him]: that disciple was known to the high-priest, and entered with Jesus into the palace, but Peter stood without at the gate; so the other disciple who was known to the high-priest went out, and spoke to the maidservant who attended the gate, and obtained admission for Peter. Then said the maid-servant to Peter,-"Art thou also [one] of this man's disciples?"-He said,—" I am not."-John, chap. 18, v. 15-17, 24.

SECOND DENIAL.

And he went in, and joined the officers, to see the end. The slaves and officers were standing round a fire of embers which they had kindled in the midst of the hall, for it was cold, and were warming themselves, and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. Whilst he was there, one of the maid-servants of the high-priest came, and seeing Peter sitting at the fire, after looking steadfastly at him, said,-"This man also was with him,-thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth; "--but he disowned him before them all, saying,-" Woman, I know him not, neither do I understand what thou meanest.”—Matt. chap. 26, v. 58, 69, 70;—Mark, chap. 14, v. 54, 66-68;-Luke, chap. 22, v. 55-57.

THIRD DENIAL.

A little after another person saw him, and said,—“ Thou also art [one of] them; "--but Peter said,—" Man, I am not."-Luke, chap. 22, v. 58.

FOURTH DENIAL.

And he went out into the porch, and the cock crew. Whilst he was there, another [maid-servant] saw him, and said to those who were present," This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth."-Again he denied [it] with an oath [saying],-"I know not the man."-Matt. chap. 26, v. 71, 72;-Mark, chap. 14, v. 68-70.

The first trial of Christ by the Sanhedrim, occupying about an hour, here intervened.

FIFTH DENIAL.

[Meanwhile] Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him," Art not thou also [one] of his disciples ? "—he denied [it], and said," I am not."-John, chap. 18, v. 25.

SIXTH DENIAL.

One of the high-priest's slaves, a relative [of him] whose ear Peter had cut off, said,-"Did not I see thee in the garden with him?"Again Peter denied [it]—John, chap. 18, v. 26, 27.

SEVENTH DENIAL.

A little after another man confidently affirmed, saying,-" Certainly this man also was with him, for he is a Galilean."-So the by-standers came up, and said again to Peter,-" Certainly thou also art [one] of them, for thy [manner of] speaking is similar, [and] discovereth thee;" --but he began to utter oaths and curses, [saying]—“ Man, I know not what thou meanest : I know not this man of whom ye speak: "—and instantly, whilst he was yet speaking, the cock crew the second time. And the Lord turned and looked on Peter: and Peter remembered what the Lord had said to him,-" Before the cock crows the second time thou wilt disown me thrice: "—and he went out, and wept bitterly." *—Matt. chap. 26, v. 73-75; Mark, chap. 14, v. 70–72; Luke, chap. 22, v. 59–62.

The general correctness of this representation of Peter's denials will perhaps be sufficiently obvious on inspection; but there are two points connected with the subject which may seem to require further explanation, namely, the motives of these denials, and their number. The narrative itself suggests as their primary cause, that presumption and selfconfidence, which prompted Peter to declare that he would stand by Christ even if all others abandoned him, and to contradict his master when foretelling the reverse; for, on hearing the prediction," he spoke the more positively,—'Though I should die with thee, I will never disown thee.'"-But the immediate cause was no doubt the dread of capital punishment, as the natural consequence of his atrocious assault on Malchus in the garden of Gethsemane; for, although this act was providentially arrested, it was evidently one of intentional murder toward the individual, and of open sedition against the lawful governors of the land, both civil and ecclesiastical. It was an act alike opposed to the spirit, and hostile to the success of the gospel; and had not Christ promptly remedied the evil, by rebuking the apostle, and healing the wounded slave, might have seriously injured his character and cause. The apostles were apparently unprepared for his ready submission to the power of his adversaries; and hence, on seeing him calmly resign himself into their hands," they all forsook him and fled."-Finding, however, that they were not pursued by the guard, Peter and John speedily returned to the spot, and followed him to his destination; but with a remarkable difference in their demeanor, corresponding to the difference of their previous conduct. John, who had not committed any offence,

* The portions of the four gospels here harmonized are, Matt. chap. 26, v. 57, 58, 69– 75;--Mark, chap. 14, v. 53, 54, 66–72;-Luke, chap. 22, v. 54-62;-John, chap. 18, v. 1518, 24-27.

entered boldly with Jesus into the high-priest's palace, where, although well known to be one of his disciples, he was allowed to remain unmolested; while Peter, conscious of the danger which he had incurred by his recent outrage, followed at a distance, and when admitted into the palace, was soon betrayed into a denial of his discipleship.

His danger, both then and long afterward, was indeed great. Owing to the darkness and confusion of the scene in the garden, he fortunately escaped without being recognized as the man who wounded Malchus; for, had he been detected, he might have been legally put to death for a crime precisely similar to that of Barabbas,-" who, on account of a sedition attended with murder which had taken place in the city, was in prison with his accomplices."-The reality and extent of the danger are indicated by the fact that both Christ and the three earlier evangelists carefully abstained from mentioning the name of Peter in connection with this occurrence. When Jesus said,—“ Put the sword into the scabbard," etc., he did not name him. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, merely intimate that it was one of the disciples who thus acted; and John alone, who wrote at a later period, when the danger was past, expressly names both the apostle and his victim,-" Simon Peter, having a sword drew it, and smote the high-priest's slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus."-Neither was the danger confined to Peter, but involved also the sacred cause to which he was devoted. His fear on this occasion was therefore natural and rational; and had he been wise, he would, like the apostles generally, have yielded to circumstances, and taken refuge in retirement. But his pride forbade so humiliating a course. He had confidently promised to follow his master both to prison and to death, to lay down his life for his sake, and faithfully to adhere to him though all others forsook him. He was aware that by entering into the high-priest's palace he should run the risk of being detected as the assailant of Malchus, but, on the other hand, could not without a struggle submit to the disgrace of grossly breaking his word, and forfeiting his engagements. He therefore followed the guard afar off; and through the influence of John, who had entered some time before, obtained admission in an evil hour into the dreaded mansion.

