Nor has the second objection any more foundation. For St. John's account certainly is not that the feast was in the house of Lazarus, but only that Lazarus was "one of them that sat at the table with him," and that Lazarus's sisters were performing a part, which it is nothing strange they should have performed in the house of a relation, a friend, or a neighbour. Why indeed should the Evangelist think it necessary to state that Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Jesus, if he understood that Lazarus was the person who entertained him. Nay more; it is not indeed expressly said by St. John that Simon the leper was the master of the house and the entertainer; but there is one very remarkable incidental notice, which really looks like an intimation of it. Judas Iscariot (the disciple, according to St. John, who found fault with the waste of the ointment) is described as the son of Simon. Why should this latter circumstance be here introduced? Judas is no where else called Simon's son; and the title of Iscariot that is elsewhere used to distinguish him from the other Judas, is here also employed by St. John. Why should he now call him not only Judas Iscariot, but

Judas Iscariot the son of Simon? It does certainly look as if this Simon the leper were the father of Judas Iscariot; and that St. John was writing under the impression that his readers were aware of the transaction having taken place in the house of Simonf.

That St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, then, relate the same event seems to be nearly certain.

f I am aware that the words on which this last argument rests, although found in the authorized text of the New Testament, have had their genuineness doubted. I will say more; the authority of the MSS. is rather against their being geuuine. But as there are some words which have crept into numerous MSS. which we at once pronounce to be glosses carelessly mixed with the text by transcribers, from the likelihood that such words would form a very natural marginal note; so when an expression is more likely to have been dropped than inserted, we should allow its proper weight to this circumstance. Iscariot was the usual and only familiar appendage to Judas's name. A transcriber, not perceiving the ground of the addition "Simon's son," might accordingly have omitted it, from mistaking it for a gloss interpretation; or from overlooking what he did not expect to find. In short, the words are so much more likely to have been omitted than inserted, that the reading is probably genuine; although the decision to which we might come on a bare comparative estimate of the MSS. be different.

But that contained in St. Luke's Gospel cannot be the same. If it were allowable to take so great a liberty with his arrangement of facts, as to place at the close of our Lord's ministry an incident which he places in the earlier part; still, the fact that at that time the woman was a notorious sinner, can never be reconciled with the character of Mary at the period assigned to the event by St. Matthew St. Mark and St. John; and to make these conform in point of date with St. Luke, would be to destroy the force of our Lord's remark on the occurrence, "she hath done it for my burial," or, as it is expressed more pointedly in St. John, she hath kept this for my burial." And yet St. Luke, like the other three, relates that the event took place in the house of Simon the leper; and adds circumstances, bearing in every respect so close a resemblance, as to force upon us a suggestion of at least some connection between the two occurrences.

And some connection is not really unlikely or inexplicable. What if the woman, who two years before anointed the Saviour's feet, and wept in the act of doing it until her tears are

said to have washed them, was Mary the sister of Lazarus; at that time a notorious and newlypenitent sinner, but from that moment for ever as remarkable for her repentance, her docility, and her faith, as she had been for her sins? Hence perhaps we find her afterwards sitting at the feet of Jesus, whilst her sister Martha, who might have had less reason to feel deeply the value of any word that fell from him; who, in short, loved less because less had been forgiven her, "" was cumbered about much serving," and careful about other matters. With this too agrees the fact, that St. John, earlier in his narrative and before he has given his account of the second anointing, speaks of Mary as one who had anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair". In this view of the matter too, we may understand how it came to pass, that she of all others should have ventured to perform an act indicating an advance of faith beyond any which had as yet been manifested. She, it would seem, understood that she anointed Christ for a kingdom, on which he was to enter through the grave. It was a deliberate premeditated act. Against

the day of his burying "she had kept" the symbol of her confession of Jesus as the Christ; being thus perhaps the first of all his disciples who believed in his death and reign conjointly. And this explains to us the singular honour our Lord conferred on her, in appointing that what she had done should form a part of the Gospel history, wherever it should be published. As Peter's confession was rewarded with the promise that his name should be associated with the foundation of the Church; so this further confession of Mary procured for her the promise of the fulfilment of which we are witnesses. "Verily I say unto you, wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her."

CHRIST BETRAYED TO THE CHIEF PRIESTS.

Ver. 1, 2. 10, 11. 43-52.

After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them. And when