THE ARREST OF JESUS.

The next verse (47th) is in these words: "And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him."

The first thing to be inquired about here is the composition of this multitude. Whence did they come, and how were they armed? Luke says nothing directly on these points; his allusions are only incidental. In regard to their equipment, John says, in general terms, that they carried weapons, (xviii. 31.) Matthew is very explicit. He says, that Judas came "with a great multitude, with swords and staves, from the chief-priests and elders of the people." Mark uses nearly the same words. We now know that these men came from the chief-priests and elders, and that a part of them were armed with the best military weapon then known, and were therefore most probably regular soldiers; while the rest were provided only with staves, such as a civil posse would carry. Still we do not know whether the multitude came from the Jewish rulers, on their own responsibility, or in obedience to orders; nor can we account for their difference of equipment. John, however, says plainly, that Judas received his band from the chief-priests and elders; and we therefore are put in possession of one more fact. Furthermore, while the first three Evangelists speak of a multitude, or rather mob, (as the word ochlos truly means,) John employs a Roman term to designate the band — speiras in Greek, manipulus in Latin — a force of about one hundred and thirty men, the third part of a cohort. (See Olshausen.) We have now gained another item of information: those who carried swords were Roman soldiers. The next thing to be ascertained is, who were those who carried staves. Luke furnishes the necessary information in the 52d verse of the chapter under consideration. He there tells us incidentally, that "the captains of the temple" came with the crowd. These were the officers of the Jewish police guard, kept at the temple to preserve order, especially on great festival occasions. Josephus frequently alludes to this body; and it is reasonable to suppose that the members of it carried only staves, just as such constabulary forces are accustomed to do even at this day. We now understand the whole transaction. Judas went to the Jewish rulers, and informed them that Christ meant to leave the city by night, to pray at Gethsemane. An opportunity would then be afforded of taking him, when no rescue would be attempted — the very thing, as we have seen, that they had long desired. They therefore hastened to the temple, and got part of the police force to go with them to arrest him; and for additional security, took with them some of the Roman guard, which kept the tower of Antonia. It appears, too, from what is related a little further on in the narrative, that the servants and retainers of the Jewish rulers attached themselves to the party, thus giving to the promiscuous assemblage the character of a mob. Hence the three first Evangelists could appropriately designate the whole collection by that epithet, while John, with equal propriety, could apply a military term to the organized portion of them. Observe, that we take neither side of the disputed question, whether Roman soldiers were mixed with the police guard, under the control of the chief-priests. We think it however exceedingly improbable, that the proud Roman would submit to the orders of the despised Jew. It is not necessary to make any such unnatural supposition, to account for the presence of the military in the arresting party. The chief-priests had only to charge Christ with sedition, before the Roman officer commanding at the tower of Antonia, (as they afterwards did before Pilate,) and he would despatch some of his soldiers to aid in the arrest of the supposed rebel. These troops would wear with them their swords, while the civil posse, under charge of "the captains of the temple," would carry only their staves of office.

25. If we now sum up the evidence, as courts of justice do, we will have as fine a specimen of independent, yet concurrent testimony, as was ever exhibited. Matthew and Mark tell us of Judas going to the chief-priests and elders, and of the different equipment of the mob which arrested Christ. John tells us, that the Jewish rulers sent this body of men, and at the same time employs a military term, which shows that the Roman manipulus was part of the force. Luke agrees with all three, in an incidental reference to the swords and staves, and to the chief-priests and captains of the temple.

The question may now be raised, Why did Judas betray his Master? What was his motive for so nefarious a deed? We can get an intelligible answer only by a close examination of the witnesses. Matthew tells us, that on a certain occasion, Simon the leper gave a supper to Christ, and that "there came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. But when the disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor." From Mark we learn, that "Some of them (the disciples) had indignation within themselves," when they witnessed the devotion of the woman. So then it appears, that only some of the disciples were angry; and of these, all did not give vent to their anger in words. Who then was it who expressed indignation r Luke gives us no explanation; for the anointing mentioned by him, in the seventh chapter, was doubtless by a different person, and on a different occasion. (See Trench on the Miracles.) John, however, is very explicit. He tells us, that the woman was Mary, the sister of Lazarus. He informs us, moreover, that it was Judas who objected openly to the waste of the ointment: "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare (or stole, as the word may mean,) what was put therein." Hence it seems, that Judas was the only one who expressed aloud his disapprobation of the woman's conduct. His words, however, served to inflame some of the other disciples, but they prudently kept their indignation within their own bosoms. The extract from John is important, inasmuch as it shows that Judas was a money-loving, money-grasping wretch; and it prepares us to expect any villany from him, for which he was paid. Now, it so happens that John, the only Evangelist who speaks of the avaricious nature of Judas, is the only one silent about his bargain with the Jewish rulers. Luke informs us, that when "the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh," Judas " communed with the chief-priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money." Mark uses nearly the same words. Matthew specifies more particularly the details connected with the bribery. He tells us, that Judas went to the chief-priests, " and said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces o£ silver. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him."

26. Now, let us combine the testimony of the four witnesses, and we will see that it is of the very kind which carries with it the strongest marks of truth. Had John said nothing about the covetous character of Judas, his betrayal of his Master for the paltry sum of thirty pieces of silver (about eighteen dollars) would seem very improbable. And had not the first three Evangelists told of Judas's bargain with the chief-priests, we could not gather from John that the traitor had any conceivable motive for his infamous crime. It would seem to have been an act of gratuitous and unmeaning wickedness. The four parallel accounts furnish as nice an example of the harmony of testimony, without collusion, as was ever exhibited. John leaves unexplained the motive which led to the betrayal. The first three witnesses tell that motive, while John, in speaking of another matter altogether, shows that this was of the very kind to operate most powerfully on the sordid and mercenary soul of the traitor.

But was avarice the only motive which prompted Judas to his hellish act? The first three Evangelists, in the most careless and unguarded manner, reveal the fact, that there was a still darker and more infernal feeling at work in his base heart. Luke tells us, that when "the feast of the passover drew nigh, Satan entered into Judas Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve." By a reference to Matthew and Mark, we find out the precise time of this Satanic visitation. It was two days before the feast, and just after Judas had received a rebuke at Simon s table, and had been exposed for his hypocrisy. Mark, after relating that " some of the disciples had indignation within themselves," gives our Saviour's reply: "And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? She hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor always with you; and whensoever ye will, ye may do them good: but me ye have not always," &c. And then Mark adds, without seeming to see the bearing of the rebuke on the transaction, "And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, Avent unto the chief-priests, to betray him unto them." Matthew also places the visit of Judas to the Jewish rulers, immediately after the exposure of his hypocritical regard for the poor, and then adds these significant words: "And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him."

Now, there is a truthfulness to nature in this whole transaction, which ought to satisfy any unprejudiced mind of the credibility of the gospel narratives. All history and all experience teach, that the most malignant fiend in the universe is the exposed hypocrite. Milton has, with great propriety, put the strongest language of scorn and hate, in the mouth of Satan, after the spear of Ithuriel had dissolved his assumed shape, and made him wear once more his own grisly and hideous form.

Men, who make profession of goodness, will generally exhibit some of it too, so long as they possess the good opinion of their fellow-creatures. But if that be lost, and they have no principle of rectitude within them, they are then ready for any species of crime. Joseph's brethren did not meditate murder, until they found that they had forfeited their father's confidence, and thought that their brother was set as a spy over them. Had not Titus Oates been disgraced at the Catholic College of St. Omer's, the world would never have heard of the Popish plot, and England would not have dishonoured herself by shedding so much innocent blood, upon the evidence of that vile perjurer. Had not the peculations of General Arnold been discovered, the name of Benedict Arnold would not be associated with that of Judas, in every American mind. Had not Burr lost the esteem and good- will of his countrymen, he would never have been tried for treason at Richmond. And thus it ever has been and ever will be. The detected villain will become twofold more the child of hell than before. The exposure of his complicity in the Conway conspiracy against Washington, made Gates still more bitter and rancorous towards "the father of his country."

27. The correspondence of the gospel narratives with the records of history, and the common observation of mankind ought to convince us of the reliability of the four witnesses.

A skilful painter can recognize the hand of a master in a few touches of the pencil, or dashes of the brush. We are told that the Cardinal St. Giorgio sent a messenger from Rome to Florence, to discover the artist who made the "Sleeping Cupid." The messenger visited the studios of all the painters and sculptors in Florence, and on pretence of purchasing, requested to see specimens of their work. At length,, he came to the atelier of Michael Angelo, and as that celebrated man had no finished production by him to exhibit, he took up a pencil and carelessly made a sketch of a hand. The messenger, from this hasty outline, discovered at once the long sought artist. Now, if in works of art, the hand of a master can be recognized in the crudest drawings of his pencil, and the roughest daubs of his brush: surely, the Author of truth and of nature ought also to be recognized, by the truthful and natural touches portrayed in his word.

But the 47th verse furnishes still another point, which we will proceed to notice. Luke tells us that Judas "went before" the band that arrested Jesus, but he does not tell us why the traitor went before. Matthew and Mark are silent in regard to Judas' leading the van. John is silent also; but in speaking of the taking of Christ he says, " Judas knew the place," (Gethsemane,) and from the connection, it is evident that no one else of the party did know it.

Putting, then, the statements of Luke and John together, we discover that Judas went before in the capacity of a guide, to lead the band to the garden. And, in fact, Luke afterwards explains the reason of Judas' going before, by calling him "guide to them which took Jesus." Acts i. 16.

28. The spectator, standing under the Natural Bridge in Virginia, observes that the projections on one side correspond to the fissures on the other, and therefore rationally concludes that the disrupted mass, in ages gone by, constituted one stupendous, united whole. Shall the observer of spiritual things be more stupid than the observer of nature? Shall he perceive this nice adaptation of part to part in the gospel narratives, and yet fail to perceive the unity of plan pervading them all?

The 48th verse is in these words: "But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?"

It would seem from this that there was some connection between the kiss and the betrayal. But the verse by itself does not point out what that connection was, and we would be utterly unable to discover it, were it not for the parallel passages in Matthew and Mark. The former of these writers says: "Now, he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; hold him fast." Mark says: "And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him and lead him away safely." The kiss, then, was the preconcerted sign, by which the arresting were to recognize and identify Christ. And observe, that Luke writes of the betrayal by a kiss, just as one would be apt to do, whose mind was so familiar with it, as to make him assume unconsciously that his readers were as well acquainted with it as himself. The very excess of knowledge in the narrator often produces obscurity in the narrative. How often the traveller, on inquiring the way to a certain place, has been told by one who knew the route perfectly, that there was no road to take him off. And yet it may be, that he has gone but a few rods, when he encounters a broad road diverging from the one he is pursuing. The man accosted did not mean to deceive the traveller, but his own familiarity with the route made him unmindful of the other's ignorance. And so it has often been remarked that men of greatest genius make the poorest teachers. A distinguished English mathematician once occupied the chair of mathematics, in probably one of the very best of our State Universities; and it has been said that the chair was never worse filled. He was incapable of understanding the difficulties that minds, less gifted than his own, were ever encountering. Bowditch, the American translator of the Mécanique Celeste of the celebrated Laplace, has said, that whenever he saw in that work, " it is plain to see," he knew full well that it would take him three days to understand the thing thus carelessly alluded to. We dwell upon this point, because it is the key to many of the omissions noticed in the gospel narratives. In the case under consideration, Luke evidently neglected to explain the object of the kiss, because he understood it so well himself, that he is betrayed into an assumption of equal knowledge on the part of his reader.

