These verses afford a fine specimen of the supplying, by one writer, the omissions of another; moreover, what is declared in them, is substantiated by the collateral declarations of the last two Evangelists. We will first notice the supplementing, and then the concurrent testimony of Luke and John.

We have seen before, that when Caiaphas " asked Jesus of his disciples and his doctrine," our Lord referred him to his hearers. "Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I have said." The false and malignant high-priest availed himself of the hint, not to call in those who would truly report the sayings of Jesus, but those who would pervert and misrepresent them. The great object of this cold-blooded villain, was to find "false witness against Jesus, to put him to death." But Matthew tells us that he could procure none; "Yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none." This assertion of Matthew seems absurd and contradictory. How can we reconcile the conflicting declarations, that many witnesses came, and that none could be found? We could not understand this language at all, without the explanation of Mark. "For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together." We now perceive what Matthew means by saying that they found none. They found none, whose witness agreed, and shameless as were the Jews, they could not. proceed to condemn Christ without some show of consistent testimony against him. Caiaphas and his infernal associates were now in a strait, ravenous for blood, as a bear robbed of her whelps, and yet so accustomed to obey the letter of the law, that they could not act without some plausible pretext for passing sentence of death. But Satan did not long leave them in a state of perplexity. They had served him too faithfully for him to desert them in their extremity. Accordingly, the arch-fiend put it into the hearts of some of his followers to appear as witnesses; and so Mark tells, that " there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, "We have heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together." There are two things left indefinite by Mark. We do not know how many witnesses there were, nor do we know in what their testimony disagreed. Matthew removes the first difficulty, by directly telling us that there were two witnesses; and he indirectly removes the other difficulty, by giving a different version of the declarations of the two witnesses. We can, by comparing Matthew and Mark, tell exactly in what the testimony did not agree together. One witness testified that our Saviour said, "I am able to destroy the temple of God." The other witness testified, that he said he would do it. The difference is immense between the ability to do a thing, and the determination to do it. A man, with a deadly weapon in his hand, might innocently say that he was able to kill a bystander with it; but he would be amenable to the law for saying that it was his intention to kill that bystander. The testimony of the two false witnesses differed essentially; but without comparing the Evangelists, we could not have discovered the disagreement.

Moreover, Matthew, in mentioning the precise number of false witnesses, has not merely supplemented, he has also given us a fine specimen of natural evidence. Matthew, a Jew, and writing for his countrymen, the Jews, would naturally mention the fact, that tivo witnesses, the precise number required by the Mosaic code, appeared against our blessed Redeemer: a At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death, but at the mouth of one witness shall he not be put to death." Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15; Numb. xxxv. 30. From another Evangelist, writing about another matter, we learn that it was the practice of the Jewish courts to establish important points by just two witnesses. (See John viii. 17.)

Now, we ask the candid reader, How did Matthew happen to confine himself to precisely the number two, if that number of witnesses did not present themselves? If we are answered, that he got the idea from his education, from his Jewish notions of justice, then he has given us a natural stroke, and has preserved his individuality as a writer. We must not forget, too, that he wrote for those who knew all about the trial of Christ. If, then, but one witness appeared, or if more than two appeared, with this story of Christ's destroying the temple, there were those living when Matthew wrote, who could have convicted him of falsehood. His circumstantiality is, therefore, a strong presumptive proof of his honesty; and that, taken in connection with the naturalness of a Jew's mentioning to his brethren the compliance with Jewish law, demonstrates his truthfulness.

But to proceed with the narrative. It seems that the statements of the two witnesses were too glaringly discordant to be taken by Caiaphas, although he was thirsting for the blood of his victim. He therefore sought to make our Saviour testify against himself: "And the high-priest arose and stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee?" But Jesus was not caught in the snare thus artfully laid: "But he held his peace, and answered nothing." And so the prophet had foreseen, with all this scene before him, more than seven hundred years anterior to its occurrence: "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." But Caiaphas was actuated by too keen a hate, not to make another effort to extort a confession: "Again the high-priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" (Mark.) This second appeal was effectual: "And Jesus said, I am." If we had only the Gospel of Mark, we would be at a loss to know why it was that our Lord now answered, since he had declined to criminate himself before any witnesses were called, (John xviii. 21,) and after the false witnesses had contradicted one another. On turning to Matthew, however, the mystery is cleared up. We there learn that he responded, in consequence of a solemn adjuration on the part of the high-priest. "And the high-priest answered, and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God."

