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.

208 Deut. xvii. 6, and xix. 15.

209 The Jews who are said to have believed on Jesus (John viii. 30) are

not the same with those whom our Lord accuses of seeking to kill

him, ver. 40, nor with those who insulted him, ver. 48, &c.,

although these are not distinguished from the others in the

narrative of John, who always mentions the Jews indiscriminately as

speaking with Jesus. Cler. Harm. 528. NEWCOME.

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

211 The professional reader will not fail to observe the wisdom of this

reply. The lawyer sought to learn from Jesus the terms of the

condition on which eternal life could be attained; and was made to

answer for himself that, by the law, it was attainable by nothing

short of the highest degree of love, to God and to his neighbour.

The lawyer thus was reminded, out of his own code, that, this being

a condition precedent, he could have no title to that which was

promised, unless he fully performed every part of the condition; and

that in this sense, whosoever offended in one point, or was

deficient in performing any part of the condition, was guilty of

all—lost the benefit of all. If he murmured at the hardship of

losing the reward of all the good deeds he had done, merely for the

omission to do a little more; the well-known rule of law and of

reason would teach him that nothing is to be allowed for acts of

past performance of a condition precedent, unless they are

beneficial to the party for whom they are performed.

212 A note of minute accuracy in the historian, Jericho being situated

in the plain or valley of Jordan, and Jerusalem being among the

mountains of Judea.

213 An incidental and very natural allusion to the well-known custom of

that country. For in those hot regions, men travel in the cool of

the evening and night, and rest in the daytime; looking for

refreshment, if they are not among total strangers, to the

hospitality of friends.

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

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

216 Gen. vii. 4, 7.

217 Gen. xix. 15, seq.

218 Gen xix. 26.

219 The two Evangelists go on to relate our Lord’s observations about

divorce and marriage; they agree in substance, which is sufficient;

though they differ in the form of the dialogue, neither adhering

scrupulously to the exact manner in which the words passed, though

we may learn it, by comparing both. Thus Matt. v. 9, reduces to a

plain assertion, what Mark informs us was a reply to an inquiry made

by the disciples apart. Or, we may suppose with Le Clerc, that this

assertion was first advanced to the Pharisees, and then repeated to

the disciples. NEWCOME.

220 Gen. i. 27.

221 Gen. ii. 24.

222 Deut. xxiv. 1.

223 The practice of divorcing the husband, unwarranted by the law, had

been introduced, as Josephus informs us, (Antiq. XV. vii. 10,) by

Salome, sister of Herod the Great, who sent a bill of divorce to her

husband Costobarus; which bad example was afterwards followed by

Herodias and others. Campbell. This natural allusion to an existing

illegal custom is in perfect harmony with the whole history, it

being true; but it seldom if ever has a parallel in the annals of

forgery.

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

225 As all three came to Jesus, the action of the sons expressed, that

they joined in the petition uttered by the mother. They are

therefore represented as saying what was said with their consent,

and probably by their suggestion. Luke xix. 11, will show how

suitable this request was to the time, according to the ideas of our

Lord’s disciples. NEWCOME.

226 According to St. Mark, Jesus comes to Jericho; by which may be meant

that he is a temporary inhabitant of that city. See Mark vi. 1, and

viii. 22. Jesus therefore may be represented, (Matt. xx. 29; Mark x.

46,) not as _finally leaving_ Jericho for Jerusalem, but as

_occasionally going out_ of Jericho; in which city he had made some

abode, it matters not for how few days. See Mark xi. 19. Jericho was

a very considerable city; and we do not read that it was visited by

our Lord at any other time. We may therefore suppose that Jesus,

accompanied by his disciples and the multitude, and intent on his

great work of propagating the gospel, went out of this city, knowing

that a fit occasion of working a miracle would present itself; and

that on his return, as he drew nigh unto Jericho, (Luke xviii. 35,)

he restored the blind men to sight. It is likewise probable that

Jesus, having given this proof of his divine mission, or foreseeing

that so great a miracle would create too much attention in the

people, prudently and humbly passed through Jericho on his return to

it, (Luke xix. 1,) and continued his journey to Jerusalem.

As to the remaining difficulty, that Matthew mentions two blind men,

and the other Evangelists only one, I must refer to Le Clerc’s

maxim, before quoted; (see § 57, note): adding that Bartimeus may

have been the more remarkable of the two, and the more eminent for

his faith in Jesus. NEWCOME.

227 Here is a fine allusion to historical facts, first observed by Le

Clerc. “Thus Herod the Great solicited the kingdom of Judea at Rome,

(Jos. Antiq. Jud. XIV. xiv. 4, 5; XV. vi. 6, 7,) and was appointed

king by the interest of Anthony with the senate; and afterwards he

sailed to Rhodes, divested himself of his diadem, and received it

again from Augustus. In like manner his sons Archelaus and Antipas

repaired to the imperial city, that they might obtain the kingdom on

their father’s death; and we read, (Jos. Antiq. Jud. XIV. xi. 1, and

xiii. 2,) that the Jews sent an embassy thither, with accusations

against Archelaus.” NEWCOME, Obs. on our Lord, p. 83.

228 Zech. ix. 9.

229 Thus acknowledging him to be their king; for this was a custom

observed by the people when they found that God had appointed a man

to the kingdom. When Jehu was anointed King by Elisha the prophet,

at the command of God, and his captains knew what was done, _every

man took his garment and spread it under him on the top of the

steps, and blew the trumpets, saying Jehu is king_. 2 King ix. 13.

A. CLARKE. See JENNINGS, Ant. vol. ii. p. 245. “_Thereon_,” that is,

on the garments. The princes of Israel were forbidden to multiply

_horses_ to themselves. Deut. xvii. 16, and xx. 1. This law was

imposed as a standing mark of distinction between them and other

nations; and a trial of prince and people, whether they had

confidence in God their deliverer, who wanted neither horses nor

footmen to fight his battles. It was observed for near four hundred

years, until some time in the reign of Solomon; for David himself

rode on a mule; as did Solomon also on the day of his coronation. 1

Kings i. 33, 34. See Judges x. 4, and xii. 14; 1 Saml. xxv. 20.

Subsequently the kings of Israel and Judah violated this command, by

copying the example of the neighbouring princes in the establishment

of their cavalry. The displeasure of God for this offence is

indicated by several of the prophets: Isaiah ii. 6, 7, and xxxi. 1;

Hosea xiv. 3, and i. 7; Micah v. 10, 11.—In opposition to the

character of these warlike and disobedient princes, it was predicted

that Messiah would come as a just king, having salvation;—a

deliverer—riding upon an ass, after the manner of the ancient

deliverers of Israel, who came only in the strength and power of the

Lord. Zech. ix. 9. See Bishop SHERLOCK’S Dissert. IV. MICHAELIS,

vol. ii. pp. 439-449.

230 Ps. viii. 3.

231 Ps. cxviii. 26.

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

233 Matth. xxi. 20, _the disciples_. Mark xi. 21, _Peter_. These may be

thus reconciled. Peter addresses himself to Jesus: the disciples

turn their attention to the object; Jesus addresses all. Or, Peter’s

remark may be attributed to all the disciples. See § 141. NEWCOME.