This allusion is just clear enough to show his own understanding of Judas's design, and yet not sufficiently clear to inform the reader.

29. The natural manner in which Luke refers to the incident of the kiss, is in itself no mean proof of his trustworthiness as a witness. And that, together with the concurrent, yet independent statements of Matthew and Mark, constitutes a strong argument for the credibility of the gospel narratives.

We have, moreover, another point furnished by the 48th verse.

Why did not Judas point out his Master, and boldly say, This is he? Why did he approach him with a specious profession of attachment?

We answer, that the hypocritical act was entirely consonant with his hypocritical life and character. There are men to whom deception is so congenial, that they will practice it when candour would be just as serviceable to them. There are men so thoroughly imbued with falsehood, that they will not tell the truth, when it would suit their purpose equally well with a lie. Judas stands out preeminently as the representative of the former class. None will dispute the extraordinary claims of Bertrand Barere to represent the latter class. Macaulay gives the following account of him: " Whatsoever things are false, whatsoever things are dishonest, whatsoever things are impure, whatsoever things are of evil report, if there be any vice, and if there be any infamy — all these things were blended in Barere." But however atrocious may have been the character of the French monster, the traitor of Judea towers above him, in the loftiness of his wickedness. We know but few incidents in the life of Judas Iscariot. But the little that is known is sufficient to prove him to have been a man who preferred intrigue to fair-dealing, cunning to wisdom, fraud to honesty, a crooked path to the straight broad road. In the first place, he joined himself to Christ from no good motive. His own Master pronounced him a devil, more than a year before his last crowning act of infamy. He began his career then as a hypocrite, in becoming a follower of the Son of God. A devil in heart and life had no right to be in his holy society. We next find Judas pretending pity for the poor in the affair of the ointment, when he truly cared nothing for the poor, but wished the perfume sold that he might appropriate to himself the money resulting from the sale. And then after his bargain to betray his Master, we find him, with matchless effrontery, sitting next that most injured Master at the paschal table, and joining the other disciples in the question of surprise and consternation: "Lord, is it I?" And, finally, that nothing might be wanting to complete his hypocrisy, he approaches Him whom he had sold to death, with the manner of a tender and sympathizing friend.

Human depravity can go no farther. Treachery and hypocrisy can never exceed this act of baseness. Let it stand without a parallel, with nothing like it in the ages that are gone by, and with nothing like it in the ages that are to come. Others have betrayed goodness and worth; but never were such goodness, such purity, and such worth, betrayed before, and never will such be betrayed again. Others have betrayed their friends and benefactors — Judas alone has betrayed his Maker, Preserver, and Redeemer. It is impossible to do justice to the depth of his wickedness. It is impossible to portray him in too revolting colours. And so felt the immortal painter of "The Last Supper." It is related of Leonardo da Vinci, that he did not attempt the face of Judas for months after he had completed his picture in every other respect. He felt unable to conceive of features with that rare blending of sanctimony and rascality, which he thought belonged to the countenance of the arch-traitor. And to aid his imagination, he visited, day after day, the haunts of the vilest men in Milan, and united the diabolic lineaments of them all in a single hideous face.

30. The point which we make here is this: The faithful portraiture of Judas' s character is sufficient to prove that the portraying hand was guided by infinite wisdom. No writer of fiction has ever been able to represent a perfectly consistent character. Even Shakspeare, the mightiest of uninspired men, mars his most successful pictures by incongruous lines, and injures the effect by too much light or too much shade. Take, for instance, his Lear. The storm of passion which the old king exhibits at the conduct of his daughter, and the intensity of injured feeling which he manifests, are by no means in keeping with the previous delineation of his frivolous pursuits and levity of temperament. We expect depth of emotion in men of strong natures, engaged in manly employments, and not in men of light characters, whose only business is amusement. The apostrophe of the old man to the storm, beating with merciless fury on his bare head, is inexpressibly touching:

"I tax not you, ye elements, with unkindness;
I never gave you kingdom, called you children;
You owe me no subscription: why then let fall
Your horrible pleasure? Here I stand, your slave;
A poor, infirm, weak, and despised old man:
But yet I call you servile ministers,
That have, with two pernicious daughters, joined
Your high-engendered battles against head
So old and white as this.". . . . .

The warfare of the elements without, is less terrible than the warfare of the passions within. The storm beating with savage violence on his white head, but suggests to the poor old man the still more unnatural treatment of his daughters. The sufferings of the old father, and his nobleness of soul under them, invest him with dignity, and inspire us with awe. And in the tenderness of our sympathy with him, we are prone to forget that he is the same man who disinherited his only true-hearted daughter, from a mere whim, and banished his most trustworthy nobleman, because of his remonstrance in behalf of that daughter. We are prone, too, to forget that the old king was first represented to us as a roystering, boisterous, pleasure-seeking man.

The inspired Evangelists, on the contrary, commit no mistake in their description of the character of Judas Iscariot — not a single inconsistency can be detected in their representation. The picture is as perfect in outline and colouring, as Judas was matchless in villany and hypocrisy.

Before proceeding to the next verse, we may as well finish the melancholy history of the miserable traitor. Matthew gives us the most ample details of his last doings, and death: "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood... And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief-priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore, that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day." Matt, xxvii. 3-8.

The things stated in these verses were not done in a corner. If untrue, they were glaringly untrue; and the Jews must have known their falsity. If Judas had no interview with the chief priests and elders, the Jews must have known it. If he did not throw down the thirty pieces of silver in the temple, the Jews must have known it. If he did not hang himself, the Jews must have known it. If no burying-ground was bought with the blood-money, the Jews must have known it. If there was no place near Jerusalem called the "field of blood," the Jews must have known it. Now who was it, who has given the particulars of Judas's fate and the purchase of the potter's field? Was it Mark writing to the citizens of Rome, a great way off, where none could deny or confirm his statements? Was it John, writing after the destruction of Jerusalem, when all that knew anything of the transaction here recorded, had passed away? No! it was Matthew, who wrote on the spot where these things are alleged to have happened, and who wrote for those who knew surely whether they were so. It is ever regarded as a strong presumption in favour of the honesty of a witness, when he enters into minute details. Falsehood deals in generalities, truth in circumstantial statements. An apocryphal writer will not commit himself by an explicit declaration, touching any matter with which his readers are familiar. But Matthew has committed himself fully and completely in regard to the potter's field. Everybody at Jerusalem must have known whether there was a place for the burial of strangers, and how it came to be bought, and how it came to bear so remarkable a name.

31. The boldness of the statements of Matthew is prima facie proof of his veracity: and it amounts to a demonstration of truth in our minds, when we reflect that he tells his story, with all its rigid attention to little matters, in the presence of those who could discredit it, if inaccurate in the slightest respect.

But these verses in Matthew contain so admirable a representation of Pharisaism, that we cannot pass them by, without making an additional point. Our Saviour, in his inimitable sermon on the Mount, gave a faithful picture of the Scribes and Pharisees. He showed them to be remarkably conscientious in little matters of no consequence whatever, and utterly devoid of all conscience in regard to those, which pertained to vital piety and real godliness. He showed them to be great sticklers about forms and ceremonies, the mummeries of worship, while wholly indifferent to holiness of heart and life. Again, in the twenty-third chapter of Matthew, he said of them, "Ye pay tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith." In other words, they had such tender consciences in the matter of tithes, that they assessed and paid a tax even upon those things which were not taxable in their polity, but notwithstanding this, they were unjust, cruel, and faithless in all their dealings with their fellow-creatures. In the same twenty-third chapter of Matthew, Christ likened them to "whited sepulchres, which appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and all uncleanness." They were careful to keep up a specious show before the world, of rectitude and propriety, but their hearts were full of abomination and pollution. Now the verses, which we have quoted, in reference to their conversation with Judas, and to their disposition of the thirty pieces of silver, are in entire harmony with the description given by our Saviour of their hypocritical character. They have no sympathy with Judas in his remorse. They turn away from him with contempt, when he cries out in his agony, "I have betrayed the innocent blood." They answer him, with the scornful " What is that to us? see thou to that." They have no relentings of mercy towards the spotless victim, whom his very betrayer had pronounced to be innocent. They mock him, they spit upon him, they buffet him, they cry aloud, " Crucify him, crucify him." They jeer and taunt him when suffering, bleeding, and dying. They thirst for his blood, and are obdurate to the last, unrelenting, inexorable, implacable. But they are very scrupulous about the disposition of the bribe-money. Their tender consciences will not permit them to defile the treasury of the Lord with it. And how benevolent they are withal! They buy a field to bury strangers in. How kind and thoughtful they are towards foreigners! They rise superior to Jewish bigotry and prejudice towards the natives of other lands.

What a strange and revolting picture is here presented! Men, with the malice of hell in their hearts, and the blood of the Son of God hot and reeking on their hands, are very zealous for' the honour of the temple of the Most High, and tenderly considerate for strangers and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. Ah! the picture may be disgusting, but it is true to life. It is a faithful portrait of modern, as well as ancient Pharisaism. Those who reject the Son of God, have benevolence ever on their tongues, while murder is in their hearts. Their consciences are ever keenly sensitive about things of no moment, while they are seared as with a hot iron towards all that is right, and pure, and good. They are ever troubled with a sanctimonious scrupulosity about trifles of supposititious morality, while ignoring the mighty claims of the gospel of Jesus Christ. They are ever raising nice points of casuistry, while hating Bible truth, and the Author of all truth.

At the first outbreak of Jacobin fury in France, some of the retainers of the king climbed up the statues in the Garden of the Tuileries, in the vain hope of finding shelter and concealment. The infidel mob would not fire at them, lest the balls should injure the works of art, but pricked them with their bayonets, until they came down, and then murdered them in cold blood. They cared nothing about defacing God's image, stamped upon his creatures, but they were scrupulous about defacing the handiwork of man. And so the Jewish infidel, the rejecter of Christ, could shed innocent blood without the slightest compunction, but he was too conscientious to defile the temple made with hands. Surely, the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. Surely, there is nothing more ruthless and remorseless than Pharisaism. Surely, the very spirit of the pit of darkness pervades the bosom of him who is ever prating about the law of conscience, while trampling under foot the law of God.

32. We have seen the difficulty attending a consistent representation of character. Now, as the picture of Pharisaism given by Matthew, is entirely in keeping from beginning to end, and is entirely harmonious with its modern phases, we are constrained to regard him as a truthful writer, guided by the unerring inspiration of the Spirit of God.

The next verses in order (49-54) are in these words: " When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And one of them smote the servant of the high-priest, and cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered, and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves? When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me; but this is your hour, and the power of darkness. Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high-priest's house. And Peter followed afar off."

Luke, as we see from these verses, puts the assault upon the servant of the high-priest, before the seizure of Christ. John agrees with him; but Matthew and Mark place this occurrence after the seizure. An attentive consideration of the parallel statements of the Evangelists will reconcile a seeming difference. We learn from John, that after Jesus had aroused his sleeping disciples, he advanced towards the band from the chief priests and elders, "and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he. If therefore ye seek me, let these go their way. That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me, have I lost none. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and smote the high-priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup, which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? Then the band, and the captain, and the officers of the Jews, took Jesus, and bound him." John xviii. 4-12.

