ation. He, therefore, may have mingled with the crowd, on that account. If the conversion of St. James were dated from this event, then, while the Evangelist would be willing to record the fact, prudential reasons might exist, for not mentioning his name. I would further observe, that, supposing the soldiers were commanded not to molest the eleven, nothing could be more natural, than for the other young men to seize, with indignation, upon one, whom they had considered as belonging to their own party, when, of a sudden, he professed his faith, and proclaimed himself a disciple, of him over whom they had triumphed.

NOTE (8), page 161.

Rosenmüller observes, that the Lord Jesus "may have been taken to Annas first, because his house lay in their way; and because, his authority being great with his son-in-law, Caiaphas, they wished to learn from him, what they were to do with the prisoner. Perhaps, also, as some suppose, Annas was prevented, by weight of years, from attending the nocturnal council, although they were desirous of obtaining his opinion and authority for what they had done."

Whitby remarks, that they may have gone first to Annas, because he was the Prince of the Sanhedrin.

St. Chrysostom says, that they went to Annas in triumph, overjoyed at having secured their victim, against whom Annas was particularly zealous, wc dǹ τρόπαιον στήσαντες.

NOTE (9), page 162.

Most commentators agree that St. John intends himself, when he writes of the other disciple who followed Jesus, and who was known unto the High Priest, xviii. 15. Rosenmüller remarks, that the contrary opinion, and all other conjectures, (which are collected and refuted by Kuinöel,) are highly improbable. St. Chrysostom observes, that St. John omitted the mention of his own name, from feelings of modesty. Yet, he wished it to be known, that he was present; and that, on this account, he had the means of describing accurately, and as an eye-witness, what took place in the hall. Instead, however, of taking credit to himself, for having advanced further into the hall than St. Peter, he accounts for the fact, by stating, that he was known to the High Priest. Having entered with Jesus, he struggled to remain close to him; and hence he was separated from St. Peter. In S. Joan. Hom. lxxxiii.

NOTE (10), page 164.

He did in

"What! did he say nothing in secret? deed; but not, as they supposed, with reference to the stirring up of seditions, and, consequently, what he would have feared to say openly. He merely said, in private, such things as were above the comprehension of the multitude." S. Chrysostom. in S. Joannem. Hom. lxxxiii.

NOTE (11), page 164.

Why smitest thou me?" Hence we learn," says Dr. Whitby, "that we are not literally to understand the precept, of turning the other cheek to him that smites us. For Christ himself did not this; but defends the innocency of his words: which also shows, that, to stand up in defence of our own innocency, cannot be contrary to the Christian duties of patience and forgiveness." Whitby on St. John, xviii. ver. 23.

Whenever a man feels it to be his duty, to assert the iniquity of unbelief, or the danger of misbelief; to silence the blasphemer, to shame the libertine, to expose the hypocrite; or manfully to defend those good old English principles, by which our Church has been rendered the bulwark of the Reformation, the cry is raised against him, by those who know not what Christianity is; and he is accused of acting contrary to the spirit of our religion, and the example of our Saviour. In this respect, a very erroneous estimate is too often formed, of our Lord's character. "In all ages of the Church," says the Bishop of Limerick, " it has been too common, to attenuate his gracious mildness, into a milkiness and tameness, quite remote from the Divine reality. Nor have the very best and ablest ecclesiastical writers been always mindful, when attempting to draw the character of Christ, of that overwhelming majesty, and that indignant severity of reproof, which, on fit occasions, he exhibited and employed, in his intercourse with presumptuous or hypocritical offenders."..." Commentators ought not to forget, that, in the keenest and most cutting reprehensions, there is often the most genuine mercy:

to offenders, that they may be reclaimed; to the innocent, that they may not be perverted."- Bp. Jebb. Sacred Literature, sect. xi.

NOTE (12), page 166.

"Why do all the Evangelists agree, in noticing the fact of Simon Peter's denial? Not to upbraid the Apostle; but to teach the danger of trusting to ourselves, instead of resigning ourselves wholly unto God." S. Chrysostom. in S. Joan. Hom. lxxxiii.

"Glory and success are the proper incitement of human courage; reproach and afflictions, the necessary exercise of Christian fortitude. When St. Peter was surrounded with swords and staves, he was nothing dismayed; his heart and his hand went together, in the cause of God. But yet, he who could fight for his religion, could not suffer for it. This shows, that the courage of a Christian is very different from that of the natural man; that it arises from other considerations, and is supported by other hopes and expectations: and it is in vain for you to promise to yourselves a superiority under trials and temptations, unless you lay the right foundation, by imploring the aid and assistance of God's Holy Spirit; whose province, only, it is, to confirm the faithful to the end." Bp. Sherlock. Discourses, vol. ii. dis. xvi.

NOTE (13), page 173.

St. Chrysostom is peculiarly happy, in the practical manner, in which he brings home the facts of the Gospel,

to the hearts of his people. He justly observes, “that the fervour of man will not suffice, without help from above; and that help from above will not avail, unless there be a ready will. These two points Judas and Peter prove. Judas, supported by great assistance, derived not benefit from this circumstance, because he was unwilling, and did not exert himself: whereas Peter, who had a ready will, nevertheless fell, because he had no assistance. For, of these two things, virtue is composed. Wherefore, I pray you, let us not slumber at our posts, leaving every thing to God; nor, when we are diligent, let us hope to do every thing that is right, by our own labours. God does not wish us to be supine, therefore he does not do every thing himself. But, on the other hand, he does not wish us to be arrogant, therefore he has not left all to ourselves. Taking away, on both sides, what is hurtful, he leaves us what is useful. On this account, he permitted his chief Apostle to fall, that he might render him more prudent, and increase his love. For, to whom much is given, of him much will be required."-Hom. in S. Matt. lxxxii. al. lxxxiii.