feet. For this service they had a right to his clothes as a
      perquisite. See Dr. Harwood’s Introd., cited in Horne’s _Introd_.,
      vol. i. pp. 94, 95.

  294 Ps. xxii. 7, 8.

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

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

  297 Ps. xxii. 1.

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

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

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

  301 Ps. lxix. 22.

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

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

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

  305 Zech. xii. 10.

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

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

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

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

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

  311 This is perfectly consistent with the statement of Luke in Acts i.
      12, as Bethany was not only the name of a town, but of a district of
      Mount Olivet, adjoining the town. See Watson’s Reply to Gibbon,
      Letter vi. in Evangelical Family Library, Vol. xiv., p. 277.

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

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

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

  315 Matt. 28: 63 sq.

  316 Matt. 28: 9.

  317 See also John 21: 4.

  318 See Matt. 26: 32.

  319 1 Cor. 15: 6.

  320 Acts 1: 15.

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

  322 Acts 12: 1.

  323 To this interview belongs also Luke 24: 44.

  324 See John xi. 47-54.

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

  326 Deut. xvii. 15.

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

  328 Tappan’s Jewish Ant. p. 239.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  335 Numb. xx. 10, 12.

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

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

  338 Gen. xli. 16, 25, 28.

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

  340 Deut. xviii. 20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  348 John x. 31-33.

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

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

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

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

  353 John ii. 13-22.

  354 Matt. xxvi. 63-66.

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

      This point has been held in different ways by learned men. Some are
      of opinion that the Sanhedrim had power to inflict death for
      offences touching religion, though not for political offences; and
      that it was with reference to the charge of treason that they said
      to Pilate what has just been cited from St. John. They say that,
      though the Sanhedrim had convicted Jesus of blasphemy, yet they
      dared not execute that sentence, for fear of a sedition of the
      people:—that they therefore craftily determined to throw on Pilate
      the odium of his destruction, by accusing him of treason; and hence,
      after condemning him, they consulted further, as stated in Matt.
      xxvii. 1, 2. Mark xv. 1, how to effect this design:—that when Pilate
      found no fault in him, and directed them to take and crucify him,
      some replied, “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die,” (John
      xix. 7,) to intimate to Pilate that Jesus was guilty of death by the
      Jewish law also, as well as the Roman, and that therefore he would
      not lose any popularity by condemning him. See Zorrius, Hist. Fisci
      Judaici, ch. 2, § 2, (in Ugolini Thesaur. tom. 26, col. 1001-1003.)
      The same view is taken by Deylingius, De Judæorum Jure Gladii, § 10,
      11, 12, (in Ugolin. Thesaur. tom. 29, col. 1189-1192.) But he
      concludes that in all capital cases, there was an appeal from the
      Sanhedrim to the Prætor; and that without the approval of the
      latter, the sentence of the Sanhedrim could not be executed. Ibid. §
      15, col. 1196. Molinæus understood the Jewish law in the same
      manner. See his Harmony of the Gospels, note on John xviii. 31. C.
      Molinæi Opera, tom. 5. pp. 603, 604. But this opinion is refuted by
      what is said by M. Dupin, Trial, &c., § 8, and by Thomasius, above
      cited.

  356 See M. Dupin’s Trial of Jesus, pp. 55-62. His authorities are
      Loiseau, Godefroy, and Cujas, the two latter of whom he cites as
      follows:—Procurator Cæsaris _fungens vice præsidis_ potest
      cognoscere _de causis criminalibus_. Godefroy, in his note (letter
      S) upon the 3rd law of the code, _Ibi causæ fiscales_, &c. And he
      cites several others, which I have verified, and which are most
      precise to the same effect. See particularly the 4th law of the
      Code, _Ad. leg. fab. de plag._, and the 2nd law of the Code, _De
      Pœnis_.—Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis
      fiscalibus pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum fungebantur
      _vice præsidum_; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsaris _vice
      præsidis_ in Syria. Cujas, Observ. xix. 13.

  357 Luke xxiii. 2.

  358 John xviii. 38.

  359 Luke xxiii. 5.

  360 Luke xxiii. 10, 11.

  361 Luke xxiii. 13, 14, 15. I regard this judgement as conclusive
      evidence of the innocence of the accused. Pilate’s strenuous
      endeavour to release him instead of Barabbas, and his solemn washing
      his own hands of the guilt of his blood, though they show the
      strength of his own convictions, yet add no legal force to the
      judgement itself.

