Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, not know the man. Who is he that smote thee?

69¶Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

20ly." The scene in St. John is the house of Martha, or of Lazarus; in the other Evangelists, that of Simon the leper.

"Ans. St. John lays the scene in general at Bethany. "It seems probable, that Lazarus would not have been called is Tv vaxey, if he had been the host.

"Martha, the sister of Lazarus, might shew Jesus honour by ministering to him, in any house as well as her own. She was Simon's neighbour, and perhaps his relation,' Dr. Priestly, Harm. p. 102. Our Lord's affection for Lazarus and his sister, and the recent miracle wrought on Lazarus, were very sufficient reasons for Simon's invitation of such neighbouring guests.

3dly. "St. John mentions the feet of Jesus as anointed by Mary, and wiped with her hair; the other Evangelists say, that the ointment was poured on Jesus's head.

"Ans. It is no where asserted that the unction was of Jesus's head only, or of his feet only: both actions are consistent; and St. John, in his supplemental history, may very well have added the respectful conduct of Mary, that after having anointed Jesus's head, she proceeded to anoint his feet, and even to wipe them with her hair.

4thly. " In St. John, Judas alone murmurs : in St. Matthew, the disciples have indignation; or, as St. Mark expresses it, some have indignation among themselves.

“Ans. Dr. Lardner says, Serm. vol. II. p. 316. It is well known to be very common with all writers, to use the plural number when one person only is intended; nor is it impossible that others might have some uneasiness about it, though they were far from being so disgusted at it as Judas was. And their concern for the poor was sincere his was self-interested and mere pretence.'

"Grotius's words are: Reprehensa est hoc nomine mulier ab ano discipulorum; nam ita pluralis accipi solet.

66

anointing of our Lord.

reading is, Facilioris sensûs causâ; and adds, Verbum της ση. servaret, pendet ex præterito, cujus vis latet in apes arn, i. e. Noli reprehendere hanc, quæ unguentum ideo nec vendidit, nec pauperibus dedit, ut, &c. And the common reading is thus rightly explained by Lightfoot, 2. 588. If Baronius's exposition do not take, then add this clause-Let her alone; for this may be an argument and sign that she hath not done this vainly, luxuriously, or upon any delicacy spent so costly an ointment upon me; because she hath reserved it for this time, wherein I am so near my grave and funeral, and poured it not on me before.' Lardner's comment, ubi supra, p. 312. is applicable to the three Evangelists. If this ointment were laid out upon a dead body, you would not think it too much. You may consider this anointing as an embalming of me. The words are a prediction of Christ's death, which was to happen on the third day after; and they are a prediction beautifully taken from the occasion. She has done this to embalm me, Matt. She has anticipated the embalming of me, Mark. She has not sold this ointment, and given it to the poor, that she might reserve it to this day, which is, as it were, the day of my embalming, so soon is my burial to follow, John.

то

"Dr. Scott, on Matthew, quotes the following passage from Theophylact: ἔθος ἦν τοῖς Ιωδαίοις μετα μύρων ἐνταφιάζειν τά σώματα, ὡς καὶ οἱ Αιγύπτιοι οποιεν, διὰ τὸ ἄσηπτα τηρεῖσθαι, καὶ ἄνευ δυσωδίας. It was a custom among the Jews, as well as among the Egyptians, to embalm the bodies of the dead, as well to keep them from putrefaction, as to prevent offensive smells.

"The expressions therefore of the three evangelists agree in sense and substance. I have explained the more difficult in St. John; leaving every one to his own judgment whether it be the true one or not; though I incline to think that the unusual phrase ought generally to be admitted into the text. Gthly. In St. John, Mary anoints Jesus; in Matthew and Mark, a woman, not named.

