Footnotes

Footnotes1.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 asrough 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.”Dillonv.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 Galbraithv. Neville; and in that of Stoughtonv. 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, Puttv. Roster, (2 Mod. 318); Footv. Rastall, (Skin. 49), and Puttv. Royston, (2 Show. 211); also, Hosdellv. Harris, (2 Keb. 462); Hodsonv. Harwich, (Ib. 533), and Hodsdenv. 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 ofidem 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, augmentedad 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 inproportiongreater, 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 extraordinaryunderits 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 extraordinaryin 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 theinfinitelysmall.”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'sArchæol. § 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. SeeTownsend,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 callcaravans, and in several places have houses fitted up for their reception, calledcaravanseries. 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 beginsapo Abraham, so the second also is said to beginapo David. The first extendsheos 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 isthreegenerations 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 hisson-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, toenroll 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 forthe 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 appearedin 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 withBartholomew, of whom John says nothing; and the others make no mention ofNathanael. This seems to have been his proper name; since the name ofBartholomewis not a proper name, but only signifiesthe son of Ptolomy.Nathanaelis also ranked among the Apostles to whom Jesus showed himself.Johnxxi. 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, (seeMatth. v. 1;Lukev. 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 downin 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. SeeRobinson'sTravels 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 hisdisciplessaid unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go andbury my father;”and in Chap. xx. 20, it is said,“Then came to him themother of Zebedee's childrenwith 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 translatedtorn, 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 loc129.“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. SeeA. Clarke, andScott,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'sIntrod. 120. See also,Harmer'sObs. 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'simmediatevoice; 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. SeeRobinson'sBiblical 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 thechiefpriest 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. SeeScott,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. 3Calm. 394.142.It appears from Mark vi. 7, that the apostles were sent forth bytwo and twoto 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.”SeeRoberts'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 wassat downafter 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 Miranturomnesdicere.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 calledAngari. 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, apudA. Clarke,in loc.Sir J. Chardin'sTravels, 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.Sumneron 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'sBiblical 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, thatGadarawas aGrecian 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. SeeBlunt'sVeracity 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. SeeBlunt'sVeracity, &c. sect. i. 7.169.Commentators have noted two inconsistent circumstances in this section. In Matthew,shoes areforbidden; in Mark the Apostles are commanded to be shod withsandals. 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 hisservantsit. Luke, in the parallel passage, says heheard 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 withdrawawhile. The occasion of this great multitude oftravellersis stated in the like incidental manner by John, vi. 4, that thepassoverwas 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 byfifties. In Mark it is said that they sat downby hundreds and by fifties. Piscator, and Pearce, in a dissertation at the end of his comment on St. Paul's Epistles, say that they sat an hundred in front, and fifty deep; which very satisfactorily solves the seeming variation.Newcome.177.This seemingly idle inquiry becomes important as a note of veracity in the narrator, when compared with the account of Matthew. John indeed tells us, v. 18, that the wind blew a gale, but he does not state from what quarter. He also says that there were boats from Tiberias, near the place where the miracle of bread was wrought, v. 23, but this does not at all explain the inquiry of the people how Jesus came to Capernaum. But Matthew states that“the wind was contrary,”that is, west, Matth. xiv. 22. This fact, and the geographical position of the places, explains the whole. The miracle was wrought near Bethsaida, on the east side of the lake. The people saw the disciples take the only boat which was there, and depart for Capernaum, which was on the west side of the lake, and saw that Jesus was not with them. In the night it blew a tempest from the west. In the morning, the storm being over, the people crossed over to Capernaum and found Jesus already there. Well might they ask him, with astonishment, how he came thither. For though there were boats over from Tiberias, which was also on the west side of the lake, yet he could not have returned in one of them, for the wind would not have permitted them to cross the lake.Blunt, Veracity of the Gospels, sect. i. 17.178.Ps. lxxviii. 24. Ex. xvi. 15.179.Isa. liv. 13. Jer. xxxi. 33, seq.180.Ex. xvi. 15.181.The truth of the Gospels has been argued from theconfessionsthey contain. On this verse Paley asks,“Was it the part of a writer, who dealt in suppression and disguise, to put downthisanecdote?”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. SeeTappin'sLect. 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 standin 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 theres 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, whentheir ownlanguage is doubtful and ambiguous,their ownpractice 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 ofthe partiesthemselves 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 theparties, 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 Baynhamv. Guy's Hospital, 3 Vesey's Rep. 295. Eatonv. 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 theres 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. SeeA. 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 phrasethree days and three nightsis equivalent tothree 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 byScott, on Matth. xii. 40.) Grotius establishes this way of reckoning thepartsof the first and third days fortwo 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 hasalwayssuch 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 asquatriduo Cæsar.Grotius on Matth. xvii. 1, has another solution; Quod Lucas dicit, tale est quale cum vulgò dicimuspost septimanam circiter. Nam Judæos octo diesappellasse 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 isdidrachma, 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 worshipthere; 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 directionat 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 comingfromJudea, 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. SeeBenson'sLife 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 adulteressto deathwhen 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. Kaiis 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 asfinally leavingJericho for Jerusalem, but asoccasionally going outof 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. SeeJennings, Ant. vol. ii. p. 245.