Christ knew He was not formally on trial, He replied, though afterwards, when before the Council, He would not answer the High Priest.

He told him now, however, that He had taught the same things in public to the people, and privately to His disciples, and referred to those who had heard Him, to disprove the charge of rebellion insinuated by Caiaphas.

Upon this one of the officers smote Him with his hand, asking, "Answerest thou the high priest so ?"

Christ meekly replied, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, (i.e., in accordance with the Law, which required that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word should be established), why smitest thou me"?

Christ examined before the Sanhedrin,-condemned,-mocked,-and buffeted.

(IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S HOUSE.)

(c. xxvi. 59-68.)

"Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus to put him to death; but found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.

Ät the last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee"?

Matthew and Mark alone record this first examination by the Sanhedrin.

Luke omits all mention of it, but relates how Christ was mocked, &c.

"Sought false witness against Christ to put him to death; but found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none."-In order to condemn Christ it was necessary, in accordance with the Law, to obtain the agreeing testimony of at least two witnesses: this the Sanhedrin failed to do,-"found none" not meaning that they found no witnesses, (for "many false witnesses came "), but that they "found none" on whose testimony they could “put him to death."

Mark's words are clearer,-" Many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together."

"This fellow said, I am able . . . three days.”

Mark quotes their testimony thus,-" I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands."

What Christ really said, as narrated by John, was,Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." This was spoken upon occasion of the First Cleansing of the Temple, in reply to the Jews' demand for a sign of His right to act as He had done. The words had no reference to Herod's Temple, for "he spake of the temple of his body."

Mark tells us that, even though two witnesses thus swore to the same fact, "neither so did their witness agree together." While agreeing in their respective versions of Christ's words, it is probable that they contradicted one another as to time, place, occasion, &c. Had the two agreed entirely, the charge against Christ would have been either

1. An intention to destroy the Temple,-which would amount to blasphemy.

2. Being a false prophet,-in promising an impossibility.

Blasphemy, and the utterance of false prophecies, were both punishable with death, under the Mosaic Law.

It is remarkable that the false witnesses who appeared against Stephen accused him of blasphemy, declaring that they had heard him say that Jesus would destroy the Temple, and change the Law.

"Said unto him."-Evidence from without failing, Caiaphas now endeavoured to make Christ criminate Himself, -a most unjust proceeding, against which He had before protested, when examined privately by the High Priest.

"What is it which these witness against thee"?—Caiaphas hoped, probably, that Christ would own to having used language sufficiently resembling that imputed to Him to admit of its being twisted into blasphemy.

"But Jesus held his peace," so fulfilling Is. liii. 7,—“ He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth."

...

"I adjure thee by the living God."—"This was the most solemn form of administering an oath. . . . As this oath ... brought an obligation, under the curse of the Law, it imperatively claimed a reply" to any question asked in connection with it. "This our Lord, who had before disdained to reply to an unfounded, and even absurd, charge, (especially before judges who had predetermined to find Him guilty), now thought Himself bound to answer, as an example to others of reverence towards so solemn a form." "Thou hast said," "Yes."

66

=

Nevertheless," should be "Moreover."

"The Son of man,”—i.e., "Him who, in human form, stands bound before you now."

"The right hand of power," "the highest place of glory in the presence of God."

"Coming in the clouds of heaven,"—at the Second Advent, -no longer a prisoner, but the Judge, before whom His then judges must render their awful account.

Christ had previously uttered this prediction of His Coming, to the disciples, on the Mount of Olives. The original is Dan. vii. 13, 14, "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and lan

:

guages, should serve him his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed," —a passage which the Jews always looked upon as referring to the coming Messiah.

"Rent his clothes," —as a token of indignation and horror at hearing such a claim set up by so mean a person, in answer to his solemn adjuration.

“He hath spoken blasphemy,”—in declaring Himself to be the Son of God. Had He not been so, of course He would have been guilty of that crime, and would have deserved death, according to the Law.

"What think ye"?

=

66

"What is your verdict"? "He is guilty of death,”—i.e., " He is guilty of the capital crime," (of blasphemy). Never was a more monstrous verdict! Being put upon His most solemn oath, Christ had declared Himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God: then the Sanhedrin, instead of investigating His claim to be the Christ, found Him guilty of the capital crime of blasphemy. Thus, being unable to procure the concurrent false testimony of the lowest number of witnesses required by the Law, they sentenced Him to death for the truth spoken by His own mouth.

66

They,”-not the members of the Sanhedrin, but, as Luke tells us, "the men that held Jesus."

Mark says, 66 Some: " doubtless Christ was tormented and insulted by the whole of the band of His captors, and by hostile Jews who had gained admittance to the "hall." Spit in his face," the extremest insult that can be offered to an Oriental. Thus was fulfilled Is. i. 6, “I hid not my face from shame and spitting."

"Buffeted him,"-smote Him with clenched fists.

"Smote him with the palms of their hands,”—struck Him with their open hands.

66

Prophesy"!-rather, "Divine to us." We learn from Mark and Luke that, previously to this, Christ had been "blindfolded," so that he could not see who smote Him.

It was customary to bandage, immediately after sentence was pronounced, the eyes of a criminal condemned to death, as a symbol of his unworthiness to enjoy the light. Hence this blindfolding of Christ. But His cruel enemies made this a means of bitter mockery and humiliation to Him, for their striking Him, and then bidding Him tell which

of them had done it, was simply the Eastern form of "Blind-man's Buff."

Luke omits the spitting, but adds to the other indignities recorded, "And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.”

Peter's First Denial.

(IN THE COURT OF THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE.)
(c. xxvi. 69, 70.)

"Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest."

All the Evangelists narrate Peter's First Denial: the points of difference will be noticed as they occur.

The Denials did not occur close together, but they are here placed as if that had been the case.

The First Denial happened, it would seem, soon after Christ had been brought to the High Priest's house,-a little before 2 o'clock A.M. on the Friday. At the time of its occurrence, Peter was sitting at the fire, in the court of the High Priest's house.

The

"Without,"-i.e., without the rooms of the house. rooms in Eastern houses surround, and open upon, the hall, or court. Frequently, the whole side of the building facing the entrance, on the ground-floor, forms but one large, open, room, supported by pillars, and having a moveäble curtain instead of doors. It was, probably, in such a room as this that Christ was examined by the Sanhedrin, the questioning of Him by Caiaphas having occurred in some private apartment of the house.

"Palace," should be, "Hall."

"A damsel,"

Mark has, "One of the maids of the high priest."

Luke "A certain maid."

John "The damsel that kept the door."

There is no difficulty here. The first to tax Peter with being one of Christ's disciples was, then, a maid-servant of the High Priest, who, (as was customary amongst the