having power over the law. But of all this there is no trace in the New Testament.

Indeed, this whole theory of an anticipative passover, in whatever way explained, is totally irreconcilable with the exact and definite specifications of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that the day on which our Lord sent his disciples to prepare the passover, was the first day of unleavened bread, the day when it was necessary (d) that the passover should be killed; Matt. 27: 16. Mark 14: 12. Luke 22: 7.2

3. A later hypothesis attempts to remove the difficulty, by assuming that the paschal lamb was legally to be killed and eaten, not at the close of the fourteenth of Nisan, but at its commencement; that is, at the close of the thirteenth day and in the subsequent evening; so that the whole fourteenth day would intervene between the paschal supper and the festival of unleavened bread, which legally began on the fifteenth day. So first Frisch, and after him Rauch.3 But this hypothesis is in direct contradiction to Num. 33: 3, as also to Ex. 12: 6. Lev. 23: 5. Num. 9: 3, 5.4 Nor does it even remove the main difficulty; for it does not touch the question respecting John 18: 28; but leaves that passage, the most important of all, to be explained as we have done above.

It is painful thus to dwell upon these shifts of great and learned and often pious minds to escape from a supposed difficulty which in fact does not exist. Still more painful is it, to find professed teachers of the Bible, pressing the alleged difficulty to an extreme, in order to overthrow the authority of that Holy Book; and venturing sometimes upon assertions like that of De Wette, when he affirms that "the important contradiction between John and the other Evangelists remains firm; and all attempts to remove it are false !"5 We hold, on the contrary, that the four Evangelists all testify to one and the same simple truth; and that there exists among them no contradiction. The more we have examined, the more has our conviction been strengthened, that the testimony of John, fairly interpreted, here as well as elsewhere, is not only supplementary to, but confirmatory of, that of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

So J. H. Maius de Tempore Pasch. Chr. ultimo, 1712. Seb. Schmid de Paschate p. 398. Kühnoel ad Matt. 26: 17. F. Comp. Ideler Chronol. 1. p. 521. 2 See above, p. 413.

3 Frisch Abhandl. von Osterlamm. Lips. 1758. Rauch in Studien u. Kritiken, 1832. III. p. 537 sq. translated in Bibl. Repos. for 1834. Vol. IV. p. 108 sq. Contra, Gabler im Neuesten Theol. Journ. III. p. 433 sq.

See above, p. 406 sq. Bochart Hieroz. II. 50. P. 560.

♪ Handb. zu Joh. 13: 1.

1845.]

Literature of the Subject.

X. Literature.

435

The following are among the more important works, which treat in some detail of the subject of this article. The list, however, is by no means complete; neither is that given by Hase in his Leben Jesu,

124.

J. J. SCALIGER, Opus de Emendatione Temporum. fol. Genev. 1609. etc. p. 531.

I. CASAUBON, De rebus sacris et ecclesiast. Exercitt. XVI. ad Baron. Prolegom. etc. fol. Lond. 1614. etc. p. 426 sq.

J. CLOPPENBURG, Ep. de controversia inter Baron. et Casaub. de Agno paschali; in his Opp. Theol. Tom. I. Amst. 1684.

L. CAPPELL, 'Enixquois ad amicam se inter et Cloppenb. epist. collationem de ultimo Chr. paschate, etc. Amst. 1644. Also in Cloppenb. Opp. Theol. T. I.

S. BOCHART, Hierozoicon, lib. II. c. 50. p. 560 sq. ed. Leusden. -Comparatively little that is new, has been brought out on either side, since Bochart.

J. FRISCHMUTH, Diss. utrum agnum paschale Salvator eodem die cum Judaeis comederit, etc. Jena 1673. Also in Thesaur. Theol.philol. T. II. Amst. 1701-2.

D. PETAVIUS, De anno et die dominicae Passionis. In his Annott. ad Epiph. Col. 1682.

A. BYNAEUS, De Morte Jesu Christi, libri III. 4to. Amst. 1691-98.

B. LAMY, Harmonia seu Concord. quatuor Evangg. Par. 1689. Also, Commentarius in Harmon. 2 Tom. Par. 1699.

-

Traité hist. de l'ancienne Pâque des Juifs, où l'on examine à fond la question: si J. C. fit cette Pâque la veille de sa mort. Par. 1693.

S. LE NAIN TILLEMONT, Lettre au Lamy sur la dernière Pâque de notre Seigneur. In his Mémoires pour servir à l'hist. Ecclesiast. Tom. IL App.

Also, Harmonié ou Concorde Evangel.... suivant la methode et avec les notes de feu M. Toinard. Par. 1716.

H. WITSIUS, Diss. an Christus eodem quidem cum Judaeis die, sed non eadem, dici parte pascha manducaverit. In his Melett.

Leidens. p. 421 sq. Herb. 1717.

J. H. MAIUS, De tempore Pasch. Chr. ultimo. Giessen 1712.

A. CALMET, Diss. de la dernière Pâque J. C.

S. DEYLING, De J. C. die emortuali. In his Observatt. Sacrae P. L. Lips. 1735.

G. F. GUDE, Demonstr. quod Chr. in coena sua oravqwciμg agnum paschale non comederit, 4to. Lips. 1733. Also: Ed. 2, ab objectionibus Ikenii vindicata. Lips. 1742.

C. IKEN, Diss. de tempore celebratae a Serv. ultimae coenae paschalis. Brem. 1735. Diss. II. qua difficultates contra sententiam ds. adstructam moveri solitae diluuntur, P. L. II. Brem. 1739. — All these are found also in Iken's Dissertt. Phil. Theol. Tom. II. ed. Schacht, Traj. Bat. 1749, 1770. Diss. 9-11.-Also, Diss. qua contra Gudium demonstratur, quod Chr. oravoooov vere paschalem fuisse. Brem. 1742. Also in Dissertt. Phil. Theol. Tom. IL Diss.