“Thereon,”that is, on the garments. The princes of Israel were forbidden to multiplyhorsesto 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 BishopSherlock'sDissert. 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, orcaffetans. 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 anazar, whose virtue so pleased a king of Persia, that he caused himself to be disappareled, and gave his own habit to thenazar, which isthe 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 honourbeforethe 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 4Calm. 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 Grotiusin loc.Newcome.258.It is nowhere asserted that the unction was of Jesus's headonly, or of his feetonly. 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. SeeJosephus, 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. Whengallicinium (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. SeeBochartde anim. pars, 2d. 119, andGrotiuson 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 wordtestament, (diatheke,) in a sense involving also the idea of acovenant, 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 wordtestament, 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 covenantinter vivosand 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 theultima voluntasof an individual, the other is theaggregatio mentiumof 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 termedmancipatio; 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 calledlibripens, 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 asestertius, which was immediately paid over to the vendor as part of the price; and hence the expressionper 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 testamentper 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 thehæres suus, ornecessarius, 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 bymancipatiowere 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 itinvolved a covenanton 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 thenew testament in his blood, or of hisblood 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 ofhis own perfect obedienceto 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 truefaithin 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 byhisobedience 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. SeeBloomfieldandA. Clarke, in loc. It should be observed, however, that Luke does not directly affirm that it was blood. He onlycomparesthe sweat to that of blood, using a term of similitude, (quasigrumi sanguinis—Beza;tanquamdemissiones sanguinis—Tremellius; sicut guttæ sanguinis—Vulg. andMolinaus;) 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 itwas a manwho charged Peter with being a follower of Jesus, and Matthew and Mark who state that he was accused bya 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. SeeMichaelisand Bp.Middleton, cited in 4Horne'sIntrod. 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 wouldthricedeny Jesus, we may conclude that each has related thethreedenials which Jesus foretold.Peter's first denial. Peter waswithout, orbeneath, in the hall of Caiaphas's house. Dr. Scott, on Matth. xxvi. 3, observes thataulesignifies 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 anatriumorvestibulumat 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 thehigherpart, where Jesus stood before the High Priest; butwithoutthat division of the hall, and in thelowerpart, 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 amanenforces the charge of the damsel, according to Luke; andothersurge 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 pastthree, and in the other, that it wastowards six. SeeCampbell,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 calledThe Law. The second, beginning with Psalms, was calledThe Psalms. The third, beginning with the prophecy of Jeremiah, which anciently stood first, was calledJeremiah, under which name all quotations from the prophets were made. SeeA. 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. 1Horne'sIntrod. p. 582.286.Zech. xi. 12, seq. Jer. xxxii. 6, seq.287.Clement of Alexandria and Jerome both relate that Mark wrote this Gospel atRome, 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'sVeracity, &c., sect. i. 14. See alsoEusebius, 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'sIntrod., 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.Newcome296.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.Newcome297.Ps. xxii. 1.298.HilorHilawas the old Syriac forvinegar. 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. SeeBuchanan'sResearches, 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 alsoHorne'sIntrod. Vol. 1. p. 210-216. The word translatedearth, in Luke, is the same which is renderedland, 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. SeeNewcome, 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 likenessof any thingthatisin heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or thatisin 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 fourthgenerationof 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 nameof 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 heardhimlay 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,andall the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the nameof 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 whichareround about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from theoneend of the earth even unto theotherend 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 withstonesthat 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 theLordwill 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 thatthou 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 theword 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 properlytermedblasphemy. For theact, 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 Cæsarisfungens vice præsidispotest cognoscerede 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 fungebanturvice præsidum; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsarisvice præsidisin 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 expressionson of Godwas 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 expressionson 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 himselfking 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 theGazette 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 bypreparing 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,verboAccusation.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 expressionSon of Godwas 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, byconstruction, 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 theCouncilof 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 Criminepræsidis cognitio est. Cujas, xix. Observ. 13.411.Procurator Cæsarisfungens 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 fungebanturvice præsidum; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsarisvice præsidisin 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 impetuoustyrant'sangry brow defies.”

