« PoprzedniaDalej »
Considerations on the
anointing of our Lord,
Qly. “ The scene in St. John is the house of Martha, or reading is, Fucilioris sensús causâ; and adds, Verbum ameon. of Lazarus ; in the other Erangelists, that of Simon the sertaret, pendet er præterito, cujus vis latet in coes outnu, i. e. leper.
Noli reprehendere hanc, quæ unguentum ideo nec vendidit, nec pau“ Ans. St. John lays the scene in general at Bethany. peribus dedit, ut, &c. And the common reading is thus rightly
“ It seems probable, that Lazarus would not have been explained by Lightfoot, 2. 588. · If Baronius's exposition do called eis täv divxxsbjeévoy, if he had been the host.
not take, then add this clause-- Let her alone ; for this may Martha, the sister of Lazarus, might shew Jesus honour be an argument and sign that she hath not done this rainly, by ministering to him, in any house as well as her own. luxuriously, or upon any delicacy spent so costly an ointment 'She was Simon's neighbour, and perhaps his relation, Dr. Kupon me; because she hath reserved it for this time, wherein I Priestly, Harm. p. 102. Our Lord's affection for Lazarus um so near my grave and funeral, and poured it not on me and liis sister, and the recent miracle wrought on Lazarus, || before.' Laruner's comment, ubi supru, p. 312. is applicable were very sufficient reasons for Simon's invitation of such to the three Evangelists. If this ointment were laid out upon neighbouring guests.
a dead body, you would not think it too much. You 3dly. “ St. John mentions the feet of Jesus as anointed by sider this anointing as an embalming of me.
The words are a Mary, and wiped with her hair ; the other Evangelists say, predietion of Christ's death, which was to happen on the that the ointment was poured on Jesus's head.
third day after; and they are a prediction beautifully taken “ Ans. It is no where asserted that the unction was of from the occasion. She has done this to embalm me, Matt. Jesus's head only, or of his feet only: both actions are con- | She has anticipated the embalming of me, Mark. She hus not sistent; and St. John, in his supplemental history, may very sold this ointment, and given it to the poor, that she might rewell have added the respectful conduct of Mary, that after serve it to this day, which is, as it were, the day of my embalmhaving anointed Jesus's head, she proceeded to anoint hising, so soon is my burial to follow, John. fect, and even to wipe them with her hair.
“ Dr. Scott, on Matthew, quotes the following passage from Athly. “ In St. John, Judas alone murmurs: in St. Mat- Theophylact : idos ñu Tois Iudalos pesto puupwy irta poatssy tá camatay thew, the disciples have indignation; or, as St. Mark ex- | 's nad oi Asyú T101 877018y, due to äsntta tuetãobov, xai öveu duowdías. presses it, some have indignation among themselves.
It was a custom among the Jews, as well as among the Egyp“ Ans. Dr. Lardner says, Serm. vol. II. p. 316. “It is well tians, to embalm the bodies of the dead, as well to keep them known to be very common with all writers, to use the plural from putrefaction, as to prevent offensive smells. number when one person only is intended; nor is it im- “ The expressions therefore of the three evangelists agree possible that others might have some uneasiness about it, in sense and substance. I have explained the more difficult though they were far from being so disgusted at it as Judas in St. John; leaving every one to his own judgment whether was. And their concern for the poor was sincere : his was | it be the true one or not; though I incline to think that the self-interested and mere pretence.'
unusual phrase ought generally to be admitted into the text. “ Grotius's words are: Reprehensa est hoc nomine mulier ab “ 6thly. In St. John, Mary anoints Jesus; in Matthew and ano discipulorum ; nam ita pluralis accipi solet.
Mark, a woman, not named. Sthly. “ The vindications of the woman by our Lord differ “ Ans. Lardner says, ubi supra p. 315. · St. John having be50 much, as to shew that the occasions were different. fore given the history of the resurrection of Lazarus, it was very
“ Ans. St. John's words are indeed thus misinterpreted by natural for him, when he came to relate this anointing of our Baronius : Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of Lord, to say by whom it was done. But the two former evanmy burial, alluding to Mark xvi. 1. See Lightfoot, Harm. gelists having never mentioned Lazarus or his sisters in their p. 27. See also Lightfoot, ib. 1. 251. · She hath kept it yet, gospels, when they came to relate this action forbear to mention and not spent all; that she may bestow it on a charitable use, any name, and speak only of a certain woman. Luke x. 38– the anointing of my body to its burial.'