234 Many servants are sent; some of whom are beaten, some slain, some

stoned. Here St. Matthew is more circumstantial than the other two

Evangelists, who mention only one servant as sent, and one of the

three injurious modes of treatment. Some suppose that this servant

was chief among the rest.

235 Here Mark mentions one servant among the others, as stoned wounded

in the head, and sent away dishonoured; and Luke selects the

circumstance that that one was beaten. Then Mark and Luke mention a

third message, about which Matthew is silent. But, “qui pauciora

memorat, plura non negat.” St. Luke may be understood as saying that

a mortal wound was inflicted on the third messenger. NEWCOME.

236 Ps. cxviii. 22.

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

238 In the East, where the fashions of dress rarely if ever change, much

of their riches consists in the number and splendour of their robes,

or _caffetans_. Presents of garments are frequently alluded to in

Scripture. Gen. xlv. 22. 2 Chron. ix. 24. Judges xiv. 12. 2 Kings v.

5. Ezra ii. 69. Neh. vii. 70, where “the Tirshatha gave five hundred

and thirty priests’ garments.”

Presents were considered as tokens of honour;—not meant as offers of

payment or enrichment, (1 Sam. ix. 7); and especially presents of

dresses. 1 Sam. xviii. 4. Luke xv. 22. _Tavernier_, p. 43, mentions

a _nazar_, whose virtue so pleased a king of Persia, that he caused

himself to be disappareled, and gave his own habit to the _nazar_,

which is _the greatest honour a king of Persia can bestow on a

subject_.

Such presents are given by kings on great occasions, especially at

the marriages of their children. The Sultan Achmet, at the marriage

of his eldest daughter, “gave presents to above 20,000 persons.”

Knolles’s Hist. of the Turks, p. 1311. So Ahasuerus “gave gifts,

_according to the state of the king_.” Esth. ii. 18.

The king gives his garment of honour _before_ the wearer is admitted

into his presence;—De la Mottraye’s Trav. p. 199; (Does this

illustrate Zech. iii. 3, 4?)—and would resent it if any, having

received robes of him, should appear in his presence without wearing

these marks of his liberality. And to refuse such favours, when

offered, is considered as one of the greatest indignities. Sir John

Chardin relates an instance where such a refusal cost a vizier his

life. See 4 CALM. DICT. pp. 64, 126, 514.

239 Deut. xxv. 5.

240 Ex. iii. 6.

241 Here is a minute indication of St. Luke’s veracity, derived from his

medical profession. No other Evangelist records this remark; but it

would not be likely to escape the notice of a physician. See on Luke

xxii. 44.

242 Deut. vi. 4, 5.

243 Lev. xix. 18.

244 Ps. cx. 1.

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

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

247 Ps. cxviii. 26.

248 2 Sam. vii. 13. Ps. lxxxix. 30, 37; cx. 4.

249 Is. liii. 1.

250 Is. vi. 10.

251 Is. vi. 1, seq.

252 No imposter would have warned his followers, as Jesus did, of the

persecutions they would have to submit to.

253 Danl. ix. 27.

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

255 Gen. vii. 4, seq.

256 Interrogatively and sarcastically. That is, Was such thy wicked

opinion? Then “out of thine own mouth will I judge thee;” thou

oughtest to have acted according to that opinion. Bp. SUMNER, _in

loc_.

257 In St. John, Judas alone murmurs; in St. Matthew, the disciples have

indignation; or, as St. Mark expresses it, some have indignation

among themselves. Dr. Lardner says, Serm. v. 2, p. 316, “It is well

known to be very common with all writers, to use the plural number

when one person only is intended. Nor is it impossible that others

might have some uneasiness about it, though they were far from being

so disgusted at it as Judas was. And their concern for the poor was

sincere; his was self-interested, and mere pretence.” See also

Grotius _in loc_. NEWCOME.

258 It is nowhere asserted that the unction was of Jesus’s head _only_,

or of his feet _only_. Both actions are consistent; and St. John, in

his supplemental history, may very well have added the respectful

conduct of Mary, that, after having anointed Jesus’s head, she

proceeded to anoint his feet, and even to wipe them with her hair.

Newcome.

259 The other Evangelists mention that indignation was caused by the

supposed waste of the ointment: John fixes it upon Judas. That Judas

went to the High Priest’s on the evening or night of our Wednesday,

may be collected from Matth. xxvi. 14, 17, and the parallel places;

and he seems to have acted partly from disgust at what had passed.

The story has a remarkably apt connection with the preceding and

subsequent history. The Jewish rulers consult how they may take

Jesus by craft, and without raising a tumult among the people. An

incident happens, which offends one of Jesus’s familiar attendants,

who immediately repairs to the enemies of Jesus, and receives from

them a bribe to betray him in the absence of the multitude. Newcome.

260 Here is a very natural, yet incidental recognition of a rule,

universally respected among the Jews, that this feast was to be

celebrated not alone, but by companies of not less than ten persons.

See JOSEPHUS, Bell. Jud. vi. ix. § 3. BLUNT, Veracity, &c. Sect. ii.

8.

261 Ps. xli. 10.

262 Zech. xiii. 7.

263 The other Evangelists simply say, Before the cock crow.—It is

observed, that the cock crows about midnight: and about the fourth

watch, or about three in the morning, when that watch began. When

_gallicinium (cock-crowing)_ stands alone, it means this latter

time, which is referred to, Aristoph. Eccles. 390, Juv. Sat. ix.

107. The four Evangelists therefore denote the same time,—sc.

galliciniis secundis, as Ammianus expresses it, 1. 22; and any part

of the period thus marked out may be understood. See BOCHART de

anim. pars, 2d. 119, and GROTIUS on Matth. xxvi. 34. NEWCOME.

264 In the animated language of the prophets, their predictions are

often announced under the form of commands. The prophet Isaiah, in

the sublime prediction he has given us of the fate of the king of

Babylon, thus foretells the destruction of his family:—_Prepare

slaughter for his children_, &c. Isa. xiv. 21. The prophet Jeremiah

in like manner foretells the approaching destruction of the children

of Zion: _Call for the mourning women, that they may come: and send

for cunning women; and let them make haste, and take up a wailing_,

&c. Jer. ix. 17, 18. There, matter of sorrow is predicted, by

commanding the common attendants on mourning and lamentation to be

gotten in readiness; here, warning is given of the most imminent

dangers, by orders to make the customary preparation against

violence, and to account a weapon more necessary than a garment.

CAMPBELL, _in loc_.

265 Isa. liii. 12.

266 This account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper is corroborated

by that of Paul, in 1 Cor. xi. 23-25, which is usually inserted by

Harmonists in this place as parallel testimony; but as the plan of

this work leads me to deal with the four Gospels alone, the

insertion of other parts of Scripture in the text, here and

elsewhere, is omitted.

