Part 9 — Footnotes (continued 2)

208.

Deut. xvii. 6, and xix. 15.

209.

The Jews who are said to have believed on Jesus (John viii. 30) are not the same with those whom our Lord accuses of seeking to kill him, ver. 40, nor with those who insulted him, ver. 48, &c., although these are not distinguished from the others in the narrative of John, who always mentions the Jews indiscriminately as speaking with Jesus. Cler. Harm. 528. Newcome.

210.

Deut, vi. 5. Lev. xix. 18, and xviii. 5.

211.

The professional reader will not fail to observe the wisdom of this reply. The lawyer sought to learn from Jesus the terms of the condition on which eternal life could be attained; and was made to answer for himself that, by the law, it was attainable by nothing short of the highest degree of love, to God and to his neighbour. The lawyer thus was reminded, out of his own code, that, this being a condition precedent, he could have no title to that which was promised, unless he fully performed every part of the condition; and that in this sense, whosoever offended in one point, or was deficient in performing any part of the condition, was guilty of all—lost the benefit of all. If he murmured at the hardship of losing the reward of all the good deeds he had done, merely for the omission to do a little more; the well-known rule of law and of reason would teach him that nothing is to be allowed for acts of past performance of a condition precedent, unless they are beneficial to the party for whom they are performed.

212.

A note of minute accuracy in the historian, Jericho being situated in the plain or valley of Jordan, and Jerusalem being among the mountains of Judea.

213.

An incidental and very natural allusion to the well-known custom of that country. For in those hot regions, men travel in the cool of the evening and night, and rest in the daytime; looking for refreshment, if they are not among total strangers, to the hospitality of friends.

214.

Ps. lxxxii. 6. Ex. xxii. 7, seq.

215.

Ps. lxix. 25. Jer. xii. 7, and xxii. 5.

216.

Gen. vii. 4, 7.

217.

Gen. xix. 15, seq.

218.

Gen xix. 26.

219.

The two Evangelists go on to relate our Lord's observations about divorce and marriage; they agree in substance, which is sufficient; though they differ in the form of the dialogue, neither adhering scrupulously to the exact manner in which the words passed, though we may learn it, by comparing both. Thus Matt. v. 9, reduces to a plain assertion, what Mark informs us was a reply to an inquiry made by the disciples apart. Or, we may suppose with Le Clerc, that this assertion was first advanced to the Pharisees, and then repeated to the disciples. Newcome.

220.

Gen. i. 27.

221.

Gen. ii. 24.

222.

Deut. xxiv. 1.

223.

The practice of divorcing the husband, unwarranted by the law, had been introduced, as Josephus informs us, (Antiq. XV. vii. 10,) by Salome, sister of Herod the Great, who sent a bill of divorce to her husband Costobarus; which bad example was afterwards followed by Herodias and others. Campbell. This natural allusion to an existing illegal custom is in perfect harmony with the whole history, it being true; but it seldom if ever has a parallel in the annals of forgery.

224.

Ex. xx. 12, seq. Lev. xix. 18.

225.

As all three came to Jesus, the action of the sons expressed, that they joined in the petition uttered by the mother. They are therefore represented as saying what was said with their consent, and probably by their suggestion. Luke xix. 11, will show how suitable this request was to the time, according to the ideas of our Lord's disciples. Newcome.

226.

According to St. Mark, Jesus comes to Jericho; by which may be meant that he is a temporary inhabitant of that city. See Mark vi. 1, and viii. 22. Jesus therefore may be represented, (Matt. xx. 29; Mark x. 46,) not as finally leaving Jericho for Jerusalem, but as occasionally going out of Jericho; in which city he had made some abode, it matters not for how few days. See Mark xi. 19. Jericho was a very considerable city; and we do not read that it was visited by our Lord at any other time. We may therefore suppose that Jesus, accompanied by his disciples and the multitude, and intent on his great work of propagating the gospel, went out of this city, knowing that a fit occasion of working a miracle would present itself; and that on his return, as he drew nigh unto Jericho, (Luke xviii. 35,) he restored the blind men to sight. It is likewise probable that Jesus, having given this proof of his divine mission, or foreseeing that so great a miracle would create too much attention in the people, prudently and humbly passed through Jericho on his return to it, (Luke xix. 1,) and continued his journey to Jerusalem. As to the remaining difficulty, that Matthew mentions two blind men, and the other Evangelists only one, I must refer to Le Clerc's maxim, before quoted; (see § 57, note): adding that Bartimeus may have been the more remarkable of the two, and the more eminent for his faith in Jesus. Newcome.

227.

Here is a fine allusion to historical facts, first observed by Le Clerc. “Thus Herod the Great solicited the kingdom of Judea at Rome, (Jos. Antiq. Jud. XIV. xiv. 4, 5; XV. vi. 6, 7,) and was appointed king by the interest of Anthony with the senate; and afterwards he sailed to Rhodes, divested himself of his diadem, and received it again from Augustus. In like manner his sons Archelaus and Antipas repaired to the imperial city, that they might obtain the kingdom on their father's death; and we read, (Jos. Antiq. Jud. XIV. xi. 1, and xiii. 2,) that the Jews sent an embassy thither, with accusations against Archelaus.” Newcome, Obs. on our Lord, p. 83.

228.

Zech. ix. 9.

229.

Thus acknowledging him to be their king; for this was a custom observed by the people when they found that God had appointed a man to the kingdom. When Jehu was anointed King by Elisha the prophet, at the command of God, and his captains knew what was done, every man took his garment and spread it under him on the top of the steps, and blew the trumpets, saying Jehu is king. 2 King ix. 13. A. Clarke. See Jennings, Ant. vol. ii. p. 245. “Thereon,” that is, on the garments. The princes of Israel were forbidden to multiply horses to themselves. Deut. xvii. 16, and xx. 1. This law was imposed as a standing mark of distinction between them and other nations; and a trial of prince and people, whether they had confidence in God their deliverer, who wanted neither horses nor footmen to fight his battles. It was observed for near four hundred years, until some time in the reign of Solomon; for David himself rode on a mule; as did Solomon also on the day of his coronation. 1 Kings i. 33, 34. See Judges x. 4, and xii. 14; 1 Saml. xxv. 20. Subsequently the kings of Israel and Judah violated this command, by copying the example of the neighbouring princes in the establishment of their cavalry. The displeasure of God for this offence is indicated by several of the prophets: Isaiah ii. 6, 7, and xxxi. 1; Hosea xiv. 3, and i. 7; Micah v. 10, 11.—In opposition to the character of these warlike and disobedient princes, it was predicted that Messiah would come as a just king, having salvation;—a deliverer—riding upon an ass, after the manner of the ancient deliverers of Israel, who came only in the strength and power of the Lord. Zech. ix. 9. See Bishop Sherlock's Dissert. IV. Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 439-449.

230.

Ps. viii. 3.

231.

Ps. cxviii. 26.