It would seem that the high-priest, according to the Jewish code, had a right to administer an oath to the person under trial, and the person was required to make true answer, though he thereby criminated himself. (See Numbers v. 19.) Dr. Doddridge has thus paraphrased the language of Caiaphas: "And again the high-priest answered, and said to him, Think not that such evasions will answer in an affair of such importance as this: thou knowest that I have a way of coming at the certain truth, and, therefore, I adjure thee, in the most solemn manner, by the name and the authority of the living God, whose high-priest I am, and to whom he has committed the power of administering this oath, that thou tell us directly, in the plainest terms, whether thou be the Messiah, the son of the ever-blessed God, or not?" And in proof of the right of the high-priest to administer an oath, the learned expositor quotes various passages from the Old Testament Scriptures. So we see that Matthew, in stating that the high-priest put Jesus upon his oath, has told us nothing inconsistent with the judicial proceedings among his own people. Dr. Alexander says, " This was an attempt (on the part of Caiaphas) to make the prisoner supply the want of testimony by his own confession, a proceeding utterly abhorrent to the spirit and practice of the English law, though familiar to the codes and courts of other nations, both in ancient and modern times." Our Saviour, then, answered the question of Caiaphas, because the high-priest had a right to put him on oath, and, therefore, by his response, he showed his obedience to law and his determination to " fulfil all righteousness." Matt. iii. 15.

We introduced the testimony of Matthew to explain why our Saviour broke his long silence, and answered the artful question of Caiaphas. But the statement of this Evangelist not only removes the obscurity of Mark's evidence, it comports moreover with what is known of the Israelitish jurisprudence. Notice, too, the naturalness of an allusion to Jewish laws, by a Jew writing to those of his own nation. There is an obvious propriety and fitness of things, in the allusions coming from Matthew.

54. A review of our testimony shows that we have a four-fold argument for the credibility of the witnesses — first, Mark's explaining what Matthew meant by saying that no witnesses could be found, though many witnesses came; second, the. comparison of the two Evangelists, showing in what the witnesses disagreed; third, the removing by Matthew of an obscurity in Mark; fourth, the natural alluding of Matthew to the laws and customs of the Jews.

We come now to the second part of the proposed discussion of the preceding verses. We will try to prove, that though Luke and John differ greatly from the first two Evangelists in regard to the proceedings in the house of Caiaphas, yet there is really the most perfect harmony of spirit pervading all four of their narratives. We will begin with John, who notices but one incident in the palace of the high-priest — the blow inflicted on Jesus, when he refused to answer the questions propounded to him. Though John gives us so little of the transactions before Caiaphas, we will find that he corroborates the full accounts of Matthew and Mark, in the most natural and undesigned manner. First, we find agreement in regard to the declaration that "the chief priests and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death." John substantiates this most fully, by showing that the Jewish rulers had sought the death of Christ on many occasions. Thus, he tells us that "the Jews did persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbathday." This was in the first year of our Lord's ministry. So we see, that though John omits to mention the desire of the Jews to put our Saviour to death, when a prisoner in the house of Caiaphas, yet he dates the beginning of this desire at least two years back. So too, John tells us, that after Jesus delivered his discourse in the synagogue of Capernaum, he "walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." So too, John tells us how our Lord went up secretly to the Feast of Tabernacles, to escape the observation of his enemies: "Then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." And he tells us, too, of the disappointment of the Jews, when they could not find him: " Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he? And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people. Howbeit, no man spake openly of him, for fear of the Jews." From this it appears that so intense was the hatred of the Jews, that it was dangerous for any man even to speak of Christ. How imminent, then, must have been his risk, in coming to the feast, and how great must have been his courage! John too, tells us of an effort to entrap Christ, by bringing an adulterous woman to him, that he might condemn her to be stoned, according to the Mosaic law: "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him." John too, tells us of the attempt made at Jerusalem to stone our Saviour: " Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." So too, John speaks of another effort to kill Jesus, at the Feast of the Dedication: " Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father. . . . . Therefore they sought again to take him; but he escaped out of their hand, and went away again beyond Jordan, into the place where John first baptized; and there he abode." The plain inference is, that he went thus far away to find a place of safety. John too, tells how the chief priests and Pharisees held a council to consult what could be done against Christ; and he adds, " Then from that day forth, they took counsel together for to put him to death." John too, tells us that after the raising of Lazarus, the Jews were so exasperated that they determined to put him also to death: "But the chief priests consulted, that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him, many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus." The adverb also plainly points to Christ, and shows that they consulted about slaying him, before they consulted about Lazarus.

