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

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

228 Zech. ix. 9.

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

230 Ps. viii. 3.

231 Ps. cxviii. 26.

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

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

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

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

236 Ps. cxviii. 22.

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

238 In the East, where the fashions of dress rarely if ever change, much of their riches consists in the number and splendour of their robes, or _caffetans_. Presents of garments are frequently alluded to in Scripture. Gen. xlv. 22. 2 Chron. ix. 24. Judges xiv. 12. 2 Kings v. 5. Ezra ii. 69. Neh. vii. 70, where “the Tirshatha gave five hundred and thirty priests’ garments.”

Presents were considered as tokens of honour;—not meant as offers of payment or enrichment, (1 Sam. ix. 7); and especially presents of dresses. 1 Sam. xviii. 4. Luke xv. 22. _Tavernier_, p. 43, mentions a _nazar_, whose virtue so pleased a king of Persia, that he caused himself to be disappareled, and gave his own habit to the _nazar_, which is _the greatest honour a king of Persia can bestow on a subject_.

Such presents are given by kings on great occasions, especially at the marriages of their children. The Sultan Achmet, at the marriage of his eldest daughter, “gave presents to above 20,000 persons.” Knolles’s Hist. of the Turks, p. 1311. So Ahasuerus “gave gifts, _according to the state of the king_.” Esth. ii. 18.

The king gives his garment of honour _before_ the wearer is admitted into his presence;—De la Mottraye’s Trav. p. 199; (Does this illustrate Zech. iii. 3, 4?)—and would resent it if any, having received robes of him, should appear in his presence without wearing these marks of his liberality. And to refuse such favours, when offered, is considered as one of the greatest indignities. Sir John Chardin relates an instance where such a refusal cost a vizier his life. See 4 CALM. DICT. pp. 64, 126, 514.

239 Deut. xxv. 5.

240 Ex. iii. 6.

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

242 Deut. vi. 4, 5.

243 Lev. xix. 18.

244 Ps. cx. 1.

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

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

247 Ps. cxviii. 26.

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

249 Is. liii. 1.

250 Is. vi. 10.

251 Is. vi. 1, seq.

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

253 Danl. ix. 27.

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

255 Gen. vii. 4, seq.

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

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

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

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

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

261 Ps. xli. 10.

262 Zech. xiii. 7.

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

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

265 Isa. liii. 12.

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

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

268 The use of the word _testament_, (_diatheke_,) in a sense involving also the idea of a _covenant_, and in connexion with the circumstances of a compact, has greatly perplexed many English readers of the Bible. The difficulty occurs in Matt. 26, 28, and the parallel places, where our Lord employs the word _testament_, or last will, in connexion with the sacrificial shedding of his own blood; a ceremony which, by means of a suitable animal, usually was adopted among the ancients, upon the making of the most solemn engagements; and instead of which, the mutual partaking of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, by the contracting parties, was substituted among Christians in later times. The same embarrassment occurs, perhaps in a greater degree, in the exposition of several passages in the eighth and ninth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, (manifestly written by a profound lawyer, be he Paul or Apollos), where he uses language applicable indifferently both to a covenant _inter vivos_ and a last will. For with us, a testament is simply a declaration of the last will of the testator, in regard to the disposition of his property after his decease, irrespective of any consent, or even knowledge, at the time, on the part of him to whom the estate is given; while a covenant requires the mutual consent of both parties, as essential to its existence. The one is simply the _ultima voluntas_ of an individual, the other is the _aggregatio mentium_ of both or all.

The solution of this difficulty belongs rather to theologians, whose province it is by no means intended here to invade; but perhaps a reference to the laws and usages in force in Judea in the times of our Saviour and his Apostles may furnish some aid, which a lawyer might contribute without transgressing the limit of his profession.

It is first to be observed that the municipal laws of Greece and Rome were strikingly similar; those of Greece having been freely imported into the Roman jurisprudence. In like manner, the similarity of the Grecian laws and usages with those extant in Asia Minor, indicated a common origin; and thus, what Greece derived from Egypt and the states of Asia Minor, these states, after many ages, received again as the laws of their Roman masters. It should also be remembered that Palestine had been reduced to a Roman province some years before the time of our Saviour; long enough, indeed, to have become familiar with Roman laws and usages, even had they been previously unknown; and that Paul, to whom the Epistle to the Hebrews is generally attributed, was himself a thorough-bred lawyer, well versed in the customs of his country, whether ancient or modern. Among those nations, the civil magistrate often exercised the functions of the priesthood, these dignities being in some respects identical; and thus, whatever was transacted before the magistrate, might naturally seem to partake of the character of an act of religion. Covenants were always made with particular formalities, and to those of graver nature, religious solemnities were often superadded. They were frequently confirmed by an oath, the most solemn form of which was taken standing before the altar; and whosoever swore by the altar, swore by the sacrifice thereon, and was held as firmly bound as though he had passed between the dismembered parts of the victim. Of the latter kind was the oath, by which God confirmed his covenant with Abraham (Gen. xv.) when the visible light of his presence passed between the pieces which the patriarch had divided and laid “each piece one against another.”