Footnotes1.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 asrough 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.”Dillonv.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 Galbraithv. Neville; and in that of Stoughtonv. 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, Puttv. Roster, (2 Mod. 318); Footv. Rastall, (Skin. 49), and Puttv. Royston, (2 Show. 211); also, Hosdellv. Harris, (2 Keb. 462); Hodsonv. Harwich, (Ib. 533), and Hodsdenv. 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 ofidem 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, augmentedad 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 inproportiongreater, 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 extraordinaryunderits 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 extraordinaryin 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 theinfinitelysmall.”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'sArchæol. § 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. SeeTownsend,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 callcaravans, and in several places have houses fitted up for their reception, calledcaravanseries. 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 beginsapo Abraham, so the second also is said to beginapo David. The first extendsheos 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 isthreegenerations 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 hisson-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, toenroll 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 forthe 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 appearedin 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 withBartholomew, of whom John says nothing; and the others make no mention ofNathanael. This seems to have been his proper name; since the name ofBartholomewis not a proper name, but only signifiesthe son of Ptolomy.Nathanaelis also ranked among the Apostles to whom Jesus showed himself.Johnxxi. 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, (seeMatth. v. 1;Lukev. 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 downin 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. SeeRobinson'sTravels 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 hisdisciplessaid unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go andbury my father;”and in Chap. xx. 20, it is said,“Then came to him themother of Zebedee's childrenwith 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 translatedtorn, 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 loc129.“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. SeeA. Clarke, andScott,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'sIntrod. 120. See also,Harmer'sObs. 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'simmediatevoice; 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. SeeRobinson'sBiblical 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 thechiefpriest 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. SeeScott,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. 3Calm. 394.142.It appears from Mark vi. 7, that the apostles were sent forth bytwo and twoto 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.”SeeRoberts'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 wassat downafter 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 Miranturomnesdicere.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 calledAngari. 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, apudA. Clarke,in loc.Sir J. Chardin'sTravels, 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.Sumneron 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'sBiblical 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, thatGadarawas aGrecian 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. SeeBlunt'sVeracity 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. SeeBlunt'sVeracity, &c. sect. i. 7.169.Commentators have noted two inconsistent circumstances in this section. In Matthew,shoes areforbidden; in Mark the Apostles are commanded to be shod withsandals. 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 hisservantsit. Luke, in the parallel passage, says heheard 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 withdrawawhile. The occasion of this great multitude oftravellersis stated in the like incidental manner by John, vi. 4, that thepassoverwas 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 byfifties. In Mark it is said that they sat downby hundreds and by fifties. Piscator, and Pearce, in a dissertation at the end of his comment on St. Paul's Epistles, say that they sat an hundred in front, and fifty deep; which very satisfactorily solves the seeming variation.Newcome.177.This seemingly idle inquiry becomes important as a note of veracity in the narrator, when compared with the account of Matthew. John indeed tells us, v. 18, that the wind blew a gale, but he does not state from what quarter. He also says that there were boats from Tiberias, near the place where the miracle of bread was wrought, v. 23, but this does not at all explain the inquiry of the people how Jesus came to Capernaum. But Matthew states that“the wind was contrary,”that is, west, Matth. xiv. 22. This fact, and the geographical position of the places, explains the whole. The miracle was wrought near Bethsaida, on the east side of the lake. The people saw the disciples take the only boat which was there, and depart for Capernaum, which was on the west side of the lake, and saw that Jesus was not with them. In the night it blew a tempest from the west. In the morning, the storm being over, the people crossed over to Capernaum and found Jesus already there. Well might they ask him, with astonishment, how he came thither. For though there were boats over from Tiberias, which was also on the west side of the lake, yet he could not have returned in one of them, for the wind would not have permitted them to cross the lake.Blunt, Veracity of the Gospels, sect. i. 17.178.Ps. lxxviii. 24. Ex. xvi. 15.179.Isa. liv. 13. Jer. xxxi. 33, seq.180.Ex. xvi. 15.181.The truth of the Gospels has been argued from theconfessionsthey contain. On this verse Paley asks,“Was it the part of a writer, who dealt in suppression and disguise, to put downthisanecdote?”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. SeeTappin'sLect. 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 standin 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 theres 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, whentheir ownlanguage is doubtful and ambiguous,their ownpractice 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 ofthe partiesthemselves 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 theparties, 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 Baynhamv. Guy's Hospital, 3 Vesey's Rep. 295. Eatonv. 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 theres 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. SeeA. 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 phrasethree days and three nightsis equivalent tothree 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 byScott, on Matth. xii. 40.) Grotius establishes this way of reckoning thepartsof the first and third days fortwo 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 hasalwayssuch 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 asquatriduo Cæsar.Grotius on Matth. xvii. 1, has another solution; Quod Lucas dicit, tale est quale cum vulgò dicimuspost septimanam circiter. Nam Judæos octo diesappellasse 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 isdidrachma, 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 worshipthere; 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 directionat 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 comingfromJudea, 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. SeeBenson'sLife 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 adulteressto deathwhen 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. Kaiis 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 asfinally leavingJericho for Jerusalem, but asoccasionally going outof 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. SeeJennings, Ant. vol. ii. p. 245.