John has therefore mentioned eight occasions on which either an effort was made or a desire expressed to destroy our Lord. This testimony is peculiarly valuable, as showing that the wish to put Jesus to death had long burned in the malignant hearts of Caiaphas and his wicked associates. It is peculiarly valuable, as corroborating the statements of Matthew and Mark, and yet doing it in such a way that it is impossible to suspect collusion. Nothing could be more absurd than to suppose that in recording the several attempts upon the life of his Master, John was thinking of supporting the declaration that "the chief priests and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus to put him to death." John's narrative is too natural to admit any such extravagant hypothesis; he evidently relates his incidents for their own intrinsic importance, and not with the secret design of harmonizing with the accounts of the first two Evangelists. No story was ever more free than that of John from all appearance of having extraneous matter violently foisted in, with some ulterior object in view.

55. Now, suppose that two witnesses deposed to the fact, that C. and certain of his abandoned associates had made an attempt upon the life of J. And suppose that a third witness, testifying about a totally different matter, mentioned eight occasions in which the same wicked wretches had either tried to kill J., or had expressed a wish to see him slain. Would not such an unintentional confirmation of the allegations of the first two witnesses be regarded by any intelligent jury as completely establishing their truthfulness?

Luke has not told us as much as John, about the previously expressed wish of the Jewish rulers to slay Christ; still, he has said enough to make his narrative consistent with the narratives of Matthew and Mark. He tells us that when our Saviour healed a man 'with a withered hand on the Sabbath-day, the Scribes and Pharisees " were filled with madness; and communed with one another what they might do to Jesus." He tells us that when our Lord had rebuked the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees, who were dining with him in the house of a certain Pharisee, they "began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things; laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth." Here is exhibited exactly the same trick that was shown on his trial — the same mean, ungenerous artifice to entrap him into saying something to his own ruin. Luke tells us that after Christ had driven the traders out of the temple, u the chief priests, and scribes, and chief of the people sought to destroy him, and could not find what they might do: for all the people were very attentive to hear him." There was murder in the hearts of the rulers of the Jews, and they were restrained from its commission solely by fear. Luke tells us that when our Lord had ended the parable of the wicked husbandmen, "the chief priests and scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him: and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them." Luke tells us how the Pharisees sought to entangle him in his talk, by their crafty questions about the lawfulness of paying tribute. "And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor." This statement of Luke not only corresponds to what Matthew and Mark tell us of the cunning effort to make Jesus convict himself, but it explains several other matters that are otherwise obscure. For instance, it satisfactorily accounts for the presence of Roman soldiery in the party which arrested Christ. It shows that the great aim was to get our Saviour in the power of the Romans for some alleged violation of Roman law; so that his rescue by the common people would be impossible, and so that the Scribes and Pharisees would not have the odium of his murder. We propose to make hereafter, a still more important use of the foregoing declaration of Luke. For the present, we employ it merely as harmonizing with the accounts of Matthew and Mark.

Luke tells us that when the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, " the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him: for they feared the people."

We see that Luke has not, like John, told of murderous assaults upon Christ, through the instigation of the chief priests, scribes, and elders. We have left out the attempt at Nazareth against the life of our Lord, for we have no proof that the Jewish rulers suggested it. We are rather inclined to think that it was the spontaneous movement of the common people. We have also left out of our summary from Luke, several conversations which were held with Jesus, more for the purpose of annoying and perplexing him, than of getting some dangerous confession from him.

After making these deductions, the extracts from Luke are sufficiently copious to show that the Jewish rulers had often exhibited the very same temper of mind and disposition of heart, which prompted them to call in false witnesses during the trial before Caiaphas. The extracts show, moreover, that it had long been a favourite scheme with the Scribes and Pharisees, to get Christ transferred to the hands of the Roman governor.

56. The omission of Luke to notice the bringing in of false witnesses, makes a strong point in favour of the credibility of the witnesses. It shows plainly, that there was no collusion between him and the first two Evangelists; it proves that the three had not concerted together a consistent story; and yet there is in their several accounts, that sort of agreement which carries the most sure conviction of truthfulness to the minds of intelligent jurors. Matthew and Mark tell of a wish to destroy Christ, and of a base, underhanded method employed to effect his destruction. Luke shows us that the wish was no stranger to the bosoms of the chief priests, scribes, and elders, and that there was no species of meanness which they would not be guilty of to gratify their malice.

