates; and we may notice that, lest they should be too elated by the splendour of the scene they witnessed upon Tabor, these same three are introduced to the sorrowful and painful spectacle which they beheld in Gethsemane; and so true was the sacred penman to his duties and responsibilities, that John, who writes the narrative, records his and their shame, by stating that Jesus came and found them sleeping, and mildly and gently rebuked them for it. We find, too, John present with Jesus before Caiphas and Pilate and Herod. We find him following his Lord to Calvary, and weeping amid the spectators of that awful and yet glorious tragedy. John alone has preserved the last words that were uttered by the Lord of glory-those memorable ones-"It is finished." At the resurrection, John makes his appearance again. We read that Mary ran to "Peter and John,”—selecting those two as what I may call the favoured disciples and told them that the body of Jesus was wanting; she said this with sorrow and with lamentation, not knowing that Christ was to rise from the dead; and when they heard the news, their conduct developed a rather interesting trait. "Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple,” i. e. John, "to the sepulchre; so they ran both together, and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre :" thus teaching us that Peter was an old man, and John a youth, and full of elasticity and vigour; Peter the most rash and enthusiastic, and therefore running as fast as he could, and yet John outstripping

him in the holy race, because younger, to see what had become of their beloved Lord. But when they arrived at the tomb, the old man's boldness contrasts with the young man's timidity, for while John drew back, as afraid, Peter went in first and alone. Indeed, we may observe that Simon Peter, wherever his physical strength was sufficient to be the vehicle of his inner enthusiasm, was always first. It is added, "Then went in also that other disciple which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw and believed." I doubt not that John did not think that Christ was stolen by thieves, as some seemed to imagine, and the women then thought, but "believed" that he had "risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept."

After the resurrection, we find Jesus appearing specially to John and Peter; and John interposing to correct the false tradition that began to circulate respecting his own future destiny upon

"Peter, seeing John, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" In all these transactions, John refrains from mentioning his own name; he arrogates no glory; there is not even the aspect of egotism in his Gospel. He is willing that he should be the unknown disciple, if his Master may be made thereby more fully and clearly known. We learn from this passage, too, that tradition is very often not true; and that it is not, therefore, to be relied upon as the rule of faith, or an infallible, or even useful, exponent of it.

After this, John seems to disappear from the stage of the sacred narrative, with very few exceptions, and to remain at Jerusalem; where, according to ancient history, he continued for fifteen years, ministering to the wants of Mary and the necessities of the Christians there. We next find Peter and John raising up a lame man at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, "who, seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked an alms. And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him, with John, said, Look on us. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold

have I none, but such as I have give I thee; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." Afterward we read that, when they were accused of doing wrong, Peter and John awed even their accusers by their boldness; for, "When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus." You will notice one very remarkable trait in the character of these two apostles. Throughout five or six chapters we find Peter and John together, but Peter always the eloquent spokesman, John always the silent witness for the truth; and willing that Peter should have all the éclat of the orator, if such were worth having-and that he should shine simply as an example and proof to mankind-not by the excellence of his speech, but by the quiet beauty of his life—that he had been with Jesus, and had been transformed into his likeness. How interesting and instructive is this fact! John had no envy or jealousy of Peter: he felt that Peter had the gift of speech, and that he had it not; he was contented to be dumb because it was for the glory of God, just as Peter rejoiced to preach because it was, not more, but equally so. What should ministers of the gospel learn from this? Let him that has great gifts be thankful, and use them; let him who has fewer, be not jealous or envious, but submissive; and let both recollect that they are responsible, not for what they have not, but for what they have; and that what they have is not their own, but a talent given them from the great Master, to be restored to him with increase.

The next occasion on which John appears, is at the synod, convention, convocation, or general assembly of the Church at Jerusalem. We read, in Acts, of the presence of certain of the apostles on that occasion, but John's name is not mentioned; and we only discover that John was present by an allusion of Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians: "When James, Peter, and John perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right-hand of fellowship."

After this the name of John disappears from the sacred page, except in his own writings; he mentions it only in the introduction to the Apocalypse, on which I am now commenting; and, as the scripture begins with God in Genesis, it ends with Christ in