267 The Evangelists have determined, by some general expressions, the

order of the following events between the sitting down to the

paschal supper, and the going to Gethsemane. Before the eating of

the paschal lamb, Jesus rises from supper to wash the disciples’

feet. John xiii. 1, 4. While they are eating, a declaration is made

of Judas’s treachery, and the bread is instituted, Matt. xxvi. 21,

26. See also Mark. After, the cup is instituted, Luke xxii. 20; 1

Cor. xi. 25. But as to the particular and precise order of the facts

and discourses during this period, Pilkington’s words relating to

one of them are applicable to all. “It is observable that St. Luke

mentions the institution of the communion before the declaration of

Judas’s treachery; whereas the other Evangelists place these in a

different order. But it is a liberty I think very allowable in any

historian, to neglect taking notice of the exact order of all the

facts, when he is only giving a general account of what was done at

a certain time. And if so, whichsoever was the true successive

order, there can be no just imputation upon any of the Evangelists

for neglecting to observe it in the narration.” Harm. p. 52.

NEWCOME.

268 The use of the word _testament_, (_diatheke_,) in a sense involving

also the idea of a _covenant_, and in connexion with the

circumstances of a compact, has greatly perplexed many English

readers of the Bible. The difficulty occurs in Matt. 26, 28, and the

parallel places, where our Lord employs the word _testament_, or

last will, in connexion with the sacrificial shedding of his own

blood; a ceremony which, by means of a suitable animal, usually was

adopted among the ancients, upon the making of the most solemn

engagements; and instead of which, the mutual partaking of the

sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, by the contracting parties, was

substituted among Christians in later times. The same embarrassment

occurs, perhaps in a greater degree, in the exposition of several

passages in the eighth and ninth chapters of the Epistle to the

Hebrews, (manifestly written by a profound lawyer, be he Paul or

Apollos), where he uses language applicable indifferently both to a

covenant _inter vivos_ and a last will. For with us, a testament is

simply a declaration of the last will of the testator, in regard to

the disposition of his property after his decease, irrespective of

any consent, or even knowledge, at the time, on the part of him to

whom the estate is given; while a covenant requires the mutual

consent of both parties, as essential to its existence. The one is

simply the _ultima voluntas_ of an individual, the other is the

_aggregatio mentium_ of both or all.

The solution of this difficulty belongs rather to theologians, whose

province it is by no means intended here to invade; but perhaps a

reference to the laws and usages in force in Judea in the times of

our Saviour and his Apostles may furnish some aid, which a lawyer

might contribute without transgressing the limit of his profession.

It is first to be observed that the municipal laws of Greece and

Rome were strikingly similar; those of Greece having been freely

imported into the Roman jurisprudence. In like manner, the

similarity of the Grecian laws and usages with those extant in Asia

Minor, indicated a common origin; and thus, what Greece derived from

Egypt and the states of Asia Minor, these states, after many ages,

received again as the laws of their Roman masters. It should also be

remembered that Palestine had been reduced to a Roman province some

years before the time of our Saviour; long enough, indeed, to have

become familiar with Roman laws and usages, even had they been

previously unknown; and that Paul, to whom the Epistle to the

Hebrews is generally attributed, was himself a thorough-bred lawyer,

well versed in the customs of his country, whether ancient or

modern. Among those nations, the civil magistrate often exercised

the functions of the priesthood, these dignities being in some

respects identical; and thus, whatever was transacted before the

magistrate, might naturally seem to partake of the character of an

act of religion. Covenants were always made with particular

formalities, and to those of graver nature, religious solemnities

were often superadded. They were frequently confirmed by an oath,

the most solemn form of which was taken standing before the altar;

and whosoever swore by the altar, swore by the sacrifice thereon,

and was held as firmly bound as though he had passed between the

dismembered parts of the victim. Of the latter kind was the oath, by

which God confirmed his covenant with Abraham (Gen. xv.) when the

visible light of his presence passed between the pieces which the

patriarch had divided and laid “each piece one against another.”

With these things in view, we may now look at some of the modes of

transferring property, practised by the nations alluded to.

Among the methods of alienation or sale of property by the owner, in

his lifetime, was that which in the Roman law was termed

_mancipatio_; a mode by which the vendor conveyed property to the

purchaser, each party being present, either in person or by his

agent, representative, or factor. Five witnesses were requisite, one

of whom was called _libripens_, or the balance-holder. This form had

its origin in the sale of goods by weight, but was gradually

extended to all sales; and the practice was for the buyer to strike

the balance with a piece of money called a _sestertius_, which was

immediately paid over to the vendor as part of the price; and hence

the expression _per æs et libram vendere_.

Wills or testaments were made with great solemnity. One method among

the Romans, probably common, in its principal traits, to the other

nations before mentioned, was termed the testament _per æs et

libram_, it being effected in the form of a sale. This mode seems to

have been resorted to whenever the estate was given to a stranger,

(_hæres extraneus_,) to the exclusion of the _hæres suus_, or

_necessarius_, or, as we should say, the heir at law; and it was

founded on the purchase of the estate by the adopted heir, who

succeeded to the privileges of the child. The forms of a sale by

_mancipatio_ were therefore scrupulously observed; the presence and

agreement of the purchaser, either in person or by his

representative or negotiator, being necessary to its validity. The

reason for requiring this form was because it _involved a covenant_

on the part of the adopted heir or legatee, by which he became bound

to pay all the debts of the testator. Having entered into this

covenant, he had the best possible title in law to the inheritance,

namely, that of a purchaser for a valuable consideration. Among the

Greeks, and probably among the Romans also, this was transacted in

the presence of a magistrate, who sanctioned it by his sentence of

approval. This was the most ancient form of a will; and it does not

seem to have been abrogated until the time of Constantine.

Now, when our Saviour speaks of the _new testament in his blood_, or

of his _blood of the new testament_, and when Paul uses similar

forms of expression may not the figure have reference to the custom

above stated? And if so, may not this custom guide us to the true

meaning of the words? Does it intimate to us that the promised

inheritance was first given to man, as it were by a testament in

this ancient form, upon a covenant of _his own perfect obedience_ to

every part of the law of God; that having broken this covenant, his

title became forfeited; that the inheritance was afterwards

promised, in the same manner, to every one, Jew or Gentile, upon a

new covenant and condition, namely of a true _faith_ in Christ; a

faith evinced in the fruits of a holy life; that this inheritance by

a new testament and covenant was negociated, as it were, and

obtained for man by the mediation of Jesus Christ, (“the mediator of

the new testament,” Heb. 9. 15,) as the representative of all who

should accept it by such faith, and their surety for the performance

of its conditions; that it was purchased by _his_ obedience and

solemnized by the sacrifice of himself as the victim?

This solution is suggested with much diffidence. That it carries

these passages clear of all difficulty is not pretended. The very

nature of the subject renders it difficult of illustration by any

reference to human affairs; and the embarrassment is proportionally

increased, whenever the simile is pressed beyond its principal point

of resemblance.