The question might here be asked, Had Jesus at any time used language at all like that which the false witnesses ascribed to him? The Evangelists who speak of the false witnesses, are entirely silent on this point. Luke too, gives us no clue to our inquiry; and we might, but for the testimony of John, have concluded that it was out and out a manufactured tale. But from him we learn, that in the first year of our Lord's ministry, after he had driven the traders out of the temple, the Jews came to him, saying, "What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body." From this it appears that Jesus did really declare his ability to raise up a temple in three days, and it would seem that the Jews understood him to refer to the temple at Jerusalem. How then could that witness, who testified to Christ's declaration of his power to build up the temple, be called a false witness? If he really understood Jesus to refer to the temple of God, and not to the temple of his body, he was a mistaken witness, but surely not a false witness. Did he really misapprehend the meaning of our Saviour? Did the Jews really misapprehend his words? Now, it is very remarkable, that the only Evangelist who records this speech of our Saviour, leaves us in entire ignorance as to whether he was understood or not, while Matthew, who does not record it, makes it clear that the Jews were fully apprised of the mystic import of our Lord's words. Matthew says, "Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first."

It is evident from this passage that the Jews did not misunderstand Christ. They knew that he alluded to the temple of his body, and therefore they came to Pilate, that they might falsify his words, and show that he was not able to raise it up in three days. Matthew could therefore, with great propriety, call him a false witness, who had truly reported the words of Christ. The essence of falsehood consists in the intention to deceive. One may use true language, and yet, by a jesting or an ironical manner, produce a false impression. The witness knew the significance of Jesus' words; but while truly reporting them, he aimed to make his hearers believe that they had another meaning. He was therefore guilty of lying, and is appropriately designated as a false witness.

57. A review of our testimony shows that John most admirably supplements the first two Evangelists, by recording language of our Saviour, similar to that attributed to him by the false witnesses. Moreover, we find, by a careful examination of Matthew, that the Jews did not misunderstand the meaning of Jesus, and therefore a second reason is afforded us, in addition to that already given, why the witnesses are called false.

We will pause here a moment to comment upon the natural stroke which the Evangelists give us, touching the Jewish character as exhibited on the trial of Christ. A reference to all that is known of Pharisaism, especially to what our Lord has said of it in his Sermon on the Mount, shows that its wickedness consisted in perversion of truth. It never inculcated the wrong directly, but always twisted and distorted the right. It never taught anything diametrically opposed to the Scriptures; but by forced interpretations and unnatural constructions, it always "made the commandment of God of none effect." It was tenderly scrupulous with regard to the letter of the fact, but in spirit, it partook of the temper and disposition of the Father of all lies and deceit. And so Ave doubt not that the Pharisees wished their suborned witnesses to tell that which was literally true, but which would convey an impression altogether erroneous. The false witnesses, however, had not learned their part well, and unfortunately made a verbal discrepancy in their statements. It was this want of verbal accuracy which so nonplussed the Scribes and Pharisees. They would have cared nothing about the lie in fact, had there been no disagreement in word. But their strangely constituted consciences could not bear anything that look like a lingual difference in the evidence. They, therefore, regretted the testimony of the false witnesses, and proceeded to invent some other pretext for the condemnation of Jesus, according to the letter of the law.

We will develope this subject more fully hereafter; for the present, we wish merely to call attention to this delicate stroke of the Evangelists. They have, with a few off-hand touches, given us a finished portrait of Pharisaism, and yet they were evidently ignorant themselves of the perfection of their picture. The natural descriptions of character so frequently met with in the Scriptures, are of infinite value in establishing their divine origin. It is difficult to conceive how any one who has noticed the nice harmony of proportions and adjustment of parts in the biblical representations of sects and individuals, can resist the belief that they were suggested and dictated by the Spirit of God.

We have seen that Matthew is the only Evangelist who informs us of Caiaphas putting our Saviour on his oath, that he might extort from him a confession that would afford ground for his condemnation. This act of the high-priest manifests an intensity of zeal for our Lord's destruction — an earnestness of determination to sacrifice him at all hazards, which Matthew has nowhere accounted for. But, on turning to John, the conduct of the high-priest is most fully explained. We there learn that he was inflamed with the madness of fanaticism. John tells us, that after the raising of Lazarus the chief priests and Pharisees were much troubled, and held a council to consider what was to be done. While they were discussing ways and means to destroy Christ, "one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high-priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself; but being the high-priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one, the children of God that were scattered abroad." It appears from this, that God so far honoured the office of high-priest, as to give even the wicked Caiaphas some glimmering of the truth in regard to the mission of his Son. But having given the revelation, he left the malignant creature to interpret it according to the dictates of his own corrupt heart. And we have, accordingly, a remarkable instance of the hardening effect of unsanctified religious knowledge. The necessity for a victim was construed by Caiaphas into the right to sacrifice the victim. This was his first serious error, and the next followed as a matter of course, viz., that any means were lawful to secure the sacrifice.

