The unavoidable minuteness of the preceding details renders it needless to add many observations in order to justify the harmony adopted, that is, to show its accordance with the rules, and principles previously established; since, with a few exceptions, which will afterwards be noticed, a simple inspection of the analysed specimen will suffice for the purpose. Thus, it will be obvious that the subdivision of the several gospels is founded on the natural distinction of their successive portions; either in respect to time, place, persons, and other princicipal circumstances; or else, on account of their being peculiar to one evangelist, or common to two or more different ones. It will, in like manner, be readily perceived that the collation, and conjunction of passages in different evangelists are regulated by their agreement, or disagreement in the same particulars; that the arrangement of the portions thus divided, and collated is determined, either by clear indications of time, or of sequence; or by the prevailing order, when there are no other indications; and that the consolidation of the whole into one continuous narrative proceeds on the principle of adopting singular passages without alteration, and of selecting among parallel passages those portions which are most perfect with respect to matter, style, or general congruity. With a view to give full satisfaction on all these points, a few special explanations will, however, be subjoined.

The order of the extract from Luke's gospel is preserved unpreserved unchanged; that of John is altered in one instance only; chap. xviii. 24; which is evidently retrospective; and that of Matthew, and

of Mark, in six successive passages, chiefly parallel; namely, Matt. xxvi. 69-75 end; and Mark, xiv. 66-72 end; corresponding to Par. 11, 13, 14, 21, 22, and 23, and relating to the denials of Christ by Peter; in which, as will hereafter be shown, these evangelists have collected the denials which they describe into a separate, and final paragraph, instead of intermixing them, as is done by Luke, and John, with other events, agreeably to the actual occurrence.

After stating that the guard, which seized Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, conveyed him, in the first instance, before Annas, John relates his preliminary examination by the highpriest; and, in verse 24, concludes by mentioning that Annas sent him bound, that is, without delay, to Caiaphas. The repeated, and pointed references to the highpriest, in the report of this first interrogation, particularly in v. 22; and the assurance, in v. 13, that Caiaphas, and not Annas, was the high-priest that year, render it evident that Caiaphas, and not Annas, conducted the examination. The note, in verse 24, that Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas must, consequently, be retrospective; and, in this instance, both for the sake of distinctness, and for the purpose of collation with the parallel passages of the other Evangelists, it is most conveniently transposed after v. 14.

a

The denials of Jesus by Peter, on account of the number, and arrangement here assigned to them materially differing from those commonly admitted, demand more particular explanation. The following abridged Table of the arrangement will render that explanation more perspicuous.

It is evident that each of the Evangelists describes three successive denials; and, had each described a different set of denials, the whole number would, of course, have been twelve. But, on inquiry, it will be found that four only of these passages are singular; namely, the third, peculiar to Luke, and the first, fifth, and sixth, peculiar to John; and that three are concordances; namely, the second, and seventh, common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the fourth, common to Matthew, and Mark; making the entire number of Peter's denials, not three, as is generally supposed, but seven. To render the subject more intelligible, it should be observed that the evangelical narrative mentions three successive apartments of the high-priest's palace, as concerned in this transaction; namely, the vestibule, or porch; the common hall, or court, to which the porch conducted; and the council-chamber, beyond the hall, and a little above it. At the entrance of the vestibule was stationed a maid-servant, or portress, to take cognizance of those who went in, or out. In the middle of the hall a fire was kindled, for the accommodation of the slaves and officers who attended on the highpriest, and the other members of the Sanhedrim, assembled in the council-chamber within.

Under the disquietude of mind induced by the circumstances in which he had rashly placed himself, Peter twice approached the fire in the hall, and twice retired to the vestibule;

JOHN,
Ch. xviii.

Ver. 15-17.

...........

............

...

Ver. 25..... Ver. 26, 27.

in which two apartments the whole of his denials of Jesus took place. The first denial was addressed to the portress, on his admission at the gate; the second to another of the high-priest's maid-servants, on his first approach to the fire in the hall; the third to a man in the same place, a little after; the fourth to the portress again, on his first retreat to the vestibule ; and the three last about an hour afterwards, on his return to the fire, a circumstance which, although not formally expressed in the narrative, is distinctly implied; namely, the fifth to the attendants there, on their asking him whether he were not a follower of Jesus; the sixth to a relative of Malchus, on his putting a similar question; and the seventh, and last to the attendants again, on their more confidently charging him with being a disciple.

The identity, or diversity of these denials is determined, as in all other cases, by those of the time, place, persons, or other principal circumstances connected with them; their arrangement, either by the prevailing order, when uncontradicted; or by more positive indications of time, or of sequence, when these occur. This will more clearly appear from the following review of the whole transaction; in which the names of those evangelists by whom the several denials are specially mentioned are distinguished by an asterisk, when there is any difference among them, in this respect.

them, for thy [manner of] speaking discovereth thee. But, he began to utter oaths, and curses, [saying,] I know not this man of whom ye speak. And, instantly, while 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 twice, thou wilt disown me thrice: And he went out, and wept bitterly."

