mitted on the ground of expediency. None are so likely to be tempted to commit such sins as rulers and governors. None are so likely to do things unjust, dishonest, aud oppressive, as a Government under the pressure of the spurious argument that it is expedient that the few should suffer, rather than the many should take harm. For political expediency Christ was crucified. What a fact that is ! Ought we not rather to ask always what is just, what is right, what is honourable in the sight of God? That which is morally wrong can never be politically right. To govern only for the sake of pleasing and benefiting the majority, without any reference to the eternal principles of justice, right, and mercy, may be expedient, and please man; but it does not please God.
Calvin observes : " Let us learn never to separate what is use- ful and expedient from what is lawful, since we ought not to expect any prosperity and success but from the blessing of God."
Ecolampadius remarks that we must never do evil that good may come. " If you could, by the slaying of one good man, work the saving of many, it would be unlawful."
Poole observes : " Never was anything spoken more diaboli- cally. Like a wretched politician, concerned for nothing but the people's safety, Caiaphas saith not it is lawful, but it is" expedi- ent for us that one Man, be He never so good, never so innocent and just, should die."
Doddridge remarks : " When will the politicians of this world learn to trust God in His own ways, rather than to trust them- selves and their own wisdom, in violation of all rules of truth, honour, aud conscience ? "
51, 52. — [And this spake he not of himself, etc.'] These two verses contain a parenthetical comment by St. John, on the address of Caiaphas to the Pharisees. It is a peculiar passage, and not without difficulty. That a man like Caiaphas should be said to prophesy, and that his prophecy should be of so wide and exten- sive a character, is undoubtedly strange. I offer a few remarks that may help to throw light on the passage.
That God can employ a wicked man to declare prophetical truth is clearly proved by the case of Balaam. But the po- sitions of Balaam and Caiaphas were very different.
That the Jewish high priest at any time possessed, by virtue of his office, the power of predicting things to come, I can no- where find. David certainly speaks of Zadok as " a seer." (2 Sam. xv. 27.) The high priest's ephod conveyed a certain mysterious power to the wearer, of forseeing things immediate- ly near. (1 Sam. xxiii. 9.) The " urim and thummin," whatever they were, which dwelt in the breast -plate of the high priest, appear to have given the wearer peculiar powers of discern- ment. But even they were withdrawn at the destruction of the first temple. In short, there is an utter absence of proof that a