which should be destroyed, and raised again by his own power, within the third day. The words therefore laid to his charge might have been, and probably were, literally such as he had used. But the falsehood of the evidence lay in the misapplication of them. Jesus had spoken of the temple of his body, as the Evangelist remarks; the witnesses gave in the evidence as if he meant the Jewish temple of stone. Hence it was, no doubt, that their evidence could not be made to agree, because each false witness would probably enough add something more which might go to prove the criminal meaning of those words-that they were so spoken, namely, as to apply to the holy building at Jerusalem. Even so, we Christians-and it is a serious and fearful consideration-may be quoting the words of divine truth, the very language of our Lord, and yet be guilty of false evidence. When, like the Jewish witnesses, we first frame a position, and then seek for texts of Scripture to support it, and apply these only in reference to the view predetermined on; are we not doing even the same? Nay, did not Satan himself do the like? The arguments by which he sought to shake our Lord's constancy were texts

of Scripture; then, now, in every period, not only" unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness," but to those too, who being "called" neglect their calling, and by wisdom know not God".

It was probably indeed owing to the conflicting testimony of the witnesses, that our Lord's real application of the expression was elicited, and his accusers led to change their ground of inquiry, and to ask him, "Art thou the Christ?" In calling his body the temple, (they meant to ask,) did he imply that God resided therein and attached his manifestation thereto, as in that edifice strictly so called? If so, he must assert himself to be the Immanuel, the Christ, whom the prophets declared should be even such an one, "God with us." Such would seem to be the turn which the inquiry took; and accordingly when in answer to the question, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" he replied in the affirmative, they charged him with direct blasphemy. As forming designs against the temple, and endangering the city, he was, they thought, amenable to their tribunal, and might also be made chargeable before

1 Cor. i. 21-24.

the Roman authorities. But in asserting that he was God, a new source of accusation more palpably the object of prosecution is presented to them. Had they possessed the power of life and death, they would forthwith have condemned him to be stoned, but this power they had not. Great and horrible as his crime seemed in their eyes, it involved only a question of their law, and how were they to render his case one of capital offence, and still cognizable by the Roman magistrate?

The Messiah had been represented in their prophecies as their God, and their King; and as a temporal king they doubtless expected him. The means therefore of bringing Christ before the Roman governor's tribunal were obvious; and indeed such an occasion had been again and again sought for. Whilst amongst themselves therefore they dwelt on the blasphemy implied by his pretending to be the Messiah, that person being considered as the Immanuel; we shall find them before Pilate imputing treason to him, as implied in the other character of the Messiah, his being a king. He claimed to be the God of the Jewsand they had a law, and by that law he was worthy of death. He claimed to be the king of

the Jews and no loyal Roman, "no friend to Cæsar," would let him escape. This was their case against him.

It is remarkable that the Jews should thus have rejected Jesus, evidently for the want of the signs of temporal royalty; and yet have made his accusation before Pilate rest on his pretension to it. In short they accused him of doing that, which had he done, they would have welcomed him, risen in his behalf, and died for him. They not only "laid to his charge things that he knew not";" but a crime, the doing of which was all that was wanting to have secured him their favour and obedience.

On closing these observations, one should be added on the peculiar form of oath in use among the Jews, to which we find Christ here submitting. In all other communities the person swearing has been justly considered as the only one who is entitled to make the appeal to God which is made in that solemn ceremony. For an oath is a religious ceremony, in which the juror places himself as it were at the tribunal of God, and by a solemn rite, demands there a punishment or acquittal,

Psalm xxxv. 11.

independent of the sentence of the mortal judge. Hence its universal adoption by the civil magistrate, in order to supply that inward scrutiny which mere human proceedings cannot effect. But, as it is an appeal from human to divine judgment, it is obvious that the juror alone can consistently make it. How comes it otherwise in the Jewish civil code? The reason is this; God was their king, and their chief civil governor on earth was his vicegerent. Hence, in that state alone, the civil magistrate could at once transfer the person arraigned from human to divine judgment; from the court in which he presided as God's vicegerent, to that of God himself.

That Christ should submit to an oath, even so imposed, is only in accordance with his payment of the tribute money to the temple; and indeed with his general habit of conformity to the Jewish law. His kingdom was not yet come.

PETER'S DENIAL OF CHRIST.

Ver. 66-72.

And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest: and when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou