dangers, proved an arrant coward upon trial. His cowardice was altogether inexcuseable, as the enemy who had attacked him was one of the weaker sex; and though she seemed to say, that she knew he had wounded Malchus, yet as Jesus had healed him, and the mid insinuated that John too was known to be Christ's disciple, Peter ought to have behaved with more resolution. Art thou not also one of this man's disciples? Art thou not one of them as well as he who stands there beside thee? The truth is, equivocation, mental reservation, and such like base arts, are below the dignity and courage of reasonable creatures; but downright Iving, such as Peter was guilty of on this occasion, is abominable, and can only be accounted for by the panic which had seized him. John xviii. 18. And the servants and officers (ò dura

vanila) stood there, who had made a fire (for it was cold) and they warmed themselves, and Peter stood with them and warmed himself. After Peter had thus denied his Master, he stood a little while at the fire.

And now fearing that his inward perturbation did appear in his countenance, he went out into the porch; but he could as little be concealed there. Mark xiv. 68. And he went out into the porch; (see Antiquities, Disc. iv. p. 134.) and the cock crew; namely, for the first time. 69.* And a maid (Matt. ansther maid) saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. Matt. xxvi. 72. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man; adding perjury to lying. The maid having left Peter, he was accosted by a man who affirmed that he was one of Jesus's disciples; but he denied as before. Luke xxii. 58. And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I

am not.

After Peter had been thus attacked without doors, he thought proper to return and mix with the crowd at the fire. John xviii. 25. And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. From this

circumstance it is plain, that John is now about to speak of the third denial; and that Peter growing cold had left the porch, where Matthew and Mark tells us the second denial happened, and was come again into the hall to warm himself at the fire. This is confirmed likewise by Luke, verses 61, 62. and by Matthew, in the end of verse 75. John xviii. 25. And they said therefore unto him, Art thou not also one of his disciples? He de

nied

Mark (9. A meid saw him, &c.] Matthew and Mark say it was a woman that attacked Peter in the porch, Luke says it was a man. And Grotius, to reconcile the evangelists, has shewed that the Greek word avaros, signifies both man and woman, as homo does in the Latin. But without having recourse to this criticism, it is natural and easy to suppose, that the apostle was accosted in the porch both by a woman and a man, the former mentioned by Matthew and Mark, and the latter by Luke.

nied it, and said, 1 am not. 26. One of the servants of the highpriest (being his kinsman whose ear Peter had cut off) saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? 27. Peter then denied again, and immediately the cock crew. The words of Malchus' kinsman bringing to Peter's remembrance what he had done to that slave, threw him into such a panic, that when those who stood by repeated the charge, he impudently denied it. Mark xiv. 70.” And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto, (Matt. bewrayeth thee). Luke xxii. 59. And about the space of an hour after, another confidently affirmed, saying, of a truth this fellow also was one of them, for he is a Galilean. When the servants at the fire heard Peter deny the charge which John has mentioned, they drew near, and supported it by an argument drawn from the accent with which he had pronounced his answer. Only the person of whom Luke speaks, did not address Peter as the person of whom Mark speaks had done; but after listening a while to Peter's accent, he directed his discourse to the people around, confirming what they had said a while before. Peter being thus pressed on all sides, to give his lie the better colour, he profaned the name of God by swearing, and wished the bitterest curses on himself if he was telling a falsehood. Perhaps he hoped by these acts of impiety, to convince them effectually that he was not the disciple of the holy Jesus. Mark xiv. 71. But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man of whom ye speak. 72. And (Luke, imme diately while he yet spake) the second time the cock crew *. Thus

the

Mark 72. The cock crew.] All the evangelists say that the cock crew immediately after Peter pronounced the words of the third denial which they themselves have related. But upon comparing the things said when this third attack was made, it appears that the speeches at least which John hath recorded, did not come from the persons mentioned by the other evangelists. Wherefore the third denial was occasioned by different attacks made in succession, as they are placed in this Harmony; unless the men spoke all at once, which is not very probable. It is more natural to think, that when Peter denied his Master to them who first attacked him, the others who stood by supported the charge, with an argument drawn from his accent in speaking, which proved him to be a Galilean. Howeyer, as in either case the succession of his answers must have been very quick, the veracity of the evangelists remaineth unshaken, because thus the cock crew immediately after Peter pronounced the words which they have severally related.