In order that the sequel may be better understood, it is proper to notice that this mansion, like that of Eliashib, in the time of Nehemiah, was apparently an official residence within the precincts of the temple, where during the passover and other solemn seasons the attendance of the high-priest was frequently required. Here alone, until the final decline of the Jewish state, the Sanhedrim held their sittings, in a large circular saloon, called by the Jews,-the chamber of free-stone. Here

the trial of Stephen was conducted; * and here they were at this time assembled, anxiously awaiting the appearance of Jesus, as a prisoner at their bar. Those who entered this apartment from without passed in succession through a portico or vestibule, and a spacious hall, the roof of which, as well as that of the council-chamber, was probably perforated, and in fair weather partially open to the sky. At the entrance of the vestibule a maid-servant was stationed, as portress, to take cognizance of those who went in or out. In the midst of the hall a fire of embers or charcoal was kindled in a brazier, for the accommodation of the slaves and officers who attended on the high-priest, and the other members of the Sanhedrim. Under the disquietude of mind naturally induced by the perilous position into which he had thrown himself, Peter twice approached the fire in the hall, and twice retired to the vestibule, in which two apartments all his denials were committed. The identity or diversity of these denials, as described with some variety by the four evangelists, is determined by those of the times, places, persons, or other principal circumstances connected with them;-their arrangement is fixed either by the order of narration, when uncontradicted, or by more positive indications of sequence, when these are supplied. The first, fifth, and sixth denials, are peculiar to John's gospel, the third to that of Luke, the second and seventh are related by the three earlier evangelists in common, and the fourth by Matthew and Mark alone.

The first of Peter's denials was addressed to the maid-servant at the gate; and having occurred at the very moment of his entrance into the palace, cannot be confounded with any other. The second, addressed to another of the high-priest's maid-servants, is represented by Luke as having happened almost immediately after Peter's first approach to the fire in the hall. It must, of course, have followed the former, and preceded all the rest. The third denial, given in reply to a man, is by Luke expressly dated a little after the last, and about an hour before the seventh. On this ground it is left where it is found in the narrative, annexed to the preceding one; and from the shortness of the interval, and the similar expression applied by the evangelist to the parties, both of whom seem to have observed Peter by the light of the fire, it may reasonably be conIcluded that both denials occurred in the same situation. From John's statement it is evident that the three concluding denials also took place in the hall, whither Peter, who had previously retired from it, must therefore after a time have returned, the interval of about an hour having been occupied by the first trial of Christ before the Sanhedrim. The two for

* See Calmet's Dictionary, Article Sanhedrim; also Nehemiah, chap. 8, v. 20, 21;— Acts, chap. 6, v. 8-15.

mer of these denials, whereof the second is by John almost confounded with the seventh which so speedily ensued, are consequently the fifth, addressed to the attendants, on their asking Peter whether he were not a follower of Jesus; and the sixth, in reply to a relative of Malchus, on his putting a similar question. The seventh, in reply to the attendants, on their again charging him more positively with being a disciple, was manifestly the last denial, having immediately preceded the second crowing of the cock, and the final retirement and penitence of Peter;-" Instantly, while he was yet speaking, the cock crew the second time, ... and he went out, and wept bitterly."

Supposing it to have been now demonstrated that Peter denied Christ seven times, it may reasonably be asked how this view can be reconciled with the express and seemingly restrictive declarations of all the evangelists, that he denied him thrice, a declaration repeated in not less than seven different passages.* The solution of this difficulty depends on a right interpretation of the terms employed, an interpretation which is happily furnished by some of the evangelists themselves; among whom Luke alone intimates what the Saviour meant by denying him, and Mark alone what he meant by the crowing of the cock. Of disowning Christ there were evidently two modes or degrees, the lower degree consisting in a person denying that he was his disciple, the higher in denying that he had any knowledge of him whatever. Among the Jews, as among most other civilized nations, when a man was tried on a capital charge, it was usual to receive any respectable testimony which might be adduced in favor of his general character. There were doubtless many persons in Jerusalem at that time, who, although they were not disciples of Jesus, could bear witness to the purity and beneficence of his life. Even his adversaries, either directly or indirectly, admitted the fact. Caiaphas declared that it was expedient to sacrifice him to the safety of the nation, implying that it was unjust; Judas Iscariot confessed, when it was too late, that he had betrayed innocent blood; and Pontius Pilate, after the fullest investigation, pronounced him a righteous man. Yet Peter, the most eminent and zealous of the apostles, owing to the unhappy predicament into which he had brought himself, rendered less justice to the character of his master than those who were concerned in his death; and thus perhaps contributed unwittingly to the fulfilment of a remarkable passage in Isaiah's prophecy concerning the sufferings of the Messiah, chap. 53, v. 8.

* Matt. chap. 26, v. 34, 75;—Mark, chap. 14, v. 30, 72;-Luke, chap. 22, v. 34, 61;— John, chap. 13, v. 38.