admission, nor how it was effected, nor of any obstacles thrown in the way.

For these reasons, I understand the disciple known unto the high priest, to have been St. John. My argument now stands thus. The assault committed by Peter is mentioned by all the Evangelists, but the name of the servant is given by St. John only. How does this happen? Most naturally; for it seems, that by some chance or other, St. John was known not only unto the high priest, but also to his household-that the servants were acquainted with him, and he with them; since he was permitted to enter into the high priest's house, whilst Peter was shut out; and no sooner did he "speak unto her that kept the door," than Peter was admitted. So again, in further proof of the same thing, when another of the servants charges Peter with being one of Christ's disciples, St. John adds a circumstance peculiar to himself, and marking his knowledge of the family, that "it was his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off."

These facts, I conceive, show that St. John (on the supposition that St. John and the "other disciple" are one and the same) was personally acquainted with the servants of the high priest. How natural, therefore, was it,

that in mentioning such an incident as Peter's attack upon one of those servants, he should mention the man by name, and the "servant's name was Malchus," whilst the other Evangelists, to whom the sufferer was an individual in whom they took no extraordinary interest, were satisfied with a general designation of him, as "one of the servants of the high priest."

This incident also in some degree, though not in the same degree perhaps as certain others which have been mentioned, supports the miracle which ensues. For, if the argument shows that the Evangelists are uttering the truth when they say that such an event occurred as the blow with the sword-if it shows that there actually was such a blow struck; then is there not additional ground for believing that they continue to tell the truth, when they say in the same passage that the effects of the blow were miraculously removed, and that the ear was healed?

I am aware that there are those who argue for the superior rank and station of St. John, from his being known unto the high priest; and who may, therefore, think him degraded by this implied familiarity with his servants. Suffice it however to say,-that as, on the one

hand, to be known to the high priest does not determine that he was his equal, so, on the other, to be known to his servants does not determine that he was not their superior: furthermore, that the relation in which servants stood towards their betters was, in ancient times, one of much less distance than at present; and, lastly, that the Scriptures themselves lay no claim to dignity of birth for this Apostle, when they represent of him and of St. Peter, (Acts, iv. 13,) that Annas and the elders, after hearing their defence," perceived them to be unlearned and ignorant men.

XIX.

JOHN, Xviii. 36.-" Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered. to the Jews."

NOTHING could have been more natural than for his enemies to have reminded our Lord, that in one instance, at least, and that too of very recent occurrence, his servants did fight. Indeed, Jesus himself might here be almost

thought to challenge inquiry into the assault Peter had so lately committed upon the servant of the high priest. Assuredly, there was no disposition on the part of his accusers to spare him. The council sought for witness against Jesus; and where could it be found more readily than in the high priest's own house? Frivolous and unfounded calumnies of all sorts were brought forward, which agreed not together; but this act of violence, indisputably committed by one of his companions, in his Master's cause, and, as they would not have scrupled to assert, under his Master's eye, is altogether and intentionally, as it should seem, kept out of sight.

Had the Gospel of St. Luke never come down to us, it would have remained a difficulty, (one of the many difficulties of Scrip-. ture arising from the conciseness and desultory nature of his narrative,) to have accounted for the suppression of a charge against Jesus, which of all others would have been the most likely to suggest itself to his prosecutors, from the offence having been just committed, and from the sufferer being one of the high priest's own family; a charge moreover which would have had the advantage of being founded in truth, and would therefore have been far more

effective than accusations which could not be sustained. Let us hear, however, St. Luke. He tells us, and he only, that when the blow had been struck, Jesus said, "Suffer ye thus far and he touched his ear and healed him." (xxii. 51.)

The miracle satisfactorily explains the suppression of the charge-to have advanced it would naturally have led to an investigation that would have more than frustrated the malicious purpose it was meant to serve. It would have proved too much. It might have furnished, indeed, an argument against the peaceable professions of Christ's party; but, at the same time, it would have made manifest his own compassionate nature, submission to the laws, and extraordinary powers. Pilate who sought occasion to release him, might have readily found it in a circumstance so well calculated to convince him of the innocence of the prisoner, and of his being (what he evidently suspected and feared) something more than human.