Lu.xxii. 63.

Mar. xiv.65.

Mt. xxvi.67.

Lu.xxii. 64.

61 And said-

MATT. XXVI. part of ver. 61. 63.

63 -And the High Priest answered and said unto himMARK XIV. ver. 55. part of ver. 57. 60, 61, and ver. 62, 63, 64. 55 And the Chief Priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.

57 And there arose certain

60 And the High Priest-saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

61 But he held his peace

62 And Jesus said and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on
the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
63 Then the High Priest rent his clothes, and saith, What
need we any further witnesses?

64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye?—

SECTION IV.

Twelve at Night-Christ is struck, and insulted by the
Soldiers.

MATT. xxvi. 67, 68. MARK xiv. 65. LUKE xxii. 63-65.
And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote
him:

And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face,
and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy; and
the servants did strike him with the palms of their
hands.

Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands.

And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?

Mt. xxvi.68. Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

(a) See Fagius on Chald. Paraph. Deut. xiii. in the Critici Sacri, and on Deut. xviii. 15. vol. ii. p. 87, and 123. (b) Maimonides Præf. in Misnam. p.3. ed. Surenhusii ap Wilson. (c) See on the subject of this note, Wilson's Method of explaining the New Testament, first and second chapters. (d) See Archdeacon Blomfield's Dissertation on the Knowledge of a Redeemer before the Advent, p. 115; and Wilson ut supra.

5 This section is arranged in its present order on the plan of Pilkington.

"St. Matthew, in recording the accounts of the sufferings of our Lord, has omitted to mention that the soldiers and servants blindfolded him: yet he relates the indignity which immediately followed that insult, "Prophesy unto us who is he that smote thee." These words, according to Markland, have an immediate reference to the preceding action. When Christ was blindfolded, they ask him in derision, and according to the custom of a well known game, if he can now tell by his prophetic spirit who it was that struck him. There is a burlesque sarcasm in the word πрopýrεvσov, which signifies to prophesy, or to guess, or tell. Another sarcasm is implied in the word Xpist, both being intended as sneers at Jesus being accounted.

Jerusalem.

Lu.xxii. 65. And many other things blasphemously spake they Jerusalem. against him.

SECTION V.

Mt.xxvi.69.

Mar. xiv.66.

Peter's first Denial of Christ, at the Fire, in the Hall of

the High Priest'.

MATT. XXVI. 66—70. MARK XIV. 66-68.

LUKE Xxii.

56-57. JOHN Xviii 17, 18. and 25-27.

Now Peter sat without in the palace:

And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh

one of the maids of the High Priest:

Jo. xviii.17. (the damsel that kept the door) unto Peter,
Lu. xxii. 56. [and] beheld him as he sat by the fire,

Mar.xiv.67. And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked
upon him,

Lu. xxii. 56. earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him.

Jo. xviii.17. Art thou not one of this man's disciples? He saith, I

am not.

Mar.xiv.67. And she said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth,
Mt.xxvi.69. of Galilee.

La. xxii. 57. And he denied him,

Mt.xxvi.70. before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.
Lu. xxii. 57. Woman, I know him not.

a prophet; which could not have been so strongly expressed if
the word λέξον had been used, instead of προφήτευσον; as if
they had said, "O thou Messiah, thou great prophet, tell us by
thy prophetic spirit who it is that struck thee."Vide Prelim.
Observ. to Bowyer's Conjectures, p. 36.

7 Archbishop Newcome has placed the three denials of St.
Peter immediately after the apprehension of our Lord. Pilk-
ington, after he had been beaten and insulted by the servants
and soldiers. Not only do the arguments of the latter writer
appear to me to be most satisfactory, but there seems to be in-
ternal evidence that Pilkington is most correct. The courage
that made Peter recover first from the general consternation
that had seized upon all the disciples, would not forsake him
without a cause, merely because he had entered into the palace.
He probably expected a different result to the examination, and
imagined that our Lord would have miraculously delivered him-
self from the power of his enemies: and he therefore willingly
waited among the servants" to see the end." But when he saw,
to his equal surprise and horror, for the first time, that our
Lord was thus grievously treated, his confidence began to
waver, and his faith to fail. At this moment the servant who
kept the door, and had left her charge to approach to the fire,
knew him by the blaze of the fire, (as Dr. Townson ingeniously
translates the word pug, Luke xxii. 56.) and challenged him as
the disciple of the despised Nazarene.

