saying, "Behold, he is at hand, that doth betray me (Matt. xxvi. 46). Now, this prescience is, according to the concurrent testimony of all the evangelists, an emanation of the superior divine nature of Jesus. But, as has been before observed, the foreknowledge of the catastrophe in general, and of its phases in particular, cannot have been derived from any divine principle resident in Jesus, since, in that case, it could not have been coupled with false explanations of the prophecies. Will it be contended that he knew beforehand, by natural means, that he would have to suffer, and how he would have to suffer; and, by supernatural means, when this suffering was to commence ? This is an idea too absurd to be entertained. Thus, at any rate, falls to the ground the way in which the evangelists have presented this prescience, but not the prescience itself, which, in its origin, may have been quite natural, even whilst looked upon by the evangelists, and, perhaps, also by the disciples, as supernatural. Now, this natural prescience is, in its turn, to be explained in two ways, since it may have been derived from exterior observation, and judicious reasonings on the part of Jesus, or from an internal immediate presentiment. In adopting the first hypothesis, Paulus supposes that Jesus remarked at a distance the party sent to apprehend him leaving the town with lighted torches, and that having latterly discovered the plot in which Judas was engaged, he could easily conjecture their errand. Weisse prefers to suppose that it was an immediate and irresistible presentiment with which Jesus, on this evening, was possessed, and which was the cause also of his violent emotion. These two explanations are possible; and one or the other is necessary, if anything historical is to remain of the description which the evangelists give of the events of this evening. But the choice between the two must always remain difficult and doubtful, inasmuch as these authors have adopted an altogether different method of explaining this prescience.

§ CXXIV.

Arrest of Jesus.

Jesus had just declared to his disciples, overcome with sleep, that the traitor was that moment approaching, when his words were immediately realised; whilst he was yet speaking, Judas approached with an armed force (Matt. xxvi. 47, and parallel passages; compare John xviii. 3). This party, according to the synoptics, was sent by the high-priests and the elders, and was even conducted, according to Luke, by "the chief-priests and captains of the Temple;" consequently, it was probably a detachment of the soldiers of the Templeto which, it appears, were added a tumultuous mob, as we may conjecture from the employment of the word "multitude," and from the allusion to "staves," with which some of them were armed. In John, mention is made, besides the servants of "the chief-priests and pharisees," of a "band" of men and "officers," without any notice of a tumultuary assemblage; it would appear, according to this narrative, that the Jewish authorities had required the assistance of a Roman detachment.

According to the three first evangelists, Judas immediately came forward and kissed Jesus, in order, by a sign previously agreed upon, to point out to the party the person whom they were to arrest; on the contrary, according to the fourth evangelist, Jesus "went forth out of the garden, or of a house in the garden, presented himself before the persons who were come to arrest him, and described himself as the individual they were in search of. To conciliate these divergent statements, some have represented the thing to have occurred in this way; Jesus, in order to prevent the arrest of his disciples, advanced at once to the front of the party, and announced himself; then Judas advanced from the ranks of the company and pointed out his person

by kissing him. But if Jesus had already declared himself, Judas might have spared himself this kiss; for, to say that the people did not believe the declaration of Jesus, and waited for the confirmation by the kiss of the traitor, is a reason which cannot be admitted, since, according to the fourth evangelist, the words "I am he," made such an impression on them that they went backwards and fell to the ground, or rather fell backwards to the ground. Others, disposing the scene differently, have thought that Judas, advancing, pointed out Jesus in the first instance by the kiss, but that even before the entrance of the party into the garden of the house, Jesus went forth to meet them and declare himself. But Judas having already betrayed him by the kiss, and Jesus having comprehended the object of this kiss, as is shown by the answer which he made to it (Luke xxii. 48), it was no longer necessary for him to declare himself, since he was already betrayed. As to the observation that Judas was so far in advance of the party that it was not possible for them to perceive the kiss (which was only intended as a signal for them), it is not only absurd in itself, but also in direct contradiction with the fifth verse, in which it is said that Judas "stood with them," that is, with the crowd. Besides, if we consider that Jesus, between the kiss of Judas and the entrance of the multitude, which certainly must have been nearly simultaneous, addressed questions and observations, to those who came to lay hands upon him, we invest his conduct with a haste and a precipitation which, in such circumstances, is so unbecoming, that the evangelist had no idea of attributing it to him. We must then acknowledge that neither of the narratives was intended for the completion of the other; for each represents differently the manner in which Jesus was recognised, and the part which Judas had in the affair. All the gospels agree in saying that Judas was a "guide to them that took Jesus" (Acts i. 16). But whilst, according to the narrative of the synoptics, Judas not only indicated the place, but also pointed out the person by means of