In order that we may arrive at a full understanding of this matter, we must recollect that all the Evangelists speak of the servant of the high-priest, and John even designates him by name. He must, therefore, have stood out prominently from the arresting party, in so conspicuous a position, that he could be recognized as belonging to the household of the high-priest, by his livery or peculiar dress. We must recollect, too, that John makes no mention of Judas's advance towards Christ, nor yet of the kiss bestowed by him. On the contrary, John says expressly, that "Judas stood with them" (the band,) after Jesus had asked the question, "Whom seek ye?" Keeping these things in view, the whole transaction becomes plain — Judas advanced before the band, accompanied only by Malchus, and after kissing his Master, slunk back with shame and confusion to his wicked associates, upon being rebuked for his hypocritical act. Malchus, however, remained and laid hands upon Christ. But though thus humiliated by being in the custody of a servant of the basest of men, and though exhausted by his agony, his bloody sweat, and his long night-vigil, our Saviour addressed himself to the crowd with so much dignity and majesty, he exhibited so much of "God manifest in the flesh," in his bearing and in the tones of his voice, that "they all went backward and fell to the ground: he then asked again the same question, "Whom seek ye?" but intimated at the same time that he would submit to the arrest, provided his followers were let alone. Encouraged by the display of their Master's power, and by the discomfiture of his enemies, the disciples asked the question recorded by Luke, "Lord, shall we smite with the sword?" Without waiting for a reply, one of them drew his sword and cut off the right ear of Malchus, standing most likely with his hands upon Christ. The meek and gentle Redeemer rebuked his disciple for this act of violence, and stretched forth his hand and healed the wounded ear. And it appears from the statement of Luke, as recorded above, that as soon as the Jews heard the rebuke, and saw the ear restored, they took courage, perceiving that Christ did not intend to resist, and therefore advanced and arrested him.

The whole difficulty, then, in regard to the time of the seizure of Christ, disappears by the simple supposition that he was twice seized; first, by Malchus, and then by the whole Jewish band. Matthew and John, as eye-witnesses, differ just as other eye-witnesses continually differ, because their testimony refers to different transactions. Matthew alludes to the first seizure, which was really before the assault upon the servant of the high-priest. John alludes to the more important arrest, which was subsequent to that event. Mark, writing under the direction of the fiery and impetuous Peter, puts the assault after the seizure, because it was the indignity offered to the person of his Master, which provoked Peter to strike. Luke, influenced by his profession in life, notices the healing of the wounded servant, (which the other three Evangelists say nothing about,) and therefore naturally places the arrest of Christ after the blow of Peter; because, it was that act of healing, which encouraged the band to make the final seizure.

33. Now, observe that there is difference enough in the four statements, to prove the absence of all previous understanding; and yet not so much as not to admit of easy reconcilement. Observe, too, that three of the witnesses preserve their individual characteristics in a remarkable manner. Mark, as the amanuensis of Peter, places the assault after the seizure, because it was thus remembered by the zealous Galilean. Luke places it before the seizure, because Luke, as a physician, had in his mind the act of healing, which encouraged the band to make the final arrest. John, ever keeping in view the divinity of Christ, tells of the overthrow and confusion of the Jews, and how they dared not approach until Jesus had signified his intention to submit to their authority, if they let his disciples go. John therefore places the arrest after Christ's command to Peter to put up his sword. If we take the three things in connection: the difficulty, proving the absence of collusion; the reconciling of it, proving the integrity of the witnesses; and the preservation of individuality, proving the authenticity of the testimony; we cannot but be satisfied of the truth of the gospel narratives. This three-fold cord cannot be broken. This triune argument cannot be refuted.

The different accounts in regard to the wounding of the servant of the high-priest, furnish a nice instance of independent, yet concurrent testimony. Mark says, "And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high-priest, and cut off his ear." Everything is vague and indefinite in this statement. For all that we know to the contrary, he may have been a casual spectator who struck the blow; he may have used the sword of another, and not his own; he may have struck one of several servants of the high-priest; and he may have cut off the left ear. Matthew is more explicit. He says, "One of them which were with Jesus, stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high-priest, and smote off his ear." The assailant, then, was a follower of Christ; but it is left doubtful whether he was a disciple. However, it is settled that he used his own sword. Luke settles two more points: "And one of them (which were about him) smote the servant of the high-priest, and cut off his right ear." There was, then, but one servant of the high-priest present, and he lost his right ear. Still we do not know who struck the blow; nor yet who the servant was. John, however, supplies all the deficiencies in the narratives of the other witnesses: " Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and smote the high-priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus." Peter, then, was the assailant, and Malchus the assailed.

Was there ever a nicer fitting in of testimony with testimony? Was there ever nicer supplementing by one witness, of a lack in the evidence of another? Was there ever nicer harmony in the statements of all, coupled with just difference enough to prove that there was no preconcerted tale? Observe, too, that there was a reason why the first three Evangelists should suppress the name of Peter. They wrote during his lifetime, when the relation of his assault upon Malchus might prove fatal to him. But John wrote after his death, when the knowledge of the transaction could do him no harm. Observe, too, how it happened that John knew Malchus. He tells us, a little farther on in his narrative, of his intimacy with the high-priest, and with his household. And this he tells us, not to account for his knowing Malchus, but to explain a totally different matter.

34. If now we sum up our evidence, we have again a three-fold argument to present to the jury. First, the reconcilable and reconciled differences among the witnesses; second, the reason why John is the only witness to name Peter; third, the explanation of John's acquaintance with Malchus.

Matthew and John tell us of Christ's rebuke of Peter for his blow; but they do not agree about the language of the rebuke. Mark is altogether silent in reference to it. Luke's "Suffer ye thus far," may be construed into an admonition to Peter to withhold his hand, but it scarcely implies censure. Before making another point, it may be well to show, that the relation by one Evangelist, of a thing omitted by another, does not argue any disagreement between the two. Had Mark expressly said, that Christ did not rebuke Peter, he would have flatly contradicted Matthew and John. But his failure to record the rebuke, surely does not warrant the conclusion that there was no rebuke. No court would be so senseless as to throw out the positive testimony of two witnesses in regard to a fact, because a third witness omitted the mention of it. Moreover, the difference between Matthew, Luke, and John, with respect to the words of censure used by Christ, shows no contradiction. If each of them, after giving his account, had added, " These are the precise words of Jesus, and he employed no other," then we could not reconcile their statements. But as they make no such declaration, we may safely conclude that Christ used the language recorded by Matthew, the language recorded by Luke, and the language recorded by John. And we accordingly find, that the union of all the words recorded, in one connected sentence, makes just such an address as we would have expected from the Son of God: " Suffer ye thus far. (Luke.) Put up thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? (Matthew.) The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" (John.) And we doubt not, that it was during the delivery of this speech that he touched the ear of the servant, and healed it.

The argument, for the credibility of the witnesses, which we now make, is drawn from the fact that each of them preserves, in his narration, his own individuality. We have already seen that John says more than the other three Evangelists all together, of the obedience of the Son to the Father. We will show this very fully hereafter. For the present, we make the assertion, and the reader can verify it by an examination of the four Gospels. John, then, in recording the language of submission of the Son, ("the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?") has been consistent with himself, in ever bringing out prominently the subordination of the Son to the Father. Luke omits much of the address of our Lord, and only records enough to make intelligible the healing of Malchus. As a physician, he was peculiarly impressed with that thing, and therefore hurries on in his narrative to tell about it. All have observed how rapidly a narrator passes on, who is impatient to reach the point of peculiar interest to himself. Mark's omission of the address of our Saviour to Peter, is somewhat surprising. We would naturally expect him to be full in regard to a matter of personal concern to the man for whom he wrote. It may be that Peter, in the excitement of his assault, was conscious only of the interposition of his Master, and not aware of the precise language which he employed. But, however the silence of Mark may be explained, he preserves his individuality in that very silence. It is well known that he is more brief and less circumstantial than the other Evangelists.

The part of our Lord's address which Matthew has recorded, is just that which we would expect him to record. We understand the words, "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword," to be admonitory as well as prophetic. They are a warning to the Jews, not to rebel against the Roman government, and a prophecy that rebellion would result in the overthrow and destruction of their nation. Matthew, writing for his countrymen, the Jews, before their revolt, could not, with any propriety, pass by this fearful threat against insurrection. It would do no good for those to know it, to whom Mark and Luke wrote. And as John's gospel was written after the desolation of Judea, it would have been idle in him to record a warning already too late, and a prophecy already fulfilled. Besides, if he, instead of Matthew, had recorded the caution and prediction, cavillers would not be slow to raise the objection that it was the knowledge of the event which prompted the record. But to confound infidelity, this allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem, is contained in the narrative of the Jewish Evangelist, and was written before the sword had been taken. And so, too, the more full and detailed prophecies in regard to that event are found in the first three Evangelists, while John says not a word about it. (See Matt, xxiv; Mark xiii; Luke xxi.)

We observe, furthermore, that Matthew's allusion to twelve legions of angels, would be readily appreciated by the Jews, whose government and polity embraced so much of this duodecimal division, and whose history was so full of instances of angelic aid and interposition. But this allusion would be wholly lost on those for whom Mark wrote. In like manner, as Mark does not write to show the divine and human natures of Jesus of Nazareth — his equality with and his subordination to God, the Father; it, of course, did not come within the scope of his narrative to record the language of submission of the Son, " the cup which my father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" So then, we have another and a stronger reason for Mark's silence in regard to Christ's rebuke of Peter. The part which Matthew records, was intended as a warning to the Jews, and therefore out of place in a gospel for Romans. The part which John records is doctrinal (as we will see more fully hereafter) and therefore appropriate in the record of a polemic writer, but not consistent with the plan of Mark's narrative.

35. The maintenance of individual characteristics, is always esteemed an infallible criterion of integrity in witnesses. And the reason of it is obvious. If a fictitious tale were gotten up, three or four men could not tell it in their own way, using their own language and preserving their own individuality, without being betrayed into inconsistencies and discrepancies. And as the four Evangelists have been perfectly natural and true to themselves in their independent statements, and yet have made a consistent and harmonious account, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that they were honest and truthful men.

Another argument is suggested by the characteristic testimony of John, an argument based upon the consistency of that testimony. We propose to show that he has linked and interlinked indissolubly together, the doctrines of the humanity and divinity of our adorable Saviour; and that he has done this, from the beginning to the end of his Gospel. We will endeavour, moreover, to show that he is not only consistent with himself in his teaching, at all times, and under all circumstances, but that he is also consistent with the whole tenor of the Old Testament Scriptures. Since John is preeminently the doctrinal writer among the Evangelists, it is right that we should examine thoroughly and weigh carefully his infallible instructions.

We have seen that he is the only Evangelist who speaks of that manifestation of divine power on the part of Christ, which resulted in the prostration of the Jewish leaders and their gang. We have also seen that he is the only one who mentions the Son's language of resignation to his Father's will, " The cup which my Father has given me, shall I not drink it?" He is perfectly consistent with himself in thus alluding to the independent power of Christ, and at the same time to his subordination to the Father. For he never alludes to the divinity of Christ, without also alluding to his humanity; and conversely, he never speaks of his humanity without an explicit declaration of his divinity, in the very same connection. He is careful to give no uncertain teaching, in regard to the "two distinct natures" and "one person" of our precious Saviour.