232.

Isa. lvi. 7. Jer. vii. 11.

233.

Matth. xxi. 20, the disciples. Mark xi. 21, Peter. These may be thus reconciled. Peter addresses himself to Jesus: the disciples turn their attention to the object; Jesus addresses all. Or, Peter's remark may be attributed to all the disciples. See § 141. Newcome.

234.

Many servants are sent; some of whom are beaten, some slain, some stoned. Here St. Matthew is more circumstantial than the other two Evangelists, who mention only one servant as sent, and one of the three injurious modes of treatment. Some suppose that this servant was chief among the rest.

235.

Here Mark mentions one servant among the others, as stoned wounded in the head, and sent away dishonoured; and Luke selects the circumstance that that one was beaten. Then Mark and Luke mention a third message, about which Matthew is silent. But, “qui pauciora memorat, plura non negat.” St. Luke may be understood as saying that a mortal wound was inflicted on the third messenger. Newcome.

236.

Ps. cxviii. 22.

237.

Isa. viii. 14, seq. Zech. xii. 3. Dan. ii. 34, seq., 44, seq.

238.

In the East, where the fashions of dress rarely if ever change, much of their riches consists in the number and splendour of their robes, or caffetans. Presents of garments are frequently alluded to in Scripture. Gen. xlv. 22. 2 Chron. ix. 24. Judges xiv. 12. 2 Kings v. 5. Ezra ii. 69. Neh. vii. 70, where “the Tirshatha gave five hundred and thirty priests' garments.” Presents were considered as tokens of honour;—not meant as offers of payment or enrichment, (1 Sam. ix. 7); and especially presents of dresses. 1 Sam. xviii. 4. Luke xv. 22. Tavernier, p. 43, mentions a nazar, whose virtue so pleased a king of Persia, that he caused himself to be disappareled, and gave his own habit to the nazar, which is the greatest honour a king of Persia can bestow on a subject. Such presents are given by kings on great occasions, especially at the marriages of their children. The Sultan Achmet, at the marriage of his eldest daughter, “gave presents to above 20,000 persons.” Knolles's Hist. of the Turks, p. 1311. So Ahasuerus “gave gifts, according to the state of the king.” Esth. ii. 18. The king gives his garment of honour before the wearer is admitted into his presence;—De la Mottraye's Trav. p. 199; (Does this illustrate Zech. iii. 3, 4?)—and would resent it if any, having received robes of him, should appear in his presence without wearing these marks of his liberality. And to refuse such favours, when offered, is considered as one of the greatest indignities. Sir John Chardin relates an instance where such a refusal cost a vizier his life. See 4 Calm. Dict. pp. 64, 126, 514.

239.

Deut. xxv. 5.

240.

Ex. iii. 6.

241.

Here is a minute indication of St. Luke's veracity, derived from his medical profession. No other Evangelist records this remark; but it would not be likely to escape the notice of a physician. See on Luke xxii. 44.

242.

Deut. vi. 4, 5.

243.

Lev. xix. 18.

244.

Ps. cx. 1.

245.

Gen. iv. 8. 2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22.

246.

Ps. lxix. 26. Jer. xii. 7, and xxii. 5.

247.

Ps. cxviii. 26.

248.

2 Sam. vii. 13. Ps. lxxxix. 30, 37; cx. 4.

249.

Is. liii. 1.

250.

Is. vi. 10.

251.

Is. vi. 1, seq.

252.

No imposter would have warned his followers, as Jesus did, of the persecutions they would have to submit to.

253.

Danl. ix. 27.

254.

Is. xiii. 9, 10. Joel iii. 15.

255.

Gen. vii. 4, seq.

256.

Interrogatively and sarcastically. That is, Was such thy wicked opinion? Then “out of thine own mouth will I judge thee;” thou oughtest to have acted according to that opinion. Bp. Sumner, in loc.

257.

In St. John, Judas alone murmurs; in St. Matthew, the disciples have indignation; or, as St. Mark expresses it, some have indignation among themselves. Dr. Lardner says, Serm. v. 2, p. 316, “It is well known to be very common with all writers, to use the plural number when one person only is intended. Nor is it impossible that others might have some uneasiness about it, though they were far from being so disgusted at it as Judas was. And their concern for the poor was sincere; his was self-interested, and mere pretence.” See also Grotius in loc. Newcome.

258.

It is nowhere asserted that the unction was of Jesus's head only, or of his feet only. Both actions are consistent; and St. John, in his supplemental history, may very well have added the respectful conduct of Mary, that, after having anointed Jesus's head, she proceeded to anoint his feet, and even to wipe them with her hair. Newcome.

259.

The other Evangelists mention that indignation was caused by the supposed waste of the ointment: John fixes it upon Judas. That Judas went to the High Priest's on the evening or night of our Wednesday, may be collected from Matth. xxvi. 14, 17, and the parallel places; and he seems to have acted partly from disgust at what had passed. The story has a remarkably apt connection with the preceding and subsequent history. The Jewish rulers consult how they may take Jesus by craft, and without raising a tumult among the people. An incident happens, which offends one of Jesus's familiar attendants, who immediately repairs to the enemies of Jesus, and receives from them a bribe to betray him in the absence of the multitude. Newcome.

260.

Here is a very natural, yet incidental recognition of a rule, universally respected among the Jews, that this feast was to be celebrated not alone, but by companies of not less than ten persons. See Josephus, Bell. Jud. vi. ix. § 3. Blunt, Veracity, &c. Sect. ii. 8.

261.

Ps. xli. 10.

262.

Zech. xiii. 7.

263.

The other Evangelists simply say, Before the cock crow.—It is observed, that the cock crows about midnight: and about the fourth watch, or about three in the morning, when that watch began. When gallicinium (cock-crowing) stands alone, it means this latter time, which is referred to, Aristoph. Eccles. 390, Juv. Sat. ix. 107. The four Evangelists therefore denote the same time,—sc. galliciniis secundis, as Ammianus expresses it, 1. 22; and any part of the period thus marked out may be understood. See Bochart de anim. pars, 2d. 119, and Grotius on Matth. xxvi. 34. Newcome.

264.

In the animated language of the prophets, their predictions are often announced under the form of commands. The prophet Isaiah, in the sublime prediction he has given us of the fate of the king of Babylon, thus foretells the destruction of his family:—Prepare slaughter for his children, &c. Isa. xiv. 21. The prophet Jeremiah in like manner foretells the approaching destruction of the children of Zion: Call for the mourning women, that they may come: and send for cunning women; and let them make haste, and take up a wailing, &c. Jer. ix. 17, 18. There, matter of sorrow is predicted, by commanding the common attendants on mourning and lamentation to be gotten in readiness; here, warning is given of the most imminent dangers, by orders to make the customary preparation against violence, and to account a weapon more necessary than a garment. Campbell, in loc.

265.

Isa. liii. 12.

266.

