cumstances of time and place, and by the well-known principle of our Saviour's usage, but by the exception of the Pharisees against the declaration itself for that exception implies that there was something in the declaration, more solemn and more emphatic than usual.

The series of conversations now begun consequently proceeds from the hour of pw; and down to viii. 59, the time of our Lord's departure from the temple, produced by the attempt to stone him, it is so connected by its proper notes of sequence and coherency, that it must have proceeded consecutively. I can discover no point in the whole detail, where it is possible to imagine a pause, except perhaps at viii. 20; because the subject of discourse, though afterwards continuing the same or passing gradually from one associated topic to another, is yet there perceptibly changed from what it was before. But though such a pause did take place there, there is no reason to suppose that it was a pause of any long continuance, or that the sequel of the discourse to viii. 59 did not take place consecutively, and on the same spot with viii. 12–19.

This appears first, from viii. 40, vûv dè 【nteité μe άπоктeivαι, which implies a reference to viii. 20, where such a purpose is plainly recognised; and secondly, from viii. 59, ἐκρύβη, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν. μéσov avт@v. He first became invisible, then passed through the midst of them, and so went out of the temple. For he was previously surrounded by the people in the treasury; and the treasury lay in the women's court: and the women's court was the second of the courts of the temple. The woman taken in adultery must have been brought to him there; for, as we may presume, she could be brought to him in

t Ch. viii. 13.

none but her own court. Our Lord therefore had continued in one place since viii. 2, to the time of viii. 59. The period of this final departure, it may consequently be justly supposed, would not be much later than the beginning of morning service; that is, it would be about the second or third hour of the day. It followed immediately on viii. 58, when the Jews first took up stones; and it was produced by the necessity of an hasty

retreat.

Now the narrative goes on to say, He went out of the temple, and so passed upon his way; and as he was passing, he saw a man, blind from his birth": the natural inference from which words is that the observation of this blind man, and the miracle which ensued upon it, both followed directly upon the departure from the temple; and therefore both happened the same day. It is highly inconsistent to suppose that the Evangelist means Jesus went out of the temple, and so passed on one day, and observed and healed the blind man on another; not that he did both the same day, and as he was passing on the same occasion. Now Acts iii. 2. supplies an example to prove that such, as from bodily infirmities of any kind were obliged to depend upon charity, resorted to the gates or the avenues of the temple; and resorted thither at the times of prayer in particular. This man was evidently an object of the former description ', and known for such, who was accustomed to resort and to sit somewhere begging: and the time when Jesus left the temple was, as we have supposed, about the middle of morning prayer. It is highly probable, then, that the blind man had been brought that very morning to some one of the approaches to the temple, since our Lord first

went in; and was accordingly discovered there by him, upon his again coming out.

This discovery was followed by his cure; and that cure was wrought upon a sabbath day w. But there is no reason to suppose that this means the ordinary sabbath the absence of the article would rather imply it was a sabbath, but not the sabbath. The 22d of Tisri would always be a sabbath, on whatever day of the week it might fall: but it could not be the sabbath unless it fell on the seventh; and though this might sometimes happen, yet it was not the case in the present instance. For U. C. 782, A. D. 29, when Nisan 15 fell upon April 17, and April 17 on Tuesday, Tisri 15 fell on October 11, and October 11, according to the Tables, on Tuesday; but according to my own mode of reckoning the days of the week, on Thursday. Upon this principle the tenth of Tisri would answer to October 6, and October 6 to Saturday; the nineteenth would answer to October 15, and October 15 to Monday; the twenty-second would answer to October 18, and October 18 to Thursday. We began the detail of the course of events, as we assumed, with Tisri 19; and we have conducted it down, as we assume also, to Tisri 22, that is, from Monday October 15, to Thursday October 18, in the last year of our Saviour's ministry. And that the 15th or 22nd of Tisri this year did actually fall on the Thursday is proved by the fact that the 15th of Nisan in the next year (which was the year of our Saviour's passion) actually fell on the Saturday. The next year was not intercalated; therefore from the 15th of Tisri exclusive to the 15th of Nisan inclusive the number of days was 177: or 25 weeks, and two days over. Hence if the 15th of Tisri had fallen on Thursday, the 15th of Nisan would fall

w Ch. ix. 14.

on Saturday: and vice versa, if the 15th of Nisan fell on Saturday, the 15th of Tisri must have fallen on Thursday. Now the 15th of Nisan did fall on Saturday: therefore the 15th of Tisri must have fallen on Thursday*.

Meanwhile it is no difficulty, even on the supposition of a sabbath, that the woman, taken in adultery, was brought to our Lord the same morning; nor that the Jews had attempted to stone him. The object in bringing the woman was insidious; and might be twofold, according to the event. If our Saviour had condemned the woman, he might be said both to have usurped a civil jurisdiction, and to have sanctioned a breach of the sabbath; and if he had refused to condemn her, he might be said to have countenanced the crime of adultery. And as to the attempt at stoning; it was the effect of a zeal, as they conceived, for God, and intended to resent the crime of blasphemy: a crime, which the Law required to be punished at any time, and in any place, on the spot: Tepi μèv yàp γονέων ἀδικίας, ἢ τῆς εἰς τὸν Θεὸν ἀσεβείας, κἂν μέλλῃ τις, εὐθέως ἀπόλλυται .

With respect to the sequel of the chapter, and especially from ix. 13, and forward, the scrutiny produced by the miracle, as arising out of the notice attracted by that event, it is reasonable to conclude, would follow not long after it; and consequently in the course of the same day. The miracle was performed so early in the morning, that there was abundance of time for that purpose: nor does it constitute any difficulty, that the miracle was wrought on a sabbath. If it

*The 15th of Nisan, U.C. 783. A. D. 30, coincided with April 6 and from October 11 exclusive to April 6 inclusive the interval is 177. Hence if October x Lev. xxiv. 15, 16. VOL. II.

11 was Thursday, April 6 would be Saturday; and if April 6 was Saturday, October 11 must have been Thursday.

y Jos. Contra Apionem, ii. 30. k k

was wrought so early on the sabbath, and yet was not inquired into in the course of the same day, either it attracted no notice as soon as it was performed; (which would be palpably at variance with the fact ;) or though it might attract notice on the sabbath, nobody thought of inquiring into it on that day. But such an inquiry could have been no breach of the sabbath; for it was not a formal act, instituted by order of the sanhedrim, nor directed to any judicial or legal purpose, but the natural result of circumstances, and intended merely to ascertain the truth of the miracle. The man was conducted by those, who had known him before, to the Jewish authorities of their own accord. A question concerning the breach of the sabbath did certainly arise out of it; but this would be rather an argument that the investigation took place on the sabbath of the 22d of Tisri; a day of holy convocation; at which time, the sanhedrim would necessarily be assembled together, as the account, at ix. 13 and 24, evidently supposes them to be, in their usual place in the temple. From the temple also the ejection alluded to, ix. 34, 35, amounting to a formal act of excommunication, may most naturally be supposed intended.

To the time of this excommunication, every thing from ix. 13, the beginning of the account, was manifestly regular and uninterrupted: the sequel of the transaction from ix. 35 to the end, which describes our Lord's interview with the man, who had never yet seen him in person, may consequently be justly considered to have happened on the same day; especially as Jesus, when he heard of the man's ejection, seems purposely and of his own accord to have found him out. This honour he might shew him because he knew the sincerity and firmness of his faith, and what declaration of it he would make, on being openly called