whole world, confesses to them, to whom he brought aid, his own need of aid, and sought from them the help, which they could not afford. For prayer, Jesus withdraws a little from his disciples, and falls on his face upon the earth. In this prayer of the Redeemer, there is something striking in the entreaty, grounded on the power of the Almighty, to deliver him from the hour of anguish. Here in conjunction with the certain knowledge of the Father's will, a wish seems to be expressed in the Son, to depart from the will of the Father.— But in the first place, this prayer is not to be considered apart from the qualification; but not as I will, but as thou wilt.'In the first entreaty, only the weakness of the flesh is manifested, which the Savior must share or else his sufferings be only apparent and illusive; in the second entreaty, lies the expression of the conquering spirit. In the next place, it must not be overlooked, that the wish to be delivered from death and its pathway of pain, was not a sinful, but rather a pure, innocent, holy wish. Since death is the wages of sin, and as such, bitter to the sinful creature, for whom however, it is called in a certain respect, a deliverance from want and sorrow, how much more must it raise a shudder in the pure, spotless soul of Jesus! It would have betrayed a false fakir-like insensibility, if the Redeemer had gone forward to his death, without expressing from his very life and marrow, the shudder of his holy human soul, before the dark vale of the grave. Far from marring his holy image, this feature is even necessary to its perfection. A higher necessity now requires the overcoming of a feeling in itself entirely true. No compulsory will of the Father, forced the Son to his bitter death, since the god-like will of the Son was one with the Father's; but the conflict of absolute justice with mercy, in a word, the mystery of the work of human salvation demanded a satisfactory offering; and the voluntary entrance into this high necessity, which could not be without a severe struggle against human feeling, is found marked at this exalted, sacred moment. Upon the victory in Gethsemane, all was truly perfected, the will of the Father was taken into the very soul of Jesus, and as in a human struggle the mind is again at peace, when the determination is irrevocably taken, we now find it to be so at this point in the Savior's life.

After this victory over the assault of darkness, Jesus returns to his three disciples and finds them, notwithstanding his exhortation, sleeping. Addressing Peter, as the speaker among them, he called them again to watching and prayer, with the advice, that both lessened temptation. The connexion of

ideas in this passage, is evidently this: "giving way to sorrow and its results, presses back the ruling power of the spirit, and facilitates the way for the victory of the besetting sin; struggling against the overwhelming feeling, and prayer, which gives men a new power from the spiritual world, are security against temptation." Hence Christ remarks upon the weakness of human nature, which hinders the performance of what the nobler man chooses.

For the second and for the third time, the Savior goes to prayer, and upon his return again finds his disciples, beset, and entirely overcome by the power of darkness, sleeping. These three attacks by fear, stand parallel to the three steps in the history of the temptation. Luke alone speaks of the angel strengthening the sufferer. We may class this passage among those, in which the word angel is not to be understood as denoting any outward appearance or person: it appeared only to Christ, and probably merely in his spirit within. By the strengthening' of the angel, we are only to understand the influence of spiritual powers, which was extended to the Savior, struggling in the extremity of abandonment. As a physical expression of the dreadful struggle of the Savior, Luke speaks of "Sweat, as if it were drops of blood." Although according to medical statements, a bloody sweat may occur at the highest stage of anguish of soul, we must yet acknowledge, that in the words of Luke, nothing is expressly declared, but a comparision of the sweat to drops of blood.

In Matthew 26, 47 and following verses, the act of the arrest of Christ is narrated. After Jesus had gone through the hard struggle, tranquillity was restored to him, so that before Judas and the band, who accompanied him, he appeared in striking majesty. Uncertain, whether the disciples of Christ would defend him, the priests had not only taken some of the temple guards with them, but also a detachment of Roman soldiers. The soldiers had not only provided themselves with weapons, but also with torches and lanterns. Since it must (on account of the Passover) necessarily have been moonlight, these torches were provided, in case that the sky should be overcast, or that Jesus should conceal himself in the house or the garden. According to Matthew and Mark, Judas, who led the company, had agreed upon a sign, by which he would point out the person of Jesus; he was to kiss him. The words of Christ refer to the contrast, between the expression of love and friendship, and the sign of the base treachery of Judas: (Luke 22, 48,) Judas betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss. John 18, 4 and the following verses, gives us some more satis

factory account of what took place, on the approach of Judas with his band. The Lord, clearly aware of the signification of that moment, went to meet them, asked them whom they sought, and gave himself up to them, saying, 'I am he.' Here John 18, 6 states, that they started back, and fell upon the ground. We need not suppose a miracle in order to explain this circumstance; but the person of Jesus himself is the miracle, and the majesty, which shone forth from it, could easily produce a most powerful effect upon men, who probably had known of him, or heard him. We even find similar events in the life of men,before whom as in the case of Marius, mere rough physical force stood awed in subjection. The account in Matthew of the kiss of Judas, harmonises, as Lücke has remarked, very plainly with John's account, if we consider that Judas approached alone in advance of the others. When the Lord saw him, and Judas had kissed him, he went to meet the approaching band, in order to protect the disciples, and on this occasion, the armed men fell down, overcome by the power of his spirit.