“Thereon,”that is, on the garments. The princes of Israel were forbidden to multiplyhorsesto 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 BishopSherlock'sDissert. 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, orcaffetans. 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 anazar, whose virtue so pleased a king of Persia, that he caused himself to be disappareled, and gave his own habit to thenazar, which isthe 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 honourbeforethe 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 4Calm. 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 Grotiusin loc.Newcome.258.It is nowhere asserted that the unction was of Jesus's headonly, or of his feetonly. 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. SeeJosephus, 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. Whengallicinium (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. SeeBochartde anim. pars, 2d. 119, andGrotiuson 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 wordtestament, (diatheke,) in a sense involving also the idea of acovenant, 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 wordtestament, 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 covenantinter vivosand 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 theultima voluntasof an individual, the other is theaggregatio mentiumof 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 termedmancipatio; 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 calledlibripens, 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 asestertius, which was immediately paid over to the vendor as part of the price; and hence the expressionper 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 testamentper 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 thehæres suus, ornecessarius, 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 bymancipatiowere 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 itinvolved a covenanton 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 thenew testament in his blood, or of hisblood 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 ofhis own perfect obedienceto 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 truefaithin 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 byhisobedience 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. SeeBloomfieldandA. Clarke, in loc. It should be observed, however, that Luke does not directly affirm that it was blood. He onlycomparesthe sweat to that of blood, using a term of similitude, (quasigrumi sanguinis—Beza;tanquamdemissiones sanguinis—Tremellius; sicut guttæ sanguinis—Vulg. andMolinaus;) 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 itwas a manwho charged Peter with being a follower of Jesus, and Matthew and Mark who state that he was accused bya 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. SeeMichaelisand Bp.Middleton, cited in 4Horne'sIntrod. 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 wouldthricedeny Jesus, we may conclude that each has related thethreedenials which Jesus foretold.Peter's first denial. Peter waswithout, orbeneath, in the hall of Caiaphas's house. Dr. Scott, on Matth. xxvi. 3, observes thataulesignifies 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 anatriumorvestibulumat 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 thehigherpart, where Jesus stood before the High Priest; butwithoutthat division of the hall, and in thelowerpart, 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 amanenforces the charge of the damsel, according to Luke; andothersurge 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 pastthree, and in the other, that it wastowards six. SeeCampbell,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 calledThe Law. The second, beginning with Psalms, was calledThe Psalms. The third, beginning with the prophecy of Jeremiah, which anciently stood first, was calledJeremiah, under which name all quotations from the prophets were made. SeeA. 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. 1Horne'sIntrod. p. 582.286.Zech. xi. 12, seq. Jer. xxxii. 6, seq.287.Clement of Alexandria and Jerome both relate that Mark wrote this Gospel atRome, 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'sVeracity, &c., sect. i. 14. See alsoEusebius, 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'sIntrod., 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.Newcome296.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.Newcome297.Ps. xxii. 1.298.HilorHilawas the old Syriac forvinegar. 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. SeeBuchanan'sResearches, 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 alsoHorne'sIntrod. Vol. 1. p. 210-216. The word translatedearth, in Luke, is the same which is renderedland, 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. SeeNewcome, 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 likenessof any thingthatisin heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or thatisin 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 fourthgenerationof 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 nameof 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 heardhimlay 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,andall the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the nameof 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 whichareround about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from theoneend of the earth even unto theotherend 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 withstonesthat 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 theLordwill 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 thatthou 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 theword 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 properlytermedblasphemy. For theact, 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 Cæsarisfungens vice præsidispotest cognoscerede 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 fungebanturvice præsidum; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsarisvice præsidisin 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 expressionson of Godwas 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 expressionson 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 himselfking 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 theGazette 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 bypreparing 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,verboAccusation.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 expressionSon of Godwas 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, byconstruction, 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 theCouncilof 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 Criminepræsidis cognitio est. Cujas, xix. Observ. 13.411.Procurator Cæsarisfungens 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 fungebanturvice præsidum; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsarisvice præsidisin 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 impetuoustyrant'sangry brow defies.”

