Part 9 — Footnotes

1.

Cicero, Philip. II. § 43.

2.

Nov. Org. 1. 68. “Ut non alius fere sit aditus ad regnum hominus, quod fundatur in scientiis, quam ad regnum cœlorum, in quod, nisi sub persona infantis, intrare non datur.”

3.

Bishop Wilson's Evidences, p. 38.

4.

See Dr. Hopkins's Lowell Lectures, particularly Lect. 2. Bp. Wilson's Evidences of Christianity, Vol. i. pp. 45-61. Horne's Introduction, Vol. i. pp. 1-39. Mr. Horne having cited all the best English writers on this subject, it is sufficient to refer to his work alone.

5.

Hopkins's Lowell Lect., p. 48.

6.

It has been well remarked, that, if we regard man as in a state of innocence, we should naturally expect that God would hold communications with him; that if we regard him as guilty, and as having lost the knowledge and moral image of God, such a communication would be absolutely necessary, if man was to be restored.—Dr. Hopkins's Lowell Lect., p. 62.

7.

The argument here briefly sketched, is stated more at large, and with great clearness and force, in an essay entitled “The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation,” pp. 13-107.

8.

See Professor Stuart's Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, where this is abundantly proved.

9.

Per Tindal, Ch. Just., in the case of the Bishop of Meath v. the Marquis of Winchester, 3 Bing. N. C. 183, 200, 201. “It is when documents are found in other than their proper places of deposit,” observed the Chief Justice, “that the investigation commences, whether it was reasonable and natural, under the circumstances of the particular case, to expect that they should have been in the place where they are actually found; for it is obvious, that, which there can be only one place of deposit strictly and absolutely proper, there may be many and various, that are reasonable and probable, though differing in degree, some being more so, some less; and in these cases the proposition to be determined is, whether the actual custody is so reasonably and probably accounted for, that it impresses the mind with the conviction that the instrument found in such custody must be genuine.” See the cases cited in 1 Greenleaf on Evidence § 142. See also 1 Stark. on Evidence, pp. 332-335, 381-386. Croughton v. Blake, 12 Mees. & Welsb. 205, 208. Doe v. Phillips, 10 Jurist, p. 34. It is this defect, namely, that they do not come from the proper or natural repository, which shows the fabulous character of many pretended revelations, from the Gospel of the Infancy to the Book of Mormon.

10.

1 Greenleaf on Evid. § 34, 142, 570.

11.

Morewood v. Wood, 14 East, 329, n. Per Lord Kenyon. Weeks v. Sparke, 1 M. & S. 686; the Berkeley Peerage Case, 4 Campb. 416. Per Mansfield, Ch. J. See 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 128.

12.

1 Starkie on Evidence, pp. 195, 230; 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 483.

13.

The arguments for the genuineness and authenticity of the books of the Holy Scriptures are briefly, yet very fully stated, and almost all the writers of authority are referred to by Mr. Horne, in his Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures, vol. i., passim. The same subject is discussed in a more popular manner in the Lectures of Bp. Wilson, and of Bp. Sumner of Chester, on the Evidences of Christianity; and, in America, the same question, as it relates to the Gospels, has been argued by Bp. M'Ilvaine, in his Lectures.

14.

See the case of the Slane Peerage, 5 Clark & Finelly's Rep., p. 24. See also the case of the Fitzwalter Peerage, 10 Clark & Finelly's Rep., p. 948.

15.

Matt. ix. 10; Mark ii. 14, 15; Luke v. 29.

16.

The authorities on this subject are collected in Horne's Introduction, vol. iv. pp. 234-238, part 2, chap. ii. sec. 2.

17.

See Horne's Introduction, vol. iv. p. 229-232.

18.

See Campbell on the Four Gospels, vol. iii. pp. 35, 36; Preface to St. Matthew's Gospel, § 22, 23.

19.

See Gibbon's Rome, vol. i. ch. vi. and vol. iii. ch. xvii. and authorities there cited. Cod. Theod. Lib. xi. tit. 1-28, with the notes of Gothofred. Gibbon treats particularly of the revenues of a later period than our Saviour's time; but the general course of proceeding, in the levy and collection of taxes, is not known to have been changed since the beginning of the empire.

20.

Acts xii. 12, 25; xiii. 5, 13; and xv. 36-41; 2 Tim. iv. 11; Phil. 24; Col. iv. 10; 1 Pet. v. 13.

21.

Horne's Introduction, vol. iv. pp. 252, 253.

22.

Mark vii. 2, 11; and ix. 43, and elsewhere.

23.

Mr. Norton has conclusively disposed of this objection, in his Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. Additional Notes, see. 2, pp. cxv-cxxxii.

24.

Compare Mark x. 46, and xiv. 69, and iv. 35, and i. 35, and ix. 28, with Matthew's narrative of the same events.

25.

See Horne's Introd. vol. iv. pp 252-259.

26.

Acts xvi. 10, 11.

27.

Col. iv. 14. Luke, the beloved physician.

28.

Luke v. 12; Matt. viii. 2; Mark i. 40.

29.

Luke vi. 6; Matt. xii. 10; Mark iii. 1.

30.

Luke viii. 55; Matt. ix. 25; Mark v. 42.

31.

Luke vi. 19.

32.

Luke xxii. 44, 45, 51.

33.

See Horne's Introd. vol. iv. pp. 260-272, where references may be found to earlier writers.

34.

See Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 138, 139; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 203, 204; and other authors, cited in Horne's Introd. vol. iv. p. 267.

35.

2 Phillips on Evidence, p. 95, (9th edition.)

36.

When Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, in shooting at deer with a cross-bow, in Bramsil park, accidentally killed the keeper, King James I. by a letter dated Oct. 3, 1621, requested the Lord Keeper, the Lord Chief Justice, and others, to inquire into the circumstances and consider the case and “the scandal that may have risen thereupon,” and to certify the King what it may amount to. Could there be any reasonable doubt of their report of the facts, thus ascertained? See Spelman's Posthumous Works, p. 121.

37.

The case of the ill-fated steamer President furnishes an example of this sort of inquiry. This vessel, it is well-known, sailed from New York for London in the month of March, 1841 having on board many passengers, some of whom were highly connected. The ship was soon overtaken by a storm, after which she was never heard of. A few months afterwards a solemn inquiry was instituted by three gentlemen of respectability, one of whom was a British admiral, another was agent for the underwriters at Lloyd's, and the other a government packet agent, concerning the time, circumstances and causes of that disaster; the result of which was communicated to the public, under their hands. This document received universal confidence, and no further inquiry was made.

38.

Mark i. 20.

39.

John xix. 26, 27.

40.

John xiii. 23.

41.

Matt. xxvii. 55, 56; Mark xv. 40, 41.

42.

John xviii. 15, 16.

43.

Luke viii. 51; Matt. xvii. 1, and xxvi. 37.

44.

This account is abridged from Horne's Introd. vol. iv. pp. 286-288.

45.

Horne's Introd. vol. iv. p. 289, and authors there cited.

46.

See, among others, John i. 38, 41, and ii. 6, 13, and iv. 9, and xi. 55.

47.

See Horne's Introd. vol. iv. pp. 297, 298.

48.

See Gambier's Guide to the Study of Moral Evidence, p. 121.

49.

1 Stark. Evid. pp. 514, 577; 1 Greenl. on Evid. §§ 1, 2; Wills on Circumstantial Evid., p. 2; Whately's Logic, b. iv. ch. iii. § 1.

50.

See 1 Stark. Evid. pp. 16, 480, 521.

51.

This subject has been treated by Dr. Chalmers, in his Evidences of the Christian Revelation, chapter iii. The following extract from his observations will not be unacceptable to the reader. “In other cases, when we compare the narratives of contemporary historians, it is not expected that all the circumstances alluded to by one will be taken notice of by the rest; and it often happens that an event or a custom is admitted upon the faith of a single historian; and the silence of all other writers is not suffered to attach suspicion or discredit to his testimony. It is an allowed principle, that a scrupulous resemblance betwixt two histories is very far from necessary to their being held consistent with one another. And what is more, it sometimes happens that, with contemporary historians, there may be an apparent contradiction, and the credit of both parties remain as entire and unsuspicious as before. Posterity is, in these cases, disposed to make the most liberal allowances. Instead of calling it a contradiction, they often call it a difficulty. They are sensible that, in many instances a seeming variety of statement has, upon a more extensive knowledge of ancient history, admitted of a perfect reconciliation. Instead, then, of referring the difficulty in question to the inaccuracy or bad faith of any of the parties, they, with more justness and more modesty, refer it to their own ignorance, and to that obscurity which necessarily hangs over the history of every remote age. These principles are suffered to have great influence in every secular investigation; but so soon as, instead of a secular, it becomes a sacred investigation, every ordinary principle is abandoned, and the suspicion annexed to the teachers of religion is carried to the dereliction of all that candour and liberality with which every other document of antiquity is judged of and appreciated. How does it happen that the authority of Josephus should be acquiesced in as a first principle, while every step, in the narrative of the evangelists, must have foreign testimony to confirm and support it? How comes it, that the silence of Josephus should be construed into an impeachment of the testimony of the evangelists, while it is never admitted, for a single moment, that the silence of the evangelists can impart the slightest blemish to the testimony of Josephus? How comes it, that the supposition of two Philips in one family should throw a damp of scepticism over the Gospel narrative, while the only circumstance which renders that supposition necessary is the single testimony of Josephus; in which very testimony it is necessarily implied that there are two Herods in that same family? How comes it, that the evangelists, with as much internal, and a vast deal more of external evidence in their favour, should be made to stand before Josephus, like so many prisoners at the bar of justice? In any other case, we are convinced that this would be looked upon as rough handling. But we are not sorry for it. It has given more triumph and confidence to the argument. And it is no small addition to our faith, that its first teachers have survived an examination, which, in point of rigour and severity, we believe to be quite unexampled in the annals of criticism.” See Chalmers's Evidences, pp. 72-74.

52.

See 1 Stark. Evid. pp. 480, 545.

53.

