Jews had the privilege from the Romans not to be cited before legal tribunals, that is, before Roman tribunals on the sabbath, but Jewish judicial cases might be attended to on the sabbath, since they considered this, as studying the law, and the law was derived from Moses, and was, if not literally the word of God, the illustration of the word of God. A Jew will give an answer upon Jewish questions of legislation in the same way as our clergymen would give answers upon questions of conscience, and I have applied to Jews, who were very scrupulous about their sabbath, and they have given me answers upon questions of their own law. The Roman privilege did not prevent the Jews from soliciting assistance from the civil authorities upon sabbath days. This removes an objection which has been made to the application for a guard occurring on a sabbath.

62. "The chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate."] These words are misunderstood, partly through too literal a translation, partly through a misconception of another kind. When we read "the chief priests and Pharisees," we conceive the whole synod of the Jews, and thus the objection, which has been raised against this passage, is supported. This is a clear misconception; the Pharisees were a sect

and there were many of them in the supreme council of the Jews, not as Pharisees, but under another title; "high priests and Pharisees" were, it is probable, a fair description of the whole, in the same way as we should say, speaking of an university, "heads of colleges, and those who entertained a particular opinion." When the evangelists wish to describe the Sanhedrim, according to the different members of which it was composed, they express themselves "the high priests," "the scribes or learned men," "the elders." It consisted, (1) of certain members of the sacerdotal order, who from their seat in council were called "high priests;" (2) of the heads of families of the tribes of Israel, and they were termed " elders;" (3) of the learned members, or as we should call them, of" the learned body." They might be equally Pharisees or Sadducees, for the last were so little excluded from the council, that the majority of the high priests were of this sect. We must not, therefore, think of the Sanhedrim collectively, but according to the words as they stand here,

high priests and Pharisees." The high priests were, as I have stated, chiefly, but Hannas and Caiphas certainly, of the sect of the Sadducees; to these must be added certain of the Pharisees, or of that learned body, who had a seat and a

voice in the great council. It is not, therefore, the whole synod who go to Pilate, and probably not even a deputation from it, but certain of the chief priests, with the rival sect of the Pharisees, go to Pilate in a state of anxiety, and beg for a guard. There has been great misconception of the words "came together unto Pilate.” Some suppose the synod to have assembled as a body, which is a very natural supposition, and make the place of meeting to have been in Pilate's palace, which is again inconsistent for a deliberative body. Both the English and the German translations by the adoption of the word "together" favour this opinion, which, however, is not a just deduction from the Greek phrase, which literally signifies" they assembled themselves to Pilate." But to a real Greek scholar there ought to have been no difficulty. Taking the Greek in combination, with the Hebrew, as it probably stood in the original, it does not amount to more than " going to a person," and this is confirmed by the Syriac translation. Even supposing the original to have been Greek, still it is only a Hebraism, and of these there are many examples.

The objections that have been raised against this narrative are—

1. That it is incredible, the whole council should have moved in a body to Pilate the first day of Easter, and accompany the guard collectively to the grave. Such a procession must have created a very remarkable sensation.

So incredible that Matthew does not mention it, and the confusion arises from the enlarged view that is taken of the word "together." The text does not state the synod, it speaks of chief priests, (Sadducees,) and of Pharisees, who had made application for a guard. But supposing they were the great council, such a body generally does not act in a mass, but by deputing individuals.

2. Every thing might have been arranged by a deputation, and not by the procession of the whole synod.

This is another of those objections, which arise from the construction put upon the word together."

63. The chief priests may here refer to the words of Christ, quoted by John ii. 19., which some amongst them may have understood; although a different sense was given to it, before the judgment seat, where the false witnesses declared that Jesus said he would destroy the temple of God, which was built by human

labour, Mark xiv. 58. Jesus, however, had said this before, although in different words, partly in public, and partly to his disciples, who did not, however, understand it, and conceived it to have a figurative meaning. Matt. xii. 39, 40. xvi. 1, 4., where the Pharisees and Sadducees, receive the same answer and again ch.xvii. 23. The objection that has been raised, that his disciples could not from these words have expected his resurrection, is trifling. The wily enemy, who attends to the minutia of expression, dissects and twists them in a manner, which the principles or prejudices of friendship cannot understand. The words of Jesus were sufficiently clear, and the disciples did not understand them, because they thought that Jesus would not die-because he was the Christ-and that Christ was not to die.

64. An objection has been started that the synod might of their own authority have placed a guard over the grave, and that it was consequently unnecessary to solicit the interference of Pilate. The answer is easy; certainly they might have done so; but a civic guard does not afford the security of a military, and especially at that time, of a Roman military guard.