they might do good offices at any time; but that if their love was not testified to him at that juncture, they would have no opportunity to shew it afterwards, because he was to die within two days, for which reason, the woman had come very seasonably to anoint him in order to his burial. Matt. xxvi. 10. When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. 11. For ye have the poor always with you, (Mark, and whensoever ye will, ye may do them good) but me ye have not always, (Mark, she hath done what she could; she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.) 12. For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial: Пgos so erTiesas μs, corpus meum ad funus componere; ornamentis sepulchralibus ornare, as Casaubon explains it. This vindication of the woman suggests the reason why Jesus permitted so expensive a compli ment to be paid to him twice in the space of one week. Being desirous to impress his disciples with the thought of his death, he embraced every opportunity of inculcating it, whether by word or deed. Farther, to make them sensible of their folly in blaming the woman for this expression of her love to him, he assured them, that however much she might be condemned by them, she should be highly celebrated for this action through the world, and live in the memory of all ages; it being the peculiar right of eminent virtue, that it draws the admiration of men in the most distant countries and times. 13. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this that this woman hath done, be told (Mark be spoken of) for a memorial of her. Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, having been more forward than the rest, in condemning the woman, thought himself peculiarly affronted by the rebuke which Jesus now gave to all his apostles. Rising up therefore he went straightway into the city, to the high-priest's palace, where he found the whole council seasonably assembled; and being in a passion, he promised, for the reward of thirty silver shekels, to put his Master into their hands. Luke xxii. 3. Then entered Satan into Judas sirnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. 4. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests, and captains, how he might betray *Luke iv. And captains.] The captains with whom Judas communed, are here and elsewhere called the captains of the temple, Luke xxii. 52. and are joined with the priests as their companions: a circumstance which proves that they were Jews and not heathens. See Acts iv. 1. From David's time, the priests and Levites kept watch, first in the tabernacle, and then in the temple, night and day, as appears from 2 Chron. viii. 14. The guards of priests were stationed at three places, but those of the Levites at one-and-twenty. The Levites, while they performed this office according to their courses under the first temple, were called forters, 2 Chron betray him unto them, Matt. xxvi. 15. And said unto them, What quill ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? The result of their communing is not mentioned, only by the sequel it appears, that Judas informed the priests of the place where his Master used to spend the nights, and undertook to conduct a band of armed men thither, who in the absence of the multitude might easily take him. And because none of them were so well acquainted with Jesus, as to be able to distinguish him from his disciples in the darkness of the night, he agreed to point him out to them by kissing him. Luke xxii. 5. And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money (Matt. they covenanted with him for * thirty pieces of silver.) 6. And he promised, and (Matt. from that time he) sought opportunity (Mark, conveniently) to betray him unto them, (nagadurai autor autois, to deliver him up to them: thus the words xaya viv magadwow auñov, are translated, Matt. xxvi, 15. and I will deliver him unto you) in the absence of the multitude t viii. 14. and each of the watches had a chief or captain, sgalayos, and over them all was one, called by way of eminence agxayos, the chief leader, or captain. That these names of military men should have been given to the priest and Levites, who were no soldiers, neither had soldiers under them, will not seem strange, when it is remembered that the attendance of the Levites is called the warfare of the service, Num. viii. 24, 25. and that they performed all the offices of soldiers in garrisons; they kept guard at the gates of the temple, preserved the peace within its precincts, and brought such as were disorderly before the high-priest and council. But, besides the Levite porters, there was another guard belonging to the temple, namely, the Rornan garrison in the tower or castle Antonia, which was built hard by the temple. Of this cast e and garrison there is mention made, Acts xxi. 31, 32, 34. Matthew calls a detachment from it, appointed to guard our Lord's sepulchre, zasadia, which was the proper Latin name of such a body of Roman soldiers. But it was not with the captains of the garrison Antonia, that Judas bargained to deliver up his Master, neither were they the persons Jesus spake to when he addressed them who came to apprehend him, Luke xxii. 52. In both passages these captains are called sealny, whereas the captains of the garrison are termed by Josephus ergagxes, and by Luke, Acts xxi. and xxii. xgx08. Besides, no heathens were ever admitted into the supreme ecclesiastical court of the Jews. Not to mention that the latter shunned the company of the former as much as possible. It is plain therefore that the persons with whom Judas communed, and who are here called the captains and captains of the temple, were the priests who commanded the temple guard, and who were at the devotion of the high-priest and council, to execute whatever orders they thought fit to give them. Thirty pieces of silver] Teixeila agfugia. The agfugler is commonly supposed to have been the Jewish skekel, which, properly speaking, was the denomination of a weight equal to twenty gerahs, (Exod. xxx. 13.) each weighing sixteen barley-corns. The shekel therefore was equal to the weight of three hundred and twenty barley-corns, or