That we have put the right construction upon the conduct of the high-priest, is evident from the comment of John upon Christ's being brought before him. "Now, Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people." John here intimates that the issue of the trial could not be doubtful, because Caiaphas had prejudged, and precondemned his prisoner. He intimates that nothing but a sentence of death could be expected from a judge who had previously expressed the opinion, that it was expedient for the good of the nation, that the very man should die, who was now arraigned before him.

And so Dupin, the learned French counsellor, has interpreted the language of John. His words are: " This was that same Caiaphas, who, if he had intended to remain a judge, was evidently liable to objection; for in the preceding assemblage he had made himself the accuser of Jesus. Even before he had seen or heard Him, he declared him to be deserving of death. He said to his colleagues, that it was expedient that one man should die for all. Such being the opinion of Caiaphas, we shall not be surprised if he shows partiality." — Trial of Jesus. By M. Dupin, Advocate and Doctor of Laws.

The impatience of Caiaphas to condemn Jesus, his undignified conduct as judge, his unworthy attempts to entrap his prisoner, his resort to an expedient to get his prisoner criminate himself — all these are now fully explained. The enthusiasm of the zealot, the intolerance of the fanatic, the persecuting spirit of the bigot, goad him on to madness and fury. In a sort of prophetic phrensy, he had long before determined that Jesus should die; and now he is resolved to leave no effort untried which may lead to the accomplishment of his cherished wishes.

58. The intemperate zeal and mean artifices of the high-priest, as recorded by Matthew and Mark, are most satisfactorily accounted for by the above hint in John. But it is absurd to suppose that John alluded to the prophecy of Caiaphas with any such intention. No allusion was ever made more naturally, none had ever less the appearance of a covert intention connected with it. And yet without it the conduct of Caiaphas would be wholly inexplicable, and we would be constrained to think that Matthew and Mark had drawn a most unlikely portrait of the highest officer known to the Jewish theocracy.

We will now proceed with the account of the trial, as given by Matthew and Mark. The former tells us that Jesus responded to the adjuration of the high-priest in these words: " Thou hast said: nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high-priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death."

The expression, "Thou hast said," is of doubtful meaning, and we would be at a loss how to interpret it without the aid of Mark's Gospel. But we there find the equivalent expression to be, "lam." Jesus then acknowledged his Messiahship before the highest sacerdotal officer, as he afterwards did his kingly authority before Pilate, the highest civil officer in the country. With the deepest reverence we would say, that it is evident therefore that the silence of our blessed Redeemer did not proceed from either obstinacy or want of courage. How then are we to account for it? The two Evangelists who tell of his refusal to speak, give us no explanation of this extraordinary conduct. We might have inferred that it proceeded from an unwillingness to criminate himself; and so it in part may be attributed to that cause. But he might have refuted the testimony of the false witnesses, without saying anything to his own disparagement. It was his right unquestionably, according to our ideas of justice, to hold his peace; but his speaking or not would be determined by the expediency of the case. Now we cannot learn from Matthew and Mark, whether it would have been advisable for our Lord to make a defence; but on reference to Luke, the inutility of a defence is clearly set forth. This Evangelist tells us that when Caiaphas asked him, "Art thou the Christ?" he answered, "If I tell you, ye will not believe. And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go."

Three things are here stated — that they would not believe him, that they would not answer him, and that they would not let him go. Leaving out of consideration for a moment the second point, we will notice the first and third. The first charges the Jews with confirmed, hopeless, obstinate unbelief, and therefore argues the uselessness of any reply. The third charges the Jews with a predetermination to put him to death. No demonstration of his innocence would satisfy his prejudiced and bloodthirsty judges, nothing could induce them to let him go; and hence the absurdity of making a defence.

So we see that Luke incidentally confirms what John had directly declared, in regard to the previously formed judgment of Caiaphas. The confirmation is just as explicit as though Luke had said, in so many words, that Caiaphas had resolved upon the death of Christ before he was arraigned at the bar. But the undesigned manner in which the confirmation is made, adds infinitely to its importance. Every impartial and enlightened jury in the world regards these casual correspondences of testimony as the highest form of proof of the truthfulness of witnesses.

59. Reviewing the evidence, we notice that Matthew and Mark tell us of a most inexplicable refusal of our Lord to say anything in vindication of himself. Luke shows us that his silence was in consequence of his knowledge of the confirmed and hopeless infidelity of the Jewish rulers, and of their having pre-judged his case. John confirms what Luke says of the prejudgment, by telling us that the presiding officer of the tribunal which thought our Lord worthy of death, had actually expressed a wish for his sacrifice, long before his most unrighteous trial. Were it possible to collect all the testimony given in all the courts on earth, there would not be found nicer harmony. And yet nothing could be more preposterous than to think that this harmony was the result of an effort on the part of the four Evangelists to make their narratives tally (as Paley expresses it) with one other. In truth, the agreement has been shown to exist, where there is the greatest lack of verbal conformity; and the correspondences have been made manifest in the midst of the greatest seeming discrepancies. The man who can believe that fabulists would disguise accordant statements, so that a rigid examination alone can reveal their accordance, is prepared to believe any absurdity whatever.

There is another undesigned agreement, which we wish to be observed, though we will not make a separate point of it. John is very brief in his account of the trial before Caiaphas; still he harmonizes in one essential particular with the other three Evangelists. He tells us that the high-priest asked Jesus "of his disciples and his doctrine." This corresponds exactly with what Matthew, Mark and Luke affirm, in regard to the repeated attempts of Caiaphas to draw Jesus out, and to entrap him into a confession.

But we return from this digression, to inquire what our Lord meant, by saying, "And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me." As they had been asking him about the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, it is natural to suppose that his question to them would have referred to the same being. We might then conjecture that our Lord meant to signify that he might, with propriety, decline to answer any question touching the Messiah, since they themselves would decline to be interrogated about the person, claims, and office of the expected but mysterious Redeemer of Israel. What reason had our Saviour to suppose that Caiaphas and his associates would refuse to tell him what sort of a being they looked for in the promised deliverer? Had they ever refused to express their opinion on this subject, on any previous occasion? On referring to the twenty-second chapter of Luke, we find that on a certain day, " the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection," came to our Lord with what they supposed would be a very perplexing question. He answered it, however, in such a way as to confound and silence them. So pleased were the Scribes at the silencing of their old adversaries, the Sadducees, that they even deigned to compliment Jesus, saying, "Master, thou hast well said." Immediately after this, "He said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son? And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore calleth him Lord; how is he then his son?"

We are not told here directly, to whom our Lord directed his interrogatory, nor yet what effect it had upon his audience. We might suppose that it was addressed to the Scribes, and that they were unable to make any reply, since none is given. From Mark, we learn that the question was proposed for the Scribes, if not to them; " and Jesus answered while he taught in the temple, How say the Scribes that Christ is the son of David? For David himself saith," &c. Neither does Mark inform us of any answer, but still we could not certainly conclude that none was made. Matthew, however, leaves us no room to inquire who were the persons challenged, nor

whether they were able to explain the difficulty the same which puzzles Socinianism at the present day: "But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. . . . . While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?... And no man was able to answer him a word; neither durst any man, from that day forth, ask him any more questions."

We have, in these separate statements of the three Evangelists, a fine specimen of concurrent, yet independent testimony. Mark supplies an omission of Luke, and Matthew supplies an omission of Mark. Moreover, the verbal discrepancy between Mark and Matthew is in itself a beautiful harmony. The latter says that Christ propounded his question to the Pharisees; the former says that he propounded it to the Scribes. In this there is perfect agreement; for the Scribes belonged to the sect of the Pharisees. But all points of the law and theological questions were referred appropriately to the Scribes, as the chosen expounders of the Scriptures. While Matthew and Mark are therefore both right, the latter, in designating the Scribes, is more minutely accurate than the former.

We pause a moment to notice how little our blessed Lord was influenced by considerations of worldly policy. At the very moment when the Scribes and Pharisees had gathered together to congratulate him upon his victory over the Sadducees; at the very moment when they paid him their first and only compliment, he turned upon them, and confounded them likewise, by asking them to explain the two-fold nature of the Messiah. Here was an opportunity offered him of conciliating the friendship, and gaming the support of the most powerful sect among the Jews, numbering among its members, rulers and interpreters of the law, the learned, the wealthy, and the influential. But our Lord was no time-serving seeker of popularity. The approbation of God, and not the favour of man, was the great wish of his heart, the great aim of his life; and therefore, instead of courting the good-will of the Pharisees, he availed himself of the opportunity of their being gathered together, to warn the people in their presence, of their errors. Does this seem captious conduct? Let the reader remember that the Jewish people belonged generally to one or the other of the two great sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Our Saviour's silencing of the latter would have produced the impression that he favoured the former, had he not taken occasion to warn the multitude that the doctrines of the Pharisees were no less pernicious than the heresies of the Sadducees. Therefore, when the exulting Scribes came around him with their specious flattery, he said to his audience, " Beware of the Scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation."