  362 John xix. 12.

  363 Luke xxiii. 24.

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

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

  366 Deut. xxii. 22, and xxiii. 2. Selden, De Synedriis, lib. 3, cap. 4,
      5.

  367 Matt. i. 19, 20.

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

  369 Matt. xxiii. per tot.

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

  371 The expression _son of God_ was in common use among the Jews, to
      designate a man of remarkable wisdom and piety. It was not in this
      sense that Jesus Christ used it; for in that case it would have
      occasioned no great sensation.  Besides, if we should assume, in
      order to make it a subject of accusation against these Jews, that
      Jesus did not expressly declare himself to be God, we should be
      exposed to this rejoinder: Why then do you believe in him?

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

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

  374 This fact is clearly established as possible; and we must observe
      that till then there had been neither opposition nor enmity in the
      minds of this people, since they had listened to him with the
      greatest attention, and did not hesitate to acknowledge in him all
      that public law permitted them to do, viz., a prophet, a highly
      inspired man.

  375 John x. 30-33.

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

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

  378 John vii. 43. Luke xxiii. 5.

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

  380 Matt. xix. 24.

  381 John x. 20.

  382 John vii. 12.

  383 John xi. 47-50.

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

  385 Matt. xxi. 23.

  386 It will be recollected, that the senate held its sessions in one of
      the porticos of the temple. At this time the high priest presided
      over the senate, so that the guards of the high priest, of the
      elders and the temple, were no other than the legal militia.

  387 John xviii. 10, 11.

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

  389 Matt. xxvi. 60, 61. And the last came two false witnesses, and said,
      this fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to
      build it in three days. Mark xiv. 57, 58. And there arose certain
      and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will
      destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I
      will build another made without hands. John ii. 19, 21, 22. Jesus
      answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days
      I will raise it up.  But he spake of the temple of his body. When,
      therefore, he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that
      he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the
      word which Jesus had said.

  390 I repeat that the expression _son of God_, includes here the idea of
      God himself; the fact is already established, and all the subsequent
      events confirm it. Observe, also, that I quote the narrative of only
      one of the parties to this great proceeding.

  391 Deut. xxviii. 20. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a
      word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that
      shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

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

  393 The duties of Pilate were to inform himself whether the sentences
      given did or did not affect the interests of Rome; there his part
      ended.  Thus it is not astonishing that this procurator, doubtless
      little acquainted with the Jewish laws, signed the decree for the
      arrest of Jesus, although he did not find him guilty.  We shall see
      hereafter that there were then many parties among the Jews, among
      whom were the Herodians or serviles, partisans of the house of
      Herod, and devoted to the foreign interests.  These are they who
      speak continually of Cæsar, of rendering to Cæsar the tribute due to
      Cæsar; they also insist that Jesus called himself _king of the
      Jews_, but this charge was reckoned as nothing before the senate,
      and was not of a nature alone to merit capital punishment.

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

  395 John xix. 7.

  396 The sending back of Jesus to Herod, which, according to the Gospel
      of St. Luke, Pilate would have done, is not stated by the other
      Evangelists, and does not at all change the judicial question.
      Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, and of Perea, had no authority
      in Jerusalem.  Upon his visit to this city, Pilate, according to St.
      Luke, would, out of respect, have caused Jesus to appear before this
      ally of the Romans, because Jesus was surnamed the Galilean, though
      originally from Judea.  But to whatever tribe he belonged, the
      nature of the accusation would still have required, according to the
      Hebrew law, that he should be judged by the senate of Jerusalem.

  397 Matt. xvii. 42, 43.

  398 This Analysis first appeared in the _Gazette des Tribunaux_.

  399 Joshua vii. 19, &c.

  400 By this, says Father Lamy, we may understand what the mixture of
      wine and myrrh was, which they presented to Jesus on the cross, and
      which he would not drink. _Introd. to the reading of the Holy
      Scriptures_, chap. vi. (_Note of Mr. Salvador_, Book iv. ch. 2.)