half a Roman sunce, consequently in silver was equivalent to two shillings, threepence, one farthing and a half, Sterling. †The treachery of Judas Iscariot, in betraying his Master, must raise the the astonishment of every reader who has any just notion of our Lord's character. Wherefore, the motives swaying him to be guilty of such an atrocious crime, and the circumstances which attended it, deserve a particular consideration. Be Some are of opinion that he was pushed to commit this villany, by his resentment of the rebuke which Jesus gave him, for blaming the woman who came with the precious ointment. But though this may have had its weight with him, I think it could not be the only motive; because the rebuke was not levelled against him singly, but was directed also to the rest, who had been equally forward with him in censuring the woman, and who being rebuked at the same time, must have kept him in countenance. sides, though he had been rebuked alone, it can hardly be supposed that so mild a reproof would provoke any person, how wicked soever, to the horrid act of murdering his friend; much less Judas, whose covetousness must have disposed him to bear every thing at the hand of his Master, from whom he expected great preferment. If it is replied, that his resentment was so great as to hinder him from exercising his reason, and hurried him on precipitantly, it should be considered, that though he struck the bargain with the priests a few hours after he was rebuked, almost two days passed before he fulfilled his bargain. Besides, to impute his treachery to the sudden impulses of a strong resentment, is such an alleviation of his crime as seems inconsistent with the character given of it in scripture, where it is always represented in the blackest colours, and said to merit the hea viest punishment. Others think that Judas betrayed his Master out of covetousness. But neither can this be admitted, if by covetousness is understood an eager desire of the reward given him by the priests. For the whole sum was not in value above three pounds, ten shillings, Sterling, a trifle which the most covetous wretch cannot be supposed to have taken as an equivalent for the life of a friend, from whom he had the greatest expectations of gain. The reader will see the strength of this reason, when he calls to mind that all the disciples believed the kingdom was instantly to be erected, and that, according to the notion which they entertained of it, each of them, but especially the apostles, had the prospect of being raised in a little time to immense riches. Besides, the scripture tells us, that Judas' predominant passion was covetousness. He would not therefore be so incon sistent with himself, as, when just on the point of reaping such a reward of his service, to throw all away for the trifling sum above mentioned. Others attribute Judas' perfidy to his doubting whether his Master was the Messiah, and suppose that he betrayed him in a fit of despair. But of all the solutions, this is the worst founded. For if Judas thought his Master was an impostor, he must have observed something in his behaviour, which led him to form such an opinion of him, and in that case he cer tainly would have mentioned it to the chief priests and elders, at the time he made the bargain with them, which it is plain he did not, otherwise they would have put him in mind of it, when he came to them, and declared his remorse for what he had done. Doubtless also they would have urged it against our Lord himself in the course of his trials, when they were at such a loss for witnesses to prove their accusations; and against the apostles afterwards, when they reproved them for preaching in Christ's name, Acts iv. 15. v. 27. Farther, had Judas thought his Master an impostor, and proposed nothing by his treachery but the price he put upon his life, how came he to sell him for such a trifle, when he well knew that the priests would have given him any sum, rather than not have gotten him into their hands? To conclude, the supposition of Judas' believing that his Master was an impostor, is directly confuted by the solemn declaration declaration which he made to the priests, implying the deepest conviction of Christ's innocence: "I have sinned (said he) in betraying the innocent blood." It is also confuted by the remorse which he felt for his crime when Jesus was condemned; a remorse so bitter, that he was not able to bear it, but fled to a halter for relief. Since Judas' treachery proceeded from none of the motives mentioned, it may be asked what other motive can be assigned for his conduct? The evangelist John tells us, that he was so covetous as to steal money out of our Lord's bag. This account of him gives us reason to believe, that he first followed Jesus with a view to the riches and other temporal advantages which he expected the Messiah's friends would enjoy. Likewise it authorizes us to think, that as he had hitherto reaped none of those advantages, he might grow impatient under the delay; and the more so, that Jesus had of late discouraged all ambitious views among his disciples, and neglected to embrace the opportunity of erecting his kingdom, that was offered by the multitude, who accompanied him into Jerusalem with hosannas. His impatience therefore becoming excessive, put him upon the scheme of delivering his Master into the hands of the council, thinking it the most proper method of obliging him to assume the dignity of Messiah, and consequently of enabling him to reward his followers. For as this court was composed of the chief priests, elders, and scribes, that is, the principal persons belonging to the sacerdotal order, the representatives of the great families, and the doctors of the law, Judas did not doubt but that Jesus, when before such an assembly, would prove his pretensions to their full conviction, gain them over to his interests, and enter forthwith on his regal dignity. And though he could not but be sensible that the measure which he took to bring this about, was very offensive to his Master, he might think that the success of it would procure his pardon, and even recommend him to favour. In the mean