that were skilful in the law were to preach, yet divers others did, and were permitted so to do in that state, if they were gifted. The Pharisees did so, and so did Paul, who was a Pharisee, and sat at the feet of Gamaliel; and yet he was not of the tribe of Levi, but of the tribe of Benjamin. And Christ himself did not take upon him to preach simply as he was the Messiah, as holding that forth for his warrant, though that was warrant abundantly for him. And when they come to condemn him, they do not quarrel with him for that, but for the matter of his doctrine, whether yea or no he did teach these and these points, which they would have known from himself, and therefore they asked him of his doctrine.

Obs. 2. You see they object no vice against Christ, only his doctrine to him (for otherwise Christ was innocent), and his having disciples. Observe, then, that his professing Christians should herein imitate their master, that when they come to suffer, they may no way suffer as evil doers; that they may suffer for nothing but the doctrine they have held forth, the disciples they have kept company with, the profession they have made, that it may be barely and merely the truth of their religion they suffer for.

Obs. 3. Still the great charge in all ages that they go about to lay, as to Christ, so to his people, it is heresy, and it is sedition. This they would have fastened upon Christ, charging him with heresy in his doctrine; with sedition in gathering disciples to disturb the state, as Theudas and others that you read of in Acts v.; and therefore they ask him of his doctrine, and of his disciples, and they would have fetched that out from himself, that when he had gathered disciples enow he would presently have rebelled. This they would have made Pilate believe. Both these, heresy and sedition, in terminis, were laid to Christ's charge.

Obs. 4. In that Christ answers nothing about his disciples, we may gather this (which indeed I hinted afore), that if the doctrine be good, as to the having disciples that do embrace it, there is no guilt in that. If Christ had done it seditiously indeed, which was it they endeavoured to lay to his charge, therein there had been a guilt. Look of what kind the doctrine is, of that kind the disciples must be. If the doctrine be right, there is no danger that disciples embrace it. Therefore Christ, in Mat. xxviii. 20, bids them make disciples, not to themselves, but to the truth, to their doctrine.

Obs. 5. Observe, that even these men here accused themselves in accusing Christ. There were several of them had several sorts of disciples, but what themselves went on in and agreed in amongst themselves, that they fall upon Christ for; for this is manifest by all the stories of the Scripture, and by their own Rabbins, that in those times it was free to gather disciples. There were three eminent sects among themselves, that still agreed in temple worship; there were the Sadducees, that denied the resurrection, against the Pharisees, and the Pharisees against the Sadducees; there were the Herodians likewise; there were the Esseni; there were the Nazarites. All these were amongst the Jews; and it is evident that after the time of the Maccabees, yea, after the captivity of Babylon, there was a permission of great differences in point of doctrine amongst them. Yet when the true Messiah cometh to teach his doctrine, and to make disciples, they fall upon him for that which they themselves practised. Here were many Pharisees here present that were sectaries (that is the truth on it), but what was a commendation, and tolerable in them one to another, that must not be suffered in Christ; for men will bear anything but the truth. They themselves (saith the apostle in the Galatians) would constrain you

to be circumcised and to keep the law, yet they themselves do not keep the law. It is constantly so in experience; they that are opposers of the truth always do so. The papists they suffer a world of differences amongst themselves, they suffer even Jews that are opposite to Christ, and who blaspheme him; but any that do profess but the least of protestant doctrine or worship, how do they oppose them! The Pharisees, you see, did the like, though there was a world of division amongst themselves, and they had a liberty to differ in matters of doctrine, and in matters of a high nature too; yet when it comes to the truth, there they would not permit Christ either to teach any doctrine differing from them, or to have disciples; which yet they themselves allowed, both in themselves and others.

Obs. 6. Those that were the greatest corrupters of doctrine (for these Pharisees and the high priests were those that had corrupted the doctrine of religion by their traditions, as Christ intimateth often in his speeches), they are they that are here most zealous in the matter of doctrine, who themselves, I say, had been the greatest corrupters of it, and had drawn in their several ways several disciples after them, as the manner of those times was.

Obs. 7. This very speech of Christ may teach us this, to take heed of perverting the speeches of men. For this speech of Christ, if you do not take the scope he aimed at, is subject to perversion. He saith that in secret he had taught nothing. Now all the stories of the evangelists shew that he had taught much in private; but (as I have shewed you) his meaning is this, I have not one kind of doctrine that I teach privately and another that I teach publicly. He doth not so much refer to the act as to the matter.

