commences equally with the same words, but this omission must have been very ancient, as the information which we require to supply it, is not to be found in any manuscript, nor in any old translation. I know not how to make this general loss in any way so conceivable, as by supposing the copy of Luke, which the first compiler of the writings of the New Testament obtained, and carried into his collection, to have been already without this addition, and indeed I think it may be said, that the copy of Luke's writings such as it is come down to us, seems to be more deficient than any other book of the New Testament. Was it wanting in the copy which John had in his hands, when he wrote his gospel? I should be inclined to think so, for otherwise, according to his peculiar mode of writing, John would probably have said something of the appearance to Peter, and many years elapsed between the time of writing his gospel, and the period when the collective writings of the apostles were first united after his death in one book.

VIII. THE KEEPERS

OF THE

SEPULCHRE

BRING INFORMATION TO THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WHAT THEY HAVE SEEN: AND AGREE, UPON RECEIVING MONEY, TO SPREAD THE REPORT, THAT THE DEAD BODY OF JESUS WAS STOLEN AWAY FROM THE SEPULCHRE, BY HIS DISCIPLES, WHILST THEY WERE ASLEEP.

MATTHEW XXVIII. 11-15.

11. "Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.

12. "And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,

13. "Saying, Say ye, his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.

14. "And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.

15. "So they took the money, and did as they were taught; and this saying is commonly reported amongst the Jews until this day.”

It has been

11. "Some of the watch."] singularly enough asked, why did not all the guard go? I should suppose, because it did

not stand under the immediate orders of the high priest, and therefore, it was not necessary for them to go. But the whole guard could not go at once. The Romans had the custom of ordering upon guard four times as many men as were necessary to give four reliefs, or four turns of duty, namely, four times in the day, and four times in the night. Now supposing the guard, as in Acts xii. 4, to have consisted of sixteen men, then all the four would go, who had stood sentry, between three and six in the morning, but supposing the guard to have been stronger, say forty men, which may have been, if the chief priest did not consider four sentries sufficient to keep off the many admirers of Jesus, then probably some of those who stood sentry at the time would have gone.

"Came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests."] The German, and even the English translation of the Greek, are here not entirely blameless, and have, consequently, not been unnoticed by the adversaries of Christianity. A person reading the common text, might suppose that the guard and the women entered the city at the same time, but literally construed it would be "whilst they, the women, were going away, some of the guard, who had entered the

city, announced the events of the resurrection to the chief priests." Before the women came to the sepulchre, the guards had run away from it, in the direction of the city, so that by the time the women were returning, they had brought to the chief priests, the unwelcome intelligence of the great change that had taken place. The chief priests, therefore, in point of fact, received intelligence of the resurrection of Jesus, somewhat earlier than his disciples.

"To the chief priests."] The chief priests, in the extensive sense of the word, are those priests who were members of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem. Probably no one would fancy, that the keepers went to all these separately; Caiaphas and Hannas, (Luke iii. 2.,) who were the most active enemies of Jesus, were most likely those, who applied for a guard, and to whom therefore the soldiers addressed themselves; and they would have retained the secret themselves, without permitting the soldiers to disseminate the report, through the houses of the other priests. Caiaphas was in the real sense of the word, the high priest appointed by the Roman governor: Hannas, his father-in-law, had been so before him, but had been set aside by

the Romans. He retained, however, in the eyes of the Jews, the respect due to a chief priest, as his five sons and his son-in-law, administered after him, this high dignity. In the same way as the captive Jesus had been brought, in the first instance, before Hannas as a private man, (John xviii. 13.,) so by this important event Hannas would have been brought into consultation with Caiaphas, both as to hearing the guard, and receiving the original report.

12. "And when they were assembled with the elders."] This has been commonly understood to mean an assemblage of the high council at Jerusalem, and in fact, from this view of it, has proceeded one of the most violent, and at the same time, one of the worst objections of infidelity. But the words of Matthew do not convey this meaning. The high council of Jerusalem consisted of three kinds of members.

1. Priest, who, as soon as they had a seat in the college, obtained the name of chief priests, a circumstance which I must explain in another place, and for which I here beg indulgence. The chief priests were, generally, of the sect of the Sadducees. Hannas and Caiaphas certainly were so.