Here is honesty in the great Teacher, rising above the seductions of flattery, the suggestions of policy, the considerations of self-interest, and the promptings of fear. May every religious teacher be inspired with the same disinterested zeal for the truth, and keep not back any of the whole counsel of God!

In order to discover what our Lord meant by saying, "And if I ask you also, ye will not answer me," we have gone back in his history, and called in the first three Evangelists to explain the expression; and we have found that they tell us of an actual refusal of the Jews to answer our Lord when he questioned them about the Messiah, as they were now questioning him on his trial. It is manifest that our Saviour's words refer to this refusal, and that he gives it as a reason for refusing to answer them: "Ye will not answer me, when I ask you about the Messiah — why may I not decline to answer you, when you question me on the same subject? Ye will not tell me, if I ask you, what sort of a being you expect the Christ to be — how then can I convince you that I am the Christ?"

60. The account given us by the first three Evangelists, of our Lord's controversy with the Scribes and Pharisees, explains an otherwise obscure phrase used by him on his trial; and we hold it to be utterly idle to charge these writers with being forgers, and making the phrase fit the account of the controversy. The coincidence is as manifestly undesigned, as it is possible to imagine a coincidence to be. There can be but one rational view taken of it, and that is, that the dispute with the Jews, and their refusal to answer Christ, actually happened; and that he had this in his mind, when he said, "Ye will not answer me." Moreover, in showing the correspondence between the language of Christ, and an occurrence, alleged to have taken place, we found several other undesigned agreements among the witnesses, in their statements with regard to this occurrence. So that the argument, which we now make, does not rest upon a single point of support, but upon a broad and stable base.

We come now, in the regular course of the narrative, to consider more attentively the language already quoted of the high-priest to the council. We observe that Matthew and Mark record it somewhat differently. " Then the high-priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now, ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered, and said, he is guilty of death." (Matthew.) "Then the high-priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death." (Mark.) The essential point of difference in these parallel statements is, that, while Matthew tells us that the council merely said that he is guilty of death, Mark tells us that the council condemned him to be guilty of death. A superficial examination of the latter Evangelist has led most persons into the belief, that the council formally passed sentence of death upon our Lord in the house of Caiaphas. We trust to be able to prove that an informal opinion in regard to his worthiness of death, was taken on the night of his trial; but that formal sentence was not passed until next morning, and that the Court was then sitting in the Sanhedrim room in the temple. We think that the commonly received opinion of but one sitting of the court is erroneous, and we will endeavour to prove that the preliminary proceedings were held in the house of Caiaphas, and that the council adjourned to its appropriate chamber within the walls of the temple, to pass sentence of death. We believe that Jewish writers and Christian theologians unanimously agree in this, that, according to the Mosaic code, sentence of death could not be passed at night. (See Dupin passim.) This has been admitted even by M. Salvador, the accomplished apologist for Caiaphas and his associates. And we have seen that the high-priest, in every instance, obeyed the letter of the law, though entirely indifferent about violating its spirit. Now, as the proceedings in his palace were at night, it is not at all probable that Caiaphas would permit any departure from the literal requirements of written law. It is also conceded that meetings of the Sanhedrim out of the temple, were irregular. Such meetings might be held on extraordinary emergencies, for the purpose of consultation. (Matt. xxvi. 3;) but we have no reason to believe that executive business was ever transacted out of the room, gazith, in the temple set apart for that object. The condemnation of our Lord by night in the palace of Caiaphas would then have involved a double irregularity. It would have been both out of time and out of place. Now, remember that the council was made up chiefly, if not entirely of Pharisees — a sect which made its boast of keeping the whole law according to its literal construction. Is it likely that a body thus constituted, would have twice violated the letter of their code of jurisprudence? So far do the recorded proceedings come short of encouraging such a thought, that they actually show the most rigid compliance with the requisitions of the judicial polity of the Jewish nation. Caiaphas and his colleagues acted throughout the whole trial of Jesus upon the principle, that however unjust their conduct might be, it should at least be lawful in all respects. They cared not how outrageous their proceedings might be, provided that they were consonant with the prescribed legal forms. Thousands feel now, in this nineteenth century, just as the Sanhedrim felt then, that there is no sin in a wrong committed with the sanction of law.