If the witnesses could be supposed to have been biassed, this would destroy their testimony to matters of fact; it would only detract from the weight of their judgment in matters of opinion. The rule of law on this subject has been thus stated by Dr. Lushington: “When you examine the testimony of witnesses nearly connected with the parties, and there is nothing very peculiar tending to destroy their credit, when they depose to mere facts, their testimony is to be believed; when they depose as to matter of opinion, it is to be received with suspicion.” Dillon v. Dillon, 3 Curteis's Eccl. Rep. pp. 96, 102.

54.

This subject has been so fully treated by Dr. Paley, in his view of the Evidences of Christianity, Part I., Prop. I., that is it unnecessary to pursue it farther in this place.

55.

1 Stark. Evid., pp. 483, 548.

56.

Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, c. v. b. 1. Part 3, p. 125. Whately's Rhetoric, Part 1. ch. 2. § 4. 1 Stark. Evid., p. 487.

57.

See the Quarterly Review, vol. xxviii. p. 465. These narrators were, the Duchess D'Angoulême herself, the two Messrs. De Bouillè, the Duc De Choiseul, his servant, James Brissac, Messrs. De Damas and Deslons, two of the officers commanding detachments on the road, Messrs. De Moustier and Valori, the garde du corps who accompanied the king, and finally M. de Fontanges, archbishop of Toulouse, who though not himself a party to the transaction, is supposed to have written from the information of the queen. An earlier instance of similar discrepancy is mentioned by Sully. After the battle of Aumale, in which Henry IV. was wounded, when the officers were around the king's bed, conversing upon the events of the day, there were not two who agreed in the recital of the most particular circumstances of the action. D'Aubigné, a contemporary writer, does not even mention the king's wound, though it was the only one he ever received in his life. See Memoirs of Sully, vol. i. p. 245. If we treated these narratives as sceptics would have us treat these of the sacred writers, what evidence should we have of any battle at Aumale, or of any flight to Varennes?

58.

Far greater discrepancies can be found in the different reports of the same case, given by the reporters of legal judgments than are shown among the evangelists; and yet we do not consider them as detracting from the credit of the reporters, to whom we still resort with confidence, as to good authority. Some of these discrepancies seem utterly irreconcilable. Thus, in a case, 45 Edw. III. 19, where the question was upon a gift of lands to J. de C. with Joan, the sister of the donor, and to their heirs, Fitzherbert (tit. Tail, 14) says it was adjudged fee simple, and not frankmarriage; Statham (tit. Tail) says it was adjudged a gift in frankmarriage; while Brook (tit. Frankmarriage) says it was not decided. (Vid. 10 Co. 118.) Others are irreconcilable, until the aid of a third reporter is invoked. Thus, in the case of Cooper v. Franklin, Croke says it was not decided, but adjourned; (Cro. Jac. 100); Godbolt says it was decided in a certain way, which he mentions; (Godb. 269); Moor also reports it as decided, but gives a different account of the question raised; (Moor, 848); while Bulstrode gives a still different report of the judgment of the court, which he says was delivered by Croke himself. But by his account it further appears, that the case was previously twice argued; and thus it at length results that the other reporters relate only what fell from the court on each of the previous occasions. Other similar examples may be found in 1 Dougl. 6, n. compared with 5 East, 475, n. in the case of Galbraith v. Neville; and in that of Stoughton v. Reynolds, reported by Fortescue, Strange, and in Cases temp. Hardwicke. (See 3 Barnw. & Ald. 247, 248.) Indeed, the books abound in such instances. Other discrepancies are found in the names of the same litigating parties, as differently given by reporters; such as, Putt v. Roster, (2 Mod. 318); Foot v. Rastall, (Skin. 49), and Putt v. Royston, (2 Show. 211); also, Hosdell v. Harris, (2 Keb. 462); Hodson v. Harwich, (Ib. 533), and Hodsden v. Harridge, (2 Saund. 64), and a multitude of others, which are universally admitted to mean the same cases, even when they are not precisely within the rule of idem sonans. These diversities, it is well known, have never detracted in the slightest degree from the estimation in which the reporters are all deservedly held, as authors of merit, enjoying, to this day, the confidence of the profession. Admitting now, for the sake of argument, (what is not conceded in fact,) that diversities equally great exist among the sacred writers; how can we consistently, and as lawyers, raise any serious objection against them on that account, or treat them in any manner different from that which we observe towards our own reporters?

59.

Mr. Hume's argument is thus refuted by Lord Brougham. “Here are two answers, to which the doctrine proposed by Mr. Hume is exposed, and either appears sufficient to shake it. “First—Our belief in the uniformity of the laws of nature rests not altogether upon our own experience. We believe no man ever was raised from the dead,—not merely because we ourselves never saw it, for indeed that would be a very limited ground of deduction; and our belief was fixed on the subject long before we had any considerable experience,—fixed chiefly by authority,—that is, by deference to other men's experience. We found our confident belief in this negative position partly, perhaps chiefly, upon the testimony of others; and at all events, our belief that in times before our own the same position held good, must of necessity be drawn from our trusting relations of other men—that is, it depends upon the evidence of testimony. If, then, the existence of the law of nature is proved, in great part at least, by such evidence, can we wholly reject the like evidence when it comes to prove an exception to the rule—a deviation from the law? The more numerous are the cases of the law being kept—the more rare those of its being broken—the more scrupulous certainly ought we to be in admitting the proofs of the breach. But that testimony is capable of making good the proof there seems no doubt. In truth, the degree of excellence and of strength to which testimony may arise seems almost indefinite. There is hardly any cogency which it is not capable by possible supposition of attaining. The endless multiplication of witnesses,—the unbounded variety of their habits of thinking, their prejudices, their interests,—afford the means of conceiving the force of their testimony, augmented ad infinitum, because these circumstances afford the means of diminishing indefinitely the chances of their being mistaken, all misled, or all combining to deceive us. Let any man try to calculate the chances of a thousand persons who come from different quarters, and never saw each other before, and who all vary in their habits, stations, opinions, interests,—being mistaken or combining to deceive us, when they give the same account of an event as having happened before their eyes,—these chances are many hundreds of thousands to one. And yet we can conceive them multiplied indefinitely; for one hundred thousand such witnesses may in all like manner bear the same testimony; and they may all tell us their story within twenty-four hours after the transaction, and in the next parish. And yet, according to Mr. Hume's argument, we are bound to disbelieve them all, because they speak to a thing contrary to our own experience, and to the accounts which other witnesses had formerly given us of the law of nature, and which our forefathers had handed down to us as derived from witnesses who lived in the old time before them. It is unnecessary to add that no testimony of the witnesses, whom we are supposing to concur in their relation, contradicts any testimony of our own senses. If it did, the argument would resemble Archbishop Tillotson's upon the Real Presence, and our disbelief would be at once warranted. “Secondly—This leads us to the next objection to which Mr. Hume's argument is liable, and which we have in part anticipated while illustrating the first. He requires us to withhold our belief in circumstances which would force every man of common understanding to lend his assent, and to act upon the supposition of the story told being true. For, suppose either such numbers of various witnesses as we have spoken of; or, what is perhaps stronger, suppose a miracle reported to us, first by a number of relators, and then by three or four of the very soundest judges and most incorruptibly honest men we know,—men noted for their difficult belief of wonders, and, above all, steady unbelievers in miracles, without any bias in favour of religion, but rather accustomed to doubt, if not disbelieve,—most people would lend an easy belief to any miracles thus vouched. But let us add this circumstance, that a friend on his death-bed had been attended by us, and that we had told him a fact known only to ourselves,—something that we had secretly done the very moment before we told it to the dying man, and which to no other being we had ever revealed,—and that the credible witnesses we are supposing, informed us that the deceased appeared to them, conversed with them, remained with them a day or two, accompanying them, and to avouch the fact of his reappearance on this earth, communicated to them the secret of which we had made him the sole depository the moment before his death;—according to Mr. Hume, we are bound rather to believe, not only that those credible witnesses deceive us, or that those sound and unprejudiced men were themselves deceived, and fancied things without real existence, but further, that they all hit by chance upon the discovery of a real secret, known only to ourselves and the dead man. Mr. Hume's argument requires us to believe this as the lesser improbability of the two—as less unlikely than the rising of one from the dead; and yet every one must feel convinced, that were he placed in the situation we have been figuring, he would not only lend his belief to the relation, but if the relators accompanied it with a special warning from the deceased person to avoid a certain contemplated act, he would, acting upon the belief of their story, take the warning, and avoid doing the forbidden deed. Mr. Hume's argument makes no exception. This is its scope; and whether he chooses to push it thus far or no, all miracles are of necessity denied by it, without the least regard to the kind or the quantity of the proof on which they are rested; and the testimony which we have supposed, accompanied by the test or check we have supposed, would fall within the grasp of the argument just as much and as clearly as any other miracle avouched by more ordinary combinations of evidence. “The use of Mr. Hume's argument is this, and it is an important and a valuable one. It teaches us to sift closely and rigorously the evidence for miraculous events. It bids us remember that the probabilities are always, and must always be incomparably greater against, than for, the truth of these relations, because it is always far more likely that the testimony should be mistaken or false, than that the general laws of nature should be suspended. Further than this the doctrine cannot in soundness of reason be carried. It does not go the length of proving that those general laws cannot, by the force of human testimony, be shown to have been, in a particular instance, and with a particular purpose, suspended.” See his Discourse of Natural Theology, Note 5, p. 210-214. (Ed. 1835.) Laplace, in his Essai sur les Probabilités, maintains that, the more extraordinary the fact attested, the greater the probability of error or falsehood in the attestor. Simple good sense, he says, suggests this; and the calculation of probabilities confirms its suggestion. There are some things, he adds, so extraordinary, that nothing can balance their improbability. The position here laid down is, that the probability of error, or of the falsehood of testimony, becomes in proportion greater, as the fact which is attested is more extraordinary. And hence a fact extraordinary in the highest possible degree, becomes in the highest possible degree improbable; or so much so, that nothing can counterbalance its improbability. This argument has been made much use of, to discredit the evidence of miracles, and the truth of that divine religion which is attested by them. But however sound it may be, in one sense, this application of it is fallacious. The fallacy lies in the meaning affixed to the term “extraordinary.” If Laplace means a fact extraordinary under its existing circumstances and relations, that is, a fact remaining extraordinary, notwithstanding all its circumstances, the position need not here to be controverted. But if the term means extraordinary in the abstract, it is far from being universally true, or affording a correct test of truth, or rule of evidence. Thus, it is extraordinary that a man should leap fifteen feet at a bound; but not extraordinary that a strong and active man should do it, under a sudden impulse to save his life. The former is improbable in the abstract; the latter is rendered probable by the circumstances. So, things extraordinary, and therefore improbable under one hypothesis, become the reverse under another. Thus, the occurrence of a violent storm at sea, and the utterance by Jesus of the the words, “Peace, be still,” succeeded instantly by a perfect calm, are facts which, taken separately from each other, are not in themselves extraordinary. The connexion between the command of Jesus and the ensuing calm, as cause and effect, would be extraordinary and improbable if he were a mere man; but it becomes perfectly natural and probable, when his divine power is considered. Each of those facts is in its nature so simple and obvious, that the most ignorant person is capable of observing it. There is nothing extraordinary in the facts themselves; and the extraordinary coincidence, in which the miracle consists, becomes both intelligible and probable upon the hypothesis of the Christian. (See the Christian Observer for Oct. 1838, p. 617.) The theory of Laplace may, with the same propriety, be applied to the creation of the world. That matter was created out of nothing is extremely improbable, in the abstract, that is, if there is no God; and therefore it is not to be believed. But if the existence of a Supreme Being is conceded, the fact is perfectly credible. Laplace was so fascinated with his theory, that he thought the calculus of probabilities might be usefully employed in discovering the value of the different methods resorted to, in those sciences which are in a great measure conjectural, as medicine, agriculture, and political economy. And he proposed that there should be kept, in every branch of the administration, an exact register of the trials made of different measures, and of the results, whether good or bad, to which they have led. (See the Edinburgh Review, vol. xxiii. pp 335, 336.) Napoleon, who appointed him Minister of the Interior, has thus described him: “A geometrician of the first class, he did not reach mediocrity as a statesman. He never viewed any subject in its true light; he was always occupied with subtleties; his notions were all problematic; and he carried into the administration the spirit of the infinitely small.” See the Encyclopedia Britannica, art. Laplace, vol. xiii. p. 101. Memoires Ecrits à Ste. Helena, i. 3. The injurious effect of deductive reasoning, upon the minds of those who addict themselves to this method alone, to the exclusion of all other modes of arriving at the knowledge of truth in fact, is shown with great clearness and success, by Mr. Whewel in the ninth of the Bridgewater Treatises, book 3, ch. 6. The calculus of probabilities has been applied by some writers, to judicial evidence; but its very slight value as a test, is clearly shown in an able article on Presumptive Evidence, in the Law Magazine, vol. i. pp. 28-32 (New Series.)

