who began to doubt whether he was right in his Sadducean notions. A guilty conscience awaking in him some apprehension that he whom he had murdered might be alive again, that there might, after all, be a "resurrection, and angel, and spirit."

X.

MATT. xxvi. 67.-" Then did they spit in his face, and buffetted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee?"

I THINK undesignedness may be traced in this passage, both in what is expressed and what is omitted. It is usual for one, who invents a story which he wishes to have believed, to be careful that its several parts hang well together-to make its con

clusions follow from its premises-and to show how they follow. He naturally considers that he shall be suspected unless his account is probable and consistent, and he labours to provide against that suspicion. On the other hand he, who is telling the truth, is apt to state his facts and leave them to their fate; he speaks as one having authority, and cares not about the why or the wherefore, because it never occurs to him that such particulars are wanted to make his statement credible, and accordingly, if such particulars are discoverable at all, it is most commonly by inference, and incidentally.

Now in the verse of St. Matthew placed at the head of this paragraph, it is written that "they smote him with the palms of

their hands, saying, prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee?" "

Had it happened that the records of the other Evangelists had been lost, no critical acuteness could have possibly supplied by conjecture the omission which occurs in this passage, and yet, without that omission being supplied, the true meaning of the passage must for ever have lain hid; for where is the propriety of asking Christ to prophesy who smote him, when he had the offender before his eyes? But when we learn from St. Luke (xxii. 64) that "the men that held Jesus blindfolded him" before they asked him to prophesy who it was that smote him, we discover what St. Matthew intended to communicate, namely, that they proposed this test of his divine mission, whether, without the use of sight, he could tell who it was that struck him. Such an oversight as this in St. Matthew it is difficult to account for on any other

supposition than the truth of the history itself, which set its author above all solicitude about securing the reception of his conclusions by a cautious display of the grounds whereon they were built.

XI.

WHAT was the charge on which the Jews condemned Christ to death ?*

FAMILIAR as this question may at first seem, the answer is not so obvious as might be supposed. By a careful perusal of the trial of our Lord as described by the several Evangelists, it will be found that the charges were two, of a nature quite

* The following argument was suggested to me by reading "Wilson's Illustration of the Method of Explaining the New Testament by the Early Opinions of Jews and Christians concerning Christ."

distinct, and preferred with a most appropriate reference to the tribunals before which they were made.

Thus the first hearing was before" the Chief Priests and all the Council," a Jewish and ecclesiastical court; accordingly, Christ was then accused of blasphemy. "I adjure thee, by the living God, tell me whether thou be the Son of God," said Caiaphas to him, in the hope of convicting him out of his own mouth. When Jesus "then

in his reply answered that he was, the high-priest rent his clothes, saying,

He hath spoken blasphemy, what further need have we of witnesses, behold now we have heard his blasphemy.'" (Matt. xxvi. 65.)

Shortly after, he is taken before Pilate, the Roman governor, and here the charge of blasphemy is altogether suppressed, and that of sedition substituted. "And the