prefer the interpretation that refers them to the trial and execution of our Lord: for, in this view, they form an evident connexion between his behaviour under the indignities offered him, (ver. 7.) and his burial in the grave of a rich man, (ver. 9.) A learned prelate translates them thus; "He was taken off by an oppressive judgment; and his manner of life who would declare?" According to this view of the words, they particularly specify the injustice, which, under a legal form, should be exercised towards him, and the want of that, which was, in every court of justice, the privilege of prisoners, the liberty of calling witnesses to testify on his behalf. Our Lord him. self refers to that custom in his answer to the high priest; "I spake openly to the world; and in secret have I said nothing: why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said to them: behold, they know what I said." St. Paul also, when before Festus and Agrippa, complained that his adversaries withheld from him the testimony, which their knowledge of him qualified them to give: "My manner of life from my youth know all the Jews, who knew me from the begin. ning (if they would testify) that after the straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee." A further confirmation of this sense of the words arises from the manner in which they are cited by an inspired writer: St. Luke, quoting the very passage before us, says, "In his humiliation his judgment was taken away;" and "who shall declare his generation?" Now though the latter words are the same as in the text, yet the former vary considerably from it; and seem to determine this to be the true scope of the whole; namely, that the most common rights of justice should be denied to our Lord at the time of his trial. The history of our Lord is but too just a comment on this prophecy for surely there never was a person treated with such flagrant injustice as he. His enemies, unable to lay any thing to his charge, suborned false witnesses, that they might take away his life by perjury: and when these agreed not in their testimony, they laid a Bp. Lowth. Acts xxvi. 4, 5. b John xviii. 20, 21. hold of an expression used by him some years before, and put a different construction upon it from what he ever intended. They dragged him from one tribunal to another in hopes of obtaining sentence against him: and when the governor, after repeated examinations, declared that he could find no fault in him, they would not suffer him to pass such a sentence as law and equity de manded, but, in a tumultuous and threatening manner, compelled him to deliver him up into their hands, and to sanction their cruelties by his official mandate. The particular injustice, which we are more immediately called to notice, was, that they never once summoned any witnesses to speak on his behalf. If they had permitted the herald, as on other occasions, to invite all who knew the prisoner to give testimony to his character, how many thousands could have disproved the accusations of his enemies, and established his reputation on the firmest basis! What multitudes could have affirmed, that, instead of usurping the prerogatives of Cæsar, he had miraculously withdrawn himself from the people, when they had sought to invest him with royal authority; and had charged them to be as conscientious in giving to Cæsar the things that were Cæsar's, as unto God the things that were God's! And while these invalidated the charges of treason and sedition, how many myriads could have borne witness to his transcendent goodness! How might they have said, "I was blind, and he gave me sight; I was deaf, and he unstopped my ears; I was dumb, and he loosed my tongue; I was lame, and he restored my limbs; I was sick, and he healed me; I was possessed with devils, and he delivered me from their power; I was dead, and he raised me to life again." Possibly some might have been found, who had not lost all remembrance of kindness, provided they had been suffered to speak on his behalf: but, as on a former occasion, the chief priests had excommunicated the blind man for arguing in his defence, so now did they intimidate all, insomuch that none dared to open their lips in his favour. Even his own disciple, who had promised e John ix, 22, 34. the most faithiul adherence to his cause, torsook him in this extremity, and, through fear of their threatened vengeance, denied, with oaths and curses, that he even knew the man. Having prevailed by dint of clamour, the Jews led him forth to execution, that he might be "cut off out of the land of the living." But no Jewish punishment was sufficiently cruel to satiate their malice: they therefore, notwithstanding their rooted hatred of a foreign yoke, voluntarily acknowledged their subjection to the Romans, that they might be gratified with seeing him die by the most lingering, painful, and ignominious of all deaths, a death which none but slaves were ever suffered to endure. Who that had seen the universal and invincible determination of the Jewish people to destroy him, must not have concluded, that he was one whose unparalleled iniquities had excited their just abhorrence? who, on being told that there was not one found upon the face of the whole earth to speak a word on his behalf, must not have been persuaded that he suffered for his own transgressions? But though the testimony of man was not formally given at the