I cannot account for Archbishop Newcome's silence, in his notes to the Harmony, respecting Pilkington's order of the denials of Peter. He frequently refers to Pilkington.

Mar.xiv.68. I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest.
Jo. xviii. 18. And the servants and officers stood there, who had
made a fire of coals, for it was cold, and they warmed
themselves and Peter stood with them, and warmed
himself.

25. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of
his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.

26. One of the servants of the High Priest, being his kins-
man whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did I not see thee in
the garden with him?

27.

Peter then denied again.

Mar.xiv.68. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew;
Jo. xviii.27. and immediately the cock crew.

An objection to the words of this passage has been raised,
because it is supposed inconsistent with a canon of the Jewish
Church, which forbids the rearing of cocks at Jerusalem, for
fear they should scratch up unclean animals with their feet, and
thereby pollute sacred things. In answer to this assertion, it is
affirmed that the law had not been enacted at that period-that
this bird was always kept in the temple (a)—that the word 2
signifies a man, or a crier-and-that the term cock-crowing, re-
lated only to a particular hour of the morning. After enumerat-
ing these opinions, Schoetgen, gives his own solution. As the
crowing of the cock is mentioned as a fact, he concludes that
it is to be considered as having actually taken place, as we
should interpret a passage in a classical author. Peter, in the
silence of the night, could as easily hear the cocks that were
crowing out of the city, as the Italian cocks could be heard in
Italy, or the cocks in Asia Minor at Constantinople; especially
as the house of Caiaphas was not far from the wall. The cock
which Peter heard might have been kept by the Romans, and
not by the Jews, as chickens were used by them in augury. And
though it was prohibited to feed cocks, it was not prohibited
to buy or sell them; the cock, therefore, which now crowed,
might have been purchased for the purpose of being killed the
next day. Therefore, in whatever way the subject is considered,
it is certainly true that the cock might have been heard by
Peter at Jerusalem (b).

The Jewish doctors distinguish the cock crowing into the first, second, and third. The first was called, -the second, ww-when he repeats it. The third, www-when he does it the third time, as in Mark xiii. 35–12. Luke xii. 38. This custom was observed also by Heathen nations. According to St. John xiii. 38. St. Luke xxii. 34. and St. Matthew xxvi. 34. Our Saviour predicts the cock shall not crow; that is, shall not have finished his crowing, before thou deny me thrice. Lightfoot (c) reconciles the words of these three evangelists with those of St. Mark, by suggesting, that as the hour approached when the event was to take place, our Saviour specifies more particularly the time, and says, Mark xiv. 72. "Verily I say unto thee, that this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." Pilkington supposes, that the words, the cock shall not crow before thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me, should be taken literally, signifying that the cock should not crow at all before thou shalt thrice deny me; and he concludes, there is a double signification attached to these separate predictions, and a double accomplishment of them. He argues, according to

Jerusalem.

MATT. XXVI. part of ver. 69, 70.

69 and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus

70 But he denied

St. John's Gospel, that these words were primarily fulfilled by St. Peter, when he was admitted into the palace. The first denial was made to the damsel who kept the door, and had permitted him to enter. It is very natural to imagine that a clamour would be raised against Peter, upon her accusation; as the people would conclude that the damsel who kept the door, and let him in, must have good reason for her suspicion: and accordingly St. John tells us, that the servants who were warming themselves at the fire with Peter, again questioned him about this matter, and that he denied being a disciple of Christ the second time. Immediately upon, or soon after this, Malchus's kinsman recollected seeing Peter in the garden with Jesus, and charged him therewith; but Peter denied it a third time. And St. John observes, that upon this immediately the cock crew. And thus it appears how those words of our Saviour were verified, "Before the cock crow (at all) thou shalt deny me thrice."

