brought the Romans upon them. Yea, if you read Josephus and others, you shall find that that which strengthened them to rebel against the Romans was their very looking for the Messiah, and the prophecies they had, that about that time the Messiah should come.

Obs. 2. A second observation that I make upon this is this, that a state is not to put a man to death merely and simply for the public good, unless he is an offender. For here this state maxim the Pharisees and Pilate took up, and used as the great plausible argument to the people; yet it being against a man's life, supposed innocent (whether they knew him to be the Christ or not), it is noted as a high and mighty injury, and as an act of the greatest injustice in them. It is the greatest instance this that can be, that no evil is to be done that good may come by it. An innocent man is not to be put to death, nor innocent men to be injured or wronged (if they be innocent) for a public good. A man's life is not to be taken away merely to save a state. Indeed, if a case of necessity lie, so'as that a man offer himself freely up for the saving of a state, as some noble Romans have done, that is another matter; but to condemn a man to death simply to save a state, ought not to be.

Obs. 3. You may observe, that carnal men, when they would prevail with others to do anything, they will speak to their very lusts. All their hearts here were on fire against Jesus Christ; Caiaphas now speaks the highest reason to the lusts of the Jews that could be, invents a reason upon which they should put him to death, a most plausible one, colours it over so cunningly as might take with all the people. It is better, saith he, that one man be put to death, than that the whole nation should perish; he knew this would move them all, and all that is in them. I say he gave counsel to their lusts; and so you shall have carnal men to do, speak to men's lusts, and vent their own lusts too, vent their own malice; for so Caiaphas did. It is expedient for us,' saith he, for us that are the priests, but puts it upon the people, that one man should die for the people.'

Obs. 4. Observe hence likewise, what a dangerous thing it is to be the first mover in any great wickedness. Here you see Caiaphas, because he was the first that gave counsel against Christ, he is noted out in a way of eminency, with this brand upon him, 'This is he that gave counsel that it was expedient for one man to die for the nation.' He did it cunningly and plausibly, but God for all that took notice of it, and lays this great load upon him, 'This is the man.' Therefore, I say, to be the first mover and leader in a wicked business, as Annas and Caiaphas was in the great business of crucifying Christ, is a dangerous thing. And you see one wicked, cunning man will carry the whole. Caiaphas here spake such great reason, that he carried them all; but such men, of all others, that are the counsellers in evil, and that are the first counsellers in evil, though they glory and pride themselves in it-as certainly as this man did, 'You know nothing at all,' saith he—such men will God brand, as he branded him here, and their damnation shall be great at last. Poor Caiaphas, there was another that gave counsel that Jesus Christ should be put to death afore thou didst, and that was God the Father; for in Acts iv. 28, 'Both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.' There was not only his wisdom, his counsel, but his hand, his power in it, though it was the greatest sin in the world. Yea, God the Father had given counsel to Christ himself to do it, before ever Caiaphas had spoken: Ps. xvi. 7, I will bless the Lord, who hath given me counsel.' And what was the counsel he

240

OF CHRIST THE MEDIATOR.

gave him? He bade him die for his people, and he would raise him up; and therefore my reins instruct me in the night season,' saith he; that night when he was in the garden, and when he was before Pilate, God's counsel was to him to do it, beforehand, and he blesseth God, that gave him that counsel. This psalm is a psalm in relation to Christ, and it is spoken of his death and resurrection.

As

Obs. 5. Lastly, observe this, that oftentimes the speeches of great persons (as of fathers concerning their children, &c.), which they do not speak prophetically, as in their intentions, yet they are so in the event. Homer brings in the dream of Agamemnon. So Pharaoh dreamed, and Yet oftentimes princes and others do utter Nebuchadnezzar dreamed. speeches that have a prophetical meaning in them in the conclusion. It is dangerous therefore for a man to curse himself, to wish this or that upon himself, for whilst thou dost it in a corrupt passion, out of a corrupt heart, God may turn it to a prophecy; therefore take heed of such speeches upon all occasions. And so much for this 14th verse.

CHAPTER IX.

Peter's denial of Christ.-That this was an addition to his sufferings.