60.

See Mr. Norton's “Discourse on the latest form of Infidelity,” p. 18.

61.

The arguments on this subject are stated in a condensed form, by Mr. Horne, in his Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures, vol. i. ch. 4, sec. 2; in which he refers, among others, to Doctor Gregory's Letters on the Evidences of the Christian Revelation; Dr. Campbell's Dissertation on Miracles; Vince's Sermons on the Credibility of Miracles; Bishop Marsh's Lectures, part 6, lect. 30; Dr. Adam's Treatise in reply to Mr. Hume; Bishop Gleig's Dissertation on Miracles, (in the third volume of his edition of Stackhouse's History of the Bible, p. 240, &c.); Dr. Key's Norissian Lectures, vol. i. See also Dr. Hopkins's Lowell Lectures, lect. I. and II. delivered in Boston in 1844, where this topic is treated with great perspicuity and cogency. Among the more popular treatises on miracles, are Bogue's Essay on the Divine Authority of the New Testament, ch. 5; Bishop Wilson's Evidences of Christianity, vol. i. lect. 7; Bishop Sumner's Evidences, ch. 10; Gambier's Guide to the Study of Moral Evidence, ch. v.; Mr. Norton's Discourse on the latest form of Infidelity, and Dr. Dewey's Dudleian Lecture, delivered before Harvard University, in May, 1836.

62.

See Bishop Wilson's Evidences, lect. 7, p. 130.

63.

1 Stark on Evid. p. 496-499.

64.

1 Stark. on Evid. p. 523.

65.

1 Stark. Evid. 487. The Gospels abound in instances of this. See, for example, Mark, xv. 21. John, xviii. 10. Luke, xxiii. 6. Matt. xxvii. 58-60, John xi. 1.

66.

1 Stark. Evid. 522, 585.

67.

See 1 Stark. Evid. 498. Wills on Circumstantial Evidence, pp. 128, 129.

68.

See Chalmers's Evidence, chap. iii.

69.

See Chalmers's Evidence, pp. 76-78, Amer. ed. Proofs of this kind are copiously referred to by Mr. Horne, in his Introduction, &c. vol. i., ch. 3, sect. II. 2.

70.

See Mark viii. 32; ix. 5; and xiv. 29; Matt. xvi. 22; and xvii. 5; Luke ix. 33; and xviii. 18; John xiii, 8; and xviii. 15.

71.

Mark viii. 29; Matt. xvi. 16; Luke ix. 20.

72.

Matt. xviii. 21; and xix. 27; John xiii. 36.

73.

Gal. ii. 11.

74.

John xx. 3-6.

75.

Matt. xiv. 30.

76.

Acts i. 15.

77.

Acts ii. 14.

78.

Matt. xvi. 16; Mark viii. 29; Luke ix. 20; John vi. 69.

79.

Matt. xxvi. 33, 35; Mark xiv. 29.

80.

See Paley's view of the Evidences of Christianity, part ii. chapters iii. iv. v. vi. vii; Ibid. part iii. ch. i.; Chalmers on the Evidence and Authority of the Christian Revelation, ch. iii. iv. viii.; Wilson's Evidences of Christianity, lect. vi.; Bogue's Essay on the Divine Authority of the New Testament, chap. iii. iv.

81.

See Bogue's Essay, chap. i. sect. 2; Newcome's Obs. part ii. ch. i. sec. 14.

82.

Mal. iv. 5, 6.

83.

Mic. iv. 7.

84.

Is. xli. 8, 9; Gen. xxii. 16, seq.

85.

Gen. xxii. 16, seq.

86.

Matt. i. 19. husband. There was commonly an interval of ten or twelve months, between the making of the contract of marriage and the time of its celebration. Gen. xxiv. 55; Judg. xiv. 8. During this period, though there was no intercourse between the bride and bridegroom, not even so much as an interchange of conversation, yet they were considered and spoken of as husband and wife. If, at the end of this probationary period, the bridegroom was unwilling to solemnize his engagements by the marriage of the bride, he was bound to give her a bill of divorce, as if she had been his wife. And if she, during the same period, had illicit intercourse with another man, she was liable to punishment, as an adulteress. Jahn's Archæol. § 154.

87.

Is. vii. 14.

88.

Luke ii. 1. a decree. This decree was issued eleven years before it was carried into effect, the delay having been procured by Herod. This fact reconciles the evangelist with the Roman historians, from whom it appears that Cyrenius was not governor when the decree was issued, though he held that office when the census was taken and the tax assessed. See Townsend, in loc.

89.

Gen. xvii. 12; Lev. xii. 3.

90.

Ex. xiii. 2; Numb. viii. 16, 17.

91.

Lev. xii. 6, 8.

92.

Is. viii. 14.

93.

Matth. ii. 3, he was troubled. According to Josephus, Herod was always in fear for the stability of his throne, and anxious to pry into futurity to discover whether it was likely to endure. Thus, when advanced to regal power, he sent for Manahem, an Essene, who had predicted of him when a boy that he would be a king, to inquire of him how long he should reign. Joseph. Ant. xv. § 5. Blunt, Veracity, &c. § ii. 2.

94.

Mic. v. 2.

95.

Hos. xi. 1.

96.

Jer. xxxi. 15, and xl. 1.

97.

Matth. ii. 22, he was afraid. The naked statement of this fact, without explanation, is a mark of the sincerity of the evangelist, for the value of which we are indebted to Josephus, who relates, (Ant. b. 17, ch. 9, § 3,) an instance of savage cruelty in Archelaus, immediately on his coming to the throne, in causing three thousand persons to be butchered in cold blood, at the first passover after Herod's death. Such an act, committed under such circumstances, must have been rapidly made known abroad, and inspired all persons with horror. Well, therefore, might Joseph fear to return. But Matthew's incidental allusion to the cause, is characteristic of a man intent only upon the statement of the main facts, and regardless of appearances or explanations. Blunt, Veracity, &c. § ii. 3.

98.

Is. xi. 1, and liii. 2; Zech. vi. 12; Rev. v. 5.

99.

Luke ii. 42; twelve years old. Jewish children were not obliged to the observances of the ceremonial law, until they attained to years of discretion, which, in males, was fixed by common consent at twelve years. On arriving at this age, they were taken to Jerusalem at the passover, of which they thenceforth participated, as “sons of commandment,” being fully initiated into the doctrines and ceremonies of the Jewish church, probably after examination by the doctors. This accounts for the circumstance of his being found among them, both hearing, and asking them questions. Stackhouse, Hist. N. T. ch. i.; Bloomfield, in loc.

100.

Luke ii. 44; in the company. All who came, not only from the same city, but from the same canton or district, made one company. They carried necessaries along with them, and tents for their lodging at night. Such companies they now call caravans, and in several places have houses fitted up for their reception, called caravanseries. This account of their manner of travelling furnishes a ready answer to the question, How could Joseph and Mary make a day's journey, without discovering, before night, that Jesus was not in the company? In the day-time, we may reasonably presume, the travellers would mingle with different parties of their friends and acquaintance; but in the evening, when they were about to encamp, every one would join the family to which he belonged. Campbell, in loc.

101.