time, his project, however plausi ble it might appear to one of his turn, was far from being free from difficulty. And therefore while he revolved it in his own mind, many things might occur to stagger his resolution. At length something happened which urged him on. Thinking himself affronted by the rebuke which Jesus had given him in the matter of the last anointing, and that rebuke sitting the heavier on him, as he had procured a former mark of his Mas ter's displeasure by an imprudence of the same kind, he was provoked. And though his resentment was not such as could inspire him with the horrid design of murdering his Master, it impelled him to execute the re solution he had formed of making him alter his measures. Rising up therefore from table, he went straightway into the city to the high-priest's palace, where he found the chief priests and elders assembled, consulting how they might take Jesus by subtilty. See 110. To them he made known his intention, and undertook, for a small sum of money, to conduct a band of armed men to the place where Jesus usually spent the nights, and where they might apprehend him without the danger of a tu. mult. Thus the devil laying hold on the various passions which now agitated the traitor's breast, tempted him by them all. See on John xiii. 26. § 128. That these were the views with which Judas acted in betraying his Master, may be gathered, 1. From the nature of the bargain which he struck with the priests. "What will ye give me (said he) and I will deliver him unto you?" He did not mean that he would deliver him up to be put to death. For though the priests had consulted among themselves how they might kill Jesus, none of them had been so barefaced as to declare their intention publicly. They only proposed to bring him to a trial for having assumed the character of the Messiah, and to treat him as it should appear he deserved. The offer therefore which Judas made to them of delivering him up, was in conformity to their public resolution. Nor did they understand it in any other light. For had the priests thougho that his design in this was to get Jesus punished with death, they must likewise have thought that he believed him to be an impostor; in which ease. they certainly would have produced him as one of their principal evidences, no person being more fit to bear witness against any criminal than his companion. Or though Judas had repented before the trial came on, and had withdrawn himself, the priests might have argued with great plausibility, both in their own court, and before the governor, that for a man's disciple to require the judges to bring him to condign punishment, branded him with such a suspicion of guilt, as was almost equal to a full proof. Likewise when Judas returned to them with the money, declaring that he had sinued in betraying the innocent blood, instead of replying, "What is that to us? see thou to that," it was the most natural thing in the world to have uporaided him with the stain he had put upon his Mis ter's character, by the bargain he had entered into with them. It is true they called the money they gave him "the price of blood," Matt. xxvij 6. But they did not mean this in the strictest sense, as they neither had hired Judas to assassinate his Master, nor can be supposed to have charged themselves with the guilt of murdering him. It was only the price of blood consequentially, being the reward they had given to the traitor, for putting it in their power to take away Christ's life, under the colour and form of public justice. Nay, it may be even doubted whether Judas asked the money as a reward of his service. He covetously indeed kept it, and the priests for that reason called it the price of blood. But he demanded it perhaps on pretence of gratifying and encouraging the people that were to assist him in apprehending Jesus. To conclude, Judas knew that the rulers could not take away the life of any person whatsoever, the Romans having deprived them of that power, (John xviii. 3.) and there fore could have no design of this kind in delivering him up; not to meation that it was a common opinion among the Jews, that Messiah would never die, (John xii. 34.) an opinion which Judas might easily embrace, having seen his Master raise several persons from the dead, and among the rest one who had been in the grave no less than four days. 2. That the traitor's intention in betraying his Master was what I have said, is probable from his hanging himself, when he found him condemned, not by the governor, but by the council, whose prerogative it was to judge prophets. Had Judas proposed to take away his Master's life, the sentence of condemnation passed upon him, instead of filling him with de spair, must have gratified him, being the accomplishment of his project; whereas the light wherein I have endeavoured to place his conduct, shews this circumstance to have been perfectly natural. Judas having been witness to the greatest part of our Lord's miracles, and having experienced the certain truth of them, in the powers that had been conferred upon himself, could never think that the council would have condemned him as a false Christ, far less as a blasphemer. He knew him to be perfectly innocent, and expected that he would have wrought such miracles before the council, as should have constrained them to believe. Therefore, when he found that nothing of this kind was done, and that the priests had passed the sentence of condemnation upon him, and were carrying him to the governor to get it executed, he repented of his rash and covetous project, came to the chief priests and elders, the persons to whom he had betrayed: him, offered them their money again, and solemnly declared the deepest conviction of his Master's innocence, hoping that they would have desist ed from the prosecution. But they were obstinate, and would not relent, upon which, his remorse arose to such a pitch, that, unable to support the torments of his conscience, he went and hanged himself. Thus, I think it probable, that the traitor's intention in delivering up his Master, was to lay him under a necessity of proving his pretensions before the grandees, whom |