Obs. 8. Though they had authority to examine men's doctrines, yet here lay the evil of their examining Christ, that they should have done it upon complaints first brought before them. It is still as controversies do arise. It was not that the Sanhedrim went and made so many doctrines unto which they would tie men, and they must preach no other; that power even those amongst the Jews had not. It was lawful for men to interpret the Scripture, and that not only by the rule the Sanhedrim set out; but indeed if any controversy did arise upon the spreading of a doctrine, then it belonged to their cognisance, as appeareth by Deut. xvii. If a false prophet arise, and if there were any controversy between blood and blood, case and case, or interpreting Scripture, the thing was to be referred unto them, and it was examinable by that council. But that men should be limited in their doctrine to what all the councils in the world should say, this is not the rule. It was not the rule among the Jews themselves, although that Sanhedrim had that authority which no council ever had since the world began, for it was by divine institution. Therefore, I say, they do not find fault with him because he had not come to know what doctrine he should teach as from them, but that he taught a doctrine contrary to God's law. They indeed acted beyond their authority, to proceed by way of examination; they should have done it by way of charge.

Obs. 9. You see the freeness of truth and innocency; it is able to appeal even unto enemies, unto any, to defend itself. And therefore as we should so preach, so we should so walk, as we may freely and boldly appeal unto any, for so Christ doth here: Ask them that heard me,' saith he.

Obs. 10. Oftentimes doctrines and opinions are condemned by prejudice, and upon hearsay only. This Caiaphas and many of those rulers, they had not heard Christ; no, the greatness of their places kept them from

that, as oftentimes great places keep men from the means, from that which. should save them; but their officers heard him, and by the report of malicious and malignant spirits, Caiaphas and the rest were thus informed.

Obs. 11. Lastly, it is the law of God, and indeed the law of nature and equity, that there should not be an oath ex officio; that is, that men should not be proceeded against, either in church or otherwise, by a bare examination of themselves, till such time as witnesses have brought an accusation against them. As in Acts xxv. 27, 'It seems to me unreasonable' (it was the speech of a heathen) to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.' That rule which is given concerning an elder is true concerning every brother also, though the instance is only in an elder, as one whose credit should be more than another's: 1 Tim. v. 19, 'Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.' I do observe this difference, my brethren, and it is very notable: when afterward the high priest doth examine Christ of this truth, whether he was the Messiah, and when he was punctually asked whether he was the Son of God or no, he answers plainly, I am. But when he would examine him about matter of fact, not about the matter so much what he taught, as that he had taught thus and thus, which might be proved by witnesses, then Christ referreth it to witnesses, and would not answer himself. And the reason of the difference to me holds forth this great truth, that no man is to refuse if he be positively asked whether he hold this or that opinion or no. Or if he be asked an account of his faith, or demanded what his judgment is in such or such a thing, he is freely to tell it, especially if they that ask him have authority. It is a thing in which Christ's example is held forth to Timothy by the apostle Paul, that he witnessed a good confession before Pilate and the high priest, 1 Tim. vi. 13. A man is to give an account of his faith to any that will ask him; let him look to it though, whether it be to ensnare him or no. But if any shall come and say, I preached such a thing, which is matter of fact (for as it is preached it is matter of fact), and there are witnesses that can clear whether I did or no, in that case the way is not to proceed by examination of me, but to produce the witnesses, and so to proceed; for no man is bound, in matter of fact, to accuse himself. This I take to be the difference of Christ's answer in this, when the high priest examined him about his doctrine, that is, asked him whether he had not preached thus or thus; saith Christ, If I have preached thus or thus, prove it; there are witnesses enough, I refer myself to them; I will never tell you what I have preached: go to them that heard me, and bring them hither, and then examine me, and I shall give you an answer. But when he came positively to ask him whether he held this or no, whether he was the Messiah, he answered clearly and plainly; for no man is to refuse to give an account of his faith, though it endanger his life, if he be called to it. But for matter of fact, whenas it may be proved by witnesses (and all such things may be proved by witnesses, though it be matter of doctrine), a man is not to accuse himself. It was the proceeding in that great oath that you are now freed from, which, as it was a great oppression, so it is a great mercy to this kingdom that it is taken away.* And whereas they used to allege that Christ accused himself, the case is different; it was not what he had preached in

There were many oaths imposed in those times; but I suppose the reference is to the oath imposed by the Convocation in 1640 (sometimes called the Et Cetera Oath), and declared illegal by the Parliament in 1641. See Rapin's History, vol. ii. pp. 321 and 380, or any other history of the period.-ED.

matter of fact, but in matter of opinion and judgment. But as to the matter of fact, Askest thou me?' saith he. 'Ask them that heard me.' And this is the law of nature, and this is the law of the Jews; and this was Christ's dealing with a cunning and wary adversary that sought his life; and this, you see, he stands to. I have taught, saith he, where all the Jews come; I have taught in the temple, taught in the synagogues, taught before all the world; and now have you brought me hither, having bound me, and cast me and my disciples out of the synagogues, and ask me what I have preached! Here was the most unjust and unequal proceeding in the world; yet thus they did with Christ, and the disciple is not above his

master.

CHAPTER XI.

The last sufferings of Christ coming to his death.-Both the shame and torments are to be considered in them.