This account of the institution of the Lord's Supper is corroborated by that of Paul, in 1 Cor. xi. 23-25, which is usually inserted by Harmonists in this place as parallel testimony; but as the plan of this work leads me to deal with the four Gospels alone, the insertion of other parts of Scripture in the text, here and elsewhere, is omitted.

267.

The Evangelists have determined, by some general expressions, the order of the following events between the sitting down to the paschal supper, and the going to Gethsemane. Before the eating of the paschal lamb, Jesus rises from supper to wash the disciples' feet. John xiii. 1, 4. While they are eating, a declaration is made of Judas's treachery, and the bread is instituted, Matt. xxvi. 21, 26. See also Mark. After, the cup is instituted, Luke xxii. 20; 1 Cor. xi. 25. But as to the particular and precise order of the facts and discourses during this period, Pilkington's words relating to one of them are applicable to all. “It is observable that St. Luke mentions the institution of the communion before the declaration of Judas's treachery; whereas the other Evangelists place these in a different order. But it is a liberty I think very allowable in any historian, to neglect taking notice of the exact order of all the facts, when he is only giving a general account of what was done at a certain time. And if so, whichsoever was the true successive order, there can be no just imputation upon any of the Evangelists for neglecting to observe it in the narration.” Harm. p. 52. Newcome.

268.

The use of the word testament, (diatheke,) in a sense involving also the idea of a covenant, and in connexion with the circumstances of a compact, has greatly perplexed many English readers of the Bible. The difficulty occurs in Matt. 26, 28, and the parallel places, where our Lord employs the word testament, or last will, in connexion with the sacrificial shedding of his own blood; a ceremony which, by means of a suitable animal, usually was adopted among the ancients, upon the making of the most solemn engagements; and instead of which, the mutual partaking of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, by the contracting parties, was substituted among Christians in later times. The same embarrassment occurs, perhaps in a greater degree, in the exposition of several passages in the eighth and ninth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, (manifestly written by a profound lawyer, be he Paul or Apollos), where he uses language applicable indifferently both to a covenant inter vivos and a last will. For with us, a testament is simply a declaration of the last will of the testator, in regard to the disposition of his property after his decease, irrespective of any consent, or even knowledge, at the time, on the part of him to whom the estate is given; while a covenant requires the mutual consent of both parties, as essential to its existence. The one is simply the ultima voluntas of an individual, the other is the aggregatio mentium of both or all. The solution of this difficulty belongs rather to theologians, whose province it is by no means intended here to invade; but perhaps a reference to the laws and usages in force in Judea in the times of our Saviour and his Apostles may furnish some aid, which a lawyer might contribute without transgressing the limit of his profession. It is first to be observed that the municipal laws of Greece and Rome were strikingly similar; those of Greece having been freely imported into the Roman jurisprudence. In like manner, the similarity of the Grecian laws and usages with those extant in Asia Minor, indicated a common origin; and thus, what Greece derived from Egypt and the states of Asia Minor, these states, after many ages, received again as the laws of their Roman masters. It should also be remembered that Palestine had been reduced to a Roman province some years before the time of our Saviour; long enough, indeed, to have become familiar with Roman laws and usages, even had they been previously unknown; and that Paul, to whom the Epistle to the Hebrews is generally attributed, was himself a thorough-bred lawyer, well versed in the customs of his country, whether ancient or modern. Among those nations, the civil magistrate often exercised the functions of the priesthood, these dignities being in some respects identical; and thus, whatever was transacted before the magistrate, might naturally seem to partake of the character of an act of religion. Covenants were always made with particular formalities, and to those of graver nature, religious solemnities were often superadded. They were frequently confirmed by an oath, the most solemn form of which was taken standing before the altar; and whosoever swore by the altar, swore by the sacrifice thereon, and was held as firmly bound as though he had passed between the dismembered parts of the victim. Of the latter kind was the oath, by which God confirmed his covenant with Abraham (Gen. xv.) when the visible light of his presence passed between the pieces which the patriarch had divided and laid “each piece one against another.” With these things in view, we may now look at some of the modes of transferring property, practised by the nations alluded to. Among the methods of alienation or sale of property by the owner, in his lifetime, was that which in the Roman law was termed mancipatio; a mode by which the vendor conveyed property to the purchaser, each party being present, either in person or by his agent, representative, or factor. Five witnesses were requisite, one of whom was called libripens, or the balance-holder. This form had its origin in the sale of goods by weight, but was gradually extended to all sales; and the practice was for the buyer to strike the balance with a piece of money called a sestertius, which was immediately paid over to the vendor as part of the price; and hence the expression per æs et libram vendere. Wills or testaments were made with great solemnity. One method among the Romans, probably common, in its principal traits, to the other nations before mentioned, was termed the testament per æs et libram, it being effected in the form of a sale. This mode seems to have been resorted to whenever the estate was given to a stranger, (hæres extraneus,) to the exclusion of the hæres suus, or necessarius, or, as we should say, the heir at law; and it was founded on the purchase of the estate by the adopted heir, who succeeded to the privileges of the child. The forms of a sale by mancipatio were therefore scrupulously observed; the presence and agreement of the purchaser, either in person or by his representative or negotiator, being necessary to its validity. The reason for requiring this form was because it involved a covenant on the part of the adopted heir or legatee, by which he became bound to pay all the debts of the testator. Having entered into this covenant, he had the best possible title in law to the inheritance, namely, that of a purchaser for a valuable consideration. Among the Greeks, and probably among the Romans also, this was transacted in the presence of a magistrate, who sanctioned it by his sentence of approval. This was the most ancient form of a will; and it does not seem to have been abrogated until the time of Constantine. Now, when our Saviour speaks of the new testament in his blood, or of his blood of the new testament, and when Paul uses similar forms of expression may not the figure have reference to the custom above stated? And if so, may not this custom guide us to the true meaning of the words? Does it intimate to us that the promised inheritance was first given to man, as it were by a testament in this ancient form, upon a covenant of his own perfect obedience to every part of the law of God; that having broken this covenant, his title became forfeited; that the inheritance was afterwards promised, in the same manner, to every one, Jew or Gentile, upon a new covenant and condition, namely of a true faith in Christ; a faith evinced in the fruits of a holy life; that this inheritance by a new testament and covenant was negociated, as it were, and obtained for man by the mediation of Jesus Christ, (“the mediator of the new testament,” Heb. 9. 15,) as the representative of all who should accept it by such faith, and their surety for the performance of its conditions; that it was purchased by his obedience and solemnized by the sacrifice of himself as the victim? This solution is suggested with much diffidence. That it carries these passages clear of all difficulty is not pretended. The very nature of the subject renders it difficult of illustration by any reference to human affairs; and the embarrassment is proportionally increased, whenever the simile is pressed beyond its principal point of resemblance. See Ayliffe's Pandect, pp. 349, 393, 367-369. Book iii. tit. xii. xv. Leges Atticæ, De Testamentis, &c. tit. vi. S. Petit. Comm. in Leges Attic. p. 479-481. Justin, Inst. lib. 2. tit. 10, § 1. Ibid. tit. 19, § 5, 6. Cooper's Justinian, p. 487. Cod. lib. 6. tit. 23, 1. 15. Fuss's Roman Antiq. ch. 1, § 87, 97, 103, 107, 183. Michaelis, LL. Moses, vol. 4, art. 302. Bp. Patrick, quoted in Bush's Illustrations, p. 254.

