Now, inasmuch as the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles were penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, why should not the documentary evidence of the Gospel, thus drawn up by them, be treated with at least as much respect as other written documents? If they were inspired to write down those great truths for a perpetual memorial to after ages, then this record is the primary evidence of those truths. It is the word of God, penned by his own dictation, and sealed, as it were, with his own seal. If it were a man's word and will, thus solemnly written, no verbal or secondary evidence could be admitted, by the common law, to explain, add to, or vary it; nothing could be engrafted upon it; nor could any person be admitted to testify what he heard the party say, in regard to what was written. The courts would at once reject all such attempts, and confine themselves strictly to the writing before them, the only inquiry being as to the meaning of the language contained in that document, and not as to what the party may elsewhere have spoken. The law presumes that the writing alone is the source to which he intended that resort should be had, in order to ascertain his meaning. But by calling in the fathers, with their traditions, to prove what Christ and his Apostles taught, beyond what is solemnly recorded in the Scriptures, the principle of this plain and sound rule of law is violated; resort is had to secondary evidence of the truths of our religion, when the primary evidence is already at hand; and the pure fountain is deserted for the muddy stream.
The phrase three days and three nights is equivalent to three days, three natural days of twenty-four hours. Gen. i. 5; Dan. viii. 14. Comp. Gen. vii. 4. 17.
(It is a received rule among the Jews, that a part of a day is put for the whole; so that whatsoever is done in any part of the day, is properly said to be done that day. 1 Kings xx. 29; Esth. iv. 16. “When eight days were accomplished for the circumcision of the child,” &c. Yet the day of his birth and of his circumcision were two of these eight days. Whitby, quoted by Scott, on Matth. xii. 40.) Grotius establishes this way of reckoning the parts of the first and third days for two days, by Aben Ezra on Lev. xii. 3.
(In proof that the phrase “after three days,” is sometimes equivalent to “on the third day,” compare Deut. xiv. 28 with xxvi. 12; 1 Sam. xx. 12 with v. 19; 2 Chron. x. 5 with v. 12; Matth. xxvi. 2 with xxvii. 63, 64; Luke ii. 21 with i. 59.)
St. Luke omits our Lord's sharp reproof of Peter, and the occasion of it; though he records the discourse in consequence of it. Le Clerc's 12th canon is “Qui pauciora habet, non negat plura dicta aut facta; modo ne ulla sit exclusionis nota.” Perhaps the disciple and companion of that apostle who had withstood Peter to his face, Gal. ii. 11, willingly made this omission, as he omits some aggravating circumstances in Peter's denial of Christ, Luke xxii. 60, though he carefully records the greatness of his sorrow, v. 62. Newcome.
It has been shown, § 74, that “after six days” may signify on the sixth day. But we are not hence to conclude that the phrase has always such a signification. Here it means six days complete, after the discourse recorded in § 74. The eight days mentioned by St. Luke include that of Peter's reproof and of the transfiguration; which two days Matthew and Mark exclude. Macknight furnishes us with the following apposite reference to Tacitus: Hist. i. 29. Piso says, Sextus dies agitur—ex quo—Cæsar adscitus sum; and yet, § 48 of the same book, Tacitus speaks of Piso as quatriduo Cæsar.
Grotius on Matth. xvii. 1, has another solution; Quod Lucas dicit, tale est quale cum vulgò dicimus post septimanam circiter. Nam Judæos octo dies appellasse id quod ab uno sabbato est ad alterum apparet, Joan. 20, 26, &c. Newcome.
According to St. Mark, Jesus comes to Jericho; by which may be meant that he is a temporary inhabitant of that city. See Mark vi. 1, and viii. 22. Jesus therefore may be represented, (Matt. xx. 29; Mark x. 46,) not as finally leaving Jericho for Jerusalem, but as occasionally going out of Jericho; in which city he had made some abode, it matters not for how few days. See Mark xi. 19. Jericho was a very considerable city; and we do not read that it was visited by our Lord at any other time. We may therefore suppose that Jesus, accompanied by his disciples and the multitude, and intent on his great work of propagating the gospel, went out of this city, knowing that a fit occasion of working a miracle would present itself; and that on his return, as he drew nigh unto Jericho, (Luke xviii. 35,) he restored the blind men to sight. It is likewise probable that Jesus, having given this proof of his divine mission, or foreseeing that so great a miracle would create too much attention in the people, prudently and humbly passed through Jericho on his return to it, (Luke xix. 1,) and continued his journey to Jerusalem.
As to the remaining difficulty, that Matthew mentions two blind men, and the other Evangelists only one, I must refer to Le Clerc's maxim, before quoted; (see § 57, note): adding that Bartimeus may have been the more remarkable of the two, and the more eminent for his faith in Jesus. Newcome.
In the East, where the fashions of dress rarely if ever change, much of their riches consists in the number and splendour of their robes, or caffetans. Presents of garments are frequently alluded to in Scripture. Gen. xlv. 22. 2 Chron. ix. 24. Judges xiv. 12. 2 Kings v. 5. Ezra ii. 69. Neh. vii. 70, where “the Tirshatha gave five hundred and thirty priests' garments.”