"Ans. Lardner says, ubi supra p. 315. St. John having before given the history of the resurrection of Lazarus, it was very natural for him, when he came to relate this anointing of our Lord, to say by whom it was done. But the two former evangelists having never mentioned Lazarus or his sisters in their gospels, when they came to relate this action forbear to mention any name, and speak only of a certain woman. Luke x. 38— 42. has an account of our Lord's being entertained at the house of Martha. But he says nothing of this anointing. If he had related it, I make no question, that he, like St. John, would have said by whom it was done.' Upon the whole, there is no solid objection to the hypothesis that we have three accounts

5thly. The vindications of the woman by our Lord differ so much, as to shew that the occasions were different. "Ans. St. John's words are indeed thus misinterpreted by Baronius: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial, alluding to Mark xvi. 1. See Lightfoot, Harm. p. 27. See also Lightfoot, ib. 1. 251. She hath kept it yet, and not spent all; that she may bestow it on a charitable use, the anointing of my body to its burial. "Whiston also, Harm. 129. gives a wrong sense to the words. She hath spent but little of it now: she hath reserved the main part of it for a fitter time, the day before my delivery to the Jews; making this a prediction of what passed, Matt. xxvi. 6-13. Mark xiv. 3-9. It must be observed that, John xii. 7. there is a remarkable various reading:be two unctions of Jesus, in Bethany, within four days, not Ta sis Thy nμéçar to ixrafiasμe μ8 Thenon autó. See Wetstein, and add Codd. Vercell. and Veron. in Blanchini. Of this reading we have a sound interpretation in Mill, proleg. xlv. Sine eam ut opportune usa hoc unguento, velut ad sepulturam meam, jamjam occidendi, illud servâsse ostendatur. And likewise in Bengelius ad loc. who observes, that the common

78

of the same transaction. But it is incredible that there should

plainly distinguished from each other; that the kind and price of the ointment should be the same, that the two actions should be censured in the same manner; and that words to the same effect should be used in defence of the woman who anointed Jesus, within so short a time, in the same place, and among the same persons. See Doddridge on John xii. 1.

Whether our Lord ate the

ST. MATTHEW.

pass-over before he suffered.

The question considered, whether our Lord ate the pass-over with his disciples, before he suffered?

Every candid person must allow that there are great difficulties relative to the time in which our Lord ate the last passover with his disciples. In the Introduction to my Discourse on the nature and design of the Holy Eucharist, I have examined this-subject at large, and considered the four following opinions, viz. I. Our Lord did not eat the pass-over on the last year of his ministry. II. Our Lord did eat it that and at the same time with the Jews. III. He did eat it that year, but not at the same time with the Jews. IV. He did eat a pass-over of his own instituting, but widely differing from that eaten by the Jews. The two first opinions do not appear to be solidly supported. The two last are of the most import

As to the precise time of this transaction, it is natural to conclude from the accounts of Matthew and Mark, that it happened two days before the passover. I had much pleasure in observing that Mr. Jebb, in his Harmony, assigns it the same order as I do. I likewise find in Ward's Dissertations, p. 112. the following remark. John ouly mentions the day when Jesus came to Bethany, without specifying the time when he was entertained there by Simon the leper; whereas the other two evangelists acquaint us with the day when that was done, and what followed upon it, with relation to Judas.' And again, Wall says, Critical Notes, v. 3, p. 52. Wednesday he seems to have staid at Bethany, and supped there. At which supper, Mary, sister of Lazarus, poured that ointment on his body, which he interpreted to be for his burial.' And on John xii. 2. This seems to be the same supper which Matthew and Mark do say was at the house of Simon the leper;ance, are the most likely, and may be harmonized. for there it was that Mary anointed him. But then we must introduce a few observations on each in this place. And I. not take it to be the same night that he came to Bethany, but On the opinion that "Our Lord did eat the pass-over this two days before the passover.' year, but not at the same time with the Jews."

year;

