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

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

313 Matt. 8: 28, Mark 5: 2. Luke 8: 27.—Matt. 20: 30. Mark 10: 46. Luke 18: 35.

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

315 Matt. 28: 63 sq.

316 Matt. 28: 9.

317 See also John 21: 4.

318 See Matt. 26: 32.

319 1 Cor. 15: 6.

320 Acts 1: 15.

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

322 Acts 12: 1.

323 To this interview belongs also Luke 24: 44.

324 See John xi. 47-54.

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

326 Deut. xvii. 15.

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

328 Tappan’s Jewish Ant. p. 239.

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

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

331 Exodus xx. 1-7. And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness _of any thing_ that _is_ in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that _is_ in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth _generation_ of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

332 Lev. xxiv. 11-16. And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name _of the Lord_, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses (and his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan): And they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might be shewed them. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp, and let all that heard _him_ lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, _and_ all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name _of the Lord_, shall be put to death. See A. Clarke on Matt. ix. 3.

333 Deut. xiii. 6-10. If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; _Namely_, of the gods of the people which _are_ round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the _one_ end of the earth even unto the _other_ end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with _stones_ that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt from the house of bondage. Deut. xviii. 20. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

334 It is true that in the Mishna it is written—“Blasphemus non tenetur, nisi expressit Nomen.” Mishna, Pars iv. p. 242. Tractatus de Synedriis, cap. 7, § 5. But these traditions were not written until 150 years after the time of our Saviour; and the passage, moreover, seems properly to refer to that form of blasphemy which consists in evil speaking of the Supreme Being, in a direct manner, rather than to the other forms in which this offence, in its larger acceptation, might be committed. See Michælis, Comm. Art. 251. Vol. 4, p. 67-70.

335 Numb. xx. 10, 12.

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

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

338 Gen. xli. 16, 25, 28.

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

340 Deut. xviii. 20.

341 “Now, therefore, stand and see this great thing, which the LORD will do before your eyes.” 1 Sam. xii. 16-18.

342 “And it came to pass, at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near and said, Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that _thou art God in Israel_,” &c. 1 Kings xviii. 36-38.

343 “And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, _Where is the Lord God of Elijah?_” &c. 2 Kings ii. 14.

344 “_For thus saith the Lord_, they shall eat and shall leave thereof,” &c. 2 Kings iv. 43.

345 See 2 Kings vi. 16, 17, 18, 20. In some other places, where there is no express reference to the power of God, the omission may be attributed to the brevity of the narrative; but even in those cases, such reference is plainly implied.

346 Dan. ix. 21, 23, and x. 11, 12. See further, 2 Kings xviii. 30-35, and xix. 1-3.

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

348 John x. 31-33.

349 This view of the Jewish law may seem opposed to that of Dr. Campbell, in his Preliminary Dissertation on the Gospels, (Vol. 2, Diss. ix. Part 2); but it is evident, on examination, that he is discussing the _word blasphemy_, and the propriety of its application, taken in its more restricted sense of intentional and direct malediction of Jehovah; and not whether the assumption of his attributes and authority was or was not a violation of his law. That this assumption was a heinous transgression, seems universally agreed. The question, therefore, is reduced to this—whether the offence was properly _termed_ blasphemy. For the _act_, by whatever name it were called, was a capital crime. The Jewish judges of that day held it to amount to blasphemy; and in so doing, they do not appear to have given to their law a construction more expanded and comprehensive than has been given by judges in our own times, to the law of treason, or of sedition.

350 This was judicially and solemnly done by the members of the Sanhedrim, rising from their seats, when the crime was testified to. Only one witness was permitted to repeat the words; the others simply stating that they heard the same which he had related. The practice is thus described in the Mishna: “Exactis omnibus, interrogant vetustissimum testium, dicendo,—_Edissere, quodcumque audivisti expresse_. Tum ille hoc refert. Judices autem stant erecti, vestesque discerpunt, non resarciendas. Dein secundus tertiusque ait,—_Ego idem, quod ille audivi_.” Mishna, Pars 4. Tractat. de Synedriis, cap. 7, § 5. Upon which, Cocceius remarks:—“Assurgunt reverentiæ causâ. Mos discendarum vestium probatur ex 2do Regum, xviii. 37. Hinc nata est regula,—_Qui blasphemiam audit, vel ab ipso auctore vel ex alio, tenetur vestem discerpere_. Ratio est, ut semper ob oculos et animum versetur mæroris aut indignationis mnemosynon.” Coccej. in loc. § 11, 12. The custom is fully explained, with particular reference to the high priest at the trial of Jesus, by Hedenus, _De Scissione Vestium_, 38, 42. (In Ugolini Thesauro, tom. xxix, fol. 1025. &c.)

351 That the Jews understood Jesus to make himself equal with God, is maintained by Mr. Salvador, himself a Jew, in his Histoire des Institutions de Moïse et du Peuple Hébreu, Liv. iv. ch. 3, p. 81, of which chapter a translation is given at the end of this article. Mr. Noah, also a Jew, seems to be of opinion, that Jesus was brought to trial under the law in Deut. xiii. 1-11. See his Discourse on the Restoration of the Jews, p. 19. But whether he was charged with a blasphemous usurpation of the attributes of Deity, or with sedition, in inciting the people to serve another god, meaning himself, the difference is of no importance; the essence of the offence in both cases being the same.

352 Matt. xxvi. 60-65. This view of the nature of the offence with which Jesus was charged, is confirmed by the learned jurist, Chr. Thomasius, in his Dissertatio de injusto Pilati judicio, § 11, 12, and by the authors whom he there cites. Dissert. Thomasii. vol. 1, p. 5.

353 John ii. 13-22.

354 Matt. xxvi. 63-66.

355 Tacit. Annal. xv. 31. See M. Dupin’s Trial of Jesus, p. 57-59, (Amer. Ed.) Chr. Thomasius, Dissertatio de injusto Pilati judicio, § 12, 60. The want of this power was admitted by the Jews, in their reply to Pilate, when he required them to judge Jesus according to their own law, and they replied, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” John xviii. 31.

This point has been held in different ways by learned men. Some are of opinion that the Sanhedrim had power to inflict death for offences touching religion, though not for political offences; and that it was with reference to the charge of treason that they said to Pilate what has just been cited from St. John. They say that, though the Sanhedrim had convicted Jesus of blasphemy, yet they dared not execute that sentence, for fear of a sedition of the people:—that they therefore craftily determined to throw on Pilate the odium of his destruction, by accusing him of treason; and hence, after condemning him, they consulted further, as stated in Matt. xxvii. 1, 2. Mark xv. 1, how to effect this design:—that when Pilate found no fault in him, and directed them to take and crucify him, some replied, “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die,” (John