hall of judgment, and delivered to Pontius Pilate the governor: not for the purpose of having the sentence of condemnation, which the chief priests themselves had passed on him for blasphemy,' confirmed; but that they might obtain a new sentence of crucifixion against him, as a seditious enemy to Cæsar's government*, and thus procure for him a more ignominious death, than that of stoning, which was the punishment to be inflicted for blasphemyt.

Here their proceedings against JESUS were for a short time interrupted by the sudden appearance of the traitor Judas;

* Doddridge.

+ Levit. xxiv. 16.

I have introduced this act of Judas in this place, according to St. Matthew's narrative; but if, as some suppose, it was anticipated by St. Matthew, and that it did not take place, till after Pilate had delivered JESUS to be crucified, the reader may pass over it here, and return to it, after the recital of his being led away to be crucified in page 159; or he may reserve it, as Dr. Doddridge has, till he has read the whole of the important story of CHRIST'S Passion, rather than interrupt it in either place.

Let it only here be observed, says that judicious commentator, that the death of this traitor seems to have happened before that of his Master: so speedily did the Divine vengeance pursue his ag gravated crime.-Fam. Exp. sect. 189, page 572. note (a.)

N

who finding, perhaps contrary to his ex-. pectation, that the chief priests and elders had condemned his betrayed Master to death, was struck with remorse at the crime which he had committed in betraying innocent blood, and hastened to the assembly, to declare that he had done so, and to acknowledge the guilt of that foul action. I have sinned, said he, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood, offering at the same time to return the thirty pieces of silver, which had been the reward of his base treachery. Mark now with what careless indifference these persecutors of JESUS received the traitor's recantation. They said, What is that to us? See thou to that. An upright judge, desirous of administering justice impartially, would surely rejoice at such an opportunity of clearing up the innocence of an accused person. But here we behold a bench of judges deaf to such evidence, and declaring that it was nothing to them. What! Was it nothing to them, to discover the villainy of a traitor? Was it nothing to them, to declare to the world the innocence of a persecuted man? Were the indignities which he had suffered, the cruel treatment which he had already experienced in consequence of such treatment, nothing to them? Was

all this to lie on the head of Judas only? They affected to think so. See thou to that, said they to the self-convicted Judas. When he offered to betray him to them, they did not say then, What is that to us? They consented to his treachery, and now do they wish to throw all the guilt of it on him: If he be innocent, the guilt must be thine, See thou to that. We have adjudged him guilty, and as such we continue to prosecute him.— Alas! how do wicked principles defend wicked practices!

Had the chief priests attended to this declaration of the innocence of JESUS, and on that account promised to stop the prosecution, Judas perhaps would have received comfort; but when he saw that there were no hopes of that, he grew desperate, he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. Miserable man! thus to attempt an escape from the hell within him, by the commission of another crime which precludes all possibility of repentance !

Here, if time would permit, and the digression would not detain us too long from the history of the sufferings of CHRIST, we might draw a profitable comparison between the repentance of the

two disciples; of the one who denied, and of the other who betrayed him. Peter repented, believed, and was pardoned: Judas repented, despaired, and destroyed himself. From each of these examples much useful instruction might be drawn: and indeed I have at former opportunities taken occasion to discourse on both; but now we must hasten to a more interesting subject, which perhaps can be found only in the history of our Saviour's sufferings; after having first taken some notice of the farther disposal of the thirty pieces of silver, which, with all the marks of agony and distress, Judas had cast down in the temple in the presence of the chief priests and elders. It is not lawful, said they, to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. Here they make the disposal of this money, a matter of conscience, because it was the price of blood, and therefore could not lawfully be put into the treasury. Was it lawful for them then to bribe a disciple to betray an innocent Master? Was it lawful for them to take this money out of the treasury to reward an act so nefarious? And do they now scruple to return it to the place they took it from, because they considered that would in effect be offering to Gop the life of a man? Under

this hypocritical pretence, however, they afterwards took counsel, and bought with the money the potter's field to bury strangers in, who happened to die at Jerusa lem, and had no burying-place of their own; to which field they gave the name of The field of blood, by which it was from that time distinguished. By this disposal of the money, they thought to impress an opinion on the people, that they had great reverence for the temple, and also great humanity towards strangers and thus did they, as is too often the case, gloss over their own malice and hypocrisy, by a pretended publick act of religion and liberality: unwittingly accomplishing at the same time the prophecy, They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, and gave them for the potter's field.

Let us now return to the judgmenthall, where we left JESUS standing beforePilate the governor.. It being the day before the passover, the chief priests did not enter into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled by going into the house of a Gentile, and so be prevented. from eating the passover; showing hereby how scrupulous they were in little matters, although they were at that very time engaged in condemning innocent.