a kiss, according to John, the act of treason is limited to the indication of the place; and, on his arrival there, Judas remained inactive amongst the rest," and Judas ....stood with them." It is easy to perceive why John has not devolved on Judas the work of personally designating Jesus; it is in order that Jesus might appear not as a man who was delivered up, but as a man who gave himself up, and in order that his passion might partake, in the highest degree, of the character of a voluntary passion. It is only necessary to recollect how, in all ages, the adversaries of Christianity have looked upon the retreat of Christ from the town, and his hiding in a garden, as a shameful flight from before his enemies, in order to conceive that it must early have been the desire of the Christians to give to his conduct, at the time of his arrest, more of the character of a voluntary sacrifice than it had in the ordinary evangelical tradition.

Whilst, in the synoptics, the kiss of Judas provokes a bitter question on the part of Jesus, addressed to the traitor, John relates that the words "I am he," pronounced by Jesus, had the power to send back the multitude and make them fall to the earth, insomuch that Jesus was obliged to repeat his declaration, and to encourage them to lay hands on him. In these latter days it has been pretended that there is no miracle in all this, that the impression produced by Jesus had thus acted psychologically on those of the company who had previously had occasion to see and hear him. Examples of this action have been cited from the lives of a Marius, a Coligny, and others. But neither the

* What has been said of the murder of Coligny is false, of which any one, who will take the trouble to open the book quoted by Tholuck, may be convinced, "Serrani commentariorum de statu religionis et reipublice in regno Galliæ, lib. 10, p. 32, b. The murderer was not in the least withheld from the execution of his design by the firmness displayed by the old man. Compare also Schiller, Werke, 16, Bd. S. 382, f. 384; Ersch et Gruber, Encycl. 7, Bd. S. 452 f. But such inaccuracies in modern history should not surprise us on the part of a man who, in another place (Glaubwürdigkeit, S. 437) makes the Duke of Orleans, father of Louis Philippe,

synoptical narrative, according to which it was necessary that Jesus should be pointed out by a kiss, nor the narrative of John, according to which it was requisite that he should himself proclaim who he was, gives any intimation that he was at all known by any of this multitude, and, above all, that he was so known as to be able to produce any deep impression upon them. As to the examples quoted, they only prove that, occasionally, the strong impression produced by the appearance of a man has paralysed the hands of his murderers, but they do not prove that an entire band of agents, of magistrates, and soldiers, have either withdrawn from the presence of their victims, or fallen to the ground. To what purpose is it that Lücke first makes a few of them to fall down, and then the whole company, so that it is impossible to look upon the affair in a serious light? Or to what purpose is it that Tholuck, in order to have but a small number of men in the narrow confines of a house in the garden, translates by "enter" a verb which signifies to "go out" (ewv)? We return then to the ancient commentators, who have generally looked upon this as a miracle. The Christ who overthrows by a word of his mouth his banded enemies is no other than he who, according to II. Thess. ii. 8, "shall consume the Anti-christ "by the spirit of his mouth," that is to say, that he is not the Christ of history, but of the imagination of the Jews and the first Christians. The compiler of the fourth gospel, in particular, who had so often remarked how the enemies of Jesus and their agents had been frustrated in their efforts to lay hands upon him, because his hour was not yet come (vii. 30, 32, 44, et seq.; viii. 20) had, now that his hour was arrived, a motive for causing the striking failure of this last and real attempt; the more especially as this was fully in accordance with the interest inspired by his description of the entire scene, namely, the representation of the arrest of

to be the brother of Louis XVI. How can a person acquainted with so many things as Dr. Tholuck is, be expected to know them all with scrupulous accuracy!