With these things in view, we may now look at some of the modes of transferring property, practised by the nations alluded to.

Among the methods of alienation or sale of property by the owner, in his lifetime, was that which in the Roman law was termed _mancipatio_; a mode by which the vendor conveyed property to the purchaser, each party being present, either in person or by his agent, representative, or factor. Five witnesses were requisite, one of whom was called _libripens_, or the balance-holder. This form had its origin in the sale of goods by weight, but was gradually extended to all sales; and the practice was for the buyer to strike the balance with a piece of money called a _sestertius_, which was immediately paid over to the vendor as part of the price; and hence the expression _per æs et libram vendere_.

Wills or testaments were made with great solemnity. One method among the Romans, probably common, in its principal traits, to the other nations before mentioned, was termed the testament _per æs et libram_, it being effected in the form of a sale. This mode seems to have been resorted to whenever the estate was given to a stranger, (_hæres extraneus_,) to the exclusion of the _hæres suus_, or _necessarius_, or, as we should say, the heir at law; and it was founded on the purchase of the estate by the adopted heir, who succeeded to the privileges of the child. The forms of a sale by _mancipatio_ were therefore scrupulously observed; the presence and agreement of the purchaser, either in person or by his representative or negotiator, being necessary to its validity. The reason for requiring this form was because it _involved a covenant_ on the part of the adopted heir or legatee, by which he became bound to pay all the debts of the testator. Having entered into this covenant, he had the best possible title in law to the inheritance, namely, that of a purchaser for a valuable consideration. Among the Greeks, and probably among the Romans also, this was transacted in the presence of a magistrate, who sanctioned it by his sentence of approval. This was the most ancient form of a will; and it does not seem to have been abrogated until the time of Constantine.

Now, when our Saviour speaks of the _new testament in his blood_, or of his _blood of the new testament_, and when Paul uses similar forms of expression may not the figure have reference to the custom above stated? And if so, may not this custom guide us to the true meaning of the words? Does it intimate to us that the promised inheritance was first given to man, as it were by a testament in this ancient form, upon a covenant of _his own perfect obedience_ to every part of the law of God; that having broken this covenant, his title became forfeited; that the inheritance was afterwards promised, in the same manner, to every one, Jew or Gentile, upon a new covenant and condition, namely of a true _faith_ in Christ; a faith evinced in the fruits of a holy life; that this inheritance by a new testament and covenant was negociated, as it were, and obtained for man by the mediation of Jesus Christ, (“the mediator of the new testament,” Heb. 9. 15,) as the representative of all who should accept it by such faith, and their surety for the performance of its conditions; that it was purchased by _his_ obedience and solemnized by the sacrifice of himself as the victim?

This solution is suggested with much diffidence. That it carries these passages clear of all difficulty is not pretended. The very nature of the subject renders it difficult of illustration by any reference to human affairs; and the embarrassment is proportionally increased, whenever the simile is pressed beyond its principal point of resemblance.

See Ayliffe’s Pandect, pp. 349, 393, 367-369. Book iii. tit. xii. xv. Leges Atticæ, De Testamentis, &c. tit. vi. S. Petit. Comm. in Leges Attic. p. 479-481. Justin, Inst. lib. 2. tit. 10, § 1. Ibid. tit. 19, § 5, 6. Cooper’s Justinian, p. 487. Cod. lib. 6. tit. 23, 1. 15. Fuss’s Roman Antiq. ch. 1, § 87, 97, 103, 107, 183. Michaelis, LL. Moses, vol. 4, art. 302. Bp. Patrick, quoted in Bush’s Illustrations, p. 254.

269 Ps. lxix. 5.

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

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

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

273 Gen. ix. 6.

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

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

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

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

278 The seeming contradiction between Luke, who relates that it _was a man_ who charged Peter with being a follower of Jesus, and Matthew and Mark who state that he was accused by _a maid_, is reconciled by attending to the narrative of John, (xviii. 25,) who writes, “_They said_.” Whence it appears that there were several who spake on this occasion, and that each Evangelist refers to the accusation which made the deepest impression on his own mind. See MICHAELIS and Bp. MIDDLETON, cited in 4 HORNE’S _Introd_. p. 258, note 1.

279 Matthew and Mark relate Peter’s denials of Christ after his condemnation, and the insults consequent upon it. It is plain that they happened while the High Priest and council were sitting in judgment. But instances of recurring in this manner to what had been omitted in its proper place are common in the Gospels; and in this place the thread of the narration is preserved unbroken.

It having been expressly mentioned by each Evangelist, that Peter would _thrice_ deny Jesus, we may conclude that each has related the _three_ denials which Jesus foretold.

