account, retired beyond Jordan; and they alfo knew that they had endeavoured to diffuade him from going to Bethany for the fame reason. The fame fort of death, we read, he had before apprised them of, c. viii. 28. Afterwards, we find Pilate faying, "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law." The Jews therefore faid, "It is not lawful for us to put any one to death." And here St. John again fubjoins, "That the faying of Jefus might be fulfilled, which he fpake, fignifying what death he should die," which furely it would have been hardly worth while to add-if there was not a poffibility, or rather a far greater probability of his dying by fome other death. Let us now attend to the conduct of the Sanhedrin, both before he was apprehended, and while he was in their cuftody for a Sanhedrin, it seems, they had too, which continued to fit under Pilate, as ufual, and had the power of enforcing all their laws, excepting only the fundamental law.) And may be added, they appear to have had so much cunning, as to compel Pilate to act against his confcience. Confequently they were no fools. it The Sanhedrin, then, though they had not the power of putting any man to death, yet had the power of enforcing obedience to all the other laws of Mofes. The Jews, of course, were well aware of the extent of their power, and the difciples not less than others. The attachment of the Jews in general, to the laws of Mofes, may be inferred from the extreme ob. jection which the Jewish-believers had to feeing them abolifhed. What then had the Sanhedrin to fear from the people, or the people from them, if they acted agreeably to Mofes. If they meant to take cognizance of our Lord according to the laws prefcribed by Mofes, they would, in all probability, have met with little or no oppofition at any time from the people, and would have been protected by Filate. This council, or Sanhedrin then, we are told by St. John, xi. 47-53. met purposely to deliberate about taking effectual fleps to prevent the people from believing in him. But how could they hope to do this, if he wrought fuch miracles as were never feen before; and if his mode of life was perfectly agreeable to the law of Mofes ? From that day forth, they took counsel together to put him to death? And how did they hope to accomplish this end, fo as not to be profecuted for it, if they had not the power of putting any man to death? Did they accufe him of being a ring-leader of fedition? This, at firft, they feem to have thought a groundless charge. Had this been their intention, they would would hardly have thought of securing him them felves. For it appears, "They gave commandment, that if any man knew where he was, he should fhew it, that they might take him." (h) But why did they not do it when he publickly entered into Jerufalem? Judas knowing their malevolent intention, went to them, and offered to betray him. But why did he think of doing fo, as he knew they had the power to feize him, and not the power of proceeding capitally against him, and of course as a blafphemer? He, it feems, thought his fervice of great value, and would not confent to betray his Lord without a fum of money. But why did he expect that they would accede to his demand, as they had not the power of doing what they wanted? notwithstanding they had a right to enforce their own law, and to call in the affiftance of the Roman governor,-Notwithstanding they could not proceed against him as a blafphemer, they bargained to give a fum of money for his fervice, and fo confiderable a fum, as was enough to purchase a valuable plot of ground in the neighbourhood of Jerufalem. Judas then having received a band of men, TH OTC, and fervants from the chief priests and Pharifees, came, by night, with lanterns and torches, and weapons to apprehend him.. By this, we seem to have no great reason to think that the Romans were concerned. He. however, presently after tells us, (v. 12.) that befide this poffe of fervants that belonged to the chief-priests and Pharifees, the band was properly a Roman band, headed by a Chiliarch. (2) So that, we perceive, the Romans were concerned in apprehending him. A clear proof this, that they intended to proceed regularly. But which party confidered him as their prifoner? The Jewish, for they ftraightway led him away to Annas firft. Why then was the Chiliarch and his band employed? To prevent a rescue and a tumult perhaps. But could they not have performed this fervice in the day? To prevent the effufion of much blood, they feem to have thought it advisable to take him by night. A pretty ftrong proof in what estimation he was held by the people. From Annas, he was led away to Caiaphas." And as foon as it was day, the elders of the people, and the chief-priefts and the scribes, came together, and led him into their council." "And the chiefpriests (k) John xi. 57. (4) Claudius Lysias is said to have been a Chiliarch. priests and all the council fought for witness against Jefus to put him to death." And what kind of witnefs did they feek? For witnefs, it feems, to prove him a blafphemerand no other. But why did they take fo much pains, if they knew that they had not the power to execute the fentence of the law? Why did they apply to the Chiliarch for protection in an unlawful proceeding? When they found that the evidence of their witneffes did not amount to the charge of blafphemy, what step did they take next? They put him upon his oath, whether he was indeed the Chrift, the Son of God. And when he confeffed-confidering his confeffion as a clear proof of his blafphemy, they treated him as a condemned perfon. But why, after all, did they not proceed to ftone him? Because, after all, it was by no means clear that the confeffion which