The attempt of one disciple to defend himself with the sword spoken of in Luke, is so fully described, that he mentions the name of Peter as that disciple, (from whom indeed such rashness might be expected,) and also the name of the servant of the high priest, Malchus. John, in whose house Malchus was known, would readily give this information (John 18, 15.) According to John 18, 26, he was acquainted with the relatives of this Malchus. John and Luke remark, that it was the right ear that was cut off, but only Luke speaks of the sudden healing of the wound. This circumstance best explains the fact of Peter's being able to escape with impunity; astonishment at the cure, would of course engross all the attention of the hostile band. According to John 18, 11, our Lord besides bidding Peter put the sword in the scabbard, adds the significant words, the cup, which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?' Matthew gives the saying in more copious form. The incongruity of a long speech being made to Peter under these imminent, circumstances, is done away, by the consideration, that the words were spoken during the cure. All attention was directed to it, and this enabled Jesus to give Peter the necessary direction.

6

In the first place, as regards the words of Jesus, "they who take the sword shall perish with the sword." they refer without doubt to Peter, according to Genesis 9, 6. Violent self-defence, against the ordinances of magistrates, is likened to murder. Parallel with this the remark, suffer ye thus far,' is to

be considered; which has been supposed to refer to the hostile company, in the sense, allow me time' until I cure the ear of Malchus. The words have a more significant reference to the disciples, "desist, thus far and no farther."

In the next place the idea of the twelve legions of angels, is very remarkable. The number twelve may have been selected in reference to the number of disciples, and the word 'legion' refers evidently to the heavenly host;' so that in general the idea is, do you think that I need earthly aid from you, feeble ones! while the heavenly aid of the hosts of God is at my command?'

6

According to Luke 22, 53, the significant expression here comes in, this is your hour and the power of darkness.' The interpretation of Kuinoel-'this is the hour given you by God, for the execution of your plans, and the power of your sins' - is without doubt correct in the first part, but as to the second part, the expression power of darkness' does not apply to the sins of the multitude. 'Darkness' does not denote sins in this or that individual, for this is called' sin,' 'amartia,' but denotes the element of sin in general, the opposite of light.At the moment in which the Holy One of God, was led to the cross, by the sins of men, the power of evil had attained its highest point; on reaching the cross, its power was destroyed, and its nothingness revealed, while the death of the righteous expiated the sins of the world.

According to the prediction of the Lord, the disciples now dispersed. Mark 14, 51 speaks of a young man lightly clad, who was seized upon, but who fled and left his linen garment behind him. It is in my mind most likely, that Mark here speaks of himself.

SECTION THIRD:

EXAMINATION OF JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS AND THE SANHEDRIM.-PETER'S DENIAL.

[MATT. 26, 57-75. MARK 14, 53-72. LUKE 22, 54-71. JOHN 18, 12-27.]

The correct consideration of the scenes, which now present themselves to our eyes, requires a representation of the modes of administering justice among the Jews, at the time of Christ. It has already been remarked, that the Jews had lesser courts (called lesser Sanhedrim) in all their important cities; in all the cities, (as the Talmud states,) which con

tained over one hundred and twenty inhabitants. In Jerusalem, there were two of these. But the highest jurisdiction belonged to the great Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, which was composed of seventy one persons. The origin of this tribunal has been derived from Moses, who appointed the seventy elders, who with him constituted an assembly of seventy one. The name of 'Sanhedrim' being derived from the Greek, of course was given to the assembly at a much later period.Perhaps Ezra founded this tribunal, although its name arose first under the Græco Syrian dynasty. The constitution of the court was as follows. The officiating high priest was the president for the time being. They, who had formerly been high priests, and the twenty-four principals of the classes of priests and other considerable men, learned in the law, were members. They had a particular place for their meetings, although in affairs of emergency, they assembled at the house of the high priest, as was the case at the examination of Jesus. All important cases, especially all spiritual affairs belonged to the cognizance of this supreme tribunal.— Since they looked upon Jesus, as a false Messiah, they naturally brought his case before this tribunal. Had not their malice intended to put Christ to death, they might here have ended the process against him. For only forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and only three years before our Lord's death, the Romans took away from the Sanhedrim the jurisdiction over life and death, and on this account the delivering of the judgment was committed to Pilate. It is remarkable, that Christ was not led by the guard, to the officiating high priest, Caiaphas, but to his father-in-law, Annas. The latter had been formerly high priest, but according to Josephus, was removed in the reign of Tiberius, by the Procurator, Volerius Gratus. In his place Ismael was appointed, then Eleazor, the son of Annas, then Simon, the son of Camithus, and finally in the year twenty six, Joseph or Caiaphas, the son-inlaw of Annas. In all probability, this Annas, as formerly high priest, and father-in-law of two others, was a person of great consequence. Perhaps he was the substitute to supply the place of the officiating high priest, in cases of need, and on that account, the most difficult questions would first be subjected to his decision. Perhaps the palace of Annas was so situated, that the guard reached it first with their captive.He seems to have been kept here a long while, until the Sanhedrim was assembled at the house of Caiaphas, the son-inlaw of Annas. This opinion seems the more credible, as it is still uncertain, whether Annas wore this dignity; and since