The Genealogy of Jesus, as given by Luke, is here inverted for the sake of more convenient comparison with that given by Matthew. The apparent discrepancies in these accounts are reconciled by Dr. Robinson, in the following manner: “I. In the genealogy given by Matthew, considered by itself, some difficulties present themselves. “1. There is some diversity among commentators in making out the three divisions, each of fourteen generations, v. 17. It is, however, obvious, that the first division begins with Abraham and ends with David. But does the second begin with David, or with Solomon? Assuredly with the former; because, just as the first begins apo Abraham, so the second also is said to begin apo David. The first extends heos David, and includes him; the second extends to an epoch and not to a person; and therefore the persons who are mentioned as coeval with this epoch are not reckoned before it. After the epoch the enumeration begins again with Jechoniah, and ends with Jesus. In this way the three divisions are made out thus:— 1. Abraham. 2. Isaac. 3. Jacob. 4. Judah. 5. Phares. 6. Esrom. 7. Aram. 8. Aminadab. 9. Naasson. 10. Salmon. 11. Boaz. 12. Obed. 13. Jesse. 14. David. 1. David. 2. Solomon. 3. Roboam. 4. Abiah. 5. Asa. 6. Josaphat. 7. Joram. 8. Uzziah (Ozias). 9. Jotham. 10. Ahaz. 11. Hezekiah. 12. Manasseh. 13. Amon. 14. Josiah. 1. Jechoniah. 2. Salathiel. 3. Zorobabel. 4. Abiud. 5. Eliakim. 6. Azor. 7. Sadoc. 8. Achim. 9. Eliud. 10. Eleazar. 11. Matthan. 12. Jacob. 13. Joseph. 14. Jesus. “2. Another difficulty arises from the fact, that between Joram and Ozias, in v. 8, three names of Jewish kings are omitted, viz. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah; see 2 K. 8, 25 and Chr. 22, 1. 2 K. 11, 2. 21 and 2 Chr. 22, 11. 2 K. 12, 21. 14, 1 and 2 Chr. 24, 27. Further, between Josiah and Jechoniah in v. 11, the name of Jehoiakim is also omitted; 2 K. 23, 34. 2 Chr. 36, 4. comp. 1 Chr. 3, 15, 16. If these four names are to be reckoned, then the second division, instead of fourteen generations, will contain eighteen, in contradiction to v. 17. To avoid this difficulty, Newcome and some others have regarded v. 17 as a mere gloss, ‘a marginal note taken into the text.’ This indeed is in itself possible; yet all the external testimony of manuscripts and versions is in favour of the genuineness of that verse. It is better therefore to regard these names as having been customarily omitted in the current genealogical tables, from which Matthew copied. Such omissions of particular generations did sometimes actually occur, ‘propteres quod malæ essent et impiæ,’ according to R. Sal. Jarchi; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Matth. 1, 8. A striking example of an omission of this kind, apparently without any such reason, is found in Ezra 7, 1-5, compared with 1 Chr. 6, 3-15. This latter passage contains the lineal descent of the high-priests from Aaron to the captivity; while Ezra, in the place cited, in tracing back his own genealogy through the very same line of descent, omits at least six generations. A similar omission is necessarily implied in the genealogy of David, as given Ruth 4, 20-22. 1 Chr. 2, 10-12. Matth. 1, 5, 6. Salmon was contemporary with the capture of Jericho by Joshua, and married Rahab. But from that time until David, an interval of at least four hundred and fifty years (Acts 13, 20,) there intervened, according to the list, only four generations, averaging of course more than one hundred years to each. But the highest average in point of fact is three generations to a century; and if reckoned by the eldest sons they are usually shorter, or three generations for every seventy-five or eighty years. See Sir I. Newton's Chronol. p. 53. Lond. 1728. “We may therefore rest in the necessary conclusion, that as our Lord's regular descent from David was always asserted, and was never denied even by the Jews; so Matthew, in tracing this admitted descent, appealed to genealogical tables, which were public and acknowledged in the family and tribe from which Christ sprang. He could not indeed do otherwise. How much stress was laid by the Jews upon lineage in general, and how much care and attention were bestowed upon such tables, is well known. See Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Matth. 1, 1. Comp. Phil. 3, 4, 5. “II. Other questions of some difficulty present themselves, when we compare together the two genealogies. “1. Both tables at first view purport to give the lineage of our Lord through Joseph. But Joseph cannot have been the son by natural descent of both Joseph and Heli (Eli), Matth. 1, 16. Luke 3, 23. Only one of the tables therefore can give his true lineage by generation. This is done apparently in that of Matthew; because, beginning at Abraham, it proceeds by natural descent, as we know from history, until after the exile; and then continues on in the same mode of expression until Joseph. Here the phrase is changed; and it is no longer Joseph who 'begat' Jesus, but Joseph ‘the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called the Christ.’ See Augustine, de Consensu Evangel. II. 5. “2. To whom then does the genealogy in Luke chiefly relate? If in any way to Joseph, as the language purports, then it must be because he in some way bore the legal relation of son to Heli, either by adoption or by marriage. If the former simply, it is difficult to comprehend why, along with his true personal lineage as traced by Matthew up through the royal line of Jewish kings to David, there should be given also another subordinate genealogy, not personally his own, and running back through a different and inferior line to the same great ancestor. If, on the other hand, as is most probable, this relation to Heli came by marriage with his daughter, so that Joseph was truly his son-in-law (comp. Ruth 1, 8. 11. 12); then it follows, that the genealogy in Luke is in fact that of Mary the mother of Jesus. This being so, we can perceive a sufficient reason why this genealogy should be thus given, viz. in order to show definitely, that Jesus was in the most full and perfect sense a descendant of David: not only by law in the royal line of kings, through his reputed father, but also in fact by direct personal descent through his mother. “That Mary, like Joseph, was a descendant of David, is not indeed elsewhere expressly said in the New Testament. Yet a very strong presumption to that effect is to be drawn from the address of the angel in Luke 1, 32; as also from the language of Luke 2, 5, where Joseph, as one of the posterity of David, is said to have gone up to Bethlehem, to enroll himself with Mary his espoused wife. The ground and circumstances of Mary's enrolment must obviously have been the same as in the case of Joseph himself. Whether all this arose from her having been an only child and heiress, as some suppose, so that she was espoused to Joseph in accordance with Num. 36, 8, 9, it is not necessary here to inquire. See Michaelis ‘Commentaries on the Laws of Moses,’ Part II. § 78. “It is indeed objected, that it was not customary among the Jews to trace back descent through the female line, that is, on the mother's side. There are, however, examples to show that this was sometimes done; and in the case of Jesus, as we have seen, there was a sufficient reason for it. Thus in 1 Chr. 2, 22, Jair is enumerated among the posterity of Judah by regular descent. But the grandfather of Jair had married the daughter of Machir, one of the heads of Manasseh, 1 Chr. 2, 21. 7, 14; and therefore in Num. 32, 40. 41, Jair is called the son (descendant) of Manasseh. In like manner, in Ezra, 2, 61, and Neh. 7, 63, a certain family is spoken of as ‘the children of Barzillai;’ because their ancestor ‘took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name.’ “3. A question is raised as to the identity, in the two genealogies, of the Salathiel and Zorobabel named as father and son, Matth. 1, 12. Luke 3, 27. The Zorobabel of Matthew is no doubt the chief, who led back the first band of captives from Babylon, and rebuilt the temple, Ezra c. 2-6. He is also called the son of Salathiel in Ezra 3, 2. Neb. 12, 1. Hagg. 1, 1. 2, 2. 23. Were then the Salathiel and Zorobabel of Luke the same persons? Those who assume this, must rest solely on the identity of the names; for there is no other possible evidence to prove, either that they were contemporary, or that they were not different persons. On the other hand, there are one or two considerations, of some force, which go to show that they were probably not the same persons. “First, if Salathiel and Zorobabel are indeed the same in both genealogies, then Salathiel who, according to Matthew, was the son of Jechoniah by natural descent, must have been called the son of Neri in Luke either from adoption or marriage. In that case, his connection with David through Nathan, as given by Luke, was not his own personal genealogy. It is difficult, therefore, to see Luke, after tracing back the descent of Jesus to Salathiel, should abandon the true personal lineage in the royal line of kings, and turn aside again to a merely collateral and humbler line. If the mother of Jesus was in fact descended from the Zorobabel and Salathiel of Matthew, she, like them, was descended also from David through the royal line. Why rob her of this dignity, and ascribe to her only a descent through an inferior lineage? See Spanheim Dubia Evangel. I. p. 108, sq. “Again, the mere identity of names under these circumstances, affords no proof; for nothing is more common even among contemporaries. Thus we have two Ezras; one in Neh. 12, 1. 13, 33; from whom Ezra the scribe is expressly distinguished in v. 36. We have likewise two Nehemiahs; one who went up with Zorobabel, Ezra 2, 2; and the other the governor who went later to Jerusalem, Neh. 2, 9, sq. So too, as contemporaries, Joram son of Ahab, king of Israel, and Joram (Jehoram,) son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah; 2 K. 8, 16, coll. v. 23, 24. Also Joash king of Judah, and Joash king of Israel; 2 K. 13, 9, 10. Further, we find in succession among the descendants of Cain the following names: Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusael, Lamech, Gen. 4, 17, 18; and later among the descendants of Seth these similar ones: Enoch, Methusalah, Lamech, Gen. 5, 21-25.” See Dr. Robinson's Greek Harmony of the Gospels, pp. 183-187.

102.

Mal. iii. 1; Is. xl. 3.

103.

In the New Testament, the same word is used for the high priests, and the chief priests, who were the heads of the twenty-four courses. So that the two persons whom the Roman governor considered as the chief of the priests, and whose names stood as such in those public registers which seem here referred to, may be intended. An irregularity had arisen out of the confusion of the times: and the ruler or prince under the Romans, though a chief priest, was a distinct person from the high priest: Annas being the one, and Caiaphas the other. Scott, in loc. See also Campbell, in loc.

104.

Is. xl. 3, seq.

105.

Deut. viii. 3.

106.

Deut. vi. 16.

107.

Ps. xci. 11.

108.

Deut. vi. 13.

109.

There is a seeming discrepancy between Matthew and Luke, in the order of the temptations; but Luke does not affirm the order; whereas Matthew uses particles, in v. 2 and 8, which seem to fix it as he has written. Newcome.

110.

