unfitting to announce beforehand, and in detail, these indignities, and to characterise at the same time the moral bearing which the saint of God opposed to the profanity of his enemies. It is not without reason that the sixth verse of the fiftieth chapter of Isaiah has been quoted in reference to this treatment, "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting," (compare Micah v. 1). As to the patience with which Jesus bore all these indignities, the well-known passage of Isaiah (liii. 7), where the silence of the servant of God under ill-treatment is alluded to, has been also cited, and with not less reason. But the connection of the entire context will not permit us to perceive in the fourth and following verses of the fiftieth chapter of Isaiah, any more than in the fifty-third chapter of the same book, a prophecy respecting the Messiah; consequently, the concurrence of the event with the passage must either have been the result of human calculation, or purely accidental. Neither the servants nor the soldiers, in their ill-usage of Jesus, could have had the intention of fulfilling the prophecies respecting him, nor could he have assumed the affectation of silence from a like motive; but, considering the nature of the circumstances, of the individuals, and of the ideas, there may, in this respect, have been an accidental coincidence. Nethertheless, however probable it may be that, in conformity with the rude manners of this period, Jesus, as a prisoner, should have been illtreated, and, that amongst other indignities he should have been exposed to those related by the evangelists, still we cannot fail to perceive that their descriptions are modelled from the account in the prophecies, which were considered to be in reference to Jesus from the moment in which he was conceived of as a suffering and dying Saviour. In the same way, how much soever it may have been in conformity with the character of Jesus, to have patiently endured such treatment, and to have opposed to such impertinent questions a dignified silence, the evangelists would not so often, and with

such evident interest, have alluded to the circumstance, if they had not looked upon it as important to show, in this respect, the accomplishment of the Old Testament prophecies.

§ CXXVI.

Denial of Peter.

At the moment in which Jesus was led out of the garden, the two first evangelists relate that all the disciples instantly took to flight; nevertheless, they say, as Luke and John do, that Peter followed at a distance, and that he even contrived to procure an entrance with the escort into the hall of the palace of the high-priest. Whilst, according to the synoptics, Peter is the only disciple who gives this proof of courage and attachment to Jesus-a proof which, to him, was soon to be the cause of the most profound humiliation-the fourth evangelist associates John with him, and adds that it was the acquaintance of this disciple with the high-priest that procured Peter an entrance into the palace. This difference has been previously examined in connection with the special character to be observed in this gospel with respect to the position of Peter in reference to John (§ lxxii.).

According to all the evangelists it was in this hall that Peter, intimidated by the serious turn which appeared to be taking place in the fortunes of Jesus, and by the remarks of the servants of the high-priest, who surrounded him, several times declared that he was not acquainted with the Galilean who had just been arrested in order to stifle a suspicion which had been several times expressed, that he was one of his adherents. But, as has been already mentioned, a difference may appear to exist between the fourth gospel and the others with respect to the particular palace in which the denial occurred. At first sight the narrative of John intimates that the first denial (xviii, 17) took

place during the examination before Annas, for the denial occurs after the observation in the thirteenth verse that Jesus was brought before Annas, and before the twenty-fourth verse, in which it is said that he was sent bound to Caiaphas; the two following denials appear, according to John, also to have occurred during the examination before Caiaphas, in his palace, since mention of them is only made after Jesus was brought before Caiaphas (25-27) and immediately afterwards the evangelist relates that he was delivered up to Pilate (28.) But in the account in John, it seems hardly possible to consider that the first denial occurred in any other place than that in which the two others occurred. After the account of the first denial, which happened near the door of the palace, which, it would appear, was the palace of Annas, it is said that the servants, because it was cold, had lighted a fire, and that "Peter stood with them and warmed himself" (18). Now, further on, in relating the second and third denials, they commence with almost the same words, "Simon Peter stood and warmed himself;" it is hardly possible then, to come to any other conclusion than that the evangelist, in alluding to this fire, meant to indicate that the second and third denials took place near it, and consequently, according to the supposition made as to the first denial, in the house of Annas. It is true that the synoptics (Mark xiv. 54; Luke xxii. 55) also speak of a fire lighted in the hall of Caiaphas, at which Peter warmed himself, only they represent him as seated, whilst John says that he was standing; but it does not follow that John should have thought that a like fire had been lighted also in the hall of the high-priest then in power, for according to the supposition by which we have hitherto been guided he only speaks of such a fire in the hall of Annas. Euthymius has conjectured that the residences of Annas and Caiaphas had one common hall, and that thus Peter, after Jesus had been transferred from the first to the second, might have been resting near the same fire. Those who consider that there is too much artifice in such a conjecture, would be in