After reiterating again and again, the divine attributes of Jesus of Nazareth, in the first thirteen verses of his first chapter, he adds in the fourteenth verse, "and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."

In the second chapter, we are told how Jesus "manifested forth his glory" by an act of creative power in " Cana of Galilee;" and how with divine energy he drove the traders out of his Father's house: and how he proclaimed his ability to raise his own body from the grave; and how he read the hearts of men. And yet, in the same chapter, we are told of his mother and his brethren, and we have a prophecy of his death as a man.

In the third chapter, we have these remarkable words, "and no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven." Here Jesus speaks of himself as a man, and as having come down from heaven, notwithstanding his humanity, and as being in heaven at the very moment he was conversing on earth. Language cannot convey more definitely and precisely the great doctrine upon which hang our hopes for time and eternity.

In the fourth chapter, John, after telling how the humanity of Christ was manifested by weariness and thirst at Jacob's well, tells also how he, as God, read the heart of the woman of Samaria, and revealed the secrets of her past life.

Again, in the fifth chapter, John is very explicit in regard to the union of the two natures. There can be no misunderstanding of the 18th and 19th verses of this chapter: " Therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also, that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. Then answered Jesus, and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do, for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." Here is first the equality of the Son with the Father; next, the subordination of the Son to the Father; and finally, the performance by the Son of deeds equal with those of the Father. Again does John teach the same great truths in the 28th, 29th, and 30th verses of this chapter: " Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth: they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, &c,... I can of my own self do nothing... I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which sent me." Here it is declared that he, at whose command the graves shall open and the dead come forth, can, of himself, do nothing, and that he came on earth in obedience to the order of his Father.

In the sixth chapter, John teaches the subserviency of the Son to the Father: " I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent sent me." And in the same chapter, the divinity of Jesus is taught with equal clearness: "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God; he hath seen the Father. . . . . I am the living bread, which came down from heaven. . . . . Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." He can be no other than God, who has seen the Father, who is of God, who gives eternal life, and who will raise the dead in the last great day.

In the seventh chapter, we have these words: " But I know him (God;) for I am from him, and he hath sent me." Here Christ speaks of the intimate union between himself and the Father, and yet, at the same time, of his being subject to the will of the Father. In this chapter, also, we have the solemn declaration of the JeA?ish officers, that Jesus of Nazareth was not a mere man: " The officers answered, Never man spake like this man."

The eighth chapter is replete with allusions to the two natures and one person in Christ. A great, wise, and pious commentator has said of this chapter, "In several places our Lord shows his intimate union with the Father, in will, doctrine, and deed; and though he never confounds the persons, yet he evidently shows that such was the indivisible unity subsisting between the Father and the Son, that what the one witnessed, the other witnessed; what the one did, the other did; and that he who saw the one, necessarily saw the other." (Adam Clarke.) We will give a few extracts: " I proceeded forth, and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. . . . . I honour my Father. . . . . I seek not my own glory. . . . . The Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him." The obedience and dutifulness of the Son are herein clearly set forth. But a little farther on, the Man of Calvary arrogates to himself the name of the ever-living, self-existent God: "Before Abraham was, I am." Compare this language with the 14th verse of the third chapter of Exodus: "And God said, I AM THAT I AM. And he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me." Who can doubt that John meant to teach, that the lowly Nazarene was the great and terrible I AM — the eternal, uncreated God?

In the ninth chapter, we are told that before Jesus, by his own divine power, had restored sight to the blind man, he expressed his subserviency to his Father: "I must work the works of him that sent me." John tells us, too, how the man, when cured of his blindness, offered divine homage to his great Physician.

The tenth chapter is peculiarly rich in regard to the combination of the divine and human natures in our Lord: "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. . . . . No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father." Here the divinity of Christ is shown by the reciprocal knowledge and intimate relations between him and the Father. Next, his humanity is manifested by the laying down of his life: again, his divinity, by his lordship over life and death; and, finally, his subjection to the Father, by a command received from him. Again, we hear Jesus saying: "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." The giver of eternal life must be God. He whose power is sufficient to secure from all harm and danger, must be God. But lest we should infer from this language, his independence of the Father, he immediately adds: "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." And that we might not mistake this apparently contradictory doctrine of independent and delegated power, "the carpenter's son" proclaims his oneness with the Lord God Almighty: "land my Father are one." And when the Jews take up stones to stone him for blasphemy, he repeats the same compound idea: "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him."

In the eleventh chapter, Jesus, as God, speaks of the death of Lazarus; calls himself the resurrection and the life; and arouses the dead man in his grave. As man, he weeps in sympathy with the bereaved sisters of Lazarus, and prays unto the Father.

A comparison of the 41st verse of the twelfth chapter with the 1st verse of the sixth chapter of Isaiah, will prove that John believed his Master to be the "Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up." And that there might be no mistake about it, he gives the explicit claim of the Son to identity with the Father: "He that seeth me, seeth Him that sent me." And immediately after, the obedience of the Son to the Father is taught in equally intelligible language: "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father, which sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak." In this chapter, also, we are told of his soul being troubled, even as the soul of a man is troubled; and of his prayer of distress to the Father. But in the same connection, we have an account of the Father's voice speaking from heaven to his Son and coequal.

In the thirteenth chapter, John tells of his Master washing the disciples' feet; but he prefaces the account with these remarkable words: "When Jesus knew that his hour had come, that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end." Here is omniscience ascribed to him who was about to humble himself to perform the office of a servant. In the 19th verse, we are told how he again claimed to be the I AM; and immediately after, how "he was troubled in spirit;" but notwithstanding this exhibition of humanity, how he predicted the betrayal by Judas, and the denial by Peter.

In the fourteenth chapter, Jesus claims, in the plainest possible language, identity of essence with the Father: "If ye had known me, ye had known my Father also; and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. . . . . He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father. And how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?... Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me." But he will not permit us to overlook his humanity, for he says, soon after, "My Father is greater than I."

In the fifteenth chapter, the doctrine of the divine and human natures is taught in the same sentence: "He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father." The humanity of Christ, and his oneness with the Father, are here declared in an unmistakable manner.

In the sixteenth chapter, the doctrine of the divinity seems to have special prominence: "And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father nor me." The unity of the Father and Son is here plainly taught: "For if I go not away, the Comforter will not come; but if I depart, I will send him. unto you." He who can send the Holy Spirit, must be God: "He (the Comforter) shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you." He whom the Holy Ghost glorifies, must be God. He who has all things in common with the Father, must be God. The Father has said of himself, "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God." Exod. xx. 5, xxxiv. 14; Deut. iv. 24, v. 9, vi. 15; Josh. xxiv. 19. He has said, " My glory will I not give unto another." Isa. xlii. 8. Since then he has given his glory to Jesus — Jesus cannot be "another," but must be one with the Father.

The seventeenth chapter is peculiarly instructive: " Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee. . . . . And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Can this be the language of a created being? Can there be reciprocal glorifying between the creature and Creator? Would it not be the highest blasphemy, for a finite being to pray that God might glorify him with his own self? Will he, whose "name is Jealous," (Exod. xxxiv. 14,) impart his essence to a thing of time? Is it possible to believe that the loftiest angel nearest the throne, shared, in common with the Father, his incommunicable glory, "before the world was"? Again, he says: "And all mine are thine, and thine are mine." Is it not the height of folly and wickedness, to say that there can be this interchange and intercommunication between the living God and any inferior intelligence? And yet notwithstanding these strong expressions in the seventeenth chapter, to establish the doctrine of the divinity of our blessed Redeemer, we have in it also the fullest teaching in regard to his humanity. " That he (the Son) should give eternal life unto as many as thou hast given him. . . . . Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. . . . . I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. . . . . All things whatsoever thou hast given me. . . . . And they have believed that thou didst send me. . . . . As thou hast sent me into the world. . . . . That the world may believe that thou hast sent me. . . . . These have known that thou hast sent me." In all these phrases, the subordination of the Son to the Father is clearly set forth. The 24th verse embraces the compound idea of the Son's equality and inferiority. "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me; for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." Here is the demand of a sovereign, rather than the petition of a supplicant. It is a prayer, but the basis of it is the will of the Son, and the reason for granting it is that his glory may be manifested. And yet while he makes this lofty assumption of sovereignty, he thankfully acknowledges the gifts of the Father. The Trinitarian scheme harmonizes this apparently contradictory language, but it must for ever remain, in the creed of Socinianism, inconsistent and irreconcilable.

We have already noticed the instruction imparted by John in the eighteenth chapter, in regard to the two-fold nature in Christ. We have an account in this chapter of his overthrow of an armed host by a simple question, and immediately after, of his expressing the most perfect submission to his Father's will.

In the nineteenth chapter, we learn how our precious Redeemer, in three ways, manifested his human nature; first, by his thirst; second, by his cry, "It is finished" — the work given me by my Father has been performed; third, by the water and the blood, which flowed from his side. John has omitted the three proofs of his divinity, given by the other Evangelists: first, the earthquake, which rent the veil of the temple, and opened the graves of the saints, showing thereby his sovereignty over the earth; second, the darkening of the sun, showing his sovereignty over the solar system and stellar universe; third, his pardon of the thief, and promise to him of life eternal, showing his sovereignty over the heaven of heavens. Still, John has given us more fully than the other Evangelists, the proofs of Christ's absolute control over his own life. He alone of the gospel writers records the saying of our Lord, "I lay down my life that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself." And now, in verification of this assertion, the beloved disciple tells us in this nineteenth chapter that Jesus "bowed his head and gave up the ghost" — the Greek word expressing the act of dying by his own free will. All the Evangelists are careful to avoid saying that Jesus died, and employ a word which signifies the voluntary "breathing out" of the breath of life. (See Dr. Alexander on Mark.) But there is this marked difference between the other writers and John. They all agree in conveying the idea that the death of Jesus was the result of his own sovereign volition; but John alone gives the evidence of this, by showing that the death of the two malefactors had to be hastened by breaking their legs, and that not a bone of the paschal lamb was broken, because he was already dead. And thus it appears that John, who alone had related the claim of Jesus to power over his own life, has alone demonstrated the justness of the claim, by telling that he gave up the ghost after a few hours suffering; when it is well known that the crucified usually lingered in agony for days, unless additional violence were offered to shorten their lives.²

In the twentieth chapter, John teaches, with his usual precision, the doctrine of the two natures. We select a single passage, which embraces the dual idea in all its completeness. " Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord, and my God." (Vers. 27, 28.) Here Thomas most unequivocally and undeniably acknowledges his Master to be God over all, blessed for ever; but the acknowledgment is drawn from him by the marks of humanity on the sacred person of our Lord. Doubtless, the prints of the nails and the wound in the side not only convinced unbelieving Thomas of the personal identity of Jesus, but also brought to his recollection all those prophecies which spoke of the Messiah as both God and man. A flood of light was let in upon him in a moment, and the whole teaching of the Old Testament Scriptures became plain to him. Then he understood how the child born unto us, and the son given unto us, could be the mighty God, the everlasting Father. Then he understood how the son born of a virgin could be Immanuel, God with us. And, therefore, it was that he worshipped the risen Saviour, as his Lord and his God. We are amazed that the 28th verse above, is so often quoted in controversies with the Unitarians, while the 27th is so completely ignored. The withholding of the latter verse impairs the force of the former, and utterly destroys the great truth (as we believe) meant to be taught, viz., that Thomas arrived at his belief of the divinity of Jesus, through the traces of his suffering humanity.