_Peter’s first denial_. Peter was _without_, or _beneath_, in the hall of Caiaphas’s house. Dr. Scott, on Matth. xxvi. 3, observes that _aule_ signifies an house, (Luke xi. 21,) and that emphatically it signifies the king’s house, or palace. But in Luke xxii. 55, it seems to signify a spacious apartment, probably the High Priest’s judgment-hall. It was the place in which Jesus stood before the High Priest, (Luke xxii. 61,) and had an _atrium_ or _vestibulum_ at its entrance. This was an unfit place for the tribunal of the High Priest at such an hour, (John xviii. 18.) Sir John Chardin says, “In the lower Asia the day is always hot; and in the height of summer the nights are as cold as at Paris in the month of March.” It remains therefore that we understand it of a spacious chamber, such as Shaw mentions, Travels, 4to. pp. 207, 8.

Peter was not in the _higher_ part, where Jesus stood before the High Priest; but _without_ that division of the hall, and in the _lower_ part, with the servants and officers. The damsel, who kept the door, had entered into the hall when she charged Peter.

_Peter’s second denial_. Peter, having once denied Jesus, naturally retired from the place where his accuser was, to the vestibule of the hall, (Matt. xxvi. 71); and it was the time of the first cock-crowing, or soon after midnight. After remaining here a short time, perhaps near an hour, another damsel sees him, and says to those who were standing by in the vestibule, that he was one of them. Peter, to avoid this charge, withdraws into the hall, and stands and warms himself, (John xviii. 25.) The damsel, and those to whom she had spoken, follow him; the communication between the places being immediate. Here a _man_ enforces the charge of the damsel, according to Luke; and _others_ urge it according to John, (though by him the plural may be used for the singular,) and Peter denies Jesus vehemently.

_Peter’s third denial_. Peter was now in the hall. Observe Matt. xxvi. 75, and Luke xxii. 62. He was also within sight of Jesus, though at such a distance from him that Jesus could know what passed only in a supernatural way. About an hour after his second denial, those who stood by founded a charge against him on his being a Galilean, which, Luke says, one in particular strongly affirmed, (though here Matthew and Mark may use the plural for the singular,) and which, according to John, was supported by one of Malchus’s relations. This occasioned a more vehement denial than before; and immediately the cock crew the second time. The first denial may have been between our twelve and one; and the second between our two and three. We must further observe, that Matt. xxvi. 57, lays the scene of Peter’s denials in the house of Caiaphas; whereas the transactions of John xviii. 15-23 seem to have passed in the house of Annas. But John xviii. 24 is here transposed to its regular place, with Le Clerc. NEWCOME.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

288 Is. liv. 1.

289 Hos. x. 8.

290 Ps. xxii. 19.

291 As to the title itself, the precise working may have differed in the different languages; and MSS. represent it differently.

But the same verbal exactness is not necessary in historians, whose aim is religious instruction, as in recorders of public inscriptions. It is enough that the Evangelists agree as to the main article, “_the King of the Jews_,” referred to, John xix. 21. That their manner is to regard the sense, rather than the words, appears from many places. Compare Matt. iii. 17, and ix. 11, and xv. 27, and xvi. 6, 9, and xix. 18, and xx. 33, and xxi. 9, and xxvi. 39, 64, 70, and xxviii. 5, 6, with the parallel verses in this Harmony. Compare also John xi. 40, with ver. 23, 25. One of the most solemn and awful of our Lord’s discourses is, in some parts, variously expressed. See Matt. xxvi. 28, Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 20, 1 Cor. xi. 25. Now as each of these writers has, beyond all doubt, faithfully represented the meaning of Christ, we see that it might be truly done in different words, or in a different form of the same words. His sentences also, sometimes admitted a difference of arrangement; for the order in which two sentences, or the several members of the same sentence, are disposed by St. Matthew, is, in several places, inverted by St. Mark. And with regard to his actions, though the most material parts of whatever they were going to relate must command their attention, yet there was no such superior attraction in one specific number and order of secondary circumstances, as could turn their thoughts absolutely and exclusively to them. This is plain from instances to the contrary. One Evangelist is sometimes distinct, while another is concise; and describes what the other passes over. TOWNSON, pp. 60-1.

We may reasonably suppose St. Matthew to have cited the Hebrew,—St. John the Greek,—and St. Mark the Latin, which was the shortest, and without mixture of foreign words. St. Mark is followed by St. Luke; only that he has brought down “THIS IS” from above, as having a common reference to what stood under it. NEWCOME.

292 Is. liii. 12.

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

294 Ps. xxii. 7, 8.

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

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

297 Ps. xxii. 1.

_ 298 Hil_ or _Hila_ was the old Syriac for _vinegar_. Hence one of the bystanders, hearing our Saviour’s exclamation on the cross, thought he wanted vinegar to alleviate his thirst, and straightway filled a spunge. See BUCHANAN’S _Researches_, p. 153.

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

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

301 Ps. lxix. 22.

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

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

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

305 Zech. xii. 10.

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

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

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

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

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

311 This is perfectly consistent with the statement of Luke in Acts i. 12, as Bethany was not only the name of a town, but of a district of Mount Olivet, adjoining the town. See Watson’s Reply to Gibbon,