To this part of the history it has been objected, that the Jews, as their tradition goes, never kept any cocks within the walls of Jerusalem, and consequently, that Peter could not hear them crow while he was in the high-priest's palace. But the objection may be removed, either by calling the tradition itself in question, because it contradicts the testimony of writers whose veracity is indubitable, and who could not but know the customs of the age in which they lived; also because many traditions of this kind were framed by, the Rabbis, with a view to magnify the sanctity VOL. II. 3 T

of

the apostle Peter denied his Master three different times, and with oaths, forgetting the vehement protestations he had made a few hours before. He was permitted to fall in this manner, to teach mankind two lessons: first, that whatever a person's attainments may have been formerly, if once he passes the bounds of innocence, he commonly proceeds from bad to worse, one sin naturally drawing on another; for which reason the very least appearances of evil are to be dreaded, and the greatest humility and self-diffidence maintained. In the second place, the goodness wherewith Jesus treated his fallen apostle, teaches us, that no sinner whatever needs to despair of mercy, who truly repents Luke xii. 61. And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter; and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow (Mark, twice) thou shalt deny me thrice. 62. And Peter (Mark, when he thought thereon: signifies casting over his weil, or covering his head with his veil) went out and wept bitterly. Luke alone has preserved the beautiful circumstance of Christ's turning and looking upon Peter. The members of the council who examined Jesus sat at the upper end of the hall; in the other were the servants with Peter in the fire. Wherefore if Christ was placed on some chair, footstool or bench, that his judges, who were many in number, might hear and see him, he could easily look over the heads of those who stood around him, and observe what was doing at the fire; particularly he could see Peter, who was then denying him with imprecations, and in the vehemency of his passion was bawling loud enough to be heard in the upper end of the room. But he had no sooner denied his Master the third time, than the cock crew, and awakened in him the first convictions of his sin; at least it made him look to his Master, in order perhaps to see if he was taking notice of what had happened. But at the same instant, Jesus turning about, fixed his eyes on his cowardly disciple. The look pierced him, and with the crowing of the cock brought his Master's prediction afresh into his mind. He was stung with deep remorse, and being unable to contain himself, he covered his face with his garment, to conceal the confusion he was in, and going out into the porch, wept most bitterly *.

All

of Jerusalem. Or the objection may he removed by supposing that the Romans who lived in the city, neglecting the institutions of the Jewsy might keep this kind of fowl about their houses, perhaps for their table, or for the auspices, a sort of divination they were peculiarly addicted

to.

In remembrance of the crowing of the cock, which brought Peter to a sense of the great evil he was guilty of in denying his Master, the practice, it is said, began of placing weather-cocks upon towers and steeples.

Mark says, xiv. 72. And when he thought thereon he wept." In the original it is, xai xaλav, szλan, which properly signifies, and throwing bis

garment

All this passed while the priests examined Jesus, which is the next particular to be related by the evangelists. But Luke, before he gives an account of it, mentions one remarkable circumstance, xxii. 63. And the men that held Jesus, mocked him, and smote him. 64. And when they had blindfolded him, they struck kim on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, suko is he that smote thee? 65. And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. However, though Luke has told us how Jesus was insulted before he describes his trial, it does not follow that he meant to say he was insulted before his trial. I acknowledge indeed that his judges and their retinue were abundantly capable of being thus unjust and barbarous towards him, even before they made the shew of condemning him. Nevertheless, what Luke has said here does not necessarily oblige us to suppose this. He might conclude his account of Peter's denials, with relating what followed upon our Lord's being condemned, because it happened immediately after the last denial, and to shew what a load of indignity was laid at once on the Son of God. Whilst the most zealous of all Christ's disciples was denying him with oaths and imprecations, the servants and others insulted him in the most barbarous manner.

