men each; which were under the command of their proper chiliarchs. These divisions were subdivided into ten "Spire" or bands, which consequently comprised about 120 men in each, and these were commanded by the centurions: three of these spiræ constituted a cohort (Pol., lib. xi., 23). But this appears to have been a temporary formation only for occasional services. Schleusner-verb, oneîpa-quotes Lepsius, De Militia Rom., lib. i., 4, for his authority, that this σTeipa was formed of the tenth part of a legion; whereas it was plainly the fortieth part according to Polybius,-being the tenth part of the chiliarchates, or fourth of the entire legion. But in either case the number appears out of all proportion to the occasion of such a midnight capture of our Lord amidst his apostles. It is altogether incredible besides, that if such an armament was necessary to capture our Saviour, it would not have been more necessary at his crucifixion; where the Gospel shews us very plainly, there were only four soldiers present; for the soldiers divided his garments into four parts, to each one of them a part; and for his vesture did they cast lots.

This last fact shews the non-military importance attached to the proceeding by the Roman governor; who consigned that portion of the duty to what we should call in England a common corporal's guard. And taking the whole of the evidences together, it seems to us, that the weight of authority induces a conclusion that the Roman military interfered very little with the events of our Lord's death; and not at all till Pilate, after repeated attempts to dissuade the Jews to desist from their purpose of putting him to death, delivered our Lord over to the common guard on such occasions: a mere quaternion of soldiers, with perhaps the captain of their company in attendance, charged with seeing the execution of the sentence. And this is the more probable, because the prophecy, which timed the departure of the judicial sceptre from the Jews, requires that departure to concur with the exact time, in which the Jews rejected their proper king and condemned themselves to another sceptre, which proved their destroyer. Truly in that cry, "We have no king but Cæsar;" was terribly fulfilled the former things; "that to the people, who refused the waters of Shiloah, that went softly, and rejoiced in Rezin and Remaliah's son, the Lord brought up upon them the waters of the river strong and many: even a king, whose power passed through Judah, and overflowed even unto the neck; the stretching out of whose wings filled the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel !”

H. M. G.

THE LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S MINISTRY.

THE purpose of the following paper is to combine into one consecutive narration the accounts given by the four evangelists of the last year of our Lord's ministry, namely, from the feeding of the five thousand to the triumphal entry into Jerusalem; and in so doing, we shall direct our attention especially to the information which they give us concerning his journeyings during that period.

This is in some respects one of the most perplexing portions of the gospel history to the harmonizer; and that not so much from apparent contradiction between one or another of the evangelists, as from their seeming to move in altogether different spheres of narrative. Matthew and Mark indeed exhibit a very close parallelism; but Luke, who from the commencement of our Lord's ministry, has generally been found in tolerably exact accordance with either one or the other of them, now branches off into an altogether different track, inserting ten chapters which are mainly occupied with the account of our Lord's parables and other discourses, arranging these apparently without any very strict regard to the chronological order, but interspersing here and there a hint of some historical sequence, which it seems difficult to harmonize with that of the two former evangelists. Further, the discourses at Jerusalem, and the increasing hostility to Jesus, shewn by the Jews of Judæa, become now more than ever the one all-absorbing theme of the evangelist John, so that we find in his narrative scarcely a trace of that farewell ministry in Galilee, which is the chief subject of the other three.

Before we proceed to unravel this tangled skein, let us say a few words as to the depreciating tone, which has lately been adopted by some scholars, especially by Mr. Alford, in reference to the labours of the harmonizer. With many of his remarks, we agree and if the definition of the harmonizer necessarily includes the claim to pronounce with dogmatic certainty on the sequence of all the events of the gospel history,-or the arbitrary assumption of the order of one of the four historians, as the only and universally correct order, to which the other three must in all cases of difficulty be twisted and accommodated,—or more absurd still, so slavish a conception of the meaning of the term historic truth, as to imagine himself bound to contend for the two-fold or three-fold occurrence of almost every

miracle and discourse, rather than admit that each of the synoptical gospels sometimes follows the order of subject in preference to that of time; if these be the necessary fruits of the harmonizer's labour, then we subscribe ex animo to Mr. Alford's censure. But the attempt to frame one consolidated narrative out of the four which we possess, honestly stating the difficulties where they arise, and recognizing the low degree of probability which after all our labour will necessarily attend some of our hypotheses: this seems to us an undertaking of a wholly different kind, and one which every enquiring student of the gospels who believes that it is in reality but one life whereof they all bear witness, must necessarily enter upon to some extent, consciously or unconsciously, in the course of his reading.

To proceed then with a detailed enquiry into the points of agreement and difference between the four histories. They all coincide at the miracle above mentioned, the feeding of the five thousand. This is in Matt. xiv., Mark vi., Luke ix., John vi. Moreover all but Luke record the miracle of our Lord's walking on the sea of Gennesaret, the main difference being that John alone records the very important conversation which he held with the staggered, yet still unbelieving, Jews, who followed him to Capernaum.

From the point above mentioned to the triumphal entry, which is described in Matt. xxi., Mark xi., Luke xix., John xii., we have no instance of any one event recorded by all the four evangelists. Especially the paths of John and of the other three which have momentarily coincided, now fall back into their old divergence. John, according to his custom, relating exclusively the history of our Lord's ministrations in and near Jerusalem, the other three, mainly those in Galilee.