Footnotes1.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 asrough 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.”Dillonv.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 Galbraithv. Neville; and in that of Stoughtonv. 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, Puttv. Roster, (2 Mod. 318); Footv. Rastall, (Skin. 49), and Puttv. Royston, (2 Show. 211); also, Hosdellv. Harris, (2 Keb. 462); Hodsonv. Harwich, (Ib. 533), and Hodsdenv. 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 ofidem 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, augmentedad 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 inproportiongreater, 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 extraordinaryunderits 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 extraordinaryin 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 theinfinitelysmall.”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'sArchæol. § 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. SeeTownsend,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 callcaravans, and in several places have houses fitted up for their reception, calledcaravanseries. 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 beginsapo Abraham, so the second also is said to beginapo David. The first extendsheos 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 isthreegenerations 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 hisson-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, toenroll 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 forthe 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 appearedin 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 withBartholomew, of whom John says nothing; and the others make no mention ofNathanael. This seems to have been his proper name; since the name ofBartholomewis not a proper name, but only signifiesthe son of Ptolomy.Nathanaelis also ranked among the Apostles to whom Jesus showed himself.Johnxxi. 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, (seeMatth. v. 1;Lukev. 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 downin 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. SeeRobinson'sTravels 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 hisdisciplessaid unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go andbury my father;”and in Chap. xx. 20, it is said,“Then came to him themother of Zebedee's childrenwith 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 translatedtorn, 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 loc129.“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. SeeA. Clarke, andScott,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'sIntrod. 120. See also,Harmer'sObs. 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'simmediatevoice; 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. SeeRobinson'sBiblical 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 thechiefpriest 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. SeeScott,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. 3Calm. 394.142.It appears from Mark vi. 7, that the apostles were sent forth bytwo and twoto 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.”SeeRoberts'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 wassat downafter 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 Miranturomnesdicere.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 calledAngari. 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, apudA. Clarke,in loc.Sir J. Chardin'sTravels, 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.Sumneron 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'sBiblical 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, thatGadarawas aGrecian 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. SeeBlunt'sVeracity 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. SeeBlunt'sVeracity, &c. sect. i. 7.169.Commentators have noted two inconsistent circumstances in this section. In Matthew,shoes areforbidden; in Mark the Apostles are commanded to be shod withsandals. 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 hisservantsit. Luke, in the parallel passage, says heheard 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 withdrawawhile. The occasion of this great multitude oftravellersis stated in the like incidental manner by John, vi. 4, that thepassoverwas 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 byfifties. In Mark it is said that they sat downby hundreds and by fifties. Piscator, and Pearce, in a dissertation at the end of his comment on St. Paul's Epistles, say that they sat an hundred in front, and fifty deep; which very satisfactorily solves the seeming variation.Newcome.177.This seemingly idle inquiry becomes important as a note of veracity in the narrator, when compared with the account of Matthew. John indeed tells us, v. 18, that the wind blew a gale, but he does not state from what quarter. He also says that there were boats from Tiberias, near the place where the miracle of bread was wrought, v. 23, but this does not at all explain the inquiry of the people how Jesus came to Capernaum. But Matthew states that“the wind was contrary,”that is, west, Matth. xiv. 22. This fact, and the geographical position of the places, explains the whole. The miracle was wrought near Bethsaida, on the east side of the lake. The people saw the disciples take the only boat which was there, and depart for Capernaum, which was on the west side of the lake, and saw that Jesus was not with them. In the night it blew a tempest from the west. In the morning, the storm being over, the people crossed over to Capernaum and found Jesus already there. Well might they ask him, with astonishment, how he came thither. For though there were boats over from Tiberias, which was also on the west side of the lake, yet he could not have returned in one of them, for the wind would not have permitted them to cross the lake.Blunt, Veracity of the Gospels, sect. i. 17.178.Ps. lxxviii. 24. Ex. xvi. 15.179.Isa. liv. 13. Jer. xxxi. 33, seq.180.Ex. xvi. 15.181.The truth of the Gospels has been argued from theconfessionsthey contain. On this verse Paley asks,“Was it the part of a writer, who dealt in suppression and disguise, to put downthisanecdote?”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. SeeTappin'sLect. 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 standin 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 theres 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, whentheir ownlanguage is doubtful and ambiguous,their ownpractice 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 ofthe partiesthemselves 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 theparties, 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 Baynhamv. Guy's Hospital, 3 Vesey's Rep. 295. Eatonv. 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 theres 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. SeeA. 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 phrasethree days and three nightsis equivalent tothree 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 byScott, on Matth. xii. 40.) Grotius establishes this way of reckoning thepartsof the first and third days fortwo 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 hasalwayssuch 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 asquatriduo Cæsar.Grotius on Matth. xvii. 1, has another solution; Quod Lucas dicit, tale est quale cum vulgò dicimuspost septimanam circiter. Nam Judæos octo diesappellasse 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 isdidrachma, 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 worshipthere; 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 directionat 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 comingfromJudea, 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. SeeBenson'sLife 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 adulteressto deathwhen 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. Kaiis 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 asfinally leavingJericho for Jerusalem, but asoccasionally going outof 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. SeeJennings, Ant. vol. ii. p. 245.