42. has an account of our Lord's being entertained at the house " Whiston also, Harm. 129. gives a wrong sense to the of Mártha. But he says nothing of this anointing. If he had words. She hath spent but little of it now : she hath reserved related it, I make no question, that he, like St. John, would the main part of it for a fitter time, the day before my delivery have said by whom it was done.' Upon the whole, there is to the Jews ; making this a prediction of what passed, no solid objection to the hypothesis that we have three accounts Matt. xxvi. 6—13. Mark xiv. 3-9. It must be observed of the same transaction. But it is incredible that there should that, John xii. 7. there is a remarkable various reading : | be two unctions of Jesus, in Bethany, within four days, not in uls tau njeçar tē irraquagué per ongnon avró. See Wetstein, plainly distinguished from each other; that the kind and and add Codd. Vercell, and Veron, in Blanchini. Of this price of the ointment should be the same, that the two acreading we have a sound interpretation in Mill, proleg. xlv. tions should be censured in the same manner; and that words Sine eam ut opportune usa hoc unguento, velut ad sepulturam to the same effect should be used in defence of the woman meam, jamjam occidendi, illud servâsse ostendatur. And like- who anointed Jesus, within so short a time, in the same place, wise in Bengelius ad loc. whio observes, that the common and among the same persons. See Doddridge on John xii. l.
Ilhether our Lord ate the
pass-over before he suffered.
As to the precise time of this transaction, it is natural to conclude from the accounts of Matthew and Mark, that it hap
The question considered, whether our Lord ate the pass-over pened two days before the passover. I had much pleasure in
with his disciples, before he suffered? observing that Mr. Jebb, in his Harmony, assigns it the same Every candid person must allow that there are great difforder as I do. I likewise find in Ward's Dissertations, p. 112. culties relative to the time in which our Lord ate the last
passthe following remark. John only mentions the day when over with his disciples. In the Introduction to my Discourse Jesus came to Bethany, without specifying the time when he on the nature and design of the Holy Eucharist, I have extas entertained there by Simon the leper; whereas the other | amined this subject at large, and considered the four followtwo evangélists acquaint us with the day when that was done,ing opinions, viz. I. Our Lord did not eat the pass-over on the and what followed upon it, with relation to Judas.' And || last year of his ministry. II. Our Lord did eat it that year; again, Wall says, Critical Notes, v. 3, p. 52. •Wednesday and at the same time with the Jews. III. He did eat it that he seems to have staid at Bethany, and supped there. At year, but not at the same time with the Jews. IV. He did eat which supper, Mary, sister of Lazarus, poured that ointment a pass-over of his own instituting, but widely differing from on his body, which he interpreted to be for his burial.' And that eaten by the Jews. The two first opinions do not appear on John xii. 2. * This seeins to be the same supper which to be solidly supported. The two last are of the most importMatthew and Mark do say was at the house of Simon the leper; || ance, are the most likely, and may be harmonized. I shall 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.” “ 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 fixiog 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 puois, 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. beticular day of the month; the days of the month being counted considered, they will be found to stand very awkwardly in their from the Paars, 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 liis 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 “ In the great or outer court there was a house called Beth by craft, and without raising a tumult among the people. An || Yazek, where the senate sat all the 30th day of every month, accident happens which offends one of Jesus's familiar attend to receive the witnesses of the moon's appearance, and to exants; who immediately repairs to Jesus's enemies, and re- amine them. If there came approved witnesses on the 30th ceives from them a bribe to betray him in the absence of the day, who could state they had seen the new moon, the chief multitude.” Newcome's Harmony, Notes, p. 39, &c. man of the senate stood up, and cried vopo mekuddasl, it is
I have added the above, not from a conviction that the point sanctified; and the people standing by caught the word from is so elucidated, as to settle the controversy, but merely to place | him, and cried, mekuddash! mekuddash! But if, when the before the reader both sides of the question. Still, sub judice consistory had sat all the day, and there came no approved lis est, and any man may doubt, consistently with the most witnesses of the phasis, or appearance of the new moon, then genuine piety, whether the relations given by the evangelists they made an intercalation of one day in the former month, concerning the anointing of our Lord, should be understood and decreed the following one and thirtieth day to be the caof two ditkerent unctions, at two different times, in two differ- | Jends. But, if after the fourth or fifth day, or even before the ent places, by two different persons; or whether they are not end of the month, respectable witnesses came from far, an:) different accounts, with some varying circumstances, of one testified they had seen the new moon, in its due time: the se. and the sume transaction. I incline, at present, to the former || nate were bound to alter the beginning of the month, and opinion ; but it would be rash to decide where so many emi- reckon it a day sooner, viz. from the thirtieth day. pently learned and wise men have disagreed.
