events, and clung to it with a tenacity which nothing co uld loosen.

Tidings of what these many months had occurred by the banks of the Jordan must have

early reached Jerusalem, and ultimately stirred to the depths its religious society,

whatever its preoccupation with ritual questions or political matters. For it was not an

ordinary movement, nor in connection with any of the existing parties, religious or

political. An extraordinary preacher, of extraordinary appearance and habits, not aiming,

like others, after renewed zeal in legal observances, or increased Levitical purity, but

preaching repentance and moral renovation in preparation for the coming Kingdom, and

sealing this novel doctrine with an equally novel rite, had drawn from town and country

multitudes of all classes - inquirers, penitents and novices. The great and burning

question seemed, what the real character and meaning of it was? or rather, whence did it

issue, and whither did it tend? The religious leaders of the people proposed to answer this

by instituting an inquiry through a trust-worthy deputation. In the account of this by St.

John certain points seem clearly implied;2 on others only suggestions can be ventured.

That the interview referred to occurred after the Baptism of Jesus, appears from the

whole context.3 Similarly, the statement that the deputation which came to John was 'sent

from Jerusalem' by 'the Jews,' implies that it proceeded from authority, even if it did not

bear more than a semi-official character. For, although the expression 'Jews' in the fourth

Gospel generally conveys the idea of contrast to the disciples of Christ (for ex. St. John

vii. 15), yet it refers to the people in their corporate capacity, that is, as represented by

their constituted religious authorities.4 On the other hand, although the term 'scribes and

elders' does not occur in the Gospel of St. John,  5 it by no means follows that 'the Priests

and Levites' sent from the capital either represented the two great divisions of the

Sanhedrin, or, indeed, that the deputation issued from the Great Sanhedrin itself. The

former suggestion is entirely ungrounded; the latter at least problematic. It seems a

legitimate inference that, considering their own tendencies, and the political dangers

connected with such a step, the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem would not have come to the

formal resolution of sending a regular deputation on such an inquiry. Moreover, a

measure like this would have been entirely outside their recognised mode of procedure.

The Sanhedrin did not, and could not, originate charges. It only investigated those

brought before it. It is quite true that judgment upon false prophets and religious seducers

lay with it;6 but the Baptist had not as yet said or done anything to lay him open to such

an accusation. He had in no way infringed the Law by word or deed, nor had he even

claimed to be a prophet.7 If, nevertheless, it seems most probable that 'the Priests and

Levites' came from the Sanhedrin, we are led to the conclusion that theirs was an

informal mission, rather privately arranged than publicly deter mined upon.