clined rather to think that the second and third denials happened, according to John, during the transfer of Jesus from Annas to Caiaphas. Thus, when we suppose that John relates an examination which took place before Annas, the difference between the gospels with respect to the place in which the denials occurred is total; setting out from this fact, some have declared in favour of John, and have said that the apostles, being dispersed at the time, the information they obtained respecting these scenes was disconnected and uncertain, and that Peter, who was not of Jerusalem, did not know into which palace his misfortune had led him; that he, and after him, the first evangelists, had thought that these denials had taken place in the court of Caiaphas, an error which was rectified by John, who was better acquainted with the town and the palace of the high-priest. But even though we were to grant, what in itself is incredible, that Peter should have falsely imagined that it was in the palace of Caiaphas that he had denied Jesus, John, who during all this time was at his elbow, could at once have set him right, and this false opinion would not have acquired consistency. It would then be possible, by inverse reasoning, to attempt, at the expense of the fourth evangelist, to prove that the synoptics were right, if we had not found the solution of this apparent contradiction in the preceding section, in which we have seen that John, after having merely mentioned that Jesus was brought before Annas, speaks, in the fifteenth verse, of what occurred in the palace of Caiaphas.

As to the different denials, all the evangelists agree in saying that, in conformity with the prediction of Jesus, they were three in number; but they differ among themselves in the description which they give of them. Let us, in the first place, examine them in relation to places and persons. According to John, the first denial took place on the entrance of Peter, and was addressed to the portress or door-keeper (xviii. 17); according to the synoptics it only occurred within the hall, and was addressed to a "damsel" or "maid,"

Peter being seated before the fire (Matt. xxvi. 69, et seq. and parallel passages). The second took place near the fire, according to John (25), and, also, according to Luke, who, at least, does not notice any change of position (xxii. 58); in Matthew (xxvi. 71) and in Mark (xiv. 68) it is said to have occurred in the "porch;" according to John it was addressed to several individuals, according to Luke to one only, according to Matthew to another servant, according to Mark to the same to whom he had made the previous denial. The third denial occurs, in the same way, in the porch according to Matthew and Mark, who do not notice any change of place between the second and the third denial; according to Luke and John who, also, have not noticed any change of place, it occurred again, doubtless, in the hall, near the fire; it was addressed according to Matthew and Mark to several persons, according to Luke to one only, according to John to a relative of the servant who had been wounded in the garden. As to the observations which were exchanged on these occasions, they were addressed sometimes to Peter himself, sometimes to the bystanders, to call attention to him. On the two first occasions they uniformly point to Peter, as one of the adherents of the individual who had been arrested; but on the third occasion, wishing to give a reason for their suspicions, these individuals, according to the synoptics, argue that, from his accent, he must be a Galilean; according to John the relative of Malchus pretends that he knew him to be one of the followers of Jesus from having seen him in the garden. To judge between these two reasons, the first appears as natural as the second is artificial, for, in this last version, the person who speaks seems to have been designated as the relative of Malchus in order to make it appear that Peter was the person who struck the blow in the garden. The answers of Peter, too, exhibit some dissimilarities. He made use of an oath, according to Matthew, at the second denial, according to Mark it was only at the third denial that he began "to curse and to swear;"