“ As the senate were very unwilling to be at the trouble of Whether our Lord ate
the pass-over before he sufferret.
a second consecration, when they had even fixed on a wrong day, for the Jews began their day at sun-setting; we at midlday, 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 thuis a statute to this effect— That whatsoever time the senute 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. be. place in the time of our Lord, and “ as it is not likely that tween the two evenings, i. e. between the sun's declining' ivest 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 oasis, or appearance of the it was the third hour, in the course of betwéch 9 avd 12, Mark new moon, confirmed by sufficient witnesses, he and his dis- || xv. 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 3 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 erthere was a contention, logußos, a tumult, among the Jews | NISHED, TETEMETTO), completed, perfected, and having thtis 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 fits many other pious Jews, who adopted the true Quris phasis, against the opinion, that our Lord ate his passover sone horuits was only the preparution 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, int genote, that not only the Karnites, who do not acknowledgeneral, ate theirs, it could not have been sacrificed according to the authority of the Sanhedrin, but also the Rabbins them- the law; nor is it at all likely that the blood was sjtrinkled at selves grant, that where the case is doubtful, the pass-over the foot of the altar. If, therefore, the blood was not thing should be celebrated with the same ceremonies, two days toge- || sprinkled by one of the priests, that wilich constituted the ther: and it was always doubtful, when the appearance of the very essence of the rite, as ordained by God, was lacking in Dew moon could not be fully ascertained.
that celebrated hy our Lord. Bishop Pearce snpposes, that it was lawful for the Jews to To this it is answered—First, we have already seen that, eat he paschal lamb at any time, between the evening of in consequence of the immense number of sacrifices to be Thursday, and that of Friday; and, that this permission was offered on the paschal solemnity, it is highly probable the necessary, because of the immense number of lambs which Jews were obliged to employ two days for this work. It is were to be killed for that purpose: as in one year, there were
not at alt likely that the blood of 256,500 lambs could be stient not fewer than 256,500 lambs offered. See Josephus, War, b. / and sprinkled at one altar, in the course of one day, by all vii. c. 9. sect. 3. In Matt. xxvi. ver. 17, it is said, Now the the priests in Jerusalem, or indeed in the Holy Land; since first day of the feast of unleavened bread, (on de meutn two they had but that one altar wirere they could legally sprinkle sywv) the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where the blood of the victims. wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pass-over ? As
Secondly, we have also seen that, in cases of doubt relative the feast of unleavened bread did not begin till the day after to' the time of the appearance of the net moon, tlre Jeit's the pass-over, the fifteenth day of the month, Lev. xxiii. 5, 6. were permitted to hold the pass-over botly days; and that it is Numb. xxviii. 16, 17. this could not have been properly the probable such a dubious case existed at the time in question. first day of that feast : but as the Jews began to eat unleavened || In any of these cases, the lamb might have been killed and bread on the fourteenth day, Exod. xii. 18. this day was of its blood sprinkled according to the rules and ceremonies of the ten termed the first of unleavened bread. Now it appears, that Jewish church. the Evangelists use it in this sense, anul call cven the paschal Thirdly, as our Lord was the true paschal larnb, who was, day by this name, see Mark xiv. 12. Luke xxii. 7.
in a few hours after this time, to bcar away ihe sin of the world, At first view, this third opinion, which states that Christ, he might dispensé 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 be expired on the in the case of the subbuth. At any rate, as it scéms procross the same hour in which the paschal lamb was killed, bable that he ale 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 bis disciples ate the passe saimed that he left nothing undone towards a due performance orer 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, wliich The objection, that our Lord and his disciples appear to was the beginning of the same sixth day of the week, or Fri- have- sut or reclined at tables.all the time they ate what is sup
Whether our Lord ate
the pass-over before he suffered.
posed above, to have been the pass-over, contrary to the pas- || ish month Nisan, could not commence that thirty-third year chal institution, which required them to eat it standing, with sooner than the setting of the sun on Friday, March 20th ; their staves in their hands, their loins girded, and their shoes and consequently, that Friday, April 3d, on which Christ on, cannot be considered as having any great weight in it; for, died, was the 14th of Nisan, (uot the 15th) the day appointthough the terms avezato, Matt. xxvi. 20. and eventSE, Luke ed by the law for the celebration of the pass-over. All these xxii. 14. are used in reference to their eating that evening, | points he took care to have ascertained by the nicest astronoand these words signify reclining at table, or on a couch, as ismical calculations, in which he was assisted by a very emi. the custom of the Orientals, it does not follow that they must nent astronomer and mathematician, Bullialdus (Mr. Bouilnecessarily be restrained to that meaning; nor does it appearleau.) that this part of the ceremony was much attended to, perhaps These two last opinions, apparently contradictory, and not at all, in the latter days of the Jewish church.
