Section X.—THE LAST EFFORTS BEFORE PILATE.

No person, then, was willing to condemn Jesus; neither Herod, who only

made the case a subject of mockery, nor Pilate, who had openly declared

that he found nothing criminal in him.

But the hatred of the priests was not disarmed—so far from it, that the

chief priests, with a numerous train of their partisans, returned to

Pilate with a determination to force him to a decision.

The unfortunate Pilate, reviewing his proceedings in their presence, said

to them again: “Ye have brought this man unto me as one that perverteth

the people—and, behold, I, having examined him before you, _have found no

fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him_: No, nor

yet Herod; for I sent you to him, and lo, _nothing worthy of death is done

unto him_. I will therefore chastise him and release him.” Luke xxiii. 14,

15.

After “chastising” him! And was not this a piece of cruelty, when he

considered him to be innocent?(415) But this was an act of condescension

by which Pilate hoped to quiet the rage with which he saw they were

agitated.

“Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him.” John xix. 1. And,

supposing that he had done enough to disarm their fury, he exhibited him

to them in that pitiable condition; saying to them at the same time,

Behold the man! _Ecce homo_. John xix. 5.

Now, in my turn, I say, here is indeed a decree of Pilate, and an unjust

decree; but it is not the pretended decree alleged to have been made by

the Jews. It is a decision wholly different; an unjust decision, it is

true; but sufficient to avail as _a legal bar_ to any new proceedings

against Jesus for the same act. _Non bis in idem_, no man shall be put

twice in jeopardy, &c. is a maxim, which has come down to us from the

Romans.

Accordingly, “from thenceforth Pilate sought to _release_ Jesus.” John

xix. 12.

Here, now, observe the deep perfidy of his accusers. “If thou let this man

go, thou art not Cæsar’s friend; whosoever maketh himself a _king_

speaketh against Cæsar.” Ib.

It does not appear that Pilate was malignant; we see all the efforts he

had made at different times to save Jesus. But he was a _public officer_,

and was attached to _his office_; he was intimidated by the outcry which

called in question his _fidelity to the emperor_; he was afraid of a

_dismissal_: and he yielded. He immediately reascended the judgment-seat;

(Matt. xxvii. 19), and, as new light had thus come upon him, he proceeded

to make a second decree!

But being for a moment stopped by the voice of his own conscience, and by

the advice which his terrified wife sent to him—“_Have thou nothing to do

with that just man_”—(Matt. xxvii. 19)—he made his last effort, by

attempting to influence the populace to accept of Barabbas instead of

Jesus. “But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather

release Barabbas unto them.” Mark xv. 11. Barabbas! a murderer! an

assassin!

Pilate spoke to them again: _What will ye then, that I should do with

Jesus?_ And they cried out, _Away with him, crucify him_. Pilate still

persisted: _Shall I crucify your king?_ thus using terms of raillery, in

order to disarm them. But here showing themselves to be more truly Roman

than Pilate himself, the chief priests hypocritically answered: _We have

no king but Cæsar._ John xix. 15.

The outcry was renewed—Crucify him, crucify him! And the clamour became

more and more threatening; “and the voices of them and of the chief

priests prevailed.” Luke xxiii. 23.

At length Pilate, _being desirous of pleasing the multitude_, proceeds to

speak. But can we call it a legal adjudication, a _judgment_, that he is

about to pronounce? Is he, at the moment, in that free state of mind which

is necessary for a judge, who is about to pass a _sentence of death_? What

new witnesses, what proofs have been brought forward to change his

conviction and opinion, which had been so energetically declared, of the

innocence of Jesus?

“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult

was made, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying,

_I am innocent of the blood of this just person_; see ye to it. Matt.

xxvii. 24. And Pilate gave sentence, that it should be as they required.

Luke xxiii. 24. And he delivered him to them to be crucified.” Matt.

xxvii. 26.

Well mayest thou wash thy hands, Pilate, stained as they are with innocent

blood! Thou hast authorised the act in thy weakness; thou art not less

culpable, than if thou hadst sacrificed him through wickedness! All

generations, down to our own time, have repeated that the _Just One_

suffered _under Pontius Pilate_. Thy name has remained in history, to

serve for the instruction of all public men, all pusillanimous judges, in

order to hold up to them the shame of _yielding contrary to one’s own

convictions_. The populace, in its fury, made an outcry at the foot of thy

judgment-seat, where, perhaps, thou thyself didst not sit securely! But of

what importance was that? Thy _duty_ spoke out; and in such a case, better

would it be to suffer death, than to inflict it on another.(416)

We will now come to a conclusion.

