Reu!III, Rnd with 11.U the rRtionaliet critioe, the thcologioal prepoBSessions or a Inter that it is difficult to understand how the writer, who imagined. the behaviour of tho apostle oould have reproduced 110 accurately inoa.rne.te Logos under theae conditions this wondroue disOOUl'BII and the prayer; without any real and deep rounde.tion in but the author pre.ctioally admit& that it reality. was a. supernatural process or memory (oh. By we.y of prere.ce to 11.ll expository trcnt- xiv. 25, 26). Still, there are faote enough ment, it is desirable to observe the.t John in the nature.I sphere Rnd within the know- throughout received impressions from his loo.ge or ell, that such extraordinary efforts Lord of a profoundly different ohe.ractor or memory are by no mesns uncommon. from the.t of the other ohMervers, and through- John was the contemporary of men whose out he 81\W the Divine manifestation which, surprising memory held the whole • Mishna' while they witnessed it, they did not pene- and thousands of illnstro.tive comments, tmte a.a he he.d done. The veil of the human ' Halnclla,' and 'He.gade.' ready for oonst.a.nt phenomena ooncee.led muoh from their spiri- referonc-e and applioa.tion. The rishis of tne.1 e,pprehension. The different manner in India., the Greek rhapsodiste, medimval which the ea.me event is described by two minueeingcre, and wandering bards, have witnesses, o.nd the different constructions had imprinted indelibly and verbo.lly on put upon the same action when viewed with their recollection um or twenty times the diverse presuppositions, is of too common bulk of this wondrous discourse. John WBB oconrrence to need illustre.tion. Luke re- young, impreeeionable,intimo.tely e.cque.inted presents the tro.dition concerning the Son with his Lord, though needing many things of me.n in the hour of his deepest dejection. to complete his a.ppreheusion of hie glory ; John represents what he saw of the ineffably and, even ape.rt from Divine or spiritua.1 aid. Divine element which triumphed over the there is no reason to dispute ite accuracy. human. The e.ngle of vision wns different, The impression that this discourse and the sensitive brooding e.nd susceptible pre.yer have produced on the genera.I con- ne.ture of John we.s unlike the impetuous sciousness of the Churoh, is, that none but human pe.ssion of Peter'd soul, end the result- Christ could have uttered these words, e.nd ant impression on them both of the whole he only at such a conjuncture. oycle of events was correspondingly different. Keim in.&i.sts the.t John, if it were he, by Then let it be noticed that John, who knew this narmti ve annihilates the 11)/'TIOptic tradi- the synoptic narrative, deliberately omitted twn of the agony in the garden. And we what had pe.ssed into nnivers&l oredence, do not deny the.t the intercalo.tion of the.t such as the Tro.nsfigure.tion, the Holy Supper, agony between this prayer e.nd the sublime aud the Ascension: why was he not at liberty manner in which Jesus meets the bnnd of to omit tbe agony in the garden and the eoldiere, rendem e. harmony of the Gospels traitor's kiss? He takes up his story after at thiJ3 point very difficult. The difficulty the surprise was over, and when the Lord hnd does not so much a.rise from the fact the.t resumed the tone of the voluntary Safferor the profoUDd and awful strife should follow =d Divine Saviour; and if we compe.re the upon this sublime and lofty cabn, upon this two descriptions of that scene, they supple- imperial. =d Divine prerogative, but that ment and exple.in one e.nother. Numerous throughout the Johan.nine recital of the incidents throughout th11 clpsing scenes, events which occurred on the night of be- which a.re omitted by John, a.re recorded by trayal a.ud P8.811ion, the same exalted de- one or more of the evangelists, and iDme mea.nouris preserved, and numerous incidents facts and words are peoulia.r to the J ohannine and so.yings are recorded which appear dis- narrative. These omissions from e.nd addi- crepant with the utter prostration and over- tions to the synoptic narrative have been whelming affliction revealed in the synoptic supposed to reveal the purpose of thti narrative. This controst must not be theologian rather th&n the record of the miniwiY.ed. e.nd can.not be disputed. The eye-witness. It is rashly asserted that John qlleStion to be decided is whether the two- omit& the symptoms of human weakness e.nd fold aspect of the scene can poetiibly repre- shame, e.na' exaggerate, the signs of .Divine sent the truth, or whether it proceeds from indwelling e.nrl of lofty prerog&tive. This, OJI, xvn. 1-28.) 'rHE GOSPEL A.CCORDING TO ST. ,JOHN. 855
however, Is by no means truo. He doe■ tho.t private interview. The ovangclish omit the ngony in the gnrden, but he gives Luke o.nd Matthew both record fee.tares nf in oh, xii. tho analogue of that awful scene, sorrow o.nrl words from the OlOl!II and por- and the 1ame Divine spirit with wbioh it tents attending tho Cmciflxion, which confor wns consumm11ted. Ho omits the " traitor's a royal prel'Oga.tive o.nd e. Divine eignifi- kiss," but ho hints tho oocurrenee of that cance· on his deo.th. The rending of the veil, crowning trenohery. He does omit the re- the confession of the centurion, the grent cord of the desertion by the disciples, but ee.rthqu11.ke, the supernatural darkness, the ( eh. xvi. 82) he rocords the prediction of it. repenlo.nce 11.nrl acceptance of the dying bri- He omits the incident of the fa.lee witness gand,-o.11 these we might reasonably expect, and the o.djnration, but it should in nil on the theory of theological prepossession, fairness be remembered that he also omitted to he.ve been found in the Fonrth Gospel: the grant confession of the Lord's Messio.h- o.nd what is more rome.rka.ble still on that ship and exaltation ; and while he po.s~es by hypothesis is that the most pecnliar and the inciclonts of the mockery of the Lord, pathetic feature of the la.at honrs is o.n exhi- he records other mo.tters nnd methods of bition of Christ's perfect humanity a.nu filial mockery which ore equally humiliating (eh. love, which the other narrators fail to touch xix. 12). If he omits the exnmine.tions (eh. xix. 25-27). We conclude, therefore, before Oo,iaphas and Herod, he givos that tho.t the matters in which the narratives which the synoptic tradition ho.d lost sight agree a.re abundant o.nd remarkable, and their of in the first exo.mination before Annas divergences cannot be accounted for on the and in the private interview with Pilnte. ground of theological bias. The exposition The hand-washing of Pila.to and the dream of the following chapters will bring the of bis wife a,ro pnssed over, but the conduct several lo.cunie, correspondences, and peou- of Pilato is made fe.r more intelligible by lia.rities into yet fuller prominence.