Peter and John had followed their Master to the dwelling of Hanan.  John, who was known in the house, was admitted without difficulty; but Peter was stopped at the entrance, and John was obliged to beg the porter to let him pass.  The night was cold.  Peter stopped in the antechamber, and approached a brasier, around which the servants were warming themselves.  He was soon recognized as a disciple of the accused.  The unfortunate man, betrayed by his Galilean accent, and pestered by questions from the servants, one of whom, a kinsman of Malchus, had seen him at Gethsemane, denied thrice that he had ever had the least connection with Jesus.  He thought that Jesus could not hear him, and never imagined that this cowardice, which he sought to hide by his dissimulation, was exceedingly dishonorable.  But his better nature soon revealed to him the fault he had committed.  A fortuitous circumstance, the crowing of the cock, recalled to him a remark that Jesus had made.  Touched to the heart, he went out and wept bitterly.[1]

[Footnote 1:  Matt. xxvi. 69, and following; Mark xiv. 66, and following; Luke xxii. 54, and following; John xviii. 15, and following, 25, and following.]

Hanan, although the true author of the judicial murder about to be accomplished, had not power to pronounce the sentence upon Jesus; he sent him to his son-in-law, Kaiapha, who bore the official title.  This man, the blind instrument of his father-in-law, would naturally ratify everything that had been done.  The Sanhedrim was assembled at his house.[1] The inquiry commenced; and several witnesses, prepared beforehand according to the inquisitorial process described in the Talmud, appeared before the tribunal.  The fatal sentence which Jesus had really uttered:  “I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days,” was cited by two witnesses.  To blaspheme the temple of God was, according to the Jewish law, to blaspheme God himself.[2] Jesus remained silent, and refused to explain the incriminated speech.  If we may believe one version, the high priest then adjured him to say if he were the Messiah; Jesus confessed it, and proclaimed before the assembly the near approach of his heavenly reign.[3] The courage of Jesus, who had resolved to die, renders this narrative superfluous.  It is probable that here, as when before Hanan, he remained silent.  This was in general his rule of conduct during his last moments.  The sentence was settled; and they only sought for pretexts.  Jesus felt this, and did not undertake a useless defense.  In the light of orthodox Judaism, he was truly a blasphemer, a destroyer of the established worship.  Now, these crimes were punished by the law with death.[4] With one voice, the assembly declared him guilty of a capital crime.  The members of the council who secretly leaned to him, were absent or did not vote.[5] The frivolity which characterizes old established aristocracies, did not permit the judges to reflect long upon the consequences of the sentence they had passed.  Human life was at that time very lightly sacrificed; doubtless the members of the Sanhedrim did not dream that their sons would have to render account to an angry posterity for the sentence pronounced with such careless disdain.