269.

Ps. lxix. 5.

270.

Ps. xli. 9, and cix. 8, 17.

271.

The strangeness of such a profusion of blood has been urged, first, against the probability, and then against the truth, of the narrative. But learned men have related instances of mental agony so great as to force the blood through the pores; and if this has ever occurred, it may well be believed to have occurred in the present case. See Bloomfield and A. Clarke, in loc. It should be observed, however, that Luke does not directly affirm that it was blood. He only compares the sweat to that of blood, using a term of similitude, (quasi grumi sanguinis—Beza; tanquam demissiones sanguinis—Tremellius; sicut guttæ sanguinis—Vulg. and Molinaus;) which may signify no more than that the drops of sweat were as large as drops of blood, which, from its viscidity, are very large.

272.

No other Evangelist mentions the cause of their slumber, except Luke, who ascribes it to their sorrow. It is observable, that Luke was a physician, (Col. iv. 14,) and therefore well knew that deep mental distress frequently induced sleep. To this cause may perhaps be referred the fact, that persons condemned to die are often waked from sound sleep by the executioner. The internal evidence here afforded of the truth of Luke's narrative, is corroborated by his notice of the bloody sweat, ver. 44, and of the miraculous healing of the ear of Malchus, ver. 51; facts which are not related by any other Evangelist, but which would naturally attract the attention of a physician.

273.

Gen. ix. 6.

274.

In the order of events, Jesus first voluntarily discriminates himself; after which Judas gives the agreed sign to his enemies. Newcome.

275.

Lenfant and Bp. Pearce think that Peter was named by John, because he was then dead; and that he was not named by the other Evangelists because when they wrote he was living, and the action might have subjected him to public justice, or at least to reproach. Newcome.

276.

Here is a minute indication of veracity, which would have been lost upon us but for the narrative of John. Matthew only states the fact that the maid in the porch recognized Peter as one of the disciples of Jesus; but John (xviii. 16,) informs us how she knew him to be so; namely, because he was brought in by John, who was a frequent guest at the house of her master the high priest. Blunt, Veracity &c., Sect. i. 12, 18.

277.

Probably by way of compliment to the past high priest who was also the father-in-law of Caiaphas. If this circumstance never happened, it is difficult to discover how the introduction of it could serve the purposes of fiction. See Roberts, Light Shining, &c. pp. 171, 172.

278.

The seeming contradiction between Luke, who relates that it was a man who charged Peter with being a follower of Jesus, and Matthew and Mark who state that he was accused by a maid, is reconciled by attending to the narrative of John, (xviii. 25,) who writes, “They said.” Whence it appears that there were several who spake on this occasion, and that each Evangelist refers to the accusation which made the deepest impression on his own mind. See Michaelis and Bp. Middleton, cited in 4 Horne's Introd. p. 258, note 1.

279.

Matthew and Mark relate Peter's denials of Christ after his condemnation, and the insults consequent upon it. It is plain that they happened while the High Priest and council were sitting in judgment. But instances of recurring in this manner to what had been omitted in its proper place are common in the Gospels; and in this place the thread of the narration is preserved unbroken. It having been expressly mentioned by each Evangelist, that Peter would thrice deny Jesus, we may conclude that each has related the three denials which Jesus foretold. Peter's first denial. Peter was without, or beneath, in the hall of Caiaphas's house. Dr. Scott, on Matth. xxvi. 3, observes that aule signifies an house, (Luke xi. 21,) and that emphatically it signifies the king's house, or palace. But in Luke xxii. 55, it seems to signify a spacious apartment, probably the High Priest's judgment-hall. It was the place in which Jesus stood before the High Priest, (Luke xxii. 61,) and had an atrium or vestibulum at its entrance. This was an unfit place for the tribunal of the High Priest at such an hour, (John xviii. 18.) Sir John Chardin says, “In the lower Asia the day is always hot; and in the height of summer the nights are as cold as at Paris in the month of March.” It remains therefore that we understand it of a spacious chamber, such as Shaw mentions, Travels, 4to. pp. 207, 8. Peter was not in the higher part, where Jesus stood before the High Priest; but without that division of the hall, and in the lower part, with the servants and officers. The damsel, who kept the door, had entered into the hall when she charged Peter. Peter's second denial. Peter, having once denied Jesus, naturally retired from the place where his accuser was, to the vestibule of the hall, (Matt. xxvi. 71); and it was the time of the first cock-crowing, or soon after midnight. After remaining here a short time, perhaps near an hour, another damsel sees him, and says to those who were standing by in the vestibule, that he was one of them. Peter, to avoid this charge, withdraws into the hall, and stands and warms himself, (John xviii. 25.) The damsel, and those to whom she had spoken, follow him; the communication between the places being immediate. Here a man enforces the charge of the damsel, according to Luke; and others urge it according to John, (though by him the plural may be used for the singular,) and Peter denies Jesus vehemently. Peter's third denial. Peter was now in the hall. Observe Matt. xxvi. 75, and Luke xxii. 62. He was also within sight of Jesus, though at such a distance from him that Jesus could know what passed only in a supernatural way. About an hour after his second denial, those who stood by founded a charge against him on his being a Galilean, which, Luke says, one in particular strongly affirmed, (though here Matthew and Mark may use the plural for the singular,) and which, according to John, was supported by one of Malchus's relations. This occasioned a more vehement denial than before; and immediately the cock crew the second time. The first denial may have been between our twelve and one; and the second between our two and three. We must further observe, that Matt. xxvi. 57, lays the scene of Peter's denials in the house of Caiaphas; whereas the transactions of John xviii. 15-23 seem to have passed in the house of Annas. But John xviii. 24 is here transposed to its regular place, with Le Clerc. Newcome.

280.

Matthew alone states this fact; and he states nothing in explanation of it. The other Evangelists add another fact, which shows that the Jews were quite consistent in asking him to designate who struck him, namely, that they had previously “blindfolded him.” Now the omissions of particulars are characteristic of one to whom it never occurs that they are wanted to make his statement credible, but who, conscious of his own integrity, states his facts and leaves them to their fate; and they cannot fairly be accounted for, upon any other supposition than the truth of the narrative. Blunt, Veracity, &c., sec. i. 10.

281.