See Ayliffe’s Pandect, pp. 349, 393, 367-369. Book iii. tit. xii.

xv. Leges Atticæ, De Testamentis, &c. tit. vi. S. Petit. Comm. in

Leges Attic. p. 479-481. Justin, Inst. lib. 2. tit. 10, § 1. Ibid.

tit. 19, § 5, 6. Cooper’s Justinian, p. 487. Cod. lib. 6. tit. 23,

1. 15. Fuss’s Roman Antiq. ch. 1, § 87, 97, 103, 107, 183.

Michaelis, LL. Moses, vol. 4, art. 302. Bp. Patrick, quoted in

Bush’s Illustrations, p. 254.

269 Ps. lxix. 5.

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

271 The strangeness of such a profusion of blood has been urged, first,

against the probability, and then against the truth, of the

narrative. But learned men have related instances of mental agony so

great as to force the blood through the pores; and if this has ever

occurred, it may well be believed to have occurred in the present

case. See _Bloomfield_ and _A. Clarke_, in loc. It should be

observed, however, that Luke does not directly affirm that it was

blood. He only _compares_ the sweat to that of blood, using a term

of similitude, (_quasi_ grumi sanguinis—_Beza_; _tanquam_

demissiones sanguinis—_Tremellius_; sicut guttæ sanguinis—_Vulg_.

and _Molinaus_;) which may signify no more than that the drops of

sweat were as large as drops of blood, which, from its viscidity,

are very large.

272 No other Evangelist mentions the cause of their slumber, except

Luke, who ascribes it to their sorrow. It is observable, that Luke

was a physician, (Col. iv. 14,) and therefore well knew that deep

mental distress frequently induced sleep. To this cause may perhaps

be referred the fact, that persons condemned to die are often waked

from sound sleep by the executioner. The internal evidence here

afforded of the truth of Luke’s narrative, is corroborated by his

notice of the bloody sweat, ver. 44, and of the miraculous healing

of the ear of Malchus, ver. 51; facts which are not related by any

other Evangelist, but which would naturally attract the attention of

a physician.

273 Gen. ix. 6.

274 In the order of events, Jesus first voluntarily discriminates

himself; after which Judas gives the agreed sign to his enemies.

Newcome.

275 Lenfant and Bp. Pearce think that Peter was named by John, because

he was then dead; and that he was not named by the other Evangelists

because when they wrote he was living, and the action might have

subjected him to public justice, or at least to reproach. NEWCOME.

276 Here is a minute indication of veracity, which would have been lost

upon us but for the narrative of John. Matthew only states the fact

that the maid in the porch recognized Peter as one of the disciples

of Jesus; but John (xviii. 16,) informs us how she knew him to be

so; namely, because he was brought in by John, who was a frequent

guest at the house of her master the high priest. BLUNT, Veracity

&c., Sect. i. 12, 18.

277 Probably by way of compliment to the past high priest who was also

the father-in-law of Caiaphas. If this circumstance never happened,

it is difficult to discover how the introduction of it could serve

the purposes of fiction. See Roberts, Light Shining, &c. pp. 171,

172.

278 The seeming contradiction between Luke, who relates that it _was a

man_ who charged Peter with being a follower of Jesus, and Matthew

and Mark who state that he was accused by _a maid_, is reconciled by

attending to the narrative of John, (xviii. 25,) who writes, “_They

said_.” Whence it appears that there were several who spake on this

occasion, and that each Evangelist refers to the accusation which

made the deepest impression on his own mind. See MICHAELIS and Bp.

MIDDLETON, cited in 4 HORNE’S _Introd_. p. 258, note 1.

279 Matthew and Mark relate Peter’s denials of Christ after his

condemnation, and the insults consequent upon it. It is plain that

they happened while the High Priest and council were sitting in

judgment. But instances of recurring in this manner to what had been

omitted in its proper place are common in the Gospels; and in this

place the thread of the narration is preserved unbroken.

It having been expressly mentioned by each Evangelist, that Peter

would _thrice_ deny Jesus, we may conclude that each has related the

_three_ denials which Jesus foretold.

_Peter’s first denial_. Peter was _without_, or _beneath_, in the

hall of Caiaphas’s house. Dr. Scott, on Matth. xxvi. 3, observes

that _aule_ signifies an house, (Luke xi. 21,) and that emphatically

it signifies the king’s house, or palace. But in Luke xxii. 55, it

seems to signify a spacious apartment, probably the High Priest’s

judgment-hall. It was the place in which Jesus stood before the High

Priest, (Luke xxii. 61,) and had an _atrium_ or _vestibulum_ at its

entrance. This was an unfit place for the tribunal of the High

Priest at such an hour, (John xviii. 18.) Sir John Chardin says, “In

the lower Asia the day is always hot; and in the height of summer

the nights are as cold as at Paris in the month of March.” It

remains therefore that we understand it of a spacious chamber, such

as Shaw mentions, Travels, 4to. pp. 207, 8.

Peter was not in the _higher_ part, where Jesus stood before the

High Priest; but _without_ that division of the hall, and in the

_lower_ part, with the servants and officers. The damsel, who kept

the door, had entered into the hall when she charged Peter.

_Peter’s second denial_. Peter, having once denied Jesus, naturally

retired from the place where his accuser was, to the vestibule of

the hall, (Matt. xxvi. 71); and it was the time of the first

cock-crowing, or soon after midnight. After remaining here a short

time, perhaps near an hour, another damsel sees him, and says to

those who were standing by in the vestibule, that he was one of

them. Peter, to avoid this charge, withdraws into the hall, and

stands and warms himself, (John xviii. 25.) The damsel, and those to

whom she had spoken, follow him; the communication between the

places being immediate. Here a _man_ enforces the charge of the

damsel, according to Luke; and _others_ urge it according to John,

(though by him the plural may be used for the singular,) and Peter

denies Jesus vehemently.

_Peter’s third denial_. Peter was now in the hall. Observe Matt.

xxvi. 75, and Luke xxii. 62. He was also within sight of Jesus,

though at such a distance from him that Jesus could know what passed

only in a supernatural way. About an hour after his second denial,

those who stood by founded a charge against him on his being a

Galilean, which, Luke says, one in particular strongly affirmed,

(though here Matthew and Mark may use the plural for the singular,)

and which, according to John, was supported by one of Malchus’s

relations. This occasioned a more vehement denial than before; and

immediately the cock crew the second time. The first denial may have

been between our twelve and one; and the second between our two and

three. We must further observe, that Matt. xxvi. 57, lays the scene

of Peter’s denials in the house of Caiaphas; whereas the

transactions of John xviii. 15-23 seem to have passed in the house

of Annas. But John xviii. 24 is here transposed to its regular

place, with Le Clerc. NEWCOME.

280 Matthew alone states this fact; and he states nothing in explanation

of it. The other Evangelists add another fact, which shows that the

Jews were quite consistent in asking him to designate who struck

him, namely, that they had previously “blindfolded him.” Now the

omissions of particulars are characteristic of one to whom it never

occurs that they are wanted to make his statement credible, but who,

conscious of his own integrity, states his facts and leaves them to

their fate; and they cannot fairly be accounted for, upon any other

supposition than the truth of the narrative. BLUNT, Veracity, &c.,

_sec_. i. 10.