In the twenty-first chapter, the divine nature of Christ is the paramount doctrine. This is shown by the miraculous draught of fishes, and by his foretelling by what death Peter should glorify God. Nor have we any evidence of his humanity, unless we assume that he himself partook of the bread and fish, which he gave the disciples. It was fit that the divinity of the Saviour should have a prominent place in the last instructions of the Evangelist, who wrote mainly to confute the heresy on that subject, which had crept into the church. But we will grossly pervert the teaching of John, if we overlook the fact that he joins together the doctrines of the divinity and humanity, and seems fearful of separating them, so that when he speaks of Jesus as God, he, in the same breath, speaks of him as man; and oftentimes again, as God, and again as man; and then as both God and man. He employs every variety of expression, and every form of words, to teach the union of the two natures. He nicely balances his language, so that the teaching of the oneness of the Son with the Father does not outweigh nor underweigh his teaching of the humanity of the Son. And throughout his whole gospel, he preserves the same unity of plan, the same consistency of instruction. It is only necessary to read his whole system of theology to form a correct opinion upon the most vital points of Christian faith. Heresy has ever taken an isolated text here, and a garbled extract there, to support its pernicious tenets. The honest, candid, prayerful reading of every passage touching the Messiah, with the context, must satisfy the sincere inquirer after truth, that "The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, is very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father."

But we started out with the proposition that John was consistent with himself throughout his whole narrative, in teaching the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ; and that he was also consistent with the plain instructions of the holy men of old. Our first position is, we trust, firmly established. It only remains to show that the doctrines inculcated by John, comport with the prophecies respecting the Messiah. Isaiah speaks thus of the promised deliverer, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." Isaiah ix. 6.

The first part of this verse plainly teaches that the mysterious being spoken of had a true human nature, while the latter part proves his identity with "the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God." Again, Isaiah says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Here the offspring of the virgin is to be called " God with us," as the name Immanuel signifies. As God will not give his "glory to another," how is it possible to suppose that he will permit this Son of the virgin to assume his name, unless the child be of the same substance, the same essence, and the same eternal existence with Jehovah himself? Paul quotes the forty-fifth Psalm in proof of the divinity of Christ. (See Hebrews, first chapter.) In this Psalm, a king is introduced, who is fairer than the children of men, into whose lips grace has been poured, and upon whom the blessing of God rests for ever. In the 6th verse, this fair, gracious, and blessed king, is distinctly and emphatically addressed as God: " Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre." But in the very next verse, he is said to have been rewarded by God for his love of righteousness and hatred of iniquity: " Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness; therefore, God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Who can he be, who thus enjoys the favour and approbation of God, and yet is truly God himself? Surely, he can be no other than Christ Jesus, who, though "in the likeness of men," "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Philip, ii. 6, 7. Surely, this King must be "the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords." Rom. ix. 5.

Jeremiah speaks of the same sovereign predicted by David, and prophesies that he shall be of the house and lineage of David: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. . . . . And this is the name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. The word rendered Lord, in this place, means literally Jehovah — the name of God, so much revered by the Jews. The branch and offspring of David, partaking of his mortal nature, is the absolute God of the universe. But in addition to the fact, that the descendant of David is expressly called Jehovah, it is evident that God cannot be our righteousness in any other way than through his co-equal Son. The righteousness of Jesus Jehovah becomes the believer's, and thus only can the righteousness of God become his. And to this effect is the teaching of Paul: "Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." 1 Cor. i. 30. In Isaiah xl. 9. 11, we find the same name, Jehovah, given to a Being who is evidently the " Good Shepherd," that "giveth his life for the sheep." Another prophet speaks thus: "Awake, sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered; and I will turn my hand upon the little ones." Zech. xiii. 7. Here the sword is to be aroused against a man, who is yet the "fellow," the equal, the compeer, and the companion of the " Lord of hosts." Now, as Christ appropriated this prophecy to himself, there can be no doubt of his claiming to be the Man who was equal in power and glory with the Father. And it is remarkable that John, who says so much of the two natures in Christ, is silent in regard to his referring this prediction of Zechariah to himself; while Matthew and Mark, who are less explicit concerning the divinity of our Saviour, make mention of his so applying it. (See Matt. xxvi. 31; Mark xiv. 27.) So that the Evangelists, who have dwelt less fully than John upon the doctrine so precious to him, have told, nevertheless, of the fulfilment in Christ of that which was foretold of a Man, who was co-eternal, co-existent, and co-supreme with the Father. The text in Zechariah, and the appropriation of it by Christ, should for ever settle the question as to his divine and human natures.

But to our mind, there is nothing more satisfactory on this point than a comparison of the second Psalm with the eighty-fourth. In the former we read: " Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. . . . . Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." The King here spoken of, is plainly the only begotten Son, whose subordination to the Father is shown by his being required to ask, that he might receive dominion; and whose divinity is shown by the blessing pronounced upon those who trust in him. Remember, that God has said, " Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help." The King, in whom we are directed to trust, cannot then be a mere man, else there would be a contradiction in God's word. It would be foolish, too, as well as wicked, to put confidence in the creature; for experience, as well as Holy Writ, teach us that "vain is the help of man." Paul shows that the Son mentioned above was Jesus Christ; and though in his human nature he was subordinate to the Father, yet to make him a mere man, would be to make the Bible contravene itself, and teach an absurdity. But the comparison of the foregoing verses with the 11th and 12th verses of the eighty-fourth Psalm, will show conclusively that the Being, in whom we are exhorted to trust, is one consubstantial with the Lord God. " The Lord God is a sun and shield: the Lord will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly. Lord of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee!" Now, as we are forbidden to trust in the mightiest potentates of earth, and as the same blessing is pronounced on him who trusts in Christ, as upon him who trusts in the Lord of hosts, it is plain that there must be oneness between the Father and the Son. (Compare also the second Psalm with Isa. xxvi. 4; Psalms xxxvii. 3; cxviii. 8; &c. Compare also Micah v. 1, 2, with Matt. ii. 6.)

We deem it unnecessary to produce more proof that John has been consistent with the prophets, in teaching that Jesus of Nazareth was truly God and truly man. They speak of the promised Messiah as possessing the name, titles, and attributes of Jehovah, and yet as wearing a nature having the qualities and properties of the creature. He employs the same language respecting the Messiah after he had come and been offered up a sacrifice for sin. Moreover, the testimony of John not only comports with that of the Hebrew prophets, but also with nature itself, speaking through the creeds of all the nations of the earth. God has so constituted the heart of man, that it longs for the union of the divine with the human nature — the divine to protect, the human to be "touched with the feeling of our infirmities." We have all felt the impotency of an arm of flesh; trials, bereavements, sickness, and death have taught us to " cease from man, whose breath is in his nostrils." We need the preserving, sustaining care of Omnipotence. When desolations come like a whirlwind, we turn away from our fellow-worms of the dust, and cry earnestly unto the Lord God Almighty: "What time I am afraid, I will trust in thee." This is the universal voice of all our feeble, helpless race. Who has not cried, "Lead me to the rock that is higher than I," when the great floods were about to overwhelm him? Sin has not so darkened our understandings that we do not know that God alone can be an efficient protector. But a God absolute is a God terrible. We shrink in our nothingness from the contemplation of the grandeur and immensity of the Sovereign of the boundless universe. We shrink in our guilt and pollution from addressing a pure and holy God, who cannot look upon sin with the least allowance. How grateful to us poor trembling sinners is it, to hear that " God is in Christ reconciling the world to himself" — reconciling his fallen creatures to the contemplation of his power, dominion, and sovereignty, as well as of his holiness, justice, goodness, and truth! How delightful for a frail thing of earth, who needs sympathy in trouble, succour in distress, grace in temptation, and support in death, to hear, " Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same: that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their life-time subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high-priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." Heb. ii. 14-18. Here is just the Deliverer that suffering humanity needs — Almighty to save, and yet of a kindred nature, to understand and pity our weaknesses and imperfections. And we find accordingly, that mankind, with few exceptions, have claimed just such a friend and protector.

Dr. Thomas Smyth, of Charleston, says, "The belief in a Trinity — a triad of supreme and co-equal deities — has been held in Hindostan, in Chaldea, in Persia, in Scythia, comprehending Thibet, Tartary and Siberia; in China, in Egypt, among the Greeks, among the Greek philosophers who had visited Chaldea, Persia, India and Egypt, and who taught the doctrine of the Trinity after their return; among the Romans, among the Germans, and among the ancient Mexicans."

Dr. Cudworth says: " The most acute and ingenious of all the Pagan philosophers, the Platonists and Pythagoreans, who had no bias at all upon them, nor any Scripture, (which might seem to impose upon their faculties,) but followed the free sentiments and dictates of their own minds, did, notwithstanding, not only entertain this Trinity of divine hypostases, eternal and uncreated, but were also fond of the hypothesis, and made it a fundamental of their theology."

Dr. Minchola has shown, that the same doctrine existed in some form among "the Finns, Laplanders, Aztecs, and South Sea Islanders." The great mass of the heathen world has then had some vague presentiment of a three-fold distinction in the divine essence. This presentiment has assumed a somewhat definite belief in the Egyptian, Hindoo, and Chinese mythologies. The Egyptian theogony embraced three personifications of the Supreme Being — Chnouf, Neith, and Phtha. The Shu-King, or holy book of the Chinese, recognizes a sacred and mysterious Three — Yu, Tshing-tang, and Va-vang. The second of these, with a lamb-skin cast around him, offered himself voluntarily an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of his people. (Müller's Universal History.) The Vedas and Puranas, the sacred writings of the Hindoos, teach the tri-personality of the Godhead, and name the Triune Being — Brahma, Vishna, and Shiva. They speak too of the avatárs, or incarnations of the self-existent God. Buddhism, which prevails over a large portion of Asia, is the worship of Buddha, or Deity incarnate. The Lamaism of Thibet is but another form of Buddhism; the Delai Lama, or Great Priest, being regarded as the representative on earth of the ever-living Buddha.

All this looks like the trace of a great original truth — sadly obscured, it is true — but not altogether obliterated; or it shows that mankind have universally felt the want of a Mediator and an Advocate between their guilty selves and a holy and absolute God. And to this felt want, we ascribe, in a great degree, the prevalence of idolatry. As the world became corrupt, and lost the idea of a divine Deliverer, to appear in human form, it became more and more conscious of utter unworthiness of communion with the awful and dreaded Great First Cause. Hence it framed for itself a system of subordinate deities, to plead and make intercession for the sinner.

And this it is that gives Popery such a hold upon the corrupt human heart — the Romish saint has taken the place of the Pagan god. The former, like the latter, is an intercessor, an offerer of the prayers, and alms, and good deeds of his devotee. The Papist prays to Mary, or Joseph, or Francis, to intercede for him with the offended Majesty of Heaven, just as the heathen prays to his subordinate god to propitiate the favour of the Sovereign Ruler of the universe. Romanism has cunningly taken advantage of two convictions, the most deeply seated in the human breast — the conviction that we have insulted the dreadful Jehovah, and the conviction that we need a Friend, who has his favour and his confidence. But the Romanist takes as that friend, not Jesus Christ, our elder brother, but a priest or a saint.