Jesus seems here almost to have challenged inquiry into the assault so lately committed by Peter upon the servant of the high priest. St. Luke, however, states a fact which accounts for their not making such inquiry, ch. xxii. 51. He touched his ear and healed him. An inquiry into the truth would have frustrated the malicious purpose of the enemies of Jesus, by proving his own compassionate nature, his submission to the laws, and his miraculous powers. Blunt, Veracity, &c., sect. i. 19.

282.

Here is an obscure intimation that neither Pilate nor Herod were residents of Jerusalem; and the manner of the insinuation deserves notice, as a mark of conscious veracity in the narrator. Now it appears from Josephus, that this Herod was the very opposite of his successor, Herod Agrippa; the former being partial to the Greeks, and a hater of the Jews; while the latter so loved the Jews that he took pleasure in constantly dwelling at Jerusalem. It is therefore evident that Herod's presence at Jerusalem at this time was merely casual; as that of Pilate certainly was, the Roman governors residing at Cæsarea. See Josephus, Ant. xviii. iv. § 1.-xix. vii. § 3.-xx. iv. § 4. Blunt, Veracity, &c., sect. II. 11.

283.

The accuracy of Luke, as a man of education, is observable in this statement of the formal judgment pronounced by Pilate, which is only implied in the narratives of the other Evangelists.

284.

The apparent contradiction between John and Mark, (ch. xv. 25,) who mentions the third hour, is reconciled by Dr. Campbell, in a critical note upon the force of the expressions in the original, which he interprets as equivalent to saying, in the one case, that it was past three, and in the other, that it was towards six. See Campbell, in loc.

285.

The passage here quoted is found in the prophecy of Zechariah, and not in Jeremiah. Dr. Lightfoot says, that anciently among the Jews the Old Testament was divided into three parts. The first, beginning with the law, was called The Law. The second, beginning with Psalms, was called The Psalms. The third, beginning with the prophecy of Jeremiah, which anciently stood first, was called Jeremiah, under which name all quotations from the prophets were made. See A. Clarke, in loc. Jennings, Jewish Antiq. pp. 594, 595. Others account for the apparent error in Matthew's quotation, by supposing that he omitted the name of the prophet, as he frequently did in his citations of scripture, and that the name of Jeremiah was inserted by a subsequent copyist. 1 Horne's Introd. p. 582.

286.

Zech. xi. 12, seq. Jer. xxxii. 6, seq.

287.

Clement of Alexandria and Jerome both relate that Mark wrote this Gospel at Rome, and we find in Romans xiv. 13, that a disciple named Rufus, of considerable note, resided in that city. Admitting that both Mark and Paul speak of the same person, which is highly probable, as they refer to the same period of time and to a disciple of distinction, there is an evident consciousness of veracity in the Evangelist, in making this reference to Rufus, then living among them, since he could not but have known the particulars of the crucifixion, in which his own father was so intimately concerned. Blunt's Veracity, &c., sect. i. 14. See also Eusebius, lib. 2, ch. 15.

288.

Is. liv. 1.

289.

Hos. x. 8.

290.

Ps. xxii. 19.

291.

As to the title itself, the precise working may have differed in the different languages; and MSS. represent it differently. But the same verbal exactness is not necessary in historians, whose aim is religious instruction, as in recorders of public inscriptions. It is enough that the Evangelists agree as to the main article, “the King of the Jews,” referred to, John xix. 21. That their manner is to regard the sense, rather than the words, appears from many places. Compare Matt. iii. 17, and ix. 11, and xv. 27, and xvi. 6, 9, and xix. 18, and xx. 33, and xxi. 9, and xxvi. 39, 64, 70, and xxviii. 5, 6, with the parallel verses in this Harmony. Compare also John xi. 40, with ver. 23, 25. One of the most solemn and awful of our Lord's discourses is, in some parts, variously expressed. See Matt. xxvi. 28, Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 20, 1 Cor. xi. 25. Now as each of these writers has, beyond all doubt, faithfully represented the meaning of Christ, we see that it might be truly done in different words, or in a different form of the same words. His sentences also, sometimes admitted a difference of arrangement; for the order in which two sentences, or the several members of the same sentence, are disposed by St. Matthew, is, in several places, inverted by St. Mark. And with regard to his actions, though the most material parts of whatever they were going to relate must command their attention, yet there was no such superior attraction in one specific number and order of secondary circumstances, as could turn their thoughts absolutely and exclusively to them. This is plain from instances to the contrary. One Evangelist is sometimes distinct, while another is concise; and describes what the other passes over. Townson, pp. 60-1. We may reasonably suppose St. Matthew to have cited the Hebrew,—St. John the Greek,—and St. Mark the Latin, which was the shortest, and without mixture of foreign words. St. Mark is followed by St. Luke; only that he has brought down “THIS IS” from above, as having a common reference to what stood under it. Newcome.

292.

Is. liii. 12.

293.

We have here an incidental allusion to a practice well known at that time. The malefactor about to be crucified, having borne his own cross to the place of execution, was stripped, and made to drink a stupefying potion; the cross was then laid on the ground, the sufferer distended upon it, and four soldiers, two on each side, were employed in driving four large nails through his hands and feet. For this service they had a right to his clothes as a perquisite. See Dr. Harwood's Introd., cited in Horne's Introd., vol. i. pp. 94, 95.

294.

Ps. xxii. 7, 8.

295.

Here the common drink of the Roman soldiers is offered by them to Jesus on the cross, while they are deriding him; which is a different act from that in Matt. xxvii. 34, 48, as appears by the place assigned to it. Newcome

296.

What was true of only one of the malefactors is attributed to both in the concise relations of Matthew and Mark; the plural being often used in the Gospels for the singular. This the Evangelists themselves show in some instances. Compare Mark vii. 17, and Matt. xv. 15; Mark v. 31, and Luke viii. 45; Matt. xiv. 17, and Mark vi. 38, Luke ix. 13, John vi. 8, 9; Matt. xxvi. 8, and Mark xiv. 4, John xii. 4; Matt. xxiv. 1, and Mark xiii. 1; Matt. xxvii. 37, and John xix. 19; Matt. xxvii. 48, and Mark xv. 36, John xix. 29. See also Luke xxii. 67. In the following places, the plural is used, while the sense shows that one is spoken of. John xi. 8, Luke xx. 21, 39, and xxiv. 5, Matt. xv. 1, 12.—The Evangelists, therefore, when from attention to brevity they avoid particularizing, often attribute to many what is said or done by single persons; nor does any striking peculiarity in the case omitted, lead them to deviate from their manner; for instance, the case of Judas, Matth. xxvi. 8, and the parallel places. Newcome

297.

Ps. xxii. 1.

298.

Hil or Hila was the old Syriac for vinegar. Hence one of the bystanders, hearing our Saviour's exclamation on the cross, thought he wanted vinegar to alleviate his thirst, and straightway filled a spunge. See Buchanan's Researches, p. 153.

299.