which alone, of all those offered on the subject, deserve conThe second opinion which we have to examine is this : Our sideration, may be brought to harmonize. That Jesus ate Lord did eat a pass-over of his own instituting, but widely the pass-over with his disciples the evening before the Jews different from that eaten by the Jews.
ate theirs, seems pretty clearly proved from the text of St. Mr. Toinard, in his Greek Harmony of the Gospels, strong-Luke, and the arguments founded on that text. ly contends, that our Lord did not eat what is commonly called All that is assumed there, to make the whole consistent, is, the pass-over this year, but another, of a mystical kind. His that the Jews that year held the pass-over both on the 13th chief arguments are the following:
and 14th of Nisan, because of the reasons already assigned; It is indubitably evident, from the text of St. John, that and that therefore Peter and Jolin, who were employed on the night on the beginning of which our Lord supped with this business, might have got the blood legally sprinkled by his disciples, and instituted the holy sacrament, was not that the hands of a priest, which was all that was necessary to the on which the Jews celebrated the pass-over; but the preceding legality of the rite. evening, on which the pass-over could not be legally offered. But, secondly, should it appear improbable that such douThe conclusion is evident from the following passages : John || ble celebration took place at this time, and that our Lord xiii. 1. Now before the feast of the pass-over, Jesus knowing, could not have eaten the pass-over that year with his disciples, &c. Ver. 2. And supper (not the paschal, but an ordinary | as he died on the very hour on which the paschal lamb was supper) being ended, &c. Ver. 27. That thou doest, do quick-slain, and consequently before he could legally eat the passly. Ver. 28. Now no one at the table knew for what intent he over; how then can the text of St. Luke be reconciled with spake this. Ver. 29. For some thought, because Judas had the this fact? I answer, with the utmost ease; by substituting bag, that Jesus had said unto him : Buy what we have need of a pass-over for the pass-over, and simply assuming, that our against the feast, &c. Chap. xviii. 28. Then led they Jesus Lord at this time instituted the holy Eucharist, in place of from Caiaphas to the hall of judgment, and it was early; and the PasCHAL LAMB: and thus it will appear, he ate a pass-over they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should with his disciples the evening before his death, viz. the mysbe defiled, but that they might eat the pass-over. Chap. xix. 14. tical pass-over, or sacrament of his body and blood : and that And it was the preparation of the pass-over, and about the this was the pass-over which he so ardently longed to eat with sixth hour. Now as it appears, that at this time the disciples his disciples before he suffered. This is the opinion of Mr. thought our Lord had ordered Judas to go and bring what Toinard, and, if granted, solves every difficulty. Thus the was necessary for the pass-over, and they were then supping | whole controversy is brought into a very narrow compass : together, it is evident that it was not the paschal lamb on Our Lord did eat a pass-over with his disciples some short which they were supping; and it is as evident, from the un- time before he died :—the question is, what pass-over did he eat willingness of the Jews to go into the hall of judgment, that the regular legal pass-over, or a mystical one? That he ate a they had not as yet eaten the pass-over. These words are pass-over is, I think, demonstrated : but whether the literal or plain, and can be taken in no other sense, without offering | mystical one, is a matter of doubt. On this point, good and them the greatest violence.
learned men may innocently hesitate and differ : but on either Mr. Toinard, having found that our Lord was crucified on hypothesis, the text of the Evangelists is unimpeachable, and the sixth day of the week, (Friday) during the paschal solem- all shadow of contradiction done away: for the question then nity, in the thirty-third year of the vulgar æra, and that the rests on the peculiar meaning of names and words. On this paschal moon of that year was not in conjunction with the hypothesis, the preparation of the pass-over must be consisun till the afternoon of Thursday the 19th of March, and dered as implying no more than-1. Providing a convenient that the new moon could not be seen in Judea until the follow
room. 2. Bringing water for the baking on the following ing day, (Friday) concluded, that the intelligence of the Pacis, day, because on that day the bringing of the water would or appearance of the new moon, could not be made by the have been unlawful. 3. Making inquisition for the leaven, witnesses to the beth din, or senate, sooner than Saturday morn- | that every thing of this kind might be removed from the ing, the 21st of March. That the first day of the first Jewo house where the pass-over was to be eaten, according to the
Whether our Lord ate
the pass-over before he suffered. very strict and awful command of God, Exod. xii. 15—20. | absurd to suppose, that under such terrible evidences of the xxiii. 15. xxxiv. 25. These, it is probable, were the acts of divine indignation, any religious ordinances or festive prepapreparation which the disciples were commanded to perform,rations could possibly have taken place. Matt. xxvi. 18. Mark xiv. 13, 14. Luke xxii. 8–11. and My readers will probably be surprised to see the preceding which, on their arrival at the city, they punctually executed. | opinions so dissentient among themselves, and the plausible See Matt. xxvi. 19. Mark xiv. 16. Luke xxii. 13. Thus every reasons by which they are respectively supported, where each thing was prepared, and the holy sacrament instituted, which seems by turns to prevail. When I took up the question, I should, in the Christian church, take place of the Jewish had no suspicion that it was encumbered with so many diffipass-over, and continue to be a memorial of the sacrifice which culties. These I now feel and acknowledge ; nevertheless, I Christ was about to make, by his death on the cross : for as think the plan of reconciling the texts of the Evangelists, parthe paschal lamb had shewed forth his death till he came, this ticularly St. Luke and St. John, which I have adopted above, death fulfilled the design of the rite, and sealed up the vision is natural; and I am in hopes will not appear altogether unand prophecy.