281 Jesus seems here almost to have challenged inquiry into the assault

so lately committed by Peter upon the servant of the high priest.

St. Luke, however, states a fact which accounts for their not making

such inquiry, ch. xxii. 51. _He touched his ear and healed him_. An

inquiry into the truth would have frustrated the malicious purpose

of the enemies of Jesus, by proving his own compassionate nature,

his submission to the laws, and his miraculous powers. Blunt,

Veracity, &c., sect. i. 19.

282 Here is an obscure intimation that neither Pilate nor Herod were

residents of Jerusalem; and the manner of the insinuation deserves

notice, as a mark of conscious veracity in the narrator. Now it

appears from Josephus, that this Herod was the very opposite of his

successor, Herod Agrippa; the former being partial to the Greeks,

and a hater of the Jews; while the latter so loved the Jews that he

took pleasure in constantly dwelling at Jerusalem. It is therefore

evident that Herod’s presence at Jerusalem at this time was merely

casual; as that of Pilate certainly was, the Roman governors

residing at Cæsarea. See Josephus, Ant. xviii. iv. § 1.-xix. vii. §

3.-xx. iv. § 4. BLUNT, Veracity, &c., sect. II. 11.

283 The accuracy of Luke, as a man of education, is observable in this

statement of the formal judgment pronounced by Pilate, which is only

implied in the narratives of the other Evangelists.

284 The apparent contradiction between John and Mark, (ch. xv. 25,) who

mentions the third hour, is reconciled by Dr. Campbell, in a

critical note upon the force of the expressions in the original,

which he interprets as equivalent to saying, in the one case, that

it was past _three_, and in the other, that it was _towards six_.

See CAMPBELL, _in loc_.

285 The passage here quoted is found in the prophecy of Zechariah, and

not in Jeremiah. Dr. Lightfoot says, that anciently among the Jews

the Old Testament was divided into three parts. The first, beginning

with the law, was called _The Law_. The second, beginning with

Psalms, was called _The Psalms_. The third, beginning with the

prophecy of Jeremiah, which anciently stood first, was called

_Jeremiah_, under which name all quotations from the prophets were

made. See A. CLARKE, _in loc._ JENNINGS, Jewish Antiq. pp. 594, 595.

Others account for the apparent error in Matthew’s quotation, by

supposing that he omitted the name of the prophet, as he frequently

did in his citations of scripture, and that the name of Jeremiah was

inserted by a subsequent copyist. 1 HORNE’S _Introd_. p. 582.

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

287 Clement of Alexandria and Jerome both relate that Mark wrote this

Gospel at _Rome_, and we find in Romans xiv. 13, that a disciple

named Rufus, of considerable note, resided in that city. Admitting

that both Mark and Paul speak of the same person, which is highly

probable, as they refer to the same period of time and to a disciple

of distinction, there is an evident consciousness of veracity in the

Evangelist, in making this reference to Rufus, then living among

them, since he could not but have known the particulars of the

crucifixion, in which his own father was so intimately concerned.

BLUNT’S Veracity, &c., sect. i. 14. See also EUSEBIUS, lib. 2, ch.

15.

288 Is. liv. 1.

289 Hos. x. 8.

290 Ps. xxii. 19.

291 As to the title itself, the precise working may have differed in the

different languages; and MSS. represent it differently.

But the same verbal exactness is not necessary in historians, whose

aim is religious instruction, as in recorders of public

inscriptions. It is enough that the Evangelists agree as to the main

article, “_the King of the Jews_,” referred to, John xix. 21. That

their manner is to regard the sense, rather than the words, appears

from many places. Compare Matt. iii. 17, and ix. 11, and xv. 27, and

xvi. 6, 9, and xix. 18, and xx. 33, and xxi. 9, and xxvi. 39, 64,

70, and xxviii. 5, 6, with the parallel verses in this Harmony.

Compare also John xi. 40, with ver. 23, 25. One of the most solemn

and awful of our Lord’s discourses is, in some parts, variously

expressed. See Matt. xxvi. 28, Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 20, 1 Cor.

xi. 25. Now as each of these writers has, beyond all doubt,

faithfully represented the meaning of Christ, we see that it might

be truly done in different words, or in a different form of the same

words. His sentences also, sometimes admitted a difference of

arrangement; for the order in which two sentences, or the several

members of the same sentence, are disposed by St. Matthew, is, in

several places, inverted by St. Mark. And with regard to his

actions, though the most material parts of whatever they were going

to relate must command their attention, yet there was no such

superior attraction in one specific number and order of secondary

circumstances, as could turn their thoughts absolutely and

exclusively to them. This is plain from instances to the contrary.

One Evangelist is sometimes distinct, while another is concise; and

describes what the other passes over. TOWNSON, pp. 60-1.

We may reasonably suppose St. Matthew to have cited the Hebrew,—St.

John the Greek,—and St. Mark the Latin, which was the shortest, and

without mixture of foreign words. St. Mark is followed by St. Luke;

only that he has brought down “THIS IS” from above, as having a

common reference to what stood under it. NEWCOME.

292 Is. liii. 12.

293 We have here an incidental allusion to a practice well known at that

time. The malefactor about to be crucified, having borne his own

cross to the place of execution, was stripped, and made to drink a

stupefying potion; the cross was then laid on the ground, the

sufferer distended upon it, and four soldiers, two on each side,

were employed in driving four large nails through his hands and

feet. For this service they had a right to his clothes as a

perquisite. See Dr. Harwood’s Introd., cited in Horne’s _Introd_.,

vol. i. pp. 94, 95.

294 Ps. xxii. 7, 8.

295 Here the common drink of the Roman soldiers is offered by them to

Jesus on the cross, while they are deriding him; which is a

different act from that in Matt. xxvii. 34, 48, as appears by the

place assigned to it. NEWCOME

296 What was true of only one of the malefactors is attributed to both

in the concise relations of Matthew and Mark; the plural being often

used in the Gospels for the singular. This the Evangelists

themselves show in some instances. Compare Mark vii. 17, and Matt.

xv. 15; Mark v. 31, and Luke viii. 45; Matt. xiv. 17, and Mark vi.

38, Luke ix. 13, John vi. 8, 9; Matt. xxvi. 8, and Mark xiv. 4, John

xii. 4; Matt. xxiv. 1, and Mark xiii. 1; Matt. xxvii. 37, and John

xix. 19; Matt. xxvii. 48, and Mark xv. 36, John xix. 29. See also

Luke xxii. 67. In the following places, the plural is used, while

the sense shows that one is spoken of. John xi. 8, Luke xx. 21, 39,

and xxiv. 5, Matt. xv. 1, 12.—The Evangelists, therefore, when from

attention to brevity they avoid particularizing, often attribute to

many what is said or done by single persons; nor does any striking

peculiarity in the case omitted, lead them to deviate from their

manner; for instance, the case of Judas, Matth. xxvi. 8, and the

parallel places. NEWCOME

297 Ps. xxii. 1.

_ 298 Hil_ or _Hila_ was the old Syriac for _vinegar_. Hence one of the

bystanders, hearing our Saviour’s exclamation on the cross, thought

he wanted vinegar to alleviate his thirst, and straightway filled a

spunge. See BUCHANAN’S _Researches_, p. 153.