Let us examine them in detail, commencing with John. From chapter vii. we learn that "after these things" (our Lord's desertion by many of His disciples on account of the "hard sayings" which He had uttered to the Jews at Capernaum), "Jesus walked in Galilee, for he would not walk in Judæa, (A.V. Jewry,) because the Jews sought to kill him." No doubt in this verse the history of a considerable portion of time is briefly alluded to, but as almost everything which happens out of Judæa is as though it were not, for this apostle's object, he proceeds at once (ver. 2) "Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand" and then goes on to say, how our Lord's brethren tauntingly urged him to go up to attend this feast, and show Himself to the people; how He refused to go then at their bidding, and "abode still in Galilee" but afterwards "about the middle of the feast went up unto it, not openly, but as it were in secret." The remainder

of the seventh chapter is taken up with the narrative of his teachings to the people during this feast, and of the abortive attempt of the Pharisees to arrest him in the temple; it ends with the words, “ Καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ,” in which (if they be genuine) we may possibly trace a faint allusion by contrast to their temporary dwellings, during the continuance of the feast. The feast of tabernacles lasted from the fifteenth to the twenty-second of the seventh month, Tisri (roughly corresponding to our October). It was incidentally mentioned (John vi. 4) that the feeding of the five thousand took place at a time when “the passover, a feast of the Jews was nigh: " It occurred therefore in, or before, the first month Abib, and we thus get an interval of at least six months (possibly, but not probably, of eighteen) for that residence in Galilee, which is briefly noticed in ver. 1.

The eighth chapter, without any apparent interval of time records, (1) our Saviour's judgement on the woman taken in adultery, (the question touching the genuineness of this portion is immaterial to our present purpose); (2) a discourse uttered by him "in the treasury, as he taught in the temple;" and (3) (ver. 30) an address, possibly distinct from this, to those Jews who believed on him which led to the unbelieving Jews engageing in a discussion, which they ended by "taking up stones to cast at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple going through the midst of them, and so passed by” (πapήγεν).

The ninth chapter, continuing the narrative with the words "And as Jesus passed by" (Tapάywv), contains the history. of the cure of the man born blind, which was performed on the Sabbath day. This is followed by the parable of "the good shepherd" in the early part of the tenth chapter (verses 1-19). Verses 19-21 describe the division produced among the Jews: and here the uniformly consecutive history of our Lord's deeds and discourses during and immediately after the feast of tabernacles (which has occupied from chap. viii. 2 to x. 21) comes apparently to a close.

«Εγένετο δε τὰ ἐγκαίνια ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις καὶ χειμὼν ἦν· καὶ περιεπάτει ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἐν τῇ στοᾷ Σολομῶνος.” Such are the 22nd and 23rd verses of chap. x., in which there is nothing to oppose, but everything to favour the supposition that they do not form one continuous narrative with what has gone before. An interval of time there must be, if we are correct in supposing the preceding portion to have been continuous: for the feast of tabernacles occurred on the fifteenth of the seventh month Tisri, that of the dedication, on the twenty-fifth of the ninth,

Cisleu and it seems probable enough, that there was an intervening change of place, else, why the marked emphasis on the words ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις. It is no doubt a hazardous thing to conjecture what the under-current of thought in a writer's mind at a particular time may have been; but at least a probable explanation of a statement apparently so pleonastic, as that this great national feast (instituted for the sole purpose of commemorating the re-purification of the temple after its defilement by Antiochus Epiphanes) was held at Jerusalem, is that an intervening absence from Jerusalem was present to the apostle's mind, and induced him thus to note the fact, that that absence had terminated.

Verses 24-38 of the tenth chapter contain our Lord's memorable declaration of His oneness with the Father, drawn from Him by the questioning of the Jews "How long makest thou us to doubt? If thou be the Messiah, tell us plainly:"-followed by their attempt to stone, and then (ver. 39) to arrest Him (Tiάoaι avтov): "but He escaped out of their hand, and went away again beyond Jordan unto the place where John was at first baptizing," (probably "Bethabara," cf. John i. 28,) and there remained." The comparison between his mighty works, and the unmiraculous character of John's mission, the remembrance of which was still fresh in their minds, caused many in these parts to believe on him. It is manifest however that the full avowal of his divine nature made in chap. x. had stimulated the fury of the Jerusalem Jews to a point unknown before. Some subsequent allusions (John xi. 8, 47, 53, 54, and 57) shew the progress of this hostility in the more determined form which it had now assumed.

Chap. xi. 1-53 contains the account of our Lord's visit to Bethany, and raising of Lazarus, and of the deliberations of the Sanhedrim in consequence of this renewed and more wonderful manifestation of his power in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. (ver. 54) "Jesus therefore walked no more with boldness among the Jews” (οὐκ ἔτι παῤῥησίᾳ περιεπάτει ἐν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις. Ἰουδαίοι is here evidently used with strictness of the inhabitants of Judæa proper), "but went thence into the country near to the wilderness to a city called Ephraim, and there abode (διέτριβε, not έμεινε,) with his disciples” But by this time an interval of nearly four months must have elapsed since that first withdrawal from Jerusalem, which was recorded in the fourtieth verse of the tenth chapter; for that, as we have seen, took place immediately after the twenty-fifth of Cisleu (the ninth month), and now, as we learn from ver. 55, "the Jews' passover was nigh at hand," and various conjectures were afloat among the