This boldness, added to the solemnity of His words, exerted a still greater influence on the multitudes. Some declared He must be _the Prophet_ (Jn. vii. 40); others that He was the Messiah (Jn. vii. 41); others would have thought so too had He not risen out of Galilee instead of Bethlehem of Judæa, as Prophecy had indicated (Jn. vii. 42; Mic. v. 2), while a fourth, but clearly a smaller party, wished to apprehend Him, but dared not from fear of the people. Accordingly the Sanhedrin met a second time, and the officers they had deputed to effect His apprehension appeared before them (Jn. vii. 45), and in reply to the enquiry why they had not brought Him, declared it was impossible――_never man spake like Him_――and they felt powerless to carry out their instructions. Such an avowal was received with undisguised contempt (Jn. vii. 47, 48), but the Sanhedrin found that the influence of the mysterious Teacher had penetrated within their own council. While they were, apparently, proceeding to discuss some plan for His condemnation, Nicodemus interposed with the enquiry whether the Law did not demand an open examination of a man’s claims before they pronounced judgment? This candid and generous suggestion drew down upon the speaker the uttermost derision. He was asked whether he too was from Galilee, and bidden to search and see whether any prophet had risen out of that despised and half-heathen region[377]? (Jn. vii. 52). On the following day the Pharisees, finding open hostility ineffectual, made a crafty and insidious effort to undermine the growing popularity of the Saviour[378]. When He returned from the Mount of Olives (Jn. viii. 1), and reappeared in the Temple surrounded by the multitude, they brought to Him a woman who had been taken in the act of adultery, and placing her in the midst requested His decision respecting her. The Law of Moses certainly denounced death as the penalty of her crime (Lev. xx. 10), but, owing to the corrupt morals of the times, such a sin seldom incurred any other penalty than divorce. If, then, He decided _for_ the punishment of death, He would, they expected, lose ground with the people by rigidly adhering to an enactment which they themselves were wont to mitigate[379]; if, on the other hand, He pronounced her acquittal, they could denounce Him as One who set at nought the Law of Moses, and lowered its time-honoured authority (Jn. viii. 6).