299 The Jews gave a literal interpretation to Mal. iv. 5, expecting

Elijah to appear in person, as the forerunner of the Messiah; and

hence they, on this occasion, sneeringly adverted to the want of

this testimony to the mission of Christ. JONES, _Lect_. 147. This

incidental allusion to the popular opinion, by Matthew and Mark, may

be noticed as additional evidence of their veracity.

300 The objection urged by infidels, upon this passage, against the

veracity of the Evangelists, from the silence of profane writers

concerning so remarkable an event, is met and answered by Bp. Watson

in his Reply to Gibbon, Let. 5. See also HORNE’S _Introd_. Vol. 1.

p. 210-216. The word translated _earth_, in Luke, is the same which

is rendered _land_, in the others, and applies equally to both.

Taken in the latter sense, it may limit the darkness to Judea. But

the Evangelists do not mention the degree of darkness; if therefore

it was slight, though it extended over the whole globe, the

objection of its not being recorded by Pliny or Seneca vanishes at

once.

301 Ps. lxix. 22.

302 This and the parallel verses are reconciled with John xix. 25, by

the following observation in Wall’s critical notes, p. 116. “Mary

stood as yet, (John xix. 25,) so nigh the cross as to hear what

Christ said. But at the time of his departure, Matthew, Mark and

Luke say, the women stood afar off.” See also Watson’s Reply to

Gibbon, Let. 5, (Evangelical Family Library, Vol. xiv. pp. 276,

277.) It is natural to suppose that our Lord’s relations and

friends, mentioned in John xix. 25, were too much struck with

commiseration and grief to remain long near the cross; and that they

would retire from the horror of the concluding scene. NEWCOME.

303 Here is another of those incidental allusions to existing customs,

which show the naturalness and veracity of the narrative. Those who

were crucified by the Romans are said to have been usually exposed

to the birds of prey; and a guard was set to prevent their friends

from burying the bodies. The body of Jesus therefore could not be

obtained for burial, without leave from Pilate; which the

Evangelists relate was applied for, but without explaining the

cause.

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

305 Zech. xii. 10.

306 We must not understand this word of the morning light. The Jewish

sabbath began at six in the morning, before which time our Lord’s

body was deposited in the tomb. NEWCOME.

307 The mention of this circumstance by Matthew, and not by the other

Evangelists, is in perfect keeping with his previous occupation;

which led him to watch for fraud, in all places where it might be

perpetrated.

308 This appearance of Jesus is not alluded to by any other Evangelist;

but it was a fact well known among the disciples, and is expressly

stated by Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. 5,—“and that he was seen of Cephas,

then of the twelve.”

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

310 Many and perhaps most Harmonists and Commentators refer 1 Cor. xv.

6, to this place, where it is related that Jesus was seen of above

five hundred brethren at once. Such is the opinion of Dr. Robinson

and Bishop J. B. Sumner, and such seems to have been the opinion of

Abp. Newcome, Dr. Macknight, and Dr. Pilkington. See NEWCOME, in

loc. The fact is deemed by some to have an important bearing upon

the extent of the commission then given or repeated by our Lord; but

the plan of this work does not require any further notice of the

question.

311 This is perfectly consistent with the statement of Luke in Acts i.

12, as Bethany was not only the name of a town, but of a district of

Mount Olivet, adjoining the town. See Watson’s Reply to Gibbon,

Letter vi. in Evangelical Family Library, Vol. xiv., p. 277.

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

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

18: 35.

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

315 Matt. 28: 63 sq.

316 Matt. 28: 9.

317 See also John 21: 4.

318 See Matt. 26: 32.

319 1 Cor. 15: 6.

320 Acts 1: 15.

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

322 Acts 12: 1.

323 To this interview belongs also Luke 24: 44.

324 See John xi. 47-54.

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

326 Deut. xvii. 15.

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

328 Tappan’s Jewish Ant. p. 239.

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

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

331 Exodus xx. 1-7. And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord

thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of

the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou

shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness _of any

thing_ that _is_ in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,

or that _is_ in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down

thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous

God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the

third and fourth _generation_ of them that hate me; And shewing

mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the

Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

332 Lev. xxiv. 11-16. And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the

name _of the Lord_, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses (and

his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe

of Dan): And they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might

be shewed them. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth

him that hath cursed without the camp, and let all that heard _him_

lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone

him. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying,

Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that

blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death,

_and_ all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the

stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the

name _of the Lord_, shall be put to death. See A. Clarke on Matt.

ix. 3.

333 Deut. xiii. 6-10. If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son,

or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is

as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve

other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

_Namely_, of the gods of the people which _are_ round about you,

nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the _one_ end of the

earth even unto the _other_ end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent

unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him,

neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou

shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to death,

and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him

with _stones_ that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee

away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of

Egypt from the house of bondage. Deut. xviii. 20. But the prophet,

which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not

commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other

gods, even that prophet shall die.

334 It is true that in the Mishna it is written—“Blasphemus non tenetur,

nisi expressit Nomen.” Mishna, Pars iv. p. 242. Tractatus de

Synedriis, cap. 7, § 5. But these traditions were not written until

150 years after the time of our Saviour; and the passage, moreover,

seems properly to refer to that form of blasphemy which consists in

evil speaking of the Supreme Being, in a direct manner, rather than

to the other forms in which this offence, in its larger acceptation,

might be committed. See Michælis, Comm. Art. 251. Vol. 4, p. 67-70.

335 Numb. xx. 10, 12.

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

337 Is. xlii. 8, and xlviii. 2.

338 Gen. xli. 16, 25, 28.

339 Exod. viii. ix. x. per tot.

340 Deut. xviii. 20.

341 “Now, therefore, stand and see this great thing, which the LORD will

do before your eyes.” 1 Sam. xii. 16-18.

342 “And it came to pass, at the time of the offering of the evening

sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near and said, Lord God of

Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that _thou

art God in Israel_,” &c. 1 Kings xviii. 36-38.

343 “And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the

waters, and said, _Where is the Lord God of Elijah?_” &c. 2 Kings

ii. 14.

344 “_For thus saith the Lord_, they shall eat and shall leave thereof,”

&c. 2 Kings iv. 43.

345 See 2 Kings vi. 16, 17, 18, 20. In some other places, where there is

no express reference to the power of God, the omission may be

attributed to the brevity of the narrative; but even in those cases,

such reference is plainly implied.

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

and xix. 1-3.