The Jews gave a literal interpretation to Mal. iv. 5, expecting Elijah to appear in person, as the forerunner of the Messiah; and hence they, on this occasion, sneeringly adverted to the want of this testimony to the mission of Christ. Jones, Lect. 147. This incidental allusion to the popular opinion, by Matthew and Mark, may be noticed as additional evidence of their veracity.

300.

The objection urged by infidels, upon this passage, against the veracity of the Evangelists, from the silence of profane writers concerning so remarkable an event, is met and answered by Bp. Watson in his Reply to Gibbon, Let. 5. See also Horne's Introd. Vol. 1. p. 210-216. The word translated earth, in Luke, is the same which is rendered land, in the others, and applies equally to both. Taken in the latter sense, it may limit the darkness to Judea. But the Evangelists do not mention the degree of darkness; if therefore it was slight, though it extended over the whole globe, the objection of its not being recorded by Pliny or Seneca vanishes at once.

301.

Ps. lxix. 22.

302.

This and the parallel verses are reconciled with John xix. 25, by the following observation in Wall's critical notes, p. 116. “Mary stood as yet, (John xix. 25,) so nigh the cross as to hear what Christ said. But at the time of his departure, Matthew, Mark and Luke say, the women stood afar off.” See also Watson's Reply to Gibbon, Let. 5, (Evangelical Family Library, Vol. xiv. pp. 276, 277.) It is natural to suppose that our Lord's relations and friends, mentioned in John xix. 25, were too much struck with commiseration and grief to remain long near the cross; and that they would retire from the horror of the concluding scene. Newcome.

303.

Here is another of those incidental allusions to existing customs, which show the naturalness and veracity of the narrative. Those who were crucified by the Romans are said to have been usually exposed to the birds of prey; and a guard was set to prevent their friends from burying the bodies. The body of Jesus therefore could not be obtained for burial, without leave from Pilate; which the Evangelists relate was applied for, but without explaining the cause.

304.

Ex. xxii. 46. Ps. xxiv. 20.

305.

Zech. xii. 10.

306.

We must not understand this word of the morning light. The Jewish sabbath began at six in the morning, before which time our Lord's body was deposited in the tomb. Newcome.

307.

The mention of this circumstance by Matthew, and not by the other Evangelists, is in perfect keeping with his previous occupation; which led him to watch for fraud, in all places where it might be perpetrated.

308.

This appearance of Jesus is not alluded to by any other Evangelist; but it was a fact well known among the disciples, and is expressly stated by Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. 5,—“and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.”

309.

This appearance of Jesus is also affirmed by Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. 5.

310.

Many and perhaps most Harmonists and Commentators refer 1 Cor. xv. 6, to this place, where it is related that Jesus was seen of above five hundred brethren at once. Such is the opinion of Dr. Robinson and Bishop J. B. Sumner, and such seems to have been the opinion of Abp. Newcome, Dr. Macknight, and Dr. Pilkington. See Newcome, in loc. The fact is deemed by some to have an important bearing upon the extent of the commission then given or repeated by our Lord; but the plan of this work does not require any further notice of the question.

311.

This is perfectly consistent with the statement of Luke in Acts i. 12, as Bethany was not only the name of a town, but of a district of Mount Olivet, adjoining the town. See Watson's Reply to Gibbon, Letter vi. in Evangelical Family Library, Vol. xiv., p. 277.

312.

Harm. p. 525. Can. XII. fin.

313.

Matt. 8: 28, Mark 5: 2. Luke 8: 27.—Matt. 20: 30. Mark 10: 46. Luke 18: 35.

314.

Matt. 16: 21. 17: 23. Luke 9: 22. 24: 6, 7. al.

315.

Matt. 28: 63 sq.

316.

Matt. 28: 9.

317.

See also John 21: 4.

318.

See Matt. 26: 32.

319.

1 Cor. 15: 6.

320.

Acts 1: 15.

321.

See Acts 12: 17. 15: 13. 21: 18. Gal. 2: 9, 12 al.

322.

Acts 12: 1.

323.

To this interview belongs also Luke 24: 44.

324.

See John xi. 47-54.

325.

Matt. xxi. 33-46. Mark xxii. 1-12. Luke xx. 9-19.

326.

Deut. xvii. 15.

327.

Matt. xxii. 15-22. Mark xii. 13-17. Luke xx. 20-26.

328.

Tappan's Jewish Ant. p. 239.

329.

Matt. xxii. 23-33. Mark xii. 18-27. Luke xx. 27-39.

330.

Matt. xxii. 25-40, 46. Mark xii. 28-34.

331.

Exodus xx. 1-7. And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

332.

Lev. xxiv. 11-16. And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan): And they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might be shewed them. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp, and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. See A. Clarke on Matt. ix. 3.

333.

Deut. xiii. 6-10. If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt from the house of bondage. Deut. xviii. 20. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

334.

It is true that in the Mishna it is written—“Blasphemus non tenetur, nisi expressit Nomen.” Mishna, Pars iv. p. 242. Tractatus de Synedriis, cap. 7, § 5. But these traditions were not written until 150 years after the time of our Saviour; and the passage, moreover, seems properly to refer to that form of blasphemy which consists in evil speaking of the Supreme Being, in a direct manner, rather than to the other forms in which this offence, in its larger acceptation, might be committed. See Michælis, Comm. Art. 251. Vol. 4, p. 67-70.

335.

Numb. xx. 10, 12.

336.

Numb. xx. 24. Deut. i. 37, and xxxiv. 4, 5.

337.

Is. xlii. 8, and xlviii. 2.

338.

Gen. xli. 16, 25, 28.

339.

Exod. viii. ix. x. per tot.

340.

Deut. xviii. 20.

341.

“Now, therefore, stand and see this great thing, which the Lord will do before your eyes.” 1 Sam. xii. 16-18.

342.

“And it came to pass, at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near and said, Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel,” &c. 1 Kings xviii. 36-38.

343.

“And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the Lord God of Elijah?” &c. 2 Kings ii. 14.

344.

“For thus saith the Lord, they shall eat and shall leave thereof,” &c. 2 Kings iv. 43.

345.

See 2 Kings vi. 16, 17, 18, 20. In some other places, where there is no express reference to the power of God, the omission may be attributed to the brevity of the narrative; but even in those cases, such reference is plainly implied.

346.

Dan. ix. 21, 23, and x. 11, 12. See further, 2 Kings xviii. 30-35, and xix. 1-3.

347.

Matt. ix. 2, 3. Luke v. 20, 21.

348.

John x. 31-33.

349.

This view of the Jewish law may seem opposed to that of Dr. Campbell, in his Preliminary Dissertation on the Gospels, (Vol. 2, Diss. ix. Part 2); but it is evident, on examination, that he is discussing the word blasphemy, and the propriety of its application, taken in its more restricted sense of intentional and direct malediction of Jehovah; and not whether the assumption of his attributes and authority was or was not a violation of his law. That this assumption was a heinous transgression, seems universally agreed. The question, therefore, is reduced to this—whether the offence was properly termed blasphemy. For the act, by whatever name it were called, was a capital crime. The Jewish judges of that day held it to amount to blasphemy; and in so doing, they do not appear to have given to their law a construction more expanded and comprehensive than has been given by judges in our own times, to the law of treason, or of sedition.