I shall

"That Judas went to the high-priests on the evening or Dr. Cudworth, who of all others has handled this subject night of our Wednesday, may be collected from Matt. xxvi. best, has proved from the Talmud, Mishna, and some of the 14-17. and the parallel places in this harmony: and he seems most reputable of the Jewish Rabbins, that the ancient Jews to have acted partly in disgust at what had passed. This is a about our Saviour's time, often solemnized as well the passgood argument for fixing the unction for Wednesday. As it overs as the other feasts, upon the ferias next before and after will appear that the other apostles did not suspect his trea- the sabbaths. And, that as the Jews in ancient times reckoned chery, we may suppose that Judas withdrew himself clandes- the new moons, not according to astronomical exactness, but tinely, probably after our Lord had retired to privacy and de- || according to the quis, or moon's appearance: and, as this votion. Our Lord's words, Matt. xxvi. 2. may have led Mary to appearance might happen a day later than the real time, conshew this respect to Jesus, lest no future opportunity should of sequently there might be a whole day of difference in the time fer. See Lardner, ubi supra, p. 327. Dr. Priestly thinks that of celebrating one of these feasts, which depended on a par◄ if the verses that contain this story in Matt. xxvi. 6-13. be ticular day of the month; the days of the month being counted considered, they will be found to stand very awkwardly in their from the Cars, or appearance of the new moon. As he depresent situation, where they interrupt an account of a con- cribes the whole manner of doing this, both from the Babysultation among the Jews about putting Jesus to death.' || lonish Talmud, and from Maimonides, I shall give an extract Harm. p. 100. But it seems to me, that the story has a re- from this part of his work, that my readers may have the markably apt connexion with the preceding and subsequent whole argument before them. history. The Jewish rulers consult how they may take Jesus by craft, and without raising a tumult among the people. An accident happens which offends one of Jesus's familiar attendants; who immediately repairs to Jesus's enemies, and receives from them a bribe to betray him in the absence of the multitude." Newcome's Harmony, Notes, p. 39, &c.

I have added the above, not from a conviction that the point is so elucidated, as to settle the controversy, but merely to place before the reader both sides of the question. Still, sub judice lis est, and any man may doubt, consistently with the most genuine piety, whether the relations given by the evangelists concerning the anointing of our Lord, should be understood of two different unctions, at two different times, in two different places, by two different persons; or whether they are not different accounts, with some varying circumstances, of one and the same transaction. I incline, at present, to the former opinion; but it would be rash to decide where so many emipently learned and wise men have disagreed.

"In the great or outer court there was a house called Beth Yazek, where the senate sat all the 30th day of every month, to receive the witnesses of the moon's appearance, and to examine them. If there came approved witnesses on the 30th day, who could state they had seen the new moon, the chief man of the senate stood up, and cried wp mekuddash, it is sanctified; and the people standing by caught the word from him, and cried, mekuddash! mekuddash! But if, when the consistory had sat all the day, and there came no approved witnesses of the phasis, or appearance of the new moon, then they made an intercalation of one day in the former month, and decreed the following one and thirtieth day to be the calends. But, if after the fourth or fifth day, or even before the end of the month, respectable witnesses came from far, and testified they had seen the new moon, in its due time: the senate were bound to alter the beginning of the month, and reckon it a day sooner, viz. from the thirtieth day.

"As the senate were very unwilling to be at the trouble of

Whether our Lord ate

CHAP. XXVI.

the pass-over before he suffered.

a second consecration, when they had even fixed on a wrong day, for the Jews began their day at sun-setting; we at midday, and therefore received very reluctantly the te timony of night. Thus Christ ate the pass-over the same day with the such witnesses as those last mentioned, they afterwards made Jews, but not on the same hour. Christ, therefore, kept this a statute to this effect-That whatsoever time the senate should pass-over the beginning of the fourteenth day, the precise day conclude on for the culends of the month, though it were certain in which the Jews had eaten their first pass-over in Egypt : they were in the wrong, yet all were bound to order their feasts | see Exod. xii. 6-12. And in the same part of the sanie day according to it." This Dr. Cudworth supposes, actually took in which they had sacrificed their first paschal lamb, viz. beplace in the time of our Lord, and " as it is not likely that tween the two evenings, i. e. between the sun's declining west our Lord would submit to this perversion of the original cus- and his setting, Jesus our pass-over was sacrificed for us. For tom, and that following the true is, or appearance of the it was the third hour, in the course of between 9 and 12, Mark new moon, confirmed by sufficient witnesses, he and his disxv. 25 that Christ was nailed to the cross: and in the course of ciples ate the pass-over on that day; but the Jews, following the ninth hour, between 12 and 8 in the afternoon, Matt. xxvii. the pertinacious decree of the Sanhedrin, did not eat it till the 46. Mark xv. 34. Jesus knowing that the antetype had accomday following." Dr. C. further shews from Epiphanius, that plished every thing shadowed forth by the type, said, "it is FIthere was a contention, Oogußos, a tumult, among the Jews NISHED, TETEλestas, completed, perfected, and having this said, he about the pass-over, that very year. Hence it is likely, that bowed his head, and dismissed his spirit. See on John xix. 14, 30. what was the real paschal day to our Lord, his disciples, and Probably there is but one objection of any force that lies many other pious Jews, who adopted the true quis phasis, against the opinion, that our Lord ate his passover some houts was only the preparation or antecedent evening to others, who before the Jews in general ate theirs; which is, that, if our acted on the decree of the senate. Besides, it is worthy of Lord did eat the pass-over the evening before the Jews, in genote, that not only the Karaites, who do not acknowledgeneral, ate theirs, it could not have been sacrificed according to the authority of the Sanhedrin, but also the Rabbins themselves grant, that where the case is doubtful, the pass-over should be celcbrated with the same ceremonies, two days together: and it was always doubtful, when the appearance of the new moon could not be fully ascertained.

