་ under the eye even of his enemies; because, bad 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, "When he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by, struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the High-priest so?" He meekly replied, "If I have spoken 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, * bearing the greatest injuries with a patience that could not be provoked. "Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas, the High-Priest." The evangelist mentions that Jesus was sent to the High-Priest, because he had before said, that he was first sent to Annas, the High-Priest's fatherin-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 council found that Jesus declined answering the questions whereby they would have drawn from him an acknowledgment of his being the Messiah, they examined many witnesses to prove his having assumed that character. For, by what afterwards happened, it appears that they considered such a pretension as blasphemy in his mouth, who being nothing but a man, as they supposed, could not, without affronting the majesty of God, take the title of God's Son, which of right belonged to Messiah.† "Now the chief priests and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death.” In examining the witnesses, they acted like interested and enraged persecutors, rather than impartial judges. For they formed their questions after such a manner, as, if possible, to draw from them expressions which they might pervert into suspicions of guilt, upon which they might condemn Jesus. "But they found none. though many false witnesses came, yet found they none:" Yea, Precept. Matt. y. 44. + Messiah. Matt. xxvi. 59. notwithstanding they were at the utmost pains to procure such a proof as in the eye of the law would justify the sentence they were resolved to pass upon Jesus, they exerted themselves to no purpose. Because, though they suborned many witnesses, these, in giving their testimony, contradicted one another; a circumstance which the most illiterate person in the court could not but be sensible invalidated their evidence.* "For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together." Mark. xiv. 56. "At 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. But neither so did their witness agree together." As they gave this testimony of their own accord, so it was most false. For Jesus never said he would destroy and build the temple of Jerusalem, as they affirmed. At the first passover indeed, after he had banished the traders out of the temple, the Jews required him to shew by what authority he took upon him to make that reformation; and in answer he referred them to the miracle of his resur rection: "Destroy," said he, "this temple," pointing probably to his body, " and I will raise it up in three days." The witnesses, it seems, either through ignorance or malice, perverted his answer into an affirmation that he was able to destroy and build the temple in three days. And the judges reckoned it blasphemy, because it was an effect that could be accomplished by nothing less than divine power. Wherefore these men are justly branded through the world with the name of "false witnesses," and their testimony was deservedly disregarded by our Lord. When the High-Priest found that Jesus took little notice of the things which the witnesses said against him, he fell into a passion, supposing that he intended to put an affront upon the council; for he arose from his seat, and spake to him, desiring him to give the reason of his conduct.t "And the High-Priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held Evidence. Mark xiv. 56. + Conduct. Matt. xxvi. 62. his peace, and answered nothing."* Upon this, some of the council spake to him, saying, "Art thou the Christ? tell us." And he said unto them, "If I tell you, you will not believe. And if I also ask you," that is, propose the proofs of my mission, and require you to give your opinion of them, " ye will not answer me, nor let me go." The High-Priest, therefore, to cut the trial short and ensnare Jesus, obliged him upon oath to tell, whether or no he was the Christ. "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?" The craft of the question lay in this, that if Jesus answered it in the affirmative, they were ready to condemn him as a blasphemer; but if in the negative, they proposed to punish him as an impostor, who, by accepting the honours and titles of the Messiah from the people, had deceived them. "And Jesus said, I am."+ Being put upon oath, or, according to Jewish customs, being adjured by the magistrate, he could no longer decline answering. He therefore confessed the charge, and added, "Nevertheless," (, moreover,)" I unto you, Hereafter, ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven:" Ye shall see the sign from heaven, which ye have so often demanded in confirmation of my mission. "Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God?"** A number of them cried out together, feigning great astonishment at the blasphemy, as they were pleased to call it, of his answer, and desiring him to repeat it, lest they might have mistaken him." And he say Nothing. Mark xiv, 61. + I am. Mark xiv. 62. Answering. Levit. v. 1. Moreover. See Blackwall's Sac. Class. vol. ii. p. 132. || Hereafter. Ax agr. Heinsius would have these words joined together, so as апасть the same with antioμwus, vere planė: to make * God. Luke xxii. 70. said unto them, Ye say that I am." This, according to the Jewish manner of speaking, was a plain and strong affirmation of the thing expressed. When the HighPriest heard our Lord's second reply, he solemnly rent his clothes,* crying out that he had spoken blasphemy, and appealing to the council: "What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy. The council replied, As you have justly observed, what need have we of witness now, seeing we ourselves have heard in what manner he has blasphemed." And being asked what punishment he deserved, they answered, that he deserved death. They condemned him unanimously, excepting Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea, and a few more, who being his disciples, (John xii. 42) would, if they were present, remonstrate no doubt against the iniquity of this sentence. "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?" It was hardly possible for those miscreants to invent any thing more expres sive of the contempt in which they held our Lord's pretensions to be the Messiah. Thus was the Judge of the world placed at the bar of his own creatures, falsely accused by the witnesses, unjustly condemned by his judges, and barbarously in sulted by all. Yet because it was agreeable to the end of his coming, he patiently submitted, though he could with a frown have made his judges, his accusers, and *Clothes. Rending of clothes was an expression sometimes of deep grief, sometimes of holy zeal. The precepts, Lev. x. 6. xxi. 10, forbidding the high priest to rend his clothes, relates only to the pontifical garments, and to private mourning, that is, mourning on account of the calamities befalling himself or friends. Griefs of this kind the chief minister of religion was not to make public by any outward sign whatever. But it was neither unlawful nor unusual for him to rend his ordinary garments on account of public calamities, or instances of gross wickedness, as a testimony of his grief for the one, and abhorrence of the other. See 1 Maccab. xi. 71. That the High-Priest was clothed in ordinary apparel on this occasion, appears from Exod. xxix. 29, 30, where the pontifical garments are ordered to descend from father to son; and therefore were to be worn only at their consecration, and when they ministered. those who had him in custody, all to drop down dead in a moment, or shrivel into nothing. During the time that this important event was depending, Peter, who had followed our Lord at a distance, and had taken his place in the hall adjacent to the room in which Jesus was examined, and hoped to have remained among the servants unsuspected, was warming himself at the fire, desiring to see the issue of this fatal night. He had been admitted by a maid-servant, through the interest of John, who went in with him, but advanced it should seem into the hall of judgment. The servant-maid, fixing her eyes upon him, charged him with being one of the disciples of Jesus. But Peter, surprised at the unexpected discovery, confidently denied him before them all, saying, "I do not so much as know him, nor understand what you mean." Upon which, turning away as one affronted, he went out into the portico, and while he was there, the Gock crew. * Simon Peter, incommoded probably by the coldness of the air, returned to the hall, and mingled with the numerous servants there in waiting; when another young woman observing him, said "Surely this is one of them, and perhaps he has come hither as a spy." This excited a general attention to him, and he was asked, "Art thou not one of his disciples?" Another perceiving his confusion, charged it home upon him, saying, "It is cer Cock Crew. It is strange that this circumstance did not remind him of our Lord's prediction; perhaps it did; and he might return resolved to be more courageous should he be again attacked. 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 Rabbies, with a view to magnify the sanctity of Jerusalem. Or the objection may be removed by supposing that the Romans who lived in the city, neglecting the institutions of the Jews, might keep this kind of fowl about their houses, perhaps for their table, or for their auspices, a sort of divination they were peculiarly addicted to. |