satisfactory to my readers. On the subject, circumstanced All preparations for the true paschal sacrifice being now as it is, hypothesis alone can prevail; for indubitable evidence made, Jesus was immediately betrayed, shortly after appre- and certainty cannot be obtained. The morning of the resurhended, and in a few hours expired upon the cross. It is rection, is probably the nearest period in which accurate intherefore very likely, that he did not literally eat the pass-over formation on this point can be expected. Je suis trompé, says this year; and may I not add, that it is more than probable, that Bouilleau, si cette question peut être jamais bien eclaircie. the pass-over was not eaten in the whole land of Judea on this I be not mistaken, this question will never be thoroughly unoccasion. The rending of the rail of the temple, Matt. xxvii. derstood.” It would be presumptuous to say, Christ did eat 5). Mark xv. 38. Luke xxiii. 45. the terrible earthquake, Matt. the pass-over this last year of his ministry: it would be as haxxvii. 51–54. the dismal and unnatural darkness, which was zardous to say he did not eat it. The middle way is the safest; over the whole land of Judea, from the sixth hour (twelve and it is that which is adopted above. One thing is sufficiently o'clock) to the ninth hour, (i. e. three o'clock in the after- evident, that Christ our paschal lamb has been sacrificed for noon) with all the other prodigies which took place on this us; and that he has instituted the holy eucharist, to be a perawful occasion, we may naturally conclude, were more than petual memorial of that his precious death until his coming sufficient to terrify and appal this guilty nạtion, and totally to again : and they who with a sincere heart, and true faith in his prevent the celebration of the paschal ceremonies. Indeed, passion and death, partake of it, shall be made partakers of his the time in which killing the sacrifices, and sprinkling the most blessed body and blood. Reader, praise God for the blood of the lambs, should have been performed, was wholly atonement, and rest not without an application of it to thy, occupied with these most dreadful portents; and it would be
CHAPTER XXVII. In the morning, Christ is bound and delivered to Pontius Pilate, 1, 2. Judus, seeing his Master condemned, repents, acknowledges his transgression to the chief priests, attests Christ's innocence, throws down the money, and
goes and hangs himself, 3–5. They buy the potter's field with the money, 6—10. Christ questioned by Pilate, refuses to answer, 11-14. Pilate, while enquiring of the Jews whether they would have Jesus or Barabbas released, receives a message from his wife to hare nothing to do in this wicked business, 15—19. The multitude, influenced by the chief priests and elders, desire Burabbas to be released, and Jesus to be crucified, 20–23. Pilate attests his innocence, and the people make themselves and their posterity responsible for his blood, 24, 25. Barabbas is released, and Christ is scourged, 26. The soldiers strip him, clothe him with a scarlet robe, crown him with thorns, mock, and variously insult him, 27–31. Simon compelled to bear his cross, 32. They bring him to Golgotha, give him vinegar mingled with gall to drink, crucify him, and cast lots for his raiment, 33–36. His accusation, 37. Two thieves are crucified with him, 38. He is mocked and insulted while hanging on the cross, 39—44. The awful darkness, 45. Jesus calls upon God, is offered vinegar to drink, expires, 46–50. Prodigies that accompanied and followed his death, 51–53. He is acknowledged by the centurion, 54. Several women behold the crucifixion, 55, 56. Joseph of Arimathea begs the body of Pilate, and deposits it in his own new tomb, 57—60. The women watch the sepulchre, 61. The Jews consult with Pilate, how they may prevent the resurrection of Christ, 62–64. He grants them a guard for the sepulchre, and they seal the stone that stopped the mouth of the tomb where he was laid, 65, 66.