We have seen our Lord Christ a man of sorrows and sufferings through the whole course of his life; we have seen him betrayed, apprehended, seized on as a criminal, and brought to examination and judgment; and all these were the fruits of his being made sin and a curse. Now the next part and conclusion of the curse, unto which all the other tend, as so many small rivulets into the ocean, is death; and that,

1. Natural, of the body: 'To dust thou shalt return,' Gen. iii. 19, which phrase notes out the separation of soul and body. So Eccles. xii. 7, it is expounded, Dust returns to the earth, and the soul to God that gave it.'

2. Death spiritual, of the soul: Thou shalt die the death,' Gen. ii. 17, which words intimate a double death, even another death besides that of the body, and beyond it. Now,

1. I shall shew how Christ was made a curse in his enduring a bodily death; the circumstances whereof do all of them yet add unto the curse thereof. You see that death in itself (whether natural or violent) is by God's first sentence on Adam made a curse for sin. And thus is the death of every man who dies not in the Lord. But yet further, whereas there was but one particular kind of death that was in a more eminent manner, of all deaths else, the most accursed-and that was hanging upon a tree'— even that did Christ undergo, so that to be sure he might bear the extremity of the curse herein. And that kind of death was not accursed by God's law and doom only, but was also esteemed to be a curse among the Gentiles. Thus it was among the Romans, who, when they would curse any man unto whom they owed ill will, they expressed it by this, Abi in malam crucem; that is, I would thou wert crucified, or Mayest thou die the death of the tree. Equivalent to which is that way of cursing taken up by ill tongues among us, when they say, 'Go and be hanged,' &c.

In that his last suffering the death of the cross (which was the epitome of all), two things are eminently to be considered by us:

(1.) The shame of that death, and the circumstances of it.

(2.) The pains of those sufferings, and the death itself, which is the separation of soul and body, and the conclusion of all. And unto these may the chief of those his sufferings, either preparatory unto, or at his death, be reduced. The apostle, in Heb. xii. 2, draws them to these two heads :

[1.] Enduring the cross, which includes both the pains of his suffering, and death itself.

[2.] The shame that accompanied it, in those words, despising the shame.' And Christ himself, particularly summing up all that was to be done to him, and that was foretold of him, by the prophets (as he says), Luke xviii. 31, Behold we go to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.' The main particulars of which, all, he after mentions: ver. 32, 33, he expresseth it in these words, The Son of man shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on; and they shall scourge him, and put him to death;' which particulars, if you will reduce them to heads, do fall into these two:

1. The shame, expressed in three particulars: (1.) Mocked. (2.) Spitefully entreated. (3.) Spitted on.

2. The pains, laid down in two things: (1.) Their scourging him. (2.) Their killing him.

And accordingly we find two especial epithets of excellency mentioned of Christ, when his sufferings are mentioned by the apostles, on purpose to aggravate those sufferings from the worth of the person that underwent them—the first, that they killed the Prince of life: so says Peter, Acts iii. 15; the other, that they crucified the Lord of glory:' so Paul, 1 Cor. ii. 18; the first serving to illustrate his dying, that they should kill the Prince of life; the second, the shame of his death, that they should crucify the Lord of glory-the apostle mentioning his glory, together with his crucifying, so to set out the shame of that death above all other, and also as an evil to be considered in his death, as great as death itself, and greater. And accordingly in respect of death he is called the Lamb slain,' Rev. xiii. 8, and in respect of shame he is called a worm and no man,' Ps. xxii. 6, being trodden on by all men, and his life of so poor a value with them, that they made no more of it to kill him than to tread a worm to death, which to do no man hath the least regret. And accordingly also, Heb. vi. 6, the sin of apostates from Christ is set out by their doing (so far as in them lies) that unto Christ, which the Jews, that put him to death, did to him at his crucifying. It is set out by these two things: 1. That they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh;' secondly, that they put him to an open shame.' And so I reckon this of shame with the curse of his death, because they are thus linked together by the apostles; and also because indeed, in all death, shame is a part of the curse (and therefore it is said, the body is sown in dishonour, 1 Cor. xv. 43); but especially in Christ's death, for it was more than dying, the kind of death being the shamefullest. And though shame be not mentioned in the words of the curse of our first parents, yet the first fruit, and so the first appearance of the curse (that we read of) even in them, was shame and fear; it is said, 'they were ashamed,' &c. And so I come,

1. To the shame of this death. It is a great question, whether shame or death be the greater evil. There have been those who have rather chosen death, and have wiped off a dishonour with their blood. So Saul slew himself rather than he would fall into the hands of the Philistines, who would have insulted over him, and mocked him as they did Samson. So that king, Jer. xxxviii. 19, rather chose to lose his country, life, and all, than to be given to the Jews, his subjects, to be mocked of them. And we see that many malefactors that are to be condemned to die, and though, dying as malefactors, any sort of death hath shame in it, yet to avoid a