notorious manner; and hereby would bring the guilt of them upon themselves. themselves. And the conclusion of all obliges us to suppose, that the death of the Zacharias he had mentioned, was an act of cruelty committed by their fathers. This is the sense of the words in both the evangelists.

This appears to me so evident, that if there had been no event recorded in any of their ancient writings, which answered to the death of Zacharias here described; yet I should have supposed, that there was some such event that had happened some time before, and which they were then well acquainted with.

e

III. However, we have a fact recorded in the Old Testament, which exactly answers the words of our Saviour. It is in 2 Chron. xxiv. 17-22. " Now after the death of Jehoiada-they left the house of the Lord God of their fathers, -and wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem; yet he sent prophets unto them to bring them again unto the Lord, and they testified against them: but they would not give ear. And the Spirit of God came upon Zachariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandment of the Lord? And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the Lord. Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son; and when he died, he said, the Lord look upon it, and require it."

This fact is exactly parallel with that described by our Lord. (1.) This Zachariah spoke in the name of the Lord, the Spirit of God came upon him.' It was suitable to our Lord's design to instance in the death of a prophet.' "Ye say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the death of the prophets. I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes." Abel was a righteous man,' and this Zacharias a' prophet.'

(2.) The place, in which this Zacharias is said to have been killed, answers the description in the evangelists; he was slain in the court of the house of the Lord,' that is, in the court of the priests, the inner court of the temple. In both the evangelists the same place is specified,' between 'the temple and the altar.' This particular circumstance of so remarkable an event was, doubtless, handed down to them by tradition. According to the account in the ChroSee Whitby, Matt. xxiii. 36.

nicles, he was in the inner court, when he delivered bis message from God to them: He stood above the people.' The ground of the inner court was raised above the rest; he stood at the extremity of that, and spoke to the people standing in the next court below him: at the commandment of the king' they rushed in upon Zachariah: he retired, they pursued him, and stoned him with stones,' so that he fell down in the space between the altar of burnt-offerings and the temple.

6

6

(3.) Our Lord subjoins, whom ye slew.' The death of Zacharias, in the Chronicles, was the act of the nation, of king and people: this particular is added to this instance with the highest propriety. The death of Abel was the death of a righteous man,' but not committed by them: the death of Zacharias was the act of their ancestors, that is, of that people to whom our Lord was speaking; for a nation is in all ages reckoned the same people. "And he answered and said unto them, what did Moses command you?" Mark x. 3. Verily I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven," John vi. 32. "Did not Moses give you the law?" Ch. vii. 19. See 22.

66

(4.) Expressions made use of in the history of Zacharias in the Chronicles, and by our Saviour in his discourse to the Jews, put it past doubt, that he intended this fact, and alluded to this very account in that book. "Behold, I send unto you prophets and wise men and scribes." The history in the Chronicles begins thus: "Yet he sent unto them prophets to bring them again unto the Lord, and they testified against them," &c. It concludes: "And when he died, he said, The Lord look upon it, and require it." Our Saviour tells the Jews, that the blood of all the prophets would be required of that generation.'

(5.) As the fact related in the Chronicles does in all its circumstances answer that described by our Lord, so there is a suitableness in the order in which it stands in our Lord's discourse. Abel is the first righteous man' slain, and the death of Zacharias is the last act of cruelty to a' prophet' related in the Jewish sacred writings.

IV. It ought to be observed, that there is an exact harmony between the evangelists, in the account they have given of this discourse of our Saviour, though there is no reason to think, that one has copied the other. This ought to satisfy us, that no mistake has been made.

In one particular indeed there is a difference. In St. Matthew Zacharias is styled the son of Barachias, whereas in St. Luke's account it is not said who was his father.

And in this particular the person, whom our Saviour speaks of, seems not to answer to him mentioned in the Chronicles; for there he is called the son of Jehoiada.

There is therefore but one objection against supposing, that our Saviour meant the Zacharias in the Chronicles: but it is such an objection as deserves consideration.

It has been observed by divers learned men, that many persons among the Jews were called by two names, especially when their true name happened to have some of the letters of the word Jehovah in it. For this reason Barachias may have been used for Jehoiada, since likewise these two names have much the same meaning.