12.

J. FR. FRISCH, Abhandlung von Osterlamm und dem letzten Osterlammstage Christi. Lips. 1758.

J. P. GABLER, Ueber den Anfang des Passahfestes bei den alten Juden, in his Nst. Theol. Journ. B. III.; also in his Kleinere Schriften B. I. Ueber die Anordnung des letzten Passahmahls Jesu, in Nst. Theol. Journ. B. II. Kl. Schrr. B. L. - Ob Jesus wirklich das Osterlamm gegessen habe? Ibid.

C. G. BRETSCHNEIDER, Probabilia de Evangelio Joannis. Lips. 1820. p. 102 sq.

L. USTERI, Comm. crit. in qua Evang. Joannis genuinum esse ex comparatis IV Evv. narrationibus de coena ultima et passione Chr. ostenditur. Turici 1823.

K. G. W. THEILE, Ueber die letzte mahlzeit Jesu. In Winer's Krit. Journ. B. II. p. 153 sq.-Noch etwas über d. letzte Mahlz. Jesu. Ibid. B. V. p. 129 sq.

H. E. GUERIKE, Versuch einer Vereinigung der evang. Relationen über d. letzte Mahlz. Jesu. In Winer's Krit. Journ. B. III. p. 257 sq.

J. H. RAUCH, Ueber d. letzte Passahmahl u. s. w. In Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1832. Heft. 3. p. 537 sq.-English: On the time of our Lord's last Passover and Crucifixion. In the Biblical Repository, 1834. Vol. IV. p. 108 sq.

M. SCHNECKENBURGER, Chronologie der Leidenswoche, in his Beitrr. zur Einleit. in N. T. Stuttg. 1832.

W. L. DE WETTE, Bemerkungen zu Stellen des Evang. Johannis. In Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1834. Heft 4. p. 939 sq.

See also the Commentaries on John, by CALVIN, LAMPE, KuiNOEL, PAULUS, LÜCKE, THOLUCK, H. A. W. MEYER, DE WETTE, etc. etc.

THE most exciting questions that are ever contested by mankind, have respect to the rights of individuals or communities. If lawsuits arise between neighbors,-if feuds between families or wars between nations, they are, generally, but conflicts for human rights. The numberless political partizans and orators that aim to guide popular opinion, the itinerating lecturers that swarm in almost every town and village, and even the mobs which break out in our cities recklessly wasting property and life, are all contending for the rights of the people in some of their varied relations, the rights of the poor, the rights of the rich,-the rights of the debtor, the rights of the creditor-the rights of the native born, the rights of the foreigner-the rights of the master, the rights of the slave. In the midst of the smoke and dust of this contention for human rights, the rights of God have been most unreasonably overlooked or disregarded. It may not therefore be amiss to bring his rights a little more prominently before the public eye.

Among the important rights which God claims to himself, and which reason and Scripture abundantly accord him, is the fundamental right generally expressed by the word "authority." In treating upon this right the first question that arises is, what is meant by the phrase "the authority of God?" Unquestionably this phrase is often employed without any clear and bounded idea of its meaning. A shadowy conception of something connected with the character and government of God floats in the mind, but the thought assumes, in the mind's eye, no distinct form or shape. What then is meant by the phrase "the authority of God?"

To this question it may be replied that the divine authority is not the same thing as the divine power or the omnipotence of God. The word authority is, in common parlance, sometimes used interchangeably with the word power, as when we speak of the authority or power of habit; and hence it happens that the divine power is often confounded in the mind with the divine authority. But the two things are, and ought to be preserved, entirely distinct from each other. A beggar may have great physical power,

much more even than his king, but still have no authority. So God might have power even if he were divested of all authority. His authority is not then synonymous with his power. His power may be used to vindicate his authority and carry it into effect, but it is not the same thing as his authority.

Nor ought authority to be confounded with influence or moral power. A being who possesses authority ought indeed to have influence and generally will have it; still his influence may be lost, at least over many minds, while his authority over even these same minds, remains in all its binding force. Superiority in rank, talents or property often secures extensive influence to their possessors, without imparting to them a single iota of authority. And in a town or city it sometimes happens that a popular orator or an aspiring demagogue wields far more influence than all the civil authorities of the place. Though they are vested with authority and he with none, still he could do vastly more than they to excite or quell a riot. This illustration suggests the true meaning of the word authority. It is, the right to govern; it is, the right to make legal enactments and carry them into execution. The father of a family holds authority over his household. He has a right to give rules to his household and see them executed. The king or emperor holds authority over his subjects. He has a right to give them a code of laws and see it carried into effect. So God holds entire authority over all his moral creatures. He has a right to rule in the armies of heaven above and among the inhabitants of this lower world. This right gives him his dominion over the universe. It constitutes him King of kings and Lord of lords. Divested of it he would no longer hold either a subject or a throne.

Authority always rests upon some basis. The inquiry then may be raised, on what is the divine authority founded; in other words, what is it that gives God the right to rule over his creatures? One being, considered simply as a being, has no natural right to command another being. There must be something which entitles one being to exercise dominion over another. There must be something which entitles God to the throne and allegiance of the universe. What is it? On what is his right to govern his creatures based?

In reply to this inquiry it may be said that the divine authority is not based on the fact that God is the Creator of his moral subjects. There are indeed certain rights which, under certain circumstances, flow from the relation that the Creator sustains to the creature or the former to the thing formed. The builder of a house, for example,