garment (i. e, the veil which the Jewish men used to wear) over his bead, be swept. For the expression is elliptical, and must be supplied thus, Canay mation on Repaλn avis, as is evident from Lev. xix. 19. LXX. 22: εμάλιον εκ δύο υφασμένον κιβδηλον εκ επιβαλεις σταυία. Besides, it was the custom of persons in confusion to cover their heads. Jer. xiv. 3. 4. They. were ashamed and confounded, and covered their heads."

66

CXXXVII. Jesus is tried in Jerusalem by the Senate of Jews. Matt. xxvi. 59,-68. Mark xiv. 55,--65. Luke xxii. 66,-71. John xviii. 19,-24.

WHEN the band of soldiers arrived at the high-priest's with Jesus, they found many of the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders assembled there. (See Mark xiv. 53. § 135.) Some persons of distinction, however, may have been absent, whose coming the rest would wait for. Wherefore, although the soldiers brought Jesus to the high-priest's a while after midnight, his trial did not begin till about three in the morning; the intermediate time being spent in procuring witnesses, in sending for the absent members, in gathering the clerks and officers of the court, and in fitting up an apartment for the trial. For that Jesus was tried by the council, not in the temple, as many suppose, but in the high-priest's palace, is evident from John xviii. 28. where we are told expressly, that they led Jesus from Caiaphas' house to the prætorium. See the note at the end of this section. Luke xxii. 66. And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people, and the chief priests, and the scribes, came together, and led him into

their council. The court therefore being duly constituted, and the prisoner placed at the bar, the trial began about break of day. John xviii. 19. The high-priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine: He asked him what his disciples were, for what end he had gathered them, whether it was to make himself a king; and what the doctrine was which he taught them. In these questions there was a great deal of art. For as the crime laid to our Lord's charge was, that he had set himself up for Messiah and deluded the people, they expected he would claim that dignity in their presence, and so without farther trouble they would have condemned him on his own confession. But to oblige a prisoner to confess what might take away his life, being an unjust method of procedure, Jesus complained of it with reason, and bade them prove what they laid to his charge by witnesses. John xviii. 20. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort, and in secret have I said nothing. 21. Why askest thou me ? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them; behold, they know what I said. It was greatly to the honour of our Lord's character, that all his actions were done in public, under the eye even of his enemies; because, had he been carrying on any imposture, the lovers of truth and goodness had thus abundant opportunities to have detected him. With propriety, therefore, in this defence, he appealed to that part of his character; nevertheless his answer was thought disrespectful, for, 22. When he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by, struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answeredst thou the high-priest so? He meekly replied, 23. If I have spo ken evil, bear witness of the evil; shew wherein it lies: but if well, why smitest thou me? Thus Jesus became an example of his own precept, (Matt. v. 44.) bearing the greatest injuries with a patience that could not be provoked. (24. Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas, the high-priest.) The evange list mentions that Jesus was sent to the high-priest, because he had before said, that he was sent first to Annas the high-priest's father-in-law. Moreover, he takes notice that he was sent bound to the high-priest, to shew the inhumanity of the officer who struck him in that condition. When the counsel found that Jesus declined answering the questions whereby they would have drawn from him an acknowledgement of his being the Messiah, they examined many witnesses to prove his having assumed that charac ter. For, by what afterwards happened, it appears that they considered such a pretension as blasphemy in his mouth, who be ing nothing but a man, as they supposed, could not, without af fronting the majesty of God, take the title of God's Son, which of right belonged to Messiah. Matt. xxvi. 59. Now the chief priests and elders, and all the council sought false witness against

Jerus,