John means that he was not really Elias risen from the dead. But when Jesus says, (Matth. xvii. 12, and xi. 14,) that Elias was come already, he means that John had appeared in the spirit and power of Elias. Luke i. 17. Thus likewise, John here denies that he is one of the ancient prophets again appearing on earth: see Luke ix 19; with which our Lord's assertion that he was an eminent prophet, Luke vii. 28, seems perfectly consistent. Newcome.

111.

Is. xl. 3.

112.

Kings and princes very often changed the names of those who held offices under them, particularly when they first attracted their notice and were taken into their employ; and when subsequently they were elevated to some new station, and crowned with additional honours. Gen. xli. 45; and xvii. 5; and xxxii. 28; and xxxv. 10; 2 Kin. xxiii. 34, 35; and xxiv. 17; Dan. i. 6. Hence a name (a new name) occurs topically, as a token of honour, in Phil. ii. 9; Heb. i. 4; Rev. ii. 17. See also Mark iii. 17. Jahn's Archæol. § 164.

113.

Nathanael. This apostle is supposed to be the same with Bartholomew, of whom John says nothing; and the others make no mention of Nathanael. This seems to have been his proper name; since the name of Bartholomew is not a proper name, but only signifies the son of Ptolomy. Nathanael is also ranked among the Apostles to whom Jesus showed himself. John xxi. 2-4. A. Clarke, in loc.

114.

Gen. xxviii. 12.

115.

Ps. lxix. 9.

116.

Numb. xxi. 8, seq.

117.

Is. ix. 1.

118.

Is. lxi. 1, and lviii. 6.

119.

This word denotes only a subordinate officer, who attended the minister and obeyed his orders in what concerned the more servile part of the work. Among other things he had charge of the sacred books, and delivered them to those to whom he was commanded by his superiors to deliver them. After the reading was over, he deposited them in their proper place. campbell, in loc.

120.

The service of the synagogue consisted of reading the scriptures, prayer, and preaching. The posture in which the latter was performed, whether in the synagogue or elsewhere, (see Matth. v. 1; Luke v. 3,) was sitting. Accordingly when our Saviour had read the portion of scripture, in the synagogue at Nazareth, of which he was a member, having been brought up in that city, and then, instead of retiring to his place, sat down in the desk or pulpit, it is said “the eyes of all that were present were fastened upon him,” because they perceived, by this posture, that he was about to preach to them. See also Acts xiii. 14, 15. Jennings, Ant. 375.

121.

1 Kings xvii. 1, 9.

122.

2 Kings v. 14.

123.

The accuracy of this description is attested by travellers, to this day. See Robinson's Travels in Palestine, vol. iii., pp. 186, 187.

124.

Matthew says that the disciples were called by Christ while walking by the sea, because that calling followed the walk by the sea. “We say that a thing was done by one walking in this or that place, because he took such a walk, whether he who did the act was then walking, or sitting or standing.” Spanb. dub. lxxii. v. 2. This remark reconciles “walking,” Matth. iv. 18 with “stood,” Luke v. 1. A like remark may be made with respect to the passages placed parallel to Luke v. 6. Jesus is concisely represented as if he had at first seen Peter and Andrew casting a net into the sea, because they were employed thus in consequence of the interview. Luke does not deny that more than Simon were seen, nor does he affirm that Simon was seen. Indeed our Lord is said to have seen two ships by the lake. The calling of others beside Simon not only is not denied by Luke, but is sufficiently indicated in v. 11. The words of Matthew (v. 21) “going on from thence,” are not to be understood as implying a great distance, but as relating to the neighbouring shore. Matthew relates the principal fact, the calling and the following; Luke has the accompanying circumstances. And there is a remarkable harmony between them. Matthew records the repairing of their nets by the fishermen; Luke shows how they became broken,—by the great draught they had taken. What is related by Luke, is not denied by Matthew, but omitted only. Nothing, indeed, is more common than to find the omission of some supplied by the other Evangelists. newcome.

125.

The death of Zebedee is nowhere mentioned in the gospels; yet an undesigned coincidence, and proof of the veracity of the Evangelists, is evident by comparing this place with others, in which his death is tacitly alluded to. Thus, in Chap. viii. 21, it is related that “another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father;” and in Chap. xx. 20, it is said, “Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him,” &c. See also Chap. xxvii. 55. Blunt, Veracity of the Gospels, Sec. I. 2. See note on Mark vi. 3; Post, § 55.

126.

There is no inconsistency between this place and the last clause of Luke iv. 35. The word translated torn, signifies to move, agitate, convulse. It occurs only twice in the Septuagint. In 2. Sam. xxii. 8, the Hebrew signifies to be shaken, ut in terræ motu. In Jer. iv. 19, it is applied to commotion of mind. Here, the demoniac was violently agitated; but the agitation left no lasting bad effect; he was restored to perfect health and soundness. Newcome.

127.

Is. liii. 4.

128.

This clause may be rendered “when the day was coming on,” and thus be reconciled with the words of Mark, who says it was a great while before day, namely, before broad day-light. Scott, in loc

129.

“The miraculous cure of the leprosy was thought by the Jews to be characteristic of the Messiah; and therefore there was peculiar reason for enjoining this man silence.” Benson's Life of Christ, p. 340. Newcome. For the consequences of a premature full manifestation of himself as the Messiah, by awakening the jealousy of the Roman government, might, humanly speaking, have impeded his ministry. Yet there was great propriety in the private exhibition, to the priesthood, of full proof that he was the Messiah; after which, their obstinacy in rejecting him was inexcusable. In this, and divers other instances, our Lord manifested his intent not to be generally known to the Jews as their Messiah, till the consummation of his ministry. A general announcement of his divine character at the outset would have been productive of no good; on the contrary it would have excited the malice of the Scribes, Pharisees and Herodians against him; would have favoured the conceit of the Jews that he was to be their temporal king; would have awakened the jealousy of the Roman government; and in the natural course of things, would have prevented him from giving the many miraculous proofs which he gave of his ministry, and thus laying solid foundations for faith in his divine mission; would have exposed him and his religion to the charge of ostentation, vanity, and love of power and display; and would have deprived the world of that example which he gave, of meekness, humility and patient suffering and self-denial. According to human experience, an early assumption of regal splendour, supported by the miracles he wrought, would have been successful, and carried him to the throne instead of the cross; but it would have deprived the world of the great object of his mission. A sufficient number were enlightened to attest his miracles and proclaim his religion, and enough were left in their ignorance, to condemn and crucify him. See A. Clarke, and Scott, in loc.

130.

Lev. xiv. 2, seq.

131.

When a Jew became a Roman citizen, he usually assumed a Roman name. It is therefore supposed that Levi was the original Hebrew, and Matthew the assumed Roman name of this evangelist. Stowe's Introd. 120. See also, Harmer's Obs. vol. iv. p. 330; Obs. 94.

132.

It is observable that though John speaks of this pool or bath as existing at the time he wrote, which was upwards of sixty years after the crucifixion, yet he speaks of the efficacy of its waters in the past tense, as something which had long ceased. This may account for the silence of Josephus concerning it; whether we suppose it to have been really a miraculous virtue, existing only in the time of our Saviour; or merely a groundless belief of the populace.

133.

Spanheim, dub. evang. ii. 185, doubts how the latter part of this verse is reconcilable with Matthew iii. 17, and the parallel verses. But the voice from heaven was not God's immediate voice; but uttered at his command, and in his person. See Deut. iv. 33; Ex. xx. 1, 2; Comp. Hebr. ii. 2; Gal. iii. 19; Acts vii. 53. Newcome.

134.

Deut. xxiii. 25.

135.

The act of plucking the ears of corn by the hand, in another's field, was expressly permitted, by the law of Moses, Deut. xxiii. 23; but it was considered so far a species of reaping as to be servile work, and therefore not lawful to be done on the Sabbath. Campbell, in loc. See Robinson's Biblical Researches in Palestine, Vol. 2, pp. 192, 201, that this custom is still in use.

136.

Hos. vi. 6.

137.

It appears from 1 Sam. xxi. 1, that Abimelech was the high priest at the time referred to; but Abiathar his son was the chief priest under him, and probably superintended the tabernacle and its stated concerns. Abimelech was soon after slain; and Abiathar succeeded him in that office, and continued in it about forty years, until after the death of David. This circumstance, and his great eminence, above his father, may account for the use of his name rather than his father's, as illustrating the times of David and Saul. See Scott, in loc.

138.

Numb. xxviii. 9, 10; xviii. 19.

139.

1 Sam. xxi. 1-7.

140.

Is. xlii. 1, seq.; Is. xi. 10.

141.

There may be an allusion, in these words of the prophet, to an Eastern custom, for those who were grievously afflicted to come to the sovereign for relief or redress, having pots of fire, or of burning straw, or other combustible on their heads, in token of their extreme trouble. Not one of these, the prophet seems to intimate, should go away without redress; he will certainly remove the cause of their complaints, and render truth and justice victorious over falsehood and oppression. 3 Calm. 394.

142.

It appears from Mark vi. 7, that the apostles were sent forth by two and two to preach; and this accounts for their being here and in the parallel places named in couples. Luke mentions Matthew first, as being regarded as the senior of Thomas, his companion; but Matthew modestly places his own name last. Mark is less observant of the order of the names, but he alone states that they were thus associated. The others give the names in couples, but state no reason for it. This is not the method of false witnesses; such incidental corroborations belong only to the narratives of truth.

143.