  401 As was that of Stephen, whom the same priests caused to be massacred
      by the populace, without a previous sentence of the law. OCCIDERE:
      Non occides, thou shalt not kill. _Deut_. v. 17. Veneno homines
      occidere. Cic. pro Roscio, 61. Virginiam filiam sua manu occidit
      Virginius. Cic. de Finib. 107. Non hominem occidi. Horat. I. Epist.
      17, 10. Inermem occidere. Ovid. ii. Fast. 139. INTERFICERE: Feras
      interficere. Lucret. lib. v. 251. Interfectus in acie. Cic. de
      Finib. 103. Cæsaris interfectores. Brutus Ciceroni, 16, 8.
      Interfectorem Gracchi. Cic. de Claris Orrato. 66.

  402 Will it be believed, that Tertullian and St. Irenæus were obliged to
      refute seriously some writers of their day, who considered the
      conduct of Judas not only excusable, but worthy of admiration and
      highly meritorious, “because (as they said) of the immense service
      which he had rendered to the human race by _preparing their
      redemption!_” In the same manner, at a certain period, we have seen
      plunderers of the public money make a merit of their conduct,
      because in that way they had weakened the usurpation and prepared
      the way for the triumph of legitimacy.

  403 See, as to these two grounds of nullity, the Jewish authors cited by
      Prost de Royer, tome 2, p. 205, _verbo_ ACCUSATION.

  404 Mr. Salvador admits this: “Caiaphas,” says he, “made himself his
      accuser.” p. 85.

  405 Ananias, a chief priest, having given orders to strike Paul upon the
      face, Paul said to him: “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for
      sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be
      smitten, _contrary to the law_!” Acts xxiii. 3.

  406 Mr. Salvador, in his note to p. 82, admits, that “the expression
      _Son of God_ was in common use among the Hebrews, to signify a man
      of great wisdom, or of deep piety.” But he adds, “_It was not in
      this sense_, that it was used by Jesus Christ; it would not have
      caused so strong a sensation.” Thus, then, by _construction_, and
      changing the words from their usual meaning, an article of
      accusation is formed against Jesus.

  407 That is, he usurped the functions of a judge; for we shall see, in
      the next section, that the _Council_ of the Jews had not
      jurisdiction of capital cases.

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

  409 Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went
      in and sat with the servants to see the end. Matt. xxvi. 58. So also
      the young man spoken of by St. Mark, xiv. 51: And there followed him
      a certain young man, &c.

_  410 De Crimine_ præsidis cognitio est. Cujas, xix. Observ. 13.

  411 Procurator Cæsaris _fungens vice præsidis potest cognoscere de
      causis criminalibus_. Godefroy, in his note (letter S) upon the 3rd
      law of the Code, _Ubi causæ fiscales_, &c. And he cites several
      others, which I have verified, and which are most precise to the
      same effect. See particularly the 4th law of the Code, _Ad leg. fab.
      de plag._, and the 2nd law of the Code, _De Pœnis_.

  412 Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis fiscalibus
      pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum fungebantur _vice
      præsidum_; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsaris _vice
      præsidis_ in Syria. Cujas, Observ. xix. 13.

  413 “To carry one from Caiaphas to Pilate” has since become a proverb.

  414 Lysias thus wrote to Felix the Governor, in relation to Paul: Whom I
      perceived to be accused of questions of their law, but to have
      nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or bonds. Acts xxiii. 29.

  415 Gerhard makes the following unanswerable dilemma upon this point.
      “Be consistent with thyself, Pilate; for, if Christ is innocent, why
      dost thou not send him away acquitted? And if thou believest him
      deserving of chastisement with rods, why dost thou proclaim him to
      be innocent?” _Gerh. Harm._ ch. 193, p. 1889.

  416 We will cite here the words of one of the finest laws of the Romans:
      Vanæ voces populi non sunt audiendæ, quando aut noxium crimine
      absolvi, aut innocentum condemnari desiderant—The idle clamour of
      the populace is not to be regarded, when they call for a guilty man
      to be acquitted, or an innocent one to be condemned. _Law 12, Code
      de Pœnis_. Pilate might also have read in Horace: Justum et tenacem,
      &c.—

      “The man in conscious virtue bold,
      Who dares his secret purpose hold,
      Unshaken hears the crowd’s tumultuous cries,
      And the impetuous _tyrant’s_ angry brow defies.”