bar of judgment, there was abun dant proof, that he suffered, not for his own sins, but for ours. There was a remarkable concurrence of circumstances to establish his innocence, not only in spite of their efforts to prove him guilty, but in a great measure, arising from them. The endeavours of the chief priests to bring false witnesses, clearly shewed that they had no just ground of accusation against him. Had any person been able to impute evil to him, it is most probable that Judas would have brought it forth in vindication of his own conduct: but he, so far from justifying his own treachery, restored to the chief priests the wages of iniquity, affirming that he had betrayed innocent blood: and they, unable to contradict him, tacitly acknowledged the truth of his assertion, bidding him look to that as his concern. Pilate not only declared repeatedly that he could find no fault in him, but that neither was Herod able to lay any thing to his charge. He even came forth before them all, and washed his hands, in token that the guilt of condemning that just person should lie on those who had demanded his execution, and not on him who had reluctantly consented to it. The thief upon the cross reproving his contemptuous companion, attested the innocence of Jesus, saying, "We indeed suffer justly; but this man hath done nothing amiss." If he be thought an incompetent witness, because he spake not from his own knowledge; we affirm that his testimony was so much the stronger, because it was founded on common report, and therefore was not the testimony of a mere individual, but of the Jews in general. To these we may add the testimony of the Centurion, who had been stationed to superintend the execution. He had seen the dying behaviour of this persecuted man; he had seen that, immediately before his death, he had cried with a loud voice, manifesting thereby that he willingly surrendered up his soul, while his body was yet strong and vigorous: he had been witness to that supernatural darkness during the three last hours of our Saviour's life; he had felt the earthquake at th moment of his departure from the body; and by these, as well as other circumstances, he was convinced of Jesus' innocence, and exclaimed in the hearing of the people, "Truly this was a just man, this was the Son of God." Thus evident was it in the midst of all the obloquy that was cast on Jesus, that he was not stricken for any transgressions of his own. & Our iniquities were the true occasion of all the calamities that he endured. How far he may be said to have suffered for the transgressions of those who shall never be numbered amongst " God's people," is a point not easy to determine, nor at all necessary to enquire into. In some sense at least, he died for all, and was a propitiation, not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world:" and if it be asked, who brought him from heaven? who betrayed, condemned and crucified him? we answer, wE: the Jews and Romans were the instruments; but "our transgressions" were the true and only cause of all his sufferings. Nor can the importance of this truth be more strongly marked than by the frequent repetition of it in this short chapter. Indeed, if this be ' not borne in mind, we may be affected with the recital of his history, as we should be with the history of Joseph, or VOL. II. 3 A any other pathetic story; but we shall be for ever destitute of those benefits, which his vicarious sufferings were intended to impart. Having explained the words before us, we shall endeavour II. To improve them. We may well learn from them, in the first place, to guard against the effects of popular prejudice and clamour. Never was the power of prejudice so awfully manifest as on this occasion. The chief priests and rulers had only to raise an outcry against Jesus, and the unthinking populace adopted their views, and carried into effect their most inhuman purposes. It was quite sufficient to stigmatize Jesus with some opprobrious name, and all his virtues were obscured, all his benevolent actions were forgotten; and the common forms of Justice were superseded for his readier condemnation. Thus it is also at this day with respect to his gospel. We profess indeed, as Christians, to reverence the name of Christ; but there is precisely the same hatred to his gospel in the hearts of carnal men, as there was to his person in the hearts of those who nailed him to the cross. His followers are now no less than in former ages, "" a sect every where spoken against." Some name of reproach is given them; and that is suficient to put every one on his guard against them, and to render them objects of general scorn and contempt. Their sentiments are misrepresented; opinions and practices are imputed to them without any just foundation; nor can any innocence of conduct, any excellence of character, any exertions of benevolence secure them a candid and impartial judg ment. We easily see what should have been the conduct of the Jews before they proceeded to inflict such miseries on our adorable Saviour: they should have compared his character with the prophetic writings; and examined the evidences he adduced in support of his pretensions. Had they done this, they would never have "crucified the Lord of glory." Thus should we also do with respect to his gospel. Instead of condemning it unheard, we should give it an attentive and patient hearing. We |