Thaddeus, Theudas and Judas (or Jude) are probably names of the same signification, the Greek termination being added to different forms of a Hebrew verb. “The Canaanite,” Matth. x. 4, is the same with “Zelotes” in Luke. “Cognomen erat Chald. quod Lucas reddidit Zelotem.” Wetstein. Thus, Thomas is rendered Didymus, or, the twin; Cephas, Peter; and Silas, Tertius. Some suppose that this name had been given to Simon on account of his religious zeal; or, because he had been of a Jewish sect called Zealots, who were addicted to the Pharisees, and justified themselves by the example of Phinehas, for punishing offenders without waiting for the sentence of the magistrate. Newcome. “Between Matthew (x. 2,) and Mark (iii. 16,) we observe a strict correspondence, but the catalogue in St. Luke (vi. 14,) differs from both the first-mentioned writers, in two particulars. 1, ‘Simon the Canaanite,’ of Matthew and Mark is introduced as ‘Simon called Zelotes.’ Now if any difference was admitted in this place, we might expect it to extend no farther than to the order of the names, or the addition of a surname; as, for instance, Matthew calls the ‘Thaddeus’ of Mark also ‘Lebbeus;’ but here we have one surname changed for another. It is indeed easy to conceive, that Simon might have been commonly distinguished by either appellative, but this we can only conjecture; neither Evangelist adds a word to explain the point. 2, The other discrepancy, however, appears more serious. The Lebbeus or Thaddeus of St. Matthew and Mark, is entirely omitted in the list of St. Luke, who substitutes ‘Judas the brother of James.’ Here is certainly a marked difference, for it would not seem very probable, that the Apostle in question passed by three distinct names. Nor could this be a mere oversight in St. Luke, for, in Acts i. 13, where a catalogue of the eleven is inserted, he mentioned this individual in exactly the same manner. Are we to suppose then that the Evangelist commits a deliberate error in this particular? We have distinct and satisfactory witnesses to prove that there really was an Apostle, besides Iscariot, who bore the name of Judas. Both Matthew (xiii. 55,) and Mark (vi. 3,) concur in speaking of James and Jude as the near relations of Christ, and part of this statement is incidentally confirmed by St. Paul, who calls James ‘the Lord's brother.’ (Gal. i. 19.) But farther, St. John (xiv. 22,) presents us with a remark made by ‘Judas not Iscariot;’ evidently one of the Apostles; and St. Jude himself, in the first verse of his Epistle, styles himself ‘the brother of James.’ There is thus amply sufficient evidence, that all the Gospel writers acknowledge an Apostle of this name, though St. Matthew, with his usual simplicity, familiarly mentions him by two of his appellations, omitting that of Judas, and St. Mark sees no occasion to depart from his language, in a matter of such general notoriety. Luke, on the other hand, usually studious of accuracy, distinguishes this Apostle by the name generally current in the Church, when his Gospel was written. This variation then may, upon the whole, convince us how undesignedly the writers of Scripture confirm each other's statements; yet can this only be the result of a minute examination upon our part, and upon the probability of this, a cautious writer would hardly stake his reputation for truth or exactness.” See Roberts's “Light shining out of Darkness,” pp. 91-93.

144.

It may be objected that Matthew, in saying that this discourse was delivered sitting on a mountain, is contradicted by Luke, who says, that Jesus was standing on a plain. Luke vi. 17. But Dr. Clarke, on this latter place, has suggested that Jesus “being pressed with great multitudes of people, might retire from them again to the top of the hill.” And Dr. Priestley observes that “Matthew's saying that Jesus was sat down after he had gone up the mountain, and Luke's saying that he stood on the plain, when he healed the sick before the discourse, are no inconsistencies.” Harm. p. 83. The whole picture is striking. Jesus ascends a mountain, employs the night in prayer, and having thus solemnly invoked the divine blessing, authoritatively separates the twelve apostles from the mass of his disciples. He descends, and heals, in the plain, all among a great multitude, collected from various parts by the fame of his miraculous power. Having thus created attention, he satisfies the desire of the people to hear his doctrine; and retiring first to the mountain whence he came, that his attentive hearers might follow him, and might better arrange themselves before him. Sacro digna silentio Mirantur omnes dicere. Hor. Newcome. The different accounts of the Sermon on the Mount may be reconciled, by considering that Mathew wrote chiefly for the Hebrew Christians; and it was therefore important for him to bring out, in full, the manner in which our Lord enforced the spiritual nature of his dispensation and doctrine, in opposition to the mere letter of the Jewish law, and the teaching and practice of Scribes and Pharisees; which he does particularly and with many examples; while Luke, on the contrary, wrote chiefly for Gentile Christians, to whom the contrast with the Jewish law was of less interest; and therefore he omits those parts of the discourse, and dwells only upon those which were of practical importance to all. Robinson. Newcome.

145.

The Greek word here employed is said to be derived from the Persians, among whom the king's messengers or posts were called Angari. These had the royal authority for pressing horses, ships, and even men, to assist them in the business on which they were sent. The word therefore signifies, to be compelled by violence to do any particular service, especially of the public kind, by the king's authority. And the sentiment is a lesson of patience and gentleness under severe exactions from man. Lightfoot, apud A. Clarke, in loc. Sir J. Chardin's Travels, Vol. i. p. 238, 257.

146.

Calvin says that Matthew, being more brief, introduces the centurion himself as speaking; and that Luke expresses more at large his sending by his friends; but that the sense of both is the same. Harm. p. 124. (Toinard quotes Exod. xviii. 6, where the words related as spoken by Jethro, were evidently a message sent by him to Moses. Harm. 147.) Considering then the sameness of the scene, of the person, of the words, and of the transaction, I cannot but conclude with Grotius, that the miracle is one and the same, related in general by Matthew, and with greater accuracy by Luke. newcome.

147.

The nature of our Lord's ministry, as it now appeared, so unlike what John as a Jew expected, may have surprised and perplexed him. And his own misfortune, coming upon this disappointment and perplexity, would increase his doubt and embarrassment. His faith was shaken;—the question implies no more;—and he sent that his doubts might be removed, and his faith confirmed. Jesus therefore merely referred John to the miracles he was doing, and the prophecies which spake of him, and which were fulfilled by those miracles. Bp. Sumner, in loc.

148.

Is. xxxv. 5, seq.

149.

Mal. iii. 1.

150.

Mal. iv. 5.

151.

We here learn that the demoniac was both blind and dumb. St. Luke omits the former circumstance, but does not contradict it. Newcome.

152.

An accurate reader will observe that Matt. xii. 22, and Luke xi. 14, show the general occasion of the blasphemy against Jesus; and that Matt. xii. 23, shews the particular occasion of it, the multitude alarming the Jewish rulers by their question whether Jesus were the Christ. No cause for the absurd and impious insinuation of the Scribes and Pharisees is assigned by St. Mark: however, he suggests an important circumstance, that they came from Jerusalem to watch the conduct of Jesus. The latter part of Luke viii. 19, shows that his relations were not able to enter the house on account of the press. Thus one Evangelist is wonderfully supplemental to another by notations of time, place, and other circumstances; and the strictest propriety and agreement result from diligently comparing them. Newcome.

153.

The writer of a false narrative would either have omitted to mention the request for a sign, or would have related that it was complied with. He would never have exposed his Master to the suspicion of a want of power. See also, Matt. xvi. 1.

154.

Jonah i. 17.

155.

Jonah iii. 4, 5.

156.

1 Kings x. 1 seq.

157.

This omission may seem inconsistent with the character of Jesus, who appears to have generally complied with all the innocent usages of his countrymen; and of course it may be adduced as an objection against the veracity of the Evangelist. Luke simply records the fact, however it may seem to make against the character of his Master, or his own veracity. But Mark, vii. 3-9, in a manner equally incidental and without design, discloses the truth that this washing was superstitious, and connected with the dangerous error of placing the traditions of the elders on equal footing with the commands of God. Where there was danger of his practice being misinterpreted, our Lord withheld his compliance, even in things indifferent. See Bp. Sumner on Luke, Lect. 41.

158.

Gen. iv. 8; 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, seq.

159.

The autumnal rains in Palestine come mostly from the west or south-west. Robinson's Biblical Researches, vol. ii. p. 97. The incidental allusion here made to that fact, would hardly have been made by a writer of fiction.

160.

Is. vi. 9, 10.

161.

Ps. lxxviii. 2.

162.

This is made consistent with the other Evangelists, by reading “Gadarenes.” If Gergasa was subordinate to Gadara, the metropolis of Perea, as Cellarius and Reland judge, and St. Mark did not write in Judea, what wonder that he chose the more general name, which was best known in the world? But Cellarius from Eusebius takes notice that some esteemed Gergasi, so Eusebius writes it, and Gadara two names of the same city; and this he thinks was the sentiment of the Syriac translator. To this Sir Richard Ellis most inclines, in his “Fortuita Sacra.” Townson, p. 72. In Matthew mention is made of two demoniacs; in Mark and Luke of one only. Here Le Clerc's maxim is undoubtedly true: Qui plura narrat, pauciora complectitur: qui pauciora memorat, plura non negat. Harm. p. 524. We may collect a reason from the Gospels themselves, why Mark and Luke mention only one demoniac; because, one only being grateful for the miracle, his cure only was recorded by the two Evangelists, who mention this gratitude, and who are more intent on inculcating the moral, than on magnifying our Lord's power. Newcome.

163.

There is no contradiction here between Matth. and Mark. The demoniacs met Jesus on the shore, as he came out of the ship. Luke viii. 27. The swine were within sight, on the ascending ground, Luke viii. 32, at the side of the mountain, Mark v. 11, which was at some distance from the shore where they stood. Matth. viii. 30.

164.

Since swine were held in abhorrence by the Jews, how happened a herd of them to be feeding by the sea of Tiberias? The answer shows the accuracy of the Evangelist and his intimate knowledge of the local circumstances of Judea; for it appears from Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 11, 4, that Gadara was a Grecian city, the inhabitants of which, therefore, were not Jews. BLunt, Veracity, &c. sect. ii. 6.

165.

Here is a reference to an Eastern custom, which affords internal evidence of the truth of the narrative. The master sat on a higher seat, and the scholars sat at his feet. Sitting at the feet, was the posture of a learner; and indicated the reverence and submission due to the teacher. Thus Moses says of the people, to whom God gave the law from Mount Sinai,—“they sat down at thy feet.” Deut. xxxiii. 3. Isaiah, speaking of Abraham, who was taught of God, says “he called him to his foot.” Is. xli. 2. Mary “sat at Jesus's feet and heard his words.” Luke x. 39. Paul was brought up “at the feet of Gamaliel;” Acts xxii. 3; studied law with him. And the restored maniac sat down at Jesus's feet, in the posture of a humble learner, desiring no other wisdom than to be taught of him.

166.