St. John having thus shewn the accomplishment of these words of our Lord, takes no notice of any other of Peter's dcmials, but of these three only, which were made at the fire, whereas the other Evangelists take notice of several denials, made after these; and so shew us the propriety of that other expression," Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." They consider the several particular denials at the fire made at the same time, and in the same place, only as one general denial: and so St. Mark tells us, that, after Peter had denied at the fire, and was gone out into the porch, the cock crew the first time; and this appears to be the same crowing which St. John speaks of, as immediately succeeding Peter's three several denials of his Master there.

The second general denial was made in the porch. This evidently appears from the accounts both of St. Matthew and St. Mark. And, from what is related, we must conclude, that the denial there was not single, but that many then charged him together (as they had done before, and as we may easily imagine they would do, in such a riotous assembly), and that he again there denied to them all. For St. Luke tells us, that a man charged him, and said, "Thou art one of them;" and be replied, and said, "Man, I am not." St. Mark, that he denied what a maid was insinuating, "that he was one of them:" and St. Matthew, that "he denied with an oath, I do not know the man," upon a maid's affirming that he was with Jesus of Nazareth.

The place of the third general denial is not specified, any farther than that it was in the same room or court where Jesus was, who "turned and looked upon Peter." The time of it is said, by St. Mark, to have been a little after the second (μɛrà μipòv). St. Matthew makes use of the same expression; and St. Luke particularly mentions, that it was "about the space of one hour after." This also appears to have been a general accusation, and so must have been a general denial; for though St. Luke only mentions one man's charging Peter at this time, yet St. Matthew and St. Mark tell us, that they that stood by charged him with being a Galilean, and a disciple of Christ, and that in such a pressing manner, that " he began to curse and to swear he did not know the man." And upon this St. Mark tells us, that "the cock crew a second time:" before which Peter had

Jerusalem.

Mt.xxvi.71.

After Midnight-Peter's second Denial of Christ, at the
Porch of the Palace of the High Priest.

MATT. XXVI. 71, 72. MARK Xiv. 69. part of ver. .70.
LUKE Xxii. 58.

And when he was gone out into the porch,

Lu. xxii.58. after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art one of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.

Mt. xxvi.71. And another maid saw him,

Mar. xiv.69. and began to say to them that stood by,

Mt.xxvi.71. This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth;
Mar.xiv.69. This is one of them.

Mt. xxvi.72.

And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the

man.

MATT. XXVI. part of ver. 71.

71 and said unto them that were there

MARK XIV. part of ver. 69, 70.

69 And a maid saw him again—

70 And he denied it again.—

SECTION VII.

Friday, the Day of the Crucifixion-Time about three in
the Morning. Peter's third Denial of Christ, in the
Room where Christ was waiting among the Soldiers till
the Dawn of Day.

MATT. XXVI. 73-75.

Lu.xxii.59. And about the space

MARK XIV. 70-72. LUKE XXII.
59-62.

of one hour after, another confi

denied "Christ at three several times, and in three several
places;" and so had remarkably fulfilled the second significa-
tion of the prediction, "Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt
deny me thrice."

If it shall appear that there is nothing forced or misrepre-
sented in the relation of this matter; then it must be allowed
that the evangelical accounts are so far from being contradic-
tory or inconsistent, that they greatly illustrate each other, and
shew the true meaning, and the full accomplishment, of what
our Saviour foretold with respect to this event (e.)

(a) Bava Kama, c. vii. Hal. ult. D'p*ba obwn'a pbiɔnn 1b73d p
ap Lightfoot, vol. ii. p. 262. fol. edit. (b) Quænam hora venit præfec-
tus Templi? Resp. non semper tempus definitum observat y
: nonnunquam venit tempore gallicinii, vel circa.
(c) Schoetgen. Hor. Heb. vol. 1, p. 232, 233. (₫) Vide Lightfoot, on
John xiii. 38. Works, vol. ii. folio edit. Dr. Bright's. (e) Pilkington,
Notes to the Evangelical History, p. 55.

Jerusalem.