350.

This was judicially and solemnly done by the members of the Sanhedrim, rising from their seats, when the crime was testified to. Only one witness was permitted to repeat the words; the others simply stating that they heard the same which he had related. The practice is thus described in the Mishna: “Exactis omnibus, interrogant vetustissimum testium, dicendo,—Edissere, quodcumque audivisti expresse. Tum ille hoc refert. Judices autem stant erecti, vestesque discerpunt, non resarciendas. Dein secundus tertiusque ait,—Ego idem, quod ille audivi.” Mishna, Pars 4. Tractat. de Synedriis, cap. 7, § 5. Upon which, Cocceius remarks:—“Assurgunt reverentiæ causâ. Mos discendarum vestium probatur ex 2do Regum, xviii. 37. Hinc nata est regula,—Qui blasphemiam audit, vel ab ipso auctore vel ex alio, tenetur vestem discerpere. Ratio est, ut semper ob oculos et animum versetur mæroris aut indignationis mnemosynon.” Coccej. in loc. § 11, 12. The custom is fully explained, with particular reference to the high priest at the trial of Jesus, by Hedenus, De Scissione Vestium, 38, 42. (In Ugolini Thesauro, tom. xxix, fol. 1025. &c.)

351.

That the Jews understood Jesus to make himself equal with God, is maintained by Mr. Salvador, himself a Jew, in his Histoire des Institutions de Moïse et du Peuple Hébreu, Liv. iv. ch. 3, p. 81, of which chapter a translation is given at the end of this article. Mr. Noah, also a Jew, seems to be of opinion, that Jesus was brought to trial under the law in Deut. xiii. 1-11. See his Discourse on the Restoration of the Jews, p. 19. But whether he was charged with a blasphemous usurpation of the attributes of Deity, or with sedition, in inciting the people to serve another god, meaning himself, the difference is of no importance; the essence of the offence in both cases being the same.

352.

Matt. xxvi. 60-65. This view of the nature of the offence with which Jesus was charged, is confirmed by the learned jurist, Chr. Thomasius, in his Dissertatio de injusto Pilati judicio, § 11, 12, and by the authors whom he there cites. Dissert. Thomasii. vol. 1, p. 5.

353.

John ii. 13-22.

354.

Matt. xxvi. 63-66.

355.

Tacit. Annal. xv. 31. See M. Dupin's Trial of Jesus, p. 57-59, (Amer. Ed.) Chr. Thomasius, Dissertatio de injusto Pilati judicio, § 12, 60. The want of this power was admitted by the Jews, in their reply to Pilate, when he required them to judge Jesus according to their own law, and they replied, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” John xviii. 31. This point has been held in different ways by learned men. Some are of opinion that the Sanhedrim had power to inflict death for offences touching religion, though not for political offences; and that it was with reference to the charge of treason that they said to Pilate what has just been cited from St. John. They say that, though the Sanhedrim had convicted Jesus of blasphemy, yet they dared not execute that sentence, for fear of a sedition of the people:—that they therefore craftily determined to throw on Pilate the odium of his destruction, by accusing him of treason; and hence, after condemning him, they consulted further, as stated in Matt. xxvii. 1, 2. Mark xv. 1, how to effect this design:—that when Pilate found no fault in him, and directed them to take and crucify him, some replied, “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die,” (John xix. 7,) to intimate to Pilate that Jesus was guilty of death by the Jewish law also, as well as the Roman, and that therefore he would not lose any popularity by condemning him. See Zorrius, Hist. Fisci Judaici, ch. 2, § 2, (in Ugolini Thesaur. tom. 26, col. 1001-1003.) The same view is taken by Deylingius, De Judæorum Jure Gladii, § 10, 11, 12, (in Ugolin. Thesaur. tom. 29, col. 1189-1192.) But he concludes that in all capital cases, there was an appeal from the Sanhedrim to the Prætor; and that without the approval of the latter, the sentence of the Sanhedrim could not be executed. Ibid. § 15, col. 1196. Molinæus understood the Jewish law in the same manner. See his Harmony of the Gospels, note on John xviii. 31. C. Molinæi Opera, tom. 5. pp. 603, 604. But this opinion is refuted by what is said by M. Dupin, Trial, &c., § 8, and by Thomasius, above cited.

356.

See M. Dupin's Trial of Jesus, pp. 55-62. His authorities are Loiseau, Godefroy, and Cujas, the two latter of whom he cites as follows:—Procurator Cæsaris fungens vice præsidis potest cognoscere de causis criminalibus. Godefroy, in his note (letter S) upon the 3rd law of the code, Ibi causæ fiscales, &c. And he cites several others, which I have verified, and which are most precise to the same effect. See particularly the 4th law of the Code, Ad. leg. fab. de plag., and the 2nd law of the Code, De Pœnis.—Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis fiscalibus pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum fungebantur vice præsidum; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsaris vice præsidis in Syria. Cujas, Observ. xix. 13.

357.

Luke xxiii. 2.

358.

John xviii. 38.

359.

Luke xxiii. 5.

360.

Luke xxiii. 10, 11.

361.

Luke xxiii. 13, 14, 15. I regard this judgement as conclusive evidence of the innocence of the accused. Pilate's strenuous endeavour to release him instead of Barabbas, and his solemn washing his own hands of the guilt of his blood, though they show the strength of his own convictions, yet add no legal force to the judgement itself.

362.

John xix. 12.

363.

Luke xxiii. 24.

364.

See M. Dupin's Trial of Jesus, pp. 82-84.

365.

Ibid. 7-15. Jahn's Bibl. Ant. § 246.

366.

Deut. xxii. 22, and xxiii. 2. Selden, De Synedriis, lib. 3, cap. 4, 5.

367.

Matt. i. 19, 20.

368.

Matt. xi. 20-24. Luke iv. &c.

369.

Matt. xxiii. per tot.

370.

Matt. xii. 11-46. John vii. 40.

371.

The expression son of God was in common use among the Jews, to designate a man of remarkable wisdom and piety. It was not in this sense that Jesus Christ used it; for in that case it would have occasioned no great sensation. Besides, if we should assume, in order to make it a subject of accusation against these Jews, that Jesus did not expressly declare himself to be God, we should be exposed to this rejoinder: Why then do you believe in him?

372.

See Deut. iv. 15, and xiii. per tot.

373.

John vi. 39-42. Matt. xiii. 55.

374.

This fact is clearly established as possible; and we must observe that till then there had been neither opposition nor enmity in the minds of this people, since they had listened to him with the greatest attention, and did not hesitate to acknowledge in him all that public law permitted them to do, viz., a prophet, a highly inspired man.

375.

John x. 30-33.

376.