And here it may be well to answer an objection of Unitarianism, that the doctrine of the Trinity was not authoritatively promulgated until the meeting of the Council of Nice, A. D. 325. It is sufficient for our present purpose to answer, that even the grossest heretics of the ante-Nicene period did not teach the doctrine of an absolute monotheism. Some (as the Ebionites) denied the divinity of Christ. Some (as the Gnostics) denied his humanity. Some again (as the Patripassians) merged his divinity in that of the Father. Others (as the Sabellians) taught that there was a trinity of revelation, but not of essence. All of these errorists, however, acknowledged (with rare exceptions) a Trinity of some sort — a Trinity of manifestation, a Trinity of existence, or a Trinity of operation. They all felt that guilty man could not approach his righteous Judge without an advocate. And though they were not prepared for the Athanasian creed, of three persons and one essence, still their views were more rational, more intelligible, and more scriptural than those of Socinus, Priestley, Belsham, Schleiermacher, and others of the modern Unitarian school.

Enough has been said to prove that John's teaching is consistent with itself, consistent with the Old Testament Scriptures, consistent with the creeds of nine-tenths of mankind, and consistent with the wants, if not the wishes, of the whole human race. It is important, too, to observe that John does not lay down dogmatically his great doctrine, except in his first chapter. He gives utterance to it in the natural course of his narrative, and does not pause to make any comment upon it. He again and again declares this paramount truth of the gospel in the most simple, artless manner. It comes up in the natural course of his story. He adopts no expedient to call, his reader's attention to it. The regular order of his testimony is nowhere broken to make way for it. If John shows artifice in all this, it is the very perfection of artifice. Never was counterfeit so thoroughly stamped with all the marks of the real and genuine.

36. Now, what shall be said of testimony, in which no discrepancy and no incongruity can be detected? What shall be said of testimony, which is consonant with the statements of a "great cloud of witnesses"? What shall be said of testimony, which agrees with the opinions on the same subject, of the vast majority of mankind? Is it possible to question the verity of such evidence. Is it possible to doubt the truthfulness of the witness?

The 52d and 53d verses, already quoted, contain a rebuke of the Jews for the ruffianly manner of the arrest of Christ; ("Be ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves?") a reproach for their cowardice in coming secretly at night, (" When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me;") and an intimation that they could do nothing against him even then, but for the permission granted them in connection with the spirits of darkness to exercise power for a season, ("But this is your hour and the power of darkness.")

The last clause is obscure, and we would not have ventured to give the above exposition, but for the light thrown upon it by the first two Evangelists. Mark, after mentioning the rebuke and the reproach in nearly the same words as Luke employs, adds, "But the Scripture must be fulfilled." The account of Matthew is almost identical with that of Mark.

We have in Luke's slight departure in his closing sentence from the language used by Matthew and Mark, no mean proof of the credibility of the witnesses. The first two witnesses explain fully a phrase of the third witness, which is in itself of doubtful import; and after the explanation we see clearly that all three agree in conveying the same idea, viz., that just as God permitted Satan to tempt his servant Job, so he allowed the powers of darkness to prevail, in their allotted hour, over his own well-beloved Son.

But we will make a still more important use of the words of our Saviour as recorded by Luke. We have seen that MattheAV and Mark agree substantially with him, as to the precise language used by Christ. John however, omits the address altogether, although it is the most natural conceivable under the circumstances. It is an indignant protest by our Redeemer against the advantage taken of him in the darkness of the night. It is just such an appeal against violence and injustice as any man would make, who was similarly wronged. The naturalness of the address demonstrates that it was spoken, and yet John leaves it out altogether. Moreover, the reproach of the Jews for their cowardice, must have stung them keenly. The point of honour in man lies in his courage. He would rather be called villain than coward. And yet John has passed over the stinging reproof, under which the Jews must have writhed. But it so happens that he puts the same words of reproach, in the mouth of our Saviour on the occasion of his trial before Caiaphas, and shows the anger excited by them. "Jesus answered him, (the high-priest,) I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort: and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I have said. And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by, struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high-priest so?" John xviii. 20, 21.

We find the same thought still prominent in the mind of the Saviour, which he had given utterance to in the garden. He is still thinking of the publicity of his instructions in the synagogue and the temple, when no hands were laid upon him. This concurrent and yet undesigned testimony of John, in regard to the language of Christ, proves that it was also spoken at the time specified by Matthew, and Mark, and Luke. Furthermore, John gives incidentally the most satisfactory proof of the veracity of the other three witnesses. He, and he alone, tells of the violence offered to Christ. Now observe that there was nothing offensive in what Jesus said to the high-priest, nothing that called for a blow. Observe, too, that it was an officer who struck him — an officer doubtless of the arresting party, who had been smarting under the imputation of cowardice, and who now sought to revenge the insult upon again being reminded of his poltroonery.³ And notice that with the characteristic hypocrisy of Jewish officials, he professed to buffet Christ for his disrespect to the high-priest, when he really struck the blow for the reflection in the garden, now renewed by the allusion to openly teaching in the synagogue and temple. So we see that John, who says nothing about the address of our Lord to the band who seized him, tells us of his using substantially the same words before Caiaphas. The other three Evangelists omit the speech to Caiaphas, but record that in Gethsemane. And so they all mutually supply deficiencies, while agreeing in the main. Moreover, John alone speaks of the outrage perpetrated by the officer upon the person of Christ, but the other three writers explain the motive which prompted to the brutal act.

37. A brief recapitulation will show that we have again a triune argument for the credibility of the witnesses: First, the elucidation, by Matthew and Mark, of an uncertain expression in Luke; second, the mention, by John, of words spoken by Christ, and alleged by the other three Evangelists to have been spoken on another occasion also; third, the explanation, by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, of an act of violence recorded by John alone.

The man who can believe that this differing yet agreeing testimony, this independent yet concurrent evidence, is the result of a cunningly contrived fraud, is prepared to believe any absurdity. We know that intelligent juries are always convinced, by harmonizing disagreements among witnesses, of the truth of their statements concerning temporal affairs. Have we one set of laws by which to try secular witnesses, and another by which to try spiritual witnesses? Shall the rules of common sense, which govern mankind in judging of earthly matters, be ignored when they come to examine heavenly things? Is it right, is it rational, to reject testimony that would satisfy judge and jury, in an action at law, simply because we have not the patience to investigate it, or the candour to acknowledge its credibility?

The 54th verse is very instructive: "Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high-priest's house." The word rendered "took," signifies really the joint laying of hands upon him. The word rendered "brought," is tautological, being but a compound of that rendered "led." The whole verse conveys the idea of guarding him with the most extraordinary care. John agrees with Luke, for he mentions that they bound Jesus, a circumstance not related by the other Evangelists. Now, why were these precautions taken? We find no explanation in the records of the two Evangelists, who alone allude to them. On the contrary, Luke tells us of Christ's healing the wounded servant, signifying by that very act that he did not mean to resist. And John tells of his expressing a willingness to submit to seizure, if his disciples were not molested. We must turn then to Matthew and Mark for a solution of the mystery, and we do not turn in vain. For Matthew relates the warning that Judas gave the Jews to guard their prisoner well. "Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast." Mark says that Judas cautioned them to "lead him away safely." Doubtless the traitor had in his mind the escape of his Master at Nazareth, when a murderous crowd sought to thrust him down a precipice, (Luke iv. 29, 30;) and of his escape from the wretches who had taken up stones to stone him. John viii. 29. It may be, too, that Judas mentioned these things to the Jews, and thus put them on their guard against his getting away.

38. We have here as strong proof of the credibility of the testimony, as the most sceptical could demand. Two of the witnesses tell of the vigilance of the Jews in securing their prisoner; the other two, who had not noticed this circumstance, let drop a remark which explains the cause of this vigilance. If there can be any surer mark of the truthfulness of evidence than is exhibited in this nice concurrence, we are at a loss to know what it can be.

We have had occasion before to notice the last sentence of the 54th verse, ("and Peter followed afar off,") contained in the chapter we are investigating. We then remarked, that though Luke and John had not told us explicitly of the flight of the disciples, they yet agreed with Matthew and Mark, who had related that incident, by using expressions which showed that they were fully apprized of it. The reference of Luke to Peter's following afar off, and of John, to the following of Peter and that " other disciple," would be wholly unmeaning, if all had followed and none had fled. The point, however, which we now make, is that the first three Evangelists mention that Peter followed in the distance, but say nothing about that "other disciple." The omission is a proof of the truth of the gospel narratives; for, as we have already stated, the relation by one witness, of an occurrence passed over by the other witnesses, would strengthen our impression of the honesty of them all, provided that the narrator had superior opportunities of knowing the fact which he alone mentions. This is the case in the present instance. John himself was the "other disciple," and he therefore has spoken of that which he knew perfectly, and which was a matter of personal interest.

39. Men who get up a fictitious story, do not act like the Evangelists. Fraud seeks to make its tale consistent. It guards against deficiencies as carefully as against superfluities. It never permits one narrator to relate an incident not related by the rest. We may detect absurdities in the fiction itself; but it is seldom gotten up so clumsily that we can discover incongruities in the manner of relating it. The boldness of the Evangelists, and their calm ignoring of all the tricks and artifices of forgery, constitute an unanswerable argument for their truthfulness.

Before passing on to the consideration of the next subject, we will notice a remarkable expression used by our Saviour in his address to the band from the chief priests and elders. Mark says, that after he had rebuked the mob for their ruffianly and cowardly mode of approaching him, he added, "But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." The Evangelist then subjoins these significant words: "And they all forsook him, and fled." Matthew says, that the last words of Christ's address were, "But all this was done, that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." And then Matthew, like Mark, adds, "And they all forsook him, and fled."

It is a noteworthy fact, that the only two Evangelists who distinctly speak of the flight of the disciples, are the only two to record an expression which throws much light on that transaction. We have little doubt, that the allusion of our Saviour to "the Scriptures of the prophets," had a great deal to do with the flight of the disciples. Let it be remembered, that whenever he quoted the Scriptures, to show that he must be delivered to be crucified, his disciples heard him with doubt, if not positive disbelief. Let it be remembered, that only a few hours before, when he applied the prophecy concerning the smiting of the shepherd, and the scattering of the flock, to himself and them, they earnestly protested against its application. But now, when they saw their Master actually in the power of his enemies, and were reminded by him, that he was in that condition in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, they naturally recalled the prediction also concerning their own desertion of him. Seeing the prophecy fulfilled in regard to their Lord, they then knew that it would be fulfilled with respect to themselves; and passing from the extreme of presumption to the extreme of despair, they bring about, by their flight, the fulfilment of an event so long foretold.

Dr. J. A. Alexander has well observed, that " The prophecy contributed to its own fulfilment, by enfeebling or destroying that factitious courage which existed when the danger was distant or future." There is sound philosophy in this remark, and it agrees with two well-known principles: First, that the fulfilment of a prediction inspires confidence in the prophet. Second, that men oppose but a feeble resistance to a supposed inevitable calamity. The first principle has numerous illustrations. The man who, by the force of mere shrewdness in worldly matters, can foretell that certain results will follow certain causes, is looked up to in intelligent communities, and is regarded with superstitious reverence in rude states of society. A few fortunate predictions invest all his opinions with the sanctions of infallible truth.