“Thereon,”that is, on the garments. The princes of Israel were forbidden to multiplyhorsesto 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 BishopSherlock'sDissert. 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, orcaffetans. 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 anazar, whose virtue so pleased a king of Persia, that he caused himself to be disappareled, and gave his own habit to thenazar, which isthe 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 honourbeforethe 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 4Calm. 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 Grotiusin loc.Newcome.258.It is nowhere asserted that the unction was of Jesus's headonly, or of his feetonly. 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. SeeJosephus, 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. Whengallicinium (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. SeeBochartde anim. pars, 2d. 119, andGrotiuson 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 wordtestament, (diatheke,) in a sense involving also the idea of acovenant, 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 wordtestament, 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 covenantinter vivosand 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 theultima voluntasof an individual, the other is theaggregatio mentiumof 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 termedmancipatio; 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 calledlibripens, 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 asestertius, which was immediately paid over to the vendor as part of the price; and hence the expressionper 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 testamentper 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 thehæres suus, ornecessarius, 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 bymancipatiowere 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 itinvolved a covenanton 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 thenew testament in his blood, or of hisblood 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 ofhis own perfect obedienceto 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 truefaithin 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 byhisobedience 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. SeeBloomfieldandA. Clarke, in loc. It should be observed, however, that Luke does not directly affirm that it was blood. He onlycomparesthe sweat to that of blood, using a term of similitude, (quasigrumi sanguinis—Beza;tanquamdemissiones sanguinis—Tremellius; sicut guttæ sanguinis—Vulg. andMolinaus;) 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 itwas a manwho charged Peter with being a follower of Jesus, and Matthew and Mark who state that he was accused bya 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. SeeMichaelisand Bp.Middleton, cited in 4Horne'sIntrod. 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 wouldthricedeny Jesus, we may conclude that each has related thethreedenials which Jesus foretold.Peter's first denial. Peter waswithout, orbeneath, in the hall of Caiaphas's house. Dr. Scott, on Matth. xxvi. 3, observes thataulesignifies 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 anatriumorvestibulumat 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 thehigherpart, where Jesus stood before the High Priest; butwithoutthat division of the hall, and in thelowerpart, 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 amanenforces the charge of the damsel, according to Luke; andothersurge 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 pastthree, and in the other, that it wastowards six. SeeCampbell,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 calledThe Law. The second, beginning with Psalms, was calledThe Psalms. The third, beginning with the prophecy of Jeremiah, which anciently stood first, was calledJeremiah, under which name all quotations from the prophets were made. SeeA. 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. 1Horne'sIntrod. p. 582.286.Zech. xi. 12, seq. Jer. xxxii. 6, seq.287.Clement of Alexandria and Jerome both relate that Mark wrote this Gospel atRome, 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'sVeracity, &c., sect. i. 14. See alsoEusebius, 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'sIntrod., 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.Newcome296.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.Newcome297.Ps. xxii. 1.298.HilorHilawas the old Syriac forvinegar. 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. SeeBuchanan'sResearches, 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 alsoHorne'sIntrod. Vol. 1. p. 210-216. The word translatedearth, in Luke, is the same which is renderedland, 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. SeeNewcome, 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 likenessof any thingthatisin heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or thatisin 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 fourthgenerationof 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 nameof 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 heardhimlay 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,andall the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the nameof 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 whichareround about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from theoneend of the earth even unto theotherend 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 withstonesthat 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 theLordwill 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 thatthou 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 theword 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 properlytermedblasphemy. For theact, 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 Cæsarisfungens vice præsidispotest cognoscerede 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 fungebanturvice præsidum; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsarisvice præsidisin 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 expressionson of Godwas 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 expressionson 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 himselfking 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 theGazette 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 bypreparing 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,verboAccusation.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 expressionSon of Godwas 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, byconstruction, 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 theCouncilof 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 Criminepræsidis cognitio est. Cujas, xix. Observ. 13.411.Procurator Cæsarisfungens 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 fungebanturvice præsidum; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsarisvice præsidisin 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 impetuoustyrant'sangry brow defies.”