Both Mark and Luke state that this was in Matthew's own house; and Luke calls it a great feast, made in honour of Jesus. The omission of this fact by Matthew, not only shows his modesty and humility, but adds much to the weight of evidence in his favour, both as a man, and as a witness. See Blunt's Veracity of the Gospels, sect. i. 4.

167.

Hos. vi. 6; 1 Sam. xv. 22.

168.

Neither of the Evangelists expressly mentions the death of Joseph; yet from all four of them it may indirectly be inferred to have happened while Jesus was yet alive. Comp. Luke viii. 19, John ii. 12, and xix. 25-27. Such harmony as this could not have been the effect of concert. See Blunt's Veracity, &c. sect. i. 7.

169.

Commentators have noted two inconsistent circumstances in this section. In Matthew, shoes are forbidden; in Mark the Apostles are commanded to be shod with sandals. But the true solution seems to be this, that the Apostles should not furnish themselves with spare garments, and should wear the simplest covering for their feet. “Non vult ullis rebus studiose comparatis onerari.” Beza. See Newcome, in loc.

170.

The synagogues were used, not only for divine service, but for holding courts of justice, especially for ecclesiastical affairs; and the lesser punishments, such as whipping, were inflicted in the synagogue, immediately after sentence, as the burning in the hand was formerly inflicted in England, upon praying the benefit of clergy. Jennings, Ant. p. 376. Such an allusion as this would not be likely to have been found in a work of fiction.

171.

Mic. vii. 6.

172.

Matth. xiv. 2, unto his servants. Matthew alone mentions, and without any apparent reason for such minuteness, that Herod addressed his remark to his servants it. Luke, in the parallel passage, says he heard of all that was done by him; but by referring to Luke viii. 3, and to Acts xiii. 1, we find that Christ had followers from among the household of the very prince, with whom Herod was likely to converse on a subject in which they were better informed than himself. Blunt, Veracity, &c., sec. i. 8.

173.

Here is a very natural passing allusion to what we learn from Josephus was a settled custom in the family of Herod; namely, the making of a feast on his birth-day, at which the officers of his government were guests. Josephus, Ant. xix. vii. § 1.

174.

Mark incidentally mentions the great multitude coming and going, and the purpose of Jesus to withdraw awhile. The occasion of this great multitude of travellers is stated in the like incidental manner by John, vi. 4, that the passover was nigh at hand; and hence, if Jesus withdrew awhile, the throng would be drawn off towards Jerusalem. These undesigned coincidences tend to verify both the narratives. Blunt, Veracity, &c. sect. i. 13.

175.

Why Jesus addressed this question to Philip, and why John mentioned so unimportant a fact, is not here explained. Nor does Luke indicate any reason for his own statement of the place where this miracle was wrought, namely, near Bethsaida. But John, in another place, (ch. i. 44,) with apparently as little reason, gratuitously states that Philip was of Bethsaida; and this fact renders both the others intelligible and significant. Jesus, intending to furnish bread for the multitude by a miracle, first asked Philip, who belonged to the city and was perfectly acquainted with the neighbourhood, whether bread could be procured there. His answer amounts to saying that it was not possible. These slight circumstances, thus collected together, constitute very cogent evidence of the veracity of the narrative, and evince the reality of the miracle itself. See Blunt, Veracity, &c. sect. i. 13.

176.

In Luke, Jesus commands that the people should be made to sit down by fifties. In Mark it is said that they sat down by hundreds and by fifties. Piscator, and Pearce, in a dissertation at the end of his comment on St. Paul's Epistles, say that they sat an hundred in front, and fifty deep; which very satisfactorily solves the seeming variation. Newcome.

177.

This seemingly idle inquiry becomes important as a note of veracity in the narrator, when compared with the account of Matthew. John indeed tells us, v. 18, that the wind blew a gale, but he does not state from what quarter. He also says that there were boats from Tiberias, near the place where the miracle of bread was wrought, v. 23, but this does not at all explain the inquiry of the people how Jesus came to Capernaum. But Matthew states that “the wind was contrary,” that is, west, Matth. xiv. 22. This fact, and the geographical position of the places, explains the whole. The miracle was wrought near Bethsaida, on the east side of the lake. The people saw the disciples take the only boat which was there, and depart for Capernaum, which was on the west side of the lake, and saw that Jesus was not with them. In the night it blew a tempest from the west. In the morning, the storm being over, the people crossed over to Capernaum and found Jesus already there. Well might they ask him, with astonishment, how he came thither. For though there were boats over from Tiberias, which was also on the west side of the lake, yet he could not have returned in one of them, for the wind would not have permitted them to cross the lake. Blunt, Veracity of the Gospels, sect. i. 17.

178.

Ps. lxxviii. 24. Ex. xvi. 15.

179.

Isa. liv. 13. Jer. xxxi. 33, seq.

180.

Ex. xvi. 15.

181.

The truth of the Gospels has been argued from the confessions they contain. On this verse Paley asks, “Was it the part of a writer, who dealt in suppression and disguise, to put down this anecdote?” Evid. 255.

182.

The admission of Judas Iscariot into the domestic and confidential circle of our Lord, was the result of profound and even of divine wisdom. It showed that Jesus was willing to throw open his most secret actions, discourses, and views not merely to his devoted friends, but to a sagacious and hardened enemy. If Judas had ever discovered the least fault in the character or conduct of Jesus, he certainly would have disclosed it;—he would not have publicly confessed that he had betrayed innocent blood, and have sunk down in insupportable anguish and despair. See Tappin's Lect. on Eccl. Hist. ii.

183.

The traditions of the elders were unwritten ordinances of indefinite antiquity, the principal of which, as the Pharisees alleged, were delivered to Moses in the mount, and all of which were transmitted through the High Priests and Prophets, down to the members of the great Sanhedrim in their own times; and from these, as the Jews say, they were handed down to Gamaliel, and ultimately to Rabbi Jehudah, by whom they were digested and committed to writing, toward the close of the second century. This collection is termed the Mishna; and in many cases it is esteemed among the Jews as of higher authority than the law itself. In like manner, there are said to be many Christians, at the present day, who receive ancient traditionary usages and opinions as authoritative exponents of Christian doctrine. They say that the preached gospel was before the written gospel; and that the testimony of those who heard it is entitled to equal credit with the written evidence of the Evangelists; especially as the latter is but a brief record, while the oral preaching was a more full and copious announcement of the glad tidings. These traditions, both of the Jewish and the Christian Church, seem to stand in pari ratione, the arguments in favour of the admissibility and effect of the one, applying with the same force, in favour of the other. All these arguments may be resolved into two grounds, namely, contemporaneous practice subsequently and uniformly continued; and contemporaneous declarations, as part of the res gestæ, faithfully transmitted to succeeding times. It is alleged that those to whom the law of God was first announced, best knew its precise import and meaning, and that therefore their interpretation and practice, coming down concurrently with the law itself, is equally obligatory. But this argument assumes what cannot be admitted; for it still remains to be shown that those who first heard the law, when orally announced, had any better means of understanding it than those to whom the same words were afterwards read. The Ten Commandments were spoken in the hearing of Aaron and all the congregation of Israel; immediately after which they made and worshipped a golden calf. Surely this will not be adduced as a valid contemporaneous exposition of the second commandment. The error of the argument lies in the nature of the subject. The human doctrine of contemporaneous exposition is applicable only to human laws and the transactions of men, as equals, and not to the laws of God. Among men, when their own language is doubtful and ambiguous, their own practice is admissible, to expound it; because both the language and the practice are but the outward and visible signs of the meaning and intention of one and the same mind and will, which inward meaning and intention is the thing sought after. It is on the same ground, that, where a statute, capable of divers interpretations, has uniformly been acted upon in a certain way, this is held a sufficient exposition of its true intent. In both cases it is the conduct of the parties themselves which is admitted to interpret their own language; expressed, in cases of contract, by themselves in person, and in statutes, through the medium of the legislators, who were their agents and representatives; and in both cases, it is merely the interpretation of what a man says, by what he does. But this rule has never been applied, in the law, to the language of any other person than the party himself; never, to the command or direction of his superior or employer. And even the language of the parties, when it is contained in a sealed instrument, is at this day held incapable of being expounded by their actions, on account of the greater solemnity of the instrument. See Baynham v. Guy's Hospital, 3 Vesey's Rep. 295. Eaton v. Lyon, Ibid. 690, 694. The practice of men, therefore, can be no just exponent of the law of God. If they have mistaken the meaning of his command from the beginning, the act of contravention remains a sin in the last transgressor, as well as the first; for the word of God cannot be changed or affected by the gloss of human interpretation. The other ground, namely, that the testimony of those who heard Jesus and his apostles preach, is of equal authority with the Scriptures, being contemporaneous declarations, and parts of the res gestae, and therefore admissible in aid of the exposition of the written word, is equally inconsistent with the sound and settled rules of law respecting writings. When a party has deliberately committed his intention and meaning to writing, the law regards the writing as the sole repository of his mind and intention, and does not admit any oral testimony to alter, add to, or otherwise affect it. The reasons for this rule are two; first, because the writing is the more solemn act, by the party himself, designed to prevent mistake, and to remain as the perpetual memorial of his intention; and, secondly, because of the great uncertainty and weakness of any secondary evidence. For no one can tell whether the by-standers heard precisely what was said, nor whether they heard it all, nor whether they continued to remember it with accuracy until the time when they wrote it down, or communicated it to those who wrote it; to say nothing of the danger of their mixing up the language of the speaker with what was said by others, or with their own favourite theories. And where the witnesses were not the original auditors of what was said, no one knows how much the truth may have suffered from the many channels through which it has passed, in coming from the first speaker to the last write or witness. On all these accounts, the law rejects oral testimony of what the parties said, in regard to anything that has already been solemnly committed to writing by the parties themselves, and rejects the secondary evidence of hearsay, when evidence of a higher degree, as, for example, a written declaration of the party, can be obtained. Now, inasmuch as the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles were penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, why should not the documentary evidence of the Gospel, thus drawn up by them, be treated with at least as much respect as other written documents? If they were inspired to write down those great truths for a perpetual memorial to after ages, then this record is the primary evidence of those truths. It is the word of God, penned by his own dictation, and sealed, as it were, with his own seal. If it were a man's word and will, thus solemnly written, no verbal or secondary evidence could be admitted, by the common law, to explain, add to, or vary it; nothing could be engrafted upon it; nor could any person be admitted to testify what he heard the party say, in regard to what was written. The courts would at once reject all such attempts, and confine themselves strictly to the writing before them, the only inquiry being as to the meaning of the language contained in that document, and not as to what the party may elsewhere have spoken. The law presumes that the writing alone is the source to which he intended that resort should be had, in order to ascertain his meaning. But by calling in the fathers, with their traditions, to prove what Christ and his Apostles taught, beyond what is solemnly recorded in the Scriptures, the principle of this plain and sound rule of law is violated; resort is had to secondary evidence of the truths of our religion, when the primary evidence is already at hand; and the pure fountain is deserted for the muddy stream.