The astronomer Le Verrier made most probably but a lucky guess, as to the direction in which the new planet Neptune was to be sought; for he miscalculated its orbit, its distance, its eccentricity and its mass. Yet since the planet was found by " the happy accident" of his prediction, he was overwhelmed with the adulation of all Europe. "Language could hardly be found strong enough to express the general admiration. He was created an officer of the Legion of Honour by the King of France, and a special chair of Celestial Mechanics was established for him at the Faculty of Sciences. From the King of Denmark, he received the title of Commander of the Royal Order of Dannebroga; and the Royal Society of London conferred on him the Copley medal. The Academy of St. Petersburg resolved to offer him the first vacancy in their body; and the Royal Society of Gottingen elected him to the rank of Foreign Associate." (Loomis's History of Astronomy.) And so it was, that a single fortunate prediction made Le Verrier the most celebrated man in Europe. To this proneness of the human mind to repose confidence, where lucky guesses or shrewd calculations have revealed the secret and the unknown, is to be ascribed the success of the oracle of Jupiter at Dodona, of Apollo at Delphi, and of others less celebrated. This also has led to the practice of divination, fortune-telling, &c. Now, it is a remarkable fact, that the confidence of the incredulous when once gained, is just in proportion to their former disbelief. General Taylor, before the battle of the 8th and 9th of May, 1846, was distrustful of the artillery arm, and entirely sceptical of the grand achievements so confidently predicted of it. But after he had witnessed the terrible havoc made at Palo Alto by round shot, grape, cannister, and schrapnel, he passed to the other extreme, and put no limit to his expectations from his light and heavy ordnance. The case of the disciples is exactly parallel. They had been altogether incredulous in regard to the predictions concerning the seizure of their Master, and their own desertion of him. But when they saw one part of the prophecy fulfilled, they lost all their doubts,, and implicitly believed that the other part would be fulfilled also.

The second principle has also numerous illustrations. Men have no heart, and consequently no force to oppose a fate, which they regard as inevitable. It has ever been a cardinal feature in the strategy of great military leaders, like Napoleon, to take the initiative in warfare, strike the first blow and gain the first battle. The prestige of arms once established, the defeat of the enemy in every subsequent engagement, becomes almost a matter of course. The victories on the Rio Grande ensured the easy conquest of Mexico. It is seldom, indeed, that a twice-beaten army ever shows again any vigour on the field of battle. But the principle that we are discussing is by no means confined to martial affairs. When a man has once failed in a particular business, it is regarded as a wonderful proof of his energy and determination, should he have the courage to engage in it again.

Now let us apply the two principles under consideration to the case of the disciples in Gethsemane. The fulfilment of the prophecy respecting their Lord destroyed at once their presumption and self-confidence, and made them believe that their desertion of him was inevitable, and they, therefore, resigned themselves to their fate.

40. The explanation given by Matthew and Mark of the conduct of the apostles, is so natural and so accordant with experience, that it affords a strong presumption of the truth of the witnesses. When, moreover, we take into consideration the fact that the explanation is given without comment, without any apparent design to make it an explanation; and when we reflect, too, that the incident mentioned was so eminently discreditable to Matthew and Peter, who had it recorded, we have again a three-fold argument for the credibility of the gospel narratives.

Mark alone mentions an incident which occurred while they were taking Jesus from the garden to the house of the high-priest. "And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body, and the young men laid hold on him. And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked."

It is commonly supposed, that some one living near the garden, was aroused from his slumbers by the noise of the multitude, and came out hastily to see what was the matter. Since Mark speaks of the youth following him, (Christ,) and not the band, we think it probable that the aroused sleeper felt a special interest in the Saviour. We do not know who he was, nor is it important that we should. Some suppose that Mark himself was the young man, and that he has accordingly related a matter of personal interest. If so, the silence of the other Evangelists is perfectly natural. Be that as it may, we have more to do with the incident itself than with the subject of it. There can be but two suppositions made in regard to the treatment of this young man. It was either an act of wanton and gratuitous mischief, or it was an attempt to secure a person who had manifested an interest in Christ, and who therefore might possibly be one of the escaped disciples. In other words, it was either the sportiveness of the wicked, or the struggle of the malignant for another victim.

Take the first view, and we have thousands of instances of similar devilish playfulness. The sport of the Philistines around poor sightless Sampson, is a case in point. The pleasantries of Mary de Medicis concerning the massacre of St. Bartholomew's, are well known. And how innumerable were the jests, the puns, the witticisms perpetrated by the mob of Paris, upon the victims of the guillotine, during the Reign of Terror. One of the remorseless executioners of that strange compound of bigotry and villany, Louis XI. of France, was celebrated for his jocoseness with the prisoners under the gallows. Some of the most unfeeling wretches in the world have mingled merriment with their cruelties. The poet has beautifully expressed this idea:

"Ralph felt the cheering power of spring,
It made him whistle, it made him sing;
His heart was mirthful to excess,
But the Rover's mirth was wickedness."

If the first view is correct, and the apprehension of the young man was merely through the exuberance of hellish joy at the capture of Christ, we have exhibited here a natural stroke from a master hand. The Evangelist has given us a true picture of exulting wickedness, and history teaches that corrupt humanity has, alas! but too often presented the living reality. But Mark has not only been consistent with experience, he has also been consistent with himself. What he tells us subsequently, of the mocking of Christ, and of the sport indulged in around a helpless prisoner, is entirely in keeping with the fun over a naked and unarmed man. And yet the harmony in his narrative is so delicate, and evidently so undesigned, that even biblical critics have failed to observe it. Mark, then, by the consistency of his story, has given a strong proof of his integrity; but this proof is augmented a thousand-fold by the manifest absence of all design and preconceived plan. Had he related the incident of the seizure of the young man, with the intention of showing that the same spirit of mischievous deviltry which prompted that act, also prompted the wicked jocularity over the sacred person of our Redeemer, he would have made some remark to call our attention to it; but he has made no comment whatever. Like an honest and impartial witness, he has related facts, and left motives out of consideration, because he had nothing to do with them.

The second view, however, may be correct. The Jews may have thought that the young man was a disciple, or at least a friend of Jesus, and may have wished to apprehend him, either to appear as a witness against his Master, or to share his fate. John tells us of the anxiety of the high-priest to find out from Christ who were his disciples: "The high-priest then asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine." It is evident from this, that the Jews either thirsted for the blood of the disciples as well as that of their Lord, or that they wished to get from them testimony which would serve to convict him. The third emphatic denial of Peter somewhat strengthens this view. We are told, a little further on in the narrative, that when Peter was charged for the third time with being a disciple, "He began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak."

We think it exceedingly probable that Peter, while standing warming himself by the fire, heard many savage threats against the disciples as well as their Master, and that it was this that made him so fearful of being thought even an acquaintance of Jesus. To this it may be objected, that no insults were offered to John. But John's intimacy with the high-priest was his best protection; and we find too, that such was the estimation in which he was held by the household of Caiaphas, that he had influence enough with the porteress to secure the admission of Peter. John xviii. 16. And this influence is directly ascribed to the fact that he "was known unto the high-priest." So that the courteous treatment of John shows nothing as to what would have been the treatment of the other disciples had they been apprehended. The relations between John and the high-priest may have been such that the latter was reluctant to have him even appear as a witness in the trial of Christ. But whether this be so or not, it is certain that for some purpose the Jews wished to seize the disciples in the garden. Why then did they not accomplish their object? The passover took place at full moon, when the nights were bright and every object distinctly visible. The arresting party were large enough to capture all the disciples. They were led by a competent guide, familiar with the place and all the avenues of escape. How happened it then that they failed to carry out their designs? How was it that they permitted so many of their intended victims to escape? Matthew and Mark, who alone speak of the flight of the disciples, afford us no clue to the mystery. But John gives us certain hints, which enable us to ascertain how it was that the disciples could evade the vigilance of their enemies. First of all, we learn from him that it was a dark night, and therefore favourable to their escape. He speaks of the "lanterns and torches" carried by the band which came from the chief priests and elders. These lights would have been entirely unnecessary, had not the moon been obscured by clouds. It would seem that all nature sympathized with the glorious sufferer. The moon withdrew her light from the indignities offered his sacred person in Gethsemane. The sun veiled his face from witnessing the cruelties of Calvary. The earth shook, the rocks rent, and the graves were opened', but man was then as man is now, more insensible than sun and moon, earth and rocks, yea, than the very dead in the grave.

John, moreover, is the only Evangelist who speaks of Christ's interposition in behalf of his disciples, "If, therefore, ye seek me, let these go their way," and of the arresting party's overthrow. Putting the three statements of John together, we are no longer at a loss to account for the escape of the disciples. The darkness of the night favoured them, the interposition of their Master favoured them, and the fright and confusion of the Jews after they were hurled to the ground, favoured them.

41. So, then, we see that whichever view is taken of the seizure of the "young man having a linen cloth cast about his naked body," there will be a strong proof of the credibility of Mark as a witness. For our own part, we are inclined to think that the whole thing was a riotous frolic. Mark does not say that the band seized the young man, but that " The young men (neaniskoi,) laid hold on him." We do not know whether he means to designate by this term, youthful persons or servants. Olshausen supposes that the latter are meant. The epithet boy was then, as now, applied to a slave of any age. Whether youths or servants, they were just the sort of persons to engage in a piece of cruel fun, which was of too undignified a character for the Roman soldiers and civil posse. If our opinion be correct, there is strong, internal evidence of the truth of Mark's Gospel. He has related an incident, which accords exactly with all that experience and history teach of the sportive cruelties of the wicked; and which accords well with the malignant buffoonery practised afterwards in the house of Caiaphas.

If, however, we take the second view, and suppose that the young men were desirous to catch a disciple, the question arises, Why did they let the disciples escape? And there we find that John, who had said nothing about the flight of the disciples, affords the only explanation that we have in regard to their slipping out of the hands stretched forth to grasp them. The second view will furnish as strong an argument as the first, for the credibility of the witnesses. A natural and undesigned explanation by one witness, of an incident related by another, is an incontrovertible proof of the truthfulness of both.

The 54th verse states that Jesus was brought to the high-priest's house, and Matthew and Mark employ similar language. And but for the parallel passage in John, we would naturally infer that Christ was taken from the garden directly to the palace of Caiaphas. John however tells us, that he was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, a man of great influence with the Jews. He had himself been high-priest, but had been deposed by Valerius Gratus, the Roman Procurator under the Emperor Tiberius. His son Eleazer was made high-priest some time after his deposition, and now his son-in-law, Caiaphas, was in the seventh year of his administration, as head of the Jewish Church. The house of Annas may have been nearer to the garden than was that of Caiaphas, and the arresting party would naturally stop to show their prisoner to a man who had been high-priest himself, and who was the father of one high-priest, and the father-in-law of another. That the party did stop, John leaves us no room to doubt. But it is, and has long been, a disputed question, whether any of the events recorded by the Evangelists, took place in the house of Annas.

That we may the better understand the point at issue, it will be necessary to examine verses 13 to 24, of the eighteenth chapter of John: — "And led him (Jesus) away to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was the high-priest that same year. Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high-priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high-priest. But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple which was known unto the high-priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art thou not also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not. And the servants and the officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, for it was cold; and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. The high-priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by, struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high-priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high-priest."