The Section concludes with an account of the insults subsequently offered to Jesus by the attendants in the hall, to whose charge he was committed during the short period intervening between the retirement of the Sanhedrim for the night, and their reassembling the next morning.

The first of Peter's denials needs but little explanation. It is manifestly peculiar to John; and, having occurred at the very moment of Peter's entrance into the highpriest's palace, cannot be transposed or confounded with any other. The second denial is related by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who omit the former. From Luke's account, it appears to have happened almost immediately after Peter's entrance into the palace, and first approach to the fire in the hall. It must, of course, have followed the denial at the gate, and preceded all the rest. The third denial, peculiar to Luke, is by him expressly dated a little after the last, and about an hour before the seventh. On this ground it is left in its actual situation, annexed to the former; and, from the shortness of the interval, and the similar expression applied by the evangelist to the parties on both occasions, of having observed Peter, that is, probably, by the light of the fire, it may reasonably be concluded that both

denials occurred in the same place.

The fourth denial, related by Matthew, and Mark alone, happened on Peter's first retreat from the hall to the vestibule, that is, soon after the foregoing ones, and a little before the final denial, consequently, later than the third, which preceded it by an hour. From John's statement it is evident that the three concluding denials, of which the two first alone are mentioned by him, and by him exclusively, took place at the fire in the hall, whither Peter, who had previously retired from it, must, therefore, after a while have returned; the interval of about an hour having apparently been occupied by the examination of Jesus before the Sanhedrim. The two denials described by John, of which the second is by him almost confounded with the seventh, which so speedily followed it, are, consequently, the fifth, and the sixth; and the remaining denial, omitted by him, but described by the three other evangelists, is the seventh, and last; having immediately preceded the second crowing of the cock, and the final retreat, and penitence of Peter; circumstances which preclude all doubt respecting its individuality, and order. After rectifying the arrangement of these passages in Matthew, and Mark, their account of the mockery of Jesus by the attendants regularly follows, in collation with the corresponding passage in Luke, to which this ultimate place is more explicitly assigned.

But, on the supposition that the fact of Peter's seven denials of Christ has now been demonstrated, it may reasonably be asked how this view can be reconciled with the express, and seemingly restrictive declaration of all the evangelists, that he denied Jesus thrice,

a declaration repeated in not fewer than seven different passages; namely, Matt. xxvi. 34, and 75; Mark xiv. 30, and 72; Luke xxii. 34, and 61; and John xiii. 38. The solution of this difficulty depends on a right interpretation of the terms employed in the narrative, an interpretation happily furnished by the evangelists themselves; among whom Luke alone intimates what our Saviour meant by Peter's denying him; and Mark alone what he meant by the crowing of the cock.

Of denying, or 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 knew him. Agreeably to a mode of speaking familiar in many languages, words immediately expressing intellectual actions are often used to signify connected sentiments, and affections. Hence, in Scripture, to know God, or any other being, often means to love, and esteem him; and not to know him, means to hate, and despise him: Exod. v. 1, 2; 1 Chron. xxviii. 9; Matt. xxv. 11, 12; Luke, xiii. 23-27; John, xvii. 3; 1 Thess. v. 12, 13, &c. Allusions to both the modes in which Peter denied Christ afterwards occur in the gospel narrative; to the general mode by the angel, when despatching the women to announce the resurrection of Jesus; Mark xvi. 7; "Come, see the place where the Lord lay; and go quickly, and tell his disciples, and Peter, that he is risen from the dead;" that is, Peter, who swore he was not a disciple. Allusion to the personal mode of denial seems to have been made by our Lord himself, in his thrice repeated question to Peter, at the lake of Gennesareth, John xxi. 15-17. "Simon, [son] of

Jonah, lovest thou me?" a form of expression which sufficiently determines the import of not knowing Christ, to which it is opposed. Nor was the distinction insignificant. Among the Jews, as among other nations, when a person was on trial for his life, it was usual to receive any respectable testimony which might be adduced in favour of his general character. There were, doubtless, many persons in Jerusalem at that time, who, although they were not disciples of Jesus, could yet bear witness to the sanctity, and benevolence of his life. Even the enemies of Christ, either directly, or indirectly, admitted his innocence. Caiaphas declared that it was expedient to sacrifice him to the welfare 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. But Peter, the most eminent of the apostles, under the unhappy state of his mind at the moment, rendered less justice to the character of Christ than those who were concêrned in his death. He was guilty of both the modes of denial above described; having repeatedly protested, not merely that he was no disciple of Jesus, but that he did not even know the man.

It was this more heinous, and aggravated kind of denial which was the subject of our Saviour's prediction, a fact noticed by Luke alone. The prediction was twice repeated; namely, once, during the last supper; and again, after its conclusion, when Jesus, and his apostles were proceeding from Jerusalem to the garden of Gethsemane. The first prediction may be harmonized as follows from the parallel accounts of Luke, xxii.