Our first reason, then, for believing that no formal sentence was passed upon Christ in the palace of Caiaphas, is founded upon our knowledge of the character of the Sanhedrim. It was composed of great sticklers for the forms of the law, and it is inconceivable that they would so grossly violate its letter. Our second reason is deduced from the language of Caiaphas, and the reply of his associates. Observe that he does not say, What is your sentence? but, "What think ye? M literally, how does it seem to you? We doubt not, too, that the expression, " they said, He is guilty of death," of Matthew, is exactly equivalent to the expression, a they all condemned him to be guilty of death" of Mark. The word rendered "guilty," signifies really liable, or obnoxious to death. And so the word rendered "condemned," might have been translated judged, decided, or thought. We can, therefore, construe Mark's language thus, "and they all judged him to be obnoxious to death — they all decided that he had committed an offence worthy of death — they all thought that they might justly condemn him." But this Evangelist does not by any means tell us that they did actually sentence him to die. Give the utmost latitude to the words of the council, and we have nothing more than an expression of opinion, that Jesus of Nazareth might lawfully be condemned for blasphemy. The decision in the house of Caiaphas corresponded somewhat to the finding of a true bill by our grand-juries, and the after proceedings in the room gazith, to the regular trial by the court. Or we may compare the investigation in the palace of the high-priest to the trial; and the subsequent proceedings to the arraignment of the prisoner at the bar, to hear the sentence of death pronounced.

The view that has just been given of two sittings of the Sanhedrim, removes difficulties that have long been felt. It may be well to state that two very opposite opinions have been held. Calmet and others suppose that all the proceedings against our Lord were in the council chamber in the temple, and that it is called by Caiaphas's name, simply because he was the presiding officer. To this, it is a sufficient answer that Luke uses the appropriate word (oikon) to designate a private residence. But in addition, the allusions to the court, the porch, and the servants of the high-priest, all demonstrate that the Sanhedrim met, at first, in the building occupied by Caiaphas and his family. There is another and much larger class who hold the opinion that the trial of our Lord began and ended in the palace of the high-priest. We have already given two reasons for thinking differently, and we will now add a third, which we think ought to be decisive. Matthew tells us that on the next morning, "Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? See thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple," &c.

There are three things to be specially noted here; this transaction was on the morning after the night-trial before Caiaphas; it was in the presence of the chief priests and elders; and it was in the temple. Now, we do not think it at all probable, that men inflamed as were the chief priests and elders, with the most rancorous hate towards our Lord, would leave him to go to the temple. Dr. Robinson, Thomson, and Barclay, place the palace of Caiaphas on the north-eastern slope of Mount Zion, and so it is located in Bagster's map and in the Biblical Atlas of the American Sunday-school Union. We presume, therefore, that there has been no disagreement between the Greek and Latin traditions, with respect to this spot, however much they may have differed about other localities. If, then, our Lord was not taken to the room gazith, the chief priests and elders whom Judas met in the temple, must have left their victim on Mount Zion, crossed the Tyropoeon, or valley of cheese-mongers, and ascended to Mount Moriah. Moreover, Judas on one hill must have known of the condemnation on the opposite hill, immediately after it happened — and this eighteen hundred years before the invention of the telegraph.

The presence of the chief priests and elders in the temple, and the prompt acquaintance of Judas with their proceedings, seem sufficient to prove that Jesus had been brought to the Sanhedrim room, to hear his most unrighteous judges pronounce his sentence, according to the due forms of law. We are far from supposing that the Evangelists relate the events in the order in which they occurred. But it is plain that Judas must have come to the temple before Jesus was crucified, else Matthew, instead of saying, " Judas when he saw that he was condemned," would have said, "Judas, when he saw that he was crucified." And it is equally plain, at least to our mind, that the malignant chief priests and elders never left their victim, until they heard that last cry, "It is finished." Nay, they were not willing to leave the inanimate body even then, until they had gotten a guard to watch it! How utterly improbable is it, then, that they would leave their living, active prisoner, in the house of Caiaphas, and go off to the temple on the other hill! Their hate was too bitter to permit this; their fear of Him, who had escaped out of their hands so often, was too great to permit this. But we know certainly that they were in the temple soon after the condemnation of Jesus, therefore we know with almost equal certainty that he was there also.