There is a great question among interpreters (which I will handle very briefly, because I will not trouble you much with difficulties), whether all this that follows concerning Peter's denial, and the high priest's asking Christ of his disciples and of his doctrine, was done in Annas his house, or in Caiaphas his ? All yield that there were some things done in Caiaphas his house, and that he was led to Caiaphas, and that from Caiaphas he was led to Pilate, and from Pilate to Herod; but some would have what is brought in here of Peter, and the examination of Christ concerning his disciples and doctrine, to have been in Annas his house, and by him. But For we read in all the case is clear in other evangelists that it was not. the other evangelists, especially in Matthew, that Peter's denial was in Caiaphas his house. And John here saith expressly that Caiaphas was high priest that same year, and that Peter's denial was when he got into the palace of the high priest, and that the high priest asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine. Now though Annas was father-in-law to the high priest, yet it was Caiaphas that was the high priest; therefore all this must needs be done in Caiaphas his house, and not in Annas his. The plain meaning then is this, that whereas Annas was father-in-law to Caiaphas the high priest, they led him therefore first to his house; but when Annas had seen him, they (without Annas doing anything to him at all that we read of) led him away to Caiaphas; and though his leading to Caiaphas be not mentioned here, yet it is mentioned at the 24th verse, where it is said, So that, I Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.' say, all these things were done in Caiaphas his house, and not in Annas his; and therefore there is none of the evangelists but John that mention anything of Annas, because, indeed, there was nothing done in his house; only they brought him unto him because he was Caiaphas his father-in-law, for to see him; and when he had seen him, he sent him directly to Caiaphas; the very words, 'to Annas first,' implies this. And the truth is that Cyril, an ancient Greek father, he brings in even here, afore he comes to the 15th verse, 'Annas he sent him bound to Caiaphas,' and in the copies that he

had and had seen, those words were found. And Beza inclines to that too, and thinks it was an omission in the writer, and that it ought to be here inserted. So much now for the solving of that question; and so I come to the words of this 15th verse.

Verse 15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. That disciple was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.'

It is the beginning of the story of Peter's denial of Christ, which denial of Peter's is intermingled by all the evangelists with the sufferings of our Lord and Saviour Christ; and I think it is done on purpose, first, to illustrate the sufferings of Christ; for certainly this denial of Peter's did something add to Christ's sufferings; that at that very time when he was asked of his doctrine and of his disciples, one of his greatest and most eminent disciples should be denying of him (for so you see the context runs), which Christ knew, for in the end he looked back upon Peter, and shewed his grief for him, and that he took notice of him, and of what he had done. And, 2, the evangelists do it also for this purpose, to shew the great love of Christ, that though Peter and the other disciples were a-sinning, especially Peter, for he sinned most greviously, Jesus Christ went on in his work, went on to suffer even for those sins that they were then committing. And as Christ knew what Peter was a-doing then, and yet went on to suffer, so he knew what thou wouldst do against him, and yet suffered for thee. But to come to the story.

There are in all the evangelists recorded three several denials of Christ, and that by Peter; and as I go along I must compare the one with the other, and shew that there is no contradiction in what the evangelists record.

In the words here, from the 15th verse to the 19th, you have two eminent things to be considered.

1. The introduction, or the story that delivers how it came to pass that Peter did get into the high priest's hall, which was the occasion of his denial.

2. The denial itself.

1. First, For the story how Peter got in. John waiting* after the other evangelists, still labours to insert some circumstances which they had omitted. Now none of the other evangelists tell us how Peter got into the high priest's hall; they tell us indeed that Peter followed his master afar off, but this great circumstance, which was a preparation to his denial, how he got in, and with what difficulty, it is only recorded by John. And there is a great deal to be observed in it. But first I shall open it historically, and then give you the observations as I go along.

Simon Peter followed Jesus. The other evangelists tell us that he followed Jesus afar off. But I shall not speak of that circumstance, intending to keep principally to what John here saith. It was certainly a mixed action in Peter, that is, an action mixed of love and of fear, of grace and corruption. For that he followed him argues that he had a love in his heart to Christ; yet there was fear mixed with it, for he walketh after him afar off.

The question is here, whether Peter sinned in this, in his going to the high priest's hall ?

Assuredly he did; For, 1. Christ had expressly told him, Mat. xxvi. 2, that he should suffer at that passover; therefore it was unbelief in him to Qu. 'writing'?—ED.

VOL. V.

242

OF CHRIST THE MEDIATOR.

follow him after he was apprehended, to see the event of it, as Matthew tells us he went for that reason.

should be kept safe, and let free.

And,

2. Christ had taken order, when he was first taken, that his disciples 'Let these go,' saith he, which was inti'That the mation enough that they were unable to suffer; for it follows, word which he had spoken might be fulfilled, of those thou hast given me have I lost none;' implying that if they had then been put to suffer, they had been lost, for they were weak and unfit for suffering, and it was not the And therefore in mind of God to strengthen them to suffering at that time. John xiii. 36, saith Christ, Whither I go thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards.' Thou canst not follow me now, for thou art not able to follow me, neither will my Father strengthen thee to follow me ; but afterwards he followed Christ, even to the cross, for, as ecclesiastical But yet the meaning of stories tell us, he was crucified as his master was. that place is, that as Christ went to heaven in a way of suffering, so he told him that he should follow him thither, but he should not follow him presently in the like way of suffering. And besides,

3. Christ had plainly and fully told him that he would deny him. Now for him, having been thus warned by Christ, and having had experience of his own fearfulness-for having struck off the high priest's servant's ear, he fled away amongst the rest; and it was not likely that he should be more valiant and courageous in the high priest's hall, amongst soldiers and officers, than he had been in the garden for him, I say, notwithstanding all this, to be venturing, and to put himself upon that temptation, it was certainly a sin. But still, I say, grace will work with corruption; his love unto Christ wrought with his fear, and then the words that he had spoken himself, those courageous stout words, 'I will die with thee rather than deny thee,' those rise in his mind, and put him upon going after Christ to see the issue of the business; and perhaps he hoped that he might happily get in with the crowd, and so not be seen.