184.

Matthew was not only a Jew himself, but it is evident, from the whole structure of his Gospel, especially from his numerous references to the Old Testament, that he wrote for Jewish readers.—Paley. But the explanation here given by Mark is an additional evidence of the fact asserted by Jerome and Clement of Alexandria, that he wrote at Rome, for the benefit chiefly of the converts of that nation.

185.

Ex. xxii 12. Ex. xxi. 17. Deut. v. 16.

186.

Is. xxix. 13.

187.

Mark designates the woman by the country where she dwelt; Matthew calls her a woman of Canaan, because of the people to whom she belonged. Thus they do not contradict each other. The treatment of this woman by our Lord has been the subject of remark, as evasive and insincere. But it was far otherwise. He had a twofold object; to call the attention of his disciples to the fact of her being a foreigner, in order to show them that his ministry, though primarily and chiefly to the Jews, was in truth designed for the benefit of the Gentiles also; and to draw out, as it were, the great faith of the woman, in order to teach them the effect of faithful and persevering supplication. To attain these objects, he took the direct and most obvious method. In this instance also, as in those of the centurion, (Matth. viii. 5-13,) and of the Samaritan leper, (Luke xvii. 16-18,) he indicated that the gospel would be more readily received by the Gentiles than by the Jews. See A. Clarke, in loc. Newcome, Obs. on our Lord. p. 165. Bp. Horsley's Sermons on this subject, Serm. xxxvii. and xxxviii. p. 444-464.

188.

Cellarius and Lightfoot think that Dalmanutha and Magdala were neighbouring towns. See Calmet, voc. Dalmanutha. It is probable that Dalmanutha and Magdala were in Gaulanitis, towards the south-east part of the lake. See Matth. xv. 21; Mark vii. 24. Newcome.

189.

Our Lord's words, Matth. xvi. 8, 10, and Mark viii. 17, 20, are the same in substance, though differently modified. The evangelists are not scrupulous in adhering to the precise words used by Christ. They often record them in a general manner, non numerantes, sed tanquem appendentes; regarding their purport, and not superstitiously detailing them. However, in this place, after uttering what Matthew relates, Jesus may have asked the questions recorded by Mark. Newcome.

190.

The notice of this circumstance affords a proof of the veracity of the evangelist; for he barely states a fact having no apparent connexion with any other in his narrative. The reason of it is found in facts stated by the other evangelists. The people of Bethsaida had already witnessed the miracles of our Lord, but these only served to increase their rage against him; and they were therefore abandoned to the consequences of their of their unbelief. Matth. xi. 21.

191.

The phrase three days and three nights is equivalent to three days, three natural days of twenty-four hours. Gen. i. 5; Dan. viii. 14. Comp. Gen. vii. 4. 17. (It is a received rule among the Jews, that a part of a day is put for the whole; so that whatsoever is done in any part of the day, is properly said to be done that day. 1 Kings xx. 29; Esth. iv. 16. “When eight days were accomplished for the circumcision of the child,” &c. Yet the day of his birth and of his circumcision were two of these eight days. Whitby, quoted by Scott, on Matth. xii. 40.) Grotius establishes this way of reckoning the parts of the first and third days for two days, by Aben Ezra on Lev. xii. 3. (In proof that the phrase “after three days,” is sometimes equivalent to “on the third day,” compare Deut. xiv. 28 with xxvi. 12; 1 Sam. xx. 12 with v. 19; 2 Chron. x. 5 with v. 12; Matth. xxvi. 2 with xxvii. 63, 64; Luke ii. 21 with i. 59.) St. Luke omits our Lord's sharp reproof of Peter, and the occasion of it; though he records the discourse in consequence of it. Le Clerc's 12th canon is “Qui pauciora habet, non negat plura dicta aut facta; modo ne ulla sit exclusionis nota.” Perhaps the disciple and companion of that apostle who had withstood Peter to his face, Gal. ii. 11, willingly made this omission, as he omits some aggravating circumstances in Peter's denial of Christ, Luke xxii. 60, though he carefully records the greatness of his sorrow, v. 62. Newcome.

192.

It has been shown, § 74, that “after six days” may signify on the sixth day. But we are not hence to conclude that the phrase has always such a signification. Here it means six days complete, after the discourse recorded in § 74. The eight days mentioned by St. Luke include that of Peter's reproof and of the transfiguration; which two days Matthew and Mark exclude. Macknight furnishes us with the following apposite reference to Tacitus: Hist. i. 29. Piso says, Sextus dies agitur—ex quo—Cæsar adscitus sum; and yet, § 48 of the same book, Tacitus speaks of Piso as quatriduo Cæsar. Grotius on Matth. xvii. 1, has another solution; Quod Lucas dicit, tale est quale cum vulgò dicimus post septimanam circiter. Nam Judæos octo dies appellasse id quod ab uno sabbato est ad alterum apparet, Joan. 20, 26, &c. Newcome.

193.

It is remarkable that Luke assigns no reason for this extraordinary silence; leaving his narrative in this place imperfect and obscure, which an impostor would not have done. It is explained by the command of Jesus, related by Matthew and Mark.

194.

The original word is didrachma, denoting, not tribute or tax in general, but a specific and particular offering which every Jew paid to God. See Josephus, Ant. xviii. x. § 1. This minute accuracy of the evangelist is worthy of note, as an indication of veracity.

195.

The twelve apostles and the seventy disciples were commissioned and sent forth at different times. Hence the person here alluded to may, for aught that appears, have been one of the seventy, not personally known to John and to those who were with him. Letters on Evil Spirits, p. 39.

196.

Here Jesus says, He that is not against us is for us; but in Matth. xii. 30, he says, He that is not with me is against me. Grotius regards both as proverbial sayings;—Proverbia in utramque partem usurpata, veritatem suam habent pro materia cui aptantur;—and alludes to similar forms in Prov. xxvi. 4, 5. Newcome.

197.

2 Kings iv. 29.

198.

This was near the passover; when Jesus, going to celebrate it at Jerusalem, plainly indicated that men ought to worship there; contrary to the practice of the Samaritans, who, in opposition to the Holy City, had set up a temple at Gerazim. Hence the cause of their hostility to him as well as to all others travelling in that direction at that season. This account perfectly harmonizes with the respectful deportment of the Samaritans towards him at the time of his interview with the woman at Jacob's well, John iv. 1-42; for he was then coming from Judea, and it was not the season of resorting thither for any purposes of devotion. John iv. 35. Blunt, Veracity, &c., sect. i. 16.

199.

Lev. xii. 3.

200.

On this day, which was one of great joy and festivity, it was the custom of the Jews to fetch water from the pool Siloam, some of which they drank with loud acclamations of joy and thanksgiving; and some they brought to the altar, in commemoration of the miraculous relief of their forefathers, when thirsting in the wilderness; and some they brought as a drink-offering to God, to pray for rain against the following seed-time. See Benson's Life of Christ, p. 412. Jennings, Ant. p. 495. The existence of this custom, thus remotely alluded to, gives great truthfulness to the narrative.

201.

Isa. lv. 1, and lviii. 11, and xliv. 3. Zech. xiii. 1, and xiv. 8.

202.

Ps. lxxxix. 4, and cxxxii. 11. Mic. v. 2.

203.

It is apparent, from various incidental allusions in the Evangelists, that it was the habit of our Lord at this period to spend his days in Jerusalem, in teaching the people and healing the sick, and his nights in the Mount of Olives, in prayer. Yet it is nowhere directly asserted; and the manner in which it is slightly mentioned or alluded to by the sacred writers, is worthy of particular notice, as a proof of their veracity, never met with, in works of fiction. Compare Matth. xxiv. 3, and xxvi. 30; Mark xiii. 3, and xiv. 26; Luke vi. 12, and xxi. 37, 38, and xxii. 39; John viii. 1, 2, and xviii. 1.

204.

Lev. xx. 10. Deut. xxii. 21.

205.

The Romans, in settling the provincial government of Judea, which they had conquered, deprived the Jewish tribunals of the power of inflicting capital punishments. John xviii. 31. The law of Moses, however, condemned adulterers to be stoned to death. “This woman had been caught in the very fact. Jesus must therefore determine against the law, which inflicted death; or against the Romans, who suffered them not to put any body to death, and who would still less have permitted it for such a crime as adultery, which was not capital among them.—If he condemned not the adulteress to death when he was alone with her, he hereby teaches us to submit to the civil laws of the places where we live.” Basnage, Hist. Jud. lib. v. c. § 2.

206.

When one was condemned to death, those witnesses, whose evidence decided the sentence, inflicted the first blows, in order to add the last degree of certainty to their evidence. Dupin, Trial of Jesus, p. 7. Salvador, Histoire des Institutions de Moise, &c. Liv. iv. ch. ii. p. 76.

207.

John vii. 28, is consistent with John viii. 14. “Ye both know my transactions among you, and whence, as a man, I derive my descent; (ch. vi. 42,) and yet there is a sense in which ye know not whence I am, as I came not,” &c. Kai is used in the same manner, Matth. ix. 19. And yet wisdom, &c. See also John ix. 30. In this latter sense (ch. viii. 14,) the Jews knew not whence Jesus came, knew not his divine mission, and that he would return to the Father at his ascension. Newcome.