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, augmentedad 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 inproportiongreater, 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 extraordinaryunderits 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 extraordinaryin 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 theinfinitelysmall.”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.)

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.

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'sArchæol. § 154.

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 beginsapo Abraham, so the second also is said to beginapo David. The first extendsheos 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 isthreegenerations 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 hisson-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, toenroll 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.

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.

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.”SeeRoberts's“Light shining out of Darkness,”pp. 91-93.

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 wassat downafter 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 Miranturomnesdicere.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.

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.

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.

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 standin 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 theres 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, whentheir ownlanguage is doubtful and ambiguous,their ownpractice 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 ofthe partiesthemselves 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 theparties, 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 Baynhamv. Guy's Hospital, 3 Vesey's Rep. 295. Eatonv. 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 theres 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.

The phrasethree days and three nightsis equivalent tothree 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 byScott, on Matth. xii. 40.) Grotius establishes this way of reckoning thepartsof the first and third days fortwo 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.

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 hasalwayssuch 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 asquatriduo Cæsar.

Grotius on Matth. xvii. 1, has another solution; Quod Lucas dicit, tale est quale cum vulgò dicimuspost septimanam circiter. Nam Judæos octo diesappellasse id quod ab uno sabbato est ad alterum apparet, Joan. 20, 26, &c.Newcome.

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 asfinally leavingJericho for Jerusalem, but asoccasionally going outof 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.

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, orcaffetans. 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 anazar, whose virtue so pleased a king of Persia, that he caused himself to be disappareled, and gave his own habit to thenazar, which isthe 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 honourbeforethe 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 4Calm. Dict.pp. 64, 126, 514.

The use of the wordtestament, (diatheke,) in a sense involving also the idea of acovenant, 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 wordtestament, 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 covenantinter vivosand 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 theultima voluntasof an individual, the other is theaggregatio mentiumof 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 termedmancipatio; 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 calledlibripens, 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 asestertius, which was immediately paid over to the vendor as part of the price; and hence the expressionper 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 testamentper 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 thehæres suus, ornecessarius, 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 bymancipatiowere 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 itinvolved a covenanton 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 thenew testament in his blood, or of hisblood 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 ofhis own perfect obedienceto 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 truefaithin 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 byhisobedience 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.

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 wouldthricedeny Jesus, we may conclude that each has related thethreedenials which Jesus foretold.

Peter's first denial. Peter waswithout, orbeneath, in the hall of Caiaphas's house. Dr. Scott, on Matth. xxvi. 3, observes thataulesignifies 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 anatriumorvestibulumat 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 thehigherpart, where Jesus stood before the High Priest; butwithoutthat division of the hall, and in thelowerpart, 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 amanenforces the charge of the damsel, according to Luke; andothersurge 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.

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.

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.

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 impetuoustyrant'sangry brow defies.”

Back to IndexNext