The _proof_ that Jesus was not, as Mr. Salvador maintains, put to death

for the crime of blasphemy or sacrilege, and for having preached a new

religious worship in contravention of the Mosaic law, results from _the

very sentence_ pronounced by Pilate; a sentence, in pursuance of which he

was led to execution by Roman soldiers.

There was among the Romans a custom, which we borrowed from their

jurisprudence, and which is still followed, of placing over the head of a

condemned criminal a writing containing _an extract from his sentence_, in

order that the public might know _for what crime_ he was condemned. This

was the reason why Pilate put on the cross a label, on which he had

written these words: _Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judæorum_, (Jesus of Nazareth,

King of the Jews), which has since been denoted by the initials J. N. R.

J. This was the alleged cause of his condemnation. St. Mark says—“And the

superscription of his _accusation_ was written over—_The King of the

Jews_.” Mark xv. 26.

This inscription was first in _Latin_, which was the legal language of the

_Roman_ judge; and it was repeated in _Hebrew_ and _Greek_, in order to be

understood by the people of the nation and by foreigners.

The chief priests, whose indefatigable hatred did not overlook the most

minute details, being apprehensive that people would take it to be

literally a fact affirmed, that Jesus _was the King of the Jews_, said to

Pilate: “Write not _King of the Jews_, but that _he said_ I am king of the

Jews.” But Pilate answered: “What I have written I have written.” John

xix. 21, 22.

This is a conclusive answer to one of the last assertions of Mr. Salvador,

(p. 88,) that “the Roman Pilate signed the sentence;” by which he always

means that Pilate did nothing but sign a sentence, which he supposes to

have been passed by the Sanhedrim; but in this he is mistaken. Pilate did

not merely _sign_ the sentence, or decree, but _drew it up_; and, when his

draft was objected to by the priests, he still adhered to it, saying, what

I have written shall remain as written.

Here then we see the true cause of the condemnation of Jesus! Here we have

the “_judicial and legal proof_.” Jesus was the victim of a _political_

accusation! He was put to death for the imaginary crime of having aimed at

the power of Cæsar, by calling himself _King of the Jews_! Absurd

accusation; which Pilate never believed, and which the chief priests and

the Pharisees themselves did not believe. For they were not authorized to

arrest Jesus on that account; it was a new, and totally different,

accusation from that which they first planned—a sudden accusation of the

moment, when they saw that Pilate was but little affected by their

_religious_ zeal, and they found it necessary to arouse _his zeal for_

Cæsar.

“_If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar’s friend!_” This alarming

language has too often, since that time, reverberated in the ears of timid

judges, who, like Pilate, have rendered themselves criminal by delivering

up victims through want of firmness, whom they would never have condemned,

if they had listened to the voice of their own consciences.

Let us now recapitulate the case, as I have considered it from the

beginning.

Is it not evident, contrary to the conclusion of Mr. Salvador, that Jesus,

considered merely as _a simple citizen_, was not tried and sentenced

either _according to law_, or _agreeably to the forms of legal proceedings

then existing_?

God, according to his eternal design, might permit the just to suffer by

the malice of men; but he also intended, that this should at least happen

by a disregard of all laws, and by a violation of all established rules,

in order that the entire contempt of forms should stand as the first

warning of the violation of law.

Let us not be surprised then, that in another part of his work, Mr.

Salvador (who, it is gratifying to observe, discusses his subject

dispassionately) expresses some regret in speaking of the “_unfortunate

sentence against Jesus_.” Vol. i. p. 59. He has wished to excuse the

Hebrews; but, one of that nation, in giving utterance to the feelings of

his heart, still says—in language which I took from his own mouth, “We

should be very cautious of condemning him at this day.”

I pass over the excesses which followed the order of Pilate; as, the

violence shown to Simon, the Cyrenian, who was made in some degree a

sharer in the punishment, by being compelled to carry the cross; the

injurious treatment which attended the victim to the place of the

sacrifice, and even to the cross, where Jesus still prayed for his

brethren and his executioners!

To the heathen themselves I would say—You, who have gloried in the death

of Socrates, how much must you be struck with wonder at that of Jesus! Ye,

censors of the Areopagus, how could you undertake to excuse the Synagogue,

and justify the sentence of the Hall of Judgment? Philosophy herself has

not hesitated to proclaim, and we may repeat with her—“Yes, if the life

and death of _Socrates_ were those of a sage, the life and death of

_Jesus_ were those of a divinity.”

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.