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

348 John x. 31-33.

349 This view of the Jewish law may seem opposed to that of Dr.

Campbell, in his Preliminary Dissertation on the Gospels, (Vol. 2,

Diss. ix. Part 2); but it is evident, on examination, that he is

discussing the _word blasphemy_, and the propriety of its

application, taken in its more restricted sense of intentional and

direct malediction of Jehovah; and not whether the assumption of his

attributes and authority was or was not a violation of his law. That

this assumption was a heinous transgression, seems universally

agreed. The question, therefore, is reduced to this—whether the

offence was properly _termed_ blasphemy. For the _act_, by whatever

name it were called, was a capital crime. The Jewish judges of that

day held it to amount to blasphemy; and in so doing, they do not

appear to have given to their law a construction more expanded and

comprehensive than has been given by judges in our own times, to the

law of treason, or of sedition.

350 This was judicially and solemnly done by the members of the

Sanhedrim, rising from their seats, when the crime was testified to.

Only one witness was permitted to repeat the words; the others

simply stating that they heard the same which he had related. The

practice is thus described in the Mishna: “Exactis omnibus,

interrogant vetustissimum testium, dicendo,—_Edissere, quodcumque

audivisti expresse_. Tum ille hoc refert. Judices autem stant

erecti, vestesque discerpunt, non resarciendas. Dein secundus

tertiusque ait,—_Ego idem, quod ille audivi_.” Mishna, Pars 4.

Tractat. de Synedriis, cap. 7, § 5. Upon which, Cocceius

remarks:—“Assurgunt reverentiæ causâ. Mos discendarum vestium

probatur ex 2do Regum, xviii. 37. Hinc nata est regula,—_Qui

blasphemiam audit, vel ab ipso auctore vel ex alio, tenetur vestem

discerpere_. Ratio est, ut semper ob oculos et animum versetur

mæroris aut indignationis mnemosynon.” Coccej. in loc. § 11, 12. The

custom is fully explained, with particular reference to the high

priest at the trial of Jesus, by Hedenus, _De Scissione Vestium_,

38, 42. (In Ugolini Thesauro, tom. xxix, fol. 1025. &c.)

351 That the Jews understood Jesus to make himself equal with God, is

maintained by Mr. Salvador, himself a Jew, in his Histoire des

Institutions de Moïse et du Peuple Hébreu, Liv. iv. ch. 3, p. 81, of

which chapter a translation is given at the end of this article. Mr.

Noah, also a Jew, seems to be of opinion, that Jesus was brought to

trial under the law in Deut. xiii. 1-11. See his Discourse on the

Restoration of the Jews, p. 19. But whether he was charged with a

blasphemous usurpation of the attributes of Deity, or with sedition,

in inciting the people to serve another god, meaning himself, the

difference is of no importance; the essence of the offence in both

cases being the same.

352 Matt. xxvi. 60-65. This view of the nature of the offence with which

Jesus was charged, is confirmed by the learned jurist, Chr.

Thomasius, in his Dissertatio de injusto Pilati judicio, § 11, 12,

and by the authors whom he there cites. Dissert. Thomasii. vol. 1,

p. 5.

353 John ii. 13-22.

354 Matt. xxvi. 63-66.

355 Tacit. Annal. xv. 31. See M. Dupin’s Trial of Jesus, p. 57-59,

(Amer. Ed.) Chr. Thomasius, Dissertatio de injusto Pilati judicio, §

12, 60. The want of this power was admitted by the Jews, in their

reply to Pilate, when he required them to judge Jesus according to

their own law, and they replied, “It is not lawful for us to put any

man to death.” John xviii. 31.

This point has been held in different ways by learned men. Some are

of opinion that the Sanhedrim had power to inflict death for

offences touching religion, though not for political offences; and

that it was with reference to the charge of treason that they said

to Pilate what has just been cited from St. John. They say that,

though the Sanhedrim had convicted Jesus of blasphemy, yet they

dared not execute that sentence, for fear of a sedition of the

people:—that they therefore craftily determined to throw on Pilate

the odium of his destruction, by accusing him of treason; and hence,

after condemning him, they consulted further, as stated in Matt.

xxvii. 1, 2. Mark xv. 1, how to effect this design:—that when Pilate

found no fault in him, and directed them to take and crucify him,

some replied, “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die,” (John

xix. 7,) to intimate to Pilate that Jesus was guilty of death by the

Jewish law also, as well as the Roman, and that therefore he would

not lose any popularity by condemning him. See Zorrius, Hist. Fisci

Judaici, ch. 2, § 2, (in Ugolini Thesaur. tom. 26, col. 1001-1003.)

The same view is taken by Deylingius, De Judæorum Jure Gladii, § 10,

11, 12, (in Ugolin. Thesaur. tom. 29, col. 1189-1192.) But he

concludes that in all capital cases, there was an appeal from the

Sanhedrim to the Prætor; and that without the approval of the

latter, the sentence of the Sanhedrim could not be executed. Ibid. §

15, col. 1196. Molinæus understood the Jewish law in the same

manner. See his Harmony of the Gospels, note on John xviii. 31. C.

Molinæi Opera, tom. 5. pp. 603, 604. But this opinion is refuted by

what is said by M. Dupin, Trial, &c., § 8, and by Thomasius, above

cited.

356 See M. Dupin’s Trial of Jesus, pp. 55-62. His authorities are

Loiseau, Godefroy, and Cujas, the two latter of whom he cites as

follows:—Procurator Cæsaris _fungens vice præsidis_ potest

cognoscere _de causis criminalibus_. Godefroy, in his note (letter

S) upon the 3rd law of the code, _Ibi causæ fiscales_, &c. And he

cites several others, which I have verified, and which are most

precise to the same effect. See particularly the 4th law of the

Code, _Ad. leg. fab. de plag._, and the 2nd law of the Code, _De

Pœnis_.—Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis

fiscalibus pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum fungebantur

_vice præsidum_; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsaris _vice

præsidis_ in Syria. Cujas, Observ. xix. 13.

357 Luke xxiii. 2.

358 John xviii. 38.

359 Luke xxiii. 5.

360 Luke xxiii. 10, 11.

361 Luke xxiii. 13, 14, 15. I regard this judgement as conclusive

evidence of the innocence of the accused. Pilate’s strenuous

endeavour to release him instead of Barabbas, and his solemn washing

his own hands of the guilt of his blood, though they show the

strength of his own convictions, yet add no legal force to the

judgement itself.

362 John xix. 12.

363 Luke xxiii. 24.

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

365 Ibid. 7-15. Jahn’s Bibl. Ant. § 246.

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

5.

367 Matt. i. 19, 20.

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

369 Matt. xxiii. per tot.

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

371 The expression _son of God_ was in common use among the Jews, to

designate a man of remarkable wisdom and piety. It was not in this

sense that Jesus Christ used it; for in that case it would have

occasioned no great sensation. Besides, if we should assume, in

order to make it a subject of accusation against these Jews, that

Jesus did not expressly declare himself to be God, we should be

exposed to this rejoinder: Why then do you believe in him?

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

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

374 This fact is clearly established as possible; and we must observe

that till then there had been neither opposition nor enmity in the

minds of this people, since they had listened to him with the

greatest attention, and did not hesitate to acknowledge in him all

that public law permitted them to do, viz., a prophet, a highly

inspired man.