Obs. 1. The observation that I make from hence by the way, is this, That we should not put ourselves upon occasions of suffering or danger, till such time as God calls us. It is unwarrantable, and it is sinful so to do. It was so in Peter.

Obs. 2. As it is unwarrantable to put ourselves upon occasions of sufferings, so it is dangerous for us to tempt God by putting ourselves upon occasions of sinning; to go to the door, as it were, where a man shall be drawn in to sin, as Peter here; he follows, and he goes to the door, and. stands without, hankering to see what shall be the end of it. I say it is a dangerous thing for us to put ourselves upon occasions of sinning, to tempt God, for then you see by this of Peter what the issue is; when Peter tempteth God, then doth God suffer Peter to be tempted, he leads him indeed into temptation.

But Peter had not got in for all this, had it not been for an unhappy providence to him; for so I may call it in respect of his sin, though God intended good by it. For the story tells us that another disciple went along with him, and that disciple, being known unto the high priest, went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. This is brought in here on purpose to shew how Peter got in, for otherwise there is no reason of mentioning this going in of the other disciple. The providence of God would that here should be two disciples eye-witnesses of Christ's sufferings in the high priest's hall, from whom the rest might have the relation of it. There was Peter and another disciple. He is called a disciple, for that was the name

that was given to Christians in Christ's time, and so in the Acts of the Apostles, till they came to Antioch, for then they were first called Christians.

There is a question amongst interpreters who this other disciple was. Some say (and many good interpreters) that it was John, and the reason they give is this, because John in this epistle when he speaks of himself, he styles himself that other disciple,' and never mentions his name, as in John xx. 30. But you shall find that where John speaks of himself, though he concealeth his own name, and saith that other disciple,' yet he adds withal, 'whom Jesus loved;' so you have it in the same 20th of John, ver. 2 But now that addition is not put to this disciple, but it is another disciple which was known to the high priest. And besides, to me there is this great reason that this other disciple was not John, because there is no likelihood (but the contrary seems much more probable) that John should have so much knowledge and familiarity as this disciple apparently had, both with the high priest himself, and so, by virtue of that acquaintance and greatness with him, an interest in his family also; so that he could command or order to have Peter let in. Now John was a poor fisherman, that lived in Galilee, a country remote from Jerusalem, and came but up with Christ at the feast; for Christ did not live ordinarily at Jerusalem, but always after the feast went down again into Galilee, the place of his usual residence; unless he preached sometimes up and down in the country; and when he went, his disciples went with him; therefore it is not likely that he should have such interest in the high priest's house. And then again, if it had been John, he would certainly have been questioned as well as Peter, neither would he himself have ventured in, being so well known as it is said this other disciple was. And the Syriac translation favours this opinion, that it was none of John, for it reads it thus, unus ex aliis, one of the other disciples, not being one of the twelve. And it was a disciple, though known to the high priest, yet certainly he was not known to be a disciple; for had he been known to be a disciple, doubtless they had fallen upon him as well as upon Peter, for all his favour with the high priest. And it had been brought in as an argument to Peter, that he was a disciple, because he was helped into the hall by another disciple; but you see it is not, only they allege that Peter was one of them that was in the garden, &c. But the truth is, when the Holy Ghost hath concealed who this disciple was, why should we go and say, Who is it?

Obs. From hence I will give you this observation, that Christ he had other disciples besides his apostles; many hidden ones. You shall find in John xii. 42, that among the chief rulers there were many that believed on him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him. And in Acts i. 15, there were a hundred and twenty that met together. So that there were more disciples than the twelve, yet there were many that appeared not, as Nicodemus, that came to Jesus by night; and they did not appear till after his death. Christ hath many hidden ones that are a long time putting themselves forth in profession. We see it in experience; it hath been known that men have been long converted, and lived privately in the family, before they made an open profession. And so now, many are favourers of the cause of Christ that do not shew themselves; but shew themselves they will in the end. This man here, though he would not profess himself openly, yet when he saw a disciple, he would do him a good turn, as he thought he did Peter in having of him into the high priest's house. * Qu. "Gospel ?"--ED.