they had extorted from him amounted to blafphemy. And they had previously admitted in the temple, even after they had taken up ftones to caft at him, that it did not. Had they executed him for what they had forced him to acknowledge, it is not unlikely that fome perfon, then present, would have reprefented the injuftice of their proceeding to the Jews, if not acquainted Pilate with. it. And befides, if by changing the accufation against him, they could, in fome measure, contrive to avoid the refentment of the people, and the confequence of proceeding to ftone him in a legal manner, it would be by far the fafer way. On the whole, by confidering what this Evangelift has himself recorded, concerning the proceedings of the Jews, what reason have we to think that they certainly had not the power of ftoning blafphemers? And by confulting the evidence of history, facred and profane, what reafon have we to doubt of Stephen being stoned long before Pilate was recalled? His death appears to have preceded the conversion of Saul nearly a year, and Saul was converted probably a year more before the death of Aretas, who died in the former part of the year 37, about the time that Pilate was recalled. And therefore, though the opinion that St. Paul went up to Jerufalem to confer with Peter the fourth year after the afcenfion, may be "wholly deftitute of foundation," yet it feems pretty clear, that it was the fifth year, and therefore after Saul's converfion, and as many more, perhaps, before the converfion of Cornelius. This point indeed is not fo clear, and therefore, to make fure, let us attend to UR good king Alfred wifhed that every cottager in England had a capon for his Saturday night's fupper. This was benevolent and royal, but it would certainly have been unjust to have obliged his next neighbour, the farmer, to have furnished him with one. In the propofed regulations in parliament, the curate is the cottager, and the rector is the farmer, and it is intended to provide for the one at the expence of the other. Now though it would be extremely desirable that men of liberal educations fhould be a little more amply provided for, yet it would be well to confider the extent of the evil which is thrown on the other party, and to examine whether the good done to individuals, and the cause of religion, would be enough to overbalance it. Whatever comforts a very deferving fet of men ought to have, the queftion feems finally to refolve itfelf into the effects likely to be produced on religion and the Church of England. It will not be amifs to confider it under both these heads, and if it fhall appear that no good is likely to be done to either, it will be evident that the measure is neither expedient nor politic. As to the first, were the curates a diftinct and feparate fet of men, I mean, if it were so provided that a certain fet of men fhould always remain in that fituation, without any hopes of obtaining preferment, it would then be their policy to fecure as large an income as poffible, and the dif treffes of the rector would affect them as little as the news that that a Chinese junk had foundered between China and Japan. A man is often inclined to give up a prefent enjoyment for future and remote good, and is feldom inclined to barter expectation for any temporary advantage. Whatever debafes preferment, debafes in the fame proportion the hopes, not of one or two, but of all. For who is there among us who has fo far given himself up as not to entertain a latent unexpreffed hope, that either his own merit, the intereft of his relations, or fome fortunate concurrence of events, might raise a friend, who would procure for him a comfortable provifion for old age? This, though feldom mentioned, is the bofom language of most of us, and in this point, almoft every one would deferve the praise of the Roman conful "quod de republicâ cum defpereffet." This being the cafe, a man will confider that though he may enjoy a better income at present, the time may foon come," jam dabitur jamque," when on being preferred, he must admit a stranger into fo large a share of his income, that it may leave him in doubt whether he has done well to give up his 250l. which he received without the trouble of collecting, and without the danger of difputes. He may find the exchange is merely in name, that with an income the fame, or but little better, he has laid himself under the weight of an obligation, often very irksome, to his patron, has increafed the demands of the poor upon his charity, and of the rich upon his fociety and hofpitality." This, though it may not always hold with regard to one living, muft certainly be true in cafe another is added, which after the curate is paid, may leave little or nothing for our new pluralift. There is another objection, more real and more to the point; it is this, that on the act being put in execution, many hundreds of curates, who, if not amply provided for, are certainly affifted in procuring a fubfiftance, will then be thrown totally out of employment, by the refidence of their rectors. What refources are left to them? what building is prepared for the reception of men, who are deprived of their employment, and whom the laws have forbidden to throw their induftry into any other channel. Every thing of this kind fhould be fettled by agreement between man and man; it fhould find its own level. Every interference is dangerous and impolitic. It refembles the fixing a minimum in the price of labour, which the legiflature has wifely refused in a late inftance, not because it was unwilling to add to the comforts of the manufacturer, but because it was juftly apprehenfive of increafing his diftreffes. On this principle many perfons will be seriously inconve nienced, |