Bishop Pearce supposes, that it was lawful for the Jews to eat he paschal lamb at any time, between the evening of Thursday, and that of Friday; and, that this permission was necessary, because of the immense number of lambs which were to be killed for that purpose: as in one year, there were not fewer than 256,500 lambs offered. See Josephus, War, b. vii. c. 9. sect. 3. In Matt. xxvi. ver. 17, it is said, Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, (-7 ♪ #garn Twy || wy) the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pass-over? As the feast of unleavened bread did not begin till the day after the pass-over, the fifteenth day of the month, Lev. xxiii. 5, 6. Numb. xxviii. 16, 17. this could not have been properly the first day of that feast: but as the Jews began to eat unleavened bread on the fourteenth day, Exod. xii. 18. this day was of ten termed the first of unleavened bread. Now it appears, that the Evangelists use it in this sense, and call even the paschal day by this name, see Mark xiv. 12. Luke xxii. 7.

the law; nor is it at all likely that the blood was sprinkled at the foot of the altar. If, therefore, the blood was not thus sprinkled by one of the priests, that winch constituted the very essence of the rite, as ordained by God, was lacking in that celebrated by our Lord.

To this it is answered-First, we have already seen that, in consequence of the immense number of sacrifices to be offered on the paschal solemnity, it is highly probable the Jews were obliged to employ two days for this work. It is not at all likely that the blood of 256,500 lambs could be shed and sprinkled at one altar, in the course of one day, by all the priests in Jerusalem, or indeed in the Holy Land; since they had but that one altar where they could legally sprinkle

the blood of the victims.

Secondly, we have also seen that, in cases of doubt relativé to the time of the appearance of the new moon, the Jews were permitted to hold the pass-over both days; and that it is probable such a dubious case existed at the time in question. any of these cases, the lamb might have been killed and its blood sprinkled according to the rules and ceremonies of the Jewish church.

In

Thirdly, as our Lord was the true paschal lamb, who was, in a few hours after this time, to bear away the sin of the world, At first view, this third opinion, which states that Christ he might dispense with this part of the ceremony, and act did eat the pass-over with his disciples that year, but not in as Lord of his own institution in this, as he had done before the same hour with the Jews; and that he expired on the in the case of the subbath. At any rate, as it seems procross the same hour in which the paschal lamb was killed, ¦¦ bable that he ate the pass-over at this time, and that he died seems the most probable. For it appears, from what has already about the time the Jews offered theirs, it may be fully prebeen remarked, that our Lord and his disciples ate the pass-sumed that he left nothing undone towards a due performance over some hours before the Jews ate theirs; for they, accord- of the rite, which the present necessity required, or the law ing to custom, ate theirs at the end of the fourteenth day, but of God could demand. Christ appears to have eaten his the preceding evening, which was the beginning of the same sixth day of the week, or Fri

The objection, that our Lord and his disciples appear to have sat or reclined at table all the time they ate what is supLl