154 
« descries the features of a beloved dis- 
ciple.” ‘Uhe youth whom Jesus pre- 
-sented to the twelve was John. 
From the general character of the 
fourth gospel, as well as from several 
detached passages, Mr. M‘Conochie ar- 
gues'that it was not the production of a 
‘fisherman, nor of one who had been 
born, or commonly resided in Galilee. 
The most material arguments are drawn 
from the conclusion of this gospel; and 
‘many circumstances are pointed out, 
which tend to shew that the transactions 
of the night preceding the crucifixion, 
lead to the conviction, that the disciple 
who leaned on the breast of Jesus, was 
not the son of Zebedee. ‘Iwo of these 
we shail here select. 
“He,” John the Evangelist, «* went with 
Jesus into the palace of the high priest, 
and he intimates the reason :-—he was known 
to the high priest. Here I would ask, if 
this was Johu the apostle, what opporiu- 
nities. had he of being known to the high 
priest? His occupation had confined lim 
to the sea of Tiberias and its banks; and 
since he became a follower of Jesus, he was 
in the wrong way to become acqnainted 
with Caiaphas. But if he was an inhabitant 
of Jerusalem, and a person of some repu- 
‘tation among the Jews there,- he might well 
be acquainted with Caiaphas. before he be- 
eame high priest.” 
«© John was so well known in the palace, 
that as soon as he spake to the damsel who 
kept the door, Peter was admitted. He is 
no sooner adinitted, however, than his air 
“and habit discover him to be a stranger, and 
His speech hewrayeth him to be a Galilean. 
Pirst one servant attacks him with questions, 
-then another, and then a third. All this 
time the least suspicion falls not upon Jolin. 
If then it was Joon the apostle who was 
“now present in the hall of the high priest, 
how came it that his air, garb, and fan- 
guage, did not bewray him also to be a 
Galilean? whence came 1 that John, the 
son of Zebedee, should have got so much 
the better of bis Galilean accent, and his 
Yustie appearance, as to escape ell interro- 
gatory ; while poor Peter, who had been his 
companion for life, and who had come up 
from Galilee with him, was so hard put to 
it im these respects?, J] am persuaded that, 
on the common. hypothesis, these questions * 
are unanswerable. But allowing that John 
‘the Evangelist was an inhabitant of Jerusa- 
Jem or its vicinity, the whole matter is easily 
“cleared. His air and accent were those of a 
townsman. .‘Uhese, with the circumstance 
of his being known to the high priest and 
his family, set. him above all suspicion of 
being corinected with Jesus. 
«No two persons could be more differ- 
ently circumstanced than Jolin and Peter in 
THEOLOGY AND ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS. 
“death of the Evangelist. 
the palace of the high priest. Every thing 
that befals Peter indicates the stranger ; the 
conduct of John implies’ acquaintance, if — 
not intimacy.” ’ 
This reasoning proceeds upon the sup- — 
position, that by the phrase “ another 
disciple’? the Evangelist denotes himself. 
Of this there have been considerable 
doubts: but as these have arisen from 
its never having been supposed that the 
Evangelist was not the apostle, if the 
other arguments advanced by the author 
before us should induce any one to 
believe that they were different per- - 
sons, the fact here produced will be 
acknowledged to add much to the con- 
firmation of the hypothesis. Again, 
«« ¢ Jesus seeing his mother, and the dis- 
ciple standing by whom he loved, he saith 
unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son; 
and to that disciple he saith, behold thy 
mother.’ Thesé words have a brevity and 
emphasis peculiar to themselves. To me it 
appears the parents of the disciple to whom 
Jesus here addresses himsclf were dead; at 
least that he had no mother, to call off his 
allention from the duty which Jesus lays 
upon him. Now we know that the mother 
of Zebedees children was yet alive; that 
she was one of the company which came u 
with Jesus to this passover ; and was, at this 
moment, a mourntu! spectator of the awful 
scene. The words of Jesus to John I would 
thus paraphrase: * Thou art deprived of thy 
varents, my mother ts about to be deprived of 
ner son; treat her as a mother for my sake:* 
and his words to his mother thus, * Thou 
artabout to be left childless; behold, in this 
young man, the disciple whom I love, in 
him thou wilt experience a son; treat him 
as such.” 
«© ] would also observe, that what is liere 
said certainly favours the supposition that 
John had his house or property nearat hand ; 
whereas John the aposde was ata great dis- 
tance from his home; not to mention that 
he forsook all to follow Jesus. He was not 
therefore in a capacity of immediately ful- 
filling the duty here recommended, which 
it is expressly said John the Evangelist, did: 
‘From that hour he took her to his own 
home’.’’ 
In a postscript the author observes, 
«© Tn the Romish matvyrology, & find an 
anniversary marked for the death of John 
the Apostle, and an anniversary for the 
The knights of — 
Malta take their designation from John of — 
Jerusalem.” teat | 
We shall offer no remarks either to — 
confirm or to controvert this novel hy- 
pothesis. We recommend it however 
to the attention of theologians. It will — 