Many learned commentators suppose that Annas was the high-priest that propounded the foregoing questions; that it was in his house Jesus was struck by the brutal officer, and that it was in his house Peter denied his Master. Olshausen expresses himself on the subject in these words: "In ancient times it was proposed to solve the difficulty (in regard to the place of the denial of Peter and the assault upon Christ) by very violent means: verse 24 was placed immediately after verse 13. One manuscript has this reading still; and in the Philoxenian translation, verse 24 is marked on the margin as interpolated. But the difficulty is more easily removed by taking the 'had sent,' (apesteile,) in verse 24, as the pluperfect tense. Thus everything related concerning the trial of Christ, and the denial of Peter, would be referred to the palace of Caiaphas.

"Lücke and Mayer declare themselves entirely in favour of this hypothesis; and the enallage thus assumed, certainly involves no essential difficulty. Compare Winer' 's Grammar, page 251, where many passages quoted from profane writers, prove that the aorist may be employed for the pluperfect. But the absence of any particle of transition, as well as the position of verse 24, seems wholly adverse to the hypothesis. Had the words stood after verse 18, such an assumption would have been more tenable; as it is, it would involve at least extreme negligence in John as a writer. If we confine ourselves to John, it seems clearly his intention to inform us that a trial took place in the palace of Annas, and that Peter was present in that palace. Without the synoptical narratives, no one could have understood him differently. For these reasons, I declare myself, with Euthymius, Grotius, and others, favourable to the supposition that John intended to correct and complete the synoptical accounts, and therefore he supplies the notice of the examination in the palace of Annas. That there can be an error in the account of John, we cannot imagine, for he was an eye-witness, and has narrated the circumstances with care and minuteness; so minute is he in this part of his history, that he has given even the kinship of the high-priest's servant, (xviii. 26;) what he has added concerning the examination by the high-priest (vers. 19, 23,) has no resemblance to that held before Caiaphas, and therefore cannot possibly be identified with the latter."

We have given the arguments of Olshausen in full, because we are constrained to differ with him, Neander, Dr. David Brown, and all who entertain the opinion that there was an examination of Christ before Annas. It will be seen that this eminent critic gives three reasons for supposing that the occurrences recorded in the foregoing extract from John, took place in the palace of Annas. We will notice these in their order. The first is, that there is no particle of transition from the 23d verse to the 24th verse. To this we answer, that many editions of the Greek text do have a particle of transition. The text used by the translators of King James's Bible contained it, and "now" has been given us as its equivalent in English, "now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas," &c.

It may be well to explain to the reader acquainted only with the English translation, that the word rendered "now" is not an adverb of time, but what is called a Greek particle — a kind of expression which depends for its meaning very much upon the context. Winer has shown that the particle we are considering, is used when a conclusion is to be drawn from some antecedent statement, and that it has consequently a wide range of signification. He has shown that this particle (oun) in addition to its usual meaning, "therefore," might be rendered "so," in Acts xxvi. 22; "now," in Romans xi. 19; "then," in Matt, xxvii. 22, &c. And we find accordingly, that the translators of King James's Bible have rendered it, "now," in the 18th verse of the eighteenth chapter of John, "now Caiaphas was he, which had given counsel, &c." The obvious intention of the particle in that verse, is to call attention to the fact that Jesus was to be tried by a man who had already prejudged him, and that therefore, the issue of the trial could not be doubtful. Beyond all question, the particle has there the force of "be it remembered," "take heed to the fact," "mark," &c.; — Be it remembered that this was the same Caiaphas, which had given counsel, &c. We think that oun has the same meaning in the 24th verse. The Evangelist, after telling how Jesus had been struck when on trial, and therefore under the protection of the court, adds as an aggravation of the offence, that the prisoner was bound. It would be mean to strike a prisoner, but doubly mean to strike a bound prisoner. And so the Evangelist felt, and he therefore said, "Be it remembered that Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas." Nor is this exposition affected by leaving out the particle, and it is left out in Bagster's edition of the Greek text, likewise in Knapp's, and probably also out of most of the best editions. The only difference will be, that in this case, John gives utterance to his own indignation at the thought that a bound prisoner had been struck, without seeking by word or comment to make us share in his anger. And this absence of comment is so characteristic of the Evangelists, that it almost amounts to a demonstration of the interpolation of the particle.⁴

Olshausen's second reason for thinking that part of the recorded proceedings against Christ, took place in the house of Annas, is that verse 24, according to any other view, would be out of place. This is assertion and not argument, and can be appropriately answered, by saying that verse 24 is just where it ought to be, after the 23d verse, and before the 25th verse.

The third reason is, that what is related above by John could not have taken place at the palace of Caiaphas; because the trial before the high-priest, as recorded by the first three Evangelists, bears no resemblance to this recorded by the last Evangelist. To this, it may be replied, that John does not diverge more widely from the first three writers in regard to the trial, than he does in regard to the scene in the garden. And we might use the same form of argument to prove that there were two Gethsemanes, as well as two trials before Jewish officials. We think, moreover, that Olshausen is mistaken in asserting that there is no resemblance in the trial, as described by John, from the 13th to the 25th verse, and that referred by the other Evangelists to the palace of Caiaphas; for, to our mind, there is a most happy correspondence. John tells us, that when the high-priest asked Jesus " of his doctrine," he was answered, "Ask them which heard me." Matthew and Mark show us how Caiaphas and his coadjutors availed themselves of the hint, and how they did "ask of them which had heard him." "Now the chief priests and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death."

In support of the opinion, that there was but one formal trial of Christ before the Jewish dignitaries, the following reasons may be given.

First. John introduces both Annas and Caiaphas in the 18th verse, and he is careful to tell us that the latter was the high-priest. The natural and fair inference then is, that when John speaks of the high-priest in the 15th, 16th, 19th, 22d, and 24th verses, he means Caiaphas, and not Annas. And it is not at all likely that John would make any mistake in the employment of the title, high-priest. He was a Jew, and could not have been careless in an allusion to the head of the Jewish Church. For the same reason, Matthew and Mark could not have erred in the use of the same term. John, however, would have been far less apt to be wrong, because his intimacy with the high-priest, and even the very domestics of the highpriest, forbids any such supposition.

Second. Winer shows that the word rendered " had sent," (apesteilen,) though an aorist, has been properly translated as a pluperfect; and he quotes Kuinöl and Lücke as his endorsers. This word (apesteilen) then refers to some antecedent period; and the sense of the 24th verse is, therefore, "Annas, some time previous, had sent Christ bound to Caiaphas;" and not, "Annas, the preliminary examination being over, now sends Christ bound to Caiaphas." This shows clearly that the Evangelist means to tell us, that Christ had been sent to Caiaphas before the denial by Peter and the cowardly assault by the Jewish officer.

Third. The hypothesis that the 24th verse is simply the soliloquizing comment of John upon the atrocious conduct of the Jewish officer, relieves the whole subject of all difficulty; and it is the only supposition that is not attended with any embarrassment.

Fourth. This hypothesis gives us a characteristic feature of John's style of writing. It is entirely like him to think aloud, as it were, of the aggravated wickedness of the blow, and yet not to make any eifort to excite our indignation on account of it.

For these reasons, we think that there was no trial in the house of Annas, and that the Jews merely stopped there a few minutes to exhibit their prisoner, and then passed on. This is the opinion of most commentators — Whitby, Doddridge, Scott, Clarke, &c. Whitby says, " Of his being sent to Annas, the other Evangelists say nothing, because nothing was done to him there; but all was done in the palace of Caiaphas." Doddridge transfers verse 24, and places it immediately after verse 13. He also renders apesteilen according to its strict aorist signification, and not as a pluperfect. The connected verses then read, "And led him away to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was the high-priest that same year. And Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas." This makes good sense. But in addition to the fact, that the most eminent Greek scholars are against Doddridge, in his rendering of apesteilen, and that the best copies of the original text are against the transposition of verse 24, the internal evidence is strongly in favour of the correctness of the English translation of the verse in dispute. This violent wresting of it out of its place, deprives it of its force, significance, and life-blood. It is clear to our mind, that the verse is in its right place, and that it was intended solely to show the enormity of striking a helpless, bound prisoner.

Adam Clarke thinks that there were no proceedings against Christ in the palace of Caiaphas, but he has a difficulty in coming to this conclusion. The particle in verse 24 troubles him. He says, "John xviii. 15-23, seems to intimate that these transactions took place at the house of Annas, but this difficulty arises from the insertion of the particle 'therefore' (oun) in verse 24, which should have been left out, on the authority of ADES Mt. B II; besides that of some versions, and of the primitive Fathers. Griesbach has left it out of the text."

It is obvious that the trouble, with this eminent scholar, has arisen from his misunderstanding of the design of John in writing the 24th verse. The presence or the absence of the particle has no material bearing upon what we believe to be the true exposition. For, retain the particle, John then calls upon us to notice the baseness of striking a prisoner in bonds; reject the particle, John then mentions, without comment, that the smitten prisoner was bound.

42. We see, therefore, that there is the most perfect agreement among all the Evangelists in regard to the place of Peter's denial. They all locate it in the palace of Caiaphas. Had they fabricated a fiction together, and related it in precisely the same words, there would not have been more exact correspondence in their statements than we actually find to exist. But it is evident that John at least had no understanding with the others, as to what he should say. For, with the simple-hearted earnestness of a man intent only upon communicating what he saw and heard, he has told his tale without any regard to its conformity with the accounts of the other Evangelists. In fact, so utterly indifferent has he been in reference to this matter, that he has used an expression which has sorely puzzled the most eminent biblical students. This independence of manner in narrating facts, united with the most complete harmony as to the facts themselves, is irrefragable proof of the credibility of the Gospels. It would have been no difficult task for John, writing after the other Evangelists, to have adapted his narrative to theirs. But it is a notable circumstance that most of the alleged discrepancies are between his statements and those of the first three writers. We trust to be able to show that these discrepancies are harmonies in disguise. But even if this be not shown, there will still remain the incontestable truth that every page of the record of the last of the Evangelists, bears marks of his own idiosyncrasy, and of his entire freedom from being trammeled by the accounts of the preceding writers. Does this look like fraud? Does it look like a "cunningly devised fable"? Does it look like the contrivance of artful and designing men?

If three witnesses had given their testimony with respect to a certain matter, and a fourth, who knew their evidence, should be regardless of conforming his statements to theirs, no intelligent jury could be made to believe that there had been any preconcert among the four. Whatever might be thought of the individual truthfulness of the men, they could not at least be accused of concocting together a falsehood. The absence of everything that looked like pre-arrangement would afford a strong presumption of their integrity. And this presumption would be changed into proof, when their several testimonies, though variant in word and manner, were found, after rigid investigation, to be beautifully accordant in even the smallest particulars.

2) Campbell, in Ms Four Gospels, strengthens this view of Christ's voluntary death, by his rendering of Mark xv. 44. "And Pilate was amazed that he was so soon dead."

3) John employs the same Greek word to express the rank of him who struck the blow, as he had used to denote the official character of those who commanded the arresting party.

4) We have seen a very ancient version, which retains oun. The English equivalent is left out in Tyndale's Bible, but retained in the Bishop's Bible, and Genevan, as well as King James's Bible.