Page:A memoir of Granville Sharp.djvu/118

114 In the last mentioned instance, indeed, the apostle was charged, by those "that stood by," with reviling God's high priest, which would have been a notorious breach of the law, had there not been circumstances of justification sufficient to vindicate the severity of the apostle's censure: these, however, were not urged by the apostle himself, who best knew how to behave towards those with whom he had to do. He readily allowed the principle, however, on which the censure of his accusers was founded, but he by no means retracted what he had so justly applied to the person of the unworthy magistrate who sat to judge him; neither did he even acknowledge him to be the high priest, though he was expressly questioned for a supposed misbehavior to that dignitary! His answer was cautiously worded. He did not say—I know not that this person, whom I have censured, was the high priest, but—ονκ ηδειν αδελφοι δτι εςιν αρχιερενς, &c. "I knew not, brethren, that there is a high priest." Which answer, though on the first hearsay it seems to bear some affinity to an excuse or apology for what had past, yet in reality, includes a still farther rebuke; for it plainly implies that the high priest, in whose presence the apostle then stood, was (in some respect or other) deficient or blameable in his deportment as chief magistrate, either that he did not duly support the dignity of that sacred and distinguishing public character, so that he did not seem to be high priest, and of course could not be known and honored as such; or else that his