Other learned men suppose, that Barachias was very early inserted into St. Matthew's gospel by some transcriber. There is the more reason for this supposition, because it is wanting in St. Luke. Or else Jehoiada might have been originally in St. Matthew, but some christian transcriber, not well acquainted with the Jewish history, nor knowing who Jehoiada was, and therefore suspecting that to be a mistake, might pretend to correct it by putting Barachias in the room of Jehoiada. Zachariah, the son of Barachias, whose prophecies form one of the books of the Old Testament, was certainly better known among the christians than Zacharias the son of Jehoiada. It is not at all unlikely therefore, that our not having this name in St. Matthew, may be owing to the ignorance and rashness of some transcriber. This supposition seems to be favoured by what St. Jerom says, who informs us, that in the gospel of the Nazarenes, Zachariah is called the sons of Jehoiada.

6

Some have thought, that there is a like instance in Matt. xiii. 35, where we have these words, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables," &c. The words of this quotation are in Ps. lxxviii. 2, the title of which is Maschil of h Asaph.' St. Jerom says, that in some copies of St. Matthew it was written, That it might be fulfilled which 'was spoken by the prophet Esaias.' He thinks it was originally spoken by the prophet Asaph :' but some transcriber, not knowing Asaph to be a prophet, put Esaias in his room. Afterwards others, perceiving there were no such words as those which follow here, to be found in Esaias, left out his name; and from thenceforward in most

·

f Vid. Grot. et Whitb. in loc.

8 In evangelio quo

utuntur Nazareni, pro filio Barachiæ, filium Joiadæ reperimus scriptum. S. Hieron. Comment. Matt. xxiii. 36. h In loc.

6

copies it was written," which was spoken by the prophet, saying," &c.

I crave leave to mention an observation, that may support the former of these two suppositions, viz. that originally the son of Barachias' was wanting in St. Matthew, as well as in St. Luke. The ancient christians seem to have been very much divided in their opinion, who was the Zacharias here spoken of. Many christians in St. Jerom's time thought he was Zacharias the father of John the Baptist; borrowing this notion (as he adds) from some apocryphal books of no authority. In the copies of St. Matthew's gospel in his time, he was styled the son of Barachias, as in ours; but the Nazarene christians, being Jews by birth, and understanding the history of their own nation, had it in their gospel, Zacharias the son of Jehoiada.' This indeed. was the truth, but it seems to have been an insertion.

But this is left to the reader, to judge of as he thinks fit. It is highly probable, that one of these may be the case; either that Jehoiada not being well known, Barachias was put in his room or else, that the son of Barachias' was added.

There being so probable an account of this reading, I hope there remains no farther scruple about this text.

There is another interpretation of these words, which some have inclined to, namely, that Zacharias here mentioned is Zacharias, whose death Josephus has given us the history of, and that our Saviour spoke of him by way of prophecy. But as there can be no objection, which I am concerned with, formed against the evangelists from this sense of the words, I have taken no notice of it.

6

Besides, I think it is by no means the true sense of the place. Whitby observes very well that Christ speaks here of the prophets, whom they had slain, not of one who was to be slain a little before the destruction of Jerusalem; for then none of the people could have understood his meaning.

By the whole tenor of our Saviour's discourse, the Zacharias he speaks of is excluded from the number of those that were to be slain. If Zacharias, whom Josephus speaks of, was as good a man as he represents him, and did faithfully reprove the wickedness of the prevailing party of his nation, he might be one of those 'holy and wise men,' whom our Saviour foresaw would be slain by the Jews: but he can never be the Zacharias whom our Saviour mentioned

iComm. in Matt. xxiii. 36.

by name; for he is one of those prophets which had been slain before, and whose blood would be required of them.

CHAP, VII.

OF THEUDAS.

IT will be proper in the next place to consider the objection relating to Theudas. The apostles were brought before the council at Jerusalem, Acts v. 34-36. "And when they took counsel to slay them, Gamaliel commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; and said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves, what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed."

b

This speech of Gamaliel was made not long after our Saviour's ascension: Ludovicus Cappellus places it in the beginning of Caligula's reign; Whitby and others, three or four years sooner, in the 20th of Tiberius, A. D. 34. And Gamaliel here speaks of Theudas, as having given disturbance before Judas of Galilee, who in the days of the taxing drew away much people. This refers doubtless to the assessment made by Cyrenius after Archelaus was deposed, when Judea was reduced to a Roman province: which happened in the sixth or seventh year of the christian æra. It was at this time that Judas, whom Josephus calls Judas Gaulanites, and likewise Judas the Galilean, raised disturbances in that country.

But Josephus gives us an account of an impostor called Theudas, when Cuspius Fadus was procurator in Judea; and therefore not before the fourth year of Claudius the b Whitby, Par. on this text. Jos. Antiq. lib. xvii. cap. ult. 1. xviii. cap. 1. De B. Jud. lib. vii. cap. 8.

a

Spicileg. in Act. v. 36.

sect. 1.