375 John x. 30-33.

376 Matt. x. 34. Mark x. 29.

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

378 John vii. 43. Luke xxiii. 5.

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

380 Matt. xix. 24.

381 John x. 20.

382 John vii. 12.

383 John xi. 47-50.

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

385 Matt. xxi. 23.

386 It will be recollected, that the senate held its sessions in one of

the porticos of the temple. At this time the high priest presided

over the senate, so that the guards of the high priest, of the

elders and the temple, were no other than the legal militia.

387 John xviii. 10, 11.

388 Mark xiv. 50. Matt. xxvi. 56.

389 Matt. xxvi. 60, 61. And the last came two false witnesses, and said,

this fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to

build it in three days. Mark xiv. 57, 58. And there arose certain

and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will

destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I

will build another made without hands. John ii. 19, 21, 22. Jesus

answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days

I will raise it up. But he spake of the temple of his body. When,

therefore, he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that

he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the

word which Jesus had said.

390 I repeat that the expression _son of God_, includes here the idea of

God himself; the fact is already established, and all the subsequent

events confirm it. Observe, also, that I quote the narrative of only

one of the parties to this great proceeding.

391 Deut. xxviii. 20. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a

word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that

shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

392 Matt. xxvii. 1. Mark xv. 1.

393 The duties of Pilate were to inform himself whether the sentences

given did or did not affect the interests of Rome; there his part

ended. Thus it is not astonishing that this procurator, doubtless

little acquainted with the Jewish laws, signed the decree for the

arrest of Jesus, although he did not find him guilty. We shall see

hereafter that there were then many parties among the Jews, among

whom were the Herodians or serviles, partisans of the house of

Herod, and devoted to the foreign interests. These are they who

speak continually of Cæsar, of rendering to Cæsar the tribute due to

Cæsar; they also insist that Jesus called himself _king of the

Jews_, but this charge was reckoned as nothing before the senate,

and was not of a nature alone to merit capital punishment.

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

395 John xix. 7.

396 The sending back of Jesus to Herod, which, according to the Gospel

of St. Luke, Pilate would have done, is not stated by the other

Evangelists, and does not at all change the judicial question.

Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, and of Perea, had no authority

in Jerusalem. Upon his visit to this city, Pilate, according to St.

Luke, would, out of respect, have caused Jesus to appear before this

ally of the Romans, because Jesus was surnamed the Galilean, though

originally from Judea. But to whatever tribe he belonged, the

nature of the accusation would still have required, according to the

Hebrew law, that he should be judged by the senate of Jerusalem.

397 Matt. xvii. 42, 43.

398 This Analysis first appeared in the _Gazette des Tribunaux_.

399 Joshua vii. 19, &c.

400 By this, says Father Lamy, we may understand what the mixture of

wine and myrrh was, which they presented to Jesus on the cross, and

which he would not drink. _Introd. to the reading of the Holy

Scriptures_, chap. vi. (_Note of Mr. Salvador_, Book iv. ch. 2.)

401 As was that of Stephen, whom the same priests caused to be massacred

by the populace, without a previous sentence of the law. OCCIDERE:

Non occides, thou shalt not kill. _Deut_. v. 17. Veneno homines

occidere. Cic. pro Roscio, 61. Virginiam filiam sua manu occidit

Virginius. Cic. de Finib. 107. Non hominem occidi. Horat. I. Epist.

17, 10. Inermem occidere. Ovid. ii. Fast. 139. INTERFICERE: Feras

interficere. Lucret. lib. v. 251. Interfectus in acie. Cic. de

Finib. 103. Cæsaris interfectores. Brutus Ciceroni, 16, 8.

Interfectorem Gracchi. Cic. de Claris Orrato. 66.

402 Will it be believed, that Tertullian and St. Irenæus were obliged to

refute seriously some writers of their day, who considered the

conduct of Judas not only excusable, but worthy of admiration and

highly meritorious, “because (as they said) of the immense service

which he had rendered to the human race by _preparing their

redemption!_” In the same manner, at a certain period, we have seen

plunderers of the public money make a merit of their conduct,

because in that way they had weakened the usurpation and prepared

the way for the triumph of legitimacy.

403 See, as to these two grounds of nullity, the Jewish authors cited by

Prost de Royer, tome 2, p. 205, _verbo_ ACCUSATION.

404 Mr. Salvador admits this: “Caiaphas,” says he, “made himself his

accuser.” p. 85.

405 Ananias, a chief priest, having given orders to strike Paul upon the

face, Paul said to him: “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for

sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be

smitten, _contrary to the law_!” Acts xxiii. 3.

406 Mr. Salvador, in his note to p. 82, admits, that “the expression

_Son of God_ was in common use among the Hebrews, to signify a man

of great wisdom, or of deep piety.” But he adds, “_It was not in

this sense_, that it was used by Jesus Christ; it would not have

caused so strong a sensation.” Thus, then, by _construction_, and

changing the words from their usual meaning, an article of

accusation is formed against Jesus.

407 That is, he usurped the functions of a judge; for we shall see, in

the next section, that the _Council_ of the Jews had not

jurisdiction of capital cases.

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

409 Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went

in and sat with the servants to see the end. Matt. xxvi. 58. So also

the young man spoken of by St. Mark, xiv. 51: And there followed him

a certain young man, &c.

_ 410 De Crimine_ præsidis cognitio est. Cujas, xix. Observ. 13.

411 Procurator Cæsaris _fungens vice præsidis potest cognoscere de

causis criminalibus_. Godefroy, in his note (letter S) upon the 3rd

law of the Code, _Ubi causæ fiscales_, &c. And he cites several

others, which I have verified, and which are most precise to the

same effect. See particularly the 4th law of the Code, _Ad leg. fab.

de plag._, and the 2nd law of the Code, _De Pœnis_.

412 Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis fiscalibus

pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum fungebantur _vice

præsidum_; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsaris _vice

præsidis_ in Syria. Cujas, Observ. xix. 13.

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

414 Lysias thus wrote to Felix the Governor, in relation to Paul: Whom I

perceived to be accused of questions of their law, but to have

nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or bonds. Acts xxiii. 29.

415 Gerhard makes the following unanswerable dilemma upon this point.

“Be consistent with thyself, Pilate; for, if Christ is innocent, why

dost thou not send him away acquitted? And if thou believest him

deserving of chastisement with rods, why dost thou proclaim him to

be innocent?” _Gerh. Harm._ ch. 193, p. 1889.

416 We will cite here the words of one of the finest laws of the Romans:

Vanæ voces populi non sunt audiendæ, quando aut noxium crimine

absolvi, aut innocentum condemnari desiderant—The idle clamour of

the populace is not to be regarded, when they call for a guilty man

to be acquitted, or an innocent one to be condemned. _Law 12, Code

de Pœnis_. Pilate might also have read in Horace: Justum et tenacem,

&c.—

“The man in conscious virtue bold,

Who dares his secret purpose hold,

Unshaken hears the crowd’s tumultuous cries,

And the impetuous _tyrant’s_ angry brow defies.”