Matt. x. 34. Mark x. 29.

377.

Matt. xvi. 1-4. John viii. 13-18.

378.

John vii. 43. Luke xxiii. 5.

379.

Matt. ix. 10. Mark ii. 15. Luke xv. 1.

380.

Matt. xix. 24.

381.

John x. 20.

382.

John vii. 12.

383.

John xi. 47-50.

384.

Matt. xxvi. 4. John xi. 53, 54.

385.

Matt. xxi. 23.

386.

It will be recollected, that the senate held its sessions in one of the porticos of the temple. At this time the high priest presided over the senate, so that the guards of the high priest, of the elders and the temple, were no other than the legal militia.

387.

John xviii. 10, 11.

388.

Mark xiv. 50. Matt. xxvi. 56.

389.

Matt. xxvi. 60, 61. And the last came two false witnesses, and said, this fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. Mark xiv. 57, 58. And there arose certain and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. John ii. 19, 21, 22. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. But he spake of the temple of his body. When, therefore, he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

390.

I repeat that the expression son of God, includes here the idea of God himself; the fact is already established, and all the subsequent events confirm it. Observe, also, that I quote the narrative of only one of the parties to this great proceeding.

391.

Deut. xxviii. 20. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

392.

Matt. xxvii. 1. Mark xv. 1.

393.

The duties of Pilate were to inform himself whether the sentences given did or did not affect the interests of Rome; there his part ended. Thus it is not astonishing that this procurator, doubtless little acquainted with the Jewish laws, signed the decree for the arrest of Jesus, although he did not find him guilty. We shall see hereafter that there were then many parties among the Jews, among whom were the Herodians or serviles, partisans of the house of Herod, and devoted to the foreign interests. These are they who speak continually of Cæsar, of rendering to Cæsar the tribute due to Cæsar; they also insist that Jesus called himself king of the Jews, but this charge was reckoned as nothing before the senate, and was not of a nature alone to merit capital punishment.

394.

See Matt. xxvii. 27. Mark xv. 16. John xix. 2.

395.

John xix. 7.

396.

The sending back of Jesus to Herod, which, according to the Gospel of St. Luke, Pilate would have done, is not stated by the other Evangelists, and does not at all change the judicial question. Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, and of Perea, had no authority in Jerusalem. Upon his visit to this city, Pilate, according to St. Luke, would, out of respect, have caused Jesus to appear before this ally of the Romans, because Jesus was surnamed the Galilean, though originally from Judea. But to whatever tribe he belonged, the nature of the accusation would still have required, according to the Hebrew law, that he should be judged by the senate of Jerusalem.

397.

Matt. xvii. 42, 43.

398.

This Analysis first appeared in the Gazette des Tribunaux.

399.

Joshua vii. 19, &c.

400.

By this, says Father Lamy, we may understand what the mixture of wine and myrrh was, which they presented to Jesus on the cross, and which he would not drink. Introd. to the reading of the Holy Scriptures, chap. vi. (Note of Mr. Salvador, Book iv. ch. 2.)

401.

As was that of Stephen, whom the same priests caused to be massacred by the populace, without a previous sentence of the law. Occidere: Non occides, thou shalt not kill. Deut. v. 17. Veneno homines occidere. Cic. pro Roscio, 61. Virginiam filiam sua manu occidit Virginius. Cic. de Finib. 107. Non hominem occidi. Horat. I. Epist. 17, 10. Inermem occidere. Ovid. ii. Fast. 139. Interficere: Feras interficere. Lucret. lib. v. 251. Interfectus in acie. Cic. de Finib. 103. Cæsaris interfectores. Brutus Ciceroni, 16, 8. Interfectorem Gracchi. Cic. de Claris Orrato. 66.

402.

Will it be believed, that Tertullian and St. Irenæus were obliged to refute seriously some writers of their day, who considered the conduct of Judas not only excusable, but worthy of admiration and highly meritorious, “because (as they said) of the immense service which he had rendered to the human race by preparing their redemption!” In the same manner, at a certain period, we have seen plunderers of the public money make a merit of their conduct, because in that way they had weakened the usurpation and prepared the way for the triumph of legitimacy.

403.

See, as to these two grounds of nullity, the Jewish authors cited by Prost de Royer, tome 2, p. 205, verbo Accusation.

404.

Mr. Salvador admits this: “Caiaphas,” says he, “made himself his accuser.” p. 85.

405.

Ananias, a chief priest, having given orders to strike Paul upon the face, Paul said to him: “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten, contrary to the law!” Acts xxiii. 3.

406.

Mr. Salvador, in his note to p. 82, admits, that “the expression Son of God was in common use among the Hebrews, to signify a man of great wisdom, or of deep piety.” But he adds, “It was not in this sense, that it was used by Jesus Christ; it would not have caused so strong a sensation.” Thus, then, by construction, and changing the words from their usual meaning, an article of accusation is formed against Jesus.

407.

That is, he usurped the functions of a judge; for we shall see, in the next section, that the Council of the Jews had not jurisdiction of capital cases.

408.

Antiq. Judaic. lib. 18, cap. 3 & 6.

409.

Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in and sat with the servants to see the end. Matt. xxvi. 58. So also the young man spoken of by St. Mark, xiv. 51: And there followed him a certain young man, &c.

410.

De Crimine præsidis cognitio est. Cujas, xix. Observ. 13.

411.

Procurator Cæsaris fungens vice præsidis potest cognoscere de causis criminalibus. Godefroy, in his note (letter S) upon the 3rd law of the Code, Ubi causæ fiscales, &c. And he cites several others, which I have verified, and which are most precise to the same effect. See particularly the 4th law of the Code, Ad leg. fab. de plag., and the 2nd law of the Code, De Pœnis.

412.

Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis fiscalibus pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum fungebantur vice præsidum; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsaris vice præsidis in Syria. Cujas, Observ. xix. 13.

413.

“To carry one from Caiaphas to Pilate” has since become a proverb.

414.

Lysias thus wrote to Felix the Governor, in relation to Paul: Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or bonds. Acts xxiii. 29.

415.

Gerhard makes the following unanswerable dilemma upon this point. “Be consistent with thyself, Pilate; for, if Christ is innocent, why dost thou not send him away acquitted? And if thou believest him deserving of chastisement with rods, why dost thou proclaim him to be innocent?” Gerh. Harm. ch. 193, p. 1889.

416.

We will cite here the words of one of the finest laws of the Romans: Vanæ voces populi non sunt audiendæ, quando aut noxium crimine absolvi, aut innocentum condemnari desiderant—The idle clamour of the populace is not to be regarded, when they call for a guilty man to be acquitted, or an innocent one to be condemned. Law 12, Code de Pœnis. Pilate might also have read in Horace: Justum et tenacem, &c.— “The man in conscious virtue bold, Who dares his secret purpose hold, Unshaken hears the crowd's tumultuous cries, And the impetuous tyrant's angry brow defies.”